# Tailoring



## MJS (Feb 5, 2007)

While looking through some of Ed Parkers Infinite Insights into Kenpo books, I came across the part that talked about tailoring.  Its often stated that the art should be tailored to the person, not the person tailored to the art.  Now, reading further, he states that its not necessarily the move that changes, but the timing, weapon or angle, not the principle.

Many times though, we see people alter something completely.  Is it because they feel that the move is ineffective?  Is it because they simply don't have an understanding of application?

Thoughts?


----------



## LawDog (Feb 5, 2007)

If a person does not completly understand the tactical theory behind the technique then there is a strong chance that the technique will be applied in a different way. 
Many change a technique because the student got it at a seminar or from watching a dvd or reading it from an instructors book. 
If a  technique is to be done properly a student should train with a qualifed instructor. The student and instructor should communicate freely with each other, questions should be asked and answered properly.


----------



## Doc (Feb 5, 2007)

MJS said:


> While looking through some of Ed Parkers Infinite Insights into Kenpo books, I came across the part that talked about tailoring.  Its often stated that the art should be tailored to the person, not the person tailored to the art.  Now, reading further, he states that its not necessarily the move that changes, but the timing, weapon or angle, not the principle.
> 
> Many times though, we see people alter something completely.  Is it because they feel that the move is ineffective?  Is it because they simply don't have an understanding of application?
> 
> Thoughts?


This is another one of those great misunderstandings in the commercial system. Parker was in business so he gave people the information they wanted, but he also told them what they needed. Students decided which advice they chose to heed. He gave them clues everytime he spoke, put it in print, and told them constantly but because it was a business, he allowed them to do what they wanted.

He told them what they needed to do and suggested how they might accomplish it. Instead, they did what they wanted or understood. (See James Hawkins posted video of Parker teaching Sasha Williams Thundering Hammers). Principles are a constant but because Parker never taught them a definitive way to perform a technique, (notice in that same video Parker is not demonstrating the accepted manual version of Thundering Hammers); he allowed a student had to tailor to make it work for them. Instead, he watched what Sasha was doing and attempted to suggest a method to correct his execution.

Anatomical movement is defined by parameters of human physics that are *not* to be tailored. However, if a person is short, and the attacker is tall, you may have to tailor a technique like Sword & Hammer, where the first retaliatory strike is above the shoulders. This is the real message of tailoring for most.

However, because Parker never taught a definitive technique in the modern era, teachers and students were left to change techniques at will to suit their own proclivities and desires. As long as the method worked, it didnt matter. Parker espoused that all should take responsibility for the effectiveness of what they did. How could he do anything else when he was not there every night teaching basics, and correcting execution to conform to anatomical efficiency of a definitive technique? Instead, he told them what to do within a conceptual framework, and gave them the responsibility to figure how to do it utilizing those concepts. When he saw them, he merely adjusted their thinking by making suggestions, not hard corrections. No wonder everyone tailored what they did, with tacit approval from Ed Parker but not a stamp of approval of what they chose to do.

There has always been tailoring in the arts, but the commercial arts took it out of the hands of the teacher, and handed it to the paying customer.


----------



## Kwiter (Feb 5, 2007)

hehehehe I thought you meant tailoring of your Uniform ;-)


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Feb 6, 2007)

Doc said:
			
		

> This is another one of those great misunderstandings......



Great post...had to sorten it becuase of the length

They may tailor it becuase they dont understand or they feel it is ineffective, They may tailor it becuase they feel it is incomplete, what do you think of this idea?

B


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Feb 6, 2007)

Kwiter said:


> hehehehe I thought you meant tailoring of your Uniform ;-)


 
That's not allowed either LOL


----------



## MJS (Feb 6, 2007)

Doc said:


> This is another one of those great misunderstandings in the commercial system. Parker was in business so he gave people the information they wanted, but he also told them what they needed. Students decided which advice they chose to heed. He gave them clues everytime he spoke, put it in print, and told them constantly but because it was a business, he allowed them to do what they wanted.
> 
> He told them what they needed to do and suggested how they might accomplish it. Instead, they did what they wanted or understood. (See James Hawkins posted video of Parker teaching Sasha Williams Thundering Hammers). Principles are a constant but because Parker never taught them a definitive way to perform a technique, (notice in that same video Parker is not demonstrating the accepted manual version of Thundering Hammers); he allowed a student had to tailor to make it work for them. Instead, he watched what Sasha was doing and attempted to suggest a method to correct his execution.
> 
> ...


 
Good points Doc.  So in this case:



> Anatomical movement is defined by parameters of human physics that are *not* to be tailored. However, if a person is short, and the attacker is tall, you may have to tailor a technique like Sword & Hammer, where the first retaliatory strike is above the shoulders. This is the real message of tailoring for most.


 
A strike to the chest would be a more acceptable move, rather than doing something different?  The move would be similar to the neck shot, just lower on the body.

I'm not familiar with the video in question. If someone could post it here, that'd be great!   Anyway...I'm assuming that the technique in question was completely different than the normal way it should be done.  Why did the student have to change it?  Wouldn't it just make more sense to keep the same motion just with different application, such as in Sword and Hammer?

Mike


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Feb 6, 2007)

MJS said:


> Good points Doc. So in this case:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 




 
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=kenpojujitsu3


----------



## MJS (Feb 8, 2007)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:


> http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=kenpojujitsu3


 
James, thanks for posting the clip! 

Now, anyone want to take a shot at explaining why he was doing it like that?  I may just be missing the purpose, but not only did that not look anything like TH, but I just can't see what the plus of doing it like that is.  Whats wrong with the standard version?


----------



## Ray (Feb 8, 2007)

Doc said:


> Anatomical movement is defined by parameters of human physics that are *not* to be tailored.


Another quote for my collection of things smart people say.


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Feb 8, 2007)

MJS said:


> James, thanks for posting the clip!
> 
> Now, anyone want to take a shot at explaining why he was doing it like that? I may just be missing the purpose, but not only did that not look anything like TH, but I just can't see what the plus of doing it like that is. Whats wrong with the standard version?


 
Which version are you referring to as the "standard" version?


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 8, 2007)

MJS said:


> Now, anyone want to take a shot at explaining why he was doing it like that? I may just be missing the purpose, but not only did that not look anything like TH, but I just can't see what the plus of doing it like that is. Whats wrong with the standard version?


 
Perhaps only to embarass myself .... but, here is my take.

In that clip, they are talking only about one piece at the end of Thundering Hammers, and it is a piece that we do not employ in the base technique. We end the base version with the right downward hammerfist to the attackers neck. 

The part of the technique being discussed in the clip, is part of the technique as used in Form 4. And I assume it is the beginning of the extention that is taught where I study.

In that extra piece, the student was suggesting to draw the left foot back a short distance - to a cat stance. This would be a student 'tailoring' kenpo because it makes more sense to him. 

Then Mr. Parker demonstrated why the correct principle would be to step further back - to a neutral bow - to add counter torque to the backknuckle strike. (although it looks like Mr. Parker moved to a side horse, which is facing the wrong way, as I understand it.)

I thought it was supposed to be a downward back knuckle strike with marriage of gravity, but in the clip he is executing the strike in an outward direction.


----------



## Ray (Feb 8, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> In that clip, they are talking only about one piece at the end of Thundering Hammers, and it is a piece that we do not employ in the base technique. We end the base version with the right downward hammerfist to the attackers neck.
> 
> Then Mr. Parker demonstrated why the correct principle would be to step further back - to a neutral bow - to add counter torque to the backknuckle strike. (although it looks like Mr. Parker moved to a side horse, which is facing the wrong way, as I understand it.)
> 
> I thought it was supposed to be a downward back knuckle strike with marriage of gravity, but in the clip he is executing the strike in an outward direction.


I learned Thundering Hammers with a back-knuckle while stepping back with the left into a side horse (that was in the late 1980's).  I wish I would have learned to put the power on it that Mr. Parker displays in the video clip.  

But it wasn't the end of the tech for us.  We had some additional movements that aren't in the extension as I've seen others do it.


----------



## Doc (Feb 8, 2007)

Ray said:


> I learned Thundering Hammers with a back-knuckle while stepping back with the left into a side horse (that was in the late 1980's).  I wish I would have learned to put the power on it that Mr. Parker displays in the video clip.
> 
> But it wasn't the end of the tech for us.  We had some additional movements that aren't in the extension as I've seen others do it.



Nothing wrong with that. Like I said earlier, Parker attempted to correct what they were doing in thought and mechanics, NOT the technique itself.


----------



## jazkiljok (Feb 9, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Perhaps only to embarass myself .... but, here is my take.
> I thought it was supposed to be a downward back knuckle strike with marriage of gravity, but in the clip he is executing the strike in an outward direction.



so typical of Ed Parker. he always seemed to get the principle right.. but the techinique wrong:wink2:


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Feb 9, 2007)

jazkiljok said:


> so typical of Ed Parker. he always seemed to get the principle right.. but the techinique wrong:wink2:


 
Or maybe there is more than one way to skin the cat.  In the below Demo clip Mr. Parker executes Thundering Hammers with the "downward rake" version. :wink2:


----------



## MJS (Feb 11, 2007)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:


> Which version are you referring to as the "standard" version?


 
LOL, yeah, I suppose I opened myself up good for that huh?  However, as ME stated, 



> In that clip, they are talking only about one piece at the end of Thundering Hammers, and it is a piece that we do not employ in the base technique. We end the base version with the right downward hammerfist to the attackers neck.


 
I originally learned it this way as well.  However, I now do a version that has only the left hammerfist to the back.  The left hand checks the opponents right, as I readjust with my left towards 6, as I execute a right back knuckle to the left side of the head, following a figure 8 movement, striking another back knuckle to the right side of the head, followed by a rake to the face.

Mike


----------



## Amazon (Feb 11, 2007)

Kwiter said:


> hehehehe I thought you meant tailoring of your Uniform ;-)



Me too!  My gi is too long.


----------

