Oh dear freakin' lord....
The Sword and Hammer that Mr. Parker showed as AN EXAMPLE is NOT a tech that WE ALL MUST SLAVISHLY FOLLOW. That's like taking an example solution for an algebra equation...and saying that all of algebra has to look exactly like that example problem and example solution. You're supposed to learn THE PROCESS OF SOLVING ALGEBRA. You're NOT supposed to COPY THIS SAMPLE PROBLEM AND SOLUTION AND SAY THAT'S ALL ALGEBRA IS.
If I'm trying to teach you algebra and I give you this problem and say: "Solve for 'x' ":
x - 4 = 10
and you say x=14 and I say great! You did it! You're NOT supposed to think that every time you see x? X MUST equal 14.
You're supposed to grasp the thinking and solving processes that leads to the correct answer every time you're faced with a problem.
Right, but what is the process ("solve for x") that Sword and Hammer is teaching? I ask as you seem completely ignorant of it, and you may use a large number of words in your responses, but you don't actually say much. Is Sword and Hammer just any response against an attacker on your rear flank? Or is there something more to it, something that makes a particular strategic response "Sword and Hammer"?
Again...there IS NO HARD AND FAST IDEAL TECHNIQUE THAT ALL OTHERS MUST BOW TO. You as a teacher are to craft your own IP for your students using a scenario that you select and the techs suggested for your scenario...like Sword and Hammer...then apply the 4 step tango of The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique PROCESS to it so that you can come up with a response.
Your IP will be different than mine. But if you follow the 4 step tango? It will work.
Taking your "Tango" simile, a tango isn't a salsa, it's a tango... so what are the "steps" that make Sword and Hammer distinctly Sword and Hammer?
Are we all on the same page now? Can we move on now? Chris Parker asked an excellent question about "lessons" in Sword and Hammer that I'd like to address but we gotta get this straight and have all of us on the same page so we can properly have that discussion and kick around the lessons that we've all learned. Maybe we can help each other grasp things better as a whole in a way that we by ourselves or with a smaller group of friends could NOT do.
Honestly, until you finally classify what you see Sword and Hammer as being, I don't think we can be on the same page, because you seem to be ignoring what it actually is in your expression.... so, one more time now, what do you think is needed for a technique to be Sword and Hammer? It's kinda essential to the discussion of your version to understand what you think it is in the first place... and you've put down another 10 or so answers, taking up pages worth of space, you even state that it's a good question here, but have completely failed, again, to even attempt to answer it.
So, for the chance to go onto the next round, what do you think defines "Sword and Hammer"?
What it seems like, is you're saying (and again this is a guess) is that all ideal phase techs suck. They wont work. But what I'm (you) doing, does. I believe this is the issue with what Chris and TF are saying.
No, we're not. Because you are answering a different combative question than the standardized Sword & Hammer does.
You want to talk about a grab/push/strike from the rear flank? Sure, we can do that. But not if you're going to try to say it's the same as a grab/pull. Because the solutions to the two problems are going to be inherently different. It's like if I took out shopping for a luxury car, and went to a Mack dump truck shop. Both are valid forms of transport, fit for their duties -- but not variants of the same thing, either. And they won't solve the same problems.
And this from JKS underlines the question I'm asking....
Okay. Now that we've made it clear that THERE IS NO IDEAL TECHNIQUE. THERE IS NO UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED IDEAL TECHNIQUE...and my Sword and Hammer IS A...not THEE but is A...Ideal Phase Tech...we can move on.
Right, this is just cause it's annoying me... Ras, I know you, for who knows what reason, like to extend words to emphasize them, either to show how correct you are by exaggerating it, or as a form of sarcasm for things you don't agree with, but it's really not having that effect. Honestly, it makes you look rather ill-educated in a number of ways... for example, your constant usage of "THEE Ideal..." Ras, "thee" means "you". How about you stick to correct grammar and spelling in order to add more weight to your argument? That said, it's good to see you learnt how to embed the clips...
[ Uhhh...I teach my students how to defeat this kind of attack BEFORE they're a WHITE BELT. Observe:
A. Bad guy grabs your right shoulder. No pushes or pulls. Cocks back fist.
B. Pre-White Belt Level A...the newest of all new newbs...smartly executes a right upward block under the shoulder grabbing left hand of BG. This block is timed with the punch. You lift or disengage the grab and block the punch at the same time.
C. Counterattack with reverse punch.
How easy is that?
Honestly? I see quite a few issues there... and frankly, the regular Sword and Hammer I'd class as superior in a number of ways.
Let's examine the REAL differences between the Sword and Hammer you're referring to and the Kenpo Idea [ which is merely a suggestion that I'm making to you guys ] which is also The ATACX GYM Ideal Sword and Hammer [ at this time; as we keep training? We refine improve and change. Did that with Blinding Sacrifice today, in fact ]...
Right...
...your Ideal is based upon somebody essentially putting his hand on your right shoulder, cocking his fist back, and...before he can fire a punch, push or do anything...you guys handsword his throat and hammerfist his nads. You train this tech with the idea that EVERY TIME somebody lays his hand on your shoulder, you'll be able to preemptively strike and finish him with your tech.
"You guys"? Uh, you mean the rest of the Kenpo community there, Ras? Again, I'm unsure that you realize what makes a technique what it is...
A couple Kenpo Elders whom I've been known to agree and disagree with, and I, all think that such an idea as perpetual preemptive striking is essentially nonsense on its face. And said nonsense will prevent you from reliably morally and legally performing. I said RELIABLY. Most people punch and punch fast and hard when they've cocked their fist back after they've grabbed your shoulder. Morally is subjective but LEGALLY is less so. Imagine a cop seeing you pull this tech off on some unarmed yahoo about your size. Guess what his reaction might be?
What his reaction could be almost anything, Ras, it comes down to the circumstances surrounding the action and the interpretation. But, again, I think you miss what the technique is teaching.
right there are about half of my reasons that I have a major problem with the expression of this tech and any expression remarkably akin to it.
The other half of the problem that I have are as follows:
1. I think that you should build into the tech itself the mandate to assess the situation. What if the person touching your shoulder doesn't deserve to be Kenpo'd into oblivion? He or she could be like:"Hey! Don't walk away from me!" What if he's just THREATENING you in an attempt to INTIMIDATE but not really trying to hurt you? That's much more along the lines of what uke is doing in the "classic" scenario looks like. He's no threat really. Blasting the throat and smashing the nads of some jerk putting his hand on your shoulder like it's a dead starfish and essentially posing like Al Bundy doing his Quarterback About To Pass Pose
is indefensible for the most part, imho.
Why do you think that that assessment of the situation isn't in there? Seriously, this is why I'd question your understanding of it in the first place...
I'll put it this way, the technique involves the bad guy grabbing your shoulder, aiming to turn you back towards them, then launch a punch. Your first response is to grab their grabbing hand (which gives physical and psychological control of the situation), followed by you turning (typically turning your head first) towards the opponent (if they have started to pull, step a little ahead of their timing, which will get you in with your pre-emptive strike before the punch is properly launched... so your concerns about the pre-emptive strike not being realistic or practical just tells me you don't understand pre-emptive striking...), which is where the assessment comes in that you were looking for. You turn and look at the threat, and assess. And if it's a violent threat (a punch), you can respond with the technique.
If you weren't taught it, that's a problem of your instruction. If you can't see it, that's a problem of your understanding of the technique, and the structure of the techniques in general, which would lead you to believe that you actually do know better. Hmm.
2. You'll likely go to jail for damaging his larynx or some part of his throat and bruising his nads unless he's way bigger than you, armed, etc.
Possible, yeah. Hence the assessment part. You may decide to change the target... which could be as simple as targeting the side of the neck instead of the throat, which disrupts the blood flow and attacks nerves, without risking damaging the airways. Or attack the bicep of the far (punching) arm. Or the bridge of the nose. Or the temple. Or under the nose itself. Or the ribs (which could then have the hammerfist strike up to the face, if you want...)... should I go on?
3. You're screwed if you're a Yellow Belt at "most" Kenpo schools who teach this tech ONLY this way...and the BG attacks you anywhere else but your right flank, or does anything other than barely touch you and pose with his fist. If he punches? You're toast. If he pushes or jerks holds pushes or punches as he punches or just before he does? You're grilled cheese sammich. If he attacks you from the LEFT shoulder or from the rear? You're PF Chang'd.
The question is why the technique is being taught that way, Ras, which I don't think you get from the way you're arguing here. If it's to teach the lessons, the movement and angling, the concept of pre-emptive strikes, and so on, it's fine... but it would need to be taught that way, in that context, not as the ultimate answer to that attack, which is the attitude you're coming across with here.
But I mean, seriously, your argument here is that the hypothetical student is in trouble if the attacker attacks with a different tactic to the one the technique is designed against? Really? Isn't that basically the same as saying that a high block is great against a punch, but you're in trouble if you try to apply it against a kick to your shins? Dude, have you thought that it's designed against a type of attack as that's the way it's designed to work?
So I have come up with a way that...step by step...logically and progressively teaches you how to use The Sword and Hammer no matter what your opponent does. That's the IP premise and conclusion that I use. Do tech 'x' no matter WHAT the BG does. Guess what? That includes the "best case" scenario that is part and parcel, heart and soul to "most" Kenpo schools' IP....but they don't include mine.
There is no "works against every attack" technique. Deal with it. Your responses aren't Sword and Hammer, in the sense of Kenpo's Sword and Hammer, no matter what you decide to call it. All your posturing just shows a desperate lack of grounding in the way these things actually work.
Now, after two pages and 10 long-winded answers to questions people weren't asking, mainly by quoting yourself as some form of evidence that you agree with yourself (?), can you answer the most pressing question of this thread... if this is your expression of Sword and Hammer, even though it contains only the most superficial connections to the actual tactic of Sword and Hammer, what criteria do you apply to claim something as Sword and Hammer in the first place? Just that, then we can deal with whether or not your version actually is or not.