SKK Combos and Various Attacks

[marlon]

If the left leg is forward instead of right you may very well be changing targets. You also have the jab, which doesn't change targets necessarily, however you have to deal with the timing difference.

That being said anyone tried left handed 3 on a right handed cross punch attack? It may well be that any outside technique can be varied to left handed for right crosses. I will try that this weekend.

it works well for most of them

respectfully,
Marlon

 

[marlon]

at some point one thinks that all the discussions on the what if's of various attacks are not missing the point. Perhaps, having as many techniques as skk does amounts to having effective follow up moves from any block / reaction we may have to an attack. No need to reset, built for situations where you are out numbered, with readily available controls to be used on the attacker or to punch a hole and run. It is interesting to have an elevated level of intensity, with an un known attack, with the knowldege that you are not going to be maimed or killed but could end up 'hurt', react then see if a combo was in there or what did you learn from a combo that helped you survive the attack. The set material is a way of training the information (WITH PROPER BASICS) skk is not , imo, about a plethora of techniques it is about learning effective continuous destructive motion until the threat is neutralized(Prof.I teaches skk defined this way) or you find a way to get out.
However, this thread and the discussions are interesting and useful, only it is in a slightly different direction than my end game with skk
just some thouhgts

Respectfully,
marlon

 

[marlon]

Yes, I've done it. It works, but as with any technique that moves you to the inside, well, need to deal with follow-ups

Agreed, and the basics and mechanics of your entry / engagement move is to negate the follow up. To try to out block some one for too llong is asking to get hit

Respectfully,
Marlon

 

[SK101]

Going back to DM 3 - I was watching some sparring drills the other day and a couple had low roundhouses to the lead leg to break the balance. It seemed to be an interesting entry to set up DM 3 or other outside techiques depending on their guard and how much they buckle. There is probably alot of ways to use DMs offensively, but it is a newer concept for me so I thought I would throw it out there. At that point is a variation a kempo or do we have to call them OMs?

 

[Hand Sword]

Could. The only problem for me, which has gone back throughout my training years, always arguing-lol, is the reality. Assuming it's the combination #3 as I know it, a real puncher is going to have the right leg in the rear. So, rounding the lead leg would be against the left front, having you end up in an less than ideal position to launch the combo. We originally learned it as against a right cross, slip, straight right/hook to ribs or groin area, left hook jaw, right upper cut, take down, hit.

I guess my beef is about building "wrong" or "bad" habits. Going for a leg that won't be there if for real.

 

[marlon]

Could. The only problem for me, which has gone back throughout my training years, always arguing-lol, is the reality. Assuming it's the combination #3 as I know it, a real puncher is going to have the right leg in the rear. So, rounding the lead leg would be against the left front, having you end up in an less than ideal position to launch the combo. We originally learned it as against a right cross, slip, straight right/hook to ribs or groin area, left hook jaw, right upper cut, take down, hit.

I guess my beef is about building "wrong" or "bad" habits. Going for a leg that won't be there if for real.

true but one could go for the lead leg before the punch is thrown then enter with #3 lefty rt hammer to the head, left bladder/ groin strike then rt cross hammer to the chest left back 2 knuckle to the head control manipulate take down ...

could one still call this combo 3 or an application of the form of combo 3?...

Here is a fun drill prof I gives as a mushin exercise...no stopping to think to work it out just respond to the wild attack controlling for the variables given: start with one technique end with another...start with the middle of a technique from a grab or push or something other than the usual step through punch...in other words ,explore. Yoiu will find some crap but then you may find the philosophers stone
.

Respectfully,
Marlon

 

[Hand Sword]

:flushed: So much for my input, if you wanna play the "what if" game.

 

[punisher73]

Could. The only problem for me, which has gone back throughout my training years, always arguing-lol, is the reality. Assuming it's the combination #3 as I know it, a real puncher is going to have the right leg in the rear. So, rounding the lead leg would be against the left front, having you end up in an less than ideal position to launch the combo. We originally learned it as against a right cross, slip, straight right/hook to ribs or groin area, left hook jaw, right upper cut, take down, hit.

I guess my beef is about building "wrong" or "bad" habits. Going for a leg that won't be there if for real.

I agree, the DM's are set up for a self-defense type situation. The original #3 was set up for a boxer's stance, and the right leg would be back. If you kick "first" you are attacking and have changed the concept of what #3 taught, that being slipping and moving off-line. If you work with the "step-through" punch it is still valid, because an untrained person that is going to attack throws his weight forward and this brings that leg forward and through. #3 is still valid because you are slipping and getting off-line of the attack.

To use an analogy, in American Kenpo they have "freestyle" techniques. Many people assume that they are designed for tournament fighting only. But, their main application is knowing you are about to be in a fight and are taking the initiative, or your self-defense technique didn't work and you are in a "free fighting" type situation. While the lessons of the DM's are going to be applicable, their application is going to be different because of the nature of the fight at that point.

Adding "what-ifs" to the situation is sometimes a futile exercise because it is endless and isn't sometimes the most productive because you really need to define some parameters of the scenario and what you are trying to accomplish.

 

[marlon]

:flushed: So much for my input, if you wanna play the "what if" game.

not at all. i was responding to your comment. there are too many endless what if's.

marlon

 

[Hand Sword]

That's ok. I was attempting sarcasm back, but with my home computer I couldn't paste this p) on there.

It's true about the what if's as both you and punisher spoke about. You do need parameters IMHO too, and anything can fit with prefixes and suffixes added to it. I was simply talking towards the question of the post about particular attacks that the design of the combo/dm is set up for as is. That was my response to SK101's idea of doing things. I always saw the danger that came from automatic responses to targets that probably wouldn't be there for real. Combine that with going for them, or "the deer in the headlight syndrome" of freezing up as your brain scans the file for the stimuli that wasn't prepared for or familiar.

 

[marlon]

no problem sir. Hand sword, what is your solution to the problem you raise?

Respectfully,
Marlon

 

[Hand Sword]

I guess the only solution is when designing a defense do it against a set attack based on realism. If it's a cross then the front leg is the left, etc..

Overall though, this argument can and will go on forever (especially in this forum). I'd rather discuss what the topic is and that's the attacks that the Combos or DM"S are set up for-as is.

 

[SK101]

Could. The only problem for me, which has gone back throughout my training years, always arguing-lol, is the reality. Assuming it's the combination #3 as I know it, a real puncher is going to have the right leg in the rear. So, rounding the lead leg would be against the left front, having you end up in an less than ideal position to launch the combo. We originally learned it as against a right cross, slip, straight right/hook to ribs or groin area, left hook jaw, right upper cut, take down, hit.

I guess my beef is about building "wrong" or "bad" habits. Going for a leg that won't be there if for real.

This is just my humble opinion.

To me the half moon isn't incorrect it is the easy way to learn a technique since their is more time for the student to react, then you vary from working off a cross punch, hook, grab, kick, to having the attacker spar slow to medium pace while attacking. You learn the alphabet first rather than teaching words first and saying we don't talk with letters.

 

[Hand Sword]

Ok.

As I said, a whole 'nother argument for a seperate thread.

 

[SK101]

Ok.

As I said, a whole 'nother argument for a seperate thread.

I hear ya. I hope if we disagree on something no one takes it as we don't want to hear the input. Disagreement is a good thing alot of times and I like the way you phrase your responses. You are very respectful. In my humble opinion there is not enough of the humility in the martial arts. It is an ego driven industry. I stopped associating with people outside SK when to many crazy outsiders had stopped by the studio. It was amazing how many people were world champions in my little neighborhood. There must have been something in the water.

I may get some people disagreeing here, but I like the what ifs sometimes if you practice them substantially less than the "regular" technique. I always worry if I practice DM 2 x 50 times assuming I missed the left control will I be practicing "screwing up" to the point where I actually make screwing up more likely. I think there may be some danger in that respect.

 

[14 Kempo]

I have to agree, in a way. The halfmoon in with the right lunge punch makes the opponent predictable while learning a technique. Predictability makes for a safer environment for both. If I am asked to perform a new movement and you are allowed to punch at me in anyway you feel is right at the time, well, most likely somebody is going to get hit, possibly hurt and it could very well be me. If #3 is new to me and you decide to throw a right hook while I'm stepping to 11 o'clock and parrying across with my left, well, I'm gonna catch a punch in the left temple. A workout partner needs to be predictable in the beginning. As you become more proficient with a movement, ecperiment with it against varying attacks. As with the example above, some would say that #3 won't work against a right hook punch. And as it is taught, I would have to agree, however, once advanced enough I would vary that technique to make it work. Maybe use an open handed #2 block while closing the distance by still stepping to 11 o'clock. Strike to the groin, it will be wide open in this position. Maybe after that I would think about bringing my right up with a tiger's mouth to the throat as I use my left to collapse the opponents right leg. Or maybe after the punch to the groin, finish with #7 to the opponents front leg. I don't know, but it is obvious, at least to me, that if the opponents varies, I need to do the same. I don't believe anybody should be fooled into thinking that a technique has to be done in its entirety, repeat the basic mvement over and over so that they become tools that are available. Your mind will begin to recognize varying positions that you find yourself in with varying attacks and will begin to react acordingly without having to think through this stuff. In most situations, if you take time to think of what you are going to do, you will get hurt. JMHO

 

[Hand Sword]

1st....Can I have some of that water?

2nd.... you're right in a way, as there is truth to what you say, as well as to all of the other points people give. That's why I don't want to get into this in this area, which is famous for these on going arguments about "the gospel" of training methods they use. Everyone has proof for their reasoning, so it can be backed up. I respect everyone's ideas and it is great to interract and hear them. But, i want to stay with the idea of the thread with how the design is already and what they are dealing with. Unfortunately, they are all "punch defenses" even though, when looking at them, they are clearly not intended for that. I'd like to get at that source as it is slowly disappearing in favor of the do what ever you want and run with it theory. It's also kind of tough when the Combo people compare notes with the DM people after everything has been changed.

 

[Hand Sword]

To my Kempo brothers and sisters, I realize that my post "Hi-Jacked things" sending them into a philosophy discussion instead of the one asked by the question.

I apologize to all. :asian:


Back to the discussion. I won't interfere, and I'll play nice.

 

[14 Kempo]

To my Kempo brothers and sisters, I realize that my post "Hi-Jacked things" sending them into a philosophy discussion instead of the one asked by the question.

I apologize to all. :asian:


Back to the discussion. I won't interfere, and I'll play nice.

I'm not so sure it was a complete hi-jack, the words "Various Attacks" is in the title afterall ... maybe a partial hi-jack.

 

[SK101]

1st....Can I have some of that water?

Unfortunately, they are all "punch defenses" even though, when looking at them, they are clearly not intended for that. I'd like to get at that source as it is slowly disappearing in favor of the do what ever you want and run with it theory. It's also kind of tough when the Combo people compare notes with the DM people after everything has been changed.

I am leaning in that direction as well. I believe the DMs were meant for a high punch, low punch, hook,etc., but to make them easy to learn were put into a format of working only off the half moon in with front punch to chest. There are very few DMs that I have been taught that I haven't been able to utilize myself, but prior to interacting with different SK instructors there were many more that confused me. If you look at USSD manual or at least the one that was around when I was there DM 3 is said to be the first technique where we learn bob and weave. There is no bob and weave in the #3 unless the attacker is using a hook. As far as I can tell there is no other reason to use the bob and weave for #3 besides changing the attack to a hook. DM #5 is listed in the manual as a stabbing knife defense and if you alter the block it is, but it certainly isn't a knife technique if you do exactly the standardized way.

I heard someone say once that every technique is a knife,club,hook, kick attack. I wouldn't go to that degree, but change the footwork and the block and you can use a DM at least a dozen ways. Just don't change the DM, because you are right we then can't exchange ideas very easily since it becomes SK James or SK Curtis instead of SK.

From a teaching point of view I also agree with the one attack format. I can imagine teaching each DM with a different attack and watching the beginners and intermediates trying to remember what attack goes with what #. As it is the students complain about trying remember what tech was 3 vs 8. At some point you have to stop acquiring more material and start exploring.