OP
OP
ATACX GYM
2nd Black Belt
Who agrees with this position? Anyone who agrees...please THANK Chris for this comment. This way I know who to respond to. Thank u.
Sword and hammer pt. 1 and 2
- Thread starter ATACX GYM
- Start date
Who agrees with this position? Anyone who agrees...please THANK Chris for this comment. This way I know who to respond to. Thank u.
Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
I think Chris has a valid point, particularly with regard to the fact that you made a comparison between a "standard" S&H and your own S&H, which is so different as to be unrecongnizable as the same. Personally, if you want to talk about S&H, I find that issue legitimately problematic.
Regarding the other issues around the structure of the techs, the lessons they are designed to impart, tactical lessons, etc., well I honestly cannot comment because to be truthful that is one big issue I struggled with in kenpo, and a big reason why I ultimately concluded that the method is not a good fit for me. I could not identify principles, lessons, nor tactical lessons in the techs. To me, they didn't exist, or they were not made clear to me. Maybe I was a poor student and simply failed to grasp these lessons, but I didn't see them in the techniques, from my own training and the instruction that I received. When I would attempt to initiate a discussion online about these issues, people were largely unresponsive, or seemed unable to answer these questions. I didn't get a clear notion that other people knew what they were, yet everyone spoke vaguely about their existence.
in my other training, those issues did not exist, so that was the route I chose.
Ras, would you please list out the principles contained in S&H, the tactical lessons, the structure of the tech., etc? Just what lessons do you feel the tech holds, other than, "here is something you can do if the bad guy comes at you like this..." What deeper or larger lessons would you intend for a student to get from this technique?
Furthermore, could you tell me, in your kenpo, do you have any fundamental and interconnecting principles that drive your entire system? Do you have a fundamental method for giving power to your techniques? What is it about your method that you feel ties it together and makes it rightfully a "system", vs. being a ragtag collection of ideas?
Twin Fist
Grandmaster
two different attacks, means apples and oranges, yet you insist on making the retarded claim that your apple is a better apple than the orange is.
duh
here is a quick experiment.
what would YOU do for a grab from the flank
not a push with a punch
a grab from the flank
show us THAT video
duh
here is a quick experiment.
what would YOU do for a grab from the flank
not a push with a punch
a grab from the flank
show us THAT video
OP
OP
ATACX GYM
2nd Black Belt
Not only can I answer all of these questions, I will direct you to the definitive source for answers on this matter when you ask questions beyond what I answer in my own ATACX GYM. The matter is very simple and I'm very very surprised that you didn't find the answer IMMEDIATELY as the answers predates our birth and became public knowledge and public record nearly 3 decades ago.
Is there anyone else who agrees even partially with Chris Parker?
OP
OP
ATACX GYM
2nd Black Belt
If some random person grabbed me from the flank and didn't menace me in any other way and I wasn't in some narrow area like the edge of a sidewalk, I'd Cover and Turn--allowing me to assess if they are genuinely aggressing against me or doing something else. I wouldn't even need to deploy the Sword and Hammer against their arm. Since they're not pulling or pushing, this is a static movement and my training allows me to automatically turn in my preferred direction...toward the outside of their arm. How would I know where the outside of their arm is? If they grabbed me directly from the flank, I can see them and I'd simply turn the other way. IF I can't see them? I simply feel the direction and position of their grab and pivot accordingly. You turn AWAY from their thumb. You can feel their thumb grippin you whether they're in the monkey grip or traditional one hand hammer grip.
And whaddya know...that's in every single video I've shown.
Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
No I want to see it expressed in your own words. Not video, not pointing to something that Mr. Parker or the Tracys wrote decades ago. I would like to see you express these ideas succintly, in your own words, in writing.
Quoting someone else does not tell me that you understand it. It only tells me you can redirect an inquiry to someone else.
Posting video is no good to me since I'm usually at work when I'm on the forum, and video is blocked. I often do not have time at home to go back and watch videos.
Twin Fist
Grandmaster
a fundamental lack of understanding of the attack and the proper responses.
it isnt a static attack, it is a grab as a prelude to an incomming punch
chris was right
it isnt a static attack, it is a grab as a prelude to an incomming punch
chris was right
OP
OP
ATACX GYM
2nd Black Belt
Err on the side of protection but not unprovoked attack. The Cover and Spin protects you and dislodges his hold,and allows you that moment of time to assess the situation and determine his true motives. If he wasn't being threatening or adversarial, he'd just go something like:"Whoa." and you can explain yourself and he can explain himself. No harm no foul. If he's a BG? The Cover and Spin protects you, dislodges the hold, and allows you that moment of assessment to determine his intentions that is vital in this kind of situation...and you can proceed with the butt whoopin he deserves.
Chris Parker
Grandmaster
Ras, you have a tendancy to use a lot of words to say very little. But, for fun, let's pull apart what you've put down this time. This ain't gonna be a short one....
Well, the post wasn't directed at you, but go for it.
Er, did you read that through before posting it? You've basically said that you apologize for insulting me, then immediately go ahead and repeat the insult, albeit in the form of an implied prediction of my response. Nice.
Ras, you have yet to actually address my points from page one, let alone provide anything that "repudiates" it. The simple fact that my major issue is that you don't seem to understand the way martial techniques are structured is shown in your inability to actually address that point.. but I'm going to challenge your interpretation of the very evidence you've provided in a moment, just to try to guide you to what has been said for now 25 pages.
Actually, from reading the words that you've provided, and seeing the way you have interpreted them, I'd say you're making a few leaps and are trying to use them to justify your approach, rather than actually following the essence of what is being said.
I don't have to be a Kenpo guy to be able to understand the structure of techniques and martial arts, Ras. Nor to look at what you're doing and say what the issues are with it. Can I discuss how well it suits Kenpo principles? No, but I'm not doing that. My practice of Kenpo or not isn't an issue... and doesn't change the criticisms and arguments that I've been making.
You use a childish vocabulary, refuse to listen to anyone, and speak with a self centred delusion of grandeur (we'll cover this in a moment), so, no Ras. It is you.
This is what I'm referring to, Ras. Your worldview has you with detractors, fans, silent majorities who remarkably agree with you, and constantly "destroy/annihilate/crush" with your arguments... except that you don't. The only thing you actually do is put down a lot of words, nothing you have ever posted has definitively proven anything, it's been opinion at best, and rather flawed in more than a few occasions.
Ras, the idea of "me against the world" that you're putting forth is frankly born from a desire to be a childish fantasy... you're the only one who's "right", all those who disagree with you are your "detractors" (a diplomatic term for opponent, or enemy, really), if you say something in support of yourself then that "destroys" the opposition (whether it does or not... most of the time, it's fairly lacking to be honest), and so on. You're on an online forum, you don't have detractors, you have people who are engaged in a discussion or argument. You aren't the lone righteous warrior leading the rest of the community out of the darkness of ignorance, you're a guy who has a particular approach, and doesn't have the depth of understanding to even grasp the argument put to you. You really aren't that important, or that good. Again, grow up. This is the immaturity you're displaying.
Well, let's look at that, shall we? Looking at the "standard" form of Sword and Hammer as the Ideal Phase version, we'll go back to the definition you gave for it:
Leaving off your insistence on praising yourself (in the "What If" Phase, interjecting things like "sounds a lot like what you've accomplished Ras"... from yourself... and you wonder why we think you're arrogant), you're rather off in your entire interpretation of things. Your take on what the phase (and specifically the standard form of Sword and Hammer) should be misses each point along the way. Your take on what you consider flaws in the original form are downright incorrect. For example you are claiming that the standard form doesn't address the power put into the grab... uh, yes it does, Ras. That's that covering grab for physical and psychological control, you know, the one you don't have because you don't get what it's for. But the big thing is that you seem to be reading this as "choose an attack, and then do whatever you think could work"... which is not the way I'd interpret the entire process.
Instead, I would posit that the process starts with the standard form (in this case, of course, Sword and Hammer), which provides a framework, strategically and tactically, for handling a form of attack or assault. In this case (the Ideal Phase), the technique is studied as it is, without variation in order to understand the tactics and strategies it is representing. From there, you move onto the "What If" Phase, in which you look at contingencies and fail-safes. You then return to the original, and use the deeper knowledge and insight gained from the "What If" Phase to go back and improve the original form, ensuring that there is a greater chance for success. Finally, you get to the "Equation Formula", which gives you a set of basic options to adapt and find your own expression... but the key is that the basic technique, in terms of strategies and tactics, is still there.
What you have done, though, is to take the original, decide the attack isn't something you think would happen, change that completely, and then throw away every aspect of the strategies and tactics that Sword and Hammer was teaching you in the first place. That is not following the criteria you set out, it's deciding that you know more than the technique is teaching... not dissimilar to deciding that an algebra class should be teaching calculus, as you think it's a better form of mathematics.
I'm sorry, what? We're making the same argument over and over again? You have yet to address the first ones, for one thing, but seriously, you've posted the same thing (often just copying and pasting over and over again), with the same videos consistently throughout the thread!
Uh, if we're just making the same arguments over and over again, how can we be then having "their most recent arguments"?
But to the point, the idea of "50 Ways to Sunday" is not that you just abandon the actual lessons of the technique, it's that you garner the ability to adapt and apply the technique (specifically it's tactics) to a much wider variety of situations, angles, circumstances etc. And that's not what you're doing by ignoring the basic premises of the technique in lieu of what you think is more realistic, which realistically is actually just a completely different animal altogether.
No, we don't have proof, we have your interpretation of what you think was meant, which involves you either ignoring what a technique teaches, or being ignorant of it in the first place.
Actually, I hadn't addressed this aspect yet, so no, I hadn't said "pish tosh", or anything similar. This attempt to paint my words is rather desperate, wouldn't you say?
Seriously, Ras, get over yourself. What was said was that there aren't any techniques that suit all circumstances, not that you can't do your own technique and adapt it to the ground. Additionally, the page you linked I read as supporting our contention that you stay true to the technique, which you haven't done. It states that the approach of "What If" is to find answers within the technique for a range of possibilities, not to drop everything and start again from scratch.
No, it isn't a version of Sword and Hammer as you have put up as a comparison, because it isn't. It shares no common ground in any of the important ways. Coming up with your own using the base form as a guideline means that you use it as a guideline, not denigrate it and ignore it completely with some overblown sense of self importance the way you have. I mean, come on, Ras, "I should be congratulated"...? Dude. Get over yourself.
Ras, what on earth are you talking about? If someone has a killer jab, and uses that jab to great effect, sure. But if they're kicking the hell out of your legs, you don't say "wow, that's a great jab!" You are performing a technique that has even less similarity to the regular Sword and Hammer than a round kick to the thigh has to a lead jab. That's the damn point, and has been said since page one. I really can't believe you don't get that yet.
You miss every beat of Sword and Hammer, and you're saying that others don't understand the technique? You misinterpret others comments to justify your gaps in your approach, but it's other that don't understand the masters comments? And whether ot not your technique works, believe it or not, is not even what the point is. After all, a left hook works, but is that the same thing as a double-leg takedown? Why not, if they both "work"? It doesn't satisfy the simple, basic idea of it being a version of Sword and Hammer, as you presented it as being, the same way that a double-leg takedown isn't a version of a left hook to the jaw. It may be Kenpo, it may be good, it may work (I have issues with it, and can see a lot of improvement that can be made, but that's not the thrust of the argument), but it just isn't in any way a version of the technique you put it up as being.
Here's the thing, though. Even if we take the idea of Big Red being loose guidelines, those loose guidelines give the structure of the tactical approach the technique is teaching. By ignoring even that, there is no connection to the standard Sword and Hammer at all. So while there are numerous ways of performing Sword and Hammer, they should all have a range of aspects that are recognizable, a set of touchstones that identify it as Sword and Hammer, otherwise it's just a whole bunch of people making up whatever they want, despite their actual knowledge, experience, or understanding of the reality needed.
So after 25 pages you've decided that you don't want to hear from anyone who doesn't train in Kenpo, and at the same time, everyone else who does train in Kenpo is doing it wrong, so their opinions don't matter either? Wow, open minded is hardly the word...
Bluntly Ras, with my background I am far more than qualified to look at a technique, understand it, see the underlying principles, tactics, strategies, movement concepts, and more, whether I've trained in Kenpo specifically or not. You have tried to turn this into why you changed things, with appeals to authority (more often than not your own words, which is bizarre enough as it is), without once addressing what makes the technique Sword and Hammer in the first place. In other words, you have shown no ability or understanding of said underlying principles, tactics, strategies, and so on in order to actually make a different version of things. Frankly you're the less informed one here.
So if you disagree with Ras, you're wrong? End of story? Dude, get over yourself. The data is not incontrovertible (you're misinterpreting a lot), it is not conclusive (as you haven't actually addressed the thrust of the argument), it is not direct (you keep going in circles), it is not inarguable (25 pages, Ras...), empirical (you keep using that word... I don't think it means what you think it means...) or final (25 pages...).
Your argument isn't that strong.
Your way is far from the "right" way, Ras. Have you considered, even once, what has been said to you? Honestly, I doubt it... but it does beg the question as to whether or not you would be able to "show the character to realign incorrect positions" in your own approach. Again, I doubt it. You simply don't show the understanding to see it, nor the humility to actually embrace it, even temporarily.
Add up the words in this thread, Ras, then tell me who is spending more time on the thread, and who is spending more time on the mats.
Say, here's a remarkable thought... what if the Ideal Phase techniques, which are specifically structured to be repeatable and contain essential lessons within their actions, aren't really supposed to be "this is a real fight" techniques? What if they are actually ways of teaching lessons that can then be adapted to a situation as needed? So the idea of an IP technique being a "true combat" technique is a false premise you're starting with, leading you to find fault due to your own inaccurate and unrealistic expectations? This is what I mean when I say you don't understand the structure of martial art techniques, Ras. Comments such as these, which basically scream it to me.
Ooh, yeah, actually. But I'll save that from public comment.
This thread begs to differ, Ras. Strongly.
Please. "Lack this virtue"? I thought you just said your ego wasn't so invested... And you still have not addressed the very basic idea of how on earth your technique is a version of "Sword and Hammer" as you present it to us. You have not addressed what you feel is required to be found for a technique to be "Sword and Hammer". You haven't actually done anything like you claim here, you realise.
What? You've been presented with facts (hell, your own video examples) since page one, and have completely ignored what has been said! Instead, you've gone on some high crusade, arguing things that really don't have that much to do with the basic idea that your technique is not a "better" version of Sword and Hammer, as it bears no relationship to the former technique at all. You know, the point.
Seriously, enough with the "my detractors" thing, dude, you're not that important. And really? You think that your constant claims of "devastating arguments" (hardly, Ras) then means that people reading will turn around and say that, sure, an 8 year old child will understand martial technique, strategy, principle, philosophy, tactics, and so on better than adults who have spent many times the age of that child simply training in the first place? You really do have a reality disconnect, don't you? Besides, that wasn't really the point I was making. It was more about the emotional and mental development and maturity of an 8 year old.
Except, of course, that that is incredibly different to what you were saying. You were intimating that they would get used to your particular style and delivery, your rhythms and approaches, and then they'd start to develop counters to your specific techniques. That is only realistic in a sporting environment. And if you don't get that, well, there's another reality disconnect for you.
And dude, the crazy spelling, extended words etc just makes you seem like a kid writing, and makes it hard to read. You want to be treated like the rest of the grown ups? There's a start point for you.
Yes, you live in the hardest, toughest, most dangerous place in the world, got it. Still, that doesn't change the gaps in your concept.
No, you put down how you chose them for that approach, but your exact comment was "I had to find another way... while still preserving the use of the handsword and hammerfist", which carries the implication that you feel that those particular fists are part of what is required for your technique to be a version of the original Sword and Hammer. That's the point, Ras, I want to know what you feel are the necessary ingredients that make yours a version of the former, whether better or not is kinda beside the point.
One more time... What is it that makes the technique Sword and Hammer at all?
That's the question you have not been able to answer, which is why I say you don't have any real understanding of the structure of martial arts techniques.
If you can answer, answer. Don't give this run around with nothing backing it up.
Quite a few here, from the looks of things Ras....
Here's a thing, how about you respond to those who are bothering to respond in the thread?
What I'm intrigued by are your "silent majority", people who are presumably members here (they've sent you PM's you stated), but haven't entered into the thread, they haven't been putting any thanks down, they haven't contributed or supported you at all, other than in your claims.... one might think they don't really exist. On the other hand, the majority of actual contributors to the thread can see what I've been saying from the first page (that your technique bears little to no connection or resemblance to the original you're trying to contrast it with), which is something you still haven't been able to address satisfactorily, nor state why you think they're the same.
Well, the post wasn't directed at you, but go for it.
Er, did you read that through before posting it? You've basically said that you apologize for insulting me, then immediately go ahead and repeat the insult, albeit in the form of an implied prediction of my response. Nice.
Ras, you have yet to actually address my points from page one, let alone provide anything that "repudiates" it. The simple fact that my major issue is that you don't seem to understand the way martial techniques are structured is shown in your inability to actually address that point.. but I'm going to challenge your interpretation of the very evidence you've provided in a moment, just to try to guide you to what has been said for now 25 pages.
Actually, from reading the words that you've provided, and seeing the way you have interpreted them, I'd say you're making a few leaps and are trying to use them to justify your approach, rather than actually following the essence of what is being said.
I don't have to be a Kenpo guy to be able to understand the structure of techniques and martial arts, Ras. Nor to look at what you're doing and say what the issues are with it. Can I discuss how well it suits Kenpo principles? No, but I'm not doing that. My practice of Kenpo or not isn't an issue... and doesn't change the criticisms and arguments that I've been making.
You use a childish vocabulary, refuse to listen to anyone, and speak with a self centred delusion of grandeur (we'll cover this in a moment), so, no Ras. It is you.
This is what I'm referring to, Ras. Your worldview has you with detractors, fans, silent majorities who remarkably agree with you, and constantly "destroy/annihilate/crush" with your arguments... except that you don't. The only thing you actually do is put down a lot of words, nothing you have ever posted has definitively proven anything, it's been opinion at best, and rather flawed in more than a few occasions.
Ras, the idea of "me against the world" that you're putting forth is frankly born from a desire to be a childish fantasy... you're the only one who's "right", all those who disagree with you are your "detractors" (a diplomatic term for opponent, or enemy, really), if you say something in support of yourself then that "destroys" the opposition (whether it does or not... most of the time, it's fairly lacking to be honest), and so on. You're on an online forum, you don't have detractors, you have people who are engaged in a discussion or argument. You aren't the lone righteous warrior leading the rest of the community out of the darkness of ignorance, you're a guy who has a particular approach, and doesn't have the depth of understanding to even grasp the argument put to you. You really aren't that important, or that good. Again, grow up. This is the immaturity you're displaying.
Well, let's look at that, shall we? Looking at the "standard" form of Sword and Hammer as the Ideal Phase version, we'll go back to the definition you gave for it:
Leaving off your insistence on praising yourself (in the "What If" Phase, interjecting things like "sounds a lot like what you've accomplished Ras"... from yourself... and you wonder why we think you're arrogant), you're rather off in your entire interpretation of things. Your take on what the phase (and specifically the standard form of Sword and Hammer) should be misses each point along the way. Your take on what you consider flaws in the original form are downright incorrect. For example you are claiming that the standard form doesn't address the power put into the grab... uh, yes it does, Ras. That's that covering grab for physical and psychological control, you know, the one you don't have because you don't get what it's for. But the big thing is that you seem to be reading this as "choose an attack, and then do whatever you think could work"... which is not the way I'd interpret the entire process.
Instead, I would posit that the process starts with the standard form (in this case, of course, Sword and Hammer), which provides a framework, strategically and tactically, for handling a form of attack or assault. In this case (the Ideal Phase), the technique is studied as it is, without variation in order to understand the tactics and strategies it is representing. From there, you move onto the "What If" Phase, in which you look at contingencies and fail-safes. You then return to the original, and use the deeper knowledge and insight gained from the "What If" Phase to go back and improve the original form, ensuring that there is a greater chance for success. Finally, you get to the "Equation Formula", which gives you a set of basic options to adapt and find your own expression... but the key is that the basic technique, in terms of strategies and tactics, is still there.
What you have done, though, is to take the original, decide the attack isn't something you think would happen, change that completely, and then throw away every aspect of the strategies and tactics that Sword and Hammer was teaching you in the first place. That is not following the criteria you set out, it's deciding that you know more than the technique is teaching... not dissimilar to deciding that an algebra class should be teaching calculus, as you think it's a better form of mathematics.
I'm sorry, what? We're making the same argument over and over again? You have yet to address the first ones, for one thing, but seriously, you've posted the same thing (often just copying and pasting over and over again), with the same videos consistently throughout the thread!
Uh, if we're just making the same arguments over and over again, how can we be then having "their most recent arguments"?
But to the point, the idea of "50 Ways to Sunday" is not that you just abandon the actual lessons of the technique, it's that you garner the ability to adapt and apply the technique (specifically it's tactics) to a much wider variety of situations, angles, circumstances etc. And that's not what you're doing by ignoring the basic premises of the technique in lieu of what you think is more realistic, which realistically is actually just a completely different animal altogether.
No, we don't have proof, we have your interpretation of what you think was meant, which involves you either ignoring what a technique teaches, or being ignorant of it in the first place.
Actually, I hadn't addressed this aspect yet, so no, I hadn't said "pish tosh", or anything similar. This attempt to paint my words is rather desperate, wouldn't you say?
Seriously, Ras, get over yourself. What was said was that there aren't any techniques that suit all circumstances, not that you can't do your own technique and adapt it to the ground. Additionally, the page you linked I read as supporting our contention that you stay true to the technique, which you haven't done. It states that the approach of "What If" is to find answers within the technique for a range of possibilities, not to drop everything and start again from scratch.
No, it isn't a version of Sword and Hammer as you have put up as a comparison, because it isn't. It shares no common ground in any of the important ways. Coming up with your own using the base form as a guideline means that you use it as a guideline, not denigrate it and ignore it completely with some overblown sense of self importance the way you have. I mean, come on, Ras, "I should be congratulated"...? Dude. Get over yourself.
Ras, what on earth are you talking about? If someone has a killer jab, and uses that jab to great effect, sure. But if they're kicking the hell out of your legs, you don't say "wow, that's a great jab!" You are performing a technique that has even less similarity to the regular Sword and Hammer than a round kick to the thigh has to a lead jab. That's the damn point, and has been said since page one. I really can't believe you don't get that yet.
You miss every beat of Sword and Hammer, and you're saying that others don't understand the technique? You misinterpret others comments to justify your gaps in your approach, but it's other that don't understand the masters comments? And whether ot not your technique works, believe it or not, is not even what the point is. After all, a left hook works, but is that the same thing as a double-leg takedown? Why not, if they both "work"? It doesn't satisfy the simple, basic idea of it being a version of Sword and Hammer, as you presented it as being, the same way that a double-leg takedown isn't a version of a left hook to the jaw. It may be Kenpo, it may be good, it may work (I have issues with it, and can see a lot of improvement that can be made, but that's not the thrust of the argument), but it just isn't in any way a version of the technique you put it up as being.
Here's the thing, though. Even if we take the idea of Big Red being loose guidelines, those loose guidelines give the structure of the tactical approach the technique is teaching. By ignoring even that, there is no connection to the standard Sword and Hammer at all. So while there are numerous ways of performing Sword and Hammer, they should all have a range of aspects that are recognizable, a set of touchstones that identify it as Sword and Hammer, otherwise it's just a whole bunch of people making up whatever they want, despite their actual knowledge, experience, or understanding of the reality needed.
So after 25 pages you've decided that you don't want to hear from anyone who doesn't train in Kenpo, and at the same time, everyone else who does train in Kenpo is doing it wrong, so their opinions don't matter either? Wow, open minded is hardly the word...
Bluntly Ras, with my background I am far more than qualified to look at a technique, understand it, see the underlying principles, tactics, strategies, movement concepts, and more, whether I've trained in Kenpo specifically or not. You have tried to turn this into why you changed things, with appeals to authority (more often than not your own words, which is bizarre enough as it is), without once addressing what makes the technique Sword and Hammer in the first place. In other words, you have shown no ability or understanding of said underlying principles, tactics, strategies, and so on in order to actually make a different version of things. Frankly you're the less informed one here.
So if you disagree with Ras, you're wrong? End of story? Dude, get over yourself. The data is not incontrovertible (you're misinterpreting a lot), it is not conclusive (as you haven't actually addressed the thrust of the argument), it is not direct (you keep going in circles), it is not inarguable (25 pages, Ras...), empirical (you keep using that word... I don't think it means what you think it means...) or final (25 pages...).
Your argument isn't that strong.
Your way is far from the "right" way, Ras. Have you considered, even once, what has been said to you? Honestly, I doubt it... but it does beg the question as to whether or not you would be able to "show the character to realign incorrect positions" in your own approach. Again, I doubt it. You simply don't show the understanding to see it, nor the humility to actually embrace it, even temporarily.
Add up the words in this thread, Ras, then tell me who is spending more time on the thread, and who is spending more time on the mats.
Say, here's a remarkable thought... what if the Ideal Phase techniques, which are specifically structured to be repeatable and contain essential lessons within their actions, aren't really supposed to be "this is a real fight" techniques? What if they are actually ways of teaching lessons that can then be adapted to a situation as needed? So the idea of an IP technique being a "true combat" technique is a false premise you're starting with, leading you to find fault due to your own inaccurate and unrealistic expectations? This is what I mean when I say you don't understand the structure of martial art techniques, Ras. Comments such as these, which basically scream it to me.
Ooh, yeah, actually. But I'll save that from public comment.
This thread begs to differ, Ras. Strongly.
Please. "Lack this virtue"? I thought you just said your ego wasn't so invested... And you still have not addressed the very basic idea of how on earth your technique is a version of "Sword and Hammer" as you present it to us. You have not addressed what you feel is required to be found for a technique to be "Sword and Hammer". You haven't actually done anything like you claim here, you realise.
What? You've been presented with facts (hell, your own video examples) since page one, and have completely ignored what has been said! Instead, you've gone on some high crusade, arguing things that really don't have that much to do with the basic idea that your technique is not a "better" version of Sword and Hammer, as it bears no relationship to the former technique at all. You know, the point.
Seriously, enough with the "my detractors" thing, dude, you're not that important. And really? You think that your constant claims of "devastating arguments" (hardly, Ras) then means that people reading will turn around and say that, sure, an 8 year old child will understand martial technique, strategy, principle, philosophy, tactics, and so on better than adults who have spent many times the age of that child simply training in the first place? You really do have a reality disconnect, don't you? Besides, that wasn't really the point I was making. It was more about the emotional and mental development and maturity of an 8 year old.
Except, of course, that that is incredibly different to what you were saying. You were intimating that they would get used to your particular style and delivery, your rhythms and approaches, and then they'd start to develop counters to your specific techniques. That is only realistic in a sporting environment. And if you don't get that, well, there's another reality disconnect for you.
And dude, the crazy spelling, extended words etc just makes you seem like a kid writing, and makes it hard to read. You want to be treated like the rest of the grown ups? There's a start point for you.
Yes, you live in the hardest, toughest, most dangerous place in the world, got it. Still, that doesn't change the gaps in your concept.
No, you put down how you chose them for that approach, but your exact comment was "I had to find another way... while still preserving the use of the handsword and hammerfist", which carries the implication that you feel that those particular fists are part of what is required for your technique to be a version of the original Sword and Hammer. That's the point, Ras, I want to know what you feel are the necessary ingredients that make yours a version of the former, whether better or not is kinda beside the point.
One more time... What is it that makes the technique Sword and Hammer at all?
That's the question you have not been able to answer, which is why I say you don't have any real understanding of the structure of martial arts techniques.
If you can answer, answer. Don't give this run around with nothing backing it up.
Quite a few here, from the looks of things Ras....
Here's a thing, how about you respond to those who are bothering to respond in the thread?
What I'm intrigued by are your "silent majority", people who are presumably members here (they've sent you PM's you stated), but haven't entered into the thread, they haven't been putting any thanks down, they haven't contributed or supported you at all, other than in your claims.... one might think they don't really exist. On the other hand, the majority of actual contributors to the thread can see what I've been saying from the first page (that your technique bears little to no connection or resemblance to the original you're trying to contrast it with), which is something you still haven't been able to address satisfactorily, nor state why you think they're the same.
LOL! I know! Actually, its good (I think) to see some action in this area, as well as non Kenpoist points of view. Yeah, sometimes you just want to hit your head on a wall, but yes, there is some interesting debate.
Chris Parker
Grandmaster
I don't know, Mike, Ras seems to think that if you don't train in Kenpo then you shouldn't be commenting here....
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'!"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."
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.
I'm only going to comment on 2 things in this post.
1) You commented on the part of my post when I said that alot of the things are universal and chances are, despite a slight differece, I would still recognize a drill or tech from another school. So that said, I think thats the issue here....your version is very different, so much so, that its probably not recognizeable.
2) You mention the techs as non combat. So, if thats the case, I ask the following:
a) given the fact that all of these techs are taught in the vast majority of Kenpo schools, are you saying they're non functional when it comes to combat?
b) does Doc teach these techs? I can't recall if I ever got an answer to this question and I know I've asked numerous times.
c) going back to Kaju. Does each school in each respective method, have various versions of each of their techs?
d) why did Parker teach these techs if they werent functional without having to be changed at great lengths? That implies that it was a waste of time. Why have hundreds upon hundreds of techs if they're not going to work and have to be changed anyways?
e) I wonder what a die hard Kenpoist like Clyde would say about all this?
Yup, couldn't agree more Mike. And I too, am frustrated by this, thus the reason for me putting my Kenpo on the backburner, so to speak, and moving on to another pasture.
Well, this was my thinking as well. I mean, I'm not looking for the mechanical responses either..lol..I'm looking to do just what you said, learning and ingraining the strategies and tactics.
Interesting quesiton.
Chris and I have had our differences, however, I hold no annimosity towards him, nor do I think he holds any towards me.
Were I to ever find myself visiting his area, I'd love to get on the mat with him. That said, there are many things that we do agree on. IMHO, I think he's made some very good points in his postings here.Well, I've been a member here for many years and I've yet to see a rule that dictates that. Imagine how boring the forum would be as a whole, if people never posted in sections other than their own art? So, that said, by all means Chris, please continue to post...you and any other non Kenpo person is more than welcome to chime in on the debate.
Ras, remember that chat we had about the difference between verbosity and eloquence? Well, I don't think the message took hold. First I said it it in private. Now I will say it in public:
Less is more. You are obfuscating your own main points under a mountain of unnecessary fluff. Here is a simple way to have more clear, concise points: type all that you want to type, then save it to a word file instead of posting it. Then cut out HALF of the post, and focus on the salient points. Save the file, leave it alone until the next day, then open it up and cut out half of what remains. Touch up the formatting, THEN finally post it.
Because frankly (though I say this with positive regard for you), your long posts are tedious. You intend to sound insightful and informative, but you come off as pompous and abrasive.
I would not say anything, but based on our PM's, I know you can do better.
Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk
Less is more. You are obfuscating your own main points under a mountain of unnecessary fluff. Here is a simple way to have more clear, concise points: type all that you want to type, then save it to a word file instead of posting it. Then cut out HALF of the post, and focus on the salient points. Save the file, leave it alone until the next day, then open it up and cut out half of what remains. Touch up the formatting, THEN finally post it.
Because frankly (though I say this with positive regard for you), your long posts are tedious. You intend to sound insightful and informative, but you come off as pompous and abrasive.
I would not say anything, but based on our PM's, I know you can do better.
Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk
Similar threads
