Sword and hammer pt. 1 and 2

[Josh Oakley]

BR, the IPs that 99.9% of the Kenpo schools out there, are using. Like I said, if Doc is claiming that Parker didn't intend it to be done that way, then that reads to me that 99.9% of the are wrong. IMO, I'd say the main people who've drastically changed stuff would be Jeff Speakman and Paul Mills. Other than that, everyone else looks damn close.

Now I'm a little bit rusty on my kenpo history, but I remember GM Parker had a commercial product designed for mass transmission, and then the Kenpo he only taught a few people. Under that understanding, wouldn't it be entirely possible that 99.9% of EPAK practitioners COULD be wrong?

 

[ATACX GYM]

Now I'm a little bit rusty on my kenpo history, but I remember GM Parker had a commercial product designed for mass transmission, and then the Kenpo he only taught a few people. Under that understanding, wouldn't it be entirely possible that 99.9% of EPAK practitioners COULD be wrong?

This is also my understanding. 99.9% or whatever percent of people who do the identical same dysfunctional IP and call it THEE IP are wholly wrong. And Doc has asserted on many occassions that Mr. Parker himself practiced a different art than what he taught, and I think that it's obvious in the way that he moves that this is true.

 

[ATACX GYM]

And then, is it really the inward block from Attacking Mace, or is it the inward block from Five Swords, or is it simply an Inward Block, and why try to dress it up beyond that?

You're touching on my point here...not only is there a nomenclature thing going on [ Kenpo is anal with the overintellectualization and overly academic application of terms ] which we agree on--and btw alotta us Kenpoists call a tech like Inward Block a tech and a SEQUENCE of techs SD moves or SEQUENCES--but we also agree on stuff like what FC said.

Now...if we have a SEQUENCE like say ATTACKING MACE that is comprised of TECHS that have been tested against many different stimuli, you wil have ONE COMPLETE SEQUENCE which is ALSO MULTIFACETED. This simple issue of performance is to me the height of common sense and shouldn't take multiple posts...much less a multipage thread...to convey and be immediately grasped. Well, ALL OF MY SEQUENCES ARE LIKE THAT.

You can INSTANTLY do the same with all of yours. Put knives in your hands while doing ATTACKING MACE vs uke. The switch roles. Then spar in each of those roles in each of the combat ranges. That takes less than 15 rounds, doesn't it? Thought so. Now you have an ATTACKING MACE which functions against single and double knives. How bout that.

 

[MJS]

Now I'm a little bit rusty on my kenpo history, but I remember GM Parker had a commercial product designed for mass transmission, and then the Kenpo he only taught a few people. Under that understanding, wouldn't it be entirely possible that 99.9% of EPAK practitioners COULD be wrong?

Yes, you're probably right. So this begs the next question of: Who got the 'real Kenpo'? Doc? I would be very interested in meeting/training/talking with him, live, 1 on 1. I think it'd be a very eye opening and interesting experience. I will say that it seems to me, that Doc would be 1, if not 'the' only person, as it seems his Kenpo is very different from others that I've seen.

And of course, another thing: isn't it a shame that the majority must not have wanted the real deal, instead accepting something that was a lesser quality? Learn as much as possible, get a BB quick, get high rank quick, when you're missing out on a ton of secrets.

 

[ATACX GYM]

OK, and again, my Pek Choi/Chuin Choi example. But what I see going on in a lot of your technique discussions is not this kind of basic straight forward simple approach. Rather I see the longer, more complicated kenpo techs with you advocating that they be used outside of their scripted scenario. That's what I see as being overly complicated.

Back on pg. 14, I read FC's post, (and Mike, please correct me if I'm wrong here) that he wasn't using a technique per se, but rather a basic move. Again, this may be a matter of personal interpretation. So, FC's use of the hammerfist vs. a punch, a choke, etc, vs. trying to use a named tech, ie: 5 swords, scrapping hoof, against other attacks, other than what they're designed for.

The problem with the above is that there is no "scripted scenario"...that whole misunderstanding is the result of too many BBs screwing up BR and mistaking loose guidelines and suggestions for THE WAY. Each scenario is supposed to be crafted by each teacher while preserving a primary lesson of each tech as loosely guided by Big Red.

Now, I've never read Big Red in my life, and never heard of it until Doc brought it up. Clearly I don't have on hand that written material. I can probably Google it, and I can pretty accurately guess at some of them but...having the BR notes would be cool too.

I've done more than fairly well on my own, though.

My scripted scenario for Sword and Hammer is to initially deal with a surprise attack in the form of The Hockey Punch from whatever quadrant and whatever position, that didn't kill or KO or disable you outright. So we're starting from the standing unarmed surprise Hockey Punch and progressing to the armed multifight Hockey Punch vs single and multiple defenders whether grounded or not. Then we apply those lessons to all of the primary ranges of h2h SD and guess what? It WORKS. Very easily too, I might add.

Hmmm. Maybe I shouldn't be championing this approach so much. That way, my team and I will still have a humongous advantage over people who don't use this training model, and we'll keep whomping most of em in tournies and on the street. Hmmm...lololol.

 

[Chris Parker]

Right. Ras, try to listen here.

At first I wasn't going to reply to this post...the dooficity level was exceptional even for Chris. But others prevailed upon me to respond. This thread has quite a few views, so it's clear that there are more people scanning this thread than Chris Twin Fist Kenshin and jks9199. It is for the benefit of these others that I reply [ even though quite a few of these "others" took it upon themselves to contact me and express privately their amusement over my detractors not grasping the amazing obviousness of my oft-repeated position ].

"Dooficity level was exceptional even for Chris"? Ras, that comes remarkably close to a personal attack you know... And seriously, making up words like that makes you look immature at best... especially when coupled with the fingers-in-the-ears pose yelling about how your "detractors" (no, Ras, just critics who have legitimate questions) don't grasp the "amazing obviousness" of your comments... and you wonder why we think you're arrogant...

So. For the last time...

...my position has always been one of Functionality over Dysfunction. I have always been a proponent of what Bruce and others called the "Alive" Method. This means train realistically. Actually grab. Actually punch, choke, whack with the stick, stab realistically with the knife and keep going, really tackle, etc etc. Do NOT pose, or other horribly unrealistic stuff.

And in this you miss what the comments that started all of this actually were. Realistic training we're all for, same with functionality... thing is, though, that's beside the point of the initial critiques, which were centered around the fact that your version didn't satisfy the criteria to make what you were doing Sword and Hammer, functional or not. And all of your comments since then have actually demonstrated that you just don't get that... but have shown me why. Which is interesting. But I'm getting ahead of myself....

None of the craptasticness masquerading as THEE IP has even the faintest element of realism. Let us take this more common stuff that others like Chris think is a wonderful tech.

Now, Ras, if you start by describing the technique taught in all other Kenpo schools as "craptasticness", how does that show you to always have an open mind, hmm? Oh, and I said it was a fairly solid technique (of course, when trained properly, which you seem to have missed when you were taught it...), not a wonderful one.

This tech purports to defeat what is essentially a Hockey Punch from the flank...sans grab or punch. It takes as a working hypothesis that Kenpoists in general will be able to act and react preemptively with the Sword and Hammer as a central element and tenant to the tech itself. They take it for granted that essentially newb Kenpoists [ Yellow Belters ] in general will reliably react to fast enough to an attack in progress to get off the handsword and hammerfist to their targets prior to the punch even being thrown.

Hmm, well you seem to miss what the attack is, misuse the French term "sans", and completely fail to understand what is involved in a pre-emptive response. As well as missing entirely the fact that that pre-emptive response is key to what Sword and Hammer teaches, and is the reason for training it. To remove it is to not be teaching/training Sword and Hammer.

Look carefully. The common expression of Sword and Hammer is against something that isn't an ACTUAL attack, it's in response to a POTENTIAL attack in progress. You catch the BG before he throws the punch. Fencers call it catching him on the "preparation".

No, it's not catching on the preparation, it's a pre-emptive strike. They are actually different tactics, and employed in different contexts, but that seems to have escaped you. Additionally, you seem to miss all the measures within the technique itself, the reality of the attacking method, and so on that do make it quite a realistic tactic... just not for competition or sparring, which you seem to think is reality. News for ya, bub, it ain't.

This contention is roundly refuted on the mat in objective reality. The whole premise is flawed and rather preposterous. 2 Kenpo Elders whom I've been known to both agree and disagree with--Larry Tatum and Doc Chapel--both concur at the absurdness of this idea. So do I. In fact, Mr. Tatum wrote an article touching upon this facet in the training of Kenpoists when he wrote a piece about stepping in to Triggered Salute or something.

Ras, the "mat" isn't objective reality, you know. And from my perspective, it looks like there's a fair gap in the understanding of such tactics.

The central tenet of this tech is flawed and wholly divorced from combat reality. Sans proper functional training to make the tech workable? Newbs and most people period will not be able to react with this tech under duress in that scenario. WITH proper functional training? You STILL won't do it exactly as the more common expression does it because the more common Sword and Hammer expressions articulate dysfunction.

Again with the "sans"? And who says that no-one is training it properly, or functionally? I went through it with some of my guys the other week, and your version simply doesn't work against the attack that's intended...

In other words...if it reliably works? It won't look like the more common Sword and Hammer IP expression.

Here's a question... what if you were shown that it does reliably work? And that you didn't understand it well enough in the first place? And that, when done properly, against a realistic attack (as described by the mechanics of the technique itself), it actually does look remarkably like the "IP" expression? Just curious...

However, if you have a functional expression such as mine? You reliably defeat the BG in both the "classic" scenario [ you react before the punch is thrown ] aaaaaaannnnd multiple other scenarios that the more common expression Sword and Hammer doesn't approach and has no hope of addressing with their expression.

Truthfully, Ras, no, you won't "reliably defeat the BG... before the punch is thrown", as the pull that would be required for the attack as informed by the technique itself would make it rather difficult for you to spin in the direction you are planning. Frankly, against the actual attack, your response is rather mechanically flawed... but against the attacks you've changed it to, it's okay. Then again, it's not the same technique on any level at all, which is what has been said from the beginning.

Look at this more common Sword and Hammer expression go to 1:52:

[video=youtube_share;9B8OXVJNmB0]http://youtu.be/9B8OXVJNmB0[/video]


and look at these videos of the more common Sword and Hammer expression here. Pay close attention to their positioning:

[video=youtube_share;YGDc1oOFDcI]http://youtu.be/YGDc1oOFDcI[/video]

[video=youtube_share;ts1Qgemr11M]http://youtu.be/ts1Qgemr11M[/video]

and look at this more common expression of the Sword and Hammer, the only one that actually mentions being pulled and attempts to explain how the more common expression of the tech defeats the pull:

[video=youtube_share;04Hp8tDAw3g]http://youtu.be/04Hp8tDAw3g[/video]

Look at how similar that position is to my starting position here:

[video=youtube_share;R-mmdyIHkjs]http://youtu.be/R-mmdyIHkjs[/video]


Go to 0:54 of this video. We start at the same or very similar places...in my scenario, though, I have the BG actually fire punches.

[video=youtube_share;AuvuhW1u2WE]http://youtu.be/AuvuhW1u2WE[/video]

That was frankly all completely pointless, Ras. The only connection between your technique and Sword and Hammer is the start position of your attacker. And as far as the whole "though, I have the BG actually fire punches" just shows again that you've missed the meaning and importance of the lessons of the technique in the first place.

The rest should be obvious. I cover punches, multiple angles of attack, pushes and pulls, and even though I don't show it on video I gave a 15 Round training method that covers everything up to and including weapons and multifights...all with the Sword and Hammer...and will allow a complete newb to be able to fight with that tech in 8 hours or less.

And this is completely delusional, Ras. From a range of levels.

I've been contacted by several MMA coaches and self-defense instructors who saw my post. They thanked me for publishing it and informed me that they're using this method and a few others that I demonstrated with exactly the speedy success that I guaranteed that it would yield.

Seriously? MMA coaches who saw your post? The methods you're showing have no place in MMA, as it doesn't suit the context of their approach, and as for self defense instructors thanking you and validating your correctness? I don't think they've gotten what the argument was about either...

The above is part of the reason why I can say all at once and be undeniably right that:

1. The Sword and Hammer that is most popular is dysfunctional, and there are no lessons to be learned from it other than: FIX IT SO IT WORKS

Right, now we're down to it...

Ras, to be completely blunt, this is the core of your problems, and the absolute evidence that you are not in any way right. In the slightest. Let's demonstrate, as you seem rather ignorant of what, or even how a technique teaches it's lessons.

The lessons of EPAK Sword and Hammer are numerous, but some that are immediately apparent are as follows:
- When grabbed, capture the grabbing hand for psychological and physical control.
- When being pulled, go with the energy of that pull.
- The use of pre-emptive striking as a tactic.
- The application of strikes to weak areas that are difficult to build up (throat, groin, solar plexus or floating ribs in other versions).
- Choose powerful, high-return targets.
- Drop your weight when being pulled to retain your balance
- Choose appropriate weapons to the targets.
- Use two strikes to respond, with the first being an "interrupting" strike, the second being a "stopping" strike, allowing the escape.

Your version, though Ras...
- Does not feature the covering grab to the attackers grabbing hand (sometimes called the "controlling" hand), so you miss this lesson.
- Does not "go with the pull", as you actually go in the opposite direction to the energy of the pull after it has stopped.
- Does not use pre-emptive striking, even though that is a fundamental lesson and integral element of Sword and Hammer, and a huge part of what makes the technique what it is... hence my first comments saying that what you are doing is something completely different.
- Uses a range of strikes to multiple targets without looking specifically to the results or the effect.
- Uses Swordhand and Hammerfist strikes seemingly only to justify it being called Sword and Hammer, rather than those weapons being appropriate to the targets chosen. Your first usage is to have a Swordhand and Hammerfist raised against the grabbing arm, despite there being no benefit whatsoever.
- Uses multiple strikes, continuing on to grappling in some occasions, rather than a couple of deliberately chosen strikes to escape from the grab.

This has been my point. You miss every single beat of the very reason that Sword and Hammer exists, why it is structured the way it is, and what it teaches from a strategic and tactical point. You've looked at a single idea, which is whether or not it fits what you think is realistic, without looking at what it actually teaches and why. There's a reason it's a Yellow Belt technique, Ras, and it's because it's teaching fundamental tactics and concepts that can be built on later in your education and training. By not understanding this, and only having your attitude of "this is craptastical hyperunrealistic kenpofantasyland stuff" you are frankly robbing your students of actually learning Kenpo in the first place. Because if you don't see the structure of the techniques and their reasons for being the way they are, you don't get the art.

Oh, and Mike? That's been what I've been talking about. I've been trying to get Ras to say what Sword and Hammer teaches, but he seems to not understand that question....

2. Supporters of this tech who claim that the tech defeats the flank Hockey Punch before the punch can be thrown do NOT fight with the tech or spar with it with any kind of realistic energy or regularity...so their opinions are factually without merit.

Dude, just because you don't know how to train it doesn't mean that others don't. I can think of numerous ways of training it that are highly realistic (far more realistic than sparring, for the record), and can show it's use easily. So I wouldn't be so quick to say such things are "factually without merit". But again, you might want to look at what the actual attack is, as you still seem to be missing it.

3. Any Sword and Hammer that works perforce cannot look like the common expression. Even those who claim that the classic tech exactly as proscribed will eventually admit that they use it primarily as a teaching tool or intro or something but they don't and can't fight with it exactly as shown in the more common expression.

Well, firstly, what's wrong with it as a teaching tool? This is another thing, Ras, there are huge numbers of drills, training tools, methods, and more that have no functional application, but are essential to learn the system. By cutting them out, as you only "deal with the functional", you're missing huge sections of the system and what it's trying to teach you.

But leaving that aside, in application no technique is exactly like it's practiced, but you practice an "ideal" way to ensure that the lessons it's giving you have the best chance at being instilled... and once they are, they can be expressed in many ways. They won't apply to all situations, though.

4. I'm not dealing with JUST the same scenario of the "more common" dysfunctional expression S&H, I'm dealing with a 360 degree Hockey Punch attack which is perpetually superior to the dysfunctional single side expression. Note that my version covers all of the various positioning that the more traditional, dysfunctional tech proponents take...and I do more. The Sword and Hammer that does more in a superior manner than the Sword and Hammer that does less is without a doubt the superior expression.

Oh dear... okay, let's look at this "Hockey Punch" that the technique is supposed to deal with. Essentially, that attack involves someone approaching from the side/rear, grabbing your shoulder, then pulling to turn you towards them (if grabbed on your right shoulder, which would be with their left hand, it turns you clockwise and back, if grabbed on your left shoulder, it turns you counterclockwise and back), then punching after you've turned. The turning is to disorient you, as well as line you up for the punch, so the punch doesn't happen until after the grab and pull. Right, so that's understood hopefully.

But here's the thing. If you're grabbed (we'll say right shoulder) and pulled, you have one option of angle, which is back along the lines of the pull. You can't go counterclockwise (as you show), as you'll just be pulled off balance. The only other option, really, is to brace and try to resist the pull... but that goes against the lessons of the technique in the first place.

And frankly, doing different things unrelated to the actual technique doesn't make it a better version, it makes it a different technique. But I do have to say that your technique does neither more, nor in a superior manner. It's just a different technique against a different attack with different tactics and a different premise and rhythm. It's not superior. You just don't get the original one, or what it's about.

5. I don't have to compare my expression to the less functional expression; all I have to do is show that mine works. If I'm not lost, and I'm safe at home? Well, I don't have to prove that I'm NOT lost to people who are lost. It's incumbent upon the lost to orient themselves...and after they orient themselves and bring themselves to a point that they recognize that they're not lost? They'll see that I've looong been where they were trying to go to. I can, however, offer a map to get home. If you don't want to make it back to the Land of the Found and Functional? Cool. Have fun with the Lost Boys.

If you don't have to compare it, why have you for most of the thread, starting with a direct comparison as your very first post, and repeating it time and again, including in this post itself? If you don't need to compare to EPAK Sword and Hammer, as yours is completely removed from it, why have you? Cake is not a better version of bread, even if both are baked in an oven, Ras. If you doubt that, make a sandwich with cake.

6. Chris Parker's second paragraph simply shows that he is completely lost...and that's okay. My tech is related to the original in the sense that the Mercedes or Bentley or some such is related to a broken down inoperational Model T. My version is the more operational more modern top of the line expression. It actually does what the Model T purports to do...it's a automated conveyance...and it does it in ways far superior to and never imagined by the poor dysfunctional broken down Model T.

You're kidding, right? You mean this paragraph:
[QUOTE-Chris Parker]Seriously, Ras, we've been saying from the beginning that your version is not even related to the first ones you show (the standard forms), and have been asking you to clarify that... which you have completely failed to do. Now, 12 pages and 167 posts in, you've finally said that your technique has no connection to the original from whom you took the name, and very little else... so what was the point? You might as well have put up a video of someone defending against a bear hug and pointed out how that defence doesn't work against a stabbing knife attack.[/QUOTE]
right?

Dude, seriously, read what you're saying. In the last paragraph you say you don't have to show a comparison... and now you're defending them as being related? When it comes to the idea of your Sword and Hammer being related to the EPAK version you compare it to without needing to compare it to (you are following this, yeah?), the relationship is as follows: Same angle of attack (but a different attack), same name, and the identification of the art as Kenpo. As far as your idea of a Mercedes being related to a Model T, not really the same thing as you're putting forth here, unless, of course, you were putting a Ford badge on your Merc and saying it was a more functional version of the Model T.... honestly, I'd give up on analogies, you missed the mark on that one.

Lastly for those who asked...I never changed the name of my techs. I simply abbreviated the whole name for two reasons:

1. I refer to my ATACX GYM KENPO KARATE SWORD AND HAMMER as...ATACX GYM KENPO SWORD AND HAMMER during class. It's full name as I wrote it down is ATACX GYM KENPO KARATE SWORD AND HAMMER RADIUS R.D.L. 1-4. Saying that over and over again is a mouth full so I say SWORD AND HAMMER in class. [ Everybody in my Gym...literally everyone...knows that our techs are different than other schools' techs. When we go scout other schools at various competitons before we spar with and compete against them? Everyone from the newbs to the seasoned Coaches in my Gym sees the huge advantage we have over them due to our superior functional training. ]

2. It's hard to get a name as long as the official name for my tech onto youtube easily.

Ras, if your techniques are completely different, why the need to point out that yours is a better version of a different technique? It's like my saying that our front kicks are a better version of karate's front kicks... even though they have no real points of similarity other than both having a forward angle and using the foot to contact the opponent.

Oh, and seriously drop the hard sell, it makes you look cheap.

If you don't get it by now? Fine. Thank you to the dozens of you who've contacted me and informed me that you do get it and you do appreciate what I'm trying to convey. Thank you to people like jks9199 who disagree with me but do so from a position of openminded intelligent criticism and cordiality, which I will and do return in kind.

Right. And if you don't get what I've been saying from the first response on page 1 now, I don't think you'll ever get it. Mainly as you're simply not coming from an open minded standpoint, but are insistent on repeating yourself without understanding the questions in the first place.

Chris and Twin Fist? We disagree. Let's leave it at that.

No, it's not that we disagree, Ras, it's that you haven't understood the actual criticism. So let's not leave it at you thinking your still so far superior, as all you've shown is that you have a different approach, which to my mind is rather limited in many ways, not anything superior, and have a bit of an ego problem dealing with people who don't automatically honour your brilliance.

To your approach, and the reason I find it limited, which is tied with what you've shown me of why you haven't understood what I've been asking.

Ras, you don't teach martial arts. You don't understand martial arts. You haven't learnt martial arts. You teach techniques. You have some understanding of techniques. That's all. Your entire focus is on "how to use a technique", not on how to employ strategies or tactics. Each of your videos is only a collection of mechanical approaches, none follow any understanding of the strategies of the techniques themselves. The thing is, though, the mechanical methods (particular grips, strikes, kicks etc) are not what works, it's the application of strategies and tactics that employ those mechanics. In short, you teach the use of a bunch of ingredients, some of which can be eaten by themselves, others can't, but have no idea of the recipes. And trying to talk to you in terms of martial art concepts of strategy and tactics (asking what the lessons of Sword and Hammer are, for instance) has simply confused you, as you don't understand it. If it's not a mechanical technique, you don't get it. But, of course, that's really been the thrust of the argument. Which is why it's now 17 pages long.

 

[ATACX GYM]

Yes, you're probably right. So this begs the next question of: Who got the 'real Kenpo'? Doc? I would be very interested in meeting/training/talking with him, live, 1 on 1. I think it'd be a very eye opening and interesting experience. I will say that it seems to me, that Doc would be 1, if not 'the' only person, as it seems his Kenpo is very different from others that I've seen.

And of course, another thing: isn't it a shame that the majority must not have wanted the real deal, instead accepting something that was a lesser quality? Learn as much as possible, get a BB quick, get high rank quick, when you're missing out on a ton of secrets.

I think if you trained with Doc you'd be closer to what Mr. Parker PERSONALLY did. If you trained with guys like JEFF SPEAKMAN you'd get alot more functional, alot more performance oriented versions of MOTION KENPO. Guys like me present a more comprehensive approach than Motion Kenpo alone does via its preferred training method being slanted toward stand up fighting as a general rule.

 

[MJS]

You're touching on my point here...not only is there a nomenclature thing going on [ Kenpo is anal with the overintellectualization and overly academic application of terms ] which we agree on--and btw alotta us Kenpoists call a tech like Inward Block a tech and a SEQUENCE of techs SD moves or SEQUENCES--but we also agree on stuff like what FC said.

To be honest, I've never referred to a block, punch or kick, as a technique. I've always called them what they were...a punch, a kick, etc, or the basics.

Now...if we have a SEQUENCE like say ATTACKING MACE that is comprised of TECHS that have been tested against many different stimuli, you wil have ONE COMPLETE SEQUENCE which is ALSO MULTIFACETED. This simple issue of performance is to me the height of common sense and shouldn't take multiple posts...much less a multipage thread...to convey and be immediately grasped. Well, ALL OF MY SEQUENCES ARE LIKE THAT.

But isn't this going back to what we talked about earlier? Trying to make something fit a hole that it wasn't deisgned for? Again, once you step out of the platform, for which the tech, whatever it may be, was designed for, then IMHO, its no longer the same tech. You're using parts. Just like part of a tech can be used to break guard, part of a tech could be used for a lock. But like FC said....in reality its not the inward block from Attacking Mace...its an inward block.

You can INSTANTLY do the same with all of yours. Put knives in your hands while doing ATTACKING MACE vs uke. The switch roles. Then spar in each of those roles in each of the combat ranges. That takes less than 15 rounds, doesn't it? Thought so. Now you have an ATTACKING MACE which functions against single and double knives. How bout that.

Which is fine, but I still stand by what I've said in the past...that that will only show the student a very basic understanding of a weapon. Its like Jr High and High school level understanding. I have tape of Joe Simonet doing this very thing. OTOH, Joe also trains Doce Pares, a FMA, so thats probably not a good example...lol.

 

[ATACX GYM]

Right. Ras, try to listen here.



"Dooficity level was exceptional even for Chris"? Ras, that comes remarkably close to a personal attack you know... And seriously, making up words like that makes you look immature at best... especially when coupled with the fingers-in-the-ears pose yelling about how your "detractors" (no, Ras, just critics who have legitimate questions) don't grasp the "amazing obviousness" of your comments... and you wonder why we think you're arrogant...



And in this you miss what the comments that started all of this actually were. Realistic training we're all for, same with functionality... thing is, though, that's beside the point of the initial critiques, which were centered around the fact that your version didn't satisfy the criteria to make what you were doing Sword and Hammer, functional or not. And all of your comments since then have actually demonstrated that you just don't get that... but have shown me why. Which is interesting. But I'm getting ahead of myself....



Now, Ras, if you start by describing the technique taught in all other Kenpo schools as "craptasticness", how does that show you to always have an open mind, hmm? Oh, and I said it was a fairly solid technique (of course, when trained properly, which you seem to have missed when you were taught it...), not a wonderful one.



Hmm, well you seem to miss what the attack is, misuse the French term "sans", and completely fail to understand what is involved in a pre-emptive response. As well as missing entirely the fact that that pre-emptive response is key to what Sword and Hammer teaches, and is the reason for training it. To remove it is to not be teaching/training Sword and Hammer.



No, it's not catching on the preparation, it's a pre-emptive strike. They are actually different tactics, and employed in different contexts, but that seems to have escaped you. Additionally, you seem to miss all the measures within the technique itself, the reality of the attacking method, and so on that do make it quite a realistic tactic... just not for competition or sparring, which you seem to think is reality. News for ya, bub, it ain't.



Ras, the "mat" isn't objective reality, you know. And from my perspective, it looks like there's a fair gap in the understanding of such tactics.



Again with the "sans"? And who says that no-one is training it properly, or functionally? I went through it with some of my guys the other week, and your version simply doesn't work against the attack that's intended...



Here's a question... what if you were shown that it does reliably work? And that you didn't understand it well enough in the first place? And that, when done properly, against a realistic attack (as described by the mechanics of the technique itself), it actually does look remarkably like the "IP" expression? Just curious...



Truthfully, Ras, no, you won't "reliably defeat the BG... before the punch is thrown", as the pull that would be required for the attack as informed by the technique itself would make it rather difficult for you to spin in the direction you are planning. Frankly, against the actual attack, your response is rather mechanically flawed... but against the attacks you've changed it to, it's okay. Then again, it's not the same technique on any level at all, which is what has been said from the beginning.



That was frankly all completely pointless, Ras. The only connection between your technique and Sword and Hammer is the start position of your attacker. And as far as the whole "though, I have the BG actually fire punches" just shows again that you've missed the meaning and importance of the lessons of the technique in the first place.



And this is completely delusional, Ras. From a range of levels.



Seriously? MMA coaches who saw your post? The methods you're showing have no place in MMA, as it doesn't suit the context of their approach, and as for self defense instructors thanking you and validating your correctness? I don't think they've gotten what the argument was about either...



Right, now we're down to it...

Ras, to be completely blunt, this is the core of your problems, and the absolute evidence that you are not in any way right. In the slightest. Let's demonstrate, as you seem rather ignorant of what, or even how a technique teaches it's lessons.

The lessons of EPAK Sword and Hammer are numerous, but some that are immediately apparent are as follows:
- When grabbed, capture the grabbing hand for psychological and physical control.
- When being pulled, go with the energy of that pull.
- The use of pre-emptive striking as a tactic.
- The application of strikes to weak areas that are difficult to build up (throat, groin, solar plexus or floating ribs in other versions).
- Choose powerful, high-return targets.
- Drop your weight when being pulled to retain your balance
- Choose appropriate weapons to the targets.
- Use two strikes to respond, with the first being an "interrupting" strike, the second being a "stopping" strike, allowing the escape.

Your version, though Ras...
- Does not feature the covering grab to the attackers grabbing hand (sometimes called the "controlling" hand), so you miss this lesson.
- Does not "go with the pull", as you actually go in the opposite direction to the energy of the pull after it has stopped.
- Does not use pre-emptive striking, even though that is a fundamental lesson and integral element of Sword and Hammer, and a huge part of what makes the technique what it is... hence my first comments saying that what you are doing is something completely different.
- Uses a range of strikes to multiple targets without looking specifically to the results or the effect.
- Uses Swordhand and Hammerfist strikes seemingly only to justify it being called Sword and Hammer, rather than those weapons being appropriate to the targets chosen. Your first usage is to have a Swordhand and Hammerfist raised against the grabbing arm, despite there being no benefit whatsoever.
- Uses multiple strikes, continuing on to grappling in some occasions, rather than a couple of deliberately chosen strikes to escape from the grab.

This has been my point. You miss every single beat of the very reason that Sword and Hammer exists, why it is structured the way it is, and what it teaches from a strategic and tactical point. You've looked at a single idea, which is whether or not it fits what you think is realistic, without looking at what it actually teaches and why. There's a reason it's a Yellow Belt technique, Ras, and it's because it's teaching fundamental tactics and concepts that can be built on later in your education and training. By not understanding this, and only having your attitude of "this is craptastical hyperunrealistic kenpofantasyland stuff" you are frankly robbing your students of actually learning Kenpo in the first place. Because if you don't see the structure of the techniques and their reasons for being the way they are, you don't get the art.

Oh, and Mike? That's been what I've been talking about. I've been trying to get Ras to say what Sword and Hammer teaches, but he seems to not understand that question....



Dude, just because you don't know how to train it doesn't mean that others don't. I can think of numerous ways of training it that are highly realistic (far more realistic than sparring, for the record), and can show it's use easily. So I wouldn't be so quick to say such things are "factually without merit". But again, you might want to look at what the actual attack is, as you still seem to be missing it.



Well, firstly, what's wrong with it as a teaching tool? This is another thing, Ras, there are huge numbers of drills, training tools, methods, and more that have no functional application, but are essential to learn the system. By cutting them out, as you only "deal with the functional", you're missing huge sections of the system and what it's trying to teach you.

But leaving that aside, in application no technique is exactly like it's practiced, but you practice an "ideal" way to ensure that the lessons it's giving you have the best chance at being instilled... and once they are, they can be expressed in many ways. They won't apply to all situations, though.



Oh dear... okay, let's look at this "Hockey Punch" that the technique is supposed to deal with. Essentially, that attack involves someone approaching from the side/rear, grabbing your shoulder, then pulling to turn you towards them (if grabbed on your right shoulder, which would be with their left hand, it turns you clockwise and back, if grabbed on your left shoulder, it turns you counterclockwise and back), then punching after you've turned. The turning is to disorient you, as well as line you up for the punch, so the punch doesn't happen until after the grab and pull. Right, so that's understood hopefully.

But here's the thing. If you're grabbed (we'll say right shoulder) and pulled, you have one option of angle, which is back along the lines of the pull. You can't go counterclockwise (as you show), as you'll just be pulled off balance. The only other option, really, is to brace and try to resist the pull... but that goes against the lessons of the technique in the first place.

And frankly, doing different things unrelated to the actual technique doesn't make it a better version, it makes it a different technique. But I do have to say that your technique does neither more, nor in a superior manner. It's just a different technique against a different attack with different tactics and a different premise and rhythm. It's not superior. You just don't get the original one, or what it's about.



If you don't have to compare it, why have you for most of the thread, starting with a direct comparison as your very first post, and repeating it time and again, including in this post itself? If you don't need to compare to EPAK Sword and Hammer, as yours is completely removed from it, why have you? Cake is not a better version of bread, even if both are baked in an oven, Ras. If you doubt that, make a sandwich with cake.


You're kidding, right? You mean this paragraph:
[QUOTE-Chris Parker]Seriously, Ras, we've been saying from the beginning that your version is not even related to the first ones you show (the standard forms), and have been asking you to clarify that... which you have completely failed to do. Now, 12 pages and 167 posts in, you've finally said that your technique has no connection to the original from whom you took the name, and very little else... so what was the point? You might as well have put up a video of someone defending against a bear hug and pointed out how that defence doesn't work against a stabbing knife attack.

right?

Dude, seriously, read what you're saying. In the last paragraph you say you don't have to show a comparison... and now you're defending them as being related? When it comes to the idea of your Sword and Hammer being related to the EPAK version you compare it to without needing to compare it to (you are following this, yeah?), the relationship is as follows: Same angle of attack (but a different attack), same name, and the identification of the art as Kenpo. As far as your idea of a Mercedes being related to a Model T, not really the same thing as you're putting forth here, unless, of course, you were putting a Ford badge on your Merc and saying it was a more functional version of the Model T.... honestly, I'd give up on analogies, you missed the mark on that one.



Ras, if your techniques are completely different, why the need to point out that yours is a better version of a different technique? It's like my saying that our front kicks are a better version of karate's front kicks... even though they have no real points of similarity other than both having a forward angle and using the foot to contact the opponent.

Oh, and seriously drop the hard sell, it makes you look cheap.



Right. And if you don't get what I've been saying from the first response on page 1 now, I don't think you'll ever get it. Mainly as you're simply not coming from an open minded standpoint, but are insistent on repeating yourself without understanding the questions in the first place.



No, it's not that we disagree, Ras, it's that you haven't understood the actual criticism. So let's not leave it at you thinking your still so far superior, as all you've shown is that you have a different approach, which to my mind is rather limited in many ways, not anything superior, and have a bit of an ego problem dealing with people who don't automatically honour your brilliance.

To your approach, and the reason I find it limited, which is tied with what you've shown me of why you haven't understood what I've been asking.

Ras, you don't teach martial arts. You don't understand martial arts. You haven't learnt martial arts. You teach techniques. You have some understanding of techniques. That's all. Your entire focus is on "how to use a technique", not on how to employ strategies or tactics. Each of your videos is only a collection of mechanical approaches, none follow any understanding of the strategies of the techniques themselves. The thing is, though, the mechanical methods (particular grips, strikes, kicks etc) are not what works, it's the application of strategies and tactics that employ those mechanics. In short, you teach the use of a bunch of ingredients, some of which can be eaten by themselves, others can't, but have no idea of the recipes. And trying to talk to you in terms of martial art concepts of strategy and tactics (asking what the lessons of Sword and Hammer are, for instance) has simply confused you, as you don't understand it. If it's not a mechanical technique, you don't get it. But, of course, that's really been the thrust of the argument. Which is why it's now 17 pages long.[/QUOTE] - chris Parker
****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

WE AT THE ATACX GYM HAVE HEARD THE PLEAS OF THE VIEWERSHIP OF THIS THREAD AND RESPONDED. WE SHALL RESPOND TO THE ABOVE AS YOU ASKED US TO: WITH SIMPLE DIRECT REAL WORLD COMBAT COMMON SENSE.

All of the foregoing from top to bottom is incorrect. In every way. I won't waste time with a comprehensive response but point out the essentials for those of you who might be new and might be taken in by the length and earnestness of Chris Parker's post, while perhaps overlooking the gargantuan errors therein as a result.

This entire discussion evaporates when you're on the mat and someone punches you. You get your noggin handed to you for trying to do what is miscalled the IP version of Sword and Hammer, and then you are just fine and annihilate said BG when you use my variant. B

The real world video that I provided of that brutha [ Black dude ] getting cracked with THE REAL WORLD ATTACK that this tech is purported to defend makes this point ironclad for the reasonable persons amongst you, the viewership. You have contacted me numerous times and made this point clear, and I deeply appreciate the opinions that you have shared with me.u

But for those of you who did NOT click on my video:

Chris said my tech is mechanically flawed and that I turn away from the pull. Again, he is squarely repudiated by the video itself. Look at SWORD AND HAMMER RADIUS R.D.L. 1A. I show again at length that his comment isn't true. I show it again in a more truncated form in ATACX GYM KENPO KARATE SWORD AND HAMMER RADIUS R.D.L. 2. I go with the energy of the attack every time. When pushed I move in the direction of the push. When pulled I turn with the pull. Observe the lack of same in the dysfunctional so called IP version. Chris alludes to a grab and pull that for the most part is absent from the majority of the more common variants of Sword and Hammer. I mean...IN MOST OF THE VIDEOS OF THE VERSION OF THE SWORD AND HAMMER THAT HE PREFERS THERE IS NEITHER A GRAB NOR PULL, JUST A GUY LAYING HIS HAND ON YOUR SHOULDER,COCKING HIS FIST BACK, AND POSING. This, as we all who spar and scrap know, simply is the last thing that happens in real SD scenarios.

I of course deal with what is far more likely to happen in the real world vs this kind of attack. That's not an arrogant statement, it's just true. There are lotsa other people who do the same, but NONE of them are the people that Chris referes to. In the videos on this thread? ONLY I DEAL WITH THE HIGHER ATTACK PROBABILITIES AND MORE REALISTIC SCENARIOS.

I deal with the oncoming punches of uke. Observe the lack of any punch in the so-called IP. I don't grab BG's hand and pin it to my shoulder because combatively it's nonsense. The BG was trying to pull or push you or set you in place to punch/stab/kick/whatever you anyway. All you did is in essence help him use the hand he was using to control you by not only misreading the intent of the grab, your stupid butt took your RIGHT HAND--statistically our dominant hand--out of play and opened up a major lane for the BG to simply spin you and shut your lights off with a single strike.

Clearly Chris Parker hasn't sparred with this tech. Or else he'd know that every last one of his analysis in this regard is simply not true and doesn't hold up to the general thrust of objective reality when sparring or fighting with this tech. Now lemme clarify before further foolishness flows from various keyboards: I am not saying that everyone will get the exact same results that I do. What I am saying is that the majority of people who spar with this tech whether they get the exact same results as I do or not will immediately grasp the great validity and plausibility of my comments because they've experienced it seen it or something very close to it themselves.

As a result, I can say that the more common version of Sword and Hammer is by and large craptasticness. Even Doc said that the techs "as written are unworkable" and that various foolish mortals copy it slavishly anyway "even when it doesn't make sense". This is a result of mistaking the general guidelines in Big Red for a hard and fast way of doing things.

I ask the viewership of this thread to observe my multipage debate disagreement and discussion with Chris, and consider the following:

1. Imagine if this discussion, disagreement and debate had been raging for nigh on 40 years or so

2. Imagine that Chris and I thoroughly inculcated our followers with a semi-cultish desire to support our opinions vs anything different or to the contrary, regardless of how obviously superior this "contrary" or "different" position may be.

3. This is what has happened by and large in Kenpolitics

4. The funnies thing of all is...Chris isn't even a Kenpo guy and he's carrying on like this.


Now all of you should see why I have nothing to do with Kenpolitics and thank my Uncle-GM profusely for keeping us away from same during our entire martial journey thus far.

 

[Chris Parker]

No, Ras, I'm sick of that. You've said a number of times now that I've been wrong in "every conceivable way" but never once demonstrated it. And you still don't seem to have the first clue what I'm saying, as you miss every single point in your response.

Dude, put up or shut up, seriously. If I'm wrong, point it out. I've pointed out where you're wrong numerous times, you have yet to do it once.

 

[ATACX GYM]

To be honest, I've never referred to a block, punch or kick, as a technique. I've always called them what they were...a punch, a kick, etc, or the basics.

Agreed

But isn't this going back to what we talked about earlier? Trying to make something fit a hole that it wasn't deisgned for? Again, once you step out of the platform, for which the tech, whatever it may be, was designed for, then IMHO, its no longer the same tech. You're using parts. Just like part of a tech can be used to break guard, part of a tech could be used for a lock. But like FC said....in reality its not the inward block from Attacking Mace...its an inward block.

Yes it IS what we talked about earlier...but the salient point here is that we talked about the fact that each instructor has the right to craft their own I.P. which they feel encapsulates the relevant lessons of the relevant street attack. The more common expression of this tech IS NOT THE STANDARD, it is a result of a misunderstanding of BIG RED'S loose guidelines as THE WAY...among other factors. The self defense sequence Sword and Hammer that most practice is fundamentally flawed and functional only if the BG does exactly as depicted: essentially lay his hand on your shoulder like a dead starfish, cock his fist back, stand and pose. In other words? It's extremely dysfunctional. I rejected this largely dysfunctional expression because it's my opinion that most street scenarios don't involve this kind of dynamic of not-grabbing with a flank grab and NOT punching when the BG cocks his fist back [ but hey...if you GOTTA be in a street fight and can choose who can attack you? Choose the BG who is shown in the "more common" expressions of the Sword and Hammer IP. He sucks and you'll win every time, lol ]. I then took those lessons to the other more common aspects of h2h SD.

I will put up a video this weekend showing you very simple, very direct applications of my Sword and Hammer ATACX GYM IP to every area that I said it would work in.


Which is fine, but I still stand by what I've said in the past...that that will only show the student a very basic understanding of a weapon. Its like Jr High and High school level understanding. I have tape of Joe Simonet doing this very thing. OTOH, Joe also trains Doce Pares, a FMA, so thats probably not a good example...lol.

I agree that the FMAs are a good place to start with weapon training, etc. However, as I stated before: I look at the general expression of physical techs in martial arts with specific focuses like judo or kali or whatnot as really a collection of training methods designed to produce a specific result via a favored means. Mostly grappling for judo, mostly weapons, hand and foot strikes for kali. I think that essentially martial arts with specific focuses are part of a whole, pieces of a more comprehensive puzzle. It's no coincidence that Kenpo and Kali fit like hand to glove, and same with judo and bjj. In fact, you can rather seamlessly mesh MT and Kali, or Capoeira and bjj. It's hard to find disciplines that can't be merged very well...when the training method is there.

IT'S NOT JUST WHAT YOU KNOW, IT'S HOW AND WHY YOU TRAIN...

The bolded portions are my replies to MJS...

 

[Flying Crane]

Yes, you're probably right. So this begs the next question of: Who got the 'real Kenpo'? Doc? I would be very interested in meeting/training/talking with him, live, 1 on 1. I think it'd be a very eye opening and interesting experience. I will say that it seems to me, that Doc would be 1, if not 'the' only person, as it seems his Kenpo is very different from others that I've seen.

traditionally in the Chinese arts not everyone got taught everything, and not everyone got taught to the same depth and thoroughness. There is definitely a difference between being a student vs being a disciple, and even at the level of disciple there is another level of being an "in-door disciple". That last group are the few individuals who have been accepted and chosen, and who have agreed to become the next generation of leaders in the art, who learn the complete method. They carry the responsibility of making sure the art in its complete form survives, even tho the students who were not disciples and have not learned the complete art can be teachers and teach to their own level of knowledge and skill.

The difference is that in this scenario, typically the non-disciple students are still taught the same system, with the same progression, just not as deep and not all of it. There is not a separate, possibly "inferior" method that is taught to them.

In my own situation, I am the one student in the group, and the other four are all disciples who have been with Sifu for several decades, vs. me coming up on three years. At this point in my training, I have no need to be a disciple because I have a ways to go before I exhaust what Sifu is willing to teach to someone at my level as a student. When and if the circumstances arise, I hope to have the opportunity to become a disciple and learn the complete system. We'll see, when the time comes. But in the meantime, I train alongside the disciples, and there are no secrets that I am aware of. They have material that I have not yet learned, but I do not see any secret, hush-hush discussions going on that are designed to keep me in the dark. Of course they also train on other nights when I am not there, so I have no idea what goes on at those times, nor what kinds of discussions happen when they take Sifu out for lunch after class is finished.

My point in all this is simply that in the traditional Chinese approach to this, while the disciples get the complete system and the students do not get the complete system, what the students get is not watered-down nor inferior. They get the same, only not as much and not with as much depth. But that stuff, even tho not the complete system, is still extremely functional and honestly is all that most people would ever need, if properly understood and developed. Sifu keeps saying that it all comes back to the basics, and the advanced material is simply designed to reinforce the lessons that are held in the basics. If you had the vision to completely understand the basics, you would not need to learn the advanced material. The advanced material just gives more examples, to lead us back to a deeper understanding of how the basics contain it all.

And of course, another thing: isn't it a shame that the majority must not have wanted the real deal, instead accepting something that was a lesser quality? Learn as much as possible, get a BB quick, get high rank quick, when you're missing out on a ton of secrets.

Do we know that is what happened? I'll bet if you asked them, none would agree to this. I'll bet they all believed that they were getting the "goods". Was there some level of dishonesty or deception that was deemed necessary, in order to get the business model up and running? Did this play on the egos of those who wanted the rank and were given it, without the disclosure that they were missing key components of the education? I dunno. But I find it difficult to blame those students who were given rank and given the go-ahead to be "teachers", but were not properly trained, or were trained in a deliberately inferior product. They are simply doing as they were told and encouraged to do. If this lead to a breakdown of quality, or the propagation of a whole branch of the system that is inherently inferior, then I say the fault lies on the shoulders of the one who set them up.

 

[ATACX GYM]

Right. Ras, try to listen here.



Ras, to be completely blunt, this is the core of your problems, and the absolute evidence that you are not in any way right. In the slightest. Let's demonstrate, as you seem rather ignorant of what, or even how a technique teaches it's lessons.

The lessons of EPAK Sword and Hammer are numerous, but some that are immediately apparent are as follows:
- When grabbed, capture the grabbing hand for psychological and physical control.

Grabbing the BG's hand doesn't give you psychological or physical control. He grabbed you in order to control you by locking you down into place for, pushing you away from, or pulling you in to the incoming blows that he's raining on you. Using your far hand to pin BG's hand to your shoulder simply means that you're unwise enough to remove your unencumbered limb from combat, thus opening up other lanes for the BG to attack and hurt you [ or his friends to do the same ] and removing your limb from the possibility of offensive strikes

- When being pulled, go with the energy of that pull.

Most of the more common Sword and Hammer sequences that I've seen live as well as those on YT do NOT feature an actual pull by uke. Most have him posing and doing nothing. But even if they did feature the pull? They neglect to address the very high probability that the BG's punch is hard on the heels of the pull, so they'll be pulled into the oncoming punch in far too many cases. The "more common" Sword and Hammer version that you claim is superior to mine doesn't remotely address this reality.

- The use of pre-emptive striking as a tactic.

As I have previously stated and left links proving to be true...Kenpo Elders like Larry Tatum and Doc Chapel find the "pre-emptive strike" notion to be questionable at best. On the mat? Their skepticism is thoroughly underscored by actually sparring with Sword and Hammer vs the Hockey Punch.

- The application of strikes to weak areas that are difficult to build up (throat, groin, solar plexus or floating ribs in other versions).

Okay, I hit many of those same areas too...functionally, I might add.

What you might not consider, though, is that the BG might be taller with a longer range that PREVENTS you from countering with Sword and Hammer at that distance. Since I'm only 5'7" tall, that is a constant concern. Further, it's statistically true that bigger taller people are more aggressive toward shorter smaller people--especially toward women who fit the latter description--than vice versa. It's also statistically true that the shorter smaller people formulate a larger percentage of victims of violence. The very structure of this tech ignores this reality. Mine addresses it every step of the way of my sequence.

- Choose powerful, high-return targets.

I do too

- Drop your weight when being pulled to retain your balance

The more common Sword and Hammer almost never addresses balance, and when it does? it does so with a great lack of reality. Again, the issue of height weight and leverage is also of the first importance here, and the more common version of Sword and Hammer doesn't address this matter with anywhere near the depth and reality that I do.

- Choose appropriate weapons to the targets.

As do I

- Use two strikes to respond, with the first being an "interrupting" strike, the second being a "stopping" strike, allowing the escape.

Again...statistically the majority of BGs are larger than their victims. Oftentimes the shorter lighter victim doesn't have the reach to counter with a Sword and Hammer, thus invalidating this whole sequence when done the way that you and the more common Sword and Hammer variant recommends.

Furthermore, many confrontations are not resolved by a potent 1-2 combo. If your handsword is blocked, then what? Trusting the hammerfist to end matters with a single groin strike isn't really that wise. It's harder to land that shot than it appears. On top of that? Chances are very very high that YOU'LL GET HIT FIRST AND REPEATEDLY BY THE BG BEFORE YOU GET A CHANCE TO LAUNCH YOUR COUNTEROFFENSIVE.

Therefore the entire premise, top to bottom, that you champion is at the very least highly questionable and has been proven to be so in objective reality.


Your version, though Ras...

- Does not feature the covering grab to the attackers grabbing hand (sometimes called the "controlling" hand), so you miss this lesson.

I already answered this question by pointing out how dysfunctional and unwise such a move is

- Does not "go with the pull", as you actually go in the opposite direction to the energy of the pull after it has stopped.

Except that literally in every instance that a pull or push was used, I prove you to be wrong. Since my very first video:

ATACX GYM SWORD AND HAMMER RADIUS R.D.L. PT 1

AT 0:48 I SHOW THAT YOUR HANDSWORD IS LIKELY TO BE BLOCKED BY THE BG'S REAR HAND THAT IS COCKED AS A FIST TO HIT YOU, BECAUSE YOUR HANDSWORD WILL INTERSECT HIS ONCOMING PUNCH OR LITERALLY HIS FIST WILL SHIELD HIS THROAT FROM YOUR HANDSWORD OR BOTH...EVEN IF THE BG IS JUST POSING BUT WITH HIS FIST REALISTICALLY COCKED. GO TO 1:28. MY COUSIN CHRIS HAS GRIPPED MY LEFT SHOULDER WITH HIS LEFT HAND. IF I FIRE MY LEFT HANDSWORD? HIS EXTENDED ARM WILL BLOCK THE BLOW WITHOUT ANY EFFORT ON HIS PART.

I GET PUSHED IN THIS VIDEO, I GO WITH THE PUSH, RECOVER MY BALANCE, SPIN AND COUNTER. I ALSO SPECIFY IN THIS VIDEO THAT I KEEP MY HANDS UP BECAUSE I COULD ALSO BE PULLED INTO A PUNCH. A PULL WILL TURN ME INTO THE PUNCH. I GO WITH THE FLOW, NOT TRY TO COUNTER IT.

[video=youtube_share;eo4yj0MZyeI]http://youtu.be/eo4yj0MZyeI[/video]


I VIDEO MYSELF GOING WITH THE PULL STARTING AT 5:30 ON FORWARD IN THIS VIDEO:

[video=youtube_share;AuvuhW1u2WE]http://youtu.be/AuvuhW1u2WE[/video]

AND AGAIN IN THIS VIDEO FROM 4:10 forward

- Does not use pre-emptive striking, even though that is a fundamental lesson and integral element of Sword and Hammer, and a huge part of what makes the technique what it is... hence my first comments saying that what you are doing is something completely different.

As mentioned previously, Doc and Larry Tatum have already debunked this pre-emptive idea.

- Uses a range of strikes to multiple targets without looking specifically to the results or the effect.

I went into chapter and verse more than once showing the specific effect of the sword and hammer to the targets that I select and access in my sequence. I don't think that I have to explain what a knee to the groin does or what a choke does.

- Uses Swordhand and Hammerfist strikes seemingly only to justify it being called Sword and Hammer, rather than those weapons being appropriate to the targets chosen. Your first usage is to have a Swordhand and Hammerfist raised against the grabbing arm, despite there being no benefit whatsoever.

Completely untrue. Firstly the sword and hammer in my video is every bit as fitted to the throat strikes as it is in the version that you champion. I specified more than once using science and my own personal experience the exact locations on the arm that I target my sword and hammer to, the body mechanics involved, etc. I posted it on this very thread, too.

- Uses multiple strikes, continuing on to grappling in some occasions, rather than a couple of deliberately chosen strikes to escape from the grab.

The tech selection I use addresses the many functional factors that the version that you champion doesn't address, like reach disadvantage, multifight scenarios, grappling, armed assailants, and the fact that the BG may be reacting defensively and may parry block slip etc or we might MISS with our chosen offensives and have to flow seamlessly into another blow. These kinds of real world realities are things that apparently aren't significant or important to you, or maybe they just slipped your...ahem...eagle eye.

This has been my point. You miss every single beat of the very reason that Sword and Hammer exists, why it is structured the way it is, and what it teaches from a strategic and tactical point. You've looked at a single idea, which is whether or not it fits what you think is realistic, without looking at what it actually teaches and why. There's a reason it's a Yellow Belt technique, Ras, and it's because it's teaching fundamental tactics and concepts that can be built on later in your education and training. By not understanding this, and only having your attitude of "this is craptastical hyperunrealistic kenpofantasyland stuff" you are frankly robbing your students of actually learning Kenpo in the first place. Because if you don't see the structure of the techniques and their reasons for being the way they are, you don't get the art.

Except that it doesn't do any of the things you claimed

Oh, and Mike? That's been what I've been talking about. I've been trying to get Ras to say what Sword and Hammer teaches, but he seems to not understand that question....

No, I understand. You are the one who fails to understand, and this response of mine proves that conclusively to any objective logical analytical mind.


Ras, you don't teach martial arts. You don't understand martial arts. You haven't learnt martial arts. You teach techniques. You have some understanding of techniques. That's all. Your entire focus is on "how to use a technique", not on how to employ strategies or tactics. Each of your videos is only a collection of mechanical approaches, none follow any understanding of the strategies of the techniques themselves. The thing is, though, the mechanical methods (particular grips, strikes, kicks etc) are not what works, it's the application of strategies and tactics that employ those mechanics. In short, you teach the use of a bunch of ingredients, some of which can be eaten by themselves, others can't, but have no idea of the recipes. And trying to talk to you in terms of martial art concepts of strategy and tactics (asking what the lessons of Sword and Hammer are, for instance) has simply confused you, as you don't understand it. If it's not a mechanical technique, you don't get it. But, of course, that's really been the thrust of the argument. Which is why it's now 17 pages long.

And all of this is wrong too^^^^. I provided video data, posts with links to authorities on the matter, and provided my own opinion on all of the above.

Chris. Let it go, man. We disagree and aren't going to convince one another. So let it go. I have. The only times I've responded to you after I realized this is when I've been urged to by those with more experience on this board who combined their urging with a solid argument for me to respond to a specific post of yours in a specific way.

Man. We disagree. Let it go.

Unless...you're willing to up the ante and make the stakes objective and have a specific terminus in sight? Otherwise we could disagree interminably...like now.

What might be edifying, though, is a video of YOU doing Sword and Hammer and illustrating your responses to my points via video. Don't need your instructor's permission cuz you're not doing his art, you're just showing a single sequence from a art you don't study and giving your opinion on it...

I'll be posting a video showing another facet of my Sword and Hammer this weekend...along with a slew of other videos. Including capoeira videos [ I haven't forgotten THAT thread ]. So as you said: "...put up or shut up..."

The bolded versions are my response to Chris Parker.

 

[Aiki Lee]

Dear Jesus, is this really still going on? Arguing about this is like giving medicine to the dead.

 

[Twin Fist]

Chris makes salient points

Ras ignores them, say everyone but him is wrong, and copy pastes everyone into a coma. I stopped counting at 13 the number of times he claims to have proven someone wrong based only on him saying "you are wrong and i proved it"





copying and pasting the same 4 -6 videos over and over and over and over? that isnt proof of anything other than that you are obtuse

 

[Aiki Lee]

Oh I know. I've been following the whole thread. Chris makes the same points I tried to make and then some and I don't see why Ras does not see where he is coming from. But if Ras honestly doesn't see what we are trying to tell him then no ammount of type or talk will persuade him otherwise.

 

[Cyriacus]

The tech selection I use addresses the many functional factors that the version that you champion doesn't address, like reach disadvantage, multifight scenarios, grappling, armed assailants, and the fact that the BG may be reacting defensively and may parry block slip etc or we might MISS with our chosen offensives and have to flow seamlessly into another blow. These kinds of real world realities are things that apparently aren't significant or important to you, or maybe they just slipped your...ahem...eagle eye.

Ill passively disagree.
I say passively, because Im not disagreeing so much with the principle, than with its applicability here.

Disadvantage:
Assuming You are smaller, weaker, and slower; The biggest issue becomes reach. The Solution as I see it is to Infight, or Kick. Your Tactic ought be different, but the entire structure doesnt need to be debased in order to do one of those to simple things. Theoretically a Takedown could work, but Ill let a BJJ or Judo guy speak for that. That said, Youre already accommodating for a Disadvantage in that Youre assuming Youre being hit before You can defend.

Multiple Attacker Fight Scenarios:
This is all the more reason to use one or two rapid blows, followed by an idiopathic Power Strike. This one alone is the main reason Im even replying. This method allows You to easily shift between Opponents, rather than becoming too fixated in an exchange with one, instead nullifying that one.

Grappling:
Grappling has its disadvantages, like forcing the Grabber to stay in Striking Range whether They like it or not. Plus, either side may stop 'Grappling' at any moment, and as such it is a gamble to 'Grapple' with someone, as oppose to using Grappling as a...
Well, theres a better word for this. "Gap Bridging Tool".

Armed Assailants:
So someones punched You in the back of the Head... Instead of just stabbing You in a way You pretty much cant Defend if Youre not aware of the attack? Im not disagreeing with this one, so much as calling it irrelevant.
But for the sake of discussion, lets make it a blunt instrument, and presume the blunt forced trauma to the head hasnt incapacitated You. Your Tactics hardly change. In fact, getting closer becomes an even better idea.

Defensive BG:
This is pretty much a "They are ******" Scenario.
If You begin a Counter-Offense, and They go Full Defense, it can be very easy to overwhelm someone, either by breaking down their wrists, or just hitting anything remotely exposed, or hitting them in the head regardless, since the force travels through, albeit reduced; But permitting further shots to be executed. Im agreeing with this one, but not in the way You intended.

Flowing Seamlessly:
That I can agree with, which is why I dont think a Scripted Defense should be any longer than 1-2 Motions, as oppose to a long sequence. It makes it easier to flow, rather than trying to be in one predetermined cycle. In a way, alot of what Youre showing is a Possible Best Case Scenario. Which is why whenever I initially comment on Your Videos, I mostly remark on the initial retaliation, and less so on what comes after. Theres no buts in this one, its just decently agreeable.

Now, if Youre so inclined, feel free to stop reading right about here.

No, Ras, I'm sick of that. You've said a number of times now that I've been wrong in "every conceivable way" but never once demonstrated it. And you still don't seem to have the first clue what I'm saying, as you miss every single point in your response.

Dude, put up or shut up, seriously. If I'm wrong, point it out. I've pointed out where you're wrong numerous times, you have yet to do it once.

And this is the biggest issue.
Chris, if Im not mistaken, delved into one particular aspect of the Kenpo side of the Defense. And then this somehow spiraled into a Kenpo debate. Lets look back at the Roots.

Ah, Ras, you're not going to like me much, but you did ask for "debate discussion commenting or rude gestures...", so...

The first thing I'm going to say is, if you're going to be basically just posting videos over and over again, can you learn how to embed the things? It's really not hard, you click on the video strip icon at the top of the post window (second from the right), and paste the URL of the video you want in the space provided in the pop-up box. Then click "OK". It'll make it a lot easier for people to watch your clips, it'll make them more likely to click on them to watch them, especially when you put 7 different clips in a single post, as most people just don't want to keep opening new windows over and over again, and can help you get the comments you are after, meaning you won't have to keep following up your own posts asking why no-one's commenting.... I get the feeling that a number of the "views" here just saw the URL links and didn't want to check out the clips themselves, hence no comments. Okay?

Right, next.

[From about here...] There are quite a few issues that are leaping out at me from your entire premise here. We'll begin by embedding the clips so others can more easily see what we're talking about. To begin with, your "IP" versions, which you consider flawed:

Each of these show the same thing, with very little difference, so I'm not sure why three clips were needed... oh, well. We'll come back to these.

Next you link a couple of clips that show "the actual real world attacks that the traditional method alleged IP techs like those above are supposed to defend against". Love the passive aggressive tone, by the way.

The problem, of course, is that these attacks are not what is shown in the technique, nor is it what you demonstrate against in your versions. But there's a bigger problem than that, when your clips are shown. Speaking of which, here they are:

Right, now we can play.

[To Here]
Alrighty. Weve had some references put up as three comparatives. Alrighty then.

To begin with, let's look back at the initial version of the technique as shown. It's a yellow belt technique, fairly early on in the syllabus, if I'm not mistaken, yeah? And it's basically dealing with a grab to your shoulder (the clips you linked show the right shoulder, you oscillate between right and left, I don't think it matters too much, provided it's the left hand grabbing the right shoulder, or the right hand grabbing the left... otherwise it changes the technique into requiring something different), which you secure/cover with your far hand, then step towards the opponent as they threaten a strike, and pre-emptively strike to their throat with a sword-hand, and "bounce" that hand down to strike with a hammer fist to an open target. I'm going to be bluntly honest, Ras, there's really little wrong with that technique.

I for one see little point in the Hammerfist as oppose to a Punch, but the point is, this seems to have been the catalyst of all that follows.

The biggest issue with it arises when the person grabbing you was just going to ask you the time, or to offer a drink, or similar, and you crush their trachea as a result... so I might not choose a potentially lethal strike as my first response against a grab. Courts here tend to look down on such things. But from a mechanical point of view, this technique is actually quite solid, taking into account a range of likely events. Not bad at all, really.

It isnt bad at all. I think however, that Ras originally came up with His view on it, based on assuming Youve already been hit, thereby instigating Violence, rather than focusing on an immediate counter. Im cool with it both ways.

When we get to your clips, though, I gotta say, uh, what? Neither of those clips show anything like the attack that Sword and Hammer are dealing with.

This was also a catalyst. Whilst completely correct, it caused a spiral of debating what is and is not Sword and Hammer. A Question that could have been answered so early on, that was answered last page I believe, with "Its just taking the principle. Not the exact Counter. It could well be renamed." And all this could have theoretically been avoided.

Both are essentially king-hits which work by blind-siding the people being hit. There is no grab to the shoulder, which is the primary aspect of the attack in Sword and Hammer, as shown in each and every version shown, the three initial ones, both of yours, and all others I've seen from a quick search. So, uh, no. Additionally, you don't seem to have paid attention to them, based on some comments you make in your clip.

Right, your clips.

The first one, well, let's be frank. It's again basically overkill, which is something missing from the initial technique (other than an overly aggressive first strike). Additionally, the basic attack isn't actually that realistic (the original one is more realistic, to be honest). Let's start there, as your first point is to talk down the common version.

Ill agree. But then, most attackers have no idea what Theyre doing. I believe it was MJS I made a similar comment to.

You give the set-up of a grab to the shoulder, and then talk (with a degree of sarcasm, it seems...) about "feel(ing) the Kempo-ness of the situation" before turning and striking. There's a little interplay about the opponent not blocking (as your training partner does), and you finish by saying that "this doesn't happen in real life". Actually Ras, yes, it does. There are a number of set-ups that might go this way, but it's really a relatively common form of attack. The basic idea is that they grab your shoulder, and pull you into a strike with the other hand. The pull turns you towards them, as well as into the strike itself, adding to the power.

Ill just go ahead and verify this. Ive seen it happen. I also know this somehow set the tone for all that came after. Its almost like this started a huge debate about Self Defense between You Two, in which we are now here.

It could be when one guy is yelling at you in front, his buddy comes up behind and grabs, pulls, and hits, or as you're turning and walking away from someone they grab you as you go, spin you, and hit. But it really is a common attack, you know.

Or You have a short verbal exchange with someone, they look like they stop caring. You go to walk away, they down another mouthfull, and go after You. Grab. Spin. Click.

Next, the idea of "feeling the Kempo-ness" leading to the execution of the technique, really, I don't see that as necessary at all. If you're being attacked with this realistically, they'll be pulling you around and back, so the step in towards them could very easily be just a natural response to the pull (and trying to keep your balance, so dropping as you step, not mentioned, but demonstrated in the clips, is expected as well). As to the cover, that's common to regain some control, and is recommended. Your idea of the other guy blocking being possible is honestly unlikely as well, as they'll be concerned about hitting you, and won't expect a counter-strike, as a result will simply not be looking to block anything.

If Ive learnt anything, even in controlled Training, most People have trouble blocking. I also suspect this is why many Systems like Boxing favor a Guard, so they dont have to actually do anything. But if someone is intent on Hitting You, Their Intent is to Hit You. Thats it. Theyre not gonna be scared just because You look at them funny. But if They do Block, as I said above, its over for them anyway. Im not calling Blocking Suicide, but under these conditions...

And the initial strike, if done with the right timing, would be launched as you're turning, making it land before the opponent's strike is properly launched, as well as providing cover in case you're just a bit too slow. Really, Ras, it's not a bad technique.

Yep. But I dont think that was why Ras remade it, so much as in and of the Attack.

Then we get you changing the structure of the attack by keeping your opponent on your left shoulder, but having them grab with their left hand... which completely removes the attack that's actually seen in Sword and Hammer, as well as removing the targets, body positioning, and more, altering the timing and rhythm of the sequence entirely, and basically necessitating a completely different technique, which, to be blunt, is what you're doing. This is no longer the Yellow Belt Technique "Sword and Hammer" from the American Kempo system, as there are almost no aspects of it left, other than similar fists being used.

Im behind this. I dont see why one cant just say "Because at that point it stops being Sword and Hammer, persay."

You also start to talk about the fact that, from here, as it's a surprise attack, you'll be hit first, probably a few times, and have to respond from there. The problem, of course, is you've just shown us what happens when you get blindsided and hit hard in a surprise attack. In most cases, you get knocked to the ground, hard. So you're not really able to continue with the technique as you show it (which is your partner slapping your back, let's be honest, hardly a committed strike to the back of the head, which is what would be likely (not too difficult to knock someone out that way, or give them a concussion, at the very least rattle them enough to continue to do some pretty major damage).

And now Ill point back to the start of My Reply. This is an Best Case Scenario. To be fair, You cannot Train for the Worst Case.

So your plan of "get hit first" isn't what I'd recommend.... and, again, it goes against what Sword and Hammer actually teaches.

And Ill agree with this. But this is also why Ras made the Concept, I believe. Based on, 'What If, but.'

The technique advocates a pre-emptive strike, in order to avoid such an eventuality. Deciding you don't think it's realistic (it certainly can be, for the record) doesn't make your technique better or more realistic, it means you've missed the point of the technique in the first place.

Which is why I dont see why it cant just be said that its only Sword and Hammer by Principle.

When it comes to the rest of the technique you show (the punch to the body, the strike to the face with the knee, the hand to the back of the neck, another fist to the back of the neck, and then another hand sword to the back of the neck again), honestly, I'm seeing a lot of mechanical problems, as well as some potential charges (based on the assault laws here) with the multiple strikes to the back of his head when it's clear he's no longer in a position to continue to assault you. But mainly the mechanical and structural issues, a range of things you do rob you of potential power, making a lot of this a lot weaker and less effective than it could be.

Charges arent an issue when the Attacks are hard to do at full speed and power with resistance. I believe I may have said this at one point, but hey. Its a possible response though.

Your second version. Well, you start off saying it's nothing like what others would have been taught, and, well, yeah. Because you have barely included anything from the original, other than the name and certain fists. Other than that, tactically it's a completely different technique, rythmically it's a completely different technique, strategically it's a completely different technique, mechanically it's a completely different technique, philosophically it's a completely different technique... really, it's just a completely different technique.

And so begins however many pages of debate.

You then denigrate the original form, including the sarcastic comment "and, he's just amazed by your skill". Really? I'd say more that he's dropped to the ground finding it hard to breathe, as you've just attacked his airways, then his groin, and gotten distance.

Never mind Breathing - Doesnt it screw up Your Vision or something? I forget now.

Clearing his arm shouldn't be necessary, or difficult, and the idea of the attacker being "amazed at your skill" shows a gap in understanding what would have actually happened, don't you think? You then make some comments about the technique not working against a real, dynamic attack... gotta say, Ras, this one I think really would. It's kinda built into the technique, and I'm a little surprised you can't see it, given the amount of "real life experience" you claim. But let's see what that "real life experience" has taught you....

You have your opponent pushing you forward while hitting you? Really? And you think that's the more common attack?

It is a possible one, just not the more common one. Im imagining someone running at You, THEN Grabbing You. Their own Momentum forces forward movement.

Gotta say, it's one of the most ineffectual attacks I can think of, as you'd be constantly pushing your victim out of the range of your fist, making your attacks not much more than useless.... Most of your following response suffers from much of the same issues as the previous one (punch to the temple? Good chance of breaking your own hand, particularly with the weak structure you're using, but hey, go for it!).

Breaking ones hand oughtnt be a concern until after - But if some did, say, run at you then grab You, theyd stop soon after.

At the four minute mark you finally get closer to the way it's supposed to be, but still miss the basic tactic of a pre-emptive strike. And, to be honest, the attack was unrealistic in it's rhythm and distancing, so it wasn't really a realistic portrayal either. And I'm really not fond of that "secure" and choke at the end... there's just too many openings and issues going on there.

And Ill agree here. Preemptive Striking may not even be Preemptive. It may be that Youre hit by the time Your Preempt actually hits.
Itll still be a better reply than waiting to get hit so You can take turns, but.

Honestly, if I was to offer you some advice, it would be to not automatically take the tact that every single technique is supposed to be an exact representation of violence, and to look for what it's teaching you. It seems to me that you tend to want to go to something you feel is more "realistic" without really looking at what is there in the first place... and that leads to some big gaps in what you're presenting.

I wont comment here. But the thing is, I dont see the problem with this whole reply, let alone why the heck its caused this debate. Its all fair criticism, and not much AT ALL would need to be altered to take it into consideration. Ras wouldnt even need to change anything Hes doing. Just demonstrating an understanding of This Reply would be anough to say "I have My Way You have Yours", as oppose to "Youre Wrong".
To each their own, as far as handling criticism goes, I guess.

Well, I said you wouldn't like it...

In other words, rethink the debate. Its gotten way off the mark from what it should be about. And I know, Ras, that Youve linked a whole lot of stuff about Preempting and whatnot, but each point You make is counterpointed, which You then counterpoint, then every 3-4 replies, it goes back to the start, and the cycle begins again.

Agree to Disagree (As You have attempted to just recently), or Demonstrate an Understanding even if You Disagree with whats being Understood.
Thats the only two ways this can go. Well, theres a Third.
More aimless debating.

 

[Chris Parker]

The bolded versions are my response to Chris Parker.

Right, now we can start to get somewhere. You're still missing a large number of aspects, such as understanding what makes a technique what it is in the first place (I really hoped once I put it down in black and white you might see it, but oh well...), but it's a start.

Grabbing the BG's hand doesn't give you psychological or physical control. He grabbed you in order to control you by locking you down into place for, pushing you away from, or pulling you in to the incoming blows that he's raining on you. Using your far hand to pin BG's hand to your shoulder simply means that you're unwise enough to remove your unencumbered limb from combat, thus opening up other lanes for the BG to attack and hurt you [ or his friends to do the same ] and removing your limb from the possibility of offensive strikes

Actually, Ras, it really does give both physical and psychological control. It gives physical control by seizing the connection point that the opponent is using to gain control over you, and when done properly there is a downward pressure (particularly on the wrist) making it harder for the bad guy to pull effectively (or push, if you insist). As far as psychological control, by placing your hand over the top of the grabbing hand, you achieve a "top control" position, which is psychologically dominant. It's the same thing as when shaking hands, a dominant handshake has your palm down, ensuring that your hand is the one on top.

Conversely, by not grabbing back, you are allowing the bad guy to maintain control over you with tacet submission, basically letting them do what they want by not going against it at all. There is no removing of your limb from potential usage, though. By your hand being on top, you can remove and use it at will... but their hand trapped under yours? Your argument is like saying that by using one arm to block an incoming strike is removing that arm from use... the covering grab is using it, not removing it from such. Every single grappling system knows and understands these aspects, so you know Ras.

Most of the more common Sword and Hammer sequences that I've seen live as well as those on YT do NOT feature an actual pull by uke. Most have him posing and doing nothing. But even if they did feature the pull? They neglect to address the very high probability that the BG's punch is hard on the heels of the pull, so they'll be pulled into the oncoming punch in far too many cases. The "more common" Sword and Hammer version that you claim is superior to mine doesn't remotely address this reality.

And this brings us back to my comments that you don't understand the actual attack when really applied... the pull precedes the strike, not both at the same time. And the pre-emptive strike that the technique (Sword and Hammer) employs does address the strike quite well, as that's what it's designed to do. As to the examples not showing the pull, then that's a shortcoming of their demonstration of the technique, not the technique itself.

As I have previously stated and left links proving to be true...Kenpo Elders like Larry Tatum and Doc Chapel find the "pre-emptive strike" notion to be questionable at best. On the mat? Their skepticism is thoroughly underscored by actually sparring with Sword and Hammer vs the Hockey Punch.

No, you've left links that you feel support your take on things. And blunt honesty? Larry's wrong.

His argument is hinged on the idea that what happens is entirely dependent upon the attackers (bad guys) actions, both in terms of mentality and intent, and physical action. And if you take that as true, then you tend to always be the "defender", waiting for an attack before you do anything... but that's not reality. Our self defence laws, for instance, prefer pre-emptive striking in many cases, and it's legally justified by two major components - the feeling of being threatened, and the attackers ability to carry out that threat. So, even in the case of Triggered Salute (which is the case study there), provided you feel threatened, and the attacker is in range and able to carry out the threat, a pre-emptive strike is a valid, powerful, high return, relatively safe, and effective action, even if the punch hasn't even begun to be formed yet.

But honestly, that's beside the actual point I was making there... which is a list of the key components that make Sword and Hammer the technique that it is, not whether or not you agree with them being a good selection of tactics. Whether or not you like low round kicks to the legs, it doesn't change what they are. Using the same name to refer to a high straight punch, and saying that it's a better version is just plain ignorant of what you were looking at in the first place.

Okay, I hit many of those same areas too...functionally, I might add.

No, you really don't. I didn't really want to get into the huge problems I see with your choices of techniques, but you're limiting your applicable power in a large number of ways, choosing poor targets and weapons, all of which leads you to use 7 or more strikes to achieve less of an effect than the two strikes used in the original.

What you might not consider, though, is that the BG might be taller with a longer range that PREVENTS you from countering with Sword and Hammer at that distance. Since I'm only 5'7" tall, that is a constant concern. Further, it's statistically true that bigger taller people are more aggressive toward shorter smaller people--especially toward women who fit the latter description--than vice versa. It's also statistically true that the shorter smaller people formulate a larger percentage of victims of violence. The very structure of this tech ignores this reality. Mine addresses it every step of the way of my sequence.

Frankly, that's a cop out. If the defender is smaller/shorter etc, even more reason for them not to be able to resist against the pull of the original technique... and the harder it'd be for them to weather the strikes that you insist need to be worn. But the real point is that them being smaller doesn't mean they need to completely abandon the principles, tactics, and strategies that the technique teaches, otherwise it's defeating the purpose. What should be done is a different expression of the same principles etc, but perhaps different targets chosen... for example, the initial pre-emptive strike for the swordhand could be to the groin, then a hammerfist to the ribs as the bad guy buckles over... that's still Sword and Hammer, but altered to suit the needs of the practitioner. Get it?

I do too

Then why does it take you so many strikes to complete a defense as compared to the standard form? In other words, no you don't.

The more common Sword and Hammer almost never addresses balance, and when it does? it does so with a great lack of reality. Again, the issue of height weight and leverage is also of the first importance here, and the more common version of Sword and Hammer doesn't address this matter with anywhere near the depth and reality that I do.

It addresses it in the step, frankly. If you don't see it, though, that might be your lack of understanding of the technique in the first place. But seriously, Ras, you don't deal with anything with more reality or depth. Going against a different attack doesn't make it more realistic, it just means that you're dealing with a different attack. I really don't think you get what you're denigrating.

As do I

Seven strikes against two, Ras. No you don't.

Again...statistically the majority of BGs are larger than their victims. Oftentimes the shorter lighter victim doesn't have the reach to counter with a Sword and Hammer, thus invalidating this whole sequence when done the way that you and the more common Sword and Hammer variant recommends.

See above. It doesn't require your complete abandonment of the actual technique.

Furthermore, many confrontations are not resolved by a potent 1-2 combo. If your handsword is blocked, then what? Trusting the hammerfist to end matters with a single groin strike isn't really that wise. It's harder to land that shot than it appears. On top of that? Chances are very very high that YOU'LL GET HIT FIRST AND REPEATEDLY BY THE BG BEFORE YOU GET A CHANCE TO LAUNCH YOUR COUNTEROFFENSIVE.

Wow, do you miss the point of the structure of techniques Ras... as well as the structure of this one.

Therefore the entire premise, top to bottom, that you champion is at the very least highly questionable and has been proven to be so in objective reality.

No, Ras, what has been proven, top to bottom, is that you have no understanding of the structure and point of techniques, why they are the way they are, what they teach and how, or what makes a technique what it is. By missing the point and deciding you don't like pre-emptive strikes, or understand the reality of the attack, that's really no proof in "objective reality"... nor does it make it "highly questionable". It makes you ignorant of the reality.

I already answered this question by pointing out how dysfunctional and unwise such a move is

Except, of course, it isn't dysfunctional nor unwise... you just missed what it actually is.

Except that literally in every instance that a pull or push was used, I prove you to be wrong. Since my very first video:

ATACX GYM SWORD AND HAMMER RADIUS R.D.L. PT 1

AT 0:48 I SHOW THAT YOUR HANDSWORD IS LIKELY TO BE BLOCKED BY THE BG'S REAR HAND THAT IS COCKED AS A FIST TO HIT YOU, BECAUSE YOUR HANDSWORD WILL INTERSECT HIS ONCOMING PUNCH OR LITERALLY HIS FIST WILL SHIELD HIS THROAT FROM YOUR HANDSWORD OR BOTH...EVEN IF THE BG IS JUST POSING BUT WITH HIS FIST REALISTICALLY COCKED. GO TO 1:28. MY COUSIN CHRIS HAS GRIPPED MY LEFT SHOULDER WITH HIS LEFT HAND. IF I FIRE MY LEFT HANDSWORD? HIS EXTENDED ARM WILL BLOCK THE BLOW WITHOUT ANY EFFORT ON HIS PART.

I GET PUSHED IN THIS VIDEO, I GO WITH THE PUSH, RECOVER MY BALANCE, SPIN AND COUNTER. I ALSO SPECIFY IN THIS VIDEO THAT I KEEP MY HANDS UP BECAUSE I COULD ALSO BE PULLED INTO A PUNCH. A PULL WILL TURN ME INTO THE PUNCH. I GO WITH THE FLOW, NOT TRY TO COUNTER IT.

Right. Firstly, by putting in a push you are not doing Sword and Hammer. By changing the body shape (changing the hand holding the shoulder), you're no longer doing Sword and Hammer. By not employing a pre-emptive strike, you're not doing Sword and Hammer. So you're not doing Sword and Hammer. Next, the idea of riding a push or pull is not the same as the tactic expressed in Sword and Hammer of utilizing the momentum of said pull for your strike, so what you're doing is not the same, in all of your videos.

As to showing that the swordhand would be blocked? Honestly, Ras, the only reason the arm was in a position to block was because your training partner was expecting a strike, not thinking about hitting you himself. 1:28 just shows that you're not dealing with Sword and Hammer, by the way, but a completely different set of concepts and ideas.

I VIDEO MYSELF GOING WITH THE PULL STARTING AT 5:30 ON FORWARD IN THIS VIDEO:

And yet you manage to miss the point of Sword and Hammer again...

AND AGAIN IN THIS VIDEO FROM 4:10 forward

http://youtu.be/R-mmdyIHkjs

That one again? If it wasn't convincing the first twelve times you posted it, how do you think it'll fair this time?

As mentioned previously, Doc and Larry Tatum have already debunked this pre-emptive idea.

And, as already stated, they are wrong. But the real point is that, if the technique teaches pre-emptive striking as a tactic (and a core one for the technique in question at that), it really doesn't matter if you disagree with pre-emptive striking as a tactic... in order to teach the technique, it's essential. Without it, you're not teaching the technique, you're teaching something completely different.

I went into chapter and verse more than once showing the specific effect of the sword and hammer to the targets that I select and access in my sequence. I don't think that I have to explain what a knee to the groin does or what a choke does.

Not really the point I was making, Ras. In the standard, EPAK form of Sword and Hammer, each part makes up a strategic response, each relying on the set-up of the previous in order to give a "plan of action" for a specific result. Yours is a collection of strikes that you think are individually effective without that plan of action being present. That's really what I was getting at in the distinction between martial arts teaching and just techniques. And, once again, you demonstrate it quite completely.

Completely untrue. Firstly the sword and hammer in my video is every bit as fitted to the throat strikes as it is in the version that you champion. I specified more than once using science and my own personal experience the exact locations on the arm that I target my sword and hammer to, the body mechanics involved, etc. I posted it on this very thread, too.

What I was referring to was the turn with both forearms against the grabbing arm... one held in a swordhand, the other in a hammerfist, with no real benefit to either. From there, you are reaching to use those specific fists, and I gotta say, they aren't always the best fit. But again, this is you looking to the use of specific mechanical techniques, rather than a martial art technique.

The tech selection I use addresses the many functional factors that the version that you champion doesn't address, like reach disadvantage, multifight scenarios, grappling, armed assailants, and the fact that the BG may be reacting defensively and may parry block slip etc or we might MISS with our chosen offensives and have to flow seamlessly into another blow. These kinds of real world realities are things that apparently aren't significant or important to you, or maybe they just slipped your...ahem...eagle eye.

The only things you address that the standard doesn't are things that aren't present in the original, but you've decided to question anyway. Such as a completely different tactic, a completely different attack, a completely different response, a completely different rhythm, and so on.

And son, really, you don't have a clue what I've noticed in all of this. The biggest thing is that you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

Except that it doesn't do any of the things you claimed

What? Ras, I demonstrated what Sword and Hammer actually teaches, and how it teaches it, and you're saying it doesn't? Dude, really, get a clue here.

No, I understand. You are the one who fails to understand, and this response of mine proves that conclusively to any objective logical analytical mind.

No, it really doesn't. It just shows (again) that you don't understand the original technique, and don't understand the structure of such things enough to be able to argue against them or realistically improve them.

And all of this is wrong too^^^^. I provided video data, posts with links to authorities on the matter, and provided my own opinion on all of the above.

Ras, please. For 18 pages I've been saying that you have missed all the key points of Sword and Hammer, so your version isn't "better" any more than tea is a better version of coffee. And, when it gets spelled out to you, you still fail to see it. So, uh, nope. It's not wrong. Your ego might not handle it, Ras, but frankly this entire thread screams out that you just don't have a clue about martial arts themselves. You may be able to fight, but you have a real long way to go before you understand what it is you're teaching.

Chris. Let it go, man. We disagree and aren't going to convince one another. So let it go. I have. The only times I've responded to you after I realized this is when I've been urged to by those with more experience on this board who combined their urging with a solid argument for me to respond to a specific post of yours in a specific way.

Man. We disagree. Let it go.

Unless...you're willing to up the ante and make the stakes objective and have a specific terminus in sight? Otherwise we could disagree interminably...like now.

What might be edifying, though, is a video of YOU doing Sword and Hammer and illustrating your responses to my points via video. Don't need your instructor's permission cuz you're not doing his art, you're just showing a single sequence from a art you don't study and giving your opinion on it...

I'll be posting a video showing another facet of my Sword and Hammer this weekend...along with a slew of other videos. Including capoeira videos [ I haven't forgotten THAT thread ]. So as you said: "...put up or shut up..."

I'm not part of your Capoeira thread, Ras, but if I was, I'd point out some of the problems with your history there. As far as disagreeing? No, that's really not the case. Realistically, it's more a case of you claiming something that is demonstrably wrong, and having no argument other than "here, I've already said things that show I'm right!". And these "silent majority" of people who think you're right, as opposed to the people who actually discuss things and make an argument? How come, when so many people come to you to tell you to disagree with me, the answers are always yours, not the "solid argument" they provide, and always playing the same tune? If one was skeptical, one may point out that the evidence doesn't support them being real....

As far as me doing a video, really, there's no point. As it would be the basic technique shown in the many other clips you've linked, it wouldn't add anything. If you can't see that a completely different technique is, well, a completely different technique, I really don't see how you could understand any real argument at all.

 

[Chris Parker]

Just to use yours as a jump-off point, Cyriacus....

Ill passively disagree.
I say passively, because Im not disagreeing so much with the principle, than with its applicability here.

I'd disagree with Ras mainly as he doesn't demonstrate any understanding of the principles, nor how they do deal with each aspect that he indicates, frankly better than his technique does.

Disadvantage:
Assuming You are smaller, weaker, and slower; The biggest issue becomes reach. The Solution as I see it is to Infight, or Kick. Your Tactic ought be different, but the entire structure doesnt need to be debased in order to do one of those to simple things. Theoretically a Takedown could work, but Ill let a BJJ or Judo guy speak for that. That said, Youre already accommodating for a Disadvantage in that Youre assuming Youre being hit before You can defend.

The specific targeting may need to be changed, but the basic premise of the technique is a better option (and more realistic one) for a smaller person, due to moving inside the attackers reach, not going against the momentum of the pull, and the usage of targets that make size irrelevant.

Multiple Attacker Fight Scenarios:
This is all the more reason to use one or two rapid blows, followed by an idiopathic Power Strike. This one alone is the main reason Im even replying. This method allows You to easily shift between Opponents, rather than becoming too fixated in an exchange with one, instead nullifying that one.

The original is better in a multiple attacker scenario for a few reasons... firstly, it's a more likely attack (someone in front distracts you, the second guy grabs your shoulder from behind and pulls...), but also due to the fact that it answers immediately with only two strikes before moving on to deal with anyone else. Ras' version, on the other hand, has you wearing a number of strikes first, then employing 7 or so follow-ups to a single attacker. Just quickly, while the guy is hitting you, and you're wearing them, what are the other attackers doing? Waiting their turn? And while you're striking one guy half a dozen times, do they sit back and watch, or do they jump in?

Grappling:
Grappling has its disadvantages, like forcing the Grabber to stay in Striking Range whether They like it or not. Plus, either side may stop 'Grappling' at any moment, and as such it is a gamble to 'Grapple' with someone, as oppose to using Grappling as a...
Well, theres a better word for this. "Gap Bridging Tool".

A cornerstone of most grappling systems is the covering grab that I've pointed out, that Ras doesn't like... let's just say I'm not sold on his take on what works for grappling or not here. But if you want to actually get to it, what would you class the grabbing attack as? Or is "grappling" here only used to refer to ground work? In which case, huh?

Armed Assailants:
So someones punched You in the back of the Head... Instead of just stabbing You in a way You pretty much cant Defend if Youre not aware of the attack? Im not disagreeing with this one, so much as calling it irrelevant.
But for the sake of discussion, lets make it a blunt instrument, and presume the blunt forced trauma to the head hasnt incapacitated You. Your Tactics hardly change. In fact, getting closer becomes an even better idea.

So Ras' version is better for armed assailant's? Ras' version that has you wearing multiple strikes first? From a weapon? And that's better than hitting them first, moving inside the weapons range, and so on? Hmm....

Defensive BG:
This is pretty much a "They are ******" Scenario.
If You begin a Counter-Offense, and They go Full Defense, it can be very easy to overwhelm someone, either by breaking down their wrists, or just hitting anything remotely exposed, or hitting them in the head regardless, since the force travels through, albeit reduced; But permitting further shots to be executed. Im agreeing with this one, but not in the way You intended.

I'm sorry, "defensive bad guy"? Really? Ras, you do realize that sparring, with it's give and take, is very far from reality, yeah? And that the bad guy, with the single aim of attacking, won't be looking to defend as such? At most, they'll start to cover up if you start getting aggressive, which doesn't really have much of a functional effect on either... except that, as Ras' version continues with so many strikes, it can be seen as aggravated assault in some areas, which makes it the lesser of the choices.

Flowing Seamlessly:
That I can agree with, which is why I dont think a Scripted Defense should be any longer than 1-2 Motions, as oppose to a long sequence. It makes it easier to flow, rather than trying to be in one predetermined cycle. In a way, alot of what Youre showing is a Possible Best Case Scenario. Which is why whenever I initially comment on Your Videos, I mostly remark on the initial retaliation, and less so on what comes after. Theres no buts in this one, its just decently agreeable.

This brings up an interesting point... what is the technique designed to teach? (Okay, not so much as bring it up, I've been asking that since the beginning, but you get my point...) In the original, the "seamless flow" could be to flow seamlessly from attack to defence to disengage to escape... whereas Ras' is more about flowing from strike to strike (and not the best way I've seen, honestly).

Now, if Youre so inclined, feel free to stop reading right about here.

Well, the next part is from me, so I'll keep going...

And this is the biggest issue.
Chris, if Im not mistaken, delved into one particular aspect of the Kenpo side of the Defense. And then this somehow spiraled into a Kenpo debate. Lets look back at the Roots.

Well, the thread is in the Kenpo section, so that's kinda to be expected, honestly.... but what I've been focused on hasn't even necessarily been on the value of Ras' alternate versions as techniques in and of themselves, it's been about their validity as versions of the regular form of Sword and Hammer, as Ras himself supplied to contrast with. To put it bluntly, my issue has been that what Ras is doing isn't an alternate version of Sword and Hammer, but something completely unrelated... and Ras has displayed no understanding of what Sword and Hammer actually is, especially not to the point where he could "improve" it. At this point, he's saying he's eaten a souffle, and without understanding how it's cooked and prepared, can make a better version. Then serves you pancakes.

[From about here...] ...[To Here]
Alrighty. Weve had some references put up as three comparatives. Alrighty then.

Yep, exactly my point. These versions were put up as direct comparisons for us to use against Ras' techniques... depsite there being little to nothing to relate them. He eventually admitted this, then when called on that, denied that there was any comparison intended or to be made. Come on, really?

I for one see little point in the Hammerfist as oppose to a Punch, but the point is, this seems to have been the catalyst of all that follows.

To look at the original mechanically, a strike to the throat/neck will arch the bad guy back and raise his hands to his throat, which opens up the lower body. To use a punch with the same hand is mechanically weaker, as you need to bring it back in an odd position, and to use the other hand is to give up control before the bad guy is sufficiently finished. It's a good choice, better than a punch, really.

It isnt bad at all. I think however, that Ras originally came up with His view on it, based on assuming Youve already been hit, thereby instigating Violence, rather than focusing on an immediate counter. Im cool with it both ways.

The biggest issue with Ras coming up with the idea that the application is after you've been hit is that that completely denies what the technique is designed to teach, which is pre-emptive striking. To have it both ways is to have two completely different techniques, not two variations (one pre-emptive, and one not).

This was also a catalyst. Whilst completely correct, it caused a spiral of debating what is and is not Sword and Hammer. A Question that could have been answered so early on, that was answered last page I believe, with "Its just taking the principle. Not the exact Counter. It could well be renamed." And all this could have theoretically been avoided.

Yep, hence it being asked... unfortunately, Ras doesn't seem to understand such things, so has not been able to answer, even when it was fed to him. And, again, the big issue is that Ras has taken none of the principles, so it's not just that it's not the exact counter, it's not the same technique. At all.

Ill agree. But then, most attackers have no idea what Theyre doing. I believe it was MJS I made a similar comment to.

The idea of most attackers not having any idea what they're doing really isn't a part of it, though.

Ill just go ahead and verify this. Ive seen it happen. I also know this somehow set the tone for all that came after. Its almost like this started a huge debate about Self Defense between You Two, in which we are now here.

No, not about self defence, about Ras' inability to understand what a technique actually is, or understand the details of the original one in question, as well as his inability to see himself as wrong in any way. Self defence has actually hardly entered into it... at least in the discussion I've been having.

Or You have a short verbal exchange with someone, they look like they stop caring. You go to walk away, they down another mouthfull, and go after You. Grab. Spin. Click.

Yep, or any of a hundred other ways.

If Ive learnt anything, even in controlled Training, most People have trouble blocking. I also suspect this is why many Systems like Boxing favor a Guard, so they dont have to actually do anything. But if someone is intent on Hitting You, Their Intent is to Hit You. Thats it. Theyre not gonna be scared just because You look at them funny. But if They do Block, as I said above, its over for them anyway. Im not calling Blocking Suicide, but under these conditions...

Although that's only to do with sporting systems. Street predator mindset is rather different, and leads to quite a different range of behaviours. Sport ain't self defence, really. As such, considering the actual mindset of a street attacker, blocking isn't a part of it.

Yep. But I dont think that was why Ras remade it, so much as in and of the Attack.

No, it shows that Ras doesn't understand the real world attack represented by the attack in Sword and Hammer... so he made up something based around what he thinks is more realistic. And can't see that what he's designed it against goes against the basic premise of Sword and Hammer in the first place.

Im behind this. I dont see why one cant just say "Because at that point it stops being Sword and Hammer, persay."

Not "per se", it just isn't Sword and Hammer. At all. Except in name, really, which is somewhat confusing, but up to Ras what he wants to call his systems techniques, and I'd have no issue with that... if he didn't put it up against the other forms as a direct comparison. I mean he specifically compares it even within his own clips, for crying out loud... then said that they're not supposed to be comparable?

And now Ill point back to the start of My Reply. This is an Best Case Scenario. To be fair, You cannot Train for the Worst Case.

Well, you can, but it's more mindset training than physical, really. And if we're looking at both Ras' and the original as "best case scenario's" (which the original, or IP version certainly is), then it's designed to instill certain lessons, not be a directly usable technique in real world conditions... only to give you the lessons you need to use in a real world situation. In which case, an IP technique should be things going "according to plan", including the pre-emptive strike getting in in time, whether Ras thinks they work or not.

And Ill agree with this. But this is also why Ras made the Concept, I believe. Based on, 'What If, but.'

Hmm, no, I'd say Ras developed his technique because he doesn't understand the actual one. There are a hundred "what if's" you could do with the first without altering it's basic concepts, or abandoning them the way Ras has.

Which is why I dont see why it cant just be said that its only Sword and Hammer by Principle.

Because it's not. It's just not. It's not Sword and Hammer in principle at all, he's ignored every principle that makes the technique Sword and Hammer in the first place.

Charges arent an issue when the Attacks are hard to do at full speed and power with resistance. I believe I may have said this at one point, but hey. Its a possible response though.

The reference to charges was more that if you're going to teach such overkill as a "self defence" technique, or approach, it's a good idea for the instructor to know if he's teaching the students to be put in jail if they use them. So while it probably won't be going through your head in the heat of the moment, it should play a role in the teaching of techniques... and if you've only given techniques that would be deemed as aggravated assault, it could be a good idea to reconsider what you're teaching.

And so begins however many pages of debate.

18 and counting!

Never mind Breathing - Doesnt it screw up Your Vision or something? I forget now.

Well, your eyes can water... but having affected vision isn't really worse than having issues breathing due to a bruised or swelling trachea. Hmm.

It is a possible one, just not the more common one. Im imagining someone running at You, THEN Grabbing You. Their own Momentum forces forward movement.

Running at you would more likely involve a tackle, to be honest. Not a push. A push indicates that the attacker wants to avoid risking themselves, as they're (psychologically) keeping you away.

Breaking ones hand oughtnt be a concern until after - But if some did, say, run at you then grab You, theyd stop soon after.

Again, the breaking the hand comment was pointing out a flaw in what Ras was teaching. In terms of someone running, grabbing, then stopping? That's honestly such a conflicted set of actions that, as an attack, you're more likely to face Ras' push and hit attack....

And Ill agree here. Preemptive Striking may not even be Preemptive. It may be that Youre hit by the time Your Preempt actually hits.
Itll still be a better reply than waiting to get hit so You can take turns, but.

Exchanging blows happens in three scenarios: sport, movies, and martial arts fantasies. Okay, four. People who have no idea what they're doing. As far as a pre-emptive strike not landing until after you've been hit yourself? Uh, that's ain't a pre-emptive strike, it's at best a simultaneous hit.

I wont comment here. But the thing is, I dont see the problem with this whole reply, let alone why the heck its caused this debate. Its all fair criticism, and not much AT ALL would need to be altered to take it into consideration. Ras wouldnt even need to change anything Hes doing. Just demonstrating an understanding of This Reply would be anough to say "I have My Way You have Yours", as oppose to "Youre Wrong".
To each their own, as far as handling criticism goes, I guess.

The issue isn't even right and wrong (although Ras' constant "you're completely wrong, and I'm completely right" with no backup other than his own words and videos doesn't help...), it's about understanding what a technique is. I'd hoped with Ras' claimed number of systems that he might have some clue about that, but sadly no. I stand by what I said, he's not a martial arts instructor, he's a guy with a lot of techniques, and he thinks that's the same thing.

In other words, rethink the debate. Its gotten way off the mark from what it should be about. And I know, Ras, that Youve linked a whole lot of stuff about Preempting and whatnot, but each point You make is counterpointed, which You then counterpoint, then every 3-4 replies, it goes back to the start, and the cycle begins again.

Agree to Disagree (As You have attempted to just recently), or Demonstrate an Understanding even if You Disagree with whats being Understood.
Thats the only two ways this can go. Well, theres a Third.
More aimless debating.

Sadly, I don't think Ras can demonstrate an understanding... as I honestly don't think he has one. So, more debating it is!

 

[Cyriacus]

A cornerstone of most grappling systems is the covering grab that I've pointed out, that Ras doesn't like... let's just say I'm not sold on his take on what works for grappling or not here. But if you want to actually get to it, what would you class the grabbing attack as? Or is "grappling" here only used to refer to ground work? In which case, huh?

Id say Stand Up Grappling. Sort of like Clinching, but with more moving.

So Ras' version is better for armed assailant's? Ras' version that has you wearing multiple strikes first? From a weapon? And that's better than hitting them first, moving inside the weapons range, and so on? Hmm....

No. Im saying if someone attacks You like that from behind with a Knife... Eh... Good Luck.

Yep, or any of a hundred other ways.

*nods

Running at you would more likely involve a tackle, to be honest. Not a push. A push indicates that the attacker wants to avoid risking themselves, as they're (psychologically) keeping you away.

I know. Thats just how Im visualising it. In fact, Realism Wise I see a Run Up > Clothesline. That said, most boys play Football in Primary School, so Ill back Your way.

*nods