Three phases of movement

[ProfessorKenpo]

We've always been taught(or at least should've been) the three phases of a technique, ideal, what-if, and formulation (if you don't know what that means, please, ask your instructor). At the basic level or should we say primitive and mechanical stages of movement, that's great, but what about at the advanced stages? Hopefully, at this advanced level, you've internalized or engrained the art, the techs, forms, sets, etc. and made them work for you in various situations. I've come to the conclusion that in the spontaneous phase of movement there are only two phases of a technique, Ideal, EVEN-If, and back to ideal. The what if is now formulation and it doesn't matter what you do, a technique, even if reversed, will lead back to an ideal phase when you've learned to recognize the response of your opponent and geared your training to recognize when this is happening. Not only your physical speed is tested, but more so your perceptual speed of the actions happening. The dimension of time now becomes the greatest factor, by allowing you to ARM, Adjust, Regulate, and Monitor a technique in it's flow. Just some thoughts bouncing around, what's your take?


Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

 

[Old Fat Kenpoka]

Ideally, if your opponent reacts in a way that takes you out of the Ideal Phase, you do a couple of What-If moves to bring him back where you want him. From that point you can return to the Ideal Phase and continue executing moves in a familiar order from a comfortable position.

In reality, with an opponent with any skill or spirit, you will quickly exit the Ideal Phase, try a What-If or two, and then Formulate like crazy until you can earn a KO. Then you can return to the Ideal phase after you have covered-out and left the scene.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Ectually, what Clyde is arguing for (and I can cheat: got laughed at for not getting this last night) is simply using the ideal phases of the techniques to fill up the gaps in execution.

So last night, I'm doing Snapping Twig. The dummy quite properly gets bounced back with the left heel palm; to keep within the ideal technique, I go ahead and throw the elbow sandwich, then move into the formal ending...

Clyde's point was that the dummy was out of range--which I knew. But what I did not think of at the time--though in the moment, I had time--was filling in the gap with an "ideal," bit from another technique, then resuming the "ideal," Snapping Twig, once I'd closed up with the dummy...

We'd been running Part. Wings; so, after sticking that left heel palm into the dummy's chest again, on Snap. Twig, I spliced in the left scoop/right kick, right hammer section from parting Twigs, closed the gap, went ahead with the elbow once it made sense, and finished the ending to Snap. Twigs where I'd left off.

Other splices are to be sure possible. But I think Clyde's point boils down to this: why reinvent the wheel? If there's a frame or two or three from other, "ideal," phases of techniques, why bother taking the time to make something, "new," up?

Implications: 1) what does, "spontaneous," really mean in kenpo? 2) just to salt old wounds, is there an "outside," kenpo?

 

[Old Fat Kenpoka]

I get it now. Thanks. I think that is a good way to work a technique line. Inserting and resuming would definitely be an ideal recovery. I don't think I am good enough to be that smooth in a real fight against a determined, strong, or skillful opponent.

 

[Bill Lear]

Originally posted by Old Fat Kenpoka
I don't think I am good enough to be that smooth in a real fight against a determined, strong, or skillful opponent.

Neither am I, but I think it's worth trying to get there.

 

[Kenpomachine]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
But I think Clyde's point boils down to this: why reinvent the wheel? If there's a frame or two or three from other, "ideal," phases of techniques, why bother taking the time to make something, "new," up?

Implications: 1) what does, "spontaneous," really mean in kenpo? 2) just to salt old wounds, is there an "outside," kenpo?

I would have said that in the spontaneous phase one is able to work always in the ideal phase because you are certain of the subsequent moves you can do after hitting somebody a certain way. That is, you go like chess players, "thinking" some moves ahead of the actual one, but in a lesser lapse of time.

Do I make sense?

 

[MisterMike]

When dealing with what-if's as they happen, I usually try to adjust and resume with the original technique. Otherwise you have to do a change-up and go to a new technique.

I find it interesting that once you have grouped your techniques and understand the intersections of them, you can find your way in and out from one to another rather easily. --OK, easier said than done.

I guess I haven't matched up my ideas to Clyde's terms, but one I have heard is Position Recognition. Once you have a feel for the techniques, you should never get "stuck" if it doesn't go ideally. But I think even that is probably over-analytical, as you won't have time to "think" in a real situation.

Someone once said, "Look for nothing and accept everything."

So going into a situation, you can't be saying "Boy I really want to run Five Swords on this guy." It may be what you end up running, and one way I trained was to be able to run your favorite technique for any given attack. But that is no help for instance if you become injured, and lose some ability with your right arm. Now Five Swords isn't going to help you.

 

[Michael Billings]

In the spontaineous phase, we do not even graft per se, rather we fill the dead space. It is what I do with Snapping Twig, as the head goes back following the hammerfist, the orbit of my fist may strike the solar plexus or abdomen, bringing them back for the elbow. Inevitably from the handsword or heel palm as some learn it, the head goes back, if you twist or pull they stay there.

-MB

 

[Touch Of Death]

I'll chime in here as well. I feel as if Clydes concept fits with the family related moves chart(concept). If you are used to moving from point of origin and are trained in the myriad of techs that can occur from what ever point of origin you find yourself in, you are never stuck. I both agree and disagree with Clyde as far as the ideal goes. For instance there is nothing ideal about five swords. you are on the inside dealing with one hand of an opponent with two hands, and while yes you may end up in that situation and be in need of just that vocabulary, chances are its never gonna happen like in the technique line. The techs are just like basic algebra equations that your math teacher would give you in highschool. The students will plod through them until profficient but once you are in a real working environment, the unknown forces you to think outside the box ,as a rule. Clyde is absolutly right an ideal phase of one tech flows right into the ideal phase of another; however, at some point you need to realize that labling and recalling which tech you are flowing into at any given moment sort of defeats the purpose of being extemparanious.
sean

 

[Bill Lear]

Originally posted by Touch'O'Death
For instance there is nothing ideal about five swords. you are on the inside dealing with one hand of an opponent with two hands...

I don't look at five swords the same way you do... I look at my action as controlling and dominating my opponent, period.

Not only do I employ a left block to my opponent's forarm while I simultaneously deliver a right hammerfist strike to his bicep, but I implement a knee check to my opponent's right knee to control his rotation as well. To me Five Swords is not about using two hands to control one hand. To me Five Swords is about using my whole body nullify and disable my opponent's ability to retaliate.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Billy (I just E-mailed you on an unrelated topic)
I agree that you can further widen your margin for error with all sort of checks and strikes and filling in the dead space but the bottom line is that all moves can be countered. If you don't beleive me tell Clyde that you five swords cannot be countered.
Sean

 

[Bill Lear]

Originally posted by Touch'O'Death
Billy (I just E-mailed you on an unrelated topic)
I agree that you can further widen your margin for error with all sort of checks and strikes and filling in the dead space but the bottom line is that all moves can be countered. If you don't beleive me tell Clyde that you five swords cannot be countered.
Sean

Clyde knows full on well that it can't be countered... mostly because he taught me how to do it in the manner that I do it.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Originally posted by Bill Lear
Clyde knows full on well that it can't be countered... mostly because he taught me how to do it in the manner that I do it.

Billy, are you actualy telling me and err everyone else that you are learning uncounterable martial arts?

 

[pete]

interesting reading the description of five swords as, again, their are variations throughout the kenpo world. we don not employ the left block/right hammerfist combination, but simply a right inward block.

i would think that could create a situation where you have both hands committed to the same direction and result in an unchecked opening or where a savvy opponent disturb your balance or tie up your hands. in the version taught at my school, the left hand checks center on the right inblock and pulls back to check the right arm on the chop. always keeping your hands moving in opposite directions.

i'm sure there is a rationale for the version you were taught, since i have seen it done that way by several others as well.

i am interested in hearing more...

pete.

 

[ProfessorKenpo]

Originally posted by Touch'O'Death
Billy (I just E-mailed you on an unrelated topic)
I agree that you can further widen your margin for error with all sort of checks and strikes and filling in the dead space but the bottom line is that all moves can be countered. If you don't beleive me tell Clyde that you five swords cannot be countered.
Sean

Dude, until you've laid hands on with me, don't comment on it. Whatever you do is what you do, and trust me, it's not what I do.


Clyde

 

[MJS]

Originally posted by ProfessorKenpo
Dude, until you've laid hands on with me, don't comment on it. Whatever you do is what you do, and trust me, it's not what I do.


Clyde

So, I guess what this means, is that Clyde has the final say on Kenpo?? Yeah, ok. There is always a counter to a tech. I havent seen an art yet that is totally unbeatable.

Something interesting here. Many of the tech. have extensions. The extention is the "what if" in the tech. The extention gives you another option just in case something goes wrong.

5 Swords is a good tech. but dont forget that while you are using both hands to block that punch, your opp. still has another hand free to strike.

We all do the tech. differently and I really dont think that its gonna make a difference what way its done as long as you defend yourself. I guess Clyde thinks that unless you do it his way, its wrong.

Mike

 

[MisterMike]

I learned Five Swords with both hands blocking on the inside of the right round-house punch. Of course beingon the inside is a baaad thing because you KNOW that the left will be coming.

To cancel the left, the right hand slices past the neck and the left goes straight into their face. Left hand effectively cancelled. (Ideally)

 

[rmcrobertson]

First off and speaking as a critic--it's a long way from what Clyde wrote to, "it's my way, or you're wrong."

Second off, as a theoretican--there are wrong ways to do things, MJS. If memory serves, you've spent a good deal of time on MartialTalk telling me and others that we're training wrong, that we're trapped in useless tradition, that kenpo is wrong not to have more-explicit grappling, yes? Are you now recanting, and arguing that all that was just a different way to see things, no better or worse than any other way?

And apropos of 5 Swords--uh...um...you might want to spend some time with that technique. In its ideal phase. Why the blocks/the knee check? because the opponent is attenting to hit you in the heads with a right roundhouse punch, and so you want to check their body as well as block that punch.

You are omitting the purpose of the particular strikes, which is to forestall action as much as it is to strike.

Why the right hand-sword? Because (again, I am speaking of the ideal phase here) the opponent is attempting to swing with their free left hand, so you need immediately to check their width and therefore that punch. Why the following right heel-palm? To reinforce that line, and to add a stronger depth check. Why the upper-cut in the ideal version? Because after the heel-palm, the opponent is trying to drop beneath your hands. Why the step off and hand-sword? To get off their center line, to open up their center line, to check their depth. Why the right hand-sword to the back of their neck? Because they attempted to stand up; you check their height.

Why the useless extension? because the base tech didn't get it donh, and they keep fighting. The left heel-palm stands them up (height and width and depth check); the right hand drops under to check, then goes to the throat; the side-kick stops the further attacks, and starts your escape.

In other words, MisterMike's last post is quite correct. Shoulda typed faster, or been less long-winded.

 

[jeffkyle]

I can agree with those of you that say being on the inside of the opponent leaves you succeptable to many things, mainly the left hand.

But I do think that there is something that you guys are ignoring about what Billy and Clyde are saying when they talk about cancelling height, width, and depth. I don't know if you have thought about it, but if you could try to understand what they mean, and more importantly how it feels, you may have a better understanding of their point of view and why they are being so definitive in their statements of how they perform the first move.

I think if you move agressively enough in the first move and cancel these dimensions of the opponent, it is less likely that they will be able to use the left hand effectively...if at all.

Just my point of view...not right...not wrong.
:asian:

 

[MisterMike]

WELL, I'm glad I stopped where I did

I figured there would be enough debate over the entry to the technique, but now you've said a mouthfull :asian: