# Sword & Hammer, Obscure Wing



## WilliamTLear

I was always taught to look before executing these techniques.

Take Care,
Billy Lear


----------



## Kirk

These are the only 2 techs I've been taught that have a right 
flank left shoulder grab.  Both require a strike without really
looking behind you.  

In thinking of a scenario that would give a purpose for this 
defense, it all changes, and goes really really bad if the one
grabbing you is a cop, or buddy of yours.  Maybe you're fighting
multiple attackers, and your buddy comes up puts his hand on
your shoulder to stop you from going to crazy on the attackers.
Maybe it's a cop, going "okay, that's enough!" (or the owner
of the establishment you're in club, bar, airport, whatever).

Share some ideas on when one should consider using one or the
other of these techs.  I'd be just a little scared to ever use it,
personally.  Enlighten me!


----------



## Kirk

We did it again today, and yes, look while striking is what I was
told.  It's kind of simultaneous, but you should look in enough 
time to see who it is, but also to prevent a right handed punch
also.


----------



## AvPKenpo

> _Originally posted by Kirk _
> 
> *These are the only 2 techs I've been taught that have a right
> flank left shoulder grab.  Both require a strike without really
> looking behind you.
> 
> In thinking of a scenario that would give a purpose for this
> defense, it all changes, and goes really really bad if the one
> grabbing you is a cop, or buddy of yours.  Maybe you're fighting
> multiple attackers, and your buddy comes up puts his hand on
> your shoulder to stop you from going to crazy on the attackers.
> Maybe it's a cop, going "okay, that's enough!" (or the owner
> of the establishment you're in club, bar, airport, whatever).
> 
> Share some ideas on when one should consider using one or the
> other of these techs.  I'd be just a little scared to ever use it,
> personally.  Enlighten me!  *



Wrong......(don't know who taught you that one).........ALWAYS LOOK BEFORE YOU STRIKE!

Like you said you never know when your buddy is the one behind you.

Michael


----------



## AvPKenpo

Let me restate.  At no time do I  feel that a practitioner should ever throw a 'blind strike' you never know who is there, or what they are doing.  This means on the street or in the ring.  You should always be aware of who or what is around you.  Its only smart.  You can get yourself hurt, or you can hurt someone that is your friend.

Michael


----------



## Goldendragon7

glance using your peripheral vision.... in this case, but there are occasions when you can and will strike blind.

:asian:


----------



## kenpo3631

> _Originally posted by AvPKenpo _
> 
> *
> 
> Wrong......(don't know who taught you that one).........ALWAYS LOOK BEFORE YOU STRIKE!
> 
> Like you said you never know when your buddy is the one behind you.
> 
> Michael *



That's pretty harsh, "eeehhhhhnnnt! you're wrong!", come on, it's not his fault it's the way he was taught.

I do agree however that you should be taught to look over the shoulder to make sure the opponent is there and to verify friend or foe.

:asian:


----------



## brianhunter

I was taught look before I strike also but this could change due to environment, perception of where I was, who was around me etc.:jediduel:


----------



## Les

Here's a question.

If the attack is coming from your RIGHT FLANK, why are you concerned with looking BEHIND you?

Is the attack for Sword and Hammer a rear shoulder grab, or a flank shoulder grab.

I practice and teach it as a right flank attack, which means it's coming from the SIDE, not the rear.

Les


----------



## jeffkyle

That is how I teach both techniques.


----------



## rmcrobertson

I was taught that you more or less have to look that way in Sword and Hammer, because you're getting yanked. A similar question might be raised about Falcons of Force?

I think that one of Mr. Tatum's Tips deals with Sword and Hammer...from one viewpoint, anyway.


----------



## pete

S&H is taught at yellow belt because of its ease of execution and elementary use of motion, however the responsibility associated with this technique exceeds the training associated with that novice level.  

The system of EPAK that I learned has also integrated several techniques from Parker's older Chinese Kenpo system in the lower belt curriculum.  Two of which may represent technically more advanced motion, but a far less lethal effect.  

(1) Wrap Around, where you pin and step towards the attacker, while locking up his arm by wrapping your right arm up and around his in a circular clockwise motion.  

(2) Wing Break, where you pin and step away from the attacker extending his arm, and attacking his elbow with a right upward palm heel.  You then continue to circle your right arm up and around his arm (a la wrap around), go into a left rear twist and throw him down as you unwind from the twist.

Both of these give the defender ample time to identify the attacker and continue  only when necessary.  I have a lot of trouble teaching S&H without the disclaimer that it is strictly for laboratory purposes and should not be tried at home.

Falcons of Force is taught at Brown-3 in our curriculum.  By that time, more knowledge and insight into cause and effect of these techniques are appreciated, along with greater responsibility.  Besides, FofF is against 2 guys surrounding you, and more apt to know there is trouble afoot...

pete.


----------



## Shodan

I was taught to pin the opponent's hand to my shoulder first, then look before striking.

  :asian:  :karate:


----------



## rmcrobertson

Regrettably, I tend to think that it is a very rare yellow belt who will be able to tie somebody up effectively in an emergency. But then, that is the way I was taught, and I tend to be a bit of a klutz...


----------



## Seig

When I teach Sword and Hammer to a student, I tell them that the "secret" of the technique is to look before you strike.  Is it a secret?  To any one with common sense, probably not.  Common sense seems to evaporate in the presence of fear.  Therefore, you must ingrain looking before you strike into your subconscious.  Very insidious that technique is.....


----------



## Les

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *I tend to be a bit of a klutz... *



Somehow, I doubt that  

Les


----------



## Les

> _Originally posted by Seig _
> *When I teach Sword and Hammer to a student, I tell them that the "secret" of the technique is to look before you strike.  Is it a secret?  To any one with common sense, probably not.  Common sense seems to evaporate in the presence of fear.  Therefore, you must ingrain looking before you strike into your subconscious.  Very insidious that technique is..... *



Seig, I'm with you on that.

Imagine shooting out a full power handsword without looking only to discover that your attacker came to the battle by motorcycle, and was so eager to 'mix it' with you that he didn't even stop to take his full face crash helmet off.

Or he's holding a meat cleaver in his hand and it's directly in your handswords line of travel. Whoops!

Les


----------



## pete

> Regrettably, I tend to think that it is a very rare yellow belt who will be able to tie somebody up effectively in an emergency. But then, that is the way I was taught, and I tend to be a bit of a klutz... -rmcrobertson



sorry, i guess i wasn't clear, but wrap around is introduced at orange and wing break at purple. they work on similar principles as locked wing also taught at orange, and they tend to compliment the system very nicely.  

just as many would argue not to remove so-called worthless and impractical techniques from EPAK, my instructor feels that some of the previous generations techniques have not been adequately replaced and chooses to continue teaching them.  these 2 are good examples...

and even though we've never met, i doubt that you're much of a klutz.. perhaps, just human like the rest of us... 

pete


----------



## Les

> _Originally posted by pete _
> *sorry, i guess i wasn't clear, but wrap around is introduced at orange and wing break at purple. they work on similar principles as locked wing also taught at orange, and they tend to compliment the system very nicely.
> pete *



Pete,

I'm not familiar with either of those, any chance you could post them up for me, or e-mail them?

Les


----------



## pete

here ya go les... if ya have any q's, feel free to PM me... pete.

Wrap Around: pin attackers hand to your shoulder and step in towards the attacker with your right foot to 2:00.  rotate your right arm up and around his in a circular clockwise motion to lock him up.  Using an uppercut thrust at the end of the lock can inflict even greater damage.  a eye rake can be activated as your arm circles around. 

Wing Break: pin the hand to your shoulder, but this time step away from the attacker with your left foot to 9:00, thereby extending his arm.  attacking his locked elbow with a right upward palm heel.  then circle your right arm counter clocksise  up and around his arm so that your hand reaches and grabs his shoulder.  go into a left rear twist and throw him down as you unwind from the twist.  an elbow to the bicep can be activated during the circular arm movement, as well as a side knife edge kick to the face as he is falling from the throw.


----------



## rmcrobertson

Oh, no, it ain't false modesty or even modesty. I used to regularly drive my first instructor (Toni) into the house for a cigarette, my second (Scott) out for a burrito. Larry just goes in the office and closes the door when he can't take it any more. 

About the smartest thing I ever said about my approach to learning new material in kenpo is this: "With me, it's just dogs watching TV." 

Do you folks find it hard to convince students to turn their heads before they change directions and angles in forms? It makes me wanna go in the office and close the door, when I see students high-stepping (! whole 'nother problem) through Short 1 and Short 2, turning into blocks and covering/sidestepping without the slightest ideas of what's over there...


----------



## Les

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Do you folks find it hard to convince students to turn their heads before they change directions and angles in forms? It makes me wanna go in the office and close the door, when I see students high-stepping (! whole 'nother problem) through Short 1 and Short 2, turning into blocks and covering/sidestepping without the slightest ideas of what's over there... *



This is a very good point.

I think you should have posted it as a seperate thread, as we could all learn something from each other on this subject.

As far as turning the head in Sword & Hammer goes, I tell students this;

When someone suddenly grabs you in the street there are three general possibilities.

1: Someone is trying to mug/attack you.

2: A friend just spotted you and is about to say "Hey, how are you doing? Lets go have a beer"

If you don't look first, you might lose your wallet and/or your teeth OR you might lose a friend (and a beer).

About here they usually say "What about the third possibility?"

Ah Yes, the third possibility is that it's a police officer who want's a quiet word with you. Now it's entirely up to you if you do the technique this time or not, but if you do, don't tell him who taught it to you.

Les


----------



## Doc

Seig said:
			
		

> When I teach Sword and Hammer to a student, I tell them that the "secret" of the technique is to look before you strike.  Is it a secret?  To any one with common sense, probably not.  Common sense seems to evaporate in the presence of fear.  Therefore, you must ingrain looking before you strike into your subconscious.  Very insidious that technique is.....


Actually sir you are quite correct. The turning of the head is in fact a "secret" (read knowledgeable) move. Also "how" the head is turned is extremely important to achieve maximum structural integrity. The head in the "Anatomical Structure Equation" is the "X-factor." The human body takes many of its "clues" from the position of the head, and therefore is capable of a "Positive or Negative Posture" predicated on the activity direction and response intent.


----------



## Touch Of Death

WilliamTLear said:
			
		

> I was always taught to look before executing these techniques.
> 
> Take Care,
> Billy Lear


I was taught to look as you execute the technque. Perhaps the key to this is having already decided the situation is dangerous that attacks from the rear at this time are not comming from your freinds. Secondly, this first move catches you completly out of neutrality, and what little damage you did to your buddy on the first move can be easily apologized for before your, more deadly, second shot; because, you, of course, saught neutrality in your first move.
Sean


----------



## Doc

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> I was taught to look as you execute the technque. Perhaps the key to this is having already decided the situation is dangerous that attacks from the rear at this time are not comming from your freinds. Secondly, this first move catches you completly out of neutrality, and what little damage you did to your buddy on the first move can be easily apologized for before your, more deadly, second shot; because, you, of course, saught neutrality in your first move.
> Sean



If you look AS you strike, the efficacy of the whole body sructural integrity is significantly diminished.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Doc said:
			
		

> If you look AS you strike, the efficacy of the whole body sructural integrity is significantly diminished.


 I disagree. My first move in sword and hammer is to cover and become neutral to my opponent with; so , I suppose the look happens just prior to your first move. I suppose you do position your body and head before contact is made. (I just got up and did it in the air a few times and found I mispoke :uhyeah: ) My Bad.
Sean


----------



## Les

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> attacks from the rear at this time are not comming from your freinds.
> Sean



I always thought Sword & hammer was a *flank* attack, not a rear attack.

That's the way I was taught it and thats the way I teach it.

Les


----------



## Thesemindz

Les said:
			
		

> I always thought Sword & hammer was a *flank* attack, not a rear attack.
> 
> That's the way I was taught it and thats the way I teach it.
> 
> Les




This is also how it is taught at the school I train in, however, we emphasize that this technique can be done against an attack from any direction, and train it in that manner. One of the first option drills students practice is doing this technique in the air to whatever direction the instructor calls out, to help teach the clock concept. Then the technique is done against attacks from any direction, to help the student make the transition from static "ideal phase" technique to dynamic situations.


-Rob


----------



## Doc

Thesemindz said:
			
		

> This is also how it is taught at the school I train in, however, we emphasize that this technique can be done against an attack from any direction, and train it in that manner. One of the first option drills students practice is doing this technique in the air to whatever direction the instructor calls out, to help teach the clock concept. Then the technique is done against attacks from any direction, to help the student make the transition from static "ideal phase" technique to dynamic situations.
> -Rob



My understanding of the technique rightly requires it be taught as a flank and ONLY as a flank technique. By altering the direction of attack significantly, the mechanisms necessary to maintain and secure body integrity change substantially. Change the direction, change the technique, and change the appropriate response. Everything matters. You can't change the position of the hands, or even your index finger without having a profound effect on the entire body, positive and/or negative. Without that understanding, caution should be exercised with "changing" techniques beyond its Web of Knowledge dictates. Sword & Hammer - attack from the right flank at 3:00.


----------



## Seig

Doc said:
			
		

> My understanding of the technique rightly requires it be taught as a flank and ONLY as a flank technique. By altering the direction of attack significantly, the mechanisms necessary to maintain and secure body integrity change substantially. Change the direction, change the technique, and change the appropriate response. Everything matters. You can't change the position of the hands, or even your index finger without having a profound effect on the entire body, positive and/or negative. Without that understanding, caution should be exercised with "changing" techniques beyond its Web of Knowledge dictates. Sword & Hammer - attack from the right flank at 3:00.


Sir, 
Maybe I am misunderstanding you.  I was not aware that the WOK dictates the clock position of an attack.  Does this mean then, according to the WOK that Sword and Hammer should not be practiced opposite side?


----------



## rmcrobertson

I agree with, "Doc," from what I know of the teaching system--and in fact, as sometimes happens, I think we got another one of those arguments that's really a discussion of the difference between self-defense and learning/teaching self-defense.

In the first place, the attack comes from the right side (or so the argument would go) because at yellow belt, students need to be taught something about a) flank attacks, b) grabs followed by punches, c) how to move their feet in an orderly and rational fashion. 

It's worth noting that up to about Sword and Hammer, yellow techniques emphasize getting the left foot back and presenting the assumed-to-be-stronger right side. Similarly, it's important to teach students to step out into a horse stance with the left foot, and to drag the left foot back in to the attention stance.

I'd also argue against the notion of having students practice techniques on both sides, especially at or around yellow belt. In the first place, I'd argue--and this seems built into the system--that it's unnecessarily confusing, offering too many options too soon. In the second, look at techniques like Grasp of Death, which already teach attacks of a similar sort from the right side. In the third, techniques such as Checking the Storm get reinforced (and do their own reinforcing) by that right step...as, later, will material such as Spiraling Twig.

There's also something having to do with the natural asymmetry of the body, an argument I believe we've had before. It would be interesting to trace this idea of, "right-sidedness," (different from right-handedness)--which is, like it or lump it, an integral part of Mr. Parker's ideas about kenpo--back into some of its roots in Chinese and even Taoist concepts about the body.

I also agree with, "Doc," that changing little things in these "basic," (nothing basic about them, to be sure) techniques is a bad idea. I'd add that it often says a lot more about our own limits as teachers than about kenpo and the best way to teach it, but more to the point, I'd add that there is a logic to the system that isn't to be fooled with lightly. For example, I'd argue that it is indeed a helluva lot easier to teach students to look right as they start to get yanked to the right than it is to take them all around the clock, or to lumber them with a lot of options, or  to throw in a great deal of material about alignment and power too early. 

It's better, I'd argue, to just teach the technique as it stands, and either let the student figure out what the logic is for themselves (after all, it's their kenpo, not ours), or slowly valve in more information that will allow them progressively to do better what they were doing all along.

This particular thing ain't broke. So...


----------



## Doc

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I agree with, "Doc," from what I know of the teaching system--and in fact, as sometimes happens, I think we got another one of those arguments that's really a discussion of the difference between self-defense and learning/teaching self-defense.
> 
> In the first place, the attack comes from the right side (or so the argument would go) because at yellow belt, students need to be taught something about a) flank attacks, b) grabs followed by punches, c) how to move their feet in an orderly and rational fashion.
> 
> It's worth noting that up to about Sword and Hammer, yellow techniques emphasize getting the left foot back and presenting the assumed-to-be-stronger right side. Similarly, it's important to teach students to step out into a horse stance with the left foot, and to drag the left foot back in to the attention stance.
> 
> I'd also argue against the notion of having students practice techniques on both sides, especially at or around yellow belt. In the first place, I'd argue--and this seems built into the system--that it's unnecessarily confusing, offering too many options too soon. In the second, look at techniques like Grasp of Death, which already teach attacks of a similar sort from the right side. In the third, techniques such as Checking the Storm get reinforced (and do their own reinforcing) by that right step...as, later, will material such as Spiraling Twig.
> 
> There's also something having to do with the natural asymmetry of the body, an argument I believe we've had before. It would be interesting to trace this idea of, "right-sidedness," (different from right-handedness)--which is, like it or lump it, an integral part of Mr. Parker's ideas about kenpo--back into some of its roots in Chinese and even Taoist concepts about the body.
> 
> I also agree with, "Doc," that changing little things in these "basic," (nothing basic about them, to be sure) techniques is a bad idea. I'd add that it often says a lot more about our own limits as teachers than about kenpo and the best way to teach it, but more to the point, I'd add that there is a logic to the system that isn't to be fooled with lightly. For example, I'd argue that it is indeed a helluva lot easier to teach students to look right as they start to get yanked to the right than it is to take them all around the clock, or to lumber them with a lot of options, or  to throw in a great deal of material about alignment and power too early.
> 
> It's better, I'd argue, to just teach the technique as it stands, and either let the student figure out what the logic is for themselves (after all, it's their kenpo, not ours), or slowly valve in more information that will allow them progressively to do better what they were doing all along.
> 
> This particular thing ain't broke. So...


Wow, I wholeheartedly agree sir with every single word. Notwithstanding it saved me a lot of writing, I would also add for "Seig" the Web of Knowledge dictates what type of attack should be considered when, and the system philosophy itself favors at various levels activity dedicated dominance on right and left side. 

Therefore, as stated, right and left are indeed addressed, and  mirror image study of every technique is unnecessary, and probably functionally self-defeating for a self-defense driven vehicle. 

OF course, for some who are in the business, this busy work can be made to seem quite reasonable and it will keep the cash cow happy. But, in fairness, there are some who truly believe it to be a benefit, although in my opinion this is anatomically incorrect. Additionally Ed Parker Sr. produced a companion document to be used with the Web Of Knowledge that categorized every technique by type of attack, and direction so an overall perspective is easier to see.

For some teachers who have an academically enriched curriculum, to address mirror image on every technique, would retard progress not enhance it.

Thanks rmcrobertson for an excellent post in the discussion.


----------



## Thesemindz

If mirror imaging the techniques is such a waste of time, why do we find this done in the forms? Specifically the forms 4,5, and 6 address mirror imaging the techniques. If this is such a detriment to learning, why did Mr. Parker include this in the forms that he created?

-Rob


----------



## pete

gotta hand it to you guys for the attention to detail in your posts... here's a coupla points and theories from the peanut gallery:

to maintain anatomical correctness, it seems that one must either deliver the initial right chop from a horse stance without gazing right, or readjust the left foot forward into a neutral bow to gain full view of the attacker prior to chop. otherwise you'd be wrenching your neck, misaligning the spine, and compromising your stance. 

that being said, i don't understand why there would be any anotomical problems with "going left" on this one, if done properly.

also, a little tangent, maybe... i like to teach alternating mace from both sides right off the bat, based on which foot the attacker uses to step forward.  teaches a little thing called a passive leg check.

pete


----------



## Touch Of Death

Thesemindz said:
			
		

> If mirror imaging the techniques is such a waste of time, why do we find this done in the forms? Specifically the forms 4,5, and 6 address mirror imaging the techniques. If this is such a detriment to learning, why did Mr. Parker include this in the forms that he created?
> 
> -Rob


Forms are for practicing basics; however,  Mr Parker designed the techs so the right hand could be dominant on the left or the right. If you are not left handed, and you just choose to work your weaker side in a fight or self defense situation, right from the start, you are not putting your best foot forward. Further more it is not as if the same motion isn't happening on the right or left but the context is better for a right hander if he sees the art through the right handed techs offered for that situation. This is no time to be searching your memory banks for left handed answers to right handed questions anyway.
Sean


----------



## Brenwulv

pete said:
			
		

> also, a little tangent, maybe... i like to teach alternating mace from both sides right off the bat, based on which foot the attacker uses to step forward.  teaches a little thing called a passive leg check.
> pete



I like the idea of teaching little advanced things, but do you think beginners will really be able to tell which leg is coming forward at the time? I mean, as a beginner I barely had time to worry about what attack is coming let alone if they step with the ideal leg.

Also, as I'm aware the tech should work regardless of which leg (considering slightly different targeting may be neccessary of course), so how important is the check really? (for the kind of attack and a beginners standpoint)

Just curious....

Joel


----------



## Doc

Brenwulv said:
			
		

> I like the idea of teaching little advanced things, but do you think beginners will really be able to tell which leg is coming forward at the time? I mean, as a beginner I barely had time to worry about what attack is coming let alone if they step with the ideal leg.
> 
> Also, as I'm aware the tech should work regardless of which leg (considering slightly different targeting may be neccessary of course), so how important is the check really? (for the kind of attack and a beginners standpoint)
> 
> Just curious....
> 
> Joel



You're right Joel. Sometime "teachers" forget the level of their instruction and what the purpose of that instruction is supposed to be. I've seen "teachers" get impressed with themselves and all the ideas they have, and load students up with "what ifs" instead of teaching them how to be functional. I constantly chastise my own staff to keep them on point. Which leg is forward in "Alternating Maces" as I understand it is irrelevant.


----------



## Doc

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> Forms are for practicing basics; however,  Mr Parker designed the techs so the right hand could be dominant on the left or the right. If you are not left handed, and you just choose to work your weaker side in a fight or self defense situation, right from the start, you are not putting your best foot forward. Further more it is not as if the same motion isn't happening on the right or left but the context is better for a right hander if he sees the art through the right handed techs offered for that situation. This is no time to be searching your memory banks for left handed answers to right handed questions anyway.
> Sean



Very well said sir.


----------



## Doc

Thesemindz said:
			
		

> If mirror imaging the techniques is such a waste of time, why do we find this done in the forms? Specifically the forms 4,5, and 6 address mirror imaging the techniques. If this is such a detriment to learning, why did Mr. Parker include this in the forms that he created?
> 
> -Rob



First off sir, I never said that mirror imaging was a waste of time. Those are your words. I challenged the efficacy of the practice in already mapped and defined curriculum in a self-defense vehicle, where the impossible ambidexterity is not the focus of the activity. The philosophy is dedicated to the fostering of relatively rapid, effective, self-defense skills through activity-dedicated practice.

The inclusion of the opposite side in a form is, in most circumstances, an expression of basic skills outside of the context of the self-defense techniques. Both sides forms contain at the appropriate level, indexes of information, and tend to be seen at another level as indexes of motion. This can add confusion to the notion that everything is about motion, and therefore the self-defense techniques and forms are philosophically interchangeable. They are not nor were they ever intended to be at any level ever. Additional the forms, sets, and self-defense techniques evolved independently of each other at various paces, and were continuing that process when Ed Parker Sr. passed away.

Historically the Chinese forms always held information, but through the cultural migration the mistaken notion of all movement containing physical application or bunkai was born. Forms teach anatomical principles, target, timing, and specific energy breathing patterns. Specific applications are a mistaken Okinawan assumption that has migrated with the cultural influence.

An examination of the Ed Parker Sr. evolution of his various interpretations of kenpo yield a myriad of different philosophies and directions, depending upon the snapshot chosen for examination. Originally under the tutelage of William Kwai Sun Chow there was virtually no forms training. William Chow as a modern innovator rejected all traditional convention and instead chose to focus strictly on effective applications, instead of what he saw as useless movement. To this end he integrated any and all effective ideas from the various styles and arts of the islands. 

This is where Ed Parker Sr. originally got his traditional influences. The island was dominated by the Okinawa/Japanese arts and Parker spent considerable time under the influences of Henry Okazaki, creator of Danzan Ryu Jiu-jitsu, with significant mat work.

When he moved to the mainland Parker realized he needed the forms training that had been missing in his own training. Thus he enlisted the likes of Ark Wong, Haumea Lefiti, Jimmy Woo, Lau Bun, Oshima, and even Hidetaka Nishiyama at various times to help him create forms and sets. Originally some forms were borrowed dirrectly from Hung Gar, Five Animal, and modified from Shotokan as well. Jimmy Woo also taught forms directly for Parker in Pasadena as an employee of Parkers that included traditional Taiji-Quon. All the of the original forms and set information (Book Set, Stance Set) as well as a good portion of the book Secrets Of Chinese Karate were directly without modification from Jimmy Woo. "Tiger and the Crane" was at one time a common form in Kenpo directly from the Hung Gar interpretation, only to be modified later by Woo, then ultimately dropped completely by Ed Parker Sr. 

The similarity of Short two to Heian/Pinan Two should also be obvious to the educated with the basic Okinawan/Japanese H pattern footwork and similar hand movement. Than again, Short Two and Short Form One were one form at one time that were ultimately cut in half to create two separate forms. "Star BlocK" also is lifted directly from Ark Wong's Five Animal Qung Fu. None of the forms are wholly Ed Parker creations but all contain his input and the final product is by his design.

Ultimately however Parker never left his application first perspective and always gave Chow credit for this innovation in the martial arts, which he carried to fruition in his own art.

My point is to encourage students to not assign a single purpose or philosophy to any of the Parker works beyond your instructors interpretations. The popular Kenpo is essentially conceptually based and therefore is designed to be interpreted by the individual to his/her most effective application of all the material. Techniques are not mirror imaged in forms but instead, ideas are.


----------



## Doc

pete said:
			
		

> gotta hand it to you guys for the attention to detail in your posts... here's a coupla points and theories from the peanut gallery:
> 
> to maintain anatomical correctness, it seems that one must either deliver the initial right chop from a horse stance without gazing right, ...



That is incorrect. You must turn the head to the right BEFORE execution to establish structural integrity (in conjuction with other mechanisms.)



> ... or readjust the left foot forward into a neutral bow to gain full view of the attacker prior to chop...



My understanding dictates a flank attack, therfore your suggestion would be unecessary.



> otherwise you'd be wrenching your neck, misaligning the spine, and compromising your stance.


Actually this is incorrect. Turning the head does NOT misalign the spine or, in this instance, compromise the stance.



> that being said, i don't understand why there would be any anotomical problems with "going left" on this one, if done properly.



Done properly as you stated, there isn't.


----------



## pete

Doc said:
			
		

> Actually this is incorrect. Turning the head does NOT misalign the spine or, in this instance, compromise the stance.



respectfully disagree, sir.  a horse stance loses its structural integrity when the nose becomes off-line with the navel, just as it would if the insides of the big toes were not parallel.


----------



## Doc

pete said:
			
		

> respectfully disagree, sir.  a horse stance loses its structural integrity when the nose becomes off-line with the navel, just as it would if the insides of the big toes were not parallel.



You are partially correct, but there are variables that can and do compensate for your assertion regarding the feet and nose. However you cannot assign a formula to a stance designed to be functional in one direction (toward 12 o'clock) to a stance adjusted to meet a flank assault, thus essentially becoming functionally, a different stance.Therefore the structure toward the front becomes moot.

You should be attempting to establish structure for a flank assault which requires a different posture that includes a turning of the head X-factor in anatomical alignment before it assumes proper function.

Good call on the foot alignment and chin, but there is soooo much more to it than that. :asian:


----------



## Thesemindz

Doc said:
			
		

> First off sir, I never said that mirror imaging was a waste of time. Those are your words.



You are, of course, correct sir. "Waste of time" were my words, and I apologize for implying that they were yours. Your words at the time were, "unnecessary," "self-defeating," "busy work," and "anatomically incorrect." Since then you have clarified, stating that you were challenging "the efficacy of the practice in already mapped and defined curriculum in a self-defense vehicle, where the impossible ambidexterity is not the focus of the activity." 

I guess my response is that I don't consider performing techniques on the "left hand" side an attempt to create ambidexterity, rather it is merely an excercise designed to convey a lesson. In an attempt to defend one's self, a person simply may step wrong. If I find my left foot forward, for whatever reason, I can still perform Delayed Sword. I don't want to confuse this with what I've seen you refer to as a "pre-supposition of failure." Rather, I think it is merely excepting the reality of a dynamic situation. In my opinion, if I find myself in a fight, I've already made a series of mistakes, such as being in the wrong place, upsetting the wrong person, and responding the wrong way, and I can't afford to assume that I won't make anymore. We don't require that students be able to perform the whole system in this fashion, instead we encourage them to explore this facet of the curriculum, and for the most part, that is only at the brown belt level and above. It's really more of an intellectual excercise. I got the impression, and again this was merely my understanding of what you wrote, that you felt that perfoming the same technique "mirror imaged" was detrimental to a student's growth. If that was the case, how does performing them in the forms change that? Is it only "self-defeating" when you perform them on a person?

In your response to my question, you discussed the origin of the chinese sets and forms, as well as the "lower belt" material. I'm curious, for purely historical reasons, where did forms 4,5, and 6 come from? I had been taught that they were Mr. Parker's creations, is that not true? When you state that, "none of the forms are wholly Ed Parker creations but all contain his input and the final product is by his design," do you really mean none of the forms, or are you only reffering to the forms you specifically mentioned in your post? I'm only asking you as someone who was there.

I particularly liked the point you made about forms showing you "mirror imaged" ideas rather than techniques. Is the point to show that what works on the left works on the right, conceptually speaking?

As a quick side note, how does all this apply to left handed people? I know the majority of people, myself included, are right handed. Do left handed people have different anatomical structure? Are they better off to perform the techniques left handed, or are they still better to perform them the way they are intended? I don't really have any idea on this, but I would think that you have run into this in your own instruction and perhaps have an answer.

I really do enjoy your perspective on things and hold you in high regard, I hope that I haven't offended you by accidently putting words in your mouth.

-Rob


----------



## Thesemindz

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> Forms are for practicing basics; however,  Mr Parker designed the techs so the right hand could be dominant on the left or the right. If you are not left handed, and you just choose to work your weaker side in a fight or self defense situation, right from the start, you are not putting your best foot forward. Further more it is not as if the same motion isn't happening on the right or left but the context is better for a right hander if he sees the art through the right handed techs offered for that situation. This is no time to be searching your memory banks for left handed answers to right handed questions anyway.
> Sean



You make several interesting points here. 

I agree that forms are for practicing basics. I also feel that they teach a wide variety of other things. rmcrobertson has posted any number of reasons to practice the forms in the past including, and please correct me if you haven't stated any of these Robert, footwork, stances, transitions, and targeting, I'm sure that is by no means a comprehensive list. 

I am right handed, but will I always have my right foot forward? I guess in the self-defense situation I'm envisioning, I don't have time to set my stance, or even neccessarily step back or off the line of attack. I am assuming that there is at least an even chance that I will simply have to strike from whatever "point of origin" I happen to be at. Yes, there are techniques that have a left foot forward instead, but I may not get to choose my response. I may only have one chance to survive, and it may require that I kick a guy in the groin and chop him in the neck, all with my left foot forward. 

I wholeheartedly agree that there is, "no time to be searching your memory banks for left handed answers to right handed questions." My point is that I don't expect to have time to search anywhere for anything. All I can hope is that I hit the guy before he hits me. And I keep hitting him as long as I have to in order to survive. I'm not as concerned with an answer as I am an escape route.

-Rob


----------



## Thesemindz

pete said:
			
		

> respectfully disagree, sir.  a horse stance loses its structural integrity when the nose becomes off-line with the navel, just as it would if the insides of the big toes were not parallel.




In a horse stance shouldn't the feet be slightly pigeon toed, rather than parallel? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're saying here, but in II2 Mr. Parker fairly clearly demonstrates, through a model, an illustration, and text descriptions, that they are pointed in rather than forward. If I'm missing the point here, I apologize.

-Rob


----------



## pete

Thesemindz said:
			
		

> In a horse stance shouldn't the feet be slightly pigeon toed, rather than parallel?



if you stand with the arches of your feet parallel, the insides of the big toes will splay outwards creating a deficiency... now make the insides of your big toes parallel and you will find the feeling of being pigeon-toed... 

what you want to avoid is being pigeon-toed to the extent of having your big toes actually pointed inward.


----------



## pete

Brenwulv said:
			
		

> I like the idea of teaching little advanced things, but do you think beginners will really be able to tell which leg is coming forward at the time? I mean, as a beginner I barely had time to worry about what attack is coming let alone if they step with the ideal leg.
> 
> Also, as I'm aware the tech should work regardless of which leg (considering slightly different targeting may be neccessary of course), so how important is the check really? (for the kind of attack and a beginners standpoint)
> 
> Just curious....
> 
> Joel



I like to have beginners start to read the attackers body rather than focusing soley on the attack... kinda like a basketball player establishing position and defending the man rather than lunging for the ball.

the best way to demostrate its importance, or relevance as the case may be, is to do it the "traditional" way against an attacker coming forward with a left step inside your right leg... there's a lot of valuable real estate to protect there!


----------



## pete

Doc said:
			
		

> However you cannot assign a formula to a stance designed to be functional in one direction (toward 12 o'clock) to a stance adjusted to meet a flank assault, thus essentially becoming functionally, a different stance.



so, what you describe is no longer a horse stance, or a horse of a different color


----------



## rmcrobertson

First, I'd argue that there's a considerable difference between being right-handed and being right sided.

Second, sorry Pete, but in a kenpo horse stance the toes do indeed turn inward...and the weight goes to the outside edge of the foot.

Thanks.


----------



## Brenwulv

pete said:
			
		

> I like to have beginners start to read the attackers body rather than focusing soley on the attack... kinda like a basketball player establishing position and defending the man rather than lunging for the ball.



Okay, fair enough. I feel worrying about not getting hit is the first issue for a beginner, but I can see how this would help 'speed things up' a little later on.




			
				pete said:
			
		

> the best way to demostrate its importance, or relevance as the case may be, is to do it the "traditional" way against an attacker coming forward with a left step inside your right leg... there's a lot of valuable real estate to protect there!




Thought of something after I posted while going to bed. You say teach both sides to get the passive check, right? So for this tech, Alternating Mace you set back to a right neutral and block. Wouldn't the 'other side' passive check be taught in Attacking Mace, where you step back to a left neutral?

Just asking if what you're trying to get across isn't already in the yellow belt level in some fashion.

Joel


----------



## Touch Of Death

pete said:
			
		

> so, what you describe is no longer a horse stance, or a horse of a different color


I know this sounds dumb, but when are you in a horse stance? I can see it in transition, but I'm not sure where this has to do with sword and hammer. If your talking about the breif horse you are in just before your first strike lands, I don't see the value in having structural integrity to the front when your opponent is at your side. while in the horse, you offer only your strongest base of support; so again I ask why are we worried about what directly in front of you? I hope it would be nothing. :asian: 
Sean


----------



## Brenwulv

Thesemindz said:
			
		

> As a quick side note, how does all this apply to left handed people? I know the majority of people, myself included, are right handed. Do left handed people have different anatomical structure? Are they better off to perform the techniques left handed, or are they still better to perform them the way they are intended? I don't really have any idea on this, but I would think that you have run into this in your own instruction and perhaps have an answer.
> -Rob



Well, I've no clue about the anatomical issue, I fell we've two arms and two legs so it must be similar, but I'm left handed so I guess I can reply.

I think that it should be taught as is because it forces you to develop what's normally a weaker side. Also it allows my stronger hand to do certain things, like being the stopping punch, Alternating Mace, pinning hand, Mace of Aggression, final upper cut in Attacking Mace to name a few.

Also causes you to really see how stances work with your strikes and blocks to generate power, something people might not see right away and try to get by on arm strength alone.

Lastly, the system is set up for the right side, and accounts for the left in certain instances. Kind of how most people are right handed with only a section of lefties. Sure I could have learned everything on the other side, but then most of my techs would be for someone attacking with a left. Not who's most likely to attack me.

For me, and most lefties I guess, it a right handed world, so work with it. Know thy enemy, so to speak.

Joel


----------



## Touch Of Death

Brenwulv said:
			
		

> Well, I've no clue about the anatomical issue, I fell we've two arms and two legs so it must be similar, but I'm left handed so I guess I can reply.
> 
> I think that it should be taught as is because it forces you to develop what's normally a weaker side. Also it allows my stronger hand to do certain things, like being the stopping punch, Alternating Mace, pinning hand, Mace of Aggression, final upper cut in Attacking Mace to name a few.
> 
> Also causes you to really see how stances work with your strikes and blocks to generate power, something people might not see right away and try to get by on arm strength alone.
> 
> Lastly, the system is set up for the right side, and accounts for the left in certain instances. Kind of how most people are right handed with only a section of lefties. Sure I could have learned everything on the other side, but then most of my techs would be for someone attacking with a left. Not who's most likely to attack me.
> 
> For me, and most lefties I guess, it a right handed world, so work with it. Know thy enemy, so to speak.
> 
> Joel


I think that idealy a totaly left handed person should learn the art as it was taught completly on the left side; however, not every one is totaly left handed. This is a right handers world and many of us as children have learned to live life as a right handed person would. My personal thing is that what ever hand I use to learn something is the way I will do it from then on. I write and play ping pong left handed, but throw, bowl, and fight right handed. Not that it would have mattered either way, but I was taught kenpo right handed. If you go through the techs you will find that while both hands are doing the work all the techs are right hand dominated techs. Just switching to left hand domination, for the heck of it, is not going to become a better fighter. The bennefit of doing techs on the other side is so you can see that this tech is now very similar to that tech. You know like Clutching feathers is just B1a on the inside. 
Sean


----------



## pete

Brenwulv said:
			
		

> Wouldn't the 'other side' passive check be taught in Attacking Mace, where you step back to a left neutral?



yes, if you consider the defense, but not exactly when you consider the attack...

in "attacking", the nature of a right step-through right punch checks his own width, leaving the left side out of harms way;  in "alternating", the 2 hand forward push does not eliminate the threat from the opposite side, or continued forward motion.


----------



## Brenwulv

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> I think that idealy a totaly left handed person should learn the art as it was taught completly on the left side; however, not every one is totaly left handed.
> Sean



Exactly, ideal and realistic are different beasts.

I argee otherwise, you fight how you train, or in this case, fight how you learned it.

I agree also that other sides open up the family groupings and such, but I think it also gives a few options for when you screw something up. Can I pull a whole tech on a side I'm not used to, no, but I can pull a move or two if need be. Hopefully.

Joel


----------



## Brenwulv

pete said:
			
		

> yes, if you consider the defense, but not exactly when you consider the attack...
> 
> in "attacking", the nature of a right step-through right punch checks his own width, leaving the left side out of harms way;  in "alternating", the 2 hand forward push does not eliminate the threat from the opposite side, or continued forward motion.



I see what you mean and I see where my difference lies. We us Alternating for a higher push and do a regular inward block (Mr. Planas' way) so we check the width if the block is done well.

Starting to understand what you mean though.

Joel


----------



## Touch Of Death

Brenwulv said:
			
		

> Exactly, ideal and realistic are different beasts.
> 
> I argee otherwise, you fight how you train, or in this case, fight how you learned it.
> 
> I agree also that other sides open up the family groupings and such, but I think it also gives a few options for when you screw something up. Can I pull a whole tech on a side I'm not used to, no, but I can pull a move or two if need be. Hopefully.
> 
> Joel


My point is that rather than attempting ideas on the other side, the art provides those answers in a right handed context already. we don't call attacking mace delayed sword on the other side but with a right hande domination, but we very well could. We simply don't need make those kinds of decisions under pressure. The answers are already provided. Although, truth be told, we don't need to learn 154 techs to know the art. they are just tactics called for by specific situations. Right and left become easier to deal with once you group the techs into a few simple catagories.
Sean


----------



## Brenwulv

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> My point is that rather than attempting ideas on the other side, the art provides those answers in a right handed context already. we don't call attacking mace delayed sword on the other side but with a right hande domination, but we very well could. We simply don't need make those kinds of decisions under pressure. The answers are already provided. Although, truth be told, we don't need to learn 154 techs to know the art. they are just tactics called for by specific situations. Right and left become easier to deal with once you group the techs into a few simple catagories.
> Sean



Agreed, the context is there already, guess I wasn't clear enough about that in my other posts.

I'd say you do need the 154 (or however people want to score it) to know the art as each technique gives different variations that some migth not see right away, if ever.

Now, to be capable of self defense in most situations, no, nowhere near 154 is needed. But it all goes to why and how and what people train for, which really isn't the point of this thread.  

Joel


----------



## Les

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> I know this sounds dumb, but when are you in a horse stance? I can see it in transition, but I'm not sure where this has to do with sword and hammer. If your talking about the breif horse you are in just before your first strike lands
> Sean



When I work, or teach, Sword & Hammer, I'm looking for a step to 3.30, into a *Right Neutral Bow* , not a step to 3 o'clock into a side horse.

This gives you a better *angle of entry* , correct alignment and a more efficient base to work from.

This assumes that the attack is from the right flank, (3 o'clock) not from the rear, (6 o'clock) as many seem to want to do it.

Having said that, try stepping to 3.30 with an attack from 4.30 and compare it to stepping to 3 o'clock. It's more versatile.

Try all this, (more than once), see what you think.

Les


----------



## Touch Of Death

Les said:
			
		

> When I work, or teach, Sword & Hammer, I'm looking for a step to 3.30, into a *Right Neutral Bow* , not a step to 3 o'clock into a side horse.
> 
> This gives you a better *angle of entry* , correct alignment and a more efficient base to work from.
> 
> This assumes that the attack is from the right flank, (3 o'clock) not from the rear, (6 o'clock) as many seem to want to do it.
> 
> Having said that, try stepping to 3.30 with an attack from 4.30 and compare it to stepping to 3 o'clock. It's more versatile.
> 
> Try all this, (more than once), see what you think.
> 
> Les


Les
We step with our left as in a cover; so, I probably won't be trying any of that step with the right  foot stuff, but thanks :asian: 
Sean


----------



## Touch Of Death

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> Les
> We step with our left as in a cover; so, I probably won't be trying any of that step with the right  foot stuff, but thanks :asian:
> Sean


Now that it has been brought up, does anyone else cover with the left or is it just me?


----------



## Thesemindz

Brenwulv said:
			
		

> Lastly, the system is set up for the right side, and accounts for the left in certain instances. Kind of how most people are right handed with only a section of lefties. Sure I could have learned everything on the other side, but then most of my techs would be for someone attacking with a left. Not who's most likely to attack me.
> 
> For me, and most lefties I guess, it a right handed world, so work with it. Know thy enemy, so to speak.
> 
> Joel



Wow Joel, those are really great points, and being a "righty" I'd never considered the plight of the left handed man. Or at least, not seriously considered it. I mean, I watch The Simpsons, but I've never actually been to a Leftorium.

Thanks.

-Rob


----------



## rmcrobertson

Yep, Rob, I checked, and in "Infinite Insights," Vol. 2, "Physical Analyzation I," page 52, there is both an overhead view of a horse stance with the toes pointing inward, and the remark, "Your feet are pigeon toed. If you were to extend two imaginary lines in the direction your toes are pointed, both lines would intersect...."

It may be worth adding, in the context of "Sword and Hammer," that the playing around with the horse stance and strikes out of a horse stance gets done (among other places) through Striking Set 1, and in the last moves of Long Form 1.

And...well..as an official member of the Whomp That Dead Horse Club, there is again a difference between being right-sided (which kenpo is) and right-haanded (which I don't think kenpo is).


----------



## Nick Ellerton

Look when you are taught the technique you are always told to look b4 you execute the strike. But how do you no when it happen the right time to execute the strike when you arnt looking. you can usually tell by the grab and the situation. But always look!!!. Obscure wing peripheral vision can prevent you looking well not prevent meaning you do not have to turn your head! to see what is happening because of the back elbow strike to begin with it is evident that it is a close range technique. And when it comes to sword and hammer. When you step back, you upper pectoral gurdle rotates and unless you deliberately dont turn your head then you will see your attacker anyway and this technique allows that short period of time to pull the strike should it be someone you dont feel like hurting.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Nick Ellerton said:
			
		

> Look when you are taught the technique you are always told to look b4 you execute the strike. But how do you no when it happen the right time to execute the strike when you arnt looking. you can usually tell by the grab and the situation. But always look!!!. Obscure wing peripheral vision can prevent you looking well not prevent meaning you do not have to turn your head! to see what is happening because of the back elbow strike to begin with it is evident that it is a close range technique. And when it comes to sword and hammer. When you step back, you upper pectoral gurdle rotates and unless you deliberately dont turn your head then you will see your attacker anyway and this technique allows that short period of time to pull the strike should it be someone you dont feel like hurting.


When are you stepping back?


----------



## Doc

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> First, I'd argue that there's a considerable difference between being right-handed and being right sided.
> 
> Second, sorry Pete, but in a kenpo horse stance the toes do indeed turn inward...and the weight goes to the outside edge of the foot.
> 
> Thanks.



That is correct sir. In fact you both are correct. The feet are curved and when properly placed parallel to each other, the toes will point inward given the impression of the feet turned inward but not so.

The way the visual cortex line of sight works in human anatomy is, it tends to draw on particular reference points of the body to determine position. When looking at the feet for stances, the toes are the reference point. When blocking, the hand position can sometimes fool your mind as well into believing your block is correct when it is not.

If the weight isn't evenly distributed toward the outside edge of the foot as stated, I guarantee you have no upper body structural integrity.

Human anatomy is very complex, and even more so in applications as dynamic as the teaching of American kenpo.


----------



## Doc

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> Now that it has been brought up, does anyone else cover with the left or is it just me?



Our curriculum does as well, despite to the contrary I've seen in Parker Manuals.


----------



## Nick Ellerton

The way i was taught it in sword and hammer to gain more emphasis on power in the technique step back as to about 4 30 when you execute the outward hand sword to send their head back more pushing their groin forward making the strikes more effective plus the rotation of you upper pectoral gurdle is great for the power of the strike.


----------



## Doc

Nick Ellerton said:
			
		

> The way i was taught it in sword and hammer to gain more emphasis on power in the technique step back as to about 4 30 when you execute the outward hand sword to send their head back more pushing their groin forward making the strikes more effective plus the rotation of you upper pectoral gurdle is great for the power of the strike.



????? Anybody?


----------



## Doc

pete said:
			
		

> if you stand with the arches of your feet parallel, the insides of the big toes will splay outwards creating a deficiency... now make the insides of your big toes parallel and you will find the feeling of being pigeon-toed...
> 
> what you want to avoid is being pigeon-toed to the extent of having your big toes actually pointed inward.



From the inside your feet are concave and when actually parallel, your toes point inward.


----------



## Doc

Thesemindz said:
			
		

> I guess my response is that I don't consider performing techniques on the "left hand" side an attempt to create ambidexterity, rather it is merely an excercise designed to convey a lesson.


The teaching process in modern times has a limited amount of time to convey some very complex ideas, and then transform them into effective physical action. In a limited curriculum environment, such as in the commercial motion based art this approach might have some viability. However in my own teaching, we focus on anatomical driven principles and therefore this motion on both sides concept is limiting.

Human anatomy is very complex, however motion is not in comparison. Anatomy requires specific applications. Motion is abstract but can be applied. But sans application is useless.


> In an attempt to defend one's self, a person simply may step wrong. If I find my left foot forward, for whatever reason, I can still perform Delayed Sword.


You train to react properly under stress, much like the military and or civilian public safety. Properly trained you just do. If done properly it will tap into existing facets of human anatomy and reinforce them rather than attempt to create completely new synaptic pathways. New pathways are soft and therefore susceptible to ***, (Adrenal Stress Syndrom), which will cause the body to stutter even when the brain knows what to do. This is why the chemicals in an Adrenal Dump interrupt the synaptic pathways and soft muscle memory.


> It's really more of an intellectual excercise. I got the impression, and again this was merely my understanding of what you wrote, that you felt that perfoming the same technique "mirror imaged" was detrimental to a student's growth. If that was the case, how does performing them in the forms change that? Is it only "self-defeating" when you perform them on a person?


Forms are devoid of external stimuli, with a minimum if any of stress, therefore hard muscle memory is not accessed. A huge difference from reacting to possible injury, especially from soft muscle memory not solidified through proper and realistic training and understanding.


> In your response to my question, you discussed the origin of the chinese sets and forms, as well as the "lower belt" material. I'm curious, for purely historical reasons, where did forms 4,5, and 6 come from? I had been taught that they were Mr. Parker's creations, is that not true? When you state that, "none of the forms are wholly Ed Parker creations but all contain his input and the final product is by his design," do you really mean none of the forms, or are you only reffering to the forms you specifically mentioned in your post? I'm only asking you as someone who was there.


Im referring to all of them. Once again, " none of the forms are wholly Ed Parker creations but all contain his input and the final product is by his design, "

Ed Parker did not create the forms move for move, anymore did he did any other facet of any of his Kenpo interpretations. He gleaned information from other people, extrapolated information, and determined what he wanted and why. But much of the information came from his seniors in the art, but he put it together in a unique methodology.


> I particularly liked the point you made about forms showing you "mirror imaged" ideas rather than techniques. Is the point to show that what works on the left works on the right, conceptually speaking?


No. Its to work opposite sides of the brain to work toward basic symmetrical, (NOT ambidextrous) skills. To examine how the brain and body work in strange ways through its crossed symmetrical motor control, try this.

 While sitting at the computer raise your right foot off the floor slightly. Then begin to rotate your foot in clockwise circle. 

Then attempt to write a numerical 6 in the air with you index finger. 

The movement of the finger along with other factors will cause your foot to reverse direction involuntarily or shut it down altogether. You will not be successful in this exercise.

Movement is one thing. Anatomical movement is another.


> As a quick side note, how does all this apply to left handed people? I know the majority of people, myself included, are right handed. Do left handed people have different anatomical structure? Are they better off to perform the techniques left handed, or are they still better to perform them the way they are intended? I don't really have any idea on this, but I would think that you have run into this in your own instruction and perhaps have an answer.


No sir. Left-handed people with no previous training have no more difficulty than a right-handed person. No one is truly ambidextrous. Most people are activity dedicated preferenced. There are some things they prefer to do on one side or the other, but not both. Most write on one side only, but there are things you prefer to do left-handed more comfortably.


> I really do enjoy your perspective on things and hold you in high regard, I hope that I haven't offended you by accidently putting words in your mouth.


Not at all sir. This thread is what this forum is all about. We may not always agree, but we can politely discuss our differences, exchange information, and come away better than we were. All of this done with intelligence and class, while we delve deeper into our common interest. Thats why I dont frequent other popular forums. The moderators here do a great job. Besides no one has been misquoted more than me. :asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson

Uh...just tried the foot-and-finger thing...didn't get it the first time, but I can actually do it.

I knew there was something basically corss-wired in there.

As for the Great Sword & H controversy, well, first off, if you're getting pulled to your right, your head' s going to go right anyway...

And as for stepping to 4:30, I'd argue that if you do this against a flank attack, you are opening an excellent line of entry to the groin.

Works on boys, works on girls.


----------



## Thesemindz

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Uh...just tried the foot-and-finger thing...didn't get it the first time, but I can actually do it.



Yah, my mom told me about this about a year ago. Usually, I can't get it first try, my foot goes haywire and starts going all over the place. Second try I can almost always get it though and then I'm able to repeat it. At least till I try again later.

-Rob


----------



## Touch Of Death

Doc said:
			
		

> Our curriculum does as well, despite to the contrary I've seen in Parker Manuals.


Thanks Doc,
I was just talking to a freind today about this whom used to train in the IKKA and he explained that he was taught to step into a horse and make his strikes off to the side while in a horse. I started making a list of problems that this might cause: 1. you really have to look good and hard before steping into potential right crosses; however if you step with the left you can look and step at the same time. 2. This would be just about the only tech that didn't require you becoming neutral to your oponent, which would make it an anomoly, and anomilies should be discarded; because, it should all feel the same. 3. you aren't launching, effectivly, into your first strike. 4. If you do cover with the left this tech is mearly a variation on Sword of Destruction or if the cross is thrown (and it will be), it becomes B1A;where as, out of an horse it becomes a bad variation of obscure wing which I suppose answers the question as to why Mr. Lear lumped these techs toguether on this very thread 5. Strikes directly to the side of an horse are weak and should really be more at a 45 degree angle, which means, to get power your going to have to step a little further back and expose your targets to do so.

I'll just leave it at that for now. :asian: 
Sean


----------



## rmcrobertson

Well, I'd argue that one's guy's horse stance is another guy's neutral, depending on what your orientation happens to be. But a good point, Sean.

I figured, too, wotthell, look it up.

From the LTKKA technique manual, page 6:

"As your opponent attacks you with a right flank shoulder grab, pin his left hand to your shoulder with your left hand. Keep your elbow anchored for support. Step to 3 o'clock into a right neutral bow with your right foot. Simultaneously execute a right outward handsword to opponent's throat."

Can we talk about Obscure Sword and Falcons of Force, now?


----------



## Touch Of Death

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Well, I'd argue that one's guy's horse stance is another guy's neutral, depending on what your orientation happens to be. But a good point, Sean.
> 
> I figured, too, wotthell, look it up.
> 
> From the LTKKA technique manual, page 6:
> 
> "As your opponent attacks you with a right flank shoulder grab, pin his left hand to your shoulder with your left hand. Keep your elbow anchored for support. Step to 3 o'clock into a right neutral bow with your right foot. Simultaneously execute a right outward handsword to opponent's throat."
> 
> Can we talk about Obscure Sword and Falcons of Force, now?


Alright dagnabit, I suppose you can name a few techs that fit your way but l still don't like the fact that your lauch off the left foot is weeeeeeaaaaaak! Even you have to admit that a cover gives you more power. You have not gotten off the line of attack either; so , enjoy that knuckle sandwich.  
Sean

Ps And further more, if he stiff arms you, you ain't stepping in with that weak launch.


----------



## Brenwulv

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> Alright dagnabit, I suppose you can name a few techs that fit your way but l still don't like the fact that your lauch off the left foot is weeeeeeaaaaaak! Even you have to admit that a cover gives you more power. You have not gotten off the line of attack either; so , enjoy that knuckle sandwich.
> Sean
> 
> Ps And further more, if he stiff arms you, you ain't stepping in with that weak launch.



So maybe it's not the strongest possible stance to work with, but since it's a soft tissue target does it make it less valid?

Stepping off the attack line is the best notion in some cases, somtimes we move in or away too, but won't the handsword deflect any incoming strike?

For the PS, if he's stiff arming, then there's no need to worry about the other hand, because it won't reach your head now will it?

I can understand your reasoning, but I also see the reasoning for the other ways stated.... well some of them at least   

Joel


----------



## Doc

Brenwulv said:
			
		

> So maybe it's not the strongest possible stance to work with, but since it's a soft tissue target does it make it less valid?
> Stepping off the attack line is the best notion in some cases, somtimes we move in or away too, but won't the handsword deflect any incoming strike?
> For the PS, if he's stiff arming, then there's no need to worry about the other hand, because it won't reach your head now will it?
> I can understand your reasoning, but I also see the reasoning for the other ways stated.... well some of them at least



Not withstanding stepping TOWARD your attacker with your right foot, which seems to be common and obviously effective for some, I was taught quite differently by Ed Parker Sr.

First we examined the attack which was determined to be a CLOSE grab to the shoulder from the flank at 3:00 with the body bladed and a possible right hand held in reserve. The reasons why are:

The INITIAL intent here of the attacker is to intimidate first and foremost with a limited control factor. This is the reason for the CLOSE grab. 

A person with intent to intimidate and control will NOT do so with an extended arm. Clearly he is not afraid of you or he would not touch you, or he would launch a blind strike from more to the rear with no initial touching to signal the coming attack.

Because he is CLOSE, and considering the level this technique is taught, the student is taught to step away with the left to 9:00. Moving AWAY from the attacker and a possible follow up right hand, to a stronger stance and space needed to launch a retaliatory strike with the extended arm on that side for power. 

Additinally by APPEARING to "move away" you are lulling your attacker to sleep with an apparent reaction anticipated by the attacker. One that appears that you have been intimidated and are attempting to flee, when in reality you are preparing your initial retaliation. This also gives you the opportunity to INDEX your weapon with no obvious signs of resistance.

This action also will cause him to tighten his grip, (quite desireable) and shift his body weight in anticipation of countering the resistance, (also very desireable) much like what many of you know as "Obscure Sword."

"PINNING" the hand is not a factor and is contridictory body movement much like the previous exercise that, among other factors creates lateral asymetrical pacifity of one hand which retards the active entity and destroys structural integrity of the body in its entirety.

Instead a "Slapcheck" would be utilized for "Directional Harmony" (and other reasons) to make the initial strike devastating, and probably capable with proper targeting of terminating the attack singularly.



> So maybe it's not the strongest possible stance to work with, but since it's a soft tissue target does it make it less valid?


First the stance is extremely strong, and the strike is not be a soft tissue strike in our curriculum. Although the prevailing option is to the throat, that will get you jail time for someone putting his hand on your shoulder no matter how aggressive he is. 


> Stepping off the attack line is the best notion in some cases, somtimes we move in or away too, but won't the handsword deflect any incoming strike?


In my opinion, no and it should NOT be depended on to do so.


> For the PS, if he's stiff arming, then there's no need to worry about the other hand, because it won't reach your head now will it?


If he is "stiff-arming" it is a different attacker and therefore a different response should be forthcoming. "Stiff-arming" is not a minor variation of the default attack theme.

The next level in the curriculum for this technique is "Obscure Wing" which now presumes your level of skill has risen to the point that when your attacker grabs with the extended arm, you are then capable of reacting sooner and "meeting" him with your elbow as he pulls and steps in to intimidate.

Clearly there are many variations for this rather simple technique. This is only how I was taught and the reasons we worked out for the methodology based on actual "street experience" and judicial notice of the complexities of the criminal justice system from a law enforcement officers perspective.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Brenwulv said:
			
		

> So maybe it's not the strongest possible stance to work with, but since it's a soft tissue target does it make it less valid?
> 
> Stepping off the attack line is the best notion in some cases, somtimes we move in or away too, but won't the handsword deflect any incoming strike?
> 
> For the PS, if he's stiff arming, then there's no need to worry about the other hand, because it won't reach your head now will it?
> 
> I can understand your reasoning, but I also see the reasoning for the other ways stated.... well some of them at least
> 
> Joel


Well I just asked the people I train with about this and basicly was set straight. If its a touch or a push you step away with the left foot and if you feel a pull of any kind you step in with the right. The soft target thing is a dead end street, because he may be checking or his motor cycle helmet might get in the way (Ha Ha). As Robert Stated you really should at least back up your strikes with the structural integrety of a neutral. The ideal phase I know has no pressure so there is nothing hindering you from stepping up the circle and off the line of attack; also, our attack comes from 4:30. 
Sean


----------



## Brenwulv

Doc said:
			
		

> Not withstanding stepping TOWARD your attacker with your right foot, which seems to be common and obviously effective for some, I was taught quite differently by Ed Parker Sr.
> 
> First we examined the attack which was determined to be a CLOSE grab to the shoulder from the flank at 3:00 with the body bladed and a possible right hand held in reserve. The reasons why are:
> 
> The INITIAL intent here of the attacker is to intimidate first and foremost with a limited control factor. This is the reason for the CLOSE grab.



Okay, my attack is a bit father away, so I can understand the differences. In essence they aim to turn you towards them for whatever reason, intimidation or otherwise.




			
				Doc said:
			
		

> A person with intent to intimidate and control will NOT do so with an extended arm. Clearly he is not afraid of you or he would not touch you, or he would launch a blind strike from more to the rear with no initial touching to signal the coming attack.



Okay.



			
				Doc said:
			
		

> First the stance is extremely strong, and the strike is not be a soft tissue strike in our curriculum. Although the prevailing option is to the throat, that will get you jail time for someone putting his hand on your shoulder no matter how aggressive he is.
> 
> In my opinion, no and it should NOT be depended on to do so.



If someone grabs me to turn me into a strike and I hit him in the throat, just enough to stop the attack, I'll be in trouble? I'm sure I'll get questioned, but if I don't crush his throat or anything....

Second point, his punch would more than likely be loaded up for the strike, probably by his shoulder (right punch). If my handsword is going toward his head at the same time, how can my hand/arm not deflect the strike in some way?



			
				Doc said:
			
		

> If he is "stiff-arming" it is a different attacker and therefore a different response should be forthcoming. "Stiff-arming" is not a minor variation of the default attack theme.



The statement was if he's stiff-arming I can't step into the attack. My response was if he's stiff-arming, he can't hit me with the other hand. Of course something like that will warrant a different response.





			
				Doc said:
			
		

> The next level in the curriculum for this technique is "Obscure Wing" which now presumes your level of skill has risen to the point that when your attacker grabs with the extended arm, you are then capable of reacting sooner and "meeting" him with your elbow as he pulls and steps in to intimidate.
> 
> Clearly there are many variations for this rather simple technique. This is only how I was taught and the reasons we worked out for the methodology based on actual "street experience" and judicial notice of the complexities of the criminal justice system from a law enforcement officers perspective.



Okay.

Joel


----------



## Brenwulv

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> Well I just asked the people I train with about this and basicly was set straight. If its a touch or a push you step away with the left foot and if you feel a pull of any kind you step in with the right.



Which makes sense.



			
				Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> The soft target thing is a dead end street, because he may be checking or his motor cycle helmet might get in the way (Ha Ha).



If he's checking then I don't need to work about a punch. If he's checking I have the groin to follow up to.

And as long as I look before I strike, like I should, let him wear a helmet. I'll change the weapon to a heel palm and hopefully rock his head enough to start something else before he can counter.

Doesn't sound like a dead end street. More like a road with lots of exits incase I miss the one I wanted in the first place.




			
				Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> As Robert Stated you really should at least back up your strikes with the structural integrety of a neutral. The ideal phase I know has no pressure so there is nothing hindering you from stepping up the circle and off the line of attack; also, our attack comes from 4:30.
> Sean



If the attack is from 3 and if there is a pull it's kinda hard to step to a neutral, especially if by surprise. But if one can, then by all means solidify the best base you can.

If it's from 4:30 then I see your need to step as you do.

Joel


----------



## Les

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> which I suppose answers the question as to why Mr. Lear lumped these techs toguether on this very thread.... Sean



When did that happen?

Billy Lear didn't start this thread, he simply answered to original question. *Kirk* was the one who lumped them together.

Les


----------



## Doc

Brenwulv said:
			
		

> If someone grabs me to turn me into a strike and I hit him in the throat, just enough to stop the attack, I'll be in trouble? I'm sure I'll get questioned, but if I don't crush his throat or anything....



For those that have supreme control even in the heat of battle when threatened, I guess it's ok. For the rest of us it makes more sense to simply pick a non-lethal but effective target. "Oops" will get you locked up. Accident or not, you're locked up.


> Second point, his punch would more than likely be loaded up for the strike, probably by his shoulder (right punch). If my handsword is going toward his head at the same time, how can my hand/arm not deflect the strike in some way?


Same trajectory on parallel planes. Not likely. Decide which you want to do block or strike. besides the punch is not a part of the technique, and is only a possibility that must be considered later in your study and not at the tme you initially learn the technique.

Properly examined the punch is contained at the next level of instruction with no appreaciable change in the default technique.


----------



## pete

Doc said:
			
		

> For those that have supreme control even in the heat of battle when threatened, I guess it's ok. For the rest of us it makes more sense to simply pick a non-lethal but effective target. "Oops" will get you locked up. Accident or not, you're locked up.



culled this from my response back on page-2



> S&H is taught at yellow belt because of its ease of execution and elementary use of motion, however the responsibility associated with this technique exceeds the training associated with that novice level.
> 
> The system of EPAK that I learned has also integrated several techniques from Parker's older Chinese Kenpo system in the lower belt curriculum. Two of which may represent technically more advanced motion, but a far less lethal effect:  Wraparound and Wing Break.
> 
> Both of these give the defender ample time to identify the attacker and continue only when necessary. I have a lot of trouble teaching S&H without the disclaimer that it is strictly for laboratory purposes and should not be tried at home.



and at les' request, described the 2 techniques:



> Wrap Around: pin attackers hand to your shoulder and step in towards the attacker with your right foot to 2:00. rotate your right arm up and around his in a circular clockwise motion to lock him up. Using an uppercut thrust at the end of the lock can inflict even greater damage. a eye rake can be activated as your arm circles around.
> 
> Wing Break: pin the hand to your shoulder, but this time step away from the attacker with your left foot to 9:00, thereby extending his arm. attacking his locked elbow with a right upward palm heel. then circle your right arm counter clocksise up and around his arm so that your hand reaches and grabs his shoulder. go into a left rear twist and throw him down as you unwind from the twist. an elbow to the bicep can be activated during the circular arm movement, as well as a side knife edge kick to the face as he is falling from the throw



wing break, by steping out with your left foot, is in response to the attacker using a pushing force, or "stiff arm", as opposed to wraparound/s&h where you go with the attackers pulling force by stepping towards him with your right.

Doc, how do you view the retention of these techniques in the system?


----------



## Nick Ellerton

im sorry doc. i didnt explain myself properly. the grab is to your right flank, so by pinning with your left hand and stepping back with your right foot to 4 30 into a left neutral executing the outward hand sword it is gaining more depth of penetration in the strike, exposing more of the groin, making the strikes more effective. As far as the rotation of the upper pectoral gurdle is concerned, your torso as you drop into the neutral bow puts more emphasis on power on the strike. hope that helps thats just the way i was taught it.


----------



## Brenwulv

Doc said:
			
		

> For those that have supreme control even in the heat of battle when threatened, I guess it's ok. For the rest of us it makes more sense to simply pick a non-lethal but effective target. "Oops" will get you locked up. Accident or not, you're locked up.



Fair enough. Your first responce seemed like even going for a throat strike would result in jail which isn't really the case. And as you said, in the heat of battle, control is an issue. No saying you'll even hit the throat, maybe smack the chest or face by accident.



			
				Doc said:
			
		

> Same trajectory on parallel planes. Not likely. Decide which you want to do block or strike. besides the punch is not a part of the technique, and is only a possibility that must be considered later in your study and not at the tme you initially learn the technique.
> 
> Properly examined the punch is contained at the next level of instruction with no appreaciable change in the default technique.



How's it a parallel line? If my hands are down at my sides, or standard 'ready position', hands near chest level, I'll have to strike upward in some fashion to hit the throat, even more so if they are taller. If for some reason they are shorter and attacking (I'm 5'6" so not likely) they'll have to strike up, the angles aren't 90 degree perfect, but they aren't exactly parallel either.

Also the punch is a what if, agreed. I was just responding to TOD I believe who said you needed to step off line to get out of the way if a strike was coming. I maintain that a swordhand will work as a deflection if a strike happens to be introduced.

Joel


----------



## Touch Of Death

Brenwulv said:
			
		

> Fair enough. Your first responce seemed like even going for a throat strike would result in jail which isn't really the case. And as you said, in the heat of battle, control is an issue. No saying you'll even hit the throat, maybe smack the chest or face by accident.
> 
> 
> 
> How's it a parallel line? If my hands are down at my sides, or standard 'ready position', hands near chest level, I'll have to strike upward in some fashion to hit the throat, even more so if they are taller. If for some reason they are shorter and attacking (I'm 5'6" so not likely) they'll have to strike up, the angles aren't 90 degree perfect, but they aren't exactly parallel either.
> 
> Also the punch is a what if, agreed. I was just responding to TOD I believe who said you needed to step off line to get out of the way if a strike was coming. I maintain that a swordhand will work as a deflection if a strike happens to be introduced.
> 
> Joel


I agree and unfortunantly I totaly disagree with the idea of discerning between your blocks and strikes. Just go. 
sean


----------



## Thesemindz

Brenwulv said:
			
		

> I maintain that a swordhand will work as a deflection if a strike happens to be introduced.
> 
> Joel



I agree with you, but I think it's important to remember that a solid blocking maneuver can still be punched through. A handsword in motion might deflect the initial punch, but I wouldn't put my money on it. It's a nice white zone check, and at least it's between his fist and your face, but I'd rather trust my position then my defensive maneuver. If he can't reach you, or if you are off the line, then deflecting his punch is a decision on your part, rather than a hail-mary-hope-this-works-and-I-don't-get-a-broken-jaw-and-hand-instead technique. I'm not really referring to this technique specifically as much as I am the idea of deflecting his attack with mine in general. The strikes are blocks and the blocks are strikes, but I don't want to block when I can just move instead.

-Rob


----------



## Brenwulv

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> I agree and unfortunantly I totaly disagree with the idea of discerning between your blocks and strikes. Just go.
> sean




??? Just go....

 :uhyeah:  okay.

Joel


----------



## Brenwulv

Thesemindz said:
			
		

> I agree with you, but I think it's important to remember that a solid blocking maneuver can still be punched through. A handsword in motion might deflect the initial punch, but I wouldn't put my money on it. It's a nice white zone check, and at least it's between his fist and your face, but I'd rather trust my position then my defensive maneuver. If he can't reach you, or if you are off the line, then deflecting his punch is a decision on your part, rather than a hail-mary-hope-this-works-and-I-don't-get-a-broken-jaw-and-hand-instead technique. I'm not really referring to this technique specifically as much as I am the idea of deflecting his attack with mine in general. The strikes are blocks and the blocks are strikes, but I don't want to block when I can just move instead.
> 
> -Rob



I agree with everything you said.

I wasn't saying it's the ideal thing to do, more the "oh S***!" thing to do when you've no other option.

If the attack happens and I start to move, then notice something I might not be expecting, my intended strike has to turn to a block/parry of some sort. It won't be strong, but if I don't lose any teeth I'd call it fair.

It's all I'm trying to say.

Joel


----------



## Thesemindz

Brenwulv said:
			
		

> I agree with everything you said.
> 
> I wasn't saying it's the ideal thing to do, more the "oh S***!" thing to do when you've no other option.
> 
> If the attack happens and I start to move, then notice something I might not be expecting, my intended strike has to turn to a block/parry of some sort. It won't be strong, but if I don't lose any teeth I'd call it fair.
> 
> It's all I'm trying to say.
> 
> Joel


 
It's good to see that you and I are in such total agreement. If we get any more agreeable, people will start to look at us funny. ;-j

I always tell my students that it's better to be punched in the hand than the face. I would rather not be punched at all, but I can fight with a broken hand, it's harder to fight when your jaw and nose are broken and you're passed out in a pool of your own blood.

-Rob


----------



## Brenwulv

Thesemindz said:
			
		

> .....it's harder to fight when your jaw and nose are broken and you're passed out in a pool of your own blood.
> 
> -Rob




Heeheheh, I'd like to meet the person that could.   

Joel


----------



## Doc

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> ... I totaly disagree with the idea of discerning between your blocks and strikes. Just go.
> sean



That I never said. I said you have to decide what you're going to do in this instance on the first move. You can't say I'll throw and handsword and if he punches at the same time, it'll take care of it.


----------



## Thesemindz

Brenwulv said:
			
		

> Heeheheh, I'd like to meet the person that could.
> 
> Joel



I don't know, he may be one bad mamma jamma. If he's on my side, well then all's the better. If he's the other guy though, well, that's why I own a Desert Eagle .45.

-Rob


----------



## Doc

pete said:
			
		

> culled this from my response back on page-2
> 
> Doc, how do you view the retention of these techniques in the system?



Well in our curriculum there are various responses to similar attacks. Sword and Hammer, Obscure Wing, Obscure Claws, and Falcons of Force all address various aspects, although I would imagine the interpretations I was taught by the "Old Man" are probably different. The description of "Wing Break" bares a faint similarity to "Obscure Claws."

The other technique is a mystery to me, because I don't understand its description, and I'm not certain I want to. At any rate, techniques that rely on "eye rakes" and "throat strikes" are not a part of our curriculum. There is no martial skill in sticking your fingers in someones eyes, or even hitting them in the throat as some prefer in "Sword & hammer." Any kid on the playground can do that without training and such actions are obviously at the elementary level in "martial" study.

My point is, regardless of the technique, instructors much develop the skill and knowledge to teach students to handle assaults without resorting to possible permanent injuries, or death to an attacker who is not presenting a life threatening assault. Our society won't accept otherwise, and the ability to  do so separates the beginner in the arts (no matter how tough they are) from the true professors. Most have a "tiger" mentality, and with that thought process will NEVER become "dragons." "Tigers are easy. It only takes an attitude, not skill." - Ed Parker Sr.

Good thoughts "Pete" :asian:


----------



## Doc

Nick Ellerton said:
			
		

> the grab is to your right flank, so by pinning with your left hand and stepping back with your right foot to 4 30 into a left neutral executing the outward hand sword it is gaining more depth of penetration in the strike,



Well sir, I agree but you also gave him your centerline and most significantly, destroyed all of your structural integrity with that step.



> exposing more of the groin,


Correct; Yours!


> As far as the rotation of the upper pectoral gurdle is concerned, your torso as you drop into the neutral bow puts more emphasis on power on the strike.


Well in anatomical terms, we have some problems here. (Anatomy at its terms are very complex) Power is a relative term, and to trade off perceived "power" for a breakdown in anatomical structure negates any benefit beyond a "sell out" maneuver that leaves you completely vulnerable should it fail. 

I suggest you "challenge" your technique methodology in class as we do by having your "training partner" igore the first strike (tough guy, drugs, blocked, missed, whatever) and immediately attempt to smother and grapple you with their full body weight as is quite possible on the street. We challenge all of our movements constantly for structural effectives beyond "flailing blunt force trauma" which ultimately means the toughest/strongest wins. That's not "martial science" study.


----------



## Blindside

The "wraparounds" that he is talking about are the hand isolations in Long 3 after Glancing Spear and before Crossing Talon.  Some people call this "Pinning Wing" and "Controlled Wing."  The particular reference here is to the second of these, the Controlled Wing.

Lamont


----------



## Touch Of Death

Doc said:
			
		

> That I never said. I said you have to decide what you're going to do in this instance on the first move. You can't say I'll throw and handsword and if he punches at the same time, it'll take care of it.


Actualy I feel the motion of the outward extended block, and the outward handword, eye whip, backnuckle, obscure claw, or what ever are all the same so if the punch is comming the only decision to make is how to fasion your hand. If you find yourself striking a checked target, then you screwed up. You have to move from point of origin so what it becomes is a decision made about half way through. If you moving correctly the block is within the strike. There is no need to switch from offensive to defensive in your head.
Sean


----------



## Doc

Brenwulv said:
			
		

> Fair enough. Your first responce seemed like even going for a throat strike would result in jail which isn't really the case. And as you said, in the heat of battle, control is an issue. No saying you'll even hit the throat, maybe smack the chest or face by accident.


On one hand you say you're good enough to control the strike to the throat, but on the other, not good enough to actually hit it and would "accidently" hit something else. And yes, given the level of aggression prescribed in the technique you WILL go to jail. I've booked a few myself. I only emphasize this to change your mindset with regards to how society deals with these incidents. There are some schools that quite wrongly teach "life and death responses" to non-life threatening "possible" attacks. Our society looks upon these things quite harshly, and placing yourself in a position to possibly kill or seriously injure someone for placing their hand on your shoulder is not acceptable. Please consider this. I personally know martial artist who have been incarcerated for multiple years for "defending themselves."


> How's it a parallel line? If my hands are down at my sides, or standard 'ready position', hands near chest level, I'll have to strike upward in some fashion to hit the throat, even more so if they are taller.
> 
> 
> 
> Well sir, if you are striking upward you are right, but you cannot strike the throat from there. Not withstanding attempting to strke from this angle is ANATOMICALLY WRONG for any target, and repeated practice will cause damage to the shoulder over time. Guaranteed!
Click to expand...


----------



## Doc

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> Actualy I feel the motion of the outward extended block, and the outward handword, eye whip, backnuckle, obscure claw, or what ever are all the same so if the punch is comming the only decision to make is how to fasion your hand. If you find yourself striking a checked target, then you screwed up. You have to move from point of origin so what it becomes is a decision made about half way through. If you moving correctly the block is within the strike. There is no need to switch from offensive to defensive in your head.
> Sean



Trust me it does make a BIG difference in your head. I also have always challenged the notion of 'point of origin' having anatomical efficacy - and so did Parker Sr. "Point of origin" is a relative term that has been corrupted to mean a "linear line to the target."


----------



## Touch Of Death

Doc said:
			
		

> Trust me it does make a BIG difference in your head. I also have always challenged the notion of 'point of origin' having anatomical efficacy - and so did Parker Sr. "Point of origin" is a relative term that has been corrupted to mean a "linear line to the target."


 Or it could mean you have realized what moves can be performed from where you find your hand at any given time and what moves you will have to get to another starting point. Are you suggesting its Ok to thrust when your hand is across your body? I will conceed that if your hand is not at your hips or shoulders its probably better to get them there before your next move, but why is it so hard to imagine that the outward handsword can be easily turned into the lead hand in B1a. you need only disturb his angle of entry. Provided I stepped off the line of attack, I already didn't get hit, I can still tag the guy by striking through his punch.
Sean


----------



## Doc

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> Or it could mean you have realized what moves can be performed from where you find your hand at any given time and what moves you will have to get to another starting point.


If all you deal in is "motion' then it doesn't matter. I do not subscribe to that methodology per my teacher.


> Are you suggesting its Ok to thrust when your hand is across your body? I will conceed that if your hand is not at your hips or shoulders its probably better to get them there before your next move,...


I have not suggested how, but at least you realize "linear point of origin" is not always a good idea.


> but why is it so hard to imagine that the outward handsword can be easily turned into the lead hand in B1a. you need only disturb his angle of entry. Provided I stepped off the line of attack, I already didn't get hit, I can still tag the guy by striking through his punch.
> Sean


I'm not quite sure what you're speaking of. Try to not make assumptions as much as possible. Your insertion of "B1a" assumes I know what that is and perform it the same as you were taught. Chances are, like everything else, it's different for me. It's "not hard to imagine," I simply don't always agree because my philosophy is rooted in the physical sciences that are not hypothetical, unlike "motion" concepts unrelated to the physical vehicle that must propel it.

Keep in mind, that my livelyhood is rooted in the "physical apprehension" (most of the time unwilling) of individuals for incarcration so my "laboratory" gets a lot of testing material.

Let's keep it simple sir. Clearly you are a "thinker" (sp?) so let me say that the answer is always; "It depends." Every circumstance is anatomically different in its complexity and the physical formula required for maximum effectiveness reflects the complexity. A simple movement of a finger can change the structural integrity of your entire body; positive or negative. Guaranteed. Success or failure can hinge on something that small. So the "training vehicles" or techniques train the body HOW to move because it will take a lifetime to begin to understand. At least then you are functional and can perform without trying to figure it out on the fly. Therefore, techniques must be practiced correctly. The concept of the "what if" is so disruptive to that process that its actually counter-productive and can never ever lead to the real higher levels of learning.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Doc said:
			
		

> If all you deal in is "motion' then it doesn't matter. I do not subscribe to that methodology per my teacher.
> 
> I have not suggested how, but at least you realize "linear point of origin" is not always a good idea.
> 
> I'm not quite sure what you're speaking of. Try to not make assumptions as much as possible. Your insertion of "B1a" assumes I know what that is and perform it the same as you were taught. Chances are, like everything else, it's different for me. It's "not hard to imagine," I simply don't always agree because my philosophy is rooted in the physical sciences that are not hypothetical, unlike "motion" concepts unrelated to the physical vehicle that must propel it.
> 
> Keep in mind, that my livelyhood is rooted in the "physical apprehension" (most of the time unwilling) of individuals for incarcration so my "laboratory" gets a lot of testing material.
> 
> Let's keep it simple sir. Clearly you are a "thinker" (sp?) so let me say that the answer is always; "It depends." Every circumstance is anatomically different in its complexity and the physical formula required for maximum effectiveness reflects the complexity. A simple movement of a finger can change the structural integrity of your entire body; positive or negative. Guaranteed. Success or failure can hinge on something that small. So the "training vehicles" or techniques train the body HOW to move because it will take a lifetime to begin to understand. At least then you are functional and can perform without trying to figure it out on the fly. Therefore, techniques must be practiced correctly. The concept of the "what if" is so disruptive to that process that its actually counter-productive and can never ever lead to the real higher levels of learning.


 Doc, if you mean the correct way to do sword and hammer is exactly a chop to the neck followed by exactly a hammer fist to the groin, then I must respectfully disagree. Its all closest weapon to closest target while remaining within the bounds of logic (short people shouldn't reach for a tall person's neck). I enjoy discussing these subjects but we can't see what we are talking about so I'll back away for now. Til we meet again.
sean


----------



## Brenwulv

Doc said:
			
		

> On one hand you say you're good enough to control the strike to the throat, but on the other, not good enough to actually hit it and would "accidently" hit something else.



No, you miss read or probably I didn't type clearly. You said in a 'heat of battle' situation it's hard to control how hard you strike. I said, then it's also likely you'd miss what you were aiming for. If you can pull the strike you should also hit what you aim for. Wasn't saying one or the other.



> And yes, given the level of aggression prescribed in the technique you WILL go to jail. I've booked a few myself. I only emphasize this to change your mindset with regards to how society deals with these incidents. There are some schools that quite wrongly teach "life and death responses" to non-life threatening "possible" attacks. Our society looks upon these things quite harshly, and placing yourself in a position to possibly kill or seriously injure someone for placing their hand on your shoulder is not acceptable. Please consider this.



I'm sure you're right on this. If someone simply placed a hand on my shoulder and I strike their throat, I screwed up big. However, if they are just placing a hand and trying to intimidate as you've said earlier, there's really no need for a technique. There's no imminent threat, so why would I try to hit them? It'd be better to dissengage and try to talk it out, while getting hands up to cover incase something starts.

Seems like you think I'm going to try and kill anyone who touches me. No, not even close. In fact, I'm going to be in law enforcement at some point so I realize a need for reasonable force.

Okay, let's say this, there is a menacing quality to the attack that warrants striking (which is outside the ideal phase teaching that is commonly taught). Otherwise, as I said, I see no real need for a technique.



> Well sir, if you are striking upward you are right, but you cannot strike the throat from there. Not withstanding attempting to strke from this angle is ANATOMICALLY WRONG for any target, and repeated practice will cause damage to the shoulder over time. Guaranteed!



I never said my strike is coming up vertically to the throat. Would do no good contouring his body like that. I guess this is what you mean by anatomically wrong for a strike and I agree. It would arc slightly to get to around a 45 degree angle to enter on. Neither parallel to a strike coming in, nor to the target I'm trying to hit.

Joel


----------



## Nick Ellerton

Doc said:
			
		

> Well sir, I agree but you also gave him your centerline and most significantly, destroyed all of your structural integrity with that step.
> 
> 
> Correct; Yours!
> 
> Well in anatomical terms, we have some problems here. (Anatomy at its terms are very complex) Power is a relative term, and to trade off perceived "power" for a breakdown in anatomical structure negates any benefit beyond a "sell out" maneuver that leaves you completely vulnerable should it fail.
> 
> I suggest you "challenge" your technique methodology in class as we do by having your "training partner" igore the first strike (tough guy, drugs, blocked, missed, whatever) and immediately attempt to smother and grapple you with their full body weight as is quite possible on the street. We challenge all of our movements constantly for structural effectives beyond "flailing blunt force trauma" which ultimately means the toughest/strongest wins. That's not "martial science" study.




Well sir! Can i ask your name because you are obviously well experienced in the art i am merely  beginner trying to understand what i do and what i have been taught so thank you for the insight!


----------



## Doc

Nick Ellerton said:
			
		

> Well sir! Can i ask your name because you are obviously well experienced in the art i am merely  beginner trying to understand what i do and what i have been taught so thank you for the insight!



Well sir, I started studying in 1956, and I've picked up a thing or 2. Finally I'm beginning to understand some things, but everyday brings a new lesson and a new challenge. If you check my profile (click on "DOC") you'll see my name is Ron Chapél. Pleased to meet you.


----------



## Doc

Brenwulv said:
			
		

> No, you miss read or probably I didn't type clearly. You said in a 'heat of battle' situation it's hard to control how hard you strike. I said, then it's also likely you'd miss what you were aiming for. If you can pull the strike you should also hit what you aim for. Wasn't saying one or the other.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you're right on this. If someone simply placed a hand on my shoulder and I strike their throat, I screwed up big. However, if they are just placing a hand and trying to intimidate as you've said earlier, there's really no need for a technique. There's no imminent threat, so why would I try to hit them? It'd be better to dissengage and try to talk it out, while getting hands up to cover incase something starts.
> 
> Seems like you think I'm going to try and kill anyone who touches me. No, not even close. In fact, I'm going to be in law enforcement at some point so I realize a need for reasonable force.
> 
> Okay, let's say this, there is a menacing quality to the attack that warrants striking (which is outside the ideal phase teaching that is commonly taught). Otherwise, as I said, I see no real need for a technique.
> 
> 
> 
> I never said my strike is coming up vertically to the throat. Would do no good contouring his body like that. I guess this is what you mean by anatomically wrong for a strike and I agree. It would arc slightly to get to around a 45 degree angle to enter on. Neither parallel to a strike coming in, nor to the target I'm trying to hit.
> 
> Joel



Interesting. Nice to know "point of origin" curves. I stand corrected sir on my misinterpretation of your comment. Please forgive me.


----------



## Doc

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> Doc, if you mean the correct way to do sword and hammer is exactly a chop to the neck followed by exactly a hammer fist to the groin, then I must respectfully disagree. Its all closest weapon to closest target while remaining within the bounds of logic (short people shouldn't reach for a tall person's neck). I enjoy discussing these subjects but we can't see what we are talking about so I'll back away for now. Til we meet again.
> sean


Oh no Sean Sir. Even in the methodology I was taught variations in weapons are utilized to produce different effects. It depends on what you want to do and how you want to do it. You see we don't even hit the groin because it's not always an effective target. Although sometimes the effects are immediate, often in the heat of battle it is not, with the effects coming sometime later. Sometimes a few seconds to minutes, to the next day.

When I say precise, I mean HOW the body moves from one place to another is critical. Then choosing the weapons and targets, based on the desired effect all while moving with maximum structural integrity for your entire body, and having maximum energy at your disposal with addition of being in control of the space at all times. We create our own posture and the posture in the attacker. Our own for the positive, and negative for the attacker. We fortify ourselves, shielding vital points anatomically while opening theirs.

Thanks for the exchanges sir.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Doc said:
			
		

> Oh no Sean Sir. Even in the methodology I was taught variations in weapons are utilized to produce different effects. It depends on what you want to do and how you want to do it. You see we don't even hit the groin because it's not always an effective target. Although sometimes the effects are immediate, often in the heat of battle it is not, with the effects coming sometime later. Sometimes a few seconds to minutes, to the next day.
> 
> When I say precise, I mean HOW the body moves from one place to another is critical. Then choosing the weapons and targets, based on the desired effect all while moving with maximum structural integrity for your entire body, and having maximum energy at your disposal with addition of being in control of the space at all times. We create our own posture and the posture in the attacker. Our own for the positive, and negative for the attacker. We fortify ourselves, shielding vital points anatomically while opening theirs.
> 
> Thanks for the exchanges sir.


Doc,
What ever the attitude, so is the response. :asian:  Thank you I see what you are talking about. I still think offense and defense are more of an ethicle question, but I see what you are saying.
Sean


----------



## Doc

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> Doc,
> What ever the attitude, so is the response. :asian:  Thank you I see what you are talking about. I still think offense and defense are more of an ethicle question, but I see what you are saying.
> Sean


Well sir here we happen to agree. You're right. Ethics not withstanding, I can place a finger on a nerve on your body and have you "think" one way with no effect. Then after asking you to "think" another way, that same nerve will become open and accessable and cause you pain. Same body, same spot, same pressure. "Think" one way you feel, "think" another you don't. The mindset reconfigures subtle aspects of human anatomy and can affect you positively or negatively depending on intent and activity.


----------



## kenpo_cory

Doc said:
			
		

> The other technique is a mystery to me, because I don't understand its description, and I'm not certain I want to. At any rate, techniques that rely on "eye rakes" and "throat strikes" are not a part of our curriculum. There is no martial skill in sticking your fingers in someones eyes, or even hitting them in the throat as some prefer in "Sword & hammer." Any kid on the playground can do that without training and such actions are obviously at the elementary level in "martial" study.



So are you saying you don't teach eye rakes or throat strikes at all?


----------



## Doc

kenpo_cory said:
			
		

> So are you saying you don't teach eye rakes or throat strikes at all?


Yes I am saying exactly that. Groin smashes, eye pokes or rakes, and throat strikes require little skill. That is why they are a mainstay of "quickie" women's self-defense courses, and commercial self-defense schools. They are not a part of what I was taught, nor do I include it the course curriculum I teach, which is very effective and destructive on demand without those elements. Ed Parker Sr. had a lot more to offer than that.


----------



## kenpo_cory

Doc said:
			
		

> Yes I am saying exactly that. Groin smashes, eye pokes or rakes, and throat strikes require little skill. That is why they are a mainstay of "quickie" women's self-defense courses, and commercial self-defense schools. They are not a part of what I was taught, nor do I include it the course curriculum I teach, which is very effective and destructive on demand without those elements. Ed Parker Sr. had a lot more to offer than that.



I'm sure he did. But did he disregard those movements? I'm sure they would be very useful in certain situations. To each his own I guess. :asian:


----------



## Doc

kenpo_cory said:
			
		

> I'm sure he did. But did he disregard those movements? I'm sure they would be very useful in certain situations. To each his own I guess. :asian:


He removed those things from my teaching, with the understanding they were only neccesary if I failed to learn what I was being taught, in which case I would revert to unskilled responces. He called them "Tiger moves." "Be a Dragon." he said.

If you have never studied any other way it is hard to understand. The true professor, master, guru, etc is supposed to have skill beyond poking someone in the eye, snashing the throat, or hitting the testicles. Commercial American kenpo is an anomoly, not the norm in the much older Chinese arts. By Mr. Parker's own design, it is a "commercial product" and does not represent the depth of his knowledge or skill. Most will concede he had such knowledge, but the question is why isn't that knowledge reflected in what some consider his only art. The answer is a simple one. It can't be taught in a commercial environment because it requires teachers with the knowledge and constant scruitiny and correction of that teacher on everything. He was the only one that knew, so what he created was out of necessity, and a great gift in itself to the world. But it's *A* Parker kenpo, not *THE* or *ALL* of Parker Kenpo evidenced by many of His earlier students who don't teach it and never have.


----------



## Seig

Doc,

A point many have failed to realize, and I am not sure you have made it clear, is that in the LE community, anytime that you get into a physical altercation that requires more than controlling and detaining an officer is automatically in the wrong at first glance in the eyes of the law.  What this means to those of you that have never been in LE or trained for it is this, if I hit someone while performing my duties, I had better be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I was justified in doing so.  In 90% of those instances, the officer is wrong.  Therefore, someone like me that can easily cause permanent blunt force trauma is likely to wind up with both a criminal and civil suit for striking someone.  When you strike someone in the throat, you are showing intent to apply deadly force, you must be able to defend your actions.  This is not a case of innocent until proven guilty, but quite the opposite.  As a professional LE member, one must follow a different set of laws and guidelines, which necessitates Doc's methods.  Also, when you are dealing with someone who is in an altered mental state, a lot of what we are taught can and will cause permanet damage up to death, without the person ever being consciously aware of pain.  I am sure Doc has come across people with compromised nervous systems or extreme nerve damage that has caused him to have to alter his methods from time to time.  For example, at a class I was attending, the instructor tried to demonstrate a come along with my left arm, as I have no nerves on the back side of my left arm, he was not effective with the hold he was using, he was forced to quickly apply something else.  The most valuable lesson any of us in professions that may require our MA skills can learn is the ability to think clearly and quickly under stress.  That is why we do thousands of repititions.


----------



## Les

Seig said:
			
		

> Doc,
> 
> As a professional LE member, one must follow a different set of laws and guidelines..... QUOTE]
> 
> Seig,
> 
> It's interesting you should bring this up when just yesterday here in the UK the national news was dominated with a situation where a police officer is putting the boot into a suspect while other policemen hold him down.
> 
> The episode was captured on CCTV footage and shown on tv.
> 
> Looking at it from a professional (rather than Martial Arts) point of view, I counted four seperate incidents of exessive and (in my opinoin) unlawful use of force.
> 
> Also seen ot the cctv tape is the fact that three other police officers turn and walk away while this is happening.
> 
> I'm sure they witnessed a crime being comitted, and as police officers they were duty bound to intervene on the victims behalf.
> 
> Sorry this is off track of the thread.
> 
> Les


----------



## rmcrobertson

Well, just for a slightly-different take--the eye-pokes, rakes, shots to the throat, etc., are in the techniques, at least as overtones or adaptations. I mean, why is "5 Swords," called "Five Swords," anyway? Or look at, "Striking Serpent's Head..." where's the half-fist going?

But these strikes are also available through the sets and forms that are so often despised. There, they can be worked on--and worked on, which is even better, in conjunction with the development of control. There's also a way in  which divorcing such strikes from their immediate and obvious employment allows some of  us to learn, ssince we have a sort of  detour around the emotional content of such weapons.

I do know one student who's been taught a lot of rotten stuff--gouges, rakes, knee kicks, etc., right from the git-go. For physical reasons, they can't run and will only ever develop a certain degree of fine control and coordination. So for them, effective self-defense means...

Otherwise, I agree. Enough of the macho posturing about pulling out and eye, crushing the larynx, etc...how many of the readers have ever even seen somebody with a closed-off airway, conscious and struggling to get a breath? Show of hands? 

Beyond the legal implications, there are such things as moral considerations. I agree with Doc and Seig.


----------



## Nick Ellerton

Doc said:
			
		

> Well sir, I started studying in 1956, and I've picked up a thing or 2. Finally I'm beginning to understand some things, but everyday brings a new lesson and a new challenge. If you check my profile (click on "DOC") you'll see my name is Ron Chapél. Pleased to meet you.




That is a lifetime! I am wearing a hat at the moment and i am taking it off and it is a pleasure to meet you sir.


----------



## dcence

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Enough of the macho posturing about pulling out and eye, crushing the larynx, etc...how many of the readers have ever even seen somebody with a closed-off airway, conscious and struggling to get a breath? Show of hands?



Hand up here -- not a pretty sight.  So much for light contact sparring...


----------



## Nick Ellerton

It is evident that what some stries result in some are against. I have never seen anyone with a crushed larynx nor do i wish to see anyone with a crushed layinx, but moreso i do not wish to inflict this upon someone. So y study the art some might ask? it is enjoyable, teaches self dicipline and more importantly teaches us to respect others. But i can safely say that something like that happening would not be pretty and as you said sir so much for light contact sparring the person responsable for this i would not have liked to see the repocussions of their actions.

cheers.


----------



## kenpo_cory

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Enough of the macho posturing about pulling out and eye, crushing the larynx, etc...how many of the readers have ever even seen somebody with a closed-off airway, conscious and struggling to get a breath? Show of hands?



Well I cant say I have ever seen anyone with a crushed larynx. But I can say that I have hit someone in the throat and watched them croak like a frog trying to get a breath. And my opinion is, not that it matters, it worked for self defense purposes very well. And also for the record, I had no problem hitting him in the throat without crushing his larynx. You don't have to kill someone when you hit them there. I have no desire to maim or kill someone, but I also wouldn't hesitate to poke someone in the eye or strike them in the throat should I feel I need to. But, Like I said before, To each his own.  :asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson

My point was that what you have to do when you're really in trouble is one thing, the consequences of such actions are another thing, and posturing about how cool taking out somebody's eye is still another thing.

In my opinion, this particular topic is related to issues having to do with the whole fantasy of learning self-defense as quickly as possible. It certainly relates to the recurrent notion of throwing out all those, "inessential," techniques and sets and forms and just having, "efficient," fighting.  And it overlaps questions of changing techniques and promoting, "warrior-hood," through risky training methods.

The regularity of training, the forms and sets and techniques, the patient study of a martial art, are there to teach--among many other things--restraint, control, thought. To teach, "courtesy," in other words, in all its implications.

But then, this is--or should be--about the oldest martial lesson there is.


----------



## Thesemindz

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> The regularity of training, the forms and sets and techniques, the patient study of a martial art, are there to teach--among many other things--restraint, control, thought. To teach, "courtesy," in other words, in all its implications.
> 
> But then, this is--or should be--about the oldest martial lesson there is.



After a long night of eye gouging and head stomping, my instructor stopped the class and asked how many of us had their eyes ripped out. He asked how many of us had broken bones or smashed noses. He pointed out that the whole time we thought we were learning how to pluck eyes and crush skulls we were really learning control. We were learning how to manipulate without destroying. I've been practicing poking people in the eyes for years, and the only time I ever actually did was when I was first learning how and I didn't have good control yet. Luckily, my instructor is forgiving. The more I practice it, the better I get at moving the head and repositioning my opponent without actually taking his eyes.

It's funny how almost everyone I know can say, "The first time I learned this eye poke I stuck my fingers right in my instructor's eyes to the fist." I don't know anybody who's been practicing for years who says, "Every time I do this technique with a partner I end up blinding another poor kid for life."

-Rob


----------



## Thesemindz

Sorry, this is off topic, but I'm trying to reach Doc, and he won't accept emails or pms. Sorry.


Sir, I started a thread over in the General Self Defense forum entitled, "I could beat the british, a boxer, and your best knife fighter."

If you get a chance, I'd really like to hear your opinion on this particular subject. I think you've been doing some things with your particular style of Kenpo that might give you a unique perspective on this topic. Thanks alot.


-Rob


----------



## Rich_Hale

*Everything you need to know is not taught (repetitively) in every technique.*

When youre reading Mr. Parkers technique manual, keep in mind that even the most descriptive techniques are still only written in outline form. None of the techniques are written out so completely that you can study only that technique and come away with a complete understanding of how it is to be done.

You should always take what you have learned from other techniques, forms, sets, etc., and apply that knowledge to the techniques, forms, sets, etc., that you are currently learning, or have previously learned.

For example, lets say you were taught Sword and Hammer, without being told to turn and look at your opponent before striking, but during that same time you were being taught Short Form 1 and were being taught to look before you blocked. You should then ask your teacher if the same principle should apply in Sword and Hammer. At that point your teacher will likely throw his fist in the air and yell YES!

Then by the time you get to Obscure Wing, you won't even need to ask. You would just naturally look toward your opponent before striking, because its something you learned to do earlier. 

Now lets say you were never taught to look toward your opponent, before blocking in Short Form 1, or striking in Obscure Sword, but you were taught to do so in Obscure Wing. Remember; you should be constantly reviewing previously learned material and applying any new principles you have learned to the old material.

So, in this case you would go to your teacher and ask if you are looking at your opponent, before striking, in Obscure Wing, shouldnt you be doing so in Obscure Sword and possibly in Short Form 1 as well. If he tells you yes, continue your studies. If he tells you no, continue looking for a new teacher.


----------



## Doc

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> My point was that what you have to do when you're really in trouble is one thing, the consequences of such actions are another thing, and posturing about how cool taking out somebody's eye is still another thing.
> 
> In my opinion, this particular topic is related to issues having to do with the whole fantasy of learning self-defense as quickly as possible. It certainly relates to the recurrent notion of throwing out all those, "inessential," techniques and sets and forms and just having, "efficient," fighting.  And it overlaps questions of changing techniques and promoting, "warrior-hood," through risky training methods.
> 
> The regularity of training, the forms and sets and techniques, the patient study of a martial art, are there to teach--among many other things--restraint, control, thought. To teach, "courtesy," in other words, in all its implications.
> 
> But then, this is--or should be--about the oldest martial lesson there is.


Well said sir. In my primary life's profession to date, I've had and seen my share of what amounts to senseless and unnecessary violence. Rarely does anyone speak of the consequences of these actions that can devestate on both sides of the equation. For me personally, practicing to strike a person in the throat for placing their hand on your shoulder is repugnant, and I don't teach those lessons. However when a student is placed in what THEY feel is significant jeopardy, THEY will make that decision and accept its consequences morally and legally. I just hope what I've taught them will have been sufficient so they never have to smash someone in the throat and possibly kill them, because they felt threatened. I also hope to God if it happens, they were correct in their assessment. A great deal of my students as well as myself, are always armed as a matter of employment policy and social necessity. The consequences of your actions is something you must always consider in a moral world not completely gone mad.


----------



## Doc

Thesemindz said:
			
		

> Sorry, this is off topic, but I'm trying to reach Doc, and he won't accept emails or pms. Sorry.
> 
> 
> Sir, I started a thread over in the General Self Defense forum entitled, "I could beat the british, a boxer, and your best knife fighter."
> 
> If you get a chance, I'd really like to hear your opinion on this particular subject. I think you've been doing some things with your particular style of Kenpo that might give you a unique perspective on this topic. Thanks alot.
> 
> 
> -Rob


Sorry I have receive neither.


----------



## Doc

Rich_Hale said:
			
		

> *Everything you need to know is not taught (repetitively) in every technique.*
> 
> When youre reading Mr. Parkers technique manual, keep in mind that even the most descriptive techniques are still only written in outline form. None of the techniques are written out so completely that you can study only that technique and come away with a complete understanding of how it is to be done.
> 
> You should always take what you have learned from other techniques, forms, sets, etc., and apply that knowledge to the techniques, forms, sets, etc., that you are currently learning, or have previously learned.
> 
> For example, lets say you were taught Sword and Hammer, without being told to turn and look at your opponent before striking, but during that same time you were being taught Short Form 1 and were being taught to look before you blocked. You should then ask your teacher if the same principle should apply in Sword and Hammer. At that point your teacher will likely throw his fist in the air and yell YES!
> 
> Then by the time you get to Obscure Wing, you won't even need to ask. You would just naturally look toward your opponent before striking, because its something you learned to do earlier.
> 
> Now lets say you were never taught to look toward your opponent, before blocking in Short Form 1, or striking in Obscure Sword, but you were taught to do so in Obscure Wing. Remember; you should be constantly reviewing previously learned material and applying any new principles you have learned to the old material.
> 
> So, in this case you would go to your teacher and ask if you are looking at your opponent, before striking, in Obscure Wing, shouldnt you be doing so in Obscure Sword and possibly in Short Form 1 as well. If he tells you yes, continue your studies. If he tells you no, continue looking for a new teacher.


Hey Rich, I agree with your assessment of the material and have said so for years to the chagrin of some. The only thing I might add is in my study with Parker, we addressed these things specifically as part of the "Psycology of Confrontation" component of my training and consequences both morally and legally were at the forefront of everything he taught me. As a working street cop, we always addressed these issues as part of the base or default technique. The only other thing I might add is, I teach my students to look as a part of the learning process. During a lesson I might say, "When you execute this technique the last thing you want to have to say afterwards is - I'm sorry officer, I didn't know that was you." I've come to the copnclusion a great deal of what and how I was taught was built around my profession and Parker's fascination from the beginning with law enforcement methods and techniques. Glad to see you  "back from the dead" and keep kicking.


----------



## Doc

Thesemindz said:
			
		

> After a long night of eye gouging and head stomping, my instructor stopped the class and asked how many of us had their eyes ripped out. He asked how many of us had broken bones or smashed noses. He pointed out that the whole time we thought we were learning how to pluck eyes and crush skulls we were really learning control. We were learning how to manipulate without destroying. I've been practicing poking people in the eyes for years, and the only time I ever actually did was when I was first learning how and I didn't have good control yet. Luckily, my instructor is forgiving. The more I practice it, the better I get at moving the head and repositioning my opponent without actually taking his eyes.
> 
> It's funny how almost everyone I know can say, "The first time I learned this eye poke I stuck my fingers right in my instructor's eyes to the fist." I don't know anybody who's been practicing for years who says, "Every time I do this technique with a partner I end up blinding another poor kid for life."
> 
> -Rob


While I may agree with the conclusion drawn by a teacher with regard to learning control, I fail to see the efficacy of repetitive practice of morally questionable technique, as a methodology of learning "control." It is clear some measure of "physical control" is obviously accomplished by not executing fully, however students time would be best spent in my opinion practicing what you actually would expect them to do, rather than control of what not to do. It is must harder to teach someone an effective alternative strike than to "poke' someone in the eyes. After all any kid who has ever seen a 3 Stooge movie can poke someone in the eyes. Not much skill involved in that. One of the problems is commercial kenpo-karate focuses on the quick and the easy to insure immediate effectiveness. Teaching otherwise is much more difficult and requires real knowledge and skill. Remove general blunt force trauma, groin strikes, eye pokes, and throat smashes and you are left with what? These are things any guy off the street can do from day one before he puts on a practice uniform. I question the teachers methodology, however i'm sure he feels he knows best for his students. At least I hope so. It's just teaching what NOT to do over and over is an impractical approach in my opinion.


----------



## Thesemindz

Doc said:
			
		

> While I may agree with the conclusion drawn by a teacher with regard to learning control, I fail to see the efficacy of repetitive practice of morally questionable technique, as a methodology of learning "control." It is clear some measure of "physical control" is obviously accomplished by not executing fully, however students time would be best spent in my opinion practicing what you actually would expect them to do, rather than control of what not to do. It is must harder to teach someone an effective alternative strike than to "poke' someone in the eyes. After all any kid who has ever seen a 3 Stooge movie can poke someone in the eyes. Not much skill involved in that. One of the problems is commercial kenpo-karate focuses on the quick and the easy to insure immediate effectiveness. Teaching otherwise is much more difficult and requires real knowledge and skill. Remove general blunt force trauma, groin strikes, eye pokes, and throat smashes and you are left with what? These are things any guy off the street can do from day one before he puts on a practice uniform. I question the teachers methodology, however i'm sure he feels he knows best for his students. At least I hope so. It's just teaching what NOT to do over and over is an impractical approach in my opinion.




I wouldn't quite agree with your assertion that "These are things, (blunt force trauma, groin strikes, eye pokes, and throat smashes,) any guy off the street can do from day one before he puts on a practice uniform." I have seen many guys off the street, and they can barely throw a half way decent punch, much less hit a moving target half an inch in diameter at 80-90 miles per hour with a single finger while simultaneously defending against their opponent's attacks, maintaing a decent stance, and penetrating past their opponenet's defenses. If you disagree, then I recommend that you stand with your back to a B.O.B. (body opponent bag,) or some equivalent, say another student, and then suddenly turn and strike towards the eyes. I think anyone attempting this drill over time will see how difficult it is to hit even a stationary target consistently with a high degree of form, accuracy, speed, and power. I suppose an arguement could be made that most people who decide to sign up for Karate lessons are less violent and aggressive than a real street fighter, but I doubt even a real street fighter could accomplish this. Now, I generally agree with your position on anatomically based techniques versus general motion, but I think that general motion, if studied and understood, can become a science of application in and of itself. First of all, we don't study only eye pokes. Secondly, we take the lessons of motion contained within the techniques, and then extrapolate motion from them and drill it in a spontaneous environment. We seek effectiveness through understanding human anatomy and the applications of motion to disrupt or corrupt the structure of that anatomy. 

Maybe I'm wrong, but I heard that Mr. Parker defended teaching his students to pull their punches off the body by saying that if you could stop a punch half an inch in front of a target, you had the control to stop it two inches past the target. We practice control, but we also practice penetration. We don't just wave at each others heads and then pat ourselves on the back and tell each other how badass we are. We are in there every night, practicing our kenpo to improve our technique, working in the air, on the body, on the bag, on pads, on the shields, on the walls, with weapons, with blindfolds, standing up, laying down, in the dark, against multiple opponents, and were not just screwing around. The student doesn't practice to not poke the eyes. He practices whatever technique is being practiced, at the intensity designated by the instructor, in such a fashion as to allow his partner to have a turn next. Then he practices the technique on his own time at varying degrees of intensity and penetration. I promise you, I can poke my finger as far into someones head as need be.

I would also take issue with your representation of eye gouges and head stomps as "morally questionable." Certaintly, in some circumstances, stomping the head of a downed opponent would be beyond what a jury might consider, "reasonable force." However, I'm sure you can think of a situation wherein a person would be justified in blinding or even killing an opponent, even one who was on the ground. Certaintly you don't consider being on the ground being out of a fight? This is why we teach our students to use a degree of force which is comparable to the context of the situation in their very first lesson. Let me reiterate that. In a student's first lesson in our school, we teach them to use the amount of force called for within any specific situation, not to go for maximum destruction of their opponent our of some misguided sense of rightousness. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you here, and if so, feel free to correct me.

Please don't misunderstand me. The lesson that night wasn't how not to hurt your opponent. It was how to poke him in the eye and stomp on his head. It was only later that our instructor pointed out to us that we had learned control as well. And understand, this was a black belt class, executing a black belt technique. We don't take "any guy off the street" and teach him Leap of Death as his first technique.


-Rob


----------



## Doc

Thesemindz said:
			
		

> I wouldn't quite agree with your assertion that "These are things, (blunt force trauma, groin strikes, eye pokes, and throat smashes,) any guy off the street can do from day one before he puts on a practice uniform."


Well perhaps that's because after over thirty years on the street, I've been exposed to "street people" who fight for survival. Maybe your experiences are a tad shorter and a bit less intense where you've been. I know there is decent skill out there that will take you out, belt, bob, and all on a regular basis.


> I have seen many guys off the street, and they can barely throw a half way decent punch,


Than you've never been to Compton, Nickerson, Pablos, White Fence, Big Hazzard, etc. I could pick out a couple of regulars who have been fighting and surviving on the street longer than you have been an adult. Trust me, they are not afraid of martial artist or their belts.


> If you disagree, then I recommend that you stand with your back to a B.O.B. (body opponent bag,) or some equivalent, say another student, and then suddenly turn and strike towards the eyes. I think anyone attempting this drill over time will see how difficult it is to hit even a stationary target consistently with a high degree of form, accuracy, speed, and power.





> I suppose an arguement could be made that most people who decide to sign up for Karate lessons are less violent and aggressive than a real street fighter, but I doubt even a real street fighter could accomplish this.


Street fighters don't do your drills, they just beat the crap out of you. Let me put it another way. I've seen guys go in tournaments with no training at all for the fun of it, at every level and win, just to see what its like.


> Now, I generally agree with your position on anatomically based techniques versus general motion, but I think that general motion, if studied and understood, can become a science of application in and of itself.


It can become a methodology, and in fact already is, but not a science and only in limited circumstances.


> First of all, we don't study only eye pokes.


I would have never known.


> Secondly, we take the lessons of motion contained within the techniques, and then extrapolate motion from them and drill it in a spontaneous environment.


I might have heard that before.


> We seek effectiveness through understanding human anatomy and the applications of motion to disrupt or corrupt the structure of that anatomy.


So you've learned human anatomy. OK, explain how you do that in a technique so I can see what you know about human anatomy applications in a dynamic environment.


> Maybe I'm wrong, but I heard that Mr. Parker defended teaching his students to pull their punches off the body by saying that if you could stop a punch half an inch in front of a target, you had the control to stop it two inches past the target. We practice control, but we also practice penetration.


Controlling punches and eye pokes are not the same type of training as I explained in my previous response.


> We don't just wave at each others heads and then pat ourselves on the back and tell each other how badass we are. We are in there every night, practicing our kenpo to improve our technique, working in the air, on the body, on the bag, on pads, on the shields, on the walls, with weapons, with blindfolds, standing up, laying down, in the dark, against multiple opponents, and were not just screwing around. The student doesn't practice to not poke the eyes. He practices whatever technique is being practiced, at the intensity designated by the instructor, in such a fashion as to allow his partner to have a turn next. Then he practices the technique on his own time at varying degrees of intensity and penetration. I promise you, I can poke my finger as far into someones head as need be.


Thank you for making my point.


> I would also take issue with your representation of eye gouges and head stomps as "morally questionable."


Perhaps you should re-read what i wrote.


> Certaintly, in some circumstances, stomping the head of a downed opponent would be beyond what a jury might consider, "reasonable force." However, I'm sure you can think of a situation wherein a person would be justified in blinding or even killing an opponent, even one who was on the ground. Certaintly you don't consider being on the ground being out of a fight? This is why we teach our students to use a degree of force which is comparable to the context of the situation in their very first lesson. Let me reiterate that. In a student's first lesson in our school, we teach them to use the amount of force called for within any specific situation, not to go for maximum destruction of their opponent our of some misguided sense of rightousness. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you here, and if so, feel free to correct me.
> 
> Please don't misunderstand me. The lesson that night wasn't how not to hurt your opponent. It was how to poke him in the eye and stomp on his head. It was only later that our instructor pointed out to us that we had learned control as well. And understand, this was a black belt class, executing a black belt technique. We don't take "any guy off the street" and teach him Leap of Death as his first technique.
> -Rob


Clearly you work hard at what you do, and have a lot of pride in your workouts. I only suggest that it might not be the best way to do what you're doing. If it's working for you, don't let the rants of an old man street fighter/cop in the arts for 50 years rattle your cage. What the hell do I know?


----------



## Thesemindz

Doc said:
			
		

> Well perhaps that's because after over thirty years on the street, I've been exposed to "street people" who fight for survival. Maybe your experiences are a tad shorter and a bit less intense where you've been. I know there is decent skill out there that will take you out, belt, bob, and all on a regular basis.



I don't doubt or disagree with your statement. Let me also say right now that I don't doubt or challenge your experience and skill, or the fact that you are more knowledgable than I am. However, you have now gone from "any guy off the street," to "street people who fight for survival." I was challenging your original assertion, not this new and revised one.



			
				Doc said:
			
		

> Than you've never been to Compton, Nickerson, Pablos, White Fence, Big Hazzard, etc. I could pick out a couple of regulars who have been fighting and surviving on the street longer than you have been an adult. Trust me, they are not afraid of martial artist or their belts.



You're right again, I have never been in those places, or any place similar for any length of time, and certaintly not under life threatening circumstances. I don't need other people to fear me, and that's not why I train. Again however, you have gone from "any guy off the street," to fighters who "have been fighting and surviving on the street longer than you (I) have been an adult." I would hardly equate that with a lack of martial training, which it seems as though you have from one post to another.



			
				Doc said:
			
		

> Street fighters don't do your drills, they just beat the crap out of you. Let me put it another way. I've seen guys go in tournaments with no training at all for the fun of it, at every level and win, just to see what its like.



Have you really seen guys go in to tournaments with "no training at all" and win every level, or are you referring to no formal training? Street fighters may not be doing my drills, but they are practicing and perfecting technique, and I bet at least some of them do drill skills they find useful in combat, at least to some degree. If you have seen a completely fresh, unskilled novice take every division in a tournament, I would say that either you have found a prodigy, or the competition wasn't very stiff.



			
				Doc said:
			
		

> It can become a methodology, and in fact already is, but not a science and only in limited circumstances.



Main Entry: sci·ence
Pronunciation: 'sI-&n(t)s
Function: noun
1. knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method and concerned with the physical world and its phenomena 

_Source: Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc. _ 

Main Entry: scientific method
Function: noun
1. principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses 

_Source: Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc. _ 

Now, maybe the problem here is simply one of communication. Maybe when you say science and when I say science we are referring to two different things. If so please give me your definition of science. I have also included the definition of the scientific method so that I can further clarify that under these specific definitions, American Kenpo and martial arts in general, as practiced in this school, is a science. 



			
				Doc said:
			
		

> So you've learned human anatomy. OK, explain how you do that in a technique so I can see what you know about human anatomy applications in a dynamic environment.



First off, let me say that I don't intend to quote scripture to a nun, if you understand my meaning. I recognize the fact that in this area, you are far more expert than I, however, I will be happy to try when time allows, I need to go teach a class now, but I will answer this in a later post, I promise.



			
				Doc said:
			
		

> Controlling punches and eye pokes are not the same type of training as I explained in my previous response.



My point was simply that we were learning control. Perhaps they are not ex_actly_ the same kind of training, but the student learns to control the speed, range, and depth of penetration of his weapons either way.



			
				Doc said:
			
		

> Clearly you work hard at what you do, and have a lot of pride in your workouts. I only suggest that it might not be the best way to do what you're doing. If it's working for you, don't let the rants of an old man street fighter/cop in the arts for 50 years rattle your cage. What the hell do I know?



I would surmise that you know a great deal. I believe that your knowledge comes from real experience in stressful situations against committed attackers, as well as long decades spent earnestly studying your art. I would not for a minute pretend that you and I practice the same art, although I believe that at some point far enough back they share a common ancestor. Part of my point, and I mentioned this in my earlier post, is that there is a difference between a "real street fighter" and "any guy off the street." A real street fighter may not have studied a specific style, he may not have spent years learning from a single master, and he may not have the formal training of a student, but he has trained in an environment which does not allow for repeated error. His training is very real and he takes it seriously. I doubt he did as well in his first physical altercation as he did in his fiftieth either. He has continued to grow and evolve as a combatant just as we all do.

I have a great deal of respect for you as an instructor, and I genuinely believe that you are on the level. I am not doing what you do, and I don't always agree with you, but I recognize that from your perspective I am merely a pup. I appreciate you bothering to reply to my posts and taking my points seriously.


-Rob


----------



## Thesemindz

Doc said:
			
		

> So you've learned human anatomy. OK, explain how you do that in a technique so I can see what you know about human anatomy applications in a dynamic environment.



Sorry for not replying to you sooner. I don't own a computer so I am only able to get on when I have access to someone elses. This is a really long post, so please bear with me.

Ok, first off, let me say that most of my knowledge of anatomy and physiology deals primarily with gross motor motion and basic human chemistry and structure. I am not an expert in this field by any means, but I have some limited knowledge which I will try to impart.

For instance, I know that when a human is in a stressful situation, several chemicals are released into the blood. When activated, the hypolthalamus releases aldosterone, epinephrine (adrenaline), and norepinephrine, along with thyroxine and cortisol. Chemicals such as adrenaline and cortisol increase the heart rate, increasing blood pressure and respiration. The heart then begins pumping more blood to the muscles, supplying more oxygen to the muscles and heart-lung system. Sugar is released into the blood, allowing rapid energy use, and accelerating metabolism for emergency actions. This also causes the blood to thicken, increasing oxygen supply (red cells), enabling better defense from infections (white cells) and to aid in blood clotting (platelets). The sense also sharpen, for instance the pupils dilate, allowing more light in to increase the sharpness of vision, and the bronchial tubes dilate which results in improved hearing, all in an attempt on behalf of the body to increase the amount of information coming in so as to make better decisions faster. The body also begins to prioritise, increasing blood supply to peripheral muscles and the heart, to motor and basic functions regions in the brain, and decreasing blood supply to digestive system and irrelevant brain regions (such as speech areas). This also causes secretion of body waists, leaving the body lighter. The hypothalamus also secretes endorphins, which act as natural painkillers, providing an instant defense against pain. In addition, these substances can cause a decrease in feelings of exhaustion and a decrease in salivation. 

Pain is a biological warning sign of immenint danger. We experience pain in the body as a form of bio-feedback which warns us against behaviors which could bring about further harm. Chronic pain is a warning of injury or corruption and informs us of areas of the body which need either protection from further harm or immediate attention. Areas of the body which are more important to biological function, for instance the neck, reproductive organs, or nerve bundles, are often more sensitive to pain. This sensitivity to pain helps to condition us to protect and more carefully treat those areas of the body which are of a greater biological importance.  

Physically the body pivots around the spinal column, and major muscles in the limbs allow for movement in either an adducting or abducting fashion. Gross and fine motor skills are controlled within the brain by the motor cortex. All four limbs are jointed similarly and those joints have a limited range of motion. The body has a natural pivot point for motion forward or backward located at the top of the hip girdle, sometimes reffered to in martial arts as the hara or dan tien. The range of motion of the limbs is controlled by both the joints and the muscles. Whereas the range of the muscles can increase or decrease over time through use or atrophy, the joints have a limited range and moving beyond that range can result in damage to the structure of the bones and connective tissue surrounding the joint, as well as the joint socket itself. The body is essentially a series of layers, beginning with the epidermis, and continuing in towards the center of the body past the tissue levels and into the organ systems, which include the musclular and skeletal system. Vains, arteries, and nerves often follow similar pathways through and around each of the organ systems, often moving under and above muscle and bone at different parts of the body, sometimes creating vulerabilities where they are closer to the surface of the skin.

Ok, how does all this apply to a kenpo technique. Well, I have chosen a technique which we call Attacking Fist. Some of you will recognize this technique, or some similar variation, as a technique called Attacking Mace in the EPAK system. Our system comes from a combined Parker/Tracy lineage and has passed through two instructors, Mr. Jim Mitchell, and Mr. Theron Sturgess, each of whom have altered to some degree the techniques themselves, the names of the techniques, or the order in which they are taught. This technique is taught in the beginner class.

ATTACKING FIST
Attack: Right Step through punch to the face
Direction of Attack: 12 O'clock
Family of Techniques: Defense to the outside of the body

1. Step Back with the right foot into a left _neutral bow_ stance as you execute a left _inward hammering block_ to the outside of the attacker's right arm as you simultaneously chamber the right hand. Chambering the right hand is allowed in this case because the block has cancelled your opponent's width.
2. With the left hand execute a _position check_ at or above the elbow of your attacker's right arm applying pressure against the outside of the arm, continuing to cancel his width and preventing him from either folding the elbow in around the check or striking with the forearm because of the structure of the elbow joint.
3. Pivot to a _forward bow stance_ with a right _horizontal thrust punch_ to the attacker's right seventh rib. The horizontal punch is used here to compliment the structure of the opponent's rib bones. By placing all the knuckles on one rib, as opposed to difusing the force by placing the fist across multiple ribs, the punch is more likely to create a broken or fractured bone.
4. As the attacker falls back from the force of the blow, execute a _right counter grab check_ to his right forearm, keeping a light grasp as the attacker's arm keeps moving backward, and grab tightly at the wrist as it flares out into the hand at the end of the ulna bone. 
5. Pull the arm, and thus the attacker towards you with your right arm, keeping the arm anchored so as to pull with the back muscles instead of the bicep and along your strong line. Simultaneously execute a right _front thrust kick_ with the ball of the foot to the opponents right seventh rib. Ideally, the punch earlier has broken the rib and this kick will drive the broken rib into the lung, resulting in a punctured lung.
6. Land back into a left _neutral bow stance_ with your hands in the standard guard position.

Concepts introduced in this technique:
1. Teaches the concept of checking at or above the elbow when outside the arm.
2. Teaches the student to compliment the structure of his opponent when striking or blocking to increase the effectiveness of his movements. 
3. Teaches compound striking to single targets to increase the effect of the damage or to create additional damage to successive targets.
4. Teaches the student to bring the weapon to the target and the target to the weapon simultaneously to increase the power of a strike.


Ok. Now, I've discussed a little bit about anatomy and physiology, and I've discussed a little bit about technique. How do we drill this technique? Well, drills for this technique include,

1. Student A repeatedly punches towards Student B. B blocks, parries, or slips punch and responds with checking to create opening and a follow up cross punch to the ribs. Further exploration of this drill includes dynamic foot movement; jab, cross, and circular punching; setups, feints, and fakes; follow up striking from the attacker; etc, etc.

2. Student B punches Student A in the ribs and contours the arm to a counter grab check, then pulls A back in for another punch to the ribs followed by another check, repeating the process to practice flowing from striking to control. Further exploration of this drill includes the methods listed above, as well as attempts on the attackers part to disengage at any time from the drill with increasing levels of intensity.

3. Student B pulls Student A with the counter grab check into a kick to varying targets, or pulls A into different techniques including but not limited to, handswords, chokes, locks, takedowns, sweeps, etc, etc.

4. Student A punches Student B and attempts to recover the weapon before B is able to execute his defensive maneuver. Further exploration as above.

5. The technique is practiced by the students at different levels of intensity and penetration, from different angles, with different weapons (both natural and non-natural), and in a sparring context.

I could go on, but this is a place to start. Please remember, this is a beginner technique taught in the beginner class to students with 0-6 months of training. This technique is taught in addition to sets, forms, techniques, and general motion drills designed to teach the student how to apply his techniques from a variety of positions. 

I think that's enough for now. I know that this execution is wildly different from what some of you practice. As Mr. Chapel has pointed out several times, Kenpo today can vary a great deal from school to school, style to style, and association to association. This is how we execute this particular technique. On its own it does not make it any more or less valid than what others do. No one technique can make or break the validity of any style or method of training. Feel free to respond in whatever fashion you like.

On a personal note, this is not the first time that I have disagreed with you Mr. Chapel. Despite that, I am increasingly interested in your unique style of Kenpo and hope someday to be able to meet you and learn more about it. There are many other people on these forums with whom I do not bother to post my disagreements. I am only willing to discuss these issues in such depth with you because I have a great deal of respect for you and for what you do, and I know that you will continue to discuss this with a great degree of civility. I do not pretend to have all the answers. I know that what we do works, because my students have used it, even recently, to save their lives from violent assaults. It is because I know that you will not resort to name calling, or impuning the integrity of my mother, that I am willing to engage in such spirited discourse, and I want you to know I appreciate your professionalism. I feel that you represent martial arts in a positive fashion, and that this level of discourse is a positive role model for martial arts forums. Thank you.


-Rob


----------



## Doc

> Ok, first off, let me say that most of my knowledge of anatomy and physiology deals primarily with gross motor motion and basic human chemistry and structure. I am not an expert in this field by any means, but I have some limited knowledge which I will try to impart.


We all have limited knowledge. Its what we do with it that makes the difference. Gross motor motion is interesting.


> For instance, I know that when a human is in a stressful situation, several chemicals are released into the blood. When activated, the hypolthalamus releases aldosterone, epinephrine (adrenaline), and norepinephrine, along with thyroxine and cortisol. Chemicals such as adrenaline and cortisol increase the heart rate, increasing blood pressure and respiration. The heart then begins pumping more blood to the muscles, supplying more oxygen to the muscles and heart-lung system. Sugar is released into the blood, allowing rapid energy use, and accelerating metabolism for emergency actions. This also causes the blood to thicken, increasing oxygen supply (red cells), enabling better defense from infections (white cells) and to aid in blood clotting (platelets). The sense also sharpen, for instance the pupils dilate, allowing more light in to increase the sharpness of vision, and the bronchial tubes dilate which results in improved hearing, all in an attempt on behalf of the body to increase the amount of information coming in so as to make better decisions faster. The body also begins to prioritise, increasing blood supply to peripheral muscles and the heart, to motor and basic functions regions in the brain, and decreasing blood supply to digestive system and irrelevant brain regions (such as speech areas). This also causes secretion of body waists, leaving the body lighter. The hypothalamus also secretes endorphins, which act as natural painkillers, providing an instant defense against pain. In addition, these substances can cause a decrease in feelings of exhaustion and a decrease in salivation.
> 
> 
> 
> All very well stated, except for the waste part. The body can eliminate waste when necessary but doesnt always. A god summary for the effects of an Adrenal Dump as we call it. All very good and useful info to help understand the effects of stress.
> 
> 
> 
> Pain is a biological warning sign of immenint danger. We experience pain in the body as a form of bio-feedback which warns us against behaviors which could bring about further harm. Chronic pain is a warning of injury or corruption and informs us of areas of the body which need either protection from further harm or immediate attention. Areas of the body which are more important to biological function, for instance the neck, reproductive organs, or nerve bundles, are often more sensitive to pain. This sensitivity to pain helps to condition us to protect and more carefully treat those areas of the body which are of a greater biological importance.
> 
> 
> 
> Basically, yes.
> 
> 
> 
> Physically the body pivots around the spinal column, and major muscles in the limbs allow for movement in either an adducting or abducting fashion. Gross and fine motor skills are controlled within the brain by the motor cortex. All four limbs are jointed similarly and those joints have a limited range of motion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have often pointed out to those who listen, abstract motion although indeed infinite is NOT what any of us deal with in actuality in higher forms of physical expression. Anatomical movement which is what we actually must understand is limited, as you so correctly stated.
> 
> 
> 
> The body has a natural pivot point for motion forward or backward located at the top of the hip girdle, sometimes reffered to in martial arts as the hara or dan tien.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes and is the central balance point in human anatomy. A minor correction if I may. Motion is an abstract term. When it is applied to human anatomy, it is no longer abstract motion, but becomes specific and defined anatomical movement. We are not that far apart.
> 
> 
> 
> The range of motion of the limbs is controlled by both the joints and the muscles. Whereas the range of the muscles can increase or decrease over time through use or atrophy, the joints have a limited range and moving beyond that range can result in damage to the structure of the bones and connective tissue surrounding the joint, as well as the joint socket itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct sir.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The body is essentially a series of layers, beginning with the epidermis, and continuing in towards the center of the body past the tissue levels and into the organ systems, which include the musclular and skeletal system. Vains, arteries, and nerves often follow similar pathways through and around each of the organ systems, often moving under and above muscle and bone at different parts of the body, sometimes creating vulerabilities where they are closer to the surface of the skin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like youve been reading some of my material.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, how does all this apply to a kenpo technique. Well, I have chosen a technique which we call Attacking Fist. Some of you will recognize this technique, or some similar variation, as a technique called Attacking Mace in the EPAK system. Our system comes from a combined Parker/Tracy lineage and has passed through two instructors, Mr. Jim Mitchell, and Mr. Theron Sturgess, each of whom have altered to some degree the techniques themselves, the names of the techniques, or the order in which they are taught. This technique is taught in the beginner class.
> 
> 
> 
> I know Jim. In fact, I have him on video performing the entire commercial system and his interpretation of the sets and all the extensions with Ed Parker behind the camera.
> 
> 
> 
> ATTACKING FIST
> Attack: Right Step through punch to the face
> Direction of Attack: 12 O'clock
> Family of Techniques: Defense to the outside of the body
> 
> 1. Step Back with the right foot into a left neutral bow stance as you execute a left inward hammering block to the outside of the attacker's right arm as you simultaneously chamber the right hand. Chambering the right hand is allowed in this case because the block has cancelled your opponent's width.
> 2. With the left hand execute a position check at or above the elbow of your attacker's right arm applying pressure against the outside of the arm, continuing to cancel his width and preventing him from either folding the elbow in around the check or striking with the forearm because of the structure of the elbow joint.
> 3. Pivot to a forward bow stance with a right horizontal thrust punch to the attacker's right seventh rib. The horizontal punch is used here to compliment the structure of the opponent's rib bones. By placing all the knuckles on one rib, as opposed to difusing the force by placing the fist across multiple ribs, the punch is more likely to create a broken or fractured bone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting thought by I disagree. First, the horizontal punch. It is not possible to execute the punch from the chambered hip position. Our understanding of what actually is a horizontal punch probably differs. Secondly although your idea of defusing energy across multiple ribs sounds correct, in actuality the basic architecture and structure of the rib-cage is more vulnerable to strikes initiated on a vertical plane across multiple ribs than on a single rib horizontally which allows the structure to flex as intended.
> 
> 
> 
> 4. As the attacker falls back from the force of the blow, execute a right counter grab check to his right forearm, keeping a light grasp as the attacker's arm keeps moving backward, and grab tightly at the wrist as it flares out into the hand at the end of the ulna bone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What suggests to you that you will be able to grasp his arm with the same hand you strike his rib-cage with, and it will be where you think it is? A person struck in the rib-cage where you suggest is more likely to grasp their entire rib-gage bringing his hands together in front of him, allowing his elbows to protect and react to the strike. So no grab.
> 
> 
> 
> 5. Pull the arm, and thus the attacker towards you with your right arm, keeping the arm anchored so as to pull with the back muscles instead of the bicep and along your strong line. Simultaneously execute a right front thrust kick with the ball of the foot to the opponents right seventh rib. Ideally, the punch earlier has broken the rib and this kick will drive the broken rib into the lung, resulting in a punctured lung.
> 
> 
> 
> A couple of things here. The idea that your intent is to drive a broken rib into a lung is problematic for me, because someone threw a single punch at you. But, I recognize the source material. Secondly how do you intend, (if this played out as you suggest), to kick the ribs with his elbow and arms firmly attached from the previous strike? Lastly pulling and kicking are easy, however actually moving your attacker will be nearly impossible and at the least difficult. Anatomically, this description falls apart in execution.
> 
> 
> 
> 6. Land back into a left neutral bow stance with your hands in the standard guard position.
> 
> Concepts introduced in this technique:
> 1. Teaches the concept of checking at or above the elbow when outside the arm.
> 2. Teaches the student to compliment the structure of his opponent when striking or blocking to increase the effectiveness of his movements.
> 3. Teaches compound striking to single targets to increase the effect of the damage or to create additional damage to successive targets.
> 4. Teaches the student to bring the weapon to the target and the target to the weapon simultaneously to increase the power of a strike.
> 
> Ok. Now, I've discussed a little bit about anatomy and physiology, and I've discussed a little bit about technique. How do we drill this technique? Well, drills for this technique include,
> 
> 1. Student A repeatedly punches towards Student B. B blocks, parries, or slips punch and responds with checking to create opening and a follow up cross punch to the ribs. Further exploration of this drill includes dynamic foot movement; jab, cross, and circular punching; setups, feints, and fakes; follow up striking from the attacker; etc, etc.
> 
> 2. Student B punches Student A in the ribs and contours the arm to a counter grab check, then pulls A back in for another punch to the ribs followed by another check, repeating the process to practice flowing from striking to control. Further exploration of this drill includes the methods listed above, as well as attempts on the attackers part to disengage at any time from the drill with increasing levels of intensity.
> 
> 3. Student B pulls Student A with the counter grab check into a kick to varying targets, or pulls A into different techniques including but not limited to, handswords, chokes, locks, takedowns, sweeps, etc, etc.
> 
> 4. Student A punches Student B and attempts to recover the weapon before B is able to execute his defensive maneuver. Further exploration as above.
> 
> 5. The technique is practiced by the students at different levels of intensity and penetration, from different angles, with different weapons (both natural and non-natural), and in a sparring context.
> 
> I could go on, but this is a place to start. Please remember, this is a beginner technique taught in the beginner class to students with 0-6 months of training. This technique is taught in addition to sets, forms, techniques, and general motion drills designed to teach the student how to apply his techniques from a variety of positions.
> 
> I think that's enough for now. I know that this execution is wildly different from what some of you practice. As Mr. Chapel has pointed out several times, Kenpo today can vary a great deal from school to school, style to style, and association to association. This is how we execute this particular technique. On its own it does not make it any more or less valid than what others do. No one technique can make or break the validity of any style or method of training. Feel free to respond in whatever fashion you like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> 
> 
> On a personal note, this is not the first time that I have disagreed with you Mr. Chapel. Despite that, I am increasingly interested in your unique style of Kenpo and hope someday to be able to meet you and learn more about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Im sure we can learn from each other.
> 
> 
> 
> There are many other people on these forums with whom I do not bother to post my disagreements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know what you mean. There are some not actually interested in dialog, only affirming their position or discrediting others for reasons of their own. Its especially curious when a person doesnt actually have any impact on them or what they do whatsoever. I find it interesting that one site has taken up the task of exposing frauds in the arts. Not one of them has exposed any of the many charlatans that actually rip people off, or give belts and teach nothing, or give black belts by video, or teach how to knock people out without touching them. How about the many convicted child molesters that have surfaced in Kenpo again, and again. Instead, they would rather go after people whose adult students have no complaints and seem to think what they are learning has value just like the vigilantes think their instructor is so good.
> 
> 
> 
> I am only willing to discuss these issues in such depth with you because I have a great deal of respect for you and for what you do, and I know that you will continue to discuss this with a great degree of civility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is what MartialTalk is all about. The whiners and dregs go to the open un-moderated forums to spill their lies, half truths, and venom.
> 
> 
> 
> I do not pretend to have all the answers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Join the club on that one.
> 
> 
> 
> I know that what we do works, because my students have used it, even recently, to save their lives from violent assaults. It is because I know that you will not resort to name calling, or impuning the integrity of my mother, that I am willing to engage in such spirited discourse, and I want you to know I appreciate your professionalism. I feel that you represent martial arts in a positive fashion, and that this level of discourse is a positive role model for martial arts forums. Thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Alright, there wont be anymore talk like that. Ill thank you to keep a civil tongue in your head.
> 
> What we have discussed above is a classic example of what is missing from most training. A true understanding of anatomy and how it relates to what it is we are attempting to accomplish. The bulk of the information you gave was actually very accurate, and on some level students need to know how their bodies will react, and what the causation factors are. However, beyond the effects of an adrenal dump, how are these physical movements executed for maximum effectiveness? How are the blocks executed, or how is that punch actually thrown? Why wont the punch as described not be as effective as a vertical punch? Why cant you move his arm and execute the last kick? If everything Ive pointed out is correct, that this technique is dysfunctional. Why do teachers not know this?
> 
> The dynamics of biomechanical movement is a mystery to most modern self-defense martial artists because it hasnt been taught to them in a meaningful way. In actuality, those that are grounded in arts that must physically prove a level of dominance are more on track to an honest appraisal of their curriculum, regardless of what may be left out for activity driven preferences. Although I myself am a critic of sports driven venues, at least on some level those that compete must actually do something and see its effects or lack thereof. Most in self-defense disciplines engage in hypothetical assertions and speak of what they could have done.
> 
> Now Im not saying this type of training does not have some merit. It was designed to do a particular thing and does it very well. However, the higher form of execution and the arts is generally not present by design. I was there when the diversion was made, and it simply has a different focus. Interesting enough, most from my era, (I call us the ancients because we predate those who most call seniors) do not teach or in some cases never learned the motion based Kenpo-Karate curriculum. Most of us in many ways didnt like it.
> 
> Many deal in false assumptions based on bad information passed from teacher to student through no ones fault. Sometimes it is very difficult to know what you dont know.
> 
> Experiment:
> 
> Have anyone, (preferably someone small and presumably weaker than most) place his/her elbow firmly against their rib-cage and grasp their body. You will find it impossible to remove it without additional mechanisms beyond simply pulling. Push, pull, one hand, two hand, it doesnt matter. Removing a  persons arms from their rib-cage is beyond difficult and almost impossible. GEt back to me after the experiment please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Doc

Thesemindz said:
			
		

> Sorry, this is off topic, but I'm trying to reach Doc, and he won't accept emails or pms. Sorry.
> 
> 
> Sir, I started a thread over in the General Self Defense forum entitled, "I could beat the british, a boxer, and your best knife fighter."
> 
> If you get a chance, I'd really like to hear your opinion on this particular subject. I think you've been doing some things with your particular style of Kenpo that might give you a unique perspective on this topic. Thanks alot.
> 
> 
> -Rob


Sorry but the volume of PM's I receive weekly fill my box regularly. Additionally I am not always notified when a thread appears or when the box fills up.


----------



## Doc

Guess the experiment went well, (badly?)


----------



## Carol

Doc said:
			
		

> Yes I am saying exactly that. Groin smashes, eye pokes or rakes, and throat strikes require little skill. That is why they are a mainstay of "quickie" women's self-defense courses, and commercial self-defense schools. They are not a part of what I was taught, nor do I include it the course curriculum I teach, which is very effective and destructive on demand without those elements. Ed Parker Sr. had a lot more to offer than that.


 
If I may ask sir, do you teach Sword and Hammer to your students?  If so, are you open to sharing you teach it?


----------



## Doc

lady_kaur said:
			
		

> If I may ask sir, do you teach Sword and Hammer to your students?  If so, are you open to sharing you teach it?


My entire existence is about sharing, however there is a limited amount of information that can be transferred about physical activity through the written word and/or video. However that being said:

1.	SWORD AND HAMMER: 

ATTACK: Right flank at 3:00, walk up extend your left arm and seize the right shoulder, moving CLOSE to strike with a possible cocked right hand, although the right hand is NOT in this scenario. You should be standing in a street neutral bow relative to your intended victim. 

1.	While you are standing facing 12 o'clock, your attacker extends his left arm, seizes your right shoulder, and moves CLOSE while pulling between 2:30 and 3 o'clock. *SURVIVE THE INITIAL ASSAULT* and (1) INDEX and move to your left toward 9 o'clock into a neutral bow stance (2) Strike just under your attacker's nose, or STERNUM with a right outward hand-sword, as you (3) BAM your right shoulder with your left hand with a PAM your right foot. 

STUDY PARTNER: The strike will cause your hands to come to your face or body depending on the strike. Your legs will buckle slightly, and you will be forced to take at least one step backwards probably towards 3:00 or 4:30.

As your attacker reacts to your initial strike, return your striking hand to a BRACED INDEX between you. PAUSE  

2.	Drag or cross your left foot toward him, then move with your right foot into a neutral bow stance as you PAM your right foot WITH a BAM to your right shoulder on the execution of a right hammer-fist strike to your attacker's lower centerline.

STUDY PARTNER: The strike will cause Explosive Momentary Height Control and buckle both your legs as you drop in height, and raise INDEX your chin, while both of your hands move to where you were struck.

3.	Immediately, INDEX and BOUNCE a right, side obscure elbow underneath your attacker's chin, while CONTOURING your attacker's body utilizing BORROWED INERTIA as he comes down from being struck in the low centerline, initiating a COLLISION. 

STUDY PARTNER: The strike will stand you straight up, force your hands to your face, and you will step back, spin to your right, and drop.
Right crossover toward 10:30 and cover out facing your attacker in a right neutral bow stance and PAM your forward foot. 

Executed properly, this sequence should render Physical/Mental Disassociation. 

Execution Signature: 1 P 2,3 C


----------



## Carol

Doc said:
			
		

> My entire existence is about sharing, however there is a limited amount of information that can be transferred about physical activity through the written word and/or video.


 
That is certainly understandable and evident sir.  I'll be watching for deals on Southwest.com 



			
				Doc said:
			
		

> (2) Strike just under your attacker's nose, *or STERNUM* with a right outward hand-sword, as you (3) BAM your right shoulder with your left hand with a PAM your right foot.


 
Aha. The sternum is something I can reach.

My instructor is just tall enough where I would risk overreaching if I executed a handsword to his throat.  Out of respect for him I will mention that he repeatedly stressed the danger of such a move.

The modification that he suggested was to reverse the two strikes, starting first with the hammer to the groin area, which would crumple the attacker forward enough for my handsword to make contact. 

This technique starts with an attack that may not even be threat...a hand to the shoulder.  Why is it that the opening strike is such a serious move?  I guess I am asking why the technique came to be "Sword and Hammer", and not "Hammer and Sword".

Thank you so much for your input sir.


----------



## Doc

lady_kaur said:
			
		

> That is certainly understandable and evident sir.  I'll be watching for deals on Southwest.com


You and other students as well.


> Aha. The sternum is something I can reach.


It is the next option on the same centerline meridian for the 'vertically challenged.'  We rountinely make adjustments for gender, height, and girth disparities. 


> My instructor is just tall enough where I would risk overreaching if I executed a handsword to his throat.  Out of respect for him I will mention that he repeatedly stressed the danger of such a move.


Very dangerous considering the level of the initial threat.


> The modification that he suggested was to reverse the two strikes, starting first with the hammer to the groin area, which would crumple the attacker forward enough for my handsword to make contact.


Reversing the strikes does have some merit, but not at the first level. Consider that if you're being seized at the right shoulder, the seizing hand is in position to inhibit your action to the lower portions of the body. Also consider you will have to be or get very close. Lastly his reaction to the first strike will remove the target you actually want from being available in a second strike.


> This technique starts with an attack that may not even be threat...a hand to the shoulder.  Why is it that the opening strike is such a serious move?  I guess I am asking why the technique came to be "Sword and Hammer", and not "Hammer and Sword".


Because all motion kenpo techniques rely on extreme responses to soft tissue and vulnerable joint strikes to insure effectiveness. There is no room to modulate the level of destruction of your response without significant training not found in the model.

Examine your techniques, and note how often you strike the testicles/groin, smash the throat, poke/strike the eyes, or stomp the foot and kick a knee joint. It's called quick self defense, and don't knock it because it does work, but be prepared to articulate your reasons and justify your actions. It does not work however in 'hands on' techniques where you are manipulated before you can respond. Keep this in mind.


----------



## Carol

Doc said:
			
		

> It does not work however in 'hands on' techniques where you are manipulated before you can respond. Keep this in mind.


 
Doc, may I ask what you mean by being maniuplated before I can respond?  I'm not sure if I'm getting the full grasp of what you are saying.


----------



## Doc

lady_kaur said:
			
		

> Doc, may I ask what you mean by being maniuplated before I can respond?  I'm not sure if I'm getting the full grasp of what you are saying.


Anyone who has their hands on you, as the ability to 'manipulate' you. Even a gentile push/pull can disrupt you significantly if you are not structurally sound, and prepared for the possibility.


----------



## Carol

Doc said:
			
		

> Anyone who has their hands on you, as the ability to 'manipulate' you. Even a gentile push/pull can disrupt you significantly if you are not structurally sound, and prepared for the possibility.


 
Mind the basics, yes?  

That the "tiger moves" are no substitute for being a martial artist.  One that can anticipate/read the attack, take an effective stance,  and execute an advatageous move.  

And, if I am integrating these basics, then I have the skill to integrate an attack that may be more effective (or more appropriate) that the tiger moves.  

My school hasn't stressed those moves, although it is coincidence that I am discussing two moves that have throat strikes in them.  Groin strikes, esp. kicks, are something that my instructor regularly brings up as possible move when engaging an opponent.   Perhaps this is not a fair question, but is a kick to the shins perhaps better?  A kick that can't really be "caught", less likely to cause damage to the person, effective on both men and women...or, am I not thinking the right way?


----------



## Doc

lady_kaur said:
			
		

> Mind the basics, yes?


Absolutely.


> Groin strikes, esp. kicks, are something that my instructor regularly brings up as possible move when engaging an opponent.   Perhaps this is not a fair question, but is a kick to the shins perhaps better?  A kick that can't really be "caught", less likely to cause damage to the person, effective on both men and women...or, am I not thinking the right way?


Personally I like your thinking. Depending upon your shoes and the kick, the shin is a much easier and effective target that cannot be 'blocked', that will illicit an immediate response. The groin is not always effective, nor immediate when it is.

One other thing. You have opponants in sports, games, contests, and debates. When a person attacks you, they are not an opponant. They are an attacker. Let your mindset be clear. There is no second place.


----------



## KenpoTess

Thread Moved to Kenpo Technical.

~Tess 
-MT Assist. Admin


----------



## Carol

Doc said:
			
		

> One other thing. You have opponants in sports, games, contests, and debates. When a person attacks you, they are not an opponant. They are an attacker. Let your mindset be clear. There is no second place.


 
You have read me well sir.  Point taken.  

I deeply appreciate your input, and have been thoroughly enjoying getting to know your approach.  Sir it floors me that you would take the time to exchange ideas with a newbie like me.  I don't know what to say other than thank you so much!


----------



## Doc

lady_kaur said:
			
		

> You have read me well sir.  Point taken.
> 
> I deeply appreciate your input, and have been thoroughly enjoying getting to know your approach.  Sir it floors me that you would take the time to exchange ideas with a newbie like me.  I don't know what to say other than thank you so much!


Thnak you for being open to my input and suggestions.


----------



## Kenpodoc

Doc, 
Sorry for being technical but when you say strike under the sternum do you mean a point inferior to the sternum in a standing opponent such as the upper abdomen?

Jeff


----------



## Carol

Jeff,

Are you reading it that way?  I read it as to strike under the nose, or [at the] sternum.

Carol


----------



## Kenpodoc

lady_kaur said:
			
		

> Jeff,
> 
> Are you reading it that way? I read it as to strike under the nose, or [at the] sternum.
> 
> Carol


I prabably read it wrong. In which case the sternum is a long target, is there a preferred point on the sternum to strike?

Thanks,

Jeff


----------



## Bode

Kenpodoc said:
			
		

> I prabably read it wrong. In which case the sternum is a long target, is there a preferred point on the sternum to strike?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jeff


The main target is the terminus point of the governing vessel just under the nose. The STERNUM is listed as an optional target for training purposes. Doc does really mean the sternum and not something lower. We use this to allow the students to actually strike and feel the power without hurting the attacker.


----------



## Doc

Kenpodoc said:
			
		

> Doc,
> Sorry for being technical but when you say strike under the sternum do you mean a point inferior to the sternum in a standing opponent such as the upper abdomen?
> 
> Jeff


Doc please, being technical is what you're supposed to be. That's where the knowledge is. What you're doing with the HAMMERFIST to the body (option) is striking (in Chinese Terms) on the centerline in the area of CV 14-16. These points correspond to the 'zyphoid process.' But the trick is getting him to 'open' his primary points, as well as the angle you strike.

For you and others interested

Experiment (and be kind):

Have a study partner stand off of your right flank with their left shoulder and thorax angled about 45-degrees to your right shoulder. 

Ready your hammer fist strike.

Strike your training partner in the area of the tip of the zyphoid process. (I don't have to remind you to not overdo it)

In your second model; all positions are the same, however this time have him seize your shoulder tightly and pull signifcantly to simulate street aggression. 

Once you feel the pressure, strike in the same area, but this time strike downward at a 45-degree angle and loop and 'skip' your strike through the target.

Let me know.

In this technique, the preferred default target in Sword & Hammer is the conception vessel terminus point below the bottom lip on the centerline, or the governor vessel terminus on the centerline above the top lip on the initial strike. An adjustment is acceptable for height disparities by optioning to the experiment target at the zyphoid process. Both are on the same meridian and have a significant impact when executed properly.


----------



## pete

doc, i've actually done this experiment in a context outside kenpo, but the expected results were: 1. struck downward angle would 'seal the breath' or take the wind out of his sails. 2. struck on an upward angle would give invoke a nauseaous and disoriented feeling. 3. struck directly could actually stop the heart.  the first two i can attest to working, the 3rd, well we had common sense to back off the experiment and believe!. 

pete


----------



## Doc

pete said:
			
		

> doc, i've actually done this experiment in a context outside kenpo, but the expected results were: 1. struck downward angle would 'seal the breath' or take the wind out of his sails. 2. struck on an upward angle would give invoke a nauseaous and disoriented feeling. 3. struck directly could actually stop the heart.  the first two i can attest to working, the 3rd, well we had common sense to back off the experiment and believe!.
> 
> pete


"Sealing the Breath" is a term we use all the time, you don't here very often in kenpo.  Of course you're absolutely correct, and with moderate energy you can and will 'drop' the guy. In training my people I also teach the necessary posture(s) to "Unseal the Breath" as well.

Now the 'angle of incidence' strike is significant but not likely to induce Cardiac Arrhythmia or Sudden Arrhythmia. This can be caused by a strike lateral of that location closer to K-22. However that would require a specific induced negative body posture, to achieve the effect.

Now you still have to perform the experiment, to study the differences in effect outlined in the experiment model.

Good Obs. Get back to me on the experiement.


----------



## Atlanta-Kenpo

Doc,

i did the experiment and well...hhmmm very cool stuff..move Doc move to Atlanta GA


----------



## Doc

Atlanta-Kenpo said:
			
		

> Doc,
> 
> i did the experiment and well...hhmmm very cool stuff..move Doc move to Atlanta GA


Tell me about it. I want to make sure I didn't 'trick' or hipnotize you into thinking something works that really doesn't.


----------



## OneKickWonder

In kenpo you always look before making movements, you never know what is behind or beside you.


----------



## masherdong

> I was always taught to look before executing these techniques.



Pretty much sums it up.


----------



## Doc

masherdong said:


> Pretty much sums it up.



Truth be told, it's 'how' you look ot Index the head. There is a right and wrong depending upon the activity.


----------



## jazkiljok

Doc said:


> Truth be told, it's 'how' you look ot Index the head. There is a right and wrong depending upon the activity.



by the term index, you are referring to the exact movement you make when you turn your head- correct?

what for example would be a wrong way of turning the head to look in say a horse stance when you want to look to your left?

or if that's not a good question-- can you give an example?


----------



## Doc

jazkiljok said:


> by the term index, you are referring to the exact movement you make when you turn your head- correct?


The answer to everything is, "It depends." There is a specific way to move every part of your body for any given situation.


> what for example would be a wrong way of turning the head to look in say a horse stance when you want to look to your left?


To begin the process of realigning and re-orientating the body requires, in this case, and Indexing of the head by first dropping the chin and then sweeping the head to the left.

Unfortunately the manutae is where the knowledge is. Motion based commercial kenpo tells you to do a lot of things, but there is no real knowledge in the structure because it was not meant to be an in-depth exploration into the arts. Therefore it 'hints' at information but doesn't deliver 'how' to do anything. 

You must examine everything you do from the perspective of describing the action to an alien from another planet. Some Kenpo people say, "Look to your left." and take it for granted that you just "do it." We call it "Nike-Kenpo." Just do it, and somehow everything will just fall into place and be really efficient. If that is all a person wants, it's a great product. But how you turn your head in different circumstances has a profound impact on what and how your body receives and perceives external information and prepares itself for the action. Done incorrectly, the body breaks down in confrontation under load, and is weak. Who would have thought a simple "turn of the head" could have such an impact, and that there is a right and wrong way to do it?


----------



## IWishToLearn

Doc said:


> The answer to everything is, "It depends." There is a specific way to move every part of your body for any given situation.
> 
> To begin the process of realigning and re-orientating the body requires, in this case, and Indexing of the head by first dropping the chin and then sweeping the head to the left.
> 
> Unfortunately the manutae is where the knowledge is. Motion based commercial kenpo tells you to do a lot of things, but there is no real knowledge in the structure because it was not meant to be an in-depth exploration into the arts. Therefore it 'hints' at information but doesn't deliver 'how' to do anything.
> 
> You must examine everything you do from the perspective of describing the action to an alien from another planet. Some Kenpo people say, "Look to your left." and take it for granted that you just "do it." We call it "Nike-Kenpo." Just do it, and somehow everything will just fall into place and be really efficient. If that is all a person wants, it's a great product. But how you turn your head in different circumstances has a profound impact on what and how your body receives and perceives external information and prepares itself for the action. Done incorrectly, the body breaks down in confrontation under load, and is weak. Who would have thought a simple "turn of the head" could have such an impact, and that there is a right and wrong way to do it?


 
Heh...allow me to quote the inimitable Mister Brad...

*ahem*...

Why?

*Runs away ducking incoming projectiles*


----------



## MMAkid1

If you are thinking only in Kenpo/Kempo terms then just ignore me, but at our school we sometimes have a Tang Soo Do instructor who comes to just give us more weapons in our proverbial arsenal. He is a bouncer at a local club and has used the technique I will explain and will vouch that it works. Anyway, He said that if you are grabbed r.f.l.s. you could merely use a groin scoop (where you hop on one leg and use the other to scoop your opponents groin) followed by a rear thrust kick, or you could use only the thrust kick to create distance and prepare to defend yourself. Hope it helps, even though you all have had many years of martial arts experience. I am not trying to sound like I know more than you all, I just didn't see anybody saying anything about this so I thought I'd share what I've learned. Hope it helps.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Kirk said:


> These are the only 2 techs I've been taught that have a right
> flank left shoulder grab. Both require a strike without really
> looking behind you.
> 
> In thinking of a scenario that would give a purpose for this
> defense, it all changes, and goes really really bad if the one
> grabbing you is a cop, or buddy of yours. Maybe you're fighting
> multiple attackers, and your buddy comes up puts his hand on
> your shoulder to stop you from going to crazy on the attackers.
> Maybe it's a cop, going "okay, that's enough!" (or the owner
> of the establishment you're in club, bar, airport, whatever).
> 
> Share some ideas on when one should consider using one or the
> other of these techs. I'd be just a little scared to ever use it,
> personally. Enlighten me!


The first half of your strike requires no knowledge of whom you are striking or where; however, you should have a visual by the time you start the second half of the strike.
Sean


----------



## Touch Of Death

MMAkid1 said:


> If you are thinking only in Kenpo/Kempo terms then just ignore me, but at our school we sometimes have a Tang Soo Do instructor who comes to just give us more weapons in our proverbial arsenal. He is a bouncer at a local club and has used the technique I will explain and will vouch that it works. Anyway, He said that if you are grabbed r.f.l.s. you could merely use a groin scoop (where you hop on one leg and use the other to scoop your opponents groin) followed by a rear thrust kick, or you could use only the thrust kick to create distance and prepare to defend yourself. Hope it helps, even though you all have had many years of martial arts experience. I am not trying to sound like I know more than you all, I just didn't see anybody saying anything about this so I thought I'd share what I've learned. Hope it helps.


Kicking into the unknown is an option.
Sean


----------



## pete

hopping while grabbed is a good way to land on yourass.


----------



## MMAkid1

As you should always be looking at your target even if behind you with a checking hand as in Escaping Ram.


----------



## Fiendlover

AvPKenpo said:


> Wrong......(don't know who taught you that one).........ALWAYS LOOK BEFORE YOU STRIKE!
> 
> Like you said you never know when your buddy is the one behind you.
> 
> Michael


 

i agree.  we were always told to ALWAYS look b4 u do something behind u.  one time a friend jumped on my back (like pushed off of my shoulders) and i grabbed his wrist and twisted it into a lock.  it was reflex and i quickly stopped b4 i went to far but if u do something other than a reflexive muscle memory thing u should always look.%think%


----------

