# SKK Half Moon.......why?



## Hand Sword (Apr 22, 2008)

This topic might fit into the SKK form application thread, but, that seemed like a good seperate conversation going on. 

So, I started a new thread. The idea of application (for real) has always consumed my training, and the form app's thread got me thinking again.That said, the idea of half mooning is gnawing at me (and has for years). I remember a time when half mooning was not done, instead the punches were a cross. I also have never liked the idea overall, with false applications being built into the techniques, based off a step through punch. So I was curious about all of you other SKK people, or those that trained in it, do you still use it? Do you find it detremental overall? Opinions of doing half mooning in the forms and techniques? Is/are there practical applications for the use of it?

Thanks. :asian:


----------



## dancingalone (Apr 22, 2008)

How about a definition of half-mooning to help non-SKK people participate in this thread?

If you're talking about the 'circling step' used in many Chinese martial arts and even some Okinawan karate systems, there are sound reasons for training it.  It can help protect your groin in transition movement and it helps you learn to root yourself.  You can also build potential energy if your path is a at least somewhat circular - this energy can be expressed into a strike if chosen.


----------



## MJS (Apr 22, 2008)

dancingalone said:


> How about a definition of half-mooning to help non-SKK people participate in this thread?
> 
> If you're talking about the 'circling step' used in many Chinese martial arts and even some Okinawan karate systems, there are sound reasons for training it. It can help protect your groin in transition movement and it helps you learn to root yourself. You can also build potential energy if your path is a at least somewhat circular - this energy can be expressed into a strike if chosen.


 
The half-moon is also commonly referred to as a "C" step.  For example:  if you're standing with your left leg forward and right back, you bring your right leg up to your left, and continue thru, stepping forward.  The motion that your right foot makes is similar to the "C" or in this case, the half moon.

Mike


----------



## dancingalone (Apr 22, 2008)

Thanks, Mike.  That's what I thought it was.  Some common mistakes I've seen is when path of the feet is more like a zig zag straight line to the other foot.  That's wrong in the arts I've studied (not SKK) and actually reaps your none of the benefits of the circle step and may actually make you vulnerable to a sweep.

There should be a 'hip rounding out' feeling and you should always feel connected to the ground through either your heels or the balls of your feet, depending on style.  Again I'm not a Shaolin Kempo guy, so YMMV.


----------



## JTKenpo (Apr 22, 2008)

Techniques - I use the halfmoon step (step through punch) to begin the understanding of the #combo's (defensive maneuvers) for two specific reasons.  

One it allows the person attacking to more easily breakfall when being taken down.  Obviously this is an important concept for beginners as well as more advanced students.  The easier they can get up from a technique the more training you can do.  If you get dropped on your head well its not as easy to get up.  I explain in the beginning that all the combo's can be done against a cross but that I want them to get the "feel" for the technique first.  Once they can smoothly move through the sequence of the technique now we can explore the cross (or the knife, club, overhand, hook......)

Two, well memory sake actually.  There are a lot of techniques to learn and I feel that the journey through the underbelts is more of a memorization exercise.  You need to know how to move before you can understand why.  Thats not to say concepts and theories aren't taught under black belt, but that it is easier to understand a concept of a technique you have done a thousand times rather than a technique you have done twenty times. (I know this is a rather blanket statement and it is not true for every one and that there are many exceptions).

Forms - I find that one of the hardest things for beginners to grasp is that you must bend your knees in your stances.  The halfmoon step helps with the muscle memory.  Trying to keep someone from looking like they are riding a carousel (up down up down) can be a daunting task.  Keeping the knees bent in the halfmoon step I believe helps this "quirk".

my two cents anyway


----------



## 14 Kempo (Apr 22, 2008)

Here's what I was taught along with much of what was already stated here.

Think of half-mooning as 'seeing the ground with your feet'. The world is not an even surface. There are roots, curbs, debris and what-not to trip you up. I an altercation, a person can not take the chance on looking downward to evaluate the surface for which they must negaotiate. Keeping the feet close to the ground, manuevering them into position prior to shifting body weight, allows for a person to reverse his/her actions prior to commitment and therefore in such situations where the movement is restricted, evades the loss of balance, or the trip. Just taking a different point of view.


----------



## DavidCC (Apr 22, 2008)

The half-moon step sends confusing proprioceptive signals to the brain, thereby weakening your structure and diffusing your intent, on a physical level.  This weakens your ability to unite your mind body and intent if you know what I mean...

It causes a shrinking of the base (that being the area of ground over which your weight is spread) which means you are less stable as you bring your feet together.

It includes no hip rotation when used as part of a step-through punch. (unless you havea cat stance in the middle of it!)

The half moon stance is begging to be kicked in the goodies even if the half moon step protects them for a moment while stepping.

The only reason I still use it at all is because I am required to do so in forms by my teacher but in technqiue execution I almost always use a "45 degree offset horse stance (NB)", unless there is specific reason for a 'toes forward' alignment at a particular moment.

We have a couple of sweeps in techniques where you do a C step in order to step behind a leg.


----------



## IWishToLearn (Apr 22, 2008)

Dang. David beat me to it.  Good post David!


----------



## DavidCC (Apr 22, 2008)

Thanks I was afraid I was gonna get blasted LOL still might I guess

But I'm far from expert, only been at this 5-6 years or so, so there may be lots of other factors I have not considered or don't understand.  i was just laying out there where I'm at on it now.  6 months ago I'd have had a different answer and in 6 more months I might too


----------



## JTKenpo (Apr 22, 2008)

I believe that the halfmoon step has its purpose.  Any stance has its weakness as it is only a picture of movement, one frame in a thousand.  I hope no one would really try and step through with a punch and then sit and wait for there opponent to kick them in the goodies, amongst a million other things.  If they do then hit em twice as often they deserve it.  There has to be some form of embrionic basics which we can build on.  In other words we have to learn to crawl before we walk.  The half moon stance allows us to freely use any of our four limbs, an open stance.  A 45 deg horse or neutral bow allows use of any of our four limbs and provides some cover of our vitals, semi open or semi closed.  A side horse allows us to only use our front side but allows complete cover of our vitals, a closed stance.  I guess what I am saying is you can use only one tool for any job but it becomes a lot easier if you have options.


----------



## DavidCC (Apr 22, 2008)

JTKenpo said:


> I believe that the halfmoon step has its purpose. Any stance has its weakness as it is only a picture of movement, one frame in a thousand. I hope no one would really try and step through with a punch and then sit and wait for there opponent to kick them in the goodies, amongst a million other things. If they do then hit em twice as often they deserve it. There has to be some form of embrionic basics which we can build on. In other words we have to learn to crawl before we walk. The half moon stance allows us to freely use any of our four limbs, an open stance. A 45 deg horse or neutral bow allows use of any of our four limbs and provides some cover of our vitals, semi open or semi closed. A side horse allows us to only use our front side but allows complete cover of our vitals, a closed stance. I guess what I am saying is you can use only one tool for any job but it becomes a lot easier if you have options.


 
I do totally agree, 

but after your first sentence you didn't talk about the STEP at all.

but I guess I shouldn't have brought up the Half Moon Stance because this thread is about the Half Moon STEP.


----------



## JTKenpo (Apr 22, 2008)

DavidCC said:


> I do totally agree,
> 
> but after your first sentence you didn't talk about the STEP at all.
> 
> but I guess I shouldn't have brought up the Half Moon Stance because this thread is about the Half Moon STEP.


 

LOL

Point taken!


----------



## HKphooey (Apr 22, 2008)

None of us would use a horsestance is pratcial SD would we?    But it has a place in training.


----------



## IWishToLearn (Apr 22, 2008)

DavidCC said:


> I do totally agree,
> 
> but after your first sentence you didn't talk about the STEP at all.
> 
> but I guess I shouldn't have brought up the Half Moon Stance because this thread is about the Half Moon STEP.


There's a half moon stance? 

The commonly accepted cat stance done with the ball of the leading foot is horrible for body mechanics too, but it's still used all the time too.


----------



## Hand Sword (Apr 22, 2008)

Thanks for the replys all! 

     The stance I don't mind so much, it allows all guns to be fired without having to adjust footing. Plus, it's usually how you end up before and after "firing", even if nuetral bowing, or whatever. (film yourself and see!) What has always vexed me was how it's used in SKK. I also was taught, (when it was introduced) about feeling the ground w/o looking down in a fight etc.. However, "sliding" and other movement does the same for you. Now, I admit there are certain uses for it that are very practical. But, overall, doesn't anyone feel that its use is lacking. For example, take the combos/DM's. Most of the follow ups, through to takedown come off of the idea that someone half mooned in. Realistically, it will be a cross, and that leg won't be there for a sweep, etc.... I dunno! Since it was added in (for me atleast, back then) I was just curious about other's views/ uses of it.


----------



## marlon (Apr 22, 2008)

dancingalone said:


> How about a definition of half-mooning to help non-SKK people participate in this thread?
> 
> If you're talking about the 'circling step' used in many Chinese martial arts and even some Okinawan karate systems, there are sound reasons for training it. It can help protect your groin in transition movement and it helps you learn to root yourself. You can also build potential energy if your path is a at least somewhat circular - this energy can be expressed into a strike if chosen.


 
and allow you to easily change direction mid step as it were...although Doc has stated that this tyope of stepping is anatomically disastrous for body alignment.

marlon


----------



## marlon (Apr 22, 2008)

DavidCC said:


> The half-moon step sends confusing proprioceptive signals to the brain, thereby weakening your structure and diffusing your intent, on a physical level. This weakens your ability to unite your mind body and intent if you know what I mean...
> 
> It causes a shrinking of the base (that being the area of ground over which your weight is spread) which means you are less stable as you bring your feet together.
> 
> ...


 

i would have to  see what you mean by cat stance...very curious.. we could be doing the same thing...when i half moon there is hip rotation, i never bring my feet together as corrected by Shihan Ingargiola as i first learn to do so.  When you step heel or toe first?

Respectfully,
Marlon


----------



## Hand Sword (Apr 23, 2008)

I could buy it as a training tool for doing basics, but, to base combinations off of it? Not very realistic. As comprised the combos/dm's would have to be re-arranged if the 1/2 mooning was eliminated, and replaced with more realsitic attack sequences. Most of the follow ups and takedowns aren't there w/o the 1/2 mooning punch ins. The stance, can be practical (and is).


----------



## Doc (Apr 23, 2008)

Hand Sword said:


> Thanks for the replys all!
> 
> The stance I don't mind so much, it allows all guns to be fired without having to adjust footing. Plus, it's usually how you end up before and after "firing", even if nuetral bowing, or whatever. (film yourself and see!) What has always vexed me was how it's used in SKK. I also was taught, (when it was introduced) about feeling the ground w/o looking down in a fight etc.. However, "sliding" and other movement does the same for you. Now, I admit there are certain uses for it that are very practical. But, overall, doesn't anyone feel that its use is lacking. For example, take the combos/DM's. Most of the follow ups, through to takedown come off of the idea that someone half mooned in. Realistically, it will be a cross, and that leg won't be there for a sweep, etc.... I dunno! Since it was added in (for me atleast, back then) I was just curious about other's views/ uses of it.



Proprioceptive Sensors are a bit sensitive to how we move our feet relative to the direction of travel (among other things), to create structure to support the action. This "C-Step" does not support the structure or proper anatomical alignment of any stance.

The body is designed to locomote directly forward in a series of controlled falls, based on the physics of an inverted pendulum. The pelvic girdle supports these controlled falls and maintains the femur knee relationship for that purpose, as structure is needed to support the human body as it completes one "fall cycle" after another moving forward.

When the feet move laterally to the direction of travel and the pelvic girdle even slightly, from a proprioceptive perspective, the sensors are being told you are "side stepping," and structure is immediately shifted to that lateral perspective which is counter to the direction of travel and the focused intent of the activity, and therefore structure is lost and is only recoverable through a series of correcting mechanisms.

It is important to understand that the Chinese taught many different things for many reasons. It was the Okinawan's and Japanese that decided that every move had a physical application, and corrupted the process and misread "indexes of information" and transformed it into what they called Bunkai. Historical anecdotes suggest that the movements are derived from the clearing of the long Samurai Robes, and later "hakama of the Japanese, and is not seen or utilized in that manner in the Chinese Combat Sciences.


----------



## Hand Sword (Apr 23, 2008)

Thank you sir! 

I agree with all of that and have never liked the idea of doing it. I always felt like I was left "floating" in the air when doing it, and never stable. I always wondered why it was introduced and stressed. It never seemed practical, and the body always seemed to fight against the movement, when doing it for awhile, say, during a form. I also agree with the CMA view too. That way of doing it was different, and/or not stressed.


----------



## MJS (Apr 23, 2008)

When I started in SKK, I too was taught the c-step when punching. Pretty much every technique was stressed with this method, and I never saw anything done with the punch being thrown as a cross. 

When changing to the Parker system, the techs. were described as step thru punches, not c-steps. When I'm throwing a punch for a tech. I don't c step, I step.

Interestingly enough, take a look at these 2 clips of Short Form 1 from the Parker system. In the first clip, we see steps, when transitioning from move to move, while in the second clip, we see the c-step.


----------



## kidswarrior (Apr 23, 2008)

Doc said:


> Proprioceptive Sensors are a bit sensitive to how we move our feet relative to the direction of travel (among other things), to create structure to support the action. This "C-Step" does not support the structure or proper anatomical alignment of any stance.
> 
> The body is designed to locomote directly forward in a series of controlled falls, based on the physics of an inverted pendulum. The pelvic girdle supports these controlled falls and maintains the femur knee relationship for that purpose, as structure is needed to support the human body as it completes one "fall cycle" after another moving forward.
> 
> ...


Well, this would explain why I took all of them out of my forms! Thanks for the science behind my poor but strongly held intuitive sense. :asian:



			
				MJS said:
			
		

> When I'm throwing a punch for a tech. I don't c step, I step.


Me too, Mike. My inspiration also came from another art (not EPAK, but CMA), but same result.


----------



## Hand Sword (Apr 23, 2008)

Me Too! And I kept on doing it inspite of constant reprimands through the years to "keep my 1/2 mooning tight!!!!"


----------



## DavidCC (Apr 23, 2008)

HKphooey said:


> None of us would use a horsestance is pratcial SD would we?  But it has a place in training.


 
I guess it depends on if you call the position where my feet are pointed to 1030, parallel to each other and about shoulder-width relative to each other, even though I am facing 12 -  a horse stance, or not.  If you do, then I would.


----------



## DavidCC (Apr 23, 2008)

Hand Sword said:


> I could buy it as a training tool for doing basics, but, to base combinations off of it? Not very realistic. As comprised the combos/dm's would have to be re-arranged if the 1/2 mooning was eliminated, and replaced with more realsitic attack sequences. Most of the follow ups and takedowns aren't there w/o the 1/2 mooning punch ins. The stance, can be practical (and is).


 
we don't have any problems doing techniques off of punches that are not c-stepped... 

a realistic 'overhand right' drags the right foot behind it ending right foot forward.  other attacks have other shapes... adapt and overcome.


----------



## MJS (Apr 23, 2008)

As the old saying goes....environment and target availability dictate what we do.  So, if we go on that, then yes, the 'ideal phase' technique is going to have the person step just right, etc., but when the 'what if' phase comes into play, we have to adapt what we're doing.  Whats more important, not getting hit or worrying about whether or not we do the tech. textbook?  If the person does not step and I can't do the takedown or sweep, I omit it all together and move onto something else.


----------



## JTKenpo (Apr 23, 2008)

DavidCC said:


> we don't have any problems doing techniques off of punches that are not c-stepped...
> 
> a realistic 'overhand right' drags the right foot behind it ending right foot forward. other attacks have other shapes... adapt and overcome.


 
I'm with David here.  I don't have to rearange the movements in 90% of the combos to work well off of a cross.  In fact very little has to be rearanged to use them off of other attacks.  A wise man once told me if a technique works off the inside of a right it should work off the outside of a left, a little theory on opposites and reverses.

Then again let me stop and say I have no idea how your combos work they may be different then mine.  Again as we all get further from the source things change get altered and modified hopefully for the better but not always.  I know personally I have seen techniques done differently and found out that it was my instructor that changed it and I went back to the way it was done before the change and vice versa.

Anyway, the combos as I was taught (for the most part) do not need to be reworked if you take out the half moon step.  Maybe you just need to look at the range of the attack.  As for the effectiveness of the half moon??  I see it more as a training tool then a realistic foot maneuver and yes I believe you need both.


----------



## Hand Sword (Apr 23, 2008)

DavidCC said:


> we don't have any problems doing techniques off of punches that are not c-stepped...
> 
> a realistic 'overhand right' drags the right foot behind it ending right foot forward. other attacks have other shapes... adapt and overcome.


 

That's my whole point! Real punches are not c-stepped in, so basing all defenses and combos off of that is not helpful. 

To the other point, usually realistic overhand rights keep the dragging foot back. They'll usually attempt to grab with their left and pummel with the right. If right handed, the power comes from the right leg  back. Occasionally though, they will come forward. However, that's a drunk's wild swing, as opposed to a 20 something club warrior. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 (everyone's a UFC star there! They watched the Spike tv marathon-lol 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




)


----------



## JTKenpo (Apr 23, 2008)

Hand Sword said:


> That's my whole point! Real punches are not c-stepped in, so basing all defenses and combos off of that is not helpful.
> quote]
> 
> Again, I believe you have to start somewhere and this is the ideal phase as MJS put it.  You have to learn the technique against something before you can play with it in different attacks.


----------



## DavidCC (Apr 23, 2008)

Hand Sword said:


> That's my whole point! Real punches are not c-stepped in, so basing all defenses and combos off of that is not helpful.


 
Although many of the combos do look for that punching-side foot forward, I don't think it matters if the attacker did a c-step or not.  Watching videos of real haymakers leads me to believe that the right foot usually follows the hand, ending up catching the balance of the puncher who typically over-extends.


----------



## DavidCC (Apr 23, 2008)

Doc said:


> This "C-Step" does not support the structure or proper anatomical alignment of any stance.
> 
> The body is designed to locomote directly forward in a series of controlled falls, based on the physics of an inverted pendulum.
> 
> It is important to understand that the Chinese taught many different things for many reasons. It was the Okinawan's and Japanese that decided that every move had a physical application


 

wikipedia has an interesting article on the inverted pendulum, I would have thought that it would act like a regualr pendulum but upon reading the article now I see why it is so.

Doc, is the C-step taught in CMA tradition?  if so, can you elaborate on some of the reasons it is taught, please?


----------



## Doc (Apr 23, 2008)

DavidCC said:


> Although many of the combos do look for that punching-side foot forward, I don't think it matters if the attacker did a c-step or not.  Watching videos of real haymakers leads me to believe that the right foot usually follows the hand, ending up catching the balance of the puncher who typically over-extends.



Exactly correct. The "step-through" punch is about definitions. The traditional "karate" step-through is not a realistic punch, but a stylistic "do" conceptual punch utilized in traditional karate-do training and usually includes the "C-Step" action, and bares no relationship to the reality of punching. 

As you stated Dave, most "punches from the rear" are thrown surreptitiously hard and fast with the intent of quick hard contact, and the body weight of the attacker follows through with the foot coming forward to catch one's balance. The operative word here is quick. If the punching hand has to "wait" for the rear leg to plant before the punch is thrown, relative speed of the punch is negated.

The coordinated hand/foot step through punch is a "karate fantasy" and has no place in non-traditional training of the arts, and most certainly not in a self-defense reality based system. 

Mr. Parker often railed and cautioned about utilizing moves or technique that are "traditional," without a true understanding of their meaning and historical purpose, yet many insisted on bringing their traditional training and background and infusing it into their self-defense training. 

This dichotomy of purpose has long plagued the Kenpo  Lineage's. When Mr. Parker changed directions, he dropped all of the traditional training methods of the Japanese, however many still cling to traditional rituals, methods, and even language that Parker never used, or completely dismissed in the late sixties.

This is why you will find people in the Parker Lineage who still call themselves "sensei," or award "dan" ranks of Japanese tradition when Parker said not to.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 23, 2008)

Doc said:


> Exactly correct. The "step-through" punch is about definitions. The traditional "karate" step-through is not a realistic punch, but a stylistic "do" conceptual punch utilized in traditional karate-do training and usually includes the "C-Step" action, and bares no relationship to the reality of punching.
> 
> As you stated Dave, most "punches from the rear" are thrown surreptitiously hard and fast with the intent of quick hard contact, and the body weight of the attacker follows through with the foot coming forward to catch one's balance. The operative word here is quick. If the punching hand has to "wait" for the rear leg to plant before the punch is thrown, relative speed of the punch is negated.
> 
> ...


If you are basing off your opponent with your hands via a grab for a take down and c-stepping through his leg or legs, wouldn't the structure of your stance be of less importance?
Sean


----------



## Doc (Apr 23, 2008)

DavidCC said:


> wikipedia has an interesting article on the inverted pendulum, I would have thought that it would act like a regualr pendulum but upon reading the article now I see why it is so.
> 
> Doc, is the C-step taught in CMA tradition?  if so, can you elaborate on some of the reasons it is taught, please?



I have never seen it used in the Chinese Combat Sciences. Who knows with "Wushu," the Chinese version of an "artistic discipline" over "functional application training."


----------



## Hand Sword (Apr 23, 2008)

JTKenpo said:


> Hand Sword said:
> 
> 
> > That's my whole point! Real punches are not c-stepped in, so basing all defenses and combos off of that is not helpful.
> ...


----------



## DavidCC (Apr 23, 2008)

Doc said:


> As you stated Dave, most "punches from the rear" are thrown surreptitiously hard and fast with the intent of quick hard contact, and the body weight of the attacker follows through with the foot coming forward to catch one's balance.


 
I have to admit, you pointed this out to me origianlly, but it didn't take too much YouTube to verify it.  Watching real fights is not nearly as fun as watching movie fights.  It's often nauseating, honestly.


----------



## JTKenpo (Apr 23, 2008)

Hand Sword said:


> JTKenpo said:
> 
> 
> > It's best to get it right the first time and build from there- right?
> ...


----------



## DavidCC (Apr 23, 2008)

Touch Of Death said:


> If you are basing off your opponent with your hands via a grab for a take down and c-stepping through his leg or legs, wouldn't the structure of your stance be of less importance?
> Sean


 
IMHO if you are in a grappling situation your structure is even MORE important


around? or through? are you referring to "osoto gari"?






Given the info here, I have to wonder if a c-step is in fact the correct mechanism. Would lifitng the foot on a circular path that went vertical and ended up in the same spot as the more horizontal c-step 
a) work at all
and 
b) be better?


----------



## Doc (Apr 23, 2008)

JTKenpo said:


> Hand Sword said:
> 
> 
> > Absolutely, but.....if that is the case then we need to go back and identify what the attack is in all of our combos, which we should anyway.  This has been touched upon in other threads.  Originally all the attacks were different, as they are in American Kenpo.  I believe the thought process should bring us here and just as we look deeper into forms we do that with combos as well.
> ...


----------



## DavidCC (Apr 23, 2008)

JTKenpo said:


> Hand Sword said:
> 
> 
> > Absolutely, but.....if that is the case then we need to go back and identify what the attack is in all of our combos, which we should anyway.
> ...


----------



## JTKenpo (Apr 23, 2008)

DavidCC said:


> Do your self a favor and add pushes.  It answers many questions, like the trapping on #16.


----------



## kidswarrior (Apr 23, 2008)

JTKenpo said:


> Do your self a favor and add pushes.  It answers many questions, like the trapping on #16.


Well, I think *David *has it right with the basic dichotomy of straight punch/round punch, but I believe you rightly add an important point with the pushes concept, *JT*. In fact, I'd probably make this category *pushes and grabs* since both have a stasis point at which the attacking hand comes to rest against the defender's body, and so can be manipulated. 

In other words, I believe there are the hard, percussive blows that *David *speaks of, and there are the messy, softer-landing pushes and grab attempts which *JT *points out, and which are subject to manipulation such as trapping.

Or am I missing something?


----------



## Hand Sword (Apr 23, 2008)

I could see it, but, pushes are going to land anyway as they come about in midst of a verbal exchange. Your response to it comes after the fact. That's ok though, it won't kill you (most likely). They can't be treated in defense like punches.


----------



## Hand Sword (Apr 23, 2008)

JTKenpo said:


> Hand Sword said:
> 
> 
> > Absolutely, but.....if that is the case then we need to go back and identify what the attack is in all of our combos, which we should anyway. This has been touched upon in other threads. Originally all the attacks were different, as they are in American Kenpo. I believe the thought process should bring us here and just as we look deeper into forms we do that with combos as well. To speculate why the half moon step was introduced to combos as attack I would have to say to simplify things. Bring it to the lowest common denominator so that people didn't have to learn 100 different attacks for 100 different defences. Again speculation, I wasn't there. So if you have been in the game awhile and have done these techniques a thousand or more times you should be comfortable enough with them to branch out for the attack. For better or worse there were changes made in the system to make it more "user friendly". The nice thing is that we all have free thought, so if you don't like the half moon there is no one going to show up and force you to train with it or teach it or like it.
> ...


----------



## 14 Kempo (Apr 24, 2008)

Hand Sword said:


> JTKenpo said:
> 
> 
> > !st point--I agree totally! I did see the watering down go on. However, what allowed me to function throough it were my experiences. That allowed me to do things correctly, in spite of constant reprimands. There is a forcing to use it unfortunately. However, I got away with it, not so much from practice of that a thousand or more times, but because I Knew better. From that view I was very lucky. Most are not, and shouldn't they be taught properly? (not a specific question to you, just one in general)
> ...


 
I use half-mooning or c-stepping in the beginning to allow the uke to be very predictable which then allows the student to spend the time needed trying to understand the concepts and theories of the movement before having to worry about getting hit. As a technique becomes more entrenched, we definately move onto more realistic attacks and even experiment with grabs, pushes, single arm, double-arm, left jab/right cross, left jab/right uppercut, etc, etc, etc. Point being that we use the halfmoon in the beginning stages of a given technique for safety, to both parties, and predictablility to allow the student to learn and grow.

If you all are good enough to learn a technique one minute and have a person punch at you with 'street-like' aggression the next, and you don't get knocked out or even hit ... and you're able to master a new technique and/or movement under those conditions ... well, let me just say, you're better than me.


----------



## JTKenpo (Apr 24, 2008)

Hand Sword said:


> I had actually posted that response earlier in the thread but 14kempo said pretty much the same thing here.  I use it for safety, it is easier to slap out when you are taken down off of the front leg.  I use it so people can focus on the defensive manuever, learn it and internalize it then vary the attack.  For me once you say this defensive manuever works against this attack it becomes very difficult for people to break away from that.  If you say we are going to start with this attack and then work other attacks it becomes easier to branch out.
> 
> I also view the half moon step as a forms version of a step through  Just as with form applications there are going to be slight alterations to make the bunkai work.
> 
> As for realistic, well it has its uses in getting around someone from a hold but not in a punch application.  Bear hugs come to mind first and foremost.  Striking the attacker in what ever way you were taught for a  bear hug defense then drawing feet together and stepping behind the attacker to set up some sort of throw (again depending on your discipline).


----------



## JTKenpo (Apr 24, 2008)

kidswarrior said:


> Well, I think *David *has it right with the basic dichotomy of straight punch/round punch, but I believe you rightly add an important point with the pushes concept, *JT*. In fact, I'd probably make this category *pushes and grabs* since both have a stasis point at which the attacking hand comes to rest against the defender's body, and so can be manipulated.
> 
> In other words, I believe there are the hard, percussive blows that *David *speaks of, and there are the messy, softer-landing pushes and grab attempts which *JT *points out, and which are subject to manipulation such as trapping.
> 
> Or am I missing something?


 

Not missing a thing.  The only reason I would group pushes with punches is that they share similar paths of motion and there intent is to get you going backwards.  Where a grab is stationary and normally the thing you have to worry about is not the hand that grabbed you but the free hand which is probably about to be swung.


----------



## JTKenpo (Apr 24, 2008)

Hand Sword said:


> I could see it, but, pushes are going to land anyway as they come about in midst of a verbal exchange. Your response to it comes after the fact. That's ok though, it won't kill you (most likely). They can't be treated in defense like punches.


 
Um....huh?

Why can't pushes be treated in defense like punches?  Do you mean because of the intent to do harm is greater in a punch?  Every one of the #combos can be used against a push.  As for a push landing, it has the same amount of chance as a punch landing.  Unless of course the person drops their hands to their toes to throw the punch.  Again if you mean that the damage inflicted by a punch is greater then absolutely but the actual act of defending a push?  # combination that does not work against a push?

Actually this would make for an interesting thread of its own.  What has to be changed to use each combo off of a different attack?  Anyone game?


----------



## MJS (Apr 24, 2008)

JTKenpo said:


> Actually this would make for an interesting thread of its own. What has to be changed to use each combo off of a different attack? Anyone game?


 
I agree!  Here ya go!

Mike


----------



## DavidCC (Apr 24, 2008)

14 Kempo said:


> If you all are good enough to learn a technique one minute and have a person punch at you with 'street-like' aggression the next, and you don't get knocked out or even hit ... and you're able to master a new technique and/or movement under those conditions ... well, let me just say, you're better than me.


 
a practice attack can have the same "shape" or "path" of the street attack at a slower speed and with less "agression"...


----------



## DavidCC (Apr 24, 2008)

JTKenpo said:


> Um....huh?
> 
> Why can't pushes be treated in defense like punches? Do you mean because of the intent to do harm is greater in a punch? Every one of the #combos can be used against a push. As for a push landing, it has the same amount of chance as a punch landing. Unless of course the person drops their hands to their toes to throw the punch. Again if you mean that the damage inflicted by a punch is greater then absolutely but the actual act of defending a push? # combination that does not work against a push?
> 
> Actually this would make for an interesting thread of its own. What has to be changed to use each combo off of a different attack? Anyone game?


 

At a superficial level the SHAPE and APEPARANCE of a straight punch and a one handed push are similar while the push is still ATTEMPTED. 
However when examined in more detail, the sturcture and behavior of the attackers legs and hips, hips and torso, torso and arms, arms and hands are all different when punching vs when pushing.  It's not just the velocity of the hand moving towards you, it is the shape of the hand, the flex of the wrist, the orientation of the elbow and shoulder etc etc it's all different and so they need to be addressed differently because his reaction to your action will be different (becasue of the difference in his intent and structure).  

So while the path of travel of an attempted push and a punch are similar enough to allow you to address them both with the same response, technqiues which rely on predictable reaction from the attacker subsequent to your initial action will take different paths as he reacts differently.


Addressing "pushes vs attempted pushes" forces you to deal with the recovery from the effects of being pushed, and while you are recovering the attacker is still moving too... probably not standing there with his arm or arms outstretched.  So I don't think a technique for "a push" is a detailed enough attack scenario to have a single technique to address it.  "2 handed push with follow-up right punch" or "2 handed push then bear hug at the waist" or "Right handed push with follow-up left punch" those make for good combos.


----------



## 14 Kempo (Apr 24, 2008)

DavidCC said:


> a practice attack can have the same "shape" or "path" of the street attack at a slower speed and with less "agression"...


 
Agreed, and that is exactly something that we do after the student grasps the basic concepts and theories behind the new movement(s). We can argue the point all day long, this is how I believe it to be best for my students to learn properly. The way you do it is probably a proven method in how you teach. Neither is wrong, both cover all the bases and reach the same goal.


----------



## JTKenpo (Apr 24, 2008)

DavidCC said:


> At a superficial level the SHAPE and APEPARANCE of a straight punch and a one handed push are similar while the push is still ATTEMPTED.
> However when examined in more detail, the sturcture and behavior of the attackers legs and hips, hips and torso, torso and arms, arms and hands are all different when punching vs when pushing. It's not just the velocity of the hand moving towards you, it is the shape of the hand, the flex of the wrist, the orientation of the elbow and shoulder etc etc it's all different and so they need to be addressed differently because his reaction to your action will be different (becasue of the difference in his intent and structure).
> 
> So while the path of travel of an attempted push and a punch are similar enough to allow you to address them both with the same response, technqiues which rely on predictable reaction from the attacker subsequent to your initial action will take different paths as he reacts differently.
> ...


 

David, I think you missed my point.  In combos I was referring to #1,2,3,4,5.....not jab, cross, shoot for the leg.  Again, in the # combo's which one can NOT be used against a push?


----------



## JTKenpo (Apr 24, 2008)

14 Kempo said:


> Agreed, and that is exactly something that we do after the student grasps the basic concepts and theories behind the new movement(s). *We can argue the point all day long, this is how I believe it to be best for my students to learn properly*. The way you do it is probably a proven method in how you teach. Neither is wrong, both cover all the bases and reach the same goal.


 

110% agreed!!  I Love new ideas and when people show me something I haven't thought of, been shown before, or thought of in that manner it makes me smile for days.  But when it turns to "yuhuh....nuhuh" I'm all set thanks.


----------



## Doc (Apr 24, 2008)

JTKenpo said:


> Not missing a thing.  The only reason I would group pushes with punches is that they share similar paths of motion and there intent is to get you going backwards.  Where a grab is stationary and normally the thing you have to worry about is not the hand that grabbed you but the free hand which is probably about to be swung.



Grabs are NOT stationary.


----------



## JTKenpo (Apr 24, 2008)

Doc said:


> Grabs are NOT stationary.


 

Ok, how about a dead attack vs a live attack?  Can we say a grab is a dead attack?


----------



## MJS (Apr 24, 2008)

JTKenpo said:


> Ok, how about a dead attack vs a live attack? Can we say a grab is a dead attack?


 
My understanding of this...the hands are committed with the grab.  Unlike a punch, which is moving.  But, once they have grabbed, the next course of action will either be a push or pull with the grab.


----------



## 14 Kempo (Apr 24, 2008)

MJS said:


> My understanding of this...the hands are committed with the grab. Unlike a punch, which is moving. But, once they have grabbed, the next course of action will either be a push or pull with the grab.


 
... and let us not forget, if it is a single hand grab, the other hand is normally clenched and approaching.


----------



## Doc (Apr 24, 2008)

JTKenpo said:


> Ok, how about a dead attack vs a live attack?  Can we say a grab is a dead attack?



No sir. All attacks by definition are "alive." Mr. Parker used to refer to what he called a "dead hand" and utilized that concept in his creation of the "Web of Knowledge." That is once the seizing process is completed, the hand is momentarily "dead." There is a compressed space of time where the hand is doing nothing but seizing. However, this is potentially a very small window depending upon the Psychology of Confrontation Intent of the attacker. However, even seizes or grabs bring with it significant body momentum that will affect your body. Seizes in many cases are no less violent that punches, have the potential to have the same effect as punches, and are no less lethal, and in some cases may be more so. Speaking specifically of "pushes," most pushes begin with first, the intent of a level of intimidation, followed by limited control, usually as a precursor to further action.


----------



## DavidCC (Apr 24, 2008)

JTKenpo said:


> David, I think you missed my point. In combos I was referring to #1,2,3,4,5.....not jab, cross, shoot for the leg. Again, in the # combo's which one can NOT be used against a push?


 
haha actually you missed mine 

our combos, for the most part, depend on specific reactions on the part of the other guy, right? "punch him here, his body does this, that allows me to do that". Not all of them, #6 of course does not LOL, but many do.



SO my point is, 

the attacker's reaction to our actions will be different depending on if he is punching or pushing, even though outwardly the attacks appear very similar.  




Lets look at #7. This is what we do: wghen you perceive the incoming punch, hop or step to 730 into a left flamingo, deliver a right side thrust kick to floating ribs.

if you are pushed, you cannot do this technique. It's too late. You can regain your balance and do it against his next attack... maybe...

attempted push - if he has his arms 'loaded' (elbows back, hands up by the chest, palms facing forward, weight shifted forward in anticipation of resistance) and you hop to 730 for the kick, he has plenty of time to track your movement and adjust his attack.  At the moment he initiates the push (loading his arms) he is probably already MUCH closer to you than he would be if he was going to punch.  In reality I think it happens way too fast and too close to head off an attack like this.

So while "arm extended" is a common shape wiithin a push and a punch, they are far from the same attack and deserve to be addressed with different responses.


----------



## DavidCC (Apr 24, 2008)

Touch Of Death said:


> If you are basing off your opponent with your hands via a grab for a take down and c-stepping through his leg or legs, wouldn't the structure of your stance be of less importance?
> Sean


 
If you do in fact mean something like osoto gari (see post 38 above), the videos and pics I have seen of JUDO guys doing this does not use a c step at all. the hips are aligned to 11 or 1030 even, the right leg comes straigth through the gap and goes straight back to 430 taking other guys right foot with it.


----------



## Doc (Apr 24, 2008)

DavidCC said:


> haha actually you missed mine
> 
> our combos, for the most part, depend on specific reactions on the part of the other guy, right? "punch him here, his body does this, that allows me to do that". Not all of them, #6 of course does not LOL, but many do.
> 
> ...


I have no idea what you guys are talking about, I only know that the parts I do understand Dave, make sense to me.


----------



## Doc (Apr 24, 2008)

DavidCC said:


> If you do in fact mean something like osoto gari (see post 38 above), the videos and pics I have seen of JUDO guys doing this does not use a c step at all. the hips are aligned to 11 or 1030 even, the right leg comes straigth through the gap and goes straight back to 430 taking other guys right foot with it.



The reason the "C-Step" is Not used in grappling arts, is because the physical demand is functionality first in "Rondori." The "C-Step" leaves you open for a counter takedown.


----------



## JTKenpo (Apr 24, 2008)

DavidCC said:


> haha actually you missed mine
> 
> our combos, for the most part, depend on specific reactions on the part of the other guy, right? "punch him here, his body does this, that allows me to do that". Not all of them, #6 of course does not LOL, but many do.
> 
> ...


 
All I'm saying is give it a try. Have your training partner give you a shove, I believe you will be able to get off any of your # combos.

Or don't thats cool too.


----------



## Hand Sword (Apr 25, 2008)

As practiced Push and punch defenses can translate to each other. An extended arm is an extended arm. I was speaking in terms of reality. A push will land, then you'll react. An attempt at a punch has a different flow, (unless a sucker punch) which allows you to "set up" and deal with it. Pushes are quick, and in close, usually during a verbal exchange of some sort. It will be very rare that you'll be ready to "catch" an attempted push as it comes and treat it like a punch attack.


----------



## Hand Sword (Apr 25, 2008)

OK so, from what I've gotten some have kept it, some have dumped it. Those that do it, how do you functionally use it and for what reasons behind that use?


----------



## Danjo (Apr 25, 2008)

Hand Sword said:


> OK so, from what I've gotten some have kept it, some have dumped it. Those that do it, how do you functionally use it and for what reasons behind that use?


 
From the way we used it in Shotokan, the mid-point of the c-step was when everything would contract, sort of like coiling a spring, and then explode out in the second part of the movement. The problem is that it doesn't seem to have much applicablilty in a real life situation. Also, at the mid point, when the feet come together, it would leave you with very little base, so someone with good timing could use that to their advantage.


----------



## 14 Kempo (Apr 25, 2008)

One could argue that no matter what the movement, a foot must come up off the ground to make that movement, and somebody with good timing will have an advantage at that given moment in time. One foot in the air, no matter the width of the stance from which the movement began, has the base of the width of the foot that remains on the ground. Do we them conclude that you must not move to not narrow your base and therefore become vulnerable? 
Half-mooning, feet come together as one passes the other. Shuffle stepping, feet come together before switching to the other foot. Twist stance, feet come awfully close together for that moment in transition. Lifting the foot to kick, single foot as a base. Where does it end. 
We could tear apart just about any movement. Does this mean that everything we are taught that has movement is incorrect? Or is it maybe that we don't take the time to understand the movement and jump to conclusions. What I'm getting at here is the devil's advocate of sorts. Each movement has its strengths and weaknesses. Training and experience will play a major role on where, when and in what circumstances with which to use a particular movement. IMHO


----------



## Doc (Apr 25, 2008)

14 Kempo said:


> One could argue that no matter what the movement, a foot must come up off the ground to make that movement,


That would be correct sir.


> and somebody with good timing will have an advantage at that given moment in time. One foot in the air, no matter the width of the stance from which the movement began, has the base of the width of the foot that remains on the ground.


Well sir that is only if there a lack of understanding of "how" footwork is executed. Most do so from a "disassociated perspective" and that leads to a lack of structural integrity in the body as a whole. If foot work is executed properly, neither upper or lower body stability is compromised. That is the whole reason for my condemnation of the "c-step" movement.


> Do we them conclude that you must not move to not narrow your base and therefore become vulnerable?


No, we must move properly.


> Half-mooning, feet come together as one passes the other. Shuffle stepping, feet come together before switching to the other foot. Twist stance, feet come awfully close together for that moment in transition. Lifting the foot to kick, single foot as a base. Where does it end.


As I've often said, it is "how" you move your feet relative to each other and the pelvic girdle, and upper body that will determine whether or not structure and stance viability is proper.


> We could tear apart just about any movement. Does this mean that everything we are taught that has movement is incorrect? Or is it maybe that we don't take the time to understand the movement and jump to conclusions.


You are correct here sir. The truth is; the "concepts" are valid, however few know how to execute them correctly.


> What I'm getting at here is the devil's advocate of sorts. Each movement has its strengths and weaknesses.


Excellent point, and you are unequivocally correct. All physical movement is dedicated to a specific activity, and therefore is vulnerable to weakness to any physicality not a part of the intended action. This is normal. When you are "walking" straight ahead, even light physical contact or  a laterally "bump" will knock you off your stride rather easily, or worse. That's normal human physics.


> Training and experience will play a major role on where, when and in what circumstances with which to use a particular movement. IMHO


Correct again sir. The trick is to be taught properly "how" to execute these movements with maximum structure so it maintain efficacy with regard to the dedicated activity, regardless of whether you engage at the intended height, width, and/or depth.

When utilizing footwork, it shouldn't matter if you cannot complete the foot movement. You should be structurally sound when you begin, and maintain that anatomical congruency through the entire movement to its conclusion. 

I have routinely demonstrated this by having students stand on one leg in the middle of a movement, and yet they are difficult to move. And even when they are overwhelmed by the mass of an attacker, they simply return to the previous position with no loss of structure or stability, and stop the body momentum of the assault.

This is not something special, it's just performing footwork and movement correctly. You are right again. Training is everywhere. Proper training is not.
I used to have a sign of my office door that said;

The Doctor is in.

Answers: $10.00
Correct Answers: $1000
Dumb Looks: Free 

Excellent observations on your part sir.


----------



## DavidCC (Apr 25, 2008)

JTKenpo said:


> In American Kenpo they have many push attacks and in my opinion they can all be converted to defend against a punch and vice versa with punch defenses.



I have seen many very heated arguments on this topic among AK guys of all ranks.  But "can work" is a vague.  Is treating a push like a punch better than doing nothing? sure is.  Are the better solutions? Yes.




JTKenpo said:


> In a confrontation why would you allow someone to get that close and close the gap? Not to say all attacks start with confrontation. I understand that people walk up unprovoked and do stupid stuff all the time.



That's a good question.  Before I give you some reasons someone might be that close, I should ask: if my reasons are not sufficiently convincing, will you stop training against attacks which can only be launched from very close range? 




JTKenpo said:


> All I'm saying is give it a try. Have your training partner give you a shove, I believe you will be able to get off any of your # combos.
> 
> Or don't thats cool too.


 
You mean a really good shove, the kind that makes you have to take 2 or 3 steps before you rgain control of your balance?

Do you do technique from the range you are at when you regain balance or do you start firing off strikes while still trying to recover?

We spend time doing this drill:

_stand with your eyes closed in a natural stance, arms folded.  Partner shoves you hard with both hands towards 6.  Don't fall down.  Come to a stable stance with a guard._

So, you know, we shove each other a lot. Probably more than most...


----------



## DavidCC (Apr 25, 2008)

> Quote:
> What I'm getting at here is the devil's advocate of sorts. Each movement has its strengths and weaknesses.
> Excellent point, and you are unequivocally correct. All physical movement is dedicated to a specific activity, and therefore is vulnerable to weakness to any physicality not a part of the intended action. This is normal. When you are "walking" straight ahead, even light physical contact or a laterally "bump" will knock you off your stride rather easily, or worse. That's normal human physics.


 
ever seen a Frank Soto video?

If you knew all of the ways to do this, nobody could touch you and it probably wouldn't even look like you were trying


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 25, 2008)

DavidCC said:


> If you do in fact mean something like osoto gari (see post 38 above), the videos and pics I have seen of JUDO guys doing this does not use a c step at all. the hips are aligned to 11 or 1030 even, the right leg comes straigth through the gap and goes straight back to 430 taking other guys right foot with it.


Well I was never taught the half-moon but it seems that once you are at contact manipulation it could be usefull, but I'm not real clear on the half moon stuff anyway. I'm sure its done better in Judo.
Sean


----------



## JTKenpo (Apr 25, 2008)

DavidCC said:


> [/color]
> I have seen many very heated arguments on this topic among AK guys of all ranks. But "can work" is a vague. Is treating a push like a punch better than doing nothing? sure is. Are the better solutions? Yes.
> 
> 
> ...


 

Heated arguments, no couldn't be.  I'm not saying your training is deficient only offering an opinion that works for me, nothing more nothing less.


----------



## DavidCC (Apr 25, 2008)

JTKenpo said:


> Heated arguments, no couldn't be. I'm not saying your training is deficient only offering an opinion that works for me, nothing more nothing less.


 

me too bro


----------



## SK101 (May 3, 2008)

Just my two cents on the subject. there are two areas to cover halfmooning and half moon stance.

starting with the stance it is designed to allow all 4 limbs to attack easier than a defensive stance such as the side horse stance. Disadvantage compared to a closed up stance like side horse or back stance in the korean system is more targets are available to the attacker. If you want more protection you used a closed up stance to attack with more options the open type of stance such as half moon. 

  half moon stance has the advantage of being able to pivot from a stance facing 12:00 to a stance facing 9:00 if right leg is forward or 12:00 to 3:00 if left leg is forward. from a closed type stance you .can't do that transition so easily. I.E. someone swings a rt. side club you step forward with the right foot and pivot to 9:00 strike bicep and wrist. you can immediatly pivot to 12:00 and strike the color bones with driving shutos. If I were in a closed stance for the block I would have to step instead of just pivoting. 

   there is advantage and disadvantage on about everything. Generally there is much less right and wrong than it appears.


----------



## SK101 (May 3, 2008)

Now my two cents on halfmooning -

   It is the footwork in SK that is generally used to teach DMs/Combos. Having 1 type of footwork and 1 dominant form of attack, right straight punch, allows students to pick up a technique quickly as their attacker isn't varying on each punch in. after the student has some rank then the punch in my opinion should be dozens of different ways as the student should be able to now vary the technique based on variations of the attack. Memorizing DMs is also much faster when you have 1 major way of attacking as you don't have to memorize how to attack on each technique.

   Half mooning backwards is also only a teaching tool. It is to teach a student to shift there weight 50%/50% as they move. SK has much more focus on weight being centralized rather than shifting most weight to the front leg to maximize power. Advantage faster mobility, disadvantage if your weight is centered there is less power than if most weight is on the forward leg during a strike. When SK does place most weight to the front leg it is on the side leaning or front leaning stances. These are much less common in the official material. It shows that the Masters focused more on Fluidity than absolute power on a strike. 

    Halfmooning back is eventually removed as a student goes higher in rank. the question in most SK schools is when do you remove it. My view is at green any technique that half moons back is slide back. there is no self defense advantage I am aware for half mooning backward besides learning to shift the weight evenly.

   half mooning forward on the other is to either to go around obstacles, around legs, or to hit the inside of the leg. If your not doing 1 of these 3 than to the best of my knowledge there is no purpose except to learn to shift the weight in the 50/50 way.

   Someone said on the posts there is no hip rotation on a half moon stance. There is almost always hip rotation, rising, or falling available on 
every movement. the begining of Kata 1 is learning marriage to gravity. the beginning of Kata 2 is to teach the potential to rise and drop. Pinan 1 the hips swing out on every block then return forward and on the straight punches reverse direction as soon as your foot reaches its destination and you have hip rotation on the strike. If the rear heel comes off the floor to allow more rotation the stance mearly changes from a half moon to a tiger stance. This would be done if you are striking with the rear hand.


----------



## SK101 (May 3, 2008)

This has been touched upon in other threads. Originally all the attacks were different, as they are in American Kenpo. I believe the thought process should bring us here and just as we look deeper into forms we do that with combos as well. To speculate why the half moon step was introduced to combos as attack I would have to say to simplify things. Bring it to the lowest common denominator so that people didn't have to learn 100 different attacks for 100 different defences. Again speculation, I wasn't there. So if you have been in the game awhile and have done these techniques a thousand or more times you should be comfortable enough with them to branch out for the attack. For better or worse there were changes made in the system to make it more "user friendly". The nice thing is that we all have free thought, so if you don't like the half moon there is no one going to show up and force you to train with it or teach it or like it.

What your saying makes absolute sense to me. If you look at a DM you should be able to see a cross hand wrist grab or an overhead club simply by varying mainly initial footwork and the initial block. Often a non straight punch attack is easier to do on a particular DM than the actual way it is initially taught. Having one attack method is a very easy way to get the student to memorize than take them into different attacks once the coordination begins to develop. Saying you have to make it as realistic as possible may be no different than saying you should teach words before letters, because people say words more than they say letters. It is whatever takes the student from point A to B in the least amount of time. Confusion or lack of coordination plagues almost all students in the beginning and if you have one with the coordination early than you can fast track their training by employing higher rank training methods early on if they are ready from day one.


----------



## SK101 (May 3, 2008)

Do your self a favor and add pushes. It answers many questions, like the trapping on #16.

there is version of 16 with an inverted side kick instead of a front ball kick which makes the technique easier in my opinion and is the exact positioning oddly as one of the little monk statues. I think the front ball kick version gives you more range if your defending against a taller opponent, but for me I find it harder to perform than with the inverted side kick.

   One of the SK masters was confronted outside a movie theater. The attacker started poking his chest with his pointer finger. he used the twin tiger's mouth break from 16, which makes alot of sense someone poking a finger is locking or almost locking the elbow. It seems alot easier to me to break an extended arm that way than try to catch one although I find when you kick the shin with the inverted side kick people leave the arm out while they catch their balance.


----------



## SK101 (May 3, 2008)

our combos, for the most part, depend on specific reactions on the part of the other guy, right? "punch him here, his body does this, that allows me to do that". Not all of them, #6 of course does not LOL, but many do.

It is principle not technique that is King in SK. If you have to have the attacker do a specific thing then you must have a technique for all possible variationa or at least the ones that are more common. If you take a technique and explore the what ifs and the principles than how the attacker attacks is less relevant. How they attack is always rellavant. If we take it to an extreme and so what if are attacker is a better martial artist than we are than obviously our defense probably won't work, but in my humble opinion we train for the guy who is going to mug us in an alley not what happens if a shaolin monk attacks me in my studio for no reason.
In my opinion most people will have an easier time making it through life without taking a beating by having alot of humility and a fair amount of MA talent rather than a huge amount of MA talent, but little or no humility.


----------



## SK101 (May 3, 2008)

Lets look at #7. This is what we do: wghen you perceive the incoming punch, hop or step to 730 into a left flamingo, deliver a right side thrust kick to floating ribs.

Pretty similar. Difference for me being I step back and execute a right knife block to the arm followed by the side kick.

if you are pushed, you cannot do this technique. It's too late. You can regain your balance and  it against his next attack... maybe...

this is true. One of the primary principles for the version of 7 you are executing is evasion of an attack. If you are pushed you can't evade it since that would be the equavalent of saying how do you do 7 if they already hit you with the punch. the principle isn't possible so you need a different principle or evade before they push you. Let say it is a right push aiming at your right shoulder. Maybe you step with the left toward 6 or 6:30 then pivoting side kick or perhaps another DM would be more efficient off of an attempted push. If they do push step back with the side you are pusher on and hit with the opposite hand willow palm as their push is feeding the energy of your strike.


----------



## Hand Sword (Jan 2, 2009)

SK101 said:


> This has been touched upon in other threads. Originally all the attacks were different, as they are in American Kenpo. I believe the thought process should bring us here and just as we look deeper into forms we do that with combos as well. To speculate why the half moon step was introduced to combos as attack I would have to say to simplify things. Bring it to the lowest common denominator so that people didn't have to learn 100 different attacks for 100 different defences. Again speculation, I wasn't there. So if you have been in the game awhile and have done these techniques a thousand or more times you should be comfortable enough with them to branch out for the attack. For better or worse there were changes made in the system to make it more "user friendly". The nice thing is that we all have free thought, so if you don't like the half moon there is no one going to show up and force you to train with it or teach it or like it.
> 
> What your saying makes absolute sense to me. If you look at a DM you should be able to see a cross hand wrist grab or an overhead club simply by varying mainly initial footwork and the initial block. Often a non straight punch attack is easier to do on a particular DM than the actual way it is initially taught. Having one attack method is a very easy way to get the student to memorize than take them into different attacks once the coordination begins to develop. Saying you have to make it as realistic as possible may be no different than saying you should teach words before letters, because people say words more than they say letters. It is whatever takes the student from point A to B in the least amount of time. Confusion or lack of coordination plagues almost all students in the beginning and if you have one with the coordination early than you can fast track their training by employing higher rank training methods early on if they are ready from day one.


 
The same precision could be, is and WAS attained BEFORE half mooning came in. The real attacks could be slowed down to make it easier for a new student to get it. Then the wiring in the brain will be used to a more realistic stimuli. In the end the same results were there: safety, coordination (properly for the real stuff), and technique.


----------



## punisher73 (Jan 2, 2009)

Back to half-mooning, I just recently watched a video by Morio Higoanna.  He is one of the highest ranking Goju-ryu masters and has always tried to go back to the original chinese sources and focused on reality for his kata applications.

When he talked about the c-step he said it was for practice only and in real application you just move the foot straight ahead when you are trying to move quickly.


----------



## DavidCC (Jan 2, 2009)

Hand Sword said:


> The same precision could be, is and WAS attained BEFORE half mooning came in. The real attacks could be slowed down to make it easier for a new student to get it. Then the wiring in the brain will be used to a more realistic stimuli. In the end the same results were there: safety, coordination (properly for the real stuff), and technique.


 
I don't know what's in the air today but I feel like I have posted that same thing in like 3 different threads already today


----------



## DavidCC (Jan 2, 2009)

punisher73 said:


> Back to half-mooning, I just recently watched a video by Morio Higoanna. He is one of the highest ranking Goju-ryu masters and has always tried to go back to the original chinese sources and focused on reality for his kata applications.
> 
> When he talked about the c-step he said it was for practice only and in real application you just move the foot straight ahead when you are trying to move quickly.


 
"if you don't do what you do then what are you doing?"


----------



## Doc (Jan 2, 2009)

DavidCC said:


> "if you don't do what you do then what are you doing?"


- Ed Parker Sr.


----------



## IWishToLearn (Jan 2, 2009)

Doc said:


> - Ed Parker Sr.


No fair. You were probably there with the other dinosaurs when he first said it.


----------



## DavidCC (Jan 5, 2009)

Doc said:


> - Ed Parker Sr.


 
you didn't think I wasn't paying attention, did you?


----------



## Doc (Jan 5, 2009)

DavidCC said:


> you didn't think I wasn't paying attention, did you?



Wise guy! "Fix your rear foot!"


----------



## DavidCC (Jan 6, 2009)

Doc said:


> Wise guy! "Fix your rear foot!"


 
LOL I must be moving up in the world, this is a big improvement over fixing both feet!


----------



## TenTigers (Aug 26, 2009)

"It is important to understand that the Chinese taught many different things for many reasons. It was the Okinawan's and Japanese that decided that every move had a physical application, and corrupted the process and misread "indexes of information" and transformed it into what they called Bunkai. Historical anecdotes suggest that the movements are derived from the clearing of the long Samurai Robes, and later "hakama of the Japanese, and is not seen or utilized in that manner in the Chinese Combat Sciences. "

ok, before the "experts" throw the baby out with the bathwater, and "Improve" on their technique by omitting the half-moon or "c" step, let's clarify a few things;
1-every move actually does have a practical application. You may not have been taught it, or cannot see it-yet, but why on Earth would someone add useless movements to a system of fighting designed for lifesaving self-defense?

2- The "C"  step was not used for clearing of the robes or hakama, as the feet move freely under the hakama-which HIDES the movements.
3- They most certainly ARE used combatively in "Chinese Combat Sciences."
The "C" step, or half-moon step is used to step to position yourself off centerline or to the blind side of your attacker, or his foot to immobilize it. 
It is also used to manuver around a sweep, or for a sweep.
(makes you wonder what Higaonna learned as well. I know several high dan practitioners of Goju-Ryu, who also have very little understanding of their techniques-which is why when they spar, they simply kick/punch. Sad, really.)
Now, the Half-moon STANCE, on the other hand is nonesense. The structural alignments are all disjointed and unconnected, which provides zero base for generation of  power, and leaves your groin wide open.

I remember Fred Bagley claiming it was superior, as it forms a tripod.
Any middle school student with basic geometry knows that any two points on a plane, your feet/stance-can be bisected with a perpendicular line of force. There is no tripod-unless you happen to be very well endowed...!

These concepts are taught to beginners in "Chinese Combat Sciences," 
so I don't know where these _Experts_ are getting their info from....


----------



## Doc (Aug 27, 2009)

TenTigers said:


> "It is important to understand that the Chinese taught many different things for many reasons. It was the Okinawan's and Japanese that decided that every move had a physical application, and corrupted the process and misread "indexes of information" and transformed it into what they called Bunkai. Historical anecdotes suggest that the movements are derived from the clearing of the long Samurai Robes, and later "hakama of the Japanese, and is not seen or utilized in that manner in the Chinese Combat Sciences. "
> 
> ok, before the "experts" throw the baby out with the bathwater, and "Improve" on their technique by omitting the half-moon or "c" step, let's clarify a few things;
> 1-every move actually does have a practical application. You may not have been taught it, or cannot see it-yet, but why on Earth would someone add useless movements to a system of fighting designed for lifesaving self-defense?
> ...



Some of us "experts" who haven't been around as long as you, are just stupid. However we are speaking within the context of punching and moving forward in stance, so I stand by my assertion with the other dumb experts.


----------



## shaolinmonkmark (Aug 27, 2009)

TenTigers said:


> "It is important to understand that the Chinese taught many different things for many reasons. It was the Okinawan's and Japanese that decided that every move had a physical application, and corrupted the process and misread "indexes of information" and transformed it into what they called Bunkai. Historical anecdotes suggest that the movements are derived from the clearing of the long Samurai Robes, and later "hakama of the Japanese, and is not seen or utilized in that manner in the Chinese Combat Sciences. "
> 
> ok, before the "experts" throw the baby out with the bathwater, and "Improve" on their technique by omitting the half-moon or "c" step, let's clarify a few things;
> 1-every move actually does have a practical application. You may not have been taught it, or cannot see it-yet, but why on Earth would someone add useless movements to a system of fighting designed for lifesaving self-defense?
> ...


 





i see and use both halfmoon/cstep, and angular footworks as well.
My prime art is skk, and i use half moon to check and pin with knee, and take out an opponent's stance by doing this, and for sweeps.
everyone has their only style, and thus i say again, "
"Different strokes for different folks!"
LOL!


----------



## mwd0818 (Aug 27, 2009)

They have their use in a very limited form.  Unfortunately, it's use is so much more narrow than what most SKK practitioners would like to see.

Getting around a leg?  Sure, but why not go through it?  You want to sweep it?  That's fine - the Half-Mooning is correct, but in SKK it has become isolated on a plane and moves only in two dimensions.  Watch judo guys, they do the C-step in 3 dimensional space, and it becomes a much tighter circle and also much more effective.


----------



## TenTigers (Aug 27, 2009)

Doc said:


> Some of us "experts" who haven't been around as long as you, are just stupid. However we are speaking within the context of punching and moving forward in stance, so I stand by my assertion with the other dumb experts.


 
Nah, I certainly don't think you are stupid, and you have probably been around longer than I have. Throwing out the circling footwork has been going on for quite some time. When I studied TKD in '75, they changed their footwork-"Because you don't walk like this!"
Stepping in to feed a strike using the half-moon step, is just reinforcing muscle memory. I also practice Southern Praying Mantis (Kwong Sai Jook Lum Ji Nam Tong Long P'ai) and when we "feed" during the two man set, the same footwork is used-although we don't use the "Half-moon stance!"
-don't get me started...


----------



## TenTigers (Aug 27, 2009)

mwd0818 said:


> Getting around a leg? Sure, but why not go through it? .


because you can't always go through it. Sometimes, you want to zone to the blind side. Sometimes your opponent is bigger, or has a full head of steam on. If you limit yourself to this, then you cut down on your options. Pretty soon, you have stripped away the essentials.


----------



## mwd0818 (Aug 31, 2009)

TenTigers said:


> because you can't always go through it. Sometimes, you want to zone to the blind side. Sometimes your opponent is bigger, or has a full head of steam on. If you limit yourself to this, then you cut down on your options. Pretty soon, you have stripped away the essentials.



True.  There are always exceptions and differences.  My comment about "getting around a leg?  Sure, but why not go through it?" was designed to be a question that has two answers:

1) Because of xxx (which you supplied an example of)
2) Oh . . . well, maybe that is a better option.

I've been in SKK and half-mooning for 20-something years and they do have a place, but they are over-used in the system and often done thoughtlessly.  In addition, there are often better ways of moving that keep a better anatomical structure and amplify the dimensions of your techniques (providing more options).  I have also been around a lot of other arts and have seen C-steps and Half-moons used quite a bit, but never so much as in Shaolin Kempo Karate.


----------



## shaolinmonkmark (Aug 31, 2009)

mwd0818 said:


> True. There are always exceptions and differences. My comment about "getting around a leg? Sure, but why not go through it?" was designed to be a question that has two answers:
> 
> 1) Because of xxx (which you supplied an example of)
> 2) Oh . . . well, maybe that is a better option.
> ...


 

some kempo styles now use the "Twist Stance-Step out!"
As well!
LOL!!!
(sounds like maybe another thread??? LOL)


----------



## mwd0818 (Aug 31, 2009)

shaolinmonkmark said:


> some kempo styles now use the "Twist Stance-Step out!"
> As well!
> LOL!!!
> (sounds like maybe another thread??? LOL)



Don't get me started on that one . . .


----------

