# Thrusting Wedge, Twist Of Fate & Parting Wings-Front 2 Hand High Push



## MJS

Thrusting Wedge:

1. An attacker at 12 o'clock pushes you high with both hands. 

2. Step your right foot to 12 o'clock into a right neutral bow as you thrust the outer portion of both of your forearms to create a wedge against your attacker's arms. 


Parting Wings

1. An attacker at 12 o'clock pushes you with both hands. 

2. Step back to 6 o'clock with your right foot so you are in a left neutral bow facing 12 o'clock as you execute a right and left extended outward block at the same time (palms open) to clear away your attacker's arms. 


Twist Of Fate

1. An attacker at 12 o'clock pushes you with both hands. 

2. Step your right foot back to 6 o'clock into a left neutral bow facing 12 o'clock as you execute right and left extended outward handswords to the inside of your attacker's wrists. 


I've only posted the beginning moves of these techniques, as this is the part that I wanted to discuss.

Are these methods effective for defending against the push? There is often mention of not being able to seperate the hands by using the above mentioned defenses.

Mike


----------



## Carol

MJS said:
			
		

> Are these methods effective for defending against the push? There is often mention of not being able to seperate the hands by using the above mentioned defenses.
> 
> Mike


 
Depends on the push.  If the attacker is making a hard, committed push with straight arms, it likely not be possible to seperate the arms.

However, a forcefully committed push with straight arms would be very well telegraphed.  Such a push would have the attacker's bodyweight in to the motion.   The attacker would have so much inertia (proper term?) that it would be very difficult to change directions at an instant.  An astute (and agile) defender could avoid the attack simply by stepping off the centerline. 

However, if the arms of the attacker are crooked at the time of the push, seperating the arms can be done.  The defenses all rely on the attacker's elbows being bent at the time of the push.  Contact to the forearms will create a more circular move...bending the attacker's arms back at the elbow and away from the defender.


----------



## Flying Crane

On an intellectual level I think these make sense, but I have doubts about my own ability to make them work.  I think the stepping forward and wedging with the forearms, as long as you clasp the hands together for stability, has the greatest potential of the three described.

Another method I like is to step to about 1:00 with the right foot and pivot to remove your torso out of the path of the push.  At the same time deliver a double palm strike/block to the outside of his left elbow/upper arm area.  This turns him away from you toward your left, and places you sort of behind his left flank.  You are free to attack the back of his head or neck or ribs, or grab the back of his left shoulder with both hands and jerk/pull him back and down along your right side, as you sweep your right foot forward.  The sweep catches the back of his left ankle and swings his foot forward and up, while pulling him down and back drops him on his head.  In the Chinese arts, we call this sweeping technique _Bak Hok Tom Goi_, or White Crane Tests the Water.  Off topic a bit, but that's one of my favorites.


----------



## Flying Crane

Carol Kaur said:
			
		

> However, a forcefully committed push with straight arms would be very well telegraphed. Such a push would have the attacker's bodyweight in to the motion. The attacker would have so much inertia (proper term?) that it would be very difficult to change directions at an instant. An astute (and agile) defender could avoid the attack simply by stepping off the centerline.


 
I'm kind of thinking that in the attack the elbows could be bent downward, and braced against the attackers own lower torso with the forearms and hands thrust forward and perhaps slightly up to strike against your mid chest area.  Throwing the body weight behind a push like this could come in very quickly from a short range with little telegraphing and hit with a lot of unexpected power.

I think it would be very difficult to successfully split the attacking hands with outward blocks or knifehands.  The attack would be solidly braced against his body, and would be comming in too fast and with too much power to get this to work.


----------



## Doc

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> On an intellectual level I think these make sense, but I have doubts about my own ability to make them work.


They don't. Separating the arms when the hands are Indexed in a pushing posture, fingers upward, is extremely difficult and impossible if the attacker doesn't 'allow' it to happen.


----------



## Carol

Doc said:
			
		

> hands are Indexed in a pushing posture, fingers upward


 
Hands are "indexed" sir?  I'm stumbling on the words.


----------



## Doc

Carol Kaur said:
			
		

> Hands are "indexed" sir?  I'm stumbling on the words.


The human body must move through specific INDEX POINTS or POSTURES to support the desired activity. Some are intuitively achieved and learned throughout a lifetime of trial and error creating established synaptic pathways, and mind body connections.

Other Indexes must be taught when entering into physically new and unproven (to the body) applications. These are taught with exaggerated external movements to 'train' the body to understand the relationship between the external movement, application, and the thought process required for success. Over time these 'indexes' become 'compressed,' faster, and ultimately intuitive requiring less external movement to recruit the same neuromuscular support for the activity. Most forms of modern martial arts do not contain these 'indexes' or this scientific methodology of teaching and training physical movement for maximum efficiency. Physical activity learned this way last a lifetime with no significant diminishing of developed skills or speed, even without constant practice once learned.


----------



## MattJ

I agree with the others. I have tried numerous times to make the "seperating" technique work in resistant drills, with abyssmal results. Much more effective to parry or evade, IMHO.


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3

MJS said:
			
		

> Are these methods effective for defending against the push? There is often mention of not being able to seperate the hands by using the above mentioned defenses.Mike


 
All seems to depend on if the arms are extending or have alrady extended.  When the arms of the attecker are still in the act of extending they are relatively easy to manipulate.  Aikido and Ju Jitsu use this principle excessively.  However once the arms reach a certain level of extension they're difficult to darn near impossible to move.  Aikido demonstrates this concept with the "unbendable arm" exercise.

So it seems to depend on timing in my experiments.  Can I catch the arms before they reach the "locked" or "semi-locked" positions?  The area of no return seems to fall inbetween the 135-degree and 180-degree marks(refering to the angle the elbow joint makes).  This seems to make sense given that this range (closer to the 135 degree area) is the mid point of flexion and extension of both the biceps and triceps.  This gives the arm two VERY active muscle groups to remain in a straight configuration and deosn't even yet take into consideration the muscle groups that keep the arms in the extended position away from the body trunk.


----------



## Doc

Kenpojujitsu3 said:
			
		

> All seems to depend on if the arms are extending or have alrady extended.  When the arms of the attecker are still in the act of extending they are relatively easy to manipulate.  Aikido and Ju Jitsu use this principle excessively.  However once the arms reach a certain level of extension they're difficult to darn near impossible to move.  Aikido demonstrates this concept with the "unbendable arm" exercise.
> 
> So it seems to depend on timing in my experiments.  Can I catch the arms before they reach the "locked" or "semi-locked" positions?  The area of no return seems to fall inbetween the 135-degree and 180-degree marks(refering to the angle the elbow joint makes).  This seems to make sense given that this range (closer to the 135 degree area) is the mid point of flexion and extension of both the biceps and triceps.  This gives the arm two VERY active muscle groups to remain in a straight configuration and deosn't even yet take into consideration the muscle groups that keep the arms in the extended position away from the body trunk.


I disagree in principle sir. Once the hands are Indexed into the fingers up, wrist flex position, extension or lack thereof is immaterial. Experiment with a non-compliant subject in the correct posture. You'll find the capacity to separate the arms varies little fron inception to possible contact extension. Guaranteed.


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3

Doc said:
			
		

> I disagree in principle sir. Once the hands are Indexed into the fingers up, wrist flex position, extension or lack thereof is immaterial. Experiment with a non-compliant subject in the correct posture. You'll find the capacity to separate the arms varies little fron inception to possible contact extension. Guaranteed.


 
You know me, I'll "put it to the fire" so to speak.  So 1) fingers up 2) wrist flex are the only prerequisites?


----------



## HKphooey

Kenpojujitsu3 said:
			
		

> You know me, I'll "put it to the fire" so to speak. So 1) fingers up 2) wrist flex are the only prerequisites?


 
Just tell the person to try to push you with force and the intention to push you backwards.  Telling them anyhting more, the are no longer non-compliant.


----------



## MJS

Great replies!! 

Here are a few more questions for thought.

1) If the hands are not going to be able to be seperated, is there an alternate suggestion we could use, while still keeping to the format of those techniques?  

2) If the arms can't be seperated by using the method in PW, can we still get an effective parry from the outside of the arm?

3) In PW and TOF, we're using an outward handsword, but in TW, we're using our hands together to form a wedge.  In the first two, we're trying to move the hands apart, but with the wedge, we're driving up and towards the person.  Are the arms going to seperate?


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3

MJS said:
			
		

> Great replies!!
> 
> Here are a few more questions for thought.
> 
> 1) If the hands are not going to be able to be seperated, is there an alternate suggestion we could use, while still keeping to the format of those techniques?
> 
> 2) If the arms can't be seperated by using the method in PW, can we still get an effective parry from the outside of the arm?
> 
> 3) In PW and TOF, we're using an outward handsword, but in TW, we're using our hands together to form a wedge. In the first two, we're trying to move the hands apart, but with the wedge, we're driving up and towards the person. Are the arms going to seperate?


 
The only time I've had trouble sepearting the arms in any of these is when I tell the person what I am going to do and they resist.  In cross-training with guys that are "kenpo illiterate" and I tell them just push hard with no other info, I have no problems unless I am late as I posted about earlier.

The wedge is the easier method, the arms tend to move more upward than outward but that may be more due the fact that that's exactly where I want the arms.  I actively try to wedge them upward.


----------



## Doc

Kenpojujitsu3 said:
			
		

> You know me, I'll "put it to the fire" so to speak.  So 1) fingers up 2) wrist flex are the only prerequisites?


Wouldn't have it any other way. I encourage students to challenge to solidify and 'own' the information.

Have the model step forward with either leg, with the fingers upward and the wrist flexed as if pushing. When they stiffen their arms at various depths, utilize the various mechanisms in these three techniques at comparable speed to the attack.


----------



## HKphooey

Doc said:
			
		

> Wouldn't have it any other way. I encourage students to challenge to solidify and 'own' the information.
> 
> Have the model step forward with either leg, with the fingers upward and the wrist flexed as if pushing. When they stiffen their arms at various depths, utilize the various mechanisms in these three techniques at comparable speed to the attack.


 
Doc,  at that point isn't the attacker compliant?  You are setting the attack up.

Just curious, I do not like most of these techniques.  I prefer going to the outside of the attack or using two downward outward blocks (as 90% time I am much taller than the attacker).


----------



## Doc

HKphooey said:
			
		

> Doc,  at that point isn't the attacker compliant?  You are setting the attack up.
> 
> Just curious, I do not like most of these techniques.  I prefer going to the outside of the attack or using two downward outward blocks (as 90% time I am much taller than the attacker).


If you wish to run tests to explore the model, you must be consistent. The attacker is not compliant but allowng to to test the described appplication on the arms portion of the model.


----------



## Flying Crane

Doc said:
			
		

> If you wish to run tests to explore the model, you must be consistent. The attacker is not compliant but allowng to to test the described appplication on the arms portion of the model.


 
would it perhaps make more sense to run the test by being the attacker, instead of being attacked, as long as your partner is able to adequately attempt the defenses.  This way you can monkey with the delivery to see if it makes any difference, without having to clue your partner in to what is going on.  Later, switch it up once you partner is in the know, but maybe initially it would work better to reverse the roles...


----------



## Doc

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> would it perhaps make more sense to run the test by being the attacker, instead of being attacked, as long as your partner is able to adequately attempt the defenses.  This way you can monkey with the delivery to see if it makes any difference, without having to clue your partner in to what is going on.  Later, switch it up once you partner is in the know, but maybe initially it would work better to reverse the roles...


Reversing roles is a part of the 'Three Perspective Point of View Process,' in teaching and learning.


----------



## Flying Crane

MattJ said:
			
		

> I agree with the others. I have tried numerous times to make the "seperating" technique work in resistant drills, with abyssmal results. Much more effective to parry or evade, IMHO.


 
I'm kind of in agreement here.

I think in a prior thread a while back, Doc advocated these techniques be used against an attempted bearhug, rather than a push.  The attacking arms will be wider as he tries to encircle you, so the need to separate the arms with outward blocks is a non-issue.  Instead, step forward and use agressive double outward jamming knifehand blocks to the upper arms to stop the attack, and then proceed with the defense.  If I remember correctly...


----------



## HKphooey

Doc said:
			
		

> If you wish to run tests to explore the model, you must be consistent. The attacker is not compliant but allowng to to test the described appplication on the arms portion of the model.


 
Do you feel attackers are consistent?  Telling the attacker how to push you is compliance.  That just my opinion and as always, I see your side.

Whoops, forgot.  Doc, thanks for the feedback.


----------



## Flying Crane

HKphooey said:
			
		

> Do you feel attackers are consistent? Telling the attacker how to push you is compliance. That just my opionon and as always, I see your side.


 
I'm seeing your point here, HKF.  While a properly indexed push may be solid and make it unlikely that someone could effectively split the arms apart, perhaps it is not realistic to think that the average Joe on the street, who is probably not a highly trained martial artists, is going to try to push you in this way.  If the push is more sloppy and untrained, the splitting techniques might work...

On the other hand, it doesn't take a lot of training to be able to give a good, hard, fast push...


----------



## HKphooey

I guess my experience as a bouncer got me used to drunk and stupid attackers.    But either way, never liked the techniques.


----------



## Doc

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> I'm seeing your point here, HKF.  While a properly indexed push may be solid and make it unlikely that someone could effectively split the arms apart, perhaps it is not realistic to think that the average Joe on the street, who is probably not a highly trained martial artists, is going to try to push you in this way.  If the push is more sloppy and untrained, the splitting techniques might work...
> 
> On the other hand, it doesn't take a lot of training to be able to give a good, hard, fast push...


The point is 'pushing' is a 'trained' activity learned over a lifetime of experimentation. Everyone of any age instinctively has 'learned' how to push. Fingers up, wrist flexed. To conduct an experiment, you must set parameters the may be consistently replicated, so you can test the non-compliant portion of the model. Otherwise, how would you conduct tests?


----------



## HKphooey

Tell somone to try to push me.  Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## Flying Crane

Doc said:
			
		

> The point is 'pushing' is a 'trained' activity learned over a lifetime of experimentation. Everyone of any age instinctively has 'learned' how to push. Fingers up, wrist flexed. To conduct an experiment, you must set parameters the may be consistently replicated, so you can test the non-compliant portion of the model. Otherwise, how would you conduct tests?


 
Yes, I understand and agree with this.  I guess the question I have is, is the indexed push also a natural enough movement to expect an untrained person to use it instictively, without specifically being shown this?  If so, then these techs won't work well as a defense against it.  If not, then they might work where an instinctive, untrained push might be more sloppy and less well indexed.

Also, if the indexed push is natural and instinctive, then perhaps it doesn't even need to be labelled or described in this manner.  It is just a "push", and when defending against a good, solid push, certain technique methods just don't work so well.


----------



## Doc

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Yes, I understand and agree with this.  I guess the question I have is, is the indexed push also a natural enough movement to expect an untrained person to use it instictively, without specifically being shown this?  If so, then these techs won't work well as a defense against it.  If not, then they might work where an instinctive, untrained push might be more sloppy and less well indexed.
> 
> Also, if the indexed push is natural and instinctive, then perhaps it doesn't even need to be labelled or described in this manner.  It is just a "push", and when defending against a good, solid push, certain technique methods just don't work so well.


The nature of science sir is to set and define parameters for experimentation. This REQUIRES consistency from model to model to yield real knowledge. As I stated before, 'pushing' is instinctively learned, but the model still REQUIRES definitions and consistency of modeling that goes beyond 'verbal general understandings.' By expressing it properly, it allows others to follow the experiment with a reasonable amount of consistency and verifiable results that may be shared beyond the physical presence. To do otherwise would end these conversations. How a person would personally experiment for themselves is nothing compared to a teacher who must spread the experience to others - consistently. Then, those who would just do it, would in the end be asking the questions instead of answering them.


----------



## HKphooey

Doc said:
			
		

> The nature of science sir is to set and define parameters for experimentation. This REQUIRES consistency from model to model to yield real knowledge. As I stated before, 'pushing' is instinctively learned, but the model still REQUIRES definitions and consistency of modeling that goes beyond 'verbal general understandings.' By expressing it properly, it allows others to follow the experiment with a reasonable amount of consistency and verifiable results that may be shared beyond the physical presence. To do otherwise would end these conversations. How a person would personally experiment for themselves is nothing compared to a teacher who must spread the experience to others - consistently. Then, those who would just do it, would in the end be asking the questions instead of answering them.


 
Law of averages:  Find twenty participants, ask all to push you.  Use the results to help you establish what is the most common.  I am not trying to say you are incorrect. Just stating there are variables in all experiments.  

Ask a few people to throw a straight punch. I bet you will have at least one person cross step with the opposite leg.

You had mentioned non-compliant testing.  Telling someone what to do is compliance.  That is is not science, that is predetermining the outcome.

I will rest my case with these statements, value your feedback and experiment with your suggestions.  In the end, I would not use all three techniques (unless I fight a 6'7"+ opponent).


----------



## Doc

HKphooey said:
			
		

> Law of averages:  Find twenty participants, ask all to push you.  Use the results to help you establish what is the most common.  I am not trying to say you are incorrect. Just stating there are variables in all experiments.
> 
> Ask a few people to throw a straight punch. I bet you will have at least one person cross step with the opposite leg.
> 
> You had mentioned non-compliant testing.  Telling someone what to do is compliance.  That is is not science, that is predetermining the outcome.
> 
> I will rest my case with these statements, value your feedback and experiment with your suggestions.  In the end, I would not use all three techniques (unless I fight a 6'7"+ opponent).


You don't get it.


----------



## JamesB

I tested Parting Wings with a student on Monday night, we found that it was indeed rather difficult to separate the arms when given a strong, aggressive push. Not only that, but we found that the attacker's arms 'slipped' around the outside of the defender and the attacker almost fell ontop of us as we were stepping back. As soon as the attacker's body made contact it was a natural instinct to stablize by wrapping the arms around the defender's upper body/shoulders. Perhaps this problem could be solved by push-dragging further backwards.

I've always had a bit of a 'mental block' with Parting Wings - when in the left-neutral-bow, my 'parting hands' would be 'non-symmetrical'. In other words, my left hand would be high up the inside of the attacker's right arm (almost at his inside-shoulder), and my right hand would be down on the inside of his left wrist. Parting the attacker's right arm that high up (at the shoulder) seems counter-intuitive to me. I almost want to be in a forward-bow when facing the attacker so that I can control his arms/body 'evenly'. Can't explain why, it just seems that way to me.

Heavenly Ascent has always seemed to me, to be the most functional of these techniques - it could be used against the choke, push etc. I think I would prefer to see a 'Heavenly-Ascent' style defence against Parting Wings - by clasp hands together and forcing the attacker's arms up over your shoulders, with your forearms forming a brace under the attacker's chin to force him off you.


----------



## MJS

Doc said:
			
		

> You don't get it.


 
Are these techniques included in the method that you teach?  If so, how are they performed?

Mike


----------



## MJS

HKphooey said:
			
		

> Doc, at that point isn't the attacker compliant? You are setting the attack up.
> 
> Just curious, I do not like most of these techniques. I prefer going to the outside of the attack or using two downward outward blocks (as 90% time I am much taller than the attacker).


 
I think I'm seeing what you're saying Wayne, and I think that Flying Crane made a good point.  Is the 'average Joe' going to throw that perfect punch, perfect kick, puch, or any other attack we can think of?  Think about when we teach a White Belt, how un-coordinated they are.  Ask them to punch and 9 times out of 10, they're not punching in the 'Ideal Phase' but instead more like the "What If."  

BTW, I agree with your sencond paragraph about being taller 90% of the time! 

Mike


----------



## Carol

MJS said:
			
		

> I think I'm seeing what you're saying Wayne, and I think that Flying Crane made a good point. Is the 'average Joe' going to throw that perfect punch, perfect kick, puch, or any other attack we can think of? Think about when we teach a White Belt, how un-coordinated they are. Ask them to punch and 9 times out of 10, they're not punching in the 'Ideal Phase' but instead more like the "What If."
> 
> BTW, I agree with your sencond paragraph about being taller 90% of the time!
> 
> Mike


 
They are very different points of view.  Doc is describing how he teaches while HKPhooey is describing what he (personally) does (and not the way he teaches.)

Doc described his teaching to me once as "where everything is described in excruciating detail."  As a paralell, I was a music major in college and the way we studied music was...also in excruciating detail.   If a class assignment required a composition that incorporated a modal interchange...it didn't matter how breathtaking the composition was, if it didn't have a modal interchange, the assingment was failed.

Perhaps in Doc's explanations I see kind of a "You have to know the rules before you can break 'em" that was present at my college.   The concepts were taught structurally and the student had to show proof of being able to apply them.  Is every single variation of every single concept taught in class?  No, but if one has a thorough understanding of the concept, one can see the variations when they are encountered as well.   

It's not clear to me that Doc's techs will only be effective against a "perfect attack."  It's difficult for me to understand how an effective defense against a devastating attack would be ineffective against an Average Joe attack or a clumsy white belt attack.  But..that being said, its difficult for me to understand a lot of things 

Now if you ever need a clumsy uke, you call me OK?  I'd be glad to oblige


----------



## Doc

Carol Kaur said:
			
		

> They are very different points of view.  Doc is describing how he teaches while HKPhooey is describing what he (personally) does (and not the way he teaches.)
> 
> Doc described his teaching to me once as "where everything is described in excruciating detail."  As a paralell, I was a music major in college and the way we studied music was...also in excruciating detail.   If a class assignment required a composition that incorporated a modal interchange...it didn't matter how breathtaking the composition was, if it didn't have a modal interchange, the assingment was failed.
> 
> Perhaps in Doc's explanations I see kind of a "You have to know the rules before you can break 'em" that was present at my college.   The concepts were taught structurally and the student had to show proof of being able to apply them.  Is every single variation of every single concept taught in class?  No, but if one has a thorough understanding of the concept, one can see the variations when they are encountered as well.
> 
> It's not clear to me that Doc's techs will only be effective against a "perfect attack."  It's difficult for me to understand how an effective defense against a devastating attack would be ineffective against an Average Joe attack or a clumsy white belt attack.  But..that being said, its difficult for me to understand a lot of things
> 
> Now if you ever need a clumsy uke, you call me OK?  I'd be glad to oblige


They don't get it.


----------



## MJS

Doc said:
			
		

> They don't get it.


 
Perhaps I don't.

BTW, would you care to share an answer to question #31?  Seeing that the 'commercial' version tends to be so 'incomplete.'


----------



## MJS

Carol Kaur said:
			
		

> It's not clear to me that Doc's techs will only be effective against a "perfect attack." It's difficult for me to understand how an effective defense against a devastating attack would be ineffective against an Average Joe attack or a clumsy white belt attack. But..that being said, its difficult for me to understand a lot of things


 
Let me explain. Perhaps I'm just not getting it as some think, but here is my .02 anyways. First let me explain about the white belt comment. If we had a new student and asked them to punch, chances are, they may not step, punch, move, etc., the way we are expecting, so as to be in the Ideal Phase of the technique. In the IP, the person is moving, stepping, doing everything correct. By having them move in this way, we can give the student a better idea as to the movements of the technique. If they step with their left leg when they right punch, we're going to have to adapt to that change, therefore, putting us in the What If phase. "What if they step like this? What if they don't punch like we were expecting?" The list can go on and on.   Book 5 of the Infinite Insights into Kenpo, gives a good description of this. 

What I believe HKP is saying, is that by us telling the person how to push, we're setting up a margin of little to no error on our part. HKP, please feel free to comment if I'm quoting you wrong here. 



> Now if you ever need a clumsy uke, you call me OK? I'd be glad to oblige


 
Thanks!:ultracool


----------



## jazkiljok

MJS said:
			
		

> I think I'm seeing what you're saying Wayne, and I think that Flying Crane made a good point.  Is the 'average Joe' going to throw that perfect punch, perfect kick, puch, or any other attack we can think of?  Think about when we teach a White Belt, how un-coordinated they are.  Ask them to punch and 9 times out of 10, they're not punching in the 'Ideal Phase' but instead more like the "What If."
> 
> BTW, I agree with your sencond paragraph about being taller 90% of the time!
> 
> Mike



that's an interesting observation- if 9 out of 10 times an untrained punch is not done in the ideal phase- then one would conclude that the ideal phase is NOT ideal but rather the "rare" phase. why train for rare occurences?

also- it seems that HK is simply saying that he's not sure of the effectivness of these 3 teks-- and Doc is simply saying-- yeah, and there's a reason why that is-- and that's having to do with the the entry move at the beginnning of the tek. 

i suspect that Doc has a "fix" to the situation or that he doesn't even bother with these ones- heretic that he is


----------



## MJS

jazkiljok said:
			
		

> that's an interesting observation- if 9 out of 10 times an untrained punch is not done in the ideal phase- then one would conclude that the ideal phase is NOT ideal but rather the "rare" phase. why train for rare occurences?


 
The IP is, IMO, teaching the basics, the foundation of the movements.  Not having a base, would be like expecting someone to be able to carry on a full conversation without knowing what any of the words mean.  From the IP, we then have them move onto the What if, or as Clyde likes to say, "Even If."



> also- it seems that HK is simply saying that he's not sure of the effectivness of these 3 teks-- and Doc is simply saying-- yeah, and there's a reason why that is-- and that's having to do with the the entry move at the beginnning of the tek.
> 
> i suspect that Doc has a "fix" to the situation or that he doesn't even bother with these ones- heretic that he is


 
Yes, the entry of all 3 moves is what I planned on discussing.  I'm curious as to this...If the 3 moves as listed, are not going to work, what is the solution?

Mike


----------



## Flying Crane

Carol Kaur said:
			
		

> It's not clear to me that Doc's techs will only be effective against a "perfect attack." It's difficult for me to understand how an effective defense against a devastating attack would be ineffective against an Average Joe attack or a clumsy white belt attack. But..that being said, its difficult for me to understand a lot of things


 
Carol,  you've got some good points and insight here, but I wanted to comment on this point.

I am not suggesting that an effective defense against a devastating attack would be ineffective against a clumsy, untrained attack.  Rather, it is the other way around.  A defense might be effective against a clumsy attack, and that clumsy attack might be more reasonable to expect from the Average Joe.  But this same defense might not be effective against a devastating attack that would be launched by a highly trained individual.  But by the very nature of the devastating attack coming from a background of training, it would be more rare and less likely to be encountered in your average, day-to-day confrontation.  So a technique might work under certain circumstances, but get you in trouble in others.

Now, what I don't know with authority is: Is a properly indexed push a natural enough movement to expect the Average Joe to do it instinctively and without prior training?  If so, then this is really a devastating (potentially) attack and not a clumsy attack.  If this _can_ be expected from the Average Joe, then a useful defense against a clumsy attack is no longer an option.  I don't know the answer to this, so that is why I put it out there.  But I will suggest that there should not be a separate list of techs to use against a clumsy opponent, from what would be used against a skilled opponent.  This would be a waste of time and effort, and really there should only be techs that should work against any level of opponent, from the clumsy and unskilled to the highly trained.  But this conversation is about techs on a theoretical level, so here we are in this discussion.

Personally, on a purely theoretical level I like some of the ideas in these three techs, but I have my doubts about their ability to work, or at least my ability to make them work.


----------



## Bode

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Now, what I don't know with authority is: Is a properly indexed push a natural enough movement to expect the Average Joe to do it instinctively and without prior training?  If so, then this is really a devastating (potentially) attack and not a clumsy attack.  If this _can_ be expected from the Average Joe, then a useful defense against a clumsy attack is no longer an option.  I don't know the answer to this, so that is why I put it out there.  But I will suggest that there should not be a separate list of techs to use against a clumsy opponent, from what would be used against a skilled opponent.  This would be a waste of time and effort, and really there should only be techs that should work against any level of opponent, from the clumsy and unskilled to the highly trained.  But this conversation is about techs on a theoretical level, so here we are in this discussion.



Yes, it is a natural enough movement for the average joe to do instinctively. The push is impossible to perform without the inherent index. If I am pushing a relatively flat surface such as the chest of a human, it requires me to flex my wrist, pointing my fingers towards the sky, and extend my arms. People don't push with their elbows collapsed to their body. Their instincts will tell them this wont work and they will extend their arms. So certain index's are a byproduct of human evolution and making the most out of our physical frame. I.e. having the most power in a push. 

The major differences in attack will not lie in the index or not indexing of the hand/arms, but in height, angle of attack, body mass, etc...


----------



## Flying Crane

Bode said:
			
		

> Yes, it is a natural enough movement for the average joe to do instinctively. The push is impossible to perform without the inherent index. If I am pushing a relatively flat surface such as the chest of a human, it requires me to flex my wrist, pointing my fingers towards the sky, and extend my arms. People don't push with their elbows collapsed to their body. Their instincts will tell them this wont work and they will extend their arms. So certain index's are a byproduct of human evolution and making the most out of our physical frame. I.e. having the most power in a push.
> 
> The major differences in attack will not lie in the index or not indexing of the hand/arms, but in height, angle of attack, body mass, etc...


 
OK, that's the kind of answer I was looking for.

I will say, however, that when I want to give something a good solid shove, I will sometimes bend my elbows downward and brace them against the sides of my torso, and engage my whole body into the push.  If I was trying to do this to a person, I think I might do it this way as well, or I might do it with the arms more extended.  I think for me, it might depend on the circumstances.  The bent-elbows braced method might be faster at a short distance, and would come in under the radar and be a big surprise for someone who's attention is focused high.  Might be an effective sneak attack.  Of course a proper sneak attack is difficult to defend against for that very reason.  Just my own thoughts based on my own experience.


----------



## Bode

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> I will say, however, that when I want to give something a good solid shove, I will sometimes bend my elbows downward and brace them against the sides of my torso, and engage my whole body into the push.  If I was trying to do this to a person, I think I might do it this way as well, or I might do it with the arms more extended.  I think for me, it might depend on the circumstances.  The bent-elbows braced method might be faster at a short distance, and would come in under the radar and be a big surprise for someone who's attention is focused high.  Might be an effective sneak attack.  Of course a proper sneak attack is difficult to defend against for that very reason.  Just my own thoughts based on my own experience.



I could see dropping the elbows in the second scenario you describe, with the goal being a "sneak attack". However, bracing your elbows against your body will not give you a more powerful push. You simply cannot get effective leverage this way (wish we could stand on the mat together and I'd show you). 

In addition, dropping the elbows so far that they are touching the body, changes the nature of the attack. In this posture I would venture to say 1) the response would be different and 2) The point about being able to laterally move the attackers arms is moot. It would be easy with the elbows touching the body. You have no lateral strength in the arms, unlike when they are extended. Try it....


----------



## Flying Crane

Bode said:
			
		

> I could see dropping the elbows in the second scenario you describe, with the goal being a "sneak attack". However, bracing your elbows against your body will not give you a more powerful push. You simply cannot get effective leverage this way (wish we could stand on the mat together and I'd show you).
> 
> In addition, dropping the elbows so far that they are touching the body, changes the nature of the attack. In this posture I would venture to say 1) the response would be different and 2) The point about being able to laterally move the attackers arms is moot. It would be easy with the elbows touching the body. You have no lateral strength in the arms, unlike when they are extended. Try it....


 
fair enough, i'll play with that a bit.  thx.


----------



## MattJ

Interesting responses.

Quote by Flying Crane - 



> I think in a prior thread a while back, Doc advocated these techniques be used against an attempted bearhug, rather than a push. The attacking arms will be wider as he tries to encircle you, so the need to separate the arms with outward blocks is a non-issue. Instead, step forward and use agressive double outward jamming knifehand blocks to the upper arms to stop the attack, and then proceed with the defense. If I remember correctly...


 
OK, that I have not heard before. That would probably be a better application than against a push, IMHO. But that begs the question why it is taught against the push.

Quote by HKphooey -



> Law of averages: Find twenty participants, ask all to push you. Use the results to help you establish what is the most common. I am not trying to say you are incorrect. Just stating there are variables in all experiments.
> 
> Ask a few people to throw a straight punch. I bet you will have at least one person cross step with the opposite leg.
> 
> You had mentioned non-compliant testing. Telling someone what to do is compliance. That is is not science, that is predetermining the outcome.


 
I agree with this. I sometimes feel that AKK people over-analyze what are not really complicated scenarios. I do feel that a group sample can be good representation, even if it is not pure science.

Quote by Doc - 



> You don't get it.


 
I guess I don't either. Can you elaborate please? Do you not teach these techniques or do you alter  the attacks?


----------



## Bode

MattJ said:
			
		

> OK, that I have not heard before. That would probably be a better application than against a push, IMHO. But that begs the question why it is taught against the push.



Attack the arms on the vertical plane for a push. They are very weak given the body posture. Pretty sure Alternating Maces is a good example. (Assuming we do it similarly).


----------



## Flying Crane

MattJ said:
			
		

> OK, that I have not heard before. That would probably be a better application than against a push, IMHO. But that begs the question why it is taught against the push.


 
I think this is a good question.  It will be interesting to see what people think about this.


----------



## Doc

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> I think this is a good question.  It will be interesting to see what people think about this.


Category completion unfortunately.

When a scientific model is properly studied so there is an understanding of how the attack is likely to be delivered, than a properly formulated defense can be created. Whether the attacker is skilled or not is irrelevent to proper technique execution. A good defense model should account for any minor variations in the assault with no significant change in the technique model. If your model cannot do this, than it is not a good model. Further, any major changes in the assault should be covered by other well defined assault defense scenarios. Therefore there is no need for this 'what/even if' thought process. If the question is not answered, its because you haven't got there yet. Unfortunately some Kenpo people want to account for everything immediately, today, right now, instead of concentrating on basic skills that will suffice in 99% of confrontations, and the wildcard 1% is covered by another technique.

You cannot get to these kind of models without strict examination of the possibilities under strict guidelines. It is a process for knowledgeable instructors, that is passed to students to execute. What some consider "ideal" is what this process could be called. However unless you have a teacher who formulates 'your ideal' from a vast knowledge base of reality gleaned from his teacher, scientific analysis, and personal experiences, than students are perpetually locked into conversations like this. Parker presented the 'ideal' model and allowed students to tailor it to their chossing. Commercially successful, but realistic for most, a disaster.

These type attacks and one of the techniques was discussed by me recently over on KenpoTalk. Check it out.


----------



## Flying Crane

Doc said:
			
		

> Category completion unfortunately.


 
What would be the category to complete?  I understood this to be categorization of type of attack, i.e. if someone can push you high, they can push you low, so prepare a defense against both types.  A high push to the chest region seems likely, so preparing defenses for this possibility seems reasonable.  Is the type of movement in the technique completing a certain category?

If these really don't work against a push, but they do work against an attempted bear-hug, why not just acknowledge that up front and formally make the change?  Perhaps you have done that but since I don't know your curriculum I am in the dark.  

appreciate the reply.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Catagory completion usualy is a representative of Family groupings of techniques. Family groupings center on the motion you are making or on the nature of the attack. You may even group the entire system behind any given tech for any reason.
Sean


----------



## Doc

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> What would be the category to complete?  I understood this to be categorization of type of attack, i.e. if someone can push you high, they can push you low, so prepare a defense against both types.  A high push to the chest region seems likely, so preparing defenses for this possibility seems reasonable.  Is the type of movement in the technique completing a certain category?
> 
> If these really don't work against a push, but they do work against an attempted bear-hug, why not just acknowledge that up front and formally make the change?  Perhaps you have done that but since I don't know your curriculum I am in the dark.
> 
> appreciate the reply.


Depending upon interpretation of the individual techniqes, in one of the three under discussion, you would go inside the arms; high, low, middle, wide, narrow, stepping forward, backwards, etc.

Yes I have already done that. I never learned techniques under the guidleines of category completion, but have been witness to the folly of it. I have guidleines that are built around the material being progressive in the teaching of its mechanisms, and absolute functionality. Category completion keeps you 'busy' figuring out how to make something work that you shouldn't be doing in the first place. You may have five categories and three of them are OK but the other two are thrown in for 'busy work.'

It's usually one of those techniques that you quietly say to yourself, "I would NEVER try to do some crap like that on the street."


----------



## Flying Crane

Doc said:
			
		

> Depending upon interpretation of the individual techniqes, in one of the three under discussion, you would go inside the arms; high, low, middle, wide, narrow, stepping forward, backwards, etc.
> 
> Yes I have already done that. I never learned techniques under the guidleines of category completion, but have been witness to the folly of it. I have guidleines that are built around the material being progressive in the teaching of its mechanisms, and absolute functionality. Category completion keeps you 'busy' figuring out how to make something work that you shouldn't be doing in the first place. You may have five categories and three of them are OK but the other two are thrown in for 'busy work.'
> 
> It's usually one of those techniques that you quietly say to yourself, "I would NEVER try to do some crap like that on the street."


 
OK, I see where you are coming from on this.

I was never taught the concept of "category completion".   Rather, I was just taught the techniques as they were, and we worked them.  I never actually heard of the concept until I found MartialTalk.

Given that, I can certainly relate to the idea of "I would NEVER try to do some crap like that on the street."  I have had that notion many times over.


----------



## Doc

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> OK, I see where you are coming from on this.
> 
> I was never taught the concept of "category completion".   Rather, I was just taught the techniques as they were, and we worked them.  I never actually heard of the concept until I found MartialTalk.
> 
> Given that, I can certainly relate to the idea of "I would NEVER try to do some crap like that on the street."  I have had that notion many times over.


Everyone who has studied commercial kenpo karate has been subjected to category completion in some form. It's part and parcel of the product.


----------



## Flying Crane

Doc said:
			
		

> Everyone who has studied commercial kenpo karate has been subjected to category completion in some form. It's part and parcel of the product.


 
Tracys for me.  Not sure if that falls under the same category.  If so, it was never presented to me as such.


----------



## Doc

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Tracys for me.  Not sure if that falls under the same category.  If so, it was never presented to me as such.


No, that came along after the Tracy's had left. Even in commercial Kenpo-Karate it isn't necessarily talked about to students, but it was utilized to complete and flesh out the curriculum, so it exsists whether its liked or not.


----------



## Carol

MattJ said:
			
		

> _OK, that I have not heard before. That would probably be a better application than against a push, IMHO. But that begs the question why it is taught against the push._


 


			
				Flying Crane said:
			
		

> I think this is a good question. It will be interesting to see what people think about this.


 
I asked my instructor the same question when the discussion of Parting Wings was going about a few months back.  He confirmed that Parting Wings was originaly defense against a grab, and not a push.  

I asked why it was taught as a defense against a push, he said two things:  that it was easier to teach, and that it was more of a defense against the "push in the lunchroom" that kids do to one another.


----------



## Kenpodoc

This may fall outside of this discussion but I'll insert it.  I personally can't do Parting Wings as taught against a strong push. I can however step off to 4:30 and and do it apparently effectively outside of the pushers Left arm.

Jeff


----------



## Kenpodoc

Doc,

I may have misread you above.  you mentioned parting wings as a category completion technique.  I've heard second hand that Dave Hebler at one of Sean Kelley's seminars said that "in the old days all we did was the Five  Count (Five Swords) and the Four count (Parting Wings) in different variations every night."  I'm sure this was exageration and I didn't hear him say it myself but I had assume that Parting wings was one of the old techniques because of this.

Jeff


----------



## Doc

Kenpodoc said:
			
		

> Doc,
> 
> I may have misread you above.  you mentioned parting wings as a category completion technique.  I've heard second hand that Dave Hebler at one of Sean Kelley's seminars said that "in the old days all we did was the Five  Count (Five Swords) and the Four count (Parting Wings) in different variations every night."  I'm sure this was exageration and I didn't hear him say it myself but I had assume that Parting wings was one of the old techniques because of this.
> 
> Jeff


Yes sir the techniques existed long before 'category completion' came into being, however it's not the technique that completed the category in this case, but the attack.

Nice thinking on changing the angle and going outside. Of course that violates the technique category, but it does work. It's a choice.


----------



## MJS

MattJ said:
			
		

> Quote by Doc -
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I don't either. Can you elaborate please? Do you not teach these techniques or do you alter the attacks?


 
Yes, Matt, that is a good question, and one that I'm still waiting for an answer to myself.  I see alot of talk of why it won't work and experiments that we can try, but I (unless I'm still missing it) don't see an explaination.  :idunno:   If someone is going to say a tech. won't work because of "X" reason, thats perfectly fine, but at least be kind enough to go into some detail as to a) how to make the tech. work or b) what you do to make it work.  

Perhaps Doc, Bode or Dr. Dave can provide an answer to this.  If its simply a matter of not wanting to post this info. out of concern that this'll turn into a my style vs. your style thread, please feel free to PM me.  My PM box still has room in it! 

Mike


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo

I'm probably going to get killed for posting this, but here goes:

When the hands are in the "pushing" position (wrists flexed, fingers pointing to the sky, arms extended) the arms are strong(er) on the horizontal plane and weak(er) on the vertical plane. 

Experiment 1: Have someone stand with there arms extended with their hands in the pushing position.  Try to push them in or out on the horizontal plane with them resisting the push.  

Experiment 2: Have someone stand with there arms extended with their hands in the pushing position.  Try to push down on their arms with them resisting the push.  

Which is easier?  With that in mind, how do you adapt the technique to accomadate this discrepency (if any)?


----------



## MattJ

Hi 5-0 Kenpo.

You are hitting on the same thing that I have encountered, when working these techniques. It is fairly easy to manipulate BOTH arms to one direction or the other, but splitting or seperating them is extremely difficult.

I find Carol's comment on the technique being originally taught for a grab, and then changing the attack to make it easier to teach very perplexing. As the student is going to be the end user of the move, wouldn't it make sense to make it easier for the student, as opposed to the teacher? 

Not questioning the veracity of the statement from Carol - just the logic! That seems like a poor reason to change the attack.


----------



## Hand Sword

Maybe the tech. was designed to intercept the arms before complete extension.


----------



## spiderboy

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> Maybe the tech. was designed to intercept the arms before complete extension.


Agreed - If he's had a chance to fully extend the push (and pushes with real intent), surely you would already be 5 feet away sitting on your butt?

Who pushes with fully straightened arms? Unless I'm missing something. Always possible 

And if you do survive the initial push, distance will probably have been created (environment allowing), and there's a good chance his arms would already be pulled back, ready to swing a punch etc? Whole _new_ problem then.

If it's a short, aggressive "what's your problem?" sort of multiple push, the tech becomes pre-emptive (ideal?) and would then be done on bent arms?

Just a thought. Interesting thread.

Alex

BKKU


----------



## Hand Sword

That's right, and over before you can respond with the tech.


----------



## Doc

spiderboy said:
			
		

> Agreed - If he's had a chance to fully extend the push (and pushes with real intent), surely you would already be 5 feet away sitting on your butt?
> 
> Who pushes with fully straightened arms? Unless I'm missing something. Always possible
> 
> And if you do survive the initial push, distance will probably have been created (environment allowing), and there's a good chance his arms would already be pulled back, ready to swing a punch etc? Whole _new_ problem then.
> 
> If it's a short, aggressive "what's your problem?" sort of multiple push, the tech becomes pre-emptive (ideal?) and would then be done on bent arms?
> 
> Just a thought. Interesting thread.
> 
> Alex
> 
> BKKU


Techniques are not functional, extended arms or not. The arms closer to the torso are even stronger.


----------



## MJS

Doc said:
			
		

> Techniques are not functional, extended arms or not. The arms closer to the torso are even stronger.


 
So, that being said, how can they be made more functional while still keeping with a similar format to the technique or what changes if any, need to be made?

IMHO, I really don't see anything wrong with the questions being asked.  What I do see though, is people stating that certain things won't work for whatever the reason may be, but then people never provide an answer for a solution.  If someone is going to discredit something, fine, but at least provide a solution.  You apparently see something wrong with the way techs. are done Doc, but I really don't see what the issue is with the 'secrets.'  A number of times people have asked about the SL4 method of doing the techs. but no answer is given.  

Mike


----------



## Doc

MJS said:
			
		

> So, that being said, how can they be made more functional while still keeping with a similar format to the technique or what changes if any, need to be made?
> 
> IMHO, I really don't see anything wrong with the questions being asked.  What I do see though, is people stating that certain things won't work for whatever the reason may be, but then people never provide an answer for a solution.  If someone is going to discredit something, fine, but at least provide a solution.  You apparently see something wrong with the way techs. are done Doc, but I really don't see what the issue is with the 'secrets.'  A number of times people have asked about the SL4 method of doing the techs. but no answer is given.
> 
> Mike


I gave you experiments so you can see for yourself whether or not they're functional. If not, then look for alternate solutions. I'm not trying to recruit someone to the SL-4 Kenpo method. Besides that, if all had to do was tell you to fix a technique, I would. But these techniques are anatomically not functional on any level. First you have to decide what attack you're going to use, and then work on the solutions. I also mentioned that we discussed these techniques over on KenpoTalk. Have a look over there where I gave a possible solution to one of them.


----------



## spiderboy

*packs up MT tent, heads over to KT to dig for a while*


----------



## spiderboy

Ok I have had a look through some old KT posts and have only come up with more questions! (For these questions below I&#8217;m visualising Parting Wings.)

Please excuse any mangling of terminology &#8211; I&#8217;m a noob at this&#8230;

Doc described a push as:

_&#8220;A 'push' by strict definition is an action that has already occurred that you must survive before you can initiate a retaliation response.&#8221;_

_&#8220;First you have to decide what attack you're going to use, and then work on the solutions&#8221;_

I guess my first question for this tech concerns the type of attack. Is the push a one-off push designed to create distance, or a continual, committed push? I have always assumed the first, but isn&#8217;t the second just as likely?

_&#8220;We must move our legs/feet and arms/hands in a specific manner to "absorb" the impact of their 'body momentum,' restructure our lower platform for upper platform support, regain our balance and solidify our stance, as we prep a retaliatory posture.&#8221;_

Within my training so far we have started to look at surviving a push by taking as few small steps backwards as possible before PAMing with the lead foot into a forward bow, while &#8216;throwing&#8217; (indexing?) the hands down to the side before raising them above our heads, fingers splayed, chin up and forward. (This can be done several times if the push is committed.)

I think this could end up in at least 2 ways &#8211; 

With the one-off push: Distance is created, you survive the push and find yourself in a &#8216;retaliatory posture&#8217; ready to deal with the follow up - be it another push, a punch etc.

With the continual, committed push: You stop the momentum of your attacker, he/she has that &#8220;huh?&#8221; look as their momentum is stopped, but only for about a half second before your retaliation.

So &#8211; 

If distance is created, that must be the end of this tech? (More may obviously follow in this encounter.)

If contact is maintained, the tech is still alive &#8211; but within the (limited) bounds of what I have already learnt about surviving a committed push, I can&#8217;t see how to get &#8216;inside the attack&#8217; as I have learnt Parting Wings?

I&#8217;m not asking for or expecting a full SL-4 tech breakdown for PW, but I am interested to know whether there are ways of surviving this attack that leave you &#8216;inside&#8217; it.

Excuse the long post, I may be a bit out of my depth here - but i'm eager to learn and I&#8217;m sure I&#8217;ll hear about it both here and in class if I&#8217;m talking rubbish 

 
Respectfully,

Alex

BKKU


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka

Ever see that thing where one guy drops a dollar bill, the other guy tries to catch it, but it goes by too quickly? It takes the brain time to evaluate scenario, devise a reply, and send the instructional signal to the appropriate muscles...then get them out idle, and into meaningful action.

One of my big kvetches about the push techs is the action-faster-than-reaction thing. Sure...train the heck out of them for a spell, and you'll intercept the attack. However, if we are going to aim our kenpo instruction at aiding most of the people to respond effectively to sudden violence most of the time, we have to operate under a couple assumptions. Some of the most important for pushes are that 1) it will most likely come as a surprise; 2) it will be quick; 3) the environment will likely be pre-hostile to the aggressive action, causing an adrenal dump in you, the defender/counter-attacker.

Surviving the push is easy, particularly if you have ever skateboarded in your life. Backpedal steps, riding the momentum, until you come to a stop. Now what?

If your adrenal glands are firing, you could have one of two likely responses: 1) you're faster and more dialed, and so time the executions for interception perfectly. This comes with spending lots of time in that adrenaline rush state, and learning to move while you're brains on fire and your hands are shaking. More likely is 2) although your perceptive mind works more quickly, and you see the push coming, decided, authoritative responses fom the limbs are...um...slow. Time stands still, but so do your feet, hands, etc. Meaning, ultimately, that if some big angry guy is dead set on pushing you, you're probably going to get pushed. So what? It's a short, quick ride backwards. Keep your feet under you, land firmly when the momentum stops, settle into a combat-ready internal posture with external body correlates, and be ready for the follow-up assault. 

As for Carols observation that the techs may have been modified to make them easier to teach, don't discount the idea too quickly. In commercial models, students come and go; the only constant at the studio is the instructor and the lease payment. Looking into "what-if's", any push can also be turned immediately into a grab. That grab can be static, or used to sling your now-misalinged (from the push) butt around like a rag doll. As a student of defense, you need to know what you're going to do to re-establish a functional base after Big Bubba has started slinging you. Commercially, while monitoring liability, there is little you can do to teach little Johnny and his mom what to do in the face of such overwhelming aggression and sudden violence. Enter the benefits of a testosterone-laden backyard school, or a committed instructor looking to pass on quality, and not just meet overhead. 

Surviving the Initial Attack (SIA) is an SL4 concept that I (in my own pea little brain) think of as a small technique within the technique that you do before you do the technique. One reason they are hard to write, is they are content rich in a short time (like, 10 things in half a second). Easier than describing the SIA "prefixes" to each of the push techniques, it's easier to say, simply, survive the push. It ain't gonna kill you. What comes NEXT might, so be sure to get your game on fast, and not be psychologically overwhelmed by the suddenness of the assault.

Take Parting Wings...as a non-SL4 (meaning this ain't what Doc sez to do, but it'll give you an idea) survival, count on being propelled backwards with a shove that makes contact. So, before you start whipping your hands in the air like a kenpo spasmodic, take a couple of small cheat steps backwards to give yourself room, and mess with his head a bit about distancing (depth deception). Find a zone of sanctuary, of sorts, out of his reach. Then, as he closes in, you're settled, he's not, and your banging away on him is apt to have better effect. Different than just "step back into a neutral bow". 

I've bounced some big dogs...if they push you, your feet are uprooting right out of the NB, and towards the space behind you. Also, by trotting backwards a couple steps, if he HAS turned the push contact into a shirtful of grab, you'll do better at yanking him off his base, making him more vulnerable to a counter, and making it harder for him to establish a base from which to sling you around.

As written, any of the push techs CAN work. But will they? Depends on a lot of things, and if you litmus test them with serious aggression in the attack (front, mouth off, swing a slap at the face, then drive hard with a push as the attacker/uke, and see just how well the defender in the technique line really responds), you'll find most need tweaking -- even at the training level -- to be applicable in the mysterious "street".

2 cents that won't help the national debt,

Dave


----------



## Flying Crane

Another good post, Dave.  Thanks.


----------



## HKphooey

HKphooey said:
			
		

> Law of averages: Find twenty participants, ask all to push you. Use the results to help you establish what is the most common. I am not trying to say you are incorrect. Just stating there are variables in all experiments.
> 
> Ask a few people to throw a straight punch. I bet you will have at least one person cross step with the opposite leg.
> 
> You had mentioned non-compliant testing. Telling someone what to do is compliance. That is is not science, that is predetermining the outcome.
> 
> I will rest my case with these statements, value your feedback and experiment with your suggestions. In the end, I would not use all three techniques (unless I fight a 6'7"+ opponent).


 
To the individual who flamed me over the post above, at least have the "jewels" to sign you name.  I have no problem with someone giving bad rep points if I have disrepected them, but for not agreeing with them,  is very childish.  But I guess when one feels threaten, that is the easiest route to take. 

flame: "religious devotion to a buzz-word is not flattering. you can do better"  Please further your comment.

I would have been happy to continue the discussion off the post like gentlemen.  

Please let me know via PM or this thread if you feel I disrepected you in anyway and I will be the first to apologize.

Sincerely,
HKphooey

No back to the thread. Sorry for the interuption.


----------



## Carol

HKphooey said:
			
		

> To the individual who flamed me over the post above, at least have the "jewels" to sign you name. I have no problem with someone giving bad rep points if I have disrepected them, but for not agreeing with them, is very childish. But I guess when one feels threaten, that is the easiest route to take.
> 
> flame: "religious devotion to a buzz-word is not flattering. you can do better" Please further your comment.
> 
> I would have been happy to continue the discussion off the post like gentlemen.
> 
> Please let me know via PM or this thread if you feel I disrepected you in anyway and I will be the first to apologize.
> 
> Sincerely,
> HKphooey
> 
> No back to the thread. Sorry for the interuption.


 
Wayne, you are the last person in the world that I think would be disrespectful or even disagreeable as a trait.   I think even the folks that don't share your point of view would agree with that. 

Some folks just play games.


----------



## Doc

HKphooey said:
			
		

> To the individual who flamed me over the post above, at least have the "jewels" to sign you name.  I have no problem with someone giving bad rep points if I have disrepected them, but for not agreeing with them,  is very childish.  But I guess when one feels threaten, that is the easiest route to take.
> 
> flame: "religious devotion to a buzz-word is not flattering. you can do better"  Please further your comment.
> 
> I would have been happy to continue the discussion off the post like gentlemen.
> 
> Please let me know via PM or this thread if you feel I disrepected you in anyway and I will be the first to apologize.
> 
> Sincerely,
> HKphooey
> 
> No back to the thread. Sorry for the interuption.


Don't pay any attention to those things. They serve no purpose as far as I can see. Just keep doing what you do.


----------



## kenpohack

The three techniques are done against pushes at different ranges. Thrusting Wedge is a close push or attempted grab where you see the attack unfold early, so you have time to step in an intercept it. Parting Wings in a committed push. This is why you step back and stabilize. Twist of Fate is a what-if to Parting Wings, in that, you stepped back too far to execute Parting Wings.

The hand formations are not the same for Parting Wings and Thrusting Wedge. This is mostly what causes problems. Thrusting Wedge uses a wedge formation where the hands form almost a triangle shape when they touch. Parting Wings. The way I was taught Parting Wings was to bend the arms at the elbow and keep your arms almost perpendicular to your attackers arms while anchoring your elbows. I've never had a problem parting the arms using this method. Granted, I'm 6'2" 240, but I've been an uke for people that I outweigh by well over a hundred pounds, and they had no problem stopping me. Anyone who knows me knows that I don't train with anything but the most realisitic of attacks. If a hundred pound girl can stop me pushing her with everything I've got, the technique must work.


----------



## Hand Sword

MJS said:
			
		

> So, that being said, how can they be made more functional while still keeping with a similar format to the technique or what changes if any, need to be made?
> 
> IMHO, I really don't see anything wrong with the questions being asked. What I do see though, is people stating that certain things won't work for whatever the reason may be, but then people never provide an answer for a solution. If someone is going to discredit something, fine, but at least provide a solution. You apparently see something wrong with the way techs. are done Doc, but I really don't see what the issue is with the 'secrets.' A number of times people have asked about the SL4 method of doing the techs. but no answer is given.
> 
> Mike


 
:asian:


----------



## MJS

kenpohack said:
			
		

> The hand formations are not the same for Parting Wings and Thrusting Wedge. This is mostly what causes problems. Thrusting Wedge uses a wedge formation where the hands form almost a triangle shape when they touch. Parting Wings. The way I was taught Parting Wings was to bend the arms at the elbow and keep your arms almost perpendicular to your attackers arms while anchoring your elbows. I've never had a problem parting the arms using this method. Granted, I'm 6'2" 240, but I've been an uke for people that I outweigh by well over a hundred pounds, and they had no problem stopping me. Anyone who knows me knows that I don't train with anything but the most realisitic of attacks. If a hundred pound girl can stop me pushing her with everything I've got, the technique must work.


 
Hmm...well, this certainly puts an interesting spin on things!   You've apparently had some success with these techniques and I'm guessing that you've done them as written?  If thats the case, what are the thoughts on the statements that said that these moves would not work?  If you made any adjustments, I'd be interested in hearing what you did.

Mike


----------



## Hand Sword

I would say that the techniques can work and are functional based on a simple comparison. Let's take punches for example. An incoming punch can be blocked/deflected using the opening movements of the aformentioned techniques. Now add, a closed fist makes the arms tighter/firmer than open hands for a push, which would make them more difficult to block, etc.. So, If the blocks can be and are used in the techniques to great efficiency than the less firm pushing arms can and would be if caught before extension.


----------



## Bode

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> I would say that the techniques can work and are functional based on a simple comparison. Let's take punches for example. An incoming punch can be blocked/deflected using the opening movements of the aformentioned techniques. Now add, a closed fist makes the arms tighter/firmer than open hands for a push, which would make them more difficult to block, etc.. So, If the blocks can be and are used in the techniques to great efficiency than the less firm pushing arms can and would be if caught before extension.



The simple comparison you make is not quite as simple as written. You are failing to take into account the change in structure from a push posture to a punching posture. In addition, you are ignoring the postures effect on the mind and vice versa. 

The simple flexing of the wrist when pushing fires all sorts of different muscle that would not be when the wrist is straight and hands clenched. (Calling Dr. Crouch)


----------



## Doc

Bode said:
			
		

> The simple comparison you make is not quite as simple as written. You are failing to take into account the change in structure from a push posture to a punching posture. In addition, you are ignoring the postures effect on the mind and vice versa.
> 
> The simple flexing of the wrist when pushing fires all sorts of different muscle that would not be when the wrist is straight and hands clenched. (Calling Dr. Crouch)


You mean changing one small thing can have a huge effect on structure and execution possibilities? Who would have thought it? 
Simplistic comparisons without an extensive understanding of the underlining body mechanics involved in the opposing sides of the physical equation, usually yields dubious and erroneous results, at best.


----------



## Hand Sword

Bode said:
			
		

> The simple comparison you make is not quite as simple as written. You are failing to take into account the change in structure from a push posture to a punching posture. In addition, you are ignoring the postures effect on the mind and vice versa.
> 
> The simple flexing of the wrist when pushing fires all sorts of different muscle that would not be when the wrist is straight and hands clenched. (Calling Dr. Crouch)


 
Nothing is being ignored by me, just breaking it down to basics. Point being the arm is stronger when a punch is coming than a push. Can it be blocked, parried, etc..? Yes. Therefore a push, if caught early enough will be blocked, parried, etc.. Therefore the techniques can be valid.

As far as your little dig Doc: 
_" Simplistic comparisons without an extensive understanding of the underlining body mechanics involved in the opposing sides of the physical equation, usually yields dubious and erroneous results, at best."_ [/I]

Totally unnecessary from a personal view and not as much needed from a realistic view. Arms extended with force behind them are what they are. They can, and have been dealt with, without all the trifles that you focus on, being executed perfectly.


----------



## Doc

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> Nothing is being ignored by me, just breaking it down to basics. Point being the arm is stronger when a punch is coming than a push. Can it be blocked, parried, etc..? Yes. Therefore a push, if caught early enough will be blocked, parried, etc.. Therefore the techniques can be valid.
> 
> As far as your little dig Doc:
> _" Simplistic comparisons without an extensive understanding of the underlining body mechanics involved in the opposing sides of the physical equation, usually yields dubious and erroneous results, at best."_ [/I]
> 
> Totally unnecessary from a personal view and not as much needed from a realistic view. Arms extended with force behind them are what they are. They can, and have been dealt with, without all the trifles that you focus on, being executed perfectly.


Sorry, I don't do 'digs' sir. Fact is a push is stronger than a punch, and I break things down because you have to if you are to understand the underlying mechanics of execution and it's possibilities.


----------



## MJS

I'll be heading out to class today.  I plan on working these techniques, taking into consideration all of the suggestions, experiments, etc.  I'll report my findings later on. 

Mike


----------



## MattJ

Doc said:
			
		

> Fact is a push is stronger than a punch, and I break things down because you have to if you are to understand the underlying mechanics of execution and it's possibilities.


 
Doc, can you elaborate on how you feel a push is "stronger" than a punch? Are you comparing a two handed push to a single punch? I think I see what you may mean in that case, but if you are talking _pushing_ versus _punching_, my experience has been that punching is stronger and more damaging.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka

MattJ said:
			
		

> Doc, can you elaborate on how you feel a push is "stronger" than a punch? Are you comparing a two handed push to a single punch? I think I see what you may mean in that case, but if you are talking _pushing_ versus _punching_, my experience has been that punching is stronger and more damaging.


 
Neurological feedback can take pleace in fractions of a second. In terms of wrecking power, of course a punch will have more potential...you're throwing a stone, so the rules of ballistics are more apt to apply (mass x acceleration, area of impact being concentrated, blahdy blahdy blah). 

But consider a bench press, and the mount of muscle recruitment, as oposed to a open kinematic chain punch. 

Traditionally, a closed kinematic chain is when a limb makes contact with something solid, such as the ground, or something rooted to the ground (wall, standing person?). Think squats. Open kinematic chains don't touch something solid. Think thigh extensions. Closed chains give the body more time to proprioceptively clue in to a focus point. Open chain ballistic movements fire harder, but recruit less of the mass of the involved muscles, and lack as much synergistic coordination/cooperation.

Pop a guy in the mouth: Ballistic movement, travelling through most of it's arc without feedback about directional resistance. It could fly wide, low, high, shallow, and you wouldn't proprioceptively know until the moment of impact, and the final miss/hit status. Pushes take more time, and provide your body an oportunity to decide how to get all parties on board in the same direction (all the muscles working together in a group, with instantaneous, ongoing feedback through the spinal cord about who gets on board, where, and with how much emphasis).

Student of mine is in the 400 lbs bench club. Can push like a maniac; I use him for demos, specifically for this purpose. His stance ends up being like a linebacker when launches me bass ackwards. Punching, however, he's much weaker. With time, training, and technique, I'm sure Doc Stone will be a wrecking crew of a puncher. But for now...not as many notes in the symphony of neurologic noise in the punch, as in the push. 

Punches hurt more because ofthe focused point of impact. But, unfortunately, there is less muscle involvement in an unclosed ballistic throw, than in a constant-pressure contact.

I could go more into detail, but that would require writing a book. Literally. Just finished reading a text on ballistic throwing biomechanics, and their applications to sports activities such as tennis, golf, and pitching. Exhaustive, and not worth re-typing here. If you want to read it, I'll post the reference. Otherwise, that's all for now. And the jist of it.

Regards,

Dave


----------



## kenpohack

MJS said:
			
		

> Hmm...well, this certainly puts an interesting spin on things!   You've apparently had some success with these techniques and I'm guessing that you've done them as written?  If thats the case, what are the thoughts on the statements that said that these moves would not work?  If you made any adjustments, I'd be interested in hearing what you did.
> 
> Mike



I've found that the key to these techniques are the nature of the attack. In Thrusting Wedge, you see the attack coming before the opponent maximized the power of the push; hence, you're beating him to the push before he puts his back-up mass behind it. Parting Wings assumes that the opponent has executed a solid push that you cannot side step or parry from the outside (Alternating Maces would be the quick shove that someone gives you before they throw a punch). Parting Wings is a push where someone is trying to shove you back heartily or shove you to the ground. For this technique, you must keep your arms perpendicular to the opponent's arms or he can jam your technique. The hand formation for Parting Wings is different from Thrusting Wedge. I have to anchor my elbows, especially since my instructor is about 6'3", 225 lbs. He is much stronger than I, so if I don't anchor my elbow and keep my arms perpendicular to his, he will jam my arms down and go right through me.

Twist of Fate assumes that you either stepped back too far or the opponent made contact with the push and moved you back out of range for Parting Wings to be executed.


----------



## Hand Sword

Doc said:
			
		

> Sorry, I don't do 'digs' sir. Fact is a push is stronger than a punch, and I break things down because you have to if you are to understand the underlying mechanics of execution and it's possibilities.


 
With respect,  That's the difference between real time Kenpo and Chalkboard Kenpo. Pushes, as is the case in these defenses, are done with the arms and upper body, or half the weight behind them. With them square to you, weakening their balance front to back. They are quick movements, over in a blink. A punch has the whole body behind behind it, with the balance of the opponent strong front to back. You can survive a push everytime, not necessarily a punch.

My point was a simple breakdown as well sir. It's just a push, and the defenses of such. My point was the techniques can be valid if caught early enough. The arms of punch are blocked effectively, and those arms are firmer, stonger and in a tighter position than pushing arms.

Try holding your arm out in front of you with a pushing position. Now change it into a fist. Which feels stronger?


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka

A simple rule oif thumb I would offer for consideration. The further away from the body you get...the more joints between your core, and the thing you're exerting a force against...the weaker the force transition. A kne is a more powerfult thrust than a kick...closer to the core by a couple joints. Finger spear versus palm heel versus inward elbow smash. The more joints, the weaker the press. This is why a 400 lb bench press is done with pressing palms, and not fingers. And why the power stroke on a row is through the elbows and whoulders, not wrists and forearms.

From palm heel to fist adds 2 rows of articulating joints to the kinematic chain between you and your contact. Which is more stable with a kid riding on your back...palm-contact push ups, knuckle push ups, or fingertip push ups?

Just a thought,

Dave


----------



## Hand Sword

I hear ya! I agree too. My response was just to all of this debating about whether the techniques discussed were valid. Some argued no, and pulled out formulas, equations, etc.. Some said yes. I just showed a simple example of extended arms during a push being not as strong as an incoming punch, and that punches are dealt with, in the same manner as the defenses dicussed.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka

Yeah. After busting my hump to nail timing on push techniques, I had some smarty pants kenpo guy say, "What do you care? They can't really hurt you, and you know exactly where his hands are and what they're doing." Went on to say, since they are occupied and committed to a predictable course of action, you can start being creative in your use of time.

Turns out my favorite push counter is a solid left inward block with footwork, followed by an overhand right and a kick to da nutz. His hands go right on by you, sucking the head in for the counter-shot. Some would say it's too low tech to be kenpo. Hm. I would ask them to guess the identity of the smart aleck who taught me the irreverence for the push techs, and showed me how simple defense ultimately is. The rest is for development and exploration. Scholar, not warrior.

One of his long-time students got me off of spearhands and finger thrusts; eye gouges and throat punches, with similar, simple wisdom. And something about any streetfighter can do that stuff...plus something else about just busting the bad guy in the grill if all you want to do is learn to fight. The rest is for development. Body mechanics. Learning how to get dem bones to work in concert.

But that's just me.


----------



## Hand Sword

Sounds good to me too. That's the best Kenpo.


----------



## Carol

To me pushes and punches are very different.

I took a lesson at another school, the instructor asked me if I knew the difference between a strike and a punch.   I said no.  He took two steps back from me and threw a punch at my face.   "Those two knuckles" he pointed out.    A punch is a strike that leads with the first two knuckles.   It provides a concentrated force.

Pushes on the other hand, you can get your entire body weight in to a push, and work in muscles all the way down to your feet pushing off the ground to make something go forwards.   I can push my futon and make it move as much as I want.  I can't do that by punching it. 

At the same time, I can't push someone in the jaw.:idunno: 

Just my thoughts and I'm probably making no sense because Stickarts' Arnis class wore me out.   (Missed you, HKPhooey!!)


----------



## Hand Sword

Really? I've seen people get shoved at the jaw and face many times. Keep practicing. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




However, you are making sense, and I agree with that kind of push being structurally stronger, having all the limbs closer to the body. But, for real, people don't push like that, unless they are ramming you into something. or trying to bowl you over. Most times you are exchanging words, with them close enough to you. You're square to each other and they just quickly pop you in the chest.


----------



## DavidCC

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> With respect, That's the difference between real time Kenpo and Chalkboard Kenpo.


 
This week I attended a SL-4 class.  You must be insane if you characterize it as "chalkboard" kenpo   Or you've just never seen it in person.  It's as real-time and full-force as it gets.  They don't attempt to push - they SHOVE and HARD too.  The kind of push that could launch you off your feet.  And the techniques work.


----------



## TChase

Carol Kaur said:
			
		

> To me pushes and punches are very different.
> 
> I took a lesson at another school, the instructor asked me if I knew the difference between a strike and a punch. I said no. He took two steps back from me and threw a punch at my face. "Those two knuckles" he pointed out. A punch is a strike that leads with the first two knuckles. It provides a concentrated force.
> 
> *Pushes on the other hand, you can get your entire body weight in to a push, and work in muscles all the way down to your feet pushing off the ground to make something go forwards. I can push my futon and make it move as much as I want. I can't do that by punching it.*
> 
> At the same time, I can't push someone in the jaw.:idunno:
> 
> Just my thoughts and I'm probably making no sense because Stickarts' Arnis class wore me out. (Missed you, HKPhooey!!)


 
You absolutely can get your entire mass behind a punch or any other strike for that matter.  With the use of proper alignment and basics your mass becomes unified with the power principles.  This is also where proper depth of attack becomes very important.  You have to fully penetrate the dimension you attacking for the maximum effect.


----------



## Carol

TChase said:
			
		

> You absolutely can get your entire mass behind a punch or any other strike for that matter. With the use of proper alignment and basics your mass becomes unified with the power principles. This is also where proper depth of attack becomes very important. You have to fully penetrate the dimension you attacking for the maximum effect.


 
Aha!  I'm starting to understand a little better now.  I'm a bit slow on the uptake sometimes...


----------



## Sapper6

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> With respect, That's the difference between real time Kenpo and Chalkboard Kenpo. Pushes, as is the case in these defenses, are done with the arms and upper body, or half the weight behind them. With them square to you, weakening their balance front to back. They are quick movements, over in a blink. A punch has the whole body behind behind it, with the balance of the opponent strong front to back. *You can survive a push everytime, not necessarily a punch(1).*
> 
> My point was a simple breakdown as well sir. It's just a push, and the defenses of such. My point was the techniques can be valid if caught early enough. The arms of punch are blocked effectively, and those arms are firmer, stonger and in a tighter position than pushing arms.
> 
> *Try holding your arm out in front of you with a pushing position. Now change it into a fist. Which feels stronger?(2)*


 
(1)  Have you ever been hit with double palms to the chest?  was it a strike or a push...?  and how can you be certain it is what you thought it was? 

(2) Not sure what you are trying to convey here.  Neither is stronger, unless you mean at the wrist.  I can make both just as strong as the other, and if I can, so can the masses.

good discussion.


----------



## HKphooey

For TW...
Try pulling your outward blocks towards you instead of outward.  It is a reverse wedge (frictional pull/check).  For the test, have a person hold their stiff push out in front of you (and I agree, it is difficult to divide them), instead of going outward, go outward and pull inward (like a rowing motion).  You will see it is like driving a wedge into wood (only in reverse, pulling).


----------



## Hand Sword

DavidCC said:
			
		

> This week I attended a SL-4 class. You must be insane if you characterize it as "chalkboard" kenpo  Or you've just never seen it in person. It's as real-time and full-force as it gets. They don't attempt to push - they SHOVE and HARD too. The kind of push that could launch you off your feet. And the techniques work.


 
That's how it should be. So, good for them shoving hard. I was referring to the pulling out of formulas and equations, etc.. for a simple HIGH push attempt, not SL4.


----------



## Hand Sword

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> (1) Have you ever been hit with double palms to the chest? was it a strike or a push...? and how can you be certain it is what you thought it was?
> 
> (2) Not sure what you are trying to convey here. Neither is stronger, unless you mean at the wrist. I can make both just as strong as the other, and if I can, so can the masses.
> 
> good discussion.


 

1. Yes I have and a lot more.
In that case it's a strike, and If you have been attacked by both methods, and have any real experience..YOU KNOW and FEEL the difference. Double palms have whole committment behind them with a step forward as in a punch, a quick push, which is a HIGH push, as described in these techniques does not.

2. I was conveying that your arm is firmer, shoulder to fist than in a stretched out pushing position. I and even the untrained masses can feel that. If you can make both in that position just as strong...good for you.

This arguing of technicalities is pointless people, The techniques as any can be valid (which was the point of my arguing). If hard punches can be blocked, with the blocks, parries of these techniques, so can pushes. They, like punches, have to be caught in time. THAT's MY POINT.


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3

Carol Kaur said:
			
		

> To me pushes and punches are very different.
> 
> I took a lesson at another school, the instructor asked me if I knew the difference between a strike and a punch. I said no. He took two steps back from me and threw a punch at my face. "Those two knuckles" he pointed out. A punch is a strike that leads with the first two knuckles. It provides a concentrated force.
> 
> Pushes on the other hand, you can get your entire body weight in to a push, and work in muscles all the way down to your feet pushing off the ground to make something go forwards. I can push my futon and make it move as much as I want. I can't do that by punching it.
> 
> At the same time, I can't push someone in the jaw.:idunno:
> 
> Just my thoughts and I'm probably making no sense because Stickarts' Arnis class wore me out. (Missed you, HKPhooey!!)


 
You can get all of your mass behind a punch just like a push.  The difference isn't in the force generated but in the duration of the force.  In a push you can keep generating the force at a near constant rate.  In a punch the force is generated in a burst but dies at the end of the extension.  That's also why punches do more damage than pushes.  The force being generated and then dying out generates impulse or a sudden change in momentum.  If the energy created by the change in momentum is greater than the energy the target can absorb, the target is damaged.  A push while transferring energy with the same force as a punch may not change the momentum.  Hense no damage.


----------



## TChase

Kenpojujitsu3 said:
			
		

> You can get all of your mass behind a punch just like a push. The difference isn't in the force generated but in the duration of the force. In a push you can keep generating the force at a near constant rate. In a punch the force is generated in a burst but dies at the end of the extension. That's also why punches do more damage than pushes. The force being generated and then dying out generates impulse or a sudden change in momentum. If the energy created by the change in momentum is greater than the energy the target can absorb, the target is damaged. A push while transferring energy with the same force as a punch may not change the momentum. Hense no damage.


 
The force of a punch (or any other strike) doesn't have to just burst and then die out. It's very possible to simultaneously achieve the benefits of impact, and that of a push(mass displacement) in a single strike, provided your alignment/basics are correct, you maintain the proper depth, and you're completely penetrating the dimension you're attacking. Transitions and maneuvers can be used as a driving force to accentuate this. It becomes particularly interesting when attacking multi-dimensionally. 

:asian:


----------



## TChase

Carol Kaur said:
			
		

> Aha! I'm starting to understand a little better now. I'm a bit slow on the uptake sometimes...


 
You're doing fine...one day at a time. :asian:


----------



## Hye Kenpo Nar

Flying Crane said:


> On an intellectual level I think these make sense, but I have doubts about my own ability to make them work.  I think the stepping forward and wedging with the forearms, as long as you clasp the hands together for stability, has the greatest potential of the three described.
> 
> Another method I like is to step to about 1:00 with the right foot and pivot to remove your torso out of the path of the push.  At the same time deliver a double palm strike/block to the outside of his left elbow/upper arm area.  This turns him away from you toward your left, and places you sort of behind his left flank.  You are free to attack the back of his head or neck or ribs, or grab the back of his left shoulder with both hands and jerk/pull him back and down along your right side, as you sweep your right foot forward.  The sweep catches the back of his left ankle and swings his foot forward and up, while pulling him down and back drops him on his head.  In the Chinese arts, we call this sweeping technique _Bak Hok Tom Goi_, or White Crane Tests the Water.  Off topic a bit, but that's one of my favorites.


in thrusting wedge you want to step to 12 into a forward bow, to be able to maintain your balance because of the bracing angle, and so you can get more hip torque and rotation when you execute the right upward elbow to the chin.


----------

