# Concepts - Ideal vs What If with Lee Wedlake



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 4, 2011)




----------



## ATACX GYM (Jul 5, 2011)

Mr. Wedlake's explanation is spot on,and imho very accurately displays the preposterous fallacy of having nonfunctional Ideal techs in the first place.If you have functional ideal techs,you practically perforce have addressed the primary and most common what-if's of those scenarios too...and get both a lifelong infinitely varying workout and a constantly improving level of understanding of your Kenpo in the process.Neither of those Crosses variants has a chance in the world of working against a resisting opponent...at least as shown they don't.This isn't any disrespect aimed at Mr.Wedlake,but yet again I'm pointing out the truly extreme absurdity of having a nonfunctional SD sequence and presenting it as if it's in any way valuable workable desirable and/or functional.

Have your techs actually do what they're purported to do and the ignorance disguised as deep mastery of a form of hyper advanced esoteric knowledge granted only to the rare few will vanish...and the infinitely intricate beauty and simplicity of your Kenpo will reveal itself to you as you practice your Kenpo.Stop so much of getting your yap work on,and get your matwork on...THEN get tonsil-riffic with your discoveries.Share it with us all.We'll comment on it,initiate a brisk exchange of point and couterpoint aimed at universal improvement,we'll get our matwork on and share.repeat ad infinitum.Our martial arts gets better,ad infinitum.Taaa daaah!


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 6, 2011)

so..the answers ARE in teh techniques, and people that think they are smarted than ed parker yapping about how the IP is stupid or not needed are full of crap.

got it


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jul 6, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> so..the answers ARE in teh techniques, and people that think they are smarted than ed parker yapping about how the IP is stupid or not needed are full of crap.
> 
> got it


He is correct that the thumb break was not emphasized; so, as shown, the techs are non functional; however, showing us ways to make those techs work are not the point of the video. I didn't infer that part about being smarter than Ed Parker; so, I prolly suffer from poor reading comprehension.
Sean


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jul 6, 2011)

ATACX GYM said:


> Mr. Wedlake's explanation is spot on,and imho very accurately displays the preposterous fallacy of having nonfunctional Ideal techs in the first place.If you have functional ideal techs,you practically perforce have addressed the primary and most common what-if's of those scenarios too...and get both a lifelong infinitely varying workout and a constantly improving level of understanding of your Kenpo in the process.Neither of those Crosses variants has a chance in the world of working against a resisting opponent...at least as shown they don't.This isn't any disrespect aimed at Mr.Wedlake,but yet again I'm pointing out the truly extreme absurdity of having a nonfunctional SD sequence and presenting it as if it's in any way valuable workable desirable and/or functional.
> 
> Have your techs actually do what they're purported to do and the ignorance disguised as deep mastery of a form of hyper advanced esoteric knowledge granted only to the rare few will vanish...and the infinitely intricate beauty and simplicity of your Kenpo will reveal itself to you as you practice your Kenpo.Stop so much of getting your yap work on,and get your matwork on...THEN get tonsil-riffic with your discoveries.Share it with us all.We'll comment on it,initiate a brisk exchange of point and couterpoint aimed at universal improvement,we'll get our matwork on and share.repeat ad infinitum.Our martial arts gets better,ad infinitum.Taaa daaah!


You just became the "what if Person" he was talking about it the vid. One lesson at a time. In this case forward and backward. Why didn't he show the break, I don't know, but He is no slouch.
Sean


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 6, 2011)

I wasnt talking about Lee Wedlake ToD, trust me.....




Touch Of Death said:


> He is correct that the thumb break was not emphasized; so, as shown, the techs are non functional; however, showing us ways to make those techs work are not the point of the video. I didn't infer that part about being smarter than Ed Parker; so, I prolly suffer from poor reading comprehension.
> Sean


----------



## ATACX GYM (Jul 10, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> You just became the "what if Person" he was talking about it the vid. One lesson at a time. In this case forward and backward. Why didn't he show the break, I don't know, but He is no slouch.
> Sean



I wasn't judging Mr. Wedlake as a person at all,my comments were directed toward the competent way in which he executed the completely nonfunctional Motion Kenpo IP CROSS techs...and imho whether or not I "just became the "what if Person" that Mr.Wedlake was talking about" is more dependent upon one's training paradigm.If your approach to the techs include the common ranges and scenarios as THE BASE FOR FUNCTIONAL TECHNIQUE THAT WORKS EXACTLY AS IT'S SHOWN AGAINST RESISTANT OPPONENTS? Then NO I'm NOT the "what if person". If you learned a tech using a training model that is dependent upon the nonresistance from your partner and the lack of even a facsimile of real world attack from your partner in order to be effective? Then YES I AM the "what if" guy.Lol.

The issue to me isn't the techs per se,it's the training model.Functional vs nonfunctional.Since form follows function,the form--the techs themselves--will often change in their expression in order to more efficiently achieve their function. A boxer will learn the proper form of a jab,say,without hitting something first,then practice endlessly with it via shadowboxing and mittwork that is all functional,then spar with the tech...EXACTLY AS HE TRAINED IT.Because his training FROM JUMP includes the reality of his opponent countering the jab,his need to double and triple the jab,his shoulder roll off the jab,footwork,all that stuff is considered AS A WHOLE AND IS PART OF LEARNING THE JAB ITSELF.Even if the boxer learned each part piecemeal,he'd learn to integrate these methods (rapidly) and get in lotsa quality reps...THEN FIGHT/SPAR EXACTLY AS HE TRAINED VERSUS RESISTING OPPONENTS.

The dominant physical expression of Motion Kenpo's ideal phase techs overwhelmingly don't work as shown vs resisting opponents.There are those who say that the ideal phase techs aren't designed to work against resistance.To those people I say..."that's what's wrong with that approach; you purport to teach a sequence that defends against a specific self-defense scenario and not only does it FAIL to do so? You KNOW IT DOESN'T WORK.That's lying and manipulative at best.Your only defense is if you have convinced yourself that (in this case) FALLING CROSS (but in reality ANY tech expressed in the dominantly nonfunctional method of expressing the IP) actually works.Which may be even worse,imho."

So again...the difference is training method and the mindset that encompasses it.Apparently Mr.Wedlake and maaaany other Kenpoists mistakenly believe that we can flow from one ideal phase tech that hasn't been tested vs real world resistance and hasn't been sparred with to another tech that suffers from the same fatal nonfunctional training flaw.Spar with your SD techs,and modify until it works.There ya go.Stuff that works as shown=FUNCTIONAL...and stuff that DOESN'T work as shown=NOT FUNCTIONAL.Mr. Wedlake's Falling Cross doesn't work as shown vs resisting opponents.Therefore it's not functional.There ya go.Every single one of my techs do work vs resistance.

This is Twin Fist's students showing a rear bearhug defense at :40-48 or so:






the kids did a terrific job.The platform from which the techs were launched and the techs they were shown,however,severely lacked functionality imho.Now I will show you in my video one of the many ways to functionally address what-ifs and whatnot and merge them into your BASE technique so A SINGLE RESPONSE will eliminate MULTIPLE THREATS FROM MULTIPLE RANGES:

CAPTURED TWIGS PT. 1






CAPTURED TWIGS PT. 2 FROM THE CLINCH







CAPTURED TWIGS PT. 3 OPPONENT SLAMS MOUNTS AND PUNCHES YOU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKAoR0eDa8I&feature=related


All of these scenarios are addressed with almost the exact same movements.Why is that? Because the "what-ifs" have informed my base tech to such an extent that the base tech not only resolves very quickly and efficiently the primary attack,but my base tech as I teach it also resolves all the common scenarios attendant the attack.THAT is the difference between functional training and nonfunctional training...you can fight with the techs exactly as shown.You can and should spar with the SD techs.Failure to do so=a virtual 100% chance that you cannot viably use the techs in ANY self-defense encounter OR any even moderate contact sparring...which means that you have no business trying to promote the techs as you know them as a method of genuine self-defense because it will never be so until your training model becomes functional.There ya go.

And when I say "you"? I mean the GENERIC "you",not ToD or Mr.Wedlake personally.I don't know Mr.Wedlake...but I do know that neither he nor anybody else can fight and reliably execute any CROSS variant in Kenpo's ideal phase the way that they're shown in every ideal SD tech that I've ever seen.


----------



## ATACX GYM (Jul 11, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> so..the answers ARE in teh techniques, and people that think they are smarted than ed parker yapping about how the IP is stupid or not needed are full of crap.
> 
> got it




Who even remotely brought up the idea that anyone is smarter than ed parker? Please produce a quote...if no quote is available? Then it appears that you're engaging in conclusions that have no substance in the real world and are spurious at best.And I can't speak for anyone else,but I for one energetically championed the idea of functionality...which is a training model that will impact dramatically the expression and selection of techs in what is referred to as Motion Kenpo's IP. However,the idea of taking street scenarios and training against them predate Mr.Parker by centuries...and isn't even an exclusively Kenpo or Chinese arts innovation.Perhaps a more functional sense of history would serve you better...or you might be in danger of being amongst those people who refuse to learn from history or logic and become the most crap filled person of all.


----------

