The old Beagles Eak :)

[distalero]

I disagree sir. We practice this technique regularly stepping to the left settling into a horse stance and moving us out of the stance is not possible.

Well..........of course this technique can be taught in many different ways, but to address this: it's the act of stepping into that "immoveable" horse that can be the downfall, literally. I, we, practiced this as being a surprise move against us, who were standing there, humming and blinking, oblivious to what was about to happen. The grab of our shoulder was a grab into the attacker and back, so that there was not time to step with anything but the right foot, mostly to break an already beginning fall. The attacker is pulling the weight of your head (no offense) and your thorax, over the pivot of two points (your feet) which becomes even more effective for him if you kindly remove one of those pivot points by stepping away from him. The hand work intent was to start in on working on what was available, on the "fall in" as it were. When I stand around casually I don't stand in a wide stanced horse, and this technique was taught to us assuming that no one else does either.

For one the assumption is the grab is a close one for momentary control. If he grabs he will be close because he is not afraid. If he were afraid, he wouldn't grab at all and just punch instead.

Well, you can make the case that anyone who attacks you is afraid, but that aside, he has to get close to either pull or strike. He is wisely choosing to do both. If by momentay control you meant the time it takes to pull and punch you down to the ground then yes, it's for momentary control.


If he is so far away from you you have to step in front of him, you may be moving into a secondary strike with his right hand, and your angle will not be able to stop it.

See above: you had no choice but to move into him, and yes of course the next shot is his, but you can do something too, and the theoretical hope is that elbowing his grasp will "denature" that next shot. "Start throwing something" is the real world, especially if you weren't paying attention to things, and yes I understand that Kenpo nowadays couches everything in the "science" of the art, but hell, start throwing something. My angle is what it is; maybe not what I practiced (although with my way of doing it, it's pretty close, ie lousy). Too bad for me, but......( insert the phrase "start throwing something" here).

If he can, than something is being done incorrectly.

Yes, of course. I wasn't originally paying attention.

Well Ed Parker taught me to step to the left. He made it functional, and so do I. We practice and train techniques very realistically based on how I was taught and the personnel I train regularly who depend upon our methodology on a day-today basis in their regular employment in public law enforcement.

Which I respect, of course. "Killer/hunters" (no offense) can make most anything work, especially if their usual focus is hypervigilance. Can't hurt, though, for the average schmuck like yours truly to practice like he isn't a badass (or in a perceived war zone) because......I'm not.


May I ask, what is it you do to establish structural integrity significant enough so that your stance is immoveable?

Land in some semblance of a neutral bow while windmilling arms and hands with some accuracy, maybe even, if the attacker is dumb enough to allow it, cutting a 45 (angle not pistol, although the pistol would be a better choice) on him. Seriously, this technique is for a situation that is bad from the beginning. I practiced it with the understanding that it happens that way, and going back and reconstructing the attack so that I can "do it better" is good for teaching the movement involved, but not for practicing the movement involved. Thanks for your response. What I've written here is only my understanding, not "the" understanding, and maybe even not a very insightful understanding.

 

[Adept]

Without bothering with quaint names, we do incorporate a similar move in our training.

We encourage situational awareness in our training, so when practicing maneuvers like this we start with out hands up facing our agressor. As the attacker grabs the left shoulder (presumably for body control so he can smack you in the face) you grab his hand and hold it tight to your shoulder. At the same time step backwards with your left foot and right with your right foot, keeping a stong stance as you pull him slightly forward and to his left.

Then your options are many. You can control the arm and force a takedown, strike to the underside of the upper arm and the follow through, kick to his left leg, whatever you feel most comfortable executing.

 

[Doc]

Without bothering with quaint names, we do incorporate a similar move in our training.

We encourage situational awareness in our training, so when practicing maneuvers like this we start with out hands up facing our agressor. As the attacker grabs the left shoulder (presumably for body control so he can smack you in the face) you grab his hand and hold it tight to your shoulder. At the same time step backwards with your left foot and right with your right foot, keeping a stong stance as you pull him slightly forward and to his left.

Then your options are many. You can control the arm and force a takedown, strike to the underside of the upper arm and the follow through, kick to his left leg, whatever you feel most comfortable executing.

Excuse my ignorance but that doesn't seem to make much sense. We were speakinh of flank attacks (I think), that incorporate a completely different dynamic than frontal assaults. Additionally, if the attack is from the flank, "Pinning" the hand to your shoulder is not prudent due to anatomical considerations.

 

[Adept]

We were speakinh of flank attacks (I think)

Ah yes. My mistake, I'm afraid. I misread the original post as 'to the front' not 'to the right'.

 

[distalero]

Excuse my ignorance but that doesn't seem to make much sense. We were speakinh of flank attacks (I think), that incorporate a completely different dynamic than frontal assaults.


I don't seem to have this "Quote" feature down yet, so who knows how it will show up, but I wanted to agree with your "I think", above. I thought we were talking about a flank attack as well. The original post that got this going also mentioned pinning the attacker's hand, which for a bunch of reasons doesn't make sense, if for no other reason than it applies "down", and restricting, force to your own shoulder joint; or have I missed something? It sounds like you don't practice it this way either. Also, a pokey-poo to the axillary area is even more questionable than our "strike to the floating rib"/ old time way of doing this techinque. Is this the first strike in your version? Confusing, so now I have to ask: how do you critique my interpretation in my last post (sorry, hard to read because of hashing up the quotes)?

 

[Doc]

Originally Posted by Doc

I disagree sir. We practice this technique regularly stepping to the left settling into a horse stance and moving us out of the stance is not possible.

Well..........of course this technique can be taught in many different ways, but to address this: it's the act of stepping into that "immoveable" horse that can be the downfall, literally. I, we, practiced this as being a surprise move against us, who were standing there, humming and blinking, oblivious to what was about to happen

I think everyone practices this as a "surprise." If it wasn't a surprise, you would retaliate before he grabbed.

The grab of our shoulder was a grab into the attacker and back, so that there was not time to step with anything but the right foot, mostly to break an already beginning fall.

It seems you do not understand the dynamics of this technique, at least as I understand it. If the attack is from the flank, as we established, you are talking about a different set of circumstances. What you describe is a rear attack on one hand and a flank on another.

The attacker is pulling the weight of your head (no offense) and your thorax, over the pivot of two points (your feet) which becomes even more effective for him if you kindly remove one of those pivot points by stepping away from him. The hand work intent was to start in on working on what was available, on the "fall in" as it were. When I stand around casually I don't stand in a wide stanced horse, and this technique was taught to us assuming that no one else does either.

It appears you are taking two positions, one being my description depends upon standing in a stationary horse "waiting" for someone to grab. I believe I said we "step" into a horse.

For one the assumption is the grab is a close one for momentary control. If he grabs he will be close because he is not afraid. If he were afraid, he wouldn't grab at all and just punch instead.

Well, you can make the case that anyone who attacks you is afraid, but that aside, he has to get close to either pull or strike. He is wisely choosing to do both.

My experience suggests otherwise. People who are afraid on the street don't walk up and touch people they are afraid of.

If by momentay control you meant the time it takes to pull and punch you down to the ground then yes, it's for momentary control.

Sorry, but either I'm dense or you're not making any sense.

If he is so far away from you you have to step in front of him, you may be moving into a secondary strike with his right hand, and your angle will not be able to stop it.

See above: you had no choice but to move into him, and yes of course the next shot is his, but you can do something too, and the theoretical hope is that elbowing his grasp will "denature" that next shot. "Start throwing something" is the real world, especially if you weren't paying attention to things, and yes I understand that Kenpo nowadays couches everything in the "science" of the art, but hell, start throwing something. My angle is what it is; maybe not what I practiced (although with my way of doing it, it's pretty close, ie lousy). Too bad for me, but......( insert the phrase "start throwing something" here).

It sounds to me like you are not very experienced, nor do you have an understanding of the Ed Parker technique that I am familiar with.

If he can, than something is being done incorrectly.

Yes, of course. I wasn't originally paying attention.

Then why are you writing?

Well Ed Parker taught me to step to the left. He made it functional, and so do I. We practice and train techniques very realistically based on how I was taught and the personnel I train regularly who depend upon our methodology on a day-today basis in their regular employment in public law enforcement.

Which I respect, of course. "Killer/hunters" (no offense) can make most anything work, especially if their usual focus is hypervigilance. Can't hurt, though, for the average schmuck like yours truly to practice like he isn't a badass (or in a perceived war zone) because......I'm not.

Clearly you have no understanding of the dynamics of street confrontations on any level.

Land in some semblance of a neutral bow while windmilling arms and hands with some accuracy, maybe even, if the attacker is dumb enough to allow it, cutting a 45 (angle not pistol, although the pistol would be a better choice) on him. Seriously, this technique is for a situation that is bad from the beginning. I practiced it with the understanding that it happens that way, and going back and reconstructing the attack so that I can "do it better" is good for teaching the movement involved, but not for practicing the movement involved. Thanks for your response. What I've written here is only my understanding, not "the" understanding, and maybe even not a very insightful understanding.

I absolutely have no idea what you're talking about. Perhaps someone else reading can translate/interpret what you are trying to say.

 

[distalero]

Originally Posted by Doc

Clearly you have no understanding of the dynamics of street confrontations on any level.

I absolutely have no idea what you're talking about. Perhaps someone else reading can translate/interpret what you are trying to say.

Ah, yes. Well.....pretty much most of what I wrote was maybe just a little tongue in cheek. There is a level of reality that lies just below the one you seem to be focusing on, and that's the level I was alluding to for the most part. You seem to be very analytical, and perhaps have a tendency towards the literal (not that those are necessarily negative qualities) as evidenced by some of your comments, not to mention the terms "dynamics" of "street confrontations"; very formal sounding, very neatly catagorized. What I was referring to has nothing to do with believing that theoretical diagrams, ie techniques, including "immoveable horse(s)" are a guaranteed best response to an unexpected attack. It's true, I'm not a cop. My "understanding" of "confrontations" comes mainly from military experience 30 plus years ago. But from what I can tell, cops practice the same "dynamics" that we did: 5 to 10 on one, club the sh**! out anybody that even looks like they're going to move (we could be a little more extreme: we just opened up), and the recognition that a radio, and the real help it can bring, was always the best first move, and always, always, keep scanning the crowd, surroundings, etc. Were those the dynamics of a confrontation you were referring to? Anything short of that is is really just theoretical practice, but possibly effective, I'll grant that, if your job is to look for sought after targets, while you scan your surroundings, staying in constant contact with dispatch ie, basic LE survival. Me, I get to walk away if it's just words and gestures, and run if it's more serious (unless protection of the young/innocent is involved). In my experience actual attacks are chaotic, even the ones you saw coming, especially 30 years (and almost as many pounds) later, and nobody freakin' diagramed them, so as a consequence I practice with this in mind. But it's just practice, not "real".
Chaos; want a definition? Ask around your classes, ask a vet what the accepted, perhaps the only, way out of an ambush is.
:asian: