Alternating Maces

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:
Click to expand...


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:
 
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
Click to expand...


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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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:
 
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.
Click to expand...

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:
 
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:
Click to expand...

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".
 
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?
Click to expand...

Can you give an explanation?:asian:
 
Originally posted by Goldendragon7



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

:asian:
Click to expand...

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:
 
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:
 
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.
Click to expand...

Yoda,

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

:asian:
 
Originally posted by Rainman



Yoda,

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

:asian:
Click to expand...


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)
 
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.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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:
Click to expand...

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:
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

:asian:
 
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
 
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:
Click to expand...

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:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Delayed Sword

Previous Thread

Sword Of Destruction

Next Thread

Similar threads

R
Sword Of Destruction
2 3
Replies
41
Views
6K
WhiteTiger
W
R
Delayed Sword
2 3
Replies
50
Views
7K
D.Cobb
D.Cobb
K
Attacking Mace
Replies
9
Views
3K
Handsword
H
M
Thundering Hammers
2 3
Replies
46
Views
7K
IWishToLearn
IWishToLearn
K
Twisted Twig
Replies
19
Views
3K
Hollywood1340
Hollywood1340

Latest Discussions

Back
Top