# Thundering Hammers



## MJS (Feb 14, 2006)

Front straight right punch

1) Standing naturally, with feet together, step to your left on a 45 degree angle to 11 o'clock, with your left into a left neutral bow as you strike with a left inward block to the outside of your opponents right arm (preferably at or above the elbow) and cock your right arm parallel to your right thigh as it hangs naturally to the side.

2) Shuffle forward (push drag) toward 12 o'clock as you drop into a left wide kneel stance (to outside of opponents right knee so as to have opponent buckle and drop) and strike horizontally across your opponents stomach with your right inward horizontal forearm strike while cocking your left arm by your left ear, with palm facing away from you.

3) Strike down to opponents left kidney with a left downward hammerfist as your right arm checks opponents right arm. You should be in a right close kneel stance, facing 4 o'clock.

4) Have your left hand shift from the kidney into a horizontal forearm check outside of your opponents right arm, as your right arm cocks to your right ear. You should still be in a right close kneel facing 4.

5) Pivot to your left toward 1, into a left close kneel stance as you deliver a right downward hammerfist to back of opponents neck; your left hand is still checking action of your opponents right arm.

6) Shift your left foot back and slightly to your left between 7 and 8 o clock, into a right neutral bow and deliver a right looping back knuckle strike to opponents left temple. Shuffle forward with a right upward heel palm and claw to opponents face.


1. Standing naturally with feet together, step to your left on a 45 degree angle (to 11:00) with your left foot into a left neutral bow as you strike with a left inward block to outside of opponent's right arm (preferably at or above the elbow) and cock your right arm parallel to your right thigh as it hangs naturally to the side. 
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]2. Shuffle forward (push drag) toward 12:00 as you drop into a left wide kneel stance (to outside of opponent's right knee so as to have opponent buckle and drop) and strike horizontally across your opponent's stomach with your right inward horizontal forearm strike while cocking your left arm (your left hand at this point is cocked by your left ear with your palm facing away from you).[/SIZE][/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]3. Strike down to opponent's left kidney with a left downward hammer fist as your right arm checks opponent's right arm. You should be in a right close kneel stance facing 4:00.[/SIZE][/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]4. Have your left hand shift from the kidney into a horizontal forearm check outside of opponent's right arm as your right arm cocks to your right ear. You should still be in a right close kneel stance facing 4:00.[/SIZE][/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]5. Pivot to your left (toward 1:00) into a left close kneel stance as you deliver a right downward hammer fist to back of opponent's neck; your left hand at this point is still checking action of opponent's right arm (left pushdown check).[/SIZE][/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]6. Shift your left foot back and slightly to your left (between 7:00 and 8:00) into a right neutral bow and do a right looping back knuckle strike to opponent's left temple. Shuffle toward 2:00 with a right upward heel palm and claw to opponent's face.[/SIZE][/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]7. Cat stance back from opponent with clawing hand anchored on chin and check opponent's right shoulder down as you utilize returning motion to retract the claw.[/SIZE][/FONT] 


1. Standing natually with feet together, step to your left on a 45 degree angle (to 11:00) with your left foot into a left neutral bow as you strike with a left inward block to outside of opponent's right arm (preferably at or above the elbow) and cock your right arm parallel to your right thigh as it hangs naturally to the side. 
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]2. Shuffle forward (push drag) toward 12:00 as you drop into a left wide kneel stance (to outside of opponent's right knee so as to have opponent buckle and drop) and strike horizontally across your opponent's stomach with your right inward horizontal forearm strike while cocking your left arm (your left hand at this point is cocked by your left ear with your palm facing away from you).[/SIZE][/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]3. Strike down to opponent's left kidney with a left downward hammer fist as your right arm checks opponent's right arm. You should be in a right close kneel stance facing 4:00.[/SIZE][/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]4. Have your left hand shift from the kidney into a horizontal forearm check outside of opponent's right arm as your right arm cocks to your right ear. You should still be in a right close kneel stance facing 4:00.[/SIZE][/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]5. Pivot to your left (toward 1:00) into a left close kneel stance as you deliver a right downward hammer fist to back of opponent's neck; your left hand at this point is still checking action of opponent's right arm (left pushdown check).[/SIZE][/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]6. Shift your left foot back and slightly to your left (between 7:00 and 8:00) into a right neutral bow and do a right looping back knuckle strike to opponent's left temple. Shuffle toward 2:00 with a right upward heel palm and claw to opponent's face.[/SIZE][/FONT]


1. Standing naturally with feet together, step to your left on a 45 degree angle (toh your left foot into a left neutral bow as you strike with a left inward block to outside of opponent's right arm (preferably at or above the elbow) and cock your right arm parallel to your right thigh as it hangs naturally to the side. 
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]2. Shuffle forward (push drag) toward 12:00 as you drop into a left wide kneel stance (to outside of opponent's right knee so as to have opponent buckle and drop) and strike horizontally across your opponent's stomach with your right inward horizontal forearm strike while cocking your left arm (your left hand at this point is cocked by your left ear with your palm facing away from you).[/SIZE][/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]3. Strike down to opponent's left kidney with a left downward hammer fist as your right arm checks opponent's right arm. You should be in a right close kneel stance facing 4:00.[/SIZE][/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]4. Have your left hand shift from the kidney into a horizontal forearm check outside of opponent's right arm as your right arm cocks to your right ear. You should still be in a right close kneel stance facing 4:00.[/SIZE][/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]5. Pivot to your left (toward 1:00) into a left close kneel stance as you deliver a right downward hammer fist to back of opponent's neck; your left hand at this point is still checking action of opponent's right arm (left pushdown check).[/SIZE][/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]6. Shift your left foot back and slightly to your left (between 7:00 and 8:00) into a right neutral bow and do a right looping back knuckle strike to opponent's left temple. Shuffle toward 2:00 with a right upward heel palm and claw to opponent's face.[/SIZE][/FONT]


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Feb 14, 2006)

This should be interesting...


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 14, 2006)

We don't do the last step in your write up in our technique version, of course, it is an intregal part of Form 4.

I love working this technique with a new person, as I did today. At step 4, where you put in the arm check, newbies will often expose their center line as they raise their right arm for the last strike. A quick flip of the elbow, and a 'teaching moment' appears. 

Mike


----------



## JamesB (Feb 15, 2006)

Here's my take:

1. I've never really been happy with the 'step up' defence against a straight-punch - I find I'm too far forwards in relation to the attacker, making it very difficult to perform an inward block - the block hits almost at the shoulder.

instead I prefer to follow my natural inclination which is to step backwards (away) and then transition to neutral bow with the block (actually for most punch techs e.g. thundering, sleeper etc).

As I am drawing away from the attacker I may decide that I do in fact want to be closer, in which case I make that adjustment as I transition to neutral-bow.

2. I then *step-drag* forwards to a close-kneel (not wide-kneel). I see this detail being important as I want my rear foot to be planting last, as I strike. The position of the attacker's lead leg doesn't seem to be in the appropriate place for a wide-kneel stance to come into contact - a close-kneel would be required here?? not sure as to the actual importance of the first knee-strike in this tech...

Also I see the forward hip-alignment of the close-kneel being important because it is (as I was taught) a 'collapsed' forward bow - I need a forward-stance on this strike as I am striking with my rear arm. A wide-kneel on the other hand is a collapsed neutral-bow (IIRC), and doesn't give me a good stance to strike forwards from, as I understand it.

Hopefully the inward block in #1 has significantly disturbed the HWD of the attacker and has caused his body to collapse downwards. The alignment of the attacker's body is important because it dictates the angle-of-incidence of your counter-attack. A horizontal strike (relative to the floor), when struck against a body which is bent forwards at 45degrees is actually a downward strike in relation to the attacker's body. (which is good as I see it).

The target of this strike is *very* important and dictates the rest of the technique.

3. Won't comment on the rest, only to say that the vertically downard-hammerfists are only downard relative to *you*, they hit at an angle relative to the attacker. This is important, would like to hear what other people say about this.


----------



## JamesB (Feb 15, 2006)

On another note, this is one of three 'dead hand' techniques as commonly practiced, where the right hand is left doing nothing as the left arm blocks - the right hand then strikes from 'point-of-origin' as it hangs naturally to the side of the body.

I'd be interested to see what Doc has to say about disgregarding the entire right arm as the left arm is blocking. Doesn't seem to be the most effective use of one's body against this type of attack..?


----------



## spiderboy (Feb 15, 2006)

James - 

If nothing else mate, remember - 

"I am a wet noodle"

See you soon i hope  

Alex


----------



## Rick Wade (Feb 15, 2006)

Inside the UKF utilizing the 12 poits of consideration (your hands up in a fighting stance) the right hand would not be a dead hand.  it is very active and acts much more like a strike in addition we utilize the those stance sifts as buckles and breaks to the enemys right ankle.  you will end up breaking his anckle.  The mistake I see (or think I see0 to many times with this technique is that people try to go to fast once they have the enemy bent over.  There is a definate timing to this technique.

V/R

Rick

PS for a picture of 12 points of consideration go to the UKF website or refer to Mr. Pick's picture in the Journey.

V/R

Rick


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 15, 2006)

JamesB said:
			
		

> Here's my take:
> 
> 1. I've never really been happy with the 'step up' defence against a straight-punch - I find I'm too far forwards in relation to the attacker, making it very difficult to perform an inward block - the block hits almost at the shoulder.
> 
> ...


The whole point of the step forward tech is that stepping back puts you at a diadvantage in that case. Proper attacks would teach you this; however, I'll let Doc explain it to you or tell you I'm wrong. I gotta fifty fifty chance.
Sean


----------



## MJS (Feb 21, 2006)

I've always done this tech. with a wide kneel in the beginning, as I find it to check his leg better.  Personally, I'd rather step forward on an angle, rather than back.  However, there are times when going back on an angle is necessary.  I also wouldnt say that the right hand is 'dead' for too long, considering the forearm strike should be in motion shortly after the initial block.

Mike


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Mar 7, 2006)

this is a great technique to practice leg checks and cheap shots to the ankle.

you can literally use is while handcuffed.

1. dodge or bob/weave out of the punch's way to the left and forward (10oc or so)

2.  shuffle in until you've got a nice solid leg check with your right knee locking out his right knee.

3.  turn to face 4 oc and drive your left knee into the back of his right knee, buckling it.

4.  turn back to face 12 oc and put your right knee on the top of his calf.  drop hard enough to finish the takedown.

5.  the twisting motion that ends the technique becomes a wheel kick or spinning heel hook.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 7, 2006)

bushidomartialarts said:
			
		

> this is a great technique to practice leg checks and cheap shots to the ankle.
> 
> you can literally use is while handcuffed.
> 
> ...


This is true. If you can't do this one without using your hands, you are doing it wrong.
Sean


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Mar 7, 2006)

either doing it wrong or working a cool variation, neh?


----------



## HKphooey (Mar 9, 2006)

What are your thoughts on executing one explosive move which combines steps one and two.  As the punch comes in, bob with a shuffle, L. inward block, R. forearm strike, and R. knee check/smack to opponent's right knee (all timed at about the same moment).  I find it works OK for me, but I am much taller long arms and legs.   The nice thing is that if things do not go as planned, I have the inward block and the forearm set up for a nice trap of the attackers arm.


----------



## parkerkarate (Mar 9, 2006)

stickarts.com said:
			
		

> What are your thoughts on executing one explosive move which combines steps one and two. As the punch comes in, bob with a shuffle, L. inward block, R. forearm strike, and R. knee check/smack to opponent's right knee (all timed at about the same moment). I find it works OK for me, but I am much taller long arms and legs. The nice thing is that if things do not go as planned, I have the inward block and the forearm set up for a nice trap of the attackers arm.


 
I would rather block or parry first and than make the forearm and the knee the second move.


----------



## Doc (Mar 9, 2006)

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> The whole point of the step forward tech is that stepping back puts you at a diadvantage in that case. Proper attacks would teach you this; however, I'll let Doc explain it to you or tell you I'm wrong. I gotta fifty fifty chance.
> Sean


That's cold Sean, you know there's no such thing as 'wrong.' Let's just say "consistently functionally ineffective."  Wait! I'm being set up!  Anyway with a minor clarification, I have to agree with you on this point.


----------



## Doc (Mar 9, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> Front straight right punch
> 
> 1) Standing naturally, with feet together, step to your left on a 45 degree angle to 11 o'clock, with your left into a left neutral bow as you strike with a left inward block to the outside of your opponents right arm (preferably at or above the elbow) and cock your right arm parallel to your right thigh as it hangs naturally to the side.
> 
> ...


----------



## MJS (Mar 9, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> A lot going on here. I think the first thing that needs to be addressed is the 'footwork' and angles.


 
Sounds good.  What do you suggest?

Mike


----------



## Doc (Mar 9, 2006)

JamesB said:
			
		

> Here's my take:
> 
> 1. I've never really been happy with the 'step up' defence against a straight-punch - I find I'm too far forwards in relation to the attacker, making it very difficult to perform an inward block - the block hits almost at the shoulder.


This is a 'category completion' technique full of inconsistencies. Your 'unhappiness' with this 'step up' defense is duly noted and I concur. Depending upon the curriculum, it shares a relationsip with 'Dance of Death,' and 'Flashing Mace,' completing the low, midle, high scenarios some thought should be addressed. All of them also have the 'dead' or 'passive hand' on the initial block. So how do we deal with it?


----------



## kenpoworks (Mar 9, 2006)

Hey Doc,
for myself the "step up defence" as you refer to them had to be qualified by seeing them as a "slip" otherwise the whole thing became too mechanical, this the first time i have heard you mention "category completion" and with respect I would like some opinion on its real relevance.
W.R.
Rich


----------



## JamesB (Mar 9, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> This is a 'category completion' technique full of inconsistencies. Your 'unhappiness' with this 'step up' defense is duly noted and I concur. Depending upon the curriculum, it shares a relationsip with 'Dance of Death,' and 'Flashing Mace,' completing the low, midle, high scenarios some thought should be addressed. All of them also have the 'dead' or 'passive hand' on the initial block. So how do we deal with it?


 
yes, my understanding of this technique (and the other techs you mention), is that it is a 'category completion', with the left (guard) hand of the attacker dictating the available targets, and therefore the technique that should be used. Never really cared too much for that kind of concept but anyhow..

At the time I first learnt these defences, the 'dead hand' concept was just another thing to learn (I am but a beginner in a...) Now though, I have come to understand that leaving one arm doing nothing is not a good or effective way to deal with these attacks. 

I don't have any good answers I'm afraid, but I would conjecture that prior to blocking with my left arm, I would attempt at least some form of initial defence with my right...that would be either an outward parry, or maybe a rising forearm block (leading to outward-vertical block) like we just learnt in class  This would be my initial defence, not the left-inward-block as is usually taught. My goal would be to make contact with the attacker's punching arm, with the intent to misalign him (somehow), reduce his structure, and at the same time, with the same sequence of actions, add to my own structure and defensive posture. I'm guessing though - I don't know.

As to the whole step up / footwork aspect of these defences, Touch-of-Death had this to say about my comment on stepping forward:


			
				Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> The whole point of the step forward tech is that stepping back puts you at a diadvantage in that case.


 
OK, I kind of disagree, but I don't fully understand what he meant because he says 'in this case'..so I'm left thinking that I'm missing something here. Here is *my* understanding of some of the pros/cons of a stepping-up strategy:

For:
1. Theoretically puts you in better position for follow-up attack, more options because you are closer, can attack but he can't defend.
2. Has a phsycological (sp?) effect on the attacker as he's not expecting you to step up. 

Against:
1. You can't really step 'up' because you'll get punched in the face. So you have to step to 11ish, which is more of a 'step out'. The blocking action of the left arm, coupled with this 'step out', makes for a less effective block because the arm is blocking in one direction, but the legs are moving in another = split power.
2. Cannot do a 'proper' inward block to the arm because the attacker is stepping forwards, and you step too far past him, making the block hit at the outside of his shoulder...unless that is the idea..?
3. Very difficult for a beginner to execute with any kind of confidence as a result.

I wouldn't really want to step up + block (see point#2) so instead maybe just step up + parry the arm and slip the attack.

Assuming that it desirable to 'step up' for this defence, very specific footwork would be required. Instead of just blindly stepping up, I would take an initial step rearward with my right foot to gain a little distance, then step forwards with the block...the idea being to adjust my footwork as/when required to make the technique work. 

Well I still maintain that 'stepping up' is a less desirable option than stepping back, and I do not believe that stepping away from a punch technique puts me at any disadvantage...Attacking Mace deals specifically for this type of attack with a 'step back' and that technique is hugely effective.. so I'm obviously missing something in my understanding of the attacks, and how the attack differs between Thundering Hammers / Sleeper / Attacking Mace.

I guess there's a very specific reason why all these techniques exist, and probably it's because of the nature of the attack being different in each case...maybe variation in the attacker's footwork/posture each time, which tells us maybe he's gonna through a different combo with each attack?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 9, 2006)

I like to get in there and take on his lead leg, ckeck through his arm and block through his neck, catch his jaw with an upward elbow only to pop him back down with a recoiling hammer fist to the jaw as I settle into a neutral, I immediately launch into a forward bow which should catch him in the floating ribs on an upward trajectory at bow completion; however, you should let your back knee crash through his lead leg, At this point you can hook back with any number of strike possibilities...
Sean
PS You cut me deep just then Doc, you cut me real deep.


----------



## Doc (Mar 9, 2006)

kenpoworks said:
			
		

> Hey Doc,
> for myself the "step up defence" as you refer to them had to be qualified by seeing them as a "slip" otherwise the whole thing became too mechanical, this the first time i have heard you mention "category completion" and with respect I would like some opinion on its real relevance.
> W.R.
> Rich


Let's digress for a moment on "CC," (Category Completion). On the face of it when creating a commercial curriculum, and wanting to extend information for various reasons, it makes sense. Even from the perspective of wanting to address all reasonable possibilities (as it was actually proposed by Ed Parker in the Web of Knowledge) is in fact a good idea.

However to begin with a technique, and then formulate an idea to complete a category is not what Ed Parker had in mind. To abandon logic to 'flesh out' material is a bad idea. The Web of Knowledge was central to the creation of much of the commercial currulum and is the central concept that should be followed and then worked through to a logical conclusion for each category.

To create "Flashing Mace, Sleeper, Thundering Hammers, and Dance of Death" is not bad, but the approach must be driven by knowledge and logic in their execution. Additionally, some categories are just unrealistic in the order of likely occurrences on the street. Some of the techniques were actually created to satisfy 'sport wrestling' assaults as an example. Oddly enough, these and other techniques that fall outside of logical conclusions are the ones that most have the biggest problems with in the commercial curriculum.

Those of you who have done this material know those techniques you would never try to do on the street as they were taught. You don't believe they work because they don't.


----------



## Doc (Mar 9, 2006)

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> I like to get in there and take on his lead leg, ckeck through his arm and block through his neck, catch his jaw with an upward elbow only to pop him back down with a recoiling hammer fist to the jaw as I settle into a neutral, I immediately launch into a forward bow which should catch him in the floating ribs on an upward trajectory at bow completion; however, you should let your back knee crash through his lead leg, At this point you can hook back with any number of strike possibilities...
> Sean
> PS You cut me deep just then Doc, you cut me real deep.


My apologies sir, but then I'm not through with you yet.  Let's get to the initial move before I tear into, I mean discuss the rest.


----------



## HKphooey (Mar 9, 2006)

Before you disspell my suggestion, please try it on someone.  I think the the first part of the technique is a wasted move (but only my opinion and what I do based on my experiences).  I believe in the "blitz" strike. If I got to the outside of the opponents arm with the suggested step, I would not even go into thundering hammers.  I have a great arm bar ready to go, and I take the opponent straight to the ground.  Perfect set up for a "cuffing" postion.  

Doc, I would love to work out with ya some day!  I really like these discussions.  Gives me a lot to think about and try out.


----------



## Doc (Mar 9, 2006)

HKphooey said:
			
		

> Before you disspell my suggestion, please try it on someone.  I think the the first part of the technique is a wasted move (but only my opinion and what I do based on my experiences).  I believe in the "blitz" strike. If I got to the outside of the opponents arm with the suggested step, I would not even go into thundering hammers.  I have a great arm bar ready to go, and I take the opponent straight to the ground.  Perfect set up for a "cuffing" postion.
> 
> Doc, I would love to work out with ya some day!  I really like these discussions.  Gives me a lot to think about and try out.


Same here sir.


----------



## HKphooey (Mar 9, 2006)

Doc and all,

What are your feelings on the opponent's left hand that is left wide open?  That is the part of the technique I do not like.  The arm is right there for the oppent to grab.  I unsterstand the faster I am, the less chance of that happening.

Thanks.


----------



## Doc (Mar 9, 2006)

HKphooey said:
			
		

> Doc and all,
> 
> What are your feelings on the opponent's left hand that is left wide open?  That is the part of the technique I do not like.  The arm is right there for the oppent to grab.  I unsterstand the faster I am, the less chance of that happening.
> 
> Thanks.



1: Call him what he is; an ATTACKER not an 'opponent.'  Trust me on this. Your body does make a disitinction based on your understanding of the definition of the word.

2: The nature of the attack, and its counter when properly executed, compensate for the apparent unaccounted for left hand. This is true of all the techniques in this "category" sir.


----------



## HKphooey (Mar 9, 2006)

Thanks for the feedback.


----------



## HKphooey (Mar 10, 2006)

Played around with the technique a bit last night.  My wife needs to learn how to run when she hears me call out " Hon, can I borrow you for a second!). 

To many wide open issues with this technique. The forearm to the midsection brings the attacker right to you checked right leg/knee.  Attacker grabs that leg and a nice tug turns into a grappling fight.  

Maybe these CC techniques were design to make us think and question why we do things.  Based on historical facts, GM EP liked to use reverse psychology.  Maybe he wanted us to find the wholes and the what ifs.

Alright on to the next technique!  Have a great weekend!  TGIF!


----------



## kenpoworks (Mar 10, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> Let's digress for a moment on "CC," (Category Completion). On the face of it when creating a commercial curriculum, and wanting to extend information for various reasons, it makes sense. Even from the perspective of wanting to address all reasonable possibilities (as it was actually proposed by Ed Parker in the Web of Knowledge) is in fact a good idea.
> 
> However to begin with a technique, and then formulate an idea to complete a category is not what Ed Parker had in mind. To abandon logic to 'flesh out' material is a bad idea. The Web of Knowledge was central to the creation of much of the commercial currulum and is the central concept that should be followed and then worked through to a logical conclusion for each category.
> 
> ...


 
Thanks Doc,
I am going to go away and think about it for awhile, because I think I kinda agree with what you are saying.
I may be gone for sometime one think a day is all I am allowed at the moment.
Richard


----------



## jazkiljok (Mar 11, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> Let's digress for a moment on "CC," (Category Completion). On the face of it when creating a commercial curriculum, and wanting to extend information for various reasons, it makes sense. Even from the perspective of wanting to address all reasonable possibilities (as it was actually proposed by Ed Parker in the Web of Knowledge) is in fact a good idea.
> 
> However to begin with a technique, and then formulate an idea to complete a category is not what Ed Parker had in mind. To abandon logic to 'flesh out' material is a bad idea. The Web of Knowledge was central to the creation of much of the commercial currulum and is the central concept that should be followed and then worked through to a logical conclusion for each category.
> 
> ...



did this category completion also apply to the gun and knife disarms?


----------



## Doc (Mar 11, 2006)

jazkiljok said:
			
		

> did this category completion also apply to the gun and knife disarms?


Unfortunately, yes.


----------



## Blindside (Mar 11, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> This is a 'category completion' technique full of inconsistencies. Your 'unhappiness' with this 'step up' defense is duly noted and I concur. Depending upon the curriculum, it shares a relationsip with 'Dance of Death,' and 'Flashing Mace,' completing the low, midle, high scenarios some thought should be addressed. All of them also have the 'dead' or 'passive hand' on the initial block. So how do we deal with it?


 
Hi Doc,

I thought category completion was a function of what you call motion kenpo.  But Thundering Hammers (and the rest of its cateogry; Sleeper, Dance of Death) exist also within the Tracy system, giving an earlier provenance to this technique.  

Maybe I misunderstand your terminology on some of this, but I thought you said that you had previously said that the Tracy's don't do motion kenpo.

Lamont


----------



## jazkiljok (Mar 11, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, yes.


would explain a few things.


----------



## Doc (Mar 12, 2006)

Blindside said:
			
		

> Hi Doc,
> 
> I thought category completion was a function of what you call motion kenpo.  But Thundering Hammers (and the rest of its cateogry; Sleeper, Dance of Death) exist also within the Tracy system, giving an earlier provenance to this technique.
> 
> ...



You're correct sir, it is associated with 'motion' based Kenpo, but it is also part of the misconception of the evolution of "Kenpo" in the Parker Lineage. The generally held view is that Parker came to the mainland and brought the "Kenpo-Karate" he learned from Chow, and over the years it "evolved" into this motion based vehicle everyone is familiar with. 

It consists of a finite number of techniques presented in 32, 24, or 16 chart increments (depending on era), a specific number of progressively numerical forms and sets, a Web of Knowledge, and specific conceptual terms that define the system.

This is very much incorrect. While it is true Parker brought Kenpo-Karate to the mainland, he completely abandoned the "karate" concept in favor of a Chinese Perspective early on. Many of those that studied the early art never embraced the wholesale changes and remain in that era, and evolved themselves to a place where they felt comfortable, and are still there today.

This is when Parker began his quest to create his own "American Kenpo," utilizing the Chinese Kenpo (Kung Fu) he was learning from Ark Wong and Haumea Lefiti as a base. (Also to a lesser extent people like Lau Bun and Jimmy Woo. 

Taking from Splashing Hands, Hung Gar, Five Animal, Sil Lum, and other influences, Parker was determined to take the best of the Chinese knowledge, and adjust the methodology to an American Perspective. 

This was supposed to allow a student to achieve all the benefits of the traditional way of training. However, by removing the cultural baggage that intentionally elongated the process to higher skill and knowledge, a student could get there much faster. Parker reasoned this would be the best of both worlds and would be an awesome style. 

He was right, but his quest was going to be a lengthy process and most were unwilling to participate, instead focusing on rank and business prospects in the wide open market of the fifties and sixties.

Originally beginning from the Japanese and Okinawan heavy perspective of his original "Kenpo-Karate," he formed a Yudanshakai with many of his early students, (like the Tracy's) and adopted many of the Japanese traditions and rituals. 

Early certificates prominently displayed the word "Karate" and cited the Yudanshakai as the promotion authority, as they awarded "Dan" ranks along with the "Kyu" ranking structure of the Japanese borrowed from Judo. This also accounts for the three levels of brown belts that count down instead of up to a "Dan" degree.

Parker began this process of conversion to the Chinese and ultimately American Kenpo while all these things were in place, including many of the techniques he began creating that have names most will recognize today. Starting with a '32' chart that only went to three black stripes (green belt) and no yellow belt yet created.

Parker ultimately abandoned the original Yudanshakai and began to move toward his true goal. He dropped all non-English language in the system, changed the wording on certificates and and began awarding black belt 'degrees' in the "Americanization" process. The Tracy's (and others) took control of the original Yudanshakai and continued in this 'hybrid' tradition. Part Chinese but heavily influenced by Japanese/Okinawan traditions. 

While Parker continued to evolve his American Kenpo, personal issues caused him to seek a more 'business friendly' method of teaching to support his American Kenpo project. This was to be 'motion based' Kenpo which was not an extension of his "American Kenpo," but a diversion business enterprise. 

Most of the original students still with him at this time didn't like this 'motion-Kenpo' and most refused to learn it. A few learned some of it, but even 'motion-kenpo' changed a lot as he refined the business and continued to add material students requested. Once students had attained rank, they usually were unwilling to revisit previously learned material to refine or change it.

Putting the name "karate" back on the business model, Parker began his proliferation process with his Kenpo-Karate conceptual vehicle. Based on abstract motion, it required less of his energy as a teacher. Then promoting, the concept of 'tailoring,' and later 'rearrangement concepts,' would provide voluminous material for anyone willing to study it ad nausea, and never run out of material. 

It had no set basics, instead relying on the basics of its original teachers, most of whom were already brown and blacks belts. Many of them were original Tracy Students returning to the source. Many others came from diverse styles and other cultures.

Ultimately the business of 'motion-kenpo' grew and consumed Parker to the extent he did not have the time to write his American Kenpo, as he wanted, but he continued to evolve it as well. 

Therefore, all of these things continued to evolve independently of each other and there was a natural crossover sometimes between eras and philosophies.

The Tracy's did not teach a "motion based" concept. This emerged after they left. The Tracy's decided on a more technique intensive perspective, and focused on variations on a particular theme creating many more techniques. Whereas Parker allowed "tailoring" and "rearrangement" to do the same thing, without having to create "new" techniques for his business of Kenpo.

Al Tracy broke new ground in the business of the martial arts and created the first franchises, based partly on what he learned from Parker of the art at the time, and other information he sought from others later. Al was smart enough to know what he didn't know, and went out and paid other masters to teach and add what he felt his system needed to be more effective. He even paid his fighting team and put them on salary, headed up by Joe Lewis, (Who was studying with Bruce Lee) and Jerry Smith who was Joe Lewis' protégé.

This accounts for the confusion. Kenpo-Karate, Chinese Kenpo, American Kenpo, Ed Parkers American kenpo, and Ed parkers Kenpo Karate are all names he used at various times. Each has its own very much separate methodology and philosophy with slight natural crossovers between the styles and eras.

Although many use the term, American Kenpo is the most nebulous because Parker never finished it, and generally didnt teach it. He did however use it to sell his other business enterprise arts. There is no such thing as motion based American kenpo, only kenpo-Karate.

No wonder everyone is confused.   My head spins writing about it and I was there. And with the many 'new' kenpo styles poping up, it doesn't look to ever get any better.


----------



## MJS (Mar 12, 2006)

Doc, If stepping up, such as in Thundering Hammers is going to put us in an awkward position for the initial block, what would you suggest?  I mean, until the attack begins to unfold, I'd think it would be then that we'd decide what the proper response would be no?  If we did choose to step forward on an angle, can't we adjust our initial move accordingly?

Mike


----------



## Doc (Mar 12, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> Doc, If stepping up, such as in Thundering Hammers is going to put us in an awkward position for the initial block, what would you suggest?  I mean, until the attack begins to unfold, I'd think it would be then that we'd decide what the proper response would be no?  If we did choose to step forward on an angle, can't we adjust our initial move accordingly?
> 
> Mike


Thank you for asking the question. These techniques use a combination of footwork. First you step backward slightly with your right foot to assess the attack. Then you push drag/step forward as Rich said, and "slip' with an inward block to just below the elbow. (that's right - below).

That's a good start.


----------



## MJS (Mar 12, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> Thank you for asking the question. These techniques use a combination of footwork. First you step backward slightly with your right foot to assess the attack. Then you push drag/step forward as Rich said, and "slip' with an inward block to just below the elbow. (that's right - below).
> 
> That's a good start.


 
That is a good point.  Now that I think about it, by doing this move, many other techniques would make more sense.


----------



## Doc (Mar 12, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> That is a good point.  Now that I think about it, by doing this move, many other techniques would make more sense.


Keep in mind sir, There are only absolutes in footwork to accomplish a goal. When more than one kind of footwork or combination thereof is effective, it is acceptable to utilze it. In a 'manual" it may say, "Step back to six o'clock." That is an 'idea' that describes 'direction' more than it does 'footwork.' You may not step back at all, or you may step back slightly, or you may be forced to push drag to create the distance you need to be effective. As long as your feet and stance are orientated to be effective, and it doesn't violate any anatomical constraints necessary to be effective as well in your desired response, it is 'ok.'

"Footwork is the ultimate variable." - Ron Chapél


----------



## kenpoworks (Mar 13, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> Keep in mind sir, There are only absolutes in footwork to accomplish a goal. When more than one kind of footwork or combination thereof is effective, it is acceptable to utilze it. In a 'manual" it may say, "Step back to six o'clock." That is an 'idea' that describes 'direction' more than it does 'footwork.' You may not step back at all, or you may step back slightly, or you may be forced to push drag to create the distance you need to be effective. As long as your feet and stance are orientated to be effective, and it doesn't violate any anatomical constraints necessary to be effective as well in your desired response, it is 'ok.'
> 
> "Footwork is the ultimate variable." - Ron Chapél


 
AH- HA!, Doc I love it when Seniors give answers (as opposed to allusions) such as this, the above (entire) statement is (should be) universally applicable to the exploration of these things we call Self Defence Techniques. 
I hope you don't mind if I use this as a benchmark statement when explaining my take on this area of "Motion Kenpo".

Rich.:asian:


----------



## Doc (Mar 13, 2006)

kenpoworks said:
			
		

> AH- HA!, Doc I love it when Seniors give answers (as opposed to allusions) such as this, the above (entire) statement is (should be) universally applicable to the exploration of these things we call Self Defence Techniques.
> I hope you don't mind if I use this as a benchmark statement when explaining my take on this area of "Motion Kenpo".
> 
> Rich.:asian:


"Works for me." China


----------



## IWishToLearn (Mar 15, 2006)

*Ducks from the heelpalm coming his way*

I thought we all decided Dr. Chapel isn't a Senior - but is in fact an Ancient.

*Grin*


----------



## Doc (Mar 15, 2006)

IWishToLearn said:
			
		

> *Ducks from the heelpalm coming his way*
> 
> I thought we all decided Dr. Chapel isn't a Senior - but is in fact an Ancient.
> 
> *Grin*


Just rub it in.


----------



## Carol (Mar 15, 2006)

Totally disagree, IWishToLearn.  

If that were so, had Doc gone ahead with that heelpalm, then we'd all know you as the one that got _clocked _by an "ancient". :lol:

Careful what you wish for...


----------



## IWishToLearn (Mar 15, 2006)

But...but...I HAVE been clocked with that heelpalm.


----------



## Doc (Mar 16, 2006)

IWishToLearn said:
			
		

> But...but...I HAVE been clocked with that heelpalm.


Will you guys cut it out. I feel like I'm tuned into "Stargate Alantis" or something.  or mayne I am.......


----------



## IWishToLearn (Mar 16, 2006)

Nannoo nannooo!


----------

