Are You Supposed To Finish Techniques?

Doc

Senior Master
Joined
May 12, 2002
Messages
4,240
Reaction score
180
Location
Southern California
Are You Supposed To Finish Self-Defense Techniques?​

Ron Chap矇l​




There are many misconceptions that permeate modern self-defense martial arts "systems." Most of them have their origins somewhere in the Ed Parker influence or lineage, based on his successful implementation of business concepts to insure fiscal success, with what is essentially a non-profitable entity by nature. Creating an amalgam of profitability, and reasonable successful applications brought with it many diverse concepts that often contradict each other, or at a minimum, serve to add fuel to the fire of a confusing hybrid activity, at best. The strict dichotomy between an “art,” and its self-defense potential are often loss on many.

One of these is the understanding surrounding elongated self-defense technique sequences. While many of the uniformed see them as real world applicable, others recognize the folly of such notions. Depending upon perspective and philosophy, this is either completely unreasonable, or impractical, and sometimes both. But all the perspectives are borne of a misunderstanding philosophically where Mr. Parker intended to ultimately take his many art(s) and his singular ultimate interpretation.

To clear the picture we must look back first to the traditional teaching of the arts from the cultural progenitors perspective of the “Old Chinese.” Traditionally the art was taught through many complex forms and sets, for dual purposes. First and foremost was for the preservation of significant accumulated information that defied codification in any other form.

Second were addendum sets that served to highlight specific applications, and promote attendant skills. Lastly were accelerated “strictly functional” applications that didn’t contain the information of the forms, but put “skills set” into applications.

Historically, many arts, and their proponents influenced the interpretation(s) of Ed Parker. While “Splashing Hands” spawned the creation or interpretation(s) of Limalama under Sifu Haumea Lefiti, Parker’s motion-based product as well has its roots in the Mok Gar strict applications of “Splashing Hands.” This is significant because “Splashing Hands/Limalama” is to Mok Gar, what “Splashing Hands/Motion-Kenpo” is to Ed Parker’s yet undeveloped American Kenpo vehicle.

To my knowledge Mok Gar was one of the first to take this streamlined approach to applications. Not that the other information was not available in the art, but the “Splashing Hands” perspective was created to serve a specific purpose for those tasked to protection of cultural assets.

So it is with Limalama and it’s Motion-Kenpo brother. While the progenitor influence was designed to be wholly offensive in nature and philosophy, Sifu Lefiti and subsequently his junior Ed Parker, saw the defensive potential in the vehicle. Although Limalama is more closely aligned with the source material in philosophy and teaching, Parker chose to take a more conceptual approach. Parker’s method relying on a motion-based approach, allowed heavy interpretation by those with previous martial backgrounds to assimilate into motion-kenpo relatively easily, with limited input from Ed Parker personally. Thus, the much more successful Motion-Kenpo, reigns business-like over the more deliberately taught Limalama.

This same breakdown of components can be seen in all of the Parker interpretations, with various focus shifts predicated on era, purpose, and philosophical changes as knowledge evolved. Initially Parker came to the mainland with no codified bank of knowledge or information other than his personal experiences, and a set of personal three by five cards inscribed with technique ideas gleaned from his relationship with Professor Chow. Parker’s only “Kenpo teacher,” William Kwai Sun Chow, had no real system at the time choosing to freelance classes with real world street experiments, and testing the efficacy of his own innovative ideas. It was really left to senior students under Chow like Sijo Emperado, and his junior Ed Parker, to eventually begin the codification process of creating “systems.”

But Sijo Emperado (and friends), and the resultant Kajukenbo System(s) were in many ways like Sifu Lefiti and Limalama. Enjoying a significantly tremendous success as a martial art, but choosing a different philosophical approach to teaching than the wholly business-driven “motion-Kenpo.”

So the methods were set long ago in the roots of the art. “Forms” contain all of the complexities of the art, including answers to obscure questions of timing, angles, and postures, along with biomechanical codifications of information. This is why the old school methods of learning “Forms” is so painstakingly precise, and specific. These methods are still quite observable in the proper teaching of vehicles like Taiji, which only contains this singular component, sans “Sets,” and “applications.” This method is noticeably absent in modern interpretations because of its requirement of, at minimum, a “master” level teacher to transfer the information. This was great for an art, but bad for proliferating a business.

“Sets” were designed to hone specific skills, and usually concentrated on specific aspects of training whether it was stances, kicks, punches, or footwork. Forms and Sets co-existed well with general knowledge of the former focused in the latter.

Only a master level teacher than was able to decode the Forms, and thus teach the applications derived from them, utilizing the skills learned in sets to make them functional. This was how the applications were originally taught. Learn the Forms slow and painstakingly correct. Practice your Sets to develop your skills, and the teacher would extrapolate the applications from the Forms and share them with you. But the applications were more freeform based on Forms Information, and no real codified techniques.

As usually Parker took a creative an innovative approach, that unfortunately was derailed as he moved into the commercial era, but nevertheless, continued to prevail in some form in his motion idea.

Taking from Professor Chow the idea of focusing on applications over codification fit perfectly with the business of Kenpo, and created a hybrid of methods. Originally the forms didn’t exist, so the concentration on codified self-defense techniques was the order of the day. But when Parker began studying with Chinese Masters he began to understand the importance of forms, and began the codification process of basic forms of various influences. These forms ended with what most know as Short Form Three as the business took flight.

With the diversion to the business, additional Forms were ultimately created but without the depth of knowledge, or biomechanical cohesion of previous work. These Forms and Sets as well were derived from and/or created for different purposes other than archiving information.

Ed Parker made a conscious decision to divert from the Chinese Method of concentrating on Forms, to Self-defense techniques as the repository of information, but that aspect never made it into the business. Instead he incorporated the Splashing Hands Application Concept to Self-Defense techniques. Utilizing instead, minimal skill with maximum applications to vulnerable body parts. It was a perfect match of function over form, and is the singular entity that made the business with limited instruction possible.

But of course it created a contradiction. Elongated technique sequences executed with any degree of skill would preclude its need in the initial stages. But, the business demanded more and more superficial information and rank promotions, over a small amount of in-dept knowledge to keep unmotivated students from being bored. But, anyone who thinks realistically that in a “5 Swords” scenario, after a hand-sword to the neck and fingers to the eyes, the sequence ether requires or needs additional strikes to the stomach, and neck of what should be a helpless individual is disingenuous in their thought process, intellectually deficient, and in some instances boarder-line criminal.

Ultimately Mr. Parker intent was to divide the art into specific entities to preserve the information. While he spoke to me in generalities, much of the specific language is mine. Sets would remain unchanged but expanded to include specific realistic drills to enhance the learning process. In my teaching, this is where the A.O.D. (Anticipated Offensive Drills) reside. All of these drill sets require defensive footwork and blocking under the adrenal stress of possible injury.

When an offensive component is added to the A.O.D.’s, they become “Dictionary” Self-Defense Techniques. These are self-defense techniques executed under the specific assumption of anticipating the assault, and ending the confrontation quickly and decisively. The Dictionary self-defense techniques are a bridge between the Forms, and Sets to the Self-Defense Techniques.

This component most closely resembles the stand-up confrontations often seen in sparring, but more like JKD Training. The motion-business version was called, “Freestyle Formulas.” Taken from its street focus and adapted to tournament use, they were overly complex, formulized, and never caught on with the business of teaching. Only a few ever fully utilized or even understood them.

Forms are categorized by Course Level and have specific purposes of focus in training. Containing once again, very precise information of execution, they buttress the skill producing Sets and form a bridge to the A.O.D. Drills.

Because he started with, and found them more practical for modern applications, Mr. Parker shifted the archiving properties, to Self-Defense Techniques. Known now as “Encyclopedia Self-Defense Techniques,” they contain all of the in-depth information that previously could only be found in the old Forms.

Executed properly, they insure function while providing essential information that cannot be presented in the other components. They also allow, once again executed properly, that only the first part of the sequence should be needed to be successful in application.

The rest of the technique serves as information for independent extrapolation of information, independent applications, or as a bridge of the preceding material should it become rarely necessary, all while serving its archive function. This is also why techniques may not be altered. To do so would be like slowly pulling pages out of your encyclopedia, and wondering where all the information went after most of the pages are removed.

Advanced students may make knowledgeable changes in sequences for their personal use, but the Encyclopedia version, or Default Techniques are taught and remain unchanged. The system is cast in stone and must remain so to allow all students the exposure and access to information that might otherwise elude them, and keeps the knowledge components of the Dictionary, Encyclopedia, and constituent aspects intact for all future generations of students and instructors alike as reference tools.

So to answer the question, “Should you finish a technique sequence?” It depends upon the technique, circumstances, and interpretation. My goal is “No.” But then, who says we have to start at the beginning? All of the information we archive is valid, and has multiple applications and levels. On defense, the attacker may initiate a response of our choosing, but so may we initiate an offensive or defensive application from anywhere in the sequence of information. That’s the value of having reference material. You can always look up, examine, and use proper information in many ways, but it must always stem from a solid, unshakeable source of material, and not a bunch of conceptual ideas open to interpretations.
 
Last edited:

jks9199

Administrator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
23,506
Reaction score
3,850
Location
Northern VA
Fantastic post, with a lot of information. It brings together stuff from several recent threads -- and builds on it.

Thanks!
 

girlbug2

Master of Arts
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
1,543
Reaction score
70
Location
Southern Cal.
I just noticed Doc that your profile says "age 17"! Are you pulling our leg so to speak?

You are far, far too knowledgeable to be merely 17 years old! And believe me, I say that with respect and envy!
 
OP
Doc

Doc

Senior Master
Joined
May 12, 2002
Messages
4,240
Reaction score
180
Location
Southern California
I just noticed Doc that your profile says "age 17"! Are you pulling our leg so to speak?

You are far, far too knowledgeable to be merely 17 years old! And believe me, I say that with respect and envy!

My date of birth is listed as 12.15.1990. The date of my dear friend and mentor's passing.

In reality, I'm ancient.

Thank you.
 

punisher73

Senior Master
Joined
Mar 20, 2004
Messages
3,959
Reaction score
1,057
As always a great and informative post. I have read before that SGM Parker only created up to Short 3, and that the forms after that were motion driven and violate certain principles in some cases.

My question is, when it comes to the 154 self-defense techniques are all of them to be included, or are some of them "motion-based" for the business model? Do you use all of the 154 techniques or have you dropped some, or modified them to fit into bio-mechanics etc.?
 
OP
Doc

Doc

Senior Master
Joined
May 12, 2002
Messages
4,240
Reaction score
180
Location
Southern California
As always a great and informative post. I have read before that SGM Parker only created up to Short 3, and that the forms after that were motion driven and violate certain principles in some cases.

My question is, when it comes to the 154 self-defense techniques are all of them to be included, or are some of them "motion-based" for the business model? Do you use all of the 154 techniques or have you dropped some, or modified them to fit into bio-mechanics etc.?

Many of the techniques are the results of the nebulous "Category Completion" business model, and are without realistic merit. Some are "entertainment wrestling" based. Most of them jump out at you and you recognize them right away, as being not quite right in reality. Also there are techniques that are not supported by the "system" itself on the offensive end. Techniques like "Twisted Twig" for a wrist-flex throw require someone to teach the attack properly before you can begin to work on a defense. Most just hand their arm to the attacker, and then snatch it back. Realistic training it isn't. Because of a lack of knowledge, most teach to simply "move first" on the more difficult technique scenarios to disguise the lack of knowledge. This too is unrealistic. Some techniques dropped, some re-worked, and new ones created to address the untouched material sir.
 

JTKenpo

Purple Belt
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
335
Reaction score
9
Location
Seekonk, MA
Many of the techniques are the results of the nebulous "Category Completion" business model, and are without realistic merit. Some are "entertainment wrestling" based. Most of them jump out at you and you recognize them right away, as being not quite right in reality. Also there are techniques that are not supported by the "system" itself on the offensive end. Techniques like "Twisted Twig" for a wrist-flex throw require someone to teach the attack properly before you can begin to work on a defense. Most just hand their arm to the attacker, and then snatch it back. Realistic training it isn't. Because of a lack of knowledge, most teach to simply "move first" on the more difficult technique scenarios to disguise the lack of knowledge. This too is unrealistic. Some techniques dropped, some re-worked, and new ones created to address the untouched material sir.


Doc if I haven't said it in the past, Thank you for making your knowledge and experience available for those not in your part of the world.

Would you be so kind as to elaborate on "category completion"? In another thread it was eluded to that this concept doesn't exist.
 

Jimi

Black Belt
Joined
Jan 6, 2006
Messages
542
Reaction score
13
Location
Beltsville, MD
Doc, Very insightful posts. I trained with a man I guess you could call a renegade Kajukenbo Instructor (Henry Sotelo). One of the sequences he taught me back in the mid 80's was one that passed a lead kick then intercepted a lead hand, following with a sleeve grab to control the hand while hook kicking the back of opponents kicking leg at the knee and nudging his knee out giving me his back. Then hitting the opponents kidney with the rear hand like a short uppercut followed by the lead hand sliding up near opponents arm to a short ridgehand (Wing) to the throat. Stepping behind the opponent and grabbing his chin with the lead (Left hand in this sequence) and the back of his head for a twisting neck break. I loved it. But he also confused us with a pivoting left rising vertical heel kick (Hackey sack- SipaSipa) to the groin as a finish. We laughed saying, we just snapped the neck and we now add insult to injury by kicking the groin. LOL. Thought it was akin to shooting someone then kicking him in the head. LOL. I always thought that Kenpo/Kenbo has great finishing techniques even if some do a bit of overkill. That is just the nature of Kenpo/Kenbo I guess.
 
OP
Doc

Doc

Senior Master
Joined
May 12, 2002
Messages
4,240
Reaction score
180
Location
Southern California
Doc if I haven't said it in the past, Thank you for making your knowledge and experience available for those not in your part of the world.

Would you be so kind as to elaborate on "category completion"? In another thread it was eluded to that this concept doesn't exist.

Thank you sir. "Category Completion" is a concept that was used to flesh out the commercial system when they began the process of creating techniques for consideration for the business. It created a lot of techniques that many find difficult and/or unnecessary.

It begins by taking a specific attack and then exploring it dimensionally. As an example, you take a right punch and then you create a series of techniques for the punch where you step inside, step outside, step back, step forward, defend over, and defend under the punch to "complete the categories" of possibilities. Oddly enough there were some categories that were never completed as it began to become more complex, and difficult to do so.

As a concept in and of itself, it is not a bad idea unless you end up creating poor results. Using it as a guide, it is not a bad thing in the creation process, but unfortunately it was often used as a mandate for awhile and fostered some bad ideas for what it was intended to do.
 

JTKenpo

Purple Belt
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
335
Reaction score
9
Location
Seekonk, MA
Oddly enough there were some categories that were never completed as it began to become more complex, and difficult to do so.
quote]
Thank you for elaborating, I have been introduced to the concept and understand it, but never would have been able to put it into words.

OOh I see a can of worms lets open it!!

Doc, would you be interested in elaborating on the categories that weren't completed? Was it a matter of too difficult for the business model or time restraints and it just wasn't high enough on Mr. Parkers priority list?
 
OP
Doc

Doc

Senior Master
Joined
May 12, 2002
Messages
4,240
Reaction score
180
Location
Southern California
Oddly enough there were some categories that were never completed as it began to become more complex, and difficult to do so.
quote]
Thank you for elaborating, I have been introduced to the concept and understand it, but never would have been able to put it into words.

OOh I see a can of worms lets open it!!

Doc, would you be interested in elaborating on the categories that weren't completed? Was it a matter of too difficult for the business model or time restraints and it just wasn't high enough on Mr. Parkers priority list?
"Open no can, before its time."

Actually it was a combination of factors. If you look at the "bear-hug" category, they ignored the flank as an example. In weapons they represented underhand and overhand stabbing techniques, but no inside or outside slashes. Old style revolver in the stomach, or back, but no guns to the head, or held street side-ways, etc. "Club" attacks turned into lightweight Escrima rattan attacks instead of the heavier bludgeon they were intended to be. The deal was, let's not make things to complicated, or difficult.

As the degree of difficulty rose, it became clear some things could not be addressed in the commercial product, without master level teachers with significant knowledge and street experience. The business model of teaching cannot produce these teachers, so they almost always came from outside from other arts, if these things were addressed at all.
 

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka

Senior Master
Joined
Mar 9, 2004
Messages
2,228
Reaction score
113
Location
Dana Point, CA
"Open no can, before its time."

Actually it was a combination of factors. If you look at the "bear-hug" category, they ignored the flank as an example. In weapons they represented underhand and overhand stabbing techniques, but no inside or outside slashes. Old style revolver in the stomach, or back, but no guns to the head, or held street side-ways, etc. "Club" attacks turned into lightweight Escrima rattan attacks instead of the heavier bludgeon they were intended to be. The deal was, let's not make things to complicated, or difficult.

As the degree of difficulty rose, it became clear some things could not be addressed in the commercial product, without master level teachers with significant knowledge and street experience. The business model of teaching cannot produce these teachers, so they almost always came from outside from other arts, if these things were addressed at all.

One of the many things I enjoy about your perspectives, Sir. I have been attacked by ball-bats and pool-cues; very different movement dynamics in the attack, response, and counter-attack contexts than in Storm techs learned with taped broomsticks or rattan canes. Have also been charged with an axe, and squared off against guns to the face, and shotguns at a distance too far to engage. Developed a couple of SD techs against flank hugs, cuz that's where the greco-roman and freestyle guys like to go...then squeeze the heck out of the opposite side floating ribs.

Went to kajukenbo (and some splinters of it), limalama (and some splinters of it), Japanese tanto boogie, and arnis to get some slash counters, and viable alternatives to snapping attacks with a knife (faced a couple of each bouncing, some with knives, some with busted glass, and the Lance techniques didn't offer much assistance). Oddly, I didn't learn anything that wasn't already in kenpo; it had just been arranged differently to account for the isms of a particular weapon or attack, and had I just put some thought into it followed by a little earnest training time...
 
OP
Doc

Doc

Senior Master
Joined
May 12, 2002
Messages
4,240
Reaction score
180
Location
Southern California
One of the many things I enjoy about your perspectives, Sir. I have been attacked by ball-bats and pool-cues; very different movement dynamics in the attack, response, and counter-attack contexts than in Storm techs learned with taped broomsticks or rattan canes. Have also been charged with an axe, and squared off against guns to the face, and shotguns at a distance too far to engage. Developed a couple of SD techs against flank hugs, cuz that's where the greco-roman and freestyle guys like to go...then squeeze the heck out of the opposite side floating ribs.

Went to kajukenbo (and some splinters of it), limalama (and some splinters of it), Japanese tanto boogie, and arnis to get some slash counters, and viable alternatives to snapping attacks with a knife (faced a couple of each bouncing, some with knives, some with busted glass, and the Lance techniques didn't offer much assistance). Oddly, I didn't learn anything that wasn't already in kenpo; it had just been arranged differently to account for the isms of a particular weapon or attack, and had I just put some thought into it followed by a little earnest training time...

I agree. The genius of Ed Parker is apparent to some. But you have to see a knowledgeable and experienced to bring these things to the forefront and address them. Kenpo "system" black belts don't have that in general.

Remind me to limit my amount of time in your presence. I don't get that much action at work chasing felons. To old anyway.
 

KenpoDave

2nd Black Belt
Joined
May 20, 2002
Messages
884
Reaction score
33
Location
Shreveport, LA
Interesting question. Loved your post and insight, Doc.

Ted Sumner has an article on his website talking about what the definition of a technique is. A quick summary is that a self defense technique recognizes a threat, applies an effective and suitable defensive solution to the threat, and executes an escape from the situation.

So, in that sense, yes, you should finish a technique. Otherwise, you may get finished yourself.

But, should you finish 5 Swords(?) is a different concept. From my second lesson in Tracy's, during which I learned a technique called Fang of the Cobra (sorry, don't know a Parker equivalent name), my instructor began to continually repeat that it was more important to finish the opponent than to finish the technique "as written."

Many kenpo techniques, if you describe them based upon their effect on the body, you end up with, "trap the hands, kill the opponent, blind the opponent's left eye, blind his right eye, crush his testicles, and break his foot." In that order.

But I killed him on the second move. Maybe.

There is an "assumption of success/assumption of failure" thread on KT, and I think that there is value in learning the overkill, just in case. I also think there is value in learning to alter target placement to make a technique either more or less devastating. Not every attempted choke is attempted murder, and experience and wisdom should be allowed to make some choices when the situation allows.
 

JTKenpo

Purple Belt
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
335
Reaction score
9
Location
Seekonk, MA
Interesting question. Loved your post and insight, Doc.

Ted Sumner has an article on his website talking about what the definition of a technique is. A quick summary is that a self defense technique recognizes a threat, applies an effective and suitable defensive solution to the threat, and executes an escape from the situation.

So, in that sense, yes, you should finish a technique. Otherwise, you may get finished yourself.

But, should you finish 5 Swords(?) is a different concept. From my second lesson in Tracy's, during which I learned a technique called Fang of the Cobra (sorry, don't know a Parker equivalent name), my instructor began to continually repeat that it was more important to finish the opponent than to finish the technique "as written."

Many kenpo techniques, if you describe them based upon their effect on the body, you end up with, "trap the hands, kill the opponent, blind the opponent's left eye, blind his right eye, crush his testicles, and break his foot." In that order.

But I killed him on the second move. Maybe.

There is an "assumption of success/assumption of failure" thread on KT, and I think that there is value in learning the overkill, just in case. I also think there is value in learning to alter target placement to make a technique either more or less devastating. Not every attempted choke is attempted murder, and experience and wisdom should be allowed to make some choices when the situation allows.


"But then, who says we have to start at the beginning? All of the information we archive is valid, and has multiple applications and levels." Doc

I think this says it best for me and this is kind of where I was going in another thread about overkill. Too many times people get caught up in "the technique doesn't work because it is too long and I can't finish it". What they need to see is thatwe have all these different self-defense techniques and applications so that you have options in different scenarios. So when you find yourself in that position you can apply that "part" of the technique until the danger is gone as you see fit, or as the attack changes you can adapt to the situation.
 

JTKenpo

Purple Belt
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
335
Reaction score
9
Location
Seekonk, MA
"This component most closely resembles the stand-up confrontations often seen in sparring, but more like JKD Training. The motion-business version was called, Freestyle Formulas. Taken from its street focus and adapted to tournament use, they were overly complex, formulized, and never caught on with the business of teaching. Only a few ever fully utilized or even understood them." Doc


It is too bad that few ever utilized these techniques. Anyone who wants to get a better understanding of footwork within a self defense situation should really seek these out. For me it is almost like having a system within a system, it really feels like a completely different set of movements not just from what I was used to before AK but even different from the AK techs and forms. Of course there are similarities but still..
 
OP
Doc

Doc

Senior Master
Joined
May 12, 2002
Messages
4,240
Reaction score
180
Location
Southern California
Interesting question. Loved your post and insight, Doc.

Ted Sumner has an article on his website talking about what the definition of a technique is. A quick summary is that a self defense technique recognizes a threat, applies an effective and suitable defensive solution to the threat, and executes an escape from the situation.

So, in that sense, yes, you should finish a technique. Otherwise, you may get finished yourself.

But, should you finish 5 Swords(?) is a different concept. From my second lesson in Tracy's, during which I learned a technique called Fang of the Cobra (sorry, don't know a Parker equivalent name), my instructor began to continually repeat that it was more important to finish the opponent than to finish the technique "as written."

Many kenpo techniques, if you describe them based upon their effect on the body, you end up with, "trap the hands, kill the opponent, blind the opponent's left eye, blind his right eye, crush his testicles, and break his foot." In that order.

But I killed him on the second move. Maybe.

There is an "assumption of success/assumption of failure" thread on KT, and I think that there is value in learning the overkill, just in case. I also think there is value in learning to alter target placement to make a technique either more or less devastating. Not every attempted choke is attempted murder, and experience and wisdom should be allowed to make some choices when the situation allows.
It's funny how things change over the years sir. Back in the day, "good technique" meant good basics. Every physical move was considered a technique unto itself. If you threw a good front kick, that was considered a "good technique."

Now most consider a series of moves a "technique." I still have the old school mentality, and everything else is just a series of good technique applications. If a singular move is effective and executed properly, it still is a "technique."

Because of this philosophical approach, I do not subscribe to the "overkill" concept. It would seem to be out of place in a self-defense based art. It is also the root philosophy of "Assumption of success, over Assumption of Failure." In the latter, it would be appropriately called "overkill." However, because of the philosophical methodology of our root training, we do not anticipate needing the entire "Encyclopedia" to answer a simple assault question, therefore it would indeed be overkill.

Anticipating the failure of your actions, to the extent that you've already thought about the rest of the technique is a self-fulfilling mindset. Especially if you consider that if your actions have failed, there is no guarantee the attacker is going to be where you might want him to be, doing what you've already anticipated to continue the "overkill" sequence. Better to learn what you need well enough so that you don't need it, and allow additional needed "technique" sequences to come to you, and utilize the rest of the Encyclopedia Scenario as self contained lessons of offense, defense, timing, posture, muscle re-assignment, etc. teaching an "overkill" mindset to me is like admitting what you do doesn't really work that well. Its not the way Mr. Parker looked at it in my development. That is why "Surviving the Initial Assault" portion of the Encyclopedia is so important, along with Dictionary responses. I'll have to read Ted Sumner's article when I get a chance. Good man. Thank you sir.
 
OP
Doc

Doc

Senior Master
Joined
May 12, 2002
Messages
4,240
Reaction score
180
Location
Southern California
"But then, who says we have to start at the beginning? All of the information we archive is valid, and has multiple applications and levels." Doc

I think this says it best for me and this is kind of where I was going in another thread about overkill. Too many times people get caught up in "the technique doesn't work because it is too long and I can't finish it". What they need to see is thatwe have all these different self-defense techniques and applications so that you have options in different scenarios. So when you find yourself in that position you can apply that "part" of the technique until the danger is gone as you see fit, or as the attack changes you can adapt to the situation.
Yep! (for those who say I'm too verbose)
 

pete

Master Black Belt
Joined
Aug 31, 2003
Messages
1,003
Reaction score
32
Location
Long Island, New York
Training to 'finish the technique' relies on repetitive practice of the extended sequences, so that it becomes burned-in to neuro-muscular memory. The idea behind this method is that once the initial stimulus is recognized, the 'technique' can be performed quickly and powerfully without conscious thought. In Chinese Martial Arts terms, this is characteristic of the 'External' method, where pure athletic conditioning, and speed through repitition and 'no mind' is desired.

Doc brings up the forms practice of taiji, where a whole system is codified within a single form. There are no 'techniques' per se, but martial applications of the movements and postures can be extracted, and are often, if not always, applicable to several types of attack or stimulus.

Tai Chi, Bagua, Xingyi are considered in Chinese Martial Arts to use 'Internal' methods of training. Here the principles and characteristics of the art are practiced with uninterupted conscious thought. The term 'mind intent' is often used, where there is 'intention' but not 'will.' Therefore, internal methods have neither assumption of success nor failure... just what is. My intention may be one thing, but whether i succeed or fail, I now find myself in a new moment with new set of parameters and through my consciousness, or awareness, another intention.

Will, such as will-power, leaves one with either success or failure. Failure is sometimes hard to move on from, and those few micro-seconds, or gaps in consciousness, may be the difference in life and death.

When I train, it is those gaps in consciousness that I intend to avoid, while looking to take advantage of them should they occur in my opponent.

My interpretation of Doc's article is how Kenpo may have been 'Externalized' for ease of distribution. My question is whether Kenpo ever really subscribed to Internal priciples...and if so, what training methods did it use to develop the mind to be responsive to change...

Pete.
 
OP
Doc

Doc

Senior Master
Joined
May 12, 2002
Messages
4,240
Reaction score
180
Location
Southern California
"This component most closely resembles the stand-up confrontations often seen in sparring, but more like JKD Training. The motion-business version was called, Freestyle Formulas. Taken from its street focus and adapted to tournament use, they were overly complex, formulized, and never caught on with the business of teaching. Only a few ever fully utilized or even understood them." Doc


It is too bad that few ever utilized these techniques. Anyone who wants to get a better understanding of footwork within a self defense situation should really seek these out. For me it is almost like having a system within a system, it really feels like a completely different set of movements not just from what I was used to before AK but even different from the AK techs and forms. Of course there are similarities but still..
Well that's because you are right sir. It utilizes a completely unique and different skill-set than the Encyclopedia of Self-Defense scenario sequences. One being essentially designed for surreptitious assaults, and the other for anticipated encounters. Thus one being more "Dictionary-like" in answering the question, and the other more "Encyclopedia-like." Doesn't that make sense?
 
Top