Doc
Senior Master
Of course you're correct sir. How would a low level student know what is an acceptable tailor, or not? That is a teachers job as he works with various students in the classroom.Thanks Doc, for another wel-thought out reply.Please correct me if I'm wrong here, but as I safe to interpret the above as, tailoring is ok, but it would be better if the students were not the sole ones responsible for it, but instead the instructors?
Students are required to learn the techniques correctly. There is only one correct way when material is presented in a well designed progressive curriculum. The curriculum is supposed to teach specific physical principles of effectiveness first. This information must be inculcated properly before anything else can be addressed. As an example, just because a person is short in a class of giants doesn't mean all of their techniques should be done high or low. When a short person does a form, do they reach high with all of their strikes because they know they're short? We are training their body as much as intellectually imparting information. Once that is done, only an instructor may offer minor tailoring for "gender", "height," and "girth/mass" discrepancies.
Gender tailoring simply means, there are some techniques that are most likely to occur male-to-female, female-to-female, and almost never "female to male." A good example is a rear bear hug under the above guidelines. When you add the other examples of height and girth, than the problem becomes exacerbated. Therefore a small stature female student would not waste her time trying to apply bear hugs to a tall large girth male. The male would get no benefit, and neither would the female.
Height tailoring is most apparent. It allows that a technique may be adjusted to fit the stature of the student, when it calls for a strike to the head area, and it is out-of-reach. However the adjustment will be given specifically to the student by a teacher, and will expressly define the alternate target, and scientifically why. Not just a lower strike, but a strike that will present the same desired effect and sequential action, so that it does not materially alter the science of the technique, nor impair its effectiveness.
Girth/mass tailoring is only an issue for those that might attack a large individual. Rarely will it be the other way around, therefore it is the least of the tailoring possibilities from an execution perspective. Large people don't really have a problem attacking, the problem lies with those that would attack them, when the assault calls for an encircling grab, or a substantial movement of their mass as a part of the assault vehicle.
Throughout the lessons, it is constantly stressed that particular sequences are in fact, not a requirement on the street "beyond ones own capabilities." The goal is to inculcate and regurgitate the principles, including their sequences, but immediate results and survival skills take precedent.
A Parker Technique like, "Sword of Destruction" calls for a finishing hand-sword to the side of the neck. We execute in a particular way that creates a finishing result that knocks the attacker out quite effectively. However it is a 101 (Yellow Belt) technique, and a student may choose to use a hammer-fist in a confrontation because they are more comfortable with that weapon, but in doing so they would alter the target to suit the weapon. Here they would adjust to the base of the ear or TW-17 for maximum effect not achievable with the hand-sword.
So in conclusion, there is nothing wrong with tailoring when it is put in context based on the science of execution, and when "approved" or "suggested" by the teacher. Students should not be allowed to tailor until they have achieved a significant level of skill and the knowledge that accompanies that level. I've seen students taught a simple technique and shown multiple ways to execute it. All most students want is one way that works. When you inundate a beginner with infinite possibilities, they learn none of them, and develop poor skills at best. I've seen it all over the world. The problem is because "everyone is doing it," everyone looks universally "good" (bad), and no one can tell because they lack perspective of how it should actually be done. Students mimic their teachers, so you know where the blame is.
My students of skill don't "consciously" tailor, and they are fine with it because what they've been taught works well, and they are fascinated with the mechanisms they're learning and how effective they are. However, because they have been taught well, when they tailor on the street, it is more "instinctive" and simply falls within the boundaries of other lessons. This is what my law enforcement people tell me, and so tailoring is not an issue for them. they simply do what they've been taught, and it comes out one way or another. Isn't that supposed to be the way it is? Reacting instinctively to what is effective is not tailoring. It simply means you learned your lessons. Tailoring is a conscious effort to "change something."
From the beginning, minor alternate possibilities are built into the default technique sequence. if you do the technique correctly, it doesn't matter that the attack is not perfect, or altered slightly. Any major difference in the assault is covered by another technique sequence. So in that regard, there are no "what-ifs. "What-ifs" are the responsibility of teachers who would design basic techniques to be taught. Students do what they are taught, the technique takes care of the "what-if" and simply work "as is."
Oh yeah. When I first went public, that's what many thought SubLevel Four Kenpo was. Simply adding a manipulation onto a technique, and therefore some claimed to know SL-4. They were as wrong as you can be. Than they saw me knock guys down and out with literally "taps," and then they decided SL-4 was "nerve strikes." Wrong again. SL-4 kenpo is all inclusive of all the four combat ranges AND their sub-categories. Physical Manipulations, subtle and not-so-subtle, may be executed at all ranges, and sometimes without contact.
We spend as much time on all attacks as we do the counter techniques themselves. In "Twisted Twig," students are capable of attacking with a "wrist-flex throw takedown," which means they can use it offensively themselves independently of the technique scenario. this insures those training the self-defense technique are learning to counter it properly without having to "move first" before grabbed to be effective. I also have a couple of simple control manipulation counters to weapons I'm waiting to put up on UTube as soon as they're titled, as well as when punching moves from horizontal to vertical. I also have more of my AOD Drills coming.
The problem is the teacher would have to learn them first. Not only does this take effort but who was going to teach them? Parker was only one man, and as anyone who does manipulations will tell you, it is the hardest part of the martial arts to execute effectively against an unwilling subject. It is strictly tactile hands-on, and is painful in the learning process. Not to many people line up in commercial schools to have their wrist twisted and be thrown down until it hurts every night, and that includes the teachers.
No matter what anyone says, it is not a commercially viable part of training. How many of those schools do you see around compared to everything else? Parker took simple self defense concepts that have always been around, and worked them into a commercially viable self defense art that satisfies what most people want. But as I previously stated, he told you there was more, if you listened. When you have a technique like "Twisted Twig," you would think that a Kenpo Teacher would get someone to show him how to do the attack, even if he had to go down to a Aikido or Traditional Jiujitsu guy in the area. But of course, if he learned the proper attack mechanism, then his counter technique wouldn't be any good. Dam, there goes the whole system.
I haven't talked to Al Tracy since he called me up to invite me to the first "Gathering." I don't know what they do anymore, but I can guarantee you this. If Al wants it in there, he isn't shy about hiring somebody to teach how to do it right. Come to think of it, how the hell did AL get my home phone number? I guess I better double check my security again.
Ain't that the truth Brudda. Having a guy "hand you his hand," and you standing there so he can do a technique is a recipe for disaster.Agreed. Kind of hard to defend against something if someone doesnt even know how to apply the initial attack.
But then again, what the hell do I know? Most teach this way and are successful. as Dennis Miller would say, "I could be wrong." and I'm sure they're many who think so. Oh well, back to work.
