delta1

I'll have to do this from memory, since all my notes are burried in a remodel project. So Dm and some of the WCers can hopefully correct me or add to this where they think necessary. Same with the AK guys. I'm going to be a little sketchy for brevities sake any how, so feel free to add if you think something important is missing. Also, I'm not going to embarras myself by trying to use the proper WC terms, and I'll keep the Kenpo terms to a minimum so as not to confuse anyone else. Wing Chun Centerline Theory; There are three centerlines involved in any fight- yours, your opponents, and a central line. A persons center line runs from the top of his head, through his center of gravity, and to the ground between his feet. The central line runs from your center line to his center line. The fighter who controls the central line is in control of the fight. You can gain control of this central line by either opening him up and attacking his center, by checking and controling limbs/joints, by gaining a dominant angle (inside or out), or by any combination of these. Control of the central line is also control of his center line. An example of all methods might be a counter for a two hand high attack (choke, push, double punch, etc.). His center line is commited along the central line. Step in with your right, and slightly off the central line at an angle as your arms move inside his and upward and outward, wedgeing his arms apart and establishing contact at forearms and his elbows. Your lead leg should check his left knee. Your center line now lies on a slightly different central line, and since you have control of his arms and base, you have established control of the central line. He is facing slightly off the central line, which is a moderately unballanced position, placing one side and its' weapons at a greater range, and an awkward angle for use. You have all his front/central targets open to attack. Another example, useing the same attack, would be to move straight in along the central line, your right knee checking his left knee. Instead of simply wedging his arms apart, the right carries up and out as the left circles up, out, then down to pass his right inside. You are now outside, with him twisted off the central line and definately out of ballance and with all weapons neutralized. This would be more for an attack where his right hand lagged the left by a half beat and he had less forward commitment. But the real difference is that in the first example you moved off and established a new central line, and in the second you moved him off the central line. Hopefully that wasn't too confusing, and I hope I didn't botch the WC applications too much. American Kenpo Dimensional Control Theory; A person, as a physical entity, has three demensions- height, width, and deapth. You can move in these three demensions also. Height- up and down. Width- side to side. Deapth- forward and back. Control of these demensions restricts your opponents movement and thus limmits his offensive and defensive options. Controling all three is total control of your opponent. Control may be momentary or absolute, partial or complete. In the examples above, the knee checks can restrict movement in all three demensions momentarily. And if done as a knee buckle, can totally restrict movement in width and deapth, while limmiting movement in height to downward. The control of his arms also restricts movement, though this is more a transitional control as you are constantly changing his position and the demension(s) controled changes as position canges. Now, let's look at the use of the open ended triangle to attack into. Visualize the angles created by the opponents variouse postures in these examples. These angles are defined by his limbs and body in their variouse positions. It is simply a more specific way to look at 'openings' in your opponents guard and position. Let's say that in the first example, where you lifted and spread his arms, you crane over and out at his elbows and sharply yank him forward. As you do this, do a stance change to turn your left shoulder forward. He will be moved into a bent forward posture, and his face should strike your left shoulder. You have again moved the central line, while pulling him along the old central line (in the direction of his commitment). The bent posture is a change in both height and deapth. The open ended triangle is formed by his arms with the apex at his head, where you've just attacked useing his own motion to impact yur shoulder. His center line is tipped forward in an usstable and off ballanced posture. Another triangle that exists is the angle formed by his arms and body as he bends forward. Attack into this by shifting weight to your trailing (left) foot and striking any available target with an upward knee strike. So, we see here that instead of guiding naturally to the apex of the traingle, you can pick targets within the triangle to attack. Hopefully by now you can see the corelation between WC Centerline Theory and AK Demensional control Theory. These are really visualization tools to help us understand the difference in good and bad technique, and to help us think instinctively. The mind thinks pictorally, then translates to words or motion. This kind of visualization is necessary to internalize concepts and to start to think and act instinctively. Now, the question is, how does your system look at this? What visualization tools do you use? Actually, the larger question might be "Did I make any sense here?" If not, feel free to call me a Bozo and ask for clarification.

You don't have to be faster than a bullet, just faster than the shooters reactions.

I think I know (and somewhat agree with) the premise of your post, but your conclusions seem a little absurd. Assuming that the threat was seriouse enough to warrant useing a knife to defend yourself, then if you don't kill (or more to the point, risk killing him), then your life is definately over. And killing in self defense is not the same as murdering a man. True, it may change your outlook on life. But I don't think it will change your morals, or lead to the slippery slope you infer where you start consorting with low lifes.

Interesting. We also talk ablout 'beats' in discussing timeing. How many of the other systems do this, I wonder? The square on stance sounds more like WC. I misinterpreted your description. This sounds like a different concept of movement, emphasizing different principles than AK does. We move quickly in any direction, even with one side facing more forward to the opponent. Similar to Taiji, one leg is full, the other shifts (except that we go more to a 50/50 weight distribution, whrere Taiji avoids that). The joints would be targets you access by going into an open ended triangle. Controling and moving a joint would (in addition to a lot of other things) expand the triangle, or open up new triangles in which you can attack. The open ended triangles are formed by his body position and posture, and his limbs. I was asking if WC uses a similar concept, and what it might be.

Way to go, Rotten!

We do this as well, but our groundwork tends to be more like Pancration (from my limmited ground perspective). A lot of striking, even on the ground. I got took down once by a mixed type fighter, and did manage to get him with a good shin kick to the head as he tried to mount me. AAlso can use knees and elbows a lot on the ground. I suppose you could extrapolate a lot of submissions from our standup techniques. But with my limmited experience and resources I don't think it is feasable. That's about the best way to learn if what you are doing works or not.

C'mon, guys! This is the Information Age! There have to be some clips out there where we can get a look at how each other moves! Don't be shy, or think we'll pick apart your system and make fun of you- we wouldn't do that! Actually, anyone that does that without showing their stuff is a hypocrit. And, if they do that and then show their stuff, they are a fool!

Hey, innebriated primate! Sorry it took a while to answer. But I didn't want to just hit it quick so I waited until I had a little time. This is one of the differences in AK and WC. We might move into a similar stance, but would almost never start from this type stance. Ak works angles as well, and an understanding of WC's centerline theory helps immensely in AK. As I,ve said before, our demensional controll theory is a natural extension of WC centerline theory (though a lot of AK people don't know this). We also cut, and the best at this are WC/AK combined practitioners. Jerks are deadly in sparing! A lot of similarity there, except it sounds like you are more side on to your opponent. Our neutral bow has us facing him at 45'. We can quickly move to more steraight on with a number of stance changes, depending on what we want to accomplish. But the default is the neutral bow. Back to the natural stance. You guys are also good at bridging from this stance. Ak also bridges, though we don't call it that. But when we do, we either look for or try to create an open ended triangle into which we can attack. For example, a front snap kick. WC would make contact with the leg and move in, keeping contact with forward pressure and establishing contact with the upper body weapons to control (and frustrate!) the opponent as you destroy him. Whatever you use to make that initial contact (leg check, parry, etc.) you'd probably place his leg to a position to open him up and off ballance him. AK does this, but we look at it as an "open ended triangle', or in this case several. Obviousely, the legs are one, as they are spread and vulnerable. The apex is the groin, and the legs are a natural guide there. But also, you can attack the sides of the legs at vulnerable spots, or just taket them out with a kick, sweep, buckle, etc. Another open ended triangle occurs in his guard. When he plants even a little off ballance, ad turns even a little, he is vulnerable inside his guard with the elbows an open base and the hands the apex, guiding you right up some devastating targets. Another open ended triangle in his guard is the near arm, elbow the apex and fist and shoulder the base. In this case the base is up, and the open targets are in the vicinity of the base. Youhave another triangle formed by the back side of his arm and his body. In this case, it is primarily that leg of the triangle formed by his body that is open (though you can attack through the open base). Hope that was clear, and gives you an unnderstanding of the concept. How does WC address this? Or, how do you visualize doing this?

Excellent point! In AK, most of the things we do to an opponent takes his ballance. It is both part of our defensive theory and our dimensional control theory. One example is a simple block. We don't just put up an obstacle to stop his strike. The blocks are designed to (among other things) either stop it at a point where his momentum is checked early enough to effect his ballance, or to help him overcommit, force him into an unballanced and vulnerable position, or drive his weapon back and pin it to his body, pushing him back off ballance. Actually, most 'blocks' are more useful as either a preemptive strike or to take advantage of his returning momentum after delivering a strike. Yhis is where they are most effective in taking his ballance. AK is also drilled to check his base. This controls both his lower weapon(s) and his maneuverability. And, done correctly, these checks can do a lot of dammage as well as destroy his ballance. We also attack his base repeatedly, often at the same time as we attack his upper body in close. That has a seriouse effect on his ballance. Other ways we take his ballance are to work with frictional pulls, yield to a strike which encourages over commitment, use our body as a weapon to occupy his space. We work off reactions that we force or set up. For example, an eye poke is often primarily to get his head to jerk violently back, effecting his ballance. If it does a lot of dammage, that is just gravy- the reaction is the meat and potatoes. I could go on, but I think I'll wait and see what everyone else wants to discuss and get into particulars on how we all do it. I think you are right though, Red. This is probably a main principle and concept in most Kempo systems. Be good if we can get input from some Silat guys also, as this is one of their areas of expertise.

http://www.ltatum.com/TipOfTheWeek.html

Sounds like we are all fairly similar here. AK does a lot of stand up grappling. Most of that can be adapted to the ground, s well as a lot of the striking techniques. I do think that training in a grappling style would make it easier to extrapolate those moves. Plus, it is not likely that you will beat a trained grappler at his game just from modifying some of your stand up game. But, for the average street punk...!!!

Sauzin, so far we'vw had only one thread comparing one aspect of basics:

Thought it would be good if we could get some clips going to compare and discuss. Here's one: http://www.unitedparkerskenpo.com/Onthemat.html I'll find Larry Tatums TOW site later and post it. Let's see what you got!

In American Kenpo, everything begins and ends in the neutral bow. Draw a line on the floor to your opponents center line. In a left foot forward stance (left neutral bow), the toes of the left foot would touch your left side of the line. The heel of the right foot would touch the right side of the line about a shinbones width back. Both feet are at 45', with 50/50 weight distribution. Knees are bent (@45', or a litle less) and slightly out. Coccyx (tailbone) is slightly tucked, spine stacked, head erect and chin slightly tucked. Left arm up so you look just over the hand, right covers the mid section. This stance gives both stability and maneuverability. It also gives excellant structure. It minimizes targets while allowing all weapons to be brought into play quickly. We can get into the stance changes and foot maneuvers from this stance later, in this or another thread. But for now I'll keep it simple. So, now, describe your stance. What are its' strengths? What was it designed to do? And, for you AK guys, I left a lot out in the design category. IKCA guys, can some of you comment on the fact that we are allowed to turn that lead foot out a little? Oh, yeah. I almost forgot. These descriptions will sound ridged and static. Let's all give each other the bennifit of the doubt and assume that we are all loose and don't stand around like a photo op in training! (Of course, if you do that, please tell us and explain the reasoning behind it !)

That's me! A generic mass poster! You are probably correct. But I think the IKCA also wanted to set their system apart from EPAK, though they make no bones about being EPAK based. Mr. Sullivan and Mr. LeRoux started the system with Mr. Parkers blessings, but I don't know if this was discussed with him or even whether he might have asked them to do it. Even for so recent a system, there is a lot of history that has been lost.

I see your point, however I think you are looking at this very superficially. True enough the systems use different kata/forms, and they emphasize different things. But much of the basics and movements are a lot alike. It is the differences that we want to talk about- not because one is better, but because we can learn from each others different perspectives. The same goes for talking to stylists who are radically different, which is the reason a lot of us come here to a mixed forum. But because of the similarities, however many or few, in the Kempo family of systems, some of us think it can be a special bennifit to talk directly to each other.

We tend not to be too concerned with our lineage, as the family tree starts with Mr. Parker not that long ago. And tracing the roots of AK is not only impossible, but leads to many debates that are better left to the pseudo historians on the American Kenpo forums elsewhere!

I've allways been told that the Chinese characters for Chuan fa are pronounced as kempo in Japanese. Also, while the terms Chuan fa and Kempo encompass many different systems, the Kempo arts all are made up of different systems. This is especially true of American Kenpo. So I see no problem applying these terms to any of the Kempo family of styles.

How does your system aproach grappling? Unfortunately, groundwork is one of the things that Mr. Parker was working on adding to American Kenpo at his death. We do have a lot of standup grappling in the system, and some groundwork can be extrapolated from the standup techniques. But ground fighting emphasizes a different set of principles and concepts. For example, leverage is much more important on the ground. So a lot of AK schools also teach a ground system like Sambo or BJJ. I understand some of the Okinawan systems have incorporated Jiu-jitsu and ground fighting. Is it taught with the striking part of your art? Does it relate the principles in the standup game and ground game? How much emphasis do you put on locks, throws, and rolling as compared to your standup skills? For you EPAK types, does your school teach grappling as a seperate system? How is it integrated with your base? My parent school teaches Sambo, and the students there are expected to be able to make a comparison themselves with the principles, concepts and moves. Unfortunately, I'm not close enough to be able to take advantage of this. But I try to add some simple stiuff when I can, and convert the standup techs to ground techs.

Just know of him. Heard some good things. Some don't like it because he reworked some of the learning tools (something about a 'Wheel of Knowlege'?). But I've heard his students know their stuff. I say, if that works better for him, more power to him! Mr. Parker never said he wanted to leave a static system as a monument to himself. He wanted to leave students that could handle themselves as well as think for themselves!

Master Fisher? I've heard of him, but never had the pleasure to meet him. I think he teaches Taiji and AK, but a different set of techniques from the standard curruculum. May teach some other stuff too. I'll check out his site. Thanks!

We'll claim ya! Ditto, ditto, and ditto.

We could be here all night! I'll try to give a short answer (sort of). All the Kenpo/Kempo systems that I know of trace their roots back to Chuan fa, or Chinese fighting arts. There are Japanese, Okinawan, Hawaiian, and American versions. But all (as far as I know) have a lot in common. All have excellant flow, little or no wasted motion, and use all the bodies natural weapons. One of the big differences in AK and Okinawan Kempo that I've seen is that the Okinawan systems tend to have a lot more flow, where AK tries to ballance it out a little more with hard moves. Not too sure, but I think the Japanese systems also have hard moves. Also, several systems focus more on joint locks and pressure points, throws and grappling. AK has these, but they must be extrapolated from the techniques. There are some AK systems that focus more on these things. One, SL-4 Kenpo, is heavily into internal principles and cavity strikes. Now, to really confuse you, some of these systems went from China to Okinawa and then to Japan. Some came to Hawaii via different routes and were mixed and modified. And there is one Chinese Kenpo system that is based on AK. As for EPAK (Ed Parkers American Kenpo), it is in many ways a completely different animal to anything else (while still having a lot of similarities to just about everything else- confused yet?). Ed Parker's base was Chuan fa. But he also studied many other arts, and was allways working with and learning from other stylists. He broke everything down to basic principles, cataloged the concepts, and came up with a system that is a different composite of his extensive knowlege. I've never said AK was best for everybody, but it did fill a major hole in the martial arts where westerners are concerned. It is developed to be learned with the western mindset. It is also a heavily oriented to street self defense, though it has offensive moves also. There are other offshoots of AK. I believe White Tiger is one there's a WT school in Reno that is primarily AK based. And to really confuse things, some systems have added Taiji, Chin na and Shui Jao and went back to calling their system Chuan fa! So, if you aren't confused, it's ok. I'm confused enough for the both of us!

My base is American Kenpo (AKTS)vand Chinese Kenpo (IKCA). Both are Parker based systems. I've also trained and worked out with many other systems and stylists, and have a tremendouse respect for all martial arts (though some martial artists and schools may fall short). In talking with other Kempo stylists, and working with a few, I think there is a lot of similarity. One of the things I hope to get out of this experiment, and later maybe our forum, is to be able to compare what we do and get a different perspective on things. AK is what I like best, but that doesn't mean I can't learn from the other guy! My opinion of the Kempo family of arts is that they are extremely adaptable, have excellant flow, and a minimum of wasted motion- and of course they are effective.