# Delayed Sword Gone Bad?



## MJS (May 30, 2006)

Came across this video clip and thought I'd post it here for discussion. I know that we've had discussion on here in the past about pinning vs not pinning when doing this technique. I thought it was interesting to see a possible follow up on the opponents part if you don't do the pin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxESlzJvgPg&search=kenpo

Mike


----------



## michaeledward (May 30, 2006)

With the ability to pause the video playback, and replay the video, there are a couple of things to note. 

First, the initial block missed on a couple of points; it was above the elbow, which means the defender would have been clocked if the attackers intent was that roundhouse punch *and* it was not effective in stunning the attackers' use of the arm - make your block a strike.

The attacker stated he was going to throw a punch, the conclusion was that there was going to be a hand block. Of course, the attacker new he was playing a game with that round house, so his punch wasn't coming in with full force. It was a feint.  Not knowing what the class was working on prior to this clip, the attacker may also have known the next move was kick (if, for instance, they were working Delayed Sword). 

Lastly, at the end of the motion, it looks like the defender has the attacker in a pretty effective headlock. Although, the fight may have gone to the ground before that point.

All the cards seem to be in the attackers hand .... as he is presenting the material .... but the result seems to be, at best a draw. Obscure the defenders actions a bit more with uncertainty, and we could have clearer point of view.


----------



## ChrisWTK (May 30, 2006)

See this topic from Bullshido, it might explain the video more for you.
http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=34859


----------



## JamesB (May 30, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> Came across this video clip and thought I'd post it here for discussion. I know that we've had discussion on here in the past about pinning vs not pinning when doing this technique. I thought it was interesting to see a possible follow up on the opponents part if you don't do the pin.Mike


From the attacker's point of view it didn't look like Delayed Sword - which is as I understand, a grab technique. The video seemed to show the attacker (Mr O'Briant) not committing to the grab, and rather punching instead, then continuing in with forward momentum for a low tackle. i.e the intent was not to grab, but to distract with a punch then tackle and take down.Can't tell from the video alone what the purpose of the demonstration was - maybe a 'what if' scenario - i.e. the defender interprets the 'attack' and instinctively step back to execute Delayed Sword, only to find that there was no grab and now there is a bigger problem to deal with (the tackle). From my understanding, if there is no pin, there is no Delayed Sword. Another technique needs to be substituted here instead. The most important thing is to establish a stable base and deal with the punching arm. The clip didn't in my opinion illustrate this idea but then I think the purpose of the demonstration was to explore what if something goes wrong, rather than focus on what happens when you get it right..


----------



## JamesB (May 30, 2006)

ChrisWTK said:
			
		

> See this topic from Bullshido, it might explain the video more for you.
> http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=34859


 
hmm yes, in that thread Mr O'Briant clearly states that the purpose of the demonstration was to make clear why he doesn't teach D.S. against a punch - and the clip shows what happened when the defender tried to apply D.S. against an attack it is was not designed for.


----------



## Andrew Green (May 30, 2006)

I think the same thing I thought when I saw this on that other place, right idea, but he seriously needs to work on those takedown skills


----------



## Carol (May 30, 2006)

*scratching my head*

OK I'll bite.  Uhhh...what is the point?  

Is the attack of delayed sword such a controversy that an intstructor needs to demonstrate on video how it does NOT work with an attack he does NOT do?

I feel like I missed a memo somewhere.


----------



## pete (May 30, 2006)

coupla points:

1. the clip captures one part of a seminar and shows how DS in the ideal phase is not effective in cancelling all dimensions when the attack is a right punch.
2. what is not shown in the clip, but was taught in the class, was how DS in ideal phase is effective against a committed right handed grab, is not effective against a non-committed right handed grab, and how to ARMM the technique to apply it against the right punch without making yourself vunerable to the shoot. (ARMM: Adjust, Regulate, Monitor, Modify)


----------



## MJS (May 30, 2006)

Carol Kaur said:
			
		

> *scratching my head*
> 
> OK I'll bite. Uhhh...what is the point?
> 
> ...


 
Hi Carol,

There has been discussion on this technique in the past, specifically on the nature of the attack.  Some schools doing a grab, and some doing it off of a punch.  Speaking for myself, I've been taught both ways.  I don't want to speak for Clyde, and I may be wrong, but I believe the point he was trying to make, was that its important to fully understand the proper attack, as well as taking into consideration any "what ifs" that may happen along the way.   I highly doubt he is bashing the technique, but showing what could happen if its not properly taught.

Mike


----------



## Carol (May 30, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> Hi Carol,
> 
> There has been discussion on this technique in the past, specifically on the nature of the attack. Some schools doing a grab, and some doing it off of a punch. Speaking for myself, I've been taught both ways. I don't want to speak for Clyde, and I may be wrong, but I believe the point he was trying to make, was that its important to fully understand the proper attack, as well as taking into consideration any "what ifs" that may happen along the way. I highly doubt he is bashing the technique, but showing what could happen if its not properly taught.
> 
> Mike


 

Ahhhhh those darn "what ifs"  

OK that plus the demo being part of a bigger picture makes a lot more sense to me now.  I didn't think he would be bashing the technique...but...sometimes I need the obvious explained to me 


Thanks!


----------



## HKphooey (May 30, 2006)

pete said:
			
		

> coupla points:
> 
> 1. the clip captures one part of a seminar and shows how DS in the ideal phase is not effective in cancelling all dimensions when the attack is a right punch.
> 2. what is not shown in the clip, but was taught in the class, was how DS in ideal phase is effective against a committed right handed grab, is not effective against a non-committed right handed grab, and how to ARMM the technique to apply it against the right punch without making yourself vunerable to the shoot. (ARMM: Adjust, Regulate, Monitor, Modify)


 
Thanks.

I would also say the student learned what happens when he doe not solidify his base as he steps back.  He never had a solid stance.

See thread on Stability...http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=34343


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 30, 2006)

The problem was that once the attack became a tackle the DS doer didn't sprawl and kept attempting delayed sword. He was taken out of time.
Sean


----------



## pete (May 30, 2006)

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> The problem was that once the attack became a tackle the DS doer didn't sprawl


 sprawl is not necessarily the best response.  if the guy is looking to shoot your legs, he wants you down because he may have an advantage there. a kenpoists advantage is to remain standup vs the grappler and sprawl perhaps as a last resort.


----------



## Andrew Green (May 30, 2006)

No, sprawling is your best course of action if you want to stay on your feet...?


----------



## Carol (May 30, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> No, sprawling is your best course of action if you want to stay on your feet...?


 
Gents,forgive the sidebar... I haven't done enough grappling to really know what sprawling is.  Would one of you mind taking a moment to explain?


----------



## Andrew Green (May 30, 2006)

This should give you the basic idea:

http://innovativema.ca/forum/view.php?pg=doubleleg


----------



## Carol (May 30, 2006)

WOW!

You ROCK Andrew!  Thank you so much!  :asian:


----------



## BallistikMike (May 30, 2006)

Sprawling is a very high percentage way of staying on your feet against a shoot.

As well as allowing you to get on top and over your opponent when done correctly.

Also it is not the only way to stop a shoot. Strength, size, natural ability come into play. Not many will agree with me but rooting (lack of a better term) is a pretty good way also and you see it quite often in MMA competiton. The shot was taken, the leg has been grabbed, but the guy/gal being grabbed doesn't let the leg get picked or allow the sweep to happen if it goes high.

Of course a number of factors may have caused this like a bad shoot, no forward drive, no set up to the shoot, etc...

I find it quite funny how some of the grappling crowed looks down on the stability of a good stance and when it stops a shot dead in its tracks they blame the shot as being bad instead of the stance/stability being good.

Stance training is the most important part of training imho. It creates everything else.


----------



## Andrew Green (May 30, 2006)

"Rooting" will not stop a takedown, what you are seeing is more then just "rooting", you also got to break down the angles, know what he can do, break his posture, etc.  It is not "stance" that keeps them up.  There is also a whizzer or a cross face or something else in there, but the most reliable defence is the sprawl, hands down.  Other stuff can come into play, but without a good sprawl to back it you're going to end up on your back.


----------



## Carol (May 30, 2006)

I'm going to look like a noob again...and ask for your forgiveness for yet another sidebar...

Rooting?  This is something I don't really have a good grasp of.  Could I trouble you again for a hand in understanding this?


----------



## Andrew Green (May 30, 2006)

Extend your chi into the ground becoming difficult to move 

Or...

Dropping your weight in a anotomically sound position that makes you difficult to move.

Depends on your chi leanings


----------



## Zoran (May 30, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> No, sprawling is your best course of action if you want to stay on your feet...?



Agreed, and it should be in everyones basic techs (my school has it). You also need a tech or two to do if the sprawl can't happen or the opportunity is lost.


----------



## Carol (May 30, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Extend your chi into the ground becoming difficult to move
> 
> Or...
> 
> ...


 
:asian: :asian: :asian: 

Thank you so much.


----------



## Andrew Green (May 30, 2006)

Also see this thread: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=34355





			
				Carol Kaur said:
			
		

> I'm going to look like a noob again...and ask for your forgiveness for yet another sidebar...
> 
> Rooting?  This is something I don't really have a good grasp of.  Could I trouble you again for a hand in understanding this?


----------



## Rick Wade (May 30, 2006)

If the kick had been executed properly 
(not a shot to the groin) trying to displace the hips up and back the technique would have worked. I work out with allot of guys from MMA. I basically use yellow and orange belt material. You would be surprised that when techniques are executed with true intent how effective they are and how little grafting you need. 

I do realize that most kenpoist will not agree with me on this but this is what makes us great.

V/R

Rick


----------



## HKphooey (May 30, 2006)

Rick, I tend to agree with you.  I have always aimed the front kick to the lead leg.  That way, if I miss the block, I take out the knee.  


Also, I am not stating that rooting is the only option, just stating that (IMO) the technique had many holes in it.  Sprawling works well once the individual is very proficient, but can also cause you to lose the initial base/base you had.

I do agree the student needs multiple options.


----------



## bujuts (May 30, 2006)

First, we should recognize that the attacker was demonstrating a variation of the attack while the attackee was executing a half-hearted response. The attackee was going through a few motions to set the stage for a particular lesson, and its not surprising that he wasn't doing it full bore in his defense. Consequently, the change in attack made it appear as though his version of DS wouldn't work.

But, on the execution of DS, I would offer the following which may or may not have been brought up in the discussion that day.

1) The right arm lost the bracing angle slightly. This is a common mistake when people "cock" the hand back for the knife hand strike. This leaves only the lead deltoid to withstand the attacker's mass should it keep coming, which it did here. Its just no competition in this case, the incoming mass will dominate that single muscle group with absolutely no problem. What appears to happen here is as the arm was extended for a strike, it was snuffed up by Clyde's shoulder as he dove in. Also, if you pause the clip on the block, you see that it tracked the arm well past where an inward block belongs, and started moving downward, further exposing the deltoid.

As I understand it, Ed Parker talked about rounding the corner and elongating the circle. In DS, we have an opportunity to round the corner, and the corner in this case being the intersection of two paths of action, the block and the strike. Keeping in context with the "attack the attack" premise, the purpose of that right hand is to deliver a stunning strike to the neck, collar bone, etc. It should hit with a full bracing angle supported by the mass landing simultaneously with the landing of the front foot after the kick (graviational engagement). The the inward block is simply an aligned motion to the opposite side of the outer rim, clearing the debris of the incoming arm prior to its tracking of the offending arm into the neck.

So, maintaining this bracing angle may or may not have thwarted that takedown, depending on the integrity of the neutral bow. What a bracing angle would have done - whether snuffed by the attackers shoulder, chest, neck, or whatever - is maintain the defender's control over his own Outer Rim. He may have been driven back, or the attacker may have slipped to the side, but the bracing angle would remain their to maintain his critical space.

2) A "snap" kick will work only so well here. It might crush the genitals into supporting tissue, yes, but the leg must act as a battering ram to displace the hips. When we practice this, the target with the kick is the pelvic girdle. The genitals are just tissue covering our true target - the skeleton.

3) I personally have issues with first stepping back to then rotate into the neutral bow, primarily because of the time it takes. This is a very common practice, and for that reason I may come across as being off my rocker. But, bracing angles and control of the Outer Rim should be achieved _instantaneously_ at the onset of violence, even a spinal response.

As an illustration, examine the amount of time it takes to get from a natural standing position to a neutral bow, in any direction. Now put someone in front of you who really knows how to shoot in, say at your legs' distance from you. Try to hit your neutral bow in time to establish a base before they're on top of you. Its not easy. Now compare that to the time to raise your arms up to essentially two bracing angles. You'll likely find that your arms simply get there quicker, and even though you can be blown back, you can still maintain control of your Outer Rim.

Its interesting to observe that its quicker to bring a fortified defense of your your Outer Rim than it is to establish your neutral bow. Also, the primary driving force available to you in the natural standing position is rotation.

All in all though, I still don't see this as a DS gone bad. Again this DS was executed half heartedly because there was a lesson going on, and it could have been that the scene previous to this clip was a series of slow motions for illustrative purposes. He may have done the same thing here, only the attacker bumped it up unexpectedly. All of the sudden, its posted on the internet and all the world thinks this is how kenpo moves, or that this is how that particular practitioner moves all the time. Its not fair to the defender to intimate that this was representative of his true response.

Anyway, good discussion. I look forward to more.

Cheers,

Steven Brown
Universal Kenpo Federation


----------



## BallistikMike (May 30, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> ...
> Dropping your weight in a anotomically sound position that makes you difficult to move.
> ...


 
Yeah ^^^^ Rooting. I said nothing about chi LOL!!!

Root yourself to the spot. Also contains a lot of pummeling in order for it to work effectively. Which translates well to hooks and elbows as you swim for inside control.

Wide kneel in the EPAK stance curriculum emulates a close idea of it. 

Basically a staggered boxer's lead that flows and drops weight once your lead leg has been snugged up to chest and they are trying to pick and sweep you or drive you back. It breaks there balance by getting your hips above the hold and sometime above there shoulder if you catch them right. If your strong enough or have the leverage at certain times during the encounter it also allows you to actually complete a sprawl and really drive down on them. Which brings us back to full circle and a sprawl is the highest perctentage counter to a leg tackle (shoot).

You can also stuff the head on a poor shoot. A pivot step has been known to work well as you circle around to back while you stuff down.

If I remember that video right Clyde is grabbing the kickers leg (attempted kick) and driving back. Here is where that "rooting" would come into play and you should get comfortable having a grappler or MMA having you in that position and understand how to drive your weight down through the opponent to stop him from breaking your balance of getting you on your toes (where the take down will happen). In the cage or ring you will have a fence or ropes to stop the drive back, which could be a bar, wall or car so I say understand the sprawl, the root after a leg grab, breaking or leveraging through and continue the sprawl and finally getting up on your toes against a wall and learning how to stuff the attackers head and regain your footing.

ah...delayed sword, Had to stay on topic.


----------



## JamesB (May 31, 2006)

Rick Wade said:
			
		

> If the kick had been executed properly
> (not a shot to the groin) trying to displace the hips up and back the technique would have worked. I work out with allot of guys from MMA. I basically use yellow and orange belt material. You would be surprised that when techniques are executed with true intent how effective they are and how little grafting you need.
> 
> I do realize that most kenpoist will not agree with me on this but this is what makes us great.


 
:asian:


----------



## JamesB (May 31, 2006)

bujuts said:
			
		

> First, we should recognize that the attacker was demonstrating a variation of the attack while the attackee was executing a half-hearted response. The attackee was going through a few motions to set the stage for a particular lesson, and its not surprising that he wasn't doing it full bore in his defense. Consequently, the change in attack made it appear as though his version of DS wouldn't work.


 
agreed, but I think that was the whole point of the clip.




			
				bujuts said:
			
		

> 1) The right arm lost the bracing angle slightly. This is a common mistake when people "cock" the hand back for the knife hand strike. This leaves only the lead deltoid to withstand the attacker's mass should it keep coming, which it did here. Its just no competition in this case, the incoming mass will dominate that single muscle group with absolutely no problem. What appears to happen here is as the arm was extended for a strike, it was snuffed up by Clyde's shoulder as he dove in. Also, if you pause the clip on the block, you see that it tracked the arm well past where an inward block belongs, and started moving downward, further exposing the deltoid.


 
my inward block for DS goes to the attacker's right shoulder, provides a great way to halt any further incoming motion.




			
				bujuts said:
			
		

> 2) A "snap" kick will work only so well here. It might crush the genitals into supporting tissue, yes, but the leg must act as a battering ram to displace the hips. When we practice this, the target with the kick is the pelvic girdle. The genitals are just tissue covering our true target - the skeleton.


 
In the ideal-phase for DS I understand that the snap-kick is a gauging kick, used to manipulate the attacker into a posture that is more susceptable to the incoming hand-sword. But I agree, in this case a kick to control the hips would be more appropriate.



			
				bujuts said:
			
		

> 3) I personally have issues with first stepping back to then rotate into the neutral bow, primarily because of the time it takes. This is a very common practice, and for that reason I may come across as being off my rocker. But, bracing angles and control of the Outer Rim should be achieved _instantaneously_ at the onset of violence, even a spinal response.


 
This was discussed recently in the 'short-form-1' topic which I think you also participated in. In my experience it is more efficient to transition through a forward-bow prior to rotating out to a neutral. Not only is it faster to get there but the resulting stability of the neutral is far greater and is what one would need when dealing with the attack as shown in the video clip.


Here's an SL4 version of DS done slowly to demonstrate their technique:

Delayed-Sword


----------



## Doc (May 31, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> Came across this video clip and thought I'd post it here for discussion. I know that we've had discussion on here in the past about pinning vs not pinning when doing this technique. I thought it was interesting to see a possible follow up on the opponents part if you don't do the pin.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxESlzJvgPg&search=kenpo
> 
> Mike


First, most teach Delayed Sword for a grab if the follow the Web of Knowledge. Second, how many times I said that if you step backwards to kick you're going to be taken down? lastly, seems the guy doing the technique had a pretty good head lock on the guy when the technique failed. What was the point of this again?


----------



## Zoran (May 31, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> First, most teach Delayed Sword for a grab if the follow the Web of Knowledge. Second, how many times I said that if you step backwards to kick you're going to be taken down? lastly, seems the guy doing the technique had a pretty good head lock on the guy when the technique failed. What was the point of this again?



Maybe the real point should be that you shouldn't throw such a sloppy takedown, or at least learn how to do one properly before you do.


----------



## Carol (May 31, 2006)

Is that the final answer?  

For my young and impressionable mind?

Err....impressionable, anyway....


----------



## Andrew Green (May 31, 2006)

I think it was that if the "attacker" always stands there rather then experimenting with his options, your techniques might not work as you think they do.


----------



## pete (May 31, 2006)

.... or epak techniques are desinged in the ideal state to defend against a specific type of attack based on environment and target availability, and will cancel the attackers dimensions to prevent successive attacks.  

when a technique is used against a different attack, or the initial attack is not fully comitted and changes to something else, then the technique must be ARMM'd to the changes in environment and/or target availability.


----------



## jazkiljok (May 31, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> I think it was that if the "attacker" always stands there rather then experimenting with his options, your techniques might not work as you think they do.



at some point you either join the MMA crowd and practice sport basics as methodology to contend with street situations based on confirmable success with ring applications or you accept that you have to have something to teach based on defined parameters. all other martial arts nonsport based teach applications with define parameters-- the attacker is always dispatched according to script-- the script is used to practice and reinforce solid basics. this is how one teaches. 

like Mr. Brown pointed out-- the demo showed two slopping executions of which neither proves anything or makes any point ultimately. I'm assuming Mr. Brown would probably have a different result in his execution than the defender is this vid clip.

but if the real question supposedly being posed was, "can delayed sword work against a punch?"-- isn't that simply asking if an inward block can be effective against a punch?


----------



## pete (May 31, 2006)

jazkiljok said:
			
		

> -- isn't that simply asking if an inward block can be effective against a punch?


 more precisely: an inward block, while retreating, and not controlling the orbit of the blocked arm. 

without those specifics you could be talking about 5-swords, but those are some of the specifics that are taken into account to make 5-swords effective in the ideal state.


----------



## punisher73 (May 31, 2006)

I guess the thing I noticed and no one else has pointed out is that it was a roundhouse punch to the midsection. I have NEVER seen that tech taught for that. I have only seen it taught as a counter to a shoulder grab or a straight punch to the head.

Also, it was a sloppy take down because he does a sliding stepthrough and then tries to shoot. If the guy is knowledgeable enough to know about faking a punch to setup for a takedown he is going to use a jab most likely and not shift his balance like he did.

I think what the clip illustrates best though is when you have a preconceived notion about what the attacker is going to do and he doesn't do that, then your gameplan goes out the window and you are just reacting instead of acting.


----------



## jazkiljok (May 31, 2006)

pete said:
			
		

> more precisely: an inward block, while retreating, and not controlling the orbit of the blocked arm.
> 
> without those specifics you could be talking about 5-swords, but those are some of the specifics that are taken into account to make 5-swords effective in the ideal state.



good point.


----------



## jazkiljok (May 31, 2006)

punisher73 said:
			
		

> I guess the thing I noticed and no one else has pointed out is that it was a roundhouse punch to the midsection. I have NEVER seen that tech taught for that. I have only seen it taught as a counter to a shoulder grab or a straight punch to the head.
> 
> Also, it was a sloppy take down because he does a sliding stepthrough and then tries to shoot. If the guy is knowledgeable enough to know about faking a punch to setup for a takedown he is going to use a jab most likely and not shift his balance like he did.


did notice that too-also a good point



			
				punisher73 said:
			
		

> I think what the clip illustrates best though is when you have a preconceived notion about what the attacker is going to do and he doesn't do that, then your gameplan goes out the window and you are just reacting instead of acting.




but when someone tells you to do delayed sword and then throws a kick, tackle, shoe at you-- well, it's beyond a preconceived notion- you're being asked to do something so you comply-- then the guy demoing goes "surprise" your tek failed. might as well just throw a punch at the guy--see what he does- go to critique from there. if the lesson is going to have any point, it will inevitably still be about basics.

one other observation... if this is a demo that 's suppose to be all about adjustments etc for some what if--- and proves simply that you have no base, no block, no kick... how does all this improve with a lapel grab? what mechanism is a grab, a "deadhand" giving you to make your block/strike more effective, your base, more stablized-- your kick penetrating?


----------



## MJS (May 31, 2006)

Just for some clarification.  This clip was showing why DS should be done for a lapel grab and not a punch.  I do not think the intention of Clyde, was to discredit people.  Another thing to keep in mind regarding the takedown, is that not everyone is going to be an expert grappler.  Your typical untrained opponent is not going to execute a perfect double leg.  Josh could very well have had some prior grappling background, so that could very well explain why he landed in the position he did.  Is everyone that attempts this technique, and I'm not just talking about the folks on the forum, going to be skilled in the sprawl?  I look at this clip as a 'what if'.  What if the person does this or that?  This IMO is why we would graft or flow into another technique.

Mike


----------



## PatMunk (May 31, 2006)

There is nothing wrong with the Technique Delayed Sword if it is applied correctly. It didn't look like the person doing the technique did it with any power or proper technique.

Someone shooting in for a grappling takedown while someone was delivering a powerful front kick will/should be stopped by the kick. Delivering a powerful front kick to the groin or as they shoot in to the face will stop the attack long enough to finish with the swordhand or other strikes.

Any technique can be make to fail if the person doing the technique doesn't deliver the technique for real or if the instructor sets them up with do this technique knowing they are going to do something that the technique isn't designed to work against.

This is why everyone needs to perform all their self-defense techniques like they are doing them for real ALL the time. It's hard on Uki's  but you won't find yourself in this situation.


----------



## MJS (May 31, 2006)

JamesB said:
			
		

> Here's an SL4 version of DS done slowly to demonstrate their technique:
> 
> Delayed-Sword


 
Thanks for posting this! Its always nice to see another variation. Perhaps Doc, Dave or Bode could comment and expand a bit more on the movements in this version, compared to the usual way of executing DS.

Mike


----------



## Doc (May 31, 2006)

PatMunk said:
			
		

> There is nothing wrong with the Technique Delayed Sword if it is applied correctly.
> 
> Any technique can be make to fail if the person doing the technique doesn't deliver the technique for real or if the instructor sets them up with do this technique knowing they are going to do something that the technique isn't designed to work against.
> 
> This is why everyone needs to perform all their self-defense techniques like they are doing them for real ALL the time. It's hard on Uki's  but you won't find yourself in this situation.


Amen to that Brudda.


----------



## JamesB (May 31, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> Thanks for posting this! Its always nice to see another variation. Perhaps Doc, Dave or Bode could comment and expand a bit more on the movements in this version, compared to the usual way of executing DS.
> 
> Mike


 
It's just a clip I saw posted in another forum, can't remember when/where I found it now..

This clip would probably be a good topic for discussion in the neutral-bow / footwork thread. In particular pay very close attention to the specific footwork in the clip, the transitions through forward bows, the very specific PAMing of the foot as the defender steps backwards, and again at the moment of impact with the inward block.


----------



## Doc (Jun 1, 2006)

JamesB said:
			
		

> It's just a clip I saw posted in another forum, can't remember when/where I found it now..
> 
> This clip would probably be a good topic for discussion in the neutral-bow / footwork thread. In particular pay very close attention to the specific footwork in the clip, the transitions through forward bows, the very specific PAMing of the foot as the defender steps backwards, and again at the moment of impact with the inward block.


No inward block here James. It is an inward downward hammerfist strike.

There are many reasons Im reluctant to post videos. Partly, because without instruction, they are meaningless. The general perception that you can learn from video is a false one without prior significant knowledge of that which you are viewing, and what to look for. It is for this reason; we only use them as video notes for those taught directly by an instructor.

First, Delayed Sword was taught to me by Mr. Parker as a lapel grab, not a punch. However, we do have a punching version known as Sword of Doom, so we do entertain both scenarios.

Our philosophy about grabs and pushes are simple. It is an after-the-fact response we are training for. Treating grabs and pushes, as attempts is ludicrous. Sooner, or later all of the mortal students will be actually grabbed or pushed, and should prepare for it with proper training and an in-depth understanding of the dynamics of these type assaults.
Pushes and grabs are defined by there action that includes the momentary Contact Manipulation element.

Specifically for Delayed Sword, when you are grabbed there is an inherent Push of Aggression that is part of the elements of the assault. Attackers do not walk up to you and reach up carefully to not touch your body, and only grab your clothing. They slam there hand into your chest knocking you backwards and than seize as the intimidation tactic part of the aggressive action. Of course the assumption here is that you are caught off guard, and the action has already occurred when you recognize youre been assaulted. Unlike punches, a push or grab has already occurred and requires contact. A person may punch at you with no physical contact. Only attempts may be treated as punches not requiring contact.

Because of this aggressive action, you will be knocked off balance, and will instinctively move one, or both feet to regain your balance and control as your hands move upward instinctively to where the contact was made. That is the reason for the first step AFTER the push.

The second step is to regain control and to solidify your stance and includes the PAM (Platform Aligning Mechanism), as well as the Outward Downward Index to engage and solidify the upper and lower platforms together.

The hands are then Indexed upward. This is not only part of the alignment process, but it is also a part of the Psychology of Confrontation component That gives the attacker you have given up and he has effectively intimidated you. Meanwhile everything has been compensated for, aligned, recruited and presented for Initial Retaliation.

The victim than pivots into a neutral bow with a right inward across the face to access the Startle Reflex, and PNF Response that drops into a hammer-fist to the head of the humerus that corresponds essentially with L-1 with a PAM. This is a devastating strike capable of ending the confrontation alone. The leg on that side will collapse partially or fully, and strength will leave the right arm and hand.

The right hand maintains contact and controls the depth and distance and shifts to a front-to-back alignment.

Dragging up in preparation for a Gauging Front Kick, and controlling the distance with the right hand, kicks between the legs to lower height. After retrieving the kick, Index the depth control right hand and plant forward with a hand sword to the side of the neck at a 45-degree angle downward with a BAM.

There are other subtleties in mechanisms as well, but not actually worth discussion in writing without physical instruction. 

All that you see, is not all that you see.  Ron Chapél


----------



## MJS (Jun 1, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> Our philosophy about grabs and pushes are simple. It is an after-the-fact response we are training for. Treating grabs and pushes, as attempts is ludicrous. Sooner, or later all of the mortal students will be actually grabbed or pushed, and should prepare for it with proper training and an in-depth understanding of the dynamics of these type assaults.
> Pushes and grabs are defined by there action that includes the momentary Contact Manipulation element.


 
See, IMO, I think that this is where some confusion may lie.  You have one side who is using the thought that you're using here...once contact is made, a reaction happens.  Yes, if the person is caught off guard I certainly can see how this theory applies.  The second side is thinking along the lines of not necessarily always beign caught off guard, therefore, if the attackers arm is beginning its movement towards the defender, why wait until contact is made?  



> Specifically for Delayed Sword, when you are grabbed there is an inherent Push of Aggression that is part of the elements of the assault. Attackers do not walk up to you and reach up carefully to not touch your body, and only grab your clothing. They slam there hand into your chest knocking you backwards and than seize as the intimidation tactic part of the aggressive action. Of course the assumption here is that you are caught off guard, and the action has already occurred when you recognize youre been assaulted. Unlike punches, a push or grab has already occurred and requires contact. A person may punch at you with no physical contact. Only attempts may be treated as punches not requiring contact.
> 
> Because of this aggressive action, you will be knocked off balance, and will instinctively move one, or both feet to regain your balance and control as your hands move upward instinctively to where the contact was made. That is the reason for the first step AFTER the push.
> 
> ...


 
Good points!  Watching the video clip, I noticed many of the things that you mentioned in the other thread about movement and the Neutral Bow.  Now, I know that there has been countless discussion on the 'motion theory' of Kenpo, etc. etc., but obviously you have a different way of looking at these techniques.  Would you say that the motion version is taking any of these things that you speak of in the above quote, into consideration?

Mike


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Jun 1, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> Now, I know that there has been countless discussion on the 'motion theory' of Kenpo, etc. etc., but obviously you have a different way of looking at these techniques. Would you say that the motion version is taking any of these things that you speak of in the above quote, into consideration?
> 
> Mike


 
I won't pretend to be able to speak for Doc, but based on my own exposure to kenpo, and limited exposure to SL4, no. If you reference the perspective of a different starting position, you reach different conclusions, through different avenues of reasoning. Many of the driving concepts in SL4 aren't found in mainstream kenpo; or, better yet, aren't focused on there. Many ideas that inform SL4 are mentioned in the encyclopedia, and kenpo fans will argue to death over what they mean, and what splitting hairs over them looks like. Anatomical alignment is in kenpo; few use the corrective mechanisms that create it, preferring to interpret AA as HWD or body geometry issues only. And so on. 

SL4 training is rather heady compared to mainstream; there is more packed into a tech conceptually and technically, and it takes longer to get. As such, it does not lend itself well to large classes making lots of money. Too many notes for the hobbyists ears. Classes are small, intense, long, hard on old bones, and packed with new info, as well as review of old. If you fly-on-the-wall an evening at Doc's, you'll not only get some real eye-openers and aha's around "classical" kenpo theory, applied, but exposed to some new ideas which, left on your own, you could spend years injecting into your kenpo to make ongoing improvements.

Different starting position, seeking different goals = different material. My own opinion; I could be wrong.

Regards,

Dave


----------



## Doc (Jun 1, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> See, IMO, I think that this is where some confusion may lie.  You have one side who is using the thought that you're using here...once contact is made, a reaction happens.  Yes, if the person is caught off guard I certainly can see how this theory applies.  The second side is thinking along the lines of not necessarily always beign caught off guard, therefore, if the attackers arm is beginning its movement towards the defender, why wait until contact is made?


I know the train of thought. "Super ninja squirrel I'll never be caught off guard idiot school." I've seen cops confront suspects when they anticipate the possibility and still get caught off guard. This "total awareness" all the time is simply to justify the fact the most instructors have no idea how to deal with the attack when it actually happens. On another note, only an idiot would wait to be pushed or grabbed if he saw it coming. That is equally ludicrous. The real question is; Which method better prepares you for real world confrontations? Pretending you will always see the push or grab coming and react with cat-like ninja reflexes all the time, or admit your own mortality? These techniques were designed to force you to explore the consequences of the attacks and work out solutions because Mr. Parker couldn't spend the time so he gave you the hint. Much like all the locks and throws and takedowns suggested but never taught. It was your instructor responsibility to inject common sense into your training. Parker laid the commercial framework. Instead lazy instructors turned everything into attempts. It didn't matter. Punches, grabs, pushes, kicks, everything. How dumb is that. "I'm going to let you grab me, but I'm not going to REALLY let you grab me." Wink wink!

Muhammad Ali got in the ring with the heads up that Joe Frazier wanted to rip his head off, so he was definitely paying attention, but still got hit. You don't really think you could go about your daily life on a day-to-day basis and no one ever have the opportunity to actually grab or shove you do you? Would you bet money on it? How about your life?

People have to believe in the "attempt" school of thought, because if they don't, they won't have a teacher.



> Would you say that the motion version is taking any of these things that you speak of in the above quote, into consideration?


Depends on the teacher, but in general no, not even close.


----------



## HKphooey (Jun 1, 2006)

I originally learned Delayed Sword for a lapel grab, then a punch, then an attempted push. I then used the the 50-60+ other kenpo techniques that be used against similar attacks (glancing salute, triggered salute, lone kimono, and so on...). Isn't that the nature of our kenpo training? Anticipate as many scenarios as possible and have a solution for each. By design, a punch, a lapel grab and a punch each have different levels of force and destinations. The result of each movement determines our next movement and the level of retaliation. A push to me is more of an agressive attempt and the result of a failed reaction results in a step backwords (and a slight upper torso pivot). From there I have many options I have been taught. With a punch, I have more to lose. If I do not make contact with a forceful block - I get a shot to the face, throat or sternum. I agree my first course of action in this type of attack is meet it with a solid inward/diagonal hammerfist. I think one other key point is what is the left hand doing throughout this type of attack.

In the case of this video, the right inward block could have easily transitioned into a solid hammerfist to the temple or base of the skull. The left hand could have also been used the force the attacker's head downward.

Just my thoughts.


----------



## Atlanta-Kenpo (Jun 1, 2006)

Let me just say that for the record it looks like Clyde is trying to make Josh look bad .  Looking at the video I would say that if you only think in the frame work of "hey that wasn't DS this or DS that" then you can say what you will.  However, in my eyes Josh ended up in a dominate position and from there Clyde would have been fish food.  It looked like to me that Josh did a pretty dam good job countering. Good job in my book. 

Too many EPAK folks out there are to focused on doing technique lines and not enough time really going at it and finding out what works for them.  Technique lines are great in the begining but you have to start learning how to counter and re-counter sometime.  As Lee Wedalke and Zack Whitson have all told me many times.  It is all there in the system but you need a qualified instructor to show you how and then it is up to you to figure out for yourself how to make it work for you.  Mr Parker gave us all the answers.  We just have to ask the right questions.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jun 1, 2006)

As much as it pains me to admit Clyde would have a valid point...he does in a way. Ugh...that hurt. A standard technique used by grapplers is to feign with a punch prior to shooting for a leg(s). This draws your attention away from what they're really up to so they can hopefully avoid a knee to the face. LOL. 

The hole in his argument is that a properly trained Kenpoist will (1) not "reach" for the block. If it's not going to make contact we will not fool with it so the feign is ineffective. (2) a properly executed "block" (I use the word "block" loosely as most Kenpoist consider them strikes after a certain stage of development) will alter the attackers zones in such a way that moving down and in toward you leg will be improbable or unlikely. 

So...practice your basics! Over and over and over. If you execute the technique properly, you probably won't have to worry about the shoot. But that doesn't mean you should not train in ways to defend it or be aware that something like this could happen if you execute techniques ineffectively.


----------

