Thrusting Wedge, Twist Of Fate & Parting Wings-Front 2 Hand High Push

[HKphooey]

If you wish to run tests to explore the model, you must be consistent. The attacker is not compliant but allowng to to test the described appplication on the arms portion of the model.

Do you feel attackers are consistent? Telling the attacker how to push you is compliance. That just my opinion and as always, I see your side.

Whoops, forgot. Doc, thanks for the feedback.

 

[Flying Crane]

Do you feel attackers are consistent? Telling the attacker how to push you is compliance. That just my opionon and as always, I see your side.

I'm seeing your point here, HKF. While a properly indexed push may be solid and make it unlikely that someone could effectively split the arms apart, perhaps it is not realistic to think that the average Joe on the street, who is probably not a highly trained martial artists, is going to try to push you in this way. If the push is more sloppy and untrained, the splitting techniques might work...

On the other hand, it doesn't take a lot of training to be able to give a good, hard, fast push...

 

[HKphooey]

I guess my experience as a bouncer got me used to drunk and stupid attackers. But either way, never liked the techniques.

 

[Doc]

I'm seeing your point here, HKF. While a properly indexed push may be solid and make it unlikely that someone could effectively split the arms apart, perhaps it is not realistic to think that the average Joe on the street, who is probably not a highly trained martial artists, is going to try to push you in this way. If the push is more sloppy and untrained, the splitting techniques might work...

On the other hand, it doesn't take a lot of training to be able to give a good, hard, fast push...

The point is 'pushing' is a 'trained' activity learned over a lifetime of experimentation. Everyone of any age instinctively has 'learned' how to push. Fingers up, wrist flexed. To conduct an experiment, you must set parameters the may be consistently replicated, so you can test the non-compliant portion of the model. Otherwise, how would you conduct tests?

 

[HKphooey]

Tell somone to try to push me. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Flying Crane]

The point is 'pushing' is a 'trained' activity learned over a lifetime of experimentation. Everyone of any age instinctively has 'learned' how to push. Fingers up, wrist flexed. To conduct an experiment, you must set parameters the may be consistently replicated, so you can test the non-compliant portion of the model. Otherwise, how would you conduct tests?

Yes, I understand and agree with this. I guess the question I have is, is the indexed push also a natural enough movement to expect an untrained person to use it instictively, without specifically being shown this? If so, then these techs won't work well as a defense against it. If not, then they might work where an instinctive, untrained push might be more sloppy and less well indexed.

Also, if the indexed push is natural and instinctive, then perhaps it doesn't even need to be labelled or described in this manner. It is just a "push", and when defending against a good, solid push, certain technique methods just don't work so well.

 

[Doc]

Yes, I understand and agree with this. I guess the question I have is, is the indexed push also a natural enough movement to expect an untrained person to use it instictively, without specifically being shown this? If so, then these techs won't work well as a defense against it. If not, then they might work where an instinctive, untrained push might be more sloppy and less well indexed.

Also, if the indexed push is natural and instinctive, then perhaps it doesn't even need to be labelled or described in this manner. It is just a "push", and when defending against a good, solid push, certain technique methods just don't work so well.

The nature of science sir is to set and define parameters for experimentation. This REQUIRES consistency from model to model to yield real knowledge. As I stated before, 'pushing' is instinctively learned, but the model still REQUIRES definitions and consistency of modeling that goes beyond 'verbal general understandings.' By expressing it properly, it allows others to follow the experiment with a reasonable amount of consistency and verifiable results that may be shared beyond the physical presence. To do otherwise would end these conversations. How a person would personally experiment for themselves is nothing compared to a teacher who must spread the experience to others - consistently. Then, those who would ‘just do it,’ would in the end be asking the questions instead of answering them.

 

[HKphooey]

The nature of science sir is to set and define parameters for experimentation. This REQUIRES consistency from model to model to yield real knowledge. As I stated before, 'pushing' is instinctively learned, but the model still REQUIRES definitions and consistency of modeling that goes beyond 'verbal general understandings.' By expressing it properly, it allows others to follow the experiment with a reasonable amount of consistency and verifiable results that may be shared beyond the physical presence. To do otherwise would end these conversations. How a person would personally experiment for themselves is nothing compared to a teacher who must spread the experience to others - consistently. Then, those who would ‘just do it,’ would in the end be asking the questions instead of answering them.

Law of averages: Find twenty participants, ask all to push you. Use the results to help you establish what is the most common. I am not trying to say you are incorrect. Just stating there are variables in all experiments.

Ask a few people to throw a straight punch. I bet you will have at least one person cross step with the opposite leg.

You had mentioned non-compliant testing. Telling someone what to do is compliance. That is is not science, that is predetermining the outcome.

I will rest my case with these statements, value your feedback and experiment with your suggestions. In the end, I would not use all three techniques (unless I fight a 6'7"+ opponent).

 

[Doc]

Law of averages: Find twenty participants, ask all to push you. Use the results to help you establish what is the most common. I am not trying to say you are incorrect. Just stating there are variables in all experiments.

Ask a few people to throw a straight punch. I bet you will have at least one person cross step with the opposite leg.

You had mentioned non-compliant testing. Telling someone what to do is compliance. That is is not science, that is predetermining the outcome.

I will rest my case with these statements, value your feedback and experiment with your suggestions. In the end, I would not use all three techniques (unless I fight a 6'7"+ opponent).

You don't get it.

 

[JamesB]

I tested Parting Wings with a student on Monday night, we found that it was indeed rather difficult to separate the arms when given a strong, aggressive push. Not only that, but we found that the attacker's arms 'slipped' around the outside of the defender and the attacker almost fell ontop of us as we were stepping back. As soon as the attacker's body made contact it was a natural instinct to stablize by wrapping the arms around the defender's upper body/shoulders. Perhaps this problem could be solved by push-dragging further backwards.

I've always had a bit of a 'mental block' with Parting Wings - when in the left-neutral-bow, my 'parting hands' would be 'non-symmetrical'. In other words, my left hand would be high up the inside of the attacker's right arm (almost at his inside-shoulder), and my right hand would be down on the inside of his left wrist. Parting the attacker's right arm that high up (at the shoulder) seems counter-intuitive to me. I almost want to be in a forward-bow when facing the attacker so that I can control his arms/body 'evenly'. Can't explain why, it just seems that way to me.

Heavenly Ascent has always seemed to me, to be the most functional of these techniques - it could be used against the choke, push etc. I think I would prefer to see a 'Heavenly-Ascent' style defence against Parting Wings - by clasp hands together and forcing the attacker's arms up over your shoulders, with your forearms forming a brace under the attacker's chin to force him off you.

 

[MJS]

You don't get it.

Are these techniques included in the method that you teach? If so, how are they performed?

Mike

 

[MJS]

Doc, at that point isn't the attacker compliant? You are setting the attack up.

Just curious, I do not like most of these techniques. I prefer going to the outside of the attack or using two downward outward blocks (as 90% time I am much taller than the attacker).

I think I'm seeing what you're saying Wayne, and I think that Flying Crane made a good point. Is the 'average Joe' going to throw that perfect punch, perfect kick, puch, or any other attack we can think of? Think about when we teach a White Belt, how un-coordinated they are. Ask them to punch and 9 times out of 10, they're not punching in the 'Ideal Phase' but instead more like the "What If."

BTW, I agree with your sencond paragraph about being taller 90% of the time!

Mike

 

[Carol]

I think I'm seeing what you're saying Wayne, and I think that Flying Crane made a good point. Is the 'average Joe' going to throw that perfect punch, perfect kick, puch, or any other attack we can think of? Think about when we teach a White Belt, how un-coordinated they are. Ask them to punch and 9 times out of 10, they're not punching in the 'Ideal Phase' but instead more like the "What If."

BTW, I agree with your sencond paragraph about being taller 90% of the time!

Mike

They are very different points of view. Doc is describing how he teaches while HKPhooey is describing what he (personally) does (and not the way he teaches.)

Doc described his teaching to me once as "where everything is described in excruciating detail." As a paralell, I was a music major in college and the way we studied music was...also in excruciating detail. If a class assignment required a composition that incorporated a modal interchange...it didn't matter how breathtaking the composition was, if it didn't have a modal interchange, the assingment was failed.

Perhaps in Doc's explanations I see kind of a "You have to know the rules before you can break 'em" that was present at my college. The concepts were taught structurally and the student had to show proof of being able to apply them. Is every single variation of every single concept taught in class? No, but if one has a thorough understanding of the concept, one can see the variations when they are encountered as well.

It's not clear to me that Doc's techs will only be effective against a "perfect attack." It's difficult for me to understand how an effective defense against a devastating attack would be ineffective against an Average Joe attack or a clumsy white belt attack. But..that being said, its difficult for me to understand a lot of things

Now if you ever need a clumsy uke, you call me OK? I'd be glad to oblige

 

[Doc]

They are very different points of view. Doc is describing how he teaches while HKPhooey is describing what he (personally) does (and not the way he teaches.)

Doc described his teaching to me once as "where everything is described in excruciating detail." As a paralell, I was a music major in college and the way we studied music was...also in excruciating detail. If a class assignment required a composition that incorporated a modal interchange...it didn't matter how breathtaking the composition was, if it didn't have a modal interchange, the assingment was failed.

Perhaps in Doc's explanations I see kind of a "You have to know the rules before you can break 'em" that was present at my college. The concepts were taught structurally and the student had to show proof of being able to apply them. Is every single variation of every single concept taught in class? No, but if one has a thorough understanding of the concept, one can see the variations when they are encountered as well.

It's not clear to me that Doc's techs will only be effective against a "perfect attack." It's difficult for me to understand how an effective defense against a devastating attack would be ineffective against an Average Joe attack or a clumsy white belt attack. But..that being said, its difficult for me to understand a lot of things

Now if you ever need a clumsy uke, you call me OK? I'd be glad to oblige

They don't get it.

 

[MJS]

They don't get it.

Perhaps I don't.

BTW, would you care to share an answer to question #31? Seeing that the 'commercial' version tends to be so 'incomplete.'

 

[MJS]

It's not clear to me that Doc's techs will only be effective against a "perfect attack." It's difficult for me to understand how an effective defense against a devastating attack would be ineffective against an Average Joe attack or a clumsy white belt attack. But..that being said, its difficult for me to understand a lot of things

Let me explain. Perhaps I'm just not getting it as some think, but here is my .02 anyways. First let me explain about the white belt comment. If we had a new student and asked them to punch, chances are, they may not step, punch, move, etc., the way we are expecting, so as to be in the Ideal Phase of the technique. In the IP, the person is moving, stepping, doing everything correct. By having them move in this way, we can give the student a better idea as to the movements of the technique. If they step with their left leg when they right punch, we're going to have to adapt to that change, therefore, putting us in the What If phase. "What if they step like this? What if they don't punch like we were expecting?" The list can go on and on. Book 5 of the Infinite Insights into Kenpo, gives a good description of this.

What I believe HKP is saying, is that by us telling the person how to push, we're setting up a margin of little to no error on our part. HKP, please feel free to comment if I'm quoting you wrong here.

Now if you ever need a clumsy uke, you call me OK? I'd be glad to oblige

Thanks!:ultracool

 

[jazkiljok]

I think I'm seeing what you're saying Wayne, and I think that Flying Crane made a good point. Is the 'average Joe' going to throw that perfect punch, perfect kick, puch, or any other attack we can think of? Think about when we teach a White Belt, how un-coordinated they are. Ask them to punch and 9 times out of 10, they're not punching in the 'Ideal Phase' but instead more like the "What If."

BTW, I agree with your sencond paragraph about being taller 90% of the time!

Mike

that's an interesting observation- if 9 out of 10 times an untrained punch is not done in the ideal phase- then one would conclude that the ideal phase is NOT ideal but rather the "rare" phase. why train for rare occurences?

also- it seems that HK is simply saying that he's not sure of the effectivness of these 3 teks-- and Doc is simply saying-- yeah, and there's a reason why that is-- and that's having to do with the the entry move at the beginnning of the tek.

i suspect that Doc has a "fix" to the situation or that he doesn't even bother with these ones- heretic that he is

 

[MJS]

that's an interesting observation- if 9 out of 10 times an untrained punch is not done in the ideal phase- then one would conclude that the ideal phase is NOT ideal but rather the "rare" phase. why train for rare occurences?

The IP is, IMO, teaching the basics, the foundation of the movements. Not having a base, would be like expecting someone to be able to carry on a full conversation without knowing what any of the words mean. From the IP, we then have them move onto the What if, or as Clyde likes to say, "Even If."

also- it seems that HK is simply saying that he's not sure of the effectivness of these 3 teks-- and Doc is simply saying-- yeah, and there's a reason why that is-- and that's having to do with the the entry move at the beginnning of the tek.

i suspect that Doc has a "fix" to the situation or that he doesn't even bother with these ones- heretic that he is

Yes, the entry of all 3 moves is what I planned on discussing. I'm curious as to this...If the 3 moves as listed, are not going to work, what is the solution?

Mike

 

[Flying Crane]

It's not clear to me that Doc's techs will only be effective against a "perfect attack." It's difficult for me to understand how an effective defense against a devastating attack would be ineffective against an Average Joe attack or a clumsy white belt attack. But..that being said, its difficult for me to understand a lot of things

Carol, you've got some good points and insight here, but I wanted to comment on this point.

I am not suggesting that an effective defense against a devastating attack would be ineffective against a clumsy, untrained attack. Rather, it is the other way around. A defense might be effective against a clumsy attack, and that clumsy attack might be more reasonable to expect from the Average Joe. But this same defense might not be effective against a devastating attack that would be launched by a highly trained individual. But by the very nature of the devastating attack coming from a background of training, it would be more rare and less likely to be encountered in your average, day-to-day confrontation. So a technique might work under certain circumstances, but get you in trouble in others.

Now, what I don't know with authority is: Is a properly indexed push a natural enough movement to expect the Average Joe to do it instinctively and without prior training? If so, then this is really a devastating (potentially) attack and not a clumsy attack. If this can be expected from the Average Joe, then a useful defense against a clumsy attack is no longer an option. I don't know the answer to this, so that is why I put it out there. But I will suggest that there should not be a separate list of techs to use against a clumsy opponent, from what would be used against a skilled opponent. This would be a waste of time and effort, and really there should only be techs that should work against any level of opponent, from the clumsy and unskilled to the highly trained. But this conversation is about techs on a theoretical level, so here we are in this discussion.

Personally, on a purely theoretical level I like some of the ideas in these three techs, but I have my doubts about their ability to work, or at least my ability to make them work.

 

[Bode]

Now, what I don't know with authority is: Is a properly indexed push a natural enough movement to expect the Average Joe to do it instinctively and without prior training? If so, then this is really a devastating (potentially) attack and not a clumsy attack. If this can be expected from the Average Joe, then a useful defense against a clumsy attack is no longer an option. I don't know the answer to this, so that is why I put it out there. But I will suggest that there should not be a separate list of techs to use against a clumsy opponent, from what would be used against a skilled opponent. This would be a waste of time and effort, and really there should only be techs that should work against any level of opponent, from the clumsy and unskilled to the highly trained. But this conversation is about techs on a theoretical level, so here we are in this discussion.

Yes, it is a natural enough movement for the average joe to do instinctively. The push is impossible to perform without the inherent index. If I am pushing a relatively flat surface such as the chest of a human, it requires me to flex my wrist, pointing my fingers towards the sky, and extend my arms. People don't push with their elbows collapsed to their body. Their instincts will tell them this wont work and they will extend their arms. So certain index's are a byproduct of human evolution and making the most out of our physical frame. I.e. having the most power in a push.

The major differences in attack will not lie in the index or not indexing of the hand/arms, but in height, angle of attack, body mass, etc...