Opponent's reaction to strikes

[Doc]

"General information always produces general results, (read I don't know how he will react) Specific information always produces specific results, (read I know exactly how he will react).

Techniques taught specifically with proper information will produce predictable results, therefore "default techniques" are absolutely functional. I know what he will do because I am causing it. If you are incapable of producing preditable results than your information is incomplete or executed negatively.

 

[punisher73]

Techniques taught specifically with proper information will produce predictable results
--------------------------

Then do you see your opponent folding around a vertical punch to the midsection or bending over at the waist?

 

[Doc]

Techniques taught specifically with proper information will produce predictable results
--------------------------

Then do you see your opponent folding around a vertical punch to the midsection or bending over at the waist?

Sir, you must realize that your question is framed in generalities and assumptions that my previous statement answered. For the purposes of further discussion and examination, I must ask you some questions.

What occurred immediately before the punch?
What are the positions of his feet?
What is his weight distribution?
What is the position of his head?
What are the positions of his arms?
Is his mouth open or closed tightly?
What is his breath pattern?
Does he have on shoes?
Describe "mid-section."
Describe "vertical" punch
Explain "folding around."
Describe "bending over."

All of these things can and do effect the anticipated physical reactions of an "attacker." When executed within the context of a technique, the information necessary to answer the above questions are usually readily available within the scenario presented, (except for the shoes question) with very little thought of the process necessary. The attack scenario itself usually answers these questions as well as the default response. But you begin to see what Ed Parker meant when he said, "General information always produces general results."

This is also why I have always said the majority of available "manuals" created teach nothing. They suggest "what," but give absolutely no indication as to "how." A very important componant in a physical interactive martial exchange. They were designed to only give "general ideas" of responses to "general assaults." They were designed to get you to the restaurant, but you stll need a chef and a waiter to get you fed. It is the knowledgeable teacher whose job it is to "get you fed" and unfortunately for the most part these discussions are not taking place when and where they should be.

That being said let's examine one question. Describe to me what your definition of the mid-section might be. A strike to different parts of what some consider the mis-section will yield different responses. However in all fairness from my perspective and definitions, the "general" answer to your question is, "neither."

 

[Doc]

The techniques in Kenpo are there to teach the basic movements of what could be done in a specific situation. However no opponent will react exactly the way the techniques show in practice.

I disagree.

That is why there are so many variations taught in Kenpo at different levels.

I disagree

As your training continues, the basics of the techniques only change slightly,

Basics don't change, in my understanding.

It is very rare that a technique can be completed in an actual fight. This is why there is such an arsenal in Kenpo. There will always be another option.

interesting observation sir.

 

[Dark Kenpo Lord]

The techniques in Kenpo are there to teach the basic movements of what could be done in a specific situation. However no opponent will react exactly the way the techniques show in practice. That is why there are so many variations taught in Kenpo at different levels. As your training continues, the basics of the techniques only change slightly, but it is these variables that teach you to deal with the different reactions that a persons body does after you strike your target. Granted there are major changes to techniques but those are just other variations as well. It is very rare that a technique can be completed in an actual fight. This is why there is such an arsenal in Kenpo. There will always be another option.

I have to admit, I'm with Doc on this one, basics don't change, that's why they're called basics. Your techniques teach you to control height, width, and depth, and to use time to adjust, regulate, and monitor thruout your motion. There are no major changes to techniques, only the equation formula.

DarK LorD

 

[punisher73]

What occurred immediately before the punch? Opponent steps forward with his right leg to throw a straight right punch to your head. You step forward and block with 2 inward blocks to his arm. Right back knuckle to temple followed by a left foreknuckle strike (also heard is called a cookie cutter strike) to the jaw. left foot moves from 6 o'clock to 4:30 and then you throw a right vertical punch to the solar plexus
What are the positions of his feet? Opponent is now in a right forward bow stance
What is his weight distribution? weight is forward on his right leg
What is the position of his head? head is held upright
What are the positions of his arms? right arm extended, his left arm is down by the left hip
Is his mouth open or closed tightly? closed
What is his breath pattern? not sure on that one
Does he have on shoes? yes
Describe "mid-section." In this case the solar plexus
Describe "vertical" punch punch coming from the right hip striking the solar plexus that does not turn over.
Explain "folding around." When opponent is struck in the solar plexus, the opponent "folds" around the punch. the spine rounds, the shoulders come down and in. Looks similar to a person slouching in a chair
Describe "bending over." Just that the person bends completely at the waist while the back stays mostly straight.

 

[Gary Crawford]

MACarver,unsurprisingly you are right about "adaptabilty".I really don't think it matters what style of MA one learns as long as the person thinks about self-defense realisticly.Anyone who sparrs knows this,fortunately for Kenpo and JKD students,the teaching of changing situations are very well addressed.Funny thing about Ma's.Once one becomes "seasoned",we almost never need to actually fight anyone.I have often joked about the fact of "If you are just trying to get along and being peaceful,someone almost always wants to mess with you,but if you go around looking for a fight,nobody wants one".I think that's a really funny statement,unfortunatly it's too true.

 

[8253]

I do not study Parkers Kenpo. If you take a basic technique and throw an extra punch when there is an opening, you have changed the basic technique.
If you punch one person in the face, they may drop to the ground. Or they may stand there an look at you.

 

[Ceicei]

I do not study Parkers Kenpo. If you take a basic technique and throw an extra punch when there is an opening, you have changed the basic technique.

Not really. It is still the same technique, even if you add in an extra punch or change a strike for different strike. What Parker's Kenpo teaches is the flexibility to adapt when needed, whether at the beginning, middle, or end of a technique.

- Ceicei

 

[Doc]

What occurred immediately before the punch? Opponent steps forward with his right leg to throw a straight right punch to your head. You step forward and block with 2 inward blocks to his arm. Right back knuckle to temple followed by a left foreknuckle strike (also heard is called a cookie cutter strike) to the jaw. left foot moves from 6 o'clock to 4:30 and then you throw a right vertical punch to the solar plexus
What are the positions of his feet? Opponent is now in a right forward bow stance
What is his weight distribution? weight is forward on his right leg
What is the position of his head? head is held upright
What are the positions of his arms? right arm extended, his left arm is down by the left hip
Is his mouth open or closed tightly? closed
What is his breath pattern? not sure on that one
Does he have on shoes? yes
Describe "mid-section." In this case the solar plexus
Describe "vertical" punch punch coming from the right hip striking the solar plexus that does not turn over.
Explain "folding around." When opponent is struck in the solar plexus, the opponent "folds" around the punch. the spine rounds, the shoulders come down and in. Looks similar to a person slouching in a chair
Describe "bending over." Just that the person bends completely at the waist while the back stays mostly straight.

I’m afraid you missed my point sir that, “everything matters.” The questions were designed to give you things to consider that have an impact on the question at hand and the subsequent outcome.

However, based on the scenario you describe from the beginning there are even further misunderstandings. You seem to be under the impression you can block his punch with “two inward blocks.” By definition this is not possible. Additionally the scenario you suggest would indicate your attacker would not be facing you, and even if he didn’t change positions, (which is highly unlikely considering the preceding strikes), if you angle off to “4:30” the “solar Plexus” would not be accessible. But even if I allow for your scenario, striking the “solar plexus” will not cause a person to “bend over” initially. Allowing that the strike had sufficient energy, the body will drop in height and their hips will move rearward, and the feet will move backwards as well to compensate for the hip displacement. Although this appears to look like “bending over” it is not. However the person will end up in a “bent over” position, and may ultimately “bend over” after the fact depending upon the execution of the punch. The act of “bending over is not the same as being “bent over” and it makes a huge difference anatomically. Because of this and other factors, my original answer stands. “Neither.”

Overall the scenario is invalid for a host of reasons. What you describe as being specific I’m afraid is far from it. I suggest you start with analyzing the attack and work from there sir.

 

[Rainman]

Not really. It is still the same technique, even if you add in an extra punch or change a strike for different strike. What Parker's Kenpo teaches is the flexibility to adapt when needed, whether at the beginning, middle, or end of a technique.

- Ceicei

Techniques teach specific zone cancellations done in a specific order to specific targets from a specific attack. Drills teach variable expansion along with concepts, theories, principles and an instructor who understands what he or she is doing and why he or she is doing it.

 

[Ceicei]

Techniques teach specific zone cancellations done in a specific order to specific targets from a specific attack. Drills teach variable expansion along with concepts, theories, principles and an instructor who understands what he or she is doing and why he or she is doing it.

Yes, I agree with you. As long as you keep in mind the basic principles and the intent of what you wish to achieve from doing the technique, it is possible to substitute one strike for another or add in one extra move to enhance the zone cancellation (and still keep it the same basic technique). This can be done within the "what-if phase".

- Ceicei

 

[punisher73]

Overall the scenario is invalid for a host of reasons
-------

That scenario was described exactly as it was shown. That was the whole point of my original question. Is that some people have made up techniques or show reactions that do not follow what will happen (this is a Parker offshoot technique that I have described) in a real situation.

In the situation, the person did not drop in height while his hips moved back. I know how to cause that reaction. I know how to get an opponent to move anyway I want them to with my strikes. This person bent over at the waist after being struck and that was my point, no one would move that way.

PS: I did mistype saying 2 inward blocks. Right hand is inward, left hand is outward.

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

Overall the scenario is invalid for a host of reasons
-------

That scenario was described exactly as it was shown. That was the whole point of my original question. Is that some people have made up techniques that do not follow what will happen (this is a Parker offshoot technique that I have described) in a real situation.

In the situation, the person did not drop in height while his hips moved back. I know how to cause that reaction. I know how to get an opponent to move anyway I want them to with my strikes. This person bent over at the waist after being struck and that was my point, no one would move that way.

The conversation with Doc regarding an opponent bentover or bending over is a rich one...bring your thinking cap.

D.

 

[Doc]

Overall the scenario is invalid for a host of reasons
-------

That scenario was described exactly as it was shown. That was the whole point of my original question. Is that some people have made up techniques or show reactions that do not follow what will happen (this is a Parker offshoot technique that I have described) in a real situation.

In the situation, the person did not drop in height while his hips moved back. I know how to cause that reaction. I know how to get an opponent to move anyway I want them to with my strikes. This person bent over at the waist after being struck and that was my point, no one would move that way.

PS: I did mistype saying 2 inward blocks. Right hand is inward, left hand is outward.

My apologies for misunderstanding. When a technique is taught, it must be examined from multiple perspectives that includes "Distance #1." All persons involved must understand their role in the scenario, and be taught in some instances to react accordingly. In others the proper reactions may be induced through mild contact to insert extenal stymuli and trigger reflex response tht is "realistic" as opposed to false perceptions of what is supposed to happen."

 

[Doc]

Yes, I agree with you. As long as you keep in mind the basic principles and the intent of what you wish to achieve from doing the technique, it is possible to substitute one strike for another or add in one extra move to enhance the zone cancellation (and still keep it the same basic technique). This can be done within the "what-if phase".

- Ceicei

I disagree. Changing weapons, (along with other factors) changes results. There are reasons that one weapon is chosen over another that may be beyond your understanding, yet those reasons still exist. The question should be asked, "Why am I being taught this as opposed to that."

 

[Doc]

The conversation with Doc regarding an opponent bentover or bending over is a rich one...bring your thinking cap.

D.

You OK?

 

[8253]

Not really. It is still the same technique, even if you add in an extra punch or change a strike for different strike. What Parker's Kenpo teaches is the flexibility to adapt when needed, whether at the beginning, middle, or end of a technique.

- Ceicei

If you add a move to a technique, then it will not be the same technique and in adding a move to a technique since it is not the same technique as described in training, you have changed from one basic to another, but you are still changing the basics for a particular defensive or offensive move. Kenpo is highly adaptive, this is why it starts with basic defensive techniques, and builds to defensive and offensive techniques. Basics will always be a part of anything that you do. However they will never be the same basics as before, due to the only constant in the universe: change.

 

[Ceicei]

What I was trying to say is that a technique is still recognizable for what it is even if an extra punch is added in or a strike modified. For example, Five Swords can still be recognized if a person changed stright fingerthrust to a palmheel strike or the upward fingerthrust with an uppercut. As was mentioned upthread, Thundering Hammers changing the first hammerfist to an uppercut is still recognizable as Thundering Hammers. Whether it is officially sanctioned as such is another story.

It's like if a cat lost an ear, it is still a cat, unless you're arguing it is an entirely new animal.

If one change in a technique doesn't make it a variation of that technique, but as an entirely new technique, then I don't know what it is. Aren't kenpoists encouraged to adapt and modify whenever needed without having to rename every technique?

- Ceicei

 

[Mark Weiser]

I belive you are correct. The idea behind KENPO is borrowing and adaptive fighting making it one of the premier street fighting arts. This way no two fighters are the same or any two fights. You take two Kenpoist with the same training and they both will fight differently. Each opponent needs to be approached differently and taken out differently.

I love Kenpo the aresnal is vast and powerful.