# Circling Destruction Question



## Shodan (Jul 19, 2006)

While working out with a friend from a different line (she is Tatum line, I am Planas line) on Circling Destruction the other night, we noticed a difference in the first move.  I was taught to do an inward/outward parry combo (to the punching arm) continuing into the mid-section shot and she thought an inward block was more effective.

  I was thinking about the purpose of a parry vs. the purpose of a block.  Seems to me like a block in this instance would mess up my borrowed force from the person- re-directing their arm (and stopping some of the force) vs. with the parries where I can still use their force against them.

  What were you taught and what do you think about all this?  Thanks!!


----------



## kenpoworks (Jul 21, 2006)

(she is Tatum line, I am Planas line)....?....?


----------



## Ceicei (Jul 21, 2006)

kenpoworks said:
			
		

> (she is Tatum line, I am Planas line)....?....?



Shodan is talking about instructor lineage.  Her friend studies the techniques as taught by Larry Tatum.  Shodan learned hers as taught by Huk Planas.  

Her question was about the difference between the two ways taught and to find out the reasoning behind the difference.  I wish I could answer her questions, but I haven't been able to see how they both do it to analyze the how.  Maybe a videoclip might help?

I do the "double parry" but haven't done it as blocks.  I do see some others from other studios do it as blocks.  I haven't got to the point of wondering why as it appears to be more of a stylistic difference.  I think either way will work.

EDIT:  When my wrist gets better, I'll have to try out both ways.  Perhaps there is an advantage to be found with each.
- Ceicei


----------



## Shodan (Jul 22, 2006)

Thanks for the clarification CeiCei and sorry for the confusion kenpoworks!!  Yeah- I have tried it both ways now and it just seems if I throw the inward block in there instead of the parry, it disrupts my use of borrowed force and makes the tech. more choppy.  It's not a huge deal, I just wondered what others thought about it.  Thanks again!


----------



## Doc (Jul 22, 2006)

Consider that no attack is singular in nature. More than likely there is a second right cross looming. I was always taught bt Ed Parker to always cancel width, therefore I teach an inward block to cancel an anticipated follow up right punch.

Commercial Kenpo loves parries because they're fast and relatively easy to perform. However if you practice the technique with the attacker predetermined to throw two punches at you, you may change your mind about the parries. Sames goes for Reversing Mace.

And that's the Chapél Line from Ed Parker.


----------



## JamesB (Jul 22, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> Consider that no attack is singular in nature. More than likely there is a second right cross looming. I was always taught bt Ed Parker to always cancel width, therefore I teach an inward block to cancel an anticipated follow up right punch.
> 
> Commercial Kenpo loves parries because they're fast and relatively easy to perform. However if you practice the technique with the attacker predetermined to throw two punches at you, you may change your mind about the parries. Sames goes for Reversing Mace.
> 
> And that's the Chapél Line from Ed Parker.


 
interesting. this topic is going on at kenpotalk as well, I posted there that whilst I thought the inward-block would be effective defence, it would cancel the attacker's width and also his height, making the subsequent strikes in this technique difficult to reach - in particular the step-up-cicle into right forward bow with the left heel-palm to jaw. I always thought this technique was a 'slip up the outside' with parries because of this.

So I'm guessing that either you are doing this technique a little different, or much more likely I'm missing something fairly crucial here.

thanks,
James


----------



## MattJ (Jul 22, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> Consider that no attack is singular in nature. More than likely there is a second right cross looming. I was always taught bt Ed Parker to always cancel width, therefore I teach an inward block to cancel an anticipated follow up right punch.
> 
> Commercial Kenpo loves parries because they're fast and relatively easy to perform. However if you practice the technique with the attacker predetermined to throw two punches at you, you may change your mind about the parries. Sames goes for Reversing Mace.
> 
> And that's the Chapél Line from Ed Parker.


 
Wow Doc! Challenging all my old AKK beliefs!  

I totally agree with you about cancelling width, very important. You seem to be hinting that parries can not cancel width or perhaps not as effectively?  Wouldn't you want the extra control afforded by the parry in managing the opponent's height and depth zones as well as width? Blocks seem to me to be more limited to just controlling width. (assuming the inward block block)

And don't people typically lose contact with the opponent (therefore control) faster using blocks? 

I also found your comment about parries being easier to perform somewhat not to my experience. Blocks have been much easier to teach and do for most beginner students that I have seen. If they were easier, wouldn't they be taught before blocks in the syllabus?

Sorry for all the questions, but there's only one way to learn, right?


----------



## Shodan (Jul 22, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> Consider that no attack is singular in nature. More than likely there is a second right cross looming. I was always taught bt Ed Parker to always cancel width, therefore I teach an inward block to cancel an anticipated follow up right punch.
> 
> Commercial Kenpo loves parries because they're fast and relatively easy to perform. However if you practice the technique with the attacker predetermined to throw two punches at you, you may change your mind about the parries. Sames goes for Reversing Mace.
> 
> And that's the Chapél Line from Ed Parker.



  Thank you for your thoughts here Sir.  I will play with it (and Reversing Mace) more with the two punch intent and see what I can learn!!  If I had to choose, I'd rather give up some borrowed force and NOT get clocked with a second punch!!  Let me play with it......


----------



## kenpoworks (Jul 22, 2006)

Hey Doc,
To follow through with  your assumption of a second punch and because you used the term "Right Cross".
When I teach this technique I teach it by the book as I do with all my techniques (please dont get into the which book thing its nearly as pointless as the lineage thing), but I soon encourage the students to practice against a left jab from an orthodox stance and then like you add on the right cross, opens things up nicely for the student on the analytical front and Shodan your'e dead right about moving the target, because if you practice the technique from a left jab you may find that you get "clocked" by the first punch and wind up "wearing" the second punch. Good to see that you are analysing all of your movements as for giving up borrowed force you may find that you actually enhance it by exploring the value of the slip for this as well as other punching combos.
Rich
ps how are things with you me ole china


----------



## Doc (Jul 22, 2006)

MattJ said:
			
		

> Wow Doc! Challenging all my old AKK beliefs!
> 
> I totally agree with you about cancelling width, very important. You seem to be hinting that parries can not cancel width or perhaps not as effectively?  Wouldn't you want the extra control afforded by the parry in managing the opponent's height and depth zones as well as width?


Parries in the martial art, (any martial art) were never designed to cancel width. Parries RE-DIRECT an attackers energy, not control it.


> Blocks seem to me to be more limited to just controlling width. (assuming the inward block block). And don't people typically lose contact with the opponent (therefore control) faster using blocks?


Then you have not been taught correctly. This is not unusual. I've rarely seen correct blocking because the basics of kenpo-karate all come from many different styles and teachers, and not Ed Parker. He blocked much differently from what you see in the art. Nevertheless, if the blocking is just decent and applied correctly, it will do the job. Unfortunately kenpo-karate students are obsessed with speed over effectiveness. (Mr. Parker's words and I agree) Mr. Parker also said, *"Speed kills - your technique." *Yet people in an effort to emulate him concentrate on speed. What does it matter if you are slow if your attacker cannot hit you, and you can hit him? A properly executed block can cancel everything. A block IS designed to control, a parry is designed to re-direct. A block can control height, width, and depth simultaneously depending upon application.


> I also found your comment about parries being easier to perform somewhat not to my experience. Blocks have been much easier to teach and do for most beginner students that I have seen. If they were easier, wouldn't they be taught before blocks in the syllabus?


Parries are easier than *properly taught* blocks. Most blocking in kenpo karate is virtually dysfunctional, being obsessed with speed and linear "Point of Origin" execution.


> Sorry for all the questions, but there's only one way to learn, right?


Don't be sorry sir, and ask the same questions of your teachers.


----------



## Doc (Jul 22, 2006)

JamesB said:
			
		

> interesting. this topic is going on at kenpotalk as well, I posted there that whilst I thought the inward-block would be effective defence, it would cancel the attacker's width and also his height, making the subsequent strikes in this technique difficult to reach - in particular the step-up-cicle into right forward bow with the left heel-palm to jaw. I always thought this technique was a 'slip up the outside' with parries because of this.
> 
> So I'm guessing that either you are doing this technique a little different, or much more likely I'm missing something fairly crucial here.
> 
> ...


It actually makes the technique easier when done the way I teach it. The assumption is the attacker is realistically throwing two (2) punches. If you don't *Survive the Initial Assault*, how can you move on? Even a semi-experienced guy when you parry his left straight punch/jab, will drag his left foot back toward 12, pivot, and cross with his right. If he's punching really hard James and you parry, he'll take another step with his right, drag his left toward 10:30 or so, and throw the right and you still can't perform the technique. A properly executed inward block will control everything, and prevent the above thus allowing you to move on to the next portion of the counter. Check it out in a model experiment. This technique is nothing but Reversing Mace (as I teach it) with a different conclusion.


----------



## Doc (Jul 22, 2006)

kenpoworks said:
			
		

> Hey Doc,
> how are things with you me ole china


Kicking, (but not high)
Floppin', (but can't fly)
Can't kill anything, (and nothing will die)
In other words, better than some, and not as good as others sir.


----------



## Doc (Jul 22, 2006)

JamesB said:
			
		

> interesting. this topic is going on at kenpotalk as well, I posted there that whilst I thought the inward-block would be effective defence, it would cancel the attacker's width and also his height, making the subsequent strikes in this technique difficult to reach - in particular the step-up-cicle into right forward bow with the left heel-palm to jaw. I always thought this technique was a 'slip up the outside' with parries because of this.
> 
> So I'm guessing that either you are doing this technique a little different, or much more likely I'm missing something fairly crucial here.
> 
> ...


Once I teach you Reversing Mace, you'll understand. Now go back to KenpoTalk, and tell them I sent you.


----------



## JamesB (Jul 24, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> It actually makes the technique easier when done the way I teach it. The assumption is the attacker is realistically throwing two (2) punches. If you don't *Survive the Initial Assault*, how can you move on? Even a semi-experienced guy when you parry his left straight punch/jab, will drag his left foot back toward 12, pivot, and cross with his right. If he's punching really hard James and you parry, he'll take another step with his right, drag his left toward 10:30 or so, and throw the right and you still can't perform the technique. A properly executed inward block will control everything, and prevent the above thus allowing you to move on to the next portion of the counter. Check it out in a model experiment. This technique is nothing but Reversing Mace (as I teach it) with a different conclusion.


 


			
				Doc said:
			
		

> Once I teach you Reversing Mace, you'll understand. Now go back to KenpoTalk, and tell them I sent you.


 
makes perfect sense as always, thanks   guess I was assuming that the second punch wouldn't be coming, bad assumption to make though


----------



## Doc (Jul 24, 2006)

JamesB said:
			
		

> makes perfect sense as always, thanks   guess I was assuming that the second punch wouldn't be coming, bad assumption to make though


I teach James, (from the beginning) that no attack is singular in nature. There is always what he is doing, and what he's going to do next. If its a bear hug, what's he going to AFTER he grabs you. Supplex, body slam, etc? If it's a push, what's he going to do after the push. Push again, follow punch, etc? If It's a punch, what's he going to do next. Kick, another punch, grab, etc?

Therefore, once contact is made with an attacker, whatever you do must be designed to control/absorb his initial attack AND whatever he may do next. This why we do not have 'what if's.' The Default Technique is supposed to automatically take these things into consideration, so students don't have to spend time considering multiple possibilities and are free to react. This is why we place such a heavy emphasis on the *SURVIVE THE INITIAL ASSAULT* componant in our teaching. If you don't, everything else is completely moot. Unfortunately, even in our Coursebooks, this componant is not written because of the subtlety and complexity of the mechanisms. The Default technique is well defined, but these mechanisms are "TT." (Teacher taught only)


----------



## jaybacca72 (Jul 24, 2006)

the left punch is probably going to be a jab in reality and the parry would seem to be quicker to do considering the left jab will be fast. huk also teaches an arm break in the beginning part to negate the right cross coming. hey doc realistically wouldn't you think that the left is going to come and retract so you would follow the reatraction similar to the silat concepts for entering? and move straight to the palm control/up the circle and delete the backfist strike.
later
jay


----------



## Doc (Jul 24, 2006)

jaybacca72 said:
			
		

> the left punch is probably going to be a jab in reality and the parry would seem to be quicker to do considering the left jab will be fast. huk also teaches an arm break in the beginning part to negate the right cross coming. hey doc realistically wouldn't you think that the left is going to come and retract so you would follow the reatraction similar to the silat concepts for entering? and move straight to the palm control/up the circle and delete the backfist strike.
> later
> jay


No sir, not in my experience. I must disagree with that. A 'jab' attack is a different scenario akin to a situation where both parties are more 'prepared' for confrontation. usually announced in some way through word or action by the aggressor.

Default self-defense techniques are not designed for that scenario, and Parker never filled in that gap publicly, although there is some good information available. When a guy attacks you serepticiously, it is because he fully expects to be successful and therefore he is fully committed to the action. This is where your self defense techniques reside. 'jabs' are 'set up' moves in 'confrontational street sparring' which is completely different, and requires a different philosophy, training method, and mechanisms.

Yes a 'parry' will be quicker but there's that disease again. "Quicker" doesn't necessarily translate to effective or success. If you don't control his width on his first left hand, you probably will be hit with the second punch even if you do get the next move off. And if he is doing a jab, he's setting you up for the second punch anyway.

The idea of attempting a break on a 'jab' is also a bit suspect. I suggest you should be concentrating on not getting hit first, in terms of confrontation priorities. Huk is just telling where you might go one day. I always speak of basics or default teachniques. That is what you need to learn and do in the beginning to become effective now, and more effective later.

No, in that situation I would not follow the retracted arm. And our MSU school Silat Pendekar Guru Cliff Stewart, agrees with me.


----------



## jaybacca72 (Jul 29, 2006)

i like your response doc,but i guess it depends on your abilities personally what will be good for you whenthe time comes. meaning i saw professor presas do stuff that alot would not or could not be succesfull with but he could because he was remy. i imagine the same held true with Mr.Parker but in any case thanks for the thoughts a pleasure as always. as far as the way huk teahces it you do actually block establish your base do your inital strike then proceed with an arm break as an option,so times i like to play the devil's advocate just to get the responses iam looking for.
later
jay
 always something to learn from doc,and the seniors so ask questions while you still can.


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Jul 29, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> .....And that's the Chapél Line from Ed Parker.


 
yeah, but Doc's way doesn't count because it's SL-4 not EPAK (LOL, someone had to say it Doc ). Thanks Doc! Informative as always..


----------



## kenpohack (Jul 31, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> Consider that no attack is singular in nature. More than likely there is a second right cross looming. I was always taught bt Ed Parker to always cancel width, therefore I teach an inward block to cancel an anticipated follow up right punch.
> 
> Commercial Kenpo loves parries because they're fast and relatively easy to perform. However if you practice the technique with the attacker predetermined to throw two punches at you, you may change your mind about the parries. Sames goes for Reversing Mace.
> 
> And that's the Chapél Line from Ed Parker.



Considering that I'm just about to test for my green belt, I'm not necessarily an authority on green belt material since I've only been working it for about six months or so. However, if an opponent were to follow up with a right cross, the double parries would probably be fine because he's going to eat a hellacious left heel palm to the face if he continues his attack. Even if the parries and the back knuckle don't stop his attack, if you've done the technique correctly, you've stepped offline to so he is not likely to connect with a right because of range. I've done this technique against a bronze medalist olympic boxer and pulled it off. He did not have time to connect with a right without eating a heel palm to the face. In my humble opinion and tested by experience, an inward block is unnecessary and counterproductive to the flow of the technique.


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Aug 1, 2006)

kenpohack said:
			
		

> Considering that I'm just about to test for my green belt, I'm not necessarily an authority on green belt material since I've only been working it for about six months or so. However, if an opponent were to follow up with a right cross, the double parries would probably be fine because he's going to eat a hellacious left heel palm to the face if he continues his attack. Even if the parries and the back knuckle don't stop his attack, *if you've done the technique correctly, you've stepped offline to so he is not likely to connect with a right because of range.* I've done this technique against a bronze medalist olympic boxer and pulled it off. He did not have time to connect with a right without eating a heel palm to the face. In my humble opinion and tested by experience, an inward block is unnecessary and counterproductive to the flow of the technique.


 
While I'm prone to agree with you to an extent, there is one heck of an assumption being made here. That the kenpoist is faster than the "boxer".

The "boxer" here has the advantage of 1) linear attack in this model and 2) a head start on his initiative

The kenpoist has the disadvantage of 1) using circular blocks 2) trying to beat two movements with three (beat Jab-Cross with Parry-Parry-Heel Palm) and 3) trying to reverse the direction of the left hand (stop-start) and then land it on the opponent before the opponent's right (and already incoming) hand lands.

The only reason the parries work is because of a proper read of the attacks (which is what results in the *bolded* above). The inward block will check more variables thus minimizing the need for properly reading anything passed the initial "jab".  The "flow" deals again with what's faster not with what's more effective.  A cross lands quick and hard but doesn't guarantee a KO, a choke takes some time to set but guarantees a KO.  So which is better? depends on the circumstance...

Man where are you at! I need to be there! You've got a father who coaches champion level wrestlers (from another post you posted), you're sparring with olympic level boxers, you've got a training paradise man! I envy that :asian: Few people can say they've tested so much of the Kenpo system 'from experience' like you post so often that you do. Glad that you post "from experience", it sure beats the "from the booK" that usually gets posted. Keep it up!


----------



## jazkiljok (Aug 1, 2006)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:
			
		

> Man where are you at! I need to be there! You've got a father who coaches champion level wrestlers (from another post you posted), you're sparring with olympic level boxers, you've got a training paradise man! I envy that :asian: Few people can say they've tested so much of the Kenpo system 'from experience' like you post so often that you do. Glad that you post "from experience", it sure beats the "from the booK" that usually gets posted. Keep it up!



just sidetracking here- but i'm curious, what was the bronze medalist's name?


----------



## kenpohack (Aug 1, 2006)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:
			
		

> While I'm prone to agree with you to an extent, there is one heck of an assumption being made here. That the kenpoist is faster than the "boxer".
> 
> The "boxer" here has the advantage of 1) linear attack in this model and 2) a head start on his initiative
> 
> ...



Well, as far as training goes, I train with jiu-jitsu fighters at a Machado affiliate school and a boxing gym. My kenpo classes are at a boxing gym where several professional and amateur fighters train. One of the coaches is a former Olympic boxer.

To address the technique, circling destruction is not against a jab. The attack is a step-through left punch (assuming you are most likely fighting a southpaw). If the attack is a step-through left puch, parrys will work just fine, actually better than an inward block because you gain borrowed force from the attack to achieve meeting force. An inward block would hinder the technique because it would reduce the power of the right back knuckle to the rib cage. By the way, no technique would work against a jab. I'm not a great boxer, but I would bet $1 that I can throw a jab too fast for almost anyone to block. Jabs are not committed attacks, so parrys and blocks are not likely to do much against them. Sparring teaches you how to defeat jabs: move out of range, move offline, keep your hands up, or counterattack.


----------



## kenpohack (Aug 1, 2006)

jazkiljok said:
			
		

> just sidetracking here- but i'm curious, what was the bronze medalist's name?



Correction, I thought he was a bronze medalist...I may be wrong on that. I apologize for my misunderstanding of the facts. His name is Jason Ingwaldson. Google him if you want the facts on him.


----------



## jazkiljok (Aug 1, 2006)

kenpohack said:
			
		

> Correction, I thought he was a bronze medalist...I may be wrong on that. I apologize for my misunderstanding of the facts. His name is Jason Ingwaldson. Google him if you want the facts on him.



i'm sure Jason was a good amateur boxer-- but he never made the olympic team.

http://boxing.about.com/od/amateurs/a/oly_2004us.htm

andre dirrell was the only american to bronze in the last olympics. things haven't been great for american olympic boxing of late.

anyway- as i said, just was curious. thanks for the response.


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Aug 2, 2006)

kenpohack said:
			
		

> Well, as far as training goes, I train with jiu-jitsu fighters at a Machado affiliate school and a boxing gym. My kenpo classes are at a boxing gym where several professional and amateur fighters train. One of the coaches is a former Olympic boxer.
> 
> To address the technique, circling destruction is not against a jab. The attack is a step-through left punch (assuming you are most likely fighting a southpaw). If the attack is a step-through left puch, parrys will work just fine, actually better than an inward block because you gain borrowed force from the attack to achieve meeting force. An inward block would hinder the technique because it would reduce the power of the right back knuckle to the rib cage. By the way, no technique would work against a jab. I'm not a great boxer, but I would bet $1 that I can throw a jab too fast for almost anyone to block. Jabs are not committed attacks, so parrys and blocks are not likely to do much against them. Sparring teaches you how to defeat jabs: move out of range, move offline, keep your hands up, or counterattack.


 
I wish you were here, I'd take that bet and that dollar too 

Not too sure about that "inward block killing the borrowed force" thing.  There are multiple "methods of execution" on that inward block and they all have a different effect on the target weapon and body reaction.  You'll start to learn the "finesse" required soon, people 'usually' start to get into that around green and brown (I have no idea exactly why this is the case though)

Good training to you with the Machado affiliate! and good skill on that green test!, when is it? I'm pulling for you to pass with flying colors (pun intended).

salute!


----------



## Doc (Aug 2, 2006)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:
			
		

> I wish you were here, I'd take that bet and that dollar too
> 
> salute!


ALL DAY LONG!


----------



## KenpoRonin (Aug 4, 2006)

jazkiljok said:
			
		

> i'm sure Jason was a good amateur boxer-- but he never made the olympic team.
> 
> http://boxing.about.com/od/amateurs/a/oly_2004us.htm
> 
> ...


 
Jason was selected as "ATHLETE OF THE YEAR" in 1997. Others who have accomplished this award were Roy Jones Jr. & Oscar De La Hoya. Jason was rated #1 in the US in 1997,1998 and in 1999. He also won five World Championship titles and finished off with an outstanding record of 135 wins with only 6 defeats. He is in the Hall Of Fame of amateur boxing.

That is a hell of a lot better than a Good amatuer boxer.  He also was a sparring partner with Floyd Mayweather Jr.


----------



## Hye Kenpo Nar (Sep 15, 2006)

becuase the attack is coming in from farther away it is better to use a parrie, becuaseour main goal is to redirect the attack , and continue on to the first strike.  doing a proper inward block at or above the elbow would take to long and messes up the flow of the technique, and if the attacker knows what he/she is doing they can possibly redirest their strike or even counter to your block.


----------



## Doc (Sep 15, 2006)

Hye Kenpo Nar said:


> becuase the attack is coming in from farther away it is better to use a parrie, becuaseour main goal is to redirect the attack , and continue on to the first strike.  doing a proper inward block at or above the elbow would take to long and messes up the flow of the technique, and if the attacker knows what he/she is doing they can possibly redirest their strike or even counter to your block.



Simply, wrong sir. Without width control from a properly executed hard block, the second punch will be difficult to avoid. Those who advocate parries in this technique, probably do the same in Reversing Mace. Also not a good idea. Your main goal may be to redirect the attack. My experience with techniques suggest your primary goal should be to not get hit. Keep parrying and you will get hit.

Note: Parrys were designed to be used with blocks. Either immediately before, or after. Rarely as a singular entity enroute to a counter move that does not control a dimension.

But what do I know. I'm just an old South Central Urban Ninja that nobody listens to.


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Sep 15, 2006)

Hye Kenpo Nar said:


> becuase the attack is coming in from farther away it is better to use a parrie, *becuase our main goal is to redirect the attack* , _and continue on to the first strike_. *doing a proper inward block at or above the elbow would take to long and messes up the flow of the technique,* and _*if the attacker knows what he/she is doing they can possibly redirest their strike or even counter to your block*_.


 
Uuuuuuh, NO the range is not different. it's still punching range because it's a linear punch.

*NO, MY main goal is to not get hit and put the attacker in a disadvantageous position or posture ASAP. My objective is NOT to avoid one attack and leave the attacker poised and ready to deliver another one.*

_Continuing to a strike without effectively cancelling the opponent increases the risk of running into a blow while delivering your own. Do you really want to trade shots if you don't have to?_

*Need to learn what a proper inward block is and proper mechanics for sequencial flow. A proper inward block feeds into a backfist just fine here unless you're obsessed with 90 mile an hour Kenpo.*


*Committed attacks are very hard to simply redirect once in flight. In fact I've never seen anyone in a fight redirect any attack they threw that they actually intended to land. They only redirected shots that were distractions and feints anyway.*

Why do people rush to get to the offensive part of the technique without using a solid defense. Here's a thought suppose you backfist him in the stomach but he's a conditioned boxer who is used to getting hit in the gut. So what happens when that backfist you rushed to get off doesn't end up being the "deathblow" you thought it was? I know just rush again to the heel palm and chop and kick and........LOL

It's always "I've got to hit him faster, no matter what the cost". No it should be "put him in a position where I don't have to rush so I have a little time to think." Kenpoists develop this mindset that every kenpoist is faster than every opponent. Please, step into the hood I came from and learn otherwise......


----------



## pete (Sep 15, 2006)

no matter what, moving yourself out of the line of attack is critical to not getting hit.  guys can and will punch right through soft parries and hard blocks. redirect 'em to the place you ain't and hit 'em while they are stll thinking about hitting you.


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Sep 15, 2006)

pete said:


> no matter what, moving yourself out of the line of attack is critical to not getting hit. guys can and will punch right through soft parries and hard blocks. redirect 'em to the place you ain't and hit 'em while they are stll thinking about hitting you.


 
Here you go messing up a perfectly good conversation by adding in commentary about things like manuevers.  Who asked you? Nobody uses those anymore! LOL


----------

