Checking the Storm...

"Your opponent has many weapons to include two arms and two legs. If you step to 1:30 you are walking into the opponents back up weapon."

It works on the clock principle...if you step to 1:30 his left fist will br there to meet you.

With the parry and block, you do move out of the way, as well, since you are shooting over to that cat stance. And, yes, I see the wrist grab as a nice bonus, not a requirement.

I read this alot. I teach and have been taught that the block...is actually a position check. In essence you you are moving and putting your hands in a guarding position, just in case the roundhouse gets in there.


That it is a beginners tech may be why it is written for overhead club instead of roundhouse club -- it's easier to deal with overhead than round.
Didn't you say you teach your students that the attack is a roundhouse club? How do you teach them to deal with it? Or was that someone else?

I teach it for an overhead, and we incorporate the roundhouse in to the base technique.


No, I haven't been hit by an escrima stick, but I don't have to get hit with the stick. If the stick hits, I failed.

Sorry. I didn't mean to sound condensending:(


BTW, I think we have a slightly different idea of what "what if" means. I think you are seeing it as "what if the first step didn't work". I, possibly because of my limited experience dealing with "what if's", see it as dealing with a lot of things, including "what if the guy is feingting, what if the first move doesn't work, what if the guy is throwing a combo, what if..." and a dozen other things. Basically, taking the movement already learned and finding other situations where it will work, situations where it won't, ways to counter it, and what to do if it is countered. My understanding may be too vague and all-encompassing. I don't claim to understand the "what if" or "formulation" stuff yet. I can't.

You're right we are looking at it different, but your points are completely valid...that's the beauty of Kenpo. Don't ever run out of questions...:D :asian:
 
Don't know but it seems some have forgotten the name and theme of the technique, CHECKING The Storm. I've been taught that you need not touch the arm swinging the club, that you simply move up your circle and kick em the jimmy while your hands are cking, of course followed by the right side kick the their right knee, followed by a right looping backnuckle. Of course I've seen about a thousand different variations on this technique to the point where some exclude it from their teaching. Me, I like to know them all for the comparison.

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde
 
Originally posted by ProfessorKenpo

you simply move up your circle and kick em the jimmy while your hands are cking

hehehe ... I like the way you worded it. I'll jot that description
down in my notes! :rofl: :rofl:
 
Originally posted by ProfessorKenpo

Don't know but it seems some have forgotten the name and theme of the technique, CHECKING The Storm. I've been taught that you need not touch the arm swinging the club, that you simply move up your circle and kick em the jimmy while your hands are cking, of course followed by the right side kick the their right knee, followed by a right looping backnuckle. Of course I've seen about a thousand different variations on this technique to the point where some exclude it from their teaching. Me, I like to know them all for the comparison.

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

Clyde,
Well put... I have never met you but I have heard you are a good guy.

I am hoping to get to the IKC's next year. Hope to meet you.

PS- Is Kevin Jean still working with Mr. Tatum?
 
Originally posted by ProfessorKenpo

Don't know but it seems some have forgotten the name and theme of the technique, CHECKING The Storm. I've been taught that you need not touch the arm swinging the club, that you simply move up your circle and kick em the jimmy while your hands are cking, of course followed by the right side kick the their right knee, followed by a right looping backnuckle. Of course I've seen about a thousand different variations on this technique to the point where some exclude it from their teaching. Me, I like to know them all for the comparison.

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

Very good point. Thanks.
 
Blindside,

Ideally I have maintained contact with the offending arm, and if he has managed to hang on to his weapon. I will use(ideally) opposing force to remove said weapon with the checking left . To clarify, (ideally) this tech is against a "overhead" club attack. To which I have intially responded to by stepping to 3 pm into a left 90* cat stance, while executing a r.inward parry,l.outward knifehand block/check, which converts to a hooking check to the inside of the offending forearm, and as previously stated. If the weapon is still there after his beating. I will remove it as mentioned/described.

Salute :D
 
Originally posted by donald

Blindside,

Ideally I have maintained contact with the offending arm, and if he has managed to hang on to his weapon. I will use(ideally) opposing force to remove said weapon with the checking left . To clarify, (ideally) this tech is against a "overhead" club attack. To which I have intially responded to by stepping to 3 pm into a left 90* cat stance, while executing a r.inward parry,l.outward knifehand block/check, which converts to a hooking check to the inside of the offending forearm, and as previously stated. If the weapon is still there after his beating. I will remove it as mentioned/described.

Salute :D

which converts to a hooking check to the inside of the offending forearm

Is that the old "waiter's hand" check you are referring to?

How do you use it in that technique? When I practice this technique the guy is trying to split me in half right down my centerline, so the club is always well past the point where I can effectively use a check like that.:asian:
 
3631,

Not a waiter's block, but morphs from an open hand EOB. Into a hooking crane block to attempt to maintain control of the offending appendage. Then you just flow through the technique as previously discussed. I hope I've answered your question?

Salute :asian:
 
Originally posted by kenpo3631

In the mid eighties I learned Checking the Storm with a front chicken kick.

Why was it changed from the original way it was taught (besides creativity from an EP Student...heard that one already:shrug: )?

In the current version, how many people deliver the side kick to the opponent's left leg and why? :asian:

Checking the Storm like the other techniques in the series that were changed was out of line with the skill level of the beginner student. Ed Parker did not create this technique initially and when certain information came to light, he immediately wanted it changed. The reasons are, this technique is particularly lethal, attacking the lower centerline, and the chest area possibly hitting a particular nerve cavity when the opponent is in the right (wrong) posture. Like other techniques he "changed," many still do older versions taught to them by instructors who stop "changing" and were satisfied with what they learned.

This technique has the potential, even in practice with a minimum of contact, of creating ventricular fibrillations. The chicken kick itself is a good kick to use however not to practice for a couple of reasons. The trauma to the spine when done properly is multiple repetitions prohibitive, and the control issues associated with its potential lethality at that level.

The alternate version is anatomically incorrect and requires your initial kicking leg to move backwards, plant and clear for a right kick and back-fist. The hips will be misaligned, and prolonged execution will yield negative results in the hips. In our curriculum we still use the double kick but not as a Chicken Kick. Additionally students are instructed where to place their hands to cover the nerve cavity. We are also fortunate to have an esteemed emergency room physician and at least one paramedic, as students on the floor most evenings so we usually have immediate medical assistance should it ever become necessary.
 
Originally posted by Mace

SB,
I have to agree with Mr Broad here, you asked some very good questions that everyone could benifit from. We are all here to learn.
The what if's for techs are virtually endless, but here is where I've gone with checking the storm. What if the attacker has a clue about using the club or puts some speed and authority behind his strikes. I've found with a foam club ( much to my dismay) that almost all the time if your attacker is running even mildly realistic with the overhead and then inward strike you are going to get hit. Hard. And it stings with the foam club, forget it being a real stick or bottle. Now some may argue that stepping off to 3 and firing out the kick will negate the club, but I haven't seen it done at good speeds without the defender getting whacked with the stick. Just my findings, take em for what they are worth.
As to the X block found in obstructing, there's another one where you probably will get cracked in the head with the stick. The wrist still has mobility when the block is executed and force alone will probably bring the club to the top of your head. Again, just what I've found at good speeds.
Respectfully,
Mace

With a foam club that is unerstandable. However when you add a real club with significant heft to it (which is why he picked it up) you'll find the extra weight on the end of the arm in conjunction with a committed strike will not facilitate a change of direction very easily. Our students are instructed to full commit and hit the floor with the club to insure students get the idea to move. They rae further instructred to recover from the strike and swing horizontally (if they can). If the first kick is executed correctly to the correct place, the secondary strike will not be possible. Guaranteed. We demonstrated it repeated with novice recruits and martial artist alike in the academy. Mr. Lance, shade your first kick about 3/4 inches to the RIGHT side of his centerline ABOVE the groin in the bladder area. Never kick the groin.
 
Originally posted by Mace

SB,
I have to agree with Mr Broad here, you asked some very good questions that everyone could benifit from. We are all here to learn.
The what if's for techs are virtually endless, but here is where I've gone with checking the storm. What if the attacker has a clue about using the club or puts some speed and authority behind his strikes. I've found with a foam club ( much to my dismay) that almost all the time if your attacker is running even mildly realistic with the overhead and then inward strike you are going to get hit. Hard. And it stings with the foam club, forget it being a real stick or bottle. Now some may argue that stepping off to 3 and firing out the kick will negate the club, but I haven't seen it done at good speeds without the defender getting whacked with the stick. Just my findings, take em for what they are worth.
As to the X block found in obstructing, there's another one where you probably will get cracked in the head with the stick. The wrist still has mobility when the block is executed and force alone will probably bring the club to the top of your head. Again, just what I've found at good speeds.
Respectfully,
Mace

Mace,

I have found that if you block at or above the elbow in Obstructing the Storm with the "X" Block as you call it, the stick can't really get to your head. While stepping toward your attacker, get a little more depth with that initial block and you will probably find the same.

When blocking on the inside of an opponent's arm, do so below the elbow -- never above it.

When blocking on the outside of an opponent's arm, do so at or above the elbow -- never below it.

I find that the above principles apply to verticle action as well as horizontal action. You may find the same.

I hope this helps,
Billy Lear :asian:
 
If I could offer a couple of comments on this string--which I liked reading--both would have to do with teaching the technique to beginners.

Sure, there are all sorts of "what-ifs," to be considered, and I particularly agree with the posters who noted that the attack can easily be modified into a roundhouse swing. However, what's the base tech teaching? I'd argue it's to get the hell out of the way, off line, up the circle, etc. etc...and that this dovetails with the way that previous yellow belt techniques (and Short 1) teach retreating first. In other words, I think that Checking the Storm first teaches, and foremost teaches, don't stand under a club.

The second thing I'd note (and it's something I'm struggling with myself) is that a lot of our problems with techniques come out of our tendency to prioritize the hands: we start motion with the upper body, we think of power in terms of the shoulders, we keep worrying about getting the hands into the right position...when in fact it's that first step to the side that counts most. It's just that, together with some of the other posters, I keep worrying about getting the hands to "fit," when I haven't moved to where I should be. And when I do, the hand problem usually goes away...

Thanks,
Robert
 
Originally posted by rmcrobertson

If I could offer a couple of comments on this string--which I liked reading--both would have to do with teaching the technique to beginners.

Sure, there are all sorts of "what-ifs," to be considered, and I particularly agree with the posters who noted that the attack can easily be modified into a roundhouse swing. However, what's the base tech teaching? I'd argue it's to get the hell out of the way, off line, up the circle, etc. etc...and that this dovetails with the way that previous yellow belt techniques (and Short 1) teach retreating first. In other words, I think that Checking the Storm first teaches, and foremost teaches, don't stand under a club.

The second thing I'd note (and it's something I'm struggling with myself) is that a lot of our problems with techniques come out of our tendency to prioritize the hands: we start motion with the upper body, we think of power in terms of the shoulders, we keep worrying about getting the hands into the right position...when in fact it's that first step to the side that counts most. It's just that, together with some of the other posters, I keep worrying about getting the hands to "fit," when I haven't moved to where I should be. And when I do, the hand problem usually goes away...

Thanks,
Robert

Sir,

I have to agree with you completely.

MOTION-KENPO has a structured LESSON PLAN with THREE PILLARS.

1. The Head Instructor or Teacher (Keeper of the Concepts)
2. The Web Of Knowledge
3. The Technique Manuals

Primary and most important is the Head Teacher of a group of students regardless of rank. They are responsible for the Knowledge of the Lesson Plan and a clear understanding of the purpose of the lesson plan as well as Mr. Parkers Concepts to guide them in the implementation of the Lesson plan. This is where the weakness lies in Motion-Kenpo.

The LESSON PLAN is designed primarily for the TEACHER. Each situation technique is suggested by and taken from the WEB OF KNOWLEDGE in the LESSON PLAN. The HEAD TEACHER is then supposed to examine the ideas presented in the TECHNIQUE MANUAL. The HEAD TEACHER then utilizes THEIR KNOWLEDGE of ED PARKER CONCEPTS and designs an IDEAL RESPONSE based on the ideas in the TECHNIQUE MANUAL that's workable and also teaches a basic skill. Additional physical TAILORING is allowed for individual students who may have a particular physical deficiency with the LESSON PLAN lesson, but is NOT supposed to be done for personal preferences.

Unfortunately many instructors who were either taught incorrectly or misunderstood the lesson plan, and mistakenly engage in the commonly misplaced practice of the "what if" from the beginning with students. Students therefore are inundated with inappropriate options when they should instead be learning the simple lessons of the teacher created "ideal" technique well enough to be functional. This counterproductive "what if" mentality stays with the students and ultimately teachers and permeates Kenpo. According to Parker What ifs should not be considered at the First Phase. Parker said this was important to be taken well into black belt because the lessons are interrelated. Lessons at lower ranks are examined compounded, reversed, mirrored, prefixed, and suffixed at higher levels IF the lessons remain fixed and consistent. Theefore higher lessons reinforce lower lessons if consistently taught.

I find it ironic many Kenpo students constantly talk about "what ifs as they conjure up more "Grafting" options while the so-called "ideal" technique, which is where students should be, no longer exists only because teachers dont create or allow them to exist. That's why students and now teachers alike seek solutions in "tailoring," "what ifs," "grafting," and even the study of other arts to fill perceived holes. The holes do exist, but they are not in Motion-Kenpo but in the Head Teachers knowledge base to implement the Lesson Plan.

Until teachers use the Lesson Plan correctly, basic skills will not be learned and as now, students will seek their own answers wherever they can find them. These type discussions bear that out. Hordes of students from the same art, all with lineage to Ed Parker and a consensus is difficult to find within some groups. Differences are acceptable but a Head teacher of a group is responsible for functional consistently among their group.

Teachers must do their job. The Teacher created "ideal" technique should be functional and emphasize and teach specific skills at every level. As long as instructors don't do their job, students will continue to talk about what doesn't work, more than what does.

Ed Parker was the only "expert" and he knew he couldn't be everywhere. He wanted his art to proliferate why he continued to evolve, and solidify, what was supposed to eventually be a "strict hard curriculum." That is why the Motion-Kenpo Lesson Plan was created. There is nothing wrong with Motion-Kenpo with competent instruction and the proper use of the Lesson Plan as Ed Parker intended.

What most are unaware of is Parker "imported" the first tier instructors to implement the Motion-Kenpo Lesson Plan from other arts so it worked. Since then the "teachers" are now products of the Lesson Plan itself and have never been subjected to a strict curriculum. Therefore their weakness is passed on to the next generation of "teachers" who have even less information. (And so on)

As you know a "lesson plan" is only a guide to insure the curriculum follows a logical and progressive path for the student, but ultimately the teacher is responsible for the implementation of the information.

But a strict "hard" verbatim curriculum is even more dependent on the teachers skill and knowledge so Parker knew the next step would more than likely require a new generation of teachers. It is a sad fact that once significant rank is given, students are no longer interested in curriculum they feel is beneath them, and neither do they embrace the idea of "relearning" something they think they already know.

Students of all levels think they can learn basic and advanced materials through videos and personal exploration. You can't even learn basketball through video. Until students learn the lesson that there is much more to learn, and you cant learn it on your own, Motion-Kenpo will languish at the hands of many mediocre teachers who should be students themselves.

This problem was created by Ed Parker and he knew that under the Lesson Plan Method, His Art would ultimately began to feed upon itself and lose people to other arts. Unfortunately he didnt live long enough to bring the strict curriculum forth to show you just how great American Kenpo really is. As good as some think it is, it is ten times better than that.

That is not to say all Motion-Kenpo teachers are bad. There are many good teachers in Kenpo, but not as many as the bad ones.
 
Thanks for your post Billy, that is something that I had considered.
Doc stated:
With a foam club that is unerstandable. However when you add a real club with significant heft to it (which is why he picked it up) you'll find the extra weight on the end of the arm in conjunction with a committed strike will not facilitate a change of direction very easily.
With a baseball bat or tire iron this may be the case, but with a broken pool cue or car antenae (have witnessed both) this is not the case. Thank you for your input though, its food for thought.
Respectfully,
Mace
 
Originally posted by Mace

Thanks for your post Billy, that is something that I had considered.
Doc stated:

With a baseball bat or tire iron this may be the case, but with a broken pool cue or car antenae (have witnessed both) this is not the case. Thank you for your input though, its food for thought.
Respectfully,
Mace

What if, what if, what if..

The Lesson Plan says the attack is with a CLUB for a white belt. Once you go down the "what if road" you never get back because no matter what the answer. you can always say "what if." The Lesson Plan and Web of Knowledge exists to define the attack at the first level of training. The problem is everyone is trying to experience all the levels at the same time. I do not blame students for that mindset, but it is extremely counterproductive to a sound learning experience and creation of significant basic skills.
 
Mr. Lance, shade your first kick about 3/4 inches to the RIGHT side of his centerline ABOVE the groin in the bladder area. Never kick the groin.

Thanks...I'll give it a whirl:D

PS- Any reason why I shouldn't kick the groin directly?
 
I do not blame students for that mindset, but it is extremely counterproductive to a sound learning experience and creation of significant basic skills.

Hi Dr. Chapel,

At what point do your students begin to branch out into these "what ifs." Could you give me some idea of when you introduce this into your lesson plan? Either by belt or by average time in the system.

Thanks for your time,

Lamont
 
Originally posted by kenpo3631



Thanks...I'll give it a whirl:D

PS- Any reason why I shouldn't kick the groin directly?

Well first of all Sir, I am not really saying you shouldn't kick the groin directly. Motion-Kenpo survives on these "soft tissue" strikes to the groin, eyes, throat, etc. because it's targeting is always general, and these type of strikes at least issure a level of functional destruction no matter what, even though the reaction may not be "immediate." It is important however we realize this may not work, and there is a more effective method.

But back to the groin. Females first of all require a more specific strike for effectiveness, and it coincides with the same targets for men. But, striking a male in the groin does not guarantee either the reaction or timeliness of a reaction. Under certain circumstances, groin strikes to males can be ignored for a period of time. Emotions, adrenal dump, mental state of mind, personal resolve, and chemical intoxication etc., have and can overcome a strike to the groin. Therefore this strike is not a high percentage sophisticated target. Under unemotional classroom conditions they will always work, but in the dirty world of street self defense, a different philosophy of specificity must prevail.

Additionally, the generally accepted reaction where a person bends forward at the waist and "bows" his head is not the initial reaction if the strike is immediately effective. That is at best a secondary reaction. Persons struck in the groin significantly "Explosively" loose height with the knees buckling and the buttocks dropping, and the chin moving upowards, with the back straight. Bending forward and dropping the chin is a secondary response that may occur much later if at all.

In my earlier response Sir, I may have given you the wrong impression. It's not 3/4 but 3 or four inches to the right of centerline above the groin but below the lower abdomen. In our curriculum we almost never attack the testicles because the other mechanisms work so well and are more specific.
 
Originally posted by Blindside



Hi Dr. Chapel,

At what point do your students begin to branch out into these "what ifs." Could you give me some idea of when you introduce this into your lesson plan? Either by belt or by average time in the system.

Thanks for your time,

Lamont

Lamont Sir, how are you doing?

In answer to your question, "what if's" are rare in our classes, and are non-exsistent at the first level of learning (through black). In the beginning students are tempted to ask certain questions but, they soon learn that if they are just patient, the question will ultimately be answered by the curriculum at a time when the answer will be more useful to them. We handle those initial inquiries by simply saying, "Let's focus on you performing this skill really well, before we answer questions not in this lesson." The idea is to teach specific basic skills from varius perspectives as a student moves through the various courses. Taking things out of context only muddies the process and confuses students despite their curiosity.

If you were to study piano, the teacher will have you learn the notes and work on command of the keyboard. If you brought up the question of how to improvise, the teacher would say, "Don't you think you should learn to play all the notes first?"

But I understand what the Motion-kenpo teachers have done. Focusing on the many possibilities makes them look knowledgeable, satisfies the students curiosity, but teaches nothing beyond the hypothetical and fosters no real skills. Teachers have chosen to focus on techniques, instead of examining the Web of Knowledge and create "ideal" techniques that work based on the "manuals." Head teachers have to do their job, stick to the lesson plan, and make students effective no matter what the level. That also includes teaching good basics as well. Instead "slef-defense techniques" and there many variaations are the centerpiece of most teaching. Instead it should be the application of really good basics with an in-depth examination of the assaults outlined in the Web Of Knowledge.

As far as "what ifs" at higher levels, my students realize that most of their questions have either been answered, or are about to be answered. Most of the questions are not about "what if" but technical questions about "how" to accomplish a specific action. The curriculum is so rich and specific with information, we just don't have a reason to "what if." I know that sounds strange to those indoctrinated in Motion-Kenpo, but remeber MK is an anomoly and the only art that does that. In a way, it has to because of it's commercial nature but ..........

Good to hear from you Sir.
 
Back
Top