Glancing Salute,

[8253]

im sorry but you guys lost me when you started talking about Geometrical stuff and zones and cancelations. I didnt take American Kenpo and these things are not included in our curriculum. As far as talking your way out or walking away goes, these are the best options without a doubt. However when the situation has been elevated to physical use of force it is always better to end it as quickly as possible. For example. the first posting was for a technique of a front right cross cross shoulder push.
When your opponents right hand reaches you shoulder (not the first time, exhaust you verbal options first) if you grab his right hand with your right hand and step back with your right foot into a bow stance, the opponent will probably step forward with his right foot. Then still holding on to their right hand (preferably by the wrist to turn their arm) you are in a good position to execute a palm heel strike with your left hand to thier right elbow. Which will more than likely make them not want to turn to face you. From the strike point you should be in somewhat of a horse stance. Still holding on to the opponents right arm you could either turn back into the bow stance and do a snap kick to thier right knee which should still be forward, or while executing the palm heel strike you could bring you stance from the bow stance to the horse stance and bring you feet together from there and then to a short shuffle and knife kick to their right knee.
Of course this is an ideal technique and modifications would have to be made for an actual situation. As far as technical sayings im not sure about zones or anything like that. This is the way that we train. To end a physical altercation as quickly as possible.

 

[Touch Of Death]

im sorry but you guys lost me when you started talking about Geometrical stuff and zones and cancelations. I didnt take American Kenpo and these things are not included in our curriculum. As far as talking your way out or walking away goes, these are the best options without a doubt. However when the situation has been elevated to physical use of force it is always better to end it as quickly as possible. For example. the first posting was for a technique of a front right cross cross shoulder push.
When your opponents right hand reaches you shoulder (not the first time, exhaust you verbal options first) if you grab his right hand with your right hand and step back with your right foot into a bow stance, the opponent will probably step forward with his right foot. Then still holding on to their right hand (preferably by the wrist to turn their arm) you are in a good position to execute a palm heel strike with your left hand to thier right elbow. Which will more than likely make them not want to turn to face you. From the strike point you should be in somewhat of a horse stance. Still holding on to the opponents right arm you could either turn back into the bow stance and do a snap kick to thier right knee which should still be forward, or while executing the palm heel strike you could bring you stance from the bow stance to the horse stance and bring you feet together from there and then to a short shuffle and knife kick to their right knee.
Of course this is an ideal technique and modifications would have to be made for an actual situation. As far as technical sayings im not sure about zones or anything like that. This is the way that we train. To end a physical altercation as quickly as possible.

Well for one thing, rather than the heel palm strike the tech has us use our entire forearm for margin for error. Because its across your body the angle would be a little awkward for an heel palm. And because we went with the forearm we havent pushed him away enough to be able to see and guage a kick to the knee; however if you quick switched your left leg to the rear on your first move you could deliver a pretty devastating round house or hard sweep to which ever leg he had foward at the time. Anywho the situation calls for knee strikes because of his close proximity :asian:
Sean

 

[rmcrobertson]

Oh. Well, the "zone," stuff is pretty straightforward, as is the, "cancellation," material.

American kenpo (you might look at Ed parker's, "Infinite Insights," books), says that you have three basic dimensions--height, width, depth--and a set of zones that you can "cut," the body up into, in order to understand issues like range, or penetration of a strike or whatever.

Basically, when people talk about, "cancelling," (and we often moosh together zones and dimensions), they're talking about cancelling an opponent's ability to move up or down (height), to turn toward or away from you (width), or to move toward or away from you (depth),

So, in Glancing Salute, attacking the arm you're shoved with lets you cancel their width, because as you attack their right arm, their left side turns away from you; at the same time, you're checking (again, "cancelling," and "checking," get used a bit too interchangeably...I know I do it) their height, because as you pin and break that right arm, the opponent tends to come up on their toes.

The move that's being discussed--following that first move by stepping in and checking (or even kicking) their right knee--involves a depth check, because your opponent will find that it's darn hard to advance when he's being kneed, especially since this is accompanied by getting hit in the face with a heel-palm strike that "glances," around to the back of the neck.

I'm just arguing that as you step in from there and deliver a right downward diagonal elbow, you don't kick the lead leg, because a) this is awkward at that angle, and b) you might turn the opponent's left side toward you--you kick the back leg/left leg, because this will help control their width and keep that left side away.

After the base technique, there's an ending--or an, "extension," if you prefer--that teaches going after the opponent's undamaged left side and left supporting leg.

One other issue: people do, quite legitimately, get taught different versions of the same techniques. I tend to be a bit formal, even traditional, even anal, and stick to what's called the "ideal," level, before moving on, because I think that does a better job of teaching students the necessary concepts (basic ideas) and principles (rules of actual motion) of kenpo.

Does that help at all?

 

[sumdumguy]

Well, I will keep this as polite as possible. Since it's obvious that you are replying to several posts but did not specify who's.... and just feel like being argumentative.

Nope, the point is not to simply break whatever's in front of you: it's to remove the attacker's ability to keep attacking. Obviously, if this means walking away or talking the guy out of it, that's what you try first....

This is the obvious, we are talking about after all this crap happens.

More specifically, the stuff mentioned about "zone cancellation," is quite right; another way to put it is that you are trying to eliminate the opponent's ability to turn toward you, in any dimension of height, width, or depth....

There are lot's of "ways to put it" but it is reffered to as "zone cancellation" this encompasses all THREE of the dimensional zones of your opponent. Not specifically, more a generic term.

Another of the current problems with kenpo appears in the proliferation of unnecessarily obscure, in-group language such as (sorry in advance), "geometrical path executed to the...elbow."...

Include the entire thing, "the proper use of geometrical paths, executed to the elbow." This means ( for you lamen) that the inward forearm strike should be executed using (applying the use of) geometrical path to increase your margin for error and allow for greater "control" of your opponent. vs. executing a palm heel or elbow strike to the opponent's elbow, which is a more precise weapon and allows for little margin for error, especially at the beginning stage of learning in the AK system.

In the first place, one doesn't execute a geometrical path: a "geometrical path," unless the language shifted on me late last night, is the trajectory a strike, block, parry, etc. takes. You execute a kick along a chosen path, in other words....

See above..... trajectory, a geometric curve or suface the cuts all the curves or surfaces of a given system at a constant angle. Are you saying you cannot execute an inward block along a path, or it doesn't follow a path or possibly a line. Those are your only options for either to be executed on, or do you have some enlightening piece of information you wish to share and straighten me out?

Moreover, I'm afraid that I don't agree that martial arts are simply about, "dominance," or that dominaance is somehow, "the American way."...

Look at the global dealings that we have and how America deals with others. I would have to partially agree with you about the martial arts not being about dominance, but then why did you reply with all these silly little "I'm right your wrong" answers, if you weren't trying to show your dominance in the arts or knowledge? I was simply offering my opinion when posted, not correcting peoples interpratations of the system or technique.

As your skill and ability increases, I'd thought, we were supposed to learn to do more than just bust the other guy up, especially when not absolutely necessary. Of course, I'm not there yet...

We are talking about a Self-defense technique, not Peace and love. The idea is to be more effective when "needed". I didn't run down to the local pub and try this out on five people to come up with the best solution. I've done this tech thousands of times on the matt with hundreds of different people.

Understand this, I have no intentions of forcing my opinions or practices on anyone that does not ask for them. This forum (for me) is more of a means of entertainment, with the exception of a couple of people on here there isn't much being said. I don't do pissing matches and I don't do critisisms of other peoples information (made that mistake once).
Peace out.... :asian:

 

[rmcrobertson]

First off, I am precisely saying that one executes a strike along a, "geometrical path." Absolutely. However, one does not execute a geometrical path; one executes a strike following a particular....and anyway, you see what I'm saying.

But strictly speaking, the sort of whole-forearm strike you quite correctly advocate does not really follow a narrow path. To borrow from Mr. Parker, it "squeegees," as though you were clearning a window pane.

Second, certainly it's correct to say that the zone theory includes consideration of height, width and depth. I thought that that was what I wrote. However, zones are not only height, width and depth: see "The Encyclopedia of Kenpo," under the headings "Zone Theory," and "Dimensional Zone Concept." Zones also include obscure zones, the outer rim concept, and some other things. "Dimensional zones," specifically include dividing, "their opponent's body...into vertical and horizontal zones (sections) as viewed from the front, sides and back," which is where the "Venetian blind," analogy that Mr. Parker sometimes used came from.

As, I suspect, you already know.

You mention my, "silly little I'm right, you're wrong answers," or whatever it was. Sorry you don't care for them.

However, as a general policy statement, here's the reality: while it has become fashionable to claim that ANYTHING goes in kenpo, and that it's all just a matter of seeing things differently, or having been taught differently, I don't buy that for a minute.

There are, in fact, rights and wrongs in self-defense techniques--for example, teaching students to kick the opponent's lead knee in the ideal version of Glancing Salute. And the reason this ain't right has to do with what I mentioned--first the tech teaches (again, in the ideal phase) to step in as a response to a cross-push (Triggered Salute taught stepping in as a response to a straight push, yes?), and it's pretty hard to kick that lead leg from there; and second, teaching kicking that lead leg screws with the way students learn about cancelling zones.

For that matter, there are right and wrong ways to do forms, sets, and everything else, including basics. There's an increasingly-large range of possibilities as knowledge grows, sure, but one still has to stay within what people like E.D. Hirsch called, the "horizon," of meanings--within certain bounds, in other words.

I'd argue that kenpo is also developing a bad habit of creating more and more obscurantist language, one that traces back in part to some of Mr. Parker's own pseudo-scientific language.

And as for other matters, I didn't remark upon walking (or in my case, running) away because I didn't think people knew that. I remarked upon walking (or in my case, running) away, because I wanted to make a point about a consistent policy of cancelling out an opponent's ability to hit you, one that extends from walking/running all the way through to the ends of the technique extensions and beyond.

Oh yes, and last---I suspect you'd agree that martial arts offer one among many ways beyond violence, eh? Dominance games are certainly part of what we are, but they aren't all there is, as you already know, yes?

Anyway, thanks for the discussion.

 

[sumdumguy]

My point is, that if I wanted to be more precise in my description of terms and or use of them, I would have. Although precision of descriptions of motion and terms does educate people, leaving something for investigation by said people will educate them further hopefully. Additionally, I do not specify or use to much precision with the terms because there are to many interpretations of each term and it typically changes the thread to trying to understand what ones interpretation of that term was/is. "give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he'll eat for the rest of his life" something like that...
Since we all seem to love to quote Mr. Parker, book 5 page 64, qoute of Tom Riskas thesis. "One's formal training, then, is a function of physical conditioning and the effective tailoring of various ideas and concepts to the individual's mental and physical capacity." Same book page 233, "I further hoe that capitalizing on my discoveries will allow those who are interested, more time to experiment and exploit other areas needing study."
Experimentation, exploitation that's all that's happening here.... Q & A... Like I said, It's all entertainment to me...
Are we having fun yet. :boing2:

 

[8253]

I believe the first posting asked for variations of the technique also. As far as trying to say im right and your wrong, im not going to do that due to the fact that i believe we may be going in the same direction with this but just using different methods. I belive all of these techniques will work when executed properly. I prefer to use the variation which i previously described in stepping back instead of forward. We are taught to disect the techniques and learn different variables to solve the problem. This variation is just a preferance.

 

[Dark Kenpo Lord]

I believe the first posting asked for variations of the technique also. As far as trying to say im right and your wrong, im not going to do that due to the fact that i believe we may be going in the same direction with this but just using different methods. I belive all of these techniques will work when executed properly. I prefer to use the variation which i previously described in stepping back instead of forward. We are taught to disect the techniques and learn different variables to solve the problem. This variation is just a preferance.

The techniques were designed for an ideal attack, and by changing the technique you've also altered the nature of attack. If you're stepping back instead of forward in Glancing Salute, you've drastically altered your margin of error with little to no depth cancellation as it will also have an effect on height cancellation with these new depth parameters. If you're dissecting a technique, ensure you do so with the 3 points of view in mind.

DarK LorD

 

[8253]

I have looked at the depths of it, and i tried it several times last night. I found that when I stepped forward i was to close to the opponent and in such a position to where i couldnt have struck the elbow as it was described. I found that when i stepped in after pinning the arm, the elbow always bent down into their ribs. I did however notice there are other good targets such as the right side of the head and the right side of the neck.
As far as steping back goes it gives you space and access to the elbow and knee. Both ways have their pro's and con's, i just prefer stepping back.

 

[teej]

Here is another variable to look at if you are having trouble with "The Standard Technique". Look at the ending stance of the attacker.

Has the attacker stepped in straight where their knees are pointing straight? Have they atepped forward into a right neutral bow? How about those begining students that step in to push and end up in a side horse stance?

Again the standard is taught to teach specific principles. Changing angles or targets can change the principles meant to be taught. You practice your changes in spontaneous & what if drills.

As for the anything goes theory, well ya anything can work in the correct circumstances. However as Mr. Robertson hinted at, Kenpo does have specific rules, principles and theories that apply. If you get away from these, you are not doing American Kenpo.

The standards are taught to teach the student correct body movement, and the proper AK principles. This has been the problem with SOME of the break off systmes as well as SOME individuals that receive their black belts and go off on their own thinking they are instructors. They make changes to things without understanding why or what the standards are suppose to teach.

I have been watching someone recently whom is a rather respected Black Belt in the Martial Arts industry. He is NOT an Ed Parker black belt. However, he has been teaching Ed Parker techniques. This individual wears an advanced rank. He has the standard technique moves and targets, but he has absolutely NO body mechanics. No motion what so ever. Everything is fast and speedy AND ALL ARM motion. He shows no understanding of the power principles. He hits hard with his fast arms, I'll give him that. But it ends there.
And it is being reflected in his students as well. Everything is the back up mass of the arm. Hardly any hip movement at all. Very little rotation if any. Having the techniqe moves does not make it Ed Parker Kenpo. You have to have an understanding of the concepts and principles. Why they are taught the way they are. What SGM Parker wanted to get accross.

Yes there is room for variation and alteration, but you have to understand the principles of this system. That is why the student needs a quality instructor to guide them, which is also why instructors should seek out seniors for guidance in what they are teaching.

I look to this type of forum and its sometime controversy to stimulate thought so I can further ask my instructor for his opinion and guidance. That is one way I can grow as an instructor.

Again, yes you can change and adapt techniques for certain situations. The standard has the attacker attacking in a specific way [ideal phase] and stance so you can study certain targets and principles. The further drills you or your instructor run will prepare you to adapt to different situations as different body sizes, different attacker stances, etc. If you don't know or understand the principles, ask what they are. What is this standard techniqe trying to teach?

If your understanding is that Glancing Salute is just teaching you how to deal with a cross shoulder push attack, you are completely misguided. You have a lot more questions and evaluating to do.

On a different note, I do not always agree with Mr. Robertsons view of things, but he has been making some valid points in this thread. My opinion is that we all can learn something from everyone.

Teej

 

[rmcrobertson]

In its ideal form, "Glancing Salute," teaches stepping forward with the left foot. Period; end of story. You're welcome to step back, but that is not the ideal form of the technique, and it should not be taught that way unless there's some awfully good reason--on the level of the student not having a left leg, for example.

There's another reason for stepping forward that hasn't been mentioned. Yellow belt techniques, and Short Form 1, teach retreating primarily. Orange belt techniques--and the form often started at the end of Orange materials, Short 2--teach advancing, and stepping up to the weapon you're employing. Sorry, but when you jack around with these basics, you're jacking around with the student's ability to learn. Sure, a few do perfectly well this way. I would not have.

In fact, I think these changes say a lot more about the instructor's lack of knowledge, boredom, and misplaced ideas about creativity than they do about the character of kenpo.

It is interesting to see it mentioned that when you step forward, "I did however notice there are other good targets such as the right side of the head and the right side of the neck." Absolutely right. This is why the technique is called, "Glancing Salute:" in its ideal form, the initial attack on the opponent's right arm is followed up with a right heel-palm that "glances," off the right side of the jaw, and around to the back of the neck so that they can be pulled down into a follow-up, if necessary. But it seems to me significant that this did not open up without a step forward.

Incidentally, this is also an opportunity to teach/to learn moving directly from strike to strike (sequential flow, if I recall...looking it up....yes, pretty much...must work on my grasp of terms, before Clyde steps in ugly) and setting up the next move--that, "billiard-ball," analogy Mr. Parker often used.

Step back on the inital move, and the technique's very name makes no sense.

 

[8253]

First off is American Kenpo a hard or soft style? As i said before, i didnt take American Kenpo. Look guys, it asked for variations, i gave a variation, you questioned it, i responded. At least i bothered to try it in the described manner and found out that yes there are ways to strike if you step forward with your left foot. I just prefer a different way. i believe that you are right in your opinions of the techniques, but i believe i am also right. I can accept different answers for one question but you dont have to try to shove your opinion down my throat over and over again. I do practice principles of motion for added effeciency to tecniques and variations. An open mind is a wonderful thing. And by the way Mr. rmcrobertson just because i do things different doesnt mean you have to insult me or my instructor. Insults dont get a person very far in my beliefs.

 

[Michael Billings]

8253,

I did not see an insult from Robert, unless you took his

In fact, I think these changes say a lot more about the instructor's lack of knowledge, boredom, and misplaced ideas about creativity than they do about the character of kenpo.

as the insult. I do not think it was directed specifically at you necessarily, or your teacher, although that may be debatable in this context. Rather, Robert, as have we all, had to adjust to what we perceive as the amount of material which is not being taught by a great many people. There are actually generations of teacher out there who never even met Mr. Parker, much less were exposed to what he was teaching in the late '80's.

The Ideal Phase of the technique is taught, and intended to be taught by Mr. Parker, the way Robert describes it ... and trust me, Robert and I do not agree about everything, but I do respect he and his teacher's ability and depth of knowledge. In this case, the major Principle or Concept being taught is Purposeful Compliance, as noted in the Encyclopedia of Kenpo, and the manuals (unpublished) that he and his 3-4 in-group students were working on at the time. Puposeful Compliance is defined as[font=Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]: Yielding to pressure an opponent exerts against your body in order to utilize the force exerted against them. This could be stepping back, put in this case it is not, rather it is providing torque (through rotation) for the vertical forearm strike to the opponent's elbow, which by the way, is just creating a fulcrum ... your torso works just as well, but that is a What-If Phase.

-Michael



[/size][/font]

 

[rmcrobertson]

Apologies, but I stand behind what I wrote.

More generally (and apologies in advance), but this sort of thing is not a matter of opinion, with all opinions being equal. Similarly, in the sciences all opinions about issues like, say, evolution are not equal--in fact it's finally not a matter of opinion at all.

When one says that, "Darwin, fundamentally, was right," or, "Glancing Salute in its ideal phase begins with a step forward," one isn't relying on opinion, but on testable reality. Moreover, teaching it that way dovetails with a) the nature of the teaching system in kenpo; b) certain concepts and principles, as already mentioned; c) practical self-defense.

Another point worth mentioning is that stepping back suggests that one is avoiding getting pushed at all, able to react so fast that the attack never properly lands. Yet there are several techniques around orange and purple belt--Triggered Salute, Clutching Feathers, Snapping Twig come to mind immediately--that are designed to come into play after a grab or push has arrived. All of them--and Glancing Salute too--partly rely on the attacker's, "locking," their arm in place so that it can be attacked.

I'm sorry for any insult. I had thought I'd made it clear that I, at least, have the same problems I see in what you're writing, the same errroneous impulses that I'm criticizing.

But nonethless, it isn't just opinion. And I'm interested in why folks override basic kenpo concepts and principles, and start changing things that were fine to begin with.

 

[8253]

I also owe an apology to you guys. Hey one way or the other i appreciate your honesty and willingness to stand behind what you say. I look foreward to future conversation.