Original Attacks in SKK

[RevIV]

I was told that combo #2 was originally done off a overhand right - left foot forward. As for Sijo Gascon creating the first 26 combinations I would have to hesitate on that one. I do believe that there are techs. in there that he taught but i am not sure which ones. SGM Pesare taught me some of his combinations - his #3 is a defense to 2 people - one in front and the other behind (the guy behind gets hit with 2 elbows). Also his version of 19 fights 2 people. there is an add on there. SGM Pesare told me he only teaches 17 combinations now.

 

[marlon]

I was told that combo #2 was originally done off a overhand right - left foot forward. As for Sijo Gascon creating the first 26 combinations I would have to hesitate on that one. I do believe that there are techs. in there that he taught but i am not sure which ones. SGM Pesare taught me some of his combinations - his #3 is a defense to 2 people - one in front and the other behind (the guy behind gets hit with 2 elbows). Also his version of 19 fights 2 people. there is an add on there. SGM Pesare told me he only teaches 17 combinations now.

Thanks for the onto master Dwire, what are the combos he teaches now and off of what type attacks?
Respectfully,
Marlon

 

[MJS]

I was told that combo #2 was originally done off a overhand right - left foot forward. As for Sijo Gascon creating the first 26 combinations I would have to hesitate on that one. I do believe that there are techs. in there that he taught but i am not sure which ones. SGM Pesare taught me some of his combinations - his #3 is a defense to 2 people - one in front and the other behind (the guy behind gets hit with 2 elbows). Also his version of 19 fights 2 people. there is an add on there. SGM Pesare told me he only teaches 17 combinations now.

Am I safe to assume that the tech. would also have differences compared to what we see when its done off of a straight right? If so, out of curiosity, what are the differences?

Mike

 

[Matt]

Am I safe to assume that the tech. would also have differences compared to what we see when its done off of a straight right? If so, out of curiosity, what are the differences?

Mike

It works better.:ultracool

 

[MJS]

It works better.:ultracool

Ok, you have my attention. More details please. :ultracool

 

[RevIV]

Mike, i dont understand, that is the point. The tech. works better off the overhand right. In SKK we have tried to make all the techs. work off the straight punch, and it does not seem right to me and it def. does not help the students all the time. I have heard the comment about if you can block a straight step through punch you can block anything. I heard it through the NCK groups and through the Villari groups - (which would make sense in the lineage) But does a boxer use the same block for a jab/cross/hook and uppercut? No. 108 combinations all off a straight right, then an unlimited amount of Kempo punch techs. off a straight punch - a little overkill and not in the good way. If every tech. is off the straight punch it makes for a no brainer when doing techs. in a big group.

 

[amcgroup]

There appears to be a misconception in the theory behind the SKK combos. Although the combos were NOT originally developed by SKK but from GM Villari's previous training.

First of all I was told by GM Villari that the combinations were develpoed to teach a specific mover per combination, many of the strikes or kicks are simply a follow up in the technique.

Again if you can block, evade or disable a straight punch then you can easily apply a similiar defensive technique to a more circular attack such as a roundhouse punch which has farther and longer to travel due to the direction.

The combinations were not designed to be applied exactly as taught in a street situation but again as a training tool to teach something specific.

One of the first combinations is #6. The technique is designed to teach an evasive reaction to the attack.

As the straight punch comes in you prepare to counter with a front ball kick to the groin or lower abdomen. When you go to the flamingo position to execute the kick you are actually evading the straight punch via the position. the kick is the response AFTER the evasion which is the training point in the technique.

#7 is similiarly an evasion by stepping out away from a straight punch and executing the side kick.

Again all of this is just considered training exercises.

Doing #6 against a right roundhouse strike would work by the speed and linear attack of the responding front kick but would have no evasion properties because the punch is coming from a circular fashion.

Again the theory in SKK or NCK is if you can defeat a straight punch you can then apply your knowledge and training to any of the other possible attacks and improvise as needed.

I'm sure people may disagree with my evaluation of the Combinations but what I stated is exactly what I was told by GM Villari.

 

[MJS]

Mike, i dont understand, that is the point. The tech. works better off the overhand right. In SKK we have tried to make all the techs. work off the straight punch, and it does not seem right to me and it def. does not help the students all the time. I have heard the comment about if you can block a straight step through punch you can block anything. I heard it through the NCK groups and through the Villari groups - (which would make sense in the lineage) But does a boxer use the same block for a jab/cross/hook and uppercut? No. 108 combinations all off a straight right, then an unlimited amount of Kempo punch techs. off a straight punch - a little overkill and not in the good way. If every tech. is off the straight punch it makes for a no brainer when doing techs. in a big group.

Ok, points taken. I guess the way I look at this is...if someone is going to change something, I'd think it'd be better to change it for the better, not make it worse. So, at some point, people taught the techs. from various types of punches, but, at least at the SKK school I was training at, it went to all straight punches. Why? Why not keep it the way it was, especially if it was better?

That is what I'm asking. I'm also asking if the tech. was taught differently for the overhead punch. If so, I thought we could discuss the variations.

 

[RevIV]

Ok, points taken. I guess the way I look at this is...if someone is going to change something, I'd think it'd be better to change it for the better, not make it worse. So, at some point, people taught the techs. from various types of punches, but, at least at the SKK school I was training at, it went to all straight punches. Why? Why not keep it the way it was, especially if it was better?

That is what I'm asking. I'm also asking if the tech. was taught differently for the overhead punch. If so, I thought we could discuss the variations.

refer to last sentence of last post for answer on straight punches. as for #2, the tech. taught for the straight punch and roundhouse are the same - which in my opinion(we not what this means) it works better with the roundhouse scenario.

 

[DavidCC]

Ok, points taken. I guess the way I look at this is...if someone is going to change something, I'd think it'd be better to change it for the better, not make it worse. So, at some point, people taught the techs. from various types of punches, but, at least at the SKK school I was training at, it went to all straight punches. Why? Why not keep it the way it was, especially if it was better?

That is what I'm asking. I'm also asking if the tech. was taught differently for the overhead punch. If so, I thought we could discuss the variations.

because it was easier and safer for the general population of consumers that they wanted to have as customers: who are generally not very athletic, don't want to get hit, and 90% or more of whom will never ever be in a situation where they will discover the true impact of these changes on their ability to defend themsevles.

I think since the rise of MMA many people who trained that way have realized that something is missing and are trying to go back and find what was given up.

 

[LawDog]

As taught during the early 70's the early SKK type of Kenpos and Combinations were practiced against a right half moon cross step and a right front 2 knuckle.
Very redundant.
One of the mindsets behind this idea was to train the defender to counter attack after the rear hand "big bomb" was thrown.
With a few modifications they will work well against almost any attack and not just one.
:ubercool:

 

[MJS]

refer to last sentence of last post for answer on straight punches. as for #2, the tech. taught for the straight punch and roundhouse are the same - which in my opinion(we not what this means) it works better with the roundhouse scenario.

Yup, makes sense. Now that I think about it, this is just what we were talking about in that other thread that I linked back on page 1 of this thread.

 

[MJS]

because it was easier and safer for the general population of consumers that they wanted to have as customers: who are generally not very athletic, don't want to get hit, and 90% or more of whom will never ever be in a situation where they will discover the true impact of these changes on their ability to defend themsevles.

I think since the rise of MMA many people who trained that way have realized that something is missing and are trying to go back and find what was given up.

A shame though, because IMO, its folks like that, that should not be in a Kenpo class, let alone any MA class. Lets see....you're taking martial arts, but....you dont wanna get hit???:idunno: And yes, I know the other song and dance....you know, all the other benefits that come from training. Just sucks that those that are there to actually learn something, have to get some toned down, watered down version, because those that belong in the knitting class, are catered to. Thank God there are still some "old school" schools left.

 

[amcgroup]

And yes, I know the other" song and dance "....you know, all the other benefits that come from training. Just sucks that those that are there to actually learn something, have to get some toned down, watered down version, because those that belong in the knitting class, are catered to. Thank God there are still some "old school" schools left. [/quote]

Combinations, punch techniques etc. are just training exercises to teach specific response skills, thats all.

Not designed as real complete responses, just to teach specific response skills.

Complete training consists of all aspects of fighting; learning techniques, developing muscle memory, learning to take and give attacks whether they be strikes, kicks, submissions or grappling, developing the internal and external skills and then putting it all together.

Alot of work, thats why it takes alot of time and "training" to develop.

Part of "old school" training is to learn what your taught and then seek more, either from your instructors or your own self development. To push yourself and then test your skills, whether that be in organized competition or the street.

When your taught something take what you want and then either accept it as is or expand on it.

The purpose of this experience is to develop yourself, styles and systems are only a means to and end not the end.

If your unhappy with your teachers don't blame the style or the teachers only yourself. There is no absolute answer from anyone but you.

As an instructor I know its difficult to run a group class that works for all students. Group classes have to be structured to everyone in the class so some students unfortunately get less of a training experience then others due to their skill level, unfortunate but reality, you can't teach too far on either side of the spectrum but try and run a complete class to benefit the group.

Best learning experience is from private lessons but not all dojo's offer them.

The original attacks and response techniques in SKK were developed by men that used them in the street, we can either accept their teachings which came from experience or prove they were wrong. Not in the dojo or the ring but in the street where these systems were developed.

I know my training, as simplistic as the early training was, works for me.

 

[RevIV]

As an instructor I know its difficult to run a group class that works for all students. Group classes have to be structured to everyone in the class so some students unfortunately get less of a training experience then others due to their skill level, unfortunate but reality, you can't teach too far on either side of the spectrum but try and run a complete class to benefit the group.

So who are you AMC? r u still teaching in the area?

Jesse

 

[MJS]

And yes, I know the other" song and dance "....you know, all the other benefits that come from training. Just sucks that those that are there to actually learn something, have to get some toned down, watered down version, because those that belong in the knitting class, are catered to. Thank God there are still some "old school" schools left.

Combinations, punch techniques etc. are just training exercises to teach specific response skills, thats all.

Not designed as real complete responses, just to teach specific response skills.

Complete training consists of all aspects of fighting; learning techniques, developing muscle memory, learning to take and give attacks whether they be strikes, kicks, submissions or grappling, developing the internal and external skills and then putting it all together.

Alot of work, thats why it takes alot of time and "training" to develop.

Part of "old school" training is to learn what your taught and then seek more, either from your instructors or your own self development. To push yourself and then test your skills, whether that be in organized competition or the street.

When your taught something take what you want and then either accept it as is or expand on it.

The purpose of this experience is to develop yourself, styles and systems are only a means to and end not the end.

Agreed. I've said this to students many times...that the techs. are designed to give a base to work from, but once you understand the strikes, kicks, blocks, movement, etc., then you should be thinking on your own, and not so bound by the set techs. I had, in an earlier post in this thread, posted a link to another thread, which was discussing the other attacks that the combos/DMs, can be used against. It generated some good discussion. I was simply curious as to why, if the original attack was an overhead punch, and the tech. worked better for that attack, why change it to a straight right? As I said, when I was training at a Villari school, all of the combos were taught off of a straight right. We never worked #1 off of anything else, yet if you look at that other thread, you'll see a variety of things that #1 could be used against. With some slight modifications I'm sure we can think of a number of things the combos can be used against.

If your unhappy with your teachers don't blame the style or the teachers only yourself. There is no absolute answer from anyone but you.

Never said I was unhappy. While I no longer train SKK, I give credit where its due, and credit that school for getting me started in the arts. I've had the chance to move on to the Parker system, and currently Tracy. I've also had the chance to meet, train and become friends with many wonderful people. So being unhappy is far from true...I'm very happy with my current teacher and training.

As an instructor I know its difficult to run a group class that works for all students. Group classes have to be structured to everyone in the class so some students unfortunately get less of a training experience then others due to their skill level, unfortunate but reality, you can't teach too far on either side of the spectrum but try and run a complete class to benefit the group.

True. Of course, IMO, if you're billing your school as a place that teaches effective SD, then I feel that is what should be taught. Not some watered down, McDojo material. If that is what someone wants, I'm sure the inst. could easily point them to another school.

Best learning experience is from private lessons but not all dojo's offer them.

Couldn't agree more!!! I take 1 a week, in addition to group classes. I have the chance to take my training to another level, by working on things that are not normally covered as part of the material.

The original attacks and response techniques in SKK were developed by men that used them in the street, we can either accept their teachings which came from experience or prove they were wrong. Not in the dojo or the ring but in the street where these systems were developed.

I know my training, as simplistic as the early training was, works for me.

Not sure who you are, or who you've trained with, but it seems to me, just going on your last few posts in this thread, that you've been around for quite some time. So, that being said, let me ask you this...If the original teachings, as you said, proved effective for those men, we could assume that they'd still be effective in todays world. If that is the case, and there were set techs for set attacks, why change it so drastically? I mean, its one thing if something is being changed for the better...that I can see. But if something is changed, just for the sake of changing...no, that I can't see.

 

[amcgroup]

Appreciate your responses and questions.

I don't know what was changed earlier I only know what I was taught.

I began training in the 1970's in a number of systems including Chinese Kenpo, American boxing, kick boxing and Tae Kwon Do and was awarded my BB in 1980.

My personal experience has shown me that my training along with my own personal development has worked. I spent many years training in Chinese Kenpo later renamed SKK.

All punch combinations were taught from a straight right, step through punch. Many of the defensive techniques taught did not feel right based on the attack. I asked my instructors why every attack was the same and i was told that if you could defend against the straight walk through attack you could then adapt your training to defend against any strike. Attacks were defended from both sides as you advanced in rank.

I took my training for what it was, training.

I was a fulltime instructor until 1981 and then left for a job in law enforcement.

During my LE career I was unfortunately, or fortunately in numerous physical encounters whether they be in bars, domestics, on the street or during drug raids.

During eack encounter I reacted by my training that I learned in MA, not the police academy. I was able to end each encounter by defeating and or controlling the assailant. I credit my MA training with my ability to win in every situation.

So from my personal experience my training worked for me. That being said my training included my own quest for knowledge that I searched for and found outside of my regular dojo training. It also includes a life long desire to train all aspects of fighting; physical, mental and internal develpoment.

What I have attained has taken me many years and again has worked for me. We are all different and we will each develop as individuals. My experience may differ greatly from someone else's.

After a long delay i recently began teaching again and look forward to teaching and continuing to learn.

Again this is an individual journey with no end and what works for one may not work for another. I was lucky to be a student of two great martial artists

 

[sifubry]

I agree that there are defenses against right or left punch, grabs, clubs and knives. I noticed that no one mentioned kempo punch techniques against various strikes.

When I was training in the 80s, we had "kempos" for front kick, round house, spinning backkick and two (or three) punches. Our kempos were never numbered. You just collected what you could remember. Some were lame but others were good...especially those against kicks and other strikes.

We did not have many against kicks but there they were. Did anyone else have this experience? I can't believe we were the only ones in SKK that did that.

BTW, I think SKK needs more or at least standardized techniques for "kempos" against kicks. And no, I'm not going to do an X block against a front kick.

In another style I trained, each of the techniques had a different strike. Some were kicks (only front and side), the others were punch or punches. Just FYI for comparison. That style only had 5 kata in the curriculum...about the length of a long Kempo kata.

 

[amcgroup]

Yes in my training Kenpo techniques were against various strikes, kicks included and you are correct they were not numbered or specifically identified but taught as multiple defense techniques against multiple types of attacks.

During rank testing you were required to know a certain amount of techniques against the various attacks to progress.

I think this is the misunderstanding in training, the numbered combo's were designed to teach specific attributes like evasions, the freestyle Kenpo tech's were taught to expand training by covering different attacks.

It appears that some instructors are not teaching the system as intended, maybe this is due to all of the breakoff systems or maybe its just easier to mass market.

Not knocking anyone just relaying how the system used to be taught.

When it was originally taught it covered all types of attacks and multiple opponents, I agree if the training is now all just against the straight step through attack then it is not really covering various attacks and how to react.

 

[MJS]

Appreciate your responses and questions.

I don't know what was changed earlier I only know what I was taught.

I began training in the 1970's in a number of systems including Chinese Kenpo, American boxing, kick boxing and Tae Kwon Do and was awarded my BB in 1980.

My personal experience has shown me that my training along with my own personal development has worked. I spent many years training in Chinese Kenpo later renamed SKK.

All punch combinations were taught from a straight right, step through punch. Many of the defensive techniques taught did not feel right based on the attack. I asked my instructors why every attack was the same and i was told that if you could defend against the straight walk through attack you could then adapt your training to defend against any strike. Attacks were defended from both sides as you advanced in rank.

I took my training for what it was, training.

I was a fulltime instructor until 1981 and then left for a job in law enforcement.

During my LE career I was unfortunately, or fortunately in numerous physical encounters whether they be in bars, domestics, on the street or during drug raids.

During eack encounter I reacted by my training that I learned in MA, not the police academy. I was able to end each encounter by defeating and or controlling the assailant. I credit my MA training with my ability to win in every situation.

So from my personal experience my training worked for me. That being said my training included my own quest for knowledge that I searched for and found outside of my regular dojo training. It also includes a life long desire to train all aspects of fighting; physical, mental and internal develpoment.

What I have attained has taken me many years and again has worked for me. We are all different and we will each develop as individuals. My experience may differ greatly from someone else's.

After a long delay i recently began teaching again and look forward to teaching and continuing to learn.

Again this is an individual journey with no end and what works for one may not work for another. I was lucky to be a student of two great martial artists

So it looks like we were taught the same. Interestingly enough, when I left the SKK system, and went to the Parker system, I was amazed at what I saw. There were a huge assortment of techs. at each belt level, addressing various attacks. Again, while those are just teaching you a foundation, it did provide the student with an example, if you will, of a possible solution to say a roundhouse punch.

Now, granted, there were times in technique lines, where I'd have someone attack a student, fully knowing that the student did not know a specific defense for what was thrown. When I got the deer in the headlights look, I asked if they knew how to block, punch, kick, etc. to which they said yes. So, once they knew what I was saying, while they didn't do a numbered or named tech., they still defended themselves.