Sword & Hammer, Obscure Wing

[rmcrobertson]

Oh, no, it ain't false modesty or even modesty. I used to regularly drive my first instructor (Toni) into the house for a cigarette, my second (Scott) out for a burrito. Larry just goes in the office and closes the door when he can't take it any more.

About the smartest thing I ever said about my approach to learning new material in kenpo is this: "With me, it's just dogs watching TV."

Do you folks find it hard to convince students to turn their heads before they change directions and angles in forms? It makes me wanna go in the office and close the door, when I see students high-stepping (! whole 'nother problem) through Short 1 and Short 2, turning into blocks and covering/sidestepping without the slightest ideas of what's over there...

 

[Les]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Do you folks find it hard to convince students to turn their heads before they change directions and angles in forms? It makes me wanna go in the office and close the door, when I see students high-stepping (! whole 'nother problem) through Short 1 and Short 2, turning into blocks and covering/sidestepping without the slightest ideas of what's over there...

This is a very good point.

I think you should have posted it as a seperate thread, as we could all learn something from each other on this subject.

As far as turning the head in Sword & Hammer goes, I tell students this;

When someone suddenly grabs you in the street there are three general possibilities.

1: Someone is trying to mug/attack you.

2: A friend just spotted you and is about to say "Hey, how are you doing? Lets go have a beer"

If you don't look first, you might lose your wallet and/or your teeth OR you might lose a friend (and a beer).

About here they usually say "What about the third possibility?"

Ah Yes, the third possibility is that it's a police officer who want's a quiet word with you. Now it's entirely up to you if you do the technique this time or not, but if you do, don't tell him who taught it to you.

Les

 

[Doc]

When I teach Sword and Hammer to a student, I tell them that the "secret" of the technique is to look before you strike. Is it a secret? To any one with common sense, probably not. Common sense seems to evaporate in the presence of fear. Therefore, you must ingrain looking before you strike into your subconscious. Very insidious that technique is.....

Actually sir you are quite correct. The turning of the head is in fact a "secret" (read knowledgeable) move. Also "how" the head is turned is extremely important to achieve maximum structural integrity. The head in the "Anatomical Structure Equation" is the "X-factor." The human body takes many of its "clues" from the position of the head, and therefore is capable of a "Positive or Negative Posture" predicated on the activity direction and response intent.

 

[Touch Of Death]

I was always taught to look before executing these techniques.

Take Care,
Billy Lear

I was taught to look as you execute the technque. Perhaps the key to this is having already decided the situation is dangerous that attacks from the rear at this time are not comming from your freinds. Secondly, this first move catches you completly out of neutrality, and what little damage you did to your buddy on the first move can be easily apologized for before your, more deadly, second shot; because, you, of course, saught neutrality in your first move.
Sean

 

[Doc]

I was taught to look as you execute the technque. Perhaps the key to this is having already decided the situation is dangerous that attacks from the rear at this time are not comming from your freinds. Secondly, this first move catches you completly out of neutrality, and what little damage you did to your buddy on the first move can be easily apologized for before your, more deadly, second shot; because, you, of course, saught neutrality in your first move.
Sean

If you look AS you strike, the efficacy of the whole body sructural integrity is significantly diminished.

 

[Touch Of Death]

If you look AS you strike, the efficacy of the whole body sructural integrity is significantly diminished.

I disagree. My first move in sword and hammer is to cover and become neutral to my opponent with; so , I suppose the look happens just prior to your first move. I suppose you do position your body and head before contact is made. (I just got up and did it in the air a few times and found I mispoke :uhyeah: ) My Bad.
Sean

 

[Les]

attacks from the rear at this time are not comming from your freinds.
Sean

I always thought Sword & hammer was a flank attack, not a rear attack.

That's the way I was taught it and thats the way I teach it.

Les

 

[Thesemindz]

I always thought Sword & hammer was a flank attack, not a rear attack.

That's the way I was taught it and thats the way I teach it.

Les

This is also how it is taught at the school I train in, however, we emphasize that this technique can be done against an attack from any direction, and train it in that manner. One of the first option drills students practice is doing this technique in the air to whatever direction the instructor calls out, to help teach the clock concept. Then the technique is done against attacks from any direction, to help the student make the transition from static "ideal phase" technique to dynamic situations.


-Rob

 

[Doc]

This is also how it is taught at the school I train in, however, we emphasize that this technique can be done against an attack from any direction, and train it in that manner. One of the first option drills students practice is doing this technique in the air to whatever direction the instructor calls out, to help teach the clock concept. Then the technique is done against attacks from any direction, to help the student make the transition from static "ideal phase" technique to dynamic situations.
-Rob

My understanding of the technique rightly requires it be taught as a flank and ONLY as a flank technique. By altering the direction of attack significantly, the mechanisms necessary to maintain and secure body integrity change substantially. Change the direction, change the technique, and change the appropriate response. Everything matters. You can't change the position of the hands, or even your index finger without having a profound effect on the entire body, positive and/or negative. Without that understanding, caution should be exercised with "changing" techniques beyond its Web of Knowledge dictates. Sword & Hammer - attack from the right flank at 3:00.

 

[Seig]

My understanding of the technique rightly requires it be taught as a flank and ONLY as a flank technique. By altering the direction of attack significantly, the mechanisms necessary to maintain and secure body integrity change substantially. Change the direction, change the technique, and change the appropriate response. Everything matters. You can't change the position of the hands, or even your index finger without having a profound effect on the entire body, positive and/or negative. Without that understanding, caution should be exercised with "changing" techniques beyond its Web of Knowledge dictates. Sword & Hammer - attack from the right flank at 3:00.

Sir,
Maybe I am misunderstanding you. I was not aware that the WOK dictates the clock position of an attack. Does this mean then, according to the WOK that Sword and Hammer should not be practiced opposite side?

 

[rmcrobertson]

I agree with, "Doc," from what I know of the teaching system--and in fact, as sometimes happens, I think we got another one of those arguments that's really a discussion of the difference between self-defense and learning/teaching self-defense.

In the first place, the attack comes from the right side (or so the argument would go) because at yellow belt, students need to be taught something about a) flank attacks, b) grabs followed by punches, c) how to move their feet in an orderly and rational fashion.

It's worth noting that up to about Sword and Hammer, yellow techniques emphasize getting the left foot back and presenting the assumed-to-be-stronger right side. Similarly, it's important to teach students to step out into a horse stance with the left foot, and to drag the left foot back in to the attention stance.

I'd also argue against the notion of having students practice techniques on both sides, especially at or around yellow belt. In the first place, I'd argue--and this seems built into the system--that it's unnecessarily confusing, offering too many options too soon. In the second, look at techniques like Grasp of Death, which already teach attacks of a similar sort from the right side. In the third, techniques such as Checking the Storm get reinforced (and do their own reinforcing) by that right step...as, later, will material such as Spiraling Twig.

There's also something having to do with the natural asymmetry of the body, an argument I believe we've had before. It would be interesting to trace this idea of, "right-sidedness," (different from right-handedness)--which is, like it or lump it, an integral part of Mr. Parker's ideas about kenpo--back into some of its roots in Chinese and even Taoist concepts about the body.

I also agree with, "Doc," that changing little things in these "basic," (nothing basic about them, to be sure) techniques is a bad idea. I'd add that it often says a lot more about our own limits as teachers than about kenpo and the best way to teach it, but more to the point, I'd add that there is a logic to the system that isn't to be fooled with lightly. For example, I'd argue that it is indeed a helluva lot easier to teach students to look right as they start to get yanked to the right than it is to take them all around the clock, or to lumber them with a lot of options, or to throw in a great deal of material about alignment and power too early.

It's better, I'd argue, to just teach the technique as it stands, and either let the student figure out what the logic is for themselves (after all, it's their kenpo, not ours), or slowly valve in more information that will allow them progressively to do better what they were doing all along.

This particular thing ain't broke. So...

 

[Doc]

I agree with, "Doc," from what I know of the teaching system--and in fact, as sometimes happens, I think we got another one of those arguments that's really a discussion of the difference between self-defense and learning/teaching self-defense.

In the first place, the attack comes from the right side (or so the argument would go) because at yellow belt, students need to be taught something about a) flank attacks, b) grabs followed by punches, c) how to move their feet in an orderly and rational fashion.

It's worth noting that up to about Sword and Hammer, yellow techniques emphasize getting the left foot back and presenting the assumed-to-be-stronger right side. Similarly, it's important to teach students to step out into a horse stance with the left foot, and to drag the left foot back in to the attention stance.

I'd also argue against the notion of having students practice techniques on both sides, especially at or around yellow belt. In the first place, I'd argue--and this seems built into the system--that it's unnecessarily confusing, offering too many options too soon. In the second, look at techniques like Grasp of Death, which already teach attacks of a similar sort from the right side. In the third, techniques such as Checking the Storm get reinforced (and do their own reinforcing) by that right step...as, later, will material such as Spiraling Twig.

There's also something having to do with the natural asymmetry of the body, an argument I believe we've had before. It would be interesting to trace this idea of, "right-sidedness," (different from right-handedness)--which is, like it or lump it, an integral part of Mr. Parker's ideas about kenpo--back into some of its roots in Chinese and even Taoist concepts about the body.

I also agree with, "Doc," that changing little things in these "basic," (nothing basic about them, to be sure) techniques is a bad idea. I'd add that it often says a lot more about our own limits as teachers than about kenpo and the best way to teach it, but more to the point, I'd add that there is a logic to the system that isn't to be fooled with lightly. For example, I'd argue that it is indeed a helluva lot easier to teach students to look right as they start to get yanked to the right than it is to take them all around the clock, or to lumber them with a lot of options, or to throw in a great deal of material about alignment and power too early.

It's better, I'd argue, to just teach the technique as it stands, and either let the student figure out what the logic is for themselves (after all, it's their kenpo, not ours), or slowly valve in more information that will allow them progressively to do better what they were doing all along.

This particular thing ain't broke. So...

Wow, I wholeheartedly agree sir with every single word. Notwithstanding it saved me a lot of writing, I would also add for "Seig" the Web of Knowledge dictates what type of attack should be considered when, and the system philosophy itself favors at various levels activity dedicated dominance on right and left side.

Therefore, as stated, right and left are indeed addressed, and “mirror image” study of every technique is unnecessary, and probably functionally self-defeating for a self-defense driven vehicle.

OF course, for some who are in the business, this “busy work” can be made to seem quite reasonable and it will keep the “cash cow” happy. But, in fairness, there are some who truly believe it to be a benefit, although in my opinion this is anatomically incorrect. Additionally Ed Parker Sr. produced a companion document to be used with the Web Of Knowledge that categorized every technique by type of attack, and direction so an overall perspective is easier to see.

For some teachers who have an academically enriched curriculum, to address mirror image on every technique, would retard progress not enhance it.

Thanks rmcrobertson for an excellent post in the discussion.

 

[Thesemindz]

If mirror imaging the techniques is such a waste of time, why do we find this done in the forms? Specifically the forms 4,5, and 6 address mirror imaging the techniques. If this is such a detriment to learning, why did Mr. Parker include this in the forms that he created?

-Rob

 

[pete]

gotta hand it to you guys for the attention to detail in your posts... here's a coupla points and theories from the peanut gallery:

to maintain anatomical correctness, it seems that one must either deliver the initial right chop from a horse stance without gazing right, or readjust the left foot forward into a neutral bow to gain full view of the attacker prior to chop. otherwise you'd be wrenching your neck, misaligning the spine, and compromising your stance.

that being said, i don't understand why there would be any anotomical problems with "going left" on this one, if done properly.

also, a little tangent, maybe... i like to teach alternating mace from both sides right off the bat, based on which foot the attacker uses to step forward. teaches a little thing called a passive leg check.

pete

 

[Touch Of Death]

If mirror imaging the techniques is such a waste of time, why do we find this done in the forms? Specifically the forms 4,5, and 6 address mirror imaging the techniques. If this is such a detriment to learning, why did Mr. Parker include this in the forms that he created?

-Rob

Forms are for practicing basics; however, Mr Parker designed the techs so the right hand could be dominant on the left or the right. If you are not left handed, and you just choose to work your weaker side in a fight or self defense situation, right from the start, you are not putting your best foot forward. Further more it is not as if the same motion isn't happening on the right or left but the context is better for a right hander if he sees the art through the right handed techs offered for that situation. This is no time to be searching your memory banks for left handed answers to right handed questions anyway.
Sean

 

[Brenwulv]

also, a little tangent, maybe... i like to teach alternating mace from both sides right off the bat, based on which foot the attacker uses to step forward. teaches a little thing called a passive leg check.
pete

I like the idea of teaching little advanced things, but do you think beginners will really be able to tell which leg is coming forward at the time? I mean, as a beginner I barely had time to worry about what attack is coming let alone if they step with the ideal leg.

Also, as I'm aware the tech should work regardless of which leg (considering slightly different targeting may be neccessary of course), so how important is the check really? (for the kind of attack and a beginners standpoint)

Just curious....

Joel

 

[Doc]

I like the idea of teaching little advanced things, but do you think beginners will really be able to tell which leg is coming forward at the time? I mean, as a beginner I barely had time to worry about what attack is coming let alone if they step with the ideal leg.

Also, as I'm aware the tech should work regardless of which leg (considering slightly different targeting may be neccessary of course), so how important is the check really? (for the kind of attack and a beginners standpoint)

Just curious....

Joel

You're right Joel. Sometime "teachers" forget the level of their instruction and what the purpose of that instruction is supposed to be. I've seen "teachers" get impressed with themselves and all the ideas they have, and load students up with "what ifs" instead of teaching them how to be functional. I constantly chastise my own staff to keep them on point. Which leg is forward in "Alternating Maces" as I understand it is irrelevant.

 

[Doc]

Forms are for practicing basics; however, Mr Parker designed the techs so the right hand could be dominant on the left or the right. If you are not left handed, and you just choose to work your weaker side in a fight or self defense situation, right from the start, you are not putting your best foot forward. Further more it is not as if the same motion isn't happening on the right or left but the context is better for a right hander if he sees the art through the right handed techs offered for that situation. This is no time to be searching your memory banks for left handed answers to right handed questions anyway.
Sean

Very well said sir.

 

[Doc]

If mirror imaging the techniques is such a waste of time, why do we find this done in the forms? Specifically the forms 4,5, and 6 address mirror imaging the techniques. If this is such a detriment to learning, why did Mr. Parker include this in the forms that he created?

-Rob

First off sir, I never said that “mirror imaging” was a “waste of time.” Those are your words. I challenged the efficacy of the practice in already mapped and defined curriculum in a self-defense vehicle, where the impossible ambidexterity is not the focus of the activity. The philosophy is dedicated to the fostering of relatively rapid, effective, self-defense skills through activity-dedicated practice.

The inclusion of the opposite side in a form is, in most circumstances, an expression of basic skills outside of the context of the self-defense techniques. “Both sides” forms contain at the appropriate level, indexes of information, and tend to be seen at another level as “indexes of motion.” This can add confusion to the notion that everything is about “motion,” and therefore the self-defense techniques and forms are philosophically interchangeable. They are not nor were they ever intended to be at any level ever. Additional the forms, sets, and self-defense techniques evolved independently of each other at various paces, and were continuing that process when Ed Parker Sr. passed away.

Historically the Chinese forms always held information, but through the cultural migration the mistaken notion of all movement containing physical application or “bunkai” was born. Forms teach anatomical principles, target, timing, and specific energy breathing patterns. Specific applications are a mistaken Okinawan assumption that has migrated with the cultural influence.

An examination of the Ed Parker Sr. evolution of his various interpretations of kenpo yield a myriad of different philosophies and directions, depending upon the “snapshot” chosen for examination. Originally under the tutelage of “William” Kwai Sun Chow there was virtually no forms training. William Chow as a modern innovator rejected all traditional convention and instead chose to focus strictly on effective applications, instead of what he saw as “useless movement.” To this end he integrated any and all effective ideas from the various styles and arts of the islands.

This is where Ed Parker Sr. originally got his traditional influences. The island was dominated by the Okinawa/Japanese arts and Parker spent considerable time under the influences of Henry Okazaki, creator of Danzan Ryu Jiu-jitsu, with significant mat work.

When he moved to the mainland Parker realized he needed the forms training that had been missing in his own training. Thus he enlisted the likes of Ark Wong, Haumea Lefiti, Jimmy Woo, Lau Bun, Oshima, and even Hidetaka Nishiyama at various times to help him create “forms and sets.” Originally some forms were borrowed dirrectly from Hung Gar, Five Animal, and modified from Shotokan as well. Jimmy Woo also taught forms directly for Parker in Pasadena as an employee of Parker’s that included traditional Taiji-Quon. All the of the original forms and set information (Book Set, Stance Set) as well as a good portion of the book “Secrets Of Chinese Karate” were directly without modification from Jimmy Woo. "Tiger and the Crane" was at one time a common form in Kenpo directly from the Hung Gar interpretation, only to be modified later by Woo, then ultimately dropped completely by Ed Parker Sr.

The similarity of “Short two” to “Heian/Pinan Two” should also be obvious to the educated with the basic Okinawan/Japanese “H” pattern footwork and similar hand movement. Than again, “Short Two” and “Short Form One” were one form at one time that were ultimately cut in half to create two separate forms. "Star BlocK" also is lifted directly from Ark Wong's Five Animal Qung Fu. None of the forms are wholly Ed Parker creations but all contain his input and the final product is by his design.

Ultimately however Parker never left his “application first” perspective and always gave Chow credit for this innovation in the martial arts, which he carried to fruition in his own art.

My point is to encourage students to not assign a single purpose or philosophy to any of the Parker works beyond your instructor’s interpretations. The “popular” Kenpo is essentially conceptually based and therefore is designed to be interpreted by the individual to his/her most effective application of all the material. Techniques are not “mirror imaged’ in forms but instead, “ideas” are.

 

[Doc]

gotta hand it to you guys for the attention to detail in your posts... here's a coupla points and theories from the peanut gallery:

to maintain anatomical correctness, it seems that one must either deliver the initial right chop from a horse stance without gazing right, ...

That is incorrect. You must turn the head to the right BEFORE execution to establish structural integrity (in conjuction with other mechanisms.)

... or readjust the left foot forward into a neutral bow to gain full view of the attacker prior to chop...

My understanding dictates a flank attack, therfore your suggestion would be unecessary.

otherwise you'd be wrenching your neck, misaligning the spine, and compromising your stance.

Actually this is incorrect. Turning the head does NOT misalign the spine or, in this instance, compromise the stance.

that being said, i don't understand why there would be any anotomical problems with "going left" on this one, if done properly.

Done properly as you stated, there isn't.