# Thrusting Inward Blocks



## Kenpodoc (May 2, 2005)

My brain works a little oddly and while driving home yesterday I was thinking about Delayed Sword.  This brought me to inward blocks. The thrusting inward block as generally taught comes from the hip directly to the corner of the imaginary box  one side of which is your two shoulders.  The more that I thought aolut this action the more that I feel that while you can use this description to describe the lowermost movement into an inward blocking position, it becomes essentially a check with no useful force. The line of energy in this movement comes through the fist in a line of action which makes any strike by the forearm at most a glancing blow.  On the otherhand the hammering inward block moves the line of force perpendicular to the forearm with path of action and the entire forearm becomes a strike. So while they look superficially the same at the end the difference in effectiveness and action between the two is quite different. Should inward blocks always contain circular motion to allow the forearm to become a striking rather than glancing force?

Jeff


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 2, 2005)

Absolutely not! I can agree that a hammering inward block, is one of the strongest hand basics we can perform; however, that does not mean you throw the rest out. If you are moving from point of origin and thrust is your closest reference point then you are bound by 'economy of motion' to execute a thrust. Anything else takes to much time. Besides, if you are stepping off the line of attack and creating a margin for error, you don't need all that power.
Sean


----------



## Goldendragon7 (May 2, 2005)

Delayed Sword (1st move) has no inward block in the first place.  It's an inward strike.

 :asian:


----------



## Bode (May 2, 2005)

Some elements of the technique to consider. 
 Delayed Sword's attack is a right hand grab to the lapel, with, possibly, a follow up left punch, right? 

 If so, is economy of motion necessary? If a person grabs you there is no reason to respond until you determine the threat. No punch, then you have all the time in the world to deliver a hammering block (strike). This is a Significant Initial Response, which will, if delivered properly, more than likely drop the attack to his knees. (Depending on target... bicep or shoulder joint, which both correspond to nerve meridians)

 If there is a punch, a "circular" block with the right hand should help catch the attackers left punching hand. Of course, the stepping back into a right neutral bow should check the attackers width and assist in negating the punch, but if you cannot step back, the block should catch the punch. 

 I agree with KenpoDoc here. The block is less effective if delivered from point of origin for reasons you stated and, I believe, my above rational.



> Should inward blocks always contain circular motion to allow the forearm to become a striking rather than glancing force?


 Depends on the size of the circle. From my experience, as I get better, my circles get smaller and stronger. In the beginning the inward block has a sharp edge circular movement. Akin to writing in big, bold, print. As I have improved and the muscles (brain) have had a chance to "memorize" the movement, the hard edged circle becomes smoother and smaller, but maintain the same structural integrity. 
 Doc's inward block has evolved to the point where he is "writing in very tiny, rounded, cursive." The circles are intangible, but exist. The muscles and brain have been hardwired to the point where thinking about the movement is enough. If you don't believe it, have him come do a seminar! Ouch... 

 I realize this fly's in the face of what traditional Kenpo does. Even the hammering inward block is done differently. We don't have a "point of origin" block per se. 
 This is all very hard to explain without physical examples or ways in which you can test it yourself. Perhaps we can devise a description of how to test an "indexed" (which is the term for it) inward block. Dr. Dave? Have the time?


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 2, 2005)

Sure the hammer is what you should use, but only if you already put your hands up at your opponents approach. I get the gist of your tight circles but if its too tight you miss the power of the hammer, which means you are simply thrusting with your arm bent. If you don't feel the drop, you didn't have one. 
Sean


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 2, 2005)

Oh and yes you do have point of origin. Look at your hands right at this second. Where ever they are in space relative to your body is point of origin. Hope that helped.
Sean


----------



## Rick Wade (May 2, 2005)

Great Post Sean, 

I would also like to point out a few other considerations.

Me and some guys here like to practice on each other and non of us are from the same system.

When I tell them to grab me with a left lapel grab and act like you are going to punch.  I notice a few things:

1.  There feet are never in a squared stance i.e. horse or training stance, thus not providing a clear shot to the groin as done in most Kenpo schools.

2.  That left arm is never straight.  Providing a shot to the bicep as a better target.  but the down fall to this is that you have to watch out for that head of the attackers.  If you hit that nerve in the bicep he is liable to pull forward involuntary and the head also snaps forward becoming a weapon when the attacker doesn't know what is coming.  I know I have been hit by a head when we do these exercises.  Funny but not fun.

3.  When my friend starts arguing with me my hands go up into a defensive position palms out and they are that away before he ever grabs me.  So the hands are not down at the side.  


These are just some perspectives I get when I train with my non American Kenpo buddies.  Just remember there is no wrong way to attack  but you can get hurt if you defend yourself with a wrong technique and there are no better what if than a guy that is willing to subject himself to a couple scenarios.  If you try this what I have found is just tell him the attack and let him or her figure out the actual attack don't worry about his feet placement or other things just defend yourself.  

My 2 cents.

Very Respectfully

Rick English

RIP 
GM


----------



## Bode (May 2, 2005)

> Sure the hammer is what you should use, but only if you already put your hands up at your opponents approach


 Good point. I didn't want to attempt to describe the movement, but we just that... we put our hands up. However, we do this for certain reasons. The index points we utilize on the way to putting our hands up, help recruite muscle and align the body. In doing so we have also misaligned the attackers body by stepping back and waiting for a pull or the attempted left hand punch. 
 Sounds complicated, but it's very easy. 


> Oh and yes you do have point of origin. Look at your hands right at this second. Where ever they are in space relative to your body is point of origin


 I know you are trying to clarify, but I do understand point of origin as you described. Only our high ranking black belts, perform anything that resembles point of origin... and even then we never use the term. The index points I mentioned are always utilized, but in ever smaller circles or arcs. At some point they cease to be noticed and become what looks like point of origin. Again, hard to explain, easy to show... especially since I only have a few minutes.


> Providing a shot to the bicep as a better target. but the down fall to this is that you have to watch out for that head of the attackers.


 I 100% agree. That is why, for the most part, we target the area where the nerve in the front deltoid. (Don't have the name in mind). You could also strike the bicep on a angle such that the head does not come forward, but rather slightly sideways. 




			
				Rick Wade said:
			
		

> 3. When my friend starts arguing with me my hands go up into a defensive position palms out and they are that away before he ever grabs me. So the hands are not down at the side.


 Sounds exactly like what we do, but on the way we incorporate the indexing. 

 Mr. Wade, how where are your hands? Shoulder level, just curious. 
 Always trying to learn...


----------



## Rick Wade (May 2, 2005)

Actually my hands start in what Mr. Pick calls twelve points.  If you put you hands up in front of you your elbows and hands (or fist) should never be on the same plane if you look at them from the front or side or top.  Follow the Link for a Picture Universal Kenpo Federation.  If you imagine this picture you turn your palms out you have a great disguised defensive position.

V/R

Rick English

P.S. Rick Wade is only my screen name.... no harm no foul just thought you might like to know.


----------



## Kenpodoc (May 4, 2005)

Goldendragon7 said:
			
		

> Delayed Sword (1st move) has no inward block in the first place.  It's an inward strike.
> 
> :asian:


Sorry I guess I should have been more explicit. I was thinking about delayed sword as an example of progessive use of force. First you say (Pysically not verbally)"get your hands off me," then you say "stay away from me" then you say "oh well just lie on the ground."  This made me then go to the initial strike and I realized what I'd known physically but not verbally, that a thrusting inward block would not work as a strike in this instance. Now I know that once the block is properly in position that it is quite solid due to structural alignment, but what about the intermediate portion during the move from the hip? Also would a circular motion from the hip allow more path of action and striking force to the forearm and thus be more effective despite the slightly longer (temporally and distance wise) Path. 

Sometimes I'm just stupid but for some reason the similarity of the final blocking position of the thrusting and hammering inward blocks coused me to fail to recognize the dramatic difference in physics between the two.

Resctfully,

Jeff :asian:


----------



## Kenpodoc (May 4, 2005)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> Absolutely not! I can agree that a hammering inward block, is one of the strongest hand basics we can perform; however, that does not mean you throw the rest out. If you are moving from point of origin and thrust is your closest reference point then you are bound by 'economy of motion' to execute a thrust. Anything else takes to much time. Besides, if you are stepping off the line of attack and creating a margin for error, you don't need all that power.
> Sean


I guess my question here is, does the few extra inches of movement add a significantly longer period of time versus the improved dynamics of the strike. Mr. Planas would say you don't have to move fast just faster than your opponent. Stepping off line adds another component but should give you time to execute the more effective hammering block. I am not really suggesting that we forget the straight line of the standard thrusting block but rather wondering if we should be practicing a third intermediate circling inward block from the low position.

thanks for responding,

Jeff :asian:


----------



## Kenpodoc (May 4, 2005)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> Sure the hammer is what you should use, but only if you already put your hands up at your opponents approach. I get the gist of your tight circles but if its too tight you miss the power of the hammer, which means you are simply thrusting with your arm bent. If you don't feel the drop, you didn't have one.
> Sean


I think I have to disagree here. A light circular motion of the fist accompanied by appropiate settling into a stance should provide significant drop which would be felt by the attacker but not necessarily look dramatic to the onlooker. An example of this would be my perception to the force my son hits me with when we pass down the backfist. He has been practicing settling with the strike and it looks very similar to his old strike but now leaves a mark which lasts for hours. (I'm so proud  .) 

Respectfully,

Jeff


----------



## Kenpodoc (May 4, 2005)

One other question is, does the forearm move in a circular motion if proper body mechanics are executed? In swimming 10 years ago they were teaching an S shaped sculling motion of the hand since underwater films showed the best swimmers moving with a sweeping S shaped motion of their hand and forearm. Now studies have hown that the best swimmers were just pulling straigth back and the apparent sculling action came from appropriate body roll and body mechanics. Just like Kenpo good swimmers swim with their whole body and not just their arms.

Jeff


----------



## Kenpodoc (May 4, 2005)

Rick Wade said:
			
		

> Great Post Sean,
> 
> I would also like to point out a few other considerations.
> 
> ...


Good points. If Mr. Pick happened to have his hands down would they move in a circular motion or in a straight line?

Jeff


----------



## Rick Wade (May 4, 2005)

I could not nor would I ever speak for Mr. Pick or anyone. I don't care what there rank is. Heck half the time I have a hard time speaking for myself. 

Back to the subject. 

My arm would still travel in a straight line. thrusting the strike in a Horizontal position. a point I want to make clear is that given the point of origin (hands at side one would have to figure out that the hand and forearm are traveling in a circular motion; however, given that you are doing a stance transition at the same time it will feel more like a straight line. You will want to settle in the stance at the same time you execute that thrusting block/strike so that you will cause the maximum amount of pain (marriage of gravity). If you elongate you circle to much that block will come in a down ward motion bringing him down instead of opening his body for the next kick.


Think I am starting to Ramble.

V/R

Rick


----------



## BruceCalkins (May 4, 2005)

Kenpodoc said:
			
		

> My brain works a little oddly and while driving home yesterday I was thinking about Delayed Sword. This brought me to inward blocks. The thrusting inward block as generally taught comes from the hip directly to the corner of the imaginary box one side of which is your two shoulders. The more that I thought aolut this action the more that I feel that while you can use this description to describe the lowermost movement into an inward blocking position, it becomes essentially a check with no useful force. The line of energy in this movement comes through the fist in a line of action which makes any strike by the forearm at most a glancing blow. On the otherhand the hammering inward block moves the line of force perpendicular to the forearm with path of action and the entire forearm becomes a strike. So while they look superficially the same at the end the difference in effectiveness and action between the two is quite different. Should inward blocks always contain circular motion to allow the forearm to become a striking rather than glancing force?
> 
> Jeff


Great Question Jeff. 
Just remember the difference between using this move on the street and in the school. first Delayed Sword in from Nutral Bow and your Hand is in the air. not chambered by your waist. You can generate the circle needed for the force and also you are striking the nerve so not much in needed of done right to make it effective. On the street you wont always be in a stance but it is best to have your hands in a defensive position in the air in front of you. Again you will be throwing the block from a non chambered point. Throwing it from chamber is in the forms and school not as much in the street fight. Also remember what Mr. Mills has said for years. "A Block is a Strike and A Stike is A Block."


----------



## Goldendragon7 (May 4, 2005)

SokeCalkins said:
			
		

> Remember what Mr. Mills has said for years. "A Block is a Strike and A Stike is A Block."


 Aaaaaaaaa well, he also might have said it for years.... but the *fact* of the matter is ........ that _Ed Parker_ had said it for _years_ before Paul did.

 :ultracool


----------



## Ray (May 4, 2005)

Goldendragon7 said:
			
		

> Aaaaaaaaa well, he also might have said it for years.... but the *fact* of the matter is ........ that _Ed Parker_ had said it for _years_ before Paul did.


Classic, isn't it?  And I believe Mr. Parker also said "old stories have new meaning when heard by new ears" or something to that effect.

Long time ago, when my instructor said "he who hestitates..." I thought it was his original.


----------



## c2kenpo (May 4, 2005)

Kenpodoc said:
			
		

> My brain works a little oddly and while driving home yesterday I was thinking about Delayed Sword.  This brought me to inward blocks. The thrusting inward block as generally taught comes from the hip directly to the corner of the imaginary box  one side of which is your two shoulders.  The more that I thought aolut this action the more that I feel that while you can use this description to describe the lowermost movement into an inward blocking position, it becomes essentially a check with no useful force. The line of energy in this movement comes through the fist in a line of action which makes any strike by the forearm at most a glancing blow.  On the otherhand the hammering inward block moves the line of force perpendicular to the forearm with path of action and the entire forearm becomes a strike. So while they look superficially the same at the end the difference in effectiveness and action between the two is quite different. Should inward blocks always contain circular motion to allow the forearm to become a striking rather than glancing force?
> 
> Jeff




Please allow me to add my thoughts with no disrespect intended.

First as pointed out Kenpo Mr. Parker made almost everything a strike/block as was added in the thread later.
For Delayed Sword I veiw the technique in 2 forms with hands up in air as if in a fight already and from the hips (frankly in a heated discussion or argument I have no clue why my hands would still be there but lets assume they are from holding something or a child behind me, etc etc,

The thrusting inward block even tho linear in motion is a highly effective strike/block as it is designed to create a path of deflection of the incoming attack of course the most important aspect is that once the angle of deflection has been met grafting to whip to the outward handsword with all the other principles of motion backing it is what makes that technique, not the intital response/checking phase of the inward block/strike. Simply by looking at the techniques adding wider paths of action to our arm to create a more "hammering effect" is non efficent use of motion and goes past the easy motion barriers. Everything I can do to simplify my motion and make me faster will help me in the eventual outcome provided I do not sacrifice the other principles of motion.

But this as with all of our motion is subjective to body types points of refrence/ origin etc etc. The "Basics" have evolved quite a bit over the last 20 years I have seen in numerous vid clips from all around the world. I am sure as the future of Kenpo continues to evolve it will be visible to see the change in 10 years again. 

As my instructors say to me , as was probably said to them etc. Better to be the coffee table that your oppnent runs into then running into it.

David Gunzburg


----------



## Doc (May 5, 2005)

Kenpodoc said:
			
		

> My brain works a little oddly and while driving home yesterday I was thinking about Delayed Sword.  This brought me to inward blocks. The thrusting inward block as generally taught comes from the hip directly to the corner of the imaginary box  one side of which is your two shoulders.  The more that I thought aolut this action the more that I feel that while you can use this description to describe the lowermost movement into an inward blocking position, it becomes essentially a check with no useful force. The line of energy in this movement comes through the fist in a line of action which makes any strike by the forearm at most a glancing blow.  On the otherhand the hammering inward block moves the line of force perpendicular to the forearm with path of action and the entire forearm becomes a strike. So while they look superficially the same at the end the difference in effectiveness and action between the two is quite different. Should inward blocks always contain circular motion to allow the forearm to become a striking rather than glancing force?
> 
> Jeff


Absolutely anatomically correct sir. Good observations. There are other reasons as well.


----------



## Doc (May 5, 2005)

The problem with this discussion comes from a mistaken notion or misunderstanding with regards to "point of origin." In Motion-Kenpo this terminology is often tied to "economy of motion" and they are both very much understood. This has most quite mistakenly equating POO with some type of expeditious linear or straight line execution. This is absolutely false.

Point of origin is simply the most efficient AND EFFECTIVE use of natural weapons  starting from whatever position they happen to be in at the moment of execution. NEITHER term means exclusively linear OR circular, and both terms encompass linear and circular movements for maximum effectiveness.

This misunderstanding is so pervasive, I often use the term "Circular Point of Origin" just to get some to consider its existence is quite compatible with "Economy of Movement." Neither term is defined by speed nor a specific angle or execution, but instead as I was taught, by its effectiveness.

Motion-Kenpo places such an emphasis on just "moving," this simple fact can ellude many to the detriment of their arts execution. If you check the archives, you'll find somewhere Dennis and I had this conversation before. His position was "There is no circular point of origin, there is just point of origin." He's correct, but Dennis thinks different even though he is Motion-Kenpo. So for those who subscribe to the "linear" is POO, add CPOO to your equations.

Consider a QB in American Football has to throw the ball. Sometimes a "line drive" toss is effective. Sometimes he has to lob the ball in an arc, but the object is to get the ball to the receiver.

(Please hurry football season)

KenpoDoc that makes your thoughts on the subject absolute on the money.


----------



## kenposikh (May 5, 2005)

Hey Doc this discussion sounds familiar remember I was talking to you in ireland about the misunderstanding and relationship between POO and economy of motion basically in my opinion they are two completely different things. A thrusting inward block is in itself wasted motion as you have missed out a major element of the block i.e. effectiveness.

For example a thrusting inward block may have an effect on someone who is smaller and not as strong as you but will be less effective against a stronger person.

However employing correct circular motion will be just as fast and however on this occassion will work against any opponent.

The blocks may both get to the same place but the trajectory they take is different. I had a hard time dealing with th term CPOO but know I understand that it is used to differentiate between a linear and circular trajectory.


----------



## Kenpodoc (May 5, 2005)

Straight line vs Circular.

A straight line may be the shortest line between two points but it is not always the fastest.  In Space travel gravitaional forces while linear in action frequently cause circles to be the fastest way to send an objest to a different point in space.  The biomechanics of human motion are such that linear contraction of muscles causes circular motion around joints. (A tongue thrust might be an exception to this rule but it's a relatively ineffective Kenpo strike.) This means that moving a weapon like a fist in a linear motion requires a much more complicate muscular sequence than moving it in a circular motion. So the direct thrusting motion from a hip to the inward block position is actually more difficult from a motor perspective than a circular motion. Further during the mid points of this motion the muscles contracting to cause the forward motion are different than the muscles which allow the forearm to rigidly oppose a strike in the final blocking position.  Thus, unless the block is fully in place the classic thrusting inward block has less margin for error than a block with hammering motion. Further whipping motion with it's augmentation of speed along multiple joint lines may allow faster velocity in a curved approach rather than a linear approach.

I have now talked myself out of the classic thrusting inward block as anything other than category completion. The flaws I see are:

Line of action vs path of action.

Line of force incorrect for desired response.

More complicated motion biomechanically.

Weaker block until fully in position.

Trying to maintain appropriate blocking rigidity in mid block interferes with the thrusting motion and in effect puts the breaks on.

Whipping action potentially faster due to augmentation of velocity along multiple joint lines.

I'm sure someone can tell me why I'm wrong.  I look forward to your response.

Respectfully,

Jeff


----------



## Kenpodoc (May 5, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> The problem with this discussion comes from a mistaken notion or misunderstanding with regards to "point of origin." In Motion-Kenpo this terminology is often tied to "economy of motion" and they are both very much understood. This has most quite mistakenly equating POO with some type of expeditious linear or straight line execution. This is absolutely false.
> 
> Point of origin is simply the most efficient AND EFFECTIVE use of natural weapons  starting from whatever position they happen to be in at the moment of execution. NEITHER term means exclusively linear OR circular, and both terms encompass linear and circular movements for maximum effectiveness.
> 
> ...


Thanks.  Now I get to spend several months reevaluating everything.  Fortunately I have an instructor who tolerates my continuous reevaluation of what I'm doing and encourages me to share my questions. 

Jeff :asian:


----------



## Jagdish (May 5, 2005)

Kenpodoc said:
			
		

> Straight line vs Circular.
> 
> A straight line may be the shortest line between two points but it is not always the fastest.  In Space travel gravitaional forces while linear in action frequently cause circles to be the fastest way to send an objest to a different point in space.  The biomechanics of human motion are such that linear contraction of muscles causes circular motion around joints. (A tongue thrust might be an exception to this rule but it's a relatively ineffective Kenpo strike.) This means that moving a weapon like a fist in a linear motion requires a much more complicate muscular sequence than moving it in a circular motion. So the direct thrusting motion from a hip to the inward block position is actually more difficult from a motor perspective than a circular motion. Further during the mid points of this motion the muscles contracting to cause the forward motion are different than the muscles which allow the forearm to rigidly oppose a strike in the final blocking position.  Thus, unless the block is fully in place the classic thrusting inward block has less margin for error than a block with hammering motion. Further whipping motion with it's augmentation of speed along multiple joint lines may allow faster velocity in a curved approach rather than a linear approach.
> 
> ...




Sir:

I would like to add something more to your above text but i cannot as i feel the same as you.

I think as our body is built we can moves more efficiently in circles and curves and what appears to be a line is no more that a part of a circle to infinitum. Also circular motion reduces friction so you can get faster with your blows.

I think if you want to block with your hand from the waist in a linear path and want to really stop a incoming punch then the solution will be to make a block like a upward elbow with your knuckles touching your elbow... but then we are not talking about a inward block per se.

Trying to block in a linear path will have less effect as you will be blocking with your hand only and may be you have a  good body interconnection but you won't be blocking with your whole body.

It's hard for me to convey thoughts and feelings to words but i hope to make it right in this post. :asian: 

Yours,

Jagdish


----------



## Kenpodoc (May 5, 2005)

Jagdish said:
			
		

> Sir:
> 
> I would like to add something more to your above text but i cannot as i feel the same as you.
> 
> ...


Thanks.
I asume you speak spanish as your first language.  Your english is quite good but go ahead and respond in spanish and let those that choose translate for themselves.

Jeff :asian:


----------



## Jagdish (May 5, 2005)

Kenpodoc said:
			
		

> Thanks.
> I asume you speak spanish as your first language.  Your english is quite good but go ahead and respond in spanish and let those that choose translate for themselves.
> 
> Jeff :asian:



Sir:

Thanks for your quick response.

By the way, I speak 4/5 languages ( :asian: ) but i was referring the limits words have over our feelings. When i read my past posts referred to technicals points i see clearly that words don't make justice to what we want to express.


Apart from this when i see/read/feel that our system has circles and curves as main paths/movements i start wondering if  it was influenced by taoist systems like Ba Gua ...???

Yours,

Jagdish


----------



## Jagdish (May 5, 2005)

Jagdish said:
			
		

> Sir:
> 
> I think if you want to block with your hand from the waist in a linear path and want to really stop a incoming punch then the solution will be to make a block like a upward elbow with your knuckles touching your elbow... but then we are not talking about a inward block per se.
> Jagdish



Again this example is no more than a weapon covering a circular path.

Jagdish


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 5, 2005)

I'm afraid I see all this stuff a little differently.

First off, I'd separate what needs to be taught and learned to beginners from what more-sophisticated folks need to work on.

Second off--motion kenpo or not--I'd point out that Mr. Parker's books clearly differentiate between a hammering and a thrusting inward block: you only really need to look at the beginning of Short Form 1, or his repeated very clear statements to that effect.

Third off, I'd again note that discarding things out of the system of kenpo is a good way to shortchange students. A lot of those, "useless," moves turn out to be pretty important later in one's training--for example, that "waste," motion of a hammering block? that, "extra," little circle? Take a gander at the relation between that and the way the blocking hands circle with the first moves of Delayed Sword, Short Form 2, Long Form 2, and, "more-advanced," techniques such as Ram and the Eagle. 

Fourth--as for the thrusting blocks and the debate over points of origin, well, sometimes what appears to be a "useless," addition, a violation of the whole idea of point of origin, isn't useless at all. See, for example, Thundering Hammers' back-knuckle, which, "rolls," away from its target with the opponent's movement, or the transition from one side to the other of that same technique in Long Form 4. 

Most of all, I suppose I do tend to be a bit traditionalist--about training, anyway, because I think sweating is superior to theorizing. And while I realize that some folks maybe don't need some of this stuff (I have to add that it's a lot fewer folks than the number who THINK they don't need this stuff), I think that with human beings and martial arts, you have to get at the inside stuff by working through the outside stuff. 

Even in the, "internal," systems (I'm currently wading through Frantzis', "The Power of Internal Martial Arts;" excellent book) such as t'ai chi, one trains and trains and trains the outer movement first, saving the internal jazz for later.


----------



## Kenpodoc (May 5, 2005)

I don't really mean to throw out the traditional thrusting inward block but I see it very differently now. As to mat time vs. talk time.  Most of my Kenpo analysis occurs in the car  when actual physical interaction would be dangerous. (I'm sure I look silly blocking checking and parrying in the car in the minimalist manner that I have adapted for driving.) I'm the guy who  goes to class or to my son at home and says punch me I want to try something.

Thanks for your response Robert,

Jeff


----------



## howardr (May 5, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Even in the, "internal," systems (I'm currently wading through Frantzis', "The Power of Internal Martial Arts;" excellent book) such as t'ai chi, one trains and trains and trains the outer movement first, saving the internal jazz for later.


I've read that book recently. Simply fascinating.


----------



## Jagdish (May 5, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Even in the, "internal," systems (I'm currently wading through Frantzis', "The Power of Internal Martial Arts;" excellent book) such as t'ai chi, one trains and trains and trains the outer movement first, saving the internal jazz for later.



That book is really good. The Ba gua part is simply fascinating. :supcool: 

Yours,

Jagdish


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 6, 2005)

I wouldn't recomend a thrusting inward block on the first move of delayed sword, but to eliminate thrust upon the usage of the equation formula really short changes a student on a whole catagory of choices, were your hands at your sides. Simply reaching in and horsebiting the thigh or launching back with a handfull of what ever can really create some intersting openings for a counter attack. Thrust rocks! Rolling the shoulder and bending your arm for the big shot is slower by one beat. Good luck!
Sean


----------



## Doc (May 6, 2005)

Kenpodoc said:
			
		

> Straight line vs Circular.
> 
> A straight line may be the shortest line between two points but it is not always the fastest.  In Space travel gravitaional forces while linear in action frequently cause circles to be the fastest way to send an objest to a different point in space.  The biomechanics of human motion are such that linear contraction of muscles causes circular motion around joints. (A tongue thrust might be an exception to this rule but it's a relatively ineffective Kenpo strike.) This means that moving a weapon like a fist in a linear motion requires a much more complicate muscular sequence than moving it in a circular motion. So the direct thrusting motion from a hip to the inward block position is actually more difficult from a motor perspective than a circular motion. Further during the mid points of this motion the muscles contracting to cause the forward motion are different than the muscles which allow the forearm to rigidly oppose a strike in the final blocking position.  Thus, unless the block is fully in place the classic thrusting inward block has less margin for error than a block with hammering motion. Further whipping motion with it's augmentation of speed along multiple joint lines may allow faster velocity in a curved approach rather than a linear approach.
> 
> ...


Big misunderstandings abound about the "thrusting block." Mr. Parker NEVER used it as a purely defensive mechanism. I would like for someone to come up with a piece of film or video that has Mr. Parker blocking with a thrusting action when executing a defensive block from the inside at street speed. It doesn't exist. Those that expound "it is quicker," simply are a tad lean in the knowledge and skill developement department when it comes to human anatomy. In fact when Mr. Parker executed with authority, his block was actually traveling "downward" when it made contact in his circular execution. Some people fall into the trap of "over-thinking" a simple concept. The thrust does have validity when placed into proper context, however expediency is not the dictating factor, efficiency is.


----------



## Jagdish (May 7, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> ..." Mr. Parker NEVER used it as a purely defensive mechanism. I would like for someone to come up with a piece of film or video that has Mr. Parker blocking with a thrusting action when executing a defensive block from the inside at street speed. It doesn't exist...
> 
> ... In fact when Mr. Parker executed with authority, his block was actually traveling "downward" when it made contact in his circular execution...




I have been thinking about this for some months , specially when doing alternating maces. When you are being pushed you cannot pretend to block and then press both arms downward. There are two aims  here and find difficult to make them possible.

When practicing i find hammering downward to be the correct way of executing it. It brings the arms of the opponent down. Doing with enough power & speed it brings the opponent down to his knees.


I know i am doing it right when my whole body acts like loading a spring...and you can explode to another blow with the same arm.

Actually i find fascinating to discover within the S/D tec. that your initial move apart from defending yourself from the attack loads your body in order to get maximum power & speed for your follow-up.

Well, these were some quick thoughts...  

Yours,

Jagdish


----------



## Doc (May 7, 2005)

Jagdish said:
			
		

> I have been thinking about this for some months , specially when doing alternating maces. When you are being pushed you cannot pretend to block and then press both arms downward. There are two aims  here and find difficult to make them possible.
> 
> When practicing i find hammering downward to be the correct way of executing it. It brings the arms of the opponent down. Doing with enough power & speed it brings the opponent down to his knees.
> 
> ...


Sounds pretty close to how I teach it.


----------



## donald (May 7, 2005)

G7,

I was taught that our blocks should be strikes. Is this incorrect? Is this what you meant in your response here?

By GOD'S Grace,
Donald 1st John 1:9 :asian:


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 7, 2005)

Who said anything about beig purely defensive?


----------



## Goldendragon7 (May 7, 2005)

donald said:
			
		

> G7,
> I was taught that our blocks should be strikes. Is this incorrect? Is this what you meant in your response here?


 Not "should", but could, depending on your intent.


----------



## Doc (May 7, 2005)

Goldendragon7 said:
			
		

> Not "should", but could, depending on your intent.


Absolutely. I think this is the great misunderstanding. Everyone rushing to "shorthand" when they haven't even learned the alphabet.


----------



## Dominic Jones (May 8, 2005)

> Doc said
> The thrust does have validity when placed into proper context, however expediency is not the dictating factor, efficiency is.



Doc could you expand on what the proper context for a thrusting inward block is.  Thank you.

Could it be when the thrusting block to the arm continues into a thrust punch to the head as in the tecnique DARTING MACE - or do you still use a hammering inward block and then graft into the thrusting method of execution for the punch.

Cheers 
Dominic :asian: 
Sendai Kenpo


----------



## kenpoworks (May 8, 2005)

Hey Dominic,
I know you where addressing Doc, But I have found through my own efforts while trying to make this technique effective in the ""ideal"" stage, that a hammering action from an eyebrow height reference point sets the "feel" of how the rest of the technique should be executed.
Richard.
hope you did'nt mind me butting in!


----------



## Doc (May 8, 2005)

Dominic Jones said:
			
		

> Doc could you expand on what the proper context for a thrusting inward block is.  Thank you.
> 
> Could it be when the thrusting block to the arm continues into a thrust punch to the head as in the tecnique DARTING MACE - or do you still use a hammering inward block and then graft into the thrusting method of execution for the punch.
> 
> ...


Well that is a reasonable example of how it COULD be used. But if you examine what Rich said, than the question is, how did it get to eyebrow height? I submit for structure, it should have rotated there before thrusting.

The real misunderstanding is, "Ed Parker NEVER used a pure thrusting action after he began his Chinese Kenpo." (My quote) But I digress. We were talking about the defensive application in "Delayed Sword." Those who advocate thrusting are simply unknowledgeable of all the mechanisms that take place here in the execution of this technique, as well as the target acquisitions and their effect, along with their own PROPER body mechanics.

Everyone has an opinion of HOW THEY see a technique executed, however anatomical efficiency and correctness is not open to interpretation, no matter how biased we are toward a particular motion. That's the difference between Sublevel Four Kenpo and motion based kenpo. Anatomy is the primary dictate for efficiecy, NOT subjective motion. The idea of "as long as it works for you" is unacceptable in a set science based approach. Your study model must begin from a sound base of understanding to begin with, and doesn't allow for anamolous and sometimes stupid preferences of teachers or students, even if it works on some level.

Human physical movement and biomechanics are a science unto itself, and are largely not found in the interpretive arts, and marks the difference between martial "arts," and martial "science." Most of the modern eclectic self defense material is "art" based in subjective preferences of execution. Imagine going to a professional sports team at a particular position with your own ideas of how you should do something. No matter how much talent you have, there is a coach there to insure your mechanics are correct. American Football is a good example. When a QB strugles with efficiency, they often bring in a QB coach to put a player back in touch with their fundimental execution. You see SOMEBODY already knows how it is supposed to be done, and has spent millions of dollars over time insuring its correctness. In motion-kenpo EVERYBODY knows how it should be done and they are all different. If only Mr. Parker had lived to take SOME people to the next level. SOME would have had a great time, but that level isn't meant for the closed minded or already satisfied. Even that is a preference on some level.


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 8, 2005)

Are you saying Ed Parker never did a thrusting motion from that day on, or are you talking specificly about the thrusting inward block? I mean I find it hard to believe he didn't thrust his uppercuts. Does thrusting off the hip always demonstrate a lack of knowledge or is it simply that smarter people always go to a hammer then graft to a thrust?
Sean


----------



## kenpoworks (May 8, 2005)

I have found that "LIFT" is the PRIME MOVER when executing  uppercuts, this is how it feels when Iam practicing my 2nd favourite punch.
with respect
Richard


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 8, 2005)

Lift and thrust require the same muscles; therefore, lift is a thrust. So you just call thrust lift and be done with it? I really thought you were trying to tell me Mr. Parker "Anded" all his thrusting motion or something.
Sean


----------



## Doc (May 8, 2005)

kenpoworks said:
			
		

> I have found that "LIFT" is the PRIME MOVER when executing  uppercuts, this is how it feels when Iam practicing my 2nd favourite punch.
> with respect
> Richard


The next time I see you' I'll show you an INDEX that will improve that by 100%. "Guaranteed by Doc." For the record Ed Parker completely stopped ALL pure "thrusting" movement. Anyone who thinks he didn't would be someone who didn't know what to look for. Lift and thrust are different and require different execution and assignment of muslce groups, mate. Don't let me forget.


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 8, 2005)

In favor of lift perhaps?


----------



## Jagdish (Jun 22, 2005)

Sir:

With all these long posts i don't have it clear: Does the thrusting inward block have a place within the our system?

Yours,

Jagdish





			
				Doc said:
			
		

> Big misunderstandings abound about the "thrusting block." Mr. Parker NEVER used it as a purely defensive mechanism. I would like for someone to come up with a piece of film or video that has Mr. Parker blocking with a thrusting action when executing a defensive block from the inside at street speed. It doesn't exist. Those that expound "it is quicker," simply are a tad lean in the knowledge and skill developement department when it comes to human anatomy. In fact when Mr. Parker executed with authority, his block was actually traveling "downward" when it made contact in his circular execution. Some people fall into the trap of "over-thinking" a simple concept. The thrust does have validity when placed into proper context, however expediency is not the dictating factor, efficiency is.


----------



## Doc (Jun 22, 2005)

Jagdish said:
			
		

> Sir:
> 
> With all these long posts i don't have it clear: Does the thrusting inward block have a place within the our system?
> 
> ...


Yes and no sir. That is, when Mr. Parker appeared to be thrusting, he really wasn't purely "thrusting." To get there requires years of "phonetic" movement to create synaptic pathways and  "muscle memory" to allow the "shorthand" in appearance only movement.


----------



## Kenpoist (Jul 6, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> Big misunderstandings abound about the "thrusting block." Mr. Parker NEVER used it as a purely defensive mechanism. I would like for someone to come up with a piece of film or video that has Mr. Parker blocking with a thrusting action when executing a defensive block from the inside at street speed. It doesn't exist. Those that expound "it is quicker," simply are a tad lean in the knowledge and skill developement department when it comes to human anatomy. In fact when Mr. Parker executed with authority, his block was actually traveling "downward" when it made contact in his circular execution. Some people fall into the trap of "over-thinking" a simple concept. The thrust does have validity when placed into proper context, however expediency is not the dictating factor, efficiency is.


Doc,

Ref to the concept of the hammering "downward" circular block. Does the less experienced person risk executing the block too much on a 90 degree angle (closer to a right to left inward circle as opposed to top to bottom circle), thus risking the redirection of your attackers punch back into your body/head. I have seen poorly executed blocks carry the attackers motion right back into themselves.

I was taught to execute the a thrusting block - 45 degree angle (the diagonal in the box) - than of course your front snap kick to the groin - and your right hand is already set to perform a right downward chop to the neck.  Some practice the chop as a straight chop, but the attacker should be doubled over after the kick.


----------



## GRIM (Jul 6, 2005)

Sorry if I'm repeating anyone inadvertingly but something to think about would be agressive twins, high two hand push technique. (left leg rear twist unwind with right inward to opponents left arm clearing the push kick, kick, ect.)

My point is that a hammering inward block won't make the interception with the outside of the opponents arm in time, {and it is a dead give away if you chamber at all}. With a thrusting inward you are firing from the hip much like a gun fighter while maybe not the strongest block it deffintly has  speed and with some torque you got a pretty good defense move.

I'm sorry if my descreption isn't the best I can rewrite if needed. 
And I must give credit I did the hammering until Phil Bullerd (sp) showed me this wasy.


----------



## Michael Billings (Jul 6, 2005)

I was going to stay out of this for no apparent reason other than to hear what other, wiser heads would say.  I may want to venture out a little here, and suggest that the thrusting inward block, as most know it, can gain levels of sophistication.  This could include the palm rotating down as the block is initiated, to ensure rotation at, or right before the point of contact with the opponent.  I think that now I tend to "round the corner" a bit, even when executing a thrusting inward block.  It is not enough to actually be able to call it circular, but a sailor's term would be, "put a hook in it,"  and it is visible to me and partially a function of the pectoral contracting, along with the rotation of the wrist, and believe it or not, there may even be a slight circular action with the shoulder, even when coming from the hip as my point of origin, so that there may even be a slight gravitational marrage component. Does anyone understand what I am talking about here? 

 -Michael


----------



## Doc (Jul 6, 2005)

GRIM said:
			
		

> Sorry if I'm repeating anyone inadvertingly but something to think about would be agressive twins, high two hand push technique. (left leg rear twist unwind with right inward to opponents left arm clearing the push kick, kick, ect.)
> 
> My point is that a hammering inward block won't make the interception with the outside of the opponents arm in time, {and it is a dead give away if you chamber at all}. With a thrusting inward you are firing from the hip much like a gun fighter while maybe not the strongest block it deffintly has  speed and with some torque you got a pretty good defense move.
> 
> ...


In the very old technique called "Aggressive Twins," (which was replace by Alternating Maces),  the "block" does not block, but simply acts as a check to the reaching arms. You have already moved back to kicking distance.


----------



## Doc (Jul 6, 2005)

Michael Billings said:
			
		

> I was going to stay out of this for no apparent reason other than to hear what other, wiser heads would say.  I may want to venture out a little here, and suggest that the thrusting inward block, as most know it, can gain levels of sophistication.  This could include the palm rotating down as the block is initiated, to ensure rotation at, or right before the point of contact with the opponent.  I think that now I tend to "round the corner" a bit, even when executing a thrusting inward block.  It is not enough to actually be able to call it circular, but a sailor's term would be, "put a hook in it,"  and it is visible to me and partially a function of the pectoral contracting, along with the rotation of the wrist, and believe it or not, there may even be a slight circular action with the shoulder, even when coming from the hip as my point of origin, so that there may even be a slight gravitational marrage component. Does anyone understand what I am talking about here?
> 
> -Michael


Yep.


----------



## Doc (Jul 6, 2005)

Kenpoist said:
			
		

> Doc,
> Ref to the concept of the hammering "downward" circular block. Does the less experienced person risk executing the block too much on a 90 degree angle (closer to a right to left inward circle as opposed to top to bottom circle), thus risking the redirection of your attackers punch back into your body/head. I have seen poorly executed blocks carry the attackers motion right back into themselves.


?


> I was taught to execute the a thrusting block - 45 degree angle (the diagonal in the box) -


OK.


> than of course your front snap kick to the groin - and your right hand is already set to perform a right downward chop to the neck.  Some practice the chop as a straight chop,


I have no idea what you're talking about beyond the block.


> but the attacker should be doubled over after the kick.


IF you're talking about a techniques, the idea he will be "bent over" after the kick is probably an incporrect assumption.


----------



## Kenpoist (Jul 7, 2005)

Sorry - easier to show than to explain.


----------



## Doc (Jul 7, 2005)

Kenpoist said:
			
		

> Sorry - easier to show than to explain.


Hey that's my line.


----------

