Sword and hammer pt. 1 and 2

[Twin Fist]

c) going back to Kaju. Does each school in each respective method, have various versions of each of their techs?

ok, as far as kaju goes, i know this.

GM Peralta was taught the Original Method by GM Al Reyes in the 60's. Peralta changed the techniques from the way he was taught. My Sigung Burt Vickers, has changed some of the techniques from the way he was taught by GM Peralta.

an original method BB and a Gaylord method BB will NOT be doing grab art 3 the same way. And after several generations, more variations will appear

but Emperado wanted his bb's to experiment and create alternate versions, as long as they followed the kaju theory

kaju is NOT a technique centered system the way EPAK is. Kaju is a theory and movement centered system. Kaju is about how you move, not what you do. You can do ANYTHING and as long as it follows the kaju ideas, it is considered a good kaju technique.

That was Emperado's gift that Parker didnt have. Parker's BB all left to go do thier own thing, but they left the nest and never returned. Emperado's BB's all left the nest but they STAYED KAJU.

now, putting that in context with this thread, that Ras creates his own techniques is FINE

that he talks trash about everyone ELSE'S kenpo is not.

Here is the brutal truth. If you have to tell everyone how your stuff is better than that other guy's stuff?

it isnt.


if your stuff was really better? we would all be saying it FOR YOU.

Also, when you refuse to listen to anything anyone says unless they agree with you, you become a waste of time.

 

[Flying Crane]

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?

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.

I am hoping to see an answer to this before too long. As I mentioned, my inquiries into this topic in the past in the forums went largely unanswered. I am genuinely interested in seeing how you, as a kenpo guy, would answer these questions.

 

[Josh Oakley]

To piggy-back on twin fist, Flying Crane also pointed out that your fiction of "sword and hammer" is almost identical to the Tracys' Attacking Circles. This implies that not only is your technique already in the toolbox of the wider kempo family, it is also common use within certain circles. So a lot of your claims that use the term "most" would go out the window.

Now I will caveat this by saying that I am not versed in EPAK nor Tracy Kempo. But Flying Crane likely IS, and I am inclined to believe what he says about it. nd I have yet to see you address the point he made on that.

And there really is a logical imperative that you do so, because that point forces you to either refute it, or acknowledge it. If you refute it, I strongly suggest you do so clearly and concisely. If you acknowledge it, than it means you must logically accept that not only is your technique not really that new (this actually helps you more than you might think), but also that there is an established reason to change the name of your technique... Plus, it would avoid confusion when talking to other EPAK people.

You could phrase your video in terms of a technique tree. This is also not a new idea in kempo, but while you would have to give up claims of originality, you would gain a lot more credibility with the EPAK people.

I think both both Chris AND Twin Fist could get behind that idea.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk

 

[ATACX GYM]

I am hoping to see an answer to this before too long. As I mentioned, my inquiries into this topic in the past in the forums went largely unanswered. I am genuinely interested in seeing how you, as a kenpo guy, would answer these questions.

I absolutely will answer your questions...definitively, concisely, with all the appropriate personal and historical footnotes...later today or early tomorrow [ depending on my schedule ]. I have long known the answers. I have long known of Attacking Circles. I didn't know that you didn't know until you asked...but I sensed something like that might be the case. I didn't ask the question of "who agrees even remotely" with Chris Parker idly.

 

[ATACX GYM]

To piggy-back on twin fist, Flying Crane also pointed out that your fiction of "sword and hammer" is almost identical to the Tracys' Attacking Circles. This implies that not only is your technique already in the toolbox of the wider kempo family, it is also common use within certain circles. So a lot of your claims that use the term "most" would go out the window.

Now I will caveat this by saying that I am not versed in EPAK nor Tracy Kempo. But Flying Crane likely IS, and I am inclined to believe what he says about it. nd I have yet to see you address the point he made on that.

And there really is a logical imperative that you do so, because that point forces you to either refute it, or acknowledge it. If you refute it, I strongly suggest you do so clearly and concisely. If you acknowledge it, than it means you must logically accept that not only is your technique not really that new (this actually helps you more than you might think), but also that there is an established reason to change the name of your technique... Plus, it would avoid confusion when talking to other EPAK people.

You could phrase your video in terms of a technique tree. This is also not a new idea in kempo, but while you would have to give up claims of originality, you would gain a lot more credibility with the EPAK people.

I think both both Chris AND Twin Fist could get behind that idea.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk

Never fear my friend. We are of like mind on this matter...and I even broached the idea of what is essentially a technique tree awhile ago on this very thread.

 

[Josh Oakley]

...and then buried it under a lot of other information and rhetoric. A large part of why you are being read wrong is entirely your own doing. You have a tendency toward hyperbole and verbosity that undermines the ability for rational discussion.

There are other issues I have with your discussion method but those we can keep on PM's, and I have already brought them up to you.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk

 

[Flying Crane]

I absolutely will answer your questions...definitively, concisely, with all the appropriate personal and historical footnotes...later today or early tomorrow [ depending on my schedule ]. I have long known the answers. I have long known of Attacking Circles. I didn't know that you didn't know until you asked...but I sensed something like that might be the case. I didn't ask the question of "who agrees even remotely" with Chris Parker idly.

I don't want footnotes.

honestly, I think the answers to these questions ought to be pretty short. I can explain in plain language, and without using more that a couple paragraphs, these issues in the kung fu that I train. I am interested in how you as a kenpoist, from your own understanding, in your own words, would explain it.

 

[MJS]

Chris asked this earlier, and I'm interested as well:

"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."

Since it hasnt been answered yet, I'll take a stab at it. The following is just my opinion.

Mr. Parker was unique in naming the techniques....wings usually refers to arms, storm usually refers to a club tech, etc. Something like Sword and Hammer...well, the tech. I'd imagine, consists of those tools...a handsword and hammerfist strike. 5 Swords consists of just that, 5 sword hands in the tech. Now, in these techs, the sword and hammer, the 5 swords, are all in a specific fashion. I'd imagine that in order for the technique to maintain some resemblance, it'd have to have those things in it.

Ras's S&H still consists of a sword and hammer..however, its used in a different fashion than the way I do it. Is that the reason why he felt it necessary to keep those things? Don't know...he'll have to answer that. Now, if someone throws a right rroundhouse punch and I do 5 Swords, starting with the inital block (theres the first 2 handswords) but need to abandon the rest because something went south, does that mean my tech is no longer 5 swords? Probably.

To be honest, and I'll address this more when I reply to something TF said, but I think alot of the time, people get too wrapped up in the names, and the techs in general.

 

[ATACX GYM]

I don't want footnotes.

honestly, I think the answers to these questions ought to be pretty short. I can explain in plain language, and without using more that a couple paragraphs, these issues in the kung fu that I train. I am interested in how you as a kenpoist, from your own understanding, in your own words, would explain it.

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?

Chris doesn't have a valid point and can't have a valid point. There is no standard Sword and Hammer. None. There never was and there never will be. Period. Any analysis that even implies a different state of affairs is fundamentally flawed, and shows thereby that it cannot be trusted. The sooner this simple fact is grasped, the sooner we can dispense with comparing my expression to a standard which does not exist and which Mr. Parker specifically ensured does NOT exist. FC, MJS...you guys are very smart. Divest yourself of all previous erroneous information, and START with this point: there is no Standard Sword and Hammer. With that being grasped? There's no "standard" that my Gym's tech [ or anyone else's tech ] has to adhere to except the following:

a) The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique PROCESS

b) The strictures of STARTING with the the "common street attack that you wish to analyze"...but not being LIMITED to it [ the attack can morph into other attacks launched from the initial platform ]

c) employing the handsword and hammerfist [ but not being limited to ONLY the handsword and hammerfist ] and the relevant Kenpo principles in the resolution of this scenario

d) The relevant Kenpo principles are actually more deeply experienced in the functional execution of ANY expression of Sword and Hammer or any Kenpo tech. The key requirement is FUNCTIONALITY

e) Since most Kenpo schools fail to understand The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique PROCESS, they also miss out on all or most of the benefits of employing that process


Just some--not all--of the Kenpo Principles that I see in my Sword and Hammer and even some in the more common expression are:

Borrowed Reach
Anatomical Strike
Circular/Linear Plane Strikes
Collapsible Defense
Contouring
Kenpo Body Whip/Kinetic Wave
Simultaneous Strikes
Cross Checking
Point of Origin
Body Manipulation [ manipulates the body so anatomical targets present themselves ]
Obscure Zone
Marriage of Gravity
Borrowed Force
Pinning/Checking
Position Recognition
Leverage [ also present in Submission Holds and Takedowns ]
Settling
HWD Manipulation
Positional Check [ standing and on the ground ]


More coming. Gtg now.

 

[MJS]

ok, as far as kaju goes, i know this.

GM Peralta was taught the Original Method by GM Al Reyes in the 60's. Peralta changed the techniques from the way he was taught. My Sigung Burt Vickers, has changed some of the techniques from the way he was taught by GM Peralta.

an original method BB and a Gaylord method BB will NOT be doing grab art 3 the same way. And after several generations, more variations will appear

but Emperado wanted his bb's to experiment and create alternate versions, as long as they followed the kaju theory

kaju is NOT a technique centered system the way EPAK is. Kaju is a theory and movement centered system. Kaju is about how you move, not what you do. You can do ANYTHING and as long as it follows the kaju ideas, it is considered a good kaju technique.

That was Emperado's gift that Parker didnt have. Parker's BB all left to go do thier own thing, but they left the nest and never returned. Emperado's BB's all left the nest but they STAYED KAJU.

now, putting that in context with this thread, that Ras creates his own techniques is FINE

that he talks trash about everyone ELSE'S kenpo is not.

Here is the brutal truth. If you have to tell everyone how your stuff is better than that other guy's stuff?

it isnt.


if your stuff was really better? we would all be saying it FOR YOU.

Also, when you refuse to listen to anything anyone says unless they agree with you, you become a waste of time.

I agree with this, and personally, when I'd teach a class, sure, we'd review the required techs, but I'd also make it a point to tell them to not be so bound by the techs. Instead, use the things that make up the art, ie: the principles, concepts, etc, and craft your own response.

That he thinks his stuff is 10 times better, aside, do you feel that the tech in question here, his version of S&H, stays with the Kenpo ideas?

 

[ATACX GYM]

Chris asked this earlier, and I'm interested as well:

"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."

Since it hasnt been answered yet, I'll take a stab at it. The following is just my opinion.

Mr. Parker was unique in naming the techniques....wings usually refers to arms, storm usually refers to a club tech, etc. Something like Sword and Hammer...well, the tech. I'd imagine, consists of those tools...a handsword and hammerfist strike. 5 Swords consists of just that, 5 sword hands in the tech. Now, in these techs, the sword and hammer, the 5 swords, are all in a specific fashion. I'd imagine that in order for the technique to maintain some resemblance, it'd have to have those things in it.

Ras's S&H still consists of a sword and hammer..however, its used in a different fashion than the way I do it. Is that the reason why he felt it necessary to keep those things? Don't know...he'll have to answer that. Now, if someone throws a right rroundhouse punch and I do 5 Swords, starting with the inital block (theres the first 2 handswords) but need to abandon the rest because something went south, does that mean my tech is no longer 5 swords? Probably.

To be honest, and I'll address this more when I reply to something TF said, but I think alot of the time, people get too wrapped up in the names, and the techs in general.

MJS has listed several valid points. To add to this quickly? I have already answered this question at least twice before, the first time being roundabout page 5, post #65 or so, the most recent time being merely a few pages ago...observe:
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sh...d-and-hammer-pt-1-and-2&p=1466750#post1466750

The short answer? The hammerfist and handsword, applied the way that I apply it, more properly uses body mechanics to synergistically amplify the power of both strikes. Using these specific techs in combination--not others, these two specifically--in the way that I use them and to the targets that I aim at on the arm is the combo most likely to:


Be easily done by novices

deliver fight stopping power,

propel the opponent away from us

force the opponent to release his grab upon us [ anatomical/nerve strike ]


while placing us in very advantageous positions to:

escape

press the offensive against the opponent

smother the opponent's offensives

and/or negate/reduce further hostilities

 

[ATACX GYM]

I agree with this, and personally, when I'd teach a class, sure, we'd review the required techs, but I'd also make it a point to tell them to not be so bound by the techs. Instead, use the things that make up the art, ie: the principles, concepts, etc, and craft your own response.

That he thinks his stuff is 10 times better, aside, do you feel that the tech in question here, his version of S&H, stays with the Kenpo ideas?

Agreed. Principles, concepts, craft your own response...test your response against escalating resistance. functionality.

I never said everyone else's Kenpo sucks but mine. No such quote exists. I freely challenge and invite my detractors to find a quote of mine where I said such a thing. If they can't? Then they should refrain from making such claims, and all on this thread who see them say such a thing should call them to order for their false claims.

I directly contradicted anyone who claimed that there is a Sword and Hammer Ideal TECHNIQUE that we Kenpoists must slavishly adhere to, and anything that doesn't closely resemble the more popular expression of Sword and Hammer tech is perforce not Sword and Hammer. Chris Parker, Twin Fist, and others have energetically disagreed. I produced the literal definition of The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique Process from Mr. Parker, quotes from Doc Chapel and The Tracys themselves which proved resoundingly that:

1. There is no Sword and Hammer Ideal TECHNIQUE, contrary to the claims of my detractors and exactly as I stated [ and I freely admit that it was Doc Chapel who corrected me as I am correcting my detractors ]. There is ONLY the Ideal Phase Analytical Technique Process. PROCESS. It is defined as follows:

"(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..."

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sh...d-and-hammer-pt-1-and-2&p=1466741#post1466741



2. Therefore there is no mandate to copy anybody else's expression [ however popular ] in Sword and Hammer. The only constraints are the use of the handsword, hammerfist, Kenpo concepts and principles, etc. in the resolution of the specific common streetfighting scenario that is being analyzed [ starting with but not limited to, in this case, the flank grab and threatened punch ]

3. The tech that my detractors find combat value in is actually devoid of combat value as it wasn't meant to be a combat model; per Mr. Parker [ as quoted from Mr. Parker's own manuals by Doc Chapel ] these techs were merely loose guidelines to help instructors fashion THEIR OWN Sword and Hammer Ideal for ONLY THEIR OWN schools. Yes, we were all SUPPOSED TO HAVE DIFF EXPRESSIONS OF SWORD AND HAMMER

4. The mandate of training Sword and Hammer vs multiple attacks predates the birth of Motion Kenpo and EPAK; Mr. Parker himself used THE SAME DEFENSE VS MULTIPLE ATTACKS--exactly as I do--as did The Tracys. This is part of the concepts passed down to Mr. Parker by Professor Chow and Osensei Oshita, and Mr. Parker called this training method 50 Ways To Sunday. Therefore I am merely using a method that was preapproved by everyone from Mr. Chow to Mr. Parker. Apparently, that is not sufficient enough approval for my detractors. It is for me.

http://www.kenpokarate.com/

 

[Twin Fist]

I agree with this, and personally, when I'd teach a class, sure, we'd review the required techs, but I'd also make it a point to tell them to not be so bound by the techs. Instead, use the things that make up the art, ie: the principles, concepts, etc, and craft your own response.

That he thinks his stuff is 10 times better, aside, do you feel that the tech in question here, his version of S&H, stays with the Kenpo ideas?

is it kenpo? sure. it isnt "amazing kenpo" it isnt some miracle break through

but it IS a valid response to the attack presented

IMO

 

[Twin Fist]

I never said everyone else's Kenpo sucks but mine. No such quote exists.

are you ****ing serious? you are KNOWN for it

 

[ATACX GYM]

are you ****ing serious? you are KNOWN for it

Link us to the quote. Show the actual quote where I say that everyone else's kenpo sucks but mine. I mean leave a link by clicking the quote number. Should be easy to do if I am, as you claim, "...KNOWN for it." One link, one quote, will do.

I say categorically and know for a fact that such quotes DON'T and WILL NEVER exist. John, merely produce the quote and you will have made your position ironclad. If you fail to produce the quote? You have given the Fatality to every claim by you and anyone else who stated I said that everyone's kenpo sucks but mine, and you could out me as a liar to boot.

Such a quote does not exist, and never did exist...outside of the minds of my detractors.

 

[ATACX GYM]

Challenge to my critics and detractors:

1. Prove to me using Kenpo concepts, principles, definitions, etc. that my technique isn't Sword and Hammer.

2. Prove where how why and when the most common version of Sword and Hammer that you champion is even a combat model, has been approved as such by Mr. Parker, and should be the standard for all subsequent Sword and Hammers to uphold.

Failure to do either of these two simply destroys any and all validity whatsoever to any and every atom of your counterarguments.


Waiting.

 

[ATACX GYM]

is it kenpo? sure. it isnt "amazing kenpo" it isnt some miracle break through

but it IS a valid response to the attack presented

IMO

lol thanks

 

[Chris Parker]

Chris asked this earlier, and I'm interested as well:

"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."

Since it hasnt been answered yet, I'll take a stab at it. The following is just my opinion.

Mr. Parker was unique in naming the techniques....wings usually refers to arms, storm usually refers to a club tech, etc. Something like Sword and Hammer...well, the tech. I'd imagine, consists of those tools...a handsword and hammerfist strike. 5 Swords consists of just that, 5 sword hands in the tech. Now, in these techs, the sword and hammer, the 5 swords, are all in a specific fashion. I'd imagine that in order for the technique to maintain some resemblance, it'd have to have those things in it.

Ras's S&H still consists of a sword and hammer..however, its used in a different fashion than the way I do it. Is that the reason why he felt it necessary to keep those things? Don't know...he'll have to answer that. Now, if someone throws a right rroundhouse punch and I do 5 Swords, starting with the inital block (theres the first 2 handswords) but need to abandon the rest because something went south, does that mean my tech is no longer 5 swords? Probably.

To be honest, and I'll address this more when I reply to something TF said, but I think alot of the time, people get too wrapped up in the names, and the techs in general.

That's not actually what I was asking, though Mike... I understand the naming conventions, they make a lot of sense (certainly a lot more than quite a number of the naming conventions in some of my systems, ha!), what I was asking was what defines Sword and Hammer to Ras? He mentions needing to preserve the use of a handsword and hammerfist, which to me implies that he has some criteria for a technique to be Sword and Hammer in the first place, as well as using many examples of other peoples expression of the technique, which he puts up against his own.

My question is what does Ras think needs to be there for it to be Sword and Hammer? That's it. If it's just the use of swordhand and hammerfist, fine... but I think that means he misses the majority of the lessons present.

Chris doesn't have a valid point and can't have a valid point. There is no standard Sword and Hammer. None. There never was and there never will be. Period. Any analysis that even implies a different state of affairs is fundamentally flawed, and shows thereby that it cannot be trusted. The sooner this simple fact is grasped, the sooner we can dispense with comparing my expression to a standard which does not exist and which Mr. Parker specifically ensured does NOT exist. FC, MJS...you guys are very smart. Divest yourself of all previous erroneous information, and START with this point: there is no Standard Sword and Hammer. With that being grasped? There's no "standard" that my Gym's tech [ or anyone else's tech ] has to adhere to except the following:

a) The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique PROCESS

b) The strictures of STARTING with the the "common street attack that you wish to analyze"...but not being LIMITED to it [ the attack can morph into other attacks launched from the initial platform ]

c) employing the handsword and hammerfist [ but not being limited to ONLY the handsword and hammerfist ] and the relevant Kenpo principles in the resolution of this scenario

d) The relevant Kenpo principles are actually more deeply experienced in the functional execution of ANY expression of Sword and Hammer or any Kenpo tech. The key requirement is FUNCTIONALITY

e) Since most Kenpo schools fail to understand The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique PROCESS, they also miss out on all or most of the benefits of employing that process


Just some--not all--of the Kenpo Principles that I see in my Sword and Hammer and even some in the more common expression are:

Borrowed Reach
Anatomical Strike
Circular/Linear Plane Strikes
Collapsible Defense
Contouring
Kenpo Body Whip/Kinetic Wave
Simultaneous Strikes
Cross Checking
Point of Origin
Body Manipulation [ manipulates the body so anatomical targets present themselves ]
Obscure Zone
Marriage of Gravity
Borrowed Force
Pinning/Checking
Position Recognition
Leverage [ also present in Submission Holds and Takedowns ]
Settling
HWD Manipulation
Positional Check [ standing and on the ground ]


More coming. Gtg now.

Right. I've held off on saying this as long as I can, but dude, you really are either willfully ignorant of what's been said, no matter how often I've said it, or you're a complete idiot. Let's examine, shall we?

You put up three videos all showing the same basic technique (some variation, but all recognisably the same thing) as the baseline form of Sword and Hammer. Whether or not there is a "standard" form, you have demonstrated, in the first goddamn post, that there is a basic form given to Sword and Hammer (or Pin Step Chop, or whatever other name it's given), and that form has a range of standard elements that are present and consistent.

You then, inexplicably, put up a couple of videos claiming that they showed the attacks that these forms of Sword and Hammer were designed to "thwart". Except they weren't. As was immediately pointed out by myself, and seconded by others. Just because you don't get it doesn't change the simple fact that a technique designed against a grab, pull, and threatened punch is not designed against a blindside haymaker with no grab or pull. Already you've shown a lack of understanding of the very technique you're deriding.

Finally, you show a completely unrelated technique, against yet a third attacking form, ignoring every lesson of the forms that you have already used to set a baseline (in other words, used as "standard" yourself). When it is pointed out that there is no relationship between the two techniques (your Sword and Hammer, and the one you yourself presented as the baseline, or standard form), you have gone on a bizarre rant about there not being a standard (which goes against your premise in the beginning of the thread), and when asked to demonstrate why you feel yours is a version of the former versions, you have, in 27 pages, shown no indication of even understanding the question itself.

I'll put it bluntly. Your technique is Sword and Hammer for your version of Kenpo. It is not a "better" version of the one you are lambasting. It is not even a version of the one you are lambasting. That is the goddamn point.

And dude, "the sooner we can dispense with comparing my expression to a standard which does not exist"... the reason we're comparing your version with the one you presented as a baseline version is because you presented them to be compared, you compare them in your own videos, this entire thread is about comparing them! What the hell is wrong with you?!?!

By the way, what really sinks you is this:

Just some--not all--of the Kenpo Principles that I see in my Sword and Hammer and even some in the more common expression are:

Borrowed Reach
Anatomical Strike
Circular/Linear Plane Strikes
Collapsible Defense
Contouring
Kenpo Body Whip/Kinetic Wave
Simultaneous Strikes
Cross Checking
Point of Origin
Body Manipulation [ manipulates the body so anatomical targets present themselves ]
Obscure Zone
Marriage of Gravity
Borrowed Force
Pinning/Checking
Position Recognition
Leverage [ also present in Submission Holds and Takedowns ]
Settling
HWD Manipulation
Positional Check [ standing and on the ground ]

Particularly the bold.

Challenge to my critics and detractors:

1. Prove to me using Kenpo concepts, principles, definitions, etc. that my technique isn't Sword and Hammer.

2. Prove where how why and when the most common version of Sword and Hammer that you champion is even a combat model, has been approved as such by Mr. Parker, and should be the standard for all subsequent Sword and Hammers to uphold.

Failure to do either of these two simply destroys any and all validity whatsoever to any and every atom of your counterarguments.


Waiting.

You don't have detractors, you're not that important. Critics, I'll give you. Personally, I think you just don't get it. But, for the record....

1: There's no need to use Kenpo principles to prove anything, the point is that you include no aspects of the base technique you provide. Kenpo principles be damned, really, if it isn't the same technique (same or similar movement, same or similar tactics, same or similar approach, same or similar strategies), it isn't the same technique. Never has anyone said what you've come up with isn't Kenpo, what has been said is that it is so removed from the technique you want it compared to that it is no longer able to be seen as the same technique. In other words, it is not the same technique in any way, shape, or form. All you've done is keep the name.

2: A combat model? Who said it was? I even postulated a better way for you to approach it that says it isn't one. Approved by Ed Parker? How about approved in his organisation later, that would account for the name (EPAK), yeah? As far as "standard", a quick google search turned up many videos and many descriptions all of which follow the same principles, ideas, tactics, strategies, and more. So to take the term "standard" as "typical", or "common", well, just look around.

And Ras, we're not championing it, we're just saying that you don't get it, and your technique is not a version of it in the same way that a car is not a different version of a bus... or motorbike.

Failure to understand this argument simply shows you to have no clue whatsoever about the structure of techniques.

And grow up in your language, you sound like a 15 year old, full of self importance, with no sense of reality around him. I'm fed up reading it, and I feel that others are too (as they've basically said as much to you privately, and on the thread itself).

 

[Cyriacus]

I cant help but wonder if the poor Moderators are still reading this. Trying to gauge intent and effect must be hell

In any case, I think Josh was onto something with the circular nature of Ras Explanations.

 

[Josh Oakley]

I cant help but wonder if the poor Moderators are still reading this. Trying to gauge intent and effect must be hell

In any case, I think Josh was onto something with the circular nature of Ras Explanations.

Hey now. I didn't say it was circular, I said it was verbose, and that he obfuscates his points under a mountain of other information and unnecessary verbosity.

Twin Fist said it was circular.

We now return you to our normally scheduled program.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk