Doc
Senior Master
I say again. If a person has you in a bear hug with your arms free, and he is attempting to lift you up, you will not be able to bend down. Reaching between your legs and grabbing his leg therefore will not be possible.
Help on Squating Sacrifice.
- Thread starter Chronuss
- Start date
I say again. If a person has you in a bear hug with your arms free, and he is attempting to lift you up, you will not be able to bend down. Reaching between your legs and grabbing his leg therefore will not be possible.
satans.barber
Master Black Belt
Doc, did you not see the thread where I said squatting scarifice was crap and useless, and that I hated it!? Hehe, you don't need to tell me how badly it isn't going to work, after consideration I came to that conclusion myself!
I'm interested to know if a senior such as yourself finds any of the other techniques as flawed as this one?
Ian.
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2002
- Messages
- 8,069
- Reaction score
- 25
Here we go again...
I jumped my student's collective a@@es for stating that something will not work. Whatever happened to the ideal phase? The fantasy land? Maybe every technique does not work perfectly in the what if phase, but most work well or set you up for something else. We do use a kick to the groin after we flip them over, I have demonstrated that repeatedly. For any grab, the time to react is the moment they grab you, not after they have had time to solidify their own base and lift you up. There are myriad techniques for any given scenario, each with an intended purpose. Remember, learning goes in stages....:asian:
I jumped my student's collective a@@es for stating that something will not work. Whatever happened to the ideal phase? The fantasy land? Maybe every technique does not work perfectly in the what if phase, but most work well or set you up for something else. We do use a kick to the groin after we flip them over, I have demonstrated that repeatedly. For any grab, the time to react is the moment they grab you, not after they have had time to solidify their own base and lift you up. There are myriad techniques for any given scenario, each with an intended purpose. Remember, learning goes in stages....:asian:
W
WilliamTLear
Guest
You're entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine, and here it is...
Squatting Sacrifice isn't crap at all, and I find that statement a little abbrasive. Maybe you don't understand the nature of the attack. I don't know... Chapel doesn't seem to be
I will offer you the following... This technique isn't for a bear - hug in which the defender is lifted off the ground, but instead for a Bear hug in which the attacker has his right leg in between the defenders as a brace while he is restraining him with a bear - hug (not lifting him off the ground). Just a thought. Try it for that circumstance.
In my expereince I have found many to think that alot of the techniques defend against the same attack. This is not so. There are slight variations in the nature of the attack for each technique that make that technique unique. Your post seems a little shallow to me.
I hope this helps,
Billy Lear :asian:
Doc
Senior Master
You're right, this technique as presented is unworkable for many reasons. Although some might suggest some weird configuration where the attacker is not trying to pick you up and he's just "holding on" for some reason, this is ludicrous. Why would someone attack you from the rear in a bear hug and just hold you? Then what? It's not a 2 man technique so what's the point. Maybe he wants you to say "uncle."
Clearly anyone may address this or any technique anyway they want, but here's a tip. If he's just holding on, it still won't work. It doesn't take much experimentation with a partner to figure that out. Anyone want to try it, and report?
Well, as far as techniques being flawed. They are all flawed until an instructor clearly defines the offensive and defensive side of the control model. The manuals only give you ideas. Some of those ideas were born along time ago in a galaxy far far away for many reasons. Many techniques have been created and ultimately dropped from consideration. Nothing new. I believe it's called "evolution." There are some that want to hold onto the "manuals" as if they were gospel. If they do, their Kenpo can't be too good. Ed Parker said that himself. After 46 years I've seen them come and go. Like the drunk driver who insists he's not drunk, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but it doesn't change a thing.
Doc
Senior Master
Originally posted by Seig
Here we go again...
You have to understand where some of these "ideas" came from. Ed Parker dropped techniques as "not feesable" or changed the attacks all the time. Surely you don't think he was finished with Kenpo when he passed on. You surely don't think everything was suddenly cast in stone and completed.
But you are right. The majority of the techniques can be worked out with a good teacher, but there is a such a thing as "a bad idea" that you can't rationalize or fix. Squatting Sacrifice was an idea borrowed from the professional wrestlers of the day like Gene LaBell who did this all the time in the ring. Of course being professionals, they "cooperated" with each other.
Go grab someone realistically and hold on like you mean it. They won't be able to touch your leg. If you use your leg to "brace" him as one genius underbelt suggests, the more he tries to bend down, the stronger the brace becomes. There are many things people can argue with me about, but when it comes to body mechanics, you'll loose everytime and I can prove my hypothesis to anyone.
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
First off, could we all maybe stick to the technical questions? I'd strongly argue that stuff like, "one genius underbelt," is exactly why I'm about to stay off Kenponet permanently, a la dangerous Dan Farmer...
I thought that Mr. Lear's idea was to stick up for the system as it presently more or less stands, several nations really rather divisible. I agree with him, in part because every time I see posts stating, "this technique is worthless," I see somebody ripping chips out of a computer on the ground they're not using that junk.
It would be better, I'd argue, to use the discussion of "Squatting Scarifice," to discuss: what is essential to the kenpo system; what is the kenpo system; why are we so willing to re-edit what we don't immediately find productive; does this contribute to a watering-down of kenpo from generation to generation.
Let me repeat something I've previously noted: every time I find a technique, "worthless," Mr. Tatum or Das Clyde demonstrates the error of my ways. And I also note that Mr. Lear is by no means the first or the eighty-second to respond to a question about a technique by trying to explain how the attack might work, or how the first response might work, or how a, "what if," might be included.
Thanks,
Robert
I thought that Mr. Lear's idea was to stick up for the system as it presently more or less stands, several nations really rather divisible. I agree with him, in part because every time I see posts stating, "this technique is worthless," I see somebody ripping chips out of a computer on the ground they're not using that junk.
It would be better, I'd argue, to use the discussion of "Squatting Scarifice," to discuss: what is essential to the kenpo system; what is the kenpo system; why are we so willing to re-edit what we don't immediately find productive; does this contribute to a watering-down of kenpo from generation to generation.
Let me repeat something I've previously noted: every time I find a technique, "worthless," Mr. Tatum or Das Clyde demonstrates the error of my ways. And I also note that Mr. Lear is by no means the first or the eighty-second to respond to a question about a technique by trying to explain how the attack might work, or how the first response might work, or how a, "what if," might be included.
Thanks,
Robert
Doc
Senior Master
He wasn't "sticking up for the system" He was taking a shot at me. Anybody who looks back at the posts will find certain people who "stalk" me from forum to forum with negative assertions. He gave his opinion and I gave mine. I am always willing to discuss techniques and I dare say more technical than most, but I'm not taking crap from anyone.
I f you don't like what I have to say, or the way I say it, ignore my name when you see it. The webmaster here sees all my posts and I'm respectful to everybody, even the person who made the comment, but this "stalking" (noticed by quite a few who have e-mailed me,) is stupid. After 46 years in the art and being a black belt longer than some have been alive, I don't have to be "respectful" to some underbelt or anybody else with a problem. In fact I was a black belt when his teachers, teachers, teacher started.
I repeat The technique is a bad idea anyway you or anybody else wants to look at it. If you choose to use it, that's your business. Seldom if ever have you heard me say a technique is not salvageable. This one is an exception. As far as staying "technical" where were you when others went "off subject" making jokes and such? Only when I say something you need to show up to "remind" me to stay technical. Well I was. I said why the technique wouldn't work in his or any other scenario. I submit, let the webmaster do his job and you too stay out of my kool-aid. I don't need you to remind me of anything.
Doc
Senior Master
You know looking back that was a pretty good post with some decent thought provoking information, a stated opinion, and a suggested experiment to draw a conclusion. The fact that someone would read it and "pick out" only 2 words to complain about without addressing any of the other many points suggests something as well. Dan Farmer quit KenpoNet because of what some are doing right here right now, while they complain about kenponet. Ironic.
K
KenpoRush
Guest
I think after reading all the replies I have a solution. (Not THE solution, but one nonetheless.) Here it goes:
1.) When the attacker bear-hugs and attempts to lift you, aren't you already initiating the technique with a double elbow strike at the attacker's grip (arm or hands)? Even if the attacker is attempting to lift you, you should be able to get the grip loose enough with the elbow strikes so that you are not lifted off the ground completely. Maybe appending a knuckle strike to the attacker's hands as the attack is being initiated may help in keeping the hug in check;
2.) If you are successful in the initial elbow strike and are temporarily released, if you were lifted momentarily off the ground, graviational marriage should help you in completing the next step-step to the right towards 3 o'clock and while anchoring your elbows to secure the attacker's arms drop your body into a lower horse stance so that you can reach down and grab the attacker's right ankle;
3.) The next steps of lifting and twisting the attacker's ankle should be done simultaneously while stepping with your right leg towards 7 o'clock and turning your body to face 6 o'clock. If this is pratcised diligently, your right leg should land between your attacker's legs while the attacker is face-down. At this time you would finish the technique as usual with the wrist grab and so on and so forth.
That's my story and I'm sticking with it!
Later dudes!!!
1.) When the attacker bear-hugs and attempts to lift you, aren't you already initiating the technique with a double elbow strike at the attacker's grip (arm or hands)? Even if the attacker is attempting to lift you, you should be able to get the grip loose enough with the elbow strikes so that you are not lifted off the ground completely. Maybe appending a knuckle strike to the attacker's hands as the attack is being initiated may help in keeping the hug in check;
2.) If you are successful in the initial elbow strike and are temporarily released, if you were lifted momentarily off the ground, graviational marriage should help you in completing the next step-step to the right towards 3 o'clock and while anchoring your elbows to secure the attacker's arms drop your body into a lower horse stance so that you can reach down and grab the attacker's right ankle;
3.) The next steps of lifting and twisting the attacker's ankle should be done simultaneously while stepping with your right leg towards 7 o'clock and turning your body to face 6 o'clock. If this is pratcised diligently, your right leg should land between your attacker's legs while the attacker is face-down. At this time you would finish the technique as usual with the wrist grab and so on and so forth.
That's my story and I'm sticking with it!
Later dudes!!!
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
I cannot find the post I was specifically referring to at this point--hmmm--so maybe I'm hallucinating. I don't think so. However, I did re-read Mr. Lear's post, and I don't see the personal attack there. I only found a disagreement.
I will add, however, that while I suspect that there are those on the forum that know rather more than I know about kenpo, I disagree on this particular technique. Among other things, I've tried to grab the likes of Clyde in a rear bear hug and prevent him from grabbing my leg, and it hasn't worked.
I quite agree that the "reach down and grab the leg," bit feels awkward. It makes sense that the tech may have come from Gorgeous George and the like. Nonetheless, I should prefer to discuss issues rather than to be simply told that, "this is the way it is, shut up." I guess I thought that, regardless of rank--and why did that even come up as an issue?--we were all supposed to be respectful of each other.
I think it best if I do shut up, on this subject, after this post. I'd rather trade facts, ideas, etc., than rhetoric--and this post seems rhetorical enough for my taste.
I will add, however, that while I suspect that there are those on the forum that know rather more than I know about kenpo, I disagree on this particular technique. Among other things, I've tried to grab the likes of Clyde in a rear bear hug and prevent him from grabbing my leg, and it hasn't worked.
I quite agree that the "reach down and grab the leg," bit feels awkward. It makes sense that the tech may have come from Gorgeous George and the like. Nonetheless, I should prefer to discuss issues rather than to be simply told that, "this is the way it is, shut up." I guess I thought that, regardless of rank--and why did that even come up as an issue?--we were all supposed to be respectful of each other.
I think it best if I do shut up, on this subject, after this post. I'd rather trade facts, ideas, etc., than rhetoric--and this post seems rhetorical enough for my taste.
R
Ragnar
Guest
rmcrobertson:
"I cannot find the post I was specifically referring to at this point--hmmm--so maybe I'm hallucinating. I don't think so. However, I did re-read Mr. Lear's post, and I don't see the personal attack there. I only found a disagreement."
Billy did write the following about 8 posts up:
"Squatting Sacrifice isn't crap at all, and I find that statement a little abbrasive. Maybe you don't understand the nature of the attack. I don't know... Chapel doesn't seem to be "
He was responding directly to satans.barber who earlier wrote:
"Doc, did you not see the thread where I said squatting scarifice was crap and useless, and that I hated it!? Hehe, you don't need to tell me how badly it isn't going to work, after consideration I came to that conclusion myself!
I'm interested to know if a senior such as yourself finds any of the other techniques as flawed as this one?"
Perhaps this juxtaposition will help in deciding who was knocking what (or who). As for me, I would look at Billy's post in the following manner.
The sentence actually ends: " I don't know... Chapel doesn't seem to be "
I think that is a typo, but I'm not sure. It is ambiguous. Does Billy mean that Dr. Chapel doesn't "understand the nature of the attack" or does he mean that Dr. Chapel "doesn't seem to be" saying that the technique is crap or is he saying something else entirely (hence my argument that what Billy wrote is ambiguous)?
Given that Billy didn't rewrite or elaborate on what he meant, I think it is entirely justifiable to look at the wider context in which his post occurs. If you read some of Mr. Lear's recents posts on Kenponet you will see that he has been highly critical (arguably to the point of name calling and insult) of Dr. Chapel. Thus, I think it is reasonable to suppose that the current post here in question fits generally into his wider diatribe against Dr. Chapel. Therefore, barring further elaboration from Billy, I read his post above as an attack on Dr. Chapel. Perhaps it is not an attack. I would welcome a clarification from Mr. Lear on this.
Regards,
Ragnar
"I cannot find the post I was specifically referring to at this point--hmmm--so maybe I'm hallucinating. I don't think so. However, I did re-read Mr. Lear's post, and I don't see the personal attack there. I only found a disagreement."
Billy did write the following about 8 posts up:
"Squatting Sacrifice isn't crap at all, and I find that statement a little abbrasive. Maybe you don't understand the nature of the attack. I don't know... Chapel doesn't seem to be "
He was responding directly to satans.barber who earlier wrote:
"Doc, did you not see the thread where I said squatting scarifice was crap and useless, and that I hated it!? Hehe, you don't need to tell me how badly it isn't going to work, after consideration I came to that conclusion myself!
I'm interested to know if a senior such as yourself finds any of the other techniques as flawed as this one?"
Perhaps this juxtaposition will help in deciding who was knocking what (or who). As for me, I would look at Billy's post in the following manner.
The sentence actually ends: " I don't know... Chapel doesn't seem to be "
I think that is a typo, but I'm not sure. It is ambiguous. Does Billy mean that Dr. Chapel doesn't "understand the nature of the attack" or does he mean that Dr. Chapel "doesn't seem to be" saying that the technique is crap or is he saying something else entirely (hence my argument that what Billy wrote is ambiguous)?
Given that Billy didn't rewrite or elaborate on what he meant, I think it is entirely justifiable to look at the wider context in which his post occurs. If you read some of Mr. Lear's recents posts on Kenponet you will see that he has been highly critical (arguably to the point of name calling and insult) of Dr. Chapel. Thus, I think it is reasonable to suppose that the current post here in question fits generally into his wider diatribe against Dr. Chapel. Therefore, barring further elaboration from Billy, I read his post above as an attack on Dr. Chapel. Perhaps it is not an attack. I would welcome a clarification from Mr. Lear on this.
Regards,
Ragnar
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2002
- Messages
- 8,069
- Reaction score
- 25
Nope, never believed, never said I did. I did say I can see the importance of the technique.
So, they too were working in the ideal phase? That is what I keep bringing up. The techniques, at least at first, are to be taught and worked in the ideal phase.
There is always an exception to the rule. But what about "unaware vs unaware, aware vs unaware, unaware vs aware, and aware vs aware"? As for the atack being totally unfeasible, I'm 5'8" and 240 pounds, most people cannot get their arms around me with mine pinned, if they try to lift me, most cannot. For me, this is a feasbile technique. Doc, you keep pointing out body mechanics on this technique, isn't part of the principle in this technique, to teach body mechanics? Isn't everything we do designed to produce a specific response in our opponent? Maybe Mr. Parker would have dropped the technique, maybe not. I do the best I can with the material I have. I would not presume at this point in MY journey to discount anything. Maybe in another 20 or 30 years......:asian:
Doc
Senior Master
In my opinion, there are many technique ideas that are not properly explored because of a tendancy to turn grab and seizing type assaults into "attempted grabs." Under those circumstances, they all work. But the real question is, "When does a student learn to extricate themselves from a completed grab?" "Ideally" we would all like to move before someone grabs, but in the real world that is not always a possibility. To omit such an important element of your training and knowledge could prove to be catastrophic. It is my experience those who think such techniques work as they know them, always respond before the attack. If a technique is labeled a grab, then it should be studied as is and not changed to an attempt.
To gain an understanding, perhaps it is necessary to step outside of your school and practice such a technique with non-kenpo grappler types and allow them to grab you. Then the truth can be discovered. Many are supplementing or leaving Kenpo for this very reason. They have recognized this knowledge gap in their instruction (not the kenpo). In our situation, we have multiple diciplines within our student body. Separate but one student body that includes a modern jiu-jitsu componant along with Indonesian arts as well. I personally have a background in the Chinese, Korean, and Japanese arts as well, coupled with a law enforcement background of many years on the street. This forces us to look at everything from a broad perspective of practicality.
The solution presented by a poster is predicated on turning the grab into an attempt. Bottom line is everyone must do what they feel is best. After all it is their butt on the line. My experiences say this one is a bad idea. Finally when I told Ed Parker (senior) it wouldn't work, he said, "A lot of things need to be refined or dropped. They are just ideas."
He also shared some further wisdom wth me. He said, "People only do two things in life - What they want to do and what they have to do." Let's hope what you want to do works.
W
WilliamTLear
Guest
Ragnar,To answer your post... It was not an attack on Chapel. It was instead a type-o. I would edit the original post, or even post the complete sentence here, but if I did... who would believe it? Too late... I screwed up. What can I say? I'm sorry.
As for name calling on Kenpo Net... "Whatever the attitude so is the response." :asian:
Robert,While we've had our differences in the past on Kenpo Net, I find myself greatful for your post below. I'd been at our annual Kenpo Camp all weekend, and thank you for posting on my behalf.
KenpoRush,Great post. I think you have something there. You have a good head on your shoulders. Your annalysis of the technique and the reaction of your opponent seems to be an informed one.
Chapel,I'm sorry that you feel that way. I wish you well on your Kenpo Journey.
Sincerely,
Billy Lear :asian:
Doc
Senior Master
According to Ed Parker, the proper ideal technique is "fixed and inflexible for a reason." Questions of awareness are part of that process.
Please, keep the discussion polite and respectful.
-Arnisador
-MT Admin-
-Arnisador
-MT Admin-
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2002
- Messages
- 8,069
- Reaction score
- 25
Um, I think we already got back to that.....
Sir,
Doesn't that make my point? It's all part of a process of learning.
Respectfully,
Seig
:asian:
Doc
Senior Master
Of course you're correct sir, but there are limitations to "self learning." You always seem to have your head on straight and a good thinker. Don't stop. Because of the limited information in MK there has been promoted by some teachers this "journey approach" to the art.
What other technical physical activity teaches a bunch of variables and no specifics for several years, and then expects you to "self explore" to mastery? Illogical in a physical science. That's not the way it's supposed to be. The best athletes in any activity always seem to have a coach who tells them what they are doing wrong. Motion mastery and Martial arts mastery are not the same. The latter requires long tern instruction from a competent source. As much as some would like to think those quick belts have long lasting benefit, they are wrong. To paraphrase Ed Parker, "Remember, if everybody is doing it, it can't be that hard or that good."
Keep up the good work and thank you for your input. It is always appreciated sir.
W
WilliamTLear
Guest
Doesn't the "Ideal Phase" teach specifics?
Doesn't the "What if Phase" teach variables?
Doesn't developing the "Spontanious Phase" teach you how to handle the unexpected?
If it weren't for exploring the variables and the unexpected in science I don't think we would have many of our modern day convieniences today, just a thought.
For years the church told us that the Earth was flat... then one day someone disagreed (saying it was round), and then someone else proved it... Now I'm not saying that the church was uneducated. For many centuries the church was the most educated tier of society. Jeeze many commoners could not even read. But, if it weren't for someone's disagreement, or curiousity then we would still be living in Europe. Blind to innovation, exploration, and modern science.
I disagree with Chapel... I think exploration is good... and I think that it works for everyone's benefit.
Hasta,
Billy Lear
Doesn't the "What if Phase" teach variables?
Doesn't developing the "Spontanious Phase" teach you how to handle the unexpected?
If it weren't for exploring the variables and the unexpected in science I don't think we would have many of our modern day convieniences today, just a thought.
For years the church told us that the Earth was flat... then one day someone disagreed (saying it was round), and then someone else proved it... Now I'm not saying that the church was uneducated. For many centuries the church was the most educated tier of society. Jeeze many commoners could not even read. But, if it weren't for someone's disagreement, or curiousity then we would still be living in Europe. Blind to innovation, exploration, and modern science.
I disagree with Chapel... I think exploration is good... and I think that it works for everyone's benefit.
Hasta,
Billy Lear
