# Are You Supposed To Finish Techniques?



## Doc

*Are You Supposed To Finish Self-Defense Techniques?​*
Ron Chapél​



There are many misconceptions that permeate modern self-defense martial arts "systems." Most of them have their origins somewhere in the Ed Parker influence or lineage, based on his successful implementation of business concepts to insure fiscal success, with what is essentially a non-profitable entity by nature. Creating an amalgam of profitability, and reasonable successful applications brought with it many diverse concepts that often contradict each other, or at a minimum, serve to add fuel to the fire of a confusing hybrid activity, at best. The strict dichotomy between an &#8220;art,&#8221; and its self-defense potential are often loss on many.

One of these is the understanding surrounding elongated self-defense technique sequences. While many of the uniformed see them as real world applicable, others recognize the folly of such notions. Depending upon perspective and philosophy, this is either completely unreasonable, or impractical, and sometimes both. But all the perspectives are borne of a misunderstanding philosophically where Mr. Parker intended to ultimately take his many art(s) and his singular ultimate interpretation.

To clear the picture we must look back first to the traditional teaching of the arts from the cultural progenitors perspective of the &#8220;Old Chinese.&#8221; Traditionally the art was taught through many complex forms and sets, for dual purposes. First and foremost was for the preservation of significant accumulated information that defied codification in any other form. 

Second were addendum sets that served to highlight specific applications, and promote attendant skills. Lastly were accelerated &#8220;strictly functional&#8221; applications that didn&#8217;t contain the information of the forms, but put &#8220;skills set&#8221; into applications.

Historically, many arts, and their proponents influenced the interpretation(s) of Ed Parker. While &#8220;Splashing Hands&#8221; spawned the creation or interpretation(s) of Limalama under Sifu Haumea Lefiti, Parker&#8217;s motion-based product as well has its roots in the Mok Gar strict applications of &#8220;Splashing Hands.&#8221; This is significant because &#8220;Splashing Hands/Limalama&#8221; is to Mok Gar, what &#8220;Splashing Hands/Motion-Kenpo&#8221; is to Ed Parker&#8217;s yet undeveloped American Kenpo vehicle.

To my knowledge Mok Gar was one of the first to take this streamlined approach to applications. Not that the other information was not available in the art, but the &#8220;Splashing Hands&#8221; perspective was created to serve a specific purpose for those tasked to protection of cultural assets.

So it is with Limalama and it&#8217;s Motion-Kenpo brother. While the progenitor influence was designed to be wholly offensive in nature and philosophy, Sifu Lefiti and subsequently his junior Ed Parker, saw the defensive potential in the vehicle. Although Limalama is more closely aligned with the source material in philosophy and teaching, Parker chose to take a more conceptual approach. Parker&#8217;s method relying on a motion-based approach, allowed heavy interpretation by those with previous martial backgrounds to assimilate into motion-kenpo relatively easily, with limited input from Ed Parker personally. Thus, the much more successful Motion-Kenpo, reigns business-like over the more deliberately taught Limalama.

This same breakdown of components can be seen in all of the Parker interpretations, with various focus shifts predicated on era, purpose, and philosophical changes as knowledge evolved. Initially Parker came to the mainland with no codified bank of knowledge or information other than his personal experiences, and a set of personal three by five cards inscribed with technique ideas gleaned from his relationship with Professor Chow. Parker&#8217;s only &#8220;Kenpo teacher,&#8221; William Kwai Sun Chow, had no real system at the time choosing to freelance classes with real world street experiments, and testing the efficacy of his own innovative ideas. It was really left to senior students under Chow like Sijo Emperado, and his junior Ed Parker, to eventually begin the codification process of creating &#8220;systems.&#8221; 

But Sijo Emperado (and friends), and the resultant Kajukenbo System(s) were in many ways like Sifu Lefiti and Limalama. Enjoying a significantly tremendous success as a martial art, but choosing a different philosophical approach to teaching than the wholly business-driven &#8220;motion-Kenpo.&#8221;

So the methods were set long ago in the roots of the art. &#8220;Forms&#8221; contain all of the complexities of the art, including answers to obscure questions of timing, angles, and postures, along with biomechanical codifications of information. This is why the old school methods of learning &#8220;Forms&#8221; is so painstakingly precise, and specific. These methods are still quite observable in the proper teaching of vehicles like Taiji, which only contains this singular component, sans &#8220;Sets,&#8221; and &#8220;applications.&#8221; This method is noticeably absent in modern interpretations because of its requirement of, at minimum, a &#8220;master&#8221; level teacher to transfer the information. This was great for an art, but bad for proliferating a business.

&#8220;Sets&#8221; were designed to hone specific skills, and usually concentrated on specific aspects of training whether it was stances, kicks, punches, or footwork. Forms and Sets co-existed well with general knowledge of the former focused in the latter.

Only a master level teacher than was able to decode the Forms, and thus teach the applications derived from them, utilizing the skills learned in sets to make them functional. This was how the applications were originally taught. Learn the Forms slow and painstakingly correct. Practice your Sets to develop your skills, and the teacher would extrapolate the applications from the Forms and share them with you. But the applications were more freeform based on Forms Information, and no real codified techniques.

As usually Parker took a creative an innovative approach, that unfortunately was derailed as he moved into the commercial era, but nevertheless, continued to prevail in some form in his motion idea.

Taking from Professor Chow the idea of focusing on applications over codification fit perfectly with the business of Kenpo, and created a hybrid of methods. Originally the forms didn&#8217;t exist, so the concentration on codified self-defense techniques was the order of the day. But when Parker began studying with Chinese Masters he began to understand the importance of forms, and began the codification process of basic forms of various influences. These forms ended with what most know as Short Form Three as the business took flight.

With the diversion to the business, additional Forms were ultimately created but without the depth of knowledge, or biomechanical cohesion of previous work. These Forms and Sets as well were derived from and/or created for different purposes other than archiving information.

Ed Parker made a conscious decision to divert from the Chinese Method of concentrating on Forms, to Self-defense techniques as the repository of information, but that aspect never made it into the business. Instead he incorporated the Splashing Hands Application Concept to Self-Defense techniques. Utilizing instead, minimal skill with maximum applications to vulnerable body parts. It was a perfect match of function over form, and is the singular entity that made the business with limited instruction possible.

But of course it created a contradiction. Elongated technique sequences executed with any degree of skill would preclude its need in the initial stages. But, the business demanded more and more superficial information and rank promotions, over a small amount of in-dept knowledge to keep unmotivated students from being bored. But, anyone who thinks realistically that in a &#8220;5 Swords&#8221; scenario, after a hand-sword to the neck and fingers to the eyes, the sequence ether requires or needs additional strikes to the stomach, and neck of what should be a helpless individual is disingenuous in their thought process, intellectually deficient, and in some instances boarder-line criminal.

Ultimately Mr. Parker intent was to divide the art into specific entities to preserve the information. While he spoke to me in generalities, much of the specific language is mine. Sets would remain unchanged but expanded to include specific realistic drills to enhance the learning process. In my teaching, this is where the A.O.D. (Anticipated Offensive Drills) reside. All of these drill sets require defensive footwork and blocking under the adrenal stress of possible injury.

When an offensive component is added to the A.O.D.&#8217;s, they become &#8220;Dictionary&#8221; Self-Defense Techniques. These are self-defense techniques executed under the specific assumption of anticipating the assault, and ending the confrontation quickly and decisively. The Dictionary self-defense techniques are a bridge between the Forms, and Sets to the Self-Defense Techniques.

This component most closely resembles the stand-up confrontations often seen in sparring, but more like JKD Training. The motion-business version was called, &#8220;Freestyle Formulas.&#8221; Taken from its street focus and adapted to tournament use, they were overly complex, formulized, and never caught on with the business of teaching. Only a few ever fully utilized or even understood them.

Forms are categorized by Course Level and have specific purposes of focus in training. Containing once again, very precise information of execution, they buttress the skill producing Sets and form a bridge to the A.O.D. Drills.

Because he started with, and found them more practical for modern applications, Mr. Parker shifted the archiving properties, to Self-Defense Techniques. Known now as &#8220;Encyclopedia Self-Defense Techniques,&#8221; they contain all of the in-depth information that previously could only be found in the old Forms.

Executed properly, they insure function while providing essential information that cannot be presented in the other components. They also allow, once again executed properly, that only the first part of the sequence should be needed to be successful in application. 

The rest of the technique serves as information for independent extrapolation of information, independent applications, or as a bridge of the preceding material should it become rarely necessary, all while serving its archive function. This is also why techniques may not be altered. To do so would be like slowly pulling pages out of your encyclopedia, and wondering where all the information went after most of the pages are removed.

Advanced students may make knowledgeable changes in sequences for their personal use, but the Encyclopedia version, or Default Techniques are taught and remain unchanged. The system is cast in stone and must remain so to allow all students the exposure and access to information that might otherwise elude them, and keeps the knowledge components of the Dictionary, Encyclopedia, and constituent aspects intact for all future generations of students and instructors alike as reference tools.

So to answer the question, &#8220;Should you finish a technique sequence?&#8221; It depends upon the technique, circumstances, and interpretation. My goal is &#8220;No.&#8221; But then, who says we have to start at the beginning? All of the information we archive is valid, and has multiple applications and levels. On defense, the attacker may initiate a response of our choosing, but so may we initiate an offensive or defensive application from anywhere in the sequence of information. That&#8217;s the value of having reference material. You can always look up, examine, and use proper information in many ways, but it must always stem from a solid, unshakeable source of material, and not a bunch of conceptual ideas open to interpretations.


----------



## jks9199

Fantastic post, with a lot of information.  It brings together stuff from several recent threads -- and builds on it.

Thanks!


----------



## girlbug2

I just noticed Doc that your profile says "age 17"! Are you pulling our leg so to speak?

You are far, far too knowledgeable to be merely 17 years old! And believe me, I say that with respect and envy!


----------



## Doc

girlbug2 said:


> I just noticed Doc that your profile says "age 17"! Are you pulling our leg so to speak?
> 
> You are far, far too knowledgeable to be merely 17 years old! And believe me, I say that with respect and envy!



My date of birth is listed as 12.15.1990. The date of my dear friend and mentor's passing.

In reality, I'm ancient.

Thank you.


----------



## punisher73

As always a great and informative post.  I have read before that SGM Parker only created up to Short 3, and that the forms after that were motion driven and violate certain principles in some cases.

My question is, when it comes to the 154 self-defense techniques are all of them to be included, or are some of them "motion-based" for the business model?  Do you use all of the 154 techniques or have you dropped some, or modified them to fit into bio-mechanics etc.?


----------



## Doc

punisher73 said:


> As always a great and informative post.  I have read before that SGM Parker only created up to Short 3, and that the forms after that were motion driven and violate certain principles in some cases.
> 
> My question is, when it comes to the 154 self-defense techniques are all of them to be included, or are some of them "motion-based" for the business model?  Do you use all of the 154 techniques or have you dropped some, or modified them to fit into bio-mechanics etc.?



Many of the techniques are the results of the nebulous "Category Completion" business model, and are without realistic merit. Some are "entertainment wrestling" based. Most of them jump out at you and you recognize them right away, as being not quite right in reality. Also there are techniques that are not supported by the "system" itself on the offensive end. Techniques like "Twisted Twig" for a wrist-flex throw require someone to teach the attack properly before you can begin to work on a defense. Most just hand their arm to the attacker, and then snatch it back. Realistic training it isn't. Because of a lack of knowledge, most teach to simply "move first" on the more difficult technique scenarios to disguise the lack of knowledge. This too is unrealistic. Some techniques dropped, some re-worked, and new ones created to address the untouched material sir.


----------



## JTKenpo

Doc said:


> Many of the techniques are the results of the nebulous "Category Completion" business model, and are without realistic merit. Some are "entertainment wrestling" based. Most of them jump out at you and you recognize them right away, as being not quite right in reality. Also there are techniques that are not supported by the "system" itself on the offensive end. Techniques like "Twisted Twig" for a wrist-flex throw require someone to teach the attack properly before you can begin to work on a defense. Most just hand their arm to the attacker, and then snatch it back. Realistic training it isn't. Because of a lack of knowledge, most teach to simply "move first" on the more difficult technique scenarios to disguise the lack of knowledge. This too is unrealistic. Some techniques dropped, some re-worked, and new ones created to address the untouched material sir.


 

Doc if I haven't said it in the past, Thank you for making your knowledge and experience available for those not in your part of the world.

Would you be so kind as to elaborate on "category completion"?  In another thread it was eluded to that this concept doesn't exist.


----------



## Jimi

Doc, Very insightful posts. I trained with a man I guess you could call a renegade Kajukenbo Instructor (Henry Sotelo). One of the sequences he taught me back in the mid 80's was one that passed a lead kick then intercepted a lead hand, following with a sleeve grab to control the hand while hook kicking the back of opponents kicking leg at the knee and nudging his knee out giving me his back. Then hitting the opponents kidney with the rear hand like a short uppercut followed by the lead hand sliding up near opponents arm to a short ridgehand (Wing) to the throat. Stepping behind the opponent and grabbing his chin with the lead (Left hand in this sequence) and the back of his head for a twisting neck break. I loved it. But he also confused us with a pivoting left rising vertical heel kick (Hackey sack- SipaSipa) to the groin as a finish. We laughed saying, we just snapped the neck and we now add insult to injury by kicking the groin. LOL. Thought it was akin to shooting someone then kicking him in the head. LOL. I always thought that Kenpo/Kenbo has great finishing techniques even if some do a bit of overkill. That is just the nature of Kenpo/Kenbo I guess.


----------



## Doc

JTKenpo said:


> Doc if I haven't said it in the past, Thank you for making your knowledge and experience available for those not in your part of the world.
> 
> Would you be so kind as to elaborate on "category completion"?  In another thread it was eluded to that this concept doesn't exist.



Thank you sir. "Category Completion" is a concept that was used to flesh out the commercial system when they began the process of creating techniques for consideration for the business. It created a lot of techniques that many find difficult and/or unnecessary. 

It begins by taking a specific attack and then exploring it dimensionally. As an example, you take a right punch and then you create a series of techniques for the punch where you step inside, step outside, step back, step forward, defend over, and defend under the punch to "complete the categories" of possibilities. Oddly enough there were some categories that were never completed as it began to become more complex, and difficult to do so.

As a concept in and of itself, it is not a bad idea unless you end up creating poor results. Using it as a guide, it is not a bad thing in the creation process, but unfortunately it was often used as a mandate for awhile and fostered some bad ideas for what it was intended to do.


----------



## JTKenpo

Doc said:


> Oddly enough there were some categories that were never completed as it began to become more complex, and difficult to do so.
> quote]
> Thank you for elaborating, I have been introduced to the concept and understand it, but never would have been able to put it into words.
> 
> OOh I see a can of worms lets open it!!
> 
> Doc, would you be interested in elaborating on the categories that weren't completed?  Was it a matter of too difficult for the business model or time restraints and it just wasn't high enough on Mr. Parkers priority list?


----------



## Doc

JTKenpo said:


> Doc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oddly enough there were some categories that were never completed as it began to become more complex, and difficult to do so.
> quote]
> Thank you for elaborating, I have been introduced to the concept and understand it, but never would have been able to put it into words.
> 
> OOh I see a can of worms lets open it!!
> 
> Doc, would you be interested in elaborating on the categories that weren't completed?  Was it a matter of too difficult for the business model or time restraints and it just wasn't high enough on Mr. Parkers priority list?
> 
> 
> 
> "Open no can, before its time."
> 
> Actually it was a combination of factors. If you look at the "bear-hug" category, they ignored the flank as an example. In weapons they represented underhand and overhand stabbing techniques, but no inside or outside slashes. Old style revolver in the stomach, or back, but no guns to the head, or held street side-ways, etc. "Club" attacks turned into lightweight Escrima rattan attacks instead of the heavier bludgeon they were intended to be. The deal was, let's not make things to complicated, or difficult.
> 
> As the degree of difficulty rose, it became clear some things could not be addressed in the commercial product, without master level teachers with significant knowledge and street experience. The business model of teaching cannot produce these teachers, so they almost always came from outside from other arts, if these things were addressed at all.
Click to expand...


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka

Doc said:


> "Open no can, before its time."
> 
> Actually it was a combination of factors. If you look at the "bear-hug" category, they ignored the flank as an example. In weapons they represented underhand and overhand stabbing techniques, but no inside or outside slashes. Old style revolver in the stomach, or back, but no guns to the head, or held street side-ways, etc. "Club" attacks turned into lightweight Escrima rattan attacks instead of the heavier bludgeon they were intended to be. The deal was, let's not make things to complicated, or difficult.
> 
> As the degree of difficulty rose, it became clear some things could not be addressed in the commercial product, without master level teachers with significant knowledge and street experience. The business model of teaching cannot produce these teachers, so they almost always came from outside from other arts, if these things were addressed at all.


 
One of the many things I enjoy about your perspectives, Sir. I have been attacked by ball-bats and pool-cues; very different movement dynamics in the attack, response, and counter-attack contexts than in Storm techs learned with taped broomsticks or rattan canes. Have also been charged with an axe, and squared off against guns to the face, and shotguns at a distance too far to engage. Developed a couple of SD techs against flank hugs, cuz that's where the greco-roman and freestyle guys like to go...then squeeze the heck out of the opposite side floating ribs.

Went to kajukenbo (and some splinters of it), limalama (and some splinters of it), Japanese tanto boogie, and arnis to get some slash counters, and viable alternatives to snapping attacks with a knife (faced a couple of each bouncing, some with knives, some with busted glass, and the Lance techniques didn't offer much assistance). Oddly, I didn't learn anything that wasn't already in kenpo; it had just been arranged differently to account for the isms of a particular weapon or attack, and had I just put some thought into it followed by a little earnest training time...


----------



## Doc

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:


> One of the many things I enjoy about your perspectives, Sir. I have been attacked by ball-bats and pool-cues; very different movement dynamics in the attack, response, and counter-attack contexts than in Storm techs learned with taped broomsticks or rattan canes. Have also been charged with an axe, and squared off against guns to the face, and shotguns at a distance too far to engage. Developed a couple of SD techs against flank hugs, cuz that's where the greco-roman and freestyle guys like to go...then squeeze the heck out of the opposite side floating ribs.
> 
> Went to kajukenbo (and some splinters of it), limalama (and some splinters of it), Japanese tanto boogie, and arnis to get some slash counters, and viable alternatives to snapping attacks with a knife (faced a couple of each bouncing, some with knives, some with busted glass, and the Lance techniques didn't offer much assistance). Oddly, I didn't learn anything that wasn't already in kenpo; it had just been arranged differently to account for the isms of a particular weapon or attack, and had I just put some thought into it followed by a little earnest training time...



I agree. The genius of Ed Parker is apparent to some. But you have to see a knowledgeable and experienced to bring these things to the forefront and address them. Kenpo "system" black belts don't have that in general.

Remind me to limit my amount of time in your presence. I don't get that much action at work chasing felons. To old anyway.


----------



## KenpoDave

Interesting question.  Loved your post and insight, Doc.

Ted Sumner has an article on his website talking about what the definition of a technique is.  A quick summary is that a self defense technique recognizes a threat, applies an effective and suitable defensive solution to the threat, and executes an escape from the situation.

So, in that sense, yes, you should finish a technique.  Otherwise, you may get finished yourself.

But, should you finish 5 Swords(?) is a different concept.  From my second lesson in Tracy's, during which I learned a technique called Fang of the Cobra (sorry, don't know a Parker equivalent name), my instructor began to continually repeat that it was more important to finish the opponent than to finish the technique "as written."

Many kenpo techniques, if you describe them based upon their effect on the body, you end up with, "trap the hands, kill the opponent, blind the opponent's left eye, blind his right eye, crush his testicles, and break his foot."  In that order.

But I killed him on the second move.  Maybe.  

There is an "assumption of success/assumption of failure" thread on KT, and I think that there is value in learning the overkill, just in case.  I also think there is value in learning to alter target placement to make a technique either more or less devastating.  Not every attempted choke is attempted murder, and experience and wisdom should be allowed to make some choices when the situation allows.


----------



## JTKenpo

KenpoDave said:


> Interesting question. Loved your post and insight, Doc.
> 
> Ted Sumner has an article on his website talking about what the definition of a technique is. A quick summary is that a self defense technique recognizes a threat, applies an effective and suitable defensive solution to the threat, and executes an escape from the situation.
> 
> So, in that sense, yes, you should finish a technique. Otherwise, you may get finished yourself.
> 
> But, should you finish 5 Swords(?) is a different concept. From my second lesson in Tracy's, during which I learned a technique called Fang of the Cobra (sorry, don't know a Parker equivalent name), my instructor began to continually repeat that it was more important to finish the opponent than to finish the technique "as written."
> 
> Many kenpo techniques, if you describe them based upon their effect on the body, you end up with, "trap the hands, kill the opponent, blind the opponent's left eye, blind his right eye, crush his testicles, and break his foot." In that order.
> 
> But I killed him on the second move. Maybe.
> 
> There is an "assumption of success/assumption of failure" thread on KT, and I think that there is value in learning the overkill, just in case. I also think there is value in learning to alter target placement to make a technique either more or less devastating. Not every attempted choke is attempted murder, and experience and wisdom should be allowed to make some choices when the situation allows.


 

"But then, who says we have to start at the beginning? All of the information we archive is valid, and has multiple applications and levels."  Doc

I think this says it best for me and this is kind of where I was going in another thread about overkill.  Too many times people get caught up in "the technique doesn't work because it is too long and I can't finish it".  What they need to see is thatwe have all these different self-defense techniques and applications so that you have options in different scenarios.  So when you find yourself in that position you can apply that "part" of the technique until the danger is gone as you see fit, or as the attack changes you can adapt to the situation.


----------



## JTKenpo

"This component most closely resembles the stand-up confrontations often seen in sparring, but more like JKD Training. The motion-business version was called, Freestyle Formulas. Taken from its street focus and adapted to tournament use, they were overly complex, formulized, and never caught on with the business of teaching. Only a few ever fully utilized or even understood them."  Doc


It is too bad that few ever utilized these techniques.  Anyone who wants to get a better understanding of footwork within a self defense situation should really seek these out.  For me it is almost like having a system within a system, it really feels like a completely different set of movements not just from what I was used to before AK but even different from the AK techs and forms.  Of course there are similarities but still..


----------



## Doc

KenpoDave said:


> Interesting question.  Loved your post and insight, Doc.
> 
> Ted Sumner has an article on his website talking about what the definition of a technique is.  A quick summary is that a self defense technique recognizes a threat, applies an effective and suitable defensive solution to the threat, and executes an escape from the situation.
> 
> So, in that sense, yes, you should finish a technique.  Otherwise, you may get finished yourself.
> 
> But, should you finish 5 Swords(?) is a different concept.  From my second lesson in Tracy's, during which I learned a technique called Fang of the Cobra (sorry, don't know a Parker equivalent name), my instructor began to continually repeat that it was more important to finish the opponent than to finish the technique "as written."
> 
> Many kenpo techniques, if you describe them based upon their effect on the body, you end up with, "trap the hands, kill the opponent, blind the opponent's left eye, blind his right eye, crush his testicles, and break his foot."  In that order.
> 
> But I killed him on the second move.  Maybe.
> 
> There is an "assumption of success/assumption of failure" thread on KT, and I think that there is value in learning the overkill, just in case.  I also think there is value in learning to alter target placement to make a technique either more or less devastating.  Not every attempted choke is attempted murder, and experience and wisdom should be allowed to make some choices when the situation allows.


It's funny how things change over the years sir. Back in the day, "good technique" meant good basics. Every physical move was considered a technique unto itself. If you threw a good front kick, that was considered a "good technique."

Now most consider a series of moves a "technique." I still have the old school mentality, and everything else is just a series of good technique applications. If a singular move is effective and executed properly, it still is a "technique."

Because of this philosophical approach, I do not subscribe to the "overkill" concept. It would seem to be out of place in a self-defense based art. It is also the root philosophy of "Assumption of success, over Assumption of Failure." In the latter, it would be appropriately called "overkill." However, because of the philosophical methodology of our root training, we do not anticipate needing the entire "Encyclopedia" to answer a simple assault question, therefore it would indeed be overkill.

Anticipating the failure of your actions, to the extent that you've already thought about the rest of the technique is a self-fulfilling mindset. Especially if you consider that if your actions have failed, there is no guarantee the attacker is going to be where you might want him to be, doing what you've already anticipated to continue the "overkill" sequence. Better to learn what you need well enough so that you don't need it, and allow additional needed "technique" sequences to come to you, and utilize the rest of the Encyclopedia Scenario as self contained lessons of offense, defense, timing, posture, muscle re-assignment, etc. teaching an "overkill" mindset to me is like admitting what you do doesn't really work that well. Its not the way Mr. Parker looked at it in my development. That is why "Surviving the Initial Assault" portion of the Encyclopedia is so important, along with Dictionary responses. I'll have to read Ted Sumner's article when I get a chance. Good man. Thank you sir.


----------



## Doc

JTKenpo said:


> "But then, who says we have to start at the beginning? All of the information we archive is valid, and has multiple applications and levels."  Doc
> 
> I think this says it best for me and this is kind of where I was going in another thread about overkill.  Too many times people get caught up in "the technique doesn't work because it is too long and I can't finish it".  What they need to see is thatwe have all these different self-defense techniques and applications so that you have options in different scenarios.  So when you find yourself in that position you can apply that "part" of the technique until the danger is gone as you see fit, or as the attack changes you can adapt to the situation.


Yep! (for those who say I'm too verbose)


----------



## pete

Training to 'finish the technique' relies on repetitive practice of the extended sequences, so that it becomes burned-in to neuro-muscular memory.  The idea behind this method is that once the initial stimulus is recognized, the 'technique' can be performed quickly and powerfully without conscious thought.  In Chinese Martial Arts terms, this is characteristic of the 'External' method, where pure athletic conditioning, and speed through repitition and 'no mind' is desired.

Doc brings up the forms practice of taiji, where a whole system is codified within a single form. There are no 'techniques' per se, but martial applications of the movements and postures can be extracted, and are often, if not always, applicable to several types of attack or stimulus.

Tai Chi, Bagua, Xingyi are considered in Chinese Martial Arts to use 'Internal' methods of training. Here the principles and characteristics of the art are practiced with uninterupted conscious thought. The term 'mind intent' is often used, where there is 'intention' but not 'will.'  Therefore, internal methods have neither assumption of success nor failure... just what is. My intention may be one thing, but whether i succeed or fail, I now find myself in a new moment with new set of parameters and through my consciousness, or awareness, another intention. 

Will, such as will-power, leaves one with either success or failure. Failure is sometimes hard to move on from, and those few micro-seconds, or gaps in consciousness, may be the difference in life and death.  

When I train, it is those gaps in consciousness that I intend to avoid, while looking to take advantage of them should they occur in my opponent.

My interpretation of Doc's article is how Kenpo may have been 'Externalized' for ease of distribution.  My question is whether Kenpo ever really subscribed to Internal priciples...and if so, what training methods did it use to develop the mind to be responsive to change...

Pete.


----------



## Doc

JTKenpo said:


> "This component most closely resembles the stand-up confrontations often seen in sparring, but more like JKD Training. The motion-business version was called, Freestyle Formulas. Taken from its street focus and adapted to tournament use, they were overly complex, formulized, and never caught on with the business of teaching. Only a few ever fully utilized or even understood them."  Doc
> 
> 
> It is too bad that few ever utilized these techniques.  Anyone who wants to get a better understanding of footwork within a self defense situation should really seek these out.  For me it is almost like having a system within a system, it really feels like a completely different set of movements not just from what I was used to before AK but even different from the AK techs and forms.  Of course there are similarities but still..


Well that's because you are right sir. It utilizes a completely unique and different skill-set than the Encyclopedia of Self-Defense scenario sequences. One being essentially designed for surreptitious assaults, and the other for anticipated encounters. Thus one being more "Dictionary-like" in answering the question, and the other more "Encyclopedia-like." Doesn't that make sense?


----------



## Doc

pete said:


> Training to 'finish the technique' relies on repetitive practice of the extended sequences, so that it becomes burned-in to neuro-muscular memory.  The idea behind this method is that once the initial stimulus is recognized, the 'technique' can be performed quickly and powerfully without conscious thought.  In Chinese Martial Arts terms, this is characteristic of the 'External' method, where pure athletic conditioning, and speed through repitition and 'no mind' is desired.
> 
> Doc brings up the forms practice of taiji, where a whole system is codified within a single form. There are no 'techniques' per se, but martial applications of the movements and postures can be extracted, and are often, if not always, applicable to several types of attack or stimulus.
> 
> Tai Chi, Bagua, Xingyi are considered in Chinese Martial Arts to use 'Internal' methods of training. Here the principles and characteristics of the art are practiced with uninterupted conscious thought. The term 'mind intent' is often used, where there is 'intention' but not 'will.'  Therefore, internal methods have neither assumption of success nor failure... just what is. My intention may be one thing, but whether i succeed or fail, I now find myself in a new moment with new set of parameters and through my consciousness, or awareness, another intention.
> 
> Will, such as will-power, leaves one with either success or failure. Failure is sometimes hard to move on from, and those few micro-seconds, or gaps in consciousness, may be the difference in life and death.
> 
> When I train, it is those gaps in consciousness that I intend to avoid, while looking to take advantage of them should they occur in my opponent.
> 
> My interpretation of Doc's article is how Kenpo may have been 'Externalized' for ease of distribution.  My question is whether Kenpo ever really subscribed to Internal priciples...and if so, what training methods did it use to develop the mind to be responsive to change...
> 
> Pete.



VERY well said sir, and you point out what I thought was obvious, but in hindsight apparently is not. Thank you for making such a valuable point, and reminding me of that fact. The commercial product based on motion is wholly external. I've seen people becomes so married to "Assumption of Failure" mindset and sequences that they, to their own detriment, were attempting to do things required by the ingrained sequence that were wholly detached from what is happening in front of them.


----------



## punisher73

Doc said:


> It's funny how things change over the years sir. Back in the day, "good technique" meant good basics. Every physical move was considered a technique unto itself. If you threw a good front kick, that was considered a "good technique."
> 
> Now most consider a series of moves a "technique." I still have the old school mentality, and everything else is just a series of good technique applications. If a singular move is effective and executed properly, it still is a "technique."
> 
> Because of this philosophical approach, I do not subscribe to the "overkill" concept. It would seem to be out of place in a self-defense based art. It is also the root philosophy of "Assumption of success, over Assumption of Failure." In the latter, it would be appropriately called "overkill." However, because of the philosophical methodology of our root training, we do not anticipate needing the entire "Encyclopedia" to answer a simple assault question, therefore it would indeed be overkill.
> 
> Anticipating the failure of your actions, to the extent that you've already thought about the rest of the technique is a self-fulfilling mindset. Especially if you consider that if your actions have failed, there is no guarantee the attacker is going to be where you might want him to be, doing what you've already anticipated to continue the "overkill" sequence. Better to learn what you need well enough so that you don't need it, and allow additional needed "technique" sequences to come to you, and utilize the rest of the Encyclopedia Scenario as self contained lessons of offense, defense, timing, posture, muscle re-assignment, etc. teaching an "overkill" mindset to me is like admitting what you do doesn't really work that well. Its not the way Mr. Parker looked at it in my development. That is why "Surviving the Initial Assault" portion of the Encyclopedia is so important, along with Dictionary responses. I'll have to read Ted Sumner's article when I get a chance. Good man. Thank you sir.


 

Here is the link to the mentioned article

http://www.sanjosekenpo.com/technique.htm


----------



## JTKenpo

Doc said:


> Well that's because you are right sir. It utilizes a completely unique and different skill-set than the Encyclopedia of Self-Defense scenario sequences. One being essentially designed for surreptitious assaults, and the other for anticipated encounters. Thus one being more "Dictionary-like" in answering the question, and the other more "Encyclopedia-like." Doesn't that make sense?


 

To quote one of your responses "yep"


----------



## KenpoDave

Doc said:


> It's funny how things change over the years sir. Back in the day, "good technique" meant good basics. Every physical move was considered a technique unto itself. If you threw a good front kick, that was considered a "good technique."


 
That was one of the things that gave me trouble when I switched to kenpo.  



> Now most consider a series of moves a "technique." I still have the old school mentality, and everything else is just a series of good technique applications. If a singular move is effective and executed properly, it still is a "technique."


 
It becomes difficult to differentiate between "good technique" and "a good technique" when reading posts.  We could end up with "a good technique executed with good technique."



> Because of this philosophical approach, I do not subscribe to the "overkill" concept. It would seem to be out of place in a self-defense based art. It is also the root philosophy of "Assumption of success, over Assumption of Failure." In the latter, it would be appropriately called "overkill."


 
It would seem that most kenpo techniques (across the board and across the styles) are predicated on the assumption of failure.  They appear to be at least designed with that possibility in mind.



> However, because of the philosophical methodology of our root training, we do not anticipate needing the entire "Encyclopedia" to answer a simple assault question, therefore it would indeed be overkill.


 
Exactly as I was taught.  Concern yourself with finishing the opponent, not the technique.



> Anticipating the failure of your actions, to the extent that you've already thought about the rest of the technique is a self-fulfilling mindset. Especially if you consider that if your actions have failed, there is no guarantee the attacker is going to be where you might want him to be, doing what you've already anticipated to continue the "overkill" sequence. Better to learn what you need well enough so that you don't need it, and allow additional needed "technique" sequences to come to you, and utilize the rest of the Encyclopedia Scenario as self contained lessons of offense, defense, timing, posture, muscle re-assignment, etc. teaching an "overkill" mindset to me is like admitting what you do doesn't really work that well.


 
Sounds like you are on the same page with my instructor and the other mentors I have had along the way.  More simplified explanations, but the same concept.  



> Its not the way Mr. Parker looked at it in my development. That is why "Surviving the Initial Assault" portion of the Encyclopedia is so important, along with Dictionary responses. I'll have to read Ted Sumner's article when I get a chance. Good man. Thank you sir.


 
Mr. Sumner's got some good stuff on that, too.


----------



## Flying Crane

KenpoDave said:


> It becomes difficult to differentiate between "good technique" and "a good technique" when reading posts. We could end up with "a good technique executed with good technique."


 
I tend to think of "technique" as your basics, i.e. sidekick, stance, punch, block.  Each of the building blocks that can be used effectively together.

To differentiate, I prefer the term "Self Defense Technique" in reference to the extensive curriculum of named scenario combinations.  In my mind it just makes the distinction clear.


----------



## Rich_Hale

Hi Doc, long time no see . . . too long.

I dont know if the duel statements confused anyone, but at one point you stated:

The system is cast in stone and must remain so to allow all students the exposure and access to information that might otherwise elude them, and keeps the knowledge components of the Dictionary, Encyclopedia, and constituent aspects intact for all future generations of students and instructors alike as reference tools.

Then in a later post you stated:

Some techniques dropped, some re-worked, and new ones created to address the untouched material sir.

This must mean the first statement, the system being cast in stone, refers to your system of Kenpo and not Mr. Parkers, correct?

On a slightly different subject you often refer to the 154 technique system as a commercial model put in place to make money . . . but just about every commercially successful Kenpo school I see has greatly reduced technique requirement. Having taught commercially myself, I found the number of techniques to be the single biggest detriment to the commercial success of my schools.

On the other hand, there are several very successful schools in my area. And at one of them the requirement for yellow belt is one self defense technique which consists of a single front snap kick (no forms are required). They charge several hundred dollars a month and have little black belts running around like locusts. Now that is a commercially successful school.

I honestly cant help but think Mr. Parker knew that if he simplified, or eliminated most of our techniques and forms then did away with our freestyle techniques and sets altogether  we would all become more successful on a commercial basis.

I just cant believe that a man of his genus didnt know and struggle with that himself. So my question is, why do you think Mr. Parker kept adding to such a material laden system (if it were for commercial success) when the real commercial success was going to schools that taught simple forms and a hand full of one-step sparing techniques?

With the utmost respect sir, I just cant figure that one out.


----------



## Doc

Rich_Hale said:


> Hi Doc, long time no see . . . too long.
> 
> I dont know if the duel statements confused anyone, but at one point you stated:
> 
> The system is cast in stone and must remain so to allow all students the exposure and access to information that might otherwise elude them, and keeps the knowledge components of the Dictionary, Encyclopedia, and constituent aspects intact for all future generations of students and instructors alike as reference tools.
> 
> Then in a later post you stated:
> 
> Some techniques dropped, some re-worked, and new ones created to address the untouched material sir.
> 
> This must mean the first statement, the system being cast in stone, refers to your system of Kenpo and not Mr. Parkers, correct?
> 
> On a slightly different subject you often refer to the 154 technique system as a commercial model put in place to make money . . . but just about every commercially successful Kenpo school I see has greatly reduced technique requirement. Having taught commercially myself, I found the number of techniques to be the single biggest detriment to the commercial success of my schools.
> 
> On the other hand, there are several very successful schools in my area. And at one of them the requirement for yellow belt is one self defense technique which consists of a single front snap kick (no forms are required). They charge several hundred dollars a month and have little black belts running around like locusts. Now that is a commercially successful school.
> 
> I honestly cant help but think Mr. Parker knew that if he simplified, or eliminated most of our techniques and forms then did away with our freestyle techniques and sets altogether  we would all become more successful on a commercial basis.
> 
> I just cant believe that a man of his genus didnt know and struggle with that himself. So my question is, why do you think Mr. Parker kept adding to such a material laden system (if it were for commercial success) when the real commercial success was going to schools that taught simple forms and a hand full of one-step sparing techniques?
> 
> With the utmost respect sir, I just cant figure that one out.


Well of course you're right Rich I should have said "the way I teach." I don't really consider it "my" system, but the way I was taught "the" system if you will. But then I wasn't really taught "that" system either, and tend to struggle reconciling "that" system, while teaching "his" system the way "I" learned it. Dammit Rich now I'm more confused than ever. You do that to me every time. 

But yes you are right. When you look at the plethora of truly commercial schools, the benchmark is "simplicity." Many of the Kenpo schools in the Parker lineage have evolved, (or degenerated) to that perspective as well. But I think the real difference is those schools have no other true purpose other than the commercial appeal they sell. Although I have to believe some actually believe it is a better way to teach commercially. 

In fact, if all you want is quick self defense, it is better. But therein lies the problem. Today people want to belong to a system and receive rank recognition for their "workouts." It feeds the American Cultural need for an external sense of accomplishment that they can display for others to see, so unlike the Asian Culture from which it all springs.

Mr. Parker struggled with the multiple identities, and dichotomy of purposes of what he was selling. But nevertheless, in comparison to where he began, the Big Red System was created to sell commercially to proliferate, and jump start the American appetite for future levels of information for those who wanted it.

On one hand he wanted to sell quick self-defense skills for profit. But then on the other he was laying groundwork for a true martial arts system, and struggled with trying to keep the two perspectives viable at the same time while making money. No easy task, that ultimately failed and forced him to acquiesce to the pressures of the monster he created himself.

Sometimes they are mutually exclusive, and at others, not. But recognize his hopes in doing so was in the hands of teachers like yourself. It was people like you that he envisioned could make it work, even as at cross-purposes at it may seem. In fact the rare teachers do make it work still, as he himself could have had he settled into a school. But his problem was also his strength, in that he relied on his teachers to create that balance. 

Most did not, and we both know that some guy with no experience, cannot be made into a teacher in that commercial environment just because he learned all the techniques and forms. It takes much, much more than that. Unfortunately, these later generations of students borne and bred in the commercial studio have become its primary instructors. 

While there are a few like yourself and Dennis Conatser, who strive to help others make sense of the genius of what Mr. Parker had to offer, we both know the bulk of them are just empire building to make a buck and feed their egos with inflated rank. 

Mr. Parker had a tiger by the tail, and couldn't let go. The good news is there are a few of us left who still know the genius of the man, and what he truly had to offer, and strive to educate those who are actually interested. If he were alive, he would be on this forum right now, blogging his butt off.

Thanks Rich for helping to keep the Eternal Flame burning. Funny, it just struck me most won't even grasp the significance of what I just said. Anyway one day Rich we have to break some bread so I can tell you all the things the Old Man used to say about you when you weren't around. Some of it is even complimentary. 

For those that don't know, Rich Hale is the only person Ed Parker wanted me to train with, and was excited by the prospect, and told me so. he felt we would make, in his words, "Quite a team." To which I replied, "But he's too tall to be Robin." To which Mr. Parker replied with a big grin, "I didn't know Batman was a brudda."


----------



## HKphooey

In teaching I have learned using analogies help get a point across
Kenpo can be compared to a public speaker.  Some people have great speaking skills because they practice a speech over and over again, but sometimes they lose the essence of what they are trying to communicate or can get caught of guard with a simple question.  Others are great off the cuff speakers and can change direction on a dime, without too much thought.  It is very difficult to stumble them, no matter what you ask.
I have seen the same in kenpo.  Some can regurgitate all the Parker Books and techniques, but they do not know why they do what they do.  Others may not seem to be polished to perfection in the eyes of their kenpo peers, but they are the ones that are still standing at the end of a fight.  
I personally feel the difference is in the person, not the art.
Individuals like Doc and Mr. Hale are examples of great minds perpetuating their own interpretations of kenpo.  
I think GM Parker is looking down on all of us and smiling.  Good, bad or indifferent we are all trying to kenpo to the next level.
If you start the technique and the attacker is still advancing, then finish the technique.  Simple as that. J
Doc, Mr. Hale and others.  I hope to one day meet all the greats.


----------



## marlon

you know it is really good to shut up[ and learn sometimes...thanks everyone...time for me to shut up again

respectfully,
Marlon


----------



## marlon

Doc said:


> *Are You Supposed To Finish Self-Defense Techniques?​*Ron Chapél​
> 
> 
> 
> There are many misconceptions that permeate modern self-defense martial arts "systems." Most of them have their origins somewhere in the Ed Parker influence or lineage, based on his successful implementation of business concepts to insure fiscal success, with what is essentially a non-profitable entity by nature. Creating an amalgam of profitability, and reasonable successful applications brought with it many diverse concepts that often contradict each other, or at a minimum, serve to add fuel to the fire of a confusing hybrid activity, at best. The strict dichotomy between an art, and its self-defense potential are often loss on many.
> 
> One of these is the understanding surrounding elongated self-defense technique sequences. While many of the uniformed see them as real world applicable, others recognize the folly of such notions. Depending upon perspective and philosophy, this is either completely unreasonable, or impractical, and sometimes both. But all the perspectives are borne of a misunderstanding philosophically where Mr. Parker intended to ultimately take his many art(s) and his singular ultimate interpretation.
> 
> To clear the picture we must look back first to the traditional teaching of the arts from the cultural progenitors perspective of the Old Chinese. Traditionally the art was taught through many complex forms and sets, for dual purposes. First and foremost was for the preservation of significant accumulated information that defied codification in any other form.
> 
> Second were addendum sets that served to highlight specific applications, and promote attendant skills. Lastly were accelerated strictly functional applications that didnt contain the information of the forms, but put skills set into applications.
> 
> Historically, many arts, and their proponents influenced the interpretation(s) of Ed Parker. While Splashing Hands spawned the creation or interpretation(s) of Limalama under Sifu Haumea Lefiti, Parkers motion-based product as well has its roots in the Mok Gar strict applications of Splashing Hands. This is significant because Splashing Hands/Limalama is to Mok Gar, what Splashing Hands/Motion-Kenpo is to Ed Parkers yet undeveloped American Kenpo vehicle.
> 
> To my knowledge Mok Gar was one of the first to take this streamlined approach to applications. Not that the other information was not available in the art, but the Splashing Hands perspective was created to serve a specific purpose for those tasked to protection of cultural assets.
> 
> So it is with Limalama and its Motion-Kenpo brother. While the progenitor influence was designed to be wholly offensive in nature and philosophy, Sifu Lefiti and subsequently his junior Ed Parker, saw the defensive potential in the vehicle. Although Limalama is more closely aligned with the source material in philosophy and teaching, Parker chose to take a more conceptual approach. Parkers method relying on a motion-based approach, allowed heavy interpretation by those with previous martial backgrounds to assimilate into motion-kenpo relatively easily, with limited input from Ed Parker personally. Thus, the much more successful Motion-Kenpo, reigns business-like over the more deliberately taught Limalama.
> 
> This same breakdown of components can be seen in all of the Parker interpretations, with various focus shifts predicated on era, purpose, and philosophical changes as knowledge evolved. Initially Parker came to the mainland with no codified bank of knowledge or information other than his personal experiences, and a set of personal three by five cards inscribed with technique ideas gleaned from his relationship with Professor Chow. Parkers only Kenpo teacher, William Kwai Sun Chow, had no real system at the time choosing to freelance classes with real world street experiments, and testing the efficacy of his own innovative ideas. It was really left to senior students under Chow like Sijo Emperado, and his junior Ed Parker, to eventually begin the codification process of creating systems.
> 
> But Sijo Emperado (and friends), and the resultant Kajukenbo System(s) were in many ways like Sifu Lefiti and Limalama. Enjoying a significantly tremendous success as a martial art, but choosing a different philosophical approach to teaching than the wholly business-driven motion-Kenpo.
> 
> So the methods were set long ago in the roots of the art. Forms contain all of the complexities of the art, including answers to obscure questions of timing, angles, and postures, along with biomechanical codifications of information. This is why the old school methods of learning Forms is so painstakingly precise, and specific. These methods are still quite observable in the proper teaching of vehicles like Taiji, which only contains this singular component, sans Sets, and applications. This method is noticeably absent in modern interpretations because of its requirement of, at minimum, a master level teacher to transfer the information. This was great for an art, but bad for proliferating a business.
> 
> Sets were designed to hone specific skills, and usually concentrated on specific aspects of training whether it was stances, kicks, punches, or footwork. Forms and Sets co-existed well with general knowledge of the former focused in the latter.
> 
> Only a master level teacher than was able to decode the Forms, and thus teach the applications derived from them, utilizing the skills learned in sets to make them functional. This was how the applications were originally taught. Learn the Forms slow and painstakingly correct. Practice your Sets to develop your skills, and the teacher would extrapolate the applications from the Forms and share them with you. But the applications were more freeform based on Forms Information, and no real codified techniques.
> 
> As usually Parker took a creative an innovative approach, that unfortunately was derailed as he moved into the commercial era, but nevertheless, continued to prevail in some form in his motion idea.
> 
> Taking from Professor Chow the idea of focusing on applications over codification fit perfectly with the business of Kenpo, and created a hybrid of methods. Originally the forms didnt exist, so the concentration on codified self-defense techniques was the order of the day. But when Parker began studying with Chinese Masters he began to understand the importance of forms, and began the codification process of basic forms of various influences. These forms ended with what most know as Short Form Three as the business took flight.
> 
> With the diversion to the business, additional Forms were ultimately created but without the depth of knowledge, or biomechanical cohesion of previous work. These Forms and Sets as well were derived from and/or created for different purposes other than archiving information.
> 
> Ed Parker made a conscious decision to divert from the Chinese Method of concentrating on Forms, to Self-defense techniques as the repository of information, but that aspect never made it into the business. Instead he incorporated the Splashing Hands Application Concept to Self-Defense techniques. Utilizing instead, minimal skill with maximum applications to vulnerable body parts. It was a perfect match of function over form, and is the singular entity that made the business with limited instruction possible.
> 
> But of course it created a contradiction. Elongated technique sequences executed with any degree of skill would preclude its need in the initial stages. But, the business demanded more and more superficial information and rank promotions, over a small amount of in-dept knowledge to keep unmotivated students from being bored. But, anyone who thinks realistically that in a 5 Swords scenario, after a hand-sword to the neck and fingers to the eyes, the sequence ether requires or needs additional strikes to the stomach, and neck of what should be a helpless individual is disingenuous in their thought process, intellectually deficient, and in some instances boarder-line criminal.
> 
> Ultimately Mr. Parker intent was to divide the art into specific entities to preserve the information. While he spoke to me in generalities, much of the specific language is mine. Sets would remain unchanged but expanded to include specific realistic drills to enhance the learning process. In my teaching, this is where the A.O.D. (Anticipated Offensive Drills) reside. All of these drill sets require defensive footwork and blocking under the adrenal stress of possible injury.
> 
> When an offensive component is added to the A.O.D.s, they become Dictionary Self-Defense Techniques. These are self-defense techniques executed under the specific assumption of anticipating the assault, and ending the confrontation quickly and decisively. The Dictionary self-defense techniques are a bridge between the Forms, and Sets to the Self-Defense Techniques.
> 
> This component most closely resembles the stand-up confrontations often seen in sparring, but more like JKD Training. The motion-business version was called, Freestyle Formulas. Taken from its street focus and adapted to tournament use, they were overly complex, formulized, and never caught on with the business of teaching. Only a few ever fully utilized or even understood them.
> 
> Forms are categorized by Course Level and have specific purposes of focus in training. Containing once again, very precise information of execution, they buttress the skill producing Sets and form a bridge to the A.O.D. Drills.
> 
> Because he started with, and found them more practical for modern applications, Mr. Parker shifted the archiving properties, to Self-Defense Techniques. Known now as Encyclopedia Self-Defense Techniques, they contain all of the in-depth information that previously could only be found in the old Forms.
> 
> Executed properly, they insure function while providing essential information that cannot be presented in the other components. They also allow, once again executed properly, that only the first part of the sequence should be needed to be successful in application.
> 
> The rest of the technique serves as information for independent extrapolation of information, independent applications, or as a bridge of the preceding material should it become rarely necessary, all while serving its archive function. This is also why techniques may not be altered. To do so would be like slowly pulling pages out of your encyclopedia, and wondering where all the information went after most of the pages are removed.
> 
> Advanced students may make knowledgeable changes in sequences for their personal use, but the Encyclopedia version, or Default Techniques are taught and remain unchanged. The system is cast in stone and must remain so to allow all students the exposure and access to information that might otherwise elude them, and keeps the knowledge components of the Dictionary, Encyclopedia, and constituent aspects intact for all future generations of students and instructors alike as reference tools.
> 
> So to answer the question, Should you finish a technique sequence? It depends upon the technique, circumstances, and interpretation. My goal is No. But then, who says we have to start at the beginning? All of the information we archive is valid, and has multiple applications and levels. On defense, the attacker may initiate a response of our choosing, but so may we initiate an offensive or defensive application from anywhere in the sequence of information. Thats the value of having reference material. You can always look up, examine, and use proper information in many ways, but it must always stem from a solid, unshakeable source of material, and not a bunch of conceptual ideas open to interpretations.


 


"my goal is , no" says so much and teaches so well... once again i respectfully recognize your mastery, sir.  Thank you

marlon


----------



## kenpo3631

Post deleted. I thought it might make a better Thread of it's own..


----------



## Rich_Hale

Doc,

I'm going up north to work out with Dave, on Monday in Santa Rosa, and when I get back I'll be headed over to Arizona and hope to hook up with Dennis.

So . . . if your ears start burning all next week, you will know it's me, Dave and Dennis talking smak about you.

Your little brother,


----------



## Doc

Rich_Hale said:


> Doc,
> 
> I'm going up north to work out with Dave, on Monday in Santa Rosa, and when I get back I'll be headed over to Arizona and hope to hook up with Dennis.
> 
> So . . . if your ears start burning all next week, you will know it's me, Dave and Dennis talking smak about you.
> 
> Your little brother,



They're already burning.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka

Rich_Hale said:


> Doc,
> 
> I'm going up north to work out with Dave, on Monday in Santa Rosa, and when I get back I'll be headed over to Arizona and hope to hook up with Dennis.
> 
> So . . . if your ears start burning all next week, you will know it's me, Dave and Dennis talking smak about you.
> 
> Your little brother,


 
Now, whatdaheck you trying to get me in trouble for? I do enough of that on my own, thank you.

You and Dennis under the same roof...oh boy; no two stronger kenpo fundamentalists do I know of, and y'all are gonna be breaking bread together? Anybody smell a fundamentalist kenpo cult a-brewing? (gotta get my progressive kenpo hide outta town before it gets lit up at the stake) 

Looking forward to seeing you here, Rich. Advil covered; beer questionable.

D


----------



## Doc

Doc said:


> *Are You Supposed To Finish Self-Defense Techniques?​*
> Ron Chapél​
> 
> 
> 
> There are many misconceptions that permeate modern self-defense martial arts "systems." Most of them have their origins somewhere in the Ed Parker influence or lineage, based on his successful implementation of business concepts to insure fiscal success, with what is essentially a non-profitable entity by nature. Creating an amalgam of profitability, and reasonable successful applications brought with it many diverse concepts that often contradict each other, or at a minimum, serve to add fuel to the fire of a confusing hybrid activity, at best. The strict dichotomy between an art, and its self-defense potential are often loss on many.
> 
> One of these is the understanding surrounding elongated self-defense technique sequences. While many of the uniformed see them as real world applicable, others recognize the folly of such notions. Depending upon perspective and philosophy, this is either completely unreasonable, or impractical, and sometimes both. But all the perspectives are borne of a misunderstanding philosophically where Mr. Parker intended to ultimately take his many art(s) and his singular ultimate interpretation.
> 
> To clear the picture we must look back first to the traditional teaching of the arts from the cultural progenitors perspective of the Old Chinese. Traditionally the art was taught through many complex forms and sets, for dual purposes. First and foremost was for the preservation of significant accumulated information that defied codification in any other form.
> 
> Second were addendum sets that served to highlight specific applications, and promote attendant skills. Lastly were accelerated strictly functional applications that didnt contain the information of the forms, but put skills set into applications.
> 
> Historically, many arts, and their proponents influenced the interpretation(s) of Ed Parker. While Splashing Hands spawned the creation or interpretation(s) of Limalama under Sifu Haumea Lefiti, Parkers motion-based product as well has its roots in the Mok Gar strict applications of Splashing Hands. This is significant because Splashing Hands/Limalama is to Mok Gar, what Splashing Hands/Motion-Kenpo is to Ed Parkers yet undeveloped American Kenpo vehicle.
> 
> To my knowledge Mok Gar was one of the first to take this streamlined approach to applications. Not that the other information was not available in the art, but the Splashing Hands perspective was created to serve a specific purpose for those tasked to protection of cultural assets.
> 
> So it is with Limalama and its Motion-Kenpo brother. While the progenitor influence was designed to be wholly offensive in nature and philosophy, Sifu Lefiti and subsequently his junior Ed Parker, saw the defensive potential in the vehicle. Although Limalama is more closely aligned with the source material in philosophy and teaching, Parker chose to take a more conceptual approach. Parkers method relying on a motion-based approach, allowed heavy interpretation by those with previous martial backgrounds to assimilate into motion-kenpo relatively easily, with limited input from Ed Parker personally. Thus, the much more successful Motion-Kenpo, reigns business-like over the more deliberately taught Limalama.
> 
> This same breakdown of components can be seen in all of the Parker interpretations, with various focus shifts predicated on era, purpose, and philosophical changes as knowledge evolved. Initially Parker came to the mainland with no codified bank of knowledge or information other than his personal experiences, and a set of personal three by five cards inscribed with technique ideas gleaned from his relationship with Professor Chow. Parkers only Kenpo teacher, William Kwai Sun Chow, had no real system at the time choosing to freelance classes with real world street experiments, and testing the efficacy of his own innovative ideas. It was really left to senior students under Chow like Sijo Emperado, and his junior Ed Parker, to eventually begin the codification process of creating systems.
> 
> But Sijo Emperado (and friends), and the resultant Kajukenbo System(s) were in many ways like Sifu Lefiti and Limalama. Enjoying a significantly tremendous success as a martial art, but choosing a different philosophical approach to teaching than the wholly business-driven motion-Kenpo.
> 
> So the methods were set long ago in the roots of the art. Forms contain all of the complexities of the art, including answers to obscure questions of timing, angles, and postures, along with biomechanical codifications of information. This is why the old school methods of learning Forms is so painstakingly precise, and specific. These methods are still quite observable in the proper teaching of vehicles like Taiji, which only contains this singular component, sans Sets, and applications. This method is noticeably absent in modern interpretations because of its requirement of, at minimum, a master level teacher to transfer the information. This was great for an art, but bad for proliferating a business.
> 
> Sets were designed to hone specific skills, and usually concentrated on specific aspects of training whether it was stances, kicks, punches, or footwork. Forms and Sets co-existed well with general knowledge of the former focused in the latter.
> 
> Only a master level teacher than was able to decode the Forms, and thus teach the applications derived from them, utilizing the skills learned in sets to make them functional. This was how the applications were originally taught. Learn the Forms slow and painstakingly correct. Practice your Sets to develop your skills, and the teacher would extrapolate the applications from the Forms and share them with you. But the applications were more freeform based on Forms Information, and no real codified techniques.
> 
> As usually Parker took a creative an innovative approach, that unfortunately was derailed as he moved into the commercial era, but nevertheless, continued to prevail in some form in his motion idea.
> 
> Taking from Professor Chow the idea of focusing on applications over codification fit perfectly with the business of Kenpo, and created a hybrid of methods. Originally the forms didnt exist, so the concentration on codified self-defense techniques was the order of the day. But when Parker began studying with Chinese Masters he began to understand the importance of forms, and began the codification process of basic forms of various influences. These forms ended with what most know as Short Form Three as the business took flight.
> 
> With the diversion to the business, additional Forms were ultimately created but without the depth of knowledge, or biomechanical cohesion of previous work. These Forms and Sets as well were derived from and/or created for different purposes other than archiving information.
> 
> Ed Parker made a conscious decision to divert from the Chinese Method of concentrating on Forms, to Self-defense techniques as the repository of information, but that aspect never made it into the business. Instead he incorporated the Splashing Hands Application Concept to Self-Defense techniques. Utilizing instead, minimal skill with maximum applications to vulnerable body parts. It was a perfect match of function over form, and is the singular entity that made the business with limited instruction possible.
> 
> But of course it created a contradiction. Elongated technique sequences executed with any degree of skill would preclude its need in the initial stages. But, the business demanded more and more superficial information and rank promotions, over a small amount of in-dept knowledge to keep unmotivated students from being bored. But, anyone who thinks realistically that in a 5 Swords scenario, after a hand-sword to the neck and fingers to the eyes, the sequence ether requires or needs additional strikes to the stomach, and neck of what should be a helpless individual is disingenuous in their thought process, intellectually deficient, and in some instances boarder-line criminal.
> 
> Ultimately Mr. Parker intent was to divide the art into specific entities to preserve the information. While he spoke to me in generalities, much of the specific language is mine. Sets would remain unchanged but expanded to include specific realistic drills to enhance the learning process. In my teaching, this is where the A.O.D. (Anticipated Offensive Drills) reside. All of these drill sets require defensive footwork and blocking under the adrenal stress of possible injury.
> 
> When an offensive component is added to the A.O.D.s, they become Dictionary Self-Defense Techniques. These are self-defense techniques executed under the specific assumption of anticipating the assault, and ending the confrontation quickly and decisively. The Dictionary self-defense techniques are a bridge between the Forms, and Sets to the Self-Defense Techniques.
> 
> This component most closely resembles the stand-up confrontations often seen in sparring, but more like JKD Training. The motion-business version was called, Freestyle Formulas. Taken from its street focus and adapted to tournament use, they were overly complex, formulized, and never caught on with the business of teaching. Only a few ever fully utilized or even understood them.
> 
> Forms are categorized by Course Level and have specific purposes of focus in training. Containing once again, very precise information of execution, they buttress the skill producing Sets and form a bridge to the A.O.D. Drills.
> 
> Because he started with, and found them more practical for modern applications, Mr. Parker shifted the archiving properties, to Self-Defense Techniques. Known now as Encyclopedia Self-Defense Techniques, they contain all of the in-depth information that previously could only be found in the old Forms.
> 
> Executed properly, they insure function while providing essential information that cannot be presented in the other components. They also allow, once again executed properly, that only the first part of the sequence should be needed to be successful in application.
> 
> The rest of the technique serves as information for independent extrapolation of information, independent applications, or as a bridge of the preceding material should it become rarely necessary, all while serving its archive function. This is also why techniques may not be altered. To do so would be like slowly pulling pages out of your encyclopedia, and wondering where all the information went after most of the pages are removed.
> 
> Advanced students may make knowledgeable changes in sequences for their personal use, but the Encyclopedia version, or Default Techniques are taught and remain unchanged. The system is cast in stone and must remain so to allow all students the exposure and access to information that might otherwise elude them, and keeps the knowledge components of the Dictionary, Encyclopedia, and constituent aspects intact for all future generations of students and instructors alike as reference tools.
> 
> So to answer the question, Should you finish a technique sequence? It depends upon the technique, circumstances, and interpretation. My goal is No. But then, who says we have to start at the beginning? All of the information we archive is valid, and has multiple applications and levels. On defense, the attacker may initiate a response of our choosing, but so may we initiate an offensive or defensive application from anywhere in the sequence of information. Thats the value of having reference material. You can always look up, examine, and use proper information in many ways, but it must always stem from a solid, unshakeable source of material, and not a bunch of conceptual ideas open to interpretations.


Would you believe I got a negative rep for just posting this article?


----------



## punisher73

Doc said:


> Would you believe I got a negative rep for just posting this article?


 
Unfortunately yes.  I got negged one time because I had asked a question if anyone had heard of a specific knifefighting style.


----------



## jks9199

People are free to give rep, positively or negatively, as they see fit.  Bob's also set it up so that you can completely opt out of the rep game, if you'd like.  And, and sometimes, it makes no sense what people rep for -- or against.

If you have concerns about rep that you've received, please use the RTM button or PM a senior moderator or other staff member.


----------



## Doc

jks9199 said:


> People are free to give rep, positively or negatively, as they see fit.  Bob's also set it up so that you can completely opt out of the rep game, if you'd like.  And, and sometimes, it makes no sense what people rep for -- or against.
> 
> If you have concerns about rep that you've received, please use the RTM button or PM a senior moderator or other staff member.


Uh, what's a "RTM" I'm afraid I'm fairly ignorant of the workings of anything other than just posting. I read I post. I only discovered this rep thing recently when I got a similar negative over on KT. Can you help an Old non-computer savvy Man out please?


----------



## punisher73

Doc said:


> Uh, what's a "RTM" I'm afraid I'm fairly ignorant of the workings of anything other than just posting. I read I post. I only discovered this rep thing recently when I got a similar negative over on KT. Can you help an Old non-computer savvy Man out please?


 

If you look up at the upper right corner of a post, you will see a little red/white triangle.  It is to report the post, usually due to offensive content.  I think that is what he is referring to.


----------



## jks9199

Doc said:


> Uh, what's a "RTM" I'm afraid I'm fairly ignorant of the workings of anything other than just posting. I read I post. I only discovered this rep thing recently when I got a similar negative over on KT. Can you help an Old non-computer savvy Man out please?


Absolutely!  "RTM" is Report To Moderator.  Think of it like calling the dispatcher to send a cop.  Click on the red & white triangle with the exclamation mark at the top right of a post.  (It'll say "Report Post" if you hover over it.)  You'll get an opportunity to explain why you have a problem with the post, and the staff will review it.  One catch... don't "return fire" at someone who's post you're reporting.  Dispute the facts, but don't get personal!  Or you might get caught up in the crossfire...


----------



## Carol

Also...rep comments, private messaging, etc, are all covered by the rules of the board here.   If something ain't allowed out here in the open, it ain't allowed on a rep comment or a PM.  The fact that the general public can't see a person's rep comments or PMs doesn't change the fact that the rules are the same.


----------



## celtic_crippler

Doc said:


> Would you believe I got a negative rep for just posting this article?


 
ROFL

You!? Got a negative rep!?! Perrish the thought! LOL 

I got a neg-rep once and was called "ignorant"....should I RTM that? LOL


----------



## Doc

celtic_crippler said:


> ROFL
> 
> You!? Got a negative rep!?! Perrish the thought! LOL
> 
> I got a neg-rep once and was called "ignorant"....should I RTM that? LOL



Alright, alright, get off the dam floor. I didn't even know such things existed.

"That ain't funny man." - Hudson from Aliens


----------



## 14 Kempo

Darn, I was reading this stuff and because someone said to click on the little red and white triangle thingie I did, then hit the back button. Hope I didn't negative rep you Doc. If I did, so sorry, didn't mean to do so, was just looking around.


----------



## Doc

14 Kempo said:


> Darn, I was reading this stuff and because someone said to click on the little red and white triangle thingie I did, then hit the back button. Hope I didn't negative rep you Doc. If I did, so sorry, didn't mean to do so, was just looking around.



See? I'm not the only one that didn't know. I feel better now. Don't sweat the small stuff sir.


----------



## jks9199

14 Kempo said:


> Darn, I was reading this stuff and because someone said to click on the little red and white triangle thingie I did, then hit the back button. Hope I didn't negative rep you Doc. If I did, so sorry, didn't mean to do so, was just looking around.


Don't worry... all you did was open the Report to Moderator window -- but unless you click "Send Report" on the bottom there, it stays. Just like a post; if you don't click "Post", it doesn't go anywhere.


----------



## Kenpo17

Thank you Doc, great article, but had to read it twice for understanding.  Thanks again!


----------



## Doc

Kenpo17 said:


> Thank you Doc, great article, but had to read it twice for understanding.  Thanks again!



So did I.


----------



## marlon

"Because he started with, and found them more practical for modern applications, Mr. Parker shifted the archiving properties, to Self-Defense Techniques. Known now as &#8220;*Encyclopedia* Self-Defense Techniques,&#8221; they contain all of the in-depth information that previously could only be found in the old Forms."



Do the 19 base techniques of SL4 comprise the Encyclopedia of Self Defense Techniques as described above? If not could someone list the techniques that would be complete in regards to the statement above?
many thanks
Respectfully,
Marlon


----------



## marlon

Forms are categorized by Course Level and have specific purposes of focus in training. Containing once again, very precise information of execution, they buttress the skill producing Sets and form a bridge to the A.O.D. Drills.


could anyone post the best place on the net to see short forms 1-2-and 3, please. There are no Kenpo teachers around here and there is only one i really want to learn from, but i cannot, for now afford to get to him...although i am hoping to perhaps at least meet one of his students in the mean time

Respectfully,
Marlon


----------



## SL4Drew

marlon said:


> "Because he started with, and found them more practical for modern applications, Mr. Parker shifted the archiving properties, to Self-Defense Techniques. Known now as *Encyclopedia* Self-Defense Techniques, they contain all of the in-depth information that previously could only be found in the old Forms."
> 
> 
> 
> Do the 19 base techniques of SL4 comprise the Encyclopedia of Self Defense Techniques as described above? If not could someone list the techniques that would be complete in regards to the statement above?
> many thanks
> Respectfully,
> Marlon


 
I don't understand what you mean by "19 base techniques of SL4."  The Encyclopedia Techniques are, with some modifications and changes, more or less the same list of Ed Parker's Kenpo techniques that you see listed in II #5.


----------



## marlon

my error then.  Thanks

marlon


----------



## jaybacca72

good read Doc, i might not always agree with some of things you say but i do agree on this article for sure. People get upset when they realize that EP Sr. was a businessman as well and stopped teaching the system they way it was designed to be taught in around 1975.

Best Wishes in 2009
Take care
Jason Arnold
Canada via Sweden


----------



## Doc

jaybacca72 said:


> good read Doc, i might not always agree with some of things you say but i do agree on this article for sure. People get upset when they realize that EP Sr. was a businessman as well and stopped teaching the system they way it was designed to be taught in around 1975.
> 
> Best Wishes in 2009
> Take care
> Jason Arnold
> Canada via Sweden



If we agreed all the time sir, that would have elevated you above my Mother, so I suspect you're in pretty good company.


----------



## hongkongfooey

Good article, Doc.


----------



## seasoned

Doc said:


> *Are You Supposed To Finish Self-Defense Techniques?​*
> Ron Chapél​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are many misconceptions that permeate modern self-defense martial arts "systems." Most of them have their origins somewhere in the Ed Parker influence or lineage, based on his successful implementation of business concepts to insure fiscal success, with what is essentially a non-profitable entity by nature. Creating an amalgam of profitability, and reasonable successful applications brought with it many diverse concepts that often contradict each other, or at a minimum, serve to add fuel to the fire of a confusing hybrid activity, at best. The strict dichotomy between an art, and its self-defense potential are often loss on many.
> 
> One of these is the understanding surrounding elongated self-defense technique sequences. While many of the uniformed see them as real world applicable, others recognize the folly of such notions. Depending upon perspective and philosophy, this is either completely unreasonable, or impractical, and sometimes both. But all the perspectives are borne of a misunderstanding philosophically where Mr. Parker intended to ultimately take his many art(s) and his singular ultimate interpretation.
> 
> To clear the picture we must look back first to the traditional teaching of the arts from the cultural progenitors perspective of the Old Chinese. Traditionally the art was taught through many complex forms and sets, for dual purposes. First and foremost was for the preservation of significant accumulated information that defied codification in any other form.
> 
> Second were addendum sets that served to highlight specific applications, and promote attendant skills. Lastly were accelerated strictly functional applications that didnt contain the information of the forms, but put skills set into applications.
> 
> Historically, many arts, and their proponents influenced the interpretation(s) of Ed Parker. While Splashing Hands spawned the creation or interpretation(s) of Limalama under Sifu Haumea Lefiti, Parkers motion-based product as well has its roots in the Mok Gar strict applications of Splashing Hands. This is significant because Splashing Hands/Limalama is to Mok Gar, what Splashing Hands/Motion-Kenpo is to Ed Parkers yet undeveloped American Kenpo vehicle.
> 
> To my knowledge Mok Gar was one of the first to take this streamlined approach to applications. Not that the other information was not available in the art, but the Splashing Hands perspective was created to serve a specific purpose for those tasked to protection of cultural assets.
> 
> So it is with Limalama and its Motion-Kenpo brother. While the progenitor influence was designed to be wholly offensive in nature and philosophy, Sifu Lefiti and subsequently his junior Ed Parker, saw the defensive potential in the vehicle. Although Limalama is more closely aligned with the source material in philosophy and teaching, Parker chose to take a more conceptual approach. Parkers method relying on a motion-based approach, allowed heavy interpretation by those with previous martial backgrounds to assimilate into motion-kenpo relatively easily, with limited input from Ed Parker personally. Thus, the much more successful Motion-Kenpo, reigns business-like over the more deliberately taught Limalama.
> 
> This same breakdown of components can be seen in all of the Parker interpretations, with various focus shifts predicated on era, purpose, and philosophical changes as knowledge evolved. Initially Parker came to the mainland with no codified bank of knowledge or information other than his personal experiences, and a set of personal three by five cards inscribed with technique ideas gleaned from his relationship with Professor Chow. Parkers only Kenpo teacher, William Kwai Sun Chow, had no real system at the time choosing to freelance classes with real world street experiments, and testing the efficacy of his own innovative ideas. It was really left to senior students under Chow like Sijo Emperado, and his junior Ed Parker, to eventually begin the codification process of creating systems.
> 
> But Sijo Emperado (and friends), and the resultant Kajukenbo System(s) were in many ways like Sifu Lefiti and Limalama. Enjoying a significantly tremendous success as a martial art, but choosing a different philosophical approach to teaching than the wholly business-driven motion-Kenpo.
> 
> So the methods were set long ago in the roots of the art. Forms contain all of the complexities of the art, including answers to obscure questions of timing, angles, and postures, along with biomechanical codifications of information. This is why the old school methods of learning Forms is so painstakingly precise, and specific. These methods are still quite observable in the proper teaching of vehicles like Taiji, which only contains this singular component, sans Sets, and applications. This method is noticeably absent in modern interpretations because of its requirement of, at minimum, a master level teacher to transfer the information. This was great for an art, but bad for proliferating a business.
> 
> Sets were designed to hone specific skills, and usually concentrated on specific aspects of training whether it was stances, kicks, punches, or footwork. Forms and Sets co-existed well with general knowledge of the former focused in the latter.
> 
> Only a master level teacher than was able to decode the Forms, and thus teach the applications derived from them, utilizing the skills learned in sets to make them functional. This was how the applications were originally taught. Learn the Forms slow and painstakingly correct. Practice your Sets to develop your skills, and the teacher would extrapolate the applications from the Forms and share them with you. But the applications were more freeform based on Forms Information, and no real codified techniques.
> 
> As usually Parker took a creative an innovative approach, that unfortunately was derailed as he moved into the commercial era, but nevertheless, continued to prevail in some form in his motion idea.
> 
> Taking from Professor Chow the idea of focusing on applications over codification fit perfectly with the business of Kenpo, and created a hybrid of methods. Originally the forms didnt exist, so the concentration on codified self-defense techniques was the order of the day. But when Parker began studying with Chinese Masters he began to understand the importance of forms, and began the codification process of basic forms of various influences. These forms ended with what most know as Short Form Three as the business took flight.
> 
> With the diversion to the business, additional Forms were ultimately created but without the depth of knowledge, or biomechanical cohesion of previous work. These Forms and Sets as well were derived from and/or created for different purposes other than archiving information.
> 
> Ed Parker made a conscious decision to divert from the Chinese Method of concentrating on Forms, to Self-defense techniques as the repository of information, but that aspect never made it into the business. Instead he incorporated the Splashing Hands Application Concept to Self-Defense techniques. Utilizing instead, minimal skill with maximum applications to vulnerable body parts. It was a perfect match of function over form, and is the singular entity that made the business with limited instruction possible.
> 
> But of course it created a contradiction. Elongated technique sequences executed with any degree of skill would preclude its need in the initial stages. But, the business demanded more and more superficial information and rank promotions, over a small amount of in-dept knowledge to keep unmotivated students from being bored. But, anyone who thinks realistically that in a 5 Swords scenario, after a hand-sword to the neck and fingers to the eyes, the sequence ether requires or needs additional strikes to the stomach, and neck of what should be a helpless individual is disingenuous in their thought process, intellectually deficient, and in some instances boarder-line criminal.
> 
> Ultimately Mr. Parker intent was to divide the art into specific entities to preserve the information. While he spoke to me in generalities, much of the specific language is mine. Sets would remain unchanged but expanded to include specific realistic drills to enhance the learning process. In my teaching, this is where the A.O.D. (Anticipated Offensive Drills) reside. All of these drill sets require defensive footwork and blocking under the adrenal stress of possible injury.
> 
> When an offensive component is added to the A.O.D.s, they become Dictionary Self-Defense Techniques. These are self-defense techniques executed under the specific assumption of anticipating the assault, and ending the confrontation quickly and decisively. The Dictionary self-defense techniques are a bridge between the Forms, and Sets to the Self-Defense Techniques.
> 
> This component most closely resembles the stand-up confrontations often seen in sparring, but more like JKD Training. The motion-business version was called, Freestyle Formulas. Taken from its street focus and adapted to tournament use, they were overly complex, formulized, and never caught on with the business of teaching. Only a few ever fully utilized or even understood them.
> 
> Forms are categorized by Course Level and have specific purposes of focus in training. Containing once again, very precise information of execution, they buttress the skill producing Sets and form a bridge to the A.O.D. Drills.
> 
> Because he started with, and found them more practical for modern applications, Mr. Parker shifted the archiving properties, to Self-Defense Techniques. Known now as Encyclopedia Self-Defense Techniques, they contain all of the in-depth information that previously could only be found in the old Forms.
> 
> Executed properly, they insure function while providing essential information that cannot be presented in the other components. They also allow, once again executed properly, that only the first part of the sequence should be needed to be successful in application.
> 
> The rest of the technique serves as information for independent extrapolation of information, independent applications, or as a bridge of the preceding material should it become rarely necessary, all while serving its archive function. This is also why techniques may not be altered. To do so would be like slowly pulling pages out of your encyclopedia, and wondering where all the information went after most of the pages are removed.
> 
> Advanced students may make knowledgeable changes in sequences for their personal use, but the Encyclopedia version, or Default Techniques are taught and remain unchanged. The system is cast in stone and must remain so to allow all students the exposure and access to information that might otherwise elude them, and keeps the knowledge components of the Dictionary, Encyclopedia, and constituent aspects intact for all future generations of students and instructors alike as reference tools.
> 
> So to answer the question, Should you finish a technique sequence? It depends upon the technique, circumstances, and interpretation. My goal is No. But then, who says we have to start at the beginning? All of the information we archive is valid, and has multiple applications and levels. On defense, the attacker may initiate a response of our choosing, but so may we initiate an offensive or defensive application from anywhere in the sequence of information. Thats the value of having reference material. You can always look up, examine, and use proper information in many ways, but it must always stem from a solid, unshakeable source of material, and not a bunch of conceptual ideas open to interpretations.



This is a great read from a few years ago.


----------



## Doc

seasoned said:


> This is a great read from a few years ago.


I get lucky from time-to-time.


----------

