Alternating Maces

[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]

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]

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]

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