# Elbow/Pullback Position in AK?



## CombatWombat51 (Mar 20, 2004)

Simple question: in American Kenpo, do the practitioners use some kind of "elbow position" or "pullback position", or something similar? If I'm not clear, I mean where one's fists are on either side of their ribs, palms up. Many styles use this while working out of a horse stance, and generally as a place to put their hands when not punching, blocking, or anything. 

If AK does use that, when is it used? Soley out of a horse for training purposes? In forms/katas/pinians? As a recoil position during the defense techniques (Alternating Maces, Squeeze the Peaches, etc)?

Thanks in advnace, and I hope I was clear enough despite not knowing your specific terms


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 20, 2004)

All of the above, though it'd probably be referred to as a, "chambered," position. Why do you ask?


----------



## CombatWombat51 (Mar 20, 2004)

Chambered! Thanks, I knew there was another common term I was forgetting.

As for why, well... at the risk of people harassing me for having the gall to thinking of changing a fundamental aspect of kenpo (as well as other arts), here's what I was thinking 

1) Forms/katas serve a purpose, and that purpose is to practice techniques in a structured way. A way that isn't as boring as punching in a static stance over and over. 

2) We don't fight like we do in forms. We don't put our hands into a chambered position after striking, we go back on guard. Or even more likely in kenpo, we flow from there into another strike.

Wouldn't it be more of a benefit to eliminate chambering all together, and just return our hands to the guard position? Much better for muscle memory. This idea applies to some stances, as well. 

BTW, I don't mean for this idea to only apply to only AK, but I noticed that the majority of posters that practice kenpo, practice AK. 

So, any thoughts on that? Is there some benefit to chambering that I don't see?


----------



## Rainman (Mar 20, 2004)

elbow pull back... why eliminate a technique?  Chambered= pull the slide back and fire... is a transitional position which becomes a method if you so choose to continue the movement.


----------



## Kenpomachine (Mar 20, 2004)

CombatWombat51 said:
			
		

> So, any thoughts on that? Is there some benefit to chambering that I don't see?


 Yes, it teaches you the obscure elbow strike


----------



## Doc (Mar 20, 2004)

Kenpomachine said:
			
		

> Yes, it teaches you the obscure elbow strike


Sorry, but I'm afraid that is incorrect. Mr. Parker's definition of "obscure" states the term is applied whenever the weapon is "within your Peripheral Vision but outside of your Line Of Sight."

The backwards, often dscribed as "chambered position" of the hand at the hip does not meet that guideline, thusly the term "obscure" cannot attach to execution from that position in American Kenpo as I understand it.


----------



## Doc (Mar 20, 2004)

CombatWombat51 said:
			
		

> ... We don't fight like we do in forms. We don't put our hands into a chambered position after striking, we go back on guard. Or even more likely in kenpo, we flow from there into another strike.



There are aspects of some forms where we do exactly that, whereas others are training tools, and still others contain indexes of information.



> Wouldn't it be more of a benefit to eliminate chambering all together, and just return our hands to the guard position? Much better for muscle memory. This idea applies to some stances, as well.



Sorry sir but you are completely wrong here.



> BTW, I don't mean for this idea to only apply to only AK, but I noticed that the majority of posters that practice kenpo, practice AK.
> So, any thoughts on that? Is there some benefit to chambering that I don't see?


I caution those who are in such a hurry to throw things out they don't understand. I suggest that one accumulate significant knowledge of the subject matter before making rash judgements as to what is, and what is not valid. Clearly it was put there, and is represented in most martial arts for a reason. More than likely if you give it consideration, all of these different disciplines couldn't be completely wrong.

From my understanding, and predicated on the position of the hand itself, the position can be either a weapon, or facilitate the proper application of a weapon.


----------



## Kenpomachine (Mar 20, 2004)

Doc said:
			
		

> Sorry, but I'm afraid that is incorrect. Mr. Parker's definition of "obscure" states the term is applied whenever the weapon is "within your Peripheral Vision but outside of your Line Of Sight."



Thanks for the clarification, Doc. The part about peripheral Vision never made it into my head.

You'll never go to bed without learning something new...


----------



## CombatWombat51 (Mar 20, 2004)

Doc said:
			
		

> Sorry sir but you are completely wrong here.
> 
> I caution those who are in such a hurry to throw things out they don't understand. I suggest that one accumulate significant knowledge of the subject matter before making rash judgements as to what is, and what is not valid. Clearly it was put there, and is represented in most martial arts for a reason. More than likely if you give it consideration, all of these different disciplines couldn't be completely wrong.


Who said I was in a hurry or rash? After years of training (10, to be exact) in styles that use and don't use the chambered position, I've began to wonder. I think a decade is reasonable amount of time to at least question an aspect of an art that could be improved. 

And I never said all of any discipline was "completely wrong". Simple, friendly curiousity here 



			
				Doc said:
			
		

> From my understanding, and predicated on the position of the hand itself, the position can be either a weapon, or facilitate the proper application of a weapon.


By "weapon", do you mean a strike? I won't retort to that point until I'm sure of what you mean.


Thanks for everyones' feedback though. Since I'm now far away from the lands of civilization, it's nice to find a place where I can pick the brains of fellow MAists.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Mar 20, 2004)

I like the chambered position for transitional purposes, as well as for forms. As a Chiropractor, I like it because it is one of the few positions in the martial arts that recruits the fibers of the lower trapezius during scapular retraction. Most slumped shoulder postures leading to back and neck pain correlates with weak lower division trapezium. Most of MA upper extremity motion & training takes place in positions that strengthen anterior, superior, and lateral shoulder & back musculature. I practice chambered position in forms for the conditioning and gleno-humeral range of motion aspect. Have to admit; I do practice a "high-chamber" position in sparring, to slip one over the top or mislead my opponent about my intent.

I think your idea of reducing it's presence for combat training is worth exploring; if nobody asks questions, and irreverently breaks from the status quo, how are we to evolve and develop? Try it for awhile, see what happens, and let the results of your own experience guide you. Doc is learned and experienced, and can speak for himself based on his acquired body of knowledge, but his body is not your body, and...for yourself...you may be on to something.

Namaste!

Dr. Dave


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 20, 2004)

CombatWombat51 said:
			
		

> Chambered! Thanks, I knew there was another common term I was forgetting.
> 
> As for why, well... at the risk of people harassing me for having the gall to thinking of changing a fundamental aspect of kenpo (as well as other arts), here's what I was thinking
> 
> ...


I'll tell you why you don't eliminate the "chambered position". You will find that when you are walking around your hands hang at your sides. Chambering is the very first point of reference you can acheive from that particular and very common position. In short it is faster to thrust when tasked to move from that position. All kinds of power can be generated from that position; so, why not thrust off the hip?
Sean


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Mar 20, 2004)

For the sake of being provocative: A side note about the mechanics of powerlifting as it _may_ (note, I say _may_) impact starting position for a punch. Bench Press powerlifters have a vested interest in pressing the fist away from the body anteriorly in it's most power-producing relative position. They don't start from the hip, nor do they "corkscrew" the wrist to "create torque" (as I've heard so many karate-ka say). Most people, untrained in lifting, can move more weight, more times, in a decline press machine, then in a straight chest-press or incline press position, due to the recruiting of the lats and other back muscles into the strike.

Ergo, a more powerful strike ought to be launched from an elevated height, to a lower height. Not from the hip, up, as in most MA training (a weaker moment arm, cante-levered at the shoulder and powered to elevation by the anterior delt, and to elbow extension by triceps > chest or back). Just some fodder for thought.

Don't hate me cuz I'm homely.

Dr. Dave


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 20, 2004)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> For the sake of being provocative: A side note about the mechanics of powerlifting as it _may_ (note, I say _may_) impact starting position for a punch. Bench Press powerlifters have a vested interest in pressing the fist away from the body anteriorly in it's most power-producing relative position. They don't start from the hip, nor do they "corkscrew" the wrist to "create torque" (as I've heard so many karate-ka say). Most people, untrained in lifting, can move more weight, more times, in a decline press machine, then in a straight chest-press or incline press position, due to the recruiting of the lats and other back muscles into the strike.
> 
> Ergo, a more powerful strike ought to be launched from an elevated height, to a lower height. Not from the hip, up, as in most MA training (a weaker moment arm, cante-levered at the shoulder and powered to elevation by the anterior delt, and to elbow extension by triceps > chest or back). Just some fodder for thought.
> 
> ...


I'm not going to let you tell me upper cuts don't have power. Just as you lift with your legs not your back, the power you can generate from the ground up by using your legs, is more than adequate enough to generate a knock out, or a take-down for that matter. I will conceed that the hand on the hip is not the best place to have you hand in a fight; however, it is important to know that it is a starting point of reference for thrust, and by simply anchoring your elbow when you punch you will find that downward motion in your thrust you were just saying wasn't there. However and foremost, moving off the hip is the absolute fastest motion you can make when you find your hands in the vicinity of your hips. And its important to know how to fight from more than one set position; so, proclaiming the hammer position the best, should not be a reason to throw out usefull tools of motion.
Sean


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Mar 20, 2004)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> I'm not going to let you tell me upper cuts don't have power. Just as you lift with your legs not your back, the power you can generate from the ground up by using your legs, is more than adequate enough to generate a knock out, or a take-down for that matter. I will conceed that the hand on the hip is not the best place to have you hand in a fight; however, it is important to know that it is a starting point of reference for thrust, and by simply anchoring your elbow when you punch you will find that downward motion in your thrust you were just saying wasn't there. However and foremost, moving off the hip is the absolute fastest motion you can make when you find your hands in the vicinity of your hips. And its important to know how to fight from more than one set position; so, proclaiming the hammer position the best, should not be a reason to throw out usefull tools of motion.
> Sean


Having trained with some crusty old boxers, I would never say uppercuts don't have power...by curling the palm up and bending the elbow, you recruit brachialis, biceps brachii, coraco-brachialis, anterior delt, and even (since the humerus i s externally rotated) pectoralis minor and major (as well as some of the rotator cuff muscles). And, if you target low and time the pinning of the elbow to your side with the impact of the blow and the forward thrusting of the hips, you also recruit the legs, abdominals, and rotators of the spine. All good biomechanics.


----------



## pete (Mar 21, 2004)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> They (powerlifters) don't start from the hip, nor do they "corkscrew" the wrist to "create torque" (as I've heard so many karate-ka say).



the corkscrew is not to create torque from the upper body, but to draw whole body power by turning the wrist as you turn the rear ankle and settle into a forward bow... the corkscrew from a horse stance is useless and a corkscrew to a target above one's own shoulder height is anatomically incorrect.  i guess we've both heard many karate-ka say things!


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 21, 2004)

Uhm, I agree with Doc. Most of these, "improvements," actually work to remove some of the range of possibilities--some of the vocabulary, if you prefer--from kenpo. 

I'd refer posters who believe that there is no purpose in training a, "corkscrew," punch from a horse stance to Ed Parker and Tom Gow, "Ed Parker's Kenpo Karate, Vol. 1: The Basics," pages 15-16: "The basic corkscrew punch starts in a horse stance with the hands cocked at the waist...."

When we cut the, "unnecessary," out prematurely, we are--among other considerations!--cutting out exactly the material that allowed us to learn.

Personally, I think a lot of these "improvements," come out of some unconscious desire to cut students short, to put a good solid roadblock in their progress.


----------



## Doc (Mar 21, 2004)

pete said:
			
		

> the corkscrew is not to create torque from the upper body, but to draw whole body power by turning the wrist as you turn the rear ankle and settle into a forward bow... the corkscrew from a horse stance is useless and a corkscrew to a target above one's own shoulder height is anatomically incorrect.  i guess we've both heard many karate-ka say things!



There is a lot to be commented on this thread, but I think I'll start with my ole buddy "Pete" while I scramble for more time to answer here at work.

Based on your statement Pete, the impression is given that the so-called corkscrew is useless without the "..turn (of) the rear ankle and settle in a forward bow..." I suggest you consider this physical movement as an independent entity to challenge or confirm its efficacy.

Next you say, "...the corkscrew from a horse stance is useless ..." I'm curious as to how you arrive at that conclusion. Follwed by, "...a corkscrew to a target above one's own shoulder height height is anatomically incorrect." Interesting assessment and perspective that is actually right and wrong depending upon assumptions about what a "corkscrew" punch actually is. Help me out Pete, and explain.


----------



## Michael Billings (Mar 21, 2004)

I assume this was a serious question, and not intended just to stir and aggravate.

 Conceptually the "chambering" teaches us about Reverse and Opposite motion, it also introduces the idea of Oppossing Forces and the Double Factor.

 [font=&quot]Structurally  i[/font]t teaches us the proper position for the elbow, when punching or jabbing (not necessarily from a chambered postition - which is seldom used except in Forms or Sets). It also teaches us about range and the proper rotation of the arm both extending, for the punch, and or retracting. In the retraction, or reverse of the upward block for example, you find an inward vertical forarm strike, a downward elbow strike, and a back elbow strike. I can actually insert a few more if I try. But fundamentally this is to teach correct motion and have the opportunity to practice full range of motion to engage the proper muscle groups sequentially, in order to maximize the strike. 

 This is not addressing the separate strikes available in the upward block itself (horizontal uppercut [stomach, ribs, kidney, etc.], continuing the motion to the traditional uppercut to the chin, then the upward forearm strike found in Long Form #2, etc. 

 Any chambering is training proper Motion, not "fighting" per say, but the Motion is then integrated into techniques and freestyle in a logical, consistant manner, that is part of the SYSTEM of learning Kenpo correctly.

 Just my 2 cents worth of course ... and why I practice basics from horse stances, and alternately shadow box, and do bag work to bring the basics into the real world.

  -Michael


----------



## JD_Nelson (Mar 21, 2004)

From my limited time in Kenpo, I agree with Mr. Billings. 

For me, the chambered position is a rear elbow.  It may not be practical to constantly chamber like this in an actual street fight, but it teaches us our very first strike to the rear attacker.  

I guess I agree with Mr. Robertson as well.  If you eliminate this, then the student has to learn another way to deal with an attacker from the rear that may not be as simple.

Salute,

JD


----------



## Rainman (Mar 21, 2004)

The so called chambered position is actually sophisticated basic.  Position should have been the givaway.  To me it is a double arm break as in snakes of wisdom and marriage of the rams and always a transitional movement as is the rest of the system unless you strike a pose.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Mar 21, 2004)

Bruce Lee in JKD, and many kick-boxing systems, do not have the chambered position, or even the back elbow.  Doesn't seem to have hurt their combat capabilities any.  Just a thought.  I like Mr. Connasters website; has a joke about the definition of karate guys being those who like to get hit a lot, as evidenced by their hand placement on the hip during sparring.  The post wasn't about sophisticated basics (because the guy doesn't even know what they are...not from kenpo), but about considering eliminating a non-useful training position.  My girlfriend, with no martial arts experience, gets it. Why don't you? If you want to train back elbows, then train back elbows. I don't practice stomps with each step of walking; I practice stomps, when I practice stomps.

Until we meet again in the place where we are all one,

Dr. Dave


----------



## Kenpo Yahoo (Mar 22, 2004)

Hey "Hot-Rod",  



> If you want to train back elbows, then train back elbows. I don't practice stomps with each step of walking; I practice stomps, when I practice stomps.



I'm so glad that I'm not the only one who feels this way.

After I punch I don't rechamber, I move on to the next target utilizing a little concept I like to call point of origin (okay so I didn't make it up but the way people talk you would think no one has heard of it).  The only reason to have any body punch from a horse stance and repeatedly rechamber is to isolate the particular punch from all other movement.  This might prove useful when teaching beginners (white belts), but even then I'm not sure this is the best way to go.  I would much rather teach someone how to punch in a manner that they might need in real life (self-defense, sparring, etc.) utilizing full body mechanics, rather than in some traditional stance that has been around for hundreds of years.  

This goes for elbows too, just because I don't rechamber when I spar or do the SD techs doesn't mean I can't execute a back, obscure, overhead, or whatever other type of elbow.  Such logic is pretty silly.

How's this for an example? The basic mechanics of several kicks are present in the standard human gait, yet even with the presence of these common aspects of motion it still takes people quite a bit of training time to learn to kick correctly.  I know what you are thinking, "well that's just insane most people have been walking for years. Why can't they kick right?" :uhyeah:  
So one might assume that specific specialized training is what achieves results, not the mere presence of a position or movement in a form or set of basics.  This translates into a number of specific areas, many of which have been beaten to death so I won't bring them up..... again.

Lastly, this if for the number of people have been arguing over the point of corkscrewing your punches.  Well, do you guys happen to know why, when, or even how far you should corkscrew your punches(assuming you should   )?  If you don't know why you do it, are you just doing it because someone taught you to do it, possibly from a horse stance utilizing the chambered position?  

Why is it when I read threads like this I hear that song from Fiddler on the Roof playing in my head?  What was the name of that song again.......  Oh yeah.....


----------



## CombatWombat51 (Mar 22, 2004)

Rest assured, this is a serious question, although I knew that some folks would take it as an insult to tradition or the wisdom of various GMs. However, I also have an irritating schedule of 12 hour days, and my next chance to make a significant post will be on the 24th... I hope my thread doesn't get argued away without me :uhyeah:

Meanwhile, many thanks for everyones' thoughts, especially to the AK practitioners that can put my thoughts into more understandable words than I can :asian:


----------



## Michael Billings (Mar 22, 2004)

Kenpo Yahoo said:
			
		

> Hey "Hot-Rod",
> 
> Well, do you guys happen to know why, when, or even how far you should corkscrew your punches(assuming you should   )? If you don't know why you do it, are you just doing it because someone taught you to do it, possibly from a horse stance utilizing the chambered position?
> 
> Why is it when I read threads like this I hear that song from Fiddler on the Roof playing in my head? What was the name of that song again....... Oh yeah.....


 "Corkscrew" - A function of correct Range and proper body mechanics to maximize the generation of power, at least the way I teach it to beginners.  Proper motion learned through static stances does not limit my guys who cross over into boxing.  Mr. Sepulvedas' who also train basics HARD, and Mr. LaBounty's students, who do basics HARD for an eternity, before going out and winning tournaments and full contact fights.  Hmmm.... so maybe I am missing your point.  Don't do basics if you don't want to.  So long as you learn the motion.  Do not label them as "useless" or "un-useful" for others, who find merit in them.  Further, I would ask if you are teahing Mr. Parker's Kenpo if you choose not to teach the basics as he set up?  Sets, Forms, Freestyle Basics (not chambered) etc.  It seems like you are arguing a method of learning, that was certainly considered by Mr. Parker.  He was well aware of the system he was creating, and how he chose to structure the learning of the system.  You can teach any way your little heart desires ... and call it YOUR system.  But do not take away from his!  He had plenty of time to cull basics, freestyles etc., and I do believe that he would have continued to evolve, maybe more ground work, more knife techniques, and continued to sophisticate what we had, but the basics for teaching a beginner are well set out, and appear appropriate retrospectively.

 Once again, do what you want, but take credit for it if you are choosing to alter it.  It is sounding pretty Jeet Kune Do'ish to me, nothing wrong with that, just different.

 -Michael


----------



## pete (Mar 22, 2004)

Doc said:
			
		

> Next you say, "...the corkscrew from a horse stance is useless ..." I'm curious as to how you arrive at that conclusion. Follwed by, "...a corkscrew to a target above one's own shoulder height height is anatomically incorrect." Interesting assessment and perspective that is actually right and wrong depending upon assumptions about what a "corkscrew" punch actually is. Help me out Pete, and explain.



well Dr. C, here goes my attempt to put this into words.

first, the corkscrew as refered to by Kembudo-Kai Kempoka, is a punch i am interpreting to contain an inward rotation of the fist, from vertical to horizontal.  If this done as the rear ankle turns the heel outward and down into the ground, going from neutral to forward bow, the corkscrew will use "torque", or whole body power focused into the first 2 knuckles of the fist.

A punch from a horse stance is deriving its power solely from the upper body, and the corkscrew will not change that.  Therefore, "useless" if that is the goal.  I'd be interested if there was another goal that this technique would leverage and not compromise one's anatomical structure.

Now, given that description of the corkscrew, it should not be used above the height of one's own shoulder... rather, the fist should remain vertical.



> I'd refer posters who believe that there is no purpose in training a, "corkscrew," punch from a horse stance to Ed Parker and Tom Gow, "Ed Parker's Kenpo Karate, Vol. 1: The Basics," pages 15-16: "The basic corkscrew punch starts in a horse stance with the hands cocked at the waist...." rmcrobertson



well, rather than quoting the Who and the How, I'd be much more interested in understanding the Why...


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 22, 2004)

Yes, yes, point of origin. Yes, yes, the utilization of stance. Yes, sure, absolutely, efficient movement, rounding corners, flattening circles, yes, sure, whatever. 

I'm talking about a) teaching properly, and learning properly; b) developing a sort of, "template," that's at the bottom of the "more-sophisticated," moves; c) training full range of motion; d) avoiding editing out useful motions.

For openers, one teaches, "corkscrew," punches out of a horse stance to a) teach the proper ideal motion of a punch; b) teach/learn rooting upper body motions in lower body stances; c) begin to work on developing musculature/muscle memory.

Or, there're the variations of punches at the end of Long 1.

If that don't float your boat, try considering the chambering of the fist in: a) Destructive Twins; b) Unwinding Pendulum; c) Desperate Falcons; d) Crossing Talon.

Incidentally, the, "why," cannot posssibly appear if you change the basic out of all recognition. And, "training stomps," will hurt yer knees, as well as violate a general kenpo principle of taking advantage of natural motion.

Thanks for the discussion.


----------



## Michael Billings (Mar 22, 2004)

Expounding on Natural Motion, it occurs to me that not everyone may know WHY we do the rotation of the punch and did not understand the RANGE function I reference. If you do, I apologize in advance for reiterating something taught so early on.

Try a simple experiment.

 Part 1: Fist at your side, palm up, in the "chambered" position. Place your hand against the student's and tell them to push you away. They are very strong the 1st 1/3 of the movement, as the arm extends, the power is reduced geometrically, as opposing muscles come into play. This shows how strong an uppercut is with just the arm, then add proper body mechanics.

 Part 2: Fist at your side, palm down, in the "chambered" postion. Same drill - place your hand against the student's and tell them to push you away. They are weak initially and unable to push very hard (and you wonder why bench presses are harder near the chest?); then they get stronger, the further from the body the arm extends. The power is increased as antagonistic muscles are released from opposition. 

 I talk to my beginners about the natural way the arm moves. The verticle punch is intermediate range and the motion is "as if" reaching for a glass of water at a head high level, then point at someone as your palm turns downward, longer range. I finally add the inverted verticle as the maximum extension availble to a punch, and all as a Natural progression being a function of range.

  Sorry I waxed so long.

  -Michael


----------



## Kenpo Yahoo (Mar 22, 2004)

> Proper motion learned through static stances does not limit my guys who cross over into boxing. Mr. Sepulvedas' who also train basics HARD, and Mr. LaBounty's students, who do basics HARD for an eternity, before going out and winning tournaments and full contact fights. Hmmm.... so maybe I am missing your point. Don't do basics if you don't want to.



First off, I never said we should dump basics, but come on.... other than full body isolation what is the purpose of repeatedly punching from a horse stance?  Would it not be more beneficial to teach your guys how to punch from a N.B.?  This way you can address more practical things like over-rotation of the back foot, overrotation of the punch, hitting with a path on the down side of the circle from a guarded position, utilizing body rotation and body drop to add speed and power to the punch.  I'm not saying that learning to punch from a horse stance is limiting anyone, but I'm not sure that it's really helping a whole lot either.  This just seems to be one of those inert training tools. 



> Robertson
> I'm talking about a) teaching properly, and learning properly; b) developing a sort of, "template," that's at the bottom of the "more-sophisticated," moves; c) training full range of motion; d) avoiding editing out useful motions.



Define teaching and learning properly.  Are these templates not included in the techniques?  Where, I might add, they serve a specific specialized feature and aren't just some abstract motion.  Full range of motion might be necessary for strength training, but this isn't really necessary when learning a fighting art.  Going through the full range of motion will leave you over extended in most cases (i.e. open and indefensible). As for editing out useful motions, I guess that depends on how you're training.

Good thread people.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Mar 22, 2004)

There's another piece to what I'm saying that seems to be getting dropped. Mr. Parker stressed in seminar after seminar (and I think in one of the Infinte Insights books or Chinese Karate, too, but I'd have to scan the series to look it up) that kenpo is a smorgasbord (my words); that it represents a complete system, but is not intended to be used, completely (his words). Everybodies body differs, in strength-weakness ratios of various kinematic chains, leg-to-waist ratio, arm length, height, etc. The idea of providing a comprehensive system is so that students can take the techniques best suited to their individual strengths, and capitalize on them (as opposed to insisting that the stubby-legged TKD students learn the same material - with the same intensity- as the long-legged ones).

Exposure to the basics - and their variations and adaptations - is to provide choice, not adherence to the Gospel of Kenpo according to EP.  He _vehemently_ insisted that he wanted people to take what he taught, and THINK...not regurgitate.  Self-Defense techs were not designed to be executed step-by-step in response to specific attacks on ones person, but rather to demonstrate principles, teach students how to "stack" combinations to utilize various principles, and to train the eye to find or make the next available target, then hit it with the next available natural weapon. To that effect, the basics - and their multiple potential applications - were presented to open our eyes, not close them.

An inward block is also an inward hammerfist is also an inward knuckle rake...It was to wake us up to the potentials hidden within universal movements, not bind us to a new dogma.

I can't stand visiting AK schools, and hearing discussions like:
Student: "The guy swung on me, and I tried 5 swords, but he hit me with his other hand.."
Instructor: "That's because you don't settle into the proper weight distribution with the outward handsword...if you did that, you would have dropped the guy because of marriage of gravity and blah blah blah..."

I miss SGM Parker's brilliance as much as or more than the next guy, but let's not make the same silly mistake the midieval church did over the teachings of Christ. A gospel of love, forgiveness, teaching, healing and servitude to the Good was perverted into a message of rules, sins, guilt and damnation, dogmatized in the absence of the messages originator, in the name of the originator.  Odd thing: Same book.  Think. Did SGM EP write Infinite Insights to inform cognition and development, or enslave it?

Humbly yours, and sounding like JKD because EP and BL shared a lot of the same ideas publicly and privately,

Dr. Dave:enguard:


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Mar 22, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> And, "training stomps," will hurt yer knees, as well as violate a general kenpo principle of taking advantage of natural motion.
> 
> 
> > As per my immediately previous quote, god forbid we violate a general kenpo principle, and put some time into tempering a stomp, the same way we might temper punches on the heavy bag.  Or are kenpoists just supposed to hit air, and themselves? (yes, I know about fulcrums and checks...I'm being facetious (sp?)):asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 22, 2004)

No, ectually, you shouldn't stomp because a) you will hurt your knees; b) the stomps are included with various techniques, sets, etc.,...unless of course you fix the system so that it does not have these things any more.

Once again the simple binary opposition: please read the posts, in which I did not argue for slavish anything. I argued for knowledge.

Case in point: how 'bout the pointless chambers in the techniques I asked about? 

And don't know about where you train, but where I train, if you get hit with theleft in 5 Swords, it's because you screwed up the technique's checks.

One suggestion: "slavish," doesn't lie in learning the basics and teaching them. It lies in repeating somebody else's errors because you skipped over all the hard stuff; it lies in reciting dead cliches from poor dead Bruce Lee, rather than in trying to learn the system through hard training.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Mar 22, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> No, ectually, you shouldn't stomp because a) you will hurt your knees; b) the stomps are included with various techniques, sets, etc.,...unless of course you fix the system so that it does not have these things any more.
> 
> Once again the simple binary opposition: please read the posts, in which I did not argue for slavish anything. I argued for knowledge.
> 
> ...


You'll hurt your knees if you keep them locked, or only slightly bent, and fail to tilt at the waist. A non-injurious stomp can be practiced on a heavy bag, laying it on the ground, by maximizing hip and knee flexion of the striking leg prior to executing the stomp; by lowering onto the base leg by bending at the knee, hip, and waist, and by tilting the torso slightly anteriorly. I'd rather know what I can and cannot do in the studio before trying it in the street.  Should we avoid working punches on the heavy bag, because they're in the techniques, and can't be trained without re-writing the system? Incidently, I got this idea from TAI Karate; a kenpo offshoot by David German, one of Parkers early senior offshoots who combined kenpo with Chin Na and judo grappling.  Lotsa guys in there practicing stomps on ground bags regularly, and their knees are fine.  Been stomping since I was six (now pushin 39); knees are fine.

There are many advantages to makiwara-type training, whether upper or lower extremities, particularly as related to developing isolated power and focus.

BTW, Bruce Lee was not, and is not, the only low-dogmatic. I agreed with stuff said by Tony Blauer well before he becaome famous with his panic attack stuff...does that mean I'm a copy-cat?  What if I like the way he says it better than I? (verbal economy). I mention BL b/c he's a recognized figure in MA. More than happy to use my own words to make a point, which I thought I did in the "bastardization of the gospel" reference. Don't think bruce used that one, but maybe I'm wrong.

Don't know where you train, but where I train, if you get hit with the left in 5 swords, it's because you were trying to use it for self-defense, rather than learning.  Over white/orange belt? Simplicity should be next: check or slip the punch, and counter in a different or complementary plane. Screw the tech; Adapt to what presents (incidently, not Bruce...Musashi...hundreds of years before bruce.)

You'll find lotsa BL's stuff and EP's stuff echoing...Bruce spent many nights sleeping at the Pasadena school back in the day.  Do you suppose it's possible he and Mr. Parker exchanged and discussed ideas?


----------



## Kempojujutsu (Mar 22, 2004)

First of all I do not practice American Kenpo, rather Okinawa Kempo. They are rather similar. The corkscrew punch fits perfectly inside the rib cage (xiphoid process notch) A vertical or complete horizontal fist will not. 2nd the body can withstand a one directional blow. But if you twist and pull as you punch, you create several different directions which the punch comes from. The body can not withstand that. The hands held on the hips from Okinawan prospective, has many different meanings. 
1. This is one target area the floaing ribs and is showning on yourself where to strike.
2. Trapping and checking someone's hand
3. Applying a joint lock
There are many more applicaions to the chamber on the hips. These are probably most common with Okinawan Kempo


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 22, 2004)

Hm. I'm curious: what is it that you are adapting to what presents? What is it that you actually teach students? 

And to go back: how, precisely, do you teach punches? I'm not asking what an advanced practitioner might do; I'm asking what you teach. 

And I remain curious about the uses of chambering in the teachniques I mentioned...


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Mar 23, 2004)

I encourage curiosity. It's a good state, and may mean one's about to learn something new...if, in fact, the curiosity is genuine. And, since I've yet to see someone in any of these forums change their mind by arguing semantics, I will opt to remain artfully vague at this juncture.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Mar 23, 2004)

With respect to what I teach, I have elected to modify many components of techniques that have seemed to me to be just plain silly. Many chambered positions have been replaced with a positioned check at the heart or face level, including in SF1 & 2, LF1, etc. I teach my students to go from point of origin to point of contact...from the rear-hand check, into the strike. I do not teach straight EPAK, having added "chapters" in the book to include FMA and GJJ/BJJ, as well as JKD modified kickboxing and muay thai. In some cases I have kept the name, but changed the technique completely in order to incorporate desired changes.  And to head off ire at the pass, I make no claims to teaching straight EPAK.  I also inform students at each point in the road if the SD tech they're learning is from a) old kenpo (one borrowed form an old break-away school), EA kenpo, or a kenpo technique modified. I also teach them what the mods were, and why, and invite them to discuss with me after class if they desire to learn the "traditional" EPAK version of a technique.  At that point, I reference the IKKA manual, and old class & training session notes.

I'm quite OK with not sticking to the way things are written in the IKKA manual...the way I learned them, and practiced them for over 15 years, before opting to make what I considered to be informed modifications, necessary for evolution. Kenpo is, to me, the best foundation art anyone in the world could study, and any serious student on a lifelong MA journey should spend at least 10-12 years, 3-4x/week training in kenpo.  After that, they should move out of the house to see what the rest of the world has to offer. The vocabulary of motion learned in kenpo will forever serve to help them learn more, faster, because of the way they have learned to codify movements of the human body.

IMHO.

Namaste!

Dr. Dave


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 23, 2004)

Thank you for the response. Next question: and how, exactly, did you learn to make these adaptations?


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Mar 23, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Thank you for the response. Next question: and how, exactly, did you learn to make these adaptations?


Glad you asked. As I said on other threads, I've always been a fan of challenge matches, and of training with other martial artists from diffferent backgrounds.  Have kick-boxed, did GJJ/BJJ before most of the woprld even knew what it was (when the US presence was still mostly a presence among a small contingency of So Cal surfers, lawyers, and other riff-raff); have bounced in rowdy dives for about a decade, during which time got in literally hundreds of altercations, giving me ample opportunity to try out different techniques under fire; have taken many challenge matches with other martial artists from various backgrounds to answer the simple question: does it work?  Kenpo is an excellent art and education, but does not prepare for all probabilities.  Have had my a** kicked, and seen other kenpo black belts get theirs. Look, listen, and learn. 

If you're training with a TAI or Judo guy every saturday for a couple years, and he has a better solution to a side headlock then Twirling Hammers, then pick it up and add it to the bag of pearls. Locking horns may work against a naive opponent who gets you in a front headlock, but against a grappler who has you in a standing guillotine? Better learn some grappling escapes, or get used to going to sleep.

Is it all my imagination?  No. After only 3 months of training with the Gracies, I sparred/grappled with a kenpo senior who was - at the time - one of the only other kenpoists to preach grappling. He taught the combat wrestling for a large metro PD, and had spent about as many years as I was alive training with a guy who combined kenpo with judo, and made a name for himslef as a skilled wrassler. We wnt for best 2/3.  No wait, let's try 3/5.  Hold on, this can't be happening. The guy was so stoked, he wanted to know where he could get some. Gave him some leads, and think he ended up with the Machado's. Anyway, that Metro PD now had BJJ fundamentals taught as part fo their hand to hand cirriculum.  The guy had kept training, and has since far surpassed me.  But he is a recognized kenpo senior, who's name would be recognized on this forum, and who also cross trains and makes adaptations for the very same reasons: Many of the kenpo SD techs do not work against the non-naive.

I knew before SGM Parkers passing that grappling was the incoming wave, and that these Brazilian yahoo's were going to be a key part of it. Even spoke with him about it.  Know what he did? Encouraged myself, and the others present at the conversation, to learn it. To absorb everything, then pare away what didn't work for us. Encouraged us never to believe everything they said, or for that matter, to believe everything he said.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Mar 23, 2004)

Short answer would probably be that I learned to make these adaptations by modelling the way EP made his.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Mar 23, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Hm. I'm curious: what is it that you are adapting to what presents? What is it that you actually teach students?
> 
> And to go back: how, precisely, do you teach punches? I'm not asking what an advanced practitioner might do; I'm asking what you teach.
> 
> And I remain curious about the uses of chambering in the teachniques I mentioned...


During a short truce in the Crusades, a western knight was dining in the tent of a Saracen lord, partaking of his hospitality.  Full of himself and drink, the knight boasted about the power of his western broadsword.  To illustrate his point, he laid a length of thick chain over a log, and with one mighty chop, cleaved the chain in half.

The Saracen lord said "that's impressive, but can your sword do this?". He tossed a handkerchief into the air, and flicked his lighter, thinnner scimitar past it many times. It fell to the floor in dozens of smaller pieces.

Moral: No one Way works for all situations. Study many paths so you have the flexibility to select from many tools, to find the one just right for the situation you are in.

Until we meet again in that place where we are all one,

Dr. Dave


----------



## ArnoldLee (Mar 23, 2004)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> During a short truce in the Crusades, a western knight was dining in the tent of a Saracen lord, partaking of his hospitality.  Full of himself and drink, the knight boasted about the power of his western broadsword.  To illustrate his point, he laid a length of thick chain over a log, and with one mighty chop, cleaved the chain in half.
> 
> The Saracen lord said "that's impressive, but can your sword do this?". He tossed a handkerchief into the air, and flicked his lighter, thinnner scimitar past it many times. It fell to the floor in dozens of smaller pieces.
> 
> ...



I love that story... here's some info from http://www.paddling.net/sameboat/archives/sameboat225.html

"If this sounds like a scene drawn from a nineteenth-century romantic novel, that's because it is. But the two men were real enough. The English knight was Richard Cur de Lion, king of England; the tall man, Salah el-Din, sultan of Egypt and Syria. They were enemies, and their armies met in the Holy Land late in the twelfth century. The echoes of their conflict can still be heard today."


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 23, 2004)

Cliches and generalities, no matter how useful to somebody's who's put a lot of time in at their art, don't help--and actively interefere with--the novice. 
Does this stuff work for you? Sure, seems so. Does it represent the "right way," to progress? Sure. Is it a good way to teach? Seldom.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 23, 2004)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> With respect to what I teach, I have elected to modify many components of techniques that have seemed to me to be just plain silly. Many chambered positions have been replaced with a positioned check at the heart or face level, including in SF1 & 2, LF1, etc. I teach my students to go from point of origin to point of contact...from the rear-hand check, into the strike. I do not teach straight EPAK, having added "chapters" in the book to include FMA and GJJ/BJJ, as well as JKD modified kickboxing and muay thai. In some cases I have kept the name, but changed the technique completely in order to incorporate desired changes.  And to head off ire at the pass, I make no claims to teaching straight EPAK.  I also inform students at each point in the road if the SD tech they're learning is from a) old kenpo (one borrowed form an old break-away school), EA kenpo, or a kenpo technique modified. I also teach them what the mods were, and why, and invite them to discuss with me after class if they desire to learn the "traditional" EPAK version of a technique.  At that point, I reference the IKKA manual, and old class & training session notes.
> 
> I'm quite OK with not sticking to the way things are written in the IKKA manual...the way I learned them, and practiced them for over 15 years, before opting to make what I considered to be informed modifications, necessary for evolution. Kenpo is, to me, the best foundation art anyone in the world could study, and any serious student on a lifelong MA journey should spend at least 10-12 years, 3-4x/week training in kenpo.  After that, they should move out of the house to see what the rest of the world has to offer. The vocabulary of motion learned in kenpo will forever serve to help them learn more, faster, because of the way they have learned to codify movements of the human body.
> 
> ...


Sir,
Moving from point of origin is weak. Point of origin should be taugh in relation to starting points of reference for optimal motion.  While I will grant you that pulling your elbow back too far will actualy slow you down, having your arm bent on the hip is the fastest and most powerfull thing you can do when you find your hand at your side. Linning your hand at your center, always, is fine; however, it is not the fastest and most powerfull thing you can do. To eliminate the thrust position from your art means you will always be slow when your hands are at your sides.  Thrusting off the hip is every bit as powerfull as it needs to be because anchoring your elbow causes proper alignment.
Sean


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Mar 23, 2004)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> Sir,
> Moving from point of origin is weak. Point of origin should be taugh in relation to starting points of reference for optimal motion. While I will grant you that pulling your elbow back too far will actualy slow you down, having your arm bent on the hip is the fastest and most powerfull thing you can do when you find your hand at your side. Linning your hand at your center, always, is fine; however, it is not the fastest and most powerfull thing you can do. To eliminate the thrust position from your art means you will always be slow when your hands are at your sides. Thrusting off the hip is every bit as powerfull as it needs to be because anchoring your elbow causes proper alignment.
> Sean


 Grampa used to say, "They can say it all they want, but that don't make it so".  Consider a rear cross from boxing, starting at the temple or cheek instead of the hip.  Fist explodes forward from point of origin, gaining momentum and back-up mass from the turning of the hipsand transition of weight to the forward leg.  If we took two guys, put one in kenpo for a year learning the rear-hand reverse punch with transition to forward bow, and put another guy into boxing with the rear cross, I'd bet the greater power and blunt force impact would come from the boxer.  But that's just my own opinion.  And yo know what they say about those.

D.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 23, 2004)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> Grampa used to say, "They can say it all they want, but that don't make it so".  Consider a rear cross from boxing, starting at the temple or cheek instead of the hip.  Fist explodes forward from point of origin, gaining momentum and back-up mass from the turning of the hipsand transition of weight to the forward leg.  If we took two guys, put one in kenpo for a year learning the rear-hand reverse punch with transition to forward bow, and put another guy into boxing with the rear cross, I'd bet the greater power and blunt force impact would come from the boxer.  But that's just my own opinion.  And yo know what they say about those.
> 
> D.


I'm not arguing that the hands up position isn't more powerfull, I'm saying that eliminating thrust is ridiculous; because, outside the boxing ring your hands are at your sides all the time. It would be advantageous to know how to move from there. You can't argue that getting in a set boxing stance before fighting is faster than moving from point of origin. Being first happens to be important, in real life.
Sean


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Mar 24, 2004)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> I'm not arguing that the hands up position isn't more powerfull, I'm saying that eliminating thrust is ridiculous; because, outside the boxing ring your hands are at your sides all the time. It would be advantageous to know how to move from there. You can't argue that getting in a set boxing stance before fighting is faster than moving from point of origin. Being first happens to be important, in real life.
> Sean


Good point.  So where do you practice staging a lead-hand backnuckle from? I was taught in "new" kenpo to launch it from the lead-hand-raised position in a neutral bow.  In "old" / Chinese kenpo, it's delivered from a "fighting horse"...a sideways horse stance with the lead hand down near the beltline, palm towards body, and the rear hand up by the heart, but slightly more forward (better check position for the face).  The lead backfist is drilled by raising it to shoulder height, then out, as if over the top of a medium-height wall btw you and the opponent. Good technique, fired from a position close to natural. Smoothing out the upside down "L", one can dgo from POO to POC, but that increases the likelihood of running into an unintentional check by the attacker (have to get past the hands to get to the head).  Still, seems more natural to me than chambering.

But, having gone the rounds, I still chamber when I spar. And fight.  Try not to, but end up doing it anyways.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 24, 2004)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> Good point.  So where do you practice staging a lead-hand backnuckle from? I was taught in "new" kenpo to launch it from the lead-hand-raised position in a neutral bow.  In "old" / Chinese kenpo, it's delivered from a "fighting horse"...a sideways horse stance with the lead hand down near the beltline, palm towards body, and the rear hand up by the heart, but slightly more forward (better check position for the face).  The lead backfist is drilled by raising it to shoulder height, then out, as if over the top of a medium-height wall btw you and the opponent. Good technique, fired from a position close to natural. Smoothing out the upside down "L", one can dgo from POO to POC, but that increases the likelihood of running into an unintentional check by the attacker (have to get past the hands to get to the head).  Still, seems more natural to me than chambering.
> 
> But, having gone the rounds, I still chamber when I spar. And fight.  Try not to, but end up doing it anyways.


I'm trying to visualize what you are saying; however, I will tell you what I would do. If I could I would leave my hand where it was, launch my body toward my hand, tap my finger tips to my chest and pull the back knuckle like pulling a bow string.
Sean

I'll just add that when doing alternating maces you pushed the guys hands down; so, you pull the BK off the opposite hip. Otherwise you waste an entire beat searching for a more disirable point of reference. Too slow.


----------



## Dark Kenpo Lord (Mar 24, 2004)

C'mon people, you're guys are kidding right.    Rainman was the only one that hit the nail.    Can everyone say ATTACKING MACE, CROSSING TALON.   People that want to eliminate what they think is useless movement in AK usually don't understand it.

Dark Lord


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Mar 24, 2004)

Dark Kenpo Lord said:
			
		

> C'mon people, you're guys are kidding right. Rainman was the only one that hit the nail. Can everyone say ATTACKING MACE, CROSSING TALON. People that want to eliminate what they think is useless movement in AK usually don't understand it.
> 
> Dark Lord


Emanated into the room like a true and loyal dogmatist. Now we just need to get you your own TV station and a wife with a gaudi purple wig, and you can start pestering the public for donations.:fart:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 24, 2004)

Again, it's a lot easier to separate these discussions into simple either/or positions, binary oppositions, than it is to think them through. From different viewpoints, you're all quite correct...except that this "improvement," shortchanges students, and removes useful motion and ideas from kenpo.

Do you folks really think you don't have your own dogmatisms, your own sterile, frozen, and unexamined shibboleths? Why do you think the same tired stories keep coming up, again and again and again, the same easy fortune-cookie aphorisms, the same recycled and out-of-context phrases from Ed Parker's books?

The only difference is the different set of frozen cliches or pseudo-scientific claims ("starting points of reference for optimal motion," which is precisely what, "point of origin" is all about anyway, and just incidentally, "optimal," isn't limited to meaning straight-line, nearest and heaviest)---c'mahn. They're just as dead and crippling as anything you're attacking.

It's also possible, from time to time, that the innovative, creative, modernized, "better," eclectic, MMA types might just possibly perhaps maybe on occasion have something to learn from us so-called stick-in-the-muds. Just as I've learned from this supposed, "other," side, which I don't see as another side at all.


----------



## pete (Mar 24, 2004)

EPAK as described in the Infinite Insights series is not the only, and arguably not the best, method of teaching kenpo. It has been stated many times, by several seniors that it isn't even the system taught by Mr Parker to his closest high ranking students.

I train in, practice, and have begun teaching a hybrid system which has retained more of the chinese roots than straight EPAK.  It can be argued that "improvements" made in developing EPAK may have removed useful motion and ideas, and shortchanges students.  It can also be argued that ongoing "improvements" will shortchange students as well.  

I will not argue this one way or the other, simply because I am a product of my training, and you are a product of yours.  

The point being is that it is mighty presumptuous to assume that someone who questions, changes, modernizes, etc. does so because they don't understand what is inside the box... just as it would be equally arrogant to think that one who follows a standardized system doesn't understand what is outside the box.  

respectfully,
pete.


----------



## Doc (Mar 24, 2004)

pete said:
			
		

> EPAK as described in the Infinite Insights series is not the only, and arguably not the best, method of teaching kenpo. It has been stated many times, by several seniors that it isn't even the system taught by Mr Parker to his closest high ranking students.



I agree. I know I wasn't taught that and never practiced a 'motion' based kenpo. Parker alway said he wrote those books for the martial arts in general and used kenpo as an example for the books. They are not the "bible" that some think.



> I train in, practice, and have begun teaching a hybrid system which has retained more of the chinese roots than straight EPAK.  It can be argued that "improvements" made in developing EPAK may have removed useful motion and ideas, and shortchanges students.  It can also be argued that ongoing "improvements" will shortchange students as well.



Once again, I have no argument with that and agree with your assessment. Most of this comes out of a misunderstanding of what Ed Parker's commercial kenpo vehicle was supposed to be. It doesn't so much shortchange as it simply does what it was designed to do and be. Anyone who thinks they can get the "secrets of the Chinese" from a store front strip mall school full of housewives and kids taught by some "master" who advertises in the yellow pages is fooling themselves. It is definitely "kenpo lite." Those whose knowledge base comes from "kenpo-lite" and then choose to improve "kenpo- lite" would have their work cut out for them. I began study along side Douglas Wong under his uncle Ark Wong in LA Chinatown, who I discovered later also taught Parker. Therefore my perspective is much different, however Parker is the one who helpped me to truly understand my previous Chinese study when I met him.


> I will not argue this one way or the other, simply because I am a product of my training, and you are a product of yours.
> 
> The point being is that it is mighty presumptuous to assume that someone who questions, changes, modernizes, etc. does so because they don't understand what is inside the box... just as it would be equally arrogant to think that one who follows a standardized system doesn't understand what is outside the box.


I agree with you totally so we don't have much of a disagreement, but I would like you to answer those questions regarding your statements that peaked my interests.


----------



## pete (Mar 24, 2004)

'ya musta missed it... here it is reprinted for your convenience:

_well Dr. C, here goes my attempt to put this into words.

first, the corkscrew as refered to by Kembudo-Kai Kempoka, is a punch i am interpreting to contain an inward rotation of the fist, from vertical to horizontal. If this done as the rear ankle turns the heel outward and down into the ground, going from neutral to forward bow, the corkscrew will use "torque", or whole body power focused into the first 2 knuckles of the fist.

A punch from a horse stance is deriving its power solely from the upper body, and the corkscrew will not change that. Therefore, "useless" if that is the goal. I'd be interested if there was another goal that this technique would leverage and not compromise one's anatomical structure.

Now, given that description of the corkscrew, it should not be used above the height of one's own shoulder... rather, the fist should remain vertical._

my previous post was more of a response to rmcrobertson, kembudo-kai kempoka, and dark kenpo lord.   like the saying goes, "i'm just a product of me environment"


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 24, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Again, it's a lot easier to separate these discussions into simple either/or positions, binary oppositions, than it is to think them through. From different viewpoints, you're all quite correct...except that this "improvement," shortchanges students, and removes useful motion and ideas from kenpo.
> 
> Do you folks really think you don't have your own dogmatisms, your own sterile, frozen, and unexamined shibboleths? Why do you think the same tired stories keep coming up, again and again and again, the same easy fortune-cookie aphorisms, the same recycled and out-of-context phrases from Ed Parker's books?
> 
> ...


Comming from an expert on dead and crippled dogma, I'll consider your opinion... hey what do you know, dead and crippled.
Sean


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Mar 24, 2004)

Doc said:
			
		

> I agree. I know I wasn't taught that and never practiced a 'motion' based kenpo. Parker alway said he wrote those books for the martial arts in general and used kenpo as an example for the books. They are not the "bible" that some think.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Doc:  I started another thread based on this idea (the Gospel according to Ed). I would be interested in oyur input, since you're one of the anciennes online right now.  When you get a chance.

Thx,

Dr. Dave


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Mar 24, 2004)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> Comming from an expert on dead and crippled dogma, I'll consider your opinion... hey what do you know, dead and crippled.
> Sean


:cheers:


----------



## Rainman (Mar 25, 2004)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> Bruce Lee in JKD, and many kick-boxing systems, do not have the chambered position, or even the back elbow.  Doesn't seem to have hurt their combat capabilities any.  Just a thought.  I like Mr. Connasters website; has a joke about the definition of karate guys being those who like to get hit a lot, as evidenced by their hand placement on the hip during sparring.  The post wasn't about sophisticated basics (because the guy doesn't even know what they are...not from kenpo), but about considering eliminating a non-useful training position.  My girlfriend, with no martial arts experience, gets it. Why don't you? If you want to train back elbows, then train back elbows. I don't practice stomps with each step of walking; I practice stomps, when I practice stomps.
> 
> Until we meet again in the place where we are all one,
> 
> Dr. Dave



Why don't I get what?  The post wasn't about sophisticated basics?  Says who?  One of many reasons the postion (and who says it is a "chambered" position that is only one interpretation) are the teks that have movements around this postion that I already listed.  

If you train back elbows then train back elbows... Way too narrow for an AK black belt maybe you better stick to Kemubodms'a cobra kai...  Got any more names to drop?  So and so says...


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Mar 25, 2004)

Rainman said:
			
		

> Why don't I get what? The post wasn't about sophisticated basics? Says who? One of many reasons the postion (and who says it is a "chambered" position that is only one interpretation) are the teks that have movements around this postion that I already listed.
> 
> If you train back elbows then train back elbows... Way too narrow for an AK black belt maybe you better stick to Kemubodms'a cobra kai... Got any more names to drop? So and so says...


And we all know the techs are infallible, universal truths waiting to unfold their inner glories to the faithful who contemplate them long enough. Names to drop...hmmm...yours from my christmas list? When did attempting to be well-read and seeking the company and input of seminal thinkers condemn one to be a target for such ire? Touchy, touchy.

As far as narrow, I think failing to train basics in isolation is a reflection of narrowness.  Guess it just depends on perspective.  Have you, never in your MA career, worked on a particular item more than others to improve your performance of it?


----------



## Rainman (Mar 26, 2004)

*And we all know the techs are infallible, universal truths waiting to unfold their inner glories to the faithful who contemplate them long enough.*

Concepts theories and principles are what is infallible.   

*Names to drop...hmmm...yours from my christmas list? * 

Sharp as a butter knife aint cha'?

*When did attempting to be well-read and seeking the company and input of seminal thinkers condemn one to be a target for such ire? Touchy, touchy.*

What ever the attitude so be the response... try reading the Zen of Kenpo.  And then read it again.  Also look up Phd.  Well read seminal thinkers... Look up Phd.

*As far as narrow, I think failing to train basics in isolation is a reflection of narrowness. Guess it just depends on perspective.*

There is nothing basic about basics.  It is conceptually and physically impossible to isolate anything human down to one.  There will always be a group of things working simultaneously to accomplish one singular goal... No one muscle, no one concept, and not one theory.

*Have you, never in your MA career, worked on a particular item more than others to improve your performance of it?*

1000 times slow for one time fast- desire perspire aquire- Your performance can only improve if you have an understanding of the nature of the thing itself or a skilled teacher who is showing you how to become self correcting.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Mar 26, 2004)

Rainman said:
			
		

> *And we all know the techs are infallible, universal truths waiting to unfold their inner glories to the faithful who contemplate them long enough.*
> 
> Concepts theories and principles are what is infallible.
> 
> ...


Feeling a little teste? 

Remember, I'm narrow. If I'm off to read about zen, it's going to be about zen, and not a collection of observations or sayings collected by a practicing mormon in the name of zen that has nothing to do with expansion into the void, contraction and extinction of the ego, or contacting the Other I (see...at the risk of sounding like I'm dropping names again...Ramana Maharsi, Paul Brunton, or Alan Watts). Parker was a seminal thinker in the MA. PhD? 
No one thing occurs in isolation...true. I'll remind swimmers they're being restrictive in their thinking and limited in their practice by working on their stroke in the pool. And I resent that butter-knife comment. I've eaten too many pizzas to be anything other than bowling ball to you, pal.


----------



## Rainman (Mar 26, 2004)

*Remember, I'm narrow. If I'm off to read about zen, it's going to be about zen, and not a collection of observations or sayings collected by a practicing mormon in the name of zen that has nothing to do with expansion into the void, contraction and extinction of the ego, or contacting the Other I (see...at the risk of sounding like I'm dropping names again...Ramana Maharsi, Paul Brunton, or Alan Watts).* 

It doesn't?  Says who?  YOU again?  Look up what is says about black dot focus and white dot focus.  I just used material out of the book in question and by your responses you don't understand it.  Which is cool you are not an AK Blackbelt but don't tell someone who is how the Zen of Kenpo relates to AK.  

*I'll remind swimmers they're being restrictive in their thinking and limited in their practice by working on their stroke in the pool.*

When would that be?  When they are in the water tank being tested for efficiency by scientists?  It is similar to a wind tunnel so no they are not just practicing their stroke they are working on the efficiency of their stroke which includes breathing 1) when to release 2) how much to release etc...
AK is no different, it is designed to use anything and everything including all modern technology as well as TCM.  

Back to the chambered postion-  It is what you know that can make it only a chambered postion.   Then again you say you studied a "more pure" version of AK... When pure knuckles meet pure flesh- that's pure kenpo dude. :rtfm:


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Mar 26, 2004)

Surely, in my days of practice, it never occurred to me to breathe. Or to put thought into agonist/ antagonist relationships, especially after many hours in Functional Anatomy & Biomechanics at school. Surely, I've never heard of dot focus (was that before or after dot com?). I, too, have the great kenpo books (actually read them a couple times, too), but rather than memorize or dig out quotes to regurgitate on forum pages, I try to live outside the box...I mean, books.  FYI - I used the term 'more pure' to indicate that is stuck to an older IKKA format, cirricula and training, as opposed to blending kenpo into an eclectic melange (my first system of ken/mpo), and I do have my black belt in that; I just didn't have the desire to remember all the acu-flap.  Had to...probably like you...study the heck out of Parker's publications, and provide theses about kenpo concepts.

As for the YOU again? thing...who's the authority in your life? I'm quite content being self-referent, even if you have to find your authority in the thoughts and definitions of others.  Grow, man, grow.  Could it be there's more to philosophy and spiritual study - that's even applicable to kenpo - then what's contained in the ZOK?  Bring on some more acu-flap...it's making me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Drink some wine, take a deep breath, and relax.  It's only life, and this too shall pass.

D.


----------



## Rainman (Mar 26, 2004)

That is the whole thing about II's and ZOK... If you stop with the definitions provided so does your Kenpo.   This is another misuse of white dot focus- meaning you only see what you see.  The elbow pullback position- like taking a snapshot in the middle of an arm break tek done without a partner and saying the head is open for a strike.  It is a reasonable conclusion because that is what you see.  The opponent is really dimensionally cked (height width and depth)  but to someone not knowing the tek they are not able to see this.   That is only one use of a chambered postion.  I have 20 uses for it off the top of my head- the unfortunate thing is some teachers stop with opposing forces which is a power enhancer- rephrase- could be a power enhancer and one of the first uses learned about the position  

If a person is in the mechanical stage of learning an elbow pullback is a death sentence when you go live.  It should not be done randomly because obviosly you will get slapped in the side of the head during simulated combat.  

Who is the authority in my life?  Good question- I'll let you know if I ever make that acknowledgment

Acu flap is what?


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Mar 27, 2004)

Just for the record, I use the elbow pull back position for many things, including applications in SD teks. If I remember correctly (and I'm too lazy to scroll back and look), the guy asking this Q wasn't even from kenpo. I'm techno-centric enough to assume that means he will - in his art of origin - never be exposed to the multiplicity of possible and/or probable apps a kenpoka will. He'll just be a guy, walking around with his elbow on his hip while doing everything from reverse punches to spinning back hooking heel kicks (where it functions as a positional check to protect belt loops during the spin?*facetious, but not towards you)*. For someone in a system/art not exploring the mechanics of motion, the chambered position constitutes a liability: If I can get one JMA or KMA guy to get his hands out of the down-block position or off the hip, and up near his face, I think I'll have done that person a service when he squares off in a parking lot somewhere, and there is less distance for his hands to travel to cover his head against a haymaker.

Contrary to popular belief, I hold nothing personal against having the wrist supinated and placed at the hip. Great for lots of things, but not for a static position in training or combat, and that was the impression I recieved from the guy who started the thread. I think he/she even said something about not being from kenpo, so throwing us the ball to see where we went with it. If I could have answered most candidly, I would have suggested that training in stand-up other than kenpo AND boxing is an absolute waste of time, energy and money, but that's hardly PC in an MA chat.

Acu-flap is an affectionate knickname in kenpo circles for the definitions, concepts, etc., in kenpo.  Accurate wording of and for specific attributes of motion, which require a lot of flappin of the jaw to get out because some of them are long, or so intimately woven with others that a simple idea can't be represented linguistically with just one definition/phrase/comment. Accurate flapping.  I.e., a boxer will just "put weight behind the punch". A kenpoka will employ marriage of gravity (mentioning the phrase, then citing the definition as close to verbatim as we can), adding... (and so on), taking a paragraph to accurately describe an idea someone else may say in a half sentence.

Train hard and conquer,

D.


----------



## Rainman (Mar 27, 2004)

Nothing wrong with being anti pc- who wants to be herded with the rest of the cattle anyways.  

Thanks for the weapon- er definintion I mean   :boing2: 

 :asian:


----------



## CombatWombat51 (Mar 30, 2004)

Much thanks for everyone's replies on my question... even if a good deal of them played the tune of "If you don't know what I'm thinking, then I won't tell you! Nyaaa! " Saying that one can think of at least 20 uses for a chambered position, but not sharing them, doesn't really convince me.


I've gone through this thread, and here's what people have said about the concrete uses of the chambered position:

1. If you were attacked IRL, your hands would be at your sides, and that mirrors a chambered position.

2. Practice full range of motion to engage proper muscle groups.

3. In retracting, it teaches us about elbow strikes to the rear.

4. "... a double arm break as in snakes of wisdom and marriage of the rams and always a transitional movement..." I have no idea what snakes of wisdom or marriage of the rams are, or how returning to a chambered position could result in a "double arm break", though many people say the position teaches arm breaks and joint locks. I don't get that, so hopefully someone will explain. The part I do like and understand about that quote is how it's a transitional movement.

5. Not training for a chambered position, and presumably a horse stance, means the student is not training basics. I don't get that either. To me, basics mean stuff like punches, kicks, blocks, and things like that. Basic motions that get expanded on in techniques. I don't see what is so basic about chambering. Traditional, sure. But basic? Maybe someone can explain that to me.

6. My favorite explanation "I caution those who are in such a hurry to throw things out they don't understand. I suggest that one accumulate significant knowledge of the subject matter before making rash judgements as to what is, and what is not valid. Clearly it was put there, and is represented in most martial arts for a reason. More than likely if you give it consideration, all of these different disciplines couldn't be completely wrong."

I think it was "put in there" for a reason, too. In Shaolin, they use a chambered position that's more relaxed, and the fists basically rest where we wear our belts. This is to focus our chi, since the point between the two hands is the center of our chi.

If you believe that martial arts, or at least kenpo, came from Shaolin, then that is why "it was put there". Tradition.

Note that, personally, I don't believe in chi or ki or whatever, but that's what monks told me, and they're cooler than me, so I believe them 


There were also a lot of posts about, um, white dots, zen, marriage of opposites, and other things that are all completely foreign to me :idunno:  I don't nearly understand that stuff, AK not being my core style, so I can't really comment or consider that stuff unless someone explained all that to me, which would be quite a pain for the explainer, I'm sure 


So, did I miss any major reasons? Was that a decent summary of why AK, and other styles, use a chambered position? I'm trying not to simply argue and disagree, but to understand. I came to the AK forum with my question because practitioners of AK seem to have the most logical and thought out reasons for doing the things they do. I might not agree with all of it, but I like knowing both sides of the coin :asian: 

Oh, and sorry for taking so long on getting back to this monster I've created. I ended up moving a week early, and I haven't had net access for a bit


----------



## Doc (Mar 30, 2004)

pete said:
			
		

> 'ya musta missed it... here it is reprinted for your convenience:
> 
> _well Dr. C, here goes my attempt to put this into words.
> 
> ...


_
OK let's stop there. The punch (as you call it) is used in many ways exclusive of the described stance and footwork, so let's discuss it as an entity unto itself. First, this horizontal position with the palm down rotated from essentially the hip area is NOT a punch.



			If this done as the rear ankle turns the heel outward and down into the ground, going from neutral to forward bow, the corkscrew will use "torque", or whole body power focused into the first 2 knuckles of the fist.
		
Click to expand...

As previously stated, remove the stance and lets discuss the question at hand which is about "chambering."



			A punch from a horse stance is deriving its power solely from the upper body, and the corkscrew will not change that.
		
Click to expand...

Believe it or not, depending on other mechanisms, that is not true.



			Therefore, "useless" if that is the goal. I'd be interested if there was another goal that this technique would leverage and not compromise one's anatomical structure.
		
Click to expand...

Glad you asked. The "pull back" or "chambered" position sets the alignment (depending on hand position) of the upper body in anticipation of "punching." No matter how other alternative hand positions might be deployed, or other physical mechanisms added, none set the anatomical alignment like the counter resistance "pull back chamber."



			Now, given that description of the corkscrew, it should not be used above the height of one's own shoulder... rather, the fist should remain vertical.
		
Click to expand...

_Interesting assessment that is NOt correct, but only because your understanding of the application is somewhat flawed. I know you have at least seen A good boxer throw a "stiff thrusting jab" which is essentially the same position you describe. Would you like to be on the end of one of those? I wouldn't. So you see it does have significant value. But understand this. That is NOT a punch but the extension of a punch. It anatomically is not designed to be used with the intent of the contact coming AFTER the rotation. The rotated position occurs AFTER the contact in the focus or follow through of the vertical position.  If ones intent is to throw a "horizontal punch" about the shoulder, minus this rather large caveat, you are correct. (Alright I'll give you a half credit for that one.)

But further this postion is also utilized in the American Kenpo I was taught by the "Kahuna' (Parker) as a BRACE AND a misalignment tool in self-defense technical interaction, as well as a mechanism to "control space" (among other things)



> my previous post was more of a response to rmcrobertson, kembudo-kai kempoka, and dark kenpo lord.   like the saying goes, "i'm just a product of me environment"


So am I.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 30, 2004)

Here's something I got in conversation with Das Clyde: posture is important. Don't teach horse stance, don't teach solid punches out of the old-fashioned way to begin--teach bad posture, and all that follows from bad posture.

For example, I was taught Short 2 with serious wide kneels, and pivots into cat stances and blocks from wide kneels. Uhm...tried a wide kneel with a bent back? Then there's learning techniques such as Shield and Mace--whose slicing knife-edge side-kick out of a wide kneel following that outward hand-sword is made into meaningless hash by bad posture...which leads into the unending nightmare for students and spectators that is Long 4 without good posture going in...

There is, last in this post, the way that taking out the punches and horse stances makes certain aspects of the system--the end of Long 1, say--incomprehensible. Which is, perhaps, why a) you often see them done so badly, or b) changed into meaninglessness, or c) dropped altogether.

I'm wit' Doc, here. Leave it be; it ain't broke.


----------



## CombatWombat51 (Mar 31, 2004)

I don't understand exactly what you're saying, rmcrobertson, but I think the gist of it is that we need horse stances because forms look funny without them? And are you saying that doing strikes from a horse leads to bad posture or doing strikes outside of a horse leads to bad posture?


----------



## pete (Mar 31, 2004)

i have no problem with chambering or doing drills out of a horse stance for training purposes, or focusing on a technique in isolation. my point was, and still is, that the proverbial corkscrew is not adding _*torque*_, unless you come out of the horse and add whole body unity of motion.  

i appreciate both Mr Billings' description of muscle mechanics and Doc's differentiation of the point of contact vs follow-through position.  These are both very practical and succinct rationale for their applications. 

Doc, you're last reply says that it is in fact possible to generate whole body power when punching out of a stationary horse stance, "depending on other mechanisms...".  .  Could you explain these mechanisms? 

i guess one way is if the punch is not directed straight ahead, but to a target off-center, where a shift in weight and turning of the hips would involve power from the lower body... 

pete.


----------



## Doc (Apr 1, 2004)

pete said:
			
		

> i have no problem with chambering or doing drills out of a horse stance for training purposes, or focusing on a technique in isolation. my point was, and still is, that the proverbial corkscrew is not adding _*torque*_, unless you come out of the horse and add whole body unity of motion.
> 
> i appreciate both Mr Billings' description of muscle mechanics and Doc's differentiation of the point of contact vs follow-through position.  These are both very practical and succinct rationale for their applications.
> 
> ...



I usually hate to resort to tired simplistic quotes some instructors use to make themselves sound like they know what theyre talking about, but in this case Ill use one that is very useful to illustrate this particular point.

You spoke of how the punch derives its power from the rotation of the hip, foot, etc.

Ed Parker Sr. says, For every principle, concept, theory, move, etc, there is always an opposite or a reverse.

Consider this: If you can stand in a horse stance (neutral bow) and derive power from rotating into a forward bow  cant you do the same from a forward bow and rotating back into a horse?

I would say yes.

Can you say, Shield and Mace?

Shield and Mace, (as I was taught) has you step forward toward 10:30 into a forward bow, and then rotate back to a horse stance for the punch. When executed this way properly, this methodology has all the same characteristics of the opposite execution.

When executed properly and coupled with mechanisms that align your body platforms properly, this methodology is as devastating as the opposite execution, and just as stable.

The stability of a horse stance is "actively engaged" not passively as in training. If you just stand in a horse and have some one push you from the front, you'll ultimately be pushed backwards and lose balance. However when "actively engaged" as it is designed to function, your attacker cannot move you, even though you're in a "horse stance." I've challenged people to move me pushing from the front in a cat stance, and even standing on one foot and they were unsuccessful. the secret is "active engagement" not "static execution."

What do you think Pete?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 1, 2004)

Doc said:
			
		

> I usually hate to resort to tired simplistic quotes some instructors use to make themselves sound like they know what theyre talking about, but in this case Ill use one that is very useful to illustrate this particular point.
> 
> You spoke of how the punch derives its power from the rotation of the hip, foot, etc.
> 
> ...


Its not just sheild and mace, that horse happens every time you shift out of a forward bow.
Sean


----------



## pete (Apr 1, 2004)

Doc said:
			
		

> ... the secret is "active engagement" not "static execution."
> 
> What do you think Pete?



Pete agrees... and appreciates the dialog.


----------



## Doc (Apr 2, 2004)

pete said:
			
		

> Pete agrees... and appreciates the dialog.


As do I Pete. Or as they say on the block, "Backatcha."


----------



## Doc (Apr 2, 2004)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> Its not just sheild and mace, that horse happens every time you shift out of a forward bow.
> Sean


Really? Who woulda thunkit?


----------



## Kenpomachine (Apr 3, 2004)

Doc said:
			
		

> The stability of a horse stance is "actively engaged" not passively as in training. If you just stand in a horse and have some one push you from the front, you'll ultimately be pushed backwards and lose balance. However when "actively engaged" as it is designed to function, your attacker cannot move you, even though you're in a "horse stance." I've challenged people to move me pushing from the front in a cat stance, and even standing on one foot and they were unsuccessful. the secret is "active engagement" not "static execution."
> 
> What do you think Pete?


  How can you "actively engage" the horse or cat stance? Backing up with your body mass? Not breaking the alignment of the body? Is it similar to beeing rooted?

I think I don't even understand completely what I'm talking and reading about, so please excuse my ignorance :asian:


----------



## Doc (Apr 4, 2004)

Kenpomachine said:
			
		

> How can you "actively engage" the horse or cat stance? Backing up with your body mass? Not breaking the alignment of the body? Is it similar to beeing rooted?



By using it as it was intended, and not just as a training device. "Rooting" (as you call it) is A component of that "Active Engagement," but very few know how to achieve it in actuality.


----------



## Kenpomachine (Apr 4, 2004)

Doc said:
			
		

> By using it as it was intended, and not just as a training device. "Rooting" (as you call it) is A component of that "Active Engagement," but very few know how to achieve it in actuality.


 I certainly don't, as much as I would like to. Stability is one of my main problems...  At least I'm getting some good leads as to how I must correct it from my instructor, though


----------



## Doc (Apr 4, 2004)

Kenpomachine said:
			
		

> I certainly don't, as much as I would like to. Stability is one of my main problems...  At least I'm getting some good leads as to how I must correct it from my instructor, though



Yes it is obscure information that should be taught, because you will not stumble upon it by accident on "a journey." It is a specific methodlogy that should be in a knowledgeable teachers repertoire. I teach a major portion of it to my white belts as a part of stances, posture, and footwork basics.


----------

