Sword and hammer pt. 1 and 2

[ATACX GYM]

So, in essence, you're taking them from crawling and throwing them right into sprinting? You may've asnwered this question of mine before Ras, I don't remember, but in any case, I too cover this type of stuff, but IMO, throwing someone right into the fire is couner productive. Why? Because they dont have the tools built yet and they havent trained them enough yet. Having someone throw a jab, cross, hook, without doing it slow first, to build the foundation, is going to suck. In school, you learn the basic math, add, subtract, mult. and division, before you cover the much more complex stuff. Want someone to learn how to add....you do simple addition, ie: 2+4, 5+5, then work to multiple and triple numbers, where they'll have to carry over, ie: 667+843.

Regarding #2: Ras, once the tech. changes from anything other than the IP, then IMO, its no longer said tech. Thats when you start to graft into other things, or use bits and pieces from many techs. I mean, this is like saying Delayed Sword or Lone Kimono wont work by stepping back, which should cancel the potential punch that could follow. Actually, I dont need to step back to cancel the potential punch. I can think of a few other options that'd work just as well. Taking the IP S&H, and having the person punch with their right, yeah, it'll cancel the punch. Once you're pushed, pulled, turned, the IP S&H will most likely go out the window, and you'll have to go to something else.

Hey MJS!


Yes I answered in depth and detail your question already, with my 15 round solution. Because it's you and I know how open minded you are and I know you have a gift for critical analysis...I will find one of my 15 Roound 8 Hour Guaranteed Solution posts and reprint it here for ya.

Originally Posted by ATACX GYM
Just got a text about this thread...with a question in it. So lemme be extra simple:


Take the Sword and Hammer original scenario attack and tech. have uke really grab you and punch at you...first let's just call it a cross to the face. Work that joint first with no resistance for about 3-6 minz. No more than 2 boxing rounds. Your newb student gets what's expected by now.

Next. Show newb the techs you expect of him/her/them...Sword and Hammer. They'll be like...oh yeah we already know this joint from White Belt and all the times you made us do our techs to the cardinal directions which include...you guessed it...the flanks. So we already know how to throw a Sword and Hammer from the flanks.

You...wise Coach you...say but yeah now we're gonna change the scenario...the context...in which you gotta execute the tech. Work on your skills and mindset some more.

Newb yellow belt says COOL.

You make uke grab newb by the shoulder and swing a cross at newb's noggin. 10% power and speed. Not enough to hurt but you will get bopped if you miss the block. The key here? Uke can grab Newb Yellow Belt when he wants to. Newb yellow belt picks up fast because even though it's kinda FUNNY when you're bopped the first few times, the experience of gettin bopped really encourages you to apply the Sword and Hammer right.

First real world snag...you're gettin HIT while you're pinning and stepping...before you get the chop off. This is when uke ISN'T turning or pushing you. Or you're CLASHING with uke's punch when you Pin Step Chop. You're cancelling each other out.

Now what do you do?

Don't worry. You're a smart Coach and you tell newb Yellow what to do. Newb Yellow is like YAAAY and you make Newb Yellow do this tech first at slow speeds to be sure that it's grasped and then increase the speed and intensity of both the attack and the defense.

You should be at threshold speed and power for your class--the max or near max amount that you'll allow your students to safely practice at--within 6 rounds. 18 minutes plus a minute break between each round. That's 24 minutes. Newb Yellow is pretty pleased.

Then you tell uke sotto voce to start jackin with Newb Yellow's balance while uke is punching.

Alluva suddent Newb Yellow is getting pushed and pulled into the punches coming at him. Whereas before Newb Yellow was clashing with or beating uke's non-pulling, stationery attack? Now Newb Yellow is gettin bopped pretty regularly. 2 rounds of boppage occurs. In between rounds you hear Newb Yellow's issues and you tell Newb Yellow to get it together. You say:

"Never fear. I'm a smart Coach." Enter the cover and and turn option as shown in my video.

Newb spends 2 rounds learning the cover and turn option. Newb is starting to get it and kick a little anus now. We're at Round 10.

Call for 5 minute break. Coach Newb Yellow some more.

Resume training. Rounds 11-14 Newb Yellow is steadily kickin more anus. Yaay Newb.

You spend the 15th and final round fine tuning Newb Yellow's techs. End of class.


Next day you review the static grab for 3 rounds. Move directly into the grab+pull and or push for 9 more rounds. Newb Yellow is gettin it now and fast because there's concentrated focus on this approach and lotsa quality muscle reps.

By round 13? Newb Yellow is kickin uke's anal region with the cover and turn. And Newb Yellow and uke know it.

For round 14 and 15? you slowly walk Newb Yellow through a new situation....BG has grabbed Newb Yellow from THE BACK now. Walk Newb yellow through the cover and turn Sword and Hammer sans force through this tech.

Repeat again. With each different scenario. Including tackles, kicks, and weapons. There will be significant carryover because the muscle memory and programming is there...you're just making mental adjustments and slight tactical alterations.

In 8 hours, Newb Yellow will have developed baseline efficacy in using Sword and Hammer vs each of the primary attacks, will have enjoyed significant physical improvement along with the concomitant mental growth and confidence.

Now. How hard is that to grasp?


And how is that NOT Sword and Hammer?



​

http://www.youtube.com/user/ATACXGYM?feature=mhum
IT'S NOT JUST WHAT YOU KNOW,IT'S HOW YOU TRAIN
THE FIGHT YOU WIN IS THE FIGHT YOU'RE NOT IN
AVOID TROUBLE. BUT IF TROUBLE IS UNAVOIDABLE? PUT TROUBLE IN TROUBLE
​

Reply Reply With Quote






​

 

[MJS]

You read correctly. I can use S&H for a grab, push, punch, kick, etc. It's quite easy to do, as well. Last Thursday, I used it while defending and passing guard. I used it vs a knife in practice too. It's not at all hard to do. It's quite simple, in fact. I'm actually a bit surprised that you, MJS, as sharp as you are...can't see it instantly. But if you wish? I will see if I can free up the time to show you how to grapple with it. I recall people saying the same thing when I told them I use CAPTURED TWIGS RADIUS R.D.L. [ BASIC BEAR HUG ESCAPE 1 ] on the ground too. They laughed. "Not possible..." yadda yadda. I suggest you take a look at my Captured Twigs video to see what I mean regarding Sword and Hammer, if you have forgotten or never saw my CAPTURED TWIGS RADIUS R.D.L. videos...

Solving all problems IS far beyond the scope of this tech, as I stated. S&H cannot be deployed at distance vs someone with a firearm, for instance. SeH cannot be deployed against someone trying to run you over in a vehicle [ which is an issue out here in the hood where I'm from ].

I'll check out the Captured Twigs clip. As for the rest...bits and pieces of the technique...yes, I can certainly see things used. Ex: Clyde used Crashing Elbows while he was in the guard. He did that part to break the guard. He used part of Locked Wing to get an ankle lock. So yes, pieces, sure, I can certainly see pieces of various techs being used, but to do the exact tech against another attack....nope, not seeing it. For clarification, when I say the exact tech, what I mean is...you do S&H for a shoulder grab. You pin, sword hand then hammerfist. For a kick...I'm having a hard time seeing that. A punch, you can't pin, but you can block. Depending on how you step, you can do a handsword. ie: right punch comes in, you step with the left on a 45, right outward knife hand block, left sh to the face, left hammerfist to groin. Not the exact same tech, and you're using bits and pieces.

 

[ATACX GYM]

Actually Ras, what TF quoted Doc as saying, is exactly how I'd teach and still do teach anything, whether its Kenpo or Arnis. I mean think about it...you have to learn to crawl before you walk, walk before you run. I know Matt Thorntons ideas are huge with you...hell, I think alot of what he says, makes alot of sense too. But....before we overwhelm someone with the 'what ifs' they need to know the basic, which will mean they're going to have to stand there, like a statue, and do the IP tech, S&H in this case, as written...for a left grab from 3 o'clock. If they can't get it, then theres no way in hell, they're possibly going to somehow get any other way, any better. Just ain't happening. Why? Because if they dont understand the basics first, they're not going to know what to do when the attack suddenly changes to what you're showing.

Once they get it then we can move onto more aggression in the attack, then slowly add in other things, ie: what I said that I do.....changing the attack mid-stream, adding in a punch or punches, pushing, pulling, turning, etc.

What you're referring to is a matter of training evolution and paradigm only...not a matter of what the tech is limited to. Not to tip my hand, but Matt Thornton isn't at all the actual "originator" of the ideas he popularized. Maybe he innovated his own terminology and specific approach using a teaching method, but the concept and approach are most definitely not his own.

I completely and utterly agree that basics are fundamental. Essential. Absolutely indispensable and cannot be ignored or foregone for any reason whatsoever.

This is an area that Doc and I differ visavis training methodology on. I look forward to engaging that topic in a far more thoroughgoing fashion in the upcoming few weeks.

What you may not know is that training this tech in the method that I recommend perforce requires you to achieve many more quality reps per round than you would without such a structure. 9-18 reps/round is very common for newbs using this tech. vs mild to moderate resistance. They are on the lower end of the scale during the first 5-6 rounds but creep up in reps from 7-15. Essentially and on average, call it a concentrated 13 reps done in 180 seconds if you use basic boxing rounds. [ We start with boxing rounds then move on to MMA rounds then we go to old school Pride rounds of 10 minutes then we move onto old skool UFC runds of 15 minutes each then we go to old skool Pancrase rounds of 30 minutes. 2-30 minute rounds with this tech are for my pre-white level C guys and my White Belters. Students--men women AND children--pick up THAT FAST when they're given the proper training paradigm and guidance. ] So 13 reps/round...15 rounds...165 reps/class, right? Average student comes 3/wk right? 495 reps/wk, right? See where this is going? In one month, the student has just shy of 1500 reps, and that's assuming that their number of reps per round don't increase. Which it will. They will pass or equal 20 reps/round by the end of the second week or middle of the 3rd week.Easy to do while using this tech. And they'll see where their previous training falls neatly into place while doing this tech. They'll see where they can shoot or defend the double at some point, where they'll be held in a bear hug and go directly from Captured Twigs Radius R.D.L. to Sword and Hammer Radius R.D.L. [ cuz they'll have to defend vs the bear hug and use Sword and Hammer to do it ]. They'll even see where they can counter the bear hug with purely Sword and Hammer Radius R.D.L. cuz they'll be put in a position where they have to do so and you'll coach them through it. They'll see where they can use Sword and Hammer to defend their guard. They'll see how they can use Sword and Hammer armed and unarmed vs a knife, stick or bat attack...it's all right there as they advance in skill.

They won't get bored either. They're never stuck in a rut. They're seeing the connections between what they're doing now and all their other techs that they already know...and laying the foundation for the other techs they are to learn in the future.

Therefore, this method refutes the contention that all you need is one tech, too. You need more than one tech for your whole system. Just cause you can pull an armbar as a guy throws a cross doesn't mean you should always do so. What if you're in a multifight? What if the guy's too fast or too far away for you to pull a standing armbar off on him? The argument or suggestion that if you train one tech vs all of the main ranges of combat that civilians, security types, LEOs, and martial athletes are likely to face then all you need is that one tech is pretty hilarious on its face.

IT'S NOT JUST WHAT YOU KNOW, IT'S HOW AND WHY YOU TRAIN...

 

[Twin Fist]

..probably because all of those conclusions that you took previously have been roundly proven to be untrue.

you are a truly delusional dude.

you havent proven anything YET, all you do is all you have ever done, ignore everything anyone says, and repete the same old tired *** **** over and over and over and pat yourself on the back

and you havnt even mentioned my point

the techniques, were set in stone BEFORE 1960

the tracy's learned them FROM Ed Parker before Parker ever even created the "process"

there is a set ideal technique

you are not just wrong, you are willfully ignorant.

And I will happily point it out every single time you say something stupid. Which is almost every time you post.

PUT ASIDE YOUR EGO

you aint that smart and you aint that good.

 

[ATACX GYM]

I'll check out the Captured Twigs clip. As for the rest...bits and pieces of the technique...yes, I can certainly see things used. Ex: Clyde used Crashing Elbows while he was in the guard. He did that part to break the guard. He used part of Locked Wing to get an ankle lock. So yes, pieces, sure, I can certainly see pieces of various techs being used, but to do the exact tech against another attack....nope, not seeing it. For clarification, when I say the exact tech, what I mean is...you do S&H for a shoulder grab. You pin, sword hand then hammerfist. For a kick...I'm having a hard time seeing that. A punch, you can't pin, but you can block. Depending on how you step, you can do a handsword. ie: right punch comes in, you step with the left on a 45, right outward knife hand block, left sh to the face, left hammerfist to groin. Not the exact same tech, and you're using bits and pieces.

You're getting into areas that I'm trying to save for my discussion with Doc. Yes I know Clyde used Crashing Elbows while in guard...I did it in the 90s. Same with the Wings for locks, over and under hooks, and much more. Did all of that in 1996. As for the kick? Use your footwork plus your handsword to elude and strike the kick. Your pin becomes a pin that's normally used on your opponent's hand resting like a dead starfish on your shoulder you transform into a pinning check on your opponent's arm [ which is up in his fighting position ]. Follow with the handsword and hammerfist to whatever available targets that you recommoned. You may also handsword with one hand, hammerfist with the other...and repeat the tech with your opposite hand. Thus doubling the attack and defense and movement options you have available to you.

IT'S NOT JUST WHAT YOU KNOW, IT'S HOW AND WHY YOU TRAIN...

 

[Twin Fist]

was that before or after you were an astronaut? or was that before or after you cured the common cold and won the UFC that no one remembers.....



sure dude, you have done it all......

 

[Cyriacus]

Therefore, this method refutes the contention that all you need is one tech, too. You need more than one tech for your whole system. Just cause you can pull an armbar as a guy throws a cross doesn't mean you should always do so. What if you're in a multifight? What if the guy's too fast or too far away for you to pull a standing armbar off on him? The argument or suggestion that if you train one tech vs all of the main ranges of combat that civilians, security types, LEOs, and martial athletes are likely to face then all you need is that one tech is pretty hilarious on its face.

Yeah, I want nothing to do with the other discussion going on.

Now to comment on the above: One can have a favored tool, or primary tool, but only having one single tool, no matter how good it is, can build an over dependence, and a lack of the ability to adapt as needed.
Focusing on one tool? Sure. As long as its just a focus, and not a dedication.

Ok fine, I lied.
Discussion tibbing time.

you are a truly delusional dude.

you havent proven anything YET, all you do is all you have ever done, ignore everything anyone says, and repete the same old tired *** **** over and over and over and pat yourself on the back

and you havnt even mentioned my point

the techniques, were set in stone BEFORE 1960

the tracy's learned them FROM Ed Parker before Parker ever even created the "process"

there is a set ideal technique

you are not just wrong, you are willfully ignorant.

And I will happily point it out every single time you say something stupid. Which is almost every time you post.

PUT ASIDE YOUR EGO

you aint that smart and you aint that good.

Now to contribute:

First watch this:

Then these:

Its like... You move between two spectrums of direct and straightforward, to abstract and sometimes just a bit weird.
Im not into discussing Kenpo and the sources of these things and whatnot, but I think the biggest issue has yet to be tapped.
And I think that would be Brevity+Effectiveness+Simplicity. With a Scale being the Spectrums, and those three things being on the right, and Longevity+Complexity+Efficiency being on the left.

You play with those scales ALOT.

As for the whole Discussion here, I dont see what proving Yourself right will achieve. Naming Conventions aside, something is either practical, or not. Of it isnt, fix it. If it is, improve it or keep it.
If something seems off, try something else. Even if you dont change it, Youll be able to better convey what isnt going to work, in more than just theory.

In short; This Debate could go on forever. Literally.
Just either close it on agreeing to disagree, or skeptically interrogate Your own method.
It cant hurt to take the second option from time to time anyway.

 

[Twin Fist]

that Ed Parker created or refined set techniques he wanted taught and how he wanted them taught is clearly the truth, despite some people's refusal to see it

that he intended his students to, at mid level BB rank, start to explore variations is clearly the truth, as Doc said

that you need a solid foundation to be able to experiment is clearly true, as Doc Said

that there is nothing wrong with experimentation PROVIDED you have put the time in to learn the basic concepts is also clearly true

however, it doesnt matter how good your results are, if you alienate everyone around you. Cuz no one will care.

 

[ATACX GYM]

yeah, i want nothing to do with the other discussion going on.

Now to comment on the above: One can have a favored tool, or primary tool, but only having one single tool, no matter how good it is, can build an over dependence, and a lack of the ability to adapt as needed.
Focusing on one tool? Sure. As long as its just a focus, and not a dedication.

Ok fine, i lied.
Discussion tibbing time.



Now to contribute:

First watch this:

then these:

its like... You move between two spectrums of direct and straightforward, to abstract and sometimes just a bit weird.
Im not into discussing kenpo and the sources of these things and whatnot, but i think the biggest issue has yet to be tapped.
And i think that would be brevity+effectiveness+simplicity. With a scale being the spectrums, and those three things being on the right, and longevity+complexity+efficiency being on the left.

You play with those scales alot.

As for the whole discussion here, i dont see what proving yourself right will achieve. Naming conventions aside, something is either practical, or not. Of it isnt, fix it. If it is, improve it or keep it.
If something seems off, try something else. Even if you dont change it, youll be able to better convey what isnt going to work, in more than just theory.

In short; this debate could go on forever. Literally.
Just either close it on agreeing to disagree, or skeptically interrogate your own method.
It cant hurt to take the second option from time to time anyway.

^^^^I like this post. Thanks for dropping it on us.

"Now to comment on the above: One can have a favored tool, or primary tool, but only having one single tool, no matter how good it is, can build an over dependence, and a lack of the ability to adapt as needed.
Focusing on one tool? Sure. As long as its just a focus, and not a dedication."--Cyriacus

Not quite sure what you mean here, so I'll address both the "one tool" argument and the "multitool argument" very simply:

We at the ATACX GYM tune our training so that we have multiple tools with multiple applications. This way, for instance, you don't have just one tech or one combo to pass a guard or disarm a guy or escape or whatever. You have hundreds of them...most of which the BG has never seen before and therefore has reduced to zero defenses against. You, on the other hand, are perfectly familiar with his techs, and have no problem annihilating him or moderating the annihilation that you choose to hand out. This is the unanswerable advantage of having multiple tools that are multifaceted.

Another way to think of it is like this: think of the old skool Green Beret teams. As I understand it, each man was taught the skills of the other man...just in case they lost that man during a mission. If during a op behind enemy lines you lose your Radio Man? Kinda hard to call for that evac at the LZ. Well, if you train your Sword and Hammer to also be effective in the primary ranges of SD that civilians, security types, martial athletes, and LEO types find themselves in? Your tool is that much more effective. You lose nothing. You gain a very great deal. In fact? All of the lessons of movement, technical understanding, ingrained muscle memory, etc. is amplified expanded and deepened much more intensely, with much higher quality, sooner, and more realistically than that which the other models tend to offer. The dysfunctional more common version does not offer anything that the functional variants [ doesn't matter who you get it from...Jeff Speakman, Doc, Sijo, me, whoever ] don't vastly and perpetually trump.

"...its like... You move between two spectrums of direct and straightforward, to abstract and sometimes just a bit weird.
Im not into discussing kenpo and the sources of these things and whatnot, but i think the biggest issue has yet to be tapped.
And i think that would be brevity+effectiveness+simplicity. With a scale being the spectrums, and those three things being on the right, and longevity+complexity+efficiency being on the left.

You play with those scales alot..."

What have I said or done that's a bit weird? LOLOLOL. That's funny man.

As for "brevity+effectiveness+simplicity"? I agree. However, you'd be amazed at how many people actually get lost when presented with that formula. They require more in-depth answers and oftentimes repeating the same answer over and over and over again until they MIGHT get it. This thread is a perfect example of this. Since page 2 I've been saying that the more common Kenpo version of the IP is not only not thee IP but it's dysfunctional. Took nearly ten pages and over 100 posts for that fact to start to sink in to some peoples' thick skulls. They'd have alot more questions--believe me I'm constantly getting them--when you're using a video and use what my GM Uncle calls the "B.E.S.T." [ Brevity Effectiveness Simplicity Thoroughness ] model which he uses for his teaching.

What exactly do you mean by longeity+complexity+efficiency?

In short; This Debate could go on forever. Literally.
Just either close it on agreeing to disagree, or skeptically interrogate Your own method.
It cant hurt to take the second option from time to time anyway.

I constantly skeptically interrogate my methods and approach. I was just discussing that very thing with a few guys this weekend, including some well known names on this board and on KT. I listen, absorb, question, analyze and apply. I refined an aspect, for instance, of my tech TRAPPING SALUTE RADIUS R.D.L. this weekend as a direct result of this constant questioning, testing, refining, rejecting, and improvement process.

You seem to imply that you doubt that I don't skeptically examine my own techs and training methods. Is that the case or am I incorrect?

 

[ATACX GYM]

I've heard people say that the majority of the pop. is right handed. So if that is in fact true, then what you said is also very true. I mean, if I'm going to clock someone, I'm going to use my right hand, as I'm right handed. Doesnt mean I cant use the left, but if the right is the dominant hand, well.....

So, a left grab/push/pull/turn/whatever, followed by a right punch is much more likely, as you said.

I address that already. In depth and detail. I said already that I included such a possibility...and that too is neatly solved by the exact same approach that I use. I included the left hand-grab/right hand punch as the default pull or push scenario.

 

[Cyriacus]

^^^^I like this post. Thanks for dropping it on us.

"Now to comment on the above: One can have a favored tool, or primary tool, but only having one single tool, no matter how good it is, can build an over dependence, and a lack of the ability to adapt as needed.
Focusing on one tool? Sure. As long as its just a focus, and not a dedication."--Cyriacus

Not quite sure what you mean here, so I'll address both the "one tool" argument and the "multitool argument" very simply:

We at the ATACX GYM tune our training so that we have multiple tools with multiple applications. This way, for instance, you don't have just one tech or one combo to pass a guard or disarm a guy or escape or whatever. You have hundreds of them...most of which the BG has never seen before and therefore has reduced to zero defenses against. You, on the other hand, are perfectly familiar with his techs, and have no problem annihilating him or moderating the annihilation that you choose to hand out. This is the unanswerable advantage of having multiple tools that are multifaceted.

Aha - FYI, I was fague to avoid showing favoritisim.

Another way to think of it is like this: think of the old skool Green Beret teams. As I understand it, each man was taught the skills of the other man...just in case they lost that man during a mission. If during a op behind enemy lines you lose your Radio Man? Kinda hard to call for that evac at the LZ. Well, if you train your Sword and Hammer to also be effective in the primary ranges of SD that civilians, security types, martial athletes, and LEO types find themselves in? Your tool is that much more effective. You lose nothing. You gain a very great deal. In fact? All of the lessons of movement, technical understanding, ingrained muscle memory, etc. is amplified expanded and deepened much more intensely, with much higher quality, sooner, and more realistically than that which the other models tend to offer. The dysfunctional more common version does not offer anything that the functional variants [ doesn't matter who you get it from...Jeff Speakman, Doc, Sijo, me, whoever ] don't vastly and perpetually trump.

"...its like... You move between two spectrums of direct and straightforward, to abstract and sometimes just a bit weird.
Im not into discussing kenpo and the sources of these things and whatnot, but i think the biggest issue has yet to be tapped.
And i think that would be brevity+effectiveness+simplicity. With a scale being the spectrums, and those three things being on the right, and longevity+complexity+efficiency being on the left.

You play with those scales alot..."

What have I said or done that's a bit weird? LOLOLOL. That's funny man.

Some things come across really unusually. Its hard to explain.

As for "brevity+effectiveness+simplicity"? I agree. However, you'd be amazed at how many people actually get lost when presented with that formula. They require more in-depth answers and oftentimes repeating the same answer over and over and over again until they MIGHT get it. This thread is a perfect example of this. Since page 2 I've been saying that the more common Kenpo version of the IP is not only not thee IP but it's dysfunctional. Took nearly ten pages and over 100 posts for that fact to start to sink in to some peoples' thick skulls. They'd have alot more questions--believe me I'm constantly getting them--when you're using a video and use what my GM Uncle calls the "B.E.S.T." [ Brevity Effectiveness Simplicity Thoroughness ] model which he uses for his teaching.

What exactly do you mean by longeity+complexity+efficiency?

I mean, how long it takes, how detailed it is, how much it covers.



I constantly skeptically interrogate my methods and approach. I was just discussing that very thing with a few guys this weekend, including some well known names on this board and on KT. I listen, absorb, question, analyze and apply. I refined an aspect, for instance, of my tech TRAPPING SALUTE RADIUS R.D.L. this weekend as a direct result of this constant questioning, testing, refining, rejecting, and improvement process.

You seem to imply that you doubt that I don't skeptically examine my own techs and training methods. Is that the case or am I incorrect?

Im not. Bare in mind I wrote all that at 3am. My intent was just to add that it can be a good idea. Hehe.

*nods

 

[MJS]

What you're referring to is a matter of training evolution and paradigm only...not a matter of what the tech is limited to. Not to tip my hand, but Matt Thornton isn't at all the actual "originator" of the ideas he popularized. Maybe he innovated his own terminology and specific approach using a teaching method, but the concept and approach are most definitely not his own.

I completely and utterly agree that basics are fundamental. Essential. Absolutely indispensable and cannot be ignored or foregone for any reason whatsoever.

This is an area that Doc and I differ visavis training methodology on. I look forward to engaging that topic in a far more thoroughgoing fashion in the upcoming few weeks.

What you may not know is that training this tech in the method that I recommend perforce requires you to achieve many more quality reps per round than you would without such a structure. 9-18 reps/round is very common for newbs using this tech. vs mild to moderate resistance. They are on the lower end of the scale during the first 5-6 rounds but creep up in reps from 7-15. Essentially and on average, call it a concentrated 13 reps done in 180 seconds if you use basic boxing rounds. [ We start with boxing rounds then move on to MMA rounds then we go to old school Pride rounds of 10 minutes then we move onto old skool UFC runds of 15 minutes each then we go to old skool Pancrase rounds of 30 minutes. 2-30 minute rounds with this tech are for my pre-white level C guys and my White Belters. Students--men women AND children--pick up THAT FAST when they're given the proper training paradigm and guidance. ] So 13 reps/round...15 rounds...165 reps/class, right? Average student comes 3/wk right? 495 reps/wk, right? See where this is going? In one month, the student has just shy of 1500 reps, and that's assuming that their number of reps per round don't increase. Which it will. They will pass or equal 20 reps/round by the end of the second week or middle of the 3rd week.Easy to do while using this tech. And they'll see where their previous training falls neatly into place while doing this tech. They'll see where they can shoot or defend the double at some point, where they'll be held in a bear hug and go directly from Captured Twigs Radius R.D.L. to Sword and Hammer Radius R.D.L. [ cuz they'll have to defend vs the bear hug and use Sword and Hammer to do it ]. They'll even see where they can counter the bear hug with purely Sword and Hammer Radius R.D.L. cuz they'll be put in a position where they have to do so and you'll coach them through it. They'll see where they can use Sword and Hammer to defend their guard. They'll see how they can use Sword and Hammer armed and unarmed vs a knife, stick or bat attack...it's all right there as they advance in skill.

They won't get bored either. They're never stuck in a rut. They're seeing the connections between what they're doing now and all their other techs that they already know...and laying the foundation for the other techs they are to learn in the future.

Therefore, this method refutes the contention that all you need is one tech, too. You need more than one tech for your whole system. Just cause you can pull an armbar as a guy throws a cross doesn't mean you should always do so. What if you're in a multifight? What if the guy's too fast or too far away for you to pull a standing armbar off on him? The argument or suggestion that if you train one tech vs all of the main ranges of combat that civilians, security types, LEOs, and martial athletes are likely to face then all you need is that one tech is pretty hilarious on its face.

IT'S NOT JUST WHAT YOU KNOW, IT'S HOW AND WHY YOU TRAIN...

I think for the most part, we're doing the same thing. For me though, I want to make sure that the people have the basics down first, as well as how the tech goes in the IP phase first, before anything else is done. Sure, people tend to get bored, they think that because a tech is simple (and how much simpler can you get than S&H? LOL) that it doesnt require a ton of practice, yet I've taught it, walked away, came back 10min later, and the tech still sucks...lol.

Doc feels that the 'what ifs' shouldnt come 'til later....I kinda agree with that. I mean, IMHO, there're a ton of things that need to be done first, before any 'what if' stuff is done. Not saying the What if stuff isn't important...it is, but there's a time and place for it.

Edit to add more: regarding your last paragraph: sounds like contradiction again. Maybe I'm misreading Ras, but one minute you're saying that you need different techs and the next you're saying that you can do S&H against many different attacks. Like I said in that other post....why try to make a 1 size fits all tech, when the fact remains, you have techs already that address pretty much every attack? Granted, there're attacks that I dont see defenses for in the Kenpo system.

 

[MJS]

You're getting into areas that I'm trying to save for my discussion with Doc. Yes I know Clyde used Crashing Elbows while in guard...I did it in the 90s. Same with the Wings for locks, over and under hooks, and much more. Did all of that in 1996. As for the kick? Use your footwork plus your handsword to elude and strike the kick. Your pin becomes a pin that's normally used on your opponent's hand resting like a dead starfish on your shoulder you transform into a pinning check on your opponent's arm [ which is up in his fighting position ]. Follow with the handsword and hammerfist to whatever available targets that you recommoned. You may also handsword with one hand, hammerfist with the other...and repeat the tech with your opposite hand. Thus doubling the attack and defense and movement options you have available to you.

IT'S NOT JUST WHAT YOU KNOW, IT'S HOW AND WHY YOU TRAIN...

I'm going to play devils advocate for a moment. During discussions on performing the Kenpo techniques on the left side, people tend to say that the majority of the population are right handed, there are already techs that address left handed attacks, etc. So, if thats the case, why try to work a tech for something that its orignially not designed to defend against in the first place? ie: S&H against a kick, rather than the grab, which is the original attack.

Furthermore, and maybe this is best saved for another thread in addition to the tons that already exist on the value of crosstraining. Personally speaking, but if I want to learn how to defend myself on the ground, I'm going to go to a ground art, not a stand up art, and try to work the stand up techs on the ground.

 

[ATACX GYM]

I think for the most part, we're doing the same thing. For me though, I want to make sure that the people have the basics down first, as well as how the tech goes in the IP phase first, before anything else is done. Sure, people tend to get bored, they think that because a tech is simple (and how much simpler can you get than S&H? LOL) that it doesnt require a ton of practice, yet I've taught it, walked away, came back 10min later, and the tech still sucks...lol.

Doc feels that the 'what ifs' shouldnt come 'til later....I kinda agree with that. I mean, IMHO, there're a ton of things that need to be done first, before any 'what if' stuff is done. Not saying the What if stuff isn't important...it is, but there's a time and place for it.

Edit to add more: regarding your last paragraph: sounds like contradiction again. Maybe I'm misreading Ras, but one minute you're saying that you need different techs and the next you're saying that you can do S&H against many different attacks. Like I said in that other post....why try to make a 1 size fits all tech, when the fact remains, you have techs already that address pretty much every attack? Granted, there're attacks that I dont see defenses for in the Kenpo system.

I think we are essentially doing the same thing too...the primary difference being with the use of the "more common expression" of an IP tech. I find myself getting away from that model more and more for all the reasons that I previously enumerated, and the fact that in the process of teaching my more functional, more comprehensive Idea which for my Gym is The Ideal Tech? I cover [ better, more functionally, with more versatility ] the "best case" so-called IP scenario too. Also my 15 round solution ensures a much higher amount of more highly concentrated high quality reps in the use of a single tech than does the more traditional method that doesn't have specific performance requirements and markers per rep, per round, per hour, per day. There is no measuring criteria yet that has been raised by anyone--including Doc--that my method not only addresses but has reams of scientific data from the bioengineering perspective to the nueropsychological that supports it.

Others may not prefer it, but there is at least as much scientific data supporting this method's use for the long term as it is for any other method...but I am not aware of any other method which holds such promise and yields such huge benefits for the short and midterm.

As to your last paragraph? My friend, you ARE misreading. Look at my CAPTURED TWIGS video. Look at my 15 round solution. I'm using one tech for a variety of scenarios. You saw my solution for using the Sword and Hammer for a kick, correct? This use of the Sword and Hammer doesn't invalidate, for instance, the use of Deflecting Hammer [ for you guys in the more traditional Parker system, at any rate ] in any way. You now have another tool to deal with a kick. The fact that you can use an unorthodox but effective response that maximizes the likelihood that your opponent has never seen this tech and isn't prepared for its use--along with the fact that you can throw whole sequences like this at him in a nonstop flow, even at Yellow Belt if you train like we do--gives you a gargantuan advantage. It's evidence of superior training and superior comprehension, and in no way evinces anything lesser in any possible way.

The more techs you stack in your arsenal, the more devastating you become. I've used my version of Parting Wings to both defend and pass guard before. Just recently, I showed a Pre-White Belt Lvl A and B student how to use her PARTING TWIGS RADIUS R.D.L. [ Yellow Belt tech for yall ] to do the same. You add that to your other techs and you have a potent arsenal even at Yellow Belt.

You're a kali guy, right MJS? Can you see how you can use Sword and Hammer to defend against a knife attack? What about Deflecting Hammer? Can you craft drills to do such a thing? If you can...which I know can be done because I did it...then what in the world prevents you from doing exactly that and teaching your students accordingly? Now they can confidently deal with basic but real world repeated knife and stick attacks.

Deflecting Hammer [ well, we use a different tech; our variant of this tech doesn't even have a name it's a sparring tech that we use ] is one of our newbiest newbs technique...Pre-White Level A. It's such absolute common sense that it doesn't warrant a name. It's like the bob and weave, slip and counter in boxing. You do that against everything. Well many times we name our techs but...that's what we do too.

 

[Twin Fist]

you notice how it is ALWAYS the other person that is wrong, Ras is NEVER wrong? about anything?

 

[MJS]

I think we are essentially doing the same thing too...the primary difference being with the use of the "more common expression" of an IP tech. I find myself getting away from that model more and more for all the reasons that I previously enumerated, and the fact that in the process of teaching my more functional, more comprehensive Idea which for my Gym is The Ideal Tech? I cover [ better, more functionally, with more versatility ] the "best case" so-called IP scenario too. Also my 15 round solution ensures a much higher amount of more highly concentrated high quality reps in the use of a single tech than does the more traditional method that doesn't have specific performance requirements and markers per rep, per round, per hour, per day. There is no measuring criteria yet that has been raised by anyone--including Doc--that my method not only addresses but has reams of scientific data from the bioengineering perspective to the nueropsychological that supports it.

But I thought there wasn't an Ideal Tech? See, this is where I feel the words of the art, make things way too confusing. KISS baby...thats what I'm all about...Keeping things simple. However, I would say that what you said is one, if not the main reason why Chris is saying you don't understand the Ideal phase or what the real meaning behind the techs is.

Others may not prefer it, but there is at least as much scientific data supporting this method's use for the long term as it is for any other method...but I am not aware of any other method which holds such promise and yields such huge benefits for the short and midterm.

And where is the data coming from?

As to your last paragraph? My friend, you ARE misreading. Look at my CAPTURED TWIGS video. Look at my 15 round solution. I'm using one tech for a variety of scenarios. You saw my solution for using the Sword and Hammer for a kick, correct? This use of the Sword and Hammer doesn't invalidate, for instance, the use of Deflecting Hammer [ for you guys in the more traditional Parker system, at any rate ] in any way. You now have another tool to deal with a kick. The fact that you can use an unorthodox but effective response that maximizes the likelihood that your opponent has never seen this tech and isn't prepared for its use--along with the fact that you can throw whole sequences like this at him in a nonstop flow, even at Yellow Belt if you train like we do--gives you a gargantuan advantage. It's evidence of superior training and superior comprehension, and in no way evinces anything lesser in any possible way.

I'm assuming you saw my post just prior to this one, where I played devils advocate?

The more techs you stack in your arsenal, the more devastating you become. I've used my version of Parting Wings to both defend and pass guard before. Just recently, I showed a Pre-White Belt Lvl A and B student how to use her PARTING TWIGS RADIUS R.D.L. [ Yellow Belt tech for yall ] to do the same. You add that to your other techs and you have a potent arsenal even at Yellow Belt.

Oh no....you're in the more is better crowd? LOL. Again, going back to that other post, I'd rather not try to mold something that deals with a specific attack, to try to fit something else. As for the more techs comment....well, the more the person has, a) the more someone is going to have to remember, especially under pressure, b) the more someone is going to have to practice and hope they do it right. IMO, I'd rather see someone refine the basics, condense drastically, the huge number of techs, and instead, use 8-10, if that, techs, train the **** out of them, and from there, build their own response, to whatever is presented to them. Again, for me, I'd rather learn the basics of the ground, and have a toolset to use, should I find myself there.

You're a kali guy, right MJS? Can you see how you can use Sword and Hammer to defend against a knife attack? What about Deflecting Hammer? Can you craft drills to do such a thing? If you can...which I know can be done because I did it...then what in the world prevents you from doing exactly that and teaching your students accordingly? Now they can confidently deal with basic but real world repeated knife and stick attacks.

Yes, I train Arnis. Yeah, I can probably use the S&H platform and come up with a few knife defenses, but why would I want to? Frankly, alot of the weapon defense in Kenpo...well, it doesnt impress me much...lol. Pop over to this thread...you'll see what I mean.

Deflecting Hammer [ well, we use a different tech; our variant of this tech doesn't even have a name it's a sparring tech that we use ] is one of our newbiest newbs technique...Pre-White Level A. It's such absolute common sense that it doesn't warrant a name. It's like the bob and weave, slip and counter in boxing. You do that against everything. Well many times we name our techs but...that's what we do too.

Ok.

 

[Flying Crane]

Oh no....you're in the more is better crowd? LOL. Again, going back to that other post, I'd rather not try to mold something that deals with a specific attack, to try to fit something else. As for the more techs comment....well, the more the person has, a) the more someone is going to have to remember, especially under pressure, b) the more someone is going to have to practice and hope they do it right. IMO, I'd rather see someone refine the basics, condense drastically, the huge number of techs, and instead, use 8-10, if that, techs, train the **** out of them, and from there, build their own response, to whatever is presented to them.

aye, this.

Ras, you often post about figuring out how to work all the techs against many different scenarios, including those the tech isn't typically described as being used against. On an academic level I see merit in that. It's a creativity issue and looks more deeply at what is going on to spot commonalities that make things work in more ways than one might suspect.

But if you are doing that with all of the techs in the system, then why have all those techs? If each tech can be used against just about everything, then you literally only need one or two of them, so why keep the rest of the curriculum?

This is an aspect of the system and how the typical kenpo curriculum is structured that has always been a problem in my eyes. The very approach of having all these scripted SD techs, and particularly the very high number of them, creates a system that becomes very cumbersome. And to approach it the way you do seems to me to complicate it even more, by applying every tech to every scenario. I guess I just don't see the point in that approach, and while I can see some short term functionality benefits to a SD tech approach, in the long term I think it creates problems that are not outweighed by the short term benefits.

I'm with MJS, I think the better approach is to keep it simple. Really train the hell out of the basics and understand what is going on with that, and then everything you do can be a powerful technique and can be applied broadly, without the need for such a long list of scripted and memorized SD techs, and without the need for 14 (so far) pages of debate about one single tech.

I don't really have a dog in the race, I'm not a kenpo guy anymore, but that's my point of view.

 

[ATACX GYM]

But I thought there wasn't an Ideal Tech? See, this is where I feel the words of the art, make things way too confusing. KISS baby...thats what I'm all about...Keeping things simple. However, I would say that what you said is one, if not the main reason why Chris is saying you don't understand the Ideal phase or what the real meaning behind the techs is.

As Doc stated numerous times...there is AN Ideal Technique, and that is the Ideal Technique that you as the Kenpo instructor craft and create for your students. There is no "hard and fast Ideal Technique". There is no such thing as THEE Sword and Hammer. This is one of the main reasons that Chris, Twin Fist, and anyone else who championed their previous/perhaps current positions regarding any factual validity regarding the existence of THEE "Sword and Hammer", is incorrect. All of the other misconceptions stem from there. Is it KISS? Well yes...but SIMPLE doesn't mean EASY.


And where is the data coming from?

scientific data collated in studies ranging from biomechanics to other disciplines. I will cite some of these works in my discussion with Doc in the upcoming days.


I'm assuming you saw my post just prior to this one, where I played devils advocate?


I saw the post but didn't get a chance to read and digest it. I will do so over the next few days.


Oh no....you're in the more is better crowd? LOL. Again, going back to that other post, I'd rather not try to mold something that deals with a specific attack, to try to fit something else. As for the more techs comment....well, the more the person has, a) the more someone is going to have to remember, especially under pressure, b) the more someone is going to have to practice and hope they do it right. IMO, I'd rather see someone refine the basics, condense drastically, the huge number of techs, and instead, use 8-10, if that, techs, train the **** out of them, and from there, build their own response, to whatever is presented to them. Again, for me, I'd rather learn the basics of the ground, and have a toolset to use, should I find myself there.


I'm not in the "more is better crowd"...I'm in the "BETTER is better" crowd. I understand and respect your preference regarding fewer techs etc etc. Bruce Lee and my Uncle--who is my GM--are of like mind. Imho there will be some mandatory modification for street situations because we all know that they're not going to be 100% like the gym environment or attack 100% of the time. I would rather have a broader array of thoroughly drilled techs in my muscle memory and solid platforms from which to extrapolate from than have fewer techs wherein I'd have to extrapolate farther [ due to lack of sufficiently broad and deep tech base from which to draw from ] and thereby probably increase my error rate.

This is a matter of difference of preference, which impacts training preference modalities, which tends to revolve around the issue of sufficient number of quality muscle reps in basics and other techs. I have years of experience using my method which I think does a pretty good job of drawing the benefits from both major approaches: high quality basics, depth and breadth of tech options and arsenal, all drawn from copious amounts of functional reps of each tech facing multiple scenarios.

But that doesn't in any way invalidate your preference or your perspective. If it works for you? Cool beans.



Yes, I train Arnis. Yeah, I can probably use the S&H platform and come up with a few knife defenses, but why would I want to? Frankly, alot of the weapon defense in Kenpo...well, it doesnt impress me much...lol. Pop over to this thread...you'll see what I mean.

I would hesitate to denigrate the weapon defenses of KENPO. Most weapon defenses that we're aware of are the result of misunderstanding the so-called IP. MOTION KENPO has the flexibility to wholesale adopt methods from other disciplines like Kali and then add the Kenpo flava to it. It's not accidental that MOTION KENPO and KALI fit so well together, almost like hand to glove. So...wouldn't a Kali weapon attack or defense become that much better if you fused it with Kenpo techs and practiced both the Kali and Kenpo methods very functionally? And wouldn't doing such a thing expand your arsenal? And isn't it good to have an expanded multifaceted functional arsenal? But hey...sallgood. In this case? The main thing is that it works and you're cool with it.


Ok.

Busy right now but I hope the answers that I supplied in the bolded portion of your quotes enough will suffice until I can turn more attention to this thread later today or later this week.

 

[MJS]

LOL, this has got to be one of the biggest threads in this section in a long time. Anyways....to address your post from top to bottom.

1) So, if thats the case, then why do 99% of the schools out there, all teach the same techs? Does Doc himself teach the techs found in Big Red? So, if I'm reading this right, people were supposed to take the ideas from big red, and create their own tech? So if thats the case, then everyone would have a different Attacking Mace, a different Lone Kimono, and so forth, yet thats not what we see. So is everyone wrong? Is Tatum wrong? Is anyone right?

2) Umm...yes, simple does mean easy.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/simple

3) Looking forward to what you have to share on the studies.

4) Looking forward to what you think of my devils advocate post.

5) You're not in the more is better crowd? To be honest, you could've fooled me. I say that after reading some past posts in this very thread...lol. IMO, techniques are nothing more than our basics, assembled in a specific fashion. However, the way they can be put together is endless. We shouldn't (although its the way this art is put together) need a preset technique for every attack, ie: if they grab and pull, we do this. If they grab and push, we do that. I call BS on that, all day, everyday!!

6) Did you check out that other thread on the knife I linked? Sorry, I'm just not impressed with the Kenpo weapon stuff, and I know, I know....as some would say...its because I dont understand the art. LOL! LOL! No, I'm just not a cult like follower. I do Kenpo, Arnis, and have done some BJJ, and yes, the 3 blend very well. Many times, I've transitioned from a Kenpo tech, and finished with Arnis. Actually, I do the opposite of what you said...I fuse the Kenpo stuff with Arnis flavor. I've worked many Kenpo knife techs with my Arnis teacher. Its amazing what the FMAs take into consideration, that other arts do not.

 

[Flying Crane]

2) Umm...yes, simple does mean easy.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/simple

In my opinion, in the martial arts context, it is about not making things unnecessarily compicated. And I do make a distinction between "complicated" and "complex". Complicated is not a good thing in this context, while complex can be, depending on what is going on.

Doing a simple thing absolutely correctly can be difficult and complex. There's enough going on with the simple stuff. Why complicate it?

In my opinion, the SD Tech approach that is prevalent in most kenpo branches is overly complicated. The individual SD Techs are too complicated, and the fact that there are so many of them adds to the complications. It's complicated squared. That's my opinion.

Ras, the approach that you are taking is making it complicated cubed. I don't get it. Maybe it works for you, but honestly, I just don't get it. I think there are easier ways to go about it that are far less complicated and give tremendous results. While some may get results with the complicated way, I'd say it's taking the long way to get there. Like going from San Francisco to Oakland via Des Moines...