# Parting Wings



## MJS (Feb 7, 2006)

2 hand front push

1) With feet together, step to 6 o'clock with your right foot into a left neutral bow, as both of your hands chop out to the inside of your opponents wrists, forcing his arms out.

2) Shift into a left forward bow as your right hand chops to opponents left ribcage (palm up) while at the same time, cocking your left hand to the right side of your face.

3) Shift back to a left neutral bow as you deliver a left outward chop to opponents throat, cocking your right clenched fist to your right hip.

4) Again shift to a left forward bow as you drop your left arm horizontally (palm down) and deliver a right middle knuckle fist over your left arm, to opponents solar plexus.


Discussion on this technique, as well as any variations.


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 7, 2006)

For you Tracy people, this sounds like Flashing Daggers, from Blue Belt, also found in Long Three.  We follow with another strike at the end: 

Pivot into a reverse bow and finish with a left back knifehand to the groin.

I think I also learned the Middle Knuckle Punch to the Solar Plexus as a spearhand.  I think I like the punch better.


----------



## jdinca (Feb 7, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> 2 hand front push
> 
> 1) With feet together, step to 6 o'clock with your right foot into a left neutral bow, as both of your hands chop out to the inside of your opponents wrists, forcing his arms out.
> 
> ...



Very similar to the beginning of Advancing Daggers, with the first move being double outward extended blocks and the middle knuckle fist being a spear hand. Great technique to understand waist movement, timing and targeting for different hand strikes.

From here, we do a right knee to the groin at the same time double 'U-hands' are executed to the throat and the eyes.

Cross step with right, past the attacker, pulling him in towards your chest.

Turn left into a hardbow, throwing the attacker across your right hip.

Finish with a scoop kick and heel thrust to the ribs.


----------



## Blindside (Feb 7, 2006)

I think alot of people over exaggerate the initial block and force the attackers hands out too wide to the point where contact is lost between the attacker and defender.  We emphasize opening the attackers arms to just wider than our shoulder width and then entering down their centerline.  

I want the attacker to be thinking "I can still grab him" while I'm doing my best to drop him.  Once contact is lost a decent fighter will be covering and moving rather than standing there.  Of course a decent fighter probably wouldn't have tried to push you either.... 

Lamont


----------



## Sam (Feb 7, 2006)

Our Flashing Daggers is taught like this:


1) With feet in netural stance, right step to 6 o'clock into a left  hardbow, as both of your hands chop out to the inside of your opponents wrists, forcing his arms out.

2)Right chop to their neck (trap muscle?)

3) Left chop to the front of their neck

4) Right spearhand to opponents solar plexus

5) Left softbow chop to opponents groin


----------



## MJS (Feb 7, 2006)

Blindside said:
			
		

> I think alot of people over exaggerate the initial block and force the attackers hands out too wide to the point where contact is lost between the attacker and defender. We emphasize opening the attackers arms to just wider than our shoulder width and then entering down their centerline.
> 
> I want the attacker to be thinking "I can still grab him" while I'm doing my best to drop him. Once contact is lost a decent fighter will be covering and moving rather than standing there. Of course a decent fighter probably wouldn't have tried to push you either....
> 
> Lamont


 
Good point.  I do the tech. the same way.  The same can be said of all blocks.  Overblocking is never a good thing.

Mike


----------



## bujuts (Feb 7, 2006)

Some motions are principally the same, however we do not cock the hands at the hips.

Cheers,

Steven Brown
UKF


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 7, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> 2 hand front push
> 1) With feet together, step to 6 o'clock with your right foot into a left neutral bow, as both of your hands chop out to the inside of your opponents wrists, forcing his arms out.
> 2) Shift into a left forward bow as your right hand chops to opponents left ribcage (palm up) while at the same time, cocking your left hand to the right side of your face.
> 3) Shift back to a left neutral bow as you deliver a left outward chop to opponents throat, cocking your right clenched fist to your right hip.
> 4) Again shift to a left forward bow as you drop your left arm horizontally (palm down) and deliver a right middle knuckle fist over your left arm, to opponents solar plexus.


 
We put an eye-slice between steps 1) and 2) (Never go past a target without doing something, unless it will cost you the technique). 

In 2) we do a right heel-palm strike to the pectoral muscle, then grab and rip as we move into 3).

Look at your position when you complete 4) ..... you are lined up waiting to do something .... (forward bow, right hand out, left hand back) ... so we add 

5) Knee strike to the groin with a left chop to the throat, while cocking your right hand at your hip.

6) Land forward into a Right Neutral Bow while delivering a Right Heel-Palm to the face. Kinda like the end of Darting Mace, right?


----------



## Carol (Feb 7, 2006)

My FAVE technique to do so far.  :asian:  This was one that I performed at my graduation.

I learned it the way MJS described.  

One of my instructors jokingly refers this as one of the "Elvis techniques" as a lighthearted way to remind us of the neutral-forward-neutral-forward pivoting essential to the execution.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 7, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> We put an eye-slice between steps 1) and 2) (Never go past a target without doing something, unless it will cost you the technique).
> 
> In 2) we do a right heel-palm strike to the pectoral muscle, then grab and rip as we move into 3).
> 
> ...


I learned this one without cocking at the hip. This is where we were introdoced to bringing your body to the hand and droping the elbow for a half cocking just like in Short Two unless of course you cock the hand in Short two as well. Do you fully cock, before the half fists to the throat, in short two?
Sean
Sean


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 7, 2006)

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> I learned this one without cocking at the hip. This is where we were introdoced to bringing your body to the hand and droping the elbow for a half cocking just like in Short Two unless of course you cock the hand in Short two as well. Do you fully cock, before the half fists to the throat, in short two?


 
In Short Two, the half fist strikes are cocked higher, at the pectoral muscle. 

In Parting Wings, I guess I am not cocking the right hand as low as the hip, but I am neither cocking it as high as in Short Two. 

In Parting Wings, we have learned the strikes as 'Middle-High-Low'. 
The right hand is striking in the middle zone first - heelpalm to the pectoral muscle. 
The Left hand is choping high - to the neck.
The Right hand is striking low - the solar plexus.

A couple of thoughts, as I sit here thinking about this technique. 

As we look at MJS's write up - At Step 3)

One of the rules of kenpo is to never use your second hand inside; but, if you do, it needs to be above your first hand. 


After the left hand chops the neck, I was taught a frictional pull down the attacker's front with the left hand. Our right hand has to go over that left hand frictional pull for the strike in step 4). So, I guess it makes sense that the right weapon needs to be loaded higher, to be properly positioned to strike over the left hand.This is similar to the Darting Leaves moves in Form 4 where we do a complimentary angle finger poke over the inward block. 
​When we get to the additional steps in my write up. At step 4) My right hand is striking low ... and it is not going to cross my left at step 6) ... so, wouldn't it make sense to cock the right hand low (at the hip) while executing step 5). Cock low to Strike high.I'm thinking of the finger poke pom-pom's in Long Two ... we learn to extend our left hand up before the Palm-Up Downward Block - "Cock High to Strike Low"
​So, anyhow, you guys all know I am still a brown belt --- the 'Don't Know **** ' level of Kenpo. So, I look forward to what those with more experience have to say.


----------



## Doc (Feb 7, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> 2 hand front push
> 
> 1) With feet together, step to 6 o'clock with your right foot into a left neutral bow, as both of your hands chop out to the inside of your opponents wrists, forcing his arms out.
> 
> ...


First of all, *IF* you got your arms on the inside of his arms, you will have a very difficult time moving his arms apart. This technique is not designed for an 'attempted push.'

experiment:

Have your training partner step forward with a pushing movement chest high and freeze.

Then place your hands inside his as if you were going to do the technique as described, and try to force the arms apart while your training partner actively resists.

Results?


----------



## MJS (Feb 7, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> We put an eye-slice between steps 1) and 2) (Never go past a target without doing something, unless it will cost you the technique).
> 
> In 2) we do a right heel-palm strike to the pectoral muscle, then grab and rip as we move into 3).
> 
> ...


 
I like this version!!:ultracool   Might as well take full advantage of any extra hits that you can get in.  The eye rake in the beginning, hit to the chest after the 2nd handsword, as well as the strikes at the end...all very good IMO.

Mike


----------



## Doc (Feb 7, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> I like this version!!:ultracool   Might as well take full advantage of any extra hits that you can get in.  The eye rake in the beginning, hit to the chest after the 2nd handsword, as well as the strikes at the end...all very good IMO.
> 
> Mike


Of course I can't speak for other jurisdictions but I know in California you will be locked up and down for quite awhile for doing that technique as described for an 'attempted push.'

How about some consistency. One minute we don't want to hit someone even though he's annouced he wants to hurt us unless he actually raises his hands, and the next minute we're ripping the eyes out of guy who's attempting to just 'push' us.


----------



## MJS (Feb 7, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> Of course I can't speak for other jurisdictions but I know in California you will be locked up and down for quite awhile for doing that technique as described for an 'attempted push.'


 
Actually, I started this thread to discuss the variations of the technique, not the legalities of the techniques.  However, I may as well address it anyway.  If we look at a good portion of the techniques, the same can be said of them as well.  Do we need to break someones arm as in Lone Kimono just because they grab us?  



> How about some consistency. One minute we don't want to hit someone even though he's annouced he wants to hurt us unless he actually raises his hands, and the next minute we're ripping the eyes out of guy who's attempting to just 'push' us.


 
Hmm...all the more reason to be well rounded enough to have other alternatives.

Mike


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 7, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> Hmm...all the more reason to be well rounded enough to have other alternatives.
> Mike


 
Or, just understand that the "ideal" technique pushes to the extreme limits, but you can always scale it back to suit the situation.  Just because it teaches you to rake eyes and break arms, you don't have to.


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 7, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> First of all, *IF* you got your arms on the inside of his arms, you will have a very difficult time moving his arms apart. This technique is not designed for an 'attempted push.'


 
What would you suggest it is designed for?


----------



## MJS (Feb 7, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Or, just understand that the "ideal" technique pushes to the extreme limits, but you can always scale it back to suit the situation. Just because it teaches you to rake eyes and break arms, you don't have to.


 
Exactly!  I suppose, if we wanted to, we could include that into our discussion as well.


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 7, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> experiment:
> 
> Have your training partner step forward with a pushing movement chest high and freeze.
> 
> ...


 
Here's a thought:  if someone is trying to push you, the momentum and power are directed away from him and toward you (the victim).  The force of the attacker's arms are not directed in a "squeezing together" motion.  Clearing his arms from the inside of his push is really just redirecting his forward momentum to slightly outward, but still letting his momentum carry him forward and closer to yourself.  In effect, he walks into your defensive handstrikes as you take control of his center.  

The difference is that you aren't trying to simply force/muscle his arms out in a splitting movement, devoid of forward momentum.

Your thoughts on this?


----------



## Carol (Feb 7, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> First of all, *IF* you got your arms on the inside of his arms, you will have a very difficult time moving his arms apart. This technique is not designed for an 'attempted push.'
> 
> experiment:
> 
> ...


 
Doc, your description made me think, I actually do mine a little bit differently.  Rather than hand-to-wrist contact, mine is more forearm-to-forearm.  I'm very much a rookie so please forgive me if I don't describe this very well.

 While stepping back in to the left neutral stance, I thrust my arms up in between his (with my palms towards my face), snap my forearms outward, and push his arms apart.  The snapping motion made the difference in me being able to actually force his arms apart.

Your thoughts?


----------



## Doc (Feb 7, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Here's a thought:  if someone is trying to push you, the momentum and power are directed away from him and toward you (the victim).  The force of the attacker's arms are not directed in a "squeezing together" motion.  Clearing his arms from the inside of his push is really just redirecting his forward momentum to slightly outward, but still letting his momentum carry him forward and closer to yourself.  In effect, he walks into your defensive handstrikes as you take control of his center.
> 
> The difference is that you aren't trying to simply force/muscle his arms out in a splitting movement, devoid of forward momentum.
> 
> Your thoughts on this?


Complete the experiment assignment, and bring your observations and results.


----------



## Doc (Feb 7, 2006)

lady_kaur said:
			
		

> Doc, your description made me think, I actually do mine a little bit differently.  Rather than hand-to-wrist contact, mine is more forearm-to-forearm.  I'm very much a rookie so please forgive me if I don't describe this very well.
> 
> While stepping back in to the left neutral stance, I thrust my arms up in between his (with my palms towards my face), snap my forearms outward, and push his arms apart.  The snapping motion made the difference in me being able to actually force his arms apart.
> 
> Your thoughts?


No you make sense and are pretty close to a correct anatomical move, however you must address the attack and its implication relative to the actions wish to take. When the arme are configured for a pushing action, the body has a particular strength designed to support that action. You however are much closer to function than any of the other descriptions, but still let's examine the technique from the beginning. Speaking of what your response would be without discussing the appropriateness of the attack would be foolish.

Have you completed the experiment assignment?


----------



## pete (Feb 7, 2006)

i'll chime in...
i was first shown this as an anticipated response to an 'attempted' push, much the same as most descriptions in the thread.  it was only recently that i was taught the nature of the attack as an actual push with a specific reaction.
for *Parting Wings*, we step back because someone has actually made contact and pushed us, and by turning into the neutral bow we can anchor our elbows and clear the arms and use the opponents inward pressure on our arms to power the next strikes. this is done in a circular pattern, as one continuous movement.
for this to be effective we have to be in arms reach of the opponent, otherwise there are other better techniques to respond with.  for example, if you are pushed back further, *Twist of Fate* would utilize a longer range weapon, the kick, then close the gap by stepping in and through with the manipulaiton.
if it is a steady oncoming push, as opposed to a single shove, *Snaking Talon* would be the choice to clear the arms away.  *Encounter with Danger* would be the extreme of this group, having been pushed down.

techniques like *Thrusting Wedge* and *Blinding Sacrifice* would be better as anticipated action to attemped 2 hand pushes...

pete.


----------



## Dark Kenpo Lord (Feb 7, 2006)

pete said:
			
		

> i'll chime in...
> i was first shown this as an anticipated response to an 'attempted' push, much the same as most descriptions in the thread. it was only recently that i was taught the nature of the attack as an actual push with a specific reaction.
> for *Parting Wings*, we step back because someone has actually made contact and pushed us, and by turning into the neutral bow we can anchor our elbows and clear the arms and use the opponents inward pressure on our arms to power the next strikes. this is done in a circular pattern, as one continuous movement.
> for this to be effective we have to be in arms reach of the opponent, otherwise there are other better techniques to respond with. for example, if you are pushed back further, *Twist of Fate* would utilize a longer range weapon, the kick, then close the gap by stepping in and through with the manipulaiton.
> ...


 
Wonder who's been paying attention in Kenpo class?   
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





DarK LorD


----------



## jazkiljok (Feb 8, 2006)

some observations.

in a push/shove- the arms of the attacker are already contracting away from you since the energy is already expending upon contact.

in a forceful shove/push one usually is knocked back or should at least expect to be.


----------



## Doc (Feb 8, 2006)

pete said:
			
		

> i'll chime in...
> i was first shown this as an anticipated response to an 'attempted' push, much the same as most descriptions in the thread.  it was only recently that i was taught the nature of the attack as an actual push with a specific reaction.
> for *Parting Wings*, we step back because someone has actually made contact and pushed us, and by turning into the neutral bow we can anchor our elbows and clear the arms and use the opponents inward pressure on our arms to power the next strikes. this is done in a circular pattern, as one continuous movement.


If he comes forward with back up mass, your actions will not stop his forward momentum, nor will you have a stable base. Additionally you will be unable to move his arms apart if he is pushing the upper body, as the physical experiment with an intent attacker.


> for this to be effective we have to be in arms reach of the opponent, otherwise there are other better techniques to respond with.  for example, if you are pushed back further, *Twist of Fate* would utilize a longer range weapon, the kick, then close the gap by stepping in and through with the manipulaiton.


If he makes contact you still have the same problem and cannot withstand the forward pressure of a committed attack.


> if it is a steady oncoming push, as opposed to a single shove, *Snaking Talon* would be the choice to clear the arms away.  *Encounter with Danger* would be the extreme of this group, having been pushed down.


I agree that Snaking would be a better choice for the push for anatomical reasons, but you still have to solidify your base. How will you do that?


> techniques like *Thrusting Wedge* and *Blinding Sacrifice* would be better as anticipated action to attemped 2 hand pushes...


Thrusting Wedge, yes. Blinding would get you arrested, especially for someone who hasn't even touched you.

Take a moment and explain please how you would obtain structural integrity when you step back.


----------



## jonah2 (Feb 8, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> First of all, *IF* you got your arms on the inside of his arms, you will have a very difficult time moving his arms apart. This technique is not designed for an 'attempted push.'
> 
> experiment:
> 
> ...


ok - not at training, but, I work with a VERY big guy (non martial artist) who enjoys taking part in experiments when i'm thinking things through. Anyway - just got him to push me, then do it again and freeze as your experiment. I tried putting my arms between his to separate. Result - impossible (His arms are like my legs though) I could spread them if i come up through and into two outward extended thrusts (forwards at 45 deg out and down, but only using my shoulders and body momentum forward.

jonah


----------



## Dark Kenpo Lord (Feb 8, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> If he comes forward with back up mass, your actions will not stop his forward momentum, nor will you have a stable base. Additionally you will be unable to move his arms apart if he is pushing the upper body, as the physical experiment with an intent attacker.
> 
> If he makes contact you still have the same problem and cannot withstand the forward pressure of a committed attack.
> 
> ...


 
Hmmm, guess I better throw My Kenpo that works away and study this new magic Kenpo that you're talking about.

DarK LorD


----------



## Kenpodoc (Feb 8, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> Actually, I started this thread to discuss the variations of the technique, not the legalities of the techniques. However, I may as well address it anyway. If we look at a good portion of the techniques, the same can be said of them as well. Do we need to break someones arm as in Lone Kimono just because they grab us?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Personally I do Lone Kimono for a grab with intent to harm. 

Jeff


----------



## Kenpodoc (Feb 8, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> Of course I can't speak for other jurisdictions but I know in California you will be locked up and down for quite awhile for doing that technique as described for an 'attempted push.'
> 
> How about some consistency. One minute we don't want to hit someone even though he's annouced he wants to hurt us unless he actually raises his hands, and the next minute we're ripping the eyes out of guy who's attempting to just 'push' us.


Doc,

I tend to use minor eye flicks near the eyes to disrupt my opponents alignment. Most have at least an involuntary flinch which allows me to be more effective with the rest of the technique. Eyes are well protected and it is difficult to actually put your finger in an eye. Beyond the issue of damage to the eye, few people can actually shove their finger in an eye with intent to blind. 

As to the attempted push, I prefer to go off line if possible rather than staying in the middle.

Personally I find parting wings difficult to perform on a large person attacking with momentum and intent to disrupt my stance. A finger flick near their eyes causes most people to momentarily flinch and I suddenly look like a better martial artist. 

I am curious. Do you teach a variation on this technique? How do you get the initial stability?

Respectfully,

Jeff


----------



## pete (Feb 8, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> If he comes forward with back up mass, your actions will not stop his forward momentum, nor will you have a stable base. Additionally you will be unable to move his arms apart if he is pushing the upper body, as the physical experiment with an intent attacker.


 
sure it does. the neutral bow provides the bracing angle for the applied force on the upper body.  the clockwise rotation involved in going into the neutral bow allow you to separate his left arm with a complimentary clockwise rotation of your vertical right arm (elbow anchored to the knee).  your left arm will make a similar, but counter-clockwise rotation inside his right arm.  you are actually moving yourself into superior position more than trying to move his arms very far.




			
				Doc said:
			
		

> I agree that Snaking would be a better choice for the push for anatomical reasons, but you still have to solidify your base. How will you do that?


 
again, the neutral bow establishes the bracing angle.



			
				Doc said:
			
		

> Thrusting Wedge, yes. Blinding would get you arrested, especially for someone who hasn't even touched you.


 
doc, i am happily ignorant of most legal aspects of self defense, but from what i've read from your posts, it would seem that a situation may dicatate an action regardless of whether or not he's made first contact.



			
				Doc said:
			
		

> Take a moment and explain please how you would obtain structural integrity when you step back.


  again, the step back would be the natural reaction to getting pushed, the neutral bow would establish the bracing angle.

thanks, 
pete


----------



## pete (Feb 8, 2006)

> Hmmm, guess I better throw My Kenpo that works away and study this new magic Kenpo that you're talking about.
> 
> DarK LorD


  not so fast dark lord, i'm still busy trying to nail down the kenpo that works!


----------



## Doc (Feb 8, 2006)

pete said:
			
		

> sure it does. the neutral bow provides the bracing angle for the applied force on the upper body.  the clockwise rotation involved in going into the neutral bow allow you to separate his left arm with a complimentary clockwise rotation of your vertical right arm (elbow anchored to the knee).  your left arm will make a similar, but counter-clockwise rotation inside his right arm.  you are actually moving yourself into superior position more than trying to move his arms very far.
> again, the neutral bow establishes the bracing angle.


I have proved sir on numerous occasions all over the world with kenpo and non kenpo people that in fact, the neutral bow stepping backwards does not provide either a superior position or stable base absent a corrective mechanism to compensate for an anatomical breakdown inherent in the stepping back process.


> doc, i am happily ignorant of most legal aspects of self defense, but from what i've read from your posts, it would seem that a situation may dicatate an action regardless of whether or not he's made first contact.


I am not disagreeing with whether or not you should act before contact, only in that action must be reasonable and commensurate with the attack. A 'weaponless' attempted grab by one man to another will not justify 'fingers in the eyes, and will get you incarcerated. This is something that has to be considered. Techniques should never be discussed in a vacuum, but should always be put into the context of the reality of the consequenses of our actions, as well as the failure of our actions to achieve the desired results.


> again, the step back would be the natural reaction to getting pushed, the neutral bow would establish the bracing angle.


I suggest you first perform the first experiment honestly, and discover you cannot separate a persons arms, and then we could possibly move on from there. Once again on the neutral bow question sir, no it will not provide the 'bracing angle' and base you suggest, but I appreciate your usually articulate and well thought out insights.


----------



## Ray (Feb 8, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> I have proved sir on numerous occasions all over the world with kenpo and non kenpo people that in fact, the neutral bow stepping backwards does not provide either a superior position or stable base absent a corrective mechanism to compensate for an anatomical breakdown inherent in the stepping back process.


Not only did Doc prove it all over the world, he proved it in Omaha, Nebraska and I testify as a witness to that.


----------



## Doc (Feb 8, 2006)

Kenpodoc said:
			
		

> Personally I do Lone Kimono for a grab with intent to harm.
> 
> Jeff


I agree, but we who call ourselves 'skilled' should still have the ability to modulate the level of destruction of our actions. I suspect what you would do to a tipsy 'uncle bob' at a family gathering might be different from what you would do to a stranger in dark places.


----------



## Doc (Feb 8, 2006)

Ray said:
			
		

> Not only did Doc prove it all over the world, he proved it in Omaha, Nebraska and I testify as a witness to that.


Thank you sir.


----------



## Kenpodoc (Feb 8, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> I agree, but we who call ourselves 'skilled' should still have the ability to modulate the level of destruction of our actions. I suspect what you would do to a tipsy 'uncle bob' at a family gathering might be different from what you would do to a stranger in dark places.


True. That's been one of the most satisfying things that I've gotten from my martial arts the ability to consciously control my response to all sorts of things. I always loved playing with the dogs but now I get to gently redirect them. Fortunately I've not had to deal with a stranger in a dark place so most of my practical experience is in playing with dogs, children and friends and redirecting angry confused patients.

Jeff


----------



## Doc (Feb 8, 2006)

Kenpodoc said:
			
		

> True. That's been one of the most satisfying things that I've gotten from my martial arts the ability to consciously control my response to all sorts of things. ... redirecting angry confused patients.
> 
> Jeff


----------



## Doc (Feb 8, 2006)

Kenpodoc said:
			
		

> Doc,
> 
> I tend to use minor eye flicks near the eyes to disrupt my opponents alignment. Most have at least an involuntary flinch which allows me to be more effective with the rest of the technique.


That's not bad. Accessing the autonomic nervous system through the 'startle reflex' is a good thing, and can facilitate a structural breakdown of your attacker.


> As to the attempted push, I prefer to go off line if possible rather than staying in the middle.


While there are other solutions as well, your preferred method is more practical than anything else presented so far. 


> Personally I find parting wings difficult to perform on a large person attacking with momentum and intent to disrupt my stance.


As most describe it, it is impossible under those circumstances. More than likely you will find yourself on the ground or in a standing grappling match with a committed attacker.


> I am curious. Do you teach a variation on this technique? How do you get the initial stability?


Well first sir, the technique was never designed for a push, attempted or otherwise. Mr. Parker and I often discussed how techniques develop a life of their own when people began to interpret what they 'think' is happening and how to counter it. Much of the written material on techniques is like a 'starter kit' to get you moving and thinking. Unfortunately, they got people moving but many never got to the thinking part. 

The way I do the technique would be difficult to describe however sir, this could be fixed rather easy, and stay pretty close to what people are already doing.

First change the attack to an attempted high bear hug.

Second, step forward with that 'move' everyone does, and the technique has a chance to actually work. 

For those that consider what I teach as 'magic,' I suggest that the 'magic' comes from those who think they can say words like 'structural integrity,' 'bracing angle,' etc and it will just happen. As much as people use these terms, I hear no solutions to 'how' they can be achieved even in general terms.

Lastly, I suggest for all those who are quite satisfied with their own methodology and uninterested in others thoughts, to keep doing what they are doing and ignor the 'magic,' and let those who are interested have their say. After all, I and those who understand the material are at least committed to the disseminating of 'real' information over 'wiscracks' and 'me too's.' It doesn't take much intellect or skill to do either of those.


----------



## Kenpodoc (Feb 8, 2006)

Doc,

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I keep looking for the magic but it seems to be mostly just hard work. Sometimes, however, when everything clicks, it feels a little like magic. My instructor has done a good job of teaching me some of the magic and when Mr. Wedlake comes, I always find he has remarkable suggestions that make things easier and more effective.


Jeff


----------



## Doc (Feb 8, 2006)

Kenpodoc said:
			
		

> Doc,
> 
> Thanks for taking the time to reply. I keep looking for the magic but it seems to be mostly just hard work. Sometimes, however, when everything clicks, it feels a little like magic. My instructor has done a good job of teaching me some of the magic and when Mr. Wedlake comes, I always find he has remarkable suggestions that make things easier and more effective.
> 
> ...


Yes, it does seem like 'magic' when everything is anatomically 'right.' Lee is a really good guy and will keep you on track for sure.


----------



## Dan G (Feb 8, 2006)

If we vary the technique by stepping in what additional measures are needed to prevent a clash of heads? 
I can see how attacking the head in the manner of Thrusting Wedge before parting the arms would help prevent the attacker's head dropping forward, but I wonder if there is a better method... does Parting Wings with the step forward resemble Circles of Protection performed on the inside line even more closely? 
Is a strike to, or induced flinch reaction from, the attackers head an extra component required to make Parting Wings work against a fully formed attack?

Lots of questions from me, no answers... any pointers very welcome!

respectfully,

Dan


----------



## Doc (Feb 8, 2006)

Dan G said:
			
		

> If we vary the technique by stepping in what additional measures are needed to prevent a clash of heads?
> I can see how attacking the head in the manner of Thrusting Wedge before parting the arms would help prevent the attacker's head dropping forward, but I wonder if there is a better method... does Parting Wings with the step forward resemble Circles of Protection performed on the inside line even more closely?
> Is a strike to, or induced flinch reaction from, the attackers head an extra component required to make Parting Wings work against a fully formed attack?
> 
> ...


Well sir, changing the attack of the technique means the aggressor must try to encircle you with his arms, and he will try to bring them together to close on you. This anatomical action itself will allow you to 'brace' and stop his arms IF you proceed with your move forward, and attack his arm(s) at a 45-degree angle. And because of what he physically attempting to do, he will unwitingly becuase of your response limit his own depth, and set himself up for the initial retaliation move. Everything up to this point would be considered Surviving The Initial Assault. 

Keep in mind what I have shared in only the beginning and we do the technique differently from there, but the motion 'ideas' will function to an extent after the attack and initial move modification.

Check it out Dan and let me know what you find.


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 8, 2006)

OK, thinking out loud here.  If we do the technique against an attempted front bearhug and step forward with the left foot instead of back with the right, then the defensive splitting of the arms becomes more of a jam against his encircling upper arms to prevent the bearhug.  Proceeding now to the first retaliatory strike, the right knifehand to his left ribs/underarm or side of the neck, is it realistic to assume there is time to get in this strike before his arms simply continue with the bearhug, or some other attack, once we are no longer jamming his arms open.  I suppose the right hand simply slips off his arm, either above or below, and follows his arm right into the target, either the underarm or the neck.  But could he also get in a strike once we slip the hand off his arm?  Might we just be trading blows at this point?  Or is there a thought on securing his arm somehow before proceeding to the strike?  Thoughts?


----------



## Doc (Feb 8, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> OK, thinking out loud here.  If we do the technique against an attempted front bearhug and step forward with the left foot instead of back with the right, then the defensive splitting of the arms becomes more of a jam against his encircling upper arms to prevent the bearhug.  Proceeding now to the first retaliatory strike, the right knifehand to his left ribs/underarm or side of the neck, is it realistic to assume there is time to get in this strike before his arms simply continue with the bearhug, or some other attack, once we are no longer jamming his arms open.  I suppose the right hand simply slips off his arm, either above or below, and follows his arm right into the target, either the underarm or the neck.  But could he also get in a strike once we slip the hand off his arm?  Might we just be trading blows at this point?  Or is there a thought on securing his arm somehow before proceeding to the strike?  Thoughts?


Executed properly forward at a 45 degree angle and aggressively, he will LITERALLY BOUNCE OF YOUR HANDS AND STOP. 

Let me know what you find out sir.


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 8, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> Executed properly forward at a 45 degree angle and aggressively, he will LITERALLY BOUNCE OF YOUR HANDS AND STOP.
> 
> Let me know what you find out sir.


 
Ah, that "aggressively" factor.  That would help.

I was still typing my previous post when you posted your response to Dan G.  I was pleased to see that my thinking actually lined up with what you described in that post.  I didn't label the angles and such as precisely but the overall picture in my head, I think was close.


----------



## Dan G (Feb 8, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> Well sir, changing the attack of the technique means the aggressor must try to encircle you with his arms, and he will try to bring them together to close on you. This anatomical action itself will allow you to 'brace' and stop his arms IF you proceed with your move forward, and attack his arm(s) at a 45-degree angle. And because of what he physically attempting to do, he will unwitingly becuase of your response limit his own depth, and set himself up for the initial retaliation move. Everything up to this point would be considered Surviving The Initial Assault.
> 
> Keep in mind what I have shared in only the beginning and we do the technique differently from there, but the motion 'ideas' will function to an extent after the attack and initial move modification.
> 
> Check it out Dan and let me know what you find.


 
Many Thanks! I'm visualising a double outward extended block from a forward bow stepping forward (maybe settling into a neutral on completion?)... I'll try it out carefully Friday or Saturday, but I have a feeling I might owe my training partner a beer afterwards...  

Thanks Again,

Dan


----------



## Carol (Feb 9, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> Well sir, changing the attack of the technique means the aggressor must try to encircle you with his arms, and he will try to bring them together to close on you. This anatomical action itself will allow you to 'brace' and stop his arms IF you proceed with your move forward, and attack his arm(s) at a 45-degree angle. And because of what he physically attempting to do, he will unwitingly becuase of your response limit his own depth, and set himself up for the initial retaliation move. Everything up to this point would be considered Surviving The Initial Assault.


 
Doc, I tried the assingment.

When my instructor was actively resisting me, I was able to move his arms.  I can relate your reasons above as to why...but I'd apreciate your feedback sir.

I was very hard on myself with this technique...I kept wanting to step forward into it (now I understand why). When I trained myself to step backwards, my execution suffered or failed.  

My remedy was to begin much closer to my partner than I do with other techniques.  I'm 5'2". 

My instructor and I began with trying the technique.  I situated myself in my closer-than usual position, as I did upon graduation.  When my instructor gave the attack, his arms were not straight at all.  I was too close to him.  His arms were bent, with his elbows pointing out to the side.  I asked him to try to resist my strikes when he pushed me, he could not.  

If I asked him to freeze in the pushing position and resist me...my forearms snapping hard against his was enough to bend his forearms back towards his elbow, thus separating his arms.  

When he pushed me this way, most of the force seemed to be from his forearms.  There was not much support coming from his upper arms and back.  Moreover, in the motion of the push, his arms were trying to straighten.   My impact was simply facilitating the straightening motion.

My instructor concurred that Parting Wings was originally a defense against a high grab, and not a push.  

Had his arms been straight, or sligthly bent with the elbows pointing downwards, my forearm strikes would have had little effect.  I would not be able to straighten his arms as I did before, they are already straight. Plus, with his arms straight, he would have his back in to the push.  That would force me to resist against his most of weight using only my forearms.  That is not a move that works to my advantage

Based on what I've learned, I'm concluding that the technique worked for me becuase I took his depth away before he could attack.  
As a result, the only way that he could push me was with crooked arms...a position not unlike arms that are encircled.

Your thoughts?

On a side note, your comments relating to legal consequences are greatly appreciated.


----------



## Doc (Feb 9, 2006)

lady_kaur said:
			
		

> Doc, I tried the assingment.
> 
> When my instructor was actively resisting me, I was able to move his arms.  I can relate your reasons above as to why...but I'd apreciate your feedback sir.
> 
> ...


*A+*


----------



## Doc (Feb 9, 2006)

Dan G said:
			
		

> Many Thanks! I'm visualising a double outward extended block from a forward bow stepping forward (maybe settling into a neutral on completion?)... I'll try it out carefully Friday or Saturday, but I have a feeling I might owe my training partner a beer afterwards...
> 
> Thanks Again,
> 
> Dan


Change those handswords to hammer-fists, and you will definitely owe him a beer or two.


----------



## Dan G (Feb 9, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> Change those handswords to hammer-fists, and you will definitely owe him a beer or two.


 
Ouch!:erg: :waah: :cheers:  

Will do, and thankyou sir!

Dan


----------



## Dark Kenpo Lord (Feb 9, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> Well sir, changing the attack of the technique means the aggressor must try to encircle you with his arms, and he will try to bring them together to close on you. This anatomical action itself will allow you to 'brace' and stop his arms IF you proceed with your move forward, and attack his arm(s) at a 45-degree angle. And because of what he physically attempting to do, he will unwitingly becuase of your response limit his own depth, and set himself up for the initial retaliation move. Everything up to this point would be considered Surviving The Initial Assault.
> 
> Keep in mind what I have shared in only the beginning and we do the technique differently from there, but the motion 'ideas' will function to an extent after the attack and initial move modification.
> 
> Check it out Dan and let me know what you find.


 
Let me get this straight, you've changed the Attack, you've changed the stances, and you don't do the same things most of the rest of us do for this tech.?   If this is the case, why are you calling it Parting Wings?   We've got other techniques for the attack you described that work much better.

I did give it the benefit of the doubt last night in class, nearly got headbutted and taken down by an aggresive Brown Belt who I didn't inform what I would be doing, I just told him to attack.

DarK LorD


----------



## Carol (Feb 9, 2006)

I don't intent do subvert your question, Dark Lord, but has the attack really changed?  Or has it just been clarified?

If bent elbows are the key...a bent elbow push is still possible.  It may not be the most efficient way to push, but it is possible.

Or...from my perspective...whether it is a push, a grab, a bearhug...that is irrelevant.  If a guy is going to make an unwanted move towards my breasts...that move is likely to resemble my instructor's bent-elbow push.  The depth is likely to be shallow.

I am admittedly timid about using my skills, but not here.  If I see two hands coming towards me at chest height, I'll protect myself against a potential sexual assault.


----------



## MJS (Feb 9, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> Well first sir, the technique was never designed for a push, attempted or otherwise. Mr. Parker and I often discussed how techniques develop a life of their own when people began to interpret what they 'think' is happening and how to counter it. Much of the written material on techniques is like a 'starter kit' to get you moving and thinking. Unfortunately, they got people moving but many never got to the thinking part.
> 
> The way I do the technique would be difficult to describe however sir, this could be fixed rather easy, and stay pretty close to what people are already doing.
> 
> First change the attack to an attempted high bear hug.


 
Hmm..thats interesting, and it brings me to a question Doc.  If this technique was never designed for a push, but instead a bearhug, just like DS a flank attack rather than a lapel grab or punch, why is this not a standard across the board?  I mean, I can understand a change in strikes, as everyone may have their own variation, but changing the whole nature of the attack?  Does anyone else do PW for an attempted bearhug?  What about the others that have trained with Parker such as Tatum, Palanzo, Planas?





> For those that consider what I teach as 'magic,' I suggest that the 'magic' comes from those who think they can say words like 'structural integrity,' 'bracing angle,' etc and it will just happen. As much as people use these terms, I hear no solutions to 'how' they can be achieved even in general terms.
> 
> Lastly, I suggest for all those who are quite satisfied with their own methodology and uninterested in others thoughts, to keep doing what they are doing and ignor the 'magic,' and let those who are interested have their say. After all, I and those who understand the material are at least committed to the disseminating of 'real' information over 'wiscracks' and 'me too's.' It doesn't take much intellect or skill to do either of those.


 
I think what it comes down to, is people reading certain things, and start to feel like what they're doing is wrong.  I know what I can make work.  I'm happy with my Kenpo and my teachers.  I'm starting to get the impression that unless its done the way you say, then its wrong.  If thats the case, then there must be alot of people out there doing it wrong.  I'm thinking though that the others are still making it work.

Mike


----------



## MJS (Feb 9, 2006)

Dark Kenpo Lord said:
			
		

> I did give it the benefit of the doubt last night in class, nearly got headbutted and taken down by an aggresive Brown Belt who I didn't inform what I would be doing, I just told him to attack.
> 
> DarK LorD


 
Just for clarification.  Which way are you talking about?  The old way or the new way?


----------



## Doc (Feb 9, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> Hmm..thats interesting, and it brings me to a question Doc.  If this technique was never designed for a push, but instead a bearhug, just like DS a flank attack rather than a lapel grab or punch, why is this not a standard across the board?  I mean, I can understand a change in strikes, as everyone may have their own variation, but changing the whole nature of the attack?


That's kind of an interesting question considering I was talking about physical principles of what will or won't work. You can call it whatever you want. The general idea of 'parting wings' is the model. I don't know what you mean about 'DS.'


> Does anyone else do PW for an attempted bearhug?  What about the others that have trained with Parker such as Tatum, Palanzo, Planas?


Don't know, and if it's about what will or won't work, who really should care? I offered an experiment to test the efficacy of what some were doing and make an honest comparison. We never established that everyone was doing it that way. I just took was was said, and offered an opinion and possible solution. Some find value, some don't. I would thought you would do the experiment and comment on your experiences and testing. What if you found that the 'standard way' doesn't work?

As for the gentlemen you mentioned, I have no kenpo in common with those who started after Parker created the motion model and neither do any of my Kenpo contemporaries. Besides, I thought we had established in these forums years ago, there is no 'standard way' beyond simple conceptual ideas in motion based or commercial kenpo. From reading here, I thought everybody did techniques differently. Some a little , some completely different. That isn't news.

However if you feel a personal neeed to have what you do validated by what someone else is doing, than please follow their model, and if it works for you than I'm pleased. I strongly urge you ultimately to do what is comfortable for you and hope you are correct when and if you need it.

I never advised anyone to do things my way, or suggest my way is the only way. There are a lot of ways to everything and still be correct. I have proven what I was taught is valid and reaches another level, but I also know I can't teach you or anyone over the net by words and video. I make suggestions and nudge you to think. That is a purely a voluntary endeavor.

So please, please, don't ask me about what someon else does or doesn't do, because it is really irrelevant. Participate or choose not to. I am only responsible for what Parker taught me, not for what he did or didn't teach others.


> I know what I can make work.  I'm happy with my Kenpo and my teachers.


Then I don't understand why we are having this discussion. I can understand curiosity, but if you don't find value in what I have to say, your time would be better spent in ignoring me and working on what you have faith in. Why would you be concerned by another perspective. (rhetorical please)


> I'm starting to get the impression that unless its done the way you say, then its wrong.


Well now you're not making sense. If what you do works for you, obviously it couldn't be wrong from your perspective, and my perspective shouldn't matter. 


> If that's the case, then there must be alot of people out there doing it wrong.  I'm thinking though that the others are still making it work.


I prefer to not think of these things as 'right or wrong.' I think it terms of what will or will not work. Effective or ineffective, and there are degrees to both. You would seem to be protective of what you do, and that is understandable. But when I give you an experiment to prove the efficacy of certain things, and you talk about what others are doing, and how happy you are with what you're doing, it's makes me wonder why you are having this discussion.

Either way, the impact I have on you is up to you. Join in and benefit from the discussion, or ignore it. Either way I wish you the best in what you choose to follow. After all, it is your butt and you must do what you feel is best to protect it, as I do mine sir. To use a colloquialism common on the hard ghetto streets I work, "I ain't mad at you."


----------



## Maltair (Feb 9, 2006)

One of the things I learned that really helped me was after the parting part, step 1, think of the second strike to the ribs as the one that is going to stop their forward momentum. Get a good hip turn as you go into the forward bow.


----------



## Doc (Feb 9, 2006)

Maltair said:
			
		

> One of the things I learned that really helped me was after the parting part, step 1, think of the second strike to the ribs as the one that is going to stop their forward momentum. Get a good hip turn as you go into the forward bow.


Well I won't comment on whether that will stop a couple of hundred pounds coming forward aggressively, but your statement suggests you're 'blocking' from a neutral bow. Correct?


----------



## MJS (Feb 9, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> That's kind of an interesting question considering I was talking about physical principles of what will or won't work. You can call it whatever you want. The general idea of 'parting wings' is the model. I don't know what you mean about 'DS.'


 
When you said this:



> Well first sir, the technique was never designed for a push, attempted or otherwise.


 
it leads one to believe that the tech. Parting Wings, was not designed for a push, but instead something else. DS= Delayed Sword. In the pin vs. check thread, you made mention of this tech. being for a flank attack. Here is what you said:



> No one has addressed the attack coming from the flank, which is where it is supposed to be.


 
Post 49 in this thread
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=30549&page=4

Again, it appears that the nature of the attack is very different from what 99% of the people out there are doing. My question is: Why are you doing it one way, while the others are all doing it the same? Did Parker have 2 versions of his art? Did he teach certain people certain things and leave others in the dark? 



> Don't know, and if it's about what will or won't work, who really should care? I offered an experiment to test the efficacy of what some were doing and make an honest comparison. We never established that everyone was doing it that way. I just took was was said, and offered an opinion and possible solution. Some find value, some don't. I would thought you would do the experiment and comment on your experiences and testing. What if you found that the 'standard way' doesn't work?


 
Well, looking at the posts in a few different threads, I'd say that it is about what works and what does not, and IMHO, it seems like we should care. As for the experiment, I never said that I would not try it. I plan on experimenting next time I'm in class.



> As for the gentlemen you mentioned, I have no kenpo in common with those who started after Parker created the motion model and neither do any of my Kenpo contemporaries. Besides, I thought we had established in these forums years ago, there is no 'standard way' beyond simple conceptual ideas in motion based or commercial kenpo. From reading here, I thought everybody did techniques differently. Some a little , some completely different. That isn't news.


 
Reading this, I'm getting the impression that you're saying that there is a difference between the way you were taught and the way others were taught. This goes back to my question: Why was there a difference? I'm not talking about doing the techniques different. That would be for example, one person doing a swordhand and one doing a hammerfist. Same tech. just different moves. No, I'm talking about the nature of the attack. 



> So please, please, don't ask me about what someon else does or doesn't do, because it is really irrelevant. Participate or choose not to. I am only responsible for what Parker taught me, not for what he did or didn't teach others.


 
Actually, it is relevant, because again, it seems like there is a difference. 




> I prefer to not think of these things as 'right or wrong.' I think it terms of what will or will not work. Effective or ineffective, and there are degrees to both. You would seem to be protective of what you do, and that is understandable. But when I give you an experiment to prove the efficacy of certain things, and you talk about what others are doing, and how happy you are with what you're doing, it's makes me wonder why you are having this discussion.


 
Why am I having this discussion? Well, when someone posts a description of a technique, how they do it, etc., and then someone states that A) the nature of the attack is wrong or B) moves are not going to work unless they are done this way, it certainly raises some questions. I'll say again, it appears that there is a difference in the way things were done.

Mike


----------



## Maltair (Feb 10, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> Well I won't comment on whether that will stop a couple of hundred pounds coming forward aggressively, but your statement suggests you're 'blocking' from a neutral bow. Correct?


 
Yea, I didn't feel that the shot to the ribs will stop the attackers momentum, but it will give them something to take their mind off their original intent 

Correct. But I think of it as more, I'm deflecting there arms as I'm stepping back, as soon as my back foot hits the ground I'm rotating into the frwd bow. The neutral bow is there, but not for long.
We train it as a push from a bully that is saying "punk, what are you going to do about it? Cry to mommy?" It is not an aggressive, push you down type of push. More of a push from a jock whose friends are around and he feels the need to strut around, so he starts pushing you around. Of course the girl you like is also around and she is yelling "Stop it Tommy, your such a jerk!", which really doesn't help your situation, but you can't believe she is sticking up for you... but I digress


----------



## Carol (Feb 10, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> Reading this, I'm getting the impression that you're saying that there is a difference between the way you were taught and the way others were taught. This goes back to my question: Why was there a difference? I'm not talking about doing the techniques different. That would be for example, one person doing a swordhand and one doing a hammerfist. Same tech. just different moves. No, I'm talking about the nature of the attack.
> 
> Mike


 
When I posed the question of why the technique was changed to a push, he largely said it was because it was easier to teach. "Easeir to teach" can mean a lot of things. but when my classmates ask "Why don't we do that anymore, sir?" the answer is almost always "Liability" or "Insurance". 

I sure as heck don't want to turn on the TV and hear some muckraker say... 

"Is YOUR child safe? In this Martial Arts academy, adult men are specifically instructed to give what the academy calls a 'two handed grab' to the chests of girls as young as 13."

Given that both attorneys and journalists can be predatory towards anything when there is money to be had...it's conceivable to me that such a modification was made (by either schools or their insurance companies) to reduce a school's risk.

If I'm out of line by projecting this...please let me know.  MA isn't my business and I'd graciously welcome any corrections.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 10, 2006)

For what it's worth.

On page 74-75 of Infinite Insights into Kenpo - Volume 5 - Mental & Physical Applications, Mr. Parker has Parting Wings listed as a "Front Two-Hand Push"; fitting nicely into the 'PUSH' category on the Web of Knowledge.

For what it's worth.


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 10, 2006)

lady_kaur said:
			
		

> When I posed the question of why the technique was changed to a push, he largely said it was because it was easier to teach. "Easeir to teach" can mean a lot of things. but when my classmates ask "Why don't we do that anymore, sir?" the answer is almost always "Liability" or "Insurance".
> 
> I sure as heck don't want to turn on the TV and hear some muckraker say...
> 
> ...


 
This raises the question of which was the original attack for this technique, and to what was it changed.  In Tracy's, we learned this technique as "Flashing Daggers", and it is taught as a defense against a push.  Tracys were among the earliest of Mr. Parkers students, and they claim to have kept everything the same, as they learned it from Mr. Parker.  Perhaps it was later that Mr. Parker rethought the technique and decided that it is more effective, with some modifications, against an attempted front bearhug.  

The fact that many other of Mr. Parker's students have been teaching this technique as a defense against a push, as seen thru this discussion, would verify my thought.  These people also would have learned it as a defense against a push, prior to Mr. Parker's decision to change it.


----------



## Carol (Feb 10, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> This raises the question of which was the original attack for this technique, and to what was it changed.


 
That question also makes me wonder what the change means...does it mean the exclusion of the other attack?  I don't see how one-size-fits-all works very well.

Personally, I find it more interesting to see how broadly a technique can be used.   Mr. Parker may not have taught neither Mr. Chapel  nor Mr. Tracy that Parting Wings is a defence against a grope, for example.  Yet, a grope is a realistic threat to a woman, and Parting Wings seems to be an effective response to such a threat.  For you gents, such a connection is of little value.  For us ladies, there is a tremendous value.


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 10, 2006)

lady_kaur said:
			
		

> That question also makes me wonder what the change means...does it mean the exclusion of the other attack? I don't see how one-size-fits-all works very well.
> 
> Personally, I find it more interesting to see how broadly a technique can be used.


 
Beautiful insight.  Well done.


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 10, 2006)

lady_kaur said:
			
		

> Personally, I find it more interesting to see how broadly a technique can be used.


 
Another thought on this line: How about against a punch?  Change the splitting move to an extended outward block, and proceed as normal.  Where else could this technique work?  Any further thoughts?

How about a shoulder grab with a punch to your face, from the front?
How about a shoulder grab from the side?


----------



## Dark Kenpo Lord (Feb 10, 2006)

lady_kaur said:
			
		

> When I posed the question of why the technique was changed to a push, he largely said it was because it was easier to teach. "Easeir to teach" can mean a lot of things. but when my classmates ask "Why don't we do that anymore, sir?" the answer is almost always "Liability" or "Insurance".
> 
> I sure as heck don't want to turn on the TV and hear some muckraker say...
> 
> ...


 
I must say, you have some real issues regarding your chest for some reason, and I'm happy you're not, nor will ever be, one of my students if you percieve the attacks of the techniques as sexual assaults by the instructors.    I teach them all the same, boys, girls, women, and men, and  they will learn to defend themselves appropriately, if not, they're free to leave and good riddance.

DarK Lord


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 10, 2006)

Dark Kenpo Lord said:
			
		

> I'm happy you're not, nor will ever be, one of my students


 
I suspect that for many, the feeling is mutual.

While many here try to add to the discussion in a polite and reasonable way, others seem unable to show basic manners while expressing disagreement.


----------



## MJS (Feb 10, 2006)

lady_kaur said:
			
		

> When I posed the question of why the technique was changed to a push, he largely said it was because it was easier to teach. "Easeir to teach" can mean a lot of things. but when my classmates ask "Why don't we do that anymore, sir?" the answer is almost always "Liability" or "Insurance".
> 
> I sure as heck don't want to turn on the TV and hear some muckraker say...
> 
> ...


 
One thing that is often misunderstood about the arts, is that they are and always will be a contact activity.  That being said, I've seen both parents and students taken aback by some of the things that are taught.  This is one of the main reasons why it is so important to understand what is involved in this type of training.  

I certainly see the concern of parents and female students if they're 'grabbed' by a male.  The thing to keep in mind though is that it is up to the instructor to keep everything on a professional level.  Also, if a female is going to be attacked, it will most likely be by a male, not by another female.  That being said, to avoid training with a male, is doing the female student a great dis-service.  

People enroll in the arts for many different reasons.  However, and I'll say it again, it is going to involve contact.  If someone is serious about self defense, then that student needs to be ready for some contact.  If this is an issue, then IMO, the arts are not the best activity for them.

Mike


----------



## Dan G (Feb 10, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> Well sir, changing the attack of the technique means the aggressor must try to encircle you with his arms, and he will try to bring them together to close on you. This anatomical action itself will allow you to 'brace' and stop his arms IF you proceed with your move forward, and attack his arm(s) at a 45-degree angle. And because of what he physically attempting to do, he will unwitingly becuase of your response limit his own depth, and set himself up for the initial retaliation move. Everything up to this point would be considered Surviving The Initial Assault.
> 
> Keep in mind what I have shared in only the beginning and we do the technique differently from there, but the motion 'ideas' will function to an extent after the attack and initial move modification.
> 
> Check it out Dan and let me know what you find.


 
Checked it out fairly thoroughly and it worked very well for both me and my training partner. It stopped the attacker decisively when the attack was made with a committed intent to encircle, and also worked well for an attack with committed intent to grab the defender's upper arms/shoulders and close in.

In both cases we found it worked well when the blocks (outward extended with clenched fists) were executed to the upper arms of the attacker.

Making sure the blocks passes through the full path of motion seems pretty critical to avoid the attackers head becoming a problem if the defender executes too slowly. If the attacker doesn't flinch then it seems to create a kind of "head in the fan" effect for the attacker if I am too slow in executing the blocks - not an ideal outcome, but opens up other options...

Once the blocks land then the technique works a treat unless the attacker relaxes their arms in anticipation of the impact but still continues with their forward momentum - (I suspect that this is a phenomenon that is more likely to occur in the training environment than in a confrontation?:idunno: ). When that happens then there remained a risk of a collision of heads. Similarly too much downward motion to the blocks seemed less effective in stopping momentum.

Having executed the double blocks and stopped the attacker in his tracks I could see no earthly reason to continue with the remaining technique sequence of Parting Wings as I know it - however my close position to the attacker, and the position of my hands made the attackers head very vulnerable, particularly to control manipulation work, and my inclination today was to close in further, execute left and right palm heels to the head and move into Tripping Arrow (possibly because we had been working on that technique earlier in the day)

Alternatively executing the blocks, executing a kick to the lower abdomen or executing a knee to the groin or solar plexus (depending on range) to assist with a pull down on the head, and opening up the attacker for repeated knees to the face seemed to work OK...

I thoroughly enjoyed the homework, and it has got me thinking hard... 

Many thanks
Dan


----------



## Doc (Feb 10, 2006)

Dan G said:
			
		

> Checked it out fairly thoroughly and it worked very well for both me and my training partner. It stopped the attacker decisively when the attack was made with a committed intent to encircle, and also worked well for an attack with committed intent to grab the defender's upper arms/shoulders and close in.
> 
> In both cases we found it worked well when the blocks (outward extended with clenched fists) were executed to the upper arms of the attacker.
> 
> ...


Well sir what would be your advice for those who "say" they did the experiment but "it didn't work." ? Of course we know nothings works if you don't want it to. 

Oh, Shortay said she's looking forward to the new training partner. We roughed her up pretty good last night making sure techniques are functional.


----------



## Doc (Feb 10, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> This raises the question of which was the original attack for this technique, and to what was it changed.  In Tracy's, we learned this technique as "Flashing Daggers", and it is taught as a defense against a push.  Tracys were among the earliest of Mr. Parkers students, and they claim to have kept everything the same, as they learned it from Mr. Parker.  Perhaps it was later that Mr. Parker rethought the technique and decided that it is more effective, with some modifications, against an attempted front bearhug.
> 
> The fact that many other of Mr. Parker's students have been teaching this technique as a defense against a push, as seen thru this discussion, would verify my thought.  These people also would have learned it as a defense against a push, prior to Mr. Parker's decision to change it.


The technique was changed in my understanding simply because it was dysfuctional. I understand your concerns and I pay close attention to my female students because there are many assaults that are unique to the female gender. However you must develop a feelng of trust with your teacher and training partners, much like what would ne necessary in learning "social dancing," which I find "ironic."


----------



## Doc (Feb 10, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> When you said this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm sorry sir, but I really don't understand what you want. You seem to simply be repeating what I have already said, but appear to suggest because you are saying it that suddenly it has a different meaning. Sorry but I'm dense on this, and I believe I've answered all of your questions. As for the thread you posted, it was about Crossing Talon, not Delayed Sword. Perhaps if you read a thread I recently posted on KenpoTalk it will help you to understand better.
http://www.kenpotalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1380


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 10, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> The technique was changed in my understanding simply because it was dysfuctional.


 
well, this would be the most logical reason to make a change.


----------



## Dark Kenpo Lord (Feb 10, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> Well sir what would be your advice for those who "say" they did the experiment but "it didn't work." ? Of course we know nothings works if you don't want it to.


 
You see, that's your whole bag, you preempt everything you do, a sort of mild hypnosis, and there are many others that do this as well.   As a LEO, I'm sure you've seen vice members pop so called mediums, you know, the people telling you exactly what you want to hear and believing every word.   Just for the record, I neither wanted it to work, or not to work, I gave it a neutral set up and attempt, twice no less.

And yes, things work even if you don't want them to, being a gun fanatic, I'm sure you've seen unloaded weapons go off??????

DarK LorD


----------



## Dan G (Feb 10, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> Well sir what would be your advice for those who "say" they did the experiment but "it didn't work." ? Of course we know nothings works if you don't want it to.


 
I wouldn't give advice, but if I were watching I'd be looking for where the attacker's arms normally fall when the defender executes and outward extended block. If they drop down rather than bounce off on a horizontal plane then it would explain why the forward momentum continues when the double block is executed. If the defender generates serious power then even a small degree of downward direction to the force might be accelerating the attacker's head forward and they would need to adjust the direction of force generated by the block, or do a different technique.
I'd be looking at where the blocks are targeted as well, they seem to me to generate more force into the attackers body when performed above the elbow. 

I'd also consider if the training partner is pretty used to hard training and might be unconsciously softening the arms during the attack at the last moment. 

The technique definitely works, I like the step in version, I have short arms and decent body weight (i.e round midget ) so getting in close generally feels more natural to me.



			
				Doc said:
			
		

> Oh, Shortay said she's looking forward to the new training partner. We roughed her up pretty good last night making sure techniques are functional.


 
Excellent news - looks like we're all going to get knocked about a bit when she gets back.:boxing: 

Regards,

Dan


----------



## Carol (Feb 11, 2006)

Dark Kenpo Lord said:
			
		

> I must say, you have some real issues regarding your chest for some reason, and I'm happy you're not, nor will ever be, one of my students if you percieve the attacks of the techniques as sexual assaults by the instructors. I teach them all the same, boys, girls, women, and men, and they will learn to defend themselves appropriately, if not, they're free to leave and good riddance.
> 
> DarK Lord


 
OK, that's one vote for me talking out of my backside. 

Dark Lord, sir, you may not consider me to be your student, yet I am learning quite a bit from you...and Doc, and Mike, and Flying Crane, and Dan and everyone else wathcing me stumble around MT making a fool of myself. 

Kenpo has made me tough enough to embarass myself on the internet without fear.  Maybe someday I'll be tough enough to face a real attacker 

I am admittedly not a very bright person.  I can't simply watch and learn.   I ask questions, I make speculations, I wonder, I opine, I posit.  I challenge my teachers just as much as they challenge me.  

I know I am a difficult student.  I apologize for that sir.  I meant neither you nor anyone else any disrespect.  I hope to continue to grow more in my knowledge from you, and everyone else.  I'm sure you will agree, I have quite a lot to learn. 

:asian:


----------



## Doc (Feb 11, 2006)

lady_kaur said:
			
		

> OK, that's one vote for me talking out of my backside.
> 
> Dark Lord, sir, you may not consider me to be your student, yet I am learning quite a bit from you...and Doc, and Mike, and Flying Crane, and Dan and everyone else wathcing me stumble around MT making a fool of myself.
> 
> ...


Don't pay any attention to the rude and crude. Just keep doing what you're doing. Me suspects you're a lot brighter than you let on. I like that!


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Feb 11, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> Don't pay any attention to the rude and crude. Just keep doing what you're doing. Me suspects you're a lot brighter than you let on. I like that!


 
Ditto! :asian:


----------



## MJS (Feb 11, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> I'm sorry sir, but I really don't understand what you want. You seem to simply be repeating what I have already said, but appear to suggest because you are saying it that suddenly it has a different meaning. Sorry but I'm dense on this, and I believe I've answered all of your questions. As for the thread you posted, it was about Crossing Talon, not Delayed Sword. Perhaps if you read a thread I recently posted on KenpoTalk it will help you to understand better.
> http://www.kenpotalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1380


 
Actually the thread was about pinning and checking and was geared towards Delayed Sword.  I made a brief reference about Crossing Talon.  

Again, I'll say that I am not talking about changing minor moves in a technique.  Take Parting Wings, seeing that this is what the thread is about.  There are some that insert an eye rake and some that don't  We are simply adding one move, but the nature of the attack is the same.  I am talking about changing the entire nature of the attack.  Again, you have said things in the posts that I have referenced.  

Mike


----------



## kenposikh (Feb 11, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> However you must develop a feelng of trust with your teacher and training partners, much like what would ne necessary in learning "social dancing," which I find "ironic."


 
Hey Doc,

Next time I see you ask me for some dance lessons and I'll oblige also maybe you could help me with some of my dance moves especially when dropping my partner and being able to support their weight


----------



## kenposikh (Feb 11, 2006)

lady_kaur said:
			
		

> I am admittedly not a very bright person. I can't simply watch and learn. I ask questions, I make speculations, I wonder, I opine, I posit. I challenge my teachers just as much as they challenge me.
> 
> I know I am a difficult student. I apologize for that sir. I meant neither you nor anyone else any disrespect. I hope to continue to grow more in my knowledge from you, and everyone else. I'm sure you will agree, I have quite a lot to learn.
> 
> :asian:


 
Hi I think you do not give yourself enough credit, questioning techniques and asking why they don't work in my opinion has at least two factors the obvious of which is

1. you are doing something wrong

2. The attack is wrong in some way

Let me explain

On many occassions I have asked students what is their least favourite technique got the to do it with several different attackers and seen several different results. From this I have made corrections to the defenders stances and basic blocks/strikes and suddently they find that they now can do the technique it works fro them but something is still missing, now we go to the attacker, we, in my humble opinion, tend to forget that the initial attack maybe but not always a precursor to something else also distance is of paramount importance.

So as we are talking about parting wings let's examine the attack and let's stick with the original fact that it is mainly taught as a defence against a two handed push, my question is and I'm sorry if it seems like I'm rambling, what follows the push also what sort of push is it.

e.g. 

1. is it a statc SNAPPING PUSH to move you away from the aggressor with two hands and fingers pointing upwards and shoulders square.

2. is is a static SNAPPING PUSH with the shoulders not square caused by the retraction of one arm in preparation for a punch

3. is it a step through SNAPPING PUSH to get you off balance in preparation for a bear hug and lift............

4. is is a step through SNAPPING push followed by a reverse punch or step through punch.

How much aggression is applied to the push in the above cases and how far are they trying to push you back.

Let's continue

5. is is a THUSTING PUSH with arms left out longer than in the above scenarios

...
...
...


on a final note it is a push and not an attempted push so in effect contact has been made and as a defender your balance has been compromised..


Thoughts and discussions please.

btw I have not changed the actual attack just given several variations for the attacks


----------



## pete (Feb 11, 2006)

OK, back from the lab.  

First, did the experiment.  results were immaterial. no we could not separate the arms from that position... however, you really don't have to move the arms away in the technique...

*Parting Wings*, against an actual 2-hand push to the chest, you must step back to absorb rather than oppose the force.  then by turning into a N-bow, 3 things occur: (1) bracing angle is set, (2) you change the angle of his arms relative to your chest, (3) your arms in contact with your opponents arms from the inside now control the centerline... he is on the outside not because you moved him there, but you've repsoitioned yourself into superior position.

This is a specific push, where you pushed back one step and the opponent follows through moving forward with you.  the continued pressure on the outside of your arms will feed the next moves, whether or not you choose to activate an eye rake or claw with the left hand as the right heel palm meets his on coming ribs.  the forward bow at this point puts the power into the strike and resets the bracing angle towards the now lower joint center of gravity.  

If the push moved you farther away, as i said earlier, we have *Twist of Fate* which leads with a kick.  If the push continues forward, and the attacker may even grab your shirt, *Snaking Talon* works, initially with the same bracing angle, but a different manipulation to pry his arms off.

If the push is sudden and you lose contact with him, we may begin the same way as *Parting Wings*, but expecting a followup punch, we move into *Circling Windmills*.   

Now for the attempted high bear hug.  Stepping back: definite no-no.  Must step forward, but as DKL said, what is there to prevent a head butt? rather than keeping the hands framed in the 'box', wouldn't the 'triangle' formed in *Thrusting Wedge* keep the head in check?

I am sure Doc, that your technique is effective against the attack you specified, but there must be more variations to the followup moves after the 'parting wings' to keep all dimensions in check... could you please explain?

pete


----------



## Dan G (Feb 11, 2006)

lady_kaur said:
			
		

> OK, that's one vote for me talking out of my backside.
> 
> Dark Lord, sir, you may not consider me to be your student, yet I am learning quite a bit from you...and Doc, and Mike, and Flying Crane, and Dan and everyone else wathcing me stumble around MT making a fool of myself.
> 
> ...


 
You are not talking out of your backside, and you have nothing to be embarassed about!

Your questions are interesting and well thought out and your posts are worth reading. I haven't read anything that would make me think you are anything other than exceptionally bright.

I am not an instructor, but for what it is worth I reckon that if you are a "difficult student" it is because you are asking the questions that matter.

Keep on asking the questions and best of luck with your training.

Dan G


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 11, 2006)

Dan G said:
			
		

> You are not talking out of your backside, and you have nothing to be embarassed about!
> 
> Your questions are interesting and well thought out and your posts are worth reading. I haven't read anything that would make me think you are anything other than exceptionally bright.
> 
> ...


 
well said.  I agree.


----------



## Carol (Feb 11, 2006)

Thanks very much, all of you.  I'm deeply humbled.   :asian:


----------

