Sword and hammer pt. 1 and 2

[Thesemindz]

Ras, I think you've hit on one of the key differences here. I was not taught this technique as a defense against the "hockey punch." I was taught this technique as a response to the aggression which is a precursor to the "hockey punch." The idea is that he reaches out to you with the near arm, and before he launches the follow up attack you counter with the pin and striking combination. The way I teach it the moves are specifically designed to address several possible follow ups, and we do train it with the follow ups. I was just doing that Monday night. But the initial attack taught in the base technique does not include the follow ups. It's a response to projected aggression from the flank at long range. We don't add the follow ups until later. Because I want the students to learn a different lesson first.


-Rob

 

[ATACX GYM]

Ras, I think you've hit on one of the key differences here. I was not taught this technique as a defense against the "hockey punch." I was taught this technique as a response to the aggression which is a precursor to the "hockey punch." The idea is that he reaches out to you with the near arm, and before he launches the follow up attack you counter with the pin and striking combination. The way I teach it the moves are specifically designed to address several possible follow ups, and we do train it with the follow ups. I was just doing that Monday night. But the initial attack taught in the base technique does not include the follow ups. It's a response to projected aggression from the flank at long range. We don't add the follow ups until later. Because I want the students to learn a different lesson first.


-Rob

When I was 8 years old, I was taught the same way. But we then sparred with it. In Chicken's dojo. I found out instantly that uke isn't gonna stand there for you. The PRECURSOR to the punch became very quickly a GRAB-PUNCH. Then a GRAB-PUSH-LOTSA PUNCHES. Then pulls jerks kicks sweeps knees elbows tackles etc were added in for good measure. Each time my Sword and Hammer was successively less successful because uke knew what my offense was and prepped defenses against it while fighting me off. I got tackled by football guys, and I didn't know what to do. I was paralyzed while getting punched.

I had to find another way...while still preserving the use of the handsword and hammerfist. Eventually I did just that. I remembered that my Sword and Hammer wasn't the only arsenal I have in Kenpo, and I can use those too...ALONG WITH my Sword and Hammer. Suddenly, instead of being mopped up so constantly, I started winning a few. And then a few more.

As a child, I was set on the road to developing all of the methods that manifest in my ATACX GYM.

 

[Thesemindz]

I do many of those same things in training the material with my own students, but I still begin with the same seed. You began with more or less the same seed that I did, but through the growth process you evolved away from the original technique, and now you begin your students with a very different seed than you started with. I know you feel that by changing the base technique your students benefit from the process you've gone through. But do you deny them the chance to go through the same process themselves? By changing the seed, you change the tree you are growing. Nothing inherently wrong with that in a vacuum, but do you think they lose anything by starting in a different place and growing in a different direction? Or do you see it as pure profit?


-Rob

 

[Thesemindz]

BTW, I know this discussion is driving some of you insane, but I'm really enjoying it. I see a lot of merit in almost all the positions being espoused here and enjoy reading so many perspectives on the material. I think this has been a great discussion, despite the fact that I see the different sides as unlikely ever to be reconciled.


-Rob

 

[Chris Parker]

When I was 8 years old, I was taught the same way. But we then sparred with it. In Chicken's dojo. I found out instantly that uke isn't gonna stand there for you. The PRECURSOR to the punch became very quickly a GRAB-PUNCH. Then a GRAB-PUSH-LOTSA PUNCHES. Then pulls jerks kicks sweeps knees elbows tackles etc were added in for good measure. Each time my Sword and Hammer was successively less successful because uke knew what my offense was and prepped defenses against it while fighting me off. I got tackled by football guys, and I didn't know what to do. I was paralyzed while getting punched.

I thought you were training for some kind of reality, Ras... the idea of the bad guy having so much experience at fighting you that they figure out defences to your counters is just plain unrealistic, you realise. The most important thing in the techniques is learning (and ingraining) the strategies and tactics, not exact mechanical responses that always go to plan. And you were 8 and being tackled by "football guys", and this is why you think that the techniques don't work?

I had to find another way...while still preserving the use of the handsword and hammerfist. Eventually I did just that. I remembered that my Sword and Hammer wasn't the only arsenal I have in Kenpo, and I can use those too...ALONG WITH my Sword and Hammer. Suddenly, instead of being mopped up so constantly, I started winning a few. And then a few more.

Here's possibly the crux of an answer you've been unable to give so far... why would you still need to preserve the use of a handsword and hammerfist? I'm genuinely asking, by the way, I want to hear why you think you need to keep those in your response.

As a child, I was set on the road to developing all of the methods that manifest in my ATACX GYM.

Honestly, Ras, this sums up the issues I see in your approach. It was formed when you were a child, and had no real way of understanding what it was really about. And you've stuck with that, which comes through in many ways.

 

[Thesemindz]

I understand that many of you disagree with Ras and dislike both his method and his presentation. And I can understand why some would be offended when he says that their material doesn't work. But I have yet to see him call anyone here an ignorant, immature child. While he attempts to champion his position with evidence, such as videos, quotes, and articles, I see others who simply resort to ad hominem attacks. You may dispute his interpretation of the evidence, and that's fair, and you may arrive at different conclusions, I often do, but I haven't seen a single post by him where he resorted to name calling, despite the fact that his detractors have come no closer to accepting his position than he has to embracing theirs. There are many areas where Ras and I disagree, but I have yet to see him comport himself without class. Being an ardent defender of an unpopular position may make one the target of low barbs, but it hardly ennobles one's attackers.


-Rob

 

[Chris Parker]

So you missed the posts where he refers to myself with phrases such as "extremely high levels of dooficity, even for Chris", the constant reference to all other Kenpo methods who teach the "regular" Sword and Hammer as "craptastic" and so on? Bluntly, such use of language is Ras being childish and immature... but I will also say that my comments as to maturity as such were based more on Ras' own revelation that his approach is based in his childhood training, and has retained that understanding. There was no attack, it was an observation as to where his beliefs and values have come from, and as such, where his behaviours (his method of posting, his alterations, and so on) come from. As far as his evidence, most of it is him saying that he agrees with himself, so I don't overtly accept that as evidence. And he has yet to display any actual understanding beyond a simple mechanical approach to martial art training. So yes, in terms of martial arts, I would consider him ignorant (referring to the amount he doesn't know) and immature (regarding the level of which he does). That's me being blunt, though, so take that for what you will.

 

[Thesemindz]

I'll grant you the dooficity comment. I must have missed that. I've seen him refer to the material as craptastic, but must have missed him saying the instructors were. If he did I'll grant you that too. No need to copy paste it, I'll take you at your word. And as such, I'll say that I don't think that's very classy of him either. I did see him once say that anyone teaching the IP as real self defense is a fraud and a liar and should fling themselves off a cliff, and I called him on it. I won't defend him unconditionally. But I don't think that that sort of approach, from anyone, furthers the discussion. I disagree with you about his evidence though. In the course of this debate I haven't seen a refutation of his understanding of Doc's quotes, or the article he posted from the Tracy system, or his actual mechanics beyond "too many moves" and "you're doing it wrong." Ras champions his position because he genuinely believes in it. Simply telling him he's wrong has no more argumentative value than him telling you he's right.


-Rob

 

[Chris Parker]

Actually, I gave a fairly detailed critique of the "new and improved" version in my first post on page one here, and as for the various references, some have been shown to be out of context, I argued against the interpretation of Larry Tatum and Doc in terms of pre-emptive striking the way Ras was claiming it, but what I was referring to was his constant quoting of himself, or putting up a video of himself agreeing with, well, himself, in order to show how right he is.

But to get to the crux of the matter, Ras put up the original post with two unrelated techniques, one of which is his "better" version of the original, and has yet to be able to explain why his version is even an actual version of the original technique. His attempts to explain how he came up with his version show a large disconnect between understanding the structure of techniques, and the lessons they are designed to impart, and being able to put together a combination he may have some success with. His own evidence shows that the two techniques are nothing alike... yet he has insisted on making them a comparison, without being able to even demonstrate basic understanding of the tactical lessons of the first. That's the real issue, not whether or not Ras' technique works, but what makes it an alternate version of Sword and Hammer in the first place. Then we could get to why it's better or not. But until Ras is able to understand and answer that question, he'll just keep coming back with "all other kempo is craptastic, I am the only functionally training mofo out there today, I am the only one doing it the right way", which frankly gets real old real fast.

 

[ATACX GYM]

So you missed the posts where he refers to myself with phrases such as "extremely high levels of dooficity, even for Chris", the constant reference to all other Kenpo methods who teach the "regular" Sword and Hammer as "craptastic" and so on? Bluntly, such use of language is Ras being childish and immature... but I will also say that my comments as to maturity as such were based more on Ras' own revelation that his approach is based in his childhood training, and has retained that understanding. There was no attack, it was an observation as to where his beliefs and values have come from, and as such, where his behaviours (his method of posting, his alterations, and so on) come from. As far as his evidence, most of it is him saying that he agrees with himself, so I don't overtly accept that as evidence. And he has yet to display any actual understanding beyond a simple mechanical approach to martial art training. So yes, in terms of martial arts, I would consider him ignorant (referring to the amount he doesn't know) and immature (regarding the level of which he does). That's me being blunt, though, so take that for what you will.

Okay I usually don't respond to these kinds of posts, but let me clear this up right now:

when I use phrases like "craptastic' and "dooficity"? They're tongue in cheek phrases; I'm not actually dissing you. Maybe where you're from such terminology is genuinely insulting. Where I'm from? That mess IS FUNNY and NOT VIEWED as a personal attack. If you took it otherwise? Then I'm man enough to offer you a direct apology for such right now. If I truly insult you? You'll know. And there won't be a "craptastic" word in sight, regardless of the "dooficity" level of the offending action which caused my response.

As far as my evidence is concerned? I have quoted the very author of Kenpo himself since pg 5 and have been championing the position that his writings clearly denote since page 1. I have presented video evidence. I have quoted the senior ranking Kenpo Elders including Doc Chapel and The Tracys. NONE of the evidence quoted supports your position...and in fact? ALL OF THE EVIDENCE directly repudiates your position and anything like it.

You don't understand what The Ideal Phase Analytical Process is. I proved since page 6 that I was right by the very definition of Mr. Parker's verbatim analysis.

Does it not strike anyone besides me as more than strange what's going on here? Chris is a non-Kenpo man who is arguing with a 34 year long Kenpo practitioner about a art Chris DOES NOT PRACTICE...EVEN AFTER THE FOUNDER OF THE ART HE DOESN'T PRACTICE HAS WRITTEN WORKS REPUDIATING CHRIS AND AFFIRMING THE MASTER RANK KENPO PRACTITIONER WHO HE'S ARGUING WITH?

That's beyond wrong. And sir, I would think that if anyone was being immature? It certainly isn't me.

Okay rather than take forever going back and forth? Let's take a direct look at this stuff from the actual definition of THE IDEAL PHASE and its other mandatory components and compare and contrast step by step:

(p.66) IDEAL PHASE- This is Phase I of the analytical process of dissecting a technique.
It requires structuring an IDEAL technique by selecting a combat situation that you wish to analyze. Contained within the technique should be fixed moves of defense,offense, and the anticipated reactions that can stem from them. This PHASE strongly urges the need to analyze techniques from THREE POINTS OF VIEW.

(p.138) WHAT IF PHASE- This is PHASE II of the analytical process of dissecting a technique. this PHASE takes in additional variables. It requires being programmed to further analyze the IDEAL or fixed technique. (me talking: not sure I agree with the term programmed.) Expected, as well as unexpected opponent reactions are projected and evaluated. the concept here is that every movement may have critical consequences; thus, in a realistic situation, the need to predict each consequence to the best of your knowledge is imperative. Ideally, all consequential possibilities should be projected, evaluated, and learned. To do so is to increase your ability to instinctively and randomly alter the basic technique, and thus allow yourself a choice of action. <- (sounds alot like what you've accomplished Ras.)

(p.56) FORMULATION PHASE- This is PHASE III of the analytical process of dissecting a technique. This PHASE involves the actual application of your newly found alternatives to the original IDEAL or fixed technique. Knowing what can additionally happen within the framework of the fixed technique, teaches you how to apply your variable answers to a free and changing environment. This ultimate process of combat training can be learned by using the EQUATION FORMULA for fighting.

(p.48) EQUATION FORMULA- This is a special formula that one can follow to develop specific, practical, and logical fighting patterns. the formula allows you a more conclusive basis for negotiating your alternative actions. It reads as follows:
To give any base, whether it is a single move or a series of movements, you can (1)prefix it- add a move or moves before it; (2) suffix it- add a move or moves after it; (3) insert- add a simultaneous move with, the already established sequence (this move can be used as a (a) pinning check- using pressure against an opponent's weapons to nullify their delivery, or (b) positioned check- where you place the hand or leg in a defensive position or angle to minimize entry to your vital areas; (4) rearrange- change the sequence of the moves, (5) alter the- (a) weapon, (b) target, (c) both weapon and target; (6) adjust the- (a) range, (b) angle of execution (which affects the width and height), (c) both angle of execution and range; (7) regulate the- (a) speed, (b) force, (c) both speed and force, (d) intent and speed; and (8) delete- exclude a move or moves from the sequence.

and since doc mentioned ideas,
IDEAS- One of the philosophical views of Kenpo that considers defensive and offensive moves to be no more than concepts that vary with each and every situation. <- adds a bit more context for me when I re-read Doc's post about the "IDEALS" being "IDEAS".



Everything that makes the point--taken in proper context--is right there^^^^^


First step? Let's have the teacher "selecting a combat situation that you wish to analyze". That attack is launched at 0:16 in this video:

[video=youtube_share;A36Bw5I3-g0]http://youtu.be/A36Bw5I3-g0[/video]


Now, THIS is what most people call Theee singular sole Sword and Hammer, which effectively creates the Ideal TECHNIQUE of Sword and Hammer:

[video=youtube_share;oJbyIBmhDN0]http://youtu.be/oJbyIBmhDN0[/video]

Compare the two...and immediately the flaws in this approach are seen. These flaws are legion. First? The above tech doesn't satisfy the requirements for the actual definition for The Ideal Phase:

"p.66) IDEAL PHASE- This is Phase I of the analytical process of dissecting a technique.
It requires structuring an IDEAL technique by selecting a combat situation that you wish to analyze. Contained within the technique should be fixed moves of defense,offense, and the anticipated reactions that can stem from them. This PHASE strongly urges the need to analyze techniques from THREE POINTS OF VIEW."

Are there fixed moves of defense and offense? Yes, but the dysfunctional "attack" followed by the equally dysfunctional "response" does not address the street reality...as shown in the link above. Does the form of Sword and Hammer address the 'anticipated reactions' that can stem from the projected and expected moves of defense and offense...in the real world? No, it doesn't. There is no addressing of the power of the grab, the body momentum follow through, and the fact that the punch would be launched nearly simultaneously with the grab and push/pull.


"(p.138) WHAT IF PHASE- This is PHASE II of the analytical process of dissecting a technique. this PHASE takes in additional variables. It requires being programmed to further analyze the IDEAL or fixed technique. (me talking: not sure I agree with the term programmed.) Expected, as well as unexpected opponent reactions are projected and evaluated. the concept here is that every movement may have critical consequences; thus, in a realistic situation, the need to predict each consequence to the best of your knowledge is imperative. Ideally, all consequential possibilities should be projected, evaluated, and learned. To do so is to increase your ability to instinctively and randomly alter the basic technique, and thus allow yourself a choice of action. <- (sounds alot like what you've accomplished Ras.)"

Are the expected and unexpected reactions of the opponent a part of the Sword and Hammer as displayed by the other videos? What if the opponent throws a punch? What if the push knocked you off balance? What if he tackles you? What if he doesn't push you...he just cracks you from the side or behind you or whatever [ which is what happens most of the time ]? NO.


(p.56) FORMULATION PHASE- This is PHASE III of the analytical process of dissecting a technique. This PHASE involves the actual application of your newly found alternatives to the original IDEAL or fixed technique. Knowing what can additionally happen within the framework of the fixed technique, teaches you how to apply your variable answers to a free and changing environment. This ultimate process of combat training can be learned by using the EQUATION FORMULA for fighting.

Is there any aspect of this approach in the tech? Even partially? NO.


(p.48) EQUATION FORMULA- This is a special formula that one can follow to develop specific, practical, and logical fighting patterns. the formula allows you a more conclusive basis for negotiating your alternative actions. It reads as follows:
To give any base, whether it is a single move or a series of movements, you can (1)prefix it- add a move or moves before it; (2) suffix it- add a move or moves after it; (3) insert- add a simultaneous move with, the already established sequence (this move can be used as a (a) pinning check- using pressure against an opponent's weapons to nullify their delivery, or (b) positioned check- where you place the hand or leg in a defensive position or angle to minimize entry to your vital areas; (4) rearrange- change the sequence of the moves, (5) alter the- (a) weapon, (b) target, (c) both weapon and target; (6) adjust the- (a) range, (b) angle of execution (which affects the width and height), (c) both angle of execution and range; (7) regulate the- (a) speed, (b) force, (c) both speed and force, (d) intent and speed; and (8) delete- exclude a move or moves from the sequence.


There is no hint of The Equation Formula in the above Sword and Hammer expression. In short...since it lacks the primary components of The Ideal Phase Analytical Process...THE TECHNIQUE THAT ALL OF YOU LAUDED IS NOT THEE IDEAL TECHNIQUE. It CAN be an "idea"...but it CANNOT be and there has NEVER BEEN a IDEAL TECHNIQUE.



In short? If you trained THIS method.--->

[video=youtube_share;oJbyIBmhDN0]http://youtu.be/oJbyIBmhDN0[/video]

you'd get your head taken off. You'd fail to thwart the attack. Thwarting the attack is THE FIRST requirement for any self defense technique. You can thwart the attack by fleeing, but in this case? Thwarting the attack requires a functional deployment of The Sword and Hammer. Now...

This is MY Sword and Hammer:


Atacx Gym Sword and Hammer 1

[video=youtube_share;eo4yj0MZyeI]http://youtu.be/eo4yj0MZyeI[/video]

Atacx Gym Sword and Hammer 1A

[video=youtube_share;AuvuhW1u2WE]http://youtu.be/AuvuhW1u2WE[/video]

Atacx Gym Sword and Hammer 2

[video=youtube_share;R-mmdyIHkjs]http://youtu.be/R-mmdyIHkjs[/video]

"p.66) IDEAL PHASE- This is Phase I of the analytical process of dissecting a technique.
It requires structuring an IDEAL technique by selecting a combat situation that you wish to analyze. Contained within the technique should be fixed moves of defense,offense, and the anticipated reactions that can stem from them. This PHASE strongly urges the need to analyze techniques from THREE POINTS OF VIEW."

The combat scenario is the same as previously.

Now, look at my variants. Does the Atacx Gym IP contained within the technique "fixed moves of defense,offense, and the anticipated reactions that can stem from them" ? Absolutely. The first thing I address is that the grab [ that's usually the BG grabbing us ] is aggressive and transfers its energy and bodily followthrough to the defending target [that's usually us ]. This is wholly ignored by the dysfunctional other variant. Another basic real world requirement is that the punch happens at the same time or nearly the same time of the push/pull. They're grabbing you for a reason...and that reason is to do something to you that you don't want. Usually punch your block off. But you can get cracked with a bottle, stabbed, pushed over, tackled, simply pulled away...all manner of things. But in EVERY case? Energy is transmitted from the grab to the person grabbed. I address the grab AND the followup attack...

...and I do so in a way that allows me the option of correctly assessing the grabber's intent. It's not always necessary to Kenpo some jerk into oblivion. If you snappily disengage his grab? That alone could de-escalate the situation. The person grabbing you could be a friend or a stranger who grabbed you and surprised you. The point is? You have to be sure that whoever grabbed you DESERVES to be hit with the Sword and Hammer. That assessment time is built into my tech. It's wholly absent in the dysfunctional other variants.

"(p.138) WHAT IF PHASE- This is PHASE II of the analytical process of dissecting a technique. this PHASE takes in additional variables. It requires being programmed to further analyze the IDEAL or fixed technique. (me talking: not sure I agree with the term programmed.) Expected, as well as unexpected opponent reactions are projected and evaluated. the concept here is that every movement may have critical consequences; thus, in a realistic situation, the need to predict each consequence to the best of your knowledge is imperative. Ideally, all consequential possibilities should be projected, evaluated, and learned. To do so is to increase your ability to instinctively and randomly alter the basic technique, and thus allow yourself a choice of action. <- (sounds alot like what you've accomplished Ras.)"


I'm all over this Phase. What if he grabbed you from a different position? What if he just PUNCHED you and DIDN'T grab and pull you. What if he grabbed you from a different hand and different lead leg or from a different position? What if he PUSHED you and PUNCHED you instead of PULLED and punched you? The other technique which too many champion don't even remotely engage this area.


"(p.56) FORMULATION PHASE- This is PHASE III of the analytical process of dissecting a technique. This PHASE involves the actual application of your newly found alternatives to the original IDEAL or fixed technique. Knowing what can additionally happen within the framework of the fixed technique, teaches you how to apply your variable answers to a free and changing environment. This ultimate process of combat training can be learned by using the EQUATION FORMULA for fighting."

My expression is the only one that actually shows in its base technique the actual application of newly found alternatives to the original IDEAL or fixed technique. Allll of the other ones merely mimic the static nonsense of this first dysfunctional tech.


"p.48) EQUATION FORMULA- This is a special formula that one can follow to develop specific, practical, and logical fighting patterns. the formula allows you a more conclusive basis for negotiating your alternative actions. It reads as follows:
To give any base, whether it is a single move or a series of movements, you can (1)prefix it- add a move or moves before it; (2) suffix it- add a move or moves after it; (3) insert- add a simultaneous move with, the already established sequence (this move can be used as a (a) pinning check- using pressure against an opponent's weapons to nullify their delivery, or (b) positioned check- where you place the hand or leg in a defensive position or angle to minimize entry to your vital areas; (4) rearrange- change the sequence of the moves, (5) alter the- (a) weapon, (b) target, (c) both weapon and target; (6) adjust the- (a) range, (b) angle of execution (which affects the width and height), (c) both angle of execution and range; (7) regulate the- (a) speed, (b) force, (c) both speed and force, (d) intent and speed; and (8) delete- exclude a move or moves from the sequence."

The culmination of the Ideal Phase Analytical Process is the above. As all of you noted, my expression looks radically different than the tech that you're used to seeing. Yeeep. Cuz mine WORKS and I'm actually doing The Ideal Phase analytical process in its entirety. Precisely as defined step by step...and not misapplied or misunderstood.

You guys are used to accepting a dysfunctional tech, and you're used to crediting what is essentially a bankrupt idea...i.e. the Ideal TECHNIQUE. There is no one way to do the Sword and Hammer Ideal Phase tech, but all the Ideal Phase methods require the defense to be subjected to the whole Ideal Phase Analytical Process to EVEN QUALIFY for consideration as an Ideal Phase Analytical technique. What you guys keep calling thee IP is NOT qualified for such distinction.

Most essential of all? The IP tech--whichever IP you choose, however you physically articulate that tech--MUST WORK AGAINST THE FULL POWER, FULL SPEED TECH IT'S SUPPOSED TO DEFEAT. This means that whatever IP you choose? Said defense must actually be repeatedly tested against resistance...or else you can't take a common street attack, enact that attack live or with any sort of honest and truthful energy in class, and then select techs that will reliably thwart it. Which is the basic premise of any and all self-defense. You know...reliably defending your self against attacks.


Now, I'm not the only one that has multiple options drawn from the natural and expected counters to counters that the BG is likely to pull off. The Tracy's had it built into their system since prior to my birth. It's my understanding that Mr.Parker loooong had them built into his personal system. Boxers, MMA, JKDU, SBG and maaaany other guys and gals have it. In Capoeira, Mestre Bimba's secuencias fill this function rather well. Etc etc.

Please reflect upon the above.

AMANI..."peace"....

--

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

"THE FIGHT YOU ALWAYS WIN IS THE FIGHT YOU'RE NOT IN"

"YOU MUST LEARN TO HEAL IF YOU'VE LEARNED TO DESTROY"

"AVOID TROUBLE,BUT IF TROUBLE IS UNAVOIDABLE? PUT TROUBLE IN TROUBLE"

My detractors have no place to turn factually. All of you in the silent majority watching this thread? Behold the words of Mr. Parker affirming my position and atomically annihilating the position of my detractors.

The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique Process...is a PROCESS. It's NOT a technique. Like I've been telling you guys over and over again for 23 pages now. The above quote is located on page 6 of this thread. My detractors have been ignoring this quote in their near rabid attempt to prove me wrong for over 17 pages on this thread alone. If they were actually objectively pursuing truth and engaging in a discussion purely for factual merit? Then this thread would have halted long ago. All of the requisite info had long been displayed.

But no. Here they go making the same arguments over and over again as if there is any merit whatsoever in their positions.

Their most recent arguments dealt with the multiple variants and difference in my tech's expression as opposed to theirs. One of my good friends actually referenced the outstanding teacher Mr. Sumner and the Tracys as part of his argument. I then replied with evidence drawn from The Tracys themselves that YES my version not only doesn't have to look like theirs but has been sanctioned by Professor Chow [ Mr. Parker's teacher] Sensei Oshita [ Mr. Parker's other teacher, a female karate master ] Mr. Parker aaaand the Tracys visavis The 50 Ways to Sunday practicing method. Something I've been saying for nearly a year now.

So we have proof that the model my detractors champion is NOT and NEVER COULD BE a definitive combat model. It came about as a loose guideline that was meant to help instructors craft THEIR OWN Ideals, not create an inflexible expression for all of Kenpo as a whole to slavishly copy and emulate. This info comes from Mr. Parker's own quotes while defining The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique PROCESS and from all of the above Kenpo Elders including Doc Chapel...the ranking Kenpo Elder on this site.

Pish tosh, says our non-Kenpo friend Chris Parker and all those who agree with him.

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 If’s” in Ed Parker's Kenpo Karate?...


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...

We have proof on the preceding page [ lifted from their own site, with links to boot ] from the Tracys that my method has been enshrined since prior to the birth of nearly everyone on this site.

Hogwash, says our non-Kenpo friend Chris Parker and all those who agree with him.

Except they're wrong...again...as they have been every step of the way. Observe.

http://www.kenpokarate.com/


I then point out that I can do my Sword and Hammer on the ground exactly as I do it standing up.

IMPOSSIBLE, cry my detractors.


I've already done it, I reply. Observe the proof:

[video=youtube_share;OgiiyO05OL4]http://youtu.be/OgiiyO05OL4[/video]

Then my detractors go back to crying that what I did isn't Sword and Hammer because it doesn't look like the version they know...completely ignoring the fact that they version that they champion isn't Sword and Hammer and never was. It was just a guideline so that their instructors would make THEIR OWN Sword and Hammer, and most Kenpo instructors dropped the ball in this area. The fact that I have NOT dropped the ball should be cause for CONGRATULATIONS...not recrimination, my martial brethren.

You know...if you have a guy who can make a specific shot vs the bad guys no matter what position he's in? They'd say he's a helluva pistolero. If you have a boxer that can jab the crab out of you no matter where he is and no matter what you do? They'd say that guy has one helluva jab. But if you have a Sword and Hammer and can do it pretty much no matter what...some people will say that you aren't doing Sword and Hammer.

I say to them that they don't know what Sword and Hammer is. And they don't grasp the works of the masters on this matter. And bottom line? That's their right NOT to do so...even if they're absolutely sold on the idea that they're right [despite the writings of Ed Parker, The Tracys, and the ranking Kenpo Elder on this site squarely repudiating them ]. Because...bottom line? My tech works. The science, the experience, the skill, all the laudable things that my detractors claim is absent from this tech are actually there in hugely copious amounts. It satisfies every possible definition of The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique as written by Mr. Parker. It is solidly in lockstep with the Tracys and Doc's writings on the matter. It is undoubtedly Kenpo and high quality Kenpo at that.

Is it EPAK? NO. First...EPAK came about as a business acronym after Mr. Parker's passing. Secondly, if your teacher and your EPAK conflates The Big Red loose guideline with THEE IDEAL PHASE TECHNIQUE AND STANDARD even though Mr. Parker squarely repudiated such an assessment and flatly denied ever wanting such a thing? Then not only am I glad to NOT be the kind of EPAK that promotes that kind of thing...I'm wondering why anyone would want to do so.

If you don't study Kenpo, you don't have a horse in this race [ unless you just dislike me ] and you likely don't know what you're talking about...and you'll expose yourself with your own posts. If you don't study Kenpo and you want to know the actual history behind the confusing stuff in Kenpo? This thread has provided you concrete illuminating data on the subject; you and your confused Kenpo cousins need only the character to accept the words of the Masters on this matter and see that these Masters know whereof they speak.

Where any of the foregoing conflicts with the words of the Masters? They are wrong. Wherein any of the foregoing accuse The ATACX GYM of not doing Sword and Hammer? They are wrong. The data is incontrovertible, conclusive, direct, inarguable, empirical, and final.

Now. Do what I did [ yes, I was wrong too. Not about The Ideal Phase Analytical Process, but I didn't know the history of Big Red, and never heard of Big Red OR Motion Kenpo until Doc schooled me ] and show the character to realign incorrect positions with the immutable truth of the matter as presented by the Masters themselves. Then go out and practice your martial arts. Find your own truth.

When you do? You won't be writing 24 and 25 page threads. You'll be on the mat. Like me.

 

[Twin Fist]

But I have yet to see him call anyone here an ignorant, immature child.

thats cuz no one but ras is acting like a spoiled ignorant immature child.

Look, when you have to brag? you look like an ***

when you ignore anything anyone says, you look like an ***

when you have to repost the same old **** 17 times, you look like a retarded ***.

when you claim to have "atomicly anihilated" anyone that disagrees with you, yeah, you look like an immature child.

No one will "accept his position" because 1) he's wrong, about pretty much everything he says 2) everyone has TRIED to meet him in the middle and he is like a ****ing 5 year old going "nanner nanner boo boo, i cant hear you" and repeting the same **** over and over and over

hell rob, read back I TOLD HIM HIS TECHNIQUE, WHILE NOT SWORD AND HAMMER WAS A VIABLE TECHNIQUE AND HE STILL TOLD ME I WAS WRONG

he is a friggin child stuck on stupid. He is arguing just to argue, and your championing him makes me wonder about you.

you cannot claim, at the same time that your technique is different AND better than an original that you TOTALLY CHANGE EVERYTHING ABOUT

 

[ATACX GYM]

I'll grant you the dooficity comment. I must have missed that. I've seen him refer to the material as craptastic, but must have missed him saying the instructors were. If he did I'll grant you that too. No need to copy paste it, I'll take you at your word. And as such, I'll say that I don't think that's very classy of him either. I did see him once say that anyone teaching the IP as real self defense is a fraud and a liar and should fling themselves off a cliff, and I called him on it. I won't defend him unconditionally. But I don't think that that sort of approach, from anyone, furthers the discussion. I disagree with you about his evidence though. In the course of this debate I haven't seen a refutation of his understanding of Doc's quotes, or the article he posted from the Tracy system, or his actual mechanics beyond "too many moves" and "you're doing it wrong." Ras champions his position because he genuinely believes in it. Simply telling him he's wrong has no more argumentative value than him telling you he's right.


-Rob

I have indeed said that people who teach the IP as a combat model that is workable yet they haven't fought with it themselves and aren't requiring their students to stress test these techs on the mat are betraying their art and the trust of the public, and WHEN innocent students get hurt because of such? They should throw themselves off of a cliff. I admit it.

Guess what else I did? The moment that Doc presented me with the data that I presented you guys with...the Big Red, the Motion Kenpo, etc etc...I did a 180 and changed alot of what I said. I repeatedly and freely acknowledge that some of what I previously thought was incorrect and I've changed my tune permanently in that area. I have zero problem with that. Know why?

My ego isn't so invested in my opinion that I can't see concrete evidence for what it is. I'd rather be in solid alignment with the truth and the facts than "win" any "I'm right-you're wrong" shouting match or flame war.

My detractors categorically lack this virtue. They have been presented with facts inarguable and irrefutable regarding the paucity of facts of each and every one of their positions. Yet they still champion their positions. Their every argument...every single one...has been denuded of salient and accurate fact, and yet they carry on as if it hasn't.

Thus far, I have proven myself to have the character to change my opinion when I'm confronted with FACTS showing that my position is incorrect. Thus far, my detractors have shown themselves to lack character of similar quality.

 

[Twin Fist]

oh, i just saw that he posted his same old tired as **** crap AGAIN

18 times and counting.

this is a friggin joke

 

[ATACX GYM]

I do many of those same things in training the material with my own students, but I still begin with the same seed. You began with more or less the same seed that I did, but through the growth process you evolved away from the original technique, and now you begin your students with a very different seed than you started with. I know you feel that by changing the base technique your students benefit from the process you've gone through. But do you deny them the chance to go through the same process themselves? By changing the seed, you change the tree you are growing. Nothing inherently wrong with that in a vacuum, but do you think they lose anything by starting in a different place and growing in a different direction? Or do you see it as pure profit?


-Rob

One of the constant areas that I have to remind my detractors about is that my method doesn't neglect the situation that they champion, it ENCOMPASSES it and EXPANDS upon it. And this too is in Mr. Parker's writings. Anyone who spars with the techs will see this right away. The people who don't will insist that if it's not their static antiseptic noncombat model that was never supposed to be Sword and Hammer, then by necessity it cannot be Sword and Hammer. They have already fully subscribed to a zealous, sycophantic mindset which prevents them from acknowledging the obvious...and impairs their martial journey accordingly, imho.

For instance, they can't recognize Sword and Hammer in this video:

[video=youtube_share;VgPcYRVKmuM]http://youtu.be/VgPcYRVKmuM[/video]

 

[Thesemindz]

Hmmm, trying to buy my vote by posting my videos against me huh? Suck up.


-Rob

 

[ATACX GYM]

I thought you were training for some kind of reality, Ras... the idea of the bad guy having so much experience at fighting you that they figure out defences to your counters is just plain unrealistic, you realise. The most important thing in the techniques is learning (and ingraining) the strategies and tactics, not exact mechanical responses that always go to plan. And you were 8 and being tackled by "football guys", and this is why you think that the techniques don't work?



Here's possibly the crux of an answer you've been unable to give so far... why would you still need to preserve the use of a handsword and hammerfist? I'm genuinely asking, by the way, I want to hear why you think you need to keep those in your response.



Honestly, Ras, this sums up the issues I see in your approach. It was formed when you were a child, and had no real way of understanding what it was really about. And you've stuck with that, which comes through in many ways.

There are those who might look at how my detractors' arguments are wholly, entirely and squarely repudiated at every turn by the founder of Kenpo Karate and Kenpo's more senior practitioners, then hypothesize that a 8 year old child grasped applied and performed Sword and Hammer better than my poorly informed detractors do as grown men and full on adults. They would be correct.


Furthermore, in the streets that I come from? Plenty of BGs have plenty plenty plenty of fighting experience and training. It is a fatal assumption to assume otherwise. In fact, fighting knowledge--as in genuine training in boxing, football, penitentiary style infighting and ambushes, etc--is so common amongst the BGs in the hoods that I come from and maaaannnny other hoods in the USA? Assuming that they DON'T know is a potentially fatal mistake. There are plenty of Kimbo Slices out there...with football experience, penitentiary experience, guns knives and homeboyz. These are the professional and experienced BGs who make names for themselves in various gangs or just in their own tightly knit klikk and they will zero on you as a target. Sometimes for no reason.

Wherever you live? I'm glad that you may not have to face that and that it's not part of your reality. It's part of mine. It's part of my childhood. It's very very realistic for me and mine. You're blessed that it's not the case for you.

As for why I keep the handsword and hammerfirst? Answered on page 5 or 6 of this thread, post #65 I believe...

Here is a significant part of the reasoning and personal experiences that informed my personal expression of THE ATACX GYM SWORD AND HAMMER, taken from my post on KenpoTalk.com a long time ago.



"

Re: Atacx gym sword and hammer pt. 2 w/choke (r.d.l.)

Originally Posted by jdinca
It looked like you were stretching to make sure you had a hammer and sword in there.

I like the escape though.




That's a reasonable supposition right there,man.But I wasn't stretching to keep the S&H in there.When I first started testing this against escalating resistance? I first looked to see if a S&H was needed,and what benefits arose from using specifically the handsword and hammerfist in that tech.I wasn't keeping the tech in there just to keep it.The first logical place for the insertion of the S&H came in the transition escape from the tie up (in this case,it started with a shoulder grab but I had the grip migrate all over the place and tested it against taller people,shorter folks,strikers,grapplers,armed folks,etc etc.Taller guys grabbed me by the nape of the neck and other "anatomical handles" that were more presentable to them due to their height; wrestlers and football players would hammer then shoot and/or tie up and shoot,judoka would add judo throws and locks to what the wrestlers did,streetfighters would punch punch and then tie up for street fighters/untrained folks the grip leading to the classical S&H counter would happen in the midst of a flurry Hockey punch style,strikers would strike no matter what,etc etc etc).No matter who the attacker was,after you pivoted to the outside of his gripping arm,a hammerfist to the outside of the forearm of their gripping hand produced the best chance of making him release...whether you're a short girl or studly lion...and secondarily? The hammerfist action had the best results regarding compounding a painful strike with a disarm and displacement of the opponent.I married the hammerfist with the motion of our outward block,and deliberately slammed my forearm as hard as I could into the area between the backside of my opponent's abductor pollicis longus and his flexor pollicis longus (been YEEEAAARRRSS since I wrote that word down and it wasn't in my college papers or my old skool martial arts training and idea notebooks) which is a fancy way of saying a specific strip of area between his wrist and elbow.I found that not only did this work well even against quite strong taller athletic people like my friend Khai when they grabbed me full force,but I also found that my shorter students and especially my female students tended to strike higher up on the limb grasping them--closer to the wrist with the hammerfist+outside whipping forearm shiver of a block,lower on the tricep muscle group due to their shorter limbs and stature--so they could access these points between wrist and elbow better than pretty much any other targeted spot that one can easily counterattack under those circumstances.

At first I almost eliminated the handsword from this tech.I almost called it THE HAMMER AND SALUTE,because at first I was using the palm strike against the area between the elbow and the tricep.It did a good job of propelling the offending grasping limb away from me and my students,plus I noted that it had the added advantage of turning our opponent's back more toward us.Which I loved.Thought airythang was gravy...until I noted that the body alignment necessary to put real juice in a palm heel strike took away from the body alignment needed to put real juice in a forearm shiver of a outside block.At first I was letting that ride too...until one day in class,Sheree got her hair caught while she was turning and whipping out the block+palm heel.Her sparring partner released his grip on her shoulder,but NOT her hair.He wound up yanking her noggin,her neck and the rest of her body followed,and she got whooped on.Then something similar happened to DeMarcus.So I really sat down and went over the specific options available; with my first action being to go right back to the source material.I immediately applied the handsword to the tricep region,and I discovered that when you put actual stank funk on that handsword along with the forearm shiver of a outside block? Not only did the body mechanics align themselves in such a way so that each tech synergistically amped the power of the other, the handsword to the tricep really weakens the grip ( even if you do the tech wrong ) and more likely than not the handsword to the tricep MAKES THE GRIPPING HAND SPASM OPEN. You WILL escape almost anyone's grip. Not even kidding. Try it out yourself. Extend your left arm straight out from your shoulder like you're punching the wall or the air or about to make the universal stiff arm+open palm sign for "STOP". Then form a tight fist...in fact? You can squeeze a tennis ball or racquetball as hard as you can to make the point crystal clear. Then take your right hand and pop your lower tricep with a half power ridgehand. IMMEDIATELY you'll feel the power of your grip on the ball or your tight fist weaken,and you'll feel that tingle run down from your tricep to your left pinkie. And you did allat with just a wakk ridgehand from absolutely super wakk body alignment,no torque,no breath,no follow through,no Directional Harmony. If you threw a genuine stank funk nasty handsword in conjunction with the whipping outside block of a forearm shiver with proper body alignment which also capitalized upon the kinetic energy of both you AND your opponent? THE HAMMER AND SWORD WILL END THE THROWDOWN 90% OF THE TIME. It not only propels the BG away and takes his grabbing arm away from him, not only does his brain recognize that shock and responds to the trauma in a specific predictable way which always delays your opponent's response, guys....since his grabbing arm is now toast...there is an open lane to handswording or backfisting his throat if he's still within arm reach. And you will note that I do exactly that along with applying the hammerfist. The placement of the hammerfist in my varinat is ALSO VERY DELIBERATE in every regard, with knowledge of the human anatomy dictating tech placement. I'm hitting specific targets which my studies,my experience and my student's studies and experience shows has been most sanguine to the execution of this tech in the various situations that we apply it and test it in.

Have you tried to execute Sword and Hammer AFTER you've been smacked face first into a wall and WHILE the BG is STILL PINNING YOU THERE? I have...it's part of our training process. I'd been doing it for YEARS before the ONE TIME I ever had to do it live in the field (working a special security detail at the Queen Mary circa 2006). But because I knew how to do it and insisted that my students do it too and get good at it? DeRon used it to stop himself from getting knifed after he was mugged,and L.T. taught her daughter after I taught her and that knowledge prevented her daughter from being kidnapped by some sicko who'd grabbed her backpack during an attempt to kidnap her. I've done my variant of Sword and Hammer in many situations during practice and have tested it even from The Rubber Guard and even after having to come up from the ground during multifight training (and a live multifight with weapons during the same Queen Mary incident previously referred to) entering and exiting rolls/falls,etc.

So yeah it MIGHT appear that I'm forcing the S&H,but I'm not. Thanks for the comment!!​

Last edited by ATACX GYM; 4 Weeks Ago at 06:30 PM.​

http://www.youtube.com/user/ATACXGYM?feature=mhum

IT'S NOT JUST WHAT YOU KNOW,IT'S HOW YOU TRAIN

THE FIGHT YOU ALWAYS WIN IS THE FIGHT YOU'RE NOT IN

AVOID TROUBLE;BUT IF TROUBLE IS UNAVOIDABLE? PUT TROUBLE IN TROUBLE"
​

 

[ATACX GYM]

Hmmm, trying to buy my vote by posting my videos against me huh? Suck up.


-Rob

:ultracool

 

[Flying Crane]

Their most recent arguments dealt with the multiple variants and difference in my tech's expression as opposed to theirs. One of my good friends actually referenced the outstanding teacher Mr. Sumner and the Tracys as part of his argument. I then replied with evidence drawn from The Tracys themselves that YES my version not only doesn't have to look like theirs but has been sanctioned by Professor Chow [ Mr. Parker's teacher] Sensei Oshita [ Mr. Parker's other teacher, a female karate master ] Mr. Parker aaaand the Tracys visavis The 50 Ways to Sunday practicing method. Something I've been saying for nearly a year now.

I've gotta assume you are referring to me with regard to this, and if so I thank you. I actually do enjoy your input, even tho I fundamentally disagree with a lot of what you are presenting. But that doesn't matter.

Regarding Ted Sumner, my intent in bringing up his name was simply pointing out another kenpoist who has been in the game for essentially as long as Doc has, and there are others yet who have been in it for even longer. I am not implying that I have some hidden information regarding the very earliest days with Mr. Parker. I'll state flatly that I do not. I was only saying that while Doc presents the history as he lived it, what happened prior to his entry on the scene may have been different. Doc's reality may be factual with regard to when he came on board, but what happed before then may have been different.

With that in mind, the fact that Tracy's technique Attacking Circle is virtually identical to the commonly seen Sword and Hammer, sort of suggests that at least at one time there may have been a stronger standardization of the techs that Mr. Parker was doing. He may have changed his mind about that by the time Doc joined him, but that is a different matter. So to say that the techs were NEVER meant to be standardized, or whatever, just may not be quite accurate. It may be accurate with regard to Doc's experience. But it may not have been an accurate statement with regard to Mr. Parker's entire history of teaching his methods.

Again, I'm pretty much speculating from evidence that I see. I'm not speaking with any sort of hidden knowledge, or secrets that anybody had told me.

Just wanted to clarify the intention of what I was trying to say.

 

[Twin Fist]

i told him that too FC

ignored, just like everything else

 

[ATACX GYM]

I've gotta assume you are referring to me with regard to this, and if so I thank you. I actually do enjoy your input, even tho I fundamentally disagree with a lot of what you are presenting. But that doesn't matter.

Regarding Ted Sumner, my intent in bringing up his name was simply pointing out another kenpoist who has been in the game for essentially as long as Doc has, and there are others yet who have been in it for even longer. I am not implying that I have some hidden information regarding the very earliest days with Mr. Parker. I'll state flatly that I do not. I was only saying that while Doc presents the history as he lived it, what happened prior to his entry on the scene may have been different. Doc's reality may be factual with regard to when he came on board, but what happed before then may have been different.

With that in mind, the fact that Tracy's technique Attacking Circle is virtually identical to the commonly seen Sword and Hammer, sort of suggests that at least at one time there may have been a stronger standardization of the techs that Mr. Parker was doing. He may have changed his mind about that by the time Doc joined him, but that is a different matter. So to say that the techs were NEVER meant to be standardized, or whatever, just may not be quite accurate. It may be accurate with regard to Doc's experience. But it may not have been an accurate statement with regard to Mr. Parker's entire history of teaching his methods.

Again, I'm pretty much speculating from evidence that I see. I'm not speaking with any sort of hidden knowledge, or secrets that anybody had told me.

Just wanted to clarify the intention of what I was trying to say.

Oh I understood you from word 1, my friend, and if there has been confusion? The fault is mine...I apparently wasn't clear enough. I shall endeavor to choose words that better convey my meaning next time.