# KT:Pick a technique to eliminate from the system



## Clark Kent (Jul 11, 2007)

*Pick a technique to eliminate from the system
By Rich_Hale - Wed, 11 Jul 2007 03:42:32 GMT
Originally Posted at: KenpoTalk*
====================

I continually see the same theme in assessing the value of a technique. "Would I use it on the street?" Or is it street practical?"

Doesn't anyone give credence to Mr. Parker's statement:

"I teach Kenpo, not for the sake of teaching the techniques, but for the principles involved in them." (Karate Kung-Fu Oct. 1986)

Another point is that although I'm not crazy about the ideal phase of several techniques we should consider where the technique leads us in the end, not where it has us start in the beginning.

Now, as for the likelihood of anyone needing to defend against an aggressive handshake. I agree that it is unlikely that we ever will, but then again what is the likelihood that we will ever defend against a right hand hair grab, flank shoulder grab, front wrist lock, left rear cross over right heel kick, right and left shoulder grab by two men, or a right front snap kick followed by a left spinning back kick? 

For that matter what is the likelihood we will ever have to defend against a club, knife or gun attack? 

What is the likelihood we will ever have to defend ourselves at all? 

So what do we do, get rid of every technique that we are unlikely to be attacked by? Or is it the age old problem of wanting to get rid of techniques that we find difficult to accomplish?

Ed Parker Jr. stated it best when he said the first techniques he hears complaints about are the "grappling" techniques where we have to actually control our opponent. 

Yes they're difficult to make work as our opponent doesn't always react in the way we want, or expect, them to. But "Contact Manipulation" is indeed part of our curriculum. 

Not to slam my Tae Kwon Do buddies, as I have a black in Tae Kwon Do myself, but if you want to avoid Contact Manipulation I highly recommend Tae Kwon Do, or a similar art. Our techniques consisted of our partner executing an attack then standing there (unmoving) while we hit and kicked them a few times. 

I suggest we take a poll and allow each forum member to delete one technique from the "Ed Parker" system of 154 techniques and see what we have left in a couple of months. 

I hope I don't sound too harsh as that is not my intention, so I'll start off with the first elimination . . . I say we get rid of Form 5 as my knees aren't what they used to be. 

Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot we were eliminating techniques (this week) not forms . . . I'll wait my turn. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			







Read More...


------------------------------------
KenpoTalk.com Post Bot - Kenpo Feed


----------



## Hand Sword (Jul 11, 2007)

I'd go with alternating maces. Unless you are ready to move instantly a push is going to happen. As most will be talking or trying to to get out of the situation, the push will catch you.


----------



## Doc (Jul 11, 2007)

Hand Sword said:


> I'd go with alternating maces. Unless you are ready to move instantly a push is going to happen. As most will be talking or trying to to get out of the situation, the push will catch you.


... or better yet, instead of eliminating the technique, teach it as it is really designed; for a push, NOT an ATTEMPTED push. Of course that might require a tad more knowledge. Ummm, maybe Parker thought some would rise to the level of the material, instead of eliminating what they don't understand and can't do. Whoa dude! Good obs Handsword. You're right. You're going to get pushed. So better train for it, instead of pretending we're some kinda super secret ninja who will always react before we can get pushed. Not!

It always bugs me that some treat every technique as some form of a punch. We can block punches, but we can't block pushes, grabs, locks, and holds. Why? Because they've already happened. If they haven't already happened, than they're all unrealistic attempts, and we should punch everyone who enters our personal space to be on the safe side. Let me know if you need bail money. I know a good bondsman 

Right on the money Handsword, good obs.


----------



## Carol (Jul 11, 2007)

Doc said:


> It always bugs me that some treat every technique as some form of a punch. We can block punches, but we can't block pushes, grabs, locks, and holds.



Bugs me too, for different reasons.  I'd love to see more ladies get involved in Martial Arts and I know many schools that would like more female students.  Its difficult to get ladies to walk through the door, but not all of them are inspired by seeing two 200 pound dudes punching each other in the chest.

An introduction to an instructor that can show them how they could defend themselves if someone is grabbing for their purse, or when an angry lover is trying to pull them in to another room...that I think would get much more attention.


----------



## Doc (Jul 11, 2007)

Carol Kaur said:


> .
> ..  or when an angry lover is trying to pull them in to another room...that I think would get much more attention.


Uh, nevermind.


----------



## Doc (Jul 11, 2007)

Carol Kaur said:


> Bugs me too, for different reasons.  I'd love to see more ladies get involved in Martial Arts and I know many schools that would like more female students.  Its difficult to get ladies to walk through the door, but not all of them are inspired by seeing two 200 pound dudes punching each other in the chest.
> 
> An introduction to an instructor that can show them how they could defend themselves if someone is grabbing for their purse, or when an angry lover is trying to pull them in to another room...that I think would get much more attention.


I too would like to see it, but women are subject to the same misinformation as men even with the absence of testosterone. The truth is learning to defend yourself on the level that most want is difficult regardless of gender. Men have the added advantage of muscle mass, and the aggressive tendancies brought on by testosterone and masculine culture. Translation; men hit each other for fun. That coupled with a culture that attacks men in much less numbers as women. Realistically the numbers should be reversed, but they're not. The ones that need the training the most, are culturally precluded from accepting what is physically necessary to get it. Fair? No, but real. I've had some very competent women that I've taught. All of them very competent. The trick is to get them to stay around long enough to see the benefit. Then they do something weird, like get married or have babies. That's no way to become a Kenpo Master.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Jul 11, 2007)

Can I cheat and not eliminate a technique, but rather a tendency?

In the brown belts, I see what I call "Dancing on the Grave", like at the end of The Bear and the Ram.  When the bad guy/guys are on the ground, and there's a complex series of stomps, steps and kicks when, by rights, you should be getting the heck out of there.

At my school, we've eliminated most of that stuff and move right from takedown to situational assessment, cover and escape.


----------



## Hand Sword (Jul 12, 2007)

Doc said:


> ... or better yet, instead of eliminating the technique, teach it as it is really designed; for a push, NOT an ATTEMPTED push. Of course that might require a tad more knowledge. Ummm, maybe Parker thought some would rise to the level of the material, instead of eliminating what they don't understand and can't do. Whoa dude! Good obs Handsword. You're right. You're going to get pushed. So better train for it, instead of pretending we're some kinda super secret ninja who will always react before we can get pushed. Not!
> 
> It always bugs me that some treat every technique as some form of a punch. We can block punches, but we can't block pushes, grabs, locks, and holds. Why? Because they've already happened. If they haven't already happened, than they're all unrealistic attempts, and we should punch everyone who enters our personal space to be on the safe side. Let me know if you need bail money. I know a good bondsman
> 
> Right on the money Handsword, good obs.


 
Plus, with those kind of techniques happening, the first response from the defender will be what has been pre programmed already. For instnance, the pushes. I've noticed the natural reaction of people. That is both arms coming up and the hands are used to try and hook the attacker's, or kind of pin, like grabbing for a branch when falling.. We used to do experiments with it, randomly, and the reaction was nearly always the same. Some times they hands were caught, sometimes naught. The reaction was quick and immediate though. A whole different movement to build a trained response from than punches. They are at least initailly defended by some basic arm throw up. Similar to blocking, where their trained responses can flow easier.


----------



## Hand Sword (Jul 12, 2007)

Doc said:


> ... or better yet, instead of eliminating the technique, teach it as it is really designed; for a push, NOT an ATTEMPTED push. Of course that might require a tad more knowledge. Ummm, maybe Parker thought some would rise to the level of the material, instead of eliminating what they don't understand and can't do.


 

I think that answer could be applied to any answer given for this thread.


----------



## Doc (Jul 12, 2007)

Hand Sword said:


> Plus, with those kind of techniques happening, the first response from the defender will be what has been pre programmed already. For instnance, the pushes. I've noticed the natural reaction of people. That is both arms coming up and the hands are used to try and hook the attacker's, or kind of pin, like grabbing for a branch when falling.. We used to do experiments with it, randomly, and the reaction was nearly always the same. Some times they hands were caught, sometimes naught. The reaction was quick and immediate though. A whole different movement to build a trained response from than punches. They are at least initailly defended by some basic arm throw up. Similar to blocking, where their trained responses can flow easier.


You're right again sir. They are activating a "Startle Reflex Mechanism" and the body tends to move the hands toward the area where contact is made, or where the perceived threat is. Part of the autonomic nervous system moving the PNF sensors to ascertain the state of the body, as well as protect itself.

The best reaction in the case of most pushes is to utilize the 'Startle Reflexes' to Index the arms in conjunction with footwork to regain body stability and alignment, so that retaliation is not only available, but anatomically effective.


----------



## bujuts (Jul 12, 2007)

I think the first thing that came to my mind on this subject was Two Man Set.  Don't know this Set, don't know the history or origins of it, and its not a part of our cirriculum.  I've seen it a number of times and don't care much for it.  I didn't see any serious focus on principles that wouldn't come out in a diligent study of other things within the system.

But, I'm always willing to hear from another angle.  Might anyone enlighten me on the principled benefits of this Set, if indeed it is endorsed in your cirruculum? (Doc? anyone?)

As for other stuff, I agree with Doc on that all the techniques have a particular lesson in principles.  It is those I chase down, especially the importance of the initial attack and how to deal with it.  Everything in my cirriculum is there for a reason, and if its not clear to me its an obvious shortcoming in my own knowledge.

Thanks,

Steven Brown
UKF


----------



## Doc (Jul 13, 2007)

bujuts said:


> I think the first thing that came to my mind on this subject was Two Man Set.  Don't know this Set, don't know the history or origins of it, and its not a part of our cirriculum.  I've seen it a number of times and don't care much for it.  I didn't see any serious focus on principles that wouldn't come out in a diligent study of other things within the system.
> 
> But, I'm always willing to hear from another angle.  Might anyone enlighten me on the principled benefits of this Set, if indeed it is endorsed in your cirruculum? (Doc? anyone?)
> 
> ...


Two-Man Set? We don't need no stinkin Two-Man Set. 

Seriously, there are many versions in the Parker and Tracy Line of various names. The original was done when Parker was in a state of transition and called his art "Chinese Kenpo" and was included in his book "Secrets of Chinese Karate," published in 1963. 

To that end he borrowed "Tiger & Crane," "Two-Man Set," and "Staff Set" from other sources. Ultimately he dropped them all from all versions of his arts. He cut off the "Chinese" branch in favor of working on an "American Kenpo Branch," but was diverted by circumstances to move to a motion based commercial system. "Staff Set" survived in the commercial art, but was not a part of the American Kenpo he envisioned.

I have never sir, taught Two-Man Set as a part of any of the curriculm requirements I have utilized over the years. Having come from the Chinese Arts, the validity of the sets were always questioned by my teachers.


----------



## Hand Sword (Jul 13, 2007)

Still playing along with the eliminating part (changing can be another thread)......how about "sword and hammer". The trap and settle part-ok. The turning into an oncoming punch to chop the throat, I've always felt bothered by.


----------



## Doc (Jul 13, 2007)

Hand Sword said:


> Still playing along with the eliminating part (changing can be another thread)......how about "sword and hammer". The trap and settle part-ok. The turning into an oncoming punch to chop the throat, I've always felt bothered by.



Here the assumption rises its ugly head again. Who said it was for a punch? Who said you need to trap the hand? "Sword & Hammer is a great technique as I teach it on multiple levels, and is both humane and devastating as desired. On a default level it is a simple shoulder grab. On a more sophisticated level, it may include additional assaults. Doesn't matter. Proper execution of the default scenario handles both.

Food for thought:

When you examine this technique and include the Psycology of Confrontation Componant, you may surmize that that an atacker approching from the blind flank with an intent to strike you, will do so without prior physical contact to take you by surprise an insure the assault is successful.

Generally when a person approaches from the blind, and places hand(s) on you, his primary intent (at least for the moment) is intimidation and physical control of your person. He may decide to strike you as a secondary assault if he doesn't receive the anticpated reaction.

The technique is designed at that level as a simple shoulder grab for a reason. (See the Web of Knowledge) Afterall, although there may be variances, I think for most it's a technique a beginner learns for his first belt.


----------



## Hand Sword (Jul 13, 2007)

I agree. For me personally though, if grabbed, there's a strike coming. If so, your turning right into it. I'd rather go with the flow of the grab and do something else. As I said, Just playing along with the thread.


----------



## Doc (Jul 13, 2007)

Hand Sword said:


> I agree. For me personally though, if grabbed, there's a strike coming. If so, your turning right into it. I'd rather go with the flow of the grab and do something else. As I said, Just playing along with the thread.



Such assumptions can cause just as many problems, as not anticipating other actions. You should probably give the technique a different name that suits your persoanl lesson plan. Or at least recognize going into these discussions you're probably on a different page from most. 

Oh by the way where I come from, even friends grab you aggressively as "boys" are prone to do. Assuming everytime someone is striking not only assumes a grab is unfriendly, but you have to guess where and how the strike is coming and it may not be a strike at all. Can you say grapple?

Anyway that's just my opine - what do I know anyway.


----------



## bujuts (Jul 13, 2007)

Doc said:


> I have never sir, taught Two-Man Set as a part of any of the curriculm requirements I have utilized over the years.



Kinda what I thunk on the matter.  I'm certain some martial application can be pulled out of it, but as Robert Trias suggested, so too can the motions of combing your hair (well...ok, not you Doc  ).  We use the Sets extensively, but for different reasons.

Cheers, thanks for the reply.

SB
UKF


----------



## Hand Sword (Jul 13, 2007)

Doc said:


> Such assumptions can cause just as many problems, as not anticipating other actions. You should probably give the technique a different name that suits your persoanl lesson plan. Or at least recognize going into these discussions you're probably on a different page from most.
> 
> Oh by the way where I come from, even friends grab you aggressively as "boys" are prone to do. Assuming everytime someone is striking not only assumes a grab is unfriendly, but you have to guess where and how the strike is coming and it may not be a strike at all. Can you say grapple?
> 
> Anyway that's just my opine - what do I know anyway.


 

LOL! I know that one sir. My friends are the same way. The Ladies too! With regards to the Kenpo thing, as I said, any answer to the thread could be re-answered by Mr. Parker, or one of the seniors/ancients, such as yourself. All of you ladies and gentlemen are in a different volume, let alone page, from the rest of us. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Really though, a grab from behind/flank would get a look first response from everyone, before any action (the startle response thing again). I was just answering based on the variations I was taught and have seen. The technique has always "bothered" me. I don't know why. I don't teach, so, just answering a thread that asked for personal opinions.


----------



## Hand Sword (Jul 13, 2007)

Thinking about it further, Do you still got the name and number of that Bondsman? Us loners can get into trouble. Reading people isn't our strong suit-it has to be hostile.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jul 13, 2007)

Hand Sword said:


> I agree. For me personally though, if grabbed, there's a strike coming. If so, your turning right into it. I'd rather go with the flow of the grab and do something else. As I said, Just playing along with the thread.


First of all wouldn't both the outward hand sword and its return motion act as a possible block or parry for an incoming strike after becoming neutral to your opponent?
Sean


----------



## Hand Sword (Jul 13, 2007)

Honestly, if it's an aggressive grab, you are probably going to be pushed forward a little, or bent down and backward a bit from the force. in which case, you're outward hand sword won't be pulled off. You'll first be trying to regain stability. If a strike is coming....too late. Your natural reaction would be to try and cover the face anyway. Where your body will try and twist away, going in the opposite direction.


I won't bring up anymore techniques. I should've known better than to try and take part in conversations such as this. Every answer is wrong, and every answer can be right.


----------



## Doc (Jul 13, 2007)

Hand Sword said:


> Honestly, if it's an aggressive grab, you are probably going to be pushed forward a little, or bent down and backward a bit from the force. in which case, you're outward hand sword won't be pulled off. You'll first be trying to regain stability. If a strike is coming....too late. Your natural reaction would be to try and cover the face anyway. Where your body will try and twist away, going in the opposite direction.
> 
> 
> I won't bring up anymore techniques. I should've known better than to try and take part in conversations such as this. Every answer is wrong, and every answer can be right.



And the reason why I discuss principles instead of techniques that everyone does different.


----------

