Three phases of movement

[jeffkyle]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

Why the useless extension? because the base tech didn't get it donh, and they keep fighting.

Or because now you are fired up and you aren't done with them yet...because they are still standing!

 

[MisterMike]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
First off and speaking as a critic--it's a long way from what Clyde wrote to, "it's my way, or you're wrong."

Second off, as a theoretican--there are wrong ways to do things, MJS. If memory serves, you've spent a good deal of time on MartialTalk telling me and others that we're training wrong, that we're trapped in useless tradition, that kenpo is wrong not to have more-explicit grappling, yes? Are you now recanting, and arguing that all that was just a different way to see things, no better or worse than any other way?

And apropos of 5 Swords--uh...um...you might want to spend some time with that technique. In its ideal phase. Why the blocks/the knee check? because the opponent is attenting to hit you in the heads with a right roundhouse punch, and so you want to check their body as well as block that punch.

You are omitting the purpose of the particular strikes, which is to forestall action as much as it is to strike.

Why the right hand-sword? Because (again, I am speaking of the ideal phase here) the opponent is attempting to swing with their free left hand, so you need immediately to check their width and therefore that punch. Why the following right heel-palm? To reinforce that line, and to add a stronger depth check. Why the upper-cut in the ideal version? Because after the heel-palm, the opponent is trying to drop beneath your hands. Why the step off and hand-sword? To get off their center line, to open up their center line, to check their depth. Why the right hand-sword to the back of their neck? Because they attempted to stand up; you check their height.

Why the useless extension? because the base tech didn't get it donh, and they keep fighting. The left heel-palm stands them up (height and width and depth check); the right hand drops under to check, then goes to the throat; the side-kick stops the further attacks, and starts your escape.

In other words, MisterMike's last post is quite correct. Shoulda typed faster, or been less long-winded.

I'm sure there will be instances where you can stop or delay that left. I think it depends on timing. If you get in there before that roundhouse is really out of the gate, and then flow into the rest of the technique, that left hasn't got a chance. I also run it with the knee-check as well.

If you're late, that right handsword to the neck becomes a block for the left, as you STILL execute the heel-palm to the face. The techniques were built for the what-if's, long before the extension gets there.

 

[jeffkyle]

Originally posted by MisterMike
The techniques were built for the what-if's, long before the extension gets there.

I totally agree with that!

 

[MJS]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

First off and speaking as a critic--it's a long way from what Clyde wrote to, "it's my way, or you're wrong."

But doesnt he just have a wonderful way with words.

Second off, as a theoretican--there are wrong ways to do things, MJS. If memory serves, you've spent a good deal of time on MartialTalk telling me and others that we're training wrong, that we're trapped in useless tradition, that kenpo is wrong not to have more-explicit grappling, yes?

Yup.. You're right Rob. I'm just trying to stay with the Kenpo discussion. I dont want you to think that I'm trying to hijack the topic and turn it into a crosstraining/grappling debate. Rob, as for the training, thats totally up to you. All I was trying to do was show that what you find to be flawless, is not so. I do feel though that if one wants to be as prepared as possible, they'll look at other ways to do it.

Are you now recanting, and arguing that all that was just a different way to see things, no better or worse than any other way?

Not at all. I still think that the the art has things it needs to improve on, grappling being one of them.


Mike

 

[Touch Of Death]

Originally posted by jeffkyle
I can agree with those of you that say being on the inside of the opponent leaves you succeptable to many things, mainly the left hand.

But I do think that there is something that you guys are ignoring about what Billy and Clyde are saying when they talk about cancelling height, width, and depth. I don't know if you have thought about it, but if you could try to understand what they mean, and more importantly how it feels, you may have a better understanding of their point of view and why they are being so definitive in their statements of how they perform the first move.

I think if you move agressively enough in the first move and cancel these dimensions of the opponent, it is less likely that they will be able to use the left hand effectively...if at all.

Just my point of view...not right...not wrong.
:asian:

We aren't ignoring anything. No matter how they do the first move, it can be countered. That is that and a bag of chips.
Sean

 

[pete]

amidst all the posturing and grandstanding, of who's right and who's wrong on this and other threads that faded into oblivion a dog's life ago... NOBODY is saying WHY they would use BOTH of their arms to block a single right roundhouse, rather than abide by KENPO principles by keeping their hands apart and keeping a check on center!

 

[MJS]

Originally posted by MisterMike
The techniques were built for the what-if's, long before the extension gets there. [/B]

Ok. I gotta disagree with that one. If that was the case, then the tech. would work perfectly every time, regardless of what the attacker did. There is no way to predict how anybody will respond to the tech. All we can do is assume what they will do.

Mike

 

[Touch Of Death]

My guess is that the right round house looked formidable enough to devote your full attention and abilities. You have to survive the first shot to continue fighting. Imagine you are a one hundred pound female facing off with a two hundred fifty pound male. The first move starts to make a little more sense.
Sean

 

[MJS]

Originally posted by Touch'O'Death
My guess is that the right round house looked formidable enough to devote your full attention and abilities. You have to survive the first shot to continue fighting. Imagine you are a one hundred pound female facing off with a two hundred fifty pound male. The first move starts to make a little more sense.
Sean

TOD- As always, good point. This does bring up something very interesting. You mention a 100lb female and a 250lb male. Now, for those that think that the tech. works perfectly, how is it going to work perfectly in this case? Here you have a classic example of size vs strength. Using 2 hands does make sense here, because the 100lb female is going to need to use two hands.

The tech will need to be modified in some way to accomidate to the size difference. Another reason for the extensions, and the "what ifs"

Mike

 

[rmcrobertson]

Oh for cryin' out loud. Just argue the issues, eh, and skip the, "it's getting windy," nonsense, eh? Otherwise, the impression will be created that the issues cannot be argued.

Now, MJS. My point is that when Clyde says, "Nope, that's wrong," him bad to judge. When you say, "Nope, that's wrong," him good to judge. It seems quite possible to me that you both know what you're talking about.

Pete: one reason to use both hands is that elbows bend. Good committed roundhouse, relaxed arm, block only bicep, attacker says,"ow," fist comes around corner, hits face. This is bad. (The reason for not simply checking the "center," is similar: you're creating a pivot point. Look at Snapping Twig, for the results of shoving the center.)

Another reason: so that you don't have to add in an "and," before slipping the hand-sword to the neck.

Another reason: to maintain consistency with other techniques for relative novices--forward with both hands up, 5 Swords; backwards, Delayed Sword.

Another reason: to teach us to, as I read in "Black Belt," as though it were a big discovery," "use both hands."

Another reason: who said you've got to fully block? step in, slip the handsword from bicep to neck, keep the left up as a check.

Another reason: who said you have to block out? Block DOWN on the arm with both hands.

Another reason: to teach the basic checking system, in which the left is the first, most obvious, check. My favorite version of 5 Swords: both hands up to check their right, ball kick to the gut or groin.

Another reason: to introduce the possibility articulated more-completely in Defying the Storm--lock up the arm/shoulder.

Can all this be countered? Sure, you can stay home and never have some slob throw a punch at you. You can arrange to have your brother drop a Steinway Concert Grand on them, when they appear. All you have to do is to read their mind.

But I will tell y'all right now--I'm not bad at this stuff (tho' assuredly not god's gift to kenpo...that'd be Juan Serrano, the best kenpoist you never heard of in the country...ask Clyde, he hadda spar the monster for Juan's fourth test...ever see anybody do full-out spinning butterfly kicks in sparring, spontaneously, land a couple, keep on going? After getting decked by a much bigger opponent?)--I'm not bad at all, I've had the benefit of wonderful teachers, I'm smart as hell, and Clyde ties me in knots all the time with counters to techniques.

So I don't know what to tell ya...

 

[Touch Of Death]

So which is it? counterable or uncounterable I'm losing track. No offense but I can't think of a single person that needs Clyde to verify whom the best kenpoist in the country is. I'm sure the guy you mentioned is good but I can list a few names you've never heard of and rave about how great their kicks are too. "Kimo" Firerio of Hawaii for one. That guy just flies around the room for God's sake. I would pit that guy against anyone you can drag up. Before you get all ruffled I will conced that this argument is futile and I wonder why you even brought it up, other than to imply y'all know somthing we don't.
Sean

 

[MisterMike]

Originally posted by MJS
Ok. I gotta disagree with that one. If that was the case, then the tech. would work perfectly every time, regardless of what the attacker did. There is no way to predict how anybody will respond to the tech. All we can do is assume what they will do.

Mike

What I meant is the techniques are NOT necessarily going to work for every case. There are many points in the technique that you can find a what-if and then either make adjustments, or do a changeup into another technique.

The extensions do not come in where the one and only what-if exists(at the end usually).

I know we're not going to win every situation, but the answers in Kenpo are there.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Dear Sean:

I was simply noting Juan to engage in a little self-deprecating humor, and to praise somebody who is, I think, the sort of guy who may never get the appreciation he deserves. Nothing whatsoever was aimed against you or yours, and I'm sorry if it seemed that way. Oh yeah...I certainly didn't claim that anybody was the best in the country. Those sorts of claims bore my *** off.

Now. How'd you like my explanation of Five Swords?

 

[Bawb]

Originally posted by MJS

5 Swords is a good tech. but dont forget that while you are using both hands to block that punch, your opp. still has another hand free to strike.

Mike

Why would you use 2 hands to stop the attacker's one hand? That seems like a bad idea.

We can debate this technique to the grave the real proof is face to face, against th punch coming at at full speed.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Dear Sean:

I was simply noting Juan to engage in a little self-deprecating humor, and to praise somebody who is, I think, the sort of guy who may never get the appreciation he deserves. Nothing whatsoever was aimed against you or yours, and I'm sorry if it seemed that way. Oh yeah...I certainly didn't claim that anybody was the best in the country. Those sorts of claims bore my *** off.

Now. How'd you like my explanation of Five Swords?

Robert,
I'm just a little hung up on the Ideal or nothin' mentality simply because the only thing that should be going through your mind in a fight is identifying targets and methods of avoiding personal injury. That is to say, one should not feel as if he has lost the ideal of one tech and begin searching for the ideal of another. And to be honest I have no idea what you guys are saying when you suggest that the extension of a tech is for when things possibly go awry or whatever. The extensions are simply tactics that could be placed on the end of just about any technique idea. Remember when I said that delayed sword is every tech? Well, I could just as easily state that Five swords is every technique. It was messing with you and Billy about the counterability thing. I seems you understand that you can only widen your margin for error and not completely negate the whole concept with your godlike invincibilty; however, claims are made that have such big holes that Ariana huffington and myself can drive Arnold's SUV right through 'em.
Sean

 

[rmcrobertson]

Dear bawb or whoever:

Did you read what the hell I wrote? With the extensive list of reasons?

And Sean--can we please cut it with the silly noms de plume?--if you're reading what I'm writing, the last thing I'm arguing is godlike invincibility.

What I'm arguing is that the techniques are the way they are for reasons. I mean really-with all the stuff posted on these forums about how if we just learn grappling...or iron palm...or escrima...or whatever the hell it is, we'll have achieved perfection, you're yelling at ME about my sense of invincibility?

I tend to agree that, "the only thing," we should be thinking about in a fight--targets, and keeping the damage to oneself down. OK, fine. But while I completely reject the idea that kenpo is about fighting except on a very general sense, this just shows me that you and I are on about the same level...there are all sorts of other concerns.

Clyde argues that kenpo is a mediocre art. I agree. What he seems to me is that kenpo is designed for all the times that things are NOT executed perfectly...to give ordinary people a reasonable shot at self-defense.

Again--so how'd you like my analysiss of the reason to use both hands in Five Swords?

 

[Touch Of Death]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Dear bawb or whoever:

Did you read what the hell I wrote? With the extensive list of reasons?

And Sean--can we please cut it with the silly noms de plume?--if you're reading what I'm writing, the last thing I'm arguing is godlike invincibility.

What I'm arguing is that the techniques are the way they are for reasons. I mean really-with all the stuff posted on these forums about how if we just learn grappling...or iron palm...or escrima...or whatever the hell it is, we'll have achieved perfection, you're yelling at ME about my sense of invincibility?

I tend to agree that, "the only thing," we should be thinking about in a fight--targets, and keeping the damage to oneself down. OK, fine. But while I completely reject the idea that kenpo is about fighting except on a very general sense, this just shows me that you and I are on about the same level...there are all sorts of other concerns.

Clyde argues that kenpo is a mediocre art. I agree. What he seems to me is that kenpo is designed for all the times that things are NOT executed perfectly...to give ordinary people a reasonable shot at self-defense.

Again--so how'd you like my analysis of the reason to use both hands in Five Swords? [/QUOTE
Well, I would agree that the hand should be able to shoot the chop to the neck once the hand has reached a point of proper neutrality(kind of like the cat stance) but the reason for the technique is because timing and environment states that you cannot launch back nor did you have time to duck and get on the outside. As in any tech your hand shoulds automaticly attemts to strike or return to proper points of reference(decsision points).
Sean

 

[MJS]

Originally posted by Bawb
Why would you use 2 hands to stop the attacker's one hand? That seems like a bad idea.

We can debate this technique to the grave the real proof is face to face, against th punch coming at at full speed.

Yup.. Youre right. Why tie up both hands, when one can be used to block and the other to hit? There are cases in which it will be necessary to use both hands, IE: if the person is larger or appears to be stronger, it might be a wise thing to do.

Mike

 

[ProfessorKenpo]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

Clyde argues that kenpo is a mediocre art.

NO, Kenpo is an art based on mediocrity but it is not a mediocre art. Get it right or I'll rub it in hard Wed. LOL


Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

 

[MJS]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

What I'm arguing is that the techniques are the way they are for reasons. I mean really-with all the stuff posted on these forums about how if we just learn grappling...or iron palm...or escrima...or whatever the hell it is, we'll have achieved perfection, you're yelling at ME about my sense of invincibility?

Again, I dont think that by doing the above mentioned arts that it is going to make you invincible, but I look at it this way. If you want to learn how to counter something, dont you think that you should have an idea about what you want to counter? Learning BJJ is not going to make you into an ultimate fighter, but you will gain knowledge of how to deal with a grappler. Kali, Arnis, Escirma are Filipino arts that deal primarily with weapons. IMO, they are gonna have a better idea about how to fight with/against a weapon than your average guy at the local MA school.

I tend to agree that, "the only thing," we should be thinking about in a fight--targets, and keeping the damage to oneself down. OK, fine. But while I completely reject the idea that kenpo is about fighting except on a very general sense, this just shows me that you and I are on about the same level...there are all sorts of other concerns.

Isnt defending yourself fighting? No matter how you slice it Rob, anytime you need to defend yourself, in a sense, you're fighting!

Again--so how'd you like my analysiss of the reason to use both hands in Five Swords?

I liked it.

Mike