Unabridged Library of Contemporary Kenpo

[Doc]

OK, I'm envisioning the tech line here. I got a group of children standing there and I tell the first one to close his eyes so I can push him and he can then react. BAM! I dislocate his shoulder, probably lose him as a student, and the rest of the kids don't wanna play that game any more. Lesson: try to stay aware, and don't stand there with your eyes closed. :whip:
Sean :asian:

You know with all the things brought up, the fact you could ignore everything previously stated on this thread, and respond with a kid getting his shoulder dislocated because his eyes are closed pretty much says it all. The jab about the "true way" was also unneccessary. Now I know, and I must admit I'm disappointed.

 

[Brother John]

OK, I'm envisioning the tech line here. I got a group of children standing there and I tell the first one to close his eyes so I can push him and he can then react. BAM! I dislocate his shoulder, probably lose him as a student, and the rest of the kids don't wanna play that game any more. Lesson: try to stay aware, and don't stand there with your eyes closed. :whip:
Sean :asian:

That's not what he said to do or how he said to do it.
...Argue fair Sean.
refute his points, if you can.



(Enjoying the debate)
Your Brother
John

 

[rmcrobertson]

Sorry, but "Mace of Aggression," in its ideal stage, is written as a response to a two-hand grab where you're being pulled forward.

This is not only to teach a response; it's to contribute to a structural pattern that the early techniques are set up to teach. For example, several of the early yellow belt techniques teach stepping back with the left leg; then to start in a right neutral bow; then to allow yourself to be yanked forward and to the left by a headlock--this one teaches stepping forward so that the stance is basically the same, but the application is different.

When you start snipping this stuff out of the kenpo system in order to, "improve," it, you are shortchanging students and yourself.

 

[howardr]

Sorry, but "Mace of Aggression," in its ideal stage, is written as a response to a two-hand grab where you're being pulled forward.

That's what I'm confused about. If one is practicting "Mace of Aggression," without the grab (much less the pull) then one is really just practicing a scenario handled by other techniques such as "Alternating Maces." I thought one of the points of "Aggression," is to show you what to do, teach you the principles, of a certain class of situations, i.e., encounters where you weren't aware enough ahead of time, and you find that you've been grabbed and pulled forward. Makes sense to me.

 

[Bill Lear]

That's what I'm confused about. If one is practicting "Mace of Aggression," without the grab (much less the pull) then one is really just practicing a scenario handled by other techniques such as "Alternating Maces." I thought one of the points of "Aggression," is to show you what to do, teach you the principles, of a certain class of situations, i.e., encounters where you weren't aware enough ahead of time, and you find that you've been grabbed and pulled forward. Makes sense to me.

That's what I'm confused about too! The nature of the attack has nothing to do with pushing... dislocating shoulders... or anything else like that. It's always been for a two-hand grab coupled with a pull. At least that's what every single instructor I've had has always said. Weird.

:idunno:

 

[Touch Of Death]

That's what I'm confused about too! The nature of the attack has nothing to do with pushing... dislocating shoulders... or anything else like that. It's always been for a two-hand grab coupled with a pull. At least that's what every single instructor I've had has always said. Weird.

:idunno:

Just so their is no confusion, I was refering to snapping twig... weird.

 

[Touch Of Death]

That's what I'm confused about. If one is practicting "Mace of Aggression," without the grab (much less the pull) then one is really just practicing a scenario handled by other techniques such as "Alternating Maces." I thought one of the points of "Aggression," is to show you what to do, teach you the principles, of a certain class of situations, i.e., encounters where you weren't aware enough ahead of time, and you find that you've been grabbed and pulled forward. Makes sense to me.

No you are always aware, but have to allow people close enough to touch you in certain situations, ie just about any public place you go. whilst in a state of awareness, attacks can still be a nusance, and by the time their hands grip your lapel your left hand should already be pinning. The color code of awareness chart should put you at about orange in all situations involving people you don't trust. While practicing to be unaware is all well and good - for some- it is certainly not the ideal, or what you would have happen to a loved one on the street. Although being unaware is certainly a 'what if' to train for.
Sean

 

[Touch Of Death]

I also know why many cling to this, "I'm always aware" edict. If these things aren't "attempts," most have no idea how to deal with them after the fact, and student will quickly find out that when they are grabbed or hugged, they have not been given the tools to survive.

Since I'm talking about the topic of the thread, which is how "Delayed Sword" is introduced to a student. How do you know what tools are given? Idealy you are aware, then train as if you weren't its that simple. I have yet to see an argument that says demanding a certain level of awareness from a martial arts practitoner is bad. Children above all should be let in on the fact that if they remain unaware in enough situations they won't live to be adults.
Sean

 

[Brother John]

I also know why many cling to this, "I'm always aware" edict. If these things aren't "attempts," most have no idea how to deal with them after the fact, and student will quickly find out that when they are grabbed or hugged, they have not been given the tools to survive.

QUOTE]Since I'm talking about the topic of the thread, which is how "Delayed Sword" is introduced to a student. How do you know what tools are given? Idealy you are aware, then train as if you weren't its that simple. I have yet to see an argument that says demanding a certain level of awareness from a martial arts practitoner is bad. Children above all should be let in on the fact that if they remain unaware in enough situations they won't live to be adults.
Sean

Nobody trains their students to be unaware.
The technique isn't about "awareness" or "Unawareness"...it's about responding to a specific type of attack.
That's all. All this talk of demanding a certain level of awareness isn't even relevent to analyzing a technique. We all train to be aware, but in analyzing a techniques 'parts' or how it is taught.. awareness isn't the lesson. The technique is.
It's like we are discussing what goes into a good Pizza and you are discussing how clean your utensils should be.
:idunno:

Your Brother
John

 

[Touch Of Death]

Nobody trains their students to be unaware.
The technique isn't about "awareness" or "Unawareness"...it's about responding to a specific type of attack.
That's all. All this talk of demanding a certain level of awareness isn't even relevent to analyzing a technique. We all train to be aware, but in analyzing a techniques 'parts' or how it is taught.. awareness isn't the lesson. The technique is.
It's like we are discussing what goes into a good Pizza and you are discussing how clean your utensils should be.
:idunno:

Your Brother
John

OK here the way its going... Somebody posts a website, people trash it, I defend it based on my beliefs. I believe an awareness approach to teching delayed sword is a valid method, you do not. As I believe it is also OK to train "Delayed Sword" (or any other tech)with full grab(or what ever the attack happens to be) as a what if, it negates much of "the" argument. Further, you wouldn't be having Pizza if not for the utensils.
Sean

 

[pete]

more people die from sickness than from being attacked. if you think about it, people generally don't die from 'old age' either. it is usually a result of some sort of sickness. going around in a constant state of awareness can be taken to an extreme where mental and physical stress will lead to mental and physical imbalance, and increase likelyhood of sickness. composing yourself in a overly defensive state can also antagonize would-be attackers, and even increase your likelyhood for being the victim of an attack.

the other side of the coin is the being completely unaware, tripping on cracks in the sidewalk and walking into walls. not healthy either, since there is also an imbalance: no vitality. plus, an attacker would be all over you before you could take action.

so the balanced, more healthy approach would be a 'calm awareness', where your mind is calm and your body is relaxed, yet vital... balanced and centered. you would carry yourself confidently, but not defensively and maintain an overall awareness of your environment without becoming preoccupied with any single aspect... unless it poses a 'real' threat.

this is where i'd like to be...

pete

 

[Michael Billings]

... composing yourself in a overly defensive state can also antagonize would-be attackers, and even increase your likelyhood for being the victim of an attack.

the other side of the coin is the being completely unaware, tripping on cracks in the sidewalk and walking into walls. not healthy either, since there is also an imbalance: no vitality. plus, an attacker would be all over you before you could take action.

so the balanced, more healthy approach would be a 'calm awareness', where your mind is calm and your body is relaxed, yet vital... balanced and centered. you would carry yourself confidently, but not defensively and maintain an overall awareness of your environment without becoming preoccupied with any single aspect... unless it poses a 'real' threat.

this is where i'd like to be...

pete

Well said, me too!

-Michael

 

[rmcrobertson]

First off, the fact of the matter is that the technique described on the website was described badly--it isn't a good way to teach it, it's more than a little self-contradictiory, and there's too much theory that isn't very good theory. In other words, the Delayed Sword described is inaccurate, a teaching problem, and bad ideas.

Second off, the fantasy of being perfectly, zennily aware at all times. Does this include, say, in the toilet? C'mahn.

Third, yah sure, increased awareness is good. But this, "combat awareness--" well, I've been reading Frantzis' stuff recently, and he says something I've suspected for a while: such constant alertness is actively dangerous. It's bad for you to be on guard all the time; beyond the philosophical issues, being on guard all the time means a constant physiological response to trouble that isn't even there. I agree with the last several posters: awake yes; alert---nah. We're not in a wartime jungle.

 

[Seabrook]

As I believe it is also OK to train "Delayed Sword" (or any other tech)with full grab(or what ever the attack happens to be) as a what if, it negates much of "the" argument.
Sean

Sean,

The grab in Delayed Sword is not a "what-if". That is the way the base technique is taught.

In reading a bunch of your posts, I have to say you are really overestimating our ability to not get caught off-guard.

Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com

 

[Touch Of Death]

First off, the fact of the matter is that the technique described on the website was described badly--it isn't a good way to teach it, it's more than a little self-contradictiory, and there's too much theory that isn't very good theory. In other words, the Delayed Sword described is inaccurate, a teaching problem, and bad ideas.

Second off, the fantasy of being perfectly, zennily aware at all times. Does this include, say, in the toilet? C'mahn.

Third, yah sure, increased awareness is good. But this, "combat awareness--" well, I've been reading Frantzis' stuff recently, and he says something I've suspected for a while: such constant alertness is actively dangerous. It's bad for you to be on guard all the time; beyond the philosophical issues, being on guard all the time means a constant physiological response to trouble that isn't even there. I agree with the last several posters: awake yes; alert---nah. We're not in a wartime jungle.

You all bring up a good point about being "defensive" but the awareness I'm talking about involves training yourself to automaticly do certain things everytime you deal with the public can be fun at first and a habbit eventualy. We drive defensively and it drives almost no one insane. Most driving insanity comes from driving offensively now that I bring it up, and offensive drivers have a victim mentality, which bring me back to my original point... DON"T BE A VICTIM. I haven't visited the site; so, I'll take an English teachers word that it was poorly written.
Sean

 

[howardr]

No you are always aware, but have to allow people close enough to touch you in certain situations, ie just about any public place you go. whilst in a state of awareness, attacks can still be a nusance, and by the time their hands grip your lapel your left hand should already be pinning. The color code of awareness chart should put you at about orange in all situations involving people you don't trust. While practicing to be unaware is all well and good - for some- it is certainly not the ideal, or what you would have happen to a loved one on the street. Although being unaware is certainly a 'what if' to train for.
Sean

Two thoughts:

1. I said "aware enough." You seemed to translate that to just "aware." There's an important difference.

2. Ideal doesn't necessarily mean optimum. That may be part of the misunderstanding between one another.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Two thoughts:

1. I said "aware enough." You seemed to translate that to just "aware." There's an important difference.

2. Ideal doesn't necessarily mean optimum. That may be part of the misunderstanding between one another.

Being aware enough sounds enough like being "in orange"
on the color code of awareness that we are not in disagreement. And you are correct, and I say teach optimum to worst case senerio. Mister Parker always said that situations become hader to deal with the longer you wait to deal with them.
Sean

 

[howardr]

Third, yah sure, increased awareness is good. But this, "combat awareness--" well, I've been reading Frantzis' stuff recently, and he says something I've suspected for a while: such constant alertness is actively dangerous. It's bad for you to be on guard all the time; beyond the philosophical issues, being on guard all the time means a constant physiological response to trouble that isn't even there. I agree with the last several posters: awake yes; alert---nah. We're not in a wartime jungle.

Amen. Being in a state of paranoia 24/7 is not conducive to mental health and happiness. When it comes down to it, I want to live a happy life. Martial arts is one component.

I'm not going to turn my entire existence into a walking, breathing human fortress of impenetrable and infallible awareness. Yes, I try to be reasonably aware, but I don't let it preoccupy my every thought like I'm some sort of undercover spy ever fearful of exposure. What a malevolent world that would be!

If I ever felt that I needed to be THAT aware, I don't think I'd want to be living here any longer. Now, maybe if we were in one of those crazy post-apocalyptic scenarios...

Zenilly...love it!

 

[howardr]

Being aware enough sounds enough like being "in orange"
on the color code of awareness that we are not in disagreement. And you are correct, and I say teach optimum to worst case senerio. Mister Parker always said that situations become hader to deal with the longer you wait to deal with them.
Sean

What I'm saying is that sometimes you evaluate the situation as, to use your terminology, "orange," but you are actually mistaken, and it's really "red." I.e., you weren't aware enough. You thought you were but you weren't. You seem to be arguing for some kind infallibility. What I'm saying is that we are fallible. We think it's situation X but it's really Y. We don't think the guy is going to grab us by the lapel but he does.

 

[distalero]

First off, the fact of the matter is that the technique described on the website was described badly--it isn't a good way to teach it, it's more than a little self-contradictiory, and there's too much theory that isn't very good theory. In other words, the Delayed Sword described is inaccurate, a teaching problem, and bad ideas.

Second off, the fantasy of being perfectly, zennily aware at all times. Does this include, say, in the toilet? C'mahn.

Third, yah sure, increased awareness is good. But this, "combat awareness--" well, I've been reading Frantzis' stuff recently, and he says something I've suspected for a while: such constant alertness is actively dangerous. It's bad for you to be on guard all the time; beyond the philosophical issues, being on guard all the time means a constant physiological response to trouble that isn't even there. I agree with the last several posters: awake yes; alert---nah. We're not in a wartime jungle.

Not to leap on your statements, but just to clarify: can one be perfectly, "zennily" aware at all times? I don't know. Is awareness hoped for in the toilet? Absolutely. In the Zen monastaries I've been in there is always a small figure of the Buddha above the toilet, partly to remind anyone interested that all activities can be "attended" to. Should we distinguish clinically significant hypervigilance from other forms of being aware? Yep. Having said that, though, anyone who has been in a traumatic experience has no choice but to "scan" situations. It's one of the things you have to work on to decrease. It doesn't go away completely, nor should it necessarily. Does it run your nervous system into the ground? Not if you work on it. Can you there, in the safety of your home, approximate this kind awareness? Hopefully not in the way some of us did, but yes, I think you can and should. Part of being a competent human being.