Sword and hammer pt. 1 and 2

[Josh Oakley]

Chris, he is going for specificity because I told him he has a tendency to talk right past the points made by people. He is doing all this clarifying and specifying so that he doesn't miss the points in the first place.

Humor him a bit. He is trying a method I suggested, which is new to him. He is actively trying to change the way he posts.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2

 

[ATACX GYM]

traditional method of sword and hammer (defense vs flank shoulder grab and punch)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ts1Qgemr11M&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oXiWESS32Q&feature=related


the actual real world attacks that the traditional method alleged IP techs like those above are supposed to defend against:

SWORD AND HAMMER PT. 1

SWORD AND HAMMER PT. 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-mmdyIHkjs&feature=related




which is teaching method--the so-called IP or THE ATACX GYM--is more appropriate for street reality? Okay commence debate discussion commenting or rude gestures...now! Lol. Hopefully all of you enjoyed all of the previous videos.

is this the post u are referring to,chris?

 

[ATACX GYM]

Ah, Ras, you're not going to like me much, but you did ask for "debate discussion commenting or rude gestures...", so...

The first thing I'm going to say is, if you're going to be basically just posting videos over and over again, can you learn how to embed the things? It's really not hard, you click on the video strip icon at the top of the post window (second from the right), and paste the URL of the video you want in the space provided in the pop-up box. Then click "OK". It'll make it a lot easier for people to watch your clips, it'll make them more likely to click on them to watch them, especially when you put 7 different clips in a single post, as most people just don't want to keep opening new windows over and over again, and can help you get the comments you are after, meaning you won't have to keep following up your own posts asking why no-one's commenting.... I get the feeling that a number of the "views" here just saw the URL links and didn't want to check out the clips themselves, hence no comments. Okay?

Right, next.

There are quite a few issues that are leaping out at me from your entire premise here. We'll begin by embedding the clips so others can more easily see what we're talking about. To begin with, your "IP" versions, which you consider flawed:

Each of these show the same thing, with very little difference, so I'm not sure why three clips were needed... oh, well. We'll come back to these.

Next you link a couple of clips that show "the actual real world attacks that the traditional method alleged IP techs like those above are supposed to defend against". Love the passive aggressive tone, by the way.

The problem, of course, is that these attacks are not what is shown in the technique, nor is it what you demonstrate against in your versions. But there's a bigger problem than that, when your clips are shown. Speaking of which, here they are:

Right, now we can play.

To begin with, let's look back at the initial version of the technique as shown. It's a yellow belt technique, fairly early on in the syllabus, if I'm not mistaken, yeah? And it's basically dealing with a grab to your shoulder (the clips you linked show the right shoulder, you oscillate between right and left, I don't think it matters too much, provided it's the left hand grabbing the right shoulder, or the right hand grabbing the left... otherwise it changes the technique into requiring something different), which you secure/cover with your far hand, then step towards the opponent as they threaten a strike, and pre-emptively strike to their throat with a sword-hand, and "bounce" that hand down to strike with a hammer fist to an open target. I'm going to be bluntly honest, Ras, there's really little wrong with that technique. The biggest issue with it arises when the person grabbing you was just going to ask you the time, or to offer a drink, or similar, and you crush their trachea as a result... so I might not choose a potentially lethal strike as my first response against a grab. Courts here tend to look down on such things. But from a mechanical point of view, this technique is actually quite solid, taking into account a range of likely events. Not bad at all, really.

When we get to your clips, though, I gotta say, uh, what? Neither of those clips show anything like the attack that Sword and Hammer are dealing with. Both are essentially king-hits which work by blind-siding the people being hit. There is no grab to the shoulder, which is the primary aspect of the attack in Sword and Hammer, as shown in each and every version shown, the three initial ones, both of yours, and all others I've seen from a quick search. So, uh, no. Additionally, you don't seem to have paid attention to them, based on some comments you make in your clip.

Right, your clips.

The first one, well, let's be frank. It's again basically overkill, which is something missing from the initial technique (other than an overly aggressive first strike). Additionally, the basic attack isn't actually that realistic (the original one is more realistic, to be honest). Let's start there, as your first point is to talk down the common version.

You give the set-up of a grab to the shoulder, and then talk (with a degree of sarcasm, it seems...) about "feel(ing) the Kempo-ness of the situation" before turning and striking. There's a little interplay about the opponent not blocking (as your training partner does), and you finish by saying that "this doesn't happen in real life". Actually Ras, yes, it does. There are a number of set-ups that might go this way, but it's really a relatively common form of attack. The basic idea is that they grab your shoulder, and pull you into a strike with the other hand. The pull turns you towards them, as well as into the strike itself, adding to the power. It could be when one guy is yelling at you in front, his buddy comes up behind and grabs, pulls, and hits, or as you're turning and walking away from someone they grab you as you go, spin you, and hit. But it really is a common attack, you know.

Next, the idea of "feeling the Kempo-ness" leading to the execution of the technique, really, I don't see that as necessary at all. If you're being attacked with this realistically, they'll be pulling you around and back, so the step in towards them could very easily be just a natural response to the pull (and trying to keep your balance, so dropping as you step, not mentioned, but demonstrated in the clips, is expected as well). As to the cover, that's common to regain some control, and is recommended. Your idea of the other guy blocking being possible is honestly unlikely as well, as they'll be concerned about hitting you, and won't expect a counter-strike, as a result will simply not be looking to block anything. And the initial strike, if done with the right timing, would be launched as you're turning, making it land before the opponent's strike is properly launched, as well as providing cover in case you're just a bit too slow. Really, Ras, it's not a bad technique.

Then we get you changing the structure of the attack by keeping your opponent on your left shoulder, but having them grab with their left hand... which completely removes the attack that's actually seen in Sword and Hammer, as well as removing the targets, body positioning, and more, altering the timing and rhythm of the sequence entirely, and basically necessitating a completely different technique, which, to be blunt, is what you're doing. This is no longer the Yellow Belt Technique "Sword and Hammer" from the American Kempo system, as there are almost no aspects of it left, other than similar fists being used.

You also start to talk about the fact that, from here, as it's a surprise attack, you'll be hit first, probably a few times, and have to respond from there. The problem, of course, is you've just shown us what happens when you get blindsided and hit hard in a surprise attack. In most cases, you get knocked to the ground, hard. So you're not really able to continue with the technique as you show it (which is your partner slapping your back, let's be honest, hardly a committed strike to the back of the head, which is what would be likely (not too difficult to knock someone out that way, or give them a concussion, at the very least rattle them enough to continue to do some pretty major damage). So your plan of "get hit first" isn't what I'd recommend.... and, again, it goes against what Sword and Hammer actually teaches. The technique advocates a pre-emptive strike, in order to avoid such an eventuality. Deciding you don't think it's realistic (it certainly can be, for the record) doesn't make your technique better or more realistic, it means you've missed the point of the technique in the first place.

When it comes to the rest of the technique you show (the punch to the body, the strike to the face with the knee, the hand to the back of the neck, another fist to the back of the neck, and then another hand sword to the back of the neck again), honestly, I'm seeing a lot of mechanical problems, as well as some potential charges (based on the assault laws here) with the multiple strikes to the back of his head when it's clear he's no longer in a position to continue to assault you. But mainly the mechanical and structural issues, a range of things you do rob you of potential power, making a lot of this a lot weaker and less effective than it could be.

Your second version. Well, you start off saying it's nothing like what others would have been taught, and, well, yeah. Because you have barely included anything from the original, other than the name and certain fists. Other than that, tactically it's a completely different technique, rythmically it's a completely different technique, strategically it's a completely different technique, mechanically it's a completely different technique, philosophically it's a completely different technique... really, it's just a completely different technique.

You then denigrate the original form, including the sarcastic comment "and, he's just amazed by your skill". Really? I'd say more that he's dropped to the ground finding it hard to breathe, as you've just attacked his airways, then his groin, and gotten distance. Clearing his arm shouldn't be necessary, or difficult, and the idea of the attacker being "amazed at your skill" shows a gap in understanding what would have actually happened, don't you think? You then make some comments about the technique not working against a real, dynamic attack... gotta say, Ras, this one I think really would. It's kinda built into the technique, and I'm a little surprised you can't see it, given the amount of "real life experience" you claim. But let's see what that "real life experience" has taught you....

You have your opponent pushing you forward while hitting you? Really? And you think that's the more common attack? Gotta say, it's one of the most ineffectual attacks I can think of, as you'd be constantly pushing your victim out of the range of your fist, making your attacks not much more than useless.... Most of your following response suffers from much of the same issues as the previous one (punch to the temple? Good chance of breaking your own hand, particularly with the weak structure you're using, but hey, go for it!).

At the four minute mark you finally get closer to the way it's supposed to be, but still miss the basic tactic of a pre-emptive strike. And, to be honest, the attack was unrealistic in it's rhythm and distancing, so it wasn't really a realistic portrayal either. And I'm really not fond of that "secure" and choke at the end... there's just too many openings and issues going on there.

Honestly, if I was to offer you some advice, it would be to not automatically take the tact that every single technique is supposed to be an exact representation of violence, and to look for what it's teaching you. It seems to me that you tend to want to go to something you feel is more "realistic" without really looking at what is there in the first place... and that leads to some big gaps in what you're presenting.

Well, I said you wouldn't like it...

^^^ is the above an accurate summation of your concerns?

 

[Chris Parker]

Chris, he is going for specificity because I told him he has a tendency to talk right past the points made by people. He is doing all this clarifying and specifying so that he doesn't miss the points in the first place.

Humor him a bit. He is trying a method I suggested, which is new to him. He is actively trying to change the way he posts.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2

I understand that, Josh, but I don't see how much more specific I could be than telling him (repeatedly) that the videos he himself posted are taken as the baseline. Reposting them doesn't actually add much more specifics or detail. He was told this, and continued to insist, which just has him coming across as being difficult (to be diplomatic about it).

is this the post u are referring to,chris?

Those are the videos I'm referring to, yes.

^^^ is the above an accurate summation of your concerns?

Look to the following paragraphs:

Then we get you changing the structure of the attack by keeping your opponent on your left shoulder, but having them grab with their left hand... which completely removes the attack that's actually seen in Sword and Hammer, as well as removing the targets, body positioning, and more, altering the timing and rhythm of the sequence entirely, and basically necessitating a completely different technique, which, to be blunt, is what you're doing. This is no longer the Yellow Belt Technique "Sword and Hammer" from the American Kempo system, as there are almost no aspects of it left, other than similar fists being used.

.........................

Your second version. Well, you start off saying it's nothing like what others would have been taught, and, well, yeah. Because you have barely included anything from the original, other than the name and certain fists. Other than that, tactically it's a completely different technique, rythmically it's a completely different technique, strategically it's a completely different technique, mechanically it's a completely different technique, philosophically it's a completely different technique... really, it's just a completely different technique.

..........................

Honestly, if I was to offer you some advice, it would be to not automatically take the tact that every single technique is supposed to be an exact representation of violence, and to look for what it's teaching you. It seems to me that you tend to want to go to something you feel is more "realistic" without really looking at what is there in the first place... and that leads to some big gaps in what you're presenting.

Well, I said you wouldn't like it...

From there I started asking you what makes you claim your technique as related to the first ones you posted, as it shares no real similarities. And, 35 pages later, here we are. Still asking the same question.

 

[ATACX GYM]

Originally Posted by Chris Parker
Then we get you changing the structure of the attack by keeping your opponent on your left shoulder, but having them grab with their left hand... which completely removes the attack that's actually seen in Sword and Hammer, as well as removing the targets, body positioning, and more, altering the timing and rhythm of the sequence entirely, and basically necessitating a completely different technique, which, to be blunt, is what you're doing. This is no longer the Yellow Belt Technique "Sword and Hammer" from the American Kempo system, as there are almost no aspects of it left, other than similar fists being used."


The sequence which you refer to as "Sword and Hammer" is not "Sword and Hammer". As I said to you very very early on in this thread when I first answered your question above...there is no universal, inflexible expression of Sword and Hammer. It is a codification of an OUTLINE of a sequence in the teaching manual called BIG RED which proffers LOOSE GUIDELINES on this sequence for the purpose of teaching other instructors how to craft THEIR OWN "IDEAL PHASE TECHNIQUES". I have given this answer to you for 2/3rds of this thread. It is factually indisputable, whether you wish to accept it as such or not.

What I have done is also a part of the American Kenpo lineage: I applied the "50 Ways to Sunday" [taught to Mr. Parker by Prof. Chow and O'Sensei Oshita to Ed Parker prior ] and The Web of Knowledge categories of attack and h2h and CQB defined ranges of attack to this Ideal Phase concept and OUTLINE for Sword and Hammer. The result is my Sword and Hammer expression. This is why my Sword and Hammer IS A "Sword and Hammer Idea", this is why my expression satisfies every requirement of The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique Process as listed and defined by Mr. Parker, and is in complete lockstep with primary principles in Kenpo..while at the same time my expression is radically different than any and all others.

I came about this expression through direct combat and training testing that started in the scenario proffered [ the flank shoulder grab ]. I tested quite a few grab variants from various flank positions. This video shows some of them, not all of them.

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



"Your second version. Well, you start off saying it's nothing like what others would have been taught, and, well, yeah. Because you have barely included anything from the original, other than the name and certain fists. Other than that, tactically it's a completely different technique, rythmically it's a completely different technique, strategically it's a completely different technique, mechanically it's a completely different technique, philosophically it's a completely different technique... really, it's just a completely different technique. "<--CHRIS PARKER

See my previous answer.

"Honestly, if I was to offer you some advice, it would be to not automatically take the tact that every single technique is supposed to be an exact representation of violence, and to look for what it's teaching you. It seems to me that you tend to want to go to something you feel is more "realistic" without really looking at what is there in the first place... and that leads to some big gaps in what you're presenting."

I disagree with your premise above. First? Imo whatever lessons one can learn from less combatively viable sequences...one can learn better, sooner with a sequence that's also combatively viable. Further, realistic combat techniques impart lessons that no other technique can hope to teach. But there is a way to do it. Allow me to clarify more quickly what my thoughts and opinions are about this matter:

[video=youtube_share;imjmLWj5WCU]http://youtu.be/imjmLWj5WCU[/video]


Matt Thornton TRAINING AND THE I-METHOD [ I learned this method decades ago and we called it the I:3 TEACHING ]

[video=youtube_share;C-g6JTQDWNc]http://youtu.be/C-g6JTQDWNc[/video]



So my variant is the result of a combination of Kenpo principles and training paradigms predating our birth combined with my personal martial arts experiences. Exactly as Mr. Parker wished. The difference in my expression is why my expression birthed THE ATACX GYM KENPO and is not Ed Parker's Kenpo Karate...which is also what Mr. Parker wished. Individual expression that's constantly evolving with the common root being Kenpo and using Kenpo concepts, principles, training methods, etc.

 

[MJS]

1) The most efficient way to download the principles, tactics strategies etc is to practice them in a structured training paradigm that rapidly downloads the importance of grasping the principles behind the techniques. Understanding the principles behind the techniques comes from copious amounts of reps in numerous different situations. Grasping the principles should and can be done sooner--like White Belt--with the proper combination of Alive Training, high levels of reps of single techniques sequences and multiple techniques and sequences against escalating resistance, and multiple drills and isolated sparring scenarios wherein you're called upon to use your skills.

2) Chris Parker, is speaking from whatever experience he has. He is missing what is blatantly obvious to skilled experienced fighters. And all of that yakkity yakk and much of our disagreements would vanish if we were both on the mat together. He'd quickly see what I was talking about, and he'd quickly see that I already knew what he was talking about. However, Chris is apparently constrained by his instructor to NOT visually display via video his sublime mastery of technique, principle and strategy, so he crafts posts that make it clear that he and I have no common ground.

3) He contends that my S&H isn't a version of the "traditional" S&H. If he refers to the most popular variant of Sword and Hammer? That expression IS NOT THEE "Sword and Hammer". He fails to grasp that there IS NO "TRADITIONAL" Sword and Hammer. The Sword and Hammer--as defined by Big Red--is really a "loose guideline" designed for instructors to create THEIR OWN "Sword and Hammer". The Tracy technique "Attack the Circle" fits into the equation. My expression does. The more popular variant mistakenly referred to as The Ideal Phase Sword and Hammer fits.

4) MJS, from our previous phone conversation you should know directly...the method I champion far more speedily, thoroughly and comprehensively achieves this desired effect than the extant Kenpo training paradigm.

1 & 4) Yes, IIRC, I asked about the method you use. I gave my interpretation of it, which you said was correct, that being, that you take a tech, ie: S&H, break it down into smaller parts, drill those parts, gradually adding in more. My theory is simply that I do the same, only I like to get the students to the point where they 'forget' about the tech so to speak, and simply act, adjust, accordingly to the situation being presented. In other words, instead of saying, "Ok, guy is grabbing me, I'll do S&H. Ok, something is going wrong. Let me now go to the tech in the laundry list of 100+, that addresses this situation." Sorry, IMHO, things happen to fast for one to have to sort thru and find the right response, ie: tech to now meet the new challenges. Instead, what basic, principle, concept, idea, can I fall back on? IMO, THAT is the better route to take.

2) Chris, IMHO, is probably one of the most knowledgeable folks on this forum. As for posting video...I wont speak for him as to why he wont/doesnt want to do it. IMO, its really a moot point, as I'd wager if he did, his views would still be deemed wrong by some. I think that its fairly easy, for a skilled MAist, to view a clip of something, and figure out whether or not its great, good, sub-par, or awful. LOL.

3) Again, dont wanna speak for him, but IMO, I'd say his thoughts are in line with what I've said...that 99.99% of the Kenpo schools that we see out there, all perform the same tech. I can post a clip of Palanzo and the Casa guys, doing S&H and I'd bet dollars to donuts, it'd look the same.

 

[ATACX GYM]

1 & 4) Yes, IIRC, I asked about the method you use. I gave my interpretation of it, which you said was correct, that being, that you take a tech, ie: S&H, break it down into smaller parts, drill those parts, gradually adding in more. My theory is simply that I do the same, only I like to get the students to the point where they 'forget' about the tech so to speak, and simply act, adjust, accordingly to the situation being presented. In other words, instead of saying, "Ok, guy is grabbing me, I'll do S&H. Ok, something is going wrong. Let me now go to the tech in the laundry list of 100+, that addresses this situation." Sorry, IMHO, things happen to fast for one to have to sort thru and find the right response, ie: tech to now meet the new challenges. Instead, what basic, principle, concept, idea, can I fall back on? IMO, THAT is the better route to take.

2) Chris, IMHO, is probably one of the most knowledgeable folks on this forum. As for posting video...I wont speak for him as to why he wont/doesnt want to do it. IMO, its really a moot point, as I'd wager if he did, his views would still be deemed wrong by some. I think that its fairly easy, for a skilled MAist, to view a clip of something, and figure out whether or not its great, good, sub-par, or awful. LOL.

3) Again, dont wanna speak for him, but IMO, I'd say his thoughts are in line with what I've said...that 99.99% of the Kenpo schools that we see out there, all perform the same tech. I can post a clip of Palanzo and the Casa guys, doing S&H and I'd bet dollars to donuts, it'd look the same.

1&4) There is more to my method than what we spoke of, but I knew we both had limited time...so I focused on the area that would expedite the results that you sought. Sequences techniques and principles become automatically performed and grasped with the right kind of training paradigm, I completely agree. As we all should know, properly ingrained principles generally ensure that the right attacks, defenses, escapes etc are properly executed under pressure even if they are not previously memorized, previously practiced scripted techniques or sequences.

2) Video shows visual evidence of what he's talking about, and makes a gigantic difference. Imagine how the Rodney King case would have turned out...without the video squarely contradicting the lies of the police officers. Furthermore, observe this thread: it's highly highly unlikely that this thread would be as long as it is without the video I provided contrasting my movement and expression with the dysfunctional general so-called IP expression. He would not have any specifics whatsoever to hang his criticisms on. I strongly suspect that he knows that the same and more is waiting for him should he gather the conviction to show himself doing anything martial on video.

3) I agree wholeheartedly, and that yet again is the problem. There was never supposed to be such unanimity of expression...especially unanimity of dysfunctional expression...in EPKK. It goes against the very definition of The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique Process coupled with the means to achieve same as defined by BIG RED.

 

[Twin Fist]

or not

 

[Josh Oakley]

So I am reading through infinite insights and I realized something.. Ras wouldn't bet doing Sword AND Hammer, because he is delivering a sword WITH a hammer each time I have seen him on video. Obviously there are other problems, but just by the lexical definition of AND in kenpo, he wouldn't be doing it.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Chris Parker]

Knowing I'm not going to get the answers to these, but I didn't want Ras' last posts to go unanswered, as he's still just not getting it...

Originally Posted by Chris Parker
Then we get you changing the structure of the attack by keeping your opponent on your left shoulder, but having them grab with their left hand... which completely removes the attack that's actually seen in Sword and Hammer, as well as removing the targets, body positioning, and more, altering the timing and rhythm of the sequence entirely, and basically necessitating a completely different technique, which, to be blunt, is what you're doing. This is no longer the Yellow Belt Technique "Sword and Hammer" from the American Kempo system, as there are almost no aspects of it left, other than similar fists being used."


The sequence which you refer to as "Sword and Hammer" is not "Sword and Hammer". As I said to you very very early on in this thread when I first answered your question above...there is no universal, inflexible expression of Sword and Hammer. It is a codification of an OUTLINE of a sequence in the teaching manual called BIG RED which proffers LOOSE GUIDELINES on this sequence for the purpose of teaching other instructors how to craft THEIR OWN "IDEAL PHASE TECHNIQUES". I have given this answer to you for 2/3rds of this thread. It is factually indisputable, whether you wish to accept it as such or not.

Right. Hopefully you'll see this, Ras, but if not, let's clear up your misunderstanding of the question, and the lack in your answer.

As you say, "Sword and Hammer" is from an outline found in Big Red. How is your technique Sword and Hammer when you aren't following that outline? What is the outline itself? How is your technique following it?

See, that's been the question, Ras. You've been asked what makes your technique related to the one you yourself are contrasting it with, but you have failed completely to answer that, instead hiding behind your misunderstanding of the idea that "there are no universal, concrete techniques". That's why I have told you for the entire thread that your answer was not really answering what was being asked. The fact that you couldn't see past your misunderstanding to hear the actual question is the only part of that that is "factually indisputable".

What I have done is also a part of the American Kenpo lineage: I applied the "50 Ways to Sunday" [taught to Mr. Parker by Prof. Chow and O'Sensei Oshita to Ed Parker prior ] and The Web of Knowledge categories of attack and h2h and CQB defined ranges of attack to this Ideal Phase concept and OUTLINE for Sword and Hammer. The result is my Sword and Hammer expression. This is why my Sword and Hammer IS A "Sword and Hammer Idea", this is why my expression satisfies every requirement of The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique Process as listed and defined by Mr. Parker, and is in complete lockstep with primary principles in Kenpo..while at the same time my expression is radically different than any and all others.

The principles of Kempo weren't the discussion, Ras, the principles of Sword and Hammer were. I'd also suggest that, based on the links and quotes you yourself presented, you have really missed the point of things such as "50 Ways to Sunday". But the question remained, what principles are necessary for a Kempo technique to be considered Sword and Hammer, as yours shares almost nothing with everyone elses... which makes it a completely different technique on pretty much every level.

I came about this expression through direct combat and training testing that started in the scenario proffered [ the flank shoulder grab ]. I tested quite a few grab variants from various flank positions. This video shows some of them, not all of them.

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

Yeah, you've shown that video a few times, and each time you've been told that you've got a fair few mistakes in there, from your base concept of "reality" onwards. And how you came up with your technique there (by experimenting with different responses against a range of different attacks, with only the angle of attack in common) really does tell me that you had nothing relating to Sword and Hammer to base it on, hence there being no real connection between your technique and the one you were contrasting it with.

"Your second version. Well, you start off saying it's nothing like what others would have been taught, and, well, yeah. Because you have barely included anything from the original, other than the name and certain fists. Other than that, tactically it's a completely different technique, rythmically it's a completely different technique, strategically it's a completely different technique, mechanically it's a completely different technique, philosophically it's a completely different technique... really, it's just a completely different technique. "<--CHRIS PARKER

See my previous answer.

Your previous answer (hell, all your previous answers) were rather lacking, though.

"Honestly, if I was to offer you some advice, it would be to not automatically take the tact that every single technique is supposed to be an exact representation of violence, and to look for what it's teaching you. It seems to me that you tend to want to go to something you feel is more "realistic" without really looking at what is there in the first place... and that leads to some big gaps in what you're presenting."

I disagree with your premise above. First? Imo whatever lessons one can learn from less combatively viable sequences...one can learn better, sooner with a sequence that's also combatively viable. Further, realistic combat techniques impart lessons that no other technique can hope to teach. But there is a way to do it. Allow me to clarify more quickly what my thoughts and opinions are about this matter:

Actually, no. The chaos of "realistic training" can make it harder, or slower to get certain lessons imparted. I'll put it this way, when you're learning to write, do you start off by forming letters, then words, or do you start off by writing stories? The answer is that you start with the words and letters, then you learn structure, then you can learn to put things together as sentences and stories. And you can only do that because you've learnt the lessons (letters) in a structured, definite way.

[video=youtube_share;imjmLWj5WCU]http://youtu.be/imjmLWj5WCU[/video]


Matt Thornton TRAINING AND THE I-METHOD [ I learned this method decades ago and we called it the I:3 TEACHING ]

[video=youtube_share;C-g6JTQDWNc]http://youtu.be/C-g6JTQDWNc[/video]

Please. Matt Thornton may have a decent following, but frankly he's rather misguided when it comes to traditional training methods, including the amount of "aliveness" (which is just a terrible phrase, really) that is present, both in how and where it exists. When it comes to his I Method (of course you did it first, and had a similar but slightly different name for it...), a student of mine, when she came across these videos on another forum, asked me if we could do something like that. I took her through our entire training methodology, and pointed out that we do everything that Matt thinks traditional martial artists don't, as well as having better structure for more than what Matt's approach takes into consideration.

He's not someone to use to sway me to thinking you know what you're on about. Especially when you can't put it in your own words.

So my variant is the result of a combination of Kenpo principles and training paradigms predating our birth combined with my personal martial arts experiences. Exactly as Mr. Parker wished. The difference in my expression is why my expression birthed THE ATACX GYM KENPO and is not Ed Parker's Kenpo Karate...which is also what Mr. Parker wished. Individual expression that's constantly evolving with the common root being Kenpo and using Kenpo concepts, principles, training methods, etc.

Yeah, I got that, and said as much in my very first post here... but the question is what basis is there for you to make a comparison between the other version of Sword and Hammer and your technique? There really isn't one... which was the whole point that you missed for 36 pages....

1&4) There is more to my method than what we spoke of, but I knew we both had limited time...so I focused on the area that would expedite the results that you sought. Sequences techniques and principles become automatically performed and grasped with the right kind of training paradigm, I completely agree. As we all should know, properly ingrained principles generally ensure that the right attacks, defenses, escapes etc are properly executed under pressure even if they are not previously memorized, previously practiced scripted techniques or sequences.

No, you were wrong. Again. Yeah, I know, you can't defend your statement, but honestly you'd just tell me that you are empirically better and so on, so I don't think it's a huge loss... but, for the record, your assessment of how to ingrain principles is only really a valid approach for a Defensive Tactics approach, not the gigantic list of techniques and responses that you're trying to put across. Especially if you're expecting it all to be ingrained "before white belt".

2) Video shows visual evidence of what he's talking about, and makes a gigantic difference. Imagine how the Rodney King case would have turned out...without the video squarely contradicting the lies of the police officers. Furthermore, observe this thread: it's highly highly unlikely that this thread would be as long as it is without the video I provided contrasting my movement and expression with the dysfunctional general so-called IP expression. He would not have any specifics whatsoever to hang his criticisms on. I strongly suspect that he knows that the same and more is waiting for him should he gather the conviction to show himself doing anything martial on video.

You're kidding, yeah? The argument for me putting up a video is Rodney King? Because the video helped in the trial? Really? You remember how that trial went, yeah? And besides, it's not like we needed a video of police officers helping Rodney across the street to know that the video of them beating him was wrong, did we? Because that's what you're arguing, you know...

And did you really miss when I said that my criticisms stand whether or not I have any skill myself, Ras? In other words, your entire cry for video is baseless on all fronts, other than you crying foul that the videos you put up for critique have garnered criticism that you can't deal with or answer.

3) I agree wholeheartedly, and that yet again is the problem. There was never supposed to be such unanimity of expression...especially unanimity of dysfunctional expression...in EPKK. It goes against the very definition of The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique Process coupled with the means to achieve same as defined by BIG RED.

Each expression is different in some way, but there is continuity between them. In other words, they are all following the same basic guidelines, or outline, for the technique.. but you're not. And you got your take on the Ideal Phase Analytical Process quite wrong. But you've been told that by others far higher on the list than myself, and you still didn't listen, so what did we expect, really....

So I am reading through infinite insights and I realized something.. Ras wouldn't bet doing Sword AND Hammer, because he is delivering a sword WITH a hammer each time I have seen him on video. Obviously there are other problems, but just by the lexical definition of AND in kenpo, he wouldn't be doing it.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

That's part of it, yep.