# Co-ordination Set #1 & #2



## BlackPhoenix (Apr 10, 2004)

What are everyones vews on these sets?   What do you believe it teaches you?  What things in Kenpo do you think are just filler or busy work.


----------



## Dark Kenpo Lord (Apr 10, 2004)

BlackPhoenix said:
			
		

> What are everyones vews on these sets? What do you believe it teaches you? What things in Kenpo do you think are just filler or busy work.


You know, you've already made up your mind about the system and you're certainly not bringing anything new to these discussions.    I'm glad a couple of high ranking 1st gens (Who would those people be BTW?) think the way you do but c'mon, these questions are really silly.    If you don't like it, do something else, take your cupcake and be happy.   There are those of us that are of the opinion that the sets, forms, and techniques have much to offer and you won't convince us otherwise.   I understand the system, why things are there, how to make them work, and understand it's not category completion moves, and I certainly don't do FILLER or BUSY work.  PLEASE.

Dark Lord


----------



## BlackPhoenix (Apr 10, 2004)

Ya know what...You shouldn't take things so seriously. I love Kenpo very much. But I like to keep an open mind to others opinions of how they like to look at things and compare it to my own notes. Thats all part of the journey man. I would never bash the art or any other art for that matter. But I will look for things that work or do not work for myself. I agree with you and I am well aware that Kenpo has much to offer and that one should learn and understand the material (what it is intended for or what we were supposed to learn from it.).

BTW. I'll tell you what 'HUK' told me when I asked him about these two sets at a seminar about a year ago. "THERE IS NO CO-ORDINATION SETS 1 & 2 !!!" . He said it was busy work and filler and not only to me, but to a few of us Black Belts. I will only learn from 1st generation students of Mr. Parker. But like I said before brother..."I LOVE KENPO!!!"


----------



## Dark Kenpo Lord (Apr 10, 2004)

BlackPhoenix said:
			
		

> BTW. I'll tell you what 'HUK' told me when I asked him about these two sets at a seminar about a year ago. "THERE IS NO CO-ORDINATION SETS 1 & 2 !!!" . He said it was busy work and filler and not only to me, but to a few of us Black Belts. I will only learn from 1st generation students of Mr. Parker. But like I said before brother..."I LOVE KENPO!!!"


How very sad.

Dark Lord


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 10, 2004)

1. I think it's filler and busy-work to make up names like, "Black Phoenix."

2. I think that subjects and verbs should agree.


----------



## Kenpomachine (Apr 11, 2004)

BlackPhoenix said:
			
		

> I will only learn from 1st generation students of Mr. Parker. But like I said before brother..."I LOVE KENPO!!!"



Other students may have some things to teach you as well. And not all 1st gen. students may be able to do as well. But that's your problem, not mine. I try to learn something from everybody.  :uhyeah:


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Apr 11, 2004)

I like doing the coordination sets, even if time and truth find they are fillers. I miss doing Japanese forms, because of the level of artistry present in the timing of execution; it's felt to me like there is more expectation of an artistic delivery in JMA forms than in Kenpo forms. The coordination sets feel like a harken-back to the artistry of the Japanese forms.

Now, the clarifications and disclaimers before the misunderstandings and flames start.

Yes, I know there is artistry in the kenpo forms. Duh. I also am aware that one can perform the kenpo forms in any way they good well please. That having been said, most forms execution in kenpo is quick and sharp, and if you pause to profile a stance or transition in kenpo forms in tournaments...let's just say MOST kenpo forms deliveries have the sense of being rushed through, and aren't as pretty to look at.

Yes, I know they aren't as pretty, because the forms in kenpo are SD application and conceptually oriented. SF1 & 2 and the coordination sets are about the only forms in kenpo as rudimentary as even some of the most advanced JMA forms.

Yes, I know I'm free to continue with Japanese forms, and I do.  Not because I think they mystically impart the ability to fight, but because they are fun.


----------



## Brother John (Apr 11, 2004)

This is exactly the type of crap that makes MANY of the Kenpo boards so disgusting. This guy (Black Phoenix) didn't state his opinion,  you read into it and burned him at the stake for what you THOUGHT he was implying. He just asked a question guys! A senior told him something, he's checking around to see what others think. Where's the harm?

Black Phoenix, I'll e-mail or PM you later with my own thoughts on this.

Your Brother (Who also loves Kenpo)
John

PS: Who the heck cares what you think about subjects and verbs? You aren't grading us are you teach?


----------



## MJS (Apr 11, 2004)

BlackPhoenix said:
			
		

> Ya know what...You shouldn't take things so seriously. I love Kenpo very much. But I like to keep an open mind to others opinions of how they like to look at things and compare it to my own notes. Thats all part of the journey man. I would never bash the art or any other art for that matter. But I will look for things that work or do not work for myself. I agree with you and I am well aware that Kenpo has much to offer and that one should learn and understand the material (what it is intended for or what we were supposed to learn from it.).



Well, ya know something.....reading this statement, and then reading statements about the extensions (Yes, I know we're talking about kata here) really make me wonder about your outlook and method of training in the art.

Mike


----------



## MJS (Apr 11, 2004)

Brother John said:
			
		

> This is exactly the type of crap that makes MANY of the Kenpo boards so disgusting. This guy (Black Phoenix) didn't state his opinion,  you read into it and burned him at the stake for what you THOUGHT he was implying. He just asked a question guys! A senior told him something, he's checking around to see what others think. Where's the harm?



Actually, I changed my mind.  I decided to reply to this post.  If you look back at his post reagrding the extensions, he DID in fact state his opinion!!  As for the Senior that he talked to.....Well you know, there are many Kenpo Inst. out there.  I learned Kenpo from my Inst. but after talking to Clyde, I had a new outlook on the art.  Like Kenpomachine said, I myself always try to learn from others and look outside the box.  Do I take what one person says as the end all, be all??? Hell no!!!

Mike


----------



## MisterMike (Apr 11, 2004)

Mr. Parker did not create the coordination sets. That is why some Kenpo bloodlines do not teach them, and why Mr. Planas gave you the answer he did.

I think there are better things already in the system to run for coordination. Like things that have real application.

Filler? Maybe. Depends on the teacher.


----------



## Rainman (Apr 11, 2004)

Brother John said:
			
		

> This is exactly the type of crap that makes MANY of the Kenpo boards so disgusting. This guy (Black Phoenix) didn't state his opinion,  you read into it and burned him at the stake for what you THOUGHT he was implying. He just asked a question guys! A senior told him something, he's checking around to see what others think. Where's the harm?
> 
> Black Phoenix, I'll e-mail or PM you later with my own thoughts on this.
> 
> ...



leave it to the beav to talk to some smack then blame everyone else for doing so...  sheesh dude try following your own advice.


----------



## Dark Kenpo Lord (Apr 11, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Mr. Parker did not create the coordination sets. That is why some Kenpo bloodlines do not teach them, and why Mr. Planas gave you the answer he did.
> 
> I think there are better things already in the system to run for coordination. Like things that have real application.
> 
> Filler? Maybe. Depends on the teacher.


When you understand the system, and why Mr. Parker added the sets from whoever created them, you'll learn why they're still there and maybe gain an  appreciation for why they are taught at the level they are.    There are fighting applications to the sets as well as the forms.    Maybe you haven't seen those either.

Dark Lord


----------



## MisterMike (Apr 11, 2004)

Dark Kenpo Lord said:
			
		

> When you understand the system, and why Mr. Parker added the sets from whoever created them, you'll learn why they're still there and maybe gain an  appreciation for why they are taught at the level they are.    There are fighting applications to the sets as well as the forms.    Maybe you haven't seen those either.
> 
> Dark Lord



Possibly. I guess it depends on which version of the system you teach then.

Ed Parker's, or Ed Parker's and whoever's.


----------



## Rainman (Apr 11, 2004)

Dark Kenpo Lord said:
			
		

> When you understand the system, and why Mr. Parker added the sets from whoever created them, you'll learn why they're still there and maybe gain an  appreciation for why they are taught at the level they are.    There are fighting applications to the sets as well as the forms.    Maybe you haven't seen those either.
> 
> Dark Lord



O' really?   Name a fighting application for coordination set one- getting cracked in the side of the head because your hands are down only counts for the other guy...  At purple belt you should NEVER be teaching anyone to keep their hands below their head for that length of time for a fighting application.   Or are you talking about taking a part of it out?  Ding thank you for playing, that is a concept known as the equation formula.  Not the tek but a composite of all that is known by the practitioner...  And for this application to work there must be trial and error done on the mat to coincide with relative positioning.  Why bother when there is already a freestyle and/or SD tek designed to fit the scenario.


----------



## Dark Kenpo Lord (Apr 11, 2004)

Rainman said:
			
		

> O' really? Name a fighting application for coordination set one- getting cracked in the side of the head because your hands are down only counts for the other guy... At purple belt you should NEVER be teaching anyone to keep their hands below their head for that length of time for a fighting application. Or are you talking about taking a part of it out? Ding thank you for playing, that is a concept known as the equation formula. Not the tek but a composite of all that is known by the practitioner... And for this application to work there must be trial and error done on the mat to coincide with relative positioning. Why bother when there is already a freestyle and/or SD tek designed to fit the scenario.


You know, you live up to the name you've given yourself here more and more every post.    The movie Rainman was about an autistic man and his brother's need to help him.    His ability to calculate numbers was his only redeeming quality.   Seems you don't have any.    Maybe that Las Vegas heat has worn the cranial cavity to a vacuous state?

Dark Lord


----------



## Rainman (Apr 11, 2004)

Dark Kenpo Lord said:
			
		

> You know, you live up to the name you've given yourself here more and more every post.    The movie Rainman was about an autistic man and his brother's need to help him.    His ability to calculate numbers was his only redeeming quality.   Seems you don't have any.    Maybe that Las Vegas heat has worn the cranial cavity to a vacuous state?
> 
> Dark Lord



I figured that would be the best you could do...  You have nothing else.  But here is one of your quotes  "Rainman is the only one that hit the nail on the head"  Talking about pullback/elbows being transitional.   So is that your best shot?  Nothing about Kenpo but an insult behind a sheilded identity?  Hey some can take the heat and some can't- You just proved you can't.  

O and fyi I came from seattle so at the time I found this forum it was raining.  Sorry I couldn't think of anything so- so- hmmm stupid as Dark Kempo lad.


----------



## Brother John (Apr 12, 2004)

Rainman said:
			
		

> leave it to the beav to talk to some smack then blame everyone else for doing so...  sheesh dude try following your own advice.


OK Chad. I'd hate to not follow my own advice. But please tell me, what does it mean to "talk to some smack"?
Here's how I feel man.
Someone asks something, answer it. Don't condem them for feeling/thinking something other than what you believe. If he has a differing view...talk it out. Maybe he has a good point or maybe you could share your good point and both can grow. This cutting down crap cheapens any effort to share or ask others what they think. People didn't try to have a dialogue with him about these sets and what they do or don't do (until later, like Mr. Mike's insightful reply). 
But hey...Chad.... "the beav"....
Nice.  
Thanks for making my point about the kind of rude/mean 7th grade banter that cheapens and corrodes these forums...like the post just previous to this one.

Your Bro.
John


----------



## BlackPhoenix (Apr 12, 2004)

I think that this guy "Dark Kenpo Lord" is really caught up in his own hype.  No body can talk to this guy about anything.  I wonder how he fends in the real world.  Dose'nt he have the brains enough to think that mabey some people ask the questions just so other people can learn from them.  A person like "Dark Kenpo Lord" only intimidates lower ranking or begining practitioners from asking anything.

I hope that he is secure with himself enough to accept this not as an attack but only constructive critisism.  I hope that we have a chance to meet some day to train. LOL


----------



## Kenpodoc (Apr 12, 2004)

Dark Kenpo Lord said:
			
		

> When you understand the system, and why Mr. Parker added the sets from whoever created them, you'll learn why they're still there and maybe gain an  appreciation for why they are taught at the level they are.    There are fighting applications to the sets as well as the forms.    Maybe you haven't seen those either.
> 
> Dark Lord



Mr. Parker approved many different training protocols and allowed his seniors independence of thought.  I believe that he understood that there was more than one way to teach Kenpo.  We learn a system that does not include some of the sets.  It's my understanding that Mr. Wedlake reviewed this with Mr. Parker not long before his death and recieved Mr. Parker's blessings.  Regardless, both Mr. Planas and Mr. Wedlake teach a version of the system which should take the rest of my life to try to master.  I respect your right to learn what you feel is important but chafe at the implication that Mr. Parker felt there was one "correct way" and that you have the inside line on theis way.  

If there are great fighting applications not available elsewhere please share this insight with the rest of us.

Respectfully,

Jeff


----------



## Rainman (Apr 12, 2004)

Brother John said:
			
		

> OK Chad. I'd hate to not follow my own advice. But please tell me, what does it mean to "talk to some smack"?
> Here's how I feel man.
> Someone asks something, answer it. Don't condem them for feeling/thinking something other than what you believe. If he has a differing view...talk it out. Maybe he has a good point or maybe you could share your good point and both can grow. This cutting down crap cheapens any effort to share or ask others what they think. People didn't try to have a dialogue with him about these sets and what they do or don't do (until later, like Mr. Mike's insightful reply).
> But hey...Chad.... "the beav"....
> ...



Learn to read Beav.  I put my point of view up first and foremost.  I am most critical of people like you who say nothing about AK.  And I mean nothing.  You John make your own point.  There is no information in any of your posts.  Not one thing in about cooridination set in your post.   Nothing.  As is the same with all of your posts.  You just like to jump on the bandwagon with some other rah rah types when the flaming begins.  You determine my posts are negative yet I see nothing in your current post as positive.  You cannot even follow your own line of reasoning.  Nothing about kenpo as usual.  C'mon John, be honest you like the drama otherwise you would not have   butted into someone elses conversation to voice an opinion on nothing but the 7th grade semantics you so deplore... 

Like I said before dude- you are boring and bring no information to the table.   Put up or shut up.  I challenge you to acutually say something about coordination set instead of moaning about how hurt your feelings are  

Your Bro
Rainman


----------



## Dark Kenpo Lord (Apr 12, 2004)

BlackPhoenix said:
			
		

> I hope that we have a chance to meet some day to train. LOL


No, you really don't want that.

Dark Lord


----------



## Michael Billings (Apr 12, 2004)

*See#6 in "Notes" below:*​ 


> *COORDINATION SET #1*


​


> *CONTAINS:*
> 1. Moves that are singular in motion but dual in purpose.
> 2. Basic stances:
> a. training horse
> ...




 No, nobody has to do Coordination Set 1 to learn this, but it is a place where you can learn and analyze Motion. Coordination Set 2? Well, analyze - or don't analyze; practice or don't practice. Filler, huh? Amazing to me what people don't know they don't know. Just don't do it if you don't like it, but don't try to lengthen you own line by cutting someone else's short (Joe Hyams in Zen & the Martial Arts).

    -Michael


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 12, 2004)

Hi, I just have a question. who amoung you waits for your kicking leg to be fully planted before throwing the final punch of the basic sequence? I wait until my foot is fully planted myself. It creates a pause but I can live with it. I was taught to punch with the plant, and not after, originaly. What do you all do?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 12, 2004)

I agree; among the things these two sets teach is coordinating planting with the strike, not before or after it. Then too, the set also helps with distinguishing among, a) striking with your foot up and your weight up; b) striking with your foot down but your weight up; c) striking with your foot down and your weight down but not pivot of the rear foot; d) striking with your foot down, your weight down, and the rear foot turning into the strike.

Then there's the whole thing about settling, and not over-settling, one of my main flaws--ah well, "the life so short, the craft so long to learn," despite the occasional Mozart and those who fantasize otherwise.

And that's just what I understand so far. But in brief, I agree.


----------



## Ceicei (Apr 12, 2004)

Michael Billings said:
			
		

> "...it is a place where you can learn and analyze Motion."
> -Michael



Michael,

Thank you for these notes.  I knew about some of them, but what you have listed has given me another view, a fresh perspective, to these sets.
I enjoy doing the sets and thank you for allowing me to learn more.

- Ceicei


----------



## Brother John (Apr 13, 2004)

Rainman said:
			
		

> Learn to read Beav.  I put my point of view up first and foremost.  I am most critical of people like you who say nothing about AK.   And I mean nothing.  You John make your own point.  There is no information in any of your posts.  Not one thing in about cooridination set in your post.   Nothing.  As is the same with all of your posts.  You just like to jump on the bandwagon with some other rah rah types when the flaming begins.  You determine my posts are negative yet I see nothing in your current post as positive.  You cannot even follow your own line of reasoning.  Nothing about kenpo as usual.  C'mon John, be honest you like the drama otherwise you would not have   butted into someone elses conversation to voice an opinion on nothing but the 7th grade semantics you so deplore...
> 
> Like I said before dude- you are boring and bring no information to the table.   Put up or shut up.  I challenge you to acutually say something about coordination set instead of moaning about how hurt your feelings are
> 
> ...


Hey Chad...
starting to think you don't like me.
Could you clear that up for me??

Listen, this is rediculous. 
You want to know what I think about the coordination sets?
OK.
I'm glad that they are no longer required curriculum in the association I belong to because, despite the fact that once you get used to them...they are kinda fun...I don't move like that when fighting. There are no techniques that I'd ever need that those sets would improve the perfomance of. I do think that, to an extent, it's filler work. Maybe that's an unpopular view overall...but it's truly what I think. I learned them, I even still practice them... but only (as I said) they are kinda fun and 2 does work very well for an overall body warmup. (Once I even included doing the set in sort of a loop for 10 minutes as a part of my aerobic conditioning program) Making students learn sets like this by rote (and like kicking set.... don't get me started on kicking set) is, in the end, time that could have been better spent on something functional. Coordination??? Try getting the first couple dozen SD-techs down right...fluid and fast. Coordination will come through training in our art much more easily than in some contrived set that doesn't resemble any other facet of the way I move or the way the techs in our art move.
I don't settle back and punch forward, there's no harmony of motion in that. Who executes a front ball kick while punching with the opposite hand? Come on...

There ya go Rainman. I stepped forward to your silly challenge. Now can we get past the teenage angst and treat each other like civil men?? Can we sometimes agree to disagree or at least not make such broad claims  who's boring (sorry I don't entertain you) or name calling or whatever.
chill chad, you'll have heart problems if you carry that crap around too long.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Rainman (Apr 13, 2004)

Brother John said:
			
		

> Hey Chad...
> starting to think you don't like me.
> Could you clear that up for me??
> 
> ...



I appreciate the step up.  Don't forget the use of opposite and reverses.  Kicking with the right and punching with the left as the right plants is not such a bad technique in free fighting.  The old walking tek, and a natural movement as shown in book 1 (an extrapolation). I don't use CS 1 or 2 either and basically have some of the same sentiments as you do.  As your curriculi doesn't use it neither does mine.  It is something to look at and may be usefull when formulating by changing planes of the strikes as well as targets.  But again that is formulation and must be shown to a student especially if they have only 2 or 3 years of study.  The sets are just appendices and the same movements exist elsewhere but if the version someone is studying contains CS 1 and 2 it is up to the teacher to extrapolate all they can from it and pass the information on to their students.  

Forums cause me no stress-  They are cheap entertainment when the mud ducks come out and a place to learn and grow when the talk gets conceptual.  Sometimes we are mud ducks and sometimes we fly above it or around it.  

Your bro
Rainman


----------



## Brother John (Apr 13, 2004)

Rainman said:
			
		

> I appreciate the step up.  Don't forget the use of opposite and reverses.  Kicking with the right and punching with the left as the right plants is not such a bad technique in free fighting.  The old walking tek, and a natural movement as shown in book 1 (an extrapolation). I don't use CS 1 or 2 either and basically have some of the same sentiments as you do.  As your curriculi doesn't use it neither does mine.  It is something to look at and may be usefull when formulating by changing planes of the strikes as well as targets.  But again that is formulation and must be shown to a student especially if they have only 2 or 3 years of study.  The sets are just appendices and the same movements exist elsewhere but if the version someone is studying contains CS 1 and 2 it is up to the teacher to extrapolate all they can from it and pass the information on to their students.
> 
> Forums cause me no stress-  They are cheap entertainment when the mud ducks come out and a place to learn and grow when the talk gets conceptual.  Sometimes we are mud ducks and sometimes we fly above it or around it.
> 
> ...


I agree about the those other elements that you brought up, the other things that the sets teach... I agree that these sets do teach these things, but my problem is that there are other parts of our art that teach these same principles/elements...but are functional. Like the Prago comercial says...it's in there. 
Later man...
Your Brother (flying around it)
John


----------



## Michael Billings (Apr 14, 2004)

Good Recovery guys. I appreciate your getting back on topic ... not that I agree with you, but I appreciate not having to lock the thread due to the level of general rudeness that was starting to happen. 

 I personally like watching mud ducks and Forms and Sets have useful application to me. I do not even have to dig for it. When I learned them, the idea was an opponent should be able to step in at anytime and the technique be executed effectively. I did not learn all this catagory completion, full range of motion, etc. (the Huk model), until years later ... and I still resist it. I have to do it for my teacher, but on my own, I tend to do the Forms like I am fighting. 

 Sets are interesting in that it is how you relate to them as to the usefulness of them. Kicking Set is a Maneuver/Range/Strike Set to me, (after you learn to walk and chew gum), Coordination 1 is a nice lead jab (with counter-rotation) followed by a right cross, then I focus on the simultaineous kick punch, disturbing heigth & depth with the kick (long range) to bring a mid-range target (face) in range for the punch (borrowed force) etc. This is artificial in that I would not execute this particular combo ... probably, but a nice way to train the opposite hand/opposite leg strikes.

 It is what you look for in the set, whether you want it to be useful, whether you want to even do them. Discarding them is your choice, yes you can learn the same things in techniques, on the bag, on the floor fighting ... it is just whether you want to do them or not ... and are you aware of the lessons they can teach. 

 I have no doubt at all Rainman and Bro' John know the "lessons" and pick them up elsewhere in the system, heck, John does them anyway for his own reasons ... so like I said, don't cut someone else's line short. Explain why you don't like them, but educate the less knowledgable with where the lessons are picked up elsewhere in the system.

 Your knowledge and sharing of it IS APPRECIATED ALWAYS. Just sometimes the tones of the posts set people off. Please be aware of this and respectful of others. 

 I will lock this thread if it returns to the previous personal attacks. This is not intended to be directed at the people I mentioned above, but at previous posters also who set this up. Everyone has great stuff to contribute, DKL, John, and Rainman I just know. BlackPhoenix I do not know, but would ask to be aware of how you are coming across.

 Once again, thanks guys for making my job so easy. I really appreciate your cleaning it up yourselves and wanted to publically acknowledge it.

  -Michael


----------



## Seig (Apr 14, 2004)

I'm throwing this in more or less as food for thought.  Many of my students do not like the sets when they are first shown them.  I was resistant to them and forms at first.  I stress SD and Freestyle, my personal strengths.  To make myself enjoy the sets more and to make my students see more value in them, I will take a part of a set, like kicking set for example, and execute it against a student at the particular level while sparring.  To illistrate my point, when sparring an orange belt that has bitched about kicking set and tends to run away during sparring, I will drop back to a LNB and do the first wall of kicking set while chasing him/her down.  After the second or third time I do it on them successfully, the light bulb goes off.  I have done the same with coordination sets.  At some point, while I am in teaching/sparring mode, I will run nearly everything in their belt's curriculuum on them.  It helps drive the point of why we do it home.  I have noticed that it also helps round out my own skills.


----------



## Brother John (Apr 14, 2004)

Michael Billings said:
			
		

> Good Recovery guys.  I appreciate your getting back on topic, I appreciate not having to lock the thread due to the level of general rudeness that was starting to happen.
> 
> Your knowledge and sharing of it IS APPRECIATED ALWAYS.  Just sometimes the tones of the posts set people off.  Please be aware of this and respectful of others.
> 
> ...


Psalm 133:1
"Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!"

No doubt Michael, and really... Chad (AKA: Rainman) did make a couple of good points: 
1. I need to try to contribute more than JUST comment.
2. I need to look at myself first when trying to point out faults in others.
((((That whole "Remove the PLANK from thine own eye before trying to remove the speck from thine brothers eye" thing that Christ was trying to get across)))

I'll do my best.

I think I see what you guys are talking about with regards to the practice of the coordination sets and what they CAN teach you...
Guess I see it like this, they are usable... just not so useful.
At least, that's how I see it. NOT trying to shorten anyone elses line whatsoever. These sets are fine.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 14, 2004)

Brother John said:
			
		

> Hey Chad...
> starting to think you don't like me.
> Could you clear that up for me??
> 
> ...


couldn't you alter your coordination set to deal with how to launch a reverse punch after planting a kick off the back leg? If you are not happy with the way you do it now then work on it. Couldn't you have more than one way to do the set for each move depending on an advancing or retreating opponent? what about the first half of that kick punch thing? couldn't you check and knee strike at the same time?  If your not willing to use the tools provided for you by Mr. Parker, then by all means throw it out, but please don't announce your reasons. They aren't valid. :asian: 
Sean


----------



## Kenpodoc (Apr 15, 2004)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> couldn't you alter your coordination set to deal with how to launch a reverse punch after planting a kick off the back leg? If you are not happy with the way you do it now then work on it. Couldn't you have more than one way to do the set for each move depending on an advancing or retreating opponent? what about the first half of that kick punch thing? couldn't you check and knee strike at the same time?  If your not willing to use the tools provided for you by Mr. Parker, then by all means throw it out, but please don't announce your reasons. They aren't valid. :asian:
> Sean



Why shouldn't John announce his reasons?  Why the name calling?  Why does everyone think Mr. Parker thought that there was only one way to learn Kenpo? 

Jeff


----------



## Kenpodoc (Apr 15, 2004)

Seig said:
			
		

> I'm throwing this in more or less as food for thought.  Many of my students do not like the sets when they are first shown them.  I was resistant to them and forms at first.  I stress SD and Freestyle, my personal strengths.  To make myself enjoy the sets more and to make my students see more value in them, I will take a part of a set, like kicking set for example, and execute it against a student at the particular level while sparring.  To illistrate my point, when sparring an orange belt that has bitched about kicking set and tends to run away during sparring, I will drop back to a LNB and do the first wall of kicking set while chasing him/her down.  After the second or third time I do it on them successfully, the light bulb goes off.  I have done the same with coordination sets.  At some point, while I am in teaching/sparring mode, I will run nearly everything in their belt's curriculuum on them.  It helps drive the point of why we do it home.  I have noticed that it also helps round out my own skills.



Thanks for a useful and an appropriate response to the question.  There is all too much "because Mr. Parker said so", going on here.

Thanks,

Jeff


----------



## Brother John (Apr 15, 2004)

> couldn't you alter your coordination set to deal with how to launch a reverse punch after planting a kick off the back leg?


WHY? I've got techniques that do that. Besides, baring these very few techniques, I seldom bring a kick from the back leg without first setting it up with something else. To me a kick from the back leg is a finisher, providing I've already given them a major stun. Therefore I don't see myself needing to plant and then punch. Also, I don't kick and then pull the kicking leg back behind the 'point of no return', back to the same stance it came from. AND to punch forward while planting back? That goes against some of the most elementary lessons in Kenpo.


> Couldn't you have more than one way to do the set for each move depending on an advancing or retreating opponent?


The amount of alteration your suggestion implies would change it so much as to make it no longer identifiable as a coordination set. Also, SETs do not deal with either an advancing or retreating opponent. They are an appendix of motion, but their context is solo. IF I were to alter them to comply with sound principles AND alter them to deal with either an advancing or retreating opponent...its not a set anymore, it's a technique. I've already got enough techniques. 


> what about the first half of that kick punch thing? couldn't you check and knee strike at the same time?


Sure I could, but I've got already existing techniques that do exactly that, and they do it within the context of an active/dynamic technique (Such as "Divided Fury")...with moves before and after it...making it more realistic and more aligned with the way I move. Why take the time to alter a sets movement/interpretation in order to do what already existing techniques are accomplishing...better? Seems like I'd be doing just to be able to say that I've not done away with coordination set.


> If your not willing to use the tools provided for you by Mr. Parker, then by all means throw it out


Did I say I've thrown it out?  :lookie: 
No, I said I do it, but for different reasons. It's fun. It's good exercise.
You seem to be suggesting that I blindly accept these sets without trying to evaluate their worth or the effect of having them in my training regimen. At the behest of every instructor in Kenpo that I've ever had...I question everything....because if you don't ask questions, you don't get answers. Am I suggesting "Kenpo Heresy" Sean? It's not a matter of being "willing to use the tools provided for me by Mr. Parker". 



> please don't announce your reasons. They aren't valid.


Really Sean? 
My reasons/points aren't valid? They don't agree with your beliefs so they are a priori wrong? 
Please tell me why my reasons are wrong.
Furthermore, please tell me why I shouldn't "announce" them. Didn't know I was broadcasting, thought I was sharing my thoughts with other Kenpoists. Didn't think I had a prohibition from participating in this Open forum.
If there are any other guidelines or hidden policies here in Your forum that I'm not aware of Sean, please let me know.
 
Your Brother
John


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 15, 2004)

Kenpodoc said:
			
		

> Why shouldn't John announce his reasons?  Why the name calling?  Why does everyone think Mr. Parker thought that there was only one way to learn Kenpo?
> 
> Jeff


And the name I called him was?


----------



## Brother John (Apr 15, 2004)

Kenpodoc said:
			
		

> Thanks for a useful and an appropriate response to the question.  There is all too much "because Mr. Parker said so", going on here.
> 
> Thanks,
> Jeff


There's been More. :soapbox: 





> don't announce your reasons. They aren't valid.






Your Brother
John


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 15, 2004)

Brother John said:
			
		

> WHY? I've got techniques that do that. Besides, baring these very few techniques, I seldom bring a kick from the back leg...
> 
> 
> Really Sean?
> ...


Sorry, it was late when I read that and felt a disagreement. I also was not aware that you only do step through kicks, that would explain a lot about why you don't like this set. Why play with plant punch concepts when you will never do it? Sets, however, are not motion for motion sake. Its OK to play with them to see what you come up with... honest. By the way what elementary lesson of kenpo does cooridination set break again? I don't remember reading anywhere that it was not kenpo to step back while punching forward. Please direct me to that passage; I'm willing to learn. Sorry for the attitude before :asian: 
Sean


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 15, 2004)

1. I'm not sure I understand why it's a Bad Thing to have a set that teaches students to do stuff like punch effectively as they're recovering a kick.

2. You folks are forgetting that a) not every student is incredibly talented and capable of extracting this stuff from techniques; b) not every student is incredibly ready to clash with the emotional content of martial arts--they need detours, alibis and safe havens in the system; c) students need places to develop THEIR talents, not their teacher's; d) beginning students are not black belts, in whom it is fairly proper to start rethinking what they've been doing.

3. Short Form 1, and a buncha yellow belt techniques as I know them, teach stepping back with a strike. 

4. Just off the toppa me head, Thrusting Salute, Buckling Branch, Gift of Destruction, Checking the Storm, and a boatload of others feature back-leg, step-through kicks...


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Apr 15, 2004)

Brother John said:
			
		

> There's been More. :soapbox:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Clever, John. Clever.


----------



## Brother John (Apr 15, 2004)

> Sorry for the attitude before


Thank you for the apology. It takes some maturity to step up when you took the wrong route. Thanks for clearing it up!  :asian: 



> I also was not aware that you only do step through kicks


That's not what I said. I do all manner of kicks, what I meant to convey was that when I execute a kick from the back leg...I set it down forward, I don't reverse my bodies momentum by returning it to it's point of origin behind my center of gravity. This takes time and energy and creates a great liability in loss of balance. Here's a definition I took from a fine web-sites "Terms & Definitions" page:


> *Angle of No Return* - Refers to the position and angle of the upper body and hips while delivering a front kick or forward motion, making it awkward, difficult, and illogical to attempt to return to your starting position. Because of the awkwardness and the time needed to return to your original position, exposure of your vital areas would work in your opponent's favor - not to mention your inability to render an immediate counter.


I find this to be very logical, it's simple kinesiology. YET these sets have us doing exactly that!!!!  
then once we've violated this principle, we violate another...we settle down/back as we punch forward...


> *DIRECTIONAL HARMONY:*  Having all of your action moving in the same direction.  This principle aids in obtaining maximum results.  It is a requirement when executing Body Momentum that residually triggers Back-Up Mass.


Now, don't we teach our white belts that a punch has power that develops from the floor up...that we must have a well established base in order to have the anatomical alignment to deliver adequate force??? I do. Why then should I teach them a highly repetitive exercise (high repetition leads to muscle memory, engraining pattern habits) to have one foot in the air while we are punching? In this set you execute a punch with one hand while kicking with the other foot.
These are my reasons. IF we adhere to the principles, which we are taught is the corner-stone of WHY we do What we do... we must see that these sets defeats the purpose.
I know I will be disagreed with. It's the nature of these forums and especially these discussions. 
Please: lets keep it civil.
Your Brother
John


----------



## BlackPhoenix (Apr 15, 2004)

I agree with you 100% brother!!!



			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> Mr. Parker did not create the coordination sets. That is why some Kenpo bloodlines do not teach them, and why Mr. Planas gave you the answer he did.
> 
> I think there are better things already in the system to run for coordination. Like things that have real application.
> 
> Filler? Maybe. Depends on the teacher.


----------



## Kenpo Yahoo (Apr 15, 2004)

> I'm not sure I understand why it's a Bad Thing to have a set that teaches students to do stuff like punch effectively as they're recovering a kick.



I don't think it's bad to teach students to punch as they recover from a kick, we do it in the AKKI (Slipping the mace).  However, I do have a problem with students planting back to the kicks point of origin and then punching.  Your body is disengaging at the exact same time that you are trying to engage one of your weapons.  I just don't see the logic or science in this.


----------



## Brother John (Apr 15, 2004)

Hi Robert-


> 1. I'm not sure I understand why it's a Bad Thing to have a set that teaches students to do stuff like punch effectively as they're recovering a kick.


Please reread what I've typed. I never said that it's a "Bad Thing". Recovering from a well executed kick in order to execute a good strike is a crucial element of a white belt's instruction! But, as I pointed out in the above reply to TOD/Sean, the kick is NOT well executed, it creates a balance liability, exposes our vital areas as easy access to our attacker, it's more difficult, takes more time/energy to reverse the motion. It goes on. IF I kick from my back leg, I set it down forward...so then the punch I would deliver upon 'recovering' from the kick would be in line with the momentum that the kick already created...forward, toward the target. 
I don't think that this set is a "Bad thing". Look at it like this, Mr. Parker said that a kick is nothing more than an exagerated step right? OK. Then setting a kick down behind us = stepping to the rear. We don't teach our students to step to 6:00 and punch to 12:00 RIGHT????? We don't step back and punch forward! Now if I'm being charged and I time/gauge my attacker by stepping back and rebound with a punch to his midsection (BTW: I'd rather step off-line and attack along with a riding check, from an zone of sanctuary...but hey, this IS a hypothetical right?) I would first solidify my base (which an experienced Kenpoist should be able to do in a split second) and deliver from that solid base...lest his attack finds my anatomical alignment wanting and forces the recoil up my own arm and he charges straight through like a bull through a tissue wall. BUT that is NOT what this set has us doing. The timing of the set is specific, we punch AS we set down. 



> You folks are forgetting that a) not every student is incredibly talented and capable of extracting this stuff from techniques


The heck I have! (he said through a friendly smile) that's one of the biggest lessons I've learned as I've been sharing our art with others!!! Figuring out how to get the lessons through to these students is what has made, and is making, me a better instructor! I don't expect them to "extract" anything, I expect the sets/techniques to Train/condition them to respond in ways that are in keeping with solid principles. It's important to remember that all of our curriculum...NO MATTER what school/camp/association of Kenpo (or even any other martial art/system) doesn't teach us to fight so much as it trains us to fight. What these two sets in particular trains us to do violates logic. That's the "Bad" thing. Infact, I only teach/share these sets with people who already have a very solid foundation of skills, IS one of those who will "Extract" the "stuff" (ie; a sharp cookie) and can enjoy thier "funness". 



> not every student is incredibly ready to clash with the emotional content of martial arts--they need detours, alibis and safe havens in the system


Robert, I'd like to respond to this bit, but I really don't understand the point. If you would, could you please help me out with this one. Being that you are a very very intelligent man... the fault is probably mine. Mom always said I had a thick skull.  :idunno: Maybe if you further defined what you meant to convey. Thanks in advance.



> students need places to develop THEIR talents, not their teacher's


OK. Maybe I don't understand your point here...
But if I do:
Are you saying that THEIR talents need to lay along lines that violate logic and sound principles? Do they need the talent of stepping back AS you punch forward? Very true, they need to develop and cultivate their talent/skill/understanding... but I (as their instructor) will strive to make sure that they are in keeping with logic and sound principles; not in violation of them.



> beginning students are not black belts, in whom it is fairly proper to start rethinking what they've been doing.


So once my student earns their black belt they can reflect on the fact that what I've spent years training their bodies to do violates logic and the corner-stone of our art?
IF this logic predominates it could account for the High levels of "Black Belt Dropout" throughout the martial arts...
"DANG! Why the heck did Sensei require me to do this crap!! It's not even logical! all those wasted years!!!"
I'd rather THINK about what I'm doing while or prior to doing it...
Must make sure that the ladder I climb
rests on the right wall!



> Short Form 1, and a buncha yellow belt techniques as I know them, teach stepping back with a strike.


NO.
They contain a step back, true.
They contain a punch/strike forward, true.
They do *N O T* punch forward as they step back. Though you and I study divergent branches of Kenpo... I highly doubt that your good and effective techniques teach you to move to the rear AS you deliver a linear strike to the front! No matter what you call your art, it wouldn't work.



> Just off the toppa me head, Thrusting Salute, Buckling Branch, Gift of Destruction, Checking the Storm, and a boatload of others feature back-leg, step-through kicks...


YES. 
Again, I have NOTHING against a kick off of the back leg!
With your own words you show though that these techniques are not in keeping with the movement that the coordination sets force you to do repetitively... you called them (and rightly so)  





> back-leg, step-through kicks...


 In these sets, do you execute a "Step-through" kick?
If you do the set several times over and over and over in a row, do you end up several feet forward as you've been 'stepping through'? 
No. You take your kick, which flung your momentum forward, past your center of gravity... reverse that momentum, recross your center of gravity (exposing your groin over a duration)...and place it behind you again.
Here's from that web-site again, the one with the terms and such:


> *Step Through * - The execution of one full step forward or back, or in the case of a *step through kick, it means kicking with the rear foot and planting that foot forward*.


I didn't edit that, I just highlighted for emphasis.
You are correct, those techniques DO feature the kicks you mentioned.
But that just makes them irrelevent to this discussion of the coordination sets.

I hope you see what I'm getting at.
Thanks  :asian: 
Your Brother
John


----------



## Brother John (Apr 15, 2004)

HEY CHAD....
Check it out man!
I'm doin it!

I'm contributing!!!!!!!!!!!!!
artyon: 
...and it feels good!

Thanks for the encouragement!

Your Brother
John


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 15, 2004)

Brother John said:
			
		

> Thank you for the apology. It takes some maturity to step up when you took the wrong route. Thanks for clearing it up!  :asian:
> 
> 
> That's not what I said. I do all manner of kicks, what I meant to convey was that when I execute a kick from the back leg...I set it down forward, I don't reverse my bodies momentum by returning it to it's point of origin behind my center of gravity. This takes time and energy and creates a great liability in loss of balance. Here's a definition I took from a fine web-sites "Terms & Definitions" page:
> ...


Brother John,
what I think you are saying is that you feel a kick off the back leg should always make you pass the point of no return. Two thing come to mind that run counter to that: 1. The target does not give and you bounce back (great time for possible reverse punch) 2. You regulate your force to conserve energy which cause you not to pass that point of no return, hence no violation of principles. If I'm in a left and my oponent throws a round house kick off the back leg, I can stomp his inner thigh with out throwing all my weight forward; once again leaving me right where I started.
Sean


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 15, 2004)

Read good already. Set bad, therefore dropped. It teach bad motion and principles.

Plain points, Mr. John. 

Often, students need places to hide out from, or to detour around, the violence of martial arts. It's not a question of what they should think; it's a question of what they do think. (Note: this is something I first heard articulated by larry tatum, just a footnote.) 

Second...uh, Short Form 1...I see that all stright lines are circles, but...uh...you don't consider those first two inward blocks to be linear? or strikes? To say nothing of the back elbows? Hm.

As for the bit about allowing students to find their own, well, I've always heard this described as a goodly chunk of the reason for the diversity of kenpo in all its forms. Not everybody will teach; most will learn decent self defense and some other things. Teachers need the full vocabulary; students can afford to only learn subsets.


----------



## Rainman (Apr 16, 2004)

Brother John said:
			
		

> HEY CHAD....
> Check it out man!
> I'm doin it!
> 
> ...



And I am very proud of you!  You are helping everyone grow!

Your bro'
Rainman


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 16, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Read good already. Set bad, therefore dropped. It teach bad motion and principles.
> 
> Plain points, Mr. John.
> 
> ...


This set isn't about hiding. I would venture to say that was a ridiculous statement and that I hope you were kidding. This set teaches actual fighting concepts, that, with a little insight, can improve and or teach you a very major concept about freestyle. I was reading on the Kajukenbo Cafe website that they were introducing techs at a greenbelt level that taught some of its principles, yet kenpo lets you chew on them from the very begining. Unless of course you want to wait and discover them later with advanced techs(Or maybe that last tip of the week for instance!).
Sean


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 16, 2004)

Sorry, but my statement was dead accurate--as any teacher who paid attention to what students were actually doing would know.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 16, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Sorry, but my statement was dead accurate--as any teacher who paid attention to what students were actually doing would know.


Dead? yes, but accurate? no. Not all of us have taken the liberty Of classifying all of Mr. Parkers teachings as worthless metaphore.
Sean


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 16, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Read good already. Set bad, therefore dropped. It teach bad motion and principles.
> 
> Plain points, Mr. John.
> 
> ...


For gods sake Robert. Mr Tatum just showed us all an offensive application of C set 1, calls it something different and your ready to dismiss his obvious source for the revelation as a hide out from the violence of this cruel world. Watch the tip with the sound off, if it helps.
Sean


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 16, 2004)

Um...ahh. Sean? bubbeleh? I kinda mostly been there while these Tips get filmed? 

I think you really need to work on distortions--how in the hell you could read what I wrote as announcing that much of kenpo is, "worthless metaphore," or that the sets allow students merely to, "hide out," from, this, "cruel world," is beyond me. Unless, of course, you're so fussed that it's me doing the writing that you won't do the reading.

I'll try one last time, bubba. All's I'm saying is this: the sets, beyond their clear applications to fighting, are invaluable teaching tools that ought not to be discarded. Why? because many students need them, in my experience, including myself. 

Why do they need them? Because there are a lot of people who come through the door of a martial arts studio because a) they are scared, b) they want to learn an art and aren't terribly talented, c) they are wrestling with some sort of more-or-less deeply buried issue. 

Why can't a teacher just crash head on into their assorted issues? because mostly, it won't work. The student will quit; or, even worse, they'll become the instructor's dog. I'd advise reading a little Freud on transference, counter-transference, and resistances, but hey, up to you. 

I'd argue that these "useless," sets, forms, etc., also take the place of a lot of the family, social, cultural and religious structures that used to keep students in martial arts, but that's  another set of questions altogether. 

In any case there's no real clash with what you're arguing. I suspect that you're arguing what I am: instructors who start going through the system and throwing out all the stuff that THEY may not need are in fact--not always but all too often--burning bridges that their students need. 

That's all there is to my point. Sheesh--and, no doubt, this post will also draw some sort  of yelling. Oh well.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 16, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Um...ahh. Sean? bubbeleh? I kinda mostly been there while these Tips get filmed?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


WHO YOU CALLING BUBBA, YOU IVORY TOWERED...
Thats about all the yelling I will do. I see your point, and I suppose I can agree somewhat; however, all these forms and sets can be tried and explored with real bodies, making your point only partialy true. I often come away from your posts wondering what the heck you just said; so, this must have been one of those cases. (set bad)
Sean


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 17, 2004)

OK ... I've just scaned this thread for the answer to a question that came up on the matt this morning. What is Co-ordination Set #2.

I learned the set with these moves:

From a Training Horse:

Step back into a *Left Neutral Bow* while executing a *Left Vertical Outward Block* and *Right Downward Block.*
Switch to a *Right Vertical Outward Block* and *Left Downward Block*.
Switch to a *Left Forward Bow* while executing a *Right Inward Block* and a *Left Upward Block*.
Switch to a *Left Neutral Bow*, *Right Upward Block* and *Left Inward Block*.
Switch to a *Left Forward Bow*, while executing a* Right Inward Block*, as the *Left Fist Cocks at the Left Hip*.
Execute a *Left Horizontal Thrust Punch* and a *Right Front Ball Kick* (right fist to hip?)
Execute a *Right Horizontal Thrust Punch* and a *Right Rear Kick *(left fist to hip?)
Land in a *Left Forward Bow* while executing a *Left Upward Parry* and a *Right Push Down Block*.
Step forward to a *Right Neutral Bow* and repeat this process through all four directions, and repeating the sequence at 12 O'Clock to close (10 times through the process total).
One of the instructors at the studio learned the *first two* combinations as *Universal Blocks *(i.e. Left Inward-Right Downward to Right Inward-Left Downward.)
Another of the instructors runs this set as Left Inward-Right Downward to Right Inward-Left Outward.

Anyhow, the head instructor was not in class this morning. And we have a Brown Belt test and Brown Belt review test tomorrow. So I am sure I will find out how he wants to perform this set tomorrow.

How do you guys run these first two sequences?

Thanks - Mike

Oh, by the way ... Hated these when I learned them ... but they are OK now ... I enjoy running them, wether filler or not.


----------



## pete (Apr 17, 2004)

hi michael... 

we do the first sequence as universal blocks ... 

also, we do the second sequence as upblock/hammer fist combinations

and, the transitional move before the kicks as a knuckle rake across the bridge of the nose rather than inblocks.

the final neutral bow guarding stance, we put an emphasis on the hand position: the "upper hand" comes in to replace your previous punch with a heel palm/contact check to the face and the "lower hand" checks against a knee strike to your groin.

for kicks (yeah... i have no life), i like to put C-set 1 and 2 together by either alternating each quadrant (C1 to 12:00, C2 to 9:00, etc) or alternating on each side (C2 left C1 right, turn...)

enjoy...


----------



## Brother John (Apr 19, 2004)

> Read good already. Set bad, therefore dropped. It teach bad motion and principles.


What a strange way for an intelligent professor to word things.


> Plain points, Mr. John.


Plain points, ok. But are you saying you agree or disagree. Just wondering.
...oh, and you don't have to call me "Mr.", you can just call me John. 



> Often, students need places to hide out from, or to detour around, the violence of martial arts. It's not a question of what they should think; it's a question of what they do think. (Note: this is something I first heard articulated by larry tatum, just a footnote.)


Are you saying then that the worth of these sets is that they have nothing to do with the application of Kenpo? Guess I don't understand what you mean by they have to "hide out from" what it is they signed up to study in the first place. Kenpo is violent, no doubt about it. But if what they want to do is to seek to stay away from violence, why not take up yoga?



> Second...uh, Short Form 1...I see that all stright lines are circles, but...uh...you don't consider those first two inward blocks to be linear? or strikes? To say nothing of the back elbows? Hm.


True. The inward blocks are circular, but their 'intent' is very different than that of a strike. Blocks are strikes and strikes are blocks and the only thing that differentiates them is the intent, right? So my projection of force forward with the block in the form isn't the major concern, it is creating an angle of deflection in the attacker (primarily his attacking limb); which I can do while moving to the rear. But a strike relies in it's projection of force along it's angle of incidence, and the force projected by the strike in coordination sets I & II is to 12:00 AS you step down toward 6:00...negating the forward projection of force. The punches executed in long form one don't occur as you step back, but directly after solidifying your base. The way these sets are done you don't solidify prior to the strike at all. 
Now to the subject of the back elbows. Yes, these sets contain back elbows. But I must say, at the risk of sounding flippant, so what? What doesn't teach back elbows in Kenpo? There is a 'back elbow' in a great many of the techniques and sets... is the one redeaming factor of the coordination sets really "back elbows"? Why bother? Long before the student gets to the point of needing to learn these sets (according to the old curriculum) they've done thousands of back elbows. Yes they are linear, so? 
hmmm...

Your Brother
John


----------



## Rainman (May 6, 2004)

Brother John said:
			
		

> True. The inward blocks are circular, but their 'intent' is very different than that of a strike. Blocks are strikes and strikes are blocks and the only thing that differentiates them is the intent, right? So my projection of force forward with the block in the form isn't the major concern, it is creating an angle of deflection in the attacker (primarily his attacking limb); which I can do while moving to the rear. But a strike relies in it's projection of force along it's angle of incidence, and the force projected by the strike in coordination sets I & II is to 12:00 AS you step down toward 6:00...negating the forward projection of force. The punches executed in long form one don't occur as you step back, but directly after solidifying your base. The way these sets are done you don't solidify prior to the strike at all.
> Now to the subject of the back elbows. Yes, these sets contain back elbows. But I must say, at the risk of sounding flippant, so what? What doesn't teach back elbows in Kenpo? There is a 'back elbow' in a great many of the techniques and sets... is the one redeaming factor of the coordination sets really "back elbows"? Why bother? Long before the student gets to the point of needing to learn these sets (according to the old curriculum) they've done thousands of back elbows. Yes they are linear, so?
> hmmm...
> 
> ...



I like this post.  Let me add something to your philosophy,  change intent to zone cancellation thus creating (and cancelling) targets.  I had a nice conversation with Doc Chapel the other day which, intern, led to another discussion with my own teacher about this very topic.  Zone cancellation of the opponent limits his ability to strike effectively and therefore creates the block in many ways instead of just deflection.  Also because a block is defined as a deflection, it takes a certain amount of force to cause a deflection the initial target of the block (point of contact) should be considered greatly.  The reason why is because of the chain of events that follow internally.  I mean to say things like blood pressure, involuntary muscle flexion... there are many others but I am beginning to ramble so let me know what you think.

Your Bro
Rainman


----------



## Kenpo_Chick (May 21, 2004)

Ok here's my opinion. From completing these forms (Coordination Set 1 for Purple Belt and Coordination Set 2 for my green belt) my opinion is as below:


*Coordination Set 1*
This set I believe teaches you how to breathe. To me it is one of the hardest sets (at a Purple belt level) to do hard, and if you do not breathe throughout the set you collapse!! (Simple fact of life!!). It also teaches the basics of coordinating your hands and feet together for your higher levels of self defence!! Have you noticed (on our syllabis here anyway) that on Purple your self defence moves begin to coordinate alot more between left and right!? and we also have to complete a Coordination Set 1 on the same syllabis?! (Coincidence?)

*Coordination Set 2*
This set I believe teaches us the advance moves of coordinating our hands and feet together with multiple moves while trying to balance. This is required for Green Belt and yet on the 1st Brown Syllabis we have the self defence move "Unfurling Crane" which we have to kick and learn how to achieve power with a knife hand while in crane!! (Coincidence? I think not!)

Well that's my 2 cents worth...


----------



## Michael Billings (May 21, 2004)

... and Circling Windmills, [font=Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]Grasping Eagles,[/size][/font][font=Arial,Helvetica][size=-1] Parting of the Snakes[/size][/font][font=Arial,Helvetica][size=-1].[/size][/font]

 -MB


----------



## Kenpo_Chick (May 22, 2004)

Michael Billings said:
			
		

> ... and Circling Windmills, [font=Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]Grasping Eagles,[/size][/font][font=Arial,Helvetica][size=-1] Parting of the Snakes[/size][/font][font=Arial,Helvetica][size=-1].[/size][/font]
> 
> -MB


Errr...I don't get it?


----------



## Michael Billings (May 22, 2004)

Kenpo_Chick said:
			
		

> Errr...I don't get it?


 Sorry KenpoChick, I was referring to techniques which use pieces of Coordination Set #1 or Coordination Set #2.  These Sets get us ready for techniques, and in most cases, the techniques were there before the sets.  So you could postulate that for some difficult techniques, sets were created to help master the motion needed in the upper techniques.   

 But who would do that? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 I wonder?

 -Michael


----------



## hector (May 27, 2004)

Hi:

1. What is Coordination ?  

2. The sets work´s on Basics of Kenpo,then  Why we teach Coordination Set if coordination is not a basic as the stances, kicks, blocks, fingers ?

3. Which type of coordination we should achieve?

Hector


----------



## Bill Lear (May 27, 2004)

hector said:
			
		

> Hi:
> 
> 1. What is Coordination ?



*Coordination*
Main Entry: co·or·di·na·tion 
Pronunciation: (")kO-"or-d&-'nA-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Late Latin coordination-, coordinatio, from Latin co- + ordination-, ordinatio arrangement, from ordinare to arrange -- more at ORDAIN
1 : the act or action of coordinating
2 : the harmonious functioning of parts for effective results 




			
				hector said:
			
		

> 2. The sets work´s on Basics of Kenpo,then  Why we teach Coordination Set if coordination is not a basic as the stances, kicks, blocks, fingers ?



Coordination Sets 1 & 2 each the practitioner how to employ upper body movements in harmony with lower body movements while getting the most effective results. (i.e. striking and kicking at the same time, body rotation, alignment, etc...)




			
				hector said:
			
		

> 3. Which type of coordination we should achieve?



The harmonious functioning of parts for effective results.


 :asian:


----------



## pete (May 27, 2004)

Coordination Set One conditions the body in the linear, while Coordination Set Two introduces the circular aspects of Kenpo.  

I like to also combine them to bring the linear within the circular, and the circular within the linear.  I'll do the "1" pattern followed by the "2" pattern in each direction.

pete


----------



## Brother John (May 27, 2004)

Bill Lear said:
			
		

> Coordination Sets 1 & 2 each the practitioner how to employ upper body movements in harmony with lower body movements while getting the most effective results. (i.e. striking and kicking at the same time, body rotation, alignment, etc...)
> The harmonious functioning of parts for effective results.
> :asian:


That's pretty vague/generalized isn't it? I mean I could list ALL of the techniques and forms and say that they teach the practitioner how to employ upper body movements in harmony with lower body movements while getting the most effective results... don't ya think? I mean, hey... first technique in our curriculum: Delayed Sword. IF you don't coordinate the upper body with the lower body movements it won't have 'effective results'. I can't think of a single technique where this type of coordination isn't taught/required; can you? Since the first of these two sets isn't even taught until Purple belt... if those students can't coordinate their upper and lower body movements yet...we are in BIG trouble.
Besides, as I've already stated, it does incorporate movement that violates several important principles of Kenpo...how do you get around that?
Try kicking a punching bag with a left front ball kick and a right punch and judge for yourself if it's "for effective results".
Just a thought.

question everything...

Your Brother
John


----------



## Goldendragon7 (May 27, 2004)

Brother John said:
			
		

> That's pretty vague/generalized isn't it?  I mean I could list ALL of the techniques and forms and say that they teach the  practitioner how to employ upper body movements in harmony with lower body  movements while getting the most effective results... don't ya think?
> John


Yes, I would agree with you...



			
				Brother  John said:
			
		

> I mean, hey... first technique in our curriculum: Delayed Sword.
> IF  you don't coordinate the upper body with the lower body movements it won't have  'effective results'.
> John


Really?  Well I beg to differ with  you here.  *"I"* *can* get "effective results". 



			
				Brother John said:
			
		

> I can't think of a single technique  where this type of coordination isn't taught/required; can you?
> John


In the Ideal Phase ..... no.  We at this level are  establishing a base of material and initial coordination to an  *unskilled* student.  So, of course, you need to teach the outlined  exercises to be able to eventually be able to  prefix, suffix, insert,  rearrange, alter,adjust, regulate or delete portions of the technique so as to  be able to utilize the training and be effective in your  efforts.



			
				Brother John said:
			
		

> Since the first of these two sets isn't  even taught until Purple belt... if those students can't coordinate their upper  and lower body movements yet...we are in BIG  trouble.
> John


Where these sets are taught are not really the  issue if you understand methods of teaching Physical Coordination.  Sure, it  could be taught in the  Yellow or Orange Levels but there is so much material to  cover that it was decided to be placed in the Purple Belt by Mr. Parker.   Besides, No One said that there was not other material that taught the students  to coordinate their upper and lower body movements....... did they?

All  the "sets" are considered "appendices" to the base curriculum.  With that in  mind... they are just additional drills to "focus in on" certain aspects of the  art to gain greater insights and skills.  

Mr. Parker used to say...  "at certain levels you only need to _*"KNOW OF"*_  certain aspects, then at others you need to _*"KNOW"*_ to a  much greater level of skill, and finally you will need to  _*"UNDERSTAND"*_ thoroughly what it is you are teaching/doing.   It is impossible to do it all at once.  This is not a quick process.

As  to the "BIG Trouble" you reference, I have seen many a student (of all belt  classifications - including Black) that would fit your statement in many  different Kenpo organizations.



			
				Brother John said:
			
		

> Besides, as I've  already stated, it does incorporate movement that violates several important  principles of Kenpo...how do you get around that?
> John


Like  _*what*_ principles does it violate?  ......



			
				Brother John said:
			
		

> Try kicking a punching bag with a left  front ball kick and a right punch and judge for yourself if it's "for effective  results".
> John


*Ok*,........ I *can* get _*effective results*_  doing this maneuver... ? I don't get it..... :idunno: ... maybe you and I are just not on the same page.


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 27, 2004)

Goldendragon7 said:
			
		

> Yes, I would agree with you...
> 
> Really?  Well I beg to differ with  you here.  *"I"* *can* get "effective results".
> 
> ...


He's kicking too high. :asian: Not to mention a punching bag doesn't account for range differences between a kick and a punch.
Sean


----------



## Goldendragon7 (May 27, 2004)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> He's kicking too high. :asian: Not to mention a punching bag doesn't account for range differences between a kick and a punch.
> Sean


 Well, I don't know what HE is doing...LOL, 

 and I agree on the bag issue..... Range is an issue as you point out, but so is body reaction and multiple opponent applications.

 :asian:


----------



## Seig (May 27, 2004)

To that same issue, ask my students about getting their head sandwhiched between a left round kick and a right roundhouse punch.....


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 27, 2004)

Seig said:
			
		

> To that same issue, ask my students about getting their head sandwhiched between a left round kick and a right roundhouse punch.....


With that in mind a good one for the bag would be a  right Muay Thai over that top elbow and a left knee stike. :asian: 
Sean


----------



## Brother John (May 27, 2004)

pete said:
			
		

> Coordination Set One conditions the body in the linear, while Coordination Set Two introduces the circular aspects of Kenpo.



I think I understand where you are coming from Pete, but by the time you've gotten to Purple Belt I'd think that your body would already be 'conditioned' in the linear AND introduced to the circular aspects of Kenpo.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Brother John (May 28, 2004)

Mr. Conaster
Thank you for chiming in on this and my thoughts on it as I appreciate your perspective. :asian:
Please let me address each of your statements in turn.

You said:
Really? Well I beg to differ with you here. "I" can get "effective results". 

Im not saying that neither you nor anyone else cant execute delayed sword and achieve effective results, not in the slightest. What I did say was that you cant move your lower body in disharmony with your upper body and achieve the effective results that Delayed Sword leads us to. The technique requires that your upper and lower halves agree, not contradict one anothers motion/momentum. Im quite certain that your results in Delayed Sword are effective. 

I asked: I can't think of a single technique where this type of coordination isn't taught/required; can you? 
To which you replied: 
In the Ideal Phase ..... no. We at this level are establishing a base of material and initial coordination to an unskilled student. So, of course, you need to teach the outlined exercises to be able to eventually be able to prefix, suffix, insert, rearrange, alter,adjust, regulate or delete portions of the technique so as to be able to utilize the training and be effective in your efforts.

First off, using the Kenpo Equation/Formula to alter the set shouldnt even enter into the problem of the viability of the set. IF it needs to be formulated in order to render it effective then the base version that you formulated from has NO reason to exist and should be replaced by its formulated version. Besides, the most important element of ANY facet of Kenpo IS its ideal phase as this is what we make our students study/practice over and over in order to ingrain the principles contained w/in its context. To say that an element finds its worth only once changed begs the question: why not change it NOW and render our daily practice of it effective?

I pose that the motion of either coordination set one or two violates basic laws of physics as well as the logic that is the bedrock foundation of the system from start to finish. Thats my basic premise and it must be understood in order to see where Im coming from. To help in understanding my perspective on this Ill take the set (one) apart one piece at a time to facilitate a better analysis and maybe a better discussion. 
_(PS: Thanks to Mr. Michael Billings for the wonderful web-site that spells these sets out so well)_

*Coordination Set I: 
1. Drop your right foot back to 6:00 so you're facing 12:00 in a left neutral bow while simultaneously delivering a left outward block and a right back elbow strike. 
2. Turn your outward block into a left punch to the head. 
3. Shift into a left forward bow while delivering a right reverse punch to the solar plexus and a left back elbow strike. 
4. Simultaneously deliver a right rear leg front snap kick to the groin and a left hand punch to the head with a right back elbow strike. 
5. Plant into a left forward bow while delivering a right reverse punch to the solar plexus with a left back elbow strike.  * 
AS we all know, from here its just a matter of covering repeatedly to different positions around the clock as you repeat this on both sides of the body over and over

So, heres my recap. Up to #3 I have no problem and particularly like #2, not a bad bit of vocabulary there.  In #4 however you are standing on one foot and simultaneously delivering a punch. How do you stand on one foot and punch and expect to be able to deliver ANY power? Also, if you are on one foot and make any significant contact with the fist, the foot or both according to Newtonian physics you will fall down. Your base is only as wide as your one foot and you are thrusting two limbs forward and striking your foot will turn from a base into a fulcrum and you will topple. Even if you get your other foot under you in time for you to not fall, youll need to spend your time/energy to regain balance while your strike(s) had more of an effect on you than your intended targets. Dont we teach beginners that the power of a punch begins in our base and rides up to culminate in the snap/thrust of our fist? IF it begins in our base, since when is a one footed base directly beneath us sufficient base to fuel a punch? In my eyes, this falls under useless in the useless - un-useful - useful continuum. 

Now we get to #5 where youve executed a front kick off of the back leg and are now reversing your forward momentum and planting it behind you, to its point of origin. This goes against the Angle of No Return: Heres a cut and pasted definition of this principle:

*Angle of No Return - *  Refers to the position and angle of the upper body and hips while delivering a front kick or forward motion, making it awkward, difficult, and illogical to attempt to return to your starting position. Because of the awkwardness and the time needed to return to your original position, exposure of your vital areas would work in your opponent's favor - not to mention your inability to render an immediate counter. 

So, #5 is: awkward, difficult and illogical. It expands the time needed to reestablish your base and leaves vital targets open longer. It also leaves you unable to render an immediate counter. Doesnt seem like this would be something Id want to engender in my students motion-habits. Since this set is done SO very repetitivelywhy would I want to engrain this jeopardizing vocabulary?
But wait, _theres more. _ 
Upon settling back into your stance that you just achieved by violating one principle you Plant into a left forward bow while delivering a right reverse punch the word While designates that it happens simultaneously. SOat the same time that you settle back onto your right foot, you punch forward with your right hand. This is in clear and direct violation of some of the most fundamental of all Kenpo Principles:  _(again with the cut and pasting)_

*Back-Up-Mass * - The use of body weight that is directly behind the action that is taking place. (short & sweet version)

Theres three actions in #6 that contradict logic, the defiance of angle of no return (already covered) and now settling back WHILE you punch forward which one of these two motions gets backed up? Where is the body weight going? Toward its base of course, which is in the process of being establishednot yet complete, so your body weight cant be settling a stance to the rear _WHILE _ its backing up a punch to the front, it cant go in two directions at oncetrying to do this defies the foundational principle of.
Body Alignment- involves the coordination of body parts to harmonize along the angles which they travel. (no harmony, lack of needed alignment)
AND
Directional Harmony!!![/SIZE]
Think about it. As you settle back w/the right foot you punch forward with the right hand. Same side of your body, the base & your body weight are moving to the rear WHILE your limb is thrusting forward? NO directional harmony. 

Now, back to your comments Mr. Conaster.
You said:
Where these sets are taught are not really the issue if you understand methods of teaching Physical Coordination. Sure, it could be taught in the Yellow or Orange Levels but there is so much material to cover that it was decided to be placed in the Purple Belt by Mr. Parker. Besides, No One said that there was not other material that taught the students to coordinate their upper and lower body movements....... did they?

I must disagree sir. Where a thing lies in any curricula IS important. IF you were teaching this as one of a white belts first exposures to greater coordination, OK (_ignoring for the moment that it engrains useless motion and violates foundational principles), _ but you are not! This person has passed your scrutiny through all of the Yellow Belt techniques and other requirements as well as Orange Belt techniques and requirements and has already begun their journey into the Purple Belt materialand now you intend on finally getting them used to some coordination? I pose that there are more than a few techniques w/in the previous material that demands greater levels of coordination from the practitioner than this set does! Ive heard and read over and over and over that this sets purpose is to increase the practitioners coordination yet I could sooner get Joe Schmoe-knownothing from the street to perform this set well than to learn and perform Five Swords adequately. So in my eyes, this set is trying to reinvent the wheeland do so at a lower standard. (and oh yeah it flies in the face of Newtonian physics too) As you said sir, there is SO much material before it that it couldnt come sooner in the course of instruction. Also as you said, sir, the other material Also requires and thus develops coordination of upper and lower body. So why the set sir?

Next statement:
You said;
As to the "BIG Trouble" you reference, I have seen many a student (of all belt classifications - including Black) that would fit your statement in many different Kenpo organizations.

I could care less about whose association/group/organization this rhetorical person doing this set comes from or what color belt hangs from their hips. These things are irrelevant, they have zero to do with the BIG Trouble that anyone would be in were they to perform HIGH repetitions of this Physics/Principles/Logic defying set and expect that it would in any way teach them or train them to help them survive a violent confrontationdo well in the ringor become a better Kenpoist.

Of course the average Kenpoist (of any Camp/association/organizationetc) receives so much else that DOES behoove him/her through the rest of their Kenpo training that this set doesnt go too far in altering their over-all performance for the worstBut I dont see how it could ever help it.

I hope you (the reader and/or Mr. Conaster) really consider what Ive said here.
I could be wrong, but I dont think so. 
Your Brother
John


----------



## Brother John (May 28, 2004)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> He's kicking too high. :asian: Not to mention a punching bag doesn't account for range differences between a kick and a punch.
> Sean


Did I say I was kicking high?
I don't think I did.

I've never had the pleasure/honor of meeting you face to face Sean, so I KNOW you've never seeeeen me do this set, or even kick at all. 
So...how high am I kicking Sean? Chest? Head?
nope...by the book, groin.
no higher.
I hate kicking higher than the groin. I even tend to alter my personal execution of some techs that call for higher kicks...just so I can kick lower than the navel. (when I can get away with it  ) 
As to the bag, I was speaking to the obvious recoil that effects us whenever we land either or both a punch/kick. So I KNOW that a kick and a punch have a different range. Seems some people want to brand me with some pretty 2 dimensional thinking here.   :idunno: 
I'm not _that_ stupid Sean. 

Your Brother
John


----------



## pete (May 28, 2004)

> think I understand where you are coming from Pete, but by the time you've gotten to Purple Belt I'd think that your body would already be 'conditioned' in the linear AND introduced to the circular aspects of Kenpo. Your Brother, John



no argument there, bro... in fact, where i train we start these at blue and green levels.  i guess the word reinforce would have been better than introduce.  



> Im not saying that neither you nor anyone else cant execute delayed sword and achieve effective results, not in the slightest. What I did say was that you cant move your lower body in disharmony with your upper body and achieve the effective results that Delayed Sword leads us to.



again, i couldn't agree more.  to do otherwise, regardless of effectiveness in an individual or situation, would NOT be an example of kenpo or the martial arts for that matter.   

muscling through a technique was discouraged by my teacher early on, instead let the big muscles do the work!  I'm surprised that a senor, the GoldenDragon #7,  contradicts this... unless i am misinterpreting the essense of his response... :idunno: 




> This person has passed your scrutiny through all of the Yellow Belt techniques and other requirements as well as Orange Belt techniques and requirements and has already begun their journey into the Purple Belt materialand now you intend on finally getting them used to some coordination?



john, this is where i must disagree.  when i reached purple belt i was real cool, knew how to move and could take on the world... now, well dylan put it best _"i was so much older then, i'm younger than that now!"  _ 



> In #4 however you are standing on one foot and simultaneously delivering a punch. How do you stand on one foot and punch and expect to be able to deliver ANY power?



try an adjustment to the written form, and issue the power as your back foot lands and your hips settle... use that whole body unity!

pete.


----------



## jeffkyle (May 28, 2004)

Brother John said:
			
		

> Directional Harmony!!!
> Think about it. As you settle back w/the right foot you punch forward with the right hand. Same side of your body, the base & your body weight are moving to the rear WHILE your limb is thrusting forward? NO directional harmony.



I have a video of where Mr. Parker specifically talks about Directional Harmony with coordination set.  After watching that video and seeing this statement, I can see where one might think like this...but I also see how Mr. Parker Explained it.  From his explanation Directional Harmony is there!


----------



## hector (May 28, 2004)

Hi:
When we are amid an intense rain, to drink water would seem us something useless, but if we were amid the desert, it would be a blessing.   

Coordination Set is useful or only a lost of time?.    

Kenpo is a very wide system and have many tools to develop our capacities and to train our skills.  In my opinion the Coordinación Set is  an excellent formative exercise for the children and even for adults with problems in its coordination motor. In cientific studies they are calculated that the children's 5-8% enters they have significant problems with coordination. The males are seven times more than the girls, for what is not a smaller topic. In my experience, the children quickly learns Coordination Set, because the frequent repetition of the same movements makes that the coordination is more and more perfect.  

Coordination is a motive quality . In the field of the physical education and especially in the field of the neurophysiology different concepts exist in relation to the coordination.  

	According to Ernst Idla coordination it is The ability to make complex movements in a convenient way so that they can be carried out with a minimum of energy."  

	For Claude Coste the coordination allows to take to end movements that imply to many corporal segments to make a previously represented action, claiming an attention centered in the movement and in the mental representation of its execution. A bad coordination has effects agitators in all the levels of the individuals' activity, leave it opposes to the harmonious acquisition and estructurantes of the automatism.  

	  The specialists of the movements are based on the different classifications and based on these they develop the motive perceptive field. In relation to the Martial Arts we will develop the General and Manual Coordination, concept that arises of Costallt. This author understands for General Coordination to all those movements in that the inferior members interfere (for example: displacements, to run, to jump) and for Dynamic Manual to those movements that are carried out specifically with the superior members.  
----------------	  

My  Personal Notes  (they are not necessarily the true, alone an option)  

*) The Coordination Set 1 is a transition and preparation of movements that we find in the Long 2,  with the difference that the first two movements are the reverse of the Set (downward block, looping punch).  

*) In the Long 1 we have an outward block and a reverse punch, in the Coordination Set we incorporate the concept of  Insert .

*) We identify 2 origin points for the fist, being the first one starting from the block and the second from the hip. 

*) The combination punch/kick works in the counter torque and if it not carried out, for the mechanics of the kick, the hip would be rotated, with that which we would have to have an extra time to be able to carry out the reverse final punch and to use the torque.  

*) In the long 2 in the final punch fall to the front and in the Set we fall back, that which seems an absurdity but have  as objective to become trained to use the punch going back. (It is an important quality developed by boxers)   

*)  Technics with the mechanics of the Coordination Set 1: THRUSTING SALUTE, DARTING MACE, DOMINATING CIRCLES  (takedown)


Greetings to all,
Hector


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 28, 2004)

pete said:
			
		

> now, well dylan put it best _"i was so much older then, i'm younger than that now!"  _
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Actualy that isn't the excercise. Just think of this as an insert that doesn't lack all that much power. I thought for sure that was the "Byrds". Did Dylan write that?
sean


----------



## pete (May 28, 2004)

> Actualy that isn't the excercise.



hey sean, i'm not gonna force it down anyone's throat, but i don't see that there is a definite method of practicing this exercise... and this is where i found my home.



> I thought for sure that was the "Byrds". Did Dylan write that



yep... Byrds did a better job with it (opinion?), but Dylan wrote it.


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 28, 2004)

I answered you in private message :asian: 
Sean


----------



## Brother John (May 28, 2004)

jeffkyle said:
			
		

> I have a video of where Mr. Parker specifically talks about Directional Harmony with coordination set.  After watching that video and seeing this statement, I can see where one might think like this...but I also see how Mr. Parker Explained it.  From his explanation Directional Harmony is there!



That sounds really cool Jeff! I love seeing old video of Mr. Parker instructing!
PLEASE, share with me/us how Mr. Parker made it clear that Directional Harmony is still there. I'm glad that you at least see where I'm coming from. Obviously Mr. Parker, too, would have seen where I'm coming from as he thought it important and relevent to try to clear up the seeming contradiction.
Thanks in advance Jeff. I honestly look forward to the insight!  :asian: 

Your Brother
John


----------



## Goldendragon7 (May 28, 2004)

Brother John said:
			
		

> Mr. Conaster (ConaTser - t before the s .. dang  everyone does that... lol)
> Thank you for chiming in on this and my thoughts  on it as I appreciate your perspective. :asian:
> John


Thanks John, I as well, however it seems we either are not talking apples to apples or there is a definite difference of knowledge, understanding or opinion. 



			
				Brother John said:
			
		

> You said:
> Really? Well I beg to  differ with you here. "I" can get "effective results". 
> 
> Im not saying that neither you nor anyone else cant execute delayed sword and achieve effective results, not in the slightest. What *I did say was that you cant  move your lower body in disharmony with your upper body and achieve the  effective results* that Delayed Sword leads us to. The technique requires that your upper and lower halves agree, not contradict one anothers motion/momentum. Im quite certain that your results in Delayed Sword are effective.
> John


What I was driving at is that to be  "effective" or get "results" you don't have to utilize the whole body or execute perfectly to the "max". Sooooo, depending on what your definition of effective and results are ..... could result in totally differing meanings. Sure, to produce Ideal Scenarios.... it would be most advantageous to have the upper and lower body work in Harmony.... which is what we try to do and teach within every technique, however, this is not always possible or realistic, and it isn't _required_ to produce effective results even though we  attempt to teach/execute it perfectly.  That is all I'm  saying.



			
				Brother John said:
			
		

> I asked: I can't think of a single  technique where this type of coordination isn't taught/required; can you?  
> To which you replied:
> In the Ideal Phase ..... no. We at this level are establishing a base of material and initial coordination to an unskilled student. So, of course, you need to teach the outlined exercises to be able to eventually be able to prefix, suffix, insert, rearrange, alter,adjust, regulate or delete portions of the technique so as to be able to utilize the training and be effective in your efforts.
> 
> ...


All the material in our "Curriculum" is interchangeable, adjustable, and adaptable. These "Drills" i.e., Forms, sets, self defense techniques, coordination exercises, freestyle techniques, etc., are only "ideas" to help develop the skills needed in self defense. In the early stages of training the student needs to be *introduced and drilled* on the various aspects or components of American Kenpo. Without good coordination development, all the maneuvers necessary to become proficient at what we strive for will not be as effective as we would hope for. This is a lengthy process and one that is different for each individual, depending upon their existing personal skills that they begin with. Once achieving an adequate foundation, one then must then be able to convert/use what exercises they have been exposed to and be able to apply them in a realistic situation.

 The sets, (all of them) are specific to certain aspects of Kenpo. If the set has merit to what it was intended.... then of course it is viable. Don't you think that Mr. Parker had a purpose in mind for each and every component of the system? Some seem to demonstrate to me that either they don't understand what the purpose of certain aspects are designed for.... or that Mr. Parker was an idiot for even putting such a drill in the system in the first place.



			
				Brother John said:
			
		

> IF it (Coordination Set # 1 or any others for that matter) needs to be formulated in order to render it effective then the base version that you formulated from has NO reason to exist and should be replaced by its formulated version.
> John


I didn't say it _NEEDS_ to be formulated to render it effective, but rather if you re-read what I wrote.... and I quote... "We at this level are establishing a base of material and initial  coordination to an unskilled student. So, of course, you need to teach the  outlined exercises to be able to _*eventually*_ be able to  prefix, ......"

 I agree with you ....... that if the base set is in need of serious repair ... then why have it in the first place, but that is not the case here.



			
				Brother John said:
			
		

> The most important element of ANY facet of Kenpo IS its ideal phase as this is what we make our students study/practice over and over in order to ingrain the principles contained w/in its context.
> John


Well, once again we have a slight  difference of definition or opinion.   There is no real "_Ideal_" in the  street.   In *practice* however, (to try to prepare us for the street) Mr. Parker did create an "Ideal Phase" for the purpose of being able to teach and introduce ideas to the BEGINNING STUDENT, until such a time when  *REALITY IS RECOGNIZED* and then we discuss the endless "what if" possibilities that are extremely necessary for development and understanding. Eventually this will lead the student to being able to "FORMULATE" extemporaneously when needed.



			
				Brother John said:
			
		

> To say that an element finds its worth only once changed begs the question: why not change it NOW and render our daily practice of it effective?
> John


True,  I didn't say or mean that.



			
				Brother John said:
			
		

> I pose that the motion of either coordination set one or two violates basic laws of physics as well as the logic that is the bedrock foundation of the system from start to finish. Thats my basic premise and it must be understood in order to see where Im coming from.
> *
> Coordination Set # 1  explanation......
> 4. Simultaneously deliver a right rear leg front snap kick to the groin and a left hand punch to the head with a right back elbow strike.
> ...


Absolutely......  can't you?



			
				Brother John said:
			
		

> Also, if you are on one foot and make any significant contact with the fist, the foot or both according to Newtonian physics you will fall down.
> John


Really, wow, hmmmmm I guess Newton is wrong or you are not applying the principle correctly, cause I or several others (including Mr. Parker) didn't/don't have your dilemma....



			
				Brother John said:
			
		

> Your base is only as wide as your one foot and you are thrusting two limbs forward and striking your foot will turn from a base into a fulcrum and you will topple. Even if you get your other foot under you in time for you to not fall, youll need to spend your time/energy to regain balance while your strike(s) had more of an effect on you than your intended targets.
> John


Well, I disagree, but you are entitled  to your opinion.  hee hee.... *this reminds me of the no touch knock out  discussions ......* I guess we would have to step on the mat so you could show me what you are trying to explain, and also allow me to show you my point of view/feel. :btg:



			
				Brother John said:
			
		

> Dont we teach beginners that the power of a punch begins in our base and rides up to culminate in the snap/thrust of our fist?
> John


I don't know what you teach to your beginners .... but I do know of several different methods of punching. One of course is how I believe you are trying to express, but it certainly not the _*only*_ way.  RTFM



			
				Brother John said:
			
		

> IF it begins in our base, since when is a one footed base directly beneath us sufficient base to fuel a punch? In my eyes, this falls under useless in the useless - un-useful - useful continuum.
> John


I will agree with you that you have the right to view (In your eyes) any and all material that you have been taught any way that you wish. 



			
				Brother John said:
			
		

> Now we get to #5...
> *
> Coordination Set # 1 explanation......*
> *5. Plant into a left forward bow while delivering a right reverse  punch to the solar plexus with a left back elbow strike.
> ...


Whoa, whoa, whoa....... lol, hee hee..... John if you are gonna quote definitions.... please do so accurately. (taken from Encyclopedia of Kenpo "A" page 13) it correctly reads.....

*"Angle of No Return - *Refers to the position and  angle of the upper body (and hips) while delivering a front _*STEP  THROUGH*_ kick, *punch, or other striking methods*,  _*(utilizing *_forward motion) that makes it awkward, difficult, and illogical to attempt to return to your starting position. Because of the awkwardness and the time needed to return to your original position, exposure of your vital areas would work in your opponent's favor - not to mention your inability to render an immediate counter." 

 As you can see  this is quite a bit different from what you are saying.  The kick in question in  Coordination set #1 _*IS NOT a STEP THROUGH*_ but rather a front snapping ball kick off the rear leg in which every studio in the country teaches (and usually plants back to point of origin). If it were a step through as you state then I would agree with you but this example is most certainly _*NOT*_ a violation of angle of No Return, rather, it actually  is ..... (also taken from Encyclopedia of Kenpo "A" page  13)...
_*Angle of Return*_, The position and angle of the  upper body (and hips) while delivering a kick or punch at which it *is* feasible for you to return to your original or starting  position without difficulty. :uhyeah:



			
				Brother John said:
			
		

> So, #5 is: awkward,  difficult and illogical. It expands the time needed to reestablish your base and leaves vital targets open longer. It also leaves you unable to render an immediate counter. Doesnt seem like this would be something Id want to engender in my students motion-habits. Since this set is done SO very repetitivelywhy would I want to engrain this jeopardizing vocabulary?
> John


I think the prior paragraph addresses this  issue well.... onward.....



			
				Brother John said:
			
		

> But wait, _theres  more.
> _*Coordination Set # 1  explanation......*
> *6. Upon 'settling' back  into your stance, you "Plant into a left forward bow while delivering a right  reverse punch"...*
> the word While designates that it happens simultaneously. SOat the same time that you settle back onto your right foot, you punch forward with your right hand. This is in clear and direct violation of some of the most fundamental of all Kenpo Principles: _(again with the cut and  pasting)_
> ...


As you must realize..... the manuals are a far  cry from depicting _precise_ explanations (thus the number of revisions) and depending upon your particular version. Unfortunately, if you only read and interpret verbatim.... then at times confusion is highly possible. Also, you must realize that there are many options to motion. We know that Mr. Parker taught us that there is no "one way" exclusivity to do anything. Most everything has an exception sooner or later. Here I believe it is more of an interpretive issue based on what is written and not necessarily actually meant. 

 While it is accurate that you do replant back and end up in a left forward bow.... it is also possible to settle (drop height) and rotate
 (alter  width) both while in transition, which also develops Back Up Mass to  accomplish this action (possibly this is an element of coordination that is  focused upon and meant to be expanded).



			
				Brother John said:
			
		

> Now, back  to your comments Mr. Conaster.(ConaTser - t before the s)
> John


Geeze... I didn't know we  left...



			
				Brother John said:
			
		

> You said:
> Where these sets are taught are not really the issue if you understand methods of teaching Physical Coordination. Sure, it could be taught in the Yellow or Orange Levels but there is so much material to cover that it was decided to be placed in the Purple Belt by Mr. Parker. Besides, No One said that there was not other material that taught the students to coordinate their upper and lower body movements....... did they?
> 
> I must disagree sir. Where a thing lies in any curricula IS important. IF you were teaching this as one of a white belts first exposures to greater coordination, OK (_ignoring for the moment that it engrains useless  motion and violates foundational principles), _but you are not! This person has passed your scrutiny through all of the Yellow Belt techniques and other requirements as well as Orange Belt techniques and requirements and has already begun their journey into the Purple Belt materialand now you intend on finally getting them used to some coordination? I pose that there are more than a few techniques w/in the previous material that demands greater levels of coordination from the practitioner than this set does! Ive heard and read over and over and over that this sets purpose is to increase the practitioners coordination yet I could sooner get Joe Schmoe-knownothing from the street to perform this set well than to learn and perform Five Swords adequately. So in my eyes, this set is trying to reinvent the wheeland do so at a lower standard. (and oh yeah it flies in the face of Newtonian physics too) As you said sir, there is SO much material before it that it couldnt come sooner in the course of instruction. Also as you said, sir, the other material Also requires and thus develops coordination of upper and lower body.
> John


Well, it doesn't matter if you disagree with me or not...... I'm not the one that placed the sets where they are...LOL Ed Parker did! But no since beating a dead horse... :deadhorse you will believe what you want to .... and that's your privilege, someday I look forward to be able to discuss this and other issues with you in person for greater clarification. 



			
				Brother  John said:
			
		

> Next statement: You said; As to the "BIG Trouble" you reference, I have seen many a student (of all belt classifications - including Black) that would fit your statement in many different Kenpo organizations.
> 
> I could care less about whose association/group/organization this rhetorical person doing this set comes from or what color belt hangs from their hips. These things are irrelevant, they have zero to do with the BIG Trouble that anyone would be in were they to perform HIGH repetitions of this Physics/Principles/Logic defying set and expect that it would in any way teach them or train them to help them survive a violent confrontationdo well in the ringor become a better Kenpoist.
> John


I agree with you as well, I could care less, but my response was only to say that it is an issue that could be addressed by a great number of students across the board regardless of rank or affiliation.




			
				Brother John said:
			
		

> I hope you  (the reader and/or Mr. Conaster)(ConaTser - t before the s) really consider what Ive said here.
> I could be wrong, but I  dont think so.
> John


 I can't/won't speak for the readers, but as for myself, I appreciate your views although I disagree with portions. I do agree with your last statement...... (I could be wrong)  ...:cheers:

 Nice exchange of thoughts!
 :asian:


----------



## Goldendragon7 (May 28, 2004)

pete said:
			
		

> I'm surprised that a senior, the GoldenDragon #7, contradicts this... unless i am misinterpreting the essense of his response... :idunno:
> pete.


 I'm sure that's the case.


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 28, 2004)

Goldendragon7 said:
			
		

> Thanks John, I as well, however it seems we either are not talking apples to apples or there is a definite difference of knowledge, understanding or opinion.
> 
> What I was driving at is that to be  "effective" or get "results" you don't have to utilize the whole body or execute perfectly to the "max". Sooooo, depending on what your definition of effective and results are ..... could result in totally differing meanings. Sure, to produce Ideal Scenarios.... it would be most advantageous to have the upper and lower body work in Harmony.... which is what we try to do and teach within every technique, however, this is not always possible or realistic, and it isn't _required_ to produce effective results even though we  attempt to teach/execute it perfectly.  That is all I'm  saying.
> 
> ...


Thank you!!! :asian: 
Sean


----------



## jeffkyle (May 28, 2004)

Brother John said:
			
		

> That sounds really cool Jeff! I love seeing old video of Mr. Parker instructing!
> PLEASE, share with me/us how Mr. Parker made it clear that Directional Harmony is still there. I'm glad that you at least see where I'm coming from. Obviously Mr. Parker, too, would have seen where I'm coming from as he thought it important and relevent to try to clear up the seeming contradiction.
> Thanks in advance Jeff. I honestly look forward to the insight!  :asian:
> 
> ...




I am not sure I could put it into words and do it justice...it would just be something you would have to see for yourself!


----------



## jeffkyle (May 28, 2004)

I agree!   Mr. C.,  well said.


----------



## Bill Lear (May 28, 2004)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> Thank you!!! :asian:
> Sean



I'm with you on this one Sean. Thanks Dennis.

 :asian:


----------



## Brother John (May 29, 2004)

Goldendragon7 said:
			
		

> Nice exchange of thoughts!
> :asian:



Thank you for sharing with me Mr. Conatser. I apreciate you taking the time to help clear some things up for me.
I'll do my best to get your name right, I hope you didn't take it as a slight.
I feel like I should be at the black board:
"I will not put the s before the t"
"I will not put the s before the t"
"I will not put the s before the t"
"I will not put the s before the t"
"I will not put the s before the t"
"I will not put the s before the t"
"I will not put the s before the t"
"I will not put the s before the t"
....thanks again Mr. Conatser (practicing...)
Your Brother
John


----------



## Goldendragon7 (May 29, 2004)

Brother John said:
			
		

> Thank you for sharing with me Mr. Conatser. I apreciate you taking the time to help clear some things up for me.
> I'll do my best to get your name right, I hope you didn't take it as a slight.
> I feel like I should be at the black board:
> "I will not put the s before the t"......
> ...


 LOL...{very cute...} No, I did not take it as a slight at all, you are not the first and probably won't be the last that reverses the s & t! Also, thanks for participating in the "debate" {complete with disagreements and differing opinions} as a mature Kenpoist. I hope others will follow your lead!

  :asian:


----------



## Michael Billings (May 30, 2004)

Oss Mr. C.
 -MB


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 31, 2004)

No one is arguing that there aren't more powerfull moves, but the set is showing you short cuts with well enough power to get the job done. Yes step through kicks are more powerfull, and, yes, that last reverse punch could be done with a launch, but don't you think it would be usefull to know how to be faster. All the power in the world isn't going to help if you got knocked out with and "inferior" strike; because, your oponent just might have practiced punching out of a counter balance, while you chose to focus soley on a launch. :asian: 
Sean


----------



## Brother John (May 31, 2004)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> No one is arguing that there aren't more powerfull moves, but the set is showing you short cuts with well enough power to get the job done. Yes step through kicks are more powerfull, and, yes, that last reverse punch could be done with a launch, but don't you think it would be usefull to know how to be faster. All the power in the world isn't going to help if you got knocked out with and "inferior" strike; because, your oponent just might have practiced punching out of a counter balance, while you chose to focus soley on a launch. :asian:
> Sean


Thank you also for the different perspective and way of seeing this set and for your constructive criticism. I emphasize that because it's something that I've seen in this thread (for the most part) and has helped me keep from being somewhat defensive and thus keep an open mind. 
I'm better for getting to communicate with fine Kenpoists like yourselves!
 :asian: 
Your Brother
John


----------

