# Mace of Aggression & Raking Mace



## Handsword (Feb 20, 2003)

Similiar to my comparison questions of ideal attacks for Grip & Grasp of Death ...

Does anybody practice a difference in the ideal attack between Mace of Aggression & Raking Mace (both vs two-handed lapel grabs pulling in)?

What factors make a difference between using each of these techniques (other than personal preferance)?

I figure that because Mace of Aggression first attacks high and Raking Mace first attacks low, that this may be related to the unavailability of a low target during M of A (eg. the opponent has elbows anchored and close together during the grab).  

However, this would make for a tighter, closer, in-your-face attack for M of A (which is lower in the syllabus) than Raking Mace.

Comments welcome.


----------



## Kenpodoc (Feb 20, 2003)

The simple answer is point of origen. If your hand is high Mace of Aggression, if low Raking Mace.

The more fun answer is that the system is designed to show multiple responses to any one attack.  When EPAK was systemetized multiple examples of responses to any one attack were included in the system.  These are by no means the only possible responses.  If you practice both techniques till they are second nature you will do whichever response the attacker asks for.  

I don't believe the attacks are necessarily different but the response does depend on your relative position to your attacker.


----------



## headkick (Feb 20, 2003)

Relative height plays in here too.  A taller opponent could make MofA more difficult versus RM.  For me, there's something about launching my knuckles into someone's chin that isn't appealing.  Too much chance to wind up with a tooth stuck in my hand.   Devasting strike, but...


----------



## Brother John (Feb 20, 2003)

I think that these are two of the biggest determinants of which to use, you both have very good points: relative height and point of origin...
in the end though (as I am not a "You must execute this technique VERBATIM..." type person) I like to highlight the unique vocabulary presented in each of these techs. I really like each of them!
Your Brother
John


----------



## Doc (Feb 26, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Kenpodoc _
> *The simple answer is point of origen. If your hand is high Mace of Aggression, if low Raking Mace.
> 
> The more fun answer is that the system is designed to show multiple responses to any one attack.  When EPAK was systemetized multiple examples of responses to any one attack were included in the system.  These are by no means the only possible responses.  If you practice both techniques till they are second nature you will do whichever response the attacker asks for.
> ...


Although I don't execute either technique as most might understand it, I agree with what you said.


----------



## sumdumguy (Apr 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by headkick _
> *there's something about launching my knuckles into someone's chin that isn't appealing.  Too much chance to wind up with a tooth stuck in my hand.   Devasting strike, but... *


Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure that that strike should be to the Facial nerve or vein? The vein if the height is good and adjust to the nerve if they are taller.... Teeth ouch!!!


----------



## Elfan (Apr 15, 2003)

Combing the height and hand postion factor, Mace of aggresion is the model for a push when your hands are above their arms, and raking mace for when your hands are lower then theirs as they push.  Weither your hands are higher because you raised them or because of a height differnce doens't really matter for that part.


----------



## Doc (Apr 15, 2003)

> Weither your hands are higher because you raised them or because of a height differnce doens't really matter for that part. [/B]


Yes it does.


----------



## True2Kenpo (Apr 17, 2003)

Fellow Kenpoists,

I just thought this was an interesting group/ category of techniques, namely Mace of Aggression and Raking Mace, and I thought I would throw out another question as well.

Would you consider Triggered Salute to be related to these two techniques?  Why or why not?

And what technique if any is considered the base tech. from which all of these branch off of?

Respectfully,
Joshua Ryer
UPK Pittsburgh


----------



## Elfan (Apr 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Doc _
> *Yes it does. *



Care to elaborate?


----------



## Doc (Apr 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Doc _
> *Yes it does. *


For Elfan:
If you hands are already in the air for another purpose, the anatomical alignment is not present. All movements of structural integrity are deliberate and dedicated.


----------



## jfarnsworth (Apr 21, 2003)

The hands are up, the  hands are down, ones high, ones low,  Why not just do Destructive Twins and be done.


----------



## sumdumguy (Apr 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by jfarnsworth _
> *The hands are up, the  hands are down, ones high, ones low,  Why not just do Destructive Twins and be done. *


I don't think the point was can we do a different technique, but what is the Structural integrity of the anatomy. Is that right Doc?
It's obvious that there are several options depending on your posture relative to your opponent at the time of the attack but what about this technique, how does it change and why.... 
Have a nice Day... :asian: :asian:


----------



## jfarnsworth (Apr 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by sumdumguy _
> *I don't think the point was can we do a different technique, but what is the Structural integrity of the anatomy. *



I was only trying to make a joke and lighten things up a little.


----------



## Elfan (Apr 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Doc _
> *For Elfan:
> If you hands are already in the air for another purpose, the anatomical alignment is not present. All movements of structural integrity are deliberate and dedicated. *



Ahh okay I see what you are saying.


----------



## XtremeJ_AKKI (May 2, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Handsword _
> *What factors make a difference between using each of these techniques (other than personal preferance)?
> *



 Point of origin of your weapons.

 Height of the opponent as relevant to your height. 

 Positioning of his elbows.


----------

