Three phases of movement

[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

 

[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

 

[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

 

[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

 

[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

 

[Touch Of Death]

Originally posted by dcence
Just do an experiment. Tell someone you are going to punch with a right roundhouse, tell them to do 5 swords. Then fake your right roundhouse and immediatley follow with a left to the head. I guarantee, unless you are slow as molasses on a cold day, you will pop em in the head with the left if their initial move includes a right block/strike to the right bicep, well before they have a chance to block with the right handsword or do the left palm heel strike. The thing is you never know that a punch is not a fake. Any technique that assumes a real punch for its execution will have problems if the punch is merely a feint. (And I train my people to throw feints and I am sure many of you do.) I might go so far as to say such a technique might have a fundamental flaw.

The right hand needs to immediately do the handsword to establish control of the centerline. The most I do is glance the right hand off the inside of their right arm, but that is only for doing the technique against a straight punch. By striking the neck you check depth and width (to a degree); much more so than with the double block to the punching arm. If that right hand crosses the centerline, you leave a huge gaping hole for that left cross that immediately follows, even if the right punch is not a feint.

Someone mentioned just doing the right inward block, I assume that block goes below the elbow though. This would only work if you are stepping back, but not for stepping forward.

Even if the first punch is not a fake, the force of such a powerful double block to the inside of the right arm can often propel and accelerate a left that is already on its way.

Just some thoughts.

Derek

Your right but given you ended up in that position there is a dycodemy (is that a word?) of wheather you should attack the head on the first move which could then easily flow into a block for his possibly oncomming left(be it a punch or a kick) or using both hands to stop a potentialy devastating right. The answer is that you have to make a choice at that time. If you practice the technique both ways then I guess you will make the right descision. If you practice this tech only one way you are screwed.(1/2 the time) The most obvious answer to this whole dilema is to, when at all possible, put yourself on the outside and or just hit him before he knows he is in a fight. (an old favorite of mine HA HA)
Sean

 

[Old Fat Kenpoka]

Ideally, if your opponent reacts in a way that takes you out of the Ideal Phase, you do a couple of What-If moves to bring him back where you want him. From that point you can return to the Ideal Phase and continue executing moves in a familiar order from a comfortable position.

In reality, with an opponent with any skill or spirit, you will quickly exit the Ideal Phase, try a What-If or two, and then Formulate like crazy until you can earn a KO. Then you can return to the Ideal phase after you have covered-out and left the scene.

 

[Old Fat Kenpoka]

I get it now. Thanks. I think that is a good way to work a technique line. Inserting and resuming would definitely be an ideal recovery. I don't think I am good enough to be that smooth in a real fight against a determined, strong, or skillful opponent.

 

[MJS]

Something interesting here. Many of the tech. have extensions. The extention is the "what if" in the tech. The extention gives you another option just in case something goes wrong.

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.

We all do the tech. differently and I really dont think that its gonna make a difference what way its done as long as you defend yourself.
Mike

 

[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

 

[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

 

[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

 

[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

 

[dcence]

Just do an experiment. Tell someone you are going to punch with a right roundhouse, tell them to do 5 swords. Then fake your right roundhouse and immediatley follow with a left to the head. I guarantee, unless you are slow as molasses on a cold day, you will pop em in the head with the left if their initial move includes a right block/strike to the right bicep, well before they have a chance to block with the right handsword or do the left palm heel strike. The thing is you never know that a punch is not a fake. Any technique that assumes a real punch for its execution will have problems if the punch is merely a feint. (And I train my people to throw feints and I am sure many of you do.) I might go so far as to say such a technique might have a fundamental flaw.

The right hand needs to immediately do the handsword to establish control of the centerline. The most I do is glance the right hand off the inside of their right arm, but that is only for doing the technique against a straight punch. By striking the neck you check depth and width (to a degree); much more so than with the double block to the punching arm. If that right hand crosses the centerline, you leave a huge gaping hole for that left cross that immediately follows, even if the right punch is not a feint.

Someone mentioned just doing the right inward block, I assume that block goes below the elbow though. This would only work if you are stepping back, but not for stepping forward.

Even if the first punch is not a fake, the force of such a powerful double block to the inside of the right arm can often propel and accelerate a left that is already on its way.

Just some thoughts.

Derek

 

[dcence]

if i'm the someone you reference in your post, you've assumed incorrectly... my right steps in to check or disturb the attacker's right knee, while the right inward block goes for the bicep above the elbow, left checks center on the block and orbits back to check the attackers right as my right chop is delivered.

That might work, Pete. I would have to see it, but it seems the block to the bicep works contrary to blocking below the elbow when on the inside of the arm, and striking the bicep will accelerate the fist toward you, but maybe this is caught by the left hand. The proof is in the pudding and if it works with a full on punch, it works.

This is to everyone. Have someone do Five Swords on you, but when you throw the punch put your left hand up by the right side of your face and neck, which is how I teach people to punch any way. That at least blocks out the right handsword if not the left palm heel as well. Then sometimes I just drop my left hand to block the uppercut (while my right does a handsword to the left side of his neck). Just some thoughts.

It is fun to break down a technique and see where there are any vulnerabilities, because what is weak can be made strong.

Derek

 

[dcence]

Why not 3.- Blocking with two hands the punch, and if there's a left punch coming afterwards, transform the handsword to the neck into another block/handsword to the incoming arm.

Whoever is throwing that left punch needs to punch faster. Anyone I have ever done it with has a very difficult time being able to make that decision in enough time, especially if they don't know if I am going to follow with the left or not. If they have no idea I am going to throw with the left, then they will get hit with the left.

If you do the double blocks to the one arm, just make sure you don't go chasing the right punch past your centerline. It is so funny to fake that right roundhouse and see how far out people go to chase it. People really want to make contact, but the farther they chase it, the more exposed they are.

I do this sparring. Throw a couple of roundhouse punches really hard with no intention of landing, just to get them conditioned and see what their reaction is. Then fake it and as they are still chasing the right or making sure they will be able to absorb the impact that is never going to happen, come in with the left and hit them where they have already shown me they will be open. (But don't try it on me).

 

[dcence]

I can do it, and I'm not superman either.

Oh, come on. You are too and we all know it. Oh, no -- you are right. Clyde is Superman. I forgot.

Fatal Deviation comes to mind for some reason, wonder why.

Theoretically, but not practically a "Five Swords what-if" if the guy is really firing two fast shots. In Fatal you step back and block below the elbow with your right -- do you not? five Swords you don't and it is a critical difference. There is a difference in the distance between you and the attacker, thus greater reaction time, and there is an even more critical distance difference in how far across your body your right hand goes in Five Swords vis-a-vis Fatal Dev. I am not saying it can't be done, but that there is a better way than crossing your centerline with your right hand. Doing Fatal Deviation as a "what-if" works even better if your right hand does not cross centerline like the printing or cursive Five Swords would have you do. It has a shorter distance to travel from point A to point B = less time. And some guys need all the time they can get from what I have seen,with how slow and wide they move -- not pointing any fingers.

It reminds me of a seminar Mr. Parker did where he went into the difference between printing, cursive and shorthand. For printing he did the block-chop as written. For cursive he added a little loop between the right block and the right chop. For short-hand, the right hand went straight up to the throat. Three options from which choose. I just believe the 3rd version gives you a better built in defense in your offense than committing all the way across the body, and I like hitting the guy as soon as possible. The best defense is a good offense.

Derek

 

[dcence]

One other thought.

Coming right up the centerline provides for a greater margin of error. Do you really know the punch is a round house versus a straight punch with enough time to do the printing Five Swords? No. The shorthand version is good for roundhouse or straight. Less decision making leads to quicker reaction. Too many deal in choreography where the attack is known and the variables eliminated, and not enough time in the uncertainty of reality.

 

[dcence]

Nope. Wrong again. Clyde is Captain Caveman!

Derek,

You keep shooting people down on the fact that they aren't going to be able to react in time because they don't really know what their opponent's next move is going to be. I thought we weren't just training moves but also trying to improve upon our ability to read and counter an impending attack.

Unless you're psychic you'll never know what your attacker's first move is going to be... Why take up Kenpo in the first place then??? I mean if we're never going to develop enough perceptual speed and skill to see something coming we might as well sign up at "The Oracles School of Spoon Bending" and dump Kenpo all together.

You having a slow Friday too?

You make a good point, but first I am not shooting people down, just trying to discuss. Kenpo is great; I love it. But too many people only take it to the choregraphed extent where all is known. Yeah, they talk a good story about what if's and formulation and grafting and all that, but then don't realize the time it takes to think of changing in the middle of the action. My point is that you should do the technique in such manner so as to cover as many variables in the attack as possible. Doing a move that is great for a roundhouse but not so great for a straight doesn't make sense to me.

Sure, there are times that you can specifically react to a lumbering puncher, and printing will work, no prob, but that is not what you should train for. Train for the experienced fighter, and the novice will be covered. That is why things need to be boiled down to the master keys which have answers to multiple scenarios built in.

Your good point is in the time spent learning to read a person's body language. This is critical I agree, but the more adept will give you mixed signals or no signals at all. At your level and for as long as you have been doing this, I am certain you can throw a roundhouse, straight, fake all the same without the guy being able to read it until it is too late to decide which one it is going to be. That is what you should be training against -- not the guy that comes around the barn to hit you.

The first move of Calming the Storm, Securing the Storm is master key. Blocking one arm with two is not. It is not wrong or bad, just not as good, in my opinion.

A good way to determine where you are is have a guy really throw the following without knowing which is coming;
(1) right punch -- straight or roundhouse
(2) left punch -- straight or roundhouose
(3) right/left -- real or fake first punch, straight or round
(4) left/right -- real or fake first punch,straight or round

This is a great drill for spontaneity and is a good indicator of your theoretical vs. real abilities. Lots of people can rip the tehcniques when they know what punch is coming, but stumble all over themselves when you introduce just these few reasonable variables. Perhaps you are really good at it, perhaps not. I don't know. What I do know is that both hands coming up the centerline will give you more options than both hands moving right to left.

But your point about reading body language is good as long as you are a speed reader.

 

[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.