An Attack That May Never Happen

[MJS]

I think maybe the topic has shifted a little from MJS' initial intention. I think rather than looking at why we have so many defenses against similar attacks (sorry, that was really my own digression in the beginning of the thread), what he is really looking at is, are some attacks really so highly unlikely that it is simply a waste of time to prepare for them?

Yes, that was my original intent, although the little bit of drift that has happened has been very informative.

Some people believe certain stylized attacks are impossible to actually carry out in the real world. If this is actually true, then it is kind of a waste of time to prepare for them. I guess not everyone believes that it's true. What one person believes will never happen, or could never happen, another person believes could happen and might happen. I guess you need to satisfy yourself about the possibility of a certain type of attack happening and being successful. If you think it could happen, then you should prepare for it. If not, then don't.

Good point. Like I said, we have defenses for a number of attacks. I havent had a gun pulled on me (thank God) but I still work gun defense.

Mike

 

[MJS]

Of course you're correct. It is a matter of prioritization based on personal preferences. This is the Kenpo desease that infects the commercial system that turns everyone, regardless of knowledge or skill set into a designer of his own style. I've seen raw beginners to so-called experts expressing themeselves as to how they think a technique should be done.

Taking this analogy, would you say a 5'3 woman should be able to make a technique work against a 6'5 man in the same way two males the same height would?

The idea of tailoring and rearranging along with other "designer" concepts is what has made the commercial system popular. Anybody may do anything that suits them, and as long as the individual is satisfied with their performance, its fine. Kinda learn the forms and sets so you can test, and then tossem'. Understand them? Unnecessary. Make them actually work? Who cares. Give them some more stuff to "perform" so they can get another rank. That is where all the fluff and crap material comes from.

Isn't this a pretty big assumption of all 'commercial' schools?

Now the base system itself, is not as bad as it sounds, but too many of those that call themselves teachers are. It is a business that feeds upon itself, and contridicts on some level its reason for existing. The balancing act between making money and turning out reasonably skilled martial artist is difficult for the most adept teachers. For the bulk of the less than competent, it isn't even possible, and profit is the driving force.

So every school is out to make money rather than produce quality students?

This contridiction has driven Mr. Parker's idea of what should be a functioning albeit commercial system into the ground. The bar is set so low, the idea of what is and looks good is virtually dysfuctional. Most don't know the simplest of basics, but can roll, jump, wirl, yell, and stomp with enthusiasm, while wearing uniforms with enough patches to shame a Nascar driver, and be awarded rank.

Hmmm..I have two gis with no patches on them at all. When I do choose to place a patch upon them, it will consist of the school patch. Additionally, my instructor is big on basics, so again, it seems like lumping all schools that fit that 'commercial' mold is incorrect.

As I said earlier the "full nelson" attack is anatomically impossible and I stand by that statement, but I still teach the counter-mechanics because they are important, and reinforce other themes inherent in the system as I teach it. My students know the attack itself is dysfuctional, but they love what they learn from exploring their own body mechanics AND how they fuction in other attacks that ARE more likely to happen.

Aside from the full nelson which seems that it was applied in LawDogs post, what other attacks are anatomically impossible?

Mike

 

[Doc]

Taking this analogy, would you say a 5'3 woman should be able to make a technique work against a 6'5 man in the same way two males the same height would?

I assume your question is rhetorical. In the traditional (less commercial by construct) arts, "tailoring" is the provence of experienced teachers not students seeking to be taught how to make something work.

Isn't this a pretty big assumption of all 'commercial' schools?

Since when have I ever said ALL commercial schools?

So every school is out to make money rather than produce quality students?

I'm going to assume you're being rhetorical again because I don't think anybody has ever said that. But that being said, most folow the standards they know and have been brought up with. For many, especially in recent years, they simply don't know what's correct because they themselves have never been taught. Therefore they may have good intentions, but unfortunately that is not enough.

Hmmm..I have two gis with no patches on them at all. When I do choose to place a patch upon them, it will consist of the school patch. Additionally, my instructor is big on basics, so again, it seems like lumping all schools that fit that 'commercial' mold is incorrect.

Sounds to me like you're personalizing the discussion. Perhaps you should go back and read my responses objectively. "Commercial " has nothing to do with being paid for your services. It's a system that was designed to be a commercial business that has inherent limitations in its design, no matter how good the intentions. Some teach the "commercial" system for free, but that doesn't change the system itself or somehow make it better. The instructor is the only real barometer of the quality of instruction, based upon his background, knowledge, and teaching ability. The commercial system was designed around him, and functioned reasonbly well in the beginning. Its deterioration was noted by Ed Parker himself, as he watched it spiral out of control downward. He died before he could even begin to try to get it back on track.

His words to me were, "It's an entity feeding upn itself, and therefore is self consuming and not capable of artisitically sustaining itself."

Aside from the full nelson which seems that it was applied in LawDogs post, what other attacks are anatomically impossible?

Mike

Most of the "entertainment wrestling stuff." Work it out. I rarely if ever make all encompassing remarks about anything or anybody, and anyone who reads my writings know that if I do, its a matter of physics and I still qualify my responses, so please don't suggest that I do or have done that.

 

[MJS]

I assume your question is rhetorical. In the traditional (less commercial by construct) arts, "tailoring" is the provence of experienced teachers not students seeking to be taught how to make something work.

So, back to the question. If a teacher 'tailored' a technique to meet the needs I listed, is that acceptable?

Since when have I ever said ALL commercial schools?

Sorry, but with the way the reply was phrased it seemed to me that you were making a blanket statement.

I'm going to assume you're being rhetorical again because I don't think anybody has ever said that. But that being said, most folow the standards they know and have been brought up with. For many, especially in recent years, they simply don't know what's correct because they themselves have never been taught. Therefore they may have good intentions, but unfortunately that is not enough.

You said this:

The idea of tailoring and rearranging along with other "designer" concepts is what has made the commercial system popular. Anybody may do anything that suits them, and as long as the individual is satisfied with their performance, its fine. Kinda learn the forms and sets so you can test, and then tossem'. Understand them? Unnecessary. Make them actually work? Who cares. Give them some more stuff to "perform" so they can get another rank. That is where all the fluff and crap material comes from.

Again, reading that, to me, sounded like you were lumping all commercial schools together.

Sounds to me like you're personalizing the discussion. Perhaps you should go back and read my responses objectively. "Commercial " has nothing to do with being paid for your services. It's a system that was designed to be a commercial business that has inherent limitations in its design, no matter how good the intentions. Some teach the "commercial" system for free, but that doesn't change the system itself or somehow make it better. The instructor is the only real barometer of the quality of instruction, based upon his background, knowledge, and teaching ability. The commercial system was designed around him, and functioned reasonbly well in the beginning. Its deterioration was noted by Ed Parker himself, as he watched it spiral out of control downward. He died before he could even begin to try to get it back on track.

Commercial

2 a

: viewed with regard to profit <a commercial success> b : designed for a large market

Most of the "entertainment wrestling stuff." Work it out. I rarely if ever make all encompassing remarks about anything or anybody, and anyone who reads my writings know that if I do, its a matter of physics and I still qualify my responses, so please don't suggest that I do or have done that.

Well, I agree that much of what is called wrestling, such as what we'd see on TV, is not practical. I was referring more towards being attacked by someone who has a grappling background.

 

[MJS]

Just wanted to bump this thread back up, as we had a number of great replies, and IMO, I think that there is more to discuss, seeing that we have such a wide assortment of techniques.

Lately, it seems if someone disagrees with someone or something that was said, those people leave and the thread dies. Disagreements are part of life.

Anyway...back to the discussion.

Mike

 

[kidswarrior]

Now, speaking for myself only, I like to train for the worst case scenario. IMO, I'd rather be over prepared, than under prepared....while someone may say that the odds of a certain attack happening are small, will never happen at all or that it never happened to them, I feel that its not wise to disregard certain things. For example, someone may say that training for a grappling attack is not important because they have not seen it or had it happen to them.

Looking thru our vast collection of techniques, we have a defense for pretty much every type of punch, defenses for club and blade, etc. Now, we still train those techniques right?

I've been thinking a lot about this since this thread began, and come to a couple conclusions.

I believe the Kempo I learned had too many rehearsed techniques, and too little reliance on our unrehearsed principles. By this I mean most kenpo/kempo systems seem to have 150-300 specific techniques and more forms than we can really use, all done a very particular way, in response to a very certain situation. Realistically, I can't see myself or my students having 300 possible rehearsed responses at the ready at all times. So I've cut this down to 96 for 1st BB along with 12 forms, and even this pushes the limits of my comfort zone.

At the same time, the unrehearsed principles of our systems--our strategic framework, upon which all those specific techniques should hang--seems to get short shrift. By this I mean we spend very little time on the bunkai for those forms, and the free-wheeling use of what we've learned in the techniques. The latter usually takes the form of sparring, but if we essentially use kickboxing equipment and rules for sparring, how close is that really to replicating the ken/kempo we've learned--the soft tissue attacks, joint manipulations, hyperextensions, etc., in other words, the deadly art that we practice in those 150+ techniques.

So my point is this: IMHO we are far too heavily invested in rehearsed techniques, and far too divested of the rich possibilities inherent in the unrehearsed side of our art. I am thinking specifically of the sub-art of bunkai--how much do we go past rehearsing the forms to the dirty work of applying them? Kane & Wilder have done good work in issuing a wake up call here, as has Abernethy, and there are others. And how have we invented ways to practice our art that simulates reality more closely than reverting to kickboxing, or perhaps at the most SanShou (adding sweeps and limited throws)?

In case you haven't guessed, I really am thinking out loud, and attempting to come up with a more balanced, and so in my mind a more realistic and rich, approach to this art I love. If I sound preachy or pompous, please be assured I'm targeting my own shortcomings and failure to sufficiently understand, and I welcome your input. :asian:

 

[Jdokan]

I've been thinking a lot about this since this thread began, and come to a couple conclusions.

I believe the Kempo I learned had too many rehearsed techniques, and too little reliance on our unrehearsed principles. By this I mean most kenpo/kempo systems seem to have 150-300 specific techniques and more forms than we can really use, all done a very particular way, in response to a very certain situation. Realistically, I can't see myself or my students having 300 possible rehearsed responses at the ready at all times. So I've cut this down to 96 for 1st BB along with 12 forms, and even this pushes the limits of my comfort zone.

At the same time, the unrehearsed principles of our systems--our strategic framework, upon which all those specific techniques should hang--seems to get short shrift. By this I mean we spend very little time on the bunkai for those forms, and the free-wheeling use of what we've learned in the techniques. The latter usually takes the form of sparring, but if we essentially use kickboxing equipment and rules for sparring, how close is that really to replicating the ken/kempo we've learned--the soft tissue attacks, joint manipulations, hyperextensions, etc., in other words, the deadly art that we practice in those 150+ techniques.

So my point is this: IMHO we are far too heavily invested in rehearsed techniques, and far too divested of the rich possibilities inherent in the unrehearsed side of our art. I am thinking specifically of the sub-art of bunkai--how much do we go past rehearsing the forms to the dirty work of applying them? Kane & Wilder have done good work in issuing a wake up call here, as has Abernethy, and there are others. And how have we invented ways to practice our art that simulates reality more closely than reverting to kickboxing, or perhaps at the most SanShou (adding sweeps and limited throws)?

In case you haven't guessed, I really am thinking out loud, and attempting to come up with a more balanced, and so in my mind a more realistic and rich, approach to this art I love. If I sound preachy or pompous, please be assured I'm targeting my own shortcomings and failure to sufficiently understand, and I welcome your input. :asian:

I fully AGREE with this....too much material...
I have cut material back to 20 techniques and 12 forms for Black....Spending more on Committing these to memory so that reaction come from these techniques....I hope to have #1 become a starting point for knife, club, etc.....I am hoping to get back to what I believe we started with.....
We me and a couple of friends get together to work out I try to make my sparring technique emulate how I do my combinations.....

 

[MJS]

I've been thinking a lot about this since this thread began, and come to a couple conclusions.

I believe the Kempo I learned had too many rehearsed techniques, and too little reliance on our unrehearsed principles. By this I mean most kenpo/kempo systems seem to have 150-300 specific techniques and more forms than we can really use, all done a very particular way, in response to a very certain situation. Realistically, I can't see myself or my students having 300 possible rehearsed responses at the ready at all times. So I've cut this down to 96 for 1st BB along with 12 forms, and even this pushes the limits of my comfort zone.

At the same time, the unrehearsed principles of our systems--our strategic framework, upon which all those specific techniques should hang--seems to get short shrift. By this I mean we spend very little time on the bunkai for those forms, and the free-wheeling use of what we've learned in the techniques. The latter usually takes the form of sparring, but if we essentially use kickboxing equipment and rules for sparring, how close is that really to replicating the ken/kempo we've learned--the soft tissue attacks, joint manipulations, hyperextensions, etc., in other words, the deadly art that we practice in those 150+ techniques.

So my point is this: IMHO we are far too heavily invested in rehearsed techniques, and far too divested of the rich possibilities inherent in the unrehearsed side of our art. I am thinking specifically of the sub-art of bunkai--how much do we go past rehearsing the forms to the dirty work of applying them? Kane & Wilder have done good work in issuing a wake up call here, as has Abernethy, and there are others. And how have we invented ways to practice our art that simulates reality more closely than reverting to kickboxing, or perhaps at the most SanShou (adding sweeps and limited throws)?

In case you haven't guessed, I really am thinking out loud, and attempting to come up with a more balanced, and so in my mind a more realistic and rich, approach to this art I love. If I sound preachy or pompous, please be assured I'm targeting my own shortcomings and failure to sufficiently understand, and I welcome your input. :asian:

Yes, you bring up some good points. If we look at the Parker and Tracy systems, we'll see quite a large number of techniques, moreso with Tracy, which I believe is around 600. Now we can say a punch is a punch, so why do we need "X" number of punch techniques when 5 will do? But, how do we know that those 5 will meet my needs, your needs or someone else? So, I may need a different set of 5.

Now, we look at some of the grab techniques. We have the Ram techniques in Parker all for a tackle. But are they all for a tackle or various stages of a tackle? So we could have a tech. for a lapel grab, but what if the person grabs and pulls? What if they grab and push? Same techn. isn't going to work. Thus the reason for such a wide variety of moves.

As far as understanding the moves of forms, well I've always felt that was important. Why have someone run thru a set of moves, clueless as to what they're doing right?

Mike

 

[kidswarrior]

Now we can say a punch is a punch, so why do we need "X" number of punch techniques when 5 will do? But, how do we know that those 5 will meet my needs, your needs or someone else? So, I may need a different set of 5.

Now, we look at some of the grab techniques. We have the Ram techniques in Parker all for a tackle. But are they all for a tackle or various stages of a tackle? So we could have a tech. for a lapel grab, but what if the person grabs and pulls? What if they grab and push? Same techn. isn't going to work. Thus the reason for such a wide variety of moves.

Mike

Yes, I understand that this is the reason for the abundance of techniques. But what I'm saying is that if a system has a different technique for each 'stage' or angle of an attack, this is redundant to me.

An analogy: if we were to photograph the attack/counter with a movie camera (the kind with individual frames--do they even have these anymore?), later we could look at it frame by frame and see something different in each frame. And we could even film with multiple cameras to get various angles, so each would show something a little different. Now, we could say each frame represents a different attack, or a different stage of the attack, or a different angle of attack, and so requires a different response. And this would not be wrong, per se.

But in my mind, the attack is better thought of as flowing, just as it will in reality and as it would appear as a movie scene. If the attacker changes the angle slightly, I personally don't want to add a whole new technique (call it a new scene); I just want to understand the principle behind the technique (the point of the scene), so I can adjust on the fly. In other words, all the freeze frames, the different possible angles, speeds, etc. are just all parts of the same essential attack (e.g., a straight right, roundhouse right, these attacks using a kick, etc.). That is, they are just the same movie scene filmed with slight variations.

I know in Kempo we like our techniques, but as a contrast, some Kung Fu San Soo masters don't teach ANY techniques. They teach the principles and the basics: the strikes, the holds, seizes, takedowns, whatever, and it's up to the individual fighter to put together whatever combinations work for him or her at the given moment. It's very effective.

I have split the difference, and given about 100 techniques for my students to use, but mostly that's just until they gain several years of confidence, and can then make up their own combinations on the spot. Sort of a bridge to San Soo ('free fighting') thinking.

I don't know if this will make sense to anyone but me, but that's my thinking at the moment. :ultracool

 

[Flying Crane]

Yes, I understand that this is the reason for the abundance of techniques. But what I'm saying is that if a system has a different technique for each 'stage' or angle of an attack, this is redundant to me.

An analogy: if we were to photograph the attack/counter with a movie camera (the kind with individual frames--do they even have these anymore?), later we could look at it frame by frame and see something different in each frame. And we could even film with multiple cameras to get various angles, so each would show something a little different. Now, we could say each frame represents a different attack, or a different stage of the attack, or a different angle of attack, and so requires a different response. And this would not be wrong, per se.

But in my mind, the attack is better thought of as flowing, just as it will in reality and as it would appear as a movie scene. If the attacker changes the angle slightly, I personally don't want to add a whole new technique (call it a new scene); I just want to understand the principle behind the technique (the point of the scene), so I can adjust on the fly. In other words, all the freeze frames, the different possible angles, speeds, etc. are just all parts of the same essential attack (e.g., a straight right, roundhouse right, these attacks using a kick, etc.). That is, they are just the same movie scene filmed with slight variations.

I know in Kempo we like our techniques, but as a contrast, some Kung Fu San Soo masters don't teach ANY techniques. They teach the principles and the basics: the strikes, the holds, seizes, takedowns, whatever, and it's up to the individual fighter to put together whatever combinations work for him or her at the given moment. It's very effective.

I have split the difference, and given about 100 techniques for my students to use, but mostly that's just until they gain several years of confidence, and can then make up their own combinations on the spot. Sort of a bridge to San Soo ('free fighting') thinking.

I don't know if this will make sense to anyone but me, but that's my thinking at the moment. :ultracool

In my opinion, you are dead-on with this assessment.

 

[Flying Crane]

Now we can say a punch is a punch, so why do we need "X" number of punch techniques when 5 will do? But, how do we know that those 5 will meet my needs, your needs or someone else? So, I may need a different set of 5.

Mike

You make some good points Mike, but let's look at this a little differently.

How really different is one set of 5 from another? I would bet that the "meat" of the technique is quite similar. Probably the initial response to the punch is very similar, and this is what is important because this is how you survive the attack and begin to respond effectivly. There aren't a whole lot of different ways that really make sense, when doing this. Outside of a few possibilities, new ideas start to get kind of flambouyant and in my opinion, become less viable and less likely to work.

What differs is the follow-thru. How many ways can we destroy someone, AFTER we have nullified the attack using one of a short list of effective methods? It seems to me that this is where most of the techs really differ. And some of these follow-thrus can get pretty flambouyant as well, and unlikely. But in my opinion, this is where you should be free to use your own imagination and use what works best for you.

So yes, there are different ways to deal with a punch, and some work better for some people, not so well for others. But really, when we look at the important part of the tech, there aren't so many methods that are truly different. Most of the ones that work effectively, are probably a variation of a short list of possibilities.

Go thru your tech lists, and compile all the defenses against a punch. Take a look at the initial response. I'll bet you find that the one's that you would trust, all could be lumped by similarity into a short list of general groupings. The ones that fall outside these groupings are probably the ones that you instictively feel suspicious of, and it's probably because they really arent' good ideas to begin with.

In my opinion, there definitely ARE certain techs that were simply poorly contrived, bad ideas to begin with, and should be dumped. The notion that "YOU JUST DON"T UNDERSTAND IT WELL ENOUGH" doesn't always hold water, in my opinion.

 

[kidswarrior]

You make some good points Mike, but let's look at this a little differently.

How really different is one set of 5 from another? I would bet that the "meat" of the technique is quite similar. Probably the initial response to the punch is very similar, and this is what is important because this is how you survive the attack and begin to respond effectivly. There aren't a whole lot of different ways that really make sense, when doing this. Outside of a few possibilities, new ideas start to get kind of flambouyant and in my opinion, become less viable and less likely to work.

What differs is the follow-thru. How many ways can we destroy someone, AFTER we have nullified the attack using one of a short list of effective methods? It seems to me that this is where most of the techs really differ. And some of these follow-thrus can get pretty flambouyant as well, and unlikely. But in my opinion, this is where you should be free to use your own imagination and use what works best for you.

Exactly.

Go thru your tech lists, and compile all the defenses against a punch. Take a look at the initial response. I'll bet you find that the one's that you would trust, all could be lumped by similarity into a short list of general groupings. The ones that fall outside these groupings are probably the ones that you instictively feel suspicious of, and it's probably because they really arent' good ideas to begin with.

Spot on, again, IMHO. :ultracool

And Mike, I'm not saying you're wrong. I think it's a matter of preference. If s.o. wants to learn 600 techniques, that's fine with me. They just won't learn them from me.

 

[MJS]

Yes, I understand that this is the reason for the abundance of techniques. But what I'm saying is that if a system has a different technique for each 'stage' or angle of an attack, this is redundant to me.

An analogy: if we were to photograph the attack/counter with a movie camera (the kind with individual frames--do they even have these anymore?), later we could look at it frame by frame and see something different in each frame. And we could even film with multiple cameras to get various angles, so each would show something a little different. Now, we could say each frame represents a different attack, or a different stage of the attack, or a different angle of attack, and so requires a different response. And this would not be wrong, per se.

But in my mind, the attack is better thought of as flowing, just as it will in reality and as it would appear as a movie scene. If the attacker changes the angle slightly, I personally don't want to add a whole new technique (call it a new scene); I just want to understand the principle behind the technique (the point of the scene), so I can adjust on the fly. In other words, all the freeze frames, the different possible angles, speeds, etc. are just all parts of the same essential attack (e.g., a straight right, roundhouse right, these attacks using a kick, etc.). That is, they are just the same movie scene filmed with slight variations.

I know in Kempo we like our techniques, but as a contrast, some Kung Fu San Soo masters don't teach ANY techniques. They teach the principles and the basics: the strikes, the holds, seizes, takedowns, whatever, and it's up to the individual fighter to put together whatever combinations work for him or her at the given moment. It's very effective.

I have split the difference, and given about 100 techniques for my students to use, but mostly that's just until they gain several years of confidence, and can then make up their own combinations on the spot. Sort of a bridge to San Soo ('free fighting') thinking.

I don't know if this will make sense to anyone but me, but that's my thinking at the moment. :ultracool

You make some good points Mike, but let's look at this a little differently.

How really different is one set of 5 from another? I would bet that the "meat" of the technique is quite similar. Probably the initial response to the punch is very similar, and this is what is important because this is how you survive the attack and begin to respond effectivly. There aren't a whole lot of different ways that really make sense, when doing this. Outside of a few possibilities, new ideas start to get kind of flambouyant and in my opinion, become less viable and less likely to work.

What differs is the follow-thru. How many ways can we destroy someone, AFTER we have nullified the attack using one of a short list of effective methods? It seems to me that this is where most of the techs really differ. And some of these follow-thrus can get pretty flambouyant as well, and unlikely. But in my opinion, this is where you should be free to use your own imagination and use what works best for you.

So yes, there are different ways to deal with a punch, and some work better for some people, not so well for others. But really, when we look at the important part of the tech, there aren't so many methods that are truly different. Most of the ones that work effectively, are probably a variation of a short list of possibilities.

Go thru your tech lists, and compile all the defenses against a punch. Take a look at the initial response. I'll bet you find that the one's that you would trust, all could be lumped by similarity into a short list of general groupings. The ones that fall outside these groupings are probably the ones that you instictively feel suspicious of, and it's probably because they really arent' good ideas to begin with.

In my opinion, there definitely ARE certain techs that were simply poorly contrived, bad ideas to begin with, and should be dumped. The notion that "YOU JUST DON"T UNDERSTAND IT WELL ENOUGH" doesn't always hold water, in my opinion.

Exactly.



Spot on, again, IMHO. :ultracool

And Mike, I'm not saying you're wrong. I think it's a matter of preference. If s.o. wants to learn 600 techniques, that's fine with me. They just won't learn them from me.

Both of you are making some good points and no worries, I didn't take any of the posts as someone being wrong. I myself came from both a Parker and currently a Tracy background. In both cases, my instructors have a condensed list of material. I stated the 5 techniques because usually when these types of discussions come up, thats usually what someone comments on, ie: what works for one, may not work for the next.

Mike, you made a great point when you said this:

Go thru your tech lists, and compile all the defenses against a punch. Take a look at the initial response. I'll bet you find that the one's that you would trust, all could be lumped by similarity into a short list of general groupings. The ones that fall outside these groupings are probably the ones that you instictively feel suspicious of, and it's probably because they really arent' good ideas to begin with.

Despite how many techniques my inst. teaches, I have my favorite ones. Even when running thru material in a technique line, there are more times than not, that I find myself doing the same punch technique over and over.

Mark: I can't disagree with what you said. I've always tried to make a point of telling students that the techs. in and of themselves are a base to build off of. They're teaching principles that the student should build off of. Ultimately, that IMHO, is the main goal...to be able to react to what being presented at the moment.

 

[kidswarrior]

Both of you are making some good points and no worries, I didn't take any of the posts as someone being wrong. I myself came from both a Parker and currently a Tracy background. In both cases, my instructors have a condensed list of material. I stated the 5 techniques because usually when these types of discussions come up, thats usually what someone comments on, ie: what works for one, may not work for the next.

Mike, you made a great point when you said this:



Despite how many techniques my inst. teaches, I have my favorite ones. Even when running thru material in a technique line, there are more times than not, that I find myself doing the same punch technique over and over.

Mark: I can't disagree with what you said. I've always tried to make a point of telling students that the techs. in and of themselves are a base to build off of. They're teaching principles that the student should build off of. Ultimately, that IMHO, is the main goal...to be able to react to what being presented at the moment.

OK, Mike. Thanks.

Now that you've been nice to me, let me put you on the spot (no good deed goes unpunished, eh?). :ultracool If you were designing your own system, can I ask you what range (number) of techniques would you aim for?

 

[Flying Crane]

If you were designing your own system, can I ask you what range (number) of techniques would you aim for?

Mind if I jump in here and give my own thoughts?

I actually did this at one point, a couple years ago. I went thru the entire Tracy curriculum and whittled it away to get rid of the stuff I didn't feel merited keeping. I have sort of abandoned that for now, as I am retraining the Tracy system with a new teacher, and I want to get the strongest understanding of the material that I can, before I start thinking about making any changes.

But I categorized all the attack types, and looked at the ones that made sense to me, and dumped the ones that didn't. And I liberally made changes to improve upon what I had.

I simplified a lot of the stuff. Cut out many of the variations, and many of the follow-ups when they just seemed to go on and on. And I cut out a lot of the techs that seemed like repetions of earlier techs.

I think it makes sense to identify the main initial responses that are effective, and have maybe a couple different variations on those themes, but not more than that. Just enough to stimulate the creative juices, but also the base tech should be reliable all by itself.

I don't recall offhand just how many Punch defenses I ended up with, for example. But I shortened the complete list down to about 85 or 90 that I liked. This was taken from the entire Tracy curriculum, but the material above Shodan I was only briefly familiar with so I could never claim true ownership of that. But the entire curriculum is some 381 different techs, plus variations.

 

[kidswarrior]

Mind if I jump in here and give my own thoughts?

I actually did this at one point, a couple years ago. I went thru the entire Tracy curriculum and whittled it away to get rid of the stuff I didn't feel merited keeping. I have sort of abandoned that for now, as I am retraining the Tracy system with a new teacher, and I want to get the strongest understanding of the material that I can, before I start thinking about making any changes.

But I categorized all the attack types, and looked at the ones that made sense to me, and dumped the ones that didn't. And I liberally made changes to improve upon what I had.

I simplified a lot of the stuff. Cut out many of the variations, and many of the follow-ups when they just seemed to go on and on. And I cut out a lot of the techs that seemed like repetions of earlier techs.

I think it makes sense to identify the main initial responses that are effective, and have maybe a couple different variations on those themes, but not more than that. Just enough to stimulate the creative juices, but also the base tech should be reliable all by itself.

I don't recall offhand just how many Punch defenses I ended up with, for example. But I shortened the complete list down to about 85 or 90 that I liked. This was taken from the entire Tracy curriculum, but the material above Shodan I was only briefly familiar with so I could never claim true ownership of that. But the entire curriculum is some 381 different techs, plus variations.

Thanks, Michael. That was what I was looking for. Glad you 'jumped in'. My question wasn't really directed at Mike, so much as myself (Mike just happened to start the thread, so sort of can't get away ). I'm in the process of doing exactly what you did, and wanted confirmation/ feedback from some reliable people, such as you two.

Mike, feel free to respond anyway if you want--or not. Didn't really want to put you on the spot. :lol2: Just looking for ideas from people I trust. :asian:

 

[MJS]

OK, Mike. Thanks.

Now that you've been nice to me, let me put you on the spot (no good deed goes unpunished, eh?). :ultracool If you were designing your own system, can I ask you what range (number) of techniques would you aim for?

Thanks, Michael. That was what I was looking for. Glad you 'jumped in'. My question wasn't really directed at Mike, so much as myself (Mike just happened to start the thread, so sort of can't get away ). I'm in the process of doing exactly what you did, and wanted confirmation/ feedback from some reliable people, such as you two.

Mike, feel free to respond anyway if you want--or not. Didn't really want to put you on the spot. :lol2: Just looking for ideas from people I trust. :asian:

Yeah, sure, go ahead..put me on the spot!!:lol:

As for the question. I would most likely do what my instructor is doing right now..keep around 14 per belt. In my lesson today, we were running thru some techs., and he stated pretty much what I find myself saying...teach the techniques, step by step for learning purposes, to the students. However, when the poop hits the fan, he's looking for a reaction. If a technique is pulled off, great. If not, block, counter strike, etc.

 

[kidswarrior]

Yeah, sure, go ahead..put me on the spot!!:lol:

As for the question. I would most likely do what my instructor is doing right now..keep around 14 per belt. In my lesson today, we were running thru some techs., and he stated pretty much what I find myself saying...teach the techniques, step by step for learning purposes, to the students. However, when the poop hits the fan, he's looking for a reaction. If a technique is pulled off, great. If not, block, counter strike, etc.

Yeah, I thought we were on the same page. If you teach 14 per belt, and they really buy in to 8-9 of those (and just don't 'get' the rest due to body type, striker vs. grappler, redundancy with a prior technique they like better, etc.), then we're probably thinking they'll absorb/practice 'for life' 80-100. Anyway, it seems we're all in the same ballpark (just mixed the metaphor, but too tired to fix it), which is very helpful for me. :ultracool

And don't worry, Mike, I'm sure that won't be the last time I put you on BLAST. Feel free to reciprocate, tho.... :highfive:

 

[Flying Crane]

Thanks, Michael. That was what I was looking for. Glad you 'jumped in'. My question wasn't really directed at Mike, so much as myself (Mike just happened to start the thread, so sort of can't get away ). I'm in the process of doing exactly what you did, and wanted confirmation/ feedback from some reliable people, such as you two.

Mike, feel free to respond anyway if you want--or not. Didn't really want to put you on the spot. :lol2: Just looking for ideas from people I trust. :asian:

I'm going to try to dig up an old thread where I had some thoughts on this that you might find interesting. I'll let you know when I find it, I believe it was probably before you jumped on the scene here...

 

[kidswarrior]

I'm going to try to dig up an old thread where I had some thoughts on this that you might find interesting. I'll let you know when I find it, I believe it was probably before you jumped on the scene here...

Would love to see it.