Sword and hammer pt. 1 and 2

[ATACX GYM]

Stopping just shy of what I really want to say here, this shows you are absolutely clueless.

Sword and Hammer is, tactically, a technique of pre-emptive striking. By deciding that you want it to work against punching attacks you have missed the point of Sword and Hammer, and show no understanding of the structure of techniques. There is nothing "mystical" in anything I've been asking or saying

You are wrong. Again. As I said, your concept of Sword and Hammer and everything about it is what you have seen and what you think you understand about the more common technique. You are using the more common technique as the standard. It. Is. Not. The. Standard. The more common technique doesn't even qualify fully along the lines of The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique PROCESS. It was annointed as thee IP for Sword and Hammer by others, not Mr. Parker. Until you release this misconception and divest yourself of all the poisons associated with it, you will never be right on anything else regarding this matter. I have been telling you this for nearly half of this thread now. Doc has posts repeatedly saying the same thing. I quoted Mr. Parker's own writings on the matter, which trump and supercede anything written on the technique itself.

Correct this miscomprehension of yours [ which like I said before, I'm not surprised that you have because many Kenpoists have the same miscomprehension and even I had a lesser but similar miscomprehension ] and then we can talk. Until then? I'm the man trying to convince you that there's a such thing as water...and you refuse it's existence as you drown at the bottom of the Atlantic.

AMANI..."peace"...

 

[Chris Parker]

My post is beyond a description of how to apply fists/weapons. It specifically answered structural technique questions. I specified that the handsword did a better job than other weapons when applied to the triceps and other areas in the upper arm, especially at this belt rank. There IS a "complete failure" as you put it...but it's on your part regarding the comprehension of simple explanations.

Except you completely fail to address what Sword and Hammer is. Which was the damn question, Ras. And by not addressing that, or addressing why what you did was even a version of Sword and Hammer. You just went through the usage of various fists and why you chose them without the context of the lessons of Sword and Hammer. Seriously, my reading comprehension is fine... better than fine, really. Maybe you should take another look at the way you're communicating.

You refer to the more common Sword and Hammer in your second paragraph. I agree that it demo's a completely separate tactic...because it fails to address the likelihood of a real world attack. The BG is NOT gonna pose, and the Kenpoists are NOT going to reliably preempt a flank attack. Like I said, Kenpo Elders like Mr. Tatum and Doc Chapel have proffered the same opinion as I have and they did it first [ regarding the sillyness of perpetual preemption ]. I left a link to those posts too.

Yes, you have lots of cases of you saying how right you are.... so it's your word backing up you. Hmm, that's credible...

As far as you saying that the set-up of Sword and Hammer "fails to address the likelihood of a real world attack", dude, that is so not the case. It looks more like you don't understand the real world attack it represents. And when it comes to the idea of reliable pre-emptive strikes, I demonstrated to you where the "checks" were already embedded in the technique... if you don't see it, that's your issue.

If you felt that an upward block was a "full body action", you should not have described a single limb multijoint action...then called it weak. Clearly you are contradicting yourself. Either it's a full body action and strong or a single limb movement and comparatively weak.

No, I was assuming that the bad guy would be using a full body action as well... and structurally, biomechanically, physically, it is a weak response focusing on weak muscle groups for the action against large muscle groups.

If the BG is at 3pm? I already answered that...via video. Now lemme clarify on this post: if we are talking about the more common Sword and Hammer dysfunctional expression? The BG being@3pm is not a concern nor is it addressed. If we're talking about mine? I already addressed that. On video. If we're talking about applying the upward block to the BG at 3pm? Again, that's not hard. Turn toward the BG. Execute upward block with snappiness while drawing your other hand up to protect your face, your hand positioning similar to that of a boxer or bareknuckle MT or Muay Boran fighter. You'll either block the punch with your blocking hand or your rear hand will be in position to intercept the blow if it slips passed your upward block. You then either upward block again [ if the BG's limb doesn't retract fast enough ] and then fire a reverse punch or you simply ride the retracting hand back in and hit the body.

Again, the back-up you have to your claims is you. Not convinced, Ras. And nothing here is convincing either, as you're just repeating the same thing without actually listening or understanding what you're being asked about.

Doesn't matter where he is. If he can reach you with a grab? You'll be able to reach him with your reverse punch to his body...even if you have to take a step to do so.

What? Okay, do me a favour, have someone stand behind you to your right (5 o clock), holding your right shoulder with their left hand. Even turning back towards them to knock the grabbing hand off, can you reach with a reverse (left) punch?

Seriously, dude, flawed technique from the get go.

You are wrong. Again. As I said, your concept of Sword and Hammer and everything about it is what you have seen and what you think you understand about the more common technique. You are using the more common technique as the standard. It. Is. Not. The. Standard. The more common technique doesn't even qualify fully along the lines of The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique PROCESS. It was annointed as thee IP for Sword and Hammer by others, not Mr. Parker. Until you release this misconception and divest yourself of all the poisons associated with it, you will never be right on anything else regarding this matter. I have been telling you this for nearly half of this thread now. Doc has posts repeatedly saying the same thing. I quoted Mr. Parker's own writings on the matter, which trump and supercede anything written on the technique itself.

Correct this miscomprehension of yours [ which like I said before, I'm not surprised that you have because many Kenpoists have the same miscomprehension and even I had a lesser but similar miscomprehension ] and then we can talk. Until then? I'm the man trying to convince you that there's a such thing as water...and you refuse it's existence as you drown at the bottom of the Atlantic.

AMANI..."peace"...

Ras. Very simply and concisely now.

Get over yourself.

You really aren't that good.

And you are honestly decades behind me from your answers here (including your videos).

 

[jks9199]

Ras, whether intended or not, can we agree that in the Kenpo syllabi that have come down, there are some common techniques and terminology? Within those syllabi, there is a technique which is commonly called "Sword and Hammer" or sometimes "Pin Step Chop", correct? And that technique is designed to deal with a grab with the left hand from the right flank, correct? So that when most Kenpo students get together, they can use common language to identify that technique, and discuss it from the same points of reference. It doesn't matter if the technique is good or not, or whether it is functional or not -- when they talk about it, they're all coming from the same place.

That's where a lot of us run into trouble. Few have said that your "ATACX GYM SWORD AND HAMMER" is an ineffective technique. Some may not think it's all you've decided it is -- but that's not the same as saying that it's a bad technique or combination. But using it to somehow prove the ineffectiveness of the common version doesn't work, because it starts from a different premise. You've started from the premise of a right hand grab and push, prepping a punch. That's led you, through Parker's analytical method as you've interpreted it, to a different solution, rather unsurprisingly.

Now, we can discuss the realism or likelihood of the original premise versus yours. That's certainly a valid discussion. We can discuss the effectiveness of each technique versus there intended attack or situation. We can look within either approach for lessons and commonalities. But one doesn't disprove or prove the other, any more than BJJ "proves" that punching doesn't work -- or that police DT tactics prove that regular martial arts are useless for self defense. They all start from different places... and reach different ends because of that.

Communication requires us to use common terms in the same way. Otherwise, we get confusion... Did you ever see the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode Darmok? Picard finds himself trapped in a dangerous situation with an alien whose language is radically different in basis from English. The magic universal translator is useless to them, because even though the words are coming across -- the meaning was lost. In the same way -- you're telling us that your "ATACX GYM SWORD AND HAMMER" is the same as the standard version -- but it starts from a different attack, moves in the opposite direction, etc. as we've gone round and round about...

But, arguing that "people just don't get it" or treading close to insulting other people for disagreeing (or merely pointing out that you've changed everything so much that it's not the same thing) isn't going to make your case or convince anyone. If we're not starting from the same place, we're not going to be on the same page, and we're not going to end up in the same place. All that's happening is both sides of the discussion are shutting down -- or doing a long winded version of the "tastes great - less filling" game.

 

[Twin Fist]

and who the hell thinks a right handed push followed by a left punch is more likely?

just on the basis of the VAST majority of people being right handed that assumption fails.

a left push and right punch is MUCH more likely.

untill you think about what sort of idiot someone would have to be to push you AWAY from thier punch in the fist place.

no, sorry, i have say that the attack Ras has decided to change it to is HIGHLY unlikely and not realistic at all.

I have had people actually do the flank grab on me.

 

[Chris Parker]

On that note, from my first post in this thread.....

"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!)."

 

[Twin Fist]

 

[ATACX GYM]

Ras, whether intended or not, can we agree that in the Kenpo syllabi that have come down, there are some common techniques and terminology? Within those syllabi, there is a technique which is commonly called "Sword and Hammer" or sometimes "Pin Step Chop", correct? And that technique is designed to deal with a grab with the left hand from the right flank, correct? So that when most Kenpo students get together, they can use common language to identify that technique, and discuss it from the same points of reference. It doesn't matter if the technique is good or not, or whether it is functional or not -- when they talk about it, they're all coming from the same place.

That's where a lot of us run into trouble. Few have said that your "ATACX GYM SWORD AND HAMMER" is an ineffective technique. Some may not think it's all you've decided it is -- but that's not the same as saying that it's a bad technique or combination. But using it to somehow prove the ineffectiveness of the common version doesn't work, because it starts from a different premise. You've started from the premise of a right hand grab and push, prepping a punch. That's led you, through Parker's analytical method as you've interpreted it, to a different solution, rather unsurprisingly.

Now, we can discuss the realism or likelihood of the original premise versus yours. That's certainly a valid discussion. We can discuss the effectiveness of each technique versus there intended attack or situation. We can look within either approach for lessons and commonalities. But one doesn't disprove or prove the other, any more than BJJ "proves" that punching doesn't work -- or that police DT tactics prove that regular martial arts are useless for self defense. They all start from different places... and reach different ends because of that.

Communication requires us to use common terms in the same way. Otherwise, we get confusion... Did you ever see the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode Darmok? Picard finds himself trapped in a dangerous situation with an alien whose language is radically different in basis from English. The magic universal translator is useless to them, because even though the words are coming across -- the meaning was lost. In the same way -- you're telling us that your "ATACX GYM SWORD AND HAMMER" is the same as the standard version -- but it starts from a different attack, moves in the opposite direction, etc. as we've gone round and round about...

But, arguing that "people just don't get it" or treading close to insulting other people for disagreeing (or merely pointing out that you've changed everything so much that it's not the same thing) isn't going to make your case or convince anyone. If we're not starting from the same place, we're not going to be on the same page, and we're not going to end up in the same place. All that's happening is both sides of the discussion are shutting down -- or doing a long winded version of the "tastes great - less filling" game.

First: I am a lifelong Trekker. I loved Star Trek: TNG. I remember that episode well. I absolutely grasp your point. Second? TASTE GREAT/LESS FILLING GAME? LOLOLOLOLOLOL. Liked that commercial too.

We can and do agree about the tech being called Sword and Hammer/Pin Step Chop, and common terminology. Right there with you man.

However, I never stated that my Sword and Hammer proves the ineffectiveness of the more common version. I believe [ as I've stated literally thousands of times on KT and hundreds of times here on MT ] that dysfunctional training is the heart of the issue in every single one of the IPs and in much of martial arts training in most martial arts in general. As Twin Fist rightly imo pointed out...the more common IPs are designed around the idea of a 'best case scenario'. I think that--in the "best case scenario"--the more common tech will work perfectly fine. I agreed with Twin Fist aka John on this matter already.

However, basing a SD tech on a ' best case scenario' imho is highly, highly flawed as a central training model. As I have stated, such an approach will not work in an actual fracas. To quote Doc: "the techniques as written are unworkable".

My tech is designed to defend a Hockey Punch attack and all of its variants from standing to the ground and in multifights. This comprehensive approach by necessity includes the "best case scenario" as well. I have long championed the idea that the more comprehensive functional approach includes any and every scenario that the less functional less comprehensive approaches do and also solves these matters better. The converse can never be the case. I further stated that whatever tech that purports to defend an attack should be tested with real energy and resistance. Not even full tilt boogie at first, just actually put the tech to the test. Take the "best case scenario" tech and try it. Will you REALLY be able to RELIABLY act and react preemptively vs the actual attack as the tech purports? I assume that the "more common tech" is defending against the menace of the oncoming lateral flank grab and punch...aka Hockey Punch...so why not get on the mat and try it out?

I am willing to bet that if you try this tech 20 times in a row, 100 times in a row...there will in general be a less than 5% success rate in pulling off the tech as shown. However, if that same test was run on THE ATACX GYM SWORD AND HAMMER...that success rate would skyrocket to 90% at least. I've tested both. Energetically. For decades. So has my GM and many others; so this isn't just my opinion and I'm not guessing. However, please I urge you to try this out on your own. Experiment with it. Video it and share the results with the rest of us.

As for the names of the techs? Well, the more common version is called Sword and Hammer. Mine is called [and I quote the name from the video ] ATACX GYM KENPO KARATE SWORD AND HAMMER.

We're not parallel to Picard's situation with the Tamarians [ I cannot remember the name of the Tamarian Captain though, dang it ] on Star Trek: TNG. We understand each other's words. Unlike the Tamarians, we're not communicating via allegory. What's happening here is that others are insistently superimposing their habits of mind over the data that their eyes are conveying. Then they take umbrage when I told them over and over again that this habit of theirs...this insistence in the case of some...is the first major part of our disagreements. The second major part is the lack of accurate knowledge about the actual history of hte IP that 99.9% of us--including me--were unaware of to a greater or lesser degree.

Now both areas have been addressed with the proper information. They're reading ATACX GYM KENPO KARATE SWORD AND HAMMER and keep telling themselves that they're seeing what they think is Ed Parker's Sword and Hammer. And now they know that there was never a such thing as a "hard and fast" Ed Parker's Sword and Hammer. It's up to the readership to decide whether they want to accept these true and accurate facts or not.

Welll...Doc said that such a thing would happen.

I lol'd at what Doc said. I told him that it's hard for such a thing to happen unless we're talking about willful children or absolute morons. No way, I told him.

I remember his post. He said: "Last time...use your own name..."

I said I did. See? ATACX GYM KENPO KARATE SWORD AND HAMMER.

He said I should divulge the full name for it that I have written down in my syllabus: ATACX GYM KENPO KARATE SWORD AND HAMMER RADIUS R.D.L.

I said I usually refer to it as ATACX GYM KENPO KARATE SWORD AND HAMMER, even when teaching people in my Gym. He told me that he liked ATACX GYM KENPO...and don't use names that are the same as Ed Parker's Kenpo. I said..."But they're NOT the same!" About 95% of my techs names are not the same as Ed Parker's techs. Technically? 100% are different. I have it written in my syllabus. ATACX GYM KENPO KARATE ALTERNATING MACES RADIUS R.D.L., ATACX GYM KENPO KARATE ATTACKING MACE RADIUS R.D.L.

Now, I see that Doc was right. Again. I have to really emphasize the ATACX GYM and the RADIUS R.D.L. for the particularly anal mindsets out there.

I don't even have REPEATING MACE in my curriculum, for instance. I have REQUIEM RADIUS R.D.L.

So. I'm adding the words RADIUS R.D.L. to the name of my video. Today.

 

[Chris Parker]

Then the question is, Ras, how delusional are you?!?!

You never said that your version was a better, or improved version of the "standard" Sword and Hammer, yet put it up as a direct comparrison?!?! You admit that you aren't even dealing with the same attack, yet berate the standard form as not being able to handle the attack you're now using?!?! What on earth was the point of showing the "standard" if it wasn't anything to do with your technique... and why on earth did you keep arguing when that was pointed out from the very first response I gave you?!?! Can you not see how the confusion has occurred, and how you have in fact been the architect and orchestrator of such since your very first post?!?!

Seriously, Ras, we've been saying from the beginning that your version is not even related to the first ones you show (the standard forms), and have been asking you to clarify that... which you have completely failed to do. Now, 12 pages and 167 posts in, you've finally said that your technique has no connection to the original from whom you took the name, and very little else... so what was the point? You might as well have put up a video of someone defending against a bear hug and pointed out how that defence doesn't work against a stabbing knife attack.

 

[Twin Fist]

Since you like to use Doc Chapel to justify your.....ideas, let's take a look at Doc's words, shall we?

Doc's own words from a post on this very forum:
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?94988-IP-Techniques-Do-We-Need-Them/page8

"Parker stated, and was very specific; In the first “phase” of learning the student should be subjected to a set curriculum with no variations, what ifs, or formulations because that is a different stage and to do otherwise not only confuses students, but doesn’t allow for enough physical repetition of the set model to create new synaptic pathways or “muscle memory.” "What if" training is for mid-level black belts, and formulation was for "masters" of the basics of the art.

This is as I teach. The term “what if’ is forbidden for lower students. It is their job to learn the material, the ABC's of function if you will. It is more important to concentrate on basic skills and physical vocabulary that emphasizes body mechanics and techniques that are absolutely functional and capable of standing alone.

“Therefore, the IDEAL techniques are built around seemingly INFLEXIBLE and one dimensional assumptions for a good purpose. They provide us with a basis from which we may BEGIN our analytical process. Prescribed techniques applied to prescribed reactions are the keys that make a basic technique IDEAL or FIXED.”

In the traditional sense, Phase One was strict unalterable basics, forms, sets, and technique applications, as I teach now. Phase Two, allowed for additional "considerations," and Phase Three was for Master Professors only, who influenced the material the other two phases worked from.

it was never his intent for students of the business of kenpo, to be subjected to anything but phase I motion under the guidance of a teacher who would create plausible and fixed ideals, and the art itself would have a functional ceiling, until he created the next level.

Parker quotes continue;

“In Phase I, structuring an IDEAL technique requires SELECTING A COMBAT SITUATION YOU WISH TO ANALYZE. Contained within the technique should be FIXED MOVES OF DEFENSE, OFFENSE, AND THE ANTICIPATED REACTIONS that can stem from them.”


The "what if" is irrelevant without a significant solid base curriculum that is "hard wired' into your synaptic pathways, and fortified against Adrenal Stress Syndrome. It is unfortunate for many reared in the "commercial motion phase," to grasp or accept this rather obvious (to me) fact. However, those from outside seem to see it rather quickly when it is properly explained.

How can you emphasize all these things, and promote the Three Phases Concept simultaneously without giving people a definitive one way to do every technique, which he never did? You can't.

hmmmm

interesting​

 

[ATACX GYM]

Then the question is, Ras, how delusional are you?!?!

You never said that your version was a better, or improved version of the "standard" Sword and Hammer, yet put it up as a direct comparrison?!?! You admit that you aren't even dealing with the same attack, yet berate the standard form as not being able to handle the attack you're now using?!?! What on earth was the point of showing the "standard" if it wasn't anything to do with your technique... and why on earth did you keep arguing when that was pointed out from the very first response I gave you?!?! Can you not see how the confusion has occurred, and how you have in fact been the architect and orchestrator of such since your very first post?!?!

Seriously, Ras, we've been saying from the beginning that your version is not even related to the first ones you show (the standard forms), and have been asking you to clarify that... which you have completely failed to do. Now, 12 pages and 167 posts in, you've finally said that your technique has no connection to the original from whom you took the name, and very little else... so what was the point? You might as well have put up a video of someone defending against a bear hug and pointed out how that defence doesn't work against a stabbing knife attack.

At first I wasn't going to reply to this post...the dooficity level was exceptional even for Chris. But others prevailed upon me to respond. This thread has quite a few views, so it's clear that there are more people scanning this thread than Chris Twin Fist Kenshin and jks9199. It is for the benefit of these others that I reply [ even though quite a few of these "others" took it upon themselves to contact me and express privately their amusement over my detractors not grasping the amazing obviousness of my oft-repeated position ].

So. For the last time...

...my position has always been one of Functionality over Dysfunction. I have always been a proponent of what Bruce and others called the "Alive" Method. This means train realistically. Actually grab. Actually punch, choke, whack with the stick, stab realistically with the knife and keep going, really tackle, etc etc. Do NOT pose, or other horribly unrealistic stuff.

None of the craptasticness masquerading as THEE IP has even the faintest element of realism. Let us take this more common stuff that others like Chris think is a wonderful tech.

This tech purports to defeat what is essentially a Hockey Punch from the flank...sans grab or punch. It takes as a working hypothesis that Kenpoists in general will be able to act and react preemptively with the Sword and Hammer as a central element and tenant to the tech itself. They take it for granted that essentially newb Kenpoists [ Yellow Belters ] in general will reliably react to fast enough to an attack in progress to get off the handsword and hammerfist to their targets prior to the punch even being thrown.

Look carefully. The common expression of Sword and Hammer is against something that isn't an ACTUAL attack, it's in response to a POTENTIAL attack in progress. You catch the BG before he throws the punch. Fencers call it catching him on the "preparation".

This contention is roundly refuted on the mat in objective reality. The whole premise is flawed and rather preposterous. 2 Kenpo Elders whom I've been known to both agree and disagree with--Larry Tatum and Doc Chapel--both concur at the absurdness of this idea. So do I. In fact, Mr. Tatum wrote an article touching upon this facet in the training of Kenpoists when he wrote a piece about stepping in to Triggered Salute or something.

The central tenet of this tech is flawed and wholly divorced from combat reality. Sans proper functional training to make the tech workable? Newbs and most people period will not be able to react with this tech under duress in that scenario. WITH proper functional training? You STILL won't do it exactly as the more common expression does it because the more common Sword and Hammer expressions articulate dysfunction.

In other words...if it reliably works? It won't look like the more common Sword and Hammer IP expression.

However, if you have a functional expression such as mine? You reliably defeat the BG in both the "classic" scenario [ you react before the punch is thrown ] aaaaaaannnnd multiple other scenarios that the more common expression Sword and Hammer doesn't approach and has no hope of addressing with their expression.


Look at this more common Sword and Hammer expression go to 1:52:

[video=youtube_share;9B8OXVJNmB0]http://youtu.be/9B8OXVJNmB0[/video]


and look at these videos of the more common Sword and Hammer expression here. Pay close attention to their positioning:

[video=youtube_share;YGDc1oOFDcI]http://youtu.be/YGDc1oOFDcI[/video]

[video=youtube_share;ts1Qgemr11M]http://youtu.be/ts1Qgemr11M[/video]

and look at this more common expression of the Sword and Hammer, the only one that actually mentions being pulled and attempts to explain how the more common expression of the tech defeats the pull:

[video=youtube_share;04Hp8tDAw3g]http://youtu.be/04Hp8tDAw3g[/video]

Look at how similar that position is to my starting position here:

[video=youtube_share;R-mmdyIHkjs]http://youtu.be/R-mmdyIHkjs[/video]


Go to 0:54 of this video. We start at the same or very similar places...in my scenario, though, I have the BG actually fire punches.

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

The rest should be obvious. I cover punches, multiple angles of attack, pushes and pulls, and even though I don't show it on video I gave a 15 Round training method that covers everything up to and including weapons and multifights...all with the Sword and Hammer...and will allow a complete newb to be able to fight with that tech in 8 hours or less.

I've been contacted by several MMA coaches and self-defense instructors who saw my post. They thanked me for publishing it and informed me that they're using this method and a few others that I demonstrated with exactly the speedy success that I guaranteed that it would yield.

The above is part of the reason why I can say all at once and be undeniably right that:

1. The Sword and Hammer that is most popular is dysfunctional, and there are no lessons to be learned from it other than: FIX IT SO IT WORKS

2. Supporters of this tech who claim that the tech defeats the flank Hockey Punch before the punch can be thrown do NOT fight with the tech or spar with it with any kind of realistic energy or regularity...so their opinions are factually without merit.

3. Any Sword and Hammer that works perforce cannot look like the common expression. Even those who claim that the classic tech exactly as proscribed will eventually admit that they use it primarily as a teaching tool or intro or something but they don't and can't fight with it exactly as shown in the more common expression.

4. I'm not dealing with JUST the same scenario of the "more common" dysfunctional expression S&H, I'm dealing with a 360 degree Hockey Punch attack which is perpetually superior to the dysfunctional single side expression. Note that my version covers all of the various positioning that the more traditional, dysfunctional tech proponents take...and I do more. The Sword and Hammer that does more in a superior manner than the Sword and Hammer that does less is without a doubt the superior expression.

5. I don't have to compare my expression to the less functional expression; all I have to do is show that mine works. If I'm not lost, and I'm safe at home? Well, I don't have to prove that I'm NOT lost to people who are lost. It's incumbent upon the lost to orient themselves...and after they orient themselves and bring themselves to a point that they recognize that they're not lost? They'll see that I've looong been where they were trying to go to. I can, however, offer a map to get home. If you don't want to make it back to the Land of the Found and Functional? Cool. Have fun with the Lost Boys.

6. Chris Parker's second paragraph simply shows that he is completely lost...and that's okay. My tech is related to the original in the sense that the Mercedes or Bentley or some such is related to a broken down inoperational Model T. My version is the more operational more modern top of the line expression. It actually does what the Model T purports to do...it's a automated conveyance...and it does it in ways far superior to and never imagined by the poor dysfunctional broken down Model T.

Lastly for those who asked...I never changed the name of my techs. I simply abbreviated the whole name for two reasons:

1. I refer to my ATACX GYM KENPO KARATE SWORD AND HAMMER as...ATACX GYM KENPO SWORD AND HAMMER during class. It's full name as I wrote it down is ATACX GYM KENPO KARATE SWORD AND HAMMER RADIUS R.D.L. 1-4. Saying that over and over again is a mouth full so I say SWORD AND HAMMER in class. [ Everybody in my Gym...literally everyone...knows that our techs are different than other schools' techs. When we go scout other schools at various competitons before we spar with and compete against them? Everyone from the newbs to the seasoned Coaches in my Gym sees the huge advantage we have over them due to our superior functional training. ]

2. It's hard to get a name as long as the official name for my tech onto youtube easily.


If you don't get it by now? Fine. Thank you to the dozens of you who've contacted me and informed me that you do get it and you do appreciate what I'm trying to convey. Thank you to people like jks9199 who disagree with me but do so from a position of openminded intelligent criticism and cordiality, which I will and do return in kind.

Chris and Twin Fist? We disagree. Let's leave it at that.

 

[ATACX GYM]

Since you like to use Doc Chapel to justify your.....ideas, let's take a look at Doc's words, shall we?

Doc's own words from a post on this very forum:
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?94988-IP-Techniques-Do-We-Need-Them/page8

"Parker stated, and was very specific; In the first “phase” of learning the student should be subjected to a set curriculum with no variations, what ifs, or formulations because that is a different stage and to do otherwise not only confuses students, but doesn’t allow for enough physical repetition of the set model to create new synaptic pathways or “muscle memory.” "What if" training is for mid-level black belts, and formulation was for "masters" of the basics of the art.

This is as I teach. The term “what if’ is forbidden for lower students. It is their job to learn the material, the ABC's of function if you will. It is more important to concentrate on basic skills and physical vocabulary that emphasizes body mechanics and techniques that are absolutely functional and capable of standing alone.

“Therefore, the IDEAL techniques are built around seemingly INFLEXIBLE and one dimensional assumptions for a good purpose. They provide us with a basis from which we may BEGIN our analytical process. Prescribed techniques applied to prescribed reactions are the keys that make a basic technique IDEAL or FIXED.”

In the traditional sense, Phase One was strict unalterable basics, forms, sets, and technique applications, as I teach now. Phase Two, allowed for additional "considerations," and Phase Three was for Master Professors only, who influenced the material the other two phases worked from.

it was never his intent for students of the business of kenpo, to be subjected to anything but phase I motion under the guidance of a teacher who would create plausible and fixed ideals, and the art itself would have a functional ceiling, until he created the next level.

Parker quotes continue;

“In Phase I, structuring an IDEAL technique requires SELECTING A COMBAT SITUATION YOU WISH TO ANALYZE. Contained within the technique should be FIXED MOVES OF DEFENSE, OFFENSE, AND THE ANTICIPATED REACTIONS that can stem from them.”


The "what if" is irrelevant without a significant solid base curriculum that is "hard wired' into your synaptic pathways, and fortified against Adrenal Stress Syndrome. It is unfortunate for many reared in the "commercial motion phase," to grasp or accept this rather obvious (to me) fact. However, those from outside seem to see it rather quickly when it is properly explained.

How can you emphasize all these things, and promote the Three Phases Concept simultaneously without giving people a definitive one way to do every technique, which he never did? You can't.

hmmmm

interesting​

Anyone reading this thread? Please hit the link that Twin Fist provided and you will see immediately how drastically TF has taken Doc Chapel's quotes out of context.


What many people reading this post don't realize is that this kind of discussion has been going on for awhile now and both MJS and I initiated blazing threads regarding this very topic last year. Doc already dropped much of this info last year, and if you read the WHOLE QUOTE as opposed to this partial quote which TF edited for his own purposes you will see that much of my position and Doc's ACTUAL position are similar to one another. We agree in the actual essence of self-defense matters...we just differ in detail and the chosen expression of our functional approaches.

We are not at cross purposes. Nor are we largely in diametrically opposed camps. Different camps of thought and training? Yes. Sometimes sharply disagreeing camps? Yes. Perpetually clashing, diametrically opposed camps? Not even close.

We do have 2 sharp differences highlighted by this post which I am in the process of trying to grasp better:

Firstly, I want a more specific physical demonstration of what Doc calls the Ideal. In his first paragraph which Twin Fist glaringly omits, he focuses on combat reality and functionality and that Doc takes this into consideration in the very first steps. The craptastic mess masquerading as THEE Ideal does NOT do so. That alone puts him and I in largely similar, harmonious [ though not identical ] positions.

Doc also roundly confirms everything else that I said [ which I mostly got from him anyway ]: there is no hard and fast IP. Mr. Parker never made a hard and fast IP. The crap that you guys are swearing is THEE IP is no such thing and there never can be such a thing. I note, TWIN FIST, that nowhere in your above quote is your acerbic doubts about the accuracy of Doc's comment regarding the fact that there is no actual "hard and fast " IP and I note the lack of your assertion about the Tracy's in the above position you took...probably because all of those conclusions that you took previously have been roundly proven to be untrue.

I find their absence and your lack of acknowledgement of your historical inaccuracies to be...in your words..."hmmm. interesting".


Now, back to what I was saying about my discussions with Doc...

...there is already a thread on KT wherein Doc and I have disagreed on the long term utility regarding my 15 Round multirange, multifaceted training method. Doc is of the opinion that this method yields important but only short term gains and is contrary to how humans learn. I am substantially of a different opinion, but we haven't had a chance to truly discuss and debate the matter. I hope to have a noncaustic, rigorous, educational discussion and debate with him about this matter as martial scholars should: with respect and absent rancor, with academic and real world rigor girding every word, and sources cited. Idk if he'll respond to such an approach, but I will initiate such a discussion in earnest soon. I know that if he doesn't, others will...and all involved in the discussion should benefit as a result.

You are welcome to observe such a discussion, Twin Fist, Chris, Kenshin, and whoever else reading this thread here or on KT when I make it. However, be warned...rancor will not be allowed in that thread. It's for rigorous scholarly and empirical debate suggestion and discussion only.

 

[MJS]

The above doesn't mean "resolving every problem". "Resolving every problem" is FAAAR beyond the scope of what this tech does. I have stated numerous times...The ATACX GYM draws our ranges of combat and methods from what most of us in civilian, security type jobs, martial arts combat and tournies and LEO type positions are likely to face. These scenarios--especially CQB firearms type scenarios--have lots of carryover to the military too, but addressing full military scenarios is beyond my focus at the moment.

My Sword and Hammer does indeed do everything that I said in that quote. Stretching it out to cover more than what's in that quote is a logical fallacy and evidence of reading miscomprehension which many of my detractors seem to specialize in.

And yes MJS what you said as the opening sentence of your last paragraph is dead on. My Sword and Hammer works whether a guy punches, pushes, kicks, grabs, stabs, etc. That's how I train it. Did you read my 15 Round training thing? Should make it crystal clear.

Umm...Ras...you do realize that what you said here, and in another post above, contradict each other. You also said it in post #141, where you said this...

"I can use 1 technique that suffices for each and every one of these ranges. The fact that you don't is indicative of the limits in your training method, not the limits of self-defense itself."

Sorry dude, but that reads to me that you're saying you can use S&H for a grab, push, punch, kick, etc. I disagree with that. As I said in another post, you may use parts of S&H to aid in the defense against those attacks, but to use the exact S&H tech for what I listed....nope, I'm not buying it.

 

[MJS]

My post is beyond a description of how to apply fists/weapons. It specifically answered structural technique questions. I specified that the handsword did a better job than other weapons when applied to the triceps and other areas in the upper arm, especially at this belt rank. There IS a "complete failure" as you put it...but it's on your part regarding the comprehension of simple explanations.

You refer to the more common Sword and Hammer in your second paragraph. I agree that it demo's a completely separate tactic...because it fails to address the likelihood of a real world attack. The BG is NOT gonna pose, and the Kenpoists are NOT going to reliably preempt a flank attack. Like I said, Kenpo Elders like Mr. Tatum and Doc Chapel have proffered the same opinion as I have and they did it first [ regarding the sillyness of perpetual preemption ]. I left a link to those posts too.

If you felt that an upward block was a "full body action", you should not have described a single limb multijoint action...then called it weak. Clearly you are contradicting yourself. Either it's a full body action and strong or a single limb movement and comparatively weak.

If the BG is at 3pm? I already answered that...via video. Now lemme clarify on this post: if we are talking about the more common Sword and Hammer dysfunctional expression? The BG being@3pm is not a concern nor is it addressed. If we're talking about mine? I already addressed that. On video. If we're talking about applying the upward block to the BG at 3pm? Again, that's not hard. Turn toward the BG. Execute upward block with snappiness while drawing your other hand up to protect your face, your hand positioning similar to that of a boxer or bareknuckle MT or Muay Boran fighter. You'll either block the punch with your blocking hand or your rear hand will be in position to intercept the blow if it slips passed your upward block. You then either upward block again [ if the BG's limb doesn't retract fast enough ] and then fire a reverse punch or you simply ride the retracting hand back in and hit the body.

Doesn't matter where he is. If he can reach you with a grab? You'll be able to reach him with your reverse punch to his body...even if you have to take a step to do so.

This thread is so long, I'm not going to go back and find the post where I said this, but I do know I said it, but its worth saying again....in the Kenpo world, we always hear about moves canceling other potential things the badguy can do to us. Looking at the base S&H, the handsword that we do, should cancel out a punch from the badguys right hand. As I said in that other post, unless the guy wants to risk breaking his hand by hitting our head, he's probably going to turn us. Again, this'll depend on where he's grabbing us, but as I said, if we're looking at the IP tech, it'll be from 3pm.

 

[Cyriacus]

This thread is so long, I'm not going to go back and find the post where I said this, but I do know I said it, but its worth saying again....in the Kenpo world, we always hear about moves canceling other potential things the badguy can do to us. Looking at the base S&H, the handsword that we do, should cancel out a punch from the badguys right hand. As I said in that other post, unless the guy wants to risk breaking his hand by hitting our head, he's probably going to turn us. Again, this'll depend on where he's grabbing us, but as I said, if we're looking at the IP tech, it'll be from 3pm.

Doesnt that assume a bit on someone thinking to themself "I might break my hand if I hit them in the Head from here!"?

 

[MJS]

You are wrong. Again. As I said, your concept of Sword and Hammer and everything about it is what you have seen and what you think you understand about the more common technique. You are using the more common technique as the standard. It. Is. Not. The. Standard. The more common technique doesn't even qualify fully along the lines of The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique PROCESS. It was annointed as thee IP for Sword and Hammer by others, not Mr. Parker. Until you release this misconception and divest yourself of all the poisons associated with it, you will never be right on anything else regarding this matter. I have been telling you this for nearly half of this thread now. Doc has posts repeatedly saying the same thing. I quoted Mr. Parker's own writings on the matter, which trump and supercede anything written on the technique itself.

Correct this miscomprehension of yours [ which like I said before, I'm not surprised that you have because many Kenpoists have the same miscomprehension and even I had a lesser but similar miscomprehension ] and then we can talk. Until then? I'm the man trying to convince you that there's a such thing as water...and you refuse it's existence as you drown at the bottom of the Atlantic.

AMANI..."peace"...

And to that I'd say the following:

1) Shame on Parker for letting things get out of hand.

2) Why have 50,000 versions that you'd teach someone?

3) Seeing that all this stuff is in Big Red, then shame on Parker and anyone else who put out Big Red, since that seems to be the guideline soooo many seem to follow.

4) I would imagine that 99.9% of the Kenpo schools out there are wrong then, because it seems that they're all teaching S&H.

5) I go back again to....why let it get out of hand? I mean, if you drop an ash on the couch and you see it smoldering, why wait until your couch is fully engulfed, before you grab something to put out the flames? In essence, what we're seeing here, is Parker letting his Kenpo get out of hand....but somehow only a secret person or persons, have "the real Kenpo".

 

[MJS]

and who the hell thinks a right handed push followed by a left punch is more likely?

just on the basis of the VAST majority of people being right handed that assumption fails.

a left push and right punch is MUCH more likely.

untill you think about what sort of idiot someone would have to be to push you AWAY from thier punch in the fist place.

no, sorry, i have say that the attack Ras has decided to change it to is HIGHLY unlikely and not realistic at all.

I have had people actually do the flank grab on me.

I've heard people say that the majority of the pop. is right handed. So if that is in fact true, then what you said is also very true. I mean, if I'm going to clock someone, I'm going to use my right hand, as I'm right handed. Doesnt mean I cant use the left, but if the right is the dominant hand, well.....

So, a left grab/push/pull/turn/whatever, followed by a right punch is much more likely, as you said.

 

[MJS]

Anyone reading this thread? Please hit the link that Twin Fist provided and you will see immediately how drastically TF has taken Doc Chapel's quotes out of context.


What many people reading this post don't realize is that this kind of discussion has been going on for awhile now and both MJS and I initiated blazing threads regarding this very topic last year. Doc already dropped much of this info last year, and if you read the WHOLE QUOTE as opposed to this partial quote which TF edited for his own purposes you will see that much of my position and Doc's ACTUAL position are similar to one another. We agree in the actual essence of self-defense matters...we just differ in detail and the chosen expression of our functional approaches.

We are not at cross purposes. Nor are we largely in diametrically opposed camps. Different camps of thought and training? Yes. Sometimes sharply disagreeing camps? Yes. Perpetually clashing, diametrically opposed camps? Not even close.

We do have 2 sharp differences highlighted by this post which I am in the process of trying to grasp better:

Firstly, I want a more specific physical demonstration of what Doc calls the Ideal. In his first paragraph which Twin Fist glaringly omits, he focuses on combat reality and functionality and that Doc takes this into consideration in the very first steps. The craptastic mess masquerading as THEE Ideal does NOT do so. That alone puts him and I in largely similar, harmonious [ though not identical ] positions.

Doc also roundly confirms everything else that I said [ which I mostly got from him anyway ]: there is no hard and fast IP. Mr. Parker never made a hard and fast IP. The crap that you guys are swearing is THEE IP is no such thing and there never can be such a thing. I note, TWIN FIST, that nowhere in your above quote is your acerbic doubts about the accuracy of Doc's comment regarding the fact that there is no actual "hard and fast " IP and I note the lack of your assertion about the Tracy's in the above position you took...probably because all of those conclusions that you took previously have been roundly proven to be untrue.

I find their absence and your lack of acknowledgement of your historical inaccuracies to be...in your words..."hmmm. interesting".


Now, back to what I was saying about my discussions with Doc...

...there is already a thread on KT wherein Doc and I have disagreed on the long term utility regarding my 15 Round multirange, multifaceted training method. Doc is of the opinion that this method yields important but only short term gains and is contrary to how humans learn. I am substantially of a different opinion, but we haven't had a chance to truly discuss and debate the matter. I hope to have a noncaustic, rigorous, educational discussion and debate with him about this matter as martial scholars should: with respect and absent rancor, with academic and real world rigor girding every word, and sources cited. Idk if he'll respond to such an approach, but I will initiate such a discussion in earnest soon. I know that if he doesn't, others will...and all involved in the discussion should benefit as a result.

You are welcome to observe such a discussion, Twin Fist, Chris, Kenshin, and whoever else reading this thread here or on KT when I make it. However, be warned...rancor will not be allowed in that thread. It's for rigorous scholarly and empirical debate suggestion and discussion only.

Actually Ras, what TF quoted Doc as saying, is exactly how I'd teach and still do teach anything, whether its Kenpo or Arnis. I mean think about it...you have to learn to crawl before you walk, walk before you run. I know Matt Thorntons ideas are huge with you...hell, I think alot of what he says, makes alot of sense too. But....before we overwhelm someone with the 'what ifs' they need to know the basic, which will mean they're going to have to stand there, like a statue, and do the IP tech, S&H in this case, as written...for a left grab from 3 o'clock. If they can't get it, then theres no way in hell, they're possibly going to somehow get any other way, any better. Just ain't happening. Why? Because if they dont understand the basics first, they're not going to know what to do when the attack suddenly changes to what you're showing.

Once they get it then we can move onto more aggression in the attack, then slowly add in other things, ie: what I said that I do.....changing the attack mid-stream, adding in a punch or punches, pushing, pulling, turning, etc.

 

[MJS]

Doesnt that assume a bit on someone thinking to themself "I might break my hand if I hit them in the Head from here!"?

LOL, sure. Hey, and its very possible the person won't be thinking that or just not care.

 

[MJS]

At first I wasn't going to reply to this post...the dooficity level was exceptional even for Chris. But others prevailed upon me to respond. This thread has quite a few views, so it's clear that there are more people scanning this thread than Chris Twin Fist Kenshin and jks9199. It is for the benefit of these others that I reply [ even though quite a few of these "others" took it upon themselves to contact me and express privately their amusement over my detractors not grasping the amazing obviousness of my oft-repeated position ].

So. For the last time...

...my position has always been one of Functionality over Dysfunction. I have always been a proponent of what Bruce and others called the "Alive" Method. This means train realistically. Actually grab. Actually punch, choke, whack with the stick, stab realistically with the knife and keep going, really tackle, etc etc. Do NOT pose, or other horribly unrealistic stuff.

None of the craptasticness masquerading as THEE IP has even the faintest element of realism. Let us take this more common stuff that others like Chris think is a wonderful tech.

This tech purports to defeat what is essentially a Hockey Punch from the flank...sans grab or punch. It takes as a working hypothesis that Kenpoists in general will be able to act and react preemptively with the Sword and Hammer as a central element and tenant to the tech itself. They take it for granted that essentially newb Kenpoists [ Yellow Belters ] in general will reliably react to fast enough to an attack in progress to get off the handsword and hammerfist to their targets prior to the punch even being thrown.

Look carefully. The common expression of Sword and Hammer is against something that isn't an ACTUAL attack, it's in response to a POTENTIAL attack in progress. You catch the BG before he throws the punch. Fencers call it catching him on the "preparation".

This contention is roundly refuted on the mat in objective reality. The whole premise is flawed and rather preposterous. 2 Kenpo Elders whom I've been known to both agree and disagree with--Larry Tatum and Doc Chapel--both concur at the absurdness of this idea. So do I. In fact, Mr. Tatum wrote an article touching upon this facet in the training of Kenpoists when he wrote a piece about stepping in to Triggered Salute or something.

The central tenet of this tech is flawed and wholly divorced from combat reality. Sans proper functional training to make the tech workable? Newbs and most people period will not be able to react with this tech under duress in that scenario. WITH proper functional training? You STILL won't do it exactly as the more common expression does it because the more common Sword and Hammer expressions articulate dysfunction.

In other words...if it reliably works? It won't look like the more common Sword and Hammer IP expression.

However, if you have a functional expression such as mine? You reliably defeat the BG in both the "classic" scenario [ you react before the punch is thrown ] aaaaaaannnnd multiple other scenarios that the more common expression Sword and Hammer doesn't approach and has no hope of addressing with their expression.


Look at this more common Sword and Hammer expression go to 1:52:

[video=youtube_share;9B8OXVJNmB0]http://youtu.be/9B8OXVJNmB0[/video]


and look at these videos of the more common Sword and Hammer expression here. Pay close attention to their positioning:

[video=youtube_share;YGDc1oOFDcI]http://youtu.be/YGDc1oOFDcI[/video]

[video=youtube_share;ts1Qgemr11M]http://youtu.be/ts1Qgemr11M[/video]

and look at this more common expression of the Sword and Hammer, the only one that actually mentions being pulled and attempts to explain how the more common expression of the tech defeats the pull:

[video=youtube_share;04Hp8tDAw3g]http://youtu.be/04Hp8tDAw3g[/video]

Look at how similar that position is to my starting position here:

[video=youtube_share;R-mmdyIHkjs]http://youtu.be/R-mmdyIHkjs[/video]


Go to 0:54 of this video. We start at the same or very similar places...in my scenario, though, I have the BG actually fire punches.

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

The rest should be obvious. I cover punches, multiple angles of attack, pushes and pulls, and even though I don't show it on video I gave a 15 Round training method that covers everything up to and including weapons and multifights...all with the Sword and Hammer...and will allow a complete newb to be able to fight with that tech in 8 hours or less.

I've been contacted by several MMA coaches and self-defense instructors who saw my post. They thanked me for publishing it and informed me that they're using this method and a few others that I demonstrated with exactly the speedy success that I guaranteed that it would yield.

The above is part of the reason why I can say all at once and be undeniably right that:

1. The Sword and Hammer that is most popular is dysfunctional, and there are no lessons to be learned from it other than: FIX IT SO IT WORKS

2. Supporters of this tech who claim that the tech defeats the flank Hockey Punch before the punch can be thrown do NOT fight with the tech or spar with it with any kind of realistic energy or regularity...so their opinions are factually without merit.

3. Any Sword and Hammer that works perforce cannot look like the common expression. Even those who claim that the classic tech exactly as proscribed will eventually admit that they use it primarily as a teaching tool or intro or something but they don't and can't fight with it exactly as shown in the more common expression.

4. I'm not dealing with JUST the same scenario of the "more common" dysfunctional expression S&H, I'm dealing with a 360 degree Hockey Punch attack which is perpetually superior to the dysfunctional single side expression. Note that my version covers all of the various positioning that the more traditional, dysfunctional tech proponents take...and I do more. The Sword and Hammer that does more in a superior manner than the Sword and Hammer that does less is without a doubt the superior expression.

5. I don't have to compare my expression to the less functional expression; all I have to do is show that mine works. If I'm not lost, and I'm safe at home? Well, I don't have to prove that I'm NOT lost to people who are lost. It's incumbent upon the lost to orient themselves...and after they orient themselves and bring themselves to a point that they recognize that they're not lost? They'll see that I've looong been where they were trying to go to. I can, however, offer a map to get home. If you don't want to make it back to the Land of the Found and Functional? Cool. Have fun with the Lost Boys.

6. Chris Parker's second paragraph simply shows that he is completely lost...and that's okay. My tech is related to the original in the sense that the Mercedes or Bentley or some such is related to a broken down inoperational Model T. My version is the more operational more modern top of the line expression. It actually does what the Model T purports to do...it's a automated conveyance...and it does it in ways far superior to and never imagined by the poor dysfunctional broken down Model T.

Lastly for those who asked...I never changed the name of my techs. I simply abbreviated the whole name for two reasons:

1. I refer to my ATACX GYM KENPO KARATE SWORD AND HAMMER as...ATACX GYM KENPO SWORD AND HAMMER during class. It's full name as I wrote it down is ATACX GYM KENPO KARATE SWORD AND HAMMER RADIUS R.D.L. 1-4. Saying that over and over again is a mouth full so I say SWORD AND HAMMER in class. [ Everybody in my Gym...literally everyone...knows that our techs are different than other schools' techs. When we go scout other schools at various competitons before we spar with and compete against them? Everyone from the newbs to the seasoned Coaches in my Gym sees the huge advantage we have over them due to our superior functional training. ]

2. It's hard to get a name as long as the official name for my tech onto youtube easily.


If you don't get it by now? Fine. Thank you to the dozens of you who've contacted me and informed me that you do get it and you do appreciate what I'm trying to convey. Thank you to people like jks9199 who disagree with me but do so from a position of openminded intelligent criticism and cordiality, which I will and do return in kind.

Chris and Twin Fist? We disagree. Let's leave it at that.

So, in essence, you're taking them from crawling and throwing them right into sprinting? You may've asnwered this question of mine before Ras, I don't remember, but in any case, I too cover this type of stuff, but IMO, throwing someone right into the fire is couner productive. Why? Because they dont have the tools built yet and they havent trained them enough yet. Having someone throw a jab, cross, hook, without doing it slow first, to build the foundation, is going to suck. In school, you learn the basic math, add, subtract, mult. and division, before you cover the much more complex stuff. Want someone to learn how to add....you do simple addition, ie: 2+4, 5+5, then work to multiple and triple numbers, where they'll have to carry over, ie: 667+843.

Regarding #2: Ras, once the tech. changes from anything other than the IP, then IMO, its no longer said tech. Thats when you start to graft into other things, or use bits and pieces from many techs. I mean, this is like saying Delayed Sword or Lone Kimono wont work by stepping back, which should cancel the potential punch that could follow. Actually, I dont need to step back to cancel the potential punch. I can think of a few other options that'd work just as well. Taking the IP S&H, and having the person punch with their right, yeah, it'll cancel the punch. Once you're pushed, pulled, turned, the IP S&H will most likely go out the window, and you'll have to go to something else.

 

[ATACX GYM]

Umm...Ras...you do realize that what you said here, and in another post above, contradict each other. You also said it in post #141, where you said this...

"I can use 1 technique that suffices for each and every one of these ranges. The fact that you don't is indicative of the limits in your training method, not the limits of self-defense itself."

Sorry dude, but that reads to me that you're saying you can use S&H for a grab, push, punch, kick, etc. I disagree with that. As I said in another post, you may use parts of S&H to aid in the defense against those attacks, but to use the exact S&H tech for what I listed....nope, I'm not buying it.

You read correctly. I can use S&H for a grab, push, punch, kick, etc. It's quite easy to do, as well. Last Thursday, I used it while defending and passing guard. I used it vs a knife in practice too. It's not at all hard to do. It's quite simple, in fact. I'm actually a bit surprised that you, MJS, as sharp as you are...can't see it instantly. But if you wish? I will see if I can free up the time to show you how to grapple with it. I recall people saying the same thing when I told them I use CAPTURED TWIGS RADIUS R.D.L. [ BASIC BEAR HUG ESCAPE 1 ] on the ground too. They laughed. "Not possible..." yadda yadda. I suggest you take a look at my Captured Twigs video to see what I mean regarding Sword and Hammer, if you have forgotten or never saw my CAPTURED TWIGS RADIUS R.D.L. videos...

Solving all problems IS far beyond the scope of this tech, as I stated. S&H cannot be deployed at distance vs someone with a firearm, for instance. SeH cannot be deployed against someone trying to run you over in a vehicle [ which is an issue out here in the hood where I'm from ].