# Unabridged Library of Contemporary Kenpo



## NTDeveloper (Mar 26, 2005)

A website (www.arnis.org) is offerring what it calls "The Unabridged Library of Contemporary Kenpo" which contains detailed descriptions of all Kenpo SD techniques. As an sample, they provide the write-up for delayed sword (http://www.arnis.org/kenpo/librarysample.htm) and it looks pretty good. Can anyone reccomend (or alternately advise against) these manuals?

 Thank You.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 27, 2005)

It looked good at first--though starting with too much theory, too much terminology, for my taste, rather than describing the technique first--but there's a glaring error in the description of the first technique. 

Assuming that you're doing Delayed Sword against a lapel grab--which is what the site describes--you'd better pin the attacker's hand with your left hand, rather than, "checking their lower...zones," with it. Otherwise, you'll get hit in the head...and additionally, the pin (assuming a grab by the attacker, again) with the step-back (rather oddly described as a reverse step-through or some such) teaches something about off-balancing an attacker...

I'd proceed with caution, unless I misread.


----------



## JKDooer (Mar 27, 2005)

This is one of my favorite resources to teach from.  I have the Accumulative Journal and find it to be consistent with Ed parker's material.  The Infinite Insights lists the Delayed Sword as a grab,too.  Usually I teach the technique for a punch, too.  But that is also listed in there What If section.  They also have the Dimensional Zone theory covering for 'accidental' strikes

So, I recommend it.  You can always alter what you do from there.

JK


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 27, 2005)

I wouldn't. Telling students that the technique is for a grab, but don't check the grabbing hand, is more than a mistake, it's a basic fault that shows a fundamental lack of knowledge.

You'd be far better off simply getting the real Accumulative Journal of Mr. Parker's and the "Infinte Insights," books, or a good set of videos such as Larry Tatum's. 

And that's my final word.


----------



## Drifter (Mar 27, 2005)

I was taught that Delayed Sword was for when the person was grabbing at you, not when they already have grabbed you. Maybe this is one of those things that Mr. Parker taught everyone a little differently.


----------



## kenpoworks (Mar 27, 2005)

Yeh!, 1st move of DS and short #1, move the target, work the idea not the sequence,thats a great place to start.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 27, 2005)

Please re-read: what I wrote was that the cited website insists that the attack is for a shirt grab, then tells you to ignore their grab and check down lower. 

That isn't a difference of opinion, nor of education: it's a serious error, and it's serious because it teaches a fundamental misunderstanding.


----------



## JKDooer (Mar 27, 2005)

This is from the sample on their web site:

"Your right arm should remain in the position of an inward block to _*positionally check*_ your upper _*height zone *_against possible _*renewed attacks.*_ "

I certainly looks as though they are trying to get you to pay attention to the right arm.  Also, there are 'what if' questions at the end that may lead you to learn about other types of attacks that this one can be applied to.

Maybe you didn't read it all the way down, past the 1st paragraph.

JK


----------



## Mark Weiser (Mar 27, 2005)

Since Starting training in EPAK. I would *strictly *teach the techniques as listed in his (PARKER'S) Book. The what if's should come later as you gain ranking in devolping your art. This way you gain the mechanics of EPAK and develop you body to remember the techniques. Then once you can react instinctively then you can go into the what if situations.  

Remember you have to think/teach as if someone came off the street without any experience in any Martial Arts. That is the way EPAK is set-up by SGM Parker in his Infinite Insights Series.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 27, 2005)

I think I probably read the thing about as well as it needs to be read, dude.

Here is what it says about the defender's LEFT hand, which is the one that pins the right hand grab:


"s1. Have your left hand to anticipate action by positionally  checking your right rib cage with the palm facing out, finger together....

...the left hand remains in a positional check by your right rib cage."

I could add that if you pin their hand with your left and step back, you pretty much shift their weight on to the front leg way before you use any frictional pull, but hey, if you want to do this stuff and get smacked in the head when the guy's who's grabbed you with their right hand lets go and smacks you because your left hand is below their arm and can't do anything useful, it's-a fine by me.


----------



## kenpoworks (Mar 27, 2005)

Yes, I see what you mean Robert, but your left hand would at least be on the inside.. I wouldn't say it would stay at ribcage height for too long in such a situation, the chance of the left "hook" would be of great concern to me....wadda ya think,
I love this technique so many open avenues to explore!
Richie


----------



## Seabrook (Mar 28, 2005)

I agree 100% with Robert on this one. You need to pin the hand that grabs. 

Pinning the opponent's right hand with your left, in-sync with the step back will control the opponent's height, width, and depth. If you don't pin the hand that grabs, if the opponent lets go, it will cancel most of your action. 

About "what-if scenarios"....

After you pin, step back, and clear the arm, if the opponent punches with the left arm, go right into Sword of Destruction.


Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com


----------



## distalero (Mar 28, 2005)

You guys are debating 'teaching' the technique, with it's concerns, vs. 'doing' the technique effectively, with it's concerns. Two different things.


----------



## kenpoworks (Mar 28, 2005)

Ok Jamie I will agree with why you should pin with your left hand and it seems like a good variation or advancement of the ideal, I am into developing co-ordination at any level even White Belt.
But as you explore the technique could a "what if" be that environmental circumstances or injury mean that you can't use your left hand.
Rich


----------



## kenpoworks (Mar 28, 2005)

distalero said......""You guys are debating 'teaching' the technique, with it's concerns, vs. 'doing' the technique effectively, with it's concerns. Two different things.""

Good point, being  or becoming "effective" are  at or near the top of my list of priorities.
Rich


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 28, 2005)

Actually, "Distalero," no, we're not. At least I'm not. 

The thread concerns using the so-called, "Unabridged Library." I simply pointed out that I don't think it's reliable, since there's a major fault in its very first description of a basic kenpo technique.

Yes, one could do this or that or the other thing. Yes, there are choices, "what-ifs." But the, "Library," also exemplfies another basic oopsie--drowning beginning students in theory and in options.

It's fundamental to kenpo: IF a hand grabs you, you slap a hand on top of it. You don't teach this in "Delayed Sword," it won't be there the other Yellow Belt techniques, and on and on...


----------



## JKDooer (Mar 28, 2005)

I agree, that too many instructors drown the beginner with theory.  However, my copy of the Libary has an introduction that explains how to use the book.  It was written for instructors, not beginners.  So perhaps many of your objections can be nullified with further study in the manuals.  I wouldn't broadcast a prejudiced view without further investigation, especially based on just one thing.

 JK


----------



## distalero (Mar 29, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Actually, "Distalero," no, we're not. At least I'm not.
> 
> The thread concerns using the so-called, "Unabridged Library." I simply pointed out that I don't think it's reliable, since there's a major fault in its very first description of a basic kenpo technique.
> 
> ...




I don't think I misundertood. What you've posted reads as though you're primarily concerned with training: you give the "choices, "what-ifs" short shrift while focusing on the beginning student, whom you would choose not to "drown in theory and in options". (No debate here from me; I would agree). However, beyond a certain level, it's not an absolute Kenpo fundamental to slap a hand on top of a grab (you haven't sounded like you wear 'the blinders of orthodoxy' elsewhere; I'm sure you know this), and that's the 'doing' of the thing (with a little more sophistication and perhaps effectiveness), distinct from the teaching of the thing. It was noticing the distinction that prompted me to point it out. Always a pleasure.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 29, 2005)

I'm not sure I can think of a kenpo technique in which, when you get grabbed, you DON'T slap a hand on top of the grab.

I also see your point--but I think the original question had to do with using this "Encyclopedia," as a learning/teaching guide. And I'm not sure why, with all the Parker manuals and the couple sets of good tapes out there, as well as the "Inf. Insights," books, one would want to use these...

Thanks.


----------



## KENPOJOE (Mar 29, 2005)

Hi Folks!
Since we are mentioning about the Lamkin books [which I highly recomend]and since this has gone into a thread about delayed sword's attack, let's discuss this briefly...
Delayed Sword is designed to address the the simplest basic attack a beginner would deal with for it's time frame. a front right hand lapel grab. The concept that a grab [not immediately followed by a punch or subsaquent action] is designed to "control and restrain" a person rather than do them harm. the response to this attack teaches us the basic concept of "When someone grabs youin or regrab."  The idea was to use a pinning check to temporarily trap the offending hand [because you don't want him to rip your expensive shirt] and as you step back [or a "step through reverse" {a term coined by Mr. Parker after he saw himself moving backwards on film}] to 6 o'clock into a right neutral bow, which "establishes a base" and also pulls your opponent off balance, teaching you that "Always keep your opponent off balance while you should always be ON Balance!". 
This was common when predominently male students were training, but as more women entered the studio, it was difficult to tell a female white belt student that her first technique involved placing your hand on her chest [breasts] via her gi top lapel. So, the technique attack was changed to an "Attempted front right hand lapel grab" and the student found it easier to see the possibility of a push [attempted or completed] or right straight punch off the same linear action. The pinning check was replaced with a left positional check as solar plexus level.
In the early kenpo days, There was no check on delayed sword. The opponent was expected to maintain the grab as you stepped back [after all, that's why he grabbed you in the first place!] and the retreating foot manuver extended or hyper extended the right arm and then you used a right hammering inward "striking block" to knock his offending hand away and open up his centerline for the subbiquent groin kick.
If you look at Larry Tatum's version of the journal, he advises the inward block to the right bicep, because if you have done the left pinning check and done the extending action, you can safely break the kenpo law of "when blocking to the inside of an arm, block below the elbow,not above it" because you've pinned the limb and the "blocking strike" will cause his hand to open and the grab will be released.
I hope that I was of some service,
KENPOJOE


----------



## KENPOJOE (Mar 29, 2005)

"When someone grabs youin or regrab." 

that should read "when someone grabs you: Pin or regrab"
sorry for the unintentional smiley!
BEGOOD,
KENPOJOE


----------



## KENPOJOE (Mar 29, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I can think of a kenpo technique in which, when you get grabbed, you DON'T slap a hand on top of the grab.



Hi Folks!
Got a quick story regarding that! I was at a seminar with Mr. Parker in the early 1980's and we were doing "Crossing Talon" and I was doing a pronounced pinning check on my opponent's wrist. Mr. Parker walked up ro me and asked me to perform the technique on him! He grabbed me in the cross wrist grab and as i did the slapping pinning check, he immediately placed his free hand on top of mine! [as in the old childplay's game withthe baseball handle to see who would be up at bat first] This would later clarify the point of "pin OR regrab" and it also gave me the understanding to the foundation attack to "bow of compulsion" [I.E: "i push you-you pin me-i pin your pinning hand]. The "regrab" version of crossing talon is taught in short 3 to teach you that you can "pin or regrab" depending on the circumstances.
I hope that I was of some service,
KENPOJOE


----------



## Bill Lear (Mar 29, 2005)

KENPOJOE said:
			
		

> Hi Folks!
> Got a quick story regarding that! I was at a seminar with Mr. Parker in the early 1980's and we were doing "Crossing Talon" and I was doing a pronounced pinning check on my opponent's wrist. Mr. Parker walked up ro me and asked me to perform the technique on him! He grabbed me in the cross wrist grab and as i did the slapping pinning check, he immediately placed his free hand on top of mine! [as in the old childplay's game withthe baseball handle to see who would be up at bat first] This would later clarify the point of "pin OR regrab" and it also gave me the understanding to the foundation attack to "bow of compulsion" [I.E: "i push you-you pin me-i pin your pinning hand]. The "regrab" version of crossing talon is taught in short 3 to teach you that you can "pin or regrab" depending on the circumstances.
> I hope that I was of some service,
> KENPOJOE


I was taught that the position of the left hand in Short Form 3 wasn't a re-grab at all. I was taught that the left hand assisted in rolling your right hand over the top of your opponent's wrist in the form. The action with the left hand looks similar to a regrab, but it isn't. At least that's what I've always been told.


----------



## Doc (Mar 29, 2005)

Bill Lear said:
			
		

> I was taught that the position of the left hand in Short Form 3 wasn't a re-grab at all. I was taught that the left hand assisted in rolling your right hand over the top of your opponent's wrist in the form. The action with the left hand looks similar to a regrab, but it isn't. At least that's what I've always been told.


You are correct Mr. Lear. I also suggest for some to examine the ability to "step back" into a stance in Delayed Sword when someone has grabbed you and anchored their elbow. In most instances there would tend to be a height and weight, and even gendar disparity between the grabber and the grabbed. Further the Web of Knowledge dictates this technique be taught as a "dead hand" or grab - not a push. Food for thought.


----------



## Seabrook (Mar 30, 2005)

KENPOJOE said:
			
		

> If you look at Larry Tatum's version of the journal, he advises the inward block to the right bicep, because if you have done the left pinning check and done the extending action, you can safely break the kenpo law of "when blocking to the inside of an arm, block below the elbow,not above it" because you've pinned the limb and the "blocking strike" will cause his hand to open and the grab will be released.
> I hope that I was of some service,
> KENPOJOE


Just wondering who on this forum teaches the inward strike to the bicep? I know the bicep is a good alternative but I am interested in knowing if that is the way you typically teach it to students.

Thanks,
Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com


----------



## Doc (Mar 30, 2005)

Seabrook said:
			
		

> Just wondering who on this forum teaches the inward strike to the bicep? I know the bicep is a good alternative but I am interested in knowing if that is the way you typically teach it to students.
> 
> Thanks,
> Jamie Seabrook
> www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com



Not I. I teach an inward downward strike to the head of the humerus of the shoulder corresponding with L-1 to neutralize the grip (among other things)


----------



## Doc (Mar 30, 2005)

distalero said:
			
		

> ...  However, beyond a certain level, it's not an absolute Kenpo fundamental to slap a hand on top of a grab ...


I beg to differ but it actually is. It was called many things by Mr. parker while he was trying to make up his mind, but you MUST attack the hand with a "Slap-check/Seize" anf this fundamental concept is consistent throughtout kenpo, motion or otherwise.


----------



## Seabrook (Mar 30, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> Not I. I teach an inward downward strike to the head of the humerus of the shoulder corresponding with L-1 to neutralize the grip (among other things)


Ouch. 

Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 30, 2005)

Drifter said:
			
		

> I was taught that Delayed Sword was for when the person was grabbing at you, not when they already have grabbed you. Maybe this is one of those things that Mr. Parker taught everyone a little differently.


Idealy you would wait for the grab. Why, I don't know.
Sean


----------



## distalero (Mar 30, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> I beg to differ but it actually is. It was called many things by Mr. parker while he was trying to make up his mind, but you MUST attack the hand with a "Slap-check/Seize" anf this fundamental concept is consistent throughtout kenpo, motion or otherwise.



Ok, you're both right (I had to actually do it the original way I was taught to remember; took me a few seconds); my muscle memory suggests this. But it's brief, and not a strong grab per se, in my version. It's just that I went on, rightly or wrongly, to choose to blow my own little riff here (one from column A, two from column B ), based on my size and strength (small and not so strong anymore) which, rightly or wrongly, any later student can do when you're more 'chinese kenpo' than AK. Ah, the freedom of ignorance.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 30, 2005)

Beyond the fact that unless you're Superman, Mushashi, or somebody far more advanced than I, you can't guarantee that you'll never get grabbed, pushed or shoved in a crowd--and beyond the fact that beginners especially can't guarantee this--I'd ask: so why do you let them actually push you in, say, Snapping Twig?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 30, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Beyond the fact that unless you're Superman, Mushashi, or somebody far more advanced than I, you can't guarantee that you'll never get grabbed, pushed or shoved in a crowd--and beyond the fact that beginners especially can't guarantee this--I'd ask: so why do you let them actually push you in, say, Snapping Twig?


We were taught to control the distance, and not let the shove happen. I am being totaly serious here... do you teach students to react to the shove after or before contact?
Sean


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 30, 2005)

Let me quote the LTKKA manual:

"1. Standing with your feet together, as your opponent pushes you on the chest with his left hand, step back with your left foot...."

I'd also note that it simply isn't realistic for the considerable majority of us to assume that we're always going to be able to avoid getting grabbed or shoved.

In other words, I teach students to let them push you into breaking their arm. See also Bow of Compulsion and Circling Windmills.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 30, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Let me quote the LTKKA manual:
> 
> "1. Standing with your feet together, as your opponent pushes you on the chest with his left hand, step back with your left foot...."
> 
> ...


If its a hard shove or a striking push, your right side would be jolted to the rear and you would not be pulling off Snapping Twig. You have to have some level of awareness and control here.
Sean


----------



## Brother John (Mar 30, 2005)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> We were taught to control the distance, and not let the shove happen. I am being totaly serious here... do you teach students to react to the shove after or before contact?
> Sean


I see this as different techniques to back each other up. 
1st the hand is coming toward you... do you wait to see if it's a shove, a grab or a punch? no...you act on it there. 
BUT: What if they DO grap you....
then you have the vocabulary from other techniques...like snapping twig, to help at this stage. That's why we have techiques that teach us what to do Once we have been grabbed. I'd hope that a good martial artist, under most circumstances... could react to that hand coming toward them.
BUT...no guarantees. Thus we need to know what to do once their hand makes it to the grab.
Each technique teaches a lesson, it might not be the ideal (Letting someone get their hand close enough to you that you get pushed/shoved)...but it's possible and even probable that it could happen that way. Thus the lesson of Snapping Twig and techs like it.  Back-up. Often the "what if" of one technique IS another technique already in our curriculum. MOST often, I think.
Just something to think about.
Your Brother
John


----------



## Seabrook (Mar 30, 2005)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> Idealy you would wait for the grab. Why, I don't know.
> Sean


What??? Wait for someone to grab you? I wouldn't recommend this at all. Ideally, you should never let an aggressor come within immediate striking distance of you since action is typically faster than reaction. If you were to wait for someone to grab you, what's to say that couldn't have been a punch? 

Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 30, 2005)

Seabrook said:
			
		

> What??? Wait for someone to grab you? I wouldn't recommend this at all. Ideally, you should never let an aggressor come within immediate striking distance of you since action is typically faster than reaction. If you were to wait for someone to grab you, what's to say that couldn't have been a punch?
> 
> Jamie Seabrook
> www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com


Sorry, ideal is ideal (see the manual), but your what ifs sound interesting.
Sean


----------



## Seabrook (Mar 30, 2005)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> If its a hard shove or a striking push, your right side would be jolted to the rear and you would not be pulling off Snapping Twig. You have to have some level of awareness and control here.
> Sean


But the idea on Snapping Twig is to take an angle of least resistance as the opponent pushes you. 

Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com


----------



## Brother John (Mar 30, 2005)

It's not a matter of 'waiting' for a grab...
it's simply teaching a lesson on what could be done once a grab does happen, which is very probable..therefore we train for it.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Seabrook (Mar 30, 2005)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> Sorry, ideal is ideal (see the manual), but your what ifs sound interesting.
> Sean


Hi Sean,

What I was trying to state was that, yes, Delayed Sword is taught for a grab, but in no way should we wait for the grab to occur on the street before reacting. 

Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Mar 30, 2005)

Brother John said:
			
		

> It's not a matter of 'waiting' for a grab...
> it's simply teaching a lesson on what could be done once a grab does happen, which is very probable..therefore we train for it.
> 
> Your Brother
> John


Prepare for the worst-case scenario; hop for the best. But if you train for the best, and get the worst, you'll be unprepared.

I train grabs as grabs, not "attempted grabs".  Is Locking Horns against an attempted front headlock? Sure, it would be nice to keep a guy from getting you there, but in the event you find yourself in that place, then what?

Regards,

Dave


----------



## Seabrook (Mar 30, 2005)

Brother John said:
			
		

> It's not a matter of 'waiting' for a grab...
> it's simply teaching a lesson on what could be done once a grab does happen, which is very probable..therefore we train for it.
> 
> Your Brother
> John


Exactly John!

Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 30, 2005)

Brother John said:
			
		

> I see this as different techniques to back each other up.
> 1st the hand is coming toward you... do you wait to see if it's a shove, a grab or a punch? no...you act on it there.
> BUT: What if they DO grap you....
> then you have the vocabulary from other techniques...like snapping twig, to help at this stage. That's why we have techiques that teach us what to do Once we have been grabbed. I'd hope that a good martial artist, under most circumstances... could react to that hand coming toward them.
> ...


Once the grab is on, or you have been shoved your tech might not work for a number of obvious reasons. Its unrealistic for a twelve year old to practice defending grabs from a 250lb male. If he sluffs fine, but his fingers could detach chest muscles in a firm jerk, and snapping twig aint gonna work after the shove.
Sean


----------



## Brother John (Mar 30, 2005)

I think it's interesting. I wouldn't teach from it. I agree with the point that Robert made I think.
Besides: This gave me a chuckle..
In describing the 'attack' for delayed sword: 





> an aggressor initiates an unprovoked attack by stepping forward (with either foot) and grabbing you with his right hand to your shirt or left lapel.


SO...IF I'm to beieve this, the attack wasn't provoked. 
Therefore, if I first have mouthed off to this guy (NO....NOT ME!!!) then the technique won't work and I'll just get what's coming to me.
HA, I like that.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 30, 2005)

Brother John said:
			
		

> I think it's interesting. I wouldn't teach from it. I agree with the point that Robert made I think.
> Besides: This gave me a chuckle..
> In describing the 'attack' for delayed sword:
> SO...IF I'm to beieve this, the attack wasn't provoked.
> ...


I might have to actualy look at this site before I further defend it, but a person trying to instill a sense of when to do the art, is not a bad thing. And trying instill a bit of reality to the ideal is not all bad either.
Sean


----------



## Doc (Mar 30, 2005)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> Idealy you would wait for the grab. Why, I don't know.
> Sean


The reason why sir, is the curriculum is supposed to teach you practical responses to proposed assault models. The Web of Knowledge was created to insure that teachers did not become enamored with a particular kind of an attack and ignore others that must also be considered in a realistic environment. 

Those who have abbreviated and changed the curriculum, for the most part, have dumped the WOK. They have made things "easier" for the student, and for themselves as well. Eliminating techniques they have no knowledge of how to make functional, and making it easier to promote students with a limited amount of information and skill. Many have done this under the guise of "simpler is better," or "I'd rather have ten techniques that work well." However this approach for those who have spent years in the arts suggest they have stopped learning and are creating a similar legacy for those they teach, who will learn even less. The idea of the art is consistent and constant growth, not stagnation of the student that some promote.

Further, and quite simply, if you never practice actually being grabbed, how will you learn to defend against it, should it happen? Those who practice grappling sports often begin from the "mount." Why? Because the presumption for them, (right or wrong) is at some point in time they will find themselves in this postion and they better train for it. Same thing sir.

Clearly I am NOT suggesting in the real world you should wait for someone to grab you so you can do the prescribed technique. You should however practice and learn to deal with it should you be caught unaware, which for mere mortals like us Sean is a definite possibility sir.


----------



## Doc (Mar 30, 2005)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> We were taught to control the distance, and not let the shove happen. I am being totaly serious here... do you teach students to react to the shove after or before contact?
> Sean



Sir, we teach that the shove is a natural byproduct of the attack when you are grabbed emphatically and aggressively. We teach a reaction to it that is integral to the defensive application. After all to react to a grab before you are grabbed is not practicing for a grab, but punch.

There is a tendancy for some to approach these attacks like punches. A person may "punch" without making contact with you, and you can respond and "block." However, a "push" or "grab" by definition is something that has already occurred and you react AFTER it happens.


----------



## Doc (Mar 30, 2005)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> If its a hard shove or a striking push, your right side would be jolted to the rear and you would not be pulling off Snapping Twig. You have to have some level of awareness and control here.
> Sean


Actually Sean there are mechanisms that allow you to absorb the shove, recover, and retaliate, as I teach. The shove is a given, now let's work on the response.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 30, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> Actually Sean there are mechanisms that allow you to absorb the shove, recover, and retaliate, as I teach. The shove is a given, now let's work on the response.


Really? absorb push then react, shouldn't be the ideal. It should be the what if, you didn't control the distance. What is the purpose of a grab? And how unfavorable does that predicament have to be before we train to avoid it? If the launches the push and keeps his elbow anchored, its time to abandon snapping twig in favor of figuring out what to do after you adjust your composure, because that right hand is commin hard and fast.
Sean


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 30, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> The shove is a given, now let's work on the response.


I have no problem training what to do after you get hit or shoved. Techniques are studies of motion, by all means, study.
Sean


----------



## MJS (Mar 30, 2005)

Brother John said:
			
		

> It's not a matter of 'waiting' for a grab...
> it's simply teaching a lesson on what could be done once a grab does happen, which is very probable..therefore we train for it.
> 
> Your Brother
> John



Exactly!  I think thats where some miscommunication may have happened with a few posts.  We are taught techs. for when the grab is actually applied, when the person is punching, kicking, etc. but IMO, if it is possible to react prior to the punch, grab or kick, why not do it?  If I saw someone winding up for that punch, I'm certainly not going to wait until it half way to my face before I attempt a defense.

Mike


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 30, 2005)

Uh-oh, I agree with Mr. Chap'el. Wholeheartedly.

And there are other reasons to teach the grab or the push as set, not just attempted. It's largely a matter of treating the attacker's hand/arm as, "pinned," momentarily, so that it can be attacked--and of using that fixedness as an opportunity to control depth and width and height.

Try practicing "Snapping Twig," with TWO pushes: first, the attacker pops you with two heel-palms, then second, follows up with a left push to center chest that they try to do in conjunction with a right punch.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 30, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> Actually Sean there are mechanisms that allow you to absorb the shove, recover, and retaliate, as I teach. The shove is a given, now let's work on the response.


Obviously you are talking about the adults you teach and I'm thinking it would be ideal for children to consider not getting hit or pushed first the ideal, because you can teach a ten year old your "trick" but his widow of survival is almost non existant against say... an adult with intent. The reason we are arguing this point is because someone tried to suggest an other than ideal intro. I say change the ideal then train for the worst.
Sean


----------



## Michael Billings (Mar 30, 2005)

I also am with Doc and Robert on this one.

 The ideal allows you to control the opponent's DEPTH of action, and checks the left punch (if they maintain their grab). If they let go of the lapel, then haven't you created enough depth to be out of range without their taking another step or shuffle forward? Now we are in another scenario.

 You have changed the parameters of the attack from your first move, whether they retain a grab or not. This teaches a lot to the student with no experience and this being their first technique. Referencing the Web of Knowledge, the element of TIMING has been removed from the grab not altogether, but at the ideal we can introduce the beginner to the correct fundamentals of motion (stances, rotation, depth of action, borrowed force, height, width, depth zones, checking, etc.) 

 I certainly have practiced it against a push or a punch, or in combination attacks along with Sword of Destruction. But the IDEAL PHASE is exactly that, and a time when we can train correct movement in the student.

   Just an opinion ... everyone is entitled to one ... and one only please!


   -Michael


----------



## Doc (Mar 30, 2005)

Just so my position is clear, whether it is a technique that specifically "pushes" like "Snapping twig," or a "grab" like "Delayed Sword," that has a push as a byproduct of the grab, we must learn to deal with that, because it can happen at some point in your life - unless you are always in a neutral bow waiting for an attack. Most people live their lives, with minor self defense intrusions rarely if ever. So train for when you are "off guard." For the "ninja's" who sleep with one eye open, it probably doesn't matter.


----------



## kenpoworks (Mar 30, 2005)

*Doc ..."So train for when you are "off guard." "*

My  training aim is  "never to be off gaurd", it's a tall order Doc but it will keep you sharper  longer than "trophy cabinet Kenpo" will!

Richard.


----------



## Brother John (Mar 30, 2005)

kenpoworks said:
			
		

> *Doc ..."So train for when you are "off guard." "*
> 
> My  training aim is  "never to be off gaurd", it's a tall order Doc but it will keep you sharper  longer than "trophy cabinet Kenpo" will!
> 
> Richard.



Nice ideal.
Won't happen.

If you were 'never off guard' you'd be what we call Neurotic. It's good to really stress 'awareness', but to NEVER be off guard??
Won't happen.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 31, 2005)

Brother John said:
			
		

> Nice ideal.
> Won't happen.
> 
> If you were 'never off guard' you'd be what we call Neurotic. It's good to really stress 'awareness', but to NEVER be off guard??
> ...


I guess this is what happens when we throw out the eight considerations of combat. The idea isn't to eliminate being off guard, its to narrow that down time. John, convince me its better for a student to learn a given tech from an unaware state every time, as oposed to a best case senerio for you, and then working towards greater degrees of difficulty per tech. I know we want to be prepared for the worst but if the student never sees a street smart approach he or she will gravitate to waiting and doing what they are taught.
Sean


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 31, 2005)

Does a cycle of training to be unaware, make us more aware?


----------



## kenpoworks (Mar 31, 2005)

Brother John....."If you were 'never off guard' you'd be what we call Neurotic"........Ha!Ha! Ha! could even make you slightly Paranoid.................Who said that?....I know someone's there........I'm ready, I'm ready, I,m re..............


----------



## Doc (Mar 31, 2005)

kenpoworks said:
			
		

> Brother John....."If you were 'never off guard' you'd be what we call Neurotic"........Ha!Ha! Ha! could even make you slightly Paranoid.................Who said that?....I know someone's there........I'm ready, I'm ready, I,m re..............



Just remember China, you're not paranoid if they really are trying to get you.


----------



## kenpoworks (Mar 31, 2005)

AH!,at last someone who does understand that "they" are out there................................................do you think I need help, really do you?
Richard
OBTW if you want examples of real paranoia try visiting the "other" Kenpo Forum, lots of basket cases post regularly!


----------



## kenpoworks (Mar 31, 2005)

Doc quote.....*"*Those who have abbreviated and changed the curriculum, for the most part, have dumped the WOK. They have made things "easier" for the student, and for themselves as well. Eliminating techniques they have no knowledge of how to make functional, and making it easier to promote students with a limited amount of information and skill. Many have done this under the guise of "simpler is better," or "I'd rather have ten techniques that work well." However this approach for those who have spent years in the arts suggest they have stopped learning and are creating a similar legacy for those they teach, who will learn even less. The idea of the art is consistent and constant growth, not stagnation of the student that some promote*"*....

Wow! Doc, I just had to post this again in case anyone missed it, I think this pararaph will have a lot of heads nodding in agreement as it is read.
Respectfully
Richard


----------



## Seabrook (Mar 31, 2005)

kenpoworks said:
			
		

> Doc quote.....*"*Those who have abbreviated and changed the curriculum, for the most part, have dumped the WOK. They have made things "easier" for the student, and for themselves as well. Eliminating techniques they have no knowledge of how to make functional, and making it easier to promote students with a limited amount of information and skill. Many have done this under the guise of "simpler is better," or "I'd rather have ten techniques that work well." However this approach for those who have spent years in the arts suggest they have stopped learning and are creating a similar legacy for those they teach, who will learn even less. The idea of the art is consistent and constant growth, not stagnation of the student that some promote*"*....


Glad you re-posted Richard. Without giving out names of people who eliminate dozens of techniques (and believe me there are lots of them), I advoacte all 154 techniques. 

Here's a nice little example I experienced the past few weeks. On April 23rd, I am testing two students for 3rd Degree Black Belt, and one for 1st Degree Black Belt. They have all been pre-tested on the techniques, but for their pen testing, they are allowed to choose 40+ techniques to do on a partner. The key is - I would like to have no repitition. In other words, I don't want the same technique done twice. 

Initially, I assumed that there would be a heck of a lot of "favorites" and I would have to get the candidates to choose other techniques. Why? Because let's face it, we all have our favorites techniques that we enjoy competing with, doing in demos, ect. But guess what? For the most part, there was very little similarity in the techniques the three candidates chose.

Where am I going with this? 

Well, if I had been like many Kenpo instructors out there that simply don't understand and can't make a bunch of techniques work for them, and as a result, subsequently discarded them from our program, the students would have had only a miniscule taste of the AK system. Further, I would have had to try to push my favorites on them, without the students exploring other techniques that they may be able to get to work great for them.  

Any perceived deficiencies within American Kenpo's techniques are exactly that - perceived. If as an instructor you can't make a technique work for you, find an knowledgeable instructor who can help you in your journey. 

American Kenpo is a study of motion, and eliminating techniques robs the students from that understanding. 

Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com


----------



## Seabrook (Mar 31, 2005)

Oops. instead of "pen testing" it should have read "open testing."


----------



## Brother John (Mar 31, 2005)

Seabrook said:
			
		

> Oops. instead of "pen testing" it should have read "open testing."


Yeah... pen testing gives me lots of little scratches and squiggles on the corners of my page.
 :idunno: 

your Brother
John


----------



## kenpoworks (Mar 31, 2005)

Jamie you have a good problem there.
I have a 2nd degree Brown Belt who could a be a 2nd degree Black Belt (if he had tested on a time requirement basis) who just plays with the "stuff" and keeps coming up with questions as well as answers all the time, he claims to be as happy as a Pig in Poo.
As his instructor his approach to the Art can be challenging and rewarding.
Richard.
Martin as your instructor I am telling you that "you have to test for 1st Degree next year"............The lads (and lasses) need a night out in Amsterdam!


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Mar 31, 2005)

Seabrook said:
			
		

> I advocate all 154 techniques.   American Kenpo is a study  of motion, and eliminating techniques robs the students from that understanding.
> Jamie Seabrook


 I advocate the 154+ as well, it actually  forms the "Base of the Art" or our main "*point of reference*" material.    *All* the forms 1-8, sets, freestyle techniques, coordination exercises,  basics sections, pledges, terminology,  sayings (philosophy), creed, principles,  and all of Ed Parker's books as reading requirements are also required and used  constantly as a reference.  From this base.... you can then execute what has  been designed!  Expansion and tailoring can then take place much more  effectively.

 This is IMHO a must for anyone that is truly interested in  Ed Parker's American Kenpo.  Now of course, the proper understanding, drilling  and skill acquisition is paramount as well, but having a complete curriculum to  expand upon is the only way to go.

 :asian:


----------



## Ray (Mar 31, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> Clearly I am NOT suggesting in the real world you should wait for someone to grab you so you can do the prescribed technique. You should however practice and learn to deal with it should you be caught unaware, which for mere mortals like us Sean is a definite possibility sir.


This is particularly instructive to me.  Doc is someone who is well-respected and looked up to; a master of kenpo, law enforcement experience and so on.

He speaks honestly without bragging.  He says that there is a possibility that he might be caught off guard.  To me, that means there is a much greater chance that I might be caught off guard.  I had better give serious consideration to what he says.


----------



## howardr (Mar 31, 2005)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> Obviously you are talking about the adults you teach and I'm thinking it would be ideal for children to consider not getting hit or pushed first the ideal, because you can teach a ten year old your "trick" but his widow of survival is almost non existant against say... an adult with intent. The reason we are arguing this point is because someone tried to suggest an other than ideal intro. I say change the ideal then train for the worst.
> Sean


Sean, unless I'm misreading, you seem to be characterizing Dr. Chapel's material as a "trick," which in my mind is considerably disparaging. Did I misinterpret what you were saying? I can attest from first-hand observation and participation that it is no mere "trick."


----------



## NTDeveloper (Mar 31, 2005)

Returning to the initial reason for starting this thread...

 I understand that there are some objections to the "Delayed Sword" write-up, but has anyone seen more of the book than just this sample? If so, could you recommend it? 

 Now, I realize that Parker's Infinite Insights series are the ultimate source for Kenpo technique principles; however, these books are out of print and thus cannot be obtained (without forking over hundreds of dollars for used copies). 

 What text(s) (that are readily available) could be used as a reliable resource?

 Thanks.


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Mar 31, 2005)

NTDeveloper said:
			
		

> Now, I realize that Parker's Infinite Insights series are the ultimate source for Kenpo technique principles.


 True!



			
				NTDeveloper said:
			
		

> However, these books are out of print and thus cannot be obtained (without forking over hundreds of dollars for used copies).
> Thanks.


 Not true!

 Which ones do you want and how many?

 :asian:


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 31, 2005)

howardr said:
			
		

> Sean, unless I'm misreading, you seem to be characterizing Dr. Chapel's material as a "trick," which in my mind is considerably disparaging. Did I misinterpret what you were saying? I can attest from first-hand observation and participation that it is no mere "trick."


Trick is what I meant; as in: there is a trick too it... or the trick is too... Tricks are not Doc Chapelle exclusive. Its just term I use to refer to the measures taken to negate this or that attack without guessing what a person is doing when "they" say "they" can "do it" with out explaining how. Even if they did explain I still would consider the measures as the trick too it. Sorry if you are offended though.
Sean


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 31, 2005)

1. Ah, the Mushashi fantasy: total combat awareness at all times. I forget--did Mushashi lead a happy life?

2. Sigh. Much of what was explained was that this really had to do with teaching students (and learning oneself) good kenpo. And one of the things that supposedly separates kenpo from other martial arts is the deliberate, planned use of all these little "tricks." Like, as was mentioned, control of an opponent's zones.

3. Why settle for such an "Encyclopedia?" The good stuff--the unarguably good stuff--just isn't all that hard to get.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 31, 2005)

Since you bring it up what has Kenpo got that tother styles don't?


----------



## howardr (Mar 31, 2005)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> Trick is what I meant; as in: there is a trick too it... or the trick is too... Tricks are not Doc Chapelle exclusive. Its just term I use to refer to the measures taken to negate this or that attack without guessing what a person is doing when "they" say "they" can "do it" with out explaining how. Even if they did explain I still would consider the measures as the trick too it. Sorry if you are offended though.
> Sean



Okay, I think I see what you were saying now. No problem.


----------



## Brother John (Mar 31, 2005)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> I guess this is what happens when we throw out the eight considerations of combat. The idea isn't to eliminate being off guard, its to narrow that down time. John, convince me its better for a student to learn a given tech from an unaware state every time, as oposed to a best case senerio for you, and then working towards greater degrees of difficulty per tech. I know we want to be prepared for the worst but if the student never sees a street smart approach he or she will gravitate to waiting and doing what they are taught.
> Sean


Ok...Please let me interject....



> I guess this is what happens when we throw out the eight considerations of combat.


Who threw out the 8 considerations??? I don't understand why you said this.



> The idea isn't to eliminate being off guard, its to narrow that down time.


But you will never perfect it. I feel you've got to be ready to "throw the switch" and go into a psychological and physiological state of engagement at a moments notice... that's WAY different than remaining in those states all the time. I agree. WORK to be as aware as you can as often as you can. BUT: You aren't going to become like Spiderman with his spidersense... you won't be 'aware' all the time.


> John, convince me its better for a student to learn a given tech from an unaware state


No.
I won't convince you of that. Because that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that we have techniques that deal with an attacker at ALL of the range stages: out of contact, within contact, contact penetration, contact manipulation.
Are You saying that I should only train for the first two and avoid training for or paying attention to techs that address the last two ranges because then I'd be training my students to 'not be aware' enough to deal with it before hand??
See I won't convince you that 





> its better for a student to learn a given tech from an unaware state


 because I train and train my students to be aware and train in an aware state... and I teach them how to deal with attackers who are 10 feet from me, 5 feet from me, 1 foot from me and right up on me. 


> I know we want to be prepared for the worst but if the student never sees a street smart approach he or she will gravitate to waiting and doing what they are taught.


Are you then saying that it's not 'street-smart' to be prepared for any range of contact? It's not streetsmart to prepare for all four stages?
WOW...
...and I never said anything about not being streetsmart or just gravitating toward 'what they are taught'. You are reading too much into things there. You don't know how I train. We don't ever train a person to "wait" for anything. They act and Take action...running the table like in billiards...
BUT: We must prepare for all probabilities....like being grabbed.

Hey...if you don't want to practice the anti-grab/grappling techs.... don't.
ME? I will. So I can stay aware of what to do when it happens.

Your Brother
John


----------



## howardr (Mar 31, 2005)

Brother John said:
			
		

> Ok...Please let me interject....
> Are you then saying that it's not 'street-smart' to be prepared for any range of contact? It's not streetsmart to prepare for all four stages?
> 
> Your Brother
> John



As a follow-up to this, Sean against what attacks are you defending against in the following techniques:

Mace of Aggression (two hand lapel grab)
Lone Kimono (one hand lapel grab)
Twin Kimono (two hand lapel grab)
Scrapping Hooves (full nelson)
Grasp of Death (head lock)
Entangled Wing (wrist lock; I think I'm recalling this one correctly)
Etc.

In the above techniques, are these all attempted, i.e., contact is intended but hasn't been made, grabs, locks and holds, or do you extricate yourself from applied grabs, locks and holds?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 31, 2005)

Mace of Aggression (two hand lapel grab)-Move before being pulled or jerked
Lone Kimono (one hand lapel grab)- move before being pulled or jerked
Twin Kimono (two hand lapel grab)- avoid unfavorable destination or event by moving before pulled or jerked
Scrapping Hooves (full nelson)- ever really try this against a full full nelson?
Grasp of Death (head lock)- move before blood flow is cut off and posture destroyed
Entangled Wing (wrist lock; I think I'm recalling this one correctly)- try pulling this off before arm is broken.


----------



## howardr (Mar 31, 2005)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> Mace of Aggression (two hand lapel grab)-Move before being pulled or jerked
> Lone Kimono (one hand lapel grab)- move before being pulled or jerked
> Twin Kimono (two hand lapel grab)- avoid unfavorable destination or event by moving before pulled or jerked
> Scrapping Hooves (full nelson)- ever really try this against a full full nelson?
> ...


Maybe we're just talking cross-purposes, but I just can't understand what you're referring to here.

So, in Lone Kimono are you saying that you move before being pulled or jerked?! I just don't get it. How is that realistically possible? How can you be assured that you will be ready for that and capable of it any time, at a moments notice? You're not _Remo Williams_ are you? 

I mean, if you're that fast, why not just move before they've even touched you at all? Fact is, at least in the attacks that we practice, and it makes sense to me (and incidentally it's what the attacks have looked like when I've seen them applied on unwilling participants "in the real world"), a one hand lapel grab _realistically_ applied includes a jerk simultaneous with the grab. In other words, I don't think someone will walk up to another, stop, gently place their hand upon the lapel, and then after some time has passed push or pull. I think what's more more likely is that someone will aggressively (and most likely surreptitiously; therefore, _you may not be aware that it's happening until it's happening_) move up to the person and aggressively grab while simultaneously jerking the person quite physically. _Mutatis mutandis_ for the other techniques listed.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 31, 2005)

howardr said:
			
		

> Maybe we're just talking cross-purposes, but I just can't understand what you're referring to here.
> 
> So, in Lone Kimono are you saying that you move before being pulled or jerked?! I just don't get it. How is that realistically possible? How can you be assured that you will be ready for that and capable of it any time, at a moments notice? You're not _Remo Williams_ are you?
> 
> I mean, if you're that fast, why not just move before they've even touched you at all? Fact is, at least in the attacks that we practice, and it makes sense to me (and incidentally it's what the attacks have looked like when I've seen them applied on unwilling participants "in the real world"), a one hand lapel grab _realistically_ applied includes a jerk simultaneous with the grab. In other words, I don't think someone will walk up to another, stop, gently place their hand upon the lapel, and then after some time has passed push or pull. I think what's more more likely is that someone will aggressively (and most likely surreptitiously; therefore, _you may not be aware that it's happening until it's happening_) move up to the person and aggressively grab while simultaneously jerking the person quite physically. _Mutatis mutandis_ for the other techniques listed.


I stand corrected. Move after jerked, got it.
Sean


----------



## Doc (Mar 31, 2005)

*PSYCOLOGY OF CONFRONTATION TRAINING EXERCISE*

Attacker: 

Walk up and reach aggressively in "Twin Kimono" or "Mace of Aggressive." Your actions should involve first a striking heel palm "push," as you make contact so you can unbalance, and intimidate as you grab. This initial contact should be violent enough to be categorized as two simultaneous strikes before grabbing. -  followed by the jerk or pull in the opposite direction disorientating your "unaware" victim.


Defender:

Practice survivng the first part of the attack, and your initial response - with your eyes closed to simulate unawareness.


----------



## howardr (Mar 31, 2005)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> I stand corrected. Move after jerked, got it.
> Sean


And, speaking of jerks, I hope I'm not coming across as a jerk.


----------



## howardr (Mar 31, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> *PSYCOLOGY OF CONFRONTATION TRAINING EXERCISE*
> Defender:
> 
> Practice survivng the first part of the attack, and your initial response - with your eyes closed to simulate unawareness.


I'd like to offer my testimony that this tool (surviving the attack with eyes closed) keeps you honest and is excellent for the hands on attacks, especially pushes. Prevents you from moving before impact.

(Obviously, it's not very suitable for the punch/kick techniques.)


----------



## Doc (Mar 31, 2005)

For the record Parker himself often used the words "trick," "dance," "doodad, and "shtick" to describe some of the things he did as euphemisms for principles he did not yet fully understand or had not yet defined.


----------



## howardr (Mar 31, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> For the record Parker himself often used the words "trick," "dance," "doodad, and "shtick" to describe some of the things he did as euphemisms for principles he did not yet fully understand or had not yet defined.


Yeah, after thinking about it a little more after I wrote that message, I wondered if I overreacted. Just that "trick," kind of rubs me the wrong way. It just seems demeaning. Perhaps it's just a silly hang-up.


----------



## Doc (Mar 31, 2005)

howardr said:
			
		

> Yeah, after thinking about it a little more after I wrote that message, I wondered if I overreacted. Just that "trick," kind of rubs me the wrong way. It just seems demeaning. Perhaps it's just a silly hang-up.


You're just accustomed to things being meticulously defined and articulated by a brilliant teacher.


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Mar 31, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> You're just accustomed to things being meticulously defined and articulated by a brilliant teacher.


 

_*OMG!!!!!!
 :xtrmshock
*_


----------



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

Goldendragon7 said:
			
		

> _*OMG!!!!!!*_
> _*:xtrmshock*_


ROTFLMAO!!!!


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 31, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> You're just accustomed to things being meticulously defined and articulated by a brilliant teacher.


And Mr. Parker was...


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 31, 2005)

The whole POINT (I feel free to capitalize, consiidering) of Mace of Aggression is that you've been yanked forward, which is why you clumsily step on their knee and sloppily hammer-fist 'em in the head. I'm not even going to get into the weird jumble of the rest of that list.

What you should actually be paying attention to is the fact that for all the disagreements between myself and Mr. Chap'el, and for all the considerable size of the gap between what he knows and what I knows, there is a fundamental agreement on this issue.

it comes from good instruction.


----------



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

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> And Mr. Parker was...


Do I detect some playa-hatin?  I thought it was entertaining, at the very least, that Doc sought to shoot himself some humorous props in jest.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 1, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> The whole POINT (I feel free to capitalize, consiidering) of Mace of Aggression is that you've been yanked forward, which is why you clumsily step on their knee and sloppily hammer-fist 'em in the head. I'm not even going to get into the weird jumble of the rest of that list.
> 
> What you should actually be paying attention to is the fact that for all the disagreements between myself and Mr. Chap'el, and for all the considerable size of the gap between what he knows and what I knows, there is a fundamental agreement on this issue.
> 
> it comes from good instruction.


I've been taugh both ways, I just have an opinion on the issue with out refering every one to this or that manual my instructor puts out. If my opinions come out of bad instruction then so be it. One Day I'll Make a pilgramage to California and learn the true ways. I already nod my head in its direction several times a day. I'll just keep practicing my Sinanju until my journey.
Sean


----------



## Brother John (Apr 1, 2005)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> I've been taugh both ways, I just have an opinion on the issue with out refering every one to this or that manual my instructor puts out. If my opinions come out of bad instruction then so be it. One Day I'll Make a pilgramage to California and learn the true ways. I already nod my head in its direction several times a day. I'll just keep practicing my Sinanju until my journey.
> Sean


What 'both ways' are you speaking of here? Being jerked forward and not? 
That's fine. But don't you think that the lesson that Robert is speaking of is still important enough to train? YES: if you Can move prior to the jerk forward, great...that would be good. But, this teaches you what to do if you can't or didn't and DO get jerked.

If I understand you correctly then Sean, you don't believe in practicing against attacks that jerk you or where you are already grabbed because you feel you SHOULD have already taken action to prevent this...due to your hightened awareness.
Is this correct?

Your Brother
John


----------



## pete (Apr 1, 2005)

2 ways to train mace of aggression... 1) ideal: being jerked forward, 2) environmental: being pushed against a wall. both actual grabs. not sure why you would react that way against an attempted anything, as opposed to conquering shield, dominating circles, or alternating mace...


----------



## distalero (Apr 1, 2005)

Hm. So there's: teach out of the manual, as the manual describes (but this is motion, not "how"); teach out of the manual but with an awareness that the student should be aware of 'real', 'street' conditions as soon as possible; teach out of the manual but dismantle and reconstruct the technique according to anatomical truths; and I suppose, teach out of the manual but add moves, concepts from other disciplines (generally accepted as heresy). Golly, how's a retired kenpoist to keep it all straight?  I know: retire .


----------



## Doc (Apr 1, 2005)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> And Mr. Parker was...


... my brilliant teacher.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 1, 2005)

Brother John said:
			
		

> What 'both ways' are you speaking of here? Being jerked forward and not?
> That's fine. But don't you think that the lesson that Robert is speaking of is still important enough to train? YES: if you Can move prior to the jerk forward, great...that would be good. But, this teaches you what to do if you can't or didn't and DO get jerked.
> 
> If I understand you correctly then Sean, you don't believe in practicing against attacks that jerk you or where you are already grabbed because you feel you SHOULD have already taken action to prevent this...due to your hightened awareness.
> ...


No I believe in using both purposefull compliance and purposefull defiance. My argument is which method should be taught first to a beginner: asif you were aware, as if you were not aware. I'm suggesting that the idealy you are aware and the "what if" is that you are not; so, mace of aggression would be a prposefull compliance tech. Anyhow I would want my child weary of any approach. Its a natural instinct that should not be suppressed for the sake of politness and society.
Sean


----------



## Doc (Apr 2, 2005)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> No I believe in using both purposefull compliance and purposefull defiance. My argument is which method should be taught first to a beginner: asif you were aware, as if you were not aware. I'm suggesting that the idealy you are aware and the "what if" is that you are not; so, mace of aggression would be a prposefull compliance tech. Anyhow I would want my child weary of any approach. Its a natural instinct that should not be suppressed for the sake of politness and society.
> Sean


Unfortunately sir you seem to have dug into a position that doesn't address any of the dissenting views here or even explain your own "unique" point of view. Your assersion that it is either "purposeful compliance or defiance," is in itself inaccurate. To wrap your argument within these parameters without consideration of what others have already made painfully obvious is bizarre.

To purposely comply with or defy any action in and of itself requires an "awareness." When training for a "push," or "grab," we are discussing completed acts that have already occurred. Compliance or defiance is not an issue. What is at hand is how we choose to react to these actions.

Push - To move an object by exerting force against it. 
(it has already happened)

Grab - To capture or restrain.
(once again, it has already happened)

"Hands on" attacks may not be treated as "attempts" that suggest super human awareness. The idea that; "I will always see it coming and then react as it happens is ludcrious."  To do so is to not train for reality, and ignores important mechanisms that allows Kenpo to deal with the effects of grappling type assaults, that may become horizontal if not addressed vertically.

To properly train and prepare for these actions, requires that we allow them to happen then react in a manner that is in our best interest and intentions. "Purposeful Compliance or Defiance" may then be employed only *after the fact*. To insist on another course of action is unrealistic. I choose to teach my beginners "how" to react when these things happen to "survive the initial assault," and only then can you begin the process of retaliation. If you do not address them, then you have already lost.

As a byproduct of my longest career, I have had more potentially life threatening confrontations in a day then the average person would see in a lifetime. I continue to train those who risk their lives and trust that what I teach them is effective. Every incident a student experiences in the field and during ops, is brought back to the school and is examined in great detail for the purpose of validating the methodologies.

I will go back to my earlier suggestion that was ignored and recommend training these techniques with eyes closed. Can you handle it when you can't see it coming? If not, you're practicing impractical "attempts" and your beginners learn nothing in my opinion and experience, and are on the road to eventual failure sir.

I also know why many cling to this, "I'm always aware" edict. If these things aren't "attempts," most have no idea how to deal with them after the fact, and student will quickly find out that when they are grabbed or hugged, they have not been given the tools to survive.

I respectfully hope for the sake of your students you examine this carefully and perhaps use the "blind training" exercise to examine your "ideal" model for efficacy.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 2, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> I respectfully hope for the sake of your students you examine this carefully and perhaps use the "blind training" exercise to examine your "ideal" model for efficacy.


OK, I'm envisioning the tech line here. I got a group of children standing there and I tell the first one to close his eyes so I can push him and he can then react. BAM! I dislocate his shoulder, probably lose him as a student, and the rest of the kids don't wanna play that game any more. Lesson: try to stay aware, and don't stand there with your eyes closed. :whip: 
Sean :asian:


----------



## Doc (Apr 2, 2005)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> OK, I'm envisioning the tech line here. I got a group of children standing there and I tell the first one to close his eyes so I can push him and he can then react. BAM! I dislocate his shoulder, probably lose him as a student, and the rest of the kids don't wanna play that game any more. Lesson: try to stay aware, and don't stand there with your eyes closed. :whip:
> Sean :asian:


You know with all the things brought up, the fact you could ignore everything previously stated on this thread, and respond with a kid getting his shoulder dislocated because his eyes are closed pretty much says it all. The jab about the "true way" was also unneccessary. Now I know, and I must admit I'm disappointed.


----------



## Brother John (Apr 2, 2005)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> OK, I'm envisioning the tech line here. I got a group of children standing there and I tell the first one to close his eyes so I can push him and he can then react. BAM! I dislocate his shoulder, probably lose him as a student, and the rest of the kids don't wanna play that game any more. Lesson: try to stay aware, and don't stand there with your eyes closed. :whip:
> Sean :asian:


That's not what he said to do or how he said to do it.
...Argue fair Sean.
refute his points, if you can.



(Enjoying the debate)
Your Brother
John


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 2, 2005)

Sorry, but "Mace of Aggression," in its ideal stage, is written as a response to a two-hand grab where you're being pulled forward.

This is not only to teach a response; it's to contribute to a structural pattern that the early techniques are set up to teach. For example, several of the early yellow belt techniques teach stepping back with the left leg; then to start in a right neutral bow; then to allow yourself to be yanked forward and to the left by a headlock--this one teaches stepping forward so that the stance is basically the same, but the application is different.

When you start snipping this stuff out of the kenpo system in order to, "improve," it, you are shortchanging students and yourself.


----------



## howardr (Apr 2, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Sorry, but "Mace of Aggression," in its ideal stage, is written as a response to a two-hand grab where you're being pulled forward.


That's what I'm confused about. If one is practicting "Mace of Aggression," _without the grab_ (much less the pull) then one is really just practicing a scenario handled by other techniques such as "Alternating Maces." I thought one of the points of "Aggression," is to show you what to do, teach you the principles, of a certain class of situations, i.e., encounters where you weren't aware enough ahead of time, and you find that you've been grabbed and pulled forward. Makes sense to me.


----------



## Bill Lear (Apr 2, 2005)

howardr said:
			
		

> That's what I'm confused about. If one is practicting "Mace of Aggression," _without the grab_ (much less the pull) then one is really just practicing a scenario handled by other techniques such as "Alternating Maces." I thought one of the points of "Aggression," is to show you what to do, teach you the principles, of a certain class of situations, i.e., encounters where you weren't aware enough ahead of time, and you find that you've been grabbed and pulled forward. Makes sense to me.


That's what I'm confused about too! The nature of the attack has nothing to do with pushing... dislocating shoulders... or anything else like that. It's always been for a two-hand grab coupled with a pull. At least that's what every single instructor I've had has always said. Weird.

:idunno:


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 5, 2005)

Bill Lear said:
			
		

> That's what I'm confused about too! The nature of the attack has nothing to do with pushing... dislocating shoulders... or anything else like that. It's always been for a two-hand grab coupled with a pull. At least that's what every single instructor I've had has always said. Weird.
> 
> :idunno:


Just so their is no confusion, I was refering to snapping twig... weird.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 5, 2005)

howardr said:
			
		

> That's what I'm confused about. If one is practicting "Mace of Aggression," _without the grab_ (much less the pull) then one is really just practicing a scenario handled by other techniques such as "Alternating Maces." I thought one of the points of "Aggression," is to show you what to do, teach you the principles, of a certain class of situations, i.e., encounters where you weren't aware enough ahead of time, and you find that you've been grabbed and pulled forward. Makes sense to me.


No you are always aware, but have to allow people close enough to touch you in certain situations, ie just about any public place you go. whilst in a state of awareness, attacks can still be a nusance, and by the time their hands grip your lapel your left hand should already be pinning. The color code of awareness chart should put you at about orange in all situations involving people you don't trust. While practicing to be unaware is all well and good - for some- it is certainly not the ideal, or what you would have happen to a loved one on the street. Although being unaware is certainly a 'what if' to train for. 
Sean


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 5, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> I also know why many cling to this, "I'm always aware" edict. If these things aren't "attempts," most have no idea how to deal with them after the fact, and student will quickly find out that when they are grabbed or hugged, they have not been given the tools to survive.


Since I'm talking about the topic of the thread, which is how "Delayed Sword" is introduced to a student. How do you know what tools are given? Idealy you are aware, then train as if you weren't its that simple. I have yet to see an argument that says demanding a certain level of awareness from a martial arts practitoner is bad. Children above all should be let in on the fact that if they remain unaware in enough situations they won't live to be adults.
 Sean


----------



## Brother John (Apr 5, 2005)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> Doc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 5, 2005)

Brother John said:
			
		

> Nobody trains their students to be unaware.
> The technique isn't about "awareness" or "Unawareness"...it's about responding to a specific type of attack.
> That's all. All this talk of demanding a certain level of awareness isn't even relevent to analyzing a technique. We all train to be aware, but in analyzing a techniques 'parts' or how it is taught.. awareness isn't the lesson. The technique is.
> It's like we are discussing what goes into a good Pizza and you are discussing how clean your utensils should be.
> ...


OK here the way its going... Somebody posts a website, people trash it, I defend it based on my beliefs. I believe an awareness approach to teching delayed sword is a valid method, you do not. As I believe it is also OK to train "Delayed Sword" (or any other tech)with full grab(or what ever the attack happens to be) as a what if, it negates much of "the" argument. Further, you wouldn't be having Pizza if not for the utensils.
Sean


----------



## pete (Apr 5, 2005)

more people die from sickness than from being attacked.  if you think about it, people generally don't die from 'old age' either.  it is usually a result of some sort of sickness. going around in a constant state of awareness can be taken to an extreme where mental and physical stress will lead to mental and physical imbalance, and increase likelyhood of sickness.  composing yourself in a overly defensive state can also antagonize would-be attackers, and even increase your likelyhood for being the victim of an attack.  

the other side of the coin is the being completely unaware, tripping on cracks in the sidewalk and walking into walls. not healthy either, since there is also an imbalance: no vitality.  plus, an attacker would be all over you before you could take action. 

so the balanced, more healthy approach would be a 'calm awareness', where your mind is calm and your body is relaxed, yet vital... balanced and centered.  you would carry yourself confidently, but not defensively and maintain an overall awareness of your environment without becoming preoccupied with any single aspect... unless it poses a 'real' threat.  

this is where i'd like to be...

pete


----------



## Michael Billings (Apr 5, 2005)

pete said:
			
		

> ... composing yourself in a overly defensive state can also antagonize would-be attackers, and even increase your likelyhood for being the victim of an attack.
> 
> the other side of the coin is the being completely unaware, tripping on cracks in the sidewalk and walking into walls. not healthy either, since there is also an imbalance: no vitality. plus, an attacker would be all over you before you could take action.
> 
> ...


 Well said, me too!

 -Michael


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 5, 2005)

First off, the fact of the matter is that the technique described on the website was described badly--it isn't a good way to teach it, it's more than a little self-contradictiory, and there's too much theory that isn't very good theory. In other words, the Delayed Sword described is inaccurate, a teaching problem, and bad ideas.

Second off, the fantasy of being perfectly, zennily aware at all times. Does this include, say, in the toilet? C'mahn.

Third, yah sure, increased awareness is good. But this, "combat awareness--" well, I've been reading Frantzis' stuff recently, and he says something I've suspected for a while: such constant alertness is actively dangerous. It's bad for you to be on guard all the time; beyond the philosophical issues, being on guard all the time means a constant physiological response to trouble that isn't even there. I agree with the last several posters: awake yes; alert---nah. We're not in a wartime jungle.


----------



## Seabrook (Apr 5, 2005)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> As I believe it is also OK to train "Delayed Sword" (or any other tech)with full grab(or what ever the attack happens to be) as a what if, it negates much of "the" argument.
> Sean


Sean,

The grab in Delayed Sword is not a "what-if". That is the way the base technique is taught. 

In reading a bunch of your posts, I have to say you are really overestimating our ability to not get caught off-guard.

Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 5, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> First off, the fact of the matter is that the technique described on the website was described badly--it isn't a good way to teach it, it's more than a little self-contradictiory, and there's too much theory that isn't very good theory. In other words, the Delayed Sword described is inaccurate, a teaching problem, and bad ideas.
> 
> Second off, the fantasy of being perfectly, zennily aware at all times. Does this include, say, in the toilet? C'mahn.
> 
> Third, yah sure, increased awareness is good. But this, "combat awareness--" well, I've been reading Frantzis' stuff recently, and he says something I've suspected for a while: such constant alertness is actively dangerous. It's bad for you to be on guard all the time; beyond the philosophical issues, being on guard all the time means a constant physiological response to trouble that isn't even there. I agree with the last several posters: awake yes; alert---nah. We're not in a wartime jungle.


You all bring up a good point about being "defensive" but the awareness I'm talking about involves training yourself to automaticly do certain things everytime you deal with the public can be fun at first and a habbit eventualy. We drive defensively and it drives almost no one insane. Most driving insanity comes from driving offensively now that I bring it up, and offensive drivers have a victim mentality, which bring me back to my original point... DON"T BE A VICTIM. I haven't visited the site; so, I'll take an English teachers word that it was poorly written.
Sean


----------



## howardr (Apr 5, 2005)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> No you are always aware, but have to allow people close enough to touch you in certain situations, ie just about any public place you go. whilst in a state of awareness, attacks can still be a nusance, and by the time their hands grip your lapel your left hand should already be pinning. The color code of awareness chart should put you at about orange in all situations involving people you don't trust. While practicing to be unaware is all well and good - for some- it is certainly not the ideal, or what you would have happen to a loved one on the street. Although being unaware is certainly a 'what if' to train for.
> Sean


Two thoughts:

1. I said "aware _enough_." You seemed to translate that to just "aware." There's an important difference.

2. _Ideal_ doesn't necessarily mean _optimum_. That may be part of the misunderstanding between one another.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 5, 2005)

howardr said:
			
		

> Two thoughts:
> 
> 1. I said "aware _enough_." You seemed to translate that to just "aware." There's an important difference.
> 
> 2. _Ideal_ doesn't necessarily mean _optimum_. That may be part of the misunderstanding between one another.


Being aware enough sounds enough like being "in orange"
on the color code of awareness that we are not in disagreement. And you are correct, and I say teach optimum to worst case senerio. Mister Parker always said that situations become hader to deal with the longer you wait to deal with them. 
Sean


----------



## howardr (Apr 5, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Third, yah sure, increased awareness is good. But this, "combat awareness--" well, I've been reading Frantzis' stuff recently, and he says something I've suspected for a while: such constant alertness is actively dangerous. It's bad for you to be on guard all the time; beyond the philosophical issues, being on guard all the time means a constant physiological response to trouble that isn't even there. I agree with the last several posters: awake yes; alert---nah. We're not in a wartime jungle.


Amen. Being in a state of paranoia 24/7 is not conducive to mental health and happiness. When it comes down to it, I want to live a happy life. Martial arts is one component.

I'm not going to turn my entire existence into a walking, breathing human fortress of impenetrable and infallible awareness. Yes, I try to be _reasonably_ aware, but I don't let it preoccupy my every thought like I'm some sort of undercover spy ever fearful of exposure. What a malevolent world that would be!

If I ever felt that I needed to be THAT aware, I don't think I'd want to be living here any longer. Now, maybe if we were in one of those crazy post-apocalyptic scenarios...

Zenilly...love it!


----------



## howardr (Apr 5, 2005)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> Being aware enough sounds enough like being "in orange"
> on the color code of awareness that we are not in disagreement. And you are correct, and I say teach optimum to worst case senerio. Mister Parker always said that situations become hader to deal with the longer you wait to deal with them.
> Sean


What I'm saying is that sometimes you evaluate the situation as, to use your terminology, "orange," but you are actually mistaken, and it's really "red." I.e., you weren't aware enough. You thought you were but you weren't. You seem to be arguing for some kind infallibility. What I'm saying is that we are fallible. We think it's situation X but it's really Y. We don't think the guy is going to grab us by the lapel but he does.


----------



## distalero (Apr 5, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> First off, the fact of the matter is that the technique described on the website was described badly--it isn't a good way to teach it, it's more than a little self-contradictiory, and there's too much theory that isn't very good theory. In other words, the Delayed Sword described is inaccurate, a teaching problem, and bad ideas.
> 
> Second off, the fantasy of being perfectly, zennily aware at all times. Does this include, say, in the toilet? C'mahn.
> 
> Third, yah sure, increased awareness is good. But this, "combat awareness--" well, I've been reading Frantzis' stuff recently, and he says something I've suspected for a while: such constant alertness is actively dangerous. It's bad for you to be on guard all the time; beyond the philosophical issues, being on guard all the time means a constant physiological response to trouble that isn't even there. I agree with the last several posters: awake yes; alert---nah. We're not in a wartime jungle.



Not to leap on your statements, but just to clarify: can one be perfectly, "zennily" aware at all times? I don't know. Is awareness hoped for in the toilet? Absolutely. In the Zen monastaries I've been in there is always a small figure of the Buddha above the toilet, partly to remind anyone interested that all activities can be "attended" to. Should we distinguish clinically significant hypervigilance from other forms of being aware? Yep. Having said that, though, anyone who has been in a traumatic experience has no choice but to "scan" situations. It's one of the things you have to work on to decrease. It doesn't go away completely, nor should it necessarily. Does it run your nervous system into the ground? Not if you work on it. Can you there, in the safety of your home, approximate this kind awareness? Hopefully not in the way some of us did, but yes, I think you can and should. Part of being a competent human being.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 5, 2005)

distalero said:
			
		

> Not to leap on your statements, but just to clarify: can one be perfectly, "zennily" aware at all times? I don't know. Is awareness hoped for in the toilet? Absolutely. In the Zen monastaries I've been in there is always a small figure of the Buddha above the toilet, partly to remind anyone interested that all activities can be "attended" to. Should we distinguish clinically significant hypervigilance from other forms of being aware? Yep. Having said that, though, anyone who has been in a traumatic experience has no choice but to "scan" situations. It's one of the things you have to work on to decrease. It doesn't go away completely, nor should it necessarily. Does it run your nervous system into the ground? Not if you work on it. Can you there, in the safety of your home, approximate this kind awareness? Hopefully not in the way some of us did, but yes, I think you can and should. Part of being a competent human being.


Right, again I think behavior can be modified without these behaviors being a tax on your system because its simply the way you behave out of habbit.
Sean


----------



## Brother John (Apr 5, 2005)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> I believe an awareness approach to teching delayed sword is a valid method, you do not. As I believe it is also OK to train "Delayed Sword" (or any other tech)with full grab(or what ever the attack happens to be) as a what if, it negates much of "the" argument. Further, you wouldn't be having Pizza if not for the utensils.
> Sean



Maybe I just don't understand your position??   :idunno:  Stranger things have happened.
Could you please help me understand better what you mean by 





> an awareness approach to teching delayed sword is a valid method


 . I really don't know yet if I agree or disagree with it I suppose, not until I'm satisfied that I have a good grasp of what you are trying to get across. I'm not replying to your posts and trying to be antagonistic...really. I've got no time to argue for argument's sake: but debate can lead to better understanding....which is all I really want.

IF I am understanding you correctly: then an awareness approach to teaching delayed sword is to not teach it as a grab, but as an oncoming hand...so it's more like blocking the oncoming hand than as usually trained, is that correct?? Are you talking of changing the nature of the attack??

Really Sean, maybe you've got something good to teach me...
or maybe, just maybe....you are wrong.

 :ultracool 
Your Brother
John


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 5, 2005)

Let me take this to private message.
Sean


----------



## Brother John (Apr 5, 2005)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> Let me take this to private message.
> Sean


Thanks

I got my answers.

 :asian: 
Your Brother
John


----------

