We've always been taught(or at least should've been) the three phases of a technique, ideal, what-if, and formulation (if you don't know what that means, please, ask your instructor). At the basic level or should we say primitive and mechanical stages of movement, that's great, but what about at the advanced stages? Hopefully, at this advanced level, you've internalized or engrained the art, the techs, forms, sets, etc. and made them work for you in various situations. I've come to the conclusion that in the spontaneous phase of movement there are only two phases of a technique, Ideal, EVEN-If, and back to ideal. The what if is now formulation and it doesn't matter what you do, a technique, even if reversed, will lead back to an ideal phase when you've learned to recognize the response of your opponent and geared your training to recognize when this is happening. Not only your physical speed is tested, but more so your perceptual speed of the actions happening. The dimension of time now becomes the greatest factor, by allowing you to ARM, Adjust, Regulate, and Monitor a technique in it's flow. Just some thoughts bouncing around, what's your take?


Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

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.

Ectually, what Clyde is arguing for (and I can cheat: got laughed at for not getting this last night) is simply using the ideal phases of the techniques to fill up the gaps in execution.

So last night, I'm doing Snapping Twig. The dummy quite properly gets bounced back with the left heel palm; to keep within the ideal technique, I go ahead and throw the elbow sandwich, then move into the formal ending...

Clyde's point was that the dummy was out of range--which I knew. But what I did not think of at the time--though in the moment, I had time--was filling in the gap with an "ideal," bit from another technique, then resuming the "ideal," Snapping Twig, once I'd closed up with the dummy...

We'd been running Part. Wings; so, after sticking that left heel palm into the dummy's chest again, on Snap. Twig, I spliced in the left scoop/right kick, right hammer section from parting Twigs, closed the gap, went ahead with the elbow once it made sense, and finished the ending to Snap. Twigs where I'd left off.

Other splices are to be sure possible. But I think Clyde's point boils down to this: why reinvent the wheel? If there's a frame or two or three from other, "ideal," phases of techniques, why bother taking the time to make something, "new," up?

Implications: 1) what does, "spontaneous," really mean in kenpo? 2) just to salt old wounds, is there an "outside," kenpo?

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.

Originally posted by Old Fat Kenpoka
I don't think I am good enough to be that smooth in a real fight against a determined, strong, or skillful opponent.

Neither am I, but I think it's worth trying to get there. ;)

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
But I think Clyde's point boils down to this: why reinvent the wheel? If there's a frame or two or three from other, "ideal," phases of techniques, why bother taking the time to make something, "new," up?

Implications: 1) what does, "spontaneous," really mean in kenpo? 2) just to salt old wounds, is there an "outside," kenpo?

I would have said that in the spontaneous phase one is able to work always in the ideal phase because you are certain of the subsequent moves you can do after hitting somebody a certain way. That is, you go like chess players, "thinking" some moves ahead of the actual one, but in a lesser lapse of time.

Do I make sense?

When dealing with what-if's as they happen, I usually try to adjust and resume with the original technique. Otherwise you have to do a change-up and go to a new technique.

I find it interesting that once you have grouped your techniques and understand the intersections of them, you can find your way in and out from one to another rather easily. --OK, easier said than done.

I guess I haven't matched up my ideas to Clyde's terms, but one I have heard is Position Recognition. Once you have a feel for the techniques, you should never get "stuck" if it doesn't go ideally. But I think even that is probably over-analytical, as you won't have time to "think" in a real situation.

Someone once said, "Look for nothing and accept everything."

So going into a situation, you can't be saying "Boy I really want to run Five Swords on this guy." It may be what you end up running, and one way I trained was to be able to run your favorite technique for any given attack. But that is no help for instance if you become injured, and lose some ability with your right arm. Now Five Swords isn't going to help you.

In the spontaineous phase, we do not even graft per se, rather we fill the dead space. It is what I do with Snapping Twig, as the head goes back following the hammerfist, the orbit of my fist may strike the solar plexus or abdomen, bringing them back for the elbow. Inevitably from the handsword or heel palm as some learn it, the head goes back, if you twist or pull they stay there.

-MB

I'll chime in here as well. I feel as if Clydes concept fits with the family related moves chart(concept). If you are used to moving from point of origin and are trained in the myriad of techs that can occur from what ever point of origin you find yourself in, you are never stuck. I both agree and disagree with Clyde as far as the ideal goes. For instance there is nothing ideal about five swords. you are on the inside dealing with one hand of an opponent with two hands, and while yes you may end up in that situation and be in need of just that vocabulary, chances are its never gonna happen like in the technique line. The techs are just like basic algebra equations that your math teacher would give you in highschool. The students will plod through them until profficient but once you are in a real working environment, the unknown forces you to think outside the box ,as a rule. Clyde is absolutly right an ideal phase of one tech flows right into the ideal phase of another; however, at some point you need to realize that labling and recalling which tech you are flowing into at any given moment sort of defeats the purpose of being extemparanious.
sean

Originally posted by Touch'O'Death
For instance there is nothing ideal about five swords. you are on the inside dealing with one hand of an opponent with two hands...

I don't look at five swords the same way you do... I look at my action as controlling and dominating my opponent, period.

Not only do I employ a left block to my opponent's forarm while I simultaneously deliver a right hammerfist strike to his bicep, but I implement a knee check to my opponent's right knee to control his rotation as well. To me Five Swords is not about using two hands to control one hand. To me Five Swords is about using my whole body nullify and disable my opponent's ability to retaliate.

interesting reading the description of five swords as, again, their are variations throughout the kenpo world. we don not employ the left block/right hammerfist combination, but simply a right inward block.

i would think that could create a situation where you have both hands committed to the same direction and result in an unchecked opening or where a savvy opponent disturb your balance or tie up your hands. in the version taught at my school, the left hand checks center on the right inblock and pulls back to check the right arm on the chop. always keeping your hands moving in opposite directions.

i'm sure there is a rationale for the version you were taught, since i have seen it done that way by several others as well.

i am interested in hearing more...

pete.

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

I learned Five Swords with both hands blocking on the inside of the right round-house punch. Of course beingon the inside is a baaad thing because you KNOW that the left will be coming.

To cancel the left, the right hand slices past the neck and the left goes straight into their face. Left hand effectively cancelled. (Ideally)

First off and speaking as a critic--it's a long way from what Clyde wrote to, "it's my way, or you're wrong."

Second off, as a theoretican--there are wrong ways to do things, MJS. If memory serves, you've spent a good deal of time on MartialTalk telling me and others that we're training wrong, that we're trapped in useless tradition, that kenpo is wrong not to have more-explicit grappling, yes? Are you now recanting, and arguing that all that was just a different way to see things, no better or worse than any other way?

And apropos of 5 Swords--uh...um...you might want to spend some time with that technique. In its ideal phase. Why the blocks/the knee check? because the opponent is attenting to hit you in the heads with a right roundhouse punch, and so you want to check their body as well as block that punch.

You are omitting the purpose of the particular strikes, which is to forestall action as much as it is to strike.

Why the right hand-sword? Because (again, I am speaking of the ideal phase here) the opponent is attempting to swing with their free left hand, so you need immediately to check their width and therefore that punch. Why the following right heel-palm? To reinforce that line, and to add a stronger depth check. Why the upper-cut in the ideal version? Because after the heel-palm, the opponent is trying to drop beneath your hands. Why the step off and hand-sword? To get off their center line, to open up their center line, to check their depth. Why the right hand-sword to the back of their neck? Because they attempted to stand up; you check their height.

Why the useless extension? because the base tech didn't get it donh, and they keep fighting. The left heel-palm stands them up (height and width and depth check); the right hand drops under to check, then goes to the throat; the side-kick stops the further attacks, and starts your escape.

In other words, MisterMike's last post is quite correct. Shoulda typed faster, or been less long-winded.

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:

WELL, I'm glad I stopped where I did :)

I figured there would be enough debate over the entry to the technique, but now you've said a mouthfull :asian:

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

Why the useless extension? because the base tech didn't get it donh, and they keep fighting.

Or because now you are fired up and you aren't done with them yet...because they are still standing! :D:D:D

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
First off and speaking as a critic--it's a long way from what Clyde wrote to, "it's my way, or you're wrong."

Second off, as a theoretican--there are wrong ways to do things, MJS. If memory serves, you've spent a good deal of time on MartialTalk telling me and others that we're training wrong, that we're trapped in useless tradition, that kenpo is wrong not to have more-explicit grappling, yes? Are you now recanting, and arguing that all that was just a different way to see things, no better or worse than any other way?

And apropos of 5 Swords--uh...um...you might want to spend some time with that technique. In its ideal phase. Why the blocks/the knee check? because the opponent is attenting to hit you in the heads with a right roundhouse punch, and so you want to check their body as well as block that punch.

You are omitting the purpose of the particular strikes, which is to forestall action as much as it is to strike.

Why the right hand-sword? Because (again, I am speaking of the ideal phase here) the opponent is attempting to swing with their free left hand, so you need immediately to check their width and therefore that punch. Why the following right heel-palm? To reinforce that line, and to add a stronger depth check. Why the upper-cut in the ideal version? Because after the heel-palm, the opponent is trying to drop beneath your hands. Why the step off and hand-sword? To get off their center line, to open up their center line, to check their depth. Why the right hand-sword to the back of their neck? Because they attempted to stand up; you check their height.

Why the useless extension? because the base tech didn't get it donh, and they keep fighting. The left heel-palm stands them up (height and width and depth check); the right hand drops under to check, then goes to the throat; the side-kick stops the further attacks, and starts your escape.

In other words, MisterMike's last post is quite correct. Shoulda typed faster, or been less long-winded.


I'm sure there will be instances where you can stop or delay that left. I think it depends on timing. If you get in there before that roundhouse is really out of the gate, and then flow into the rest of the technique, that left hasn't got a chance. I also run it with the knee-check as well.

If you're late, that right handsword to the neck becomes a block for the left, as you STILL execute the heel-palm to the face. The techniques were built for the what-if's, long before the extension gets there.

Originally posted by MisterMike
The techniques were built for the what-if's, long before the extension gets there.

I totally agree with that! :)

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

amidst all the posturing and grandstanding, of who's right and who's wrong on this and other threads that faded into oblivion a dog's life ago... NOBODY is saying WHY they would use BOTH of their arms to block a single right roundhouse, rather than abide by KENPO principles by keeping their hands apart and keeping a check on center!

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

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

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

Oh for cryin' out loud. Just argue the issues, eh, and skip the, "it's getting windy," nonsense, eh? Otherwise, the impression will be created that the issues cannot be argued.

Now, MJS. My point is that when Clyde says, "Nope, that's wrong," him bad to judge. When you say, "Nope, that's wrong," him good to judge. It seems quite possible to me that you both know what you're talking about.

Pete: one reason to use both hands is that elbows bend. Good committed roundhouse, relaxed arm, block only bicep, attacker says,"ow," fist comes around corner, hits face. This is bad. (The reason for not simply checking the "center," is similar: you're creating a pivot point. Look at Snapping Twig, for the results of shoving the center.)

Another reason: so that you don't have to add in an "and," before slipping the hand-sword to the neck.

Another reason: to maintain consistency with other techniques for relative novices--forward with both hands up, 5 Swords; backwards, Delayed Sword.

Another reason: to teach us to, as I read in "Black Belt," as though it were a big discovery," "use both hands."

Another reason: who said you've got to fully block? step in, slip the handsword from bicep to neck, keep the left up as a check.

Another reason: who said you have to block out? Block DOWN on the arm with both hands.

Another reason: to teach the basic checking system, in which the left is the first, most obvious, check. My favorite version of 5 Swords: both hands up to check their right, ball kick to the gut or groin.

Another reason: to introduce the possibility articulated more-completely in Defying the Storm--lock up the arm/shoulder.

Can all this be countered? Sure, you can stay home and never have some slob throw a punch at you. You can arrange to have your brother drop a Steinway Concert Grand on them, when they appear. All you have to do is to read their mind.

But I will tell y'all right now--I'm not bad at this stuff (tho' assuredly not god's gift to kenpo...that'd be Juan Serrano, the best kenpoist you never heard of in the country...ask Clyde, he hadda spar the monster for Juan's fourth test...ever see anybody do full-out spinning butterfly kicks in sparring, spontaneously, land a couple, keep on going? After getting decked by a much bigger opponent?)--I'm not bad at all, I've had the benefit of wonderful teachers, I'm smart as hell, and Clyde ties me in knots all the time with counters to techniques.

So I don't know what to tell ya...

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

Originally posted by MJS
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

What I meant is the techniques are NOT necessarily going to work for every case. There are many points in the technique that you can find a what-if and then either make adjustments, or do a changeup into another technique.

The extensions do not come in where the one and only what-if exists(at the end usually).

I know we're not going to win every situation, but the answers in Kenpo are there.

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.

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 ass 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

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 analysiss of the reason to use both hands in Five Swords?

[QUOTE]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

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

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

Clyde argues that kenpo is a mediocre art.


NO, Kenpo is an art based on mediocrity but it is not a mediocre art. Get it right or I'll rub it in hard Wed. LOL


Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

[quote]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

hey robert, thanks for the direct and thorough response to my post on 5 swords. i get a little frustrated by all the windy internet posturing over who's teacher is better than who's, and all the my way or the highway attitudes blowing around the 'net, without explaining WHY. its like being thrown into an old monty python bit where i paid for an argument but received only contradiction! thanks for taking the time to provide a meaningful response.

with one hand or two, there need not be an "and" to deliver the handsword, in fact with one hand you have more of a circular, or better, and elliptical orbit.

we use an left three finger eye gouge, rather than the heel palm you describe, which is also fed from the orbit.

use both hands: yes, but a center check is useful, and can prevent that ball kick to the gut.

now, if he's gonna come around with the left, the handsword should check his width. but if you are late, then the handsword can be used as a block, and possibly morph into sword of destruction.

i can see your point as a teaching device to maintain consistency with delayed sword, but in delayed sword you are stepping back creating distance to nullify the attackers left. anyway, we teach 5 swords in an extended version at brown-1.

i still don't see any advantage of using both arms to defend the same punch, still see the disadvantages... can you see how the attacker can collapse his right arm, trap both your arms, and capitalize on your committed momentum to knock you off balance and attack your exposed right side?

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

Another reason: who said you've got to fully block? step in, slip the handsword from bicep to neck, keep the left up as a check.


Originally posted by Touch'O'Death

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

I agree with and teach what rmcrobertson and TOD explain here. Which is namely not to stop and dwell on the two hands on one arm but to graft the motion of the right arm to the whip to the neck, this takes out the "and". Done with the structure that I believe that Touch o death is referring to this will instantly check ANY motion of the left hand. The stronger the person is throwing the attack the more injury they will incur most likely dropping on the spot.

Originally posted by MisterMike
I learned Five Swords with both hands blocking on the inside of the right round-house punch. Of course beingon the inside is a baaad thing because you KNOW that the left will be coming.

To cancel the left, the right hand slices past the neck and the left goes straight into their face. Left hand effectively cancelled. (Ideally)

I have found that the key to pulling this technique off and keeping it in the ideal phase is not to pause between strikes, but flow from one move immeadiately to the next. Your point on how to keep your opponent's left hand in check is a good one, that coupled with the knee check makes it damn near impossible for your attacker to counter this technique.

Good thread guys!

I have found that if you are a bigger person, such as myself, when you are initially closing the distance (stepping in) and making your blocks, if you are moving with sufficient velocity (in other words, throw your big ass in there) and rebound to the handsword quickly maing sure to snap it back to flow into your eye gouge/heel palm (depending on which you do) then your opponent not only will not have the presence of mind to still fire that left hand, but you have cancelled him in a way that even if he is able to throw it at that point, it will be very weak and off target. Many years ago, when I was working in bars, I tried to use 5 swords and employed this stratagy, I never got to the left hand handsword, the opponent was down. Was it pretty, nope, but it worked. I think that in itself moved it into the ideal phase. He ideally threw a punch and I ideally knocked him out. I think the real point being made by all here is if you learn your bases very well, and tailor them to yourself, what these gentleman are all saying is correct.

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

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

... and you can say that with a smile on your icon.

What about their interpretation of Five Swords? Outward downward diagonal handsword is one way Mr. Parker did it. I promise, it check width, depth, and height.

-MB

The further that one of your weapons moves across your center line the more checked-out you are. Also If you throw both of your weapons to any one side, then you are not only checking yourself out but leaving open a huge area to attack. To me these two reasons are enough to justify the split actions of the left and right hands.

Essentially the argument comes down to one of two things:
1) Do you use both arms to block to one side? Effectively blocking the attack at the cost of delaying any strikes that are to be made while creating a huge open area. By doing so you also run the risk of propeling the left hand towards you, or having your weapons checked if the opponent baits you with a right and smacks you with a left.

2) Using the left outward block and right chop to the neck, which responds to the attack with an immediate strike, and allows for quick manueverability should the left be coming in behind the first punch. It isn't as strong as the two handed block and may get you knicked if you aren't careful how you block.

To me the second choice gives you a far greater list of options in a more maneuverable position than the first choice. Also the longer you wait to hit an opponent, the higher the probability is that they will be out of position before you get in the shot. Remember a majority of fights are won by the guy who lands the first shot.

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.

We did a modification last Saturday with Sergio Contreras, but instead of there being a left punch, there was a second opponent, and it worked just fine :)

I personally do not use 2 hands on one side, but the time interval is so small for the left one taking over the checking action as I flow to the handsword, as to be quarter-beat or so timing.

The what-if I found against the left, and by the way, their right arm is struck such that you do not provide rotational energy and accelerate the left toward you, is a right outward or upward outward elbow. You may, or may not at that point, continue with Five Swords, or graft into another technique.

Just another perspective.

-MB

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.

derek,

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.

i did apply this during sparring the other night and what was revealed to me was each time my opponent attempted to throw the left, it was interrupted with an outward parry against my on-coming right handsword. i had to use my left to check the inside position of my opponent's left, and find a body shot open with my right. this actually happened 3 times.

i just don't see why the technique would be taught with both arms and your entire bodily momentum going in one direction, creating a structural imbalance and a the potential for getting both arms locked up.

pete.

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.

derek,

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.

i did apply this during sparring the other night and what was revealed to me was each time my opponent attempted to throw the left, it was interrupted with an outward parry against my on-coming right handsword. i had to use my left to check the inside position of my opponent's left, and find a body shot open with my right. this actually happened 3 times.

i just don't see why the technique would be taught with both arms and your entire bodily momentum going in one direction, creating a structural imbalance and a the potential for getting both arms locked up.

pete.

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

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).

Originally posted by dcence
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).


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

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

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

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.

Originally posted by dcence

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

Nope. Wrong again. Clyde is Captain Caveman! :lol:

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. :shrug:

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.

Originally posted by dcence
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.

Taking a tennis analogy, reading body language and faking is only good against adversaries who have fast reactions, otherwise they won't be moving the way you want them to :D
Now, it all boils down to know your adversary and use the appropiate tactic with him.

Yesterday we were working it
1.- Straight punch: right or left
2.- Roundhouse kicks: right or left
3.- Two handed grabs: the ones the attacker wanted.
4.- Etc.
And I can assure you that, at least in my case, in those spontaneous drills I am able to block, but I usually follow with whatever feels right in the moment. And that is seldom a program tech...
And the fakes worked only with nervous people and fast reacting people.

And one last fact. With committed heavy attackers, you sometimes have to commit all you have to block the strike if you're not able to evade it. You can have the luxury to block with one arm if you weight a ton, but no so if you weight only 55 Kg. And yes, you're right in that you'd better not cross the centerline when blocking
:)