# Sword and hammer pt. 1 and 2



## ATACX GYM

traditional method of sword and hammer (defense vs flank shoulder grab and punch)






http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ts1Qgemr11M&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oXiWESS32Q&feature=related


the actual real world attacks that the traditional method alleged IP techs like those above are supposed to defend against:














SWORD AND HAMMER PT. 1






SWORD AND HAMMER PT. 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-mmdyIHkjs&feature=related




which is teaching method--the so-called IP or THE ATACX GYM--is more appropriate for street reality? Okay commence debate discussion commenting or rude gestures...now! Lol. Hopefully all of you enjoyed all of the previous videos.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Thoughts?


----------



## Chris Parker

Ah, Ras, you're not going to like me much, but you did ask for "debate discussion commenting or rude gestures...", so...

The first thing I'm going to say is, if you're going to be basically just posting videos over and over again, can you learn how to embed the things? It's really not hard, you click on the video strip icon at the top of the post window (second from the right), and paste the URL of the video you want in the space provided in the pop-up box. Then click "OK".  It'll make it a lot easier for people to watch your clips, it'll make them more likely to click on them to watch them, especially when you put 7 different clips in a single post, as most people just don't want to keep opening new windows over and over again, and can help you get the comments you are after, meaning you won't have to keep following up your own posts asking why no-one's commenting.... I get the feeling that a number of the "views" here just saw the URL links and didn't want to check out the clips themselves, hence no comments. Okay?

Right, next. 

There are quite a few issues that are leaping out at me from your entire premise here. We'll begin by embedding the clips so others can more easily see what we're talking about. To begin with, your "IP" versions, which you consider flawed:
















Each of these show the same thing, with very little difference, so I'm not sure why three clips were needed... oh, well. We'll come back to these.

Next you link a couple of clips that show "the actual real world attacks that the traditional method alleged IP techs like those above are supposed to defend against". Love the passive aggressive tone, by the way.











The problem, of course, is that these attacks are not what is shown in the technique, nor is it what you demonstrate against in your versions. But there's a bigger problem than that, when your clips are shown. Speaking of which, here they are:











Right, now we can play.

To begin with, let's look back at the initial version of the technique as shown. It's a yellow belt technique, fairly early on in the syllabus, if I'm not mistaken, yeah? And it's basically dealing with a grab to your shoulder (the clips you linked show the right shoulder, you oscillate between right and left, I don't think it matters too much, provided it's the left hand grabbing the right shoulder, or the right hand grabbing the left... otherwise it changes the technique into requiring something different), which you secure/cover with your far hand, then step towards the opponent as they threaten a strike, and pre-emptively strike to their throat with a sword-hand, and "bounce" that hand down to strike with a hammer fist to an open target. I'm going to be bluntly honest, Ras, there's really little wrong with that technique. The biggest issue with it arises when the person grabbing you was just going to ask you the time, or to offer a drink, or similar, and you crush their trachea as a result... so I might not choose a potentially lethal strike as my first response against a grab. Courts here tend to look down on such things. But from a mechanical point of view, this technique is actually quite solid, taking into account a range of likely events. Not bad at all, really.

When we get to your clips, though, I gotta say, uh, what? Neither of those clips show anything like the attack that Sword and Hammer are dealing with. Both are essentially king-hits which work by blind-siding the people being hit. There is no grab to the shoulder, which is the primary aspect of the attack in Sword and Hammer, as shown in each and every version shown, the three initial ones, both of yours, and all others I've seen from a quick search. So, uh, no. Additionally, you don't seem to have paid attention to them, based on some comments you make in your clip.

Right, your clips.

The first one, well, let's be frank. It's again basically overkill, which is something missing from the initial technique (other than an overly aggressive first strike). Additionally, the basic attack isn't actually that realistic (the original one is more realistic, to be honest). Let's start there, as your first point is to talk down the common version.

You give the set-up of a grab to the shoulder, and then talk (with a degree of sarcasm, it seems...) about "feel(ing) the Kempo-ness of the situation" before turning and striking. There's a little interplay about the opponent not blocking (as your training partner does), and you finish by saying that "this doesn't happen in real life". Actually Ras, yes, it does. There are a number of set-ups that might go this way, but it's really a relatively common form of attack. The basic idea is that they grab your shoulder, and pull you into a strike with the other hand. The pull turns you towards them, as well as into the strike itself, adding to the power. It could be when one guy is yelling at you in front, his buddy comes up behind and grabs, pulls, and hits, or as you're turning and walking away from someone they grab you as you go, spin you, and hit. But it really is a common attack, you know.

Next, the idea of "feeling the Kempo-ness" leading to the execution of the technique, really, I don't see that as necessary at all. If you're being attacked with this realistically, they'll be pulling you around and back, so the step in towards them could very easily be just a natural response to the pull (and trying to keep your balance, so dropping as you step, not mentioned, but demonstrated in the clips, is expected as well). As to the cover, that's common to regain some control, and is recommended. Your idea of the other guy blocking being possible is honestly unlikely as well, as they'll be concerned about hitting you, and won't expect a counter-strike, as a result will simply not be looking to block anything. And the initial strike, if done with the right timing, would be launched as you're turning, making it land before the opponent's strike is properly launched, as well as providing cover in case you're just a bit too slow. Really, Ras, it's not a bad technique.

Then we get you changing the structure of the attack by keeping your opponent on your left shoulder, but having them grab with their left hand... which completely removes the attack that's actually seen in Sword and Hammer, as well as removing the targets, body positioning, and more, altering the timing and rhythm of the sequence entirely, and basically necessitating a completely different technique, which, to be blunt, is what you're doing. This is no longer the Yellow Belt Technique "Sword and Hammer" from the American Kempo system, as there are almost no aspects of it left, other than similar fists being used.

You also start to talk about the fact that, from here, as it's a surprise attack, you'll be hit first, probably a few times, and have to respond from there. The problem, of course, is you've just shown us what happens when you get blindsided and hit hard in a surprise attack. In most cases, you get knocked to the ground, hard. So you're not really able to continue with the technique as you show it (which is your partner slapping your back, let's be honest, hardly a committed strike to the back of the head, which is what would be likely (not too difficult to knock someone out that way, or give them a concussion, at the very least rattle them enough to continue to do some pretty major damage). So your plan of "get hit first" isn't what I'd recommend.... and, again, it goes against what Sword and Hammer actually teaches. The technique advocates a pre-emptive strike, in order to avoid such an eventuality. Deciding you don't think it's realistic (it certainly can be, for the record) doesn't make your technique better or more realistic, it means you've missed the point of the technique in the first place.

When it comes to the rest of the technique you show (the punch to the body, the strike to the face with the knee, the hand to the back of the neck, another fist to the back of the neck, and then another hand sword to the back of the neck again), honestly, I'm seeing a lot of mechanical problems, as well as some potential charges (based on the assault laws here) with the multiple strikes to the back of his head when it's clear he's no longer in a position to continue to assault you. But mainly the mechanical and structural issues, a range of things you do rob you of potential power, making a lot of this a lot weaker and less effective than it could be.

Your second version. Well, you start off saying it's nothing like what others would have been taught, and, well, yeah. Because you have barely included anything from the original, other than the name and certain fists. Other than that, tactically it's a completely different technique, rythmically it's a completely different technique, strategically it's a completely different technique, mechanically it's a completely different technique, philosophically it's a completely different technique... really, it's just a completely different technique. 

You then denigrate the original form, including the sarcastic comment "and, he's just amazed by your skill". Really? I'd say more that he's dropped to the ground finding it hard to breathe, as you've just attacked his airways, then his groin, and gotten distance. Clearing his arm shouldn't be necessary, or difficult, and the idea of the attacker being "amazed at your skill" shows a gap in understanding what would have actually happened, don't you think? You then make some comments about the technique not working against a real, dynamic attack... gotta say, Ras, this one I think really would. It's kinda built into the technique, and I'm a little surprised you can't see it, given the amount of "real life experience" you claim. But let's see what that "real life experience" has taught you....

You have your opponent pushing you forward while hitting you? Really? And you think that's the more common attack? Gotta say, it's one of the most ineffectual attacks I can think of, as you'd be constantly pushing your victim out of the range of your fist, making your attacks not much more than useless.... Most of your following response suffers from much of the same issues as the previous one (punch to the temple? Good chance of breaking your own hand, particularly with the weak structure you're using, but hey, go for it!).

At the four minute mark you finally get closer to the way it's supposed to be, but still miss the basic tactic of a pre-emptive strike. And, to be honest, the attack was unrealistic in it's rhythm and distancing, so it wasn't really a realistic portrayal either. And I'm really not fond of that "secure" and choke at the end... there's just too many openings and issues going on there.

Honestly, if I was to offer you some advice, it would be to not automatically take the tact that every single technique is supposed to be an exact representation of violence, and to look for what it's teaching you. It seems to me that you tend to want to go to something you feel is more "realistic" without really looking at what is there in the first place... and that leads to some big gaps in what you're presenting.

Well, I said you wouldn't like it...


----------



## ATACX GYM

Chris Parker said:


> Ah, Ras, you're not going to like me much, but you did ask for "debate discussion commenting or rude gestures...", so...
> 
> The first thing I'm going to say is, if you're going to be basically just posting videos over and over again, can you learn how to embed the things? It's really not hard, you click on the video strip icon at the top of the post window (second from the right), and paste the URL of the video you want in the space provided in the pop-up box. Then click "OK".  It'll make it a lot easier for people to watch your clips, it'll make them more likely to click on them to watch them, especially when you put 7 different clips in a single post, as most people just don't want to keep opening new windows over and over again, and can help you get the comments you are after, meaning you won't have to keep following up your own posts asking why no-one's commenting.... I get the feeling that a number of the "views" here just saw the URL links and didn't want to check out the clips themselves, hence no comments. Okay?
> 
> Right, next.
> 
> There are quite a few issues that are leaping out at me from your entire premise here. We'll begin by embedding the clips so others can more easily see what we're talking about. To begin with, your "IP" versions, which you consider flawed:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Each of these show the same thing, with very little difference, so I'm not sure why three clips were needed... oh, well. We'll come back to these.
> 
> Next you link a couple of clips that show "the actual real world attacks that the traditional method alleged IP techs like those above are supposed to defend against". Love the passive aggressive tone, by the way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem, of course, is that these attacks are not what is shown in the technique, nor is it what you demonstrate against in your versions. But there's a bigger problem than that, when your clips are shown. Speaking of which, here they are:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, now we can play.
> 
> To begin with, let's look back at the initial version of the technique as shown. It's a yellow belt technique, fairly early on in the syllabus, if I'm not mistaken, yeah? And it's basically dealing with a grab to your shoulder (the clips you linked show the right shoulder, you oscillate between right and left, I don't think it matters too much, provided it's the left hand grabbing the right shoulder, or the right hand grabbing the left... otherwise it changes the technique into requiring something different), which you secure/cover with your far hand, then step towards the opponent as they threaten a strike, and pre-emptively strike to their throat with a sword-hand, and "bounce" that hand down to strike with a hammer fist to an open target. I'm going to be bluntly honest, Ras, there's really little wrong with that technique. The biggest issue with it arises when the person grabbing you was just going to ask you the time, or to offer a drink, or similar, and you crush their trachea as a result... so I might not choose a potentially lethal strike as my first response against a grab. Courts here tend to look down on such things. But from a mechanical point of view, this technique is actually quite solid, taking into account a range of likely events. Not bad at all, really.
> 
> When we get to your clips, though, I gotta say, uh, what? Neither of those clips show anything like the attack that Sword and Hammer are dealing with. Both are essentially king-hits which work by blind-siding the people being hit. There is no grab to the shoulder, which is the primary aspect of the attack in Sword and Hammer, as shown in each and every version shown, the three initial ones, both of yours, and all others I've seen from a quick search. So, uh, no. Additionally, you don't seem to have paid attention to them, based on some comments you make in your clip.
> 
> Right, your clips.
> 
> The first one, well, let's be frank. It's again basically overkill, which is something missing from the initial technique (other than an overly aggressive first strike). Additionally, the basic attack isn't actually that realistic (the original one is more realistic, to be honest). Let's start there, as your first point is to talk down the common version.
> 
> You give the set-up of a grab to the shoulder, and then talk (with a degree of sarcasm, it seems...) about "feel(ing) the Kempo-ness of the situation" before turning and striking. There's a little interplay about the opponent not blocking (as your training partner does), and you finish by saying that "this doesn't happen in real life". Actually Ras, yes, it does. There are a number of set-ups that might go this way, but it's really a relatively common form of attack. The basic idea is that they grab your shoulder, and pull you into a strike with the other hand. The pull turns you towards them, as well as into the strike itself, adding to the power. It could be when one guy is yelling at you in front, his buddy comes up behind and grabs, pulls, and hits, or as you're turning and walking away from someone they grab you as you go, spin you, and hit. But it really is a common attack, you know.
> 
> Next, the idea of "feeling the Kempo-ness" leading to the execution of the technique, really, I don't see that as necessary at all. If you're being attacked with this realistically, they'll be pulling you around and back, so the step in towards them could very easily be just a natural response to the pull (and trying to keep your balance, so dropping as you step, not mentioned, but demonstrated in the clips, is expected as well). As to the cover, that's common to regain some control, and is recommended. Your idea of the other guy blocking being possible is honestly unlikely as well, as they'll be concerned about hitting you, and won't expect a counter-strike, as a result will simply not be looking to block anything. And the initial strike, if done with the right timing, would be launched as you're turning, making it land before the opponent's strike is properly launched, as well as providing cover in case you're just a bit too slow. Really, Ras, it's not a bad technique.
> 
> Then we get you changing the structure of the attack by keeping your opponent on your left shoulder, but having them grab with their left hand... which completely removes the attack that's actually seen in Sword and Hammer, as well as removing the targets, body positioning, and more, altering the timing and rhythm of the sequence entirely, and basically necessitating a completely different technique, which, to be blunt, is what you're doing. This is no longer the Yellow Belt Technique "Sword and Hammer" from the American Kempo system, as there are almost no aspects of it left, other than similar fists being used.
> 
> You also start to talk about the fact that, from here, as it's a surprise attack, you'll be hit first, probably a few times, and have to respond from there. The problem, of course, is you've just shown us what happens when you get blindsided and hit hard in a surprise attack. In most cases, you get knocked to the ground, hard. So you're not really able to continue with the technique as you show it (which is your partner slapping your back, let's be honest, hardly a committed strike to the back of the head, which is what would be likely (not too difficult to knock someone out that way, or give them a concussion, at the very least rattle them enough to continue to do some pretty major damage). So your plan of "get hit first" isn't what I'd recommend.... and, again, it goes against what Sword and Hammer actually teaches. The technique advocates a pre-emptive strike, in order to avoid such an eventuality. Deciding you don't think it's realistic (it certainly can be, for the record) doesn't make your technique better or more realistic, it means you've missed the point of the technique in the first place.
> 
> When it comes to the rest of the technique you show (the punch to the body, the strike to the face with the knee, the hand to the back of the neck, another fist to the back of the neck, and then another hand sword to the back of the neck again), honestly, I'm seeing a lot of mechanical problems, as well as some potential charges (based on the assault laws here) with the multiple strikes to the back of his head when it's clear he's no longer in a position to continue to assault you. But mainly the mechanical and structural issues, a range of things you do rob you of potential power, making a lot of this a lot weaker and less effective than it could be.
> 
> Your second version. Well, you start off saying it's nothing like what others would have been taught, and, well, yeah. Because you have barely included anything from the original, other than the name and certain fists. Other than that, tactically it's a completely different technique, rythmically it's a completely different technique, strategically it's a completely different technique, mechanically it's a completely different technique, philosophically it's a completely different technique... really, it's just a completely different technique.
> 
> You then denigrate the original form, including the sarcastic comment "and, he's just amazed by your skill". Really? I'd say more that he's dropped to the ground finding it hard to breathe, as you've just attacked his airways, then his groin, and gotten distance. Clearing his arm shouldn't be necessary, or difficult, and the idea of the attacker being "amazed at your skill" shows a gap in understanding what would have actually happened, don't you think? You then make some comments about the technique not working against a real, dynamic attack... gotta say, Ras, this one I think really would. It's kinda built into the technique, and I'm a little surprised you can't see it, given the amount of "real life experience" you claim. But let's see what that "real life experience" has taught you....
> 
> You have your opponent pushing you forward while hitting you? Really? And you think that's the more common attack? Gotta say, it's one of the most ineffectual attacks I can think of, as you'd be constantly pushing your victim out of the range of your fist, making your attacks not much more than useless.... Most of your following response suffers from much of the same issues as the previous one (punch to the temple? Good chance of breaking your own hand, particularly with the weak structure you're using, but hey, go for it!).
> 
> At the four minute mark you finally get closer to the way it's supposed to be, but still miss the basic tactic of a pre-emptive strike. And, to be honest, the attack was unrealistic in it's rhythm and distancing, so it wasn't really a realistic portrayal either. And I'm really not fond of that "secure" and choke at the end... there's just too many openings and issues going on there.
> 
> Honestly, if I was to offer you some advice, it would be to not automatically take the tact that every single technique is supposed to be an exact representation of violence, and to look for what it's teaching you. It seems to me that you tend to want to go to something you feel is more "realistic" without really looking at what is there in the first place... and that leads to some big gaps in what you're presenting.
> 
> Well, I said you wouldn't like it...




for some reason I wasn't getting any prompts via email regarding responses to my threads so I missed this. I ACTUALLY LIKE THIS RESPONSE, CHRIS. Soon as I get a minute I will respond in depth for ya man...there's a number of easily correctible mistakes and just differences of opinions that I note in your post there. I also got to learn what I suppose is a Aussie phrase..."king-hit". Never heard it before, or if I did? I forgot about it. Waaaiiit...I remember an announcer using that phrase when I once watched a rugby game years ago.

Anyway yeah I'll definitely get back to your thorough post with a thorough response, and you'll be pleased to know that I learned to embed stuff.


----------



## ATACX GYM

ATACX GYM said:


> for some reason I wasn't getting any prompts via email regarding responses to my threads so I missed this. I ACTUALLY LIKE THIS RESPONSE, CHRIS. Soon as I get a minute I will respond in depth for ya man...there's a number of easily correctible mistakes and just differences of opinions that I note in your post there. I also got to learn what I suppose is a Aussie phrase..."king-hit". Never heard it before, or if I did? I forgot about it. Waaaiiit...I remember an announcer using that phrase when I once watched a rugby game years ago.
> 
> Anyway yeah I'll definitely get back to your thorough post with a thorough response, and you'll be pleased to know that I learned to embed stuff.




Okay Chris, pressed for time but I write fast so I should still get a fairly voluminous response in. Here we go:

First off, almost everything you said is incorrect. A good half of your incorrect assumptions comes from the probability that you're not a Kenpo man, so you misunderstand things as presented in the system. Hell, that's fine...because most of Ed Parker's first generation Black Belts can't seem to agree on jack and they were there with Mr. Parker during the formative years of what has been called Motion Kenpo.

In Infinite Insights Into Kenpo, Mr. Parker talked about taking the IP and training it in a 360 degree circle. With the Tracy Brothers, Mr. Parker frequently repeated a lesson he was taught by a female Japanese Sensei who I believe is named Sensei Tanaka. This concept he referred to as "50 Ways To Sunday". You train a tech every whichaway against multiple kinds of resistance and that is a major way of actually acquiring functionality with it. 

Moving on to the videos, you see me showing different groups showing essentially and fundamentally the exact same or incredibly similar expressions of Sword and Hammer...when that was never to be the case. The IP as defined by Mister Parker was supposed to be created from sensei to student on a case by case basis. The sensei was to take a common street attack, encapsulate it, use a combo of his/her/their training experience and Kenpo karate's techs concepts etc as the medium to FUNCTIONALLY resolve the attack. This means that each IP should differ from dojo to dojo, yet still have the concrete similarity of Kenpo techs and concepts to bind them. What happened instead was that too many teachers merely copied what they were shown and mistook the techs for the Way. The result is nonfunctional craptacularity, diluting the practicing methodology and functional training of a system [ Kenpo in this case but pretty much any martial art will do ] which is devastatingly effective when trained functionally.

You are massively incorrect too when it comes to the correlation between my videos and real world attacks. Some of this you have no excuse for...there is a direct empirical correlation between the responses that I've shown on my videos and the attacks shown in real world scenarios. If you can't see this, I feel sorry for you...but I could spell it out for you using the video evidence if you need me to. Furthermore, there are a many maaaaannnny instances during which a flank or rear attack results in the attacker basically displacing the defender with his grab and reaching around in front of him to bang him in the face or straight up blasting him in the back of his head or ribs or whatever. Imo far and away the most common expression of this is an attack without any form of grab; the BG just comes up from behind you or the side and straight whallops you and that's that. Either you're done or you're now scrappin after you got clocked and perhaps got dazed to boot. I specifically address that in my video...the fact that you are likely to be cracked and staggered prior to your being aware that an attack is launched or at least prior to your being able to respond to the attack.

By the way, the entry into the far wrist tie and standing D'arce was a spontaneous response. Kai--my friend helping me in the video, the buff guy in the black tank top--is untrained and never did this kind of video before. He reacted naturally after I launched my variant of Sword and Hammer and he still got choked. The reason I was able to apply one of the main chokes that I feature in my variant of Sword and Hammer is because we actually practice Sword and Hammer vs escalating noncooperative resistance by skilled and unorthodox people. In the same vein that a boxer feels that he/she can pull off a jab against most boxers and virtually all untrained boxers? That's how I feel about my techs; pretty much whatever you do? If you're in range of Sword and Hammer I will pull that tech off or pretty much any other Kenpo tech I feel like, because I trained it too often against too high of a caliber of resistance to fail with any sort of regularity. This isn't tooting my own horn; zillions of martial artists can do the same thing. A wrestler will double leg you, even if you know it's coming ahead of time. A bjj man will pull guard, a judoka will throw you, a kali man will knife you...or at least you will be endangered by the attempts of all of the above to do whatever they're good at. So will I. And that's what I mean by my confidence in my use of my Kenpo. Nothing that a functional martial artist should look at as remarkably out of the ordinary.

The other part of your massive incorrectness I don't blame you for at all...because it's a relatively reasonable assumption for a [ presumably ] non-Kenpo man to assume that there is a mandatory uniform rigidity in the execution of Sword and Hammer and going with the dominant expression seems alot more sensible than going with the expression of renegade [ that's me ] who you already disagreed with in other areas. But that's the core and crux of the differences in the video...the dominant expression is dysfunctional. Training Sword and Hammer with different grips and such does NOT change the tech Sword and Hammer. See, WE'RE DOING SWORD AND HAMMER NOT THE BAD GUY...and we should be able to reliably pull it off against any unarmed bad guy h2h in arm's reach as reliably as a boxer is able to jab someone, a wrestler double legs some untrained guy or a Muay Thai guy leg kicks or clinches and knees some untrained BG. If you can't do Sword and Hammer to a BG pretty much whenever under these circumstances? Imo you can't do Sword and Hammer period. 

I realize I differ sharply with most of Kenpodom when I say what I have said...but that's okay. The bottom line is that the way Sword and Hammer is taught is exactly how it should work in a throwdown. When you bridge and roll or slap on a armbar in bjj, you don't "ideally" do it in some nonfunctional way and magically be able to do it functionally in a throwdown. No. You train it how you will actually use it. Same with the MT clinch, the wrestler ties and tackles, judo throws, boxing's punches, Olympic TKD kicks, SWAT CQB tactics, etc etc. It should be no different for Kenpoists or Capoeiristas...but sadly it is for far too many of them. Not for me. Every single facet and aspect of every single tech that I use and teach is rigorously and constantly tested. I'm open to new approaches and entries and stuff and we revise stuff all the time. We just revised some aspects of Thrusting Wedge 2 days ago, for instance. Now it's even better than before. Too many 'so-called IP' adherents are utterly inflexible in this area, to the detriment of Kenpo as a whole.


----------



## Twin Fist

lets assume for a second that every single thing you have said is correct.

change the name of the techniques, call yourself a 10th dan and start your own kenpo.

seriously.

as long as you take existing EPAK techniques, do them 100% differently than EVERYONE ELSE IN THE HISTORY OF EPAK KENPO has ever done them, and as long as you continue this "everyone but me is stupid and does it wrong" line of thinking, you will catch hell. Even if you are right

seriously, start your own thing. Nothing wrong with that at all. 

dont call it american kenpo, cuz what you are doing isnt EPAK at all. 

dont call it BKF, you aint doing thier stuff either. you have added to it, clearly

make it your own, then all you have to say is "this is MINE, thats why"

you are , in effect half way doing that already, go all the way. Create a curriculum that includes what you want to teach, or feel is important, do them the way you want them done, come up with new names so the EPAK guys cant tell you you are doing them wrong, and POOF

you are the final say in YOUR system.

seriously, you should do it.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Twin Fist said:


> lets assume for a second that every single thing you have said is correct.
> 
> change the name of the techniques, call yourself a 10th dan and start your own kenpo.
> 
> seriously.
> 
> as long as you take existing EPAK techniques, do them 100% differently than EVERYONE ELSE IN THE HISTORY OF EPAK KENPO has ever done them, and as long as you continue this "everyone but me is stupid and does it wrong" line of thinking, you will catch hell. Even if you are right
> 
> seriously, start your own thing. Nothing wrong with that at all.
> 
> dont call it american kenpo, cuz what you are doing isnt EPAK at all.
> 
> dont call it BKF, you aint doing thier stuff either. you have added to it, clearly
> 
> make it your own, then all you have to say is "this is MINE, thats why"
> 
> you are , in effect half way doing that already, go all the way. Create a curriculum that includes what you want to teach, or feel is important, do them the way you want them done, come up with new names so the EPAK guys cant tell you you are doing them wrong, and POOF
> 
> you are the final say in YOUR system.
> 
> seriously, you should do it.




This is quite a common response that I get, and actually it's pretty reasonable...especially when your other posts toward me and their tenor is taken into account. I appreciate your greater cordiality. I refer you and all others who doubt my reasoning to Doc Chapel's posts on the matter. There is nobody with greater seniority or even equal seniority that I know of on this site or Kenpotalk.com either. Insofar as the "idea not Ideal Phase" is concerned, Doc and I are in almost 100% lockstep...and Doc has Mr.Parker's direct notes and the treasures of direct conversation with Mr. Parker FOR DECADES about this subject. That's one of the best responses that I can think of off top on this subject. Gtg everyone...bizness to handle. 

AMANI..."peace"...


----------



## Twin Fist

I am being totally serious. You have your own vision, that is pretty unique, best way to avoid any heat from any quarter and i might add the best way to give yourself room to grow into your vision of a fighting system is to start your own. 

I tried to create an art LIKE  kajukembo, because i knew that was my ideal, and i didnt think i would ever find a kajukembo instructor. So i took base from TKD and added in all the kenpo I knew, and lua, and other things i picked up over the last 25+ years training.

but then i found a kajukembo, so i didnt have to. I will still keep some of the training exercises i came up with, but i dont NEED to create something to fit my vision anymore.

it seems like you need to.

but dont half *** it, re-name the techniques, that keeps everyone off your ***. set a belt structure, and set requirements for each level.

do it.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Twin Fist said:


> I am being totally serious. You have your own vision, that is pretty unique, best way to avoid any heat from any quarter and i might add the best way to give yourself room to grow into your vision of a fighting system is to start your own.
> 
> I tried to create an art LIKE  kajukembo, because i knew that was my ideal, and i didnt think i would ever find a kajukembo instructor. So i took base from TKD and added in all the kenpo I knew, and lua, and other things i picked up over the last 25+ years training.
> 
> but then i found a kajukembo, so i didnt have to. I will still keep some of the training exercises i came up with, but i dont NEED to create something to fit my vision anymore.
> 
> it seems like you need to.
> 
> but dont half *** it, re-name the techniques, that keeps everyone off your ***. set a belt structure, and set requirements for each level.
> 
> do it.




I believe you are serious and again I thank you for the suggestion...but the whole premise is flawed. Top to bottom, the premise of your suggestion is flawed. The fact is irrefutable...I do indeed do Sword and Hammer. I train it and execute it different and faaaarrr more functionally, far more reliably...but without a doubt? That's a handsword and a hammerfist in there used against a flank attack and every position from one flank to the other flank. What I have done is literally in complete agreement with what the IP is as defined by Mr. Parker and Doc Chapel...the twist is? The dysfunctional IP that has become te most dominant expression wherein ever school is doing exactly the same thing exactly the same way? THAT'S NOT THE I.P. THAT'S THE SAD RESULT OF ROTE MINDLESSLY REPETITION OF A PART OF "BIG RED". It's one of the great tragedies of Kenpo.

I have my own unique belt system which uses belts, sashes and corded sashes. I have my own interpretation of Kenpo and other techs...that's why I preface my techs with the name ATACX GYM. It's ATACX GYM SWORD AND HAMMER. Just like say...GM Sullivan and Vic have their own organization with their own interpretation of techs, but they're not seen as not doing Kenpo because they clearly are. The BKF isn't seen as doing Kenpo because they clearly do...and ATACX GYM does Motion Kenpo too, just our own interpretation of it. This is exactly as Mr. Parker expressly wished us to do. He didn't want us to slavishly copy him or each other, but he was in many ways vastly disappointed by his business partners and fellow BB whom he trained...and that leads directly to the ridiculous morass and sad state of affairs that we see today.


----------



## Twin Fist

no, you are not. I think you know it

You are doing something, and it is kenpo, but it isnt sword and hammer anymore when you have changed the attack and the response. I have seen several people tell you this so this isnt news....

you are doing your thing, it isnt the EPAK thing and thats ok.

Doc doesnt do EPAK, he does SL4
GM Sullivan doesnt claim to do EPAK, just kenpo
the BKF guys dont claim to do EPAK, just kenpo

you are not doing EPAK either. but it is kenpo

you and I both know it. if you really are the visionary you claim to be, then DO IT. 

Create RAS FLETCHER's KENPO

own it. 

or are you more interested in just telling kenpo people they are wrong and you are right? 

do your own thing, and everyone wins, insist on doing what you are now, and you are just annoying people and blowing your own horn. You like doing that too. And no one cares. 

Bruce lee didnt claim he was still doing wing chun, just doing it RIGHT and Yip Man and wrong

he called it something else and made it his own. Cuz it was. sure, what you do is a kenpo art but it isnt EPAK and using the EPAK names will just cause an endless river of ****.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Twin Fist said:


> You are doing something, and it is kenpo, but it isnt sword and hammer anymore when you have changed the attack and the response. I have seen several people tell you this so this isnt news....
> .




It is Sword and Hammer...it's The ATACX GYM's Sword and Hammer. It's not what many other Motion Kenpoist's call their Sword and Hammer, and that is as it should be.That's why I said:



ATACX GYM said:


> I have my own interpretation of Kenpo and other techs...that's why I preface my techs with the name ATACX GYM. It's ATACX GYM SWORD AND HAMMER. Just ...and ATACX GYM does Motion Kenpo too, just our own interpretation of it. This is exactly as Mr. Parker expressly wished us to do. He didn't want us to slavishly copy him or each other, ...and that leads directly to the ridiculous morass and sad state of affairs that we see today.





 The issue isn't so much just who's Sword and Hammer it is because anyone doing Sword and Hammer will do their own Sword and Hammer no matter how faithfully they try to emulate another person.Insofar as the Ideal Phase is concerned, and I quote:

"According to Ed Parker,after the base technique method (Ideal Phase) is learned, the student should then progressively continue to refine the techniques to individualize the Kenpo System. This 'tailored' system is to be individually practiced..."

That should put an end, once and for all, about this silly idea that Sword and Hammer has to look exactly like and be done exactly alike across the entire spectrum. Such an idea and such an approach runs directly contrary to Mr. Parker's stated desires. If we disagree here? Then we just disagree, Twin Fist. Let's just let it ride at that point. If the label I put on it is that problematic for you? Ignore the label. Look at the tech and determine if it works [ which is one set of analysis] and secondly if it's the kind of thing that you or anyone else reading this post might draw something beneficial from and have it work FOR YOU [which is a substantially different thing].

Okay...back to training. Have a nice one, everyone.


----------



## Twin Fist

Bruce lee didnt claim he was still doing wing chun, just doing it RIGHT and Yip Man and wrong

he called it something else and made it his own. Cuz it was. sure, what you do is a kenpo art but it isnt EPAK and using the EPAK names will just cause an endless river of ****.

unless thats what you want.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Getting passed the now farcical debate about nomenclature, let us focus on what is most important...performance. Does it work? Which variant works best... the so-called "traditional IP" [ which isn't the traditional IP but that's another story] or THE ATACX GYM variant? 

If you were attacked like THIS




[video=youtube_share;A36Bw5I3-g0]http://youtu.be/A36Bw5I3-g0[/video]



or some punk fool who needs to go to jail attacked you like THIS:

[can't embed this but it's on Metacafe so I left this link]


http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2011/12/dolphins_fan_knocked_out_by_su.php



or like THIS




[video=youtube_share;OlP9-8f5YpE]http://youtu.be/OlP9-8f5YpE[/video]



would training like THIS be a better way to deal with the matter:



[video=youtube_share;oJbyIBmhDN0]http://youtu.be/oJbyIBmhDN0[/video]



[video=youtube_share;YGDc1oOFDcI]http://youtu.be/YGDc1oOFDcI[/video]



or would THE ATACX GYM variants seem more functional?



 ATACX GYM SWORD AND HAMMER PT. 1


[video=youtube_share;eo4yj0MZyeI]http://youtu.be/eo4yj0MZyeI[/video]



SWORD AND HAMMER PT. 2


[video=youtube_share;R-mmdyIHkjs]http://youtu.be/R-mmdyIHkjs[/video]


----------



## Twin Fist

sword and hammer is for a grab, followed by a punch

all three of the attacks you posted are irellevant, since they dont have a grab followed by a punch.

irellevant

they are real attacks sure, but they have nothing to do with sword and hammer.

Al three of those attacks are blind (the victim didnt see it comming) haymakers

in any of those attacks, you will get hit since the attackers were (as attackers usually are) cowardly pieces of crap hitting people from the sides and almost from behind

no training will allow you to defend yourself from that unless you think you can train someone to read minds and determine intent. 

next, you are not doing sword and hammer. 

***** all you want to about it not mattering what you call it, it does matter. names matter, and names fit certain things, you use a KNOWN name, people expect to see the KNOWN version of that name.

you are in essence saying "have a coke" and giving me a glass of sweet tea. its good, it does the job of quinching my thirst, but it isnt a coke. you can call it a coke till you go blue in the face, but it aint a coke.

Now then, to the meat if it.

the reason your defense fits is because you changed the attack

sword and hammer in EPAK (it is called Pin Step Chop in Tracey's and Grab Art 9 in my KSDS version of Kajukembo all basically the same technique. Kenpo is kenpo after all.) isnt for a push

you are starting out with a push, but if the attack is a push, sword and hammer isnt the correct technique to use......

you are square peg round holing it again.

but lets look at what you do for the attack you selected. They push your shoulder and (presumably) start punching.

the spin outside is a decent move to gain positional advantage, you could make that better IMO by augmenting your right hand inward hammering block with a left hand on thier wrist pulling it into you, ala snapping twig. it is a free elbow hyperextension at no risk to you.

the double hit you follow up with is ok, not what i would pick, but not bad

the downward check is a logical next move. You then throw an inward circular or corkscrew punch to the face/upper chest WITH a knee to i assume the groin

then chop to the back of the neck, a hammer to the kidney and another back of the neck shot.

the technique you are doing isnt bad, but it isnt perfect

1)you are taking a yellow belt technique and trying to turn it into a brownbelt or blackbelt technique, common mistake, i do it myself all the time. 

crawl before you can walk, walk before you can run.

you cant take a beginner and show them this, they dont have the foundation of skills to pull it off. so unless you are teaching this at brown, you are putting the cart before the horse. a teacher has to think about that. Unless that is, there is a basic version of the technique you teach but didnt include

2) the angle on the knee to the groin is low percentage, and if the knee doesnt connect, you are left very exposed and you wont get to do the back of the neck, or the kidney follow up

Also, your videos are next to worthless because you talk too much and do too little. What I mean is, you are trying to put out soo much information, you dont spend enough time on the demonstration.

and stop with the batmanish sound effects while you are demonstrating. I do it too, but it is distracting and unprofessional.

your chosen reaction to the attack isnt bad.

It is kenpo


----------



## Twin Fist

Chris Parker said:


> Honestly, if I was to offer you some advice, it would be to not automatically take the tact that every single technique is supposed to be an exact representation of violence, and to look for what it's teaching you. It seems to me that you tend to want to go to something you feel is more "realistic" without really looking at what is there in the first place... and that leads to some big gaps in what you're presenting.
> 
> Well, I said you wouldn't like it...



I have been trying to tell you this.

the techniques are in some cases not supposed to be realistic, they are...physical metaphors designed to teach you a specific lesson

it seems like you missed that part (possibly you were never taught it, my original kenpo teacher Randy Edwardson of tiger crane kenpo in Long Beach didnt teach the concepts either i had to learn that later from Steve Spry) and you just look at the technique, and evaluate it based on pure realism.

you are actually missing a lot of the science of kenpo that way.

the "why"


----------



## ATACX GYM

Twin Fist said:


> sword and hammer is for a grab, followed by a punch
> 
> all three of the attacks you posted are irellevant, since they dont have a grab followed by a punch.
> 
> irellevant
> 
> they are real attacks sure, but they have nothing to do with sword and hammer.
> 
> Al three of those attacks are blind (the victim didnt see it comming) haymakers
> 
> in any of those attacks, you will get hit since the attackers were (as attackers usually are) cowardly pieces of crap hitting people from the sides and almost from behind
> 
> no training will allow you to defend yourself from that unless you think you can train someone to read minds and determine intent.
> 
> next, you are not doing sword and hammer.
> 
> ***** all you want to about it not mattering what you call it, it does matter. names matter, and names fit certain things, you use a KNOWN name, people expect to see the KNOWN version of that name.
> 
> you are in essence saying "have a coke" and giving me a glass of sweet tea. its good, it does the job of quinching my thirst, but it isnt a coke. you can call it a coke till you go blue in the face, but it aint a coke.
> 
> Now then, to the meat if it.
> 
> the reason your defense fits is because you changed the attack
> 
> sword and hammer in EPAK (it is called Pin Step Chop in Tracey's and Grab Art 9 in my KSDS version of Kajukembo all basically the same technique. Kenpo is kenpo after all.) isnt for a push
> 
> you are starting out with a push, but if the attack is a push, sword and hammer isnt the correct technique to use......
> 
> you are square peg round holing it again.
> 
> but lets look at what you do for the attack you selected. They push your shoulder and (presumably) start punching.
> 
> the spin outside is a decent move to gain positional advantage, you could make that better IMO by augmenting your right hand inward hammering block with a left hand on thier wrist pulling it into you, ala snapping twig. it is a free elbow hyperextension at no risk to you.
> 
> the double hit you follow up with is ok, not what i would pick, but not bad
> 
> the downward check is a logical next move. You then throw an inward circular or corkscrew punch to the face/upper chest WITH a knee to i assume the groin
> 
> then chop to the back of the neck, a hammer to the kidney and another back of the neck shot.
> 
> the technique you are doing isnt bad, but it isnt perfect
> 
> 1)you are taking a yellow belt technique and trying to turn it into a brownbelt or blackbelt technique, common mistake, i do it myself all the time.
> 
> crawl before you can walk, walk before you can run.
> 
> you cant take a beginner and show them this, they dont have the foundation of skills to pull it off. so unless you are teaching this at brown, you are putting the cart before the horse. a teacher has to think about that. Unless that is, there is a basic version of the technique you teach but didnt include
> 
> 2) the angle on the knee to the groin is low percentage, and if the knee doesnt connect, you are left very exposed and you wont get to do the back of the neck, or the kidney follow up
> 
> Also, your videos are next to worthless because you talk too much and do too little. What I mean is, you are trying to put out soo much information, you dont spend enough time on the demonstration.
> 
> and stop with the batmanish sound effects while you are demonstrating. I do it too, but it is distracting and unprofessional.
> 
> your chosen reaction to the attack isnt bad.
> 
> It is kenpo




I think this is the best response you have ever made visavis technical technique assessment to me. For that, I thank you. Of course, I sharply disagree and I think that's good. Vigorous debate and mentally stimulating discussion that results in improvements all around is a good thing imo. It's part of what I've been constantly referring to as THE KENPO LAB. And for the record? I was taught this tech by Chicken Gabrielle as Pin Step Chop. My initial martial history in Kenpo started in 2 dojos that taught me a hybrid of Tracy Kenpo, EPAK, tang soo do, bareknuckle boxing, and other stuff merged into a single system by a collection of renegades inclusive of both of my uncles. I didn't know that when I was a child of 8 years when I first started Kenpo [ I actually started boxing at age 6 ]...I was just being taught Kenpo karate that worked. That was good enough for me.


Now to the meat of your critique and criticisms


I didn't say that the name doesn't matter, I said that the debate regarding nomenclature is farcical. The tech I showed is THE ATACX GYM SWORD AND HAMMER...says so on the video itself. It clearly uses the handsword...that's where the SWORD in the tech "Sword and Hammer" comes from...and the hammerfits...that's the "HAMMER" in "Sword and Hammer"...in the tech. Without even a single doubt, therefore, it's Sword and Hammer.

Next, your understanding of Sword and Hammer is flawed. Very much so. You're conflating a common dysfunctional expression drawn from rote memorization and presentation without the requisite understanding of Big Red with the actual functional expression that The Ideal Phase specifically states is required to perform. Very very important difference that to my knowledge Doc Ron Chapel has wrote the most about on sites like KenpoTalk.com. I said it before and I said it again...I refer you to his writings on this matter. What he says is incredibly detailed knowledgeable and in depth, and in essence I am in lockstep with what he presents. Once again...what you are referring to is NOT the Ideal Phase. The Ideal Phase Sword and Hammer [ and any Ideal Phase tech] by definition is NOT a monolothic expression...it is a response to a specific street attack [ a shoulder grab and punch in this case ] that is to be crafted on a case by case basis by each instructor for his/her/their students and that expression is to be functional. Mr. Parker was well known, in his own words, to train each tech "50 Ways to Sunday" as the female Sensei Tanaka taught him to do. the "50 Ways to Sunday" idea is a central tenet in the Tracy system, and you can see the influence of that early teaching in my current expressions as I apply The ATACX GYM SWORD AND HAMMER to multiple scenarios. I do with and without weapons, I do it on the ground, I do it in multifights and I do it in this video vs the 2 primary standing positions you will be in and the 180 degrees of attacks spanning from left shoulder to right shoulder and everywhere in between that you can deploy the Sword and Hammer from.

Because of your misunderstanding of The Ideal Phase and what it entails, everything that follows from it is also invalid logically. In my expression, I go beyond the concept that Sword and Hammer is only applicable to "this" scenario and not "that" scenario. I advance the concept that if you know the tech, you can and should be able to use it pretty much regardless of your opponent's attack or defense, and this is inclusive of the original position and scenario that spawned the idea and concept of Sword and Hammer as we know it; but only when that idea and position [ flank grab and punch attack ] has been functionalized by actually having the attack come for real. The standard "touch, cock the fist and pose"  method that is shown universally and which you [ and far too many others] champion as "thee" Sword and Hammer tech is abysmally, amazingly dysfunctional...and stupid to boot. That approach doesn't in any way actually do what we are tasked to do as martial arts instructors, i.e.: teach effective self defense in the real world attack vs the relevant attack  at least. When you're taught in bjj to Pass the Guard? You Pass the Guard exactly as shown...in the dojo or on the streets. When you're taught to "cut the pie" and use "dynamic entry" techniques in SWAT and other units in the killhouse? That's what you do in real life. Just like that or close to it. Well...when you're defending the grab and punch in a 180 degree arc from the left shoulder flank back to the right shoulder flank or vice versa? Guess what? Yep...the defenses you craft can only work reliably and  consistently under pressure if the attacks are live fire attacks of escalating resistance until you functionally address all of those attacks and their variants using---wait for it--yep, Sword and Hammer.  Exactly as you were taught...if you trained in a functional environment by an honest, functional Kenpo instructor. It's a devastatingly depressing indicator as to how low much of Kenpo has sunk when I have to explain such a obvious concept. In order to make your tech work? You gotta work your tech vs the real world attack it's supposed to thwart.That's...mindblowingly simple common sense and elementary, my Dear Watson. In the real world? The Bad Guy is NOT gonna select an attack then attack in a way that maximizes your chance of winning and his/her/their chance of losing...so all that "barely touch your sholder cock the fist and pose" stuff is 100% useless in ANY regard. It's not even good to INTRODUCE the tech to a COMPLETE NOOBIE. I guarantee you that if you use that method and I use mine? My students will mop the floor with yours and anyone else's because my students are functional and yours aren't. The moment you or anyone else makes functional performance central to their practice? That's the moment that the advantages that my students have over yours begin to fade away until they've been equalized.

So:


My version of SWORD AND HAMMER revolves around the idea that the initial grab and punch [or just straight up punch attack, as that is also highly functional and realistic] attack is a surprise attack that succeeded but didn't take you out of the fight...now you must respond to that attack using Sword and Hammer. Therefore every single video that I showed is highly applicable and very valid. The model I use is immediately obvious and wholly acceptable to functional martial artists [ regardless of style ], even if they don't use that model themselves.

Why teach the ATACX GYM SWORD AND HAMMER this way? Because you should have learned and sparred with both the handsword and hammerfist as a White Belt. You should have learned to fire off your handsword and your hammerfist to cardinal directions...AS A WHITE BELT. IN REGULAR KENPO SCHOOLS. Maybe a White Belt with stripes at the most. You can and should be taught to fire your front snap kicks to the cardinal directions etc. Same with your handswords and hammerfists,and your blocks, etc. In my system, all of these techs are actually taught in the pre-White level B range [ literally before White Belt] and all of my techs come with a 8 Hour Guarantee. Train with me with this tech or any other tech that I teach and in 8 hours or less you WILL be fighting ready with it; guaranteed or your money back. When trained functionally? This guarantee of mine is too easy to maintain. In the nearly 2 decades that I've taught, I have never failed with this guarantee I offer. When trained functionally? The Sword and Hammer tech is quite simple to learn and is very much a beginner tech. Even the response after being cracked by a punch isn't a stretch, because if you train functionally? You've already sparred, so getting hit when you're not expecting to be hit isn't a big deal.

The biggest difference in the way that I teach the tech is the mental aspect of having to respond to an attack without all of your mental faculties in tip top fighting form.


Now on to the techs as I display them:

The push while being rained on from behind with blows is VERY COMMON in streetfights when the BG is charging you from behind and elects to grab you prior to striking you. While just blasting you in the back of the head with a bottle or reaching around from the back with a haymaker to your face is the most common response? The grab that pushes you away while you're getting lit up with shots and the grab, that turns pulls or spins you into the oncoming blow is by far the most common expression of the "grab and punch" attack scenarios. The videos that I shared show this reality. We also see it hundreds of times in Hockey games [ thus the name Hockey Punch; the Sword and Hammer is in essence a defense from flank and rear Hockey Punch attacks]. My version works in all main scenarios because you're taught to deal with the surprise blast punch [ you're dazed but still have to do Sword and Hammer] and you're taught to deal with all grab scenarios too. I didn't even show the Sword and Hammer vs the punch and tackle or vs the armed attack, but we do that too with little problem...and it's still a relatively newbie tech. I teach this allll the time...and people have been training with me from 2-3 months by the time I teach it. I've taught the tech to a brace of students as soon as 4 weeks into training with me too. It's really not at all hard to do and teach if you teach with an eye toward maximum performance and functionality.

The cover up I employ is natural functional and normal and is also part of Kenpo: it's called Collapsible Deflection. The outside pivot I use is also a sensible move that frees me from the grab. I don't use the Snapping Twig approach because I'm trying to be as universally applicable as possible. I made the change in my particular expression years ago when a student of mine named Sheree had her hair caught from a lateral grab while we practiced in class. She managed to free her shoulder from the grab, was able to deal with the stunning punch...but her sparring partner siezed her HAIR as well as her shoulder [wit hthe same grab that siezed her shoulder] so a Snapping Twig response won't work. The version I recommend and showed on this video worked perfectly under those and all the subsequent circumstances.



When I read that you and Chris Parker say stuff like THIS:

*************************************************************************************************************************************************************
"Originally Posted by *Chris Parker*

Honestly, if I was to offer you some advice, it would be to not automatically take the tact that every single technique is supposed to be an exact representation of violence, and to look for what it's teaching you. It seems to me that you tend to want to go to something you feel is more "realistic" without really looking at what is there in the first place... and that leads to some big gaps in what you're presenting.

Well, I said you wouldn't like it...

TWIN FIST SAYS--- 


I have been trying to tell you this.

the techniques are in some cases not supposed to be realistic, they are...physical metaphors designed to teach you a specific lesson

it seems like you missed that part (possibly you were never taught it, my original kenpo teacher Randy Edwardson of tiger crane kenpo in Long Beach didnt teach the concepts either i had to learn that later from Steve Spry) and you just look at the technique, and evaluate it based on pure realism.

you are actually missing a lot of the science of kenpo that way.

the "why" ..."<--TWIN FIST

****************************************************************************************************************************************************************

You guys further underscore my point and prove the exact opposite of your contentions. I mean...I couldn't've torpedoed your collective arguments as well all by myself without help from you guys in this regard.

The science, the knowledge, the metaphor, the truth...lie in the actual realism and doing. There is literally no other measuring stick that applies. Literally zero. Are you being metaphorically attacked or are you being REALLY attacked? Can you even grasp the underlying meaning of a metaphor without knowing in the real world that the words that comprise the metaphor aren't referring to the actual literal meaning of those words but instead are juxtaposing two things that aren't really related such as:"My faith is a rock!" or some such? See...the reality includes knowing the definition of and being able to aptly use metaphor. And the inferred reality by both the posts of you and Chris Parker seems to be that neither one of you are practicing functionality enough to grasp the fact that functionality mandates science and includes and transcends metaphor, whereas lack of direct real world empirical training imparts no science, no metaphor...but instead builds illusion and dysfunction. It gives rise to Kenpo guys who can spout all kinds of esorteric Kenpo jargon but stay as far away from the mat as possible and neither they nor nearly all of their students can do what really counts: defend themselves using Kenpo.

Let me put it another way: Mr. Parker, Doc Chapel, and their ilk are more than adept with the use of metaphor. They got there because they can fight. They will tell you that it is IMPOSSIBLE to take the opposite approach and arrive at the same end. Now...take a forms practitioner. Somebody who's the living emodiment of the art and metaphor of martial art. Ask them to fight. See what you get. Now, ask Mr. Parker, Jeff Speakman, Doc Chapel, or me to do a form. We'll KILL that form. I've won form trophies up the yin yang and out the wazoo.

Now ask yourself which is more complete. Ask yourself which you would rather have in a scrap. The guy who can fight or the guy who's basically Kenpo's version of demonstration wushu. 

Me? We at THE ATACX GYM don't see why it has to be an either/or situation. We do both and more...because that's functional. Who can write more beautifully compelling and movingly of the sea than a sailor...who is ALSO a poet? Who can write more compellingly of SpecOps for the general readership and audience than a SpecOps warrior...who is ALSO a talented writer? You get the point. We encompass both because doing so is what makes us complete. Training realisitically isn't the only way to grasp martial metaphor, but far and away the real world martial artist who is the one who both has the superior comprehension of martial metaphor in every way and gives rise to the superior martial scientist-artist in every way possible. Literally. We see that fact proven from Hotep to Sun Tzu, from Fudo to Ed Parker, from Touissaint Louverture to Bruce Lee, from Napolean to Richard Marcinko, from Gengis Khan to Col. John Boyd.

 That's the real world martial artist. The guy who trains his fighting techs vs empirical real world fighting because...you know...he'll be fighting in the empirical real world. Anyone...and I mean ANY PERSON OR GROUP...who recommends otherwise is literally by definition UNDERPREPARING their students for real world self defense. It can be argued very forcefully and accurately that said underpreparation [ if deliberate] amounts to purposeful sabotage. With the explosion of and accessibility to the internet? With the history of TMA and the popularity of MMA? Ignorance is no longer an acceptable excuse. As a martial arts instructor, IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO KNOW BETTER THAN THAT. Championing or practicing martial underperformance in the post-nuclear hyperdigital age is...a jaw-droppingly stupid thing to do.

 The martial instructors who do anything approaching what you and Chris Parker recommended in your own words and your own posts betray the most important responsibility that a martial arts instructor has to his/her/their students: the capacity to swifty comprehensively and realisitically defend themselves vs real world attacks using the techs they're taught to thwart said real world attacks exactly as shown to them by their instructor...along with the intrinsic discipline to know when to use them and why and the injunction not to abuse such knowledge. This combination has been championed for centuries as the primary way we develope our inner selves via practice of the martial arts and use the martial arts as a vehicle to become better overall human beings.

The method you recommend would fail to do all of that. Every bit of it. Mine succeeds not only resoundingly but with a ironclad guarantee. You WILL do as I promise literally in 8 hour increments...if you train with me and train the way that I recommend. This is not a condemnation of you, John aka Twin Fist or Chris Parker. I think differing opinions on this subject matter provides crucially needed context and mental stimulus, as I have stated many a time before. But oftentimes we can resolve much of this via objective reality, via science, via empirical testing...and that right there is the clincher for truly honest objective non-overly egotistically invested martial artists who value performance above all other aspects because performance is the key. Combat performance. Personal development performance. Perpetual technical improvement via improvements in performance enchancing methods and training methods. 

That's the difference between my philosophy and what the quote of yours and Chris Parker's above encapsulates. You guys' approach reliably fails and promotes ignorance to boot. Mine reliably succeeds and perforce requires probing questioning developing excellence and intelligence. And I mean that without any insult, just as I don't mean to insult the kenpoists who perform Sword and Hammer in a way that can be proven to be wholly unreliable visavis consistently successful self-defense techs are concerned. Every one of those guys in the Kenpo videos are sincere martial artists and I like their techs...I decry their training model and the results therefrom.


----------



## Twin Fist

you should avoid 10K word essays because, quite simply, your writing is poor. It is hard to read

And I remind you of a bit of old wisdom:

"if you cant explain it simply, you dont understand it well enough." -Albert Einstien

if it takes you 10K words to say it, you are either:
1) out of your depth
2) trying to say too much

the latter is more likely than the former.

I had a long, detailed point by point response typed out, then i realized it was a waste of time. 

It took me two read throughs to realize that your entire post is one long "i am bad *** and you are stupid" diatribe.... 

you are not looking for other opinions, you are looking for fans, or people you can try to intimidate and degrade

It is a waste of time for anyone to deal with you unless they agree totally with you, your only method of response to disagreement is 10K long "i am badd *** and you are stupid" essays.

Frankly, you dont have enough to offer to make it worth dealing with your egotistical self masturbatory wordgasms.

i AGREED WITH your technique.

and you still feel the need to tell me i am wrong no less than 6 times.

when i agreed with you.

you clearly just want approval and to tell people how bad *** you think you are and how much smarter you think you are than anyone else.

whatever talent you have is wasted under the weight of your ego.

This was my final attempt to gt through to you. You have failed my test.

good day.


----------



## Chris Parker

ATACX GYM said:


> Okay Chris, pressed for time but I write fast so I should still get a fairly voluminous response in. Here we go:
> 
> First off, almost everything you said is incorrect. A good half of your incorrect assumptions comes from the probability that you're not a Kenpo man, so you misunderstand things as presented in the system. Hell, that's fine...because most of Ed Parker's first generation Black Belts can't seem to agree on jack and they were there with Mr. Parker during the formative years of what has been called Motion Kenpo.



Er... right. Gotta say, you don't actually seem to have any correction for me, though.... And, for the record, I'm not incorrect. So you know.



ATACX GYM said:


> In Infinite Insights Into Kenpo, Mr. Parker talked about taking the IP and training it in a 360 degree circle. With the Tracy Brothers, Mr. Parker frequently repeated a lesson he was taught by a female Japanese Sensei who I believe is named Sensei Tanaka. This concept he referred to as "50 Ways To Sunday". You train a tech every whichaway against multiple kinds of resistance and that is a major way of actually acquiring functionality with it.



Hardly a Kempo-particular training method, Ras. We have the same idea in a range of our methods. Catch is, though, that's not what you're doing. Additionally, the very premise of the technique kinda denies performing it in multiple directions, as it'd designed against an attack from a particular direction/side to begin with.  



ATACX GYM said:


> Moving on to the videos, you see me showing different groups showing essentially and fundamentally the exact same or incredibly similar expressions of Sword and Hammer...when that was never to be the case. The IP as defined by Mister Parker was supposed to be created from sensei to student on a case by case basis. The sensei was to take a common street attack, encapsulate it, use a combo of his/her/their training experience and Kenpo karate's techs concepts etc as the medium to FUNCTIONALLY resolve the attack. This means that each IP should differ from dojo to dojo, yet still have the concrete similarity of Kenpo techs and concepts to bind them. What happened instead was that too many teachers merely copied what they were shown and mistook the techs for the Way. The result is nonfunctional craptacularity, diluting the practicing methodology and functional training of a system [ Kenpo in this case but pretty much any martial art will do ] which is devastatingly effective when trained functionally.



Hang on, are you saying that each instructor and student is supposed to make up what they feel "works" for them, rather than follow what the techniques actually are? Really? Then what makes it that art itself? This is the thing, Ras, there are established techniques, which may have some variation from instructor to instructor, but are fundamentally the same. That is demonstrated with your clips of other instructors showing basically the same thing. It makes it possible for the art to be taught reliably, as well as for intra-organisational and inter-organisational discussion to occur.

As far as the last comments there, frankly Ras, that shows me a fair amount of problems with your approach... 



ATACX GYM said:


> You are massively incorrect too when it comes to the correlation between my videos and real world attacks. Some of this you have no excuse for...there is a direct empirical correlation between the responses that I've shown on my videos and the attacks shown in real world scenarios. If you can't see this, I feel sorry for you...but I could spell it out for you using the video evidence if you need me to. Furthermore, there are a many maaaaannnny instances during which a flank or rear attack results in the attacker basically displacing the defender with his grab and reaching around in front of him to bang him in the face or straight up blasting him in the back of his head or ribs or whatever. Imo far and away the most common expression of this is an attack without any form of grab; the BG just comes up from behind you or the side and straight whallops you and that's that. Either you're done or you're now scrappin after you got clocked and perhaps got dazed to boot. I specifically address that in my video...the fact that you are likely to be cracked and staggered prior to your being aware that an attack is launched or at least prior to your being able to respond to the attack.



Are you kidding? The technique deals with a grab and attempted punch, and you show blind-siding king-hits (sucker punches), and you think they're the same thing? Then, when both John and I point out the lack of relationship, you say that I'm "massively incorrect"? Ras, I have eyes, you know.... 

As to the idea of getting hit and not dropped straight away, it's not that I'm saying that doesn't happen, it's that each example you gave showed people being knocked down, and said your technique deals with it. And, for the record, getting knocked around a bit would make it harder for you to perform what you're showing. Not impossible, but a much lower chance of success.



ATACX GYM said:


> By the way, the entry into the far wrist tie and standing D'arce was a spontaneous response. Kai--my friend helping me in the video, the buff guy in the black tank top--is untrained and never did this kind of video before. He reacted naturally after I launched my variant of Sword and Hammer and he still got choked. The reason I was able to apply one of the main chokes that I feature in my variant of Sword and Hammer is because we actually practice Sword and Hammer vs escalating noncooperative resistance by skilled and unorthodox people. In the same vein that a boxer feels that he/she can pull off a jab against most boxers and virtually all untrained boxers? That's how I feel about my techs; pretty much whatever you do? If you're in range of Sword and Hammer I will pull that tech off or pretty much any other Kenpo tech I feel like, because I trained it too often against too high of a caliber of resistance to fail with any sort of regularity. This isn't tooting my own horn; zillions of martial artists can do the same thing. A wrestler will double leg you, even if you know it's coming ahead of time. A bjj man will pull guard, a judoka will throw you, a kali man will knife you...or at least you will be endangered by the attempts of all of the above to do whatever they're good at. So will I. And that's what I mean by my confidence in my use of my Kenpo. Nothing that a functional martial artist should look at as remarkably out of the ordinary.



Please. You got the choke on because you were demonstrating, and he was going along with it. The rest of this shows a lot of fundamental gaps in reality, by the way.



ATACX GYM said:


> The other part of your massive incorrectness I don't blame you for at all...because it's a relatively reasonable assumption for a [ presumably ] non-Kenpo man to assume that there is a mandatory uniform rigidity in the execution of Sword and Hammer and going with the dominant expression seems alot more sensible than going with the expression of renegade [ that's me ] who you already disagreed with in other areas. But that's the core and crux of the differences in the video...the dominant expression is dysfunctional. Training Sword and Hammer with different grips and such does NOT change the tech Sword and Hammer. See, WE'RE DOING SWORD AND HAMMER NOT THE BAD GUY...and we should be able to reliably pull it off against any unarmed bad guy h2h in arm's reach as reliably as a boxer is able to jab someone, a wrestler double legs some untrained guy or a Muay Thai guy leg kicks or clinches and knees some untrained BG. If you can't do Sword and Hammer to a BG pretty much whenever under these circumstances? Imo you can't do Sword and Hammer period.



But what you're doing only has three things that connect it with Sword and Hammer, and only superficially at that. Namely the angle the attacker approaches from, the use of a sword-hand and hammer-fist (which, by themselves, does not make the technique itself "Sword and Hammer"), and the name. What I was looking for is that you follow what the technique itself follows the strategies and tactics of Sword and Hammer, which it doesn't. As a result, it's not Sword and Hammer. And no, I don't expect the exact same performance, I expect it to be the same method, though. 



ATACX GYM said:


> I realize I differ sharply with most of Kenpodom when I say what I have said...but that's okay. The bottom line is that the way Sword and Hammer is taught is exactly how it should work in a throwdown. When you bridge and roll or slap on a armbar in bjj, you don't "ideally" do it in some nonfunctional way and magically be able to do it functionally in a throwdown. No. You train it how you will actually use it. Same with the MT clinch, the wrestler ties and tackles, judo throws, boxing's punches, Olympic TKD kicks, SWAT CQB tactics, etc etc. It should be no different for Kenpoists or Capoeiristas...but sadly it is for far too many of them. Not for me. Every single facet and aspect of every single tech that I use and teach is rigorously and constantly tested. I'm open to new approaches and entries and stuff and we revise stuff all the time. We just revised some aspects of Thrusting Wedge 2 days ago, for instance. Now it's even better than before. Too many 'so-called IP' adherents are utterly inflexible in this area, to the detriment of Kenpo as a whole.



Wow, this shows a lot of issues in understanding the training methods of many different arts, Ras. 



ATACX GYM said:


> It is Sword and Hammer...it's The ATACX GYM's Sword and Hammer. It's not what many other Motion Kenpoist's call their Sword and Hammer, and that is as it should be.That's why I said:



Based on every single other example of the technique, no, it's not. You choose to use the same name due purely to the same fists being used, but that's it. It's not the same technique, which has been our point.



ATACX GYM said:


> The issue isn't so much just who's Sword and Hammer it is because anyone doing Sword and Hammer will do their own Sword and Hammer no matter how faithfully they try to emulate another person.Insofar as the Ideal Phase is concerned, and I quote:
> 
> "According to Ed Parker,after the base technique method (Ideal Phase) is learned, the student should then progressively continue to refine the techniques to individualize the Kenpo System. This 'tailored' system is to be individually practiced..."
> 
> That should put an end, once and for all, about this silly idea that Sword and Hammer has to look exactly like and be done exactly alike across the entire spectrum. Such an idea and such an approach runs directly contrary to Mr. Parker's stated desires. If we disagree here? Then we just disagree, Twin Fist. Let's just let it ride at that point. If the label I put on it is that problematic for you? Ignore the label. Look at the tech and determine if it works [ which is one set of analysis] and secondly if it's the kind of thing that you or anyone else reading this post might draw something beneficial from and have it work FOR YOU [which is a substantially different thing].
> 
> Okay...back to training. Have a nice one, everyone.



Uh, you may be reading a bit too much into the words there.... I wouldn't say that Ed Parker was suggesting that you initially take a technique (teaching a particular form of response against a particular form of attack), then basically throw out almost everything, change the technique to something unrecognizable from the original, miss the point of the technique in the first place, go against the very lessons it's teaching, in order to make up what you want and call it the same thing. Cause Ras? That's what you've done here.

In terms of telling John to "ignore the label and look at the tech", when you put it up as a version of the initial one and ask for a comparison to be made, to ascertain which one is "better", or "works", but your version isn't anything like the original, the attacks you use to make your point aren't the ones that the technique is designed against, it changes what we look at when we see the technique. If you just put up the videos as a response against a rear grab and punch, fine. But you proffered it as a version of Sword and Hammer, giving the other forms as contrasts. Therefore ignoring the label and just looking at the technique really doesn't work. At all.



ATACX GYM said:


> Getting passed the now farcical debate about nomenclature, let us focus on what is most important...performance. Does it work? Which variant works best... the so-called "traditional IP" [ which isn't the traditional IP but that's another story] or THE ATACX GYM variant?
> 
> If you were attacked like THIS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [video=youtube_share;A36Bw5I3-g0]http://youtu.be/A36Bw5I3-g0[/video]
> 
> 
> 
> or some punk fool who needs to go to jail attacked you like THIS:
> 
> [can't embed this but it's on Metacafe so I left this link]
> 
> 
> http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2011/12/dolphins_fan_knocked_out_by_su.php
> 
> 
> 
> or like THIS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [video=youtube_share;OlP9-8f5YpE]http://youtu.be/OlP9-8f5YpE[/video]
> 
> 
> 
> would training like THIS be a better way to deal with the matter:
> 
> 
> 
> [video=youtube_share;oJbyIBmhDN0]http://youtu.be/oJbyIBmhDN0[/video]
> 
> 
> 
> [video=youtube_share;YGDc1oOFDcI]http://youtu.be/YGDc1oOFDcI[/video]
> 
> 
> 
> or would THE ATACX GYM variants seem more functional?
> 
> 
> 
> ATACX GYM SWORD AND HAMMER PT. 1
> 
> 
> [video=youtube_share;eo4yj0MZyeI]http://youtu.be/eo4yj0MZyeI[/video]
> 
> 
> 
> SWORD AND HAMMER PT. 2
> 
> 
> [video=youtube_share;R-mmdyIHkjs]http://youtu.be/R-mmdyIHkjs[/video]



Isn't that just the same damn thing you posted in the first place? Seriously, Ras, the answer is the same. As far as "which is better", honestly, I'd prefer the "IP" version, it's a damn solid technique. Yours is too messy, too complicated, too reliant on too many issues, has legal issues (here, at least), and just doesn't come across as anywhere near as reliable.



ATACX GYM said:


> When I read that you and Chris Parker say stuff like THIS:
> 
> *************************************************************************************************************************************************************
> "Originally Posted by *Chris Parker*
> 
> Honestly, if I was to offer you some advice, it would be to not automatically take the tact that every single technique is supposed to be an exact representation of violence, and to look for what it's teaching you. It seems to me that you tend to want to go to something you feel is more "realistic" without really looking at what is there in the first place... and that leads to some big gaps in what you're presenting.
> 
> Well, I said you wouldn't like it...
> 
> TWIN FIST SAYS---
> 
> 
> I have been trying to tell you this.
> 
> the techniques are in some cases not supposed to be realistic, they are...physical metaphors designed to teach you a specific lesson
> 
> it seems like you missed that part (possibly you were never taught it, my original kenpo teacher Randy Edwardson of tiger crane kenpo in Long Beach didnt teach the concepts either i had to learn that later from Steve Spry) and you just look at the technique, and evaluate it based on pure realism.
> 
> you are actually missing a lot of the science of kenpo that way.
> 
> the "why" ..."<--TWIN FIST
> 
> ****************************************************************************************************************************************************************
> 
> You guys further underscore my point and prove the exact opposite of your contentions. I mean...I couldn't've torpedoed your collective arguments as well all by myself without help from you guys in this regard.



Really? You talk a lot about being able to "torpedo" others arguments, but I note that you have yet to ever actually do that... or have anything more to say other than "I could prove you wrong, but I'm not going to". I'm far from convinced, Ras. About quite a lot.



ATACX GYM said:


> The science, the knowledge, the metaphor, the truth...lie in the actual realism and doing. There is literally no other measuring stick that applies. Literally zero. Are you being metaphorically attacked or are you being REALLY attacked? Can you even grasp the underlying meaning of a metaphor without knowing in the real world that the words that comprise the metaphor aren't referring to the actual literal meaning of those words but instead are juxtaposing two things that aren't really related such as:"My faith is a rock!" or some such? See...the reality includes knowing the definition of and being able to aptly use metaphor. And the inferred reality by both the posts of you and Chris Parker seems to be that neither one of you are practicing functionality enough to grasp the fact that functionality mandates science and includes and transcends metaphor, whereas lack of direct real world empirical training imparts no science, no metaphor...but instead builds illusion and dysfunction. It gives rise to Kenpo guys who can spout all kinds of esorteric Kenpo jargon but stay as far away from the mat as possible and neither they nor nearly all of their students can do what really counts: defend themselves using Kenpo.



And, again, this shows a large gap in your understanding of quite a range of martial training methods, Ras.



ATACX GYM said:


> The martial instructors who do anything approaching what you and Chris Parker recommended in your own words and your own posts betray the most important responsibility that a martial arts instructor has to his/her/their students: the capacity to swifty comprehensively and realisitically defend themselves vs real world attacks using the techs they're taught to thwart said real world attacks exactly as shown to them by their instructor...along with the intrinsic discipline to know when to use them and why and the injunction not to abuse such knowledge. This combination has been championed for centuries as the primary way we develope our inner selves via practice of the martial arts and use the martial arts as a vehicle to become better overall human beings.



Ras, you frankly have no idea whatsoever of what I do. If you can't see the huge issues with the above from my posts, you really don't have the insight you think you do.



ATACX GYM said:


> That's the difference between my philosophy and what the quote of yours and Chris Parker's above encapsulates. You guys' approach reliably fails and promotes ignorance to boot. Mine reliably succeeds and perforce requires probing questioning developing excellence and intelligence. And I mean that without any insult, just as I don't mean to insult the kenpoists who perform Sword and Hammer in a way that can be proven to be wholly unreliable visavis consistently successful self-defense techs are concerned. Every one of those guys in the Kenpo videos are sincere martial artists and I like their techs...I decry their training model and the results therefrom.



No, Ras, it shows a highly limited understanding of martial arts and training. That's blunt, but there it is.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Twin Fist said:


> you should avoid 10K word essays because, quite simply, your writing is poor. It is hard to read
> 
> And I remind you of a bit of old wisdom:
> 
> "if you cant explain it simply, you dont understand it well enough." -Albert Einstien
> 
> if it takes you 10K words to say it, you are either:
> 1) out of your depth
> 2) trying to say too much
> 
> the latter is more likely than the former.
> 
> I had a long, detailed point by point response typed out, then i realized it was a waste of time.
> 
> It took me two read throughs to realize that your entire post is one long "i am bad *** and you are stupid" diatribe....
> 
> you are not looking for other opinions, you are looking for fans, or people you can try to intimidate and degrade
> 
> It is a waste of time for anyone to deal with you unless they agree totally with you, your only method of response to disagreement is 10K long "i am badd *** and you are stupid" essays.
> 
> Frankly, you dont have enough to offer to make it worth dealing with your egotistical self masturbatory wordgasms.
> 
> i AGREED WITH your technique.
> 
> and you still feel the need to tell me i am wrong no less than 6 times.
> 
> when i agreed with you.
> 
> you clearly just want approval and to tell people how bad *** you think you are and how much smarter you think you are than anyone else.
> 
> whatever talent you have is wasted under the weight of your ego.
> 
> This was my final attempt to gt through to you. You have failed my test.
> 
> good day.




Regarding Albert Einstein's quote? I answered simply enough: "This is THE ATACX GYM SWORD AND HAMMER. This tech like all my techs have came into existence because the so-called IP Sword and Hammer fails to reliably thwart the attack it claims to thwart, so [very scientifically, I might add ] I faced the attack myself and revised the response using Sword and Hammer to functionally reliably thwart the attack. This new expression is my own variant of Sword and Hammer [ or whatever Kenpo tech I teach ] and it works very well and simply. Lemme show you what I mean..."  I was and am curious and I shared scientifically the results of my research and curiosity.

"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing."--Albert Einstein.


Don't mistake having alot to say for verbosity. Albert Einstein had ALOT OF QUOTES. According to what your post implies? He should've had a sparse few quotes and that's that. Wrong. The Bible, The Quran, The Torah, The Illiad, The Odyssey, The Art of War, Infinite Insights, Stephen King, Isaac Asimov, Stephen Hawking, Gene Roddenbery, Bruce Lee, Col. John Boyd, Richard Marcinko, Doc Chapel, Tom Clancy, erica hooks, Susan B. Anthony, Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass, Mestre Bimba etc etc etc had alot more than 10k words to say. They frequently found themselves saying more because some members of their audience were comprehending less or disputing their positions more. That's what happened with you and I, John. And you know it.

I wasn't disagreeing with you regarding the areas that we agree in. To wit:

You said my techs isn't Sword and Hammer. I said it is...observe the hammerfist and the handsword being applied scientifically simply and successfully to the flank and rear grabs merged with simultaneous pushes and punches. You said that I should call my tech something different...I  said I already do: it's called ATACX GYM SWORD AND HAMMER...it's on the video. You constantly say that I haven't called my tech something different. We disagree there too. You said I'm teaching a brown or black belt level tech and I can't get beginners to do this tech. I said I've taught this tech with EASE to beginners for decades and I can do it again. Within 8 hours they'll be able to fight with it. Guaranteed. Because I'm functional? I can usually have them able to pull it off against nonoverwhelming attacks [ little woman attacked by surprise by some huge armed guy or something ] in literally 1 hour of training the tech. Been doing it for decades. It doesn't take a brown or black belt to learn to jab. I can teach you the jab in under an hour. You'll refine the jab for the rest of your life...but you'll be doing it with basic proper mechanics within 12 minutes of meeting me. You'll spend the next 45 minutes repping it out in drills and vs resistance. That's how you know you can jab. That is exactly what I do with every tech that I teach and know. I even pointed out that there's at least one person on this site who's seen me do this very thing within 8 minutes of laying eyes for the first time on his 17 year old white belt SKK student. You said that I'm constantly saying what a badass I am. I disagreed and asked you to point out where I said that. You never produced a single quote because it doesn't exist. 

You are attempting to slide in aspects of your criticisms which you know I disagree with, opinions of yours that you're attempting to not get me to call you out on every time you say something that's empirically false [ like how I don't do Sword and Hammer and like how I don't call my tech something else ] and which are the results of your own opinions which until this very thread have been largely bombastically and rudely cast about as fact [ thank you very much for the change in tone and your more civil posts ]. You seem to look at the way the so-called IP does Sword and Hammer and not question it; accept it as truth. Or you're not questioning your own martial education deeply enough and testing it objectively and empirically enough to perceive the simple obviousness of the fact that what I recommend is indeed Sword and Hammer; just my own variant of it. Exactly as Mr. Parker would have us do in Motion Kenpo. 

However, I am doing things the way I do because I'm minutely questioning and testing my martial education, and from that experience I'm actually learning...

"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education."--Albert Einstein


----------



## ATACX GYM

I saw your response, Chris. I appreciate the depth and the detail of your responses in all honesty I do...but it will be even easier than I thought it would be to respond to all of your positions. And truth be told? I knew it would be easy simply based upon your previous posts on this thread. Be back for ya in a minute...


----------



## Twin Fist

ATACX GYM said:


> "The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing."--Albert Einstein.




you have to be willing to listen to the answers

you wont

thats why you fail


----------



## jks9199

Watching this back and forth, I was spurred to do some research.  



> Our  one and only Senior Grandmaster was not yet sixty years old when he  passed away. In Chinese terms, he would be considered just beginning to  move into his prime. Most of the subsequent self-proclaimed  &#8220;Grandmasters&#8221; of his commercial art got there faster than he did. Yet  Ed Parker was a perpetual student and was still learning until the day  he moved on. Mr. Parker was a genius, and he definitely accelerated the  learning process from the Traditional Chinese. He was always exploring  and accumulating more knowledge and never failed to remind students,  &#8220;One doesn&#8217;t become great until they realize what they know is very  little.&#8221; What some call evolution, Ed Parker called &#8220;tailoring and  rearrangement.&#8221; They are doing what Ed Parker always taught for  Motion-Kenpo. For this they should be commended.
> 
> However,  this has given us too many young &#8220;masters.&#8221; Although many are content  with where they are, others are unaware of how to move further. Still  many others are exploring other arts not realizing much of what they  seek is available closer to home. There is also a sizable group that  would like more but is unwilling to give up what they think they have.  Full cups don&#8217;t have much room. All that really matters however is  continuing to educate oneself. Ed Parker always said, &#8220;The mind is like a  parachute, it only works when it&#8217;s open.&#8221; If something is missing in  your or your instructors Kenpo, ask intelligent questions.
> 
> A  great deal of the SubLevel 4 information comes from my own lesson  notes. Mr. Parker dictated the core and laid the foundation. He  constantly scrutinized, examined, and decided what he personally wanted.  This forced me to write my own Coursebooks for my students. The  information was, and as far as I know, is not available in written form  anywhere else. Mr. Parker expected me to keep track of, and codify what  we were doing at the time. It allowed him the freedom to &#8220;think&#8221; freely,  and removed the burden of organizing the information. He really  disliked organizing his thoughts sometimes because it slowed him down in  the creation process. He often asked or assigned students  organizational problems. He formed a foundation for me that I will be  utilizing perpetually.
> 
> In  my lessons he stressed the execution of a sound workable Default  Technique to strengthen and solidify a firm foundation and physical  vocabulary. I was never allowed to deviate. Unlike Motion-Kenpo which is  plagued by what I call the &#8220;what if syndrome,&#8221; Mr. Parker mandated I  understand the importance of a specific sequential structure. This is  the completely opposite of the &#8220;tailored&#8221; flexibility concept found in  his general teachings. Although experimentation was a part of my  lessons, he was the one that initiated it, until he was satisfied with  the results. He often changed his directions, and I had to flow with the  lesson of the day. He told me what to do, how to do it, and a little at  a time, the &#8220;why.&#8221; The &#8220;why,&#8221; was most important, because he taught me  &#8220;why&#8221; you couldn&#8217;t change techniques, not &#8220;why&#8221; you could. His lessons  allowed Kenpo to be more destructive without maiming, as well as more  passive if you desired. It does not attack the soft tissue of the eyes,  throat or testicles because it doesn&#8217;t have to for effectiveness. If you  remove soft tissue assaults in Motion-Kenpo, what do you have left?  Nothing remains but the blunt force trauma available to any unskilled  street fighter.



From SL4 Concepts by Ron Chap'el

Ras, after reading a lot of your posts, I have no doubt that you are very skilled, very knowledgeable, and very passionate about your training.  But, I think there are also areas where you don't know nearly as much as you think, and you're trying to apply your incomplete or external understanding of some training methods.  At the same time, I think you're also catching grief for being "different", and that sometimes people aren't seeing what you're saying because of that.

I've never trained Kenpo, under any format.  My understanding, based on readings & interviews from Ed Parker, Ron Chap'el, and others, is that each of the named techniques embodies a concept or ideal.  The name contains a code of sorts to the concept or ideal, as well as the weapons employed.  Training takes place at several levels or across different approaches.  In the beginning, the technique is learned exactly as shown, against a scripted attack with an attacker going along.  Later, the technique can be adapted and the principle applied against less predicted attacks.  As long as that principle is maintained, the technique is "true" to the concept.  

Now, let's look at Sword & Hammer.  I found this page which gave a thorough breakdown of the model technique.  My understanding is that the technique begins by being grabbed and pulled, from the right side.  The response is to turn and step into the pull, delivering first a chop to the attackers throat then a hammer to the groin.  The page attributes the following description to Ed Parker himself:


> SWORD AND HAMMER (right flank &#8211; left hand shoulder grab)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While you are standing naturally (facing 12 o&#8217;clock), your opponent  (standing between 3 and 4 o&#8217;clock) grabs your right shoulder with his  left hand. Immediately and simultaneously (1) step off and to your right  with your right foot toward 3 o&#8217;clock into a horse stance (with your  head and eyes turned toward your opponent), (2) strike your opponent&#8217;s  throat with a right outward handsword, and (3) pin your opponent&#8217;s left  hand to your right shoulder with your left hand. (This action should  cause your opponent&#8217;s head to move away from you.)
> As your opponent reacts to your handsword strike and bends backward,  settle your body (by bending your knees) and with the help of  gravitational marriage execute a right back hammerfist strike to your  opponent&#8217;s groin. (Your opponent should then bend forward at the waist.)



Let's look at that technique for a second.  You're grabbed, perhaps to be pulled into a punch -- so you ride that pull into the attack, using his energy and your own motion to strike him and disrupting that potential punch, then before he can recover from the initial strike, you deliver another shot that hopefully will be a serious deterrent.  If all goes according to plan, the attacker is probably gasping past a spasming (or crushed) throat while simultaneously dealing with the nausea and pain of a major strike to the groin.  You're in a position to do more, if necessary, as well.  I like this technique.  It's solid, can be taught quickly, and relies on gross body movements.  I like that you're moving into the attacker; you neutralize a lot of potential further attacks that way.  It's not a perfect technique, though, in my opinion.  You're inside your attacker, and he has a number of options if the first shot doesn't sufficiently shatter his attention.  Groin shots aren't 100% reliable.

So, let's look at your ATACX GYM version.  Rather then turn in, you step and turn away, shielding as you turn.  You expect your opponent to strike at you again, so you step into that strike, again shielding, clinch and begin to knee and strike your attacker.  It's not a bad technique -- but it's significantly different from the original.  The initial attack has changed; it's no longer a grab and pull, it's a push and pummel.  You've lost the hand sword and hammer fist, instead using similar hand positions as a shield for your turn and entry.  Like I said, I wouldn't call it a bad technique.  There are things here I like, too.  It's a good redirection, and your emphasis on covering as you enter is good.  You're nicely set up for knees, kicks, elbows, and more when you enter.  

But your version is built around a different attack, and different principles in response.  It's not really a better version of Sword & Hammer, any more than a custard is a better version of a souffle. They're both egg-based dishes, but that's about where the resemblance ends.  ​


----------



## Twin Fist

[SUP]Chris,
Ras isnt doing Ed Parker's Sword and Hammer, so he isnt doing it"wrong" thats how he justifies his position

he is doing something he made up, and since he cant or wont create a unique name for his technique he is just calling it sword and hammer

it is sort of like the  dude in Comming to America. He opened a restaurant called McDowell's where they served Big Mic's. The food wasnt bad, he was just shamlessly stealing someone else's hard work

go to hong kong, and they have "Mayboro" cigerettes, red and white package, looks a LOT like some other better known product

and the smokes are not bad, but they are not the real thing.

thats what we have here.

it isnt BAD, but it isnt sword and hammer, his other technique vids are all the same, he takes the names, and does a different attack and different defense and anyone that points that out to him isnt smart enough to get what he is doing.

hell, i AGREED with his technique and he still had to tell me i was wrong

I think he is just here to argue.

seriously.

take this:
[/SUP] *"I said I've taught this tech with EASE to beginners for decades and I can do it again. Within 8 hours they'll be able to fight with it. Guaranteed. Because I'm functional? I can usually have them able to pull it off against nonoverwhelming attacks [ little woman attacked by surprise by some huge armed guy or something ] in literally 1 hour of training the tech. Been doing it for decades."
*
this simply isnt possible.

I will say in no uncertain terms, this isnt possible

you cannot take a person off the street and have them fighting with a technique, ANY technique in 8 hours.

they might remember a sequence of movements in one hour, but they wont have a clue when they are doing, and thier attacks wont have any power and will most likely hurt thier hands more than the person they are trying to hit.

anyone that have actually taught someone knows this.


----------



## Twin Fist

"You said that I'm constantly saying what a badass I am. I disagreed and asked you to point out where I said that. You never produced a single quote because it doesn't exist. "

are you serious? i can re-post DOZENS of quotes of you blowing your own horn, do you really want to get humiliated and proven to be dishonest?

save yourself the embarrassment.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Twin Fist said:


> you have to be willing to listen to the answers
> 
> you wont
> 
> thats why you fail



There's a big biiig difference between a RESPONSE...which is what you did in the above quote...and a ANSWER. There's also a huge difference between DISAGREEING and NOT LISTENING. And NOT AGREEING WITH YOUR OPINIONS, Twin Fist, doesn't equate with FAILURE.


----------



## Twin Fist

dude it was a test

I AGREED WITH YOU and you still had to tell me i was wrong

that convinced me that you are only here to argue and i got no time for someone with , how was it put to you? oh yeah:

an unteachable spirit

You might be a great fighter, but you will never be great martial artist.

I doubt you will even see the difference


----------



## ATACX GYM

jks9199 said:


> Watching this back and forth, I was spurred to do some research.
> 
> 
> 
> From SL4 Concepts by Ron Chap'el
> 
> Ras, after reading a lot of your posts, I have no doubt that you are very skilled, very knowledgeable, and very passionate about your training.  But, I think there are also areas where you don't know nearly as much as you think, and you're trying to apply your incomplete or external understanding of some training methods.  At the same time, I think you're also catching grief for being "different", and that sometimes people aren't seeing what you're saying because of that.
> 
> I've never trained Kenpo, under any format.  My understanding, based on readings & interviews from Ed Parker, Ron Chap'el, and others, is that each of the named techniques embodies a concept or ideal.  The name contains a code of sorts to the concept or ideal, as well as the weapons employed.  Training takes place at several levels or across different approaches.  In the beginning, the technique is learned exactly as shown, against a scripted attack with an attacker going along.  Later, the technique can be adapted and the principle applied against less predicted attacks.  As long as that principle is maintained, the technique is "true" to the concept.
> 
> Now, let's look at Sword & Hammer.  I found this page which gave a thorough breakdown of the model technique.  My understanding is that the technique begins by being grabbed and pulled, from the right side.  The response is to turn and step into the pull, delivering first a chop to the attackers throat then a hammer to the groin.  The page attributes the following description to Ed Parker himself:
> 
> 
> Let's look at that technique for a second.  You're grabbed, perhaps to be pulled into a punch -- so you ride that pull into the attack, using his energy and your own motion to strike him and disrupting that potential punch, then before he can recover from the initial strike, you deliver another shot that hopefully will be a serious deterrent.  If all goes according to plan, the attacker is probably gasping past a spasming (or crushed) throat while simultaneously dealing with the nausea and pain of a major strike to the groin.  You're in a position to do more, if necessary, as well.  I like this technique.  It's solid, can be taught quickly, and relies on gross body movements.  I like that you're moving into the attacker; you neutralize a lot of potential further attacks that way.  It's not a perfect technique, though, in my opinion.  You're inside your attacker, and he has a number of options if the first shot doesn't sufficiently shatter his attention.  Groin shots aren't 100% reliable.
> 
> So, let's look at your ATACX GYM version.  Rather then turn in, you step and turn away, shielding as you turn.  You expect your opponent to strike at you again, so you step into that strike, again shielding, clinch and begin to knee and strike your attacker.  It's not a bad technique -- but it's significantly different from the original.  The initial attack has changed; it's no longer a grab and pull, it's a push and pummel.  You've lost the hand sword and hammer fist, instead using similar hand positions as a shield for your turn and entry.  Like I said, I wouldn't call it a bad technique.  There are things here I like, too.  It's a good redirection, and your emphasis on covering as you enter is good.  You're nicely set up for knees, kicks, elbows, and more when you enter.
> 
> But your version is built around a different attack, and different principles in response.  It's not really a better version of Sword & Hammer, any more than a custard is a better version of a souffle. They're both egg-based dishes, but that's about where the resemblance ends.​




Now THIS is more like it! Thanks for your response...it's well researched and well presented. I like much of your response too. I think yo're jcorrect in that I catch flakk for being "different", and I am the first to admit and acknowledge that my knowledge of what I call Kenpo is incomplete. I don't know anyone [ including, by all accounts, Mr. Parker himself ] who would seriously opine the opposite.

On top of that? Insofar as Sword and Hammer and any and all other names of techs of Kenpo is concerned? I completely agree. I think that there is significant importance regarding the meaning of the tech...but right here is where the deviation starts on my part. As you said...let's take a look at Sword and Hammer in the piece you quoted above and compare and contrast it with both mine and the more common, more prominent physical expression in what Doc called  the "idea not Ideal" Phase of Motion Kenpo.

1). The technique is vastly flawed. It assumes that the BG will grab and pull your shoulder, and the Kenpoist will be able to preemptively respond and dispense with the attacker with this tech prior to any other harm befalling him.

VIDEOS OF THE I.P. PROVIDED ON THIS THREAD SHOW THAT:  There is nobody pulling on your shoulder. The uke is tamely reaching out and very lightly grasping the demonstrator's shoulder. Uke MIGHT cock a fist, but in ever ase uke stands paralyzed like a petrified zombie. The demonstrator then fires off his techs...Sword and Hammer...and that's a wrap for uke. Everyone rejoices in the kenpo dojos.

VIDEO OF THE ATACX GYM: Immediately real world pressures and actions are considered,such as: the energy of a grabbing push  not only displacing you but disrupting counterattacks based upon the premise of Kenpoists preemptively defeating attacks prior to attackers being able to launch their offensives. This is a highly flawed and oft-repeated concept in Motion Kenpo, and is highly unrealistic. Simply recreating the requisite scenario on the mat and requiring the students to do as either the original suggestion regarding the IP Sword and Hammer suggested or any of the stuff misrepresented as the IP in the kenpo videos that aren't mine would immediately make this reality bold and obvious. The recommended responses will not work as scripted taught and shown. That's like having a FBI instructor show you shooting techs that won't work under pressure, a parachuting jumpmaster showing you techs that will fail to open your parachute afte you jump out of the plane or whatever spot that's high off the ground, or a boxing coach showing you how to NOT jab under pressure...and claiming you CAN jab under pressure. You go to a swimming coach to learn to swim, cuz you alred know hat you'll drown or that your swimming doesn't meet the requirements you set for yourself.

Therefore, you are correct sir...I have indeed changed the attack.j..by making it far more realistic. Far more real world. Functionalizing the attack functionalizes the response. So my change is not only an improvement over the original model and most especially the model presented as the IP in most Kenpo videos...my version is a reflection of the actual definition of The Ideal Phase. Again and I repeat...Mr. Parker and recently Doc Chapel specified that The Ideal Phase is supposed to be crafted on a case by case basis by student to teacher, using the techs and medium of Kenpo, combined with the teacher and student's prior experience, all in pursuit of properly implementing the tech Sword and Hammer.

LEGAL AND MORAL RAMIFICATIONS: One of the relatively rare instances that I agree with Chris Parker here...I don't think that [ even if you are miraculously able to pull off the Sword and Hammer as scripted, which you almost nobody can do reliably ] a chop to the throat/jgroin hammer is the best response that one should hardwire into your muscle memory. There are levels of response, gradations of destution, that may be superior to the "go for the gusto" neck chop and nads mashing recommended here. That's why I recommend the cover [ because if you tress test this tech contextually? YOU WILL GET HIT MOST OF THE TIME BEFORE YOU RESPOND ] the step out and the defensive spin then the deployment of the Sword and Hammer FIRST to the opponent's grasping arm. In the real world, I've found that deploying the ATACX GYM Sword and Hammer variant with stank nasty effect oftentimes resolves the whole matter by itself...it not only propels the opponent away, but oftentimes the strike applied to the arm of the aggressor by the hammerfist and handsword prevents further aggression.


Hold up the Super Bowl is on. I will answer more in depth afteward.


----------



## jks9199

ATACX GYM said:


> Now THIS is more like it! Thanks for your response...it's well researched and well presented. I like much of your response too. I think yo're jcorrect in that I catch flakk for being "different", and I am the first to admit and acknowledge that my knowledge of what I call Kenpo is incomplete. I don't know anyone [ including, by all accounts, Mr. Parker himself ] who would seriously opine the opposite.
> 
> On top of that? Insofar as Sword and Hammer and any and all other names of techs of Kenpo is concerned? I completely agree. I think that there is significant importance regarding the meaning of the tech...but right here is where the deviation starts on my part. As you said...let's take a look at Sword and Hammer in the piece you quoted above and compare and contrast it with both mine and the more common, more prominent physical expression in what Doc called  the "idea not Ideal" Phase of Motion Kenpo.
> 
> 1). The technique is vastly flawed. It assumes that the BG will grab and pull your shoulder, and the Kenpoist will be able to preemptively respond and dispense with the attacker with this tech prior to any other harm befalling him.


As I read the notes and Parker's own description of the technique, the goal is to respond nearly instantaneously with the grab, before a punch could land.  You're going to move inward, inside the attack, if a punch is coming.  And even if you don't beat the punch, that hand sword could become a block/deflection of the attack.  If there's no punch, and it's merely a grab to unbalance -- the concern is moot.   I think you're trying to make it fit a different situation than it was designed for, kind of like trying to say that a hammer is no good for sawing a board to length.



> VIDEOS OF THE I.P. PROVIDED ON THIS THREAD SHOW THAT:  There is nobody pulling on your shoulder. The uke is tamely reaching out and very lightly grasping the demonstrator's shoulder. Uke MIGHT cock a fist, but in ever ase uke stands paralyzed like a petrified zombie. The demonstrator then fires off his techs...Sword and Hammer...and that's a wrap for uke. Everyone rejoices in the kenpo dojos.
> 
> VIDEO OF THE ATACX GYM: Immediately real world pressures and actions are considered,such as: the energy of a grabbing push  not only displacing you but disrupting counterattacks based upon the premise of Kenpoists preemptively defeating attacks prior to attackers being able to launch their offensives. This is a highly flawed and oft-repeated concept in Motion Kenpo, and is highly unrealistic. Simply recreating the requisite scenario on the mat and requiring the students to do as either the original suggestion regarding the IP Sword and Hammer suggested or any of the stuff misrepresented as the IP in the kenpo videos that aren't mine would immediately make this reality bold and obvious. The recommended responses will not work as scripted taught and shown. That's like having a FBI instructor show you shooting techs that won't work under pressure, a parachuting jumpmaster showing you techs that will fail to open your parachute afte you jump out of the plane or whatever spot that's high off the ground, or a boxing coach showing you how to NOT jab under pressure...and claiming you CAN jab under pressure. You go to a swimming coach to learn to swim, cuz you alred know hat you'll drown or that your swimming doesn't meet the requirements you set for yourself.


  A small note here.  I happen to be a certified LE Defensive Tactics Instructor, and a certified LE Firearms Instructor.  I said earlier that there are some things that you don't understand as well as you think you do.

I agree that, in the demonstrations you've selected, the uke is rather passively participating.  (It's a complaint I have about a lot of Kenpo demonstrations, to be honest.)  But they are simply demonstrations.  In many demonstrations, uke does not fully react as they would in a real situation; that's part and parcel of demonstration.  After all, the presenters are trying to show the base technique, not every variation or possibility.  Let's be real; you probably won't show a take where your demonstration partner up and clocks you, now are you?

The purpose of a demonstration is to present the technique, not highlight every possibility.  Experiments and what if's can come in later, when you've worked with it a bit.  I don't think you've given the technique a chance, against the attack it's designed for.  You're trying to use that hammer as a saw, and then saying it doesn't work.


> Therefore, you are correct sir...I have indeed changed the attack.j..by making it far more realistic. Far more real world. Functionalizing the attack functionalizes the response. So my change is not only an improvement over the original model and most especially the model presented as the IP in most Kenpo videos...my version is a reflection of the actual definition of The Ideal Phase. Again and I repeat...Mr. Parker and recently Doc Chapel specified that The Ideal Phase is supposed to be crafted on a case by case basis by student to teacher, using the techs and medium of Kenpo, combined with the teacher and student's prior experience, all in pursuit of properly implementing the tech Sword and Hammer.


But are you doing a "more realistic" version of the initiating attack -- or a completely different attack?  In the Parker technique, the attacker is either slightly behind or to your right side, and grabbing your shoulder.  Kind of a "hey, you..." grab.  It may be preparatory to a punch, or simply an unbalancing grab.  Perhaps you haven't seen it -- but it does happen.  For real.  And the energy of a pull is different from a push, or even a simple grab.  An appropriate and effective defense against a grab is different from one for a push.  ("Grabbing push" is rather an oxymoron, no?)  You're showing an effective technique against a push and hold.  It's not nearly as direct or effective against a pull.  

You've admitted that you've changed the attack; you've changed the response.  But then you're trying to say that you're using the same principle, because you're using the same hand positions.  But you're not striking with either the hammerfist or sword hand; you're shielding behind them, and perhaps incidentally delivering a blow to the arm.  Both are attacking on the same level in your technique; in Parker's they attack to different levels (throat & groin).  Let me try another food analogy.  Both lasagna and spaghetti with meatballs contain tomatoes, pasta and ground beef.  They're not the same dish, though, are they?


----------



## Chris Parker

ATACX GYM said:


> I saw your response, Chris. I appreciate the depth and the detail of your responses in all honesty I do...but it will be even easier than I thought it would be to respond to all of your positions. And truth be told? I knew it would be easy simply based upon your previous posts on this thread. Be back for ya in a minute...



You know what, Ras? Don't bother. You've told me that I'm incorrect in my breakdown of the initial videos, your changes, and more, without being able single out a single thing that is actually incorrect, and when JKS comes along and says exactly what I have said (what the "real" Sword and Hammer is designed to do, what it's designed to be against, where the safeguards are, how you've moved so far away that what you're doing is an unrelated technique for all intents and purposes), you've agreed with him and just said that the flaw is the attackers not actually pulling in the video demonstrations....?!?!

Dude, I said all of that at the beginning. Everything I've said has been held up by both Kenpo practitioners and non-Kenpo practitioners on this thread... the only person who has issues with my comments is you, and you have said you can prove me wrong, but fail to do so each time.

As JKS says, you really don't know anywhere near as much as you think you do. Which is a shame, because you could actually have something. Sadly, you're too wrapped up in "everyone else is wrong, I'm doing something completely different so I'm right!" 

So seriously, you have shown a complete lack of understanding of what you're being told, so don't bother coming back with anything, as frankly, you don't have anything to work with.

EDIT: Just something that struck me a moment ago, you started this thread asking for "comment, debate, rude gestures", then three hours later, followed up with a further request for "Thoughts?" I gave a pretty thorough breakdown of the original form, the attacks you showed (which, as others have also said, are unrelated to the actual technique itself), and the myriad problems with your issues. However, since then, you've basically just argued without taking anything on board. This makes me wonder why you post such things up here... you pay lip service to the idea that you're open to learning, but fail to demonstrate it. And when it comes to the second Einstein quote ("The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education"), honestly, that's very much a flawed statement, especially in this context. You have to have a base understanding (education) in order to learn further... but you don't really seem to want to do that.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Twin Fist said:


> dude it was a test
> 
> I AGREED WITH YOU and you still had to tell me i was wrong
> 
> that convinced me that you are only here to argue and i got no time for someone with , how was it put to you? oh yeah:
> 
> an unteachable spirit
> 
> You might be a great fighter, but you will never be great martial artist.
> 
> I doubt you will even see the difference




Actually, what was put to me went along the lines of:"...you might be exactly what we need; the Kenpo of the future if you can stay humble and keep your ego in check..."   not "unteachable spirit". That quote of yours is, of course, taken out of context in order to advance your perspective.

All of your other comments that I disagreed with are empirically incorrect for the reasons I already stated.


----------



## ATACX GYM

jks9199 said:


> As I read the notes and Parker's own description of the technique, the goal is to respond nearly instantaneously with the grab, before a punch could land.  You're going to move inward, inside the attack, if a punch is coming.  And even if you don't beat the punch, that hand sword could become a block/deflection of the attack.  If there's no punch, and it's merely a grab to unbalance -- the concern is moot.   I think you're trying to make it fit a different situation than it was designed for, kind of like trying to say that a hammer is no good for sawing a board to length.
> 
> A small note here.  I happen to be a certified LE Defensive Tactics Instructor, and a certified LE Firearms Instructor.  I said earlier that there are some things that you don't understand as well as you think you do.
> 
> I agree that, in the demonstrations you've selected, the uke is rather passively participating.  (It's a complaint I have about a lot of Kenpo demonstrations, to be honest.)  But they are simply demonstrations.  In many demonstrations, uke does not fully react as they would in a real situation; that's part and parcel of demonstration.  After all, the presenters are trying to show the base technique, not every variation or possibility.  Let's be real; you probably won't show a take where your demonstration partner up and clocks you, now are you?
> 
> The purpose of a demonstration is to present the technique, not highlight every possibility.  Experiments and what if's can come in later, when you've worked with it a bit.  I don't think you've given the technique a chance, against the attack it's designed for.  You're trying to use that hammer as a saw, and then saying it doesn't work.
> 
> But are you doing a "more realistic" version of the initiating attack -- or a completely different attack?  In the Parker technique, the attacker is either slightly behind or to your right side, and grabbing your shoulder.  Kind of a "hey, you..." grab.  It may be preparatory to a punch, or simply an unbalancing grab.  Perhaps you haven't seen it -- but it does happen.  For real.  And the energy of a pull is different from a push, or even a simple grab.  An appropriate and effective defense against a grab is different from one for a push.  ("Grabbing push" is rather an oxymoron, no?)  You're showing an effective technique against a push and hold.  It's not nearly as direct or effective against a pull.
> 
> You've admitted that you've changed the attack; you've changed the response.  But then you're trying to say that you're using the same principle, because you're using the same hand positions.  But you're not striking with either the hammerfist or sword hand; you're shielding behind them, and perhaps incidentally delivering a blow to the arm.  Both are attacking on the same level in your technique; in Parker's they attack to different levels (throat & groin).  Let me try another food analogy.  Both lasagna and spaghetti with meatballs contain tomatoes, pasta and ground beef.  They're not the same dish, though, are they?





Okay pressed for time. Again thanks for your response. I tend to type quickly but since I'm pressed for time I'm going to directly address the comments you made without much preamble. I don't mean to come off as rude or abrasive, I'm just being direct. 

Btw, I'm also certified from Rio Hondo Police Academy. Seems like we have something else in common. Although I don't see what bearing this revelation--you being an LE Firearms instructor, my certs from Rio Hondo--has on this specific discussion of Sword and Hammer. I'm glad that you're here, though...you seem like a reasonable and knowledgeable guy.


REGARDING MR.PARKER'S NOTES:

It's my understanding that Mr. Parker was constantly evolving as a martial artist and that he changed many things from their previous expression. I sincerely doubt, based upon what was said to me and many others by an exceptionally high ranking senior who spent plenty of time with Mr. Parker, that Mr. Parker did Sword and Hammer in 1980 the way he did it in 1970 or in the '60s when I think Big Red [ which contains that description of Sword and Hammer] was written. Frankly? The idea of RELIABLY AND CONSISTENTLY--I just want to emphasize this point--PREEMPTIVELY STRIKING an actually aggressive opponent who's attacking you from the flank is flawed. It will not happen reliably period. This technique as written and presented will not work in a fight. It will not work in a fight. Doesn't matter who presented it...it won't work as written. Period. This is a gigantic, gargantuan mistake that imo is inexcusable. At no time should we present a tech that is unworkable as if it is workable. But that's exactly what many people miscall the IP does. 

The IDEAL PHASE response is based upon a "best of all worlds" scenario which was supposed to serve the purpose of engaging more realistic training and discussion for a public both untrained in any kind of self defense at the time that Big Red was written [ 1960's-70's ] which, let us not forget, was a public largely unaware of Oriental martial arts. Once the tech was demo'd [ Sword and Hammer in this case] , the onus was put upon the teacher to show more functional, more realistic methods of using said tech in real world scrappin which actually inculcated real world skill for said scenario. Real world skill is not at all what the "best of all worlds" presentation showed. This process--where the teacher was made singularly responsible for merging his/her/their previous martial arts knowledge and experience with the EPAK techs and expressing a FUNCTIONAL method of resolving common street attacks--this is in essence the whole of the approach from THE IDEAL PHASE to THE EQUATION FORMULA. I simply did this and added the principle of 50 Ways to Sunday...the method that Sensei Tanaka taught Mr. Parker and which he popularized by constantly repeating it until it caught on. I also see that you note that I made sure that my uke grabbed and punched me from various angles, not just the flank. You then concluded that doing so changed the attack. This is false. The "change" in the attack I acknowlege is "functionalizing" it. In other words? THERE ACTUALLY WAS AN ATTACK. Uke actually grabbed-pushed and punched repeatedly at me. That's the real world. The "grab cock fist and pose" method that it seems like both you and I have some issues with [ differing issues to some extent, but issues just the same ] was wholly eliminated because that isn't likely to happen in the real world. My expression didn't require the abandoning of the application of The Sword and Hammer, nor will it ever. Instead, my expression requires actually applying Sword and Hammer vs resistance. The method in the notes you quoted above don't. One of the huge benefits in the method that I recommend is that this method also covers the 'grab cock fist and pose' scenario and does so with proper legal moral and considerations. The method that you champion doesn't. Therefore, empirically speaking, my method is superior.

The funny thing is...If you read Infinite Insights? You'll see that before I was born Mr. Parker wrote of defending an attack in a 360 degree circle. This is what I've done...and a bit more. I have, as I always stated before, functionalized the attack. Therefore, I am actually incarnating an expression that Mr. Parker championed before I was born...while specifically eschewing methods which didn't functionally thwart real world attacks and functionally counterattack the aggressor. Interestingly, history shows that I'm much more in lockstep with what Mr. Parker wanted the my detractors by and large are.


I then did what Mr. Parker said that he did with Professor Chow's material...I modernized the attacks and defenses to yield a Kenpo expression more in keeping with today's self-defense needs. By that I mean I adjusted and modified for concerns that I deem necessary, not that I cover every single fighting scenario in the modern world. I can and do train my Sword and Hammer in the Guard, vs armed attacks, multiattacks, before and after rolls, from disadvantaged positions, while being mounted, etc etc etc. I can use every single one of the self-defense techs I know in Motion Kenpo while say...in the Side Mount. I can do Long 2...while on the ground. With weapons. Etc. This isn't me saying: "Bow down to OG ATACX GYM!" No...I'm pointing out that being more well rounded requires creative training paradigms which bestow novel technical approaches. But in order to do that, you must adopt a newer, more progressive mindset. "IF YOU CHANGE YOUR MIND, YOU CHANGE YOUR WAYS"...another ATACX GYM saying.

Here's something else: the IP as written doesn't work. They never did. They still don't work today...as written. The Sword and Hammer that you quoted above has fatal flaws of functionality in it. Always has. Always will. This state of affairs is inexcusable to me. There is no sufficient justification for its dysfunctional existence at any time imho. Can you go to a wrestling tournament and not see a double or single leg, a high crotch or a over and under tie up...the whole tournament? Can you go to a bjj tourney and NEVER see the guard, or a keylock attempt, or a relogio/clock choke? Can you go to a judo match and NEVER see a seionage, a ashi, a tai otoshi, or pinning or choke attempt? Can you go to a sombo tourney and NEVER see armlock-leglock combo attack? Can you go to a boxing tourney and NEVER see a uppercut or jab? Can you go to a bareknuckle karate tourney and NEVER see a fighter in there throw a front kick or reverse punch? Now...can you go to any and all of these tourneys planetwide and neeever see these techs in tourneys? No? But you CAN go to anywhere kenpoists compete and NEVER see 5 Swords done...NEVER see Glancing Salute or Thrusting Wedge. Or literally any other tech from the alleged IP that supposedly forms the very backbone of Motion Kenpo.

Why is that? It's because what is being mislabeled as the IP is neither functionally shown nor functionally trained. And don't gimme that mess about how the IP is for the street and can't be done in tourneys because:

1) As written, what most people miscall the IP doesn't work.

2) The IP is supposed to be crafted on a case by case basis from student to teacher, so the student could easily learn a functional real world variant of S&H which could easily be ratcheted down for tourney competition

3) I do it all the time [ with staggering success because nobody--including, sadly, kenpoists by and large--is remotely familiar with these techs and have no clue how to defend themselves from these techs thrown at them with any kind of competence. I'll put up video of me and my students doing exactly that in the upcoming tourneys this year ] and I'm not alone in doing this


Here's something that's most important and goes directly along with what Mr. Parker kept saying the most: we shouldn't turn ourselves into Ed Parker or Bruce Lee wannabe clones. We need to formulate our own responses. To think, question, probe, experiment...using EPAK/MOTION KENPO methods techs and principles. We won't all look alike but we will all look similarly enough to each other to be recognizable but we're still highly functional. Those of us with a background focused on performance find this position to be extra elementary and it goes without saying. As an example? Wrestlers use alot of the same techs...but Dan Gable's team, for instance, trains and approaches things differently. Does this mean that Dan Gable's various championship teams didn't do wrestling? No...they wrestled better visavis superior functional training, attracting superior athletes.

That's what we've done at my GYM.


Which lead me to...

WHY DO I ASK FOR CRITIQUE AND QUESTIONS WHEN IT SEEMS LIKE I TAKE UMBRAGE WHEN I RECEIVE WHAT I ASKED FOR:

1) I don't take umbrage regarding critique and questions. I like that stuff...whether it's supportive or not.


2) When I first got online and started asking for critique and questions, I didn't know that by and large Kenpoists weren't functional. I had zero exposure to Kenpolitics til last year. I had no idea of the sillyness which abounds. What I was first envisioning was exchanges like:

"...yeah jk9199 I was doing Sword and Hammer vs a guy who attacked me from behind in practice today. He was armed with a knife and I had real problems with him because I got the chop off but I got stabbed, he tackled me and I got some more gashes as we struggled. If that had been a real street thing? I would've had problems. I disarmed him and finished him but...do you have a suggestion as to how to do this differently or better? Might make all the difference, man..."


jks9199-" Yeah ATACX GYM we did that couple weeks ago and we deployed S&H vs a guy with a gun too. I was having problems too, man. Kept getting shot, and that sucked. But I started enjoying more success when I tried doing Sword and Hammer like THIS right here..."

That's what I thought would happen. Bunch of people who fight with their techs have crafted their own responses to these scenarios and would share for the betterment of us all. Because collectively we could craft better techs than any of us--individuals or massive organizations--could craft alone or in small groups.

Needless to say...none of that happened. Lol. I got flames for not doing things exactly the way other people did stuff.

Okay, back to your reasonable critique...

I am striking with both the sword and hammerfist, contrary to your statement. I suppose you missed it in the video. In Sword and Hammer 1? I apply the Sword and Hammer at 2:11. The second handsword actually happens and is molded into the check down at 2:36. I deleted it on video because my cousin always says that it hurts, but usually and as I teach it in class the handsword is molded into the check. The 3rd handsword is shown on the video as a handsword to the neck along with "marriage of gravity" at 3:10. Another hammerfist merged with Directional Harmony at 3:17, and another handsword directly thereafter.

In Sword and Hammer 1A [ the second video shot at night, this time at a park] I go into depth and detail regarding the importance of the positioning and training multiple variants using Sword and Hammer and then I do the techs, and I show how to do it inside and outside your opponent after you've been struck etc etc. I also bring up [ long before Chris Parker did] the importance of the moral legal and ethical obligations that we most observe and of course there's a blizzard of handsword and hammerfists. I even specifically engage those who disagree with the technical expression I have of Sword and Hammer at 8:35 forward. I say that it's okay to do so. Chris Twin and anyone else of that ilk like maybe Hollywood? You'll like this part and grasp what I'm saying and doing alot faster because not only do I preemptively engage your concerns but I also demonstrate what I mean earlier in the video [ this is before most of you guys put up dissenting posts or thanked dissenters for their posts, remember ]

Sword and Hammer 2: The first Sword and Hammer strike comes at 1:44. I explain it in the video. The second comes at 2:08, right after the explanation from 1:44 is done. And a plethora of Swords and punches and a Hammer or so follow right after that. So yeah there's plenty of swords and hammers in my videos. Lolol


I wanna say more but I've been stealing time in between rounds to write. Can't do that anymore, back to training. Holla atcha guys later and again...thanks for your posts.


AMANI..."peace"...


----------



## ATACX GYM

Twin Fist said:


> [SUP]Chris,
> Ras isnt doing Ed Parker's Sword and Hammer, so he isnt doing it"wrong" thats how he justifies his position
> 
> he is doing something he made up, and since he cant or wont create a unique name for his technique he is just calling it sword and hammer
> 
> it is sort of like the  dude in Comming to America. He opened a restaurant called McDowell's where they served Big Mic's. The food wasnt bad, he was just shamlessly stealing someone else's hard work
> 
> go to hong kong, and they have "Mayboro" cigerettes, red and white package, looks a LOT like some other better known product
> 
> and the smokes are not bad, but they are not the real thing.
> 
> thats what we have here.
> 
> it isnt BAD, but it isnt sword and hammer, his other technique vids are all the same, he takes the names, and does a different attack and different defense and anyone that points that out to him isnt smart enough to get what he is doing.
> 
> hell, i AGREED with his technique and he still had to tell me i was wrong
> 
> I think he is just here to argue.
> 
> seriously.
> 
> take this:
> [/SUP] *"I said I've taught this tech with EASE to beginners for decades and I can do it again. Within 8 hours they'll be able to fight with it. Guaranteed. Because I'm functional? I can usually have them able to pull it off against nonoverwhelming attacks [ little woman attacked by surprise by some huge armed guy or something ] in literally 1 hour of training the tech. Been doing it for decades."
> *
> this simply isnt possible.
> 
> I will say in no uncertain terms, this isnt possible
> 
> you cannot take a person off the street and have them fighting with a technique, ANY technique in 8 hours.
> 
> they might remember a sequence of movements in one hour, but they wont have a clue when they are doing, and thier attacks wont have any power and will most likely hurt thier hands more than the person they are trying to hit.
> 
> anyone that have actually taught someone knows this.




I don't have the time to address all of this but your analogy is way off. Your understanding of Motion Kenpo is where we have the greatest disagreements at visavis this discussion. Motion Kenpo is supposed to be a combination of  the instructor previous knowledge martial training and Kenpo training, expressed using the EPAK medium techs principles concepts etc to forge an individualized unique constantly growing alive system that yet has a consistently recognizable core set of techs and goals. 

Not every team trains like Dan Gable's team, and not every team used the techs that Gable came up with [ like the Gable Grip ]...but Gable most assuredly did wrestling. Not some offshoot of wrestling either. Wrestling.  I am the Head Coach of THE ATACX GYM. Not everybody does things the way that we do, but we assuredly do Kenpo Karate and we do it very well indeed.

With that said...I can take anyone off the streets who has the strength coordination and ability to walk without serious impairment and literally have them doing Alternating Maces, Attacking Mace, Sword and Hammer, etc. in 8 hours or less. Guaranteed. This is not a guess. I've done it for decades and like I said there are people on this site right now who've seen me walk up to their 17 year old White Belt [ who'd I'd literally just laid eyes on ] and teach him how to break a bear hug with his Kempo salute...in under 5 minutes. Your opinion is your own and you have a right to it; I won't dispute that? If you flat out think that what I said isn't possible? That's cool too; doesn't change the fact but I can will have and still do exactly what I said...and have done it for decades.


----------



## Twin Fist

you say you can do alot

and all you ever have is your word and your ability to ignore everyone else's points...

you have never proven anything, you just disagree and throw up another 10K words (in yet another wall of text no one bothers to even read any more.) that all amounts to "because i said so"

its old. its tired, and it is BO-RING

you might accomplish something one day, if you get rid of your ego, and actually learn the techniques. From a qualified instructor.

Dont bother replying. I wont be reading it. You have nothing to offer.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Twin Fist said:


> you say you can do alot
> 
> and all you ever have is your word and your ability to ignore everyone else's points...
> 
> you have never proven anything, you just disagree and throw up another 10K words (in yet another wall of text no one bothers to even read any more.) that all amounts to "because i said so"
> 
> its old. its tired, and it is BO-RING
> 
> you might accomplish something one day, if you get rid of your ego, and actually learn the techniques. From a qualified instructor.
> 
> Dont bother replying. I wont be reading it. You have nothing to offer.



Believe what you want.


----------



## ATACX GYM

The worst things about the annihilation I'm about to hand out to you guys...is 


1)That I have to annihilate you in the first place. Shouldn't be necessary.

2) That I have to resort to quotes and stuff in the first place to annihilate you. There should be a common medium of functional mat experience that we share that I could allude to and simply not have to do this to you guys. But it's extemely extremely doubtful that you guys are even a fraction of what you claim you are visavis functionality.


If you actually did what you claim and/or infer that you do [ that is fight and/or vigorously spar with these and/or other techs ]...we wouldn't need this discussion and we'd be able to have the kind of much more productive chats that I alluded to with jks9199. Instead? I have to drop nukes on you guys not only to hopefully rectify your misconceptions with actual truth and fact, but also to educate and illuminate the many hundreds of others who read these threads and never partake of the give and take in posts...as our positions oftentimes inform or misinform their perspectives and change their perspectives for the better or worse accordingly. There has been far too much damage handed out in the name of Mr. Parker and "real EPAK" and those who sling the name of Mr. Parker and The Ideal Phase about merely to shield their own agendas and to lend credibility to their patently false claims.  Many other people are too invested in politics to knock ya head off for such a thing. Not me. ATACX GYM gives not a damn about politics. So here comes some facts that's akin to taking the proverbial gloves off and smackin you guys down. Once and for all. Not because I want to maintain hostility with you...actually the opposite is the case. I'm doing this because it needs to be done and believe it or not? It's also for your own good.


Okay Chris Parker, Twin Fist, and anyone who've agreed with your perspectives...I'm going to give all of you and anyone who reads my threads a real true and serious education visavis Kenpo Karate that literally none of you have. I'd grasped the true essence of this long before I met Doc online, and here's proof from 2010 that what I say is true:


[video=youtube_share;6CQKW5QTJJU]http://youtu.be/6CQKW5QTJJU[/video]

Truthfully, I didn't have as complete an education as I currently do either [ although in these areas I was far ahead of all you due to my absolute insistence upon endlessly testing re-testing and possibly refining every tech from any source for functionality, including my own GM who is also my Uncle ] until I kicked up enough ruckus to cause the real Kenpo Elders to chime in and educate all of us [ there were dozens of us going at it back forth for months ] on KenpoTalk and here on MartialTalk.


WE HAVE IRONCLAD PROOF THAT WHAT MOST OF US [ EVEN ME FOR A WHILE] CALLED "THE IDEAL PHASE" IS NOT "THE IDEAL PHASE". ALL OF US--ME INCLUDED--WERE WRONG TO CONCLUDE IT WAS. HOWEVER, I REFERRED TO "THE IDEAL PHASE" USING THAT NOMENCLATURE BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT I WAS TOLD IT WAS...AND I ABSOLUTELY INSISTED THAT ALL OF THE PHYSICAL TECHS COMPRISING WHAT IS MISCALLED "THE IDEAL PHASE"[ LIKE THE VIDS I HAD OF MORE TRADITIONAL MOTION KENPO SCHOOLS DOING WHAT THEY CALL "SWORD AND HAMMER" ] ABSOLUTELY DON'T WORK AND ON TOP THAT THEY DON'T MAKE SENSE. THEIR SO-CALLED "IP" DOESN'T WORK RELIABLY IN ANY COMBAT SITUATION. IT DIDN'T WORK BACK THEN IN THE DAY, IT DOESN'T WORK NOW, AND IT WON'T WORK IN THE FUTURE.


Here is a part of what Chris Parker said regarding the techs in what is miscalled the IP vs my techs: 




Chris Parker said:


> Er... right. Gotta say, you don't actually seem to have any correction for me, though.... And, for the record, I'm not incorrect. So you know.
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly a Kempo-particular training method, Ras. We have the same idea in a range of our methods. Catch is, though, that's not what you're doing. Additionally, the very premise of the technique kinda denies performing it in multiple directions, as it'd designed against an attack from a particular direction/side to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> Hang on, are you saying that each instructor and student is supposed to make up what they feel "works" for them, rather than follow what the techniques actually are? Really? Then what makes it that art itself? This is the thing, Ras, there are established techniques, which may have some variation from instructor to instructor, but are fundamentally the same. That is demonstrated with your clips of other instructors showing basically the same thing. It makes it possible for the art to be taught reliably, as well as for intra-organisational and inter-organisational discussion to occur.
> 
> As far as the last comments there, frankly Ras, that shows me a fair amount of problems with your approach...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you kidding? The technique deals with a grab and attempted punch, and you show blind-siding king-hits (sucker punches), and you think they're the same thing? Then, when both John and I point out the lack of relationship, you say that I'm "massively incorrect"? Ras, I have eyes, you know....
> 
> As to the idea of getting hit and not dropped straight away, it's not that I'm saying that doesn't happen, it's that each example you gave showed people being knocked down, and said your technique deals with it. And, for the record, getting knocked around a bit would make it harder for you to perform what you're showing. Not impossible, but a much lower chance of success.
> 
> 
> 
> Please. You got the choke on because you were demonstrating, and he was going along with it. The rest of this shows a lot of fundamental gaps in reality, by the way.
> 
> 
> 
> But what you're doing only has three things that connect it with Sword and Hammer, and only superficially at that. Namely the angle the attacker approaches from, the use of a sword-hand and hammer-fist (which, by themselves, does not make the technique itself "Sword and Hammer"), and the name. What I was looking for is that you follow what the technique itself follows the strategies and tactics of Sword and Hammer, which it doesn't. As a result, it's not Sword and Hammer. And no, I don't expect the exact same performance, I expect it to be the same method, though.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, this shows a lot of issues in understanding the training methods of many different arts, Ras.
> 
> 
> 
> Based on every single other example of the technique, no, it's not. You choose to use the same name due purely to the same fists being used, but that's it. It's not the same technique, which has been our point.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, you may be reading a bit too much into the words there.... I wouldn't say that Ed Parker was suggesting that you initially take a technique (teaching a particular form of response against a particular form of attack), then basically throw out almost everything, change the technique to something unrecognizable from the original, miss the point of the technique in the first place, go against the very lessons it's teaching, in order to make up what you want and call it the same thing. Cause Ras? That's what you've done here.
> 
> In terms of telling John to "ignore the label and look at the tech", when you put it up as a version of the initial one and ask for a comparison to be made, to ascertain which one is "better", or "works", but your version isn't anything like the original, the attacks you use to make your point aren't the ones that the technique is designed against, it changes what we look at when we see the technique. If you just put up the videos as a response against a rear grab and punch, fine. But you proffered it as a version of Sword and Hammer, giving the other forms as contrasts. Therefore ignoring the label and just looking at the technique really doesn't work. At all.
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that just the same damn thing you posted in the first place? Seriously, Ras, the answer is the same. As far as "which is better", honestly, I'd prefer the "IP" version, it's a damn solid technique. Yours is too messy, too complicated, too reliant on too many issues, has legal issues (here, at least), and just doesn't come across as anywhere near as reliable.
> 
> 
> 
> Really? You talk a lot about being able to "torpedo" others arguments, but I note that you have yet to ever actually do that... or have anything more to say other than "I could prove you wrong, but I'm not going to". I'm far from convinced, Ras. About quite a lot.
> 
> 
> 
> And, again, this shows a large gap in your understanding of quite a range of martial training methods, Ras.
> 
> 
> 
> Ras, you frankly have no idea whatsoever of what I do. If you can't see the huge issues with the above from my posts, you really don't have the insight you think you do.
> 
> 
> 
> No, Ras, it shows a highly limited understanding of martial arts and training. That's blunt, but there it is.




Here is what Twin Fist--a man who allegedly studied Kenpo and according to him grasped the subtleties in a far more superior fashion than I do--said:




Twin Fist said:


> [SUP]Chris,
> Ras isnt doing Ed Parker's Sword and Hammer, so he isnt doing it"wrong" thats how he justifies his position
> 
> he is doing something he made up, and since he cant or wont create a unique name for his technique he is just calling it sword and hammer
> 
> it is sort of like the dude in Comming to America. He opened a restaurant called McDowell's where they served Big Mic's. The food wasnt bad, he was just shamlessly stealing someone else's hard work
> 
> go to hong kong, and they have "Mayboro" cigerettes, red and white package, looks a LOT like some other better known product
> 
> and the smokes are not bad, but they are not the real thing.
> 
> thats what we have here.
> 
> it isnt BAD, but it isnt sword and hammer, his other technique vids are all the same, he takes the names, and does a different attack and different defense and anyone that points that out to him isnt smart enough to get what he is doing.
> 
> hell, i AGREED with his technique and he still had to tell me i was wrong
> 
> I think he is just here to argue.
> 
> seriously.
> 
> take this:
> [/SUP]*"I said I've taught this tech with EASE to beginners for decades and I can do it again. Within 8 hours they'll be able to fight with it. Guaranteed. Because I'm functional? I can usually have them able to pull it off against nonoverwhelming attacks [ little woman attacked by surprise by some huge armed guy or something ] in literally 1 hour of training the tech. Been doing it for decades."
> *
> this simply isnt possible.
> 
> I will say in no uncertain terms, this isnt possible
> 
> you cannot take a person off the street and have them fighting with a technique, ANY technique in 8 hours.
> 
> they might remember a sequence of movements in one hour, but they wont have a clue when they are doing, and thier attacks wont have any power and will most likely hurt thier hands more than the person they are trying to hit.
> 
> anyone that have actually taught someone knows this.





*HERE'S PROOF THAT ALL OF YOU AND ANYONE WHO AGREES WITH YOU IN ANY RESPECT ABOUT THIS MATTER IS WRONG AND I HAVE BEEN RIGHT SINCE THE FIRST DAY I SAID THIS:





Doc said:



			Many contributed IDEAS for the manuals, but they were not IDEALS, but ideas. IDEALS were supposed to be creating by the school heads, based on the the IDEAS provided as a starting point reference, but you could do anything within the framework of the attack. I SAY AGAIN. THERE WERE NEVER ANY IDEALS, ONLY IDEAS.
		
Click to expand...








*To which I replied:




ATACX GYM said:


> See,that's the stuff I want to know about. Who created the specific ideals that became so ingrained in Kenpo that they have been collectively referred to as the "Ideal Phase" instead of what Mister Parker very clearly defined as thee REAL "Ideal Phase"? How did virtually universal acceptance of the same or essentially the same dysfunctional techs become accepted and law? I cannot believe that such a universal accord has been reached that--nearly 50 years after the creation of the IP--nearly every major school and organization's IP is the same,and that was somehow accidental. I also find it hard to believe that all of those fueding,well paid Motion Kenpo BBs that Mr. Parker brought on board could snipe slash snarl and gore one another...basically decide that they made enough money not to need to listen to Mr.Parker about his system...and then turn around and agree virtually across the board on the remarkable similarity of expression in the IP,sets and forms.
> 
> So how did that happen?...





ATACX GYM said:


> ...And who made Blinding Sacrifice? Can we actually trace specific IP moves to specific creators?




To which Doc Dave innahouse--another of the Top 4 Kenpo Elders on KT--responded:




Dr. Dave in da house said:


> ...As for the techs, some were impromtu (sp?) discussions about things early students ran into. "I got tooled by this guy who grabbed me by the wrist, and did this thing to me... hurt like hell". So Mr. P puts together a tech against that attack. It starts as a "The next time that happens, try this":. After a few years of contemplation, a few tweaks get made to turn it into a viable learning lab for some movement concepts. He goes from teaching it as a "Defense against a Front Wristlock", to using it as an opportunity to dialogue with those willing to listen about something like guided collision, destabilization of an attackers base via their appendicular limbs, etc. Trouble is, most folks don't listen.
> 
> If one was willing to remain in "uptime", and try to take what's being offered rather than reaffirming ones own suspected biases, there was always a wealth of information falling out of his head. Mostly, though, he sorta gave up unless specifically asked. because people stopped listening. It was more advantageous to already know, than to shut up and learn.



My question annoyed Doc, lol, because it reminded him of old discussions and old wounds that were REALLY annoying. Lol. So Doc responded with:



Doc said:


> You really need to let the word "ideal" go. Try this; *THERE IS NO IDEAL TECHNIQUE. THERE IS NO UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED IDEAL TECHNIQUE.* What is there exists because people moved up the ranks and became instructors with no knowledge, skill, or experience. These people made the outline IDEA in the manuals the IDEAL because they could not create the IDEAL as Mr. Parker said they were supposed to. Each school, group, club etc was supposed to have one person who would set the IDEAL but only for their group. What you have is a bunch of people all taking the ideas in a manual and teaching it because that's all they have. So removes the word IDEAL from your vocabulary, unless you are talking about IDEALS you created that you teach for your students. That is the only ideal there is. What YOU CREATE.
> 
> You're misinformed, and I explained how the manual became the IDEAL for the majority when it was never supposed to be. It was only a guide to begin the process, but absent experience, knowledge, and skill that allowed you to think through the process the manual is all you need whether it works or not. Call it LAZY, call it whatever you want, just don't call them "universally" accepted, because its not true...




The "manual" Doc refers to in the above quote is Big Red...something I'd never heard of prior to my thread with Doc in which he revealed its existence.

So YES Twin Fist and Chris Parker...exactly like I've been telling you guys...there should NEVER have been an Ideal "TECHNIQUE" that is universally applied throughout Kenpodom and passed off as Mr. Parker's wishes. Most especially, there should NEVER have been ANY tech in Kenpo's IP that hasn't been and isn't constantly stress tested by the very nature and definition of the IP. If you take a common street attack, you're SUPPOSED TO determine a specific Kenpo counter to said attack and keep working said counter against escalating levels of resistance until you're facing the full tilt boogie throwdown. THERE ARE NO TECHS IN ANY SO-CALLED TRADITIONAL KENPO IP VIDEO OR SEQUENCE THAT RELIABLY WORK AGAINST THE ATTACK THAT THEY'RE PURPORTED TO DEFEAT. This is instantly and immediately apparent to anyone who's actually fought before...and that's the reason that I fashioned my own FUNCTIONAL responses. The killer is? In doing so I did EXACTLY what Mr. Parker wanted us to do. On top of that? The work of resolving the attack from one angle spawns the necessity of solving the same attack or common variants of the same attack or one attack that morphs into a variant of the previous from other angles...with the same tech. In this case, that tech is Sword and Hammer. But you can and should imho do this with every Kenpo tech.

The split second I read critiques like Chris' and Twin Fist's of the above I knew immediately that nobody who wrote it actually regularly sparred and fought in the scenario we're talking about using the techs we're talking about. It's not possible. Cuz in the process of scrappin...in 'the fog of combat'...situations would've arisen wherein you were grabbed and attacked in all kinds of permutations but you could only use Sword and Hammer to resolve it. That's what happened to me and EVERYBODY who actually fights and spars with the tech. Immediately we set about deploying Sword and Hammer or whatever ACTUAL IP tech in these other scenarios as well...and you get a vastly superior grasp of technique, movement, and literally all other goodies extant in combat training than any other person who doesn't do the work that I have in my Gym and others have in theirs. I can do and will again apply my Sword and Hammer vs knife wielding foes. In multifights. On the ground. While I'm carrying and holding a weapon. In the clinch. After being tackled. While pinioned on a wall. Etc etc. 

The man who can do more with a tech understands it better knows it better and does it better than the man whose training and mindset restricts him to doing less. Period point blank. Insisting that Sword and Hammer can ONLY be deployed vs a specific kind of shoulder grab requiring the opponent to attack you in a specific kind of way not only shows the mental limitations of the personal opining such a thing, it flies in the face of what the definition of the IP is. Worse, it also ingrains and inculcates a system-wide lack of versatility...and a special level of stupidity.

I would love to see a boxing coach try to tell his boxer to jab a guy only if he's off your right shoulder, cocks his fist back...and doesn't move. 

That's stupidity on its face. If you can jab? You can jab anywhere. You can jab them in a box. You can jab them with a fox. You can jab them in a house. You can jab them near a mouse. You can jab them here and there. You can jab them anywhere. You can jab them with green eggs and ham. You CAN jab them, Sam I am! Lolol. Same with Sword and Hammer and literally almost ANY Kenpo tech...you CAN Sword and Hammer them, Chris and Twin! You can Sword and Hammer them and kids...you'll win!! You can Sword and Hammer them and smash them up...if you train them functionally like ATACX GYM does!! Lololol.





Thesemindz said:


> You're touching on a lot of stuff here Ras. And a lot of it "just isn't discussed" in polite kenpo society. Asking who ranked who is a little touchy, and tends to devolve pretty quickly. But hey, go for it. Nothing wrong with history.
> 
> I wasn't there. I don't feel comfortable speaking to anything specifically because all I could give you is hearsay. I'm sure what everyone did at the time seemed right to them. In the long run, it's what you bring to the table that matters. As for how the "IP" motion techniques got disseminated, you have to remember the context of the time. There weren't that many people doing karate, Mr. Parker was one of the most prominent practitioners, and a lot of people in the arts were flocking to him for a lot of reasons. He was hiring his curriculum out all over the country and traveling to support that all the time. I've never seen Big Red, but every kenpo manual I've seen reads pretty much the same so I imagine they are patterned off of it. If that's the case, the techniques are universally recognized because they come from the same root. For example, it probably said DELAYED SWORD - DO THESE MOVES - TEACH THEM THIS. The problem, as it has been described here, seems to be that some instructors were taking the ball and just not running with it. Instead of building on that foundation and getting better, they just taught that and essentially "let Mr. Parker do the work." So he runs around trying to keep the ball in the air and everyone else just rides on his coattails. I'm not saying this is the case, I'm saying this is how I'm interpreting what's being described. If this is the case, I think we have to acknowledge that Mr. Parker was probably just smarter and better than a lot of the people who walked in his shadow. He had access to instructors the likes of which most of us will never know, in a time and place where karate was popular and Masters were available, and he made a lot of connections and learned a lot. I'm not trying to denigrate his hard work, but he was also in a unique position. It was his destiny. So when he passes his knowledge at that point in his training around, a lot of the instructors who picked it up probably didn't understand it themselves. They were learning from it, they weren't in any position to improve upon it. I've trained in kenpo for fifteen years and I'm still learning from his system all the time. How could those instructors, who just bought this book of lessons, possibly improve upon them in any short term fashion that would differentiate the lessons significantly within the first few generations?
> 
> I think you are seeing this happen now. All over the place, "motion" kenpo instructors are making changes. They are creating techniques, or adding techniques, or changing techniques, or the order of techniques. They each teach what works for them, which according to Doc, was the plan all along. It just took fifty years to get rolling. And now, I imagine successive generations will continue that evolution.
> 
> I think the answer to "why are all the techniques recognizably similar" is "because they all came from the same root, which was Mr. Parker's instructions to the instructors beneath him." I think the answer to "why didn't those instructors make changes to create their own expression of the ideas in the curriculum" is "they are, it just took decades to get good enough at kenpo to make any meaningful contribution to what they were given to start out with." And of course, some people have no interest in adding to what they were initially taught. Some people are happy just to reproduce what someone else has done, and leave it at that. Some people enjoy tradition for the sake of tradition.
> 
> 
> -Rob






Doc said:


> Yep! Mr. Parker gave the the "Ideal Phase" concept, but never gave the "Ideal Technique." In his own words he described what they were supposed to do in the Ideal Phase, but instead they took the Ideas in the manual, even when they didn't make sense and just taught whatever it said. Nobody cared whether they worked or not, all they wanted was to meet the requirements so they could get promoted. Then they turned around and did the same thing with their own students. Apparently, for many, thinking was optional.




"Apparently, for many, thinking was optional". 

Devastating. True. Well put. 

We at THE ATACX GYM are often lauded for our athleticism, but we are not given props for our intellectual prowess and acumen. We are a group of sharp thinkers...no ego. No bragging. We are sharp thinkers. There are those who try to downplay our intelligence BECAUSE we're also very athletic...instead of understanding that we're very athletic BECAUSE we're very intelligent. Our intelligence--and more specifically mine-- is what has allowed me to lock on to the positions and expressions I have championed for decades. And every syllable is true. I was right about what I said about Sword and Hammer and I'm right about the 8 hour guarantee too [ I guarantee I can take anyone who walks into my Gym and teach them a  technique that they'll be able to fight with on the street in 8 hours or less. GUARANTEED or you get your money back ].


So yes Chris Parker, exactly as I said it was...each teacher is to create their own IP based upon the ideas suggested as a starting point and reference. This is actually a brilliant freakin idea because all Motion Kenpo schools would have the Kenpo techs concepts principles etc as their common glue but could arrange them in any fashion they chose; which spawns and encourages individuality, creativity and functionality...if your brain cells are working. Unfortunately? Faaaarrrrr tooo many elder Kenpo Black Belts and their students didn't have their brain cells working. They lacked the requisite technical skill and life experience to pass on the Ideal as Mr. Parker wanted. 

I--good ole renegade ATACX GYM--without once being exposed to Kenpolitics or any other doctrine other than Maximum Function No Excuses--essentially glommed upon the same thing that Mr. Parker spoke of. That means that I'm functional and am essentially on a somewhat similar or kindred track to Mr. Parker's. And all of you--every last one of you--who supported Chris Parker's or Twin Fist's positions even fractionally are wrong. You may be wrong because like tens of thousands of others [ includng me ] you were massively misinformed as to what THE IDEAL PHASE actually WAS. But that misinformation wouldn't've stood even a fraction of a single FUNCTIONAL test. That means...point blank period...all of you. Every single one of you. Who supported Chris Parker's and Twin Fist's position...do NOT fight with your so-called self-defense IP techs. You don't regularly and intensely spar with them either. You can say whatever you want about that, and I'm not being insulting here. But you didn't do it. I did and I still do. That's how I and all my students and my GM have managed to capture and practice the essence of what Mr. Parker and any sensible performance oriented person wanted from jumpstreet: common functionality unlimited high performance combined with unrestricted individualism and creativity. It's an amazingly simple yet [ especially for the times he was championing this which was the '60's ] brave and highly unorthodox, totally nontraditional move for a martial artist to make.

Tens of millions of others have long inculcated the maxim of maximum functionality too...but most of them are sports guys. Why? Because sports exalts performance and performance oriented training above all else. We in the traditional martial arts [ TMA ] as a whole have lost too much of that focus on performance. If we get it back? We will propel TMA far ahead of MMA and any other sport. The fact that we as a whole lost it is all our fault. Nobody else's. It's on us. Our fault. And only a focus on Functionality sans excuses will bring us back. Like I say in my videos...you don't have to do it exactly the way I do it, but your techs had better work against what they claim to work against. That means that you gotta fight and spar and train with them. Whatever nomenclature that you're familiar with which means "test your stuff a whoooollle lotta times under fighting conditions prior to passing it on as workable, then test it ad infinitum some more with an eye toward improving on your techs hopefully daily" is what we're after.



If you guys wanna read the rest of how Doc and others prove how wrong you are [ and like I said I include myself in some of that, particularly how I and likely all of you were misinformed as to what THE IDEAL PHASE was and conflated The Ideal PHASE with The Ideal TECHNIQUE; and how there was never supposed to be a single universal Ideal TECHNIQUE and how the people purporting this Ideal TECHNIQUE are ALL WRONG and how my insistence on functionality put me directly on the track of being 100% RIGHT here] you can read this thread. Here's the link:

http://www.kenpotalk.com/forum/show...ORMS-AND-SETS-amp-IPs-LIKE-BLINDING-SACRIFICE




So Twin Fist?  You ever see that movie "COMING TO AMERICA"? Yeah...if you have? ATACX GYM=MCDONALD'S...and all those other guys conflating the Ideal PHASE with the Ideal TECHNIQUE are MCDOWELL'S. That includes you, at this writing. Not dissin, just speakin truth. What's worse though...is that MCDOWELL'S at least had the decency to recognize the fact that they're MCDOWELL'S...and not MCDONALD'S. You, Chris Parker [ in this thread at least] and anyone who cosigned with you guys don't even have the awareeness to recognize the MCDOWELL'S of yourselves and the MCDONALD'S of the ATACX GYM. Lol.

"To make a tech right for a fight? You gotta work that tech right so it fights".--THE ATACX GYM

IT'S NOT JUST WHAT YOU KNOW, IT'S HOW AND WHY YOU TRAIN--THE ATACX GYM.


Now that we know that my expression is indeed 100% in lockstep with THE REAL Ideal Phase...can we get to examining it for functionality? And...are any of you doing techs that aren't the incredily incorrect so-called Ideal Phase [ which is really a universal Ideal TECHNIQUE that came about by NOT doing what Mr. Parker specifically wrote about and urged us to do ] that you came to via testing your techs combatively in this situation? Do you have any ACTUAL Ideal Phase Sword and Hammer like me?

Or is THE ATACX GYM a renegade because he has actually done what Mr. Parker has urged in his writings?  Are my critics--who claim to have a superior grasp of Kenpo than I do, yet are doing exactly what Mr. Parker said SHOULDN'T be done by slavishly copying and never testing for themselves combatively a tech like Sword and Hammer--incapable of grasping the ACTUAL principles of Mr. Parker's in Infinite Insights and are so lacking in creativity and understanding that they can't do as they're urged and bade to do visavis Kenpo's REAL IP? 

Show to me...prove to me via video...that I'm not the only one doing as Mr. Parker urged. I know I'm not the only one...so who on MartialTalk has the the guts the stuff the technique and the gumption to step up and show Kenpo that Mr. Parker would be proud of besides me? [ And Doc Chapel, and Doc Dave innahouse...]


----------



## ATACX GYM

jks9199 said:


> Watching this back and forth, I was spurred to do some research.
> 
> 
> 
> From SL4 Concepts by Ron Chap'el
> 
> Ras, after reading a lot of your posts, I have no doubt that you are very skilled, very knowledgeable, and very passionate about your training.  But, I think there are also areas where you don't know nearly as much as you think, and you're trying to apply your incomplete or external understanding of some training methods.  At the same time, I think you're also catching grief for being "different", and that sometimes people aren't seeing what you're saying because of that.
> 
> I've never trained Kenpo, under any format.  My understanding, based on readings & interviews from Ed Parker, Ron Chap'el, and others, is that each of the named techniques embodies a concept or ideal.  The name contains a code of sorts to the concept or ideal, as well as the weapons employed.  Training takes place at several levels or across different approaches.  In the beginning, the technique is learned exactly as shown, against a scripted attack with an attacker going along.  Later, the technique can be adapted and the principle applied against less predicted attacks.  As long as that principle is maintained, the technique is "true" to the concept.
> 
> Now, let's look at Sword & Hammer.  I found this page which gave a thorough breakdown of the model technique.  My understanding is that the technique begins by being grabbed and pulled, from the right side.  The response is to turn and step into the pull, delivering first a chop to the attackers throat then a hammer to the groin.  The page attributes the following description to Ed Parker himself:
> 
> 
> Let's look at that technique for a second.  You're grabbed, perhaps to be pulled into a punch -- so you ride that pull into the attack, using his energy and your own motion to strike him and disrupting that potential punch, then before he can recover from the initial strike, you deliver another shot that hopefully will be a serious deterrent.  If all goes according to plan, the attacker is probably gasping past a spasming (or crushed) throat while simultaneously dealing with the nausea and pain of a major strike to the groin.  You're in a position to do more, if necessary, as well.  I like this technique.  It's solid, can be taught quickly, and relies on gross body movements.  I like that you're moving into the attacker; you neutralize a lot of potential further attacks that way.  It's not a perfect technique, though, in my opinion.  You're inside your attacker, and he has a number of options if the first shot doesn't sufficiently shatter his attention.  Groin shots aren't 100% reliable.
> 
> So, let's look at your ATACX GYM version.  Rather then turn in, you step and turn away, shielding as you turn.  You expect your opponent to strike at you again, so you step into that strike, again shielding, clinch and begin to knee and strike your attacker.  It's not a bad technique -- but it's significantly different from the original.  The initial attack has changed; it's no longer a grab and pull, it's a push and pummel.  You've lost the hand sword and hammer fist, instead using similar hand positions as a shield for your turn and entry.  Like I said, I wouldn't call it a bad technique.  There are things here I like, too.  It's a good redirection, and your emphasis on covering as you enter is good.  You're nicely set up for knees, kicks, elbows, and more when you enter.
> 
> But your version is built around a different attack, and different principles in response.  It's not really a better version of Sword & Hammer, any more than a custard is a better version of a souffle. They're both egg-based dishes, but that's about where the resemblance ends.​




A SENSIBLE POST MAN. Glad you replied. But there are a few things about Motion Kenpo that perhaps you weren't aware of and which I have to inform/remind you of.

First...as I have repeatedly stated and which Doc confirms...there is no ironclad Ideal TECHNIQUE. This is the whole process as Mr. Parker wrote it down from Ideal Phase to Equation Formula:




CyberTyger said:


> Taken from Ed Parker's Encyclopedia of Kenpo ver. 1.0 ...
> 
> (p.66) *IDEAL PHASE*- This is *Phase I *of the analytical process of dissecting a technique.
> It requires structuring an IDEAL technique by selecting a combat situation that you wish to analyze. Contained within the technique should be fixed moves of defense,offense, and the anticipated reactions that can stem from them. This PHASE strongly urges the need to analyze techniques from THREE POINTS OF VIEW.
> 
> (p.138) *WHAT IF PHASE*- This is PHASE II of the analytical process of dissecting a technique. this PHASE takes in additional variables. It requires being programmed to further analyze the IDEAL or fixed technique. _(me talking: not sure I agree with the term programmed.) _Expected, as well as unexpected opponent reactions are projected and evaluated. the concept here is that every movement may have critical consequences; thus, in a realistic situation, the need to predict each consequence to the best of your knowledge is imperative. Ideally, all consequential possibilities should be projected, evaluated, and learned. To do so is to increase your ability to instinctively and randomly alter the basic technique, and thus allow yourself a choice of action. _<- (sounds alot like what you've accomplished Ras.)_
> 
> (p.56*) FORMULATION PHASE*- This is PHASE III of the analytical process of dissecting a technique. This PHASE involves the actual application of your newly found alternatives to the original IDEAL or fixed technique. Knowing what can additionally happen within the framework of the fixed technique, teaches you how to apply your variable answers to a free and changing environment. This ultimate process of combat training can be learned by using the EQUATION FORMULA for fighting.
> 
> (p.48) *EQUATION FORMULA*- This is a special formula that one can follow to develop specific, practical, and logical fighting patterns. the formula allows you a more conclusive basis for negotiating your alternative actions. It reads as follows:
> To give any base, whether it is a single move or a series of movements, you can (1)*prefix it*- add a move or moves before it; (2) *suffix it*- add a move or moves after it; (3) *insert*- add a simultaneous move with, the already established sequence (this move can be used as a (a) pinning check- using pressure against an opponent's weapons to nullify their delivery, or (b) positioned check- where you place the hand or leg in a defensive position or angle to minimize entry to your vital areas; (4)* rearrange*- change the sequence of the moves, (5) *alter the- *(a) weapon, (b) target, (c) both weapon and target; (6) *adjust the- *(a) range, (b) angle of execution (which affects the width and height), (c) both angle of execution and range; (7) *regulate the- *(a) speed, (b) force, (c) both speed and force, (d) intent and speed; and (8)* delete- *exclude a move or moves from the sequence.
> 
> _and since doc mentioned ideas_,
> *IDEAS*- One of the philosophical views of Kenpo that considers defensive and offensive moves to be no more than concepts that vary with each and every situation. <- _adds a bit more context for me when I re-read Doc's post about the "IDEALS" being "IDEAS"._





Read this. Absorb this. Then observe what I have done...and conclude emphatically that not only does my expression fit literally every definition of the ACTUAL IP as Mr. Parker wrote it? My IP fulfills the common sense requirement of actually working in a scrap. Not just the scenario envisioned as a "lab" of sorts to start out working Sword and Hammer...but through diligent practice understanding and application in various and sundry scenarios, I have done what Dr. Dave innahouse also stated that Mr. Parker wanted us to do, to wit: use a tech and a scenario as a jumping off point to study and expand our applicable combat knowledge of movement, targeting, technique selection and application [ why select such and such tech as opposed to this and that tech and what are the impacts of either or all and which would be yield the most salutory effect under such and such conditions, etc ] and all benefits extant from intelligent, highly informed, highly focused, wholly functional martial arts training. 

The tech that you quoted from Mr. Parker was a starting point. It was a template...not the mandated singular expression set in stone inflexible perfect Sword and Hammer. Remember, THERE IS NO IDEAL TECHNIQUE. Only the Ideal Phase CONCEPT. No single expression of the Sword and Hammer is the inflexible Ideal TECHNIQUE because there never was and can never be a single Ideal TECHNIQUE.

However, there ARE expressions of Sword and Hammer which are MORE CORRECT than others. The simple litmus test for that is there are some Sword and Hammer expressions which are MORE FUNCTIONAL than others. The videos of the Sword and Hammer that Chris Parker, Twin Fist and even you my friend cited are DYSFUNCTIONAL. They DO NOT work reliably. That alone means that my functional reliable Sword and Hammer is forever and ever better than theirs...but my Sword and Hammer is NOT and never will be THEE  Ideal TECHNIQUE because as we know the Ideal Phase requires each tech to be made by the head of the group organization club whatever on a case by case basis...and the techs are supposed to work against genuine energetic resistance. Those other guys' IP simply dropped the ball. Mine didn't doesn't won't can't and never will...cuz mine works. Reliably. Almost all the time. There's fails. Reliably. Almost all the time. There ya go.

I showed via video that not only could I resolve this scenario realistically? I took the whole of the process from THE IDEAL PHASE to THE EQUATION FORMULA and expressed it in one manifestation of a technique. Very difficult to do, and it took some work...and it absolutely mandates matwork against resisting partners. Period. I did and keep doing the work that literally no other so-called IP tech which is merely a copy of a tech sans any real world resistance reality check can do, and I did EXACTLY what Mr. Parker wanted for us to do too.

Oh yeah...like I said before? I made it a point to include the rigid expression of Sword and Hammer that other guys have and show why it doesn't work and then show an expression that DOES work. Observe:

[video=youtube_share;AuvuhW1u2WE]http://youtu.be/AuvuhW1u2WE[/video]


It's not the only time I've done this, but I specify this video for guys who have a conniption fit if the attacker isn't directly off my flank and attacks. Lololol. Simply voicing such a concern as theirs proves that they haven't fought with it. You don't need to be 90 degrees in front of a guy to jab him. You just jab him. That's proof that you're jabbing. Doesn't matter where the bad guy is or what he's doing...if I Sword and Hammer  you? You've been Sword and Hammered. Very simple.

Dealing with these variants...50 Ways to Sunday...is a staple of Tracy Kenpo. Since the foundational Kenpo I was taught was actually a blend of Tracy, EPAK, and other stuff? The 50 Ways to Sunday and multiple functional branches that come from a general response from a general attack forms a seminal part of all the techs that I teach.


If you check the date on my video? You'll see that I covered and responded to critiques and concerns raised on this thread...months before the various posters like Chris and Twin wrote them and long before guys like Hollywood134 cosigned those concerns. And in so doing I showed that I was right there too...and my detractors [ even the well-meaning ones ] were false.


----------



## MJS

Geeze...how the hell did I miss this thread? LOL!  Anyways, I'll toss my .02 into the mix.  So, if I'm reading right, the main issue is that S&H (Sword and Hammer) is no longer S&H mainly due to it not being the way that we'd typically see it taught in Kenpo schools.  Ras made drastic changes, thus why call is S&H?  So...that being said....rather than change the technique altogether, why not just do the base technique.  If something were to change, ie: the badguy pushes, pulls, changes his attack, goes to punch, etc, just simply adapt to the new situation, and go from there?  That way, you're technically still doing S&H, because thats what you started off with, but if/when the BG did something other than simply grab, you adapted.  

I say this because this is what I do.  Actually, thats not 100% correct.  What I do is simply respond to whats happening.  I'm not setting out to do S&H or any other tech., in its entirety.  Maybe I'd just knock the guys hand off, if possible.  Maybe I'd kick him.  Honestly, who knows what I'd do...lol.

Thoughts?


----------



## Twin Fist

:deadhorse

more 10K wordgasms


----------



## Twin Fist

MJS said:


> Geeze...how the hell did I miss this thread? LOL!  Anyways, I'll toss my .02 into the mix.  So, if I'm reading right, the main issue is that S&H (Sword and Hammer) is no longer S&H mainly due to it not being the way that we'd typically see it taught in Kenpo schools.  Ras made drastic changes, thus why call is S&H?  So...that being said....rather than change the technique altogether, why not just do the base technique.  If something were to change, ie: the badguy pushes, pulls, changes his attack, goes to punch, etc, just simply adapt to the new situation, and go from there?  That way, you're technically still doing S&H, because thats what you started off with, but if/when the BG did something other than simply grab, you adapted.
> 
> I say this because this is what I do.  Actually, thats not 100% correct.  What I do is simply respond to whats happening.  I'm not setting out to do S&H or any other tech., in its entirety.  Maybe I'd just knock the guys hand off, if possible.  Maybe I'd kick him.  Honestly, who knows what I'd do...lol.
> 
> Thoughts?




i dont think he knows or ever learned the base technique


----------



## Twin Fist

uh, no one in this thread ever argued that the so called ideal phase was functional, so ALLL YOUR ******** about how you "annihilate" people?

thats just you creating a cloud of BS smoke to cover up for the fact that you dont know the techniques, and never learned what the techniques are supposed to teach you.

you are arguing with yourself 

I never said the IP was perfect, but you have devoted 10's of thousands of words to why i am wrong to do so...

i said the technique you are doing isnt bad.

again 1000's of words about how i am wrong.....

Chris Parker isnt even a kenpo guy, and he didnt say ANYTHING about the ip you even quote him, and NOPE, it isnt in there

but we are again subjected to your written diarrhea.....

dude, you need serious psychological help.

you aint got any nukes, fact is, you are not 1/10th as smart about anything MUCH LESS martial arts as you like to tell everyone you are.

think on this.

NO ONE on this site consistantly and reguarly praises themseves the way you do.

NO ONE makes the clearly bogus claims you feel the need to make

no one.


----------



## MJS

Twin Fist said:


> :deadhorse
> 
> more 10K wordgasms



LOL!  Thats my new fav. word!!!


----------



## ATACX GYM

MJS said:


> Geeze...how the hell did I miss this thread? LOL!  Anyways, I'll toss my .02 into the mix.  So, if I'm reading right, the main issue is that S&H (Sword and Hammer) is no longer S&H mainly due to it not being the way that we'd typically see it taught in Kenpo schools.  Ras made drastic changes, thus why call is S&H?  So...that being said....rather than change the technique altogether, why not just do the base technique.  If something were to change, ie: the badguy pushes, pulls, changes his attack, goes to punch, etc, just simply adapt to the new situation, and go from there?  That way, you're technically still doing S&H, because thats what you started off with, but if/when the BG did something other than simply grab, you adapted.
> 
> I say this because this is what I do.  Actually, thats not 100% correct.  What I do is simply respond to whats happening.  I'm not setting out to do S&H or any other tech., in its entirety.  Maybe I'd just knock the guys hand off, if possible.  Maybe I'd kick him.  Honestly, who knows what I'd do...lol.
> 
> Thoughts?



No. The main issue is that my detractors don't know the difference between The Ideal Phase...which Mr. Parker defined, and which I left a definition for upthread...and The Idea TECHNIQUE. The Ideal TECHNIQUE does NOT AND NEVER DID EXIST. The techs that you see those other guys doing on their Kenpo videos and which Twin Fist and Chris Parker swear are right? Wrong. By Mr. Parker's definition and Doc Chapel's cosign. There NEVE WAS A IDEAL TECHNIQUE. My expression is fully aware of that fact, and that's why I'm right and they're wrong. Twin Fist, however, is in full denial of this fact because he's...Twin Fist.


Originally Posted by *CyberTyger* 


Taken from Ed Parker's Encyclopedia of Kenpo ver. 1.0 ...

(p.66) *IDEAL PHASE*- This is *Phase I *of the analytical process of dissecting a technique.
It requires structuring an IDEAL technique by selecting a combat situation that you wish to analyze. Contained within the technique should be fixed moves of defense,offense, and the anticipated reactions that can stem from them. This PHASE strongly urges the need to analyze techniques from THREE POINTS OF VIEW.

(p.138) *WHAT IF PHASE*- This is PHASE II of the analytical process of dissecting a technique. this PHASE takes in additional variables. It requires being programmed to further analyze the IDEAL or fixed technique. _(me talking: not sure I agree with the term programmed.) _Expected, as well as unexpected opponent reactions are projected and evaluated. the concept here is that every movement may have critical consequences; thus, in a realistic situation, the need to predict each consequence to the best of your knowledge is imperative. Ideally, all consequential possibilities should be projected, evaluated, and learned. To do so is to increase your ability to instinctively and randomly alter the basic technique, and thus allow yourself a choice of action. _<- (sounds alot like what you've accomplished Ras.)_

(p.56*) FORMULATION PHASE*- This is PHASE III of the analytical process of dissecting a technique. This PHASE involves the actual application of your newly found alternatives to the original IDEAL or fixed technique. Knowing what can additionally happen within the framework of the fixed technique, teaches you how to apply your variable answers to a free and changing environment. This ultimate process of combat training can be learned by using the EQUATION FORMULA for fighting.

(p.48) *EQUATION FORMULA*- This is a special formula that one can follow to develop specific, practical, and logical fighting patterns. the formula allows you a more conclusive basis for negotiating your alternative actions. It reads as follows:
To give any base, whether it is a single move or a series of movements, you can (1)*prefix it*- add a move or moves before it; (2) *suffix it*- add a move or moves after it; (3) *insert*- add a simultaneous move with, the already established sequence (this move can be used as a (a) pinning check- using pressure against an opponent's weapons to nullify their delivery, or (b) positioned check- where you place the hand or leg in a defensive position or angle to minimize entry to your vital areas; (4)* rearrange*- change the sequence of the moves, (5) *alter the- *(a) weapon, (b) target, (c) both weapon and target; (6) *adjust the- *(a) range, (b) angle of execution (which affects the width and height), (c) both angle of execution and range; (7) *regulate the- *(a) speed, (b) force, (c) both speed and force, (d) intent and speed; and (8)* delete- *exclude a move or moves from the sequence.

_and since doc mentioned ideas_, 
*IDEAS*- One of the philosophical views of Kenpo that considers defensive and offensive moves to be no more than concepts that vary with each and every situation. <- _adds a bit more context for me when I re-read Doc's post about the "IDEALS" being "IDEAS"._





Your martial response to the scenario that gave rise to the Sword and Hammer IP is sensible as usual MJS, and the good news is...if you train S&H or whatever functionally? You reach exactly what you stated: you're not LOOKING to do tech "x" you just respond with what is appropriate. The cool thing is that when you're training and doing these 144 or so Kenpo patterns and tech sequences functionally, you also have a specific array of techs that you can apply to any given scenario...a vast arsenal which your opponent is likely to have NEVER SEEN thrown at him in that way in those circumstances. It's like a boxer coming into a boxing match with highly trained techs and a gameplan...and adaptability. Think of Floyd vs Sugar Shane. Floyd had no idea that Sugar Shane would present a jab as quick and accurate as he did in Round 1, and he had no idea that Shane would rock him twice in Round 2...but Floyd made brilliant tactical adjustments on the fly, and employed the refined Mayweather boxing arsenal in such a way that Sugar Shane wasn't able to properly guess and adjust to what was coming next. Just like what would happen if you train your [ Kenpo in this case, but any art would do: kali, capoeira, muay thai, tai chi, iaido, etc ] functionally. 

Well, Kenpo was my first punching and kicking martial art, and especially back when boxing and Kenpo was all I knew...my gameplan was to use my boxing and Kenpo. Use techs that work and that I've trained to work in a wide variety of circumstances. Your push off response is Kenpo. Him pushing or pulling you and you knocking his hands off is Kenpo [ maybe you could have done it from drawing on your FUNCTIONAL white belt training and all those hours you spent learning how to do the double outside block or parry or redirect against live attacks of escalating intensity, or maybe you love PARTING WINGS and you simply used that opening block to deflect ole dude's grabbing hands or whatever ]. 

All of that is specifically given the green light by Mr. Parker himself when he wrote the definitions of and sequence of The Ideal Phase to The Equation Formula. I am literally the only person on this thread to follow this sequence, which by definition makes me literally [ so far anyway ] the only person to have done as Mr. Parker wrote he wanted done in INFINITE INSIGHTS. Mr. Parker specified that the Ideal Phase Concept was the combat model...you literally take a street attack of your choice and work Kenpo techs that thwart that street attack. You as the instructor choose your response method and you work it against resistance until your techs fight right in a fight. Direct. Simple. Brilliant. Effective. You are NOT required to wholesale copy a tech or a suggestion and ingrain it as The Ideal TECHNIQUE. There IS NO IDEAL TECHNIQUE, only a Ideal CONCEPT. The confines of Sword and Hammer require you to learn to employ Sword and Hammer FUNCTIONALLY against a RESISTING OPPONENT who EMULATES A STREET ATTACK. Nowhere does it require you to sweetly touch your partner's shoulder, cock your fist back and patiently wait as your partner runs off a series of techs against zero resistance. The people who do this or champion this approach in any way even incrementally are by definition manifestly wrong, and hellafied wrong in the real world of even functional training, as well as training themselves and their students to be possibly "*dead*" wrong in the real world in a real throwdown. 

That's Twin Fist, Chris Parker, and anyone who cosigns them like Hollywood134 and anyone who agrees like jks9199. It's my understanding that the latter 2...Chris Parker and jks9199...are not actually Kenpo men. I have no idea if Hollywoood is a Kenpo man or not so I can't speak on his situation at this time. Chris and jks9199 can get a pass based upon a presumed ignorance of the material. Being able to read the posts and copy and paste various quotes isn't the same as spending decades practicing the techs as I have. But when presented with the material of the creator himself...Mr. Parker...and when further illuminated by the person who spent the most time with Mr. Parker over the last 30 years of his life and the highest ranking Kenpo senior on this site or on KT which squarely repudiates their positions and absolutely affirms mine? The honest non-uber egotistical martial artist acknowledges that he's wrong and thanks the person for correcting him for it because now...he's BETTER for the experience if he inculcates and applies the more correct, superior information.

Now Mr. Parker and Doc may have [ I would say it was an absolute frickin certainty, but I wasn't there so...] had some secret powwows which only they know about. Can't hold me responsible for not knowing what they discussed and what they worked out.

See whassup now?


----------



## ATACX GYM

MJS said:


> LOL!  Thats my new fav. word!!!




shouldn't surprise you that the [ fill in the blank ] -gasms thing is something I started saying first on KT and here nearly a year ago and Twin Fist merely bit or is a Johnny Come Lately or both. Didn't get anything right on the Ideal Phase and now recycling my words and ideas as your own. 2 for 2, Twin Fist aka John.


----------



## Twin Fist

wow, i guess you invented the wheel too......



seek help.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Twin Fist said:


> wow, i guess you invented the wheel too......
> 
> 
> 
> seek help.



If I did? You'd claim that real wheels are square and then when i proved that they're round? You'd say you did it first. Lol. Let it go, Twin Fist. It's okay man to be wrong from time to time. Doc pulled my coat on the proper terminology of the IP too and its history. I didn't know jack about Motion Kenpo til he schooled me on its history and even the term [ I never heard of Motion Kenpo til he mentioned it ]. I kept my mind open and still do; I critically analyze probe observe hypothesize experiment conclude share question and repeat. 

I'm not here to diss you or test you man. Believe what you want. 

AMANI..."peace"...


----------



## MJS

So, if the IPs never existed, then it begs the question....why are there 24/belt that're taught in many Kenpo schools?  I've asked this before, may as well as again....did Parker set people up to fail?


----------



## ATACX GYM

Here's a good question that is very much on topic but nowhere near as caustic as some aspects of various posts have been:

Why do you think specifically the hammerfist and specifically the sword hand was chosen for this specific scenario? What informs your opinion on the matter? What would happen if another set of techs were used...like, say a outside hammer block and heel palm or say a Tiger Claw and knee or a block and tackle? Why specifically a Hammerfist and a Handsword? Any ideas?


----------



## Twin Fist

i agreed with you, and you are still telling me i am wrong..
ok i was wrong, your technique is crap.

happy now?

seek help
professional psychiatric help





ATACX GYM said:


> If I did? You'd claim that real wheels are square and then when i proved that they're round? You'd say you did it first. Lol. Let it go, Twin Fist. It's okay man to be wrong from time to time. Doc pulled my coat on the proper terminology of the IP too and its history. I didn't know jack about Motion Kenpo til he schooled me on its history and even the term [ I never heard of Motion Kenpo til he mentioned it ]. I kept my mind open and still do; I critically analyze probe observe hypothesize experiment conclude share question and repeat.
> 
> I'm not here to diss you or test you man. Believe what you want.
> 
> AMANI..."peace"...


----------



## Twin Fist

stand by for a wordgasm



MJS said:


> So, if the IPs never existed, then it begs the question....why are there 24/belt that're taught in many Kenpo schools?  I've asked this before, may as well as again....did Parker set people up to fail?


----------



## MJS

ATACX GYM said:


> Here's a good question that is very much on topic but nowhere near as caustic as some aspects of various posts have been:
> 
> Why do you think specifically the hammerfist and specifically the sword hand was chosen for this specific scenario? What informs your opinion on the matter? What would happen if another set of techs were used...like, say a outside hammer block and heel palm or say a Tiger Claw and knee or a block and tackle? Why specifically a Hammerfist and a Handsword? Any ideas?



IMO, and I'm just taking a shot in the dark here, but....I'd say the handsword was chosen because of the way we step, to pull the person off balance.  Its a longer range tool, to reach the target.  I'd say the hammerfist because again, its the best tool for the result of the HS, which will be the badguy leaning back, thus exposing the groin.  

Could I step and fire off a side kick?  Sure, why not.  The diehards will argue that the techs are set up for a specific attack.  If the guy does A then you do 1.  If the guy does B then 1 won't fit that model so you have to do 2, thus the reason you have so many damn techs...lol.  This is why *I* do what i do.


----------



## MJS

twin fist said:


> stand by for a wordgasm



lol!


----------



## ATACX GYM

MJS said:


> So, if the IPs never existed, then it begs the question....why are there 24/belt that're taught in many Kenpo schools?  I've asked this before, may as well as again....did Parker set people up to fail?




You're conflating some terms my brother...the Ideal PHASE most definitely exists. it is as I have defined it upthread. Please read the definition all the way to the Equation Formula.

What happened was multipronged and exactly as Doc stated:

1) Too many early Black Belts were too stupid and too lazy and/or lacked the real life experience and/or skill to actually produce The Ideal Phase as Mr. Parker required of them. Instead they simply slavishly copied the EXAMPLE that was set forth for them in the instructor's manual known colloquially as BIG RED. These guys were like Decepticons...but stupid. They're...Moron-icons. They completely misunderstood and wholesale misrepresented Mr. Parker's art.

2) In slavishly mindlessly copying the EXAMPLE of a Ideal Phase without understanding the Ideal Phase CONCEPT, these Moron-icons made the very thing that Mr. Parker decried come into being...they created a totally dysfunctional, nonsensical Ideal TECHNIQUE. Cuz all they wanted was the belt promotion, they didn't want to think, probe, question, create, develope. 

3) Mr. Parker's BB's by and large failed him, and in so doing...they failed us. They succeeded wildly commercially and brought down a Greek tragedy upon Kenpo. And that was what had guys like you and I questioning the very underpinnings of kenpo's training methodology and the mindsets that spawned such craptasticness. We were right to question the things we did; the answers we received were from people who didn't know what they were talking about and led us even further astray. I guess that Mr. Parker promoted too many people who sucked in the system but were good for business in order to get the mandatory financial success and the Kenpo brand well known...and that was a disasterous move for the quality of the techs, although it was a stroke of commercial and financial genius.

4) Doc has said more than once that Mr. Parker had resolved to take his Kenpo back and fix all the analrifficness therein, but he passed away very soon after he made that resolution. I get the feeling that he might have passed the within a year of making said resolution...cuz I think he would have made some serious inroads and succeeded at his goal if he had say...5 years to achieve it.


----------



## ATACX GYM

MJS said:


> IMO, and I'm just taking a shot in the dark here, but....I'd say the handsword was chosen because of the way we step, to pull the person off balance.  Its a longer range tool, to reach the target.  I'd say the hammerfist because again, its the best tool for the result of the HS, which will be the badguy leaning back, thus exposing the groin.
> 
> Could I step and fire off a side kick?  Sure, why not.  The diehards will argue that the techs are set up for a specific attack.  If the guy does A then you do 1.  If the guy does B then 1 won't fit that model so you have to do 2, thus the reason you have so many damn techs...lol.  This is why *I* do what i do.




Excellent answer, especially the part where you note that t he diehards insist on a inflexible response... "if the guy does A then you do 1". Exactly right. The diehards are wrong. 

I will proffer my own opinion after years of using this tandem but I'd like to hear more from others like you MJS...


----------



## Twin Fist

the truth is if the guy does "A" (in this case, a grab from the flank) you can do any of 100's of options

sword and hammer is ONE option

but

if you are gonna do Ed Parker's Sword and Hammer, you DO NOT SPIN OUT, that isnt sword and hammer any more than iced tea is a coke

you step IN and chop to the throat

if you dont do that, you are not doing Ed Parker's sword and hammer

what you are doing may be AWESOME, they might fall over dead

but that wont turn some made up BS into sword and hammer

and it doesnt matter, the techniques are just options, metaphors to teach you lessons

some people think they know better than Ed parker did, and that they dont need to learn the lessons.

we call those people fools.

now dont get me wrong, i think many of the techniques as written wont work. But many will work. And all of them teach you something. But thats just me, i dont think i know better than Ed Parker.

personally i think you can learn everythign you NEED to know in the 10 Master key techniques. Not everythign there is to know, but everythign you need to know.

you learn the lessons, you dont need the techniques.


----------



## MJS

ATACX GYM said:


> You're conflating some terms my brother...the Ideal PHASE most definitely exists. it is as I have defined it upthread. Please read the definition all the way to the Equation Formula.
> 
> What happened was multipronged and exactly as Doc stated:
> 
> 1) Too many early Black Belts were too stupid and too lazy and/or lacked the real life experience and/or skill to actually produce The Ideal Phase as Mr. Parker required of them. Instead they simply slavishly copied the EXAMPLE that was set forth for them in the instructor's manual known colloquially as BIG RED. These guys were like Decepticons...but stupid. They're...Moron-icons. They completely misunderstood and wholesale misrepresented Mr. Parker's art.
> 
> 2) In slavishly mindlessly copying the EXAMPLE of a Ideal Phase without understanding the Ideal Phase CONCEPT, these Moron-icons made the very thing that Mr. Parker decried come into being...they created a totally dysfunctional, nonsensical Ideal TECHNIQUE. Cuz all they wanted was the belt promotion, they didn't want to think, probe, question, create, develope.
> 
> 3) Mr. Parker's BB's by and large failed him, and in so doing...they failed us. They succeeded wildly commercially and brought down a Greek tragedy upon Kenpo. And that was what had guys like you and I questioning the very underpinnings of kenpo's training methodology and the mindsets that spawned such craptasticness. We were right to question the things we did; the answers we received were from people who didn't know what they were talking about and led us even further astray. I guess that Mr. Parker promoted too many people who sucked in the system but were good for business in order to get the mandatory financial success and the Kenpo brand well known...and that was a disasterous move for the quality of the techs, although it was a stroke of commercial and financial genius.
> 
> 4) Doc has said more than once that Mr. Parker had resolved to take his Kenpo back and fix all the analrifficness therein, but he passed away very soon after he made that resolution. I get the feeling that he might have passed the within a year of making said resolution...cuz I think he would have made some serious inroads and succeeded at his goal if he had say...5 years to achieve it.



LOL...ahh...yes, I did mistake the word.  To be honest, I've never heard the phrase "Ideal Technique" until just now...lol.  Anywho....sooo...how the hell did these people get black belts, or any belts for that matter if they sucked?  Why were they allowed to teach if they didn't understand what it was they were teaching?


----------



## MJS

ATACX GYM said:


> Excellent answer, especially the part where you note that t he diehards insist on a inflexible response... "if the guy does A then you do 1". Exactly right. The diehards are wrong.
> 
> I will proffer my own opinion after years of using this tandem but I'd like to hear more from others like you MJS...



This is probably another thread, but anyways....I remember one class I taught. Did the IP technqiue.  A smaller female was working with a taller male.  She just couldn't reach the intended target.  She was like, "I can't reach his face, and this is where the strike is supposed to go."  I said, "Yup, you're right, however, since you can't reach that target, why not hit here....or here...or here?"  LOL!  It was like the bulb just wasn't going off...lol.


----------



## ATACX GYM

MJS said:


> This is probably another thread, but anyways....I remember one class I taught. Did the IP technqiue.  A smaller female was working with a taller male.  She just couldn't reach the intended target.  She was like, "I can't reach his face, and this is where the strike is supposed to go."  I said, "Yup, you're right, however, since you can't reach that target, why not hit here....or here...or here?"  LOL!  It was like the bulb just wasn't going off...lol.




That sounds like a consistent critic of mine on this thread..."the light bulb just wasn't going off"...


...and NO the topic you broached is NOT another thread. It's directly connected to this thread. Many people not only don't understand The Ideal Phase, they belligerently refuse any form of education on it. Even from Mr. Parker's own writing. 
Even though Mr. Parker clearly spelled it out. The sample expression of this tech--the pin, the step, the chop, the hammerfist-- is NOT a ironclad Ideal TECHNIQUE. 

Mr. Parker's own writings specify that the Ideal Phase is multipronged, it's technique analysis and dissection, it can only be created when the head instructor of your group, training session, dojo, organization, whatever, crafts this tech using the Sword and Hammer movements in addressing a specifically selected common street attack.There are people who claim that I think that I'm smarter than Mr. Parker...when Mr. Parker's own writings and Mr. Parker's #1 living student specifically stated the contrary. My opinion was drawn directly from their writings. The folks who have their light bulbs off are entitled to keep it off if they wish.

 Originally Posted by *Doc* 


You really need to let the word "ideal" go. Try this; *THERE IS NO IDEAL TECHNIQUE. THERE IS NO UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED IDEAL TECHNIQUE.* What is there exists because people moved up the ranks and became instructors with no knowledge, skill, or experience. These people made the outline IDEA in the manuals the IDEAL because they could not create the IDEAL as Mr. Parker said they were supposed to. Each school, group, club etc was supposed to have one person who would set the IDEAL but only for their group. What you have is a bunch of people all taking the ideas in a manual and teaching it because that's all they have. So removes the word IDEAL from your vocabulary, unless you are talking about IDEALS you created that you teach for your students. That is the only ideal there is. What YOU CREATE.

You're misinformed, and I explained how the manual became the IDEAL for the majority when it was never supposed to be. It was only a guide to begin the process, but absent experience, knowledge, and skill that allowed you to think through the process the manual is all you need whether it works or not. Call it LAZY, call it whatever you want, just don't call them "universally" accepted, because its not true...






Originally Posted by *Doc* 


Yep! Mr. Parker gave the the "Ideal Phase" concept, but never gave the "Ideal Technique." In his own words he described what they were supposed to do in the Ideal Phase, but instead they took the Ideas in the manual, even when they didn't make sense and just taught whatever it said. Nobody cared whether they worked or not, all they wanted was to meet the requirements so they could get promoted. Then they turned around and did the same thing with their own students. Apparently, for many, thinking was optional.









 Originally Posted by *CyberTyger* 


Taken from Ed Parker's Encyclopedia of Kenpo ver. 1.0 ...

(p.66) *IDEAL PHASE*- This is *Phase I *of the analytical process of dissecting a technique.
It requires structuring an IDEAL technique by selecting a combat situation that you wish to analyze. Contained within the technique should be fixed moves of defense,offense, and the anticipated reactions that can stem from them. This PHASE strongly urges the need to analyze techniques from THREE POINTS OF VIEW.

(p.138) *WHAT IF PHASE*- This is PHASE II of the analytical process of dissecting a technique. this PHASE takes in additional variables. It requires being programmed to further analyze the IDEAL or fixed technique. _(me talking: not sure I agree with the term programmed.) _Expected, as well as unexpected opponent reactions are projected and evaluated. the concept here is that every movement may have critical consequences; thus, in a realistic situation, the need to predict each consequence to the best of your knowledge is imperative. Ideally, all consequential possibilities should be projected, evaluated, and learned. To do so is to increase your ability to instinctively and randomly alter the basic technique, and thus allow yourself a choice of action. _<- (sounds alot like what you've accomplished Ras.)_

(p.56*) FORMULATION PHASE*- This is PHASE III of the analytical process of dissecting a technique. This PHASE involves the actual application of your newly found alternatives to the original IDEAL or fixed technique. Knowing what can additionally happen within the framework of the fixed technique, teaches you how to apply your variable answers to a free and changing environment. This ultimate process of combat training can be learned by using the EQUATION FORMULA for fighting.

(p.48) *EQUATION FORMULA*- This is a special formula that one can follow to develop specific, practical, and logical fighting patterns. the formula allows you a more conclusive basis for negotiating your alternative actions. It reads as follows:
To give any base, whether it is a single move or a series of movements, you can (1)*prefix it*- add a move or moves before it; (2) *suffix it*- add a move or moves after it; (3) *insert*- add a simultaneous move with, the already established sequence (this move can be used as a (a) pinning check- using pressure against an opponent's weapons to nullify their delivery, or (b) positioned check- where you place the hand or leg in a defensive position or angle to minimize entry to your vital areas; (4)* rearrange*- change the sequence of the moves, (5) *alter the- *(a) weapon, (b) target, (c) both weapon and target; (6) *adjust the- *(a) range, (b) angle of execution (which affects the width and height), (c) both angle of execution and range; (7) *regulate the- *(a) speed, (b) force, (c) both speed and force, (d) intent and speed; and (8)* delete- *exclude a move or moves from the sequence.

_and since doc mentioned ideas_, 
*IDEAS*- One of the philosophical views of Kenpo that considers defensive and offensive moves to be no more than concepts that vary with each and every situation. <- _adds a bit more context for me when I re-read Doc's post about the "IDEALS" being "IDEAS".




^^^^If you read the above you will see why I am right and all of my detractors are wrong. You will see why the expression proffered as an EXAMPLE of how SWORD AND HAMMER can be used in a specific scenario IS NOT THE IRONCLAD Ideal TECHNIQUE. There is no and never will be a ideal TECHNIQUE. People like Twin Fist are as wrong as wrong can be and they're refuted by the most powerful of sources: Mr. Parker and Doc Chapel. Anytime Twin claims that I think I'm smarter than Mr. Parker? He's really so enamored with and exalted by his OWN opinion that he won't be swayed by anyone else telling showing and proving in the most emphatic empirical way that he's wrong...and that INCLUDES MR. PARKER. As the above quotes show beyond any reasonable doubt._


Now, with that being said...in my next post I will proffer my own opinion about the importance of using Sword and Hammer...specifically those techs in specifically that situation...and what experiences I've had that lead me to my [ still developing ] hypothesis on the matter. 


Oh yeah something else:


0-07-2006, 10:39 PM#32​

*hongkongfooey* 



*
Martial Talk
Black Belt
*








Join DateJun 2005Age39Posts611Thanks14Thanked 23 Times in 11 PostsRep Power7​

[h=2]Re: Let me ask this[/h]





 Originally Posted by *exile* 


In TKD, and maybe karate too, that doesn't happen, because it's so abundantly clear that the hyungs/kata aren't really ready-made set-pieces to carry out literally in case of an attack, but are catalogues of (mostly concealed) fighting techniques, intended to be understood, trained and stored in muscle memory until such time as needed. A kiss may be just a kiss and a sigh just a sigh, but a `rising block' is definitely not a rising _block_. So no one goes around learning hyungs/kata as literal techniques to apply off-the-shelf in response to an assailant. But it sounds, from what you're saying here, that the kenpo technique drills are not like TKD/karate forms. They _are_ meant to be taken literally and their bunkai are not concealed. Is this right, HKph? A elbow strike will not be concealed within the chambering phase of a down block but will be taught upfront as an elbow strike, followed by a knife-edge strike to the throat with the same arm, all of it transparent and meant to be taken literally? Is that the way kenpo technique drills work?




Yes and no. What I meant by set in stone is that many people never explore what is actually contained in the technique lesson, they never get past the ideal phase. The techniques are loaded with information, some obvious, some not so obvious. 

In Parker's Kenpo you have 3 phases of learning techniques.
Ideal
What If
Spontaneous

In the ideal phase you learn the base techniques, as they are written to introduce a principle or concept.

In the what if phase, you add in different variables in the scenario. You start to resist and check each other off, in the execution of the techniques. Principle are reinforced and expanded on. The Kenpoist should start to formulate defense on the fly, not rely on a technique as written.

In the spontaneous phase you are adding and deleting, borrowing, rearranging, prefixing, and suffixing movements contained in the ideal techniques. Defense is spontaneous. The movements look nothing like the written techniques. In this phase the principle and concepts are ingrained, and well understood. This is the level that a Kenpoist should strive to be at. 

It's funny. Sometimes people will watch others in a video, defend against an attack, with an on the fly sequence. The outcry of "That's not Kenpo!" "He didn't do Delayed Sword for that lapel grab!" These people missed the forest for the trees.

I'll probably be flambeed for my opinion, but that's ok. I have good teachers, I'll be OK.​
Don't be a coward. Post your name if you leave bad karma."


By the way...look at hongkongfooey's sig^^^ "Don't be a coward. Post your name if you leave bad karma" and Twin Fist's sig.  Aren't they remarkably similar? Lolol seems like Twin Fist bit my "-gasms" thing aaaand bit this guy's sig. Which he's had since at least 2006.​


----------



## jks9199

MJS said:


> Geeze...how the hell did I miss this thread? LOL!  Anyways, I'll toss my .02 into the mix.  So, if I'm reading right, the main issue is that S&H (Sword and Hammer) is no longer S&H mainly due to it not being the way that we'd typically see it taught in Kenpo schools.  Ras made drastic changes, thus why call is S&H?  So...that being said....rather than change the technique altogether, why not just do the base technique.  If something were to change, ie: the badguy pushes, pulls, changes his attack, goes to punch, etc, just simply adapt to the new situation, and go from there?  That way, you're technically still doing S&H, because thats what you started off with, but if/when the BG did something other than simply grab, you adapted.
> 
> I say this because this is what I do.  Actually, thats not 100% correct.  What I do is simply respond to whats happening.  I'm not setting out to do S&H or any other tech., in its entirety.  Maybe I'd just knock the guys hand off, if possible.  Maybe I'd kick him.  Honestly, who knows what I'd do...lol.
> 
> Thoughts?





MJS said:


> IMO, and I'm just taking a shot in the dark here, but....I'd say the handsword was chosen because of the way we step, to pull the person off balance.  Its a longer range tool, to reach the target.  I'd say the hammerfist because again, its the best tool for the result of the HS, which will be the badguy leaning back, thus exposing the groin.
> 
> Could I step and fire off a side kick?  Sure, why not.  The diehards will argue that the techs are set up for a specific attack.  If the guy does A then you do 1.  If the guy does B then 1 won't fit that model so you have to do 2, thus the reason you have so many damn techs...lol.  This is why *I* do what i do.



Here's what I see when I look at the classic Sword & Hammer:  an underlying set of principles that say, in essence, when grabbed from the side, turn inward and step into the attacker, and attack at two levels, high & middle/low.  When I look at something purporting to be a variant of Sword & Hammer, that's what I'm looking for -- turning inward, stepping in, especially, because my training has taught me to look for movement and structure and principles, more than specific techniques.  Then I'm going to look at that hand sword and hammer; why those particular techniques, what are they doing?  I see a longer range attack moving on a horizontal plane, that's going to go over or along the initial grab.  A hand sword or chop fits beautifully to the throat -- but could be easily adapted to a back fist, or a slap, or even a clearing motion into a wrap over the arm.   That downward hammer?  It's a nice fit with the natural reaction of the hand to the throat or face, and it's moving on a vertical plane.  It allows you to "drop" your weight behind the attack (I suspect this is the principle Parker called "Marriage of Gravity").

So, a couple of what I'd call "consistent" variations come to my mind.  The initial hand sword might become a palm/grab to the face, and the hammer fist a vertical drop, taking the face with it straight down.  You might wrap and drop on the arm.  It might even simply become a clearing motion when you turn and recognize that the grab was your wife or your cousin or someone else whose trachea you don't want to crush.  (Incidentally -- what I read the "kenpo sense" as being is just that; the ability to recognize the nature of the grab, and then identify the person you're dealing with and scale your response appropriately.)  The stepping and basic pattern remains the same; an inward turn, a horizontal plane attack, moving into a vertical plane attack.

And, of course, this won't work "right" if the attack is significantly different.  A push rather than a more static grab or pull will make you want to step out and away.  A grab from behind rather than the flank will need a different step; by the time you spin that far around, it'll be too late.  But, then, you need a different principle for a different situation, don't you?


----------



## Twin Fist

ATACX GYM said:


> By the way...look at hongkongfooey's sig^^^ "Don't be a coward. Post your name if you leave bad karma" and Twin Fist's sig.  Aren't they remarkably similar? Lolol seems like Twin Fist bit my "-gasms" thing aaaand bit this guy's sig. Which he's had since at least 2006.



uh, i hate to break it to you, but I have been saying "whatever" gasm since a 1999 episode of Buffy the vampire slayer. The character Xander referres to an episode of ghost haunting as a "poltergasm"

been using it ever since.

let me blunt here RAS

I havnt seen anything from you I would want to copy, or repete. Simply put, you aint that impressive.


----------



## Twin Fist

called it.



ATACX GYM said:


> That sounds like a consistent critic of mine on this thread..."the light bulb just wasn't going off"...
> 
> 
> ...and NO the topic you broached is NOT another thread. It's directly connected to this thread. Many people not only don't understand The Ideal Phase, they belligerently refuse any form of education on it. Even from Mr. Parker's own writing.
> Even though Mr. Parker clearly spelled it out. The sample expression of this tech--the pin, the step, the chop, the hammerfist-- is NOT a ironclad Ideal TECHNIQUE.
> 
> Mr. Parker's own writings specify that the Ideal Phase is multipronged, it's technique analysis and dissection, it can only be created when the head instructor of your group, training session, dojo, organization, whatever, crafts this tech using the Sword and Hammer movements in addressing a specifically selected common street attack.There are people who claim that I think that I'm smarter than Mr. Parker...when Mr. Parker's own writings and Mr. Parker's #1 living student specifically stated the contrary. My opinion was drawn directly from their writings. The folks who have their light bulbs off are entitled to keep it off if they wish.
> 
> Originally Posted by *Doc*
> 
> 
> You really need to let the word "ideal" go. Try this; *THERE IS NO IDEAL TECHNIQUE. THERE IS NO UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED IDEAL TECHNIQUE.* What is there exists because people moved up the ranks and became instructors with no knowledge, skill, or experience. These people made the outline IDEA in the manuals the IDEAL because they could not create the IDEAL as Mr. Parker said they were supposed to. Each school, group, club etc was supposed to have one person who would set the IDEAL but only for their group. What you have is a bunch of people all taking the ideas in a manual and teaching it because that's all they have. So removes the word IDEAL from your vocabulary, unless you are talking about IDEALS you created that you teach for your students. That is the only ideal there is. What YOU CREATE.
> 
> You're misinformed, and I explained how the manual became the IDEAL for the majority when it was never supposed to be. It was only a guide to begin the process, but absent experience, knowledge, and skill that allowed you to think through the process the manual is all you need whether it works or not. Call it LAZY, call it whatever you want, just don't call them "universally" accepted, because its not true...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Doc*
> 
> 
> Yep! Mr. Parker gave the the "Ideal Phase" concept, but never gave the "Ideal Technique." In his own words he described what they were supposed to do in the Ideal Phase, but instead they took the Ideas in the manual, even when they didn't make sense and just taught whatever it said. Nobody cared whether they worked or not, all they wanted was to meet the requirements so they could get promoted. Then they turned around and did the same thing with their own students. Apparently, for many, thinking was optional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *CyberTyger*
> 
> 
> Taken from Ed Parker's Encyclopedia of Kenpo ver. 1.0 ...
> 
> (p.66) *IDEAL PHASE*- This is *Phase I *of the analytical process of dissecting a technique.
> It requires structuring an IDEAL technique by selecting a combat situation that you wish to analyze. Contained within the technique should be fixed moves of defense,offense, and the anticipated reactions that can stem from them. This PHASE strongly urges the need to analyze techniques from THREE POINTS OF VIEW.
> 
> (p.138) *WHAT IF PHASE*- This is PHASE II of the analytical process of dissecting a technique. this PHASE takes in additional variables. It requires being programmed to further analyze the IDEAL or fixed technique. _(me talking: not sure I agree with the term programmed.) _Expected, as well as unexpected opponent reactions are projected and evaluated. the concept here is that every movement may have critical consequences; thus, in a realistic situation, the need to predict each consequence to the best of your knowledge is imperative. Ideally, all consequential possibilities should be projected, evaluated, and learned. To do so is to increase your ability to instinctively and randomly alter the basic technique, and thus allow yourself a choice of action. _<- (sounds alot like what you've accomplished Ras.)_
> 
> (p.56*) FORMULATION PHASE*- This is PHASE III of the analytical process of dissecting a technique. This PHASE involves the actual application of your newly found alternatives to the original IDEAL or fixed technique. Knowing what can additionally happen within the framework of the fixed technique, teaches you how to apply your variable answers to a free and changing environment. This ultimate process of combat training can be learned by using the EQUATION FORMULA for fighting.
> 
> (p.48) *EQUATION FORMULA*- This is a special formula that one can follow to develop specific, practical, and logical fighting patterns. the formula allows you a more conclusive basis for negotiating your alternative actions. It reads as follows:
> To give any base, whether it is a single move or a series of movements, you can (1)*prefix it*- add a move or moves before it; (2) *suffix it*- add a move or moves after it; (3) *insert*- add a simultaneous move with, the already established sequence (this move can be used as a (a) pinning check- using pressure against an opponent's weapons to nullify their delivery, or (b) positioned check- where you place the hand or leg in a defensive position or angle to minimize entry to your vital areas; (4)* rearrange*- change the sequence of the moves, (5) *alter the- *(a) weapon, (b) target, (c) both weapon and target; (6) *adjust the- *(a) range, (b) angle of execution (which affects the width and height), (c) both angle of execution and range; (7) *regulate the- *(a) speed, (b) force, (c) both speed and force, (d) intent and speed; and (8)* delete- *exclude a move or moves from the sequence.
> 
> _and since doc mentioned ideas_,
> *IDEAS*- One of the philosophical views of Kenpo that considers defensive and offensive moves to be no more than concepts that vary with each and every situation. <- _adds a bit more context for me when I re-read Doc's post about the "IDEALS" being "IDEAS".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^^If you read the above you will see why I am right and all of my detractors are wrong. You will see why the expression proffered as an EXAMPLE of how SWORD AND HAMMER can be used in a specific scenario IS NOT THE IRONCLAD Ideal TECHNIQUE. There is no and never will be a ideal TECHNIQUE. People like Twin Fist are as wrong as wrong can be and they're refuted by the most powerful of sources: Mr. Parker and Doc Chapel. Anytime Twin claims that I think I'm smarter than Mr. Parker? He's really so enamored with and exalted by his OWN opinion that he won't be swayed by anyone else telling showing and proving in the most emphatic empirical way that he's wrong...and that INCLUDES MR. PARKER. As the above quotes show beyond any reasonable doubt._
> 
> 
> Now, with that being said...in my next post I will proffer my own opinion about the importance of using Sword and Hammer...specifically those techs in specifically that situation...and what experiences I've had that lead me to my [ still developing ] hypothesis on the matter.
> 
> 
> Oh yeah something else:
> 
> 
> 0-07-2006, 10:39 PM#32​
> 
> 
> *hongkongfooey*
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Martial Talk
> Black Belt
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Join DateJun 2005Age39Posts611Thanks14Thanked 23 Times in 11 PostsRep Power7​
> 
> *Re: Let me ask this*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *exile*
> 
> 
> In TKD, and maybe karate too, that doesn't happen, because it's so abundantly clear that the hyungs/kata aren't really ready-made set-pieces to carry out literally in case of an attack, but are catalogues of (mostly concealed) fighting techniques, intended to be understood, trained and stored in muscle memory until such time as needed. A kiss may be just a kiss and a sigh just a sigh, but a `rising block' is definitely not a rising _block_. So no one goes around learning hyungs/kata as literal techniques to apply off-the-shelf in response to an assailant. But it sounds, from what you're saying here, that the kenpo technique drills are not like TKD/karate forms. They _are_ meant to be taken literally and their bunkai are not concealed. Is this right, HKph? A elbow strike will not be concealed within the chambering phase of a down block but will be taught upfront as an elbow strike, followed by a knife-edge strike to the throat with the same arm, all of it transparent and meant to be taken literally? Is that the way kenpo technique drills work?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and no. What I meant by set in stone is that many people never explore what is actually contained in the technique lesson, they never get past the ideal phase. The techniques are loaded with information, some obvious, some not so obvious.
> 
> In Parker's Kenpo you have 3 phases of learning techniques.
> Ideal
> What If
> Spontaneous
> 
> In the ideal phase you learn the base techniques, as they are written to introduce a principle or concept.
> 
> In the what if phase, you add in different variables in the scenario. You start to resist and check each other off, in the execution of the techniques. Principle are reinforced and expanded on. The Kenpoist should start to formulate defense on the fly, not rely on a technique as written.
> 
> In the spontaneous phase you are adding and deleting, borrowing, rearranging, prefixing, and suffixing movements contained in the ideal techniques. Defense is spontaneous. The movements look nothing like the written techniques. In this phase the principle and concepts are ingrained, and well understood. This is the level that a Kenpoist should strive to be at.
> 
> It's funny. Sometimes people will watch others in a video, defend against an attack, with an on the fly sequence. The outcry of "That's not Kenpo!" "He didn't do Delayed Sword for that lapel grab!" These people missed the forest for the trees.
> 
> I'll probably be flambeed for my opinion, but that's ok. I have good teachers, I'll be OK.​Don't be a coward. Post your name if you leave bad karma."
> 
> 
> By the way...look at hongkongfooey's sig^^^ "Don't be a coward. Post your name if you leave bad karma" and Twin Fist's sig.  Aren't they remarkably similar? Lolol seems like Twin Fist bit my "-gasms" thing aaaand bit this guy's sig. Which he's had since at least 2006.​


----------



## ATACX GYM

jks9199 said:


> Here's what I see when I look at the classic Sword & Hammer:  an underlying set of principles that say, in essence, when grabbed from the side, turn inward and step into the attacker, and attack at two levels, high & middle/low.  When I look at something purporting to be a variant of Sword & Hammer, that's what I'm looking for -- turning inward, stepping in, especially, because my training has taught me to look for movement and structure and principles, more than specific techniques.  Then I'm going to look at that hand sword and hammer; why those particular techniques, what are they doing?  I see a longer range attack moving on a horizontal plane, that's going to go over or along the initial grab.  A hand sword or chop fits beautifully to the throat -- but could be easily adapted to a back fist, or a slap, or even a clearing motion into a wrap over the arm.   That downward hammer?  It's a nice fit with the natural reaction of the hand to the throat or face, and it's moving on a vertical plane.  It allows you to "drop" your weight behind the attack (I suspect this is the principle Parker called "Marriage of Gravity").
> 
> So, a couple of what I'd call "consistent" variations come to my mind.  The initial hand sword might become a palm/grab to the face, and the hammer fist a vertical drop, taking the face with it straight down.  You might wrap and drop on the arm.  It might even simply become a clearing motion when you turn and recognize that the grab was your wife or your cousin or someone else whose trachea you don't want to crush.  (Incidentally -- what I read the "kenpo sense" as being is just that; the ability to recognize the nature of the grab, and then identify the person you're dealing with and scale your response appropriately.)  The stepping and basic pattern remains the same; an inward turn, a horizontal plane attack, moving into a vertical plane attack.
> 
> And, of course, this won't work "right" if the attack is significantly different.  A push rather than a more static grab or pull will make you want to step out and away.  A grab from behind rather than the flank will need a different step; by the time you spin that far around, it'll be too late.  But, then, you need a different principle for a different situation, don't you?




This is a excellent response! Good job man.


Okay here we go...


...when I see a tech? ANY tech? The very first things that I look for are functional attack and functional response. There can not be a reliable application of tech under pressure if the attack isn't functional [ an attack effectively employed in the real world ] and no matter how well the counterattack is crafted to said dysfunctional attack? The counterattack is also dysfunctional to some significant degree because the attack is dysfunctional. This is the first thing that the flawed expression that becmae the Sword and Hammer Ideal TECHNIQUE failed.

The attack isn't remotely realistic. In the real world, the attacker's grab has energy and his punching attack oftentimes comes simultaneously with the grab or splintered seconds thereafter. The energy of the attack--whether he pulls you places you or locks you in place--WILL compromise your response. The fantasy of a preemptive strike with Sword and Hammer under these conditions are nearly 100% nil.

Furthermore, the attacker may choose to seize you ANYWHERE...like from the back, by your neck, by your wrist, your biceps, he may tackle you...and belabor you with blows. The idea that responding with Sword and Hammer under only one set of inflexible circumstances and changing this one set of circumstances also mandatorily changes the technique is empirically untrue. What changes is the ATTACKER'S LOCATION. Maybe even the ATTACKER'S CHOICE OF ATTACK. Now you have to train your Sword and Hammer to respond to that kind of attack and/or his new location too. A boxer's jab is still a jab if he jabs you in the face or the stomach, if he slips a cross and hook and counters with a jab, or if you punch him from behind or the side, he rolls with the blow and counters with...a jab. The more situations and circumstances that the boxer can deploy a spot on, snappy, fast,stunning or KO blast of a jab? The BETTER the boxer's jab is. Well...the more situations and circumstances that the Kenpoist can deploy a spot on, snappy, fast, stunning or KO blast of a Sword and Hammer? The BETTER the kenpoist's Sword and Hammer is.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Twin Fist said:


> uh, i hate to break it to you, but I have been saying "whatever" gasm since a 1999 episode of Buffy the vampire slayer. The character Xander referres to an episode of ghost haunting as a "poltergasm"
> 
> been using it ever since.
> 
> let me blunt here RAS
> 
> I havnt seen anything from you I would want to copy, or repete. Simply put, you aint that impressive.




You sure haunt my threads alot for somebody you're not impressed with. Whenever I put up a thread? Soon enough it will be haunted by a Twin Fist "poltergasm". 

And uh... hate to break it to you. You can say that you said alot of things since 1999. But nobody here cares. On THIS site? You have a sig suspiciosly like another guy's who had his sig before you did by about 6 years. And you started saying "gasm" after I'd been posting such for about a year. And I've been saying [ choose a word]-"gasm" and "riffic" and other stuff since Scooby doo and Fangpuss. You're constantly tooting you're own horn. BO-RING.


----------



## Twin Fist

so those 172 techniques that Ed Parker created..that was all wrong

all the 10's of thousands of bb's, masters and grandmasters? they ALL got it wrong

the only true voice of kenpo is a no name no one's ever heard of

hmm, lets see, the entirety of EPAK bb's 

or

ras the self proclaimed superman


tough call.


wait, lets not get retarded.

And even the quotes from Doc, repeted over and over and over and over dont say what is being claimed that they say.

Doc says the response was supposed to follow principals, but not be set?

"_These people made the outline IDEA in the manuals the IDEAL because they could not create the IDEAL as Mr. Parker said they were supposed "
_
of course that quote from Doc contradicts this one:

"_In his own words he described what they were supposed to do in the Ideal Phase, "_

the attack however WAS set. and apparently the response was set, at least in terms of what was to be taught as a training device

you see when people change the attack, they are changing everything, weather they are too lazy or stupid to come up with new names for thier expression or kenpo or not.

Doc himself teaches those non-functional techniques, all of them, so either Doc is a hypocrite, which i know he isnt, or superman missed the point.

I think What Doc was saying, is exactly what I said:
*
" the techniques are just options, metaphors to teach you lessons, once you learn the lessons, you dont need the techniques."*

this isnt a license to make up new techniques it is instead a promise that once you have mastered the lessons from the techniques you will be able to craft your own "ideal"

it certainly isnt an ok to make up new techniques and be too friggin lazy to at least rename them


----------



## Twin Fist

you a sad sad dude. I hope you get the help you need.



ATACX GYM said:


> You sure haunt my threads alot for somebody you're not impressed with. Whenever I put up a thread? Soon enough it will be haunted by a Twin Fist "poltergasm".
> 
> And uh... hate to break it to you. You can say that you said alot of things since 1999. But nobody here cares. On THIS site? You have a sig suspiciosly like another guy's who had his sig before you did by about 6 years. And you started saying "gasm" after I'd been posting such for about a year. And I've been saying [ choose a word]-"gasm" and "riffic" and other stuff since Scooby doo and Fangpuss. You're constantly tooting you're own horn. BO-RING.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Twin Fist said:


> you a sad sad dude. I hope you get the help you need.




Here is a significant part of the reasoning and personal experiences that informed my personal expression of THE ATACX GYM SWORD AND HAMMER, taken from my post on KenpoTalk.com a long time ago.



"*






 Re: Atacx gym sword and hammer pt. 2 w/choke (r.d.l.)*







 Originally Posted by *jdinca* 


It looked like you were stretching to make sure you had a hammer and sword in there. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I like the escape though.




That's a reasonable supposition right there,man.But I wasn't stretching to keep the S&H in there.When I first started testing this against escalating resistance? I first looked to see if a S&H was needed,and what benefits arose from using specifically the handsword and hammerfist in that tech.I wasn't keeping the tech in there just to keep it.The first logical place for the insertion of the S&H came in the transition escape from the tie up (in this case,it started with a shoulder grab but I had the grip migrate all over the place and tested it against taller people,shorter folks,strikers,grapplers,armed folks,etc etc.Taller guys grabbed me by the nape of the neck and other "anatomical handles" that were more presentable to them due to their height; wrestlers and football players would hammer then shoot and/or tie up and shoot,judoka would add judo throws and locks to what the wrestlers did,streetfighters would punch punch and then tie up for street fighters/untrained folks the grip leading to the classical S&H counter would happen in the midst of a flurry Hockey punch style,strikers would strike no matter what,etc etc etc).No matter who the attacker was,after you pivoted to the outside of his gripping arm,a hammerfist to the outside of the forearm of their gripping hand produced the best chance of making him release...whether you're a short girl or studly lion...and secondarily? The hammerfist action had the best results regarding compounding a painful strike with a disarm and displacement of the opponent.I married the hammerfist with the motion of our outward block,and deliberately slammed my forearm as hard as I could into the area between the backside of my opponent's abductor pollicis longus and his flexor pollicis longus (been YEEEAAARRRSS since I wrote that word down and it wasn't in my college papers or my old skool martial arts training and idea notebooks) which is a fancy way of saying a specific strip of area between his wrist and elbow.I found that not only did this work well even against quite strong taller athletic people like my friend Khai when they grabbed me full force,but I also found that my shorter students and especially my female students tended to strike higher up on the limb grasping them--closer to the wrist with the hammerfist+outside whipping forearm shiver of a block,lower on the tricep muscle group due to their shorter limbs and stature--so they could access these points between wrist and elbow better than pretty much any other targeted spot that one can easily counterattack under those circumstances.

At first I almost eliminated the handsword from this tech.I almost called it THE HAMMER AND SALUTE,because at first I was using the palm strike against the area between the elbow and the tricep.It did a good job of propelling the offending grasping limb away from me and my students,plus I noted that it had the added advantage of turning our opponent's back more toward us.Which I loved.Thought airythang was gravy...until I noted that the body alignment necessary to put real juice in a palm heel strike took away from the body alignment needed to put real juice in a forearm shiver of a outside block.At first I was letting that ride too...until one day in class,Sheree got her hair caught while she was turning and whipping out the block+palm heel.Her sparring partner released his grip on her shoulder,but NOT her hair.He wound up yanking her noggin,her neck and the rest of her body followed,and she got whooped on.Then something similar happened to DeMarcus.So I really sat down and went over the specific options available; with my first action being to go right back to the source material.I immediately applied the handsword to the tricep region,and I discovered that when you put actual stank funk on that handsword along with the forearm shiver of a outside block? Not only did the body mechanics align themselves in such a way so that each tech synergistically amped the power of the other, the handsword to the tricep really weakens the grip ( even if you do the tech wrong ) and more likely than not the handsword to the tricep MAKES THE GRIPPING HAND SPASM OPEN. You WILL escape almost anyone's grip. Not even kidding. Try it out yourself. Extend your left arm straight out from your shoulder like you're punching the wall or the air or about to make the universal stiff arm+open palm sign for "STOP". Then form a tight fist...in fact? You can squeeze a tennis ball or racquetball as hard as you can to make the point crystal clear. Then take your right hand and pop your lower tricep with a half power ridgehand. IMMEDIATELY you'll feel the power of your grip on the ball or your tight fist weaken,and you'll feel that tingle run down from your tricep to your left pinkie. And you did allat with just a wakk ridgehand from absolutely super wakk body alignment,no torque,no breath,no follow through,no Directional Harmony. If you threw a genuine stank funk nasty handsword in conjunction with the whipping outside block of a forearm shiver with proper body alignment which also capitalized upon the kinetic energy of both you AND your opponent? THE HAMMER AND SWORD WILL END THE THROWDOWN 90% OF THE TIME. It not only propels the BG away and takes his grabbing arm away from him, not only does his brain recognize that shock and responds to the trauma in a specific predictable way which always delays your opponent's response, guys....since his grabbing arm is now toast...there is an open lane to handswording or backfisting his throat if he's still within arm reach. And you will note that I do exactly that along with applying the hammerfist. The placement of the hammerfist in my varinat is ALSO VERY DELIBERATE in every regard, with knowledge of the human anatomy dictating tech placement. I'm hitting specific targets which my studies,my experience and my student's studies and experience shows has been most sanguine to the execution of this tech in the various situations that we apply it and test it in.

Have you tried to execute Sword and Hammer AFTER you've been smacked face first into a wall and WHILE the BG is STILL PINNING YOU THERE? I have...it's part of our training process. I'd been doing it for YEARS before the ONE TIME I ever had to do it live in the field (working a special security detail at the Queen Mary circa 2006). But because I knew how to do it and insisted that my students do it too and get good at it? DeRon used it to stop himself from getting knifed after he was mugged,and L.T. taught her daughter after I taught her and that knowledge prevented her daughter from being kidnapped by some sicko who'd grabbed her backpack during an attempt to kidnap her. I've done my variant of Sword and Hammer in many situations during practice and have tested it even from The Rubber Guard and even after having to come up from the ground during multifight training (and a live multifight with weapons during the same Queen Mary incident previously referred to) entering and exiting rolls/falls,etc. 

So yeah it MIGHT appear that I'm forcing the S&H,but I'm not. Thanks for the comment!!​Last edited by ATACX GYM; 4 Weeks Ago at 06:30 PM.​http://www.youtube.com/user/ATACXGYM?feature=mhum

IT'S NOT JUST WHAT YOU KNOW,IT'S HOW YOU TRAIN

THE FIGHT YOU ALWAYS WIN IS THE FIGHT YOU'RE NOT IN

AVOID TROUBLE;BUT IF TROUBLE IS UNAVOIDABLE? PUT TROUBLE IN TROUBLE"​


----------



## Josh Oakley

Interesting debate, interspersed with idiotic personal attacks on both sides. 

Is it at all possible to get one without the other? Last time I checked, this is a forum for FRIENDLY discussion. I am seeing a lot of NON-FRIENDLY discussion. 

And pre-emptive, "he started it" is not even an acceptable excuse for children.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## Twin Fist

see PM


----------



## Aiki Lee

Damnit. I just typed a rather lengthy and well thought out response, but then the internet froze. Great.

Instead I'll jsut sum it up. Ras Sword and Hammer is not Sword and Hammer. He can call it that, but we are comparing apples and oranges. The origial technique deals with a completely different situation and has completely different principles than Ras's technique.

Ras, I like some of your ideas even if I think mechanically they leave a lot to be desired, which just so you know is not me taking a shot at you, because my techniques still mechanically leave a lot to be desired as well. The scenario you set up is not the same scenario that the origianl technique had in mind.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Twin Fist said:


> "_These people made the outline IDEA in the manuals the IDEAL because they could not create the IDEAL as Mr. Parker said they were supposed "
> _
> of course that quote from Doc contradicts this one:
> 
> "_In his own words he described what they were supposed to do in the Ideal Phase, "_
> 
> the attack however WAS set. and apparently the response was set, at least in terms of what was to be taught as a training device
> 
> you see when people change the attack, they are changing everything, weather they are too lazy or stupid to come up with new names for thier expression or kenpo or not.
> 
> Doc himself teaches those non-functional techniques, all of them, so either Doc is a hypocrite, which i know he isnt, or superman missed the point.
> 
> I think What Doc was saying, is exactly what I said:
> *
> " the techniques are just options, metaphors to teach you lessons, once you learn the lessons, you dont need the techniques."*
> 
> this isnt a license to make up new techniques it is instead a promise that once you have mastered the lessons from the techniques you will be able to craft your own "ideal"
> 
> it certainly isnt an ok to make up new techniques and be too friggin lazy to at least rename them




I engage this response only because it's a common misconception that has had is having and likely will continue to have devastatingly negative impact on Kenpo.T


Your contention that there was an attack and defense that was placed as an example of Sword and Hammer is correct. Your contention that this example IS  the Ideal Phase TECHNIQUE for Sword and Hammer is entirely incorrect. Doc in no way contradicts himself...he is the one who actually specified this distinction that I'm repeating. The fact that others were too lazy to craft their own Ideal doesn't mean that we should censure people like Doc and me who have and continue to craft our own Ideals. Doc's Ideals, btw, don't always correspond to the more "popular" and wholly incorrect "idea not IDEAL" techs that are misrepresented as THEE IDEAL TECHNIQUE. There never has been, nor will there ever be, an Ideal TECHNIQUE. Look again at the definition of the Ideal PHASE as given by Mr. Parker:



CyberTyger said:


> Taken from Ed Parker's Encyclopedia of Kenpo ver. 1.0 ...
> 
> (p.66) *IDEAL PHASE*- This is *Phase I *of the analytical process of dissecting a technique.
> It requires structuring an IDEAL technique by selecting a combat situation that you wish to analyze. Contained within the technique should be fixed moves of defense,offense, and the anticipated reactions that can stem from them. This PHASE strongly urges the need to analyze techniques from THREE POINTS OF VIEW.
> 
> (p.138) *WHAT IF PHASE*- This is PHASE II of the analytical process of dissecting a technique. this PHASE takes in additional variables. It requires being programmed to further analyze the IDEAL or fixed technique. _(me talking: not sure I agree with the term programmed.) _Expected, as well as unexpected opponent reactions are projected and evaluated. the concept here is that every movement may have critical consequences; thus, in a realistic situation, the need to predict each consequence to the best of your knowledge is imperative. Ideally, all consequential possibilities should be projected, evaluated, and learned. To do so is to increase your ability to instinctively and randomly alter the basic technique, and thus allow yourself a choice of action. _<- (sounds alot like what you've accomplished Ras.)_
> 
> (p.56*) FORMULATION PHASE*- This is PHASE III of the analytical process of dissecting a technique. This PHASE involves the actual application of your newly found alternatives to the original IDEAL or fixed technique. Knowing what can additionally happen within the framework of the fixed technique, teaches you how to apply your variable answers to a free and changing environment. This ultimate process of combat training can be learned by using the EQUATION FORMULA for fighting.
> 
> (p.48) *EQUATION FORMULA*- This is a special formula that one can follow to develop specific, practical, and logical fighting patterns. the formula allows you a more conclusive basis for negotiating your alternative actions. It reads as follows:
> To give any base, whether it is a single move or a series of movements, you can (1)*prefix it*- add a move or moves before it; (2) *suffix it*- add a move or moves after it; (3) *insert*- add a simultaneous move with, the already established sequence (this move can be used as a (a) pinning check- using pressure against an opponent's weapons to nullify their delivery, or (b) positioned check- where you place the hand or leg in a defensive position or angle to minimize entry to your vital areas; (4)* rearrange*- change the sequence of the moves, (5) *alter the- *(a) weapon, (b) target, (c) both weapon and target; (6) *adjust the- *(a) range, (b) angle of execution (which affects the width and height), (c) both angle of execution and range; (7) *regulate the- *(a) speed, (b) force, (c) both speed and force, (d) intent and speed; and (8)* delete- *exclude a move or moves from the sequence.
> 
> _and since doc mentioned ideas_,
> *IDEAS*- One of the philosophical views of Kenpo that considers defensive and offensive moves to be no more than concepts that vary with each and every situation. <- _adds a bit more context for me when I re-read Doc's post about the "IDEALS" being "IDEAS"._



Everything that makes the point--taken in proper context--is right there. Exactly precisely as Doc said. For the purpose of this discussion...observe the Kenpo definition of IDEAS as they apply to the Ideal Phase. 
*****************************************************************************************************************************************************
"*IDEAS*- One of the philosophical views of Kenpo that considers defensive and offensive moves to be no more than concepts that vary with each and every situation. <- _adds a bit more context for me when I re-read Doc's post about the "IDEALS" being "IDEAS"
**********************************************************************************************************************************************************


An idea can become an Ideal but an Idea is NOT an "IDEAL". Keep this in mind_


Now look at the definition of the Ideal Phase:

(p.66) *IDEAL PHASE*- This is *Phase I *of the analytical process of dissecting a technique.
It requires structuring an IDEAL technique by selecting a combat situation that you wish to analyze. Contained within the technique should be fixed moves of defense,offense, and the anticipated reactions that can stem from them. This PHASE strongly urges the need to analyze techniques from THREE POINTS OF VIEW.



It is...AN ANALYTICAL PROCESS OF DISSECTING A TECHNIQUE.

It is a ANALYTICAL PROCESS.

It CANNOT be an IDEAL TECHNIQUE...because analytical processes DON'T yield inflexible set in stone ideal techniques in the sense that Kenpo defines these terms.


"The Ideal Phase requires STRUCTURING an Ideal Technique by selecting  combat situation that you wish to analyze. Contained within the technique should be fixed moves of defense,offense, and the anticipated reactions that can stem from them. This PHASE strongly urges the need to analyze techniques from THREE POINTS OF VIEW."

Reflect upon this. Absorb this. Comprehend this. Your contention, Twin Fist, and similar contentions by many others that:

"...*" the techniques are just options, metaphors to teach you lessons, once you learn the lessons, you dont need the techniques."*

Is only HALF right. The techniques ARE options...but those options are grasped when the principles behind the techniques are grasped. The techniques themselves are designed by your teacher based upon the concepts and approach of the Ideal Phase and the 3 Points of View that this Ideal Phase strongly urges us to consider. THE TECHNIQUE IS SUPPOSED TO RELIABLY THWART THE ATTACK IT'S SUPPOSED TO THWART/ DEFEND AGAINST AND THE TECH YOU GUYS CHAMPION DOES NOT, HAS NOT, WON'T AND CANNOT. Even Doc has said over and over again:" the techniques as written are unworkable". He explained what actually occurred and how the Ideal Phase became corrupted into something it never should have been, which is the Ideal TECHNIQUE, when he said: 

In layman's terms? Floyd Mayweather Jr.'s jab is different than Sugar Shane Mosley's jab. They are different people with different strengths and weaknesses, different physiques, different life experiences different coaches etc. But each of their coaches grasp the benefits and whatnot of the jab very well, and each coach crafted their own methods of training the jab and both dictating the reactions of their opponent and dictating those reactions...with the jab. Each coach taught their knowledge and method to each of these fighters. Once you learn how to jab and  the principles that make the jab more and more effective, YOU STILL NEED THE JAB. It's not a metaphor. It's a real world tech that works and can save your ***. You need BOTH the LESSONS aaaand the TECHNIQUES. The TECHS are proof that you know the lessons. The lessons allow you to craft more techs that prove that you understand the universal underlying principle. You don't stop learning math just cuz you now know how to add subtract multiply and divide. You learn to add subtract multiply and divide BETTER, then move on to algebra, then trigonometry, and physics etc etc...and you'll be adding multiplying subtracting and dividing throughout. Once you grasp the lessons behind Sword and Hammer? You DON'T forget Sword and Hammer. You ADD OTHER EFFECTIVE TECHS LIKE SWORD AND HAMMER to your arsenal...and you learn to do S&h better. For the rest of your Kenpo life. Doing the Sword and Hammer differently than someone else [ as long as it effectively  thwarts the attack that it's supposed to thwart ] doesn't mean that it's NOT Sword and Hammer. Doesn't mean that it's NOT Kenpo. 

The fact that each fighter deploys the jab differently doesn't mean that they're not jabbing or boxing. The fact that each boxer deploys the jab in different situations doesn't mean that they're not jabbing or boxing.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Himura Kenshin said:


> Damnit. I just typed a rather lengthy and well thought out response, but then the internet froze. Great.
> 
> Instead I'll jsut sum it up. Ras Sword and Hammer is not Sword and Hammer. He can call it that, but we are comparing apples and oranges. The origial technique deals with a completely different situation and has completely different principles than Ras's technique.
> 
> Ras, I like some of your ideas even if I think mechanically they leave a lot to be desired, which just so you know is not me taking a shot at you, because my techniques still mechanically leave a lot to be desired as well. The scenario you set up is not the same scenario that the origianl technique had in mind.




that contention, sir, is incorrect and directly contradicted by the definition of The Ideal Phase itself. You are conflating a major failure in Kenpo--the default creation of an Ideal TECHNIQUE that has been universally passed off as The Ideal Phase--with the ACTUAL Ideal Phase ITSELF. The Ideal Phase...by definition...has to be made by the head of whatever group that is training Kenpo. That person or persons responsible for crafting The Ideal Phase must not only satisfy the definition of The Ideal Phase...that person or persons is also strongly urged to ensure that they consider the other three points of view that rounds out and manifestly completes The Ideal Phase PROCESS.

In order to make this more clear...let's take a look see at what I have done and directly compare it and contrast it with others. I will do this in my next post.


----------



## Twin Fist

you really dont bother reading anyone's post do you?



ATACX GYM said:


> Your contention that there was an attack and defense that was placed as an example of Sword and Hammer is correct.


 
duh



ATACX GYM said:


> Your contention that this example IS  the Ideal Phase TECHNIQUE for Sword and Hammer is entirely incorrect.


 
i havnt claimed that, not once, not ever, you need to pay more attention cuz i havnt said that

at most, i would say it is a starting point, it teaches us a lesson. we learn the technique to learn the lesson, once we learn the lesson, we are free to create spontaneously our own ideal technique

is the starting version the end all expression of those concepts?

no

i said that in ****ing english

it isnt my fault if you wont be bothered to READ

you even quoted me:

*" the techniques are just options, metaphors to teach you lessons, once you learn the lessons, you dont need the techniques."
*
and now you are saying the same things I said:

"The TECHS are proof that you know the lessons. The lessons allow you to craft more techs that prove that you understand the universal underlying principle."

this is no different that what i said, and you quoted. So now you are biting my stuff......

so, if you are bothering to read this one, PAY MORE ATTENTION,  stop telling everyone else they are wrong for a split second and actually READ what they say


----------



## MJS

ATACX GYM said:


> Excellent answer, especially the part where you note that t he diehards insist on a inflexible response... "if the guy does A then you do 1". Exactly right. The diehards are wrong.
> 
> I will proffer my own opinion after years of using this tandem but I'd like to hear more from others like you MJS...



Actually, I described that incorrect.  Sure, we could step, but the IP is stepping to 3.  So...I'd say the handsword is a good choice, as it should cancel out or at least interfere with anything they may throw.  The hammerfist just seems like the natural thing to do from the HS.


----------



## MJS

ATACX GYM said:


> You're conflating some terms my brother...the Ideal PHASE most definitely exists. it is as I have defined it upthread. Please read the definition all the way to the Equation Formula.
> 
> What happened was multipronged and exactly as Doc stated:
> 
> 1) Too many early Black Belts were too stupid and too lazy and/or lacked the real life experience and/or skill to actually produce The Ideal Phase as Mr. Parker required of them. Instead they simply slavishly copied the EXAMPLE that was set forth for them in the instructor's manual known colloquially as BIG RED. These guys were like Decepticons...but stupid. They're...Moron-icons. They completely misunderstood and wholesale misrepresented Mr. Parker's art.
> 
> 2) In slavishly mindlessly copying the EXAMPLE of a Ideal Phase without understanding the Ideal Phase CONCEPT, these Moron-icons made the very thing that Mr. Parker decried come into being...they created a totally dysfunctional, nonsensical Ideal TECHNIQUE. Cuz all they wanted was the belt promotion, they didn't want to think, probe, question, create, develope.
> 
> 3) Mr. Parker's BB's by and large failed him, and in so doing...they failed us. They succeeded wildly commercially and brought down a Greek tragedy upon Kenpo. And that was what had guys like you and I questioning the very underpinnings of kenpo's training methodology and the mindsets that spawned such craptasticness. We were right to question the things we did; the answers we received were from people who didn't know what they were talking about and led us even further astray. I guess that Mr. Parker promoted too many people who sucked in the system but were good for business in order to get the mandatory financial success and the Kenpo brand well known...and that was a disasterous move for the quality of the techs, although it was a stroke of commercial and financial genius.
> 
> 4) Doc has said more than once that Mr. Parker had resolved to take his Kenpo back and fix all the analrifficness therein, but he passed away very soon after he made that resolution. I get the feeling that he might have passed the within a year of making said resolution...cuz I think he would have made some serious inroads and succeeded at his goal if he had say...5 years to achieve it.



I think I saw someone, somewhere on here, post something Doc said about the IPs, which is basically what I've been saying...that Mr. Parker didn't design them to be the 1 and only answer, but instead to use the lessons learned.  Yup, TF said it in this thread, here.  Therefore, I should be able to craft my own response, according to the situation, providing I use the lessons, concepts, ideas, whatever you wanna call them, to form a response.


----------



## ATACX GYM

I responded several times but the site ate my posts like it did Mr. Kenshin's. I will repost in a while from now.


----------



## MJS

jks9199 said:


> Here's what I see when I look at the classic Sword & Hammer:  an underlying set of principles that say, in essence, when grabbed from the side, turn inward and step into the attacker, and attack at two levels, high & middle/low.  When I look at something purporting to be a variant of Sword & Hammer, that's what I'm looking for -- turning inward, stepping in, especially, because my training has taught me to look for movement and structure and principles, more than specific techniques.  Then I'm going to look at that hand sword and hammer; why those particular techniques, what are they doing?  I see a longer range attack moving on a horizontal plane, that's going to go over or along the initial grab.  A hand sword or chop fits beautifully to the throat -- but could be easily adapted to a back fist, or a slap, or even a clearing motion into a wrap over the arm.   That downward hammer?  It's a nice fit with the natural reaction of the hand to the throat or face, and it's moving on a vertical plane.  It allows you to "drop" your weight behind the attack (I suspect this is the principle Parker called "Marriage of Gravity").
> 
> So, a couple of what I'd call "consistent" variations come to my mind.  The initial hand sword might become a palm/grab to the face, and the hammer fist a vertical drop, taking the face with it straight down.  You might wrap and drop on the arm.  It might even simply become a clearing motion when you turn and recognize that the grab was your wife or your cousin or someone else whose trachea you don't want to crush.  (Incidentally -- what I read the "kenpo sense" as being is just that; the ability to recognize the nature of the grab, and then identify the person you're dealing with and scale your response appropriately.)  The stepping and basic pattern remains the same; an inward turn, a horizontal plane attack, moving into a vertical plane attack.
> 
> And, of course, this won't work "right" if the attack is significantly different.  A push rather than a more static grab or pull will make you want to step out and away.  A grab from behind rather than the flank will need a different step; by the time you spin that far around, it'll be too late.  But, then, you need a different principle for a different situation, don't you?



Exactly!  This goes back to what I said to Ras about that short female student I was teaching.  IMHO, and some of the other Kenpo greats may disagree...lol...but whatever....we should be able to adapt, change, etc, to anything we want.  If I can't substitute an eye poke for a palm to the face, an arm break/dislocation for a joint lock, then IMHO, huge lessons are being missed.


----------



## Twin Fist

i teach this stepping in to 4:30 instead of 3





MJS said:


> Actually, I described that incorrect.  Sure, we could step, but the IP is stepping to 3.  So...I'd say the handsword is a good choice, as it should cancel out or at least interfere with anything they may throw.  The hammerfist just seems like the natural thing to do from the HS.


----------



## Twin Fist

MJS said:


> Exactly!  This goes back to what I said to Ras about that short female student I was teaching.  IMHO, and some of the other Kenpo greats may disagree...lol...but whatever....we should be able to adapt, change, etc, to anything we want.  If I can't substitute an eye poke for a palm to the face, an arm break/dislocation for a joint lock, then IMHO, huge lessons are being missed.




this is 100% true, once you have mastered the concepts, those concepts will enable you to craft your own response to a given attack.

take sword and hammer. same attack

instead of the throat, you could do that outward chop to the ribs, this will (because of the bodies reaction) require a new follow-up, but the concept will still be right. And as long as it works, it is a good technique. It isnt sword and hammer, but thats ok becasue you dont need sword and hammer.

you did however need to learn sword and hammer to learn those lessons....


----------



## Josh Oakley

Doc's on Martial Talk. Has anyone asked him to comment on this thread, since everyone's quoting him?


----------



## MJS

Twin Fist said:


> i teach this stepping in to 4:30 instead of 3



Sure.  Depending on where the badguy is standing, that'd work too. 



Twin Fist said:


> this is 100% true, once you have mastered the concepts, those concepts will enable you to craft your own response to a given attack.
> 
> take sword and hammer. same attack
> 
> instead of the throat, you could do that outward chop to the ribs, this will (because of the bodies reaction) require a new follow-up, but the concept will still be right. And as long as it works, it is a good technique. It isnt sword and hammer, but thats ok becasue you dont need sword and hammer.
> 
> you did however need to learn sword and hammer to learn those lessons....



Agreed.  IMO, I think once you learn the tech., its good to experiment with things. 



Josh Oakley said:


> Doc's on Martial Talk. Has anyone asked him to comment on this thread, since everyone's quoting him?



He mostly posts on KT now, though he does pop on here from time to time.  I'd be interested in hearing his thoughts.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Okay rather than take forever going back and forth? Let's take a direct look at this stuff from the actual definition of THE IDEAL PHASE and its other mandatory components and compare and contrast step by step: 

(p.66) *IDEAL PHASE*- This is *Phase I *of the analytical process of dissecting a technique.
It requires structuring an IDEAL technique by selecting a combat situation that you wish to analyze. Contained within the technique should be fixed moves of defense,offense, and the anticipated reactions that can stem from them. This PHASE strongly urges the need to analyze techniques from THREE POINTS OF VIEW.

(p.138) *WHAT IF PHASE*- This is PHASE II of the analytical process of dissecting a technique. this PHASE takes in additional variables. It requires being programmed to further analyze the IDEAL or fixed technique. _(me talking: not sure I agree with the term programmed.) _Expected, as well as unexpected opponent reactions are projected and evaluated. the concept here is that every movement may have critical consequences; thus, in a realistic situation, the need to predict each consequence to the best of your knowledge is imperative. Ideally, all consequential possibilities should be projected, evaluated, and learned. To do so is to increase your ability to instinctively and randomly alter the basic technique, and thus allow yourself a choice of action. _<- (sounds alot like what you've accomplished Ras.)_

(p.56*) FORMULATION PHASE*- This is PHASE III of the analytical process of dissecting a technique. This PHASE involves the actual application of your newly found alternatives to the original IDEAL or fixed technique. Knowing what can additionally happen within the framework of the fixed technique, teaches you how to apply your variable answers to a free and changing environment. This ultimate process of combat training can be learned by using the EQUATION FORMULA for fighting.

(p.48) *EQUATION FORMULA*- This is a special formula that one can follow to develop specific, practical, and logical fighting patterns. the formula allows you a more conclusive basis for negotiating your alternative actions. It reads as follows:
To give any base, whether it is a single move or a series of movements, you can (1)*prefix it*- add a move or moves before it; (2) *suffix it*- add a move or moves after it; (3) *insert*- add a simultaneous move with, the already established sequence (this move can be used as a (a) pinning check- using pressure against an opponent's weapons to nullify their delivery, or (b) positioned check- where you place the hand or leg in a defensive position or angle to minimize entry to your vital areas; (4)* rearrange*- change the sequence of the moves, (5) *alter the- *(a) weapon, (b) target, (c) both weapon and target; (6) *adjust the- *(a) range, (b) angle of execution (which affects the width and height), (c) both angle of execution and range; (7) *regulate the- *(a) speed, (b) force, (c) both speed and force, (d) intent and speed; and (8)* delete- *exclude a move or moves from the sequence.

_and since doc mentioned ideas_, 
*IDEAS*- One of the philosophical views of Kenpo that considers defensive and offensive moves to be no more than concepts that vary with each and every situation. <- _adds a bit more context for me when I re-read Doc's post about the "IDEALS" being "IDEAS".



_Everything that makes the point--taken in proper context--is right there^^^^^


First step? Let's have the teacher "selecting a combat situation that you wish to analyze". That attack is launched at 0:16 in this video:

[video=youtube_share;A36Bw5I3-g0]http://youtu.be/A36Bw5I3-g0[/video]


Now, THIS is what most people call Theee singular sole Sword and Hammer, which effectively creates the Ideal TECHNIQUE of Sword and Hammer:

[video=youtube_share;oJbyIBmhDN0]http://youtu.be/oJbyIBmhDN0[/video]

Compare the two...and immediately the flaws in this approach are seen. These flaws are legion. First? The above tech doesn't satisfy the requirements for the actual definition for The Ideal Phase:

"p.66) *IDEAL PHASE*- This is *Phase I *of the analytical process of dissecting a technique.
It requires structuring an IDEAL technique by selecting a combat situation that you wish to analyze. Contained within the technique should be fixed moves of defense,offense, and the anticipated reactions that can stem from them. This PHASE strongly urges the need to analyze techniques from THREE POINTS OF VIEW."

Are there fixed moves of defense and offense? Yes, but the dysfunctional "attack" followed by the equally dysfunctional "response" does not address the street reality...as shown in the link above. Does the form of Sword and Hammer address the 'anticipated reactions' that can stem from the projected and expected moves of defense and offense...in the real world? No, it doesn't. There is no addressing of the power of the grab, the body momentum follow through, and the fact that the punch would be launched nearly simultaneously with the grab and push/pull.


"(p.138) *WHAT IF PHASE*- This is PHASE II of the analytical process of dissecting a technique. this PHASE takes in additional variables. It requires being programmed to further analyze the IDEAL or fixed technique. _(me talking: not sure I agree with the term programmed.) _Expected, as well as unexpected opponent reactions are projected and evaluated. the concept here is that every movement may have critical consequences; thus, in a realistic situation, the need to predict each consequence to the best of your knowledge is imperative. Ideally, all consequential possibilities should be projected, evaluated, and learned. To do so is to increase your ability to instinctively and randomly alter the basic technique, and thus allow yourself a choice of action. _<- (sounds alot like what you've accomplished Ras.)"_

Are the expected and unexpected reactions of the opponent a part of the Sword and Hammer as displayed by the other videos? What if the opponent throws a punch? What if the push knocked you off balance? What if he tackles you? What if he doesn't push you...he just cracks you from the side or behind you or whatever [ which is what happens most of the time ]? NO.


(p.56*) FORMULATION PHASE*- This is PHASE III of the analytical process of dissecting a technique. This PHASE involves the actual application of your newly found alternatives to the original IDEAL or fixed technique. Knowing what can additionally happen within the framework of the fixed technique, teaches you how to apply your variable answers to a free and changing environment. This ultimate process of combat training can be learned by using the EQUATION FORMULA for fighting.

Is there any aspect of this approach in the tech? Even partially? NO. 


(p.48) *EQUATION FORMULA*- This is a special formula that one can follow to develop specific, practical, and logical fighting patterns. the formula allows you a more conclusive basis for negotiating your alternative actions. It reads as follows:
To give any base, whether it is a single move or a series of movements, you can (1)*prefix it*- add a move or moves before it; (2) *suffix it*- add a move or moves after it; (3) *insert*- add a simultaneous move with, the already established sequence (this move can be used as a (a) pinning check- using pressure against an opponent's weapons to nullify their delivery, or (b) positioned check- where you place the hand or leg in a defensive position or angle to minimize entry to your vital areas; (4)* rearrange*- change the sequence of the moves, (5) *alter the- *(a) weapon, (b) target, (c) both weapon and target; (6) *adjust the- *(a) range, (b) angle of execution (which affects the width and height), (c) both angle of execution and range; (7) *regulate the- *(a) speed, (b) force, (c) both speed and force, (d) intent and speed; and (8)* delete- *exclude a move or moves from the sequence.


There is no hint of The Equation Formula in the above Sword and Hammer expression. In short...since it lacks the primary components of The Ideal Phase Analytical Process...THE TECHNIQUE THAT ALL OF YOU LAUDED IS NOT THEE IDEAL TECHNIQUE. It CAN be an "idea"...but it CANNOT be and there has NEVER BEEN a IDEAL TECHNIQUE.



In short? If you trained THIS method.--->  

[video=youtube_share;oJbyIBmhDN0]http://youtu.be/oJbyIBmhDN0[/video]

you'd get your head taken off. You'd fail to thwart the attack. Thwarting the attack is THE FIRST requirement for any self defense technique. You can thwart the attack by fleeing, but in this case? Thwarting the attack requires a functional deployment of The Sword and Hammer. Now...

This is MY Sword and Hammer:


Atacx Gym Sword and Hammer 1

[video=youtube_share;eo4yj0MZyeI]http://youtu.be/eo4yj0MZyeI[/video]

Atacx Gym Sword and Hammer 1A

[video=youtube_share;AuvuhW1u2WE]http://youtu.be/AuvuhW1u2WE[/video]

Atacx Gym Sword and Hammer 2

[video=youtube_share;R-mmdyIHkjs]http://youtu.be/R-mmdyIHkjs[/video]

"p.66) *IDEAL PHASE*- This is *Phase I *of the analytical process of dissecting a technique.
It requires structuring an IDEAL technique by selecting a combat situation that you wish to analyze. Contained within the technique should be fixed moves of defense,offense, and the anticipated reactions that can stem from them. This PHASE strongly urges the need to analyze techniques from THREE POINTS OF VIEW."

The combat scenario is the same as previously.

Now, look at my variants. Does the Atacx Gym IP contained within the technique "fixed moves of defense,offense, and the anticipated reactions that can stem from them" ? Absolutely. The first thing I address is that the grab [ that's usually the BG grabbing us ] is aggressive and transfers its energy and bodily followthrough to the defending target [that's usually us ]. This is wholly ignored by the dysfunctional other variant. Another basic real world requirement is that the punch happens at the same time or nearly the same time of the push/pull. They're grabbing you for a reason...and that reason is to do something to you that you don't want. Usually punch your block off. But you can get cracked with a bottle, stabbed, pushed over, tackled, simply pulled away...all manner of things. But in EVERY case? Energy is transmitted from the grab to the person grabbed. I address the grab AND the followup attack...

...and I do so in a way that allows me the option of correctly assessing the grabber's intent. It's not always necessary to Kenpo some jerk into oblivion. If you snappily disengage his grab? That alone could de-escalate the situation. The person grabbing you could be a friend or a stranger who grabbed you and surprised you. The point is? You have to be sure that whoever grabbed you DESERVES to be hit with the Sword and Hammer. That assessment time is built into my tech. It's wholly absent in the dysfunctional other variants.

"(p.138) *WHAT IF PHASE*- This is PHASE II of the analytical process of dissecting a technique. this PHASE takes in additional variables. It requires being programmed to further analyze the IDEAL or fixed technique. _(me talking: not sure I agree with the term programmed.) _Expected, as well as unexpected opponent reactions are projected and evaluated. the concept here is that every movement may have critical consequences; thus, in a realistic situation, the need to predict each consequence to the best of your knowledge is imperative. Ideally, all consequential possibilities should be projected, evaluated, and learned. To do so is to increase your ability to instinctively and randomly alter the basic technique, and thus allow yourself a choice of action. _<- (sounds alot like what you've accomplished Ras.)"_


I'm all over this Phase. What if he grabbed you from a different position? What if he just PUNCHED you and DIDN'T grab and pull you. What if he grabbed you from a different hand and different lead leg or from a different position? What if he PUSHED you and PUNCHED you instead of PULLED and punched you? The other technique which too many champion don't even remotely engage this area.


"(p.56*) FORMULATION PHASE*- This is PHASE III of the analytical process of dissecting a technique. This PHASE involves the actual application of your newly found alternatives to the original IDEAL or fixed technique. Knowing what can additionally happen within the framework of the fixed technique, teaches you how to apply your variable answers to a free and changing environment. This ultimate process of combat training can be learned by using the EQUATION FORMULA for fighting."

My expression is the only one that actually shows in its base technique the actual application of newly found alternatives to the original IDEAL or fixed technique. Allll of the other ones merely mimic the static nonsense of this first dysfunctional tech.


"p.48) *EQUATION FORMULA*- This is a special formula that one can follow to develop specific, practical, and logical fighting patterns. the formula allows you a more conclusive basis for negotiating your alternative actions. It reads as follows:
To give any base, whether it is a single move or a series of movements, you can (1)*prefix it*- add a move or moves before it; (2) *suffix it*- add a move or moves after it; (3) *insert*- add a simultaneous move with, the already established sequence (this move can be used as a (a) pinning check- using pressure against an opponent's weapons to nullify their delivery, or (b) positioned check- where you place the hand or leg in a defensive position or angle to minimize entry to your vital areas; (4)* rearrange*- change the sequence of the moves, (5) *alter the- *(a) weapon, (b) target, (c) both weapon and target; (6) *adjust the- *(a) range, (b) angle of execution (which affects the width and height), (c) both angle of execution and range; (7) *regulate the- *(a) speed, (b) force, (c) both speed and force, (d) intent and speed; and (8)* delete- *exclude a move or moves from the sequence."

The culmination of the Ideal Phase Analytical Process is the above. As all of you noted, my expression looks radically different than the tech that you're used to seeing. Yeeep. Cuz mine WORKS and I'm actually doing The Ideal Phase analytical process in its entirety.  Precisely as defined step by step...and not misapplied or misunderstood. 

You guys are used to accepting a dysfunctional tech, and you're used to crediting what is essentially a bankrupt idea...i.e. the Ideal TECHNIQUE. There is no one way to do the Sword and Hammer Ideal Phase tech, but all the Ideal Phase methods require the defense to be subjected to the whole Ideal Phase Analytical Process to EVEN QUALIFY for consideration as an Ideal Phase Analytical technique. What you guys keep calling thee IP is NOT qualified for such distinction.

Most essential of all? The IP tech--whichever IP you choose, however you physically articulate that tech--MUST WORK AGAINST THE FULL POWER, FULL SPEED TECH IT'S SUPPOSED TO DEFEAT. This means that whatever IP you choose? Said defense must actually be repeatedly tested against resistance...or else you can't take a common street attack, enact that attack live or with any sort of honest and truthful energy in class, and then select techs that will reliably thwart it. Which is the basic premise of any and all self-defense. You know...reliably defending your self against attacks.


Now, I'm not the only one that has multiple options drawn from the natural and expected counters to counters that the BG is likely to pull off. The Tracy's had it built into their system since prior to my birth. It's my understanding that Mr.Parker loooong had them built into his personal system. Boxers, MMA, JKDU, SBG and maaaany other guys and gals have it. In Capoeira, Mestre Bimba's secuencias fill this function rather well. Etc etc.

Please reflect upon the above. 

AMANI..."peace"....

-- 

"IT'S NOT JUST WHAT YOU KNOW,IT'S HOW AND WHY YOU TRAIN"

"THE FIGHT YOU ALWAYS WIN IS THE FIGHT YOU'RE NOT IN"

"YOU MUST LEARN TO HEAL IF YOU'VE LEARNED TO DESTROY"

"AVOID TROUBLE,BUT IF TROUBLE IS UNAVOIDABLE? PUT TROUBLE IN TROUBLE"


----------



## Twin Fist

you are using sword and hammer, showing a blind haymaker as the real attack, and doing a push with a punch in your videos

WTF
make up yoru mind

once again that haymaker video is NOT relevant to sword and hammer, since sword and hammer is for a GRAB 

NOT A BLIND HAYMAKER

there is no technique for a shot you dont see comming

10K words and you cant grasp the most basic of ideas:

use the right defense for the attack in question

go back, try again


----------



## ATACX GYM

Twin Fist said:


> this is 100% true, once you have mastered the concepts, those concepts will enable you to craft your own response to a given attack.
> 
> take sword and hammer. same attack
> 
> instead of the throat, you could do that outward chop to the ribs, this will (because of the bodies reaction) require a new follow-up, but the concept will still be right. And as long as it works, it is a good technique. It isnt sword and hammer, but thats ok becasue you dont need sword and hammer.
> 
> you did however need to learn sword and hammer to learn those lessons....





The first lesson that one learns using the most popular version of sword and hammer...the tech which is in essence The Ideal TECHNIQUE...is that said tech DOESN'T WORK IN A ACTUAL FIGHT ANYTHING LIKE HOW IT'S TRAINED. Therefore there are only 2 options: FIX IT OR ABANDON IT. Once it's made functional? THEN AND ONLY THEN MAY ANY OTHER BENEFITS FLOW FROM IT




ATACX GYM said:


> Reflect upon this. Absorb this. Comprehend this. Your contention, Twin Fist, and similar contentions by many others that:
> 
> "...*" the techniques are just options, metaphors to teach you lessons, once you learn the lessons, you dont need the techniques."*
> 
> Is only HALF right. The techniques ARE options...but those options are grasped when the principles behind the techniques are grasped. The techniques themselves are designed by your teacher based upon the concepts and approach of the Ideal Phase and the 3 Points of View that this Ideal Phase strongly urges us to consider. THE TECHNIQUE IS SUPPOSED TO RELIABLY THWART THE ATTACK IT'S SUPPOSED TO THWART/ DEFEND AGAINST AND THE TECH YOU GUYS CHAMPION DOES NOT, HAS NOT, WON'T AND CANNOT. Even Doc has said over and over again:" the techniques as written are unworkable"...
> 
> In layman's terms? Floyd Mayweather Jr.'s jab is different than Sugar Shane Mosley's jab. They are different people with different strengths and weaknesses, different physiques, different life experiences different coaches etc. But each of their coaches grasp the benefits and whatnot of the jab very well, and each coach crafted their own methods of training the jab and both dictating the reactions of their opponent and dictating those reactions...with the jab. Each coach taught their knowledge and method to each of these fighters. Once you learn how to jab and  the principles that make the jab more and more effective, YOU STILL NEED THE JAB. It's not a metaphor. It's a real world tech that works and can save your ***. You need BOTH the LESSONS aaaand the TECHNIQUES. The TECHS are proof that you know the lessons. The lessons allow you to craft more techs that prove that you understand the universal underlying principle. You don't stop learning math just cuz you now know how to add subtract multiply and divide. You learn to add subtract multiply and divide BETTER, then move on to algebra, then trigonometry, and physics etc etc...and you'll be adding multiplying subtracting and dividing throughout. Once you grasp the lessons behind Sword and Hammer? You DON'T forget Sword and Hammer. You ADD OTHER EFFECTIVE TECHS LIKE SWORD AND HAMMER to your arsenal...and you learn to do S&h better. For the rest of your Kenpo life. Doing the Sword and Hammer differently than someone else [ as long as it effectively  thwarts the attack that it's supposed to thwart ] doesn't mean that it's NOT Sword and Hammer. Doesn't mean that it's NOT Kenpo.
> 
> The fact that each fighter deploys the jab differently doesn't mean that they're not jabbing or boxing. The fact that each boxer deploys the jab in different situations doesn't mean that they're not jabbing or boxing.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Twin Fist said:


> you are using sword and hammer, showing a blind haymaker as the real attack, and doing a push with a punch in your videos
> 
> WTF
> make up yoru mind
> 
> once again that haymaker video is NOT relevant to sword and hammer, since sword and hammer is for a GRAB
> 
> NOT A BLIND HAYMAKER
> 
> there is no technique for a shot you dont see comming
> 
> 10K words and you cant grasp the most basic of ideas:
> 
> use the right defense for the attack in question
> 
> go back, try again




Observe the grab in the video at 0:15 and 0:16, a split second before the punch lands. Not only are we faced with a flank grab...we have a flank grab and punch to boot. The fact that the punch catches the defender unaware is precisely what should be covered in the WHAT IF Phase and the FORMULATION PHASE...and precisely what I address over and over again in my video. 

In other words? This scenario is precisely one of several that Sword and Hammer is supposed to thwart and defend against. The difference between the real world attack and the antiseptic dysfunctional solution that too many people champion is the fact that the so-called solution doesn't work. At all. As Doc said, "the techniques as written are unworkable...". The first thing you must learn in self defense is to learn techniques that succeed in defending your self. The common tech fails to do this. Mine succeeds admirably at this endeavor.

My variant is also much more multifaceted than the one most others champion. My variant addresses the reality of the "cock and pose,never throw a punch" attacker that almost never happens in real life but which is the mainstay of the more popular dysfunctional Sword and Hammer, and a host of others besides...AND the scenarios that I show in my video. My variant satisfies every requirement of The Ideal Phase. So whether or not you like it or would employ it...one thing it definitely IS without a doubt? Is it's an Sword and Hammer Ideal Technique. May not be YOURS [that's why I call it THE ATACX GYM SWORD AND HAMMER ]...but it IS an IDEAL Technique. 

And it's infinitely, perpetually more functional than that other variant.


----------



## Twin Fist

ATACX GYM said:


> Therefore there are only 2 options: FIX IT OR ABANDON IT.




you forgot: Learn from it

you were prob too busy to actually.....learn the technique and what it is supposed to teach you............


----------



## Twin Fist

are you HIGH??
all 3 of your examples of real attacks are blind haymakers

not a grab in sight

example video 1: fat black guy blind sides other black guy
example video 2: fat white guy blind sides other white guy
example video 3: not fat white guy blind sides black guy

no grabs in any of your real attack examples. So not relevant to sword and hammer

now YOUR *chuckle* teaching videos show you getting pushed then punched, pushed then punched, so also, not relevant to sword and hammer.

basically, your entire thread is irrelevant because you are making **** up.





ATACX GYM said:


> Observe the grab in the video at 0:15 and 0:16, a split second before the punch lands. Marinate in the wrongness of your contention...and the rightness [ as usual of ] of mine. Next.


----------



## jks9199

I'm going to try one more time...  

Sword & Hammer is a defined technique, right?  It's on the syllabi of multiple schools and programs of Kenpo.  There are some variants (stepping to 3:00 or 4:30, for example), but they are all recognizable as the same technique.  Your version isn't.  So... since you keep bringing this definition up, let's look at it.



> *IDEAL PHASE*- This is *Phase I *of the analytical process of dissecting a technique.
> It requires structuring an IDEAL technique by selecting a combat  situation that you wish to analyze. Contained within the technique  should be fixed moves of defense,offense, and the anticipated reactions  that can stem from them. This PHASE strongly urges the need to analyze  techniques from THREE POINTS OF VIEW."



"...structuring an IDEAL technique by selecting a *combat situation*" (emphasis added)  OK, so what's the combat situation in the classic version?  An aggressive grab from the flank.  It may be setting up a punch, it may stopping your motion, or pulling you around to face in a "don't you walk away when I'm talking to you" situation.  It certainly doesn't seem to be a push, looking at any of the versions, including Parker's notes, which read "your opponent  (standing between 3 and 4 o&#8217;clock) grabs your right shoulder with his  left hand".  

This is where we're tripping on your version.  Your combat situation isn't a grab; it's push.  It may or may not be more realistic; that's irrelevant to the discussion.  Have you fulfilled the analytical process for your combat situation?  Sure.  You've developed "fixed moves of defense, offense, and anticipated reactions."  They seem sound.  But you've started from a different premise, so you, of course, have reached a different conclusion.  It's a sound conclusion, and works within the premise of the four stages... but it's simply not the same combat situation or premise as the classical Sword & Hammer, so the argument that it's a "more functional" version is already doomed.


----------



## Twin Fist

hey, i told him on page ONE  his his response worked, and was fine, he told me i was wrong.....like...a LOT


----------



## ATACX GYM

jks9199 said:


> I'm going to try one more time...
> 
> Sword & Hammer is a defined technique, right?  It's on the syllabi of multiple schools and programs of Kenpo.  There are some variants (stepping to 3:00 or 4:30, for example), but they are all recognizable as the same technique.  Your version isn't.  So... since you keep bringing this definition up, let's look at it.
> 
> 
> 
> "...structuring an IDEAL technique by selecting a *combat situation*" (emphasis added)  OK, so what's the combat situation in the classic version?  An aggressive grab from the flank.  It may be setting up a punch, it may stopping your motion, or pulling you around to face in a "don't you walk away when I'm talking to you" situation.  It certainly doesn't seem to be a push, looking at any of the versions, including Parker's notes, which read "your opponent  (standing between 3 and 4 o&#8217;clock) grabs your right shoulder with his  left hand".
> 
> This is where we're tripping on your version.  Your combat situation isn't a grab; it's push.  It may or may not be more realistic; that's irrelevant to the discussion.  Have you fulfilled the analytical process for your combat situation?  Sure.  You've developed "fixed moves of defense, offense, and anticipated reactions."  They seem sound.  But you've started from a different premise, so you, of course, have reached a different conclusion.  It's a sound conclusion, and works within the premise of the four stages... but it's simply not the same combat situation or premise as the classical Sword & Hammer, so the argument that it's a "more functional" version is already doomed.




This is more sensible, so allow me to respond:

First and foremost...the entirety of the previous post takes as a given that the variants that are shown most popularly of Sword and Hammer are correct because they more closely mirror one variant of the tech as written in Big Red [ there are different variants written by Mr. Parker, one of which is called the 1987 version, and Doc said he was STILL changing things up to his dying day because Mr. Parker was a constantly evolving martial artist ]. However, the very definition of The Ideal Phase disputes that. The descriptions of Mr. Parker on this tech also changed with time. So there IS NO "classical" Sword and Hammer...there's just an EXAMPLE of it. We're supposed to craft our own individual Sword and Hammer I.P. Right off top, you're crediting the "classical" Sword and Hammer as THEE Sword and Hammer. Not only does the definition of The Ideal Phase dispute such an assertion, Doc Chapel directly refutes this notion in no uncertain terms. Did you miss the quotes of his that I put up? So the first misunderstanding of gigantic proportions which has devastated so much of Kenpo is this one. We need to actually understand what the IP is before we begin discussion of it. 

My combat situation isn't JUST a grab it's ALSO a push...similar to a Judo tech. The grab happens in much the way that you see it happens in the videos that I cited...a grab with a turning or pushing motion that sets you directly into the punch. In the real world...such a manuever is a surprise. If they're grabbing you even to say "don't walk away while I'm talking to you" you DIDN'T ANTICIPATE THE GRAB...thus there is a surprise thing going on. 

The start from the different premise you're talking about is true...but not in the sense that you conclude. The "different premise" is a FUNCTIONAL ATTACK. That's the key. If it's merely a grab with no carryover bodily follow through and the guy cocks his fist back and poses? That's the LEAST LIKELY scenario and generally a LOWER ORDER of threat. The MORE LIKELY scenario...the MORE FUNCTIONAL ATTACK...are the ones that I specified, to wit:

1) The BG will grab, push/pull and strike at the same time

2) The BG will simply strike with no push/pull


This is quite simple, quite evident, and I'm sure that you have enough experience to know that the two variants that I mentioned are much more prevalent than the static 'stand touch your shoulder cock my fist and pose' variant flung about as some form of realistic or wonderful model when it's not.

The best thing is...the variant that I propose neatly resolves every scenario involving the "static stand touch your shoulder cock my fist never throw a punch and pose" scenario...as well as the more frequent, more realistic,potentially more dangerous scenarios that I seek to engage from the gate. The converse isn't remotely true...in fact? Not only does the "static stand and touch your shoulder cock my fist never throw a punch pose"  prep you to fail to the tune of hospital level stupid or at least youtube level embarassment, it doesn't even properly thwart the scenario it created for itself.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Twin Fist said:


> you forgot: Learn from it
> 
> you were prob too busy to actually.....learn the technique and what it is supposed to teach you............



You forgot to read my very first sentence...

"The first lesson that one learns using the most popular version of sword and hammer...the tech which is in essence The Ideal TECHNIQUE...is that said tech DOESN'T WORK IN A ACTUAL FIGHT ANYTHING LIKE HOW IT'S TRAINED. Therefore there are only 2 options: FIX IT OR ABANDON IT. Once it's made functional? THEN AND ONLY THEN MAY ANY OTHER BENEFITS FLOW FROM IT"


----------



## Twin Fist




----------



## ATACX GYM

MJS said:


> Geeze...how the hell did I miss this thread? LOL!  Anyways, I'll toss my .02 into the mix.  So, if I'm reading right, the main issue is that S&H (Sword and Hammer) is no longer S&H mainly due to it not being the way that we'd typically see it taught in Kenpo schools.  Ras made drastic changes, thus why call is S&H?  So...that being said....rather than change the technique altogether, why not just do the base technique.  If something were to change, ie: the badguy pushes, pulls, changes his attack, goes to punch, etc, just simply adapt to the new situation, and go from there?  That way, you're technically still doing S&H, because thats what you started off with, but if/when the BG did something other than simply grab, you adapted.
> 
> I say this because this is what I do.  Actually, thats not 100% correct.  What I do is simply respond to whats happening.  I'm not setting out to do S&H or any other tech., in its entirety.  Maybe I'd just knock the guys hand off, if possible.  Maybe I'd kick him.  Honestly, who knows what I'd do...lol.
> 
> Thoughts?




Okay first...about the shorter folks [ which I am at 5'7" ] and shorter women thing? I addressed that issue specifically with this  tech months ago and left that answer on this thread. Observe:


from page 5 of this thread, a quote that I put up months ago on KT:




ATACX GYM said:


> Here is a significant part of the reasoning and personal experiences that informed my personal expression of THE ATACX GYM SWORD AND HAMMER, taken from my post on KenpoTalk.com a long time ago.
> 
> 
> 
> "*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Re: Atacx gym sword and hammer pt. 2 w/choke (r.d.l.)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *jdinca*
> 
> 
> It looked like you were stretching to make sure you had a hammer and sword in there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like the escape though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a reasonable supposition right there,man.But I wasn't stretching to keep the S&H in there.When I first started testing this against escalating resistance? I first looked to see if a S&H was needed,and what benefits arose from using specifically the handsword and hammerfist in that tech.I wasn't keeping the tech in there just to keep it.The first logical place for the insertion of the S&H came in the transition escape from the tie up (in this case,it started with a shoulder grab but I had the grip migrate all over the place and tested it against taller people,shorter folks,strikers,grapplers,armed folks,etc etc.Taller guys grabbed me by the nape of the neck and other "anatomical handles" that were more presentable to them due to their height; wrestlers and football players would hammer then shoot and/or tie up and shoot,judoka would add judo throws and locks to what the wrestlers did,streetfighters would punch punch and then tie up for street fighters/untrained folks the grip leading to the classical S&H counter would happen in the midst of a flurry Hockey punch style,strikers would strike no matter what,etc etc etc).No matter who the attacker was,after you pivoted to the outside of his gripping arm,a hammerfist to the outside of the forearm of their gripping hand produced the best chance of making him release...whether you're a short girl or studly lion...and secondarily? The hammerfist action had the best results regarding compounding a painful strike with a disarm and displacement of the opponent.I married the hammerfist with the motion of our outward block,and deliberately slammed my forearm as hard as I could into the area between the backside of my opponent's abductor pollicis longus and his flexor pollicis longus (been YEEEAAARRRSS since I wrote that word down and it wasn't in my college papers or my old skool martial arts training and idea notebooks) which is a fancy way of saying a specific strip of area between his wrist and elbow.I found that not only did this work well even against quite strong taller athletic people like my friend Khai when they grabbed me full force,but I also found that my shorter students and especially my female students tended to strike higher up on the limb grasping them--closer to the wrist with the hammerfist+outside whipping forearm shiver of a block,lower on the tricep muscle group due to their shorter limbs and stature--so they could access these points between wrist and elbow better than pretty much any other targeted spot that one can easily counterattack under those circumstances.
> 
> At first I almost eliminated the handsword from this tech.I almost called it THE HAMMER AND SALUTE,because at first I was using the palm strike against the area between the elbow and the tricep.It did a good job of propelling the offending grasping limb away from me and my students,plus I noted that it had the added advantage of turning our opponent's back more toward us.Which I loved.Thought airythang was gravy...until I noted that the body alignment necessary to put real juice in a palm heel strike took away from the body alignment needed to put real juice in a forearm shiver of a outside block.At first I was letting that ride too...until one day in class,Sheree got her hair caught while she was turning and whipping out the block+palm heel.Her sparring partner released his grip on her shoulder,but NOT her hair.He wound up yanking her noggin,her neck and the rest of her body followed,and she got whooped on.Then something similar happened to DeMarcus.So I really sat down and went over the specific options available; with my first action being to go right back to the source material.I immediately applied the handsword to the tricep region,and I discovered that when you put actual stank funk on that handsword along with the forearm shiver of a outside block? Not only did the body mechanics align themselves in such a way so that each tech synergistically amped the power of the other, the handsword to the tricep really weakens the grip ( even if you do the tech wrong ) and more likely than not the handsword to the tricep MAKES THE GRIPPING HAND SPASM OPEN. You WILL escape almost anyone's grip. Not even kidding. Try it out yourself. Extend your left arm straight out from your shoulder like you're punching the wall or the air or about to make the universal stiff arm+open palm sign for "STOP". Then form a tight fist...in fact? You can squeeze a tennis ball or racquetball as hard as you can to make the point crystal clear. Then take your right hand and pop your lower tricep with a half power ridgehand. IMMEDIATELY you'll feel the power of your grip on the ball or your tight fist weaken,and you'll feel that tingle run down from your tricep to your left pinkie. And you did allat with just a wakk ridgehand from absolutely super wakk body alignment,no torque,no breath,no follow through,no Directional Harmony. If you threw a genuine stank funk nasty handsword in conjunction with the whipping outside block of a forearm shiver with proper body alignment which also capitalized upon the kinetic energy of both you AND your opponent? THE HAMMER AND SWORD WILL END THE THROWDOWN 90% OF THE TIME. It not only propels the BG away and takes his grabbing arm away from him, not only does his brain recognize that shock and responds to the trauma in a specific predictable way which always delays your opponent's response, guys....since his grabbing arm is now toast...there is an open lane to handswording or backfisting his throat if he's still within arm reach. And you will note that I do exactly that along with applying the hammerfist. The placement of the hammerfist in my varinat is ALSO VERY DELIBERATE in every regard, with knowledge of the human anatomy dictating tech placement. I'm hitting specific targets which my studies,my experience and my student's studies and experience shows has been most sanguine to the execution of this tech in the various situations that we apply it and test it in.
> 
> Have you tried to execute Sword and Hammer AFTER you've been smacked face first into a wall and WHILE the BG is STILL PINNING YOU THERE? I have...it's part of our training process. I'd been doing it for YEARS before the ONE TIME I ever had to do it live in the field (working a special security detail at the Queen Mary circa 2006). But because I knew how to do it and insisted that my students do it too and get good at it? DeRon used it to stop himself from getting knifed after he was mugged,and L.T. taught her daughter after I taught her and that knowledge prevented her daughter from being kidnapped by some sicko who'd grabbed her backpack during an attempt to kidnap her. I've done my variant of Sword and Hammer in many situations during practice and have tested it even from The Rubber Guard and even after having to come up from the ground during multifight training (and a live multifight with weapons during the same Queen Mary incident previously referred to) entering and exiting rolls/falls,etc.
> 
> So yeah it MIGHT appear that I'm forcing the S&H,but I'm not. Thanks for the comment!!​Last edited by ATACX GYM; 4 Weeks Ago at 06:30 PM.​http://www.youtube.com/user/ATACXGYM?feature=mhum
> 
> IT'S NOT JUST WHAT YOU KNOW,IT'S HOW YOU TRAIN
> 
> THE FIGHT YOU ALWAYS WIN IS THE FIGHT YOU'RE NOT IN
> 
> AVOID TROUBLE;BUT IF TROUBLE IS UNAVOIDABLE? PUT TROUBLE IN TROUBLE"​



That is a thorough and hefty response months prior to you actually bringing the concern up to your issue. Not surprised that you and I and other functional martial artists had the same question and similar responses...


Regarding the Sword and Hammer Ideal Phase Analytical Process Concept? As I stated before...there are several issues of note in this response:


1) When you refer to Sword and Hammer...WHOSE Sword and Hammer do you refer to? The Sword and Hammer Ideal Phase Analytical Process Concept is crafted on a case by case basis. By teacher to and for students. Did you craft your own Sword and Hammer which fit all 4 mandatory facets of The Ideal Phase Analytical Process Concept? If not...you need to craft that first. You're not supposed to borrow someone else's IP although you can do so...but even if you do so? You still have to test it vs resistance for yourself first and then in class next.

2) The process of crafting your own Sword and Hammer tech will lead you to a tech that is different than the tech that all of my detractors have been cosigning to death. Why? Because you're supposed to use The Ideal Phase Analytical Process Concept to craft your OWN Sword and Hammer. Being a kali guy, I can see you crafting a Sword and Hammer that works well with and without weapons, and AGAINST people with weapons...in addition to wiping out people WITHOUT weapons. My Sword and Hammer does exactly that as well. But just because it's NOT the "default EXAMPLE" of Sword and Hammer written decades ago...you will have detractors who are insufficiently versed in The Ideal Phase Analytical Process Concept state that your Sword and Hammer is NOT Sword and Hammer. No matter how functional and capable and "Sword and Hammer" it actually is.

3) Since I am the only person to follow The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique Concept all the way through, I am so far literally the only person to properly discusses and apply the actual IP as defined by Mr. Parker and Doc Chapel on this thread. This is also why my application and understanding is correct, and all others which don't comply with the correct definition are wrong.


----------



## Twin Fist

there you have it, everyone else in the world of kenpo is wrong, but ras is right. according to ras. and if you dont believe it, he's got 10K words by ras to prove that ras is right, and he isnt afraid to use them..........

keep blowing your own horn, you are the only one listening anyway


----------



## Aiki Lee

ATACX GYM said:


> that contention, sir, is incorrect and directly contradicted by the definition of The Ideal Phase itself. You are conflating a major failure in Kenpo--the default creation of an Ideal TECHNIQUE that has been universally passed off as The Ideal Phase--with the ACTUAL Ideal Phase ITSELF. The Ideal Phase...by definition...has to be made by the head of whatever group that is training Kenpo. That person or persons responsible for crafting The Ideal Phase must not only satisfy the definition of The Ideal Phase...that person or persons is also strongly urged to ensure that they consider the other three points of view that rounds out and manifestly completes The Ideal Phase PROCESS.



...OK. I've read and re-read what you've been putting down and read the posts after to see if I could understand what you are saying, but I really don't think what you've come up with is meant to instill the same lessons that are taught in the more mainstream Sword and Hammer. I think your response was decent, for the attack that your partner gave you whihc was a push and hit from behind.

I feel that the original technique (without having any experience with Kenpo ever) resembles a grab meant to either yank you back into the attack and hold you still to prvent you from fleeing. This type of attack would allow one to respond this way. Pushing energy would make these strikes less effective as there is less damage done as you are being moved away from the target. I look at sword and hammer and see lessons like targeting, rebounding strikes off of targets into new strikes, pinnning the attacking hand to gain control and tactile vision, and taking the initiative through a pre-emptive strike.

Your technique does not allow for these lessons to be aplied because the attack is different. Your attack is realistic but no more realistic than the other attack. It is just different. Therefore the lessons are different. That is what I see.


----------



## Chris Parker

Ras. You have completely failed to demonstrate anything other than the fact that you don't listen to anyone who doesn't automatically praise your genius. You are mistaken in the applicability of the "original" technique, mainly as you don't understand the attack or defence in real world terms. Your arguments that you have a better version of the technique are completely irrelevant as you have a completely different technique, with completely different tactics, against a completely different attack, supported by videos of attacks that your own technique doesn't actually deal with.

I'm going to be blunt here.

Grow up.
Get over yourself.
Recognize that you really, really, really don't know anywhere near as much as you think you do.

And learn to make your point far more concisely. 

For the record, I'd suggest going back to the first page and re-reading my post and appraisal of the videos in question, as they still stand, and have not been countered by anything you've posted in the last 7 pages.

And if you can't counter any of it, as you haven't been able to so far, realise that that probably means something.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Himura Kenshin said:


> ...OK. I've read and re-read what you've been putting down and read the posts after to see if I could understand what you are saying, but I really don't think what you've come up with is meant to instill the same lessons that are taught in the more mainstream Sword and Hammer. I think your response was decent, for the attack that your partner gave you whihc was a push and hit from behind.
> 
> I feel that the original technique (without having any experience with Kenpo ever) resembles a grab meant to either yank you back into the attack and hold you still to prvent you from fleeing. This type of attack would allow one to respond this way. Pushing energy would make these strikes less effective as there is less damage done as you are being moved away from the target. I look at sword and hammer and see lessons like targeting, rebounding strikes off of targets into new strikes, pinnning the attacking hand to gain control and tactile vision, and taking the initiative through a pre-emptive strike.
> 
> Your technique does not allow for these lessons to be aplied because the attack is different. Your attack is realistic but no more realistic than the other attack. It is just different. Therefore the lessons are different. That is what I see.




---Quote (Originally by ATACX GYM)---
that contention, sir, is incorrect and directly contradicted by the definition of The Ideal Phase itself. You are conflating a major failure in Kenpo--the default creation of an Ideal TECHNIQUE that has been universally passed off as The Ideal Phase--with the ACTUAL Ideal Phase ITSELF. The Ideal Phase...by definition...has to be made by the head of whatever group that is training Kenpo. That person or persons responsible for crafting The Ideal Phase must not only satisfy the definition of The Ideal Phase...that person or persons is also strongly urged to ensure that they consider the other three points of view that rounds out and manifestly completes The Ideal Phase PROCESS.
---End Quote---
...OK. I've read and re-read what you've been putting down and read the posts after to see if I could understand what you are saying, but I really don't think what you've come up with is meant to instill the same lessons that are taught in the more mainstream Sword and Hammer. I think your response was decent, for the attack that your partner gave you whihc was a push and hit from behind.
I feel that the original technique (without having any experience with Kenpo ever) resembles a grab meant to either yank you back into the attack and hold you still to prvent you from fleeing. This type of attack would allow one to respond this way. Pushing energy would make these strikes less effective as there is less damage done as you are being moved away from the target. I look at sword and hammer and see lessons like targeting, rebounding strikes off of targets into new strikes, pinnning the attacking hand to gain control and tactile vision, and taking the initiative through a pre-emptive strike.
Your technique does not allow for these lessons to be aplied because the attack is different. Your attack is realistic but no more realistic than the other attack. It is just different. Therefore the lessons are different. That is what I see.


Thank you for taking the time to read the posts on this thread, watch the videos and post your response...and thank you for saying that my response was decent.

Now on to your post...

"...OK. I've read and re-read what you've been putting down and read the posts after to see if I could understand what you are saying, but I really don't think what you've come up with is meant to instill the same lessons that are taught in the more mainstream Sword and Hammer. I think your response was decent, for the attack that your partner gave you whihc was a push and hit from behind.

"I feel that the original technique (without having any experience with Kenpo ever) resembles a grab meant to either yank you back into the attack and hold you still to prvent you from fleeing. This type of attack would allow one to respond this way..." KENSHIN

Actually I cover every more than a push and hit from behind. I cover every primary area from the left flank to the right flank, and include push pulls and punches. Which is more than what the "more mainstream Sword and Hammer" does. And did you say "either yank you back into the attack and hold you still to prvent you from fleeing..."? 

[ ATACX GYM SWORD AND HAMMER PT. 1A, SHOT IN DECEMBER 2011 ]:


 [video=youtube_share;AuvuhW1u2WE]http://youtu.be/AuvuhW1u2WE[/video]

by the way? This video is done by EPAKSorg video. EPAK stands for Ed Parker's American Kenpo.

[video=youtube_share;YGDc1oOFDcI]http://youtu.be/YGDc1oOFDcI[/video]


looks remarkably like my video visavis positioning doesn't it? Go to 0:36

[video=youtube_share;R-mmdyIHkjs]http://youtu.be/R-mmdyIHkjs[/video]


So anybody screeching about my positioning? There's no case to be made there either. I include all the primary standing functional positioning in this video [ I have others whre I do the same with clinch, ground, weapons, multifights, etc ] and NONE of my positions are wrong. In fact, including ALL of the positions that you can actually do Sword and Hammer from...makes you have a definitely more versatile and oftentimes BETTER sword and hammer visavis guys who DON'T do this.


"Pushing energy would make these strikes less effective as there is less damage done as you are being moved away from the target. I look at sword and hammer and see lessons like targeting, rebounding strikes off of targets into new strikes, pinnning the attacking hand to gain control and tactile vision, and taking the initiative through a pre-emptive strike..."--KENSHIN

If your training is dysfunctional...which the "more mainstream Sword and Hammer" is in huge amounts...your "lessons like targeting, rebounding strikes off of targets into new strikes, pinnning the attacking hand to gain control and tactile vision, and taking the initiative..." will also be dysfunctional. That means it won't work reliably under combat conditions. Which means that the tech fails miserably at the number one requirement of self defense: defending your self.

Regarding pushing? Well, to quote Doc..."it depends". I would tend to agree that the strikes would be less effective as there is less damage done [generally speaking ] unless the opponent is armed. Furthermore, you're not acknowledging that the push in conjunction with the strikes cause more problems and can be much more dangerous than the push [ or pull] or strike alone. You could be pushed INTO someone or an oncoming blow...while being hit from behind too [ multifight scenario]. You could be pushed down onto the ground and the strikes blast away your ability ti right yourself and regain balance. You could be pushed over something like a chair or table or another person. You could be pushed INTO something like a wall or car or bike or...like what happens out here in the neighborhood...you could get pushed into oncoming traffic while being belabored by blows. 

The absolute killer to any argument about pushing, pulling or adding weapons to the situation is that...the tech that allows you to defeat a armed person who pushes and/or pulls you from the flank is the same tech that allows you to defeat the UNARMED person who does the same thing. And both of those versions also properly give you the time and space to assess whether or not you should annihilate the guy who just puts his hand on your shoulder and cocks his fist or wait, or a guy who grabs you by the shoulder and spins you about like..."you're not walking away from me". 

The tech recommended in "the more mainstream Sword and Hammer" absolutely lacks these critical facets. Therefore it's less realistic, less capable, will get you hurt, and even if you COULD pull it off? You'll prolly by an excessive force or assault charge in the process. This is a point that I and another consistent critic of mine...Chris Parker...actually agree upon.

As for your comment about preemptive strikes? Doc, Clyde and Larry Tatum...three Kenpo Elders with whom I've disagreed with [ and agreed with ] from time to time...all flatly state that preemptive strikes under these scenarios are highly unlikely if not flat out impossible. It's a doofus idea to think that Kenpoists or most anyone else will always or even usually preempt attacks.I mean that with no disrespect.


--


----------



## MJS

ATACX GYM said:


> Okay first...about the shorter folks [ which I am at 5'7" ] and shorter women thing? I addressed that issue specifically with this  tech months ago and left that answer on this thread. Observe:
> 
> 
> from page 5 of this thread, a quote that I put up months ago on KT:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a thorough and hefty response months prior to you actually bringing the concern up to your issue. Not surprised that you and I and other functional martial artists had the same question and similar responses...
> 
> 
> Regarding the Sword and Hammer Ideal Phase Analytical Process Concept? As I stated before...there are several issues of note in this response:
> 
> 
> 1) When you refer to Sword and Hammer...WHOSE Sword and Hammer do you refer to? The Sword and Hammer Ideal Phase Analytical Process Concept is crafted on a case by case basis. By teacher to and for students. Did you craft your own Sword and Hammer which fit all 4 mandatory facets of The Ideal Phase Analytical Process Concept? If not...you need to craft that first. You're not supposed to borrow someone else's IP although you can do so...but even if you do so? You still have to test it vs resistance for yourself first and then in class next.
> 
> 2) The process of crafting your own Sword and Hammer tech will lead you to a tech that is different than the tech that all of my detractors have been cosigning to death. Why? Because you're supposed to use The Ideal Phase Analytical Process Concept to craft your OWN Sword and Hammer. Being a kali guy, I can see you crafting a Sword and Hammer that works well with and without weapons, and AGAINST people with weapons...in addition to wiping out people WITHOUT weapons. My Sword and Hammer does exactly that as well. But just because it's NOT the "default EXAMPLE" of Sword and Hammer written decades ago...you will have detractors who are insufficiently versed in The Ideal Phase Analytical Process Concept state that your Sword and Hammer is NOT Sword and Hammer. No matter how functional and capable and "Sword and Hammer" it actually is.
> 
> 3) Since I am the only person to follow The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique Concept all the way through, I am so far literally the only person to properly discusses and apply the actual IP as defined by Mr. Parker and Doc Chapel on this thread. This is also why my application and understanding is correct, and all others which don't comply with the correct definition are wrong.



Well, I didn't mention height in this post, perhaps another....and you're quoting jdinca from KT....but anywho....even when I learned the techniques, I still had to adapt due to body differences.  Like I've said....I use the base IP techs as a guide.  Unlike some other Kenpoists, who eat, breath, sleep and **** the IP techs, claiming that they have to be done as is....I adjust accordingly.  Works for me, and IMO, thats what matters.  

I did the same when I'd teach.  I'd constantly stress to my students not to be bound by what they're seeing.


----------



## Twin Fist

the IP is the "best case"

not the "every time no matter what"


----------



## ATACX GYM

MJS said:


> Well, I didn't mention height in this post, perhaps another....and you're quoting jdinca from KT....but anywho....even when I learned the techniques, I still had to adapt due to body differences.  Like I've said....I use the base IP techs as a guide.  Unlike some other Kenpoists, who eat, breath, sleep and **** the IP techs, claiming that they have to be done as is....I adjust accordingly.  Works for me, and IMO, thats what matters.
> 
> I did the same when I'd teach.  I'd constantly stress to my students not to be bound by what they're seeing.





Just tuh letcha know MJS...I'm not quoting jdinca. I can give you the link to the thread. The hefty response I authored is my RESPONSE to jdinca. Lol. Maybe it didn't transfer well on my copy and paste thingy...


----------



## ATACX GYM

Twin Fist said:


> the IP is the "best case"
> 
> not the "every time no matter what"



True. The IP is without a doubt the "best case" scenario, or more accurately it's essentially the best hoped for case once combat is entered [ the best case period is not to be in a fight at all, I would think ]. 

But we all know that the "best case" or the "best hoped for case" is NOT the REAL case. The oftentimes sloppy reality is the REAL case...not the best case. So I recommend restructuring the IP accordingly...as I have done. If yuo handle the REAL case? You always always always automatically handle the BEST case. The converse is absolutely nowhere near as rigorously true. 

If other people don't want to conform to what current scientific collective combat studies collectively indicate is a more realistic scenario? They don't have to...but the difference between their tech and other people like mine will be the difference between the BEST HOPED FOR case and THE REAL CASE


----------



## Twin Fist

Ras, do you teach the IP "best case" of the EPAK techniques you tech?

if not ,then you are hurting them just as much as the teachers that ONLY teach the IP "best case"

the IP "Best case" teaches us lessons, without it, you are missing the point. 

certainly you are not restricted to ONLY teaching that, (hell, i dont ever do JUST the IP) but it is a valuable part of kenpo training.

at least for EPAK techniques.


----------



## MJS

This thread is crazy...LOL.  So, in a nutshell, the main issue is that Ras' S&H technically isn't S&H, because he drastically changed it.  IMO, no, its no longer S&H, but I'd still say that elements of S&H could be there, depending of course, on exactly whats done.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Twin Fist said:


> Ras, do you teach the IP "best case" of the EPAK techniques you tech?
> 
> if not ,then you are hurting them just as much as the teachers that ONLY teach the IP "best case"
> 
> the IP "Best case" teaches us lessons, without it, you are missing the point.
> 
> certainly you are not restricted to ONLY teaching that, (hell, i dont ever do JUST the IP) but it is a valuable part of kenpo training.
> 
> at least for EPAK techniques.




Yes, I teach the IP best case EPAK techs...if only to highlight the fact that the more realistic variants I use are superior in every regard. Targeting, lessons of movement, functional response to a real world functional attack, functional athletic training mentally physically etc....these things can't be properly grasped when we're limited to text. But the moment we get on the mat or I start showing you the techs live? When we apply them right after each other against even moderate resistance? Mine comes shining through. Plus mine shows that it can and does handle the "best case" scenario.

There is no lesson that a dysfunctional or less functional tech can teach that a [ more ] funtional tech can't teach better sooner more thoroughly and for longer. Thus my permanent bias toward functionalism.


----------



## Twin Fist

and once again, you claim to know more than Ed Parker did.

he created those for a reason.

a thing can be different, not better, not worse, just different.

has that ever occured to you?


----------



## ATACX GYM

Twin Fist said:


> and once again, you claim to know more than Ed Parker did.
> 
> he created those for a reason.
> 
> a thing can be different, not better, not worse, just different.
> 
> has that ever occured to you?




Doc Chapel has made it clear over and over again that Mr. Parker never created thee Ideal Technique; that various techs are the result of and may in and of themselves be processes. Please ask him to clarify if the quotes of his that I supplied aren't sufficient. I have never ever claimed to know more than Ed Parker. I have never compared myself to Ed Parker. Only you have, sir.

I agree Mr. Parker created The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique Process for a reason. What do you think that reason is, Twin Fist?

Of course things can be different, not better or worse. I'm fully aware of that. But it's better to learn to defend yourself from a punch...when someone's punching. Otherwise you're not defending yourself from the punch. You may be preemptively halting the punch from being launched by some form of avoidance or prevention method [ I prefer this approach ] but that won't help when you're in a situation when  fisticuffs must occur or you're breaking up a fight in progress etc etc.

Let's not start up on the areas that we disagree with each other, John. We already know where we differ. It's time for us to discuss other areas...like areas where we agree and how we can improve.


----------



## ATACX GYM

MJS said:


> This thread is crazy...LOL.  So, in a nutshell, the main issue is that Ras' S&H technically isn't S&H, because he drastically changed it.  IMO, no, its no longer S&H, but I'd still say that elements of S&H could be there, depending of course, on exactly whats done.



Now, Doc has said that Mr. Parker never created a solid  fixed Ideal Technique. Doc in fact very strongly remonstrated with me in quotes I left on this thread where he said to use the phrase ' idea not Ideal" Technique. I then quoted CyberTyger's printing of the actual definitions of the Phases and Formula that comprise The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique PROCESS. And guess what?

There is no fixed in stone Sword and Hammer or anything else. Exactly like Doc said. Therefore, my interpretation of Sword and Hammer is only A idea which for my Gym became AN Ideal Technique. Furthermore? The most common iterations of Sword and Hammer and literally every other technique in Kenpo is also only AN Ideal Technique, not THEE Ideal Technique. As Doc and others have repeatedly reminded us...Mr. Parker wanted each Ideal Tech to be crafted by the lead instructor of your group or your dojo using The 4 step Ideal Phase Technique process and Kenpo techniques combined with your instructor's knowledge and life experience.

So what if a guy who was a wrestler or kungfu guy or judoka or boxer learned Kenpo too and became an instructor? He's completely free to add his knowledge to The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique PROCESS and craft his OWN Ideal Technique for his group...using Kenpo techs and concepts. That's what I did. This is wholly and entirely in step with the definition of The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique PROCESS. Therefore my tech is AN Ideal Technique and it's MY Ideal Technique. Not yours. 

The common Sword and Hammer tech that you guys think is THEE Ideal Technique is NOT "thee" mandatory default Sword and Hammer. It is AN Ideal Technique . There IS NO PERMANENT OR FIXED Ideal Technique.

Please read the definitions for The IP as drawn from Mr. Parker's Infinite Insights in the quote below.

Originally Posted by *CyberTyger*

Taken from Ed Parker's Encyclopedia of Kenpo ver. 1.0 ...

(p.66) *IDEAL PHASE*- This is *Phase I *of the analytical process of dissecting a technique.
It requires structuring an IDEAL technique by selecting a combat situation that you wish to analyze. Contained within the technique should be fixed moves of defense,offense, and the anticipated reactions that can stem from them. This PHASE strongly urges the need to analyze techniques from THREE POINTS OF VIEW.

(p.138) *WHAT IF PHASE*- This is PHASE II of the analytical process of dissecting a technique. this PHASE takes in additional variables. It requires being programmed to further analyze the IDEAL or fixed technique. _(me talking: not sure I agree with the term programmed.) _Expected, as well as unexpected opponent reactions are projected and evaluated. the concept here is that every movement may have critical consequences; thus, in a realistic situation, the need to predict each consequence to the best of your knowledge is imperative. Ideally, all consequential possibilities should be projected, evaluated, and learned. To do so is to increase your ability to instinctively and randomly alter the basic technique, and thus allow yourself a choice of action. _<- (sounds alot like what you've accomplished Ras.)_

(p.56*) FORMULATION PHASE*- This is PHASE III of the analytical process of dissecting a technique. This PHASE involves the actual application of your newly found alternatives to the original IDEAL or fixed technique. Knowing what can additionally happen within the framework of the fixed technique, teaches you how to apply your variable answers to a free and changing environment. This ultimate process of combat training can be learned by using the EQUATION FORMULA for fighting.

(p.48) *EQUATION FORMULA*- This is a special formula that one can follow to develop specific, practical, and logical fighting patterns. the formula allows you a more conclusive basis for negotiating your alternative actions. It reads as follows:
To give any base, whether it is a single move or a series of movements, you can (1)*prefix it*- add a move or moves before it; (2) *suffix it*- add a move or moves after it; (3) *insert*- add a simultaneous move with, the already established sequence (this move can be used as a (a) pinning check- using pressure against an opponent's weapons to nullify their delivery, or (b) positioned check- where you place the hand or leg in a defensive position or angle to minimize entry to your vital areas; (4)* rearrange*- change the sequence of the moves, (5) *alter the- *(a) weapon, (b) target, (c) both weapon and target; (6) *adjust the- *(a) range, (b) angle of execution (which affects the width and height), (c) both angle of execution and range; (7) *regulate the- *(a) speed, (b) force, (c) both speed and force, (d) intent and speed; and (8)* delete- *exclude a move or moves from the sequence.

_and since doc mentioned ideas_, 
*IDEAS*- One of the philosophical views of Kenpo that considers defensive and offensive moves to be no more than concepts that vary with each and every situation. <- _adds a bit more context for me when I re-read Doc's post about the "IDEALS" being "IDEAS".

_
 For most of our Kenpo lives, we have been vastly misinformed as to what The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique Process actually IS and we've been misinformed as to how to apply it. Basically almost all of us except for say Doc to some degtree...me too...have been thinking that 2+2=5. We were all wrong to believe that what we are shown as THEE Ideal Tech is anything more than AN Ideal Tech.


For most of our Kenpo lives, most of us have been misinformed as to what the IP is. The IP IS NOT A SPECIFIC MARTIAL ART TECHNIQUE. It is...by definition written by Mr. Parker "...the analytical process of dissecting a technique." 


That process has 4 steps...The Ideal Phase [ selecting the tech that is to be analyzed and how that tech is expressed ], The What If and The Formulation Phases, and The Equation Formula. 

The old skool Sword and Hammer works perfectly well, given the constraints that it operates under. Like John said, it's a "best case" scenario situation. Okay cool. Kudos.

It's my experience and those of everyone I have ever known or seen that "the best case" is exceedingly rare. So my Sword and Hammer works for many of the "less than best case" situations and all of the variables that I teach. So I select a less than best case, realistic functional iteration of combat...that's The Ideal Phase Part I portion...then proceed from there and that would be...the What If and Formulation Phases,and Equation Formula. Fits perfectly.


----------



## Chris Parker

Okay, Ras, here's the question for you: What do you think makes the technique "Sword and Hammer" in the first place? Not your version, but what makes Sword and Hammer what it is? Forgetting if you think it's viable, or if it's "Idea not Ideal", or any of that, how would you define what makes Sword and Hammer specifically Sword and Hammer in Kenpo (EPAK)?


----------



## Twin Fist

if there is no fixed version of the technique why does everyone seem to know the same version of the techniques but you?

there IS a set version, but it isnt the end all version, we have been through this and you are again splitting hairs

here is how you and everyone can improve

stop trying to re-invent the wheel

just say, "thats a wheel, lemme see if i can use that wheel as a base to build a car...."

and stop saying "my **** is better" its annoying 

anf grow some hair!


----------



## MJS

Twin Fist said:


> if there is no fixed version of the technique why does everyone seem to know the same version of the techniques but you?
> 
> there IS a set version, but it isnt the end all version, we have been through this and you are again splitting hairs



This!  You took the words from my mouth.  

Ras, regarding your post to me.....I was going to say the same thing TF just did.....pretty much every Kenpo school around, teaches S&H.  Does Doc teach S&H?  I'd wager a guess that they all teach is pretty much the same way, as a base, guide, whatever you want to call it, and then, do what should be done.....use those ideas, concepts, principles, etc, to formulate a response, according to whats happening.  

I think the confusion lies in the IP and IT.  It seems from discussions that I've had with you Ras, that you feel the IP sucks.  Thus the reason you're creating something different.  I"m creating something different.  I'm sure Kaju guys dont do the punch counters, club techs, grab arts, etc step by step, by the book.  But, initially, despite how poor it may be, the IP techs are taught.


----------



## ATACX GYM

MJS said:


> This!  You took the words from my mouth.
> 
> Ras, regarding your post to me.....I was going to say the same thing TF just did.....pretty much every Kenpo school around, teaches S&H.  Does Doc teach S&H?  I'd wager a guess that they all teach is pretty much the same way, as a base, guide, whatever you want to call it, and then, do what should be done.....use those ideas, concepts, principles, etc, to formulate a response, according to whats happening.
> 
> I think the confusion lies in the IP and IT.  It seems from discussions that I've had with you Ras, that you feel the IP sucks.  Thus the reason you're creating something different.  I"m creating something different.  I'm sure Kaju guys dont do the punch counters, club techs, grab arts, etc step by step, by the book.  But, initially, despite how poor it may be, the IP techs are taught.




Now we're getting somewhere, guys and gals. You asked me the same question that I asked Doc on KT months ago about the IP. I already left a link to that thread on this thread some pages back, but here it is again so you don't have to go hunting for it:

http://www.kenpotalk.com/forum/show...ACRIFICE&highlight=DOC+AND+DOC+DAVE+INNAHOUSE


Notice that I specifically made it clear to both Docs that I was going to be asking questions about forms, sets and IPs. We cover this area that those of us in this thread are discussing now. Vigorously. Thoroughly. You already know I'm gonna be slangin some real questions and expect some real answers. Well...both Docs are brilliant and they answered. The answers they gave me I am largely giving to you guys now but the real stuff? Stuff I'm still digesting? That's still in the thread. So go peep the link.

Okay the REAL answers that came from the above link and my conversations with both Docs are more complex than what I'm giving here, but I'm giving you the more edited but bottom line answers that were given to me:

Mr. Parker never created THEE IDEAL TECHNIQUE. There is NO such thing as THEE Ideal Technique. There is only THE IDEAL PHASE TECHNIQUE ANALYTICAL PROCESS. Exactly as Mr. Parker wrote. Look again at the definitions:


.66) *IDEAL PHASE*- This is *Phase I *of the analytical process of dissecting a technique.
It requires structuring an IDEAL technique by selecting a combat situation that you wish to analyze. Contained within the technique should be fixed moves of defense,offense, and the anticipated reactions that can stem from them. This PHASE strongly urges the need to analyze techniques from THREE POINTS OF VIEW.

(p.138) *WHAT IF PHASE*- This is PHASE II of the analytical process of dissecting a technique. this PHASE takes in additional variables. It requires being programmed to further analyze the IDEAL or fixed technique. _(me talking: not sure I agree with the term programmed.) _Expected, as well as unexpected opponent reactions are projected and evaluated. the concept here is that every movement may have critical consequences; thus, in a realistic situation, the need to predict each consequence to the best of your knowledge is imperative. Ideally, all consequential possibilities should be projected, evaluated, and learned. To do so is to increase your ability to instinctively and randomly alter the basic technique, and thus allow yourself a choice of action. _<- (sounds alot like what you've accomplished Ras.)_

(p.56*) FORMULATION PHASE*- This is PHASE III of the analytical process of dissecting a technique. This PHASE involves the actual application of your newly found alternatives to the original IDEAL or fixed technique. Knowing what can additionally happen within the framework of the fixed technique, teaches you how to apply your variable answers to a free and changing environment. This ultimate process of combat training can be learned by using the EQUATION FORMULA for fighting.

(p.48) *EQUATION FORMULA*- This is a special formula that one can follow to develop specific, practical, and logical fighting patterns. the formula allows you a more conclusive basis for negotiating your alternative actions. It reads as follows:
To give any base, whether it is a single move or a series of movements, you can (1)*prefix it*- add a move or moves before it; (2) *suffix it*- add a move or moves after it; (3) *insert*- add a simultaneous move with, the already established sequence (this move can be used as a (a) pinning check- using pressure against an opponent's weapons to nullify their delivery, or (b) positioned check- where you place the hand or leg in a defensive position or angle to minimize entry to your vital areas; (4)* rearrange*- change the sequence of the moves, (5) *alter the- *(a) weapon, (b) target, (c) both weapon and target; (6) *adjust the- *(a) range, (b) angle of execution (which affects the width and height), (c) both angle of execution and range; (7) *regulate the- *(a) speed, (b) force, (c) both speed and force, (d) intent and speed; and (8)* delete- *exclude a move or moves from the sequence.

_and since doc mentioned ideas_, 
*IDEAS*- One of the philosophical views of Kenpo that considers defensive and offensive moves to be no more than concepts that vary with each and every situation. <- _adds a bit more context for me when I re-read Doc's post about the "IDEALS" being "IDEAS".

_

You are to use THIS PROCESS^^^to come up with your techniques.

The Sword and Hammer that Mr. Parker showed as AN EXAMPLE is NOT a tech that WE ALL MUST SLAVISHLY FOLLOW. That's like taking an example solution for an algebra equation...and saying that all of algebra has to look exactly like that example problem and example solution. You're supposed to learn THE PROCESS OF SOLVING ALGEBRA. You're NOT supposed to COPY THIS SAMPLE PROBLEM AND SOLUTION AND SAY THAT'S ALL ALGEBRA IS. 

If I'm trying to teach you algebra and I give you this problem and say: "Solve for 'x' ":

_x_ - 4 = 10

and you say x=14 and I say great! You did it! You're NOT supposed to think that every time you see x? X MUST equal 14.

You're supposed to grasp the thinking and solving processes that leads to the correct answer every time you're faced with a problem.

Well...too many of Mr. Parker's early BBs got it wrong from jump street. They never solved for "x". They just 'copied the answer' like the stupid jock in class does. Guess what that means? THE JOCK IS LOST WHEN IT'S EXAM TIME CUZ HE NEVER LEARNED ALGEBRA. 

You know what that means when you're tested on the street? Yep...you lose because your teacher never taught you Kenpo that works in the first place. 

But these selfsame early Parker BBs who couldn't solve Kenpo's algebra were keen businessmen, and were the most commercially successful. They raked in alot more students overall than did the general run of Parker BBs who GOT what Mr. Parker was saying. 

That's how all of us who were hoodwinked about the IP PROCESS in the first place got hoodwinked. In our lineage somewhere is a instructor who came from a school or another instructor who was influenced and/or taught by someone who never got Kenpo Algebra. And to this day...not only does that isntructor who hoodwinked us NOT know that he hoodwinked us...he himself is hoodwinked and will swear to his dying day that he's not.

But that's what happened.

Too many of Mr.Parker's BBs didn't understand what he was teaching, too many were too lazy to do the work as required from the IP...so they took movements that Mr. Parker left as AN EXAMPLE  [ back in the 1960's remember; when kungfu was virtually unheard of and kicking in fights was considered to be "dirty" ] and simply copied them. 

It gets worse still. When many of Mr. Parker's ideas were recorded in his big manual FOR TEACHERS ONLY which was called "Big Red" [ because the manuals were big and red in color ]...the BBs simply COPIED what they were shown. They didn't WORK what they were shown. They NEVER CREATED THEIR OWN IP's AS THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO. Instead they just showed their students what they'd copied. The students did it too because they wanted their next belt rank. 

Then it got EVEN WORSE. 

Remember...the whole of EPAK is also a commercial money making vehicle. Mr. Parker recruited many BBs from other styles. Our own Doc Chapel studied with Master Wong's elder brother, IIRC, and came to Mr. Parker with a background in kungfu firmly in hand. Many other BBs were recruited from outside of karate in order to form the commercial EPAK Kenpo that we are all practicing now. Doc calls it MOTION KENPO as this system is based on motion.

Well, alot of Mr. Parker's earlier BBs hit upon the idea of selling BIG RED to their students...and did so, from what I understand, directly against Mr. Parker's wishes. These guys felt that they could and should make the correct financial decisions for themselves, and either didnt care or didn't give proper consideration to the disastrous consequences that such decisions held for Kenpo as a martial system with integrity and functional viability self-defense wise. These other guys reaped benefits from the decision; made them lots of money. Confused the hell out of the students because the students didn't have the martial training or life experience by and large to grasp what Mr. Parker was trying to tell them. In exactly the same way that maaaany of us didn't grasp and still don't grasp what Bruce Lee was trying to tell us with TAO OF JEET KUNE DO.

Well, with Mr. Parker? The confusion was multipronged. First? Mister Prker's IIIK wasn't even out yet when this was happening. Second? When it did come out? Most people didn't and still don't understand Mr. Parker's 5 Volume Magnum Opus...Infinite Insights Into Kenpo. Exactly the same way most people still don't grasp Bruce Lee's TAO today. Worse? BIG RED was a teaching model not meant for students but students got their hands on it by purchasing it from money grubbin BB businessmen who were in the Parker organization.

Imagine 2 TAOS OF JEET KUNE DO...one as a philosophical and general commercial explanatory treatise. Another as an outline for building your own teaching curriculum. Both aimed at people who don't know wth you're talking about or wth they're doing. Imagine that they start arguing amongst themselves and with you. Multiply by nearly 60 years. And you have what we got today.

Again...there IS NO HARD AND FAST IDEAL TECHNIQUE THAT ALL OTHERS MUST BOW TO. You as a teacher are to craft your own IP for your students using a scenario that you select and the techs suggested for your scenario...like Sword and Hammer...then apply the 4 step  tango of The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique PROCESS to it so that you can come up with a response.

Your IP will be different than mine. But if you follow the 4 step tango? It will work.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Twin Fist said:


> if there is no fixed version of the technique why does everyone seem to know the same version of the techniques but you?
> 
> there IS a set version, but it isnt the end all version, we have been through this and you are again splitting hairs
> 
> here is how you and everyone can improve
> 
> stop trying to re-invent the wheel
> 
> just say, "thats a wheel, lemme see if i can use that wheel as a base to build a car...."
> 
> and stop saying "my **** is better" its annoying
> 
> anf grow some hair!




aaaand drum roll please...



Doc said:


> Many contributed IDEAS for the manuals, but they were not IDEALS, but ideas. IDEALS were supposed to be creating by the school heads, based on the the IDEAS provided as a starting point reference, but you could do anything within the framework of the attack. I SAY AGAIN. THERE WERE NEVER ANY IDEALS, ONLY IDEAS.
> 
> Originally Posted by *Doc*
> 
> 
> You really need to let the word "ideal" go. Try this; *THERE IS NO IDEAL TECHNIQUE. THERE IS NO UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED IDEAL TECHNIQUE.* What is there exists because people moved up the ranks and became instructors with no knowledge, skill, or experience. These people made the outline IDEA in the manuals the IDEAL because they could not create the IDEAL as Mr. Parker said they were supposed to. Each school, group, club etc was supposed to have one person who would set the IDEAL but only for their group. What you have is a bunch of people all taking the ideas in a manual and teaching it because that's all they have. So removes the word IDEAL from your vocabulary, unless you are talking about IDEALS you created that you teach for your students. That is the only ideal there is. What YOU CREATE.
> 
> You're misinformed, and I explained how the manual became the IDEAL for the majority when it was never supposed to be. It was only a guide to begin the process, but absent experience, knowledge, and skill that allowed you to think through the process the manual is all you need whether it works or not. Call it LAZY, call it whatever you want, just don't call them "universally" accepted, because its not true...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Doc*
> 
> 
> Yep! Mr. Parker gave the the "Ideal Phase" concept, but never gave the "Ideal Technique." In his own words he described what they were supposed to do in the Ideal Phase, but instead they took the Ideas in the manual, even when they didn't make sense and just taught whatever it said. Nobody cared whether they worked or not, all they wanted was to meet the requirements so they could get promoted. Then they turned around and did the same thing with their own students. Apparently, for many, thinking was optional.




_and since doc mentioned ideas_, here's the definition for that:


*IDEAS*- One of the philosophical views of Kenpo that considers defensive and offensive moves to be no more than concepts that vary with each and every situation. <- _adds a bit more context for me when I re-read Doc's post about the "IDEALS" being "IDEAS".
_


----------



## ATACX GYM

And what have I been saying since page 3 especially of this thread?




ATACX GYM said:


> Okay rather than take forever going back and forth? Let's take a direct look at this stuff from the actual definition of THE IDEAL PHASE and its other mandatory components and compare and contrast step by step:
> 
> (p.66) *IDEAL PHASE*- This is *Phase I *of the analytical process of dissecting a technique.
> It requires structuring an IDEAL technique by selecting a combat situation that you wish to analyze. Contained within the technique should be fixed moves of defense,offense, and the anticipated reactions that can stem from them. This PHASE strongly urges the need to analyze techniques from THREE POINTS OF VIEW.
> 
> (p.138) *WHAT IF PHASE*- This is PHASE II of the analytical process of dissecting a technique. this PHASE takes in additional variables. It requires being programmed to further analyze the IDEAL or fixed technique. _(me talking: not sure I agree with the term programmed.) _Expected, as well as unexpected opponent reactions are projected and evaluated. the concept here is that every movement may have critical consequences; thus, in a realistic situation, the need to predict each consequence to the best of your knowledge is imperative. Ideally, all consequential possibilities should be projected, evaluated, and learned. To do so is to increase your ability to instinctively and randomly alter the basic technique, and thus allow yourself a choice of action. _<- (sounds alot like what you've accomplished Ras.)_
> 
> (p.56*) FORMULATION PHASE*- This is PHASE III of the analytical process of dissecting a technique. This PHASE involves the actual application of your newly found alternatives to the original IDEAL or fixed technique. Knowing what can additionally happen within the framework of the fixed technique, teaches you how to apply your variable answers to a free and changing environment. This ultimate process of combat training can be learned by using the EQUATION FORMULA for fighting.
> 
> (p.48) *EQUATION FORMULA*- This is a special formula that one can follow to develop specific, practical, and logical fighting patterns. the formula allows you a more conclusive basis for negotiating your alternative actions. It reads as follows:
> To give any base, whether it is a single move or a series of movements, you can (1)*prefix it*- add a move or moves before it; (2) *suffix it*- add a move or moves after it; (3) *insert*- add a simultaneous move with, the already established sequence (this move can be used as a (a) pinning check- using pressure against an opponent's weapons to nullify their delivery, or (b) positioned check- where you place the hand or leg in a defensive position or angle to minimize entry to your vital areas; (4)* rearrange*- change the sequence of the moves, (5) *alter the- *(a) weapon, (b) target, (c) both weapon and target; (6) *adjust the- *(a) range, (b) angle of execution (which affects the width and height), (c) both angle of execution and range; (7) *regulate the- *(a) speed, (b) force, (c) both speed and force, (d) intent and speed; and (8)* delete- *exclude a move or moves from the sequence.
> 
> _and since doc mentioned ideas_,
> *IDEAS*- One of the philosophical views of Kenpo that considers defensive and offensive moves to be no more than concepts that vary with each and every situation. <- _adds a bit more context for me when I re-read Doc's post about the "IDEALS" being "IDEAS".
> 
> 
> 
> _Everything that makes the point--taken in proper context--is right there^^^^^
> 
> 
> First step? Let's have the teacher "selecting a combat situation that you wish to analyze". That attack is launched at 0:16 in this video:
> 
> [video=youtube_share;A36Bw5I3-g0]http://youtu.be/A36Bw5I3-g0[/video]
> 
> 
> Now, THIS is what most people call Theee singular sole Sword and Hammer, which effectively creates the Ideal TECHNIQUE of Sword and Hammer:
> 
> [video=youtube_share;oJbyIBmhDN0]http://youtu.be/oJbyIBmhDN0[/video]
> 
> Compare the two...and immediately the flaws in this approach are seen. These flaws are legion. First? The above tech doesn't satisfy the requirements for the actual definition for The Ideal Phase:
> 
> "p.66) *IDEAL PHASE*- This is *Phase I *of the analytical process of dissecting a technique.
> It requires structuring an IDEAL technique by selecting a combat situation that you wish to analyze. Contained within the technique should be fixed moves of defense,offense, and the anticipated reactions that can stem from them. This PHASE strongly urges the need to analyze techniques from THREE POINTS OF VIEW."
> 
> Are there fixed moves of defense and offense? Yes, but the dysfunctional "attack" followed by the equally dysfunctional "response" does not address the street reality...as shown in the link above. Does the form of Sword and Hammer address the 'anticipated reactions' that can stem from the projected and expected moves of defense and offense...in the real world? No, it doesn't. There is no addressing of the power of the grab, the body momentum follow through, and the fact that the punch would be launched nearly simultaneously with the grab and push/pull.
> 
> 
> "(p.138) *WHAT IF PHASE*- This is PHASE II of the analytical process of dissecting a technique. this PHASE takes in additional variables. It requires being programmed to further analyze the IDEAL or fixed technique. _(me talking: not sure I agree with the term programmed.) _Expected, as well as unexpected opponent reactions are projected and evaluated. the concept here is that every movement may have critical consequences; thus, in a realistic situation, the need to predict each consequence to the best of your knowledge is imperative. Ideally, all consequential possibilities should be projected, evaluated, and learned. To do so is to increase your ability to instinctively and randomly alter the basic technique, and thus allow yourself a choice of action. _<- (sounds alot like what you've accomplished Ras.)"_
> 
> Are the expected and unexpected reactions of the opponent a part of the Sword and Hammer as displayed by the other videos? What if the opponent throws a punch? What if the push knocked you off balance? What if he tackles you? What if he doesn't push you...he just cracks you from the side or behind you or whatever [ which is what happens most of the time ]? NO.
> 
> 
> (p.56*) FORMULATION PHASE*- This is PHASE III of the analytical process of dissecting a technique. This PHASE involves the actual application of your newly found alternatives to the original IDEAL or fixed technique. Knowing what can additionally happen within the framework of the fixed technique, teaches you how to apply your variable answers to a free and changing environment. This ultimate process of combat training can be learned by using the EQUATION FORMULA for fighting.
> 
> Is there any aspect of this approach in the tech? Even partially? NO.
> 
> 
> (p.48) *EQUATION FORMULA*- This is a special formula that one can follow to develop specific, practical, and logical fighting patterns. the formula allows you a more conclusive basis for negotiating your alternative actions. It reads as follows:
> To give any base, whether it is a single move or a series of movements, you can (1)*prefix it*- add a move or moves before it; (2) *suffix it*- add a move or moves after it; (3) *insert*- add a simultaneous move with, the already established sequence (this move can be used as a (a) pinning check- using pressure against an opponent's weapons to nullify their delivery, or (b) positioned check- where you place the hand or leg in a defensive position or angle to minimize entry to your vital areas; (4)* rearrange*- change the sequence of the moves, (5) *alter the- *(a) weapon, (b) target, (c) both weapon and target; (6) *adjust the- *(a) range, (b) angle of execution (which affects the width and height), (c) both angle of execution and range; (7) *regulate the- *(a) speed, (b) force, (c) both speed and force, (d) intent and speed; and (8)* delete- *exclude a move or moves from the sequence.
> 
> 
> There is no hint of The Equation Formula in the above Sword and Hammer expression. In short...since it lacks the primary components of The Ideal Phase Analytical Process...THE TECHNIQUE THAT ALL OF YOU LAUDED IS NOT THEE IDEAL TECHNIQUE. It CAN be an "idea"...but it CANNOT be and there has NEVER BEEN a IDEAL TECHNIQUE.
> 
> 
> 
> In short? If you trained THIS method.--->
> 
> [video=youtube_share;oJbyIBmhDN0]http://youtu.be/oJbyIBmhDN0[/video]
> 
> you'd get your head taken off. You'd fail to thwart the attack. Thwarting the attack is THE FIRST requirement for any self defense technique. You can thwart the attack by fleeing, but in this case? Thwarting the attack requires a functional deployment of The Sword and Hammer. Now...
> 
> This is MY Sword and Hammer:
> 
> 
> Atacx Gym Sword and Hammer 1
> 
> [video=youtube_share;eo4yj0MZyeI]http://youtu.be/eo4yj0MZyeI[/video]
> 
> Atacx Gym Sword and Hammer 1A
> 
> [video=youtube_share;AuvuhW1u2WE]http://youtu.be/AuvuhW1u2WE[/video]
> 
> Atacx Gym Sword and Hammer 2
> 
> [video=youtube_share;R-mmdyIHkjs]http://youtu.be/R-mmdyIHkjs[/video]
> 
> "p.66) *IDEAL PHASE*- This is *Phase I *of the analytical process of dissecting a technique.
> It requires structuring an IDEAL technique by selecting a combat situation that you wish to analyze. Contained within the technique should be fixed moves of defense,offense, and the anticipated reactions that can stem from them. This PHASE strongly urges the need to analyze techniques from THREE POINTS OF VIEW."
> 
> The combat scenario is the same as previously.
> 
> Now, look at my variants. Does the Atacx Gym IP contained within the technique "fixed moves of defense,offense, and the anticipated reactions that can stem from them" ? Absolutely. The first thing I address is that the grab [ that's usually the BG grabbing us ] is aggressive and transfers its energy and bodily followthrough to the defending target [that's usually us ]. This is wholly ignored by the dysfunctional other variant. Another basic real world requirement is that the punch happens at the same time or nearly the same time of the push/pull. They're grabbing you for a reason...and that reason is to do something to you that you don't want. Usually punch your block off. But you can get cracked with a bottle, stabbed, pushed over, tackled, simply pulled away...all manner of things. But in EVERY case? Energy is transmitted from the grab to the person grabbed. I address the grab AND the followup attack...
> 
> ...and I do so in a way that allows me the option of correctly assessing the grabber's intent. It's not always necessary to Kenpo some jerk into oblivion. If you snappily disengage his grab? That alone could de-escalate the situation. The person grabbing you could be a friend or a stranger who grabbed you and surprised you. The point is? You have to be sure that whoever grabbed you DESERVES to be hit with the Sword and Hammer. That assessment time is built into my tech. It's wholly absent in the dysfunctional other variants.
> 
> "(p.138) *WHAT IF PHASE*- This is PHASE II of the analytical process of dissecting a technique. this PHASE takes in additional variables. It requires being programmed to further analyze the IDEAL or fixed technique. _(me talking: not sure I agree with the term programmed.) _Expected, as well as unexpected opponent reactions are projected and evaluated. the concept here is that every movement may have critical consequences; thus, in a realistic situation, the need to predict each consequence to the best of your knowledge is imperative. Ideally, all consequential possibilities should be projected, evaluated, and learned. To do so is to increase your ability to instinctively and randomly alter the basic technique, and thus allow yourself a choice of action. _<- (sounds alot like what you've accomplished Ras.)"_
> 
> 
> I'm all over this Phase. What if he grabbed you from a different position? What if he just PUNCHED you and DIDN'T grab and pull you. What if he grabbed you from a different hand and different lead leg or from a different position? What if he PUSHED you and PUNCHED you instead of PULLED and punched you? The other technique which too many champion don't even remotely engage this area.
> 
> 
> "(p.56*) FORMULATION PHASE*- This is PHASE III of the analytical process of dissecting a technique. This PHASE involves the actual application of your newly found alternatives to the original IDEAL or fixed technique. Knowing what can additionally happen within the framework of the fixed technique, teaches you how to apply your variable answers to a free and changing environment. This ultimate process of combat training can be learned by using the EQUATION FORMULA for fighting."
> 
> My expression is the only one that actually shows in its base technique the actual application of newly found alternatives to the original IDEAL or fixed technique. Allll of the other ones merely mimic the static nonsense of this first dysfunctional tech.
> 
> 
> "p.48) *EQUATION FORMULA*- This is a special formula that one can follow to develop specific, practical, and logical fighting patterns. the formula allows you a more conclusive basis for negotiating your alternative actions. It reads as follows:
> To give any base, whether it is a single move or a series of movements, you can (1)*prefix it*- add a move or moves before it; (2) *suffix it*- add a move or moves after it; (3) *insert*- add a simultaneous move with, the already established sequence (this move can be used as a (a) pinning check- using pressure against an opponent's weapons to nullify their delivery, or (b) positioned check- where you place the hand or leg in a defensive position or angle to minimize entry to your vital areas; (4)* rearrange*- change the sequence of the moves, (5) *alter the- *(a) weapon, (b) target, (c) both weapon and target; (6) *adjust the- *(a) range, (b) angle of execution (which affects the width and height), (c) both angle of execution and range; (7) *regulate the- *(a) speed, (b) force, (c) both speed and force, (d) intent and speed; and (8)* delete- *exclude a move or moves from the sequence."
> 
> The culmination of the Ideal Phase Analytical Process is the above. As all of you noted, my expression looks radically different than the tech that you're used to seeing. Yeeep. Cuz mine WORKS and I'm actually doing The Ideal Phase analytical process in its entirety.  Precisely as defined step by step...and not misapplied or misunderstood.
> 
> You guys are used to accepting a dysfunctional tech, and you're used to crediting what is essentially a bankrupt idea...i.e. the Ideal TECHNIQUE. There is no one way to do the Sword and Hammer Ideal Phase tech, but all the Ideal Phase methods require the defense to be subjected to the whole Ideal Phase Analytical Process to EVEN QUALIFY for consideration as an Ideal Phase Analytical technique. What you guys keep calling thee IP is NOT qualified for such distinction.
> 
> Most essential of all? The IP tech--whichever IP you choose, however you physically articulate that tech--MUST WORK AGAINST THE FULL POWER, FULL SPEED TECH IT'S SUPPOSED TO DEFEAT. This means that whatever IP you choose? Said defense must actually be repeatedly tested against resistance...or else you can't take a common street attack, enact that attack live or with any sort of honest and truthful energy in class, and then select techs that will reliably thwart it. Which is the basic premise of any and all self-defense. You know...reliably defending your self against attacks.
> 
> 
> Now, I'm not the only one that has multiple options drawn from the natural and expected counters to counters that the BG is likely to pull off. The Tracy's had it built into their system since prior to my birth. It's my understanding that Mr.Parker loooong had them built into his personal system. Boxers, MMA, JKDU, SBG and maaaany other guys and gals have it. In Capoeira, Mestre Bimba's secuencias fill this function rather well. Etc etc.
> 
> Please reflect upon the above.
> 
> AMANI..."peace"....
> 
> --
> 
> "IT'S NOT JUST WHAT YOU KNOW,IT'S HOW AND WHY YOU TRAIN"
> 
> "THE FIGHT YOU ALWAYS WIN IS THE FIGHT YOU'RE NOT IN"
> 
> "YOU MUST LEARN TO HEAL IF YOU'VE LEARNED TO DESTROY"
> 
> "AVOID TROUBLE,BUT IF TROUBLE IS UNAVOIDABLE? PUT TROUBLE IN TROUBLE"






Are we all on the same page now? Can we move on now? Chris Parker asked an excellent question about "lessons" in Sword and Hammer that I'd like to address but we gotta get this straight and have all of us on the same page so we can properly have that discussion and kick around the lessons that we've all learned. Maybe we can help each other grasp things better as a whole in a way that we by ourselves or with a smaller  group of friends could NOT do.


----------



## MJS

"Many contributed IDEAS for the manuals, but they were not IDEALS, but ideas. IDEALS were supposed to be creating by the school heads, based on the the IDEAS provided as a starting point reference, but you could do anything within the framework of the attack. I SAY AGAIN. THERE WERE NEVER ANY IDEALS, ONLY IDEAS."

Taken from the link you posted Ras.  Thats all I need...lol.  Just to clarify, *I* never said the ideal phase techs were ideal techs.  If I did, please show me where, in this heap of a thread that I said that.  My point, and I believe TF was making this point as well, is.....every Kenpo school around that I know of, teaches S&H.  Its obviously the ideal phase base model that everyone uses.  If it wasn't meant to be taught, then there're a slew of schools doing it all wrong I guess...lol.  But I dont think thats the case.  

What it seems like, is you're saying (and again this is a guess) is that all ideal phase techs suck.  They wont work.  But what I'm (you) doing, does.  I believe this is the issue with what Chris and TF are saying.  

As for what lessons it teaches...its now addressing an attack from a direction other than directly in front of you, like delayed sword, how to pin/attack at the same time, teaches marriage with gravity.


----------



## jks9199

ATACX GYM said:


> Are we all on the same page now? Can we move on now? Chris Parker asked an excellent question about "lessons" in Sword and Hammer that I'd like to address but we gotta get this straight and have all of us on the same page so we can properly have that discussion and kick around the lessons that we've all learned. Maybe we can help each other grasp things better as a whole in a way that we by ourselves or with a smaller  group of friends could NOT do.


No, we're not.  Because you are answering a different combative question than the standardized Sword & Hammer does.

You want to talk about a grab/push/strike from the rear flank?  Sure, we can do that.  But not if you're going to try to say it's the same as a grab/pull.  Because the solutions to the two problems are going to be inherently different.  It's like if I took out shopping for a luxury car, and went to a Mack dump truck shop.  Both are valid forms of transport, fit for their duties -- but not variants of the same thing, either.  And they won't solve the same problems.


----------



## Twin Fist

i am pretty sure i said this too, the by the book sword and hammer will not work if you change the attack to a push and punch

no one is debating that

for the attack it was designed for, it works just fine. the IP's dont suck (well, some of them do, but overall they work just fine, even if they are limited to one attack)

you dont do five swords for a half nelson and you dont do wings of silk for a punch.

Now, in kajukembo, every branch does the punch counters, grab arts, knife counters, etc slightly differently, and its ok because it is all kajukembo, and thats what matters.

what you are doing IS kenpo. 

it isnt the same as EPAK, and thats ok.

But when you do EPAP stuff, and EPAK blackbelts tell you you are doing it wrong, you ought to listen to them, be respectfull and say "what i am doing isnt the same as yours, this is my version of it"

unless EPAK is one of the 14 styles you claim dan ranks in.You dont tell the experts they are wrong when you are not qualified to in thier system......  

and i swear, if you copy and past that same crap again i will hunt you down and kick your puppy!!

seriously, we have all read it one of the 14 other times you posted it......


----------



## Flying Crane

ATACX GYM said:


> aaaand drum roll please...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Doc*
> 
> 
> You really need to let the word "ideal" go. Try this; *THERE IS NO IDEAL TECHNIQUE. THERE IS NO UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED IDEAL TECHNIQUE.* What is there exists because people moved up the ranks and became instructors with no knowledge, skill, or experience. These people made the outline IDEA in the manuals the IDEAL because they could not create the IDEAL as Mr. Parker said they were supposed to. Each school, group, club etc was supposed to have one person who would set the IDEAL but only for their group. What you have is a bunch of people all taking the ideas in a manual and teaching it because that's all they have. So removes the word IDEAL from your vocabulary, unless you are talking about IDEALS you created that you teach for your students. That is the only ideal there is. What YOU CREATE.
> 
> Originally Posted by *Doc*
> 
> 
> Yep! Mr. Parker gave the the "Ideal Phase" concept, but never gave the "Ideal Technique." In his own words he described what they were supposed to do in the Ideal Phase, but instead they took the Ideas in the manual, even when they didn't make sense and just taught whatever it said. Nobody cared whether they worked or not, all they wanted was to meet the requirements so they could get promoted. Then they turned around and did the same thing with their own students. Apparently, for many, thinking was optional.



I'm don't honestly have any dog in this race, but something I've noticed on a number of occasions, and the underlined portions bring it up again...

If what Doc has posted here is historically accurate as to what happened under Mr. Parker's watch, and Mr. Parker allowed it to happen in the name of business, I find that kind of disturbing.  Honestly, it strikes me as something of an endictment of Mr. Parker and what he was selling and how he was selling it.  Am I the only one who sees that?


----------



## MJS

Flying Crane said:


> I'm don't honestly have any dog in this race, but something I've noticed on a number of occasions, and the underlined portions bring it up again...
> 
> If what Doc has posted here is historically accurate as to what happened under Mr. Parker's watch, and Mr. Parker allowed it to happen in the name of business, I find that kind of disturbing.  Honestly, it strikes me as something of an endictment of Mr. Parker and what he was selling and how he was selling it.  Am I the only one who sees that?



Well Mike, IMHO, I think you hit the nail right on the damn head!  I've asked similar questions, things like did he teach different things to different people and why, why no quality control, etc, and never really got a straight answer.  But yeah, I think its disturbing too.  I mean, if someone isn't doing something right, why're they being promoted?  Why aren't they being corrected?  Maybe this'd make a good topic for another thread..lol. Quality control in Kenpo.  Wait...there is none...LOL.

Actually, I'm sure there're some schools out there, that actually take pride in what they do.


----------



## Twin Fist

i refuse to believe that GDM Parker went through the trouble of creating the manuals if they didnt mean anything...

he put it on paper in a certain way, a certain response to a certain attack for a reason

for that matter, if there is no "right" way of doing ANY technique WHY CREATE 172 OF THE DAMNED THINGS?!?!?!?!?!


----------



## Flying Crane

MJS said:


> Well Mike, IMHO, I think you hit the nail right on the damn head! I've asked similar questions, things like did he teach different things to different people and why, why no quality control, etc, and never really got a straight answer. But yeah, I think its disturbing too. I mean, if someone isn't doing something right, why're they being promoted? Why aren't they being corrected? Maybe this'd make a good topic for another thread..lol. Quality control in Kenpo. Wait...there is none...LOL.
> 
> Actually, I'm sure there're some schools out there, that actually take pride in what they do.



I am sure there are schools that take pride in what they do.  I'd say that (hopefully) all of them do and I'll take on faith that they do.  But did Mr. Parker set them all up for failure, and none of them realize it?  Do people believe that there is a depth of knowledge there that simply doesn't exist?  From some things that Doc has posted in the past, that stuff that I underlined above as well as other stuff, that is my impression.

The schools or individuals who are really good in kenpo, are they good because of natural talent, or because of solid martial knowledge and skill?  If there is martial knowledge, did that come from sources outside kenpo?  Doc has posted about how the early guys mostly came from backgrounds in other systems first, so after a certain historical date Mr. Parker never taught basics anymore (actually didn't really run a school of his own but rather just taught seminars at the franchise schools), I guess he assumed that those people would just rely on the basics that they had already learned outside of kenpo. But that's why there is no consistency with things like basics in kenpo.

These seem like legitimate questions, tho I don't know how to answers.  It's more a question for people to reflect on and answer for themselves, I guess.


----------



## ATACX GYM

MJS said:


> "Many contributed IDEAS for the manuals, but they were not IDEALS, but ideas. IDEALS were supposed to be creating by the school heads, based on the the IDEAS provided as a starting point reference, but you could do anything within the framework of the attack. I SAY AGAIN. THERE WERE NEVER ANY IDEALS, ONLY IDEAS."
> 
> Taken from the link you posted Ras.  Thats all I need...lol.  Just to clarify, *I* never said the ideal phase techs were ideal techs.  If I did, please show me where, in this heap of a thread that I said that.  My point, and I believe TF was making this point as well, is.....every Kenpo school around that I know of, teaches S&H.  Its obviously the ideal phase base model that everyone uses.  If it wasn't meant to be taught, then there're a slew of schools doing it all wrong I guess...lol.  But I dont think thats the case.
> 
> What it seems like, is you're saying (and again this is a guess) is that all ideal phase techs suck.  They wont work.  But what I'm (you) doing, does.  I believe this is the issue with what Chris and TF are saying.
> 
> As for what lessons it teaches...its now addressing an attack from a direction other than directly in front of you, like delayed sword, how to pin/attack at the same time, teaches marriage with gravity.




Truth is that before I knew about the history of the Ideal Phase Analytical Technique PROCESS, I knew that the stuff masking as THEE SINGLE SOLE IP is simply dysfunctional...but I separated that from what I knew of Mr. Parker's writings. Years ago I stated that I read Infinite Insights Into Kenpo and what I read squarely contradicted what was being taught as The Ideal Phase today. Observe:

[video][video=youtube_share;6CQKW5QTJJU]http://youtu.be/6CQKW5QTJJU[/video][/video]


So I never hated The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique PROCESS. I always hated what was called The IP now. I knew it wasn't right. Then Doc educated me further a few months ago and I shared that info with all of you here. 


I think Doc was historically right. In his statement we see the sensible resolution of 2 complete opposites: Mister Parker was alleged to be a fearsome fighter with knowledge in multiple disciplines, who was in a state of constant evolution. From the Mitose-Chow influence to the Chinese Arts-infused with American practicality hybrid. Many students and black belts of his who rolled with him in one area of his phases left when he evolved into something else. Those who favored the more K.S. Chow and Japanese flavor of his art left when he began flowing toward the Chinese Arts. Etc. etc.

So if what Doc says is true? We can see at once how Mister Parker had to baby feed an American public techs that they were for the most part wholly unfamiliar with [ remember most people never heard of Karate in the early 1960s ] and he had to draw large numbers of people into his commercial vehicle so he can make a living. So he couldn't show them grappling and stuff that we see commonly in MMA. [ Remember, MMA took 14 years to catch on and that's in today's post-Bruce, post-Mr.Parker Era, current Jackie Chan, Jet Li, and Tony Jaa Era...so imagine how hard it was back then. Sans internet, too, btw ]. 

We can also see why he taught The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique PROCESS too. He needed to get people to think independently but he had to reach them where they are. They didn't know wth he was talking about and wth to do without him.

So what happened was people simply copied what Mr. Parker showed as AN EXAMPLE because they didn't understand what he was saying and doing. From years ago, I came to the conclusion that Mr. Parker was telling us to do stuff functionally and most Kenpoists weren't doing it. I was right...even before Doc furnished me with all the specifics proving that I was correct and edified me further on stuff that I had no idea about.



So. Doc told us truthfully that most Kenpo schools got the whole definition and process of The IP wrong. We can read that reality written in Mr. Parker's own hand...long before the trouble started. What you do with that info is up to you. 

Now on to the Sword and Hammer thing...first and foremost?  I didn't do it wrong. I followed the process as specifically written by Mr. Parker. Every step of the way. My Sword and Hammer is A idea that is MY GYM'S Ideal Technique. If you want to keep the more popular version [ even though it doesn't fit all of the steps of The Ideal Phase Analtyical Technique PROCESS, and thus isn't strictly qualified to be called a IP Tech] ? Go right on ahead. But keeping the version you prefer doesn't mean that I'm wrong to do the version that I prefer...MY Sword and Hammer...because I'm not doing YOUR Sword and Hammer.

I am, without a doubt, following The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique PROCESS faithfully though. And it's that PROCESS which validates the expression that I choose.  When my technique works exactly as shown? It's that reality that validates that I followed the PROCESS yielding the technique properly. Think of The Ideal Phase as Kenpo's Scientific Method [ Observation, Hypothesice, Experimentation, Conclusion ]. The results are far more reliable and exacting etc etc if you follow The Scientific Method, but The Scientific Method is NOT the results and the results are NOT The Scientific Method.

The most popular expression of each and every tech in Kenpo did not follow Kenpo's Scientific Method...The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique PROCESS...but it claims that it did.


----------



## ATACX GYM

ATACX GYM said:


> Truth is that before I knew about the history of the Ideal Phase Analytical Technique PROCESS, I knew that the stuff masking as THEE SINGLE SOLE IP is simply dysfunctional...but I separated that from what I knew of Mr. Parker's writings. Years ago I stated that I read Infinite Insights Into Kenpo and what I read squarely contradicted what was being taught as The Ideal Phase today. Observe:
> 
> [video=youtube_share;6CQKW5QTJJU]http://youtu.be/6CQKW5QTJJU[/video]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I never hated The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique PROCESS. I always hated what was called The IP now. I knew it wasn't right. Then Doc educated me further a few months ago and I shared that info with all of you here.
> 
> 
> I think Doc was historically right. In his statement we see the sensible resolution of 2 complete opposites: Mister Parker was alleged to be a fearsome fighter with knowledge in multiple disciplines, who was in a state of constant evolution. From the Mitose-Chow influence to the Chinese Arts-infused with American practicality hybrid. Many students and black belts of his who rolled with him in one area of his phases left when he evolved into something else. Those who favored the more K.S. Chow and Japanese flavor of his art left when he began flowing toward the Chinese Arts. Etc. etc.
> 
> So if what Doc says is true? We can see at once how Mister Parker had to baby feed an American public techs that they were for the most part wholly unfamiliar with [ remember most people never heard of Karate in the early 1960s ] and he had to draw large numbers of people into his commercial vehicle so he can make a living. So he couldn't show them grappling and stuff that we see commonly in MMA. [ Remember, MMA took 14 years to catch on and that's in today's post-Bruce, post-Mr.Parker Era, current Jackie Chan, Jet Li, and Tony Jaa Era...so imagine how hard it was back then. Sans internet, too, btw ].
> 
> We can also see why he taught The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique PROCESS too. He needed to get people to think independently but he had to reach them where they are. They didn't know wth he was talking about and wth to do without him.
> 
> So what happened was people simply copied what Mr. Parker showed as AN EXAMPLE because they didn't understand what he was saying and doing. From years ago, I came to the conclusion that Mr. Parker was telling us to do stuff functionally and most Kenpoists weren't doing it. I was right...even before Doc furnished me with all the specifics proving that I was correct and edified me further on stuff that I had no idea about.
> 
> 
> 
> So. Doc told us truthfully that most Kenpo schools got the whole definition and process of The IP wrong. We can read that reality written in Mr. Parker's own hand...long before the trouble started. What you do with that info is up to you.
> 
> .



K now I'm going on to Sword and Hammer on the next post...


----------



## ATACX GYM

jks9199 said:


> No, we're not.  Because you are answering a different combative question than the standardized Sword & Hammer does.
> 
> You want to talk about a grab/push/strike from the rear flank?  Sure, we can do that.  But not if you're going to try to say it's the same as a grab/pull.  Because the solutions to the two problems are going to be inherently different.  It's like if I took out shopping for a luxury car, and went to a Mack dump truck shop.  Both are valid forms of transport, fit for their duties -- but not variants of the same thing, either.  And they won't solve the same problems.




aaaand drum roll please...







Originally Posted by *Doc* 


You really need to let the word "ideal" go. Try this; *THERE IS NO IDEAL TECHNIQUE. THERE IS NO UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED IDEAL TECHNIQUE.* What is there exists because people moved up the ranks and became instructors with no knowledge, skill, or experience. These people made the outline IDEA in the manuals the IDEAL because they could not create the IDEAL as Mr. Parker said they were supposed to. Each school, group, club etc was supposed to have one person who would set the IDEAL but only for their group. What you have is a bunch of people all taking the ideas in a manual and teaching it because that's all they have. So removes the word IDEAL from your vocabulary, unless you are talking about IDEALS you created that you teach for your students. That is the only ideal there is. What YOU CREATE.

Originally Posted by *Doc* 


Yep! Mr. Parker gave the the "Ideal Phase" concept, but never gave the "Ideal Technique." In his own words he described what they were supposed to do in the Ideal Phase, but instead they took the Ideas in the manual, even when they didn't make sense and just taught whatever it said. Nobody cared whether they worked or not, all they wanted was to meet the requirements so they could get promoted. Then they turned around and did the same thing with their own students. Apparently, for many, thinking was optional.




Okay. Now that we've made it clear that THERE IS NO IDEAL TECHNIQUE. THERE IS NO UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED IDEAL TECHNIQUE...and my Sword and Hammer IS A...not THEE but is A...Ideal Phase Tech...we can move on.

[  Uhhh...I teach my students how to defeat this kind of attack BEFORE they're a WHITE BELT. Observe:

A. Bad guy grabs your right shoulder. No pushes or pulls. Cocks back fist.

B. Pre-White Belt Level A...the newest of all new newbs...smartly executes a right upward block under the shoulder grabbing left hand of BG. This block is timed with the punch. You lift or disengage the grab and block the punch at the same time.

C. Counterattack with reverse punch.

How easy is that?  ]

t's examine the REAL differences between the Sword and Hammer you're referring to and the Kenpo Idea [ which is merely a suggestion that I'm making to you guys ] which is also The ATACX GYM Ideal Sword and Hammer [ at this time; as we keep training? We refine improve and change. Did that with Blinding Sacrifice today, in fact ]...

...your Ideal is based upon somebody essentially putting his hand on your right shoulder, cocking his fist back, and...before he can fire a punch, push or do anything...you guys handsword his throat and hammerfist his nads. You train this tech with the idea that EVERY TIME somebody lays his hand on your shoulder, you'll be able to preemptively strike and finish him with your tech.

A couple Kenpo Elders whom I've been known to agree and disagree with, and I, all think that such an idea as perpetual preemptive striking is essentially nonsense on its face. And said nonsense will prevent you from reliably morally and legally performing. I said RELIABLY. Most people punch and punch fast and hard when they've cocked their fist back after they've grabbed your shoulder. Morally is subjective but LEGALLY is less so. Imagine a cop seeing you pull this tech off on some unarmed yahoo about your size. Guess what his reaction might be?

Observe Mr. Larry Tatum and Doc edify us all on this thread:

http://www.kenpotalk.com/forum/show...-we-step-into-Triggered-Salute-by-Larry-Tatum

right there are about half of my reasons that I have a major problem with the expression of this tech and any expression remarkably akin to it.

The other half of the problem that I have are as follows:

1. I think that you should build into the tech itself the mandate to assess the situation. What if the person touching your shoulder doesn't deserve to be Kenpo'd into oblivion? He or she could be like:"Hey! Don't walk away from me!" What if he's just THREATENING you in an attempt to INTIMIDATE but not really trying to hurt you? That's much more along the lines of what uke is doing in the "classic" scenario looks like. He's no threat really. Blasting the throat and smashing the nads of some jerk putting his hand on your shoulder like it's a dead starfish and essentially posing like Al Bundy doing his Quarterback About To Pass Pose









is indefensible for the most part, imho.


2. You'll likely go to jail for damaging his larynx or some part of his throat and bruising his nads unless he's way bigger than you, armed, etc.

3. You're screwed if you're a Yellow Belt at "most" Kenpo schools who teach this tech ONLY this way...and the BG attacks you anywhere else but your right flank, or does anything other than barely touch you and pose with his fist. If he punches? You're toast. If he pushes or jerks holds pushes or punches as he punches or just before he does? You're grilled cheese sammich. If he attacks you from the LEFT shoulder or from the rear? You're PF Chang'd.


So I have come up with a way that...step by step...logically and progressively teaches you how to use The Sword and Hammer no matter what your opponent does. That's the IP premise and conclusion that I use. Do tech 'x' no matter WHAT the BG does. Guess what? That includes the "best case" scenario that is part and parcel, heart and soul to "most" Kenpo schools' IP....but they don't include mine.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Here's one way that I've used my 15 Round, 8 Hour Guarantee to teach a newb how to use this tech in a fight with only 8 hours or less of training with me





ATACX GYM said:


> Just got a text about this thread...with a question in it. So lemme be extra simple:
> 
> 
> Take the Sword and Hammer original scenario attack and tech. have uke really grab you and punch at you...first let's just call it a cross to the face. Work that joint first with no resistance for about 3-6 minz. No more than 2 boxing rounds. Your newb student gets what's expected by now.
> 
> Next. Show newb the techs you expect of him/her/them...Sword and Hammer. They'll be like...oh yeah we already know this joint from White Belt and all the times you made us do our techs to the cardinal directions which include...you guessed it...the flanks. So we already know how to throw a Sword and Hammer from the flanks.
> 
> You...wise Coach you...say but yeah now we're gonna change the scenario...the context...in which you gotta execute the tech. Work on your skills and mindset some more.
> 
> Newb yellow belt says COOL.
> 
> You make uke grab newb by the shoulder and swing a cross at newb's noggin. 10% power and speed. Not enough to hurt but you will get bopped if you miss the block. The key here? Uke can grab Newb Yellow Belt when he wants to. Newb yellow belt picks up fast because even though it's kinda FUNNY when you're bopped the first few times, the experience of gettin bopped really encourages you to apply the Sword and Hammer right.
> 
> First real world snag...you're gettin HIT while you're pinning and stepping...before you get the chop off. This is when uke ISN'T turning or pushing you. Or you're CLASHING with uke's punch when you Pin Step Chop. You're cancelling each other out.
> 
> Now what do you do?
> 
> Don't worry. You're a smart Coach and you tell newb Yellow what to do. Newb Yellow is like YAAAY and you make Newb Yellow do this tech first at slow speeds to be sure that it's grasped and then increase the speed and intensity of both the attack and the defense.
> 
> You should be at threshold speed and power for your class--the max or near max amount that you'll allow your students to safely practice at--within 6 rounds. 18 minutes plus a minute break between each round. That's 24 minutes. Newb Yellow is pretty pleased.
> 
> Then you tell uke sotto voce to start jackin with Newb Yellow's balance while uke is punching.
> 
> Alluva suddent Newb Yellow is getting pushed and pulled into the punches coming at him. Whereas before Newb Yellow was clashing with or beating uke's non-pulling, stationery attack? Now Newb Yellow is gettin bopped pretty regularly. 2 rounds of boppage occurs. In between rounds you hear Newb Yellow's issues and you tell Newb Yellow to get it together. You say:
> 
> "Never fear. I'm a smart Coach." Enter the cover and and turn option as shown in my video.
> 
> Newb spends 2 rounds learning the cover and turn option. Newb is starting to get it and kick a little anus now. We're at Round 10.
> 
> Call for 5 minute break. Coach Newb Yellow some more.
> 
> Resume training. Rounds 11-14 Newb Yellow is steadily kickin more anus. Yaay Newb.
> 
> You spend the 15th and final round fine tuning Newb Yellow's techs. End of class.
> 
> 
> Next day you review the static grab for 3 rounds. Move directly into the grab+pull and or push for 9 more rounds. Newb Yellow is gettin it now and fast because there's concentrated focus on this approach and lotsa quality muscle reps.
> 
> By round 13? Newb Yellow is kickin uke's anal region with the cover and turn. And Newb Yellow and uke know it.
> 
> For round 14 and 15? you slowly walk Newb Yellow through a new situation....BG has grabbed Newb Yellow from THE BACK now. Walk Newb yellow through the cover and turn Sword and Hammer sans force through this tech.
> 
> Repeat again. With each different scenario. Including tackles, kicks, and weapons. There will be significant carryover because the muscle memory and programming is there...you're just making mental adjustments and slight tactical alterations.
> 
> In 8 hours, Newb Yellow will have developed baseline efficacy in using Sword and Hammer vs each of the primary attacks, will have enjoyed significant physical improvement along with the concomitant mental growth and confidence.
> 
> Now. How hard is that to grasp?
> 
> 
> And how is that NOT Sword and Hammer?


----------



## MJS

ATACX GYM said:


> Truth is that before I knew about the history of the Ideal Phase Analytical Technique PROCESS, I knew that the stuff masking as THEE SINGLE SOLE IP is simply dysfunctional...but I separated that from what I knew of Mr. Parker's writings. Years ago I stated that I read Infinite Insights Into Kenpo and what I read squarely contradicted what was being taught as The Ideal Phase today. Observe:
> 
> [video][video=youtube_share;6CQKW5QTJJU]http://youtu.be/6CQKW5QTJJU[/video][/video]
> 
> 
> So I never hated The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique PROCESS. I always hated what was called The IP now. I knew it wasn't right. Then Doc educated me further a few months ago and I shared that info with all of you here.
> 
> 
> I think Doc was historically right. In his statement we see the sensible resolution of 2 complete opposites: Mister Parker was alleged to be a fearsome fighter with knowledge in multiple disciplines, who was in a state of constant evolution. From the Mitose-Chow influence to the Chinese Arts-infused with American practicality hybrid. Many students and black belts of his who rolled with him in one area of his phases left when he evolved into something else. Those who favored the more K.S. Chow and Japanese flavor of his art left when he began flowing toward the Chinese Arts. Etc. etc.
> 
> So if what Doc says is true? We can see at once how Mister Parker had to baby feed an American public techs that they were for the most part wholly unfamiliar with [ remember most people never heard of Karate in the early 1960s ] and he had to draw large numbers of people into his commercial vehicle so he can make a living. So he couldn't show them grappling and stuff that we see commonly in MMA. [ Remember, MMA took 14 years to catch on and that's in today's post-Bruce, post-Mr.Parker Era, current Jackie Chan, Jet Li, and Tony Jaa Era...so imagine how hard it was back then. Sans internet, too, btw ].
> 
> We can also see why he taught The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique PROCESS too. He needed to get people to think independently but he had to reach them where they are. They didn't know wth he was talking about and wth to do without him.
> 
> So what happened was people simply copied what Mr. Parker showed as AN EXAMPLE because they didn't understand what he was saying and doing. From years ago, I came to the conclusion that Mr. Parker was telling us to do stuff functionally and most Kenpoists weren't doing it. I was right...even before Doc furnished me with all the specifics proving that I was correct and edified me further on stuff that I had no idea about.
> 
> 
> 
> So. Doc told us truthfully that most Kenpo schools got the whole definition and process of The IP wrong. We can read that reality written in Mr. Parker's own hand...long before the trouble started. What you do with that info is up to you.
> 
> Now on to the Sword and Hammer thing...first and foremost?  I didn't do it wrong. I followed the process as specifically written by Mr. Parker. Every step of the way. My Sword and Hammer is A idea that is MY GYM'S Ideal Technique. If you want to keep the more popular version [ even though it doesn't fit all of the steps of The Ideal Phase Analtyical Technique PROCESS, and thus isn't strictly qualified to be called a IP Tech] ? Go right on ahead. But keeping the version you prefer doesn't mean that I'm wrong to do the version that I prefer...MY Sword and Hammer...because I'm not doing YOUR Sword and Hammer.
> 
> I am, without a doubt, following The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique PROCESS faithfully though. And it's that PROCESS which validates the expression that I choose.  When my technique works exactly as shown? It's that reality that validates that I followed the PROCESS yielding the technique properly. Think of The Ideal Phase as Kenpo's Scientific Method [ Observation, Hypothesice, Experimentation, Conclusion ]. The results are far more reliable and exacting etc etc if you follow The Scientific Method, but The Scientific Method is NOT the results and the results are NOT The Scientific Method.
> 
> The most popular expression of each and every tech in Kenpo did not follow Kenpo's Scientific Method...The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique PROCESS...but it claims that it did.



Well, as usual, thats the problem with the arts today....too many *******s who're more concerned with the number of techs that they feel they need to know, a lack of quality and too much of of a concern with how much fancy rank they have.  Totally devalues the art, IMO.  So, by having his mess, you end up with clones....1 ****** teacher just breeds a ****** student, who in turns breeds his own ****** student, thus a ton of ****...LOL.  

As for your version of S&H and the other versions....to parrot what Chris or TF or someone said....I think it comes down to what you're doing, is not the same as the S&H found in a Tatum school.  Just like Kaju....you have the original method, the Gaylord method, Ramos, etc.  Its all Kaju, but no doubt the Original method punch techs will differ from the Gaylord method.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Twin Fist said:


> i refuse to believe that GDM Parker went through the trouble of creating the manuals if they didnt mean anything...
> 
> he put it on paper in a certain way, a certain response to a certain attack for a reason
> 
> for that matter, if there is no "right" way of doing ANY technique WHY CREATE 172 OF THE DAMNED THINGS?!?!?!?!?!





Think of it this way, John...The 4 step Ideal Phase Analytical Technique PROCESS is directly equivalent to The Scientific Method [ Observation, Hypothesize, Experimentation, Conclusion ] . If you follow The Scientific Method? Each and every one of your experiments will have greater scientific integrity. But The Scientific Method is NOT the experiment...and using The Scientific Method doesn't make you privy to the thoughts of THE CREATOR of The Scientific Method. Further...there are a gang of other scientists with whom you may disagree who are following or not following The Scientific Method with various degrees of fidelity and faithfulness.

That's pretty much what I would opine is what's going on here.

Aaaand...once again...MR. PARKER DID NOT CREATE THE IP TECHNIQUES. Check this most recent post of Doc's out, as he and I discuss and sometimes duel about this very issue:



Doc said:


> now your talk'n
> 
> So...just to be clear...if you're not Ed Parker? You're not doing Ed Parker's Kenpo. You're doing YOUR Kenpo based upon how you interpret how Ed Parker's Motion Kenpo applies TO YOU.
> 
> 
> 
> Because the Ideal Phase technique is a construct of the individual head instructor, (or at least is supposed to be), to say that the "Ideal Phase" doesn't work highlights a gross misunderstanding of the art and the progenitors intent for that particular splinter vehicle. When you say, "The Ideal doesn't work." You can only be talking about yourself, or your teacher, and not about Mr. Parker's Interpretations, which were unique to him and his personal teachings. Some people have a hard time of understanding that.
> 
> The motion based vehicle is designed to be interpreted. First, by a head instructor to his teachers if he has any, who carry the Ideal to the students. Ed Parker's Kenpo Karate was never supposed to be a hard codified system of training, but instead was designed to be more conceptually mobile, and than interpreted by competent sources of instruction to insure its commerciality, while at the same time providing "reasonably competent" instruction for the average, (and below average) customer. But, the Xerox Effect in conjunction with business mandates, (among other things), destroyed the upper level competency in less than a teaching generation. So much so, all that is left is "Trickle Down Incompetency," as most commercial schools race to be first in line at the bottom of the martial arts.
> 
> Even those that don't, try as they may to do the right thing, do not have the level of knowledge and experience to rise to higher levels of competency in an art that only had one real expert, who never hard codified what he did to be so physically successful. One of the reasons he did not is, the actual hard codified model is commercially much more labor intensive and requires many more competent and knowledgeable teachers, guided by the knowledgeable and experienced, and requires a higher level of commitment of students and teachers alike, like in most traditional arts. Commercial Kenpo didn't proliferate because it is a superior art, although it has the potential to be, it proliferated because it lowered the bar to the floor where literally everyone could step over it and get a belt.
> 
> But make no mistake, Ed Parker's kenpo Karate that some mistakenly refer to as EPAK, (a term coined after Mr. Parker's death as a business anacronym) is a prescribed methodology with guidelines in place to take the student in a prescribed direction, in a prescribed manner, at a predetermined pace. And while not all of it is as sound as it might be due to business concerns and interest, that portion that isn't was supposed to be countered by competent and flexible instruction to the extent allowed within a schools circumstances.
> 
> While "doing your own thing" is encouraged in Ed Parker's kenpo Karate, the flexibility is only within the prescribed conceptual outline. You cannot buy into all the terminology and descriptions of methodology, and insert your own methodology and call it your own version of Ed Parker's Kenpo Karate. Doing it your own way is OK, but that makes it yours and not his. You are absolutely entitled to screw up his method, just stop saying his Ideal doesn't work, and you're fixing it for him. It was never his Ideal, but somebody else's. So once again, call it whatever you want, but if you're not going to use his methods, drop the terminology and technique names and jump into the deep end of the pool and create your own.
> 
> Of course for some it is a lot easier to do whatever you want in the name of fixing someone else's work, and that way you can use what you want and  discard the hard stuff like creating an academic support structure for all the great ideas and techniques you come up with, and when it fails on a larger scale beyond just doing a technique, you can blame it on Ed Parker. How convenient. He predicted that would happen, and I disagreed with him. Once agin, he was right. Using his motion vehicle to create your own style is what he wanted, but stop using his name to prop up your own style unless you were taught by him, or subscribe to his methods. Unfortunately, he ended up giving everyone the vehicle to proclaim themselves experts and everyone is a young master.
> 
> Using myself as an example, I was taught Kenpo EXCLUSIVELY by Mr. Parker for almost thirty-years, and I use the methods he taught me, and even borrow certain aspects of his commercial system, but I don't call it Ed Parker's Kenpo Karate. I have my own hard codified curriculum he taught me how to create, and I give all the credit to him. But I'm not fixing anything. I'm doing Kenpo In his name, not ON his name. Atacx Gym Kenpo sounds good. Claim it, drop the Ed Parker references because you didn't know him. Now go to work and create the hard structure to support your ideas. That's where the rubber meets the road in a system. Other wise you're not doing anything different from every other guy smarter than Ed Parker. Anyone can create techniques that will work or not on their own merit, but creating a real competent system that can be passed down through generations is where the big boys hang out, and that is a really small club. Sooner or later you have to leave the conceptual ideas, and come up with hard physical facts - or not!




And my response:




ATACX GYM said:


> Okay. I see more clearly where you're coming from now, Doc. I thought that I was being perfectly clear that I was doing my own thing when I said...ATACX GYM KENPO KARATE or ATACX GYM [ INSERT TECH OR EXERCISE OR WHATEVER ]...on nearly every single video I put out there. Lololol. I see that I'm going to have to be even MORE clear now. Somewhat...disappointing that is. Okay. I'll do it. No problem.
> 
> Another thing? I screwed up for the better part of a year when I was dissin the IP. I meant...and thought I was clear when I was saying it...I was dissing the functionality of training methods. I don't know how many literal hundreds of posts that I have saying such a thing. But I want to take it a step further...I'd neeever diss Mr.Parker in that way. I'd never spoken and will never speak in his name.
> 
> Back to the IP...
> 
> ...I began to use the terminology of others [ referring to the stuff that's AN Ideal as if it's THEE Ideal ] even though I didn't believe that it was correct...just so I could get my arguments across. My argument was that the stuff masquerading as THEE IP needed a wholesale upgrade because they're dysfunctinal. Apparently somehow I wasn't as clear as I thought I was there, either. I have about 1k posts...dollars to donuts at least 500 of 'em are making the argument I just stated or are related directly to such a position. But still some people didn't get it.
> 
> You know what? If you hadn't told us the stuff you did about Kenpo's backstory and other crucial pieces of info, I'd still be lost in crucial areas: like how this IP morass came about, and I neeeever heard of Motion Kenpo and all that it entails until you began to post about it.
> 
> Something important: I wasn't dissing Mr. Parker. I was dissing the dysfunctional training methods that were claiming to be the IP. I said so on video long before I ever heard of Kenpo sites and years before we ever interacted, Doc. Observe:
> 
> 
> [video=youtube_share;6CQKW5QTJJU]http://youtu.be/6CQKW5QTJJU[/video]
> 
> 
> 
> As for the hard curriculum? The funny thing is...I've already been doing that. Years of study dedicated to athletic performance, diet and nutrition, kinesiology, biomechanics, sports psychology, etc etc. I even specify plyometrics, calisthenics and the other stuff in this video.
> 
> Now I'm really gonna do some ill stuff.
> 
> Save a seat for me at The Big Boyz Table, Doc. We're gonna be ATACKIN yall real soon.


----------



## ATACX GYM

MJS said:


> Well, as usual, thats the problem with the arts today....too many *******s who're more concerned with the number of techs that they feel they need to know, a lack of quality and too much of of a concern with how much fancy rank they have.  Totally devalues the art, IMO.  So, by having his mess, you end up with clones....1 ****** teacher just breeds a ****** student, who in turns breeds his own ****** student, thus a ton of ****...LOL.
> 
> As for your version of S&H and the other versions....to parrot what Chris or TF or someone said....I think it comes down to what you're doing, is not the same as the S&H found in a Tatum school.  Just like Kaju....you have the original method, the Gaylord method, Ramos, etc.  Its all Kaju, but no doubt the Original method punch techs will differ from the Gaylord method.



And at last we agree!


----------



## Twin Fist

Mr. Parker wanted to create an internationally uniform system of Kenpo that you could start learning in California and continue learning in Texas, New Jersey, or Ireland - without having to relearn your material every time you moved to, or visited, a new school.

This doesn't mean we can&#8217;t go beyond the base material, as outlined in our manuals.*  Of course we can, and we should.* 

Mr. Parker said many times that we should expand our knowledge and grow individually.  When someone asks me how a technique is done, I sometimes say, this is how it's done, and this is how I do it. 

What I keep consistent is the curriculum I teach, not the way I personally perform every move.  I believe that Kenpo is in the principles, not in the specific* techniques we use to learn those principles*, so a person could make up all new techniques and forms and still be teaching Kenpo.*  I just don&#8217;t see any reason to do so.* 

-Rich Hale from his website at :
http://www.pacifickenpo.com/White-Papers/A-Case-for-Consistency.html


----------



## MJS

ATACX GYM said:


> aaaand drum roll please...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Doc*
> 
> 
> You really need to let the word "ideal" go. Try this; *THERE IS NO IDEAL TECHNIQUE. THERE IS NO UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED IDEAL TECHNIQUE.* What is there exists because people moved up the ranks and became instructors with no knowledge, skill, or experience. These people made the outline IDEA in the manuals the IDEAL because they could not create the IDEAL as Mr. Parker said they were supposed to. Each school, group, club etc was supposed to have one person who would set the IDEAL but only for their group. What you have is a bunch of people all taking the ideas in a manual and teaching it because that's all they have. So removes the word IDEAL from your vocabulary, unless you are talking about IDEALS you created that you teach for your students. That is the only ideal there is. What YOU CREATE.
> 
> Originally Posted by *Doc*
> 
> 
> Yep! Mr. Parker gave the the "Ideal Phase" concept, but never gave the "Ideal Technique." In his own words he described what they were supposed to do in the Ideal Phase, but instead they took the Ideas in the manual, even when they didn't make sense and just taught whatever it said. Nobody cared whether they worked or not, all they wanted was to meet the requirements so they could get promoted. Then they turned around and did the same thing with their own students. Apparently, for many, thinking was optional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay. Now that we've made it clear that THERE IS NO IDEAL TECHNIQUE. THERE IS NO UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED IDEAL TECHNIQUE...and my Sword and Hammer IS A...not THEE but is A...Ideal Phase Tech...we can move on.
> 
> [  Uhhh...I teach my students how to defeat this kind of attack BEFORE they're a WHITE BELT. Observe:
> 
> A. Bad guy grabs your right shoulder. No pushes or pulls. Cocks back fist.
> 
> B. Pre-White Belt Level A...the newest of all new newbs...smartly executes a right upward block under the shoulder grabbing left hand of BG. This block is timed with the punch. You lift or disengage the grab and block the punch at the same time.
> 
> C. Counterattack with reverse punch.
> 
> How easy is that?  ]
> 
> t's examine the REAL differences between the Sword and Hammer you're referring to and the Kenpo Idea [ which is merely a suggestion that I'm making to you guys ] which is also The ATACX GYM Ideal Sword and Hammer [ at this time; as we keep training? We refine improve and change. Did that with Blinding Sacrifice today, in fact ]...
> 
> ...your Ideal is based upon somebody essentially putting his hand on your right shoulder, cocking his fist back, and...before he can fire a punch, push or do anything...you guys handsword his throat and hammerfist his nads. You train this tech with the idea that EVERY TIME somebody lays his hand on your shoulder, you'll be able to preemptively strike and finish him with your tech.
> 
> A couple Kenpo Elders whom I've been known to agree and disagree with, and I, all think that such an idea as perpetual preemptive striking is essentially nonsense on its face. And said nonsense will prevent you from reliably morally and legally performing. I said RELIABLY. Most people punch and punch fast and hard when they've cocked their fist back after they've grabbed your shoulder. Morally is subjective but LEGALLY is less so. Imagine a cop seeing you pull this tech off on some unarmed yahoo about your size. Guess what his reaction might be?
> 
> Observe Mr. Larry Tatum and Doc edify us all on this thread:
> 
> http://www.kenpotalk.com/forum/show...-we-step-into-Triggered-Salute-by-Larry-Tatum
> 
> right there are about half of my reasons that I have a major problem with the expression of this tech and any expression remarkably akin to it.
> 
> The other half of the problem that I have are as follows:
> 
> 1. I think that you should build into the tech itself the mandate to assess the situation. What if the person touching your shoulder doesn't deserve to be Kenpo'd into oblivion? He or she could be like:"Hey! Don't walk away from me!" What if he's just THREATENING you in an attempt to INTIMIDATE but not really trying to hurt you? That's much more along the lines of what uke is doing in the "classic" scenario looks like. He's no threat really. Blasting the throat and smashing the nads of some jerk putting his hand on your shoulder like it's a dead starfish and essentially posing like Al Bundy doing his Quarterback About To Pass Pose
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is indefensible for the most part, imho.
> 
> 
> 2. You'll likely go to jail for damaging his larynx or some part of his throat and bruising his nads unless he's way bigger than you, armed, etc.
> 
> 3. You're screwed if you're a Yellow Belt at "most" Kenpo schools who teach this tech ONLY this way...and the BG attacks you anywhere else but your right flank, or does anything other than barely touch you and pose with his fist. If he punches? You're toast. If he pushes or jerks holds pushes or punches as he punches or just before he does? You're grilled cheese sammich. If he attacks you from the LEFT shoulder or from the rear? You're PF Chang'd.
> 
> 
> So I have come up with a way that...step by step...logically and progressively teaches you how to use The Sword and Hammer no matter what your opponent does. That's the IP premise and conclusion that I use. Do tech 'x' no matter WHAT the BG does. Guess what? That includes the "best case" scenario that is part and parcel, heart and soul to "most" Kenpo schools' IP....but they don't include mine.



Oh my....I think we may be drifting into another topic, but what the hell...I'll comment anyways.  Ok...as I've said in other threads, I'm a big advocate of the pre-emptive strike.  Yeah, I know....people are going to say, "Yeah, but how's it going to look if someone sees you hit this guy?"  Sure, on the surface, not good, but, what people forget, is when this guy is calling me, my wife and mom, every name in the book, standing 5ft. away from me, fists clenched, teeth clenched, red faced...THAT should be a no brainer that somethings coming down the pike...lol.  Sorry, but I'm not waiting until the guy is right in front of me, with the punch racing towards my face.  If thats frowned upon by some, then so be it.  I'll deal with the aftermath later, but right now, my well being, and the well being of anyone with me, is my #1 priority.

Next...I've said numerous times, that we, as martial artists, should be able to assess each situation as its presented to us, and modify/adapt our defense accordingly.  So, that said, I shouldnt have to hit his throat.  Why can't I do a backhand to his face?  Why can't I hit his face with my forearm?  Why can't I palm heel?  The list is endless. 

Once again, the way I taught....I'd teach the tech.  I'd drill them repeatedly.  From there, I'd gradually increase the speed/intensity of the attack.  Again, they'd drill it repeatedly.  The only thing the attacker is doing, is just giving a hard attack, nothing else.  Once thats done, I'd now have the attacker mix things up a bit.  The speed is brought back down to a slow pace, just until the student gets comfortable.  The badguy can now do more, so using S&H as a model...they can now.....push, pull, change attacks, punch, kick, whatever.


----------



## jks9199

The big thing about a preemptive strike is how you articulate what you did, and why you did it.  An aggressive grab at your shoulder IS an assault.  You are justified in using reasonable force to defend yourself at that point.  THE ASSAULT IS ALREADY HAPPENING!What is important is to have sufficient awareness within your reaction to adjust and reshape it as you turn and identify the attacker.  That concern is present, whether the attack is a pull or a push; you must identify the attacker and shape your response appropriately.


----------



## ATACX GYM

MJS said:


> Oh my....I think we may be drifting into another topic, but what the hell...I'll comment anyways.  Ok...as I've said in other threads, I'm a big advocate of the pre-emptive strike.  Yeah, I know....people are going to say, "Yeah, but how's it going to look if someone sees you hit this guy?"  Sure, on the surface, not good, but, what people forget, is when this guy is calling me, my wife and mom, every name in the book, standing 5ft. away from me, fists clenched, teeth clenched, red faced...THAT should be a no brainer that somethings coming down the pike...lol.  Sorry, but I'm not waiting until the guy is right in front of me, with the punch racing towards my face.  If thats frowned upon by some, then so be it.  I'll deal with the aftermath later, but right now, my well being, and the well being of anyone with me, is my #1 priority.
> 
> Next...I've said numerous times, that we, as martial artists, should be able to assess each situation as its presented to us, and modify/adapt our defense accordingly.  So, that said, I shouldnt have to hit his throat.  Why can't I do a backhand to his face?  Why can't I hit his face with my forearm?  Why can't I palm heel?  The list is endless.
> 
> Once again, the way I taught....I'd teach the tech.  I'd drill them repeatedly.  From there, I'd gradually increase the speed/intensity of the attack.  Again, they'd drill it repeatedly.  The only thing the attacker is doing, is just giving a hard attack, nothing else.  Once thats done, I'd now have the attacker mix things up a bit.  The speed is brought back down to a slow pace, just until the student gets comfortable.  The badguy can now do more, so using S&H as a model...they can now.....push, pull, change attacks, punch, kick, whatever.



Under these circumstances where ole dude was cussin and getting progressively more and more belligerent? I'd leave. If I couldn't? And it was going to devolve into some sort of conflict? I'd probably hit him with a blast double leg takedown. It's a shocker and very effective even against tall big guys. I can use my grappling and stuff. Another good thing is a hard leg kick. That'll jack a guy up without hospitalizing him or getting me in jail. Also makes him NOT wanna fight usually even if he's still standing after I crack him. 

Usually though I opt for grappling in that kind of scenario. Clinch work and double legs, Judo sweeps trips and throws, etc. Very effective and less likely to go to jail. Plus t he mobility I practice allows me to keep an eye out for th BG's friends.


----------



## Chris Parker

Oh dear freakin' lord.... 



ATACX GYM said:


> The Sword and Hammer that Mr. Parker showed as AN EXAMPLE is NOT a tech that WE ALL MUST SLAVISHLY FOLLOW. That's like taking an example solution for an algebra equation...and saying that all of algebra has to look exactly like that example problem and example solution. You're supposed to learn THE PROCESS OF SOLVING ALGEBRA. You're NOT supposed to COPY THIS SAMPLE PROBLEM AND SOLUTION AND SAY THAT'S ALL ALGEBRA IS.
> 
> If I'm trying to teach you algebra and I give you this problem and say: "Solve for 'x' ":
> 
> _x_ - 4 = 10
> 
> and you say x=14 and I say great! You did it! You're NOT supposed to think that every time you see x? X MUST equal 14.
> 
> You're supposed to grasp the thinking and solving processes that leads to the correct answer every time you're faced with a problem.



Right, but what is the process ("solve for x") that Sword and Hammer is teaching? I ask as you seem completely ignorant of it, and you may use a large number of words in your responses, but you don't actually say much. Is Sword and Hammer just any response against an attacker on your rear flank? Or is there something more to it, something that makes a particular strategic response "Sword and Hammer"?



ATACX GYM said:


> Again...there IS NO HARD AND FAST IDEAL TECHNIQUE THAT ALL OTHERS MUST BOW TO. You as a teacher are to craft your own IP for your students using a scenario that you select and the techs suggested for your scenario...like Sword and Hammer...then apply the 4 step  tango of The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique PROCESS to it so that you can come up with a response.
> 
> Your IP will be different than mine. But if you follow the 4 step tango? It will work.



Taking your "Tango" simile, a tango isn't a salsa, it's a tango... so what are the "steps" that make Sword and Hammer distinctly Sword and Hammer?



ATACX GYM said:


> Are we all on the same page now? Can we move on now? Chris Parker asked an excellent question about "lessons" in Sword and Hammer that I'd like to address but we gotta get this straight and have all of us on the same page so we can properly have that discussion and kick around the lessons that we've all learned. Maybe we can help each other grasp things better as a whole in a way that we by ourselves or with a smaller  group of friends could NOT do.



Honestly, until you finally classify what you see Sword and Hammer as being, I don't think we can be on the same page, because you seem to be ignoring what it actually is in your expression.... so, one more time now, what do you think is needed for a technique to be Sword and Hammer? It's kinda essential to the discussion of your version to understand what you think it is in the first place... and you've put down another 10 or so answers, taking up pages worth of space, you even state that it's a good question here, but have completely failed, again, to even attempt to answer it.

So, for the chance to go onto the next round, what do you think defines "Sword and Hammer"?


MJS said:


> What it seems like, is you're saying (and again this is a guess) is that all ideal phase techs suck.  They wont work.  But what I'm (you) doing, does.  I believe this is the issue with what Chris and TF are saying.





jks9199 said:


> No, we're not.  Because you are answering a different combative question than the standardized Sword & Hammer does.
> 
> You want to talk about a grab/push/strike from the rear flank?  Sure, we can do that.  But not if you're going to try to say it's the same as a grab/pull.  Because the solutions to the two problems are going to be inherently different.  It's like if I took out shopping for a luxury car, and went to a Mack dump truck shop.  Both are valid forms of transport, fit for their duties -- but not variants of the same thing, either.  And they won't solve the same problems.



And this from JKS underlines the question I'm asking.... 



ATACX GYM said:


> Okay. Now that we've made it clear that THERE IS NO IDEAL TECHNIQUE. THERE IS NO UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED IDEAL TECHNIQUE...and my Sword and Hammer IS A...not THEE but is A...Ideal Phase Tech...we can move on.



Right, this is just cause it's annoying me... Ras, I know you, for who knows what reason, like to extend words to emphasize them, either to show how correct you are by exaggerating it, or as a form of sarcasm for things you don't agree with, but it's really not having that effect. Honestly, it makes you look rather ill-educated in a number of ways... for example, your constant usage of "THEE Ideal..." Ras, "thee" means "you". How about you stick to correct grammar and spelling in order to add more weight to your argument? That said, it's good to see you learnt how to embed the clips... 



ATACX GYM said:


> [  Uhhh...I teach my students how to defeat this kind of attack BEFORE they're a WHITE BELT. Observe:
> 
> A. Bad guy grabs your right shoulder. No pushes or pulls. Cocks back fist.
> 
> B. Pre-White Belt Level A...the newest of all new newbs...smartly executes a right upward block under the shoulder grabbing left hand of BG. This block is timed with the punch. You lift or disengage the grab and block the punch at the same time.
> 
> C. Counterattack with reverse punch.
> 
> How easy is that?



Honestly? I see quite a few issues there... and frankly, the regular Sword and Hammer I'd class as superior in a number of ways.



ATACX GYM said:


> Let's examine the REAL differences between the Sword and Hammer you're referring to and the Kenpo Idea [ which is merely a suggestion that I'm making to you guys ] which is also The ATACX GYM Ideal Sword and Hammer [ at this time; as we keep training? We refine improve and change. Did that with Blinding Sacrifice today, in fact ]...



Right... 



ATACX GYM said:


> ...your Ideal is based upon somebody essentially putting his hand on your right shoulder, cocking his fist back, and...before he can fire a punch, push or do anything...you guys handsword his throat and hammerfist his nads. You train this tech with the idea that EVERY TIME somebody lays his hand on your shoulder, you'll be able to preemptively strike and finish him with your tech.



"You guys"? Uh, you mean the rest of the Kenpo community there, Ras? Again, I'm unsure that you realize what makes a technique what it is... 



ATACX GYM said:


> A couple Kenpo Elders whom I've been known to agree and disagree with, and I, all think that such an idea as perpetual preemptive striking is essentially nonsense on its face. And said nonsense will prevent you from reliably morally and legally performing. I said RELIABLY. Most people punch and punch fast and hard when they've cocked their fist back after they've grabbed your shoulder. Morally is subjective but LEGALLY is less so. Imagine a cop seeing you pull this tech off on some unarmed yahoo about your size. Guess what his reaction might be?



What his reaction could be almost anything, Ras, it comes down to the circumstances surrounding the action and the interpretation. But, again, I think you miss what the technique is teaching.



ATACX GYM said:


> right there are about half of my reasons that I have a major problem with the expression of this tech and any expression remarkably akin to it.
> 
> The other half of the problem that I have are as follows:
> 
> 1. I think that you should build into the tech itself the mandate to assess the situation. What if the person touching your shoulder doesn't deserve to be Kenpo'd into oblivion? He or she could be like:"Hey! Don't walk away from me!" What if he's just THREATENING you in an attempt to INTIMIDATE but not really trying to hurt you? That's much more along the lines of what uke is doing in the "classic" scenario looks like. He's no threat really. Blasting the throat and smashing the nads of some jerk putting his hand on your shoulder like it's a dead starfish and essentially posing like Al Bundy doing his Quarterback About To Pass Pose
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is indefensible for the most part, imho.



Why do you think that that assessment of the situation isn't in there? Seriously, this is why I'd question your understanding of it in the first place... 

I'll put it this way, the technique involves the bad guy grabbing your shoulder, aiming to turn you back towards them, then launch a punch. Your first response is to grab their grabbing hand (which gives physical and psychological control of the situation), followed by you turning (typically turning your head first) towards the opponent (if they have started to pull, step a little ahead of their timing, which will get you in with your pre-emptive strike before the punch is properly launched... so your concerns about the pre-emptive strike not being realistic or practical just tells me you don't understand pre-emptive striking...), which is where the assessment comes in that you were looking for. You turn and look at the threat, and assess. And if it's a violent threat (a punch), you can respond with the technique.

If you weren't taught it, that's a problem of your instruction. If you can't see it, that's a problem of your understanding of the technique, and the structure of the techniques in general, which would lead you to believe that you actually do know better. Hmm.



ATACX GYM said:


> 2. You'll likely go to jail for damaging his larynx or some part of his throat and bruising his nads unless he's way bigger than you, armed, etc.



Possible, yeah. Hence the assessment part. You may decide to change the target... which could be as simple as targeting the side of the neck instead of the throat, which disrupts the blood flow and attacks nerves, without risking damaging the airways. Or attack the bicep of the far (punching) arm. Or the bridge of the nose. Or the temple. Or under the nose itself. Or the ribs (which could then have the hammerfist strike up to the face, if you want...)... should I go on?



ATACX GYM said:


> 3. You're screwed if you're a Yellow Belt at "most" Kenpo schools who teach this tech ONLY this way...and the BG attacks you anywhere else but your right flank, or does anything other than barely touch you and pose with his fist. If he punches? You're toast. If he pushes or jerks holds pushes or punches as he punches or just before he does? You're grilled cheese sammich. If he attacks you from the LEFT shoulder or from the rear? You're PF Chang'd.



The question is why the technique is being taught that way, Ras, which I don't think you get from the way you're arguing here. If it's to teach the lessons, the movement and angling, the concept of pre-emptive strikes, and so on, it's fine... but it would need to be taught that way, in that context, not as the ultimate answer to that attack, which is the attitude you're coming across with here.

But I mean, seriously, your argument here is that the hypothetical student is in trouble if the attacker attacks with a different tactic to the one the technique is designed against? Really? Isn't that basically the same as saying that a high block is great against a punch, but you're in trouble if you try to apply it against a kick to your shins? Dude, have you thought that it's designed against a type of attack as that's the way it's designed to work?



ATACX GYM said:


> So I have come up with a way that...step by step...logically and progressively teaches you how to use The Sword and Hammer no matter what your opponent does. That's the IP premise and conclusion that I use. Do tech 'x' no matter WHAT the BG does. Guess what? That includes the "best case" scenario that is part and parcel, heart and soul to "most" Kenpo schools' IP....but they don't include mine.



There is no "works against every attack" technique. Deal with it. Your responses aren't Sword and Hammer, in the sense of Kenpo's Sword and Hammer, no matter what you decide to call it. All your posturing just shows a desperate lack of grounding in the way these things actually work.

Now, after two pages and 10 long-winded answers to questions people weren't asking, mainly by quoting yourself as some form of evidence that you agree with yourself (?), can you answer the most pressing question of this thread... if this is your expression of Sword and Hammer, even though it contains only the most superficial connections to the actual tactic of Sword and Hammer, what criteria do you apply to claim  something as Sword and Hammer in the first place? Just that, then we can deal with whether or not your version actually is or not.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Chris. I indicated that I would answer your question about Sword and Hammer after I resolved the questions that were posed prior to your asking your question. I will supply you with a comprehensive answer regarding this matter shortly. In the interim? Your rudeness is neither appreciated nor necessary. I will return later today and give a powerful reply that will directly address each and every matter that you brought up.

Thank you.

AMANI..."peace"...

HEAD COACH RAS OF THE ATACX GYM


----------



## Twin Fist

keep it under 1000 words.


----------



## MJS

ATACX GYM said:


> Under these circumstances where ole dude was cussin and getting progressively more and more belligerent? I'd leave. If I couldn't? And it was going to devolve into some sort of conflict? I'd probably hit him with a blast double leg takedown. It's a shocker and very effective even against tall big guys. I can use my grappling and stuff. Another good thing is a hard leg kick. That'll jack a guy up without hospitalizing him or getting me in jail. Also makes him NOT wanna fight usually even if he's still standing after I crack him.
> 
> Usually though I opt for grappling in that kind of scenario. Clinch work and double legs, Judo sweeps trips and throws, etc. Very effective and less likely to go to jail. Plus t he mobility I practice allows me to keep an eye out for th BG's friends.



Sure, thats one good option.   Me personally, I might be more inclined to just fire off a kick to the balls, leg, shin, rather than clinching up, but again, situation depending.


----------



## MJS

ATACX GYM said:


> t's examine the REAL differences between the Sword and Hammer you're referring to and the Kenpo Idea [ which is merely a suggestion that I'm making to you guys ] which is also The ATACX GYM Ideal Sword and Hammer [ at this time; as we keep training? We refine improve and change. Did that with Blinding Sacrifice today, in fact ]...
> 
> ...your Ideal is based upon somebody essentially putting his hand on your right shoulder, cocking his fist back, and...before he can fire a punch, push or do anything...you guys handsword his throat and hammerfist his nads. You train this tech with the idea that EVERY TIME somebody lays his hand on your shoulder, you'll be able to preemptively strike and finish him with your tech.
> 
> A couple Kenpo Elders whom I've been known to agree and disagree with, and I, all think that such an idea as perpetual preemptive striking is essentially nonsense on its face. And said nonsense will prevent you from reliably morally and legally performing. I said RELIABLY. Most people punch and punch fast and hard when they've cocked their fist back after they've grabbed your shoulder. Morally is subjective but LEGALLY is less so. Imagine a cop seeing you pull this tech off on some unarmed yahoo about your size. Guess what his reaction might be?



As I've said before, I think you and I are pretty much doing the same thing, although there're some slight differences.  We're both trying to get to the end of the road, but we're just going about it in a different way.  You're addressing the punch sooner, whereas I'm focusing on the technique, without the punch, going into the 'what ifs' later on.  As for the pre-empt...sounds like you dont have much faith in it.  I'll disagree, if thats the case, as I do have faith in it.  In your case though, with what you wrote, it seems the reason you disagree with it, is because you dont think that it'll work, given the scenario you describe.  The pre-empt is, IMO, designed to stop an attack before it fully unfolds.  In this case, we're assuming the person isn't aware they're about to be grabbed.  That said, no, the pre empt wont work, because the attack has already unfolded.  

If we look at S&H, we're moving in to the attack anyways.  The only difference between what you're doing Ras and the way the tech is normally done, is the inital move.  Of course, unless the teacher is instilling in the students that they must do the tech as taught, then yeah, they probably will get hit.  However, if they're teaching them to just react, and adjust to the situation, then the odds of survival probably went up a bit.

Personally, I'd imagine even if we did the tech the normal way, the handsword is going to cancel out a potential punch.  We also need to consider where the badguy is when he's grabbing us.  Is he directly to our right?  Is he behind us on a 45?  IMO, I'd imagine the grab will be followed by them turning us slightly, to better enable them to punch.  Why risk busting your hand by hitting the back of the head?  Hands up, turn into them, and counter with strikes.

Edit to add more:  as for the last part, when you talked about a cop seeing this....again, this is why I've said numerous times, that its important for us, as MAists, to be able to adapt and alter what we do.  Hitting the guy with a HS to the throat vs. a palm heel to the face...well, yeah, no brainer there...LOL.


----------



## MJS

Twin Fist said:


> keep it under 1000 words.



:lol:


----------



## ATACX GYM

Chris Parker said:


> Oh dear freakin' lord....
> 
> 
> 
> Right, but what is the process ("solve for x") that Sword and Hammer is teaching? I ask as you seem completely ignorant of it, and you may use a large number of words in your responses, but you don't actually say much. Is Sword and Hammer just any response against an attacker on your rear flank? Or is there something more to it, something that makes a particular strategic response "Sword and Hammer"?
> 
> Taking your "Tango" simile, a tango isn't a salsa, it's a tango... so what are the "steps" that make Sword and Hammer distinctly Sword and Hammer?
> 
> Honestly, until you finally classify what you see Sword and Hammer as being, I don't think we can be on the same page, because you seem to be ignoring what it actually is in your expression.... so, one more time now, what do you think is needed for a technique to be Sword and Hammer? It's kinda essential to the discussion of your version to understand what you think it is in the first place... and you've put down another 10 or so answers, taking up pages worth of space, you even state that it's a good question here, but have completely failed, again, to even attempt to answer it.
> 
> So, for the chance to go onto the next round, what do you think defines "Sword and Hammer"?




WHOSE Sword and Hammer are you asking about? As Doc said...THERE IS NO IDEAL TECHNIQUE. One of your gargantuan miscomprehensions is this simple fact. All of the rest of your conclusions are permanently toast due to your refusal to grasp this simple concept. The moment you accept this fact? You'll have a chance of asking one of many more correct questions, like:

Ras, what does YOUR Sword and Hammer teach? Why do you think it teaches such a thing? What qualifies YOUR Sword and Hammer as "Sword and Hammer"?

I would then answer...I already answered that. Go find the post on this thread where I went through this very question and answer session pages ago. I don't feel like reposting.

But I'll add a few other things for you:

There are reasons imho that the handsword and hammerfist were selected in my Gym and perhaps in others. The handsword is a weapon well fitted to striking the target of the throat and specific spots ON the throat from the initial angle traditionally taught and my subsequent experimentations very solidly showed that with proper training it can still strike the throat regardless of the position of your opponent. I can't speak for other teachers, but in my Gym there are 4 primary locations that we target with our handsword and later the hammer fist. These targets present themselves regardless of position, and they become more available for destruction as we manipulate our foe's body with our techs. Further there are specific nuerological responses that the combination of the handsword and hammerfist striking specific targets [ in my version those targets range from the throat to the groin to the kidney and liver and specific spots on the arm ] that are very important to learn and download at this rank in my Gym for further development and exploration and manipulation via technique as we progress further in my curriculum.

and there are very important ethical and Honor considerations in my Gym that we help the students to confront [ as we have already taught them this Code ] when we apply this tech. There's more...but I gtg.

And...What do you think the more common expression of Sword and Hammer is?




 Originally Posted by *ATACX GYM*

[  Uhhh...I teach my students how to defeat this kind of attack BEFORE they're a WHITE BELT. Observe:

A. Bad guy grabs your right shoulder. No pushes or pulls. Cocks back fist.

B. Pre-White Belt Level A...the newest of all new newbs...smartly executes a right upward block under the shoulder grabbing left hand of BG. This block is timed with the punch. You lift or disengage the grab and block the punch at the same time.

C. Counterattack with reverse punch.

How easy is that?"


"Honestly? I see quite a few issues there... and frankly, the regular Sword and Hammer I'd class as superior in a number of ways."<--Chris Parker

Enumerate these problems, Chris.


----------



## MJS

ATACX GYM said:


> WHOSE Sword and Hammer are you asking about? As Doc said...THERE IS NO IDEAL TECHNIQUE. One of your gargantuan miscomprehensions is this simple fact. All of the rest of your conclusions are permanently toast due to your refusal to grasp this simple concept. The moment you accept this fact? You'll have a chance of asking one of many more correct questions, like:
> 
> Ras, what does YOUR Sword and Hammer teach? Why do you think it teaches such a thing? What qualifies YOUR Sword and Hammer as "Sword and Hammer"?
> 
> I would then answer...I already answered that. Go find the post on this thread where I went through this very question and answer session pages ago. I don't feel like reposting.
> 
> But I'll add a few other things for you:
> 
> There are reasons imho that the handsword and hammerfist were selected in my Gym and perhaps in others. The handsword is a weapon well fitted to striking the target of the throat and specific spots ON the throat from the initial angle traditionally taught and my subsequent experimentations very solidly showed that with proper training it can still strike the throat regardless of the position of your opponent. I can't speak for other teachers, but in my Gym there are 4 primary locations that we target with our handsword and later the hammer fist. These targets present themselves regardless of position, and they become more available for destruction as we manipulate our foe's body with our techs. Further there are specific nuerological responses that the combination of the handsword and hammerfist striking specific targets [ in my version those targets range from the throat to the groin to the kidney and liver and specific spots on the arm ] that are very important to learn and download at this rank in my Gym for further development and exploration and manipulation via technique as we progress further in my curriculum.
> 
> and there are very important ethical and Honor considerations in my Gym that we help the students to confront [ as we have already taught them this Code ] when we apply this tech. There's more...but I gtg.
> 
> And...What do you think the more common expression of Sword and Hammer is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *ATACX GYM*
> 
> [  Uhhh...I teach my students how to defeat this kind of attack BEFORE they're a WHITE BELT. Observe:
> 
> A. Bad guy grabs your right shoulder. No pushes or pulls. Cocks back fist.
> 
> B. Pre-White Belt Level A...the newest of all new newbs...smartly executes a right upward block under the shoulder grabbing left hand of BG. This block is timed with the punch. You lift or disengage the grab and block the punch at the same time.
> 
> C. Counterattack with reverse punch.
> 
> How easy is that?"
> 
> 
> "Honestly? I see quite a few issues there... and frankly, the regular Sword and Hammer I'd class as superior in a number of ways."<--Chris Parker
> 
> Enumerate these problems, Chris.



But, as I said in a post back on page 8, 99% of the Kenpo schools out there, are teaching the same S&H.  THIS is the issue that I believe Chris is talking about.  The fact that your S&H looks nothing like the standard S&H, well....you know where I'm going, so no sense in saying it again.


----------



## ATACX GYM

MJS said:


> But, as I said in a post back on page 8, 99% of the Kenpo schools out there, are teaching the same S&H.  THIS is the issue that I believe Chris is talking about.  The fact that your S&H looks nothing like the standard S&H, well....you know where I'm going, so no sense in saying it again.



Oh...you mean the question I've been answering in depth and in detail since page 2?


----------



## Twin Fist

you have invented a soft drink you think its better than coke.

it taste sort of like coke, but it is quite a bit different

if you tried to call it "coke" you would be guilty of a crime

fraud

you are, in essense, comitting fraud by using the EPAK names but not teachign the epak techniques.

now, if you teach the standard, then you use yours as well, thats ok. but you ought to rename your "version"

thats all you have to do, and quit talking your "that all sucks and my **** is better" crap and people would actually respect your work.

or not. But be advised, you KEEP putting it out there with your vids, you will keep catching hell


----------



## ATACX GYM

Twin Fist said:


> you have invented a soft drink you think its better than coke.
> 
> it taste sort of like coke, but it is quite a bit different
> 
> if you tried to call it "coke" you would be guilty of a crime
> 
> fraud
> 
> you are, in essense, comitting fraud by using the EPAK names but not teachign the epak techniques.
> 
> now, if you teach the standard, then you use yours as well, thats ok. but you ought to rename your "version"
> 
> thats all you have to do, and quit talking your "that all sucks and my **** is better" crap and people would actually respect your work.
> 
> or not. But be advised, you KEEP putting it out there with your vids, you will keep catching hell




1) The name EPAK was created as a business acronym after Mr. Parker died

2) In all my videos it says ATACX GYM KENPO KARATE or ATACX GYM [WHATEVER DISCIPLINE ]. Your contentions are empirically false in every way. If I saw TWIN FIST MARTIAL ARTS on a video...I wouldn't expect to see ATACX GYM anything in it. Or Ed Parker's anything. Do you see me saying in any video of mine ED PARKER KENPO KARATE? No? Then even your premise is empirically false and the accusation/contention of fraud in your post is disproved by your own eyes

3) "now, if you teach the standard, then you use yours as well, thats ok. but you ought to rename your "version".--Twin Fist

I've already done that. I've always done that. I already said that.

4) To borrow the phraseology suggestion of "sumdumguy"...the more common expression miscalled The IP does not suffice for that it doesn't work for all of the variants and variables that I work with or teach...because the rigors and challenges that I require are NOT the best case scenario. What I require as the base is something for more functional and realistic.


----------



## MJS

ATACX GYM said:


> Oh...you mean the question I've been answering in depth and in detail since page 2?



To be honest, we're on page 10, so.....lol

Anyways....that IMO, is the point thats trying to be made.


----------



## ATACX GYM

MJS said:


> To be honest, we're on page 10, so.....lol
> 
> Anyways....that IMO, is the point thats trying to be made.



Word I agree with you MJS. And yeah I think that you and I are essentially operating on similar principles...or at least harmonious principles. But what I'm saying is that if we're on page 10 and I've been answering that very question in depth and in detail since page 8? The questioners and readership need to take upon themselves the responsibility of comprehending the answers that they're being supplied with visavis their questions.


Oh yeah Chris Parker. When you say that there's no 1 tech that resolves every problem? Not what I said. I do, however, teach using every single tech we practice...and that includes every tech in Kenpo...against every primary range of civilian LEO and security personnel combat and self-defense in a thoroughgoing fashion. Those ranges and the mandatory requirement to be able to flow through any permutation thereof are:

360 Degree Circle of Protection in each of the following ranges: Standing Clinch Seated Kneeling Ground Armed Multifight Armed Multifight CQB armed and unarmed inclusive of firearms escape  rescue and escape and rescue and we include rolls breakfalls etc

I can use 1 technique that suffices for each and every one of these ranges. The fact that you don't is indicative of the limits in your training method, not the limits of self-defense itself.


----------



## Chris Parker

ATACX GYM said:


> Chris. I indicated that I would answer your question about Sword and Hammer after I resolved the questions that were posed prior to your asking your question. I will supply you with a comprehensive answer regarding this matter shortly. In the interim? Your rudeness is neither appreciated nor necessary. I will return later today and give a powerful reply that will directly address each and every matter that you brought up.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> AMANI..."peace"...
> 
> HEAD COACH RAS OF THE ATACX GYM



Firstly, in discussing a 'better' version of Sword and Hammer without coming to an agreement about what criteria are required for a technique to actually be Sword and Hammer in the first place means we can't really discuss your approach... so it needs to be dealt with first. And, for the record, it's a question that has been there since my very first response to you, where I pointed out: 

"Then we get you changing the structure of the attack by keeping your opponent on your left shoulder, but having them grab with their left hand... which completely removes the attack that's actually seen in Sword and Hammer, as well as removing the targets, body positioning, and more, altering the timing and rhythm of the sequence entirely, and basically necessitating a completely different technique, which, to be blunt, is what you're doing. *This is no longer the Yellow Belt Technique "Sword and Hammer" from the American Kempo system, as there are almost no aspects of it left, other than similar fists being used.*"
"Your second version. Well, you start off saying it's nothing like what others would have been taught, and, well, yeah. *Because you have barely included anything from the original, other than the name and certain fists. Other than that, tactically it's a completely different technique, rythmically it's a completely different technique, strategically it's a completely different technique, mechanically it's a completely different technique, philosophically it's a completely different technique... really, it's just a completely different technique.*"

So from the very get-go it's been demonstrated that your understanding of what makes the technique what it is has been questionable, at least.



ATACX GYM said:


> WHOSE Sword and Hammer are you asking about? As Doc said...THERE IS NO IDEAL TECHNIQUE. One of your gargantuan miscomprehensions is this simple fact. All of the rest of your conclusions are permanently toast due to your refusal to grasp this simple concept. The moment you accept this fact? You'll have a chance of asking one of many more correct questions, like:
> 
> Ras, what does YOUR Sword and Hammer teach? Why do you think it teaches such a thing? What qualifies YOUR Sword and Hammer as "Sword and Hammer"?
> 
> I would then answer...I already answered that. Go find the post on this thread where I went through this very question and answer session pages ago. I don't feel like reposting.



Now you get shy about reposting things? Hmm.

But to the point, the question is what do you think is required for a technique to be Sword and Hammer, Ras... irrespective of "whose" version there needs to be key indicators, or markers, that show it to be Sword and Hammer, otherwise there's no actual technique, and there isn't any need for a name for it. Your retreating behind that again shows one of two things: either you don't understand what the question is actually asking, in which case you're in no position to make other versions of it (other "answers" to similar problems, sure, but not other versions of the same solution), or you have no actual answer.

I'm not asking about an "Ideal Technique", I'm asking about a specific technique, that you may express in a "Ideal" fashion, an "Application" fashion, or a "Free" fashion. But in each case, it needs to show a range of key aspects that make it Sword and Hammer.

As far as you already having answered... uh, no, you haven't. The closest you have come is in post #16, page two, when you say:

"I didn't say that the name doesn't matter, I said that the debate regarding nomenclature is farcical. The tech I showed is THE ATACX GYM SWORD AND HAMMER...says so on the video itself. *It clearly uses the handsword...that's where the SWORD in the tech "Sword and Hammer" comes from...and the hammerfits...that's the "HAMMER" in "Sword and Hammer"...in the tech. Without even a single doubt, therefore, it's Sword and Hammer.*"

And, frankly, that just shows a complete lack of understanding about the structure of techniques, hence my questions to you.



ATACX GYM said:


> But I'll add a few other things for you:
> 
> There are reasons imho that the handsword and hammerfist were selected in my Gym and perhaps in others. The handsword is a weapon well fitted to striking the target of the throat and specific spots ON the throat from the initial angle traditionally taught and my subsequent experimentations very solidly showed that with proper training it can still strike the throat regardless of the position of your opponent. I can't speak for other teachers, but in my Gym there are 4 primary locations that we target with our handsword and later the hammer fist. These targets present themselves regardless of position, and they become more available for destruction as we manipulate our foe's body with our techs. Further there are specific nuerological responses that the combination of the handsword and hammerfist striking specific targets [ in my version those targets range from the throat to the groin to the kidney and liver and specific spots on the arm ] that are very important to learn and download at this rank in my Gym for further development and exploration and manipulation via technique as we progress further in my curriculum.
> 
> and there are very important ethical and Honor considerations in my Gym that we help the students to confront [ as we have already taught them this Code ] when we apply this tech. There's more...but I gtg.



None of which show what you feel are the criteria for Sword and Hammer



ATACX GYM said:


> And...What do you think the more common expression of Sword and Hammer is?




From my first response here:

"To begin with, let's look back at the initial version of the technique as shown. It's a yellow belt technique, fairly early on in the syllabus, if I'm not mistaken, yeah? And it's basically dealing with a grab to your shoulder (the clips you linked show the right shoulder, you oscillate between right and left, I don't think it matters too much, provided it's the left hand grabbing the right shoulder, or the right hand grabbing the left... otherwise it changes the technique into requiring something different), which you secure/cover with your far hand, then step towards the opponent as they threaten a strike, and pre-emptively strike to their throat with a sword-hand, and "bounce" that hand down to strike with a hammer fist to an open target. I'm going to be bluntly honest, Ras, there's really little wrong with that technique. The biggest issue with it arises when the person grabbing you was just going to ask you the time, or to offer a drink, or similar, and you crush their trachea as a result... so I might not choose a potentially lethal strike as my first response against a grab. Courts here tend to look down on such things. But from a mechanical point of view, this technique is actually quite solid, taking into account a range of likely events. Not bad at all, really."

 Originally Posted by *ATACX GYM*

[  Uhhh...I teach my students how to defeat this kind of attack BEFORE they're a WHITE BELT. Observe:

A. Bad guy grabs your right shoulder. No pushes or pulls. Cocks back fist.

B. Pre-White Belt Level A...the newest of all new newbs...smartly executes a right upward block under the shoulder grabbing left hand of BG. This block is timed with the punch. You lift or disengage the grab and block the punch at the same time.

C. Counterattack with reverse punch.

How easy is that?"


"Honestly? I see quite a few issues there... and frankly, the regular Sword and Hammer I'd class as superior in a number of ways."<--Chris Parker

Enumerate these problems, Chris.[/QUOTE]

It's primarily in the rising block. It's a weak action using weak muscles against stronger muscles in the opponents grab, the angle is difficult (at best) the further around the opponent gets behind you, the timing can very easily miss the punch, making it a very ineffective way of dealing with that, and a reverse punch is using the furthest weapon against a far target, rather than something that's already in range. I'm not a fan of it, really.



ATACX GYM said:


> Oh...you mean the question I've been answering in depth and in detail since page 2?



You may think you've answered "in depth and detail" but honestly Ras, you haven't. You haven't once dealt with anything I raised in my first post here, you haven't once dealt with what Sword and Hammer needs to be considered Sword and Hammer, and you've essentially just used a whole bunch of words to say that you agree with yourself over and over again. You've quoted answers to other questions, talked in circles, and failed to even seem to understand what you're being asked. I really thought I made it simple for you, but maybe it wasn't simple enough. 



ATACX GYM said:


> Oh yeah Chris Parker. When you say that there's no 1 tech that resolves every problem? Not what I said. I do, however, teach using every single tech we practice...and that includes every tech in Kenpo...against every primary range of civilian LEO and security personnel combat and self-defense in a thoroughgoing fashion. Those ranges and the mandatory requirement to be able to flow through any permutation thereof are:



Wow. Grammar, dude. And stop making up words, it really just muddies up your message.

What I was referring to was your constant reference to "it needs to work as it would in a throwdown", "I have come up with a way that teaches you how to use Sword and Hammer no matter the attack" and so on. You know, your words.



ATACX GYM said:


> 360 Degree Circle of Protection in each of the following ranges: Standing Clinch Seated Kneeling Ground Armed Multifight Armed Multifight CQB armed and unarmed inclusive of firearms escape  rescue and escape and rescue and we include rolls breakfalls etc



There is nothing that is designed for all of this.... but dude, punctuation, I'm begging you. I mean, I don't know if you're saying "Firearms escapes", then "rescue", then "escape and rescue", or what.... run-on sentences don't help you much.



ATACX GYM said:


> I can use 1 technique that suffices for each and every one of these ranges. The fact that you don't is indicative of the limits in your training method, not the limits of self-defense itself.



Son, don't even consider that you can make any reference to my training. So far, from what I've seen of yours, there are some gigantic gaps in what you've been taught. And I do mean gigantic.


----------



## MJS

ATACX GYM said:


> Word I agree with you MJS. And yeah I think that you and I are essentially operating on similar principles...or at least harmonious principles. But what I'm saying is that if we're on page 10 and I've been answering that very question in depth and in detail since page 8? The questioners and readership need to take upon themselves the responsibility of comprehending the answers that they're being supplied with visavis their questions.



Perhaps its the way others are reading it, I dont know. Perhaps you're not addressing it. But again, while I know there is no IT, I'm still convinced, (and Chris, JKS, TF...correct me if I'm wrong here) but the main issue seems to be what everyone else calls S&H and what you're calling S&H.




> Oh yeah Chris Parker. When you say that there's no 1 tech that resolves every problem? Not what I said. I do, however, teach using every single tech we practice...and that includes every tech in Kenpo...against every primary range of civilian LEO and security personnel combat and self-defense in a thoroughgoing fashion. Those ranges and the mandatory requirement to be able to flow through any permutation thereof are:
> 
> 360 Degree Circle of Protection in each of the following ranges: Standing Clinch Seated Kneeling Ground Armed Multifight Armed Multifight CQB armed and unarmed inclusive of firearms escape rescue and escape and rescue and we include rolls breakfalls etc
> 
> I can use 1 technique that suffices for each and every one of these ranges. The fact that you don't is indicative of the limits in your training method, not the limits of self-defense itself.



Actually, you kinda did give that impression here:
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sh...d-and-hammer-pt-1-and-2&p=1462091#post1462091

"So I have come up with a way that...step by step...logically and progressively teaches you how to use The Sword and Hammer no matter what your opponent does. That's the IP premise and conclusion that I use. Do tech 'x' no matter WHAT the BG does. Guess what? That includes the "best case" scenario that is part and parcel, heart and soul to "most" Kenpo schools' IP....but they don't include mine."

Sorry but that reads to me, that whether the guy punches, pushes, kicks or grabs, you could do S&H.  Now, if you said that you would use 'ideas' from this tech or that tech, then I could agree with that.  ie: Take 5 Swords, right round house punch.  Spontaneous reaction drill, my opponent throws a right hook.  I may step up and do and inital 5 swords block, but then follow up with a leg sweep.  Not doing 5 swords, dont claim to be doing 5 swords...I'm using ideas from it.


----------



## Twin Fist

anyone that says they can use any technique to respond to any attack is full of crap.

you can use the principals from the techniques with any attack

ie marraige of gravity, you can use that with anything

but you cant use the techniques, which are designed for specific attacks to defend against every attack

more importantly, the more bragging a person does, the less seriously i take them.


----------



## ATACX GYM

MJS said:


> Sorry but that reads to me, that whether the guy punches, pushes, kicks or grabs, you could do S&H.  Now, if you said that you would use 'ideas' from this tech or that tech, then I could agree with that.  ie: Take 5 Swords, right round house punch.  Spontaneous reaction drill, my opponent throws a right hook.  I may step up and do and inital 5 swords block, but then follow up with a leg sweep.  Not doing 5 swords, dont claim to be doing 5 swords...I'm using ideas from it.



The above doesn't mean "resolving every problem". "Resolving every problem" is FAAAR beyond the scope of what this tech does. I have stated numerous times...The ATACX GYM draws our ranges of combat and methods from what most of us in civilian, security type jobs, martial arts combat and tournies and LEO type positions are likely to face. These scenarios--especially CQB firearms type scenarios--have lots of carryover to the military too, but addressing full military scenarios is beyond my focus at the moment. 

My Sword and Hammer does indeed do everything that I said in that quote. Stretching it out to cover more than what's in that quote is a logical fallacy and evidence of reading miscomprehension which many of my detractors seem to specialize in.

And yes MJS what you said as the opening sentence of your last paragraph is dead on. My Sword and Hammer works whether a guy punches, pushes, kicks, grabs, stabs, etc. That's how I train it. Did you read my 15 Round training thing? Should make it crystal clear.


----------



## Twin Fist

ATACX GYM said:


> evidence of reading miscomprehension which many of my detractors seem to specialize in.




uh, Coach?
some free advice:

when you accuse anyone that disagrees with you of having a problem comprehending english, it doesnt help your credibility. It DOES however make people that are on the fence about your characher think you just might be a douche


----------



## ATACX GYM

Chris Parker said:


> Firstly, in discussing a 'better' version of Sword and Hammer without coming to an agreement about what criteria are required for a technique to actually be Sword and Hammer in the first place means we can't really discuss your approach... so it needs to be dealt with first. And, for the record, it's a question that has been there since my very first response to you, where I pointed out: "Then we get you changing the structure of the attack by keeping your opponent on your left shoulder, but having them grab with their left hand... which completely removes the attack that's actually seen in Sword and Hammer, as well as removing the targets, body positioning, and more, altering the timing and rhythm of the sequence entirely, and basically necessitating a completely different technique, which, to be blunt, is what you're doing. *This is no longer the Yellow Belt Technique "Sword and Hammer" from the American Kempo system, as there are almost no aspects of it left, other than similar fists being used.*""Your second version. Well, you start off saying it's nothing like what others would have been taught, and, well, yeah. *Because you have barely included anything from the original, other than the name and certain fists. Other than that, tactically it's a completely different technique, rythmically it's a completely different technique, strategically it's a completely different technique, mechanically it's a completely different technique, philosophically it's a completely different technique... really, it's just a completely different technique.*"So from the very get-go it's been demonstrated that your understanding of what makes the technique what it is has been questionable, at least..





I have answered this numerous times. Your return to the more popular expression of this technique simply means that you're exercising your right to be obtuse.

However, for those of you who have PM'd me and emailed me in droves and who grasp what I'm talking about and for that part of Chris Parker which might actually grasp this explanation, here is what I offer you as a response:


I cannot speak for whoever first crafted Sword and Hammer as a so-called IP Technique [ it wasn't Mr. Parker, as he fashioned the Ideal Phase Analytical Technique PROCESS which lead to Sword and Hammer ], but MY reasoning for how I came to the use of Sword and Hammer I already explained not only on KT but linked that explanation for those onsite.

I initially stated that at first I was severely put off by the nonfunctional craptasticness of the more common expression and eschewed the handsword initially for a heel palm. I called it at first HAMMER AND SALUTE. It worked very well. For years. And then one day a female student of mine got her long hair caught in a shoulder grab while sparring in class. She responded with HAMMER AND SALUTE...which freed her from the shoulder grasp, but her sparring partner still had her hair. She lost that match as a result. Then another student of mine...a guy...had a similar experience.

I went back to the Sword and Hammer and began looking past the way it was presented to me and began thinking of ways to use the tech in an actually functional way. 

The moment I started that process, everything else fell into place.

I reinserted the handsword because with functional training, and instantly it yielded all sorts of benefits that the heel palm didn't. The heel palm is an excellent tech and it has its place, but the handsword in conjunction with the hammerfist yields a specific synergistic combo that is very salient to being grabbed PERIOD, and is amplified when you're striking arms that are half to fully extended. What are these benefits and all that good stuff? Well like I said...I can't speak for anyone else but MY studies and intensive practice have yielded the following data:

1. The handsword is not only able to strike 4 primary targets on the "tripod" of head/neck/shoulders that have the immediate result of causing predictable anatomical responses that weaken or release the grip of most people while simultaneously oftentimes taking them out of the fight, the handsword is better structurally shaped for the task of doing that work. 

A handsword to your Adam's apple or carotid could end the fracas right there. Same with a handsword to the space between BG's ribs. If your opponent is too tall or the circumstances of combat remove the head and neck from being viable targets, go for the deltoids or back of the neck, liver or kidneys with the handsword. 

You can oftentimes reach his arm. That's especially vital for us short folks. A stank funk nasty handsword to the triceps, brachialis, traps, or even the lats will really mess up the BG's day. Not only will you ruin his day...even if you're NOT taking him out of the fight with those shots, you will cause  the BG to weaken his grip dramatically on you.

2. When you couple this knowledge with the Cover and Spin and apply it with the simultaneous deployment of the hammerfist to the outside of the forearm along the strip from wrist to the elbow, you see that the tricep is a target that is sitting wide open for you. Even if you're short like me or the woman that MJS was teaching. Well, the benefit of using the handsword over the heel palm here is that the heel palm hurts, shoots your opponent away from you and makes him turn your back to you. He's wide open for you to smash him with another attack or it can give you that extra precious second or three to get a head start running away. 

The HANDSWORD applied to the triceps in this circumstance not only DRAMATICALLY weakens the grip, in combination with the hammerfist hammerblock combo it's almost certain to;

a) free you of your opponent's grasp

b) cause serious trauma to his arm in an area that is not well suited for dealing with the kind of shock that the handsword delivers. 

c) increase the likelihood of 3 beneficial scenarios: taking your opponent's will to fight away,  drop him and finish him, and/or the pain takes the offending grasping arm out of the fight either for the rest of the encounter or long enough for you to run or capitalize combatively on the options presented

d) Like the Heel Palm did, the handsword also propels your opponent away from you. It doesn't turn his back toward you as much as the Heel Palm does, but it delivers more trauma of a variety that isn't often doled out and which is oftentimes difficult for our opponents to deal with.

e) The handsword is more suited structurally for not only the strikes I already enumerated but for flowing smoothly into traps and pins and checks which all a continued unbroken barrage of strikes to be employed. The Heel Palm is good for that too but not as well for The Cover Out as it is for The Cover In.

There's more but I trust you get the point. 

Essentially I considered the benefits of the application of the handsword, the facility that relative newbs would have in its application, and what benefits it has in conjunction with the strikes that complement it...in this case? The hammerfist.

I subjected the hammerfist to the same analysis and got similar results.

I then evaluated the same factors when selecting each step of my Sword and Hammer sequence. And I tested, am testing now, and continue to test these techs on the mat. I have made and will continue to make improvements in various areas...but the Sword and Hammer are staying in this tech in my Gym due to the mass of positive data resulting from the experience of myself, my fellow Coaches and my students and clients collective body of scrappin, research, and direct experience therewith.


----------



## Twin Fist




----------



## ATACX GYM

Chris Parker said:


> Originally Posted by *ATACX GYM*
> 
> [  Uhhh...I teach my students how to defeat this kind of attack BEFORE they're a WHITE BELT. Observe:A. Bad guy grabs your right shoulder. No pushes or pulls. Cocks back fist.B. Pre-White Belt Level A...the newest of all new newbs...smartly executes a right upward block under the shoulder grabbing left hand of BG. This block is timed with the punch. You lift or disengage the grab and block the punch at the same time.C. Counterattack with reverse punch.How easy is that?""Honestly? I see quite a few issues there... and frankly, the regular Sword and Hammer I'd class as superior in a number of ways."


----------



## ATACX GYM

Twin Fist said:


>





Simple doesn't mean short...it means SIMPLE.


----------



## Twin Fist

ATACX GYM said:


> I cannot speak for whoever first crafted Sword and Hammer as a so-called IP Technique [ it wasn't Mr. Parker, as he fashioned the Ideal Phase Analytical Technique PROCESS which lead to Sword and Hammer ]




i am almost 100% certain that this is not true

the tracy's have this same technique, they call it pin step chop, they admit they learned it from ed parker who learned it from Chow.

the tracy's were among parkers first black belts, (preceeding Doc by about 5-10 years if i recall correctly) so it was being taught VERY early in the formulation of Ed parker's Kenpo

this is WAY before the so called "motion kenpo" or the "IP analytical process"  was even in use


this is what i havnt said till know but someone needs to remind you of. the tracy's have versions of many of ed parkers techniques in their system.

this means the techniques pre-existed Doc, as he came AFTER the Tracy's left. Most of those techniques Parker learned from Chow, the Tracy's confirmed this.

so there was on at least some of the techniques, a set version before the motion kenpo thing in the late 60's and 70's


----------



## ATACX GYM

The site is too busy and keeps eating my reply...


----------



## ATACX GYM

Chris Parker said:


> F
> Originally Posted by *ATACX GYM*
> 
> [ Uhhh...I teach my students how to defeat this kind of attack BEFORE they're a WHITE BELT. Observe:
> 
> A. Bad guy grabs your right shoulder. No pushes or pulls. Cocks back fist.
> 
> B. Pre-White Belt Level A...the newest of all new newbs...smartly executes a right upward block under the shoulder grabbing left hand of BG. This block is timed with the punch. You lift or disengage the grab and block the punch at the same time.
> 
> C. Counterattack with reverse punch.
> 
> How easy is that?"
> 
> 
> "Honestly? I see quite a few issues there... and frankly, the regular Sword and Hammer I'd class as superior in a number of ways."<--Chris Parker
> 
> Enumerate these problems, Chris.



It's primarily in the rising block. It's a weak action using weak muscles against stronger muscles in the opponents grab, the angle is difficult (at best) the further around the opponent gets behind you, the timing can very easily miss the punch, making it a very ineffective way of dealing with that, and a reverse punch is using the furthest weapon against a far target, rather than something that's already in range. I'm not a fan of it, really.
[/QUOTE]



The upward block is a full body technique requiring the coordination of breath with the legs drawing power from the ground or whatever stabilizing surface, shooting this power through the hips and upper torso, adding to this power with the rotation of the torso as the nonblocking hand draws up to a defensive position similar to that of a boxer's hands guarding his/her face, and the use of essentially the forearm shiver upon the forearm of the BG's grabbing arm.

You're not flapping your arm up like you're about to put deodorant on.

This tech has lots of power. It frequently disengages a grab all by itself [ it will definitely disengage the 'dead starfish hand' shown in most videos of the more common version of Sword and Hammer ] and even when it doesn't? The forearm shiver's impact delivered by the full body's power causes pain, disturbs our opponent's balance, causes a momentarily delay in the brain's processing of other data due to its distraction by the unexpected pain, and opens the BG up to a solid hit from the reverse punch. Its a high percentage, powerful tech.



Chris Parker said:


> Son, don't even consider that you can make any reference to my training. So far, from what I've seen of yours, there are some gigantic gaps in what you've been taught. And I do mean gigantic.





I don't need to say anything...you said all that needs to be said when you demonstrated a complete miscomprehension of a crucial basic fundamental tech like the upward block. That is one of many times you have shown from your own mouth which of us has gigantic gaps in our training...and it's not me.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Twin Fist said:


> i am almost 100% certain that this is not true
> 
> the tracy's have this same technique, they call it pin step chop, they admit they learned it from ed parker who learned it from Chow.
> 
> the tracy's were among parkers first black belts, (preceeding Doc by about 5-10 years if i recall correctly) so it was being taught VERY early in the formulation of Ed parker's Kenpo
> 
> this is WAY before the so called "motion kenpo" or the "IP analytical process"  was even in use
> 
> 
> this is what i havnt said till know but someone needs to remind you of. the tracy's have versions of many of ed parkers techniques in their system.
> 
> this means the techniques pre-existed Doc, as he came AFTER the Tracy's left. Most of those techniques Parker learned from Chow, the Tracy's confirmed this.
> 
> so there was on at least some of the techniques, a set version before the motion kenpo thing in the late 60's and 70's




I learned this tech as Pin Step Chop too. Didn't like it then, either.

Mr. Parker did NOT invent any IP Techs instead he created the Ideal Phase Analytical Technique PROCESS. I'm convinced that this is Kenpo's Scientific Method [ Observation, Hypothesis, Experimentation, Conclusion]. Scientists the world over use The Scientific Method, but at no time does any of them mistake the result from their experiment for the actual Scientific Method itself.

Don't mistake Sword and Hammer for the REAL Ideal Phase...which like The Scientific Method is a PROCESS.

My Atacx Gym Sword and Hammer is A KENPO IDEA for people not in my Gym, it's a Ideal Technique ONLY IN my Gym.

Mr. Parker wrote this definition in his book. You don't need to ask Doc to read Mr. Parker's book. But if you doubt Doc's word? Take it up with him. Doc trained with Mr. Parker exclusive for about 3 decades. Longer than the Tracy's did. And he was with Mr. Parker throughout Mr.Parker's evolution til the day Mr. Parker died. I think that this experience gives Doc and ONLY Doc a special perspective that no other human being on Earth may have.

anywho...

There are people who disagree with my ATACX GYM KENPO KARATE SWORD AND HAMMER as AN Ideal and champion the other more popular expression. Fine. 

Like good scientists do, the first thing I looked for in their discussion is whether or not the method they championed met the requirements for even being called an Ideal Technique. It doesn't. The more common expression for the Sword and Hammer fails in the What If and Formulation Phases for sure and a powerful argument can be made that it fails in The Equation Formula as well.


----------



## Chris Parker

ATACX GYM said:


> I have answered this numerous times. Your return to the more popular expression of this technique simply means that you're exercising your right to be obtuse.
> 
> However, for those of you who have PM'd me and emailed me in droves and who grasp what I'm talking about and for that part of Chris Parker which might actually grasp this explanation, here is what I offer you as a response:
> 
> 
> I cannot speak for whoever first crafted Sword and Hammer as a so-called IP Technique [ it wasn't Mr. Parker, as he fashioned the Ideal Phase Analytical Technique PROCESS which lead to Sword and Hammer ], but MY reasoning for how I came to the use of Sword and Hammer I already explained not only on KT but linked that explanation for those onsite.
> 
> I initially stated that at first I was severely put off by the nonfunctional craptasticness of the more common expression and eschewed the handsword initially for a heel palm. I called it at first HAMMER AND SALUTE. It worked very well. For years. And then one day a female student of mine got her long hair caught in a shoulder grab while sparring in class. She responded with HAMMER AND SALUTE...which freed her from the shoulder grasp, but her sparring partner still had her hair. She lost that match as a result. Then another student of mine...a guy...had a similar experience.
> 
> I went back to the Sword and Hammer and began looking past the way it was presented to me and began thinking of ways to use the tech in an actually functional way.
> 
> The moment I started that process, everything else fell into place.
> 
> I reinserted the handsword because with functional training, and instantly it yielded all sorts of benefits that the heel palm didn't. The heel palm is an excellent tech and it has its place, but the handsword in conjunction with the hammerfist yields a specific synergistic combo that is very salient to being grabbed PERIOD, and is amplified when you're striking arms that are half to fully extended. What are these benefits and all that good stuff? Well like I said...I can't speak for anyone else but MY studies and intensive practice have yielded the following data:
> 
> 1. The handsword is not only able to strike 4 primary targets on the "tripod" of head/neck/shoulders that have the immediate result of causing predictable anatomical responses that weaken or release the grip of most people while simultaneously oftentimes taking them out of the fight, the handsword is better structurally shaped for the task of doing that work.
> 
> A handsword to your Adam's apple or carotid could end the fracas right there. Same with a handsword to the space between BG's ribs. If your opponent is too tall or the circumstances of combat remove the head and neck from being viable targets, go for the deltoids or back of the neck, liver or kidneys with the handsword.
> 
> You can oftentimes reach his arm. That's especially vital for us short folks. A stank funk nasty handsword to the triceps, brachialis, traps, or even the lats will really mess up the BG's day. Not only will you ruin his day...even if you're NOT taking him out of the fight with those shots, you will cause  the BG to weaken his grip dramatically on you.
> 
> 2. When you couple this knowledge with the Cover and Spin and apply it with the simultaneous deployment of the hammerfist to the outside of the forearm along the strip from wrist to the elbow, you see that the tricep is a target that is sitting wide open for you. Even if you're short like me or the woman that MJS was teaching. Well, the benefit of using the handsword over the heel palm here is that the heel palm hurts, shoots your opponent away from you and makes him turn your back to you. He's wide open for you to smash him with another attack or it can give you that extra precious second or three to get a head start running away.
> 
> The HANDSWORD applied to the triceps in this circumstance not only DRAMATICALLY weakens the grip, in combination with the hammerfist hammerblock combo it's almost certain to;
> 
> a) free you of your opponent's grasp
> 
> b) cause serious trauma to his arm in an area that is not well suited for dealing with the kind of shock that the handsword delivers.
> 
> c) increase the likelihood of 3 beneficial scenarios: taking your opponent's will to fight away,  drop him and finish him, and/or the pain takes the offending grasping arm out of the fight either for the rest of the encounter or long enough for you to run or capitalize combatively on the options presented
> 
> d) Like the Heel Palm did, the handsword also propels your opponent away from you. It doesn't turn his back toward you as much as the Heel Palm does, but it delivers more trauma of a variety that isn't often doled out and which is oftentimes difficult for our opponents to deal with.
> 
> e) The handsword is more suited structurally for not only the strikes I already enumerated but for flowing smoothly into traps and pins and checks which all a continued unbroken barrage of strikes to be employed. The Heel Palm is good for that too but not as well for The Cover Out as it is for The Cover In.
> 
> There's more but I trust you get the point.
> 
> Essentially I considered the benefits of the application of the handsword, the facility that relative newbs would have in its application, and what benefits it has in conjunction with the strikes that complement it...in this case? The hammerfist.
> 
> I subjected the hammerfist to the same analysis and got similar results.
> 
> I then evaluated the same factors when selecting each step of my Sword and Hammer sequence. And I tested, am testing now, and continue to test these techs on the mat. I have made and will continue to make improvements in various areas...but the Sword and Hammer are staying in this tech in my Gym due to the mass of positive data resulting from the experience of myself, my fellow Coaches and my students and clients collective body of scrappin, research, and direct experience therewith.



Ras, none of the above actually answers the question. It is a description of how you apply a couple of fists/weapons. It shows no understanding of the structure of techniques, nor does it answer what you feel is the required criteria for Sword and Hammer. So, again, complete failure.

Speaking of which.... 



ATACX GYM said:


> *I reinserted the handsword because with functional training,* and instantly it yielded all sorts of benefits that the heel palm didn't.



When you post things like the above, the reading comprehension on the part of the readers isn't the issue.... 



ATACX GYM said:


> The upward block is a full body technique requiring the coordination of breath with the legs drawing power from the ground or whatever stabilizing surface, shooting this power through the hips and upper torso, adding to this power with the rotation of the torso as the nonblocking hand draws up to a defensive position similar to that of a boxer's hands guarding his/her face, and the use of essentially the forearm shiver upon the forearm of the BG's grabbing arm.
> 
> You're not flapping your arm up like you're about to put deodorant on.
> 
> This tech has lots of power. It frequently disengages a grab all by itself [ it will definitely disengage the 'dead starfish hand' shown in most videos of the more common version of Sword and Hammer ] and even when it doesn't? The forearm shiver's impact delivered by the full body's power causes pain, disturbs our opponent's balance, causes a momentarily delay in the brain's processing of other data due to its distraction by the unexpected pain, and opens the BG up to a solid hit from the reverse punch. Its a high percentage, powerful tech.



Ah, now I wouldn't really compare it with Sword and Hammer, as it demonstrates a completely separate tactic... but that just brings us back to the initial question of what makes Sword and Hammer the technique of Sword and Hammer? As far as power, the further back the bad guy is, the less power. That's just simple biomechanics, Ras. Even at 3 o clock (as you guys term things...), it's rather limited, even when done as a "full body action" (which is the way we do everything, so was already taken into account).




ATACX GYM said:


> I don't need to say anything...you said all that needs to be said when you demonstrated a complete miscomprehension of a crucial basic fundamental tech like the upward block. That is one of many times you have shown from your own mouth which of us has gigantic gaps in our training...and it's not me.



You're kidding, right? You can't grasp the idea of a technique being a tactical approach to a problem, nor be able to indentify those tactics, yet you're saying that I have gaps in my training.... seriously, Ras, in all the time I've been reading your posts, you have been lacking. You have an idea, you have an approach, but it's built on rather false beliefs and incorrect, or incomplete understanding. I've given you a number of opportunities to prove me wrong, but you have completely failed to do so. Constantly and consistently.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Chris Parker said:


> Ras, none of the above actually answers the question. It is a description of how you apply a couple of fists/weapons. It shows no understanding of the structure of techniques, nor does it answer what you feel is the required criteria for Sword and Hammer. So, again, complete failure.
> 
> Speaking of which....
> 
> 
> 
> When you post things like the above, the reading comprehension on the part of the readers isn't the issue....
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, now I wouldn't really compare it with Sword and Hammer, as it demonstrates a completely separate tactic... but that just brings us back to the initial question of what makes Sword and Hammer the technique of Sword and Hammer? As far as power, the further back the bad guy is, the less power. That's just simple biomechanics, Ras. Even at 3 o clock (as you guys term things...), it's rather limited, even when done as a "full body action" (which is the way we do everything, so was already taken into account).
> 
> 
> 
> You're kidding, right? You can't grasp the idea of a technique being a tactical approach to a problem, nor be able to indentify those tactics, yet you're saying that I have gaps in my training.... seriously, Ras, in all the time I've been reading your posts, you have been lacking. You have an idea, you have an approach, but it's built on rather false beliefs and incorrect, or incomplete understanding. I've given you a number of opportunities to prove me wrong, but you have completely failed to do so. Constantly and consistently.




chris. connect the dots man. There is no extra mystical reason behind the implementation of techniques other than their utility for certain kinds of situations and whether or not they can be applied effectively in other situations as well. Remember my Sword and Hammer videos? The flank attacks ranging from my right shoulder to my left and every area in between? I deployed my techs against Hockey Punch attacks from those areas because those attacks are common...especially around my way. I used to resolve the quandary that Hockey Punch attacks posed using HAMMER AND SALUTE. Snag. Hair pulling problems started bedeviling my students. Solution: apply Sword and Hammer functionally. 

The process of doing so shows everything you asked about. It goes to the structure of the techniques in the literal sense. It goes into the WHYs of technique selection and application. It points out the synergistic benefits of applying these two specific techs in this way...biomechanics and stuff. Like I said, I don't feel like getting into another comprehensive answer of a question I already answered both on this site and when I supplied a link with a more comprehensive answer on KenpoTalk.com.

There are other ways to address this attack, and my students and clients have already learned ways of getting this attack prior to their receiving their White Belts. Like I told you already. But this tech...which is called more formally ATACX GYM KENPO KARATE'S SWORD AND HAMMER RADIUS...works like a charm in real world situations and I like it. So do my students. It also has the added advantage of applying unusual attacks using unusual body weaponry coming at unusual angles while applying unusual tactics and striking anatomical targets correctly...something else that is unusual. The BG would have a heck of a time defending this barrage because it's unusual, adroitly applied, and devastatingly effective.


----------



## Chris Parker

ATACX GYM said:


> chris. connect the dots man. There is no extra mystical reason behind the implementation of techniques other than their utility for certain kinds of situations and whether or not they can be applied effectively in other situations as well. Remember my Sword and Hammer videos? The flank attacks ranging from my right shoulder to my left and every area in between? I deployed my techs against Hockey Punch attacks from those areas because those attacks are common...especially around my way. I used to resolve the quandary that Hockey Punch attacks posed using HAMMER AND SALUTE. Snag. Hair pulling problems started bedeviling my students. Solution: apply Sword and Hammer functionally.



Stopping just shy of what I really want to say here, this shows you are absolutely clueless.

Sword and Hammer is, tactically, a technique of pre-emptive striking. By deciding that you want it to work against punching attacks you have missed the point of Sword and Hammer, and show no understanding of the structure of techniques. There is nothing "mystical" in anything I've been asking or saying.

You're attempting to solve problems that aren't present because you don't understand the initial technique. This is the problem. Your technique is not Sword and Hammer. It is not a "better version" of Sword and Hammer. It is something completely separate and removed with some superficial similarities, which are there primarily as you aren't as creative or insightful as you think you are.

Really, you're quite clueless in this regard. 



ATACX GYM said:


> The process of doing so shows everything you asked about. It goes to the structure of the techniques in the literal sense. It goes into the WHYs of technique selection and application. It points out the synergistic benefits of applying these two specific techs in this way...biomechanics and stuff. Like I said, I don't feel like getting into another comprehensive answer of a question I already answered both on this site and when I supplied a link with a more comprehensive answer on KenpoTalk.com.



No, it didn't. It was a series of anecdotal occasions that lead to a development of what you are currently showing, but in no way was "comprehensive", nor did it answer the single, fundamental question of what makes Sword and Hammer what it is... what lessons does it impart, and what is it designed to teach. You've created a "better" fishing lure and called it a better mousetrap.



ATACX GYM said:


> There are other ways to address this attack, and my students and clients have already learned ways of getting this attack prior to their receiving their White Belts. Like I told you already. But this tech...which is called more formally ATACX GYM KENPO KARATE'S SWORD AND HAMMER RADIUS...works like a charm in real world situations and I like it. So do my students. It also has the added advantage of applying unusual attacks using unusual body weaponry coming at unusual angles while applying unusual tactics and striking anatomical targets correctly...something else that is unusual. The BG would have a heck of a time defending this barrage because it's unusual, adroitly applied, and devastatingly effective.



Wow, you think that "unusual attacks and angles" is something you'd need to talk to me about, son? You do know what I do, yeah? But the question here would be "what attack are you talking about?"... and if it involves a punch, what's the point of it being in a discussion of Sword and Hammer?

But really, all this is is a collection of you saying that what you do is "devastating, powerful, effective" and so on... with no actual evidence beyond your words. The fact that you go against what is known by everyone else could be an indication that you may have missed the point of a range of aspects.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Chris Parker said:


> Ras, none of the above actually answers the question. It is a description of how you apply a couple of fists/weapons. It shows no understanding of the structure of techniques, nor does it answer what you feel is the required criteria for Sword and Hammer. So, again, complete failure.
> 
> Ah, now I wouldn't really compare it with Sword and Hammer, as it demonstrates a completely separate tactic... but that just brings us back to the initial question of what makes Sword and Hammer the technique of Sword and Hammer? As far as power, the further back the bad guy is, the less power. That's just simple biomechanics, Ras. Even at 3 o clock (as you guys term things...), it's rather limited, even when done as a "full body action" (which is the way we do everything, so was already taken into account).




My post is beyond a description of how to apply fists/weapons. It specifically answered structural technique questions. I specified that the handsword did a better job than other weapons when applied to the triceps and other areas in the upper arm, especially at this belt rank. There IS a "complete failure" as you put it...but it's on your part regarding the comprehension of simple explanations.

You refer to the more common Sword and Hammer in your second paragraph. I agree that it demo's a completely separate tactic...because it fails to address the likelihood of a real world attack. The BG is NOT gonna pose, and the Kenpoists are NOT going to reliably preempt a flank attack. Like I said, Kenpo Elders like Mr. Tatum and Doc Chapel have proffered the same opinion as I have and they did it first [ regarding the sillyness of perpetual preemption ]. I left a link to those posts too.

If you felt that an upward block was a "full body action", you should not have described a single limb multijoint action...then called it weak. Clearly you are contradicting yourself. Either it's a full body action and strong or a single limb movement and comparatively weak.

If the BG is at 3pm? I already answered that...via video. Now lemme clarify on this post: if we are talking about the more common Sword and Hammer dysfunctional expression? The BG being@3pm is not a concern nor is it addressed. If we're talking about mine? I already addressed that. On video. If we're talking about applying the upward block to the BG at 3pm? Again, that's not hard. Turn toward the BG. Execute upward block with snappiness while drawing your other hand up to protect your face, your hand positioning similar to that of a boxer or bareknuckle MT or Muay Boran fighter. You'll either block the punch with your blocking hand or your rear hand will be in position to intercept the blow if it slips passed your upward block. You then either upward block again [ if the BG's limb doesn't retract fast enough ] and then fire a reverse punch or you simply ride the retracting hand back in and hit the body.

Doesn't matter where he is. If he can reach you with a grab? You'll be able to reach him with your reverse punch to his body...even if you have to take a step to do so.


----------



## Twin Fist

you are not ****ing listening as usual. The tracy's have this same technique. They learned it from Parker in the late 50's

they were there BEFORE doc

this means this technique was there before Doc

that means the techniques, at least some of them were set in stone in the late 50's WAY BEFORE the "process" you are referring to was implemented.


I trained with Ed Parker until the March 1959 and having access to Ed Parker's Kenpo techniques he kept on 3x5 index cards in his desk my brothers and I copied them by hand because there were no copy machines back then.

http://kenpokarate.com/1956-1959.html


are you getting that?

this technique existed AS IS in the late 50's

the process didnt

so, yes, Parker DID invent some techniques and created set versions of them. or was at least teaching set versions of over 400 techniques in the 50's, 20 years before this "process" was even put into play, 

so, YES there are set versions of each technique

yes you are supposed to learn the set version

yes there is a reason for it

yes you are supposed to move on from the set version

yes you are wrong.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Chris Parker said:


> Stopping just shy of what I really want to say here, this shows you are absolutely clueless.
> 
> Sword and Hammer is, tactically, a technique of pre-emptive striking. By deciding that you want it to work against punching attacks you have missed the point of Sword and Hammer, and show no understanding of the structure of techniques. There is nothing "mystical" in anything I've been asking or saying




You are wrong. Again. As I said, your concept of Sword and Hammer and everything about it is what you have seen and what you think you understand about the more common technique. You are using the more common technique as the standard. It. Is. Not. The. Standard. The more common technique doesn't even qualify fully along the lines of The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique PROCESS. It was annointed as thee IP for Sword and Hammer by others, not Mr. Parker. Until you release this misconception and divest yourself of all the poisons associated with it, you will never be right on anything else regarding this matter. I have been telling you this for nearly half of this thread now. Doc has posts repeatedly saying the same thing. I quoted Mr. Parker's own writings on the matter, which trump and supercede anything written on the technique itself.

Correct this miscomprehension of yours [ which like I said before, I'm not surprised that you have because many Kenpoists have the same miscomprehension and even I had a lesser but similar miscomprehension ] and then we can talk. Until then? I'm the man trying to convince you that there's a such thing as water...and you refuse it's existence as you drown at the bottom of the Atlantic.

AMANI..."peace"...


----------



## Chris Parker

ATACX GYM said:


> My post is beyond a description of how to apply fists/weapons. It specifically answered structural technique questions. I specified that the handsword did a better job than other weapons when applied to the triceps and other areas in the upper arm, especially at this belt rank. There IS a "complete failure" as you put it...but it's on your part regarding the comprehension of simple explanations.



Except you completely fail to address what Sword and Hammer is. Which was the damn question, Ras. And by not addressing that, or addressing why what you did was even a version of Sword and Hammer. You just went through the usage of various fists and why you chose them without the context of the lessons of Sword and Hammer. Seriously, my reading comprehension is fine... better than fine, really. Maybe you should take another look at the way you're communicating.



ATACX GYM said:


> You refer to the more common Sword and Hammer in your second paragraph. I agree that it demo's a completely separate tactic...because it fails to address the likelihood of a real world attack. The BG is NOT gonna pose, and the Kenpoists are NOT going to reliably preempt a flank attack. Like I said, Kenpo Elders like Mr. Tatum and Doc Chapel have proffered the same opinion as I have and they did it first [ regarding the sillyness of perpetual preemption ]. I left a link to those posts too.



Yes, you have lots of cases of you saying how right you are.... so it's your word backing up you. Hmm, that's credible...  

As far as you saying that the set-up of Sword and Hammer "fails to address the likelihood of a real world attack", dude, that is so not the case. It looks more like you don't understand the real world attack it represents. And when it comes to the idea of reliable pre-emptive strikes, I demonstrated to you where the "checks" were already embedded in the technique... if you don't see it, that's your issue.



ATACX GYM said:


> If you felt that an upward block was a "full body action", you should not have described a single limb multijoint action...then called it weak. Clearly you are contradicting yourself. Either it's a full body action and strong or a single limb movement and comparatively weak.



No, I was assuming that the bad guy would be using a full body action as well... and structurally, biomechanically, physically, it is a weak response focusing on weak muscle groups for the action against large muscle groups.



ATACX GYM said:


> If the BG is at 3pm? I already answered that...via video. Now lemme clarify on this post: if we are talking about the more common Sword and Hammer dysfunctional expression? The BG being@3pm is not a concern nor is it addressed. If we're talking about mine? I already addressed that. On video. If we're talking about applying the upward block to the BG at 3pm? Again, that's not hard. Turn toward the BG. Execute upward block with snappiness while drawing your other hand up to protect your face, your hand positioning similar to that of a boxer or bareknuckle MT or Muay Boran fighter. You'll either block the punch with your blocking hand or your rear hand will be in position to intercept the blow if it slips passed your upward block. You then either upward block again [ if the BG's limb doesn't retract fast enough ] and then fire a reverse punch or you simply ride the retracting hand back in and hit the body.



Again, the back-up you have to your claims is you. Not convinced, Ras. And nothing here is convincing either, as you're just repeating the same thing without actually listening or understanding what you're being asked about.



ATACX GYM said:


> Doesn't matter where he is. If he can reach you with a grab? You'll be able to reach him with your reverse punch to his body...even if you have to take a step to do so.



What? Okay, do me a favour, have someone stand behind you to your right (5 o clock), holding your right shoulder with their left hand. Even turning back towards them to knock the grabbing hand off, can you reach with a reverse (left) punch?

Seriously, dude, flawed technique from the get go.



ATACX GYM said:


> You are wrong. Again. As I said, your concept of Sword and Hammer and everything about it is what you have seen and what you think you understand about the more common technique. You are using the more common technique as the standard. It. Is. Not. The. Standard. The more common technique doesn't even qualify fully along the lines of The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique PROCESS. It was annointed as thee IP for Sword and Hammer by others, not Mr. Parker. Until you release this misconception and divest yourself of all the poisons associated with it, you will never be right on anything else regarding this matter. I have been telling you this for nearly half of this thread now. Doc has posts repeatedly saying the same thing. I quoted Mr. Parker's own writings on the matter, which trump and supercede anything written on the technique itself.
> 
> Correct this miscomprehension of yours [ which like I said before, I'm not surprised that you have because many Kenpoists have the same miscomprehension and even I had a lesser but similar miscomprehension ] and then we can talk. Until then? I'm the man trying to convince you that there's a such thing as water...and you refuse it's existence as you drown at the bottom of the Atlantic.
> 
> AMANI..."peace"...



Ras. Very simply and concisely now.

Get over yourself.

You really aren't that good.

And you are honestly decades behind me from your answers here (including your videos).


----------



## jks9199

Ras, whether intended or not, can we agree that in the Kenpo syllabi that have come down, there are some common techniques and terminology?  Within those syllabi, there is a technique which is commonly called "Sword and Hammer" or sometimes "Pin Step Chop", correct?  And that technique is designed to deal with a grab with the left hand from the right flank, correct?  So that when most Kenpo students get together, they can use common language to identify that technique, and discuss it from the same points of reference.   It doesn't matter if the technique is good or not, or whether it is functional or not -- when they talk about it, they're all coming from the same place.

That's where a lot of us run into trouble.  Few have said that your "ATACX GYM SWORD AND HAMMER" is an ineffective technique.  Some may not think it's all you've decided it is -- but that's not the same as saying that it's a bad technique or combination.  But using it to somehow prove the ineffectiveness of the common version doesn't work, because it starts from a different premise.  You've started from the premise of a right hand grab and push, prepping a punch.  That's led you, through Parker's analytical method as you've interpreted it, to a different solution, rather unsurprisingly.

Now, we can discuss the realism or likelihood of the original premise versus yours.  That's certainly a valid discussion.  We can discuss the effectiveness of each technique versus there intended attack or situation.  We can look within either approach for lessons and commonalities.  But one doesn't disprove or prove the other, any more than BJJ "proves" that punching doesn't work -- or that police DT tactics prove that regular martial arts are useless for self defense.  They all start from different places... and reach different ends because of that.

Communication requires us to use common terms in the same way.  Otherwise, we get confusion...  Did you ever see the *Star Trek: The Next Generation* episode _Darmok_?  Picard finds himself trapped in a dangerous situation with an alien whose language is radically different in basis from English.  The magic universal translator is useless to them, because even though the words are coming across -- the meaning was lost.  In the same way -- you're telling us that your "ATACX GYM SWORD AND HAMMER" is the same as the standard version -- but it starts from a different attack, moves in the opposite direction, etc. as we've gone round and round about...

But, arguing that "people just don't get it" or treading close to insulting other people for disagreeing (or merely pointing out that you've changed everything so much that it's not the same thing) isn't going to make your case or convince anyone.  If we're not starting from the same place, we're not going to be on the same page, and we're not going to end up in the same place.  All that's happening is both sides of the discussion are shutting down -- or doing a long winded version of the "tastes great - less filling" game.


----------



## Twin Fist

and who the hell thinks a right handed push followed by a left punch is more likely?

just on the basis of the VAST majority of people being right handed that assumption fails.

a left push and right punch is MUCH more likely.

untill you think about what sort of idiot someone would have to be to push you AWAY from thier punch in the fist place.

no, sorry, i have say that the attack Ras has decided to change it to is HIGHLY unlikely and not realistic at all.

I have had people actually do the flank grab on me.


----------



## Chris Parker

On that note, from my first post in this thread.....

"You have your opponent pushing you forward while hitting you? Really? And you think that's the more common attack? Gotta say, it's one of the most ineffectual attacks I can think of, as you'd be constantly pushing your victim out of the range of your fist, making your attacks not much more than useless.... Most of your following response suffers from much of the same issues as the previous one (punch to the temple? Good chance of breaking your own hand, particularly with the weak structure you're using, but hey, go for it!)."


----------



## Twin Fist




----------



## ATACX GYM

jks9199 said:


> Ras, whether intended or not, can we agree that in the Kenpo syllabi that have come down, there are some common techniques and terminology?  Within those syllabi, there is a technique which is commonly called "Sword and Hammer" or sometimes "Pin Step Chop", correct?  And that technique is designed to deal with a grab with the left hand from the right flank, correct?  So that when most Kenpo students get together, they can use common language to identify that technique, and discuss it from the same points of reference.   It doesn't matter if the technique is good or not, or whether it is functional or not -- when they talk about it, they're all coming from the same place.
> 
> That's where a lot of us run into trouble.  Few have said that your "ATACX GYM SWORD AND HAMMER" is an ineffective technique.  Some may not think it's all you've decided it is -- but that's not the same as saying that it's a bad technique or combination.  But using it to somehow prove the ineffectiveness of the common version doesn't work, because it starts from a different premise.  You've started from the premise of a right hand grab and push, prepping a punch.  That's led you, through Parker's analytical method as you've interpreted it, to a different solution, rather unsurprisingly.
> 
> Now, we can discuss the realism or likelihood of the original premise versus yours.  That's certainly a valid discussion.  We can discuss the effectiveness of each technique versus there intended attack or situation.  We can look within either approach for lessons and commonalities.  But one doesn't disprove or prove the other, any more than BJJ "proves" that punching doesn't work -- or that police DT tactics prove that regular martial arts are useless for self defense.  They all start from different places... and reach different ends because of that.
> 
> Communication requires us to use common terms in the same way.  Otherwise, we get confusion...  Did you ever see the *Star Trek: The Next Generation* episode _Darmok_?  Picard finds himself trapped in a dangerous situation with an alien whose language is radically different in basis from English.  The magic universal translator is useless to them, because even though the words are coming across -- the meaning was lost.  In the same way -- you're telling us that your "ATACX GYM SWORD AND HAMMER" is the same as the standard version -- but it starts from a different attack, moves in the opposite direction, etc. as we've gone round and round about...
> 
> But, arguing that "people just don't get it" or treading close to insulting other people for disagreeing (or merely pointing out that you've changed everything so much that it's not the same thing) isn't going to make your case or convince anyone.  If we're not starting from the same place, we're not going to be on the same page, and we're not going to end up in the same place.  All that's happening is both sides of the discussion are shutting down -- or doing a long winded version of the "tastes great - less filling" game.




First: I am a lifelong Trekker. I loved Star Trek: TNG. I remember that episode well. I absolutely grasp your point. Second? TASTE GREAT/LESS FILLING GAME? LOLOLOLOLOLOL. Liked that commercial too.

We can and do agree about the tech being called Sword and Hammer/Pin Step Chop, and common terminology. Right there with you man.

However, I never stated that my Sword and Hammer proves the ineffectiveness of the more common version. I believe [ as I've stated literally thousands of times on KT and hundreds of times here on MT ] that dysfunctional training is the heart of the issue in every single one of the IPs and in much of martial arts training in most martial arts in general. As Twin Fist rightly imo pointed out...the more common IPs are designed around the idea of a 'best case scenario'. I think that--in the "best case scenario"--the more common tech will work perfectly fine. I agreed with Twin Fist aka John on this matter already.

However, basing a SD tech on a ' best case scenario' imho is highly, highly flawed as a central training model. As I have stated, such an approach will not work in an actual fracas. To quote Doc: "the techniques as written are unworkable".

My tech is designed to defend a Hockey Punch attack and all of its variants from standing to the ground and in multifights. This comprehensive approach by necessity includes the "best case scenario" as well. I have long championed the idea that the more comprehensive functional approach includes any and every scenario that the less functional less comprehensive approaches do and also solves these matters better. The converse can never be the case. I further stated that whatever tech that purports to defend an attack should be tested with real energy and resistance. Not even full tilt boogie at first, just actually put the tech to the test. Take the "best case scenario" tech and try it. Will you REALLY be able to RELIABLY act and react preemptively vs the actual attack as the tech purports? I assume that the "more common tech" is defending against the menace of the oncoming lateral flank grab and punch...aka Hockey Punch...so why not get on the mat and try it out?

I am willing to bet that if you try this tech 20 times in a row, 100 times in a row...there will in general be a less than 5% success rate in pulling off the tech as shown. However, if that same test was run on THE ATACX GYM SWORD AND HAMMER...that success rate would skyrocket to 90% at least. I've tested both. Energetically. For decades. So has my GM and many others; so this isn't just my opinion and I'm not guessing. However, please I urge you to try this out on your own. Experiment with it. Video it and share the results with the rest of us.

As for the names of the techs? Well, the more common version is called Sword and Hammer. Mine is called [and I quote the name from the video ] ATACX GYM KENPO KARATE SWORD AND HAMMER.

We're not parallel to Picard's situation with the Tamarians [ I cannot remember the name of the Tamarian Captain though, dang it ] on Star Trek: TNG. We understand each other's words. Unlike the Tamarians, we're not communicating via allegory. What's happening here is that others are insistently superimposing their habits of mind over the data that their eyes are conveying. Then they take umbrage when I told them over and over again that this habit of theirs...this *insistence* in the case of some...is the first major part of our disagreements. The second major part is the lack of accurate knowledge about the actual history of hte IP that 99.9% of us--including me--were unaware of to a greater or lesser degree. 

Now both areas have been addressed with the proper information. They're reading ATACX GYM KENPO KARATE SWORD AND HAMMER and keep telling themselves that they're seeing what they think is Ed Parker's Sword and Hammer. And now they know that there was never a such thing as a "hard and fast" Ed Parker's Sword and Hammer. It's up to the readership to decide whether they want to accept these true and accurate facts or not.

Welll...Doc said that such a thing would happen.

I lol'd at what Doc said. I told him that it's hard for such a thing to happen unless we're talking about willful children or absolute morons. No way, I told him. 

I remember his post. He said: "Last time...use your own name..."

I said I did. See? ATACX GYM KENPO KARATE SWORD AND HAMMER.

He said I should divulge the full name for it that I have written down in my syllabus: ATACX GYM KENPO KARATE SWORD AND HAMMER *RADIUS R.D.L.*

I said I usually refer to it as ATACX GYM KENPO KARATE SWORD AND HAMMER, even when teaching people in my Gym. He told me that he liked ATACX GYM KENPO...and don't use names that are the same as Ed Parker's Kenpo. I said..."But they're NOT the same!" About 95% of my techs names are not the same as Ed Parker's techs. Technically? 100% are different. I have it written in my syllabus. ATACX GYM KENPO KARATE ALTERNATING MACES *RADIUS R.D.L., *ATACX GYM KENPO KARATE ATTACKING MACE *RADIUS R.D.L.*

Now, I see that Doc was right. Again. I have to really emphasize the* ATACX GYM *and the *RADIUS R.D.L. *for the particularly anal mindsets out there. 

I don't even have REPEATING MACE in my curriculum, for instance. I have *REQUIEM RADIUS R.D.L.*

So. I'm adding the words RADIUS R.D.L. to the name of my video. Today.


----------



## Chris Parker

Then the question is, Ras, how delusional are you?!?!

You never said that your version was a better, or improved version of the "standard" Sword and Hammer, yet put it up as a direct comparrison?!?! You admit that you aren't even dealing with the same attack, yet berate the standard form as not being able to handle the attack you're now using?!?! What on earth was the point of showing the "standard" if it wasn't anything to do with your technique... and why on earth did you keep arguing when that was pointed out from the very first response I gave you?!?! Can you not see how the confusion has occurred, and how you have in fact been the architect and orchestrator of such since your very first post?!?!

Seriously, Ras, we've been saying from the beginning that your version is not even related to the first ones you show (the standard forms), and have been asking you to clarify that... which you have completely failed to do. Now, 12 pages and 167 posts in, you've finally said that your technique has no connection to the original from whom you took the name, and very little else... so what was the point? You might as well have put up a video of someone defending against a bear hug and pointed out how that defence doesn't work against a stabbing knife attack.


----------



## Twin Fist

Since you like to use Doc Chapel to justify your.....ideas, let's take a look at Doc's words, shall we?

Doc's own words from a post on this very forum:
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?94988-IP-Techniques-Do-We-Need-Them/page8

"Parker stated, and was very specific;* In the first &#8220;phase&#8221; of learning the student should be subjected to a set curriculum with no variations, what ifs, or formulations* because that is a different stage and to do otherwise not only confuses students, but doesn&#8217;t allow for enough physical repetition of the set model to create new synaptic pathways or &#8220;muscle memory.&#8221; *"What if" training is for mid-level black belts, and formulation was for "masters" of the basics of the art.* 

This is as I teach. *The term &#8220;what if&#8217; is forbidden for lower students. It is their job to learn the material, the ABC's of function if you will.* It is more important to concentrate on basic skills and physical vocabulary that emphasizes body mechanics and techniques that are absolutely functional and capable of standing alone.

&#8220;*Therefore, the IDEAL techniques are built around seemingly INFLEXIBLE and one dimensional assumptions for a good purpose. They provide us with a basis from which we may BEGIN our analytical process. Prescribed techniques applied to prescribed reactions are the keys that make a basic technique IDEAL or FIXED.&#8221; 
*
*In the traditional sense, Phase One was strict unalterable basics, forms, sets, and technique applications, as I teach now*. Phase Two, allowed for additional "considerations," and Phase Three was for Master Professors only, who influenced the material the other two phases worked from. 

* it was never his intent for students of the business of kenpo, to be subjected to anything but phase I motion *under the guidance of a teacher who would create plausible and fixed ideals, and the art itself would have a functional ceiling, until he created the next level. 

Parker quotes continue; 

&#8220;In Phase I, structuring an IDEAL technique requires SELECTING A COMBAT SITUATION YOU WISH TO ANALYZE. *Contained within the technique should be FIXED MOVES OF DEFENSE, OFFENSE, AND THE ANTICIPATED REACTIONS* that can stem from them.&#8221; 


*The "what if" is irrelevant without a significant solid base curriculum that is "hard wired' into your synaptic pathways, and fortified against Adrenal Stress Syndrome.* It is unfortunate for many reared in the "commercial motion phase," to grasp or accept this rather obvious (to me) fact. However, those from outside seem to see it rather quickly when it is properly explained. 

*How can you emphasize all these things, and promote the Three Phases Concept simultaneously without giving people a definitive one way to do every technique, which he never did? You can't.* 

hmmmm

interesting​


----------



## ATACX GYM

Chris Parker said:


> Then the question is, Ras, how delusional are you?!?!
> 
> You never said that your version was a better, or improved version of the "standard" Sword and Hammer, yet put it up as a direct comparrison?!?! You admit that you aren't even dealing with the same attack, yet berate the standard form as not being able to handle the attack you're now using?!?! What on earth was the point of showing the "standard" if it wasn't anything to do with your technique... and why on earth did you keep arguing when that was pointed out from the very first response I gave you?!?! Can you not see how the confusion has occurred, and how you have in fact been the architect and orchestrator of such since your very first post?!?!
> 
> Seriously, Ras, we've been saying from the beginning that your version is not even related to the first ones you show (the standard forms), and have been asking you to clarify that... which you have completely failed to do. Now, 12 pages and 167 posts in, you've finally said that your technique has no connection to the original from whom you took the name, and very little else... so what was the point? You might as well have put up a video of someone defending against a bear hug and pointed out how that defence doesn't work against a stabbing knife attack.





At first I wasn't going to reply to this post...the dooficity level was exceptional even for Chris. But others prevailed upon me to respond. This thread has quite a few views, so it's clear that there are more people scanning this thread than Chris Twin Fist Kenshin and jks9199. It is for the benefit of these others that I reply [ even though quite a few of these "others" took it upon themselves to contact me and express privately their amusement over my detractors not grasping the amazing obviousness of my oft-repeated position ].

So. For the last time...

...my position has always been one of Functionality over Dysfunction. I have always been a proponent of what Bruce and others called the "Alive" Method. This means train realistically. Actually grab. Actually punch, choke, whack with the stick, stab realistically with the knife and keep going, really tackle, etc etc. Do NOT pose, or other horribly unrealistic stuff.

None of the craptasticness masquerading as THEE IP has even the faintest element of realism. Let us take this more common stuff that others like Chris think is a wonderful tech.

This tech purports to defeat what is essentially a Hockey Punch from the flank...sans grab or punch. It takes as a working hypothesis that Kenpoists in general will be able to act and react preemptively with the Sword and Hammer as a central element and tenant to the tech itself. They take it for granted that essentially newb Kenpoists [ Yellow Belters ] in general will  reliably react to  fast enough to an attack in progress to get off the handsword and hammerfist to their targets prior to the punch even being thrown.

Look carefully. The common expression of Sword and Hammer is against something that isn't an ACTUAL attack, it's in response to a POTENTIAL attack in progress. You catch the BG before he throws the punch. Fencers call it catching him on the "preparation".

This contention is roundly refuted on the mat in objective reality. The whole premise is flawed and rather preposterous. 2 Kenpo Elders whom I've been known to both agree and disagree with--Larry Tatum and Doc Chapel--both concur at the absurdness of this idea. So do I. In fact, Mr. Tatum wrote an article touching upon this facet in the training of Kenpoists when he wrote a piece about stepping in to Triggered Salute or something.

The central tenet of this tech is flawed and wholly divorced from combat reality.  Sans proper functional training to make the tech workable? Newbs and most people period will not be able to react with this tech under duress in that scenario. WITH proper functional training? You STILL won't do it exactly as the more common expression does it because the more common Sword and Hammer expressions articulate dysfunction.

In other words...if it reliably works? It won't look like the more common Sword and Hammer IP expression.

However, if you have a functional expression such as mine? You reliably defeat the BG in both the "classic" scenario [ you react before the punch is thrown ] aaaaaaannnnd multiple other scenarios that the more common expression Sword and Hammer doesn't approach and has no hope of addressing with their expression.


Look at this more common Sword and Hammer expression go to 1:52:

[video=youtube_share;9B8OXVJNmB0]http://youtu.be/9B8OXVJNmB0[/video]


and look at these videos of the more common Sword and Hammer expression here. Pay close attention to their positioning:

[video=youtube_share;YGDc1oOFDcI]http://youtu.be/YGDc1oOFDcI[/video]

[video=youtube_share;ts1Qgemr11M]http://youtu.be/ts1Qgemr11M[/video]

and look at this more common expression of the Sword and Hammer, the only one that actually mentions being pulled and attempts to explain how the more common expression of the tech defeats the pull:

[video=youtube_share;04Hp8tDAw3g]http://youtu.be/04Hp8tDAw3g[/video]

Look at how similar that position is to my starting position here:

[video=youtube_share;R-mmdyIHkjs]http://youtu.be/R-mmdyIHkjs[/video]


Go to 0:54 of this video. We start at the same or very similar places...in my scenario, though, I have the BG actually fire punches.

[video=youtube_share;AuvuhW1u2WE]http://youtu.be/AuvuhW1u2WE[/video]

The rest should be obvious. I cover punches, multiple angles of attack, pushes and pulls, and even though I don't show it on video I gave a 15 Round training method that covers everything up to and including weapons and multifights...all with the Sword and Hammer...and will allow a complete newb to be able to fight with that tech in 8 hours or less.

I've been contacted by several MMA coaches and self-defense instructors who saw my post. They thanked me for publishing it and informed me that they're using this method and a few others that I demonstrated with exactly the speedy success that I guaranteed that it would yield.

The above is part of the reason why I can say all at once and be undeniably right that:

1. The Sword and Hammer that is most popular is dysfunctional, and there are no lessons to be learned from it other than: FIX IT SO IT WORKS

2.  Supporters of this tech who claim that the tech defeats the flank Hockey Punch before the punch can be thrown do NOT fight with the tech or spar with it with any kind of realistic energy or regularity...so their opinions are factually without merit.

3. Any Sword and Hammer that works perforce cannot look like the common expression. Even those who claim that the classic tech exactly as proscribed will eventually admit that they use it primarily as a teaching tool or intro or something but they don't and can't fight with it exactly as shown in the more common expression.

4. I'm not dealing with JUST the same scenario of the "more common" dysfunctional expression S&H, I'm dealing with a 360 degree Hockey Punch attack which is perpetually superior to the dysfunctional single side expression. Note that my version covers all of the various positioning that the more traditional, dysfunctional tech proponents take...and I do more. The Sword and Hammer that does more in a superior manner than the Sword and Hammer that does less is without a doubt the superior expression.

5. I don't have to compare my expression to the less functional expression; all I have to do is show that mine works. If I'm not lost, and I'm safe at home? Well, I don't have to prove that I'm NOT lost to people who are lost. It's incumbent upon the lost to orient themselves...and after they orient themselves and bring themselves to a point that they recognize that they're not lost? They'll see that I've looong been where they were trying to go to. I can, however, offer a map to get home. If you don't want to make it back to the Land of the Found and Functional? Cool. Have fun with the Lost Boys.

6. Chris Parker's second paragraph simply shows that he is completely lost...and that's okay. My tech is related to the original in the sense that the Mercedes or Bentley or some such is related to a broken down inoperational Model T. My version is the more operational more modern top of the line expression. It actually does what the Model T purports to do...it's a automated conveyance...and it does it in ways far superior to and never imagined by the poor dysfunctional broken down Model T.

Lastly for those who asked...I never changed the name of my techs. I simply abbreviated the whole name for two reasons:

1. I refer to my ATACX GYM KENPO KARATE SWORD AND HAMMER as...ATACX GYM KENPO SWORD AND HAMMER during class. It's full name as I wrote it down is ATACX GYM KENPO KARATE SWORD AND HAMMER RADIUS R.D.L. 1-4. Saying that over and over again is a mouth full so I say SWORD AND HAMMER in class. [ Everybody in my Gym...literally everyone...knows that our techs are different than other schools' techs. When we go scout other schools at various competitons before we spar with and compete against them? Everyone from the newbs to the seasoned Coaches in my Gym sees the huge advantage we have over them due to our superior functional training. ]

2. It's hard to get a name as long as the official name for my tech onto youtube easily.


If you don't get it by now? Fine. Thank you to the dozens of you who've contacted me and informed me that you do get it and you do appreciate what I'm trying to convey. Thank you to people like jks9199 who disagree with me but do so from a position of openminded intelligent criticism and cordiality, which I will and do return in kind.

Chris and Twin Fist? We disagree. Let's leave it at that.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Twin Fist said:


> Since you like to use Doc Chapel to justify your.....ideas, let's take a look at Doc's words, shall we?
> 
> Doc's own words from a post on this very forum:
> http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?94988-IP-Techniques-Do-We-Need-Them/page8
> 
> "Parker stated, and was very specific;* In the first &#8220;phase&#8221; of learning the student should be subjected to a set curriculum with no variations, what ifs, or formulations* because that is a different stage and to do otherwise not only confuses students, but doesn&#8217;t allow for enough physical repetition of the set model to create new synaptic pathways or &#8220;muscle memory.&#8221; *"What if" training is for mid-level black belts, and formulation was for "masters" of the basics of the art.*
> 
> This is as I teach. *The term &#8220;what if&#8217; is forbidden for lower students. It is their job to learn the material, the ABC's of function if you will.* It is more important to concentrate on basic skills and physical vocabulary that emphasizes body mechanics and techniques that are absolutely functional and capable of standing alone.
> 
> &#8220;*Therefore, the IDEAL techniques are built around seemingly INFLEXIBLE and one dimensional assumptions for a good purpose. They provide us with a basis from which we may BEGIN our analytical process. Prescribed techniques applied to prescribed reactions are the keys that make a basic technique IDEAL or FIXED.&#8221;
> *
> *In the traditional sense, Phase One was strict unalterable basics, forms, sets, and technique applications, as I teach now*. Phase Two, allowed for additional "considerations," and Phase Three was for Master Professors only, who influenced the material the other two phases worked from.
> 
> * it was never his intent for students of the business of kenpo, to be subjected to anything but phase I motion *under the guidance of a teacher who would create plausible and fixed ideals, and the art itself would have a functional ceiling, until he created the next level.
> 
> Parker quotes continue;
> 
> &#8220;In Phase I, structuring an IDEAL technique requires SELECTING A COMBAT SITUATION YOU WISH TO ANALYZE. *Contained within the technique should be FIXED MOVES OF DEFENSE, OFFENSE, AND THE ANTICIPATED REACTIONS* that can stem from them.&#8221;
> 
> 
> *The "what if" is irrelevant without a significant solid base curriculum that is "hard wired' into your synaptic pathways, and fortified against Adrenal Stress Syndrome.* It is unfortunate for many reared in the "commercial motion phase," to grasp or accept this rather obvious (to me) fact. However, those from outside seem to see it rather quickly when it is properly explained.
> 
> *How can you emphasize all these things, and promote the Three Phases Concept simultaneously without giving people a definitive one way to do every technique, which he never did? You can't.*
> 
> hmmmm
> 
> interesting​





Anyone reading this thread? Please hit the link that Twin Fist provided and you will see immediately how drastically TF has taken Doc Chapel's quotes out of context.


What many people reading this post don't realize is that this kind of discussion has been going on for awhile now and both MJS and I initiated blazing threads regarding this very topic last year. Doc already dropped much of this info last year, and if you read the WHOLE QUOTE as opposed to this partial quote which TF edited for his own purposes you will see that much of my position and Doc's ACTUAL position are similar to one another. We agree in the actual essence of self-defense matters...we just differ in detail and the chosen expression of our functional approaches.

We are not at cross purposes. Nor are we largely in diametrically opposed camps. Different camps of thought and training? Yes. Sometimes sharply disagreeing camps? Yes. Perpetually clashing, diametrically opposed camps? Not even close.

We do have 2 sharp differences highlighted by this post which I am in the process of trying to grasp better:

Firstly, I want a more specific physical demonstration of what Doc calls the Ideal. In his first paragraph which Twin Fist glaringly omits, he focuses on combat reality and functionality and that Doc takes this into consideration in the very first steps. The craptastic mess masquerading as THEE Ideal does NOT do so. That alone puts him and I in largely similar, harmonious [ though not identical ] positions.

Doc also roundly confirms everything else that I said [ which I mostly got from him anyway ]: there is no hard and fast IP. Mr. Parker never made a hard and fast IP. The crap that you guys are swearing is THEE IP is no such thing and there never can be such a thing. I note, TWIN FIST, that nowhere in your above quote is your acerbic doubts about the accuracy of Doc's comment regarding the fact that there is no actual "hard and fast " IP and I note the lack of your assertion about the Tracy's in the above position you took...probably because all of those conclusions that you took previously have been roundly proven to be untrue. 

I find their absence and your lack of acknowledgement of your historical inaccuracies to be...in your words..."hmmm. interesting".


Now, back to what I was saying about my discussions with Doc...

...there is already a thread on KT wherein Doc and I have disagreed on the long term utility regarding my 15 Round multirange, multifaceted training method. Doc is of the opinion that this method yields important but only short term gains and is contrary to how humans learn. I am substantially of a different opinion, but we haven't had a chance to truly discuss and debate the matter. I hope to have a noncaustic, rigorous, educational discussion and debate with him about this matter as martial scholars should: with respect and absent rancor, with academic and real world rigor girding every word, and sources cited. Idk if he'll respond to such an approach, but I will initiate such a discussion in earnest soon. I know that if he doesn't, others will...and all involved in the discussion should benefit as a result.

You are welcome to observe such a discussion, Twin Fist, Chris, Kenshin, and whoever else reading this thread here or on KT when I make it. However, be warned...rancor will not be allowed in that thread. It's for rigorous scholarly and empirical debate suggestion and discussion only.


----------



## MJS

ATACX GYM said:


> The above doesn't mean "resolving every problem". "Resolving every problem" is FAAAR beyond the scope of what this tech does. I have stated numerous times...The ATACX GYM draws our ranges of combat and methods from what most of us in civilian, security type jobs, martial arts combat and tournies and LEO type positions are likely to face. These scenarios--especially CQB firearms type scenarios--have lots of carryover to the military too, but addressing full military scenarios is beyond my focus at the moment.
> 
> My Sword and Hammer does indeed do everything that I said in that quote. Stretching it out to cover more than what's in that quote is a logical fallacy and evidence of reading miscomprehension which many of my detractors seem to specialize in.
> 
> And yes MJS what you said as the opening sentence of your last paragraph is dead on. My Sword and Hammer works whether a guy punches, pushes, kicks, grabs, stabs, etc. That's how I train it. Did you read my 15 Round training thing? Should make it crystal clear.



Umm...Ras...you do realize that what you said here, and in another post above, contradict each other.  You also said it in post #141, where you said this...

"I can use 1 technique that suffices for each and every one of these ranges. The fact that you don't is indicative of the limits in your training method, not the limits of self-defense itself."

Sorry dude, but that reads to me that you're saying you can use S&H for a grab, push, punch, kick, etc.  I disagree with that.  As I said in another post, you may use parts of S&H to aid in the defense against those attacks, but to use the exact S&H tech for what I listed....nope, I'm not buying it.


----------



## MJS

ATACX GYM said:


> My post is beyond a description of how to apply fists/weapons. It specifically answered structural technique questions. I specified that the handsword did a better job than other weapons when applied to the triceps and other areas in the upper arm, especially at this belt rank. There IS a "complete failure" as you put it...but it's on your part regarding the comprehension of simple explanations.
> 
> You refer to the more common Sword and Hammer in your second paragraph. I agree that it demo's a completely separate tactic...because it fails to address the likelihood of a real world attack. The BG is NOT gonna pose, and the Kenpoists are NOT going to reliably preempt a flank attack. Like I said, Kenpo Elders like Mr. Tatum and Doc Chapel have proffered the same opinion as I have and they did it first [ regarding the sillyness of perpetual preemption ]. I left a link to those posts too.
> 
> If you felt that an upward block was a "full body action", you should not have described a single limb multijoint action...then called it weak. Clearly you are contradicting yourself. Either it's a full body action and strong or a single limb movement and comparatively weak.
> 
> If the BG is at 3pm? I already answered that...via video. Now lemme clarify on this post: if we are talking about the more common Sword and Hammer dysfunctional expression? The BG being@3pm is not a concern nor is it addressed. If we're talking about mine? I already addressed that. On video. If we're talking about applying the upward block to the BG at 3pm? Again, that's not hard. Turn toward the BG. Execute upward block with snappiness while drawing your other hand up to protect your face, your hand positioning similar to that of a boxer or bareknuckle MT or Muay Boran fighter. You'll either block the punch with your blocking hand or your rear hand will be in position to intercept the blow if it slips passed your upward block. You then either upward block again [ if the BG's limb doesn't retract fast enough ] and then fire a reverse punch or you simply ride the retracting hand back in and hit the body.
> 
> Doesn't matter where he is. If he can reach you with a grab? You'll be able to reach him with your reverse punch to his body...even if you have to take a step to do so.



This thread is so long, I'm not going to go back and find the post where I said this, but I do know I said it, but its worth saying again....in the Kenpo world, we always hear about moves canceling other potential things the badguy can do to us.  Looking at the base S&H, the handsword that we do, should cancel out a punch from the badguys right hand.  As I said in that other post, unless the guy wants to risk breaking his hand by hitting our head, he's probably going to turn us.  Again, this'll depend on where he's grabbing us, but as I said, if we're looking at the IP tech, it'll be from 3pm.


----------



## Cyriacus

MJS said:


> This thread is so long, I'm not going to go back and find the post where I said this, but I do know I said it, but its worth saying again....in the Kenpo world, we always hear about moves canceling other potential things the badguy can do to us.  Looking at the base S&H, the handsword that we do, should cancel out a punch from the badguys right hand.  As I said in that other post, unless the guy wants to risk breaking his hand by hitting our head, he's probably going to turn us.  Again, this'll depend on where he's grabbing us, but as I said, if we're looking at the IP tech, it'll be from 3pm.


Doesnt that assume a bit on someone thinking to themself "I might break my hand if I hit them in the Head from here!"?


----------



## MJS

ATACX GYM said:


> You are wrong. Again. As I said, your concept of Sword and Hammer and everything about it is what you have seen and what you think you understand about the more common technique. You are using the more common technique as the standard. It. Is. Not. The. Standard. The more common technique doesn't even qualify fully along the lines of The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique PROCESS. It was annointed as thee IP for Sword and Hammer by others, not Mr. Parker. Until you release this misconception and divest yourself of all the poisons associated with it, you will never be right on anything else regarding this matter. I have been telling you this for nearly half of this thread now. Doc has posts repeatedly saying the same thing. I quoted Mr. Parker's own writings on the matter, which trump and supercede anything written on the technique itself.
> 
> Correct this miscomprehension of yours [ which like I said before, I'm not surprised that you have because many Kenpoists have the same miscomprehension and even I had a lesser but similar miscomprehension ] and then we can talk. Until then? I'm the man trying to convince you that there's a such thing as water...and you refuse it's existence as you drown at the bottom of the Atlantic.
> 
> AMANI..."peace"...



And to that I'd say the following:

1) Shame on Parker for letting things get out of hand.  

2) Why have 50,000 versions that you'd teach someone?

3) Seeing that all this stuff is in Big Red, then shame on Parker and anyone else who put out Big Red, since that seems to be the guideline soooo many seem to follow.

4) I would imagine that 99.9% of the Kenpo schools out there are wrong then, because it seems that they're all teaching S&H.  

5) I go back again to....why let it get out of hand?  I mean, if you drop an ash on the couch and you see it smoldering, why wait until your couch is fully engulfed, before you grab something to put out the flames?  In essence, what we're seeing here, is Parker letting his Kenpo get out of hand....but somehow only a secret person or persons, have "the real Kenpo".


----------



## MJS

Twin Fist said:


> and who the hell thinks a right handed push followed by a left punch is more likely?
> 
> just on the basis of the VAST majority of people being right handed that assumption fails.
> 
> a left push and right punch is MUCH more likely.
> 
> untill you think about what sort of idiot someone would have to be to push you AWAY from thier punch in the fist place.
> 
> no, sorry, i have say that the attack Ras has decided to change it to is HIGHLY unlikely and not realistic at all.
> 
> I have had people actually do the flank grab on me.



I've heard people say that the majority of the pop. is right handed.  So if that is in fact true, then what you said is also very true.  I mean, if I'm going to clock someone, I'm going to use my right hand, as I'm right handed.  Doesnt mean I cant use the left, but if the right is the dominant hand, well.....

So, a left grab/push/pull/turn/whatever, followed by a right punch is much more likely, as you said.


----------



## MJS

ATACX GYM said:


> Anyone reading this thread? Please hit the link that Twin Fist provided and you will see immediately how drastically TF has taken Doc Chapel's quotes out of context.
> 
> 
> What many people reading this post don't realize is that this kind of discussion has been going on for awhile now and both MJS and I initiated blazing threads regarding this very topic last year. Doc already dropped much of this info last year, and if you read the WHOLE QUOTE as opposed to this partial quote which TF edited for his own purposes you will see that much of my position and Doc's ACTUAL position are similar to one another. We agree in the actual essence of self-defense matters...we just differ in detail and the chosen expression of our functional approaches.
> 
> We are not at cross purposes. Nor are we largely in diametrically opposed camps. Different camps of thought and training? Yes. Sometimes sharply disagreeing camps? Yes. Perpetually clashing, diametrically opposed camps? Not even close.
> 
> We do have 2 sharp differences highlighted by this post which I am in the process of trying to grasp better:
> 
> Firstly, I want a more specific physical demonstration of what Doc calls the Ideal. In his first paragraph which Twin Fist glaringly omits, he focuses on combat reality and functionality and that Doc takes this into consideration in the very first steps. The craptastic mess masquerading as THEE Ideal does NOT do so. That alone puts him and I in largely similar, harmonious [ though not identical ] positions.
> 
> Doc also roundly confirms everything else that I said [ which I mostly got from him anyway ]: there is no hard and fast IP. Mr. Parker never made a hard and fast IP. The crap that you guys are swearing is THEE IP is no such thing and there never can be such a thing. I note, TWIN FIST, that nowhere in your above quote is your acerbic doubts about the accuracy of Doc's comment regarding the fact that there is no actual "hard and fast " IP and I note the lack of your assertion about the Tracy's in the above position you took...probably because all of those conclusions that you took previously have been roundly proven to be untrue.
> 
> I find their absence and your lack of acknowledgement of your historical inaccuracies to be...in your words..."hmmm. interesting".
> 
> 
> Now, back to what I was saying about my discussions with Doc...
> 
> ...there is already a thread on KT wherein Doc and I have disagreed on the long term utility regarding my 15 Round multirange, multifaceted training method. Doc is of the opinion that this method yields important but only short term gains and is contrary to how humans learn. I am substantially of a different opinion, but we haven't had a chance to truly discuss and debate the matter. I hope to have a noncaustic, rigorous, educational discussion and debate with him about this matter as martial scholars should: with respect and absent rancor, with academic and real world rigor girding every word, and sources cited. Idk if he'll respond to such an approach, but I will initiate such a discussion in earnest soon. I know that if he doesn't, others will...and all involved in the discussion should benefit as a result.
> 
> You are welcome to observe such a discussion, Twin Fist, Chris, Kenshin, and whoever else reading this thread here or on KT when I make it. However, be warned...rancor will not be allowed in that thread. It's for rigorous scholarly and empirical debate suggestion and discussion only.



Actually Ras, what TF quoted Doc as saying, is exactly how I'd teach and still do teach anything, whether its Kenpo or Arnis.  I mean think about it...you have to learn to crawl before you walk, walk before you run.  I know Matt Thorntons ideas are huge with you...hell, I think alot of what he says, makes alot of sense too.  But....before we overwhelm someone with the 'what ifs' they need to know the basic, which will mean they're going to have to stand there, like a statue, and do the IP tech, S&H in this case, as written...for a left grab from 3 o'clock.  If they can't get it, then theres no way in hell, they're possibly going to somehow get any other way, any better.  Just ain't happening.  Why?  Because if they dont understand the basics first, they're not going to know what to do when the attack suddenly changes to what you're showing.  

Once they get it then we can move onto more aggression in the attack, then slowly add in other things, ie: what I said that I do.....changing the attack mid-stream, adding in a punch or punches, pushing, pulling, turning, etc.


----------



## MJS

Cyriacus said:


> Doesnt that assume a bit on someone thinking to themself "I might break my hand if I hit them in the Head from here!"?



LOL, sure.  Hey, and its very possible the person won't be thinking that or just not care.


----------



## MJS

ATACX GYM said:


> At first I wasn't going to reply to this post...the dooficity level was exceptional even for Chris. But others prevailed upon me to respond. This thread has quite a few views, so it's clear that there are more people scanning this thread than Chris Twin Fist Kenshin and jks9199. It is for the benefit of these others that I reply [ even though quite a few of these "others" took it upon themselves to contact me and express privately their amusement over my detractors not grasping the amazing obviousness of my oft-repeated position ].
> 
> So. For the last time...
> 
> ...my position has always been one of Functionality over Dysfunction. I have always been a proponent of what Bruce and others called the "Alive" Method. This means train realistically. Actually grab. Actually punch, choke, whack with the stick, stab realistically with the knife and keep going, really tackle, etc etc. Do NOT pose, or other horribly unrealistic stuff.
> 
> None of the craptasticness masquerading as THEE IP has even the faintest element of realism. Let us take this more common stuff that others like Chris think is a wonderful tech.
> 
> This tech purports to defeat what is essentially a Hockey Punch from the flank...sans grab or punch. It takes as a working hypothesis that Kenpoists in general will be able to act and react preemptively with the Sword and Hammer as a central element and tenant to the tech itself. They take it for granted that essentially newb Kenpoists [ Yellow Belters ] in general will reliably react to fast enough to an attack in progress to get off the handsword and hammerfist to their targets prior to the punch even being thrown.
> 
> Look carefully. The common expression of Sword and Hammer is against something that isn't an ACTUAL attack, it's in response to a POTENTIAL attack in progress. You catch the BG before he throws the punch. Fencers call it catching him on the "preparation".
> 
> This contention is roundly refuted on the mat in objective reality. The whole premise is flawed and rather preposterous. 2 Kenpo Elders whom I've been known to both agree and disagree with--Larry Tatum and Doc Chapel--both concur at the absurdness of this idea. So do I. In fact, Mr. Tatum wrote an article touching upon this facet in the training of Kenpoists when he wrote a piece about stepping in to Triggered Salute or something.
> 
> The central tenet of this tech is flawed and wholly divorced from combat reality. Sans proper functional training to make the tech workable? Newbs and most people period will not be able to react with this tech under duress in that scenario. WITH proper functional training? You STILL won't do it exactly as the more common expression does it because the more common Sword and Hammer expressions articulate dysfunction.
> 
> In other words...if it reliably works? It won't look like the more common Sword and Hammer IP expression.
> 
> However, if you have a functional expression such as mine? You reliably defeat the BG in both the "classic" scenario [ you react before the punch is thrown ] aaaaaaannnnd multiple other scenarios that the more common expression Sword and Hammer doesn't approach and has no hope of addressing with their expression.
> 
> 
> Look at this more common Sword and Hammer expression go to 1:52:
> 
> [video=youtube_share;9B8OXVJNmB0]http://youtu.be/9B8OXVJNmB0[/video]
> 
> 
> and look at these videos of the more common Sword and Hammer expression here. Pay close attention to their positioning:
> 
> [video=youtube_share;YGDc1oOFDcI]http://youtu.be/YGDc1oOFDcI[/video]
> 
> [video=youtube_share;ts1Qgemr11M]http://youtu.be/ts1Qgemr11M[/video]
> 
> and look at this more common expression of the Sword and Hammer, the only one that actually mentions being pulled and attempts to explain how the more common expression of the tech defeats the pull:
> 
> [video=youtube_share;04Hp8tDAw3g]http://youtu.be/04Hp8tDAw3g[/video]
> 
> Look at how similar that position is to my starting position here:
> 
> [video=youtube_share;R-mmdyIHkjs]http://youtu.be/R-mmdyIHkjs[/video]
> 
> 
> Go to 0:54 of this video. We start at the same or very similar places...in my scenario, though, I have the BG actually fire punches.
> 
> [video=youtube_share;AuvuhW1u2WE]http://youtu.be/AuvuhW1u2WE[/video]
> 
> The rest should be obvious. I cover punches, multiple angles of attack, pushes and pulls, and even though I don't show it on video I gave a 15 Round training method that covers everything up to and including weapons and multifights...all with the Sword and Hammer...and will allow a complete newb to be able to fight with that tech in 8 hours or less.
> 
> I've been contacted by several MMA coaches and self-defense instructors who saw my post. They thanked me for publishing it and informed me that they're using this method and a few others that I demonstrated with exactly the speedy success that I guaranteed that it would yield.
> 
> The above is part of the reason why I can say all at once and be undeniably right that:
> 
> 1. The Sword and Hammer that is most popular is dysfunctional, and there are no lessons to be learned from it other than: FIX IT SO IT WORKS
> 
> 2. Supporters of this tech who claim that the tech defeats the flank Hockey Punch before the punch can be thrown do NOT fight with the tech or spar with it with any kind of realistic energy or regularity...so their opinions are factually without merit.
> 
> 3. Any Sword and Hammer that works perforce cannot look like the common expression. Even those who claim that the classic tech exactly as proscribed will eventually admit that they use it primarily as a teaching tool or intro or something but they don't and can't fight with it exactly as shown in the more common expression.
> 
> 4. I'm not dealing with JUST the same scenario of the "more common" dysfunctional expression S&H, I'm dealing with a 360 degree Hockey Punch attack which is perpetually superior to the dysfunctional single side expression. Note that my version covers all of the various positioning that the more traditional, dysfunctional tech proponents take...and I do more. The Sword and Hammer that does more in a superior manner than the Sword and Hammer that does less is without a doubt the superior expression.
> 
> 5. I don't have to compare my expression to the less functional expression; all I have to do is show that mine works. If I'm not lost, and I'm safe at home? Well, I don't have to prove that I'm NOT lost to people who are lost. It's incumbent upon the lost to orient themselves...and after they orient themselves and bring themselves to a point that they recognize that they're not lost? They'll see that I've looong been where they were trying to go to. I can, however, offer a map to get home. If you don't want to make it back to the Land of the Found and Functional? Cool. Have fun with the Lost Boys.
> 
> 6. Chris Parker's second paragraph simply shows that he is completely lost...and that's okay. My tech is related to the original in the sense that the Mercedes or Bentley or some such is related to a broken down inoperational Model T. My version is the more operational more modern top of the line expression. It actually does what the Model T purports to do...it's a automated conveyance...and it does it in ways far superior to and never imagined by the poor dysfunctional broken down Model T.
> 
> Lastly for those who asked...I never changed the name of my techs. I simply abbreviated the whole name for two reasons:
> 
> 1. I refer to my ATACX GYM KENPO KARATE SWORD AND HAMMER as...ATACX GYM KENPO SWORD AND HAMMER during class. It's full name as I wrote it down is ATACX GYM KENPO KARATE SWORD AND HAMMER RADIUS R.D.L. 1-4. Saying that over and over again is a mouth full so I say SWORD AND HAMMER in class. [ Everybody in my Gym...literally everyone...knows that our techs are different than other schools' techs. When we go scout other schools at various competitons before we spar with and compete against them? Everyone from the newbs to the seasoned Coaches in my Gym sees the huge advantage we have over them due to our superior functional training. ]
> 
> 2. It's hard to get a name as long as the official name for my tech onto youtube easily.
> 
> 
> If you don't get it by now? Fine. Thank you to the dozens of you who've contacted me and informed me that you do get it and you do appreciate what I'm trying to convey. Thank you to people like jks9199 who disagree with me but do so from a position of openminded intelligent criticism and cordiality, which I will and do return in kind.
> 
> Chris and Twin Fist? We disagree. Let's leave it at that.



So, in essence, you're taking them from crawling and throwing them right into sprinting?  You may've asnwered this question of mine before Ras, I don't remember, but in any case, I too cover this type of stuff, but IMO, throwing someone right into the fire is couner productive.  Why? Because they dont have the tools built yet and they havent trained them enough yet.  Having someone throw a jab, cross, hook, without doing it slow first, to build the foundation, is going to suck.  In school, you learn the basic math, add, subtract, mult. and division, before you cover the much more complex stuff.  Want someone to learn how to add....you do simple addition, ie: 2+4, 5+5, then work to multiple and triple numbers, where they'll have to carry over, ie: 667+843.  

Regarding #2:  Ras, once the tech. changes from anything other than the IP, then IMO, its no longer said tech.  Thats when you start to graft into other things, or use bits and pieces from many techs.  I mean, this is like saying Delayed Sword or Lone Kimono wont work by stepping back, which should cancel the potential punch that could follow.  Actually, I dont need to step back to cancel the potential punch.  I can think of a few other options that'd work just as well.   Taking the IP S&H, and having the person punch with their right, yeah, it'll cancel the punch.  Once you're pushed, pulled, turned, the IP S&H will most likely go out the window, and you'll have to go to something else.


----------



## ATACX GYM

MJS said:


> Umm...Ras...you do realize that what you said here, and in another post above, contradict each other.  You also said it in post #141, where you said this...
> 
> "I can use 1 technique that suffices for each and every one of these ranges. The fact that you don't is indicative of the limits in your training method, not the limits of self-defense itself."
> 
> Sorry dude, but that reads to me that you're saying you can use S&H for a grab, push, punch, kick, etc.  I disagree with that.  As I said in another post, you may use parts of S&H to aid in the defense against those attacks, but to use the exact S&H tech for what I listed....nope, I'm not buying it.




You read correctly. I can use S&H for a grab, push, punch, kick, etc. It's quite easy to do, as well. Last Thursday, I used it while defending and passing guard. I used it vs a knife in practice too. It's not at all hard to do. It's quite simple, in fact. I'm actually a bit surprised that you, MJS, as sharp as you are...can't see it instantly. But if you wish? I will see if I can free up the time to show you how to grapple with it. I recall people saying the same thing when I told them I use CAPTURED TWIGS RADIUS R.D.L. [ BASIC BEAR HUG ESCAPE 1 ] on the ground too. They laughed. "Not possible..." yadda yadda. I suggest you take a look at my Captured Twigs video to see what I mean regarding Sword and Hammer, if you have forgotten or never saw my  CAPTURED TWIGS RADIUS R.D.L. videos...

Solving all problems IS far beyond the scope of this tech, as I stated. S&H cannot be deployed at distance vs someone with a firearm, for instance. SeH cannot be deployed against someone trying to run you over in a vehicle [ which is an issue out here in the hood where I'm from ].


----------



## ATACX GYM

MJS said:


> So, in essence, you're taking them from crawling and throwing them right into sprinting?  You may've asnwered this question of mine before Ras, I don't remember, but in any case, I too cover this type of stuff, but IMO, throwing someone right into the fire is couner productive.  Why? Because they dont have the tools built yet and they havent trained them enough yet.  Having someone throw a jab, cross, hook, without doing it slow first, to build the foundation, is going to suck.  In school, you learn the basic math, add, subtract, mult. and division, before you cover the much more complex stuff.  Want someone to learn how to add....you do simple addition, ie: 2+4, 5+5, then work to multiple and triple numbers, where they'll have to carry over, ie: 667+843.
> 
> Regarding #2:  Ras, once the tech. changes from anything other than the IP, then IMO, its no longer said tech.  Thats when you start to graft into other things, or use bits and pieces from many techs.  I mean, this is like saying Delayed Sword or Lone Kimono wont work by stepping back, which should cancel the potential punch that could follow.  Actually, I dont need to step back to cancel the potential punch.  I can think of a few other options that'd work just as well.   Taking the IP S&H, and having the person punch with their right, yeah, it'll cancel the punch.  Once you're pushed, pulled, turned, the IP S&H will most likely go out the window, and you'll have to go to something else.





Hey MJS!


Yes I answered in depth and detail your question already, with my 15 round solution. Because it's you and I know how open minded you are and I know you have a gift for critical analysis...I will find one of my 15 Roound 8 Hour Guaranteed Solution posts and reprint it here for ya.


Originally Posted by *ATACX GYM* 


Just got a text about this thread...with a question in it. So lemme be extra simple:


Take the Sword and Hammer original scenario attack and tech. have uke really grab you and punch at you...first let's just call it a cross to the face. Work that joint first with no resistance for about 3-6 minz. No more than 2 boxing rounds. Your newb student gets what's expected by now.

Next. Show newb the techs you expect of him/her/them...Sword and Hammer. They'll be like...oh yeah we already know this joint from White Belt and all the times you made us do our techs to the cardinal directions which include...you guessed it...the flanks. So we already know how to throw a Sword and Hammer from the flanks.

You...wise Coach you...say but yeah now we're gonna change the scenario...the context...in which you gotta execute the tech. Work on your skills and mindset some more.

Newb yellow belt says COOL. 

You make uke grab newb by the shoulder and swing a cross at newb's noggin. 10% power and speed. Not enough to hurt but you will get bopped if you miss the block. The key here? Uke can grab Newb Yellow Belt when he wants to. Newb yellow belt picks up fast because even though it's kinda FUNNY when you're bopped the first few times, the experience of gettin bopped really encourages you to apply the Sword and Hammer right.

First real world snag...you're gettin HIT while you're pinning and stepping...before you get the chop off. This is when uke ISN'T turning or pushing you. Or you're CLASHING with uke's punch when you Pin Step Chop. You're cancelling each other out. 

Now what do you do?

Don't worry. You're a smart Coach and you tell newb Yellow what to do. Newb Yellow is like YAAAY and you make Newb Yellow do this tech first at slow speeds to be sure that it's grasped and then increase the speed and intensity of both the attack and the defense.

You should be at threshold speed and power for your class--the max or near max amount that you'll allow your students to safely practice at--within 6 rounds. 18 minutes plus a minute break between each round. That's 24 minutes. Newb Yellow is pretty pleased.

Then you tell uke sotto voce to start jackin with Newb Yellow's balance while uke is punching. 

Alluva suddent Newb Yellow is getting pushed and pulled into the punches coming at him. Whereas before Newb Yellow was clashing with or beating uke's non-pulling, stationery attack? Now Newb Yellow is gettin bopped pretty regularly. 2 rounds of boppage occurs. In between rounds you hear Newb Yellow's issues and you tell Newb Yellow to get it together. You say:

"Never fear. I'm a smart Coach." Enter the cover and and turn option as shown in my video. 

Newb spends 2 rounds learning the cover and turn option. Newb is starting to get it and kick a little anus now. We're at Round 10.

Call for 5 minute break. Coach Newb Yellow some more.

Resume training. Rounds 11-14 Newb Yellow is steadily kickin more anus. Yaay Newb.

You spend the 15th and final round fine tuning Newb Yellow's techs. End of class.


Next day you review the static grab for 3 rounds. Move directly into the grab+pull and or push for 9 more rounds. Newb Yellow is gettin it now and fast because there's concentrated focus on this approach and lotsa quality muscle reps. 

By round 13? Newb Yellow is kickin uke's anal region with the cover and turn. And Newb Yellow and uke know it.

For round 14 and 15? you slowly walk Newb Yellow through a new situation....BG has grabbed Newb Yellow from THE BACK now. Walk Newb yellow through the cover and turn Sword and Hammer sans force through this tech.

Repeat again. With each different scenario. Including tackles, kicks, and weapons. There will be significant carryover because the muscle memory and programming is there...you're just making mental adjustments and slight tactical alterations.

In 8 hours, Newb Yellow will have developed baseline efficacy in using Sword and Hammer vs each of the primary attacks, will have enjoyed significant physical improvement along with the concomitant mental growth and confidence.

Now. How hard is that to grasp? 


And how is that NOT Sword and Hammer?


​http://www.youtube.com/user/ATACXGYM?feature=mhum
IT'S NOT JUST WHAT YOU KNOW,IT'S HOW YOU TRAIN
THE FIGHT YOU WIN IS THE FIGHT YOU'RE NOT IN
AVOID TROUBLE. BUT IF TROUBLE IS UNAVOIDABLE? PUT TROUBLE IN TROUBLE​




Reply 


Reply With Quote 







​


----------



## MJS

ATACX GYM said:


> You read correctly. I can use S&H for a grab, push, punch, kick, etc. It's quite easy to do, as well. Last Thursday, I used it while defending and passing guard. I used it vs a knife in practice too. It's not at all hard to do. It's quite simple, in fact. I'm actually a bit surprised that you, MJS, as sharp as you are...can't see it instantly. But if you wish? I will see if I can free up the time to show you how to grapple with it. I recall people saying the same thing when I told them I use CAPTURED TWIGS RADIUS R.D.L. [ BASIC BEAR HUG ESCAPE 1 ] on the ground too. They laughed. "Not possible..." yadda yadda. I suggest you take a look at my Captured Twigs video to see what I mean regarding Sword and Hammer, if you have forgotten or never saw my CAPTURED TWIGS RADIUS R.D.L. videos...
> 
> Solving all problems IS far beyond the scope of this tech, as I stated. S&H cannot be deployed at distance vs someone with a firearm, for instance. SeH cannot be deployed against someone trying to run you over in a vehicle [ which is an issue out here in the hood where I'm from ].



I'll check out the Captured Twigs clip.  As for the rest...bits and pieces of the technique...yes, I can certainly see things used.  Ex: Clyde used Crashing Elbows while he was in the guard.  He did that part to break the guard.  He used part of Locked Wing to get an ankle lock.  So yes, pieces, sure, I can certainly see pieces of various techs being used, but to do the exact tech against another attack....nope, not seeing it.  For clarification, when I say the exact tech, what I mean is...you do S&H for a shoulder grab.  You pin, sword hand then hammerfist.  For a kick...I'm having a hard time seeing that.  A punch, you can't pin, but you can block.  Depending on how you step, you can do a handsword.  ie: right punch comes in, you step with the left on a 45, right outward knife hand block, left sh to the face, left hammerfist to groin.  Not the exact same tech, and you're using bits and pieces.


----------



## ATACX GYM

MJS said:


> Actually Ras, what TF quoted Doc as saying, is exactly how I'd teach and still do teach anything, whether its Kenpo or Arnis.  I mean think about it...you have to learn to crawl before you walk, walk before you run.  I know Matt Thorntons ideas are huge with you...hell, I think alot of what he says, makes alot of sense too.  But....before we overwhelm someone with the 'what ifs' they need to know the basic, which will mean they're going to have to stand there, like a statue, and do the IP tech, S&H in this case, as written...for a left grab from 3 o'clock.  If they can't get it, then theres no way in hell, they're possibly going to somehow get any other way, any better.  Just ain't happening.  Why?  Because if they dont understand the basics first, they're not going to know what to do when the attack suddenly changes to what you're showing.
> 
> Once they get it then we can move onto more aggression in the attack, then slowly add in other things, ie: what I said that I do.....changing the attack mid-stream, adding in a punch or punches, pushing, pulling, turning, etc.




What you're referring to is a matter of training evolution and paradigm only...not a matter of what the tech is limited to. Not to tip my hand, but Matt Thornton isn't at all the actual "originator" of the ideas he popularized. Maybe he innovated his own terminology and specific approach using a teaching method, but the concept and approach are most definitely not his own.

I completely and utterly agree that basics are fundamental. Essential. Absolutely indispensable and cannot be ignored or foregone for any reason whatsoever.

This is an area that Doc and I differ visavis training methodology on. I look forward to engaging that topic in a far more thoroughgoing fashion in the upcoming few weeks. 

What you may not know is that training this tech in the method that I recommend perforce requires you to achieve many more quality reps per round than you would without such a structure. 9-18 reps/round is very common for newbs using this tech. vs mild to moderate resistance. They are on the lower end of the scale during the first 5-6 rounds but creep up in reps from 7-15. Essentially and on average, call it a concentrated 13 reps done in 180 seconds if you use basic boxing rounds. [ We start with boxing rounds then move on to MMA rounds then we go to old school Pride rounds of 10 minutes then we move onto old skool UFC runds of 15 minutes each then we go to old skool Pancrase rounds of 30 minutes. 2-30 minute rounds with this tech are for my pre-white level C guys and my White Belters. Students--men women AND children--pick up THAT FAST when they're given the proper training paradigm and guidance. ] So 13 reps/round...15 rounds...165 reps/class, right? Average student comes 3/wk right? 495 reps/wk, right? See where this is going? In one month, the student has just shy of 1500 reps, and that's assuming that their number of reps per round don't increase. Which it will. They will pass or equal 20 reps/round by the end of the second week or middle of the 3rd week.Easy to do while using this tech. And they'll see where their previous training falls neatly into place while doing this tech. They'll see where they can shoot or defend the double at some point, where they'll be held in a bear hug and go directly from Captured Twigs Radius R.D.L.  to Sword and Hammer Radius R.D.L. [ cuz they'll have to defend vs the bear hug and use Sword and Hammer to do it ]. They'll even see where they can counter the bear hug with purely Sword and Hammer Radius R.D.L. cuz they'll be put in a position where they have to do so and you'll coach them through it. They'll see where they can use Sword and Hammer to defend their guard. They'll see how they can use Sword and Hammer armed and unarmed vs a knife, stick or bat attack...it's all right there as they advance in skill.

They won't get bored either. They're never stuck in a rut. They're seeing the connections between what they're doing now and all their other techs that they already know...and laying the foundation for the other techs they are to learn in the future.

Therefore, this method refutes the contention that all you need is one tech, too. You need more than one tech for your whole system. Just cause you can pull an armbar as a guy throws a cross doesn't mean you should always do so. What if you're in a multifight? What if the guy's too fast or too far away for you to pull a standing armbar off on him? The argument or suggestion that if you train one tech vs all of the main ranges of combat that civilians, security types, LEOs, and martial athletes are likely to face then all you need is that one tech is pretty hilarious on its face.

IT'S NOT JUST WHAT YOU KNOW, IT'S HOW AND WHY YOU TRAIN...


----------



## Twin Fist

ATACX GYM said:


> ..probably because all of those conclusions that you took previously have been roundly proven to be untrue.




you are a truly delusional dude. 

you havent proven anything YET, all you do is all you have ever done, ignore everything anyone says, and repete the same old tired *** **** over and over and over and pat yourself on the back

and you havnt even mentioned my point

the techniques, were set in stone BEFORE 1960

the tracy's learned them FROM Ed Parker before Parker ever even created the "process"

there is a set ideal technique

you are not just wrong, you are willfully ignorant.

And I will happily point it out every single time you say something stupid. Which is almost every time you post.

PUT ASIDE YOUR EGO

you aint that smart and you aint that good.


----------



## ATACX GYM

MJS said:


> I'll check out the Captured Twigs clip.  As for the rest...bits and pieces of the technique...yes, I can certainly see things used.  Ex: Clyde used Crashing Elbows while he was in the guard.  He did that part to break the guard.  He used part of Locked Wing to get an ankle lock.  So yes, pieces, sure, I can certainly see pieces of various techs being used, but to do the exact tech against another attack....nope, not seeing it.  For clarification, when I say the exact tech, what I mean is...you do S&H for a shoulder grab.  You pin, sword hand then hammerfist.  For a kick...I'm having a hard time seeing that.  A punch, you can't pin, but you can block.  Depending on how you step, you can do a handsword.  ie: right punch comes in, you step with the left on a 45, right outward knife hand block, left sh to the face, left hammerfist to groin.  Not the exact same tech, and you're using bits and pieces.




You're getting into areas that I'm trying to save for my discussion with Doc. Yes I know Clyde used Crashing Elbows while in guard...I did it in the 90s. Same with the Wings for locks, over and under hooks, and much more. Did all of that in 1996. As for the kick? Use your footwork plus your handsword to elude and strike the kick. Your pin becomes a pin that's normally used on your opponent's hand resting like a dead starfish on your shoulder you transform into a pinning check on your opponent's arm [ which is up in his fighting position ].  Follow with the handsword and hammerfist to whatever available targets that you recommoned. You may also handsword with one hand, hammerfist with the other...and repeat the tech with your opposite hand. Thus doubling the attack and defense and movement options you have available to you. 

IT'S NOT JUST WHAT YOU KNOW, IT'S HOW AND WHY YOU TRAIN...


----------



## Twin Fist

was that before or after you were an astronaut? or was that before or after you cured the common cold and won the UFC that no one remembers.....



sure dude, you have done it all......


----------



## Cyriacus

ATACX GYM said:


> Therefore, this method refutes the contention that all you need is one tech, too. You need more than one tech for your whole system. Just cause you can pull an armbar as a guy throws a cross doesn't mean you should always do so. What if you're in a multifight? What if the guy's too fast or too far away for you to pull a standing armbar off on him? The argument or suggestion that if you train one tech vs all of the main ranges of combat that civilians, security types, LEOs, and martial athletes are likely to face then all you need is that one tech is pretty hilarious on its face.



Yeah, I want nothing to do with the other discussion going on.

Now to comment on the above: One can have a favored tool, or primary tool, but only having one single tool, no matter how good it is, can build an over dependence, and a lack of the ability to adapt as needed.
Focusing on one tool? Sure. As long as its just a focus, and not a dedication.

Ok fine, I lied.
Discussion tibbing time.



Twin Fist said:


> you are a truly delusional dude.
> 
> you havent proven anything YET, all you do is all you have ever done, ignore everything anyone says, and repete the same old tired *** **** over and over and over and pat yourself on the back
> 
> and you havnt even mentioned my point
> 
> the techniques, were set in stone BEFORE 1960
> 
> the tracy's learned them FROM Ed Parker before Parker ever even created the "process"
> 
> there is a set ideal technique
> 
> you are not just wrong, you are willfully ignorant.
> 
> And I will happily point it out every single time you say something stupid. Which is almost every time you post.
> 
> PUT ASIDE YOUR EGO
> 
> you aint that smart and you aint that good.



Now to contribute:

First watch this:




Then these:









Its like... You move between two spectrums of direct and straightforward, to abstract and sometimes just a bit weird.
Im not into discussing Kenpo and the sources of these things and whatnot, but I think the biggest issue has yet to be tapped.
And I think that would be Brevity+Effectiveness+Simplicity. With a Scale being the Spectrums, and those three things being on the right, and Longevity+Complexity+Efficiency being on the left.

You play with those scales ALOT.

As for the whole Discussion here, I dont see what proving Yourself right will achieve. Naming Conventions aside, something is either practical, or not. Of it isnt, fix it. If it is, improve it or keep it.
If something seems off, try something else. Even if you dont change it, Youll be able to better convey what isnt going to work, in more than just theory.

In short; This Debate could go on forever. Literally.
Just either close it on agreeing to disagree, or skeptically interrogate Your own method. 
It cant hurt to take the second option from time to time anyway.


----------



## Twin Fist

that Ed Parker created or refined set techniques he wanted taught and how he wanted them taught is clearly the truth, despite some people's refusal to see it

that he intended his students to, at mid level BB rank, start to explore variations is clearly the truth, as Doc said

that you need a solid foundation to be able to experiment is clearly true, as Doc Said

that there is nothing wrong with experimentation PROVIDED you have put the time in to learn the basic concepts is also clearly true

however, it doesnt matter how good your results are, if you alienate everyone around you. Cuz no one will care.


----------



## ATACX GYM

cyriacus said:


> yeah, i want nothing to do with the other discussion going on.
> 
> Now to comment on the above: One can have a favored tool, or primary tool, but only having one single tool, no matter how good it is, can build an over dependence, and a lack of the ability to adapt as needed.
> Focusing on one tool? Sure. As long as its just a focus, and not a dedication.
> 
> Ok fine, i lied.
> Discussion tibbing time.
> 
> 
> 
> Now to contribute:
> 
> First watch this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then these:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> its like... You move between two spectrums of direct and straightforward, to abstract and sometimes just a bit weird.
> Im not into discussing kenpo and the sources of these things and whatnot, but i think the biggest issue has yet to be tapped.
> And i think that would be brevity+effectiveness+simplicity. With a scale being the spectrums, and those three things being on the right, and longevity+complexity+efficiency being on the left.
> 
> You play with those scales alot.
> 
> As for the whole discussion here, i dont see what proving yourself right will achieve. Naming conventions aside, something is either practical, or not. Of it isnt, fix it. If it is, improve it or keep it.
> If something seems off, try something else. Even if you dont change it, youll be able to better convey what isnt going to work, in more than just theory.
> 
> In short; this debate could go on forever. Literally.
> Just either close it on agreeing to disagree, or skeptically interrogate your own method.
> It cant hurt to take the second option from time to time anyway.




^^^^I like this post. Thanks for dropping it on us.

"Now to comment on the above: One can have a favored tool, or primary tool, but only having one single tool, no matter how good it is, can build an over dependence, and a lack of the ability to adapt as needed.
Focusing on one tool? Sure. As long as its just a focus, and not a dedication."--Cyriacus

Not quite sure what you mean here, so I'll address both the "one tool" argument and the "multitool argument" very simply:

We at the ATACX GYM tune our training so that we have multiple tools with multiple applications. This way, for instance, you don't have just one tech or one combo to pass a guard or disarm a guy or escape or whatever. You have hundreds of them...most of which the BG has never seen before and therefore has reduced to zero defenses against. You, on the other hand, are perfectly familiar with his techs, and have no problem annihilating him or moderating the annihilation that you choose to hand out. This is the unanswerable advantage of having multiple tools that are multifaceted. 

Another way to think of it is like this: think of the old skool Green Beret teams. As I understand it, each man was taught the skills of the other man...just in case they lost that man during a mission. If during a op behind enemy lines you lose your Radio Man? Kinda hard to call for that evac at the LZ. Well, if you train your Sword and Hammer to also be effective in the primary ranges of SD that civilians, security types, martial athletes, and LEO types find themselves in? Your tool is that much more effective. You lose nothing. You gain a very great deal. In fact? All of the lessons of movement, technical understanding, ingrained muscle memory, etc. is amplified expanded and deepened much more intensely, with much higher quality, sooner, and more realistically than that which the other models tend to offer. The dysfunctional more common version does not offer anything that the functional variants [ doesn't matter who you get it from...Jeff Speakman, Doc, Sijo, me, whoever ] don't vastly and perpetually trump.

"...its like... You move between two spectrums of direct and straightforward, to abstract and sometimes just a bit weird.
Im not into discussing kenpo and the sources of these things and whatnot, but i think the biggest issue has yet to be tapped.
And i think that would be brevity+effectiveness+simplicity. With a scale being the spectrums, and those three things being on the right, and longevity+complexity+efficiency being on the left.

You play with those scales alot..."

What have I said or done that's a bit weird? LOLOLOL. That's funny man.

As for "brevity+effectiveness+simplicity"? I agree. However, you'd be amazed at how many people actually get lost when presented with that formula. They require more in-depth answers and oftentimes repeating the same answer over and over and over again until they MIGHT get it. This thread is a perfect example of this. Since page 2 I've been saying that the more common Kenpo version of the IP is not only not thee IP but it's dysfunctional. Took nearly ten pages and over 100 posts for that fact to start to sink in to some peoples' thick skulls. They'd have alot more questions--believe me I'm constantly getting them--when you're using a video and use what my GM Uncle calls the "B.E.S.T." [ Brevity Effectiveness Simplicity Thoroughness ] model which he uses for his teaching.

What exactly do you mean by longeity+complexity+efficiency?





Cyriacus said:


> In short; This Debate could go on forever. Literally.
> Just either close it on agreeing to disagree, or skeptically interrogate Your own method.
> It cant hurt to take the second option from time to time anyway.




I constantly skeptically interrogate my methods and approach. I was just discussing that very thing with a few guys this weekend, including some well known names on this board and on KT. I listen, absorb, question, analyze and apply. I refined an aspect, for instance, of my tech TRAPPING SALUTE RADIUS R.D.L.  this weekend as a direct result of this constant questioning, testing, refining, rejecting, and improvement process.

You seem to imply that you doubt that I don't skeptically examine my own techs and training methods. Is that the case or am I incorrect?


----------



## ATACX GYM

MJS said:


> I've heard people say that the majority of the pop. is right handed.  So if that is in fact true, then what you said is also very true.  I mean, if I'm going to clock someone, I'm going to use my right hand, as I'm right handed.  Doesnt mean I cant use the left, but if the right is the dominant hand, well.....
> 
> So, a left grab/push/pull/turn/whatever, followed by a right punch is much more likely, as you said.



I address that already. In depth and detail. I said already that I included such a possibility...and that too is neatly solved by the exact same approach that I use. I included the left hand-grab/right hand punch as the default pull or push scenario.


----------



## Cyriacus

ATACX GYM said:


> ^^^^I like this post. Thanks for dropping it on us.
> 
> "Now to comment on the above: One can have a favored tool, or primary tool, but only having one single tool, no matter how good it is, can build an over dependence, and a lack of the ability to adapt as needed.
> Focusing on one tool? Sure. As long as its just a focus, and not a dedication."--Cyriacus
> 
> Not quite sure what you mean here, so I'll address both the "one tool" argument and the "multitool argument" very simply:
> 
> We at the ATACX GYM tune our training so that we have multiple tools with multiple applications. This way, for instance, you don't have just one tech or one combo to pass a guard or disarm a guy or escape or whatever. You have hundreds of them...most of which the BG has never seen before and therefore has reduced to zero defenses against. You, on the other hand, are perfectly familiar with his techs, and have no problem annihilating him or moderating the annihilation that you choose to hand out. This is the unanswerable advantage of having multiple tools that are multifaceted.
> 
> *Aha - FYI, I was fague to avoid showing favoritisim.*
> 
> Another way to think of it is like this: think of the old skool Green Beret teams. As I understand it, each man was taught the skills of the other man...just in case they lost that man during a mission. If during a op behind enemy lines you lose your Radio Man? Kinda hard to call for that evac at the LZ. Well, if you train your Sword and Hammer to also be effective in the primary ranges of SD that civilians, security types, martial athletes, and LEO types find themselves in? Your tool is that much more effective. You lose nothing. You gain a very great deal. In fact? All of the lessons of movement, technical understanding, ingrained muscle memory, etc. is amplified expanded and deepened much more intensely, with much higher quality, sooner, and more realistically than that which the other models tend to offer. The dysfunctional more common version does not offer anything that the functional variants [ doesn't matter who you get it from...Jeff Speakman, Doc, Sijo, me, whoever ] don't vastly and perpetually trump.
> 
> "...its like... You move between two spectrums of direct and straightforward, to abstract and sometimes just a bit weird.
> Im not into discussing kenpo and the sources of these things and whatnot, but i think the biggest issue has yet to be tapped.
> And i think that would be brevity+effectiveness+simplicity. With a scale being the spectrums, and those three things being on the right, and longevity+complexity+efficiency being on the left.
> 
> You play with those scales alot..."
> 
> What have I said or done that's a bit weird? LOLOLOL. That's funny man.
> 
> *Some things come across really unusually. Its hard to explain.*
> 
> As for "brevity+effectiveness+simplicity"? I agree. However, you'd be amazed at how many people actually get lost when presented with that formula. They require more in-depth answers and oftentimes repeating the same answer over and over and over again until they MIGHT get it. This thread is a perfect example of this. Since page 2 I've been saying that the more common Kenpo version of the IP is not only not thee IP but it's dysfunctional. Took nearly ten pages and over 100 posts for that fact to start to sink in to some peoples' thick skulls. They'd have alot more questions--believe me I'm constantly getting them--when you're using a video and use what my GM Uncle calls the "B.E.S.T." [ Brevity Effectiveness Simplicity Thoroughness ] model which he uses for his teaching.
> 
> What exactly do you mean by longeity+complexity+efficiency?
> 
> *I mean, how long it takes, how detailed it is, how much it covers.*
> 
> 
> 
> I constantly skeptically interrogate my methods and approach. I was just discussing that very thing with a few guys this weekend, including some well known names on this board and on KT. I listen, absorb, question, analyze and apply. I refined an aspect, for instance, of my tech TRAPPING SALUTE RADIUS R.D.L.  this weekend as a direct result of this constant questioning, testing, refining, rejecting, and improvement process.
> 
> You seem to imply that you doubt that I don't skeptically examine my own techs and training methods. Is that the case or am I incorrect?
> 
> *Im not. Bare in mind I wrote all that at 3am. My intent was just to add that it can be a good idea. Hehe.*



*nods


----------



## MJS

ATACX GYM said:


> What you're referring to is a matter of training evolution and paradigm only...not a matter of what the tech is limited to. Not to tip my hand, but Matt Thornton isn't at all the actual "originator" of the ideas he popularized. Maybe he innovated his own terminology and specific approach using a teaching method, but the concept and approach are most definitely not his own.
> 
> I completely and utterly agree that basics are fundamental. Essential. Absolutely indispensable and cannot be ignored or foregone for any reason whatsoever.
> 
> This is an area that Doc and I differ visavis training methodology on. I look forward to engaging that topic in a far more thoroughgoing fashion in the upcoming few weeks.
> 
> What you may not know is that training this tech in the method that I recommend perforce requires you to achieve many more quality reps per round than you would without such a structure. 9-18 reps/round is very common for newbs using this tech. vs mild to moderate resistance. They are on the lower end of the scale during the first 5-6 rounds but creep up in reps from 7-15. Essentially and on average, call it a concentrated 13 reps done in 180 seconds if you use basic boxing rounds. [ We start with boxing rounds then move on to MMA rounds then we go to old school Pride rounds of 10 minutes then we move onto old skool UFC runds of 15 minutes each then we go to old skool Pancrase rounds of 30 minutes. 2-30 minute rounds with this tech are for my pre-white level C guys and my White Belters. Students--men women AND children--pick up THAT FAST when they're given the proper training paradigm and guidance. ] So 13 reps/round...15 rounds...165 reps/class, right? Average student comes 3/wk right? 495 reps/wk, right? See where this is going? In one month, the student has just shy of 1500 reps, and that's assuming that their number of reps per round don't increase. Which it will. They will pass or equal 20 reps/round by the end of the second week or middle of the 3rd week.Easy to do while using this tech. And they'll see where their previous training falls neatly into place while doing this tech. They'll see where they can shoot or defend the double at some point, where they'll be held in a bear hug and go directly from Captured Twigs Radius R.D.L.  to Sword and Hammer Radius R.D.L. [ cuz they'll have to defend vs the bear hug and use Sword and Hammer to do it ]. They'll even see where they can counter the bear hug with purely Sword and Hammer Radius R.D.L. cuz they'll be put in a position where they have to do so and you'll coach them through it. They'll see where they can use Sword and Hammer to defend their guard. They'll see how they can use Sword and Hammer armed and unarmed vs a knife, stick or bat attack...it's all right there as they advance in skill.
> 
> They won't get bored either. They're never stuck in a rut. They're seeing the connections between what they're doing now and all their other techs that they already know...and laying the foundation for the other techs they are to learn in the future.
> 
> Therefore, this method refutes the contention that all you need is one tech, too. You need more than one tech for your whole system. Just cause you can pull an armbar as a guy throws a cross doesn't mean you should always do so. What if you're in a multifight? What if the guy's too fast or too far away for you to pull a standing armbar off on him? The argument or suggestion that if you train one tech vs all of the main ranges of combat that civilians, security types, LEOs, and martial athletes are likely to face then all you need is that one tech is pretty hilarious on its face.
> 
> IT'S NOT JUST WHAT YOU KNOW, IT'S HOW AND WHY YOU TRAIN...



I think for the most part, we're doing the same thing.  For me though, I want to make sure that the people have the basics down first, as well as how the tech goes in the IP phase first, before anything else is done.  Sure, people tend to get bored, they think that because a tech is simple (and how much simpler can you get than S&H? LOL)  that it doesnt require a ton of practice, yet I've taught it, walked away, came back 10min later, and the tech still sucks...lol.  

Doc feels that the 'what ifs' shouldnt come 'til later....I kinda agree with that.  I mean, IMHO, there're a ton of things that need to be done first, before any 'what if' stuff is done.  Not saying the What if stuff isn't important...it is, but there's a time and place for it.

Edit to add more:  regarding your last paragraph:  sounds like contradiction again.  Maybe I'm misreading Ras, but one minute you're saying that you need different techs and the next you're saying that you can do S&H against many different attacks.  Like I said in that other post....why try to make a 1 size fits all tech, when the fact remains, you have techs already that address pretty much every attack?  Granted, there're attacks that I dont see defenses for in the Kenpo system.


----------



## MJS

ATACX GYM said:


> You're getting into areas that I'm trying to save for my discussion with Doc. Yes I know Clyde used Crashing Elbows while in guard...I did it in the 90s. Same with the Wings for locks, over and under hooks, and much more. Did all of that in 1996. As for the kick? Use your footwork plus your handsword to elude and strike the kick. Your pin becomes a pin that's normally used on your opponent's hand resting like a dead starfish on your shoulder you transform into a pinning check on your opponent's arm [ which is up in his fighting position ].  Follow with the handsword and hammerfist to whatever available targets that you recommoned. You may also handsword with one hand, hammerfist with the other...and repeat the tech with your opposite hand. Thus doubling the attack and defense and movement options you have available to you.
> 
> IT'S NOT JUST WHAT YOU KNOW, IT'S HOW AND WHY YOU TRAIN...



I'm going to play devils advocate for a moment. During discussions on performing the Kenpo techniques on the left side, people tend to say that the majority of the population are right handed, there are already techs that address left handed attacks, etc.  So, if thats the case, why try to work a tech for something that its orignially not designed to defend against in the first place?  ie: S&H against a kick, rather than the grab, which is the original attack.  

Furthermore, and maybe this is best saved for another thread in addition to the tons that already exist on the value of crosstraining.  Personally speaking, but if I want to learn how to defend myself on the ground, I'm going to go to a ground art, not a stand up art, and try to work the stand up techs on the ground.


----------



## ATACX GYM

MJS said:


> I think for the most part, we're doing the same thing.  For me though, I want to make sure that the people have the basics down first, as well as how the tech goes in the IP phase first, before anything else is done.  Sure, people tend to get bored, they think that because a tech is simple (and how much simpler can you get than S&H? LOL)  that it doesnt require a ton of practice, yet I've taught it, walked away, came back 10min later, and the tech still sucks...lol.
> 
> Doc feels that the 'what ifs' shouldnt come 'til later....I kinda agree with that.  I mean, IMHO, there're a ton of things that need to be done first, before any 'what if' stuff is done.  Not saying the What if stuff isn't important...it is, but there's a time and place for it.
> 
> Edit to add more:  regarding your last paragraph:  sounds like contradiction again.  Maybe I'm misreading Ras, but one minute you're saying that you need different techs and the next you're saying that you can do S&H against many different attacks.  Like I said in that other post....why try to make a 1 size fits all tech, when the fact remains, you have techs already that address pretty much every attack?  Granted, there're attacks that I dont see defenses for in the Kenpo system.




I think we are essentially doing the same thing too...the primary difference being with the use of the "more common expression" of an IP tech. I find myself getting away from that model more and more for all the reasons that I previously enumerated, and the fact that in the process of teaching my more functional, more comprehensive Idea which for my Gym is The Ideal Tech? I cover [ better, more functionally, with more versatility ] the "best case" so-called IP scenario too. Also my 15 round solution ensures a much higher amount of more highly concentrated high quality reps in the use of a single tech than does the more traditional method that doesn't have specific performance requirements and markers per rep, per round, per hour, per day. There is no measuring criteria yet that has been raised by anyone--including Doc--that my method not only addresses but has reams of scientific data from the bioengineering perspective to the nueropsychological that supports it.

Others may not prefer it, but there is at least as much scientific data supporting this method's use for the long term as it is for any other method...but I am not aware of any other method which holds such promise and yields such huge benefits for the short and midterm.

As to your last paragraph? My friend, you ARE misreading. Look at my CAPTURED TWIGS video. Look at my 15 round solution. I'm using one tech for a variety of scenarios. You saw my solution for using the Sword and Hammer for a kick, correct? This use of the Sword and Hammer doesn't invalidate, for instance, the use of Deflecting Hammer [ for you guys in the more traditional Parker system, at any rate ] in any way. You now have another tool to deal with a kick. The fact that you can use an unorthodox but effective response that maximizes the likelihood that your opponent has never seen this tech and isn't prepared for its use--along with the fact that you can throw whole sequences like this at him in a nonstop flow, even at Yellow Belt if you train like we do--gives you a gargantuan advantage. It's evidence of superior training and superior comprehension, and in no way evinces anything lesser in any possible way.

The more techs you stack in your arsenal, the more devastating you become. I've used my version of Parting Wings to both defend and pass guard before. Just recently, I showed a Pre-White Belt Lvl A and B student how to use her PARTING TWIGS RADIUS R.D.L. [ Yellow Belt tech for yall ] to do the same. You add that to your other techs and you have a potent arsenal even at Yellow Belt. 

You're a kali guy, right MJS? Can you see how you can use Sword and Hammer to defend against a knife attack? What about Deflecting Hammer? Can you craft drills to do such a thing? If you can...which I know can be done because I did it...then what in the world prevents you from doing exactly that and teaching your students accordingly? Now they can confidently deal with basic but real world repeated knife and stick attacks. 

Deflecting Hammer [ well, we use a different tech; our variant of this tech doesn't even have a name it's a sparring tech that we use ] is one of our newbiest newbs technique...Pre-White Level A. It's such absolute common sense that it doesn't warrant a name. It's like the bob and weave, slip and counter in boxing. You do that against everything. Well many times we name our techs but...that's what we do too.


----------



## Twin Fist

you notice how it is ALWAYS the other person that is wrong, Ras is NEVER wrong? about anything?


----------



## MJS

ATACX GYM said:


> I think we are essentially doing the same thing too...the primary difference being with the use of the "more common expression" of an IP tech. I find myself getting away from that model more and more for all the reasons that I previously enumerated, and the fact that in the process of teaching my more functional, more comprehensive Idea which for my Gym is The Ideal Tech? I cover [ better, more functionally, with more versatility ] the "best case" so-called IP scenario too. Also my 15 round solution ensures a much higher amount of more highly concentrated high quality reps in the use of a single tech than does the more traditional method that doesn't have specific performance requirements and markers per rep, per round, per hour, per day. There is no measuring criteria yet that has been raised by anyone--including Doc--that my method not only addresses but has reams of scientific data from the bioengineering perspective to the nueropsychological that supports it.



But I thought there wasn't an Ideal Tech?  See, this is where I feel the words of the art, make things way too confusing.  KISS baby...thats what I'm all about...Keeping things simple.   However, I would say that what you said is one, if not the main reason why Chris is saying you don't understand the Ideal phase or what the real meaning behind the techs is.  



> Others may not prefer it, but there is at least as much scientific data supporting this method's use for the long term as it is for any other method...but I am not aware of any other method which holds such promise and yields such huge benefits for the short and midterm.



And where is the data coming from?



> As to your last paragraph? My friend, you ARE misreading. Look at my CAPTURED TWIGS video. Look at my 15 round solution. I'm using one tech for a variety of scenarios. You saw my solution for using the Sword and Hammer for a kick, correct? This use of the Sword and Hammer doesn't invalidate, for instance, the use of Deflecting Hammer [ for you guys in the more traditional Parker system, at any rate ] in any way. You now have another tool to deal with a kick. The fact that you can use an unorthodox but effective response that maximizes the likelihood that your opponent has never seen this tech and isn't prepared for its use--along with the fact that you can throw whole sequences like this at him in a nonstop flow, even at Yellow Belt if you train like we do--gives you a gargantuan advantage. It's evidence of superior training and superior comprehension, and in no way evinces anything lesser in any possible way.



I'm assuming you saw my post just prior to this one, where I played devils advocate?  



> The more techs you stack in your arsenal, the more devastating you become. I've used my version of Parting Wings to both defend and pass guard before. Just recently, I showed a Pre-White Belt Lvl A and B student how to use her PARTING TWIGS RADIUS R.D.L. [ Yellow Belt tech for yall ] to do the same. You add that to your other techs and you have a potent arsenal even at Yellow Belt.



Oh no....you're in the more is better crowd? LOL.   Again, going back to that other post, I'd rather not try to mold something that deals with a specific attack, to try to fit something else.  As for the more techs comment....well, the more the person has, a) the more someone is going to have to remember, especially under pressure, b) the more someone is going to have to practice and hope they do it right.  IMO, I'd rather see someone refine the basics, condense drastically, the huge number of techs, and instead, use 8-10, if that, techs, train the **** out of them, and from there, build their own response, to whatever is presented to them.  Again, for me, I'd rather learn the basics of the ground, and have a toolset to use, should I find myself there.  



> You're a kali guy, right MJS? Can you see how you can use Sword and Hammer to defend against a knife attack? What about Deflecting Hammer? Can you craft drills to do such a thing? If you can...which I know can be done because I did it...then what in the world prevents you from doing exactly that and teaching your students accordingly? Now they can confidently deal with basic but real world repeated knife and stick attacks.



Yes, I train Arnis.  Yeah, I can probably use the S&H platform and come up with a few knife defenses, but why would I want to?  Frankly, alot of the weapon defense in Kenpo...well, it doesnt impress me much...lol.  Pop over to this thread...you'll see what I mean. 



> Deflecting Hammer [ well, we use a different tech; our variant of this tech doesn't even have a name it's a sparring tech that we use ] is one of our newbiest newbs technique...Pre-White Level A. It's such absolute common sense that it doesn't warrant a name. It's like the bob and weave, slip and counter in boxing. You do that against everything. Well many times we name our techs but...that's what we do too.



Ok.


----------



## Flying Crane

MJS said:


> Oh no....you're in the more is better crowd? LOL.  Again, going back to that other post, I'd rather not try to mold something that deals with a specific attack, to try to fit something else. As for the more techs comment....well, the more the person has, a) the more someone is going to have to remember, especially under pressure, b) the more someone is going to have to practice and hope they do it right. IMO, I'd rather see someone refine the basics, condense drastically, the huge number of techs, and instead, use 8-10, if that, techs, train the **** out of them, and from there, build their own response, to whatever is presented to them.



aye, this.  

Ras, you often post about figuring out how to work all the techs against many different scenarios, including those the tech isn't typically described as being used against.  On an academic level I see merit in that.  It's a creativity issue and looks more deeply at what is going on to spot commonalities that make things work in more ways than one might suspect.

But if you are doing that with all of the techs in the system, then why have all those techs?  If each tech can be used against just about everything, then you literally only need one or two of them, so why keep the rest of the curriculum?

This is an aspect of the system and how the typical kenpo curriculum is structured that has always been a problem in my eyes.  The very approach of having all these scripted SD techs, and particularly the very high number of them, creates a system that becomes very cumbersome.  And to approach it the way you do seems to me to complicate it even more, by applying every tech to every scenario.  I guess I just don't see the point in that approach, and while I can see some short term functionality benefits to a SD tech approach, in the long term I think it creates problems that are not outweighed by the short term benefits.

I'm with MJS, I think the better approach is to keep it simple.  Really train the hell out of the basics and understand what is going on with that, and then everything you do can be a powerful technique and can be applied broadly, without the need for such a long list of scripted and memorized SD techs, and without the need for 14 (so far) pages of debate about one single tech.

I don't really have a dog in the race, I'm not a kenpo guy anymore, but that's my point of view.


----------



## ATACX GYM

MJS said:


> But I thought there wasn't an Ideal Tech?  See, this is where I feel the words of the art, make things way too confusing.  KISS baby...thats what I'm all about...Keeping things simple.   However, I would say that what you said is one, if not the main reason why Chris is saying you don't understand the Ideal phase or what the real meaning behind the techs is.
> *
> As Doc stated numerous times...there is AN Ideal Technique, and that is the Ideal Technique that you as the Kenpo instructor craft and create for your students. There is no "hard and fast Ideal Technique". There is no such thing as THEE Sword and Hammer. This is one of the main reasons that Chris, Twin Fist, and anyone else who championed their previous/perhaps current positions regarding any factual validity regarding the existence of THEE "Sword and Hammer", is incorrect. All of the other misconceptions stem from there. Is it KISS? Well yes...but SIMPLE doesn't mean EASY.*
> 
> 
> And where is the data coming from?
> 
> *scientific data collated in studies ranging from biomechanics to other disciplines. I will cite some of these works in my discussion with Doc in the upcoming days.*
> 
> 
> I'm assuming you saw my post just prior to this one, where I played devils advocate?
> 
> 
> *I saw the post but didn't get a chance to read and digest it. I will do so over the next few days.*
> 
> 
> Oh no....you're in the more is better crowd? LOL.   Again, going back to that other post, I'd rather not try to mold something that deals with a specific attack, to try to fit something else.  As for the more techs comment....well, the more the person has, a) the more someone is going to have to remember, especially under pressure, b) the more someone is going to have to practice and hope they do it right.  IMO, I'd rather see someone refine the basics, condense drastically, the huge number of techs, and instead, use 8-10, if that, techs, train the **** out of them, and from there, build their own response, to whatever is presented to them.  Again, for me, I'd rather learn the basics of the ground, and have a toolset to use, should I find myself there.
> 
> 
> *I'm not in the "more is better crowd"...I'm in the "BETTER is better" crowd. I understand and respect your preference regarding fewer techs etc etc. Bruce Lee and my Uncle--who is my GM--are of like mind. Imho there will be some mandatory modification for street situations because we all know that they're not going to be 100% like the gym environment or attack 100% of the time. I would rather have a broader array of thoroughly drilled techs in my muscle memory and solid platforms from which to extrapolate from than have fewer techs wherein I'd have to extrapolate farther [ due to lack of sufficiently broad and deep tech base from which to draw from ] and thereby probably increase my error rate.
> 
> This is a matter of difference of preference, which impacts training preference modalities, which tends to revolve around the issue of sufficient number of quality muscle reps in basics and other techs. I have years of experience using my method which I think does a pretty good job of drawing the benefits from both major approaches: high quality basics, depth and breadth of tech options and arsenal, all drawn from copious amounts of functional reps of each tech facing multiple scenarios.
> 
> **But that doesn't in any way invalidate your preference or your perspective. If it works for you? Cool beans.*
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I train Arnis.  Yeah, I can probably use the S&H platform and come up with a few knife defenses, but why would I want to?  Frankly, alot of the weapon defense in Kenpo...well, it doesnt impress me much...lol.  Pop over to this thread...you'll see what I mean.
> 
> *I would hesitate to denigrate the weapon defenses of KENPO. Most weapon defenses that we're aware of are the result of misunderstanding the so-called IP. MOTION KENPO has the flexibility to wholesale adopt methods from other disciplines like Kali and then add the Kenpo flava to it. It's not accidental that MOTION KENPO and KALI fit so well together, almost like hand to glove. So...wouldn't a Kali weapon attack or defense become that much better if you fused it with Kenpo techs and practiced both the Kali and Kenpo methods very functionally? And wouldn't doing such a thing expand your arsenal? And isn't it good to have an expanded multifaceted functional arsenal? But hey...sallgood. In this case? The main thing is that it works and you're cool with it.*
> 
> 
> Ok.




Busy right now but I hope the answers that I supplied in the bolded portion of your quotes enough will suffice until I can turn more attention to this thread later today or later this week.


----------



## MJS

LOL, this has got to be one of the biggest threads in this section in a long time.  Anyways....to address your post from top to bottom.

1) So, if thats the case, then why do 99% of the schools out there, all teach the same techs?  Does Doc himself teach the techs found in Big Red?  So, if I'm reading this right, people were supposed to take the ideas from big red, and create their own tech?  So if thats the case, then everyone would have a different Attacking Mace, a different Lone Kimono, and so forth, yet thats not what we see.  So is everyone wrong?  Is Tatum wrong?  Is anyone right?

2) Umm...yes, simple does mean easy.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/simple

3) Looking forward to what you have to share on the studies.

4) Looking forward to what you think of my devils advocate post. 

5) You're not in the more is better crowd?  To be honest, you could've fooled me.  I say that after reading some past posts in this very thread...lol.  IMO, techniques are nothing more than our basics, assembled in a specific fashion.  However, the way they can be put together is endless.  We shouldn't (although its the way this art is put together) need a preset technique for every attack, ie: if they grab and pull, we do this.  If they grab and push, we do that.  I call BS on that, all day, everyday!!  

6) Did you check out that other thread on the knife I linked?  Sorry, I'm just not impressed with the Kenpo weapon stuff, and I know, I know....as some would say...its because I dont understand the art. LOL! LOL!  No, I'm just not a cult like follower.  I do Kenpo, Arnis, and have done some BJJ, and yes, the 3 blend very well.  Many times, I've transitioned from a Kenpo tech, and finished with Arnis.  Actually, I do the opposite of what you said...I fuse the Kenpo stuff with Arnis flavor.   I've worked many Kenpo knife techs with my Arnis teacher.  Its amazing what the FMAs take into consideration, that other arts do not.


----------



## Flying Crane

MJS said:


> 2) Umm...yes, simple does mean easy.
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/simple



In my opinion, in the martial arts context, it is about not making things unnecessarily compicated.  And I do make a distinction between "complicated" and "complex".  Complicated is not a good thing in this context, while complex can be, depending on what is going on.

Doing a simple thing absolutely correctly can be difficult and complex.  There's enough going on with the simple stuff.  Why complicate it?

In my opinion, the SD Tech approach that is prevalent in most kenpo branches is overly complicated.  The individual SD Techs are too complicated, and the fact that there are so many of them adds to the complications.  It's complicated squared.  That's my opinion.

Ras, the approach that you are taking is making it complicated cubed.  I don't get it.  Maybe it works for you, but honestly, I just don't get it.  I think there are easier ways to go about it that are far less complicated and give tremendous results.  While some may get results with the complicated way, I'd say it's taking the long way to get there.  Like going from San Francisco to Oakland via Des Moines...


----------



## MJS

Flying Crane said:


> In my opinion, in the martial arts context, it is about not making things unnecessarily compicated.  And I do make a distinction between "complicated" and "complex".  Complicated is not a good thing in this context, while complex can be, depending on what is going on.
> 
> Doing a simple thing absolutely correctly can be difficult and complex.  There's enough going on with the simple stuff.  Why complicate it?



Straight right punch....IMO, a simple parry while stepping off line, followed by a strike, maybe a lock, is easier than dance of death..lol.  I'm not a student, but watching clips of Krav Maga...well, that looks a hell of alot simpler than some Kenpo stuff I see..lol.



> In my opinion, the SD Tech approach that is prevalent in most kenpo branches is overly complicated.  The individual SD Techs are too complicated, and the fact that there are so many of them adds to the complications.  It's complicated squared.  That's my opinion.
> 
> Ras, the approach that you are taking is making it complicated cubed.  I don't get it.  Maybe it works for you, but honestly, I just don't get it.  I think there are easier ways to go about it that are far less complicated and give tremendous results.  While some may get results with the complicated way, I'd say it's taking the long way to get there.  Like going from San Francisco to Oakland via Des Moines...



Yup


----------



## Flying Crane

MJS said:


> Straight right punch....IMO, a simple parry while stepping off line, followed by a strike, maybe a lock, is easier than dance of death..lol.  I'm not a student, but watching clips of Krav Maga...well, that looks a hell of alot simpler than some Kenpo stuff I see..lol.



Yeah, I posted on this issue a while back in another thread, seems relevant so I'll say something similar here.

Pek choi in my system is a smashing downward hammerfist.  It can be used as a primary strike, or it can be used to attack and even destroy a limb that is attacking you (read: a very very painful block).  The most textbook pek choi is from top to bottom, striking downward.  But in truth, it can be done in many directions, including horizontal and on diagonals.  Once you understand how to use it and where it can be thrown and how effectively it can be used, you realize that you can use a variation of pek choi all over the place, to answer many many types of attacks.  The pek choi itself may end the encounter, as you damage the enemy's weapon with it.  If not, you can follow with any number of very powerful hand strikes, either one or a series, whatever you want.  And you can do the same thing, apply the same defense, against many kinds of attacks.

The guy punches you from the front, doesn't matter which arm he punches with: pek choi to destroy his attack, follow with chuin choi (straight punch), or some other simple and straightforward punch or three.

The guy punches you from an angle, or from the side: you can still answer with pek choi followed with chuin choi.

The guy reaches to grab you from the front, or from an angle or from the side: pek choi followed with chuin choi.

The guy pushes you with one or both hands, or the guy grabs you with one or both hands: yup, still pek choi to destroy his push or grab, followed with chuin choi.

The guy pushes you from behind, you step to regain control of your base, pivot and clear his hands with pek choi, follow with chuin choi (think Crash of the Eagle from Tracys, but done with White Crane techniques).

My student and I one day went thru the list of Tracy techniques and selected a handful to experiment with, looking at what might be good ideas contained therein, but with an eye for delivering the technique like White Crane.  Almost every single tech that we played with was distilled down to Pek Choi followed by Chuin choi.

This isn't to say that these two punching techniques are the entirety of the curriculum of white crane.  Far from it.  But I'm just trying to illustrate how much realistic mileage one can get from very little material, if you understand it well.  Nothing is deliberately scripted, it is all just very straight forward and practical.

If you really understand your basics, you realize that that is where it all is at.  That's what matters, and the more complex stuff should simply be giving us lessons and examples on how we can use those same basics under many circumstances.  Codifiying complicated scenario SD techs is sort of a mis-interpretation of that lesson and probably were never what the material was meant to be, until someone made a deliberate decision to go down that path.  I feel that path was probably a mistake.  But hey, that's just me.  But then taking all those complicated techniques and looking to apply all of them everywhere, well it just seems a bit overdone.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Flying Crane said:


> In my opinion, in the martial arts context, it is about not making things unnecessarily compicated.  And I do make a distinction between "complicated" and "complex".  Complicated is not a good thing in this context, while complex can be, depending on what is going on.
> 
> Doing a simple thing absolutely correctly can be difficult and complex.  There's enough going on with the simple stuff.  Why complicate it?
> 
> In my opinion, the SD Tech approach that is prevalent in most kenpo branches is overly complicated.  The individual SD Techs are too complicated, and the fact that there are so many of them adds to the complications.  It's complicated squared.  That's my opinion.
> 
> Ras, the approach that you are taking is making it complicated cubed.  I don't get it.  Maybe it works for you, but honestly, I just don't get it.  I think there are easier ways to go about it that are far less complicated and give tremendous results.  While some may get results with the complicated way, I'd say it's taking the long way to get there.  Like going from San Francisco to Oakland via Des Moines...



Okay fair points and I hear this alot...but consider this answer gentlemen:

My approach is not complication by any means. It's simplification. If you're focused on the preeminence of performance.

See...I think that the well-rounded martial arts student is given the skill sets to perform against the more common and consistent methods of attack on the streets first and even in martial competition second [ if so desired ]. That includes weapons, striking range, clinch range, seated, kneeling, and ground range. It's inclusive of Escape, Rescue, Rescue AND Escape, Multifights, and any combination of the above. It's inclusive of being able to flow through all of the above ranges and demands at any time.

I note that most disciplines don't teach students how to perform in these ranges in each grade/belt rank/whatever. Previously, when the training methods to actually functionally achieve these results weren't accessible widely...teachers had legit reasons for NOT programming these skills into their students. For quite some time now [ thanks to the burgeoning internet ] that claim is wholly invalid. I have a method that does exactly that, 15 rounds at a time. 

Furthermore, I see the consequences of martial artists NOT being properly versed in the interlocking, complimentary skill sets of the martial disciplines...and it sucks a whole lot.[ Hey, I'm still improving in every area myself. ] Now what happens is something like this [ especially in disciplines like Kenpo ]: 

A student goes to their Kenpo school. Gets taught stuff that may or may not be functional...but isn't well rounded. So let's just pretend that the more common version of the Sword and Hammer actually repels a right punch attack from the right flank. If he tackles you? You're screwed. If he punches with his left hand? You're screwed. If he attacks you anywhere but the right flank? You're screwed. If he knees or kicks you? You're screwed. If he pushes or pulls you? You're screwed. 

Almost all of the attacks I listed above are answered elsewhere in the Kenpo curriculum... in more advanced ranks. None of which helps you while you're getting your butt kicked RIGHT NOW. The question is:  HOW CAPABLE ARE YOU RIGHT NOW OF DEFENDING EACH AND EVERY MANIFESTATION OF THE MORE COMMON METHODS OF ATTACK?

The answer is: NOT VERY. The reason why is because: YOUR TRAINING METHOD ISN'T SUFFICIENTLY DEEP, VERSATILE, AND FOCUSED ENOUGH TO YIELD THESE RESULTS. Why doesn't your training do that? CUZ YOUR INSTRUCTOR DOESN'T KNOW OR IS PHILOSOPHICALLY OPPOSED TO TEACHING YOU THESE METHODS RIGHT NOW...OR BOTH [ I'm using "you" and "your" in the GENERAL not the SPECIFIC meaning...]

The result is: you're being programmed with weaknesses that your instructor may or may not know about or know how to address;  and our instructor may or may not address later. In the interim, your instructor is essentially hoping you don't get your head knocked off prior to you reaching the belt rank that will fill in the gaps of your knowledge. 

Sooo...you're a Kenpo White Belt. Feelin pretty snazzy about your grab and pull into any and all of your basic strikes, your front snap kick, blocks, backfist, reverse punch and palm heel. You have a strong but fluid brace of Bow Stances. You've practiced using your techs to the cardinal directions. You're walking to your car after practice. Hobo Homecookin is chillin up against the driver side of your car. Rather than engage Hobo Homecookin in convo, you just walk around your car and attempt to enter your car from the passenger side. You keep an eye on Hobo Homecookin. Hobo Homecookin follows and accosts you for some change. You tell Hobo Homecookin that you have no money; you're wearing gi pants with no pockets. Hobo Homecookin says that he can hear the change janglin in your pocket. You tell Hobo Homecookin that he hears your keys  not change because you don't have pockets...and you insert your keys into the passenger side car door to enter your vehicle.  Hobo Homecookin tries to reach where he thinks your pockets are. You block his grasping hand with your snappy downward block. Hobo Homecookin yelps in surprise, then swings a haymaker right. You block again and reverse punch him in the gut. Hobo Homecookin doubles over and drops to the pavement.

You're like...FATALITY! KENPO WINS! FLAWLESS VICTORY!!

Then Humongous Hobo Homecookin #2 tackles you to the ground from the back. 

You're out of your element. You have zero ground fighting skills. Heavy hobo punches come down on you. And Hobo Homecookin #1 is rising from the ground and starts stomping you, all the while that EFF KARATE KIDS look shines bright in his eye...


...hold up. Let's rewind. See what happens if you have depth and versatility in your techs...as a WHITE BELT. 

Let's just skip the gajillion things you coulda done to prevent having to clock Hobo Homecookin #1. For the purposes of this discussion? Scrappin with Hobo Homecookin #1 is inevitable. You took care of him purrty good too.

Matta fact? Let's up the threat level for Hobo Homecookin #1, shall we? Yes we shall.

Hobo Homecookin #1 breaks out a knife and threatens you with it as he reaches for your pocket. You execute a simultaneous outside block and low block...the Universal Block...cuz you practiced for this kind of thing with your blocking practice. You use your blocks like forearm shivers when appropriate, and you specifically practiced blocking the weapon arm of knife wielding BGs along with using your blocks to stop sticks and stuff. Your tech is fast confident and strong, surprising the crap out of Hobo Homecookin #1. You then front kick him in the gut. His knife goes flying one way...he goes flying the OTHER way.

You're feelin that adrenalin high when Humongous Hobo#2 slams into you from the back.

Most Kenpoists almost never train in multifights as a White Belt in their nonversatile school, so you never considered that you were leaving your back exposed to unfriendlies. Bang. Here comes Humongous Hobo #2 all with the blindside blitz like a broke Ray Lewis.

There are techs in Kenpo to deal with this situation...if you're lucky enough to have a functional instructor. Too bad for you that these techs start at Yellow...and you're a White Belt. You're toast.

Unless...taaadow! You spent time training with a versatile Coach like those ATACX GYM guys, and your Coach really knows how to train you. Now you're ready and...

...you apply a double outside block to the big smelling arms encircling you in a arms inside bear hug attack. You immediately flash down with both hands,grab his wrists, and push them down and away. You don't release the hold, but you do manage to get a little wiggle room. You fire a short elbow back into Humongous Hobo #2's gut because you remember all those reps you did in your horse stance where your instructor not only told you about the "hidden elbows" of your deep horse stance with your fists at your sides, your instructor taught you how to use your body mass and Kenpo Body Whip movements to fire off repeated, devastating very close range elbows...even while being clinches. That's what you do. One hand fires a wicked elbow into HH#2's gut, and as part of the Body Whip movement of firing your elbow, your hand returns to grab HH#2's wrist with devastating speed. He gets hit...onetwothreefour times...in the gut just like that. He's weakened now and you take that opportunity to double outside block his arms to get a little room...and in one motion grab both one of his arms with both of yours, step to your left and transition into a Left Nuetral Bow Stance. 

Your teacher...being a functional versatile guy...taught you how to use your stances to effect trips and throws.

Over your leg Humongous Hobo #2 goes, as he gets thrown by the Kenpo version of Tai Otoshi. As he hits the ground, you immediately stomp and pin him by...using him as the platform for your Bow Stance while you pivot and face Hobo Homecookin #1. Hobo Homecookin #1 is seriously rethinking this here scrapfest seeing how fast you handled Humongous Hobo#2 and you see he's not loving the idea of messing with your Kenpo...

...when Humongous Hobo #1 snatches you up and slams you on the ground. Yes, life sucks at this moment. 

Hobo Homecookin #1 takes heart now and scrambles to help his Humongous homeboy, who is now crouched over you in a high sloppy mount, trying to rain blows down on you [Which you block, as you were taught to do in class. You were taught to use your basic Kenpo blocks on the ground and off your back ] but before Hobo Homecookin #1 can enter the melee? You base down in your Nuetral Stance and shift immediately to your Right Bow Stance, tilting Humongous Hobo #1 to his left...and Humongous Homeboy #2 plants his left palm down to prevent himself from being bucked all the way off, and keeps firing with his right hand. Remembering your block/grab/pull/strike lessons and the hours you spent drilling that tech from off your back, you block Humongous Hobo #1's punch, grab his wrist, pull him and bridge him by shifting from your Right Nuetral Bow to your Left Nuetral Bow...while you crack his chin meat with a heel palm.

Exactly like you did while standing in class, and exactly like you were taught to do on the mat.

Bam! Humongous Hobo #2 is toast and on the parking lot pavement. 

Hobo Homecookin #1 tries to flail stupid Bum Fight punches at you, but you front snap kick him in Kenpo's favorite target...the groin. He's toast curled up looking like a human comma on the ground next to his Humongous friend. He's grabbing The Family Jewels and moaning.

That's when Humongous Hobo #1 and Hobo Homecookin #2 come across the street. Humongous Hobo #1 isn't looking very aggressive, and Hobo Homecookin #2 is pissed at his friends.

"You dummies!" he yells. "That's a krotty school! Them guys AIN'T GOT pockets! When I said go panhandle, I meant that gas station next door to the krotty school! See? Now he krotty'd yer ***!'

"Yeah," Humongous Hobo #1 cosigns.

You're in your car driving away like...

FATALITY! KENPO WINS! FLAWLESS VICTORY!!


----------



## Josh Oakley

That was a pretty complex way to say something is simplified...

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## Twin Fist

this is a very large ball of crap, where to start? 



ATACX GYM said:


> My approach is not complication by any means. It's simplification.


 
you say so, your way seems to be that you claim your people can do everythign at bb level, from day one. and sorry, i dont buy it. you cant teach a whitebelt blackbelt skills. it just isnt possible.


ATACX GYM said:


> I note that most disciplines don't teach students how to perform in these ranges in each grade/belt rank/whatever. Previously, when the training methods to actually functionally achieve these results weren't accessible widely...teachers had legit reasons for NOT programming these skills into their students. For quite some time now [ thanks to the burgeoning internet ] that claim is wholly invalid. I have a method that does exactly that, 15 rounds at a time.



********. You cannot teach noobs off the street complicated skills, it takes TIME to even be able to throw a decent punch that wont break thier hands. Anyone that actually got to BB knows this, so you saying otherwise doesnt speak to your credibility



ATACX GYM said:


> So let's just pretend that the more common version of the Sword and Hammer actually repels a right punch attack from the right flank. If he tackles you? You're screwed. If he punches with his left hand? You're screwed. If he attacks you anywhere but the right flank? You're screwed. If he knees or kicks you? You're screwed. If he pushes or pulls you? You're screwed.



thats why you learn different techniques, to deal with different attacks

DUH
what kind of supposed Blackbelt doesnt know this? there is no ONE technique or training style that gives you the skills to defend against all the variable attacks you mentioned. 

this ALONE, your repeated claims of being able to do things that all the REAL blackbelts in the world know is impossible makes me shake my head.



ATACX GYM said:


> Almost all of the attacks I listed above are answered elsewhere in the Kenpo curriculum... in more advanced ranks. None of which helps you while you're getting your butt kicked RIGHT NOW. The question is:  HOW CAPABLE ARE YOU RIGHT NOW OF DEFENDING EACH AND EVERY MANIFESTATION OF THE MORE COMMON METHODS OF ATTACK?"



a 5th grader cant do calculus DUH, and claiming you can teach a noob to handle ALL the variations as fast as you claim you can? do you realize how stupid this makes you sound? it isnt possible, it takes time. it takes months to learn how to move, and YEARS to learn how to move outside of route memorization. Thats not something your "greatness" can change. NO ONE can change the time it takes to gain muscle memory, you cant shortcut the 1000's of punches you have to throw to be able to throw a good one. claiming otherwise is clearly delusional thinking at best, and outright dishonesty at worst



ATACX GYM said:


> You spent time training with a versatile Coach like those ATACX GYM guys, and your Coach really knows how to train you. Now you're ready and...



uh, You can claim to do anything you like, but anyone that actually got to dan ranks knows it just isnt possible.

unless someone is a whitebelt for about a year, you aint gonna get a white belt to be able to do this crap you are talking.

is that it?? are you keeping people at white for years?

the rest of this post is just more of you writing fan fiction about your days as a ninja, in the CIA and your epic battles with imaginary yakuza ......

and I dont buy it. No one that actually spent the years earning a legit blackbelt in a legit school here on planet reality will believe this crap. As long as you claim to do things that are flat out impossible, you will never be taken seriously

i am actually getting embarrassed for you now.


----------



## MJS

I actually had a reply typed, hit submit, and low and behold, the damn computer locked up....lol.  Maybe that was a blessing in disguise...LOL.  Anywho....TF pretty much summed up what I had said.  IMHO...

1) Simple is easy.  

2) You can't teach a newb the stuff listed, because chances are, they're gonna suck, they're gonna be lost, they're gonna be confused.

3) Sure, there're schools out there, that just teach the stuff straight out of bigred, nothing else.  Those people will most likely fail, because they never step out of the box, the teacher never takes their students to the next level.

4) A handful of techs is all you need.

5) 1 tech isn't the answer to numerous attacks.

6) The basics are the keys.  Master those, and you'll be able to craft a solid, effective response.

7) As Doc said, he doesnt let people talk about 'what ifs' until way later.  I agree.  If they can't handle a non weapon attack first, dealing with a weapon will be suicide.

8) Dont reinvent the wheel.  Why waste time trying to make the square peg go into the round hole, ie: trying to make a Kenpo standup tech work on the ground, when there're proven ground techs already?

9) Mo Smith vs. Mark Coleman.  Mo trained the basics of the ground with Frank Shamrock, survived Marks ground attack, got back up and KO'd Mark.  Again, the basics are the key.


----------



## Twin Fist

Quoted for mother****ing truth



mjs said:


> i actually had a reply typed, hit submit, and low and behold, the damn computer locked up....lol.  Maybe that was a blessing in disguise...lol.  Anywho....tf pretty much summed up what i had said.  Imho...
> 
> 1) simple is easy.
> 
> 2) *you can't teach a newb the stuff listed, because chances are, they're gonna suck, they're gonna be lost, they're gonna be confused.*
> 
> 3) sure, there're schools out there, that just teach the stuff straight out of bigred, nothing else.  Those people will most likely fail, because they never step out of the box, the teacher never takes their students to the next level.
> 
> 4) a handful of techs is all you need.
> 
> 5) *1 tech isn't the answer to numerous attacks.*
> 
> 6) the basics are the keys.  Master those, and you'll be able to craft a solid, effective response.
> 
> 7) as doc said, he doesnt let people talk about 'what ifs' until way later.  I agree.  If they can't handle a non weapon attack first, dealing with a weapon will be suicide.
> 
> 8) *dont reinvent the wheel. * why waste time trying to make the square peg go into the round hole, ie: Trying to make a kenpo standup tech work on the ground, when there're proven ground techs already?
> 
> 9) mo smith vs. Mark coleman.  Mo trained the basics of the ground with frank shamrock, survived marks ground attack, got back up and ko'd mark.  Again, the basics are the key.


----------



## Josh Oakley

Actually fifth graders ARE doing calculus in various schools throughout the country.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## Twin Fist

i have NEVER seen that, and a google search doesnt come up with any school districts teaching calc to 10 years olds

but, lets just say that some one of a kind kid can do calc

i am still pretty sure you get my point Josh.

there are things that have to be learned in steps, and those steps take time. You cannot teach a white belt BB level skills unless you keep them at white for the amount of training it normally takes to reach BB level skills.


----------



## Josh Oakley

http://m.wired.com/magazine/2011/07/ff_khan/all/1

Though for the most part I agree with you. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. But it is theoretically possible to teach a student basic self defense in a very short period of time and for it to be applicable to a variety of ranges. And it is absolutely possible to teach someone in a quick period of time how to punch without breaking their hand. It won't be a supreme ultimate punch that can take out Godzilla, but it will be decently effective though not as strong as it will be with training.

However, retention becomes an issue when we are talking about the training method ATTACX GYM speaks of. if we are talking a solid 40 hour week, then sure. The student would already have to be in good shape, and follow up training would be important, as any skill that is not maintained is lost. But the initial learning and applicability can be achieved relatively quickly. Not black belt level, OBVIOUSLY. But then again, Ras never said black belt level, as far as I can recall.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## Twin Fist

your link says ONE kid was doing it, not the whole class, so the exception? it doesnt prove anything other than that the kid is exceptional

but back on topic:

being able to take ONE technique adapt it to 7 different attacks on the fly, is a BB level skill. And not all BB's could do it either. I dont exactly suck at martial arts, and I have 28 years in the game, and i know I couldnt make 5 swords work for a half nelson.

principals? contouring, marraige of gravity, molding? sure.

the technique itself? no 

BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ABLE TO

thats why there are different techniques. To react to different attacks.

Even trying to make ONE technique fit all attacks is stupid, because:
 1) it overloads the beginner's ability to absorb information. This isnt like learning history, these are physical skills, muscle memory takes time and repetition to build, you cannot shortcut that, it isnt possible. Reaction time has to be developed, you cant shortcut that either. 
2) it would require you changing the technique to the point that it isnt the same technique anymore.

So claiming that you can teach a rank beginner to do it?

i call bull ****.


----------



## ATACX GYM

MJS said:


> I actually had a reply typed, hit submit, and low and behold, the damn computer locked up....lol.  Maybe that was a blessing in disguise...LOL.  Anywho....TF pretty much summed up what I had said.  IMHO...
> 
> 1) Simple is easy.
> 
> 2) You can't teach a newb the stuff listed, because chances are, they're gonna suck, they're gonna be lost, they're gonna be confused.
> 
> 3) Sure, there're schools out there, that just teach the stuff straight out of bigred, nothing else.  Those people will most likely fail, because they never step out of the box, the teacher never takes their students to the next level.
> 
> 4) A handful of techs is all you need.
> 
> 5) 1 tech isn't the answer to numerous attacks.
> 
> 6) The basics are the keys.  Master those, and you'll be able to craft a solid, effective response.
> 
> 7) As Doc said, he doesnt let people talk about 'what ifs' until way later.  I agree.  If they can't handle a non weapon attack first, dealing with a weapon will be suicide.
> 
> 8) Dont reinvent the wheel.  Why waste time trying to make the square peg go into the round hole, ie: trying to make a Kenpo standup tech work on the ground, when there're proven ground techs already?
> 
> 9) Mo Smith vs. Mark Coleman.  Mo trained the basics of the ground with Frank Shamrock, survived Marks ground attack, got back up and KO'd Mark.  Again, the basics are the key.



As far as your points are concerned?


1) Simple isn't easy. Simple is simple. You can simply fight Anderson Silva. It won't be an easy experience for you. You can simply decide to run in the Olympics. Not an easy thing to do. Simple isn't easy. Simple is SIMPLE.

2) I can do this with noobs. These techs are all basics. They will not suck if you train these techs in an alive manner, and it doesn't take long to do. History is replete with examples from the ancient world to the modern, from the battlefield to sports, that shows how true my statement is. Take your pick...from the African warriors to today's military specops, from the Kali warriors of the ancient Phillipines who did this to the slaves cum army under Touissaint Louverture, from ancient sporting games to today's decathletes, from the African concept of holistic whole human development to The Renaissance Man to today's warrior-scholars. 

3) I completely agree with you regarding the whole Big Red thing.

4) I understand and respect the curricula focused on minimal techs. Bruce wasn't the first or only one to champion such a thing. I simply disagree in a few choice areas. That's a matter of preference.

5) 1 tech isn't THEE answer but 1 tech can be used as AN answer in many many more scenarios than it currently is. 

6) What Ifs should be built into the tech. The issue isn't whether or not one allows noobs to talk about What Ifs, the issue is which What Ifs are addressed by the teacher, why that's the case, and what their particular preferences and training models are. Because of my extensive grappling and weapon experiences, I program them into the basics I teach my students from Day One. Nobody asks me anything because they see I'm already addressing their questions in the material.

7) Many empty handed defenses flow directly into their armed cousins' defenses. The tech which allows you to defeat a straight right needs very minimal modification to deal with a knife thrust. Etc. With my Gym, training your basics correctly is inclusive of these matters. It won't be an issue of blocking unarmed attacks vs blocking armed attacks. It will come down to...BLOCKING.

8) I'm not reinventing the wheel. Having spent many years on the mat with grapplers and strikers and hybrids, I see where the application of a functional striking tech can go a long way in a grappling scramble or defense, and vice versa. It's a case of having the experience and inclination to apply techs which you know the other guy isn't ready for at a time that he's expecting something totally different. The unanswerable advantage of versatility is that you're able to overwhelm both the novice and the experienced practitioner with a wealth of functional potent techs which from their perspective is unorthodox; they haven't trained to defend it. You therefore have a much muuuch higher chance of defeating them. You also--and I keep repeating this--have to acquire a much much muuuccch deeper grasp of the mechanics of each tech in order to perform this way. The person who can do this has a BETTER GRASP of whatever tech than the person who doesn't. Now...imagine a whole system that takes this approach. The techs are impeccable. And the fighters will be incredibly difficult to overwhelm. Well...welcome to THE ATACX GYM.


I want to make a few points myself:

1) What we're having here is a difference of training paradigms and the opinions drawn therefrom. That's cool. But I have experience in each one of these training methods as applied to various martial arts. Imho there is no question that training in such a way that a single tech is multifaceted is not only smart and amazingly effective but it's a very ancient practice. 

2) I met Mo Smith in his IFL days. I met and trained with Frank Shamrock when he was momentarily stationed with Rico in Rico's RAW facility in El Segundo. They have had a fundamental impact on my training philosophy. They would grasp instantly what I'm saying and know it works from having seen it done.

3) I absolutely agree with the crucial supremacy of basics. What we disagree about is how universally applicable those basics are and when they can be applied that way. This again is a matter of training method and knowledge of the instructor, NOT the techs themselves.

4) If any of you are in the Los Angeles area, and have a newbie class or a one night guest teacher spot...I can take your material and teach your students exactly what I said. The results will be exactly as I previously stated. Anyone who uses these concepts and methods [ which predate all of our births ] can and will get similar results. IT'S NOT JUST WHAT YOU KNOW, IT'S HOW AND WHY YOU TRAIN.

5) What do you have to lose? Take a basic tech you know through and through and work with it. See what you can do with it. Then find a way to teach it to noobs. Complete and utter noobs. The process will make you really really really really grasp the mechanics of the basics and how to convey it to noobs, and dramatically magnify your combat capability.


----------



## ATACX GYM

MJS said:


> 1) So, if thats the case, then why do 99% of the schools out there, all teach the same techs?  Does Doc himself teach the techs found in Big Red?  So, if I'm reading this right, people were supposed to take the ideas from big red, and create their own tech?  So if thats the case, then everyone would have a different Attacking Mace, a different Lone Kimono, and so forth, yet thats not what we see.  So is everyone wrong?  Is Tatum wrong?  Is anyone right?




Doc already answered this, but I'll give it a try and be brief: Using the Ideal Phase tech correctly both binds kenpoists together using kenpo techs as a common medium yet at the same time frees each practitioner to apply Kenpo techs to a specific attack as he/she/they see fit. In essence, the response to each tech may vary but the techs used for each response will be for the most part familiar to most or all Kenpoists. This keeps Motion Kenpo constantly growing vibrant changing yet still solidly rooted in the Kenpo medium and method.

So NO the schools out there copying each other aren't inherently wrong for copying each other, but NO in so doing they're NOT doing what Mr. Parker both wrote and spoke about and NO their copying each other doesn't make their version of the IP correct...it just makes their version POPULAR. Idk if Doc does techs from Big Red but Big Red is supposed to be a GUIDELINE anyway so I don't think he does and we're not supposed to either.

And YES ATACX GYM IS RIGHT to have the versions we do and Head Coach Ras was right all along in almost everything he said.


----------



## MJS

ATACX GYM said:


> As far as your points are concerned?
> 
> 
> 1) Simple isn't easy. Simple is simple. You can simply fight Anderson Silva. It won't be an easy experience for you. You can simply decide to run in the Olympics. Not an easy thing to do. Simple isn't easy. Simple is SIMPLE.
> 
> 2) I can do this with noobs. These techs are all basics. They will not suck if you train these techs in an alive manner, and it doesn't take long to do. History is replete with examples from the ancient world to the modern, from the battlefield to sports, that shows how true my statement is. Take your pick...from the African warriors to today's military specops, from the Kali warriors of the ancient Phillipines who did this to the slaves cum army under Touissaint Louverture, from ancient sporting games to today's decathletes, from the African concept of holistic whole human development to The Renaissance Man to today's warrior-scholars.
> 
> 3) I completely agree with you regarding the whole Big Red thing.
> 
> 4) I understand and respect the curricula focused on minimal techs. Bruce wasn't the first or only one to champion such a thing. I simply disagree in a few choice areas. That's a matter of preference.
> 
> 5) 1 tech isn't THEE answer but 1 tech can be used as AN answer in many many more scenarios than it currently is.
> 
> 6) What Ifs should be built into the tech. The issue isn't whether or not one allows noobs to talk about What Ifs, the issue is which What Ifs are addressed by the teacher, why that's the case, and what their particular preferences and training models are. Because of my extensive grappling and weapon experiences, I program them into the basics I teach my students from Day One. Nobody asks me anything because they see I'm already addressing their questions in the material.
> 
> 7) Many empty handed defenses flow directly into their armed cousins' defenses. The tech which allows you to defeat a straight right needs very minimal modification to deal with a knife thrust. Etc. With my Gym, trianing your basics correctly is inclusive of these matters. It won't be an issue of...blocking unarmed attacks vs blocking armed attacks. It will come down to...BLOCKING.
> 
> 8) I'm not reinventing the wheel. Having spent many years on the mat with grapplers and strikers and hybrids, I see where the application of a functional striking tech can go a long way in a grappling scramble or defense, and vice versa. It's a case of having the experience and inclination to apply techs which you know the other guy isn't ready for at a time that he's expecting something totally different. The unanswerable advantage of versatility is that you're able to overwhelm both the novice and the experienced practitioner with a wealth of functional potent techs which from their perspective is unorthodox; they haven't trained to defend it. You therefore have a much muuuch higher chance of defeating them. You also--and I keep repeating this--have to acquire a much much muuuccch deeper grasp of the mechanics of each tech in order to perform this way. The person who can do this has a BETTER GRASP of whatever tech than the person who doesn't. Now...imagine a whole system that takes this approach. The techs are impeccable. And the fighters will be incredibly difficult to overwhelm. Well...welcome to THE ATACX GYM.
> 
> 
> I want to make a few points myself:
> 
> 1) What we're having here is a difference of training paradigms and the opinions drawn therefrom. That's cool. But I have experience in each one of these training methods as applied to various martial arts. Imho there is no question that training in such a way that a single tech is multifaceted is not only smart and amazingly effective but it's a very ancient practice.
> 
> 2) I met Mo Smith in his IFL days. I met and trained with Frank Shamrock when he was momentarily stationed with Rico in Rico's RAW facility in El Segundo. They have had a fundamental impact on my training philosophy. They would grasp instantly what I'm saying and know it works from having seen it done.
> 
> 3) I absolutely agree with the crucial supremacy of basics. What we disagree about is how universally applicable those basics are and when they can be applied that way. This again is a matter of training method and knowledge of the instructor, NOT the techs themselves.
> 
> 4) If any of you are in the Los Angeles area, and have a newbie class or a one night guest teacher spot...I can take your material and teach your students exactly what I said. The results will be exactly as I previously stated. Anyone who uses these concepts and methods [ which predate all of our births ] can and will get similar results. IT'S NOT JUST WHAT YOU KNOW, IT'S HOW AND WHY YOU TRAIN.
> 
> 5) What do you have to lose? Take a basic tech you know through and through and work with it. See what you can do with it. Then find a way to teach it to noobs. Complete and utter noobs. The process will make you really really really really grasp the mechanics of the basics and how to convey it to noobs, and dramatically magnify your combat capability.



Regarding Mo Smith.  I'm not disputing that you knew him, met him, trained with him, whatever.  I'm simply saying that Mo is a stand up fighter, a kickboxer, not a grappler.  He trained with Frank, learned the basics, survived on the ground and pound from Mark and got back to his feet for a KO.  Here are his stats.  A few wins by sub. the rest by strikes.
http://www.sherdog.com/fighter/Maurice-Smith-175

As for the rest:

1) Simple is easy.  Don't argue with me, argue with the dictionary...LOL.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/simple

2) Unless someone is focusing on JUST training, nothing else, ie: no job, no social life, or unless the person is an outstanding star from the get go, the average Joe won't grasp stuff as quick.  The more the student has to grasp, the higher the odds they won't retain everything.  I've gone to numerous seminars, where tons of material is taught.  I'm lucky to walk out with 3 things.  There isn't enough time to focus on tons of stuff.  Now, if you drilled one aspect every day for 3 hrs or more, yeah, maybe, but again, cramming tons of stuff, no matter the method, it isn't happening.  Oh it may happen, but I'd question the quality.

3) Ok

4) Its funny, because when the heat is on, people tend to fall back on simple things, that are the bread and butter moves that that person trained.  In the end, the person is still ending up with numerous moves, but they're starting with a much smaller building block, which IMHO, is 10 times better.  Start with 5 techs. Drill them and then form other responses.  Again, in the end, you end up with alot.

5) The tech in its entirety....no.  Parts of it...yes.  As TF said, how can 5 swords be used for a full nelson?  Clyde used PARTS of crashing elbows while in the guard, PARTS of locked wing for the ankle lock.  Someone throws a rt. hook at me, I may initiallyl react with the start of 5 swords, but finish with something else.  

6) Crawl before you walk, walk before you run.  Start cramming a what if, down the throat of a newb, who's barely grasping the initial tech, their heads gonna be spinning...lol.  Not saying not to do it, just not in the first lesson.

7) That is true.  However, modifications need to be made.  I'm talking about Arnis here.  I still favor the FMA weapon defense over the Kenpo.  Having a FMA background has made me take a 2nd look at many of the Kenpo weapons techs.

8) And you're certainly not the only one to have done this.  My point again, is simply this:  we have 2 people who're trying to get to the same goal.  Person A can take a stand up tech, and try to figure out how to make it work on the ground.  Person B can go to a BJJ school, and learn an escape.  Both are trying to reach the same goal, but IMO, B will get there quicker.   Thats what I mean by reinvent the wheel.  You want to learn to drive a tractor trailer...gotta go to a TT school. Driving a small car for 10yrs isnt going to help you.  If I want to improve on my punching, I'm going to seek out a boxer, who can coach me, not a TKD school.  Wanna grapple? Ok, head to a BJJ, Sambo, Judo, Wrestling school.


----------



## Gnarlie

ATACX GYM said:


> 6) What Ifs should be built into the tech. The issue isn't whether or not one allows noobs to talk about What Ifs, the issue is which What Ifs are addressed by the teacher, why that's the case, and what their particular preferences and training models are. Because of my extensive grappling and weapon experiences, I program them into the basics I teach my students from Day One. Nobody asks me anything because they see I'm already addressing their questions in the material.



Respectfully sir (I really do not mean this as an attack) I suspect there might be a different reason why nobody asks you anything.  Even though I'm not a Kempoist, I've been reading this thread with interest from day 1, intrigued by the argument.  It's pretty clear that your switch is stuck on 'transmit'.  

I've always hesitated to ask someone questions when I think I'm going to be bludgeoned into submission with their views, while they assert that my views are wrong.  There are better ways to win me over.  Maybe some of your guys might feel that too?

Do you solicit anonymous, direct and honest feedback from your students about your interactions and teaching style?  If not, it might be worth considering.


----------



## MJS

ATACX GYM said:


> Doc already answered this, but I'll give it a try and be brief: Using the Ideal Phase tech correctly both binds kenpoists together using kenpo techs as a common medium yet at the same time frees each practitioner to apply Kenpo techs to a specific attack as he/she/they see fit. In essence, the response to each tech may vary but the techs used for each response will be for the most part familiar to most or all Kenpoists. This keeps Motion Kenpo constantly growing vibrant changing yet still solidly rooted in the Kenpo medium and method.
> 
> So NO the schools out there copying each other aren't inherently wrong for copying each other, but NO in so doing they're NOT doing what Mr. Parker both wrote and spoke about and NO their copying each other doesn't make their version of the IP correct...it just makes their version POPULAR. Idk if Doc does techs from Big Red but Big Red is supposed to be a GUIDELINE anyway so I don't think he does and we're not supposed to either.
> 
> And YES ATACX GYM IS RIGHT to have the versions we do and Head Coach Ras was right all along in almost everything he said.



Doc wasn't the only one to spend alot of time with Parker.  According to Clyde, Tatum also spent much time, yet interestingly enough, Larry and Doc seem to teach different.  So, in other words, this is the way its supposed to be:  Delayed Sword:  Instead of doing what BR says, we could eliminate the pin, we could do the handsword first and then the kick, we could do DS against a punch, we could do something that doesnt look like DS at all.  Is that what you're saying Ras?

Actually, the more I think about it, I have to wonder....there're a few different branches of Kajukenbo.  Original, Gaylord, Ramos....there're probably some I'm missing, but for the sake of discussion, I'll just use those.  Tony Ramos and Charles Gaylord trained with Sijo Emperado, then crafted their own 'branch' of Kaju.  I have to wonder....do the Ramos method guys say to the Gaylord guys, "Hey, you know what?  You're doing grab art 1 wrong.  Its done like this!  IF YOU'RE NOT DOING IT MY WAY, YOU'RE WRONG, AND YOU SUCK!!!"  I wonder if that goes on.  I wonder if Ricksons guys tells Renzos guy they're not doing the guard pass correctly.


----------



## Twin Fist

ATACX GYM said:


> And YES ATACX GYM IS RIGHT to have the versions we do and Head Coach Ras was right all along in almost everything he said.



yes, Ras is right, according to Ras. And Ras is willing to prove that Ras is right, and if you doubt Ras, then you are the one that is wrong, just ask Ras....


----------



## Twin Fist

there are 4 major branches of Kajukenbo

Emperado's method
Chuan Fa - major divisions are Gaylord and Ramos
Won Hop Kun Do
Tum Pai

And no, they dont get in each others business. They let each other do it thier own way, and thats all good. 

But then Kaju people dont take it well when some unknown tells them they dont know what they are doing.

see there is room in kenpo for everyone, you want to make your own techniques? DO IT

but you use a name that is already in use for ONE thing and you use that same exact name for something different, you are gonna catch hell. When you spend all you time talking about how everyone but you is wrong? well, pretty soon no one will listen to you anymore.




MJS said:


> Doc wasn't the only one to spend alot of time with Parker.  According to Clyde, Tatum also spent much time, yet interestingly enough, Larry and Doc seem to teach different.  So, in other words, this is the way its supposed to be:  Delayed Sword:  Instead of doing what BR says, we could eliminate the pin, we could do the handsword first and then the kick, we could do DS against a punch, we could do something that doesnt look like DS at all.  Is that what you're saying Ras?
> 
> Actually, the more I think about it, I have to wonder....there're a few different branches of Kajukenbo.  Original, Gaylord, Ramos....there're probably some I'm missing, but for the sake of discussion, I'll just use those.  Tony Ramos and Charles Gaylord trained with Sijo Emperado, then crafted their own 'branch' of Kaju.  I have to wonder....do the Ramos method guys say to the Gaylord guys, "Hey, you know what?  You're doing grab art 1 wrong.  Its done like this!  IF YOU'RE NOT DOING IT MY WAY, YOU'RE WRONG, AND YOU SUCK!!!"  I wonder if that goes on.  I wonder if Ricksons guys tells Renzos guy they're not doing the guard pass correctly.


----------



## Cyriacus

Twin Fist said:


> there are 4 major branches of Kajukenbo
> 
> Emperado's method
> Chuan Fa - major divisions are Gaylord and Ramos
> Won Hop Kun Do
> Tum Pai
> 
> And no, they dont get in each others business. They let each other do it thier own way, and thats all good.
> 
> But then Kaju people dont take it well when some unknown tells them they dont know what they are doing.
> 
> see there is room in kenpo for everyone, *you want to make your own techniques? DO IT*
> 
> but you use a name that is already in use for ONE thing and you use that same exact name for something different, you are gonna catch hell. When you spend all you time talking about how everyone but you is wrong? well, pretty soon no one will listen to you anymore.


Isnt there a Bruce Lee quote about that?
Or one of those Famous Asians, anyway.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Gnarlie said:


> Respectfully sir (I really do not mean this as an attack) I suspect there might be a different reason why nobody asks you anything.  Even though I'm not a Kempoist, I've been reading this thread with interest from day 1, intrigued by the argument.  It's pretty clear that your switch is stuck on 'transmit'.
> 
> I've always hesitated to ask someone questions when I think I'm going to be bludgeoned into submission with their views, while they assert that my views are wrong.  There are better ways to win me over.  Maybe some of your guys might feel that too?
> 
> Do you solicit anonymous, direct and honest feedback from your students about your interactions and teaching style?  If not, it might be worth considering.




This is a good post and honest questions. I like this. 

Gnarlie my friend...every day after class I have an open session wherein I ask my students what they like about class, what they don't like, what questions they have, what suggestions that they have. I give them my email so they can drop it anonymously via email if they want. I receive lots of each at the beginning of new classes. We discuss and modify and then apply. When I say nobody asks me anything? It's because I announce at the beginning of every class that we have a question and answer session at the end of every class. And we respond to the issues we're informed about.

I have made numerous changes to my various posts based upon the advice I've received from guys like elder99 on this site, Josh Oakley, Doc, Doc Dave innahouse, sumdumguy, Thesemindz, MJS, Flying Crane, and others. Although I tend to energetically defend positions and issues that I know something about...my switch is never stuck on transmit, my door is never closed, my mind is never sealed. It oftentimes though takes awhile for some people grasp what I'm saying. This thread, for example, shows that since page 1 I've been saying that the common expression for the so-called Kenpo IP is NOT the default or proper expression. I received copious flames and outraged comments as a result.

I was right.

There are those who mistake the fact that I energetically defended a position which I knew to be right for me being arrogant or egotistical and unflinching when...I was just right. Interestingly, it was THEY who were being reactionary and unflinching in many cases. Not I.

My friend, I am not at all offended by your post nor do I interpret it as an attack. 

What I'm saying that I do here is nothing new. The 15 Round progressions that I speak of are nothing new. Bompa crafted the Periodized Training System and the 15 round progressions that I use are nothing but microcycles of that concept. Every Olympian--athletic and academic--operates under the same or very similar principles; just applied to their purposes. Decathletes perform wonderfully in multiple sports back to back, and as a result are referred to as THE BEST ATHLETES IN THE WORLD...by other athletes. The Renaissance Man is lauded in literature to this very day...and the Renaissance Man is in essence the lifelong academic decathlete. MMA athletes are vaunted examples in sport combat as to what knowing multiple skill sets and applying them creatively can do for you...and that you really have to deal with the intricacies of specialized training, conditioning, etc. and coordinating all of this into a game plan that deals with the upcoming challenges.


 Well, we at THE ATACX GYM do the same thing that all of the above mentioned worthies do...just for SD first, martial tournies next and straight out sports events [ we have football, bball, track, baseball, soccer, wrestling, and other athletes who come and train with us for their respective sports ] next, yoga and fitness as well [ we're getting more and more of the latter; they will soon outnumber us all ].


----------



## ATACX GYM

Cyriacus said:


> Isnt there a Bruce Lee quote about that?
> Or one of those Famous Asians, anyway.



yes there is a Bruce Lee quote about it. I tried to link the quote but the site ate it. I had a very comprehensive response to MJS' post and I guess I'll have to write it again because the site ate that as well. Must've tasted good to the site...lol

 my friend MJS, maybe I should have said..."simple doesn't always mean easy". The more comprehensive dictionary definitions make this clear. Observe:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/simple?show=0&t=1329930578


----------



## ATACX GYM

MJS said:


> Doc wasn't the only one to spend alot of time with Parker.  According to Clyde, Tatum also spent much time, yet interestingly enough, Larry and Doc seem to teach different.  So, in other words, this is the way its supposed to be:  Delayed Sword:  Instead of doing what BR says, we could eliminate the pin, we could do the handsword first and then the kick, we could do DS against a punch, we could do something that doesnt look like DS at all.  Is that what you're saying Ras?
> 
> Actually, the more I think about it, I have to wonder....there're a few different branches of Kajukenbo.  Original, Gaylord, Ramos....there're probably some I'm missing, but for the sake of discussion, I'll just use those.  Tony Ramos and Charles Gaylord trained with Sijo Emperado, then crafted their own 'branch' of Kaju.  I have to wonder....do the Ramos method guys say to the Gaylord guys, "Hey, you know what?  You're doing grab art 1 wrong.  Its done like this!  IF YOU'RE NOT DOING IT MY WAY, YOU'RE WRONG, AND YOU SUCK!!!"  I wonder if that goes on.  I wonder if Ricksons guys tells Renzos guy they're not doing the guard pass correctly.



My friend MJS...Doc answered that part regarding the evolutionary process of Mr. Parker too. I don't want to keep paraphrasing him because that's just asking to get his quotes wrong at some point so I will refer you to his post on this matter.

As for Delayed Sword and any Motion Kenpo tech? Big Red is a guideline. There will be some similarities in every tech. In this case...there will be the handsword and some form of delay to its application. This is where BR acts as a loose guide. It's my understanding that BR wants to use DS as a method to [ among other things ] deliver a lesson of Marriage of Gravity; primarily with the dropping use of the handsword. You will note that even in my variant that the Marriage of Gravity lesson is there. Right after/at the same moment I drop my knee on the downed opponent, my handsword comes. But yes...you can eliminate the pin, you could handsword and then kick, you can do it against a punch...but there is no such thing as doing something that doesn't look like DS at all [ if you keep the handsword and apply it with the principle of Marriage of Gravity, being the main caveat...as I understand it ] because each Ideal Technique is to be crafted by your head instructor for his/her/their students.

I know and train with Kaju guys. They always laugh at Parker guys who say so and so does such and such wrong. They ask if so and so KO's the other guy and if so? So and so is doing SOMETHING right. And they carry on about their business.


----------



## Flying Crane

ATACX GYM said:


> A student goes to their Kenpo school. Gets taught stuff that may or may not be functional...but isn't well rounded. So let's just pretend that the more common version of the Sword and Hammer actually repels a right punch attack from the right flank. If he tackles you? You're screwed. If he punches with his left hand? You're screwed. If he attacks you anywhere but the right flank? You're screwed. If he knees or kicks you? You're screwed. If he pushes or pulls you? You're screwed.
> 
> Almost all of the attacks I listed above are answered elsewhere in the Kenpo curriculum... in more advanced ranks. None of which helps you while you're getting your butt kicked RIGHT NOW. The question is: HOW CAPABLE ARE YOU RIGHT NOW OF DEFENDING EACH AND EVERY MANIFESTATION OF THE MORE COMMON METHODS OF ATTACK?
> 
> The answer is: NOT VERY. The reason why is because: YOUR TRAINING METHOD ISN'T SUFFICIENTLY DEEP, VERSATILE, AND FOCUSED ENOUGH TO YIELD THESE RESULTS. Why doesn't your training do that? CUZ YOUR INSTRUCTOR DOESN'T KNOW OR IS PHILOSOPHICALLY OPPOSED TO TEACHING YOU THESE METHODS RIGHT NOW...OR BOTH [ I'm using "you" and "your" in the GENERAL not the SPECIFIC meaning...]
> 
> The result is: you're being programmed with weaknesses that your instructor may or may not know about or know how to address; and our instructor may or may not address later. In the interim, your instructor is essentially hoping you don't get your head knocked off prior to you reaching the belt rank that will fill in the gaps of your knowledge.



This issue is actually addressed in my other post, attached here to review.  I'm not suggesting that you need to do white crane.  I'm just using the approach that white crane takes as an example of a more direct, simple (yet complex [NOT complicated]) approach to combat.  Simple, functional strategies coupled with techniques that hit like a sledgehammer, and there you have it.  It's a matter of really making your basics powerful so that you do not need 14 follow-up strikes to take down the bad guy.  1-3 good shots should do it, if not then you need to reconsider your approach to how and what you train.  That is one of the biggest problems that I see in martial arts today: people lack strong basics.  So they compensate with "overkill" and multiple scripted following shots to every critical target they can think of.  I saw a knife defense demonstrated by a famous kenpo guy where he took the knife away from the assailant and then cut every major artery and tendon on his body and flayed the flesh and skin off his arms.  The whole notion of that as a reasonable, effective, and LEGAL defense against a knife-wielding attacker is so flawed and faulty it's not even a bad joke.

My very first kenpo teacher, back in 1984, told a story that I always remembered.  He had a female student who had one lesson with him.  In that lesson he talked about how kicking the knee can be extremely effective in disabling an attacker.  Low and behold, a few days later she was accosted on the street.  She warned the guy to leave her alone.  He did not.  She kicked his knee in and left him lying on the sidewalk.

Simple, direct, effective, can be applied almost universally.  The more complicated and highly scripted a SD tech is, the less versatile it becomes.  A lot of the SD techs that I see in kenpo seem to me to be only applicable under one circumstance, which is that particular scenario for which it is scripted.  In my opinion that is a problem.  Then taking those highly scripted SD techs and working to apply them outside of the script, that just seems like busy work to me.



Flying Crane said:


> Yeah, I posted on this issue a while back in another thread, seems relevant so I'll say something similar here.
> 
> Pek choi in my system is a smashing downward hammerfist. It can be used as a primary strike, or it can be used to attack and even destroy a limb that is attacking you (read: a very very painful block). The most textbook pek choi is from top to bottom, striking downward. But in truth, it can be done in many directions, including horizontal and on diagonals. Once you understand how to use it and where it can be thrown and how effectively it can be used, you realize that you can use a variation of pek choi all over the place, to answer many many types of attacks. The pek choi itself may end the encounter, as you damage the enemy's weapon with it. If not, you can follow with any number of very powerful hand strikes, either one or a series, whatever you want. And you can do the same thing, apply the same defense, against many kinds of attacks.
> 
> The guy punches you from the front, doesn't matter which arm he punches with: pek choi to destroy his attack, follow with chuin choi (straight punch), or some other simple and straightforward punch or three.
> 
> The guy punches you from an angle, or from the side: you can still answer with pek choi followed with chuin choi.
> 
> The guy reaches to grab you from the front, or from an angle or from the side: pek choi followed with chuin choi.
> 
> The guy pushes you with one or both hands, or the guy grabs you with one or both hands: yup, still pek choi to destroy his push or grab, followed with chuin choi.
> 
> The guy pushes you from behind, you step to regain control of your base, pivot and clear his hands with pek choi, follow with chuin choi (think Crash of the Eagle from Tracys, but done with White Crane techniques).
> 
> My student and I one day went thru the list of Tracy techniques and selected a handful to experiment with, looking at what might be good ideas contained therein, but with an eye for delivering the technique like White Crane. Almost every single tech that we played with was distilled down to Pek Choi followed by Chuin choi.
> 
> This isn't to say that these two punching techniques are the entirety of the curriculum of white crane. Far from it. But I'm just trying to illustrate how much realistic mileage one can get from very little material, if you understand it well. Nothing is deliberately scripted, it is all just very straight forward and practical.
> 
> If you really understand your basics, you realize that that is where it all is at. That's what matters, and the more complex stuff should simply be giving us lessons and examples on how we can use those same basics under many circumstances. Codifiying complicated scenario SD techs is sort of a mis-interpretation of that lesson and probably were never what the material was meant to be, until someone made a deliberate decision to go down that path. I feel that path was probably a mistake. But hey, that's just me. But then taking all those complicated techniques and looking to apply all of them everywhere, well it just seems a bit overdone.


----------



## Gnarlie

ATACX GYM said:


> every day after class I have an open session wherein I ask my students what they like about class, what they don't like, what questions they have, what suggestions that they have. I receive lots of each at the beginning of new classes. We discuss and modify and then apply. When I say nobody asks me anything? It's because I announce at the beginning of every class that we have a question and answer session at the end of every class. And we respond to the issues we're informed about.
> 
> I have made numerous changes to my various posts based upon the advice I've received from guys like elder99 on this site, Josh Oakley, Doc, Doc Dave innahouse, sumdumguy, Thesemindz, MJS, Flying Crane, and others. Although I tend to energetically defend positions and issues that I know something about...my switch is never stuck on transmit, my door is never closed, my mind is never sealed. It oftentimes though takes awhile for some people grasp what I'm saying. This thread, for example, shows that since page 1 I've been saying that the common expression for the so-called Kenpo IP is NOT the default or proper expression. I received copious flames and outraged comments as a result.
> 
> I was right.
> 
> There are those who mistake the fact that I energetically defended a position which I knew to be right for me being arrogant or egotistical and unflinching when...I was just right. Interestingly, it was THEY who were being reactionary and unflinching in many cases. Not I.
> 
> My friend, I am not at all offended by your post nor do I interpret it as an attack.



I hope you don't mind that I've edited the above for relevance to my point.

Having been a professional trainer (Non-MA) for a very long time, I can tell you for sure that asking for verbal feedback face to face in class is a very different thing to asking for anonymous feedback.  I'm suggesting something like a suggestion box in your training hall, and encouraging people to use it.  You get negative constructive information you don't get face to face.  Look how the world changes when people hide behind pseudonyms on the internet, for example.  You get honest opinions, and often a bit of trolling.  You can't act on the information and improve if you never get it in the first place, asking face to face.  This is true however open and honest the culture is.

Here, rather than trolling, what I'm trying to do is offer the view of a completely impartial observer.  I have no vested interest in Kempo, the Techniques, or the arguments presented here.  I really don't care at all who's right.  What I'm saying is, it's difficult to see in this thread how you have adjusted your view of the situation based on anything that anyone else has said.  I think that's to your detriment, as it switches people off to the good stuff that you might have to say.

It's also hard to see what you are doing to convince people of your point, other than repeating yourself and asserting that you are right.  People grasp what you've said first time out, but you are not giving them any reason to agree with you.  For that to happen, you need to influence their thinking, not just state your position.

Part of being a great trainer and (and indirectly a great martial artist) is the ability to influence others.  That's a soft skill, not a hard one.  Rather than beating people over the head with your point, it means helping them to realise for themselves what is right.  If what's right happens to be your way, then great!

I try to start every post (including this one) with the view that my perspective may not necessarily be the right one, or the best one.  It's just what I think for now, and it's open for discussion.  Other people's views are the best tool for improvement that anyone can have.

I wish you luck in your endeavour to convince us all


----------



## Flying Crane

Something weird is going on with the quote feature in this thread, I'm trying to qoute one post and it is linking me to a different post.

anyway, Ras said this:  1) Simple isn't easy. Simple is simple. You can simply fight Anderson Silva. It won't be an easy experience for you. You can simply decide to run in the Olympics. Not an easy thing to do. Simple isn't easy. Simple is SIMPLE.

In response, I'll say this:  If I were to fight Anderson Silva, I would probably lose.  He is a professional fighter who has the time and resources to train as such.  I cannot match that, I've got a day job and whatnot and I'm doing really well if I can get two hours a day, 5 days a week to train.  But I do the best that I can.  However, IF I were to fight Anderson Silva, I would absolutely use the most simple, straight forward techniques and strategy that I have to do so.  I know that if I attempted to use complicated techniques, it'll never work.  The only chance I have would be to hit him really hard with a devastating basic technique.  Probably something like that Pek Choi/Chuin Choy combination that I spoke about earlier.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Flying Crane said:


> Something weird is going on with the quote feature in this thread, I'm trying to qoute one post and it is linking me to a different post.
> 
> anyway, Ras said this:  1) Simple isn't easy. Simple is simple. You can simply fight Anderson Silva. It won't be an easy experience for you. You can simply decide to run in the Olympics. Not an easy thing to do. Simple isn't easy. Simple is SIMPLE.
> 
> In response, I'll say this:  If I were to fight Anderson Silva, I would probably lose.  He is a professional fighter who has the time and resources to train as such.  I cannot match that, I've got a day job and whatnot and I'm doing really well if I can get two hours a day, 5 days a week to train.  But I do the best that I can.  However, IF I were to fight Anderson Silva, I would absolutely use the most simple, straight forward techniques and strategy that I have to do so.  I know that if I attempted to use complicated techniques, it'll never work.  The only chance I have would be to hit him really hard with a devastating basic technique.  Probably something like that Pek Choi/Chuin Choy combination that I spoke about earlier.




I agree with this. Not only that? Anderson is likely to use a simple straight forward tech when he annihilates you, too.  

I'm not saying to do something complicated. Multifaceted does NOT mean complication...especially in the sense of "difficult" or "impractical" or anything like that. Take a basic tech and work it against all kinds of scenarios. Please observe the example I've used regarding the Inside Block. 

I can add to that: I have my students use the Inside Block all the time to pass guard and defend guard.

I am also and have always been a huge advocate of the knee kick. In my pre-white belt level A classes? I tend to focus on the front kick, rear linear kick, and knees insofar as kicking type techs are concerned. You learn the hell out of those techs...an average of a 1k reps/wk total [ the average student comes to train with us about 2/wk. They get 500 reps/class ]. We kick and knee the crap out of the BG's knee...


----------



## ATACX GYM

Gnarlie said:


> I hope you don't mind that I've edited the above for relevance to my point.
> 
> Having been a professional trainer (Non-MA) for a very long time, I can tell you for sure that asking for verbal feedback face to face in class is a very different thing to asking for anonymous feedback.  I'm suggesting something like a suggestion box in your training hall, and encouraging people to use it.  You get negative constructive information you don't get face to face.  Look how the world changes when people hide behind pseudonyms on the internet, for example.  You get honest opinions, and often a bit of trolling.  You can't act on the information and improve if you never get it in the first place, asking face to face.  This is true however open and honest the culture is.
> 
> Here, rather than trolling, what I'm trying to do is offer the view of a completely impartial observer.  I have no vested interest in Kempo, the Techniques, or the arguments presented here.  I really don't care at all who's right.  What I'm saying is, it's difficult to see in this thread how you have adjusted your view of the situation based on anything that anyone else has said.  I think that's to your detriment, as it switches people off to the good stuff that you might have to say.
> 
> It's also hard to see what you are doing to convince people of your point, other than repeating yourself and asserting that you are right.  People grasp what you've said first time out, but you are not giving them any reason to agree with you.  For that to happen, you need to influence their thinking, not just state your position.
> 
> Part of being a great trainer and (and indirectly a great martial artist) is the ability to influence others.  That's a soft skill, not a hard one.  Rather than beating people over the head with your point, it means helping them to realise for themselves what is right.  If what's right happens to be your way, then great!
> 
> I try to start every post (including this one) with the view that my perspective may not necessarily be the right one, or the best one.  It's just what I think for now, and it's open for discussion.  Other people's views are the best tool for improvement that anyone can have.
> 
> I wish you luck in your endeavour to convince us all




Part of the previous post that the site ate was an offer to show part of what I mean via video. Doing so would provide a physical depiction of what is very very simple once you do it and alot more complicated to explain.

Hmmm. Suggestion box...I will definitely look into that. Thank you for the suggestion.

As for adjusting my view visavis the suggestions given on this thread? My friend there have been several such instances of me doing so...even when dealing with one of my harshest critics [ Twin Fist ]. I'd been having some problems posting on this site, and on KT...it would take my reasonably spaced and properly punctuated posts and post them as monstrous Stonehenge blocks of text.  TF complained about that and the length of my posts. I have fixed the block text problem and have reduced the length and verbiage of my posts by being more efficient with my word selection and shaving back the length of my explanations.

Josh Oakley gave me advice which I instantly employed on this very thread. Flying Crane gave me advice since my CAPOEIRA threads which I have also employed on this thread. I'm employing some of your suggestions even now with this post. 

However, Gnarlie, you seem to be more or less a part of "The Silent Majority" which produces the majority of views on this thread. Up until this last page, guys like you and Robert Lee [ I hope I got his name right ] have viewed this thread but not spoken. What's perhaps apparent immediately to you guys? Isn't so apparent to some of my detractors; as well as some other well meaning people. If you look back at this thread? 80-90% of my responses have been directed toward the multiple posts of about 2 people on this thread. Their posts have been unsparing in criticism, and my responses to them were compound because I was responding to more than one person...and I was responding to a major miscomprehension of Kenpo history that's been festering for about 50 years. I had to clear all of that up.

What's interesting is that subsequent events have proven them to be factually incorrect about crucial areas that we have debated about, and proven that I have been rigorously correct with every syllable visavis my disagreement with them since page 1.

With this in mind, and placed in its proper context, my friend and nuetral observer Gnarlie...would not a more proper light be shed on the matter by saying that since I was correct, I should not have adjusted my position to those of my detractors? If I had, then I too would be incorrect. Instead...if anyone should be gently admonished or called to order..should it not be they who were incorrect and periodically profane in their zealous defense of a position proven squarely to be untrue being the parties gently called to order regarding their behaviour since the first page of this thread?

Now, as I see it...the current discussion between worthies like MJS and FLYING CRANE etc and myself centers upon proliferation of technique being possibly conflated with multifaceted technique, compounded by a preference for and experience with different training modalities. Essentially, MJS, FC and BRUCE LEE are in the same camp. Less techs. More reps. 

Did you know that BRUCE LEE and ED PARKER used to debate similar points too? I didn't either...I think Doc and/or Doc Dave innahouse some time last year pulled my coat to that fact.

My position isn't quite what either Bruce or Ed Parker seem to have said with their methods [ with Mr. Parker I am referring to MOTION KENPO as I don't know his personal art; apparently only Mr. Parker and Doc knew Mr. Parker's personal art ]. I believe that we should take our techs and make each tech multifaceted. This doesn't dilute the potency of our basics, nor does it cram a bunch of different techs down a student's throat. They get concentrated quality reps of a single tech in very high amounts...against multiple attacks.

This approach also doesn't obviate the need for other techs. Just as a jab doesn't invalidate the hook. Razor Ruddock's SMASH [ a hybrid hook-uppercut combo ] doesn't invalidate either the hook or uppercut. Learning to use the Inside Block against the guard doesn't invalidate the guard or any other block. The simplicity of my message...ironically...is confusing people. And that confusion leads to ever more detailed questions.

Which leads to me repeating myself and finding other ways to say what I already said, in order to convey my message.

THAT'S why it seems like I might be being stubborn or "stuck on transmit" when nothing of the case is happening.

Now there are those who grasp exactly what I'm saying and say:" Aight cool but I still prefer basic techs used in a different training model [ Flying Crane ]." And I say COOL.

Then there are those who say: YOU CAN'T TEACH A NOOB SUCH AND SUCH THAT SOON.

That is NOT true. I've been doing that for years.

Aspects of each of the foregoing discussions happen at the same time, and sometimes the layering of the positions confuse onlookers and participants alike.


----------



## Flying Crane

ATACX GYM said:


> I'm not saying to do something complicated. Multifaceted does NOT mean complication...especially in the sense of "difficult" or "impractical" or anything like that. Take a basic tech and work it against all kinds of scenarios. Please observe the example I've used regarding the Inside Block.



OK, and again, my Pek Choi/Chuin Choi example.  But what I see going on in a lot of your technique discussions is not this kind of basic straight forward simple approach.  Rather I see the longer, more complicated kenpo techs with you advocating that they be used outside of their scripted scenario.  That's what I see as being overly complicated.


----------



## Twin Fist

yep.....i learned how to reverse the flow of blood through my kidneys

whats that? you say it isnt possible? not true, i have been doing it for years.....


proof? cuz i said so


/eyeroll


----------



## ATACX GYM

Flying Crane said:


> OK, and again, my Pek Choi/Chuin Choi example.  But what I see going on in a lot of your technique discussions is not this kind of basic straight forward simple approach.  Rather I see the longer, more complicated kenpo techs with you advocating that they be used outside of their scripted scenario.  That's what I see as being overly complicated.



I see what you mean there, FC, but what I'm saying is a bit different. As I understand it, a TECH is a SINGLE manuever. A guard sweep. The guard tech in any of its various manifestations. And yes I read nad like Pek Choi/Chuin Choi example.  As SEQUENCE, as I understand it, are LINKED TECHS in a compound manuever or flow that has a specific aim. The Bridge and Roll for escaping the mount, for instance.

What I'm saying is...learn the Bridge and Roll really well. Then apply it standing up. When the Bridge and Roll is applied standing up, you know what they call it?

The Hip Heist.

Now if you know bjj and wrestling well? You can recognize those techs immediately, and not be fooled by the labels of each tech...but automatically absorb the application of each tech.

When I made that connection, I also applied it to another staple tech and now we have The Standing Gator Roll [ ends in a sleeper hold standing or a standing tie up as you escape the bear hug, shot, grab,etc ]. Plenty helpful in multifights that have become grapplefests and you might need to elude BGs while using somebody as a shield or finishing somebody. It's a shocker in the MT Clinch. Lolol and everybody falls for it.

Now. Once you really have the tech and every tech of a sequence like my version of Sword and Hammer? You can do it in most any unarmed combat scenario. Clinch, Ground, Striking range? No problem. If I put a knife or stick in my hands? No problem still doing the whole thing. I can do it with a gun too [ as long as my opponent is within arm's reach or blitz reach ] and so can any of you. All you have to do is train. None of the techs that I show in my Sword and Hammer Radius R.D.L. sequence is new...but my Sword and Hammer Radius R.D.L. IS DESIGNED to be applicable in multiple situations. I got there by...applying the a functional but more traditional expression of S&H to multiple scenarios. I added the specifc components in my expression [ R. D. L.= Rock, Drop and Lock ] as a matter of personal preference but let me ask you...

is not pinning your opponent's hand to your shoulder "locking" him in place? Further, if you handsword over his pinned hand and his extended grabbing arm while rotating your right pec into his arm and pulling back with your left shoulder...are you not simultaneously applying a brief armlock and strike [ with the lock possibly hyperextending the elbow and/or wrist ] ? yes, that is a "Lock".If you do such a thing...would you likely "Drop" him?

Yes, you probably would.

Well whaddya know. R.D.L. Rock, Drop and Lock.

 The difference is that I made my moves more functional and more evidently what they are. The subtle lock/strikes come in the sash ranks of my Gym. Not the belt or pre-White belt ranks. And the other difference is that I see and know that I can R.D.L. a guy with a slight modification of the more common less functional Sword and Hammer...but not as well as it can be done with my version.

That's another big advantage that being multiFACETED and VERSATILE gives us. I'm not saying that nobody but me is multifaceted and versatile, what I AM saying is that the concerns commonly raised about such an endeavor are simply not true.

Now as for the multiple techs in a Kenpo sequence? I used to ask that question too. Why hit this guy with a gajillion techs? That's immoral, overkill, wasted energy, and likely illegal.

Well, after I started sparring with and functionalizing the  techs? The answer came: these sequences simultaneously resolve single and multifight scenarios. Mr. Parker and Mestre Bimba knew that their students might have to face more than one attacker at a time when their students only knew one sequence, so they made sure that their one sequence and most of their other sequences could stand up to that reality. It's my understanding that multifights were common in the Hawaii of Mr. Parker's youth...and we--Flying Crane and I--have long known that multifights were common for capoeiristas. 

My particular sequences serve the same purpose aaaand they can be used with minimal changes whether armed with knife stick or gun [ in h2h range] as well as used in many grappling situations. 

Gtg but I'll be back later...


----------



## ATACX GYM

MJS said:


> Regarding Mo Smith.  I'm not disputing that you knew him, met him, trained with him, whatever.  I'm simply saying that Mo is a stand up fighter, a kickboxer, not a grappler.  He trained with Frank, learned the basics, survived on the ground and pound from Mark and got back to his feet for a KO.  Here are his stats.  A few wins by sub. the rest by strikes.
> http://www.sherdog.com/fighter/Maurice-Smith-175
> 
> As for the rest:
> 
> 1) Simple is easy.  Don't argue with me, argue with the dictionary...LOL.
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/simple
> 
> 2) Unless someone is focusing on JUST training, nothing else, ie: no job, no social life, or unless the person is an outstanding star from the get go, the average Joe won't grasp stuff as quick.  The more the student has to grasp, the higher the odds they won't retain everything.  I've gone to numerous seminars, where tons of material is taught.  I'm lucky to walk out with 3 things.  There isn't enough time to focus on tons of stuff.  Now, if you drilled one aspect every day for 3 hrs or more, yeah, maybe, but again, cramming tons of stuff, no matter the method, it isn't happening.  Oh it may happen, but I'd question the quality.
> 
> 3) Ok
> 
> 4) Its funny, because when the heat is on, people tend to fall back on simple things, that are the bread and butter moves that that person trained.  In the end, the person is still ending up with numerous moves, but they're starting with a much smaller building block, which IMHO, is 10 times better.  Start with 5 techs. Drill them and then form other responses.  Again, in the end, you end up with alot.
> 
> 5) The tech in its entirety....no.  Parts of it...yes.  As TF said, how can 5 swords be used for a full nelson?  Clyde used PARTS of crashing elbows while in the guard, PARTS of locked wing for the ankle lock.  Someone throws a rt. hook at me, I may initiallyl react with the start of 5 swords, but finish with something else.
> 
> 6) Crawl before you walk, walk before you run.  Start cramming a what if, down the throat of a newb, who's barely grasping the initial tech, their heads gonna be spinning...lol.  Not saying not to do it, just not in the first lesson.
> 
> 7) That is true.  However, modifications need to be made.  I'm talking about Arnis here.  I still favor the FMA weapon defense over the Kenpo.  Having a FMA background has made me take a 2nd look at many of the Kenpo weapons techs.
> 
> 8) And you're certainly not the only one to have done this.  My point again, is simply this:  we have 2 people who're trying to get to the same goal.  Person A can take a stand up tech, and try to figure out how to make it work on the ground.  Person B can go to a BJJ school, and learn an escape.  Both are trying to reach the same goal, but IMO, B will get there quicker.   Thats what I mean by reinvent the wheel.  You want to learn to drive a tractor trailer...gotta go to a TT school. Driving a small car for 10yrs isnt going to help you.  If I want to improve on my punching, I'm going to seek out a boxer, who can coach me, not a TKD school.  Wanna grapple? Ok, head to a BJJ, Sambo, Judo, Wrestling school.





Ran back into the house to grab something. Real quick answer:

2) All the benefits I talked about can be done using my 15 round progressions. Been doing it for a decade plus. Try it out or something similar; you have nothing to lose. Try it with yourself solo first and see what you can teach yourself using ONE tech. Then see how you can transmit it to a newbie.

3) Coo.

4) I start with one tech. But any number from 5 and less is fully doable. You rep a single tech vs multiple attacks. Rep out your Inside Block fisrst against punches. Then say vs a lapel grab, a MT clinch, various grabs like wrist bicep and shoulder ties [ wrestling and SD]. Then against linear knife thrusts. Thousands of reps of one tech doing its job against multiple attacks.

5) WHOSE IP are you referrring to? And remember, a tech isn't the same as a sequence. Consider this though...let's say you have a chain of multifaceted techs [each tech you're repped out by the thousands against multiple attacks ] comprising a sequence. Wouldn't the sequence be multifaceted too? Welcome to my SD Ideal Techniques.

6) See number 4.

7) I agree that the FMA wpn techs are a superior base to start in general imo visavis the more common Motion Kenpo techs purported to deal with self defense vs weapons.

8) Oooorrr...you could find a good Hapkido school that merges quality strikes with its quality grappling. Hapkido also has 7 weapons in its classic repertoire. Here's a vid of Hapkido grappling:

[video=youtube_share;BryqS55_0PM]http://youtu.be/BryqS55_0PM[/video]


----------



## Flying Crane

ATACX GYM said:


> Now as for the multiple techs in a Kenpo sequence? I used to ask that question too. Why hit this guy with a gajillion techs? That's immoral, overkill, wasted energy, and likely illegal.
> 
> Well, after I started sparring with and functionalizing the techs? The answer came: these sequences simultaneously resolve single and multifight scenarios. Mr. Parker and Mestre Bimba knew that their *students might have to face more than one attacker at a time when their students only knew one sequence, so they made sure that their one sequence and most of their other sequences could stand up to that reality*. It's my understanding that multifights were common in the Hawaii of Mr. Parker's youth...and we--Flying Crane and I--have long known that multifights were common for capoeiristas.



In my opinion, they do not.

Here's the thing.  I'm actually not trying to dog on the system, nor on what you are doing.  On some level, every single one of us has a unique way of seeing the universe, recognizing what makes sense and what does not, distinguishing truth from fiction, etc.  Because of that, we all need to discover or develop the method that works best for us, and that is often an ongoing process and can dramatically change over time.  So what you see as being absolutely logical might be something that I look at and say, "no way in hell would that ever work for me, I'm not even gonna try because I just don't see the sense in it".  And you might say the same thing about something that I'm doing.  I think it's important to recognize that in these kinds of discussions.  So if you say these things work, I'm in no position to say otherwise, as far as you are concerned.  But from my perspective I see problems inherent in the approach.

Now about what I've quoted above, I see some problems with it.

the main problem lies in the very specific scripting of the choreography of the techniques.  Those extra strikes are specific in how they are used and what is targeted.  The more highly scripted something is, the more difficult it is to take it out of that scripted scenario and use it spontaneously.

So when you take a SD technique combo that has 14 follow-up strikes, which we see in a lot of kenpo SD techs., those follow-up strikes really only fall into place within the scripted scenario, and only fall into place when all of the prior strikes contained in the technique have worked properly.  I.e., strike number 12 will not line up for you unless strike number 11 worked properly, and strike number 11 will not line up for you unless strike number 10 worked properly, all the way back to the beginning of the technique.  So the sequence only works if everthing in it works according to plan, but if everything in it works according to plan, I'd say you should not need more than 1 to 4 of the strikes.  So why do the rest of the strikes exist?  It creates a paradox of technique, everything must work for the rest of it to work, but if everything works, you'll never get to the rest of it.  You end up beating up a corpse, just to get in some more strikes.

I think it's a faulty logic in the design of the technique.

Follow-up strikes that are meant as an insurance policy for a failure of the prior strike should be options based off the initial attack, or off of a potential follow-up attack that comes after the initial failure.  Because that is where you will be when something fails.  You will not be in a position to roll off this long sequence, if in fact something failed along the way.  The bad guy will not be in the position you need him to be in, for those next strikes to work.

And as far as using the later part of the tech against a second or third enemy, I don't buy it.  I think it's along the same progression that I've just described, you are starting from a brand new attack and blending into strike number 6 in the technique for that new attack, I just don't believe is possible.

This is why I see the whole approach in this kind of curriculum as inherently faulty and complicated, and when you try to expand it even more you are just compounding the complications.

You stated above that the sequence needs to stand up to multiple attackers.  I say yes, but in a different way.  The sequence needs to be simple enough and yet effective and powerful enough, that you can do it over and over to multiple attackers, even if they attack you differently.  You don't pick up in the middle of the technique for the next attacker.  Rather, you start over with that simple but effective defense.  Pek choi/Chuin choi.  Turn to face the next guy and do it.  Turn to face the guy after that, and do it.  When the forth guy grab you from behind, turn and do it again.  Or some variant of that simple solution.

Hey, if your approach works for you, all the power to you.  But understand why other people are skeptical and it's doubtful that these things can be settled over an internet discussion.  It's just not the right forum to really get the message and see what is actually happening.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Flying Crane said:


> In my opinion, they do not.
> 
> Here's the thing.  I'm actually not trying to dog on the system, nor on what you are doing.  On some level, every single one of us has a unique way of seeing the universe, recognizing what makes sense and what does not, distinguishing truth from fiction, etc.  Because of that, we all need to discover or develop the method that works best for us, and that is often an ongoing process and can dramatically change over time.  So what you see as being absolutely logical might be something that I look at and say, "no way in hell would that ever work for me, I'm not even gonna try because I just don't see the sense in it".  And you might say the same thing about something that I'm doing.  I think it's important to recognize that in these kinds of discussions.  So if you say these things work, I'm in no position to say otherwise, as far as you are concerned.  But from my perspective I see problems inherent in the approach.
> 
> Now about what I've quoted above, I see some problems with it.
> 
> the main problem lies in the very specific scripting of the choreography of the techniques.  Those extra strikes are specific in how they are used and what is targeted.  The more highly scripted something is, the more difficult it is to take it out of that scripted scenario and use it spontaneously.
> 
> So when you take a SD technique combo that has 14 follow-up strikes, which we see in a lot of kenpo SD techs., those follow-up strikes really only fall into place within the scripted scenario, and only fall into place when all of the prior strikes contained in the technique have worked properly.  I.e., strike number 12 will not line up for you unless strike number 11 worked properly, and strike number 11 will not line up for you unless strike number 10 worked properly, all the way back to the beginning of the technique.  So the sequence only works if everthing in it works according to plan, but if everything in it works according to plan, I'd say you should not need more than 1 to 4 of the strikes.  So why do the rest of the strikes exist?  It creates a paradox of technique, everything must work for the rest of it to work, but if everything works, you'll never get to the rest of it.  You end up beating up a corpse, just to get in some more strikes.
> 
> I think it's a faulty logic in the design of the technique.
> 
> Follow-up strikes that are meant as an insurance policy for a failure of the prior strike should be options based off the initial attack, or off of a potential follow-up attack that comes after the initial failure.  Because that is where you will be when something fails.  You will not be in a position to roll off this long sequence, if in fact something failed along the way.  The bad guy will not be in the position you need him to be in, for those next strikes to work.
> 
> And as far as using the later part of the tech against a second or third enemy, I don't buy it.  I think it's along the same progression that I've just described, you are starting from a brand new attack and blending into strike number 6 in the technique for that new attack, I just don't believe is possible.
> 
> This is why I see the whole approach in this kind of curriculum as inherently faulty and complicated, and when you try to expand it even more you are just compounding the complications.
> 
> You stated above that the sequence needs to stand up to multiple attackers.  I say yes, but in a different way.  The sequence needs to be simple enough and yet effective and powerful enough, that you can do it over and over to multiple attackers, even if they attack you differently.  You don't pick up in the middle of the technique for the next attacker.  Rather, you start over with that simple but effective defense.  Pek choi/Chuin choi.  Turn to face the next guy and do it.  Turn to face the guy after that, and do it.  When the forth guy grab you from behind, turn and do it again.  Or some variant of that simple solution.
> 
> Hey, if your approach works for you, all the power to you.  But understand why other people are skeptical and it's doubtful that these things can be settled over an internet discussion.  It's just not the right forum to really get the message and see what is actually happening.




I have zero problem with any of that. I'm not a fan of 20 hit combos outside of video game combat anyway. 

I just take a different lesson from these kinds of techs, and I again say...the analysis about say strike 12 lines up for you only if strike 11 hits simply depends on whose IP you're referring to. I've seen quite a few martial artists...not just Kenpoists, but martial artists of all kinds of arts and even quite a few gung fu guys and others--throw like a infinity hit combo at a guy who's only thrown one punch and then uke freezes whilst annihilation via infinite hits sweeps stomps locks and chi fireballs rains down upon him.

I get that. I'm more than skeptical too.

All I say is this: in any discipline...any discipline at all...how you perform is directly linked to how you train. If you train a tech so that you can effortlessly draw whatever you need from any point of the sequence or any part of the continuum of techs in your belt rank and below? Then you don't need to halt or restart anything. The exigencies of the situation will be the catalyst for your lightning fast subconscious selection and application of the correct tech. Doesn't matter if it's strike 100 or chi fireball #3. You'll have the right tech for the right attack at the right moment.

If you train functionally.

That's a bigger IF for some than it is for others...


----------



## MJS

ATACX GYM said:


> my friend MJS, maybe I should have said..."simple doesn't always mean easy". The more comprehensive dictionary definitions make this clear. Observe:
> 
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/simple?show=0&t=1329930578



Hmm....thats interesting.  While it doesnt state 'easy' as other dictionary sites do, I suppose I could use this as an example:

While it doesnt directly say 'easy', I'd say that some of the examples listed could imply that.  However, the closest to 'easy' would be #9.

9
*:* readily understood or performed <_simple_ directions> <the adjustment was _simple_ to make>


----------



## MJS

ATACX GYM said:


> My friend MJS...Doc answered that part regarding the evolutionary process of Mr. Parker too. I don't want to keep paraphrasing him because that's just asking to get his quotes wrong at some point so I will refer you to his post on this matter.
> 
> As for Delayed Sword and any Motion Kenpo tech? Big Red is a guideline. There will be some similarities in every tech. In this case...there will be the handsword and some form of delay to its application. This is where BR acts as a loose guide. It's my understanding that BR wants to use DS as a method to [ among other things ] deliver a lesson of Marriage of Gravity; primarily with the dropping use of the handsword. You will note that even in my variant that the Marriage of Gravity lesson is there. Right after/at the same moment I drop my knee on the downed opponent, my handsword comes. But yes...you can eliminate the pin, you could handsword and then kick, you can do it against a punch...but there is no such thing as doing something that doesn't look like DS at all [ if you keep the handsword and apply it with the principle of Marriage of Gravity, being the main caveat...as I understand it ] because each Ideal Technique is to be crafted by your head instructor for his/her/their students.



LOL...perhaps Clyde should be told this.  Seems like any time there's a technique discussion over on the KN, and someone does something different...well, you know what I mean.   Hell, I'm sure you've seen it posted in the comments section by him, right on your clips.  Isn't that what sparked him to put up an Attacking Mace clip?



> I know and train with Kaju guys. They always laugh at Parker guys who say so and so does such and such wrong. They ask if so and so KO's the other guy and if so? So and so is doing SOMETHING right. And they carry on about their business.



LOL.


----------



## MJS

ATACX GYM said:


> I agree with this. Not only that? Anderson is likely to use a simple straight forward tech when he annihilates you, too.
> 
> I'm not saying to do something complicated. Multifaceted does NOT mean complication...especially in the sense of "difficult" or "impractical" or anything like that. Take a basic tech and work it against all kinds of scenarios. Please observe the example I've used regarding the Inside Block.
> 
> I can add to that: I have my students use the Inside Block all the time to pass guard and defend guard.
> 
> I am also and have always been a huge advocate of the knee kick. In my pre-white belt level A classes? I tend to focus on the front kick, rear linear kick, and knees insofar as kicking type techs are concerned. You learn the hell out of those techs...an average of a 1k reps/wk total [ the average student comes to train with us about 2/wk. They get 500 reps/class ]. We kick and knee the crap out of the BG's knee...



Back on pg. 14, I read FC's post, (and Mike, please correct me if I'm wrong here) that he wasn't using a technique per se, but rather a basic move.  Again, this may be a matter of personal interpretation.  So, FC's use of the hammerfist vs. a punch, a choke, etc, vs. trying to use a named tech, ie: 5 swords, scrapping hoof, against other attacks, other than what they're designed for.


----------



## Flying Crane

MJS said:


> Back on pg. 14, I read FC's post, (and Mike, please correct me if I'm wrong here) that he wasn't using a technique per se, but rather a basic move. Again, this may be a matter of personal interpretation. So, FC's use of the hammerfist vs. a punch, a choke, etc, vs. trying to use a named tech, ie: 5 swords, scrapping hoof, against other attacks, other than what they're designed for.



That is correct, I'm talking about using two basic techniques, a hammerfist and a punch.  I'm not talking about using a named, scripted, kenpo Self Defense technique.  There's a terminology problem, where kenpo folks see the word "technique" and they immediately jump to the named Self Defense techniques.  But non-kenpo people tend to use the term "technique" in reference to the basics, a punch, a block, a kick, etc.  Now that I think about it, I'm not sure what term kenpo people use for that kind of thing.  In my school, we would just say, Punch or Kick or whatever.  But as an overall term, I can't recall that we had one.


----------



## MJS

ATACX GYM said:


> Ran back into the house to grab something. Real quick answer:
> 
> 2) All the benefits I talked about can be done using my 15 round progressions. Been doing it for a decade plus. Try it out or something similar; you have nothing to lose. Try it with yourself solo first and see what you can teach yourself using ONE tech. Then see how you can transmit it to a newbie.



But again, that aside, I'd say the other factors I mentioned do come into play.  



> 3) Coo.







> 4) I start with one tech. But any number from 5 and less is fully doable. You rep a single tech vs multiple attacks. Rep out your Inside Block fisrst against punches. Then say vs a lapel grab, a MT clinch, various grabs like wrist bicep and shoulder ties [ wrestling and SD]. Then against linear knife thrusts. Thousands of reps of one tech doing its job against multiple attacks.



As I said in another post....the use of a basic, ie: FC's hammerfist strike, vs. a named tech.  Of course, again, I could see parts of a tech being used, ie: the inward block from Attacking Mace.



> 5) WHOSE IP are you referrring to? And remember, a tech isn't the same as a sequence. Consider this though...let's say you have a chain of multifaceted techs [each tech you're repped out by the thousands against multiple attacks ] comprising a sequence. Wouldn't the sequence be multifaceted too? Welcome to my SD Ideal Techniques.



BR, the IPs that 99.9% of the Kenpo schools out there, are using.  Like I said, if Doc is claiming that Parker didn't intend it to be done that way, then that reads to me that 99.9% of the are wrong.  IMO, I'd say the main people who've drastically changed stuff would be Jeff Speakman and Paul Mills.  Other than that, everyone else looks damn close.



> 6) See number 4.



Ok, ditto. 



> 7) I agree that the FMA wpn techs are a superior base to start in general imo visavis the more common Motion Kenpo techs purported to deal with self defense vs weapons.
> 
> So, this is why I said that IMO, its better to go straight to a specialist, rather than trying to work something else, trying to conform it to fit a mold that it wasn't designed for initially.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8) Oooorrr...you could find a good Hapkido school that merges quality strikes with its quality grappling. Hapkido also has 7 weapons in its classic repertoire. Here's a vid of Hapkido grappling:
> 
> [video=youtube_share;BryqS55_0PM]http://youtu.be/BryqS55_0PM[/video]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See my reply to #7.   This is why I'm a fan of cross training, or as some like to use, cross referencing.  I'm not an authority of Hapkido, but I'd wager a guess and say that what we're seeing in that clip (which IMO was very good BTW ) was a result of cross training in a grappling art.  I don't think that is standard Hapkido stuff, but again, I may be wrong.
Click to expand...


----------



## Flying Crane

MJS said:


> As I said in another post....the use of a basic, ie: FC's hammerfist strike, vs. a named tech. Of course, again, I could see parts of a tech being used, *ie: the inward block from Attacking Mace*.



And then, is it really the inward block from Attacking Mace, or is it the inward block from Five Swords, or is it simply an Inward Block, and why try to dress it up beyond that?


----------



## MJS

Flying Crane said:


> That is correct, I'm talking about using two basic techniques, a hammerfist and a punch.  I'm not talking about using a named, scripted, kenpo Self Defense technique.  There's a terminology problem, where kenpo folks see the word "technique" and they immediately jump to the named Self Defense techniques.  But non-kenpo people tend to use the term "technique" in reference to the basics, a punch, a block, a kick, etc.  Now that I think about it, I'm not sure what term kenpo people use for that kind of thing.  In my school, we would just say, Punch or Kick or whatever.  But as an overall term, I can't recall that we had one.



Thanks for the clarification.    I figured that was the case, but just wanted to be sure.



Flying Crane said:


> And then, is it really the inward block from Attacking Mace, or is it the inward block from Five Swords, or is it simply an Inward Block, and why try to dress it up beyond that?



True. Now that I re-read that, it kinda sounded like what I just mentioned above..lol.  But you're right....in reality, its nothing more than an inward block.


----------



## Josh Oakley

MJS said:


> BR, the IPs that 99.9% of the Kenpo schools out there, are using.  Like I said, if Doc is claiming that Parker didn't intend it to be done that way, then that reads to me that 99.9% of the are wrong.  IMO, I'd say the main people who've drastically changed stuff would be Jeff Speakman and Paul Mills.  Other than that, everyone else looks damn close.




Now I'm a little bit rusty on my kenpo history, but I remember GM Parker had a commercial product designed for mass transmission, and then the Kenpo he only taught a few people. Under that understanding, wouldn't it be entirely possible that 99.9% of EPAK practitioners COULD be wrong?


----------



## ATACX GYM

Josh Oakley said:


> Now I'm a little bit rusty on my kenpo history, but I remember GM Parker had a commercial product designed for mass transmission, and then the Kenpo he only taught a few people. Under that understanding, wouldn't it be entirely possible that 99.9% of EPAK practitioners COULD be wrong?




This is also my understanding. 99.9% or whatever percent of people who do the identical same dysfunctional IP and call it THEE IP are wholly wrong. And Doc has asserted on many occassions that Mr. Parker himself practiced a different art than what he taught, and I think that it's obvious in the way that he moves that this is true.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Flying Crane said:


> And then, is it really the inward block from Attacking Mace, or is it the inward block from Five Swords, or is it simply an Inward Block, and why try to dress it up beyond that?



You're touching on my point here...not only is there a nomenclature thing going on [ Kenpo is anal with the overintellectualization and overly academic application of terms ] which we agree on--and btw alotta us Kenpoists call a tech like Inward Block a tech and a SEQUENCE of  techs SD moves or SEQUENCES--but we also agree on stuff like what FC said. 

Now...if we have a SEQUENCE like say ATTACKING MACE that is comprised of TECHS that have been tested against many different stimuli, you wil have ONE COMPLETE SEQUENCE which is ALSO  MULTIFACETED. This simple issue of performance is to me the height of common sense and shouldn't take multiple posts...much less a multipage thread...to convey and be immediately grasped. Well, ALL OF MY SEQUENCES ARE LIKE THAT.

You can INSTANTLY do the same with all of yours. Put knives in your hands while doing ATTACKING MACE vs uke. The switch roles. Then spar in each of those roles in each of the combat ranges. That takes less than 15 rounds, doesn't it? Thought so. Now you have an ATTACKING MACE which functions against single and double knives. How bout that.


----------



## MJS

Josh Oakley said:


> Now I'm a little bit rusty on my kenpo history, but I remember GM Parker had a commercial product designed for mass transmission, and then the Kenpo he only taught a few people. Under that understanding, wouldn't it be entirely possible that 99.9% of EPAK practitioners COULD be wrong?



Yes, you're probably right.   So this begs the next question of: Who got the 'real Kenpo'?  Doc?  I would be very interested in meeting/training/talking with him, live, 1 on 1.  I think it'd be a very eye opening and interesting experience.   I will say that it seems to me, that Doc would be 1, if not 'the' only person, as it seems his Kenpo is very different from others that I've seen.

And of course, another thing:  isn't it a shame that the majority must not have wanted the real deal, instead accepting something that was a lesser quality?  Learn as much as possible, get a BB quick, get high rank quick, when you're missing out on a ton of secrets.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Flying Crane said:


> OK, and again, my Pek Choi/Chuin Choi example.  But what I see going on in a lot of your technique discussions is not this kind of basic straight forward simple approach.  Rather I see the longer, more complicated kenpo techs with you advocating that they be used outside of their scripted scenario.  That's what I see as being overly complicated.





MJS said:


> Back on pg. 14, I read FC's post, (and Mike, please correct me if I'm wrong here) that he wasn't using a technique per se, but rather a basic move.  Again, this may be a matter of personal interpretation.  So, FC's use of the hammerfist vs. a punch, a choke, etc, vs. trying to use a named tech, ie: 5 swords, scrapping hoof, against other attacks, other than what they're designed for.





The problem with the above is that there is no "scripted scenario"...that whole misunderstanding is the result of too many BBs screwing up BR and mistaking loose guidelines and suggestions for THE WAY. Each scenario is supposed to be crafted by each teacher while preserving a primary lesson of each tech as loosely guided by Big Red. 

Now, I've never read Big Red in my life, and never heard of it until Doc brought it up. Clearly I don't have on hand that written material. I can probably Google it, and I can pretty accurately guess at some of them but...having the BR notes would be cool too.

I've done more than fairly well on my own, though. 

My scripted scenario for Sword and Hammer is to initially deal with a surprise attack in the form of The Hockey Punch from whatever quadrant and whatever position, that didn't kill or KO or disable you outright. So we're starting from the standing unarmed surprise Hockey Punch and progressing to the armed multifight Hockey Punch vs single and multiple defenders whether grounded or not. Then we apply those lessons to all of the primary ranges of h2h SD and guess what? It WORKS. Very easily too, I might add.

Hmmm. Maybe I shouldn't be championing this approach so much. That way, my team and I will still have a humongous advantage over people who don't use this training model, and we'll keep whomping most of em in tournies and on the street. Hmmm...lololol.


----------



## Chris Parker

Right. Ras, try to listen here.



ATACX GYM said:


> At first I wasn't going to reply to this post...the dooficity level was exceptional even for Chris. But others prevailed upon me to respond. This thread has quite a few views, so it's clear that there are more people scanning this thread than Chris Twin Fist Kenshin and jks9199. It is for the benefit of these others that I reply [ even though quite a few of these "others" took it upon themselves to contact me and express privately their amusement over my detractors not grasping the amazing obviousness of my oft-repeated position ].



"Dooficity level was exceptional even for Chris"? Ras, that comes remarkably close to a personal attack you know... And seriously, making up words like that makes you look immature at best... especially when coupled with the fingers-in-the-ears pose yelling about how your "detractors" (no, Ras, just critics who have legitimate questions) don't grasp the "amazing obviousness" of your comments... and you wonder why we think you're arrogant...



ATACX GYM said:


> So. For the last time...
> 
> ...my position has always been one of Functionality over Dysfunction. I have always been a proponent of what Bruce and others called the "Alive" Method. This means train realistically. Actually grab. Actually punch, choke, whack with the stick, stab realistically with the knife and keep going, really tackle, etc etc. Do NOT pose, or other horribly unrealistic stuff.



And in this you miss what the comments that started all of this actually were. Realistic training we're all for, same with functionality... thing is, though, that's beside the point of the initial critiques, which were centered around the fact that your version didn't satisfy the criteria to make what you were doing Sword and Hammer, functional or not. And all of your comments since then have actually demonstrated that you just don't get that... but have shown me why. Which is interesting. But I'm getting ahead of myself.... 



ATACX GYM said:


> None of the craptasticness masquerading as THEE IP has even the faintest element of realism. Let us take this more common stuff that others like Chris think is a wonderful tech.



Now, Ras, if you start by describing the technique taught in all other Kenpo schools as "craptasticness", how does that show you to always have an open mind, hmm? Oh, and I said it was a fairly solid technique (of course, when trained properly, which you seem to have missed when you were taught it...), not a wonderful one. 



ATACX GYM said:


> This tech purports to defeat what is essentially a Hockey Punch from the flank...sans grab or punch. It takes as a working hypothesis that Kenpoists in general will be able to act and react preemptively with the Sword and Hammer as a central element and tenant to the tech itself. They take it for granted that essentially newb Kenpoists [ Yellow Belters ] in general will  reliably react to  fast enough to an attack in progress to get off the handsword and hammerfist to their targets prior to the punch even being thrown.



Hmm, well you seem to miss what the attack is, misuse the French term "sans", and completely fail to understand what is involved in a pre-emptive response. As well as missing entirely the fact that that pre-emptive response is key to what Sword and Hammer teaches, and is the reason for training it. To remove it is to not be teaching/training Sword and Hammer.



ATACX GYM said:


> Look carefully. The common expression of Sword and Hammer is against something that isn't an ACTUAL attack, it's in response to a POTENTIAL attack in progress. You catch the BG before he throws the punch. Fencers call it catching him on the "preparation".



No, it's not catching on the preparation, it's a pre-emptive strike. They are actually different tactics, and employed in different contexts, but that seems to have escaped you. Additionally, you seem to miss all the measures within the technique itself, the reality of the attacking method, and so on that do make it quite a realistic tactic... just not for competition or sparring, which you seem to think is reality. News for ya, bub, it ain't.



ATACX GYM said:


> This contention is roundly refuted on the mat in objective reality. The whole premise is flawed and rather preposterous. 2 Kenpo Elders whom I've been known to both agree and disagree with--Larry Tatum and Doc Chapel--both concur at the absurdness of this idea. So do I. In fact, Mr. Tatum wrote an article touching upon this facet in the training of Kenpoists when he wrote a piece about stepping in to Triggered Salute or something.



Ras, the "mat" isn't objective reality, you know. And from my perspective, it looks like there's a fair gap in the understanding of such tactics.



ATACX GYM said:


> The central tenet of this tech is flawed and wholly divorced from combat reality.  Sans proper functional training to make the tech workable? Newbs and most people period will not be able to react with this tech under duress in that scenario. WITH proper functional training? You STILL won't do it exactly as the more common expression does it because the more common Sword and Hammer expressions articulate dysfunction.



Again with the "sans"? And who says that no-one is training it properly, or functionally? I went through it with some of my guys the other week, and your version simply doesn't work against the attack that's intended... 



ATACX GYM said:


> In other words...if it reliably works? It won't look like the more common Sword and Hammer IP expression.



Here's a question... what if you were shown that it does reliably work? And that you didn't understand it well enough in the first place? And that, when done properly, against a realistic attack (as described by the mechanics of the technique itself), it actually does look remarkably like the "IP" expression? Just curious...



ATACX GYM said:


> However, if you have a functional expression such as mine? You reliably defeat the BG in both the "classic" scenario [ you react before the punch is thrown ] aaaaaaannnnd multiple other scenarios that the more common expression Sword and Hammer doesn't approach and has no hope of addressing with their expression.



Truthfully, Ras, no, you won't "reliably defeat the BG... before the punch is thrown", as the pull that would be required for the attack as informed by the technique itself would make it rather difficult for you to spin in the direction you are planning. Frankly, against the actual attack, your response is rather mechanically flawed... but against the attacks you've changed it to, it's okay. Then again, it's not the same technique on any level at all, which is what has been said from the beginning.



ATACX GYM said:


> Look at this more common Sword and Hammer expression go to 1:52:
> 
> [video=youtube_share;9B8OXVJNmB0]http://youtu.be/9B8OXVJNmB0[/video]
> 
> 
> and look at these videos of the more common Sword and Hammer expression here. Pay close attention to their positioning:
> 
> [video=youtube_share;YGDc1oOFDcI]http://youtu.be/YGDc1oOFDcI[/video]
> 
> [video=youtube_share;ts1Qgemr11M]http://youtu.be/ts1Qgemr11M[/video]
> 
> and look at this more common expression of the Sword and Hammer, the only one that actually mentions being pulled and attempts to explain how the more common expression of the tech defeats the pull:
> 
> [video=youtube_share;04Hp8tDAw3g]http://youtu.be/04Hp8tDAw3g[/video]
> 
> Look at how similar that position is to my starting position here:
> 
> [video=youtube_share;R-mmdyIHkjs]http://youtu.be/R-mmdyIHkjs[/video]
> 
> 
> Go to 0:54 of this video. We start at the same or very similar places...in my scenario, though, I have the BG actually fire punches.
> 
> [video=youtube_share;AuvuhW1u2WE]http://youtu.be/AuvuhW1u2WE[/video]



That was frankly all completely pointless, Ras. The only connection between your technique and Sword and Hammer is the start position of your attacker. And as far as the whole "though, I have the BG actually fire punches" just shows again that you've missed the meaning and importance of the lessons of the technique in the first place.



ATACX GYM said:


> The rest should be obvious. I cover punches, multiple angles of attack, pushes and pulls, and even though I don't show it on video I gave a 15 Round training method that covers everything up to and including weapons and multifights...all with the Sword and Hammer...and will allow a complete newb to be able to fight with that tech in 8 hours or less.



And this is completely delusional, Ras. From a range of levels.



ATACX GYM said:


> I've been contacted by several MMA coaches and self-defense instructors who saw my post. They thanked me for publishing it and informed me that they're using this method and a few others that I demonstrated with exactly the speedy success that I guaranteed that it would yield.



Seriously? MMA coaches who saw your post? The methods you're showing have no place in MMA, as it doesn't suit the context of their approach, and as for self defense instructors thanking you and validating your correctness? I don't think they've gotten what the argument was about either... 



ATACX GYM said:


> The above is part of the reason why I can say all at once and be undeniably right that:
> 
> 1. The Sword and Hammer that is most popular is dysfunctional, and there are no lessons to be learned from it other than: FIX IT SO IT WORKS



Right, now we're down to it... 

Ras, to be completely blunt, this is the core of your problems, and the absolute evidence that you are not in any way right. In the slightest. Let's demonstrate, as you seem rather ignorant of what, or even how a technique teaches it's lessons.

The lessons of EPAK Sword and Hammer are numerous, but some that are immediately apparent are as follows:
- When grabbed, capture the grabbing hand for psychological and physical control.
- When being pulled, go with the energy of that pull.
- The use of pre-emptive striking as a tactic.
- The application of strikes to weak areas that are difficult to build up (throat, groin, solar plexus or floating ribs in other versions).
- Choose powerful, high-return targets.
- Drop your weight when being pulled to retain your balance
- Choose appropriate weapons to the targets.
- Use two strikes to respond, with the first being an "interrupting" strike, the second being a "stopping" strike, allowing the escape.

Your version, though Ras...
- Does not feature the covering grab to the attackers grabbing hand (sometimes called the "controlling" hand), so you miss this lesson.
- Does not "go with the pull", as you actually go in the opposite direction to the energy of the pull after it has stopped.
- Does not use pre-emptive striking, even though that is a fundamental lesson and integral element of Sword and Hammer, and a huge part of what makes the technique what it is... hence my first comments saying that what you are doing is something completely different.
- Uses a range of strikes to multiple targets without looking specifically to the results or the effect.
- Uses Swordhand and Hammerfist strikes seemingly only to justify it being called Sword and Hammer, rather than those weapons being appropriate to the targets chosen. Your first usage is to have a Swordhand and Hammerfist raised against the grabbing arm, despite there being no benefit whatsoever.
- Uses multiple strikes, continuing on to grappling in some occasions, rather than a couple of deliberately chosen strikes to escape from the grab.

This has been my point. You miss every single beat of the very reason that Sword and Hammer exists, why it is structured the way it is, and what it teaches from a strategic and tactical point. You've looked at a single idea, which is whether or not it fits what you think is realistic, without looking at what it actually teaches and why. There's a reason it's a Yellow Belt technique, Ras, and it's because it's teaching fundamental tactics and concepts that can be built on later in your education and training. By not understanding this, and only having your attitude of "this is craptastical hyperunrealistic kenpofantasyland stuff" you are frankly robbing your students of actually learning Kenpo in the first place. Because if you don't see the structure of the techniques and their reasons for being the way they are, you don't get the art. 

Oh, and Mike? That's been what I've been talking about. I've been trying to get Ras to say what Sword and Hammer teaches, but he seems to not understand that question....



ATACX GYM said:


> 2.  Supporters of this tech who claim that the tech defeats the flank Hockey Punch before the punch can be thrown do NOT fight with the tech or spar with it with any kind of realistic energy or regularity...so their opinions are factually without merit.



Dude, just because you don't know how to train it doesn't mean that others don't. I can think of numerous ways of training it that are highly realistic (far more realistic than sparring, for the record), and can show it's use easily. So I wouldn't be so quick to say such things are "factually without merit". But again, you might want to look at what the actual attack is, as you still seem to be missing it.



ATACX GYM said:


> 3. Any Sword and Hammer that works perforce cannot look like the common expression. Even those who claim that the classic tech exactly as proscribed will eventually admit that they use it primarily as a teaching tool or intro or something but they don't and can't fight with it exactly as shown in the more common expression.



Well, firstly, what's wrong with it as a teaching tool? This is another thing, Ras, there are huge numbers of drills, training tools, methods, and more that have no functional application, but are essential to learn the system. By cutting them out, as you only "deal with the functional", you're missing huge sections of the system and what it's trying to teach you.

But leaving that aside, in application no technique is exactly like it's practiced, but you practice an "ideal" way to ensure that the lessons it's giving you have the best chance at being instilled... and once they are, they can be expressed in many ways. They won't apply to all situations, though.



ATACX GYM said:


> 4. I'm not dealing with JUST the same scenario of the "more common" dysfunctional expression S&H, I'm dealing with a 360 degree Hockey Punch attack which is perpetually superior to the dysfunctional single side expression. Note that my version covers all of the various positioning that the more traditional, dysfunctional tech proponents take...and I do more. The Sword and Hammer that does more in a superior manner than the Sword and Hammer that does less is without a doubt the superior expression.



Oh dear... okay, let's look at this "Hockey Punch" that the technique is supposed to deal with. Essentially, that attack involves someone approaching from the side/rear, grabbing your shoulder, then pulling to turn you towards them (if grabbed on your right shoulder, which would be with their left hand, it turns you clockwise and back, if grabbed on your left shoulder, it turns you counterclockwise and back), then punching after you've turned. The turning is to disorient you, as well as line you up for the punch, so the punch doesn't happen until after the grab and pull. Right, so that's understood hopefully.

But here's the thing. If you're grabbed (we'll say right shoulder) and pulled, you have one option of angle, which is back along the lines of the pull. You can't go counterclockwise (as you show), as you'll just be pulled off balance. The only other option, really, is to brace and try to resist the pull... but that goes against the lessons of the technique in the first place.

And frankly, doing different things unrelated to the actual technique doesn't make it a better version, it makes it a different technique. But I do have to say that your technique does neither more, nor in a superior manner. It's just a different technique against a different attack with different tactics and a different premise and rhythm. It's not superior. You just don't get the original one, or what it's about.



ATACX GYM said:


> 5. I don't have to compare my expression to the less functional expression; all I have to do is show that mine works. If I'm not lost, and I'm safe at home? Well, I don't have to prove that I'm NOT lost to people who are lost. It's incumbent upon the lost to orient themselves...and after they orient themselves and bring themselves to a point that they recognize that they're not lost? They'll see that I've looong been where they were trying to go to. I can, however, offer a map to get home. If you don't want to make it back to the Land of the Found and Functional? Cool. Have fun with the Lost Boys.



If you don't have to compare it, why have you for most of the thread, starting with a direct comparison as your very first post, and repeating it time and again, including in this post itself? If you don't need to compare to EPAK Sword and Hammer, as yours is completely removed from it, why have you? Cake is not a better version of bread, even if both are baked in an oven, Ras. If you doubt that, make a sandwich with cake.


ATACX GYM said:


> 6. Chris Parker's second paragraph simply shows that he is completely lost...and that's okay. My tech is related to the original in the sense that the Mercedes or Bentley or some such is related to a broken down inoperational Model T. My version is the more operational more modern top of the line expression. It actually does what the Model T purports to do...it's a automated conveyance...and it does it in ways far superior to and never imagined by the poor dysfunctional broken down Model T.



You're kidding, right? You mean this paragraph:
[QUOTE-Chris Parker]_Seriously, Ras, we've been saying from the beginning that your version is not even related to the first ones you show (the standard forms), and have been asking you to clarify that... which you have completely failed to do. Now, 12 pages and 167 posts in, you've finally said that your technique has no connection to the original from whom you took the name, and very little else... so what was the point? You might as well have put up a video of someone defending against a bear hug and pointed out how that defence doesn't work against a stabbing knife attack.[/QUOTE]
_right?

Dude, seriously, read what you're saying. In the last paragraph you say you don't have to show a comparison... and now you're defending them as being related? When it comes to the idea of your Sword and Hammer being related to the EPAK version you compare it to without needing to compare it to (you are following this, yeah?), the relationship is as follows: Same angle of attack (but a different attack), same name, and the identification of the art as Kenpo. As far as your idea of a Mercedes being related to a Model T, not really the same thing as you're putting forth here, unless, of course, you were putting a Ford badge on your Merc and saying it was a more functional version of the Model T.... honestly, I'd give up on analogies, you missed the mark on that one.



ATACX GYM said:


> Lastly for those who asked...I never changed the name of my techs. I simply abbreviated the whole name for two reasons:
> 
> 1. I refer to my ATACX GYM KENPO KARATE SWORD AND HAMMER as...ATACX GYM KENPO SWORD AND HAMMER during class. It's full name as I wrote it down is ATACX GYM KENPO KARATE SWORD AND HAMMER RADIUS R.D.L. 1-4. Saying that over and over again is a mouth full so I say SWORD AND HAMMER in class. [ Everybody in my Gym...literally everyone...knows that our techs are different than other schools' techs. When we go scout other schools at various competitons before we spar with and compete against them? Everyone from the newbs to the seasoned Coaches in my Gym sees the huge advantage we have over them due to our superior functional training. ]
> 
> 2. It's hard to get a name as long as the official name for my tech onto youtube easily.



Ras, if your techniques are completely different, why the need to point out that yours is a better version of a different technique? It's like my saying that our front kicks are a better version of karate's front kicks... even though they have no real points of similarity other than both having a forward angle and using the foot to contact the opponent. 

Oh, and seriously drop the hard sell, it makes you look cheap.



ATACX GYM said:


> If you don't get it by now? Fine. Thank you to the dozens of you who've contacted me and informed me that you do get it and you do appreciate what I'm trying to convey. Thank you to people like jks9199 who disagree with me but do so from a position of openminded intelligent criticism and cordiality, which I will and do return in kind.



Right. And if you don't get what I've been saying from the first response on page 1 now, I don't think you'll ever get it. Mainly as you're simply not coming from an open minded standpoint, but are insistent on repeating yourself without understanding the questions in the first place.



ATACX GYM said:


> Chris and Twin Fist? We disagree. Let's leave it at that.



No, it's not that we disagree, Ras, it's that you haven't understood the actual criticism. So let's not leave it at you thinking your still so far superior, as all you've shown is that you have a different approach, which to my mind is rather limited in many ways, not anything superior, and have a bit of an ego problem dealing with people who don't automatically honour your brilliance.

To your approach, and the reason I find it limited, which is tied with what you've shown me of why you haven't understood what I've been asking.

Ras, you don't teach martial arts. You don't understand martial arts. You haven't learnt martial arts. You teach techniques. You have some understanding of techniques. That's all. Your entire focus is on "how to use a technique", not on how to employ strategies or tactics. Each of your videos is only a collection of mechanical approaches, none follow any understanding of the strategies of the techniques themselves. The thing is, though, the mechanical methods (particular grips, strikes, kicks etc) are not what works, it's the application of strategies and tactics that employ those mechanics. In short, you teach the use of a bunch of ingredients, some of which can be eaten by themselves, others can't, but have no idea of the recipes. And trying to talk to you in terms of martial art concepts of strategy and tactics (asking what the lessons of Sword and Hammer are, for instance) has simply confused you, as you don't understand it. If it's not a mechanical technique, you don't get it. But, of course, that's really been the thrust of the argument. Which is why it's now 17 pages long.


----------



## ATACX GYM

MJS said:


> Yes, you're probably right.   So this begs the next question of: Who got the 'real Kenpo'?  Doc?  I would be very interested in meeting/training/talking with him, live, 1 on 1.  I think it'd be a very eye opening and interesting experience.   I will say that it seems to me, that Doc would be 1, if not 'the' only person, as it seems his Kenpo is very different from others that I've seen.
> 
> And of course, another thing:  isn't it a shame that the majority must not have wanted the real deal, instead accepting something that was a lesser quality?  Learn as much as possible, get a BB quick, get high rank quick, when you're missing out on a ton of secrets.





I think if you trained with Doc you'd be closer to what Mr. Parker PERSONALLY did. If you trained with guys like JEFF SPEAKMAN you'd get alot more functional, alot more performance oriented versions of MOTION KENPO. Guys like me present a more comprehensive approach than Motion Kenpo alone does via its preferred training method being slanted toward stand up fighting as a general rule.


----------



## MJS

ATACX GYM said:


> You're touching on my point here...not only is there a nomenclature thing going on [ Kenpo is anal with the overintellectualization and overly academic application of terms ] which we agree on--and btw alotta us Kenpoists call a tech like Inward Block a tech and a SEQUENCE of techs SD moves or SEQUENCES--but we also agree on stuff like what FC said.



To be honest, I've never referred to a block, punch or kick, as a technique.  I've always called them what they were...a punch, a kick, etc, or the basics.  



> Now...if we have a SEQUENCE like say ATTACKING MACE that is comprised of TECHS that have been tested against many different stimuli, you wil have ONE COMPLETE SEQUENCE which is ALSO MULTIFACETED. This simple issue of performance is to me the height of common sense and shouldn't take multiple posts...much less a multipage thread...to convey and be immediately grasped. Well, ALL OF MY SEQUENCES ARE LIKE THAT.



But isn't this going back to what we talked about earlier?  Trying to make something fit a hole that it wasn't deisgned for?  Again, once you step out of the platform, for which the tech, whatever it may be, was designed for, then IMHO, its no longer the same tech.  You're using parts.  Just like part of a tech can be used to break guard, part of a tech could be used for a lock.  But like FC said....in reality its not the inward block from Attacking Mace...its an inward block.



> You can INSTANTLY do the same with all of yours. Put knives in your hands while doing ATTACKING MACE vs uke. The switch roles. Then spar in each of those roles in each of the combat ranges. That takes less than 15 rounds, doesn't it? Thought so. Now you have an ATTACKING MACE which functions against single and double knives. How bout that.



Which is fine, but I still stand by what I've said in the past...that that will only show the student a very basic understanding of a weapon.  Its like Jr High and High school level understanding.  I have tape of Joe Simonet doing this very thing.  OTOH, Joe also trains Doce Pares, a FMA, so thats probably not a good example...lol.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Chris Parker said:


> Right. Ras, try to listen here.
> 
> 
> 
> "Dooficity level was exceptional even for Chris"? Ras, that comes remarkably close to a personal attack you know... And seriously, making up words like that makes you look immature at best... especially when coupled with the fingers-in-the-ears pose yelling about how your "detractors" (no, Ras, just critics who have legitimate questions) don't grasp the "amazing obviousness" of your comments... and you wonder why we think you're arrogant...
> 
> 
> 
> And in this you miss what the comments that started all of this actually were. Realistic training we're all for, same with functionality... thing is, though, that's beside the point of the initial critiques, which were centered around the fact that your version didn't satisfy the criteria to make what you were doing Sword and Hammer, functional or not. And all of your comments since then have actually demonstrated that you just don't get that... but have shown me why. Which is interesting. But I'm getting ahead of myself....
> 
> 
> 
> Now, Ras, if you start by describing the technique taught in all other Kenpo schools as "craptasticness", how does that show you to always have an open mind, hmm? Oh, and I said it was a fairly solid technique (of course, when trained properly, which you seem to have missed when you were taught it...), not a wonderful one.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, well you seem to miss what the attack is, misuse the French term "sans", and completely fail to understand what is involved in a pre-emptive response. As well as missing entirely the fact that that pre-emptive response is key to what Sword and Hammer teaches, and is the reason for training it. To remove it is to not be teaching/training Sword and Hammer.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not catching on the preparation, it's a pre-emptive strike. They are actually different tactics, and employed in different contexts, but that seems to have escaped you. Additionally, you seem to miss all the measures within the technique itself, the reality of the attacking method, and so on that do make it quite a realistic tactic... just not for competition or sparring, which you seem to think is reality. News for ya, bub, it ain't.
> 
> 
> 
> Ras, the "mat" isn't objective reality, you know. And from my perspective, it looks like there's a fair gap in the understanding of such tactics.
> 
> 
> 
> Again with the "sans"? And who says that no-one is training it properly, or functionally? I went through it with some of my guys the other week, and your version simply doesn't work against the attack that's intended...
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a question... what if you were shown that it does reliably work? And that you didn't understand it well enough in the first place? And that, when done properly, against a realistic attack (as described by the mechanics of the technique itself), it actually does look remarkably like the "IP" expression? Just curious...
> 
> 
> 
> Truthfully, Ras, no, you won't "reliably defeat the BG... before the punch is thrown", as the pull that would be required for the attack as informed by the technique itself would make it rather difficult for you to spin in the direction you are planning. Frankly, against the actual attack, your response is rather mechanically flawed... but against the attacks you've changed it to, it's okay. Then again, it's not the same technique on any level at all, which is what has been said from the beginning.
> 
> 
> 
> That was frankly all completely pointless, Ras. The only connection between your technique and Sword and Hammer is the start position of your attacker. And as far as the whole "though, I have the BG actually fire punches" just shows again that you've missed the meaning and importance of the lessons of the technique in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> And this is completely delusional, Ras. From a range of levels.
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously? MMA coaches who saw your post? The methods you're showing have no place in MMA, as it doesn't suit the context of their approach, and as for self defense instructors thanking you and validating your correctness? I don't think they've gotten what the argument was about either...
> 
> 
> 
> Right, now we're down to it...
> 
> Ras, to be completely blunt, this is the core of your problems, and the absolute evidence that you are not in any way right. In the slightest. Let's demonstrate, as you seem rather ignorant of what, or even how a technique teaches it's lessons.
> 
> The lessons of EPAK Sword and Hammer are numerous, but some that are immediately apparent are as follows:
> - When grabbed, capture the grabbing hand for psychological and physical control.
> - When being pulled, go with the energy of that pull.
> - The use of pre-emptive striking as a tactic.
> - The application of strikes to weak areas that are difficult to build up (throat, groin, solar plexus or floating ribs in other versions).
> - Choose powerful, high-return targets.
> - Drop your weight when being pulled to retain your balance
> - Choose appropriate weapons to the targets.
> - Use two strikes to respond, with the first being an "interrupting" strike, the second being a "stopping" strike, allowing the escape.
> 
> Your version, though Ras...
> - Does not feature the covering grab to the attackers grabbing hand (sometimes called the "controlling" hand), so you miss this lesson.
> - Does not "go with the pull", as you actually go in the opposite direction to the energy of the pull after it has stopped.
> - Does not use pre-emptive striking, even though that is a fundamental lesson and integral element of Sword and Hammer, and a huge part of what makes the technique what it is... hence my first comments saying that what you are doing is something completely different.
> - Uses a range of strikes to multiple targets without looking specifically to the results or the effect.
> - Uses Swordhand and Hammerfist strikes seemingly only to justify it being called Sword and Hammer, rather than those weapons being appropriate to the targets chosen. Your first usage is to have a Swordhand and Hammerfist raised against the grabbing arm, despite there being no benefit whatsoever.
> - Uses multiple strikes, continuing on to grappling in some occasions, rather than a couple of deliberately chosen strikes to escape from the grab.
> 
> This has been my point. You miss every single beat of the very reason that Sword and Hammer exists, why it is structured the way it is, and what it teaches from a strategic and tactical point. You've looked at a single idea, which is whether or not it fits what you think is realistic, without looking at what it actually teaches and why. There's a reason it's a Yellow Belt technique, Ras, and it's because it's teaching fundamental tactics and concepts that can be built on later in your education and training. By not understanding this, and only having your attitude of "this is craptastical hyperunrealistic kenpofantasyland stuff" you are frankly robbing your students of actually learning Kenpo in the first place. Because if you don't see the structure of the techniques and their reasons for being the way they are, you don't get the art.
> 
> Oh, and Mike? That's been what I've been talking about. I've been trying to get Ras to say what Sword and Hammer teaches, but he seems to not understand that question....
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, just because you don't know how to train it doesn't mean that others don't. I can think of numerous ways of training it that are highly realistic (far more realistic than sparring, for the record), and can show it's use easily. So I wouldn't be so quick to say such things are "factually without merit". But again, you might want to look at what the actual attack is, as you still seem to be missing it.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, firstly, what's wrong with it as a teaching tool? This is another thing, Ras, there are huge numbers of drills, training tools, methods, and more that have no functional application, but are essential to learn the system. By cutting them out, as you only "deal with the functional", you're missing huge sections of the system and what it's trying to teach you.
> 
> But leaving that aside, in application no technique is exactly like it's practiced, but you practice an "ideal" way to ensure that the lessons it's giving you have the best chance at being instilled... and once they are, they can be expressed in many ways. They won't apply to all situations, though.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh dear... okay, let's look at this "Hockey Punch" that the technique is supposed to deal with. Essentially, that attack involves someone approaching from the side/rear, grabbing your shoulder, then pulling to turn you towards them (if grabbed on your right shoulder, which would be with their left hand, it turns you clockwise and back, if grabbed on your left shoulder, it turns you counterclockwise and back), then punching after you've turned. The turning is to disorient you, as well as line you up for the punch, so the punch doesn't happen until after the grab and pull. Right, so that's understood hopefully.
> 
> But here's the thing. If you're grabbed (we'll say right shoulder) and pulled, you have one option of angle, which is back along the lines of the pull. You can't go counterclockwise (as you show), as you'll just be pulled off balance. The only other option, really, is to brace and try to resist the pull... but that goes against the lessons of the technique in the first place.
> 
> And frankly, doing different things unrelated to the actual technique doesn't make it a better version, it makes it a different technique. But I do have to say that your technique does neither more, nor in a superior manner. It's just a different technique against a different attack with different tactics and a different premise and rhythm. It's not superior. You just don't get the original one, or what it's about.
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't have to compare it, why have you for most of the thread, starting with a direct comparison as your very first post, and repeating it time and again, including in this post itself? If you don't need to compare to EPAK Sword and Hammer, as yours is completely removed from it, why have you? Cake is not a better version of bread, even if both are baked in an oven, Ras. If you doubt that, make a sandwich with cake.
> 
> 
> You're kidding, right? You mean this paragraph:
> [QUOTE-Chris Parker]_Seriously, Ras, we've been saying from the beginning that your version is not even related to the first ones you show (the standard forms), and have been asking you to clarify that... which you have completely failed to do. Now, 12 pages and 167 posts in, you've finally said that your technique has no connection to the original from whom you took the name, and very little else... so what was the point? You might as well have put up a video of someone defending against a bear hug and pointed out how that defence doesn't work against a stabbing knife attack._


right?

Dude, seriously, read what you're saying. In the last paragraph you say you don't have to show a comparison... and now you're defending them as being related? When it comes to the idea of your Sword and Hammer being related to the EPAK version you compare it to without needing to compare it to (you are following this, yeah?), the relationship is as follows: Same angle of attack (but a different attack), same name, and the identification of the art as Kenpo. As far as your idea of a Mercedes being related to a Model T, not really the same thing as you're putting forth here, unless, of course, you were putting a Ford badge on your Merc and saying it was a more functional version of the Model T.... honestly, I'd give up on analogies, you missed the mark on that one.



Ras, if your techniques are completely different, why the need to point out that yours is a better version of a different technique? It's like my saying that our front kicks are a better version of karate's front kicks... even though they have no real points of similarity other than both having a forward angle and using the foot to contact the opponent. 

Oh, and seriously drop the hard sell, it makes you look cheap.



Right. And if you don't get what I've been saying from the first response on page 1 now, I don't think you'll ever get it. Mainly as you're simply not coming from an open minded standpoint, but are insistent on repeating yourself without understanding the questions in the first place.



No, it's not that we disagree, Ras, it's that you haven't understood the actual criticism. So let's not leave it at you thinking your still so far superior, as all you've shown is that you have a different approach, which to my mind is rather limited in many ways, not anything superior, and have a bit of an ego problem dealing with people who don't automatically honour your brilliance.

To your approach, and the reason I find it limited, which is tied with what you've shown me of why you haven't understood what I've been asking.

Ras, you don't teach martial arts. You don't understand martial arts. You haven't learnt martial arts. You teach techniques. You have some understanding of techniques. That's all. Your entire focus is on "how to use a technique", not on how to employ strategies or tactics. Each of your videos is only a collection of mechanical approaches, none follow any understanding of the strategies of the techniques themselves. The thing is, though, the mechanical methods (particular grips, strikes, kicks etc) are not what works, it's the application of strategies and tactics that employ those mechanics. In short, you teach the use of a bunch of ingredients, some of which can be eaten by themselves, others can't, but have no idea of the recipes. And trying to talk to you in terms of martial art concepts of strategy and tactics (asking what the lessons of Sword and Hammer are, for instance) has simply confused you, as you don't understand it. If it's not a mechanical technique, you don't get it. But, of course, that's really been the thrust of the argument. Which is why it's now 17 pages long.[/QUOTE] - chris Parker
******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

 WE AT THE ATACX GYM HAVE HEARD THE PLEAS OF THE VIEWERSHIP OF THIS THREAD AND RESPONDED. WE SHALL RESPOND TO THE ABOVE AS YOU ASKED US TO: WITH SIMPLE DIRECT REAL WORLD COMBAT COMMON SENSE.

All of the foregoing from top to bottom is incorrect. In every way. I won't waste time with a comprehensive response but point out the essentials for those of you who might be new and might be taken in by the length and earnestness of Chris Parker's post, while perhaps overlooking the gargantuan errors therein as a result. 

This entire discussion evaporates when you're on the mat and someone punches you. You get your noggin handed to you for trying to do what is miscalled the IP version of Sword and Hammer, and then you are just fine and annihilate said BG when you use my variant. B

The real world video that I provided of that brutha [ Black dude ] getting cracked with THE REAL WORLD ATTACK that this tech is purported to defend makes this point ironclad for the reasonable persons amongst you, the viewership. You have contacted me numerous times and made this point clear, and I deeply appreciate the opinions that you have shared with me.u

But for those of you who did NOT click on my video:

Chris said my tech is mechanically flawed and that I turn away from the pull. Again, he is squarely repudiated by the video itself. Look at SWORD AND HAMMER RADIUS R.D.L. 1A. I show again at length that his comment isn't true. I show it again in a more truncated form in ATACX GYM KENPO KARATE SWORD AND HAMMER RADIUS R.D.L. 2. I go with the energy of the attack every time. When pushed I move in the direction of the push. When pulled I turn with the pull. Observe the lack of same in the dysfunctional so called IP version. Chris alludes to a grab and pull that for the most part is absent from the majority of the more common variants of Sword and Hammer. I mean...IN MOST OF THE VIDEOS OF THE VERSION OF THE SWORD AND HAMMER THAT HE PREFERS THERE IS NEITHER A GRAB NOR PULL, JUST A GUY LAYING HIS HAND ON YOUR SHOULDER,COCKING HIS FIST BACK, AND POSING. This, as we all who spar and scrap know, simply is the last thing that happens in real SD scenarios. 

I of course deal with what is far more likely to happen in the real world vs this kind of attack. That's not an arrogant statement, it's just true. There are lotsa other people who do the same, but NONE of them are the people that Chris referes to. In the videos on this thread? ONLY I DEAL WITH THE HIGHER ATTACK PROBABILITIES AND MORE REALISTIC SCENARIOS.

I deal with the oncoming punches of uke. Observe the lack of any punch in the so-called IP. I don't grab BG's hand and pin it to my shoulder because combatively it's nonsense. The BG was trying to pull or push you or set you in place to punch/stab/kick/whatever you anyway. All you did is in essence help him use the hand he was using to control you by not only misreading the intent of the grab, your stupid butt took your RIGHT HAND--statistically our dominant hand--out of play and opened up a major lane for the BG to simply spin you and shut your lights off with a single strike.

Clearly Chris Parker hasn't sparred with this tech. Or else he'd know that every last one of his analysis in this regard is simply not true and doesn't hold up to the general thrust of objective reality when sparring or fighting with this tech. Now lemme clarify before further foolishness flows from various keyboards: I am not saying that everyone will get the exact same results that I do. What I am saying is that the majority of people who spar with this tech whether they get the exact same results as I do or not will immediately grasp the great validity and plausibility of my comments because they've experienced it seen it or something very close to it themselves.

As a result, I can say that the more common version of Sword and Hammer is by and large craptasticness. Even Doc said that the techs "as written are unworkable" and that various foolish mortals copy it slavishly anyway "even when it doesn't make sense".  This is a result of mistaking the general guidelines in Big Red for a hard and fast way of doing things.

I ask the viewership of this thread to observe my multipage debate disagreement and discussion with Chris, and consider the following:

1. Imagine if this discussion, disagreement and debate had been raging for nigh on 40 years or so

2. Imagine that Chris and I thoroughly inculcated our followers with a semi-cultish desire to support our opinions vs anything different or to the contrary, regardless of how obviously superior this "contrary" or "different" position may be. 

3. This is what has happened by and large in Kenpolitics

4. The funnies thing of all is...Chris isn't even a Kenpo guy and he's carrying on like this.


Now all of you should see why I have nothing to do with Kenpolitics and thank my Uncle-GM profusely for keeping us away from same during our entire martial journey thus far.


----------



## Chris Parker

No, Ras, I'm sick of that. You've said a number of times now that I've been wrong in "every conceivable way" but never once demonstrated it. And you still don't seem to have the first clue what I'm saying, as you miss every single point in your response.

Dude, put up or shut up, seriously. If I'm wrong, point it out. I've pointed out where you're wrong numerous times, you have yet to do it once.


----------



## ATACX GYM

MJS said:


> To be honest, I've never referred to a block, punch or kick, as a technique.  I've always called them what they were...a punch, a kick, etc, or the basics.
> 
> *Agreed*
> 
> But isn't this going back to what we talked about earlier?  Trying to make something fit a hole that it wasn't deisgned for?  Again, once you step out of the platform, for which the tech, whatever it may be, was designed for, then IMHO, its no longer the same tech.  You're using parts.  Just like part of a tech can be used to break guard, part of a tech could be used for a lock.  But like FC said....in reality its not the inward block from Attacking Mace...its an inward block.
> 
> *Yes it IS what we talked about earlier...but the salient point here is that we talked about the fact that each instructor has the right to craft their own I.P. which they feel encapsulates the relevant lessons of the relevant street attack. The more common expression of this tech IS NOT THE STANDARD, it is a result of a misunderstanding of BIG RED'S loose guidelines as THE WAY...among other factors. The self defense sequence Sword and Hammer that most practice is fundamentally flawed and functional only if the BG does exactly as depicted: essentially lay his hand on your shoulder like a dead starfish, cock his fist back, stand and pose. In other words? It's extremely dysfunctional. I rejected this largely dysfunctional expression because it's my opinion that most street scenarios don't involve this kind of dynamic of not-grabbing with a flank grab and NOT punching when the BG cocks his fist back [ but hey...if you GOTTA be in a street fight and can choose who can attack you? Choose the BG who is shown in the "more common" expressions of the Sword and Hammer IP. He sucks and you'll win every time, lol ]. I then took those lessons to the other more common aspects of h2h SD.
> 
> I will put up a video this weekend showing you very simple, very direct applications of my Sword and Hammer ATACX GYM IP to every area that I said it would work in.*
> 
> 
> Which is fine, but I still stand by what I've said in the past...that that will only show the student a very basic understanding of a weapon.  Its like Jr High and High school level understanding.  I have tape of Joe Simonet doing this very thing.  OTOH, Joe also trains Doce Pares, a FMA, so thats probably not a good example...lol.
> 
> *I agree that the FMAs are a good place to start with weapon training, etc. However, as I stated before: I look at the general expression of physical techs in martial arts with specific focuses like judo or kali or whatnot as really a collection of training methods designed to produce a specific result via a favored means. Mostly grappling for judo, mostly weapons, hand and foot strikes for kali. I think that essentially martial arts with specific focuses are part of a whole, pieces of a more comprehensive puzzle. It's no coincidence that Kenpo and Kali fit like hand to glove, and same with judo and bjj. In fact, you can rather seamlessly mesh MT and Kali, or Capoeira and bjj. It's hard to find disciplines that can't be merged very well...when the training method is there.
> 
> IT'S NOT JUST WHAT YOU KNOW, IT'S HOW AND WHY YOU TRAIN... *



The bolded portions are my replies to MJS...


----------



## Flying Crane

MJS said:


> Yes, you're probably right.  So this begs the next question of: Who got the 'real Kenpo'? Doc? I would be very interested in meeting/training/talking with him, live, 1 on 1. I think it'd be a very eye opening and interesting experience.  I will say that it seems to me, that Doc would be 1, if not 'the' only person, as it seems his Kenpo is very different from others that I've seen.



traditionally in the Chinese arts not everyone got taught everything, and not everyone got taught to the same depth and thoroughness.  There is definitely a difference between being a student vs being a disciple, and even at the level of disciple there is another level of being an "in-door disciple".  That last group are the few individuals who have been accepted and chosen, and who have agreed to become the next generation of leaders in the art, who learn the complete method.  They carry the responsibility of making sure the art in its complete form survives, even tho the students who were not disciples and have not learned the complete art can be teachers and teach to their own level of knowledge and skill.

The difference is that in this scenario, typically the non-disciple students are still taught the same system, with the same progression, just not as deep and not all of it.  There is not a separate, possibly "inferior" method that is taught to them.

In my own situation, I am the one student in the group, and the other four are all disciples who have been with Sifu for several decades, vs. me coming up on three years.  At this point in my training, I have no need to be a disciple because I have a ways to go before I exhaust what Sifu is willing to teach to someone at my level as a student.  When and if the circumstances arise, I hope to have the opportunity to become a disciple and learn the complete system.  We'll see, when the time comes.  But in the meantime, I train alongside the disciples, and there are no secrets that I am aware of.  They have material that I have not yet learned, but I do not see any secret, hush-hush discussions going on that are designed to keep me in the dark.  Of course they also train on other nights when I am not there, so I have no idea what goes on at those times, nor what kinds of discussions happen when they take Sifu out for lunch after class is finished.

My point in all this is simply that in the traditional Chinese approach to this, while the disciples get the complete system and the students do not get the complete system, what the students get is not watered-down nor inferior.  They get the same, only not as much and not with as much depth.  But that stuff, even tho not the complete system, is still extremely functional and honestly is all that most people would ever need, if properly understood and developed.  Sifu keeps saying that it all comes back to the basics, and the advanced material is simply designed to reinforce the lessons that are held in the basics.  If you had the vision to completely understand the basics, you would not need to learn the advanced material.  The advanced material just gives more examples, to lead us back to a deeper understanding of how the basics contain it all.



> And of course, another thing: isn't it a shame that the majority must not have wanted the real deal, instead accepting something that was a lesser quality? Learn as much as possible, get a BB quick, get high rank quick, when you're missing out on a ton of secrets.



Do we know that is what happened?  I'll bet if you asked them, none would agree to this.  I'll bet they all believed that they were getting the "goods".  Was there some level of dishonesty or deception that was deemed necessary, in order to get the business model up and running?  Did this play on the egos of those who wanted the rank and were given it, without the disclosure that they were missing key components of the education?  I dunno.  But I find it difficult to blame those students who were given rank and given the go-ahead to be "teachers", but were not properly trained, or were trained in a deliberately inferior product.  They are simply doing as they were told and encouraged to do.  If this lead to a breakdown of quality, or the propagation of a whole branch of the system that is inherently inferior, then I say the fault lies on the shoulders of the one who set them up.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Chris Parker said:


> Right. Ras, try to listen here.
> 
> 
> 
> Ras, to be completely blunt, this is the core of your problems, and the absolute evidence that you are not in any way right. In the slightest. Let's demonstrate, as you seem rather ignorant of what, or even how a technique teaches it's lessons.
> 
> The lessons of EPAK Sword and Hammer are numerous, but some that are immediately apparent are as follows:
> - When grabbed, capture the grabbing hand for psychological and physical control.
> 
> *Grabbing the BG's hand doesn't give you psychological or physical control. He grabbed you in order to control you by locking you down into place for, pushing you away from, or pulling you in to the incoming blows that he's raining on you. Using your far hand to pin BG's hand to your shoulder simply means that you're unwise enough to remove your unencumbered limb from combat, thus opening up other lanes for the BG to attack and hurt you [ or his friends to do the same ] and removing your limb from the possibility of offensive strikes
> *
> - When being pulled, go with the energy of that pull.
> 
> * Most of the more common Sword and Hammer sequences that I've seen live as well as those on YT do NOT feature an actual pull by uke. Most have him posing and doing nothing. But even if they did feature the pull? They neglect to address the very high probability that the BG's punch is hard on the heels of the pull, so they'll be pulled into the oncoming punch in far too many cases. The "more common" Sword and Hammer version that you claim is superior to mine doesn't remotely address this reality.
> *
> - The use of pre-emptive striking as a tactic.
> 
> *As I have previously stated and left links proving to be true...Kenpo Elders like Larry Tatum and Doc Chapel find the "pre-emptive strike" notion to be questionable at best. On the mat? Their skepticism is thoroughly underscored by actually sparring with Sword and Hammer vs the Hockey Punch.
> *
> - The application of strikes to weak areas that are difficult to build up (throat, groin, solar plexus or floating ribs in other versions).
> 
> *Okay, I hit many of those same areas too...functionally, I might add.
> 
> What you might not consider, though, is that the BG might be taller with a longer range that PREVENTS you from countering with Sword and Hammer at that distance. Since I'm only 5'7" tall,  that is a constant concern. Further, it's statistically true that bigger taller people are more aggressive toward shorter smaller people--especially toward women who fit the latter description--than vice versa. It's also statistically true that the shorter smaller people formulate a larger percentage of victims of violence. The very structure of this tech ignores this reality. Mine addresses it every step of the way of my sequence.
> *
> - Choose powerful, high-return targets.
> 
> *I do too
> *
> - Drop your weight when being pulled to retain your balance
> 
> *The more common Sword and Hammer almost never addresses balance, and when it does? it does so with a great lack of reality. Again, the issue of height weight and leverage is also of the first importance here, and the more common version of Sword and Hammer doesn't address this matter with anywhere near the depth and reality that I do.
> *
> - Choose appropriate weapons to the targets.*
> 
> As do I
> *
> - Use two strikes to respond, with the first being an "interrupting" strike, the second being a "stopping" strike, allowing the escape.
> 
> *Again...statistically the majority of BGs are larger than their victims. Oftentimes the shorter lighter victim doesn't have the reach to counter with a Sword and Hammer, thus invalidating this whole sequence when done the way that you and the more common Sword and Hammer variant recommends.
> 
> Furthermore, many confrontations are not resolved by a potent 1-2 combo. If your handsword is blocked, then what? Trusting the hammerfist to end matters with a single groin strike isn't really that wise. It's harder to land that shot than it appears. On top of that? Chances are very very high that YOU'LL GET HIT FIRST AND REPEATEDLY BY THE BG BEFORE YOU GET A CHANCE TO LAUNCH YOUR COUNTEROFFENSIVE.
> 
> Therefore the entire premise, top to bottom, that you champion is at the very least highly questionable and has been proven to be so in objective reality.
> *
> 
> Your version, though Ras...
> 
> - Does not feature the covering grab to the attackers grabbing hand (sometimes called the "controlling" hand), so you miss this lesson.
> 
> *I already answered this question by pointing out how dysfunctional and unwise such a move is
> *
> - Does not "go with the pull", as you actually go in the opposite direction to the energy of the pull after it has stopped.
> 
> *Except that literally in every instance that a pull or push was used, I prove you to be wrong. Since my very first video:
> 
> ATACX GYM SWORD AND HAMMER RADIUS R.D.L. PT 1
> 
> AT 0:48 I SHOW THAT YOUR HANDSWORD IS LIKELY TO BE BLOCKED BY THE BG'S REAR HAND THAT IS COCKED AS A FIST TO HIT YOU, BECAUSE YOUR HANDSWORD WILL INTERSECT HIS ONCOMING PUNCH OR LITERALLY HIS FIST WILL SHIELD HIS THROAT FROM YOUR HANDSWORD OR BOTH...EVEN IF THE BG IS JUST POSING BUT WITH HIS FIST REALISTICALLY COCKED. GO TO 1:28. MY COUSIN CHRIS HAS GRIPPED MY LEFT SHOULDER WITH HIS LEFT HAND. IF I FIRE MY LEFT HANDSWORD? HIS EXTENDED ARM WILL BLOCK THE BLOW WITHOUT ANY EFFORT ON HIS PART.
> 
> I GET PUSHED IN THIS VIDEO, I GO WITH THE PUSH, RECOVER MY BALANCE, SPIN AND COUNTER. I ALSO SPECIFY IN THIS VIDEO THAT I KEEP MY HANDS UP BECAUSE I COULD ALSO BE PULLED INTO A PUNCH. A PULL WILL TURN ME INTO THE PUNCH. I GO WITH THE FLOW, NOT TRY TO COUNTER IT.
> 
> [video=youtube_share;eo4yj0MZyeI]http://youtu.be/eo4yj0MZyeI[/video]
> 
> 
> I VIDEO MYSELF GOING WITH THE PULL STARTING AT 5:30 ON FORWARD IN THIS VIDEO:
> 
> [video=youtube_share;AuvuhW1u2WE]http://youtu.be/AuvuhW1u2WE[/video]
> 
> AND AGAIN IN THIS VIDEO FROM 4:10 forward
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> - Does not use pre-emptive striking, even though that is a fundamental lesson and integral element of Sword and Hammer, and a huge part of what makes the technique what it is... hence my first comments saying that what you are doing is something completely different.
> 
> *As mentioned previously, Doc and Larry Tatum have already debunked this pre-emptive idea.
> *
> - Uses a range of strikes to multiple targets without looking specifically to the results or the effect.
> 
> *I went into chapter and verse more than once showing the specific effect of the sword and hammer to the targets that I select and access in my sequence. I don't think that I have to explain what a knee to the groin does or what a choke does.
> *
> - Uses Swordhand and Hammerfist strikes seemingly only to justify it being called Sword and Hammer, rather than those weapons being appropriate to the targets chosen. Your first usage is to have a Swordhand and Hammerfist raised against the grabbing arm, despite there being no benefit whatsoever.
> 
> *Completely untrue. Firstly the sword and hammer in my video is every bit as fitted to the throat strikes as it is in the version that you champion. I specified more than once using science and my own personal experience the exact locations on the arm that I target my sword and hammer to, the body mechanics involved, etc.  I posted it on this very thread, too.
> *
> - Uses multiple strikes, continuing on to grappling in some occasions, rather than a couple of deliberately chosen strikes to escape from the grab.
> 
> *The tech selection I use addresses the many functional factors that the version that you champion doesn't address, like reach disadvantage, multifight scenarios, grappling, armed assailants, and the fact that the BG may be reacting defensively and may parry block slip etc or we might MISS with our chosen offensives and have to flow seamlessly into another blow. These kinds of real world realities are things that apparently aren't significant or important to you, or maybe they just slipped your...ahem...eagle eye.*
> 
> This has been my point. You miss every single beat of the very reason that Sword and Hammer exists, why it is structured the way it is, and what it teaches from a strategic and tactical point. You've looked at a single idea, which is whether or not it fits what you think is realistic, without looking at what it actually teaches and why. There's a reason it's a Yellow Belt technique, Ras, and it's because it's teaching fundamental tactics and concepts that can be built on later in your education and training. By not understanding this, and only having your attitude of "this is craptastical hyperunrealistic kenpofantasyland stuff" you are frankly robbing your students of actually learning Kenpo in the first place. Because if you don't see the structure of the techniques and their reasons for being the way they are, you don't get the art.
> 
> *Except that it doesn't do any of the things you claimed*
> 
> Oh, and Mike? That's been what I've been talking about. I've been trying to get Ras to say what Sword and Hammer teaches, but he seems to not understand that question....
> 
> *No, I understand. You are the one who fails to understand, and this response of mine proves that conclusively to any objective logical analytical mind.*
> 
> 
> Ras, you don't teach martial arts. You don't understand martial arts. You haven't learnt martial arts. You teach techniques. You have some understanding of techniques. That's all. Your entire focus is on "how to use a technique", not on how to employ strategies or tactics. Each of your videos is only a collection of mechanical approaches, none follow any understanding of the strategies of the techniques themselves. The thing is, though, the mechanical methods (particular grips, strikes, kicks etc) are not what works, it's the application of strategies and tactics that employ those mechanics. In short, you teach the use of a bunch of ingredients, some of which can be eaten by themselves, others can't, but have no idea of the recipes. And trying to talk to you in terms of martial art concepts of strategy and tactics (asking what the lessons of Sword and Hammer are, for instance) has simply confused you, as you don't understand it. If it's not a mechanical technique, you don't get it. But, of course, that's really been the thrust of the argument. Which is why it's now 17 pages long.
> 
> *And all of this is wrong too^^^^. I provided video data, posts with links to authorities on the matter, and provided my own opinion on all of the above.
> 
> Chris. Let it go, man. We disagree and aren't going to convince one another. So let it go. I have. The only times I've responded to you after I realized this is when I've been urged to by those with more experience on this board who combined their urging with a solid argument for me to respond to a specific post of yours in a specific way.
> 
> Man. We disagree. Let it go.
> 
> Unless...you're willing to up the ante and make the stakes objective and have a specific terminus in sight? Otherwise we could disagree interminably...like now.
> 
> What might be edifying, though, is a video of YOU doing Sword and Hammer and illustrating your responses to my points via video. Don't need your instructor's permission cuz you're not doing his art, you're just showing a single sequence from a art you don't study and giving your opinion on it...
> 
> I'll be posting a video showing another facet of my Sword and Hammer this weekend...along with a slew of other videos. Including capoeira videos [ I haven't forgotten THAT thread ]. So as you said: "...put up or shut up..."*



The bolded versions are my response to Chris Parker.


----------



## Aiki Lee

Dear Jesus, is this really still going on? Arguing about this is like giving medicine to the dead.


----------



## Twin Fist

Chris makes salient points

Ras ignores them, say everyone but him is wrong, and copy pastes everyone into a coma. I stopped counting at 13 the number of times he claims to have proven someone wrong based only on him saying "you are wrong and i proved it"





copying and pasting the same 4 -6 videos over and over and over and over? that isnt proof of anything other than that you are obtuse


----------



## Aiki Lee

Oh I know. I've been following the whole thread. Chris makes the same points I tried to make and then some and I don't see why Ras does not see where he is coming from. But if Ras honestly doesn't see what we are trying to tell him then no ammount of type or talk will persuade him otherwise.


----------



## Cyriacus

ATACX GYM said:


> *The tech selection I use addresses the many functional factors that the version that you champion doesn't address, like reach disadvantage, multifight scenarios, grappling, armed assailants, and the fact that the BG may be reacting defensively and may parry block slip etc or we might MISS with our chosen offensives and have to flow seamlessly into another blow. These kinds of real world realities are things that apparently aren't significant or important to you, or maybe they just slipped your...ahem...eagle eye.*



Ill passively disagree.
I say passively, because Im not disagreeing so much with the principle, than with its applicability here.

Disadvantage:
Assuming You are smaller, weaker, and slower; The biggest issue becomes reach. The Solution as I see it is to Infight, or Kick. Your Tactic ought be different, but the entire structure doesnt need to be debased in order to do one of those to simple things. Theoretically a Takedown could work, but Ill let a BJJ or Judo guy speak for that. That said, Youre already accommodating for a Disadvantage in that Youre assuming Youre being hit before You can defend.

Multiple Attacker Fight Scenarios:
This is all the more reason to use one or two rapid blows, followed by an idiopathic Power Strike. This one alone is the main reason Im even replying. This method allows You to easily shift between Opponents, rather than becoming too fixated in an exchange with one, instead nullifying that one.

Grappling:
Grappling has its disadvantages, like forcing the Grabber to stay in Striking Range whether They like it or not. Plus, either side may stop 'Grappling' at any moment, and as such it is a gamble to 'Grapple' with someone, as oppose to using Grappling as a...
Well, theres a better word for this. "Gap Bridging Tool".

Armed Assailants:
So someones punched You in the back of the Head... Instead of just stabbing You in a way You pretty much cant Defend if Youre not aware of the attack? Im not disagreeing with this one, so much as calling it irrelevant.
But for the sake of discussion, lets make it a blunt instrument, and presume the blunt forced trauma to the head hasnt incapacitated You. Your Tactics hardly change. In fact, getting closer becomes an even better idea.

Defensive BG:
This is pretty much a "They are ******" Scenario.
If You begin a Counter-Offense, and They go Full Defense, it can be very easy to overwhelm someone, either by breaking down their wrists, or just hitting anything remotely exposed, or hitting them in the head regardless, since the force travels through, albeit reduced; But permitting further shots to be executed. Im agreeing with this one, but not in the way You intended.

Flowing Seamlessly:
That I can agree with, which is why I dont think a Scripted Defense should be any longer than 1-2 Motions, as oppose to a long sequence. It makes it easier to flow, rather than trying to be in one predetermined cycle. In a way, alot of what Youre showing is a Possible Best Case Scenario. Which is why whenever I initially comment on Your Videos, I mostly remark on the initial retaliation, and less so on what comes after. Theres no buts in this one, its just decently agreeable.

Now, if Youre so inclined, feel free to stop reading right about here.



Chris Parker said:


> No, Ras, I'm sick of that. You've said a number of times now that I've been wrong in "every conceivable way" but never once demonstrated it. And you still don't seem to have the first clue what I'm saying, as you miss every single point in your response.
> 
> Dude, put up or shut up, seriously. If I'm wrong, point it out. I've pointed out where you're wrong numerous times, you have yet to do it once.



And this is the biggest issue.
Chris, if Im not mistaken, delved into one particular aspect of the Kenpo side of the Defense. And then this somehow spiraled into a Kenpo debate. Lets look back at the Roots.



Chris Parker said:


> Ah, Ras, you're not going to like me much, but you did ask for "debate discussion commenting or rude gestures...", so...
> 
> The first thing I'm going to say is, if you're going to be basically just posting videos over and over again, can you learn how to embed the things? It's really not hard, you click on the video strip icon at the top of the post window (second from the right), and paste the URL of the video you want in the space provided in the pop-up box. Then click "OK". It'll make it a lot easier for people to watch your clips, it'll make them more likely to click on them to watch them, especially when you put 7 different clips in a single post, as most people just don't want to keep opening new windows over and over again, and can help you get the comments you are after, meaning you won't have to keep following up your own posts asking why no-one's commenting.... I get the feeling that a number of the "views" here just saw the URL links and didn't want to check out the clips themselves, hence no comments. Okay?
> 
> Right, next.
> 
> *[From about here...]* There are quite a few issues that are leaping out at me from your entire premise here. We'll begin by embedding the clips so others can more easily see what we're talking about. To begin with, your "IP" versions, which you consider flawed:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Each of these show the same thing, with very little difference, so I'm not sure why three clips were needed... oh, well. We'll come back to these.
> 
> Next you link a couple of clips that show "the actual real world attacks that the traditional method alleged IP techs like those above are supposed to defend against". Love the passive aggressive tone, by the way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem, of course, is that these attacks are not what is shown in the technique, nor is it what you demonstrate against in your versions. But there's a bigger problem than that, when your clips are shown. Speaking of which, here they are:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, now we can play.
> *
> [To Here]
> **Alrighty. Weve had some references put up as three comparatives. Alrighty then.*
> 
> To begin with, let's look back at the initial version of the technique as shown. It's a yellow belt technique, fairly early on in the syllabus, if I'm not mistaken, yeah? And it's basically dealing with a grab to your shoulder (the clips you linked show the right shoulder, you oscillate between right and left, I don't think it matters too much, provided it's the left hand grabbing the right shoulder, or the right hand grabbing the left... otherwise it changes the technique into requiring something different), which you secure/cover with your far hand, then step towards the opponent as they threaten a strike, and pre-emptively strike to their throat with a sword-hand, and "bounce" that hand down to strike with a hammer fist to an open target. I'm going to be bluntly honest, Ras, there's really little wrong with that technique.
> 
> *I for one see little point in the Hammerfist as oppose to a Punch, but the point is, this seems to have been the catalyst of all that follows.*
> 
> The biggest issue with it arises when the person grabbing you was just going to ask you the time, or to offer a drink, or similar, and you crush their trachea as a result... so I might not choose a potentially lethal strike as my first response against a grab. Courts here tend to look down on such things. But from a mechanical point of view, this technique is actually quite solid, taking into account a range of likely events. Not bad at all, really.
> 
> *It isnt bad at all. I think however, that Ras originally came up with His view on it, based on assuming Youve already been hit, thereby instigating Violence, rather than focusing on an immediate counter. Im cool with it both ways.*
> 
> When we get to your clips, though, I gotta say, uh, what? Neither of those clips show anything like the attack that Sword and Hammer are dealing with.
> 
> *This was also a catalyst. Whilst completely correct, it caused a spiral of debating what is and is not Sword and Hammer. A Question that could have been answered so early on, that was answered last page I believe, with "Its just taking the principle. Not the exact Counter. It could well be renamed." And all this could have theoretically been avoided.*
> 
> Both are essentially king-hits which work by blind-siding the people being hit. There is no grab to the shoulder, which is the primary aspect of the attack in Sword and Hammer, as shown in each and every version shown, the three initial ones, both of yours, and all others I've seen from a quick search. So, uh, no. Additionally, you don't seem to have paid attention to them, based on some comments you make in your clip.
> 
> Right, your clips.
> 
> The first one, well, let's be frank. It's again basically overkill, which is something missing from the initial technique (other than an overly aggressive first strike). Additionally, the basic attack isn't actually that realistic (the original one is more realistic, to be honest). Let's start there, as your first point is to talk down the common version.
> 
> *Ill agree. But then, most attackers have no idea what Theyre doing. I believe it was MJS I made a similar comment to.*
> 
> You give the set-up of a grab to the shoulder, and then talk (with a degree of sarcasm, it seems...) about "feel(ing) the Kempo-ness of the situation" before turning and striking. There's a little interplay about the opponent not blocking (as your training partner does), and you finish by saying that "this doesn't happen in real life". Actually Ras, yes, it does. There are a number of set-ups that might go this way, but it's really a relatively common form of attack. The basic idea is that they grab your shoulder, and pull you into a strike with the other hand. The pull turns you towards them, as well as into the strike itself, adding to the power.
> 
> *Ill just go ahead and verify this. Ive seen it happen. I also know this somehow set the tone for all that came after. Its almost like this started a huge debate about Self Defense between You Two, in which we are now here.*
> 
> It could be when one guy is yelling at you in front, his buddy comes up behind and grabs, pulls, and hits, or as you're turning and walking away from someone they grab you as you go, spin you, and hit. But it really is a common attack, you know.
> 
> *Or You have a short verbal exchange with someone, they look like they stop caring. You go to walk away, they down another mouthfull, and go after You. Grab. Spin. Click.*
> 
> Next, the idea of "feeling the Kempo-ness" leading to the execution of the technique, really, I don't see that as necessary at all. If you're being attacked with this realistically, they'll be pulling you around and back, so the step in towards them could very easily be just a natural response to the pull (and trying to keep your balance, so dropping as you step, not mentioned, but demonstrated in the clips, is expected as well). As to the cover, that's common to regain some control, and is recommended. Your idea of the other guy blocking being possible is honestly unlikely as well, as they'll be concerned about hitting you, and won't expect a counter-strike, as a result will simply not be looking to block anything.
> 
> *If Ive learnt anything, even in controlled Training, most People have trouble blocking. I also suspect this is why many Systems like Boxing favor a Guard, so they dont have to actually do anything. But if someone is intent on Hitting You, Their Intent is to Hit You. Thats it. Theyre not gonna be scared just because You look at them funny. But if They do Block, as I said above, its over for them anyway. Im not calling Blocking Suicide, but under these conditions...*
> 
> And the initial strike, if done with the right timing, would be launched as you're turning, making it land before the opponent's strike is properly launched, as well as providing cover in case you're just a bit too slow. Really, Ras, it's not a bad technique.
> 
> *Yep. But I dont think that was why Ras remade it, so much as in and of the Attack.*
> 
> Then we get you changing the structure of the attack by keeping your opponent on your left shoulder, but having them grab with their left hand... which completely removes the attack that's actually seen in Sword and Hammer, as well as removing the targets, body positioning, and more, altering the timing and rhythm of the sequence entirely, and basically necessitating a completely different technique, which, to be blunt, is what you're doing. This is no longer the Yellow Belt Technique "Sword and Hammer" from the American Kempo system, as there are almost no aspects of it left, other than similar fists being used.
> 
> *Im behind this. I dont see why one cant just say "Because at that point it stops being Sword and Hammer, persay."*
> 
> You also start to talk about the fact that, from here, as it's a surprise attack, you'll be hit first, probably a few times, and have to respond from there. The problem, of course, is you've just shown us what happens when you get blindsided and hit hard in a surprise attack. In most cases, you get knocked to the ground, hard. So you're not really able to continue with the technique as you show it (which is your partner slapping your back, let's be honest, hardly a committed strike to the back of the head, which is what would be likely (not too difficult to knock someone out that way, or give them a concussion, at the very least rattle them enough to continue to do some pretty major damage).
> 
> *And now Ill point back to the start of My Reply. This is an Best Case Scenario. To be fair, You cannot Train for the Worst Case.*
> 
> So your plan of "get hit first" isn't what I'd recommend.... and, again, it goes against what Sword and Hammer actually teaches.
> 
> *And Ill agree with this. But this is also why Ras made the Concept, I believe. Based on, 'What If, but.'*
> 
> The technique advocates a pre-emptive strike, in order to avoid such an eventuality. Deciding you don't think it's realistic (it certainly can be, for the record) doesn't make your technique better or more realistic, it means you've missed the point of the technique in the first place.
> 
> *Which is why I dont see why it cant just be said that its only Sword and Hammer by Principle.*
> 
> When it comes to the rest of the technique you show (the punch to the body, the strike to the face with the knee, the hand to the back of the neck, another fist to the back of the neck, and then another hand sword to the back of the neck again), honestly, I'm seeing a lot of mechanical problems, as well as some potential charges (based on the assault laws here) with the multiple strikes to the back of his head when it's clear he's no longer in a position to continue to assault you. But mainly the mechanical and structural issues, a range of things you do rob you of potential power, making a lot of this a lot weaker and less effective than it could be.
> 
> *Charges arent an issue when the Attacks are hard to do at full speed and power with resistance. I believe I may have said this at one point, but hey. Its a possible response though.*
> 
> Your second version. Well, you start off saying it's nothing like what others would have been taught, and, well, yeah. Because you have barely included anything from the original, other than the name and certain fists. Other than that, tactically it's a completely different technique, rythmically it's a completely different technique, strategically it's a completely different technique, mechanically it's a completely different technique, philosophically it's a completely different technique... really, it's just a completely different technique.
> 
> *And so begins however many pages of debate.*
> 
> You then denigrate the original form, including the sarcastic comment "and, he's just amazed by your skill". Really? I'd say more that he's dropped to the ground finding it hard to breathe, as you've just attacked his airways, then his groin, and gotten distance.
> 
> *Never mind Breathing - Doesnt it screw up Your Vision or something? I forget now.*
> 
> Clearing his arm shouldn't be necessary, or difficult, and the idea of the attacker being "amazed at your skill" shows a gap in understanding what would have actually happened, don't you think? You then make some comments about the technique not working against a real, dynamic attack... gotta say, Ras, this one I think really would. It's kinda built into the technique, and I'm a little surprised you can't see it, given the amount of "real life experience" you claim. But let's see what that "real life experience" has taught you....
> 
> You have your opponent pushing you forward while hitting you? Really? And you think that's the more common attack?
> 
> *It is a possible one, just not the more common one. Im imagining someone running at You, THEN Grabbing You. Their own Momentum forces forward movement.*
> 
> Gotta say, it's one of the most ineffectual attacks I can think of, as you'd be constantly pushing your victim out of the range of your fist, making your attacks not much more than useless.... Most of your following response suffers from much of the same issues as the previous one (punch to the temple? Good chance of breaking your own hand, particularly with the weak structure you're using, but hey, go for it!).
> 
> *Breaking ones hand oughtnt be a concern until after - But if some did, say, run at you then grab You, theyd stop soon after.*
> 
> At the four minute mark you finally get closer to the way it's supposed to be, but still miss the basic tactic of a pre-emptive strike. And, to be honest, the attack was unrealistic in it's rhythm and distancing, so it wasn't really a realistic portrayal either. And I'm really not fond of that "secure" and choke at the end... there's just too many openings and issues going on there.
> 
> *And Ill agree here. Preemptive Striking may not even be Preemptive. It may be that Youre hit by the time Your Preempt actually hits.
> **Itll still be a better reply than waiting to get hit so You can take turns, but.*
> 
> Honestly, if I was to offer you some advice, it would be to not automatically take the tact that every single technique is supposed to be an exact representation of violence, and to look for what it's teaching you. It seems to me that you tend to want to go to something you feel is more "realistic" without really looking at what is there in the first place... and that leads to some big gaps in what you're presenting.
> 
> *I wont comment here. But the thing is, I dont see the problem with this whole reply, let alone why the heck its caused this debate. Its all fair criticism, and not much AT ALL would need to be altered to take it into consideration. Ras wouldnt even need to change anything Hes doing. Just demonstrating an understanding of This Reply would be anough to say "I have My Way You have Yours", as oppose to "Youre Wrong".
> To each their own, as far as handling criticism goes, I guess.*
> 
> Well, I said you wouldn't like it...



In other words, rethink the debate. Its gotten way off the mark from what it should be about. And I know, Ras, that Youve linked a whole lot of stuff about Preempting and whatnot, but each point You make is counterpointed, which You then counterpoint, then every 3-4 replies, it goes back to the start, and the cycle begins again.

Agree to Disagree (As You have attempted to just recently), or Demonstrate an Understanding even if You Disagree with whats being Understood.
Thats the only two ways this can go. Well, theres a Third.
More aimless debating.


----------



## Chris Parker

ATACX GYM said:


> The bolded versions are my response to Chris Parker.



Right, now we can start to get somewhere. You're still missing a large number of aspects, such as understanding what makes a technique what it is in the first place (I really hoped once I put it down in black and white you might see it, but oh well...), but it's a start.



ATACX GYM said:


> *Grabbing the BG's hand doesn't give you psychological or physical control. He grabbed you in order to control you by locking you down into place for, pushing you away from, or pulling you in to the incoming blows that he's raining on you. Using your far hand to pin BG's hand to your shoulder simply means that you're unwise enough to remove your unencumbered limb from combat, thus opening up other lanes for the BG to attack and hurt you [ or his friends to do the same ] and removing your limb from the possibility of offensive strikes*


*
*
Actually, Ras, it really does give both physical and psychological control. It gives physical control by seizing the connection point that the opponent is using to gain control over you, and when done properly there is a downward pressure (particularly on the wrist) making it harder for the bad guy to pull effectively (or push, if you insist). As far as psychological control, by placing your hand over the top of  the grabbing hand, you achieve a "top control" position, which is psychologically dominant. It's the same thing as when shaking hands, a dominant handshake has your palm down, ensuring that your hand is the one on top.

Conversely, by not grabbing back, you are allowing the bad guy to maintain control over you with tacet submission, basically letting them do what they want by not going against it at all. There is no removing of your limb from potential usage, though. By your hand being on top, you can remove and use it at will... but their hand trapped under yours? Your argument is like saying that by using one arm to block an incoming strike is removing that arm from use... the covering grab is using it, not removing it from such. Every single grappling system knows and understands these aspects, so you know Ras.



ATACX GYM said:


> *Most of the more common Sword and Hammer sequences that I've seen live as well as those on YT do NOT feature an actual pull by uke. Most have him posing and doing nothing. But even if they did feature the pull? They neglect to address the very high probability that the BG's punch is hard on the heels of the pull, so they'll be pulled into the oncoming punch in far too many cases. The "more common" Sword and Hammer version that you claim is superior to mine doesn't remotely address this reality.*


*
*
And this brings us back to my comments that you don't understand the actual attack when really applied... the pull precedes the strike, not both at the same time. And the pre-emptive strike that the technique (Sword and Hammer) employs does address the strike quite well, as that's what it's designed to do. As to the examples not showing the pull, then that's a shortcoming of their demonstration of the technique, not the technique itself.



ATACX GYM said:


> *As I have previously stated and left links proving to be true...Kenpo Elders like Larry Tatum and Doc Chapel find the "pre-emptive strike" notion to be questionable at best. On the mat? Their skepticism is thoroughly underscored by actually sparring with Sword and Hammer vs the Hockey Punch.*


*
*
No, you've left links that you feel support your take on things. And blunt honesty? Larry's wrong.

His argument is hinged on the idea that what happens is entirely dependent upon the attackers (bad guys) actions, both in terms of mentality and intent, and physical action. And if you take that as true, then you tend to always be the "defender", waiting for an attack before you do anything... but that's not reality. Our self defence laws, for instance, prefer pre-emptive striking in many cases, and it's legally justified by two major components - the feeling of being threatened, and the attackers ability to carry out that threat. So, even in the case of Triggered Salute (which is the case study there), provided you feel threatened, and the attacker is in range and able to carry out the threat, a pre-emptive strike is a valid, powerful, high return, relatively safe, and effective action, even if the punch hasn't even begun to be formed yet.

But honestly, that's beside the actual point I was making there... which is a list of the key components that make Sword and Hammer the technique that it is, not whether or not you agree with them being a good selection of tactics. Whether or not you like low round kicks to the legs, it doesn't change what they are. Using the same name to refer to a high straight punch, and saying that it's a better version is just plain ignorant of what you were looking at in the first place.



ATACX GYM said:


> *Okay, I hit many of those same areas too...functionally, I might add.*


*

*No, you really don't. I didn't really want to get into the huge problems I see with your choices of techniques, but you're limiting your applicable power in a large number of ways, choosing poor targets and weapons, all of which leads you to use 7 or more strikes to achieve less of an effect than the two strikes used in the original. 



ATACX GYM said:


> *What you might not consider, though, is that the BG might be taller with a longer range that PREVENTS you from countering with Sword and Hammer at that distance. Since I'm only 5'7" tall, that is a constant concern. Further, it's statistically true that bigger taller people are more aggressive toward shorter smaller people--especially toward women who fit the latter description--than vice versa. It's also statistically true that the shorter smaller people formulate a larger percentage of victims of violence. The very structure of this tech ignores this reality. Mine addresses it every step of the way of my sequence.*


*
*
Frankly, that's a cop out. If the defender is smaller/shorter etc, even more reason for them not to be able to resist against the pull of the original technique... and the harder it'd be for them to weather the strikes that you insist need to be worn. But the real point is that them being smaller doesn't mean they need to completely abandon the principles, tactics, and strategies that the technique teaches, otherwise it's defeating the purpose. What should be done is a different expression of the same principles etc, but perhaps different targets chosen... for example, the initial pre-emptive strike for the swordhand could be to the groin, then a hammerfist to the ribs as the bad guy buckles over... that's still Sword and Hammer, but altered to suit the needs of the practitioner. Get it?



ATACX GYM said:


> *I do too*


*
*
Then why does it take you so many strikes to complete a defense as compared to the standard form? In other words, no you don't.



ATACX GYM said:


> *The more common Sword and Hammer almost never addresses balance, and when it does? it does so with a great lack of reality. Again, the issue of height weight and leverage is also of the first importance here, and the more common version of Sword and Hammer doesn't address this matter with anywhere near the depth and reality that I do.*


*
*
It addresses it in the step, frankly. If you don't see it, though, that might be your lack of understanding of the technique in the first place. But seriously, Ras, you don't deal with anything with more reality or depth. Going against a different attack doesn't make it more realistic, it just means that you're dealing with a different attack. I really don't think you get what you're denigrating.



ATACX GYM said:


> *As do I*


*
*
Seven strikes against two, Ras. No you don't.



ATACX GYM said:


> *Again...statistically the majority of BGs are larger than their victims. Oftentimes the shorter lighter victim doesn't have the reach to counter with a Sword and Hammer, thus invalidating this whole sequence when done the way that you and the more common Sword and Hammer variant recommends.*


*

*See above. It doesn't require your complete abandonment of the actual technique.



ATACX GYM said:


> *Furthermore, many confrontations are not resolved by a potent 1-2 combo. If your handsword is blocked, then what? Trusting the hammerfist to end matters with a single groin strike isn't really that wise. It's harder to land that shot than it appears. On top of that? Chances are very very high that YOU'LL GET HIT FIRST AND REPEATEDLY BY THE BG BEFORE YOU GET A CHANCE TO LAUNCH YOUR COUNTEROFFENSIVE.*


*

*Wow, do you miss the point of the structure of techniques Ras... as well as the structure of this one.



ATACX GYM said:


> *Therefore the entire premise, top to bottom, that you champion is at the very least highly questionable and has been proven to be so in objective reality.*


*
*
No, Ras, what has been proven, top to bottom, is that you have no understanding of the structure and point of techniques, why they are the way they are, what they teach and how, or what makes a technique what it is. By missing the point and deciding you don't like pre-emptive strikes, or understand the reality of the attack, that's really no proof in "objective reality"... nor does it make it "highly questionable". It makes you ignorant of the reality.



ATACX GYM said:


> *I already answered this question by pointing out how dysfunctional and unwise such a move is*


*
*
Except, of course, it isn't dysfunctional nor unwise... you just missed what it actually is. 


ATACX GYM said:


> *Except that literally in every instance that a pull or push was used, I prove you to be wrong. Since my very first video:
> 
> ATACX GYM SWORD AND HAMMER RADIUS R.D.L. PT 1
> 
> AT 0:48 I SHOW THAT YOUR HANDSWORD IS LIKELY TO BE BLOCKED BY THE BG'S REAR HAND THAT IS COCKED AS A FIST TO HIT YOU, BECAUSE YOUR HANDSWORD WILL INTERSECT HIS ONCOMING PUNCH OR LITERALLY HIS FIST WILL SHIELD HIS THROAT FROM YOUR HANDSWORD OR BOTH...EVEN IF THE BG IS JUST POSING BUT WITH HIS FIST REALISTICALLY COCKED. GO TO 1:28. MY COUSIN CHRIS HAS GRIPPED MY LEFT SHOULDER WITH HIS LEFT HAND. IF I FIRE MY LEFT HANDSWORD? HIS EXTENDED ARM WILL BLOCK THE BLOW WITHOUT ANY EFFORT ON HIS PART.
> 
> I GET PUSHED IN THIS VIDEO, I GO WITH THE PUSH, RECOVER MY BALANCE, SPIN AND COUNTER. I ALSO SPECIFY IN THIS VIDEO THAT I KEEP MY HANDS UP BECAUSE I COULD ALSO BE PULLED INTO A PUNCH. A PULL WILL TURN ME INTO THE PUNCH. I GO WITH THE FLOW, NOT TRY TO COUNTER IT.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Right. Firstly, by putting in a push you are not doing Sword and Hammer. By changing the body shape (changing the hand holding the shoulder), you're no longer doing Sword and Hammer. By not employing a pre-emptive strike, you're not doing Sword and Hammer. So you're not doing Sword and Hammer. Next, the idea of riding a push or pull is not the same as the tactic expressed in Sword and Hammer of utilizing the momentum of said pull for your strike, so what you're doing is not the same, in all of your videos.
> 
> As to showing that the swordhand would be blocked? Honestly, Ras, the only reason the arm was in a position to block was because your training partner was expecting a strike, not thinking about hitting you himself. 1:28 just shows that you're not dealing with Sword and Hammer, by the way, but a completely different set of concepts and ideas.
> 
> 
> 
> ATACX GYM said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I VIDEO MYSELF GOING WITH THE PULL STARTING AT 5:30 ON FORWARD IN THIS VIDEO:
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> *And yet you manage to miss the point of Sword and Hammer again...
> 
> 
> 
> ATACX GYM said:
> 
> 
> 
> *AND AGAIN IN THIS VIDEO FROM 4:10 forward
> 
> http://youtu.be/R-mmdyIHkjs*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> *
> That one again? If it wasn't convincing the first twelve times you posted it, how do you think it'll fair this time?
> 
> 
> 
> ATACX GYM said:
> 
> 
> 
> *As mentioned previously, Doc and Larry Tatum have already debunked this pre-emptive idea.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> *
> And, as already stated, they are wrong. But the real point is that, if the technique teaches pre-emptive striking as a tactic (and a core one for the technique in question at that), it really doesn't matter if you disagree with pre-emptive striking as a tactic... in order to teach the technique, it's essential. Without it, you're not teaching the technique, you're teaching something completely different.
> 
> 
> 
> ATACX GYM said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I went into chapter and verse more than once showing the specific effect of the sword and hammer to the targets that I select and access in my sequence. I don't think that I have to explain what a knee to the groin does or what a choke does.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> *
> Not really the point I was making, Ras. In the standard, EPAK form of Sword and Hammer, each part makes up a strategic response, each relying on the set-up of the previous in order to give a "plan of action" for a specific result. Yours is a collection of strikes that you think are individually effective without that plan of action being present. That's really what I was getting at in the distinction between martial arts teaching and just techniques. And, once again, you demonstrate it quite completely.
> 
> 
> 
> ATACX GYM said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Completely untrue. Firstly the sword and hammer in my video is every bit as fitted to the throat strikes as it is in the version that you champion. I specified more than once using science and my own personal experience the exact locations on the arm that I target my sword and hammer to, the body mechanics involved, etc. I posted it on this very thread, too.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> *
> What I was referring to was the turn with both forearms against the grabbing arm... one held in a swordhand, the other in a hammerfist, with no real benefit to either. From there, you are reaching to use those specific fists, and I gotta say, they aren't always the best fit. But again, this is you looking to the use of specific mechanical techniques, rather than a martial art technique.
> 
> 
> 
> ATACX GYM said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The tech selection I use addresses the many functional factors that the version that you champion doesn't address, like reach disadvantage, multifight scenarios, grappling, armed assailants, and the fact that the BG may be reacting defensively and may parry block slip etc or we might MISS with our chosen offensives and have to flow seamlessly into another blow. These kinds of real world realities are things that apparently aren't significant or important to you, or maybe they just slipped your...ahem...eagle eye.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> *
> The only things you address that the standard doesn't are things that aren't present in the original, but you've decided to question anyway. Such as a completely different tactic, a completely different attack, a completely different response, a completely different rhythm, and so on.
> 
> And son, really, you don't have a clue what I've noticed in all of this. The biggest thing is that you don't have any idea what you're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> ATACX GYM said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Except that it doesn't do any of the things you claimed*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> *
> What? Ras, I demonstrated what Sword and Hammer actually teaches, and how it teaches it, and you're saying it doesn't? Dude, really, get a clue here.
> 
> 
> 
> ATACX GYM said:
> 
> 
> 
> *No, I understand. You are the one who fails to understand, and this response of mine proves that conclusively to any objective logical analytical mind.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> *
> No, it really doesn't. It just shows (again) that you don't understand the original technique, and don't understand the structure of such things enough to be able to argue against them or realistically improve them.
> 
> 
> 
> ATACX GYM said:
> 
> 
> 
> *And all of this is wrong too^^^^. I provided video data, posts with links to authorities on the matter, and provided my own opinion on all of the above. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> *Ras, please. For 18 pages I've been saying that you have missed all the key points of Sword and Hammer, so your version isn't "better" any more than tea is a better version of coffee. And, when it gets spelled out to you, you still fail to see it. So, uh, nope. It's not wrong. Your ego might not handle it, Ras, but frankly this entire thread screams out that you just don't have a clue about martial arts themselves. You may be able to fight, but you have a real long way to go before you understand what it is you're teaching.
> 
> 
> 
> ATACX GYM said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Chris. Let it go, man. We disagree and aren't going to convince one another. So let it go. I have. The only times I've responded to you after I realized this is when I've been urged to by those with more experience on this board who combined their urging with a solid argument for me to respond to a specific post of yours in a specific way.
> 
> Man. We disagree. Let it go.
> 
> Unless...you're willing to up the ante and make the stakes objective and have a specific terminus in sight? Otherwise we could disagree interminably...like now.
> 
> What might be edifying, though, is a video of YOU doing Sword and Hammer and illustrating your responses to my points via video. Don't need your instructor's permission cuz you're not doing his art, you're just showing a single sequence from a art you don't study and giving your opinion on it...
> 
> I'll be posting a video showing another facet of my Sword and Hammer this weekend...along with a slew of other videos. Including capoeira videos [ I haven't forgotten THAT thread ]. So as you said: "...put up or shut up..."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not part of your Capoeira thread, Ras, but if I was, I'd point out some of the problems with your history there. As far as disagreeing? No, that's really not the case. Realistically, it's more a case of you claiming something that is demonstrably wrong, and having no argument other than "here, I've already said things that show I'm right!". And these "silent majority" of people who think you're right, as opposed to the people who actually discuss things and make an argument? How come, when so many people come to you to tell you to disagree with me, the answers are always yours, not the "solid argument" they provide, and always playing the same tune? If one was skeptical, one may point out that the evidence doesn't support them being real....
> 
> As far as me doing a video, really, there's no point. As it would be the basic technique shown in the many other clips you've linked, it wouldn't add anything. If you can't see that a completely different technique is, well, a completely different technique, I really don't see how you could understand any real argument at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Chris Parker

Just to use yours as a jump-off point, Cyriacus....



Cyriacus said:


> Ill passively disagree.
> I say passively, because Im not disagreeing so much with the principle, than with its applicability here.



I'd disagree with Ras mainly as he doesn't demonstrate any understanding of the principles, nor how they do deal with each aspect that he indicates, frankly better than his technique does.



Cyriacus said:


> Disadvantage:
> Assuming You are smaller, weaker, and slower; The biggest issue becomes reach. The Solution as I see it is to Infight, or Kick. Your Tactic ought be different, but the entire structure doesnt need to be debased in order to do one of those to simple things. Theoretically a Takedown could work, but Ill let a BJJ or Judo guy speak for that. That said, Youre already accommodating for a Disadvantage in that Youre assuming Youre being hit before You can defend.



The specific targeting may need to be changed, but the basic premise of the technique is a better option (and more realistic one) for a smaller person, due to moving inside the attackers reach, not going against the momentum of the pull, and the usage of targets that make size irrelevant.



Cyriacus said:


> Multiple Attacker Fight Scenarios:
> This is all the more reason to use one or two rapid blows, followed by an idiopathic Power Strike. This one alone is the main reason Im even replying. This method allows You to easily shift between Opponents, rather than becoming too fixated in an exchange with one, instead nullifying that one.



The original is better in a multiple attacker scenario for a few reasons... firstly, it's a more likely attack (someone in front distracts you, the second guy grabs your shoulder from behind and pulls...), but also due to the fact that it answers immediately with only two strikes before moving on to deal with anyone else. Ras' version, on the other hand, has you wearing a number of strikes first, then employing 7 or so follow-ups to a single attacker. Just quickly, while the guy is hitting you, and you're wearing them, what are the other attackers doing? Waiting their turn? And while you're striking one guy half a dozen times, do they sit back and watch, or do they jump in?



Cyriacus said:


> Grappling:
> Grappling has its disadvantages, like forcing the Grabber to stay in Striking Range whether They like it or not. Plus, either side may stop 'Grappling' at any moment, and as such it is a gamble to 'Grapple' with someone, as oppose to using Grappling as a...
> Well, theres a better word for this. "Gap Bridging Tool".



A cornerstone of most grappling systems is the covering grab that I've pointed out, that Ras doesn't like... let's just say I'm not sold on his take on what works for grappling or not here. But if you want to actually get to it, what would you class the grabbing attack as? Or is "grappling" here only used to refer to ground work? In which case, huh?



Cyriacus said:


> Armed Assailants:
> So someones punched You in the back of the Head... Instead of just stabbing You in a way You pretty much cant Defend if Youre not aware of the attack? Im not disagreeing with this one, so much as calling it irrelevant.
> But for the sake of discussion, lets make it a blunt instrument, and presume the blunt forced trauma to the head hasnt incapacitated You. Your Tactics hardly change. In fact, getting closer becomes an even better idea.



So Ras' version is better for armed assailant's? Ras' version that has you wearing multiple strikes first? From a weapon? And that's better than hitting them first, moving inside the weapons range, and so on? Hmm....



Cyriacus said:


> Defensive BG:
> This is pretty much a "They are ******" Scenario.
> If You begin a Counter-Offense, and They go Full Defense, it can be very easy to overwhelm someone, either by breaking down their wrists, or just hitting anything remotely exposed, or hitting them in the head regardless, since the force travels through, albeit reduced; But permitting further shots to be executed. Im agreeing with this one, but not in the way You intended.



I'm sorry, "defensive bad guy"? Really? Ras, you do realize that sparring, with it's give and take, is very far from reality, yeah? And that the bad guy, with the single aim of attacking, won't be looking to defend as such? At most, they'll start to cover up if you start getting aggressive, which doesn't really have much of a functional effect on either... except that, as Ras' version continues with so many strikes, it can be seen as aggravated assault in some areas, which makes it the lesser of the choices.



Cyriacus said:


> Flowing Seamlessly:
> That I can agree with, which is why I dont think a Scripted Defense should be any longer than 1-2 Motions, as oppose to a long sequence. It makes it easier to flow, rather than trying to be in one predetermined cycle. In a way, alot of what Youre showing is a Possible Best Case Scenario. Which is why whenever I initially comment on Your Videos, I mostly remark on the initial retaliation, and less so on what comes after. Theres no buts in this one, its just decently agreeable.



This brings up an interesting point... what is the technique designed to teach? (Okay, not so much as bring it up, I've been asking that since the beginning, but you get my point...) In the original, the "seamless flow" could be to flow seamlessly from attack to defence to disengage to escape... whereas Ras' is more about flowing from strike to strike (and not the best way I've seen, honestly).



Cyriacus said:


> Now, if Youre so inclined, feel free to stop reading right about here.



Well, the next part is from me, so I'll keep going... 



Cyriacus said:


> And this is the biggest issue.
> Chris, if Im not mistaken, delved into one particular aspect of the Kenpo side of the Defense. And then this somehow spiraled into a Kenpo debate. Lets look back at the Roots.



Well, the thread is in the Kenpo section, so that's kinda to be expected, honestly.... but what I've been focused on hasn't even necessarily been on the value of Ras' alternate versions as techniques in and of themselves, it's been about their validity as versions of the regular form of Sword and Hammer, as Ras himself supplied to contrast with. To put it bluntly, my issue has been that what Ras is doing isn't an alternate version of Sword and Hammer, but something completely unrelated... and Ras has displayed no understanding of what Sword and Hammer actually is, especially not to the point where he could "improve" it. At this point, he's saying he's eaten a souffle, and without understanding how it's cooked and prepared, can make a better version. Then serves you pancakes.



Cyriacus said:


> *[From about here...] ...**[To Here]
> Alrighty. Weve had some references put up as three comparatives. Alrighty then.*


*
*
Yep, exactly my point. These versions were put up as direct comparisons for us to use against Ras' techniques... depsite there being little to nothing to relate them. He eventually admitted this, then when called on that, denied that there was any comparison intended or to be made. Come on, really?



Cyriacus said:


> *I for one see little point in the Hammerfist as oppose to a Punch, but the point is, this seems to have been the catalyst of all that follows.*


*
*
To look at the original mechanically, a strike to the throat/neck will arch the bad guy back and raise his hands to his throat, which opens up the lower body. To use a punch with the same hand is mechanically weaker, as you need to bring it back in an odd position, and to use the other hand is to give up control before the bad guy is sufficiently finished. It's a good choice, better than a punch, really.



Cyriacus said:


> *It isnt bad at all. I think however, that Ras originally came up with His view on it, based on assuming Youve already been hit, thereby instigating Violence, rather than focusing on an immediate counter. Im cool with it both ways.*


*

*The biggest issue with Ras coming up with the idea that the application is after you've been hit is that that completely denies what the technique is designed to teach, which is pre-emptive striking. To have it both ways is to have two completely different techniques, not two variations (one pre-emptive, and one not).



Cyriacus said:


> *This was also a catalyst. Whilst completely correct, it caused a spiral of debating what is and is not Sword and Hammer. A Question that could have been answered so early on, that was answered last page I believe, with "Its just taking the principle. Not the exact Counter. It could well be renamed." And all this could have theoretically been avoided.*


*
*
Yep, hence it being asked... unfortunately, Ras doesn't seem to understand such things, so has not been able to answer, even when it was fed to him. And, again, the big issue is that Ras has taken none of the principles, so it's not just that it's not the exact counter, it's not the same technique. At all.



Cyriacus said:


> *Ill agree. But then, most attackers have no idea what Theyre doing. I believe it was MJS I made a similar comment to.*


*
*
The idea of most attackers not having any idea what they're doing really isn't a part of it, though.



Cyriacus said:


> *Ill just go ahead and verify this. Ive seen it happen. I also know this somehow set the tone for all that came after. Its almost like this started a huge debate about Self Defense between You Two, in which we are now here.*


*
*
No, not about self defence, about Ras' inability to understand what a technique actually is, or understand the details of the original one in question, as well as his inability to see himself as wrong in any way. Self defence has actually hardly entered into it... at least in the discussion I've been having.



Cyriacus said:


> *Or You have a short verbal exchange with someone, they look like they stop caring. You go to walk away, they down another mouthfull, and go after You. Grab. Spin. Click.*


*
*
Yep, or any of a hundred other ways.



Cyriacus said:


> *If Ive learnt anything, even in controlled Training, most People have trouble blocking. I also suspect this is why many Systems like Boxing favor a Guard, so they dont have to actually do anything. But if someone is intent on Hitting You, Their Intent is to Hit You. Thats it. Theyre not gonna be scared just because You look at them funny. But if They do Block, as I said above, its over for them anyway. Im not calling Blocking Suicide, but under these conditions...*


*
*
Although that's only to do with sporting systems. Street predator mindset is rather different, and leads to quite a different range of behaviours. Sport ain't self defence, really. As such, considering the actual mindset of a street attacker, blocking isn't a part of it.



Cyriacus said:


> *Yep. But I dont think that was why Ras remade it, so much as in and of the Attack.*


*
*
No, it shows that Ras doesn't understand the real world attack represented by the attack in Sword and Hammer... so he made up something based around what he thinks is more realistic. And can't see that what he's designed it against goes against the basic premise of Sword and Hammer in the first place.



Cyriacus said:


> *Im behind this. I dont see why one cant just say "Because at that point it stops being Sword and Hammer, persay."*


*
*
Not "per se", it just isn't Sword and Hammer. At all. Except in name, really, which is somewhat confusing, but up to Ras what he wants to call his systems techniques, and I'd have no issue with that... if he didn't put it up against the other forms as a direct comparison. I mean he specifically compares it even within his own clips, for crying out loud... then said that they're not supposed to be comparable?



Cyriacus said:


> *And now Ill point back to the start of My Reply. This is an Best Case Scenario. To be fair, You cannot Train for the Worst Case.*


*
*
Well, you can, but it's more mindset training than physical, really. And if we're looking at both Ras' and the original as "best case scenario's" (which the original, or IP version certainly is), then it's designed to instill certain lessons, not be a directly usable technique in real world conditions... only to give you the lessons you need to use in a real world situation. In which case, an IP technique should be things going "according to plan", including the pre-emptive strike getting in in time, whether Ras thinks they work or not.



Cyriacus said:


> *And Ill agree with this. But this is also why Ras made the Concept, I believe. Based on, 'What If, but.'*


*
*
Hmm, no, I'd say Ras developed his technique because he doesn't understand the actual one. There are a hundred "what if's" you could do with the first without altering it's basic concepts, or abandoning them the way Ras has.



Cyriacus said:


> *Which is why I dont see why it cant just be said that its only Sword and Hammer by Principle.*


*
*
Because it's not. It's just not. It's not Sword and Hammer in principle at all, he's ignored every principle that makes the technique Sword and Hammer in the first place.



Cyriacus said:


> *Charges arent an issue when the Attacks are hard to do at full speed and power with resistance. I believe I may have said this at one point, but hey. Its a possible response though.*


*
*
The reference to charges was more that if you're going to teach such overkill as a "self defence" technique, or approach, it's a good idea for the instructor to know if he's teaching the students to be put in jail if they use them. So while it probably won't be going through your head in the heat of the moment, it should play a role in the teaching of techniques... and if you've only given techniques that would be deemed as aggravated assault, it could be a good idea to reconsider what you're teaching.



Cyriacus said:


> *And so begins however many pages of debate.*


*
*
18 and counting!



Cyriacus said:


> *Never mind Breathing - Doesnt it screw up Your Vision or something? I forget now.*


*
*
Well, your eyes can water... but having affected vision isn't really worse than having issues breathing due to a bruised or swelling trachea. Hmm.



Cyriacus said:


> *It is a possible one, just not the more common one. Im imagining someone running at You, THEN Grabbing You. Their own Momentum forces forward movement.*


*
*
Running at you would more likely involve a tackle, to be honest. Not a push. A push indicates that the attacker wants to avoid risking themselves, as they're (psychologically) keeping you away.



Cyriacus said:


> *Breaking ones hand oughtnt be a concern until after - But if some did, say, run at you then grab You, theyd stop soon after.*


*
*
Again, the breaking the hand comment was pointing out a flaw in what Ras was teaching. In terms of someone running, grabbing, then stopping? That's honestly such a conflicted set of actions that, as an attack, you're more likely to face Ras' push and hit attack....



Cyriacus said:


> *And Ill agree here. Preemptive Striking may not even be Preemptive. It may be that Youre hit by the time Your Preempt actually hits.
> Itll still be a better reply than waiting to get hit so You can take turns, but.*


*
*
Exchanging blows happens in three scenarios: sport, movies, and martial arts fantasies. Okay, four. People who have no idea what they're doing. As far as a pre-emptive strike not landing until after you've been hit yourself? Uh, that's ain't a pre-emptive strike, it's at best a simultaneous hit.



Cyriacus said:


> *I wont comment here. But the thing is, I dont see the problem with this whole reply, let alone why the heck its caused this debate. Its all fair criticism, and not much AT ALL would need to be altered to take it into consideration. Ras wouldnt even need to change anything Hes doing. Just demonstrating an understanding of This Reply would be anough to say "I have My Way You have Yours", as oppose to "Youre Wrong".
> To each their own, as far as handling criticism goes, I guess.*


*
*
The issue isn't even right and wrong (although Ras' constant "you're completely wrong, and I'm completely right" with no backup other than his own words and videos doesn't help...), it's about understanding what a technique is. I'd hoped with Ras' claimed number of systems that he might have some clue about that, but sadly no. I stand by what I said, he's not a martial arts instructor, he's a guy with a lot of techniques, and he thinks that's the same thing.



Cyriacus said:


> In other words, rethink the debate. Its gotten way off the mark from what it should be about. And I know, Ras, that Youve linked a whole lot of stuff about Preempting and whatnot, but each point You make is counterpointed, which You then counterpoint, then every 3-4 replies, it goes back to the start, and the cycle begins again.
> 
> Agree to Disagree (As You have attempted to just recently), or Demonstrate an Understanding even if You Disagree with whats being Understood.
> Thats the only two ways this can go. Well, theres a Third.
> More aimless debating.



Sadly, I don't think Ras can demonstrate an understanding... as I honestly don't think he has one. So, more debating it is!


----------



## Cyriacus

Chris Parker said:


> A cornerstone of most grappling systems is the covering grab that I've pointed out, that Ras doesn't like... let's just say I'm not sold on his take on what works for grappling or not here. But if you want to actually get to it, what would you class the grabbing attack as? Or is "grappling" here only used to refer to ground work? In which case, huh?
> 
> *Id say Stand Up Grappling. Sort of like Clinching, but with more moving.*
> 
> So Ras' version is better for armed assailant's? Ras' version that has you wearing multiple strikes first? From a weapon? And that's better than hitting them first, moving inside the weapons range, and so on? Hmm....
> *
> No. Im saying if someone attacks You like that from behind with  a Knife... Eh... Good Luck.*
> 
> Yep, or any of a hundred other ways.
> 
> **nods*
> 
> Running at you would more likely involve a tackle, to be honest. Not a push. A push indicates that the attacker wants to avoid risking themselves, as they're (psychologically) keeping you away.
> 
> *I know. Thats just how Im visualising it. In fact, Realism Wise I see a Run Up > Clothesline. That said, most boys play Football in Primary School, so Ill back Your way.*



*nods


----------



## Chris Parker

Ha, just to clarify, those questions, while hopefully self evident and largely rhetorical, were aimed at Ras, rather than yourself, Cyriacus... hence the "using your post as a jumping off point"....


----------



## Cyriacus

Chris Parker said:


> Ha, just to clarify, those questions, while hopefully self evident and largely rhetorical, were aimed at Ras, rather than yourself, Cyriacus... hence the "using your post as a jumping off point"....


I know - Hence all the Ahas. In hindsight, they are completely unnecessary, and trimming would have been better. In fact...
*fixed


----------



## MJS

ATACX GYM said:


> I see what you mean there, FC, but what I'm saying is a bit different. As I understand it, a TECH is a SINGLE manuever. A guard sweep. The guard tech in any of its various manifestations. And yes I read nad like Pek Choi/Chuin Choi example. As SEQUENCE, as I understand it, are LINKED TECHS in a compound manuever or flow that has a specific aim. The Bridge and Roll for escaping the mount, for instance.
> 
> What I'm saying is...learn the Bridge and Roll really well. Then apply it standing up. When the Bridge and Roll is applied standing up, you know what they call it?
> 
> The Hip Heist.
> 
> Now if you know bjj and wrestling well? You can recognize those techs immediately, and not be fooled by the labels of each tech...but automatically absorb the application of each tech.
> 
> When I made that connection, I also applied it to another staple tech and now we have The Standing Gator Roll [ ends in a sleeper hold standing or a standing tie up as you escape the bear hug, shot, grab,etc ]. Plenty helpful in multifights that have become grapplefests and you might need to elude BGs while using somebody as a shield or finishing somebody. It's a shocker in the MT Clinch. Lolol and everybody falls for it.
> 
> Now. Once you really have the tech and every tech of a sequence like my version of Sword and Hammer? You can do it in most any unarmed combat scenario. Clinch, Ground, Striking range? No problem. If I put a knife or stick in my hands? No problem still doing the whole thing. I can do it with a gun too [ as long as my opponent is within arm's reach or blitz reach ] and so can any of you. All you have to do is train. None of the techs that I show in my Sword and Hammer Radius R.D.L. sequence is new...but my Sword and Hammer Radius R.D.L. IS DESIGNED to be applicable in multiple situations. I got there by...applying the a functional but more traditional expression of S&H to multiple scenarios. I added the specifc components in my expression [ R. D. L.= Rock, Drop and Lock ] as a matter of personal preference but let me ask you...
> 
> is not pinning your opponent's hand to your shoulder "locking" him in place? Further, if you handsword over his pinned hand and his extended grabbing arm while rotating your right pec into his arm and pulling back with your left shoulder...are you not simultaneously applying a brief armlock and strike [ with the lock possibly hyperextending the elbow and/or wrist ] ? yes, that is a "Lock".If you do such a thing...would you likely "Drop" him?
> 
> Yes, you probably would.
> 
> Well whaddya know. R.D.L. Rock, Drop and Lock.
> 
> The difference is that I made my moves more functional and more evidently what they are. The subtle lock/strikes come in the sash ranks of my Gym. Not the belt or pre-White belt ranks. And the other difference is that I see and know that I can R.D.L. a guy with a slight modification of the more common less functional Sword and Hammer...but not as well as it can be done with my version.
> 
> That's another big advantage that being multiFACETED and VERSATILE gives us. I'm not saying that nobody but me is multifaceted and versatile, what I AM saying is that the concerns commonly raised about such an endeavor are simply not true.
> 
> Now as for the multiple techs in a Kenpo sequence? I used to ask that question too. Why hit this guy with a gajillion techs? That's immoral, overkill, wasted energy, and likely illegal.
> 
> Well, after I started sparring with and functionalizing the techs? The answer came: these sequences simultaneously resolve single and multifight scenarios. Mr. Parker and Mestre Bimba knew that their students might have to face more than one attacker at a time when their students only knew one sequence, so they made sure that their one sequence and most of their other sequences could stand up to that reality. It's my understanding that multifights were common in the Hawaii of Mr. Parker's youth...and we--Flying Crane and I--have long known that multifights were common for capoeiristas.
> 
> My particular sequences serve the same purpose aaaand they can be used with minimal changes whether armed with knife stick or gun [ in h2h range] as well as used in many grappling situations.
> 
> Gtg but I'll be back later...



I still say that instead of trying to make a 1 size fits all model, we should address each thing as it was designed to be.  Let me ask you this...why do we see pro fighters have multiple trainers?  One for strength and conditioning, one for boxing skills, another for ground skills, and so forth.  

As for the mult. attack situation...yup, certainly valid, but again, it seems to me, like way too much is being thrown at the student in too quick a fashion.  IIRC, I started a thread on the Kenpo multi man attacks.  FWIW, I'm not that impressed with them, but, they do give the student what the other techs do...a platform to build from.  We want to talk about practicality, and functional things...well, I can come up with many more practical and functional ways to address multi man stuff, than what we see in the preset techs.


----------



## MJS

ATACX GYM said:


> The problem with the above is that there is no "scripted scenario"...that whole misunderstanding is the result of too many BBs screwing up BR and mistaking loose guidelines and suggestions for THE WAY. Each scenario is supposed to be crafted by each teacher while preserving a primary lesson of each tech as loosely guided by Big Red.
> 
> Now, I've never read Big Red in my life, and never heard of it until Doc brought it up. Clearly I don't have on hand that written material. I can probably Google it, and I can pretty accurately guess at some of them but...having the BR notes would be cool too.
> 
> I've done more than fairly well on my own, though.
> 
> My scripted scenario for Sword and Hammer is to initially deal with a surprise attack in the form of The Hockey Punch from whatever quadrant and whatever position, that didn't kill or KO or disable you outright. So we're starting from the standing unarmed surprise Hockey Punch and progressing to the armed multifight Hockey Punch vs single and multiple defenders whether grounded or not. Then we apply those lessons to all of the primary ranges of h2h SD and guess what? It WORKS. Very easily too, I might add.
> 
> Hmmm. Maybe I shouldn't be championing this approach so much. That way, my team and I will still have a humongous advantage over people who don't use this training model, and we'll keep whomping most of em in tournies and on the street. Hmmm...lololol.



LMFAO!! Brutha Ras, you can't be totally serious here.  The way I view it...(and man, this is starting to sound like discussion with Jason Brinn...lol) we need both scripted and non scripted.  The scripted stuff are the techs that are taught, you know, the list of 24/belt that're taught in 99.9% of the Kenpo schools out there.  Like I've been saying for the past...gee, I lost track...lol...we use those as a platform to build from.  THEN, we move to the non scripted techs.  As I've taught...start with the base Lone Kimono.  Drill that endlessly, gradually building up to a more aggressive, forceful attack.  Finally, you add in a grab and punch, more movement, pushing, pulling, etc.  

You're right...people who dont train like this will most likely be in for a surprise, because they'll probably only be used to the basic move.  But I still stand firm in my belief that cramming tons of stuff down their throat at a rapid pace, is doing more harm than good.  If it was that easy, then most students would only need to spend a month at a dojo, then they'd be able to go into the real world and be the next Superman...LOL.


----------



## MJS

Flying Crane said:


> traditionally in the Chinese arts not everyone got taught everything, and not everyone got taught to the same depth and thoroughness. There is definitely a difference between being a student vs being a disciple, and even at the level of disciple there is another level of being an "in-door disciple". That last group are the few individuals who have been accepted and chosen, and who have agreed to become the next generation of leaders in the art, who learn the complete method. They carry the responsibility of making sure the art in its complete form survives, even tho the students who were not disciples and have not learned the complete art can be teachers and teach to their own level of knowledge and skill.
> 
> The difference is that in this scenario, typically the non-disciple students are still taught the same system, with the same progression, just not as deep and not all of it. There is not a separate, possibly "inferior" method that is taught to them.
> 
> In my own situation, I am the one student in the group, and the other four are all disciples who have been with Sifu for several decades, vs. me coming up on three years. At this point in my training, I have no need to be a disciple because I have a ways to go before I exhaust what Sifu is willing to teach to someone at my level as a student. When and if the circumstances arise, I hope to have the opportunity to become a disciple and learn the complete system. We'll see, when the time comes. But in the meantime, I train alongside the disciples, and there are no secrets that I am aware of. They have material that I have not yet learned, but I do not see any secret, hush-hush discussions going on that are designed to keep me in the dark. Of course they also train on other nights when I am not there, so I have no idea what goes on at those times, nor what kinds of discussions happen when they take Sifu out for lunch after class is finished.
> 
> My point in all this is simply that in the traditional Chinese approach to this, while the disciples get the complete system and the students do not get the complete system, what the students get is not watered-down nor inferior. They get the same, only not as much and not with as much depth. But that stuff, even tho not the complete system, is still extremely functional and honestly is all that most people would ever need, if properly understood and developed. Sifu keeps saying that it all comes back to the basics, and the advanced material is simply designed to reinforce the lessons that are held in the basics. If you had the vision to completely understand the basics, you would not need to learn the advanced material. The advanced material just gives more examples, to lead us back to a deeper understanding of how the basics contain it all.



Good points Mike. And you're right....anyone who is just more than a 'student' for lack of better words, will most likely get more knowledge, more secrets, etc.  I'm in no way claiming to be all of what you describe above, but I feel that I've developed a more personal relatioship with a few of my teachers.  Many times, we'll cover things that usually aren't taught or part of the regular required curriculum.  





> Do we know that is what happened? I'll bet if you asked them, none would agree to this. I'll bet they all believed that they were getting the "goods". Was there some level of dishonesty or deception that was deemed necessary, in order to get the business model up and running? Did this play on the egos of those who wanted the rank and were given it, without the disclosure that they were missing key components of the education? I dunno. But I find it difficult to blame those students who were given rank and given the go-ahead to be "teachers", but were not properly trained, or were trained in a deliberately inferior product. They are simply doing as they were told and encouraged to do. If this lead to a breakdown of quality, or the propagation of a whole branch of the system that is inherently inferior, then I say the fault lies on the shoulders of the one who set them up.



Haven't a clue, but thats the impression I've got from some posts I've read of Docs.  And you're right...none would probably agree.


----------



## MJS

I'm going to reply to a few segments of this post between Ras and Chris.  My replies will have a * at the beginning and end, to make it easier..I think, as to who's saying what.




Right. Ras, try to listen here.



Ras, to be completely blunt, this is the core of your problems, and the absolute evidence that you are not in any way right. In the slightest. Let's demonstrate, as you seem rather ignorant of what, or even how a technique teaches it's lessons.

The lessons of EPAK Sword and Hammer are numerous, but some that are immediately apparent are as follows:
- When grabbed, capture the grabbing hand for psychological and physical control.

*Grabbing the BG's hand doesn't give you psychological or physical control. He grabbed you in order to control you by locking you down into place for, pushing you away from, or pulling you in to the incoming blows that he's raining on you. Using your far hand to pin BG's hand to your shoulder simply means that you're unwise enough to remove your unencumbered limb from combat, thus opening up other lanes for the BG to attack and hurt you [ or his friends to do the same ] and removing your limb from the possibility of offensive strikes.

*I disagree Ras.  It does give a psychological/physical control.  The common response from the defender would be to try to pull away, not marry the badguys hands to your body.  Its just like a weapon...the badguy is using that weapon for intimidation and control.  Not saying that he wouldn't use it, but he's expecting compliance, not grabbing the weapon.*
*
- When being pulled, go with the energy of that pull.

*Most of the more common Sword and Hammer sequences that I've seen live as well as those on YT do NOT feature an actual pull by uke. Most have him posing and doing nothing. But even if they did feature the pull? They neglect to address the very high probability that the BG's punch is hard on the heels of the pull, so they'll be pulled into the oncoming punch in far too many cases. The "more common" Sword and Hammer version that you claim is superior to mine doesn't remotely address this reality.

*Ras, you keep harping on this, and frankly its kinda old.  Of course you don't see this in those techs.  Why?  Because once again, its a platform to build from.  Your method is taking the student from step 1 to 10, without hitting 2 thru 9.  You make it seem like you're the only one to address a punch.  You're not. I do it, just not as rapidly as you're doing it.*
*
- The use of pre-emptive striking as a tactic.

*As I have previously stated and left links proving to be true...Kenpo Elders like Larry Tatum and Doc Chapel find the "pre-emptive strike" notion to be questionable at best. On the mat? Their skepticism is thoroughly underscored by actually sparring with Sword and Hammer vs the Hockey Punch.

* And thats their opinion.  The use of a pre-emptive strike is very useful.  Theres nothing 'questionable' about it at all.  Numerous RBSD guys use it and speak of its effectiveness.  The #1 reason people 'question' its use, is because to the average Joe passerby, it'll look like WE are making the first move.  What the untrained person IS NOT seeing, is the agressive, threatening actions, by the badguy.  THAT right there, is assault.  Sorry, but anyone who would wait for the punch to be half way to their face before reacting, well, they're an idiot.  As I've said a million times, and I'll say it a million more....my safety, and that of anyone with me is my #1 concern!  I'll deal with the other BS later. *
*


----------



## ATACX GYM

Cyriacus said:


> Ill passively disagree.
> I say passively, because Im not disagreeing so much with the principle, than with its applicability here.
> 
> *My friend Cyriacus, I'm going to have to actively disagree with you here. I've spent years applying this tech vs resistance in the dojo, portions of it in the street and the full sequence in a multifloor riot with hundreds of people in the midst of a couple hundred rival gang members going at each other and anyone else at the Queen Mary circa 2006. I appreciate your opinions and your evenly paced, reasonable tone of your posts thus far...but really gentlemen. A simple application of my Sword and Hammer variant vs actual resistance would establish its superiority by far over the more common version. As I've stated before when I agreed with Twin Fist...the more common Sword and Hammer does have applicability but almost 100% of that applicability is in the 'best case scenario'. Doc Chapel went into chapter and verse explaining how this misapplication and misunderstanding occurred, and was emphatic in his repeated statements that the sequences "as written are unworkable" because they were supposed to be "loose guidelines" not rigid inflexible presentations of The Way. Chris Parker chooses to completely ignore the fact that Doc Chapel has annihilated his position by drawing upon the words of the creator of the style that Chris does NOT study; Ed Parker trained Doc privately and personally for about 3 decades. I know of no one else who can make such a claim.
> *
> *Doc and I have had our disagreements in the past, but those disagreements don't center on matters of history which Doc was uniquely placed to both watch unfold and was the only one uniquely placed in a position very near many of the main authors of action [ himself being a major major catalyst in Kenpo history ] during times when most of us weren't even born.
> *
> S*o anytime Chris refers to the original Sword and Hammer of a art he doesn't study and has zero expertise in, and has the interesting perspective of ignoring this board's most senior and decorated words when ONLY that senior was there and only that senior--Doc-- could deliver first hand info about its creation and direct info as to the position of the founder of the art on this matter. Doc stated emphatically that "there IS NO IDEAL TECHNIQUE" and "the techniques are unworkable" ...and I concur. Where Chris disagrees? He's absolutely factually wrong. He's wrong about the Sword and Hammer in every detail. Proven by the writings of the creator of the art, and reaffirmed by the most senior friend, training partner and confidante of the creator on this board. And to prove that Chris can and does get even MORE wrong  than that? He's never sparred with this sequence with any kind of consistency or vs any kind of resistance because he's not a Kenpo man. He's in a position more preposterous than say...an amoeba trying to give a tiger hunting lessons.
> *
> Disadvantage:
> Assuming You are smaller, weaker, and slower; The biggest issue becomes reach. The Solution as I see it is to Infight, or Kick. Your Tactic ought be different, but the entire structure doesnt need to be debased in order to do one of those to simple things. Theoretically a Takedown could work, but Ill let a BJJ or Judo guy speak for that. That said, Youre already accommodating for a Disadvantage in that Youre assuming Youre being hit before You can defend.
> 
> 
> *Okay, I'm 5'7" and 156 pounds. I'm a judo bb, a Functional Hapkido 5th dan, a bjj blue belt, wrestling asst. coach, and MT coach in addition to my other ranks. I know a little something about grappling guys bigger than me...and that includes Antonio McKee and the guys who roll with him like King Mo Lawal, and numerous other guys. I've been onthe mat doing randori live against Heyward Nishioka and his crew and more than held my own. I've been on the mat with Wander Braga and Paulo Guillobel, Francisco Bueno and many others.
> 
> I only bring this up to point out to you that I fully qualify and then some visavis the "BJJ or Judo" guys that you speak of...and my Hapkido wrestling muay thai and capoeira knowledge gives me perspectives that frequently are more inclusive than those of the aforementioned worthies. The solution isn't to "infight or kick" per se [ although grappling IS a valuable aspect of infighting, so you can do both just by grappling ] and I do Infight with my techs when I'm turned into the punch, and I'm still very close quarters [ which is also a form of infighting ] when I pivot outside of the grab and apply my tech. So we agree there. I apply the knee from infighting as we're too close for kicks. It's not just a theory that a takedown would work...I've done it plenty in the R.D.L. Same with throws. We agree there. You will see that I feature these techs in my Sword and Hammer pt. 3 and alot more in pt. 4.
> *
> *Now...here's something that members of the relatively rare "fighting" Kenpo dojos [ and Hapkido dojangs and a few Taekwondo dojangs to be honest, not to mention a gajillion old skool hardcore old skool Japanese and Okinawan karate schools ] will instantly recognize and acknowledge: the sequence depicted as the more common version of Sword and Hammer is covered at White Belt [ in my Gym it doesn't even rank as high as White Belt ] when you're doing your techs to the cardinal directions. Seriously. There is no genuine difference between the White Belt Cardinal Directions Drill and the Sword and Hammer sequence as presented by most people's videos. Not even the addition of a guy touching your shoulder is new because oftentimes your training partner is holding a airshield or mitt and places his/her palm on your shoulder with his/her free hand while you handsword the mitt he/she is holding in the opposite hand, then you fire the hammerfist at the groin but stop the hammerfist just shy of contact...and cover out.
> 
> Look at the videos. It's rare that uke shows any kineticism beyond a shoulder touch and a fist cocked back  [ a fist deliberately and helpfully cocked far enough back to allow unencumbered entry to the throat for the handsword ]. At almost no time does anyone get pulled or pushed or anything else. Uke just lays his hand like a dead starfish on your shoulder, cocks back his fist, poses...and you handsword and hammerfist him for it.
> 
> Chris' assertion that adding pushes pulls and other strikes to the Sword and Hammer sequence is changing the sequence from Sword and Hammer is wholly and entirely false. Doc explained in depth and detail that there IS NO STANDARD I.P. and that each instructor has the right to develope their own Ideal for their own Gyms as long as they express their techs following The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique PROCESS. Therefore again..as a matter of fact that cannot be counterpointed validly factually or in any way truthfully [ however rigorously the untruth is championed ]  everything that comes from the keyboards of my detractors are wrong the split second that they accept the flawed premise that there IS NO IDEAL TECHNIQUE...and build their arguments upon that false, misguided notion.
> *
> *Mine is the only version which features being locked in place and hit, being pushed and hit, being pulled and hit, shown from different angles, the common sense to cover up, the inside and outside spin...the works that a dynamic fighting environment would require. Ignore all of everybody's posts--mine, Chris', whoever's--and simply look at the videos. The more common version is static, antiseptic...no blows thrown. Mine is alive fluid interactive...blows thrown, reacted to, and smartly defeated with the use of Sword and Hammer.*
> 
> Multiple Attacker Fight Scenarios:
> This is all the more reason to use one or two rapid blows, followed by an idiopathic Power Strike. This one alone is the main reason Im even replying. This method allows You to easily shift between Opponents, rather than becoming too fixated in an exchange with one, instead nullifying that one.
> 
> 
> *The scenario that we're dealing with is essentially The Hockey Punch. You're already hit by surprise first. Therefore the first order of importance is to negate further offensives while reorienting yourself and counterattacking as fast and sensibly as possible...while using the Sword and Hammer. The one or two rapid blows concept I subscribe to but only to an extent, and that subscription is mine is shown throughout the sequence of my gym's expression. If you'll look to my video with an eye toward the question you asked, you'll note that my whole Sword and Hammer sequence is a linkage of fight ending blows that can be ramped up or downgraded to match the level of threat posed throughout the confrontation. Even the Sword and hammer that I apply after the cover and spin to the arm not only fully disengages the grip, but the trauma of a genuine stank-nasty combo hammerfist and swordhand to those targets on the arm is frequently in and of itself sufficient to halt further offensives.
> *
> *So we agree to an extent there.
> *
> *But I recognize that there are many instances wherein the idea of finishing an assailant with one or two blows is simply not realisitic...the size and weight and strength disadvantage may be too severe. Like a 4'11" 105 lb. woman fighting a 300 lb. man is NOT going to finish him with 1-2 well placed blows right off top in the great majority of instances. Also...experienced martial artists and fighters will concur with the fact that we may have to flurry or move,jockey and strike to put ourselves in a position to launch those fight ending blows. We may miss, our opponent may block our strikes, our opponent's friends may jump in at any point...and any combo of the above factors and others may happen at any time [ depending upon the circumstances ].
> 
> So I built a tech that would address all of that in a single flow.
> *
> *Note how the traditional variant--which was never never never supposed to be a combat model [ what does it say about my detractors when they were/are still duped into believing a specific noncombat teaching example has combat viability when even the man who wrote it specifically wrote it for non-combat purposes? ], and which was always always merely a LOOSE guideline that was HUGELY misinterpreted by subsequent BBs--has no form of answer for this. It's not supposed to have an answer for this. It presupposes perpetual, pinpoint perfect blows and perpetual, perfectly preemptive reflexes and a situation that allows all of the foregoing to shine unencumbered.
> *
> Grappling:
> Grappling has its disadvantages, like forcing the Grabber to stay in Striking Range whether They like it or not. Plus, either side may stop 'Grappling' at any moment, and as such it is a gamble to 'Grapple' with someone, as oppose to using Grappling as a...
> Well, theres a better word for this. "Gap Bridging Tool".
> 
> *Grappling also has huge advantages in that the overwhelming majority of people have no response to a competent grappling attack. Furthermore, forcing the Grabber to stay in striking range via grappling can exponentially amplify the advantages that the skilled grappler and striker has over his opponent. And yes, Grappling can be used to "bridge the gap".
> *
> Armed Assailants:
> So someones punched You in the back of the Head... Instead of just stabbing You in a way You pretty much cant Defend if Youre not aware of the attack? Im not disagreeing with this one, so much as calling it irrelevant.
> But for the sake of discussion, lets make it a blunt instrument, and presume the blunt forced trauma to the head hasnt incapacitated You. Your Tactics hardly change. In fact, getting closer becomes an even better idea.
> 
> *I already stated that as a premise to this attack you're not being Ginsu'd to pieces but I've read plenty of reports and personally experienced twice the phenomenon of being cut or stabbed and not knowing it until well after the scrap is over. For the sake of this scenario, I have assumed that whatever weapon being employed is a bodily weapon or a blunt instrument, not an edged weapon or firearm...but any weapon deployed in this scenario can be handled by this response if you're fast enough. The only absolute mandate is that you'd have to respond before the firearm goes off to max your chances of deploying this tech. But once you get to the weapon hand or outside of his grabbing arm? You can decimate the guy with the gun who's grabbing you from The Hockey Punch position too. You just have faaarrr less room for error, of course, and you must deploy every tech with intent to kill or severely injure.
> *
> *Remember, we haven't gotten into the plethora of throws locks etc that you can use from here. Those techs would seriously come in handy if you're trying to amp your chances of surviving a bladed or firearm attack from The Hockey Punch range. But the best way to deal with all of that is simply to not be there in the first place...*
> 
> Defensive BG:
> This is pretty much a "They are ******" Scenario.
> If You begin a Counter-Offense, and They go Full Defense, it can be very easy to overwhelm someone, either by breaking down their wrists, or just hitting anything remotely exposed, or hitting them in the head regardless, since the force travels through, albeit reduced; But permitting further shots to be executed. Im agreeing with this one, but not in the way You intended.
> 
> *There is a very great amount of power generated within a very small space when one uses the Kenpo Body Whip aka Kinetic Wave. A single blow CAN end things, and even if it doesn't? Any decently clean shot WILL HURT out of all proportion to its appearance.*
> 
> Flowing Seamlessly:
> That I can agree with, which is why I dont think a Scripted Defense should be any longer than 1-2 Motions, as oppose to a long sequence. It makes it easier to flow, rather than trying to be in one predetermined cycle. In a way, alot of what Youre showing is a Possible Best Case Scenario. Which is why whenever I initially comment on Your Videos, I mostly remark on the initial retaliation, and less so on what comes after. Theres no buts in this one, its just decently agreeable.
> 
> *I'm not quite sure what you mean by "possible best case scenario"...I look at it like jab-cross-hook-uppercut-overhand. It happens automatically when you practice it functionally and you automatically subconsciously make the correct adjustments on the fly. It's easily inculcated in sparring and multifight sparring. The huge advantage that it has is that BGs you haven't engaged yet don't preemptively prep their defenses vs your offensives because they see you're doing the same thing over and over again.*
> 
> Now, if Youre so inclined, feel free to stop reading right about here.
> 
> *Thanks for the offer but I'll keep reading.*
> 
> And this is the biggest issue.
> Chris, if Im not mistaken, delved into one particular aspect of the Kenpo side of the Defense. And then this somehow spiraled into a Kenpo debate. Lets look back at the Roots.
> 
> *Every argument that my detractors have put forth thus far carries the intrinsic or specific belief that the more common version of Sword and Hammer is both THEE Sword and Hammer Ideal Phase Technique aaannnd that it's a functional combat model. These two premises are both comprehensively untrue, repudiated by Mr. Parker's own writings on the matter aaaand the posts of Doc Chapel, who is the ranking Kenpo senior on this board...and Doc is the only human being to my knowledge that can claim to have trained privately and exclusively with Mr. Parker for 3 decades literally up until his passing. Doc and I may disagree on say...training modalities and the values therein. But one thing that Doc is the undisputed Senior and Elder in is Kenpo history. He knows what many of the dark secrets are and where many of the buried skeletons are buried. He knows the real scoop on alot of people. He is absolutely and perpetually better informed in these matters than Chris--a non-Kenpoist who never met or trained with Mr.Parker--is. Doc categorically repudiated Chris' primary points. That ends all factual truthful honest accurate knowledgeable discussion preemptively...and confirms my positions [ taken since page 2 at the latest in this thread and roundly disputed up until this very page now by my detractors ] as the unvarnished involate truth in these areas. There is no counterpoint to truth or transcendant fact.
> 
> One may hypothesize that since Chris' positions lack any shred of martial validity, that he may be just voicing a contrary opinion solely due to what may be a pronounced dislike for yours truly...but that is merely a possible hypothesis
> *
> 
> 
> In other words, rethink the debate. Its gotten way off the mark from what it should be about. And I know, Ras, that Youve linked a whole lot of stuff about Preempting and whatnot, but each point You make is counterpointed, which You then counterpoint, then every 3-4 replies, it goes back to the start, and the cycle begins again.
> 
> *See my previous point above, and let me emphasize another point: several of my detractors including Chris and I agreed about the importance of upholding legal moral and ethical standards and keeping these concerns as paramount in our counterattacks. I stated that  this is one of the other essential services provided by my Cover and Spin in that you have time now to gather your senses and assess the situation. Is this a friend, is this a stranger, does this BG really deserve to be Sword and Hammer'd into oblivion? I am the first both on MT and KT to suggest various scenarios during which Sword and Hammer might be deployed, and most of the suggestions proffered much later on this thread on pg 18 are almost wholesale what I said days weeks and months previously. So even when suggesting plausible scenarios during which Sword and Hammer might be deployed? There is agreement between myself and my detractors to a significant extent.*
> 
> Agree to Disagree (As You have attempted to just recently), or Demonstrate an Understanding even if You Disagree with whats being Understood.
> Thats the only two ways this can go. Well, theres a Third.
> More aimless debating.
> 
> *I agree to disagree, I don't want any further aimless debating...but a video rebuttal by my more energetic detractors incarnating their points would also be very edifying. It's quite easy to snipe anonymously sans historical accuracy or rigorous facts and correctness about kenpo or the purpose and history of this tech via keyboard. It's quite another to have the faith knowledge self-assurance and skill to show yourself on video backing your words up.*




The words in boldface are my reply to the quotes above.


----------



## ATACX GYM

MJS said:


> LMFAO!! Brutha Ras, you can't be totally serious here.  The way I view it...(and man, this is starting to sound like discussion with Jason Brinn...lol) we need both scripted and non scripted.  The scripted stuff are the techs that are taught, you know, the list of 24/belt that're taught in 99.9% of the Kenpo schools out there.  Like I've been saying for the past...gee, I lost track...lol...we use those as a platform to build from.  THEN, we move to the non scripted techs.  As I've taught...start with the base Lone Kimono.  Drill that endlessly, gradually building up to a more aggressive, forceful attack.  Finally, you add in a grab and punch, more movement, pushing, pulling, etc.
> 
> You're right...people who dont train like this will most likely be in for a surprise, because they'll probably only be used to the basic move.  But I still stand firm in my belief that cramming tons of stuff down their throat at a rapid pace, is doing more harm than good.  If it was that easy, then most students would only need to spend a month at a dojo, then they'd be able to go into the real world and be the next Superman...LOL.




What I meant by "scripted scenario" is the position that too many take that the more common version of THE SWORD AND HAMMER is THEE SCENARIO and THEE SWORD AND HAMMER. Of course I don't denigrate the importance of scenarios...I use them in my techs. Lolollololol.

I totally agree with you that cramming stuff down a person's throat at too rapid a pace is absolutely more harmful than it's beneficial...but I never said or suggested such a thing in the first place. THIS is what I said and suggested:

[video=youtube_share;kEZ-zAUEkR4]http://youtu.be/kEZ-zAUEkR4[/video]


----------



## ATACX GYM

MJS said:


> I'm going to reply to a few segments of this post between Ras and Chris.  My replies will have a * at the beginning and end, to make it easier..I think, as to who's saying what.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right. Ras, try to listen here.
> 
> 
> 
> Ras, to be completely blunt, this is the core of your problems, and the absolute evidence that you are not in any way right. In the slightest. Let's demonstrate, as you seem rather ignorant of what, or even how a technique teaches it's lessons.
> 
> The lessons of EPAK Sword and Hammer are numerous, but some that are immediately apparent are as follows:
> - When grabbed, capture the grabbing hand for psychological and physical control.
> 
> *Grabbing the BG's hand doesn't give you psychological or physical control. He grabbed you in order to control you by locking you down into place for, pushing you away from, or pulling you in to the incoming blows that he's raining on you. Using your far hand to pin BG's hand to your shoulder simply means that you're unwise enough to remove your unencumbered limb from combat, thus opening up other lanes for the BG to attack and hurt you [ or his friends to do the same ] and removing your limb from the possibility of offensive strikes.
> 
> *I disagree Ras.  It does give a psychological/physical control.  The common response from the defender would be to try to pull away, not marry the badguys hands to your body.  Its just like a weapon...the badguy is using that weapon for intimidation and control.  Not saying that he wouldn't use it, but he's expecting compliance, not grabbing the weapon.*
> 
> MJS THE ONLY WAY THAT COULD BE TRUE IS IF THE BG ISN'T THROWING A PUNCH AT YOU WHEN HE GRABS YOU. IF YOU PIN HIS HAND ON YOUR SHOULDER WITH YOUR OFF HAND, HE'LL JUST HIT YOU ANYWAY. IT DOESN'T GIVE YOU ANY SORT OF PSYCHOLOGICAL OR PHYSICAL CONTROL. HE WON'T BE TRYING TO PULL AWAY HE'S ALREADY COMMITTED TO PUNCHING YOU. WHY WOULD HE PULL AWAY WHEN HE HAS HIS HAND ON YOUR SHOULDER AND HIS FIST COCKED AND IS IN THE MIDST OF FIRING A PUNCH OR--AS IN MY SCENARIO--HE'S ALREADY PUNCHED YOU AND YOU'RE RESPONDING TO HIS AGGRESSION BELATEDLY? HE'LL JUST KEEP HITTING YOU,MAN. I'M ACTUALLY SURPRISED THAT A GUY AS SHARP AS YOU ARE MISSED THAT. MAYBE YOU'RE ENVISIONING A SITUATION WHERE HE'S JUST GRABBED YOUR SHOULDER BUT HASN'T LOADED A PUNCH TO FIRE YET..?
> *
> - When being pulled, go with the energy of that pull.
> 
> *Most of the more common Sword and Hammer sequences that I've seen live as well as those on YT do NOT feature an actual pull by uke. Most have him posing and doing nothing. But even if they did feature the pull? They neglect to address the very high probability that the BG's punch is hard on the heels of the pull, so they'll be pulled into the oncoming punch in far too many cases. The "more common" Sword and Hammer version that you claim is superior to mine doesn't remotely address this reality.
> 
> *Ras, you keep harping on this, and frankly its kinda old.  Of course you don't see this in those techs.  Why?  Because once again, its a platform to build from.  Your method is taking the student from step 1 to 10, without hitting 2 thru 9.  You make it seem like you're the only one to address a punch.  You're not. I do it, just not as rapidly as you're doing it.*
> 
> THE FACT THAT I INTRO THE PUNCH IMMEDIATELY DOESN'T MEAN THAT I'M GOING FROM 1 DIRECTLY TO 10, WHAT IT MEANS IS THAT I'M PRESENTING A COMPLETE SCENARIO FROM DAY ONE TO BE TRAINED AGAINST. WE BREAK DOWN OUR RESPONSES AGAINST THE GRAB AND PUNCH WITH THE COVER AND SPIN FIRST. WE DON'T EVEN PROGRESS TO THE NEXT MOVES UNTIL YOU'RE HIT FIRST, RECOVER, AND THEN SPIN. THAT IS THE MOST ESSENTIAL ASPECT OF THE SEQUENCE. WE COVER BEING PULLED INTO THE PUNCH AND JUST GOING WITH OUR SWORD AND HAMMER THERE AS WELL AS SPINNING AWAY AFTER WE'RE CRACKED FROM THE REAR AND BEING PUSHED AWAY BY BODY PRESSURE AND PUNCHES. WE FOLLOW A VERY SPECIFIC PROGRESSION AND WE COVER ALL OF THE PRIMARY STEPS IN BETWEEN...BUT WE PRESENT A COMPLETE RESPONSE. WE JUST DO SO, AS YOU STATED, EARLIER THAN YOU DO. THAT'S A MATTER OF TRAINING PREFERENCE AND TRAINING PARADIGM, NOT A LACK IN TRAINING QUALITY. I'M SURE YOU TEACH YOUR MORE SLOWLY PACED METHOD WELL, AND I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT I TEACH MINE VERY WELL INDEED. AS LONG AS THE RESULT IS A FULLY FUNCTIONAL STUDENT? I DON'T SEE TOO MUCH TO QUIBBLE ABOUT.
> *
> - The use of pre-emptive striking as a tactic.
> 
> *As I have previously stated and left links proving to be true...Kenpo Elders like Larry Tatum and Doc Chapel find the "pre-emptive strike" notion to be questionable at best. On the mat? Their skepticism is thoroughly underscored by actually sparring with Sword and Hammer vs the Hockey Punch.
> 
> * And thats their opinion.  The use of a pre-emptive strike is very useful.  Theres nothing 'questionable' about it at all.  Numerous RBSD guys use it and speak of its effectiveness.  The #1 reason people 'question' its use, is because to the average Joe passerby, it'll look like WE are making the first move.  What the untrained person IS NOT seeing, is the agressive, threatening actions, by the badguy.  THAT right there, is assault.  Sorry, but anyone who would wait for the punch to be half way to their face before reacting, well, they're an idiot.  As I've said a million times, and I'll say it a million more....my safety, and that of anyone with me is my #1 concern!  I'll deal with the other BS later. *
> 
> MAYBE I SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE SPECIFIC AND CLEAR: THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE IDEA AND CONCEPT OF THE PREEMPTIVE STRIKE. THERE IS A GREAT DEAL OF DIFFICULTY IN PULLING THIS CONCEPT OFF USING THIS SEQUENCE WHILE UNDER DURESS AND STILL HAVE A VERY HIGH LEVEL OF PROTECTION AGAINST LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS FOR GUESSING WRONG. WITHOUT SOME KIND OF ASSESSMENT MECHANISM BEING BUILT INTO THE SEQUENCE ITSELF AND REENFORCED VIA TRAINING, MUSCLE MEMORY COULD TAKE OVER AND YOU MIGHT BLAST SOMEBODY WHO DOESN'T DESERVE THE SWORD AND HAMMER INTO OBLIVION. OR YOU MIGHT GO OVERKILL WITH THE FORCE ON SOMEBODY WHO DOES INDEED DESERVE THE SWORD AND HAMMER. AND THERE ARE ALOT MORE ISSUES THAT I SEE WITH THE WHOLE PREEMPTIVE STRIKE NOTION--NOT THE LEAST OF WHICH IS THAT IT'S THE LEAST LIKELY TO HAPPEN UNDER DURESS IN THIS KIND OF HOCKEY PUNCH SCENARIO AND MOST DIFFICULT IN MOST CASES TO LEGALLY AND MORALLY JUSTIFY--BUT IF YOU END UP WITH A FULLY FUNCTIONAL STUDENT USING YOUR METHOD? HAVE AT IT THEN.
> *




My responses are bolded italicized and underlined.


----------



## ATACX GYM

MJS said:


> I still say that instead of trying to make a 1 size fits all model, we should address each thing as it was designed to be.  Let me ask you this...why do we see pro fighters have multiple trainers?  One for strength and conditioning, one for boxing skills, another for ground skills, and so forth.
> 
> As for the mult. attack situation...yup, certainly valid, but again, it seems to me, like way too much is being thrown at the student in too quick a fashion.  IIRC, I started a thread on the Kenpo multi man attacks.  FWIW, I'm not that impressed with them, but, they do give the student what the other techs do...a platform to build from.  We want to talk about practicality, and functional things...well, I can come up with many more practical and functional ways to address multi man stuff, than what we see in the preset techs.




I don't offer a one size fit all approach, bruh. I simply point out that training A SINGLE TECH to handle MULTIPLE ATTACKS is the height of common sense, efficiency, and absolutely mandates much more higher levels of quality muscle reps using that same tech vs all manner of attacks. This makes you BETTER, not worse. It doesn't take more time either. If you take every tech you have and train it vs multiple attacks like this:

[video=youtube_share;kEZ-zAUEkR4]http://youtu.be/kEZ-zAUEkR4[/video]


then every tech you have that you formulate into a sequence is ALSO thoroughly flexible and capable of dealing with multiple attacks. The only limits to your application is your training model. I told you guys that my Sword and Hammer almost 100% translates to the ground and vs weapons exactly as you see it done empty handed. MJS, you should recall that the old skool Kali warriors are far famed for doing exactly the same thing, so your own art incarnates the truth of the position that I champion. I'm surprised that you in any way gainsay it.

Anyway...check this out...and recall that in this very thread people were saying that what I just showed being very very possible either WASN'T possible or would take too long. Neither is the case. Definitively.

[video=youtube_share;OgiiyO05OL4]http://youtu.be/OgiiyO05OL4[/video]


----------



## Flying Crane

MJS said:


> Good points Mike. And you're right....anyone who is just more than a 'student' for lack of better words, will most likely get more knowledge, more secrets, etc.  I'm in no way claiming to be all of what you describe above, but I feel that I've developed a more personal relatioship with a few of my teachers.  Many times, we'll cover things that usually aren't taught or part of the regular required curriculum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haven't a clue, but thats the impression I've got from some posts I've read of Docs.  And you're right...none would probably agree.



oh, I was in no way aiming any of this at you. Rather I was just making a contrast between how things work in the Chinese arts, and what we've been told about Mr. Parker creating a different and deliberately limited system to be taught to the masses, vs. what he did himself and for perhaps a handful of close students.  On the surface it kinda sounds like the same thing, but I think there are a couple of fundamental differences that make a big difference in the intent.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Himura Kenshin said:


> Oh I know. I've been following the whole thread. Chris makes the same points I tried to make and then some and I don't see why Ras does not see where he is coming from. But if Ras honestly doesn't see what we are trying to tell him then no ammount of type or talk will persuade him otherwise.




it's not a matter of NOT grasping where you're coming from. I've been where you guys are. The difference is that I've continued to train and research and discovered that some of the previous beliefs I had that parallel yours are factually untrue and I made the mental adjustment...so now I no longer am confined by the inaccuracies of some of my previous beliefs. Doc's explanation about Big Red and what happened to the commercial vehicle of Motion Kenpo makes perfect sense to me...especially since it's literally backed up in black and white by Mr. Parker's own hand. I also recall my GM and other Elders debating some of these very points when I was a child growing up in the martial arts.

I used to think that training say the inside blocks was specific only to punches...until my GM told me at age 8 that this was not so. He then demonstrated to me that my very same inside block could and did stop a knife thrust, a stick attack, and both an ATTEMPTED lapel grab aaaand broke down the structure of an SUCCESSFUL lapel grab [ when combined with proper footwork and a solid base]. He showed me how the double lapel sweeping parry also broke the 2 handed throat strangle. It clicked for me right then. I got it. As a child. It's hard for me to accept that intelligent adults don't get it now.

Make no mistake about it. You either perceive the multiple uses of a single tech or you don't. If you perceive these multiple uses? Your training model changes in direct accordance with the degree of your perception and application of multiple uses. You don't have to do stuff exactly like I do...but you won't do things like you previously did. You have evolved, become more efficient, become simpler, more direct...and vastly amplified your combat options,skill and ability; merely by opening up your mind.

Like one of my Gym sayings goes...

IF YOU CHANGE YOUR MIND? YOU CHANGE YOUR WAYS...


----------



## Thesemindz

I've talked to Ras a great deal about his method and this technique in particular. It's not how I do kenpo, and it's not what I teach. But saying he doesn't know what he's talking about, or doesn't know what martial arts are about, or doesn't have a clue what techniques are for is way off base. He's an intelligent, highly skilled practitioner with over thirty years of training in multiple arts. Saying he doesn't know what he's talking about seems to me to be simply derogatory, and makes me wonder if people are actually watching his videos and reading his posts at all.

That doesn't mean I agree with his position on Sword and Hammer. I teach a version that is more or less equivalent to the basic EPAK technique. My student's first learn this technique about an hour in to their training. I teach the attack as an extended grab from the side. Nothing else. No pull. No push. No follow up strike. What some refer to as a "dead hand." The student then practices a static two strike combination. Chop the throat, hammer the groin. There are some finer points, but if you've seen the EPAK technique you get the drift.

The problem that I see with this discussion, and with most discussions between Ras and anyone who practices a more "traditional" EPAK variant, is that the technique you see in those videos and that I teach is not the entirety of the lesson. Looking at those videos I can see how Ras, with his real world experience and fighting knowledge, would think "that's unrealistic and simplistic." And of course he'd be right. But that technique is only the seed from which the fruit and the flower grow. It is not the final, live application of the knowledge. It is step one of an unending life long process. When I was coming up we learned this basic technique and then we applied it in all directions, and then we applied the kenpo formula, and then we applied it at all levels and ranges, and then we applied it in resistance drills, and then we applied it in spontaneous combat, and then we applied it against multiple opponents. The static technique you see in the youtube videos, and indeed that I still teach and practice regularly, is only the smallest part of that practice. It is the beginning, not the end.

Unfortunately I think that there are some kenpo schools for whom the IP phase truly is "the end." Not in the sense of some where the IP phase is the true combat model and all actions can be referred back to it through point referencing, grafting, and excision, but in the sense that I think some schools simply don't practice their material beyond memorization and rote repetition in order to advance in rank. I've seen it. Schools where the black belts can't perform the white belt material, or where the students can hammer a guy standing still in a technique line but can't counter a straight punch in a sparring match. These are "technique line" practitioners or "curriculum" black belts. They can show you what they memorized, but they can't execute what they've learned.

And that is where Ras' statement "it's not just what you know, it's how you train" comes in. If you take the base EPAK technique and train it spontaneously in a functional manner against active resistance, it can be an incredibly effective high percentage combination. I mean, you hit a guy in the throat and the groin. That's going to put him down. And if it doesn't, that means he's been forced to change his position, which changes the parameters of the engagement and calls for another response. That's just the fluidity of combat. But if you only play patty cake karate or only hit still statues then you are unlikely to develop the ability to fight with that material. Ras believes in a live training model. Some schools only practice a static training model. I believe in marrying the two. Because I believe there is a place for both. And when I am teaching a new technique, I always begin with the most static scenario possible with the smallest number of variables, and then slowly build from there. Because that is what I believe is the most effective way to teach kenpo. Not the fastest, or the most dynamic. But the most effective. At least in my experience. My students may progress slower, but I believe they do so on a firm foundation. And over time they will achieve real applicable skill using my method. I know because I've seen it.

Ras knows what he's talking about. I don't think he always knows what _we're_ talking about, but you have to remember that he didn't come up in an EPAK style system. His kenpo background comes from the BKF, and if you are familiar with their practices and teachings they tended towards a more live, combat oriented, sparring based approach. So it doesn't surprise me at all that his method reflects that. His Sword and Hammer clearly doesn't teach the same lessons that mine does, and it clearly isn't applied in the same fashion. But that doesn't mean it can't or doesn't work for what he uses it for, it just means he's using a different tool for a different purpose. I think when he says that the tools that others use are broken he's wrong, but I've made that point to him and on these forums before. It's not the techniques, it's the instruction and the practice. We can all start with the same hammers and nails and wood, and still only those of us who know how to use them will end up building chairs. Some people just don't know how to use the tools they have, or even what those tools are.

From my conversations with Ras I've taken away that he believes in a high energy, highly functional, motion based training method that incorporates ambiguous motion, increasing resistance, and high reps. He believes that every technique should be immediately applicable against every possible scenario, and that seems to work for him and his students. I see the techniques more as small pieces of a greater whole which are designed to gradually structure a training method, the end result of which is functionality against every possible scenario. His students might be more functional after ten classes than mine are, I imagine after ten years we'd both have students that could fight. It's just another way to do things. That doesn't make him wrong, and it doesn't make him ignorant. He has a different paradigm, that doesn't invalidate mine any more than mine invalidates his. And the more we exchange ideas and share experiences, the more we realize how much more our philosophies converge than diverge.

I think he'd probably get farther, and I've told him this as well, if he didn't use EPAK names at all, or even reference them or EPAK training methods. If he just posted his videos without the commentary on EPAK I think more people would look at them for what they could gain from his practice rather than what he was wrong about. In his defense, even then he'd still have a lot of people telling him he was doing it all wrong, didn't know what he was talking about, and that all those things are already present in the EPAK system anyway so he's just wasting his time. But that's martial arts for you. Haters gotta hate, and some people are far too wedded to their own traditions to see value in the practices of others. Personally, I like a lot of what he does. And I see a lot of what I do reflected in it. Because at its root kenpo is supposed to work. And if your technique works, it probably looks like what works no matter what you call it. He's told me himself that he's had run ins with other more traditional kenpo cats who _have _been able to make their material work, despite being raised in what he would consider a "dysfunctional" system. Because it's not just what you know, it's how you train. And some people train very, very well.

I make the same recommendation to people who complain about his presentation all the time. Watch the video on mute. Take out the commentary and just look at the movements. See if it doesn't start making a lot more sense without all the words and emotions getting in the way. And remember that what you see is only a snapshot of what he's practicing with his students. And I tell Ras that what he sees in kenpo videos doesn't represent the entirety of their method either. Just like what's written in the manual is only the most basic representation of the material itself. In Go Rin No Sho Musashi states repeatedly "It is difficult to write about this in detail." Because what we do transcends both the written word and the visual medium. We can only ever convey the slightest aspect of our method through this type of exchange and I believe that is often at the heart of disagreements such as this. I don't doubt that were we to share the floor much that we perceive here as different or wrong would be made clear to us.

There is something to be gained from his high energy, high rep, live training model. I suggest everyone incorporate some aspect of it in to what they do. Similarly, I believe that Ras would do well to incorporate more static training in to what he does, because I believe that it is the root of developing an understanding of anatomical structure and principles of motion. I practice my stance in absolute stillness, so that I can access it perfectly in constant motion. But at the end of the day, I make sure I've done both.

I was taught that Forms were the mother of the art and Fighting was the father of the art. I believe that the same concept applies here. Static training teaches us what to do, live training teaches us how to do. As to his particular Sword and Hammer, I see many basic principles of combat which are being taught and which should be practiced in order to develop ability in combat. They are different from the principles of combat I teach in my Sword and Hammer, but if your system is sound then eventually the student should pretty much "get it," regardless of the specifics of any one technique or another.


-Rob


----------



## ATACX GYM

Thesemindz said:


> I've talked to Ras a great deal about his method and this technique in particular. It's not how I do kenpo, and it's not what I teach. But saying he doesn't know what he's talking about, or doesn't know what martial arts are about, or doesn't have a clue what techniques are for is way off base. He's an intelligent, highly skilled practitioner with over thirty years of training in multiple arts. Saying he doesn't know what he's talking about seems to me to be simply derogatory, and makes me wonder if people are actually watching his videos and reading his posts at all.
> 
> That doesn't mean I agree with his position on Sword and Hammer. I teach a version that is more or less equivalent to the basic EPAK technique. My student's first learn this technique about an hour in to their training. I teach the attack as an extended grab from the side. Nothing else. No pull. No push. No follow up strike. What some refer to as a "dead hand." The student then practices a static two strike combination. Chop the throat, hammer the groin. There are some finer points, but if you've seen the EPAK technique you get the drift.
> 
> The problem that I see with this discussion, and with most discussions between Ras and anyone who practices a more "traditional" EPAK variant, is that the technique you see in those videos and that I teach is not the entirety of the lesson. Looking at those videos I can see how Ras, with his real world experience and fighting knowledge, would think "that's unrealistic and simplistic." And of course he'd be right. But that technique is only the seed from which the fruit and the flower grow. It is not the final, live application of the knowledge. It is step one of an unending life long process. When I was coming up we learned this basic technique and then we applied it in all directions, and then we applied the kenpo formula, and then we applied it at all levels and ranges, and then we applied it in resistance drills, and then we applied it in spontaneous combat, and then we applied it against multiple opponents. The static technique you see in the youtube videos, and indeed that I still teach and practice regularly, is only the smallest part of that practice. It is the beginning, not the end.
> 
> Unfortunately I think that there are some kenpo schools for whom the IP phase truly is "the end." Not in the sense of some where the IP phase is the true combat model and all actions can be referred back to it through point referencing, grafting, and excision, but in the sense that I think some schools simply don't practice their material beyond memorization and rote repetition in order to advance in rank. I've seen it. Schools where the black belts can't perform the white belt material, or where the students can hammer a guy standing still in a technique line but can't counter a straight punch in a sparring match. These are "technique line" practitioners or "curriculum" black belts. They can show you what they memorized, but they can't execute what they've learned.
> 
> And that is where Ras' statement "it's not just what you know, it's how you train" comes in. If you take the base EPAK technique and train it spontaneously in a functional manner against active resistance, it can be an incredibly effective high percentage combination. I mean, you hit a guy in the throat and the groin. That's going to put him down. And if it doesn't, that means he's been forced to change his position, which changes the parameters of the engagement and calls for another response. That's just the fluidity of combat. But if you only play patty cake karate or only hit still statues then you are unlikely to develop the ability to fight with that material. Ras believes in a live training model. Some schools only practice a static training model. I believe in marrying the two. Because I believe there is a place for both. And when I am teaching a new technique, I always begin with the most static scenario possible with the smallest number of variables, and then slowly build from there. Because that is what I believe is the most effective way to teach kenpo. Not the fastest, or the most dynamic. But the most effective. At least in my experience. My students may progress slower, but I believe they do so on a firm foundation. And over time they will achieve real applicable skill using my method. I know because I've seen it.
> 
> Ras knows what he's talking about. I don't think he always knows what _we're_ talking about, but you have to remember that he didn't come up in an EPAK style system. His kenpo background comes from the BKF, and if you are familiar with their practices and teachings they tended towards a more live, combat oriented, sparring based approach. So it doesn't surprise me at all that his method reflects that. His Sword and Hammer clearly doesn't teach the same lessons that mine does, and it clearly isn't applied in the same fashion. But that doesn't mean it can't or doesn't work for what he uses it for, it just means he's using a different tool for a different purpose. I think when he says that the tools that others use are broken he's wrong, but I've made that point to him and on these forums before. It's not the techniques, it's the instruction and the practice. We can all start with the same hammers and nails and wood, and still only those of us who know how to use them will end up building chairs. Some people just don't know how to use the tools they have, or even what those tools are.
> 
> From my conversations with Ras I've taken away that he believes in a high energy, highly functional, motion based training method that incorporates ambiguous motion, increasing resistance, and high reps. He believes that every technique should be immediately applicable against every possible scenario, and that seems to work for him and his students. I see the techniques more as small pieces of a greater whole which are designed to gradually structure a training method, the end result of which is functionality against every possible scenario. His students might be more functional after ten classes than mine are, I imagine after ten years we'd both have students that could fight. It's just another way to do things. That doesn't make him wrong, and it doesn't make him ignorant. He has a different paradigm, that doesn't invalidate mine any more than mine invalidates his. And the more we exchange ideas and share experiences, the more we realize how much more our philosophies converge than diverge.
> 
> I think he'd probably get farther, and I've told him this as well, if he didn't use EPAK names at all, or even reference them or EPAK training methods. If he just posted his videos without the commentary on EPAK I think more people would look at them for what they could gain from his practice rather than what he was wrong about. In his defense, even then he'd still have a lot of people telling him he was doing it all wrong, didn't know what he was talking about, and that all those things are already present in the EPAK system anyway so he's just wasting his time. But that's martial arts for you. Haters gotta hate, and some people are far too wedded to their own traditions to see value in the practices of others. Personally, I like a lot of what he does. And I see a lot of what I do reflected in it. Because at its root kenpo is supposed to work. And if your technique works, it probably looks like what works no matter what you call it. He's told me himself that he's had run ins with other more traditional kenpo cats who _have _been able to make their material work, despite being raised in what he would consider a "dysfunctional" system. Because it's not just what you know, it's how you train. And some people train very, very well.
> 
> I make the same recommendation to people who complain about his presentation all the time. Watch the video on mute. Take out the commentary and just look at the movements. See if it doesn't start making a lot more sense without all the words and emotions getting in the way. And remember that what you see is only a snapshot of what he's practicing with his students. And I tell Ras that what he sees in kenpo videos doesn't represent the entirety of their method either. Just like what's written in the manual is only the most basic representation of the material itself. In Go Rin No Sho Musashi states repeatedly "It is difficult to write about this in detail." Because what we do transcends both the written word and the visual medium. We can only ever convey the slightest aspect of our method through this type of exchange and I believe that is often at the heart of disagreements such as this. I don't doubt that were we to share the floor much that we perceive here as different or wrong would be made clear to us.
> 
> There is something to be gained from his high energy, high rep, live training model. I suggest everyone incorporate some aspect of it in to what they do. Similarly, I believe that Ras would do well to incorporate more static training in to what he does, because I believe that it is the root of developing an understanding of anatomical structure and principles of motion. I practice my stance in absolute stillness, so that I can access it perfectly in constant motion. But at the end of the day, I make sure I've done both.
> 
> I was taught that Forms were the mother of the art and Fighting was the father of the art. I believe that the same concept applies here. Static training teaches us what to do, live training teaches us how to do. As to his particular Sword and Hammer, I see many basic principles of combat which are being taught and which should be practiced in order to develop ability in combat. They are different from the principles of combat I teach in my Sword and Hammer, but if your system is sound then eventually the student should pretty much "get it," regardless of the specifics of any one technique or another.
> 
> 
> -Rob




DAMN! Cosign!! Well said brutha...


----------



## Twin Fist

ok, EVERYONE in the world of martial arts is wrong but you

happy now?


----------



## Twin Fist

Rob,
i love you but you have been fooled. Ras isnt smart, look at how he handles disagreement? he ignores it. God forbid he actually consider someone else's opinion. NOPE, he rejects it without even thinking then copy pasts more tonnage of crap no one bothered to read the first 5 times he posted it. That isnt smart. Arrogance isnt smart. Arrogance is the hieght of ignorance to tell the truth.

You mention Ras supposed real world experience, i dont think he has any. ANY. he talks too much **** to actually be any good. NO ONE can remember what they do, move for move in a fight. Adreneline prohibits this. Yet he has regaled us with totally made up stories where he takes out whole gangs of bad guys without getting hit even once. This isnt possible in reality. In reality, you WILL get hit, even if you win, you will get hit. 

Yes, you are right the BKF doesnt do things like others do. They spar, and nothing else really. They never really learn the lessons of kenpo, because NONE of them knew this information. The bulk of Kenpo in the BKF system comes from Steve Sanders, and he left BEFORE Parker revamped the system. I have seen this when i lived in long beach. The bkf guys were all great tourny fighters, and ****** teachers because they never learn anything in the first place but how to fight. They are not martial artists, they are fighters. Ras is like that. he is prob a good fighter, but he is a horrible martial artist.

You said *" I don't think he always knows what we're talking about"
*
thats true, because we know martial arts, Ras doesnt. He thinks he does, but that doesnt change the fact that he doesnt know anywhere near what he thinks he does. And sorry, i dont for one second believe his BS claims about all those dan ranks. No one, NO ONE has TIME to do all that training, in THAT many arts, all to DAN level,  unless they dont have a job....

also, You need to realize that we CANT listen to the vids on mute, that is like believing what you see in a movie. Anyone can LOOK like they know something, Matt Damon LOOKS like he knows something when you watch the Bourne movies, but i bet my last drop of blood damon cant teach ****. I dont care how well you move, if you cant explain it and teach it, you dont know it.

Ras is like that. He cant teach because he doesnt know what he is talking about. And he is not smart enough to know that he doesnt know. And his ego wont let him consider it.

Now, I have said more than once that his end result isnt always bad.  But the thing is, even a busted watch is right, TWICE a day, but in the end, it is still a busted watch.

This isnt because i dislike the guy, and trust me, i really dislike him. But i refuse to take anyone seriously that says, quite literally, that everyone but him is wrong.

think about that.

or not, your call.

John


Thesemindz said:


> I've talked to Ras a great deal about his method and this technique in particular. It's not how I do kenpo, and it's not what I teach. But saying he doesn't know what he's talking about, or doesn't know what martial arts are about, or doesn't have a clue what techniques are for is way off base. He's an intelligent, highly skilled practitioner with over thirty years of training in multiple arts. Saying he doesn't know what he's talking about seems to me to be simply derogatory, and makes me wonder if people are actually watching his videos and reading his posts at all.
> 
> That doesn't mean I agree with his position on Sword and Hammer. I teach a version that is more or less equivalent to the basic EPAK technique. My student's first learn this technique about an hour in to their training. I teach the attack as an extended grab from the side. Nothing else. No pull. No push. No follow up strike. What some refer to as a "dead hand." The student then practices a static two strike combination. Chop the throat, hammer the groin. There are some finer points, but if you've seen the EPAK technique you get the drift.
> 
> The problem that I see with this discussion, and with most discussions between Ras and anyone who practices a more "traditional" EPAK variant, is that the technique you see in those videos and that I teach is not the entirety of the lesson. Looking at those videos I can see how Ras, with his real world experience and fighting knowledge, would think "that's unrealistic and simplistic." And of course he'd be right. But that technique is only the seed from which the fruit and the flower grow. It is not the final, live application of the knowledge. It is step one of an unending life long process. When I was coming up we learned this basic technique and then we applied it in all directions, and then we applied the kenpo formula, and then we applied it at all levels and ranges, and then we applied it in resistance drills, and then we applied it in spontaneous combat, and then we applied it against multiple opponents. The static technique you see in the youtube videos, and indeed that I still teach and practice regularly, is only the smallest part of that practice. It is the beginning, not the end.
> 
> Unfortunately I think that there are some kenpo schools for whom the IP phase truly is "the end." Not in the sense of some where the IP phase is the true combat model and all actions can be referred back to it through point referencing, grafting, and excision, but in the sense that I think some schools simply don't practice their material beyond memorization and rote repetition in order to advance in rank. I've seen it. Schools where the black belts can't perform the white belt material, or where the students can hammer a guy standing still in a technique line but can't counter a straight punch in a sparring match. These are "technique line" practitioners or "curriculum" black belts. They can show you what they memorized, but they can't execute what they've learned.
> 
> And that is where Ras' statement "it's not just what you know, it's how you train" comes in. If you take the base EPAK technique and train it spontaneously in a functional manner against active resistance, it can be an incredibly effective high percentage combination. I mean, you hit a guy in the throat and the groin. That's going to put him down. And if it doesn't, that means he's been forced to change his position, which changes the parameters of the engagement and calls for another response. That's just the fluidity of combat. But if you only play patty cake karate or only hit still statues then you are unlikely to develop the ability to fight with that material. Ras believes in a live training model. Some schools only practice a static training model. I believe in marrying the two. Because I believe there is a place for both. And when I am teaching a new technique, I always begin with the most static scenario possible with the smallest number of variables, and then slowly build from there. Because that is what I believe is the most effective way to teach kenpo. Not the fastest, or the most dynamic. But the most effective. At least in my experience. My students may progress slower, but I believe they do so on a firm foundation. And over time they will achieve real applicable skill using my method. I know because I've seen it.
> 
> Ras knows what he's talking about. I don't think he always knows what _we're_ talking about, but you have to remember that he didn't come up in an EPAK style system. His kenpo background comes from the BKF, and if you are familiar with their practices and teachings they tended towards a more live, combat oriented, sparring based approach. So it doesn't surprise me at all that his method reflects that. His Sword and Hammer clearly doesn't teach the same lessons that mine does, and it clearly isn't applied in the same fashion. But that doesn't mean it can't or doesn't work for what he uses it for, it just means he's using a different tool for a different purpose. I think when he says that the tools that others use are broken he's wrong, but I've made that point to him and on these forums before. It's not the techniques, it's the instruction and the practice. We can all start with the same hammers and nails and wood, and still only those of us who know how to use them will end up building chairs. Some people just don't know how to use the tools they have, or even what those tools are.
> 
> From my conversations with Ras I've taken away that he believes in a high energy, highly functional, motion based training method that incorporates ambiguous motion, increasing resistance, and high reps. He believes that every technique should be immediately applicable against every possible scenario, and that seems to work for him and his students. I see the techniques more as small pieces of a greater whole which are designed to gradually structure a training method, the end result of which is functionality against every possible scenario. His students might be more functional after ten classes than mine are, I imagine after ten years we'd both have students that could fight. It's just another way to do things. That doesn't make him wrong, and it doesn't make him ignorant. He has a different paradigm, that doesn't invalidate mine any more than mine invalidates his. And the more we exchange ideas and share experiences, the more we realize how much more our philosophies converge than diverge.
> 
> I think he'd probably get farther, and I've told him this as well, if he didn't use EPAK names at all, or even reference them or EPAK training methods. If he just posted his videos without the commentary on EPAK I think more people would look at them for what they could gain from his practice rather than what he was wrong about. In his defense, even then he'd still have a lot of people telling him he was doing it all wrong, didn't know what he was talking about, and that all those things are already present in the EPAK system anyway so he's just wasting his time. But that's martial arts for you. Haters gotta hate, and some people are far too wedded to their own traditions to see value in the practices of others. Personally, I like a lot of what he does. And I see a lot of what I do reflected in it. Because at its root kenpo is supposed to work. And if your technique works, it probably looks like what works no matter what you call it. He's told me himself that he's had run ins with other more traditional kenpo cats who _have _been able to make their material work, despite being raised in what he would consider a "dysfunctional" system. Because it's not just what you know, it's how you train. And some people train very, very well.
> 
> I make the same recommendation to people who complain about his presentation all the time. Watch the video on mute. Take out the commentary and just look at the movements. See if it doesn't start making a lot more sense without all the words and emotions getting in the way. And remember that what you see is only a snapshot of what he's practicing with his students. And I tell Ras that what he sees in kenpo videos doesn't represent the entirety of their method either. Just like what's written in the manual is only the most basic representation of the material itself. In Go Rin No Sho Musashi states repeatedly "It is difficult to write about this in detail." Because what we do transcends both the written word and the visual medium. We can only ever convey the slightest aspect of our method through this type of exchange and I believe that is often at the heart of disagreements such as this. I don't doubt that were we to share the floor much that we perceive here as different or wrong would be made clear to us.
> 
> There is something to be gained from his high energy, high rep, live training model. I suggest everyone incorporate some aspect of it in to what they do. Similarly, I believe that Ras would do well to incorporate more static training in to what he does, because I believe that it is the root of developing an understanding of anatomical structure and principles of motion. I practice my stance in absolute stillness, so that I can access it perfectly in constant motion. But at the end of the day, I make sure I've done both.
> 
> I was taught that Forms were the mother of the art and Fighting was the father of the art. I believe that the same concept applies here. Static training teaches us what to do, live training teaches us how to do. As to his particular Sword and Hammer, I see many basic principles of combat which are being taught and which should be practiced in order to develop ability in combat. They are different from the principles of combat I teach in my Sword and Hammer, but if your system is sound then eventually the student should pretty much "get it," regardless of the specifics of any one technique or another.
> 
> 
> -Rob


----------



## ATACX GYM

Allow me to expound a little more, my friend Rob...I don't have a problem with starting the lesson for Sword and Hammer as you do. My primary concern centers around those who claim that what we see on the video is combat viable. In essence, they're asserting that what we see works exactly as shown against dynamic attack which they're not showing. Having both trained with and fought with the more or less traditional version prior to developing my current Sword and Hammer Radius R.D.L., I strongly disagree.

There is a training method, a paradigm, that requires training the tech against escalating resistance that would change the expression of what we see here. When I saw that video of you sparring with your student and executing Sword and Hammer when you WEREN'T grabbed as well as forcing the clinch and executing Sword and Hammer? You displayed what I was talking about: you didn't look my variant but the process of practicing against resistance necessarily negates the argument that literally nothing except the left hand flank grab upon your right shoulder vs an opponent who's cocked back his right fist and poses is THEE ONLY AND TRUE Sword and Hammer. You further displayed that learning the tech functionally automatically covers the scenario more commonly touted in the less versatile more common model, whereas the converse can never be true.

"IT'S NOT JUST WHAT YOU KNOW, IT'S HOW AND WHY YOU TRAIN..."

Like I keep saying...matwork kills contrary arguments because you must show and prove there. You MUST. If your stuff works? We will come closer and closer together on the mat because it eliminates the nonsense. Furthermore, that same matwork imparts and enforces the ability to recognize functionality on the parts of others who DON'T use the same expression as you do but who DO know what they're doing in a scrap. LuckyK doesn't fight like Doc who doesn't fight like Rob who doesn't fight like nelson who doesn't fight like MJS who doesn't fight like me...but we all can fight and we recognize the functionality in each of us; even while we recognize and debate about the differences that we see amonst each other too.

 In other words? Real recognizes real.

My detractors are lookin mighty unfamiliar to the functional fam, but mighty similar to the less functional to the wholly dysfunctional clan. Anyone who asserts the combat viability of a tech that specifically was designed as an outline and suggestion and NOT a combat model really should have their combat IQ checked and questioned. No disrespect to anyone, but that's just common sense.


----------



## Twin Fist

yep

everyone is wrong but you


----------



## ATACX GYM

"... think he'd probably get farther, and I've told him this as well, if he didn't use EPAK names at all, or even reference them or EPAK training methods. If he just posted his videos without the commentary on EPAK I think more people would look at them for what they could gain from his practice rather than what he was wrong about. In his defense, even then he'd still have a lot of people telling him he was doing it all wrong, didn't know what he was talking about, and that all those things are already present in the EPAK system anyway so he's just wasting his time. But that's martial arts for you. Haters gotta hate, and some people are far too wedded to their own traditions to see value in the practices of others. Personally, I like a lot of what he does. And I see a lot of what I do reflected in it. Because at its root kenpo is supposed to work. And if your technique works, it probably looks like what works no matter what you call it. He's told me himself that he's had run ins with other more traditional kenpo cats who _have _been able to make their material work, despite being raised in what he would consider a "dysfunctional" system. Because it's not just what you know, it's how you train. And some people train very, very well..."--Thesemindz


Very well said. A masterful post overall, my kenpo brother. 

I think you'll be happy to hear that most of my remaining techs don't have traditional "EPAK" names and whatnot, and it will be interesting to note how the reaction to these techs will be. I thought that calling my stuff ATACX GYM KENPO was sufficient to differentiate it from ED PARKER KENPO or SL-4 or LUCKYK KENPO or THESEMINDZ KENPO. Guess it wasn't sufficient for some people.

Well, for all of them? Literally 90% of my remaining techs have names you'll find only in my ATACX GYM. Hope that helps you feel better. If not? That's okay too.

Keep training. 

AMANI..."peace"...


----------



## ATACX GYM

Let's try something less acrimonious but still germane to the Sword and Hammer subject.

A couple of questions:

How likely is the hammerfist to actual hit the scrotum of the male offender [ no disrespect ladies, a Falcon Punch to the nethers is no bowl of joy for either sex...] ? What would you do to ensure that the hammerfist actually hits the sack as opposed to any other body part? Would you substitute another area, like the bladder? If so...what would be the looked for effect of this target substitution and why would you substitute this target? 

What if the throat is too far away cuz the BG's too tall or maybe he has a heavy jacket and scarf on...and you're a Yellow Belt being grabbed by the flank?

Let's try to make this thread make a turn for the less arsenic. Whaddya say?


----------



## Thesemindz

If the throat is out of range I would adjust to another centerline target, most likely the "solar plexus." As to the groin strike, part of being able to hit it is training to hit it. We wear a cup when we train, and we practice hitting our targets. Aside from that, in the technique I teach the first strike is intended to cause the opponent to arch up and back, projecting the groin forward and making it easier to strike, and to cause him to look away from your target area, making the strike more difficult to defend. But let's say he does see it coming, even a simple motion towards the groin is likely to cause a large reflexive defensive flinch. Go try to hit your buddy in the groin, his whole body will convulse away from the strike and he'll probably jump away. It's both an instinctual response and a learned behavior. That movement will create secondary opportunities to attack. So either I chop his throat and rack him, or he breaks his stance and jumps away. Either way he's not sucker punching me anymore. The technique as I teach it is designed to work somehow whether the specific strikes land or not, and also has defenses against the opponent's possible follow ups built in. As to other alternate targets, I've actually altered many of the groin strikes I was taught to bladder strikes in my own method. I prefer the bladder because it is more likely to break the opponent's stance, is easier to strike, and still hurts like hell. -Rob


----------



## Thesemindz

Also Twin Fist, for what it's worth I can frequently remember at least the pivotal moments of fights hit for hit, even years after the fact. I may not consciously decide what to do in the moment, but that doesn't mean I don't remember what I did afterwords. So I don't know what the "no one can" statement is based on. -Rob


----------



## ATACX GYM

Thesemindz said:


> If the throat is out of range I would adjust to another centerline target, most likely the "solar plexus." As to the groin strike, part of being able to hit it is training to hit it. We wear a cup when we train, and we practice hitting our targets. Aside from that, in the technique I teach the first strike is intended to cause the opponent to arch up and back, projecting the groin forward and making it easier to strike, and to cause him to look away from your target area, making the strike more difficult to defend. But let's say he does see it coming, even a simple motion towards the groin is likely to cause a large reflexive defensive flinch. Go try to hit your buddy in the groin, his whole body will convulse away from the strike and he'll probably jump away. It's both an instinctual response and a learned behavior. That movement will create secondary opportunities to attack. So either I chop his throat and rack him, or he breaks his stance and jumps away. Either way he's not sucker punching me anymore. The technique as I teach it is designed to work somehow whether the specific strikes land or not, and also has defenses against the opponent's possible follow ups built in. As to other alternate targets, I've actually altered many of the groin strikes I was taught to bladder strikes in my own method. I prefer the bladder because it is more likely to break the opponent's stance, is easier to strike, and still hurts like hell. -Rob




Good answer, man. Of course,most of your answers are good answers.

Being a short brutha from the neighborhood, I can say that I've used a variant of this sequence. a big gu by the name of June Bug was rough housing with my one day some years ago. He snuck up from the back [ I saw him but let him think he was getting over ] and he tried to tackle me. I spun on him, and in the ensuing scramble, he latched onto my shoulder with his left hand.

June is 6'4, 220 lbs. of reformed penitentiary muscle. I'm 5'7" and at the time weighed only 147 pounds. Due to the angle of the scramble and the fact that he had his hand up boxing style by his face, the neck was no option.

I handsworded his bicep with a pretty sharp pop on it, and followed immediately with a hammerfist to the forearm...the first alternative target option I present to my Pre-White Lvl A [ newest of the noobs ] students. He gasped in pain and reflexively released his hold. I laughingly asked him if he was okay and we laughed about it.


----------



## Cyriacus

ATACX GYM said:


> Let's try something less acrimonious but still germane to the Sword and Hammer subject.
> 
> A couple of questions:
> 
> How likely is the hammerfist to actual hit the scrotum of the male offender [ no disrespect ladies, a Falcon Punch to the nethers is no bowl of joy for either sex...] ? What would you do to ensure that the hammerfist actually hits the sack as opposed to any other body part? Would you substitute another area, like the bladder? If so...what would be the looked for effect of this target substitution and why would you substitute this target?
> 
> What if the throat is too far away cuz the BG's too tall or maybe he has a heavy jacket and scarf on...and you're a Yellow Belt being grabbed by the flank?
> 
> Let's try to make this thread make a turn for the less arsenic. Whaddya say?


It substitute the Groin Strike since once I was hit in the Groin straight on, similar to how the Hammerfist would (Angle Wise. It was a straight hit with a slight upward arc). The only effect it had was surprise. And a slight sore later, because impact is impact. But ultimately when I started doing MA, I decided not to have faith in hits to the Groin.

Grabs and Upward Hand Strikes (Like, directly up), sure.

Id substitute it for a hit to the True Ribs; Assuming its Your Right Hand, the Left Ribs.
Followed by exiting out.

And if the Guys too tall and rugged up? Get better at Power Striking or switch to a Backfist.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Thesemindz said:


> Also Twin Fist, for what it's worth I can frequently remember at least the pivotal moments of fights hit for hit, even years after the fact. I may not consciously decide what to do in the moment, but that doesn't mean I don't remember what I did afterwords. So I don't know what the "no one can" statement is based on. -Rob




Doc and Jerry founded the BKF. Guess if some of my detractors are right...Doc isn't a martial artist and doesn't know the lessons of Kenpo. Doc can't teach, and stuff.

[video=youtube_share;OPe2692PsM8]http://youtu.be/OPe2692PsM8[/video]

GM Sullivan considers Sijo to be one of the most gifted martial artists--not fighter, MARTIAL ARTISTS--that he's ever known. Bruce Lee knew a thing or two about martial arts, and was likewise impressed with Sijo...as a MARTIAL ARTIST.

[video=youtube_share;-JB8JDZQYvY]http://youtu.be/-JB8JDZQYvY[/video]

Cliff Stewart isn't a martial artist and stuff, because Silat Gurus grown on trees.

Let us not allow our more promising discussion to be derailed by the cantankerous ignorance of some others.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Cyriacus said:


> It substitute the Groin Strike since once I was hit in the Groin straight on, similar to how the Hammerfist would (Angle Wise. It was a straight hit with a slight upward arc). The only effect it had was surprise. And a slight sore later, because impact is impact. But ultimately when I started doing MA, I decided not to have faith in hits to the Groin.
> 
> Grabs and Upward Hand Strikes (Like, directly up), sure.
> 
> Id substitute it for a hit to the True Ribs; Assuming its Your Right Hand, the Left Ribs.
> Followed by exiting out.
> 
> And if the Guys too tall and rugged up? Get better at Power Striking or switch to a Backfist.



Good response man. Good response. But if you COULD NOT use another tech and HAD TO USE a handsword and hammerfist while you're grabbed by the shoulder or collar from the flank but the throat and groin WEREN'T targets...what targets would you choose? And how about doing some Power Striking with the Handsword and Hammerfist?

How about a Kenpo Bodywhip/Kinetic Chain handsword to the kidneys and a hammerfist to the hammerfist to the inner thigh or bladder?


----------



## Cyriacus

ATACX GYM said:


> Good response man. Good response. But if you COULD NOT use another tech and HAD TO USE a handsword and hammerfist while you're grabbed by the shoulder or collar from the flank but the throat and groin WEREN'T targets...what targets would you choose? And how about doing some Power Striking with the Handsword and Hammerfist?
> 
> How about a Kenpo Bodywhip/Kinetic Chain handsword to the kidneys and a hammerfist to the hammerfist to the inner thigh or bladder?


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/Urinary_system.svg
Because I know for a fact I can hit the Ribs, but the Bladder is a smaller target.
If Youre gonna hit that low, You may as well fire it at the Floating Ribs. Its what - A 15cm difference? Roughly.

Therefore, Sternum and Ribs.
Wont be as effective as neck and ribs, but that goes without saying.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Cyriacus said:


> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/Urinary_system.svg
> Because I know for a fact I can hit the Ribs, but the Bladder is a smaller target.
> If Youre gonna hit that low, You may as well fire it at the Floating Ribs. Its what - A 15cm difference? Roughly.
> 
> Therefore, Sternum and Ribs.
> Wont be as effective as neck and ribs, but that goes without saying.




Word well said man. I am a firm believer in body strikes, so I was just playing a little Devil's Advocate to keep the discussion going. Sternum with the handsword, ribs with the hammerfist?


----------



## ATACX GYM

We mandatorily run our techs from both sides and interchange hands...right left, left right,whatever. Do you guys work the tech only on the right side as frequently demo'd? do you throw say a RIGHT handsword and a LEFT hammerfist? would doing so exchange speed for power in your opinion?


----------



## Cyriacus

ATACX GYM said:


> Word well said man. I am a firm believer in body strikes, so I was just playing a little Devil's Advocate to keep the discussion going. Sternum with the handsword, ribs with the hammerfist?


Correct - The Hammerfist will have a better chance of breaking ribs, whilst the Handsword will have a better chance of having some... Penetrating Kickback, or whatever the word is for being hit in the front and feeling it in the back.



ATACX GYM said:


> We mandatorily run our techs from both sides and interchange hands...right left, left right,whatever. Do you guys work the tech only on the right side as frequently demo'd? do you throw say a RIGHT handsword and a LEFT hammerfist? would doing so exchange speed for power in your opinion?



Both sides.

If You were going to switch hands to the hammerfist, to begin with, You may as well do a Punch. But assuming Your Life depends on a Hammerfist, it can aptly be aimed for a fist blow to the Collarbone. The Handsword would have to be damn effective though, to make that work.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Cyriacus said:


> Correct - The Hammerfist will have a better chance of breaking ribs, whilst the Handsword will have a better chance of having some... Penetrating Kickback, or whatever the word is for being hit in the front and feeling it in the back.
> 
> 
> 
> Both sides.
> 
> If You were going to switch hands to the hammerfist, to begin with, You may as well do a Punch. But assuming Your Life depends on a Hammerfist, it can aptly be aimed for a fist blow to the Collarbone. The Handsword would have to be damn effective though, to make that work.




You know, a rear hand Body Whip of a hammerfist to the solar plexus can bend a guy over so bad that it's almost like you cut him in half. I have my lower belts do that and drop another sharp hammerfist on the juncture of neck and skull or dead center of the nape of the neck. It's a excellent warmup for our variant of Thundering Hammers...and it can be an exellent tool to bring a larger, out of range target into range. Hammerfist the sternum, drop the handsword on the neck with the other hand.

You can also fire a lead hand hammerfist to the sternum and use the recoil from the Body Whip/Kinetic Wave to fire the handsword to the now in range throat. Or if the neck is still out of reach? Go for the floating rib or kidneys or inner thigh with the handsword.

Now...does changing the targeting actually change the sequence itself? Is this sequence no long Sword and Hammer to you guys?


----------



## Thesemindz

That depends on what you mean when you say "Sword and Hammer." If you mean a technique where you use a striking combination including a handsword and a hammerfist, maybe it still is. But the names of the techniques represent a series of conceptual symbols in the minds of many EPAK and related stylists. So when you say "Sword and Hammer" to them, it immediately brings to mind a specific sequence of movements and related principles. That's part of the problem here Ras. You're using symbols (in the form of technique names) to represent one thing while it represents something different to your audience. It's like your using the word "dog" to refer to cats. Sure, they're both small furry house pets, but the words mean something specifically different. So you end up with a communication breakdown.

I don't use the name "Sword and Hammer." I call this technique "Hidden Strikes" which refers to the method of delivering the strikes. I've learned as many as five or six names for many of the kenpo techniques because I've trained in several different schools and I've had to learn the EPAK names so that I can converse with those practitioners. Ultimately, what you call the technique may or may not matter depending on whether you use the names as part of your method of instruction. Some people just call them "Purple Technique 1" and "Purple Technique 2."

Is your technique Sword and Hammer? Well, it is if you say it is. In your school with your students the only thing that matters is that you are consistent in your presentation. In discussions with practitioners outside your school using terms that already have clearly defined meanings in a way other than what is commonly accepted will always lead to understandable confusion. Communication is only possible because we share a common concept of the meaning of symbols. Absent that, it simply isn't.

Or in other words, "You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."


-Rob


----------



## MJS

ATACX GYM said:


> What I meant by "scripted scenario" is the position that too many take that the more common version of THE SWORD AND HAMMER is THEE SCENARIO and THEE SWORD AND HAMMER. Of course I don't denigrate the importance of scenarios...I use them in my techs. Lolollololol.
> 
> I totally agree with you that cramming stuff down a person's throat at too rapid a pace is absolutely more harmful than it's beneficial...but I never said or suggested such a thing in the first place. THIS is what I said and suggested:
> 
> [video=youtube_share;kEZ-zAUEkR4]http://youtu.be/kEZ-zAUEkR4[/video]



Can't watch YT at work.  Anyways...I don't know man, but thats how it looked to me.  I know I mentioned this same thing earlier.


----------



## MJS

I'm going to reply to a few segments of this post between Ras and Chris.  My replies will have a * at the beginning and end, to make it easier..I think, as to who's saying what.




Right. Ras, try to listen here.



Ras, to be completely blunt, this is the core of your problems, and the absolute evidence that you are not in any way right. In the slightest. Let's demonstrate, as you seem rather ignorant of what, or even how a technique teaches it's lessons.

The lessons of EPAK Sword and Hammer are numerous, but some that are immediately apparent are as follows:
- When grabbed, capture the grabbing hand for psychological and physical control.

*Grabbing the BG's hand doesn't give you psychological or physical control. He grabbed you in order to control you by locking you down into place for, pushing you away from, or pulling you in to the incoming blows that he's raining on you. Using your far hand to pin BG's hand to your shoulder simply means that you're unwise enough to remove your unencumbered limb from combat, thus opening up other lanes for the BG to attack and hurt you [ or his friends to do the same ] and removing your limb from the possibility of offensive strikes.

*I disagree Ras.  It does give a psychological/physical control.  The common response from the defender would be to try to pull away, not marry the badguys hands to your body.  Its just like a weapon...the badguy is using that weapon for intimidation and control.  Not saying that he wouldn't use it, but he's expecting compliance, not grabbing the weapon.*

MJS THE ONLY WAY THAT COULD BE TRUE IS IF THE BG ISN'T THROWING A PUNCH AT YOU WHEN HE GRABS YOU. IF YOU PIN HIS HAND ON YOUR SHOULDER WITH YOUR OFF HAND, HE'LL JUST HIT YOU ANYWAY. IT DOESN'T GIVE YOU ANY SORT OF PSYCHOLOGICAL OR PHYSICAL CONTROL. HE WON'T BE TRYING TO PULL AWAY HE'S ALREADY COMMITTED TO PUNCHING YOU. WHY WOULD HE PULL AWAY WHEN HE HAS HIS HAND ON YOUR SHOULDER AND HIS FIST COCKED AND IS IN THE MIDST OF FIRING A PUNCH OR--AS IN MY SCENARIO--HE'S ALREADY PUNCHED YOU AND YOU'RE RESPONDING TO HIS AGGRESSION BELATEDLY? HE'LL JUST KEEP HITTING YOU,MAN. I'M ACTUALLY SURPRISED THAT A GUY AS SHARP AS YOU ARE MISSED THAT. MAYBE YOU'RE ENVISIONING A SITUATION WHERE HE'S JUST GRABBED YOUR SHOULDER BUT HASN'T LOADED A PUNCH TO FIRE YET..?

* But this is assuming that the punch will always be his next course of action.  Thats like saying that every time a weapon is pulled, it'll be used.  As I said, with a weapon, alot of the time its intimidation.  Not saying they wont use it, just like i"m not saying they won't punch. In this case, you're assuming the punch will always happen.  I disagree.  That said, when someone is grabbed, their natural reaction is to pull away, not marry the guys hands, and move in, counter strike, etc.  
*
- When being pulled, go with the energy of that pull.

*Most of the more common Sword and Hammer sequences that I've seen live as well as those on YT do NOT feature an actual pull by uke. Most have him posing and doing nothing. But even if they did feature the pull? They neglect to address the very high probability that the BG's punch is hard on the heels of the pull, so they'll be pulled into the oncoming punch in far too many cases. The "more common" Sword and Hammer version that you claim is superior to mine doesn't remotely address this reality.

*Ras, you keep harping on this, and frankly its kinda old.  Of course you don't see this in those techs.  Why?  Because once again, its a platform to build from.  Your method is taking the student from step 1 to 10, without hitting 2 thru 9.  You make it seem like you're the only one to address a punch.  You're not. I do it, just not as rapidly as you're doing it.*

THE FACT THAT I INTRO THE PUNCH IMMEDIATELY DOESN'T MEAN THAT I'M GOING FROM 1 DIRECTLY TO 10, WHAT IT MEANS IS THAT I'M PRESENTING A COMPLETE SCENARIO FROM DAY ONE TO BE TRAINED AGAINST. WE BREAK DOWN OUR RESPONSES AGAINST THE GRAB AND PUNCH WITH THE COVER AND SPIN FIRST. WE DON'T EVEN PROGRESS TO THE NEXT MOVES UNTIL YOU'RE HIT FIRST, RECOVER, AND THEN SPIN. THAT IS THE MOST ESSENTIAL ASPECT OF THE SEQUENCE. WE COVER BEING PULLED INTO THE PUNCH AND JUST GOING WITH OUR SWORD AND HAMMER THERE AS WELL AS SPINNING AWAY AFTER WE'RE CRACKED FROM THE REAR AND BEING PUSHED AWAY BY BODY PRESSURE AND PUNCHES. WE FOLLOW A VERY SPECIFIC PROGRESSION AND WE COVER ALL OF THE PRIMARY STEPS IN BETWEEN...BUT WE PRESENT A COMPLETE RESPONSE. WE JUST DO SO, AS YOU STATED, EARLIER THAN YOU DO. THAT'S A MATTER OF TRAINING PREFERENCE AND TRAINING PARADIGM, NOT A LACK IN TRAINING QUALITY. I'M SURE YOU TEACH YOUR MORE SLOWLY PACED METHOD WELL, AND I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT I TEACH MINE VERY WELL INDEED. AS LONG AS THE RESULT IS A FULLY FUNCTIONAL STUDENT? I DON'T SEE TOO MUCH TO QUIBBLE ABOUT. 

*Umm...if we look at the early techniques, and katas, we'll see they're teaching specific things.  This is mentioned in the 5 vol Parker books.  Seems like to me, it'd make more sense to ease the student into dealing with 1 attack first, before trying to get them to deal with a grab and a punch.  So yes, your way it taking them from 1-10.  I cover the same thing you are, but I get them to deal with one thing first.  As I said above, we're assuming that the punch will follow.  What if it doesnt?  I've seen people grabbed and moved around, slammed into a wall, etc.  
*
- The use of pre-emptive striking as a tactic.

*As I have previously stated and left links proving to be true...Kenpo Elders like Larry Tatum and Doc Chapel find the "pre-emptive strike" notion to be questionable at best. On the mat? Their skepticism is thoroughly underscored by actually sparring with Sword and Hammer vs the Hockey Punch.

* And thats their opinion.  The use of a pre-emptive strike is very useful.  Theres nothing 'questionable' about it at all.  Numerous RBSD guys use it and speak of its effectiveness.  The #1 reason people 'question' its use, is because to the average Joe passerby, it'll look like WE are making the first move.  What the untrained person IS NOT seeing, is the agressive, threatening actions, by the badguy.  THAT right there, is assault.  Sorry, but anyone who would wait for the punch to be half way to their face before reacting, well, they're an idiot.  As I've said a million times, and I'll say it a million more....my safety, and that of anyone with me is my #1 concern!  I'll deal with the other BS later. *

MAYBE I SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE SPECIFIC AND CLEAR: THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE IDEA AND CONCEPT OF THE PREEMPTIVE STRIKE. THERE IS A GREAT DEAL OF DIFFICULTY IN PULLING THIS CONCEPT OFF USING THIS SEQUENCE WHILE UNDER DURESS AND STILL HAVE A VERY HIGH LEVEL OF PROTECTION AGAINST LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS FOR GUESSING WRONG. WITHOUT SOME KIND OF ASSESSMENT MECHANISM BEING BUILT INTO THE SEQUENCE ITSELF AND REENFORCED VIA TRAINING, MUSCLE MEMORY COULD TAKE OVER AND YOU MIGHT BLAST SOMEBODY WHO DOESN'T DESERVE THE SWORD AND HAMMER INTO OBLIVION. OR YOU MIGHT GO OVERKILL WITH THE FORCE ON SOMEBODY WHO DOES INDEED DESERVE THE SWORD AND HAMMER. AND THERE ARE ALOT MORE ISSUES THAT I SEE WITH THE WHOLE PREEMPTIVE STRIKE NOTION--NOT THE LEAST OF WHICH IS THAT IT'S THE LEAST LIKELY TO HAPPEN UNDER DURESS IN THIS KIND OF HOCKEY PUNCH SCENARIO AND MOST DIFFICULT IN MOST CASES TO LEGALLY AND MORALLY JUSTIFY--BUT IF YOU END UP WITH A FULLY FUNCTIONAL STUDENT USING YOUR METHOD? HAVE AT IT THEN.

*Can't be that hard, because there're people who preach the use of the pre empt and teach it, all the time.  Saying its hard to pre-empt, because of duress, but pulling off a SD tech isn't, doesnt make sense.  As for the legal stuff...this is why I've said many times, that the majority of schools teach only what I call the "During" phase, yet they leave out the "Before and After" phases, those being how to verbally defuse something and how to deal with the aftermath.  Like I said, I'll deal with the legal stuff after.  

Of course, I'm not necessarily talking about a preset SD tech.  I'm talking about something as simple as a pre-emptive palm to the face, a kick to the shin, etc.  I doubt those things, which are minor IMO, are going to land me in a heap.  Even in the DOC, we had a use of force protocol to follow.  Things like that are less frowned upon vs. if I knocked out a few teeth, took an eye, etc.  
*


----------



## ATACX GYM

Thesemindz said:


> That depends on what you mean when you say "Sword and Hammer." If you mean a technique where you use a striking combination including a handsword and a hammerfist, maybe it still is. But the names of the techniques represent a series of conceptual symbols in the minds of many EPAK and related stylists. So when you say "Sword and Hammer" to them, it immediately brings to mind a specific sequence of movements and related principles. That's part of the problem here Ras. You're using symbols (in the form of technique names) to represent one thing while it represents something different to your audience. It's like your using the word "dog" to refer to cats. Sure, they're both small furry house pets, but the words mean something specifically different. So you end up with a communication breakdown.
> 
> I don't use the name "Sword and Hammer." I call this technique "Hidden Strikes" which refers to the method of delivering the strikes. I've learned as many as five or six names for many of the kenpo techniques because I've trained in several different schools and I've had to learn the EPAK names so that I can converse with those practitioners. Ultimately, what you call the technique may or may not matter depending on whether you use the names as part of your method of instruction. Some people just call them "Purple Technique 1" and "Purple Technique 2."
> 
> Is your technique Sword and Hammer? Well, it is if you say it is. In your school with your students the only thing that matters is that you are consistent in your presentation. In discussions with practitioners outside your school using terms that already have clearly defined meanings in a way other than what is commonly accepted will always lead to understandable confusion. Communication is only possible because we share a common concept of the meaning of symbols. Absent that, it simply isn't.
> 
> Or in other words, "You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
> 
> 
> -Rob



You know...Doc was trying to say something similar to me, I think. You said it much better.

Now, I thought that I made sufficient distinction between my idea about Sword and Hammer when I said ATACX GYM SWORD AND HAMMER RADIUS R.D.L. and when I'd say hundreds of times and even when leading into my videos:" This is nothing like you'd been taught". But I suppose that what you mean is that mentioning SWORD AND HAMMER in most any combination will summon the mental image of the one-hand chop and hammer in the minds of most Parker guys.

Okay now...what if I was of the opinion that my understanding of Sword and Hammer is NOT the physical articulation of Sword and Hammer that became popular merely because of a misunderstanding that conflates the loose physical guideline and suggestions within Big Red with THEE IRON-CLAD SWORD AND HAMMER [ said in the big basso profundo echoing voice like some superpowerful entity is speaking ]. Now are you saying that I should essentially tacitly perpetuate this misunderstanding by capitulating to the language and mental imagery of the misinformed [ of which I was a member--to a lesser degree but still a member--for quite some time ]? Why not combat this misinformation from day one and stand steadfast as a redoubt, a bastion, of correct information and use language reflective of our newfound data?

I have made the language changes that you and others have suggested in my videos. If you notice, I no longer denigrate the dysfunctional expressions that I disagree with forthrightly in my videos. I continue to develope and evolve in numerous areas. But I can't see how I wouldn't be a part of perpetuating the very misinformation that I stand against if I agree to participate in the misinformation or at least don't call it out when I see it.

I will use more of sumdumguy's suggestions visavis verbiage, and hopefully that will more clearly convey my positions without causing unnecessary static with many EPAK guys...but there's gonna be unavoidable static because faaaarrrrr too many EPAK guys labor under the misinformation of what the I.P. is and isn't. I'm gonna clash with these guys. But I don't see why I should have to clash with people who understand exactly what I mean and use the language of people who convey an idea that is exactly what I don't mean and is rooted in misinformation that I don't want to help perpetuate and which I don't agree with in any way.

So when EPAK guys say...SWORD AND HAMMER...guys like you and me who know the answer and the history should enlighten them. We might start by telling them:




Thesemindz said:


> Or in other words, "You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
> 
> 
> -Rob


----------



## MJS

ATACX GYM said:


> I don't offer a one size fit all approach, bruh. I simply point out that training A SINGLE TECH to handle MULTIPLE ATTACKS is the height of common sense, efficiency, and absolutely mandates much more higher levels of quality muscle reps using that same tech vs all manner of attacks. This makes you BETTER, not worse. It doesn't take more time either. If you take every tech you have and train it vs multiple attacks like this:



And that to me reads 1 size fits all.  Maybe its miscommunication/misunderstanding, but let me say this....it seems that you're taking a stand up tech, we'll use S&H since thats what this threads about, and you're using the entire thing against any attack, ie: a grab, a punch, a kick, a bearhug, a full nelson, etc.  I'm saying this is impossible.  The concepts and ideas may be used, but other than that....I'm not seeing it.  Furthermore, why would I want to do that, when, again, I can drill my basics, and formulate my own response.

[video=youtube_share;kEZ-zAUEkR4]http://youtu.be/kEZ-zAUEkR4[/video]




> then every tech you have that you formulate into a sequence is ALSO thoroughly flexible and capable of dealing with multiple attacks. The only limits to your application is your training model. I told you guys that my Sword and Hammer almost 100% translates to the ground and vs weapons exactly as you see it done empty handed. MJS, you should recall that the old skool Kali warriors are far famed for doing exactly the same thing, so your own art incarnates the truth of the position that I champion. I'm surprised that you in any way gainsay it.



There are things that, depending on what you're doing, can't be done on every side, if we're talking about a stick.  For example...in Arnis there are 12 angles of attack.  I can't use a #1 disarm against a #2 angle of attack.  Just isn't happening.


----------



## Thesemindz

MJS said:


> There are things that, depending on what you're doing, can't be done on every side, if we're talking about a stick.  For example...in Arnis there are 12 angles of attack.  I can't use a #1 disarm against a #2 angle of attack.  Just isn't happening.



I don't think he means exactly that. I think he means you could use #1 disarm with your right arm or your left in mirror image. Like training your techniques "left handed," which not everybody does, but he does with everything.


-Rob


----------



## Thesemindz

Ras, I was discussing this very thread with my wife this morning and she related it to the confusion that arises between different sects of christianity. They often use the same terms such as "salvation," "baptism," and "afterlife," but they may mean wildly different things according to their particular perspective. So then you have two different believers from two different faith traditions and they try to converse using common symbols and terms and don't understand why they are coming to radically different and incompatible conclusions. But it's because even though their symbols and terms are superficially similar, they actually represent very different things. Unless that is understood first, productive communication can't possibly take place. Because they're speaking different languages.

Personally, I don't care what you call it. Like I said, I've had to learn many different names and terms, so I don't get as hung up on the labels. But when you're conversing with people for whom "Sword and Hammer" has only ever had one meaning, you're going to run in to this problem. It's like the "false friend" concept from the field of linguistics. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, but you can call just about any damn thing you want a rose, and if you do, it's going to lead to a lot of confusion on Valentine's Day.


-Rob


----------



## MJS

Thesemindz said:


> I don't think he means exactly that. I think he means you could use #1 disarm with your right arm or your left in mirror image. Like training your techniques "left handed," which not everybody does, but he does with everything.
> 
> 
> -Rob



http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sh...both-sides&highlight=techniques+on+both+sides

Hey Rob,

Thanks for the clarification.  I wasn't reading it that way, but if thats what he meant, cool.   The link I posted is one that I found.  I'm sure there're more, but this is the first one that I saw.  Anyways...you'll see differing views on what you're talking about.  I've "taught" myself alot of the techs on the left side, mainly because it was easier for them to follow along.  

As for the Arnis...we have various rt/rt, rt/lt, lt/rt, lt/lt drills that we work.  Working the stuff all left vs. left isnt a requirement.  AFAIK, its something that you can do, if you want.


----------



## Thesemindz

MJS said:


> http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sh...both-sides&highlight=techniques+on+both+sides
> 
> Hey Rob,
> 
> Thanks for the clarification.  I wasn't reading it that way, but if thats what he meant, cool.   The link I posted is one that I found.  I'm sure there're more, but this is the first one that I saw.  Anyways...you'll see differing views on what you're talking about.  I've "taught" myself alot of the techs on the left side, mainly because it was easier for them to follow along.
> 
> As for the Arnis...we have various rt/rt, rt/lt, lt/rt, lt/lt drills that we work.  Working the stuff all left vs. left isnt a requirement.  AFAIK, its something that you can do, if you want.



Doc has some great posts about this subject that have really helped to inform my approach. I still practice my techniques on both sides, but with what he's said in the past in mind I've realized that some movements are inherently more effective with one side of my body or the other. That isn't to say that I can't become _more _proficient over time with each side, only that some moves may have a higher functional ceiling with one side of the body or the other. At least, that's my understanding today, maybe over time I'll learn more.


-Rob


----------



## MJS

Thesemindz said:


> Doc has some great posts about this subject that have really helped to inform my approach. I still practice my techniques on both sides, but with what he's said in the past in mind I've realized that some movements are inherently more effective with one side of my body or the other. That isn't to say that I can't become _more _proficient over time with each side, only that some moves may have a higher functional ceiling with one side of the body or the other. At least, that's my understanding today, maybe over time I'll learn more.
> 
> 
> -Rob



For me, I've only done it with a handful of techniques.  One of my past Kenpo schools, had this as a requirement for the upper belts.  Personally, I'd have rather seen other stuff being trained, but that wasn't my call to make.   As for the Arnis...well, were I to have to deal with a left handed attacker, I'd opt for just keeping my stick in my right, rather than handing it off to my left, but thats just me.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Okay, no full sequence can be used against any and every humanly possible attack. The idea is to learn the tech or sequence and NOT dispose of all the other tools in your arsenal. Remember when I kept telling you guys about my teaching method which parallels Matt Thornton's "I METHOD" approach? Well, you Introduce the tech, Isolate it and spar with it to ingrain the correct keenness of tech in execution vs resistance, and then you INTEGRATE IT BACK INTO YOUR ARSENAL. This process is what answers the question that many ask me and fail to grasp the answer to: why do you have more than one attack if you test your techs vs multiple scenarios attack ranges etc etc? The answer is simple: no one attack can FINISH EVERY FOE, even if you land the finishing blow/move. We've seen people have Kimuras clamp on them, have their shoulder and arm dislocated, and STILL fight or be ABLE to still fight should they choose. Does that mean that the Kimura didn't do it's job? Of course not. We've seen people take full on flying knees and spin kicks to their heads and neck. Finishes MOST people, but not ALL people. The lack of a 100% finish doesn't mean that we dispense with the flying knee or spin kick, any more than the fact that most people will get finished by such a tech landed full on and flush means that we rely on ONLY those techs to finish EVERY opponent. Yall feelz me now?

From a Full Nelson? In my Gym, by the time you learn my Sword and Hammer Radius R.D.L. sequence you already learned how to break out of a Full Nelson [ Full Nelson Defense A ]. But even if you didn't? You can even modify a Full Nelson escape simply by poking at BG's eyes while grapevining his legs as a set up to dropping into the Cover+double palm heel low block position [ elbows tight to your sides, thrusting palms breaks the Full Nelson or at least puts lots of strain on it], hip heist and you're back in position for Sword and Hammer. It's Position Recognition and Position Manipulation...plain and simple.

Bear Hug...arms in, one arm in one arm out...you already know the defenses that we use by the time you use Sword and Hammer so you can modify from right there. Scramble, hip heist H-frame hand control head butt and bang you're in position so go directly into my sequence [ cover spin Sword and Hammer Radius R.D.L. ]. Remember my tech BEAR HUG DEFENSE A which corresponds to EPAK's CAPTURED TWIGS and my CAPTURED TWIGS RADIUS R.D.L. ak BEAR HUG DEFENSE A video? 

See...the R.D.L.  [ Rock Drop and Lock ] aspects of each of my techs and sequences already cover these exigencies. It's part of learning each of the  techs and sequences themselves. We deliberately apply our defenses vs other attacks in order to build into them the necessary flexibility and adaptability. I already said this numerous times.




Thesemindz said:


> I don't think he means exactly that. I think he means you could use #1 disarm with your right arm or your left in mirror image. Like training your techniques "left handed," which not everybody does, but he does with everything.
> 
> 
> -Rob



^^^^an essential part of integrating the sequence back into your arsenal is the above. Cosign.


----------



## ATACX GYM

MJS said:


> For me, I've only done it with a handful of techniques.  One of my past Kenpo schools, had this as a requirement for the upper belts.  Personally, I'd have rather seen other stuff being trained, but that wasn't my call to make.   As for the Arnis...well, were I to have to deal with a left handed attacker, I'd opt for just keeping my stick in my right, rather than handing it off to my left, but thats just me.




What if your right hand becomes injured or is entangled or what if you're in a multifight or grappling? I understand and respect that your right is probably more adept than your left but I'd rather have two limbs--one amazingly excellent the other incredibly awesome--than one omg superfly stupendous limb. That's like playing bball and only having a ferocious right side game. They'll make you go left eventually...and if you're not superfly there too? Your team is toast.

They did it to Jordan with the Jordan Rules...but Jordan's demonic work ethic had long prepped him for such a possibility so he handled the challenge well. 

I'm not saying that you DON'T train your left side rigorously [ I have no idea if you do or not, my friend ] but I'm advocating that you DO train both sides with extreme dedication and rigor. That's all.


----------



## MJS

ATACX GYM said:


> What if your right hand becomes injured or is entangled or what if you're in a multifight or grappling? I understand and respect that your right is probably more adept than your left but I'd rather have two limbs--one amazingly excellent the other incredibly awesome--than one omg superfly stupendous limb. That's like playing bball and only having a ferocious right side game. They'll make you go left eventually...and if you're not superfly there too? Your team is toast.
> 
> They did it to Jordan with the Jordan Rules...but Jordan's demonic work ethic had long prepped him for such a possibility so he handled the challenge well.
> 
> I'm not saying that you DON'T train your left side rigorously [ I have no idea if you do or not, my friend ] but I'm advocating that you DO train both sides with extreme dedication and rigor. That's all.



With Kenpo:  I spent an entire class working just that.  I picked some basic, lower belt techniques to use.  I had everyone put their right hand in their belt.  We simply adapted using our left hand to block, or parry, or we'd simply avoid by stepping back, or up, on a 45.  It certainly made everyone think.  

With Arnis: As I said earlier, we have right v. right drills, right v.left, left v. right, and left v. left.  I'd simply adapt and make the best of it.  Given the fact that you need 2 hands to make alot of the stuff work, alot of the locks and disarms will probably be a moot point.


----------



## Twin Fist

Thesemindz said:


> If the throat is out of range I would adjust to another centerline target, most likely the "solar plexus."


 
that would force you to change the weapon, you cant really hit the solar plexus with a horizontal handsword, not if you want to penetrate really well anyway.



Thesemindz said:


> first strike is intended to cause the opponent to arch up and back, projecting the groin forward and making it easier to strike,



if you hit the solar plex instead because you couldnt reach the throat, you wont get the same opening to the groin since hitting the solar plex makes them bend forward instead of back in most cases.



Thesemindz said:


> and to cause him to look away from your target area, making the strike more difficult to defend. But let's say he does see it coming, even a simple motion towards the groin is likely to cause a large reflexive defensive flinch. Go try to hit your buddy in the groin, his whole body will convulse away from the strike and he'll probably jump away. It's both an instinctual response and a learned behavior. That movement will create secondary opportunities to attack. So either I chop his throat and rack him, or he breaks his stance and jumps away. Either way he's not sucker punching me anymore. The technique as I teach it is designed to work somehow whether the specific strikes land or not, and also has defenses against the opponent's possible follow ups built in. As to other alternate targets, I've actually altered many of the groin strikes I was taught to bladder strikes in my own method. I prefer the bladder because it is more likely to break the opponent's stance, is easier to strike, and still hurts like hell. -Rob



true


----------



## ATACX GYM

MJS said:


> I'm going to reply to a few segments of this post between Ras and Chris.  My replies will have a * at the beginning and end, to make it easier..I think, as to who's saying what.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right. Ras, try to listen here.
> 
> 
> 
> Ras, to be completely blunt, this is the core of your problems, and the absolute evidence that you are not in any way right. In the slightest. Let's demonstrate, as you seem rather ignorant of what, or even how a technique teaches it's lessons.
> 
> The lessons of EPAK Sword and Hammer are numerous, but some that are immediately apparent are as follows:
> - When grabbed, capture the grabbing hand for psychological and physical control.
> 
> *Grabbing the BG's hand doesn't give you psychological or physical control. He grabbed you in order to control you by locking you down into place for, pushing you away from, or pulling you in to the incoming blows that he's raining on you. Using your far hand to pin BG's hand to your shoulder simply means that you're unwise enough to remove your unencumbered limb from combat, thus opening up other lanes for the BG to attack and hurt you [ or his friends to do the same ] and removing your limb from the possibility of offensive strikes.
> 
> *I disagree Ras.  It does give a psychological/physical control.  The common response from the defender would be to try to pull away, not marry the badguys hands to your body.  Its just like a weapon...the badguy is using that weapon for intimidation and control.  Not saying that he wouldn't use it, but he's expecting compliance, not grabbing the weapon.*
> 
> MJS THE ONLY WAY THAT COULD BE TRUE IS IF THE BG ISN'T THROWING A PUNCH AT YOU WHEN HE GRABS YOU. IF YOU PIN HIS HAND ON YOUR SHOULDER WITH YOUR OFF HAND, HE'LL JUST HIT YOU ANYWAY. IT DOESN'T GIVE YOU ANY SORT OF PSYCHOLOGICAL OR PHYSICAL CONTROL. HE WON'T BE TRYING TO PULL AWAY HE'S ALREADY COMMITTED TO PUNCHING YOU. WHY WOULD HE PULL AWAY WHEN HE HAS HIS HAND ON YOUR SHOULDER AND HIS FIST COCKED AND IS IN THE MIDST OF FIRING A PUNCH OR--AS IN MY SCENARIO--HE'S ALREADY PUNCHED YOU AND YOU'RE RESPONDING TO HIS AGGRESSION BELATEDLY? HE'LL JUST KEEP HITTING YOU,MAN. I'M ACTUALLY SURPRISED THAT A GUY AS SHARP AS YOU ARE MISSED THAT. MAYBE YOU'RE ENVISIONING A SITUATION WHERE HE'S JUST GRABBED YOUR SHOULDER BUT HASN'T LOADED A PUNCH TO FIRE YET..?
> 
> * But this is assuming that the punch will always be his next course of action.  Thats like saying that every time a weapon is pulled, it'll be used.  As I said, with a weapon, alot of the time its intimidation.  Not saying they wont use it, just like i"m not saying they won't punch. In this case, you're assuming the punch will always happen.  I disagree.  That said, when someone is grabbed, their natural reaction is to pull away, not marry the guys hands, and move in, counter strike, etc.
> 
> 
> *_*PERHAPS I'M NOT MAKING MYSELF AS CLEAR AS I'D LIKE TO DUE TO POOR WORD SELECTION. I APOLOGIZE THEN. I DON'T ASSUME THAT THE PUNCH WILL ALWAYS COME. I ASSUME THAT THERE IS A REASONABLE THREAT OF OR REALITY OF AGGRESSION UPON OURSELVES AND WHATEVER THE SCENARIO WE NEED TO PUT OURSELVES IN CONTROL OF IT WHILE ELIMINATING SAME FOR THE BAD GUY. THAT INCLUDES PSYCHOLOGICAL INTIMIDATION...AND THAT'S ALL THE MORE REASON TO NOT BURN INTO OUR REFLEXES THE AUTOMATIC RESPONSE OF HANDSWORD TO NECK-HAMMERFIST THE NADS. YOU'RE RIGHT...NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE SPEND TIME IN WHAT YOU CALL THE "BEFORE" AND "AFTER" PHASES, FOCUSING MOSTLY ON THE "DURING". WELL, I BUILD INTO MY "DURING" THE CAPACITY TO FURTHER PROPERLY ANALYZE WHAT'S GOING ON WITHOUT SACRFICING AN OUNCE OF COMBAT EFFICACY.
> 
> WHAT I MEAN, MY FRIEND, IS THAT WHATEVER THE OFFENSIVE IS? OUR FIRST REACTIONS SHOULD NUETER IT. THE COVER AND SPIN FREES YOU OF THE GRAB, TAKES YOU OUT OF DIRECT LINE OF ATTACK FOR ANY HAND HELD WEAPON WHEN YOU SPIN OUTSIDE AND ALLOWS YOU TO ENGAGE AND DEFEND AGAINST SAID WEAPON IMMEDIATELY WHEN YOU SPIN INSIDE, AND ON THE GROUND YOU'RE ABLE TO NUETER FURTHER OFFENSIVES AND DROP YOUR OPPONENT WHILE PUTTING YOURSELF IN A SOLID LARGELY SAFE POSITION TO COUNTERATTACK. ALL OF THIS WITH A SINGLE MOVE. AND THAT SINGLE MOVE WAS CHOSEN BECAUSE WE ARE AWARE OF THE FACTORS THAT CAN HAPPEN IN CQC AND I TOOK THE  TIME TO CONSIDER HIGH PERCENTAGE DEFENSES WHICH ARE THEMSELVES ATTACKS YET ARE SO SIMPLE EVEN UNCOORDINATED COMPLETE NOOBS CAN LEARN IT QUICKLY AND EFFICIENTLY. THEN I GOT ON THE MAT MYSELF AND WORKED IT OUT PHYSICALLY UNTIL I GOT THE INGREDIENTS RIGHT, AND CAME UP WITH THE RESULT THAT I WANTED...AND I KEPT THE WHOLE PROCESS TOP TO BOTTOM. WRITTEN NOTES AND EVERYTHING.
> *
> *I FAIL TO SEE SUCH CONSIDERATIONS BUILT INTO THE EXECUTION OF THE MORE COMMON VERSION OF SWORD AND HAMMER. I'M NOT SAYING THAT TEACHERS LIKE YOU AND SAY ROB DON'T HAVE THOSE CONSIDERATIONS BUILT INTO YOUR CLASS LESSONS ON THIS AND OTHER SEQUENCES, WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT I DON'T SEE THESE CONCERNS BUILT INTO THE SEQUENCE ITSELF. YOU SEE ME? MY FIRST RESPONSE REFLECTS MY AWARENESS OF THIS SITUATION. IN EVERY SINGLE SEQUENCE I HAVE, THIS CONSIDERATION IS BUILT INTO IT. SOMETIMES IT'S MORE SUBTLE THAN OTHERS, BUT IN THE ACTUAL SEQUENCE OF MOVEMENTS THAT I TEACH-- ALL OF THEM--I HAVE THIS CONSIDERATION IN MIND*
> _- When being pulled, go with the energy of that pull.
> 
> *Most of the more common Sword and Hammer sequences that I've seen live as well as those on YT do NOT feature an actual pull by uke. Most have him posing and doing nothing. But even if they did feature the pull? They neglect to address the very high probability that the BG's punch is hard on the heels of the pull, so they'll be pulled into the oncoming punch in far too many cases. The "more common" Sword and Hammer version that you claim is superior to mine doesn't remotely address this reality.
> 
> *Ras, you keep harping on this, and frankly its kinda old.  Of course you don't see this in those techs.  Why?  Because once again, its a platform to build from.  Your method is taking the student from step 1 to 10, without hitting 2 thru 9.  You make it seem like you're the only one to address a punch.  You're not. I do it, just not as rapidly as you're doing it.*
> 
> THE FACT THAT I INTRO THE PUNCH IMMEDIATELY DOESN'T MEAN THAT I'M GOING FROM 1 DIRECTLY TO 10, WHAT IT MEANS IS THAT I'M PRESENTING A COMPLETE SCENARIO FROM DAY ONE TO BE TRAINED AGAINST. WE BREAK DOWN OUR RESPONSES AGAINST THE GRAB AND PUNCH WITH THE COVER AND SPIN FIRST. WE DON'T EVEN PROGRESS TO THE NEXT MOVES UNTIL YOU'RE HIT FIRST, RECOVER, AND THEN SPIN. THAT IS THE MOST ESSENTIAL ASPECT OF THE SEQUENCE. WE COVER BEING PULLED INTO THE PUNCH AND JUST GOING WITH OUR SWORD AND HAMMER THERE AS WELL AS SPINNING AWAY AFTER WE'RE CRACKED FROM THE REAR AND BEING PUSHED AWAY BY BODY PRESSURE AND PUNCHES. WE FOLLOW A VERY SPECIFIC PROGRESSION AND WE COVER ALL OF THE PRIMARY STEPS IN BETWEEN...BUT WE PRESENT A COMPLETE RESPONSE. WE JUST DO SO, AS YOU STATED, EARLIER THAN YOU DO. THAT'S A MATTER OF TRAINING PREFERENCE AND TRAINING PARADIGM, NOT A LACK IN TRAINING QUALITY. I'M SURE YOU TEACH YOUR MORE SLOWLY PACED METHOD WELL, AND I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT I TEACH MINE VERY WELL INDEED. AS LONG AS THE RESULT IS A FULLY FUNCTIONAL STUDENT? I DON'T SEE TOO MUCH TO QUIBBLE ABOUT.
> 
> *Umm...if we look at the early techniques, and katas, we'll see they're teaching specific things.  This is mentioned in the 5 vol Parker books.  Seems like to me, it'd make more sense to ease the student into dealing with 1 attack first, before trying to get them to deal with a grab and a punch.  So yes, your way it taking them from 1-10.  I cover the same thing you are, but I get them to deal with one thing first.  As I said above, we're assuming that the punch will follow.  What if it doesnt?  I've seen people grabbed and moved around, slammed into a wall, etc.
> 
> KATAS ARE COMPRISED OF MULTIPLE MOVEMENTS AND OFTENTIMES DEMANDING, EXACTING STANCES. IN SHORT ONE...HOW OFTEN DO WE HAVE TO STOP AND REALIGN FOOT AND HEEL POSITIONING OF STUDENTS AS THEY'RE PERFORMING THE KATA? HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO FUSS ABOUT FLAPPING ELBOWS AND IMPROPERLY COUCHED FISTS BY THE HIPS? HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO TELL THEM TO RELAX AND TRUST THEIR BODIES, DON'T BE SO ROBOTIC AND OVERTHING EACH MOVE? HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO REMIND THEM WHICH WAY TO TURN, WHICH FOOT TO STEP BACK WITH, TO TURN THEIR HEADS TO LOOK AT THE DIRECTION THEY'RE GOING AND VISUALLY CUE UP THEIR IMAGINARY FOE BEFORE THEY EXECUTE THEIR BLOCKS? HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO TELL THEM TO BLOCK WITH AUTHORITY...DON'T JUST PUT YOUR HAND ARM IN THE AIR? I KNOW YOU FEEL ME.
> 
> EVEN SHORT ONE IS COMPRISED OF DIFFERENT BLOCKS TO THE CARDINAL DIRECTIONS AND COMBINED WITH A SENSE OF SPATIAL AWARENESS WHICH SHOULD RETURN YOU VERY NEAR TO THE SPOT THAT YOU STARTED YOUR KATA AT WHEN YOU'RE DONE. YES THEY TEACH SPECIFIC THINGS. MY SEQUENCE HAS MOVEMENTS ABOUT EQUIVALENT IN NUMBER TO SHORT 1. IT TEACHES A SPECIFIC THING. IT RETURNS YOU TO THE SPOT YOU STARTED AT [ STANDING ]. MY SEQUENCES ARE NO MORE GOING FROM 1-10 THAN LEARNING SHORT ONE TAKES SOMEONE FROM 1-10.
> 
> PLEASE LOOK AT MY 15 ROUND PROGRESSIONS WHEREIN WE GET IN LOTSA HIGH QUALITY REPS AND COMBINE THEM WITH THE VIDEO REGARDING THE INSIDE BLOCK THAT I SHOWED. I CAN LITERALLY FIND A KID AND HAVE A KID LIKE 10 YEARS OLD OR WHATEVER DO WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT IN UNDER 3 MINUTES' TIME. NOT KIDDING, NO JOKE. I WILL FILM IT. WHENEVER I DO MY VIDEOS AT THE PARK? KIDS COME UP AND ASK ME ABOUT WHAT I'M DOING. I'LL CORRAL ONE OF THOSE KIDS AND PROVE TO YOU WHAT I MEAN BY MY PROGRESSIONS, MY FRIEND MJS. IT'S REALLY REALLY NOT HARD OR OVERLOADING. IT'S MERELY A DIFFERENCE IN TRAINING PARADIGM AND MAYBE DEMOGRAPHICS TOO. MAYBE THE PEOPLE I TEACH ARE MORE ATHLETIC AND MORE FAMILIAR WITH COMBAT THAN THE PEOPLE YOU TEACH. IDK. REGARDLESS? NEXT WEEK I WILL PUT UP VIDEO SHOWING YOU HOW EASILY WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT CAN BE DONE.
> *
> - The use of pre-emptive striking as a tactic.
> 
> *As I have previously stated and left links proving to be true...Kenpo Elders like Larry Tatum and Doc Chapel find the "pre-emptive strike" notion to be questionable at best. On the mat? Their skepticism is thoroughly underscored by actually sparring with Sword and Hammer vs the Hockey Punch.
> 
> * And thats their opinion.  The use of a pre-emptive strike is very useful.  Theres nothing 'questionable' about it at all.  Numerous RBSD guys use it and speak of its effectiveness.  The #1 reason people 'question' its use, is because to the average Joe passerby, it'll look like WE are making the first move.  What the untrained person IS NOT seeing, is the agressive, threatening actions, by the badguy.  THAT right there, is assault.  Sorry, but anyone who would wait for the punch to be half way to their face before reacting, well, they're an idiot.  As I've said a million times, and I'll say it a million more....my safety, and that of anyone with me is my #1 concern!  I'll deal with the other BS later. *
> 
> MAYBE I SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE SPECIFIC AND CLEAR: THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE IDEA AND CONCEPT OF THE PREEMPTIVE STRIKE. THERE IS A GREAT DEAL OF DIFFICULTY IN PULLING THIS CONCEPT OFF USING THIS SEQUENCE WHILE UNDER DURESS AND STILL HAVE A VERY HIGH LEVEL OF PROTECTION AGAINST LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS FOR GUESSING WRONG. WITHOUT SOME KIND OF ASSESSMENT MECHANISM BEING BUILT INTO THE SEQUENCE ITSELF AND REENFORCED VIA TRAINING, MUSCLE MEMORY COULD TAKE OVER AND YOU MIGHT BLAST SOMEBODY WHO DOESN'T DESERVE THE SWORD AND HAMMER INTO OBLIVION. OR YOU MIGHT GO OVERKILL WITH THE FORCE ON SOMEBODY WHO DOES INDEED DESERVE THE SWORD AND HAMMER. AND THERE ARE ALOT MORE ISSUES THAT I SEE WITH THE WHOLE PREEMPTIVE STRIKE NOTION--NOT THE LEAST OF WHICH IS THAT IT'S THE LEAST LIKELY TO HAPPEN UNDER DURESS IN THIS KIND OF HOCKEY PUNCH SCENARIO AND MOST DIFFICULT IN MOST CASES TO LEGALLY AND MORALLY JUSTIFY--BUT IF YOU END UP WITH A FULLY FUNCTIONAL STUDENT USING YOUR METHOD? HAVE AT IT THEN.
> 
> *Can't be that hard, because there're people who preach the use of the pre empt and teach it, all the time.  Saying its hard to pre-empt, because of duress, but pulling off a SD tech isn't, doesnt make sense.  As for the legal stuff...this is why I've said many times, that the majority of schools teach only what I call the "During" phase, yet they leave out the "Before and After" phases, those being how to verbally defuse something and how to deal with the aftermath.  Like I said, I'll deal with the legal stuff after.
> 
> Of course, I'm not necessarily talking about a preset SD tech.  I'm talking about something as simple as a pre-emptive palm to the face, a kick to the shin, etc.  I doubt those things, which are minor IMO, are going to land me in a heap.  Even in the DOC, we had a use of force protocol to follow.  Things like that are less frowned upon vs. if I knocked out a few teeth, took an eye, etc.
> 
> PREEMPTIVE STRIKES AREN'T THAT HARD...WE AGREE...DEPENDENT UPON WHEN THE PREEMPTIVE STRIKE IS TO TAKE PLACE AND WHAT YOU CONSIDER TO BE PREEMPTIVE. FOR INSTANCE, I HAVE A UNDERHOOK AND THROAT STRIKE IN MY CAPTURED STORM VARIANT WHICH PREEMPTIVELY STOPS ANY ATTACK FROM THE FAR ARM BY CANCELING IT OUT AND MANIPULATING H.W.D.
> 
> ROB'S WIFE [ GIVE HER PROPS FOR ME PLEASE, ROB ]  AND CYRIACUS ARE RIGHT. WE'RE USING SIMILAR AND SOMETIMES DIFFERENT NOMENCLATURE FOR IDEAS WHICH ARE SOMETIMES RADICALLY INCONGRUENT TO EACH OTHER. SO LET US RETURN TO THE BEGINNING TO SEE WHERE OUR DIFFERENCES START AND PERPETUATE OUTWARDS IN ORDER TO FACILITATE BETTER UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN US ALL.
> 
> AS I HAVE SAID NUMEROUS TIMES BEFORE, THE MORE COMMON SWORD AND HAMMER EXPRESSION ISN'T A SEQUENCE FOR ME OR MY STUDENTS...IT'S SOMETHING WE COVER IN PRE-WHITE LEVEL "A" ISOLATED SPARRING. OUR NEWEST NOOBS LEARN THIS TECH EARLY ON. THESE LESSONS ARE QUICKLY SOAKED INTO OUR NEWBS, ESPECIALLY IN OUR "CARDINAL DIRECTIONS" AND 'BULL IN THE RING" SPARRING DRILLS. THERE IS NOTHING WHATSOEVER EXCEPTIONAL OR SPECIAL TO US ABOUT THIS COMBO OTHER THAN WHAT WE FIND IN STRAIGHTFORWARD SPARRING.
> 
> WE DO NOT LET NOOBS CHOP EACH OTHER IN THE THROAT W/O PROTECTION, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE GONNA SCREAM. LOL. WE GEAR EM UP AND ALLOW MODERATE CHOPS TO THE TOP OF THE CHEST AND NEAR THE TRACHEA. THEN WE SLAP ON FOOTBALL NECK FOAM PROTECTION AND WE GO TO THE THROAT FOR REAL. THE RESULTS ARE INSTANT AND EDUCATIONAL. WITHOUT PROTECTION OR WITH LESS PROTECTION, PEOPLE JERK BACK AND AWAY FROM THE NECK STRIKE ALOT INSTINCTIVELY. HOWEVER THE GROIN ISN'T PRESENTED AS A RIPE TARGET AS MUCH AS SOME THINK IT MIGHT BE, SO WE ACTUALLY DOUBLE UP ON SAME SIDE ATTACKS AND FOLLOW THROUGH WITH LEFT-RIGHT HANDSWORD-HAMMERFIST COMBOS OR HAMMERFIST-HANDSWORD COMBOS AS NEEDED. FURTHER, WE PUT OUR NOOBS AND EVERYONE ELSE IN "SITUATIONS" AND TELL THEM TO USE A SPECIFIC TECH OR SEQUENCE TO ESCAPE [ THIS IS PART OF "ISOLATED SPARRING " FOR US ]. YOU MIGHT BE PUT IN A UNDERHOOKING POWER HALF NELSON FROM THE FLANK...AND GOTTA ESCAPE AND USE SWORD AND HAMMER IN THE PROCESS OF ESCAPING AND FINISHING YOUR PARTNER.
> 
> SPARRING WITH THIS COMBO ON MY OWN IS HOW I CAME TO THE WHIPPING HAMMERFIST TO THE SOLAR PLEXUS/DROP HANDSWORD ON THE JUNCTURE OF THE CRANIUM AND NECK COMBO. I PASSED IT ON TO MY COACHES AND STUDENTS
> 
> ANOTHER THING: I FOUND ON THE STREET, EVEN WHEN SLAP BOXING WITH MY FRIENDS...MOST PEOPLE DON'T DEFEND THE THROAT PER SE FROM ATTACKS. A SINGLE STANK-FUNK-NASTY HANDSWORD TO THE THROAT ANYWHERE OFTENTIMES ENDS THE CONFRONTATION EVEN WHEN SLAP BOXING. SAME FOR MOST OTHER MARTIAL ARTISTS...EXCEPT FOR GOOD HAPKIDO GUYS, MUAY THAI GUYS AND GRAPPLERS. MT CLINCH WORK MAKES MANY MT GUYS INSTINCTIVELY PROTECT FROM THROAT STRIKES, AND GRAPPLERS DEFEND STRIKES LIKE THEY'RE CHOKE OR GRAB ATTEMPTS. NOT ALWAYS SUCCESSFUL BUT MUCH BETTER THAN THE AVERAGE MARTIAL ARTIST. HAPKIDO GUYS BLEND ESSENTIALLY TKD+AIKIDO+JUDO AND ARE VERY COMFY WITH DEFENDING NECK CHOPS [ TKD ] AND ALL FORMS OF COLLAR GRABS HOLDS AND SUBS [ AIKIDO+JUDO ].
> 
> DO YOU TEACH YOUR STUDENTS TO SPAR WITH HANDSWORDS AND HAMMERFISTS TO THE CARDINAL DIRECTIONS AND IN 'BULL IN THE RING' LIKE SPARRING DRILLS? IF SO...AT WHAT RANK DO YOU DO SO? AND WHAT DIFFERENCES DO YOU DRAW BETWEEN SPARRING WITH THIS COMBO AND THE ACTUAL SWORD AND HAMMER SEQUENCE AS IS TAUGHT IN YOUR SCHOOL?
> *



My responses are the bolded underlined italicized portions.


----------



## ATACX GYM

MJS said:


> With Kenpo:  I spent an entire class working just that.  I picked some basic, lower belt techniques to use.  I had everyone put their right hand in their belt.  We simply adapted using our left hand to block, or parry, or we'd simply avoid by stepping back, or up, on a 45.  It certainly made everyone think.
> 
> With Arnis: As I said earlier, we have right v. right drills, right v.left, left v. right, and left v. left.  I'd simply adapt and make the best of it.  Given the fact that you need 2 hands to make alot of the stuff work, alot of the locks and disarms will probably be a moot point.




Cool I see ya. Good points.


----------



## Thesemindz

Ras, you ask if we teach our students to spar with just the handswords and hammerfists or do bull in the ring (which we called tiger in the cage) type drills. Definitely. I have my students do this with a lot of their material. Delayed Sword? Try sparring using only hard blocks, handswords, and front kicks. Attacking Mace? That's just a straight cross counter. If you can't do that in some kind of live training activity, you probably can't do it in an ambush scenario either. I'm not saying it has to be traditional "karate style" sparring, but there should be some kind of unscripted, dynamic activity practiced against active resistance. To be fair, I've known several schools that didn't practice any live training AT ALL that still produced effective self defense practitioners, but I'm a big believer in gradually introducing live training as the student advances in skill and ability, ultimately culminating in fully integrated "anything goes" type combat-_like _activities.

I think another important point to keep in mind is where this technique is taught in your curriculum. I teach this technique about an hour into my student's training. This is their third technique and is part of what could be considered a "combat module" revolving around a series of flank grabs. I'm still teaching them how to put their hands on someone and where to stand and what the difference is between a straight arm and a bent arm and how grabbing the shoulder at different places (top, front, side) and different ranges changes the context of the scenario in specific ways. We're not ready to "spar" yet, because they're still learning their right from their left. Eventually we get to that stage of their training, but I take a gradual, progressive, layered approach.

You also mentioned the "demographics" of the student base. This is something I know you and I have discussed in detail, but for the purpose of this forum discussion I'll reiterate my position here. I often work with civilians who, prior to stepping on my floor, have little or no experience with violence AT ALL, or often even any athletic activity, and I have to "break" them to the training. We get around to the fighting, but I have to start by slowly acclimating them to the training environment, the contact, and the stimulus. I've lost students in the past by moving too quickly to a dynamic stage, and so now my student's instruction is heavily front loaded with static training to develop basics, structure, and contact conditioning. Even from the beginning we are doing some form of dynamic or live training, even in the very first intro class, but it is heavily structured and we slowly introduce new elements and fewer constraints. Like I've said, they'll end up fighting at all ranges and levels, hard, but we take the slow and steady road. I'm not saying your method doesn't work too, just that my method is different in some specific ways.


-Rob


----------



## MJS

LOL...that post is getting long Ras.  I'm going to copy/paste your latest replies here, and reply. 

*1) PERHAPS I'M NOT MAKING MYSELF AS CLEAR AS I'D LIKE TO DUE TO POOR WORD SELECTION. I APOLOGIZE THEN. I DON'T ASSUME THAT THE PUNCH WILL ALWAYS COME. I ASSUME THAT THERE IS A REASONABLE THREAT OF OR REALITY OF AGGRESSION UPON OURSELVES AND WHATEVER THE SCENARIO WE NEED TO PUT OURSELVES IN CONTROL OF IT WHILE ELIMINATING SAME FOR THE BAD GUY. THAT INCLUDES PSYCHOLOGICAL INTIMIDATION...AND THAT'S ALL THE MORE REASON TO NOT BURN INTO OUR REFLEXES THE AUTOMATIC RESPONSE OF HANDSWORD TO NECK-HAMMERFIST THE NADS. YOU'RE RIGHT...NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE SPEND TIME IN WHAT YOU CALL THE "BEFORE" AND "AFTER" PHASES, FOCUSING MOSTLY ON THE "DURING". WELL, I BUILD INTO MY "DURING" THE CAPACITY TO FURTHER PROPERLY ANALYZE WHAT'S GOING ON WITHOUT SACRFICING AN OUNCE OF COMBAT EFFICACY.

WHAT I MEAN, MY FRIEND, IS THAT WHATEVER THE OFFENSIVE IS? OUR FIRST REACTIONS SHOULD NUETER IT. THE COVER AND SPIN FREES YOU OF THE GRAB, TAKES YOU OUT OF DIRECT LINE OF ATTACK FOR ANY HAND HELD WEAPON WHEN YOU SPIN OUTSIDE AND ALLOWS YOU TO ENGAGE AND DEFEND AGAINST SAID WEAPON IMMEDIATELY WHEN YOU SPIN INSIDE, AND ON THE GROUND YOU'RE ABLE TO NUETER FURTHER OFFENSIVES AND DROP YOUR OPPONENT WHILE PUTTING YOURSELF IN A SOLID LARGELY SAFE POSITION TO COUNTERATTACK. ALL OF THIS WITH A SINGLE MOVE. AND THAT SINGLE MOVE WAS CHOSEN BECAUSE WE ARE AWARE OF THE FACTORS THAT CAN HAPPEN IN CQC AND I TOOK THE  TIME TO CONSIDER HIGH PERCENTAGE DEFENSES WHICH ARE THEMSELVES ATTACKS YET ARE SO SIMPLE EVEN UNCOORDINATED COMPLETE NOOBS CAN LEARN IT QUICKLY AND EFFICIENTLY. THEN I GOT ON THE MAT MYSELF AND WORKED IT OUT PHYSICALLY UNTIL I GOT THE INGREDIENTS RIGHT, AND CAME UP WITH THE RESULT THAT I WANTED...AND I KEPT THE WHOLE PROCESS TOP TO BOTTOM. WRITTEN NOTES AND EVERYTHING. 

I FAIL TO SEE SUCH CONSIDERATIONS BUILT INTO THE EXECUTION OF THE MORE COMMON VERSION OF SWORD AND HAMMER. I'M NOT SAYING THAT TEACHERS LIKE YOU AND SAY ROB DON'T HAVE THOSE CONSIDERATIONS BUILT INTO YOUR CLASS LESSONS ON THIS AND OTHER SEQUENCES, WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT I DON'T SEE THESE CONCERNS BUILT INTO THE SEQUENCE ITSELF. YOU SEE ME? MY FIRST RESPONSE REFLECTS MY AWARENESS OF THIS SITUATION. IN EVERY SINGLE SEQUENCE I HAVE, THIS CONSIDERATION IS BUILT INTO IT. SOMETIMES IT'S MORE SUBTLE THAN OTHERS, BUT IN THE ACTUAL SEQUENCE OF MOVEMENTS THAT I TEACH-- ALL OF THEM--I HAVE THIS CONSIDERATION IN MIND

*1) **No problem...lol.  Thats the problem with the net...things are often lost in translation.  Now, going on what you just said, didn't Doc talk about this in one of his posts, over at KT I believe?  The part when he said that his students aren't allowed to talk about 'what ifs' until way later.  If I'm reading him right, it sounds to me that whatever it is that he's doing, nullifies any 'what if, even if' from the bad guy.  Furthermore, it seems like he'd address the stuff you're talking about later on.**

*2) THE FACT THAT I INTRO THE PUNCH IMMEDIATELY DOESN'T MEAN THAT I'M GOING FROM 1 DIRECTLY TO 10, WHAT IT MEANS IS THAT I'M PRESENTING A COMPLETE SCENARIO FROM DAY ONE TO BE TRAINED AGAINST. WE BREAK DOWN OUR RESPONSES AGAINST THE GRAB AND PUNCH WITH THE COVER AND SPIN FIRST. WE DON'T EVEN PROGRESS TO THE NEXT MOVES UNTIL YOU'RE HIT FIRST, RECOVER, AND THEN SPIN. THAT IS THE MOST ESSENTIAL ASPECT OF THE SEQUENCE. WE COVER BEING PULLED INTO THE PUNCH AND JUST GOING WITH OUR SWORD AND HAMMER THERE AS WELL AS SPINNING AWAY AFTER WE'RE CRACKED FROM THE REAR AND BEING PUSHED AWAY BY BODY PRESSURE AND PUNCHES. WE FOLLOW A VERY SPECIFIC PROGRESSION AND WE COVER ALL OF THE PRIMARY STEPS IN BETWEEN...BUT WE PRESENT A COMPLETE RESPONSE. WE JUST DO SO, AS YOU STATED, EARLIER THAN YOU DO. THAT'S A MATTER OF TRAINING PREFERENCE AND TRAINING PARADIGM, NOT A LACK IN TRAINING QUALITY. I'M SURE YOU TEACH YOUR MORE SLOWLY PACED METHOD WELL, AND I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT I TEACH MINE VERY WELL INDEED. AS LONG AS THE RESULT IS A FULLY FUNCTIONAL STUDENT? I DON'T SEE TOO MUCH TO QUIBBLE ABOUT. 

*2) **Not sure if I hit this in my last reply....its getting confusing...lol...but anyways....ok, I see what you're saying...I think...lol.**

*3) KATAS ARE COMPRISED OF MULTIPLE MOVEMENTS AND OFTENTIMES DEMANDING, EXACTING STANCES. IN SHORT ONE...HOW OFTEN DO WE HAVE TO STOP AND REALIGN FOOT AND HEEL POSITIONING OF STUDENTS AS THEY'RE PERFORMING THE KATA? HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO FUSS ABOUT FLAPPING ELBOWS AND IMPROPERLY COUCHED FISTS BY THE HIPS? HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO TELL THEM TO RELAX AND TRUST THEIR BODIES, DON'T BE SO ROBOTIC AND OVERTHING EACH MOVE? HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO REMIND THEM WHICH WAY TO TURN, WHICH FOOT TO STEP BACK WITH, TO TURN THEIR HEADS TO LOOK AT THE DIRECTION THEY'RE GOING AND VISUALLY CUE UP THEIR IMAGINARY FOE BEFORE THEY EXECUTE THEIR BLOCKS? HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO TELL THEM TO BLOCK WITH AUTHORITY...DON'T JUST PUT YOUR HAND ARM IN THE AIR? I KNOW YOU FEEL ME. 

EVEN SHORT ONE IS COMPRISED OF DIFFERENT BLOCKS TO THE CARDINAL DIRECTIONS AND COMBINED WITH A SENSE OF SPATIAL AWARENESS WHICH SHOULD RETURN YOU VERY NEAR TO THE SPOT THAT YOU STARTED YOUR KATA AT WHEN YOU'RE DONE. YES THEY TEACH SPECIFIC THINGS. MY SEQUENCE HAS MOVEMENTS ABOUT EQUIVALENT IN NUMBER TO SHORT 1. IT TEACHES A SPECIFIC THING. IT RETURNS YOU TO THE SPOT YOU STARTED AT [ STANDING ]. MY SEQUENCES ARE NO MORE GOING FROM 1-10 THAN LEARNING SHORT ONE TAKES SOMEONE FROM 1-10.

PLEASE LOOK AT MY 15 ROUND PROGRESSIONS WHEREIN WE GET IN LOTSA HIGH QUALITY REPS AND COMBINE THEM WITH THE VIDEO REGARDING THE INSIDE BLOCK THAT I SHOWED. I CAN LITERALLY FIND A KID AND HAVE A KID LIKE 10 YEARS OLD OR WHATEVER DO WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT IN UNDER 3 MINUTES' TIME. NOT KIDDING, NO JOKE. I WILL FILM IT. WHENEVER I DO MY VIDEOS AT THE PARK? KIDS COME UP AND ASK ME ABOUT WHAT I'M DOING. I'LL CORRAL ONE OF THOSE KIDS AND PROVE TO YOU WHAT I MEAN BY MY PROGRESSIONS, MY FRIEND MJS. IT'S REALLY REALLY NOT HARD OR OVERLOADING. IT'S MERELY A DIFFERENCE IN TRAINING PARADIGM AND MAYBE DEMOGRAPHICS TOO. MAYBE THE PEOPLE I TEACH ARE MORE ATHLETIC AND MORE FAMILIAR WITH COMBAT THAN THE PEOPLE YOU TEACH. IDK. REGARDLESS? NEXT WEEK I WILL PUT UP VIDEO SHOWING YOU HOW EASILY WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT CAN BE DONE. *

3)**True, but Short 1 is probably the basic of the basic, teaching defense only, stepping back, with no offense.  Then we move to the others, in which we see forward movement, blocking, etc.  This is kinda where I was going with that....comparing it to taking smaller steps.**

*4) PREEMPTIVE STRIKES AREN'T THAT HARD...WE AGREE...DEPENDENT UPON WHEN THE PREEMPTIVE STRIKE IS TO TAKE PLACE AND WHAT YOU CONSIDER TO BE PREEMPTIVE. FOR INSTANCE, I HAVE A UNDERHOOK AND THROAT STRIKE IN MY CAPTURED STORM VARIANT WHICH PREEMPTIVELY STOPS ANY ATTACK FROM THE FAR ARM BY CANCELING IT OUT AND MANIPULATING H.W.D.

**ROB'S WIFE [ GIVE HER PROPS FOR ME PLEASE, ROB ]  AND CYRIACUS ARE RIGHT. WE'RE USING SIMILAR AND SOMETIMES DIFFERENT NOMENCLATURE FOR IDEAS WHICH ARE SOMETIMES RADICALLY INCONGRUENT TO EACH OTHER. SO LET US RETURN TO THE BEGINNING TO SEE WHERE OUR DIFFERENCES START AND PERPETUATE OUTWARDS IN ORDER TO FACILITATE BETTER UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN US ALL.

**AS I HAVE SAID NUMEROUS TIMES BEFORE, THE MORE COMMON SWORD AND HAMMER EXPRESSION ISN'T A SEQUENCE FOR ME OR MY STUDENTS...IT'S SOMETHING WE COVER IN PRE-WHITE LEVEL "A" ISOLATED SPARRING. OUR NEWEST NOOBS LEARN THIS TECH EARLY ON. THESE LESSONS ARE QUICKLY SOAKED INTO OUR NEWBS, ESPECIALLY IN OUR "CARDINAL DIRECTIONS" AND 'BULL IN THE RING" SPARRING DRILLS. THERE IS NOTHING WHATSOEVER EXCEPTIONAL OR SPECIAL TO US ABOUT THIS COMBO OTHER THAN WHAT WE FIND IN STRAIGHTFORWARD SPARRING.

WE DO NOT LET NOOBS CHOP EACH OTHER IN THE THROAT W/O PROTECTION, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE GONNA SCREAM. LOL. WE GEAR EM UP AND ALLOW MODERATE CHOPS TO THE TOP OF THE CHEST AND NEAR THE TRACHEA. THEN WE SLAP ON FOOTBALL NECK FOAM PROTECTION AND WE GO TO THE THROAT FOR REAL. THE RESULTS ARE INSTANT AND EDUCATIONAL. WITHOUT PROTECTION OR WITH LESS PROTECTION, PEOPLE JERK BACK AND AWAY FROM THE NECK STRIKE ALOT INSTINCTIVELY. HOWEVER THE GROIN ISN'T PRESENTED AS A RIPE TARGET AS MUCH AS SOME THINK IT MIGHT BE, SO WE ACTUALLY DOUBLE UP ON SAME SIDE ATTACKS AND FOLLOW THROUGH WITH LEFT-RIGHT HANDSWORD-HAMMERFIST COMBOS OR HAMMERFIST-HANDSWORD COMBOS AS NEEDED. FURTHER, WE PUT OUR NOOBS AND EVERYONE ELSE IN "SITUATIONS" AND TELL THEM TO USE A SPECIFIC TECH OR SEQUENCE TO ESCAPE [ THIS IS PART OF "ISOLATED SPARRING " FOR US ]. YOU MIGHT BE PUT IN A UNDERHOOKING POWER HALF NELSON FROM THE FLANK...AND GOTTA ESCAPE AND USE SWORD AND HAMMER IN THE PROCESS OF ESCAPING AND FINISHING YOUR PARTNER.

SPARRING WITH THIS COMBO ON MY OWN IS HOW I CAME TO THE WHIPPING HAMMERFIST TO THE SOLAR PLEXUS/DROP HANDSWORD ON THE JUNCTURE OF THE CRANIUM AND NECK COMBO. I PASSED IT ON TO MY COACHES AND STUDENTS

ANOTHER THING: I FOUND ON THE STREET, EVEN WHEN SLAP BOXING WITH MY FRIENDS...MOST PEOPLE DON'T DEFEND THE THROAT PER SE FROM ATTACKS. A SINGLE STANK-FUNK-NASTY HANDSWORD TO THE THROAT ANYWHERE OFTENTIMES ENDS THE CONFRONTATION EVEN WHEN SLAP BOXING. SAME FOR MOST OTHER MARTIAL ARTISTS...EXCEPT FOR GOOD HAPKIDO GUYS, MUAY THAI GUYS AND GRAPPLERS. MT CLINCH WORK MAKES MANY MT GUYS INSTINCTIVELY PROTECT FROM THROAT STRIKES, AND GRAPPLERS DEFEND STRIKES LIKE THEY'RE CHOKE OR GRAB ATTEMPTS. NOT ALWAYS SUCCESSFUL BUT MUCH BETTER THAN THE AVERAGE MARTIAL ARTIST. HAPKIDO GUYS BLEND ESSENTIALLY TKD+AIKIDO+JUDO AND ARE VERY COMFY WITH DEFENDING NECK CHOPS [ TKD ] AND ALL FORMS OF COLLAR GRABS HOLDS AND SUBS [ AIKIDO+JUDO ].

DO YOU TEACH YOUR STUDENTS TO SPAR WITH HANDSWORDS AND HAMMERFISTS TO THE CARDINAL DIRECTIONS AND IN 'BULL IN THE RING' LIKE SPARRING DRILLS? IF SO...AT WHAT RANK DO YOU DO SO? AND WHAT DIFFERENCES DO YOU DRAW BETWEEN SPARRING WITH THIS COMBO AND THE ACTUAL SWORD AND HAMMER SEQUENCE AS IS TAUGHT IN YOUR SCHOOL?

*4) **I'm going to do this one from top down.  Keep in mind, (and I think our terms may be differing here) but I'm not talking about a preset SD technique, I'm talking about: ex: badguy follows you to the parking lot, accusing you of cutting him off in traffic.  You try to verbally defuse, its not working.  Badguy is yelling, swearing, fists/teeth clenched, and moving towards you.  Once he gets within arms reach, you blast him with a palm to the face, kick to the nuts, shin, etc.  Again, I'm not calling that a 'technique' per se, but a basic.

Our 'sparring' again, may be differing here.  Sparring not in the sense of trading back and forth with strikes, ie: typical Karate type sparring.  I'm talking about how Chris and I do it.  I'll start with a tech and at some point, the other guy will try to counter, throw another attack, etc.  *note: I do feel that sparring is important***


----------



## Josh Oakley

Tip for ease of readability: use the quote function more. It eliminates the need for caps and makes the discussion easier to follow.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## ATACX GYM

So if the BG is out of range for the neck shot and rugged up...what if you pin the hand to your shoulder, execute a forearm shiver of a upward block to the BG's left forearm, merge that upward forearm shiver of a block into a right outward handsword block while stepping back into NB with your right foot, and execute a hammerfist to the BG's bicep or forearm if he's still holding on to you after the right outward handsword?

You can do this [ with your left hand prepped to defend the incoming right punch at some point ] while stepping forward too.

Is that Sword and Hammer? What lessons could it teach, whether it's Sword and Hammer to you or not?


----------



## MJS

IMO, we could 'what if' this 'til we're blue in the face, and frankly it seems we're doing that already..lol...but anyways...as Clyde says...environment and target availability dictate our actions...so...really, theres no way to determine what we're going to do, until the situation starts to unfold.


----------



## Flying Crane

ATACX GYM said:


> So if the BG is out of range for the neck shot and rugged up...what if you pin the hand to your shoulder, execute a forearm shiver of a upward block to the BG's left forearm, merge that upward forearm shiver of a block into a right outward handsword block while stepping back into NB with your right foot, and execute a hammerfist to the BG's bicep or forearm if he's still holding on to you after the right outward handsword?
> 
> You can do this [ with your left hand prepped to defend the incoming right punch at some point ] while stepping forward too.
> 
> Is that Sword and Hammer? What lessons could it teach, whether it's Sword and Hammer to you or not?



honestly, it sounds really complicated.  Why not just hit the guy?  seriously.  All this hand pinning, forearm shivering block step to a bow and hammerfist etc., it just goes into the realm of lots of setup just to hit the guy.  So just hit the guy and eliminate all the unnecessary setup.  It's just not necessary, and if you construct techniques that are reliant on all that strategy and setup, I'd say it's very unlikely to really work.  Don't make it more complicated than it needs to be.  

I went back late in the discussion and watched the original videos, and I see that this Sword and Hammer is very similar, essentially the same, as Tracy's Attacking Circle.  I'm generally on the forum at work, and video is blocked here.  

My understanding of the Tracy technique is that it is less a real SD tech and more of just introducing the concept of stepping on the clock as a directional reference.  But hey, I can see it being applied against a real attack.  The tech really has three things:  a step to the badguy to bridge the gap, a knifehand to the throat, and a hammerfist to the nuts.  Simple and straight forward.  Why in the name of all that is holy does it need to be turned into something so insanley complicated?  Jeezuz hammurabi krist, man.  Just drive in and hit the guy as prescribed and make it count.  It's one of the simple techs that might actually have a snowball's chance in hell of working.  All this re-write, all the extra add-ons in the "what-ifs", all the re-building, it's stuff that looks good on paper but it smacks of fantasy.

I don't get it.  I realize this thread is not about making sure that I "get it".  But that's my comment on all this.  I just don't get it.


----------



## MJS

Flying Crane said:


> honestly, it sounds really complicated.  Why not just hit the guy?  seriously.  All this hand pinning, forearm shivering block step to a bow and hammerfist etc., it just goes into the realm of lots of setup just to hit the guy.  So just hit the guy and eliminate all the unnecessary setup.  It's just not necessary, and if you construct techniques that are reliant on all that strategy and setup, I'd say it's very unlikely to really work.  Don't make it more complicated than it needs to be.
> 
> I went back late in the discussion and watched the original videos, and I see that this Sword and Hammer is very similar, essentially the same, as Tracy's Attacking Circle.  I'm generally on the forum at work, and video is blocked here.
> 
> My understanding of the Tracy technique is that it is less a real SD tech and more of just introducing the concept of stepping on the clock as a directional reference.  But hey, I can see it being applied against a real attack.  The tech really has three things:  a step to the badguy to bridge the gap, a knifehand to the throat, and a hammerfist to the nuts.  Simple and straight forward.  Why in the name of all that is holy does it need to be turned into something so insanley complicated?  Jeezuz hammurabi krist, man.  Just drive in and hit the guy as prescribed and make it count.  It's one of the simple techs that might actually have a snowball's chance in hell of working.  All this re-write, all the extra add-ons in the "what-ifs", all the re-building, it's stuff that looks good on paper but it smacks of fantasy.
> 
> I don't get it.  I realize this thread is not about making sure that I "get it".  But that's my comment on all this.  I just don't get it.



I read this post, and I thought about your  Pek Choi/Chuin Choi example you made earlier.  I dont know...why is simplicty such a foreign concept in Kenpo?  And don't feel bad Mike....I just don't get it either.


----------



## Twin Fist

a lot of the tendancy to complexity comes from the way Ed Parker shaped the techniques. he made a science out of what was, essentially, dirty fighting. Key word there being "science". So, human nature being what it is, his students tried to take it one step further. So now you have people trying to teach people how to fight by teaching them physics.

In comparison, kajukenbo, which evolved from the hawaiian kenpo BEFORE EPAK is much less dependent on long elaborate chains of techniques. But if you watch kaju, and EPAK, you will see the simularities in the WAY they move.


----------



## Josh Oakley

I personally suspect that the long chain attacks are not unaffected by the concepts of marketing. I remember that William K.S. Chow was quoted in response to his feelings on long combos as saying: "why?"

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## seasoned

Flying Crane said:


> honestly, it sounds really complicated.  Why not just hit the guy?


This is the most sensible thing I have heard so far. It really should not be that complicated.


----------



## Aiki Lee

ATACX GYM said:


> I used to think that training say the inside blocks was specific only to punches...until my GM told me at age 8 that this was not so. He then demonstrated to me that my very same inside block could and did stop a knife thrust, a stick attack, and both an ATTEMPTED lapel grab aaaand broke down the structure of an SUCCESSFUL lapel grab [ when combined with proper footwork and a solid base]. He showed me how the double lapel sweeping parry also broke the 2 handed throat strangle. It clicked for me right then. I got it. As a child. It's hard for me to accept that intelligent adults don't get it now.
> 
> 
> Make no mistake about it. You either perceive the multiple uses of a single tech or you don't. If you perceive these multiple uses? Your training model changes in direct accordance with the degree of your perception and application of multiple uses. You don't have to do stuff exactly like I do...but you won't do things like you previously did. You have evolved, become more efficient, become simpler, more direct...and vastly amplified your combat options,skill and ability; merely by opening up your mind.



This shows to me you still aren't following the criticism as this comment has nothing to do with what I am talking about.
Yes I percieve the multiple uses of a single technique as well as the multiple principles and tactics that combine to make similar techniques. But yours is not similar to the original in any way except in the fists that you use. And fists alone do not make a technique. I could punch someone with a hammer fist and shuto them in the neck or face and that wouldn't make my technique sowrd and hammer unless I was applying the original principles of the lesson. What you are talking about here is apparent to everyone and not the source of the criticism. Its not that you can't modify a technique, its that you can't make as many changes as you have made and not end up doing a different technique.


----------



## MJS

ATACX GYM said:


> it's not a matter of NOT grasping where you're coming from. I've been where you guys are. The difference is that I've continued to train and research and discovered that some of the previous beliefs I had that parallel yours are factually untrue and I made the mental adjustment...so now I no longer am confined by the inaccuracies of some of my previous beliefs. Doc's explanation about Big Red and what happened to the commercial vehicle of Motion Kenpo makes perfect sense to me...especially since it's literally backed up in black and white by Mr. Parker's own hand. I also recall my GM and other Elders debating some of these very points when I was a child growing up in the martial arts.
> 
> I used to think that training say the inside blocks was specific only to punches...until my GM told me at age 8 that this was not so. He then demonstrated to me that my very same inside block could and did stop a knife thrust, a stick attack, and both an ATTEMPTED lapel grab aaaand broke down the structure of an SUCCESSFUL lapel grab [ when combined with proper footwork and a solid base]. He showed me how the double lapel sweeping parry also broke the 2 handed throat strangle. It clicked for me right then. I got it. As a child. It's hard for me to accept that intelligent adults don't get it now.
> 
> Make no mistake about it. You either perceive the multiple uses of a single tech or you don't. If you perceive these multiple uses? Your training model changes in direct accordance with the degree of your perception and application of multiple uses. You don't have to do stuff exactly like I do...but you won't do things like you previously did. You have evolved, become more efficient, become simpler, more direct...and vastly amplified your combat options,skill and ability; merely by opening up your mind.
> 
> Like one of my Gym sayings goes...
> 
> IF YOU CHANGE YOUR MIND? YOU CHANGE YOUR WAYS...





Himura Kenshin said:


> This shows to me you still aren't following the criticism as this comment has nothing to do with what I am talking about.
> Yes I percieve the multiple uses of a single technique as well as the multiple principles and tactics that combine to make similar techniques. But yours is not similar to the original in any way except in the fists that you use. *And fists alone do not make a technique.* I could punch someone with a hammer fist and shuto them in the neck or face and that wouldn't make my technique sowrd and hammer unless I was applying the original principles of the lesson. What you are talking about here is apparent to everyone and not the source of the criticism. Its not that you can't modify a technique, its that you can't make as many changes as you have made and not end up doing a different technique.



I have to go with HK here.  As for the bold part...I've been saying that in numerous posts.  A punch, a kick, a block...those, IMHO, are what I call basics.  A technique, is a series of basics that are either preset or that you put together, on the fly, to address the situation presented.  

As for the underlined part....yup, been sayin' that too and agree with what you said 100%.


----------



## Chris Parker

So basically, without going back to the mess of an answer you gave to my last post a few pages back, Ras, we've ended up with Himura and MJS repeating what I said at the beginning of this, back on page one.... what you're doing, whether effective, powerful, flawed, or perfect, simply bears almost no resemblance to Sword and Hammer as taught in pretty much every school, and the version you yourself are specifically putting up as a contrast. It's just too different in far too many ways. And if you don't see that, then you just don't get the structure of martial arts, or how they work. You may be able to put together what you feel are effective combinations, but that's about it.

Do you understand what we're saying yet?


----------



## Flying Crane

MJS said:


> I read this post, and I thought about your Pek Choi/Chuin Choi example you made earlier. I dont know...why is simplicty such a foreign concept in Kenpo? And don't feel bad Mike....I just don't get it either.



Hey Mike,

if you find yourself in San Francisco, look me up and I'd be happy to go over this and show you exactly what I'm talking about.  The door's open to you.


----------



## MJS

Flying Crane said:


> Hey Mike,
> 
> if you find yourself in San Francisco, look me up and I'd be happy to go over this and show you exactly what I'm talking about. The door's open to you.



Will do.  Thanks.  And the same to you, should you venture to the east coast.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Himura Kenshin said:


> This shows to me you still aren't following the criticism as this comment has nothing to do with what I am talking about.
> Yes I percieve the multiple uses of a single technique as well as the multiple principles and tactics that combine to make similar techniques. But yours is not similar to the original in any way except in the fists that you use. And fists alone do not make a technique. I could punch someone with a hammer fist and shuto them in the neck or face and that wouldn't make my technique sowrd and hammer unless I was applying the original principles of the lesson. What you are talking about here is apparent to everyone and not the source of the criticism. Its not that you can't modify a technique, its that you can't make as many changes as you have made and not end up doing a different technique.



QUOTE=MJS;1466229]I have to go with HK here.  As for the bold part...I've been saying that in numerous posts.  A punch, a kick, a block...those, IMHO, are what I call basics.  A technique, is a series of basics that are either preset or that you put together, on the fly, to address the situation presented.  

As for the underlined part....yup, been sayin' that too and agree with what you said 100%.[/QUOTE]



Okay, Kenshin man...you're responding to the wrong quote...and you missed my response to your position. Now, this turn in the convo might plummet us back into the very same morass that we just discussed. So let me be brief:

"...But yours is not similar to the original in any way except in the fists that you use. And fists alone do not make a technique. I could punch someone with a hammer fist and shuto them in the neck or face and that wouldn't make my technique sowrd and hammer unless I was applying the original principles of the lesson..." <--KENSHIN

You are absolutely correct. Mine is not similar to the origignal, and fists alone do not make a technique. Everything you said above in this quote is dead on correct, and I don't have a shred of argument with it. Unfortunately, this quote makes my position ironclad and the point that you're missing even more impossible to overlook, and that point is:

*WHAT YOU REFER TO AS "THE ORIGINAL SWORD AND HAMMER" IS NOT IS NOT IS NOT IS NOT THE ORIGINAL SWORD AND HAMMER. IT IS A LOOSE OUTLINE, A GUIDELINE, THAT WAS PROVIDED BY MR. PARKER AS A WAY TO HELP INSTRUCTORS CREATE THEIR OWN SWORD AND HAMMER. IT IS NOT NOR HAS IT EVER BEEN INTENDED TO BE A COMBAT MODEL. ANYONE WHO BELIEVES THAT THE GUIDELINE THAT MR. PARKER LEFT IS THE "HARD AND FAST" SWORD AND HAMMER COMPLETELY MISSES WHAT MR. PARKER WANTED AND WROTE IN HIS OWN HAND. THAT'S WHY MY TECH IS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT YOU REFER TO...BECAUSE I ACTUALLY DID WHAT I'M SUPPOSED TO DO.

*The above comment is in no way speculative. Allow me to quote the ranking Kenpo Elder on the matter, and he quotes Mr. Parker verbatim:



Doc said:


> In the last week I've received 4 requests on this topic. So I guess it's time to address it - again! And there does seem to be some confusion on this forum of what the Ed Parker process is, that makes his commercial Kenpo product unique. So with a friendly nudge to Ras, and others ...
> 
> *What is the confusion with What Ifs in Ed Parker's Kenpo Karate?*
> 
> A well designed default scenario, (ideal), should already consider these things. In my teaching, this is a given. Every technique scenario I teach, regardless of level, has a base realism component of canceling additional aggression. Not just on the initial assault, but throughout the sequence through to its conclusion. In other words, it should not be what if but, (with respect to Clyde T. OBriant who coined the term that I stole with his permission), *Even if. *
> 
> In my view (supported by Mr. Parker and the way I was taught by Him,) that is what the meaning of "ideal" is. The problem has always been since the launch into the "commercial era" of Kenpo, a misunderstanding of the function of the "manuals" and "Big Red" as guidelines, not instructional materials. They were never designed to "stand alone" as instructional materials.
> 
> As I've stated before, the only way Mr. Parker could proliferate his commercial product was to take black belts from other styles, and allowed them to teach his concepts. These black belts were to utilize the conceptual information as a starting point, and formulate their own product from it. This is how the commercial or motion era was born, by utilizing skilled black belts that already existed within their own system. Mr. Parker recruited them, and in some cases, even some with no experience.
> 
> There is nothing in the technique manuals that provides a definitive solution to any assault scenario, and they were never meant to be. They were in fact created to give a reasonably intelligent teacher, a loose and broad starting point to begin their own process of formulating technique scenarios for their own teaching. This was for their down-line in a school or organization, to provide particular consistency for a group that worked together, with a broad general consistency to the overall art.  Once you stepped out of the lineage pool, school, or organization, there was never an expectation of anything being the same with the commercial product. When Mr. Parker was alive, it essentially functioned as intended because only he could say "something is wrong," and if he didn't say it, no one could be criticized.
> 
> The problem is, in business you can't tell people they're wrong. He accepted all of his converts from other styles "as is," and had to "guide" them rather than "correct" them. If someone asked him specifically "how" a technique should be done, he always replied, "Show me how YOU do it." Than he would offer advice on how to improve their interpretation of the technique. He knew it didn't make sense to teach a definitive technique in a business art where he wasn't going to be available to reinforce that definitive process.
> 
> Unfortunately the confusion was massive, in part because of Parker himself. I remember standing in the back leaning against the wall in street clothes at a seminar where Mr. Parker was going over some technique ideas. One green belt leaned over to another and whispered, "Mr. Parker is teaching the technique wrong." There was never ever anything wrong with the method of teaching, only the teachers that continued to deteriorate and spiral downward in knowledge and skill every generation. Their lack of understanding fueled a desire to have it both ways. They wanted things "fixed," but wanted "their ideal fixed" to be everyone else's model, while they were allowed to explore and deviate to their desire.
> 
> The methodology crosses over into all interpretations and levels of Kenpo as I teach, and follows the old Chinese Traditional methods of "style or family" interpretations of the overall art, which was always taught in "phases" just like Parker intended.
> 
> Parker stated, and was very specific; In the first phase of learning the student should be subjected to a set curriculum with no variations, what ifs, or formulations because that is a different stage and to do otherwise not only confuses students, but doesnt allow for enough physical repetition of the set model to create new synaptic pathways or muscle memory. "What if" training is for mid-level black belts, and formulation was for "masters" of the basics of the art.
> 
> The business of selling the art, is what brought these things, along with 'tailoring," and "re-arrangement" concepts down to students not qualified or skilled enough to do so. However, it did keep people interested in the art, and was obviously good for business. Unfortunately, it was never ever good for the art itself. Mr. Parker supported my position, (or rather I supported his), in his own words from his published I.K.K.A. Green Belt Manual.
> 
> These are direct quotes.
> 
> *In this phase, the term ideal implies that the situation is fixed and that the "what if" questions required in Phase II are not to be included in Phase I."*
> 
> This is as I teach. The term what if is forbidden for lower students. It is their job to learn the material, the ABC's of function if you will. It is more important to concentrate on basic skills and physical vocabulary that emphasizes body mechanics and techniques that are absolutely functional and capable of standing alone. Every technique in Phase I explore concepts of application, and teachers specific skills that can be explored in subsequent phases or levels. Mr. Parker further explains the conceptual IDEAL technique, once again in his words from the same source material, and I quote ....
> 
> *Therefore, the IDEAL techniques are built around seemingly INFLEXIBLE and one dimensional assumptions for a good purpose. They provide us with a basis from which we may BEGIN our analytical process. Prescribed techniques applied to prescribed reactions are the keys that make a basic technique IDEAL or FIXED.*
> 
> This is like a control model in any reliable scientific experiment. How can a beginning student begin the analytical process without a firm foundation to work from to reach a reasonable conclusion? When Ed Parker talked about phases, he wanted his black belt students to take his ideas" and concepts, and create their own fixed technique.
> 
> That is they were supposed to extrapolate the base technique from the manual, and his conceptual teachings. He was teaching his students with schools and clubs HOW TO CREATE THEIR OWN INTERPRETATIONS for their students. He wanted them to use the Phase I "motion" system to create a personal interpretation for their own students, while exploring concepts of what ifs and formulations with them as teachers.
> 
> When you understand most of Ed Parkers black belts came to him from other disciplines, you understand he had to teach on multiple levels with different people already established with schools and students all over the world. He knew if he began teaching someone already a black belt and students of his own firm and different basics he would loose them. That, and his own personal availability to teach what was also evolving made that impossible. If he visited a students school in January and taught, when he saw them again the material could be different.
> 
> To create the business, Parker had to alter the traditional method of teaching and give way for proliferation, with the intent of returning to the "old ways" on a larger scale later with selected participants. "Motion" was the mass-market vehicle, but not the best vehicle for the art. That would have to come later, once he made the decision that proliferation was necessary first. When Mr. Parker created motion-based kenpo, he literally changed the Phases to suit the business. In the traditional sense, Phase One was strict unalterable basics, forms, sets, and technique applications, as I teach now. Phase Two, allowed for additional "considerations," and Phase Three was for Master Professors only, who influenced the material the other two phases worked from.
> 
> When he created the "motion-base" and dubbed it Phase One, it literally destroyed the foundation from which all traditional arts derive their identity. Instead, he allowed the identity to be drawn from its many ideas, instead of fixed principles of execution as other arts did. This was the contradiction. While he quietly worked on Phase One Kenpo, he promoted Phase One Motion-Kenpo, which has no place in traditional teaching.
> 
> He told people to rely on motion, rearranging, and tailoring, while asserting at the same time that "Ideals should be fixed," and created by teachers. We must remember Mr. Parker was growing as a martial artist himself when I met him, and he never stopped. He himself was not "fixed," and continued to change. Motion-Kenpo was born in the late sixties. It became the problem child result of his many previous versions of his arts, because it was out-of-control, but there wasnt anything he could do about it, that wouldn't destroy the business he created.
> 
> Therefore, Ed Parker confused students because in the business of Motion-Kenpo, he allowed three contradicting phases and a non-traditional method of teaching to exist all at the same time. Realizing there was nothing he could do to stop it, he just continued sharing. However, it was never his intent for students of the business of kenpo, to be subjected to anything but phase I motion under the guidance of a teacher who would create plausible and fixed ideals, and the art itself would have a functional ceiling, until he created the next level.
> 
> Parker quotes continue;
> 
> *In Phase I, structuring an IDEAL technique requires SELECTING A COMBAT SITUATION YOU WISH TO ANALYZE. Contained within the technique should be FIXED MOVES OF DEFENSE, OFFENSE, AND THE ANTICIPATED REACTIONS that can stem from them.*
> 
> You can see here hes talking to teachers of the art about the process they should use creating their own family style of his kenpo. Mr. Planas has stated this many times. The technique manuals are just a base of ideas to get the teacher started using Mr. Parkers conceptual guidelines to insure function. Therefore, those who have used Motion-Kenpo as their base and then went on to create their own interpretations like Chuck Sullivan, Jeff Speakman, etc are absolutely correct. No one is wrong, unless their interpretations are dysfunctional. The hard curriculum of Ed Parker was, and has never been generally taught. Not teaching commercially allowed Mr. Parker to teach me and create hard curriculum dictated by his ever evolving desires and philosophies.
> 
> When Mr. Parker spoke of the "what if" he was speaking from the perspective of those who had enough knowledge to design their own techniques, and the mid-level skills and knowledge they should have for Phase II. Obviously "tailoring" is one thing but totally deviating from the "idea" of the manual meant you had to understand the process of designing a basic technique. In that process, you had to consider "what if" and "even if" from the perspective of your external stimuli.
> 
> In other words, "what if" is not what he might do, but what he will do when I interact with him. Therefore, when you design a default or Ideal technique you must take into consideration your attacker's "even if" possible reactions. Theoretically, when an attacker launches or initiates an assault, once you come in contact with him, you must consider what the results of your interaction will be in order to anticipate and plot your next move.
> 
> It would seem to me this is the stage where you apply effective techniques you have learned to a self defense encounter to arrive at the correct solution by technique selection not so much by variation. For example, if a 400-pound man grabs a smaller stature person by the lapel a technique like "Lone Kimono may not be the best solution. They may want to redirect his energy and use an alternate technique like "Conquering Shield." The focus here would be on learning HOW to analyze the attacker and situation, instead of focusing on the eternal variations of an existing technique.
> 
> For those in the learning process choosing the correct response is more important than endless variations on a specific theme. I would prefer to trust my spontaneity to a technique I have practiced a 1000 times, rather than tailoring a technique into something, I may have done several times. These two perspectives lead to much different approaches in the way you practice and learn a Kenpo system.
> 
> The "what if" is irrelevant without a significant solid base curriculum that is "hard wired' into your synaptic pathways, and fortified against Adrenal Stress Syndrome. It is unfortunate for many reared in the "motion phase," to grasp or accept this rather obvious fact. However, those from outside seem to see it rather quickly when it is properly explained.
> 
> If you are a lower level student, it is more important to choose the right technique that you've been instructed in well, than tailor a response spontaneously when you have limited information, and undeveloped muscle memory. All of these things are intrinsically tied together, and the multiple levels of traditional study may not be explored simultaneously from the lower end of the spectrum.
> 
> It is encumbered upon us with the knowledge to formulate proper ideals to ensure that these ideal techniques not only function, but also cover all of the relevant and simply inherent possibilities of the action. Any major possibilities should be handled in alternate scenarios. Nowhere in any of Ed Parkers writings does he refer to the techniques in the manuals, or anywhere else being Ideal. He is speaking conceptually as he usually did. He was specific about the concept, not about the model.
> 
> This has always been an area of confusion. Mr. Parker is speaking to those who desire to create their own style and techniques, and the process they should use, while utilizing his concepts as a base or starting point. Part of the confusion exists because Mr. Parker was not just speaking to his own followers. Infinite Insights was not written exclusively for Kenpo people. Mr. Parker was writing for all martial artists whom he hoped would use this process of logic. It had worked for many years when he encountered people from other styles. Many of his top people came from somewhere else and joined him when he explained this approach. It made sense, so he hopped others who would read infinite insights might join him as well. He was expanding his sphere of influence. His writing was open ended. That is also, why there are contradictions in Infinite Insights. He was trying to write for Kenpo and others simultaneously.
> 
> The prevailing level of Kenpo-Karate is supposed to teach you how to create your own effective style. That is why it is so flexible and interpretive. People all over the world have used this method very effectively. It is also why you cannot get two people together from even the same school who do all the techniques the same way, because they dont have to. Concepts of Tailoring, Re-arrangement, and Equation Formulas that dominate make that impossible.
> 
> How can you emphasize all these things, and promote the Three Phases Concept simultaneously without giving people a definitive one way to do every technique, which he did not?
> 
> *You can't.
> *
> How can you have an Equation Formula if you do not have an Ideal base formula to start with? Isn't that like working on calculus when you don't know how to add and subtract?
> 
> *You cant.
> 
> *For those who point to the technique manuals for the ideal technique, Its no secret most of the techniques in the manuals, which were only supposed to give you general ideas, are not workable as they are written. Especially techniques that are hugs, locks, and holds, that are not even clearly addressed. How many discussions have we had here about modifications to make a situation work? Do you really think Ed Parker would give you an ideal technique that didnt work to begin with? When asked how a technique went, he always said the same thing, Show me how YOU do it.
> 
> The Three Phases Concept of Kenpo Karate is about a thought process, not a technique. Mr. Parker had a problem with those who quoted him chapter and verse and used his terminology when he asked a question. He wanted people to think and even challenge him. He already knew what he wrote, but what do you think is what he wanted. If you did a technique, he never said, Youre wrong. He said, Consider doing it this way, or maybe if you did this, it would work better for YOU. So where is the ideal that is quoted so often? It doesnt exist until YOU create it. Mr. Parker NEVER taught an IDEAL technique in motion kenpo-karate, he only spoke of the process.
> He spent time teaching me the process, and the hard principles I absolutely had to know for that process. That is what I teach.
> *
> "What if his other foot is forward?"*
> 
> A good technique will function *EVEN IF *it is. It doesnt change anything.
> 
> *"What if he's about to throw a punch with the other hand?
> *
> A good technique will function *EVEN IF* he is, because you control his width when you execute properly.
> *
> "What if he tries to grapple?*
> 
> A good technique will function *EVEN IF* he tries*,* because the base controls the space.
> *
> "What if...*
> 
> Wait a second. I got a better one. *What if* you got your assed kicked because you spent too much time asking about what Might happen, that you didn't spend anytime learning what to do for what IS happening?
> 
> Instructors have to look at things from their students perspective, not their own. And they must give them what they need, not what they want. And last but not least, don't confuse what you want to do, with what your students need to do to be successful - one step at a time.
> 
> Do you feel me?



Now, you'll see me have differences with Doc on some matters and joust with him about it. He doesn't want YES MEN around him and he doesn't mind in the least defending his position, clarifying his position, correcting us, or engaging in rigorous intellectual discussion.

What you'll NEVER see me do is dispute Doc's word about Kenpo history. I wasn't there. You guys weren't there. HE WAS THERE AND HE HELPED MAKE THE VERY HISTORY WE'RE SPEAKING ABOUT .

So once and for all...what you think is THEE Sword and Hammer was never ever is never ever and will never ever be THEE Sword and Hammer. We are not are not are not are not supposed to slavishly copy this tech. We are to do precisely as Doc stated and quoted Mr. Parker as saying and wanting...MAKE OUR OWN SWORD AND HAMMER using the guidelines techs concepts and principles that Mr. Parker left for us.  I do this; but since I'm a renegade I do some other stuff too. This is the core of our differences.

With all due respect guys...anyone who champions the most popular expression of Sword and Hammer simply doesn't grasp a major aspect of what Kenpo is. That's per the ranking Kenpo Elder on the matter...it's NOT my opinion. If you guys recall? MJS and I had a thread here and I had a thread on KT absolutely excoriating what I thought was The Ideal Phase; turns out? I was just as wrong as you guys were and still are. I had never heard of Big Red or Motion Kenpo until Doc enlightened me on the matter. But unlike many people? I instantly saw the sense in Doc's position and the concrete unanswerable evidence with which he buttressed his position. Immediately I changed my opinion accordingly.

I have presented you guys with Doc's evidence and the evidence drawn from Mr. Parker's own hand for nigh on 16 pages in this thread now. Probably more than that. Again, the evidence I present IS NOT MY OPINION...it's just the facts as they are. If you choose NOT to align your position with the actual facts of the matter? Okay cool...your choice. In fact if you do make that choice? You'll be in full lockstep with the majority of Kenpoists. 

And the majority of Kenpoists are factually wrong about this matter.

There ya go.


----------



## Thesemindz

I feel you Ras. But I also think you're ignoring one possibility. I look at the "loose guideline" provided by Sword and Hammer and make my own technique, for my own purposes, with my own intended lessons, for my own students, and it looks recognizably similar to the commonly held technique know as "Sword and Hammer." Is it exactly the same? I can't say. I never learned EPAK either. But it is clearly superficially similar. If I posted a video of me doing it all the kenpo guys would say "Hey! That's Sword and Hammer!" But it's MY Sword and Hammer, even though it may resemble THEIR Sword and Hammer. But I've also done one thing more. I gave it a new name. So MY Sword and Hammer isn't Sword and Hammer at all, even though it may LOOK like it. It's Hidden Strikes. I don't teach it the same way, at the same time, under the same name, or even necessarily for the same reasons. Because I took the "loose guideline" and made it my own. And in the end, through that process, I come to understand the purpose of teaching Sword and Hammer at all. -Rob


----------



## Flying Crane

Ras, I've seen what Doc has posted on this topic as well, and I get the gist of what he's saying.  I think he's looking at it somewhat differently than the Tracy lineage that I was trained in, but that's OK, I also believe there is some amount of overlap as well.  I'll also say that the Tracys studied under Mr. Parker before Doc did, so Doc, while he's been around for a lot longer than most, wasn't there to see firsthand the entire history of how things were done.  There was a period of time before Doc came onto the scene, when Mr. Parker was in Salt Lake City, and then in Southern California, before Doc, which I believe was about 1963.  My own teacher, Ted Sumner, one of the most senior instructors in the Tracy lineage, began studying under the Tracy brothers in 1964, so Doc barely preceeds Ted.  At that time, the Tracys had not yet made the split from Mr. Parker, and as Ted put it to me one day, "that was when we were all still one big happy family".  At that time, Mr. Parker had only been doing kenpo for maybe 10 years or so, and the Tracys for about 5 or 6.  It's interesting to realize that once upon a time, these old timers had very little experience.  You and I both have much more time in than that.

I'm not trying to undermine what Doc is saying.  I'm just pointing out that there is earlier history for which Doc was not present, and did not experience first hand.  What Mr. Parker may have told Doc about those earlier days, I have absolutely no idea.  I only can say that Doc wasn't there to see it himself.

OK now.  Back to S&H....regarding this issue of using the outline as a basis for an idea, and then making your own version of the technique...it's too freeform.  If you take it to the extreme that you have, then any technique can be absolutely anything you want it to be.  SO then again, as I've said in earlier posts, why have a list of techniques?  Why give them all names?  IF the freeform is that extensive, if there can be truly versions of the "same" technique that are so different as to be unrecognizable as the same, then why have any guidelines, why have any name at all?  It ceases to become a system, because it all becomes, "do whatever you want, and whatever you do, just give it names from this list".  It all becomes very pointless and there's no consistency in the system.  A true system must have consistency somewhere, in how things are done.  Otherwise it's not a system.  It just becomes a random collection of ideas.  Those ideas may be potentially good ideas on their own merits, but if there is no systematic thread that ties them together, the randomness makes it unwieldy and unworkable.

The freeform in devising your own version cannot be that great.  I think the freeform lies in understanding where your power comes from, how you use your lower carriage to move effectively, the specifics of each strike and how you maximize the power and make it effective.  How the basics are done can vary tremendously from one system to another, and I'd say there are better and worse ways to do them.  I think that is where the variables can come in, doing these aspects to the best that the instructor understands.  It's not free license to change everything up until it is no longer even the same choreography, but still calling it the same thing.

I think that's one of the big problems that kenpo suffers from in what we commonly see today.  Doc has posted that many of the earlier guys in the beginning of what he calls the "motion kenpo" (business model) version of kenpo, came in from other systems.  At least the ones who became good in that version, came from other systems.  Mr. Parker had (by what Doc has posted) essentially stopped teaching on any large scale, and only taught his few privates (people like Doc), and taught seminars around the country that were probabaly designed to keep an eye on quality control, rather than actually transmit the system.  But these earlier guys in the Motion version came from other systems initially, and they all just kept doing their basics according to what they learned in their prior systems.  So there is no consistency in kenpo when it comes to how the basics should be done.  Mr. Parker apparently never taught it from that era forward.  So there is no agreement on how things ought to be done and it's evidenced in the many many discussions here and on Kenpotalk, where people get hung up on debating the minute details of how to properly throw an inward block.  Nobody can agree on it and it's because Mr. Parker didnt' teach it, and everyone else got their ideas of how to do it from various different systems.

So while I think you gotta figure out how to make your kenpo work the best for you and your students, I think HOW you are doing it is kinda misguided.  I think you are being creative, and if that works for you then great.  But it really is becomming a completely different animal.  Maybe it's "kenpo influenced" martial arts or something.  I dunno, lots of people have gone their own way and created their own techniques and made it completey different and still called it kenpo.  OK, no harm no foul.  But I think that's where you are with it.

But I think you are focusing on the wrong things.  You are focusing on the choreography, the "what do I do" aspect.  Where I think you would be much better served is if you focus on the "how do I do it" aspects.  Dig deeper into understanding HOW to make each type of strike the most powerful and effective it can be, understand the systematic way that power should be generated across the board, and figure out how to do that consistently with every single thing you do.  Then apply that foundational understanding to everything in your system.  That will give you far more mileage than re-writing the choreography of every SD technique.

From what I've seen in your videos, that is what is lacking.  You know too much about the stuff that is only of secondary importance, and not enough about the stuff that is of primary importance.  Without the primary, the secondary will all be third-rate.


----------



## Twin Fist

FC, i tried telling him that too, that there was kenpo before Doc, and what Doc said isnt what ras likes to claim doc said.

he didnt listen, and doesnt care.

good on you for trying tho, it really impresses me that so many people, with so much experience still try to reach out to this.... person in the spirit of sharing and sportsmanship, even after he has repeatedly proven that he ignores anyone that doesnt sing his praises.

It speaks well of everyone involved except for Ras of course, and sadly, he doesnt care.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Flying Crane said:


> Ras, I've seen what Doc has posted on this topic as well, and I get the gist of what he's saying.  I think he's looking at it somewhat differently than the Tracy lineage that I was trained in, but that's OK, I also believe there is some amount of overlap as well.  I'll also say that the Tracys studied under Mr. Parker before Doc did, so Doc, while he's been around for a lot longer than most, wasn't there to see firsthand the entire history of how things were done.  There was a period of time before Doc came onto the scene, when Mr. Parker was in Salt Lake City, and then in Southern California, before Doc, which I believe was about 1963.  My own teacher, Ted Sumner, one of the most senior instructors in the Tracy lineage, began studying under the Tracy brothers in 1964, so Doc barely preceeds Ted.  At that time, the Tracys had not yet made the split from Mr. Parker, and as Ted put it to me one day, "that was when we were all still one big happy family".  At that time, Mr. Parker had only been doing kenpo for maybe 10 years or so, and the Tracys for about 5 or 6.  It's interesting to realize that once upon a time, these old timers had very little experience.  You and I both have much more time in than that.
> 
> I'm not trying to undermine what Doc is saying.  I'm just pointing out that there is earlier history for which Doc was not present, and did not experience first hand.  What Mr. Parker may have told Doc about those earlier days, I have absolutely no idea.  I only can say that Doc wasn't there to see it himself.
> 
> OK now.  Back to S&H....regarding this issue of using the outline as a basis for an idea, and then making your own version of the technique...it's too freeform.  If you take it to the extreme that you have, then any technique can be absolutely anything you want it to be.  SO then again, as I've said in earlier posts, why have a list of techniques?  Why give them all names?  IF the freeform is that extensive, if there can be truly versions of the "same" technique that are so different as to be unrecognizable as the same, then why have any guidelines, why have any name at all?  It ceases to become a system, because it all becomes, "do whatever you want, and whatever you do, just give it names from this list".  It all becomes very pointless and there's no consistency in the system.  A true system must have consistency somewhere, in how things are done.  Otherwise it's not a system.  It just becomes a random collection of ideas.  Those ideas may be potentially good ideas on their own merits, but if there is no systematic thread that ties them together, the randomness makes it unwieldy and unworkable.
> 
> The freeform in devising your own version cannot be that great.  I think the freeform lies in understanding where your power comes from, how you use your lower carriage to move effectively, the specifics of each strike and how you maximize the power and make it effective.  How the basics are done can vary tremendously from one system to another, and I'd say there are better and worse ways to do them.  I think that is where the variables can come in, doing these aspects to the best that the instructor understands.  It's not free license to change everything up until it is no longer even the same choreography, but still calling it the same thing.
> 
> I think that's one of the big problems that kenpo suffers from in what we commonly see today.  Doc has posted that many of the earlier guys in the beginning of what he calls the "motion kenpo" (business model) version of kenpo, came in from other systems.  At least the ones who became good in that version, came from other systems.  Mr. Parker had (by what Doc has posted) essentially stopped teaching on any large scale, and only taught his few privates (people like Doc), and taught seminars around the country that were probabaly designed to keep an eye on quality control, rather than actually transmit the system.  But these earlier guys in the Motion version came from other systems initially, and they all just kept doing their basics according to what they learned in their prior systems.  So there is no consistency in kenpo when it comes to how the basics should be done.  Mr. Parker apparently never taught it from that era forward.  So there is no agreement on how things ought to be done and it's evidenced in the many many discussions here and on Kenpotalk, where people get hung up on debating the minute details of how to properly throw an inward block.  Nobody can agree on it and it's because Mr. Parker didnt' teach it, and everyone else got their ideas of how to do it from various different systems.
> 
> So while I think you gotta figure out how to make your kenpo work the best for you and your students, I think HOW you are doing it is kinda misguided.  I think you are being creative, and if that works for you then great.  But it really is becomming a completely different animal.  Maybe it's "kenpo influenced" martial arts or something.  I dunno, lots of people have gone their own way and created their own techniques and made it completey different and still called it kenpo.  OK, no harm no foul.  But I think that's where you are with it.
> 
> But I think you are focusing on the wrong things.  You are focusing on the choreography, the "what do I do" aspect.  Where I think you would be much better served is if you focus on the "how do I do it" aspects.  Dig deeper into understanding HOW to make each type of strike the most powerful and effective it can be, understand the systematic way that power should be generated across the board, and figure out how to do that consistently with every single thing you do.  Then apply that foundational understanding to everything in your system.  That will give you far more mileage than re-writing the choreography of every SD technique.
> 
> From what I've seen in your videos, that is what is lacking.  You know too much about the stuff that is only of secondary importance, and not enough about the stuff that is of primary importance.  Without the primary, the secondary will all be third-rate.




Okay. Fair criticism. I receive criticisms like that all the time.

Factually incorrect criticisms.

To be brief and with all due respect to my friend Flying Crane:

The fact that I am combatively skilled and viable with this technique is precisely the proof that I both know how to do the tech and and what to do with it very well indeed. In fact, I am the only person that I know of to show how to do the exact same Kenpo tech on the ground as I do it standing. If there are others? Great...but they must be few in number or else there wouldn't be such outcry at what I do. If you fail to see it, my friend? Then I suggest that you do two things: one, please read my writings on these matters. Two? Please pay closer attention to my videos, as I actually specify answers to your questions. I suggest that you start with one of my latest videos, ATACX GYM SWORD AND HAMMER RADIUS R.D.L. PT. 3

[video=youtube_share;OgiiyO05OL4]http://youtu.be/OgiiyO05OL4[/video]

Secondly, there is a great deal of systematic integrity and similarity in Kenpo...it's just not the traditional method of doing so. This actually is a massive stroke of genius by Mr. Parker that for generations [ unfortunately ] overshot the heads of the people meant to benefit from such genius. Put simply? The Way is in the Training. The similarity and freedom of expression is found in exactly the same place.  You won't understand this though, until you first divest yourself of the improper knowledge regarding the I.P. and then go practice alot...A LOT...on the mat vs resistance and actually spar with each and every one of the SD sequences. A. LOT.

It is utterly indispensable that you and everyone else release any and all notions that indicate to you that the first loose guideline and noncombat model is THEE Sword and Hammer, and realize that your club's Sword and Hammer is to be crafted by your instructor. For you, FC? That would be Mr. Sumner. He would make the Sword and Hammer for his schools.

 The similarity and freedom of expression would come from the FUNCTIONAL application of Sword and Hammer; the similarity would come from the fact that the Sword and Hammer is being deployed FUNCTIONALLY AND EFFECTIVELY against a flank grab and threatened/actually thrown punch. The freedom would come from the various ways that Kenpo schools used those tools to work that scenario out. The freedom of expression would allow exploration of different methods of addressing the same attack with the same or similar tools. However, EFFECTIVENESS IN COMBAT would mandate either a similarity of expression or a recognition of a similarity of effectiveness. As an example? I can take one look at Rob's stuff and see that his stuff works and respect his work...however radically different it is from mine. Same thing with Doc's work. And Jeff Speakmans's work.


The multiple different methods of addressing the same attack with the same or different weapons is an enshrined aspect of Kenpo. The many different techs are a vital part of Kenpo. All of this is easily grasped when one studies and practices combatively on the mat with Kenpo, as the reality of sweat blood and tears dissolves all other things and leaves only the Truth of Combat left to shine. And all of this was already accepted as a part of Kenpo before most of us were born and before Ted Sumner took a day of Kenpo from the Tracys. Says who?

Says the Tracys, that's who:

http://www.kenpokarate.com/


*50 Ways to Sunday*
​The essentials of Kenpo training are in its techniques. Kenpo Karate, as with Kenpo Jujitsu, has over 700 distinct self-defense techniques, in addition to blocks (originally strikes) and 72 kicks. But it is not just the number of techniques, it's how they are taught that defines Kenpo. About two weeks after my brother Jim and I began training with Ed Parker, Ed started an afternoon class, with Jim and me as his only students. The class never had more than four students at any one time, so it was like having a semi-private lesson each day with Ed. This allowed us to move quickly in the evening class from beginning to intermediate and advanced class. One of the first things I learned was the "What if?" rule. It went like this: Ed would teach a technique and we would practice it. But the technique was always limited. "What if" the attacker grabbed you slightly differently? Or "What if" he grabbed with a different hand? Or what if, whatever. Ed would then show you a variation to the technique with lightening speed and a devastating power that sent you reeling and bruised for a week; and, if you were smart, you never asked "What if?" again. But, if you were really smart, you would get a new student to ask "What if?". You learned that for every technique there are numerous variations which would eventually be taught to cover each variations of the attack. Both Oshita and Chow emphasized that there were many ways and variations to the techniques used to defend against each attack. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 At the time (1957-59) many of the Japanese Karate systems had a very limited number of moves, with a right punch being one move, a left punch being a second move, right and left punch being a third move, a block a fourth move, a block and punch a fifth move, a block and two punches a sixth move, and a block with a different hand another move, etc.; and, those styles required each move to be mastered before the next move was taught. Chow, Oshita and Parker all stressed the importance of learning many moves over mastering a single move. Ed Parker was 6' and 195#, Chow was 5'6" and 150# of solid muscle, Oshita was slightly over 5' and weighed about 100# (you never ask a woman Kenpo master her height or weight). What was best for one, was not best for the other, and all three emphasized, what was easy for one student might be difficult for another. One student might have fast hands, another fast feet, another student both and another student, neither; but each student would seek his level of ability. How Kenpo is taught was put best by Oshita who told me another style would make me master one move at a time, one move a week, and in ten years I would have mastered 500 moves. But she would teach me ten, twenty, thirty or more moves a day, and I would not be very good at most of these when a new move was taught, but in a year I would master 1,000 moves. What's more, the moves I would master would not be the same as another student who had been taught the same moves. Each student would master what his mind and body found easiest. It was for this reason that there was no brown belt test at that time. For brown belt you had to know all the moves, but only be a master of most. The instructor would know when a student had progressed from Kyu to Dan, and each student would be different. But more importantly, a move that was difficult, or even impossible for the student when it is first taught, would become easier as he developed his Kenpo skills. When a student had mastered all the techniques, he would then become an Instructor. (Chow had no instructor rank and never used instructor on any of his certificates.) I remember in April 1960, when I was an Ikkyu (1st degree brown belt) I flew to California where I showed Ed Parker what I had learned from both Chow and Oshita, and related some of the insight I had gained in how to practice the different techniques. Ed told me he had learned the same thing from Chow, and had not thought about it in years. He called the training method, "50 Ways to Sunday," meaning that a student would practice each techniques 50 Ways to Sunday - so many different ways that it would become natural. Kenpo teaches that no one defense will work all the time, but the variations are the defense. In addition, as Oshita told me, you can practice a technique a thousand time, and it will only work for one attack; it is better to practice ten variations 100 times, so the mind and body can repeat the same move many different ways. The Way of Kenpo is in training, and one must not deviate from that Way....

**************************************************  **************************************************  **************************************************  ***********************


Now, guess which one of us Kenpo guys actually combined what we were supposed to do via Big Red and what The Tracys said with a deep knowledge of techniques lots and lots and lots of real world scrappin and a sharp improvement over most prevalent training paradigms in Kenpo? Yep...yours truly. We do our Kenpo ATACX GYM style...and every time we're gainsayed? The writings of the most O.G. of the OGs themselves verify our position.

We're not Mr. Parker's Kenpo. We're not supposed to be. Neither are you. We're not Tracy's Kenpo. We're not supposed to be. Neither are you. We're those renegade intellectual warriors from ATACX GYM Kenpo. We're damn good at Kenpo, too. We know what we're doing, how to do it, and we have the science, the fighting experience, the philosophy, the ethics and many aspects of the history of Kenpo itself on our side.


----------



## ATACX GYM

So...

-The very fact that my Sword and Hammer DOES NOT look like a model that was never supposed to be slavishly copied and never supposed to be a combat model

-The very fact that I pressure test my sequences via intensive sparring in multiple situations and can execute my Sword and Hammer variant vs multiple stimuli and most of you don't

-The very fact that the Tracys and Mr. Parker spoke approvingly of one of the training methods that I use prior to my birth

-The very fact that in order to do all of the above proves that I both know what to do, how to do it, and further I'm sharing it with all of you and teaching you how to do it too

-The very fact that I can quote the reigning Kenpo Elders on these matters


is proof that...


-anyone who tries to claim that my expression [ by NOT cleaving to the noncombat loose guideline model that was never combat viable nor meant for combat ] somehow missing the sublime lessons that is the sole province of the sequence which people [ completely contrary to Mr. Parker's writings and wishes ] misrepresented as THEE combat model 

-anyone who thinks that my or any other freely expressed technique that uses the Sword and Hammer to address the flank Hockey Punch attack while using the handsword and hammerfist is inherently incorrect and misses vital lessons that Mr. Parker wanted us to learn [ and yet they fail to specify what these lessons are that Mr. Parker wanted us to learn; and further? They fail to point out how my variant misses these lessons ]

-anyone who doesn't spar intensely with their SD Kenpo techniques

-anyone who mistakes freedom of expression for lack of systemization

-anyone who conflates "different" with "wrong" without any form of combat testing to substantiate their position

-anyone who conflates "not conforming with the masses" with "not doing Kenpo correctly"

-anyone who misunderstands that The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique Process IS A PROCESS and NOT and NEVER WILL BE a TECHNIQUE

-anyone who fails to grasp  that The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique Process is essentially equivalent to The Scientific Method

-anyone who isn't properly informed about the history of Kenpo in essential areas


*will reach all of the mistaken conclusions and even more that all of my detractors have reached. 

*They may reach these conclusions innocently. They may have good and solid and viable reasons for coming to and even believing in these incorrect conclusions. They may energetically believe in their positions to such an extent that they will dispute the Kenpo Elders who were actually there and who flat out tell them the Truth which is THE EXACT OPPOSITE of their cherished opinion which they have invested so much of their ego in.

But they're still wrong. Proveably, empirically, objectively, permanently, and for all of eternity wrong.

And renegades like THE ATACX GYM find themselves in alignment with the great majority of Kenpo history in discussions like these. Knowingly. And the areas that THE ATACX GYM departs from the majority of Kenpoists in? That's deliberate too. It's not by accident. 

And it's not in the way, for the reason, in the manner, or because of any of the incorrect positions thoughts and wild conjecture of various consistent detractors upon this thread.

Look. Acknowledging and bringing yourself in alignment with many of the hallowed principles of Kenpo doesn't mean that you're capitulating to THE ATACX GYM. I'm gonna do what I'm gonna do and I don't care who likes or dislikes it. I don't care who likes or disliked me calling what I do "Kenpo". I didn't start my martial studies to appease anybody else and I'm not changing it for anybody else either. That's just real talk.

No. You should want to know the history of Kenpo, and bring yourself in alignment with many of its hallowed principles...just because it's the right thing to do as Kenpoists. Imo at any rate.


----------



## Chris Parker

So your entire argument is basically "I'm right, you're wrong, and that's it", is it? Sorry, Ras, but as you have seemed to miss the very basis of the critique in the first place, we're right, you're wrong, and that's it. 



ATACX GYM said:


> You are absolutely correct. Mine is not similar to the origignal, and fists alone do not make a technique. Everything you said above in this quote is dead on correct, and I don't have a shred of argument with it. Unfortunately, this quote makes my position ironclad and the point that you're missing even more impossible to overlook, and that point is:
> 
> *WHAT YOU REFER TO AS "THE ORIGINAL SWORD AND HAMMER" IS NOT IS NOT IS NOT IS NOT THE ORIGINAL SWORD AND HAMMER. IT IS A LOOSE OUTLINE, A GUIDELINE, THAT WAS PROVIDED BY MR. PARKER AS A WAY TO HELP INSTRUCTORS CREATE THEIR OWN SWORD AND HAMMER. IT IS NOT NOR HAS IT EVER BEEN INTENDED TO BE A COMBAT MODEL. ANYONE WHO BELIEVES THAT THE GUIDELINE THAT MR. PARKER LEFT IS THE "HARD AND FAST" SWORD AND HAMMER COMPLETELY MISSES WHAT MR. PARKER WANTED AND WROTE IN HIS OWN HAND. THAT'S WHY MY TECH IS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT YOU REFER TO...BECAUSE I ACTUALLY DID WHAT I'M SUPPOSED TO DO.*



If your version is not similar to the original, why put up the original as a comparison? Why say yours is a "better version" if it's not even really a version of the original? In short, what the hell makes your technique Sword and Hammer to have you put it up against the original at all?

You changed the attack.

You changed the tactics of the response.

You changed the angle of response.

You changed the striking methods of the response.

You changed the rhythm of the entire sequence.

You changed the timing of the entire sequence.

You changed the distancing of the entire sequence.

Really, this is like you saying that roundhouse kicks aren't good as you don't like head-high kicks (disregarding other approaches to a roundhouse kick in the first place), so you put together a sequence of two jabs and a takedown, and call that your better version of a roundhouse kick, despite it having nothing in common with the kick itself. That really is what you've been presenting to us. If your technique is so far removed, there is no reason to have the original forms there as comparisons, as they have no relevance. And if you're supposed to be showing a "better version", then it needs to have the fundamental aspects of Sword and Hammer in there. If they're not there, it just shows that you don't understand the structure of martial arts techniques. Which, frankly, is how you're coming across here.


----------



## Cyriacus

ATACX GYM said:


> We're not Mr. Parker's Kenpo. We're not supposed to be. Neither are you. We're not Tracy's Kenpo. We're not supposed to be. Neither are you. We're those renegade intellectual warriors from ATACX GYM Kenpo. We're damn good at Kenpo, too. We know what we're doing, how to do it, and we have the science, the fighting experience, the philosophy, the ethics and many aspects of the history of Kenpo itself on our side.


Something just occured to Me: (Ok, I figured this out a while ago. But nows a perfect time to say it.)
Couldnt this all be resolved by saying that this is Atacx Gym Sword and Hammer, without mentioning the Kenpo Sword and Hammer at all; Since You are clearly above heralding a Kenpo Offshoot, and not any Standard Kenpo?


----------



## ATACX GYM

Thesemindz said:


> I feel you Ras. But I also think you're ignoring one possibility. I look at the "loose guideline" provided by Sword and Hammer and make my own technique, for my own purposes, with my own intended lessons, for my own students, and it looks recognizably similar to the commonly held technique know as "Sword and Hammer." Is it exactly the same? I can't say. I never learned EPAK either. But it is clearly superficially similar. If I posted a video of me doing it all the kenpo guys would say "Hey! That's Sword and Hammer!" But it's MY Sword and Hammer, even though it may resemble THEIR Sword and Hammer. But I've also done one thing more. I gave it a new name. So MY Sword and Hammer isn't Sword and Hammer at all, even though it may LOOK like it. It's Hidden Strikes. I don't teach it the same way, at the same time, under the same name, or even necessarily for the same reasons. Because I took the "loose guideline" and made it my own. And in the end, through that process, I come to understand the purpose of teaching Sword and Hammer at all. -Rob



Okay Rob, I see you...and maybe we might need Doc or one of the other ranking Elders to straighten this mess up for us. But here's a question that I've been puzzling over and have developed a working hypothesis about and have used it as my answer:

Okay...we have established that the Big Red manuals offered loose guidelines and suggestions with the purpose of creating our own Ideals, correct? We are to select common street fighting scenarios and use our Kenpo to resolve this matter. The original scenario dealt with a flank grab and a threatened punch. We have from the Tracys established that Mr. Parker long believed and knew about 50 Ways to Sunday, which allows multiple responses to the same attack.

Right there...in 50 Ways To Sunday...is the sanctioning for me to have a tech that uses a handsword and a hammerfist to resolve a flank grab [ essentially The Hockey Grab ] effectively in combat purrty much any way I want to. The constraints would be to use Sword and Hammer in the flank grab and to do so as efficiently as possible. It's my understanding that I don't have to look like anyone in the pursuit of resolving this particular attack either. If this is the case? Then my Sword and Hammer doesn't need to be re-named. It does exactly what it's supposed to do, and doesn't look like anybody else's in the process--but it still has very effective use of the named weapons to resolve the matter. The similarity of expression would come from resolving the same attack--The Hockey Punch--and using a common tool--the handsword and hammerfist--in its resolution.If all of the foregoing is correct? Then the hue and cry of various persons to change the name of my tech on the basis of it NOT being sword and hammer is manifestly untrue. 

Now, I can see someone like Doc saying: "Hey. You didn't train with the man. You can't say your stuff is ED PARKER'S Sword and Hammer."

To which I reply:" Aight OG Doc, I feelz ya. That's why I named my stuff ATACX GYM Kenpo long before I met you. But if you take that qualifier...ED PARKER'S Sword and Hammer...to it's literal definition? Then that means that nobody but our departed GM does HIS Sword and Hammer. And if somehow it's generalized away from him? Then it would be applicable to only those who trained with Mr. Parker...and Mr. Parker Jr [ didn't you teach both Mr. Parker Jr. AND Jeff Speakman at one point, Doc? ]...and not even the students of Mr. Parker's black belts would qualify to teach ED PARKER'S Kenpo Karate under this definition. Me? I'm cool with that."

Nowhere in that formula is there a mandate or implication that if our chosen expressions are more similar to the noncombat model suggestion, it will be somehow superior to those that aren't and more aligned with Mr. Parker's wishes thereby. In fact? Everything I've read on the matter seems to very much support a different if not opposite conclusion. Would you happen to have knowledge of or access to materials that could suggest anything other than the above?

I haven't seen any constraints issued by Mr. Parker in his own hand or on video that would narrow the parameters sharply and appreciably from the above...and I actually see that such an approach is highly effective and very very intelligent. A stroke of genius...IF the students in all the disparate schools ACTUALLY SPAR with the techs. With Mr. Parker's background training with Chow and Oshita, I'm sure that he took as axiomatic that both his new BBs whom he recruited for Motion Kenpo AND their students would spar with the proffered techs and knowledge and see that their similarities and freedoms are spawned in the same place; that at once their mandate to individualism and the concrete glue that binds them and maintains their perpetual similarity and integrity are found in the exact same area, and upheld by the exact same practice. Innovative fighting method that is constantly evolving yet in the process of evolution and innovation is also the glue that cements tradition maintains recognizability and promotes system integrity.

See...John L. Sullivan's jab looks sharply different than Floyd Mayweather's jab...but they're both recognizably jabs and they both do boxing.


John L. Sullivan

[video=youtube_share;kpu8H1AH6ek]http://youtu.be/kpu8H1AH6ek[/video]

Floyd Mayweather Jr.

[video=youtube_share;55czSCHTQfU]http://youtu.be/55czSCHTQfU[/video]


So I'd like someone to clarify based upon solid data why it's so important to change the name of a tech that uses the tech in the requisite fighting scenario. Again...for the record? My sequence never had the same name of Mr. Parker's anyway, but I don't see what the big deal is if it did.

And before you guys start screechin about lessons to be learned and how I don't know them? Wrong. I know both of these better by faaarrrr than my detractors do, that's why I always correct them using the very information that they swear that I don't know--Kenpo history, principles, etc--and which squarely confirms my position and atomically annihilates theirs. That's exactly why I ask the question of people who know more than my detractors do...I'm looking for guys like Doc who have more knowledge about the matter to specify their opinions on it. And intelligent reasonable objective guys like you, Rob.


----------



## Chris Parker

The issue isn't that you're using the Sword and Hammer name, Ras, it's that you have, from the very first post, presented the "standard" Sword and Hammer, as taught in countless schools, and then given a completely unrelated technique which is supposed to be a "better" version of same. If you just came on and said "here's a technique I've developed against a flank grab-and-punch, and I call it Sword and Hammer", no problem. But you didn't. You presented the standard form, both in the videos you linked, and again in each of your demonstrations, then went on to claim a better version. It's not. It's a different technique entirely. That's the problem. And that "atomically annihilates" your entire premise here that you understand what Sword and Hammer (the original) is actually teaching... as you completely miss every single aspect of it. And can't understand what we're saying when we reference such.

I mean, I want through everything that the standard Sword and Hammer teaches, what ingredients make it what it is, and how you missed pretty much every single one, and you still didn't get it.

Dude, you have "atomically annihilated" your own credibility in this matter over the whole 22 page thread*.

And if you want to be taken seriously, using such phrases just makes you sound like a kid. And constant reference to yourself as always proven right over everyone else, especially when you don't seem to get the argument, makes you sound like a spoiled kid. Argue, don't just say "I'm right, you're all wrong, nyah nyah!". It's not really that convincing.

*EDIT: Godsdammit, 23 page thread.... seriously, Ras, you haven't been able to deal with the initial criticisms from page one yet. And the reason I can say that is I'm still addressing them in this post.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Cyriacus said:


> Something just occured to Me: (Ok, I figured this out a while ago. But nows a perfect time to say it.)
> Couldnt this all be resolved by saying that this is Atacx Gym Sword and Hammer, without mentioning the Kenpo Sword and Hammer at all; Since You are clearly above heralding a Kenpo Offshoot, and not any Standard Kenpo?



On the title of all my videos? It says ATACX GYM [ WHATEVER ]. On this video? It says ATACX GYM SWORD AND HAMMER RADIUS R.D.L. I've already made the distinctions that you suggest.

I have no problems with being a Kenpo offshoot. Kenpo means "fist law"...it's not even specific to Mr. Parker. We are not a Mr. Parker offshoot, although we have been strongly influenced by our understanding of his and Bruce Lee's work [ and others too ranging from the warriors of most ancient Africa to the various international special forces of today ]. We are THE ATACX GYM, my friend.T

However, we will not allow the current model of what is miscalled The Ideal Phase Techniques to stand unchallenged. That's what  the  real hubbub is about; lotsa people want to marinate in the big familiar lie that they miscall The Ideal Phase Techniques. There's no such thing. We will not be complicit by our silence in promoting such malarkey. Somebody has gotta stand up to that untruth and battle it. Defeat it. Because allowing such a thing to stand unchallenged and undefeated casts a gargantuan slight upon Kenpo in the USA and perhaps worldwide, slights [ as I understand them ] the wishes and legacy of Mr. Parker as he wrote them and transmitted them to us, and it besmirches the respect for the art as a whole visavis combat effectiveness.

Plus I DO do Kenpo. I have stated from the outset that what I do is Atacx Gym Kenpo and NOT the Sword and Hammer that many others do. I stated this on video MONTHS AGO...and some people still don't get it. Happily though, the majority of people  DO get it.

By the way...what is "Standard Kenpo"?


----------



## Cyriacus

ATACX GYM said:


> On the title of all my videos? It says ATACX GYM [ WHATEVER ]. On this video? It says ATACX GYM SWORD AND HAMMER RADIUS R.D.L. I've already made the distinctions that you suggest.
> 
> *Thats what originally gave Me the idea.*
> 
> I have no problems with being a Kenpo offshoot. Kenpo means "fist law"...it's not even specific to Mr. Parker. We are not a Mr. Parker offshoot, although we have been strongly influenced by our understanding of his and Bruce Lee's work [ and others too ranging from the warriors of most ancient Africa to the various international special forces of today ]. We are THE ATACX GYM, my friend.T
> 
> **nods
> *
> However, we will not allow the current model of what is miscalled The Ideal Phase Techniques to stand unchallenged. That's what  the  real hubbub is about; lotsa people want to marinate in the big familiar lie that they miscall The Ideal Phase Techniques. There's no such thing. We will not be complicit by our silence in promoting such malarkey. Somebody has gotta stand up to that untruth and battle it. Defeat it. Because allowing such a thing to stand unchallenged and undefeated casts a gargantuan slight upon Kenpo in the USA and perhaps worldwide, slights [ as I understand them ] the wishes and legacy of Mr. Parker as he wrote them and transmitted them to us, and it besmirches the respect for the art as a whole visavis combat effectiveness.
> 
> **nods **- But it might be a merit to not headbutt bees nests.*
> Plus I DO do Kenpo. I have stated from the outset that what I do is Atacx Gym Kenpo and NOT the Sword and Hammer that many others do. I stated this on video MONTHS AGO...and some people still don't get it. Happily though, the majority of people  DO get it.
> 
> *Aha - To be fair, I skipped like, 15 pages of this *
> 
> By the way...what is "Standard Kenpo"?
> 
> *Take Standard literally - Pick a Kenpo System thats pretty consistent in its content, and call it one standard.*


*nods

I cant help but think the debate is too complicated. When each individual point is taken, they have some merit, until they conflict with other meritable points.
Then again, Im trying not to participate in the debate any further than commenting on the occasional post.



Chris Parker said:


> If you just came on and said "here's a technique I've developed against a flank grab-and-punch, and I call it Sword and Hammer", no problem. But you didn't. You presented the standard form, both in the videos you linked, and again in each of your demonstrations, then went on to claim a better version. It's not. It's a different technique entirely.


I think this should pretty much summise, well, the entire thing.

Just for fun, Ill criticise the 'Original' Sword and Hammer (And dont start on Terminology anyone. The one that is being compared to the Atacx Gym one) from My perspective.
How would You know if Your Attacker was standing offset to Your outside or inside? The Power of the Strike would be drastically reduced if it had to reach across, impairing its reliability.

Have fun, Gentlemen.


----------



## MJS

Good Lord....

This thread is so long, I'm actually opening 2 sessions, so I can refer back to a few different posts, while I type this one..lol.  Anyways...rather than quote, I figured I'd touch on a few different things.  One thing that comes to mind, and perhaps TF can help me with this, is something that is constantly being said about how Mr. Parker didn't intend on everyone to do the same thing.  I've asked if this means that Ras can have his version, I can have mine, and a million others can have theirs.  I get the impression the answer is yes.  So, if thats the case, and nobody is right or wrong, then I ask...what happens at a Tatum seminar?  What happens when Larry is up there showing some fine points on Sword and Hammer and his version is different from the other 150 people in the room?  How will Larry ever get his point made?

If we look at Kaju, and for the sake of discussion, we'll use the Original Method.  I wonder....do all the Original Method guys, when they're doing grab art 1, have different versions?  Did Sijo say what Parker supposedly said or hinted at...that we can all craft the tech how we see fit??  What about the Peralta Method guys?  Ramos?  Gaylord?  Did GM Ramos give the ok and say, "Sure guys, heres how I learned grab art 1 from Sijo, this is how I do it now, but what the hell...you guys have at it, and do as you choose?  Are there 30 variations of grab art 1 in the Ramos method?  

Mike (FC) hit on something in his post that caught my eye...

"OK now. Back to S&H....regarding this issue of using the outline as a basis for an idea, and then making your own version of the technique...it's too freeform. If you take it to the extreme that you have, then any technique can be absolutely anything you want it to be. SO then again, as I've said in earlier posts, why have a list of techniques? Why give them all names? IF the freeform is that extensive, if there can be truly versions of the "same" technique that are so different as to be unrecognizable as the same, then why have any guidelines, why have any name at all? It ceases to become a system, because it all becomes, "do whatever you want, and whatever you do, just give it names from this list". It all becomes very pointless and there's no consistency in the system. A true system must have consistency somewhere, in how things are done. Otherwise it's not a system. It just becomes a random collection of ideas. Those ideas may be potentially good ideas on their own merits, but if there is no systematic thread that ties them together, the randomness makes it unwieldy and unworkable."

I agree with this, and its what I've been saying myself.  Hell, even in Arnis, when we have camps or seminars, I work with guys from all over the US.  I've done drills with guys from Texas and was like, "Oh man, this is different.  I've never seen it done this way, but ya know, I like what i'm seein'!"   Now, let me clarify...what I'm seeing is still recognizeable to me as the same thing I know, but a slight, subtle difference.  Its not like its totally different.  Same with a disarm.  Its their own little 'flavor' that they put on it, but again, if I saw them do it I could say with utmost confidence, "Oh yeah, I recognize what they're doing."  

As for what if/even if, and all that junk...well, I get the impression from Docs post that when HE teaches, all that stuff is taboo.  Does Doc do S&H?  If so, does it look like the S*H clips that are out there from Tatum, Casa De Kenpo, etc.?  Seems like Docs S&H is designed to be pretty fail safe from the get go.  Anything that the badguy may be able to do, is removed because of how Doc is doing the tech.  Can anyone vouch for this, help me clarify this?  

50 ways to Sunday....Ok, I read that when Parker was asked what if this, what if that, that he'd show a variant of the tech he was showing.  Did he totally rework the tech?  Dont know, I wasn't there.  Perhaps since FC trained quite a bit with Mr. Sumner, he could clarify this.  So, again, to me, it sounds like what I'm doing when I'd teach.  Someone says, "But I can't reach, what if he is standing different, what if......" I'd simply, again, keeping with the basic ideas, just adapt to whatever the change the badguy was making.  Delayed Sword and a punch.  Ok, the right hand isn't a threat at that moment because he's grabbing me.  Perhaps, as the guy is drawing his hand back, shooting off a handsword would be an option.  Again, I think the main thing is keeping with what the tech originally was designed to teach, is the issue here.


----------



## Flying Crane

ATACX GYM said:


> Okay. Fair criticism. I receive criticisms like that all the time.
> 
> Factually incorrect criticisms.
> 
> To be brief and with all due respect to my friend Flying Crane:...



I don't want to quote a long posting, there's a lot of that in this thread already.

Honestly, I'm just making observations based on my own experiences, both in kenpo and not in kenpo.  And to be clear, I am no longer a kenpo person, I do not practice it in any form, as I came to the realization that it's not a good fit for me.  I have infinite respect for my kenpo teachers, Ted Sumner and the couple instructors that I had before him, but the kenpo approach just doesn't work for me, so I don't attempt to do it anymore.  So honestly I'm not personally concerned about anybody's version of this tech, nor any others.  I found my own way in kung fu, and I'm very happy there.

But that has given me a different set of insights that I feel are applicable and relevant to the discussion.  Some of the kenpo folks wish I would just back off the kenpo discussions altogether, but I don't seem to do that.  I'm not the only non-kenpo guy poking his nose in here either.  So I'm just giving some observations and suggestions, you can take them for what they are worth.

I'm content to just agree to disagree with you.  I feel you are missing some very important issues, and getting bogged down with other issues that are misguided.  You feel you have figured things out for the best.  OK, that's cool.  If it works for you, all the power to you.  I know it wouldn't work for me, but then again I do something else that does work for me.

that's where I am with it all.


----------



## Thesemindz

Ras, the point I was trying to make is that a person can go through the same process you have and end up with a technique that is as recognizably similar to the "loose guideline" as yours is clearly different. So while I took Sword and Hammer and made it my own, it still resembles THEE Sword and Hammer enough to share a commonality for discussion with other kenpo guys. Like you, I was taught that the ultimate goal of our training was self expression, not regurgitation, and that the method for determining functionality was pressure testing the material. And when I have problems with the techniques as I was taught them, I feel free to make changes to the way I teach them to others. That's why I say I teach "Sandwell Method American Kenpo" and not "Ed Parker's American Kenpo." I acknowledge and honor the great Masters in my lineage, but make clear that I am not teaching THEIR kenpo, but rather MY kenpo, albeit descended from their methods. I know you do the same.

Honestly, I'm surprised Sword and Hammer has been the catalyst for this discussion. It seems like such a no brainer technique to me. A guy aggresses, you chop his throat and rack him. That doesn't seem like it needs much debate to me. If you'd said Circling Windmills maybe I could see it. But obviously I was taught it differently than you and perhaps many others were. Which I suppose is the true root of this discussion. The Sword and Hammer I was taught is fully functional. I've used it. I know other guys who've used it. But I was taught a different execution than you were against a different attack. So we're back to the same problem once again.

Honestly, I don't care what you call it. I've learned as many as half a dozen names for some of these techniques. Sword and Hammer, Attacking the Circle, Step and Strike, Hidden Strikes, Obscure Strikes, who cares? If it works, it works. If it doesn't, fix it. Other than the understandable confusion it will engender when discussing the material with practitioners from outside your school, I think the name is the least important part.


-Rob


----------



## ATACX GYM

MJS said:


> Good Lord....
> 
> This thread is so long, I'm actually opening 2 sessions, so I can refer back to a few different posts, while I type this one
> 
> *ME TOO!!*
> 
> Mike (FC) hit on something in his post that caught my eye...
> 
> "OK now. Back to S&H....regarding this issue of using the outline as a basis for an idea, and then making your own version of the technique...it's too freeform. If you take it to the extreme that you have, then any technique can be absolutely anything you want it to be. SO then again, as I've said in earlier posts, why have a list of techniques? Why give them all names? IF the freeform is that extensive, if there can be truly versions of the "same" technique that are so different as to be unrecognizable as the same, then why have any guidelines, why have any name at all? It ceases to become a system, because it all becomes, "do whatever you want, and whatever you do, just give it names from this list". It all becomes very pointless and there's no consistency in the system. A true system must have consistency somewhere, in how things are done. Otherwise it's not a system. It just becomes a random collection of ideas. Those ideas may be potentially good ideas on their own merits, but if there is no systematic thread that ties them together, the randomness makes it unwieldy and unworkable."
> 
> I agree with this, and its what I've been saying myself.  Hell, even in Arnis, when we have camps or seminars, I work with guys from all over the US.  I've done drills with guys from Texas and was like, "Oh man, this is different.  I've never seen it done this way, but ya know, I like what i'm seein'!"   Now, let me clarify...what I'm seeing is still recognizeable to me as the same thing I know, but a slight, subtle difference.  Its not like its totally different.  Same with a disarm.  Its their own little 'flavor' that they put on it, but again, if I saw them do it I could say with utmost confidence, "Oh yeah, I recognize what they're doing."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ATACX GYM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly, there is a great deal of systematic integrity and similarity in Kenpo...it's just not the traditional method of doing so. This actually is a massive stroke of genius by Mr. Parker that for generations [ unfortunately ] overshot the heads of the people meant to benefit from such genius. Put simply? The Way is in the Training. The similarity and freedom of expression is found in exactly the same place.  You won't understand this though, until you first divest yourself of the improper knowledge regarding the I.P. and then go practice alot...A LOT...on the mat vs resistance and actually spar with each and every one of the SD sequences. A. LOT.
> 
> It is utterly indispensable that you and everyone else release any and all notions that indicate to you that the first loose guideline and noncombat model is THEE Sword and Hammer, and realize that your club's Sword and Hammer is to be crafted by your instructor. For you, FC? That would be Mr. Sumner. He would make the Sword and Hammer for his schools.
> 
> The similarity and freedom of expression would come from the FUNCTIONAL application of Sword and Hammer; the similarity would come from the fact that the Sword and Hammer is being deployed FUNCTIONALLY AND EFFECTIVELY against a flank grab and threatened/actually thrown punch. The freedom would come from the various ways that Kenpo schools used those tools to work that scenario out. The freedom of expression would allow exploration of different methods of addressing the same attack with the same or similar tools. However, EFFECTIVENESS IN COMBAT would mandate either a similarity of expression or a recognition of a similarity of effectiveness. As an example? I can take one look at Rob's stuff and see that his stuff works and respect his work...however radically different it is from mine. Same thing with Doc's work. And Jeff Speakmans's work.
> 
> 
> The multiple different methods of addressing the same attack with the same or different weapons is an enshrined aspect of Kenpo. The many different techs are a vital part of Kenpo. All of this is easily grasped when one studies and practices combatively on the mat with Kenpo, as the reality of sweat blood and tears dissolves all other things and leaves only the Truth of Combat left to shine. And all of this was already accepted as a part of Kenpo before most of us were born and before Ted Sumner took a day of Kenpo from the Tracys. Says who?
> 
> Says the Tracys, that's who:
> 
> http://www.kenpokarate.com/
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This point bears emphasizing. MJS my friend, when you said:
> 
> "I agree with this, and its what I've been saying myself.  Hell, even in Arnis, when we have camps or seminars, I work with guys from all over the US.  I've done drills with guys from Texas and was like, "Oh man, this is different.  I've never seen it done this way, but ya know, I like what i'm seein'!"   Now, let me clarify...what I'm seeing is still recognizeable to me as the same thing I know, but a slight, subtle difference.  Its not like its totally different.  Same with a disarm.  Its their own little 'flavor' that they put on it, but again, if I saw them do it I could say with utmost confidence, "Oh yeah, I recognize what they're doing."
> 
> I'd already answered that with:
> 
> "It is utterly indispensable that you and everyone else release any and all notions that indicate to you that the first loose guideline and noncombat model is THEE Sword and Hammer, and realize that your club's Sword and Hammer is to be crafted by your instructor. For you, FC? That would be Mr. Sumner. He would make the Sword and Hammer for his schools.
> 
> The similarity and freedom of expression would come from the FUNCTIONAL application of Sword and Hammer; the similarity would come from the fact that the Sword and Hammer is being deployed FUNCTIONALLY AND EFFECTIVELY against a flank grab and threatened/actually thrown punch. The freedom would come from the various ways that Kenpo schools used those tools to work that scenario out. The freedom of expression would allow exploration of different methods of addressing the same attack with the same or similar tools. However, EFFECTIVENESS IN COMBAT would mandate either a similarity of expression or a recognition of a similarity of effectiveness. As an example? I can take one look at Rob's stuff and see that his stuff works and respect his work...however radically different it is from mine. Same thing with Doc's work. And Jeff Speakmans's work."
> 
> *This means that the baseline tech that you refer to as "recognizable" or "the standard" IS NOT WHAT YOU CLAIM IT IS.* *By buying in to the "noncombat model/loose guideline" that is specified as such by Doc and Big Red and in any way...ANY...WAY...conflating it with the combat model [  WHICH CANNOT EXIST UNTIL YOUR SCHOOL'S INSTRUCTOR MAKES IT FOR YOUR SPECIFIC SCHOOL, ORGANIZATION, CLUB, WHATEVER ] you are perpetuating and deepening the DYSFUNCTIONAL morass that Kenpo is sinking in to.
> 
> If your teacher chooses to NOT craft a specific thumbprint of a Sword and Hammer for his/her/their students and chooses to adopt the "noncombat model" instead? Then the teacher is either misled or lazy; that is specifically NOT to be done. Mr. Parker wrote so already and Doc expounded upon it at length [ using Mr. Parker's quotes, I might add ].*
> 
> *Point blank: your Sword and Hammer and mine are supposed to be recognizable by the use of the Sword and Hammer in a functional way that defends vs The Hockey Punch. That is it. When you get on the mat and actually spar against resistance, what will happen is that we will all develope functional skill in using the Sword and Hammer vs that specific scenario. * "However, EFFECTIVENESS IN COMBAT would mandate either a similarity of expression or a recognition of a similarity of effectiveness."--THE ATACX GYM
> 
> *No**w...people like me might take it farther. I will incorporate the 360 degrees of attack and defense that Mr. Parker already knew and promoted since before my birth. I will incorporate weapons and defend against them. I will incorporate ground fighting and defend against that. Etc. The fact that I do more is not grounds to in any way claim that my Sword and Hammer is NOT Sword and Hammer. First? It absolutely qualifies by definition as The Ideal Phase tech for MY Gym. Secondly? Going by The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique PROCESS definition that Cyriacus or CyberTiger quoted for us awhile ago and which I repeatedly quoted on this thread...we're supposed to use the handsword and hammerfist functionally and effectively against the chosen common street fighting situation [ Hockey Punch defense ]. Which I did.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Thesemindz said:
> 
> 
> 
> . But obviously I was taught it differently than you and perhaps many others were. Which I suppose is the true root of this discussion. The Sword and Hammer I was taught is fully functional. I've used it. I know other guys who've used it. But I was taught a different execution than you were against a different attack. So we're back to the same problem once again.
> 
> Honestly, I don't care what you call it. I've learned as many as half a dozen names for some of these techniques. Sword and Hammer, Attacking the Circle, Step and Strike, Hidden Strikes, Obscure Strikes, who cares? If it works, it works. If it doesn't, fix it. Other than the understandable confusion it will engender when discussing the material with practitioners from outside your school, I think the name is the least important part.
> 
> 
> -Rob
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right there...right there in THAT quote up there...is what I was talking about when I said that when you train functionally vs resistance with this tech Both the similarity and recognition of freedom and effectiveness will be upheld. Rob's tech is much more similar to the guideline given than mine is, but we both recognize that each other's techs work because we both scrap. Note how neither of us need to have a 23+page thread discussing this matter because we already did most of the work where it's supposed to be...on the mat. Because of that? We recognize the skill and effectiveness of the other and we recognize where the differences are.
> 
> And it's no big deal.
> 
> I was actually taught the same execution against the same attack that Rob was. BUT THEN THE ATTACKS GOT MORE INTENSE AND THE MANDATES GOT MORE COMPREHENSIVE. "Use Sword and Hammer better, Ras!" my GM told me. "Use it against a knife!" "Why?" asked I. "The guy could have a knife or gun in his other hand and is pulling you into it. Or he could have a beer bottle or pool ball or pool stick. Or chair. Deal with that." And I did.
> 
> Then I hit on the idea of using the exact same or very very much the same Sword and Hammer against EVERYTHING and EVERYBODY who Hockey Punched me, got me on the ground, tried to stomp me out, etc. Multifight or not. Striker, street fighter, grappler, Kenpoist, yo momma, or not. This resulted in a training paradigm breakthrough.
> 
> My Sword and Hammer was born.
> 
> There ya go.
Click to expand...


----------



## Flying Crane

Thesemindz said:


> Honestly, I'm surprised Sword and Hammer has been the catalyst for this discussion. It seems like such a no brainer technique to me. A guy aggresses, you chop his throat and rack him. That doesn't seem like it needs much debate to me.
> -Rob



there is so much profound truth in this statement, it's astounding.

Seriously.  There are so many complicated techniques in kenpo, for me that was always a big problem and a big part of what lead me to leave the system.  But THIS technique is one of the most straight forward, no-nonsense, un-complicated ones in the lists.  And it's getting re-worked into something way too complicated, under the banner of "doing it my way".  I don't see the wisdom in it at all.  If something so simple as this technique is "unworkable", making it far more complicated just makes it "unworkable approaching infinity".  If there was any tech in the system that IS workable exactly as written, it would be this one.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Thesemindz said:


> Ras, the point I was trying to make is that a person can go through the same process you have and end up with a technique that is as recognizably similar to the "loose guideline" as yours is clearly different. So while I took Sword and Hammer and made it my own, it still resembles THEE Sword and Hammer enough to share a commonality for discussion with other kenpo guys. Like you, I was taught that the ultimate goal of our training was self expression, not regurgitation, and that the method for determining functionality was pressure testing the material. And when I have problems with the techniques as I was taught them, I feel free to make changes to the way I teach them to others. That's why I say I teach "Sandwell Method American Kenpo" and not "Ed Parker's American Kenpo." I acknowledge and honor the great Masters in my lineage, but make clear that I am not teaching THEIR kenpo, but rather MY kenpo, albeit descended from their methods. I know you do the same.
> 
> Honestly, I'm surprised Sword and Hammer has been the catalyst for this discussion. It seems like such a no brainer technique to me. A guy aggresses, you chop his throat and rack him. That doesn't seem like it needs much debate to me. If you'd said Circling Windmills maybe I could see it. But obviously I was taught it differently than you and perhaps many others were. Which I suppose is the true root of this discussion. The Sword and Hammer I was taught is fully functional. I've used it. I know other guys who've used it. But I was taught a different execution than you were against a different attack. So we're back to the same problem once again.
> 
> Honestly, I don't care what you call it. I've learned as many as half a dozen names for some of these techniques. Sword and Hammer, Attacking the Circle, Step and Strike, Hidden Strikes, Obscure Strikes, who cares? If it works, it works. If it doesn't, fix it. Other than the understandable confusion it will engender when discussing the material with practitioners from outside your school, I think the name is the least important part.
> 
> 
> -Rob




Cosign.

Look...the difference here with Rob? He's pressure tested HIS Sword and Hammer. He has some differences but it's recognizably similar to the original.

At first. 

Now here's where the nonscrappin Kenpoists get extra anal:

Lets say Rob takes you down or clinches you. Yall scrap. You're in front of him. He chops your throat and racks you. *PROPONENTS OF THE "LOOSE GUIDELINE AS THEE SWORD AND HAMMER" WILL SAY THAT ROB DIDN'T DO THE SWORD AND HAMMER.* Yes, he did. It's your misunderstanding of what brought about all of this in the first place that makes you think he didn't do so.

Let's say you Hockey punch me, I cover spin and break your grip of me with the a hammerfist and handsword. *THAT'S THE SWORD AND HAMMER RIGHT THERE.* Only people who cling to the noncombat loose guideline model as somehow a standard to be upheld would think otherwise. But they're wrong...literally by the hand of Mr. Parker they are wrong.

Now, can you adopt the "loose guideline" as your combat model?*  YES. AS LONG AS YOU PRESSURE TEST IT.* In so doing you will not only be able to execute the sequence in a similar scrapping situation, but you'll change its execution and you'll use it in other scenarios too. *BECAUSE THE LESSONS OF SWORD AND HAMMER GO BEYOND ITS INITIAL POINT OF INTRODUCTION. YOU CAN APPLY SWORD AND HAMMER TO COMBAT IN GENERAL WHEN YOU DEVELOPE SUFFICIENT SKILL IN ITS EMPLOYMENT.* Exactly like Sensei Oshita said.

I started with the loose combat model too. Difference is? In our class...people punched us. And tackled us. And used weapons against us. And multifought with us [ where do you think I got avoiding getting stomped out from? ]. And we still could ONLY USE Sword and Hammer. [ This is the Isolation part of the I Method ]. That meant that we started off with the initial Hockey Punch defense and then played with it from there. The BG could do whatever he wanted after the initial grab...we had to use a handsword and hammerfist and either finish him off right there or use the handsword and hammerfist in the process of finishing him off. Against all comers. Football players, Judoka, other kenpoists, Hapkidoka, bjj guys, wrestlers, Muay Thai guys, kali men. Kung fu guys, lima lama guys. Capoeiristas. You name it. This immediately forced a change in the "loose guideline's" expression, because that's what's supposed to happen. It is, after all ONLY a guideline, NOT the solution.

Boom. My variant was born.

*ATACX GYM SWORD AND HAMMER RADIUS R.D.L.

And it's still a Kenpo Idea Sword and Hammer, it's my ATACX GYM'S IDEAL TECHNIQUE SWORD AND HAMMER, it uses a handsword and hammerfist like yours does...but it's not YOUR SWORD AND HAMMER. Guess what?

YOUR TECH ISN'T THEE SWORD AND HAMMER EITHER, IT'S JUST "A" SWORD AND HAMMER...IF YOU PRESSURE TESTED IT. IF YOUR INSTRUCTOR CREATED THE TECH FOR YOUR SCHOOL, PRESSURE TESTED IT, AND ALL OF YOU PRESSURE TEST IT? THEN IT BECOMES AN "IDEAL TECHNIQUE" FOR YOUR SCHOOL ONLY.

*Okay. Yall should get it by now.


----------



## Thesemindz

Ras, I think you've hit on one of the key differences here. I was not taught this technique as a defense against the "hockey punch." I was taught this technique as a response to the aggression which is a precursor to the "hockey punch." The idea is that he reaches out to you with the near arm, and before he launches the follow up attack you counter with the pin and striking combination. The way I teach it the moves are specifically designed to address several possible follow ups, and we do train it with the follow ups. I was just doing that Monday night. But the initial attack taught in the base technique does not include the follow ups. It's a response to projected aggression from the flank at long range. We don't add the follow ups until later. Because I want the students to learn a different lesson first.


-Rob


----------



## ATACX GYM

Thesemindz said:


> Ras, I think you've hit on one of the key differences here. I was not taught this technique as a defense against the "hockey punch." I was taught this technique as a response to the aggression which is a precursor to the "hockey punch." The idea is that he reaches out to you with the near arm, and before he launches the follow up attack you counter with the pin and striking combination. The way I teach it the moves are specifically designed to address several possible follow ups, and we do train it with the follow ups. I was just doing that Monday night. But the initial attack taught in the base technique does not include the follow ups. It's a response to projected aggression from the flank at long range. We don't add the follow ups until later. Because I want the students to learn a different lesson first.
> 
> 
> -Rob




When I was 8 years old, I was taught the same way. But we then sparred with it. In Chicken's dojo. I found out instantly that uke isn't gonna stand there for you. The PRECURSOR to the punch became very quickly a GRAB-PUNCH. Then a GRAB-PUSH-LOTSA PUNCHES. Then pulls jerks kicks sweeps knees elbows tackles etc were added in for good measure. Each time my Sword and Hammer was successively less successful because uke knew what my offense was and prepped defenses against it while fighting me off. I got tackled by football guys, and I didn't know what to do. I was paralyzed while getting punched.

I had to find another way...while still preserving the use of the handsword and hammerfist. Eventually I did just that. I remembered that my Sword and Hammer wasn't the only arsenal I have in Kenpo, and I can use those too...ALONG WITH my Sword and Hammer. Suddenly, instead of being mopped up so constantly, I started winning a few. And then a few more.

As a child, I was set on the road to developing all of the methods that manifest in my ATACX GYM.


----------



## Thesemindz

I do many of those same things in training the material with my own students, but I still begin with the same seed. You began with more or less the same seed that I did, but through the growth process you evolved away from the original technique, and now you begin your students with a very different seed than you started with. I know you feel that by changing the base technique your students benefit from the process you've gone through. But do you deny them the chance to go through the same process themselves? By changing the seed, you change the tree you are growing. Nothing inherently wrong with that in a vacuum, but do you think they lose anything by starting in a different place and growing in a different direction? Or do you see it as pure profit?


-Rob


----------



## Thesemindz

BTW, I know this discussion is driving some of you insane, but I'm really enjoying it. I see a lot of merit in almost all the positions being espoused here and enjoy reading so many perspectives on the material. I think this has been a great discussion, despite the fact that I see the different sides as unlikely ever to be reconciled.


-Rob


----------



## Chris Parker

ATACX GYM said:


> When I was 8 years old, I was taught the same way. But we then sparred with it. In Chicken's dojo. I found out instantly that uke isn't gonna stand there for you. The PRECURSOR to the punch became very quickly a GRAB-PUNCH. Then a GRAB-PUSH-LOTSA PUNCHES. Then pulls jerks kicks sweeps knees elbows tackles etc were added in for good measure. Each time my Sword and Hammer was successively less successful because uke knew what my offense was and prepped defenses against it while fighting me off. I got tackled by football guys, and I didn't know what to do. I was paralyzed while getting punched.



I thought you were training for some kind of reality, Ras... the idea of the bad guy having so much experience at fighting you that they figure out defences to your counters is just plain unrealistic, you realise. The most important thing in the techniques is learning (and ingraining) the strategies and tactics, not exact mechanical responses that always go to plan. And you were 8 and being tackled by "football guys", and this is why you think that the techniques don't work?



ATACX GYM said:


> I had to find another way...while still preserving the use of the handsword and hammerfist. Eventually I did just that. I remembered that my Sword and Hammer wasn't the only arsenal I have in Kenpo, and I can use those too...ALONG WITH my Sword and Hammer. Suddenly, instead of being mopped up so constantly, I started winning a few. And then a few more.



Here's possibly the crux of an answer you've been unable to give so far... why would you still need to preserve the use of a handsword and hammerfist? I'm genuinely asking, by the way, I want to hear why you think you need to keep those in your response.



ATACX GYM said:


> As a child, I was set on the road to developing all of the methods that manifest in my ATACX GYM.



Honestly, Ras, this sums up the issues I see in your approach. It was formed when you were a child, and had no real way of understanding what it was really about. And you've stuck with that, which comes through in many ways.


----------



## Thesemindz

I understand that many of you disagree with Ras and dislike both his method and his presentation. And I can understand why some would be offended when he says that their material doesn't work. But I have yet to see him call anyone here an ignorant, immature child. While he attempts to champion his position with evidence, such as videos, quotes, and articles, I see others who simply resort to ad hominem attacks. You may dispute his interpretation of the evidence, and that's fair, and you may arrive at different conclusions, I often do, but I haven't seen a single post by him where he resorted to name calling, despite the fact that his detractors have come no closer to accepting his position than he has to embracing theirs. There are many areas where Ras and I disagree, but I have yet to see him comport himself without class. Being an ardent defender of an unpopular position may make one the target of low barbs, but it hardly ennobles one's attackers.


-Rob


----------



## Chris Parker

So you missed the posts where he refers to myself with phrases such as "extremely high levels of dooficity, even for Chris", the constant reference to all other Kenpo methods who teach the "regular" Sword and Hammer as "craptastic" and so on? Bluntly, such use of language is Ras being childish and immature... but I will also say that my comments as to maturity as such were based more on Ras' own revelation that his approach is based in his childhood training, and has retained that understanding. There was no attack, it was an observation as to where his beliefs and values have come from, and as such, where his behaviours (his method of posting, his alterations, and so on) come from. As far as his evidence, most of it is him saying that he agrees with himself, so I don't overtly accept that as evidence. And he has yet to display any actual understanding beyond a simple mechanical approach to martial art training. So yes, in terms of martial arts, I would consider him ignorant (referring to the amount he doesn't know) and immature (regarding the level of which he does). That's me being blunt, though, so take that for what you will.


----------



## Thesemindz

I'll grant you the dooficity comment. I must have missed that. I've seen him refer to the material as craptastic, but must have missed him saying the instructors were. If he did I'll grant you that too. No need to copy paste it, I'll take you at your word. And as such, I'll say that I don't think that's very classy of him either. I did see him once say that anyone teaching the IP as real self defense is a fraud and a liar and should fling themselves off a cliff, and I called him on it. I won't defend him unconditionally. But I don't think that that sort of approach, from anyone, furthers the discussion. I disagree with you about his evidence though. In the course of this debate I haven't seen a refutation of his understanding of Doc's quotes, or the article he posted from the Tracy system, or his actual mechanics beyond "too many moves" and "you're doing it wrong." Ras champions his position because he genuinely believes in it. Simply telling him he's wrong has no more argumentative value than him telling you he's right. 


-Rob


----------



## Chris Parker

Actually, I gave a fairly detailed critique of the "new and improved" version in my first post on page one here, and as for the various references, some have been shown to be out of context, I argued against the interpretation of Larry Tatum and Doc in terms of pre-emptive striking the way Ras was claiming it, but what I was referring to was his constant quoting of himself, or putting up a video of himself agreeing with, well, himself, in order to show how right he is.

But to get to the crux of the matter, Ras put up the original post with two unrelated techniques, one of which is his "better" version of the original, and has yet to be able to explain why his version is even an actual version of the original technique. His attempts to explain how he came up with his version show a large disconnect between understanding the structure of techniques, and the lessons they are designed to impart, and being able to put together a combination he may have some success with. His own evidence shows that the two techniques are nothing alike... yet he has insisted on making them a comparison, without being able to even demonstrate basic understanding of the tactical lessons of the first. That's the real issue, not whether or not Ras' technique works, but what makes it an alternate version of Sword and Hammer in the first place. Then we could get to why it's better or not. But until Ras is able to understand and answer that question, he'll just keep coming back with "all other kempo is craptastic, I am the only functionally training mofo out there today, I am the only one doing it the right way", which frankly gets real old real fast.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Chris Parker said:


> So you missed the posts where he refers to myself with phrases such as "extremely high levels of dooficity, even for Chris", the constant reference to all other Kenpo methods who teach the "regular" Sword and Hammer as "craptastic" and so on? Bluntly, such use of language is Ras being childish and immature... but I will also say that my comments as to maturity as such were based more on Ras' own revelation that his approach is based in his childhood training, and has retained that understanding. There was no attack, it was an observation as to where his beliefs and values have come from, and as such, where his behaviours (his method of posting, his alterations, and so on) come from. As far as his evidence, most of it is him saying that he agrees with himself, so I don't overtly accept that as evidence. And he has yet to display any actual understanding beyond a simple mechanical approach to martial art training. So yes, in terms of martial arts, I would consider him ignorant (referring to the amount he doesn't know) and immature (regarding the level of which he does). That's me being blunt, though, so take that for what you will.




Okay I usually don't respond to these kinds of posts, but let me clear this up right now:

when I use phrases like "craptastic' and "dooficity"? They're tongue in cheek phrases; I'm not actually dissing you. Maybe where you're from such terminology is genuinely insulting. Where I'm from? That mess IS FUNNY and NOT VIEWED as a personal attack. If you took it otherwise? Then I'm man enough to offer you a direct apology for such right now. If I truly insult you? You'll know. And there won't be a "craptastic" word in sight, regardless of the "dooficity" level of the offending action which caused my response.

As far as my evidence is concerned? I have quoted the very author of Kenpo himself since pg 5 and have been championing the position that his writings clearly denote since page 1. I have presented video evidence. I have quoted the senior ranking Kenpo Elders including Doc Chapel and The Tracys. NONE of the evidence quoted supports your position...and in fact? ALL OF THE EVIDENCE directly repudiates your position and anything like it.

You don't understand what The Ideal Phase Analytical Process is. I proved since page 6 that I was right by the very definition of Mr. Parker's verbatim analysis. 

Does it not strike anyone besides me as more than strange what's going on here? Chris is a  non-Kenpo man who is arguing with a 34 year long Kenpo practitioner about a art Chris DOES NOT PRACTICE...EVEN AFTER THE FOUNDER OF THE ART HE DOESN'T PRACTICE HAS WRITTEN WORKS REPUDIATING CHRIS AND AFFIRMING THE MASTER RANK KENPO PRACTITIONER WHO HE'S ARGUING WITH?

That's beyond wrong. And sir, I would think that if anyone was being immature? It certainly isn't me.



ATACX GYM said:


> Okay rather than take forever going back and forth? Let's take a direct look at this stuff from the actual definition of THE IDEAL PHASE and its other mandatory components and compare and contrast step by step:
> 
> (p.66) *IDEAL PHASE*- This is *Phase I *of the analytical process of dissecting a technique.
> It requires structuring an IDEAL technique by selecting a combat situation that you wish to analyze. Contained within the technique should be fixed moves of defense,offense, and the anticipated reactions that can stem from them. This PHASE strongly urges the need to analyze techniques from THREE POINTS OF VIEW.
> 
> (p.138) *WHAT IF PHASE*- This is PHASE II of the analytical process of dissecting a technique. this PHASE takes in additional variables. It requires being programmed to further analyze the IDEAL or fixed technique. _(me talking: not sure I agree with the term programmed.) _Expected, as well as unexpected opponent reactions are projected and evaluated. the concept here is that every movement may have critical consequences; thus, in a realistic situation, the need to predict each consequence to the best of your knowledge is imperative. Ideally, all consequential possibilities should be projected, evaluated, and learned. To do so is to increase your ability to instinctively and randomly alter the basic technique, and thus allow yourself a choice of action. _<- (sounds alot like what you've accomplished Ras.)_
> 
> (p.56*) FORMULATION PHASE*- This is PHASE III of the analytical process of dissecting a technique. This PHASE involves the actual application of your newly found alternatives to the original IDEAL or fixed technique. Knowing what can additionally happen within the framework of the fixed technique, teaches you how to apply your variable answers to a free and changing environment. This ultimate process of combat training can be learned by using the EQUATION FORMULA for fighting.
> 
> (p.48) *EQUATION FORMULA*- This is a special formula that one can follow to develop specific, practical, and logical fighting patterns. the formula allows you a more conclusive basis for negotiating your alternative actions. It reads as follows:
> To give any base, whether it is a single move or a series of movements, you can (1)*prefix it*- add a move or moves before it; (2) *suffix it*- add a move or moves after it; (3) *insert*- add a simultaneous move with, the already established sequence (this move can be used as a (a) pinning check- using pressure against an opponent's weapons to nullify their delivery, or (b) positioned check- where you place the hand or leg in a defensive position or angle to minimize entry to your vital areas; (4)* rearrange*- change the sequence of the moves, (5) *alter the- *(a) weapon, (b) target, (c) both weapon and target; (6) *adjust the- *(a) range, (b) angle of execution (which affects the width and height), (c) both angle of execution and range; (7) *regulate the- *(a) speed, (b) force, (c) both speed and force, (d) intent and speed; and (8)* delete- *exclude a move or moves from the sequence.
> 
> _and since doc mentioned ideas_,
> *IDEAS*- One of the philosophical views of Kenpo that considers defensive and offensive moves to be no more than concepts that vary with each and every situation. <- _adds a bit more context for me when I re-read Doc's post about the "IDEALS" being "IDEAS".
> 
> 
> 
> _Everything that makes the point--taken in proper context--is right there^^^^^
> 
> 
> First step? Let's have the teacher "selecting a combat situation that you wish to analyze". That attack is launched at 0:16 in this video:
> 
> [video=youtube_share;A36Bw5I3-g0]http://youtu.be/A36Bw5I3-g0[/video]
> 
> 
> Now, THIS is what most people call Theee singular sole Sword and Hammer, which effectively creates the Ideal TECHNIQUE of Sword and Hammer:
> 
> [video=youtube_share;oJbyIBmhDN0]http://youtu.be/oJbyIBmhDN0[/video]
> 
> Compare the two...and immediately the flaws in this approach are seen. These flaws are legion. First? The above tech doesn't satisfy the requirements for the actual definition for The Ideal Phase:
> 
> "p.66) *IDEAL PHASE*- This is *Phase I *of the analytical process of dissecting a technique.
> It requires structuring an IDEAL technique by selecting a combat situation that you wish to analyze. Contained within the technique should be fixed moves of defense,offense, and the anticipated reactions that can stem from them. This PHASE strongly urges the need to analyze techniques from THREE POINTS OF VIEW."
> 
> Are there fixed moves of defense and offense? Yes, but the dysfunctional "attack" followed by the equally dysfunctional "response" does not address the street reality...as shown in the link above. Does the form of Sword and Hammer address the 'anticipated reactions' that can stem from the projected and expected moves of defense and offense...in the real world? No, it doesn't. There is no addressing of the power of the grab, the body momentum follow through, and the fact that the punch would be launched nearly simultaneously with the grab and push/pull.
> 
> 
> "(p.138) *WHAT IF PHASE*- This is PHASE II of the analytical process of dissecting a technique. this PHASE takes in additional variables. It requires being programmed to further analyze the IDEAL or fixed technique. _(me talking: not sure I agree with the term programmed.) _Expected, as well as unexpected opponent reactions are projected and evaluated. the concept here is that every movement may have critical consequences; thus, in a realistic situation, the need to predict each consequence to the best of your knowledge is imperative. Ideally, all consequential possibilities should be projected, evaluated, and learned. To do so is to increase your ability to instinctively and randomly alter the basic technique, and thus allow yourself a choice of action. _<- (sounds alot like what you've accomplished Ras.)"_
> 
> Are the expected and unexpected reactions of the opponent a part of the Sword and Hammer as displayed by the other videos? What if the opponent throws a punch? What if the push knocked you off balance? What if he tackles you? What if he doesn't push you...he just cracks you from the side or behind you or whatever [ which is what happens most of the time ]? NO.
> 
> 
> (p.56*) FORMULATION PHASE*- This is PHASE III of the analytical process of dissecting a technique. This PHASE involves the actual application of your newly found alternatives to the original IDEAL or fixed technique. Knowing what can additionally happen within the framework of the fixed technique, teaches you how to apply your variable answers to a free and changing environment. This ultimate process of combat training can be learned by using the EQUATION FORMULA for fighting.
> 
> Is there any aspect of this approach in the tech? Even partially? NO.
> 
> 
> (p.48) *EQUATION FORMULA*- This is a special formula that one can follow to develop specific, practical, and logical fighting patterns. the formula allows you a more conclusive basis for negotiating your alternative actions. It reads as follows:
> To give any base, whether it is a single move or a series of movements, you can (1)*prefix it*- add a move or moves before it; (2) *suffix it*- add a move or moves after it; (3) *insert*- add a simultaneous move with, the already established sequence (this move can be used as a (a) pinning check- using pressure against an opponent's weapons to nullify their delivery, or (b) positioned check- where you place the hand or leg in a defensive position or angle to minimize entry to your vital areas; (4)* rearrange*- change the sequence of the moves, (5) *alter the- *(a) weapon, (b) target, (c) both weapon and target; (6) *adjust the- *(a) range, (b) angle of execution (which affects the width and height), (c) both angle of execution and range; (7) *regulate the- *(a) speed, (b) force, (c) both speed and force, (d) intent and speed; and (8)* delete- *exclude a move or moves from the sequence.
> 
> 
> There is no hint of The Equation Formula in the above Sword and Hammer expression. In short...since it lacks the primary components of The Ideal Phase Analytical Process...THE TECHNIQUE THAT ALL OF YOU LAUDED IS NOT THEE IDEAL TECHNIQUE. It CAN be an "idea"...but it CANNOT be and there has NEVER BEEN a IDEAL TECHNIQUE.
> 
> 
> 
> In short? If you trained THIS method.--->
> 
> [video=youtube_share;oJbyIBmhDN0]http://youtu.be/oJbyIBmhDN0[/video]
> 
> you'd get your head taken off. You'd fail to thwart the attack. Thwarting the attack is THE FIRST requirement for any self defense technique. You can thwart the attack by fleeing, but in this case? Thwarting the attack requires a functional deployment of The Sword and Hammer. Now...
> 
> This is MY Sword and Hammer:
> 
> 
> Atacx Gym Sword and Hammer 1
> 
> [video=youtube_share;eo4yj0MZyeI]http://youtu.be/eo4yj0MZyeI[/video]
> 
> Atacx Gym Sword and Hammer 1A
> 
> [video=youtube_share;AuvuhW1u2WE]http://youtu.be/AuvuhW1u2WE[/video]
> 
> Atacx Gym Sword and Hammer 2
> 
> [video=youtube_share;R-mmdyIHkjs]http://youtu.be/R-mmdyIHkjs[/video]
> 
> "p.66) *IDEAL PHASE*- This is *Phase I *of the analytical process of dissecting a technique.
> It requires structuring an IDEAL technique by selecting a combat situation that you wish to analyze. Contained within the technique should be fixed moves of defense,offense, and the anticipated reactions that can stem from them. This PHASE strongly urges the need to analyze techniques from THREE POINTS OF VIEW."
> 
> The combat scenario is the same as previously.
> 
> Now, look at my variants. Does the Atacx Gym IP contained within the technique "fixed moves of defense,offense, and the anticipated reactions that can stem from them" ? Absolutely. The first thing I address is that the grab [ that's usually the BG grabbing us ] is aggressive and transfers its energy and bodily followthrough to the defending target [that's usually us ]. This is wholly ignored by the dysfunctional other variant. Another basic real world requirement is that the punch happens at the same time or nearly the same time of the push/pull. They're grabbing you for a reason...and that reason is to do something to you that you don't want. Usually punch your block off. But you can get cracked with a bottle, stabbed, pushed over, tackled, simply pulled away...all manner of things. But in EVERY case? Energy is transmitted from the grab to the person grabbed. I address the grab AND the followup attack...
> 
> ...and I do so in a way that allows me the option of correctly assessing the grabber's intent. It's not always necessary to Kenpo some jerk into oblivion. If you snappily disengage his grab? That alone could de-escalate the situation. The person grabbing you could be a friend or a stranger who grabbed you and surprised you. The point is? You have to be sure that whoever grabbed you DESERVES to be hit with the Sword and Hammer. That assessment time is built into my tech. It's wholly absent in the dysfunctional other variants.
> 
> "(p.138) *WHAT IF PHASE*- This is PHASE II of the analytical process of dissecting a technique. this PHASE takes in additional variables. It requires being programmed to further analyze the IDEAL or fixed technique. _(me talking: not sure I agree with the term programmed.) _Expected, as well as unexpected opponent reactions are projected and evaluated. the concept here is that every movement may have critical consequences; thus, in a realistic situation, the need to predict each consequence to the best of your knowledge is imperative. Ideally, all consequential possibilities should be projected, evaluated, and learned. To do so is to increase your ability to instinctively and randomly alter the basic technique, and thus allow yourself a choice of action. _<- (sounds alot like what you've accomplished Ras.)"_
> 
> 
> I'm all over this Phase. What if he grabbed you from a different position? What if he just PUNCHED you and DIDN'T grab and pull you. What if he grabbed you from a different hand and different lead leg or from a different position? What if he PUSHED you and PUNCHED you instead of PULLED and punched you? The other technique which too many champion don't even remotely engage this area.
> 
> 
> "(p.56*) FORMULATION PHASE*- This is PHASE III of the analytical process of dissecting a technique. This PHASE involves the actual application of your newly found alternatives to the original IDEAL or fixed technique. Knowing what can additionally happen within the framework of the fixed technique, teaches you how to apply your variable answers to a free and changing environment. This ultimate process of combat training can be learned by using the EQUATION FORMULA for fighting."
> 
> My expression is the only one that actually shows in its base technique the actual application of newly found alternatives to the original IDEAL or fixed technique. Allll of the other ones merely mimic the static nonsense of this first dysfunctional tech.
> 
> 
> "p.48) *EQUATION FORMULA*- This is a special formula that one can follow to develop specific, practical, and logical fighting patterns. the formula allows you a more conclusive basis for negotiating your alternative actions. It reads as follows:
> To give any base, whether it is a single move or a series of movements, you can (1)*prefix it*- add a move or moves before it; (2) *suffix it*- add a move or moves after it; (3) *insert*- add a simultaneous move with, the already established sequence (this move can be used as a (a) pinning check- using pressure against an opponent's weapons to nullify their delivery, or (b) positioned check- where you place the hand or leg in a defensive position or angle to minimize entry to your vital areas; (4)* rearrange*- change the sequence of the moves, (5) *alter the- *(a) weapon, (b) target, (c) both weapon and target; (6) *adjust the- *(a) range, (b) angle of execution (which affects the width and height), (c) both angle of execution and range; (7) *regulate the- *(a) speed, (b) force, (c) both speed and force, (d) intent and speed; and (8)* delete- *exclude a move or moves from the sequence."
> 
> The culmination of the Ideal Phase Analytical Process is the above. As all of you noted, my expression looks radically different than the tech that you're used to seeing. Yeeep. Cuz mine WORKS and I'm actually doing The Ideal Phase analytical process in its entirety.  Precisely as defined step by step...and not misapplied or misunderstood.
> 
> You guys are used to accepting a dysfunctional tech, and you're used to crediting what is essentially a bankrupt idea...i.e. the Ideal TECHNIQUE. There is no one way to do the Sword and Hammer Ideal Phase tech, but all the Ideal Phase methods require the defense to be subjected to the whole Ideal Phase Analytical Process to EVEN QUALIFY for consideration as an Ideal Phase Analytical technique. What you guys keep calling thee IP is NOT qualified for such distinction.
> 
> Most essential of all? The IP tech--whichever IP you choose, however you physically articulate that tech--MUST WORK AGAINST THE FULL POWER, FULL SPEED TECH IT'S SUPPOSED TO DEFEAT. This means that whatever IP you choose? Said defense must actually be repeatedly tested against resistance...or else you can't take a common street attack, enact that attack live or with any sort of honest and truthful energy in class, and then select techs that will reliably thwart it. Which is the basic premise of any and all self-defense. You know...reliably defending your self against attacks.
> 
> 
> Now, I'm not the only one that has multiple options drawn from the natural and expected counters to counters that the BG is likely to pull off. The Tracy's had it built into their system since prior to my birth. It's my understanding that Mr.Parker loooong had them built into his personal system. Boxers, MMA, JKDU, SBG and maaaany other guys and gals have it. In Capoeira, Mestre Bimba's secuencias fill this function rather well. Etc etc.
> 
> Please reflect upon the above.
> 
> AMANI..."peace"....
> 
> --
> 
> "IT'S NOT JUST WHAT YOU KNOW,IT'S HOW AND WHY YOU TRAIN"
> 
> "THE FIGHT YOU ALWAYS WIN IS THE FIGHT YOU'RE NOT IN"
> 
> "YOU MUST LEARN TO HEAL IF YOU'VE LEARNED TO DESTROY"
> 
> "AVOID TROUBLE,BUT IF TROUBLE IS UNAVOIDABLE? PUT TROUBLE IN TROUBLE"





My detractors have no place to turn factually. All of you in the silent majority watching this thread? Behold the words of Mr. Parker affirming my position and atomically annihilating the position of my detractors.

The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique Process...is a PROCESS. It's NOT a technique. Like I've been telling you guys over and over again for 23 pages now. The above quote is located on page 6 of this thread. My detractors have  been ignoring this quote in their near rabid attempt to prove me wrong for over 17 pages on this thread alone. If they were actually objectively pursuing truth and engaging in a discussion purely for factual merit? Then this thread would have halted long ago. All of the requisite info had long been displayed.

But no. Here they go making the same arguments over and over again as if there is any merit whatsoever in their positions.

Their most recent arguments dealt with the multiple variants and difference in my tech's expression as opposed to theirs. One of my good friends actually referenced the outstanding teacher Mr. Sumner and the Tracys as part of his argument. I then replied with evidence drawn from The Tracys themselves that YES my version not only doesn't have to look like theirs but has been sanctioned by Professor Chow [ Mr. Parker's teacher] Sensei Oshita [ Mr. Parker's other teacher, a female karate master ] Mr. Parker aaaand the Tracys visavis The 50 Ways to Sunday practicing method. Something I've been saying for nearly a year now.

So we have proof that the model my detractors champion is NOT and NEVER COULD BE a definitive combat model. It came about as a loose guideline that was meant to help instructors craft THEIR OWN Ideals, not create an inflexible expression for all of Kenpo as a whole to slavishly copy and emulate. This info comes from Mr. Parker's own quotes while defining The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique PROCESS and from all of the above Kenpo Elders including Doc Chapel...the ranking Kenpo Elder on this site.

Pish tosh, says our non-Kenpo friend Chris Parker and all those who agree with him.



Doc said:


> In the last week I've received 4 requests on this topic. So I guess it's time to address it - again! And there does seem to be some confusion on this forum of what the Ed Parker process is, that makes his commercial Kenpo product unique. So with a friendly nudge to Ras, and others ...
> 
> *What is the confusion with What Ifs in Ed Parker's Kenpo Karate?...*
> 
> 
> In my view (supported by Mr. Parker and the way I was taught by Him,) that is what the meaning of "ideal" is. The problem has always been since the launch into the "commercial era" of Kenpo, a misunderstanding of the function of the "manuals" and "Big Red" as guidelines, not instructional materials. They were never designed to "stand alone" as instructional materials.
> 
> As I've stated before, the only way Mr. Parker could proliferate his commercial product was to take black belts from other styles, and allowed them to teach his concepts. These black belts were to utilize the conceptual information as a starting point, and formulate their own product from it. This is how the commercial or motion era was born, by utilizing skilled black belts that already existed within their own system. Mr. Parker recruited them, and in some cases, even some with no experience.
> 
> There is nothing in the technique manuals that provides a definitive solution to any assault scenario, and they were never meant to be. They were in fact created to give a reasonably intelligent teacher, a loose and broad starting point to begin their own process of formulating technique scenarios for their own teaching. This was for their down-line in a school or organization, to provide particular consistency for a group that worked together, with a broad general consistency to the overall art.  Once you stepped out of the lineage pool, school, or organization, there was never an expectation of anything being the same with the commercial product. When Mr. Parker was alive, it essentially functioned as intended because only he could say "something is wrong," and if he didn't say it, no one could be criticized.
> 
> The problem is, in business you can't tell people they're wrong. He accepted all of his converts from other styles "as is," and had to "guide" them rather than "correct" them. If someone asked him specifically "how" a technique should be done, he always replied, "Show me how YOU do it." Than he would offer advice on how to improve their interpretation of the technique. He knew it didn't make sense to teach a definitive technique in a business art where he wasn't going to be available to reinforce that definitive process.
> 
> Unfortunately the confusion was massive, in part because of Parker himself. I remember standing in the back leaning against the wall in street clothes at a seminar where Mr. Parker was going over some technique ideas. One green belt leaned over to another and whispered, "Mr. Parker is teaching the technique wrong." There was never ever anything wrong with the method of teaching, only the teachers that continued to deteriorate and spiral downward in knowledge and skill every generation. Their lack of understanding fueled a desire to have it both ways. They wanted things "fixed," but wanted "their ideal fixed" to be everyone else's model, while they were allowed to explore and deviate to their desire.
> 
> The methodology crosses over into all interpretations and levels of Kenpo as I teach, and follows the old Chinese Traditional methods of "style or family" interpretations of the overall art, which was always taught in "phases" just like Parker intended...





We have proof on the preceding page [ lifted from their own site, with links to boot ] from the Tracys that my method has been enshrined since prior to the birth of nearly everyone on this site.

Hogwash, says our non-Kenpo friend Chris Parker and all those who agree with him.

Except they're wrong...again...as they have been every step of the way. Observe.

http://www.kenpokarate.com/


I then point out that I can do my Sword and Hammer on the ground exactly as I do it standing up.

IMPOSSIBLE, cry my detractors.


I've already done it, I reply. Observe the proof:

[video=youtube_share;OgiiyO05OL4]http://youtu.be/OgiiyO05OL4[/video]

Then my detractors go back to crying that what I did isn't Sword and Hammer because it doesn't look like the version they know...completely ignoring the fact that they version that they champion isn't Sword and Hammer and never was. It was just a guideline so that their instructors would make THEIR OWN Sword and Hammer, and most Kenpo instructors dropped the ball in this area. The fact that I have NOT dropped the ball should be cause for CONGRATULATIONS...not recrimination, my martial brethren.

You know...if you have a guy who can make a specific shot vs the bad guys no matter what position he's in? They'd say he's a helluva pistolero. If you have a boxer that can jab the crab out of you no matter where he is and no matter what you do? They'd say that guy has one helluva jab. But if you have a Sword and Hammer and can do it pretty much no matter what...some people will say that you aren't doing Sword and Hammer.

I say to them that they don't know what Sword and Hammer is. And they don't grasp the works of the masters on this matter. And bottom line? That's their right NOT to do so...even if they're absolutely sold on the idea that they're right [despite the writings of Ed Parker, The Tracys, and the ranking Kenpo Elder on this site squarely repudiating them ]. Because...bottom line? My tech works. The science, the experience, the skill, all the laudable things that my detractors claim is absent from this tech are actually there in hugely copious amounts. It satisfies every possible definition of The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique as written by Mr. Parker. It is solidly in lockstep with the Tracys and Doc's writings on the matter. It is undoubtedly Kenpo and high quality Kenpo at that.

Is it EPAK? NO. First...EPAK came about as a business acronym after Mr. Parker's passing. Secondly, if your teacher and your EPAK conflates The Big Red loose guideline with THEE IDEAL PHASE TECHNIQUE AND STANDARD even though Mr. Parker squarely repudiated such an assessment and flatly denied ever wanting such a thing? Then not only am I glad to NOT be the kind of EPAK that promotes that kind of thing...I'm wondering why anyone would want to do so.

If you don't study Kenpo, you don't have a horse in this race [ unless you just dislike me ] and you likely don't know what you're talking about...and you'll expose yourself with your own posts. If you don't study Kenpo and you want to know the actual history behind the confusing stuff in Kenpo? This thread has provided you concrete illuminating data on the subject; you and your confused Kenpo cousins need only the character to accept the words of the Masters on this matter and see that these Masters know whereof they speak.

Where any of the foregoing conflicts with the words of the Masters? They are wrong. Wherein any of the foregoing accuse The ATACX GYM of not doing Sword and Hammer? They are wrong. The data is incontrovertible, conclusive, direct, inarguable, empirical, and final. 

Now. Do what I did [ yes, I was wrong too. Not about The Ideal Phase Analytical Process, but I didn't know the history of Big Red, and never heard of Big Red OR Motion Kenpo until Doc schooled me ] and show the character to realign incorrect positions with the immutable truth of the matter as presented by the Masters themselves. Then go out and practice your martial arts. Find your own truth.

When you do? You won't be writing 24 and 25 page threads. You'll be on the mat. Like me.


----------



## Twin Fist

Thesemindz said:


> But I have yet to see him call anyone here an ignorant, immature child.




thats cuz no one but ras is acting like a spoiled ignorant immature child.

Look, when you have to brag? you look like an ***

when you ignore anything anyone says, you look like an ***

when you have to repost the same old **** 17 times, you look like a retarded ***.

when you claim to have "atomicly anihilated" anyone that disagrees with you, yeah, you look like an immature child.

No one will "accept his position" because 1) he's wrong, about pretty much everything he says 2) everyone has TRIED to meet him in the middle and he is like a ****ing 5 year old going "nanner nanner boo boo, i cant hear you" and repeting the same **** over and over and over

hell rob, read back I TOLD HIM HIS TECHNIQUE, WHILE NOT SWORD AND HAMMER WAS A VIABLE TECHNIQUE AND HE STILL TOLD ME I WAS WRONG

he is a friggin child stuck on stupid. He is arguing just to argue, and your championing him makes me wonder about you.

you cannot claim, at the same time that your technique is different AND better than an original that you TOTALLY CHANGE EVERYTHING ABOUT


----------



## ATACX GYM

Thesemindz said:


> I'll grant you the dooficity comment. I must have missed that. I've seen him refer to the material as craptastic, but must have missed him saying the instructors were. If he did I'll grant you that too. No need to copy paste it, I'll take you at your word. And as such, I'll say that I don't think that's very classy of him either. I did see him once say that anyone teaching the IP as real self defense is a fraud and a liar and should fling themselves off a cliff, and I called him on it. I won't defend him unconditionally. But I don't think that that sort of approach, from anyone, furthers the discussion. I disagree with you about his evidence though. In the course of this debate I haven't seen a refutation of his understanding of Doc's quotes, or the article he posted from the Tracy system, or his actual mechanics beyond "too many moves" and "you're doing it wrong." Ras champions his position because he genuinely believes in it. Simply telling him he's wrong has no more argumentative value than him telling you he's right.
> 
> 
> -Rob



I have indeed said that people who teach the IP as a combat model that is workable yet they haven't fought with it themselves and aren't requiring their students to stress test these techs on the mat are betraying their art and the trust of the public, and WHEN innocent students get hurt because of such? They should throw themselves off of a cliff. I admit it.

Guess what else I did? The moment that Doc presented me with the data that I presented you guys with...the Big Red, the Motion Kenpo, etc etc...I did a 180 and changed alot of what I said. I repeatedly and freely acknowledge that some of what I previously thought was incorrect and I've changed my tune permanently in that area. I have zero problem with that. Know why?

My ego isn't so invested in my opinion that I can't see concrete evidence for what it is. I'd rather be in solid alignment with the truth and the facts than "win" any "I'm right-you're wrong" shouting match or flame war.

My detractors categorically lack this virtue. They have been presented with facts inarguable and irrefutable regarding the paucity of facts of each and every one of their positions. Yet they still champion their positions. Their every argument...every single one...has been denuded of salient and accurate fact, and yet they carry on as if it hasn't. 

Thus far, I have proven myself to have the character to change my opinion when I'm confronted with FACTS showing that my position is incorrect. Thus far, my detractors have shown themselves to lack character of similar quality.


----------



## Twin Fist

oh, i just saw that he posted his same old tired as **** crap AGAIN

18 times and counting.

this is a friggin joke


----------



## ATACX GYM

Thesemindz said:


> I do many of those same things in training the material with my own students, but I still begin with the same seed. You began with more or less the same seed that I did, but through the growth process you evolved away from the original technique, and now you begin your students with a very different seed than you started with. I know you feel that by changing the base technique your students benefit from the process you've gone through. But do you deny them the chance to go through the same process themselves? By changing the seed, you change the tree you are growing. Nothing inherently wrong with that in a vacuum, but do you think they lose anything by starting in a different place and growing in a different direction? Or do you see it as pure profit?
> 
> 
> -Rob



One of the constant areas that I have to remind my detractors about is that my method doesn't neglect the situation that they champion, it ENCOMPASSES it and EXPANDS upon it. And this too is in Mr. Parker's writings. Anyone who spars with the techs will see this right away. The people who don't will insist that if it's not their static antiseptic noncombat model that was never supposed to be Sword and Hammer, then by necessity it cannot be Sword and Hammer. They have already fully subscribed to a zealous, sycophantic mindset which prevents them from acknowledging the obvious...and impairs their martial journey accordingly, imho.

For instance, they can't recognize Sword and Hammer in this video:

[video=youtube_share;VgPcYRVKmuM]http://youtu.be/VgPcYRVKmuM[/video]


----------



## Thesemindz

Hmmm, trying to buy my vote by posting my videos against me huh? Suck up.


-Rob


----------



## ATACX GYM

Chris Parker said:


> I thought you were training for some kind of reality, Ras... the idea of the bad guy having so much experience at fighting you that they figure out defences to your counters is just plain unrealistic, you realise. The most important thing in the techniques is learning (and ingraining) the strategies and tactics, not exact mechanical responses that always go to plan. And you were 8 and being tackled by "football guys", and this is why you think that the techniques don't work?
> 
> 
> 
> Here's possibly the crux of an answer you've been unable to give so far... why would you still need to preserve the use of a handsword and hammerfist? I'm genuinely asking, by the way, I want to hear why you think you need to keep those in your response.
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, Ras, this sums up the issues I see in your approach. It was formed when you were a child, and had no real way of understanding what it was really about. And you've stuck with that, which comes through in many ways.





There are those who might look at how my detractors' arguments are wholly, entirely and squarely repudiated at every turn by the founder of Kenpo Karate and Kenpo's more senior practitioners, then hypothesize that a 8 year old child grasped applied and performed Sword and Hammer better than my poorly informed detractors do as grown men and full on adults. They would be correct.


Furthermore, in the streets that I come from? Plenty of BGs have plenty plenty plenty of fighting experience and training. It is a fatal assumption to assume otherwise. In fact, fighting knowledge--as in genuine training in boxing, football, penitentiary style infighting and ambushes, etc--is so common amongst the BGs in the hoods that I come from and maaaannnny other hoods in the USA? Assuming that they DON'T know is a potentially fatal mistake. There are plenty of Kimbo Slices out there...with football experience, penitentiary experience, guns knives and homeboyz. These are the professional and experienced BGs who make names for themselves in various gangs or just in their own tightly knit klikk and they will zero on you as a target. Sometimes for no reason.

Wherever you live? I'm glad that you may not have to face that and that it's not part of your reality. It's part of mine. It's part of my childhood. It's very very realistic for me and mine. You're blessed that it's not the case for you.

As for why I keep the handsword and hammerfirst? Answered on page 5 or 6 of this thread, post #65 I believe...




ATACX GYM said:


> Here is a significant part of the reasoning and personal experiences that informed my personal expression of THE ATACX GYM SWORD AND HAMMER, taken from my post on KenpoTalk.com a long time ago.
> 
> 
> 
> "*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Re: Atacx gym sword and hammer pt. 2 w/choke (r.d.l.)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *jdinca*
> 
> 
> It looked like you were stretching to make sure you had a hammer and sword in there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like the escape though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a reasonable supposition right there,man.But I wasn't stretching to keep the S&H in there.When I first started testing this against escalating resistance? I first looked to see if a S&H was needed,and what benefits arose from using specifically the handsword and hammerfist in that tech.I wasn't keeping the tech in there just to keep it.The first logical place for the insertion of the S&H came in the transition escape from the tie up (in this case,it started with a shoulder grab but I had the grip migrate all over the place and tested it against taller people,shorter folks,strikers,grapplers,armed folks,etc etc.Taller guys grabbed me by the nape of the neck and other "anatomical handles" that were more presentable to them due to their height; wrestlers and football players would hammer then shoot and/or tie up and shoot,judoka would add judo throws and locks to what the wrestlers did,streetfighters would punch punch and then tie up for street fighters/untrained folks the grip leading to the classical S&H counter would happen in the midst of a flurry Hockey punch style,strikers would strike no matter what,etc etc etc).No matter who the attacker was,after you pivoted to the outside of his gripping arm,a hammerfist to the outside of the forearm of their gripping hand produced the best chance of making him release...whether you're a short girl or studly lion...and secondarily? The hammerfist action had the best results regarding compounding a painful strike with a disarm and displacement of the opponent.I married the hammerfist with the motion of our outward block,and deliberately slammed my forearm as hard as I could into the area between the backside of my opponent's abductor pollicis longus and his flexor pollicis longus (been YEEEAAARRRSS since I wrote that word down and it wasn't in my college papers or my old skool martial arts training and idea notebooks) which is a fancy way of saying a specific strip of area between his wrist and elbow.I found that not only did this work well even against quite strong taller athletic people like my friend Khai when they grabbed me full force,but I also found that my shorter students and especially my female students tended to strike higher up on the limb grasping them--closer to the wrist with the hammerfist+outside whipping forearm shiver of a block,lower on the tricep muscle group due to their shorter limbs and stature--so they could access these points between wrist and elbow better than pretty much any other targeted spot that one can easily counterattack under those circumstances.
> 
> At first I almost eliminated the handsword from this tech.I almost called it THE HAMMER AND SALUTE,because at first I was using the palm strike against the area between the elbow and the tricep.It did a good job of propelling the offending grasping limb away from me and my students,plus I noted that it had the added advantage of turning our opponent's back more toward us.Which I loved.Thought airythang was gravy...until I noted that the body alignment necessary to put real juice in a palm heel strike took away from the body alignment needed to put real juice in a forearm shiver of a outside block.At first I was letting that ride too...until one day in class,Sheree got her hair caught while she was turning and whipping out the block+palm heel.Her sparring partner released his grip on her shoulder,but NOT her hair.He wound up yanking her noggin,her neck and the rest of her body followed,and she got whooped on.Then something similar happened to DeMarcus.So I really sat down and went over the specific options available; with my first action being to go right back to the source material.I immediately applied the handsword to the tricep region,and I discovered that when you put actual stank funk on that handsword along with the forearm shiver of a outside block? Not only did the body mechanics align themselves in such a way so that each tech synergistically amped the power of the other, the handsword to the tricep really weakens the grip ( even if you do the tech wrong ) and more likely than not the handsword to the tricep MAKES THE GRIPPING HAND SPASM OPEN. You WILL escape almost anyone's grip. Not even kidding. Try it out yourself. Extend your left arm straight out from your shoulder like you're punching the wall or the air or about to make the universal stiff arm+open palm sign for "STOP". Then form a tight fist...in fact? You can squeeze a tennis ball or racquetball as hard as you can to make the point crystal clear. Then take your right hand and pop your lower tricep with a half power ridgehand. IMMEDIATELY you'll feel the power of your grip on the ball or your tight fist weaken,and you'll feel that tingle run down from your tricep to your left pinkie. And you did allat with just a wakk ridgehand from absolutely super wakk body alignment,no torque,no breath,no follow through,no Directional Harmony. If you threw a genuine stank funk nasty handsword in conjunction with the whipping outside block of a forearm shiver with proper body alignment which also capitalized upon the kinetic energy of both you AND your opponent? THE HAMMER AND SWORD WILL END THE THROWDOWN 90% OF THE TIME. It not only propels the BG away and takes his grabbing arm away from him, not only does his brain recognize that shock and responds to the trauma in a specific predictable way which always delays your opponent's response, guys....since his grabbing arm is now toast...there is an open lane to handswording or backfisting his throat if he's still within arm reach. And you will note that I do exactly that along with applying the hammerfist. The placement of the hammerfist in my varinat is ALSO VERY DELIBERATE in every regard, with knowledge of the human anatomy dictating tech placement. I'm hitting specific targets which my studies,my experience and my student's studies and experience shows has been most sanguine to the execution of this tech in the various situations that we apply it and test it in.
> 
> Have you tried to execute Sword and Hammer AFTER you've been smacked face first into a wall and WHILE the BG is STILL PINNING YOU THERE? I have...it's part of our training process. I'd been doing it for YEARS before the ONE TIME I ever had to do it live in the field (working a special security detail at the Queen Mary circa 2006). But because I knew how to do it and insisted that my students do it too and get good at it? DeRon used it to stop himself from getting knifed after he was mugged,and L.T. taught her daughter after I taught her and that knowledge prevented her daughter from being kidnapped by some sicko who'd grabbed her backpack during an attempt to kidnap her. I've done my variant of Sword and Hammer in many situations during practice and have tested it even from The Rubber Guard and even after having to come up from the ground during multifight training (and a live multifight with weapons during the same Queen Mary incident previously referred to) entering and exiting rolls/falls,etc.
> 
> So yeah it MIGHT appear that I'm forcing the S&H,but I'm not. Thanks for the comment!!​Last edited by ATACX GYM; 4 Weeks Ago at 06:30 PM.​http://www.youtube.com/user/ATACXGYM?feature=mhum
> 
> IT'S NOT JUST WHAT YOU KNOW,IT'S HOW YOU TRAIN
> 
> THE FIGHT YOU ALWAYS WIN IS THE FIGHT YOU'RE NOT IN
> 
> AVOID TROUBLE;BUT IF TROUBLE IS UNAVOIDABLE? PUT TROUBLE IN TROUBLE"​


----------



## ATACX GYM

Thesemindz said:


> Hmmm, trying to buy my vote by posting my videos against me huh? Suck up.
> 
> 
> -Rob



:ultracool


----------



## Flying Crane

ATACX GYM said:


> Their most recent arguments dealt with the multiple variants and difference in my tech's expression as opposed to theirs. One of my good friends actually referenced the outstanding teacher Mr. Sumner and the Tracys as part of his argument. I then replied with evidence drawn from The Tracys themselves that YES my version not only doesn't have to look like theirs but has been sanctioned by Professor Chow [ Mr. Parker's teacher] Sensei Oshita [ Mr. Parker's other teacher, a female karate master ] Mr. Parker aaaand the Tracys visavis The 50 Ways to Sunday practicing method. Something I've been saying for nearly a year now.



I've gotta assume you are referring to me with regard to this, and if so I thank you.  I actually do enjoy your input, even tho I fundamentally disagree with a lot of what you are presenting.  But that doesn't matter.

Regarding Ted Sumner, my intent in bringing up his name was simply pointing out another kenpoist who has been in the game for essentially as long as Doc has, and there are others yet who have been in it for even longer.  I am not implying that I have some hidden information regarding the very earliest days with Mr. Parker.  I'll state flatly that I do not.  I was only saying that while Doc presents the history as he lived it, what happened prior to his entry on the scene may have been different.  Doc's reality may be factual with regard to when he came on board, but what happed before then may have been different.

With that in mind, the fact that Tracy's technique Attacking Circle is virtually identical to the commonly seen Sword and Hammer, sort of suggests that at least at one time there may have been a stronger standardization of the techs that Mr. Parker was doing.  He may have changed his mind about that by the time Doc joined him, but that is a different matter.  So to say that the techs were NEVER meant to be standardized, or whatever, just may not be quite accurate.  It may be accurate with regard to Doc's experience.  But it may not have been an accurate statement with regard to Mr. Parker's entire history of teaching his methods.

Again, I'm pretty much speculating from evidence that I see.  I'm not speaking with any sort of hidden knowledge, or secrets that anybody had told me.

Just wanted to clarify the intention of what I was trying to say.


----------



## Twin Fist

i told him that too FC

ignored, just like everything else


----------



## ATACX GYM

Flying Crane said:


> I've gotta assume you are referring to me with regard to this, and if so I thank you.  I actually do enjoy your input, even tho I fundamentally disagree with a lot of what you are presenting.  But that doesn't matter.
> 
> Regarding Ted Sumner, my intent in bringing up his name was simply pointing out another kenpoist who has been in the game for essentially as long as Doc has, and there are others yet who have been in it for even longer.  I am not implying that I have some hidden information regarding the very earliest days with Mr. Parker.  I'll state flatly that I do not.  I was only saying that while Doc presents the history as he lived it, what happened prior to his entry on the scene may have been different.  Doc's reality may be factual with regard to when he came on board, but what happed before then may have been different.
> 
> With that in mind, the fact that Tracy's technique Attacking Circle is virtually identical to the commonly seen Sword and Hammer, sort of suggests that at least at one time there may have been a stronger standardization of the techs that Mr. Parker was doing.  He may have changed his mind about that by the time Doc joined him, but that is a different matter.  So to say that the techs were NEVER meant to be standardized, or whatever, just may not be quite accurate.  It may be accurate with regard to Doc's experience.  But it may not have been an accurate statement with regard to Mr. Parker's entire history of teaching his methods.
> 
> Again, I'm pretty much speculating from evidence that I see.  I'm not speaking with any sort of hidden knowledge, or secrets that anybody had told me.
> 
> Just wanted to clarify the intention of what I was trying to say.




Oh I understood you from word 1, my friend, and if there has been confusion? The fault is mine...I apparently wasn't clear enough. I shall endeavor to choose words that better convey my meaning next time.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Chris Parker said:


> But to get to the crux of the matter, Ras put up the original post with two unrelated techniques, one of which is his "better" version of the original, and has yet to be able to explain why his version is even an actual version of the original technique. His attempts to explain how he came up with his version show a large disconnect between understanding the structure of techniques, and the lessons they are designed to impart, and being able to put together a combination he may have some success with. His own evidence shows that the two techniques are nothing alike... yet he has insisted on making them a comparison, without being able to even demonstrate basic understanding of the tactical lessons of the first. That's the real issue, not whether or not Ras' technique works, but what makes it an alternate version of Sword and Hammer in the first place. Then we could get to why it's better or not. But until Ras is able to understand and answer that question, he'll just keep coming back with "all other kempo is craptastic, I am the only functionally training mofo out there today, I am the only one doing it the right way", which frankly gets real old real fast.



Who agrees with this position? Anyone who agrees...please THANK Chris for this comment. This way I know who to respond to. Thank u.


----------



## Flying Crane

ATACX GYM said:


> Who agrees with this position? Anyone who agrees...please THANK Chris for this comment. This way I know who to respond to. Thank u.



I think Chris has a valid point, particularly with regard to the fact that you made a comparison between a "standard" S&H and your own S&H, which is so different as to be unrecongnizable as the same.  Personally, if you want to talk about S&H, I find that issue legitimately problematic.

Regarding the other issues around the structure of the techs, the lessons they are designed to impart, tactical lessons, etc., well I honestly cannot comment because to be truthful that is one big issue I struggled with in kenpo, and a big reason why I ultimately concluded that the method is not a good fit for me.  I could not identify principles, lessons, nor tactical lessons in the techs.  To me, they didn't exist, or they were not made clear to me.  Maybe I was a poor student and simply failed to grasp these lessons, but I didn't see them in the techniques, from my own training and the instruction that I received.  When I would attempt to initiate a discussion online about these issues, people were largely unresponsive, or seemed unable to answer these questions.  I didn't get a clear notion that other people knew what they were, yet everyone spoke vaguely about their existence.

in my other training, those issues did not exist, so that was the route I chose.

Ras, would you please list out the principles contained in S&H, the tactical lessons, the structure of the tech., etc?  Just what lessons do you feel the tech holds, other than, "here is something you can do if the bad guy comes at you like this..."  What deeper or larger lessons would you intend for a student to get from this technique?

Furthermore, could you tell me, in your kenpo, do you have any fundamental and interconnecting principles that drive your entire system?  Do you have a fundamental method for giving power to your techniques?  What is it about your method that you feel ties it together and makes it rightfully a "system", vs. being a ragtag collection of ideas?


----------



## Twin Fist

two different attacks, means apples and oranges, yet you insist on making the retarded claim that your apple is a better apple than the orange is.

duh

here is a quick experiment.

what would YOU do for a grab from the flank

not a push with a punch

a grab from the flank

show us THAT video


----------



## ATACX GYM

Flying Crane said:


> I think Chris has a valid point, particularly with regard to the fact that you made a comparison between a "standard" S&H and your own S&H, which is so different as to be unrecongnizable as the same.  Personally, if you want to talk about S&H, I find that issue legitimately problematic.
> 
> Regarding the other issues around the structure of the techs, the lessons they are designed to impart, tactical lessons, etc., well I honestly cannot comment because to be truthful that is one big issue I struggled with in kenpo, and a big reason why I ultimately concluded that the method is not a good fit for me.  I could not identify principles, lessons, nor tactical lessons in the techs.  To me, they didn't exist, or they were not made clear to me.  Maybe I was a poor student and simply failed to grasp these lessons, but I didn't see them in the techniques, from my own training and the instruction that I received.  When I would attempt to initiate a discussion online about these issues, people were largely unresponsive, or seemed unable to answer these questions.  I didn't get a clear notion that other people knew what they were, yet everyone spoke vaguely about their existence.
> 
> in my other training, those issues did not exist, so that was the route I chose.
> 
> Ras, would you please list out the principles contained in S&H, the tactical lessons, the structure of the tech., etc?  Just what lessons do you feel the tech holds, other than, "here is something you can do if the bad guy comes at you like this..."  What deeper or larger lessons would you intend for a student to get from this technique?
> 
> Furthermore, could you tell me, in your kenpo, do you have any fundamental and interconnecting principles that drive your entire system?  Do you have a fundamental method for giving power to your techniques?  What is it about your method that you feel ties it together and makes it rightfully a "system", vs. being a ragtag collection of ideas?





Not only can I answer all of these questions, I will direct you to the definitive source for answers on this matter when you ask questions beyond what I answer in my own ATACX GYM. The matter is very simple and I'm very very surprised that you didn't find the answer IMMEDIATELY as the answers predates our birth and became public knowledge and public record nearly 3 decades ago.

Is there anyone else who agrees even partially with Chris Parker?


----------



## ATACX GYM

Twin Fist said:


> two different attacks, means apples and oranges, yet you insist on making the retarded claim that your apple is a better apple than the orange is.
> 
> duh
> 
> here is a quick experiment.
> 
> what would YOU do for a grab from the flank
> 
> not a push with a punch
> 
> a grab from the flank
> 
> show us THAT video




If some random person grabbed me from the flank and didn't menace me in any other way and I wasn't in some narrow area like the edge of a sidewalk, I'd Cover and Turn--allowing me to assess if they are genuinely aggressing against me or doing something else. I wouldn't even need to deploy the Sword and Hammer against their arm. Since they're not pulling or pushing, this is a static movement and my training allows me to automatically turn in my preferred direction...toward the outside of their arm. How would I know where the outside of their arm is? If they grabbed me directly from the flank, I can see them and I'd simply turn the other way. IF I can't see them? I simply feel the direction and position of their grab and pivot accordingly. You turn AWAY from their thumb. You can feel their thumb grippin you whether they're in the monkey grip or traditional one hand hammer grip.

And whaddya know...that's in every single video I've shown.


----------



## Flying Crane

ATACX GYM said:


> Not only can I answer all of these questions, I will direct you to the definitive source for answers on this matter when you ask questions beyond what I answer in my own ATACX GYM. The matter is very simple and I'm very very surprised that you didn't find the answer IMMEDIATELY as the answers predates our birth and became public knowledge and public record nearly 3 decades ago.



No I want to see it expressed in your own words.  Not video, not pointing to something that Mr. Parker or the Tracys wrote decades ago.  I would like to see you express these ideas succintly, in your own words, in writing.

Quoting someone else does not tell me that you understand it.  It only tells me you can redirect an inquiry to someone else.

Posting video is no good to me since I'm usually at work when I'm on the forum, and video is blocked.  I often do not have time at home to go back and watch videos.


----------



## Twin Fist

and keep it under 1000 words, please


----------



## Twin Fist

a fundamental lack of understanding of the attack and the proper responses.

it isnt a static attack, it is a grab as a prelude to an incomming punch

chris was right




ATACX GYM said:


> If some random person grabbed me from the flank and didn't menace me in any other way and I wasn't in some narrow area like the edge of a sidewalk, I'd Cover and Turn--allowing me to assess if they are genuinely aggressing against me or doing something else. I wouldn't even need to deploy the Sword and Hammer against their arm. Since they're not pulling or pushing, this is a static movement and my training allows me to automatically turn in my preferred direction...toward the outside of their arm. How would I know where the outside of their arm is? If they grabbed me directly from the flank, I can see them and I'd simply turn the other way. IF I can't see them? I simply feel the direction and position of their grab and pivot accordingly. You turn AWAY from their thumb. You can feel their thumb grippin you whether they're in the monkey grip or traditional one hand hammer grip.
> 
> And whaddya know...that's in every single video I've shown.


----------



## Cyriacus

25 Pages and Counting.

But Ive gotta say; If some guy grabs You by the Shoulder and doesnt do anything, how will You know He wasnt going to do anything?
But if You did, why not turn around and say Hi?


----------



## ATACX GYM

Cyriacus said:


> 25 Pages and Counting.
> 
> But Ive gotta say; If some guy grabs You by the Shoulder and doesnt do anything, how will You know He wasnt going to do anything?
> But if You did, why not turn around and say Hi?



Err on the side of protection but not unprovoked attack. The Cover and Spin protects you and dislodges his hold,and allows you that moment of time to assess the situation and determine his true motives. If he wasn't being threatening or adversarial, he'd just go something like:"Whoa." and you can explain yourself and he can explain himself. No harm no foul. If he's a BG? The Cover and Spin protects you, dislodges the hold, and allows you that moment of assessment to determine his intentions that is vital in this kind of situation...and you can proceed with the butt whoopin he deserves.


----------



## seasoned

This thread is post rich for sure. This has to rank right up there with the "last person thread". :rofl:


----------



## Chris Parker

Ras, you have a tendancy to use a lot of words to say very little. But, for fun, let's pull apart what you've put down this time. This ain't gonna be a short one....



ATACX GYM said:


> Okay I usually don't respond to these kinds of posts, but let me clear this up right now:



Well, the post wasn't directed at you, but go for it.



ATACX GYM said:


> when I use phrases like "craptastic' and "dooficity"? They're tongue in cheek phrases; I'm not actually dissing you. Maybe where you're from such terminology is genuinely insulting. Where I'm from? That mess IS FUNNY and NOT VIEWED as a personal attack. If you took it otherwise? Then I'm man enough to offer you a direct apology for such right now. If I truly insult you? You'll know. And there won't be a "craptastic" word in sight, regardless of the "dooficity" level of the offending action which caused my response.



Er, did you read that through before posting it? You've basically said that you apologize for insulting me, then immediately go ahead and repeat the insult, albeit in the form of an implied prediction of my response. Nice.



ATACX GYM said:


> As far as my evidence is concerned? I have quoted the very author of Kenpo himself since pg 5 and have been championing the position that his writings clearly denote since page 1. I have presented video evidence. I have quoted the senior ranking Kenpo Elders including Doc Chapel and The Tracys. NONE of the evidence quoted supports your position...and in fact? ALL OF THE EVIDENCE directly repudiates your position and anything like it.



Ras, you have yet to actually address my points from page one, let alone provide anything that "repudiates" it. The simple fact that my major issue is that you don't seem to understand the way martial techniques are structured is shown in your inability to actually address that point.. but I'm going to challenge your interpretation of the very evidence you've provided in a moment, just to try to guide you to what has been said for now 25 pages.



ATACX GYM said:


> You don't understand what The Ideal Phase Analytical Process is. I proved since page 6 that I was right by the very definition of Mr. Parker's verbatim analysis.



Actually, from reading the words that you've provided, and seeing the way you have interpreted them, I'd say you're making a few leaps and are trying to use them to justify your approach, rather than actually following the essence of what is being said. 



ATACX GYM said:


> Does it not strike anyone besides me as more than strange what's going on here? Chris is a  non-Kenpo man who is arguing with a 34 year long Kenpo practitioner about a art Chris DOES NOT PRACTICE...EVEN AFTER THE FOUNDER OF THE ART HE DOESN'T PRACTICE HAS WRITTEN WORKS REPUDIATING CHRIS AND AFFIRMING THE MASTER RANK KENPO PRACTITIONER WHO HE'S ARGUING WITH?



I don't have to be a Kenpo guy to be able to understand the structure of techniques and martial arts, Ras. Nor to look at what you're doing and say what the issues are with it. Can I discuss how well it suits Kenpo principles? No, but I'm not doing that. My practice of Kenpo or not isn't an issue... and doesn't change the criticisms and arguments that I've been making.



ATACX GYM said:


> That's beyond wrong. And sir, I would think that if anyone was being immature? It certainly isn't me.



You use a childish vocabulary, refuse to listen to anyone, and speak with a self centred delusion of grandeur (we'll cover this in a moment), so, no Ras. It is you.



ATACX GYM said:


> My detractors have no place to turn factually. All of you in the silent majority watching this thread? Behold the words of Mr. Parker affirming my position and atomically annihilating the position of my detractors.



This is what I'm referring to, Ras. Your worldview has you with detractors, fans, silent majorities who remarkably agree with you, and constantly "destroy/annihilate/crush" with your arguments... except that you don't. The only thing you actually do is put down a lot of words, nothing you have ever posted has definitively proven anything, it's been opinion at best, and rather flawed in more than a few occasions.

Ras, the idea of "me against the world" that you're putting forth is frankly born from a desire to be a childish fantasy... you're the only one who's "right", all those who disagree with you are your "detractors" (a diplomatic term for opponent, or enemy, really), if you say something in support of yourself then that "destroys" the opposition (whether it does or not... most of the time, it's fairly lacking to be honest), and so on. You're on an online forum, you don't have detractors, you have people who are engaged in a discussion or argument. You aren't the lone righteous warrior leading the rest of the community out of the darkness of ignorance, you're a guy who has a particular approach, and doesn't have the depth of understanding to even grasp the argument put to you. You really aren't that important, or that good. Again, grow up. This is the immaturity you're displaying.



ATACX GYM said:


> The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique Process...is a PROCESS. It's NOT a technique. Like I've been telling you guys over and over again for 23 pages now. The above quote is located on page 6 of this thread. My detractors have  been ignoring this quote in their near rabid attempt to prove me wrong for over 17 pages on this thread alone. If they were actually objectively pursuing truth and engaging in a discussion purely for factual merit? Then this thread would have halted long ago. All of the requisite info had long been displayed.



Well, let's look at that, shall we? Looking at the "standard" form of Sword and Hammer as the Ideal Phase version, we'll go back to the definition you gave for it: 


> _(p.66) _*IDEAL PHASE- This is Phase I of the analytical process of dissecting a technique.
> It requires structuring an IDEAL technique by selecting a combat situation that you wish to analyze. Contained within the technique should be fixed moves of defense,offense, and the anticipated reactions that can stem from them. This PHASE strongly urges the need to analyze techniques from THREE POINTS OF VIEW.*


*
*Leaving off your insistence on praising yourself (in the "What If" Phase, interjecting things like "sounds a lot like what you've accomplished Ras"... from yourself... and you wonder why we think you're arrogant), you're rather off in your entire interpretation of things. Your take on what the phase (and specifically the standard form of Sword and Hammer) should be misses each point along the way. Your take on what you consider flaws in the original form are downright incorrect. For example you are claiming that the standard form doesn't address the power put into the grab... uh, yes it does, Ras. That's that covering grab for physical and psychological control, you know, the one you don't have because you don't get what it's for. But the big thing is that you seem to be reading this as "choose an attack, and then do whatever you think could work"... which is not the way I'd interpret the entire process.

Instead, I would posit that the process starts with the standard form (in this case, of course, Sword and Hammer), which provides a framework, strategically and tactically, for handling a form of attack or assault. In this case (the Ideal Phase), the technique is studied as it is, without variation in order to understand the tactics and strategies it is representing. From there, you move onto the "What If" Phase, in which you look at contingencies and fail-safes. You then return to the original, and use the deeper knowledge and insight gained from the "What If" Phase to go back and improve the original form, ensuring that there is a greater chance for success. Finally, you get to the "Equation Formula", which gives you a set of basic options to adapt and find your own expression... but the key is that the basic technique, in terms of strategies and tactics, is still there. 

What you have done, though, is to take the original, decide the attack isn't something you think would happen, change that completely, and then throw away every aspect of the strategies and tactics that Sword and Hammer was teaching you in the first place. That is not following the criteria you set out, it's deciding that you know more than the technique is teaching... not dissimilar to deciding that an algebra class should be teaching calculus, as you think it's a better form of mathematics.



ATACX GYM said:


> But no. Here they go making the same arguments over and over again as if there is any merit whatsoever in their positions.



I'm sorry, what? We're making the same argument over and over again? You have yet to address the first ones, for one thing, but seriously, you've posted the same thing (often just copying and pasting over and over again), with the same videos consistently throughout the thread!



ATACX GYM said:


> Their most recent arguments dealt with the multiple variants and difference in my tech's expression as opposed to theirs. One of my good friends actually referenced the outstanding teacher Mr. Sumner and the Tracys as part of his argument. I then replied with evidence drawn from The Tracys themselves that YES my version not only doesn't have to look like theirs but has been sanctioned by Professor Chow [ Mr. Parker's teacher] Sensei Oshita [ Mr. Parker's other teacher, a female karate master ] Mr. Parker aaaand the Tracys visavis The 50 Ways to Sunday practicing method. Something I've been saying for nearly a year now.



Uh, if we're just making the same arguments over and over again, how can we be then having "their most recent arguments"?

But to the point, the idea of "50 Ways to Sunday" is not that you just abandon the actual lessons of the technique, it's that you garner the ability to adapt and apply the technique (specifically it's tactics) to a much wider variety of situations, angles, circumstances etc. And that's not what you're doing by ignoring the basic premises of the technique in lieu of what you think is more realistic, which realistically is actually just a completely different animal altogether.



ATACX GYM said:


> So we have proof that the model my detractors champion is NOT and NEVER COULD BE a definitive combat model. It came about as a loose guideline that was meant to help instructors craft THEIR OWN Ideals, not create an inflexible expression for all of Kenpo as a whole to slavishly copy and emulate. This info comes from Mr. Parker's own quotes while defining The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique PROCESS and from all of the above Kenpo Elders including Doc Chapel...the ranking Kenpo Elder on this site.



No, we don't have proof, we have your interpretation of what you think was meant, which involves you either ignoring what a technique teaches, or being ignorant of it in the first place.



ATACX GYM said:


> Pish tosh, says our non-Kenpo friend Chris Parker and all those who agree with him.



Actually, I hadn't addressed this aspect yet, so no, I hadn't said "pish tosh", or anything similar. This attempt to paint my words is rather desperate, wouldn't you say?



ATACX GYM said:


> We have proof on the preceding page [ lifted from their own site, with links to boot ] from the Tracys that my method has been enshrined since prior to the birth of nearly everyone on this site.
> 
> Hogwash, says our non-Kenpo friend Chris Parker and all those who agree with him.
> 
> Except they're wrong...again...as they have been every step of the way. Observe.
> 
> http://www.kenpokarate.com/
> 
> I then point out that I can do my Sword and Hammer on the ground exactly as I do it standing up.
> 
> IMPOSSIBLE, cry my detractors.
> 
> I've already done it, I reply. Observe the proof:
> 
> [video=youtube_share;OgiiyO05OL4]http://youtu.be/OgiiyO05OL4[/video]



Seriously, Ras, get over yourself. What was said was that there aren't any techniques that suit all circumstances, not that you can't do your own technique and adapt it to the ground. Additionally, the page you linked I read as supporting our contention that you stay true to the technique, which you haven't done. It states that the approach of "What If" is to find answers within the technique for a range of possibilities, not to drop everything and start again from scratch.



ATACX GYM said:


> Then my detractors go back to crying that what I did isn't Sword and Hammer because it doesn't look like the version they know...completely ignoring the fact that they version that they champion isn't Sword and Hammer and never was. It was just a guideline so that their instructors would make THEIR OWN Sword and Hammer, and most Kenpo instructors dropped the ball in this area. The fact that I have NOT dropped the ball should be cause for CONGRATULATIONS...not recrimination, my martial brethren.



No, it isn't a version of Sword and Hammer as you have put up as a comparison, because it isn't. It shares no common ground in any of the important ways. Coming up with your own using the base form as a guideline means that you use it as a guideline, not denigrate it and ignore it completely with some overblown sense of self importance the way you have. I mean, come on, Ras, "I should be congratulated"...? Dude. Get over yourself.



ATACX GYM said:


> You know...if you have a guy who can make a specific shot vs the bad guys no matter what position he's in? They'd say he's a helluva pistolero. If you have a boxer that can jab the crab out of you no matter where he is and no matter what you do? They'd say that guy has one helluva jab. But if you have a Sword and Hammer and can do it pretty much no matter what...some people will say that you aren't doing Sword and Hammer.



Ras, what on earth are you talking about? If someone has a killer jab, and uses that jab to great effect, sure. But if they're kicking the hell out of your legs, you don't say "wow, that's a great jab!" You are performing a technique that has even less similarity to the regular Sword and Hammer than a round kick to the thigh has to a lead jab. That's the damn point, and has been said since page one. I really can't believe you don't get that yet.



ATACX GYM said:


> I say to them that they don't know what Sword and Hammer is. And they don't grasp the works of the masters on this matter. And bottom line? That's their right NOT to do so...even if they're absolutely sold on the idea that they're right [despite the writings of Ed Parker, The Tracys, and the ranking Kenpo Elder on this site squarely repudiating them ]. Because...bottom line? My tech works. The science, the experience, the skill, all the laudable things that my detractors claim is absent from this tech are actually there in hugely copious amounts. It satisfies every possible definition of The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique as written by Mr. Parker. It is solidly in lockstep with the Tracys and Doc's writings on the matter. It is undoubtedly Kenpo and high quality Kenpo at that.



You miss every beat of Sword and Hammer, and you're saying that others don't understand the technique? You misinterpret others comments to justify your gaps in your approach, but it's other that don't understand the masters comments? And whether ot not your technique works, believe it or not, is not even what the point is. After all, a left hook works, but is that the same thing as a double-leg takedown? Why not, if they both "work"? It doesn't satisfy the simple, basic idea of it being a version of Sword and Hammer, as you presented it as being, the same way that a double-leg takedown isn't a version of a left hook to the jaw. It may be Kenpo, it may be good, it may work (I have issues with it, and can see a lot of improvement that can be made, but that's not the thrust of the argument), but it just isn't in any way a version of the technique you put it up as being.



ATACX GYM said:


> Is it EPAK? NO. First...EPAK came about as a business acronym after Mr. Parker's passing. Secondly, if your teacher and your EPAK conflates The Big Red loose guideline with THEE IDEAL PHASE TECHNIQUE AND STANDARD even though Mr. Parker squarely repudiated such an assessment and flatly denied ever wanting such a thing? Then not only am I glad to NOT be the kind of EPAK that promotes that kind of thing...I'm wondering why anyone would want to do so.



Here's the thing, though. Even if we take the idea of Big Red being loose guidelines, those loose guidelines give the structure of the tactical approach the technique is teaching. By ignoring even that, there is no connection to the standard Sword and Hammer at all. So while there are numerous ways of performing Sword and Hammer, they should all have a range of aspects that are recognizable, a set of touchstones that identify it as Sword and Hammer, otherwise it's just a whole bunch of people making up whatever they want, despite their actual knowledge, experience, or understanding of the reality needed.



ATACX GYM said:


> If you don't study Kenpo, you don't have a horse in this race [ unless you just dislike me ] and you likely don't know what you're talking about...and you'll expose yourself with your own posts. If you don't study Kenpo and you want to know the actual history behind the confusing stuff in Kenpo? This thread has provided you concrete illuminating data on the subject; you and your confused Kenpo cousins need only the character to accept the words of the Masters on this matter and see that these Masters know whereof they speak.



So after 25 pages you've decided that you don't want to hear from anyone who doesn't train in Kenpo, and at the same time, everyone else who does train in Kenpo is doing it wrong, so their opinions don't matter either? Wow, open minded is hardly the word... 

Bluntly Ras, with my background I am far more than qualified to look at a technique, understand it, see the underlying principles, tactics, strategies, movement concepts, and more, whether I've trained in Kenpo specifically or not. You have tried to turn this into why you changed things, with appeals to authority (more often than not your own words, which is bizarre enough as it is), without once addressing what makes the technique Sword and Hammer in the first place. In other words, you have shown no ability or understanding of said underlying principles, tactics, strategies, and so on in order to actually make a different version of things. Frankly you're the less informed one here.



ATACX GYM said:


> Where any of the foregoing conflicts with the words of the Masters? They are wrong. Wherein any of the foregoing accuse The ATACX GYM of not doing Sword and Hammer? They are wrong. The data is incontrovertible, conclusive, direct, inarguable, empirical, and final.



So if you disagree with Ras, you're wrong? End of story? Dude, get over yourself. The data is not incontrovertible (you're misinterpreting a lot), it is not conclusive (as you haven't actually addressed the thrust of the argument), it is not direct (you keep going in circles), it is not inarguable (25 pages, Ras...), empirical (you keep using that word... I don't think it means what you think it means...) or final (25 pages...).

Your argument isn't that strong. 



ATACX GYM said:


> Now. Do what I did [ yes, I was wrong too. Not about The Ideal Phase Analytical Process, but I didn't know the history of Big Red, and never heard of Big Red OR Motion Kenpo until Doc schooled me ] and show the character to realign incorrect positions with the immutable truth of the matter as presented by the Masters themselves. Then go out and practice your martial arts. Find your own truth.



Your way is far from the "right" way, Ras. Have you considered, even once, what has been said to you? Honestly, I doubt it... but it does beg the question as to whether or not you would be able to "show the character to realign incorrect positions" in your own approach. Again, I doubt it. You simply don't show the understanding to see it, nor the humility to actually embrace it, even temporarily.



ATACX GYM said:


> When you do? You won't be writing 24 and 25 page threads. You'll be on the mat. Like me.



Add up the words in this thread, Ras, then tell me who is spending more time on the thread, and who is spending more time on the mats.



ATACX GYM said:


> I have indeed said that people who teach the IP as a combat model that is workable yet they haven't fought with it themselves and aren't requiring their students to stress test these techs on the mat are betraying their art and the trust of the public, and WHEN innocent students get hurt because of such? They should throw themselves off of a cliff. I admit it.



Say, here's a remarkable thought... what if the Ideal Phase techniques, which are specifically structured to be repeatable and contain essential lessons within their actions, aren't really supposed to be "this is a real fight" techniques? What if they are actually ways of teaching lessons that can then be adapted to a situation as needed? So the idea of an IP technique being a "true combat" technique is a false premise you're starting with, leading you to find fault due to your own inaccurate and unrealistic expectations? This is what I mean when I say you don't understand the structure of martial art techniques, Ras. Comments such as these, which basically scream it to me.



ATACX GYM said:


> Guess what else I did? The moment that Doc presented me with the data that I presented you guys with...the Big Red, the Motion Kenpo, etc etc...I did a 180 and changed alot of what I said. I repeatedly and freely acknowledge that some of what I previously thought was incorrect and I've changed my tune permanently in that area. I have zero problem with that. Know why?



Ooh, yeah, actually. But I'll save that from public comment.



ATACX GYM said:


> My ego isn't so invested in my opinion that I can't see concrete evidence for what it is. I'd rather be in solid alignment with the truth and the facts than "win" any "I'm right-you're wrong" shouting match or flame war.



This thread begs to differ, Ras. Strongly.



ATACX GYM said:


> My detractors categorically lack this virtue. They have been presented with facts inarguable and irrefutable regarding the paucity of facts of each and every one of their positions. Yet they still champion their positions. Their every argument...every single one...has been denuded of salient and accurate fact, and yet they carry on as if it hasn't.



Please. "Lack this virtue"? I thought you just said your ego wasn't so invested... And you still have not addressed the very basic idea of how on earth your technique is a version of "Sword and Hammer" as you present it to us. You have not addressed what you feel is required to be found for a technique to be "Sword and Hammer". You haven't actually done anything like you claim here, you realise. 



ATACX GYM said:


> Thus far, I have proven myself to have the character to change my opinion when I'm confronted with FACTS showing that my position is incorrect. Thus far, my detractors have shown themselves to lack character of similar quality.



What? You've been presented with facts (hell, your own video examples) since page one, and have completely ignored what has been said! Instead, you've gone on some high crusade, arguing things that really don't have that much to do with the basic idea that your technique is not a "better" version of Sword and Hammer, as it bears no relationship to the former technique at all. You know, the point.



ATACX GYM said:


> There are those who might look at how my detractors' arguments are wholly, entirely and squarely repudiated at every turn by the founder of Kenpo Karate and Kenpo's more senior practitioners, then hypothesize that a 8 year old child grasped applied and performed Sword and Hammer better than my poorly informed detractors do as grown men and full on adults. They would be correct.



Seriously, enough with the "my detractors" thing, dude, you're not that important. And really? You think that your constant claims of "devastating arguments" (hardly, Ras) then means that people reading will turn around and say that, sure, an 8 year old child will understand martial technique, strategy, principle, philosophy, tactics, and so on better than adults who have spent many times the age of that child simply training in the first place? You really do have a reality disconnect, don't you? Besides, that wasn't really the point I was making. It was more about the emotional and mental development and maturity of an 8 year old.



ATACX GYM said:


> Furthermore, in the streets that I come from? Plenty of BGs have plenty plenty plenty of fighting experience and training. It is a fatal assumption to assume otherwise. In fact, fighting knowledge--as in genuine training in boxing, football, penitentiary style infighting and ambushes, etc--is so common amongst the BGs in the hoods that I come from and maaaannnny other hoods in the USA? Assuming that they DON'T know is a potentially fatal mistake. There are plenty of Kimbo Slices out there...with football experience, penitentiary experience, guns knives and homeboyz. These are the professional and experienced BGs who make names for themselves in various gangs or just in their own tightly knit klikk and they will zero on you as a target. Sometimes for no reason.



Except, of course, that that is incredibly different to what you were saying. You were intimating that they would get used to your particular style and delivery, your rhythms and approaches, and then they'd start to develop counters to your specific techniques. That is only realistic in a sporting environment. And if you don't get that, well, there's another reality disconnect for you.

And dude, the crazy spelling, extended words etc just makes you seem like a kid writing, and makes it hard to read. You want to be treated like the rest of the grown ups? There's a start point for you.



ATACX GYM said:


> Wherever you live? I'm glad that you may not have to face that and that it's not part of your reality. It's part of mine. It's part of my childhood. It's very very realistic for me and mine. You're blessed that it's not the case for you.



Yes, you live in the hardest, toughest, most dangerous place in the world, got it. Still, that doesn't change the gaps in your concept.



ATACX GYM said:


> As for why I keep the handsword and hammerfirst? Answered on page 5 or 6 of this thread, post #65 I believe...



No, you put down how you chose them for that approach, but your exact comment was "I had to find another way... *while still preserving the use of the handsword and hammerfist*", which carries the implication that you feel that those particular fists are part of what is required for your technique to be a version of the original Sword and Hammer. That's the point, Ras, I want to know what you feel are the necessary ingredients that make yours a version of the former, whether better or not is kinda beside the point. 

One more time... What is it that makes the technique Sword and Hammer at all?

That's the question you have not been able to answer, which is why I say you don't have any real understanding of the structure of martial arts techniques.



ATACX GYM said:


> Not only can I answer all of these questions, I will direct you to the definitive source for answers on this matter when you ask questions beyond what I answer in my own ATACX GYM. The matter is very simple and I'm very very surprised that you didn't find the answer IMMEDIATELY as the answers predates our birth and became public knowledge and public record nearly 3 decades ago.



If you can answer, answer. Don't give this run around with nothing backing it up. 



ATACX GYM said:


> Is there anyone else who agrees even partially with Chris Parker?



Quite a few here, from the looks of things Ras.... 



ATACX GYM said:


> Who agrees with this position? Anyone who agrees...please THANK Chris for this comment. This way I know who to respond to. Thank u.



Here's a thing, how about you respond to those who are bothering to respond in the thread? 

What I'm intrigued by are your "silent majority", people who are presumably members here (they've sent you PM's you stated), but haven't entered into the thread, they haven't been putting any thanks down, they haven't contributed or supported you at all, other than in your claims.... one might think they don't really exist. On the other hand, the majority of actual contributors to the thread can see what I've been saying from the first page (that your technique bears little to no connection or resemblance to the original you're trying to contrast it with), which is something you still haven't been able to address satisfactorily, nor state why you think they're the same.


----------



## MJS

seasoned said:


> This thread is post rich for sure. This has to rank right up there with the "last person thread". :rofl:



LOL!  I know!  Actually, its good (I think) to see some action in this area, as well as non Kenpoist points of view.  Yeah, sometimes you just want to hit your head on a wall, but yes, there is some interesting debate.


----------



## Chris Parker

I don't know, Mike, Ras seems to think that if you don't train in Kenpo then you shouldn't be commenting here....


----------



## MJS

atacx gym said:


> mjs said:
> 
> 
> 
> good lord....
> 
> This thread is so long, i'm actually opening 2 sessions, so i can refer back to a few different posts, while i type this one
> 
> *me too!!*
> 
> mike (fc) hit on something in his post that caught my eye...
> 
> "ok now. Back to s&h....regarding this issue of using the outline as a basis for an idea, and then making your own version of the technique...it's too freeform. If you take it to the extreme that you have, then any technique can be absolutely anything you want it to be. So then again, as i've said in earlier posts, why have a list of techniques? Why give them all names? If the freeform is that extensive, if there can be truly versions of the "same" technique that are so different as to be unrecognizable as the same, then why have any guidelines, why have any name at all? It ceases to become a system, because it all becomes, "do whatever you want, and whatever you do, just give it names from this list". It all becomes very pointless and there's no consistency in the system. A true system must have consistency somewhere, in how things are done. Otherwise it's not a system. It just becomes a random collection of ideas. Those ideas may be potentially good ideas on their own merits, but if there is no systematic thread that ties them together, the randomness makes it unwieldy and unworkable."
> 
> i agree with this, and its what i've been saying myself. Hell, even in arnis, when we have camps or seminars, i work with guys from all over the us. I've done drills with guys from texas and was like, "oh man, this is different. I've never seen it done this way, but ya know, i like what i'm seein'!"  now, let me clarify...what i'm seeing is still recognizeable to me as the same thing i know, but a slight, subtle difference. Its not like its totally different. Same with a disarm. Its their own little 'flavor' that they put on it, but again, if i saw them do it i could say with utmost confidence, "oh yeah, i recognize what they're doing."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this point bears emphasizing. Mjs my friend, when you said:
> 
> "i agree with this, and its what i've been saying myself. Hell, even in arnis, when we have camps or seminars, i work with guys from all over the us. I've done drills with guys from texas and was like, "oh man, this is different. I've never seen it done this way, but ya know, i like what i'm seein'!"  now, let me clarify...what i'm seeing is still recognizeable to me as the same thing i know, but a slight, subtle difference. Its not like its totally different. Same with a disarm. Its their own little 'flavor' that they put on it, but again, if i saw them do it i could say with utmost confidence, "oh yeah, i recognize what they're doing."
> 
> i'd already answered that with:
> 
> "it is utterly indispensable that you and everyone else release any and all notions that indicate to you that the first loose guideline and noncombat model is thee sword and hammer, and realize that your club's sword and hammer is to be crafted by your instructor. For you, fc? That would be mr. Sumner. He would make the sword and hammer for his schools.
> 
> The similarity and freedom of expression would come from the functional application of sword and hammer; the similarity would come from the fact that the sword and hammer is being deployed functionally and effectively against a flank grab and threatened/actually thrown punch. The freedom would come from the various ways that kenpo schools used those tools to work that scenario out. The freedom of expression would allow exploration of different methods of addressing the same attack with the same or similar tools. However, effectiveness in combat would mandate either a similarity of expression or a recognition of a similarity of effectiveness. As an example? I can take one look at rob's stuff and see that his stuff works and respect his work...however radically different it is from mine. Same thing with doc's work. And jeff speakmans's work."
> 
> *this means that the baseline tech that you refer to as "recognizable" or "the standard" is not what you claim it is.* *by buying in to the "noncombat model/loose guideline" that is specified as such by doc and big red and in any way...any...way...conflating it with the combat model [ which cannot exist until your school's instructor makes it for your specific school, organization, club, whatever ] you are perpetuating and deepening the dysfunctional morass that kenpo is sinking in to.
> 
> If your teacher chooses to not craft a specific thumbprint of a sword and hammer for his/her/their students and chooses to adopt the "noncombat model" instead? Then the teacher is either misled or lazy; that is specifically not to be done. Mr. Parker wrote so already and doc expounded upon it at length [ using mr. Parker's quotes, i might add ].*
> 
> *point blank: Your sword and hammer and mine are supposed to be recognizable by the use of the sword and hammer in a functional way that defends vs the hockey punch. That is it. When you get on the mat and actually spar against resistance, what will happen is that we will all develope functional skill in using the sword and hammer vs that specific scenario. *"however, effectiveness in combat would mandate either a similarity of expression or a recognition of a similarity of effectiveness."--the atacx gym
> 
> *no**w...people like me might take it farther. I will incorporate the 360 degrees of attack and defense that mr. Parker already knew and promoted since before my birth. I will incorporate weapons and defend against them. I will incorporate ground fighting and defend against that. Etc. The fact that i do more is not grounds to in any way claim that my sword and hammer is not sword and hammer. First? It absolutely qualifies by definition as the ideal phase tech for my gym. Secondly? Going by the ideal phase analytical technique process definition that cyriacus or cybertiger quoted for us awhile ago and which i repeatedly quoted on this thread...we're supposed to use the handsword and hammerfist functionally and effectively against the chosen common street fighting situation [ hockey punch defense ]. Which i did.
> 
> *
> 
> right there...right there in that quote up there...is what i was talking about when i said that when you train functionally vs resistance with this tech both the similarity and recognition of freedom and effectiveness will be upheld. Rob's tech is much more similar to the guideline given than mine is, but we both recognize that each other's techs work because we both scrap. Note how neither of us need to have a 23+page thread discussing this matter because we already did most of the work where it's supposed to be...on the mat. Because of that? We recognize the skill and effectiveness of the other and we recognize where the differences are.
> 
> And it's no big deal.
> 
> I was actually taught the same execution against the same attack that rob was. But then the attacks got more intense and the mandates got more comprehensive. "use sword and hammer better, ras!" my gm told me. "use it against a knife!" "why?" asked i. "the guy could have a knife or gun in his other hand and is pulling you into it. Or he could have a beer bottle or pool ball or pool stick. Or chair. Deal with that." and i did.
> 
> Then i hit on the idea of using the exact same or very very much the same sword and hammer against everything and everybody who hockey punched me, got me on the ground, tried to stomp me out, etc. Multifight or not. Striker, street fighter, grappler, kenpoist, yo momma, or not. This resulted in a training paradigm breakthrough.
> 
> My sword and hammer was born.
> 
> There ya go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm only going to comment on 2 things in this post.
> 
> 1) You commented on the part of my post when I said that alot of the things are universal and chances are, despite a slight differece, I would still recognize a drill or tech from another school.  So that said, I think thats the issue here....your version is very different, so much so, that its probably not recognizeable.
> 
> 2) You mention the techs as non combat.  So, if thats the case, I ask the following:
> 
> a) given the fact that all of these techs are taught in the vast majority of Kenpo schools, are you saying they're non functional when it comes to combat?
> b) does Doc teach these techs?  I can't recall if I ever got an answer to this question and I know I've asked numerous times.
> c) going back to Kaju.  Does each school in each respective method, have various versions of each of their techs?
> d) why did Parker teach these techs if they werent functional without having to be changed at great lengths?  That implies that it was a waste of time.  Why have hundreds upon hundreds of techs if they're not going to work and have to be changed anyways?
> e) I wonder what a die hard Kenpoist like Clyde would say about all this?
Click to expand...


----------



## MJS

Flying Crane said:


> there is so much profound truth in this statement, it's astounding.
> 
> Seriously. There are so many complicated techniques in kenpo, for me that was always a big problem and a big part of what lead me to leave the system. But THIS technique is one of the most straight forward, no-nonsense, un-complicated ones in the lists. And it's getting re-worked into something way too complicated, under the banner of "doing it my way". I don't see the wisdom in it at all. If something so simple as this technique is "unworkable", making it far more complicated just makes it "unworkable approaching infinity". If there was any tech in the system that IS workable exactly as written, it would be this one.



Yup, couldn't agree more Mike.  And I too, am frustrated by this, thus the reason for me putting my Kenpo on the backburner, so to speak, and moving on to another pasture.


----------



## MJS

Chris Parker said:


> I thought you were training for some kind of reality, Ras... the idea of the bad guy having so much experience at fighting you that they figure out defences to your counters is just plain unrealistic, you realise. The most important thing in the techniques is learning (and ingraining) the strategies and tactics, not exact mechanical responses that always go to plan. And you were 8 and being tackled by "football guys", and this is why you think that the techniques don't work?



Well, this was my thinking as well.  I mean, I'm not looking for the mechanical responses either..lol..I'm looking to do just what you said, learning and ingraining the strategies and tactics.  





> Here's possibly the crux of an answer you've been unable to give so far... why would you still need to preserve the use of a handsword and hammerfist? I'm genuinely asking, by the way, I want to hear why you think you need to keep those in your response.



Interesting quesiton.


----------



## MJS

ATACX GYM said:


> Who agrees with this position? Anyone who agrees...please THANK Chris for this comment. This way I know who to respond to. Thank u.





ATACX GYM said:


> Not only can I answer all of these questions, I will direct you to the definitive source for answers on this matter when you ask questions beyond what I answer in my own ATACX GYM. The matter is very simple and I'm very very surprised that you didn't find the answer IMMEDIATELY as the answers predates our birth and became public knowledge and public record nearly 3 decades ago.
> 
> Is there anyone else who agrees even partially with Chris Parker?



Chris and I have had our differences, however, I hold no annimosity towards him, nor do I think he holds any towards me.   Were I to ever find myself visiting his area, I'd love to get on the mat with him.  That said, there are many things that we do agree on.  IMHO, I think he's made some very good points in his postings here.


----------



## MJS

Chris Parker said:


> I don't know, Mike, Ras seems to think that if you don't train in Kenpo then you shouldn't be commenting here....



Well, I've been a member here for many years and I've yet to see a rule that dictates that.  Imagine how boring the forum would be as a whole, if people never posted in sections other than their own art?  So, that said, by all means Chris, please continue to post...you and any other non Kenpo person is more than welcome to chime in on the debate.


----------



## Josh Oakley

Ras, remember that chat we had about the difference between verbosity and eloquence? Well, I don't think the message took hold. First I said it it in private. Now I will say it in public:

Less is more. You are obfuscating your own main points under a mountain of unnecessary fluff. Here is a simple way to have more clear, concise points: type all that you want to type, then save it to a word file instead of posting it. Then cut out HALF of the post, and focus on the salient points. Save the file, leave it alone until the next day, then open it up and cut out half of what remains. Touch up the formatting, THEN finally post it.

Because frankly (though I say this with positive regard for you), your long posts are tedious. You intend to sound insightful and informative, but you come off as pompous and abrasive.

I would not say anything, but based on our PM's, I know you can do better.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## Twin Fist

MJS said:


> c) going back to Kaju.  Does each school in each respective method, have various versions of each of their techs?



ok, as far as kaju goes, i know this.

GM Peralta was taught the Original Method by GM Al Reyes in the 60's. Peralta changed the techniques from the way he was taught. My Sigung Burt Vickers, has changed some of the techniques from the way he was taught by GM Peralta.  

an original method BB and a Gaylord method BB will NOT be doing grab art 3 the same way. And after several generations, more variations will appear

but Emperado wanted his bb's to experiment and create alternate versions, as long as they followed the kaju theory

kaju is NOT a technique centered system the way EPAK is. Kaju is a theory and movement centered system. Kaju is about how you move, not what you do. You can do ANYTHING and as long as it follows the kaju ideas, it is considered a good kaju technique.

That was Emperado's gift that Parker didnt have. Parker's BB all left to go do thier own thing, but they left the nest and never returned. Emperado's BB's all left the nest but they STAYED KAJU.

now, putting that in context with this thread, that Ras creates his own techniques is FINE

that he talks trash about everyone ELSE'S kenpo is not.

Here is the brutal truth. If you have to tell everyone how your stuff is better than that other guy's stuff?

it isnt.


if your stuff was really better? we would all be saying it FOR YOU.

Also, when you refuse to listen to anything anyone says unless they agree with you, you become a waste of time.


----------



## Flying Crane

Flying Crane said:


> Ras, would you please list out the principles contained in S&H, the tactical lessons, the structure of the tech., etc? Just what lessons do you feel the tech holds, other than, "here is something you can do if the bad guy comes at you like this..." What deeper or larger lessons would you intend for a student to get from this technique?
> 
> Furthermore, could you tell me, in your kenpo, do you have any fundamental and interconnecting principles that drive your entire system? Do you have a fundamental method for giving power to your techniques? What is it about your method that you feel ties it together and makes it rightfully a "system", vs. being a ragtag collection of ideas?





Flying Crane said:


> No I want to see it expressed in your own words. Not video, not pointing to something that Mr. Parker or the Tracys wrote decades ago. I would like to see you express these ideas succintly, in your own words, in writing.
> 
> Quoting someone else does not tell me that you understand it. It only tells me you can redirect an inquiry to someone else.
> 
> Posting video is no good to me since I'm usually at work when I'm on the forum, and video is blocked. I often do not have time at home to go back and watch videos.



I am hoping to see an answer to this before too long.  As I mentioned, my inquiries into this topic in the past in the forums went largely unanswered.  I am genuinely interested in seeing how you, as a kenpo guy, would answer these questions.


----------



## Josh Oakley

To piggy-back on twin fist, Flying Crane also pointed out that your fiction of "sword and hammer" is almost identical to the Tracys' Attacking Circles. This implies that not only is your technique already in the toolbox of the wider kempo family, it is also common use within certain circles. So a lot of your claims that use the term "most" would go out the window. 

Now I will caveat this by saying that I am not versed in EPAK nor Tracy Kempo. But Flying Crane likely IS, and I am inclined to believe what he says about it. nd I have yet to see you address the point he made on that. 

And there really is a logical imperative that you do so, because that point forces you to either refute it, or acknowledge it. If you refute it, I strongly suggest you do so clearly and concisely. If you acknowledge it, than it means you must logically accept that not only is your technique not really that new (this actually helps you more than you might think), but also that there is an established reason to change the name of your technique... Plus, it would avoid confusion when talking to other EPAK people. 

You could phrase your video in terms of a technique tree. This is also not a new idea in kempo, but while you would have to give up claims of originality, you would gain a lot more credibility with the EPAK people.

I think both both Chris AND Twin Fist could get behind that idea.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## ATACX GYM

Flying Crane said:


> I am hoping to see an answer to this before too long.  As I mentioned, my inquiries into this topic in the past in the forums went largely unanswered.  I am genuinely interested in seeing how you, as a kenpo guy, would answer these questions.



I absolutely will answer your questions...definitively, concisely, with all the appropriate personal and historical footnotes...later today or early tomorrow [ depending on my schedule ]. I have long known the answers. I have long known of Attacking Circles. I didn't know that you didn't know until you asked...but I sensed something like that might be the case. I didn't ask the question of "who agrees even remotely" with Chris Parker idly.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Josh Oakley said:


> To piggy-back on twin fist, Flying Crane also pointed out that your fiction of "sword and hammer" is almost identical to the Tracys' Attacking Circles. This implies that not only is your technique already in the toolbox of the wider kempo family, it is also common use within certain circles. So a lot of your claims that use the term "most" would go out the window.
> 
> Now I will caveat this by saying that I am not versed in EPAK nor Tracy Kempo. But Flying Crane likely IS, and I am inclined to believe what he says about it. nd I have yet to see you address the point he made on that.
> 
> And there really is a logical imperative that you do so, because that point forces you to either refute it, or acknowledge it. If you refute it, I strongly suggest you do so clearly and concisely. If you acknowledge it, than it means you must logically accept that not only is your technique not really that new (this actually helps you more than you might think), but also that there is an established reason to change the name of your technique... Plus, it would avoid confusion when talking to other EPAK people.
> 
> You could phrase your video in terms of a technique tree. This is also not a new idea in kempo, but while you would have to give up claims of originality, you would gain a lot more credibility with the EPAK people.
> 
> I think both both Chris AND Twin Fist could get behind that idea.
> 
> Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk



Never fear my friend. We are of like mind on this matter...and I even broached the idea of what is essentially a technique tree awhile ago on this very thread.


----------



## Josh Oakley

...and then buried it under a lot of other information and rhetoric. A large part of why you are being read wrong is entirely your own doing. You have a tendency toward hyperbole and verbosity that undermines the ability for rational discussion. 

There are other issues I have with your discussion method but those we can keep on PM's, and I have already brought them up to you.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## Flying Crane

ATACX GYM said:


> I absolutely will answer your questions...definitively, concisely, with all the appropriate personal and historical footnotes...later today or early tomorrow [ depending on my schedule ]. I have long known the answers. I have long known of Attacking Circles. I didn't know that you didn't know until you asked...but I sensed something like that might be the case. I didn't ask the question of "who agrees even remotely" with Chris Parker idly.



I don't want footnotes.

honestly, I think the answers to these questions ought to be pretty short.  I can explain in plain language, and without using more that a couple paragraphs, these issues in the kung fu that I train.  I am interested in how you as a kenpoist, from your own understanding, in your own words, would explain it.


----------



## MJS

Chris asked this earlier, and I'm interested as well:

"Here's possibly the crux of an answer you've been unable to give so far... why would you still need to preserve the use of a handsword and hammerfist? I'm genuinely asking, by the way, I want to hear why you think you need to keep those in your response."

Since it hasnt been answered yet, I'll take a stab at it.  The following is just my opinion. 

Mr. Parker was unique in naming the techniques....wings usually refers to arms, storm usually refers to a club tech, etc.  Something like Sword and Hammer...well, the tech. I'd imagine, consists of those tools...a handsword and hammerfist strike.  5 Swords consists of just that, 5 sword hands in the tech.  Now, in these techs, the sword and hammer, the 5 swords, are all in a specific fashion.  I'd imagine that in order for the technique to maintain some resemblance, it'd have to have those things in it.  

Ras's S&H still consists of a sword and hammer..however, its used in a different fashion than the way I do it.  Is that the reason why he felt it necessary to keep those things?  Don't know...he'll have to answer that.   Now, if someone throws a right rroundhouse punch and I do 5 Swords, starting with the inital block (theres the first 2 handswords) but need to abandon the rest because something went south, does that mean my tech is no longer 5 swords?  Probably.  

To be honest, and I'll address this more when I reply to something TF said, but I think alot of the time, people get too wrapped up in the names, and the techs in general.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Flying Crane said:


> I don't want footnotes.
> 
> honestly, I think the answers to these questions ought to be pretty short.  I can explain in plain language, and without using more that a couple paragraphs, these issues in the kung fu that I train.  I am interested in how you as a kenpoist, from your own understanding, in your own words, would explain it.






Flying Crane said:


> I think Chris has a valid point, particularly with regard to the fact that you made a comparison between a "standard" S&H and your own S&H, which is so different as to be unrecongnizable as the same.  Personally, if you want to talk about S&H, I find that issue legitimately problematic.
> 
> Regarding the other issues around the structure of the techs, the lessons they are designed to impart, tactical lessons, etc., well I honestly cannot comment because to be truthful that is one big issue I struggled with in kenpo, and a big reason why I ultimately concluded that the method is not a good fit for me.  I could not identify principles, lessons, nor tactical lessons in the techs.  To me, they didn't exist, or they were not made clear to me.  Maybe I was a poor student and simply failed to grasp these lessons, but I didn't see them in the techniques, from my own training and the instruction that I received.  When I would attempt to initiate a discussion online about these issues, people were largely unresponsive, or seemed unable to answer these questions.  I didn't get a clear notion that other people knew what they were, yet everyone spoke vaguely about their existence.
> 
> in my other training, those issues did not exist, so that was the route I chose.
> 
> Ras, would you please list out the principles contained in S&H, the tactical lessons, the structure of the tech., etc?  Just what lessons do you feel the tech holds, other than, "here is something you can do if the bad guy comes at you like this..."  What deeper or larger lessons would you intend for a student to get from this technique?
> 
> Furthermore, could you tell me, in your kenpo, do you have any fundamental and interconnecting principles that drive your entire system?  Do you have a fundamental method for giving power to your techniques?  What is it about your method that you feel ties it together and makes it rightfully a "system", vs. being a ragtag collection of ideas?




Chris doesn't have a valid point and can't have a valid point. There is no standard Sword and Hammer. None. There never was and there never will be. Period. Any analysis that even implies a different state of affairs is fundamentally flawed, and shows thereby that it cannot be trusted. The sooner this simple fact is grasped, the sooner we can dispense with comparing my expression to a standard which does not exist and which Mr. Parker specifically ensured does NOT exist. FC, MJS...you guys are very smart. Divest yourself of all previous erroneous information, and START with this point: there is no Standard Sword and Hammer. With that being grasped? There's no "standard" that my Gym's tech [ or anyone else's tech ] has to adhere to except the following:

a) The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique PROCESS

b)  The strictures of STARTING with the the "common street attack that you wish to analyze"...but not being LIMITED to it [ the attack can morph into other attacks launched from the initial platform ]

c)  employing the handsword and hammerfist [ but not being limited to ONLY the handsword and hammerfist ] and the relevant Kenpo principles in the resolution of this scenario

d) The relevant Kenpo principles are actually more deeply experienced in the functional execution of ANY expression of Sword and Hammer or any Kenpo tech. The key requirement is FUNCTIONALITY 

e) Since most Kenpo schools fail to understand The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique PROCESS, they also miss out on all or most of the benefits of employing that process


Just some--not all--of the Kenpo Principles that I see in my Sword and Hammer and even some in the more common expression are:

Borrowed Reach   
Anatomical Strike 
 Circular/Linear Plane Strikes 
 Collapsible Defense
Contouring
Kenpo Body Whip/Kinetic Wave       
Simultaneous Strikes
Cross Checking
 Point of Origin 
Body Manipulation [ manipulates the body so anatomical targets present themselves ]
Obscure Zone
Marriage of Gravity                         
Borrowed Force 
Pinning/Checking    
Position Recognition                       
Leverage [ also present in Submission Holds and Takedowns ]
Settling                   
HWD Manipulation
 Positional Check [ standing and on the ground ]


More coming. Gtg now.


----------



## MJS

Twin Fist said:


> ok, as far as kaju goes, i know this.
> 
> GM Peralta was taught the Original Method by GM Al Reyes in the 60's. Peralta changed the techniques from the way he was taught. My Sigung Burt Vickers, has changed some of the techniques from the way he was taught by GM Peralta.
> 
> an original method BB and a Gaylord method BB will NOT be doing grab art 3 the same way. And after several generations, more variations will appear
> 
> but Emperado wanted his bb's to experiment and create alternate versions, as long as they followed the kaju theory
> 
> kaju is NOT a technique centered system the way EPAK is. Kaju is a theory and movement centered system. Kaju is about how you move, not what you do. You can do ANYTHING and as long as it follows the kaju ideas, it is considered a good kaju technique.
> 
> That was Emperado's gift that Parker didnt have. Parker's BB all left to go do thier own thing, but they left the nest and never returned. Emperado's BB's all left the nest but they STAYED KAJU.
> 
> now, putting that in context with this thread, that Ras creates his own techniques is FINE
> 
> that he talks trash about everyone ELSE'S kenpo is not.
> 
> Here is the brutal truth. If you have to tell everyone how your stuff is better than that other guy's stuff?
> 
> it isnt.
> 
> 
> if your stuff was really better? we would all be saying it FOR YOU.
> 
> Also, when you refuse to listen to anything anyone says unless they agree with you, you become a waste of time.



I agree with this, and personally, when I'd teach a class, sure, we'd review the required techs, but I'd also make it a point to tell them to not be so bound by the techs.  Instead, use the things that make up the art, ie: the principles, concepts, etc, and craft your own response.  

That he thinks his stuff is 10 times better, aside, do you feel that the tech in question here, his version of S&H, stays with the Kenpo ideas?


----------



## ATACX GYM

MJS said:


> Chris asked this earlier, and I'm interested as well:
> 
> "Here's possibly the crux of an answer you've been unable to give so far... why would you still need to preserve the use of a handsword and hammerfist? I'm genuinely asking, by the way, I want to hear why you think you need to keep those in your response."
> 
> Since it hasnt been answered yet, I'll take a stab at it.  The following is just my opinion.
> 
> Mr. Parker was unique in naming the techniques....wings usually refers to arms, storm usually refers to a club tech, etc.  Something like Sword and Hammer...well, the tech. I'd imagine, consists of those tools...a handsword and hammerfist strike.  5 Swords consists of just that, 5 sword hands in the tech.  Now, in these techs, the sword and hammer, the 5 swords, are all in a specific fashion.  I'd imagine that in order for the technique to maintain some resemblance, it'd have to have those things in it.
> 
> Ras's S&H still consists of a sword and hammer..however, its used in a different fashion than the way I do it.  Is that the reason why he felt it necessary to keep those things?  Don't know...he'll have to answer that.   Now, if someone throws a right rroundhouse punch and I do 5 Swords, starting with the inital block (theres the first 2 handswords) but need to abandon the rest because something went south, does that mean my tech is no longer 5 swords?  Probably.
> 
> To be honest, and I'll address this more when I reply to something TF said, but I think alot of the time, people get too wrapped up in the names, and the techs in general.





MJS has listed several valid points. To add to this quickly? I have already answered this question at least twice before, the first time being roundabout page 5, post #65 or so, the most recent time being merely a few pages ago...observe:
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sh...d-and-hammer-pt-1-and-2&p=1466750#post1466750

The short answer? The hammerfist and handsword, applied the way that I apply it, more properly uses body mechanics to synergistically amplify the power of both strikes. Using these specific techs in combination--not others, these two specifically--in the way that I use  them and to the targets that I aim at on the arm is the combo most likely to:


Be easily done by novices

deliver fight stopping power, 

propel the opponent away from us 

force the opponent to release his grab upon us [ anatomical/nerve strike ]


*while placing us in very advantageous positions to:*

 escape

press the offensive against the opponent

smother the opponent's offensives

 and/or negate/reduce further hostilities


----------



## ATACX GYM

MJS said:


> I agree with this, and personally, when I'd teach a class, sure, we'd review the required techs, but I'd also make it a point to tell them to not be so bound by the techs.  Instead, use the things that make up the art, ie: the principles, concepts, etc, and craft your own response.
> 
> That he thinks his stuff is 10 times better, aside, do you feel that the tech in question here, his version of S&H, stays with the Kenpo ideas?



Agreed. Principles, concepts, craft your own response...test your response against escalating resistance. functionality.

I never said everyone else's Kenpo sucks but mine. No such quote exists. I freely challenge and invite my detractors to find a quote of mine where I said such a thing. If they can't? Then they should refrain from making such claims, and all on this thread who see them say such a thing should call them to order for their false claims. 

I directly contradicted anyone who claimed that there is a Sword and Hammer Ideal TECHNIQUE that we Kenpoists must slavishly adhere to, and anything that doesn't closely resemble the more popular expression of Sword and Hammer tech is perforce not  Sword and Hammer. Chris Parker, Twin Fist, and others have energetically disagreed. I produced the literal definition of The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique Process from Mr. Parker, quotes from Doc Chapel and The Tracys themselves which proved resoundingly that:

1. There is no Sword and Hammer Ideal TECHNIQUE, contrary to the claims of my detractors and exactly as I stated [ and I freely admit that it was Doc Chapel who corrected me as I am correcting my detractors ]. There is ONLY the Ideal Phase Analytical Technique Process. PROCESS. It is defined as follows:

"(p.66) *IDEAL PHASE*- This is *Phase I *of the analytical process of dissecting a technique.
It requires structuring an IDEAL technique by selecting a combat situation that you wish to analyze. Contained within the technique should be fixed moves of defense,offense, and the anticipated reactions that can stem from them. This PHASE strongly urges the need to analyze techniques from THREE POINTS OF VIEW..."

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sh...d-and-hammer-pt-1-and-2&p=1466741#post1466741



2. Therefore there is no mandate to copy anybody else's expression [ however popular ] in Sword and Hammer. The only constraints are the use of the handsword, hammerfist, Kenpo concepts and principles, etc. in the resolution of the specific common streetfighting scenario that is being analyzed [ starting with but not limited to, in this case, the flank grab and threatened punch ]

3. The tech that my detractors find combat value in is actually devoid of combat value as it wasn't meant to be a combat model; per Mr. Parker [ as quoted from Mr. Parker's own manuals by Doc Chapel ] these techs were merely loose guidelines to help instructors fashion THEIR OWN Sword and Hammer Ideal for ONLY THEIR OWN schools. Yes, we were all SUPPOSED TO HAVE DIFF EXPRESSIONS OF SWORD AND HAMMER 

4. The mandate of training Sword and Hammer vs multiple attacks predates the birth of Motion Kenpo and EPAK;  Mr. Parker himself used THE SAME DEFENSE VS MULTIPLE ATTACKS--exactly as I do--as did The Tracys. This is part of the concepts passed down to Mr. Parker by Professor Chow and Osensei Oshita, and Mr. Parker called this training method 50 Ways To Sunday. Therefore I am merely using a method that was preapproved by everyone from Mr. Chow to Mr. Parker. Apparently, that is not sufficient enough approval for my detractors. It is for me. 

http://www.kenpokarate.com/


----------



## Twin Fist

MJS said:


> I agree with this, and personally, when I'd teach a class, sure, we'd review the required techs, but I'd also make it a point to tell them to not be so bound by the techs.  Instead, use the things that make up the art, ie: the principles, concepts, etc, and craft your own response.
> 
> That he thinks his stuff is 10 times better, aside, do you feel that the tech in question here, his version of S&H, stays with the Kenpo ideas?




is it kenpo? sure. it isnt "amazing kenpo" it isnt some miracle break through

but it IS a valid response to the attack presented

IMO


----------



## Twin Fist

ATACX GYM said:


> I never said everyone else's Kenpo sucks but mine. No such quote exists.




are you ****ing serious? you are KNOWN for it


----------



## ATACX GYM

Twin Fist said:


> are you ****ing serious? you are KNOWN for it




Link us to the quote. Show the actual quote where I say that everyone else's kenpo sucks but mine. I mean leave a link by clicking the quote number. Should be easy to do if I am, as you claim, "...KNOWN for it." One link, one quote, will do.

I say categorically and know for a fact that such quotes DON'T and WILL NEVER exist. John, merely produce the quote and you will have made your position ironclad. If you fail to produce the quote? You have given the Fatality to every claim by you and anyone else who stated I said that everyone's kenpo sucks but mine, and you could out me as a liar to boot.

Such a quote does not exist, and never did exist...outside of the minds of my detractors.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Challenge to my critics and detractors:

1. Prove to me using Kenpo concepts, principles, definitions, etc. that my technique isn't Sword and Hammer.

2. Prove where how why and when the most common version of Sword and Hammer that you champion is even a combat model, has been approved as such by Mr. Parker, and should be the standard for all subsequent Sword and Hammers to uphold.

Failure to do either of these two simply destroys any and all validity whatsoever to any and every atom of your counterarguments.


Waiting.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Twin Fist said:


> is it kenpo? sure. it isnt "amazing kenpo" it isnt some miracle break through
> 
> but it IS a valid response to the attack presented
> 
> IMO



lol thanks


----------



## Chris Parker

MJS said:


> Chris asked this earlier, and I'm interested as well:
> 
> "Here's possibly the crux of an answer you've been unable to give so far... why would you still need to preserve the use of a handsword and hammerfist? I'm genuinely asking, by the way, I want to hear why you think you need to keep those in your response."
> 
> Since it hasnt been answered yet, I'll take a stab at it.  The following is just my opinion.
> 
> Mr. Parker was unique in naming the techniques....wings usually refers to arms, storm usually refers to a club tech, etc.  Something like Sword and Hammer...well, the tech. I'd imagine, consists of those tools...a handsword and hammerfist strike.  5 Swords consists of just that, 5 sword hands in the tech.  Now, in these techs, the sword and hammer, the 5 swords, are all in a specific fashion.  I'd imagine that in order for the technique to maintain some resemblance, it'd have to have those things in it.
> 
> Ras's S&H still consists of a sword and hammer..however, its used in a different fashion than the way I do it.  Is that the reason why he felt it necessary to keep those things?  Don't know...he'll have to answer that.   Now, if someone throws a right rroundhouse punch and I do 5 Swords, starting with the inital block (theres the first 2 handswords) but need to abandon the rest because something went south, does that mean my tech is no longer 5 swords?  Probably.
> 
> To be honest, and I'll address this more when I reply to something TF said, but I think alot of the time, people get too wrapped up in the names, and the techs in general.



That's not actually what I was asking, though Mike... I understand the naming conventions, they make a lot of sense (certainly a lot more than quite a number of the naming conventions in some of my systems, ha!), what I was asking was what defines Sword and Hammer to Ras? He mentions needing to preserve the use of a handsword and hammerfist, which to me implies that he has some criteria for a technique to be Sword and Hammer in the first place, as well as using many examples of other peoples expression of the technique, which he puts up against his own.

My question is what does Ras think needs to be there for it to be Sword and Hammer? That's it. If it's just the use of swordhand and hammerfist, fine... but I think that means he misses the majority of the lessons present. 



ATACX GYM said:


> Chris doesn't have a valid point and can't have a valid point. There is no standard Sword and Hammer. None. There never was and there never will be. Period. Any analysis that even implies a different state of affairs is fundamentally flawed, and shows thereby that it cannot be trusted. The sooner this simple fact is grasped, the sooner we can dispense with comparing my expression to a standard which does not exist and which Mr. Parker specifically ensured does NOT exist. FC, MJS...you guys are very smart. Divest yourself of all previous erroneous information, and START with this point: there is no Standard Sword and Hammer. With that being grasped? There's no "standard" that my Gym's tech [ or anyone else's tech ] has to adhere to except the following:
> 
> a) The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique PROCESS
> 
> b)  The strictures of STARTING with the the "common street attack that you wish to analyze"...but not being LIMITED to it [ the attack can morph into other attacks launched from the initial platform ]
> 
> c)  employing the handsword and hammerfist [ but not being limited to ONLY the handsword and hammerfist ] and the relevant Kenpo principles in the resolution of this scenario
> 
> d) The relevant Kenpo principles are actually more deeply experienced in the functional execution of ANY expression of Sword and Hammer or any Kenpo tech. The key requirement is FUNCTIONALITY
> 
> e) Since most Kenpo schools fail to understand The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique PROCESS, they also miss out on all or most of the benefits of employing that process
> 
> 
> Just some--not all--of the Kenpo Principles that I see in my Sword and Hammer and even some in the more common expression are:
> 
> Borrowed Reach
> Anatomical Strike
> Circular/Linear Plane Strikes
> Collapsible Defense
> Contouring
> Kenpo Body Whip/Kinetic Wave
> Simultaneous Strikes
> Cross Checking
> Point of Origin
> Body Manipulation [ manipulates the body so anatomical targets present themselves ]
> Obscure Zone
> Marriage of Gravity
> Borrowed Force
> Pinning/Checking
> Position Recognition
> Leverage [ also present in Submission Holds and Takedowns ]
> Settling
> HWD Manipulation
> Positional Check [ standing and on the ground ]
> 
> 
> More coming. Gtg now.



Right. I've held off on saying this as long as I can, but dude, you really are either willfully ignorant of what's been said, no matter how often I've said it, or you're a complete idiot. Let's examine, shall we?

You put up three videos all showing the same basic technique (some variation, but all recognisably the same thing) as the baseline form of Sword and Hammer. Whether or not there is a "standard" form, you have demonstrated, in the first goddamn post, that there is a basic form given to Sword and Hammer (or Pin Step Chop, or whatever other name it's given), and that form has a range of standard elements that are present and consistent.

You then, inexplicably, put up a couple of videos claiming that they showed the attacks that these forms of Sword and Hammer were designed to "thwart". Except they weren't. As was immediately pointed out by myself, and seconded by others. Just because you don't get it doesn't change the simple fact that a technique designed against a grab, pull, and threatened punch is not designed against a blindside haymaker with no grab or pull. Already you've shown a lack of understanding of the very technique you're deriding.

Finally, you show a completely unrelated technique, against yet a third attacking form, ignoring every lesson of the forms that you have already used to set a baseline (in other words, used as "standard" yourself). When it is pointed out that there is no relationship between the two techniques (your Sword and Hammer, and the one you yourself presented as the baseline, or standard form), you have gone on a bizarre rant about there not being a standard (which goes against your premise in the beginning of the thread), and when asked to demonstrate why you feel yours is a version of the former versions, you have, in 27 pages, shown no indication of even understanding the question itself.

I'll put it bluntly. Your technique is Sword and Hammer for your version of Kenpo. It is not a "better" version of the one you are lambasting. It is not even a version of the one you are lambasting. That is the goddamn point.

And dude, "the sooner we can dispense with comparing my expression to a standard which does not exist"... the reason we're comparing your version with the one you presented as a baseline version is because you presented them to be compared, you compare them in your own videos, this entire thread is about comparing them! What the hell is wrong with you?!?!

By the way, what really sinks you is this:



			
				ATACX GYM said:
			
		

> Just some--not all--of the Kenpo Principles *that I see in my Sword and Hammer and even some in the more common expression are:*
> 
> Borrowed Reach
> Anatomical Strike
> Circular/Linear Plane Strikes
> Collapsible Defense
> Contouring
> Kenpo Body Whip/Kinetic Wave
> Simultaneous Strikes
> Cross Checking
> Point of Origin
> Body Manipulation [ manipulates the body so anatomical targets present themselves ]
> Obscure Zone
> Marriage of Gravity
> Borrowed Force
> Pinning/Checking
> Position Recognition
> Leverage [ also present in Submission Holds and Takedowns ]
> Settling
> HWD Manipulation
> Positional Check [ standing and on the ground ]



Particularly the bold.



ATACX GYM said:


> Challenge to my critics and detractors:
> 
> 1. Prove to me using Kenpo concepts, principles, definitions, etc. that my technique isn't Sword and Hammer.
> 
> 2. Prove where how why and when the most common version of Sword and Hammer that you champion is even a combat model, has been approved as such by Mr. Parker, and should be the standard for all subsequent Sword and Hammers to uphold.
> 
> Failure to do either of these two simply destroys any and all validity whatsoever to any and every atom of your counterarguments.
> 
> 
> Waiting.



You don't have detractors, you're not that important. Critics, I'll give you. Personally, I think you just don't get it. But, for the record....

1: There's no need to use Kenpo principles to prove anything, the point is that you include no aspects of the base technique you provide. Kenpo principles be damned, really, if it isn't the same technique (same or similar movement, same or similar tactics, same or similar approach, same or similar strategies), it isn't the same technique. Never has anyone said what you've come up with isn't Kenpo, what has been said is that it is so removed from the technique you want it compared to that it is no longer able to be seen as the same technique. In other words, it is not the same technique in any way, shape, or form. All you've done is keep the name.

2: A combat model? Who said it was? I even postulated a better way for you to approach it that says it isn't one. Approved by Ed Parker? How about approved in his organisation later, that would account for the name (EPAK), yeah? As far as "standard", a quick google search turned up many videos and many descriptions all of which follow the same principles, ideas, tactics, strategies, and more. So to take the term "standard" as "typical", or "common", well, just look around.

And Ras, we're not championing it, we're just saying that you don't get it, and your technique is not a version of it in the same way that a car is not a different version of a bus... or motorbike.

Failure to understand this argument simply shows you to have no clue whatsoever about the structure of techniques.

And grow up in your language, you sound like a 15 year old, full of self importance, with no sense of reality around him. I'm fed up reading it, and I feel that others are too (as they've basically said as much to you privately, and on the thread itself).


----------



## Cyriacus

I cant help but wonder if the poor Moderators are still reading this. Trying to gauge intent and effect must be hell 

In any case, I think Josh was onto something with the circular nature of Ras Explanations.


----------



## Josh Oakley

Cyriacus said:


> I cant help but wonder if the poor Moderators are still reading this. Trying to gauge intent and effect must be hell
> 
> In any case, I think Josh was onto something with the circular nature of Ras Explanations.



Hey now. I didn't say it was circular, I said it was verbose, and that he obfuscates his points under a mountain of other information and unnecessary verbosity. 

Twin Fist said it was circular.

We now return you to our normally scheduled program.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## jks9199

ATACX GYM said:


> Link us to the quote. Show the actual quote where I say that everyone else's kenpo sucks but mine. I mean leave a link by clicking the quote number. Should be easy to do if I am, as you claim, "...KNOWN for it." One link, one quote, will do.
> 
> I say categorically and know for a fact that such quotes DON'T and WILL NEVER exist. John, merely produce the quote and you will have made your position ironclad. If you fail to produce the quote? You have given the Fatality to every claim by you and anyone else who stated I said that everyone's kenpo sucks but mine, and you could out me as a liar to boot.
> 
> Such a quote does not exist, and never did exist...outside of the minds of my detractors.



Ras, while you may not have outright said everyone else's kenpo sucks, you have most definitely conveyed the perception that you believe it.  You've repeatedly stated "I'm the only one who gets it", described other versions as "craptastic", and generally demeaned many of those who have attempted to discuss this with you.  I'm not going to dig through the 20+ pages to pull out examples.

Maybe it's a communication failure; written words often lose nuances in tone of voice and body language.  But it's very much the message you've sent.


----------



## MJS

ATACX GYM said:


> Agreed. Principles, concepts, craft your own response...test your response against escalating resistance. functionality.
> 
> I never said everyone else's Kenpo sucks but mine. No such quote exists. I freely challenge and invite my detractors to find a quote of mine where I said such a thing. If they can't? Then they should refrain from making such claims, and all on this thread who see them say such a thing should call them to order for their false claims.
> 
> I directly contradicted anyone who claimed that there is a Sword and Hammer Ideal TECHNIQUE that we Kenpoists must slavishly adhere to, and anything that doesn't closely resemble the more popular expression of Sword and Hammer tech is perforce not Sword and Hammer. Chris Parker, Twin Fist, and others have energetically disagreed. I produced the literal definition of The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique Process from Mr. Parker, quotes from Doc Chapel and The Tracys themselves which proved resoundingly that:
> 
> 1. There is no Sword and Hammer Ideal TECHNIQUE, contrary to the claims of my detractors and exactly as I stated [ and I freely admit that it was Doc Chapel who corrected me as I am correcting my detractors ]. There is ONLY the Ideal Phase Analytical Technique Process. PROCESS. It is defined as follows:
> 
> "(p.66) *IDEAL PHASE*- This is *Phase I *of the analytical process of dissecting a technique.
> It requires structuring an IDEAL technique by selecting a combat situation that you wish to analyze. Contained within the technique should be fixed moves of defense,offense, and the anticipated reactions that can stem from them. This PHASE strongly urges the need to analyze techniques from THREE POINTS OF VIEW..."
> 
> http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sh...d-and-hammer-pt-1-and-2&p=1466741#post1466741
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Therefore there is no mandate to copy anybody else's expression [ however popular ] in Sword and Hammer. The only constraints are the use of the handsword, hammerfist, Kenpo concepts and principles, etc. in the resolution of the specific common streetfighting scenario that is being analyzed [ starting with but not limited to, in this case, the flank grab and threatened punch ]
> 
> 3. The tech that my detractors find combat value in is actually devoid of combat value as it wasn't meant to be a combat model; per Mr. Parker [ as quoted from Mr. Parker's own manuals by Doc Chapel ] these techs were merely loose guidelines to help instructors fashion THEIR OWN Sword and Hammer Ideal for ONLY THEIR OWN schools. Yes, we were all SUPPOSED TO HAVE DIFF EXPRESSIONS OF SWORD AND HAMMER
> 
> 4. The mandate of training Sword and Hammer vs multiple attacks predates the birth of Motion Kenpo and EPAK; Mr. Parker himself used THE SAME DEFENSE VS MULTIPLE ATTACKS--exactly as I do--as did The Tracys. This is part of the concepts passed down to Mr. Parker by Professor Chow and Osensei Oshita, and Mr. Parker called this training method 50 Ways To Sunday. Therefore I am merely using a method that was preapproved by everyone from Mr. Chow to Mr. Parker. Apparently, that is not sufficient enough approval for my detractors. It is for me.
> 
> http://www.kenpokarate.com/



Since he doesnt seem to post here anymore, I'm going to have to go to KT, start a thread and ask Doc myself, because a) I want to know the answer and b) I've asked here, and I dont believe I've seen an answer that really satisfied me.  So that said....I'm curious:

1) Does Doc teach the techs that we'd see in Big Red?  ie: the same techs that we see in 99.99% of all of the other Kenpo schools out there.

2) Why do 99.99% of all the schools out there, do the same techs?

3) At what point does Doc allow his students to drift from what we see in 99.99% of the other Kenpo schools?  What about Tatum?

4) Asked this a while ago, dont recall an answer.  Lets say that Ras is right, that Parker wanted everyone to craft their own response.  So, that said, what happens when Larry Tatum coes to town to do a seminar.  You're going to have say 4 different Kenpo schools at the seminar, with every single one, doing a different version.  So, how is Larry supposed to teach anything?  What're the students going to say, "No Mr. Tatum, you're wrong.  Thats not how S&H is done."  

I'd really like to see some answers to these simple 4 questions. 

IMHO, the way I was taught, and perhaps it was the wrong way, who knows, but anyways...I was taught the techs the same way we'd see them in Big Red, on Casa De Kenpo, etc.  I use them as a platform to give the students examples.  However, I tell them repeatedly, not to be bound by them, that there are other options, that THEY should be figuring out, should the tech that I showed, decides to go south.  

I wonder...maybe Kenpo would be better off if it was like Kaju and not so technique based.  Seems that that is the main issue...that we have so many God damn techs in the system, plus the 'extensions' which make up all the more.  Hundreds upon hundreds of techs, that the die hards say we have to drill into ourselves.


----------



## MJS

ATACX GYM said:


> Challenge to my critics and detractors:
> 
> 1. Prove to me using Kenpo concepts, principles, definitions, etc. that my technique isn't Sword and Hammer.
> 
> 2. Prove where how why and when the most common version of Sword and Hammer that you champion is even a combat model, has been approved as such by Mr. Parker, and should be the standard for all subsequent Sword and Hammers to uphold.
> 
> Failure to do either of these two simply destroys any and all validity whatsoever to any and every atom of your counterarguments.
> 
> 
> Waiting.



1) I'd say its not the S&H that we see in 99.99% of the schools out there.  

2) Looks like Parker set everyone up to fail then...well, except those that were privy to the "real deal Kenpo" that a select few seem to have been concerned with.  Again, 99.99% of the schools out there, all teach the same version, so I take it that they're all wrong?  If the S&H that we see everywhere, isn't a combat model, what about the rest of the techs?  Do they suck as well?  If so, then again, it proves that Parker set people up to fail.  

Sorry, giving someone a platform to build from, but that supposed platform is faulty, well, why teach it in the first place then?  If all the techs suck, if none are combat ready, well....you all know what I'm saying here.


----------



## MJS

Cyriacus said:


> I cant help but wonder if the poor Moderators are still reading this. Trying to gauge intent and effect must be hell
> 
> In any case, I think Josh was onto something with the circular nature of Ras Explanations.



Oh, we're still reading...well, at least I am.


----------



## MJS

Chris Parker said:


> That's not actually what I was asking, though Mike... I understand the naming conventions, they make a lot of sense (certainly a lot more than quite a number of the naming conventions in some of my systems, ha!), what I was asking was what defines Sword and Hammer to Ras? He mentions needing to preserve the use of a handsword and hammerfist, which to me implies that he has some criteria for a technique to be Sword and Hammer in the first place, as well as using many examples of other peoples expression of the technique, which he puts up against his own.
> 
> My question is what does Ras think needs to be there for it to be Sword and Hammer? That's it. If it's just the use of swordhand and hammerfist, fine... but I think that means he misses the majority of the lessons present.
> 
> 
> 
> Right. I've held off on saying this as long as I can, but dude, you really are either willfully ignorant of what's been said, no matter how often I've said it, or you're a complete idiot. Let's examine, shall we?
> 
> You put up three videos all showing the same basic technique (some variation, but all recognisably the same thing) as the baseline form of Sword and Hammer. Whether or not there is a "standard" form, you have demonstrated, in the first goddamn post, that there is a basic form given to Sword and Hammer (or Pin Step Chop, or whatever other name it's given), and that form has a range of standard elements that are present and consistent.
> 
> You then, inexplicably, put up a couple of videos claiming that they showed the attacks that these forms of Sword and Hammer were designed to "thwart". Except they weren't. As was immediately pointed out by myself, and seconded by others. Just because you don't get it doesn't change the simple fact that a technique designed against a grab, pull, and threatened punch is not designed against a blindside haymaker with no grab or pull. Already you've shown a lack of understanding of the very technique you're deriding.
> 
> Finally, you show a completely unrelated technique, against yet a third attacking form, ignoring every lesson of the forms that you have already used to set a baseline (in other words, used as "standard" yourself). When it is pointed out that there is no relationship between the two techniques (your Sword and Hammer, and the one you yourself presented as the baseline, or standard form), you have gone on a bizarre rant about there not being a standard (which goes against your premise in the beginning of the thread), and when asked to demonstrate why you feel yours is a version of the former versions, you have, in 27 pages, shown no indication of even understanding the question itself.
> 
> I'll put it bluntly. Your technique is Sword and Hammer for your version of Kenpo. It is not a "better" version of the one you are lambasting. It is not even a version of the one you are lambasting. That is the goddamn point.
> 
> And dude, "the sooner we can dispense with comparing my expression to a standard which does not exist"... the reason we're comparing your version with the one you presented as a baseline version is because you presented them to be compared, you compare them in your own videos, this entire thread is about comparing them! What the hell is wrong with you?!?!
> 
> By the way, what really sinks you is this:
> 
> 
> 
> Particularly the bold.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have detractors, you're not that important. Critics, I'll give you. Personally, I think you just don't get it. But, for the record....
> 
> 1: There's no need to use Kenpo principles to prove anything, the point is that you include no aspects of the base technique you provide. Kenpo principles be damned, really, if it isn't the same technique (same or similar movement, same or similar tactics, same or similar approach, same or similar strategies), it isn't the same technique. Never has anyone said what you've come up with isn't Kenpo, what has been said is that it is so removed from the technique you want it compared to that it is no longer able to be seen as the same technique. In other words, it is not the same technique in any way, shape, or form. All you've done is keep the name.
> 
> 2: A combat model? Who said it was? I even postulated a better way for you to approach it that says it isn't one. Approved by Ed Parker? How about approved in his organisation later, that would account for the name (EPAK), yeah? As far as "standard", a quick google search turned up many videos and many descriptions all of which follow the same principles, ideas, tactics, strategies, and more. So to take the term "standard" as "typical", or "common", well, just look around.
> 
> And Ras, we're not championing it, we're just saying that you don't get it, and your technique is not a version of it in the same way that a car is not a different version of a bus... or motorbike.
> 
> Failure to understand this argument simply shows you to have no clue whatsoever about the structure of techniques.
> 
> And grow up in your language, you sound like a 15 year old, full of self importance, with no sense of reality around him. I'm fed up reading it, and I feel that others are too (as they've basically said as much to you privately, and on the thread itself).



I just have 2 things to say:

1) Regarding my take on what I thought you were asking...lol...yeah, looks like I may've misunderstood you.   To be honest, I never really gave the question much thought, though it is a good question you asked.  

2) From a non Kenpo point of view, in your opinion, what do you feel are the lessons presented in the standard S&H?


----------



## ATACX GYM

jks9199 said:


> Ras, while you may not have outright said everyone else's kenpo sucks, you have most definitely conveyed the perception that you believe it.  You've repeatedly stated "I'm the only one who gets it", described other versions as "craptastic", and generally demeaned many of those who have attempted to discuss this with you.  I'm not going to dig through the 20+ pages to pull out examples.
> 
> Maybe it's a communication failure; written words often lose nuances in tone of voice and body language.  But it's very much the message you've sent.



You guys are projectting your mispercerptions upon my comments. I have never deliberately demeaned anyone who's attempted to discuss matters with me. I have never said a contrary word about you,jks9199. And as I stated before? If the quotes and accusations that my detractors attribute to me don't physically exist? Then they're constructs of my detractors' own minds...and I should be absolved of any guilt for the internal mental workings of my detractors mindsets.

When I said ANYTHING like "I'm the ony one who gets it"...I wasn't referring to the quality of anyone else's Kenpo. I freely offer to produce the relevant quotes and links for any doubters. I was referring to The Ideal Phase and my detractors' comprehensive misunderstanding of same. 

My detractors routinely return to their apparently perpetual belief that there is such a thing as an Ideal Phase TECHNIQUE [ that each SD sequence has an Ideal that it must slavishly copy, and "such and such tech" is only valid and right and good insofar as how accurately it reflects a noncombat Model. ] They continue to hew to this position despite the fact that Mr. Parker specifically didn't want a standard tech to exist, Doc Chapel has quoted Mr. Parker about the process and spoke about it at length himself, and I've been paraphrasing and quoting the founder and Supreme Grandmaster as well as the ranking Kenpo Elder and Senior onsite about this matter since literally page 1. Even The Tracys confirm my positions, an we know that unity and unanimity amongst our Kenpo Elders about ANY subject is a rare thing. Lol.

Therefore I was being direct factual and truthful: I was most definitely the only one who got it. 

My position hasn't changed an atom from what I first said, as my position came from and is in full alignment with [ insofar as I know ] the position of the above Masters on this matter [ we may disagree on others ]. In order for my detractors to "get it"? They too must align their position fully with the foregoing Masters and our one and only true Grandmaster Mr. Parker. Insofar as any of my detractors referencing The Ideal Phase TECHNIQUE or any form of universal standard in that regard, or me training my single tech vs multiple stimuli as being a whole new tech or indicative of my lack of understanding of Kenpo? They are factually and historically refuted at every turn by the Elders who crafted this standard from Mr. Chow to The Tracys.

As I stated to Chris Parker, when I use the terms "craptastic" "dooficity" etc these are tongue-in-cheek phrases. Where I'm from, these phrase are FUNNY, they're clearly not demeaning or insulting. As I said to Chris Parker in this very thread...if you're offended? Right here and right now I offer you and anyone else so offended an apology; I really wasn't trying to offend. When I am purposefully trying to offend? You'll know.

Perhaps a portion of this misunderstanding IS "a communication failure" as you hypothesize.


----------



## ATACX GYM

MJS said:


> 1) I'd say its not the S&H that we see in 99.99% of the schools out there.
> 
> 2) Looks like Parker set everyone up to fail then...well, except those that were privy to the "real deal Kenpo" that a select few seem to have been concerned with.  Again, 99.99% of the schools out there, all teach the same version, so I take it that they're all wrong?  If the S&H that we see everywhere, isn't a combat model, what about the rest of the techs?  Do they suck as well?  If so, then again, it proves that Parker set people up to fail.
> 
> Sorry, giving someone a platform to build from, but that supposed platform is faulty, well, why teach it in the first place then?  If all the techs suck, if none are combat ready, well....you all know what I'm saying here.



1) You're right. It's not supposed to be. Imho it's crystal clear that 99.9% of schools out there have no idea how to really do The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique Process.

2) Mr. Parker didn't set everyone up to fail. Doc delved deeply into this answer and gave most of the relevant details to satisfy your questions. Believe me, I plied Doc with questions and I must've annoyed him too...but he answered me until I got it. And now that I get it? I spread the word.

I completely think it's reasonable to hypothesize that Mr. Parker did one thing while most of Kenpo did something else...exactly as Bruce did with JKD.

I absolutely do NOT think that the techs of Kenpo in and of themselves suck in any way. Kenpo is a dazzling self defense form. There are many maaanny valuable lessons to be learned when you combine accurate info that Mr. Parker left us with an absolute focus on functional performance [ that mandates lots of scrappin mat time, folks ]. Just this year, Doc Dave helped me out with my GATHERING CLOUDS, allowing me to target a point that I'd never gun for before. Crazy benefits instantly sprung therefrom. 

It boils down to this:

"IT'S NOT JUST WHAT YOU KNOW, IT'S HOW AND WHY YOU TRAIN"


----------



## Josh Oakley

But now I WILL say this thread is circular.

I read the thread all over again, and want that hour of my life back. Here is what I saw that it seems all the main players agree on, but don't seem to want to AGREE to agree on:

1. The technique Ras posted is good, and valid.
2. The technique Ras posted is Kenpo.
3. The technique Ras posted is not EPAK. (Ras did not say it was EPAK, and in fact stated he learned the technique originally outside of EPAK.)
4. The technique is not the EPAK Sword and Hammer.
5. The technique has both a handiwork and a hammer fist. (This was for the MOST PART agreed upon. There were a couple of comments to the contrary, but very few.)

And even though this is all agreed upon, and there are many cases where both people agree, posters will say the exact same thing, though using slightly different words. I don't get it. Ras and Twin Fist, you two are the worst offenders on this point.

Now as far as IP goes... Ras did indeed quote Doc when he said there is no Ideal Phase technique. Verbatim. And very early on. So if he is wrong about this, it is because Doc is wrong about this. He also quoted how the NOTION of an ideal phase technique came about. From Doc. So again, if he is wrong, it is because Doc is wrong.

Now as to people saying he is claiming he does kempo the right way and everybody else is wrong, well no, he never claimed that... Specifically. But his use of hyperbole sure makes it easy to think so. VERY easy. And there was one point early on where yes, he did indeed say that he was right and everyone who agreed with his detractors is wrong. It was the post where he quoted Doc as his supporting evidence.

And frankly, I disagree with the use of the words "right" and "wrong" in the context he used it. Decades after Parker has passed on, his first and second generation black belts can't seem to fully agree on quite a lot of points, one being IP. Doc's words carry quite a lot of weight... But they are not the gospel law.

As far as most kempo schools being wrong about something, even something as basic as a core philosophy... Frankly, it is possible. EPAK, from what I have heard, was the commercial product. And it is not the same kempo he taught to his core students, supposedly. I have read Doc say something these lines, I have heard Jeff Speakman say something similar, I have seen similar quotes from a number of other kempo names, etc. I am not too.g to post all the references. Look them up for yourself if you actually care. The point is, though, that if the commercial product is what is taught in a vast amount of schools, al, it is possible that a vast amount of schools are doing it wrong. I won't postulate as such, but it is a distinct possibility, and one some people on this thread seem to dismiss far too easily. 

And if you are going to jump on Ras for a word using a word... FREAKING KNOW WHAT IT FREAKING MEANS! "Detractor" means "one who disparages someone or something". Yes Ras has detractors. A couple of people here are indeed detractors. Twin Fist, your side comment about Ras not being important enough to have detractors was nonsensical. To disparage someone or something literally means to regard of represent it as being of little worth. You have done that repeatedly. Hell, regardless the level of Ras's importance or lack thereof, the very act saying he is "not important enough to have detractors" makes you, by the very definition of the word, A FREAKING DETRACTOR!!!!!

(Though you were one long before that)

Ras is using the word correctly. 


But Ras, a couple of criticisms you have received really are valid, and painfully clear:

1. You promote yourself far too heavily. It doesn't come off as humble. It makes you look very, very bad.you may be proud of your students and your gym. That is great. But the way you present it and yourself comes off as very, VERY pompous. And it detracts from your points.

2. Your hyperbole and verbosity needlessly conflate the whole discussion. You make yourself very hard to read.

3. Chris has a valid point: your first post is a comparison between the commonly accepted Sword and Hammer, and your technique. Steering people away from such comparisons flatly contradicts your first post. 

Granted, I might be wrong about that. Maybe it is not what you intended in the first place. But if I AM wrong, it is because you didn't make it easy to understand you. Your communication style muddies the waters. You don't see it because it is clear to YOU. But if you step outside yourself and read it outside of your own understanding... You'll see it. Enough people have brought this problem up now that it really does deserve a fair hearing.


There are other things that annoy me about this thread. But this is post is already pretty long. 

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## ATACX GYM

MJS said:


> Since he doesnt seem to post here anymore, I'm going to have to go to KT, start a thread and ask Doc myself, because a) I want to know the answer and b) I've asked here, and I dont believe I've seen an answer that really satisfied me.  So that said....I'm curious:
> 
> 1) Does Doc teach the techs that we'd see in Big Red?  ie: the same techs that we see in 99.99% of all of the other Kenpo schools out there.
> 
> 2) Why do 99.99% of all the schools out there, do the same techs?
> 
> 3) At what point does Doc allow his students to drift from what we see in 99.99% of the other Kenpo schools?  What about Tatum?
> 
> 4) Asked this a while ago, dont recall an answer.  Lets say that Ras is right, that Parker wanted everyone to craft their own response.  So, that said, what happens when Larry Tatum coes to town to do a seminar.  You're going to have say 4 different Kenpo schools at the seminar, with every single one, doing a different version.  So, how is Larry supposed to teach anything?  What're the students going to say, "No Mr. Tatum, you're wrong.  Thats not how S&H is done."
> 
> I'd really like to see some answers to these simple 4 questions.
> 
> IMHO, the way I was taught, and perhaps it was the wrong way, who knows, but anyways...I was taught the techs the same way we'd see them in Big Red, on Casa De Kenpo, etc.  I use them as a platform to give the students examples.  However, I tell them repeatedly, not to be bound by them, that there are other options, that THEY should be figuring out, should the tech that I showed, decides to go south.
> 
> I wonder...maybe Kenpo would be better off if it was like Kaju and not so technique based.  Seems that that is the main issue...that we have so many God damn techs in the system, plus the 'extensions' which make up all the more.  Hundreds upon hundreds of techs, that the die hards say we have to drill into ourselves.



Okay, I'm the renegade ATACX GYM, but I recall Doc's answers to most of these. Please understand that the real depth detail and juice is in Doc's answers to this stuff, but I can off top give you what I know...which is a [ more shallow than what Doc has given and could give but still functional and solid ] answer to the above. Here they are short and sweet:

1] Doc doesn't do Motion Kenpo

2] Doc answered this numerous times already. Mr. Parker's a freakin genius, the other BB from non-Kenpo arts who he recruited in order to promote the commercial vehicle known as Motion Kenpo lacked the [ brainpower real world experience integrity fighting skill will energy character take your choice ] to grasp what he was trying to convey via Big Red; and once they became succcessful? You couldn't correct them you could only guide them because this is a BUSINESS not just an art. They killed much of the art; the business is going gangbusters.

3] Doc doesn't do Motion Kenpo. Idk if Tatum does but it looks like he does...maybe you should ask Clyde.

4] You're SUPPOSED TO have a wealth of FUNCTIONAL approaches to S&H. The idea is that you learn a variety of skills and that you promote an environment wherein constant improvement, refinement, and innovation is not only welcomed...IT'S THE NORM. Like say...bjj guys go to multiple gurus to learn all kinds of different Guard techs, setups, and refinements of their game in every position. They don't think: "OH, JEAN JACQUE MACHADO IS WRONG AND RICKSON IS RIGHT." No. They say..."Both of these Masters are magnificent, I will learn both,maybe fuse them together and tweak the material that I'm able to grasp so that I can use what's best for myself."  

Orrrr the prospective student could think...

"I think that my gifts are more suited toward how Jean Jacque does stuff with his open guard as opposed to Rickson's pressure game, so I'll combine that with the stuff that my current sensei is teaching me". i

Ya know. Something like that. Plus, every single meet and greet with a fellow NON-master Kenpoist would be like a sneak peek into what that guy's instructor would teach. Rolling with say a student of one of Clyde's black belts would be sorta like a mini snapshot of what this particular BB did with his/her own innovations drawn from Clyde's base material. 

This is what I kept referring to when I spoke of Mr. Parker's idea being a titanic stroke of genius far beyond the scope of the foolish mortals of his time. Remember, karate and kungfu were still virtually unknown in the 60s and was only just gaining steam on an international level when Mr. Lee passed.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Josh Oakley said:


> But Ras, a couple of criticisms you have received really are valid, and painfully clear:
> 
> 1. You promote yourself far too heavily. It doesn't come off as humble. It makes you look very, very bad.you may be proud of your students and your gym. That is great. But the way you present it and yourself comes off as very, VERY pompous. And it detracts from your points.
> 
> 2. Your hyperbole and verbosity needlessly conflate the whole discussion. You make yourself very hard to read.
> 
> 3. Chris has a valid point: your first post is a comparison between the commonly accepted Sword and Hammer, and your technique. Steering people away from such comparisons flatly contradicts your first post.
> 
> Granted, I might be wrong about that. Maybe it is not what you intended in the first place. But if I AM wrong, it is because you didn't make it easy to understand you. Your communication style muddies the waters. You don't see it because it is clear to YOU. But if you step outside yourself and read it outside of your own understanding... You'll see it. Enough people have brought this problem up now that it really does deserve a fair hearing.
> 
> 
> There are other things that annoy me about this thread. But this is post is already pretty long.
> 
> Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk




First? helluva post. agree with most of it. I'm only highlighting these four because I just got off the phone with my GM. He drilled me for what amounts to point #2 on your quote and laughed alot then drilled me on the point under the point you make as #3. 

"...It's clear to YOU because you have lots more experience in many areas than do they...WHICH MEANS YOU'RE LOTS MORE RESPONSIBLE FOR BEING AS CLEAR AS POSSIBLE IN ORDER TO MINIMIZE THE LIKELIHOOD OF THEIR MISCOMPREHENSION OF YOUR QUOTES. You ARE intelligent and experienced enough to make your position transparent, honest direct and uncompromising without donning the gear of arrogance,Ras..." --My GM and Uncle, Bobby "SPIDER-MAN" Thomas...friend and contemporary of Doc Chapel and many other luminaries.

1. Not promoting myself; never intended to. Not in this thread, anywho. I live in LBC CA. None of you guys do. You're not coming to my Gym so what do I care? Lolol. If it comes off that way? Then I'll be more clear as to both my intentions AND my word selection. Recall, I don't have much experience with or regard for martial arts politics. I don't know and Idc about that stuff. I will, however, try to do a better job of being mindful of what other people may think regarding this subject.

2. Voice inflection. I debate alot face to face and I ride off of body language, voice inflection, connotation, etc. In some threads and some forums, I can throw too much too fast at people because I'm used to doing that face to face and it's not hard to grasp. I supposed--incorrectly--that with the written word my position should be easier to grasp as the reader has the opportunity to read and reflect at their leisure. I was wrong.

  2a--as I have often said, I'm replying to a much broader audience than the small group of my detractors. I have been repeatedly contacted by members of the silent majority who read this thread. I try to incorporate their questions and concerns in my answers. This leads directly to what you call my verbosity...and yeah, maybe I should pare it down.

3. The purpose of me bringing up the noncombat model S&H was not for what people would assume it was. That was deliberate on my part. I already knew the info I proceeded to impart, and I knew that most others didn't. I looked to inform those who didn't know. I knew there would be debate, but I looked at these debates as extended "teachable moments" where we all could learn. I knew that if people stayed focused only upon the physical elements of my tech and only contrast it with the physical elements of the nonstandard noncombat model, we would be stuff debating mechanics without real meaning and soul. Too many Kenpoists are masters of esoteric Kenpo-ese but couldn't fight off a single piece of dry toilet paper. I feared if I allowed this conversation to devolve into those depths,  the REAL lessons regarding The IP and stuff  [ which I learned from our Kenpo Elders ] would be lost. 

These lessons are, imo, absolutely CRUCIAL to Kenpoists worldwide, and essential to how Kenpo is practiced and perceived. I think that there is considerable reason to believe that the current state of affairs results in a condition inimical to Kenpo's possibilities of evolving into a highly respect, devastating, functional, alive and evolving self-defense form. That's just my opinion, but I know I'm not alone in that regard.

I didn't know we would be involved in THIS KIND of debate...but we all have learned and stuff. So overall? We're in the clear. 

Couldn't be there without people like you, though Josh.


----------



## Josh Oakley

ATACX GYM said:


> "...It's clear to YOU because you have lots more experience in many areas than do they...WHICH MEANS YOU'RE LOTS MORE RESPONSIBLE FOR BEING AS CLEAR AS POSSIBLE IN ORDER TO MINIMIZE THE LIKELIHOOD OF THEIR MISCOMPREHENSION OF YOUR QUOTES. You ARE intelligent and experienced enough to make your position transparent, honest direct and uncompromising without donning the gear of arrogance,Ras..." --My GM and Uncle, Bobby "SPIDER-MAN" Thomas...friend and contemporary of Doc Chapel and many other luminaries.



Pretty similar to what I told you on private messages...



> 1. Not promoting myself; never intended to. Not in this thread, anywho. I live in LBC CA. None of you guys do. You're not coming to my Gym so what do I care? Lolol. If it comes off that way? Then I'll be more clear as to both my intentions AND my word selection. Recall, I don't have much experience with or regard for martial arts politics. I don't know and Idc about that stuff. I will, however, try to do a better job of being mindful of what other people may think regarding this subject.



I meant promotion in the same sense that Cassius Clay promoted himself, ie. Talked himself up. Not in the marketing sense. I should have clarified that.



> 2. Voice inflection. I debate alot face to face and I ride off of body language, voice inflection, connotation, etc. In some threads and some forums, I can throw too much too fast at people because I'm used to doing that face to face and it's not hard to grasp. I supposed--incorrectly--that with the written word my position should be easier to grasp as the reader has the opportunity to read and reflect at their leisure. I was wrong.



Lesson learned. Written communication is a far different beast than verbal communication.



> 2a--as I have often said, I'm replying to a much broader audience than the small group of my detractors. I have been repeatedly contacted by members of the silent majority who read this thread. I try to incorporate their questions and concerns in my answers. This leads directly to what you call my verbosity...and yeah, maybe I should pare it down.



Frankly, you should stop that. 

First, replying to an audience is non-sensual. The audience isn't who is asking questions or making rebuttals. INDIVIDUALS are. When an individual says something to you and you reply TO an audience, that crap grates on the nerves. 

Second, the "silent majority" represents an unquantifiable number of people. There is no way to verify how many people that is. But in reality, the audience is tertiary. There are twelve people in this discussion. 

The people who are not joining in the discussion should be encouraged to do so.



Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## ATACX GYM

Chris Parker said:


> My question is what does Ras think needs to be there for it to be Sword and Hammer? That's it. If it's just the use of swordhand and hammerfist, fine... but I think that means he misses the majority of the lessons present...
> 
> 
> 
> Right. I've held off on saying this as long as I can, but dude, you really are either willfully ignorant of what's been said, no matter how often I've said it, or you're a complete idiot. Let's examine, shall we?..
> 
> You put up three videos all showing the same basic technique (some variation, but all recognisably the same thing) as the baseline form of Sword and Hammer. Whether or not there is a "standard" form, you have demonstrated, in the first goddamn post, that there is a basic form given to Sword and Hammer (or Pin Step Chop, or whatever other name it's given), and that form has a range of standard elements that are present and consistent...
> 
> I'll put it bluntly. Your technique is Sword and Hammer for your version of Kenpo. It is not a "better" version of the one you are lambasting. It is not even a version of the one you are lambasting. That is the goddamn point...
> 
> And dude, "the sooner we can dispense with comparing my expression to a standard which does not exist"... the reason we're comparing your version with the one you presented as a baseline version is because you presented them to be compared, you compare them in your own videos, this entire thread is about comparing them! What the hell is wrong with you?!?!...
> 
> By the way, what really sinks you is this:
> 
> Originally Posted by *ATACX GYM*Just some--not all--of the Kenpo Principles *that I see in my Sword and Hammer and even some in the more common expression are:*
> 
> 
> Particularly the bold...
> 
> 
> 
> 2: A combat model? Who said it was? I even postulated a better way for you to approach it that says it isn't one. Approved by Ed Parker? How about approved in his organisation later, that would account for the name (EPAK), yeah? As far as "standard", a quick google search turned up many videos and many descriptions all of which follow the same principles, ideas, tactics, strategies, and more. So to take the term "standard" as "typical", or "common", well, just look around...
> 
> And Ras, we're not championing it, we're just saying that you don't get it, and your technique is not a version of it in the same way that a car is not a different version of a bus... or motorbike...
> 
> Failure to understand this argument simply shows you to have no clue whatsoever about the structure of techniques...
> 
> And grow up in your language, you sound like a 15 year old, full of self importance, with no sense of reality around him. I'm fed up reading it, and I feel that others are too (as they've basically said as much to you privately, and on the thread itself).



I wasn't going to answer this post at first, but...

"My question is what does Ras think needs to be there for it to be Sword and Hammer? That's it. If it's just the use of swordhand and hammerfist, fine... but I think that means he misses the majority of the lessons present."--Chris Parker.

No. You're the one who misses the relevant factors, as I have cited Mr. Parker's definition of The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique Process, and answered this question already multiple times. 

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sh...d-and-hammer-pt-1-and-2&p=1466741#post1466741

"You put up three videos all showing the same basic technique (some variation, but all recognisably the same thing) as the baseline form of Sword and Hammer. Whether or not there is a "standard" form, you have demonstrated, in the first goddamn post, that there is a basic form given to Sword and Hammer (or Pin Step Chop, or whatever other name it's given), and that form has a range of standard elements that are present and consistent..."--Chris Parker

No you're incorrect. The 3 other videos of the more common expression of Sword and Hammer--which is a noncombat model, a guideline which was NEVER supposed to be a hard and fast technique per Mr. Parker himself--are the direct results of lack of understanding or even use of The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique PROCESS.

Those other folks' videos embody the misunderstanding which has torpedoed much of Kenpo in that too many Kenpoists conflate the noncombat model with some fictional nonexistent universal standard of execution. The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique PROCESS is NOT some form of master key method that helps you arrive to a specific physical articulation of a technique. The Ideal Phase is equivalent to The Scientific Method. You use it and the integrity of the process of your technique selection and application is beyond dispute. Your conclusions ARE valid..whether or not other scientists agree that your findings are final or not.

Mine follows the Ideal Phase Analytical Technique PROCESS.

"I'll put it bluntly. Your technique is Sword and Hammer for your version of Kenpo. It is not a "better" version of the one you are lambasting. It is not even a version of the one you are lambasting. That is the goddamn point..."--Chris Parker

I've only been saying that my Sword and Hammer is my Ideal for my Gym and AN Kenpo Idea for 20+ pages prior to you finally grasping the point and finally getting a glimmer of understanding.  So, if I'm a idiot yet I've tumbled to a conclusion 20+ pages before you did and kept arguing that point until you finally saw the light that I knew of before I made the thread...then what does that make you? Just curious...

"And dude, "the sooner we can dispense with comparing my expression to a standard which does not exist"... the reason we're comparing your version with the one you presented as a baseline version is because you presented them to be compared, you compare them in your own videos, this entire thread is about comparing them! What the hell is wrong with you?!?!..."--Chris Parker

The reason this entire thread exists is because people like you who have no clue of what the REAL Ideal Phase Analytical Technique PROCESS is...have no clue of what the REAL Ideal Phase Analytical Technique Process IS. And you're militant in your ignorance.


"By the way, what really sinks you is this:

Originally Posted by *ATACX GYM*Just some--not all--of the Kenpo Principles *that I see in my Sword and Hammer and even some in the more common expression are:*


Particularly the bold..."--Chris Parker

I see principles in the more common version, but...let's compare The Ideal Phase Process to the quadratic equation for this instance. Seeing the more common noncombat model Sword and Hammer is like seeing somebody skim over the quadratic formula and then misuse it. I recognize what's being ATTEMPTED, but I see that it's doomed to fail and why...because I use the Quadratic Equation properly and I'm good at math. Or in keeping with The Scientific Method metaphor [ the Scientific Method very briefly is the process of: Observation, Hypothesis, Experimentation, Conclusion ]? The more common version lacks Experimentation, therefore its conclusions are ALWAYS invalid.

": A combat model? Who said it was? I even postulated a better way for you to approach it that says it isn't one. Approved by Ed Parker? How about approved in his organisation later, that would account for the name (EPAK), yeah? As far as "standard", a quick google search turned up many videos and many descriptions all of which follow the same principles, ideas, tactics, strategies, and more. So to take the term "standard" as "typical", or "common", well, just look around..."--Chris Parker

The purpose of The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique Process is to give rise to give rise to functional, viable combat models grounded in Kenpo principles.Who said it was a combat model? Mr. Parker did. You failed to grasp that...even after 20+ pages of me telling you so and providing quotes from Doc and Mr. Parker on the matter.

 EPAK is a business acronym which came about after Mr. Parker's death. He did NOT approve of the acronym or the process which gave rise to this so-called Ideal Phase Technique stuff. The authors of the source material flatly refute and contradict you at every turn, sir...which makes you wrong. Period.


"And Ras, we're not championing it, we're just saying that you don't get it, and your technique is not a version of it in the same way that a car is not a different version of a bus... or motorbike...

Failure to understand this argument simply shows you to have no clue whatsoever about the structure of techniques...

And grow up in your language, you sound like a 15 year old, full of self importance, with no sense of reality around him. I'm fed up reading it, and I feel that others are too (as they've basically said as much to you privately, and on the thread itself)"--Chris parker

Yes you were championing it, yes I do get it you don't get it, my technique is a version of Sword and Hammer, yes I do know quite a bit about the structure of techniques...and if I'm linguistically a 15 year old then, Chris...

...I'd rather be linguistically a 15 year old who has a thorough grasp of the material and overmastered you with it then someone who you approve of linguistically and is as completely and totally incorrect as consistently as you have been. Btw, this linguistic 15 year old managed to overmaster your position completely and publically without resorting even infrequently to invectives. You cannot make such a claim.


----------



## MJS

ATACX GYM said:


> Okay, I'm the renegade ATACX GYM, but I recall Doc's answers to most of these. Please understand that the real depth detail and juice is in Doc's answers to this stuff, but I can off top give you what I know...which is a [ more shallow than what Doc has given and could give but still functional and solid ] answer to the above. Here they are short and sweet:



Ok 



> 1] Doc doesn't do Motion Kenpo



Over at Kenponet, there is an article by Doc on what SL4 and Motion Kenpo is/is not.  Yes, Doc does SL4.  So, what does Doc do tech. wise?  Does he teach Delayed Sword, 5 Swords, etc?  If not, again,what does he do?  If he does, what does he do different?



> 2] Doc answered this numerous times already. Mr. Parker's a freakin genius, the other BB from non-Kenpo arts who he recruited in order to promote the commercial vehicle known as Motion Kenpo lacked the [ brainpower real world experience integrity fighting skill will energy character take your choice ] to grasp what he was trying to convey via Big Red; and once they became succcessful? You couldn't correct them you could only guide them because this is a BUSINESS not just an art. They killed much of the art; the business is going gangbusters.



Am I reading/understanding this right Ras...that Parker grabbed BBs from non Kenpo arts, and had THEM promote Kenpo?  Jesus, that'd be like me testing in front of a baord of TKD instructors.  WTF do they know about Kenpo?  No more than I'd know about TKD!  So once again, proof that the almighty dollar is more important than quality.  Go figure...lol.  But, this really didnt answer my question.  Are you telling me Ras, that all those non kenpo guys, just happened to make all their S&Hs, look the same?  



> 3] Doc doesn't do Motion Kenpo. Idk if Tatum does but it looks like he does...maybe you should ask Clyde.



I know, but this isn't answering my question.  When does Doc allow his students to drift?  I get the impression from a post of his, that its not for a loooong time. 



> 4] You're SUPPOSED TO have a wealth of FUNCTIONAL approaches to S&H. The idea is that you learn a variety of skills and that you promote an environment wherein constant improvement, refinement, and innovation is not only welcomed...IT'S THE NORM. Like say...bjj guys go to multiple gurus to learn all kinds of different Guard techs, setups, and refinements of their game in every position. They don't think: "OH, JEAN JACQUE MACHADO IS WRONG AND RICKSON IS RIGHT." No. They say..."Both of these Masters are magnificent, I will learn both,maybe fuse them together and tweak the material that I'm able to grasp so that I can use what's best for myself."



This isnt' answering my question Ras.  Yes, I know enough about BJJ to know there're numerous mount escapes.  My point is that if Roy Harris showed one, chances are, Rickson would do the same or something very similar with little to no change, such as I suggested a few posts back when I was talking about training with various Arnis students.


----------



## ATACX GYM

MJS said:


> Ok
> 
> 
> 
> Over at Kenponet, there is an article by Doc on what SL4 and Motion Kenpo is/is not.  Yes, Doc does SL4.  So, what does Doc do tech. wise?  Does he teach Delayed Sword, 5 Swords, etc?  If not, again,what does he do?  If he does, what does he do different?
> 
> 
> 
> Am I reading/understanding this right Ras...that Parker grabbed BBs from non Kenpo arts, and had THEM promote Kenpo?  Jesus, that'd be like me testing in front of a baord of TKD instructors.  WTF do they know about Kenpo?  No more than I'd know about TKD!  So once again, proof that the almighty dollar is more important than quality.  Go figure...lol.  But, this really didnt answer my question.  Are you telling me Ras, that all those non kenpo guys, just happened to make all their S&Hs, look the same?
> 
> 
> 
> I know, but this isn't answering my question.  When does Doc allow his students to drift?  I get the impression from a post of his, that its not for a loooong time.
> 
> 
> 
> This isnt' answering my question Ras.  Yes, I know enough about BJJ to know there're numerous mount escapes.  My point is that if Roy Harris showed one, chances are, Rickson would do the same or something very similar with little to no change, such as I suggested a few posts back when I was talking about training with various Arnis students.



In order of your questions, my answers are:

"Over at Kenponet, there is an article by Doc on what SL4 and Motion Kenpo is/is not.  Yes, Doc does SL4.  So, what does Doc do tech. wise?  Does he teach Delayed Sword, 5 Swords, etc?  If not, again,what does he do?  If he does, what does he do different?"--MJS

The best person to ask about Doc's techs and curriculum is Doc himself. There are some vids of Doc just killin it on youtube. This is him doing Delayed Sword and Snapping Twig

[video=youtube_share;OPe2692PsM8]http://youtu.be/OPe2692PsM8[/video]

"Am I reading/understanding this right Ras...that Parker grabbed BBs from non Kenpo arts, and had THEM promote Kenpo?  Jesus, that'd be like me testing in front of a baord of TKD instructors.  WTF do they know about Kenpo?  No more than I'd know about TKD!  So once again, proof that the almighty dollar is more important than quality.  Go figure...lol.  But, this really didnt answer my question.  Are you telling me Ras, that all those non kenpo guys, just happened to make all their S&Hs, look the same? "--MJS

Yes, Mr. Parker recruited alot of nonKenpo BBs to help spread the art and business model of Motion Kenpo. Read Doc's posts on the matter...it's enlightening. As for how these S&Hs wound up looking the same? I spent much of this thread answering that question using quotes from Doc and Mr. Parker's quotes. Many of those guys didn't grasp The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique Process...and they didn't grasp what was being specified in Big Red. Goodbye brilliant stuff that Mr. Parker had planned for us, hello Kenpo mediocrity...which made stupid shovels of cash.

"I know, but this isn't answering my question.  When does Doc allow his students to drift?  I get the impression from a post of his, that its not for a loooong time."--MJS

When does Doc allow drifting from the curriculum he wrote? Gotta ask him. He might not answer that one directly, though, or in deep detail. But yeah I think he very deliberately has crafted his curriculum that presents no wiggle room for lower belts for very specific reasons [ skill and basics development ]. He goes into the reasons why with pretty sufficient detail without once revealing the specifics of his curriculum and its progressions...and that's cool with me.

"This isnt' answering my question Ras.  Yes, I know enough about BJJ to know there're numerous mount escapes.  My point is that if Roy Harris showed one, chances are, Rickson would do the same or something very similar with little to no change, such as I suggested a few posts back when I was talking about training with various Arnis students"--MJS

Then we have different experiences on this matter. I've been to numerous seminars and each one was different. The teachers all had different takes on the same material and the differences made a notable difference. I bet if you put Doc, Speakman, Tatum, Clyde, Doc Dave innahouse, and the presenters at he Kenpo Ohana in the same room and had them hold forth on some tech...each one would show stuff significantly different enough about their approach that you would note it  and differentiate it from other teachers. Not just minor changes, either.

Doc showing Delayed Sword

[video=youtube_share;m971DEjJPy8]http://youtu.be/m971DEjJPy8[/video]

Casa de Kenpo Delayed Sword

[video=youtube_share;8VlfNS7AHMY]http://youtu.be/8VlfNS7AHMY[/video]


Dr. Dave Crouch innahouse showing you stuff you don't know about 5 Swords and Orbits

[video=youtube_share;_QjuQS-kLGo]http://youtu.be/_QjuQS-kLGo[/video]


Functional 5 Swords pt. 1


----------



## ATACX GYM

Doc Dave showing you some more stuff you don't know about Repeating Mace


[video=youtube_share;05_Q7OPxGlA]http://youtu.be/05_Q7OPxGlA[/video]


Flaming Fist Repeating Mace

[video=youtube_share;W_8JgHJLwvo]http://youtu.be/W_8JgHJLwvo[/video]

You should get the point now...but for those who don't?

ROY HARRIS PASSING GUARD

[video=youtube_share;ZbC_Z1XyU30]http://youtu.be/ZbC_Z1XyU30[/video]

MARCELO GARCIA PASSING GUARD


----------



## MJS

ATACX GYM said:


> In order of your questions, my answers are:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Over at Kenponet, there is an article by Doc on what SL4 and Motion Kenpo is/is not. Yes, Doc does SL4. So, what does Doc do tech. wise? Does he teach Delayed Sword, 5 Swords, etc? If not, again,what does he do? If he does, what does he do different?"--MJS
> 
> The best person to ask about Doc's techs and curriculum is Doc himself. There are some vids of Doc just killin it on youtube. This is him doing Delayed Sword and Snapping Twig
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'll have to head over to KT and ask.
> 
> [video=youtube_share;OPe2692PsM8]http://youtu.be/OPe2692PsM8[/video]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Am I reading/understanding this right Ras...that Parker grabbed BBs from non Kenpo arts, and had THEM promote Kenpo? Jesus, that'd be like me testing in front of a baord of TKD instructors. WTF do they know about Kenpo? No more than I'd know about TKD! So once again, proof that the almighty dollar is more important than quality. Go figure...lol. But, this really didnt answer my question. Are you telling me Ras, that all those non kenpo guys, just happened to make all their S&Hs, look the same? "--MJS
> 
> Yes, Mr. Parker recruited alot of nonKenpo BBs to help spread the art and business model of Motion Kenpo. Read Doc's posts on the matter...it's enlightening. As for how these S&Hs wound up looking the same? I spent much of this thread answering that question using quotes from Doc and Mr. Parker's quotes. Many of those guys didn't grasp The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique Process...and they didn't grasp what was being specified in Big Red. Goodbye brilliant stuff that Mr. Parker had planned for us, hello Kenpo mediocrity...which made stupid shovels of cash.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sad, really, really, REALLY sad! Still not sure why you'd give someone a crash course and expect them to know what the **** is going on. Its like the blind leading the blind Ras, it really is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I know, but this isn't answering my question. When does Doc allow his students to drift? I get the impression from a post of his, that its not for a loooong time."--MJS
> 
> When does Doc allow drifting from the curriculum he wrote? Gotta ask him. He might not answer that one directly, though, or in deep detail. But yeah I think he very deliberately has crafted his curriculum that presents no wiggle room for lower belts for very specific reasons [ skill and basics development ]. He goes into the reasons why with pretty sufficient detail without once revealing the specifics of his curriculum and its progressions...and that's cool with me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh..so, I may not get a straight answer? Kinda defeats the purpose doesnt it? Anyways, I'll ask.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "This isnt' answering my question Ras. Yes, I know enough about BJJ to know there're numerous mount escapes. My point is that if Roy Harris showed one, chances are, Rickson would do the same or something very similar with little to no change, such as I suggested a few posts back when I was talking about training with various Arnis students"--MJS
> 
> Then we have different experiences on this matter. I've been to numerous seminars and each one was different. The teachers all had different takes on the same material and the differences made a notable difference. I bet if you put Doc, Speakman, Tatum, Clyde, Doc Dave innahouse, and the presenters at he Kenpo Ohana in the same room and had them hold forth on some tech...each one would show stuff significantly different enough about their approach that you would note it and differentiate it from other teachers. Not just minor changes, either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Note that I said little change. Sure, of course, Tatum, Palanzo, Planas all in a room together, yeah, you'd probably see some subtle differences, but my point is, you'd be able to look at that and say, "Yup, he's doing (insert any tech here)" It would be fairly recognizeable I'd imagine. If everything was so different, then again, at a seminar, nobody would remotely be on the same page. You'd spend 3/4 of the class reteaching just so everybody would know what the hell was going on...lol.
> 
> And since we're posting clips...
> 
> [yt]XvsRavUJ9O0&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PLB521BAB42789E259[/yt]
> 
> [yt]2iB5nlIeZR8[/yt]
> 
> Gee...looks the same to me.   Subtle differences?  Sure, possibly, but again, you have 2 very similar things, which if people from each respective school, were all at the same damn seminar, those things would look the same and be recognizeable by all there.
Click to expand...


----------



## Twin Fist

Qfmft



chris parker said:


> and grow up in your language, you sound like a 15 year old, full of self importance, with no sense of reality around him. I'm fed up reading it, and i feel that others are too (as they've basically said as much to you privately, and on the thread itself).


----------



## Twin Fist

Josh Oakley said:


> Twin Fist, your side comment about Ras not being important enough to have detractors was nonsensical.



I didnt say that, Chris Parker did.


----------



## Twin Fist

your uncle told you you were smart?

he lied. 

And claiming a "silent majority" support you?...oh yeah, hey, Allah called me, he thinks you suck.

see? claiming support that cant be proven? sort of teenage-ish


i want this month of my life back.

this guy isnt good enough to learn anything from.


----------



## Cyriacus

Twin Fist said:


> your uncle told you you were smart?
> 
> he lied.
> 
> And claiming a "silent majority" support you?...oh yeah, hey, Allah called me, he thinks you suck.
> 
> see? claiming support that cant be proven? sort of teenage-ish
> 
> 
> i want this month of my life back.
> 
> this guy isnt good enough to learn anything from.



...Month?
Are You kidding Me?

*Checks*
*Closes Tab*


----------



## Flying Crane

ATACX GYM said:


> Chris doesn't have a valid point and can't have a valid point. Just some--not all--of the Kenpo Principles that I see in my Sword and Hammer and even some in the more common expression are:



he does.  you may not wish to acknowledge it.  but he does.



> Borrowed Reach
> Anatomical Strike
> Circular/Linear Plane Strikes
> Collapsible Defense
> Contouring
> Kenpo Body Whip/Kinetic Wave
> Simultaneous Strikes
> Cross Checking
> Point of Origin
> Body Manipulation [ manipulates the body so anatomical targets present themselves ]
> Obscure Zone
> Marriage of Gravity
> Borrowed Force
> Pinning/Checking
> Position Recognition
> Leverage [ also present in Submission Holds and Takedowns ]
> Settling
> HWD Manipulation
> Positional Check [ standing and on the ground ]
> 
> 
> More coming. Gtg now.



This looks like a list of terms you've taken from Parker's Encyclopedia of Kenpo.  I've never actually read it, but I suspect these are in there.  Listing a bunch of terms tells me nothing.  It doesn't even tell me that you know what they mean.

I'm looking for real answers, not quotes from others, not footnotes, not lists of undefined terms.  I don't even want definitions of these, rather I want to know how these "principles" fit into your S&H and make that tech work.  I do not believe that most of these are even principles.  Rather, they are strategies that can be useful under certain circumstances, but most of them are not principles, which would be a driving concept that is found throughout the system, in nearly every technique, as a fundamental way of doing things.  That's not the same as a situational strategy.

I've seen way too many people throw out terms from Parker's encyclopedia, or the Infinite Insights series, and think that is an answer.  It is not.  It is simply parroting and only shows that you can deflect the question without answering it.  I'm asking you to convince me that you know what you say you do.  

If you throw a basic punch, please describe for me where the power comes from.  In your own words.


----------



## ATACX GYM

MJS said:


> ATACX GYM said:
> 
> 
> 
> In order of your questions, my answers are:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'll have to head over to KT and ask.
> 
> [video=youtube_share;OPe2692PsM8]http://youtu.be/OPe2692PsM8[/video]
> 
> 
> 
> Sad, really, really, REALLY sad! Still not sure why you'd give someone a crash course and expect them to know what the **** is going on. Its like the blind leading the blind Ras, it really is.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh..so, I may not get a straight answer? Kinda defeats the purpose doesnt it? Anyways, I'll ask.
> 
> 
> 
> Note that I said little change. Sure, of course, Tatum, Palanzo, Planas all in a room together, yeah, you'd probably see some subtle differences, but my point is, you'd be able to look at that and say, "Yup, he's doing (insert any tech here)" It would be fairly recognizeable I'd imagine. If everything was so different, then again, at a seminar, nobody would remotely be on the same page. You'd spend 3/4 of the class reteaching just so everybody would know what the hell was going on...lol.
> 
> And since we're posting clips...
> 
> [yt]XvsRavUJ9O0&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PLB521BAB42789E259[/yt]
> 
> [yt]2iB5nlIeZR8[/yt]
> 
> Gee...looks the same to me.   Subtle differences?  Sure, possibly, but again, you have 2 very similar things, which if people from each respective school, were all at the same damn seminar, those things would look the same and be recognizeable by all there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Real quick cuz I'm doing other stuff now...but I think that Doc would be able to give you a satisfactory answer without breaking out the meat and potatoes of his curriculum. I got the impression that color belts aren't allowed to stray or go WHAT IF with Doc and that's cool...but I think Doc will answer if you ask.
> 
> Insofar as the seminar analogies that we're using are concerned? I'm saying...we can find the whole gamut in a seminar. Techs with no difference than what we learned, little difference than what we learned, moderately different and greatly different than what we learned. This is a good thing imo. Perhaps if we don't recognize a tech? We can open our minds that much further to now recognize what was unrecognizable to us previously.
> 
> I think that would be a good thing.
Click to expand...


----------



## ATACX GYM

Flying Crane said:


> he does.  you may not wish to acknowledge it.  but he does.
> 
> 
> 
> This looks like a list of terms you've taken from Parker's Encyclopedia of Kenpo.  I've never actually read it, but I suspect these are in there.  Listing a bunch of terms tells me nothing.  It doesn't even tell me that you know what they mean.
> 
> I'm looking for real answers, not quotes from others, not footnotes, not lists of undefined terms.  I don't even want definitions of these, rather I want to know how these "principles" fit into your S&H and make that tech work.  I do not believe that most of these are even principles.  Rather, they are strategies that can be useful under certain circumstances, but most of them are not principles, which would be a driving concept that is found throughout the system, in nearly every technique, as a fundamental way of doing things.  That's not the same as a situational strategy.
> 
> I've seen way too many people throw out terms from Parker's encyclopedia, or the Infinite Insights series, and think that is an answer.  It is not.  It is simply parroting and only shows that you can deflect the question without answering it.  I'm asking you to convince me that you know what you say you do.
> 
> If you throw a basic punch, please describe for me where the power comes from.  In your own words.



Chris doesn't have a point. He doesn't have a point because his position comes from swearing [ and being wrong about ] the combat viability in a noncombat model which was never supposed to be a SD tech and therefore cannot work exactly as shown in a SD situation and then compounded his mistake by failing to recognize the combat viability of a sequence that works exactly and precisely as shown in the relevant combat situation. There is no argument that can ennoble his position with even a scintilla of accuracy for that very reason. His position is irrevocably compromised, perpetually untrue.

I too have seen people spout esoteric Kenpo-ese with zero practical combat application and zero linking of the two, so I understand you there.

Now, the question about throwing a basic punch does NOT have a basic answer. The depths I can take this answer depends upon how deep an answer you want. I happen to be very good at providing in-depth answers here, but I'll give you an uncomplicated answer rightaboutnow.

I tend to blend what many people think of as boxing mechanics with Kenpo Body Whip aka Kinetic Wave mechanics with every punch or hand strike or block etc etc that I use. Go from 4:41-4:48 of this video:

[video=youtube_share;DBzTmP6bTDQ]http://youtu.be/DBzTmP6bTDQ[/video]

I specifically mention the Kenpo Body Whip that powers my strikes. I've done this numerous times throughout my videos and essentially what's being done is linking the proper timing of breath inhalation and exhalation, generating  curvilinear wave-like power from my entire lower body starting with my legs as they drive down on the ground and propels me forward, and I marry that forward momentum with the linking of the rest of my body's structure into delivering whatever strike to whatever target. You see similar dynamics in boxers and the point fighting blitz and various African martial arts and Muay Thai too. Also in Shaolin Kempo. Many arts display similar power generating principles and mechanics.

That's a very simplistic answer above. I know it is. It's just that the answer is more complex than it might appear because the human body is more complex than most of us know. Almost every movement or strike, for instance, has some kind of counter motion or load to it, even when it doesn't seem that way because the loading and countermovement or bioelectrical and muscular activation is so difficult to detect. Lifting your left hand, for instance, requires your whole right side to contract and balance in a specific way, although you're not aware of that. You just know that you keep your balance when you raise your left hand...but your whole body is responding in a specific way so that your balance isn't disturbed when you raise your left hand.

But if you notice, the movement I initiated doesn't end with just my hand strikes. My whole body...including my head...follows a wave-like movement that doesn't even halt when the blow is landed, but instead takes the power of the landed blow, its retraction, and has that energy stored and primed with yet another wave of potential kinetic power from yet another strike I may choose to throw with very very very minimal pause. If I were to throw a 5 or 10 punch salvo AT you, you wouldn't see more than 3 of them due to its great speed,and the power generated is such that the conflict would be over [ if I landed ] no later than the 2nd shot. This is how Kenpoists are able to unleash such devastating hurricanes of strikes within such a short period of time, even from very very close quarters [ chest to chest ].

The easiest, quickest thing I can do is show you videos of me putting these techs and ideas into action. You should be able to see that I know what I'm doing and marry the fact THAT I'M DOING IT with the explanations that I give and that should speedily resolve the matter. Michael Phelps shouldn't have to go into a kinesiological treatise to prove that he knows how to swim fast; he knows enough of how to make the principles work and marry that academic knowledge with the practical knowledge of actually performing in order to make his suggestions about technique execution carry weight. I'm not suggesting that I'm the Michael Phelps of Kenpo, but I do have videos of me striking powerfully and properly and I am offering explanations kept deliberately brief and moderately shallow for the purposes of brevity; I'm trying to avoid swamping you with academic or esoteric language.


----------



## Flying Crane

ATACX GYM said:


> Chris doesn't have a point.



again, he does.  You may not wish to acknowledge it, but he does.



> I too have seen people spout esoteric Kenpo-ese with zero practical combat application and zero linking of the two, so I understand you there.



so do you have an answer regarding all those terms?



> Now, the question about throwing a basic punch does NOT have a basic answer. The depths I can take this answer depends upon how deep an answer you want. I happen to be very good at providing in-depth answers here, but I'll give you an uncomplicated answer rightaboutnow.
> 
> I tend to blend what many people think of as boxing mechanics with Kenpo Body Whip aka Kinetic Wave mechanics with every punch or hand strike or block etc etc that I use. Go from 4:41-4:48 of this video:
> 
> [video=youtube_share;DBzTmP6bTDQ]http://youtu.be/DBzTmP6bTDQ[/video]
> 
> I specifically mention the Kenpo Body Whip that powers my strikes. I've done this numerous times throughout my videos and essentially what's being done is linking the proper timing of breath inhalation, *generating curvilinear power from the my entire lower body starting with my legs as they drive down on the ground and propels me forward*, and I marry that forward momentum with the linking of the rest of my body's structure into delivering whatever strike to whatever target. You see similar dynamics in boxers and the point fighting blitz and various African martial arts and Muay Thai too. Also in Shaolin Kempo. Many arts have display similar power generating mechanics.



OK, again, I am at work and cannot view video.  When I go home, I seldom have the time to go back and watch video. So I'm not interested in video.  I'm interested in what you are able to describe.

the above bolded portion is hitting the target.  Is there more?  I don't want a treatise on biomechanics, but in layman's terms is there more to it than that?

The rest of what you posted is just telling me what you are able to tell me, without actually telling me anything.  If you've got something to tell me, THEN TELL ME.

thanks.


----------



## Twin Fist

i have seen video of matt damon tearing guys up. if you cant explain it, you dont know it.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Flying Crane said:


> again, he does.  You may not wish to acknowledge it, but he does.
> 
> 
> 
> so do you have an answer regarding all those terms?
> 
> 
> 
> OK, again, I am at work and cannot view video.  When I go home, I seldom have the time to go back and watch video. So I'm not interested in video.  I'm interested in what you are able to describe.
> 
> the above bolded portion is hitting the target.  Is there more?  I don't want a treatise on biomechanics, but in layman's terms is there more to it than that?
> 
> The rest of what you posted is just telling me what you are able to tell me, without actually telling me anything.  If you've got something to tell me, THEN TELL ME.
> 
> thanks.




K. Let's agree to disagree as to whether or not Chris has a point...and let's try this:

Every single movement and every single stance that it comes from links the whole body in a nonstop flow of power. That's what the Kenpo Body Whip aka Kinetic Wave does.

For me? If I throw any strike, I'll generate the power by use of a full body curvilinear kinetic wave. That means the power is a combination of coordinated exhalation and inhalation, power drawn up from the base through both legs working together and amplifying the movement. This means I'll drive from either leg and magnify the power by having my other leg kick in just at the midpoint of energy transference.The hips, waist [ it's essential essential essential that you have waist power ] and rotating core kick in, my arms stay loose and untensed, uncorking and adding the boxing delivery method to the power of the cross that I'm throwing. That means that there's full rotation, the upper body is stabilized, the right shoulder moves forward and settles directly in front of my chin [ protecting me from a 'pull-over'...meaning a counter shot over or under my right arm aimed at my chin ], my forward movement and lead foot doesn't touch the ground yet, the blow hits and penetrates 3-4 inches through the target and retracts with twice the speed and power that it went out with. My foot doesn't touch ground until AFTER the shot lands. The landing and penetration of any shot coincides with the full exhalation of my blow,and that movement alone aligns my body to fire any other form of offensives and/or takedowns that I want. Same with weapons, submission holds, blocks, parries, whatever. Any weapon.

The Kinetic Wave combines this movement in a curvilinear way, like a wave and whip's movement combined into a single penetrating and self perpetuating motion.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Twin Fist said:


> i have seen video of matt damon tearing guys up. if you cant explain it, you dont know it.



Seen Joe Louis aka "The Brown Bomber" smash many a person in the ring. Same with John L. Sullivan. Same with "Little Perpetual Motion" Henry Armstrong. Haven't seen them expound on a single boxing principle. Are you saying they don't know boxing?


----------



## Flying Crane

ATACX GYM said:


> K. Let's agree to disagree as to whether or not Chris has a point...and let's try this:
> 
> Every single movement and every single stance that it comes from links the whole body in a nonstop flow of power. That's what the Kenpo Body Whip aka Kinetic Wave does.
> 
> For me? If I throw any strike, I'll generate the power by use of a full body curvilinear kinetic wave. That means the power is a combination of coordinated exhalation and inhalation, power drawn up from the base through both legs working together and amplifying the movement. This means I'll drive from either leg and magnify the power by having my other leg kick in just at the midpoint of energy transference.The hips, waist [ it's essential essential essential that you have waist power ] and rotating core kick in, my arms stay loose and untensed, uncorking and adding the boxing delivery method to the power of the cross that I'm throwing. That means that there's full rotation, the upper body is stabilized, the right shoulder moves forward and settles directly in front of my chin [ protecting me from a 'pull-over'...meaning a counter shot over or under my right arm aimed at my chin ], my forward movement and lead foot doesn't touch the ground yet, the blow hits and penetrates 3-4 inches through the target and retracts with twice the speed and power that it went out with. My foot doesn't touch ground until AFTER the shot lands. The landing and penetration of any shot coincides with the full exhalation of my blow,and that movement alone aligns my body to fire any other form of offensives and/or takedowns that I want. Same with weapons, submission holds, blocks, parries, whatever. Any weapon.
> 
> The Kinetic Wave combines this movement in a curvilinear way, like a wave and whip's movement combined into a single penetrating and self perpetuating motion.



thank you, that's the kind of information I was hoping to see.


----------



## MJS

ATACX GYM said:


> Chris doesn't have a valid point and can't have a valid point. There is no standard Sword and Hammer. None. There never was and there never will be. Period. Any analysis that even implies a different state of affairs is fundamentally flawed, and shows thereby that it cannot be trusted. The sooner this simple fact is grasped, the sooner we can dispense with comparing my expression to a standard which does not exist and which Mr. Parker specifically ensured does NOT exist. FC, MJS...you guys are very smart. Divest yourself of all previous erroneous information, and START with this point: there is no Standard Sword and Hammer. With that being grasped? There's no "standard" that my Gym's tech [ or anyone else's tech ] has to adhere to except the following:
> 
> a) The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique PROCESS
> 
> b)  The strictures of STARTING with the the "common street attack that you wish to analyze"...but not being LIMITED to it [ the attack can morph into other attacks launched from the initial platform ]
> 
> c)  employing the handsword and hammerfist [ but not being limited to ONLY the handsword and hammerfist ] and the relevant Kenpo principles in the resolution of this scenario
> 
> d) The relevant Kenpo principles are actually more deeply experienced in the functional execution of ANY expression of Sword and Hammer or any Kenpo tech. The key requirement is FUNCTIONALITY
> 
> e) Since most Kenpo schools fail to understand The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique PROCESS, they also miss out on all or most of the benefits of employing that process
> 
> 
> Just some--not all--of the Kenpo Principles that I see in my Sword and Hammer and even some in the more common expression are:
> 
> Borrowed Reach
> Anatomical Strike
> Circular/Linear Plane Strikes
> Collapsible Defense
> Contouring
> Kenpo Body Whip/Kinetic Wave
> Simultaneous Strikes
> Cross Checking
> Point of Origin
> Body Manipulation [ manipulates the body so anatomical targets present themselves ]
> Obscure Zone
> Marriage of Gravity
> Borrowed Force
> Pinning/Checking
> Position Recognition
> Leverage [ also present in Submission Holds and Takedowns ]
> Settling
> HWD Manipulation
> Positional Check [ standing and on the ground ]
> 
> 
> More coming. Gtg now.



I still want to know why then, do the vast majority of schools all teach the same darn things..lol.  Since that is a fact, it would seem to me that there is a standard.  Unless all those schools dont know what they're doing, but I find that hard to believe because one of those schools is Tatums.  According to Clyde, Larry spent alot of time with Parker.


----------



## MJS

ATACX GYM said:


> MJS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Real quick cuz I'm doing other stuff now...but I think that Doc would be able to give you a satisfactory answer without breaking out the meat and potatoes of his curriculum. I got the impression that color belts aren't allowed to stray or go WHAT IF with Doc and that's cool...but I think Doc will answer if you ask.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to ask.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Insofar as the seminar analogies that we're using are concerned? I'm saying...we can find the whole gamut in a seminar. Techs with no difference than what we learned, little difference than what we learned, moderately different and greatly different than what we learned. This is a good thing imo. Perhaps if we don't recognize a tech? We can open our minds that much further to now recognize what was unrecognizable to us previously.
> 
> I think that would be a good thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be honest, I've never seen anything in which I looked at it and said, "Umm...what the hell are you doing?" when I've been to a seminar/camp.  Again, slight differences?  Sure, but it was still recognizeable.
Click to expand...


----------



## MJS

ATACX GYM said:


> K. Let's agree to disagree as to whether or not Chris has a point...and let's try this:
> 
> Every single movement and every single stance that it comes from links the whole body in a nonstop flow of power. That's what the Kenpo Body Whip aka Kinetic Wave does.
> 
> For me? If I throw any strike, I'll generate the power by use of a full body curvilinear kinetic wave. That means the power is a combination of coordinated exhalation and inhalation, power drawn up from the base through both legs working together and amplifying the movement. This means I'll drive from either leg and magnify the power by having my other leg kick in just at the midpoint of energy transference.The hips, waist [ it's essential essential essential that you have waist power ] and rotating core kick in, my arms stay loose and untensed, uncorking and adding the boxing delivery method to the power of the cross that I'm throwing. That means that there's full rotation, the upper body is stabilized, the right shoulder moves forward and settles directly in front of my chin [ protecting me from a 'pull-over'...meaning a counter shot over or under my right arm aimed at my chin ], my forward movement and lead foot doesn't touch the ground yet, the blow hits and penetrates 3-4 inches through the target and retracts with twice the speed and power that it went out with. My foot doesn't touch ground until AFTER the shot lands. The landing and penetration of any shot coincides with the full exhalation of my blow,and that movement alone aligns my body to fire any other form of offensives and/or takedowns that I want. Same with weapons, submission holds, blocks, parries, whatever. Any weapon.
> 
> The Kinetic Wave combines this movement in a curvilinear way, like a wave and whip's movement combined into a single penetrating and self perpetuating motion.



Quick question....is the stuff you describe just limited to the way you perform your stuff, or do you feel that its in...or not...the Kenpo techs already?  I ask this because I've personally seen people that I know, do techs and frankly, they look like ****!  No power, nothing.  When I had my inst. come down from Jersey, it was amazing watching...and feeling..lol..the way he'd do his stuff.  

Interestinly enough, a guy that trained at one of my old schools, was big into Tai Chi.  I always liked working with him, because he'd add in alot of Tai Chi movement, so his stuff had alot of power, and he'd always move you..lol.


----------



## Twin Fist

because they knew kenpo and were taught the techniques by ed parker

ras wasnt. he doesnt know the techniques or what they are designed to teach


----------



## ATACX GYM

MJS said:


> Quick question....is the stuff you describe just limited to the way you perform your stuff, or do you feel that its in...or not...the Kenpo techs already?  I ask this because I've personally seen people that I know, do techs and frankly, they look like ****!  No power, nothing.  When I had my inst. come down from Jersey, it was amazing watching...and feeling..lol..the way he'd do his stuff.
> 
> Interestinly enough, a guy that trained at one of my old schools, was big into Tai Chi.  I always liked working with him, because he'd add in alot of Tai Chi movement, so his stuff had alot of power, and he'd always move you..lol.



The Kinetic Wave is a principle of movement that can be used by anyone and any sport. I see lotsa Kenpo guys do it too but I almost never see anyone TEACH it.


----------



## Josh Oakley

ATACX GYM said:


> Seen Joe Louis aka "The Brown Bomber" smash many a person in the ring. Same with John L. Sullivan. Same with "Little Perpetual Motion" Henry Armstrong. Haven't seen them expound on a single boxing principle. Are you saying they don't know boxing?



Uh... Joe Louis wrote a whole book on it.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1581607156


Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## Josh Oakley

Twin Fist said:


> I didnt say that, Chris Parker did.



Then I retract what I said. Chris... It is now directed at you.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## Josh Oakley

MJS said:


> I wonder...maybe Kenpo would be better off if it was like Kaju and not so technique based.  Seems that that is the main issue...that we have so many God damn techs in the system, plus the 'extensions' which make up all the more.  Hundreds upon hundreds of techs, that the die hards say we have to drill into ourselves.



So, I will have to do some looking, because the last time I saw this was YEARS ago. But I distinctly remember an interview with Ed Parker where he said that the point of all those techs is to teach the principles of kempo (sorry. KENPO!), and there were so many so that you didn't get Hung up on the techniques themselves, but instead on the principles they taught. 

I will see if I can find it.


Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## MJS

Josh Oakley said:


> So, I will have to do some looking, because the last time I saw this was YEARS ago. But I distinctly remember an interview with Ed Parker where he said that the point of all those techs is to teach the principles of kempo (sorry. KENPO!), and there were so many so that you didn't get Hung up on the techniques themselves, but instead on the principles they taught.
> 
> I will see if I can find it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk



LOL...yeah, thats what I'd tell the people that I'd teach.  Something that I always use as an example....years ago, I was doing a technique line.  I'd call out attacks and have the person in the middle defend.  From time to time, I'd intentionally call out an attack in which I knew they didn't have a preset defense for.  99% of the time, they'd stand there and say that they didn't know a tech for that attack.  I'd ask them if they knew how to move, block, punch, kick, etc.  They'd say yes.  I'd say, Good then do it!  It was nice seeing the light go off in their head.  

This is also why I feel that we dont need 100+ techs.  My God, there's a tech for every single attack out there.  Why not take the basics, and form your own?  Why have a tech if the badguy does a right step thru punch, another if he does a right cross, another if he does a step thru but you're standing with your left leg forward, another if your right is forward, another if this, another if that....LOL.  Stupid IMO.  There're attacks out there that I dont see a preset kenpo defense for, so in that case, I'd imagine they'd have to come up with a response.  See my point?   If they have to do it for those situations.....


----------



## Twin Fist

i have said it 100 times, you need the techniques to learn the lessons, but once you learn the lessons, you dont need the techniques


----------



## ATACX GYM

Josh Oakley said:


> So, I will have to do some looking, because the last time I saw this was YEARS ago. But I distinctly remember an interview with Ed Parker where he said that the point of all those techs is to teach the principles of kempo (sorry. KENPO!), and there were so many so that you didn't get Hung up on the techniques themselves, but instead on the principles they taught.
> 
> I will see if I can find it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk



I recall him making a similar movement in pursuit of a vocabulary of movement, changing the meaning of "words of movement" and forming "phrases and sentences". He would take one tech and express it one way in one movement and do a different movement or sometimes THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what's in the technique and explain why it makes sense.

Contrary to the claims of my detractors, my position and expression is in full lockstep with what Mr. Parker said. Observe Mr. Parker talking about Short One in a seminar, showing the tech in the form, and then...because "now it's a street situation...I'm scared, I don't step back I step forward and booop! Dammit I broke his nose..." or something like that.

[video=youtube_share;6SIQ7ONlE1I]http://youtu.be/6SIQ7ONlE1I[/video]


The deeper you delve into the movements, the more universally you apply the techniques, the deeper more comprehensive more interconnected more intuitive more capable more knowledgeable your Kenpo and straight up movement knowledge is. This is what pract icing the movements over and over against resistance, against multiple stimuli, forces you to grasp. You grasp it better faster deeper and more thoroughly than other training models tend to offer because the lack the multiple stimuli, the forced times where you have to cogitate, reflect, make connections, adjustments, study not only Kenpo but the sciences of movement and high performance in all of their interrelated glory...the more you achieve heights and wells of knowledge that you never would ahve even attempted previously. You would've been too ignorant to ask the questions, much less seek the answers to issues and conundrums that you never even knew existed.


----------



## ATACX GYM

MJS said:


> LOL...yeah, thats what I'd tell the people that I'd teach.  Something that I always use as an example....years ago, I was doing a technique line.  I'd call out attacks and have the person in the middle defend.  From time to time, I'd intentionally call out an attack in which I knew they didn't have a preset defense for.  99% of the time, they'd stand there and say that they didn't know a tech for that attack.  I'd ask them if they knew how to move, block, punch, kick, etc.  They'd say yes.  I'd say, Good then do it!  It was nice seeing the light go off in their head.
> 
> This is also why I feel that we dont need 100+ techs.  My God, there's a tech for every single attack out there.  Why not take the basics, and form your own?  Why have a tech if the badguy does a right step thru punch, another if he does a right cross, another if he does a step thru but you're standing with your left leg forward, another if your right is forward, another if this, another if that....LOL.  Stupid IMO.  There're attacks out there that I dont see a preset kenpo defense for, so in that case, I'd imagine they'd have to come up with a response.  See my point?   If they have to do it for those situations.....




You can have the basics and formulate from there, but the impetus to develope responses to multiple stimuli would have to be imbedded in the curriculum...and it would take longer to do. Contrary to popular opinion. If you train functionally...only if you train functionally, mandating movement, energy, escalating resistance, requiring timing and sensitivity...

You will have more tools to address various scenarios with the 'wealth of techs' approach, and if you train each of these techs to perform in every range of combat? Not only do you have the launch pad of proven techs that you've developed real skill with, you develope your own responses to multiple striking armed multifight unarmed grappling etc real life situations, you'll have an arsenal that you can and will deploy and employ vs skilled martial artists--even other Kenpoists--and they'll have either NO idea what is happening or will be very hard pressed indeed to deal with your offensives and defenses.

Seriously speaking...how many bjj guys have ever in life seen somebody use Glancing Wing, Triggered Salute, Gathering Clouds, or Desperate Falcons EVER IN LIFE. Much less used [ in a row] to pass the guard. There is a knee torque just waiting to be used in Triggered Salute, and a sweet beatdown and knee torque counter to the triangle choke in Snapping Twig. Well...in my Gym's Ideal Technique of them there are. Lol. How could the bjj guys defend against that? They'd be ALMOST as clueless as Kenpo guys were when bjj guys used to take guys down and choke the bejeezus out of them in the mid-90s.


----------



## Twin Fist

that thing you swore you never do?


you are doing it again.


----------



## MJS

ATACX GYM said:


> You can have the basics and formulate from there, but the impetus to develope responses to multiple stimuli would have to be imbedded in the curriculum...and it would take longer to do. Contrary to popular opinion. If you train functionally...only if you train functionally, mandating movement, energy, escalating resistance, requiring timing and sensitivity...



Actually, instead of imbedding hundreds of crazy techs, what they'd be imbedding is the basics.  The basics can/should be able to be put into endless combos.  Look at boxing.  You have the basic punches, ie: jab, cross, hook, uppercut.  Those punches can be put into endless combos.  Yet a boxer crafts his own combo, depending on the openings his opp. presents.  Apply that same logic to Kenpo.  Oh gee...the white belt doesnt have a tech for a rt. hook yet?  Sure they do.  They know how to block and punch.  Step up with a block, blast them in the face with a palm, knee them in the balls.  Theres your tech.   KISS baby KISS.  



> You will have more tools to address various scenarios with the 'wealth of techs' approach, and if you train each of these techs to perform in every range of combat? Not only do you have the launch pad of proven techs that you've developed real skill with, you develope your own responses to multiple striking armed multifight unarmed grappling etc real life situations, you'll have an arsenal that you can and will deploy and employ vs skilled martial artists--even other Kenpoists--and they'll have either NO idea what is happening or will be very hard pressed indeed to deal with your offensives and defenses.



IMO, you dont need a ton of tools.  Having a ton of tools is having hundreds of techs.  Basic blocks, punches and kicks is all you need.  



> Seriously speaking...how many bjj guys have ever in life seen somebody use Glancing Wing, Triggered Salute, Gathering Clouds, or Desperate Falcons EVER IN LIFE. Much less used [ in a row] to pass the guard. There is a knee torque just waiting to be used in Triggered Salute, and a sweet beatdown and knee torque counter to the triangle choke in Snapping Twig. Well...in my Gym's Ideal Technique of them there are. Lol. How could the bjj guys defend against that? They'd be ALMOST as clueless as Kenpo guys were when bjj guys used to take guys down and choke the bejeezus out of them in the mid-90s.



Probably not that many.  But thats ok, because I'll be using pieces, if possible, rather than trying to figure out how to make that standup tech work on the ground, and I'll be falling back on the grappling basics that I know.   What I find interesting is the number of Kenpo guys that cross train.  If it was that complete of a package, that probably wouldnt happen.


----------



## Josh Oakley

ATACX GYM said:


> I recall him making a similar movement in pursuit of a vocabulary of movement, changing the meaning of "words of movement" and forming "phrases and sentences". He would take one tech and express it one way in one movement and do a different movement or sometimes THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what's in the technique and explain why it makes sense.
> 
> Contrary to the claims of my detractors, my position and expression is in full lockstep with what Mr. Parker said. Observe Mr. Parker talking about Short One in a seminar, showing the tech in the form, and then...because "now it's a street situation...I'm scared, I don't step back I step forward and booop! Dammit I broke his nose..." or something like that.
> 
> [video=youtube_share;6SIQ7ONlE1I]http://youtu.be/6SIQ7ONlE1I[/video]
> 
> 
> The deeper you delve into the movements, the more universally you apply the techniques, the deeper more comprehensive more interconnected more intuitive more capable more knowledgeable your Kenpo and straight up movement knowledge is. This is what pract icing the movements over and over against resistance, against multiple stimuli, forces you to grasp. You grasp it better faster deeper and more thoroughly than other training models tend to offer because the lack the multiple stimuli, the forced times where you have to cogitate, reflect, make connections, adjustments, study not only Kenpo but the sciences of movement and high performance in all of their interrelated glory...the more you achieve heights and wells of knowledge that you never would ahve even attempted previously. You would've been too ignorant to ask the questions, much less seek the answers to issues and conundrums that you never even knew existed.



This is what I would call a very good post. Much more to the point. (Though most of the last paragraph was unnecessary. It would be more suited to teaching a class of students than in a discussion thread full of people with 10-30 years experience in the martial arts, many of us being teachers, who already KNOW a lot of the stuff you said. Probably could have pared it down more. 

Also, your use of the terms "cogitate" and "reflect" right next to each other is redundant. That is what I mean when I talk about your verbosity. Again, the difference between verbosity and eloquence is efficiency.)

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## Flying Crane

Josh Oakley said:


> So, I will have to do some looking, because the last time I saw this was YEARS ago. But I distinctly remember an interview with Ed Parker where he said that the point of all those techs is to teach the principles of kempo (sorry. KENPO!), and there were so many so that you didn't get Hung up on the techniques themselves, but instead on the principles they taught.
> 
> I will see if I can find it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk



I don't know what Mr. Parker may have said, but this strikes me as being the opposite of what really happens.  With so many techs, it's almost impossible to NOT become hung up on the techs.


----------



## Twin Fist

agree, with so many, you spend your time learning and practicing them all.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Josh Oakley said:


> Uh... Joe Louis wrote a whole book on it.
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1581607156
> 
> 
> Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk




Actually pick up the book and open it. My older cousin--boxing fanatic--just happens to have that book. Joe Louis was the SUBJECT of the book but he didn't WRITE it...a ghostwriter and photographer did. Although Joe was quick of mind, for quite some time his literacy level was low due to the racist prohibitions against and societal road blocks set against Black people learning high level academics at that time. And if that's too much for you? Then swap Jack Johnson for Joe Louis. My point remains clear and unflawed.

But even if Joe DID write a book? I gave multiple examples. You were only able to select one book that Joe Louis was the subject of. That would make Joe the exception that proves the rule and that means that my point still stands. All of the warriors I mentioned are hellafied boxers. None of them famously held forth upon the principles and power generating mechanisms of boxing. If you doubted their knowledge of same? Get in the ring with them. When you wake back up? You'll be a convert. Unless you're stupid.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Flying Crane said:


> I don't know what Mr. Parker may have said, but this strikes me as being the opposite of what really happens.  With so many techs, it's almost impossible to NOT become hung up on the techs.




Disagree. Many of the techs not only have multiple applications that you don't begin to grasp until you practice them vs resistance, but many of the techs are also mirror images of each other...and require you to do the mirror image in a different scenario.  There's a 5 Swords kind of flow to, for instance, Heavenly Ascent. You're learning the multiple applications of that one movement and how it applies to multiple scenarios; multiple attacks. You learn multiple applications not just for a specific sequence but multiple applications to a specific kind of flow of movement. When you add resistance? You learn this lesson much earlier, and you realize that Kenpo simultaneously stimulates your mind and expands your movement vocabulary in very specific ways. Synergistic ways. You can perceive and amplify the quality of movement of other arts accordingly and very rapidly. Kenpo imo is very similar to Functional Capoeira in that regard. 

"Not every movement is a technique but every technique is a movement. You have to train your mind to move your body with better quality. The more quality movements you get..the better anything you do in the martial arts becomes. That's how you improve organically and synergistically."--Frank Shamrock to me, when he was based out of the RAW Center


----------



## ATACX GYM

MJS said:


> Actually, instead of imbedding hundreds of crazy techs, what they'd be imbedding is the basics.  The basics can/should be able to be put into endless combos.  Look at boxing.  You have the basic punches, ie: jab, cross, hook, uppercut.  Those punches can be put into endless combos.  Yet a boxer crafts his own combo, depending on the openings his opp. presents.  Apply that same logic to Kenpo.  Oh gee...the white belt doesnt have a tech for a rt. hook yet?  Sure they do.  They know how to block and punch.  Step up with a block, blast them in the face with a palm, knee them in the balls.  Theres your tech.   KISS baby KISS.
> 
> 
> 
> IMO, you dont need a ton of tools.  Having a ton of tools is having hundreds of techs.  Basic blocks, punches and kicks is all you need.
> 
> 
> 
> Probably not that many.  But thats ok, because I'll be using pieces, if possible, rather than trying to figure out how to make that standup tech work on the ground, and I'll be falling back on the grappling basics that I know.   What I find interesting is the number of Kenpo guys that cross train.  If it was that complete of a package, that probably wouldnt happen.




I'm not denying that you develope basic techs and keep it KISS, but man...we're talking about training paradigms and training preferences, not how an art itself can perform. For instance, if you keep picking up and dumping a Kenpo guy or a Tai Chi guy on their heads, or slamming them and choking or locking the holy crap out of them, eventually they will adapt their art to that scenario and eventually they will be able to give you close combat on the ground.

The process is much faster, much simpler, and imo smarter if they go to a good Judo or Hapkido or bjj or submission wrestling or catchwrestling school which will provide you with tools right away. I did. But I didn't go in there to become a better judoka or a better hapkidoka, a better wrestler and jits man [ although I achieved all of the above ]. Nope. I came in there to become a better martial artist. I specifically looked for ways and training methods that could inform my striking with grappling that strikers were unprepared for, inform my grappling with striking that grapplers were unprepared for, and I looked to outstrike strikers and outgrapple grapplers and outstrike, outgrapple, and out duel weaponeers.

Cross training is GREAT. Vital. Important. Imho at any rate. But at no time does the current state of affairs regarding Kenpo reflect what we know its historical roots are...which are shared by bjj. Kenpo's historical roots go back to kenpojujutsu, if I'm not mistaken. And so do bjj's. The training emphasis of jujutsu was largely removed and redirected toward standup combat, and that is what denuded our current Kenpo of intricate grappling skill. The more that Kenpoists train in international Judo, Hapkido, and bjj? The more material they have to add back into Kenpo's matrix, and the more knowledge and skill they have to adapt their tech rich base to their new skill sets...and the more they appreciate Kenpo. Because the foundational base for all of that stuff is still in Kenpo. The converse claim cannot be made [ except for Hapkido, which is an art that is very much slept on imo ].


----------



## Flying Crane

ATACX GYM said:


> Disagree. Many of the techs not only have multiple applications that you don't begin to grasp until you practice them vs resistance, but many of the techs are also mirror images of each other...and require you to do the mirror image in a different scenario. There's a 5 Swords kind of flow to, for instance, Heavenly Ascent. You're learning the multiple applications of that one movement and how it applies to multiple scenarios; multiple attacks. You learn multiple applications not just for a specific sequence but multiple applications to a specific kind of flow of movement. When you add resistance? You learn this lesson much earlier, and you realize that Kenpo simultaneously stimulates your mind and expands your movement vocabulary in very specific ways. Synergistic ways. You can perceive and amplify the quality of movement of other arts accordingly and very rapidly. Kenpo imo is very similar to Functional Capoeira in that regard.
> 
> "Not every movement is a technique but every technique is a movement. You have to train your mind to move your body with better quality. The more quality movements you get..the better anything you do in the martial arts becomes. That's how you improve organically and synergistically."--Frank Shamrock to me, when he was based out of the RAW Center



I'll just say that in my experience, it didn't work for me.  The curriculum was cumbersome and unwieldy and it made for a scattered training session because there was a scramble to keep up with all the material that we needed to learn, because that was what the curriculum was.

I honestly do not believe it is a good way to structure a curriculum, nor a good way to develop the principles.  But that's my take on it, and that's why I dont do it anymore.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Flying Crane said:


> I'll just say that in my experience, it didn't work for me.  The curriculum was cumbersome and unwieldy and it made for a scattered training session because there was a scramble to keep up with all the material that we needed to learn, because that was what the curriculum was.
> 
> I honestly do not believe it is a good way to structure a curriculum, nor a good way to develop the principles.  But that's my take on it, and that's why I dont do it anymore.




I agree that oftentimes the lack of knowledge and life experience of various teachers practically guarantee insufficiently functional training and improperly or less beneficially structured curriculums. Sorry to hear that your experience wasn't best for you but at least you found what you wanted in your gungfu stuff. Got any videos of your art online anywhere? I'd like to see it.


----------



## Flying Crane

ATACX GYM said:


> I agree that oftentimes the lack of knowledge and life experience of various teachers practically guarantee insufficiently functional training and improperly or less beneficially structured curriculums. Sorry to hear that your experience wasn't best for you but at least you found what you wanted in your gungfu stuff. Got any videos of your art online anywhere? I'd like to see it.



The thing is, I believe that I had one of the best instructors in kenpo, and probably THE best instructor in Tracy kenpo.  Ted is extremely knowledgeable, extremely skilled, and has a huge amount of life experience to backup what he does.  He was in the military in Vietnam, and then had a career as a police officer including some ugly undercover stuff.  If there is anyone who had the opportunity to figure out what works and what doesn't, it's Ted.  He believes in the system whole-heartedly, but I just couldn't get it to be a good fit for me.  That's why I finally concluded that what works great for some doesn't work so well for others, and the whole approach of kenpo is just not a good fit for me.

I and my Sifu and my Sihing do not make videos and to put up on Youtube.  There are some other videos out there, done by other folks, but to be honest I am always reluctant to point them out to people because I've not see a good example yet.  What I've seen has been decidely lousy and does not convey the true lessons that the system offers.  The examples are typically of forms and not generally application (tho I've seen a little bit of application online), and the forms are done sloppily and are done more as a performance than as a training tool so the very fundamentals get compromised, and that's largely because none of these "instructors" really understand what they are doing.

So yes, it's out there, but I don't think you will get a very good idea of the system from watching them, and actually you will probably look at them and think, "wow, that sucks".  I agree.  What you see there sucks.  But what you see there is not a good example of the system, you won't find that online.  Sifu often shows us video clips that he finds, and then points out why they are so bad.  He uses Youtube as an example of how NOT to do our system, and he uses Youtube as an insult: "That was no good, do it again!  You wanna be like on Youtube??!!"

If you are interested, you can look for Tibetan White Crane (not to be confused with the Fukienese White Crane, totally different system), in Cantonese it's Bak Hok Kuen, or variations of that, Bac Hok, Ba hok, etc.  The Fukienese goes by "bai he", so that's a way to distinguish, and the Fukienese looks a bit like Wing Chun, while the Tibetan is very "long arm" with lots of movement and stepping in how we train.  Again, those might help you to distinguish what you are looking at.


----------



## Josh Oakley

ATACX GYM said:


> Actually pick up the book and open it. My older cousin--boxing fanatic--just happens to have that book. Joe Louis was the SUBJECT of the book but he didn't WRITE it...a ghostwriter and photographer did. Although Joe was quick of mind, for quite some time his literacy level was low due to the racist prohibitions against and societal road blocks set against Black people learning high level academics at that time. And if that's too much for you? Then swap Jack Johnson for Joe Louis. My point remains clear and unflawed.
> 
> But even if Joe DID write a book? I gave multiple examples. You were only able to select one book that Joe Louis was the subject of. That would make Joe the exception that proves the rule and that means that my point still stands. All of the warriors I mentioned are hellafied boxers. None of them famously held forth upon the principles and power generating mechanisms of boxing. If you doubted their knowledge of same? Get in the ring with them. When you wake back up? You'll be a convert. Unless you're stupid.



It has Joe Louis listed as the author. Until either of actually reads the book, I will assume be wrote it. 

But your point is not disagreed with. You don't have to know how to explain something to be able to do it, and I don't think anyone is actually arguing against it, Ras.

It is, however, irrelevant. Doing something is different than TEACHING something. When we are talking about being able to DEVELOP a technique and EXPLAIN it, we are talking about TEACHING. 

And a good TEACHER understands and can explain those mechanisms.

I am NOT saying that you aren't a good teacher, or that you can't explain your stuff.

I merely pointed out that Joe Louis wrote a book. Reacting one freaking statement doesn't invalidate your whole freaking argument. Don't just try and correct me when you obviously haven't read the freaking book either. Don't freaking preach to me about the low literacy rate of blacks at the time as if I didn't already freaking know. 

Until you pick up the book, there is no harm about admitting you MIGHT be wrong about ONE freaking point. It doesn't discredit you, it doesn't invalidate your arguments. It shows you have academic and intellectual freaking INTEGRITY.

If you haven't guessed, I am mildly peeved.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## Flying Crane

ATACX GYM said:


> "Not every movement is a technique but every technique is a movement. You have to train your mind to move your body with better quality. The more quality movements you get..the better anything you do in the martial arts becomes. That's how you improve organically and synergistically."--Frank Shamrock to me, when he was based out of the RAW Center



First the mind needs to understand HOW to move with better quality.  If you cannot describe it and understand it intellectually, it's unlikely you will be able to do it.  Once you understand it, then you can train the body to do it.  But it takes focused training to do so, and the most important place where this must be done is in the basics and fundamentals.  If the basics and fundamentals are done with better quality, then yes, everything else you do will be better quality.

I actually believe that a lot of the SD techs found in kenpo are not of a high quality.  Some are, many are not.  I've seen and learned a lot of them that I felt were simply bad ideas, built on flawed concepts.  These are things that may look good on paper, but don't pass the BS meter when considering whether they would really work somehow.

then again, there are those who claim to, or even actually can, use the stuff.  So it still comes down to the individual and what is the best match for that person.


----------



## Josh Oakley

Here is a discussion from over KT that refers to this thread, and therefore has bearing on it. I added numbers in Doc's response because it was less tedious than trying to rebuild it as one post, like I wanted to do, since that would be more accurate to how Doc's post shows up on KT.

Unfortunately, tapatalk doesn't grab quotes within other quotes.



MJS said:


> This question is mainly directed to Doc, but of course, anyone else is free to chime in with your thoughts as well.
> 
> Ok..here goes....over at Martial Talk, there is currently a 20+ page thread...actually, closer to 30 pages now..lol...on the discussion of the technique Sword and Hammer.  The thread was started by Ras, basically comparing his version of S&amp;H and the version that we see in many schools.  Ras states that the reason his version looks nothing like what we typically see, is because Mr. Parker never intended for there to be a set version, that what we see in something like "Big Red" was a guide..nothing more.  Mr. Parker wanted people to craft their own expression of all of the techniques.
> 
> Now, I find this interesting, because if that was the case, then I'd imagine there'd be numerous versions of the techs.  I'd have 'my' expression, Ras would have his, my students would have theirs, and so forth.  I further stated that if that was the case, then when people went to seminars, it'd be close to impossible for the person giving the seminar, to teach people.  Ex: Lets say Larry Tatum was giving a seminar.  He'd have his version, along with the other 100 people at the event, so how could any learning be done, if everyone is doing something different?
> 
> So, in that thread, I asked some questions, to which I received some answers, but not really answering my questions fully, so here I am...coming to the source (Doc) in hopes to have my curiosity satisfied.
> 
> 1) Doc, do you teach the techs that're found in Big Red?  If so, what changes, if any, have you made to them?  I was told that you may not wish to divulge alot of info regarding what you do, and thats fine.
> 
> 2) If the techs were to be used as just a guide, and we were in fact supposed to create our own expression, why do we see the majority of schools out there, teaching the same way?
> 
> 3) Doc, in another thread, you mentioned that you don't allow your students to engage in any "What if/Even if" talk, until way later in training.  At what point do you allow this?
> 
> 4) Did Mr. Parker want everyone to form their own expressions of the techs?  If so, then woudn't we have what I said above....a ton of different versions of a tech?
> 
> Just a closing note:  I'm mainly looking to have these 4 questions answered.  I understand the thread may drift a bit from the 4 questions, however, I'm not looking at rehashing a thread similar to the current one at MT.


 



Doc said:


> 1)Some of them, although they are "ideally" structured to fit street and function parameters with "even if's."
> 
> 2)So-called teachers were lazy, or didn't have the knowledge and skill to construct the ideal as Mr. Parker wanted them to do. So they generally followed the dysfunctional outline in the manuals.
> 
> 3)"What if" is not allowed. "Even if" better be there, as a part of the default execution. I use the word "default" instead of "ideal" so Ras won't get confused. You know, he can't hear Jimi, but won't admit it. Anyway, even "tailoring" is built into the technique and is taught tailored for individuals who may need a tailored version for physical deficiencies or disparities, but even that is mapped so it doesn't change the overall effect of the technique function. Only senior black belts do this for themselves, but even then the material seems to satisfy them, and ideas of "what if" have already been addressed, so any variation is already in the curriculum.
> 
> However, I do vehemently encourage them to explore anything they feel is useful for personal expression. I've even encouraged them to go teach on their own in a club, or open a school. But, no one wants to miss classes at the home school. They are NOT however allowed to change the curriculum without consultation and committee approval because of the archival nature, and the progressive neuromuscular programming function of the way the curriculum is designed.
> 
> When you change something, it impacts everything else, and therefore has to be considered from that perspective. Sometimes something does need to be changed, and when that happens, things that are affected by the change must be addressed and changed as well. There are no independent movements in the system process. Everything is connected to everything else, just like in human anatomy.
> 
> As others have so eloquently stated, while it is true Mr. Parker wanted instructors who were heads of schools and clubs to formulate the "ideal" for each technique, using his principles and ideas within their group of followers, once the BIG Red technique manuals came out, AND they found their way down to the white belts as a revenue stream, everyone seem to try to just do the outline in the manuals - no matter how ridiculous they were. It was the easiest thing to do. Follow the material, get promoted. No thinking necessary.
> 
> Most wanted "traditionalize" that version of Kenpo, and treat it like other arts, with definitive techniques, when Mr. Parker had not done that for that particular interpretation. He planned to do so with what he branded "American Kenpo," as an offshoot to the "Chinese Kenpo" he was doing, first influenced by Ark Wong. And although he briefly mentioned the "American Kenpo" idea that most ran with, he never actually began the project instead being forced into bankruptcy and creating "Ed Parker's Kenpo Karate" as a money making commercial venture. After all he had 5 children, and a Mother to take care of.
> 
> MOST just did what was written in the manuals, while Mr. Parker traveled trying to teach the principles to give students the skills to do what he wanted. They didn't for the most part. There are some good guys, but most are few and far between. And, you'll find those that are reasonably good, moved away from the manual outline versions of the material and began to think for themselves. As much as it may seem sometimes that I am bashing Kenpo Karate, it is in fact a viable well structured piece of work that displays Mr. Parker's genius for organization.
> 
> What Mr. Parker did not count on was how the business of money and rank would overwhelm instructors desire to be efficient and good at what they did. He didn't anticipate the plethora of at best marginal practitioners who, having paid their way, would be allowed to move through the ranks and turn into teaching versions of themselves. No knowledge, no skill, and no experience teaching others who were the same. Follow the material and get the belt. Reality did not matter. Rank became everything, and competency took a back seat. The art grew so fast, it was out of control. It only had one expert, and there were people promoting everywhere. To deny promotions would kill the business, so he ultimately placed the onus of competency back on its teachers, who for the most part, failed miserably.



Response to the closing note:


Doc said:


> Yeah Ras went through the same thing over here as well. He doesn't do EPKK, that is clear. What he doesn't get is he insists on using the terminology and technique names, while giving many the impression he is fixing EPKK. His teaching method from a systemic perspective is also extremely flawed, and there is a great deal of knowledge he doesn't have. He sees what he does as just a series of technique movements, and insists we don't understand him and puts up a bunch a videos that confirm what we already know, that many before him have done - with the same amount of success. But, everyone has to be comfortable in their method, and the smart figure out when it is no good - eventually - _I hope_.


----------



## Josh Oakley

More from Doc:



Doc said:


> Here's what Ras doesn't get. Yes. Mr. Parker wanted you to create your own "Ideal." he said it in print and it is in my archives on the subforum. But, he did publish an outline of each technique to serve as a guide. "Sword and Hammer" is about using a "hand sword, and a hammer-fist" for a flank one handed attack shoulder grab. Now, make that idea work. Don't turn it into defending a round off flip flop because that's not what it is supposed to be. Other attacks are explored progressively later in the system. Ras is making the same mistake others made. he's what if-ing his own modedl to death, with no definitive answers to anything because he doesn't understand how people learn, not how systems are built and designed. What he is doing is great for him personally, but not for teaching other people. You create skills and then build upon them, a bit at a time. You explore questions, and answer them, a bit at a time giving the student the opportunity to develop mentally first, than physically to match. What did Mr. Parker say, "I'd rather face a guy who learned a thousand different techniques, than a guy who practiced a single technique a thousand times." Why? because "It's more important to be able to choose the right solution to a problem, then to have all the answers and not know which one to use right now." - Dr. Chap&#233;l The type of training he does gives you lots of questions to consider, but how to get students to choose the right answer when they need it, is another story. He may be "special," he may even have "special knowledge" but the human body works one way, no matter how he feels about it.



Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## Josh Oakley

Quote from thesemindz in said thread: 





Thesemindz said:


> I think a lot of times the argument comes from Ras not coming up in a more "traditional" version of the EPAK system. For instance, this is his new video for a technique he teaches as Attacking Twins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see a good solid technique there. But it's not anything new to me. It's an Attacking Mace entry to a Clinch/Knee combination. Two simple beginner techniques grafted together. Now, I'm sure people will point out that he's "doing it wrong." But the reality is that he's just doing it differently. If he called this technique Delayed Sword and told us all how it was better than the Delayed Sword we do, there'd be some understandable frustration because A. It looks absolutely nothing like my Delayed Sword, and B. My Delayed Sword works just fine thank you very much. But none of that means that his Attacking Twins doesn't work, just that it's not my Delayed Sword. I think that's the basis for most of the arguments Ras has on these forums. It's a communication breakdown, and it's always the same. Other than that he seems to be mostly saying that kenpo practitioners aren't doing enough live training with their material, which I tend to agree with.
> 
> 
> -Rob



Doc's response:


Doc said:


> Nope. Flawed, and MAY not get pass the first punch.




Ras's response to Doc:


ATACX GYM said:


> Interesting. Worked pretty good against pro boxers, kickboxers, street hoods and criminals. But I'm down to learn if you're down to teach. Flawed in what way?



Doc's response to Ras:


Doc said:


> Well, clearly my observations must be flawed, and I have nothing to share with those who already have all the answers. I will save you the "me too." You do seem to have a lot more confrontations than I ever have/do, so .. But for the record, if you really want to know, you probably should refrain from telling everyone how great you are, just before you ask them to tell you what's wrong. Your cup runneth over, and you have precious little room for what little I might contribute sir. "You've been horned."



Copypasta copypasta copypasta, I know, but I think it is relevant.


----------



## MJS

ATACX GYM said:


> Disagree. Many of the techs not only have multiple applications that you don't begin to grasp until you practice them vs resistance, but many of the techs are also mirror images of each other...and require you to do the mirror image in a different scenario.  There's a 5 Swords kind of flow to, for instance, Heavenly Ascent. You're learning the multiple applications of that one movement and how it applies to multiple scenarios; multiple attacks. You learn multiple applications not just for a specific sequence but multiple applications to a specific kind of flow of movement. When you add resistance? You learn this lesson much earlier, and you realize that Kenpo simultaneously stimulates your mind and expands your movement vocabulary in very specific ways. Synergistic ways. You can perceive and amplify the quality of movement of other arts accordingly and very rapidly. Kenpo imo is very similar to Functional Capoeira in that regard.
> 
> "Not every movement is a technique but every technique is a movement. You have to train your mind to move your body with better quality. The more quality movements you get..the better anything you do in the martial arts becomes. That's how you improve organically and synergistically."--Frank Shamrock to me, when he was based out of the RAW Center



But, I still stand by what I've said before....there is already, IMHO, way too much in the system.  By taking a technique and trying to make it work not only for the attack its designed for, but also 10 other attacks, is crazy.  Now, I've taken Attacking Mace, and worked some of the ideas in that tech, against a rt. cross.  But thats pretty much it.  I'm not working it against a kick, a grab, a take down, attempted takedown, a mount escape, etc.  





ATACX GYM said:


> I'm not denying that you develope basic techs and keep it KISS, but man...we're talking about training paradigms and training preferences, not how an art itself can perform. For instance, if you keep picking up and dumping a Kenpo guy or a Tai Chi guy on their heads, or slamming them and choking or locking the holy crap out of them, eventually they will adapt their art to that scenario and eventually they will be able to give you close combat on the ground.
> 
> The process is much faster, much simpler, and imo smarter if they go to a good Judo or Hapkido or bjj or submission wrestling or catchwrestling school which will provide you with tools right away. I did. But I didn't go in there to become a better judoka or a better hapkidoka, a better wrestler and jits man [ although I achieved all of the above ]. Nope. I came in there to become a better martial artist. I specifically looked for ways and training methods that could inform my striking with grappling that strikers were unprepared for, inform my grappling with striking that grapplers were unprepared for, and I looked to outstrike strikers and outgrapple grapplers and outstrike, outgrapple, and out duel weaponeers.
> 
> Cross training is GREAT. Vital. Important. Imho at any rate. But at no time does the current state of affairs regarding Kenpo reflect what we know its historical roots are...which are shared by bjj. Kenpo's historical roots go back to kenpojujutsu, if I'm not mistaken. And so do bjj's. The training emphasis of jujutsu was largely removed and redirected toward standup combat, and that is what denuded our current Kenpo of intricate grappling skill. The more that Kenpoists train in international Judo, Hapkido, and bjj? The more material they have to add back into Kenpo's matrix, and the more knowledge and skill they have to adapt their tech rich base to their new skill sets...and the more they appreciate Kenpo. Because the foundational base for all of that stuff is still in Kenpo. The converse claim cannot be made [ except for Hapkido, which is an art that is very much slept on imo ].



The only other system that I have really pursued in depth, other than Kenpo, is Arnis.  BJJ....to be honest, I'm not interested in 50 mount escapes.  I'd rather learn a handful of things, drill the **** out of them, and move on.  IMO, and I'm going to ask Doc this question, but I'd wager a guess that alot of the ground stuff that used to be there or was taught by Mr. Parker, is either no longer there or grossly changed.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Josh Oakley said:


> It has Joe Louis listed as the author. Until either of actually reads the book, I will assume be wrote it.
> 
> But your point is not disagreed with. You don't have to know how to explain something to be able to do it, and I don't think anyone is actually arguing against it, Ras.
> 
> It is, however, irrelevant. Doing something is different than TEACHING something. When we are talking about being able to DEVELOP a technique and EXPLAIN it, we are talking about TEACHING.
> 
> And a good TEACHER understands and can explain those mechanisms.
> 
> I am NOT saying that you aren't a good teacher, or that you can't explain your stuff.
> 
> I merely pointed out that Joe Louis wrote a book. Reacting one freaking statement doesn't invalidate your whole freaking argument. Don't just try and correct me when you obviously haven't read the freaking book either. Don't freaking preach to me about the low literacy rate of blacks at the time as if I didn't already freaking know.
> 
> Until you pick up the book, there is no harm about admitting you MIGHT be wrong about ONE freaking point. It doesn't discredit you, it doesn't invalidate your arguments. It shows you have academic and intellectual freaking INTEGRITY.
> 
> If you haven't guessed, I am mildly peeved.
> 
> Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk




I guessed. Maybe I overreacted. I accidentally lumped your quote in with another quote I was reading. Misread your intentions. Apologies.


----------



## Twin Fist

this:

_*Yeah Ras went through the same thing over here as well. He doesn't do EPKK, that is clear. What he doesn't get is he insists on using the terminology and technique names, while giving many the impression he is fixing EPKK. His teaching method from a systemic perspective is also extremely flawed, and there is a great deal of knowledge he doesn't have. He sees what he does as just a series of technique movements, and insists we don't understand him and puts up a bunch a videos that confirm what we already know, that many before him have done - with the same amount of success. But, everyone has to be comfortable in their method, and the smart figure out when it is no good - eventually - *__*&#8203;I hope.
*
pretty much ends this discussion.




_


----------



## Twin Fist

and if that doesnt, this DOES:

_Well, clearly my observations must be flawed, and I have nothing to share with those who already have all the answers. I will save you the "me too." You do seem to have a lot more confrontations than I ever have/do, so .. But for the record, if you really want to know, you probably should refrain from telling everyone how great you are, just before you ask them to tell you what's wrong. Your cup runneth over, and you have precious little room for what little I might contribute sir. "You've been horned."


Say goodnight Gracie...._


----------



## Josh Oakley

ATACX GYM said:


> I guessed. Maybe I overreacted. I accidentally lumped your quote in with another quote I was reading. Misread your intentions. Apologies.



Apology accepted.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Twin Fist said:


> and if that doesnt, this DOES:
> 
> _Well, clearly my observations must be flawed, and I have nothing to share with those who already have all the answers. I will save you the "me too." You do seem to have a lot more confrontations than I ever have/do, so .. But for the record, if you really want to know, you probably should refrain from telling everyone how great you are, just before you ask them to tell you what's wrong. Your cup runneth over, and you have precious little room for what little I might contribute sir. "You've been horned."
> 
> 
> Say goodnight Gracie...._





Interesting that you skip right passed all the info that Doc gives that definitively annihilates all of the positions you held previously about Big Red, Mr. Parker, and The Tracys insofar as what you THOUGHT the Ideal Phase was. Let's pause and reflect upon this. Every position you and all the rest of my detractors put for the since the beginning of the thread has been directly refuted by the man you're now quoting...Doc...as proof that I'm not a competent instructor. In the process, you're not only being misleading and untruthful, you simply underscore and verify the correctness of the previous assessments attributed to you and my other detractors. You also underscore the fact that you will selectively utilize quotes to advance your own agenda at the expense of being honest and truthful, which therefore makes you dishonest and untrustworthy.


http://www.kenpotalk.com/forum/showthread.php?13720-Question-For-Doc



This is^^^^the link to the actual thread on KT. Believe nothing that my detractors say. Don't even take my word. Go and read the truth IN CONTEXT for yourselves. This way you will see which of us--my detractors or I--is most trustworthy and most honest.

John aka Twin Fist, you're also very selectively showing quotes, which mischaracterize the TRUE exchange that Doc and I had...an exchange which is yet ONGOING, as I am responding today to several quotes of his that I didn't see before as I was busy on the mat until now and will be busy being on the mat for much of the day today.


And Doc ended with this comment right here...




Doc said:


> See there you go, focusing on a "metaphor phrase" instead of cutting to the issue. I told you before, you never ask questions. You think you do, but you do not. The opportunity to solicit opinions of others is always present, but your style is not conducive to an educational process in this regard. Remember, just because you put a question mark at the end of a statement doesn't make it a question sir. You make statements and then solicit others to agree, with what you feel is overwhelming anecdotal evidence you are correct. You need to ease up grasshopper. When your "questions" take up more bandwidth than someones answers, its not a discussion but your own dissertation. I write a lot as well, dispensing information but you need start listening more. Sometimes its not a debate, sometimes its just information to take in, without a dissertation response. You're a bright man with a huge upside potential, but be sure, I will challenge you to stop what you've been doing, and focus on real information over "look what I can do." You gon be aighht - eventually.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Consider something else...would we be having this kind of discussion that delves into the history and systemic structure of EPKK and the validity of training models...would we even be challenging each other to think critically like this at all in anything approaching this vein...if I hadn't put up my variant of Sword and Hammer?

There is a great deal of value in threads like this one. And so far? Guys like MJS, Josh and I are the ones who are probing and asking these kinds of questions the most.

What have my detractors contributed in and of themselves of like value? This is not a diss, I'm genuinely curious.


----------



## ATACX GYM

ATACX GYM said:


> "Here's what Ras doesn't get. Yes. Mr. Parker wanted you to create your own "Ideal." he said it in print and it is in my archives on the subforum. But, he did publish an outline of each technique to serve as a guide. "Sword and Hammer" is about using a "hand sword, and a hammer-fist" for a flank one handed attack shoulder grab. Now, make that idea work. Don't turn it into defending a round off flip flop because that's not what it is supposed to be. "--Doc Chapel
> 
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! That 'round off flip flop' part had me rofl! And thank you for pointing out that Mr. Parker definitively wanted us to deal with a flank one handed attack shoulder grab. That sounds like an issue of positioning. My tech works well against that scenario too, but if we have to work ONLY that position and use ONLY the hammerfist and handsword for that position? Yep...you're right. My tech ISN'T Mr. Parker's Sword and Hammer.
> 
> You know...that MIIIIGGGHHT be the reason that I call my tech THE ATACX GYM SWORD AND HAMMER RADIUS R.D.L. Cuz it's NOT Mr. Parker's tech. Just a thought, there.
> 
> "Ras is making the same mistake others made. he's what if-ing his own modedl to death, with no definitive answers to anything because he doesn't understand how people learn, not how systems are built and designed. What he is doing is great for him personally, but not for teaching other people. You create skills and then build upon them, a bit at a time. You explore questions, and answer them, a bit at a time giving the student the opportunity to develop mentally first, than physically to match..."--Doc Chapel
> 
> Now you know I'm going to take issue with that, Doc. I'm not What If-ing my model to death, and the answers are definitive precise and clear. They're just not YOUR answers, which is cool. I have a pretty fair grasp as to how people learn--son of a Ph.d. psychologist, learned alot by reading his books and discussing stuff with my Ph.d. Dad and many educators--and I teach my students. All of them would contradict the assessment that I don't know how people learn and I dilute their learning process. But this is an old discussion and old debate Doc. It's the specialist vs the polymath, the sprinter vs the decathlete, the Ph.d. vs The Renaissance Man. I'm the polymath, I'm the decathlete, I'm the Renaissance Man renegade...but with a twist. I respect and incorporate the skills of the specialist, and I learned how to apply them not only deeply but broadly and comprehensively. I'm not the only one either. I didn't innovate this method. I learned of it from specialists who command the fields of performance...psychological, pedagogic, athletic, you name it. You disagree Doc, and that's cool with me. Like I said...we can discuss this matter and debate it in a scholarly fashion if you want. I'm straight up willing to put my scientific data where my mouth is because I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about.
> 
> Right here in front of everyone, I can prove to you and anyone else that doubts me at any point in any way that there are literally thousands of scientists who specialize in their fields who directly contradict your assessment of my approach. There are also thousands who squarely agree with you. What this means is that there is quite a bit of data confirming both methods...and it now comes down to the educator, the Coach, the instructor. How good are they at doing what they claim they can do? I stand behind my methods. You stand behind yours. Difference being? I don't diss your methods and I respect yours. The converse doesn't seem to be true and that's cool...and I don't care. Lol.
> 
> Another difference is: if my White Belt gets tackled by a knife wielding BG? He/she can grapple and already has 4 thousands reps vs specifically stick and knife attacks using the same tech that they learned in Pre-White Level A. How many hours of knife fighting does your White Belts have, Doc? And I respect your methods and I respect YOU, Doc. Like I said before...if not for bruthas like you? I couldn't and wouldn't exist. But I don't agree with your assessments in this area even a little bit. I can bust out my curriculum RIGHT NOW and prove that there are specific steps that I take that assess and properly address the issues that you're bringing up...because you're RIGHT. We DO have to "create skills and then build upon them, a bit at a time. You explore questions, and answer them, a bit at a time giving the student the opportunity to develop mentally first, than physically to match." I 100% agree with that and I have a systemic method of addressing building answering and cultivating all of these.
> 
> They're just not your methods. And they're not supposed to be. But they DO WORK. Proven since before I or even you Doc were born. Rooted in the sciences of high performance, proven over and over and over again at every level. I have the studies. I have the proofs from the scholars to the athletes who used these methods. I'm not remotely exaggerating or in any way engaging in hyperbole. I know where Doc's coming from and I respect his position, I respect the camp of thought from which it sprang...and I disagree to an extent. I see nothing wrong with or any form of impossibility in blending the polymath with the specialist. I'm not the only one, either. Anybody with Google-Fu skills will instantly pull many pages of hard scientific data which takes this post of mine that you're reading right now from 'possible conjecture' to 'scientifically verified'.
> 
> I remember reading of people dissin Richard Marcinko's training methods...until he built Seal Team Six with them. I remember reading of people dissin Charlie Beckwith...until he created Delta Force. I remember reading of people laughing at Boyd. One OODA Loop later? He's having the last laugh. Many people thought that my friend Burton Richardson and his friend Matt Thornton were nuts...until they formed one of the redoubts that expanded the training for both MMA and returning high performance to TMA. And people are doubting and denigrating THE ATACX GYM.
> 
> They will go the way of the doubters and detractors of the aforementioned worthies.
> 
> I remember people telling me that my students couldn't do stuff, just like you are now, Doc. And my students did anyway and wailed on those other guys on top of that. "IT'S NOT JUST WHAT YOU KNOW, IT'S HOW AND WHY YOU TRAIN".
> 
> 
> "What did Mr. Parker say, "I'd rather face a guy who learned a thousand different techniques, than a guy who practiced a single technique a thousand times." Why? because "It's more important to be able to choose the right solution to a problem, then to have all the answers and not know which one to use right now." - Dr. Chapél The type of training he does gives you lots of questions to consider, but how to get students to choose the right answer when they need it, is another story. He may be "special," he may even have "special knowledge" but the human body works one way, no matter how he feels about it."<--Doc Chapel
> 
> ^^^ I AGREE WITH ALOT OF THIS. I really do. Except that I don't think I'm "special" because I've seen hundreds of students over the last 2 decades grasp what I teach and do it quickly. [ Thanks for the oblique possible props though, Doc. We already know YOU'RE special and have done special stuff ]. But again...there is a great deal of scientific knowledge that verifies and advocates my approach...or at the least disputes the contention that the method that I advocate is contrary to how the human body works. I go to school for this stuff right now. I'm not a Doc like you are Doc, but I have access to the latest data. I can prove my words. I'm not kidding, guys and gals, I'm serious.
> 
> The funny thing is? Let's break this mess down. Look at the flank grab attack. Is the worst case unarmed version of the flank grab known colloquially as THE HOCKEY PUNCH? Yes it is. Does my sequence resolve that situation? Yes it does. If you're knocked down, does my Sword and Hammer resolve this scenario? Yes it does. If you're armed does my Sword and Hammer have a proven response? Yes it does...R.D.L.L.P. is the full extent of THE ATACX GYM CQB method and is the martial art wing of THE ATACX GYM R.O.C.S. R.D.L.L.P.= Rock Drop Lock Load and Pop. "Load"=the use of nonfirearm weapons. "Pop"=firearms. Well, if I proved that I can deal with the most dangerous version of flank attack, then any other flank attack is by definition an order of magnitude less and I can handle that too. WITH THE SAME TECH. My Cover and Spin alone will negate your flank attack, whether you push pull attack with a weapon or tackle me. Seriously...are you going to rely on preemptively striking the BG? Not if you have since. I know you don't Doc, but the difference is...I show and prove what I do. I haven't seen your Sword and Hammer. Care to share? If not well...that's unfair man. You get to critique my joint with impunity but you're not putting yours out there.
> 
> If we're gonna get it? Then let's get it. On a level and fair playing field. I'll put my Sword and Hammer out there AAAAANNNND I'll show how I teach it. I'll put the scientific data verifying my position out there. But you gotta do the same so we can do some real comparison and contrasts. I don't mean that with any disrespect Doc, but like you told kenpoOG awhile ago when he commented upon the girth of our Kenpo Elders: [ I'm paraphrasing ] "...my picture and what I look like is public knowledge. It's only fair that you put your picture out for public review too, sir..."
> 
> Now...TWO QUESTIONS:
> 
> 1) Does my Sword and Hammer variant work? Not...do you like it? Not...is it YOUR Sword and Hammer? Does my sequence work? You already know it does. You can hate my guts but I know what I'm talking about, I know what I'm doing, I don't care if you dislike or like me...but you know my joints work. That's just being honest.
> 
> 2) If that's true...if my sequence DOES work, then:
> 
> How can anyone denigrate something that's proven to work in every aspect of the flank attack? I prove my tech in literally every standing position a flank attack can be done
> 
> [video=youtube_share;AuvuhW1u2WE]http://youtu.be/AuvuhW1u2WE[/video]
> 
> Showed how you could do the same thing and clamp on a submission
> 
> [video=youtube_share;R-mmdyIHkjs]http://youtu.be/R-mmdyIHkjs[/video]
> 
> AND the ground
> 
> [video=youtube_share;OgiiyO05OL4]http://youtu.be/OgiiyO05OL4[/video]
> 
> 
> and I DON'T MAKE ANY MAJOR CHANGES.
> 
> Find me ONE Coach/Sensei/Whatever who shows you how to do his/her/their standup tech exactly or very nearly as shown on the ground. And then vs weapons. And then in a clinch. Etc etc. Just one. Either I've stumbled upon a training paradigm breakthrough [ which shows that I might be ' special ' as Doc hypothesized might be special ]...or other people do it because they already know it works.
> 
> 
> LAST QUESTION:
> 
> Find me 2 Kenpo instructors...JUST TWO WILL DO...who shows you how to deal with a 360 degree flank and rear attack, a pushing and pull attack, a surprise attack, an attack [even if it knocks you down] a BG launching stomp attacks, seamlessly has submission holds, seamlessly shows how to NOT break the strictures of honor ethics and the law, etc etc...WITH ONE SINGLE SEQUENCE. The ATACX GYM is one. Now all you have to do is find another one.
> 
> Find me just one.
> 
> Waiting.
> 
> Still waiting.
> 
> Now...how many other Kenpo instructors DON'T teach you how to deal with flank attacks in a 360 degree circle? How many DON'T teach you how to use the same tech to deal with a situation wherein you get dropped, stomped, tackled, etc. How many DON'T show you how to pass guard, defend sub holds, prevent yourself from being shot, how to plant your Bow Stance on the BGs back, etc.
> 
> Lots and lots and lots?
> 
> The question isn't: do these other instructors suck? cuz they DON'T suck. A lot of them are damn good.
> 
> The question IS: IF I DO MORE, AND COVER MORE, HOW COULD I BE IN ANY WAY CONSIDERED LESS OR DOING LESS?
> 
> *it's
> *
> *not
> *
> *possible*
> 
> If good instructors are getting good results by providing a less comprehensive defense then an instructor who provides a more comprehensive response is at least worthy of the same respect provided to those other instructors. That's all I'm saying.



Note also how my detractors very conveniently and deliberately neglected to record my response to Doc's criticisms. Again, I urge all of you who read this thread to ALSO read the above specified threat on KenpoTalk.com. The mischaracterizations, half-truths, misperceptions and outright lies flowing from my detractors' posts could otherwise be mistaken as truth or honesty...when they are neither.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Doc said:


> Well, clearly my observations must be flawed, and I have nothing to share with those who already have all the answers. I will save you the "me too." You do seem to have a lot more confrontations than I ever have/do, so .. But for the record, if you really want to know, you probably should refrain from telling everyone how great you are, just before you ask them to tell you what's wrong. Your cup runneth over, and you have precious little room for what little I might contribute sir. "You've been horned."














 Originally Posted by *ATACX GYM* 


Disagreement sir, doesn't imply a systemic flaw in your observations overall. It simply means that you're facing someone who disagrees with the assertion that you made. Assuming that you're human...another human may disagree with your assertion and you may be in fact incorrect in certain areas or not as correct as initially thought in certain areas. It may even be that the person disagreeing with you is actually right and you're actually wrong. Stranger things HAVE happened in life, sir.

I simply observe that I've made my techs work against most comers. I'm certain that you've experenced something similar. I don't assume that you think that you have all the answers just because you disagree with my analysis of some of the things that I've seen in SL-4. Instead, I've been scrupulously respectful, sir, even in my disagreements with you.

Asserting that one is competent, sir, in the face of persons denying same, is NOT the same as telling ANYONE much less EVERYONE how great I am.

I invite you, sir, and everyone on God's green earth to find a quote wherein I asserted I'm great. In fact,I seem to recall giving YOU, sir, more credit and respect than I ever assigned to myself. Even in the face of you continually making sharp comments like the kinds you have made above. 

Sir, if you can't find a quote asserting that I said what you said I did? Then the only place that such a quote exists is in the minds of my detractors. They are illusory, nonsubstantial, not real.

And if the premise...that I'm running around telling people that I'm great...is untrue? Then the conclusion is likewise similarly suspect and flawed. Perhaps my cup doesn't runneth over. Perhaps I have more than one cup and I'm directing your attention to the EMPTY cup...

...and as for being "horned"? Lolol I like that. Of course, many bulls told the matador the same thing


----------



## Twin Fist

dude, you are stoned, Doc ***** slapped you, everyone saw it. 

at this point, you can either :
1) get humble and maybe redeem yourself
2) keep playing the "ras is great card" and everyone will keep laughing at you

get that?

we are laughing AT YOU


i wonder if I can make this my signature?

_*Yeah Ras went through the same thing over here as well. He doesn't do EPKK, that is clear. What he doesn't get is he insists on using the terminology and technique names, while giving many the impression he is fixing EPKK. His teaching method from a systemic perspective is also extremely flawed, and there is a great deal of knowledge he doesn't have. He sees what he does as just a series of technique movements, and insists we don't understand him and puts up a bunch a videos that confirm what we already know, that many before him have done - with the same amount of success. But, everyone has to be comfortable in their method, and the smart figure out when it is no good - eventually - *__*&#8203;I hope.*_


----------



## Twin Fist

_ I told you before, *you never ask questions. You think you do, but you do not*. The opportunity to solicit opinions of others is always present, but *your style is not conducive to an educational process* in this regard. Remember, just because you put a question mark at the end of a statement doesn't make it a question sir. You make statements and then solicit others to agree, with what you feel is overwhelming anecdotal evidence you are correct. You need to ease up grasshopper. When your "questions" take up more bandwidth than someones answers,* its not a discussion but your own dissertation*-Doc Chapel


yeah, he nailed you. You make statements, then spend billions of electrons telling everyone how they are wrong, without even bothering to read what they said and you write like 12 year old speaks.

all this time you using Doc to backup your crap, then he slaps you stupid...lol


i swear, i am STILL laughing.....

_:lfao: :lfao::lfao:_



_


----------



## Josh Oakley

ATACX GYM said:


> Consider something else...would we be having this kind of discussion that delves into the history and systemic structure of EPKK and the validity of training models...would we even be challenging each other to think critically like this at all in anything approaching this vein...if I hadn't put up my variant of Sword and Hammer?
> 
> There is a great deal of value in threads like this one. And so far? Guys like MJS, Josh and I are the ones who are probing and asking these kinds of questions the most.
> 
> What have my detractors contributed in and of themselves of like value? This is not a diss, I'm genuinely curious.



I think you miss the point that as of now on a number of points MJS and I are now your detractors.


----------



## Josh Oakley

ATACX GYM said:


> Note also how my detractors very conveniently and deliberately neglected to record my response to Doc's criticisms. Again, I urge all of you who read this thread to ALSO read the above specified threat on KenpoTalk.com. The mischaracterizations, half-truths, misperceptions and outright lies flowing from my detractors' posts could otherwise be mistaken as truth or honesty...when they are neither.



If you're so concerned about mischaracterization of the conversation, how come you didn't post KemppGhost's reply to this post, that says he a a majority of the Tracy cats do the same thing?

And as far as saying your detractors liars, that is crap. And it is poor debate style. You have no problem pointing out where doc's comments support the statements you made that he agrees with. 

You seem a lot more hesitant to point out that Doc thinks the technique you posted is flawed, and might not make it past the first punch. Or that he thinks your whole training methodology is flawed.

Or that you STILL can't hear jimi, but you keep on jammin.


To get on people about selectively quoting, and yet selectively quote yourself, is hypocracy. 

Nothing is mischaracterized about Doc's stance. He agrees with you on some points, but definitely would be noted on the side of your detractors:



			
				doc said:
			
		

> But I suspect you're not trying to turn a yellow belt into an know-it-all urban ninja because of what MIGHT happen one day. I know, I'll each you calculus while you're learning to add and subtract, because you may need to address a complex math problem immediately. You never know right? RAS doesn't understand life. You can't start at the top of the mountain, no matter how badly you need to be there right now. "But you don't understand, I need to defend myself against everything today." OK, than I'll show you everything today, but what will you have at the end of the day. No matter how urgent some might think they need it now, if you give them too much you are doing them a disservice. I suspect, Ras' students would be happy with whatever he taught them, as longs as it worked. I think HE thinks they need all of that stuff now, not them. It's like I have to tell my own teachers, "Stop telling them things they don't need, and drill what they need to progress." But Ras, is an expert in everything, so maybe he has a handle on something. Who knows?







			
				doc said:
			
		

> Look I'm a cop, grew up in south central L.A. home of the drive by. NOBODY gets attacked like that. It isn't that bad, ANYWHERE. Rough neighborhoods, sure but comon. You cannot prepare someone for every contingent, and especially as a beginner. Hell that is what is wrong with the motion kenpo teachers. They what if everything, and tell a guys all the things that might happen, and all of the things that he might do to counter, all the things he might encounter. At the end of the day the students walks away with a bunch of nothing. It seems to me more like that is what he wants to do, cause that's the way he likes to teach. Gives him a bunch of stuff to "play" with over the boring process of actually training and building a student over time to be solid. I get that, but it is a lousy model. You can do a thousand front kicks, but only the first twenty or so will be good. The rest are just bad habits being created. And the more stuff you pile on to rep, the worse it gets. Synapsis have to be built slowly first, than stress inoculated, to form a hard wired mind/body connection. Anything else is pure folly.






			
				doc said:
			
		

> Dr. Dave is a great guy with a broad martial art background. You name it, he's done it and was quite accomplished before we met having studied with Mr. Parker and most of the big wigs of the day. But he did something few do. he took the time to seek me out. He questioned some of the things I was saying, but he didn't argue he knew better, he asked permission to come and have a look. We talked he did stuff, I did stuff, and he found a bunch of things he hadn't known or learned before, and incorporates it into his unique blend of the arts quite successfully, while he works on the SL-4 tactical Material. The man has two doctorates, and he asks me questions about how to do things. He doesn't pretend to know it all, and I suspect that's one of the reasons he's so friggin smart. he listens a lot more than he talks, and when he does he ask really direct questions, and has something to say beyond, "Look what I can do." I'm waiting for Ras to begin to explain mechanisms that explain the "how" over do this, this, and you get - that! That's not knowledge, anybody can do that. Some good some bad. He's a thinker, and smart, but he isn't going to get any smarter doing what he's doing. He's missing Jimi, and he's jammin.







			
				doc said:
			
		

> No his point is "somewhere else." My position is, you build competency and forcing the issue has limited effectiveness. Also in my own model default technique for Sword and Hammer, and all the techniques I teach, the model itself covers minor 'what if circumstances.' What if he pushes. - Covered. What if he pulls. - Covered. What if he punches. - Covered. What if he tries to bear hug. - Covered. What if his other foot is forward. - Covered. What if you see him approaching. Covered by another technique to be learned when your skill increases. What if he tosses a grenade. - Not Covered. You cannot force the issue, no matter how much we as teachers want to, or how much a student wants to learn today. That's not how the body learns. Are you in "danger" until you get there? Yep! Answer: Start as soon as you can, train as much as you can, for as long as you can. It's called, "life." You can try to prepare for every contingency and learn nothing, or build real skills you can use a little at a time. To make a student think he is prepared for everything is irresponsible. No one is. I live it every day, and I'm armed 24/7, and still look for the unexpected that I might not have considered. I don't take a shower unless my 40 cal weapon is in a plastic bag with me at home. I don't take baths because I saw the movie "Jaws," and want to be on my feet in case something breaks off while I'm in there. Knowhatimsayin?





Ras, Doc's not being misrepresented, nor are you. The people who disagree with your points (Doc included) are disagreeing with the things you actually said. Granted, I also agree that people interested should go over to KT and have a look. Like MJS, Twin Fist, Thesemindz, myself, and others have done.


But with Doc agreeing with a lot of what your detractors said, your question of whether your detractors have added anything to the conversation is irrelevant. He is saying a lot of what they were saying at the outset. And he definitely IS on of your detractors, that much is clear.

And I didn't post your response because I thought it was a) nothing you hadn't already said on this thread, b) thwarted by KempoGhost, c) quite freaking pompous, in my estimation, and d)didn't represent you well.


----------



## jks9199

Y'know...  There's been one really good point made along the way in all this discussion:



> It's like I have to tell my own teachers, "Stop telling them things they don't need, and drill what they need to progress.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Josh Oakley said:


> If you're so concerned about mischaracterization of the conversation, how come you didn't post KemppGhost's reply to this post, that says he a a majority of the Tracy cats do the same thing?
> 
> And as far as saying your detractors liars, that is crap. And it is poor debate style. You have no problem pointing out where doc's comments support the statements you made that he agrees with.
> 
> You seem a lot more hesitant to point out that Doc thinks the technique you posted is flawed, and might not make it past the first punch. Or that he thinks your whole training methodology is flawed.
> 
> Or that you STILL can't hear jimi, but you keep on jammin.
> 
> 
> To get on people about selectively quoting, and yet selectively quote yourself, is hypocracy.
> 
> Nothing is mischaracterized about Doc's stance. He agrees with you on some points, but definitely would be noted on the side of your detractors:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ras, Doc's not being misrepresented, nor are you. The people who disagree with your points (Doc included) are disagreeing with the things you actually said. Granted, I also agree that people interested should go over to KT and have a look. Like MJS, Twin Fist, Thesemindz, myself, and others have done.
> 
> 
> But with Doc agreeing with a lot of what your detractors said, your question of whether your detractors have added anything to the conversation is irrelevant. He is saying a lot of what they were saying at the outset. And he definitely IS on of your detractors, that much is clear.
> 
> And I didn't post your response because I thought it was a) nothing you hadn't already said on this thread, b) thwarted by KempoGhost, c) quite freaking pompous, in my estimation, and d)didn't represent you well.




I attempted to post the whole page's conversation on this thread, but this site's server was too busy at the time. Therefore I had to content myself with the link to KT and the exhortation to go over and read, taking no one's word--not mine, not yours, not anyone's--over the opinion that that which the readers themselves can and perhaps will formulate when given the opportunity themselves to see firsthand the relevant information. I'm the last one to misrepresent or miscast quotes.

I point out not only where Doc's comments support mine but also repeat that Doc and I don't see eye to eye on quite a few issues. I pointed out specifically, however, that when it comes to matters of Kenpo history? I tend to concede the discussions outright to Doc because he was there for much of it. Not all of it, but much of it and much of the issues that we're contending with on this thread Doc was there for in some significant primary or secondary fashion, IIRC. So I'm not just quoting the posts that Doc and I agree on. If you note, I quoted Doc disagreeing with me too.

I'm fully aware that Doc thinks that, for instance, my ATTACKING TWINS tech is flawed. I have lived the opposite and so have my students and I'm willing to prove it at any time to anyone. This isn't arrogance, it's direct experience, knowledge and confidence. In 10 years of hard training vs pro's in many walks of life, this tech hasn't failed me or to my knowledge my students a single time. Now, Doc may have noted something that was off about the tech...notice he didn't share it when I asked him about it. What's more likely is that he simply misunderstands what I'm doing with the tech in the same sense that he misunderstands what I'm doing with my system.

As I stated...I have the science that verifies that my methods work. It doesn't denigrate or disparage other methods...it simply asserts that my methods work. I also have read numerous works that champion what Doc has indicated his preferred methods are. The difference is? I see that both work. Doc is much less flexible in his opinion on that subject. 

There are major flaws and weaknesses in what I have seen in Doc's SL-4 thus far, but I realize that I could be entirely off base or off base enough to NOT present my impressions as factual statements. I think that many of the techs are too slow and leave you open to counters, leads, takedowns and weapon attacks...but I add the caveat every single time that I could be wrong because I'm only seeing snippets of Doc's stuff. Doc has seen snippets of my stuff and takes concrete positions...and that's fine. But he is most definitely wrong in the same sense that I could be most definitely wrong were I to to take my previous impressions and make them concrete conclusions.

I think that Doc's lack of a submission ground game may be less of an issue for the LEO's that he teaches than the civilians, and I think that deliberately leaving that hole in their martial knowledge could be a disastrous mistake...but not only am I willing to admit and stress that yet again I'm only basing these comments---not conclusions, no more than hypothesis--on viewing snippets of Doc's stuff. Aaaand I'm willing to admit that his stuff may work marvelously regardless of the holes that may be in his system.

None of this is arrogance.

If my response to Doc and others in defense of my position visavis clarification etc struck you as me being quite freakin pompous? That's cool. Have at it. And thanks for refraining under those circumstances, because given that perception? I think that was cool of you to do.

For my part? I know I was being direct honest and can prove my contentions.

Speaking of proving my contentions? I'm not sure what you drew from KenpoGhost's post...but is THIS the post you refer to?




KenpoGhost said:


> @MJS - thanks for the clarifications, that helps put everything in context.
> 
> @Ras - Brother, I like you and I like what you do, but I completely understand why you catch so much flak. But first to answer your question about how I do S&H: I don't. I come from a Tracy-inspired lineage, so S&H isn't in our curriculum. I did, however, spend a year or so studying under Parker/Planas lineage instructors, so I am familiar those particular instructors' interpretations of S&H. I will preface the rest by saying two things: one, that I've never particularly liked S&H - as Doc has pointed out, a hand-sword to the throat in response to a dead hand grab is irresponsible; and two, as my instructor's teacher always said, "if you can't make a technique work, it isn't the technique that's flawed - it's your understanding of it." And I have personally watched him pull off complete, recognizable techniques while sparring with hard contact against multiple black belts simultaneously.
> 
> So, to point one: if we can all agree that a sword-hand to the throat is an inappropriate response to a dead hand grab from the flank, then why is S&H taught this way? My own two cents: as it is one of the first techs taught in many "EPAK" curricula, it is there primarily to teach position recognition and to train to utilize the natural "startle response" to survive the initial attack - which in this case will be a grab from the flank and a PULL (not a push) into a punch. The check and sword-hand combination is particularly close to the body's natural "flinch response" and so is easy to train. So, the objective of the hand-sword is not necessarily to strike the throat, but to defeat the punch. The second part of the tech (the hammer) is used to teach the student to strike to an available target (in this case, the groin, since both of the attacker's hands are high). Now, you may argue that the hammer strike will not be available or, perhaps, not be effective. Says you. My own real-world experience is different. I might argue that your knee strike would not be effective. But that would just be "says me", because your real-world experience shows you different. So who's right and who's wrong. Maybe neither, maybe both. But anyway that brings us to the next point, which I think is the one that MJS wanted addressed and why you tend to catch so much flak, Ras.
> 
> S&H is a dead-hand grab tech that is used to lay the ground work for a workable response to a grab, pull & punch. I understand that you refer to your tech as "Attax Gyms Sword and Hammer" and feel justified because you are using a sword-hand and a hammer-fist formation on your double block. And I think the name fits okay for what you are using it for; the problem comes when you then present your technique as a "fix" for the "EPAK" S&H, because you are really doing a completely different attack. I understand you are using a different training paradigm, and that's okay too. But you need to understand that EPAK uses a different training paradigm and that you are now comparing apples to oranges. S&H isn't meant to defend against the grab, PUSH and punch. So, necessarily, you will need to change it. And as much as I hate to burst your bubble, your S&H doesn't really "fix" thing either. Why, because your S&H already exists. In Tracy kenpo, your 3 responses (push and punch), then pull and punch and then your follow up would be the techniques Opening Cowl, Winding Elbows and Reaching for the Moon. I'm not sure what the corresponding EPAK technique names are anymore (except Opening Cowl corresponds most closely to Twirling Wings), but I know they exist. So, I don't know that the problem is so much in what you do, as in your presentation. 'Cause, really, your while your presentation shows a great attention to what it is YOU DO, it doesn't show an in-depth understanding of the EPAK TRAINING METHODOLOGY. So keep on doing what you do - hey, I like it. But maybe the reason you keep having the same arguments is just that your are trying to argue a point we already agree with, but are arguing from the wrong position. Just a thought. Salute.







ATACX GYM said:


> "Here's what Ras doesn't get. Yes. Mr. Parker wanted you to create your own "Ideal." he said it in print and it is in my archives on the subforum. But, he did publish an outline of each technique to serve as a guide. "Sword and Hammer" is about using a "hand sword, and a hammer-fist" for a flank one handed attack shoulder grab. Now, make that idea work. Don't turn it into defending a round off flip flop because that's not what it is supposed to be. "--Doc Chapel
> 
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! That 'round off flip flop' part had me rofl! And thank you for pointing out that Mr. Parker definitively wanted us to deal with a flank one handed attack shoulder grab. That sounds like an issue of positioning. My tech works well against that scenario too, but if we have to work ONLY that position and use ONLY the hammerfist and handsword for that position? Yep...you're right. My tech ISN'T Mr. Parker's Sword and Hammer.
> 
> You know...that MIIIIGGGHHT be the reason that I call my tech THE ATACX GYM SWORD AND HAMMER RADIUS R.D.L. Cuz it's NOT Mr. Parker's tech. Just a thought, there.
> 
> "Ras is making the same mistake others made. he's what if-ing his own modedl to death, with no definitive answers to anything because he doesn't understand how people learn, not how systems are built and designed. What he is doing is great for him personally, but not for teaching other people. You create skills and then build upon them, a bit at a time. You explore questions, and answer them, a bit at a time giving the student the opportunity to develop mentally first, than physically to match..."--Doc Chapel
> 
> Now you know I'm going to take issue with that, Doc. I'm not What If-ing my model to death, and the answers are definitive precise and clear. They're just not YOUR answers, which is cool. I have a pretty fair grasp as to how people learn--son of a Ph.d. psychologist, learned alot by reading his books and discussing stuff with my Ph.d. Dad and many educators--and I teach my students. All of them would contradict the assessment that I don't know how people learn and I dilute their learning process. But this is an old discussion and old debate Doc. It's the specialist vs the polymath, the sprinter vs the decathlete, the Ph.d. vs The Renaissance Man. I'm the polymath, I'm the decathlete, I'm the Renaissance Man renegade...but with a twist. I respect and incorporate the skills of the specialist, and I learned how to apply them not only deeply but broadly and comprehensively. I'm not the only one either. I didn't innovate this method. I learned of it from specialists who command the fields of performance...psychological, pedagogic, athletic, you name it. You disagree Doc, and that's cool with me. Like I said...we can discuss this matter and debate it in a scholarly fashion if you want. I'm straight up willing to put my scientific data where my mouth is because I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about.
> 
> Right here in front of everyone, I can prove to you and anyone else that doubts me at any point in any way that there are literally thousands of scientists who specialize in their fields who directly contradict your assessment of my approach. There are also thousands who squarely agree with you. What this means is that there is quite a bit of data confirming both methods...and it now comes down to the educator, the Coach, the instructor. How good are they at doing what they claim they can do? I stand behind my methods. You stand behind yours. Difference being? I don't diss your methods and I respect yours. The converse doesn't seem to be true and that's cool...and I don't care. Lol.
> 
> Another difference is: if my White Belt gets tackled by a knife wielding BG? He/she can grapple and already has 4 thousands reps vs specifically stick and knife attacks using the same tech that they learned in Pre-White Level A. How many hours of knife fighting does your White Belts have, Doc? And I respect your methods and I respect YOU, Doc. Like I said before...if not for bruthas like you? I couldn't and wouldn't exist. But I don't agree with your assessments in this area even a little bit. I can bust out my curriculum RIGHT NOW and prove that there are specific steps that I take that assess and properly address the issues that you're bringing up...because you're RIGHT. We DO have to "create skills and then build upon them, a bit at a time. You explore questions, and answer them, a bit at a time giving the student the opportunity to develop mentally first, than physically to match." I 100% agree with that and I have a systemic method of addressing building answering and cultivating all of these.
> 
> They're just not your methods. And they're not supposed to be. But they DO WORK. Proven since before I or even you Doc were born. Rooted in the sciences of high performance, proven over and over and over again at every level. I have the studies. I have the proofs from the scholars to the athletes who used these methods. I'm not remotely exaggerating or in any way engaging in hyperbole. I know where Doc's coming from and I respect his position, I respect the camp of thought from which it sprang...and I disagree to an extent. I see nothing wrong with or any form of impossibility in blending the polymath with the specialist. I'm not the only one, either. Anybody with Google-Fu skills will instantly pull many pages of hard scientific data which takes this post of mine that you're reading right now from 'possible conjecture' to 'scientifically verified'.
> 
> I remember reading of people dissin Richard Marcinko's training methods...until he built Seal Team Six with them. I remember reading of people dissin Charlie Beckwith...until he created Delta Force. I remember reading of people laughing at Boyd. One OODA Loop later? He's having the last laugh. Many people thought that my friend Burton Richardson and his friend Matt Thornton were nuts...until they formed one of the redoubts that expanded the training for both MMA and returning high performance to TMA. And people are doubting and denigrating THE ATACX GYM.
> 
> They will go the way of the doubters and detractors of the aforementioned worthies.
> 
> I remember people telling me that my students couldn't do stuff, just like you are now, Doc. And my students did anyway and wailed on those other guys on top of that. "IT'S NOT JUST WHAT YOU KNOW, IT'S HOW AND WHY YOU TRAIN".
> 
> 
> "What did Mr. Parker say, "I'd rather face a guy who learned a thousand different techniques, than a guy who practiced a single technique a thousand times." Why? because "It's more important to be able to choose the right solution to a problem, then to have all the answers and not know which one to use right now." - Dr. Chapél The type of training he does gives you lots of questions to consider, but how to get students to choose the right answer when they need it, is another story. He may be "special," he may even have "special knowledge" but the human body works one way, no matter how he feels about it."<--Doc Chapel
> 
> ^^^ I AGREE WITH ALOT OF THIS. I really do. Except that I don't think I'm "special" because I've seen hundreds of students over the last 2 decades grasp what I teach and do it quickly. [ Thanks for the oblique possible props though, Doc. We already know YOU'RE special and have done special stuff ]. But again...there is a great deal of scientific knowledge that verifies and advocates my approach...or at the least disputes the contention that the method that I advocate is contrary to how the human body works. I go to school for this stuff right now. I'm not a Doc like you are Doc, but I have access to the latest data. I can prove my words. I'm not kidding, guys and gals, I'm serious.
> 
> The funny thing is? Let's break this mess down. Look at the flank grab attack. Is the worst case unarmed version of the flank grab known colloquially as THE HOCKEY PUNCH? Yes it is. Does my sequence resolve that situation? Yes it does. If you're knocked down, does my Sword and Hammer resolve this scenario? Yes it does. If you're armed does my Sword and Hammer have a proven response? Yes it does...R.D.L.L.P. is the full extent of THE ATACX GYM CQB method and is the martial art wing of THE ATACX GYM R.O.C.S. R.D.L.L.P.= Rock Drop Lock Load and Pop. "Load"=the use of nonfirearm weapons. "Pop"=firearms. Well, if I proved that I can deal with the most dangerous version of flank attack, then any other flank attack is by definition an order of magnitude less and I can handle that too. WITH THE SAME TECH. My Cover and Spin alone will negate your flank attack, whether you push pull attack with a weapon or tackle me. Seriously...are you going to rely on preemptively striking the BG? Not if you have since. I know you don't Doc, but the difference is...I show and prove what I do. I haven't seen your Sword and Hammer. Care to share? If not well...that's unfair man. You get to critique my joint with impunity but you're not putting yours out there.
> 
> If we're gonna get it? Then let's get it. On a level and fair playing field. I'll put my Sword and Hammer out there AAAAANNNND I'll show how I teach it. I'll put the scientific data verifying my position out there. But you gotta do the same so we can do some real comparison and contrasts. I don't mean that with any disrespect Doc, but like you told kenpoOG awhile ago when he commented upon the girth of our Kenpo Elders: [ I'm paraphrasing ] "...my picture and what I look like is public knowledge. It's only fair that you put your picture out for public review too, sir..."
> 
> Now...TWO QUESTIONS:
> 
> 1) Does my Sword and Hammer variant work? Not...do you like it? Not...is it YOUR Sword and Hammer? Does my sequence work? You already know it does. You can hate my guts but I know what I'm talking about, I know what I'm doing, I don't care if you dislike or like me...but you know my joints work. That's just being honest.
> 
> 2) If that's true...if my sequence DOES work, then:
> 
> How can anyone denigrate something that's proven to work in every aspect of the flank attack? I prove my tech in literally every standing position a flank attack can be done
> 
> [video=youtube_share;AuvuhW1u2WE]http://youtu.be/AuvuhW1u2WE[/video]
> 
> Showed how you could do the same thing and clamp on a submission
> 
> [video=youtube_share;R-mmdyIHkjs]http://youtu.be/R-mmdyIHkjs[/video]
> 
> AND the ground
> 
> [video=youtube_share;OgiiyO05OL4]http://youtu.be/OgiiyO05OL4[/video]
> 
> 
> and I DON'T MAKE ANY MAJOR CHANGES.
> 
> Find me ONE Coach/Sensei/Whatever who shows you how to do his/her/their standup tech exactly or very nearly as shown on the ground. And then vs weapons. And then in a clinch. Etc etc. Just one. Either I've stumbled upon a training paradigm breakthrough [ which shows that I might be ' special ' as Doc hypothesized might be special ]...or other people do it because they already know it works.
> 
> 
> LAST QUESTION:
> 
> Find me 2 Kenpo instructors...JUST TWO WILL DO...who shows you how to deal with a 360 degree flank and rear attack, a pushing and pull attack, a surprise attack, an attack [even if it knocks you down] a BG launching stomp attacks, seamlessly has submission holds, seamlessly shows how to NOT break the strictures of honor ethics and the law, etc etc...WITH ONE SINGLE SEQUENCE. The ATACX GYM is one. Now all you have to do is find another one.
> 
> Find me just one.
> 
> Waiting.
> 
> Still waiting.
> 
> Now...how many other Kenpo instructors DON'T teach you how to deal with flank attacks in a 360 degree circle? How many DON'T teach you how to use the same tech to deal with a situation wherein you get dropped, stomped, tackled, etc. How many DON'T show you how to pass guard, defend sub holds, prevent yourself from being shot, how to plant your Bow Stance on the BGs back, etc.
> 
> Lots and lots and lots?
> 
> The question isn't: do these other instructors suck? cuz they DON'T suck. A lot of them are damn good.
> 
> The question IS: IF I DO MORE, AND COVER MORE, HOW COULD I BE IN ANY WAY CONSIDERED LESS OR DOING LESS?
> 
> *it's
> *
> *not
> *
> *possible*
> 
> If good instructors are getting good results by providing a less comprehensive defense then an instructor who provides a more comprehensive response is at least worthy of the same respect provided to those other instructors. That's all I'm saying.






KenpoGhost said:


> Okay, just to chime in again on a few things:
> 
> "I've heard people say that too...that its the understanding of it, vs. the technique itself. 2 people that come to mind are Doc and Clyde. But I think the issue is, unfortunately, a trickle down effect. For example: It would make sense to assume that if you have instructor A, who really understands the system, and he teaches Student 1, that Student 1 would also be like his teacher, so when Student 1 teaches his students, that they too, would be good, have a good undestanding, etc, etc. Problem lies when something happens, then despite the great teacher initially, something happens down the line."
> 
> I think what generally happens is this: most students lack the desire or are unwilling to do the work necessary to be as good as their teacher. Of those that do have the desire and make the effort - many will simply lack the ability. And even if an instructor finds that student that has both the desire, work ethic and physical ability there is still the requirement of experience or "seasoning" as it were. So, if an instructor has 100 students and only 1 of them meets all those criteria, does he stop teaching the other 99 that don't? If he does, then he isn't likely to have much of a lineage and you probably aren't seeing any examples of his kenpo out on the net. If he does continue to teach the other 99, then you have 1 student that may eventually match/surpass his teacher and 99 that will either leave the art or pass on a sub-par variant of the art. And the 1 student that has it all going for him? When he becomes the teacher he ends up facing the same problem.
> 
> "My point was if I did S&H and Ras did his S&H, would that 3rd party watching, know what he was doing?"
> 
> No. No they would not. The fact that I was able to identify what Ras was doing as 3 separate techs in the Tracy system (none of which resemble S&H) I think illustrates that point. That's not to say I don't like what Ras was doing-just that I don't recognize it as "EPAK S&H".
> 
> "Yeah Ras went through the same thing over here as well. He doesn't do EPKK, that is clear. What he doesn't get is he insists on using the terminology and technique names, while giving many the impression he is fixing EPKK. His teaching method from a systemic perspective is also extremely flawed, and there is a great deal of knowledge he doesn't have. He sees what he does as just a series of technique movements, and insists we don't understand him and puts up a bunch a videos that confirm what we already know, that many before him have done - with the same amount of success. But, everyone has to be comfortable in their method, and the smart figure out when it is no good - eventually - &#8203;I hope."
> 
> Ras, know you ain't gonna like this, but have to agree with Doc on this one. What you do may be kenpo, but it clearly isn't "EPAK." And, whether you mean to give the impression or not, it is also quite clear that many people do indeed believe that you think you are "fixing EPAK." You stated that you come from a BKF/Tracy/EPAK/bunch of other stuff background. That can be both a positive and negative thing. It's great to get the best of multiple system/ideologies. However, often that comes at the cost at not ever getting a COMPLETE picture of any single system/methodology. And, IMO, that is clearly the case in your presentations. There is no clear understanding of how/why EPAK is structured or taught the way it is. You keep reinventing the wheel. And your wheel is no better (or worse) than any other wheel. The problem is, though, that the vehicle you put that wheel on may indeed be better or worse.
> 
> Which leads to my last point:
> "LAST QUESTION:
> Find me 2 Kenpo instructors...JUST TWO WILL DO...who shows you how to deal with a 360 degree flank and rear attack, a pushing and pull attack, a surprise attack, an attack [even if it knocks you down] a BG launching stomp attacks, seamlessly has submission holds, seamlessly shows how to NOT break the strictures of honor ethics and the law, etc etc...WITH ONE SINGLE SEQUENCE. The ATACX GYM is one. Now all you have to do is find another one.
> Find me just one.
> Waiting.
> Still waiting."
> 
> Wait no more. And I can do better than to just find a single instructor. I can give you a whole system. Tracy's curriculum does indeed show you how to deal with a 360 degree flank and rear attack. It's called Attacking the Circle, and it is clearly an application of S&H. But it's not just S&H that we do it with: Crossing Talon (wrist grab) becomes Crossing the Sun (overhead club), Rocker (one-handed push), Chinese L-Choke (2-hand rear choke), Wing Break (flank grab)etc; Five Swords (right punch) becomes Snapping Twig (left push), Crashing Eagle (2-hand rear choke), Encircling Arms (tackle), etc. However, there is a reason that we don't simply teach "Crossing Talon" against every variation of attack at once: when you alter the attack you need to modify the defense. Yes, you are still working with a basic "pattern" of motion and you probably could pull of and adequate rendition of Five Swords against a 2-hand rear choke with no modifications. But Crash of the Eagle takes the nuances of the 2-hand rear choke and adjusts the already learned pattern to more effectively deal with that specific attack. Again, it's a different training methodology. One that's been tried and refined. You may disagree. And that's fine. What works for you works for you and I'm not disputing that. I think that's great. And I think it's great that it works for your students. But one thing you might want to consider is that the reason that it may work for your student's isn't necessarily that your technique or your training method is better, but that you just tend to attract very like-minded individuals with similar capabilities to your own. Not saying that's the case, but might be something to think about.






ATACX GYM said:


> Whaddup KG! I like your post as usual. And I like MJS' post...also as usual.
> 
> If you did your S&H and I did my S&H...would a 3rd party recognize mine? Depends on who the 3rd party is and how they trained.
> 
> That's the crux and the key. Is the Sword and Hammer ONLY the deployment of that particular combo vs ONLY a specific attack and nothing more? Depends on who you ask.
> 
> Here's something else: can I do the more common version of Sword and Hammer? Clearly I can. It requires less than my variant does. If I and my students can do more, than it follows that we can do less. And right there we have the answer: performance. If we can do a more complex tech correctly against resistance and do it reliably over and over again then the issue of whether or not we can and have learned the lessons of a less involved sequence is automatically answered in the same sense that a quantum physicist has already answered whether or not he or she can do algebra...simply by doing quantum physics.
> 
> The converse is NOT true.
> 
> Most kenpoists DO NOT spar with their SD techs, therefore their claims that I haven't learned the lessons extant in a less involved tech is simply disproved by my ability to proficiently perform my version...which is more difficult and more comprehensive by a stretch.And yo KG I actually DO LIKE the fact that you pointed out my hybrid background and Attacking the Circle. I've known that tech for 34 years or so now. Lolol. Btw the Tracys don't show their techs wholesale on the ground, don't have the subholds and don't have the weaponry intrinsic to their system that mine does, so...you only answered part of my question. I'm still waiting for an answer for the majority of my question.
> 
> And there IS a possibility that martial artists with backgrounds similar to mine could basically take a buffet menu approach and snag a little here and there without sufficiently delving into the depths of each dish. In fact? It's a distinct danger.
> 
> But my background isn't one of those.
> 
> I learned the whole system of Parker Kenpo. Step by step. Every set, every form, every tech. I was mandated to do so. I'm very good with the traditional form of Sword and Hammer and every single other tech. I know how to fight with it. This is why I have made the changes that I have. I used them as a platform, and--through sparring against other Kenpoists and other stylists--immediately [ like at age 8 ] was exposed to the limits in the traditional approach. Note that I said the traditional approach imo is limited. Not the art. Not the techs. The approach. The training paradigm.
> 
> I learned every other art I study...every one...step by step. And what I saw immediately was that there were techs at all ranks and especially low ranks which other systems didn't have and which exploited weaknesses in and complimented strengths of other arts.
> 
> For instance, the Tang Soo Do guys I trained with tended to kick with more emphasis on power than my TKD brethren, but my TKD brethren had better combinations and a larger arsenal of kicks. TSD and TKD had terrific breakfalls, TSD focused on harder linear punching but TKD the self defense art had more joint breaks [ yeah, TKD has lotsa standing joint breaks ].
> 
> HKD was the most complete striking-grappling system I was exposed to while growing up, but the HKD guys who could strike really well didn't grapple that well, and vice versa.
> Boxing had the best hands and the best and most reliable training methods, hands down. Boxing was also my very first martial art. I still box. Love boxing.
> 
> Each art exposed holes in the other's training paradigm and skill sets. Boxers would knock your head off...unless you kicked or tackled them. Etc etc. You guys know the deal.
> 
> I would watch this kind of thing happen all the time and I asked once..."Soooo...what if the Hapkidoka grabs you and throws you?" My boxing coach said:"He kain't grab you if you knock him da **** out." My Kenpo, TKD, TSD and hybrid guys said basically the same thing.
> 
> I asked the HKD guys:"Why don't you move your head move and use hook punches and jab?" The answer was: if you block you don't have to move your head, and if you train right? You'll kick grab throw and tackle the guy who jabs you.And the HKD guys proceeded to throw almost everyone, too.
> 
> And that kept happening for the most part. Sometimes the strikers would knock the HKD guy out, sometimes the strikers would last longer...but 7,8 out of 10 times the strikers would get taken down and out. So I kept asking and kept being told that the strikers who got taken down didn't practice their art well enough and the HKD guys kept telling me that the pure strikers lacked proper training.But I could see--clear as day--where HKD guys were open to being hit. They didn't move their head or protect their nads enough. Their legs were exposed to joint kicks. They weren't mobile enough on their feet. They didn't have the conditioning and firepower of boxers. They didn't have the kicking and striking arsenal of my striking brethren, although they could kick and strike pretty good.
> 
> I was too young to do anything other than trust in the word of my seniors and work diligently at my craft. But I never shook the belief that there should be a single training paradigm that encompasses all of this stuff and doesn't take forever to do.
> 
> As a Coach and Head Coach, I noted the reality that noobs are the ones most likely to get tackled. Noobs are the most likely to get knifed. The people who are most likely to have bad stuff happen to them in a SD situation are the noobs. Multifights, straight beat up in 1 on 1 fights. It's the noobs who get toasted first and fastest and hurt the most. They couldn't wait to [ Whatever ] Belt to learn how to slip punches, to defend tackles, to wield and defend against weapons,etc. They had to fight from off their backs NOW, to take down the BG NOW, to apply subgrappling now,to multifight now, to roll breakfall escape and rescue NOW.
> 
> I resolved to craft the kind of training paradigm that I noted that I needed and many others did too when I was growing up.
> 
> The need is even more prevalent now that martial arts and MMA has proliferated to the point that elementary school kids are recognizing SUPERMAN PUNCHES,armbars, triangle chokes, MT clinches and takedowns. The chances that MMA emulating meatheads would bully kids or become criminals is at a high and getting higher. The need for immediate comprehensive and versatile skills that can be built upon for life is paramount.
> 
> Therefore, the reason that my techs look different is because they ARE different.
> 
> The reason that my sequences function exactly as shown vs multiple stimuli is because they were first tested vs multiple stimuli and designed with that goal in mind.
> 
> Because...a student may have to scrap right now with what you taught them and they may have only learned 3 techs and maybe one sequence. But each and every tech and sequence is primed and ready to go in virtually any situation and the student is likewise mentally physically and emotionally set. They aren't just regurgitating a tech, they have sparred and trained and they've made cognitive connections and they know how to adjust adapt and get down in exactly the same way that you'd expect your students to be able to pull off a block and reverse punch on the street. That's what I think I've achieved.
> 
> So when you point out the Tracys? Well yeah they were part of the influence I drew from in the formulation of my paradigm. Mr. Parker's IIIK Book 4 page 130 has graphics about this too. 360 degrees of self defense was basic in my upbringing, but what didnt happen and wasn't even considered was translating the standup techs nearly wholesale into groundfighting. I completely agree about the nuances addressed in Crash of the Eagle and other wonderful techs...and that's part of my point. I bet that had the Tracys' considered and/or known the intricacies of groundfighting and if the threat of grappling multifights and weapon attacks were as prevalent then as they are now? The Tracys and people like the Tracys would have considered those realities while fashioning their techs...and their techs would be different and more capable as a result. And everyone would sing their praises.
> 
> Unless their name was The ATACX GYM. Lol.
> 
> My entire system is built upon the supposition that my techs have to deal with every and any kind of attack...and it has to be done at the novice rank and with novice techs. Then built all the way up to the highest levels. Right off top, that requires a sharp shift in training paradigm and right off top it produces a more comprehensively skilled martial artist. This is a good thing...and many other people are doing it too. And yes, it is wholly and entirely possible that I attact more likeminded people purely because of my training paradigm [ but most people have no idea about the specifics of what I teach, they just heard through word of mouth that I'm good ], but that doesn't change the fact that said training paradigm is more versatile and at least as comprehensive as the more traditional training models.


----------



## ATACX GYM

KenpoGhost said:


> Sorry, Ras, but gonna have to call you on a few points here. You say that you learned the entirety of the EPAK curriculum and every other art you studied. Fine. I'll take your word for that. But it is clear that you don't have a complete understanding of the Tracy system. Tracy's does indeed have an extensive ground-fighting curriculum, and always have had. We can go into the history of why the ground-game was de-emphasized for a time, but most here already know it. And the ground-game was never eliminated, you just had to want to learn it. Mr. Tracy, just like Mr. Parker, came from a wrestling/Judo background. He is extremely knowledgable about the ground game. I know, because I've rolled with him. And I also come from a wrestling background. Same with weapons. It's very dangerous to assume that everything you learned is everything they know. As you said, you use a different training paradigm. Glad you said others were doing it too. I already knew that, though. Some of them were even doing it before you were. You can believe that your paradigm is better, but again that depends on "better for what". I'm not disputing that it's better for you or for others that share similar goals, etc. And I'm not going to pretend I'm qualified to judge whether it is better in any other respects. There are others, though that may. And, honestly, Tracy's follows a very different training paradigm than most EPAK isntructors I know. Speaking of Mr. Tracy personally, he's very much "if I show you one corner of the room and you can't find the other three, I don't have time for you." Or, as Doc has said about Mr. Parker "if you don't ask the right questions, I can't give you the answers." Then again, if you ask the right questions, he's very forthcoming. It's very much a Chinese-influenced thing. And again, your paradigm might be better for what you need, but that in and of itself doesn't mean it produces better or more versatile or comprehensively skilled artists. That's a very subjective thing. You might produce more effective student more quickly than the average Tracy/EPAK studio, but then again you are admitting that most kenpo people don't practice sparing with techs or breakfalls or weapons, etc. I do. I know others that do. And I'm glad you do. Like you said - maybe I'm not the person you're speaking to. But then again, maybe most of the guys here aren't either. But keep on keeping on, brother. You make me think and question what I do. Sometimes it confirms what I'm already doing. Sometimes it makes me go back and reconsider things or try something new. That's never a bad thing.




aaand the response:




ATACX GYM said:


> Oooops, my bad KG. As always, I respect your posts and your opinions...even during the few times that I disagree. Same with both Docs,sumdumguy, Thesemindz, jdinca,LuckyK, MarkC,profesormental and lotsa others here.
> 
> I did NOT learn the Tracy system step by step. I thought I made that clear when I said I hadn't heard of "Reaching for the Moon" in LIFE. Let me clarify...the arts that I mentioned specifically [ Parker Kenpo,Functional TKD, Functional TSD,Functional HKD, boxing, Judo, wrestling, Functional Capoeira, SKK, Hung Gar, etc ] these arts I've learned from the ground up...in oftentimes a much more traditional way than how I present them. I'm still learning iaido now, and I'm constantly going back to Earp's spot [ I call our gun range head pistolero Wyatt Earp, and he calls me "mini-B.A." as in B.A. BARACHAS from The A-Team lolol. Beats the hell outta being called "giant-B.O." like Body Odor] to learn more and more.
> 
> For some reason, the Tracy system was NOT something I learned top to bottom...but I would have liked to. And I was and am heavily influenced by some of their training models and many of their techniques I've been shown without even knowing their names. Or maybe the names were changed to reflect the changes that were made in the sequence. I have never ever ever seen a single Tracy ground tech. Ever [ unless it was shown to me without attributing it to The Tracys ]. Are you saying that The Tracys were grappling even in the 80's? Did they teach their students ground and standup grappling to submission? It's my understanding just recently--yesterday--when talking to a Tracy friend of mine that they do not translate their SD sequences wholesale to the ground, to weapon use etc etc. My friend was adamant about this. He said that I am absolutely the only one he's ever even heard of who does such a thing and set out to do exactly that. Is this also your experience, KG?
> 
> Most of what I do I know I personally saw a precedent for, so I didn't get the feeling that my stuff was all that different or whatever as I climbed the ranks [ rank is something else I don't care for; once I got to Instructor/Coach skill level? That's all I cared about. Master this and Professor that? Yeah whatever dawg have fun with that ]. I didn't think that what I'm doing now was all that different than what alot if not most people were doing, and I didn't learn differently until I ventured forth from my old home dojos. I knew almost nothing of Kenpolitics until I arrived onsite, and I knew zero of most Kenpo names. Mr. Sumner,Planas, and most of those guys? Never heard of them until I got here. Tatum? Vaguely heard his name, along with Spry. Pretty much it was Bruce Lee, Mr. Parker, The Tracys, Doc and the BKF whose names rang in my circles...and Doc's name rang the loudest. But 95% of our focus was on the mat...the other names came up only during historical discussions. We were busy doing, and not giving a damn about politicking. I'm still like that today, so I tend to say things that can wholly offend people and I don't even know it because I've always been raised with the belief that all that yakkity yakk has to be shown and proven on the mat FIRST; then you can talk. Our best and most common--and still to this day my favorite and most used--method of underlining our skills was simply to first go out on the mat and take on all comers.
> 
> Now when I say "most Kenpo schools this" and "most Kenpo schools that"...what I'm referring to more specifically is "most Kenpo schools who follow the training paradigm and methods as I understand them in the context of the discussion that we're discussing in this thread". Now since the above is a mouthfull? I tend to say it once or ride off of another poster whose alread said or implied such and then not repeat it again every time that it's applicable. It's my understanding from what I've seen over the last 20 years and what I've read on this site and others over the last few years while cruising the net that most Kenpo schools do not seamlessly craft their techs with empty hand h2h, weapons, multifights, groundfighting and groundgrappling, escape, rescue...rescue AND escape, etc etc in mind. I do. That alone dramatically transforms many of the techs that I have and which I teach. When I share these techs, most of the time people are like:"That's cool Ras! Never seen Kenpo like yours before!" Which used to kinda baffle me because the first thing I'm thinking is:"How old is your teacher?" Because I took it for granted that instructors fought and they knew that grappling ,multifights, nonfirearm and firearm weaponry are a reality that we need to address from the ground floor up.
> 
> And then there was that vocal minority who'd screech at me:"That's not Kenpo and that's not what we learned and you don't know Kenpo and you suck and blah blah blah.." which [ if you guys recall ] was literally the first wave of responses that I got when I asked a simple question of the IKCA guys shortly after my arrival here. You guys already know how shy I'm not so I replied with one of my patented ATACX GYM zingers and off we go. It was from a combination of the former [ much more numerous group ] and the noisy latter [ they made noise out of all proportion to their size, like The Tea Party stereotypes do, lololol. Okay all you for real Tea Partyers? This is a disclaimer: I'm j/k so don't get your TP-Defender Bot mode on, okay? ] that I began to conclude that my methods are now not only distinctly in the minority but perhaps wholly new in some areas.
> 
> In my subsequent studies and searches, I have yet to find anyone else with a training paradigm as different and comprehensive as mine. But I note that I don't see anyone with say Rob's training method except him,and only SL-4 guys do their stuff...but my stuff is the one that ticks people off or shocks people the most. The reason is that my stuff has an expression that is much different than that of many Kenpoists because it includes more [ so kill that argument about how I don't understand stuff, guys and gals...I do understand and very well ] but I use the names that I've always used and was brought up with.
> 
> Nobody put too much stock in the name of a tech beyond its pnuemonic value and what it's supposed to teach, where I come from. If your 5 Swords was different than mine? We didn't quibble about the name...we wanted to know if it worked, how it worked, why it worked and how well it worked. Then we'd see why you called your joint YOUR 5 Swords. Never have I heard that I had to look similarly to Joe Blow down the street just because we used part of a name that was similar...until I got online.
> 
> So...I don't care about allat either. I'll keep calling my techs what I always called them. Just so happens that almost 95% of my tech names are NOT similar to the Parker System joints. But where they are? Not changing them. I already made distinctions by calling them ATACX GYM [INSERT TECH NAME] RADIUS R.D.L. And if that's not sufficient for you guys who are harping on the name? Sorry...kinda. But that's how it is. Themz the breaks.







flying crane said:


> The Tracys taught groundwork in the context of how they learned and trained it under Mr. Parker. There is no comprehensive ground grappling system like you might see in JJ. Rather, it is a limited curriculum of falling and scrambling to get back up to your feet to carry the fight from there. If you are looking for a more comprehensive ground game to submission, you will be disappointed. However, the limited curriculum follows the concept that we do not wish to be on the ground, so we have a stragety for breaking away and getting back to our feet. That's really it.
> 
> From Ted Sumner, I understand that is how things were trained in the early days when the Tracys trained under Mr. Parker. Lots if falling and rolling and kicking from the ground, etc. That is how Ted trained with the Tracys in the early 1960s, and Ted still includes that in what he teaches now. Much of this did not get codified into specific SD techs, it was just the "groundwork" that was done, and if people are strictly following the written curriculum, then they missed out on this part of it.






ATACX GYM said:


> ^^^This is gold and squares with my experiences growing up. The HKD guys would throw the crap outta the Kenpo and TKD guys...the Kenpo guys would oftentimes be smashed by the throw until they and the TKD guys dusted off their breakfalling [ not just rolling, BREAKFALLING ] skills. And then the HKD guys would have to follow the Kenpo guys to the mat and apply a subhold but alot of times the Kenpo guys would lash out wolverine style from off their backs and scramble to their feet. They'd have to get lasso'd and slammed a couple of times before the HKD guys and Judo guys could pull off a kesagatame and subhold.
> 
> Part of what I specifically set out to do was to marry groundFIGHTING with groundGRAPPLING all the way to weapons [inclusive of firearms ] armed multifights, subholds etc. All with the same tech. And you can see the Tracy/old skool Parker/Oshita/Chow influence in that I have a main sequence and have a RADIUS [ 360 degree radius ] and R.D.L.L.P. [ ROCK with your strikes DROP/Displace/Destroy with your takedowns slams throws displacement techs, LOCK with your subholds and locks, LOAD your nonfirearm weapons, and POP with your firearm weaponry ] mandate for every sequence.






KenpoGhost said:


> Ras, thanks for some of the clarification. I think I may not have fully understood some of your points. As Flying Crane pointed out, the CODIFIED ground curriculum in Tracy's concentrates mainly on breakfalls and getting back to one's feet. Although striking and kicking from the ground as well as different scissoring and step-over holds are also present. In that respect, that you codify this info may indeed be unique. However, it would be erroneous to assume that the codified material represents the entirety of the Tracy's knowledge. Again, the Tracys came from a wrestling background and Parker from a Judo background. The Tracy's also did further study of grappling and weapons after the split from EPAK. However, not all of their information is readily available. Again, in my experience, Mr. Tracy follows a very Chinese approach to teaching. Again, it's about asking the right questions. I specifically asked him about whether of not kenpo had had grappling at one time and if so, why we no longer see it. What I got was not only a history lesson, but also a lesson in grappling (and I already had a wrestling background). Specifically, he spent a lot of time showing how kenpo and judo flow back and forth. Afterward, on his recommendation, I did some training with a very knowledgeable judoka (Mr. Tracy recommended further study into Judo, but I had to find the instructor on my own). Since I asked Mr. Tracy about grappling (as kenpo specializes in striking), I asked my Judo instructor about striking. Again, it's about asking the right questions. Amazing thing is how much his atemi-waza resembled the kenpo with which I was already familiar. The problem was never that the info wasn't there - it's just that a large majority of the students weren't interested in learning it. I've had Judo instructors tell me the same thing about striking in Judo.


----------



## Twin Fist

you lost this one, either man up and humble up and admit it, or, not

seriously, you are verging on being a punch line at this point.


----------



## Josh Oakley

At this point, I'm convinced Ras just isn't listening. Ras, much love for you... but I'm out of this one. Back to lurker status.


----------



## Twin Fist

agreed


----------



## Josh Oakley

Twin Fist said:


> agreed



You and I agreeing on something. That's a bit of a new experience!  Lol


Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## ATACX GYM

Josh Oakley said:


> At this point, I'm convinced Ras just isn't listening. Ras, much love for you... but I'm out of this one. Back to lurker status.



Ohhh...Ras was listening. I was simply patiently waiting for someone to make the final step so that I could wrap everything up in a single, decisive response.

And sure enough...







 Originally Posted by *Doc*

But I suspect you're not trying to turn a yellow belt into an know-it-all urban ninja because of what MIGHT happen one day. I know, I'll each you calculus while you're learning to add and subtract, because you may need to address a complex math problem immediately. You never know right? RAS doesn't understand life. You can't start at the top of the mountain, no matter how badly you need to be there right now. "But you don't understand, I need to defend myself against everything today." OK, than I'll show you everything today, but what will you have at the end of the day. No matter how urgent some might think they need it now, if you give them too much you are doing them a disservice. I suspect, Ras' students would be happy with whatever he taught them, as longs as it worked. I think HE thinks they need all of that stuff now, not them. It's like I have to tell my own teachers, "Stop telling them things they don't need, and drill what they need to progress." But Ras, is an expert in everything, so maybe he has a handle on something. Who knows?




ATACX GYM said:


> Okay I had to answer this one...because this in several crucial areas is WAY OFF. Allll of the way off. Not even close. I mean that respectfully too.
> 
> Listen up. Cuz this is simple.
> 
> Learning to use your inside block to also block a knife attack is common sense, not paranoia.
> 
> Learning to use your inside block to stop the clinch is common sense...not paranoia.
> 
> Learning to do all of this with one tech is efficient intelligent and common sense...not overtraining. Not rushing your student. It's literally not so.
> 
> It's not contrary to how the human body learns and it has nothing whatsoever to do with anything other than a sensible training paradigm. If that were so? Then I couldn't do it and neither can my students. But we've been doing it for decades. Observe how the human body can learn these movements in a matter of moments:
> 
> [video=youtube_share;kEZ-zAUEkR4]http://youtu.be/kEZ-zAUEkR4[/video]
> 
> If others don't wanna do it? Cool have at it. But claims that it's contrary to how humans learn or it's starting at the top of the mountain are flawed. It's a common sense, easy to grasp, training paradigm that literally takes less than 15 minutes to do. So when people say that stuff, it reflects their own preferences experiences and training paradigms...and that's cool. Respect to that if that's how they do things and best of luck. If it works? Even better and more props to you.
> 
> Learning to stop the takedown, strike, and submit is so common that it's the world's fastest growin money combat sport and it's called MMA...but when I say I can and do do it with my Kenpo and I've been doing it BEFORE MMA took off? Somehow it's sheer lunacy to some. To me? That says alot more about where they're at than where I'm at. Again, that's not being disrespectful that is just direct honest talk.
> 
> When you take the rules off MMA, add weapons and multifights and use it for the streets, does that make you paranoid or some slobbering ninja wannabe?
> 
> NO
> 
> [video=youtube_share;a1fA42Q_NEE]http://youtu.be/a1fA42Q_NEE[/video]
> 
> 
> 
> [video=youtube_share;hq1yqcWfMlI]http://youtu.be/hq1yqcWfMlI[/video]
> 
> 
> My martial arts brethren, there are very well researched, very sensible, very progressive, very results oriented methods of approaching martial arts that aren't the norm for Kenpoists...and accepted by military and LEO groups. And they're also fully functional and viable for citizens. That's cool. That's laudable. Me? I try to learn from that stuff too. Those guys in the above video do much of the stuff I talk about and which I do. It's a different paradigm but a very viable effective laudable and good paradigm.
> 
> And Doc? Unlike me...those guys are NOT an expert at everything. And yeah, me and them CAN hear Jimi AND we can play classical music and international music besides. Cuz we like music and realize that there's more than one style of music out there; and the more instruments that you can play well? The better musician you are. Lololololol. [ Yall Doc Defender-Bots chill I'm just pokin fun at him and he's just messin with me too ].
> 
> 
> When you add in pistols and CQB and cop stuff to the above? You're STILL not paranoid or a ninja. You get Burton mixed with THIS guy:
> 
> [video=youtube_share;1RROfS6tznw]http://youtu.be/1RROfS6tznw[/video]
> 
> 
> [video=youtube_share;3RrY80wvoVI]http://youtu.be/3RrY80wvoVI[/video]
> 
> 
> When you add Kenpo and Capoeira and stuff to those guys above? You know you might get something like THIS guy
> 
> [video=youtube_share;OgiiyO05OL4]http://youtu.be/OgiiyO05OL4[/video]
> 
> 
> Okay.
> 
> 
> Now, does any of the above mean that anybody's paradigm invalidates anybody else's?
> 
> NO.
> 
> Does any of the above mean that just because you train to do more than one thing, you're somehow paranoid or less scientific or less technique oriented than anybody else?
> 
> NO
> 
> In order to do more correctly? You HAVE TO LEARN TECHNIQUES AND TECHNIQUE INTEGRATION MORE INTENSIVELY.
> 
> Does doing high reps result in reduced technical skill?
> 
> NO. NOT IF YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING AND YOU EMPLOY A TRAINING PARADIGM DESIGNED TO REMOVE THAT CONCERN SUCCESSFULLY
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^^I do a whoooolllle looot of this with martial arts techs. Been doing it since 1994.
> 
> Okay, now that we established that this is being done and it can be done well and you don't have to be some kind of weirdo to train this way, let's no bring that stuff up again anymore. We're not talking about good kenpo vs bad kenpo, traditionalists vs the renegade ATACX GYM CQB.
> 
> What we're REALLY talking about is training methods and paradigms, and the preferences and loyalties that they engender. And I know that we all energetically defend our preferred method. Alright cool. Have at it and enjoy. However, none of that should preclude us having adult conversations which make it extra difficult to have a straightforward conversation--even when we have spirited disagreements about stuff--that precludes or makes it difficult for us to learn stuff of value from each other that we may not have known previously.
> 
> Oh yeah...Doc...remember all that about how science proves that my method is contrary to how the human body learns? Wellllll....
> 
> http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/5858.aspx
> 
> 
> The paradigm showed here proves that complex learning skills are learned quickly and adjustments are made quickly but not as quickly as in lower intensity environments. It also shows that we humans very quickly learn to correct and generalize to other similar movements and do so within a very very short period of time. Which squares 100% with my step by step progression and my whole contention about the specific way in which I build chains.
> 
> I have literally hundreds of pieces of scientific research validating my position here. It's not a question. It's verified scientific data. I told you guys that I'm not kidding, that I have hundreds of studies that verify my position.
> 
> And yes before anyone asks? My training paradigm has corrected the conditions shown and NO I didn't innovate it I just altered and applied it...which is technically innovation but I'm not the originator of the methods which spawned my variant which results in synergistically combining multiple methods and putting that ATACX GYM flava twist on it.
> 
> Okay. Now that THAT'S over...does any of this deny the scientific veracity of Doc's position? Does it mean that there's nothing to learn from Doc?
> 
> NO. It simply proves that there are other valid ways...and learning is perpetual.
> 
> Doc...remember when a certain Kenpo luminary from a organization that you founded once said that you thought that you could learn to fight by reading books and going to school? Remember that criticism [ you should, the person who is credited with the quote is very well known and a BKF man] ? Well, I disagreed in the dojo with this person and before they kicked me out? I pointed out that it seems to me that you're marrying technical knowledge with combat skill and however talented or knowledgeable a person is...without study? You won't be AS knowledgeable as someone like you in certain areas and those "certain areas" could really provide a qualitative difference. I'm thinking that knowing what would happen to the Bladder if I hit it just so and tilt your hips back thusly can help me overcome the Golgi tendon's reflex when I'm trying to break your arm cuz you're trying to knife me or shoot me might be some information I wanna know. Ya heard me?
> 
> Well...your approach was touted by many and actually done by few. And understood by far less.Let's be real and say almost nobody in the Kenpo world knows close to what you know about your stuff. Including moi.
> 
> Well,I'm doing something similar...in the sense that next to nobody else is doing it and there is a great deal of blowback just because I'm doing it and sharing my findings and asserting my positions. And very few people know what I know about my stuff. Including you.
> 
> So let's share. Let's talk. All of us. One and all. Let's get better together. We don't have to adopt each other's style or method, but we can LEARN something from each other and APPLY IT to our stuff. That's what I've been saying since day one. Literally. Search my posts.
> 
> Cuz that's a Kenpo Lab and that's what I came here for.
> 
> 
> So if guys think that my ATTACKING TWINS is flawed? That's GOOD man. We can work that out. I might learn something, and I can prove that it DOES work so they can learn something too...if both parties are willing to learn.
> 
> Now...even my detractors have to acknowledge this. I do take in what's being said and I have made changes along the lines of some of what my critics have offered; whether the criticism was meant to be constructive or not. The converse has not happened a single time...even when I've been proven to be right. So yeah I will learn. Yeah I will change.
> 
> But you gotta show me what you mean and prove it, just like I have to/should have to do with you.
> 
> AND THAT'S GOOD.
> 
> Discussion and debate is good. Idc how many of you guys jump on the 'diss ATACX GYM' train, makes me not a single nevermind...like the old saying goes. Lolol. What IS important is that the discussion is happening. People are thinking interacting reflecting growing...and hopefully not reflexively hewing to their positions just because it's their positions.
> 
> Doc. You called me out and corrected me on Big Red and The Ideal Phase. I thank you for that. You schooled me on a bunch of stuff and I learned from you. I hope to STILL learn from you, but if you don't wanna share with me? That's cool too. I still respect you as a Kenpo Elder.
> 
> But you said stuff regarding my training model which is proveably untrue. Just as you said that you would challenge me to go beyond:" Look at me"...I will challenge you to go beyond: "Because I said." And I will challenge you to substantiate the claims that you make in the name of science. Not because I don't think you know what you're talking about, but its' that "Because I said" ain't hackin it. No good martial artist will take that at face value if they're serious about their path, imo.
> 
> So expect that challenge. The moment it looks like you said "Because I said" that challenge is coming. Every time, man. Every single time. With respect, but with rigor. You said in several posts over the last year that you don't want YES MEN and that you enjoy discussions and challenges. Well, you'll get that in spades from me.
> 
> "Don't call it a comeback...I been here for years..."




I hope this post clarifies matters.


----------



## Josh Oakley

We've both already read that. You're still not listening. Back to lurking, because the roundabout is at this point ridiculous.


----------



## Chris Parker

Hmm, I take a couple of days off, and this is what happens? 

Ras, you still haven't listened to a single thing that I have said from the beginning. That's the issue. So, to that end, I'm going to say it one more time. Do try to listen, son.

But first, to answer Mike.



MJS said:


> I just have 2 things to say:
> 
> 1) Regarding my take on what I thought you were asking...lol...yeah, looks like I may've misunderstood you.   To be honest, I never really gave the question much thought, though it is a good question you asked.


 
Welcome to my way of looking at techniques and martial arts, my friend...  



MJS said:


> 2) From a non Kenpo point of view, in your opinion, what do you feel are the lessons presented in the standard S&H?



Sure. In fact, to steal out of Ras' playbook, here's one I prepared earlier (post 246, way back on page 17....):



Chris Parker said:


> Right, now we're down to it...
> 
> Ras, to be completely blunt, this is the core of your problems, and the absolute evidence that you are not in any way right. In the slightest. Let's demonstrate, as you seem rather ignorant of what, or even how a technique teaches it's lessons.
> 
> The lessons of EPAK Sword and Hammer are numerous, but some that are immediately apparent are as follows:
> - When grabbed, capture the grabbing hand for psychological and physical control.
> - When being pulled, go with the energy of that pull.
> - The use of pre-emptive striking as a tactic.
> - The application of strikes to weak areas that are difficult to build up (throat, groin, solar plexus or floating ribs in other versions).
> - Choose powerful, high-return targets.
> - Drop your weight when being pulled to retain your balance
> - Choose appropriate weapons to the targets.
> - Use two strikes to respond, with the first being an "interrupting" strike, the second being a "stopping" strike, allowing the escape.
> 
> Your version, though Ras...
> - Does not feature the covering grab to the attackers grabbing hand (sometimes called the "controlling" hand), so you miss this lesson.
> - Does not "go with the pull", as you actually go in the opposite direction to the energy of the pull after it has stopped.
> - Does not use pre-emptive striking, even though that is a fundamental lesson and integral element of Sword and Hammer, and a huge part of what makes the technique what it is... hence my first comments saying that what you are doing is something completely different.
> - Uses a range of strikes to multiple targets without looking specifically to the results or the effect.
> - Uses Swordhand and Hammerfist strikes seemingly only to justify it being called Sword and Hammer, rather than those weapons being appropriate to the targets chosen. Your first usage is to have a Swordhand and Hammerfist raised against the grabbing arm, despite there being no benefit whatsoever.
> - Uses multiple strikes, continuing on to grappling in some occasions, rather than a couple of deliberately chosen strikes to escape from the grab.
> 
> This has been my point. You miss every single beat of the very reason that Sword and Hammer exists, why it is structured the way it is, and what it teaches from a strategic and tactical point. You've looked at a single idea, which is whether or not it fits what you think is realistic, without looking at what it actually teaches and why. There's a reason it's a Yellow Belt technique, Ras, and it's because it's teaching fundamental tactics and concepts that can be built on later in your education and training. By not understanding this, and only having your attitude of "this is craptastical hyperunrealistic kenpofantasyland stuff" you are frankly robbing your students of actually learning Kenpo in the first place. Because if you don't see the structure of the techniques and their reasons for being the way they are, you don't get the art.
> 
> Oh, and Mike? That's been what I've been talking about. I've been trying to get Ras to say what Sword and Hammer teaches, but he seems to not understand that question....



Anything you want cleared up, just ask.



Josh Oakley said:


> And if you are going to jump on Ras for a word using a word... FREAKING KNOW WHAT IT FREAKING MEANS! "Detractor" means "one who disparages someone or something". Yes Ras has detractors. A couple of people here are indeed detractors. Twin Fist, your side comment about Ras not being important enough to have detractors was nonsensical. To disparage someone or something literally means to regard of represent it as being of little worth. You have done that repeatedly. Hell, regardless the level of Ras's importance or lack thereof, the very act saying he is "not important enough to have detractors" makes you, by the very definition of the word, A FREAKING DETRACTOR!!!!!
> 
> (Though you were one long before that)
> 
> Ras is using the word correctly.



Hey, Josh. Yeah, that wasn't John, it was myself. And honestly, mate? I stick by it. To look back at the word, to "detract" means to remove from, typically to lower or remove importance. Your provided definition also gives a reference to "disparage", referring to represent (something) of being of little worth... which implies there being an inherent level of importance attributed in the first place. In other words, for there to be detractors of something, there needs to be some importance there in the first place, which I don't see with Ras. He goes on to demonstrate this point on the Kenpotalk thread, talking about big names being "laughed at" before they did things like establish Delta Force, then linked it all to himself by saying that he is now being laughed at (presumably by the same people). This is the level that Ras presents himself as being at, and that's what I mean when I say he's not important enough to have detractors.

I know what the word means, and no he's not using it correctly. He's using it to present himself as being greater than all others. And, frankly, his approach is different, but he's far from the level he wants to be seen as. Hence, he's not important enough to truly have detractors.



ATACX GYM said:


> As I stated to Chris Parker, when I use the terms "craptastic" "dooficity" etc these are tongue-in-cheek phrases. Where I'm from, these phrase are FUNNY, they're clearly not demeaning or insulting. As I said to Chris Parker in this very thread...if you're offended? Right here and right now I offer you and anyone else so offended an apology; I really wasn't trying to offend. When I am purposefully trying to offend? You'll know.
> 
> Perhaps a portion of this misunderstanding IS "a communication failure" as you hypothesize.



Ras, I don't think you understand how you come across... but, to help you, you are not using such terms "tongue in cheek". That would imply that it is being used in a humourous ironic form. In other words, when you describe a common Kenpo technique as "craptastic", if you were using the term "tongue in cheek", that would mean you thought the technique was very good. You are using what you feel is slightly lighter language to express your distaste and disapproval of the techniques. When it comes to your usage of "dooficity" towards my posts, that can only be taken offensively. It was not tongue in cheek, as evidenced by the rest of your post. 

Now, let's get to it.



ATACX GYM said:


> I wasn't going to answer this post at first, but...
> 
> "My question is what does Ras think needs to be there for it to be Sword and Hammer? That's it. If it's just the use of swordhand and hammerfist, fine... but I think that means he misses the majority of the lessons present."--Chris Parker.
> 
> No. You're the one who misses the relevant factors, as I have cited Mr. Parker's definition of The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique Process, and answered this question already multiple times.
> 
> http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sh...d-and-hammer-pt-1-and-2&p=1466741#post1466741



Dude, it's a simple question, what aspects go into a technique to make it Sword and Hammer, as opposed to any other technique... not what is the process by which it is developed, not how did you come up with yours, the question is simply what makes yours even a version of the one you put it up against? What elements are there that make your technique related? What is Sword and Hammer, when it all comes down to it! You have failed in 32 pages to even begin to address that question, and honestly, I don't think you understand this incredibly simple question. That is what I have meant when I've said you don't understand the structure of techniques. You have provided no evidence to the contrary, despite having 32 pages to do so.

You're either ducking the question, or you don't understand it.



ATACX GYM said:


> "You put up three videos all showing the same basic technique (some variation, but all recognisably the same thing) as the baseline form of Sword and Hammer. Whether or not there is a "standard" form, you have demonstrated, in the first goddamn post, that there is a basic form given to Sword and Hammer (or Pin Step Chop, or whatever other name it's given), and that form has a range of standard elements that are present and consistent..."--Chris Parker
> 
> No you're incorrect. The 3 other videos of the more common expression of Sword and Hammer--which is a noncombat model, a guideline which was NEVER supposed to be a hard and fast technique per Mr. Parker himself--are the direct results of lack of understanding or even use of The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique PROCESS.
> 
> Those other folks' videos embody the misunderstanding which has torpedoed much of Kenpo in that too many Kenpoists conflate the noncombat model with some fictional nonexistent universal standard of execution. The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique PROCESS is NOT some form of master key method that helps you arrive to a specific physical articulation of a technique. The Ideal Phase is equivalent to The Scientific Method. You use it and the integrity of the process of your technique selection and application is beyond dispute. Your conclusions ARE valid..whether or not other scientists agree that your findings are final or not.
> 
> Mine follows the Ideal Phase Analytical Technique PROCESS.



What? You present three very similar versions of a technique, demonstrate more versions at the beginning of your clips, and it's not presenting it as a "standard" version? It's not showing that there is a basic form, or guide? It's not demonstrating that Sword and Hammer has a range of standard elements that are present and consistent? You really can't be serious here, Ras... 

Each version is not "hard and fast", either. They each have differences between them, whether in distancing, stances, angling, targeting, or more... so I'm not sure what you think is "hard and fast" about the way it's presented. And the other videos don't embody any misunderstanding, they present the way the damn technique is taught. You'd really do well to understand the difference, son.

The idea of what the "real" Ideal Phase Analytical Process is, or meant to achieve, is frankly irrelevant to my comment. Your argument has as much relevance as if we were discussing a particular song (oh, let's say, Stairway to Heaven), and you showed a version of "Immigrant Song" as the same one, then started talking about how Led Zepellin wrote songs when asked what made you think that your song was Stairway to Heaven.... 



ATACX GYM said:


> "I'll put it bluntly. Your technique is Sword and Hammer for your version of Kenpo. It is not a "better" version of the one you are lambasting. It is not even a version of the one you are lambasting. That is the goddamn point..."--Chris Parker
> 
> I've only been saying that my Sword and Hammer is my Ideal for my Gym and AN Kenpo Idea for 20+ pages prior to you finally grasping the point and finally getting a glimmer of understanding.  So, if I'm a idiot yet I've tumbled to a conclusion 20+ pages before you did and kept arguing that point until you finally saw the light that I knew of before I made the thread...then what does that make you? Just curious...



Page one, dude. On page one I was saying that what you did wasn't a version of the base technique, and have been trying ever since to get you to say why you think it is. You have failed consistently, and my comments there are basically my pointing out that you have not demonstrated in any way that your technique is a "version of Sword and Hammer" as you present it, instead, it is a completely unrelated technique (honestly with very little basis other than some trial and error, and some rather flawed understanding of reality and applicability on your end) that you use the same name for... which means that your demonstration of the more common form, both in your posts, and at the start of your clips themselves, is completely irrelevant and frankly a waste of time.

Basically, you have in no way been able to demonstrate any connection between the common version, and what you call Sword and Hammer. My observation is that you simply don't understand the concept I'm discussing, as frankly, you don't have the education.



ATACX GYM said:


> "And dude, "the sooner we can dispense with comparing my expression to a standard which does not exist"... the reason we're comparing your version with the one you presented as a baseline version is because you presented them to be compared, you compare them in your own videos, this entire thread is about comparing them! What the hell is wrong with you?!?!..."--Chris Parker
> 
> The reason this entire thread exists is because people like you who have no clue of what the REAL Ideal Phase Analytical Technique PROCESS is...have no clue of what the REAL Ideal Phase Analytical Technique Process IS. And you're militant in your ignorance.



No, the reason this thread exists is because you started it as a way of showing your approach as being "better", despite flaws throughout your reasoning, understanding, and technique. And I have not been discussing the Ideal Phase Process, or whatever, because that's not the damn point. You presented a technique, called Sword and Hammer, as a version of a commonly taught technique called Sword and Hammer, despite your technique and the common one sharing almost nothing between them. I have since asked repeatedly what makes yours a version of the common one, which you have failed to do. It has continued the way it has because you haven't been able to answer that question, instead bringing in things like the Ideal Phase Process, while that has never been part of what I've been asking.

Again, I haven't been asking how you came up with your technique, I've been asking why you think it's a version of the common technique. 



ATACX GYM said:


> "By the way, what really sinks you is this:
> 
> Originally Posted by *ATACX GYM*Just some--not all--of the Kenpo Principles *that I see in my Sword and Hammer and even some in the more common expression are:*
> 
> Particularly the bold..."--Chris Parker
> 
> I see principles in the more common version, but...let's compare The Ideal Phase Process to the quadratic equation for this instance. Seeing the more common noncombat model Sword and Hammer is like seeing somebody skim over the quadratic formula and then misuse it. I recognize what's being ATTEMPTED, but I see that it's doomed to fail and why...because I use the Quadratic Equation properly and I'm good at math. Or in keeping with The Scientific Method metaphor [ the Scientific Method very briefly is the process of: Observation, Hypothesis, Experimentation, Conclusion ]? The more common version lacks Experimentation, therefore its conclusions are ALWAYS invalid.



The problem was that I asked what makes Sword and Hammer a unique technique, separate to the other techniques in the curriculum, and you answered with a list of Kenpo principles that you see in your technique... in other words, all you did was say that what you did was Kenpo, which wasn't what was questioned. You didn't understand the question, you defended something that wasn't questioned, you showed no understanding of the structure of techniques, and so on. 

And everything you say here? Complete garbage, Ras. 



ATACX GYM said:


> ": A combat model? Who said it was? I even postulated a better way for you to approach it that says it isn't one. Approved by Ed Parker? How about approved in his organisation later, that would account for the name (EPAK), yeah? As far as "standard", a quick google search turned up many videos and many descriptions all of which follow the same principles, ideas, tactics, strategies, and more. So to take the term "standard" as "typical", or "common", well, just look around..."--Chris Parker
> 
> The purpose of The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique Process is to give rise to give rise to functional, viable combat models grounded in Kenpo principles.Who said it was a combat model? Mr. Parker did. You failed to grasp that...even after 20+ pages of me telling you so and providing quotes from Doc and Mr. Parker on the matter.
> 
> EPAK is a business acronym which came about after Mr. Parker's death. He did NOT approve of the acronym or the process which gave rise to this so-called Ideal Phase Technique stuff. The authors of the source material flatly refute and contradict you at every turn, sir...which makes you wrong. Period.



I really can't believe you just made that argument, Ras, as it shows that either you just don't hear what's being said, or you don't understand what you're saying... Look again at that description you just gave for the Process, Ras. You state that "the Ideal Phase Analytical Technique Process is to *give rise to* functional, viable combat models", not be them in the beginning. The techniques provide the framework of tactics and lessons that you then use to create viable applications, within that framework, not just abandoning it.

And for crying out loud, Ras, what does when the term "EPAK" was created have to do with anything?!? Seriously, Ras, there isn't anything that refutes the simple observation that there is a common form of Sword and Hammer, so, uh... what?



ATACX GYM said:


> "And Ras, we're not championing it, we're just saying that you don't get it, and your technique is not a version of it in the same way that a car is not a different version of a bus... or motorbike...
> 
> Failure to understand this argument simply shows you to have no clue whatsoever about the structure of techniques...
> 
> And grow up in your language, you sound like a 15 year old, full of self importance, with no sense of reality around him. I'm fed up reading it, and I feel that others are too (as they've basically said as much to you privately, and on the thread itself)"--Chris parker
> 
> Yes you were championing it, yes I do get it you don't get it, my technique is a version of Sword and Hammer, yes I do know quite a bit about the structure of techniques...and if I'm linguistically a 15 year old then, Chris...



I think it's a decent technique, yeah. But that's beside the point. I think your technique has a large number of flaws. But that's also beside the point. The point is that you present yours as a version of the common form, and it flatly isn't. You have not been able to demonstrate that it is, you have not been able to answer even what would be required for a technique to be Sword and Hammer in the first place.



ATACX GYM said:


> ...I'd rather be linguistically a 15 year old who has a thorough grasp of the material and overmastered you with it then someone who you approve of linguistically and is as completely and totally incorrect as consistently as you have been. Btw, this linguistic 15 year old managed to overmaster your position completely and publically without resorting even infrequently to invectives. You cannot make such a claim.



Dude, your entire debating style is one step above a kid running around a playground, "shooting" other kids with his finger, and, despite not really aiming anywhere in their direction, yelling "I got you, I got you!!" to everyone else.... you have shown no real grasp of the material, let alone thorough, Ras. You haven't "overmastered" anything. 

Oh, and the 15 year old comment is the level of debating maturity and depth you've been showing, as displayed through your vocabulary, not your vocabulary itself.



ATACX GYM said:


> Chris doesn't have a point. He doesn't have a point because his position comes from swearing [ and being wrong about ] the combat viability in a noncombat model which was never supposed to be a SD tech and therefore cannot work exactly as shown in a SD situation and then compounded his mistake by failing to recognize the combat viability of a sequence that works exactly and precisely as shown in the relevant combat situation. There is no argument that can ennoble his position with even a scintilla of accuracy for that very reason. His position is irrevocably compromised, perpetually untrue.



Wow, have you missed everything I've said for 32 pages, boy. Go back, re-read it, and try again.



ATACX GYM said:


> "Not every movement is a technique but every technique is a movement. You have to train your mind to move your body with better quality. The more quality movements you get..the better anything you do in the martial arts becomes. That's how you improve organically and synergistically."--Frank Shamrock to me, when he was based out of the RAW Center



Frankly, I think you don't understand what Frank was saying to you, as you seem to miss the point rather badly.



ATACX GYM said:


> Consider something else...would we be having this kind of discussion that delves into the history and systemic structure of EPKK and the validity of training models...would we even be challenging each other to think critically like this at all in anything approaching this vein...if I hadn't put up my variant of Sword and Hammer?
> 
> There is a great deal of value in threads like this one. And so far? Guys like MJS, Josh and I are the ones who are probing and asking these kinds of questions the most.
> 
> What have my detractors contributed in and of themselves of like value? This is not a diss, I'm genuinely curious.



What have we contributed? Seriously? Ras, we've been trying to get some answers out of you... if you'd been able to answer them, you may have been received a little better. But you have shown no understanding, no depth of knowledge, and instead chosen to constantly claim superiority in every way... what have you contributed? Really?


----------



## Josh Oakley

Awww, man. Now you're just going to get the whole thing going again.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## Chris Parker

Well, you and Mike asked me questions, so I had to answer them... and, well, Ras was being Ras, so I had to respond to that as well. But, yeah, probably just going to kick it off again... fun times ahead!


----------



## Twin Fist

bottom line, he used Doc Chapel to prove his ideas, and Doc turned around and said, almost verbatum "ras doesnt know ****"

there is nothing more to discuss.


----------



## seasoned

The end.................


----------



## MJS

Chris Parker said:


> Hmm, I take a couple of days off, and this is what happens?
> 
> Ras, you still haven't listened to a single thing that I have said from the beginning. That's the issue. So, to that end, I'm going to say it one more time. Do try to listen, son.
> 
> But first, to answer Mike.
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to my way of looking at techniques and martial arts, my friend...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. In fact, to steal out of Ras' playbook, here's one I prepared earlier (post 246, way back on page 17....):
> 
> 
> 
> Anything you want cleared up, just ask.



Hey Chris,

Nope, you answered my questions.  Thanks.


----------



## Aiki Lee

Ras, please, just answer the question.

What are the principles taught in sword and hammer? If a kenpo practitioner where to demonsrtate a technique, what would make you say "Yup, that's Sword and Hammer?"


----------



## Twin Fist

let it die dude.


----------



## Chris Parker

Agreed. 

Lee, Ras was fed the tactics of Sword and Hammer by me on page 17, he still failed to get it. When he finally put something down, it was a list of Kenpo principles (not specific to any technique) that he saw in his own technique, completely missing the point of the question. He can't answer it as he doesn't understand it. I don't think we're going to get any further pressing him on it.


----------



## Aiki Lee

No. I suppose not. How dissapointing.


----------



## ATACX GYM

http://martialtalkmagazine.com/you-need-to-ask-what-if-like-ras-or-you-suck-preface-part-a/


Further proof that you guys have no idea what you're talking about, and I'm right...yet again.


----------



## Chris Parker

No, Ras, further proof that you couldn't follow the simple argument that was put to you. Your ego is your biggest problem, son. Get past it, or you'll just have less and less to offer, and less and less people to offer it to.


----------



## Twin Fist

to quote Blade:

"some mother ****ers are always trying to ice skate uphill"


----------



## ATACX GYM

Twin Fist said:


> to quote Blade:
> 
> "some mother ****ers are always trying to ice skate uphill"




Yep. I'm Blade...and you lookin mighty like Frost rightaboutnow.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Chris Parker said:


> No, Ras, further proof that you couldn't follow the simple argument that was put to you. Your ego is your biggest problem, son. Get past it, or you'll just have less and less to offer, and less and less people to offer it to.



Says the guy who got disproved every whichaway. Every single time. And still hasn't produced that video he promised months ago. Wait...lemme guess. It's against your instructor's wishes to make videos AND coherent sensible truthful arguments too?

I followed the simple arguments you made. They ARE simple too...simply disproven, simply incorrect, simply untrue, simple nonsense. Simply something most people with any real world scrappin experience wouldn't endorse or cosign. The more you post...and the longer your posts are...the more you out yourself as being nowhere near as knowledgeable as you present yourself as being.

You are, however, highly opinionated. That's cool. Have fun with that.

AMANI...peace.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Chris Parker said:


> Agreed.
> 
> Lee, Ras was fed the tactics of Sword and Hammer by me on page 17, he still failed to get it. When he finally put something down, it was a list of Kenpo principles (not specific to any technique) that he saw in his own technique, completely missing the point of the question. He can't answer it as he doesn't understand it. I don't think we're going to get any further pressing him on it.




As usual, Ras understands better than you and your cosigners combined. You guys fail to understand in any way the simplicity of and supremacy of performance. Why is that? Because I've been to where you are, you've never been to where I am. 

The bottom line is PERFORMANCE.

If I perform better, against more scenarios, sooner, more skillfully, and build perpetually upon that lead with my Sword and Hammer or [ insert any technique ] than you AND my detractors do...combined...then my performance is better. Period. That's exactly precisely what I do, too. You know why I do that?

Not because of arrogance. Not because my athleticism is better than any or all of yours [ I might be the better athlete, but Idk if I am and that's not the point ] . The reason I perform better than you is because my training paradigm is better, broader, deeper, faster and superior in every way.

The reason that my training paradigm is better is because I've made cognitive connections regarding the sheer supremacy of performance that neither you nor my detractors have made. You CAN make them, but REFUSE to do so...for various reasons. Whatever those reasons are? Fine with me, no beef with them. You may be perfectly content with those reasons too, and I'm cool with that.

But...can you grapple with your Sword and Hammer? No? Can you disengage the sleeper or any other choke with your Sword and Hammer? No? Can and do you strike to any direction against any foe from any transition with your Sword and Hammer? No? Can you use your Sword and Hammer with armed with a gun, sword, knife, stick, etc etc or any combo thereof? No? Do you even THINK TO TRAIN YOUR SWORD AND HAMMER IN ANY WAY REMOTELY AS COMPREHENSIVE AS I DO? NO?


That means that you'll ALWAYS be vulnerable to things with your [ insert technique ] that I won't be. That means categorically and empirically that I will ALWAYS outperform you. So will my students. And that's the bottom line.

Any doubts? Okay. Show me that you're doing with your [ insert your technique ] that outperforms what I do. Show me that you can outperform me doing your ALTERNATING MACES...with knives. Show me how you do ALTERNATING MACES...from different blocks. Show me your Short 1 or whatever...from off your back. Show me your Sword and Hammer done standing and on the ground in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY. Show me how you achieve chokeholds with your Alternating Maces. Show me how you spar with your Attacking Mace. 

Show me. No long drawn out posts. Show me your PERFORMANCE.

Thought not. 

I outperform you. I out thought you. I understand better. And I will stay that way until you bridge the gap by...amping your performance.

Next.


----------



## Sukerkin

Mate, I really couldn't be less concerned about Kenpo as my interest in martial arts lies elsewhere but, truthfully, you do your cause no good with how you approach trying to put your ideas over.  Discoursing so sourly with those who attempt to illustrate why what you are saying is neither new nor un-flawed is likewise not going to do your credibility any favours.

With all candour and without rancour, rein it in a little if you wish to be taken seriously.

:chuckles:  Sometimes a thirty-odd page thread is not a good sign


----------



## ATACX GYM

Sukerkin said:


> Mate, I really couldn't be less concerned about Kenpo as my interest in martial arts lies elsewhere but, truthfully, you do your cause no good with how you approach trying to put your ideas over.  Discoursing so sourly with those who attempt to illustrate why what you are saying is neither new nor un-flawed is likewise not going to do your credibility any favours.
> 
> With all candour and without rancour, rein it in a little if you wish to be taken seriously.
> 
> :chuckles:  Sometimes a thirty-odd page thread is not a good sign




This is a good post, so allow me to be clear here: the great majority of my posts and threads do not have any rancour in them. However, Chris, Twin Fist and I have a long running history of discord [ started by them, I might add ]. So please don't mistake the force with which I reply to them [ when their posts merit it ] with the general tone in my posts, or anything else associated with me.

As I pointed out previously...I have taken in and used the corrections that several dissenters, detractors, or others simply offering good suggestions via their posts [ like you have done ] took it upon themselves to send my way. 

It is notable, however, that none of my detractors have reciprocated in any way.

I'm a blunt, direct talking guy. But I'm also open minded.


----------



## Twin Fist

cuz you aint worth the time.

you have proven over and over and over, that you just dont ****ing listen. Too busy talking and listening to the sound of your own self imagined greatness.

either way, the rest of us got tired of your ******** months ago.

go peddle it elsewhere.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Twin Fist said:


> cuz you aint worth the time.
> 
> you have proven over and over and over, that you just dont ****ing listen. Too busy talking and listening to the sound of your own self imagined greatness.
> 
> either way, the rest of us got tired of your ******** months ago.
> 
> go peddle it elsewhere.




I would respond to this, but your own posts and opinion on the matter are so devastatingly clear and true, that I'll let you tell on yourself:

taken from THIS post on Kenpotalk.com http://www.kenpotalk.com/forum/show...word-pt-1-atacx-gym-style&p=154799#post154799



Twin Fist said:


> I know of what i speak because i am an ***. Always have been, and everyone that knows me will testify, I am a giant ***. And there have been many, many times when i could have shared something, helped someone, or contributed, but being an *** stopped people from giving a crap what i had to say.
> 
> dont let that happen to you.


----------



## Twin Fist

_*Yeah Ras went through the same thing over here as well. He doesn't do EPKK, that is clear. What he doesn't get is he insists on using the terminology and technique names, while giving many the impression he is fixing EPKK. His teaching method from a systemic perspective is also extremely flawed, and there is a great deal of knowledge he doesn't have. He sees what he does as just a series of technique movements, and insists we don't understand him and puts up a bunch a videos that confirm what we already know, that many before him have done - with the same amount of success. But, everyone has to be comfortable in their method, and the smart figure out when it is no good - eventually - *__*&#8203;I hope.



eat it*_


----------



## ATACX GYM

Twin Fist said:


> _*Yeah Ras went through the same thing over here as well. He doesn't do EPKK, that is clear. What he doesn't get is he insists on using the terminology and technique names, while giving many the impression he is fixing EPKK. His teaching method from a systemic perspective is also extremely flawed, and there is a great deal of knowledge he doesn't have. He sees what he does as just a series of technique movements, and insists we don't understand him and puts up a bunch a videos that confirm what we already know, that many before him have done - with the same amount of success. But, everyone has to be comfortable in their method, and the smart figure out when it is no good - eventually - *__*&#8203;I hope.
> 
> 
> 
> eat it*_





Uhhhh...John. If you're going to actually quote what Doc's opinion of me is...then, tell the whole truth. Stop lying just to make yourself feel better. You're coming off even as even more childish and spiteful than usual. Doc certainly scolded me and we jousted and STILL joust. That's good. He also offered advice to me and ended his public comments to me with:"...you're a bright young man with huge upside potential...you gone be aight...eventually..."  http://www.kenpotalk.com/forum/showthread.php?13720-Question-For-Doc&p=157932#post157932


So stop telling lies, man. Me and Doc connect on levels that you couldn't hope to connect on...and these levels aren't wrapped up in solely shared martial history or the nearness of our location to one another.  I talked to one of his top international representatives for 3 hours and we built a strong and growing bridge of communication and respect for each others' knowledge ability and character...even in the areas that we disagree with one another.

Try not to hate, John. 

Honestly, John...why would you behave in such a silly, childish, rude, pathetic manner? Aren't you like 20 years older than me? Yet I'm clearly the mature adult in our conversation. I just want to know why you're behaving like this. Wait...didn't you answer this query already? 

I believe you answered with conviction:



Twin Fist said:


> I am a giant ***. dont let that happen to you.



And there you have it. 

I am happy to state with resounding accuracy truth and honesty that I have not will not and cannot ever be emulate or act like an ***. I have scrupulously observed your admonition. Thank you.


----------



## Chris Parker

ATACX GYM said:


> Yep. I'm Blade...and you lookin mighty like Frost rightaboutnow.



You're really not, you know. You're coming across as the kid who plays dress-ups, imagining they're the big bad scary movie character without having the first clue about what reality is. And there's not really any point giving more remarkably appropriate anecdotal "evidence" for your "reality" (which always seems to be a "real life encounter" for any of a hundred thousand things you get questioned on....), as I'm saying it's how you come across in the way you present yourself here. If you don't want that image, change it.



ATACX GYM said:


> Chris Parker said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, Ras, further proof that you couldn't follow the simple argument that was put to you. Your ego is your biggest problem, son. Get past it, or you'll just have less and less to offer, and less and less people to offer it to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the guy who got disproved every whichaway. Every single time. And still hasn't produced that video he promised months ago. Wait...lemme guess. It's against your instructor's wishes to make videos AND coherent sensible truthful arguments too?
> 
> I followed the simple arguments you made. They ARE simple too...simply disproven, simply incorrect, simply untrue, simple nonsense. Simply something most people with any real world scrappin experience wouldn't endorse or cosign. The more you post...and the longer your posts are...the more you out yourself as being nowhere near as knowledgeable as you present yourself as being.
> 
> You are, however, highly opinionated. That's cool. Have fun with that.
> 
> AMANI...peace.
Click to expand...


Oh boy.... son, you have yet to deal with my first post in this thread. You have yet to even grasp the basic comments made, and come back with any real answer.

Tell you what, here it is again.

You presented a few videos of the "traditional" way of performing Sword and Hammer. You then presented a few videos of attacks that that technique is not designed to handle, as a way of demonstrating what you think the problems with the "traditional" form is. Then, finally, you presented your video/s, which start with you showing the "traditional" form, before going into a technique which shares practically nothing in common with it as an "improved" version of Sword and Hammer.

Through this, you were questioned as to why you believed your technique was a version of Sword and Hammer itself, rather than just your personal take on what you think would work against a different attack (to the one that Sword and Hammer is designed for), to which you have happened to use the same name. In other words, you were asked what makes a technique "Sword and Hammer" in the first place, and how were those aspects seen or manifested in your technique. All you have come back with is "but look how much more effective mine is!", while simultaneously missing the basis of the question itself (and making some huge mistakes along the way, some very questionable assumptions, and riding a path of arrogance that would have made Mohamed Ali blush in his hey-day... and Ali could at least genuinely back it up.

It's not about which technique is more effective (although, again, I don't think you understand the traditional one enough to make any kind of comment), it's about what makes your technique a version of Sword and Hammer as you compared it, instead of just it's own technique, separate and distinct. Try again.

And dude, I'm "highly opinionated"? 



ATACX GYM said:


> Chris Parker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> Lee, Ras was fed the tactics of Sword and Hammer by me on page 17, he still failed to get it. When he finally put something down, it was a list of Kenpo principles (not specific to any technique) that he saw in his own technique, completely missing the point of the question. He can't answer it as he doesn't understand it. I don't think we're going to get any further pressing him on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, Ras understands better than you and your cosigners combined. You guys fail to understand in any way the simplicity of and supremacy of performance. Why is that? Because I've been to where you are, you've never been to where I am.
> 
> The bottom line is PERFORMANCE.
Click to expand...


No, it's not. See above... or, hell, the last 34 pages.



ATACX GYM said:


> If I perform better, against more scenarios, sooner, more skillfully, and build perpetually upon that lead with my Sword and Hammer or [ insert any technique ] than you AND my detractors do...combined...then my performance is better. Period. That's exactly precisely what I do, too. You know why I do that?



Frankly, I don't know THAT you do that. I question pretty much each technique you've put up, as there are typically a number of issues to each of them.

And kid, no matter what you think your skill level is, assuming that you can do things "better, against more scenarios, sooner, more skillfully" etc than myself is a dangerous game for you to play. You really don't have a clue what I can do, or how I can do it... but for the record, you aren't that impressive to me. That might be a clue as to how you compare in the real world.



ATACX GYM said:


> Not because of arrogance. Not because my athleticism is better than any or all of yours [ I might be the better athlete, but Idk if I am and that's not the point ] . The reason I perform better than you is because my training paradigm is better, broader, deeper, faster and superior in every way.



It's really not, you know. At all. The lack of depth of your training approach is shown in this thread, the idea of it being better is a personal opinion, and really of no importance here, you've made claims of "faster" that have been largely ridiculed (appropriately), the breadth of my training somewhat dwarfes yours when it comes down to it, and the idea of your training being "superior" but your comments not being based in ego is just laughable. 

You are far from the first in what you do, and far from the best. Seriously, get over yourself.



ATACX GYM said:


> The reason that my training paradigm is better is because I've made cognitive connections regarding the sheer supremacy of performance that neither you nor my detractors have made. You CAN make them, but REFUSE to do so...for various reasons. Whatever those reasons are? Fine with me, no beef with them. You may be perfectly content with those reasons too, and I'm cool with that.



You're making some rather bold (and incorrect) assumptions there, Ras. In fact, I'd say that I came to such an understanding years ago, but have since moved on to better understanding which has lead me to be able to look at the "traditional" techniques and see what they're actually teaching, how they're doing it, and why. You aren't anywhere near that level yet from any of your posts or videos here. You have techniques. I have techniques, but I have a hell of a lot more besides, which you aren't even close to.



ATACX GYM said:


> But...can you grapple with your Sword and Hammer? No? Can you disengage the sleeper or any other choke with your Sword and Hammer? No? Can and do you strike to any direction against any foe from any transition with your Sword and Hammer? No? Can you use your Sword and Hammer with armed with a gun, sword, knife, stick, etc etc or any combo thereof? No? Do you even THINK TO TRAIN YOUR SWORD AND HAMMER IN ANY WAY REMOTELY AS COMPREHENSIVE AS I DO? NO?



Wait a sec, have you forgotten who you're addressing Ras? I'm not a Kenpo guy, I don't have that technique... so no, I don't "think about it" in any way other than the context of this thread. And isn't this just you going back to the idea of "one technique for all situations" that we've already dealt with (and your flawed approach to that idea)?



ATACX GYM said:


> That means that you'll ALWAYS be vulnerable to things with your [ insert technique ] that I won't be. That means categorically and empirically that I will ALWAYS outperform you. So will my students. And that's the bottom line.



Garbage. I'm in a better position to handle variations because I'm not trying to fit one technique to everything, I'm applying my art (it's principles, tactics, strategies) to the needs as they arise. But that approach seems to be a fair bit above your pay-grade, as when prompted to discuss it, you couldn't, and came up with things that weren't of any relevance at all.



ATACX GYM said:


> Any doubts? Okay. Show me that you're doing with your [ insert your technique ] that outperforms what I do. Show me that you can outperform me doing your ALTERNATING MACES...with knives. Show me how you do ALTERNATING MACES...from different blocks. Show me your Short 1 or whatever...from off your back. Show me your Sword and Hammer done standing and on the ground in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY. Show me how you achieve chokeholds with your Alternating Maces. Show me how you spar with your Attacking Mace.



Dude. Not Kenpo. I don't give a damn about showing you that I can "outperform" you in an art I don't train in. And again, that is really nothing to do with what the argument has been about.  



ATACX GYM said:


> Show me. No long drawn out posts. Show me your PERFORMANCE.



Not the argument, son.



ATACX GYM said:


> Thought not.
> 
> I outperform you. I out thought you. I understand better. And I will stay that way until you bridge the gap by...amping your performance.



Re-read the thread. Recognise that none of this is what we've been saying, or talking about. You haven't outperformed me, as you have no idea what my performance level is (even leaving off the idea of my performance of an art I don't train in... no idea where your coming from there!), you haven't out-thought me (as you haven't followed anything from the first post onwards, and have instead been arguing something that doesn't address the comments and obervations I made), and you have shown that you absolutely don't understand anything better. How about you take some time to try to understand why the techniques are presented the way they are, rather than just say "that wouldn't work in real life" and ignore the actual point of them. Then you might start to come someway towards my level. At the moment, you are barely at my ankles.



ATACX GYM said:


> Next.



Before you come back for the "next", take on board what I've said. Try to understand that you're not being attacked for what your technique does, but for what you're claiming it is (a version of the traditional one), as you can't and haven't offered anything to support that contention.



ATACX GYM said:


> I'm a blunt, direct talking guy. But I'm also open minded.



No, you're not. On all counts.


----------



## Twin Fist

talking to this guy is like playing chess with a chicken. No matter how good your points are, all he does is knock over pieces, crap on the board and strut around like he won something.


----------



## MJS

Oh my...I guess dead things can come back to life. LOL!  And here I thought the Travon Martin thread was a long one...LOL


----------



## Twin Fist

Wish I knew.....I don't get to go to the study any more


----------



## MJS

Chris Parker said:


> Garbage. I'm in a better position to handle variations because I'm not trying to fit one technique to everything, I'm applying my art (it's principles, tactics, strategies) to the needs as they arise. But that approach seems to be a fair bit above your pay-grade, as when prompted to discuss it, you couldn't, and came up with things that weren't of any relevance at all.



This!  This, IMHO, I feel, is where Chris and I are on the same page.  I do the same thing with my techniques as well.  I'm at a point, where I put the techs on the backburner and just fall back on what Chris said here...the principles, tactics, strategies, etc.


----------



## Josh Oakley

MJS said:


> This!  This, IMHO, I feel, is where Chris and I are on the same page.  I do the same thing with my techniques as well.  I'm at a point, where I put the techs on the backburner and just fall back on what Chris said here...the principles, tactics, strategies, etc.



Which, from talking to my instructor, and from reading SGM Parker's writings and listening to his interviews, was the whose point of the techs anyway.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ATACX GYM

MJS said:


> This!  This, IMHO, I feel, is where Chris and I are on the same page.  I do the same thing with my techniques as well.  I'm at a point, where I put the techs on the backburner and just fall back on what Chris said here...the principles, tactics, strategies, etc.



The most efficient way to download the principles, tactics strategies etc is to practice them in a structured training paradigm that rapidly downloads the importance of grasping the principles behind the techniques. Understanding the principles behind the techniques comes from copious amounts of reps in numerous different situations. Grasping the principles should and can be done sooner--like White Belt--with the proper combination of Alive Training, high levels of reps of single techniques sequences and multiple techniques and sequences against escalating resistance, and multiple drills and isolated sparring scenarios wherein you're called upon to use your skills.

Chris Parker, is speaking from whatever experience he has. He is missing what is blatantly obvious to skilled experienced fighters. And all of that yakkity yakk and much of our disagreements would vanish if we were both on the mat together. He'd quickly see what I was talking about, and he'd quickly see that I already knew what he was talking about. However, Chris is apparently constrained by his instructor to NOT visually display via video his sublime mastery of technique, principle and strategy, so he crafts posts that make it clear that he and I have no common ground.

He contends that my S&H isn't a version of the "traditional" S&H. If he refers to the most popular variant of Sword and Hammer? That expression IS NOT THEE "Sword and Hammer". He fails to grasp that there IS NO "TRADITIONAL" Sword and Hammer. The Sword and Hammer--as defined by Big Red--is really a "loose guideline" designed for instructors to create THEIR OWN "Sword and Hammer". The Tracy technique "Attack the Circle" fits into the equation. My expression does. The more popular variant mistakenly referred to as The Ideal Phase Sword and Hammer fits.

 MJS, from our previous phone conversation you should know directly...the method I champion far more speedily, thoroughly and comprehensively achieves this desired effect than the extant Kenpo training paradigm.


----------



## Twin Fist

bwak bwak bwak

thats all i hear


----------



## Chris Parker

ATACX GYM said:


> The most efficient way to download the principles, tactics strategies etc is to practice them in a structured training paradigm that rapidly downloads the importance of grasping the principles behind the techniques. Understanding the principles behind the techniques comes from copious amounts of reps in numerous different situations. Grasping the principles should and can be done sooner--like White Belt--with the proper combination of Alive Training, high levels of reps of single techniques sequences and multiple techniques and sequences against escalating resistance, and multiple drills and isolated sparring scenarios wherein you're called upon to use your skills.



However what you've presented is not practicing them in a structured training method which focuses on the principles. In fact, that's what the "standard" form of the technique does... you know, the one that you don't like? So your argument is that you need a training method which is precisely what everyone else uses, because what everyone else does doesn't work?



ATACX GYM said:


> Chris Parker, is speaking from whatever experience he has. He is missing what is blatantly obvious to skilled experienced fighters. And all of that yakkity yakk and much of our disagreements would vanish if we were both on the mat together. He'd quickly see what I was talking about, and he'd quickly see that I already knew what he was talking about. However, Chris is apparently constrained by his instructor to NOT visually display via video his sublime mastery of technique, principle and strategy, so he crafts posts that make it clear that he and I have no common ground.



I'm speaking from a hell of a lot of experience, son. And some have suggested that I'm already a skilled, experienced fighter. From watching your videos, no, I don't see that you know what you're talking about. I see that you have some physical skills, but that's it. And my constraints are something that you still don't seem to get, so I wouldn't recommend engaging in any guesswork there.

Oh, and I don't craft posts to demonstrate that we have no common ground, I structure arguments intended to get an answer. And your answers have shown that you don't really have much knowledge or understanding, when it all comes down to it.



ATACX GYM said:


> He contends that my S&H isn't a version of the "traditional" S&H. If he refers to the most popular variant of Sword and Hammer? That expression IS NOT THEE "Sword and Hammer". He fails to grasp that there IS NO "TRADITIONAL" Sword and Hammer. The Sword and Hammer--as defined by Big Red--is really a "loose guideline" designed for instructors to create THEIR OWN "Sword and Hammer". The Tracy technique "Attack the Circle" fits into the equation. My expression does. The more popular variant mistakenly referred to as The Ideal Phase Sword and Hammer fits.



Yeah, I do. So do quite a number of others here. And you have not been able to identify why you think your technique is a version of it, despite being asked for 34 pages now. So can you answer it, if you're still claiming it? What makes your technique Sword and Hammer as presented (even as a loose guideline) by Big Red? What is listed as being necessary, and how to you have it in your expression?


----------



## ATACX GYM

Chris Parker said:


> However what you've presented is not practicing them in a structured training method which focuses on the principles. In fact, that's what the "standard" form of the technique does... you know, the one that you don't like? So your argument is that you need a training method which is precisely what everyone else uses, because what everyone else does doesn't work?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm speaking from a hell of a lot of experience, son. And some have suggested that I'm already a skilled, experienced fighter. From watching your videos, no, I don't see that you know what you're talking about. I see that you have some physical skills, but that's it. And my constraints are something that you still don't seem to get, so I wouldn't recommend engaging in any guesswork there.
> 
> Oh, and I don't craft posts to demonstrate that we have no common ground, I structure arguments intended to get an answer. And your answers have shown that you don't really have much knowledge or understanding, when it all comes down to it.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I do. So do quite a number of others here. And you have not been able to identify why you think your technique is a version of it, despite being asked for 34 pages now. So can you answer it, if you're still claiming it? What makes your technique Sword and Hammer as presented (even as a loose guideline) by Big Red? What is listed as being necessary, and how to you have it in your expression?






ATACX GYM said:


> Againt my better judgement, I've decided to engage this line of...reasoning. But let's break this down into more bite-sized chunks so that it's more easily digested by the viewership. Chris Parker. Select one point that you want me to address, and present one question from the post above that you want me to address. I will address it. We will reach a clear understanding of the points that we'll probably perpetually disagree upon...and let's limit ourselves to 5 posts each to explain as clearly as possible our positions, perceptions, mis/understandings, reach an operational conclusion about whatever it is you choose...then move to the next matter in your post above. With the same constraints. This way my  threads don't become interminable shrill-fests, but instead feature straight-ahead, sensible, mature adult logic and data. Whaddya say?



Let's do that here too. Saves time and energy. This way we don't talk PAST or AT each other, we talk TO each other and have a tightly focused discussion with a terminus in sight.


----------



## Chris Parker

I only really asked one question, Ras, and I've repeated the same damn question for 34 pages.

What makes you believe that your technique is a version of the "standard" form as you present it as being?

Seriously, 34 pages, and you haven't answered that from my first post on page one (the second post of the thread).


----------



## ATACX GYM

Chris Parker said:


> I only really asked one question, Ras, and I've repeated the same damn question for 34 pages.
> 
> What makes you believe that your technique is a version of the "standard" form as you present it as being?
> 
> Seriously, 34 pages, and you haven't answered that from my first post on page one (the second post of the thread).



What would you define as the "standard form" Sword and Hammer?  Please provide a video example.


----------



## Chris Parker

See the first goddamn post, Ras. You presented it yourself in three different clips, then at the start of each and every one of yours.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Chris Parker said:


> See the first goddamn post, Ras. You presented it yourself in three different clips, then at the start of each and every one of yours.




I insist that you present the specific video that you are referring to in order to make the possibility of misunderstanding in any way as minute as possible.


----------



## Chris Parker

Are you kidding?!?! You started the damn thread with them, Ras!! Use your own damn clips as a reference, that's what the entire threads been based on! It's been accepted since the beginning that they represent the standard, common, typical, traditional, whichever word you want to use, for Sword and Hammer as taught in the EPAK-derived Kempo systems. 

Now just answer the damn question or admit you don't know what you're talking about and don't get what I'm asking.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Chris Parker said:


> Are you kidding?!?! You started the damn thread with them, Ras!! Use your own damn clips as a reference, that's what the entire threads been based on! It's been accepted since the beginning that they represent the standard, common, typical, traditional, whichever word you want to use, for Sword and Hammer as taught in the EPAK-derived Kempo systems.
> 
> Now just answer the damn question or admit you don't know what you're talking about and don't get what I'm asking.




This...because I asked you...



ATACX GYM said:


> I insist that you present the specific video that you are referring to in order to make the possibility of misunderstanding in any way as minute as possible.



Explain how me insisting that you embed the video that you are referring to you in any way leads to me not knowing what you're talking about and not getting what you're asking. It would seem to me that this would be the part where a reasonable person would merely embed the video requested and say: "^^^^That video up there is what I'm referring to". Furthermore, if you've been willing to post 34 pages of long script with me in order to prove your point, then taking a few seconds to embed a video in order to make your position extra clear and your question highly specific wouldn't be an issue.

I would think that such a simple operation wouldn't excite a display of temper or a profane verbal response from a mature person.


----------



## Chris Parker

Because you've ducked the question, argued about whether there even is a standard form (even though you yourself started with that), you were told what you look to for a reference, and yet you still said "can you show me what video you're talking about". Add to that the fact that, so far in the 34 pages of this thread, you have yet to show even a slight understanding of what I'm asking, even when I spoon fed you the answers.

Oh, and Ras? That was hardly profane. You haven't even got me going yet.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Chris Parker said:


> Because you've ducked the question, argued about whether there even is a standard form (even though you yourself started with that), you were told what you look to for a reference, and yet you still said "can you show me what video you're talking about". Add to that the fact that, so far in the 34 pages of this thread, you have yet to show even a slight understanding of what I'm asking, even when I spoon fed you the answers.
> 
> Oh, and Ras? That was hardly profane. You haven't even got me going yet.




You have spent more than an hour NOT posting a video that precisely and specifically embodies what you refer to. You have spent that same period of time referring over and over again to videos on this thread that are apparently exactly what I'm asking you to post. Please post that video so that we may progress beyond swapping posts that basically are me saying: "Chris Parker, please post the specific video that demonstrates the specific standard technique that you are referring to" and you saying "I'm not going to plus [ insert random ranting insult ]."

You know. You could just post the video. 2 minutes. It will result in progress and I can directly address the video to which you refer. Or you can continue to essentially engage in immature rants and insults sans video...which torpedoes progress...and is essentially a display of contrariness purely for the sake of being contrary.

1 request, Chris. Post the video which embodies specifically what you are referring to. I will promptly respond. If you refuse? We cannot go further.


----------



## Chris Parker

Post one. This thread. Your post. Your videos. 

You asked, I answered. I don't need to re-post them, you can just go to the first page and view them.

This has been asked for 34 pages, and you have yet to answer it. 

I don't think you can.


----------



## Josh Oakley

Ras, he means your part 1 and part 2 from the first post.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Josh Oakley

Chris, he is going for specificity because I told him he has a tendency to talk right past the points made by people. He is doing all this clarifying and specifying so that he doesn't miss the points in the first place. 

Humor him a bit. He is trying a method I suggested, which is new to him. He is actively trying to change the way he posts. 

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ATACX GYM

ATACX GYM said:


> traditional method of sword and hammer (defense vs flank shoulder grab and punch)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ts1Qgemr11M&feature=related
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oXiWESS32Q&feature=related
> 
> 
> the actual real world attacks that the traditional method alleged IP techs like those above are supposed to defend against:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SWORD AND HAMMER PT. 1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SWORD AND HAMMER PT. 2
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-mmdyIHkjs&feature=related
> 
> 
> 
> 
> which is teaching method--the so-called IP or THE ATACX GYM--is more appropriate for street reality? Okay commence debate discussion commenting or rude gestures...now! Lol. Hopefully all of you enjoyed all of the previous videos.



is this the post u are referring to,chris?


----------



## ATACX GYM

Chris Parker said:


> Ah, Ras, you're not going to like me much, but you did ask for "debate discussion commenting or rude gestures...", so...
> 
> The first thing I'm going to say is, if you're going to be basically just posting videos over and over again, can you learn how to embed the things? It's really not hard, you click on the video strip icon at the top of the post window (second from the right), and paste the URL of the video you want in the space provided in the pop-up box. Then click "OK".  It'll make it a lot easier for people to watch your clips, it'll make them more likely to click on them to watch them, especially when you put 7 different clips in a single post, as most people just don't want to keep opening new windows over and over again, and can help you get the comments you are after, meaning you won't have to keep following up your own posts asking why no-one's commenting.... I get the feeling that a number of the "views" here just saw the URL links and didn't want to check out the clips themselves, hence no comments. Okay?
> 
> Right, next.
> 
> There are quite a few issues that are leaping out at me from your entire premise here. We'll begin by embedding the clips so others can more easily see what we're talking about. To begin with, your "IP" versions, which you consider flawed:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Each of these show the same thing, with very little difference, so I'm not sure why three clips were needed... oh, well. We'll come back to these.
> 
> Next you link a couple of clips that show "the actual real world attacks that the traditional method alleged IP techs like those above are supposed to defend against". Love the passive aggressive tone, by the way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem, of course, is that these attacks are not what is shown in the technique, nor is it what you demonstrate against in your versions. But there's a bigger problem than that, when your clips are shown. Speaking of which, here they are:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, now we can play.
> 
> To begin with, let's look back at the initial version of the technique as shown. It's a yellow belt technique, fairly early on in the syllabus, if I'm not mistaken, yeah? And it's basically dealing with a grab to your shoulder (the clips you linked show the right shoulder, you oscillate between right and left, I don't think it matters too much, provided it's the left hand grabbing the right shoulder, or the right hand grabbing the left... otherwise it changes the technique into requiring something different), which you secure/cover with your far hand, then step towards the opponent as they threaten a strike, and pre-emptively strike to their throat with a sword-hand, and "bounce" that hand down to strike with a hammer fist to an open target. I'm going to be bluntly honest, Ras, there's really little wrong with that technique. The biggest issue with it arises when the person grabbing you was just going to ask you the time, or to offer a drink, or similar, and you crush their trachea as a result... so I might not choose a potentially lethal strike as my first response against a grab. Courts here tend to look down on such things. But from a mechanical point of view, this technique is actually quite solid, taking into account a range of likely events. Not bad at all, really.
> 
> When we get to your clips, though, I gotta say, uh, what? Neither of those clips show anything like the attack that Sword and Hammer are dealing with. Both are essentially king-hits which work by blind-siding the people being hit. There is no grab to the shoulder, which is the primary aspect of the attack in Sword and Hammer, as shown in each and every version shown, the three initial ones, both of yours, and all others I've seen from a quick search. So, uh, no. Additionally, you don't seem to have paid attention to them, based on some comments you make in your clip.
> 
> Right, your clips.
> 
> The first one, well, let's be frank. It's again basically overkill, which is something missing from the initial technique (other than an overly aggressive first strike). Additionally, the basic attack isn't actually that realistic (the original one is more realistic, to be honest). Let's start there, as your first point is to talk down the common version.
> 
> You give the set-up of a grab to the shoulder, and then talk (with a degree of sarcasm, it seems...) about "feel(ing) the Kempo-ness of the situation" before turning and striking. There's a little interplay about the opponent not blocking (as your training partner does), and you finish by saying that "this doesn't happen in real life". Actually Ras, yes, it does. There are a number of set-ups that might go this way, but it's really a relatively common form of attack. The basic idea is that they grab your shoulder, and pull you into a strike with the other hand. The pull turns you towards them, as well as into the strike itself, adding to the power. It could be when one guy is yelling at you in front, his buddy comes up behind and grabs, pulls, and hits, or as you're turning and walking away from someone they grab you as you go, spin you, and hit. But it really is a common attack, you know.
> 
> Next, the idea of "feeling the Kempo-ness" leading to the execution of the technique, really, I don't see that as necessary at all. If you're being attacked with this realistically, they'll be pulling you around and back, so the step in towards them could very easily be just a natural response to the pull (and trying to keep your balance, so dropping as you step, not mentioned, but demonstrated in the clips, is expected as well). As to the cover, that's common to regain some control, and is recommended. Your idea of the other guy blocking being possible is honestly unlikely as well, as they'll be concerned about hitting you, and won't expect a counter-strike, as a result will simply not be looking to block anything. And the initial strike, if done with the right timing, would be launched as you're turning, making it land before the opponent's strike is properly launched, as well as providing cover in case you're just a bit too slow. Really, Ras, it's not a bad technique.
> 
> Then we get you changing the structure of the attack by keeping your opponent on your left shoulder, but having them grab with their left hand... which completely removes the attack that's actually seen in Sword and Hammer, as well as removing the targets, body positioning, and more, altering the timing and rhythm of the sequence entirely, and basically necessitating a completely different technique, which, to be blunt, is what you're doing. This is no longer the Yellow Belt Technique "Sword and Hammer" from the American Kempo system, as there are almost no aspects of it left, other than similar fists being used.
> 
> You also start to talk about the fact that, from here, as it's a surprise attack, you'll be hit first, probably a few times, and have to respond from there. The problem, of course, is you've just shown us what happens when you get blindsided and hit hard in a surprise attack. In most cases, you get knocked to the ground, hard. So you're not really able to continue with the technique as you show it (which is your partner slapping your back, let's be honest, hardly a committed strike to the back of the head, which is what would be likely (not too difficult to knock someone out that way, or give them a concussion, at the very least rattle them enough to continue to do some pretty major damage). So your plan of "get hit first" isn't what I'd recommend.... and, again, it goes against what Sword and Hammer actually teaches. The technique advocates a pre-emptive strike, in order to avoid such an eventuality. Deciding you don't think it's realistic (it certainly can be, for the record) doesn't make your technique better or more realistic, it means you've missed the point of the technique in the first place.
> 
> When it comes to the rest of the technique you show (the punch to the body, the strike to the face with the knee, the hand to the back of the neck, another fist to the back of the neck, and then another hand sword to the back of the neck again), honestly, I'm seeing a lot of mechanical problems, as well as some potential charges (based on the assault laws here) with the multiple strikes to the back of his head when it's clear he's no longer in a position to continue to assault you. But mainly the mechanical and structural issues, a range of things you do rob you of potential power, making a lot of this a lot weaker and less effective than it could be.
> 
> Your second version. Well, you start off saying it's nothing like what others would have been taught, and, well, yeah. Because you have barely included anything from the original, other than the name and certain fists. Other than that, tactically it's a completely different technique, rythmically it's a completely different technique, strategically it's a completely different technique, mechanically it's a completely different technique, philosophically it's a completely different technique... really, it's just a completely different technique.
> 
> You then denigrate the original form, including the sarcastic comment "and, he's just amazed by your skill". Really? I'd say more that he's dropped to the ground finding it hard to breathe, as you've just attacked his airways, then his groin, and gotten distance. Clearing his arm shouldn't be necessary, or difficult, and the idea of the attacker being "amazed at your skill" shows a gap in understanding what would have actually happened, don't you think? You then make some comments about the technique not working against a real, dynamic attack... gotta say, Ras, this one I think really would. It's kinda built into the technique, and I'm a little surprised you can't see it, given the amount of "real life experience" you claim. But let's see what that "real life experience" has taught you....
> 
> You have your opponent pushing you forward while hitting you? Really? And you think that's the more common attack? Gotta say, it's one of the most ineffectual attacks I can think of, as you'd be constantly pushing your victim out of the range of your fist, making your attacks not much more than useless.... Most of your following response suffers from much of the same issues as the previous one (punch to the temple? Good chance of breaking your own hand, particularly with the weak structure you're using, but hey, go for it!).
> 
> At the four minute mark you finally get closer to the way it's supposed to be, but still miss the basic tactic of a pre-emptive strike. And, to be honest, the attack was unrealistic in it's rhythm and distancing, so it wasn't really a realistic portrayal either. And I'm really not fond of that "secure" and choke at the end... there's just too many openings and issues going on there.
> 
> Honestly, if I was to offer you some advice, it would be to not automatically take the tact that every single technique is supposed to be an exact representation of violence, and to look for what it's teaching you. It seems to me that you tend to want to go to something you feel is more "realistic" without really looking at what is there in the first place... and that leads to some big gaps in what you're presenting.
> 
> Well, I said you wouldn't like it...



 ^^^ is the above an accurate summation of your concerns?


----------



## Chris Parker

Josh Oakley said:


> Chris, he is going for specificity because I told him he has a tendency to talk right past the points made by people. He is doing all this clarifying and specifying so that he doesn't miss the points in the first place.
> 
> Humor him a bit. He is trying a method I suggested, which is new to him. He is actively trying to change the way he posts.
> 
> Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2



I understand that, Josh, but I don't see how much more specific I could be than telling him (repeatedly) that the videos he himself posted are taken as the baseline. Reposting them doesn't actually add much more specifics or detail. He was told this, and continued to insist, which just has him coming across as being difficult (to be diplomatic about it).



ATACX GYM said:


> is this the post u are referring to,chris?



Those are the videos I'm referring to, yes.



ATACX GYM said:


> ^^^ is the above an accurate summation of your concerns?



Look to the following paragraphs:



Chris Parker said:


> Then we get you changing the structure of the attack by keeping your opponent on your left shoulder, but having them grab with their left hand... which completely removes the attack that's actually seen in Sword and Hammer, as well as removing the targets, body positioning, and more, altering the timing and rhythm of the sequence entirely, and basically necessitating a completely different technique, which, to be blunt, is what you're doing. This is no longer the Yellow Belt Technique "Sword and Hammer" from the American Kempo system, as there are almost no aspects of it left, other than similar fists being used.
> 
> .........................
> 
> Your second version. Well, you start off saying it's nothing like what others would have been taught, and, well, yeah. Because you have barely included anything from the original, other than the name and certain fists. Other than that, tactically it's a completely different technique, rythmically it's a completely different technique, strategically it's a completely different technique, mechanically it's a completely different technique, philosophically it's a completely different technique... really, it's just a completely different technique.
> 
> ..........................
> 
> Honestly, if I was to offer you some advice, it would be to not automatically take the tact that every single technique is supposed to be an exact representation of violence, and to look for what it's teaching you. It seems to me that you tend to want to go to something you feel is more "realistic" without really looking at what is there in the first place... and that leads to some big gaps in what you're presenting.
> 
> Well, I said you wouldn't like it...



From there I started asking you what makes you claim your technique as related to the first ones you posted, as it shares no real similarities. And, 35 pages later, here we are. Still asking the same question.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Originally Posted by *Chris Parker* 


Then we get you changing the structure of the attack by keeping your opponent on your left shoulder, but having them grab with their left hand... which completely removes the attack that's actually seen in Sword and Hammer, as well as removing the targets, body positioning, and more, altering the timing and rhythm of the sequence entirely, and basically necessitating a completely different technique, which, to be blunt, is what you're doing. This is no longer the Yellow Belt Technique "Sword and Hammer" from the American Kempo system, as there are almost no aspects of it left, other than similar fists being used."


The sequence which you refer to as "Sword and Hammer" is not "Sword and Hammer". As I said to you very very early on in this thread when I first answered your question above...there is no universal, inflexible expression of Sword and Hammer. It is a codification of an OUTLINE of a sequence in the teaching manual called BIG RED which proffers LOOSE GUIDELINES on this sequence for the purpose of teaching other instructors how to craft THEIR OWN "IDEAL PHASE TECHNIQUES". I have given this answer to you for 2/3rds of this thread. It is factually indisputable, whether you wish to accept it as such or not.

What I have done is also a part of the American Kenpo lineage: I applied the "50 Ways to Sunday" [taught to Mr. Parker by Prof. Chow and O'Sensei Oshita to Ed Parker prior ] and The Web of Knowledge categories of attack and h2h and CQB defined ranges of attack to this Ideal Phase concept and OUTLINE for Sword and Hammer. The result is my Sword and Hammer expression. This is why my Sword and Hammer IS A "Sword and Hammer Idea", this is why my expression satisfies every requirement of The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique Process as listed and defined by Mr. Parker, and is in complete lockstep with primary principles in Kenpo..while at the same time my expression is radically different than any and all others.

I came about this expression through direct combat and training testing that started in the scenario proffered [ the flank shoulder grab ]. I tested quite a few grab variants from various flank positions. This video shows some of them, not all of them.

[video=youtube_share;AuvuhW1u2WE]http://youtu.be/AuvuhW1u2WE[/video]



"Your second version. Well, you start off saying it's nothing like what others would have been taught, and, well, yeah. Because you have barely included anything from the original, other than the name and certain fists. Other than that, tactically it's a completely different technique, rythmically it's a completely different technique, strategically it's a completely different technique, mechanically it's a completely different technique, philosophically it's a completely different technique... really, it's just a completely different technique. "<--CHRIS PARKER

See my previous answer.

"Honestly, if I was to offer you some advice, it would be to not automatically take the tact that every single technique is supposed to be an exact representation of violence, and to look for what it's teaching you. It seems to me that you tend to want to go to something you feel is more "realistic" without really looking at what is there in the first place... and that leads to some big gaps in what you're presenting."

I disagree with your premise above. First? Imo whatever lessons one can learn from less combatively viable sequences...one can learn better, sooner with a sequence that's also combatively viable. Further, realistic combat techniques impart lessons that no other technique can hope to teach. But there is a way to do it. Allow me to clarify more quickly what my thoughts and opinions are about this matter:

[video=youtube_share;imjmLWj5WCU]http://youtu.be/imjmLWj5WCU[/video]


Matt Thornton TRAINING AND THE I-METHOD [ I learned this method decades ago and we called it the I:3 TEACHING ]

[video=youtube_share;C-g6JTQDWNc]http://youtu.be/C-g6JTQDWNc[/video]



So my variant is the result of a combination of Kenpo principles and training paradigms predating our birth combined with my personal martial arts experiences. Exactly as Mr. Parker wished. The difference in my expression is why my expression birthed THE ATACX GYM KENPO and is not Ed Parker's Kenpo Karate...which is also what Mr. Parker wished. Individual expression that's constantly evolving with the common root being Kenpo and using Kenpo concepts, principles, training methods, etc.


----------



## MJS

ATACX GYM said:


> 1) The most efficient way to download the principles, tactics strategies etc is to practice them in a structured training paradigm that rapidly downloads the importance of grasping the principles behind the techniques. Understanding the principles behind the techniques comes from copious amounts of reps in numerous different situations. Grasping the principles should and can be done sooner--like White Belt--with the proper combination of Alive Training, high levels of reps of single techniques sequences and multiple techniques and sequences against escalating resistance, and multiple drills and isolated sparring scenarios wherein you're called upon to use your skills.
> 
> 2) Chris Parker, is speaking from whatever experience he has. He is missing what is blatantly obvious to skilled experienced fighters. And all of that yakkity yakk and much of our disagreements would vanish if we were both on the mat together. He'd quickly see what I was talking about, and he'd quickly see that I already knew what he was talking about. However, Chris is apparently constrained by his instructor to NOT visually display via video his sublime mastery of technique, principle and strategy, so he crafts posts that make it clear that he and I have no common ground.
> 
> 3) He contends that my S&H isn't a version of the "traditional" S&H. If he refers to the most popular variant of Sword and Hammer? That expression IS NOT THEE "Sword and Hammer". He fails to grasp that there IS NO "TRADITIONAL" Sword and Hammer. The Sword and Hammer--as defined by Big Red--is really a "loose guideline" designed for instructors to create THEIR OWN "Sword and Hammer". The Tracy technique "Attack the Circle" fits into the equation. My expression does. The more popular variant mistakenly referred to as The Ideal Phase Sword and Hammer fits.
> 
> 4) MJS, from our previous phone conversation you should know directly...the method I champion far more speedily, thoroughly and comprehensively achieves this desired effect than the extant Kenpo training paradigm.



1 & 4) Yes, IIRC, I asked about the method you use.  I gave my interpretation of it, which you said was correct, that being, that you take a tech, ie: S&H, break it down into smaller parts, drill those parts, gradually adding in more.  My theory is simply that I do the same, only I like to get the students to the point where they 'forget' about the tech so to speak, and simply act, adjust, accordingly to the situation being presented.  In other words, instead of saying, "Ok, guy is grabbing me, I'll do S&H.  Ok, something is going wrong.  Let me now go to the tech in the laundry list of 100+, that addresses this situation."  Sorry, IMHO, things happen to fast for one to have to sort thru and find the right response, ie: tech to now meet the new challenges.  Instead, what basic, principle, concept, idea, can I fall back on?  IMO, THAT is the better route to take.  

2) Chris, IMHO, is probably one of the most knowledgeable folks on this forum.  As for posting video...I wont speak for him as to why he wont/doesnt want to do it.  IMO, its really a moot point, as I'd wager if he did, his views would still be deemed wrong by some.  I think that its fairly easy, for a skilled MAist, to view a clip of something, and figure out whether or not its great, good, sub-par, or awful. LOL.  

3) Again, dont wanna speak for him, but IMO, I'd say his thoughts are in line with what I've said...that 99.99% of the Kenpo schools that we see out there, all perform the same tech.  I can post a clip of Palanzo and the Casa guys, doing S&H and I'd bet dollars to donuts, it'd look the same.


----------



## ATACX GYM

MJS said:


> 1 & 4) Yes, IIRC, I asked about the method you use.  I gave my interpretation of it, which you said was correct, that being, that you take a tech, ie: S&H, break it down into smaller parts, drill those parts, gradually adding in more.  My theory is simply that I do the same, only I like to get the students to the point where they 'forget' about the tech so to speak, and simply act, adjust, accordingly to the situation being presented.  In other words, instead of saying, "Ok, guy is grabbing me, I'll do S&H.  Ok, something is going wrong.  Let me now go to the tech in the laundry list of 100+, that addresses this situation."  Sorry, IMHO, things happen to fast for one to have to sort thru and find the right response, ie: tech to now meet the new challenges.  Instead, what basic, principle, concept, idea, can I fall back on?  IMO, THAT is the better route to take.
> 
> 2) Chris, IMHO, is probably one of the most knowledgeable folks on this forum.  As for posting video...I wont speak for him as to why he wont/doesnt want to do it.  IMO, its really a moot point, as I'd wager if he did, his views would still be deemed wrong by some.  I think that its fairly easy, for a skilled MAist, to view a clip of something, and figure out whether or not its great, good, sub-par, or awful. LOL.
> 
> 3) Again, dont wanna speak for him, but IMO, I'd say his thoughts are in line with what I've said...that 99.99% of the Kenpo schools that we see out there, all perform the same tech.  I can post a clip of Palanzo and the Casa guys, doing S&H and I'd bet dollars to donuts, it'd look the same.




1&4) There is more to my method than what we spoke of, but I knew we both had limited time...so I focused on the area that would expedite the results that you sought. Sequences techniques and principles become automatically performed and grasped with the right kind of training paradigm, I completely agree. As we all should know, properly ingrained principles generally ensure that the right attacks, defenses, escapes etc are properly executed under pressure even if they are not previously memorized, previously practiced scripted techniques or sequences.

2) Video shows visual evidence of what he's talking about, and makes a gigantic difference. Imagine how the Rodney King case would have turned out...without the video squarely contradicting the lies of the police officers. Furthermore, observe this thread: it's highly highly unlikely that this thread would be as long as it is without the video I provided contrasting my movement and expression with the dysfunctional general so-called IP expression. He would not have any specifics whatsoever to hang his criticisms on. I strongly suspect that he knows that the same and more is waiting for him should he gather the conviction to show himself doing anything martial on video.

3) I agree wholeheartedly, and that yet again is the problem. There was never supposed to be such unanimity of expression...especially unanimity of dysfunctional expression...in EPKK. It goes against the very definition of The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique Process coupled with the means to achieve same as defined by BIG RED.


----------



## Twin Fist

or not


----------



## Josh Oakley

So I am reading through infinite insights and I realized something.. Ras wouldn't bet doing Sword AND Hammer, because he is delivering a sword WITH a hammer each time I have seen him on video. Obviously there are other problems, but just by the lexical definition of AND in kenpo, he wouldn't be doing it.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Chris Parker

Knowing I'm not going to get the answers to these, but I didn't want Ras' last posts to go unanswered, as he's still just not getting it... 



ATACX GYM said:


> Originally Posted by *Chris Parker*
> 
> 
> Then we get you changing the structure of the attack by keeping your opponent on your left shoulder, but having them grab with their left hand... which completely removes the attack that's actually seen in Sword and Hammer, as well as removing the targets, body positioning, and more, altering the timing and rhythm of the sequence entirely, and basically necessitating a completely different technique, which, to be blunt, is what you're doing. This is no longer the Yellow Belt Technique "Sword and Hammer" from the American Kempo system, as there are almost no aspects of it left, other than similar fists being used."
> 
> 
> The sequence which you refer to as "Sword and Hammer" is not "Sword and Hammer". As I said to you very very early on in this thread when I first answered your question above...there is no universal, inflexible expression of Sword and Hammer. It is a codification of an OUTLINE of a sequence in the teaching manual called BIG RED which proffers LOOSE GUIDELINES on this sequence for the purpose of teaching other instructors how to craft THEIR OWN "IDEAL PHASE TECHNIQUES". I have given this answer to you for 2/3rds of this thread. It is factually indisputable, whether you wish to accept it as such or not.



Right. Hopefully you'll see this, Ras, but if not, let's clear up your misunderstanding of the question, and the lack in your answer.

As you say, "Sword and Hammer" is from an outline found in Big Red. How is your technique Sword and Hammer when you aren't following that outline? What is the outline itself? How is your technique following it?

See, that's been the question, Ras. You've been asked what makes your technique related to the one you yourself are contrasting it with, but you have failed completely to answer that, instead hiding behind your misunderstanding of the idea that "there are no universal, concrete techniques". That's why I have told you for the entire thread that your answer was not really answering what was being asked. The fact that you couldn't see past your misunderstanding to hear the actual question is the only part of that that is "factually indisputable". 



ATACX GYM said:


> What I have done is also a part of the American Kenpo lineage: I applied the "50 Ways to Sunday" [taught to Mr. Parker by Prof. Chow and O'Sensei Oshita to Ed Parker prior ] and The Web of Knowledge categories of attack and h2h and CQB defined ranges of attack to this Ideal Phase concept and OUTLINE for Sword and Hammer. The result is my Sword and Hammer expression. This is why my Sword and Hammer IS A "Sword and Hammer Idea", this is why my expression satisfies every requirement of The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique Process as listed and defined by Mr. Parker, and is in complete lockstep with primary principles in Kenpo..while at the same time my expression is radically different than any and all others.



The principles of Kempo weren't the discussion, Ras, the principles of Sword and Hammer were. I'd also suggest that, based on the links and quotes you yourself presented, you have really missed the point of things such as "50 Ways to Sunday". But the question remained, what principles are necessary for a Kempo technique to be considered Sword and Hammer, as yours shares almost nothing with everyone elses... which makes it a completely different technique on pretty much every level.



ATACX GYM said:


> I came about this expression through direct combat and training testing that started in the scenario proffered [ the flank shoulder grab ]. I tested quite a few grab variants from various flank positions. This video shows some of them, not all of them.
> 
> [video=youtube_share;AuvuhW1u2WE]http://youtu.be/AuvuhW1u2WE[/video]



Yeah, you've shown that video a few times, and each time you've been told that you've got a fair few mistakes in there, from your base concept of "reality" onwards. And how you came up with your technique there (by experimenting with different responses against a range of different attacks, with only the angle of attack in common) really does tell me that you had nothing relating to Sword and Hammer to base it on, hence there being no real connection between your technique and the one you were contrasting it with.



ATACX GYM said:


> "Your second version. Well, you start off saying it's nothing like what others would have been taught, and, well, yeah. Because you have barely included anything from the original, other than the name and certain fists. Other than that, tactically it's a completely different technique, rythmically it's a completely different technique, strategically it's a completely different technique, mechanically it's a completely different technique, philosophically it's a completely different technique... really, it's just a completely different technique. "<--CHRIS PARKER
> 
> See my previous answer.



Your previous answer (hell, all your previous answers) were rather lacking, though.



ATACX GYM said:


> "Honestly, if I was to offer you some advice, it would be to not automatically take the tact that every single technique is supposed to be an exact representation of violence, and to look for what it's teaching you. It seems to me that you tend to want to go to something you feel is more "realistic" without really looking at what is there in the first place... and that leads to some big gaps in what you're presenting."
> 
> I disagree with your premise above. First? Imo whatever lessons one can learn from less combatively viable sequences...one can learn better, sooner with a sequence that's also combatively viable. Further, realistic combat techniques impart lessons that no other technique can hope to teach. But there is a way to do it. Allow me to clarify more quickly what my thoughts and opinions are about this matter:



Actually, no. The chaos of "realistic training" can make it harder, or slower to get certain lessons imparted. I'll put it this way, when you're learning to write, do you start off by forming letters, then words, or do you start off by writing stories? The answer is that you start with the words and letters, then you learn structure, then you can learn to put things together as sentences and stories. And you can only do that because you've learnt the lessons (letters) in a structured, definite way.



ATACX GYM said:


> [video=youtube_share;imjmLWj5WCU]http://youtu.be/imjmLWj5WCU[/video]
> 
> 
> Matt Thornton TRAINING AND THE I-METHOD [ I learned this method decades ago and we called it the I:3 TEACHING ]
> 
> [video=youtube_share;C-g6JTQDWNc]http://youtu.be/C-g6JTQDWNc[/video]



Please. Matt Thornton may have a decent following, but frankly he's rather misguided when it comes to traditional training methods, including the amount of "aliveness" (which is just a terrible phrase, really) that is present, both in how and where it exists. When it comes to his I Method (of course you did it first, and had a similar but slightly different name for it...), a student of mine, when she came across these videos on another forum, asked me if we could do something like that. I took her through our entire training methodology, and pointed out that we do everything that Matt thinks traditional martial artists don't, as well as having better structure for more than what Matt's approach takes into consideration.

He's not someone to use to sway me to thinking you know what you're on about. Especially when you can't put it in your own words.



ATACX GYM said:


> So my variant is the result of a combination of Kenpo principles and training paradigms predating our birth combined with my personal martial arts experiences. Exactly as Mr. Parker wished. The difference in my expression is why my expression birthed THE ATACX GYM KENPO and is not Ed Parker's Kenpo Karate...which is also what Mr. Parker wished. Individual expression that's constantly evolving with the common root being Kenpo and using Kenpo concepts, principles, training methods, etc.



Yeah, I got that, and said as much in my very first post here... but the question is what basis is there for you to make a comparison between the other version of Sword and Hammer and your technique? There really isn't one... which was the whole point that you missed for 36 pages....



ATACX GYM said:


> 1&4) There is more to my method than what we spoke of, but I knew we both had limited time...so I focused on the area that would expedite the results that you sought. Sequences techniques and principles become automatically performed and grasped with the right kind of training paradigm, I completely agree. As we all should know, properly ingrained principles generally ensure that the right attacks, defenses, escapes etc are properly executed under pressure even if they are not previously memorized, previously practiced scripted techniques or sequences.



No, you were wrong. Again. Yeah, I know, you can't defend your statement, but honestly you'd just tell me that you are empirically better and so on, so I don't think it's a huge loss... but, for the record, your assessment of how to ingrain principles is only really a valid approach for a Defensive Tactics approach, not the gigantic list of techniques and responses that you're trying to put across. Especially if you're expecting it all to be ingrained "before white belt".



ATACX GYM said:


> 2) Video shows visual evidence of what he's talking about, and makes a gigantic difference. Imagine how the Rodney King case would have turned out...without the video squarely contradicting the lies of the police officers. Furthermore, observe this thread: it's highly highly unlikely that this thread would be as long as it is without the video I provided contrasting my movement and expression with the dysfunctional general so-called IP expression. He would not have any specifics whatsoever to hang his criticisms on. I strongly suspect that he knows that the same and more is waiting for him should he gather the conviction to show himself doing anything martial on video.



You're kidding, yeah? The argument for me putting up a video is Rodney King? Because the video helped in the trial? Really? You remember how that trial went, yeah? And besides, it's not like we needed a video of police officers helping Rodney across the street to know that the video of them beating him was wrong, did we? Because that's what you're arguing, you know... 

And did you really miss when I said that my criticisms stand whether or not I have any skill myself, Ras? In other words, your entire cry for video is baseless on all fronts, other than you crying foul that the videos you put up for critique have garnered criticism that you can't deal with or answer.



ATACX GYM said:


> 3) I agree wholeheartedly, and that yet again is the problem. There was never supposed to be such unanimity of expression...especially unanimity of dysfunctional expression...in EPKK. It goes against the very definition of The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique Process coupled with the means to achieve same as defined by BIG RED.



Each expression is different in some way, but there is continuity between them. In other words, they are all following the same basic guidelines, or outline, for the technique.. but you're not. And you got your take on the Ideal Phase Analytical Process quite wrong. But you've been told that by others far higher on the list than myself, and you still didn't listen, so what did we expect, really.... 



Josh Oakley said:


> So I am reading through infinite insights and I realized something.. Ras wouldn't bet doing Sword AND Hammer, because he is delivering a sword WITH a hammer each time I have seen him on video. Obviously there are other problems, but just by the lexical definition of AND in kenpo, he wouldn't be doing it.
> 
> Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2



That's part of it, yep.


----------

