# Lowering the Gate



## Kenpo_man (Jul 4, 2005)

If you're not a Tracy's kenpo student, this move is the one in Short 2 where you do a rising block, followed with an eagle's beak to the opponents solar plexus. The reason for this thread is that many say the eagle's beak is for the ribs or sternum and probably a few other targets. Just let me know where you've been taught to hit with the eagle's beak so we can compare notes. Thanx.


----------



## jfarnsworth (Jul 4, 2005)

I'm not sure what you are calling an Eagle's Beak? Are you talking about when v-stepping towards 6 and 12 in a wide kneel stance(s) executing the upward blocks with the downward vertical raking middle knuckle strike?


----------



## Kenpo_man (Jul 4, 2005)

yes. the middle knuckle strike is what we call an eagle's beak.


----------



## jfarnsworth (Jul 4, 2005)

OK, it's a raking motion used on the opponent's centerline teaching you how to use both toruqe and gravitational marriage while stepping under an opponents attack. The theme of using 2 simultaneous "x" at the same time.


----------



## Kenpo_man (Jul 4, 2005)

I guess I wasn't very clear with my question. I was wondering where others were told to strike with the eagle's beak. The reason I ask is because I have heard people say many different things. I've heard that it is supposed to rake down the ribs. I've heard that it is supposed to rake down the center line. In my dojo we are told to hit the solar plexus and drive downward. We are trying to hit the xiphoid process (the little bone that hangs from the sternum) so that it jams into the descending aorta). Where do you hit with the strike and what is the desired result? Is it to injure, cause pain, set up the next strike? I hope that is clearer. 

I appreciate your feedback. Everybody has a different way of looking at things and sometimes I end up liking their way better than my own.


----------



## Drifter (Jul 4, 2005)

I've heard that the strike is to teach you how NOT to use the middle knuckle, so I would run the risk of saying that there is no target. Maybe Mr. C could step up to the plate on this one.


----------



## Sam (Jul 5, 2005)

I was taught down the ribs.


----------



## KenpoTex (Jul 5, 2005)

Sounds like we do this one a little different, the upward block is done with a claw to catch his face as he bends forward from the middle-knuckle fist to the *groin*.


----------



## pete (Jul 5, 2005)

Drifter said:
			
		

> I've heard that the strike is to teach you how NOT to use the middle knuckle, so I would run the risk of saying that there is no target.


 that is obsurd... we wouldn't be practicing something in a form over and over to learn how NOT to do something.  how NOT to do something would be demonstrated like once, and shown WHY~


----------



## Seabrook (Jul 5, 2005)

pete said:
			
		

> that is obsurd... we wouldn't be practicing something in a form over and over to learn how NOT to do something. how NOT to do something would be demonstrated like once, and shown WHY~


Actually Pete, there are a lot of people who would disagree with you here. 

I have heard many people (including several high-ranking Kenpo seniors) say that executing a vertical middle-knuckle rake down the body will cause you injury since it doesn't have a brace and that this move was designed to teach you how not to strike. 

Interesting discussion...let's keep it going.

Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com


----------



## Kenpo_man (Jul 5, 2005)

kenpotex said:
			
		

> Sounds like we do this one a little different, the upward block is done with a claw to catch his face as he bends forward from the middle-knuckle fist to the *groin*.


That's different then any I have heard.


----------



## Kenpo_man (Jul 5, 2005)

Respectfully, I actually have to side with Pete on this one. I think that if a movement is ineffective it should be discarded. There are enough Kenpo techniques to practice nevermind all the wrong ways to do things. I don't punch with my wrist crooked just to remind myself how much it hurts my wrist. With that said, I have heard this explanation before and I brought it up with my sensei. He told me the strike wasn't a rake downwards, it was to be driven into the solar plexus with a downward trajectory. This removes the danger to the middle knuckle and does damage to the opponent. Has anyone heard this explanation before?





			
				Seabrook said:
			
		

> Actually Pete, there are a lot of people who would disagree with you here.
> 
> I have heard many people (including several high-ranking Kenpo seniors) say that executing a vertical middle-knuckle rake down the body will cause you injury since it doesn't have a brace and that this move was designed to teach you how not to strike.
> 
> ...


----------



## thesensei (Jul 5, 2005)

These are always fun discussions.  What's the *right* way of doing it?   :idunno:   Weeeellll, Mr. Parker told me....  :ultracool  just kidding

Anyway, I was originally taught to use a middle knuckle *uppercut* to the solar plexus.  It feels right to me!  I have seen other people doing it with the methods described here, but they just didn't flow right - probably because it's different from what I learned and practiced!

Salute,
Jeremiah


----------



## Blindside (Jul 5, 2005)

I learned this as a upward block and a vertical punch.

Put me in the same camp as kenpo_man and pete, the idea of putting a "bad move" in a form is nuts, it may be true, but piss-poor logic to me.

Lamont


----------



## Drifter (Jul 5, 2005)

Well, there is the linear 'punch' execution of the middle knuckle strike (Clutching Feathers), the horizontal raking execution (Leaping Crane), so category completion would call for a vertical rake. If the vertical rake is not such a smart thing to do on the street, then it would have to be put in a form. My two cents.


----------



## Ceicei (Jul 5, 2005)

Kenpo_man said:
			
		

> He told me the strike wasn't a rake downwards, it was to be driven into the solar plexus with a downward trajectory. This removes the danger to the middle knuckle and does damage to the opponent. Has anyone heard this explanation before?



Yes, I am taught that way and learned it with the same reasoning.

- Ceicei


----------



## pete (Jul 5, 2005)

Drifter said:
			
		

> If the vertical rake is not such a smart thing to do on the street, then it would have to be put in a form.


sometimes i just cant believe what i am reading.


----------



## Doc (Jul 5, 2005)

pete said:
			
		

> sometimes i just cant believe what i am reading.


Me neither. With all due respect to ranking seniors, or anyone else who would promote the idea that Ed Parker placed movements in a form to teach what NOT to do, over and over. That is rediculous. Of course I know some like Mr. Seabrook is just passing on what he was told, but it sounds like someone who doesn't know the answer is saying to a student the first thing that popped into his head. 

I've often heard stories of how Ed Parker placed intentional mistakes in some of his work. Don't believe it. Ed Parker never did anything wrong in his life intentionally unless he was demonstrating and explaining why not to do something.

As far as the "raking" whateveryouwantocallit, an extended middle knuckle raking down the ribcage has no anatomical merit, and perhaps is the reason some have sought to explain or find an alternate application.

Category completion is a motion concept I don't subscribe to for what I consider obvious reasons illustrated here.


----------



## Kenpo_man (Jul 5, 2005)

This one sounds good. It would have a totally different effect but it would still be _effective_. Thanx.





			
				thesensei said:
			
		

> These are always fun discussions. What's the *right* way of doing it? :idunno: Weeeellll, Mr. Parker told me.... :ultracool just kidding
> 
> Anyway, I was originally taught to use a middle knuckle *uppercut* to the solar plexus. It feels right to me! I have seen other people doing it with the methods described here, but they just didn't flow right - probably because it's different from what I learned and practiced!
> 
> ...


----------



## jfarnsworth (Jul 5, 2005)

Drifter said:
			
		

> I've heard that the strike is to teach you how NOT to use the middle knuckle, so I would run the risk of saying that there is no target. .


I don't know where that came from  :idunno: . This is just one more example on how to use a middle knuckle. As some pointed out they are in self defense techniques and give many examples on how many different ways to hit with a middle knuckle.


----------



## jfarnsworth (Jul 5, 2005)

kenpotex said:
			
		

> Sounds like we do this one a little different, the upward block is done with a claw to catch his face as he bends forward from the middle-knuckle fist to the *groin*.


I would believe that action would be better put in as a self defense situation. That's a good move if you can make it work. That movement is covered in long 2 not in short 2 which is the topic of discussion.


----------



## jfarnsworth (Jul 5, 2005)

pete said:
			
		

> that is obsurd... we wouldn't be practicing something in a form over and over to learn how NOT to do something.  how NOT to do something would be demonstrated like once, and shown WHY~



I agree.  :asian:


----------



## jfarnsworth (Jul 5, 2005)

Seabrook said:
			
		

> Actually Pete, there are a lot of people who would disagree with you here.


Fair enough but I agree with Pete.  :asian: 



> I have heard many people (including several high-ranking Kenpo seniors) say that executing a vertical middle-knuckle rake down the body will cause you injury since it doesn't have a brace and that this move was designed to teach you how not to strike.


I agree with not having a brace with the strike but would you agree or disagree that if I had a tight fist then hit someone downward in the solar plexus would or would not be a good strike. That move is used with gravitational marriage as well to help with the power of the strike?


----------



## jfarnsworth (Jul 5, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> As far as the "raking" whateveryouwantocallit, an extended middle knuckle raking down the ribcage has no anatomical merit, and perhaps is the reason some have sought to explain or find an alternate application..


I called it a raking motion as that is what we call it at the studio I attend. This movement travels down the vertical line, correct? It doesn't use a thrust or straight linear movement... at least to my knowledge. In following the methods of execution I don't believe it hammers, slices, thrusts, snaps, claws, hooks, or roundhouses. Maybe shed some light on it Sir, if you don't mind?    :asian:


----------



## Drifter (Jul 5, 2005)

I'm also curious as to what the purpose is then. 

 I was passing along what I had heard (probably not the best policy), along with my added hypothesis. I'm sorry if I offended anyone, not my intention.


----------



## KenpoTex (Jul 6, 2005)

jfarnsworth said:
			
		

> I would believe that action would be better put in as a self defense situation. That's a good move if you can make it work. That movement is covered in long 2 not in short 2 which is the topic of discussion.





			
				jfarnsworth said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what you are calling an Eagle's Beak? Are you talking about when v-stepping towards 6 and 12 in a wide kneel stance(s) executing the upward blocks with the downward vertical raking middle knuckle strike?


    ^
This move from Short-2 is what we're talking about right?  I was taught to do the technique from short-2 in the manner I described earlier.  After seeing descriptions of the way that others do this punch (vertical fist with downward raking motion), I have to say that I don't care for the idea of raking downward with a vertical middle-knuckle.  It seems to me that this would put too much stress on the middle finger in a direction where it has no reinforcement.  I think this strike is more suited to the horizontal raking motion as found in Leaping Crane, or as a linear strike as in parting wings.  I would imagine that this is why I learned it this way, I guess at some point someone (either my instructor, or his) decided this one worked better as a punch than as a rake.

Just my $0.02


----------



## jaybacca72 (Jul 6, 2005)

i don't think that the techniques were designed what not to do,i think that they were made and as the art progressed as well as EP SR. the move was placed in the you shouldn't do this because... ie intellectual departure turning your back to your opponent. just my 2 cents worth
later
jay artyon:


----------



## Seabrook (Jul 6, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> Category completion is a motion concept I don't subscribe to for what I consider obvious reasons illustrated here.


I tend to agree with you Doc, but there are some, particularly the Huk Planas lineage, that swear by it. 

About the middle knuckle strike in Short 2, I didn't say I agree with what other seniors say about the move, I'm just relaying what I have heard other seniors (now 10th Degrees) say. 

Many that push the notion of category completion also argue that there are "don't do" techniques in our system. These include moves like Circling Windmills, Blinding Sacrifice, and Gathering Clouds. I prefer to listen to both sides of the camp to make my own opinions. 

In that sense, I'm kinda like Anaklin, take a little bit of the Jedi way, but listen to the dark side as well, lol. Just don't be like Obi-wan and kick my a!# for me listening in on the category completion  stuff. 

Till next time,

Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com


----------



## Doc (Jul 6, 2005)

Seabrook said:
			
		

> I tend to agree with you Doc, but there are some, particularly the Huk Planas lineage, that swear by it.
> 
> About the middle knuckle strike in Short 2, I didn't say I agree with what other seniors say about the move, I'm just relaying what I have heard other seniors (now 10th Degrees) say.
> 
> ...


Actually I never thought for a moment that you believed that answer, but as I said you basically just, "threw it out there." Yes there are a lot of "throw away" techniques in motion-kenpo that simple won't work or make no sense in application essentially by design, but not because they weren't intended to work.

For the record; I come from the non-motion dark side myself. (On my Mother's side).


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Jul 6, 2005)

I thought you said your mother was Scotch-Irish?

Aw, hell. I just pictured you in a kilt, and the rest of my day is ruined. :rofl: 

Back to the grind...

DC


----------



## Doc (Jul 6, 2005)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> I thought you said your mother was Scotch-Irish?
> 
> Aw, hell. I just pictured you in a kilt, and the rest of my day is ruined. :rofl:
> 
> ...


That's a mental image I didn't need either.


----------



## jaybacca72 (Jul 6, 2005)

for the record huk doesn't say don't do these techniques he says that you shouldn't because... as far as category completion goes it is a teaching method for understanding motion kenpo i  use it to explain some of the why's but it is not gospel nor is it to huk and his lineage, if you truly understand his teaching style. i will have to suffice with motion kenpo for now or at least with the sub 4 i have been shown till i can hook up with doc in the future.
hey doc there is a clown in my town teaching sub 5 can you believe this guy?
he was supposed to teach it at cappi's camp but cancelled out probably because he knew the other instructor's would see right through him ie huk,sean,zach etc..it is too bad he is associated with someone i respected alot being a senior.
later
jay artyon:


----------



## Kenpodoc (Jul 6, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> Me neither. With all due respect to ranking seniors, or anyone else who would promote the idea that Ed Parker placed movements in a form to teach what NOT to do, over and over. That is rediculous. Of course I know some like Mr. Seabrook is just passing on what he was told, but it sounds like someone who doesn't know the answer is saying to a student the first thing that popped into his head.
> 
> I've often heard stories of how Ed Parker placed intentional mistakes in some of his work. Don't believe it. Ed Parker never did anything wrong in his life intentionally unless he was demonstrating and explaining why not to do something.
> 
> ...


Mr. Parker did, however, have a sense on humor and I can see him placing something in a form to see which of his students "got it." I saw a Video of Mr. Parker narrating short 2 in the late 80's and when the student did the middle knuckle movement, Mr. Parker said "nip the tip."  This being one of the few structures potentially strikable with a marraige of gravity strike down the front of a male opponent I've always assumed that this was a little joke placed by a young Mr. Parker as well as a test of his sudents.

It's a little bit of a surprise that no one has pointed out that Mr. Parker recorded 2 Man set incorrectly on purpose in his book.  Since form 2 comes from an earlier period of his life I could conceive of an honest Mr. Parker following chinese tradition and inserting an error for outsiders.  I still think that the rake is actually a clever joke, but I never had the pleasure of meeting him so I form this opinion on hearsay alone.

Respectfully,

Jeff


----------



## jfarnsworth (Jul 6, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> As far as the "raking" whateveryouwantocallit, an extended middle knuckle raking down the ribcage has no anatomical merit, and perhaps is the reason some have sought to explain or find an alternate application..


Would it be better defined as a downward hammerfist with a middle knuckle strike as the secondary weapon? In this form the hand does not stop directly at the solar plexus or ribs... it travels through an arc and snaps back up. The move can stay the same but maybe we can better define it?  :asian:


----------



## Doc (Jul 6, 2005)

Kenpodoc said:
			
		

> Mr. Parker did, however, have a sense on humor and I can see him placing something in a form to see which of his students "got it." I saw a Video of Mr. Parker narrating short 2 in the late 80's and when the student did the middle knuckle movement, Mr. Parker said "nip the tip."  This being one of the few structures potentially strikable with a marraige of gravity strike down the front of a male opponent I've always assumed that this was a little joke placed by a young Mr. Parker as well as a test of his sudents.


Parker did have a sense of humor sir, but never "hid" anything. The "nip the tip" joke was just that, and was not indicative of a viable strike or target in that application.


> It's a little bit of a surprise that no one has pointed out that Mr. Parker recorded 2 Man set incorrectly on purpose in his book.


That is an anecdote that has floated around for years to support the "easter egg" idea of Parker hiding information within his writing. It isn't true. There were many versions of the "Two-Man Set" with multiple versions coming from Jimmy Woo. However like everything else, when someone created or contributed, Parker always put his own spin on it to make it his own. The person who knew it from another source, or who contributed would then say, "It's wrong!' but as Parker often pointed out, "How can I be wrong in my own interpretations?" The Two Man Set in the book is exactly as Parker  wanted it at the time, with no intentional errors.


> Since form 2 comes from an earlier period of his life I could conceive of an honest Mr. Parker following chinese tradition and inserting an error for outsiders.  I still think that the rake is actually a clever joke, but I never had the pleasure of meeting him so I form this opinion on hearsay alone.


Sorry Sir, but he never did that. Those who didn't understand often found interesting explanations for what they didn't understand to pass along to students. The "joke" was on them because if they wanted to know, all they had to do was ask. If he wanted you to know, he would answer you. If he didn't want you to know, he woud tell you everything.


----------



## Doc (Jul 6, 2005)

jfarnsworth said:
			
		

> Would it be better defined as a downward hammerfist with a middle knuckle strike as the secondary weapon? In this form the hand does not stop directly at the solar plexus or ribs... it travels through an arc and snaps back up. The move can stay the same but maybe we can better define it?  :asian:


Careful Jeff, you're coming dangerously close to making sense and thinking. Seriously, the application I was taught was similar to your explanation. It is a rising forearm underneath the chin, followed by a downward hammerfist to the clavicle. From there the the middle knuckle punches through in an arc that loops away from your attacker, than returns as an underhand hammerfist. However that is only what I was taught, and I'm not suggesting another interpretation is incorrect sir.


----------



## Doc (Jul 6, 2005)

jaybacca72 said:
			
		

> for the record huk doesn't say don't do these techniques he says that you shouldn't because... as far as category completion goes it is a teaching method for understanding motion kenpo i  use it to explain some of the why's but it is not gospel nor is it to huk and his lineage, if you truly understand his teaching style.


No, Richard presents it for what it is, an idea to help you understand and solve problems. He doesn't say, "If you already completed these categories than now you HAVE to complete this." He doesn't promote that thinking at all.


> i will have to suffice with motion kenpo for now or at least with the sub 4 i have been shown till i can hook up with doc in the future.
> hey doc there is a clown in my town teaching sub 5 can you believe this guy?


Yes sir. There is more than one clown who thought he knew what Sublevel Four Kenpo was about. All of them have been wrong.


> he was supposed to teach it at cappi's camp but cancelled out probably because he knew the other instructor's would see right through him ie huk,sean,zach etc..it is too bad he is associated with someone i respected alot being a senior.
> later
> jay artyon:


Well he seems to have fooled a few, but a look at his kenpo gives him away. He's really bad. Lately he's been trying to make some in-roads into Kenpo Camps and Seminars. Previously he traveled with some pretty prominent people from other styles, but he definitely can't hold up around kenpo people. I heard his formal training stopped around blue. I contacted the European IKC about his use of our name and they bounced him. Now he's scheduled to come to Southern California for Frank's IKC to teach a seminar, but he doesn't mention SL-4. Still I heard some of the guys wanted to go talk to him and see what he had to offer.

Whatever his kenpo is, or where it came from, I'm sure he can present himself without calling his presentation something it is not. SL-5? I thought there were only four distances in kenpo. Live and learn.


----------



## Kenpodoc (Jul 7, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> Parker did have a sense of humor sir, but never "hid" anything. The "nip the tip" joke was just that, and was not indicative of a viable strike or target in that application.
> 
> That is an anecdote that has floated around for years to support the "easter egg" idea of Parker hiding information within his writing. It isn't true. There were many versions of the "Two-Man Set" with multiple versions coming from Jimmy Woo. However like everything else, when someone created or contributed, Parker always put his own spin on it to make it his own. The person who knew it from another source, or who contributed would then say, "It's wrong!' but as Parker often pointed out, "How can I be wrong in my own interpretations?" The Two Man Set in the book is exactly as Parker  wanted it at the time, with no intentional errors.
> 
> Sorry Sir, but he never did that. Those who didn't understand often found interesting explanations for what they didn't understand to pass along to students. The "joke" was on them because if they wanted to know, all they had to do was ask. If he wanted you to know, he would answer you. If he didn't want you to know, he woud tell you everything.


I didn't think it a viable target, but if executed down the centerline it might be the only minimally viable target.  I much prefer your answer to Jason, however.

thanks for the response.

Jeff


----------



## Atlanta-Kenpo (Jul 7, 2005)

What I understand the motion to be is catorgy completetion and the introduction to the figure 8.  At that point in the form it shows the figure 8 pattern on the vertical line and at the end of the form you will see it on a horizontal line  If you look at long 2 you will see the orbital switch and then compare that motion to the secquence in short 2 and you will understand the catagory completetion relationship.

Short 2 
upward block (motion) with left and dowward middle knuckle rake.

Long 2
right inward block (motion) + left downward block (motion) then left upward block (motion) + right downward hammerfist.  

If you will look close you will see that on the downward motion on both forms show both sides of the circle.

Doea that make sense to anyone??

Remember that kenpo forms are there to teach the rules and principle of motion, that everything have an opposit and reverse and gives an example of each.


----------



## Doc (Jul 7, 2005)

Atlanta-Kenpo said:
			
		

> What I understand the motion to be is catorgy completetion and the introduction to the figure 8.  At that point in the form it shows the figure 8 pattern on the vertical line and at the end of the form you will see it on a horizontal line  If you look at long 2 you will see the orbital switch and then compare that motion to the secquence in short 2 and you will understand the catagory completetion relationship.
> 
> Short 2
> upward block (motion) with left and dowward middle knuckle rake.
> ...


Interesting conceptually and an intriguing intellectual exercise, but remember the goal is to defend yourself in the real world, not the intellectual one sir. The study of motion is extremely superficial in the overall scheme of things, but it is a beginning. Of course it has nothing to do with how you as a human being can, and should move to be effective. Consider that all other physically dynamic interactive activities that are performance driven study body mechanics not "motion." And their lives are not on the line, only a game. Just a thought.


----------



## jfarnsworth (Jul 7, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> ..It is a rising forearm underneath the chin, followed by a downward hammerfist to the clavicle. From there the the middle knuckle punches through in an arc that loops away from your attacker, than returns as an underhand hammerfist. However that is only what I was taught...


That's interesting. Thanks for sharing the knowledge. Always more food for thought. That follows pretty closely to what I was thinking about the form except I like the analogy of the underhand hammerfist. I should have figured that out on my own 'cause why else would it travel back up the same line.


----------



## Sigung86 (Jul 8, 2005)

Hey Doc!

Interesting discussion.  I'm sure I have been spending waaaay to much time in the midst of traditional Chinese Internal Martial Arts.  Not sure why it would be used in a Kenpo set the way it is, unless it might go back to a motion where you are manipulating a meridian.  That is the way I have always interpreted the motion.  Kind of a Sublevel 4 manipulation.  LOL

 Now... That's a possibility.  The central meridian would be in real trouble with a rake and a downward push on the flow of energy.

However, that would have to include some other motion or, rather, action to make it a completely useful implementation.

But ... Only being an ex-sixth dan in Tracy's (My knowledge was rescinded with my rank), I'm probably just shooting in the wind.

So... Next time, ask me about my pi-chuan.  As an internal stylist said of that particular fist form, "It only hurts when I pi"!  
 :whip:  <-- Nughty me attempting to escape and evade the dreadful dire stare of Doc...  :uhyeah:


----------



## Doc (Jul 8, 2005)

Sigung86 said:
			
		

> Hey Doc!
> As an internal stylist said of that particular fist form, "It only hurts when I pi"!


I can't believe you said that.


----------



## jaybacca72 (Jul 8, 2005)

hey doc does your sub 4 go hand in hand with the kenpo forms and if so which ones are they. do any of the forms break the rules of anatomical alignment? just curious that's all.
later
jay


----------



## Doc (Jul 8, 2005)

jaybacca72 said:
			
		

> hey doc does your sub 4 go hand in hand with the kenpo forms and if so which ones are they. do any of the forms break the rules of anatomical alignment? just curious that's all.
> later
> jay


What a great question. No one ever asked me that before. There is a SubLevel Four Kenpo corellation to what is known as Motion Kenpo-Karate's basic forms and sets. However as far as the forms go,  Mr. Parker made his diversion to the creation of Motion Kenpo-Karate forms and sets, after up to Short Form Three were already in place.

Although there was a period where I learned and taught 4, 5, and 6, ultimately Parker had me abanbdon them because they were not anatomically suitable to my lessons, and/or contain sequences that are incompatable with the overall philosophy of what became SL-4 that could not be adjusted or compensated for. 

I also was shown all of the examples and worked the physical terminology for the Knife set which became Form 8, but never learned in a set. The Form 8 / Knife Set is impractical in real life, and if used as designed will get you some serious felony jail time. Even possession would get you locked down in California where all martial arts weapons are a felony. By the way, I never learned the nuchauku set but I don't think very many did. 

Mr. Parker was also working on four different club sets that had law enforcement implications in applications, but for various reasons he abandoned them in favor of stringing techniques together modified with "sticks" to create a "Club Set," which subsequently became Form 7. It too is impractical and Parker only created it for the "Weapons Forms Division" at his IKC, so it really didn't matter.

SubLevel Four also has sets that are only found in SL-4, like specialized INDEX SETS, KICKING SETS, and STANCE SETS.


----------



## Atlanta-Kenpo (Jul 8, 2005)

Doc,
Just so I understand you correctly.  Did you say that you do the forms thru long 3 only?  That would make sense to me since short and long 3 are against pushes and grabs.  Form 4 is against punchs, kicks + puch kick attacks. Form 5 is the take down/fulcrum form and 6 is all weapons.  I am curious why you would not do the others since you do the techniques :idunno:  As you teach the forms is the timing any different then traditional kenpo?

SL4 is the 4 range so I am assuming (Bad habbit when your taking to a guy with a PhD I know.)  that is why you stop at long 3.  Is that correct or am I really confused again?

Please enlighten me.

As always Doc !

Thanks


----------



## Doc (Jul 8, 2005)

Atlanta-Kenpo said:
			
		

> Doc,
> Just so I understand you correctly.  Did you say that you do the forms thru long 3 only?  That would make sense to me since short and long 3 are against pushes and grabs.


Why would that make sense to you?


> Form 4 is against punchs, kicks + puch kick attacks. Form 5 is the take down/fulcrum form and 6 is all weapons.  I am curious why you would not do the others since you do the techniques.


I'm not sure what you're talking about.


> As you teach the forms is the timing any different then traditional kenpo?


SL-4 forms and sets are unique. Where there is a cross over, they are essentially reconizable but executed with a realistic practicality anatomical sound mandate. 


> SL4 is the 4 range so I am assuming that is why you stop at long 3.  Is that correct or am I really confused again?


I'm beginning to get the impression you think SL-4 ONLY works at distance 4, and its subcategories. That would be incorrect. SL-4 has all the ranges of other interpretations of Kenpo PLUS all of the subcategories. In other words, complete.


----------



## Atlanta-Kenpo (Jul 8, 2005)

Doc,

 I was thinking (Everyone duck!) that SL4 is the level beyond contact manipulation (out of contact, within contact, contact penitration, contact manipulation then SL4).  That being said I was assuming that you stoped at long 3 because of that exact reason.  Do you teach forms 4, 5 & 6 ?  If not, why not.  I am under the impression that form 4 in the most important form in the system.

Also, could you please explain what you ment by "realistic practicality anatomical sound mandate".  You got all smart on me and I am having trouble reaching that PhD level (Remember just a M.S. here)!  :idunno: 


I am not under the assumption that SL4 is only for pushes/grabs + holds/hugs so if I mentioned somthing that lead you in that direction I am sorry. :asian: 

Thanks as always!


----------



## Doc (Jul 9, 2005)

Atlanta-Kenpo said:
			
		

> Doc,
> I was thinking (Everyone duck!) that SL4 is the level beyond contact manipulation (out of contact, within contact, contact penitration, contact manipulation then SL4).


You're not completely off base. What you missed is the same as in Motion Kenpo-Karate. As you get closer to your attacker, the distance emcompasses everything that comes before it. Even in Motion Kenpo-Karate distance 4 INCLUDES distances 1, 2, and 3.

In SubLevel Four Kenpo the same holds true, but it also includes all of the subcategories at each distance.


> That being said I was assuming that you stoped at long 3 because of that exact reason.


That would be incorrect. We stop at what is called in Motion Kenpo-Karate Long 3 because it has no validity in their entirety relative to our execution and training philosophy.


> Do you teach forms 4, 5 & 6 ?  If not, why not.  I am under the impression that form 4 in the most important form in the system.


Perhaps that is true within your interpretation. What you should never do is make assumptions about what you call a "system" that is really a series of conceptual ideas interpreted differently from teacher to teacher. Some good, many bad.


> Also, could you please explain what you ment by "realistic practicality anatomical sound mandate".  You got all smart on me and I am having trouble reaching that PhD level (Remember just a M.S. here)!  :idunno:


An MS is just fine. Translation: "It's based on anatomy first, the philosophy of application second, and most important - its gotta work for real for students and teachers."


> I am not under the assumption that SL4 is only for pushes/grabs + holds/hugs so if I mentioned somthing that lead you in that direction I am sorry.



You are not the first to make that mistake. Some think its all about nerve strikes. Others thought it was all manipulations. The truth is its all emcompassing and when viewed from an uneducated perspective, few can actually see the difference. But you most certainly can and will feel the difference. May I suggest you go over to KenpoTalk where we have had discussions along this line previously. I feel certain most of the questions you might have will be answered there.

Thanks.

http://www.kenpotalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23
http://www.kenpotalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=85


----------



## Kenpo_man (Jul 9, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> Interesting conceptually and an intriguing intellectual exercise, but remember the goal is to defend yourself in the real world, not the intellectual one sir.


Exactly right. I think too many martial artists forget there is going to be somebody in front of them when they actually need to defend themselves.


----------



## Atlanta-Kenpo (Jul 9, 2005)

Doc,

I guess I never really thought about the forms that way.  Thanks for opening a door for me.


----------



## Doc (Jul 9, 2005)

Atlanta-Kenpo said:
			
		

> Doc,
> 
> I guess I never really thought about the forms that way.  Thanks for opening a door for me.


Piece of cake, it's all those other doors you gotta look out for.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 22, 2005)

Many people have given their thoughts about how this strike should be done, and I think perhaps the lesson to be learned is that most, if not all, of the suggestions are valid.  I don't think it makes sense to get too hung up on the fine details of exactly the textbook technique.  The body has many sensitive targets, often located near each other.  Feel free to hit any of them, depending on what might be exposed and unprotected.


michael


----------



## Doc (Sep 22, 2005)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Many people have given their thoughts about how this strike should be done, and I think perhaps the lesson to be learned is that most, if not all, of the suggestions are valid.  I don't think it makes sense to get too hung up on the fine details of exactly the textbook technique.  The body has many sensitive targets, often located near each other.  Feel free to hit any of them, depending on what might be exposed and unprotected.
> michael


Then you sir would miss the whole point of learning sequential movements and their applications. Why not just get an acupuncture chart, and learn all the weak points and avoid all those pesky forms, sets, and techniques?  There are reasons these things exist.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 22, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> Then you sir would miss the whole point of learning sequential movements and their applications. Why not just get an acupuncture chart, and learn all the weak points and avoid all those pesky forms, sets, and techniques?  There are reasons these things exist.


nope, don't think so.  The sequential movement teaches you a viable method of delivering an attack, which can be effective against many different targets.  Application of a self-defense technique is a dynamic situation where circumstances change quickly.  This change doesn't matter if you aren't too attached to the target you think you are supposed to hit, rather than the target that is available, and still effective.


----------



## DavidCC (Sep 22, 2005)

As someone who is still climbing that leanring curve (feeling like sisyphus sometimes), the sequential techniques are teaching me how to flow from one target to the next.  Perhaps, Flying Crane, you have forgoten what it was like to be an un-coordinated beginner 


And also I think that there is a value above and beyond just that; some sequential techniqes offer a "benefit" or effect that is greater than just the sum of the parts.  at the most simple level, for example, inducing the opponent to bend forward so that they collide with a rising knee.  But even deeper that that too...


----------



## Doc (Sep 22, 2005)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> nope, don't think so.  The sequential movement teaches you a viable method of delivering an attack, which can be effective against many different targets.  Application of a self-defense technique is a dynamic situation where circumstances change quickly.  This change doesn't matter if you aren't too attached to the target you think you are supposed to hit, rather than the target that is available, and still effective.


I don't think we are in too much of a disagreement sir, however the tendancy in training to "cut to the shorthand" is what is wrong in most training today. There is much, much more to learn than "how to hit, and what to hit." But like I said, I think for the most part we agree sir.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 22, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> I don't think we are in too much of a disagreement sir, however the tendancy in training to "cut to the shorthand" is what is wrong in most training today. There is much, much more to learn than "how to hit, and what to hit." But like I said, I think for the most part we agree sir.


right-on.  I think there are a million and one ways to analyze this stuff, but we can get to the same end.  Many paths are the "right" path and get you to where you need to be.

michael


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 22, 2005)

DavidCC said:
			
		

> As someone who is still climbing that leanring curve (feeling like sisyphus sometimes), the sequential techniques are teaching me how to flow from one target to the next. Perhaps, Flying Crane, you have forgoten what it was like to be an un-coordinated beginner
> 
> 
> And also I think that there is a value above and beyond just that; some sequential techniqes offer a "benefit" or effect that is greater than just the sum of the parts. at the most simple level, for example, inducing the opponent to bend forward so that they collide with a rising knee. But even deeper that that too...


Hi David,

well, I hope I have not forgotten what it is like to be a beginner.  I have been training with a sifu in Chinese martial arts for about eight years now, and no matter what I do, all I hear from him is "hmmm.... it's ...ok...,needs more work!" 

My comments about the technique are a product of the fact that I have wrestled with these issues for many years.  I have always felt that kenpo is a great system and has a lot of really useful stuff in it.  I have also felt that Tracys kenpo, which I train, has, maybe, too much stuff in it.  Tracys kept everything from the early days, while Parker made modifications and looked for ways to streamline the curriculum in an attempt to make the system better.  Consequently, I have always questioned how well I would really be able to use my techniques (thankfully, I have never had my life put on the line to test this!).  It is really easy to get wrapped up in all the different techniques, and all the different variations that go along with them.  It can be overwhelming, and, I believe, can cause an overload that prevents you from doing anything (or at least anything effective).  In light of this, I have taken a critical eye to my kenpo, and have begun really looking for the "meat" of the technique.  Get past all the fluff and the variations, and look for the useful concept that the technique contains.  And that concept can be applied all over the place.  So, if the sequential movement teaches a way to deliver a strike, that strike can be applied under many circumstances.  I think it doesn't matter, when it comes to real application, if you hit the target exactly as it is prescribed in the "textbook".  What matters is that the idea of how to deliver the strike effectively was used to deliver an effective strike, to an effective target.  I do tend to ramble, but I hope this helps you understand where I am comming from.

Michael


----------



## Doc (Sep 22, 2005)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Hi David,
> 
> well, I hope I have not forgotten what it is like to be a beginner.  I have been training with a sifu in Chinese martial arts for about eight years now, and no matter what I do, all I hear from him is "hmmm.... it's ...ok...,needs more work!"
> 
> ...


It's hard to know, what you don't know.
"hmmm.... it's ...ok..., needs more work!"


----------



## DavidCC (Sep 22, 2005)

I do, and I agree


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 22, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> It's hard to know, what you don't know.
> "hmmm.... it's ...ok..., needs more work!"


DAMN RIGHT!!! heh heh heh


----------

