Sword & Hammer, Obscure Wing

[pete]

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

respectfully disagree, sir. a horse stance loses its structural integrity when the nose becomes off-line with the navel, just as it would if the insides of the big toes were not parallel.

 

[Doc]

respectfully disagree, sir. a horse stance loses its structural integrity when the nose becomes off-line with the navel, just as it would if the insides of the big toes were not parallel.

You are partially correct, but there are variables that can and do compensate for your assertion regarding the feet and nose. However you cannot assign a formula to a stance designed to be functional in one direction (toward 12 o'clock) to a stance adjusted to meet a flank assault, thus essentially becoming functionally, a different stance.Therefore the structure toward the front becomes moot.

You should be attempting to establish structure for a flank assault which requires a different posture that includes a turning of the head X-factor in anatomical alignment before it assumes proper function.

Good call on the foot alignment and chin, but there is soooo much more to it than that. :asian:

 

[Thesemindz]

First off sir, I never said that “mirror imaging” was a “waste of time.” Those are your words.

You are, of course, correct sir. "Waste of time" were my words, and I apologize for implying that they were yours. Your words at the time were, "unnecessary," "self-defeating," "busy work," and "anatomically incorrect." Since then you have clarified, stating that you were challenging "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."

I guess my response is that I don't consider performing techniques on the "left hand" side an attempt to create ambidexterity, rather it is merely an excercise designed to convey a lesson. In an attempt to defend one's self, a person simply may step wrong. If I find my left foot forward, for whatever reason, I can still perform Delayed Sword. I don't want to confuse this with what I've seen you refer to as a "pre-supposition of failure." Rather, I think it is merely excepting the reality of a dynamic situation. In my opinion, if I find myself in a fight, I've already made a series of mistakes, such as being in the wrong place, upsetting the wrong person, and responding the wrong way, and I can't afford to assume that I won't make anymore. We don't require that students be able to perform the whole system in this fashion, instead we encourage them to explore this facet of the curriculum, and for the most part, that is only at the brown belt level and above. It's really more of an intellectual excercise. I got the impression, and again this was merely my understanding of what you wrote, that you felt that perfoming the same technique "mirror imaged" was detrimental to a student's growth. If that was the case, how does performing them in the forms change that? Is it only "self-defeating" when you perform them on a person?

In your response to my question, you discussed the origin of the chinese sets and forms, as well as the "lower belt" material. I'm curious, for purely historical reasons, where did forms 4,5, and 6 come from? I had been taught that they were Mr. Parker's creations, is that not true? When you state that, "none of the forms are wholly Ed Parker creations but all contain his input and the final product is by his design," do you really mean none of the forms, or are you only reffering to the forms you specifically mentioned in your post? I'm only asking you as someone who was there.

I particularly liked the point you made about forms showing you "mirror imaged" ideas rather than techniques. Is the point to show that what works on the left works on the right, conceptually speaking?

As a quick side note, how does all this apply to left handed people? I know the majority of people, myself included, are right handed. Do left handed people have different anatomical structure? Are they better off to perform the techniques left handed, or are they still better to perform them the way they are intended? I don't really have any idea on this, but I would think that you have run into this in your own instruction and perhaps have an answer.

I really do enjoy your perspective on things and hold you in high regard, I hope that I haven't offended you by accidently putting words in your mouth.

-Rob

 

[Thesemindz]

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

You make several interesting points here.

I agree that forms are for practicing basics. I also feel that they teach a wide variety of other things. rmcrobertson has posted any number of reasons to practice the forms in the past including, and please correct me if you haven't stated any of these Robert, footwork, stances, transitions, and targeting, I'm sure that is by no means a comprehensive list.

I am right handed, but will I always have my right foot forward? I guess in the self-defense situation I'm envisioning, I don't have time to set my stance, or even neccessarily step back or off the line of attack. I am assuming that there is at least an even chance that I will simply have to strike from whatever "point of origin" I happen to be at. Yes, there are techniques that have a left foot forward instead, but I may not get to choose my response. I may only have one chance to survive, and it may require that I kick a guy in the groin and chop him in the neck, all with my left foot forward.

I wholeheartedly agree that there is, "no time to be searching your memory banks for left handed answers to right handed questions." My point is that I don't expect to have time to search anywhere for anything. All I can hope is that I hit the guy before he hits me. And I keep hitting him as long as I have to in order to survive. I'm not as concerned with an answer as I am an escape route.

-Rob

 

[Thesemindz]

respectfully disagree, sir. a horse stance loses its structural integrity when the nose becomes off-line with the navel, just as it would if the insides of the big toes were not parallel.

In a horse stance shouldn't the feet be slightly pigeon toed, rather than parallel? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're saying here, but in II2 Mr. Parker fairly clearly demonstrates, through a model, an illustration, and text descriptions, that they are pointed in rather than forward. If I'm missing the point here, I apologize.

-Rob

 

[pete]

In a horse stance shouldn't the feet be slightly pigeon toed, rather than parallel?

if you stand with the arches of your feet parallel, the insides of the big toes will splay outwards creating a deficiency... now make the insides of your big toes parallel and you will find the feeling of being pigeon-toed...

what you want to avoid is being pigeon-toed to the extent of having your big toes actually pointed inward.

 

[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

I like to have beginners start to read the attackers body rather than focusing soley on the attack... kinda like a basketball player establishing position and defending the man rather than lunging for the ball.

the best way to demostrate its importance, or relevance as the case may be, is to do it the "traditional" way against an attacker coming forward with a left step inside your right leg... there's a lot of valuable real estate to protect there!

 

[pete]

However you cannot assign a formula to a stance designed to be functional in one direction (toward 12 o'clock) to a stance adjusted to meet a flank assault, thus essentially becoming functionally, a different stance.

so, what you describe is no longer a horse stance, or a horse of a different color

 

[rmcrobertson]

First, I'd argue that there's a considerable difference between being right-handed and being right sided.

Second, sorry Pete, but in a kenpo horse stance the toes do indeed turn inward...and the weight goes to the outside edge of the foot.

Thanks.

 

[Brenwulv]

I like to have beginners start to read the attackers body rather than focusing soley on the attack... kinda like a basketball player establishing position and defending the man rather than lunging for the ball.

Okay, fair enough. I feel worrying about not getting hit is the first issue for a beginner, but I can see how this would help 'speed things up' a little later on.

the best way to demostrate its importance, or relevance as the case may be, is to do it the "traditional" way against an attacker coming forward with a left step inside your right leg... there's a lot of valuable real estate to protect there!

Thought of something after I posted while going to bed. You say teach both sides to get the passive check, right? So for this tech, Alternating Mace you set back to a right neutral and block. Wouldn't the 'other side' passive check be taught in Attacking Mace, where you step back to a left neutral?

Just asking if what you're trying to get across isn't already in the yellow belt level in some fashion.

Joel

 

[Touch Of Death]

so, what you describe is no longer a horse stance, or a horse of a different color

I know this sounds dumb, but when are you in a horse stance? I can see it in transition, but I'm not sure where this has to do with sword and hammer. If your talking about the breif horse you are in just before your first strike lands, I don't see the value in having structural integrity to the front when your opponent is at your side. while in the horse, you offer only your strongest base of support; so again I ask why are we worried about what directly in front of you? I hope it would be nothing. :asian:
Sean

 

[Brenwulv]

As a quick side note, how does all this apply to left handed people? I know the majority of people, myself included, are right handed. Do left handed people have different anatomical structure? Are they better off to perform the techniques left handed, or are they still better to perform them the way they are intended? I don't really have any idea on this, but I would think that you have run into this in your own instruction and perhaps have an answer.
-Rob

Well, I've no clue about the anatomical issue, I fell we've two arms and two legs so it must be similar, but I'm left handed so I guess I can reply.

I think that it should be taught as is because it forces you to develop what's normally a weaker side. Also it allows my stronger hand to do certain things, like being the stopping punch, Alternating Mace, pinning hand, Mace of Aggression, final upper cut in Attacking Mace to name a few.

Also causes you to really see how stances work with your strikes and blocks to generate power, something people might not see right away and try to get by on arm strength alone.

Lastly, the system is set up for the right side, and accounts for the left in certain instances. Kind of how most people are right handed with only a section of lefties. Sure I could have learned everything on the other side, but then most of my techs would be for someone attacking with a left. Not who's most likely to attack me.

For me, and most lefties I guess, it a right handed world, so work with it. Know thy enemy, so to speak.

Joel

 

[Touch Of Death]

Well, I've no clue about the anatomical issue, I fell we've two arms and two legs so it must be similar, but I'm left handed so I guess I can reply.

I think that it should be taught as is because it forces you to develop what's normally a weaker side. Also it allows my stronger hand to do certain things, like being the stopping punch, Alternating Mace, pinning hand, Mace of Aggression, final upper cut in Attacking Mace to name a few.

Also causes you to really see how stances work with your strikes and blocks to generate power, something people might not see right away and try to get by on arm strength alone.

Lastly, the system is set up for the right side, and accounts for the left in certain instances. Kind of how most people are right handed with only a section of lefties. Sure I could have learned everything on the other side, but then most of my techs would be for someone attacking with a left. Not who's most likely to attack me.

For me, and most lefties I guess, it a right handed world, so work with it. Know thy enemy, so to speak.

Joel

I think that idealy a totaly left handed person should learn the art as it was taught completly on the left side; however, not every one is totaly left handed. This is a right handers world and many of us as children have learned to live life as a right handed person would. My personal thing is that what ever hand I use to learn something is the way I will do it from then on. I write and play ping pong left handed, but throw, bowl, and fight right handed. Not that it would have mattered either way, but I was taught kenpo right handed. If you go through the techs you will find that while both hands are doing the work all the techs are right hand dominated techs. Just switching to left hand domination, for the heck of it, is not going to become a better fighter. The bennefit of doing techs on the other side is so you can see that this tech is now very similar to that tech. You know like Clutching feathers is just B1a on the inside.
Sean

 

[pete]

Wouldn't the 'other side' passive check be taught in Attacking Mace, where you step back to a left neutral?

yes, if you consider the defense, but not exactly when you consider the attack...

in "attacking", the nature of a right step-through right punch checks his own width, leaving the left side out of harms way; in "alternating", the 2 hand forward push does not eliminate the threat from the opposite side, or continued forward motion.

 

[Brenwulv]

I think that idealy a totaly left handed person should learn the art as it was taught completly on the left side; however, not every one is totaly left handed.
Sean

Exactly, ideal and realistic are different beasts.

I argee otherwise, you fight how you train, or in this case, fight how you learned it.

I agree also that other sides open up the family groupings and such, but I think it also gives a few options for when you screw something up. Can I pull a whole tech on a side I'm not used to, no, but I can pull a move or two if need be. Hopefully.

Joel

 

[Brenwulv]

yes, if you consider the defense, but not exactly when you consider the attack...

in "attacking", the nature of a right step-through right punch checks his own width, leaving the left side out of harms way; in "alternating", the 2 hand forward push does not eliminate the threat from the opposite side, or continued forward motion.

I see what you mean and I see where my difference lies. We us Alternating for a higher push and do a regular inward block (Mr. Planas' way) so we check the width if the block is done well.

Starting to understand what you mean though.

Joel

 

[Touch Of Death]

Exactly, ideal and realistic are different beasts.

I argee otherwise, you fight how you train, or in this case, fight how you learned it.

I agree also that other sides open up the family groupings and such, but I think it also gives a few options for when you screw something up. Can I pull a whole tech on a side I'm not used to, no, but I can pull a move or two if need be. Hopefully.

Joel

My point is that rather than attempting ideas on the other side, the art provides those answers in a right handed context already. we don't call attacking mace delayed sword on the other side but with a right hande domination, but we very well could. We simply don't need make those kinds of decisions under pressure. The answers are already provided. Although, truth be told, we don't need to learn 154 techs to know the art. they are just tactics called for by specific situations. Right and left become easier to deal with once you group the techs into a few simple catagories.
Sean

 

[Brenwulv]

My point is that rather than attempting ideas on the other side, the art provides those answers in a right handed context already. we don't call attacking mace delayed sword on the other side but with a right hande domination, but we very well could. We simply don't need make those kinds of decisions under pressure. The answers are already provided. Although, truth be told, we don't need to learn 154 techs to know the art. they are just tactics called for by specific situations. Right and left become easier to deal with once you group the techs into a few simple catagories.
Sean

Agreed, the context is there already, guess I wasn't clear enough about that in my other posts.

I'd say you do need the 154 (or however people want to score it) to know the art as each technique gives different variations that some migth not see right away, if ever.

Now, to be capable of self defense in most situations, no, nowhere near 154 is needed. But it all goes to why and how and what people train for, which really isn't the point of this thread.

Joel

 

[Les]

I know this sounds dumb, but when are you in a horse stance? I can see it in transition, but I'm not sure where this has to do with sword and hammer. If your talking about the breif horse you are in just before your first strike lands
Sean

When I work, or teach, Sword & Hammer, I'm looking for a step to 3.30, into a Right Neutral Bow , not a step to 3 o'clock into a side horse.

This gives you a better angle of entry , correct alignment and a more efficient base to work from.

This assumes that the attack is from the right flank, (3 o'clock) not from the rear, (6 o'clock) as many seem to want to do it.

Having said that, try stepping to 3.30 with an attack from 4.30 and compare it to stepping to 3 o'clock. It's more versatile.

Try all this, (more than once), see what you think.

Les

 

[Touch Of Death]

When I work, or teach, Sword & Hammer, I'm looking for a step to 3.30, into a Right Neutral Bow , not a step to 3 o'clock into a side horse.

This gives you a better angle of entry , correct alignment and a more efficient base to work from.

This assumes that the attack is from the right flank, (3 o'clock) not from the rear, (6 o'clock) as many seem to want to do it.

Having said that, try stepping to 3.30 with an attack from 4.30 and compare it to stepping to 3 o'clock. It's more versatile.

Try all this, (more than once), see what you think.

Les

Les
We step with our left as in a cover; so, I probably won't be trying any of that step with the right foot stuff, but thanks :asian:
Sean