Techniques on both sides?

[Doc]

Does anyone out there practice techniques on both sides? For instance, Five Swords is intended for a right hand punch, but you could learn it for the left side as well. I'm only a yellow belt and I've started learning my favorites on both sides, but I'm curious if others practice some or all of them from both sides.

Thanks
Aaron

Sorry to be a wet blanket, but although the commercial sytem often touted "doing techniques mirror image," the system is a right handed system that utilizes a persons strengths on both sides in different ways, much like the classical arts it springs from. The commercial art also pushed "extensions" of tchniques as well. Busy work to keep people moving. Not all bad, but not the best either.

 

[Seabrook]

The commercial art also pushed "extensions" of tchniques as well. Busy work to keep people moving. Not all bad, but not the best either.

Doc...what are you saying here? (grin)

I used to think the way you did, until I started realizing that the extensions are really techniques onto themselves, and give the Kenpoist and better understanding of how to utilize upper body principles to the lower case (ie. more leg buckles, sweeps, ect, in the extensions).

How do you define busy work? Which sets would you define as busy work and why? Just asking....


Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com

 

[Doc]

Doc...what are you saying here? (grin)

I used to think the way you did, until I started realizing that the extensions are really techniques onto themselves, and give the Kenpoist and better understanding of how to utilize upper body principles to the lower case (ie. more leg buckles, sweeps, ect, in the extensions).

How do you define busy work? Which sets would you define as busy work and why? Just asking....


Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com

Usless information that should have already been covered in previous lessons of the base techniques. Few of the extensions have any anatomical efficacy and in fact some create the reverse effect of destroying your own structural integrity through contradictory body mechanics. However that being said, if YOU find value in them, thats another story. Would you be surprised to find out that Parker didn't even create most of them? You can also throw out most of the "2" sets as well for the same reason, also created by someone else, and not Parker. Now some "motion geniuses" (GD-7) can pull some interesting lessons out of them, but they have no basis for existence in an anatomically based interpretation as I teach. There's tons of information to digest without, from our perspective "useless motion." One lesson will prove that to you in a hearbeat.

 

[Casey_Sutherland]

Would you be surprised to find out that Parker didn't even create most of them? You can also throw out most of the "2" sets as well for the same reason, also created by someone else, and not Parker. Now some "motion geniuses" (GD-7) can pull some interesting lessons out of them, but they have no basis for existence in an anatomically based interpretation as I teach. There's tons of information to digest without, from our perspective "useless motion." One lesson will prove that to you in a hearbeat.

Without stepping on any toes, who created certain sets aside from Mr. Parker? Just for curiosty's sake

 

[Doc]

Without stepping on any toes, who created certain sets aside from Mr. Parker? Just for curiosty's sake

Since when can you discuss the commercial kenpo without stepping on toes somewhere? A great deal of the "2" sets were created to flesh out the business material by Jim Mitchell. You can also either blame him or thank him for a lot of the extensions.

And no we don't do them in SubLevel Four Kenpo. Never had, never will.

 

[Dark Kenpo Lord]

Usless information that should have already been covered in previous lessons of the base techniques. Few of the extensions have any anatomical efficacy and in fact some create the reverse effect of destroying your own structural integrity through contradictory body mechanics. However that being said, if YOU find value in them, thats another story. Would you be surprised to find out that Parker didn't even create most of them? You can also throw out most of the "2" sets as well for the same reason, also created by someone else, and not Parker. Now some "motion geniuses" (GD-7) can pull some interesting lessons out of them, but they have no basis for existence in an anatomically based interpretation as I teach. There's tons of information to digest without, from our perspective "useless motion." One lesson will prove that to you in a hearbeat.

Useless to you, have you ever learned the extensions, all of them? I'd like to know where you see similar motion from the extension to Thrusting Salute, it only happnes once in the system in that extension. Let's take a look at Flashing Wing's extension, you haven't seen that one yet in the previous curriculum. I could make a list of things that don't happen in the techs that do appear in the extensions, and not the new ones that have been floating around. Seems to me, Mr. Parker wouldn't endorce anything he didn't find valuable to the common student. And that old argument of more material through black to keep the franchise bringing in the bucks things doesn't work.

 

[kenpo3631]

Usless information that should have already been covered in previous lessons of the base techniques. Few of the extensions have any anatomical efficacy and in fact some create the reverse effect of destroying your own structural integrity through contradictory body mechanics. However that being said, if YOU find value in them, thats another story. Would you be surprised to find out that Parker didn't even create most of them? You can also throw out most of the "2" sets as well for the same reason, also created by someone else, and not Parker. Now some "motion geniuses" (GD-7) can pull some interesting lessons out of them, but they have no basis for existence in an anatomically based interpretation as I teach. There's tons of information to digest without, from our perspective "useless motion." One lesson will prove that to you in a hearbeat

Since when can you discuss the commercial kenpo without stepping on toes somewhere? A great deal of the "2" sets were created to flesh out the business material by Jim Mitchell. You can also either blame him or thank him for a lot of the extensions.

Thank you Doc! I discussed this same thing and was told nearly vebatim by my current instructor the same things about the extensions & sets. Your replies only re-affirm my belief in my instructor. Thank you!

To see more on what Doc is saying take a look at this link.

Original System article

 

[Doc]

Thank you Doc! I discussed this same thing and was told nearly vebatim by my current instructor the same things about the extensions & sets. Your replies only re-affirm my belief in my instructor. Thank you!

To see more on what Doc is saying take a look at this link.

Original System article

Wow, that was very well written and touched on quite a few issues. Maybe I'm not crazy afterall.

 

[Dark Kenpo Lord]

Usless information that should have already been covered in previous lessons of the base techniques. Few of the extensions have any anatomical efficacy and in fact some create the reverse effect of destroying your own structural integrity through contradictory body mechanics. However that being said, if YOU find value in them, thats another story. Would you be surprised to find out that Parker didn't even create most of them? You can also throw out most of the "2" sets as well for the same reason, also created by someone else, and not Parker. Now some "motion geniuses" (GD-7) can pull some interesting lessons out of them, but they have no basis for existence in an anatomically based interpretation as I teach. There's tons of information to digest without, from our perspective "useless motion." One lesson will prove that to you in a hearbeat.

Ok, so let me ask another question, did Mr. Parker tell you the 2nd sets and extensions were useless? If he did, did he tell anyone else?

DarK LorD

 

[kenpo3631]

First let me preface this by stating that I have not personally met either Doc or DarK Kenpo LorD, however from reading their post the I can say with some assurance that they are both staunch advocates and proponents of the Ed Parker American Kenpo System. This post is not intended to defend any one point of view over that of another, it is just my observations of the written word and my own interpretation.

Few of the extensions have any anatomical efficacy and in fact some create the reverse effect of destroying your own structural integrity through contradictory body mechanics. However that being said, if YOU find value in them, thats another story.

DarK Kenpo LorD, it looks pretty clear that although Doc doesn't feel strongly about the extensions, he does not boo hoo your beliefs and actually states if YOU find value then by all means soak it up.

Would you be surprised to find out that Parker didn't even create most of them? You can also throw out most of the "2" sets as well for the same reason, also created by someone else, and not Parker.

DKL, I have heard this from more than one of the "Seniors" & 1st Generation students of Mr. Parker. You can take a look here...Original System It's is unique that Mr. Parker was actually chronicled about this.

Now some "motion geniuses" (GD-7) can pull some interesting lessons out of them, but they have no basis for existence in an anatomically based interpretation as I teach. There's tons of information to digest without, from our perspective "useless motion."

It looks again as if Doc is not boo hoo'ing your beliefs, just stating the HE and HIS students don't find the value in many of the extensions and #2 sets for the way HE teaches Kenpo.

One lesson will prove that to you in a hearbeat

DKL, you have the fortune of living in the state that is the Mecca of Kenpo. Why don't you take him up on his offer?

 

[Dark Kenpo Lord]

First let me preface this by stating that I have not personally met either Doc or DarK Kenpo LorD, however from reading their post the I can say with some assurance that they are both staunch advocates and proponents of the Ed Parker American Kenpo System. This post is not intended to defend any one point of view over that of another, it is just my observations of the written word and my own interpretation.



DarK Kenpo LorD, it looks pretty clear that although Doc doesn't feel strongly about the extensions, he does not boo hoo your beliefs and actually states if YOU find value then by all means soak it up.



DKL, I have heard this from more than one of the "Seniors" & 1st Generation students of Mr. Parker. You can take a look here...Original System It's is unique that Mr. Parker was actually chronicled about this.



It looks again as if Doc is not boo hoo'ing your beliefs, just stating the HE and HIS students don't find the value in many of the extensions and #2 sets for the way HE teaches Kenpo.



DKL, you have the fortune of living in the state that is the Mecca of Kenpo. Why don't you take him up on his offer?

OK, same question to you. Did Mr. Parker tell YOU the 2nd sets and extensions were useless?


As far as taking him on the offer, I did, to his objections that I not be present for his seminar. I showed up anyway unbeknownst to the promoter. I walked away with more knowledge than you can imagine, and have used the principles in reverse to test them. The power of suggestion is a strong tool.

DarK LorD

 

[kenpo3631]

OK, same question to you. Did Mr. Parker tell YOU the 2nd sets and extensions were useless?

Mr. Parker did not tell me anything. However I never saw Mr. Parker ever do any of the #2 Sets (nor has "Senior" or 1st generation students I have spoken with) & as in the article I linked in my previous post, I saw Mr. Parker expound on these sets as described in the article.

I have never been told by anyone they were useless, just repetitive and did not add to the system but repeated already taught principles.

 

[Doc]

Mr. Parker did not tell me anything. However I never saw Mr. Parker ever do any of the #2 Sets (nor has "Senior" or 1st generation students I have spoken with) & as in the article I linked in my previous post, I saw Mr. Parker expound on these sets as described in the article.

I have never been told by anyone they were useless, just repetitive and did not add to the system but repeated already taught principles.

The singlemindedness of some people is mind boggling. Thank you for your reading comp skills. I thought I've said it fairly well many times. Its amazing how someone could read something and have it say exactly what they want it to say.

Anyway neither have I seen any of the "seniors" endorse OR teach them. Hell most don't even teach all of the others. And as for us "ancients" that are senior to all the seniors, most of us don't do any of that new fangled motion based stuff.

Everything Parker allowed into his many sytems had some validty on some level at some time or it wouldn't be there. The value of anything depends on who, what, when, where, how, and most importantly "why?" As long as those questions are positively answered for the individual, then it doesn't matter. Some do and teach things I wouldn't dream of, and vice versa. I do my thing and share. You do your thing and share. Everyone will choose what they like. Most will choose the road of least resistance or most popular. No harm, no foul. If some people would spend as much time on their own knowledge and skill as they do monitoring others, everyone would be better off.

 

[Seabrook]

I have never been told by anyone they were useless, just repetitive and did not add to the system but repeated already taught principles.

One of the main differences between the #2 versions of the sets compared to the first of them is that the second sets involve more transitions and movements across the floor in conjunction with the hands, unlike the Star Block Set, Finger Set, and Striking Set where a student is to remain in a stationary horse stance throughout the sets. Blocking Set 2, Kicking Set 2, Coordination Sets 1 and 2, Finger Set 2, Striking Set 2, and Stance Set 2 all apply here. The movement and footwork used in these second sets also allows for a better understanding of angles, contact, and outer rim domination.

IMO - I wouldn't call this "repetitive motion".

Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

DKL:

You are right. The power of suggestion is, indeed strong. It is used to build expectations which are then validated in the environment by the subjective observer: In other words, we see what we expect to see, so suggestion is a way of priming expectation.

Were you able to approach your SL4 experience without your own expectations influencing your perception, and therefore experience?

In my own experience, my ability to appreciate what Doc does unfolds in layers. Most of what he says, the first time I hear it, seems a little far fetched. But -- to the best of my ability -- I suspend judgement to see if the experience or idea has any warrant in and of itself. I then go to other training arenas (folks who have never heard of Doc, SL4, and in many cases, kenpo...i.e., a rugby game or mosh pit) and try it on the unsuspecting masses. Depending on my experience there, I have a tendency to return to Doc's with an interest in hearing (actually HEARING) the next layer deep in the ideas he's been working on of late.

Even then, there is much he talks about and explores that I don't get. Language he expresses that might as well be Greek, as I don't have the capacity, groundwork, or experiential understandings necessary to interpret the words to meaning (it's my own darned fault; I'm only out there once in a while).

As for the power of suggestion...heavy bags and human bones are not vulnerable to expectation. I can demonstrate for you, in 5 minutes, in a way that you can/will experience with your own body, that many of Doc's principles of anatomical alignment produce solid, immediate, reproducible results. I guarantee that -- throwing backnuckles on a heavy bag -- there will be undeniable results visible to all observing, and noticably different for the person throwing the backfist (a magnitude increase in the sheer force & penetration generated in a blow, while actually putting less physical effort into it...albeit, more thought). Been using some of these in rather aggressive sparring recently, to get used to throwing them down in a clash (as opposed to partner drills on the mat...an environment in which it is admittedly too easy to simply buy in to, and repeatedly reinforce, suggestion); my little team of training partners and I are all hobbling around with deep joint injuries, healing ribs, etc., and the only thing we changed are how we align ourselves prior to and/or during the delivery of basics. Basics, revisited with different principles (anatomical alignment). Just basics.

The take-away lesson is that small changes in "performance approach" make a huge difference in outcome. And this, with only basics. Some combinations of movements in the vocabulary of motion lend themselves poorly to the corrective mechanisms that shore up and strengthen the basics to take them to the next level (anatomical alignment). Hence, from an alignment perspective, they would make for lousy training material.

I have fun with the extensions...as a kenpo addict, I still enjoy ripping off some bunch of movements at high speed/high intensity, and personally feel it's an excellent exercise in flow and for developing speed. I'm now also aware that, in so doing, I'm falling back on old habits that detract from the quality of the individual movements embedded within the sequence (is that backnuckle really being delivered as hard and as fast as it can, with total body integrity intact?).

The extensions are not wrong or evil; heck, they're fun and a great workout to burn through. From an SL4 perspective, many require compromising the very foundation-building principles necessary to take skill and energy to the next phase. And I'm still not entirely sure you've given SL4 an unbiased shake (just my opinion).

Regards to all,

Dave

 

[kenpo3631]

Mr. Seabrook you stated in your last post...

One of the main differences between the #2 versions of the sets compared to the first of them is that the second sets involve more transitions and movements across the floor in conjunction with the hands, unlike the Star Block Set, Finger Set, and Striking Set where a student is to remain in a stationary horse stance throughout the sets

I partially agree with you here, however if you wanted you could use the Equation Formula to alter Kicking Set #1 by prefixing or suffixing hand strikes or Stance Set #1 by having the student use complimentary angles with thier hands instead of having them place thier hand upon thier hips, heck why not just do plain ole' step through foot maneuvers while executing various hand strikes or kicks, you'd essentially achieve the same result. Better yet teach them the forms.

The movement and footwork used in these second sets also allows for a better understanding of angles, contact, and outer rim domination.

I thought you learned that stuff within the self defense techniques & forms? I know I did. I heard Mr. Parker state once that "Sets are nothing more than mental masturbation." If anyone wanted they could make a Stance Set #3, Finger Set #3,why not an Elbow Set #1 or Rolls & Falls Set #1. Quite honestly I am surprised somebody isn't out there trying to pass it off already. I feel Mr. Parker knew most students do not enjoy working basics, what better way to get them to practice their basics than by requiring them to learn sets, the "appendices of motion"?

IMO - I wouldn't call this "repetitive motion"

If it is taught in the techniques and forms then what would you call it then?

 

[Doc]

One of the main differences between the #2 versions of the sets compared to the first of them is that the second sets involve more transitions and movements across the floor in conjunction with the hands, unlike the Star Block Set, Finger Set, and Striking Set where a student is to remain in a stationary horse stance throughout the sets. Blocking Set 2, Kicking Set 2, Coordination Sets 1 and 2, Finger Set 2, Striking Set 2, and Stance Set 2 all apply here. The movement and footwork used in these second sets also allows for a better understanding of angles, contact, and outer rim domination.

IMO - I wouldn't call this "repetitive motion".

Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com

Well sir, in many ways it is repetitive to take a set and then add footwork you presumably already know. Then maybe I'm more than a bit biased because I know the source and how they came about. At any rate, any materials usefulness or lack of, depends on your point of view. One's man junk is another's treasure. As long as a person finds value then who's to say its not?

 

[kenpo3631]

At any rate, any materials usefulness or lack of, depends on your point of view. One's man junk is another's treasure. As long as a person finds value then who's to say its not?

Doc thanks again. I believe in your statement.

 

[Seabrook]

Mr. Seabrook you stated in your last post...

I partially agree with you here, however if you wanted you could use the Equation Formula to alter Kicking Set #1 by prefixing or suffixing hand strikes or Stance Set #1 by having the student use complimentary angles with thier hands instead of having them place thier hand upon thier hips, heck why not just do plain ole' step through foot maneuvers while executing various hand strikes or kicks, you'd essentially achieve the same result. Better yet teach them the forms.

I thought you learned that stuff within the self defense techniques & forms? I know I did. I heard Mr. Parker state once that "Sets are nothing more than mental masturbation." If anyone wanted they could make a Stance Set #3, Finger Set #3,why not an Elbow Set #1 or Rolls & Falls Set #1. Quite honestly I am surprised somebody isn't out there trying to pass it off already. I feel Mr. Parker knew most students do not enjoy working basics, what better way to get them to practice their basics than by requiring them to learn sets, the "appendices of motion"?


If it is taught in the techniques and forms then what would you call it then?

If Ed Parker didn't want the 2nd sets (or the 1st for that matter) to be taught as part of his American Kenpo curriculum, then why are they included as requirements? Please don't say for marketing purposes or just to give people what they want.

Also what in the world is "busy work" anyway? I here those words all of the time. If the argument is that it is material that really has little benefit to a Kenpo practitioner, I couldn't disagree more. The extensions, for example, provide a "what-if" to us should the ideal phase go wrong. There are also many fighting applications to the sets.

Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com

 

[MJS]

If Ed Parker didn't want the 2nd sets (or the 1st for that matter) to be taught as part of his American Kenpo curriculum, then why are they included as requirements? Please don't say for marketing purposes or just to give people what they want.

Also what in the world is "busy work" anyway? I here those words all of the time. If the argument is that it is material that really has little benefit to a Kenpo practitioner, I couldn't disagree more. The extensions, for example, provide a "what-if" to us should the ideal phase go wrong. There are also many fighting applications to the sets.

Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com

You're right, I hear those words as well. The ext. are of a value for the reasons that you mentioned. If someone does not find use for them, I guess thats their choice, but they (students) should not be discouraged from doing them just because someone else may not find value in them.

Mike