# What is the cash value of "Master Keys"?



## howardr (Oct 24, 2003)

Calling all Masters of the Master Keys!

I've just read some of the recent messages on the subject of Master Keys. They are all interesting, but for purposes of this post, I'd like to leave aside whether there is a single set of Master Keys for each type of basic or multiple Keys, whether there are only Master Key moves or are there also Master Key techniques, etc.

What I'd like to know is what exactly is the "cash value" of Master Keys (again anything that you would place under this concept: moves, techniques, etc.)? In other words, rather than another post debating what they are, I'd like to ask what _exactly_ do they get you practically?

For instance, take two Kenpo clones and one day one of the clones suddenly "gets it," and grasps the whole Master Key perspective. In what ways will the enlightened clone be practically different now from his unenlightened brother? For those that really understand and have personally internalized the Master Key perspective (and the requisite physical skills), how did that change you specifically in the way you execute Kenpo, how did it affect your self-defense prowess, etc.? I.e., do the Master Keys help you fight better, be more spontaneous, quicker, or what, and if so, how exactly do they perform these functions?

Thanks, Howard


----------



## dcence (Oct 24, 2003)

> What I'd like to know is what exactly is the "cash value" of Master Keys



Excellent question --  cha - CHING.  Though I am no master, I will respond --

Concisely, Master Keys are the vehicle to translate what you have learned in one instance and apply it to another different situation.

Now for the reason why I say that:

IMO, Kenpo is not X number of techniques, sets, forms etc.  Kenpo is what those techniques, sets, forms, etc. teach.  If one has learned the entire system, but does not understand what the system is supposed to teach, the very essence of the system, then they have simply learned X number of  moves.  If the student has actually learned what the system teaches, but cannot apply it to other situations, then he is no better off than the guy who didn't learn this.

Let me give you an example.  I can  give you  a cake and you can eat it once.  But  if I give you the recipe, you can make another as many times  as you like, but only exactly like it.  However, if I teach you to bake (the master keys of culinary arts), you can make that cake and many others.  The cake is one technique.  The recipe consists of a "knowledge" of the technique's prinicples.  The master keys are an "understanding" of how to translate that knowledge into other similar, but  different situations.

In Kenpo, we  don't have a technique for every situation.  (Oh my gosh, where is the technique against the left handed club attack that is neither a horizontal roundhouse or a vertical overhead but on the diagonal in between?  Where is the  technique against the  left side kick?  Etc.)   The curriculum is there to  teach the underlying principles that will assist in every situation.   Those principles are contained in master keys which allow you to take limited knowledge and translate it to many situations.

Derek


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Oct 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by dcence _
> *Excellent question --  cha - CHING.
> Concisely, Master Keys are the vehicle that will allow you to take limited knowledge and translate what you have learned in one instance and apply it to many different situations.
> Derek *



Wow, that is brilliant.  Thanks Derek!

I utilize the MK's as an additional tool to help teach and demonstrate the systems simplicity yet unlimited options.

:asian:


----------



## cdhall (Oct 24, 2003)

That was a truly outstanding post Mr. Ence, I'm going to go subscribe to MT magazine right now. I think that post was almost worth $12 by itself.
:karate:


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 28, 2004)

> _Originally posted by howardr _
> *Calling all Masters of the Master Keys!
> 
> I've just read some of the recent messages on the subject of Master Keys. They are all interesting, but for purposes of this post, I'd like to leave aside whether there is a single set of Master Keys for each type of basic or multiple Keys, whether there are only Master Key moves or are there also Master Key techniques, etc.
> ...


. Cool William James reference!!!
Well I would say understanding master keys will save you a lot of actual money in the long run. A Master key technique is one you can use in any situation. You might ask which one that is and the answer is all of them or none of them depending on the individual performing them and how much work that individual put in to it. You can teach 200 techs, each with a different tactic, or you can apply 200 different tactics with variations of one technique. The business aspect leans toward more techs and the practical aspect leans toward less.
Sean


----------



## bdparsons (Jan 28, 2004)

"I can give you a cake and you can eat it once. But if I give you the recipe, you can make another as many times as you like, but only exactly like it. However, if I teach you to bake (the master keys of culinary arts), you can make that cake and many others. The cake is one technique. The recipe consists of a "knowledge" of the technique's prinicples."

Excellent!

Here's another: " Give a person a fish and they'll eat for a day, teach them to use the internet and they won't bother you for weeks!"  

Respects,
Bill Parsons


----------



## JD_Nelson (Jan 29, 2004)

I don't think there are master key techniques.  (Gasp here)  

The master keys are the basics.  Realizing that an inward block has the same position as an extended outward block on a different plane.  

When you can put the basics together in any situation.  I think this is when the art becomes alive.   


Salute,

JD


----------



## Chronuss (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by JD_Nelson
> *When you can put the basics together in any situation.  I think this is when the art becomes alive.*



but isn't that what the Master Key Moves represent...?  combining or ADDING basics together so that they can be applied to more than one scenario by creating a "sentence" than can be used as an answer in more than one scenario?


----------



## JD_Nelson (Jan 29, 2004)

master key moves yes.   

Techniques no


Salute,


JD


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Jan 29, 2004)

> _Originally posted by JD_Nelson _*
> master key moves yes.
> Techniques no
> *



Really?    Why not?


----------



## howardr (Jan 29, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Touch'O'Death _
> *. Cool William James reference!!!
> Sean *



Good catch, but it was not intended as an expression of James' pragmatism. Actually, I reject that philosophy root and branch. But, I certainly can see how you might read James into my post.


----------



## JD_Nelson (Jan 29, 2004)

> Really?
> Why not?



I think the master keys moves boil down to basics and their execution. 
 Very similar to a particular cake being the master key cake.  The fundamentals of the may be sugar, flour, and eggs.  Combined in the right mix it may make a fine dish.  

The basics or master key moves combined in the proper sequence can create a technique full of power, fluidity, and agony for the attacker, but it seems it is a combination of these master key moves which result in the "Master Key Techniques."  

I very much like 5 swords, and thundering hammers, but when I break these techs down to the block, strike, stance change, and so on, I see basics and fundamentals of kenpo.  Yes there are techniques I don't like as well or don't feel right, but when I break them down to their simple movements, and reassemble it I feel much more comfortable with it, and normally it flows better for me. 


Mr. Conatser, 

If I may, what are reasons for believing a technique is a master key?   

Salute,

JD


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 29, 2004)

> _Originally posted by howardr _
> *Good catch, but it was not intended as an expression of James' pragmatism. Actually, I reject that philosophy root and branch. But, I certainly can see how you might read James into my post. *


 You reject pragmatism????!!!??? I'm Speechless. 
Sean


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 29, 2004)

> _Originally posted by JD_Nelson _
> *master key moves yes.
> 
> Techniques no
> ...


 The idea is that you become so versed in a technique that it may become a base of operations. If you don't think this is possible, that is your gig. Will you at least accept family related groupings of techs are master keys or are you limiting master key to varied applications of a single move? Remember however it is OK to varry your applications of a sequence of moves as well. (example being a hammer- thrust could be attacking mace or thundering hammers) I can teach the whole art using attacking mace as a base without -ever- mentioning another tech name, "EVER !!!"
Sean


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Jan 29, 2004)

> _Originally posted by JD_Nelson _*
> Mr. Conatser,   If I may, what are reasons for believing a technique is a master key?
> Salute, JD
> *



As Mr. Parker explained to me, the value of Basics is important, then to structure combinations there of, is of further value, and finally to know how, when, where, and why to use them specifically , brings forth more useful knowledge .  

Each area has its value.  Much like the English language has "Key" areas ... such as verbs, nouns, pronouns, adjectives, and so on, each has a necessary use and meaning but once put together in a logical order,  which has specific rules, communication is much more effective and understandable.

There are many "master keys"..... Master Key Movements, Master Key Techniques, Master Key Drills for coordination and physical development.... and so on.

A more thorough understanding will reveal more variables and knowledge.

In our quest for knowledge in Kenpo we must realize 3 important areas......  We "know of" many things, we "know" a little less, and we "understand" even less yet.    To first know of, then to really know, and finally to understand, is our Long Journey in Kenpo.

 :asian:


----------



## Rainman (Jan 29, 2004)

> _Originally posted by JD_Nelson _
> *I don't think there are master key techniques.  (Gasp here)
> 
> The master keys are the basics.  Realizing that an inward block has the same position as an extended outward block on a different plane.
> ...



There is and there is not.  Targeting sequences which are basically refered to as self defense techniques are master keys.  The whole thing is about what exactly do you know about the technique.  My opionion is when you look at it the way you did with angles and such you are right... looked at it that way myself for years.    I would give you an A+ for that analogy on "angles" because you figured out how techniques are not masterkeys...  Very good job JD.  Very good job.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 29, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Rainman _
> *There is and there is not.  Targeting sequences which are basically refered to as self defense techniques are master keys.  The whole thing is about what exactly do you know about the technique.  My opionion is when you look at it the way you did with angles and such you are right... looked at it that way myself for years.    I would give you an A+ for that analogy on "angles" because you figured out how techniques are not masterkeys...  Very good job JD.  Very good job. *


 Yeah, congratulations :shrug:  
SEAN:asian:


----------



## Rainman (Jan 29, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Touch'O'Death _
> *Yeah, congratulations :shrug:
> SEAN:asian: *



And?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 29, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Rainman _
> *And? *


 And I don't think Mr. Parker laid out the idea of Master Key techs just so people could come a long and congratulate eachother for deciding it was all crap. Some see 154 seperate techs and some see one with 154 applications. Its relative to how you see it. You can list all the individual basics you know in the hundreds or you can say, "Wow, my arm makes the same basic motion every time, its only the weapon and target that changes". That is the master key is the basic motion and the specialization is for this particular application. As Far as motion goes, an outward etended block is in a different motion catagory than an inward block; however, conceptualy they are the same, but both require different points of origin to be of use.
Sean


----------



## JD_Nelson (Jan 29, 2004)

By TOD


> The idea is that you become so versed in a technique that it may become a base of operations. If you don't think this is possible, that is your gig. Will you at least accept family related groupings of techs are master keys or are you limiting master key to varied applications of a single move? Remember however it is OK to varry your applications of a sequence of moves as well. (example being a hammer- thrust could be attacking mace or thundering hammers) I can teach the whole art using attacking mace as a base without -ever- mentioning another tech name, "EVER !!!"



Sir, 

I agree you become so versed in a technique it becomes a point to start from.  Cant the same be said of a basic?  I consider a neutral bow a basic.  This is a base of operations for all of the techniques I have learned to date.  Moving through a neutral to either a forward or reverse.  I feel the techniques are a vehicle to teach how to implement the basics and put them together.   

I like the idea of family related groupings.  It is an excellent idea to help students learn how to respond to variations of an attack.  It seems to help with grafting and being able to pull methods from 1 prescribe technique into another.  I hope I am reading you correctly right.

Mr. Conatser:



> As Mr. Parker explained to me, the value of Basics is important, then to structure combinations there of, is of further value, ...



I agree here to a point sir.  I see his thought in respect to teaching the art to others so they can learn how to do this.  Kenpo and the techniques have taught me very much to date, and I am sure the techniques to come will teach me much much more.  I do question the idea that these arrangements will be the complete solution to a type of attack that falls into a certain category.  A well planned defense and a reasonable solution, but by no means a complete solution.   

If all we know are techniques will the ability to grow with the self defense aspect cease? I do realize you can go as deep as you want, but what about simplicity as a solution.  I seriusly considered bailing out on kenpo due to the intracancies of some of the techniques.  But, I have learned tremendous amounts from my few years in kenpo.  I know I am much more proficient with my kenpo training than I would be without.



> ...and finally to know how, when, where, and why to use them specifically , brings forth more useful knowledge.



I think we are in agreement here.  The techniques do this in an organized manner, but i think good kenpo basics can be applied in another art.  There may be some minor adjustments or different approaches to achieve the same goal.  



> There are many "master keys"..... Master Key Movements, Master Key Techniques, Master Key Drills for coordination and physical development.... and so on.



Sir, coordination and timing are very important for any success to be expected in the martial arts.  In my own case, I am not a very graceful runner, but the more I run the more coordinated and less like a teenager adjusting to his heigth.  Thes drills are great for coordination, skill and physical development.  But why do many consider Thundering Hammers a master key technique?  Why Five Swords?  Why others?  What is it that sets these techniques so far above the rest?  






> A more thorough understanding will reveal more variables and knowledge.
> 
> In our quest for knowledge in Kenpo we must realize 3 important areas...... We "know of" many things, we "know" a little less, and we "understand" even less yet. To first know of, then to really know, and finally to understand, is our Long Journey in Kenpo.



Agreed.

Salute,

JD


----------



## JD_Nelson (Jan 29, 2004)

by TOD



> however, conceptualy they are the same, but both require different points of origin to be of use



I bleieve this is a point of view or point of instruction.  Overlooking the chamber position as a point of origin.  My fellow students and I have been taught both the inward, outward, upward move through an uppercut.  

Look at the angle of an inward block, outward block, and an upward block.  They are all very similar if not the same.  Is this a form of category completion?

Does kenpo come down to be this simple in all aspects or techniques.  No I don't think so and this was just one example.  Mr. Parker has also said that there is nothing basic about basics.  We can all go quoting or falling back to Mr. Parkers teachings, but I am trying to express my experiences not his teachings.  I use his methods as a guide, but not the final say.

Salute,

JD


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 29, 2004)

> _Originally posted by JD_Nelson _
> *by TOD
> 
> 
> ...


You know how when you execute right outward extended blocks off the hip, your hand goes left before it goes right? That is a violation of point of origin. In a fight your hands are generaly not found at the hip. Your uppercut theory is actualy another way of saying your basics work better when you line them up on your center line in what is considered an uppercut position. The same holds true for moves starting with your hands up in what could only be described as a reverse uppercut. What I'm trying to say is that I understand what you are trying to say and what you understand it as being; however I will disagree with you all the same because the outward extended block is at its best when executed from the opposite shoulder. Don't even try to argue.:asian:  You will notice however that even when executing this motion from the opposite shoulder your arm does pass through and will assume that uppercut position, if only for a brief instant. 
As for your second point, I am all for transending Mr. Parkers teachings but in this case you are simply not getting it. :soapbox: 
Sean


----------



## JD_Nelson (Jan 29, 2004)

Yes your are correct when speaking of the doing it from a horse position using the chamber position.

I did qualify this here:



> I bleieve this is a point of view or point of instruction. Overlooking the chamber position as a point of origin. My fellow students and I have been taught both the inward, outward, upward move through an uppercut.



Salute,

JD


----------



## Rainman (Jan 30, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Touch'O'Death _
> *And I don't think Mr. Parker laid out the idea of Master Key techs just so people could come a long and congratulate eachother for deciding it was all crap. Some see 154 seperate techs and some see one with 154 applications. Its relative to how you see it. You can list all the individual basics you know in the hundreds or you can say, "Wow, my arm makes the same basic motion every time, its only the weapon and target that changes". That is the master key is the basic motion and the specialization is for this particular application. As Far as motion goes, an outward etended block is in a different motion catagory than an inward block; however, conceptualy they are the same, but both require different points of origin to be of use.
> Sean *



Mr. Parker has moved on so you really don't know what he would say.  A bit presumptuous of you to go speaking on his behalf is it not?   You missed the point again.  Master Key techniques cannot be defined by the angles they take or the motion within them.  They do exist but are defined in other ways.  I gave ONE example but you didn't understand.    What  is good about JD's post is his disovery about the planes and some of his reasoning behind his statement.   It tells me he is studying and learning.    On this forum "Johnnny come lately" we have already had discussions about master keys which in clude basics, master key movements, and a host of other things.    

As far as motion goes...  Whose motion are we talking about, yours?   How is an inward block and an extended outward block conceptually the same?   You mean if you use the same concepts one particular time for each block they are now the same thing all the time?  One concept is the same, it is called deflection and it is also a primary concept.  Other than that the structure of the thing could be quite different unless you know some things about anatomical correctedness and choose to use them in a particular case.  A thrusting inward block is not the same as an extended outward block, the weapon arcs in one and not the other just as one example...  Then of course you can change your thrusting inward block to a hammering inward block and now there is more common ground between the 2 OPPOSITE movements.  You know inward- outward or do you think forward and reverse are the same things as well?   

Some see 154 teks- some see 154 applications.  This has also been discused here in a contact manipulation thread and a ground attack thread called applied Kenpo by me a couple of years ago maybe.   

By the way there is one master key that is not disputable and it is called breathing-   Can't leave home without it.

Next


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 30, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Rainman _
> *Mr. Parker has moved on so you really don't know what he would say.  A bit presumptuous of you to go speaking on his behalf is it not?   You missed the point again.  Master Key techniques cannot be defined by the angles they take or the motion within them.  They do exist but are defined in other ways.  I gave ONE example but you didn't understand.    What  is good about JD's post is his disovery about the planes and some of his reasoning behind his statement.   It tells me he is studying and learning.    On this forum "Johnnny come lately" we have already had discussions about master keys which in clude basics, master key movements, and a host of other things.
> 
> As far as motion goes...  Whose motion are we talking about, yours?   How is an inward block and an extended outward block conceptually the same?   You mean if you use the same concepts one particular time for each block they are now the same thing all the time?  One concept is the same, it is called deflection and it is also a primary concept.  Other than that the structure of the thing could be quite different unless you know some things about anatomical correctedness and choose to use them in a particular case.  A thrusting inward block is not the same as an extended outward block, the weapon arcs in one and not the other just as one example...  Then of course you can change your thrusting inward block to a hammering inward block and now there is more common ground between the 2 OPPOSITE movements.  You know inward- outward or do you think forward and reverse are the same things as well?
> ...


 I thought I said the motion was different but the concept was the same. Ed Parker said a tech could be a master key and you agreed that they were not. Who's putting words in Mr. Parkers mouth? Thrust inward and hammering inward are not variations of eachother so not I would not even agree with you there. I'm sure you did post two years ago; that is nice. Later
Sean


----------



## Rainman (Jan 30, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Touch'O'Death _
> *I thought I said the motion was different but the concept was the same. Ed Parker said a tech could be a master key and you agreed that they were not. Who's putting words in Mr. Parkers mouth? Thrust inward and hammering inward are not variations of eachother so not I would not even agree with you there. I'm sure you did post two years ago; that is nice. Later
> Sean *



THEY ARE AND THEY ARE NOT.  That is what I said.  Let me spell this out to you.  They are not if you try to group by planes and or angles.  It does not make sence that way.  There can be master key techniques if you look at like ways of structural breakdown... And like I have already said, this is but one example.

Yeah you are right variations would be incorrect- circular and linnear are METHODS.   Thrust usually denotes linear action and hammering usually means curved.   

We don't agree because we are not talking about the same thing.   You are saying the sky is blue and I am saying my car is red.   This is the second time you have jumped to an incorrect conclusion because you either misread or did not understand something-  There is a highlight above= it was in my first post.  THEY ARE AND THEY ARE NOT.    later dude-


----------



## jeffkyle (Jan 30, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Rainman _
> *Mr. Parker has moved on so you really don't know what he would say.  A bit presumptuous of you to go speaking on his behalf is it not?   You missed the point again.  Master Key techniques cannot be defined by the angles they take or the motion within them.  They do exist but are defined in other ways.  I gave ONE example but you didn't understand.    What  is good about JD's post is his disovery about the planes and some of his reasoning behind his statement.   It tells me he is studying and learning.    On this forum "Johnnny come lately" we have already had discussions about master keys which in clude basics, master key movements, and a host of other things.
> 
> As far as motion goes...  Whose motion are we talking about, yours?   How is an inward block and an extended outward block conceptually the same?   You mean if you use the same concepts one particular time for each block they are now the same thing all the time?  One concept is the same, it is called deflection and it is also a primary concept.  Other than that the structure of the thing could be quite different unless you know some things about anatomical correctedness and choose to use them in a particular case.  A thrusting inward block is not the same as an extended outward block, the weapon arcs in one and not the other just as one example...  Then of course you can change your thrusting inward block to a hammering inward block and now there is more common ground between the 2 OPPOSITE movements.  You know inward- outward or do you think forward and reverse are the same things as well?
> ...



Well said!!  :asian:


----------



## JD_Nelson (Jan 30, 2004)

by TOD


> You know how when you execute right outward extended blocks off the hip, your hand goes left before it goes right? That is a violation of point of origin.



As I stated before the edit




> Yes your are correct when speaking of the doing it from a horse position using the chamber position.
> 
> I did qualify this here:
> 
> ...



TOD


> In a fight your hands are generaly not found at the hip. Your uppercut theory is actualy another way of saying your basics work better when you line them up on your center line in what is considered an uppercut position. The same holds true for moves starting with your hands up in what could only be described as a reverse uppercut. What I'm trying to say is that I understand what you are trying to say and what you understand it as being; however I will disagree with you all the same because the outward extended block is at its best when executed from the opposite shoulder. Don't even try to argue. You will notice however that even when executing this motion from the opposite shoulder your arm does pass through and will assume that uppercut position, if only for a brief instant.



Sir,  

Agree with you completly.  I think we are begininning to talk about another master key??  Maybe using the center line with the uppercut.  

And hence my point of basics combining together make the better martial artist.  These basics are kinda universal.  

Salute,

JD


----------



## howardr (Jan 30, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Touch'O'Death _
> *You reject pragmatism????!!!??? I'm Speechless.
> Sean *



Why's that?


----------



## Rainman (Jan 30, 2004)

> _Originally posted by jeffkyle _
> *Well said!!  :asian: *



Thank you Mr. Kyle.


----------



## kenpo_cory (Jan 30, 2004)

Forgive my ignorance, but what exactly defines a master key technique?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 31, 2004)

> _Originally posted by kenpo_cory _
> *Forgive my ignorance, but what exactly defines a master key technique? *


 "Any technique you choose as a baseMove. Other similar techniques may be perceived as variations of that technique. The art of using master Key techniques is to eventualy use any and all techniques as a base move and to see how all other techniques are just formulations of it."SH 
Sean


----------



## JD_Nelson (Feb 1, 2004)

One little agreement kills the whole thread.


No other thoughts?  There has to be more insights than offered so far.

Salute,

JD


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 1, 2004)

I think most of the disagreement comes from discussing different master key concepts. They are the most fundimental ideas and movements that unlock the doors to proficiancy through simplicity. Your comfortable with motion and angles where As I contend that any given tech can be a base move and all your techniques can be listed in order and by catagory as being related to that tech.(For instance Thundering hammers can be related to Sleeper, Dance of death ect., or Attacking Mace , flashing wings, etc, Leaping crane gathering clouds, etc, Flashing Mace, glancing salute etc., and finaly Gift of destruction, gift in return ect. Thundering Hammers may also be a subcatagory of any tech mentioned or of an etcetera.)
Sean


----------



## JD_Nelson (Feb 2, 2004)

by TOD



> I think most of the disagreement comes from discussing different master key concepts. They are the most fundimental ideas and movements that unlock the doors to proficiancy through simplicity. Your comfortable with motion and angles where As I contend that any given tech can be a base move and all your techniques can be listed in order and by catagory as being related to that tech.(For instance Thundering hammers can be related to Sleeper, Dance of death ect., or Attacking Mace , flashing wings, etc, Leaping crane gathering clouds, etc, Flashing Mace, glancing salute etc., and finaly Gift of destruction, gift in return ect. Thundering Hammers may also be a subcatagory of any tech mentioned or of an etcetera.)



Not really a disagreement I dont think.  I see your point very clearly.  I agree that attacking mace can lead you to many variations of it ( at least the techs i have learned so far), but I don't consider a technique a master key.  If you can teach the whole system from Attacking Mace, could you teach it from another technique?  I have given serious thought to the idea of 154 different techniques vs. 1 technique with 154 applications.  It is an amazing concept.  

As for the angles, come on that is only one piece of it.  If you look at Mr. Ences's description, learned in one situation and can be applied in another.   The angle in those blocks is what is important.  Where else can that angle be found.  What is that angles compliment?  If you can finde the compliment, can you see the original angle. Is it only found in the arm blocks?   As for the uppercut, is it only in a punch?  could it be in other arm strikes?  If we master one technique is that going to make us a master?  The techniqes, striking sets, footwork are drills that help to coordinate basics and/ or master keys.  

I am very much enjoying this topic.  I have reread it numersous times to better understand many ideas.  I just want more thoughts.  :asian: 

Salute,


JD


----------



## Brother John (Feb 2, 2004)

I think one of the fundamental differnces is between what we are calling a 'master key movement' and a 'master key technique'. Some see the technique as a master key, I don't really see it like that myself. If a master key technique is a technique that we try to use as a base for any other movement we may need to move into... every technique is a master key and the concept loses it's usefulness. It's meaning gets dissipated if EVERY tech can be a M.K., then why distinguish any of them as a M.K.?  I really like the fact that you can take any technique and be able to alter it and flow into whatever else you need to do...I think that this adaptability is what gives Kenpo it's strength and usefulness. 

Therefore I'd rather take a technique and break it down, what is the base or root-movement that initiates this technique or any element within it. That's why I feel that designating something a M.K. movement has more merit than designating a whole technique. 
For instance: lets take attacking mace, which many have said would make a fine M.K. tech. I agree, it's a fine technique that's chocked full O' goodness!!! Lots to learn from it.
First pulse: Move back to a RNB, Right inward block, reverse punch.

There are three master key movements here: 
Master Key footwork: launching. (key element behind all footwork)
Master key stance: Neutral Bow. (which can lead to any other stance w/as little modification as possible)
Master key block: Inward block. (who's angle is used in most all blocks)
Master key of striking: uppercut positon (initial motion of all strikes).

Second pulse: grab their arm, round house kick.

Master keys Here: 
Master Key of kicking: front knee position.

third pulse: leg buckle and upper cut. 
Master key stance: Neutral bow (which is what the knee buckle leads to) 
Master key strike: Uppercut. 

The way it was taught to me, the master key movement is useful in that making sure to move from this point while doing all other related movements helps to insure the proper execution of those other movements as well as give a commonality to use to convert any given point in the action in order to flow into any other movement that that same M.K. also leads to.
THEREFORE: 
If all of my kicks are executed first from a front knee position...then my attacker will be at a disadvantage to interpret what I will and won't do from that position...it could end up being any kick. OR from my point of view, if I intended on executing a roundhouse kick and brought my right leg up to execute said kick, then sensed that my opponents body had shifted to where a frontball kick would be much more effective...I can change the technique with only a little modification and not effect the flow of action. Even if I need to first kick a person behind me, I can change to that just about as easily without telegraphing my intention first. 

Calling each or any technique a "master key technique" is understandable, but not so useful. I'd rather call it the plus/minus concept. Taken from math, imagine that each technique is on a continuum line from right to left with the ideal or 'text-book' version (as I call it) at exact zero. Then as you alter/change/tailor it it's like taking that technique and going (for instance) Thrusting Devastation zero, Thrusting Devastation -1, Thrusting Devastation +1, Thrusting Devastation -2, Thrusting Devastation +2. etc.
Hope I'm making sense. Saying that zero is the "Master Key" obfuscates the usefulness of the term master key when applied toward 'movements', which as I said...I think is more useful.

I could be full of hogwash..
But I don't think so.

Your Brother
John


----------



## kenpo_cory (Feb 2, 2004)

Well all this master key stuff must be over my head cause the only thing I see being described is basics, how to put them together, and some pretty nifty descriptions of the formulation faze.


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Feb 2, 2004)

MASTER KEYS 


MASTER KEY MOVEMENT(S) 
are defined as being a move or series of moves that can be used in more than one predicament with equal effect.  For example a rear heel kick, shin scrape, and instep stomp can be used for a FULL NELSON, BEAR HUG with the arms free or pinned, REAR ARM LOCK, etc. Or, an arm break can be applied to a cross wrist grab, a lapel grab, or hair grab -  application of the arm break would remain constant, but the methods of controlling the wrist would vary. 

Another example is the single punch drill from a training horse.  This is a MASTER KEY DRILL, due to the motion involved with the action punching forward, reverse and opposite, the root motion for all your strikes and blocks stem from this drill.

In comparison, 

MASTER KEY TECHNIQUES 
entail sequential arrangements of movements that can be applied to a number of predicaments. In the case of a MASTER KEY TECHNIQUE it is a single technique that may be used as a BASE MOVE. Other similar techniques may then be perceived as formulations of it. 

In many ways they are like Family Groupings and Associated Moves; they are the result of an individual's further association of movements; they are the next logical step in the search for spontaneity. 

Remember, the following are only one set of model groupings. The art of Master Key Techniques is to eventually be able to use any and all techniques as a BASE MOVE and to see how all other techniques are formulations of it. 

This should lead you to the next level of spontaneity. 

One example group........

LONE KIMONO:                      
        Twin Kimono                       
        Clutching Feathers                
        Locking Horns                     
        Captured Leaves                     
        Entangled Wing 
        Snapping Twigs 
        Raking Mace 
        Obscure Sword 
        Falcons of Force 

:asian:


----------



## Brother John (Feb 3, 2004)

> _Originally posted by kenpo_cory _
> *Well all this master key stuff must be over my head cause the only thing I see being described is basics, how to put them together, and some pretty nifty descriptions of the formulation faze.  *


I think you may be closer than you think.

I consider a master key technique to be the base technique from which you can formulate to create other techniques. I think that this is what Mr. Conaster just described very well. It's what I called the "Plus and Minus", with the zero point being the master key tech that you started with in it's 'text-book' phase and the -1/+1, -2/+2...etc...being the infinite number of techs that you can formulate from that original tech. Obviously a "Five Swords +1" would more closely resemble it's master key tech than say a "Five Swords +7" would. The crux of keeping this kind of infinite forulation 'useful' is to keep each version bound by logic, ie; correct principles/concepts leading to applicability. 
See in my oppinion calling this a "Master Key technique" isn't very useful as it can be said of absolutely any technique as you can formulate from any tech you like. Beuty of Kenpo I think! I'd much rather just call it "formulation base technique". Keeps the two very different concepts separate. 

You are also right in saying that a Master Key move is talking of basics, very correct. Mind you even the most "Advanced" technique that we have is just basics expressed in a more refined and sophisticated arrangement. So if we elevate or improve the way we view a basic, the rest of the system is elevated or improved correspondingly.

Mr. Conaster defined as Master Key Moves (I think) as basics that can be used in more than one situation with equal impact/practicality. To me, mind you I'm no "Kenpo Senior" as Mr. Conaster is...I'm just a kid from Kansas with Kenpo ideas....anyway, to me these are better defined as "Master Key Basics". It's a useful way of looking at a technique...but again...ANY basic can be seen this way depending upon the circumstance. It's a paralax...all depends on how you view it.

To me, and the way my instructors have always taught it to me, a Master Key Movement is an even smaller component of our techniques... it's like a root movement that most, if not all, of our other related technique flow from. They are arranged in catagories, just as basics are in the infinite insights books (stances, foot maneuvers, blocks, strikes, kicks...etc.)..but each catagory has one "Master Key Movement" that unlocks each catagory...ie; it is the root movement that initiates all of the others.
So Blocks: Inward block. It's angle is used in all blocks. 
Punches: Inverted fist / aka; upper-cut punch. It is the first movement that almost all other strikes must first pass through. (more on this one in a bit)
Kicks: front knee position. All of our kicks can and probably should move through this position first.
Stances: Neutral Bow. From this stance you can move to any other stance very quickly and with little modification/adjustment.

In my consideration really I don't even want to refer to the inward block as much. But I do teach my students that it's a master key movement...but later I teach them this:
For the arms, the inverted punch / uppercut punch is the most important! WHY?
The sequence of muscle firing is the same for blocks and strikes. It is the initial phase of motion for most any strike and/or block. 
It also replaces the inward block (or is at least it's equal) because it's end position, if executed properly, is the exact same angle that we are looking for in the inward block...so it teaches the same angle as an inward block. 
These are the essence of why I feel that the inverted punch / uppercut is the master key movement for the arms! If I sense my attackers motion and initiate an inverted punch, I can alter it's motion into most any block or strike (after all the only difference between the two is intent, right)...thus it is the root motion of all of my arm techniques.

So why still teach the inward block as a master key movement? 
First off... it still is one, just that the inverted punch, when understood correctly, accomplishes more.
Secondly, when done at the phonetic/solid phase of motion it teaches the student proper sequencing of muscles for many forward moving techniques (Lats, Delts, Triceps, wrist flexors...in that order) moving from the center of the body outward, culminating in a faster...more powerful technique. This understanding and conditioning benefits many other similar motions.... start at the core and work outward to the weapon, bringing everything to a head at the proper depth of impact.

To me, a master key technique is to molecular science 
as a master key movement is to nuclear or quantum physics.

The molecule "Hydrogen" can be used in BILLIONS of combinations to make Many different forms of matter.
But a Neutron, electron or proton (don't go off on quarks and neutrinos...I took physics and I'm not looking back) is used to make Hydrogen, as well as carbon and oxygen...etc.

Again, hope I'm being clear.
Challenge and question....
Your Brother
John


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 3, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Brother John _
> *I think you may be closer than you think.
> 
> I consider a master key technique to be the base technique from which you can formulate to create other techniques. I think that this is what Mr. Conaster just described very well. It's what I called the "Plus and Minus", with the zero point being the master key tech that you started with in it's 'text-book' phase and the -1/+1, -2/+2...etc...being the infinite number of techs that you can formulate from that original tech. Obviously a "Five Swords +1" would more closely resemble it's master key tech than say a "Five Swords +7" would. The crux of keeping this kind of infinite forulation 'useful' is to keep each version bound by logic, ie; correct principles/concepts leading to applicability.
> ...


 I just can't accept that an inward block is a master key. Oh sure, you may introduce it as a base move and stem your whole art from there; however, the only thing that makes the inward block a master key is the fact that you believe to be one. Blocks of any kind are defensive gestures and strikes are offensive. Wouldn't the master key be the motion itself and not the intention? Faliure to realize the base concept and just settling with the defensive application as a base move, is why we need instructors to list offensive applications as seperate from the defensive. With that B1AHtsk is just a defensive tech expressed in algebraic form. One exercise I was given once was to go through  a few defensive techs and list the offensive applications of all the defensive gestures in any given tech.


----------



## Doc (Feb 3, 2004)

If I may add a thought or two, I agree to an extent with the GoldenDragon7, JD_Nelson, and Rainman.

I was taught a different perspective however. In motion based interpretations the emphasis is on "master keys" as they relate to applications because of the philosophical mandate of the interpretation.

However, when you remove the application what do you have left? No matter how well it might be done, a "motion" without application is an abstract "useless expression of motion." You might as well be "dancing." 

I was taught to examine "human motion," not just "motion." To remove motion from the human anatomy by which it must be propelled is to relegate study to a particular level by which it cannot move beyond. 

I was taught by Ed Parker Sr. "motion is infinite, but most effective human motion is not." and was taught to completely examine effective human movement first, and its many applications second. To that end we developed instead of arguably conceptual "master keys," a mapping of the most effective "human movement" through mandated like anatomical expression called "Body Index Movement." In most instances the human body can only perforn physical movement one way for maximum efficiency, particular if counter-resistance or impact is prevelant in the activity.

Of course this is a contridiction to philosophies that promote "master key movement" which unfortunately, I find no value in from the interpretation I was taught. Still, if a motion based concept is the base of the interpretation, "master key" examination is essential to developement and an understanding of how the puzzle fits together at that level, and can serve as an interesting precursor to a greater education and subsequent knowledge.

One of the problems in "motion" is the extremely wide and varied interpretations of "motion" as applied to "basic" applications. This is the reason why "basics" have such a wide and varied interpretation by various teachers and students. The concept accepts and promotes "individuality" as long as it is reasonably effective for the individual.  This is its strength and its weakness or limitation. 

When the mandate is "structurally the most efficient anatomical movement possible," the interpretation is then restricted to parameters dictated by human anatomy which is immediately physically provable, and is a true science and therefore not conceptual and precludes misunderstandings. The questions are all answered by your body as you learn and progress. This methodology is absolutely necessary to execute the nerve, manipulation, and grappling questions inherent, (like it or not) in American Kenpo, and is the reason for the exodus by some to other arts in search of "answers" they could find at home. 

Just a different perspective to consider and not coincidently, the same perspective pro-sports use. Ed Parker was a sportsman, who wrestled, ran track, and played football. He knew about maximum physical performance, but recognized Kenpo could NOT grow within his lifetime without a "motion conceptual" perspective that did not demand his constant precense to be "effective."


----------



## Brother John (Feb 3, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Touch'O'Death _
> *I just can't accept that an inward block is a master key. *



Don't know, maybe you have a point.
Because I don't consider the block it's self to be the master key, but the angle and the motion leading up to the angle, as this angle is used in all the blocks....therefore training yourself to assume this block well effects the quality of all your other blocks.
Tada....
master key.
Just a thought.
HEY, it's a concept...if it doesn't work for you, don't use/pursue it.

Your Brother
John


----------



## kenpo_cory (Feb 3, 2004)

Thanks for the clarification. :asian:


----------



## JD_Nelson (Feb 3, 2004)

By JD




> As for the angles, come on that is only one piece of it. If you look at Mr. Ences's description, learned in one situation and can be applied in another. The angle in those blocks is what is important. Where else can that angle be found. What is that angles compliment? If you can finde the compliment, can you see the original angle. Is it only found in the arm blocks?




I tried to make them find it, but I was referring to it Brother John.


Salute,


JD


----------

