# 7 things you can do to a technique?



## Making the Journey (Jan 29, 2006)

I know four of the seven things you can do to a technique are: add, delete, alter, and regulate... if anyone has the other 3 please let me know... and if you could, give me your definition of them... thanks!


----------



## jfarnsworth (Jan 29, 2006)

prefix
suffix
insert


----------



## jfarnsworth (Jan 29, 2006)

Making the Journey said:
			
		

> I know four of the seven things you can do to a technique are: *add*, delete, alter, and regulate... if anyone has the other 3 please let me know... and if you could, give me your definition of them... thanks!


Adjust


----------



## Sapper6 (Jan 29, 2006)

Making the Journey said:
			
		

> I know four of the seven things you can do to a technique are: add, delete, alter, and regulate... if anyone has the other 3 please let me know... and if you could, give me your definition of them... thanks!


 
you can do all these "neat" little things.  but if you are to make a single alteration to a specific technique, it is no longer that same technique, but a different tech all together.

one other thing to think about.  EP created your technique sequence for a very specific reason.  if you alter that, i would think that you risk altering the effectiveness of such technique.

i would suggest, if you ever so feel the need to alter, for example, darting mace, don't call it darting mace.  it's a different creature after you "change" it.


----------



## Dark Kenpo Lord (Jan 29, 2006)

Making the Journey said:
			
		

> I know four of the seven things you can do to a technique are: add, delete, alter, and regulate... if anyone has the other 3 please let me know... and if you could, give me your definition of them... thanks!


 
Look up the definition for "The Equation Formula", it's what you're talking about.


DarK LorD


----------



## Dark Kenpo Lord (Jan 29, 2006)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> you can do all these "neat" little things. but if you are to make a single alteration to a specific technique, it is no longer that same technique, but a different tech all together.
> 
> one other thing to think about. EP created your technique sequence for a very specific reason. if you alter that, i would think that you risk altering the effectiveness of such technique.
> 
> i would suggest, if you ever so feel the need to alter, for example, darting mace, don't call it darting mace. it's a different creature after you "change" it.


 
Afraid you've got some things confused.    Just because you alter a tech doesn't mean you're not doing the tech, there is something called rearrangement within ideal phase.     You can also use the "Equation Formula" and still stay within the parameters of the ideal phase of a tech.     Staying within the pattern, very simple concept.

DarK LorD


----------



## evenflow1121 (Jan 29, 2006)

Agreed, EP even taught certain techniques with slight different variations  part of his genious in order to know where the student learned it from.

Equation Formula:  (1) prefix it - add a move or moves a before it; (2) suffix it - add a move or moves after it; (3) insert - add a simultaneous move with the already established sequence (this move can be used as a (a) pinning check - using pressure against an opponent's weapons to nullify their delivery, or (b) positioned check - where you place the hand or leg in a defensive position or angle to minimize entry to your vital areas); (4) rearrange - change the sequence of moves,(5) alter the - (a)weapon, (b) target, (c) both the weapon and the target, (6) adjust the - (a) range, (b) angle of execution (which affect width the height), (c) both angle of execution and range: (7) regulate the - (a) speed, (b) force, (c) both speed and force, (d) intent and speed; and (8) delete - exclude a move or moves from the squence.  (Ed Parker's Encyclopedia of Kenpo)


----------



## Sapper6 (Jan 29, 2006)

perhaps that's true.  hard to imagine that if you change something, it's still what it once was before.  common perception that is if you add change to something, it's no longer what it once was, but takes on something entirely different.  simple deviations will cause your attacker to act differently, based upon your actions/reactions.  

a variant does not mean "same"...it means different, a variation.


----------



## Dark Kenpo Lord (Jan 30, 2006)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> perhaps that's true. hard to imagine that if you change something, it's still what it once was before. common perception that is if you add change to something, it's no longer what it once was, but takes on something entirely different. simple deviations will cause your attacker to act differently, based upon your actions/reactions.
> 
> a variant does not mean "same"...it means different, a variation.


 
Hmm, guess I should stick with a basic model car, no A/C, radio, manual windows, and no power brakes.      Seems to the same to me when they add the bells and whistles of creature comforts, and oddly enough, they make parts for them with the variants because it's the same car.    

Once a base is established, the Equation Formula is used to stay within the base, but it's still the same technique.

DarK LorD


----------



## arnisador (Jan 30, 2006)

evenflow1121 said:
			
		

> (5) alter [...] both the weapon and the target


 
Once you can change a kick to the knee into a knifehand to the neck, aren't the rest of those variations largely superfluous?


----------



## Sapper6 (Jan 30, 2006)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Once you can change a kick to the knee into a knifehand to the neck, aren't the rest of those variations largely superfluous?


 
that's what i'm saying too.  once you change one aspect, the body is going to react differently, thus requiring additional alterations, hence, the creation of a different technique altogether.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 30, 2006)

The techniques are meant to be ideas to work with in dealing with an attack.  They are not meant to be static and unchangeable.  You might use a base technique but make necessary changes on the fly, as the encounter unfolds.  You might start with one technique and switch to another in the middle, as the situation changes.  You probably will only get bits and pieces of the techniques to work in real life, instead of a complete "textbook" technique.  But the textbook technique gives you a place to start, in dealing with an attack.  But being creative with the actual application, as necessary, is important.

Often, the technique will have a basic idea on how a situation is handled.  As long as you are using that idea, the details about how you actually finish the opponent are more fluid and can be changed.  The main idea of the technique is the "meat", and is what is important. 

In other words, switching out a kick to the knee for a knifehand to the throat doesn't mean you are doing a different technique, as long as you have used the Meat of the technique to control the situation.


----------



## evenflow1121 (Jan 30, 2006)

Thats a good question arnisador, however, in EPAK a lot of leeway is given to the student, techniques are not really supposed to be so rigid as for you not change a certain area of one.  In other styles of Kenpo perhaps, depends on the philosophy.


----------



## arnisador (Jan 30, 2006)

Well, what I meant was, if you can change the weapon and the target, do you need to list 'Rearrange' as a separate option? If the technique was knee to the groin, elbow to the head and I did elbow to the head, knee to the groin, how can you tell if I rearranged the techniques in a new order, or changed both the weapon and the target on each of the techniques (knee-->elbow, groin-->head; elbow-->knee, head-->groin)? I guess I'm looking at it like a logician and seeing superfluous options that really are included in others.

I have met numerous Kenpoists who feel that every technique must be done as listed, all the way through, every time. I know that many more subscribe to the Equation Formula (which is itself a redundant term, no?) point of view. I can understand an approach of saying "Basically do it like this, but tweak it if you need to so so" and I think most arts assume that you will do so; but when you allow changing both the weapon and the target, you've introduced a _huge _amount of freedom that seems to lose the structure of the technique. Again, it may well be necessary to do so--it just makes me wonder if calling that the same technique is useful. By the time I change a palm heel to the lower abdomen to a jump spinning reverse heel kick to the head, is it the same thing?

Perhaps it's implicit that perturbations will be small. But even then, as *Sapper6* suggests, a small change leads to a slightly bigger change, which leads to a yet bigger change...soon everything would be different, I'd think!


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 30, 2006)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Well, what I meant was, if you can change the weapon and the target, do you need to list 'Rearrange' as a separate option? If the technique was knee to the groin, elbow to the head and I did elbow to the head, knee to the groin, how can you tell if I rearranged the techniques in a new order, or changed both the weapon and the target on each of the techniques (knee-->elbow, groin-->head; elbow-->knee, head-->groin)? I guess I'm looking at it like a logician and seeing superfluous options that really are included in others.
> 
> I have met numerous Kenpoists who feel that every technique must be done as listed, all the way through, every time. I know that many more subscribe to the Equation Formula (which is itself a redundant term, no?) point of view. I can understand an approach of saying "Basically do it like this, but tweak it if you need to so so" and I think most arts assume that you will do so; but when you allow changing both the weapon and the target, you've introduced a _huge _amount of freedom that seems to lose the structure of the technique. Again, it may well be necessary to do so--it just makes me wonder if calling that the same technique is useful. By the time I change a palm heel to the lower abdomen to a jump spinning reverse heel kick to the head, is it the same thing?
> 
> Perhaps it's implicit that perturbations will be small. But even then, as *Sapper6* suggests, a small change leads to a slightly bigger change, which leads to a yet bigger change...soon everything would be different, I'd think!


 
Yes, I think you are right, at some point the changes are great enough that you are no longer doing the same self defense technique.  But in real use that doesn't matter.  All that matters is that you defend yourself whether you use this or that technique, or bits and pieces of one or several, or deviate completely from any recognizable technique.  The techniques just catalog ideas and possibilities, but not exhaustively.  They stimulate creativity (hopefully, tho I can see how they could stifle creativity if one gets too attached to them).


----------



## arnisador (Jan 30, 2006)

No argument! I think one needs this sort of approach. It's just the language that I wonder about...not the idea itself.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 30, 2006)

arnisador said:
			
		

> No argument! I think one needs this sort of approach. It's just the language that I wonder about...not the idea itself.


 
I agree, the language can be cumbersome.  But it sounds like we are on pretty much the same page here.


----------



## evenflow1121 (Jan 30, 2006)

Yeah I have to agree, in fact, I would not expect to use a full technique in any fight, or perhaps I am just not at that level yet.


----------



## Michael Billings (Jan 30, 2006)

evenflow1121 said:
			
		

> Agreed, EP even taught certain techniques with slight different variations  part of his genious in order to know where the student learned it from.
> 
> Equation Formula:  (1) prefix it - add a move or moves a before it; (2) suffix it - add a move or moves after it; (3) insert - add a simultaneous move with the already established sequence (this move can be used as a (a) pinning check - using pressure against an opponent's weapons to nullify their delivery, or (b) positioned check - where you place the hand or leg in a defensive position or angle to minimize entry to your vital areas); (4) rearrange - change the sequence of moves,(5) alter the - (a)weapon, (b) target, (c) both the weapon and the target, (6) adjust the - (a) range, (b) angle of execution (which affect width the height), (c) both angle of execution and range: (7) regulate the - (a) speed, (b) force, (c) both speed and force, (d) intent and speed; and (8) delete - exclude a move or moves from the squence.  (Ed Parker's Encyclopedia of Kenpo)


There you go - and it is required at Orange Belt in most schools I know

From my website at Kenpo-Texas.com*[SIZE=+1][/SIZE]* for Orange Belt:
*[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT]*​


> *[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]ORANGE PLEDGE & SAYINGS[/SIZE][/FONT]**[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]ORANGE PATCH DESCRIPTIONS[/SIZE][/FONT]*
> *[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]DEFINITIONS:[/SIZE][/FONT]*
> [FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]*3 POINTS OF VIEW:  *Mine, the Opponent's, an Observer (Witness?)[/SIZE][/FONT]
> [FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]*DIVISIONS OF THE BASICS:*  Stances, Maneuvers, Blocks, Strikes, and Specialized Moves & Methods[/SIZE][/FONT]
> ...


[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT]


----------

