Thrusting Prongs
- Thread starter Maltair
- Start date
I don't think that everyone has the attacks spelled out in great detail in writing. It's been my experience that the descriptions are usually along the lines of " front bear hug, arms pinned". Has anyone here read so much detail about this particular attack before this thread? To me, truly understanding the attack is, of course, essential. My point is that this exteamly important information is not written, and is therefore left up to the interpretation of the indivdual instructor. Maybe we could start at the beginning of the techs and start describing the attack in great detail for each technique right here on this forumn. This is uncharted territory.
Goldendragon7
Grandmaster
Then you have a limited point of view.
The way we practice, the attacks get progressively more violent as the student advances in skill. When the student first learns this technique, the attack is a teddy bear hug, then as he get better it becomes a grizzly bear hug. Then it progresses to a bear hug with forward pressure pushing the opponent back. Then it adds a pick up or a drag down. All of this happens over the course of time as the student learns more about the technique and develops his understanding and skill. At the black belt level the attack is vigorous and immediate and the student must use the technique to subdue his opponent and prevent the attack increasing in violence.
-Rob
-Rob
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
I'm going to agree with Doc-n'-Dennis here.
The attacks are described in fairly-general terms not only to encourage experimentation (AKA "misunderstanding"), but so that one does NOT limit the applications of the techniques unnecessarily.
Basically, it's a dead end to attempt to figure out and then train for every contingency. It's impossible. Better, I say, to learn a strong base technique--an ideal--that can be applied in many situations. Better, as was mentioned, to encourage fairly-real attacks. Better to build a solid martial artist who isn't going to stand there flipping through the endless rule-book (let's see...hang on a sec....Thrusting Prongs...Thrusting Prongs....aah....I see....yes...now version 12.7, sub c....here it is....attackers jumping out of a Klingon scout ship in twilight, with wind SSE less than 10 KPH...upon closing to hip swivel ring range...would you just HANG ON A SEC...), which is what, "the paralysis of analysis," really refers to.
Besides, as the long-lost Clyde notes, in the end you revert to the "plain" technique, the ideal, anyway.
Incidentally, adaptation of technique to situation is another thing that those "useless," forms teach...
The attacks are described in fairly-general terms not only to encourage experimentation (AKA "misunderstanding"), but so that one does NOT limit the applications of the techniques unnecessarily.
Basically, it's a dead end to attempt to figure out and then train for every contingency. It's impossible. Better, I say, to learn a strong base technique--an ideal--that can be applied in many situations. Better, as was mentioned, to encourage fairly-real attacks. Better to build a solid martial artist who isn't going to stand there flipping through the endless rule-book (let's see...hang on a sec....Thrusting Prongs...Thrusting Prongs....aah....I see....yes...now version 12.7, sub c....here it is....attackers jumping out of a Klingon scout ship in twilight, with wind SSE less than 10 KPH...upon closing to hip swivel ring range...would you just HANG ON A SEC...), which is what, "the paralysis of analysis," really refers to.
Besides, as the long-lost Clyde notes, in the end you revert to the "plain" technique, the ideal, anyway.
Incidentally, adaptation of technique to situation is another thing that those "useless," forms teach...
that Mr. Conatser posted have, specifically, some of the What-If scenarios. I would like to point out that teaching the Ideal is much easier, including the attack, than articulating it on a Board where not everyone is on the same page.
In my association the attacks are standardized and specific. That does not mean we do not practice the What-If's, just that some people take issue with teaching anything from the Ideal. So they reinvent the wheel.
-Michael
In my association the attacks are standardized and specific. That does not mean we do not practice the What-If's, just that some people take issue with teaching anything from the Ideal. So they reinvent the wheel.
-Michael
Doc
Senior Master
Sorry sir, those who know me from my many postings over the years read that as "That's what everyone should be doing" with tongue firmly placed in cheek. I've preached this for quite some time in the forums. It seems many tend to make the assumption we are all on the same page, and it is clear we are not even close as I have always said. Set assumptions aside and discuss what you do, and explain in detail your rationale for that particular perspective. I've caught heat from some who want to speak in vague general terms and unclear assumptions, and admittedly sometime you have no choice due to the limitations of the medium, but being specific should be the rule not the exception.
Techniques are vehicles to teach specific principles whose applications are re-occurring much like principles of speech have multiple applications depending on what you're attempting to say. While you are learning, the applications are supposed to be functionally independent. Like a child who learns a simple one syllable word and its simple definition and use, over time you develop the ability to use the word in multiple ways with various meanings, nuances, and inflections.
So, self-defense based arts have an obligations to avoid the abstract teachings prevelant in other more cultural and esoteric perspectives, in favor of practical applications first, while imparting principles that will enhance that philosophy as a person grows and progresses to the level of a physical lingquist.
At least that is what Dennis told me!
At least that is what Mr. Conatser told me.
-Michael
-Michael
Goldendragon7
Grandmaster
Orig posted by "Doc" & "Billings"
At least that is what Mr. Conatser told me.
And dat's the truff!!! .. PHallaaaatttttttttttttt
:hammer:
Doc
Senior Master
Agreed sir. Students are confused when bombarded when endless "what if" scenarios when they have not inculcated significant basic information to be functional on that level.
Parker always told me "Never go into ""what if"" until after at least black belt, when it will mean something." and he stated such in his last "green belt manual."
I constantly have to remind my staff to "stop talking so much." Beginners, (everyone under black) need function first. You can always impress them with how much you know later. Questions that begin with "what if" are forbidden because often the answer is above their level and just adds to confusion. TOO much information can be a bad thing, especially if the goal is function. A good coach teaching you basketball for the first time would not let you touch the ball for months, let alone shoot.
There is a time and place for everything. Default Techniques, (what most call Ideal) should be capable of standing alone in any assault without "what ifs." Any MINOR variation in the attack should be accounted for in the default application. MAJOR variations should be addressed in other techniques, often at higher levels.
"Alternating Maces, Hooking Wings, and Snaking Talon" are all the same assault with variations significant enough to warrant a different response. Parker always said, "If you want all your questions answered, just stick around. If your questions weren't answered maybe you didn't stick around long enough." I tell my students the same thing.
"There is a tendancy in American Kenpo for students to want to be "scholars" while they are attempting to become "warriors." Become the warrior first or you will be a paper scholar with no true warrior skills." - Ron ChapƩl (Dam now I've started quoting myself)
K
kenpo12
Guest
AMEN!!!!!
And it's a fine one at that. :asian:
I have to agree with that. In a very basic analogy, years ago I was teaching a new black belt how to teach a class. He wanted to go into tremendous detail about everything. I told him, first teach them to make a proper fist. He looked at me quite confused. I explained to him, first you have to be able to make a proper fist, then you have to be able to demonstrate a proper fist, then you must explain a proper fist. If they cannot make a proper fist, then everything else is useless. Now that I am a bit older and wiser, I'd probably start with stances instead of fists......
Doc
Senior Master
You know sir you make an excellent point. We make a difference in that type assault. When the head drops and is braced by the shoulders, we categorize that as a "high tackle" because the mechanics are different from our defined "bear hug."
Our methodology of "mis-aligning" will preclude someone from moving from a "bear hug" to a standing "high tackle."
Good points.
Thank you, Sir. You know as well as I that this kind of bear hug that I described also wouldn't be executed "head on". Our body would be slightly off to the side to make a difference between a standard attack vs. non standard bear hug. It's interesting to me that you bring this up as a high tackle as I have never thought of it that way before. What type of technique do you have for this high tackle or do you modify Thrusting Prongs to work for you.
R
Rainman
Guest
Some things here for discussion:
1. How do you thrust up into the groin? Your hands are moving on the horizontal plane. Your arms are moving on the downward 45.
2. Why strike the groin two consecutive times? Will the body still be in position?
3. What are the considered minor moves in this version?
4. Where is the pin point effect used? The elbow to the face or ribs, prongs to the groin, knee to the groin...
5. You mean build the conditioned response so as to include default moves for particular attacks.
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
Well...
1. With the knee, as the left hand pulls down a bit.
2. You don't. Thumbs to bladder/"top" of groin, downward angle; knee to testicles, coming up.
3. The left crane/hooking chop would prob'ly be a minor move, though one, "with a major effect."
4. Not familiar with the terminology you're using, but I'd argue that a beginner should not be getting into what I suspect you mean by those, "pin points."
Thanks.
1. With the knee, as the left hand pulls down a bit.
2. You don't. Thumbs to bladder/"top" of groin, downward angle; knee to testicles, coming up.
3. The left crane/hooking chop would prob'ly be a minor move, though one, "with a major effect."
4. Not familiar with the terminology you're using, but I'd argue that a beginner should not be getting into what I suspect you mean by those, "pin points."
Thanks.
R
Rainman
Guest
Pin point effect- page 93 encyclopedia of kenpo. I agree with you're #3 it cancels height and width with a zero degree of lethality. According to the tek discription the thrust is done with the hands, it is impossible to thrust up for a number of reasons. Again the tek discription calls for two consecutive attacks to the groin.
Similar threads
Latest Discussions
-
-
-
-
-
éåæ ZhĆ²ngxÄ«n center of gravity
- Latest: Wing Woo Gar
-