In Leaping Crane, why does the technique carry on not once, but twice after a neck break? Presumable this is meant to kill the person, to why add any moves after that point?

I realise that Leaping Crane has relatively few practical moves compared to a lot of the other techniques, and is more for principles, but it still seems odd to continue to beat on someone when you're meant to have killed them...?

I also don't think the kicks at the end are particularly realistic, I think that if executed with power, the first front snap kick to the lower spine would knock the person forwards onto their hands or front, I don't think they'd still be knelt there for the hook kick. If it didn't, surely the hook kick would then knock the person over backwards, and again they wouldn't still be knelt there for the straightening leg move (has this got a proper name? I always just call it a 'straightening leg')

Usually when a technique feels this wrong to me, it's because I'm doing it wrong...!

Ian.

Could you explain how your doing Leaping Crane so we are all on the same page? I don't recall multiple kicks or more than one strike after the neck break. Are you refering to the extension to leaping crane?

Also, what moves in leaping crane do you consider to not be practical?

First off, a general principle about American kenpo: all of the moves, in all of the techniques, are practical. Always. We may not see the application, but that isn't the technique nor the system's fault.

A second principle: for each move, more than one application is possible.

Now as for "Leaping Crane." What hook kick? The technique I was taught basically goes like this: in response to a right straight step-through punch, leap left into a crane stance, while simultaneously inward parrying with your left and delivering a right raking middle knuckle to the opponent's ribcage. From the crane stance, execute a right sidekick to the back of your opponent's right knee, and a right back-knuckle strike to their left kidney as you plant forward, ending the base technique with a right inward elbow to the head, "sandwiching" with your left hand.

The extension: from the elbow, snake your right hand around to the left side of the opponent's face and rip out, pivoting to a right forward bow and simultaneously delivering a left chop to the base of the neck. if necessary, go on to pivot baack to the right neutral bow, while delivering a right hand-sword to the right side of the opponent's neck. Rip the right hand down, together with a left handsword and a right scoop kick to the groin as you step through in reverse, going right into a left ball kick to the opponent's lower spine.

As they fall forward, leap with the left foot to the opponent's right side, into a zone of sanctuary. If they attempt to get up and come after you again, deliver a left rear stiff leg raise beneath the jaw, turning them partly over, and end with a right rear kick that slides along the floor and "pinches," down on the ribcage. If this doesn't stop them, run like crazy.

What hook kick?

As for the two neck breaks, a) they're there partly to teach different ways of doing it; b) to teach breaks along different axes. Also, however, they don't have to be neck-breaks. What happens, for example, if they reach back with their right hand, and as you hand-sword the neck with your left you reach over the top of their hand (see Twirling Hammers) and sharply pull their right hand back with your right hand?

I have seen the lifting kick done as a hook, or for a demo done a hook after the neck break, handsword, claw, because the crowd loves it, and not for any other reason.

Here is the IDEAL PHASE extension I have on my webpage. NOTE: This extension is also the last technique in Long Form #5. (as written.)

Leaping Crane (Front- Right Step Through Punch)

1. An opponent from 12:00 comes at you with a right step through punch.
2. Hop towards 1:30 into a transitory one legged stance as you simultaneously execute a left inward parry to your opponent's right arm and a right inward raking middle knuckle strike to your opponent's right ribs.
3. Immediately execute a right knife-edge kick to opponent's right knee.
4. Land in a right neutral bow facing 1:30 utilize gravitational marriage as you execute a right back fist to your opponent's spine. Note: This strike should be vertical and striking down, low enough so their head will come back as they react to the pain.
5. Take advantage of their reaction. Grab your opponent's right shoulder with your left hand and hold them in place as you execute a right inward elbow to your opponent's head. (This allows you to cock your right elbow and get full rotation on the strike.)
6. Circle your right hand clockwise as it ends up against the left side of your opponent's face while your left hand checks the back of your opponent's head at your right shoulder.
7. Without hesitation, shift into a right forward bow as you execute a right claw across your opponent's face as you simultaneously execute a left chop to the back of your opponent's neck. Note: Within this sequence, the effectiveness is based on the combination of opposing force, borrowed force, and a bracing angle.
8. Pivot into a right neutral bow as you execute a right inward hand sword to the right side of your opponent's neck.
9. Continue to flow through this motion as you execute a right front scoop to your opponent's groin followed by a left front kick to your opponent's upper spine.
10. From the point of contact on your left kick drop into a left front crossover stomp onto your opponent's ankle to break it.
11. Slide your left foot to 7:30 where your right foot is. Execute a right front crossover to 3:00 as you execute a left stiff-leg lifting kick up and under your opponent's chin.
12. Plant your left kick towards 10:30 as you pivot into a left front twist stance. Unwind and execute a right round kick to your opponent's head.
13. Execute a right front crossover and cross out to 5:30.

-Michael
UKS-Texas

Hrmm, seems like this is on of the ones that we've modified. Our one goes like this:

Leaping Crane, against a right step through punch

1. hop forwards with the left foot to 10 o' clock into a crane stance as you execute a rear single knuckle strike to the floating rib and parry with the left hand,

2. from the crane stance, execute a side blade kick to the back of the opponent's right knee,

3. as they go down, plant between their legs into a right fighting stance and use the right hand to execute a backfist to the opponent’s left kidney, keeping the left hand high as a check,

4. from the backfist, execute a right elbow sandwich to the head,

5. from the elbow sandwich drop the right hand down to the chin, brace the shoulder with the left hand and break the neck,

6. as the hand whips up, bring it down to the other side of the neck in an right inwards handsword,

7. from the handsword, break the neck in the other direction, again bracing on the left shoulder,

8. as you break the neck, step back and use a right scoop kick to the groin, coming into a left fighting stance,

9. front left snap kick to the lower spine,

10. then, without planting down, stomp to the back of the right ankle...

11. ... and plant to the side of the opponent's right leg, check the shoulder and then left hook kick to the face,

12. finally plant down and spin around and use a straightening leg to send them forwards into the floor, checking with the right hand.



That seems to be fairly similar to me, although obviously we're takcin on the extension from day 1.

The hook kick I was referring to Mr. Billings has down as a lifting heel, which would make more sense as the person would be less inclined to be knocked backwards, and would be there for the final move.

It's the kick to the spine that concerns me, I'm sure if executed with power it would send the person onto their front or hands making it difficult for the technique to be completed.

Ian.

Not at all. You jump off to their right, use the left leg lift to flip 'em over as they attempr to rise, and pinch down with the right heel.

Otherwise, looks pretty much the same.

I'd be happy if none of my techniques worked on the street because they kept falling down before I was done. ;)

Originally posted by Elfan

I'd be happy if none of my techniques worked on the street because they kept falling down before I was done. ;)

I've had some work from begining to end in real altercations, and some work too well (I only got the first one or two moves in the technique off.) I personally like the second result because it's less work, but then again... we are trainied to economize motion.

Either way... KENPO ROCKS! :cool:

In regards to the first strike in Leaping Crane - I have a bit of trouble generating power for this strike, especially against a larger-bellied opponent.

For this reason, I perform less of a 'rake' and more of a direct, linear strike (palm initially facing inward so that it can be twisted to face upward as it rakes out after contact). The strike makes contact with the step of the left leg, then twists and rakes out as the right leg slides up to the crane stance.

Comments welcome.

i've always done the first strike as a knuckle rake/strike of sorts to the funny bone...(don't know the technical term for it). just the way i learned it...and it's quick to do, but not really easy. it's a pinpoint strike, and takes a lot of practice to get it right everytime, and you can't always gauge it corrrectly every time for different people. still, it can cause some pain no matter where it hits.

I use the middle knuckle rake through the fleshy part of the bicep muscle. Pretty much like the strike in gathering clouds. I found this easier to do due to being shorter my arms are shorter than a guy 6' tall. If I try for the ribs most generally the punch is there before I can get to them.

From what I've read in this post the base technique Leaping Crane is being done the same way by all that have posted. That in itself is remarkable...:rofl: Seriously I was hoping to contribute something to this post.

I read satans.barber's original post, remeber, it's "not overkill but over skill". Hopefully if you ever had to use this technique you'd never get to the extension, if you did, you would be doing something wrong! Mr. Parker used to say if you had to hit a man more than three times you were doing something wrong. What people tend to forget is that while not only does the technique convey principles and body mechanics it also teaches built in contingency plans in case we miss with a strike.

As an aside... When bringing the right arm across you are following "block & cock" theory. You never block and cock with a seperate move, meaning you don't block with one move and cock with another move. Although you are not blocking with the right arm you compound the movement by striking the opponents ribcage or brachus with the raking movement while bringing your hand to the cocked position on the left side of the body.

Just my take on things:asian:

First off, it's good vocab!
2nd
you said:you're meant to have killed them

You may not have. Spraining their neck is easier and more likely, but to really break the neck isn't as easy as many believe. (told to me by a Green Beret from VietNam)
Therefore, it's back-up, not overkill.
Besides, I think that Mr. Parker pointed it out that it IS ethical to "kick a man while he's down" if he could continue to threaten your life and well-being if he were to get back up.
Your Brother
John

Originally posted by tarabos
i've always done the first strike as a knuckle rake/strike of sorts to the funny bone...(don't know the technical term for it). just the way i learned it...and it's quick to do, but not really easy. it's a pinpoint strike, and takes a lot of practice to get it right everytime, and you can't always gauge it corrrectly every time for different people. still, it can cause some pain no matter where it hits.

In my opinion, those who attack the arm are on the right track. I was taught to attack the Heart Meridian Point at the elbow joint, and to think of this technique as the beginning of Short Form Two sideways underneath instead of over the top.

Originally posted by Handsword
In regards to the first strike in Leaping Crane - I have a bit of trouble generating power for this strike, especially against a larger-bellied opponent.

For this reason, I perform less of a 'rake' and more of a direct, linear strike (palm initially facing inward so that it can be twisted to face upward as it rakes out after contact). The strike makes contact with the step of the left leg, then twists and rakes out as the right leg slides up to the crane stance.

Comments welcome.

I think the strike is to the ribs and the size of the opponents belly should not matter much.

However, I also wanted to say that while I was initially taught this as a "step off to the left, parry the arm, middle-knuckle strike the ribs" Mr. Duffy prefers to have us slip the punch and check as we go by and blast through the ribs with the middle-knuckle so that we almost go through a Close Kneel on the way to the one-legged stance.

He likes the extra power you get from this. It is more effective than how I was originally taught and sounds similar to what Handsword is saying. :confused:

Originally posted by cdhall
I think the strike is to the ribs and the size of the opponents belly should not matter much.

However, I also wanted to say that while I was initially taught this as a "step off to the left, parry the arm, middle-knuckle strike the ribs" Mr. Duffy prefers to have us slip the punch and check as we go by and blast through the ribs with the middle-knuckle so that we almost go through a Close Kneel on the way to the one-legged stance.

He likes the extra power you get from this. It is more effective than how I was originally taught and sounds similar to what Handsword is saying. :confused:

I have shorter arms than most people I work out with. Their usually around 6' and I'm a mere 5'7" I find the bicep works best for me as I cause the muscle dysfunction and I'm also around them much faster. Maybe I'll get the stomach maybe not but doesn't gathering clouds already do that movement your looking at? Just another perspective.

Originally posted by jfarnsworth
I have shorter arms than most people I work out with. Their usually around 6' and I'm a mere 5'7" I find the bicep works best for me as I cause the muscle dysfunction and I'm also around them much faster. Maybe I'll get the stomach maybe not but doesn't gathering clouds already do that movement your looking at? Just another perspective.
I'm lost.
How are you hitting the bicep if you are working the outside of the arm?
:confused:

Originally posted by cdhall
I'm lost.
How are you hitting the bicep if you are working the outside of the arm?
:confused:

When the punch comes in I leap slighly forward with my left inward parry as i execute a right middle knuckle rake through the bottom portion of the bicep/tricep area. My right hand will travel through the target to load up on my left side so once I sidekick it's already loaded in the cocked position.

Originally posted by jfarnsworth
When the punch comes in I leap slighly forward with my left inward parry as i execute a right middle knuckle rake through the bottom portion of the bicep/tricep area. My right hand will travel through the target to load up on my left side so once I sidekick it's already loaded in the cocked position.

Ah! You are hitting the bicep from underneath then?
I think I get it.

I also read in Infinite Insights Book 1 last night that Mitose's original art... focused on pressure points and vital strikes... hmm... did Mr. Parker hold this info back for a long time? I will ask Doc.

Originally posted by cdhall
I also read in Infinite Insights Book 1 last night that Mitose's original art... focused on pressure points and vital strikes... hmm... did Mr. Parker hold this info back for a long time? I will ask Doc.

;) You and I both can see that it is under heavy debate over in the other kenpo forum.

Jason, I have also used that same strike- executed properly it causes an extreme amount of pain, followed by numbness, followed by more pain if you hit that point (I'm still too fuzzy on my points to name the one- but I sure can find it ;) )

Originally posted by cdhall
Ah! You are hitting the bicep from underneath then?
I think I get it.

I also read in Infinite Insights Book 1 last night that Mitose's original art... focused on pressure points and vital strikes... hmm... did Mr. Parker hold this info back for a long time? I will ask Doc.

This aspect has always been "Talked" about, but it actually was not a specific part of the training from Chow, but a general reference pretty much as most do now. Everybody knows some "vital" points but the method comes from the Chinese who never really allowed all of the information to be available to most. Even in the "Bubishi" (the most famous document chronicling pressure point existence from the Chinese), most of the information, although good, did not explain the mechanism of the how. It was completely ommitted from the Japanese, and the Okinawan's only got a small part with little of the Chinese methodology. The Japanese were the primary influence in the islands with the most notable exception of Chow. Therefore it is not likely it existed there if it didn't even exist in Japan.

Parker did not began serious study of this information until he took up residence in Pasadena in the fifties and began studyng with Chinese Masters in the Los Angeles China Town. He also studied as well in San Francisco's Chinese Community, who embraced the physically gifted and intelligent Polynesian who wss not a "howley." The Chinese were, and still are very protective of this information, not giving even to some Chinese. There isn't a book available that I know of that tells you actually how to use use it and never will be. The information is to situationally, informationally, hands on specific to be casually taught. And it's dangerous.

Ed Parker hinted at it in books ("kenpo Karate" in 1961), lectures, and even jokes, but never taught it generally as far as I know. When I first started talking about this, I was told by many it wasn't in Kenpo. They didn't even know what a "slapcheck" was because Parker never wrote or taught that either.

There is much he didn't include in his commercial art for many reasons, the prominent being, it can't be taught in a commercial environment except by a competent teacher with the knowledge of the "how." And he was the only expert in his own art. Everyone else was just learning. So when he created his commercial art, he also created commercial rank that allowed people to progress within the structure being taught.

It's not a knock, it's a McDonald's thing. The food can only get so good while you're serving "billions." You may be the top dog at MCDonalds, but would be lost in a fine restaurant.

Some food for thought. It seems to me that with so many fine mind and some young searchers, much can be uncovered & gained by all present.

Just glad to have you all out there.

Originally posted by jfarnsworth
I have shorter arms than most people I work out with. Their usually around 6' and I'm a mere 5'7" I find the bicep works best for me as I cause the muscle dysfunction and I'm also around them much faster. Maybe I'll get the stomach maybe not but doesn't gathering clouds already do that movement your looking at? Just another perspective.

I was always taught the inside of the biceps at H-2. The "middle knuckle rake" is essentially ineffective because it lacks significant "Depth of Penetration" or "Back Up Mass" to "stop" a lunging individual significantly. The factor brought up by you about "long versus short arms" also points this out. The wrong range and depth makes you susceptible to a follow up from that "crossing punch" or "grab" if the initial contact doesn't at least have a "Slowing Effect."

Hmm...
it would seem to me that if you were hitting the arm underneath as you leap/step up and offline then you are not hitting the bicep at all. You are however hitting the tricep or as I believe Doc pointed out (could be wrong on who pointed it out) slightly behind the elbow striking a nerve. I have not tried it but in thinking about it it seems that it would be very effective, albeit providing a smaller target and not one that is always easy to hit on a moving step thru punch while you are of course moving up and offline with your head being the first thing moving that direction.

Second I do not see that you open yourself to any type of cross or off hand grab if you have parried and struck the ideal target or the arm. As you should be up/off the line and almost behind as much as beside your attacker/opponet and delivering the knife edge kick and downward back knuckle/hammerfist. With the kick severly altering your opponnet's height and width zone which also in effect checks the ability to use the off hand weapon.

Just some thoughts on it. Could be right could be wrong but that is what I saw after analyzing the description anyway. All feed back welcome of course.

Sanddragon
I had the same thoughts in mind. You were a little more detailed in your questions which gave more food for thought. Anyhow Dr. Chapel that's exactly as how I would have described getting off line and away from the attack. I will be on the outside of the right hand. After the strike through the muscle immediately sidekick the back of the right knee forcing the attacker down. The 3 zones are checked and ready to strike with a back knuckle to the kidney or base of the spine.

Originally posted by jfarnsworth
Sanddragon
I had the same thoughts in mind. You were a little more detailed in your questions which gave more food for thought. Anyhow Dr. Chapel that's exactly as how I would have described getting off line and away from the attack. I will be on the outside of the right hand. After the strike through the muscle immediately sidekick the back of the right knee forcing the attacker down. The 3 zones are checked and ready to strike with a back knuckle to the kidney or base of the spine.

That's a "hypothetical," and not the way it happens realistically. Stepping "off line" is a nice idea but without "width control" the cross can still be thrown. Remember the attack is a "straight punch" not a roundhouse. This means the attacker's impetus is forward and the cross is probably pre-determined. A good street fighter with mediocre skills will shoot the lead stiff "jab," and when you move shift his right foot and cross faster with his left than you think. That little "fan" of the ribs is just going to "piss 'em off."

Commercial kenpo is interesting. It has built in assumptions that it uses interchangebly according to what it hypothetically wants to work.

Let's see know. The way it teaches a "five swords" or "leaping crane" doesn't allow for width control of the crossing hand, so it it will work and ignors it. Than it makes a leap (no pun) and [B]assumes everything after that will work.

"Assumption of Failure" is a part of com Kenpo. If this doesn't work just move on. If your first move doesn't work, how can you assume the next will? Especially if the first move is supposed to allow you to survive so you can get to the rest. You don't suddenly become more skilled after the first failure. I know this is high on the blasphemous list and is part of the selling process, and to a certain extent it is even true, but not on the level their selling.

Form over function?

Something to think about.

Originally posted by Doc
That's a "hypothetical," and not the way it happens realistically. Stepping "off line" is a nice idea but without "width control" the cross can still be thrown. Remember the attack is a "straight punch" not a roundhouse. This means the attacker's impetus is forward and the cross is probably pre-determined. A good street fighter with mediocre skills will shoot the lead stiff "jab," and when you move shift his right foot and cross faster with his left than you think. That little "fan" of the ribs is just going to "piss 'em off."

Commercial kenpo is interesting. It has built in assumptions that it uses interchangebly according to what it hypothetically wants to work.

Very good points and yes that adds much more to think about.

Actually however the attack is a right straight step thru punch. If some one threw a jab punch I would not even attempt leaping crane simply based on the attack. Also yes I agree completely with you if you merely fan the ribs (even a good rake) it will just piss almost everyone off.

Question though, who was talking about commercial Kenpo? I did not assume that the analysis was based on anything more then how the technique is written, which is based on the hypothetical. The basic has to be taught and learned, then the what if or reality can be explained. Isn't that the point you and others have to tried to get across? (serious question, not being arguementative)

Has anyone else received serious rug burn from performing the MKR across the ribs? I know it is prevalent if performed on someone wearing a canvas GI. It makes me just want to do a hammerfist to the front of the ribcage instead.
Any thoughts and comments?

Originally posted by jeffkyle
Has anyone else received serious rug burn from performing the MKR across the ribs? I know it is prevalent if performed on someone wearing a canvas GI. It makes me just want to do a hammerfist to the front of the ribcage instead.
Any thoughts and comments?

See my post above for my way of striking the ribs in this technique. I see 3 methods of delivery for the mid-knuckle:

* penetrating (from point of origin to target);
* twisting (rotational torque); and
* raking (dragging through the target)

In this technique I use all three (in the order above), although it's the second 2 that could cause gi burn. Can't say I've had that prob myself but I figure it's possible. A hammerfist would spread the impact over a greater surface area, although it would still get your hand to the place it needs to be to continue with the technique.

Originally posted by Sanddragon
[B]Very good points and yes that adds much more to think about.

[QUOTE]
Actually however the attack is a right straight step thru punch.


A straight punch is a "stiff" jab like attack. The fact that you are considering or assume a street encounter with a punch will come off a "step through" reveals a lack of real world experience or instruction. The step through has its roots historically from a couple of places. Originally it was taken from the Japanese disciplines which are not based in reality but "do" (way) execution. The other is, on the commercial level, it is just easier for students when a punch starts from "way back there" giving them time to react (according to E.P.). However, a "straight stepping through" punch is one of the most unlikely of attack scenarios reserved primarily for so-called martial arts "trained" antagonists in self-defense arts, but really for traditional Korean/Japanese demos, not reality. I have never seen this used in any realistic scenario whether it be sport or actual street.


If some one threw a jab punch I would not even attempt leaping crane simply based on the attack.


I'm curious. You've told me what you would not do for a "jab," so what would you do should that attack occur?


Question though, who was talking about commercial Kenpo? I did not assume that the analysis was based on anything more then how the technique is written, which is based on the hypothetical.


You may not be aware of it but you were. The "hypothetical" situation you describe comes from one of those "manuals" created specifically for the commercial vehicle. That is not a bad thing but a good instructor has to take those "conceptual ideas" and structure them under the bright light of reality, so the student is functional. Many think the decriptors in those manuals are definitive and gospel, but they are only a starter point for the instructor and not for the student. Originally those manuals were part of a bigger "Instructors guide" that ultimately became a revenue stream and were/are sold to students for which they serve almost no purpose. Instructors now sell them and tell students to follow them to the letter and they stop teaching.


The basic has to be taught and learned, then the what if or reality can be explained. Isn't that the point you and others have to tried to get across? (serious question, not being arguementative)


You mean you consider reality after you learn the technique? No, that is not my perspective. I feel the "default technique model" should be absolutely functional from the beginning, and include realistic considerations at the time, and when it is learned. This also "excludes what if's" because they should not only not not be considered (according to Ed Parker) but actually on one level, are totally and completely unnecessary. That should give you plenty to think about.

Um thanks for that insightful yet unsolicited look at my real world experience and instruction. No matter how educational you felt you were being that was not needed.

However, I was only refering to how the technique was written by Mr. Parker. Never have I stated that I believe an attack would happen that way. Actually reality is that you are more then likely to have someone try and tackle you, or throw a wild roundhouse punch or probably never even see a punch if someone attacks you.

As for the straight punch is a "stiff" jab like attack I can agree to some extent however, I was again only going based on your previous post were only the term jab was used. As jab has usually implied a rapid quick punch that does not always have full extension. Where as a straight punch has usually implied a stiff (if you would) extension of the arm. I think we are just differing on terms here as my basis for this is years with a instructor that also competed in golden gloves boxing. Not that this means anything however was simply explaining how I saw the description.

The "default technique model" as you stated is what I was trying to express. I obviously did an extremely poor job at it however. No I agree with your thoughts on that completely. I believe that it should all be taught at one time and in that fashion. The ideal phase and reality should not be broken out but learned as basics.

Yours,

Originally posted by Sanddragon
[B]Um thanks for that insightful yet unsolicited look at my real world experience and instruction. No matter how educational you felt you were being that was not needed.


No offense but without references to reality in a self defense art, what are we talking about? Reality and your experiences are important to the conversation.


However, I was only refering to how the technique was written by Mr. Parker. Never have I stated that I believe an attack would happen that way.


Then why are we talking about something that is not likely to happen in your opinion. Why are we talking about defending against an unlikely scenario?


Actually reality is that you are more then likely to have someone try and tackle you, or throw a wild roundhouse punch or probably never even see a punch if someone attacks you.


Depending on a variety of factors, that may or may not be true, but we were talking about a punch and how to defend it in a particular scenario requiring a move to the outside.


As for the straight punch is a "stiff" jab like attack I can agree to some extent however, I was again only going based on your previous post were only the term jab was used.


No you should re-read my post. I said "stiff jab like."


As jab has usually implied a rapid quick punch that does not always have full extension. Where as a straight punch has usually implied a stiff (if you would) extension of the arm.


That's what I said.


The "default technique model" as you stated is what I was trying to express. I obviously did an extremely poor job at it however.


No what you did is what many get caught up in. It's not your fault. It's engrained in the commercial process. Some teachers begin to think of the "manual technique" as unique instead of examining and formulating a realistic scenario based of the "idea" of the attack and defense, because it is not an "ideal." What they create than becomes your "ideal." And if they have done their job, it will be realistic, functional, and eliminate inconsequential "what-ifs." Of course this requires teachers with knowledge, experience, and skill to match their titles.


No I agree with your thoughts on that completely. I believe that it should all be taught at one time and in that fashion. The ideal phase and reality should not be broken out but learned as basics.


See? We don't disagree, but I will make you think. I ALWAYS blame the "teachers" not the students.

Originally posted by Doc
I feel the "default technique model" should be absolutely functional from the beginning, and include realistic considerations at the time, and when it is learned. This also "excludes what if's" because they should not only not be considered (according to Ed Parker) but actually on one level, are totally and completely unnecessary. That should give you plenty to think about.

I'm confused by this. It sounds like you're saying that "what if"s are unnecessary. But wasn't Ed Parker the one who taught different "phases" for learning self-defense techniques, including a "what-if" phase? Or are you just saying that in the first, or "ideal," phase "what if" scenarios shouldn't be considered?

Rich

Originally posted by SingingTiger
[B]I'm confused by this. It sounds like you're saying that "what if"s are unnecessary.

Yes that's correct untill you reach higher levels beyond the commercial.


But wasn't Ed Parker the one who taught different "phases" for learning self-defense techniques, including a "what-if" phase?


Mass confusion here. Ed Parker spoke of the different phases but most confused when these phases occur and ended up trying to teach all three phases at the same time. They teach you a supposedly "ideal" technique, and before you learn it, they tell you of other possibilities. And then after you're really confused, they talk about grafting and tailoring. No wonder nobody learns anything.


Or are you just saying that in the first, or "ideal," phase "what if" scenarios shouldn't be considered?


That too. The "what-if" phase is not a student level. It is a level the instructor must consider when he is constructing his 'ideal." Furthermore "what-ifs" are about reaction not action.


Below are Mr. Parker’s own words in Quotes on the Three Phases Concept of Learning and the ever present over worked and mis-understood “what if.” Taken from a later version of the I.K.K.A. Green Belt manual.


“As you analyze a specific technique, study is best begun by dividing your efforts into phases. Phase I of the analytical process REQUIRES that you commence with an ideal or fixed situation.”


This means that you are to select a combat situation that has been structured with a prescribed sequence of movements, and use this ideal technique as a basis.


“In this phase, the term ideal implies that the situation is fixed and that the "what if" questions required in Phase II are NOT TO BE INCLUDED IN PHASE I.”


Using the ideal technique or model situation as a reference point not only refers to the defensive moves you employ, but the anticipated reactions of your opponent as well. Technically then, it is the prescribed reactions of your opponent that completes the ideal technique. (not what he MIGHT do)


“Therefore, the ideal techniques are built around seemingly inflexible and one dimensional assumptions for a good purpose. They provide us with a basis from which we may begin our analytical process, (like a control model in any reliable scientific experiment). Prescribed techniques applied to prescribed reactions are the keys that make a basic technique ideal or fixed.”



“In Phase I, structuring an ideal technique requires selecting a combat situation that you wish to analyze. Contained within the technique should be fixed moves of defense, offense, and the anticipated reactions that can stem from them.”


These, so called ideal or fixed situations when analyzed and formulated properly should effectively take into consideration minor alterations of combat to make phase I significantly able to stand alone.”

This is an area of massive confusion. Mr. Parker was not speaking from the position of the STUDENT or even most TEACHERS. He is speaking to those who desire to create their own techniques, and the process they should use, while utilizing His System as a Base or starting point. American Kenpo is supposed to teach you how to create your own style. When you CREATE techniques, “what ifs” take on a significant importance. In the learning process however, students do not, and should not have the luxury of confusing themselves entertaining such infinite possibilities.

Moreover, Phase I actually begins after or instead of the motion based commercial level and encompasses everything from beginner to black belt. Therefore, Phase II or “what ifs” should not be introduced into the process until you have mastered ALL of Phase I information. To do so would be like trying to spell a word that requires a letter in a part of the alphabet, you haven’t learned yet. So-called “what ifs” in Phase I are not actually “what ifs.” They are DIFFERENT techniques with a similar offensive theme. These questions are covered as you move upward in the levels of Phase I. i.e. “Broken Ram” answers questions similar to “Charging Ram.” In other words, the true “what if” is not “what might he do” but, understanding “what he will do when I hit him.” Or simply, “what if” is NOT action, but re-action.

That should keep you busy for a while.

Very insightful. Good reading! Thanks.

Doc,

Thanks very much for the quotes. Very interesting and informative.

Rich

Originally posted by Doc
... I will make you think. I ALWAYS blame the "teachers" not the students.

I'm curious to know Dr. Chapel at what point do you feel the student should be asking or understanding or presented the point of the "why"'s?

Look at green belt saying #5.
The man who know "how" will always be a student, but the man who knows "why" will continue to be the instructor.

I read your theory in the other thread down yonder about how you certify your students this is why I ask this question.
:asian:

Originally posted by jfarnsworth
I'm curious to know Dr. Chapel at what point do you feel the student should be asking or understanding or presented the point of the "why"'s?

Look at green belt saying #5.
The man who know "how" will always be a student, but the man who knows "why" will continue to be the instructor.

I read your theory in the other thread down yonder about how you certify your students this is why I ask this question.
:asian:

As I posted before, students get enough of the "why" as they learn to assist in the process, but no more than they need to be functional. Teacher certifications are a process that usually reaches complete status at 3rd degree. Instructors are certified a course at a time, and must continue to educate and update. Numerical ranks have no significance in the process, because they all are honorary. Teacher certifications are what most want, however some of my mature students are satified with rank only, but then they don't teach.

As far as the quote goes, "The man who know "how" will always be a student, but the man who knows "why" will continue to be the instructor."

If a teacher isn't both, sooner or later he'll be neither.

Originally posted by Doc
If a teacher isn't both, sooner or later he'll be neither.

Dr. Chapel as I stated before I like the idea behind the certification thing. I believe that's a fantastic way to make people earn their rank and keep it. Thumbs up for enforcing such a matter. As you stated some students elected not to teach yet settle for where their at. Are there two types of certificates you follow for both crowds? How do you seperate the curriculum for both? If you have two students that start around the same time and they each follow seperate curriculums does one get a promotion faster since they do not get involved in the instructor program?

Originally posted by jfarnsworth
Dr. Chapel as I stated before I like the idea behind the certification thing. I believe that's a fantastic way to make people earn their rank and keep it. Thumbs up for enforcing such a matter. As you stated some students elected not to teach yet settle for where their at. Are there two types of certificates you follow for both crowds? How do you seperate the curriculum for both? If you have two students that start around the same time and they each follow seperate curriculums does one get a promotion faster since they do not get involved in the instructor program?

No they both promote at the same time, however those working toward degrees beyond what we call a B.S. degree to advanced levels, are assigned mentoring and internship responsibilities requiring more effort. They are responsible for more information, and the ability to convey.

Yes there are separate documents. The Teaching Credential allows you to teach at certificated levels. The diploma indicates you have passed the courses and at what level.

The student body is almost completely comprised of persons with advanced academic degrees up to an including jurist doctorates (J.D.) and Medical Doctors, who understand the structure. Those without advanced degrees bring significant life experience from law enforcement, military special forces, and/or business professional technical knowledge and skill.

Great group of significantly intelligent people in the student body who you can't sell bull to. I love it. Great student body.

In my experience, I've only asked the what ifs for techniques I've been working on for quite a long time.
A while ago one of the black belts modified some of the techniques to fit better real sits and wanted me to work them this way. They were techs I was working on for only a few weeks and felt it wasn't right as I didn't still got the principles working there in the ideal phase. I felt very confused at the time.
So I think you can be working in the what ifs for some techniques at the same time you're learning new techniques in the ideal phase.
That of course, won't apply to lower belts :p