Co-ordination Set #1 & #2

[Touch Of Death]

I answered you in private message :asian:
Sean

 

[Brother John]

I have a video of where Mr. Parker specifically talks about Directional Harmony with coordination set. After watching that video and seeing this statement, I can see where one might think like this...but I also see how Mr. Parker Explained it. From his explanation Directional Harmony is there!

That sounds really cool Jeff! I love seeing old video of Mr. Parker instructing!
PLEASE, share with me/us how Mr. Parker made it clear that Directional Harmony is still there. I'm glad that you at least see where I'm coming from. Obviously Mr. Parker, too, would have seen where I'm coming from as he thought it important and relevent to try to clear up the seeming contradiction.
Thanks in advance Jeff. I honestly look forward to the insight! :asian:

Your Brother
John

 

[Goldendragon7]

Mr. Conaster (ConaTser - t before the s .. dang everyone does that... lol)
Thank you for chiming in on this and my thoughts on it as I appreciate your perspective. :asian:
John

Thanks John, I as well, however it seems we either are not talking apples to apples or there is a definite difference of knowledge, understanding or opinion.

You said:
“Really? Well I beg to differ with you here. "I" can get "effective results". ”

I’m not saying that neither you nor anyone else can’t execute delayed sword and achieve effective results, not in the slightest. What I did say was that you can’t move your lower body in disharmony with your upper body and achieve the effective results that Delayed Sword leads us to. The technique requires that your upper and lower halves agree, not contradict one another’s motion/momentum. I’m quite certain that “your” results in Delayed Sword are ‘effective’.
John

What I was driving at is that to be "effective" or get "results" you don't have to utilize the whole body or execute perfectly to the "max". Sooooo, depending on what your definition of effective and results are ..... could result in totally differing meanings. Sure, to produce Ideal Scenarios.... it would be most advantageous to have the upper and lower body work in Harmony.... which is what we try to do and teach within every technique, however, this is not always possible or realistic, and it isn't required to produce effective results even though we attempt to teach/execute it perfectly. That is all I'm saying.

I asked: “I can't think of a single technique where this type of coordination isn't taught/required; can you? ”
To which you replied:
“In the Ideal Phase ..... no. We at this level are establishing a base of material and initial coordination to an unskilled student. So, of course, you need to teach the outlined exercises to be able to eventually be able to prefix, suffix, insert, rearrange, alter,adjust, regulate or delete portions of the technique so as to be able to utilize the training and be effective in your efforts.”

First off, using the Kenpo Equation/Formula to alter the set shouldn’t even enter into the problem of the viability of the set.
John

All the material in our "Curriculum" is interchangeable, adjustable, and adaptable. These "Drills" i.e., Forms, sets, self defense techniques, coordination exercises, freestyle techniques, etc., are only "ideas" to help develop the skills needed in self defense. In the early stages of training the student needs to be introduced and drilled on the various aspects or components of American Kenpo. Without good coordination development, all the maneuvers necessary to become proficient at what we strive for will not be as effective as we would hope for. This is a lengthy process and one that is different for each individual, depending upon their existing personal skills that they begin with. Once achieving an adequate foundation, one then must then be able to convert/use what exercises they have been exposed to and be able to apply them in a realistic situation.

The sets, (all of them) are specific to certain aspects of Kenpo. If the set has merit to what it was intended.... then of course it is viable. Don't you think that Mr. Parker had a purpose in mind for each and every component of the system? Some seem to demonstrate to me that either they don't understand what the purpose of certain aspects are designed for.... or that Mr. Parker was an idiot for even putting such a drill in the system in the first place.

IF it (Coordination Set # 1 or any others for that matter) needs to be formulated in order to render it effective then the base version that you formulated from has NO reason to exist and should be replaced by it’s formulated version.
John

I didn't say it NEEDS to be formulated to render it effective, but rather if you re-read what I wrote.... and I quote... "We at this level are establishing a base of material and initial coordination to an unskilled student. So, of course, you need to teach the outlined exercises to be able to eventually be able to prefix, ......"

I agree with you ....... that if the base set is in need of serious repair ... then why have it in the first place, but that is not the case here.

The most important element of ANY facet of Kenpo IS it’s ideal phase as this is what we make our students study/practice over and over in order to ingrain the principles contained w/in it’s context.
John

Well, once again we have a slight difference of definition or opinion. There is no real "Ideal" in the street. In practice however, (to try to prepare us for the street) Mr. Parker did create an "Ideal Phase" for the purpose of being able to teach and introduce ideas to the BEGINNING STUDENT, until such a time when REALITY IS RECOGNIZED and then we discuss the endless "what if" possibilities that are extremely necessary for development and understanding. Eventually this will lead the student to being able to "FORMULATE" extemporaneously when needed.

To say that an element finds it’s worth only once changed begs the question: why not change it NOW and render our daily practice of it effective?
John

True, I didn't say or mean that.

I pose that the motion of either coordination set one or two violates basic laws of physics as well as the logic that is the bedrock foundation of the system from start to finish. That’s my basic premise and it must be understood in order to see where I’m coming from.

Coordination Set # 1 explanation......
4. Simultaneously deliver a right rear leg front snap kick to the groin and a left hand punch to the head with a right back elbow strike.

In section #4 however you are standing on one foot and simultaneously delivering a punch. How do you stand on one foot and punch and expect to be able to deliver ANY power?
John

Absolutely...... can't you?

Also, if you are on one foot and make any significant contact with the fist, the foot or both according to Newtonian physics you will fall down.
John

Really, wow, hmmmmm I guess Newton is wrong or you are not applying the principle correctly, cause I or several others (including Mr. Parker) didn't/don't have your dilemma....

Your base is only as wide as your one foot and you are thrusting two limbs forward and striking… your foot will turn from a base into a fulcrum and you will topple. Even if you get your other foot under you in time for you to not fall, you’ll need to spend your time/energy to regain balance while your strike(s) had more of an effect on you than your intended targets.
John

Well, I disagree, but you are entitled to your opinion. hee hee.... this reminds me of the no touch knock out discussions ...... I guess we would have to step on the mat so you could show me what you are trying to explain, and also allow me to show you my point of view/feel. :btg:

Don’t we teach beginners that the power of a punch begins in our base and rides up to culminate in the snap/thrust of our fist?
John

I don't know what you teach to your beginners .... but I do know of several different methods of punching. One of course is how I believe you are trying to express, but it certainly not the only way. RTFM

IF it begins in our base, since when is a one footed base directly beneath us sufficient base to fuel a punch? In my eyes, this falls under “useless” in the useless - un-useful - useful continuum.
John

I will agree with you that you have the right to view (In your eyes) any and all material that you have been taught any way that you wish.

Now we get to #5...

Coordination Set # 1 explanation......
5. Plant into a left forward bow while delivering a right reverse punch to the solar plexus with a left back elbow strike.

where you’ve executed a front kick off of the back leg and are now reversing your forward momentum and planting it behind you, to it’s point of origin. This goes against the “Angle of No Return”: Here’s a cut and pasted definition of this principle:

Angle of No Return - Refers to the position and angle of the upper body and hips while delivering a front kick or forward motion, making it awkward, difficult, and illogical to attempt to return to your starting position. Because of the awkwardness and the time needed to return to your original position, exposure of your vital areas would work in your opponent's favor - not to mention your inability to render an immediate counter.
John

Whoa, whoa, whoa....... lol, hee hee..... John if you are gonna quote definitions.... please do so accurately. (taken from Encyclopedia of Kenpo "A" page 13) it correctly reads.....

"Angle of No Return - Refers to the position and angle of the upper body (and hips) while delivering a front STEP THROUGH kick, punch, or other striking methods, (utilizing forward motion) that makes it awkward, difficult, and illogical to attempt to return to your starting position. Because of the awkwardness and the time needed to return to your original position, exposure of your vital areas would work in your opponent's favor - not to mention your inability to render an immediate counter."

As you can see this is quite a bit different from what you are saying. The kick in question in Coordination set #1 IS NOT a STEP THROUGH but rather a front snapping ball kick off the rear leg in which every studio in the country teaches (and usually plants back to point of origin). If it were a step through as you state then I would agree with you but this example is most certainly NOT a violation of angle of No Return, rather, it actually is ..... (also taken from Encyclopedia of Kenpo "A" page 13)...
Angle of Return, The position and angle of the upper body (and hips) while delivering a kick or punch at which it is feasible for you to return to your original or starting position without difficulty. :uhyeah:

So, #5 is: awkward, difficult and illogical. It expands the time needed to reestablish your base and leaves vital targets open longer. It also leaves you unable to render an immediate counter. Doesn’t seem like this would be something I’d want to engender in my students motion-habits. Since this set is done SO very repetitively…why would I want to engrain this jeopardizing vocabulary?
John

I think the prior paragraph addresses this issue well.... onward.....

But wait, there’s more.
Coordination Set # 1 explanation......
6. Upon 'settling' back into your stance, you "Plant into a left forward bow while delivering a right reverse punch"...
… the word “While” designates that it happens simultaneously. SO…at the same time that you settle back onto your right foot, you punch forward with your right hand. This is in clear and direct violation of some of the most fundamental of all Kenpo Principles: (again with the cut and pasting)

Back-Up-Mass - The use of body weight that is directly behind the action that is taking place. (short & sweet version)
John

As you must realize..... the manuals are a far cry from depicting precise explanations (thus the number of revisions) and depending upon your particular version. Unfortunately, if you only read and interpret verbatim.... then at times confusion is highly possible. Also, you must realize that there are many options to motion. We know that Mr. Parker taught us that there is no "one way" exclusivity to do anything. Most everything has an exception sooner or later. Here I believe it is more of an interpretive issue based on what is written and not necessarily actually meant.

While it is accurate that you do replant back and end up in a left forward bow.... it is also possible to settle (drop height) and rotate
(alter width) both while in transition, which also develops Back Up Mass to accomplish this action (possibly this is an element of coordination that is focused upon and meant to be expanded).

Now, back to your comments Mr. Conaster.(ConaTser - t before the s)
John

Geeze... I didn't know we left...

You said:
“Where these sets are taught are not really the issue if you understand methods of teaching Physical Coordination. Sure, it could be taught in the Yellow or Orange Levels but there is so much material to cover that it was decided to be placed in the Purple Belt by Mr. Parker. Besides, No One said that there was not other material that taught the students to coordinate their upper and lower body movements....... did they?”

I must disagree sir. Where a thing lies in any curricula IS important. IF you were teaching this as one of a white belts first exposures to ’greater coordination’, OK (ignoring for the moment that it engrains useless motion and violates foundational principles), but you are not! This person has passed your scrutiny through all of the Yellow Belt techniques and other requirements as well as Orange Belt techniques and requirements and has already begun their journey into the Purple Belt material…and now you intend on finally getting them used to some “coordination”? I pose that there are more than a few techniques w/in the previous material that demands greater levels of ‘coordination’ from the practitioner than this set does! I’ve heard and read over and over and over that this sets purpose is to increase the practitioners coordination… yet I could sooner get Joe Schmoe-knownothing from the street to perform this set well than to learn and perform Five Swords adequately. So in my eyes, this set is trying to reinvent the wheel…and do so at a lower standard. (and oh yeah… it flies in the face of Newtonian physics too) As you said sir, there is SO much material before it that it couldn’t come sooner in the course of instruction. Also as you said, sir, the other material Also requires and thus develops coordination of upper and lower body.
John

Well, it doesn't matter if you disagree with me or not...... I'm not the one that placed the sets where they are...LOL Ed Parker did! But no since beating a dead horse... :deadhorse you will believe what you want to .... and that's your privilege, someday I look forward to be able to discuss this and other issues with you in person for greater clarification.

Next statement: You said; “As to the "BIG Trouble" you reference, I have seen many a student (of all belt classifications - including Black) that would fit your statement in many different Kenpo organizations.”

I could care less about whose association/group/organization this rhetorical person doing this set comes from or what color belt hangs from their hips. These things are irrelevant, they have zero to do with the “BIG Trouble” that anyone would be in were they to perform HIGH repetitions of this Physics/Principles/Logic defying set and expect that it would in any way teach them or train them to help them survive a violent confrontation…do well in the ring…or become a better Kenpoist.
John

I agree with you as well, I could care less, but my response was only to say that it is an issue that could be addressed by a great number of students across the board regardless of rank or affiliation.

I hope you (the reader and/or Mr. Conaster)(ConaTser - t before the s) really consider what I’ve said here.
I could be wrong, but I don’t think so.
John

I can't/won't speak for the readers, but as for myself, I appreciate your views although I disagree with portions. I do agree with your last statement...... (I could be wrong) ...:cheers:

Nice exchange of thoughts!
:asian:

 

[Goldendragon7]

I'm surprised that a senior, the GoldenDragon #7, contradicts this... unless i am misinterpreting the essense of his response... :idunno:
pete.

I'm sure that's the case.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Thanks John, I as well, however it seems we either are not talking apples to apples or there is a definite difference of knowledge, understanding or opinion.

What I was driving at is that to be "effective" or get "results" you don't have to utilize the whole body or execute perfectly to the "max". Sooooo, depending on what your definition of effective and results are ..... could result in totally differing meanings. Sure, to produce Ideal Scenarios.... it would be most advantageous to have the upper and lower body work in Harmony.... which is what we try to do and teach within every technique, however, this is not always possible or realistic, and it isn't required to produce effective results even though we attempt to teach/execute it perfectly. That is all I'm saying.

All the material in our "Curriculum" is interchangeable, adjustable, and adaptable. These "Drills" i.e., Forms, sets, self defense techniques, coordination exercises, freestyle techniques, etc., are only "ideas" to help develop the skills needed in self defense. In the early stages of training the student needs to be introduced and drilled on the various aspects or components of American Kenpo. Without good coordination development, all the maneuvers necessary to become proficient at what we strive for will not be as effective as we would hope for. This is a lengthy process and one that is different for each individual, depending upon their existing personal skills that they begin with. Once achieving an adequate foundation, one then must then be able to convert/use what exercises they have been exposed to and be able to apply them in a realistic situation.

The sets, (all of them) are specific to certain aspects of Kenpo. If the set has merit to what it was intended.... then of course it is viable. Don't you think that Mr. Parker had a purpose in mind for each and every component of the system? Some seem to demonstrate to me that either they don't understand what the purpose of certain aspects are designed for.... or that Mr. Parker was an idiot for even putting such a drill in the system in the first place.

I didn't say it NEEDS to be formulated to render it effective, but rather if you re-read what I wrote.... and I quote... "We at this level are establishing a base of material and initial coordination to an unskilled student. So, of course, you need to teach the outlined exercises to be able to eventually be able to prefix, ......"

I agree with you ....... that if the base set is in need of serious repair ... then why have it in the first place, but that is not the case here.

Well, once again we have a slight difference of definition or opinion. There is no real "Ideal" in the street. In practice however, (to try to prepare us for the street) Mr. Parker did create an "Ideal Phase" for the purpose of being able to teach and introduce ideas to the BEGINNING STUDENT, until such a time when REALITY IS RECOGNIZED and then we discuss the endless "what if" possibilities that are extremely necessary for development and understanding. Eventually this will lead the student to being able to "FORMULATE" extemporaneously when needed.

True, I didn't say or mean that.

Absolutely...... can't you?

Really, wow, hmmmmm I guess Newton is wrong or you are not applying the principle correctly, cause I or several others (including Mr. Parker) didn't/don't have your dilemma....

Well, I disagree, but you are entitled to your opinion. hee hee.... this reminds me of the no touch knock out discussions ...... I guess we would have to step on the mat so you could show me what you are trying to explain, and also allow me to show you my point of view/feel. :btg:

I don't know what you teach to your beginners .... but I do know of several different methods of punching. One of course is how I believe you are trying to express, but it certainly not the only way. RTFM

I will agree with you that you have the right to view (In your eyes) any and all material that you have been taught any way that you wish.

Whoa, whoa, whoa....... lol, hee hee..... John if you are gonna quote definitions.... please do so accurately. (taken from Encyclopedia of Kenpo "A" page 13) it correctly reads.....

"Angle of No Return - Refers to the position and angle of the upper body (and hips) while delivering a front STEP THROUGH kick, punch, or other striking methods, (utilizing forward motion) that makes it awkward, difficult, and illogical to attempt to return to your starting position. Because of the awkwardness and the time needed to return to your original position, exposure of your vital areas would work in your opponent's favor - not to mention your inability to render an immediate counter."

As you can see this is quite a bit different from what you are saying. The kick in question in Coordination set #1 IS NOT a STEP THROUGH but rather a front snapping ball kick off the rear leg in which every studio in the country teaches (and usually plants back to point of origin). If it were a step through as you state then I would agree with you but this example is most certainly NOT a violation of angle of No Return, rather, it actually is ..... (also taken from Encyclopedia of Kenpo "A" page 13)...
Angle of Return, The position and angle of the upper body (and hips) while delivering a kick or punch at which it is feasible for you to return to your original or starting position without difficulty. :uhyeah:

I think the prior paragraph addresses this issue well.... onward.....

As you must realize..... the manuals are a far cry from depicting precise explanations (thus the number of revisions) and depending upon your particular version. Unfortunately, if you only read and interpret verbatim.... then at times confusion is highly possible. Also, you must realize that there are many options to motion. We know that Mr. Parker taught us that there is no "one way" exclusivity to do anything. Most everything has an exception sooner or later. Here I believe it is more of an interpretive issue based on what is written and not necessarily actually meant.

While it is accurate that you do replant back and end up in a left forward bow.... it is also possible to settle (drop height) and rotate
(alter width) both while in transition, which also develops Back Up Mass to accomplish this action (possibly this is an element of coordination that is focused upon and meant to be expanded).

Geeze... I didn't know we left...

Well, it doesn't matter if you disagree with me or not...... I'm not the one that placed the sets where they are...LOL Ed Parker did! But no since beating a dead horse... :deadhorse you will believe what you want to .... and that's your privilege, someday I look forward to be able to discuss this and other issues with you in person for greater clarification.

I agree with you as well, I could care less, but my response was only to say that it is an issue that could be addressed by a great number of students across the board regardless of rank or affiliation.



I can't/won't speak for the readers, but as for myself, I appreciate your views although I disagree with portions. I do agree with your last statement...... (I could be wrong) ...:cheers:

Nice exchange of thoughts!
:asian:

Thank you!!! :asian:
Sean

 

[jeffkyle]

That sounds really cool Jeff! I love seeing old video of Mr. Parker instructing!
PLEASE, share with me/us how Mr. Parker made it clear that Directional Harmony is still there. I'm glad that you at least see where I'm coming from. Obviously Mr. Parker, too, would have seen where I'm coming from as he thought it important and relevent to try to clear up the seeming contradiction.
Thanks in advance Jeff. I honestly look forward to the insight! :asian:

Your Brother
John

I am not sure I could put it into words and do it justice...it would just be something you would have to see for yourself!

 

[jeffkyle]

I agree! Mr. C., well said.

 

[Bill Lear]

Thank you!!! :asian:
Sean

I'm with you on this one Sean. Thanks Dennis.

:asian:

 

[Brother John]

Nice exchange of thoughts!
:asian:

Thank you for sharing with me Mr. Conatser. I apreciate you taking the time to help clear some things up for me.
I'll do my best to get your name right, I hope you didn't take it as a slight.
I feel like I should be at the black board:
"I will not put the s before the t"
"I will not put the s before the t"
"I will not put the s before the t"
"I will not put the s before the t"
"I will not put the s before the t"
"I will not put the s before the t"
"I will not put the s before the t"
"I will not put the s before the t"
....thanks again Mr. Conatser (practicing...)
Your Brother
John

 

[Goldendragon7]

Thank you for sharing with me Mr. Conatser. I apreciate you taking the time to help clear some things up for me.
I'll do my best to get your name right, I hope you didn't take it as a slight.
I feel like I should be at the black board:
"I will not put the s before the t"......
....thanks again Mr. Conatser (practicing...)
Your Brother
John

LOL...{very cute...} No, I did not take it as a slight at all, you are not the first and probably won't be the last that reverses the s & t! Also, thanks for participating in the "debate" {complete with disagreements and differing opinions} as a mature Kenpoist. I hope others will follow your lead!

:asian:

 

[Michael Billings]

Oss Mr. C.
-MB

 

[Touch Of Death]

No one is arguing that there aren't more powerfull moves, but the set is showing you short cuts with well enough power to get the job done. Yes step through kicks are more powerfull, and, yes, that last reverse punch could be done with a launch, but don't you think it would be usefull to know how to be faster. All the power in the world isn't going to help if you got knocked out with and "inferior" strike; because, your oponent just might have practiced punching out of a counter balance, while you chose to focus soley on a launch. :asian:
Sean

 

[Brother John]

No one is arguing that there aren't more powerfull moves, but the set is showing you short cuts with well enough power to get the job done. Yes step through kicks are more powerfull, and, yes, that last reverse punch could be done with a launch, but don't you think it would be usefull to know how to be faster. All the power in the world isn't going to help if you got knocked out with and "inferior" strike; because, your oponent just might have practiced punching out of a counter balance, while you chose to focus soley on a launch. :asian:
Sean

Thank you also for the different perspective and way of seeing this set and for your constructive criticism. I emphasize that because it's something that I've seen in this thread (for the most part) and has helped me keep from being somewhat defensive and thus keep an open mind.
I'm better for getting to communicate with fine Kenpoists like yourselves!
:asian:
Your Brother
John