Leaping Crane

Jason, I have also used that same strike- executed properly it causes an extreme amount of pain, followed by numbness, followed by more pain if you hit that point (I'm still too fuzzy on my points to name the one- but I sure can find it ;) )
 
Originally posted by cdhall
Ah! You are hitting the bicep from underneath then?
I think I get it.

I also read in Infinite Insights Book 1 last night that Mitose's original art... focused on pressure points and vital strikes... hmm... did Mr. Parker hold this info back for a long time? I will ask Doc.

This aspect has always been "Talked" about, but it actually was not a specific part of the training from Chow, but a general reference pretty much as most do now. Everybody knows some "vital" points but the method comes from the Chinese who never really allowed all of the information to be available to most. Even in the "Bubishi" (the most famous document chronicling pressure point existence from the Chinese), most of the information, although good, did not explain the mechanism of the how. It was completely ommitted from the Japanese, and the Okinawan's only got a small part with little of the Chinese methodology. The Japanese were the primary influence in the islands with the most notable exception of Chow. Therefore it is not likely it existed there if it didn't even exist in Japan.

Parker did not began serious study of this information until he took up residence in Pasadena in the fifties and began studyng with Chinese Masters in the Los Angeles China Town. He also studied as well in San Francisco's Chinese Community, who embraced the physically gifted and intelligent Polynesian who wss not a "howley." The Chinese were, and still are very protective of this information, not giving even to some Chinese. There isn't a book available that I know of that tells you actually how to use use it and never will be. The information is to situationally, informationally, hands on specific to be casually taught. And it's dangerous.

Ed Parker hinted at it in books ("kenpo Karate" in 1961), lectures, and even jokes, but never taught it generally as far as I know. When I first started talking about this, I was told by many it wasn't in Kenpo. They didn't even know what a "slapcheck" was because Parker never wrote or taught that either.

There is much he didn't include in his commercial art for many reasons, the prominent being, it can't be taught in a commercial environment except by a competent teacher with the knowledge of the "how." And he was the only expert in his own art. Everyone else was just learning. So when he created his commercial art, he also created commercial rank that allowed people to progress within the structure being taught.

It's not a knock, it's a McDonald's thing. The food can only get so good while you're serving "billions." You may be the top dog at MCDonalds, but would be lost in a fine restaurant.
 
Some food for thought. It seems to me that with so many fine mind and some young searchers, much can be uncovered & gained by all present.

Just glad to have you all out there.
 
Originally posted by jfarnsworth
I have shorter arms than most people I work out with. Their usually around 6' and I'm a mere 5'7" I find the bicep works best for me as I cause the muscle dysfunction and I'm also around them much faster. Maybe I'll get the stomach maybe not but doesn't gathering clouds already do that movement your looking at? Just another perspective.

I was always taught the inside of the biceps at H-2. The "middle knuckle rake" is essentially ineffective because it lacks significant "Depth of Penetration" or "Back Up Mass" to "stop" a lunging individual significantly. The factor brought up by you about "long versus short arms" also points this out. The wrong range and depth makes you susceptible to a follow up from that "crossing punch" or "grab" if the initial contact doesn't at least have a "Slowing Effect."
 
Hmm...
it would seem to me that if you were hitting the arm underneath as you leap/step up and offline then you are not hitting the bicep at all. You are however hitting the tricep or as I believe Doc pointed out (could be wrong on who pointed it out) slightly behind the elbow striking a nerve. I have not tried it but in thinking about it it seems that it would be very effective, albeit providing a smaller target and not one that is always easy to hit on a moving step thru punch while you are of course moving up and offline with your head being the first thing moving that direction.

Second I do not see that you open yourself to any type of cross or off hand grab if you have parried and struck the ideal target or the arm. As you should be up/off the line and almost behind as much as beside your attacker/opponet and delivering the knife edge kick and downward back knuckle/hammerfist. With the kick severly altering your opponnet's height and width zone which also in effect checks the ability to use the off hand weapon.

Just some thoughts on it. Could be right could be wrong but that is what I saw after analyzing the description anyway. All feed back welcome of course.
 
Sanddragon
I had the same thoughts in mind. You were a little more detailed in your questions which gave more food for thought. Anyhow Dr. Chapel that's exactly as how I would have described getting off line and away from the attack. I will be on the outside of the right hand. After the strike through the muscle immediately sidekick the back of the right knee forcing the attacker down. The 3 zones are checked and ready to strike with a back knuckle to the kidney or base of the spine.
 
Originally posted by jfarnsworth
Sanddragon
I had the same thoughts in mind. You were a little more detailed in your questions which gave more food for thought. Anyhow Dr. Chapel that's exactly as how I would have described getting off line and away from the attack. I will be on the outside of the right hand. After the strike through the muscle immediately sidekick the back of the right knee forcing the attacker down. The 3 zones are checked and ready to strike with a back knuckle to the kidney or base of the spine.

That's a "hypothetical," and not the way it happens realistically. Stepping "off line" is a nice idea but without "width control" the cross can still be thrown. Remember the attack is a "straight punch" not a roundhouse. This means the attacker's impetus is forward and the cross is probably pre-determined. A good street fighter with mediocre skills will shoot the lead stiff "jab," and when you move shift his right foot and cross faster with his left than you think. That little "fan" of the ribs is just going to "piss 'em off."

Commercial kenpo is interesting. It has built in assumptions that it uses interchangebly according to what it hypothetically wants to work.

Let's see know. The way it teaches a "five swords" or "leaping crane" doesn't allow for width control of the crossing hand, so it [B/assumes[/B] it will work and ignors it. Than it makes a leap (no pun) and assumes everything after that will work.

"Assumption of Failure" is a part of com Kenpo. If this doesn't work just move on. If your first move doesn't work, how can you assume the next will? Especially if the first move is supposed to allow you to survive so you can get to the rest. You don't suddenly become more skilled after the first failure. I know this is high on the blasphemous list and is part of the selling process, and to a certain extent it is even true, but not on the level their selling.

Form over function?

Something to think about.
 
Originally posted by Doc
That's a "hypothetical," and not the way it happens realistically. Stepping "off line" is a nice idea but without "width control" the cross can still be thrown. Remember the attack is a "straight punch" not a roundhouse. This means the attacker's impetus is forward and the cross is probably pre-determined. A good street fighter with mediocre skills will shoot the lead stiff "jab," and when you move shift his right foot and cross faster with his left than you think. That little "fan" of the ribs is just going to "piss 'em off."

Commercial kenpo is interesting. It has built in assumptions that it uses interchangebly according to what it hypothetically wants to work.

Very good points and yes that adds much more to think about.

Actually however the attack is a right straight step thru punch. If some one threw a jab punch I would not even attempt leaping crane simply based on the attack. Also yes I agree completely with you if you merely fan the ribs (even a good rake) it will just piss almost everyone off.

Question though, who was talking about commercial Kenpo? I did not assume that the analysis was based on anything more then how the technique is written, which is based on the hypothetical. The basic has to be taught and learned, then the what if or reality can be explained. Isn't that the point you and others have to tried to get across? (serious question, not being arguementative)
 
Has anyone else received serious rug burn from performing the MKR across the ribs? I know it is prevalent if performed on someone wearing a canvas GI. It makes me just want to do a hammerfist to the front of the ribcage instead.
Any thoughts and comments?
 
Originally posted by jeffkyle
Has anyone else received serious rug burn from performing the MKR across the ribs? I know it is prevalent if performed on someone wearing a canvas GI. It makes me just want to do a hammerfist to the front of the ribcage instead.
Any thoughts and comments?

See my post above for my way of striking the ribs in this technique. I see 3 methods of delivery for the mid-knuckle:

* penetrating (from point of origin to target);
* twisting (rotational torque); and
* raking (dragging through the target)

In this technique I use all three (in the order above), although it's the second 2 that could cause gi burn. Can't say I've had that prob myself but I figure it's possible. A hammerfist would spread the impact over a greater surface area, although it would still get your hand to the place it needs to be to continue with the technique.
 
Originally posted by Sanddragon
Very good points and yes that adds much more to think about.

Actually however the attack is a right straight step thru punch.

A straight punch is a "stiff" jab like attack. The fact that you are considering or assume a street encounter with a punch will come off a "step through" reveals a lack of real world experience or instruction. The step through has its roots historically from a couple of places. Originally it was taken from the Japanese disciplines which are not based in reality but "do" (way) execution. The other is, on the commercial level, it is just easier for students when a punch starts from "way back there" giving them time to react (according to E.P.). However, a "straight stepping through" punch is one of the most unlikely of attack scenarios reserved primarily for so-called martial arts "trained" antagonists in self-defense arts, but really for traditional Korean/Japanese demos, not reality. I have never seen this used in any realistic scenario whether it be sport or actual street.

If some one threw a jab punch I would not even attempt leaping crane simply based on the attack.

I'm curious. You've told me what you would not do for a "jab," so what would you do should that attack occur?

Question though, who was talking about commercial Kenpo? I did not assume that the analysis was based on anything more then how the technique is written, which is based on the hypothetical.

You may not be aware of it but you were. The "hypothetical" situation you describe comes from one of those "manuals" created specifically for the commercial vehicle. That is not a bad thing but a good instructor has to take those "conceptual ideas" and structure them under the bright light of reality, so the student is functional. Many think the decriptors in those manuals are definitive and gospel, but they are only a starter point for the instructor and not for the student. Originally those manuals were part of a bigger "Instructors guide" that ultimately became a revenue stream and were/are sold to students for which they serve almost no purpose. Instructors now sell them and tell students to follow them to the letter and they stop teaching.

The basic has to be taught and learned, then the what if or reality can be explained. Isn't that the point you and others have to tried to get across? (serious question, not being arguementative)

You mean you consider reality after you learn the technique? No, that is not my perspective. I feel the "default technique model" should be absolutely functional from the beginning, and include realistic considerations at the time, and when it is learned. This also "excludes what if's" because they should not only not not be considered (according to Ed Parker) but actually on one level, are totally and completely unnecessary. That should give you plenty to think about.
 
Um thanks for that insightful yet unsolicited look at my real world experience and instruction. No matter how educational you felt you were being that was not needed.

However, I was only refering to how the technique was written by Mr. Parker. Never have I stated that I believe an attack would happen that way. Actually reality is that you are more then likely to have someone try and tackle you, or throw a wild roundhouse punch or probably never even see a punch if someone attacks you.

As for the straight punch is a "stiff" jab like attack I can agree to some extent however, I was again only going based on your previous post were only the term jab was used. As jab has usually implied a rapid quick punch that does not always have full extension. Where as a straight punch has usually implied a stiff (if you would) extension of the arm. I think we are just differing on terms here as my basis for this is years with a instructor that also competed in golden gloves boxing. Not that this means anything however was simply explaining how I saw the description.

The "default technique model" as you stated is what I was trying to express. I obviously did an extremely poor job at it however. No I agree with your thoughts on that completely. I believe that it should all be taught at one time and in that fashion. The ideal phase and reality should not be broken out but learned as basics.

Yours,
 
Originally posted by Sanddragon
Um thanks for that insightful yet unsolicited look at my real world experience and instruction. No matter how educational you felt you were being that was not needed.


No offense but without references to reality in a self defense art, what are we talking about? Reality and your experiences are important to the conversation.

However, I was only refering to how the technique was written by Mr. Parker. Never have I stated that I believe an attack would happen that way.

Then why are we talking about something that is not likely to happen in your opinion. Why are we talking about defending against an unlikely scenario?

Actually reality is that you are more then likely to have someone try and tackle you, or throw a wild roundhouse punch or probably never even see a punch if someone attacks you.

Depending on a variety of factors, that may or may not be true, but we were talking about a punch and how to defend it in a particular scenario requiring a move to the outside.

As for the straight punch is a "stiff" jab like attack I can agree to some extent however, I was again only going based on your previous post were only the term jab was used.

No you should re-read my post. I said "stiff jab like."

As jab has usually implied a rapid quick punch that does not always have full extension. Where as a straight punch has usually implied a stiff (if you would) extension of the arm.

That's what I said.

The "default technique model" as you stated is what I was trying to express. I obviously did an extremely poor job at it however.

No what you did is what many get caught up in. It's not your fault. It's engrained in the commercial process. Some teachers begin to think of the "manual technique" as unique instead of examining and formulating a realistic scenario based of the "idea" of the attack and defense, because it is not an "ideal." What they create than becomes your "ideal." And if they have done their job, it will be realistic, functional, and eliminate inconsequential "what-ifs." Of course this requires teachers with knowledge, experience, and skill to match their titles.

No I agree with your thoughts on that completely. I believe that it should all be taught at one time and in that fashion. The ideal phase and reality should not be broken out but learned as basics.

See? We don't disagree, but I will make you think. I ALWAYS blame the "teachers" not the students.
 
Originally posted by Doc
I feel the "default technique model" should be absolutely functional from the beginning, and include realistic considerations at the time, and when it is learned. This also "excludes what if's" because they should not only not be considered (according to Ed Parker) but actually on one level, are totally and completely unnecessary. That should give you plenty to think about.

I'm confused by this. It sounds like you're saying that "what if"s are unnecessary. But wasn't Ed Parker the one who taught different "phases" for learning self-defense techniques, including a "what-if" phase? Or are you just saying that in the first, or "ideal," phase "what if" scenarios shouldn't be considered?

Rich
 
Originally posted by SingingTiger
I'm confused by this. It sounds like you're saying that "what if"s are unnecessary.


Yes that's correct untill you reach higher levels beyond the commercial.

But wasn't Ed Parker the one who taught different "phases" for learning self-defense techniques, including a "what-if" phase?

Mass confusion here. Ed Parker spoke of the different phases but most confused when these phases occur and ended up trying to teach all three phases at the same time. They teach you a supposedly "ideal" technique, and before you learn it, they tell you of other possibilities. And then after you're really confused, they talk about grafting and tailoring. No wonder nobody learns anything.

Or are you just saying that in the first, or "ideal," phase "what if" scenarios shouldn't be considered?

That too. The "what-if" phase is not a student level. It is a level the instructor must consider when he is constructing his 'ideal." Furthermore "what-ifs" are about reaction not action.


Below are Mr. Parkers own words in Quotes on the Three Phases Concept of Learning and the ever present over worked and mis-understood what if. Taken from a later version of the I.K.K.A. Green Belt manual.


As you analyze a specific technique, study is best begun by dividing your efforts into phases. Phase I of the analytical process REQUIRES that you commence with an ideal or fixed situation.


This means that you are to select a combat situation that has been structured with a prescribed sequence of movements, and use this ideal technique as a basis.


In this phase, the term ideal implies that the situation is fixed and that the "what if" questions required in Phase II are NOT TO BE INCLUDED IN PHASE I.


Using the ideal technique or model situation as a reference point not only refers to the defensive moves you employ, but the anticipated reactions of your opponent as well. Technically then, it is the prescribed reactions of your opponent that completes the ideal technique. (not what he MIGHT do)


Therefore, the ideal techniques are built around seemingly inflexible and one dimensional assumptions for a good purpose. They provide us with a basis from which we may begin our analytical process, (like a control model in any reliable scientific experiment). Prescribed techniques applied to prescribed reactions are the keys that make a basic technique ideal or fixed.



In Phase I, structuring an ideal technique requires selecting a combat situation that you wish to analyze. Contained within the technique should be fixed moves of defense, offense, and the anticipated reactions that can stem from them.


These, so called ideal or fixed situations when analyzed and formulated properly should effectively take into consideration minor alterations of combat to make phase I significantly able to stand alone.

This is an area of massive confusion. Mr. Parker was not speaking from the position of the STUDENT or even most TEACHERS. He is speaking to those who desire to create their own techniques, and the process they should use, while utilizing His System as a Base or starting point. American Kenpo is supposed to teach you how to create your own style. When you CREATE techniques, what ifs take on a significant importance. In the learning process however, students do not, and should not have the luxury of confusing themselves entertaining such infinite possibilities.

Moreover, Phase I actually begins after or instead of the motion based commercial level and encompasses everything from beginner to black belt. Therefore, Phase II or what ifs should not be introduced into the process until you have mastered ALL of Phase I information. To do so would be like trying to spell a word that requires a letter in a part of the alphabet, you havent learned yet. So-called what ifs in Phase I are not actually what ifs. They are DIFFERENT techniques with a similar offensive theme. These questions are covered as you move upward in the levels of Phase I. i.e. Broken Ram answers questions similar to Charging Ram. In other words, the true what if is not what might he do but, understanding what he will do when I hit him. Or simply, what if is NOT action, but re-action.

That should keep you busy for a while.
 
Doc,

Thanks very much for the quotes. Very interesting and informative.

Rich
 
Originally posted by Doc
... I will make you think. I ALWAYS blame the "teachers" not the students.

I'm curious to know Dr. Chapel at what point do you feel the student should be asking or understanding or presented the point of the "why"'s?

Look at green belt saying #5.
The man who know "how" will always be a student, but the man who knows "why" will continue to be the instructor.

I read your theory in the other thread down yonder about how you certify your students this is why I ask this question.
:asian:
 
Originally posted by jfarnsworth
I'm curious to know Dr. Chapel at what point do you feel the student should be asking or understanding or presented the point of the "why"'s?

Look at green belt saying #5.
The man who know "how" will always be a student, but the man who knows "why" will continue to be the instructor.

I read your theory in the other thread down yonder about how you certify your students this is why I ask this question.
:asian:

As I posted before, students get enough of the "why" as they learn to assist in the process, but no more than they need to be functional. Teacher certifications are a process that usually reaches complete status at 3rd degree. Instructors are certified a course at a time, and must continue to educate and update. Numerical ranks have no significance in the process, because they all are honorary. Teacher certifications are what most want, however some of my mature students are satified with rank only, but then they don't teach.

As far as the quote goes, "The man who know "how" will always be a student, but the man who knows "why" will continue to be the instructor."

If a teacher isn't both, sooner or later he'll be neither.
 
Originally posted by Doc
If a teacher isn't both, sooner or later he'll be neither.

Dr. Chapel as I stated before I like the idea behind the certification thing. I believe that's a fantastic way to make people earn their rank and keep it. Thumbs up for enforcing such a matter. As you stated some students elected not to teach yet settle for where their at. Are there two types of certificates you follow for both crowds? How do you seperate the curriculum for both? If you have two students that start around the same time and they each follow seperate curriculums does one get a promotion faster since they do not get involved in the instructor program?
 

Latest Discussions

Back
Top