Parting Wings

[Carol]

Reading this, I'm getting the impression that you're saying that there is a difference between the way you were taught and the way others were taught. This goes back to my question: Why was there a difference? I'm not talking about doing the techniques different. That would be for example, one person doing a swordhand and one doing a hammerfist. Same tech. just different moves. No, I'm talking about the nature of the attack.

Mike

When I posed the question of why the technique was changed to a push, he largely said it was because it was easier to teach. "Easeir to teach" can mean a lot of things. but when my classmates ask "Why don't we do that anymore, sir?" the answer is almost always "Liability" or "Insurance".

I sure as heck don't want to turn on the TV and hear some muckraker say...

"Is YOUR child safe? In this Martial Arts academy, adult men are specifically instructed to give what the academy calls a 'two handed grab' to the chests of girls as young as 13."

Given that both attorneys and journalists can be predatory towards anything when there is money to be had...it's conceivable to me that such a modification was made (by either schools or their insurance companies) to reduce a school's risk.

If I'm out of line by projecting this...please let me know. MA isn't my business and I'd graciously welcome any corrections.

 

[michaeledward]

For what it's worth.

On page 74-75 of Infinite Insights into Kenpo - Volume 5 - Mental & Physical Applications, Mr. Parker has Parting Wings listed as a "Front Two-Hand Push"; fitting nicely into the 'PUSH' category on the Web of Knowledge.

For what it's worth.

 

[Flying Crane]

When I posed the question of why the technique was changed to a push, he largely said it was because it was easier to teach. "Easeir to teach" can mean a lot of things. but when my classmates ask "Why don't we do that anymore, sir?" the answer is almost always "Liability" or "Insurance".

I sure as heck don't want to turn on the TV and hear some muckraker say...

"Is YOUR child safe? In this Martial Arts academy, adult men are specifically instructed to give what the academy calls a 'two handed grab' to the chests of girls as young as 13."

Given that both attorneys and journalists can be predatory towards anything when there is money to be had...it's conceivable to me that such a modification was made (by either schools or their insurance companies) to reduce a school's risk.

If I'm out of line by projecting this...please let me know. MA isn't my business and I'd graciously welcome any corrections.

This raises the question of which was the original attack for this technique, and to what was it changed. In Tracy's, we learned this technique as "Flashing Daggers", and it is taught as a defense against a push. Tracys were among the earliest of Mr. Parkers students, and they claim to have kept everything the same, as they learned it from Mr. Parker. Perhaps it was later that Mr. Parker rethought the technique and decided that it is more effective, with some modifications, against an attempted front bearhug.

The fact that many other of Mr. Parker's students have been teaching this technique as a defense against a push, as seen thru this discussion, would verify my thought. These people also would have learned it as a defense against a push, prior to Mr. Parker's decision to change it.

 

[Carol]

This raises the question of which was the original attack for this technique, and to what was it changed.

That question also makes me wonder what the change means...does it mean the exclusion of the other attack? I don't see how one-size-fits-all works very well.

Personally, I find it more interesting to see how broadly a technique can be used. Mr. Parker may not have taught neither Mr. Chapel nor Mr. Tracy that Parting Wings is a defence against a grope, for example. Yet, a grope is a realistic threat to a woman, and Parting Wings seems to be an effective response to such a threat. For you gents, such a connection is of little value. For us ladies, there is a tremendous value.

 

[Flying Crane]

That question also makes me wonder what the change means...does it mean the exclusion of the other attack? I don't see how one-size-fits-all works very well.

Personally, I find it more interesting to see how broadly a technique can be used.

Beautiful insight. Well done.

 

[Flying Crane]

Personally, I find it more interesting to see how broadly a technique can be used.

Another thought on this line: How about against a punch? Change the splitting move to an extended outward block, and proceed as normal. Where else could this technique work? Any further thoughts?

How about a shoulder grab with a punch to your face, from the front?
How about a shoulder grab from the side?

 

[Dark Kenpo Lord]

When I posed the question of why the technique was changed to a push, he largely said it was because it was easier to teach. "Easeir to teach" can mean a lot of things. but when my classmates ask "Why don't we do that anymore, sir?" the answer is almost always "Liability" or "Insurance".

I sure as heck don't want to turn on the TV and hear some muckraker say...

"Is YOUR child safe? In this Martial Arts academy, adult men are specifically instructed to give what the academy calls a 'two handed grab' to the chests of girls as young as 13."

Given that both attorneys and journalists can be predatory towards anything when there is money to be had...it's conceivable to me that such a modification was made (by either schools or their insurance companies) to reduce a school's risk.

If I'm out of line by projecting this...please let me know. MA isn't my business and I'd graciously welcome any corrections.

I must say, you have some real issues regarding your chest for some reason, and I'm happy you're not, nor will ever be, one of my students if you percieve the attacks of the techniques as sexual assaults by the instructors. I teach them all the same, boys, girls, women, and men, and they will learn to defend themselves appropriately, if not, they're free to leave and good riddance.

DarK Lord

 

[Flying Crane]

I'm happy you're not, nor will ever be, one of my students

I suspect that for many, the feeling is mutual.

While many here try to add to the discussion in a polite and reasonable way, others seem unable to show basic manners while expressing disagreement.

 

[MJS]

When I posed the question of why the technique was changed to a push, he largely said it was because it was easier to teach. "Easeir to teach" can mean a lot of things. but when my classmates ask "Why don't we do that anymore, sir?" the answer is almost always "Liability" or "Insurance".

I sure as heck don't want to turn on the TV and hear some muckraker say...

"Is YOUR child safe? In this Martial Arts academy, adult men are specifically instructed to give what the academy calls a 'two handed grab' to the chests of girls as young as 13."

Given that both attorneys and journalists can be predatory towards anything when there is money to be had...it's conceivable to me that such a modification was made (by either schools or their insurance companies) to reduce a school's risk.

If I'm out of line by projecting this...please let me know. MA isn't my business and I'd graciously welcome any corrections.

One thing that is often misunderstood about the arts, is that they are and always will be a contact activity. That being said, I've seen both parents and students taken aback by some of the things that are taught. This is one of the main reasons why it is so important to understand what is involved in this type of training.

I certainly see the concern of parents and female students if they're 'grabbed' by a male. The thing to keep in mind though is that it is up to the instructor to keep everything on a professional level. Also, if a female is going to be attacked, it will most likely be by a male, not by another female. That being said, to avoid training with a male, is doing the female student a great dis-service.

People enroll in the arts for many different reasons. However, and I'll say it again, it is going to involve contact. If someone is serious about self defense, then that student needs to be ready for some contact. If this is an issue, then IMO, the arts are not the best activity for them.

Mike

 

[Dan G]

Well sir, changing the attack of the technique means the aggressor must try to encircle you with his arms, and he will try to bring them together to close on you. This anatomical action itself will allow you to 'brace' and stop his arms IF you proceed with your move forward, and attack his arm(s) at a 45-degree angle. And because of what he physically attempting to do, he will unwitingly becuase of your response limit his own depth, and set himself up for the initial retaliation move. Everything up to this point would be considered Surviving The Initial Assault.

Keep in mind what I have shared in only the beginning and we do the technique differently from there, but the motion 'ideas' will function to an extent after the attack and initial move modification.

Check it out Dan and let me know what you find.

Checked it out fairly thoroughly and it worked very well for both me and my training partner. It stopped the attacker decisively when the attack was made with a committed intent to encircle, and also worked well for an attack with committed intent to grab the defender's upper arms/shoulders and close in.

In both cases we found it worked well when the blocks (outward extended with clenched fists) were executed to the upper arms of the attacker.

Making sure the blocks passes through the full path of motion seems pretty critical to avoid the attackers head becoming a problem if the defender executes too slowly. If the attacker doesn't flinch then it seems to create a kind of "head in the fan" effect for the attacker if I am too slow in executing the blocks - not an ideal outcome, but opens up other options...

Once the blocks land then the technique works a treat unless the attacker relaxes their arms in anticipation of the impact but still continues with their forward momentum - (I suspect that this is a phenomenon that is more likely to occur in the training environment than in a confrontation?:idunno: ). When that happens then there remained a risk of a collision of heads. Similarly too much downward motion to the blocks seemed less effective in stopping momentum.

Having executed the double blocks and stopped the attacker in his tracks I could see no earthly reason to continue with the remaining technique sequence of Parting Wings as I know it - however my close position to the attacker, and the position of my hands made the attackers head very vulnerable, particularly to control manipulation work, and my inclination today was to close in further, execute left and right palm heels to the head and move into Tripping Arrow (possibly because we had been working on that technique earlier in the day)

Alternatively executing the blocks, executing a kick to the lower abdomen or executing a knee to the groin or solar plexus (depending on range) to assist with a pull down on the head, and opening up the attacker for repeated knees to the face seemed to work OK...

I thoroughly enjoyed the homework, and it has got me thinking hard...

Many thanks
Dan

 

[Doc]

Checked it out fairly thoroughly and it worked very well for both me and my training partner. It stopped the attacker decisively when the attack was made with a committed intent to encircle, and also worked well for an attack with committed intent to grab the defender's upper arms/shoulders and close in.

In both cases we found it worked well when the blocks (outward extended with clenched fists) were executed to the upper arms of the attacker.

Making sure the blocks passes through the full path of motion seems pretty critical to avoid the attackers head becoming a problem if the defender executes too slowly. If the attacker doesn't flinch then it seems to create a kind of "head in the fan" effect for the attacker if I am too slow in executing the blocks - not an ideal outcome, but opens up other options...

Once the blocks land then the technique works a treat unless the attacker relaxes their arms in anticipation of the impact but still continues with their forward momentum - (I suspect that this is a phenomenon that is more likely to occur in the training environment than in a confrontation?:idunno: ). When that happens then there remained a risk of a collision of heads. Similarly too much downward motion to the blocks seemed less effective in stopping momentum.

Having executed the double blocks and stopped the attacker in his tracks I could see no earthly reason to continue with the remaining technique sequence of Parting Wings as I know it - however my close position to the attacker, and the position of my hands made the attackers head very vulnerable, particularly to control manipulation work, and my inclination today was to close in further, execute left and right palm heels to the head and move into Tripping Arrow (possibly because we had been working on that technique earlier in the day)

Alternatively executing the blocks, executing a kick to the lower abdomen or executing a knee to the groin or solar plexus (depending on range) to assist with a pull down on the head, and opening up the attacker for repeated knees to the face seemed to work OK...

I thoroughly enjoyed the homework, and it has got me thinking hard...

Many thanks
Dan

Well sir what would be your advice for those who "say" they did the experiment but "it didn't work." ? Of course we know nothings works if you don't want it to.

Oh, Shortay said she's looking forward to the new training partner. We roughed her up pretty good last night making sure techniques are functional.

 

[Doc]

This raises the question of which was the original attack for this technique, and to what was it changed. In Tracy's, we learned this technique as "Flashing Daggers", and it is taught as a defense against a push. Tracys were among the earliest of Mr. Parkers students, and they claim to have kept everything the same, as they learned it from Mr. Parker. Perhaps it was later that Mr. Parker rethought the technique and decided that it is more effective, with some modifications, against an attempted front bearhug.

The fact that many other of Mr. Parker's students have been teaching this technique as a defense against a push, as seen thru this discussion, would verify my thought. These people also would have learned it as a defense against a push, prior to Mr. Parker's decision to change it.

The technique was changed in my understanding simply because it was dysfuctional. I understand your concerns and I pay close attention to my female students because there are many assaults that are unique to the female gender. However you must develop a feelng of trust with your teacher and training partners, much like what would ne necessary in learning "social dancing," which I find "ironic."

 

[Doc]

When you said this:



it leads one to believe that the tech. Parting Wings, was not designed for a push, but instead something else. DS= Delayed Sword. In the pin vs. check thread, you made mention of this tech. being for a flank attack. Here is what you said:



Post 49 in this thread
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=30549&page=4

Again, it appears that the nature of the attack is very different from what 99% of the people out there are doing. My question is: Why are you doing it one way, while the others are all doing it the same? Did Parker have 2 versions of his art? Did he teach certain people certain things and leave others in the dark?



Well, looking at the posts in a few different threads, I'd say that it is about what works and what does not, and IMHO, it seems like we should care. As for the experiment, I never said that I would not try it. I plan on experimenting next time I'm in class.



Reading this, I'm getting the impression that you're saying that there is a difference between the way you were taught and the way others were taught. This goes back to my question: Why was there a difference? I'm not talking about doing the techniques different. That would be for example, one person doing a swordhand and one doing a hammerfist. Same tech. just different moves. No, I'm talking about the nature of the attack.



Actually, it is relevant, because again, it seems like there is a difference.




Why am I having this discussion? Well, when someone posts a description of a technique, how they do it, etc., and then someone states that A) the nature of the attack is wrong or B) moves are not going to work unless they are done this way, it certainly raises some questions. I'll say again, it appears that there is a difference in the way things were done.

Mike

I'm sorry sir, but I really don't understand what you want. You seem to simply be repeating what I have already said, but appear to suggest because you are saying it that suddenly it has a different meaning. Sorry but I'm dense on this, and I believe I've answered all of your questions. As for the thread you posted, it was about Crossing Talon, not Delayed Sword. Perhaps if you read a thread I recently posted on KenpoTalk it will help you to understand better.
http://www.kenpotalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1380

 

[Flying Crane]

The technique was changed in my understanding simply because it was dysfuctional.

well, this would be the most logical reason to make a change.

 

[Dark Kenpo Lord]

Well sir what would be your advice for those who "say" they did the experiment but "it didn't work." ? Of course we know nothings works if you don't want it to.

You see, that's your whole bag, you preempt everything you do, a sort of mild hypnosis, and there are many others that do this as well. As a LEO, I'm sure you've seen vice members pop so called mediums, you know, the people telling you exactly what you want to hear and believing every word. Just for the record, I neither wanted it to work, or not to work, I gave it a neutral set up and attempt, twice no less.

And yes, things work even if you don't want them to, being a gun fanatic, I'm sure you've seen unloaded weapons go off??????

DarK LorD

 

[Dan G]

Well sir what would be your advice for those who "say" they did the experiment but "it didn't work." ? Of course we know nothings works if you don't want it to.

I wouldn't give advice, but if I were watching I'd be looking for where the attacker's arms normally fall when the defender executes and outward extended block. If they drop down rather than bounce off on a horizontal plane then it would explain why the forward momentum continues when the double block is executed. If the defender generates serious power then even a small degree of downward direction to the force might be accelerating the attacker's head forward and they would need to adjust the direction of force generated by the block, or do a different technique.
I'd be looking at where the blocks are targeted as well, they seem to me to generate more force into the attackers body when performed above the elbow.

I'd also consider if the training partner is pretty used to hard training and might be unconsciously softening the arms during the attack at the last moment.

The technique definitely works, I like the step in version, I have short arms and decent body weight (i.e round midget ) so getting in close generally feels more natural to me.

Oh, Shortay said she's looking forward to the new training partner. We roughed her up pretty good last night making sure techniques are functional.

Excellent news - looks like we're all going to get knocked about a bit when she gets back.:boxing:

Regards,

Dan

 

[Carol]

I must say, you have some real issues regarding your chest for some reason, and I'm happy you're not, nor will ever be, one of my students if you percieve the attacks of the techniques as sexual assaults by the instructors. I teach them all the same, boys, girls, women, and men, and they will learn to defend themselves appropriately, if not, they're free to leave and good riddance.

DarK Lord

OK, that's one vote for me talking out of my backside.

Dark Lord, sir, you may not consider me to be your student, yet I am learning quite a bit from you...and Doc, and Mike, and Flying Crane, and Dan and everyone else wathcing me stumble around MT making a fool of myself.

Kenpo has made me tough enough to embarass myself on the internet without fear. Maybe someday I'll be tough enough to face a real attacker

I am admittedly not a very bright person. I can't simply watch and learn. I ask questions, I make speculations, I wonder, I opine, I posit. I challenge my teachers just as much as they challenge me.

I know I am a difficult student. I apologize for that sir. I meant neither you nor anyone else any disrespect. I hope to continue to grow more in my knowledge from you, and everyone else. I'm sure you will agree, I have quite a lot to learn.

:asian:

 

[Doc]

OK, that's one vote for me talking out of my backside.

Dark Lord, sir, you may not consider me to be your student, yet I am learning quite a bit from you...and Doc, and Mike, and Flying Crane, and Dan and everyone else wathcing me stumble around MT making a fool of myself.

Kenpo has made me tough enough to embarass myself on the internet without fear. Maybe someday I'll be tough enough to face a real attacker

I am admittedly not a very bright person. I can't simply watch and learn. I ask questions, I make speculations, I wonder, I opine, I posit. I challenge my teachers just as much as they challenge me.

I know I am a difficult student. I apologize for that sir. I meant neither you nor anyone else any disrespect. I hope to continue to grow more in my knowledge from you, and everyone else. I'm sure you will agree, I have quite a lot to learn.

:asian:

Don't pay any attention to the rude and crude. Just keep doing what you're doing. Me suspects you're a lot brighter than you let on. I like that!

 

[Jonathan Randall]

Don't pay any attention to the rude and crude. Just keep doing what you're doing. Me suspects you're a lot brighter than you let on. I like that!

Ditto! :asian:

 

[MJS]

I'm sorry sir, but I really don't understand what you want. You seem to simply be repeating what I have already said, but appear to suggest because you are saying it that suddenly it has a different meaning. Sorry but I'm dense on this, and I believe I've answered all of your questions. As for the thread you posted, it was about Crossing Talon, not Delayed Sword. Perhaps if you read a thread I recently posted on KenpoTalk it will help you to understand better.
http://www.kenpotalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1380

Actually the thread was about pinning and checking and was geared towards Delayed Sword. I made a brief reference about Crossing Talon.

Again, I'll say that I am not talking about changing minor moves in a technique. Take Parting Wings, seeing that this is what the thread is about. There are some that insert an eye rake and some that don't We are simply adding one move, but the nature of the attack is the same. I am talking about changing the entire nature of the attack. Again, you have said things in the posts that I have referenced.

Mike