delta1

Oh ****! You got me there. I was actually scheduled for a fight at the Collesium once, but they found out I wasn't a Christian and it got cancelled. Everyone doesn't take as copious a set of notes as I do, either. One reason is that I'm so far away from an AK school- I've never actually been a part of a regular AK class. I've worked out with a small group and went for private instruction most of the time. I've actually worked out with other systems schools more than with an AK school. So anything I learn, or am told, or any questions that come up while I'm working out with another system, all gets written down. I don't have the luxury of going back in a couple of days and asking 'What was it you said?'. Now, I have to write a note to find out if we have a technique for lions- sheesh! You analyse in training, and at a particular stage in that training. When the lion springs, you don't think, you react! And sparing is good, but it doesn't necessarily prepare you for some of these self defense situations. If you've never had to react, under force, with the lions weight on you and a hold being applied in training- odds are you aren't going to in a real situation. Working set techniques insures that we have done that with a variety of assaults, instead of leaving it to chance we'll run up against those situations in sparing. Sparing is important, but it isn't everything.

Mart, go back and re read. I take this to the mats with other stylists at the drop of a hat. This includes the MMAers. And it works! That's one of the things I really like about some MMA, MT and grapplers- they tend to think they have the only way. You get some great expressions when they find themselves had by something they regard as worthless because it is outside their method!

Either that, or we're all just plain full of... Nah, you make a good point. Could go either way.

TheDevilAside, you made some good points. Couple of things- first, they aren't fish bait, they're shark bait! ( I couldn't resist a shot of my own!!! ) As to the number of techniques for a common attack, there are typically (but not allways) four. Mr. Parker liked to counter from the four cardinal directions, whether in a horizontal (front, back, left, riht) or vertical (up, down, and sides) plane of attack.

You think these posts are long? You should see my notes on some of these techniques!

No problem, I immagine there was someone else out there thinking along these lines. So, now they know too. I agree with you, if you are only learning them as a prepared response. And the things you mention that MT does are important also. But if you work these techniques, really understand them, andtake your thinking outside that restrictive, dogmatic box, they are a good training tool. Example: there is a common takedown from behind (I'm sure you grapplers can do better than this), where both arms are around the throwees waist, your head is tucked in close to his back, and you anchor one or, preferably both his heels by placing your feet behind them and pulling back. You then straighten one leg and bend the other, taking him around towards your bent leg and down. Useing Squating Sacrifice, or some of the concepts in it, you can defend this by immediately dropping your butt into him. It takes some of his control away, buckles him back and down. Also drops your height relative to his so you have a shot at an elbow strike. Depending on timeing and relative positioning, you may end up with one of his legs between yours, in which case you might be able to apply a lock. You could also work off the elbow strike to turn and go for top position in a side mount. A lot of possibilities which I'd like to work- I started back to light training yesterday and I'm getting antsy. Any way, I'm not saying this type of training is for everybody. But it does work.

Let's discuss the point about the 'unrealistic attack some more. As I pointed out, there are three phases of learning a technique. You saw ther transition from phase 1 to 2 here. It was slow, broken down, everything explained, som points made and some questions asked. It was not the end product, where the opponents acts with force and possibly some variances. And ALL martial arts train this way. I've worked some with grapplers and MT/MMA practitioners. So don't try to spread any donkey dung about them starting off with realism. I've seen grapplers learn techniques with the instructor laying limp as a rag on the mat, letting them apply the hold and correcting them as they went. Later, they apply the same hold with resistance, but not at first. And your first MT kick was not a head shot from close in- you started out and learned bassics, form and technique. I'll give you another example- punches. Every style I've seen starts you learning to 'block' a punch thrown at least at arms length. Reality- that punch is going to come as a jab from in close, and your 'block' had better do more than just stop that punch. Point is, you don't start out learning to defend full force jabs to the nose, with intent, from close in. And your first blocks only do one thing, they block. You work up to it, and later they do more than you probably immagined they could when you threw that first one.

No, you just have to talk about something I'm interested in, when I have time to reply, and I have to see it before someone else said what I wanted to. Pretty simple. There was nothing waffling in that quote. It is a simple explanation of Kenpo. And he did not 'steal' it from Bruce Lee- more likely the other way around, though I wouldn't apply the term Steal to either. They were contemporaries, and both had a tremendous respect for the other. They disagreed on some things, but Mr Parker and Bruce Lee talked about many ideas, and agreed on many things. Bruce Lee trained with several of Ed Parkers schools (though he did not study Kenpo formally) and worked out regularly with several senior Kenpoists. But, by far, the senior martial artist in this relationship was Ed Parker. Just because you heard it from Bruce Lee doesn't mean the thought originated with him. For that matter, it probably didn't originate with Mr. Parker either. This was an emerging philosophy at the time, shared by many great martial artists. Ed Parker and Bruce Lee were two of the driving forces behind this philosophy in the US at that time. Give me (and every one else here) a break! You're saying that it never happens that someone is grabbed around the waist with their arms free? *! I've had it happen both in real life and sparing ground option with grapplers. Sorry bugers can get under your arm and behind faster than you know what happened. And befeore youn ask, I did not defend with this technique. Something else worked, untill we ended up on the floor any way, and I have no shame in saying it was his game from that point on. You're also saying you can't be taken down? Listen, you aren't Superman. When that knee hyperextends, as I said in my earlier post, you're 'donkey' will hit the ground so hard you'll bounce! And I don't care if we're on broken glass, you're down! At that point, the foot unweights and comes right up- I don't even have to pick it up, just guide it till I decide whether to break or hyperextend. Allways, but not because of your attempts. Look, I know you are baiting me here, but it suits my purposes to answer you. Sorry to burst your bubble. We use those defenses also. We also practice offensive moves and fighting. But we do a lot of self defenses as well- NOT so we can run a particular technique when attacked, but so we can move. Those techniques are like mini katas, but done with a live opponent. And you have to work the 'bunkai', as the JMAers would say. Getting long- more to follow.

Now, since I have a BJJer on the hook, ( ). One of the things I want to work on this is a defense against a grappling takedown. I'm guessing that a grappler would do something like hook my right ankle with his right heel or ankle, keep his back straight, and pull me over and back to my left. He might even wrap, or 'grapevine' my leg. Would he track down and control my left leg with his left hand, or would he leave both arms around my waist? How would you defend against me just going with you, trying to control my fall and elbow strikeing either your jaw or your ribs or sternum (depending on relative positioning)? How would you do this attack/takedown? Of course, any questions or comments, feel free to disgust-- I mean discuss-- Freudian slip there- sorry!

Mr. Ryerson does this a little different than I learned it. Every time I've done this, that leg straightened when I squated. He's already moving back and down, you just have to lift the unweighted foot into position. I was also taught that you bring that foot up violently and squat deep enought to break or hyperextend the knee. You want to keep him flat out so he can't launch that kick immediately- your butt isn't the most vulnerable target back there. He may have watered this down some for the net- too many lawyers these days, about one for each idiot with out the sense to go easy trying this. If the knee does stay bent, you still momentarily check his right leg, anchoring it to the ground. It's going to be difficult for him to initiate anything quickly like that. Also, you should probably move back into him a little to get that knee straightend and the foot unweighted. If you do get pulled over onto him, hit him with an elbow as you land and try to move for position. Your initial defense is blown, do something different! Another thing I do different is that as I roll him over, I find the hold I have on the right foot lifts his pelvis off the ground slightly. I also usually find that my foot is not tight into his crotch. I step in and shovel kick the groin. And I start this before he's over flat on his stomache. Remember, the video was in the ideal phase. The real application flows fast, continuous, and uninterrupted. The last part of the technique is where you can really start to change things up. There are a lot of reasons you might not want to pick up his arm and stomp his back. Don't want to cripple him, the aforementioned lawyers, other opponents, ... . One of my favorite variations is to leave the arm alone and either pendulum kick his occiput and cover out directly in front (say his friend is comeing in and you don't want to go the way the tech was written), or stomp the head and kneel on the arm to control it as you leave. If I do grab the arm, I practice the check against my leg as a break. LEO's like to move into cuffing techniques. Grapplers either apply a leg lock, or the sight of an opponent flat on his stomache in front of them is to much to resist- they mount and do somethig evil to him. Also, if I bail on the technique like he did, I'd probably kick the arm just to make sure he doesn't reach out and grab. There are a lot of changeups to this technique. But only so much you can show in a short video clip.

HEY, Large One! Now you're trying to ride MY donkey! We can do that! In fact, I was getting a little worried that you guys were going to be uncharachteristically nice and not say anything! First off, it isn't a 'prepared' or 'prearranged defense', which would imply that it is meant to be run as demonstrated in a real fight. Go back to the caveats I listed for improving TKD ( http://www.karateforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=7705&start=10 ), and they apply here as well. In fact, that is one of the main themes in this technique, one of the main things it teaches is NOT to get too hung up on running a particular technique. Remember when he started, he said he started with Crashing Wings- a different technique. Then, he said he recognized where his opponents right foot was, and changed. This foot position would have made the other technique difficult or impossible to apply. So he changed his counter attack. Later, toward the end of the tape, he again bailed out of the technique because of relative positioning of the opponents arm. These techniques are not rote responses to a particular attack, and were not meant to be run as written. They are a vehicle to teach principles, concepts, and moving under force of an attack. What you see in this instruction is the transition from the first to second stage of learning a technique. You run the base as written in the ideal phase, then you start to question "What iff?". In the final stage of learning, the attack is applied with full force and these variables you talk about. You are required to formulate changeups and test them under force, though the initial attack is the same. Some changeups are done intentionally to try them out, sometimes you have to do them spontaneously because of variations in attackers anatomy or style. And, obviously, if the atttacker does something different, the defender has to respond differently. One other thing you need to understand about AK's method of instruction- this is for a particular type of attack, but not a specific in every detail attack. He's probably slammed you and drove you forward any how, and his right leg steps in so you don't pull him off ballance. He's really put you in position for this technique himself. And, it is for a street fighters attack, not a BJJer. I'll get to that in a little bit. "Kenpo employs linear as well as circular moves, utilizing intermittent power when and where needed, interspersed with minor and major moves which flow with continuity. It is flexible in thought and action so as to blend with encounters as they occur." -- Edmund K. Parker Don't get locked in to useing a particular technique for a particular attack. Use what you learned from the techniques to blend and flow with the attack, moving for position and useing his actions against him.

Congratulations!!! And thanks to you and your staff for providing this forum!

Of course there are. But, you'd better move away first, and think of them as recieving instead of blocking. The point here is if you stand there and go force on force, your arm vs. his leg, your arm looses. And while you are getting your arm broken, you leave other targets open.

This clip is a good example of what I've been talking about here with working through techniques, reworking, combining- basically doing more than just learning the base move and testing. http://www.unitedparkerskenpo.com/Onthemat.html There are a few things that don't get covered in a short video clip. In Squating Sacrifice, when you pull his leg up between yours and squat, there is (or can be) a knee break there. After the groin scoop, the stomp to the lower back can be done as a break, or just a stomp to the Ming Min cavity. And note the first part of his cover out, Mr. Ryer kicks the arm down and stomps it as he steps away, so that he has control till completely disengaged. There are several other hidden moves and changeups in this sequence that you can probably pick out. Also, it is done slow for demo purposes, but you'd obviously do this evolution with speed and flow, or risk giving your opponent time to react as pointed out.

Good luck! We're rootin' for you!

Edit: (grubble-grubble)...how the @#%^ did I do that!? Have I told you guys before that I really hate computers?

He may have been from a non traditional system as well. And I'm not that familiar with traditional TKD, so it could be that they don't emphasize it as much as your system does. But if you get a book on TKD and look at their stances, you'll see that they are square on to their opponent. Then again, he might have been in a McDojang that didn't emphasize anything that much. Hard to say.

Well, Large Beastie, I have to agree about the arts- all arts- getting watered down. But as I understand it, this is not just aproblem in the west. Japan and China, and probably other cultures, have struggled with this for centuries. The sad fact is that when it isn't highly probable that our lives will depend on our skills, most will focus on the cloth that holds their ghi together and the statues in their showcase. And there's nothing wrong with that. It's enjoyable to train and compete in sports, probably martial sports more than some others I can think of. The problem, or watering down, comes when we start to think that this is reality training. If you want to use it for self defense, you'll have to train it realistically. And thet means that , from time to time, you'll get your bell rung. But you'll learn what does and doesn't work. On the other hand, as long as you are training realistically, I wouldn't worry too much about it. And as long as there are MMA venues with few rules and good solid hits, I don't think you'll see those schools watered down too much. The threat of pain and loss is a good motivator.

I think it's more that there's a lot of JMA in TKD, primarily Shotokan if I recall correctly. And TKD faces their opponent squarely in their traditional stances. The non-traditional TKD that I've trained with takes a little more angle in their fighting stance, but square up when they go into a back stance. I fight in the AK neutral bow, a 45' stance to the opponent. The stance itself protects both the knees (to a degree) and the groin. It is easy to recieve a kick in this stance and leg check, deflect or redirect. Also extremely mobile, so you can get out of the way. Kicks aren't quite as quick from this stance as from a back stance, but they aren't that much slower, and I suppose everything is a compromise in some way.

Actually, TKD faces their opponent squarely. I don't know about traditional, but the non traditional guys do leg checks like you describe for low line kicks. For higher kicks, the primary defense is to move. They teach blocks for kicks, but if you don't move and put an angle of deflection on the block you'll probably do more dammage to yourself than to them. I just don't think you'd do any good with something like a 90' downward block to a roundhouse kick if you just stand there. Even to a front kick, I doubt you'd completely deflect it in time.

I was going to suggest something like this for both the ma students and those who only want to be a little safer. But I find myself reduced to just agreeing with Squawman on everything. Good advice!

example: ONE STEP- opponent challenges (steps forward with a right straight punch and holds it out). Step forward into a deep Front Stance with a right inward block to the inside of the punch, left hand chambers at waist. Right fist then immediately chambers at right ear, palm out. Deliver a right hammerfist to his left temple. Immediately rechamber at the right ear, then deliver a right hammerfist to the point of his left mandible. The primary application I see for this move is a defense against a high one-two assault (ex: right then left punches to the face). One of the main things I see this as teaching is the relationship of your blocks and strikes. First, if instead of chambering the right prior to the first strike you think of it as an outward block, you see that in the block you have a strike chambered already. Launching the first hammerfist from the block uses economy of motion to give you a quicker counter offensive. The momentary flinch (black period, seeing stars, etc.) the first strike induces will then give you the split second you need to chamber and launch a power strike that coul finish him. But more than that, this compares the use of the inward block and a strike- the inward hammerfist- and we see that they are the exact same motion. To give this strike power and structural allignment , you have to drop the elbow as you deliver. Same move, different application. The deep Front Stance teaches you to get out of the way of the punch and open targets by steping slightly off his center line, and gets you in close (who was it hat said TKD is only for distance and doesn't use hands?). The chambering of the left fist gives directional harmony to the move in that everything torques in the same direction, adding power and stability. And thought of as a right/left combo defense, the first hammerfist teaches contouring, or following the body's natural lines to your target. practical application Step forward into a Right Neutral Bow (fighting stance) slightly off center to his left with a right inward block from point of origin, left hand checks low, just off your elbow. (note that here I deemed it more important to get the block in place quick and maintain a check rather than the full chamber- but I still have directional harmony, just not as much torque) As he strikes with the left, I replace the right block with my left check to maintain control and simultaneously execute a right outward block to the left. This double outward movement uses opposing forces to generate power. I'd add a stance change here also, pivoting into a Right Forward Bow. Again, from the outward block, I contour his arm, following it to strike directly with a right hammerfist to the temple as you pivot back into a Right Neutral Bow. Now, just for fun, let's alter the base move and do the second hammerfist as a knuckle rake across the eyes and bridge of the nose. Same motion, just a different target and we follow through- circling on downand then back in to an outward elbow sreike to the solar plexus. Left hand should check his head, which is about to come violently forward and possibly into you unless you stop it. You'll probably also have to do a short foot maneuver into him to reach with the elbow strike, which adds power by engageing your mass (gives backup mass to the strike). Now, we've got him comeing forward and down, and our left hand is in position to redirect his head and help with this line of motion. Let's turn our stance to our left, slideing the right foot back so the leg is straight and we are in a Left Forward Bow. This should take his left leg out, and if it doesn't drop him you will be in good position to finish him with a downward handsword to the back of the neck. I don't recomend practiceing the base move, as written, under a full speed and force assault. But you should work your modification up to this level, making adjustments and modifications as you find what works and what doesn't. So, we see that boxes are meant to be broken down and recycled! Then they can be used for many things. Storeing them assembled and empty is a waste of space for the purposes of effective fighting arts.

I'd say this is the important question, and you've already started to do it. The answer is to question everything: Why is this in the carriclum? How can I make this effective? How can I use this in a fight? When would I, or would I not, want to use this? What types of attacks could this defend against? What couldn't it be used against? What is this trying to teach me? What are the underlying principles? How can I conceptually use these principles? How can I combine this with other things to be more effective? Where would this work? And not? Who would this work on? Who not? Who, what, where, when, why, how... You have to start to think outside the box. If these moves were traditionally used effectively in combat, they must be explored as combat moves to be internalized and used as combat moves. When we use tradition to limmit our thinking, we actually destroy the traditional application of the art. I'll think about this and give an example in another post.

Well, just goes to show, the euro DOES have some value! Hope you don't mind the editing- but you make a good point.

Double post- so I'll delete the second and take this opportunity to quietly ignore th' Bat.