# Inward Blocks - Upside/Downside Circle



## Kenpo Yahoo (Aug 26, 2003)

> On this note perhaps you could explain the benefits of blocking on the upside or the downside of the circle. As I have stated before and never got an answer.



maybe it's because you STATED it and didn't ask it.  Just being a smart@$$. 



> I will admit it gives you a return motion from hell but the location of impact is what bothers me.



I'm familiar with blocking and striking on the upside and downside of the circle, but what exactly bothers you about the location of impact?  Which method are you referring too? etc.  


I would suggest choosing 3 or 4 techniques that have associated 
moves and body mechanics but work off of different attacks (I don't know... maybe Five Swords   ). Or get into the aspects of hitting three dimensionally with your punches, kicks, elbows, etc.  Methods of Initiation, execution, penetration, and extraction.  Grafting these methods.  You could be like Huk Planas and teach category completion, showing how a certain tech teaches movement empty handed or with weapon. Compounding your strikes.  Or hell, just teach em B1a B1b from both sides.


----------



## kenpo2dabone (Aug 26, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Touch'O'Death _
> *On this note perhaps you could explain the benefits of blocking on the upside or the downside of the circle. As I have stated before and never got an answer. Perhaps you could start by telling me why you guys do inward blocks on the downside of the circle. I will admit it gives you a return motion from hell but the location of impact is what bothers me. This question may come up in one form or the other.  *



Inward blocks are linear blocks so there is no apex of a circle. Unless you are refering to the strike that you are blocking such as a hook punch in which case it would simply be the difference of stepping in to block versus stepping back to  block. Whether you step back or forward you are blocking before the apex. Your head would be the apex of the circle assuming your attacker is in front of you. Stepping into the punch closes the gap and allows you to block well before the apex. Stepping back allows the punch to get much closer to the apex but it never really gets to the apex because as stated before your head would be the apex and the inward block crosses your centerline and is between your head and the attackers fist at inpact. This pertains to moving to the inside of said punch. Moving to the outside of a hooking punch changes things a little bit.

I hope that answers your question,

Salute,
Mike Miller UKF


----------



## Kenpo Yahoo (Aug 26, 2003)

> Inward blocks are linear blocks so there is no apex of a circle.



This isn't necessarilly true.


----------



## kenpo2dabone (Aug 26, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Kenpo Yahoo _
> *This isn't necessarilly true. *



I did get a chance to read your post before you edited it. I am assuming you edited it because in order to round a corner you must have two lines. For instance an inward block and then a chop to the neck. These would be two lines that create a corner. Rounding the corner would be simply  not pausing at the end of the block and continuing the motion to the chop. Such as in Inward Defense A. This does not change the fact that the inward block was linear in nature with respect to the punch. The strike is linear in nature with respect to the target. Rounding the corner would be transitioning from one to the other without ever stopping the flow of motion. Can you please give me an example of an inward block that is done with a circular motion. I am not contesting that there is not one in the kenpo system but I can't think of an example right now and I have always been taught that "always" really only means most of the time.

Salute,
Mike Miller UKF


----------



## Touch Of Death (Aug 26, 2003)

I'll try to explain using my experiences with this subject. I was taught to do inward blocks by punching to the corners of an imaginary box out of a horse-stance. When you fight out of a neutral I was taught to block as if punching toward the tip of your opponents chin (and to not cross your own center line).
I was an orange belt when Mr.Parker came to our school to do a seminar. Spokane happens to have lots of Sepulvida guys and they were all blocking differently(note to self). Fast foward to a couple of years ago at the vegas camp and I am once again paired with a Sepulvida guy whom is blocking at a different angle than me. I foolishly confront the guy and asked, "Why are you taking the box with you when you block out of a neutral?" By that I meant why are you crossing the center line. We agreed to disagree but I then asked my instructor what was up. It was then I was introduced to the terms upside and downside. I began playing with the way these guys are blocking. The one major advantage to blocking on the downside of the circle is that you can subsequently deliver a mean backnuckle (or whatever) and when you block on the upside you must create a proper return motion by collapsing or pulling you weopon to your opposite shoulder. 
I don't block either way anymore because of our H,T,W concepts negate the corners of the box all together (we rounded off those corners so to speak.).
Sean


----------



## Michael Billings (Aug 27, 2003)

Hopefully, there will not be an ego to "check at the door."  I can see applications in blocking on the upside or downside depending on what you are trying to accomplish?  Are you trying to create a "feeding" type action, or "Ricocheting", "Rebounding" or "Grafting" into the next strike?  All possible and appropriate in the appropriate contexts.

I really like the John Sepulveda seminars and lessons.  He brings his students in seminars along together, while still hanging some pretty sophisticated application and principles together for them.

Thanks for the feedback.


----------



## Kenpo Yahoo (Aug 27, 2003)

> I am assuming you edited it because in order to round a corner you must have two lines.



Actually I edited my post, because after reading it again I didn't feel that my description was adequate for the concept.  Actually, in my opinion, the term "rounding the corner" is only useful when helping people who are use to moving in a linear fashion (i.e. A-->B-->C.  Other wise all your movements assume a curvilinear state of being.  This helps to enhance flow, rhythm, speed, english, energy transfer etc.  

By adopting the curvilinear convention one begins to make use of three dimensional striking while maintaining flow, power, and speed. When working in all three dimensions it is possible to use either the upside or downside of a circle to block or strike.  This is an idea that Mr. Parker began teaching later on in his life, but unfortunately like a lot of things Mr. Parker taught it didn't quite make it out to every body, which is why a lot of kenpoists only know how to hit on the down side of the circle.  However to them it isn't characterized as up or down, only hitting.  I wish I could explain it better.  The concept is simple to understand, after you see it in action a couple of times, but hard to describe since its possible that your circular motion can be rotated at varying degrees on all 3 axis, then you must decide which is up the circle, which way is down the circle, and what will work best for your situation.

Sorry to take the thread off subject.


----------



## kenpo2dabone (Aug 27, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Touch'O'Death _
> *I'll try to explain using my experiences with this subject. I was taught to do inward blocks by punching to the corners of an imaginary box out of a horse-stance. When you fight out of a neutral I was taught to block as if punching toward the tip of your opponents chin (and to not cross your own center line).*



Well, lets analyse this a little bit. I learned the inward block in a similar fashion from the square horse stance. I was also taught the corner of the box analogy. However, I was never taugt the tip of your apponents chin thing. Sorry that sounds condisending but I don't mean it to. If you do not cross your own cernter line with an inward block then you have not covered your entire head. You have only gone about half way accross your face leaving the other side of your face unprotected. I was taught that at the completion of the block (I will use a right inward) my right indexfinger knuckle should be even with my left eyebrow Height wise and just to the left of my face. If you were to stop at your center line then you would still get hit plus your fist would be directly in your line of sight. I attached an image that kinda shows what I am talking about however it is very crude so don't laugh. That is if I attached it properly. I just realized that the way I drew it, would be as if you were using a left inward block. Anyway, the elipse represents your head, the line in the middle represents your centerline, the arrow represents the direction of the block. Square (a) would represet stopping the block at the centerline and not crossing it. Square (b) represents crossing the centerline, this is where I was taught to do an inward block. Not crossing the centerline, as you can see, leaves the whole side of your head vulnerable to the strike. This won't make any sense if the image did not attach properly.     



> I foolishly confront the guy and asked, "Why are you taking the box with you when you block out of a neutral?" By that I meant why are you crossing the center line.)



There is nothing foolish about asking questions. Hopefully the guy did not make you feel that way. I think I address the rest of this above. 




> We agreed to disagree but I then asked my instructor what was up. It was then I was introduced to the terms upside and downside. I began playing with the way these guys are blocking. The one major advantage to blocking on the downside of the circle is that you can subsequently deliver a mean backnuckle (or whatever) and when you block on the upside you must create a proper return motion by collapsing or pulling you weopon to your opposite shoulder.



I think we may have different interpratations of "upside and down side of the circle" I am really trying to picture what you mean but I can't seem to grasp what you are saying. Can you please try and break it down and explain it to me. My idea of moving up or down the circle would be something like this. Standing in a neutral bow w/attacker directly infront of me, if I move my front foot (without changing the distance of my front foot to my back foot) so that I no longer have a Toe/Heel alighnment but instead my toes and heels are in line with each other, I have "moved up the circle" and closed some distance between my self and my attacker. I am now in a side horse stance. This is usually done stepping directly from say a left nuetral bow to a right side horse in order to gain alittle more penatration on the strike.[/QUOTE]


[/QUOTE] I don't block either way anymore because of our H,T,W concepts negate the corners of the box all together (we rounded off those corners so to speak.).
Sean [/B][/QUOTE] 

Please explain H,T,W. I am not familiar with these terms. We round corners as well which is simply going from what I would call a  staccato motion to a flowing motion. Which is really the difference between doing a technique a little more advanced. 


Salute,
Mike Miller UKF


----------



## kenpo2dabone (Aug 27, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Kenpo Yahoo _
> *Actually I edited my post, because after reading it again I didn't feel that my description was adequate for the concept.  Actually, in my opinion, the term "rounding the corner" is only useful when helping people who are use to moving in a linear fashion (i.e. A-->B-->C.  Other wise all your movements assume a curvilinear state of being.  This helps to enhance flow, rhythm, speed, english, energy transfer etc. *


*

Cool, I get it. I think I just interperate it differently or maybe just generalize it more. When I think of "rounding corners" I think of taking a techique from it staccato kind of beat as it is usually taught and elevating it to its proper timing. Same as when you teach a technique you teach it in broken down steps, step 1... step 2... step 3... but when the techinique is done properly it is one motion flowing into the next with no stopping. A way of doing this would be by rounding the corners.   




			By adopting the curvilinear convention one begins to make use of three dimensional striking while maintaining flow, power, and speed. When working in all three dimensions it is possible to use either the upside or downside of a circle to block or strike.  This is an idea that Mr. Parker began teaching later on in his life, but unfortunately like a lot of things Mr. Parker taught it didn't quite make it out to every body, which is why a lot of kenpoists only know how to hit on the down side of the circle.  However to them it isn't characterized as up or down, only hitting.  I wish I could explain it better.  The concept is simple to understand, after you see it in action a couple of times, but hard to describe since its possible that your circular motion can be rotated at varying degrees on all 3 axis, then you must decide which is up the circle, which way is down the circle, and what will work best for your situation.
		
Click to expand...


I agree with you 100% on this. It is way easier to grasp as well as explain things with a body infront of you. 




			Sorry to take the thread off subject.
		
Click to expand...

*
I agree with this as well. Maybe we can get the moderators to split this thread. 

Salute,
Mike Miller UKF


----------



## Touch Of Death (Aug 28, 2003)

> _Originally posted by kenpo2dabone _
> *Well, lets analyse this a little bit. I learned the inward block in a similar fashion from the square horse stance. I was also taught the corner of the box analogy. However, I was never taugt the tip of your apponents chin thing. Sorry that sounds condisending but I don't mean it to. If you do not cross your own cernter line with an inward block then you have not covered your entire head. You have only gone about half way accross your face leaving the other side of your face unprotected. I was taught that at the completion of the block (I will use a right inward) my right indexfinger knuckle should be even with my left eyebrow Height wise and just to the left of my face. If you were to stop at your center line then you would still get hit plus your fist would be directly in your line of sight. I attached an image that kinda shows what I am talking about however it is very crude so don't laugh. That is if I attached it properly. I just realized that the way I drew it, would be as if you were using a left inward block. Anyway, the elipse represents your head, the line in the middle represents your centerline, the arrow represents the direction of the block. Square (a) would represet stopping the block at the centerline and not crossing it. Square (b) represents crossing the centerline, this is where I was taught to do an inward block. Not crossing the centerline, as you can see, leaves the whole side of your head vulnerable to the strike. This won't make any sense if the image did not attach properly.
> 
> 
> ...


*


[/QUOTE] I don't block either way anymore because of our H,T,W concepts negate the corners of the box all together (we rounded off those corners so to speak.).
Sean *[/QUOTE] 

Please explain H,T,W. I am not familiar with these terms. We round corners as well which is simply going from what I would call a  staccato motion to a flowing motion. Which is really the difference between doing a technique a little more advanced. 


Salute,
Mike Miller UKF [/B][/QUOTE] 
Fist of all I was not talking about stances when I referd to circles. That being said I am going to have a heck of a time explaining to you rather than showing you what I'm talking about. Both ways have their strengths and weaknesses and I'm sure my third way does as well. Fist of all What I say to my self when I see a downside block inward block is that they torch there wrist to soon and make contact with the attack it would seem on the return motion. When blocking on the upside of the circle the return motion doesn't start until well after you have penetrated you target.
Yes their is a center line issue and we compensate by "ghost imaging" our selfs behind that line by using that stance "cutting up the circle" that you are refering to in your post. A common problem that we ran into is that a lot of student had a tendency to over extend them selves. We now do it a third way where we stop short of the over extension at a tighter blocking angle so contact might not be made at all ie you slipped the punch.

A major advantage that I see with downside blocking is that you are for damn sure not going to over extend your self but on the flip side its user must ask him or herself "am I blocking or am I striking?". I contend upside blocking eliminates this question, unless of course you have over extended your self at the wrong angle.
Sean


----------



## Michael Billings (Aug 28, 2003)

Teaching Kenpo to Non-Kenpoist.  Sorry, I didn't know to put this post 1st.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Aug 28, 2003)

Of course, if your lead hand is in a guard position you would block on the return motion as well.


----------



## kenpo2dabone (Aug 28, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Touch'O'Death _
> *Fist of all I was not talking about stances when I referd to circles.*


*

I did understand this. I was just trying let you know the context in which I was introduced to moving up or down a circle.  




			That being said I am going to have a heck of a time explaining to you rather than showing you what I'm talking about.
		
Click to expand...


It is deffinately easier to demonstrate than it is to reiterate in writing.




			Both ways have their strengths and weaknesses and I'm sure my third way does as well. Fist of all What I say to my self when I see a downside block inward block is that they torch there wrist to soon and make contact with the attack it would seem on the return motion. When blocking on the upside of the circle the return motion doesn't start until well after you have penetrated you target.
		
Click to expand...


The way we block in the UKF there is always penatration to the target. AKA attack the attack.This always includes correct anatomical alignment which does not include over extension of our weapons as you mention below you have seen alot of students do. I would agree with that but it seems to be more prevalent in the beginner student who also has lots of problems with wide stances among other things. The blocks we do are considered strikes because there is an intent to do damage to the weapon that we are blocking. I would also go so far as to say that all blocks are stikes but not all strikes are blocks. Blocks are also the first step in disrupting our attackers mass so that we can penatrate into there "spinal ring", which could also be interperated as there center of gravity, and engage their mass getting us into a position for contact maintenance.    





			Yes their is a center line issue and we compensate by "ghost imaging" our selfs behind that line by using that stance "cutting up the circle" that you are refering to in your post. A common problem that we ran into is that a lot of student had a tendency to over extend them selves. We now do it a third way where we stop short of the over extension at a tighter blocking angle so contact might not be made at all ie you slipped the punch.
		
Click to expand...


I have read a little on the term "Ghost Imaging". My understanding of it is the idea that your attacker wants to punch you  in the head with a right straight punch. You step forward into a left neutral bow with your left foot or backword to a left neutral bow with your right foot. You have taken the target ie your head off line from the punch and the puch goes to your "ghost image" I had not heard the term until recently but I have known the concept from about day three of my Kenpo training. I think it is a good term to describe what is happening. However, I still feel that the block or some kind of strike is integral to the opening of a technique as it is your margin for error. Also, the block or strike will aid in cancelling your attackers other weapons. I feel in order to acheive this you must make contact.




			A major advantage that I see with downside blocking is that you are for damn sure not going to over extend your self but on the flip side its user must ask him or herself "am I blocking or am I striking?". I contend upside blocking eliminates this question, unless of course you have over extended your self at the wrong angle.
Sean
		
Click to expand...

*
I particularly don't ever ask if I am striking or blocking. It does not matter so long as I am continuing to engage my attackers mass. Example: A left punch is thrown so I exacute a right extended outwrd block. I want to hit my attacker with a hammer fist to his temple but he is able to throw a right punch before I can make contact, so instead of hitting him in the temple with a hammer fist, I have done a hammering inward block to the right punch. My intent was to strike but it became a block so it does not matter what I was trying to do. What matter is I have dominated my outer rim. I will explain the outer rim principle in detail if you are not familiar with the term as it is unique to the Universal Kenpo Federation. Keep in mind that it would have to be long winded. Or you can read more on it if you are interested at WWW.UKFKENPO.COM.  LOL

Salute,
Mike Miller UKF


----------



## Kenpo Yahoo (Aug 28, 2003)

> Kenpo2dabone
> Cool, I get it. I think I just interperate it differently or maybe just generalize it more.



Cool, I've never been accussed of verbal clarity so I'm glad you understood what I was saying, despite what I was saying.  

I was actually a little concerned when I came to the forum and saw my name at the beginning of a thread that I knew I hadn't started.  Fortunately I realized later that the Mod Squad split the thread.


----------



## KenpoIsIt (Aug 29, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Touch'O'Death _
> *I'll try to explain using my experiences with this subject. I was taught to do inward blocks by punching to the corners of an imaginary box out of a horse-stance. When you fight out of a neutral I was taught to block as if punching toward the tip of your opponents chin (and to not cross your own center line).
> I was an orange belt when Mr.Parker came to our school to do a seminar. Spokane happens to have lots of Sepulvida guys and they were all blocking differently(note to self). Fast foward to a couple of years ago at the vegas camp and I am once again paired with a Sepulvida guy whom is blocking at a different angle than me. I foolishly confront the guy and asked, "Why are you taking the box with you when you block out of a neutral?" By that I meant why are you crossing the center line. We agreed to disagree but I then asked my instructor what was up. It was then I was introduced to the terms upside and downside. I began playing with the way these guys are blocking. The one major advantage to blocking on the downside of the circle is that you can subsequently deliver a mean backnuckle (or whatever) and when you block on the upside you must create a proper return motion by collapsing or pulling you weopon to your opposite shoulder.
> I don't block either way anymore because of our H,T,W concepts negate the corners of the box all together (we rounded off those corners so to speak.).
> Sean *



Mr. Wold

Please spell Mr. Sepulveda's name correctly.  Also, we do not always do our inward blocks on the downside of the circle, sometimes we do use the upside of the circle.  It would depend on where our hands were at the initial moment of the sequence.  This concept is taught in Short Form One.  Downside of the circle equals Hammering Inward Block, Upside of the circle equals Thrusting Inward Block.  That is what I was taught.

Kenpoisit


----------



## Touch Of Death (Aug 29, 2003)

> _Originally posted by KenpoIsIt _
> *Mr. Wold
> 
> Please spell Mr. Sepulveda's name correctly.  Also, we do not always do our inward blocks on the downside of the circle, sometimes we do use the upside of the circle.  It would depend on where our hands were at the initial moment of the sequence.  This concept is taught in Short Form One.  Downside of the circle equals Hammering Inward Block, Upside of the circle equals Thrusting Inward Block.  That is what I was taught.
> ...


 Sorry for the misspelling and we aren't talking about the same circle.
Sean


----------



## Touch Of Death (Aug 29, 2003)

> _Originally posted by kenpo2dabone _
> *I did understand this. I was just trying let you know the context in which I was introduced to moving up or down a circle.
> 
> 
> ...


Now if you will analyze what you have written. You say that contact should be made no matter what even if you have slipped the punch. This is where we disagree. Why slip a punch and cut up toward nine o clock if you still insist on making that inward block work on a punch that isn't even comming at you any more? This is where the over extensions and bad angles start to turn up. If you execute a left inward block against a right stepthrough punch an you cut up the circle (stance wise) then it is time to relenquish that attack to your right hand (double factor).
Sean


----------



## kenpo2dabone (Aug 29, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Touch'O'Death _
> *Now if you will analyze what you have written. You say that contact should be made no matter what even if you have slipped the punch. This is where we disagree. Why slip a punch and cut up toward nine o clock if you still insist on making that inward block work on a punch that isn't even comming at you any more? This is where the over extensions and bad angles start to turn up. If you execute a left inward block against a right stepthrough punch an you cut up the circle (stance wise) then it is time to relenquish that attack to your right hand (double factor).
> Sean *



It is not that I insist on throwing an inward block. I do however insist on making contact with my attacker. I understand the concept of slipping a punch but in doing so I feel that you must strike your attacker. This could be a right thrust punch to the soloplexis such as in Slapping Silk. When I learned Slapping Silk I was taught to drop and move offline into a left wide kneel and punch to your attackers soloplexis or floating rib, which ever was inline with the strike. The left hand simply came up to a checking position on the attackers arm as a margin for error. In this case it was not a block that penatrated it was the punch. But the check was in the exact same postion as an inward block would be, just above the attackers elbow. Also in this case the step is to the 10:30 line while my attacker is at 12:00. This is different than when I step to a nuetral bow to 12:00 and my attacker is at 12:00 as well. Now my inward block penatrates the plane of the punch. I hope that makes sense.

Salute,
Mike Miller UKF


----------



## Michael Billings (Aug 29, 2003)

*KenpoIsIt* is a 4th Black under Mr. Sepulveda (and I think that has been his only instructor), so probably has more knowledge about this blocking thing as he was taught by The Professor (not his rank, but a designation frequently and fondly used by his senior students with no disrespect for his actual rank.)  I am curious in that I had read before about Mr. Sepulveda's "guys" doing inward blocks different?  I did not get it then and I don't now.  He may be a good resource to clarify this?

When I did techniques with them, I noticed no difference from Mr. Parker's, Huk's, Tom Kelly Sr., Sigung LaBounty's, etc. , inward blocks.

I don't doubt you saw/felt something different, but the closest I could come up with was they were trying to execute the block in order to feed their next action, and that was not really answered.  

This has generated a good conversation regarding Mr. Pick's student's interpretation and TOD's, so I am not trying to cut it off, but seek clarification.  I have been in several or five seminars with Mike Pick, since the mid-80's, but it has been a while.  I do not remember the Inward Block being "different", but as I said, any Senior ... including and especially, Mr. Parker, could modify the point of contact, the width of the block, the angle of incidence, etc., to feed, redirect, reorbit, supress, etc.

Talk a little more about the context for Mr. Sepulveda's student doing it differently, i.e. was it in the context of a class on basics, sophisticated basics, techniques, variable expansion, grafting, etc.?

Thanks,
-Michael


----------



## kenpo2dabone (Aug 29, 2003)

I wanted to clarify a couple of things. I have been with the UKF for about two years but I received my rank from a different Kenpo school that I was with for about eight years. The UKF was kind enough to recognize me as a BB2 when I started working out with them and eventually became a member and full time student. I don't know how long it has been since you attended a seminar of Mr. Picks but a few things may have changed. Incidentally he is doing a seminar in Campbell, Caifornia next weekend Sept. 5th and 6th. Was he using what we call "twelve points" when you attended his seminars? Our hands are constantly transitioning through "twelve points" the back hand is no longer set low accross the stomach. the hands are now placed more like that of a boxer. The rest of the neutral bow is basically the same. The inward block does not really change all though because of our hand placement most of our inward blocks are Hammering inwards instead of thrusting inwards. I will explain twelve points in more detail if you wish as it does have an impact on some of the reasoning behind engaging your attackers  mass quickly. 

Salute
Mike Miller UKF


----------



## Michael Billings (Aug 29, 2003)

... since I am in Austin, TX.  I used to drive up to Arlington/Dallas/Ft. Worth, when he was going there regularly.  Are you working out with Marcus Bonfigliano ... if so, asked him if he has had to stand on any doghouses lately  , and tell him howdy for me.  He and Wes are a couple of my favorite younger Kenpo guys.

Yes, I would like to hear a little more about the "twelve points".  My guard also comes up as proximity dictates, but this is not "formalized" in my teaching ... well, except when I point it out by tapping a student on the noggin with an open hand or finger.  

How is this related to inward blocks .... is it a Point of Origin issue?  

I will be out of town this weekend and off line, so if you do not reply or get a response, it is unavoidable.

-MB


----------



## KenpoIsIt (Aug 30, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Touch'O'Death _
> *Sorry for the misspelling and we aren't talking about the same circle.
> Sean *



Mr. Wold

Please explain what you are talking about then.  You stated that we Sepulveda guys do the inward blocks differently.  I explained how we are taught to perform them.  I am just looking for clarification.

Kenpoisit


----------



## Touch Of Death (Aug 30, 2003)

> _Originally posted by KenpoIsIt _
> *Mr. Wold
> 
> Please explain what you are talking about then.  You stated that we Sepulveda guys do the inward blocks differently.  I explained how we are taught to perform them.  I am just looking for clarification.
> ...


I've been racking my brain to do just that. Clarify...
Lets use the cutting blade of the fore arm to make this clearer. Before I go on I am willing to concede that maybe I'm the one doing it differently from everyone else. The blade of my fore arm when doing an inward block with the lead hand out of a left neutral will cut at about 1:30 where as I see a lot of "other" kenpoists'(no pun intended) blades making contact at a 3:00 angle. Yes it seems built in for very good reasons and it does eliminate a lot of problems that may occurr doing it the first way but it does change the dynamics of things a bit.
Sean


----------



## Bill Lear (Aug 30, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Touch'O'Death _
> *I've been racking my brain to do just that. Clarify...
> Lets use the cutting blade of the fore arm to make this clearer. Before I go on I am willing to concede that maybe I'm the one doing it differently from everyone else. The blade of my fore arm when doing an inward block with the lead hand out of a left neutral will cut at about 1:30 where as I see a lot of "other" kenpoists'(no pun intended) blades making contact at a 3:00 angle. Yes it seems built in for very good reasons and it does eliminate a lot of problems that may occurr doing it the first way but it does change the dynamics of things a bit.
> Sean *



Sean,

Your description of the proper executon of a left inward block is right on the money. The tragectory of the block should be toward 1:30 as you describe. It is outlined this way in Ed Parker's Infinite Insights Into Kenpo Vol. III. There!!! The nefarious Billy Lear finally agreed with you.


----------



## Kenpomachine (Aug 30, 2003)

Well, the trajectory can still be 1:30 and the contact made rotating the arm furhter so as not to block with the blade of the forearm. 
Unless your blocking using a hammer fist, of course :rofl:


----------



## Marcus Buonfiglio (Aug 30, 2003)

> _.  Are you working out with Marcus Buonfiglio ... if so, asked him if he has had to stand on any doghouses lately  , and tell him howdy for me.  He and Wes are a couple of my favorite younger Kenpo guys.
> 
> Years of therapy to get rid of the nightmares about doghouses born of shame as a result of taking a bite of a hamburger before the senior belts. I was functioning well, the nightmares abated...but noooo...you gatta bring it all back...uhmm..you still standing in that tree or have they finally let you down.   (I believe it was because of a potatoe chip wasn't it? Insideous things those potatoe chips.)
> 
> ...


----------



## kenpo_cory (Aug 30, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Touch'O'Death _
> *I've been racking my brain to do just that. Clarify...
> Lets use the cutting blade of the fore arm to make this clearer. Before I go on I am willing to concede that maybe I'm the one doing it differently from everyone else. The blade of my fore arm when doing an inward block with the lead hand out of a left neutral will cut at about 1:30 where as I see a lot of "other" kenpoists'(no pun intended) blades making contact at a 3:00 angle. Yes it seems built in for very good reasons and it does eliminate a lot of problems that may occurr doing it the first way but it does change the dynamics of things a bit.
> Sean *



We block the same way you described, toward 1:30. Blocking the other way tends to tie you up. My instructor uses the term "cross blocking" when we see people blocking toward 3:00 because you're crossing your own body to block that way.


----------



## kenpo_cory (Aug 30, 2003)

> _Originally posted by kenpo2dabone _
> *I will explain the outer rim principle in detail if you are not familiar with the term as it is unique to the Universal Kenpo Federation.*



Actually, the Outer Rim Concept was coined by Mr. Parker a long time ago and is not unique to the UKF. It is listed in Ed Parker's Encyclopedia Of Kenpo. Not trying to sound disrespectful, just thought I'd clarify.


----------



## KenpoIsIt (Aug 30, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Touch'O'Death _
> *I've been racking my brain to do just that. Clarify...
> Lets use the cutting blade of the fore arm to make this clearer. Before I go on I am willing to concede that maybe I'm the one doing it differently from everyone else. The blade of my fore arm when doing an inward block with the lead hand out of a left neutral will cut at about 1:30 where as I see a lot of "other" kenpoists'(no pun intended) blades making contact at a 3:00 angle. Yes it seems built in for very good reasons and it does eliminate a lot of problems that may occurr doing it the first way but it does change the dynamics of things a bit.
> Sean *




Mr. Wold

Now I follow you.  I have seen that also.  We are taught to shoot to the 1:30 angle as you are.  As a matter of fact, one of Mr. Parker's quotes speaks of that very topic.  "The sooner you get to X, the greater Y will be".  I suspect that those you see making contact to 3:00 have forgotten the lesson or never got it in the first place.

Kenpoisit


----------



## Bill Lear (Aug 31, 2003)

> *Originally posted by KenpoIsIt *
> 
> _Mr. Wold
> 
> Now I follow you.  I have seen that also.  We are taught to shoot to the 1:30 angle as you are.  As a matter of fact, one of Mr. Parker's quotes speaks of that very topic.  "The sooner you get to X, the greater Y will be".  I suspect that those you see making contact to 3:00 have forgotten the lesson or never got it in the first place._



*Another good Ed Parker Quote:*

_To beat action, meet it._


----------



## kenpo2dabone (Sep 2, 2003)

> _Originally posted by kenpo_cory _
> *Actually, the Outer Rim Concept was coined by Mr. Parker a long time ago and is not unique to the UKF. It is listed in Ed Parker's Encyclopedia Of Kenpo. Not trying to sound disrespectful, just thought I'd clarify. *



I had never heard another school use the term before and it is so prominant in the UKF. 

Thanks again,
Salute,
Mike Miller UKF


----------



## Michael Billings (Sep 2, 2003)

Outer Rim has been around since at least the mid-80's and every seminar I have been to take it as a given that the participants know what it is.  I start it on day one since it relates to Point of Origin and Economy of Motion (definitions I require for Yellow Belt.)

Thanks Scott for clarification on the Inward Block, I have heard this about "Sepulveda's" students for a year and had no idea where it came from given that you block just like I see everyone else, including myself, block.

-MB


----------



## kenpo2dabone (Sep 2, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Michael Billings _
> *... since I am in Austin, TX.  I used to drive up to Arlington/Dallas/Ft. Worth, when he was going there regularly.  Are you working out with Marcus Bonfigliano ... if so, asked him if he has had to stand on any doghouses lately  , and tell him howdy for me.  He and Wes are a couple of my favorite younger Kenpo guys.*


* 

Yes I workout with Marcus, actually he is my instructor and he replied himself to the dog house comment so I will leave it at that. He told me the story last night. It was a good laugh. The funniest part is that it was Darryl Simpson that nailed you both. I have known him for a while as well.  




			Yes, I would like to hear a little more about the "twelve points".  My guard also comes up as proximity dictates, but this is not "formalized" in my teaching ... well, except when I point it out by tapping a student on the noggin with an open hand or finger.  

How is this related to inward blocks .... is it a Point of Origin issue?
		
Click to expand...


Twelve points is more about defining your outer rim. Anything that comes into your outer rim must be dominated. The traditional guard, as I orginally leaerned it, was the front hand out in front, arm bent at a 45 degree at the elbow, and then hand abhout chin high. The back hand was placed with the foram laying against your stomach with your hand slightly forwrd of your rib cage. The problem with this is that you have three of your weapons in the same height zone. Meaning, your front arms elbow and your back arms fist and elbow are all in the same height zone. Twleve points refers to covering four points in each of the three zones. 4 x 3 = 12. Hence the name. You can try this to get a clearer picture. From a square horse, do a right verticle outward block. Now drop you elbow about four inches and extend your fist diagonally towards your centerline but not all the way to your center line. It should look as though you have started to do an inward block but stopped about half . Your foram should be at a forty-five degree angle from your elbow. Now mirror this with yout left hand. You should see a clear picture of the upper triangle or top of the diamond. Your forarms arms should look kinda like the roof of a house. Now step back with either leg to a neutral bow. which ever hand is back drop it about for inches or about one fist down. you should do this by dropping the elbow slightly not changing the angle of your for arm. What you end up with is Twelve points. lets assume you stepped to a left neutral bow and that your a facing a mirror. Your left elbow is slightly wider than your left fist. These are the first two width points. following in the same direction the next thing would be your right fist and just outside that is your right elbow, the other two width zones. Still loooking in the mirror your left fist is the highest pint then your right fist then your left elbow and finally your right elbow. These are the four hieght zones that you are covering. Lastly, turn sideways to the mirror, your left fist is the farthest weapon from your body, then your right fist , then your left elbow and finally your right elbow.  These would be the four depth zones that your are covering. When I learned this and started going through my stances while in twelve points it became very clear how my stances do all the work. For instance, when I bring my hands into twelve points and step into block my hand is already on the proper line. By stepping in to the neutral bow it exacutes my block for me. I may then simply extend my block slightly to transition to a bracing  angle check. 

I hope that this explanation is a little clearer than mud. I will try and post some pictures some time to make it even more clear.


Salute,
Mike Miller*


----------



## Touch Of Death (Sep 2, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Michael Billings _
> *Outer Rim has been around since at least the mid-80's and every seminar I have been to take it as a given that the participants know what it is.  I start it on day one since it relates to Point of Origin and Economy of Motion (definitions I require for Yellow Belt.)
> 
> Thanks Scott for clarification on the Inward Block, I have heard this about "Sepulveda's" students for a year and had no idea where it came from given that you block just like I see everyone else, including myself, block.
> ...


Like I said, maybe I'm the one that's different. I will attempt to further describe my method as opposed to what I have seen at the Vegas Camp and the (Hearst via Sepulveda) Spokane method.
We both use a flick of the wrist to make contact with the incomming missle attack; however, I tweek my wrist so that the blade starts out at 9:00 and perhaps these other methods have the blade facing 11:00 or 12:00. The subsequent flick will quite naturaly be different. The Sepulveda method seems to fit quite well with the delayed sword type return to the opposite shoulder, where as the method I use will cause you to make a desision between the delayed sword and the Muay thai or sword of destruction type of return. There, that ought to confuse everyone.
Sean


----------



## kenpo_cory (Sep 2, 2003)

> _Originally posted by kenpo2dabone _
> *Twelve points is more about defining your outer rim. Anything that comes into your outer rim must be dominated. The traditional guard, as I orginally leaerned it, was the front hand out in front, arm bent at a 45 degree at the elbow, and then hand abhout chin high. The back hand was placed with the foram laying against your stomach with your hand slightly forwrd of your rib cage. The problem with this is that you have three of your weapons in the same height zone. Meaning, your front arms elbow and your back arms fist and elbow are all in the same height zone. Twleve points refers to covering four points in each of the three zones. 4 x 3 = 12. Hence the name. You can try this to get a clearer picture. From a square horse, do a right verticle outward block. Now drop you elbow about four inches and extend your fist diagonally towards your centerline but not all the way to your center line. It should look as though you have started to do an inward block but stopped about half . Your foram should be at a forty-five degree angle from your elbow. Now mirror this with yout left hand. You should see a clear picture of the upper triangle or top of the diamond. Your forarms arms should look kinda like the roof of a house. Now step back with either leg to a neutral bow. which ever hand is back drop it about for inches or about one fist down. you should do this by dropping the elbow slightly not changing the angle of your for arm. What you end up with is Twelve points. lets assume you stepped to a left neutral bow and that your a facing a mirror. Your left elbow is slightly wider than your left fist. These are the first two width points. following in the same direction the next thing would be your right fist and just outside that is your right elbow, the other two width zones. Still loooking in the mirror your left fist is the highest pint then your right fist then your left elbow and finally your right elbow. These are the four hieght zones that you are covering. Lastly, turn sideways to the mirror, your left fist is the farthest weapon from your body, then your right fist , then your left elbow and finally your right elbow.  These would be the four depth zones that your are covering. When I learned this and started going through my stances while in twelve points it became very clear how my stances do all the work. For instance, when I bring my hands into twelve points and step into block my hand is already on the proper line. By stepping in to the neutral bow it exacutes my block for me. I may then simply extend my block slightly to transition to a bracing  angle check.
> 
> I hope that this explanation is a little clearer than mud. I will try and post some pictures some time to make it even more clear.
> ...



Very cool, never heard this explanation for hand placement before. Someone put a lot of thought into the Dimensional Zone Theory with this. I like it.  :asian:


----------



## KenpoIsIt (Sep 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Touch'O'Death _
> *Like I said, maybe I'm the one that's different. I will attempt to further describe my method as opposed to what I have seen at the Vegas Camp and the (Hearst via Sepulveda) Spokane method.
> We both use a flick of the wrist to make contact with the incomming missle attack; however, I tweek my wrist so that the blade starts out at 9:00 and perhaps these other methods have the blade facing 11:00 or 12:00. The subsequent flick will quite naturaly be different. The Sepulveda method seems to fit quite well with the delayed sword type return to the opposite shoulder, where as the method I use will cause you to make a desision between the delayed sword and the Muay thai or sword of destruction type of return. There, that ought to confuse everyone.
> Sean *




Mr. Wold

Our method of executing the inward block can be found beginning on page 10 in Book 3 of the Infinite Insight Series.  It is not a Sepulveda method as he was taught by Mr. Parker directly.  Each time I attended a seminar by Mr. Parker, he demonstrated the inward block in the same manner.

If I am seeing your inward block correctly, you have added some additional torque just prior to making contact.  My question now would be this.  Does it work for you?  If so, great.

When you worked with the guys from Spokane who are under the instruction of Mr. Hirst, did their blocks work for them?

It is my understanding from the last conversation that I had with Mr. Parker that the idea is to take the principles, concepts, rules, etc.. and tailor them to each individuals needs and level of skill.  

Kenpoisit


----------



## Bill Lear (Sep 3, 2003)

> *Originally posted by KenpoIsIt:*
> 
> _When you worked with the guys from Spokane who are under the instruction of Mr. Hirst, did their blocks work for them?_



I don't think the idea is whether or not the blocks will work, but whether or not they are more effective or less effective. Anything will work given the right circumstances, the question is how to make it work for most circumstances. At least that's how I see it.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Sep 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by KenpoIsIt _
> *Mr. Wold
> 
> Our method of executing the inward block can be found beginning on page 10 in Book 3 of the Infinite Insight Series.  It is not a Sepulveda method as he was taught by Mr. Parker directly.  Each time I attended a seminar by Mr. Parker, he demonstrated the inward block in the same manner.
> ...


I have spent some time studying the strengths and weaknesses of both methods. I have added no extra torque. I have a different starting point. When we put our fist to our ear we just make sure that the palm(while in a fist) faces our oponent. As the elbow drops y'all start torquing before we do; so, it is you that adds torque not us. As for which method is better that would depend on the student. I have already written that your way eliminates the problem of over-extension but with that your blocks make contact on the reverse motion. We take to muay thai concepts a lot easier because of the similarities. I feel you would have to make more of an adjustment than we do or did. Let me say once again that I will accept that we do it weird. Mr. Parker never thought to correct us so we just went with it.


----------



## KenpoIsIt (Sep 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Bill Lear _
> *I don't think the idea is whether or not the blocks will work, but whether or not they are more effective or less effective. Anything will work given the right circumstances, the question is how to make it work for most circumstances. At least that's how I see it.
> 
> *




Mr. Lear

I agree with you to a point, however, I am still of the thinking that making it work is more important than which method is more effective.  For example:  If I do the inward block against a right lapel grab, and my block clears the opponent's arm, that to me is making it work.  Another method of executing the same block may clear the arm and leave a nice bruise on the opponent's arm, which would be more effective.  In the end they have both accomplished the same result.  Nice to see you back on MT.

Kenpoisit


----------



## Bill Lear (Sep 3, 2003)

> *Originally posted by KenpoIsIt *
> _Mr. Lear
> 
> I agree with you to a point, however, I am still of the thinking that making it work is more important than which method is more effective.  For example:  If I do the inward block against a right lapel grab, and my block clears the opponent's arm, that to me is making it work.  Another method of executing the same block may clear the arm and leave a nice bruise on the opponent's arm, which would be more effective.  In the end they have both accomplished the same result.  Nice to see you back on MT._



I have to agree with you to a point as well. I think that the destination in this case *is* more important than how you got there... I'm only saying that the least expensive, least aggrivating, most direct, and most damaging way is the best way to teach it.


----------



## kenpo2dabone (Sep 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Michael Billings _
> *Outer Rim has been around since at least the mid-80's and every seminar I have been to take it as a given that the participants know what it is.  I start it on day one since it relates to Point of Origin and Economy of Motion (definitions I require for Yellow Belt.)
> 
> Thanks Scott for clarification on the Inward Block, I have heard this about "Sepulveda's" students for a year and had no idea where it came from given that you block just like I see everyone else, including myself, block.
> ...



Thank you for the clarification Mr. Billings. I appreciate it. I just had not heard it used before until I started training with the UKF. I should not have jumped to that conclusion. It is good to know that other poeple are familiar with this term. As it makes posting a little easier when terminology is consistant. 

Salute,
Mike Miller UKF


----------



## Michael Billings (Sep 3, 2003)

I appreciate your comprehensive post on the "12 Points".  It is nice to have it explained and gives me something to think about.

Oss,
-MB


----------



## kenpo2dabone (Sep 3, 2003)

Here is something else to play with while exploring twelve points.

The hand placement I described above is only one form of twelve points. There are many positions that the hands can be in and still be in twelve points. Basically, anytime your hands and elbows occupy four different points in each of the three zones, excluding over extension or being out of correct anatomical alignment, your are in twelve points. 

Just something I thought you might enjoy exploring.

Salute,
Mike Miller UKF


----------



## kenpo_cory (Sep 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by kenpo2dabone _
> *Here is something else to play with while exploring twelve points.
> 
> The hand placement I described above is only one form of twelve points. There are many positions that the hands can be in and still be in twelve points. Basically, anytime your hands and elbows occupy four different points in each of the three zones, excluding over extension or being out of correct anatomical alignment, your are in twelve points.
> ...



I was wondering if Mr. Pick was using 12 points in the picture of him on the UKF website. (the one that Ed Parker Jr. drew of him)


----------



## kenpo2dabone (Sep 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by kenpo_cory _
> *I was wondering if Mr. Pick was using 12 points in the picture of him on the UKF website. (the one that Ed Parker Jr. drew of him) *



Yes, as a matter of fact he is! And if you read my post defining twelve points you will see a difference in what I wrote versus the picture of Mr. Pick. The difference being his back hand is defining the highest point in the height zone rather than his front hand and his front elbow defines the lowest point of the height zone versus the back elbow. In the picture you can deffinatetly see the four width zones as well as the four hieght zones. If you were able to turn the picture to the side you would also see the four depth zones as well.

Salute,
Mike Miller UKF


----------



## kenpo_cory (Sep 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by kenpo2dabone _
> *Yes, as a matter of fact he is! And if you read my post defining twelve points you will see a difference in what I wrote versus the picture of Mr. Pick.
> 
> Salute,
> Mike Miller UKF *



Yeah I noticed that his hands were different from the description that you gave. But I also remembered you saying that there are many positions that the hands could be in and still be in twelve points. Cool, thank for the info. I definitely learn something new everyday. :asian:


----------

