Ridgehands (and other strikes in that direction)

[CB Jones]

What is the purpose of most techniques? Most techniques are almost superfluous with something else.

OK. Where my son trains they take a hard look on why you would use specific techniques and what techniques are more effective. All of their techniques they can answer the question why (speed, power, angle, body position, etc..) And give the pros and cons of the technique.

That is why I was asking. They do not teach an inverted backfist.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

That is why I was asking. They do not teach an inverted backfist.

Skribs hasn't learned it either which is probably why he can't give a clear answer.
The only place I learned it was my original shaolin kempo school, and apparently epak/tracy (all of which come from epak). So a non-epak lineage school probably doesn't have it in its syllabus.

 

[Headhunter]

OK. Where my son trains they take a hard look on why you would use specific techniques and what techniques are more effective. All of their techniques they can answer the question why (speed, power, angle, body position, etc..) And give the pros and cons of the technique.

That is why I was asking. They do not teach an inverted backfist.

Yes but all of that is just theoretical you can't know what's going to be more effective in a real fight because every fight is different. I can my jab is more effective than my hook. I can say that in the nice relaxed training hall but in a real situation it could turn out the one that you theorise is les effective is what you need to use in that situation.

To me sitting there and over analysing what is better than what is over complicating things and will make you over think. Best thing is to train every technique and variation so when it goes down all your tools are sharp

 

[Headhunter]

So first, you could say that of almost any punch, it's just another option.

But as an answer: it's much more similar to a ridgehand than a straight punch or a hook (check the video I linked above). Its advantage over a ridgehand is you have a bit more leeway in regards to where you're targeting/you aren't planning to be too precise. But it's a different motion that your arm is doing than either a hook or a straight, which means in certain situations it might land where one of the other two punches would not (and vice versa).

Just been thinking of it and playing with it and I realise I do use it mostly in sparring. You fake a punch to the face then switch it and whip it to the side of the head going from linear to circular. It's more of a point fighting combo not one you're likely to use in a real fight maybe just as a quick distraction perhaps

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Just been thinking of it and playing with it and I realise I do use it mostly in sparring. You fake a punch to the face then switch it and whip it to the side of the head going from linear to circular. It's more of a point fighting combo not one you're likely to use in a real fight maybe just as a quick distraction perhaps

It fits very well with the "circle beats line, line beats circle" concept from kenpo. I adapted the fake->inverted backfist very well with knife fighting, and created a variation with a disengage that worked well in fencing.

I'm convinced that kenpo was meant to be a primer for peimarily weapon fighting.

 

[CB Jones]

To me sitting there and over analysing what is better than what is over complicating things and will make you over think.

No its more of the opposite. Its simplifying if anything.

They don't train or drill techniques that they wouldnt use or don't feel are effective. If they ask themselves when or how would I use this and the answer is...I wouldn't then they focus more on the techniques they would use.

 

[Buka]

Thanks for the info, guys.

 

[Headhunter]

No its more of the opposite. Its simplifying if anything.

They don't train or drill techniques that they wouldnt use or don't feel are effective. If they ask themselves when or how would I use this and the answer is...I wouldn't then they focus more on the techniques they would use.

Then they're limiting themselves because they're throwing out stuff that they don't like or they don't understand it well enough yet. There's plenty of moves I've seen that I've said that wouldn't work but then in a situation I have used that move in instinct and it has worked.

What your description sounds like to me is the classic they choose to practice what they're good at and ignore what they're not good at. Especially kids if there's a difficult thing they don't understand they're more likely to say this is stupid and doesn't work. Well no it's that it doesn't it its more than likely that the kids not doing it correct

 

[Headhunter]

It fits very well with the "circle beats line, line beats circle" concept from kenpo. I adapted the fake->inverted backfist very well with knife fighting, and created a variation with a disengage that worked well in fencing.

I'm convinced that kenpo was meant to be a primer for peimarily weapon fighting.

Well I don't know about all that. Weapon fighting doesn't interest me. I know one of the kenpo forms is a knife form using knives and there are techniques that practicing disarming a knife and using it for filleting and slicing (personally I refuse to teach it that way because I'm not teaching someone to murder someone when they don't need to but that's just me)

 

[Flying Crane]

Then they're limiting themselves because they're throwing out stuff that they don't like or they don't understand it well enough yet. There's plenty of moves I've seen that I've said that wouldn't work but then in a situation I have used that move in instinct and it has worked.

What your description sounds like to me is the classic they choose to practice what they're good at and ignore what they're not good at. Especially kids if there's a difficult thing they don't understand they're more likely to say this is stupid and doesn't work. Well no it's that it doesn't it its more than likely that the kids not doing it correct

Well I dunno, I think it can go both ways.

On one hand, I think people do tend to complicate this stuff in ways that are unnecessary. A simpler curriculum based on solid fundamentals is likely to be far more useful and builds more reliable skills.

On the other hand, some things that appear odd or not useful can prove their worth if a better understanding is gained.

On the other other hand, sometimes it’s fun to experiment with odd things, and that can lead to growth that cannot be predicted.

On the other other other hand, sometimes the individual needs to take a hard look and decide for themselves what works and what doesn’t, even if some of that stuff can work for other people. Good and useful stuff isn’t equally good and useful for every person. It’s OK to decide to eliminate some things from one’s curriculum and spend valuable training time on things that are a better match for the individual person.

By way of example, the roundhouse kick is a staple kick that many people rely heavily on. I’m not a big fan of it. And I’ve spent decades practicing it and have even been pretty good with it in the past. But I’ve come to the conclusion that I just don’t like it much. I practice it very little, now.

 

[JP3]

What conclusions do you feel you can draw from this data?

In my opinion those numbers mean something on the theoretical level, but don’t really mean much for real. It only matters if you can land the strike solidly (enough) on an appropriate target. If not, then the biggest numbers possible on a non-reacting target are meaningless. The bottom line is, if you can hit hard enough to hurt the bad guy, then It can be a useful technique. It does not need to be the STRONGEST technique. It only needs to be strong enough to do useful damage in order to justify keeping it.

I'd agree in that direction. I note that a LOT of the simpler strikes involving simple kicks, punches and elbow strikes rank very well in impact "potential," and are probably the... fastest (?) to use and easiest (?) to actually hit an active, moving target with. Thoughts?

 

[CB Jones]

Then they're limiting themselves because they're throwing out stuff that they don't like or they don't understand it well enough yet.

I see what you are saying. But they have to have a method of quality control for the curriculum.

They have their core curriculum and they add techniques from other styles that they see as effective or beneficial.

Techniques that over time are not found to be effective... they replace with better variations or technique. This has always been the practice since the school/style was started in the 50s.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Well I don't know about all that. Weapon fighting doesn't interest me. I know one of the kenpo forms is a knife form using knives and there are techniques that practicing disarming a knife and using it for filleting and slicing (personally I refuse to teach it that way because I'm not teaching someone to murder someone when they don't need to but that's just me)

I'm not saying it has to interest you. But so much of the philosophy of kenpo seems to be perfectly aligned with the philosophy in all the weapons systems I've tried, much moreso than other unarmed systems.

 

[Flying Crane]

I'm not saying it has to interest you. But so much of the philosophy of kenpo seems to be perfectly aligned with the philosophy in all the weapons systems I've tried, much moreso than other unarmed systems.

Care to describe? I cannot say that my experience with Tracy kenpo bears that out, but maybe I’m just slow.

 

[skribs]

OK. Where my son trains they take a hard look on why you would use specific techniques and what techniques are more effective. All of their techniques they can answer the question why (speed, power, angle, body position, etc..) And give the pros and cons of the technique.

That is why I was asking. They do not teach an inverted backfist.

Your elbow is higher when you do this technique compared to a hook punch. Might make it easier to get over a guard. Like @kempodisciple said, it's a technique I've never trained, and in fact was trying it out for the first time yesterday.

To me sitting there and over analysing what is better than what is over complicating things and will make you over think. Best thing is to train every technique and variation so when it goes down all your tools are sharp

You have these discussions in spare time or down time. I have these discussion all the time, and rarely when I'm sparring do I get bit by analysis paralysis.

People do scientific studies all the time on things that need to be done immediately when the situation is apparent. You can learn what types of extinguishers put out what types of fires, which is a discussion you would have in the classroom to make sure everyone understands it. That way, when there is a fire, you can make the decision quickly whether to use water that's nearby, smother the fire, or grab an extinguisher. It would be a lot worse if you had to look up "how to put out oil fire" or if you just threw water on it, instead of already knowing that information.

I see what you are saying. But they have to have a method of quality control for the curriculum.

The thing to keep in mind is when judging other schools - do you judge based on the actual effectiveness of a technique, or based on the effectiveness of you using the technique? There are a lot of throws and take-downs that I understand conceptually, but haven't trained enough to be able to execute them effectively. I can say "those aren't good" or I can say "I'm not good with those."

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Care to describe? I cannot say that my experience with Tracy kenpo bears that out, but maybe I’m just slow.

So I didn't read through the blurbs underneath each headline, but I'm using the below link just as an example of the main 'tenants' that I learned in ken/mpo (with the exception of the animal stuff which I believe is SKK specific, and the focus on discipline/respect which I have a feeling is more school-based than style-based). The exception is rules 9 and 10. Keep in mind that the below, both in reference to ken/mpo and to weapons is from my own experience, not a scholarly standpoint. YMMV


10 Kenpo Laws Every Martial Artist Should Know


1: CIrcle beats line-line beats circle is something that was drilled into me. I find that it works well in terms of getting a hit in, but sometimes having to switch, either with you hand, body or footwork, steals away some of the strength involved in the strike. This matters much less when weapons are involved, making it more useful then.
2: Strike first. Something else that I learned which I've always assumed was a leftover from karate. But that first strike matters a lot, and when weapons are involved it matters even more (with the caveat strike alone first. Doesn't do much if they nab you half a second later. The idea is to strike first either somewhere they can't counter, or strike first in a way that allows you to escape).
3: Multiple strikes. Again something that is seen in just about any style of ken/mpo you look at. Most of the time there are too many strikes, IMO, and that focus can take away the effectiveness of individual strikes. But being able to strike not a lot, but quickly (which is the underlying thing that should be being taught), is more useful for weapons than getting your full power in each strike (depending on the weapon. Most weapons that I've practiced with this is true, but not all of them). Keep in mind that the strikes should be actual strikes, not just flailing, which I see in a lot of kenpo, but if it's being taught properly that skill carries over pretty easily.
4: Targets. Something I always felt my instructors spent more time on then necessary-I don't really care where on the torso or head I'm hitting, but they seemed to care a lot. Again targets seems more important with weapons, when you are aiming for areas that prevent them from using their own weapon, or trying to get blood to squirt, or hitting a target that the weapon will hit well in general.
5: Kicking. I had to read the blurb for this one because it confused me. But I was also taught kick low, not high (even though this was contradicted by high kicks in techniques). Seems less related at first, until you think about how important mobility is for weapons fighting, and a high kick can mess with that.
6: No Block. I did learn blocks, and was taught to use them as strikes. Read this blurb to for clarification, they seem to be saying that you don't block in kenpo. Not what I've learned, and also not what I've learned in weapons fighting (depending on the weapon you may be blocking with a weapon as well. So this one doesn't seem to translate IMO.
7: Yielding and redirecting. Fits more than no block for my ken/mpo experience. Also is something that seems to be more important in weapons. In striking you can take a bit of abuse and block the important areas. In weapons you tend to want to manipulate the others flow to get your own strike in.
8: Mobility. Definitely something I learned in kempo, although I don't remember it being as big of a deal in kenpo. I do remember that I was taught that structure is important, and stances were meant as transitional periods, that you should always be moving between. In basically every weapon/weapon style I've tried mobility is the most important thing.


Adding my own 9th: Escape. I was always taught that the main goal is escape and/or debilitation if you cannot escape. Everywhere where I've learned weapons I've been taught this as well, but not so much in other unarmed styles I've trained.

 

[drop bear]

OK....to clarify....why would you want it to be a back fist then? Why not just punch as you would normally like a hook? Or a straight punch? What is the purpose of it, is what I meant?

It does a couple of cool things. If I have a wrist grabbed and I want to punch you in the head and then react grab the wrist I can use it.

Or sometimes I will slip but let my hand trail behind and then throw it.

A mate of mine does it along side really deep head movement to make his shots more deceptive.

And I can fire it over their head from them being in turtle.

 

[Danny T]

In Pekiti-Tirsia we have an inverted backfist as well as an inverted punch. Both are used for specific purpose. The inverted backfist is more of a 1 knuckle hook attacking the corner of the mandible when in close or to attack the back of the opponent's hands. The inverted punch is used to turn the opponent's head away from you.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

In Pekiti-Tirsia we have an inverted backfist as well as an inverted punch. Both are used for specific purpose. The inverted backfist is more of a 1 knuckle hook attacking the corner of the mandible when in close or to attack the back of the opponent's hands. The inverted punch is used to turn the opponent's head away from you.

I actually learned that (or at least a variation) but we never used a name/it was always in combination with a couple other things so I never put it together as the same punch, until this post. Not sure about the inverted punch since not sure what that exactly means.

More support IMO that kenpo was meant to set up weapon learning.

 

[Danny T]

Not sure about the inverted punch since not sure what that exactly means.

Inverted punch used to turn the head