# Alternating Maces



## Rob_Broad

(front - two-hand push)

1)Standing naturally, and as your opponent attempts to push you, step back
with your left foor toward 6:00 into a right neutral bow stance (facing
12:00). Simultaneously execute a right inward block to the outside of your
opponent's left arm, while your left hand checks at your solar plexus.
(This action should turn the width of your opponent's body, and redirect
his forward momentum off center.)

2)Immediatly collapse your right arm across the top of both of your
opponent's arms (to act as checks), as you deliver a left vertical thrust
punch (tracking over your right arm) to your opponent's sternum or solar
plexus. This is done while pivoting into a right forward bow stance.
Remember, both the stance change and punch must work in sychronization
with each other in order to maximize the force of your left vertical thrust
punch. (Your opponent's reaction should cause his body to bend forward at
the waist.)

3)Immediatly convert your left punch into a check by having it shift, palm
open and down, on top of both your opponent's arms. Simultaneously have your
right hand rapidly travel inside and over your left arm as you deliver a 
right outward back knuckle strike to your opponent's right temple. This
transition is done while pivoting back into a right neautral bow stance.
(The torque stemming from your stance change helps to increase the whipping
action of your right hand, and, if properly executed, should cause your
opponent's head to be driven up and back, with the possibility of his arms
flailing upward.)

4)Immediatly have your right hand snap back, and it then acts as a positional
check.


----------



## Nightingale

that's how I learned it...



for the first time....



yesterday.



LOL.


----------



## kenpo3631

In EPAK we are taught that everything has an opposite and reverse, correct?

If we teach this teach this technique and not the "original" #2 technique we lose a piece of the Kenpo puzzle.

So my question is why does this technique exist and who *"originally"* developed it?


----------



## Nightingale

this is the only #2 yellow technique I've ever learned.  Was there a different one? If so, what?


----------



## kenpo3631

> _Originally posted by nightingale8472 _
> 
> *this is the only #2 yellow technique I've ever learned.  Was there a different one? If so, what? *



Yes there was 3 that were "originally in the Yellow Belt Curriculum.

For a better explanation click on this link.

Original System 

and...

Technique Charts


----------



## Klondike93

> _Originally posted by kenpo3631 _
> 
> *
> 
> Yes there was 3 that were "originally in the Yellow Belt Curriculum.
> 
> For a better explanation click on this link.
> 
> Original System
> 
> and...
> 
> Technique Charts *



I believe it replaced Aggressive Twins, but I see that neither of these are in the original curriculum.  

:asian:


----------



## kenpo3631

The "original" 32's started at Orange Belt. There was no Yellow Belt until the 70's I believe it was.

Yes, you are right though Alternating Maces did replace Aggressive Twins on the technique charts.

Which leads me to my earlier question - why does Alternating Maces exist and who "originally" developed it?

:asian:


----------



## Roland

But I don't know why?


----------



## kenpo3631

> _Originally posted by Roland _
> 
> *But I don't know why? *



I knew that, but I was waiting to see who else was going to spill the beans....:rofl:


----------



## Roland

I hope someone here will know the why of it being replaced now.


----------



## Goldendragon7

> _Originally posted by kenpo3631 _*
> Yes there was 3 that were "originally in the Yellow Belt Curriculum.
> For a better explanation click on this link.
> Original System
> and...
> Technique Charts *



So.......... are you saying you believe what Len Broussard states is accurate?

:asian:


----------



## Rainman

> _Originally posted by kenpo3631 _
> 
> *The "original" 32's started at Orange Belt. There was no Yellow Belt until the 70's I believe it was.
> 
> Yes, you are right though Alternating Maces did replace Aggressive Twins on the technique charts.
> 
> Which leads me to my earlier question - why does Alternating Maces exist and who "originally" developed it?
> 
> :asian: *



Aggresive Twins will not stop a hard follow through push.  AM does and is much easier to do.   The push is to height zone 2.  Height zone one is (for example) parting wings.    Where I train it is common for belts to come in about a year or 2.   Other schools where tests occur in say 3 or four months for yellow there is no way a student with that amount of time can hit the knee shot to set up the rest of the technique.   To buckle the knee A)without damaging the knee B) Dimensionally cancel with a strike to the knee graded at white is asking for problems.   

Don't know who developed AM.   

:asian:


----------



## kenpo3631

> _Originally posted by Goldendragon7 _
> 
> *
> 
> So.......... are you saying you believe what Len Broussard states is accurate?
> 
> :asian: *



It just confirms what I saw on Mr. Parkers student handouts for the 32 technique system that was taught at Pasadena.:asian:


----------



## kenpo3631

> _Originally posted by Rainman _
> 
> *
> 
> Aggresive Twins will not stop a hard follow through push.  AM does and is much easier to do.   The push is to height zone 2.  Height zone one is (for example) parting wings.    Where I train it is common for belts to come in about a year or 2.   Other schools where tests occur in say 3 or four months for yellow there is no way a student with that amount of time can hit the knee shot to set up the rest of the technique.   To buckle the knee A)without damaging the knee B) Dimensionally cancel with a strike to the knee graded at white is asking for problems.
> 
> Don't know who developed AM.
> 
> :asian: *





> Aggresive Twins will not stop a hard follow through push.



:rofl:I am going to stop right here:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: 

Have you ever had this technique done correctly on you??? I have by first genration black belts.....I think you need to reconsider the above qoute sir:asian:


----------



## Rainman

> _Originally posted by kenpo3631 _
> 
> *
> 
> :rofl:I am going to stop right here:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
> 
> Have you ever had this technique done correctly on you??? I have by first genration black belts.....I think you need to reconsider the above qoute sir:asian: *



You changed the subject- WHITE BELTS not BB's.   Show your proof instead of meandering around and looking for support from your so called Kenpo Gods and doing the name dropping bit.  Point by point refute what I said.  It is a technical forum- so far nothing technical from you.

:asian:


----------



## Klondike93

I think it can stop a hard follow through push as this is how we practice it. 

Alternating Maces on the other hand was taught to me as a defense for a two hand low push and Aggressive Twins is for a  two hand high push. Of the two the high push is more likely to be encountered and therefore more needed (IMO).

The block in Aggressive Twins uses torque for the block so why do you think it wouldn't work?



:asian:


----------



## Rainman

> _Originally posted by Klondike93 _
> 
> *I think it can stop a hard follow through push as this is how we practice it.
> 
> Alternating Maces on the other hand was taught to me as a defense for a two hand low push and Aggressive Twins is for a  two hand high push. Of the two the high push is more likely to be encountered and therefore more needed (IMO).
> 
> The block in Aggressive Twins uses torque for the block so why do you think it wouldn't work?
> 
> 
> 
> :asian: *



What stops forward momentum?    Do you let the push initiate action or do you attack before it gets to you?   


:asian:


----------



## Klondike93

I'm stepping back to about 5:30 and blocking before the push hits me. The side kick is hitting right behind the block.

:asian:


----------



## Rainman

> _Originally posted by Klondike93 _
> 
> *I'm stepping back to about 5:30 and blocking before the push hits me. The side kick is hitting right behind the block.
> 
> :asian: *




Okay consider this, all the teks work just fine for attmepted attacks that you see before you feel.   I would call that anticipation.   So you are not really defending against a push.  You are in the 3rd range or contact penetraition.   Defend against a push and tell me what the results are.   Have the push initiate action and tell me if you can cancell zones effectively without maiming your associate.    If I understand you correctly the version you are doing has already been altered from the base.   That is to say you are stepping off line and attacking before contact has been made from the attacker.   The way I understand AT is you are defending against a push not an attempted push.   That being the case what do you do when someone actually pushes you?

:asian:


----------



## Klondike93

This is how it's written in the manual my instructor gave me, so it would seem I'm not stepping correctly.

1. Step back into a right neutral bow with a right thrusting inward block at or above the attackers left elbow. Your left hand covers at solar plexus level.

So I think your getting at treating this like you would Triggered Salute, where you let the push actually hit you then you act.
It makes no mention of when to step so I always assumed it was as the push came at you, after all why wait for it to hit you if you don't have to.

:asian:


----------



## Rainman

> _Originally posted by Klondike93 _
> 
> *This is how it's written in the manual my instructor gave me, so it would seem I'm not stepping correctly.
> 
> 1. Step back into a right neutral bow with a right thrusting inward block at or above the attackers left elbow. Your left hand covers at solar plexus level.
> 
> So I think your getting at treating this like you would Triggered Salute, where you let the push actually hit you then you act.
> It makes no mention of when to step so I always assumed it was as the push came at you, after all why wait for it to hit you if you don't have to.
> 
> :asian: *




Well, no not really.  What I am saying is that is based on contact manipulation (push) instead of an attempted punch such as attacking mace which is contact penetration.   The range of the technique has been altered thus eliminating a defence against an actual push.   That is not in your arsenal.  Two handed pushes can cancel width when done high.  You can go straight back or down depending environment etc.  You sure don't want to be pushed into a wall, chair, etc. knocked down or have your balance taken from you because you haven't experienced a push and learned to deal with it do you?   Recognition works in many ways.   Just another frame of preperation to work on and think about.   This is the fourth range and it actually starts with the first tek- Delayed Sword which teaches you how to strike your way out of it... in the earlier stages.   

:asian:


----------



## kenpo3631

> quote: Originally posted by kenpo3631
> I am going to stop right here. Have you ever had this technique done correctly on you??? I have by first genration black belts.....I think you need to reconsider the above qoute sir






> You changed the subject- WHITE BELTS not BB's. Show your proof instead of meandering around and looking for support from your so called Kenpo Gods and doing the name dropping bit. Point by point refute what I said. It is a technical forum- so far nothing technical from you.



Well sir, in my statement did I mention anyone's name? No. My so called black belt gods? Who said anyone was a god? Besides, none of the so called "gods" you mention actually partake in this forum, they are too busy running their schools or teaching. I participate because where I am stationed there is not any kenpo schools, besides that I like to converse with other kenpoists.

You posted below...



> Aggresive Twins will not stop a hard follow through push. AM does and is much easier to do. The push is to height zone 2. Height zone one is (for example) parting wings. Where I train it is common for belts to come in about a year or 2. Other schools where tests occur in say 3 or four months for yellow there is no way a student with that amount of time can hit the knee shot to set up the rest of the technique. To buckle the knee A)without damaging the knee B) Dimensionally cancel with a strike to the knee graded at white is asking for problems.


 
     I will agree AM is easier to do,  *but it was not created or developed by Ed Parker*. Great so it is easier to learn, but what does it give a kenpoist? Surely you cannot tell me that Mr. Parker let it be in the system simply b/c it was easier. 
     Your feet are to your legs as your hands are to your arms correct? SO...if you close the centerline from the front with your hands why can't you do it with your feet? This is one of the concepts that Aggressive Twins teaches. Also in AT you close the centerline with your right arm as in AM. 
     As far as belt grading....2 years for a YELLOW belt to me is a bit extreme. but I am sure you instructor knows what he is doing, I will not question that. To teach a white belt to buckle a knee, why not? who says they *have* damage the knee?. It would nice, but all that is required is to get them (your opponent) to rotate inboard (minor move), to set them up for the front kick to the sternum (major move). As far as it causing problems for students, that is your opinion, I disagree with it for I have not had a student not be able affectively perform this technique. Hey, that's what forums are for though correct? To state opinion and gather info.:asian:


----------



## Goldendragon7

> _Originally posted by kenpo3631 _*
> but it was not created or developed by Ed Parker
> Surely you cannot tell me that Mr. Parker let it be in the system simply b/c it was easier.
> *



So Lance, did Ed Parker develop the Punch, or Kicking Set # 1, or ............... ?

Surely he would not let them be in the system simply because they were there?

:rofl: 

:asian:


----------



## kenpo3631

> _Originally posted by Goldendragon7 _
> 
> *
> 
> So Lance, did Ed Parker develop the Punch, or Kicking Set # 1, or ............... ?
> 
> Surely he would not let them be in the system simply because they were there?
> 
> :rofl:
> 
> :asian: *



For a lack of a better description here it goes. 

Mr. Parker put his stamp of approval on the Kicking set yes? Why? My best guess is because he saw the benefits of an exercise to strengthen the ability of a practioners in an area some people would like to beleive kenpoist lack in - kicking.

Whenever I saw him and someone asked him about a different set other than Star Block, Finger Set #1, or the Kicking Set #1 he always had someone who had learned it somewhere do the set and he would inject his thoughts and insight. (Just a sidenote...isn't that odd don't you think? A creator of an Art never actually demonstrated it, but just gave insight as another person performed it) Anyway...

The art is a system of motion correct? If you close the centerline with hands, somewhere there has to be a technique that shows the same principle with the feet should there not? If you drop Aggressive Twins you lose that. Do you learn it in Alternating Maces? where else would you learn this concept? what other technique teaches it? If there is no other than by deleting Aggressive Twins you lose a piece of the "kenpo-puzzle".


----------



## Goldendragon7

YOU see it that way...... but many others don't.

But you are entitled to your opinion.

:asian:


----------



## kenpo3631

> If you close the centerline with hands, somewhere there has to be a technique that shows the same principle with the feet should there not? If you drop Aggressive Twins you lose that. Do you learn it in Alternating Maces? where else would you learn this concept? what other technique teaches it?



Can you give an explanation?:asian:


----------



## Goldendragon7

> _Originally posted by kenpo3631 _*
> Can you give an explanation?
> *



I don't think it matters what I explain to you.   You are locked onto your views.

:asian:


----------



## Klondike93

But I would like to know what you think


:asian:


----------



## Goldendragon7

> _Originally posted by Klondike93 _*
> But I would like to know what you think
> *



Be glad to give you my views....... email me.

goldendragon7@cox.net

:asian:


----------



## kenpo3631

> _Originally posted by Goldendragon7 _
> 
> *
> 
> I don't think it matters what I explain to you.   You are locked onto your views.
> 
> :asian: *



Yes, I strongly beleive in my views, however I am NOT locked into them. If someone can explain to me why they are doing it and it is sound, logical and follows the rules of the Art then I will consider adopting those views or at least examine their point further.

I ask you this, why can you not give me an explanation on this forum? Do you not have the answer? You did after all have the priveledge of studying with the SGM, were you not privy to that information? Is it because you don't know? They were very simple questions Mr. C. I would hope you would have something to expound upon.

So once again I will ask, if you close the centerline with hands, somewhere there has to be a technique that shows the same principle with the feet should there not? If you drop Aggressive Twins you lose that. Do you learn it in Alternating Maces? where else would you learn this concept? what other technique teaches it? 

I am sure that these are some of the more menial questions you have been asked in you tenure as a kenpoist. I look forward to your veiws.
:asian:


----------



## Doc

There are a number of issues surrounding the first ten (10) techniques and how they fit into the rest of the lesson plan. Consider these comments from my own knowledge:

Initially the lesson plan began with 32 techniques leading to an Orange Belt. The sheer volume of the information before a first promotion was daunting to all but the serious and hearty students of the day. This was not initially unusual because the majority of students were adult physical males, who might be involved in other physical activities like boxing, judo, or even football before coming to, or concurrent with their Kenpo training.

As the seventies ushered in, the phenomena of females and younger students began to invade the schools, and it was discovered the curriculum was out of line with the capabilities of a large percentage of the schools students of the time. (This also prompted the placement of the belt knot to help instructors recognize gender in the studio). Younger and less physical students became discouraged and dropped out for other less demanding activities or began to gravitate toward the new tae kwon do invasion.

In an effort to maintain enrollments, Tom Kelley* (my sp) suggested the creation of a preliminary rank before Orange to encourage younger students and females to enroll and once a student, to stay. This was the Yellow Belt. So you see, before you began to suggest this level has some special relationship to the rest of the lesson plan, it is important you realize it was initially an afterthought or add on, and not a part of the overall technique structure in the beginning at all.

Parker accepted the idea and the number of techniques arbitrarily decided upon reflected whom the chart was slanted toward. The techniques were supposed to be relatively easy, teach some needed skills, and there were only ten of them. The techniques wee created by primarily Ed Parker, Tom Kelley*, and Richard Planas with substantial input from many others. A true collaborative effort for the most part but actaully a project led by Tom Kelley.*

Once the Yellow was created, adult males began to literally whine" (as Parker put it) because they were ineligible for a Yellow Belt. Ultimately Ed Parker acquiesced to requests from students and instructors alike, and allowed the Yellow Chart to be taught to everyone.

Once adult participation was substantial, it became obvious the techniques, although generally effective, were out of line with the expected skill level and the basics taught at that level. For that reason techniques like Aggressive Twins, which led with a knife-edge kick to the knee, was eliminated and replaced with Alternating Maces.

Jim Mitchell has been mistakenly attributed to the creation of Alternating Maces because he was the first to place the Yellow Techniques on video (with Parker behind the camera). It is a fact that in the early days many were first exposed or learned the techniques from video footage of Jim Mitchell. I have footage of Parker executing all of the newly created techniques from the seventies, but he never filmed or videoed the yellow.

The original version of Alternating Maces was created by Ed Parker, but was interpreted by Jim Mitchell on video using the motion concepts Ed Parker was teaching at the time. This also accounts for the discrepancies in the written lesson plan, that suggest you collapse on the arms after you deflect them away. 

When Parker demonstrated the technique, he came over the top and struck downward on the arms and Slap-checked (like he always did) before he punched. Jim Mitchell chose to deflect the arms misunderstanding the inward block, and used a positional check that Parker never used. Ultimately Parker let the Mitchell version stand, otherwise he would have had to re-do a great many of the techniques Mitchell interpreted on the video. He didnt like Mitchells form and even planned to re-shoot volume 2 of Infinite Insights because of his displeasure with his stances. 

The video version of these techniques existed prior to the formal manual. In fact, although the techniques were listed in "workbooks" in the schools, they were not formally written down. I'm sure many remember those old "workbooks" that students left in the school that contained all of the requirements for their next ranlk. They were color coded small booklets that also included such things as "blocking cordination drills." (Remember D?)There were actually four techniques (4) techniques that were removed/changed/renamed, and all had the potential to be effective, depending on the teacher. Specifically Aggressive Twins is VERY effective when skillfully executed properly.

In our own curriculum I have added an additional six (6) techniques to balance the curriculum to sixteen (16) and to fill some holes I perceived to be in the first level of instruction.



*The extra e is for excellence in a man I seriously respect. :asian:


----------



## Rainman

> In our own curriculum I have added an additional six (6) techniques to balance the curriculum to sixteen (16) and to fill some holes I perceived to be in the first level of instruction.



Yoda,

That's the best thing I've heard all day!   Parting the Bear one of those?  

:asian:


----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by Rainman _
> 
> *
> 
> Yoda,
> 
> That's the best thing I've heard all day!   Parting the Bear one of those?
> 
> :asian: *




This is what we use. All of them work as written and you cannot advance until you prove it with a passing score of 85% in all areas.

  1.  SWORD AND HAMMER: (flank CLOSE left hand shoulder grab)

  2.  ALTERNATING MACES:   (front - two-hand attempted push) 

  3. 	SWORD OF DESTRUCTION: (front - left step through roundhouse punch) 

  4.  THRUSTING SALUTE:  (Front right step through kick) 

  5.  CAPTURED TWIGS: (rear - bear hug with arms pinned above elbows)	

  8.  GRASP OF DEATH: (left flank - right arm braced headlock) 

  7.  CHECKING THE STORM: (Front right step-through overhead club) 

  6.  MACE OF AGGRESSION: (front -- two-hand lapel grab -- pulling in) 

  9.  ATTACKING MACE: (front - right step through straight punch to face) 

10.   DELAYED SWORD: (front - right hand lapel grab) 

11.   SWORD OF DOOM: (front - right straight punch to the face) 

12.   DESTRUCTIVE SHIELD - front - left push to the right shoulder

13.   ESCAPING TALON: (Flank - left Seize of the right wrist) 

14.   HUGGING DEFIANCE: (Front - hug arms free)

15.   DOUBLE MACES: (front - step through right and crossing left punches) 

16.   GRASP IN THE DARK: (Rear, left stiff arm shoulder grab to the left shoulder)


----------



## Klondike93

Thanks for all the info Doc, it helps it all make sense  


:asian:


----------



## Goldendragon7

> _Originally posted by kenpo3631 _*
> Yes, I strongly beleive in my views, however I am NOT locked into them. If someone can explain to me why they are doing it and it is sound, logical and follows the rules of the Art then I will consider adopting those views or at least examine their point further.
> *



And I have strong beliefs as well, that are substantiated by fact not hearsay or filled with incorrect or irrelevant information about "who" invented the technique, or one or two particular viewpoints from others that I may disagree with.  The "Rules of the Art" in many cases, possibly are set forth by certain individuals that now believe they are the "last word" on issues and not a set of rules that many other Seniors agree with.



> _Originally posted by kenpo3631 _*
> I ask you this, why can you not give me an explanation on this forum?
> *



I never said I "could not" give an explanation, but  before entering "Technique Wars", I first require a level playing field, the same technique description is necessary on both parts so as to be able to compare apples to apples.  I do not know what version you posses or were taught and exactly how you perform or how much you understand about it.  So, without first examining in detail, it is merely a back and forth throwing of rocks which might just result in both being right from their exact perspective, or once the issues are clearly on the table, one or the other can see the others exact point and then and only then begin to figure out a quality solution to the question.



> _Originally posted by kenpo3631 _*
> Do you not have the answer?
> *



Is this a challenge Lance?         C'mon !!!!!!!!



> _Originally posted by kenpo3631 _*
> You did after all have the priveledge of studying with the SGM, were you not privy to that information?
> *



Yes I did!! .......... and for quite a while also!, that is well documented and was promoted 3 times by him too.  Can you say the same?



> _Originally posted by kenpo3631 _*
> Is it because you don't know?
> *



Right!  Are you becoming frustrated with your training or something?  For you to ask such a question, is unlike you, I felt you were smarter than that.  I don't know a lot of things, I'm still a student also, can you teach me the correct way?  (what ever the attitude ........... so the response)



> _Originally posted by kenpo3631 _*
> They were very simple questions Mr. C. I would hope you would have something to expound upon.
> *



Some times it's better to talk off line and not hurt feelings.



> _Originally posted by kenpo3631 _*
> So once again I will ask, if you close the centerline with hands, somewhere there has to be a technique that shows the same principle with the feet should there not?
> 
> If you drop Aggressive Twins, you lose a technique that shows the same principle (closing the centerline) with the feet.
> 
> Do you learn it in Alternating Maces? where else would you learn this concept? what other technique teaches it?
> *



Oh now I get it  :rofl: ........ you must want a "category completion" answer here to validate your beliefs.



> _Originally posted by kenpo3631 _*
> I am sure that these are some of the more menial questions you have been asked in you tenure as a kenpoist. I look forward to your veiws.
> :asian: *



No, it could be a great question, not menial at all, but I don't know exactly the specifics on how exactly you perform the technique, as I stated above.

Respectfully,
:asian:


----------



## Doc

Uhhhhhhhhhhhh! 

Before it gets too deep, a simple reminder. 

I am the last word on *nothing but my own curriculum,* and I consistedly remind everyone that I don't execute or teach Kenpo as most everyone else does. So I don't pretend to tell anyone how to do or teach their interpretation of the art anymore than they tell me. In fact I know the Kenpo seniors do not agree with me and I'm fine with that. 

However most of those active seniors are not my senior. Most of those guys are from the late sixties and early seventies. The earlier Senior, Seniors as I call them and the few who are my senior, however do not "disagree" with me. They simply see a different point of view as was common. Most of them do not share the new "motion" philosophy either so I'm in good company.

I only promote thought as I, and everyone else should, and it does not bother me if anyone rejects my view for their own, that's only normal. However we must also remember that everyone who ever studied with Ed Parker throughtout his lifetime did not neccessarily learn or do the same as most everyone else does now. I know Chuck Sullivan doesn't, and neither does Dave Hebler, James Ibrao, Steve Hearring, or even Steve LaBounty. So I'm not alone, and I think I'm in dam good company.

Just remember MOST of the people in American Kenpo do a newer version Ed Parker created so more could learn it. You can't pretend he never did or taught anything else. Just do it, enjoy it, and be happy.


----------



## Goldendragon7

> _Originally posted by Doc _*
> I am the last word on nothing but my own curriculum, and I consistedly remind everyone that I don't execute or teach Kenpo as most everyone else does.
> *



:rofl:I wasn't referring to you!:rofl: 

:asian:


----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by Goldendragon7 _
> 
> *
> 
> :rofl:I wasn't referring to you!:rofl:
> 
> :asian: *



I didn't think you were. it just seemed like a good time to break the flow, bro.


----------



## Nightingale

Doc - 

hmmm... I'm not quite sure what "motion kenpo" is other than that it tends to refer to most of the kenpo out there that isn't taught by Dr. Chapel... who teaches sub level 4, and from reading his posts, I have a very general idea of what that is... but if someone doesn't agree with "motion kenpo" and isn't sl4, and they still do kenpo, what are they?!

respectfully,

nightingale


----------



## kenpo3631

> _Originally posted by Doc _
> 
> *There are a number of issues surrounding the first ten (10) techniques and how they fit into the rest of the lesson plan. Consider these comments from my own knowledge:
> 
> Initially the lesson plan began with 32 techniques leading to an Orange Belt. The sheer volume of the information before a first promotion was daunting to all but the serious and hearty students of the day. This was not initially unusual because the majority of students were adult physical males, who might be involved in other physical activities like boxing, judo, or even football before coming to, or concurrent with their Kenpo training.
> 
> As the seventies ushered in, the phenomena of females and younger students began to invade the schools, and it was discovered the curriculum was out of line with the capabilities of a large percentage of the schools students of the time. (This also prompted the placement of the belt knot to help instructors recognize gender in the studio). Younger and less physical students became discouraged and dropped out for other less demanding activities or began to gravitate toward the new tae kwon do invasion.
> 
> In an effort to maintain enrollments, Tom Kelley* (my sp) suggested the creation of a preliminary rank before Orange to encourage younger students and females to enroll and once a student, to stay. This was the Yellow Belt. So you see, before you began to suggest this level has some special relationship to the rest of the lesson plan, it is important you realize it was initially an afterthought or add on, and not a part of the overall technique structure in the beginning at all.
> 
> Parker accepted the idea and the number of techniques arbitrarily decided upon reflected whom the chart was slanted toward. The techniques were supposed to be relatively easy, teach some needed skills, and there were only ten of them. The techniques wee created by primarily Ed Parker, Tom Kelley*, and Richard Planas with substantial input from many others. A true collaborative effort for the most part but actaully a project led by Tom Kelley.*
> 
> Once the Yellow was created, adult males began to literally whine" (as Parker put it) because they were ineligible for a Yellow Belt. Ultimately Ed Parker acquiesced to requests from students and instructors alike, and allowed the Yellow Chart to be taught to everyone.
> 
> Once adult participation was substantial, it became obvious the techniques, although generally effective, were out of line with the expected skill level and the basics taught at that level. For that reason techniques like Aggressive Twins, which led with a knife-edge kick to the knee, was eliminated and replaced with Alternating Maces.
> 
> Jim Mitchell has been mistakenly attributed to the creation of Alternating Maces because he was the first to place the Yellow Techniques on video (with Parker behind the camera). It is a fact that in the early days many were first exposed or learned the techniques from video footage of Jim Mitchell. I have footage of Parker executing all of the newly created techniques from the seventies, but he never filmed or videoed the yellow.
> 
> The original version of Alternating Maces was created by Ed Parker, but was interpreted by Jim Mitchell on video using the motion concepts Ed Parker was teaching at the time. This also accounts for the discrepancies in the written lesson plan, that suggest you collapse on the arms after you deflect them away.
> 
> When Parker demonstrated the technique, he came over the top and struck downward on the arms and Slap-checked (like he always did) before he punched. Jim Mitchell chose to deflect the arms misunderstanding the inward block, and used a positional check that Parker never used. Ultimately Parker let the Mitchell version stand, otherwise he would have had to re-do a great many of the techniques Mitchell interpreted on the video. He didnt like Mitchells form and even planned to re-shoot volume 2 of Infinite Insights because of his displeasure with his stances.
> 
> The video version of these techniques existed prior to the formal manual. In fact, although the techniques were listed in "workbooks" in the schools, they were not formally written down. I'm sure many remember those old "workbooks" that students left in the school that contained all of the requirements for their next ranlk. They were color coded small booklets that also included such things as "blocking cordination drills." (Remember D?)There were actually four techniques (4) techniques that were removed/changed/renamed, and all had the potential to be effective, depending on the teacher. Specifically Aggressive Twins is VERY effective when skillfully executed properly.
> 
> In our own curriculum I have added an additional six (6) techniques to balance the curriculum to sixteen (16) and to fill some holes I perceived to be in the first level of instruction.
> 
> 
> 
> *The extra e is for excellence in a man I seriously respect. :asian: *



That was very enlightening, and educational. I had heard allot of what you stated before. This just solidifies my convictions that what I was told before was correct. Thanks again Mr. Chapel


----------



## kenpo3631

> And I have strong beliefs as well, that are substantiated by fact not hearsay or filled with incorrect or irrelevant information about "who" invented the technique, or one or two particular viewpoints from others that I may disagree with. The "Rules of the Art" in many cases, possibly are set forth by certain individuals that now believe they are the "last word" on issues and not a set of rules that many other Seniors agree with.



Well after reading what Mr. Chapel said, I will further examine the "invention" of Alternating Maces. I must say that talking with many, although not as many as you, that "hearsay" and "incorrect" information isn't so "incorrect"....but hey! maybe they lied to me 

As far as someone being the "last word" on anything...I heard Mr. Parker refer to that person as "the only man that can argue with me point for point about the theories and principle of Kenpo" also "a walking encyclopedia of Kenpo". Hmmm, maybe Mr. Parker was just feeding an ego? 



> I never said I "could not" give an explanation, but before entering "Technique Wars", I first require a level playing field, the same technique description is necessary on both parts so as to be able to compare apples to apples. I do not know what version you posses or were taught and exactly how you perform or how much you understand about it. So, without first examining in detail, it is merely a back and forth throwing of rocks which might just result in both being right from their exact perspective, or once the issues are clearly on the table, one or the other can see the others exact point and then and only then begin to figure out a quality solution to the question.



Point well taken. For you a level playing field -  I have many versions. However I don't think that  question #1, #3 & #4   require you to know if what version I have of Alternating Maces.
1) If you close the centerline with hands, somewhere there has to be a technique that shows the same principle with the feet should there not? 
2)Do you learn it in Alternating Maces?
3)Where else would you learn this concept? 
4)What other technique teaches it? 




> Is this a challenge Lance? C'mon !!!!!!!!



Not at all. I just did not understand why you could not have given the information like Mr. Chapel did on the forum. Thanks again Mr. Chapel 



> Yes I did!! .......... and for quite a while also!, that is well documented and was promoted 3 times by him too. Can you say the same?



I saw him as much as I could when I could. Not the same as being a personal student but I gained much from my meeting with him. Sadly, Mr. Parker passed away the year before I tested for my black belt.



> Right! Are you becoming frustrated with your training or something? For you to ask such a question, is unlike you, I felt you were smarter than that. I don't know a lot of things, I'm still a student also, can you teach me the correct way? (what ever the attitude ........... so the response)



Did I offend you? If I did, I apologize. Frustrated...not at all. I am very happy with my training and my trainer. Actually I am quite intellegent as are you. "Whatever the attitude so is the response"... I like this one better..."Perception is reality until proven otherwise" So seeing you responded but have not yet answered my questions...:idunno: 



> Some times it's better to talk off line and not hurt feelings.



How would you hurt my feelings? Like I stated in a previous post: If someone can explain to me why they are doing it and it is sound, logical and follows the rules of the Art then I will consider adopting those views or at least examine their point further.




> Oh now I get it  ........ you must want a "category completion" answer here to validate your beliefs.



You learn handsword, then you learn footsword (knife edge kick)...isn't that the same thing? You used your hand then you used your foot... Why would it not make sense while doing the self defense techniques. I thought we applied what we learned as basics to what we did in the self defense techniques? No? Yes?



> No, it could be a great question, not menial at all, but I don't know exactly the specifics on how exactly you perform the technique, as I stated above.



To answer my questions as stated above you don't need to know what version of Alternating Maces I know.

:asian:


----------



## Goldendragon7

> _Originally posted by kenpo3631 _*
> 1) If you close the centerline with hands, somewhere there has to be a technique that shows the same principle with the feet should there not?
> *



What do you consider "closing the centerline with hands"???



> _Originally posted by kenpo3631 _*
> How would you hurt my feelings?
> *



I didn't mention anyone specifcaly.

:asian:


----------



## WilliamTLear

Lance,

There is nothing wrong with having pride in your roots... Kenpo is no exception. I know both of the techniques that you are talking about (Alternating Maces & Aggressive Twins), and I appreciate them both.

Frank Trejo teaches them both, because both of the techniques are valid to him, and both of them work quite well. Why dump one for the other when you can have both at the low, low cost of a little extra time spent?

In the long run... I don't care who created the technique, because effectiveness is what dictates my choices. If I can use it, I will. If I can't I will store it until I can either find a use for it later, or until I can give it to someone else who can.

*Here's a scenario to point out a different thought process:*
Do you use an electric can opener at home? Or a manual one? Is one better than the other? Do they both get the job done in the same amount of time? Do you have electricity all the time? What if one of your hands is broken and in a cast? Who invented them? Don't they both work? Is one messier for you than the other? Can you open the can without the can opener?

*Back to Aggressive Twins:*
If I had a disabled student who couldn't use one of his arms (I've met some pretty sharp disabled martial artists in my time)... I would probably teach him Aggressive twins instead of Alternating Maces. Other students would probably learn both (just in-case).

*One more thing...*
While it is important to develop both the hands and feet of the beginner in Kenpo... beginners are usually better with their hands. I would also endeavor to say that beginners are more prone to using their hands in a real fight than their feet... Why not condition them to better use what they already have before delving into more complex areas.

Trejo was a teacher of mine for the better part of 3-4 years... Although I like a lot of what he does... I have developed an appreciation for others as well. Keep an open mind brother. It's Kenpo.

Yours In Kenpo,
Billy Lear :asian: 

P.S. What Kenpo foot maneuver do you use to evade artillery? I would revert to the basics... *RUN LIKE HELL!*


----------



## kenpo3631

Closing access to the opponents centerline


----------



## kenpo3631

Bill,

Why run when you can fly


----------



## WilliamTLear

> _Originally posted by kenpo3631 _
> 
> *Bill,
> 
> Why run when you can fly *



I'd rather take my chances on foot... The airplane makes a bigger target, not to mention the runway it has to take off on...

Also, a chopper has to touch down and lift off... and that might be difficult to do with incoming artillary...

*Back to Kenpo:*
As for closing the centerline...



> *quote:* _Originally posted by kenpo3631_
> *once again I will ask, if you close the centerline with hands, somewhere there has to be a technique that shows the same principle with the feet should there not? *



Leaping Crane does. Or did I miss something?

Hasta,
Billy Lear


----------



## Goldendragon7

> _Originally posted by kenpo3631 _*
> Why run when you can fly
> *



Cause you dont have wings!


----------



## kenpo3631

> _Originally posted by Goldendragon7 _
> 
> *
> 
> Cause you dont have wings!
> 
> *



Bah dum..dis

In a Blackhawk Helo. I'll have plenty of time come December...Active Duty Bosnia


----------



## kenpo3631

> _Originally posted by WilliamTLear _
> 
> *
> 
> Leaping Crane does. Or did I miss something?
> 
> Hasta,
> Billy Lear  *



Yeah but that works the centerline from behind your opponent. What about from the front?


----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by nightingale8472 _
> 
> *Doc -
> 
> hmmm... I'm not quite sure what "motion kenpo" is other than that it tends to refer to most of the kenpo out there that isn't taught by Dr. Chapel... who teaches sub level 4, and from reading his posts, I have a very general idea of what that is... but if someone doesn't agree with "motion kenpo" and isn't sl4, and they still do kenpo, what are they?!
> 
> respectfully,
> 
> nightingale *



If the Kenpo you study is based primarily on a study of "motion," that is what you are studying and it is an Ed Parker creation. The fact you may not agree with the term that Ed Parker himself used is of no consequence. You may in fact call it anything you want, or not. It's like a person intoxicated insisting he's sober. Protestations do not alter reality, but in this case it's only a word that doesn't enhance or degrade you or what you do, and it just is. "Motion" is the word Ed Parker used and there are some that have been around who remember him using it. After all I think it's pretty hard to pick up any of his (later seventies) writings where the word doesn't dominate almost every paragraph.

There's at least one person (not you) with rare "reading comprehension skills" who thinks my bringing to light information about the study materials is a "put down" of Mr. Parker. To the contrary I feel I'm reminding people Ed Parker was much more knowledgeable than motion-kenpo represents. It's funny how people like to assume they know all Parker knew, otherwise they wouldn't be offended.

He was the most brilliant man I ever knew and I've hung with some "heavies." But if some "brainy" individual thinks Infinite Insight is the totality of his knowledge, if they think motion-kenpo is the sum of his physical works, If they think it has to be in the Infinite Insights to be real, then they are grossly mistaken. 

The first group of instructors had skills beyond Motion-Kenpo because they were "converts" from other systems. They implemented the "lesson plan" well, supplementing it with other skills and knowledge.  So there is a tendancy among more recent "students turned teachers" to make motion-kenpo more than what it really is, because it is the sum of "their" expereince.

Don't get me wrong, it's a brilliant "piece" of his work. Designed so it can be studied at many levels according to the students commitment. But it's inherent weakness is it's only a "lesson plan" and is absolutely driven by the quality of its instructors.  And it's designed to be flexible to handle the lowest commitment students and not turn people away like in the old days when classes were only for the hearty males. If you get a good teacher with a broader experience of the arts you're in good shape. If not, well good luck. Many of it's "teachers" are now a product of the "lesson Plan" itself, making it as Parker often stated , ".... an entity feeding upon itself."  

This also imposes an artificial ceiling and by default precludes ascendancy to higher levels by not providing the "bridge" to less conceptual study and applications. However it did/does serve its purpose and has allowed many all over the world to sample the brilliance of a man who left us way too soon. But he had so much more. It's important we don't pretend that those few manuals and concepts was all he had to offer. That would be unfortunate. What he gave and put into motion-kenpo was only a "slice" of the very large Ed Parker Pie.


----------



## WilliamTLear

> _Originally posted by kenpo3631 _
> 
> *
> 
> Yeah but that works the centerline from behind your opponent. What about from the front? *



I thought by kicking your opponent's leg in Leaping Crane you were controlling your opponent's width while working from a zone of obscurity... (assuming that we're on the same page) hence, closing his centerline.

I guess you need to re-ask your question, and use a little more detail than you already have, because I simply don't understand what you want.

Are you talking about cancelling your opponent's width with a kick while remaining relatively in front of him? Or... Are you simply looking for a technique that closes your opponent's centerline with a kick?

Please Explain,
Billy Lear :asian:


----------



## Nightingale

Doc said: QUOTE: However most of those active seniors are not my senior. Most of those guys are from the late sixties and early seventies. The earlier Senior, Seniors as I call them and the few who are my senior, however do not "disagree" with me. They simply see a different point of view as was common. Most of them do not share the new "motion" philosophy either so I'm in good company. /quote

I guess I didn't phrase my question right, or I didn't understand your answer...

if these seniors don't go for the motion kenpo thing, and they don't do sub-level 4, what is it that they do?


----------



## Rainman

> _Originally posted by WilliamTLear _
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Are you talking about cancelling your opponent's width with a kick while remaining relatively in front of him? Or... Are you simply looking for a technique that closes your opponent's centerline with a kick?
> 
> Please Explain,
> Billy Lear :asian: *



I believe he is talking about closing the centerline with the inward block and re-opening with the rt. knife edge kick to the inside of the left knee.   That's what I get.


----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by nightingale8472 _
> 
> *Doc said: QUOTE: However most of those active seniors are not my senior. Most of those guys are from the late sixties and early seventies. The earlier Senior, Seniors as I call them and the few who are my senior, however do not "disagree" with me. They simply see a different point of view as was common. Most of them do not share the new "motion" philosophy either so I'm in good company. /quote
> 
> I guess I didn't phrase my question right, or I didn't understand your answer...
> 
> if these seniors don't go for the motion kenpo thing, and they don't do sub-level 4, what is it that they do? *



Well, Steve Herring (Frank Trejo's instructor,) and James Ibrao are much closer to what the "Old Man" was doing when he began studying with Chinese Masters and they teach essentially "Chinese Kenpo." Steve Herring understands the basis for SL-4 and we get along fine. I do not know Mr. Ibrao personally.

Chuck Sullivan is a combination, taking his earlier knowledge, some "motion" kenpo concepts and created his own functional version of very effective American Kenpo.

Dave Hebler is closer to what Parker transitioned to when he began to formulate the basis for American Kenpo pre-motion, but he never forgot his earlier teachings and he examined the "motion" stuff as well. In other words he continued to educate himself and is one of the best around. A Senior, Senior and my senior who you don't hear much of that you should. He's one of the best and he and I have no conflicts and he likes what I gleened from my lessons and I his.

Sigung Steve LaBounty is "old school" as well. Essentially teaching a mixure of what Parker was doing in the beginning, plus the Chinese influence, with direct very destructive action. But he also has continued to educate himself delving into Traditional Chinese Medicine as we speak.

Dave German took his early Kenpo and branched on his own getting deep into the manipulation side in conjunction with other diverse material making his own art devestating. And he's been doing that since the sixties.

Danny Inosanto does more kenpo than you know, but hangs his hat on Kali and JKD for obvious reasons.

My point is none of these Senior Senior do motion-kenpo, and you'll find most of my Kenpo disagreements come from people who weren't around before motion-kenpo whose entire experience comes essentially from that motion concept. You won't find any of these Senior, Senior people complaining about what "Kenpo doesn't have." That's because they've seen it all at one time or another and they know better. The seniors who disagree, are not my seniors, they are yours.

What they call their art is irrelevent, the point is it isn't motion and they make no apologies for their knowledge. Neither do I. I'm only responsible for what I know, not what others don't. Give Ed Parker the credit for all of us, motion or not.


----------



## kenpo3631

> _Originally posted by Rainman _
> 
> *
> 
> I believe he is talking about closing the centerline with the inward block and re-opening with the rt. knife edge kick to the inside of the left knee.   That's what I get. *



Correct. In Attacking Mace you close the centerline with your left inward block and regain control of the ceterline with the right punch to the rib cage. In Aggressive Twin you close it (centerline) with the right inward block and regain control of it with the right knife edge kick. All from working the front of the body. Leaping Crane, as Billy stated works the centerline from your opponents obscure zone.

So the begginer is learning how to regain control of the centerline with the either the hands or the feet. You here allot of "motion kenpo" people say "what you do with your hands, you can do with your feet". So if you don't show them Aggressive Twins don't you lose a piece of the kenpo puzzle? Another question that could be asked is "Was the technique (Aggressive Twins) designed to teach that concept?":asian:


----------



## Rainman

> _Originally posted by kenpo3631 _
> 
> *
> 
> Correct. In Attacking Mace you close the centerline with your left inward block and regain control of the ceterline with the right punch to the rib cage. In Aggressive Twin you close it (centerline) with the right inward block and regain control of it with the right knife edge kick. All from working the front of the body. Leaping Crane, as Billy stated works the centerline from your opponents obscure zone.
> 
> So the begginer is learning how to regain control of the centerline with the either the hands or the feet. You here allot of "motion kenpo" people say "what you do with your hands, you can do with your feet". So if you don't show them Aggressive Twins don't you lose a piece of the kenpo puzzle? Another question that could be asked is "Was the technique (Aggressive Twins) designed to teach that concept?":asian: *



Height width and depth are cancelled with the diagonally downward block for AM.   The main problem I have with AT is width is cancelled on the inward block unless it is diagonal.  Tough to do with a two handed push to HZ 1 unless you violate point of origin.   I am not comfortable with movements that cancel one zone at a time.   I do agree I see nothing in the system that works the same as AT.  Another question is why was it dropped?   For me AT just doesn't have the checks most of the other teks have built in.

:asian:


----------



## ATACX GYM

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHbVHCk8VgA&feature=related


----------



## marlon

ATACX GYM said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDxHsdUDLDU&feature=related
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHbVHCk8VgA&feature=related


 
Would it not serve your alignment more and disrupt your attacker's to a greater degree to kick out the left leg instead of the knee that you do?
Respectfully,
Marlon


----------



## ATACX GYM

marlon said:


> Would it not serve your alignment more and disrupt your attacker's to a greater degree to kick out the left leg instead of the knee that you do?
> Respectfully,
> Marlon


 

Not really.It would disrupt the attacker's balance in a DIFFERENT way,but it's more difficult to execute than the knee is.The trauma caused by a low line knee to the thigh actually is easier to land,and when combined with the Crane technique canceling the HWD zones by basically doing a combo of the MT neck wrestling and Olympic wrestling's "heavy hands/snap down"? It's almost a 100% knockdown.That's why I teach it that way.And the knee really bruises the thigh...hematomas? No fun.


----------



## marlon

ATACX GYM said:


> Not really.It would disrupt the attacker's balance in a DIFFERENT way,but it's more difficult to execute than the knee is.The trauma caused by a low line knee to the thigh actually is easier to land,and when combined with the Crane technique canceling the HWD zones by basically doing a combo of the MT neck wrestling and Olympic wrestling's "heavy hands/snap down"? It's almost a 100% knockdown.That's why I teach it that way.And the knee really bruises the thigh...hematomas? No fun.


 
the thigh?  the one i saw had the knee going to the ribs.  the thigh strike is more structurally sound


----------



## ATACX GYM

marlon said:


> the thigh? the one i saw had the knee going to the ribs. the thigh strike is more structurally sound


 

I bring knees to the ribs because the camera oftentimes miss knees to the ribs.I do,however,also knee the ribs...and they have a devastating effect on my opponents.One hard knee? Game over.

You'll see me say (in this clip for Attacking Mace) that on camera oftentimes drive my knee to the body deliberately so that the camera can see it...





 
In ALTERNATING MACES,I will post:





 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MBEBgQTWlg&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j18151f6tmo&feature=related

As the quick responses.


----------

