SKK Combos and Various Attacks

[DavidCC]

That answers a lot for me. You do not do #2 the way most SKK people do it. I do not either, I do it off a left right punch with Left foot staying forward, but the rest of it is basically #2 SKK way. If you hit someone in the temple and they are falling forwards then they are knocked out. If you hit them hard enough to the temple from this angle they should only be going back and over. Insted of the ridge hand, try a rising elbow you may like it.
Jesse

This isn't really SKK #2 (as RevIV pointed out), nor does it demonstrate the principles of SKK #2. There are two take away messages I get from 2, the primary is that you relentlessly drive the opponent backwards ending with them stacked onto their shoulders/neck. Done properly with some degree of contact and intent the BG ends up about 7-10' behind where they started. The other salient feature is that the technique is one handed.

This is all not to say your version is bad, it simply diverges significantly from the SKK version in practice and principle.

Many of our techniques are different than standard SKK combos, either changed to teach differnet principles or movements, or just completely replaced. (I detailed a bit of that over on Matt's kempoinfo.com)

I'm glad we don't do it one-handed what's that teach, how to fight if your left hand is choppd off LOL

Our version does indeed drive attacker backwards too. Maybe even more because we are hitting on 6-12 with both hands!

The take-aways I get from our version of #2:

• it's our first tech that addresses follow-up attacks
• learn the risks/rewards of fighting "inside"
• first tech that uses "double-tap" blocking - block&parry

rising elbow - Like I said earlier, I have used #2 as a vehicle for experimenting with the SL-4 kenpo pricniples and information I got from Doc Chapel. The SL-4 variation I practice does use the rising elbow, and is scary effective.

 

[JTKenpo]

I'm glad we don't do it one-handed what's that teach, how to fight if your left hand is choppd off LOL

.

Wow, that is scarily naive. What if you have an arm in a sling, carrying a suitcase, or a child....many many possibilities for only having one arm....multiple attackers one of which is grasping your arm....here is a scary thought how about some idiot has handcuffs and manages to get one on you. As your friend doc quotes Mr. Parker minds are like parachutes they work best open.
Remember most every teacher changes something but if you blindly discard what others may have to offer then you are only seeing one side of a wide variety the arts have to offer.

 

[Mark L]

I'm glad we don't do it one-handed what's that teach, how to fight if your left hand is choppd off LOL

Our version does indeed drive attacker backwards too. Maybe even more because we are hitting on 6-12 with both hands!

Training for the ideal phase only is a recipe for disaster, no need to belabor the point so succinctly made by JTKenpo.

I don't agree that a low-high combination is more effective than the single back punch to the face in the standard SKK #2. The back punch puts the attacker on his heels (and checks forward progress to address your initial depth control issue) and the rising elbow is there if you need it. Hitting to the midsection tends to bend the opponent forward. The driving elbow moves him back and further disrupts balance, making the heel sweep much easier to execute.

I think you've "fixed" something that wasn't broken, at the expense of some quite worthy lessons.

 

[RevIV]

I was administering a black belt test at Master Chris Hatch's school in the cape (where Matt Barnes Trains out of)..one of the canidates going up for black belt was the chief of Police down there. He ended up breaking 2 ribs during the test (not the norm, bad fall) He continued the test in pain and kept trying to use his bad side. I pulled him off by himself and told him that if he continued to use his bad side and hurt himself more i would personally vote no on his black belt recomendation. He continued for four more hours doing everything one handed. David, have you ever done a class in a sling? I know i make my student train all day with their good arm in a sling. Here we are teaching techniques that should damage people, we better be prepared if it happens to us. I agree with Mark L. you have fixed one of the "original" Skk Combos.
Jesse

 

[kidswarrior]

Here we are teaching techniques that should damage people, we better be prepared if it happens to us.
Jesse

Excellent point. Had an instructor once who said s.th. like, If you damage his arm and he can't use it, you're half way home; if he damages your arm, you tuck it in your belt and keep fighting.

 

[DavidCC]

Wellllll, LOL :dramaqueen: I never said it was broken, or that we fixed it! LOL

"Many of our techniques are different than standard SKK combos, either changed to teach differnet principles or movements, or just completely replaced."

I would have said "better" if I meant "better"! :asian:


Is it good to be able to fight injured? yes, a good skill to have. Would I dedicate a technique to addressing that? No, I would not.

Given limited amount of time most students have to train, and the relatively small chance that they will need to defend themselves with one arm, I might go through some one-armed drills occaisionally, but that's about as much time as I would dedicate to it.

Isn't it a lot more likely to have your strong side arm injured than your off-arm? Left arm defense against right hand attack?

One arm held by an attacker while a 2nd attacker punches? That'is our bread and butter it's the kind of stuff we train all the time, but it's nothing like doing a combo with one hand at elbow position, simulating an injury :/

 

[Mark L]

The thread is about SKK techniques, you don't practice one of the original combinations. I'm not really interested in a long debate on the subject, but replacing a core technique so you can teach a "different principle or movement" leaves a hole. You don't have to sacrifice one for the other.

Is it good to be able to fight injured? yes, a good skill to have. Would I dedicate a technique to addressing that? No, I would not.

Getting injured in a fight is a high probability, why wouldn't you practice dealing with a likely occurrence?

Given limited amount of time most students have to train, and the relatively small chance that they will need to defend themselves with one arm, I might go through some one-armed drills occaisionally, but that's about as much time as I would dedicate to it.

Then I think the training you're receiving is inadequate. If you are instructing, I think you need to re-evaluate what you think is important.

Isn't it a lot more likely to have your strong side arm injured than your off-arm? Left arm defense against right hand attack?

No, I don't think so. Right handed people almost always take a stance with the left hand forward, think boxers.

One arm held by an attacker while a 2nd attacker punches? That'is our bread and butter it's the kind of stuff we train all the time, but it's nothing like doing a combo with one hand at elbow position, simulating an injury :/

I don't recall saying anything about elbow position, hands on guard at all times. Nor did I say the technique was simulating an injury, just that it uses the same hand throughout. Combinations get practiced against myriad attacks by resisting opponents, if you keep your hand at your waist you're going to get whacked.

 

[DavidCC]

"if you keep your hand at your waist you're going to get whacked."

well, unless you've been diligently practicing the original combo #2 that is...

 

[DavidCC]

"Then I think the training you're receiving is inadequate."

I think you leap to judgement on far too few facts.


"Right handed people almost always take a stance with the left hand forward, think boxers."

Untrained right handed people that is...
We don't model our execution on boxers, and we don't train to fight weak-side forward. Beginners, when first facing a full-speed continuous attack, often fall back on emulating what they've seen boxers or kick boxers do; but they are taught to use kempo and stop doing that as they train more.
My point was that the right hand does most of the striking so it seems most likely to be injured. That's just a guess though.


"I don't recall saying anything about elbow position, hands on guard at all times. "

Well, what is the left hand doing in the standard #2? Hovering by your left ear or in front of your SP? Tucked into your belt or hanging limp LOL??


"Nor did I say the technique was simulating an injury, just that it uses the same hand throughout. "

Well, not you but some others said that one reason for training to fight with one arm was because injury was likely, and one salient point in #2 was fighting with 1 arm... so at least part of the purpose of teaching #2 as a 1-armed technique was to train for situations where your left arm might be injured...

if he damages your arm, you tuck it in your belt and keep fighting.

I know i make my student train all day with their good arm in a sling. Here we are teaching techniques that should damage people, we better be prepared if it happens to us

 

[DavidCC]

I don't agree that a low-high combination is more effective than the single back punch to the face in the standard SKK #2. The back punch puts the attacker on his heels (and checks forward progress to address your initial depth control issue) and the rising elbow is there if you need it. Hitting to the midsection tends to bend the opponent forward. The driving elbow moves him back and further disrupts balance, making the heel sweep much easier to execute.

Well, you have to look at the bigger picture within the tech.

Before I do the backfist, I also hit him with a hamer fist across his left temple. I didn't rebound off my inward block, it's coming from my left shoulder as I followed through with the backfist.

Maybe I need to back up again...

After the L-step / inward block, I do a left parry to the attacker's right arm, while bringing my right arm up and back, in line with my right shoulder, an outward block. This accomplishes 3 purposes:
1) blocks a potential left strike to my head
2) sweeps the zone between us, could be forearm strike to head if attacker is leaning in or collapsing
3) places my arm & shoulder in ideal position for maximum power hammer strike to the left temple.

so... right inward, right outward, right hammer to temple whihc follows through to rebound from my left shoulder. The left hand retracts to elbow position after it's parry, so I have a momentary cup & saucer left (sortof) My body should be rotated slightly CCW from front as a result of the hammer fist.

So now I deliver the backfist to the face and punch to SP together. The right shoulder is closer and the whipping motion of the backfist is faster, so the backfist will get there first, certainly standing him up and yes I agree shifting his weight up & back over his heels ideally. A splt second later, the thrust punch lands, just as his abdominal muscles are stretching out, getting excellent penetration at the SP. And since his weight is shifted up and back is COG is also shifted up, so while he will have the physical reaction of folding around the SP strike, the impact against his rooted mass at COG will send him reeling backwards.


:asian: good stuff, keep going....
In fact we teach that a shuffle step to 12 might be required to stay in range for the hammer fist to the groin, then rising ridge-hand (or elbow!!) to the jaw which is where we end the technique (although a "good-bye" right side kick is a favorite extension of mine)

 

[marlon]

just want to point out that while the techn (#2) is fast and effective as a one handed technique there is no reason to assume that the other hand is doing nothing.
i am enjoying the discussion btw

respectfully,
Marlon

 

[Mark L]

David,
I'm not going to argue that your version of 2 is invalid, as I don't know it nor have I seen it performed. The point I'm trying to make is that the original SKK 2 is teaching some useful lessons, and to scrap it in favor a different technique that doesn't necessarily honor those lessons is, in my opinion, short changing the art and its' practitioners. My observations and resulting commentary in my last post are based on what I've read in this thread and my experiences over the years. You may not agree, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong. And you could say the same ...

 

[DavidCC]

David,
I'm not going to argue that your version of 2 is invalid, as I don't know it nor have I seen it performed. The point I'm trying to make is that the original SKK 2 is teaching some useful lessons, and to scrap it in favor a different technique that doesn't necessarily honor those lessons is, in my opinion, short changing the art and its' practitioners. My observations and resulting commentary in my last post are based on what I've read in this thread and my experiences over the years. You may not agree, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong. And you could say the same ...

We can disagree about the merits of the techniques but I think it is a hasty judgement to say our training is inadequate, and you are wrong about that.

We didn't scrap #2, we changed it. You said earlier that you had 2 things you took from #2 - (1) relentlessly pushing the depth of the encounter, and (2) fighting with one hand.

Our version also teaches (1) quite well, and we don't consider (2) to be a lesson important enough to warrant being a central theme of a technique.

Instead we use combo 2 to teach about (a) controlling follow-up strikes, (b) double-factor blocking, and (c) fighting from "inside" at very close range and of course (d) driving forward (pushing the depth). In our opinion, a,b,and c are more important than (2). We can teach (2) using ANY technique. Therefore I don't believe our students are gettign short-changed by our version of #2 :asian:

 

[DavidCC]

just want to point out that while the techn (#2) is fast and effective as a one handed technique there is no reason to assume that the other hand is doing nothing.
i am enjoying the discussion btw

respectfully,
Marlon

One thing I picked up from my exposure to SL-4 is it's extreme level of detail. If the written technique is not describing any activity for my left hand, what should it be doing? It can be doing any number of things, which can be classified anywhere ranging from very detrimental to very effective. I prefer the most effective. If the student is left to assume or imagine some activity for the ignored hand, what are the chances they will discover the most effective thing for it to be doing? This is why I always account for all the body parts when teaching or doing techniques

So what do YOU do with your left in #2????

-D

 

[RevIV]

"Then I think the training you're receiving is inadequate."

I think you leap to judgement on far too few facts.


"Right handed people almost always take a stance with the left hand forward, think boxers."

Untrained right handed people that is...
We don't model our execution on boxers, and we don't train to fight weak-side forward. Beginners, when first facing a full-speed continuous attack, often fall back on emulating what they've seen boxers or kick boxers do; but they are taught to use kempo and stop doing that as they train more.
My point was that the right hand does most of the striking so it seems most likely to be injured. That's just a guess though.


"I don't recall saying anything about elbow position, hands on guard at all times. "

Well, what is the left hand doing in the standard #2? Hovering by your left ear or in front of your SP? Tucked into your belt or hanging limp LOL??


"Nor did I say the technique was simulating an injury, just that it uses the same hand throughout. "

Well, not you but some others said that one reason for training to fight with one arm was because injury was likely, and one salient point in #2 was fighting with 1 arm... so at least part of the purpose of teaching #2 as a 1-armed technique was to train for situations where your left arm might be injured...

No sir, you made a point of why would we be fighting with one arm? With a LOL attached. Myself and kidswarrior made points of why we would practice fighting with one arm but never said that it was the reasoning to #2. That was all you. On our #2 (speaking for myself), as we block with our right arm the left hand is always on the right cheeck. Taught to the lower ranks of kempo to keep it simple, as a gaurd in case of the 2nd punch. The reality is that it counters the grab/fall forward that you are worried about. If the person is able to go into you before you fire off the back punch the open tiger gaurd gouges eys and a new technique begins. As for the untrained fighter issue I did not understand that. To not train Kempo against boxers does not make sense to me. A good chunck of these techniques were developed to defend against the boxer. The people who are just going to be attacking you in the streets for no good reason probably have some fighting experience and if they dont you will not see them coming. The people you have to worry about in the streets are the ones who have no problem picking a fight with you. Those are the ones that know what they are doing and you need to be prepared for that. The untrained fighters will either get their one lucky punch in or they will lose fast to a more trained martial artists.
Jesse

 

[14 Kempo]

I was and am taught to stay true to the original combinations. I teach this way as well. We are all different for various reasons; age, weight, frame, stature, and what not ... not all of the combinations, or any techniques for that matter, work for every person in its original format, but each has its concepts, theories and movements that they are designed to teach. First and foremost it is necessary to understand those concepts and movements. Making adjustments to a technique while holding true to it is not a problem. However, teaching the next person to "do it my way" may or may not work for them dependent on who and what they are. We believe in teaching it in its original format and allowing the individual, with some guidance, to grow with it as we were allowed to do.
In my mind, there is no need to change the original. The original will always be just that, the original. Any change is simply another technique, it can be called a combination, kempo, technique, whatever, you name it. We try to hold true to the founders, there is a reason why these techniques were added to the system.
There's my two cents ... nice discussion, keep it going!!

 

[Mark L]

We didn't scrap #2, we changed it.

I re-read the description of your #2, the only thing in common with the original SKK #2 is the initial footwork, block, and eventually a backfist. I see no elbow to the SP with a shuffle, heel sweep with more shuffling, groin attack, leg control. Your insistence on "changed" instead of "scrapped" isn't consistent with an examination of the two techniques.

I won't comment on this topic anymore, as it seems you are unwilling to empty your cup.

 

[kidswarrior]

To not train Kempo against boxers does not make sense to me. A good chunck of these techniques were developed to defend against the boxer. The people who are just going to be attacking you in the streets for no good reason probably have some fighting experience and if they dont you will not see them coming. The people you have to worry about in the streets are the ones who have no problem picking a fight with you. Those are the ones that know what they are doing and you need to be prepared for that.
Jesse

Unfortunately, this is true. I work with a segment of the general population which has learned/honed street fighting skills since roughly their elementary school days, and they model their technique on (1) boxing punches, which are (2) thrown in overwhelming strength and number. They expect to win every time, to overwhelm the victim with firepower and surprise. And they've often become very good at it (again, unfortunately). One mostly-reformed teen told me recently, people on the street don't block. Implications: They don't need to, since they have the victim moving backwards; they don't take the time to, since the victim never gets off a shot; and they have no idea how to handle it when someone blocks them.

The good news to me is, there is not a lot of imagination used by these guys, so you sort of *know* what they're going to do. And as Jesse said, they can be defeated quickly by a well-trained martial artist. Whatever our take on some of the combos, I think we need to believe completely in what we're doing, be prepared for the rawness of street rage, and practice till it's second nature. Just some random thoughts for a Saturday morning.

BTW, this is one of the better discussions I've seen in awhile, and I hope everyone hangs in with it and as 14 Kempo and Marlon said, let's keep it going. :asian:

 

[John Bishop]

Unfortunately, this is true. I work with a segment of the general population which has learned/honed street fighting skills since roughly their elementary school days, and they model their technique on (1) boxing punches, which are (2) thrown in overwhelming strength and number. They expect to win every time, to overwhelm the victim with firepower and surprise. And they've often become very good at it (again, unfortunately). One mostly-reformed teen told me recently, people on the street don't block. Implications: They don't need to, since they have the victim moving backwards; they don't take the time to, since the victim never gets off a shot; and they have no idea how to handle it when someone blocks them.

From the outside (Kajukenbo) looking in, I have to agree with this ascertainment. Generations of American/European boys have been raised with some boxing lessons from a dad, grand dad, uncle, etc.
Visit any poor barrio or ghetto. You won't see very many people paying a $100.00 a month for martial arts lessons, but you will probably find some community sponsored boxing clubs.
You get into a fight with one of these individuals, and I can just about guarantee you that they will not step in and try and punch you in the chest, while chambering their other hand to their waist.
Even if you don't want to deviate from your traditional sets and change them, you should still consider adding punch defenses against typical boxer type punches. Things like a right "cross", "jab & cross" combination, "cross and hook" combinations, "grab and punch" combinations, "grab from behind" and punch combinations.

Kidswarrior: I see your in Rancho Cuc. I'd be nice to someday get together and exchange ideas sometimes.

 

[marlon]

From the outside (Kajukenbo) looking in, I .
Even if you don't want to deviate from your traditional sets and change them, you should still consider adding punch defenses against typical boxer type punches. Things like a right "cross", "jab & cross" combination, "cross and hook" combinations, "grab and punch" combinations, "grab from behind" and punch combinations.

Yes yes yes yes!! without this in the training of you techniques you might as well be dancing. eExcellent point to direct us to master Bishop. The body mechanics of the combos and the animal/ kempos are very functional against these attacks and more but the must be worked.

respectfully,
Marlon