Sword and hammer pt. 1 and 2
- Thread starter ATACX GYM
- Start date
OP
ATACX GYM
2nd Black Belt
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2011
- Messages
- 893
- Reaction score
- 24
- Thread Starter
- #323
QUOTE=MJS;1466229]I have to go with HK here. As for the bold part...I've been saying that in numerous posts. A punch, a kick, a block...those, IMHO, are what I call basics. A technique, is a series of basics that are either preset or that you put together, on the fly, to address the situation presented.
As for the underlined part....yup, been sayin' that too and agree with what you said 100%.[/QUOTE]
Okay, Kenshin man...you're responding to the wrong quote...and you missed my response to your position. Now, this turn in the convo might plummet us back into the very same morass that we just discussed. So let me be brief:
"...But yours is not similar to the original in any way except in the fists that you use. And fists alone do not make a technique. I could punch someone with a hammer fist and shuto them in the neck or face and that wouldn't make my technique sowrd and hammer unless I was applying the original principles of the lesson..." <--KENSHIN
You are absolutely correct. Mine is not similar to the origignal, and fists alone do not make a technique. Everything you said above in this quote is dead on correct, and I don't have a shred of argument with it. Unfortunately, this quote makes my position ironclad and the point that you're missing even more impossible to overlook, and that point is:
WHAT YOU REFER TO AS "THE ORIGINAL SWORD AND HAMMER" IS NOT IS NOT IS NOT IS NOT THE ORIGINAL SWORD AND HAMMER. IT IS A LOOSE OUTLINE, A GUIDELINE, THAT WAS PROVIDED BY MR. PARKER AS A WAY TO HELP INSTRUCTORS CREATE THEIR OWN SWORD AND HAMMER. IT IS NOT NOR HAS IT EVER BEEN INTENDED TO BE A COMBAT MODEL. ANYONE WHO BELIEVES THAT THE GUIDELINE THAT MR. PARKER LEFT IS THE "HARD AND FAST" SWORD AND HAMMER COMPLETELY MISSES WHAT MR. PARKER WANTED AND WROTE IN HIS OWN HAND. THAT'S WHY MY TECH IS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT YOU REFER TO...BECAUSE I ACTUALLY DID WHAT I'M SUPPOSED TO DO.
The above comment is in no way speculative. Allow me to quote the ranking Kenpo Elder on the matter, and he quotes Mr. Parker verbatim:
In the last week I've received 4 requests on this topic. So I guess it's time to address it - again! And there does seem to be some confusion on this forum of what the Ed Parker process is, that makes his commercial Kenpo product unique. So with a friendly nudge to Ras, and others ...
What is the confusion with What Ifs in Ed Parker's Kenpo Karate?
A well designed default scenario, (ideal), should already consider these things. In my teaching, this is a given. Every technique scenario I teach, regardless of level, has a base realism component of canceling additional aggression. Not just on the initial assault, but throughout the sequence through to its conclusion. In other words, it should not be what if but, (with respect to Clyde T. OBriant who coined the term that I stole with his permission), Even if.
In my view (supported by Mr. Parker and the way I was taught by Him,) that is what the meaning of "ideal" is. The problem has always been since the launch into the "commercial era" of Kenpo, a misunderstanding of the function of the "manuals" and "Big Red" as guidelines, not instructional materials. They were never designed to "stand alone" as instructional materials.
As I've stated before, the only way Mr. Parker could proliferate his commercial product was to take black belts from other styles, and allowed them to teach his concepts. These black belts were to utilize the conceptual information as a starting point, and formulate their own product from it. This is how the commercial or motion era was born, by utilizing skilled black belts that already existed within their own system. Mr. Parker recruited them, and in some cases, even some with no experience.
There is nothing in the technique manuals that provides a definitive solution to any assault scenario, and they were never meant to be. They were in fact created to give a reasonably intelligent teacher, a loose and broad starting point to begin their own process of formulating technique scenarios for their own teaching. This was for their down-line in a school or organization, to provide particular consistency for a group that worked together, with a broad general consistency to the overall art. Once you stepped out of the lineage pool, school, or organization, there was never an expectation of anything being the same with the commercial product. When Mr. Parker was alive, it essentially functioned as intended because only he could say "something is wrong," and if he didn't say it, no one could be criticized.
The problem is, in business you can't tell people they're wrong. He accepted all of his converts from other styles "as is," and had to "guide" them rather than "correct" them. If someone asked him specifically "how" a technique should be done, he always replied, "Show me how YOU do it." Than he would offer advice on how to improve their interpretation of the technique. He knew it didn't make sense to teach a definitive technique in a business art where he wasn't going to be available to reinforce that definitive process.
Unfortunately the confusion was massive, in part because of Parker himself. I remember standing in the back leaning against the wall in street clothes at a seminar where Mr. Parker was going over some technique ideas. One green belt leaned over to another and whispered, "Mr. Parker is teaching the technique wrong." There was never ever anything wrong with the method of teaching, only the teachers that continued to deteriorate and spiral downward in knowledge and skill every generation. Their lack of understanding fueled a desire to have it both ways. They wanted things "fixed," but wanted "their ideal fixed" to be everyone else's model, while they were allowed to explore and deviate to their desire.
The methodology crosses over into all interpretations and levels of Kenpo as I teach, and follows the old Chinese Traditional methods of "style or family" interpretations of the overall art, which was always taught in "phases" just like Parker intended.
Parker stated, and was very specific; In the first phase of learning the student should be subjected to a set curriculum with no variations, what ifs, or formulations because that is a different stage and to do otherwise not only confuses students, but doesnt allow for enough physical repetition of the set model to create new synaptic pathways or muscle memory. "What if" training is for mid-level black belts, and formulation was for "masters" of the basics of the art.
The business of selling the art, is what brought these things, along with 'tailoring," and "re-arrangement" concepts down to students not qualified or skilled enough to do so. However, it did keep people interested in the art, and was obviously good for business. Unfortunately, it was never ever good for the art itself. Mr. Parker supported my position, (or rather I supported his), in his own words from his published I.K.K.A. Green Belt Manual.
These are direct quotes.
In this phase, the term ideal implies that the situation is fixed and that the "what if" questions required in Phase II are not to be included in Phase I."
This is as I teach. The term what if is forbidden for lower students. It is their job to learn the material, the ABC's of function if you will. It is more important to concentrate on basic skills and physical vocabulary that emphasizes body mechanics and techniques that are absolutely functional and capable of standing alone. Every technique in Phase I explore concepts of application, and teachers specific skills that can be explored in subsequent phases or levels. Mr. Parker further explains the conceptual IDEAL technique, once again in his words from the same source material, and I quote ....
Therefore, the IDEAL techniques are built around seemingly INFLEXIBLE and one dimensional assumptions for a good purpose. They provide us with a basis from which we may BEGIN our analytical process. Prescribed techniques applied to prescribed reactions are the keys that make a basic technique IDEAL or FIXED.
This is like a control model in any reliable scientific experiment. How can a beginning student begin the analytical process without a firm foundation to work from to reach a reasonable conclusion? When Ed Parker talked about phases, he wanted his black belt students to take his ideas" and concepts, and create their own fixed technique.
That is they were supposed to extrapolate the base technique from the manual, and his conceptual teachings. He was teaching his students with schools and clubs HOW TO CREATE THEIR OWN INTERPRETATIONS for their students. He wanted them to use the Phase I "motion" system to create a personal interpretation for their own students, while exploring concepts of what ifs and formulations with them as teachers.
When you understand most of Ed Parkers black belts came to him from other disciplines, you understand he had to teach on multiple levels with different people already established with schools and students all over the world. He knew if he began teaching someone already a black belt and students of his own firm and different basics he would loose them. That, and his own personal availability to teach what was also evolving made that impossible. If he visited a students school in January and taught, when he saw them again the material could be different.
To create the business, Parker had to alter the traditional method of teaching and give way for proliferation, with the intent of returning to the "old ways" on a larger scale later with selected participants. "Motion" was the mass-market vehicle, but not the best vehicle for the art. That would have to come later, once he made the decision that proliferation was necessary first. When Mr. Parker created motion-based kenpo, he literally changed the Phases to suit the business. In the traditional sense, Phase One was strict unalterable basics, forms, sets, and technique applications, as I teach now. Phase Two, allowed for additional "considerations," and Phase Three was for Master Professors only, who influenced the material the other two phases worked from.
When he created the "motion-base" and dubbed it Phase One, it literally destroyed the foundation from which all traditional arts derive their identity. Instead, he allowed the identity to be drawn from its many ideas, instead of fixed principles of execution as other arts did. This was the contradiction. While he quietly worked on Phase One Kenpo, he promoted Phase One Motion-Kenpo, which has no place in traditional teaching.
He told people to rely on motion, rearranging, and tailoring, while asserting at the same time that "Ideals should be fixed," and created by teachers. We must remember Mr. Parker was growing as a martial artist himself when I met him, and he never stopped. He himself was not "fixed," and continued to change. Motion-Kenpo was born in the late sixties. It became the problem child result of his many previous versions of his arts, because it was out-of-control, but there wasnt anything he could do about it, that wouldn't destroy the business he created.
Therefore, Ed Parker confused students because in the business of Motion-Kenpo, he allowed three contradicting phases and a non-traditional method of teaching to exist all at the same time. Realizing there was nothing he could do to stop it, he just continued sharing. However, it was never his intent for students of the business of kenpo, to be subjected to anything but phase I motion under the guidance of a teacher who would create plausible and fixed ideals, and the art itself would have a functional ceiling, until he created the next level.
Parker quotes continue;
In Phase I, structuring an IDEAL technique requires SELECTING A COMBAT SITUATION YOU WISH TO ANALYZE. Contained within the technique should be FIXED MOVES OF DEFENSE, OFFENSE, AND THE ANTICIPATED REACTIONS that can stem from them.
You can see here hes talking to teachers of the art about the process they should use creating their own family style of his kenpo. Mr. Planas has stated this many times. The technique manuals are just a base of ideas to get the teacher started using Mr. Parkers conceptual guidelines to insure function. Therefore, those who have used Motion-Kenpo as their base and then went on to create their own interpretations like Chuck Sullivan, Jeff Speakman, etc are absolutely correct. No one is wrong, unless their interpretations are dysfunctional. The hard curriculum of Ed Parker was, and has never been generally taught. Not teaching commercially allowed Mr. Parker to teach me and create hard curriculum dictated by his ever evolving desires and philosophies.
When Mr. Parker spoke of the "what if" he was speaking from the perspective of those who had enough knowledge to design their own techniques, and the mid-level skills and knowledge they should have for Phase II. Obviously "tailoring" is one thing but totally deviating from the "idea" of the manual meant you had to understand the process of designing a basic technique. In that process, you had to consider "what if" and "even if" from the perspective of your external stimuli.
In other words, "what if" is not what he might do, but what he will do when I interact with him. Therefore, when you design a default or Ideal technique you must take into consideration your attacker's "even if" possible reactions. Theoretically, when an attacker launches or initiates an assault, once you come in contact with him, you must consider what the results of your interaction will be in order to anticipate and plot your next move.
It would seem to me this is the stage where you apply effective techniques you have learned to a self defense encounter to arrive at the correct solution by technique selection not so much by variation. For example, if a 400-pound man grabs a smaller stature person by the lapel a technique like "Lone Kimono may not be the best solution. They may want to redirect his energy and use an alternate technique like "Conquering Shield." The focus here would be on learning HOW to analyze the attacker and situation, instead of focusing on the eternal variations of an existing technique.
For those in the learning process choosing the correct response is more important than endless variations on a specific theme. I would prefer to trust my spontaneity to a technique I have practiced a 1000 times, rather than tailoring a technique into something, I may have done several times. These two perspectives lead to much different approaches in the way you practice and learn a Kenpo system.
The "what if" is irrelevant without a significant solid base curriculum that is "hard wired' into your synaptic pathways, and fortified against Adrenal Stress Syndrome. It is unfortunate for many reared in the "motion phase," to grasp or accept this rather obvious fact. However, those from outside seem to see it rather quickly when it is properly explained.
If you are a lower level student, it is more important to choose the right technique that you've been instructed in well, than tailor a response spontaneously when you have limited information, and undeveloped muscle memory. All of these things are intrinsically tied together, and the multiple levels of traditional study may not be explored simultaneously from the lower end of the spectrum.
It is encumbered upon us with the knowledge to formulate proper ideals to ensure that these ideal techniques not only function, but also cover all of the relevant and simply inherent possibilities of the action. Any major possibilities should be handled in alternate scenarios. Nowhere in any of Ed Parkers writings does he refer to the techniques in the manuals, or anywhere else being Ideal. He is speaking conceptually as he usually did. He was specific about the concept, not about the model.
This has always been an area of confusion. Mr. Parker is speaking to those who desire to create their own style and techniques, and the process they should use, while utilizing his concepts as a base or starting point. Part of the confusion exists because Mr. Parker was not just speaking to his own followers. Infinite Insights was not written exclusively for Kenpo people. Mr. Parker was writing for all martial artists whom he hoped would use this process of logic. It had worked for many years when he encountered people from other styles. Many of his top people came from somewhere else and joined him when he explained this approach. It made sense, so he hopped others who would read infinite insights might join him as well. He was expanding his sphere of influence. His writing was open ended. That is also, why there are contradictions in Infinite Insights. He was trying to write for Kenpo and others simultaneously.
The prevailing level of Kenpo-Karate is supposed to teach you how to create your own effective style. That is why it is so flexible and interpretive. People all over the world have used this method very effectively. It is also why you cannot get two people together from even the same school who do all the techniques the same way, because they dont have to. Concepts of Tailoring, Re-arrangement, and Equation Formulas that dominate make that impossible.
How can you emphasize all these things, and promote the Three Phases Concept simultaneously without giving people a definitive one way to do every technique, which he did not?
You can't.
How can you have an Equation Formula if you do not have an Ideal base formula to start with? Isn't that like working on calculus when you don't know how to add and subtract?
You cant.
For those who point to the technique manuals for the ideal technique, Its no secret most of the techniques in the manuals, which were only supposed to give you general ideas, are not workable as they are written. Especially techniques that are hugs, locks, and holds, that are not even clearly addressed. How many discussions have we had here about modifications to make a situation work? Do you really think Ed Parker would give you an ideal technique that didnt work to begin with? When asked how a technique went, he always said the same thing, Show me how YOU do it.
The Three Phases Concept of Kenpo Karate is about a thought process, not a technique. Mr. Parker had a problem with those who quoted him chapter and verse and used his terminology when he asked a question. He wanted people to think and even challenge him. He already knew what he wrote, but what do you think is what he wanted. If you did a technique, he never said, Youre wrong. He said, Consider doing it this way, or maybe if you did this, it would work better for YOU. So where is the ideal that is quoted so often? It doesnt exist until YOU create it. Mr. Parker NEVER taught an IDEAL technique in motion kenpo-karate, he only spoke of the process.
He spent time teaching me the process, and the hard principles I absolutely had to know for that process. That is what I teach.
"What if his other foot is forward?"
A good technique will function EVEN IF it is. It doesnt change anything.
"What if he's about to throw a punch with the other hand?
A good technique will function EVEN IF he is, because you control his width when you execute properly.
"What if he tries to grapple?
A good technique will function EVEN IF he tries, because the base controls the space.
"What if...
Wait a second. I got a better one. What if you got your assed kicked because you spent too much time asking about what Might happen, that you didn't spend anytime learning what to do for what IS happening?
Instructors have to look at things from their students perspective, not their own. And they must give them what they need, not what they want. And last but not least, don't confuse what you want to do, with what your students need to do to be successful - one step at a time.
Do you feel me?
Now, you'll see me have differences with Doc on some matters and joust with him about it. He doesn't want YES MEN around him and he doesn't mind in the least defending his position, clarifying his position, correcting us, or engaging in rigorous intellectual discussion.
What you'll NEVER see me do is dispute Doc's word about Kenpo history. I wasn't there. You guys weren't there. HE WAS THERE AND HE HELPED MAKE THE VERY HISTORY WE'RE SPEAKING ABOUT .
So once and for all...what you think is THEE Sword and Hammer was never ever is never ever and will never ever be THEE Sword and Hammer. We are not are not are not are not supposed to slavishly copy this tech. We are to do precisely as Doc stated and quoted Mr. Parker as saying and wanting...MAKE OUR OWN SWORD AND HAMMER using the guidelines techs concepts and principles that Mr. Parker left for us. I do this; but since I'm a renegade I do some other stuff too. This is the core of our differences.
With all due respect guys...anyone who champions the most popular expression of Sword and Hammer simply doesn't grasp a major aspect of what Kenpo is. That's per the ranking Kenpo Elder on the matter...it's NOT my opinion. If you guys recall? MJS and I had a thread here and I had a thread on KT absolutely excoriating what I thought was The Ideal Phase; turns out? I was just as wrong as you guys were and still are. I had never heard of Big Red or Motion Kenpo until Doc enlightened me on the matter. But unlike many people? I instantly saw the sense in Doc's position and the concrete unanswerable evidence with which he buttressed his position. Immediately I changed my opinion accordingly.
I have presented you guys with Doc's evidence and the evidence drawn from Mr. Parker's own hand for nigh on 16 pages in this thread now. Probably more than that. Again, the evidence I present IS NOT MY OPINION...it's just the facts as they are. If you choose NOT to align your position with the actual facts of the matter? Okay cool...your choice. In fact if you do make that choice? You'll be in full lockstep with the majority of Kenpoists.
And the majority of Kenpoists are factually wrong about this matter.
There ya go.
I feel you Ras. But I also think you're ignoring one possibility. I look at the "loose guideline" provided by Sword and Hammer and make my own technique, for my own purposes, with my own intended lessons, for my own students, and it looks recognizably similar to the commonly held technique know as "Sword and Hammer." Is it exactly the same? I can't say. I never learned EPAK either. But it is clearly superficially similar. If I posted a video of me doing it all the kenpo guys would say "Hey! That's Sword and Hammer!" But it's MY Sword and Hammer, even though it may resemble THEIR Sword and Hammer. But I've also done one thing more. I gave it a new name. So MY Sword and Hammer isn't Sword and Hammer at all, even though it may LOOK like it. It's Hidden Strikes. I don't teach it the same way, at the same time, under the same name, or even necessarily for the same reasons. Because I took the "loose guideline" and made it my own. And in the end, through that process, I come to understand the purpose of teaching Sword and Hammer at all. -Rob
Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
Ras, I've seen what Doc has posted on this topic as well, and I get the gist of what he's saying. I think he's looking at it somewhat differently than the Tracy lineage that I was trained in, but that's OK, I also believe there is some amount of overlap as well. I'll also say that the Tracys studied under Mr. Parker before Doc did, so Doc, while he's been around for a lot longer than most, wasn't there to see firsthand the entire history of how things were done. There was a period of time before Doc came onto the scene, when Mr. Parker was in Salt Lake City, and then in Southern California, before Doc, which I believe was about 1963. My own teacher, Ted Sumner, one of the most senior instructors in the Tracy lineage, began studying under the Tracy brothers in 1964, so Doc barely preceeds Ted. At that time, the Tracys had not yet made the split from Mr. Parker, and as Ted put it to me one day, "that was when we were all still one big happy family". At that time, Mr. Parker had only been doing kenpo for maybe 10 years or so, and the Tracys for about 5 or 6. It's interesting to realize that once upon a time, these old timers had very little experience. You and I both have much more time in than that.
I'm not trying to undermine what Doc is saying. I'm just pointing out that there is earlier history for which Doc was not present, and did not experience first hand. What Mr. Parker may have told Doc about those earlier days, I have absolutely no idea. I only can say that Doc wasn't there to see it himself.
OK now. Back to S&H....regarding this issue of using the outline as a basis for an idea, and then making your own version of the technique...it's too freeform. If you take it to the extreme that you have, then any technique can be absolutely anything you want it to be. SO then again, as I've said in earlier posts, why have a list of techniques? Why give them all names? IF the freeform is that extensive, if there can be truly versions of the "same" technique that are so different as to be unrecognizable as the same, then why have any guidelines, why have any name at all? It ceases to become a system, because it all becomes, "do whatever you want, and whatever you do, just give it names from this list". It all becomes very pointless and there's no consistency in the system. A true system must have consistency somewhere, in how things are done. Otherwise it's not a system. It just becomes a random collection of ideas. Those ideas may be potentially good ideas on their own merits, but if there is no systematic thread that ties them together, the randomness makes it unwieldy and unworkable.
The freeform in devising your own version cannot be that great. I think the freeform lies in understanding where your power comes from, how you use your lower carriage to move effectively, the specifics of each strike and how you maximize the power and make it effective. How the basics are done can vary tremendously from one system to another, and I'd say there are better and worse ways to do them. I think that is where the variables can come in, doing these aspects to the best that the instructor understands. It's not free license to change everything up until it is no longer even the same choreography, but still calling it the same thing.
I think that's one of the big problems that kenpo suffers from in what we commonly see today. Doc has posted that many of the earlier guys in the beginning of what he calls the "motion kenpo" (business model) version of kenpo, came in from other systems. At least the ones who became good in that version, came from other systems. Mr. Parker had (by what Doc has posted) essentially stopped teaching on any large scale, and only taught his few privates (people like Doc), and taught seminars around the country that were probabaly designed to keep an eye on quality control, rather than actually transmit the system. But these earlier guys in the Motion version came from other systems initially, and they all just kept doing their basics according to what they learned in their prior systems. So there is no consistency in kenpo when it comes to how the basics should be done. Mr. Parker apparently never taught it from that era forward. So there is no agreement on how things ought to be done and it's evidenced in the many many discussions here and on Kenpotalk, where people get hung up on debating the minute details of how to properly throw an inward block. Nobody can agree on it and it's because Mr. Parker didnt' teach it, and everyone else got their ideas of how to do it from various different systems.
So while I think you gotta figure out how to make your kenpo work the best for you and your students, I think HOW you are doing it is kinda misguided. I think you are being creative, and if that works for you then great. But it really is becomming a completely different animal. Maybe it's "kenpo influenced" martial arts or something. I dunno, lots of people have gone their own way and created their own techniques and made it completey different and still called it kenpo. OK, no harm no foul. But I think that's where you are with it.
But I think you are focusing on the wrong things. You are focusing on the choreography, the "what do I do" aspect. Where I think you would be much better served is if you focus on the "how do I do it" aspects. Dig deeper into understanding HOW to make each type of strike the most powerful and effective it can be, understand the systematic way that power should be generated across the board, and figure out how to do that consistently with every single thing you do. Then apply that foundational understanding to everything in your system. That will give you far more mileage than re-writing the choreography of every SD technique.
From what I've seen in your videos, that is what is lacking. You know too much about the stuff that is only of secondary importance, and not enough about the stuff that is of primary importance. Without the primary, the secondary will all be third-rate.
I'm not trying to undermine what Doc is saying. I'm just pointing out that there is earlier history for which Doc was not present, and did not experience first hand. What Mr. Parker may have told Doc about those earlier days, I have absolutely no idea. I only can say that Doc wasn't there to see it himself.
OK now. Back to S&H....regarding this issue of using the outline as a basis for an idea, and then making your own version of the technique...it's too freeform. If you take it to the extreme that you have, then any technique can be absolutely anything you want it to be. SO then again, as I've said in earlier posts, why have a list of techniques? Why give them all names? IF the freeform is that extensive, if there can be truly versions of the "same" technique that are so different as to be unrecognizable as the same, then why have any guidelines, why have any name at all? It ceases to become a system, because it all becomes, "do whatever you want, and whatever you do, just give it names from this list". It all becomes very pointless and there's no consistency in the system. A true system must have consistency somewhere, in how things are done. Otherwise it's not a system. It just becomes a random collection of ideas. Those ideas may be potentially good ideas on their own merits, but if there is no systematic thread that ties them together, the randomness makes it unwieldy and unworkable.
The freeform in devising your own version cannot be that great. I think the freeform lies in understanding where your power comes from, how you use your lower carriage to move effectively, the specifics of each strike and how you maximize the power and make it effective. How the basics are done can vary tremendously from one system to another, and I'd say there are better and worse ways to do them. I think that is where the variables can come in, doing these aspects to the best that the instructor understands. It's not free license to change everything up until it is no longer even the same choreography, but still calling it the same thing.
I think that's one of the big problems that kenpo suffers from in what we commonly see today. Doc has posted that many of the earlier guys in the beginning of what he calls the "motion kenpo" (business model) version of kenpo, came in from other systems. At least the ones who became good in that version, came from other systems. Mr. Parker had (by what Doc has posted) essentially stopped teaching on any large scale, and only taught his few privates (people like Doc), and taught seminars around the country that were probabaly designed to keep an eye on quality control, rather than actually transmit the system. But these earlier guys in the Motion version came from other systems initially, and they all just kept doing their basics according to what they learned in their prior systems. So there is no consistency in kenpo when it comes to how the basics should be done. Mr. Parker apparently never taught it from that era forward. So there is no agreement on how things ought to be done and it's evidenced in the many many discussions here and on Kenpotalk, where people get hung up on debating the minute details of how to properly throw an inward block. Nobody can agree on it and it's because Mr. Parker didnt' teach it, and everyone else got their ideas of how to do it from various different systems.
So while I think you gotta figure out how to make your kenpo work the best for you and your students, I think HOW you are doing it is kinda misguided. I think you are being creative, and if that works for you then great. But it really is becomming a completely different animal. Maybe it's "kenpo influenced" martial arts or something. I dunno, lots of people have gone their own way and created their own techniques and made it completey different and still called it kenpo. OK, no harm no foul. But I think that's where you are with it.
But I think you are focusing on the wrong things. You are focusing on the choreography, the "what do I do" aspect. Where I think you would be much better served is if you focus on the "how do I do it" aspects. Dig deeper into understanding HOW to make each type of strike the most powerful and effective it can be, understand the systematic way that power should be generated across the board, and figure out how to do that consistently with every single thing you do. Then apply that foundational understanding to everything in your system. That will give you far more mileage than re-writing the choreography of every SD technique.
From what I've seen in your videos, that is what is lacking. You know too much about the stuff that is only of secondary importance, and not enough about the stuff that is of primary importance. Without the primary, the secondary will all be third-rate.
Twin Fist
Grandmaster
FC, i tried telling him that too, that there was kenpo before Doc, and what Doc said isnt what ras likes to claim doc said.
he didnt listen, and doesnt care.
good on you for trying tho, it really impresses me that so many people, with so much experience still try to reach out to this.... person in the spirit of sharing and sportsmanship, even after he has repeatedly proven that he ignores anyone that doesnt sing his praises.
It speaks well of everyone involved except for Ras of course, and sadly, he doesnt care.
he didnt listen, and doesnt care.
good on you for trying tho, it really impresses me that so many people, with so much experience still try to reach out to this.... person in the spirit of sharing and sportsmanship, even after he has repeatedly proven that he ignores anyone that doesnt sing his praises.
It speaks well of everyone involved except for Ras of course, and sadly, he doesnt care.
OP
ATACX GYM
2nd Black Belt
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2011
- Messages
- 893
- Reaction score
- 24
- Thread Starter
- #327
Okay. Fair criticism. I receive criticisms like that all the time.
Factually incorrect criticisms.
To be brief and with all due respect to my friend Flying Crane:
The fact that I am combatively skilled and viable with this technique is precisely the proof that I both know how to do the tech and and what to do with it very well indeed. In fact, I am the only person that I know of to show how to do the exact same Kenpo tech on the ground as I do it standing. If there are others? Great...but they must be few in number or else there wouldn't be such outcry at what I do. If you fail to see it, my friend? Then I suggest that you do two things: one, please read my writings on these matters. Two? Please pay closer attention to my videos, as I actually specify answers to your questions. I suggest that you start with one of my latest videos, ATACX GYM SWORD AND HAMMER RADIUS R.D.L. PT. 3
[video=youtube_share;OgiiyO05OL4]http://youtu.be/OgiiyO05OL4[/video]
Secondly, there is a great deal of systematic integrity and similarity in Kenpo...it's just not the traditional method of doing so. This actually is a massive stroke of genius by Mr. Parker that for generations [ unfortunately ] overshot the heads of the people meant to benefit from such genius. Put simply? The Way is in the Training. The similarity and freedom of expression is found in exactly the same place. You won't understand this though, until you first divest yourself of the improper knowledge regarding the I.P. and then go practice alot...A LOT...on the mat vs resistance and actually spar with each and every one of the SD sequences. A. LOT.
It is utterly indispensable that you and everyone else release any and all notions that indicate to you that the first loose guideline and noncombat model is THEE Sword and Hammer, and realize that your club's Sword and Hammer is to be crafted by your instructor. For you, FC? That would be Mr. Sumner. He would make the Sword and Hammer for his schools.
The similarity and freedom of expression would come from the FUNCTIONAL application of Sword and Hammer; the similarity would come from the fact that the Sword and Hammer is being deployed FUNCTIONALLY AND EFFECTIVELY against a flank grab and threatened/actually thrown punch. The freedom would come from the various ways that Kenpo schools used those tools to work that scenario out. The freedom of expression would allow exploration of different methods of addressing the same attack with the same or similar tools. However, EFFECTIVENESS IN COMBAT would mandate either a similarity of expression or a recognition of a similarity of effectiveness. As an example? I can take one look at Rob's stuff and see that his stuff works and respect his work...however radically different it is from mine. Same thing with Doc's work. And Jeff Speakmans's work.
The multiple different methods of addressing the same attack with the same or different weapons is an enshrined aspect of Kenpo. The many different techs are a vital part of Kenpo. All of this is easily grasped when one studies and practices combatively on the mat with Kenpo, as the reality of sweat blood and tears dissolves all other things and leaves only the Truth of Combat left to shine. And all of this was already accepted as a part of Kenpo before most of us were born and before Ted Sumner took a day of Kenpo from the Tracys. Says who?
Says the Tracys, that's who:
http://www.kenpokarate.com/
50 Ways to Sunday
The essentials of Kenpo training are in its techniques. Kenpo Karate, as with Kenpo Jujitsu, has over 700 distinct self-defense techniques, in addition to blocks (originally strikes) and 72 kicks. But it is not just the number of techniques, it's how they are taught that defines Kenpo. About two weeks after my brother Jim and I began training with Ed Parker, Ed started an afternoon class, with Jim and me as his only students. The class never had more than four students at any one time, so it was like having a semi-private lesson each day with Ed. This allowed us to move quickly in the evening class from beginning to intermediate and advanced class. One of the first things I learned was the "What if?" rule. It went like this: Ed would teach a technique and we would practice it. But the technique was always limited. "What if" the attacker grabbed you slightly differently? Or "What if" he grabbed with a different hand? Or what if, whatever. Ed would then show you a variation to the technique with lightening speed and a devastating power that sent you reeling and bruised for a week; and, if you were smart, you never asked "What if?" again. But, if you were really smart, you would get a new student to ask "What if?". You learned that for every technique there are numerous variations which would eventually be taught to cover each variations of the attack. Both Oshita and Chow emphasized that there were many ways and variations to the techniques used to defend against each attack.
************************************************** ************************************************** ************************************************** ***********************
Now, guess which one of us Kenpo guys actually combined what we were supposed to do via Big Red and what The Tracys said with a deep knowledge of techniques lots and lots and lots of real world scrappin and a sharp improvement over most prevalent training paradigms in Kenpo? Yep...yours truly. We do our Kenpo ATACX GYM style...and every time we're gainsayed? The writings of the most O.G. of the OGs themselves verify our position.
We're not Mr. Parker's Kenpo. We're not supposed to be. Neither are you. We're not Tracy's Kenpo. We're not supposed to be. Neither are you. We're those renegade intellectual warriors from ATACX GYM Kenpo. We're damn good at Kenpo, too. We know what we're doing, how to do it, and we have the science, the fighting experience, the philosophy, the ethics and many aspects of the history of Kenpo itself on our side.
Last edited:
OP
ATACX GYM
2nd Black Belt
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2011
- Messages
- 893
- Reaction score
- 24
- Thread Starter
- #328
So...
-The very fact that my Sword and Hammer DOES NOT look like a model that was never supposed to be slavishly copied and never supposed to be a combat model
-The very fact that I pressure test my sequences via intensive sparring in multiple situations and can execute my Sword and Hammer variant vs multiple stimuli and most of you don't
-The very fact that the Tracys and Mr. Parker spoke approvingly of one of the training methods that I use prior to my birth
-The very fact that in order to do all of the above proves that I both know what to do, how to do it, and further I'm sharing it with all of you and teaching you how to do it too
-The very fact that I can quote the reigning Kenpo Elders on these matters
is proof that...
-anyone who tries to claim that my expression [ by NOT cleaving to the noncombat loose guideline model that was never combat viable nor meant for combat ] somehow missing the sublime lessons that is the sole province of the sequence which people [ completely contrary to Mr. Parker's writings and wishes ] misrepresented as THEE combat model
-anyone who thinks that my or any other freely expressed technique that uses the Sword and Hammer to address the flank Hockey Punch attack while using the handsword and hammerfist is inherently incorrect and misses vital lessons that Mr. Parker wanted us to learn [ and yet they fail to specify what these lessons are that Mr. Parker wanted us to learn; and further? They fail to point out how my variant misses these lessons ]
-anyone who doesn't spar intensely with their SD Kenpo techniques
-anyone who mistakes freedom of expression for lack of systemization
-anyone who conflates "different" with "wrong" without any form of combat testing to substantiate their position
-anyone who conflates "not conforming with the masses" with "not doing Kenpo correctly"
-anyone who misunderstands that The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique Process IS A PROCESS and NOT and NEVER WILL BE a TECHNIQUE
-anyone who fails to grasp that The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique Process is essentially equivalent to The Scientific Method
-anyone who isn't properly informed about the history of Kenpo in essential areas
will reach all of the mistaken conclusions and even more that all of my detractors have reached.
They may reach these conclusions innocently. They may have good and solid and viable reasons for coming to and even believing in these incorrect conclusions. They may energetically believe in their positions to such an extent that they will dispute the Kenpo Elders who were actually there and who flat out tell them the Truth which is THE EXACT OPPOSITE of their cherished opinion which they have invested so much of their ego in.
But they're still wrong. Proveably, empirically, objectively, permanently, and for all of eternity wrong.
And renegades like THE ATACX GYM find themselves in alignment with the great majority of Kenpo history in discussions like these. Knowingly. And the areas that THE ATACX GYM departs from the majority of Kenpoists in? That's deliberate too. It's not by accident.
And it's not in the way, for the reason, in the manner, or because of any of the incorrect positions thoughts and wild conjecture of various consistent detractors upon this thread.
Look. Acknowledging and bringing yourself in alignment with many of the hallowed principles of Kenpo doesn't mean that you're capitulating to THE ATACX GYM. I'm gonna do what I'm gonna do and I don't care who likes or dislikes it. I don't care who likes or disliked me calling what I do "Kenpo". I didn't start my martial studies to appease anybody else and I'm not changing it for anybody else either. That's just real talk.
No. You should want to know the history of Kenpo, and bring yourself in alignment with many of its hallowed principles...just because it's the right thing to do as Kenpoists. Imo at any rate.
-The very fact that my Sword and Hammer DOES NOT look like a model that was never supposed to be slavishly copied and never supposed to be a combat model
-The very fact that I pressure test my sequences via intensive sparring in multiple situations and can execute my Sword and Hammer variant vs multiple stimuli and most of you don't
-The very fact that the Tracys and Mr. Parker spoke approvingly of one of the training methods that I use prior to my birth
-The very fact that in order to do all of the above proves that I both know what to do, how to do it, and further I'm sharing it with all of you and teaching you how to do it too
-The very fact that I can quote the reigning Kenpo Elders on these matters
is proof that...
-anyone who tries to claim that my expression [ by NOT cleaving to the noncombat loose guideline model that was never combat viable nor meant for combat ] somehow missing the sublime lessons that is the sole province of the sequence which people [ completely contrary to Mr. Parker's writings and wishes ] misrepresented as THEE combat model
-anyone who thinks that my or any other freely expressed technique that uses the Sword and Hammer to address the flank Hockey Punch attack while using the handsword and hammerfist is inherently incorrect and misses vital lessons that Mr. Parker wanted us to learn [ and yet they fail to specify what these lessons are that Mr. Parker wanted us to learn; and further? They fail to point out how my variant misses these lessons ]
-anyone who doesn't spar intensely with their SD Kenpo techniques
-anyone who mistakes freedom of expression for lack of systemization
-anyone who conflates "different" with "wrong" without any form of combat testing to substantiate their position
-anyone who conflates "not conforming with the masses" with "not doing Kenpo correctly"
-anyone who misunderstands that The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique Process IS A PROCESS and NOT and NEVER WILL BE a TECHNIQUE
-anyone who fails to grasp that The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique Process is essentially equivalent to The Scientific Method
-anyone who isn't properly informed about the history of Kenpo in essential areas
will reach all of the mistaken conclusions and even more that all of my detractors have reached.
They may reach these conclusions innocently. They may have good and solid and viable reasons for coming to and even believing in these incorrect conclusions. They may energetically believe in their positions to such an extent that they will dispute the Kenpo Elders who were actually there and who flat out tell them the Truth which is THE EXACT OPPOSITE of their cherished opinion which they have invested so much of their ego in.
But they're still wrong. Proveably, empirically, objectively, permanently, and for all of eternity wrong.
And renegades like THE ATACX GYM find themselves in alignment with the great majority of Kenpo history in discussions like these. Knowingly. And the areas that THE ATACX GYM departs from the majority of Kenpoists in? That's deliberate too. It's not by accident.
And it's not in the way, for the reason, in the manner, or because of any of the incorrect positions thoughts and wild conjecture of various consistent detractors upon this thread.
Look. Acknowledging and bringing yourself in alignment with many of the hallowed principles of Kenpo doesn't mean that you're capitulating to THE ATACX GYM. I'm gonna do what I'm gonna do and I don't care who likes or dislikes it. I don't care who likes or disliked me calling what I do "Kenpo". I didn't start my martial studies to appease anybody else and I'm not changing it for anybody else either. That's just real talk.
No. You should want to know the history of Kenpo, and bring yourself in alignment with many of its hallowed principles...just because it's the right thing to do as Kenpoists. Imo at any rate.
Chris Parker
Grandmaster
So your entire argument is basically "I'm right, you're wrong, and that's it", is it? Sorry, Ras, but as you have seemed to miss the very basis of the critique in the first place, we're right, you're wrong, and that's it.
If your version is not similar to the original, why put up the original as a comparison? Why say yours is a "better version" if it's not even really a version of the original? In short, what the hell makes your technique Sword and Hammer to have you put it up against the original at all?
You changed the attack.
You changed the tactics of the response.
You changed the angle of response.
You changed the striking methods of the response.
You changed the rhythm of the entire sequence.
You changed the timing of the entire sequence.
You changed the distancing of the entire sequence.
Really, this is like you saying that roundhouse kicks aren't good as you don't like head-high kicks (disregarding other approaches to a roundhouse kick in the first place), so you put together a sequence of two jabs and a takedown, and call that your better version of a roundhouse kick, despite it having nothing in common with the kick itself. That really is what you've been presenting to us. If your technique is so far removed, there is no reason to have the original forms there as comparisons, as they have no relevance. And if you're supposed to be showing a "better version", then it needs to have the fundamental aspects of Sword and Hammer in there. If they're not there, it just shows that you don't understand the structure of martial arts techniques. Which, frankly, is how you're coming across here.
If your version is not similar to the original, why put up the original as a comparison? Why say yours is a "better version" if it's not even really a version of the original? In short, what the hell makes your technique Sword and Hammer to have you put it up against the original at all?
You changed the attack.
You changed the tactics of the response.
You changed the angle of response.
You changed the striking methods of the response.
You changed the rhythm of the entire sequence.
You changed the timing of the entire sequence.
You changed the distancing of the entire sequence.
Really, this is like you saying that roundhouse kicks aren't good as you don't like head-high kicks (disregarding other approaches to a roundhouse kick in the first place), so you put together a sequence of two jabs and a takedown, and call that your better version of a roundhouse kick, despite it having nothing in common with the kick itself. That really is what you've been presenting to us. If your technique is so far removed, there is no reason to have the original forms there as comparisons, as they have no relevance. And if you're supposed to be showing a "better version", then it needs to have the fundamental aspects of Sword and Hammer in there. If they're not there, it just shows that you don't understand the structure of martial arts techniques. Which, frankly, is how you're coming across here.
Something just occured to Me: (Ok, I figured this out a while ago. But nows a perfect time to say it.)
Couldnt this all be resolved by saying that this is Atacx Gym Sword and Hammer, without mentioning the Kenpo Sword and Hammer at all; Since You are clearly above heralding a Kenpo Offshoot, and not any Standard Kenpo?
OP
ATACX GYM
2nd Black Belt
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2011
- Messages
- 893
- Reaction score
- 24
- Thread Starter
- #331
Okay Rob, I see you...and maybe we might need Doc or one of the other ranking Elders to straighten this mess up for us. But here's a question that I've been puzzling over and have developed a working hypothesis about and have used it as my answer:
Okay...we have established that the Big Red manuals offered loose guidelines and suggestions with the purpose of creating our own Ideals, correct? We are to select common street fighting scenarios and use our Kenpo to resolve this matter. The original scenario dealt with a flank grab and a threatened punch. We have from the Tracys established that Mr. Parker long believed and knew about 50 Ways to Sunday, which allows multiple responses to the same attack.
Right there...in 50 Ways To Sunday...is the sanctioning for me to have a tech that uses a handsword and a hammerfist to resolve a flank grab [ essentially The Hockey Grab ] effectively in combat purrty much any way I want to. The constraints would be to use Sword and Hammer in the flank grab and to do so as efficiently as possible. It's my understanding that I don't have to look like anyone in the pursuit of resolving this particular attack either. If this is the case? Then my Sword and Hammer doesn't need to be re-named. It does exactly what it's supposed to do, and doesn't look like anybody else's in the process--but it still has very effective use of the named weapons to resolve the matter. The similarity of expression would come from resolving the same attack--The Hockey Punch--and using a common tool--the handsword and hammerfist--in its resolution.If all of the foregoing is correct? Then the hue and cry of various persons to change the name of my tech on the basis of it NOT being sword and hammer is manifestly untrue.
Now, I can see someone like Doc saying: "Hey. You didn't train with the man. You can't say your stuff is ED PARKER'S Sword and Hammer."
To which I reply:" Aight OG Doc, I feelz ya. That's why I named my stuff ATACX GYM Kenpo long before I met you. But if you take that qualifier...ED PARKER'S Sword and Hammer...to it's literal definition? Then that means that nobody but our departed GM does HIS Sword and Hammer. And if somehow it's generalized away from him? Then it would be applicable to only those who trained with Mr. Parker...and Mr. Parker Jr [ didn't you teach both Mr. Parker Jr. AND Jeff Speakman at one point, Doc? ]...and not even the students of Mr. Parker's black belts would qualify to teach ED PARKER'S Kenpo Karate under this definition. Me? I'm cool with that."
Nowhere in that formula is there a mandate or implication that if our chosen expressions are more similar to the noncombat model suggestion, it will be somehow superior to those that aren't and more aligned with Mr. Parker's wishes thereby. In fact? Everything I've read on the matter seems to very much support a different if not opposite conclusion. Would you happen to have knowledge of or access to materials that could suggest anything other than the above?
I haven't seen any constraints issued by Mr. Parker in his own hand or on video that would narrow the parameters sharply and appreciably from the above...and I actually see that such an approach is highly effective and very very intelligent. A stroke of genius...IF the students in all the disparate schools ACTUALLY SPAR with the techs. With Mr. Parker's background training with Chow and Oshita, I'm sure that he took as axiomatic that both his new BBs whom he recruited for Motion Kenpo AND their students would spar with the proffered techs and knowledge and see that their similarities and freedoms are spawned in the same place; that at once their mandate to individualism and the concrete glue that binds them and maintains their perpetual similarity and integrity are found in the exact same area, and upheld by the exact same practice. Innovative fighting method that is constantly evolving yet in the process of evolution and innovation is also the glue that cements tradition maintains recognizability and promotes system integrity.
See...John L. Sullivan's jab looks sharply different than Floyd Mayweather's jab...but they're both recognizably jabs and they both do boxing.
John L. Sullivan
[video=youtube_share;kpu8H1AH6ek]http://youtu.be/kpu8H1AH6ek[/video]
Floyd Mayweather Jr.
[video=youtube_share;55czSCHTQfU]http://youtu.be/55czSCHTQfU[/video]
So I'd like someone to clarify based upon solid data why it's so important to change the name of a tech that uses the tech in the requisite fighting scenario. Again...for the record? My sequence never had the same name of Mr. Parker's anyway, but I don't see what the big deal is if it did.
And before you guys start screechin about lessons to be learned and how I don't know them? Wrong. I know both of these better by faaarrrr than my detractors do, that's why I always correct them using the very information that they swear that I don't know--Kenpo history, principles, etc--and which squarely confirms my position and atomically annihilates theirs. That's exactly why I ask the question of people who know more than my detractors do...I'm looking for guys like Doc who have more knowledge about the matter to specify their opinions on it. And intelligent reasonable objective guys like you, Rob.
Chris Parker
Grandmaster
The issue isn't that you're using the Sword and Hammer name, Ras, it's that you have, from the very first post, presented the "standard" Sword and Hammer, as taught in countless schools, and then given a completely unrelated technique which is supposed to be a "better" version of same. If you just came on and said "here's a technique I've developed against a flank grab-and-punch, and I call it Sword and Hammer", no problem. But you didn't. You presented the standard form, both in the videos you linked, and again in each of your demonstrations, then went on to claim a better version. It's not. It's a different technique entirely. That's the problem. And that "atomically annihilates" your entire premise here that you understand what Sword and Hammer (the original) is actually teaching... as you completely miss every single aspect of it. And can't understand what we're saying when we reference such.
I mean, I want through everything that the standard Sword and Hammer teaches, what ingredients make it what it is, and how you missed pretty much every single one, and you still didn't get it.
Dude, you have "atomically annihilated" your own credibility in this matter over the whole 22 page thread*.
And if you want to be taken seriously, using such phrases just makes you sound like a kid. And constant reference to yourself as always proven right over everyone else, especially when you don't seem to get the argument, makes you sound like a spoiled kid. Argue, don't just say "I'm right, you're all wrong, nyah nyah!". It's not really that convincing.
*EDIT: Godsdammit, 23 page thread.... seriously, Ras, you haven't been able to deal with the initial criticisms from page one yet. And the reason I can say that is I'm still addressing them in this post.
I mean, I want through everything that the standard Sword and Hammer teaches, what ingredients make it what it is, and how you missed pretty much every single one, and you still didn't get it.
Dude, you have "atomically annihilated" your own credibility in this matter over the whole 22 page thread*.
And if you want to be taken seriously, using such phrases just makes you sound like a kid. And constant reference to yourself as always proven right over everyone else, especially when you don't seem to get the argument, makes you sound like a spoiled kid. Argue, don't just say "I'm right, you're all wrong, nyah nyah!". It's not really that convincing.
*EDIT: Godsdammit, 23 page thread.... seriously, Ras, you haven't been able to deal with the initial criticisms from page one yet. And the reason I can say that is I'm still addressing them in this post.
OP
ATACX GYM
2nd Black Belt
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2011
- Messages
- 893
- Reaction score
- 24
- Thread Starter
- #333
On the title of all my videos? It says ATACX GYM [ WHATEVER ]. On this video? It says ATACX GYM SWORD AND HAMMER RADIUS R.D.L. I've already made the distinctions that you suggest.
I have no problems with being a Kenpo offshoot. Kenpo means "fist law"...it's not even specific to Mr. Parker. We are not a Mr. Parker offshoot, although we have been strongly influenced by our understanding of his and Bruce Lee's work [ and others too ranging from the warriors of most ancient Africa to the various international special forces of today ]. We are THE ATACX GYM, my friend.T
However, we will not allow the current model of what is miscalled The Ideal Phase Techniques to stand unchallenged. That's what the real hubbub is about; lotsa people want to marinate in the big familiar lie that they miscall The Ideal Phase Techniques. There's no such thing. We will not be complicit by our silence in promoting such malarkey. Somebody has gotta stand up to that untruth and battle it. Defeat it. Because allowing such a thing to stand unchallenged and undefeated casts a gargantuan slight upon Kenpo in the USA and perhaps worldwide, slights [ as I understand them ] the wishes and legacy of Mr. Parker as he wrote them and transmitted them to us, and it besmirches the respect for the art as a whole visavis combat effectiveness.
Plus I DO do Kenpo. I have stated from the outset that what I do is Atacx Gym Kenpo and NOT the Sword and Hammer that many others do. I stated this on video MONTHS AGO...and some people still don't get it. Happily though, the majority of people DO get it.
By the way...what is "Standard Kenpo"?
*nodsOn the title of all my videos? It says ATACX GYM [ WHATEVER ]. On this video? It says ATACX GYM SWORD AND HAMMER RADIUS R.D.L. I've already made the distinctions that you suggest.
Thats what originally gave Me the idea.
I have no problems with being a Kenpo offshoot. Kenpo means "fist law"...it's not even specific to Mr. Parker. We are not a Mr. Parker offshoot, although we have been strongly influenced by our understanding of his and Bruce Lee's work [ and others too ranging from the warriors of most ancient Africa to the various international special forces of today ]. We are THE ATACX GYM, my friend.T
*nods
However, we will not allow the current model of what is miscalled The Ideal Phase Techniques to stand unchallenged. That's what the real hubbub is about; lotsa people want to marinate in the big familiar lie that they miscall The Ideal Phase Techniques. There's no such thing. We will not be complicit by our silence in promoting such malarkey. Somebody has gotta stand up to that untruth and battle it. Defeat it. Because allowing such a thing to stand unchallenged and undefeated casts a gargantuan slight upon Kenpo in the USA and perhaps worldwide, slights [ as I understand them ] the wishes and legacy of Mr. Parker as he wrote them and transmitted them to us, and it besmirches the respect for the art as a whole visavis combat effectiveness.
*nods - But it might be a merit to not headbutt bees nests.
Plus I DO do Kenpo. I have stated from the outset that what I do is Atacx Gym Kenpo and NOT the Sword and Hammer that many others do. I stated this on video MONTHS AGO...and some people still don't get it. Happily though, the majority of people DO get it.
Aha - To be fair, I skipped like, 15 pages of this
By the way...what is "Standard Kenpo"?
Take Standard literally - Pick a Kenpo System thats pretty consistent in its content, and call it one standard.
I cant help but think the debate is too complicated. When each individual point is taken, they have some merit, until they conflict with other meritable points.
Then again, Im trying not to participate in the debate any further than commenting on the occasional post.
I think this should pretty much summise, well, the entire thing.
Just for fun, Ill criticise the 'Original' Sword and Hammer (And dont start on Terminology anyone. The one that is being compared to the Atacx Gym one) from My perspective.
How would You know if Your Attacker was standing offset to Your outside or inside? The Power of the Strike would be drastically reduced if it had to reach across, impairing its reliability.
Have fun, Gentlemen.
Good Lord....
This thread is so long, I'm actually opening 2 sessions, so I can refer back to a few different posts, while I type this one..lol. Anyways...rather than quote, I figured I'd touch on a few different things. One thing that comes to mind, and perhaps TF can help me with this, is something that is constantly being said about how Mr. Parker didn't intend on everyone to do the same thing. I've asked if this means that Ras can have his version, I can have mine, and a million others can have theirs. I get the impression the answer is yes. So, if thats the case, and nobody is right or wrong, then I ask...what happens at a Tatum seminar? What happens when Larry is up there showing some fine points on Sword and Hammer and his version is different from the other 150 people in the room? How will Larry ever get his point made?
If we look at Kaju, and for the sake of discussion, we'll use the Original Method. I wonder....do all the Original Method guys, when they're doing grab art 1, have different versions? Did Sijo say what Parker supposedly said or hinted at...that we can all craft the tech how we see fit?? What about the Peralta Method guys? Ramos? Gaylord? Did GM Ramos give the ok and say, "Sure guys, heres how I learned grab art 1 from Sijo, this is how I do it now, but what the hell...you guys have at it, and do as you choose? Are there 30 variations of grab art 1 in the Ramos method?
Mike (FC) hit on something in his post that caught my eye...
"OK now. Back to S&H....regarding this issue of using the outline as a basis for an idea, and then making your own version of the technique...it's too freeform. If you take it to the extreme that you have, then any technique can be absolutely anything you want it to be. SO then again, as I've said in earlier posts, why have a list of techniques? Why give them all names? IF the freeform is that extensive, if there can be truly versions of the "same" technique that are so different as to be unrecognizable as the same, then why have any guidelines, why have any name at all? It ceases to become a system, because it all becomes, "do whatever you want, and whatever you do, just give it names from this list". It all becomes very pointless and there's no consistency in the system. A true system must have consistency somewhere, in how things are done. Otherwise it's not a system. It just becomes a random collection of ideas. Those ideas may be potentially good ideas on their own merits, but if there is no systematic thread that ties them together, the randomness makes it unwieldy and unworkable."
I agree with this, and its what I've been saying myself. Hell, even in Arnis, when we have camps or seminars, I work with guys from all over the US. I've done drills with guys from Texas and was like, "Oh man, this is different. I've never seen it done this way, but ya know, I like what i'm seein'!" Now, let me clarify...what I'm seeing is still recognizeable to me as the same thing I know, but a slight, subtle difference. Its not like its totally different. Same with a disarm. Its their own little 'flavor' that they put on it, but again, if I saw them do it I could say with utmost confidence, "Oh yeah, I recognize what they're doing."
As for what if/even if, and all that junk...well, I get the impression from Docs post that when HE teaches, all that stuff is taboo. Does Doc do S&H? If so, does it look like the S*H clips that are out there from Tatum, Casa De Kenpo, etc.? Seems like Docs S&H is designed to be pretty fail safe from the get go. Anything that the badguy may be able to do, is removed because of how Doc is doing the tech. Can anyone vouch for this, help me clarify this?
50 ways to Sunday....Ok, I read that when Parker was asked what if this, what if that, that he'd show a variant of the tech he was showing. Did he totally rework the tech? Dont know, I wasn't there. Perhaps since FC trained quite a bit with Mr. Sumner, he could clarify this. So, again, to me, it sounds like what I'm doing when I'd teach. Someone says, "But I can't reach, what if he is standing different, what if......" I'd simply, again, keeping with the basic ideas, just adapt to whatever the change the badguy was making. Delayed Sword and a punch. Ok, the right hand isn't a threat at that moment because he's grabbing me. Perhaps, as the guy is drawing his hand back, shooting off a handsword would be an option. Again, I think the main thing is keeping with what the tech originally was designed to teach, is the issue here.
This thread is so long, I'm actually opening 2 sessions, so I can refer back to a few different posts, while I type this one..lol. Anyways...rather than quote, I figured I'd touch on a few different things. One thing that comes to mind, and perhaps TF can help me with this, is something that is constantly being said about how Mr. Parker didn't intend on everyone to do the same thing. I've asked if this means that Ras can have his version, I can have mine, and a million others can have theirs. I get the impression the answer is yes. So, if thats the case, and nobody is right or wrong, then I ask...what happens at a Tatum seminar? What happens when Larry is up there showing some fine points on Sword and Hammer and his version is different from the other 150 people in the room? How will Larry ever get his point made?
If we look at Kaju, and for the sake of discussion, we'll use the Original Method. I wonder....do all the Original Method guys, when they're doing grab art 1, have different versions? Did Sijo say what Parker supposedly said or hinted at...that we can all craft the tech how we see fit?? What about the Peralta Method guys? Ramos? Gaylord? Did GM Ramos give the ok and say, "Sure guys, heres how I learned grab art 1 from Sijo, this is how I do it now, but what the hell...you guys have at it, and do as you choose? Are there 30 variations of grab art 1 in the Ramos method?
Mike (FC) hit on something in his post that caught my eye...
"OK now. Back to S&H....regarding this issue of using the outline as a basis for an idea, and then making your own version of the technique...it's too freeform. If you take it to the extreme that you have, then any technique can be absolutely anything you want it to be. SO then again, as I've said in earlier posts, why have a list of techniques? Why give them all names? IF the freeform is that extensive, if there can be truly versions of the "same" technique that are so different as to be unrecognizable as the same, then why have any guidelines, why have any name at all? It ceases to become a system, because it all becomes, "do whatever you want, and whatever you do, just give it names from this list". It all becomes very pointless and there's no consistency in the system. A true system must have consistency somewhere, in how things are done. Otherwise it's not a system. It just becomes a random collection of ideas. Those ideas may be potentially good ideas on their own merits, but if there is no systematic thread that ties them together, the randomness makes it unwieldy and unworkable."
I agree with this, and its what I've been saying myself. Hell, even in Arnis, when we have camps or seminars, I work with guys from all over the US. I've done drills with guys from Texas and was like, "Oh man, this is different. I've never seen it done this way, but ya know, I like what i'm seein'!"
Now, let me clarify...what I'm seeing is still recognizeable to me as the same thing I know, but a slight, subtle difference. Its not like its totally different. Same with a disarm. Its their own little 'flavor' that they put on it, but again, if I saw them do it I could say with utmost confidence, "Oh yeah, I recognize what they're doing." As for what if/even if, and all that junk...well, I get the impression from Docs post that when HE teaches, all that stuff is taboo. Does Doc do S&H? If so, does it look like the S*H clips that are out there from Tatum, Casa De Kenpo, etc.? Seems like Docs S&H is designed to be pretty fail safe from the get go. Anything that the badguy may be able to do, is removed because of how Doc is doing the tech. Can anyone vouch for this, help me clarify this?
50 ways to Sunday....Ok, I read that when Parker was asked what if this, what if that, that he'd show a variant of the tech he was showing. Did he totally rework the tech? Dont know, I wasn't there. Perhaps since FC trained quite a bit with Mr. Sumner, he could clarify this. So, again, to me, it sounds like what I'm doing when I'd teach. Someone says, "But I can't reach, what if he is standing different, what if......" I'd simply, again, keeping with the basic ideas, just adapt to whatever the change the badguy was making. Delayed Sword and a punch. Ok, the right hand isn't a threat at that moment because he's grabbing me. Perhaps, as the guy is drawing his hand back, shooting off a handsword would be an option. Again, I think the main thing is keeping with what the tech originally was designed to teach, is the issue here.
Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
I don't want to quote a long posting, there's a lot of that in this thread already.
Honestly, I'm just making observations based on my own experiences, both in kenpo and not in kenpo. And to be clear, I am no longer a kenpo person, I do not practice it in any form, as I came to the realization that it's not a good fit for me. I have infinite respect for my kenpo teachers, Ted Sumner and the couple instructors that I had before him, but the kenpo approach just doesn't work for me, so I don't attempt to do it anymore. So honestly I'm not personally concerned about anybody's version of this tech, nor any others. I found my own way in kung fu, and I'm very happy there.
But that has given me a different set of insights that I feel are applicable and relevant to the discussion. Some of the kenpo folks wish I would just back off the kenpo discussions altogether, but I don't seem to do that. I'm not the only non-kenpo guy poking his nose in here either. So I'm just giving some observations and suggestions, you can take them for what they are worth.
I'm content to just agree to disagree with you. I feel you are missing some very important issues, and getting bogged down with other issues that are misguided. You feel you have figured things out for the best. OK, that's cool. If it works for you, all the power to you. I know it wouldn't work for me, but then again I do something else that does work for me.
that's where I am with it all.
Ras, the point I was trying to make is that a person can go through the same process you have and end up with a technique that is as recognizably similar to the "loose guideline" as yours is clearly different. So while I took Sword and Hammer and made it my own, it still resembles THEE Sword and Hammer enough to share a commonality for discussion with other kenpo guys. Like you, I was taught that the ultimate goal of our training was self expression, not regurgitation, and that the method for determining functionality was pressure testing the material. And when I have problems with the techniques as I was taught them, I feel free to make changes to the way I teach them to others. That's why I say I teach "Sandwell Method American Kenpo" and not "Ed Parker's American Kenpo." I acknowledge and honor the great Masters in my lineage, but make clear that I am not teaching THEIR kenpo, but rather MY kenpo, albeit descended from their methods. I know you do the same.
Honestly, I'm surprised Sword and Hammer has been the catalyst for this discussion. It seems like such a no brainer technique to me. A guy aggresses, you chop his throat and rack him. That doesn't seem like it needs much debate to me. If you'd said Circling Windmills maybe I could see it. But obviously I was taught it differently than you and perhaps many others were. Which I suppose is the true root of this discussion. The Sword and Hammer I was taught is fully functional. I've used it. I know other guys who've used it. But I was taught a different execution than you were against a different attack. So we're back to the same problem once again.
Honestly, I don't care what you call it. I've learned as many as half a dozen names for some of these techniques. Sword and Hammer, Attacking the Circle, Step and Strike, Hidden Strikes, Obscure Strikes, who cares? If it works, it works. If it doesn't, fix it. Other than the understandable confusion it will engender when discussing the material with practitioners from outside your school, I think the name is the least important part.
-Rob
Honestly, I'm surprised Sword and Hammer has been the catalyst for this discussion. It seems like such a no brainer technique to me. A guy aggresses, you chop his throat and rack him. That doesn't seem like it needs much debate to me. If you'd said Circling Windmills maybe I could see it. But obviously I was taught it differently than you and perhaps many others were. Which I suppose is the true root of this discussion. The Sword and Hammer I was taught is fully functional. I've used it. I know other guys who've used it. But I was taught a different execution than you were against a different attack. So we're back to the same problem once again.
Honestly, I don't care what you call it. I've learned as many as half a dozen names for some of these techniques. Sword and Hammer, Attacking the Circle, Step and Strike, Hidden Strikes, Obscure Strikes, who cares? If it works, it works. If it doesn't, fix it. Other than the understandable confusion it will engender when discussing the material with practitioners from outside your school, I think the name is the least important part.
-Rob
OP
ATACX GYM
2nd Black Belt
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2011
- Messages
- 893
- Reaction score
- 24
- Thread Starter
- #338
Good Lord....
This thread is so long, I'm actually opening 2 sessions, so I can refer back to a few different posts, while I type this one
ME TOO!!
Mike (FC) hit on something in his post that caught my eye...
"OK now. Back to S&H....regarding this issue of using the outline as a basis for an idea, and then making your own version of the technique...it's too freeform. If you take it to the extreme that you have, then any technique can be absolutely anything you want it to be. SO then again, as I've said in earlier posts, why have a list of techniques? Why give them all names? IF the freeform is that extensive, if there can be truly versions of the "same" technique that are so different as to be unrecognizable as the same, then why have any guidelines, why have any name at all? It ceases to become a system, because it all becomes, "do whatever you want, and whatever you do, just give it names from this list". It all becomes very pointless and there's no consistency in the system. A true system must have consistency somewhere, in how things are done. Otherwise it's not a system. It just becomes a random collection of ideas. Those ideas may be potentially good ideas on their own merits, but if there is no systematic thread that ties them together, the randomness makes it unwieldy and unworkable."
I agree with this, and its what I've been saying myself. Hell, even in Arnis, when we have camps or seminars, I work with guys from all over the US. I've done drills with guys from Texas and was like, "Oh man, this is different. I've never seen it done this way, but ya know, I like what i'm seein'!"
This point bears emphasizing. MJS my friend, when you said:
"I agree with this, and its what I've been saying myself. Hell, even in Arnis, when we have camps or seminars, I work with guys from all over the US. I've done drills with guys from Texas and was like, "Oh man, this is different. I've never seen it done this way, but ya know, I like what i'm seein'!"
I'd already answered that with:
"It is utterly indispensable that you and everyone else release any and all notions that indicate to you that the first loose guideline and noncombat model is THEE Sword and Hammer, and realize that your club's Sword and Hammer is to be crafted by your instructor. For you, FC? That would be Mr. Sumner. He would make the Sword and Hammer for his schools.
The similarity and freedom of expression would come from the FUNCTIONAL application of Sword and Hammer; the similarity would come from the fact that the Sword and Hammer is being deployed FUNCTIONALLY AND EFFECTIVELY against a flank grab and threatened/actually thrown punch. The freedom would come from the various ways that Kenpo schools used those tools to work that scenario out. The freedom of expression would allow exploration of different methods of addressing the same attack with the same or similar tools. However, EFFECTIVENESS IN COMBAT would mandate either a similarity of expression or a recognition of a similarity of effectiveness. As an example? I can take one look at Rob's stuff and see that his stuff works and respect his work...however radically different it is from mine. Same thing with Doc's work. And Jeff Speakmans's work."
This means that the baseline tech that you refer to as "recognizable" or "the standard" IS NOT WHAT YOU CLAIM IT IS. By buying in to the "noncombat model/loose guideline" that is specified as such by Doc and Big Red and in any way...ANY...WAY...conflating it with the combat model [ WHICH CANNOT EXIST UNTIL YOUR SCHOOL'S INSTRUCTOR MAKES IT FOR YOUR SPECIFIC SCHOOL, ORGANIZATION, CLUB, WHATEVER ] you are perpetuating and deepening the DYSFUNCTIONAL morass that Kenpo is sinking in to.
If your teacher chooses to NOT craft a specific thumbprint of a Sword and Hammer for his/her/their students and chooses to adopt the "noncombat model" instead? Then the teacher is either misled or lazy; that is specifically NOT to be done. Mr. Parker wrote so already and Doc expounded upon it at length [ using Mr. Parker's quotes, I might add ].
Point blank: your Sword and Hammer and mine are supposed to be recognizable by the use of the Sword and Hammer in a functional way that defends vs The Hockey Punch. That is it. When you get on the mat and actually spar against resistance, what will happen is that we will all develope functional skill in using the Sword and Hammer vs that specific scenario. "However, EFFECTIVENESS IN COMBAT would mandate either a similarity of expression or a recognition of a similarity of effectiveness."--THE ATACX GYM
Now...people like me might take it farther. I will incorporate the 360 degrees of attack and defense that Mr. Parker already knew and promoted since before my birth. I will incorporate weapons and defend against them. I will incorporate ground fighting and defend against that. Etc. The fact that I do more is not grounds to in any way claim that my Sword and Hammer is NOT Sword and Hammer. First? It absolutely qualifies by definition as The Ideal Phase tech for MY Gym. Secondly? Going by The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique PROCESS definition that Cyriacus or CyberTiger quoted for us awhile ago and which I repeatedly quoted on this thread...we're supposed to use the handsword and hammerfist functionally and effectively against the chosen common street fighting situation [ Hockey Punch defense ]. Which I did.
Right there...right there in THAT quote up there...is what I was talking about when I said that when you train functionally vs resistance with this tech Both the similarity and recognition of freedom and effectiveness will be upheld. Rob's tech is much more similar to the guideline given than mine is, but we both recognize that each other's techs work because we both scrap. Note how neither of us need to have a 23+page thread discussing this matter because we already did most of the work where it's supposed to be...on the mat. Because of that? We recognize the skill and effectiveness of the other and we recognize where the differences are.
And it's no big deal.
I was actually taught the same execution against the same attack that Rob was. BUT THEN THE ATTACKS GOT MORE INTENSE AND THE MANDATES GOT MORE COMPREHENSIVE. "Use Sword and Hammer better, Ras!" my GM told me. "Use it against a knife!" "Why?" asked I. "The guy could have a knife or gun in his other hand and is pulling you into it. Or he could have a beer bottle or pool ball or pool stick. Or chair. Deal with that." And I did.
Then I hit on the idea of using the exact same or very very much the same Sword and Hammer against EVERYTHING and EVERYBODY who Hockey Punched me, got me on the ground, tried to stomp me out, etc. Multifight or not. Striker, street fighter, grappler, Kenpoist, yo momma, or not. This resulted in a training paradigm breakthrough.
My Sword and Hammer was born.
There ya go.
Last edited:
Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
there is so much profound truth in this statement, it's astounding.
Seriously. There are so many complicated techniques in kenpo, for me that was always a big problem and a big part of what lead me to leave the system. But THIS technique is one of the most straight forward, no-nonsense, un-complicated ones in the lists. And it's getting re-worked into something way too complicated, under the banner of "doing it my way". I don't see the wisdom in it at all. If something so simple as this technique is "unworkable", making it far more complicated just makes it "unworkable approaching infinity". If there was any tech in the system that IS workable exactly as written, it would be this one.
OP
ATACX GYM
2nd Black Belt
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2011
- Messages
- 893
- Reaction score
- 24
- Thread Starter
- #340
Cosign.
Look...the difference here with Rob? He's pressure tested HIS Sword and Hammer. He has some differences but it's recognizably similar to the original.
At first.
Now here's where the nonscrappin Kenpoists get extra anal:
Lets say Rob takes you down or clinches you. Yall scrap. You're in front of him. He chops your throat and racks you. PROPONENTS OF THE "LOOSE GUIDELINE AS THEE SWORD AND HAMMER" WILL SAY THAT ROB DIDN'T DO THE SWORD AND HAMMER. Yes, he did. It's your misunderstanding of what brought about all of this in the first place that makes you think he didn't do so.
Let's say you Hockey punch me, I cover spin and break your grip of me with the a hammerfist and handsword. THAT'S THE SWORD AND HAMMER RIGHT THERE. Only people who cling to the noncombat loose guideline model as somehow a standard to be upheld would think otherwise. But they're wrong...literally by the hand of Mr. Parker they are wrong.
Now, can you adopt the "loose guideline" as your combat model? YES. AS LONG AS YOU PRESSURE TEST IT. In so doing you will not only be able to execute the sequence in a similar scrapping situation, but you'll change its execution and you'll use it in other scenarios too. BECAUSE THE LESSONS OF SWORD AND HAMMER GO BEYOND ITS INITIAL POINT OF INTRODUCTION. YOU CAN APPLY SWORD AND HAMMER TO COMBAT IN GENERAL WHEN YOU DEVELOPE SUFFICIENT SKILL IN ITS EMPLOYMENT. Exactly like Sensei Oshita said.
I started with the loose combat model too. Difference is? In our class...people punched us. And tackled us. And used weapons against us. And multifought with us [ where do you think I got avoiding getting stomped out from? ]. And we still could ONLY USE Sword and Hammer. [ This is the Isolation part of the I Method ]. That meant that we started off with the initial Hockey Punch defense and then played with it from there. The BG could do whatever he wanted after the initial grab...we had to use a handsword and hammerfist and either finish him off right there or use the handsword and hammerfist in the process of finishing him off. Against all comers. Football players, Judoka, other kenpoists, Hapkidoka, bjj guys, wrestlers, Muay Thai guys, kali men. Kung fu guys, lima lama guys. Capoeiristas. You name it. This immediately forced a change in the "loose guideline's" expression, because that's what's supposed to happen. It is, after all ONLY a guideline, NOT the solution.
Boom. My variant was born.
ATACX GYM SWORD AND HAMMER RADIUS R.D.L.
And it's still a Kenpo Idea Sword and Hammer, it's my ATACX GYM'S IDEAL TECHNIQUE SWORD AND HAMMER, it uses a handsword and hammerfist like yours does...but it's not YOUR SWORD AND HAMMER. Guess what?
YOUR TECH ISN'T THEE SWORD AND HAMMER EITHER, IT'S JUST "A" SWORD AND HAMMER...IF YOU PRESSURE TESTED IT. IF YOUR INSTRUCTOR CREATED THE TECH FOR YOUR SCHOOL, PRESSURE TESTED IT, AND ALL OF YOU PRESSURE TEST IT? THEN IT BECOMES AN "IDEAL TECHNIQUE" FOR YOUR SCHOOL ONLY.
Okay. Yall should get it by now.
Similar threads
