# Aggressive Twins



## jfarnsworth (Jun 1, 2002)

I was kind of hoping to revisit the technique of the week thing that was discussed a while ago. Delayed Sword was already talked about in another thread. My next technique in line is Aggressive Twins some of you may have Alternating Maces next but we'll put that on next week. I don't have a list of techniques on my computer to randomly post so I'll type this off of the top of my head and probably a little short on description.

AGGRESSIVE TWINS (front two hand direct push)
       1. While standing naturally step back with your left foot simultaneously executing a right inward block on the outside of opponents left arm.                                            
       2.  Immediately execute a right sidekick to the attackers left knee to buckle and 	(open the door) expose their centerline.          
       3.   Now in a right neutral bow deliver a left front kick to opponents sternum or solar plexus to drive the attacker backwards. 
       4.   Without hesitation execute a right spinning back kick to any available target on the opponents centerline. Plant the right foot forward toward 12 oclock then front crossover cover out towards 6 oclock.     
This is my interpretation of Aggressive Twins. Please feel free to correct anything on my movement list. Also Let's hear any likes or dislikes about this techniques.
Thanks,
Jason Farnsworth


----------



## C.E.Jackson (Jun 1, 2002)

I don't believe the original version has a third kick? I could be wrong, but I don't  teach the third kick.


----------



## donald (Jun 1, 2002)

The side kick you mentioned. Is it a thrust, or snap? Do you rechamber, and plant into the r. neutral, or do you fall into it after the kick? Does'nt the technique finish with a r. back knuckle following the spinning back kick?


Salute :asian:


----------



## jfarnsworth (Jun 1, 2002)

Mr. Jackson,
I believe your probably right. Unfotunately I learned this technique with the 3 kicks. The reason I was told for the third kick was after the left front kick you are standing left side forward. Since almost everyone is right side dominant hence the reason for the "suffix". The second reason I was given was because the spin back kick is a hard kick to perform well this gives people extra practice on this kick.  You know now that I think about it I believe our class puts in the spin kick at orange belt.  This is after the student has added to some more basics. I'd have to go back and ask my instructor that question. I've always been able to perform the kick so I just put it on the end. Thanks for the idea.
Jason Farnsworth


----------



## jfarnsworth (Jun 1, 2002)

Donald,
I believe it's a thrust kick. I might be wrong but if you use a snap kick you might not get the same effect. The idea is to open the centerline up. Opposite to Attacking Mace. Attacking Mace open the opponent with the right punch, Aggressive Twins opens them up with the right kick. What you can do with the hands you can do with the feet. Both use opposite sides of the body to open the attackers centerline. Anyway back to the question I usually kick and plant down to set up for the left front kick. As far as the back knuckle I don't know about that we don't use that in this technique. Intellectual Departure uses a back knuckle after right back kick. Does that answer your question?
Jason Farnsworth


----------



## Klondike93 (Jun 1, 2002)

That's how I was taught to do it except for the spin kick at the end. There is no backfist that I know of in it as well.

The side kick is a thrust kick and Jason hit it with opening up the centerline. By buckiling the left knee, you cancel the depth zone and open up the center for the front kick. I was taught when I put the foot down after the side kick to put it down in modified twist stance putting the left front kick online to the target.

:asian:


----------



## donald (Jun 1, 2002)

Jason,
        Yes sir it do.... I think I may have glommed the b.f. from another tech.. Its been awhile since I've checked the manual. 

Grasi,
Donaldo :shrug:


----------



## jfarnsworth (Jun 1, 2002)

Are saying into a right rotating twist stance. Modified being not totally twisting all of the way around towards your right side. I can understand that. 
Jason Farnsworth


----------



## Klondike93 (Jun 1, 2002)

> _Originally posted by jfarnsworth _
> 
> *Are saying into a right rotating twist stance. Modified being not totally twisting all of the way around towards your right side. I can understand that.
> Jason Farnsworth *



Yes, that's the idea  


:asian:


----------



## Roland (Jun 1, 2002)

that is a "joke" (?) I have heard Huk Planas tell more than once while teaching this technique!
Still not sure if I should laugh or not, hard to tell with that guy sometimes!


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Jun 2, 2002)




----------



## Rob_Broad (Jun 2, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Goldendragon7 _
> 
> * *




Because no knowlege is useless.  There is something useful in every technique.  Like I have heard before every technique has merit.


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Jun 2, 2002)

Ok...... but here is the original version......

Aggressive Twins (two-hand push)

a.  With your feet together step back with your 
    left foot into a right neutral bow as you 
    execute a right inward strike to both arms of 
    opponent with your left hand covering.

b.  From your right neutral bow immediately 
    deliver a right knife-edge kick horizontally 
    across opponent's left shin.

c.  Plant your right foot back to its original 
    position (last position) and deliver a left 
    ball kick to opponents sternum.

d.  Plant your left kicking foot toward 1 o'clock 
    into a left neutral bow.

:asian: 

That's the original........


----------



## jfarnsworth (Jun 2, 2002)

Mr. C. this is in my curriculum as well as Spreading Branch, and Intellectual Departure. I don't know why the 3 were replaced. 
Jason Farnsworth


----------



## brianhunter (Jun 2, 2002)

Tom Kelly teaches this technique in his purple belt requirements, he hasnt dropped it


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 19, 2002)

Mod note: This is a thinned down copy of a previous thread.

:asian:


----------



## kenpo3631 (Aug 19, 2002)

For all you bible worshipin' folk out there doesn't GD sound like the Pharoh Ramses....LOL:rofl:

Just cause it is written that way don't make it right. Some techniques were modified later on "AFTER" the manuals were written to make the techniques work. 

However in this case GD is correct 

But....the spinning back kick was added for a few reasons.

1. As a kicking exercise, 2. Because the back kick flows with the kicking sequence.

If you look at it you might say (if you add the spinning back kick) that it is "Encounter with Danger" on the opposite side standing up.  (Just look at it)
:asian:


----------



## headkick (Aug 21, 2002)

for those kicks, depending on which foot the attacker has forward.  If the right foot is forward, snap, ball, spin back knuckle.  If the left is forward, snap, spin, ball.  Has to do with the attackers potential to block or deflect the spinning heel.  Learned that on from Mr. Sepulveda.  We teach this early on in the system now, so it makes sense with kicking set.  You learn this kick in kicking set, then never really use it.   Category completion.

R


----------



## Making the Journey (Jan 29, 2006)

jfarnsworth said:
			
		

> Donald,
> I believe it's a thrust kick. I might be wrong but if you use a snap kick you might not get the same effect. The idea is to open the centerline up. Opposite to Attacking Mace. Attacking Mace open the opponent with the right punch, Aggressive Twins opens them up with the right kick. What you can do with the hands you can do with the feet. Both use opposite sides of the body to open the attackers centerline. Anyway back to the question I usually kick and plant down to set up for the left front kick. As far as the back knuckle I don't know about that we don't use that in this technique. Intellectual Departure uses a back knuckle after right back kick. Does that answer your question?
> Jason Farnsworth


 
He's right, I also believe it's a thrusting kick because typically you land forward with a thrusting kick... snapping kicks are generally brought back


----------



## bujuts (Jan 29, 2006)

We work this tecchnique as well, as well as Spreading Branches and Intellectual Departure.  They are part of the yellow cirriculum.  On Aggressive Twins, however, we don't take the second kick to the sternum.  Rather after the first kick we invade the spinal ring with a right twist stance, continuing through with a left knife edge to the opposite knee, splitting him out and especially destroying the left knee.

I've got long legs, and with someone seriously bearing down on me (i.e. grappler or wrestler speed, which is the way I interpret the attack), I'm way too close to get a rear kick to the chest, especially if I'm invading the spine.

Thanks for thoughts.  

Steven Brown
UKF


----------



## Kenpodoc (Jan 30, 2006)

bujuts said:
			
		

> We work this tecchnique as well, as well as Spreading Branches and Intellectual Departure.  They are part of the yellow cirriculum.  On Aggressive Twins, however, we don't take the second kick to the sternum.  Rather after the first kick we invade the spinal ring with a right twist stance, continuing through with a left knife edge to the opposite knee, splitting him out and especially destroying the left knee.
> 
> I've got long legs, and with someone seriously bearing down on me (i.e. grappler or wrestler speed, which is the way I interpret the attack), I'm way too close to get a rear kick to the chest, especially if I'm invading the spine.
> 
> ...


Please explain "invading the spinal ring."

respectfully,

Jeff


----------



## bujuts (Jan 30, 2006)

Greetings,

We measure personal range based on what we call the Four Rings. In a natural standing position, imagine a spot on the floor directly under your spine. Imagine four coencentric circles centered on that spot with radii equal to the distance of your extended elbow (1st ring), knee (2nd ring), hand (3rd ring), and foot (4th ring), respectively. This forms a simple geometric expression by which we define our physical space. Its a learning tool, and it makes explanation of ranges very easy to communicate.

So, moving through the stages of controlled engagement: 1) Out of range = outside the four rings but within the tactical area of response, 2) In range = inside your Four rings, 3) contact penetration, 4) impact manipulation,...etc. etc. to no. 8.

The spinal ring (actually a point), is that spot on the floor under the spine. When you invade someone's space you dominate their Four Rings. To "penetrate to the spinal ring" is to invade all the way into their center of mass, literally to their spine.

So, on Aggressive Twins, after the first kick, I land into a right lead twist stance pretty much on top of that spot on the floor, or very close to it. Your in them, not at the periphery. Hence my explanation that I'm way too close for a kick to the solar plexus. Because of my leg length, I actually prefer a knee with the left rather than a knife edge kick.

hope that helps.

Cheers,

Steven Brown
UKF


----------



## JamesB (Jan 30, 2006)

bujuts said:
			
		

> Greetings,
> 
> We measure personal range based on what we call the Four Rings. In a natural standing position, imagine a spot on the floor directly under your spine. Imagine four coencentric circles centered on that spot with radii equal to the distance of your extended elbow (1st ring), knee (2nd ring), hand (3rd ring), and foot (4th ring), respectively. This forms a simple geometric expression by which we define our physical space. Its a learning tool, and it makes explanation of ranges very easy to communicate.
> 
> ...


 
that's an interesting concept, I've not heard of this way of describing things during my training - is this pretty much unique to your organisation? 



			
				bujuts said:
			
		

> So, on Aggressive Twins, after the first kick, I land into a right lead twist stance pretty much on top of that spot on the floor, or very close to it. Your in them, not at the periphery. Hence my explanation that I'm way too close for a kick to the solar plexus. Because of my leg length, I actually prefer a knee with the left rather than a knife edge kick.


 
I've not done this technique for years (it is no longer in our curriculum). But when I was first taught it, I was instructed to transition into to a *rear twist* after the first kick to the knee - to create the required distance. Then rotate out into a left 45-cat and execute the left-kick to the sternum. The distances seemed ok but this was years ago when I was a yellow/orange belt, my perception of things has changed somewhat since then  Also we didn't do the turning-kick afterwards.

james


----------



## bujuts (Jan 30, 2006)

JamesB said:
			
		

> that's an interesting concept, I've not heard of this way of describing things during my training - is this pretty much unique to your organisation?


 
To my understanding we are the only ones using this, yes. This is Mr. Pick's convention for describing personal physical range of the human body, but to what extent Ed Parker influenced him on this, if he did, I do not know.



			
				JamesB said:
			
		

> I've not done this technique for years (it is no longer in our curriculum). But when I was first taught it, I was instructed to transition into to a *rear twist* after the first kick to the knee - to create the required distance. Then rotate out into a left 45-cat and execute the left-kick to the sternum. The distances seemed ok but this was years ago when I was a yellow/orange belt, my perception of things has changed somewhat since then  Also we didn't do the turning-kick afterwards.


 
One thing we work with on this sort of attack is the continual invasion of your own space by the attacker. In other words, we consider not just the punch, but the punch leading to a push, the push leading to a grab, the grab leading to a hug, the hug leading to a lock. The attack for Aggressive Twins as I see it is a violent push with their mass freight-training in on you, with the next sequence leading to a grab and tackle / lock. Stepping off into the first neutral bow with that inward block is not likely to stop him, only redirect the train a bit. Granted, we have the first kick, but for what I have experienced the violence is already at my second ring, third ring at best. I need to see how others get that kind of distance when the attacker is coming in linebacker style.

Thanks for the dialogue.

Cheers,

Steven Brown
UKF


----------



## kenposikh (Jan 30, 2006)

> To my understanding we are the only ones using this, yes. This is Mr. Pick's convention for describing personal physical range of the human body, but to what extent Ed Parker influenced him on this, if he did, I do not know.


 
INteresting sounds like a variation of terminology on depth zones. Like the thought here.



> Stepping off into the first neutral bow with that inward block is not likely to stop him, only redirect the train a bit. Granted, we have the first kick, but for what I have experienced the violence is already at my second ring, third ring at best. I need to see how others get that kind of distance when the attacker is coming in linebacker style.


 
I would probably have to agree with you here, however a Correctly executed inward block dropping to a downward forearm type block with a slap check would probably go a long way to stopping them.

I used to do this technique a long time ago and the first move was to step back into a reverse bow which added more torque to the inward block and rotational force to it thereby seriously redirecting the attackers momentum and body weight.

the rest is as described but without the thrid kick but it got in there somehow cos I do remeber doing it.


----------



## bujuts (Jan 30, 2006)

kenposikh said:
			
		

> I would probably have to agree with you here, however a Correctly executed inward block dropping to a downward forearm type block with a slap check would probably go a long way to stopping them.



I guess this is as good a time to ask as any - what exactly is a slap check and what are its benefits?  I've heard the term, probably seen it many times done by other kenpoists, but I'm not entirely clear on its purpose.  I understand checking, of course, but what is the _slap _doing?  For this technique, as you explained it, what exactly is the left hand doing while the right drives home that inward block?

I ask this sincerely because I genuinely do not understand the purpose of this seemingly controversial motion.

Thanks in advance.

Steve Brown
UKF


----------



## JamesB (Jan 31, 2006)

bujuts said:
			
		

> I guess this is as good a time to ask as any - what exactly is a slap check and what are its benefits? I've heard the term, probably seen it many times done by other kenpoists, but I'm not entirely clear on its purpose. I understand checking, of course, but what is the _slap _doing? For this technique, as you explained it, what exactly is the left hand doing while the right drives home that inward block?
> 
> I ask this sincerely because I genuinely do not understand the purpose of this seemingly controversial motion.
> 
> ...


 
Dr Chapel would be able to provide the most insight into 'slap-checks' and if you search the forums here you should find alot of information written about the subject. But seeing as noone has answered yet I'll have a go...

My understanding is that a slap-check is a generic term used to describe the act of slapping one's self in specific locations (i.e the shoulders) during the execution of a technique (i.e. block/strike/stance transition etc). The purpose is to increase the stability of the joint and limb in question, but also results in subtle alignment changes in the entire body. These effects will not be very apparent unless a proper stance is first obtained and the slap-check must be taught by a knowledgable instructor if any benefit is desired. But the benefits are enormous once learned correctly. 

For the example of a block (executed from a neutral-bow), the opposite hand slaps the shoulder of the arm that executes the block, at the same instant that the block strikes, with the stance being rooted. The 'slapping' arm is held across the body, forming a brace against the shoulder. It make the stance (of the whole body) very much stronger than it would be without, and when trained correctly provides an explosive power in all basics.

Doc uses a different term in his syllabus called 'Body Aligning Mechanism'. A slap-check is just one example of a 'BAM' - and from what Doc teaches here it is apparent that there are many other specific mechanisms such as this, which are built into all of the SL4 basics+techniques. 

There are many other uses of a slap-check (such as pinning/parrying/striking prior to the slap). Also the act of utilizing both arms is so natural for the human body that a student's timing increases dramatically. But the primary function (as I understand) is to increase structural integrity. When utilized correctly the slap-check promotes blocking/striking from being 'quite good' to 'most effective'. I really can't explain it any better than that I'm afraid.

I believe some lesser-known kungfu systems also use this type of principle and I have seen practioners of these arts call it 'sealing of the shoulder' - I assumed this to refer to the same effect of a slap-check but could be mistaken. Also I have some videos of various Silat systems which use slapping to enhance body structure whilst striking. The videos I have of a kungfu system called 'splashing hands' (which Doc speaks about occasionaly) also makes heavy use of slap-checks. All very interesting stuff.

The one major thing to remember is though, slap-checking must be very specific. A slap to the wrong part of the body can adversely affect body-structure. 

Do a forum search for 'slap check' there should be lots of hits..

James


----------



## Doc (Jan 31, 2006)

JamesB said:
			
		

> Dr Chapel would be able to provide the most insight into 'slap-checks' and if you search the forums here you should find alot of information written about the subject. But seeing as noone has answered yet I'll have a go...
> 
> My understanding is that a slap-check is a generic term used to describe the act of slapping one's self in specific locations (i.e the shoulders) during the execution of a technique (i.e. block/strike/stance transition etc). The purpose is to increase the stability of the joint and limb in question, but also results in subtle alignment changes in the entire body. These effects will not be very apparent unless a proper stance is first obtained and the slap-check must be taught by a knowledgable instructor if any benefit is desired. But the benefits are enormous once learned correctly.
> 
> ...


You the man James.


----------



## bujuts (Jan 31, 2006)

A number of the discussions on this topic and on the topic regarding the extended outward block lead me to make another inquiry of the forum. 

This explanation of slap checks seem to accomplish, among other things which you have described, a discrete and quick motion at the end of a path of action. The reference to the "torque" on the extended outward block dicsussion implies a sudden turn of the wrist just before impact. Similarly, the slap check locks (for lack of a better term) into place at the shoulder at the instant the inward block reaches its final destination. From previous experience in another system, I understand this whole approach is to develop power at impact, and a discrete finality to the action.

For those emphasizing "torque" and "snap" at the end of their actions, I am lead to ask what is happening during the path of action to get to those ends. If the action of a basic block is impeded by another's mass for example, such as in contact manipulation, the torque or snap becomes irrelevant because power in the motion is generated by alignment of the muscle groups and skeleton, not by the finality of the snapping action.

I had posed this same idea some time ago on another forum during a dialogue on slap checking. What happens, I asked, if the inward block makes impact with a rushing mass well before it gets to the position at which years of empty handed training will synchronize the slap check to it? The two won't land at the same time. Does this cause a reduction in power for a person who has drilled slap checking into their muscles?

Finally, what is the result of these snapping and torquing actions once kenpo transitions to the blade? Its not a stretch to say that actions must be completely relearned because the "torque" does not the same way when a knife is in the hand (for sake of the argument, assume the reverse grip). As correct anatomical alignment is what allows the body (the truck) to do the hitting, similarly it is what allows the body to do the cutting.

Anyway, this is off the Aggressive Twins topic altogether, but this snapping / torquing at the end of the it is a fundamental behind the motions of many. Its just something I'd like to hear the input of others on. 

Thanks in advance,

Steven Brown
UKF


----------



## JamesB (Jan 31, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> You the man James.


 
hehe thanks Doc did I get that almost right then?


----------



## JamesB (Jan 31, 2006)

bujuts said:
			
		

> This explanation of slap checks seem to accomplish, among other things which you have described, a discrete and quick motion at the end of a path of action. The reference to the "torque" on the extended outward block dicsussion implies a sudden turn of the wrist just before impact.


I understood Doc's comment on the outward-extended block to state that there was no torquing action here. The path of the blocking forearm is in a vertically downward plane, prior to striking. 



			
				bujuts said:
			
		

> For those emphasizing "torque" and "snap" at the end of their actions, I am lead to ask what is happening during the path of action to get to those ends. If the action of a basic block is impeded by another's mass for example, such as in contact manipulation, the torque or snap becomes irrelevant because power in the motion is generated by alignment of the muscle groups and skeleton, not by the finality of the snapping action.


For there to be a snapping 'motion' implies that the limb in question snaps back as quickly as it snaps out...almost a 'bouncing' of the strike/block. This is quite different to how I have been instructed to execute these basics - rather, the whole arm (from the shoulder) is employed in a very specific 'dead-weight' relaxed manner with no snapping action. The snapping/bouncing of a strike as I understand it, reduces the effectiveness of the strike, and overall body structure diminishes.



			
				bujuts said:
			
		

> I had posed this same idea some time ago on another forum during a dialogue on slap checking. What happens, I asked, if the inward block makes impact with a rushing mass well before it gets to the position at which years of empty handed training will synchronize the slap check to it? The two won't land at the same time. Does this cause a reduction in power for a person who has drilled slap checking into their muscles?


 
perhaps there would be a reduction in efficiency but it would be no different than if one weren't slap-checking - i.e. if you were striking to a target (with no slap-check) and your strike hit prematurely because the target moved, one would suffer the same problem - weapon/body not aligned as intended. 

The slap-check is just one of many mechanisms available. If the 'slap' fails there are still others that are being utilized at the same time. The way a block is executed is very specific also - it is intended that the blocking arm is so structurally sound when it reaches it's final position that even without a slap-check it is not easily manipulatable - from any direction. Should the slap arrive 'late' it only adds to the equation. 

The emphasis is on correct anatomical postures and mechanisms to achieve this ideal, not on abstract flowing motion.



			
				bujuts said:
			
		

> Finally, what is the result of these snapping and torquing actions once kenpo transitions to the blade? Its not a stretch to say that actions must be completely relearned because the "torque" does not the same way when a knife is in the hand (for sake of the argument, assume the reverse grip). As correct anatomical alignment is what allows the body (the truck) to do the hitting, similarly it is what allows the body to do the cutting.


 
I understand AK to be an empty-handed system only. Doc's kenpo (I guess you are referring at least partly to him) at no time transitions to the knife even as a perceived 'higher level' to the art and adding a knife-system is something that only a few kenpo schools have done. Certainly basics would need to be retrained if holding a knife. I guess even the configuration of the hand whilst holding a weapon would affect the overall body structure somehow. If I wanted to learn knife-fighting (which I don't) then I'd go and learn one of the Philipino systems, that's what they're designed for. 



			
				bujuts said:
			
		

> Anyway, this is off the Aggressive Twins topic altogether, but this snapping / torquing at the end of the it is a fundamental behind the motions of many. Its just something I'd like to hear the input of others on.


 
yup think we've gone way off topic now, perhaps a new thread would be a good idea if you'd like to discuss this further. I'm far from expert though, there are many others here who would provide better replies than I can.

cheers,
James


----------



## bujuts (Feb 1, 2006)

JamesB said:
			
		

> I understood Doc's comment on the outward-extended block to state that there was no torquing action here. The path of the blocking forearm is in a vertically downward plane, prior to striking.



Fair enough.  I wasn't really singling out his blocks, its more that the term "torquing" brought about my question about how I've seen some operate.



			
				JamesB said:
			
		

> For there to be a snapping 'motion' implies that the limb in question snaps back as quickly as it snaps out...The snapping/bouncing of a strike as I understand it, reduces the effectiveness of the strike, and overall body structure diminishes.



We're on the same page here.



			
				JamesB said:
			
		

> perhaps there would be a reduction in efficiency but it would be no different than if one weren't slap-checking - i.e. if you were striking to a target (with no slap-check) and your strike hit prematurely because the target moved, one would suffer the same problem - weapon/body not aligned as intended.


 
I will probably have to respectfully disagree on this one.  A block is only one of many applications of this motion.  Contact Manipulation and Contact Maintenance will by their nature offer resistance but by the above explanation be reduced in efficiency.  Like you said though, another thread perhaps.



			
				JamesB said:
			
		

> ... The way a block is executed is very specific also - it is intended that the blocking arm is so structurally sound when it reaches it's final position...The emphasis is on correct anatomical postures and mechanisms to achieve this ideal, not on abstract flowing motion.



Agreed, however I hold that the path of action requires just as much structural reinforcement, perhaps more.



			
				JamesB said:
			
		

> I understand AK to be an empty-handed system only. Doc's kenpo (I guess you are referring at least partly to him) at no time transitions to the knife even as a perceived 'higher level' to the art and adding a knife-system is something that only a few kenpo schools have done....



Fair enough.  No problem, Sir.



			
				JamesB said:
			
		

> Certainly basics would need to be retrained if holding a knife. I guess even the configuration of the hand whilst holding a weapon would affect the overall body structure somehow.



To this I would answer respectfully answer "this is not the case at all".  



			
				JamesB said:
			
		

> If I wanted to learn knife-fighting (which I don't) then I'd go and learn one of the Philipino systems, that's what they're designed for.



Yes, they are definitely bladed systems.  However to my (very limited) understanding some principles in FMA contradict those of empty handed kenpo, but detailed questions in this regard I am not qualified to answer.  Regardless, empty handed kenpo _does _directly support the kenpo knife system without the need for hybridization with other arts.

Thanks for the dialogue, Sir.  Good training to you.

Steven Brown
UKF


----------



## jazkiljok (Feb 1, 2006)

bujuts said:
			
		

> As correct anatomical alignment is what allows the body (the truck) to do the hitting, similarly it is what allows the body to do the cutting.
> 
> 
> Steven Brown
> UKF



...i always thought it was a sharp blade that allows you to do the cutting.


----------



## bujuts (Feb 1, 2006)

jazkiljok said:
			
		

> ...i always thought it was a sharp blade that allows you to do the cutting.



A figure of speech to some degree.  The knife is the leading missle on the F22 that is the body.  The knife is what does the cutting, but the mass (the entire body) is what is doing the attacking, just as with the empty hand.  All the alignments and principles of power apply in the kenpo knife system as they do in the empty handed system.

Sorry for the wording, but you likely get the gist 

Cheers,

Steven Brown
UKF


----------



## Doc (Feb 1, 2006)

JamesB said:
			
		

> I understood Doc's comment on the outward-extended block to state that there was no torquing action here. The path of the blocking forearm is in a vertically downward plane, prior to striking.
> 
> 
> For there to be a snapping 'motion' implies that the limb in question snaps back as quickly as it snaps out...almost a 'bouncing' of the strike/block. This is quite different to how I have been instructed to execute these basics - rather, the whole arm (from the shoulder) is employed in a very specific 'dead-weight' relaxed manner with no snapping action. The snapping/bouncing of a strike as I understand it, reduces the effectiveness of the strike, and overall body structure diminishes.
> ...


Oh, I don't know about that. I think you do a pretty good job mate.


----------



## Doc (Feb 1, 2006)

bujuts said:
			
		

> I will probably have to respectfully disagree on this one.  A block is only one of many applications of this motion.  Contact Manipulation and Contact Maintenance will by their nature offer resistance but by the above explanation be reduced in efficiency.


There is no reduction in efficiency what-so-ever. Kenpo Blocks (as I teach them), as well as other actions, recruit structural integrity through body index mechanisms that occur before the final position of the action. Therefore it is structurally sound throughout its movement (not motion).


----------



## Doc (Feb 1, 2006)

Originally Posted by JamesB 


> Certainly basics would need to be retrained if holding a knife. I guess even the configuration of the hand whilst holding a weapon would affect the overall body structure somehow.


You are absolutely correct James, however those without an understanding of human anatomy will not see this. The mere act of holdng a weapon changes the physics of the body structure significantly and changes basic applications. However with a bladed weapon, the blade itself can minimally compensate offensively for a structural breakdown. But defensively is another story. Ed Parker's AMERICAN KENPO (not kenpo-karate) is an empty handed system. The commercial motion based system can be whatever anyone wants it to be, and usually is.


----------



## Doc (Feb 1, 2006)

jazkiljok said:
			
		

> ...i always thought it was a sharp blade that allows you to do the cutting.


You are correct, nor does it take skill to cut someone with an edged weapon.


----------



## Doc (Feb 1, 2006)

kenposikh said:
			
		

> I would probably have to agree with you here, however a Correctly executed inward block dropping to a downward forearm type block with a slap check would probably go a long way to stopping them.


Yep! My problem with the technique I mentioned earlier. The skill level to execute a knife edge kick at the white belt level successfully is difficult. However my biggest problem is the distance required to execute the technique would suggest a 'running start' push in which case a simple front kick would be more appropriate to the idiot that is using 'tackling distance' to attack with a push, virtually insuring he will not be successful. If a person were to utilize 'pushing distance,' than there would be no time for this type of kick.


----------



## kenposikh (Feb 1, 2006)

> However my biggest problem is the distance required to execute the technique would suggest a 'running start' push in which case a simple front kick would be more appropriate to the idiot that is using 'tackling distance' to attack with a push, virtually insuring he will not be successful.


 
 my thoughts exactly, he says he's coming you see him coming why wait for him to get there kick the fool and have a cup of tea while he recovers or not as the case may be


----------



## Doc (Feb 1, 2006)

kenposikh said:
			
		

> my thoughts exactly, he says he's coming you see him coming why wait for him to get there kick the fool and have a cup of tea while he recovers or not as the case may be


You're a bit cheeky this morning mate. However, you are quite correct old man.


----------



## kenposikh (Feb 1, 2006)

Less of the old please Sir, I'm not into the old years (40) until three weeks time. :asian:


----------



## jazkiljok (Feb 1, 2006)

bujuts said:
			
		

> A figure of speech to some degree.  The knife is the leading missle on the F22 that is the body.  The knife is what does the cutting, but the mass (the entire body) is what is doing the attacking, just as with the empty hand.  All the alignments and principles of power apply in the kenpo knife system as they do in the empty handed system.
> 
> Sorry for the wording, but you likely get the gist
> 
> ...



again no mastery really needed to cut or stab some one. can't see the importance of strength/body mass (unless wer're talking about broad sword fighting   )- not over say,  grip and speed. have to believe/agree that when i hold something that my body is aligned differently than when empty handed. as for mastery--execution is always weapon specific- what's right for one bladed weapon isn't necessarily right for another. you don't go to a ghurka to learn how to fence, you don't pick up a khukris and head to the local iaido master. 

how does this relate to aggressive twins??? :idunno: 

i'll leave that to the rest of you to get back on topic:asian:


----------



## Doc (Feb 1, 2006)

kenposikh said:
			
		

> Less of the old please Sir, I'm not into the old years (40) until three weeks time. :asian:


Misery loves company.


----------



## bujuts (Feb 1, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> There is no reduction in efficiency what-so-ever. Kenpo Blocks (as I teach them), as well as other actions, recruit structural integrity through body index mechanisms that occur before the final position of the action. Therefore it is structurally sound throughout its movement (not motion).


 
Perhaps my wording was misleading, my apologies.  I was addressing a previous supposition that efficiency is reduced if a slap check is not used, or is not simultaneous with a given action.  So, I agree with your statements above.



			
				Doc said:
			
		

> You are correct, nor does it take skill to cut someone with an edged weapon.


 
  Perhaps another thread.



			
				Doc said:
			
		

> ....The mere act of holdng a weapon changes the physics of the body structure significantly and changes basic applications. However with a bladed weapon, the blade itself can minimally compensate offensively for a structural breakdown. But defensively is another story. Ed Parker's AMERICAN KENPO (not kenpo-karate) is an empty handed system. The commercial motion based system can be whatever anyone wants it to be, and usually is.


 
It would very be interesting to hear elaboration on any one of these statements, but in interest of not opening up some very captivating dialogues that otherwise belong as their own threads, I'll leave them be, and will defer to your group to open up said discussions as you see fit.

Thanks for the replies, good day.

Steven Brown
UKF


----------



## Doc (Feb 1, 2006)

bujuts said:
			
		

> Perhaps my wording was misleading, my apologies.  I was addressing a previous supposition that efficiency is reduced if a slap check is not used, or is not simultaneous with a given action.  So, I agree with your statements above.


I see sir, and for the record a "slap-check" is a part of a larger equation not the answer to a question.

Thank you Mr. Brown


----------

