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...
