Originally posted by GouRonin
One thing I like about you Doc is that you talk about the attack as well as the defense. Something I notice that many have not even talked about in this thread. I have seen about 3 different ways people slap the attack on someone. Most often when people do this technique they just bend over and allow the attack.
I have seen people apply this with the head centre to the chest and expect it to still work. I think that it might help a lot of people to study the attack as well as the defense. More often than not the people who say they have trouble with X technique are often not dealing with the right attack or how they got there in the first place.
6. LOCKING HORNS (Front headlock)
1. With your feet in line with each other and your body bent forward (caused by your opponent applying a front headlock using his left arm to lock you with)
simultaneously (1) step forward with your right foot toward 11 o'clock into a right wide kneel stance between your opponent's legs, (2) deliver a right underhand reverse handsword to your opponent's groin, (3) have your left hand check just above your opponent's right knee while (4) turning your chin to the left, and tucking it against your chest to prevent your opponent from cutting off your air supply. (Your opponent should loosen his grip and bend forward at the waist. Depending on the effectiveness of your strike, your opponent's legs can conceivably move back and away from you.)
2. Immediately follow up with a right vertical obscure elbow strike to the underside of your opponent's jaw, "with" your left hand still checking the knee, and while keeping low in a right neutral bow. (This elbow strike should force your opponent's head up in preparation for the next strike.)
3. After snapping your opponent's jaw upward with your right obscure elbow, simultaneously (1) shuffle forward, (2) deliver a right inward horizontal elbow strike to the left side of your opponent's jaw, along with (3) a left heel palm strike that hooks in and to the right side of your opponent's jaw. (The force of this sandwiching effect may cause your opponent to pass out and fall to the ground.)
4. Right front crossover, and cover out toward 7:30.
This is what I have been saying for years. The technique description above as taken from the Ed Parker Manuals by Big ĀDĀ actually tells you nothing at all about the attack or the proposed defense. It is only meant to get an instructor started and provide a beginning place (or not) for a teacher to work from.
As Gou said it doesnĀt even really define the attack, and that is where you have to start. Physical martial interaction is so dynamic, how can you meticulously define a response without a specific attack? And that means you must teach the attack first doesnĀt it?
Ā1. With your feet in line with each other and your body bent forward (caused by your opponent applying a front headlock using his left arm to lock you with) Ā
..Ā
What does that mean? How do you get bent forward? Is there an offensive action that gets you there and you are already hurt? Are you just tying your shoe? HOW do you execute the headlock? From the front, or do you ĀsnakeĀ around and hook? Now it says, Āusing his left arm to lock.Ā Now does that mean the left arm is locking and the right hand is bracing, or does that mean the right arm is the primary with the Āleft lockingĀ as it implies?
ĀĀ
simultaneously (1) step forward with your right foot toward 11 o'clock into a right wide kneel stance between your opponent's legs,Ā
Ā
What stance were you in to begin with? Which leg was forward or back? Clearly if you are standing with your feet together and your head is at your waist, then youĀve already lost according to Ed Parker Ā ĀHead at waist keeps feet in place.Ā How can you step forward? This description implies you MUST move before he grabs you to survive. If thatĀs true than itĀs not a headlock but an ATTEMPTED headlock.
Ādeliver a right underhand reverse handsword to your opponent's groin, (3) have your left hand check just above your opponent's right knee while Ā
Ā
Based on the previous description, this is not even possible. So you check his knee after you strike him? After you strike the groin, it wonĀt be possible to check his knee. More than likely you wonĀt be able to reach his legs based on whatĀs written.
Āwhile (4) turning your chin to the left, and tucking it against your chest to prevent your opponent from cutting off your air supply.Ā
Now which arm is he using again? It makes a difference but isnĀt it a little late to worry about it turning into a choke? As described heĀs already put you in a head lock, and you struck him in the groin. It seems a bit late to worry about being choked. Either youĀre successful at this point or youĀre already free.
ĀDepending on the effectiveness of your strike, your opponent's legs can conceivably move back and away from you Ā
Ā
ThatĀs why I said you would be unable to reach his legs AFTER an effective strike.
Ā2. Immediately follow up with a right vertical obscure elbow strike to the underside of your opponent's jaw, "with" your left hand still checking the knee, and while keeping low in a right neutral bow.Ā
This part is really out there. We are still checking his knee (that we canĀt reach because he move back from the strike), WHILE we execute a vertical obscure elbow at the SAME TIME, while keeping LOW in a NEUTRAL BOW? Confusing isnĀt it?
My point is a simple one. The foundation of this material is the instructor. All of the written information is conceptual and vague with no real specific information. The manuals were originally meant for instructors to interpret and define and create workable ĀidealĀ techniques, within the group of instructors and students under their supervision and lineage. It was never meant to be specific. Students did not have access to this information because they did not have the ability to interpret it, and they were never meant to define it for a group. Then the manuals became commercially available for all when the demand grew.
In other words the instructor is everything and the foundation of what is learned will always be predicated on his knowledge level and his ability to convey what he knows to the students. Misunderstandings in the curriculum are always the instructorĀs fault, and never the materials. The created materials were not designed to teach the student. They were designed to only support the instructor with possible ĀideasĀ to extrapolate to logical conclusions.
Kenpo is about ĀlogicĀ and you should always start with that word before anything. The materials are not gospel and were never meant to be. Gospel comes from the person teaching you, and his gospel was supposed to come from occasional interaction or correspondence with Mr. Parker. This is the Arthur Murray Dance School Model, and it worked very well Ā as long as teachers did their job.
The mass confusion exists because many instructors are not doing / or didnĀt do their job. In many instances itĀs not their fault they have limited information, but it is their fault if they are not honest with their students. Instructors need to add the phrase, ĀI donĀt knowĀ to their vocabulary and make the studentĀs well being in the street the most important thing. That should be their primary responsibility.
Clearly some instructors do better than others, and a few (relatively speaking) are exemplary. But the instructor must always take responsibility for their studentĀs ability and knowledge, or lack thereof. It is their responsibility to get their students the absolute best information available. Afterall they are teaching self defense. That is what separated us from the traditionalists back in the day.
When Mr. Parker started this program he had a luxury. He started with people like Chuck Sullivan, Dave Hebler, Steve LaBounty, Tom Kelly, etc. who could and would drop you like a bad habit BEFORE they began martial arts training. These were men that interpreted the information and taught students to make their interpretations work under the scrutiny and light of reality. They set the standard and carried it well.
But commercial proliferation dictates compromises that ultimately affect the product for some. DonĀt be upset about it, but accept the product for what it is.
DonĀt go to McDonaldĀs and complain about the food, just find a better place to eat. In other words do what many of you are doing; ask serious questions and expect serious definitive answers from Āteachers.Ā
If they give you vague answers that tell you nothing after youĀve spent 30 minutes warming up doing exercises you can do at home for free, itĀs time to find another restaurant.
Below is the proliferation art structure for those who might be interested from a previous post.
MOTION BASED KENPO has a structured LESSON PLAN with THREE PILLARS.
1. The Head Instructor or Teacher (Keeper of the Concepts)
2. The Web Of Knowledge
3. The Technique Manuals
Primary and most important is the Head Teacher of a group of students regardless of rank. They are responsible for the Knowledge of the Lesson Plan and a clear understanding of the purpose of the lesson plan as well as Mr. ParkerĀs Concepts to guide them in the implementation of the Lesson plan. This is where the weakness and strength lies in motion based Kenpo.
The LESSON PLAN is designed primarily for the TEACHER. Each situation technique is suggested by and taken from the ĀWEB OF KNOWLEDGEĀ in the LESSON PLAN. The HEAD TEACHER is then supposed to examine the ĀideaĀ presented in the ĀTECHNIQUE MANUAL.Ā The ĀHEAD TEACHERĀ then utilizes THEIR KNOWLEDGE of ED PARKER CONCEPTS and designs an ĀIDEAL RESPONSEĀ based on the ĀideaĀ in the TECHNIQUE MANUAL that's workable and also teaches a basic skill. Additional physical TAILORING is allowed for students who may have a particular physical deficiency with the LESSON PLAN lesson, but is NOT supposed to be done for personal preferences.
Unfortunately many ĀinstructorsĀ who were either taught incorrectly or misunderstood the lesson plan, mistakenly engage in the commonly misplaced practice of the "what if" from the beginning with students. Students therefore are inundated with inappropriate options when they should instead be learning the simple lessons of the teacher created "ideal" technique well enough to be functional. This counterproductive "what if" mentality stays with the students and ultimately teachers and permeates motion based Kenpo. According to Parker himself, ĀWhat ifsĀ should not be considered at the First Phase. Parker said this was important to be taken well into black belt because the lessons are interrelated. Lessons at lower ranks are examined compounded, reversed, mirrored, prefixed, and suffixed at higher levels IF the lessons remain fixed and consistent in the lesson plan.
I find it ironic many Kenpo students constantly talk about "what ifsĀ as they conjure up more "Grafting" options while the so-called "ideal" technique, which is where students should be, no longer exists only because teachers donĀt create or allow them to exist. That's why students and now ĀteachersĀ alike seek solutions in "tailoring," "what ifs," "grafting," and even the study of other arts to fill perceived Āholes.Ā The holes do exist, but they are not in Kenpo but in the Head Teachers knowledge base to implement the Lesson Plan.
Until teachers use the Lesson Plan correctly, basic skills will not be learned and as now, students will seek their own answers wherever they can find them. These type discussions bear that out. Hordes of students from the same art, all with lineage to Ed Parker and a consensus is difficult to find within some groups. Differences are acceptable but a Head teacher of a group is responsible for functional consistently among their group.
Teachers must do their job. The Teacher created "ideal" technique should be functional and emphasize and teach specific skills at every level. As long as instructors don't do their job, students will continue to talk about what doesn't work, more than what does.
Ed Parker was the only "expert" and he knew he couldn't be everywhere. He wanted his art to proliferate while he continued to evolve, and solidify, what was supposed to eventually be a "strict hard curriculum." That is why the motion based Kenpo Lesson Plan was created. There is nothing wrong with it with competent instruction and the proper use of the Lesson Plan as Ed Parker intended.
What most are unaware of is Parker "imported" the first tier instructors to implement the Lesson Plan from other arts so it worked. Since then the "teachers" are now products of the Lesson Plan itself and have never been subjected to a strict curriculum. Therefore their weakness is passed on to the next generation of "teachers" who have even less information. (And so on)
As you know a "lesson plan" is only a guide to insure the curriculum follows a logical and progressive path for the student, but ultimately the teacher is responsible for the implementation of the information.
But a strict "hard" verbatim curriculum is even more dependent on the teacherĀs skill and knowledge so Parker knew the next step would more than likely require a new generation of teachers. It is a sad fact that once significant rank is given, students are no longer interested in curriculum they feel is beneath them, and neither do they embrace the idea of "relearning" something they think they already know.
Students of all levels think they can learn basic and ĀadvancedĀ materials through videos and personal exploration. Until students learn the lesson that there is much more to learn, and you canĀt learn it on your own, Kenpo will languish at the hands of many mediocre teachers who should be students themselves.
This problem was created by Ed Parker and he knew that under the Lesson Plan Method, His Art would ultimately began to feed upon itself and lose people to other arts. Unfortunately he didnĀt live long enough to bring the strict curriculum forth to show you just how great American Kenpo really is. As good as some think it is, it is ten times better than that.
That is not to say all Kenpo teachers are bad. There are many good teachers, but not as many as the bad ones.
Originally the Lesson Business Plan (Big Red Book) was for Āstudio headsĀ only. When students started asking for Ātechnique manuals,Ā Ed Parker sold them to everyone. This led to the Ātechnique manual is the BibleĀ syndrome. But if it is the ĀBible,Ā why is it nobody follows it? Because it contains the ideal, but everybody knows the ideal doesnĀt work. Huh? So why do they exist?
:asian:
