Difficult Techs.

[rmcrobertson]

While it doesn't really affect your point, Pete, the "glancing," refers to the way that the right heel palm strikes the opponent's jaw and, "glances," around to the back of the head.

 

[Bill Lear]

While it doesn't really affect your point, Pete, the "glancing," refers to the way that the right heel palm strikes the opponent's jaw and, "glances," around to the back of the head.

That's what I've always understood.

:asian:

 

[Doc]

Very interesting to see the various interpretations, training practices and detailed notes on these techniques. a true value of this medium is the ability for those of us who may never meet, to share.

Yes the dissemination of knowledge and ideas between participants is fascinating. It allows all of us to see what others are doing and what they were taught, enabling comparisons of interpretations.

in my interpretation of glancing salute, the glancing refers to the right arm glancing over the left during the trap/break/clear counterclockwise rotation of the left arm to deliver a linear palm heel to the attackers jaw. this would be consistent with the glancing eye-spear in, well, glancing spear. salute seemed always to refer to heel palms, not nessecarily symbolic of a push, since thrusting salute is in response to a kick.

You’re correct about the synonym “salute” referring to the openhanded heel palm movement. However in the Ed Parker Technique as I understand it, “Glancing Salute” refers to the heel palm strike that strikes the right cheek at the stomach point and then “glances” and “rubs” the point with the forearm as the hand passes the head.

in reading the absorbing/riding discussion, i can't help myself but to draw upon tai chi principles of yielding and adhering. in yielding we allow the attacker to exhaust the energy of the push (or punch for that matter), by removing the resistance of the target... whether we step forward, or back, we are not really advancing nor retreating, but repositioning ourselves to absorb the attacking force. adhering comes when the attackers force is no longer a threat and we stick with it (ride it?) to ultimately redirect it back to the attacker. I believe Ed Parker said "freeing yourself from your opponent gives him the freedom to hit you"... this is where doc says: kenpo is tai chi! and the games begin... sorry?

No, you are correct about “yielding” in Tai Chi Chaun. But the application is different. “Yielding” is a sensitivity exercise designed to teach you to “absorb” much like “chi sao” teaches sensitivity as well.

Quote:
Riding is something you must do “after” you absorb the attack

Doc, I would have thought, given my interpretation, that riding is something you do "while" absorbing, to prevent "retreating", the antithesis to yielding... in other words, wouldn't you begin absorbing first, but also begin to ride as you continue to absorb and continue to ride through your counter?

The exercises and applications are always separate. It may be a small semantics disagreement, but I go back to my “blind analogy.” In training, you must accept the push. The very nature of being pushed means momentarily you have no control of the circumstances so you “absorb” the action, regain control of your body, then “ride” the action. So they are just different stages of the response as I was taught, but an important distinction is made because it prevents premature reaction to external stimuli so the actual application will be functional.

From the Tai Chi perspective you would be correct in the exercise, however the application of the Chaun is different. You might say Parker distilled the Chinese arts and meticulous defined actions with the critical eye on self-defense function first, sans secretive cultural and excess tradition laden rituals. The Chinese are famous for concealing information in plain sight, giving multiple “flowery verb age” explanations for a single activity depending on who you are, where you are, and how much they want you to know. The transition between the Tai Chi and the Chaun yields significantly different perspectives on the same information. Jimmy Woo used to say that Tai Chi trains the mind, body, and spirit, but the Chaun teaches you how to use it. I’ll go with that. Ed Parker’s Kenpo as he taught me is the “Chaun” of Tai Chi.

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

Doc:

Thanks for the input. Yet another question for you. In some of the splinter factions of kenpo, I've seen frequent use of the "side palm heel" in lieu of an outward handsword...basically, a strike with the knife edge of the hand, shooting straight out from midline position (or flipping from palm down, to palm up), rather then "cocking" at the opposite ear prior to execution.

I've seen this, in particular, with techs such as glancing salute, particularly when taught as a defense against a contralateral or "Right to Right" push. Was told by one gentlemen that this side-chop was, in fact, the "salute", since it loosely resembled the basic salute of the US military, just delivered from lower down (the posterior aspect of the pinned elbow) then a standard salute (brow).

1. Are you familiar with the side-palm? Particularly, is that something from the days of yore in Kenpo, or the manufacture of defectors from the days of yore?

2. In several schools, some defector-based, some IKKA, I've always seen this tech as R to R push, and the absorption taking place around a vertical axis created by the opposing midlines of both players. Do you recall if this has undergone revisions by Mr. Parker over time?

In some of the posted notes, it's mentioned as stepping forward vs. stepping back. Thoughts? Specifically, as a sensitivity/reaction drill, we used to practice with eyes closed, so as not to initiate the tech in anticipation to the attack, but in response to it. How might one step forward into a repelling force in response, vs. anticipation? (seems like it would be harder to do with the eyes closed, particularly if the shove is hard enough to alter your original base/position).

Finally (for all, please), I've never seen it NOT done without a chop or outward handsword, including in tech and forms divisions at the LB Internationals, as well as smaller local tournaments, yet so many posters here have. Did I project a hallucination? Is there footage of Mr. P. doing the SD tech? Is there a chop/sword?

Thanks in advance,

Dr. Dave.

 

[Doc]

In some of the splinter factions of kenpo, I've seen frequent use of the "side palm heel" in lieu of an outward Handsword ... basically, a strike with the knife edge of the hand, shooting straight out from midline position (or flipping from palm down, to palm up), rather then "cocking" at the opposite ear prior to execution.

I've seen this, in particular, with techs such as glancing salute, particularly when taught as a defense against a contralateral or "Right to Right" push. Was told by one gentlemen that this side-chop was, in fact, the "salute", since it loosely resembled the basic salute of the US military, just delivered from lower down (the posterior aspect of the pinned elbow) then a standard salute (brow).

1. Are you familiar with the side-palm? Particularly, is that something from the days of yore in Kenpo, or the manufacture of defectors from the days of yore?

Yes I’m familiar with it, but you described two methods above. First the “palm up” is “absolutely wrong.” A phrase I rarely use but this movement is so anatomically incorrect that repeated use will cause significant destruction, and lead to surgical procedure(s) to repair the damage in the shoulder. I’ve most often seen this used in techniques like “Sword & Hammer,” (flank shoulder grab) to strike up and outward to portions of the neck region. This is a really bad, bad, idea and is a classic example of unknowledgeable people “improving” Ed Parker material without the foundation necessary to make reasonable decisions of “rearrangement or adjustments.” The rationale is supposed to be, “It’s faster.” But it is what I like to call a “kamikaze” move that ultimate will lead to your own destruction.

Second, the outward thrusting heel palm strike enjoys a similar popularity because it appears to compensate for poor body mechanics when it is executed as you describe from the centerline, but ultimately is not as effective as the properly executed anatomically correct hand sword.

It is not so much a “manufactured” use of a strike, but more a “misinterpretation” as most of the Ed Parker material is. In all fairness, the conceptual motion based structure created by Parker promotes and encourages, and is in fact built on personal interpretations, so it should come as no surprise that most get it (anatomically) wrong with no understanding of the dynamics of human body mechanics.

Used “anatomically correct” it must be utilized, (with other mechanisms) moving away from the centerline, or if executed forward, the hand position should be the opposite of the popular use (fingers outward) wherein it becomes not only a strike but represents an “Extended Index” position and “Brace.”

In the technique discussed when presented with the proper mechanisms, the heel palm should strike the side of the face at S-4 to produce “PMD” (Physical/Mental Disassociation) to insure the remainder of the technique, if utilized, will be functional and devastating if desired.

Historically, Ed Parker described the thrusting heel palm synonym as a “salute” because it actually resembled the Fascist “Nazi Salute” of world War Two Germany. In fact when he demonstrated it to me he actually did one of his “3 Stooges” bit, placing two fingers over his top lip to simulate Hitler’s mustache, while looking “cockeyed” from an attention stance and throwing a high heel palm in the air. That was funny as hell. Later he dropped the “Nazi” reference as simply referred to throwing your hand up to say “hi” to someone at a distance, which he described as a “hello greeting or salute.”

2. In several schools, some defector-based, some IKKA, I've always seen this tech as R to R push, and the absorption taking place around a vertical axis created by the opposing midlines of both players. Do you recall if this has undergone revisions by Mr. Parker over time?

This is a difficult question for me for several reasons. First although I was there and have the “so-called last manuals” he was working on, there was never a definitive written methodology of any technique that was produced for commercial dissemination. I received the manuals on computer disc as historic reference like most of the material he worked on, but they were never intended for me to use as a teaching aide. Because of the nature of my own lessons, I literally had to write my own lessons.

Secondly, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on Parker interpretations of the particulars of this technique as he presented it to other people. I’ve seen him do a seminar in the morning and “show” a technique and then “show” the same technique different in the afternoon. He often modified or changed his presentation to the level of the person(s) he was talking to, and only presented them as “ideas” not gospel.

This is why he never produced the techniques on video for the studio business. Although many wanted him to demo each technique (and others ultimately attempted to on video), this would contradict the conceptual interpretation philosophy of the business. He felt once he did a technique on video, everyone would only try to mimic him.

He always imparted the caveat that YOU had to make it work for YOU because of the conceptual nature of most of his teaching. In ”commercial self-defense studios,” that is all that mattered.


Late in the sixties, he did perform and film the commercial versions of all of the techniques that existed at the time, for a couple of instructors who lived on the east coast as a loose reference. Previous to that he began a project to “film” techniques in the early sixties, but soon abandoned the idea for a variety of reasons. A series of those original techniques exist on 16 mm film that I have, as well as on a “historical” video produced by Ed Parker Jr. and Chuck Sullivan. Additionally, as an experiment, Ed Parker Sr. had Jim Mitchell perform a version of the entire commercial system all of the way through the purple extensions on VHS video. It included every form, set, and all of the techniques that existed at the time. I, and a few others have copies. After all being said, Parker himself used the Handsword.

In some of the posted notes, it's mentioned as stepping forward vs. stepping back. Thoughts?

In my opinion, the “stepping forward” interpretation requires reducing the technique (as most do) to an “attempted push” over a proper “completed push.”

Specifically, as a sensitivity/reaction drill, we used to practice with eyes closed, so as not to initiate the tech in anticipation to the attack, but in response to it.

This is the method I use also to acclimate students to the realities of getting pushed. I do not discount the importance of having the ability to “ride” an aggressive action when the opportunity presents itself, however I must stress the importance of learning to “absorb” the attack when it occurs unexpectedly and unanticipated first.

How might one step forward into a repelling force in response, vs. anticipation? (seems like it would be harder to do with the eyes closed, particularly if the shove is hard enough to alter your original base/position).

You sir, are quite correct. Predicated on the severity of the push, it would be virtually impossible to step forward except for the ‘mildest’ of touch pushes. And of course a person being aggressive will push much harder. Therefore any written version of that technique that suggests a step forward reduces the assault by design to an “attempted” push.

Once again, in fairness, Parker often did this because of mechanisms that are not included in his conceptual product. Although the technique is quite functional on one level (anticipating the attack), and serves its purpose, it is only an elementary “quick fix” lesson that becomes exposed, as you observed, when the eyes are closed pre-assault.

Finally (for all, please), I've never seen it NOT done without a chop or outward handsword, including in tech and forms divisions at the LB Internationals, as well as smaller local tournaments, yet so many posters here have. Did I project a hallucination? Is there footage of Mr. P. doing the SD tech? Is there a chop/sword?

To my knowledge Mr. Parker never put this technique on video for presentation, other than what I stated above. I’ve seen people use Parker technique names for techniques I didn’t recognize for forty years. Despite thoughts to the contrary, there are no definitive “base” or “ideal” versions of any techniques in the conceptual motion based system, only very loose ideas of attack and defense to be interpreted for your own personal function. The manuals have always said generally "what," but have never addressed definitively 'how.'

You sir, of all people are definitely NOT hallucinating.


Thanks, Dr. Dave.

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

Thank you for your feedback and information. Have many more questions to come.

Dave

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

O.K. Here's one for all y'all. A tech that I have absolutely no faith in...even after seeing multiple variations of it...is Twirling Hammer(s). I first lost faith when a guy got me in a side headlock in grade school, under his right armpit. The R. hammerfist to the groin hit the pubic bone/bladder (being slung around while in the lock), and the hammer to the kidney hit non-descript (and apparently non-painful) area of the back. The guy drops to his knees when I go to check-buckle the knees, and proceeds to punch me in the face at will. I'm now laying on my right, and my left is trying in vane to reach over his shoulder for a face hook. Didn't happen.

Next try, fighting a wrestler in high school. Tried a variation that has a short hook to the kidney, with a rigid hand to the groin. Got the nuts; missed the kidney. Finally said, "screw kenpo from this position", and side-picked the closest leg, bicycled out towards my rear, and got the punk in the scarfhold from judo, pinned the arm under a thigh, and popped him repeatedly with hooks with the free left hand (my first MMA match?).

Has this tech ever been used successfully by anybody? Ever?

I've trained the snot out of about 6-7 variations on this tech, and don't particularly like any of them. Almost as bad as squeezing the peach, or scraping hoof. I've become personally convinced that the best defense to these positions is not to get in them.

 

[Doc]

O.K. Here's one for all y'all. A tech that I have absolutely no faith in...even after seeing multiple variations of it...is Twirling Hammer(s).

That sounds more like "Grip Of Death?"

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

1. ...it is what I like to call a “kamikaze” move that ultimate will lead to your own destruction.

2. I’ve seen him do a seminar in the morning and “show” a technique and then “show” the same technique different in the afternoon. He often modified or changed his presentation to the level of the person(s) he was talking to, and only presented them as “ideas” not gospel.

3. A series of those original techniques exist on 16 mm film that I have, as well as on a “historical” video produced by Ed Parker Jr. and Chuck Sullivan.


4. ...Ed Parker Sr. had Jim Mitchell perform a version of the entire commercial system all of the way through the purple extensions on VHS video. It included every form, set, and all of the techniques that existed at the time. I, and a few others have copies.

I haven't figured out how to do that cool multiple quote fields thing, so bear with me.

1. I see a lot of that in poor biomechanics in kenpo, as well as other arts. I see guys doing pull-drags, kicks, etc., such that they're stressing their MCL's while compressing lateral components of menisci, etc. Took Functional Anatomy & Biomechanics with 2 other kenpo BB's, one from Dimmicks (sp?) crew, and one from Al Reyes Jr., down from the Bishop area. We used to shake our heads at the damage we've caused our bodies by just not knowing any better about how to tolerate anatomical micro-stresses. Often thought it would be interesting to get one of these PhD's in biomech's to go through the basics with an eye towards re-writing them for maximum power/minimum cumulative traumatic strain.

2. The source of the "how many kenpo BB's to change a light bulb?" joke?

3. Finally saw that recently. Excellent footage from a different era.

4. That would make a helluva watch.

Finally, I'm not sure Mr. Parker would have had to worry much about people trying to move like him. I participated in many a seminar wherein a room full of black belts are demo'd a move, and not one of them moved even remotely like Mr. P...even when the "style" of motion was the lesson/point.

Specifically...and I had several "conversations" about this with him...Mr. Parkers movements consistently looked like he could have been whipping frisbees, or throwing stones as if to skip them over water for some long distance, with much of his upper body work (total body work? skipping stones ripples from the bottom, up). The targeting for his blows seemed never to be the surface he was hitting; rather, he seemed to always be "on the way" to another place, and the target got in the way of his movement (i.e., he was trying to skip a stone, and someone put their face in the way). Room would be full of folks from various kenpo backgrounds, and they would just keep short-popping their shots. But that's another thread (power vs. momentum?).

Thank you for your insights,

Dr. Dave.

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

That sounds more like "Grip Of Death?"

Yep. Damn dailysex. I mean, dyslexia.

My bad. I seem to do that a lot.

 

[Touch Of Death]

O.K. Here's one for all y'all. A tech that I have absolutely no faith in...even after seeing multiple variations of it...is Twirling Hammer(s). I first lost faith when a guy got me in a side headlock in grade school, under his right armpit. The R. hammerfist to the groin hit the pubic bone/bladder (being slung around while in the lock), and the hammer to the kidney hit non-descript (and apparently non-painful) area of the back. The guy drops to his knees when I go to check-buckle the knees, and proceeds to punch me in the face at will. I'm now laying on my right, and my left is trying in vane to reach over his shoulder for a face hook. Didn't happen.

Next try, fighting a wrestler in high school. Tried a variation that has a short hook to the kidney, with a rigid hand to the groin. Got the nuts; missed the kidney. Finally said, "screw kenpo from this position", and side-picked the closest leg, bicycled out towards my rear, and got the punk in the scarfhold from judo, pinned the arm under a thigh, and popped him repeatedly with hooks with the free left hand (my first MMA match?).

Has this tech ever been used successfully by anybody? Ever?

I've trained the snot out of about 6-7 variations on this tech, and don't particularly like any of them. Almost as bad as squeezing the peach, or scraping hoof. I've become personally convinced that the best defense to these positions is not to get in them.

There isn't any thing wrong with the tech persay, its just that you tried to move on without accomplishing submission. A good insert before reaching over his head is to trap that arm and knee the guy in the face a couple of times. Or you can slip your head under his arm force your self backward and drive his head into the floor or pavement. The tech is a skeleton, you fill in the blanks.
Sean