Kenpo Contact Manipulation

[Doc]

CONTACT MANIPULATION - The fouth stage of the FOUR STAGES OF RANGE. It entails the orchestration of control, once contact is made, to contour, leverage, takedown, restrain, twist, sprain, lock, dislocate, choke, etc. to increase the effectiveness of your action. These same techniques could be used to cause greater damage or injury to you as well, therefore, making every effort to be the victor.


What stall? What discussion? What answers? The definition given in II's is exactly that, it needs no further discussion to differentiate it. Frankly, I can't see why you're going on about something that's pretty cut and dry.


A Rose By Any Other Name Is Still A Rose

Dark Lord

Well I guess that means the extent of your ability to discuss this topic is emcompassed in quoting the definitions. Now you leave me with the impression that all you know is to cut and paste on a topic you introduced.

What discussion? What answers?

"Both "contact" and "control" say they control and to the same degree. Further, "control" is not even listed in the Four Ranges defined by Ed Parker.

So why does it (control manipulation] exist, and if it does in fact exist, why isn't it listed, and where does it belong?"

I guess you missed these 3 questions somehow. If you were in my class you'd rate an "F." But you're not so be it. Perhaps some other articulate persons will answer so Todd, Jason, and the others can have an actual discussion, although I feel certain you will benefit by "hiding in plain sight." An "F " by any other name is still an "F ."

 

[Doc]

CONTACT MANIPULATION - The fouth stage of the FOUR STAGES OF RANGE. It entails the orchestration of control, once contact is made, to contour, leverage, takedown, restrain, twist, sprain, lock, dislocate, choke, etc. to increase the effectiveness of your action. These same techniques could be used to cause greater damage or injury to you as well, therefore, making every effort to be the victor.


What stall? What discussion? What answers? The definition given in II's is exactly that, it needs no further discussion to differentiate it. Frankly, I can't see why you're going on about something that's pretty cut and dry.


A Rose By Any Other Name Is Still A Rose

Dark Lord

Well I guess that means the extent of your ability to discuss this topic is emcompassed in quoting the definitions. Now you leave me with the impression that all you know is to cut and paste on a topic you introduced.

What discussion? What answers?

"Both "contact" and "control" say they control and to the same degree. Further, "control" is not even listed in the Four Ranges defined by Ed Parker.

So why does it (control manipulation] exist, and if it does in fact exist, why isn't it listed, and where does it belong?"

I guess you missed these 3 questions somehow. If you were in my class you'd rate an "F." But you're not so be it. Perhaps some other articulate persons will answer so Todd, Jason, and the others can have an actual discussion, although I feel certain you will benefit by "hiding in plain sight." An "F " by any other name is still an "F " Dark Lord.

 

[Kenpo Yahoo]

I tend to view manipulation as its own specific category with each of the various tools divided into further subcategories. More specifically, manipulation through striking and manipulation caused by direct and sustained contact. Now whether you consider the first category contact penetration or contact manipulation, I guess is solely up to you. However, I do not consider all strikes to fall into the category of contact manipulation. Only when the strikes are executed with the specific intent of manipulating your opponents posture and/or location in order to set up further strikes or to facilitate the use of control manipulation would I consider them to be members of the Contact manipulation subset.

Control manipulation, as I view it, implies a moment of sustained contact and direct pressure to one or several targets in order to establish and/or maintain physical and mental control over an opponent, to strain or destroy specific limbs, each of which will either incapacitate, maim, or kill your opponent.

As I said these are just my views. This may not necessarily be what you were looking for, but it's what I got.....

 

[Touch Of Death]

I would venture to say that the difference is your dropping back from targets to position on the cycle of consideratons. By the way I loved your last post Doc, so good ya said it twice.
Sean

 

[pete]

Doc, thanks for starting this thread and making me "work" to qualify my last response. You have initiated a wealth of information sharing and individual thought.

well, here is the result of my work/thought process...

Contact Manipulation is Chin Na. It is techniques used in close range by applying lock joints, take downs, cavity press, and/or nerve target strikes. These techniques are used to restrain, cause pain, and injure an attacker in increasing order based on the level of the attack, so the response. Contact Manipulation is apparent in many Kenpo techniques, yet is found in ALL Kenpo techniques in several places. Mace of Aggression, Desperate Falcons, Glancing Spear, and the extension to Circling Wing come to mind... off the cuff, so to say.

Control Manipulation is Adhering. This was a short answer, and probably in retrospect incomplete on my part, since Adhering cannot be seperated from Listening, Neutralizing, Yielding, and Expanding. Regardless, my point was that Control Manipulation is the method by which one would respond to an attack resulting in the attacker being lead into a position of disadvantage, while obtaining the position of advantage for yourself. This is done by using Borrowed Force and recognizing Angles of Incidence to dodge the attack, yet remain "attached" to the attacker in order to respond. This places offense within the defense, and defense within the offense. Ed Parker is quoted as saying "Freeing yourself from an opponent allows him freedom to hit." The response of Control Manipulation would typically by Contact Manipulation Techniques or Chin Na from a superior position.

Now I'll wait for my grade...

pete.

 

[Doc]

I would venture to say that the difference is your dropping back from targets to position on the cycle of consideratons. By the way I loved your last post Doc, so good ya said it twice.
Sean

Yeah that was weird Sean. I wonder how that happened. Anyway, could you elaborate on that please? It sounds very interesting but I'm not quite sure of your intent and meaning.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Yeah that was weird Sean. I wonder how that happened. Anyway, could you elaborate on that please? It sounds very interesting but I'm not quite sure of your intent and meaning.

well this goes back to master key stuff, but the "eight" or "nine" considerations (depending on who you talk to) trump eachother as you go up the list. That is position remains more important that targets until you have overcome your problems with position, or rather gain a positional advantage. And neither one of these matter until you have closed the "distance", ect. I see contact manipulation still at target phase and control as operating with positional considerations. As I have said before a target trained fighter will have trouble winning if his opponent maintains a positional advantage.
Sean( www.iemat.com )

 

[jfarnsworth]

Well Jason, not only have you stayed on point, but your understanding is pretty good.

At least I'm on the right track :uhyeah:

Admittedly, I might have used different examples, but you're pretty right on.

Those were the first two techniques that came to mind. I believe that contact means to touch. If I want an attacker to move into the position that I need them to move then I MUST manipulate them to get into that position. This is my idea of contact manipulation. Maybe thundering hammers would be a better choice for contact manipulation.

The arm bars, locks, chokes would be a control manipulation technique. The idea behind "IF" my lock is on properly the attacker isn't getting out of it. That's why it's called a lock; right ?

But, what you say also contridicts all of the Parker definitions. Both "contact" and "control" say they control and to the same degree. Further, "control" is not even listed in the Four Ranges defined by Ed Parker. So why does it exist, and if it does in fact exist, why isn't it listed, and where does it belong?

Well, :idunno: personally speaking I would keep them seperate as two seperate entities. Sure, one can turn into the other but I can't answer why he didn't include them. As far as I'm concerned the control issue definately exists. My JJ friend says there are 6 stages of combat. Maybe I should ask him about his defintion behind his madness.

People should be careful of throwing out terminology they themselves don't understand.

I agree. This is why we are on different pages of the book. I still haven't quite agreed with the counter torque thing in the other thread but I've been in kenpo for almost 10yrs. and have just begun to start learning things. I have a life time of learning to go and even then it won't be enough to understand all of kenpo.

You're not in the shadows Jason. Too many pretend they know a lot and when they don't they change the subject. Thanks for participating.

This is a good discussion to be apart of. I've gotten tired of the constant whining and fueding so I have not posted hardly any in the last few months. However this topic I would like to be apart of. Thanks for starting it. :asian:

 

[sumdumguy]

With out dribbling on,
Control Manipulation and contact manipulation differ on several levels but the most obvious is when reading the definitions (if that's what you adhere to) you will notice that the def. for control manipulation really doesn't mention anything about contact. This is important so that we may understand that there are varying degrees of control. As well as different zones that we can control from. The four stages of range all have there place in this concept or whatever you want to call it. Control Manipulation is not confined to being within any particular of the four stages of range and can in fact be used in the first three but (and this is where interpretations vary) the fourth is "contact manipulation" a sub-cat of "control manipulation" as are the previous three. Ultimately, it's all control manipulation and further divided or sub-categorized from there.
Contact Manipulation, does in fact (in the definition) talk about contact or more importantly, "when contact is made". This is a catch 22 in my opinion because contact includes a variety of weapons and executions of such weapons. The definition goes on to mention leverage, takedown, restrain bla bla bla etc... This etc.. may include the kitchen sink or the 44 Magnum I might carry in my back pocket. In my opinion no definition should ever end or contain the (etc...) clause for lack of better terms.
The reality of it is that as Doc has said before these defs contridict and are not complete by any means. It has been in the most recent years that people have adopted this term "contact manipulation" for the purpose of trying to stay within the confines of Mr. Parkers great works and not adding a bunch of crap where it's not needed. The problem again is as I stated above, Not finite definitions. Boy, you would think I was writing a book on this stuff..... I am sure that Doc has some agreements and some dis-agreements, and I welcome them both...... :asian:

 

[Dark Kenpo Lord]

Well I guess that means the extent of your ability to discuss this topic is emcompassed in quoting the definitions. Now you leave me with the impression that all you know is to cut and paste on a topic you introduced.


"Both "contact" and "control" say they control and to the same degree. Further, "control" is not even listed in the Four Ranges defined by Ed Parker.



I guess you missed these 3 questions somehow. If you were in my class you'd rate an "F." But you're not so be it. Perhaps some other articulate persons will answer so Todd, Jason, and the others can have an actual discussion, although I feel certain you will benefit by "hiding in plain sight." An "F " by any other name is still an "F " Dark Lord.

No, I didn't miss the three questions, I just thought they were stupid. Thank God I failed your class, one I'd NEVER join either!!!!!! Praise be the F from the F Man. I'n not as uneducated, illiterate, or inarticulate as you'd like to think either, I just know what I'm talking about.


Dark Lord

 

[Doc]

No, I didn't miss the three questions, I just thought they were stupid. Thank God I failed your class, one I'd NEVER join either!!!!!! Praise be the F from the F Man. I'n not as uneducated, illiterate, or inarticulate as you'd like to think either, I just know what I'm talking about.


Dark Lord

I find it interesting that the questions were prompted by you bringing up the topic. So you bring it up, someone asks, and because you think the questions are "stupid," you decline to answer. And for the record I never said you were, "uneducated, illiterate, or inarticulate ..." Further you don't know what I think, except what I will share with you. I don't think you know what you're talking about because you haven't given me any reason to think you do. To each his own, and although this may seem a bit self serving, I think it is your loss. You would have been better served by asking questions rather than pretending you know all the answers. That being said I wish you well in your kenpo, dark as it may be. Now I get it.

 

[Dark Kenpo Lord]

I find it interesting that the questions were prompted by you bringing up the topic. So you bring it up, someone asks, and because you think the questions are "stupid," you decline to answer. And for the record I never said you were, "uneducated, illiterate, or inarticulate ..." Further you don't know what I think, except what I will share with you. I don't think you know what you're talking about because you haven't given me any reason to think you do. To each his own, and although this may seem a bit self serving, I think it is your loss. You would have been better served by asking questions rather than pretending you know all the answers. That being said I wish you well in your kenpo, dark as it may be. Now I get it.

For the record, I merely brought it up in the conversation regarding Short Form 1 in Reverse, I never asked a question! I don't pretend to know all the answers, I ask when appropriate, just not you.

Dark Lord

 

[Doc]

For the record, I merely brought it up in the conversation regarding Short Form 1 in Reverse, I never asked a question! I don't pretend to know all the answers, I ask when appropriate, just not you.

Dark Lord

Something is really wrong here in the communications department. Never said you asked. In fact I asked you a question, and you declined to answer. No problem, and I don't know what problem you have with me, but like you said, you won't ask me. Now I'll lose sleep wondering what it is you won't ask me. Oh well.

 

[Doc]

Control Manipulation and contact manipulation differ on several levels but the most obvious is when reading the definitions (if that's what you adhere to) you will notice that the def. for control manipulation really doesn't mention anything about contact. This is important so that we may understand that there are varying degrees of control.

Well said sir.

As well as different zones that we can control from. The four stages of range all have there place in this concept or whatever you want to call it.

Once again, well said sir.

Control Manipulation is not confined to being within any particular of the four stages of range and can in fact be used in the first three …

Well here we tend to part company but only due to semantically different interpretations of the meaning of “control” within the “American kenpo” context. Most have been given incomplete information in the commercial kenpo arena.

… but (and this is where interpretations vary) the fourth is "contact manipulation" a sub-cat of "control manipulation" as are the previous three.

Well I agree with you here, but most would suggest it is the other way around. I knew that you would know different because I heard the correct answer from one of your students.

Ultimately, it's all control manipulation and further divided or sub-categorized from there.

Yes and the “secret” is sub-categories. Something I’ve explored extensively.

Contact Manipulation, does in fact (in the definition) talk about contact or more importantly, "when contact is made". This is a catch 22 in my opinion because contact includes a variety of weapons and executions of such weapons.

Yes I agree with that as well.

The definition goes on to mention leverage, takedown, restrain bla bla bla etc... This etc.. may include the kitchen sink or the 44 Magnum I might carry in my back pocket. In my opinion no definition should ever end or contain the (etc...) clause for lack of better terms.

Exactly.

The reality of it is that as Doc has said before these defs contridict and are not complete by any means. It has been in the most recent years that people have adopted this term "contact manipulation" for the purpose of trying to stay within the confines of Mr. Parkers great works and not adding a bunch of crap where it's not needed. The problem again is as I stated above, Not finite definitions. Boy, you would think I was writing a book on this stuff..... I am sure that Doc has some agreements and some dis-agreements, and I welcome them both......

No, actually Todd we have very little to disagree on. The primary difference is I was lucky enough to get a more comprehensive understanding of the four ranges and their many sub-categories from Ed Parker, and as to how he fit them into his personal interpretation of Kenpo.

 

[Doc]

I tend to view manipulation as its own specific category with each of the various tools divided into further subcategories.

You guys are really good. The keys are the subcategories.

More specifically, manipulation through striking and manipulation caused by direct and sustained contact. Now whether you consider the first category contact penetration or contact manipulation, I guess is solely up to you. However, I do not consider all strikes to fall into the category of contact manipulation.

Yes I agree here.

Only when the strikes are executed with the specific intent of manipulating your opponents posture and/or location in order to set up further strikes or to facilitate the use of control manipulation would I consider them to be members of the Contact manipulation subset.

Wow! you guys didn’t need me to discuss this one. Very cogent.

Control manipulation, as I view it, implies a moment of sustained contact and direct pressure to one or several targets in order to establish and/or maintain physical and mental control over an opponent, to strain or destroy specific limbs, each of which will either incapacitate, maim, or kill your opponent.

well said.

As I said these are just my views. This may not necessarily be what you were looking for, but it's what I got.....

Very good views sir and a good understanding of what they really are. Good discussion in my opinion.

 

[Doc]

What about my post above? Am I on track, a little off track, or completely off track ? Maybe I'll just put my white belt back on and start all over again. :uhyeah: :asian:

We're all white belts Jason. Some just think they aren't. Oddly enough they are the ones who won't answer questions.

 

[Doc]

Doc, thanks for starting this thread and making me "work" to qualify my last response. You have initiated a wealth of information sharing and individual thought.

Well thank you sir. It’s all about sharing and learning.

Contact Manipulation is Chin Na.

Well although I partially agree with you, “chin-na” as I was taught actually encompasses both “contact and control.”

It is techniques used in close range by applying lock joints, take downs, cavity press, and/or nerve target strikes.

Yes partially.

These techniques are used to restrain, cause pain, and injure an attacker in increasing order based on the level of the attack, so the response.

I agree with the exception of “pain” and the omission of other considerations. I understand you are using parameters outside of kenpo, but Ed Parker dictated American Kenpo Control Manipulations not be pain reliant, nor are they used to induce pain for the purposes of “control.”

Contact Manipulation is apparent in many Kenpo techniques, yet is found in ALL Kenpo techniques in several places.

Agreed. Always present in every technique all the time. It’s only a matter of degrees from “Contact to Control.”

Control Manipulation is Adhering. This was a short answer, and probably in retrospect incomplete on my part, since Adhering cannot be separated from Listening, Neutralizing, Yielding, and Expanding.

Your “Taiji” is showing, but that is not a bad thing.

Regardless, my point was that Control Manipulation is the method by which one would respond to an attack resulting in the attacker being lead into a position of disadvantage, while obtaining the position of advantage for yourself.

Yes that is true, but think of it as part of a whole instead of an entity to itself.

This is done by using Borrowed Force and recognizing Angles of Incidence to dodge the attack, yet remain "attached" to the attacker in order to respond. This places offense within the defense, and defense within the offense.

It’s showing again.

Ed Parker is quoted as saying "Freeing yourself from an opponent allows him freedom to hit." The response of Control Manipulation would typically by Contact Manipulation Techniques or Chin Na from a superior position.

Well in purely American kenpo terms it would be expressed differently but have the same results.

Now I'll wait for my grade...

Come on Pete. If you need a grade I’ll accommodate. Looks like an “A” to me, but don’t tell Dark Lord, he’s confused enough already.

But let’s talk about the four distances and how they relate to each other and exactly where “Control Manipulation” resides. I was taught there are subcategories to all four of the ranges, with each range as you progressively get closer to you attacker, encompassing additional concepts and principles, and including the previous ones. Thus the fourth range encompasses all of the others ranges principles of combat, as well as those exclusive to the fourth range itself.

This somewhat counters the “different stages of action” perspective. Although “range” can dictate the availability of various fighting tools, they do not dictate or restrict beyond simple physical range limitations normally associated with human physical interaction.

One of those exclusive concepts is “Control Manipulation” that is, from a commercial kenpo perspective, a subcategory of “Contact Manipulation.” Because most of this information is not included in commercial kenpo, the subcategories become significantly important to the higher levels of the science of execution. When the higher-level curriculum is studied however, the subcategories actually exchange places with the more superficial simplistic range explanations.

As an example, the first range is simply called “out of reach.” The subcategory is “Psychology of Confrontation Theory.” As you can see, the subcategory is where the real knowledge and comprehensive understanding lies. Therefore if you study one level, “out of reach” is how it’s defined. On higher levels, “Psychology of Confrontation Theory” must be learned. This holds true for every range. The simplistic versus the in-depth. Ed Parker Sr. only published the “simplistic” versions of his range theory because his popular interpretation of kenpo did not contain significant depth to warrant additional information he was not generally teaching or supporting in commercial schools.

Take “Control Manipulation” as another subcategory example on the other extreme at distance four, which, simplistically is defined as “Contact Manipulation.” This is a category of “grappling” yet popular kenpo does not address grappling or control manipulation in its codified curriculum in any form. In reality, the only concept it addresses in any range is “contact manipulation” and it only hints at Control Manipulation through techniques where victims are seized, grabbed, hugged, choked, and tackled with no clear instruction as to how to deal physically with these type attacks.

Because of the lack of information, most teachers of that information have addressed these attacks as “attempts” rather than actual completed assaults as they should be. Lacking the knowledge to address extrication from a significant lock means you must move before you are seized. They have no choice absent additional information.

Thus you see the origin of the term I coined, “SubLevel Four Kenpo.” A level of Kenpo that embraces all the concepts of all the sub-level ranges but draws its name from the fourth range because it is conceptually all inclusive.

Thus you also see why “Control Manipulation” although defined by Ed Parker Sr., is not included in the simplistic version of his range theory. But by defining it he hinted at its existence, while not including the “how” of any of its execution in the curriculum most learned. Nowhere is a wrist-lock, throw, pin, offensively or defensively or any control concept addressed in any of his writing.

In the Infinite Insight series physical categorical breakdown, all of the tenants of “Sub-Level Four” are addressed in the category simplistically labeled, “Other.”

Great discussion guys, and although I hope it isn’t over, I thank everyone (well almost everyone) for such intelligent and well thought out exchanges. I hope everyone came away with information they may not have had before. I know I always learn something. Isn’t this what these forums are supposed to be about? So let’s keep going, because I know there are some not posting (hiding in plain sight:supcool: ) but soaking up every word we say for "playback" at another time.

 

[Dark Kenpo Lord]

Great discussion guys, and although I hope it isn’t over, I thank everyone (well almost everyone) for such intelligent and well thought out exchanges. I hope everyone came away with information they may not have had before. I know I always learn something. Isn’t this what these forums are supposed to be about? So let’s keep going, because I know there are some not posting (hiding in plain sight:supcool: ) but soaking up every word we say for "playback" at another time.

You know, I've already seen who is who in the zoo over these many years, and in MY Kenpo world, there's nothing you have I need or want so don't flatter yourself.

Dark Lord

 

[sumdumguy]

Well here we tend to part company but only due to semantically different interpretations of the meaning of “control” within the “American kenpo” context. Most have been given incomplete information in the commercial kenpo arena.

Doc, first off thanks! I was not looking to pass out "correct" answers just dribbling out my view as you know.
The control thing I think is mis-understood though because typically people believe that their has to be contact to have control. There are instances where by we can control an opponents actions through prepatory positions, baiting, feinting, and so forth. This is what I was talking about. Control is not always about contact, is it? Control begins before contact is made, or should begin before contact is made. Manipulation, can be obtained through phsycological and physical as well, however when calling it "contact manipulation it is blaitently(sp?) obvious that we have "contact".
Great Post and good reads.... Thanks.

incidently, Rainman has his own views and opinions, and is by no means as you know a puppet. Some things we agree on and some we don't. That's why we (I think I speak for both of us?) get along so well, because we both enjoy a good debate on occassion. The journey is long, no need to make it harder then it already is. :asian:

 

[Kenpomachine]

Thanks for the informative posts, everybody :asian:

The light for me came when Todd said that the control is not restricted to the fourth range. I don't know if I'm missing the point, but the haka dance (sp?) came to dance as an example of an out of reach control manipulation.

If not for that, I would have gone by the first thought than control is only physical (a woman forgetting about psicological control!) and can only be exerted at close range.

So even if I'm still misunderstanding the terms, it has been enlightening

Thanks again,
Lucía