vertical outward & pushdown

[warriorsage]

OK, here's something I've thought about for quite some time. How effective are these two blocks? I don't know the full EPAK curriculum yet, but I have noticed that there aren't many techniques that utilize the pushdown or vertical outward and out of the few tech's that I know that use the VO block, it would seem to my uninformed mind that an outward parry might do just as well. I say the last part because the few times I've blocked anything hard w/ a VO, it hurt my inner forearm like a son-of-a-buck and the structural integrity of the block didn't seem to hold up either. It seemed like the only thing really holding that block in place were the muscles of my shoulder. The one advantage I think that it has over the extended outward is that you can use it much closer to your body, it doesn't require the "room" to reach it's effectiveness, in my experience.

As I stated, I'm not fully in the know here, so please take that into consideration when you all tell me how off base I am. Looking forward to the info.

[kenpo3631]

Originally posted by warriorsage

OK, here's something I've thought about for quite some time. How effective are these two blocks? I don't know the full EPAK curriculum yet, but I have noticed that there aren't many techniques that utilize the pushdown or vertical outward and out of the few tech's that I know that use the VO block, it would seem to my uninformed mind that an outward parry might do just as well. I say the last part because the few times I've blocked anything hard w/ a VO, it hurt my inner forearm like a son-of-a-buck and the structural integrity of the block didn't seem to hold up either. It seemed like the only thing really holding that block in place were the muscles of my shoulder. The one advantage I think that it has over the extended outward is that you can use it much closer to your body, it doesn't require the "room" to reach it's effectiveness, in my experience.

As I stated, I'm not fully in the know here, so please take that into consideration when you all tell me how off base I am. Looking forward to the info.

I wouldn't say you were off base, I'd say you were thinking logically...:D

You are correct in stating that we do not use the Vertical outward block in the techniques of Ed Parkers Kenpo. The definition I tell my students of a block is - "Force against force, against a weapon in flight, WITHOUT intent to injure." So to use that motion with your arm to strike with would be impractical and using that weapon in any other way would make it something other than a "Block".

As you stated "because the few times I've blocked anything hard w/ a VO, it hurt my inner forearm like a son-of-a-buck".

As well it should. When you use the inner part of the forearm, you are striking bone against bone, nerve against nerve. It is illogical to use that arm postion in that manner (Force Against Force).

I believe it was left in the system for dare I say it..."Category Completion" and historical value. Remember the island people of Okinawa would condition their inner forearms by striking them repeatedly, they after all were fighting Samuri with bamboo armor!

As far as the push down, it is used in the SD techniques as early as Locking Horns. The left leg check (strike) to the knee as you strike the groin with the right upward reverse handsword.:asian:

[Rainman]

Originally posted by warriorsage

OK, here's something I've thought about for quite some time. How effective are these two blocks? I don't know the full EPAK curriculum yet, but I have noticed that there aren't many techniques that utilize the pushdown or vertical outward and out of the few tech's that I know that use the VO block, it would seem to my uninformed mind that an outward parry might do just as well. I say the last part because the few times I've blocked anything hard w/ a VO, it hurt my inner forearm like a son-of-a-buck and the structural integrity of the block didn't seem to hold up either. It seemed like the only thing really holding that block in place were the muscles of my shoulder. The one advantage I think that it has over the extended outward is that you can use it much closer to your body, it doesn't require the "room" to reach it's effectiveness, in my experience.

As I stated, I'm not fully in the know here, so please take that into consideration when you all tell me how off base I am. Looking forward to the info.


VOB and pushdowns work well in the fourth range. Pushdowns can be used to knock a kick down as well depending on the degree of angle. Not everything is in the techniques- some of it must be taught by a well versed instructor to find where it has a place.

[Les]

Originally posted by warriorsage

out of the few tech's that I know that use the VO block, it would seem to my uninformed mind that an outward parry might do just as well.

I also don't see a great deal of use for the Vertical Outward.

However, when you say that an outward parry might do just as well, you have to bear in mind where your arm is at the time.

A parry (in my view) stems from having your arm in an extended position. You are parrying on the way back towards your body.

If your arm/hand is already close to your body, you have to extend it to pick up the action, making it a time lapse movement.

Then, of course, we get into the area of meeting force vs redirecting force. If we change the method of blocking, it can cause a "knock on effect", and we may have to adjust other aspects as well.

One thing the Vertical Outward is good for though, is teaching you to "anchor" your elbow while blocking. Something that is often lacking when you see Extended Outwards.

Les

[Les]

Originally posted by kenpo3631



As far as the push down, it is used in the SD techniques as early as Locking Horns. The left leg check (strike) to the knee as you strike the groin with the right upward reverse handsword


Personally, when I do Locking Horns, I use a handsword rather than a pushdown.

I know that's not how it's written, but it really checks the leg in a serious way.

Anyway, it seems to work for me. Try it, and let me know what you think.

Les

[Goldendragon7]

LOL:rofl:

[jfarnsworth]

The category completion thing again.
Rats,
Jason Farnsworth

[Goldendragon7]

Originally posted by warriorsage
OK, here's something I've thought about for quite some time. How effective are these two blocks "vertical outward and pushdown"? I am looking forward to the info.


Category completion is a Planas term that has much merit, but to be just a final answer without explanation is a little light on credibility.

These two blocks have many uses although they are not major blocks, but are useful in our vocabulary of basics.

Some have stated that our techniques do not use this block.... Well, that is "incorrect" as Twirling Wings is one that "does"! ...... Now if some have changed the techniques for whatever reason, I can't be responsible for why they did that you will have to ask them.:(

The Vertical Outward (VO) block is for tight in-close use while the Extended outward Block (EO) is for longer range use..... Granted "most" of our techniques do use the (EO) more in the Contact Penetration Range (3rd).... the VO still has strong use particularly in the "Contact Manipulation Range" (4th).

The reason is in the anatomical alignment of the arms for specific purposes. The "VO" is very weak at EO length but much stronger close in while the "EO" is weak close in and strong at proper length.

The Push down has several uses in several different fashions of applications which are difficult to discuss on the net. But is uses as someone pointed out in Locking Horns very effectively but could be substituted as some have done but the fact remains it has many uses and is just one more "tool" for the beginner to have in his tool chest along with other options.

Keep in mind these "Blocks" can be made into "strikes" by just intent.

:asian:

[warriorsage]

for the info. Or, in my best John Travolta "Pulp Fiction" accent..."Muchas Gracias" to all, especially Mr. C for your insights.

I'll be seeing you Friday in Lost Wages with my cup emptied, my pencils sharpened and all my kenpo goodies. Salute!

[Goldendragon7]

;)

[Michael Billings]

Even without catagory completion, both the vertical outward and push down have their places. Of course we can substitute a parry or handsword ... or my particular favorite, a hammer fist or back knuckle in Locking Horns.

Try Shielding Hammer against a real hook, like in a bar fight. Proximity usually allows a left push down to the spleen or top of the pelvic girdle (ouch, pressure points) while the Outward Extended is blocking (Inward-Outward action but change the orbit of the left hand ... yes the left could hook the eyes, but I rather solidify their base - painfully.) This is a definitive STOP which checks their left leg, controlling height, width and depth momentarily.

The extensions have numerous places where a vertical outward is utilized as a strike ... say to one side of the face as you claw the other way. It is a great check following the inward (double factor) block. It has lot of applications in breaks and contact manipulations as it becomes a fulcrum, not necessarily the force on the end of the lever, but sometimes it is even that.

When it hurts the inside of the arm, consider looking for a little softer targets, above the elbow not on it. Let the inward take the brunt of the force and realize - you can hit extremely hard with the VO, utilizing a whipping counter-rotation (think tearing a towel or T-Shirt) explosively. It has lots of applications removing a grip to the shoulder or neck from the flank, rear or front.

Guess Mr. Parker knew what he was doing when he taught them early in the system. Just because they do not feel as "strong" as some other blocks, do not discount the utilitarian value of both of these.

OK, so I could ramble on. I'm tired, think I will take a little 7 hour or so nap. :o

Have fun and Keep it Real!
-Michael
UKS-Texas

[warriorsage]

So, then is it safe to assume that since the VO is used instead of the EO in short 1, that the applications (if any) of the form are intended to show the manipulation portion of the art?

[kenpo3631]

Originally posted by Goldendragon7



Category completion is a Planas term that has much merit, but to be just a final answer without explanation is a little light on credibility.

These two blocks have many uses although they are not major blocks, but are useful in our vocabulary of basics.

Some have stated that our techniques do not use this block.... Well, that is "incorrect" as Twirling Wings is one that "does"! ...... Now if some have changed the techniques for whatever reason, I can't be responsible for why they did that you will have to ask them.:(

The Vertical Outward (VO) block is for tight in-close use while the Extended outward Block (EO) is for longer range use..... Granted "most" of our techniques do use the (EO) more in the Contact Penetration Range (3rd).... the VO still has strong use particularly in the "Contact Manipulation Range" (4th).

The reason is in the anatomical alignment of the arms for specific
purposes. The "VO" is very weak at EO length but much stronger close in while the "EO" is weak close in and strong at proper length.

The Push down has several uses in several different fashions of applications which are difficult to discuss on the net. But is uses as someone pointed out in Locking Horns very effectively but could be substituted as some have done but the fact remains it has many uses and is just one more "tool" for the beginner to have in his tool chest along with other options.

Keep in mind these "Blocks" can be made into "strikes" by just intent.

:asian:

Sir,

You state, "Some have stated that our techniques do not use this block.... Well, that is "incorrect" as Twirling Wings is one that "does"! ...... Now if some have changed the techniques for whatever reason, I can't be responsible for why they did that you will have to ask them.:( "

Just for clarification, you are saying that you ARE supposed to hit with the outer portion of the forearm? Bone against bone, nerve against nerve and possibly injure yourself within the first few moves of the technique? Call me crazy but I think I'll pass on that one :rolleyes:

That doesn't make a bit of sense GD. If you are going to strike with that motion wouldn't it be better to use the top side of the fist to strike with?

Again you state "Granted "most" of our techniques do use the (EO) more in the Contact Penetration Range (3rd).... the VO still has strong use particularly in the "Contact Manipulation Range" (4th).

The reason is in the anatomical alignment of the arms for specific
purposes. The "VO" is very weak at EO length but much stronger close in while the "EO" is weak close in and strong at proper length."

So....if you admit that the EO is used in "most" of the techniques then why have the VO block at all? does it really have a practical purpose? or could it be that Mr. Parker never "threw out" any material, he just put it on the back burner sort to speak.

If we rarely use it, and if to throw it out would be to lose a piece of the alphabet of motion, is it possible that it was left in the system to show us another variable? If you did drop it from the curriculum there would be a void and the category of blocks would be incomplete.

So in the statement:
"Category completion is a Planas term that has much merit, but to be just a final answer without explanation is a little light on credibility."
Why is it not credible to say that the vertical out block is in the system for category completion? It is never used as a "BLOCK" as defined by Mr. Parker, it hurts too darn much. If we delete it, then the category of blocks is incomplete.

What's your reasoning for why it is in the system ?

[Goldendragon7]

Originally posted by kenpo3631
Sir,
Just for clarification, you are saying that you ARE supposed to hit with the outer portion of the forearm?


Let me post the first portion of Mr. Parker's last revision for Twirling Wings (2 hand rear choke) ....... " 2. Pivot counterclockwise into a left forward bow (facing 6 o'clock) while executing a left vertical outward block at or above the outside of your opponent's left elbow...

Now if you want to tell me Ed Parker didn't know about human anatomy and the use of this block then I'll let you. He knew full well the usefulness of the Vertical Outward block for in close use much like a boxer. If he felt that the block was for filing purposes only he would file it and print a better block for the manuals. He was not naive. I'm not sure how you interpret the use of this block nor what the contact points are...... we could only do this if we were together and feel and examine the exact usage. I do know that I have used the block several times and discussed the technique with several others and the way we apply the block ...... well, frankly works fine and does not cause any injury to oneself.



Again you state "Granted "most" of our techniques do use the (EO) more in the Contact Penetration Range (3rd).... the VO still has strong use particularly in the "Contact Manipulation Range" (4th).

The reason is in the anatomical alignment of the arms for specific
purposes. The "VO" is very weak at EO length but much stronger close in while the "EO" is weak close in and strong at proper length."

So....if you admit that the EO is used in "most" of the techniques then why have the VO block at all? does it really have a practical purpose? or could it be that Mr. Parker never "threw out" any material, he just put it on the back burner sort to speak.


Of course it has practical purpose that's why he left it exactly where it is for the reason I mentioned above.

You are correct that Ed Parker didn't like to "throw out" anything rather file it under useful - unuseful or useless. I do know that if he were to file it.... he would do just that..... file it in his notes and modify the current Journals to the update if one was needed. His "Back Burner" as you state, was not part of the technique descriptions.



If we rarely use it, and if to throw it out would be to lose a piece of the alphabet of motion, is it possible that it was left in the system to show us another variable? If you did drop it from the curriculum there would be a void and the category of blocks would be incomplete.


Yes, anything is "possible" but he did leave it in the system!! He left it in Short Form #1, the first of 4 parts of the Dictionaries of Kenpo to define motion. He left it in the technique to show a use of the action. So there is no void in the category of blocks as I see it. :)




So in the statement:
"Category completion is a Planas term that has much merit, but to be just a final answer without explanation is a little light on credibility."

Why is it not credible to say that the vertical out block is in the system for category completion?


If you will take time to re-read correctly......... I state......."but to be just a "final answer".... "without explanation" is a little light on credibility."

Often times it (CC) is used by itself with no explanation as to what it completes or any explanation of what was being talked about, and in my opinion that is a quick answer that offers no credibility.... that's all.



It is never used as a "BLOCK" as defined by Mr. Parker, it hurts too darn much. If we delete it, then the category of blocks is incomplete.


Sorry, but If you feel that it "NEVER" is used as a block as defined by Mr. Parker........ Hee hee...... I would get better instruction. (where did you get that idea from?) scratching head?

If YOU delete it (most others do not)...... then I do agree with you ...... the category of blocks will be incomplete.



What's your reasoning for why it is in the system ?


Well, hee hee, simple my instructor taught it to me and explained it to me on several occasions and I couldn't find fault with it. I find it a valuable piece of the alphabet!

:asian:

(forums at times do not do full justice to discussions such as this .... I look forward to your 6'7" frame and to be able to go over some of this very interesting material in person some day!!! Thanks!)

:asian:

[Kirk]

Originally posted by Goldendragon7

Often times it (CC) is used by itself with no explanation as to what it completes or any explanation of what was being talked about, and in my opinion that is a quick answer that offers no credibility.... that's all.


Are there defined categories? Do they have names?

[Rob_Broad]

I find the Vertical Outward Block is to be used close the body, if you use this block away from the body you will find it to be severely limited. To do this block away from the body it must be augmented, or it will collapse into the body. In the ideal phase this block utilizes your back up mass and the natural torque of the block to be effective

[Scott Bonner]

Originally posted by Goldendragon7
Some have stated that our techniques do not use this block.... Well, that is "incorrect" as Twirling Wings is one that "does"! ...... [/B]

I'm confused (meaning I learned it differently, of course). I thought the definition of a block included meeting force with force. The attack for twirling wings isn't really using force -- the arms are stationary as the bad guy is choking, not striking. So, it's meeting a relatively still object with just enough force to get it out of the way and check it off, right? Wouldn't that be a positional check or some other fancy term, rather than a block?

I'm sure there are vert out blocks all over the place, so I'm not attacking your central thesis, just clarifying the example, since it disagrees with my limited knowledge.

Correct me at your leisure. ;)

[Sigung86]

Originally posted by Rob_Broad

I find the Vertical Outward Block is to be used close the body, if you use this block away from the body you will find it to be severely limited. To do this block away from the body it must be augmented, or it will collapse into the body. In the ideal phase this block utilizes your back up mass and the natural torque of the block to be effective

I would comment as follows on the outward block and say that it is quite effective for it's intention. The outward block doesn't, probably work as well as it would have in the "old days" wherein the Star Block drill was performed in multiple repetitions, in order to numb or acclimate the nerves on the radial portion of the forearm. :lol:

Also, the American Kenpo versions of the blocks are not in alignment, per se, with the old "traditional" blocks, which tended to be more anatomically aligned, if you will, at right angles. This tended to keep them more "anatomically correct" for what the old timers were trying to accomplish, but did set the zones higher.

You have to remember, that all of Ed Parker's refinement asides, and much of what has gone on, or is going on today, most of the original defense techniques, up to and including the basic blocks, were used to fight against armed attackers. Thus it had to be more "structural" for the times and requirements. They, the old timers, spent much time conditioning hands, arms, shins, and feet, for the purpose of fighting against weapon carrying, often armored, opponents.

Many people have done away with the Outward, or Vertical Outward block, for instance, the IKCA, they use the Outward Extended... But ... And this is a big But ... That works for the way their techniques and philosophy is applied.

Main thing about the VO block, is it is, simply, one more tool that you may need one day. If it's not there, and it would have saved you ....

Just thoughts...

Dan

[kenpo3631]

Well as far as the usefulness of this block is concerned, I have to wonder. If you read the text of Infinite Insights Vol. III, pg 17-18 and then look at the photos of Mr. Trejo, they don't match. It says to keep the elbow anchored in the text but the pic shows Trejo with his upper arm parallel with the ground and the lower arm vertical (final postion of the outward block). I may not have training with the SGM but I do know this, the many seminars I took with him he always did it like the picture in the book, when he physically showed you how to do it, it was like the pic. All of my past and current instructors have shown me the same way as the SGM showed it. Does that mean that they were all wrong including the SGM? Afterall it does say to keep the elbow anchored in the book doesn't it.

GD you state "Let me post the first portion of Mr. Parker's last revision for Twirling Wings (2 hand rear choke) ....... " 2. Pivot counterclockwise into a left forward bow (facing 6 o'clock) while executing a left vertical outward block at or above the outside of your opponent's left elbow..."

JUST BECAUSE HE WROTE IT DOESN'T MEAN ITS CORRECT.

I am not disputing the SGM or the art.

What I AM saying is, is there is more to the technique than what is written. It has been said to me time and time again by Kenpo Seniors that SGM wrote things, or left things, whether in writing or pictures "wrong" to see when he looked at you move if you actually learned from a certified EPAK instructor or from a book. So just because the manuals say outward "block" it doesn't mean it is correct...does it?

Scott Bonner stated "The attack for twirling wings isn't really using force" He is correct. The hands are "dead" meaning they are grabbing you and nothing else. The arms are "ideally" still. So if this assumption for the sake of argument is correct, then by definition, you would actually "STRIKE" the opponent's arms in the first moves of Twirling Wings, not "BLOCK" as DC states in his previous post.

How many of you out there in Kenpo-land teach your students to STRIKE with the interior portion of their forearms? Especially to hard targets like another arm, or as the manual says "at or above your opponent's elbow".

According to GD..."well, frankly works fine and does not cause any injury to oneself." :shrug:

"Sorry, but If you feel that it "NEVER" is used as a block as defined by Mr. Parker........ Hee hee...... I would get better instruction. (where did you get that idea from?) scratching head?"


PS- GD I think I'll be fine with Mr. Wedlake as my instructor...thanks:D

Anyone, any thoughts?

[Seig]

I am starting to find this thread a bit on the pendantic side. For someone who did not spend 20 years with the SGM to presume to know what the SGM was doing or thinking is a bit arrogant, but that's ok. There is nothing wqtong with being a little arrogant, it promotes self-pride. But the bottom line is this, and I don't care if the SGM or any one else, ANY BLOCK or STRIKE executed properly serves a dual purpose. Every block is a strike, every strike, a block.

[kenpo3631]

Originally posted by Seig

I am starting to find this thread a bit on the pendantic side. For someone who did not spend 20 years with the SGM to presume to know what the SGM was doing or thinking is a bit arrogant, but that's ok. There is nothing wqtong with being a little arrogant, it promotes self-pride. But the bottom line is this, and I don't care if the SGM or any one else, ANY BLOCK or STRIKE executed properly serves a dual purpose. Every block is a strike, every strike, a block.


Arrogant NO, wanting clarification YES. Seig, no disrespect but have you ever talked with any other Kenpo seniors other than GD? I have been told by many, that Mr. Parker left things intentionally wrong in his Infinite Insight books on purpose for the exact reason I stated in my last post. My point is this, and let me prefix this by quoting myself "Just because it is written down does not mean it is correct. " Heck if you learn the 2 man set from a qualified EPAK instructor you'll find out that the way it is shown in the Secrets of Chinese Karate book by Ed Parker , has one set of movements intentionally left incorrect for the same reason I just stated.

I would never presume to think the SGM didn't know what he was doing...that would be absurd! I am simply saying that if you follow the definition of a block and anotomical structure of the forearm you might question it too.

By the way my current instructor DID spend from 1979 to 1990 with the SGM and has written extensivley on the art of EPAK. I think he might know what he is talking about....but hey...I could be wrong.:asian:

[GouRonin]

Originally posted by Goldendragon7
LOL....... where would the Planas people be without "catagory completion"?

I dunno but I suppose that since Ed Parker Sr. ranked Huk up to 7th he must have learned something from The Old Man

As far as I remember boxing does not use the VOB per say. It uses a modified EOB to protect the head. The alignment of the body is such that if you try to use the VOB your own fist is giving you a nice hammerfist of transfered energy to yourself.

I had a scathing commentary all written out here but due to the fact that I am a kinder and more gentle Gou now, due to popular demand, I have erased it and posted this instead. But I'm just letting you know I had some mean ones primed to fire.
:asian:

[Rainman]

Scott Bonner stated "The attack for twirling wings isn't really using force" He is correct. The hands are "dead" meaning they are grabbing you and nothing else. The arms are "ideally" still. So if this assumption for the sake of argument is correct, then by definition, you would actually "STRIKE" the opponent's arms in the first moves of Twirling Wings, not "BLOCK" as DC states in his previous post.

Blocks- primarily defensive moves employing physical contact to check, cushion, deflect, redirect an offensive move.

It is not a parry because of the path. A sliding check is still classified as a block in this instance partially because of angle of insidence and some other things. Force or pressure is also regulated because you don't want to send the attacker into motion.


How many of you out there in Kenpo-land teach your students to STRIKE with the interior portion of their forearms? Especially to hard targets like another arm, or as the manual says "at or above your opponent's elbow".

Not me. Never have and never thought about it. Thanks for bringing that up... it does cause some pain doesn't it?



:asian:

[Seig]

Originally posted by kenpo3631




Arrogant NO, wanting clarification YES. Seig, no disrespect but have you ever talked with any other Kenpo seniors other than GD?
I speak with everyone I have gotten a chance to. Some I agree with, some I don't.

I have been told by many, that Mr. Parker left things intentionally wrong in his Infinite Insight books on purpose for the exact reason I stated in my last post. My point is this, and let me prefix this by quoting myself "Just because it is written down does not mean it is correct. " Heck if you learn the 2 man set from a qualified EPAK instructor you'll find out that the way it is shown in the Secrets of Chinese Karate book by Ed Parker , has one set of movements intentionally left incorrect for the same reason I just stated.
You are absolutely correct, and I did not quote the manuals.


I would never presume to think the SGM didn't know what he was doing...that would be absurd! I am simply saying that if you follow the definition of a block and anotomical structure of the forearm you might question it too.
People differ. One of the great thinks about Kenpo is that it takes all differnent body make ups into account.

By the way my current instructor DID spend from 1979 to 1990 with the SGM and has written extensivley on the art of EPAK. I think he might know what he is talking about....but hey...I could be wrong.:asian:
I meant no disrepect to any one, least of all your instructor. After reading my post myself, I see part of it did not post.

if the SGM or any one else, ANY
Should have read, if the SGM or anyone else is executing a block, then,
ANY BLOCK or STRIKE executed properly serves a dual purpose. Every block is a strike, every strike, a block.
Sorry for the confusion. I still stand by my statement that if ANY OF US did not personally spend time with the SGM, presuming to know what he was thinking ordoing is arrogant. I was not referring to our instructors, since they did.:asian:

[eternalwhitebelt]

Originally posted by Goldendragon7

LOL:rofl: Wasting time practicing illogical moves!:D :D :D :D

[eternalwhitebelt]

Originally posted by Seig

I am starting to find this thread a bit on the pendantic side. For someone who did not spend 20 years with the SGM to presume to know what the SGM was doing or thinking is a bit arrogant, but that's ok. There is nothing wqtong with being a little arrogant, it promotes self-pride. But the bottom line is this, and I don't care if the SGM or any one else, ANY BLOCK or STRIKE executed properly serves a dual purpose. Every block is a strike, every strike, a block. So what you are saying is points made by students who studied with EP for twenty years are the only ones that are valid? I guess only the seniors in the art are are allowed to use their brains. Next thing you know you are gong to say everything EP taught everyone was to only make money and it is not the real art. Only you were taught the real art and everyone else is wasting their time. OH wait someone is doing that already.:wink2:

[Seig]

Normally, I would not waste my time even answering you, but since you are now putting words into my posts that are not there, I am.

Originally posted by eternalwhitebelt

So what you are saying is points made by students who studied with EP for twenty years are the only ones that are valid? No, I said nothing about any one else's point of view being valid nor invalid. I said it was arrogant to presume that anyone who was not with the man for 20 years knew what and how he was thinking. I wasn't there. Were you?


I guess only the seniors in the art are are allowed to use their brains.
EVERY ONE SHOULD Unfortunately, too many don't.

Next thing you know you are gong to say everything EP taught everyone was to only make money and it is not the real art. If I thought that for one second, I would not be studying the art. There are too many people already spouting that kind of crap. I am sorry you have taken exception and/or offense to my post. I am starting to find your responses offensive. Go back to using your brain.

Only you were taught the real art and everyone else is wasting their time. OH wait someone is doing that already.:wink2:
Again, there is already someone, rather senior saying that, I'm not a copy cat. As a good friend of mine has told me, the problem with these boards is that it is sometimes difficult, without tone, inflection, and body language to go by, what exactly someone means. At some point I would be happy to have a personal discussion with you either via phone or face to face. Before more insults are thrown or tempers really flare, I suggest we agree that neither one of us is getting the other's full gist. There is too much discord, disharmony and misunderstanding in the Kenpo brotherhood now. Let us not continue it.
Peace and Respect
:asian:

[ProfessorKenpo]

The vertical outward blocks and pushdowns have many applications throughout the art, if you haven't been shown them, I would suggest looking for other instructors that really understand the dynamics of Ed Parker's vision, not just posting on the net. It's way to difficult to put all the uses on a post, but I didn't learn the push down in star block for category completion. Come to think of it, there's a hell of a lot more to star block than the basic blocks most see, and those patterns will be recognized as you advance in the art with the full curriculum.

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

[eternalwhitebelt]

Why do people assume that others are lacking instruction just because they disagree with the application or definition of something? From what I have been told by Huk who IS advanced in the art, is that the problem is in the definition of terms. That has already been discussed on this thread. Huk never says that the motion of a vob is not used in the system, he just chooses to define the times we use it as something else. He says when we use it, it is generally a check. He has shown me many uses for this and a pushdown as well. Just as I have also learned many things from Tatum, and Speakman and many others in the art. I think we are really just arguing about the definition of something and not the application. Go over to kenpo net there is a thread on this as well over there, although they just seem to be insulting each other instead of discussing things. Seig I did not mean to offend you on the other hand I was offended by your comment. I think by us being involved in American Kenpo we are automatically trying to assume what EP was thinking. These discussions will never end. Just look at all the seniors and how different there take on things are. What are we to do?

[Rob_Broad]

I think we are starting to realize that the more we tear into eachother over the differences in each person's view fo kenpo the more we are fragmenting ourselves. It is great to see an actual debate with cited points and arguments rather than the war of insults. To everybody participating in this thread and keeping things civil, my hat is off to you. It is refreshing to see people so passionate about their art.

I think we need to accept our differences in opinion and training, it is then that we will be able to truly open up and learn from eachother.

[eternalwhitebelt]

Originally posted by Rob_Broad

I think we are starting to realize that the more we tear into eachother over the differences in each person's view fo kenpo the more we are fragmenting ourselves. It is great to see an actual debate with cited points and arguments rather than the war of insults. To everybody participating in this thread and keeping things civil, my hat is off to you. It is refreshing to see people so passionate about their art.

I think we need to accept our differences in opinion and training, it is then that we will be able to truly open up and learn from eachother. :asian:

[Seig]

Originally posted by eternalwhitebelt

Seig I did not mean to offend you on the other hand I was offended by your comment. I think by us being involved in American Kenpo we are automatically trying to assume what EP was thinking. These discussions will never end. Just look at all the seniors and how different there take on things are. What are we to do?
I think we just did it!:D I meant no offense by my comment and I am sorry. Had I actually been technical in my remarks, I think this could have been avoided. We are all intelligent here, I hope some day we really do get the insights into EP's brain. As for the Seniors...well, As far as the art goes, I think they all are good examples. As leaders, some of them could use a little work. No I am NOt and will not name names:D

[Kirk]

Originally posted by Seig

As for the Seniors...well, As far as the art goes, I think they all are good examples. As leaders, some of them could use a little work. No I am NOt and will not name names:D

*sniff* *sniff* .. Hey I smell chicken. Does anybody else smell
chicken?!?!


Just kidding!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Seig]

Do not confuse Bravery or Cowardice with Intelligence!:D

[Goldendragon7]

Originally posted by eternalwhitebelt
Just look at all the seniors and how different there take on things are. What are we to do?


All you can do is accept each point of view and use what makes sense to you.

Some have problems that go way back to what and how Ed Parker did some things and won't give credit to anyone else that may have worked with him when they were not involved or around.

If we go by what has been printed and defined in several publications (long before Ed Parker passed on I might add) you will discover the answer or the source of conflict from some since it is different than their definition.

:asian: