# Sacrifice techniques



## JamesB (Jul 6, 2006)

Here's my brief descriptions:

1. *Blinding Sacrifice* - jam fingers, thumbs, pointy objects etc into your attacker's eyes. Nice! errr, wait..

2. *Twirling Sacrifice* - fail to survive the full-nelson and in the process rupture your kidneys, break your own back and give yourself a hernia trying pick up your attacker who'll almost certainly have a 50lb advantage on you. No thanks!

3. *Squatting Sacrifice* - bust your attacker's leg in half as you leap backwards onto him whilst still holding his foot. Crack!

So my question is, 'eh?' - in other words, why exactly do these techniques exist? These three techs seem impractible on a number of levels:

It seems to me Blinding-Sacrifice teaches how to get yourself a prison sentence. Twirling-Sacrifice teaches how to land yourself in hospital in one swift move. Squatting-Sacrifice seems the most workable of the three although it does seem like a wrestling move more than a self-defence tactic. Which is fair enough I suppose - doesn't Judo have 'sacrifice throws' of some form?

Kenpo's supposed to be practical, so what are your thoughts on these techniques - what am I missing? Please, no 'category completions'  

In all seriousness, I'd be most interested in hearing when these techniques were introduced, where they were derived from - i.e. what art(s) - and on what scale were they adopted by Kenpo practioners? 

thanks,
James


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jul 6, 2006)

The word "Sacrafice", in the Kenpo techs, represents a putting aside of priciples for any given reason. The nature of the attack and the dimensional stage of action allows for this sacrafice.
Sean


----------



## JamesB (Jul 6, 2006)

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> The word "Sacrafice", in the Kenpo techs, represents a putting aside of priciples for any given reason. The nature of the attack and the dimensional stage of action allows for this sacrafice.
> Sean


 
ok I sort of understand....the name 'Sacrifice' means you 'go for broke' I guess. But could you be more specific please? for example, what is it about the nature of the attack in any of these sacrifice techniques that is different to a previous (comparible) technique?

e.g. how is the blinding-sacrifice attack (a choke) different to any other choke, how is the bear-hug in squatting sacrifice different? honestly, I don't know, I would appreciate any insight on this..


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jul 6, 2006)

JamesB said:
			
		

> ok I sort of understand....the name 'Sacrifice' means you 'go for broke' I guess. But could you be more specific please? for example, what is it about the nature of the attack in any of these sacrifice techniques that is different to a previous (comparible) technique?
> 
> e.g. how is the blinding-sacrifice attack (a choke) different to any other choke, how is the bear-hug in squatting sacrifice different? honestly, I don't know, I would appreciate any insight on this..


Well for instance, both the attackers hands are occupied during Blinding sacrafice; so, once you protect your vitals (a must) its ok to lose the whole check hight strike low mentality and use both hands to strike the groin, both hands to hit the kidney, ect. The reason you may do this is because the attacker just tied up both his or her hands in his or her attack.
Sean


----------



## HKphooey (Jul 6, 2006)

James, this is only my own interpretation...

I have also heard the term sacrifice to mean grabbing the legs or body, hence leaving your opponent with open weapons to use (hands are not free for a check).  So as mentioned by TOD, you have committed to a normally unsafe action.  Take Squatting Sacrifice for example. As one squats to grab the attackers leg, the groin, legs and back are open to attack.  If you work this technique with a partner you will find that the slightest misalignment can open you up for serious damage (counter attack).  I personally found the techniques to be effective after hours of work with a partner, but would not chose to use them in real word fighting. 

Just my take on the subject.


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Jul 6, 2006)

JamesB said:
			
		

> Here's my brief descriptions:
> 
> 1. *Blinding Sacrifice* - jam fingers, thumbs, pointy objects etc into your attacker's eyes. Nice! errr, wait..
> 
> ...


 
You asked for an answer and then said "no category completions" which is one of the BIG answers to the question. At any rate the "sacrifice" is that you give something to get something. We sacfrifice a rule or principle in order to effect a technique. These techniques aren't there just for practicality but are also there as examples of when it may be ok or even necessary to break one of kenpo's principles in order to effect a defense.

Blinding Sacrifice is showing the relation between front shoulder grab and bear huig defenses because they are fundamentally the same. It also shows anther way to use back up mass by pulling (the back-knuckles to the kidneys) as opposed to the usual pushing. Blinding Sacrifice is really two moves in one which is why the eye poke section is repeated and your hands return to where they started from halfway through the move. ANy time a movement is done twice either nearly identically or on opposite sides within the same move it is to draw attention to it. There is something specific there. Such as Escape from the Storm, Repeated Devastation, etc.

Also Twirling Sacrfice is a variation of a Judo/Ju Jitsu throw. It win't injure your back or knees if done correctly. Unfortunately I see many kenpoists who aren't versed in Judo/Ju Jitsu that don't know how to execute this technique properly. It's just a reversed hip throw with a spin to complete a catego.....nevermind....


----------



## Kenpodoc (Jul 6, 2006)

James,

I've heard that Mr. Parker actually did Twirling Sacrifice in the Pasadena Studio on a wrestler who challenged him.  Personally, I can do it on a larger resisting opponent without injuring myself. I do have to exert some control not to hurt my opponent.

Jeff


----------



## Kenpodoc (Jul 6, 2006)

Squatting sacrifice isn't my favorite but I opened a Gracie Jujitsu book in Barnes and Nobel once and they were demonstrating exactly the same entry except they transitioned into a knee bar.

It may be impractical but a former student of my instructor was approached from behind when she went to enter her car. she reached down picked up the agressors leg and he fell back striking his head on the pavement. She went to get help but he was gone when she returned.  We can quibble about the middle but I'd say the entries good.

Jeff


----------



## JamesB (Jul 6, 2006)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:
			
		

> You asked for an answer and then said "no category completions" which is one of the BIG answers to the question.


 
ok, the reason I said that was because my understanding is that category-completions don't really give specific answers to things such as the phsycology of the attack, body mechanics etc (which is what I'm hoping to discuss). I view C.C. as rather abstract concepts - sort of a 'well, we have a technique for "x" and "y", let's do one for "z"'. Personally I don't find as much value this kind of abstract idea, as I do in specific details (how's and 'why's).....However if you've got any insights into this then I'd like to hear them.



			
				Kenpojujitsu3 said:
			
		

> At any rate the "sacrifice" is that you give something to get something. We sacfrifice a rule or principle in order to effect a technique. These techniques aren't there just for practicality but are also there as examples of when it may be ok or even necessary to break one of kenpo's principles in order to effect a defense.


 
great that's what I'm looking for - the why's of the techniques - i.e., why it is necessary, what has happened during the course of the altercation to make these techniques a viable option. Why, on your first move for Blinding Sacrifice, do you instantly blind/maim your attacker - and what makes you proceed to further inflict damage when he would probably not be standing anywhere near you after that initial move?



			
				Kenpojujitsu3 said:
			
		

> Blinding Sacrifice is showing the relation between front shoulder grab and bear huig defenses because they are fundamentally the same. It also shows anther way to use back up mass by pulling (the back-knuckles to the kidneys) as opposed to the usual pushing. Blinding Sacrifice is really two moves in one which is why the eye poke section is repeated and your hands return to where they started from halfway through the move. ANy time a movement is done twice either nearly identically or on opposite sides within the same move it is to draw attention to it. There is something specific there. Such as Escape from the Storm, Repeated Devastation, etc.


 
interesting, I'm going to have a think about that before commenting..



			
				Kenpojujitsu3 said:
			
		

> Also Twirling Sacrfice is a variation of a Judo/Ju Jitsu throw. It win't injure your back or knees if done correctly. Unfortunately I see many kenpoists who aren't versed in Judo/Ju Jitsu that don't know how to execute this technique properly. It's just a reversed hip throw with a spin to complete a catego.....nevermind....


 
this is interesting as well (the hip-throw) - My point of refence for this technique is videos of Squatting Sacrifice performed where the defender bends down, grabs the attacker by the back of the knees, and then hauls him up, spins him around several times and runs his head into the nearest lamp post. I don't see it being practical to pick someone up like that if one were a smaller student - but a hip throw makes more sense. Do you know if this method is taught widely at all?

ok and I'm all ears for what category the spin completes 

thanks
James


----------



## JamesB (Jul 6, 2006)

Kenpodoc said:
			
		

> James,
> 
> I've heard that Mr. Parker actually did Twirling Sacrifice in the Pasadena Studio on a wrestler who challenged him. Personally, I can do it on a larger resisting opponent without injuring myself. I do have to exert some control not to hurt my opponent.
> 
> Jeff


 
do you mean, Mr Parker was not just demoing the technique on the wrestler, but it kind of happened as they were wrestling around? shame there's not more video-clips of those times..


----------



## Kenpodoc (Jul 6, 2006)

JamesB said:
			
		

> do you mean, Mr Parker was not just demoing the technique on the wrestler, but it kind of happened as they were wrestling around? shame there's not more video-clips of those times..


My understanding is that a Wrestler challenged Mr. Parker, he essentially did the technique Twirling sacrifice and knocked the guy out. I don't think it was real friendly as the rest of the story was that the students picked the guy up and put him unconscious in a nearby empty lot.  A good story but I wasn't there so I can't vouch for the truth.

Jeff


----------



## JamesB (Jul 6, 2006)

HKphooey said:
			
		

> I have also heard the term sacrifice to mean grabbing the legs or body, hence leaving your opponent with open weapons to use (hands are not free for a check).




interesting perspective - it applies to all three techniques so makes alot of sense.
 


			
				KenpoDoc said:
			
		

> Squatting sacrifice isn't my favorite but I opened a Gracie Jujitsu book in Barnes and Nobel once and they were demonstrating exactly the same entry except they transitioned into a knee bar.
> 
> It may be impractical but a former student of my instructor was approached from behind when she went to enter her car. she reached down picked up the agressors leg and he fell back striking his head on the pavement. She went to get help but he was gone when she returned. We can quibble about the middle but I'd say the entries good.


 
mmmm so it's not just a 'kenpo' thing then - actually it doesn't surprise me that much as it's a fairly different tactic to the 'regular' kenpo techniques.

How are people performing Squatting Sacrifice? As a bend fowards, or a sit back? Would sitting back on the attacker's leg (above the knee) before bending forwards cause their leg to straighten a bit? This would cause their arms + upper body to be checked automatically because they have to regain their balance and fall backwards - and by the time they regain control of their weapons you've got them....?


----------



## Doc (Jul 6, 2006)

Interesting thread. I'll   got to go  i'll get back later.


----------



## Ceicei (Jul 6, 2006)

JamesB said:
			
		

> How are people performing Squatting Sacrifice? As a bend fowards, or a sit back? Would sitting back on the attacker's leg (above the knee) before bending forwards cause their leg to straighten a bit? This would cause their arms + upper body to be checked automatically because they have to regain their balance and fall backwards - and by the time they regain control of their weapons you've got them....?



It's more of a sit back.  Keeping your back straight as much as possible will aid with your balance.  Leaning forward too much will take you off balance.  

This wasn't one of my favorite techniques (and still isn't), but when I started cross training with JuJitsu, I understood the technique much better and now I can do this against a person who outweighs me.  This technique relies upon an understanding of leverage, balance, and a few other principles.  If you wuld like me to elavorate on this, I can.

Mr. Ed Parker has a background in Judo, so it doesn't suprise me that some kenpo techniques will have a Judo basis.  In fact, if you look through several technqiues (especially among the advanced ones), there are quite a few grappling holds and movements.

- Ceicei


----------



## JamesB (Jul 6, 2006)

Ceicei said:
			
		

> It's more of a sit back. Keeping your back straight as much as possible will aid with your balance. Leaning forward too much will take you off balance.
> 
> This wasn't one of my favorite techniques (and still isn't), but when I started cross training with JuJitsu, I understood the technique much better and now I can do this against a person who outweighs me. This technique relies upon an understanding of leverage, balance, and a few other principles. If you wuld like me to elavorate on this, I can.


 
great, that's the way I had it in my head as well. This 'entry' as KenpoDoc says does seem to be quite workable. I'd be interested in hearing any more insight you might have on the initial phase of the technique....sometimes I have a problem sitting back on the leg, can't work out if it's because my training partner is taller than I, or if I've done something wrong up til this point.....

thanks,
James


----------



## Rich_Hale (Jul 6, 2006)

JamesB said:
			
		

> Here's my brief descriptions:
> 
> 1. *Blinding Sacrifice* 2. *Twirling Sacrifice* 3. *Squatting Sacrifice*
> 
> ...


 
Hello James,

Let's give Mr. Parker a crack at answering your question. The below is directly from Mr. Parkers Technique Notes. 


Blinding Sacrifice (Front: two hand grab or choke)

Name: The name of this technique originates from two sources: (1) the blinding effect of your strikes to the eyes, coupled with (2) hugging your body up close to his body, which allows you to sacrifice the normal use of checks. Thus this technique has been given the name Blinding Sacrifice.

Theme: The name of this technique indicates its major theme. You surprise your opponent by stepping forward while incorporating your offense into your defense. The blinding effects of your strikes to the eyes physically occupy space, and mentally occupy your opponent's mind. By immediately shuffling into your opponent and hugging up to his body, you're able to sacrifice the normal use of checks. You then employ double strikes and blocks that are symmetrical.

Attack: In the Ideal Phase of this technique your opponent is to the front. He steps forward with his right foot as he grabs both of your shoulders with both of his hands (right hand to your left shoulder, and left hand to your right shoulder).

What if: He pushes with two hands.
He chokes with two hands.
He cross-grabs with both hands.
You are on your back.

Notes: Extract the geometric figures from the Universal Pattern that you can find in this technique.

Imagine a 9 Dimensional Universal Pattern, and see how you can expand this technique to the Gaseous State of Motion.

Note how you can check Height Zones, Width Zones, and Depth Zones throughout this technique.



Twirling Sacrifice (Rear: Full Nelson)

Name: In this technique it is your opponent who is being offered as a sacrifice when employing a twirling maneuver to slam him against the wall, thus the name Twirling Sacrifice.

Theme: This technique introduces you to grabbing, lifting, and twirling as special methods in countering your opponent. In this technique emphasis is again placed on countering and controlling your opponent by preventing him from obtaining a stabilized base. You then counterbalance your opponent by twirling him 360 degrees. This maneuver greatly increases the rotational momentum needed to maximize the effects of the slam into the wall. Like Taming the Mace, this technique is also an introduction to using your environment as an offense of weapon. Here again you not only slam your opponent into the wall, but you use it as a sandwiching effect.

Attack: In the Ideal Phase of this technique your opponent is applying a Full Nelson with his back to a wall.

What if: There is no wall nearby.
There is a post nearby.
Your opponent is too large to lift and twirl.
He forces you to your knees.
You are facing a wall.

Notes: List some of the factors that might influence you in selecting Scraping Hoof, Repeated Devastation, or Twirling Sacrifice.

List some of the environmental factors that you might use defensively or offensively when employing Twirling Sacrifice.

What are some of the possible inserts (compounding moves) for this technique?

Make a list of the principles for each move of this technique, and practice it keeping in mind that these principles are used to refine the theme of the technique.

Carefully study this technique from Three Points of View.


Squatting Sacrifice (Rear: Bear hugarms free)

Name: This technique is named because of the squatting action needed to commence the technique. Because of the evident sacrifice of principles which leaves you vulnerable the name Squatting Sacrifice emerged.

Theme: As the name of this technique indicates, the theme is the need for speed when squatting to initiate your sequence. Speed of action avoids the evident sacrifice of principles normally needed to elude vulnerability. The strength of your opponent prevents further lateral movement on your part. Thus the technique teaches you to seek other dimensional avenues of action. The second part of this technique introduces you to the Control Manipulation of an opponent who is on his back into the rear of you. Prior techniques, such as Spiraling Twig taught you the use of locks and twists to manipulate your opponent's wrist. Now apply that knowledge to your opponent's ankle. Once your opponent is on his back you learn how to correctly move from the inside of his body to the outside of his body. In all, this technique is a lesson in the application of Dimensional Stages of Action.

Attack: In the Ideal phase of this technique your opponent is to the rear applying a bear hug with your arms free. His right leg is slightly forward of his left.

What if: Chapter opponents right leg is back.
Your arms are pinned.
There is a wall to your right flank.
Your arms are bound with rope.

Notes: Carefully examine the proper timing and usage of the squat and the pull to break the knee.

Utilize small circles when turning your opponent onto his stomach, when directing your force to your rear, manipulation of your opponent should be in Complete Harmony with the direction of your Body Momentum. Control Manipulation involves your hips as well as your hands.

Practice against a variety of bear hugs from the rear. Decide why you might select one technique sequence over that of another.

Move toward the Gaseous State of your art by developing solutions to the predicament of one opponent bear hugging from the rear and a second opponent attacking from the front or the flank.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Jul 6, 2006)

Rich_Hale said:
			
		

> Let's give Mr. Parker a crack at answering your question.


 
Skep-dick comment (in jest): "Yeah. Like Parker knew anything about kenpo." (yes, I actually heard someone say this...I'll refrain from stating the lineage from which they came, but it WAS a well-known EPAK line)

Awesome notes, Mr. Hale. And an authoritative contribution.

Thanks for the clarity,

Dave


----------



## MJS (Jul 6, 2006)

JamesB[FONT=Georgia said:
			
		

> How are people performing Squatting Sacrifice? As a bend fowards, or a sit back? Would sitting back on the attacker's leg (above the knee) before bending forwards cause their leg to straighten a bit? This would cause their arms + upper body to be checked automatically because they have to regain their balance and fall backwards - and by the time they regain control of their weapons you've got them....?
> [/FONT]


 
The technique is written to step out to the side.  I prefer to step slightly back and on an angle.  By doing this I find that its already beginning to put the attacker off balance.  In addition I find it much easier to reach the leg.

Mike


----------



## Doc (Jul 7, 2006)

Now for the rest of the story.

The "sacrifice" techniques, as well as some other "grappling style" techniques were contributed by Gene LeBell straight out of 'sport entertainment wrestling.' Wally Jay contributed techniques like "Captured Leaves" as well.

The problem is these techniques, according to my conversations with Mr. Parker, were introduced to make people consider different possibilities in the 'attacks, and not for their defenses.' Mr. Parker felt these were 'possibilities' that needed to be considered, and he wanted students to think about them. You can imagine his consternation when teachers and students alike just did techniques, no matter how preposterous they were.

The defenses, in general in most of these techniques are almost totally dysfunctional. Your attacker would have to be completely passive to even begin to perform the written defenses. As an example consider the supplex after a rear bear hug for "Squatting." Your attacker is pulling you upward and backwards, while you are trying to bend forward and reach between your own legs to grab his leg. Ya think? Same problem for "Twirling." Not to mention you would need to be of equal size and/or strength. Most street attackers don't "hug" people their size, they tend to "hug" the smaller, weaker, opposite gender. Think about it. Why would a guy your size run up behind you and grab you in a bear hug and just stand there? Truth is, why would a guy your size bear hug you and even attempt a supplex on the street? As for the "Full Nelson," let's be clear of one thing. "A full nelson is impossible to apply to a person on the street unless their arms are already up in the air, AND they are only semi-conscious. Now I really want you to think. Haven't you seen all of these attacks in the wrestling ring? Haven't you seen a guy come up to grab a guy, and he was 'poked' in the eyes, and then the defender wrapped his arms behind him in a bear hug? Doesn't that sound like "Blinding Sacrifice?" Of course in "Blinding" the hands strike low and then circle around the back for more double 'strikes' instead of the bear hug, but this is where it came from. Same for "Captured Leaves" etc. Sorry but these defense techniques were never practical for the street, nor were they ever intended to be, and if you haven't figured it out yet, we "'pre-motion students" never learned that stuff. The "pre-motion guys" looked at some of the stuff that was introduced for many reason including "category completion," rolled our eyes and kept doing what we were doing. With other more functional bear hug techniques available, using category completion to bend down forward, because they didn't have a technique that did that was a real test for so-called teachers. Keep in mind that Ed Parker Sr. did not write all of those techniques, and he had help. The ones that are really bad, were usually written by someone else. I was there and watched the process. It was overwhleming to say the least, but Parker assumed instructors would be 'smarter' than they turned out to be.


----------



## Seabrook (Jul 7, 2006)

JamesB said:
			
		

> Here's my brief descriptions:
> 
> 1. *Blinding Sacrifice* - jam fingers, thumbs, pointy objects etc into your attacker's eyes. Nice! errr, wait..
> 
> ...


 
Hey James,

I love all three of those techniques, and yes Blinding Sacrifice is VERY extreme given the nature of the attack.  

As for Twirling Sacrifice, I can honestly say that I have had no difficulty picking up guys and solid 50 lbs more than me when demonstrating the technique, and twirling them around into a wall (not that I actually throw them into a wall, LOL). Would it be my first option if the opponent applied a full nelson and was yanking my neck down? Probably not, but it still works.


----------



## Seabrook (Jul 7, 2006)

Rich_Hale said:
			
		

> Blinding Sacrifice (Front: two hand grab or choke)
> 
> Name: The name of this technique originates from two sources: (1) the blinding effect of your strikes to the eyes, coupled with (2) hugging your body up close to his body, which allows you to sacrifice the normal use of checks. Thus this technique has been given the name Blinding Sacrifice.
> 
> ...


 
Rich,

It was great chatting with you lastnight. 

Very cool notes.....can't wait to teach these techniques with some of the above in mind.


Jamie Seabrook


----------



## Seabrook (Jul 7, 2006)

Rich_Hale said:
			
		

> *Blinding Sacrifice* (Front: two hand grab or choke)
> 
> What if: You are on your back.
> 
> ...


 
Hey guys,

Let's discuss the what-if's Mr. Parker mentioned above. 


Jamie Seabrook


----------



## Rich_Hale (Jul 7, 2006)

I agree with Doc saying many (if not all) of our techniques were created with the attack in mind. It stands to reason that Mr. Parker would put as much thought into the attack as defense. I can see Mr. Parker thinking "I need to include techniques that utilizes a Full Nelson, a Hammer Lock and a Flank Headlock, as an attack, in order to teach my students how to properly apply (and defend against) these attacks."

It has always been and will always be a pet peeve of mine to hear students say, it's your turn, then provide a lazy attack for their opponent to defend against. At best a person is wasting half their mat time and half their partners mat time doing techniques in this way.

Half in jest, but all in truth, I tell my students that it's always my turn when we're practicing techniques. By that I mean that I don't care if I'm attacking or defending - I do both roles with the same intent, which is to improve on what I'm doing. When it's my turn to defend I want to improve on my defense and when it's my turn to attack I want to improve on my attack. This has led me to appreciate the technique attacks as well as the defenses.

Doc mentioned the difficulty of trying to use Squatting Sacrifice against a supplex, which would be tough indeed, but in the ideal phase of the technique your opponent isn't trying to supplex you, but has even provided his right foot slightly ahead of the left - just begging to be grabbed.

You will find no place where Mr. Parker, says if you are attacked with a rear bear hug the only defense against it is Squatting Sacrifice, or that if you are attacked with a rear bear hug and you attempt Squatting Sacrifice you must complete it without variation. 

On the good side, I have had (classroom) opponents apply a rear bear hug too quickly and well for me to do Crushing Hammer, but managed to pull off (a version of) Squatting Sacrifice.

Our 154 technique system that Doc (lovingly) refers to as Commercial Kenpo, and I often refer to as Sport Kenpo (same thing) is not perfect and some of the techniques, sets, forms, etc., are even less than perfect, but if we study them looking for their value instead of their faults we may find some of what Mr. Parker saw in this material.

On the other hand, if I were to dump Gift in Return, Grasp of Death, and Bow of Compulsion, because I don't like them and/or don't see their value, and later on one of my students dumped Blinding Sacrifice, Squatting Sacrifice, and Twirling Sacrifice, then one of his student dumped his least favorite techniques, and so on - what would we have left, Five Swords, Leaping Crane and Thundering Hammers? 

Well, maybe we would have to dump Five Swords too, because unless your opponent remembers to throw a good roundhouse you could find yourself walking into a wicked straight right.

So Doc, maybe Gene LeBell did introduce many grappling moves into Kenpo - is this a bad thing? In many circles Mr. Gene LeBell is to grappling what Mr. Parker is to Kenpo.

For those of you who know who Bas Rutten is, I teach a weekly Kenpo class at Bas' Elite MMA studio in Thousand Oaks, CA. Everyone at the studio knows that Bas and Gene are great friends, so I now fully plan on teaching Twirling Wings this Tuesday and just to get their attention I'll say this technique was created in collaboration between Ed Parker, the God Father of Kenpo and Gene LeBell, the God Father of grappling. They will eat it up!


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Jul 7, 2006)

JamesB said:
			
		

> ok, the reason I said that was because my understanding is that category-completions don't really give specific answers to things such as the phsycology of the attack, body mechanics etc (which is what I'm hoping to discuss). I view C.C. as rather abstract concepts - sort of a 'well, we have a technique for "x" and "y", let's do one for "z"'. Personally I don't find as much value this kind of abstract idea, as I do in specific details (how's and 'why's).....However if you've got any insights into this then I'd like to hear them.


 
The "value" of this "kind of abstract idea" is just that. It's meant to be abstract to make you think about different types of attacks and explore different types of encounters. It's also there to make you consider if you would actually use this particular counter for 1) This attack, 2) a different attack or 3) no attack at all as the technique isn't viable. If you select three then the road goes "since this technique isn't viable as a whole, how I can I split the parts to be viable?" Look at Blinding Sacrifice for one of many answers. The "abstractness" (if that's even a word) is meant to inspire thought as we humans tend to dislike abstract ideas and try to "solidify" them through thought.





			
				JamesB said:
			
		

> great that's what I'm looking for - the why's of the techniques - i.e., why it is necessary, what has happened during the course of the altercation to make these techniques a viable option. Why, on your first move for Blinding Sacrifice, do you instantly blind/maim your attacker - and what makes you proceed to further inflict damage when he would probably not be standing anywhere near you after that initial move?


 
Why continue the technique if the person "probably" wouldn't be standing there? Good question. Think about Delayed Sword. A full kick to the groin will drop most men (adrenaline dump and individual toughness aside). So where are you chopping to? Nowhere. None of the techniques are meant to go from start to finish. It can also be argued that none of the techniques are even meant to be used for combat but are only meant to teach the concepts and principles. Mr. Parker had many notes on the techniques but it must be remembered the notes are only meant to be AN interpretation, not THE interpretation. All practitioners must think, and some of these "odd" or "unworkable" techniques are there to make people think. Unfortunately many never do and the ones who do get criticized and ridiculed for not accepting "the gospel".




			
				JamesB said:
			
		

> this is interesting as well (the hip-throw) - My point of refence for this technique is videos of Squatting Sacrifice performed where the defender bends down, grabs the attacker by the back of the knees, and then hauls him up, spins him around several times and runs his head into the nearest lamp post. I don't see it being practical to pick someone up like that if one were a smaller student - but a hip throw makes more sense. Do you know if this method is taught widely at all?
> 
> ok and I'm all ears for what category the spin completes
> 
> ...


 
In Twirling Sacrifice the knee grab is what kills most people because they think that the lift comes from the grab. *Properly executed* the lift from twirling sacrifice doesn't require the use of the hands at all. Try this. After you have loosened the opponent's grip (the method differs by line) nail your elbows to the ribs to secure the opponent's arms (and therefore torso) to your body. Step around behind the person with your left leg and be sure to place your left hip behind *and underneath* the opponent's hips. Now straighten your back while pushing your hips up and towards your front (like using a "pelvic thrust" for lack of a better way to describe this) and pivoting counterclockwise towards your left. You should feel your hip and legs doing all the lifting while opponent remains suspended on your hip until you release your arms to drop him/her. This should be easy depending on the strength of your legs, not your upper body. It's a lever and fulcrum technique.

some categories of the "spin" (not *the* category) are below with a few examples (meaning not an all inclusive list)

1) Buckling/sweeping takedown by linear movement = Tripping arrow
Buckling/takedown by partial spin = Dance of Darkness
Buckling/takedown by full spin = falcons of force

Lifting takedown with hands by linear movement = Dance of Death
Lifting takedown by hands by partial spin = Brushing the Storm
Lifting takedown by hands by full spin = Twirling Sacrifice

2) Full spinning striking method = Parting Wings ext.
Full spinning grappling method = Twirling Sacrifice

3) one hand attacking/grabbing one hand = Crossing Talon
two hands attacking/grabbing one hand = Gift in Return
two hands attacking/grabbing two hands = Twist of Fate
one hand attacking grabbing one leg = Dance of Death
two hands attacking grabbing one leg = Escape from the Storm
two hands attacking grabbing two legs = Twirling Sacrifice


----------



## JamesB (Jul 7, 2006)

Rich_Hale said:
			
		

> Hello James,
> 
> Let's give Mr. Parker a crack at answering your question. The below is directly from Mr. Parkers Technique Notes.
> 
> -snip-


 
Mr Hale,
thankyou, what a great post!


----------



## JamesB (Jul 7, 2006)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:
			
		

> In Twirling Sacrifice the knee grab is what kills most people because they think that the lift comes from the grab. *Properly executed* the lift from twirling sacrifice doesn't require the use of the hands at all. Try this. After you have loosened the opponent's grip (the method differs by line) nail your elbows to the ribs to secure the opponent's arms (and therefore torso) to your body. Step around behind the person with your left leg and be sure to place your left hip behind *and underneath* the opponent's hips. Now straighten your back while pushing your hips up and towards your front (like using a "pelvic thrust" for lack of a better way to describe this) and pivoting counterclockwise towards your left. You should feel your hip and legs doing all the lifting while opponent remains suspended on your hip until you release your arms to drop him/her. This should be easy depending on the strength of your legs, not your upper body. It's a lever and fulcrum technique.
> 
> some categories of the "spin" (not the category) are below with a few examples (meaning not an all inclusive list)
> 
> ...


 
awesome, thanks for sharing!
James


----------



## JamesB (Jul 7, 2006)

Seabrook said:
			
		

> Hey James,
> 
> I love all three of those techniques, and yes Blinding Sacrifice is VERY extreme given the nature of the attack.


 
I liked the part in Mr Hales post which suggested thinking about this technique if you were on your back being attacked....doesn't seem as extreme in this case, especially if it was a female being attacked..



			
				Seabrook said:
			
		

> As for Twirling Sacrifice, I can honestly say that I have had no difficulty picking up guys and solid 50 lbs more than me when demonstrating the technique, and twirling them around into a wall (not that I actually throw them into a wall, LOL). Would it be my first option if the opponent applied a full nelson and was yanking my neck down? Probably not, but it still works.


 
I can see now for the most part the pick-up should work ok, especially if your not using your back as a lever, but your hips+legs instead as Kenpojujitsu3 mentions.

thanks,
James


----------



## JamesB (Jul 7, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> Now for the rest of the story.
> 
> The "sacrifice" techniques, as well as some other "grappling style" techniques were contributed by Gene LeBell straight out of 'sport entertainment wrestling.' Wally Jay contributed techniques like "Captured Leaves" as well.
> 
> The problem is these techniques, according to my conversations with Mr. Parker, were introduced to make people consider different possibilities in the 'attacks, and not for their defenses.' Mr. Parker felt these were 'possibilities' that needed to be considered, and he wanted students to think about them. You can imagine his consternation when teachers and students alike just did techniques, no matter how preposterous they were.


 
*that* was the kind of answer I was looking for. Thanks Doc!


----------



## HKphooey (Jul 7, 2006)

This may end up being a topic for another post, but I have a questions that may fit this thread...

When analyzing a techniques effectiveness, does one always assume the other person is just as proficient in the martial arts?  I can see how some techniques would be very ineffective on a seasoned fighter, but what about the everyday "joe" that is drunk?  I think we can be overcritical of self-defense techniques because we know the counters and or evasive moves.  And when we try to disprove the technique, we know the outcome and we can make adjustments to counter.  In many cases your attacker is not prapered for you to fight back. 

I know the untimate goal is to account for every possibility, but do we ever go overboard?

I will add again, I agree these are not the greatest techs, but worth playing around with.


----------



## Doc (Jul 7, 2006)

JamesB said:
			
		

> *that* was the kind of answer I was looking for. Thanks Doc!


Yes Mr. Parker had to design the thinking componant into even the earliest (read white belt) stages of motion kenpo. He knew some students would question things and that was good. What he didn't realize is that most instructors wouldn't even try to work out defenses to attacks and just do what was 'in the book' without a physical challenge to the material.

As Rich hale said, that's the other half of your training. Something that I force my students to give equal time. When I observe others I cringe everytime someone is to defend against  something like "Twisted Twig" and they actually give hand their hand to the attacker because no on knows how to execute a wrist-flex takedown or throw. So they end up defending against an attack the doesn't exist. So what happens when someone actually attacks you with a wrsit-flex? You lose, big time.

In a "Hard Parker System" where techniques are 'mapped' for various componants both physical and otherwise, students concentrate on learning proper execution on both sides of the technique, and in bits and pieces why certain things work and why you choose one path over another over time.

Here the student actually is exposed to a curriculum where a great deal of thought has already been put into its methods by someone who is an expert, and sees the big picture of providing the student with a base of functional knowledge. Here yopu truly can trust the teacher is giving you what you need.

In motion kenpo, it was/is always about quick 'survival' and the students are responsible for his own survival therefore, he has to be a part of the process, because there was no true 'expert' around to teach him how to survive on the street. Most of the teachers have never been there. That's why you hear students talking about techniques 'they would never do because they know it won't work.' They learn it just to get promoted.

I had a conversation with a well-known Kenpo Teacher who dmonstrated his version of a technique to me to solicit my opinion, that was completely ludicrous. I began my reply by saying, "Well on the street ...." He cut me off and said, "Oh, on the street I would do it different!" Huh?

By making students a part of the process and making them responsible for what they learned and how they performed it, students couldn't really complain because after all, they did the technique the way they wanted to. Genius marketing. Like I said the truly great teachers will 'work it out' to an extent. The rest will still get by clawing people in the eyes and smashing testicles, and providing a healthy cash flow. The bad news is, they got belts for it and are now teaching someone else. I see their videos posted all the time.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jul 7, 2006)

HKphooey said:
			
		

> This may end up being a topic for another post, but I have a questions that may fit this thread...
> 
> When analyzing a techniques effectiveness, does one always assume the other person is just as proficient in the martial arts? I can see how some techniques would be very ineffective on a seasoned fighter, but what about the everyday "joe" that is drunk? I think we can be overcritical of self-defense techniques because we know the counters and or evasive moves. And when we try to disprove the technique, we know the outcome and we can make adjustments to counter. In many cases your attacker is not prapered for you to fight back.
> 
> ...


If you are going to assume anything, assume they are better than you.
Sean


----------



## Doc (Jul 7, 2006)

HKphooey said:
			
		

> ... I know the untimate goal is to account for every possibility, but do we ever go overboard?
> 
> I will add again, I agree these are not the greatest techs, but worth playing around with.



Yes you can overboard when you abandon 'logic and sound reasoning' attempting to account for 'everything.' Kinda like when defending against a left roundhouse punch to the head, and some choose to put a dysfunctional positional check at their ribs, 'just in case.' 

You can't account for everything, but you should account for the reasonably probable. Unfortunately for the unknowledgeable, those never ending 'what if's' will choke your thought process to death with useless information.


----------



## Kenpoist (Aug 7, 2006)

Squatting Sacrifice - (Your school may already teach this) -  To make this technique more effective, after you have grabed the attacker's right leg and settled into a deep horse to break the leg/pull attacker off balace - you should apply a left stomp to the attacker's groin (before the ankle twist). If you don't break the leg - you risk losing the counter without the groin strike, IMHO.

Twirling Sacrifice - If the attacker manages to get his arm's under your arm's to apply the Full Nelson - many time they will shoot the arms up behind the neck (not real effective grab). If they put arms on top of the head with the finger's locked and are pulling the head down - the attacker know's what he/she is doing and you will be in for some major problem's.  When you step to the right - groin strike with a left hammer fist to soften them up before cating around their legs to pick them up.  If your can't spin them around (too heavy) then drop them on their back and start stomping ankles/arms/collar bones etc..


----------

