Sword and hammer pt. 1 and 2

[ATACX GYM]

Isnt there a Bruce Lee quote about that?
Or one of those Famous Asians, anyway.

yes there is a Bruce Lee quote about it. I tried to link the quote but the site ate it. I had a very comprehensive response to MJS' post and I guess I'll have to write it again because the site ate that as well. Must've tasted good to the site...lol

my friend MJS, maybe I should have said..."simple doesn't always mean easy". The more comprehensive dictionary definitions make this clear. Observe:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/simple?show=0&t=1329930578

 

[ATACX GYM]

Doc wasn't the only one to spend alot of time with Parker. According to Clyde, Tatum also spent much time, yet interestingly enough, Larry and Doc seem to teach different. So, in other words, this is the way its supposed to be: Delayed Sword: Instead of doing what BR says, we could eliminate the pin, we could do the handsword first and then the kick, we could do DS against a punch, we could do something that doesnt look like DS at all. Is that what you're saying Ras?

Actually, the more I think about it, I have to wonder....there're a few different branches of Kajukenbo. Original, Gaylord, Ramos....there're probably some I'm missing, but for the sake of discussion, I'll just use those. Tony Ramos and Charles Gaylord trained with Sijo Emperado, then crafted their own 'branch' of Kaju. I have to wonder....do the Ramos method guys say to the Gaylord guys, "Hey, you know what? You're doing grab art 1 wrong. Its done like this! IF YOU'RE NOT DOING IT MY WAY, YOU'RE WRONG, AND YOU SUCK!!!" I wonder if that goes on. I wonder if Ricksons guys tells Renzos guy they're not doing the guard pass correctly.

My friend MJS...Doc answered that part regarding the evolutionary process of Mr. Parker too. I don't want to keep paraphrasing him because that's just asking to get his quotes wrong at some point so I will refer you to his post on this matter.

As for Delayed Sword and any Motion Kenpo tech? Big Red is a guideline. There will be some similarities in every tech. In this case...there will be the handsword and some form of delay to its application. This is where BR acts as a loose guide. It's my understanding that BR wants to use DS as a method to [ among other things ] deliver a lesson of Marriage of Gravity; primarily with the dropping use of the handsword. You will note that even in my variant that the Marriage of Gravity lesson is there. Right after/at the same moment I drop my knee on the downed opponent, my handsword comes. But yes...you can eliminate the pin, you could handsword and then kick, you can do it against a punch...but there is no such thing as doing something that doesn't look like DS at all [ if you keep the handsword and apply it with the principle of Marriage of Gravity, being the main caveat...as I understand it ] because each Ideal Technique is to be crafted by your head instructor for his/her/their students.

I know and train with Kaju guys. They always laugh at Parker guys who say so and so does such and such wrong. They ask if so and so KO's the other guy and if so? So and so is doing SOMETHING right. And they carry on about their business.

 

[Flying Crane]

A student goes to their Kenpo school. Gets taught stuff that may or may not be functional...but isn't well rounded. So let's just pretend that the more common version of the Sword and Hammer actually repels a right punch attack from the right flank. If he tackles you? You're screwed. If he punches with his left hand? You're screwed. If he attacks you anywhere but the right flank? You're screwed. If he knees or kicks you? You're screwed. If he pushes or pulls you? You're screwed.

Almost all of the attacks I listed above are answered elsewhere in the Kenpo curriculum... in more advanced ranks. None of which helps you while you're getting your butt kicked RIGHT NOW. The question is: HOW CAPABLE ARE YOU RIGHT NOW OF DEFENDING EACH AND EVERY MANIFESTATION OF THE MORE COMMON METHODS OF ATTACK?

The answer is: NOT VERY. The reason why is because: YOUR TRAINING METHOD ISN'T SUFFICIENTLY DEEP, VERSATILE, AND FOCUSED ENOUGH TO YIELD THESE RESULTS. Why doesn't your training do that? CUZ YOUR INSTRUCTOR DOESN'T KNOW OR IS PHILOSOPHICALLY OPPOSED TO TEACHING YOU THESE METHODS RIGHT NOW...OR BOTH [ I'm using "you" and "your" in the GENERAL not the SPECIFIC meaning...]

The result is: you're being programmed with weaknesses that your instructor may or may not know about or know how to address; and our instructor may or may not address later. In the interim, your instructor is essentially hoping you don't get your head knocked off prior to you reaching the belt rank that will fill in the gaps of your knowledge.

This issue is actually addressed in my other post, attached here to review. I'm not suggesting that you need to do white crane. I'm just using the approach that white crane takes as an example of a more direct, simple (yet complex [NOT complicated]) approach to combat. Simple, functional strategies coupled with techniques that hit like a sledgehammer, and there you have it. It's a matter of really making your basics powerful so that you do not need 14 follow-up strikes to take down the bad guy. 1-3 good shots should do it, if not then you need to reconsider your approach to how and what you train. That is one of the biggest problems that I see in martial arts today: people lack strong basics. So they compensate with "overkill" and multiple scripted following shots to every critical target they can think of. I saw a knife defense demonstrated by a famous kenpo guy where he took the knife away from the assailant and then cut every major artery and tendon on his body and flayed the flesh and skin off his arms. The whole notion of that as a reasonable, effective, and LEGAL defense against a knife-wielding attacker is so flawed and faulty it's not even a bad joke.

My very first kenpo teacher, back in 1984, told a story that I always remembered. He had a female student who had one lesson with him. In that lesson he talked about how kicking the knee can be extremely effective in disabling an attacker. Low and behold, a few days later she was accosted on the street. She warned the guy to leave her alone. He did not. She kicked his knee in and left him lying on the sidewalk.

Simple, direct, effective, can be applied almost universally. The more complicated and highly scripted a SD tech is, the less versatile it becomes. A lot of the SD techs that I see in kenpo seem to me to be only applicable under one circumstance, which is that particular scenario for which it is scripted. In my opinion that is a problem. Then taking those highly scripted SD techs and working to apply them outside of the script, that just seems like busy work to me.

Yeah, I posted on this issue a while back in another thread, seems relevant so I'll say something similar here.

Pek choi in my system is a smashing downward hammerfist. It can be used as a primary strike, or it can be used to attack and even destroy a limb that is attacking you (read: a very very painful block). The most textbook pek choi is from top to bottom, striking downward. But in truth, it can be done in many directions, including horizontal and on diagonals. Once you understand how to use it and where it can be thrown and how effectively it can be used, you realize that you can use a variation of pek choi all over the place, to answer many many types of attacks. The pek choi itself may end the encounter, as you damage the enemy's weapon with it. If not, you can follow with any number of very powerful hand strikes, either one or a series, whatever you want. And you can do the same thing, apply the same defense, against many kinds of attacks.

The guy punches you from the front, doesn't matter which arm he punches with: pek choi to destroy his attack, follow with chuin choi (straight punch), or some other simple and straightforward punch or three.

The guy punches you from an angle, or from the side: you can still answer with pek choi followed with chuin choi.

The guy reaches to grab you from the front, or from an angle or from the side: pek choi followed with chuin choi.

The guy pushes you with one or both hands, or the guy grabs you with one or both hands: yup, still pek choi to destroy his push or grab, followed with chuin choi.

The guy pushes you from behind, you step to regain control of your base, pivot and clear his hands with pek choi, follow with chuin choi (think Crash of the Eagle from Tracys, but done with White Crane techniques).

My student and I one day went thru the list of Tracy techniques and selected a handful to experiment with, looking at what might be good ideas contained therein, but with an eye for delivering the technique like White Crane. Almost every single tech that we played with was distilled down to Pek Choi followed by Chuin choi.

This isn't to say that these two punching techniques are the entirety of the curriculum of white crane. Far from it. But I'm just trying to illustrate how much realistic mileage one can get from very little material, if you understand it well. Nothing is deliberately scripted, it is all just very straight forward and practical.

If you really understand your basics, you realize that that is where it all is at. That's what matters, and the more complex stuff should simply be giving us lessons and examples on how we can use those same basics under many circumstances. Codifiying complicated scenario SD techs is sort of a mis-interpretation of that lesson and probably were never what the material was meant to be, until someone made a deliberate decision to go down that path. I feel that path was probably a mistake. But hey, that's just me. But then taking all those complicated techniques and looking to apply all of them everywhere, well it just seems a bit overdone.

 

[Gnarlie]

every day after class I have an open session wherein I ask my students what they like about class, what they don't like, what questions they have, what suggestions that they have. I receive lots of each at the beginning of new classes. We discuss and modify and then apply. When I say nobody asks me anything? It's because I announce at the beginning of every class that we have a question and answer session at the end of every class. And we respond to the issues we're informed about.

I have made numerous changes to my various posts based upon the advice I've received from guys like elder99 on this site, Josh Oakley, Doc, Doc Dave innahouse, sumdumguy, Thesemindz, MJS, Flying Crane, and others. Although I tend to energetically defend positions and issues that I know something about...my switch is never stuck on transmit, my door is never closed, my mind is never sealed. It oftentimes though takes awhile for some people grasp what I'm saying. This thread, for example, shows that since page 1 I've been saying that the common expression for the so-called Kenpo IP is NOT the default or proper expression. I received copious flames and outraged comments as a result.

I was right.

There are those who mistake the fact that I energetically defended a position which I knew to be right for me being arrogant or egotistical and unflinching when...I was just right. Interestingly, it was THEY who were being reactionary and unflinching in many cases. Not I.

My friend, I am not at all offended by your post nor do I interpret it as an attack.

I hope you don't mind that I've edited the above for relevance to my point.

Having been a professional trainer (Non-MA) for a very long time, I can tell you for sure that asking for verbal feedback face to face in class is a very different thing to asking for anonymous feedback. I'm suggesting something like a suggestion box in your training hall, and encouraging people to use it. You get negative constructive information you don't get face to face. Look how the world changes when people hide behind pseudonyms on the internet, for example. You get honest opinions, and often a bit of trolling. You can't act on the information and improve if you never get it in the first place, asking face to face. This is true however open and honest the culture is.

Here, rather than trolling, what I'm trying to do is offer the view of a completely impartial observer. I have no vested interest in Kempo, the Techniques, or the arguments presented here. I really don't care at all who's right. What I'm saying is, it's difficult to see in this thread how you have adjusted your view of the situation based on anything that anyone else has said. I think that's to your detriment, as it switches people off to the good stuff that you might have to say.

It's also hard to see what you are doing to convince people of your point, other than repeating yourself and asserting that you are right. People grasp what you've said first time out, but you are not giving them any reason to agree with you. For that to happen, you need to influence their thinking, not just state your position.

Part of being a great trainer and (and indirectly a great martial artist) is the ability to influence others. That's a soft skill, not a hard one. Rather than beating people over the head with your point, it means helping them to realise for themselves what is right. If what's right happens to be your way, then great!

I try to start every post (including this one) with the view that my perspective may not necessarily be the right one, or the best one. It's just what I think for now, and it's open for discussion. Other people's views are the best tool for improvement that anyone can have.

I wish you luck in your endeavour to convince us all

 

[Flying Crane]

Something weird is going on with the quote feature in this thread, I'm trying to qoute one post and it is linking me to a different post.

anyway, Ras said this: 1) Simple isn't easy. Simple is simple. You can simply fight Anderson Silva. It won't be an easy experience for you. You can simply decide to run in the Olympics. Not an easy thing to do. Simple isn't easy. Simple is SIMPLE.

In response, I'll say this: If I were to fight Anderson Silva, I would probably lose. He is a professional fighter who has the time and resources to train as such. I cannot match that, I've got a day job and whatnot and I'm doing really well if I can get two hours a day, 5 days a week to train. But I do the best that I can. However, IF I were to fight Anderson Silva, I would absolutely use the most simple, straight forward techniques and strategy that I have to do so. I know that if I attempted to use complicated techniques, it'll never work. The only chance I have would be to hit him really hard with a devastating basic technique. Probably something like that Pek Choi/Chuin Choy combination that I spoke about earlier.

 

[ATACX GYM]

Something weird is going on with the quote feature in this thread, I'm trying to qoute one post and it is linking me to a different post.

anyway, Ras said this: 1) Simple isn't easy. Simple is simple. You can simply fight Anderson Silva. It won't be an easy experience for you. You can simply decide to run in the Olympics. Not an easy thing to do. Simple isn't easy. Simple is SIMPLE.

In response, I'll say this: If I were to fight Anderson Silva, I would probably lose. He is a professional fighter who has the time and resources to train as such. I cannot match that, I've got a day job and whatnot and I'm doing really well if I can get two hours a day, 5 days a week to train. But I do the best that I can. However, IF I were to fight Anderson Silva, I would absolutely use the most simple, straight forward techniques and strategy that I have to do so. I know that if I attempted to use complicated techniques, it'll never work. The only chance I have would be to hit him really hard with a devastating basic technique. Probably something like that Pek Choi/Chuin Choy combination that I spoke about earlier.

I agree with this. Not only that? Anderson is likely to use a simple straight forward tech when he annihilates you, too.

I'm not saying to do something complicated. Multifaceted does NOT mean complication...especially in the sense of "difficult" or "impractical" or anything like that. Take a basic tech and work it against all kinds of scenarios. Please observe the example I've used regarding the Inside Block.

I can add to that: I have my students use the Inside Block all the time to pass guard and defend guard.

I am also and have always been a huge advocate of the knee kick. In my pre-white belt level A classes? I tend to focus on the front kick, rear linear kick, and knees insofar as kicking type techs are concerned. You learn the hell out of those techs...an average of a 1k reps/wk total [ the average student comes to train with us about 2/wk. They get 500 reps/class ]. We kick and knee the crap out of the BG's knee...

 

[ATACX GYM]

I hope you don't mind that I've edited the above for relevance to my point.

Having been a professional trainer (Non-MA) for a very long time, I can tell you for sure that asking for verbal feedback face to face in class is a very different thing to asking for anonymous feedback. I'm suggesting something like a suggestion box in your training hall, and encouraging people to use it. You get negative constructive information you don't get face to face. Look how the world changes when people hide behind pseudonyms on the internet, for example. You get honest opinions, and often a bit of trolling. You can't act on the information and improve if you never get it in the first place, asking face to face. This is true however open and honest the culture is.

Here, rather than trolling, what I'm trying to do is offer the view of a completely impartial observer. I have no vested interest in Kempo, the Techniques, or the arguments presented here. I really don't care at all who's right. What I'm saying is, it's difficult to see in this thread how you have adjusted your view of the situation based on anything that anyone else has said. I think that's to your detriment, as it switches people off to the good stuff that you might have to say.

It's also hard to see what you are doing to convince people of your point, other than repeating yourself and asserting that you are right. People grasp what you've said first time out, but you are not giving them any reason to agree with you. For that to happen, you need to influence their thinking, not just state your position.

Part of being a great trainer and (and indirectly a great martial artist) is the ability to influence others. That's a soft skill, not a hard one. Rather than beating people over the head with your point, it means helping them to realise for themselves what is right. If what's right happens to be your way, then great!

I try to start every post (including this one) with the view that my perspective may not necessarily be the right one, or the best one. It's just what I think for now, and it's open for discussion. Other people's views are the best tool for improvement that anyone can have.

I wish you luck in your endeavour to convince us all

Part of the previous post that the site ate was an offer to show part of what I mean via video. Doing so would provide a physical depiction of what is very very simple once you do it and alot more complicated to explain.

Hmmm. Suggestion box...I will definitely look into that. Thank you for the suggestion.

As for adjusting my view visavis the suggestions given on this thread? My friend there have been several such instances of me doing so...even when dealing with one of my harshest critics [ Twin Fist ]. I'd been having some problems posting on this site, and on KT...it would take my reasonably spaced and properly punctuated posts and post them as monstrous Stonehenge blocks of text. TF complained about that and the length of my posts. I have fixed the block text problem and have reduced the length and verbiage of my posts by being more efficient with my word selection and shaving back the length of my explanations.

Josh Oakley gave me advice which I instantly employed on this very thread. Flying Crane gave me advice since my CAPOEIRA threads which I have also employed on this thread. I'm employing some of your suggestions even now with this post.

However, Gnarlie, you seem to be more or less a part of "The Silent Majority" which produces the majority of views on this thread. Up until this last page, guys like you and Robert Lee [ I hope I got his name right ] have viewed this thread but not spoken. What's perhaps apparent immediately to you guys? Isn't so apparent to some of my detractors; as well as some other well meaning people. If you look back at this thread? 80-90% of my responses have been directed toward the multiple posts of about 2 people on this thread. Their posts have been unsparing in criticism, and my responses to them were compound because I was responding to more than one person...and I was responding to a major miscomprehension of Kenpo history that's been festering for about 50 years. I had to clear all of that up.

What's interesting is that subsequent events have proven them to be factually incorrect about crucial areas that we have debated about, and proven that I have been rigorously correct with every syllable visavis my disagreement with them since page 1.

With this in mind, and placed in its proper context, my friend and nuetral observer Gnarlie...would not a more proper light be shed on the matter by saying that since I was correct, I should not have adjusted my position to those of my detractors? If I had, then I too would be incorrect. Instead...if anyone should be gently admonished or called to order..should it not be they who were incorrect and periodically profane in their zealous defense of a position proven squarely to be untrue being the parties gently called to order regarding their behaviour since the first page of this thread?

Now, as I see it...the current discussion between worthies like MJS and FLYING CRANE etc and myself centers upon proliferation of technique being possibly conflated with multifaceted technique, compounded by a preference for and experience with different training modalities. Essentially, MJS, FC and BRUCE LEE are in the same camp. Less techs. More reps.

Did you know that BRUCE LEE and ED PARKER used to debate similar points too? I didn't either...I think Doc and/or Doc Dave innahouse some time last year pulled my coat to that fact.

My position isn't quite what either Bruce or Ed Parker seem to have said with their methods [ with Mr. Parker I am referring to MOTION KENPO as I don't know his personal art; apparently only Mr. Parker and Doc knew Mr. Parker's personal art ]. I believe that we should take our techs and make each tech multifaceted. This doesn't dilute the potency of our basics, nor does it cram a bunch of different techs down a student's throat. They get concentrated quality reps of a single tech in very high amounts...against multiple attacks.

This approach also doesn't obviate the need for other techs. Just as a jab doesn't invalidate the hook. Razor Ruddock's SMASH [ a hybrid hook-uppercut combo ] doesn't invalidate either the hook or uppercut. Learning to use the Inside Block against the guard doesn't invalidate the guard or any other block. The simplicity of my message...ironically...is confusing people. And that confusion leads to ever more detailed questions.

Which leads to me repeating myself and finding other ways to say what I already said, in order to convey my message.

THAT'S why it seems like I might be being stubborn or "stuck on transmit" when nothing of the case is happening.

Now there are those who grasp exactly what I'm saying and say:" Aight cool but I still prefer basic techs used in a different training model [ Flying Crane ]." And I say COOL.

Then there are those who say: YOU CAN'T TEACH A NOOB SUCH AND SUCH THAT SOON.

That is NOT true. I've been doing that for years.

Aspects of each of the foregoing discussions happen at the same time, and sometimes the layering of the positions confuse onlookers and participants alike.

 

[Flying Crane]

I'm not saying to do something complicated. Multifaceted does NOT mean complication...especially in the sense of "difficult" or "impractical" or anything like that. Take a basic tech and work it against all kinds of scenarios. Please observe the example I've used regarding the Inside Block.

OK, and again, my Pek Choi/Chuin Choi example. But what I see going on in a lot of your technique discussions is not this kind of basic straight forward simple approach. Rather I see the longer, more complicated kenpo techs with you advocating that they be used outside of their scripted scenario. That's what I see as being overly complicated.

 

[Twin Fist]

yep.....i learned how to reverse the flow of blood through my kidneys

whats that? you say it isnt possible? not true, i have been doing it for years.....


proof? cuz i said so


/eyeroll

 

[ATACX GYM]

OK, and again, my Pek Choi/Chuin Choi example. But what I see going on in a lot of your technique discussions is not this kind of basic straight forward simple approach. Rather I see the longer, more complicated kenpo techs with you advocating that they be used outside of their scripted scenario. That's what I see as being overly complicated.

I see what you mean there, FC, but what I'm saying is a bit different. As I understand it, a TECH is a SINGLE manuever. A guard sweep. The guard tech in any of its various manifestations. And yes I read nad like Pek Choi/Chuin Choi example. As SEQUENCE, as I understand it, are LINKED TECHS in a compound manuever or flow that has a specific aim. The Bridge and Roll for escaping the mount, for instance.

What I'm saying is...learn the Bridge and Roll really well. Then apply it standing up. When the Bridge and Roll is applied standing up, you know what they call it?

The Hip Heist.

Now if you know bjj and wrestling well? You can recognize those techs immediately, and not be fooled by the labels of each tech...but automatically absorb the application of each tech.

When I made that connection, I also applied it to another staple tech and now we have The Standing Gator Roll [ ends in a sleeper hold standing or a standing tie up as you escape the bear hug, shot, grab,etc ]. Plenty helpful in multifights that have become grapplefests and you might need to elude BGs while using somebody as a shield or finishing somebody. It's a shocker in the MT Clinch. Lolol and everybody falls for it.

Now. Once you really have the tech and every tech of a sequence like my version of Sword and Hammer? You can do it in most any unarmed combat scenario. Clinch, Ground, Striking range? No problem. If I put a knife or stick in my hands? No problem still doing the whole thing. I can do it with a gun too [ as long as my opponent is within arm's reach or blitz reach ] and so can any of you. All you have to do is train. None of the techs that I show in my Sword and Hammer Radius R.D.L. sequence is new...but my Sword and Hammer Radius R.D.L. IS DESIGNED to be applicable in multiple situations. I got there by...applying the a functional but more traditional expression of S&H to multiple scenarios. I added the specifc components in my expression [ R. D. L.= Rock, Drop and Lock ] as a matter of personal preference but let me ask you...

is not pinning your opponent's hand to your shoulder "locking" him in place? Further, if you handsword over his pinned hand and his extended grabbing arm while rotating your right pec into his arm and pulling back with your left shoulder...are you not simultaneously applying a brief armlock and strike [ with the lock possibly hyperextending the elbow and/or wrist ] ? yes, that is a "Lock".If you do such a thing...would you likely "Drop" him?

Yes, you probably would.

Well whaddya know. R.D.L. Rock, Drop and Lock.

The difference is that I made my moves more functional and more evidently what they are. The subtle lock/strikes come in the sash ranks of my Gym. Not the belt or pre-White belt ranks. And the other difference is that I see and know that I can R.D.L. a guy with a slight modification of the more common less functional Sword and Hammer...but not as well as it can be done with my version.

That's another big advantage that being multiFACETED and VERSATILE gives us. I'm not saying that nobody but me is multifaceted and versatile, what I AM saying is that the concerns commonly raised about such an endeavor are simply not true.

Now as for the multiple techs in a Kenpo sequence? I used to ask that question too. Why hit this guy with a gajillion techs? That's immoral, overkill, wasted energy, and likely illegal.

Well, after I started sparring with and functionalizing the techs? The answer came: these sequences simultaneously resolve single and multifight scenarios. Mr. Parker and Mestre Bimba knew that their students might have to face more than one attacker at a time when their students only knew one sequence, so they made sure that their one sequence and most of their other sequences could stand up to that reality. It's my understanding that multifights were common in the Hawaii of Mr. Parker's youth...and we--Flying Crane and I--have long known that multifights were common for capoeiristas.

My particular sequences serve the same purpose aaaand they can be used with minimal changes whether armed with knife stick or gun [ in h2h range] as well as used in many grappling situations.

Gtg but I'll be back later...

 

[ATACX GYM]

Regarding Mo Smith. I'm not disputing that you knew him, met him, trained with him, whatever. I'm simply saying that Mo is a stand up fighter, a kickboxer, not a grappler. He trained with Frank, learned the basics, survived on the ground and pound from Mark and got back to his feet for a KO. Here are his stats. A few wins by sub. the rest by strikes.
http://www.sherdog.com/fighter/Maurice-Smith-175

As for the rest:

1) Simple is easy. Don't argue with me, argue with the dictionary...LOL.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/simple

2) Unless someone is focusing on JUST training, nothing else, ie: no job, no social life, or unless the person is an outstanding star from the get go, the average Joe won't grasp stuff as quick. The more the student has to grasp, the higher the odds they won't retain everything. I've gone to numerous seminars, where tons of material is taught. I'm lucky to walk out with 3 things. There isn't enough time to focus on tons of stuff. Now, if you drilled one aspect every day for 3 hrs or more, yeah, maybe, but again, cramming tons of stuff, no matter the method, it isn't happening. Oh it may happen, but I'd question the quality.

3) Ok

4) Its funny, because when the heat is on, people tend to fall back on simple things, that are the bread and butter moves that that person trained. In the end, the person is still ending up with numerous moves, but they're starting with a much smaller building block, which IMHO, is 10 times better. Start with 5 techs. Drill them and then form other responses. Again, in the end, you end up with alot.

5) The tech in its entirety....no. Parts of it...yes. As TF said, how can 5 swords be used for a full nelson? Clyde used PARTS of crashing elbows while in the guard, PARTS of locked wing for the ankle lock. Someone throws a rt. hook at me, I may initiallyl react with the start of 5 swords, but finish with something else.

6) Crawl before you walk, walk before you run. Start cramming a what if, down the throat of a newb, who's barely grasping the initial tech, their heads gonna be spinning...lol. Not saying not to do it, just not in the first lesson.

7) That is true. However, modifications need to be made. I'm talking about Arnis here. I still favor the FMA weapon defense over the Kenpo. Having a FMA background has made me take a 2nd look at many of the Kenpo weapons techs.

8) And you're certainly not the only one to have done this. My point again, is simply this: we have 2 people who're trying to get to the same goal. Person A can take a stand up tech, and try to figure out how to make it work on the ground. Person B can go to a BJJ school, and learn an escape. Both are trying to reach the same goal, but IMO, B will get there quicker. Thats what I mean by reinvent the wheel. You want to learn to drive a tractor trailer...gotta go to a TT school. Driving a small car for 10yrs isnt going to help you. If I want to improve on my punching, I'm going to seek out a boxer, who can coach me, not a TKD school. Wanna grapple? Ok, head to a BJJ, Sambo, Judo, Wrestling school.

Ran back into the house to grab something. Real quick answer:

2) All the benefits I talked about can be done using my 15 round progressions. Been doing it for a decade plus. Try it out or something similar; you have nothing to lose. Try it with yourself solo first and see what you can teach yourself using ONE tech. Then see how you can transmit it to a newbie.

3) Coo.

4) I start with one tech. But any number from 5 and less is fully doable. You rep a single tech vs multiple attacks. Rep out your Inside Block fisrst against punches. Then say vs a lapel grab, a MT clinch, various grabs like wrist bicep and shoulder ties [ wrestling and SD]. Then against linear knife thrusts. Thousands of reps of one tech doing its job against multiple attacks.

5) WHOSE IP are you referrring to? And remember, a tech isn't the same as a sequence. Consider this though...let's say you have a chain of multifaceted techs [each tech you're repped out by the thousands against multiple attacks ] comprising a sequence. Wouldn't the sequence be multifaceted too? Welcome to my SD Ideal Techniques.

6) See number 4.

7) I agree that the FMA wpn techs are a superior base to start in general imo visavis the more common Motion Kenpo techs purported to deal with self defense vs weapons.

8) Oooorrr...you could find a good Hapkido school that merges quality strikes with its quality grappling. Hapkido also has 7 weapons in its classic repertoire. Here's a vid of Hapkido grappling:

[video=youtube_share;BryqS55_0PM]http://youtu.be/BryqS55_0PM[/video]

 

[Flying Crane]

Now as for the multiple techs in a Kenpo sequence? I used to ask that question too. Why hit this guy with a gajillion techs? That's immoral, overkill, wasted energy, and likely illegal.

Well, after I started sparring with and functionalizing the techs? The answer came: these sequences simultaneously resolve single and multifight scenarios. Mr. Parker and Mestre Bimba knew that their students might have to face more than one attacker at a time when their students only knew one sequence, so they made sure that their one sequence and most of their other sequences could stand up to that reality. It's my understanding that multifights were common in the Hawaii of Mr. Parker's youth...and we--Flying Crane and I--have long known that multifights were common for capoeiristas.

In my opinion, they do not.

Here's the thing. I'm actually not trying to dog on the system, nor on what you are doing. On some level, every single one of us has a unique way of seeing the universe, recognizing what makes sense and what does not, distinguishing truth from fiction, etc. Because of that, we all need to discover or develop the method that works best for us, and that is often an ongoing process and can dramatically change over time. So what you see as being absolutely logical might be something that I look at and say, "no way in hell would that ever work for me, I'm not even gonna try because I just don't see the sense in it". And you might say the same thing about something that I'm doing. I think it's important to recognize that in these kinds of discussions. So if you say these things work, I'm in no position to say otherwise, as far as you are concerned. But from my perspective I see problems inherent in the approach.

Now about what I've quoted above, I see some problems with it.

the main problem lies in the very specific scripting of the choreography of the techniques. Those extra strikes are specific in how they are used and what is targeted. The more highly scripted something is, the more difficult it is to take it out of that scripted scenario and use it spontaneously.

So when you take a SD technique combo that has 14 follow-up strikes, which we see in a lot of kenpo SD techs., those follow-up strikes really only fall into place within the scripted scenario, and only fall into place when all of the prior strikes contained in the technique have worked properly. I.e., strike number 12 will not line up for you unless strike number 11 worked properly, and strike number 11 will not line up for you unless strike number 10 worked properly, all the way back to the beginning of the technique. So the sequence only works if everthing in it works according to plan, but if everything in it works according to plan, I'd say you should not need more than 1 to 4 of the strikes. So why do the rest of the strikes exist? It creates a paradox of technique, everything must work for the rest of it to work, but if everything works, you'll never get to the rest of it. You end up beating up a corpse, just to get in some more strikes.

I think it's a faulty logic in the design of the technique.

Follow-up strikes that are meant as an insurance policy for a failure of the prior strike should be options based off the initial attack, or off of a potential follow-up attack that comes after the initial failure. Because that is where you will be when something fails. You will not be in a position to roll off this long sequence, if in fact something failed along the way. The bad guy will not be in the position you need him to be in, for those next strikes to work.

And as far as using the later part of the tech against a second or third enemy, I don't buy it. I think it's along the same progression that I've just described, you are starting from a brand new attack and blending into strike number 6 in the technique for that new attack, I just don't believe is possible.

This is why I see the whole approach in this kind of curriculum as inherently faulty and complicated, and when you try to expand it even more you are just compounding the complications.

You stated above that the sequence needs to stand up to multiple attackers. I say yes, but in a different way. The sequence needs to be simple enough and yet effective and powerful enough, that you can do it over and over to multiple attackers, even if they attack you differently. You don't pick up in the middle of the technique for the next attacker. Rather, you start over with that simple but effective defense. Pek choi/Chuin choi. Turn to face the next guy and do it. Turn to face the guy after that, and do it. When the forth guy grab you from behind, turn and do it again. Or some variant of that simple solution.

Hey, if your approach works for you, all the power to you. But understand why other people are skeptical and it's doubtful that these things can be settled over an internet discussion. It's just not the right forum to really get the message and see what is actually happening.

 

[ATACX GYM]

In my opinion, they do not.

Here's the thing. I'm actually not trying to dog on the system, nor on what you are doing. On some level, every single one of us has a unique way of seeing the universe, recognizing what makes sense and what does not, distinguishing truth from fiction, etc. Because of that, we all need to discover or develop the method that works best for us, and that is often an ongoing process and can dramatically change over time. So what you see as being absolutely logical might be something that I look at and say, "no way in hell would that ever work for me, I'm not even gonna try because I just don't see the sense in it". And you might say the same thing about something that I'm doing. I think it's important to recognize that in these kinds of discussions. So if you say these things work, I'm in no position to say otherwise, as far as you are concerned. But from my perspective I see problems inherent in the approach.

Now about what I've quoted above, I see some problems with it.

the main problem lies in the very specific scripting of the choreography of the techniques. Those extra strikes are specific in how they are used and what is targeted. The more highly scripted something is, the more difficult it is to take it out of that scripted scenario and use it spontaneously.

So when you take a SD technique combo that has 14 follow-up strikes, which we see in a lot of kenpo SD techs., those follow-up strikes really only fall into place within the scripted scenario, and only fall into place when all of the prior strikes contained in the technique have worked properly. I.e., strike number 12 will not line up for you unless strike number 11 worked properly, and strike number 11 will not line up for you unless strike number 10 worked properly, all the way back to the beginning of the technique. So the sequence only works if everthing in it works according to plan, but if everything in it works according to plan, I'd say you should not need more than 1 to 4 of the strikes. So why do the rest of the strikes exist? It creates a paradox of technique, everything must work for the rest of it to work, but if everything works, you'll never get to the rest of it. You end up beating up a corpse, just to get in some more strikes.

I think it's a faulty logic in the design of the technique.

Follow-up strikes that are meant as an insurance policy for a failure of the prior strike should be options based off the initial attack, or off of a potential follow-up attack that comes after the initial failure. Because that is where you will be when something fails. You will not be in a position to roll off this long sequence, if in fact something failed along the way. The bad guy will not be in the position you need him to be in, for those next strikes to work.

And as far as using the later part of the tech against a second or third enemy, I don't buy it. I think it's along the same progression that I've just described, you are starting from a brand new attack and blending into strike number 6 in the technique for that new attack, I just don't believe is possible.

This is why I see the whole approach in this kind of curriculum as inherently faulty and complicated, and when you try to expand it even more you are just compounding the complications.

You stated above that the sequence needs to stand up to multiple attackers. I say yes, but in a different way. The sequence needs to be simple enough and yet effective and powerful enough, that you can do it over and over to multiple attackers, even if they attack you differently. You don't pick up in the middle of the technique for the next attacker. Rather, you start over with that simple but effective defense. Pek choi/Chuin choi. Turn to face the next guy and do it. Turn to face the guy after that, and do it. When the forth guy grab you from behind, turn and do it again. Or some variant of that simple solution.

Hey, if your approach works for you, all the power to you. But understand why other people are skeptical and it's doubtful that these things can be settled over an internet discussion. It's just not the right forum to really get the message and see what is actually happening.

I have zero problem with any of that. I'm not a fan of 20 hit combos outside of video game combat anyway.

I just take a different lesson from these kinds of techs, and I again say...the analysis about say strike 12 lines up for you only if strike 11 hits simply depends on whose IP you're referring to. I've seen quite a few martial artists...not just Kenpoists, but martial artists of all kinds of arts and even quite a few gung fu guys and others--throw like a infinity hit combo at a guy who's only thrown one punch and then uke freezes whilst annihilation via infinite hits sweeps stomps locks and chi fireballs rains down upon him.

I get that. I'm more than skeptical too.

All I say is this: in any discipline...any discipline at all...how you perform is directly linked to how you train. If you train a tech so that you can effortlessly draw whatever you need from any point of the sequence or any part of the continuum of techs in your belt rank and below? Then you don't need to halt or restart anything. The exigencies of the situation will be the catalyst for your lightning fast subconscious selection and application of the correct tech. Doesn't matter if it's strike 100 or chi fireball #3. You'll have the right tech for the right attack at the right moment.

If you train functionally.

That's a bigger IF for some than it is for others...

 

[MJS]

my friend MJS, maybe I should have said..."simple doesn't always mean easy". The more comprehensive dictionary definitions make this clear. Observe:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/simple?show=0&t=1329930578

Hmm....thats interesting. While it doesnt state 'easy' as other dictionary sites do, I suppose I could use this as an example:

While it doesnt directly say 'easy', I'd say that some of the examples listed could imply that. However, the closest to 'easy' would be #9.

9
: readily understood or performed <simple directions> <the adjustment was simple to make>

 

[MJS]

My friend MJS...Doc answered that part regarding the evolutionary process of Mr. Parker too. I don't want to keep paraphrasing him because that's just asking to get his quotes wrong at some point so I will refer you to his post on this matter.

As for Delayed Sword and any Motion Kenpo tech? Big Red is a guideline. There will be some similarities in every tech. In this case...there will be the handsword and some form of delay to its application. This is where BR acts as a loose guide. It's my understanding that BR wants to use DS as a method to [ among other things ] deliver a lesson of Marriage of Gravity; primarily with the dropping use of the handsword. You will note that even in my variant that the Marriage of Gravity lesson is there. Right after/at the same moment I drop my knee on the downed opponent, my handsword comes. But yes...you can eliminate the pin, you could handsword and then kick, you can do it against a punch...but there is no such thing as doing something that doesn't look like DS at all [ if you keep the handsword and apply it with the principle of Marriage of Gravity, being the main caveat...as I understand it ] because each Ideal Technique is to be crafted by your head instructor for his/her/their students.

LOL...perhaps Clyde should be told this. Seems like any time there's a technique discussion over on the KN, and someone does something different...well, you know what I mean. Hell, I'm sure you've seen it posted in the comments section by him, right on your clips. Isn't that what sparked him to put up an Attacking Mace clip?

I know and train with Kaju guys. They always laugh at Parker guys who say so and so does such and such wrong. They ask if so and so KO's the other guy and if so? So and so is doing SOMETHING right. And they carry on about their business.

LOL.

 

[MJS]

I agree with this. Not only that? Anderson is likely to use a simple straight forward tech when he annihilates you, too.

I'm not saying to do something complicated. Multifaceted does NOT mean complication...especially in the sense of "difficult" or "impractical" or anything like that. Take a basic tech and work it against all kinds of scenarios. Please observe the example I've used regarding the Inside Block.

I can add to that: I have my students use the Inside Block all the time to pass guard and defend guard.

I am also and have always been a huge advocate of the knee kick. In my pre-white belt level A classes? I tend to focus on the front kick, rear linear kick, and knees insofar as kicking type techs are concerned. You learn the hell out of those techs...an average of a 1k reps/wk total [ the average student comes to train with us about 2/wk. They get 500 reps/class ]. We kick and knee the crap out of the BG's knee...

Back on pg. 14, I read FC's post, (and Mike, please correct me if I'm wrong here) that he wasn't using a technique per se, but rather a basic move. Again, this may be a matter of personal interpretation. So, FC's use of the hammerfist vs. a punch, a choke, etc, vs. trying to use a named tech, ie: 5 swords, scrapping hoof, against other attacks, other than what they're designed for.

 

[Flying Crane]

Back on pg. 14, I read FC's post, (and Mike, please correct me if I'm wrong here) that he wasn't using a technique per se, but rather a basic move. Again, this may be a matter of personal interpretation. So, FC's use of the hammerfist vs. a punch, a choke, etc, vs. trying to use a named tech, ie: 5 swords, scrapping hoof, against other attacks, other than what they're designed for.

That is correct, I'm talking about using two basic techniques, a hammerfist and a punch. I'm not talking about using a named, scripted, kenpo Self Defense technique. There's a terminology problem, where kenpo folks see the word "technique" and they immediately jump to the named Self Defense techniques. But non-kenpo people tend to use the term "technique" in reference to the basics, a punch, a block, a kick, etc. Now that I think about it, I'm not sure what term kenpo people use for that kind of thing. In my school, we would just say, Punch or Kick or whatever. But as an overall term, I can't recall that we had one.

 

[MJS]

Ran back into the house to grab something. Real quick answer:

2) All the benefits I talked about can be done using my 15 round progressions. Been doing it for a decade plus. Try it out or something similar; you have nothing to lose. Try it with yourself solo first and see what you can teach yourself using ONE tech. Then see how you can transmit it to a newbie.

But again, that aside, I'd say the other factors I mentioned do come into play.

3) Coo.

4) I start with one tech. But any number from 5 and less is fully doable. You rep a single tech vs multiple attacks. Rep out your Inside Block fisrst against punches. Then say vs a lapel grab, a MT clinch, various grabs like wrist bicep and shoulder ties [ wrestling and SD]. Then against linear knife thrusts. Thousands of reps of one tech doing its job against multiple attacks.

As I said in another post....the use of a basic, ie: FC's hammerfist strike, vs. a named tech. Of course, again, I could see parts of a tech being used, ie: the inward block from Attacking Mace.

5) WHOSE IP are you referrring to? And remember, a tech isn't the same as a sequence. Consider this though...let's say you have a chain of multifaceted techs [each tech you're repped out by the thousands against multiple attacks ] comprising a sequence. Wouldn't the sequence be multifaceted too? Welcome to my SD Ideal Techniques.

BR, the IPs that 99.9% of the Kenpo schools out there, are using. Like I said, if Doc is claiming that Parker didn't intend it to be done that way, then that reads to me that 99.9% of the are wrong. IMO, I'd say the main people who've drastically changed stuff would be Jeff Speakman and Paul Mills. Other than that, everyone else looks damn close.

6) See number 4.

Ok, ditto.

7) I agree that the FMA wpn techs are a superior base to start in general imo visavis the more common Motion Kenpo techs purported to deal with self defense vs weapons.

So, this is why I said that IMO, its better to go straight to a specialist, rather than trying to work something else, trying to conform it to fit a mold that it wasn't designed for initially.

8) Oooorrr...you could find a good Hapkido school that merges quality strikes with its quality grappling. Hapkido also has 7 weapons in its classic repertoire. Here's a vid of Hapkido grappling:

[video=youtube_share;BryqS55_0PM]http://youtu.be/BryqS55_0PM[/video]

See my reply to #7. This is why I'm a fan of cross training, or as some like to use, cross referencing. I'm not an authority of Hapkido, but I'd wager a guess and say that what we're seeing in that clip (which IMO was very good BTW ) was a result of cross training in a grappling art. I don't think that is standard Hapkido stuff, but again, I may be wrong.

 

[Flying Crane]

As I said in another post....the use of a basic, ie: FC's hammerfist strike, vs. a named tech. Of course, again, I could see parts of a tech being used, ie: the inward block from Attacking Mace.

And then, is it really the inward block from Attacking Mace, or is it the inward block from Five Swords, or is it simply an Inward Block, and why try to dress it up beyond that?

 

[MJS]

That is correct, I'm talking about using two basic techniques, a hammerfist and a punch. I'm not talking about using a named, scripted, kenpo Self Defense technique. There's a terminology problem, where kenpo folks see the word "technique" and they immediately jump to the named Self Defense techniques. But non-kenpo people tend to use the term "technique" in reference to the basics, a punch, a block, a kick, etc. Now that I think about it, I'm not sure what term kenpo people use for that kind of thing. In my school, we would just say, Punch or Kick or whatever. But as an overall term, I can't recall that we had one.

Thanks for the clarification. I figured that was the case, but just wanted to be sure.

And then, is it really the inward block from Attacking Mace, or is it the inward block from Five Swords, or is it simply an Inward Block, and why try to dress it up beyond that?

True. Now that I re-read that, it kinda sounded like what I just mentioned above..lol. But you're right....in reality, its nothing more than an inward block.