Sword and hammer pt. 1 and 2

[Josh Oakley]

I guessed. Maybe I overreacted. I accidentally lumped your quote in with another quote I was reading. Misread your intentions. Apologies.

Apology accepted.

 

[ATACX GYM]

and if that doesnt, this DOES:

Well, clearly my observations must be flawed, and I have nothing to share with those who already have all the answers. I will save you the "me too." You do seem to have a lot more confrontations than I ever have/do, so .. But for the record, if you really want to know, you probably should refrain from telling everyone how great you are, just before you ask them to tell you what's wrong. Your cup runneth over, and you have precious little room for what little I might contribute sir. "You've been horned."


Say goodnight Gracie....

Interesting that you skip right passed all the info that Doc gives that definitively annihilates all of the positions you held previously about Big Red, Mr. Parker, and The Tracys insofar as what you THOUGHT the Ideal Phase was. Let's pause and reflect upon this. Every position you and all the rest of my detractors put for the since the beginning of the thread has been directly refuted by the man you're now quoting...Doc...as proof that I'm not a competent instructor. In the process, you're not only being misleading and untruthful, you simply underscore and verify the correctness of the previous assessments attributed to you and my other detractors. You also underscore the fact that you will selectively utilize quotes to advance your own agenda at the expense of being honest and truthful, which therefore makes you dishonest and untrustworthy.


http://www.kenpotalk.com/forum/showthread.php?13720-Question-For-Doc



This is^^^^the link to the actual thread on KT. Believe nothing that my detractors say. Don't even take my word. Go and read the truth IN CONTEXT for yourselves. This way you will see which of us--my detractors or I--is most trustworthy and most honest.

John aka Twin Fist, you're also very selectively showing quotes, which mischaracterize the TRUE exchange that Doc and I had...an exchange which is yet ONGOING, as I am responding today to several quotes of his that I didn't see before as I was busy on the mat until now and will be busy being on the mat for much of the day today.


And Doc ended with this comment right here...

See there you go, focusing on a "metaphor phrase" instead of cutting to the issue. I told you before, you never ask questions. You think you do, but you do not. The opportunity to solicit opinions of others is always present, but your style is not conducive to an educational process in this regard. Remember, just because you put a question mark at the end of a statement doesn't make it a question sir. You make statements and then solicit others to agree, with what you feel is overwhelming anecdotal evidence you are correct. You need to ease up grasshopper. When your "questions" take up more bandwidth than someones answers, its not a discussion but your own dissertation. I write a lot as well, dispensing information but you need start listening more. Sometimes its not a debate, sometimes its just information to take in, without a dissertation response. You're a bright man with a huge upside potential, but be sure, I will challenge you to stop what you've been doing, and focus on real information over "look what I can do." You gon be aighht - eventually.

 

[ATACX GYM]

Consider something else...would we be having this kind of discussion that delves into the history and systemic structure of EPKK and the validity of training models...would we even be challenging each other to think critically like this at all in anything approaching this vein...if I hadn't put up my variant of Sword and Hammer?

There is a great deal of value in threads like this one. And so far? Guys like MJS, Josh and I are the ones who are probing and asking these kinds of questions the most.

What have my detractors contributed in and of themselves of like value? This is not a diss, I'm genuinely curious.

 

[ATACX GYM]

"Here's what Ras doesn't get. Yes. Mr. Parker wanted you to create your own "Ideal." he said it in print and it is in my archives on the subforum. But, he did publish an outline of each technique to serve as a guide. "Sword and Hammer" is about using a "hand sword, and a hammer-fist" for a flank one handed attack shoulder grab. Now, make that idea work. Don't turn it into defending a round off flip flop because that's not what it is supposed to be. "--Doc Chapel

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! That 'round off flip flop' part had me rofl! And thank you for pointing out that Mr. Parker definitively wanted us to deal with a flank one handed attack shoulder grab. That sounds like an issue of positioning. My tech works well against that scenario too, but if we have to work ONLY that position and use ONLY the hammerfist and handsword for that position? Yep...you're right. My tech ISN'T Mr. Parker's Sword and Hammer.

You know...that MIIIIGGGHHT be the reason that I call my tech THE ATACX GYM SWORD AND HAMMER RADIUS R.D.L. Cuz it's NOT Mr. Parker's tech. Just a thought, there.

"Ras is making the same mistake others made. he's what if-ing his own modedl to death, with no definitive answers to anything because he doesn't understand how people learn, not how systems are built and designed. What he is doing is great for him personally, but not for teaching other people. You create skills and then build upon them, a bit at a time. You explore questions, and answer them, a bit at a time giving the student the opportunity to develop mentally first, than physically to match..."--Doc Chapel

Now you know I'm going to take issue with that, Doc. I'm not What If-ing my model to death, and the answers are definitive precise and clear. They're just not YOUR answers, which is cool. I have a pretty fair grasp as to how people learn--son of a Ph.d. psychologist, learned alot by reading his books and discussing stuff with my Ph.d. Dad and many educators--and I teach my students. All of them would contradict the assessment that I don't know how people learn and I dilute their learning process. But this is an old discussion and old debate Doc. It's the specialist vs the polymath, the sprinter vs the decathlete, the Ph.d. vs The Renaissance Man. I'm the polymath, I'm the decathlete, I'm the Renaissance Man renegade...but with a twist. I respect and incorporate the skills of the specialist, and I learned how to apply them not only deeply but broadly and comprehensively. I'm not the only one either. I didn't innovate this method. I learned of it from specialists who command the fields of performance...psychological, pedagogic, athletic, you name it. You disagree Doc, and that's cool with me. Like I said...we can discuss this matter and debate it in a scholarly fashion if you want. I'm straight up willing to put my scientific data where my mouth is because I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about.

Right here in front of everyone, I can prove to you and anyone else that doubts me at any point in any way that there are literally thousands of scientists who specialize in their fields who directly contradict your assessment of my approach. There are also thousands who squarely agree with you. What this means is that there is quite a bit of data confirming both methods...and it now comes down to the educator, the Coach, the instructor. How good are they at doing what they claim they can do? I stand behind my methods. You stand behind yours. Difference being? I don't diss your methods and I respect yours. The converse doesn't seem to be true and that's cool...and I don't care. Lol.

Another difference is: if my White Belt gets tackled by a knife wielding BG? He/she can grapple and already has 4 thousands reps vs specifically stick and knife attacks using the same tech that they learned in Pre-White Level A. How many hours of knife fighting does your White Belts have, Doc? And I respect your methods and I respect YOU, Doc. Like I said before...if not for bruthas like you? I couldn't and wouldn't exist. But I don't agree with your assessments in this area even a little bit. I can bust out my curriculum RIGHT NOW and prove that there are specific steps that I take that assess and properly address the issues that you're bringing up...because you're RIGHT. We DO have to "create skills and then build upon them, a bit at a time. You explore questions, and answer them, a bit at a time giving the student the opportunity to develop mentally first, than physically to match." I 100% agree with that and I have a systemic method of addressing building answering and cultivating all of these.

They're just not your methods. And they're not supposed to be. But they DO WORK. Proven since before I or even you Doc were born. Rooted in the sciences of high performance, proven over and over and over again at every level. I have the studies. I have the proofs from the scholars to the athletes who used these methods. I'm not remotely exaggerating or in any way engaging in hyperbole. I know where Doc's coming from and I respect his position, I respect the camp of thought from which it sprang...and I disagree to an extent. I see nothing wrong with or any form of impossibility in blending the polymath with the specialist. I'm not the only one, either. Anybody with Google-Fu skills will instantly pull many pages of hard scientific data which takes this post of mine that you're reading right now from 'possible conjecture' to 'scientifically verified'.

I remember reading of people dissin Richard Marcinko's training methods...until he built Seal Team Six with them. I remember reading of people dissin Charlie Beckwith...until he created Delta Force. I remember reading of people laughing at Boyd. One OODA Loop later? He's having the last laugh. Many people thought that my friend Burton Richardson and his friend Matt Thornton were nuts...until they formed one of the redoubts that expanded the training for both MMA and returning high performance to TMA. And people are doubting and denigrating THE ATACX GYM.

They will go the way of the doubters and detractors of the aforementioned worthies.

I remember people telling me that my students couldn't do stuff, just like you are now, Doc. And my students did anyway and wailed on those other guys on top of that. "IT'S NOT JUST WHAT YOU KNOW, IT'S HOW AND WHY YOU TRAIN".


"What did Mr. Parker say, "I'd rather face a guy who learned a thousand different techniques, than a guy who practiced a single technique a thousand times." Why? because "It's more important to be able to choose the right solution to a problem, then to have all the answers and not know which one to use right now." - Dr. Chapél The type of training he does gives you lots of questions to consider, but how to get students to choose the right answer when they need it, is another story. He may be "special," he may even have "special knowledge" but the human body works one way, no matter how he feels about it."<--Doc Chapel

^^^ I AGREE WITH ALOT OF THIS. I really do. Except that I don't think I'm "special" because I've seen hundreds of students over the last 2 decades grasp what I teach and do it quickly. [ Thanks for the oblique possible props though, Doc. We already know YOU'RE special and have done special stuff ]. But again...there is a great deal of scientific knowledge that verifies and advocates my approach...or at the least disputes the contention that the method that I advocate is contrary to how the human body works. I go to school for this stuff right now. I'm not a Doc like you are Doc, but I have access to the latest data. I can prove my words. I'm not kidding, guys and gals, I'm serious.

The funny thing is? Let's break this mess down. Look at the flank grab attack. Is the worst case unarmed version of the flank grab known colloquially as THE HOCKEY PUNCH? Yes it is. Does my sequence resolve that situation? Yes it does. If you're knocked down, does my Sword and Hammer resolve this scenario? Yes it does. If you're armed does my Sword and Hammer have a proven response? Yes it does...R.D.L.L.P. is the full extent of THE ATACX GYM CQB method and is the martial art wing of THE ATACX GYM R.O.C.S. R.D.L.L.P.= Rock Drop Lock Load and Pop. "Load"=the use of nonfirearm weapons. "Pop"=firearms. Well, if I proved that I can deal with the most dangerous version of flank attack, then any other flank attack is by definition an order of magnitude less and I can handle that too. WITH THE SAME TECH. My Cover and Spin alone will negate your flank attack, whether you push pull attack with a weapon or tackle me. Seriously...are you going to rely on preemptively striking the BG? Not if you have since. I know you don't Doc, but the difference is...I show and prove what I do. I haven't seen your Sword and Hammer. Care to share? If not well...that's unfair man. You get to critique my joint with impunity but you're not putting yours out there.

If we're gonna get it? Then let's get it. On a level and fair playing field. I'll put my Sword and Hammer out there AAAAANNNND I'll show how I teach it. I'll put the scientific data verifying my position out there. But you gotta do the same so we can do some real comparison and contrasts. I don't mean that with any disrespect Doc, but like you told kenpoOG awhile ago when he commented upon the girth of our Kenpo Elders: [ I'm paraphrasing ] "...my picture and what I look like is public knowledge. It's only fair that you put your picture out for public review too, sir..."

Now...TWO QUESTIONS:

1) Does my Sword and Hammer variant work? Not...do you like it? Not...is it YOUR Sword and Hammer? Does my sequence work? You already know it does. You can hate my guts but I know what I'm talking about, I know what I'm doing, I don't care if you dislike or like me...but you know my joints work. That's just being honest.

2) If that's true...if my sequence DOES work, then:

How can anyone denigrate something that's proven to work in every aspect of the flank attack? I prove my tech in literally every standing position a flank attack can be done

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

Showed how you could do the same thing and clamp on a submission

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

AND the ground

[video=youtube_share;OgiiyO05OL4]http://youtu.be/OgiiyO05OL4[/video]


and I DON'T MAKE ANY MAJOR CHANGES.

Find me ONE Coach/Sensei/Whatever who shows you how to do his/her/their standup tech exactly or very nearly as shown on the ground. And then vs weapons. And then in a clinch. Etc etc. Just one. Either I've stumbled upon a training paradigm breakthrough [ which shows that I might be ' special ' as Doc hypothesized might be special ]...or other people do it because they already know it works.


LAST QUESTION:

Find me 2 Kenpo instructors...JUST TWO WILL DO...who shows you how to deal with a 360 degree flank and rear attack, a pushing and pull attack, a surprise attack, an attack [even if it knocks you down] a BG launching stomp attacks, seamlessly has submission holds, seamlessly shows how to NOT break the strictures of honor ethics and the law, etc etc...WITH ONE SINGLE SEQUENCE. The ATACX GYM is one. Now all you have to do is find another one.

Find me just one.

Waiting.

Still waiting.

Now...how many other Kenpo instructors DON'T teach you how to deal with flank attacks in a 360 degree circle? How many DON'T teach you how to use the same tech to deal with a situation wherein you get dropped, stomped, tackled, etc. How many DON'T show you how to pass guard, defend sub holds, prevent yourself from being shot, how to plant your Bow Stance on the BGs back, etc.

Lots and lots and lots?

The question isn't: do these other instructors suck? cuz they DON'T suck. A lot of them are damn good.

The question IS: IF I DO MORE, AND COVER MORE, HOW COULD I BE IN ANY WAY CONSIDERED LESS OR DOING LESS?

it's

not

possible

If good instructors are getting good results by providing a less comprehensive defense then an instructor who provides a more comprehensive response is at least worthy of the same respect provided to those other instructors. That's all I'm saying.

Note also how my detractors very conveniently and deliberately neglected to record my response to Doc's criticisms. Again, I urge all of you who read this thread to ALSO read the above specified threat on KenpoTalk.com. The mischaracterizations, half-truths, misperceptions and outright lies flowing from my detractors' posts could otherwise be mistaken as truth or honesty...when they are neither.

 

[ATACX GYM]

Well, clearly my observations must be flawed, and I have nothing to share with those who already have all the answers. I will save you the "me too." You do seem to have a lot more confrontations than I ever have/do, so .. But for the record, if you really want to know, you probably should refrain from telling everyone how great you are, just before you ask them to tell you what's wrong. Your cup runneth over, and you have precious little room for what little I might contribute sir. "You've been horned."

Originally Posted by ATACX GYM
Disagreement sir, doesn't imply a systemic flaw in your observations overall. It simply means that you're facing someone who disagrees with the assertion that you made. Assuming that you're human...another human may disagree with your assertion and you may be in fact incorrect in certain areas or not as correct as initially thought in certain areas. It may even be that the person disagreeing with you is actually right and you're actually wrong. Stranger things HAVE happened in life, sir.

I simply observe that I've made my techs work against most comers. I'm certain that you've experenced something similar. I don't assume that you think that you have all the answers just because you disagree with my analysis of some of the things that I've seen in SL-4. Instead, I've been scrupulously respectful, sir, even in my disagreements with you.

Asserting that one is competent, sir, in the face of persons denying same, is NOT the same as telling ANYONE much less EVERYONE how great I am.

I invite you, sir, and everyone on God's green earth to find a quote wherein I asserted I'm great. In fact,I seem to recall giving YOU, sir, more credit and respect than I ever assigned to myself. Even in the face of you continually making sharp comments like the kinds you have made above.

Sir, if you can't find a quote asserting that I said what you said I did? Then the only place that such a quote exists is in the minds of my detractors. They are illusory, nonsubstantial, not real.

And if the premise...that I'm running around telling people that I'm great...is untrue? Then the conclusion is likewise similarly suspect and flawed. Perhaps my cup doesn't runneth over. Perhaps I have more than one cup and I'm directing your attention to the EMPTY cup...

...and as for being "horned"? Lolol I like that. Of course, many bulls told the matador the same thing

 

[Twin Fist]

dude, you are stoned, Doc ***** slapped you, everyone saw it.

at this point, you can either :
1) get humble and maybe redeem yourself
2) keep playing the "ras is great card" and everyone will keep laughing at you

get that?

we are laughing AT YOU


i wonder if I can make this my signature?

Yeah Ras went through the same thing over here as well. He doesn't do EPKK, that is clear. What he doesn't get is he insists on using the terminology and technique names, while giving many the impression he is fixing EPKK. His teaching method from a systemic perspective is also extremely flawed, and there is a great deal of knowledge he doesn't have. He sees what he does as just a series of technique movements, and insists we don't understand him and puts up a bunch a videos that confirm what we already know, that many before him have done - with the same amount of success. But, everyone has to be comfortable in their method, and the smart figure out when it is no good - eventually - &#8203;I hope.

 

[Twin Fist]

I told you before, you never ask questions. You think you do, but you do not. The opportunity to solicit opinions of others is always present, but your style is not conducive to an educational process in this regard. Remember, just because you put a question mark at the end of a statement doesn't make it a question sir. You make statements and then solicit others to agree, with what you feel is overwhelming anecdotal evidence you are correct. You need to ease up grasshopper. When your "questions" take up more bandwidth than someones answers, its not a discussion but your own dissertation-Doc Chapel


yeah, he nailed you. You make statements, then spend billions of electrons telling everyone how they are wrong, without even bothering to read what they said and you write like 12 year old speaks.

all this time you using Doc to backup your crap, then he slaps you stupid...lol


i swear, i am STILL laughing.....

:lfao: :lfao::lfao:

 

[Josh Oakley]

Consider something else...would we be having this kind of discussion that delves into the history and systemic structure of EPKK and the validity of training models...would we even be challenging each other to think critically like this at all in anything approaching this vein...if I hadn't put up my variant of Sword and Hammer?

There is a great deal of value in threads like this one. And so far? Guys like MJS, Josh and I are the ones who are probing and asking these kinds of questions the most.

What have my detractors contributed in and of themselves of like value? This is not a diss, I'm genuinely curious.

I think you miss the point that as of now on a number of points MJS and I are now your detractors.

 

[Josh Oakley]

Note also how my detractors very conveniently and deliberately neglected to record my response to Doc's criticisms. Again, I urge all of you who read this thread to ALSO read the above specified threat on KenpoTalk.com. The mischaracterizations, half-truths, misperceptions and outright lies flowing from my detractors' posts could otherwise be mistaken as truth or honesty...when they are neither.

If you're so concerned about mischaracterization of the conversation, how come you didn't post KemppGhost's reply to this post, that says he a a majority of the Tracy cats do the same thing?

And as far as saying your detractors liars, that is crap. And it is poor debate style. You have no problem pointing out where doc's comments support the statements you made that he agrees with.

You seem a lot more hesitant to point out that Doc thinks the technique you posted is flawed, and might not make it past the first punch. Or that he thinks your whole training methodology is flawed.

Or that you STILL can't hear jimi, but you keep on jammin.


To get on people about selectively quoting, and yet selectively quote yourself, is hypocracy.

Nothing is mischaracterized about Doc's stance. He agrees with you on some points, but definitely would be noted on the side of your detractors:

But I suspect you're not trying to turn a yellow belt into an know-it-all urban ninja because of what MIGHT happen one day. I know, I'll each you calculus while you're learning to add and subtract, because you may need to address a complex math problem immediately. You never know right? RAS doesn't understand life. You can't start at the top of the mountain, no matter how badly you need to be there right now. "But you don't understand, I need to defend myself against everything today." OK, than I'll show you everything today, but what will you have at the end of the day. No matter how urgent some might think they need it now, if you give them too much you are doing them a disservice. I suspect, Ras' students would be happy with whatever he taught them, as longs as it worked. I think HE thinks they need all of that stuff now, not them. It's like I have to tell my own teachers, "Stop telling them things they don't need, and drill what they need to progress." But Ras, is an expert in everything, so maybe he has a handle on something. Who knows?

Look I'm a cop, grew up in south central L.A. home of the drive by. NOBODY gets attacked like that. It isn't that bad, ANYWHERE. Rough neighborhoods, sure but comon. You cannot prepare someone for every contingent, and especially as a beginner. Hell that is what is wrong with the motion kenpo teachers. They what if everything, and tell a guys all the things that might happen, and all of the things that he might do to counter, all the things he might encounter. At the end of the day the students walks away with a bunch of nothing. It seems to me more like that is what he wants to do, cause that's the way he likes to teach. Gives him a bunch of stuff to "play" with over the boring process of actually training and building a student over time to be solid. I get that, but it is a lousy model. You can do a thousand front kicks, but only the first twenty or so will be good. The rest are just bad habits being created. And the more stuff you pile on to rep, the worse it gets. Synapsis have to be built slowly first, than stress inoculated, to form a hard wired mind/body connection. Anything else is pure folly.

Dr. Dave is a great guy with a broad martial art background. You name it, he's done it and was quite accomplished before we met having studied with Mr. Parker and most of the big wigs of the day. But he did something few do. he took the time to seek me out. He questioned some of the things I was saying, but he didn't argue he knew better, he asked permission to come and have a look. We talked he did stuff, I did stuff, and he found a bunch of things he hadn't known or learned before, and incorporates it into his unique blend of the arts quite successfully, while he works on the SL-4 tactical Material. The man has two doctorates, and he asks me questions about how to do things. He doesn't pretend to know it all, and I suspect that's one of the reasons he's so friggin smart. he listens a lot more than he talks, and when he does he ask really direct questions, and has something to say beyond, "Look what I can do." I'm waiting for Ras to begin to explain mechanisms that explain the "how" over do this, this, and you get - that! That's not knowledge, anybody can do that. Some good some bad. He's a thinker, and smart, but he isn't going to get any smarter doing what he's doing. He's missing Jimi, and he's jammin.

No his point is "somewhere else." My position is, you build competency and forcing the issue has limited effectiveness. Also in my own model default technique for Sword and Hammer, and all the techniques I teach, the model itself covers minor 'what if circumstances.' What if he pushes. - Covered. What if he pulls. - Covered. What if he punches. - Covered. What if he tries to bear hug. - Covered. What if his other foot is forward. - Covered. What if you see him approaching. Covered by another technique to be learned when your skill increases. What if he tosses a grenade. - Not Covered. You cannot force the issue, no matter how much we as teachers want to, or how much a student wants to learn today. That's not how the body learns. Are you in "danger" until you get there? Yep! Answer: Start as soon as you can, train as much as you can, for as long as you can. It's called, "life." You can try to prepare for every contingency and learn nothing, or build real skills you can use a little at a time. To make a student think he is prepared for everything is irresponsible. No one is. I live it every day, and I'm armed 24/7, and still look for the unexpected that I might not have considered. I don't take a shower unless my 40 cal weapon is in a plastic bag with me at home. I don't take baths because I saw the movie "Jaws," and want to be on my feet in case something breaks off while I'm in there. Knowhatimsayin?

Ras, Doc's not being misrepresented, nor are you. The people who disagree with your points (Doc included) are disagreeing with the things you actually said. Granted, I also agree that people interested should go over to KT and have a look. Like MJS, Twin Fist, Thesemindz, myself, and others have done.


But with Doc agreeing with a lot of what your detractors said, your question of whether your detractors have added anything to the conversation is irrelevant. He is saying a lot of what they were saying at the outset. And he definitely IS on of your detractors, that much is clear.

And I didn't post your response because I thought it was a) nothing you hadn't already said on this thread, b) thwarted by KempoGhost, c) quite freaking pompous, in my estimation, and d)didn't represent you well.

 

[jks9199]

Y'know... There's been one really good point made along the way in all this discussion:

It's like I have to tell my own teachers, "Stop telling them things they don't need, and drill what they need to progress.

 

[ATACX GYM]

If you're so concerned about mischaracterization of the conversation, how come you didn't post KemppGhost's reply to this post, that says he a a majority of the Tracy cats do the same thing?

And as far as saying your detractors liars, that is crap. And it is poor debate style. You have no problem pointing out where doc's comments support the statements you made that he agrees with.

You seem a lot more hesitant to point out that Doc thinks the technique you posted is flawed, and might not make it past the first punch. Or that he thinks your whole training methodology is flawed.

Or that you STILL can't hear jimi, but you keep on jammin.


To get on people about selectively quoting, and yet selectively quote yourself, is hypocracy.

Nothing is mischaracterized about Doc's stance. He agrees with you on some points, but definitely would be noted on the side of your detractors:











Ras, Doc's not being misrepresented, nor are you. The people who disagree with your points (Doc included) are disagreeing with the things you actually said. Granted, I also agree that people interested should go over to KT and have a look. Like MJS, Twin Fist, Thesemindz, myself, and others have done.


But with Doc agreeing with a lot of what your detractors said, your question of whether your detractors have added anything to the conversation is irrelevant. He is saying a lot of what they were saying at the outset. And he definitely IS on of your detractors, that much is clear.

And I didn't post your response because I thought it was a) nothing you hadn't already said on this thread, b) thwarted by KempoGhost, c) quite freaking pompous, in my estimation, and d)didn't represent you well.

I attempted to post the whole page's conversation on this thread, but this site's server was too busy at the time. Therefore I had to content myself with the link to KT and the exhortation to go over and read, taking no one's word--not mine, not yours, not anyone's--over the opinion that that which the readers themselves can and perhaps will formulate when given the opportunity themselves to see firsthand the relevant information. I'm the last one to misrepresent or miscast quotes.

I point out not only where Doc's comments support mine but also repeat that Doc and I don't see eye to eye on quite a few issues. I pointed out specifically, however, that when it comes to matters of Kenpo history? I tend to concede the discussions outright to Doc because he was there for much of it. Not all of it, but much of it and much of the issues that we're contending with on this thread Doc was there for in some significant primary or secondary fashion, IIRC. So I'm not just quoting the posts that Doc and I agree on. If you note, I quoted Doc disagreeing with me too.

I'm fully aware that Doc thinks that, for instance, my ATTACKING TWINS tech is flawed. I have lived the opposite and so have my students and I'm willing to prove it at any time to anyone. This isn't arrogance, it's direct experience, knowledge and confidence. In 10 years of hard training vs pro's in many walks of life, this tech hasn't failed me or to my knowledge my students a single time. Now, Doc may have noted something that was off about the tech...notice he didn't share it when I asked him about it. What's more likely is that he simply misunderstands what I'm doing with the tech in the same sense that he misunderstands what I'm doing with my system.

As I stated...I have the science that verifies that my methods work. It doesn't denigrate or disparage other methods...it simply asserts that my methods work. I also have read numerous works that champion what Doc has indicated his preferred methods are. The difference is? I see that both work. Doc is much less flexible in his opinion on that subject.

There are major flaws and weaknesses in what I have seen in Doc's SL-4 thus far, but I realize that I could be entirely off base or off base enough to NOT present my impressions as factual statements. I think that many of the techs are too slow and leave you open to counters, leads, takedowns and weapon attacks...but I add the caveat every single time that I could be wrong because I'm only seeing snippets of Doc's stuff. Doc has seen snippets of my stuff and takes concrete positions...and that's fine. But he is most definitely wrong in the same sense that I could be most definitely wrong were I to to take my previous impressions and make them concrete conclusions.

I think that Doc's lack of a submission ground game may be less of an issue for the LEO's that he teaches than the civilians, and I think that deliberately leaving that hole in their martial knowledge could be a disastrous mistake...but not only am I willing to admit and stress that yet again I'm only basing these comments---not conclusions, no more than hypothesis--on viewing snippets of Doc's stuff. Aaaand I'm willing to admit that his stuff may work marvelously regardless of the holes that may be in his system.

None of this is arrogance.

If my response to Doc and others in defense of my position visavis clarification etc struck you as me being quite freakin pompous? That's cool. Have at it. And thanks for refraining under those circumstances, because given that perception? I think that was cool of you to do.

For my part? I know I was being direct honest and can prove my contentions.

Speaking of proving my contentions? I'm not sure what you drew from KenpoGhost's post...but is THIS the post you refer to?

@MJS - thanks for the clarifications, that helps put everything in context.

@Ras - Brother, I like you and I like what you do, but I completely understand why you catch so much flak. But first to answer your question about how I do S&H: I don't. I come from a Tracy-inspired lineage, so S&H isn't in our curriculum. I did, however, spend a year or so studying under Parker/Planas lineage instructors, so I am familiar those particular instructors' interpretations of S&H. I will preface the rest by saying two things: one, that I've never particularly liked S&H - as Doc has pointed out, a hand-sword to the throat in response to a dead hand grab is irresponsible; and two, as my instructor's teacher always said, "if you can't make a technique work, it isn't the technique that's flawed - it's your understanding of it." And I have personally watched him pull off complete, recognizable techniques while sparring with hard contact against multiple black belts simultaneously.

So, to point one: if we can all agree that a sword-hand to the throat is an inappropriate response to a dead hand grab from the flank, then why is S&H taught this way? My own two cents: as it is one of the first techs taught in many "EPAK" curricula, it is there primarily to teach position recognition and to train to utilize the natural "startle response" to survive the initial attack - which in this case will be a grab from the flank and a PULL (not a push) into a punch. The check and sword-hand combination is particularly close to the body's natural "flinch response" and so is easy to train. So, the objective of the hand-sword is not necessarily to strike the throat, but to defeat the punch. The second part of the tech (the hammer) is used to teach the student to strike to an available target (in this case, the groin, since both of the attacker's hands are high). Now, you may argue that the hammer strike will not be available or, perhaps, not be effective. Says you. My own real-world experience is different. I might argue that your knee strike would not be effective. But that would just be "says me", because your real-world experience shows you different. So who's right and who's wrong. Maybe neither, maybe both. But anyway that brings us to the next point, which I think is the one that MJS wanted addressed and why you tend to catch so much flak, Ras.

S&H is a dead-hand grab tech that is used to lay the ground work for a workable response to a grab, pull & punch. I understand that you refer to your tech as "Attax Gyms Sword and Hammer" and feel justified because you are using a sword-hand and a hammer-fist formation on your double block. And I think the name fits okay for what you are using it for; the problem comes when you then present your technique as a "fix" for the "EPAK" S&H, because you are really doing a completely different attack. I understand you are using a different training paradigm, and that's okay too. But you need to understand that EPAK uses a different training paradigm and that you are now comparing apples to oranges. S&H isn't meant to defend against the grab, PUSH and punch. So, necessarily, you will need to change it. And as much as I hate to burst your bubble, your S&H doesn't really "fix" thing either. Why, because your S&H already exists. In Tracy kenpo, your 3 responses (push and punch), then pull and punch and then your follow up would be the techniques Opening Cowl, Winding Elbows and Reaching for the Moon. I'm not sure what the corresponding EPAK technique names are anymore (except Opening Cowl corresponds most closely to Twirling Wings), but I know they exist. So, I don't know that the problem is so much in what you do, as in your presentation. 'Cause, really, your while your presentation shows a great attention to what it is YOU DO, it doesn't show an in-depth understanding of the EPAK TRAINING METHODOLOGY. So keep on doing what you do - hey, I like it. But maybe the reason you keep having the same arguments is just that your are trying to argue a point we already agree with, but are arguing from the wrong position. Just a thought. Salute.

"Here's what Ras doesn't get. Yes. Mr. Parker wanted you to create your own "Ideal." he said it in print and it is in my archives on the subforum. But, he did publish an outline of each technique to serve as a guide. "Sword and Hammer" is about using a "hand sword, and a hammer-fist" for a flank one handed attack shoulder grab. Now, make that idea work. Don't turn it into defending a round off flip flop because that's not what it is supposed to be. "--Doc Chapel

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! That 'round off flip flop' part had me rofl! And thank you for pointing out that Mr. Parker definitively wanted us to deal with a flank one handed attack shoulder grab. That sounds like an issue of positioning. My tech works well against that scenario too, but if we have to work ONLY that position and use ONLY the hammerfist and handsword for that position? Yep...you're right. My tech ISN'T Mr. Parker's Sword and Hammer.

You know...that MIIIIGGGHHT be the reason that I call my tech THE ATACX GYM SWORD AND HAMMER RADIUS R.D.L. Cuz it's NOT Mr. Parker's tech. Just a thought, there.

"Ras is making the same mistake others made. he's what if-ing his own modedl to death, with no definitive answers to anything because he doesn't understand how people learn, not how systems are built and designed. What he is doing is great for him personally, but not for teaching other people. You create skills and then build upon them, a bit at a time. You explore questions, and answer them, a bit at a time giving the student the opportunity to develop mentally first, than physically to match..."--Doc Chapel

Now you know I'm going to take issue with that, Doc. I'm not What If-ing my model to death, and the answers are definitive precise and clear. They're just not YOUR answers, which is cool. I have a pretty fair grasp as to how people learn--son of a Ph.d. psychologist, learned alot by reading his books and discussing stuff with my Ph.d. Dad and many educators--and I teach my students. All of them would contradict the assessment that I don't know how people learn and I dilute their learning process. But this is an old discussion and old debate Doc. It's the specialist vs the polymath, the sprinter vs the decathlete, the Ph.d. vs The Renaissance Man. I'm the polymath, I'm the decathlete, I'm the Renaissance Man renegade...but with a twist. I respect and incorporate the skills of the specialist, and I learned how to apply them not only deeply but broadly and comprehensively. I'm not the only one either. I didn't innovate this method. I learned of it from specialists who command the fields of performance...psychological, pedagogic, athletic, you name it. You disagree Doc, and that's cool with me. Like I said...we can discuss this matter and debate it in a scholarly fashion if you want. I'm straight up willing to put my scientific data where my mouth is because I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about.

Right here in front of everyone, I can prove to you and anyone else that doubts me at any point in any way that there are literally thousands of scientists who specialize in their fields who directly contradict your assessment of my approach. There are also thousands who squarely agree with you. What this means is that there is quite a bit of data confirming both methods...and it now comes down to the educator, the Coach, the instructor. How good are they at doing what they claim they can do? I stand behind my methods. You stand behind yours. Difference being? I don't diss your methods and I respect yours. The converse doesn't seem to be true and that's cool...and I don't care. Lol.

Another difference is: if my White Belt gets tackled by a knife wielding BG? He/she can grapple and already has 4 thousands reps vs specifically stick and knife attacks using the same tech that they learned in Pre-White Level A. How many hours of knife fighting does your White Belts have, Doc? And I respect your methods and I respect YOU, Doc. Like I said before...if not for bruthas like you? I couldn't and wouldn't exist. But I don't agree with your assessments in this area even a little bit. I can bust out my curriculum RIGHT NOW and prove that there are specific steps that I take that assess and properly address the issues that you're bringing up...because you're RIGHT. We DO have to "create skills and then build upon them, a bit at a time. You explore questions, and answer them, a bit at a time giving the student the opportunity to develop mentally first, than physically to match." I 100% agree with that and I have a systemic method of addressing building answering and cultivating all of these.

They're just not your methods. And they're not supposed to be. But they DO WORK. Proven since before I or even you Doc were born. Rooted in the sciences of high performance, proven over and over and over again at every level. I have the studies. I have the proofs from the scholars to the athletes who used these methods. I'm not remotely exaggerating or in any way engaging in hyperbole. I know where Doc's coming from and I respect his position, I respect the camp of thought from which it sprang...and I disagree to an extent. I see nothing wrong with or any form of impossibility in blending the polymath with the specialist. I'm not the only one, either. Anybody with Google-Fu skills will instantly pull many pages of hard scientific data which takes this post of mine that you're reading right now from 'possible conjecture' to 'scientifically verified'.

I remember reading of people dissin Richard Marcinko's training methods...until he built Seal Team Six with them. I remember reading of people dissin Charlie Beckwith...until he created Delta Force. I remember reading of people laughing at Boyd. One OODA Loop later? He's having the last laugh. Many people thought that my friend Burton Richardson and his friend Matt Thornton were nuts...until they formed one of the redoubts that expanded the training for both MMA and returning high performance to TMA. And people are doubting and denigrating THE ATACX GYM.

They will go the way of the doubters and detractors of the aforementioned worthies.

I remember people telling me that my students couldn't do stuff, just like you are now, Doc. And my students did anyway and wailed on those other guys on top of that. "IT'S NOT JUST WHAT YOU KNOW, IT'S HOW AND WHY YOU TRAIN".


"What did Mr. Parker say, "I'd rather face a guy who learned a thousand different techniques, than a guy who practiced a single technique a thousand times." Why? because "It's more important to be able to choose the right solution to a problem, then to have all the answers and not know which one to use right now." - Dr. Chapél The type of training he does gives you lots of questions to consider, but how to get students to choose the right answer when they need it, is another story. He may be "special," he may even have "special knowledge" but the human body works one way, no matter how he feels about it."<--Doc Chapel

^^^ I AGREE WITH ALOT OF THIS. I really do. Except that I don't think I'm "special" because I've seen hundreds of students over the last 2 decades grasp what I teach and do it quickly. [ Thanks for the oblique possible props though, Doc. We already know YOU'RE special and have done special stuff ]. But again...there is a great deal of scientific knowledge that verifies and advocates my approach...or at the least disputes the contention that the method that I advocate is contrary to how the human body works. I go to school for this stuff right now. I'm not a Doc like you are Doc, but I have access to the latest data. I can prove my words. I'm not kidding, guys and gals, I'm serious.

The funny thing is? Let's break this mess down. Look at the flank grab attack. Is the worst case unarmed version of the flank grab known colloquially as THE HOCKEY PUNCH? Yes it is. Does my sequence resolve that situation? Yes it does. If you're knocked down, does my Sword and Hammer resolve this scenario? Yes it does. If you're armed does my Sword and Hammer have a proven response? Yes it does...R.D.L.L.P. is the full extent of THE ATACX GYM CQB method and is the martial art wing of THE ATACX GYM R.O.C.S. R.D.L.L.P.= Rock Drop Lock Load and Pop. "Load"=the use of nonfirearm weapons. "Pop"=firearms. Well, if I proved that I can deal with the most dangerous version of flank attack, then any other flank attack is by definition an order of magnitude less and I can handle that too. WITH THE SAME TECH. My Cover and Spin alone will negate your flank attack, whether you push pull attack with a weapon or tackle me. Seriously...are you going to rely on preemptively striking the BG? Not if you have since. I know you don't Doc, but the difference is...I show and prove what I do. I haven't seen your Sword and Hammer. Care to share? If not well...that's unfair man. You get to critique my joint with impunity but you're not putting yours out there.

If we're gonna get it? Then let's get it. On a level and fair playing field. I'll put my Sword and Hammer out there AAAAANNNND I'll show how I teach it. I'll put the scientific data verifying my position out there. But you gotta do the same so we can do some real comparison and contrasts. I don't mean that with any disrespect Doc, but like you told kenpoOG awhile ago when he commented upon the girth of our Kenpo Elders: [ I'm paraphrasing ] "...my picture and what I look like is public knowledge. It's only fair that you put your picture out for public review too, sir..."

Now...TWO QUESTIONS:

1) Does my Sword and Hammer variant work? Not...do you like it? Not...is it YOUR Sword and Hammer? Does my sequence work? You already know it does. You can hate my guts but I know what I'm talking about, I know what I'm doing, I don't care if you dislike or like me...but you know my joints work. That's just being honest.

2) If that's true...if my sequence DOES work, then:

How can anyone denigrate something that's proven to work in every aspect of the flank attack? I prove my tech in literally every standing position a flank attack can be done

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

Showed how you could do the same thing and clamp on a submission

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

AND the ground

[video=youtube_share;OgiiyO05OL4]http://youtu.be/OgiiyO05OL4[/video]


and I DON'T MAKE ANY MAJOR CHANGES.

Find me ONE Coach/Sensei/Whatever who shows you how to do his/her/their standup tech exactly or very nearly as shown on the ground. And then vs weapons. And then in a clinch. Etc etc. Just one. Either I've stumbled upon a training paradigm breakthrough [ which shows that I might be ' special ' as Doc hypothesized might be special ]...or other people do it because they already know it works.


LAST QUESTION:

Find me 2 Kenpo instructors...JUST TWO WILL DO...who shows you how to deal with a 360 degree flank and rear attack, a pushing and pull attack, a surprise attack, an attack [even if it knocks you down] a BG launching stomp attacks, seamlessly has submission holds, seamlessly shows how to NOT break the strictures of honor ethics and the law, etc etc...WITH ONE SINGLE SEQUENCE. The ATACX GYM is one. Now all you have to do is find another one.

Find me just one.

Waiting.

Still waiting.

Now...how many other Kenpo instructors DON'T teach you how to deal with flank attacks in a 360 degree circle? How many DON'T teach you how to use the same tech to deal with a situation wherein you get dropped, stomped, tackled, etc. How many DON'T show you how to pass guard, defend sub holds, prevent yourself from being shot, how to plant your Bow Stance on the BGs back, etc.

Lots and lots and lots?

The question isn't: do these other instructors suck? cuz they DON'T suck. A lot of them are damn good.

The question IS: IF I DO MORE, AND COVER MORE, HOW COULD I BE IN ANY WAY CONSIDERED LESS OR DOING LESS?

it's

not

possible

If good instructors are getting good results by providing a less comprehensive defense then an instructor who provides a more comprehensive response is at least worthy of the same respect provided to those other instructors. That's all I'm saying.

Okay, just to chime in again on a few things:

"I've heard people say that too...that its the understanding of it, vs. the technique itself. 2 people that come to mind are Doc and Clyde. But I think the issue is, unfortunately, a trickle down effect. For example: It would make sense to assume that if you have instructor A, who really understands the system, and he teaches Student 1, that Student 1 would also be like his teacher, so when Student 1 teaches his students, that they too, would be good, have a good undestanding, etc, etc. Problem lies when something happens, then despite the great teacher initially, something happens down the line."

I think what generally happens is this: most students lack the desire or are unwilling to do the work necessary to be as good as their teacher. Of those that do have the desire and make the effort - many will simply lack the ability. And even if an instructor finds that student that has both the desire, work ethic and physical ability there is still the requirement of experience or "seasoning" as it were. So, if an instructor has 100 students and only 1 of them meets all those criteria, does he stop teaching the other 99 that don't? If he does, then he isn't likely to have much of a lineage and you probably aren't seeing any examples of his kenpo out on the net. If he does continue to teach the other 99, then you have 1 student that may eventually match/surpass his teacher and 99 that will either leave the art or pass on a sub-par variant of the art. And the 1 student that has it all going for him? When he becomes the teacher he ends up facing the same problem.

"My point was if I did S&H and Ras did his S&H, would that 3rd party watching, know what he was doing?"

No. No they would not. The fact that I was able to identify what Ras was doing as 3 separate techs in the Tracy system (none of which resemble S&H) I think illustrates that point. That's not to say I don't like what Ras was doing-just that I don't recognize it as "EPAK S&H".

"Yeah Ras went through the same thing over here as well. He doesn't do EPKK, that is clear. What he doesn't get is he insists on using the terminology and technique names, while giving many the impression he is fixing EPKK. His teaching method from a systemic perspective is also extremely flawed, and there is a great deal of knowledge he doesn't have. He sees what he does as just a series of technique movements, and insists we don't understand him and puts up a bunch a videos that confirm what we already know, that many before him have done - with the same amount of success. But, everyone has to be comfortable in their method, and the smart figure out when it is no good - eventually - &#8203;I hope."

Ras, know you ain't gonna like this, but have to agree with Doc on this one. What you do may be kenpo, but it clearly isn't "EPAK." And, whether you mean to give the impression or not, it is also quite clear that many people do indeed believe that you think you are "fixing EPAK." You stated that you come from a BKF/Tracy/EPAK/bunch of other stuff background. That can be both a positive and negative thing. It's great to get the best of multiple system/ideologies. However, often that comes at the cost at not ever getting a COMPLETE picture of any single system/methodology. And, IMO, that is clearly the case in your presentations. There is no clear understanding of how/why EPAK is structured or taught the way it is. You keep reinventing the wheel. And your wheel is no better (or worse) than any other wheel. The problem is, though, that the vehicle you put that wheel on may indeed be better or worse.

Which leads to my last point:
"LAST QUESTION:
Find me 2 Kenpo instructors...JUST TWO WILL DO...who shows you how to deal with a 360 degree flank and rear attack, a pushing and pull attack, a surprise attack, an attack [even if it knocks you down] a BG launching stomp attacks, seamlessly has submission holds, seamlessly shows how to NOT break the strictures of honor ethics and the law, etc etc...WITH ONE SINGLE SEQUENCE. The ATACX GYM is one. Now all you have to do is find another one.
Find me just one.
Waiting.
Still waiting."

Wait no more. And I can do better than to just find a single instructor. I can give you a whole system. Tracy's curriculum does indeed show you how to deal with a 360 degree flank and rear attack. It's called Attacking the Circle, and it is clearly an application of S&H. But it's not just S&H that we do it with: Crossing Talon (wrist grab) becomes Crossing the Sun (overhead club), Rocker (one-handed push), Chinese L-Choke (2-hand rear choke), Wing Break (flank grab)etc; Five Swords (right punch) becomes Snapping Twig (left push), Crashing Eagle (2-hand rear choke), Encircling Arms (tackle), etc. However, there is a reason that we don't simply teach "Crossing Talon" against every variation of attack at once: when you alter the attack you need to modify the defense. Yes, you are still working with a basic "pattern" of motion and you probably could pull of and adequate rendition of Five Swords against a 2-hand rear choke with no modifications. But Crash of the Eagle takes the nuances of the 2-hand rear choke and adjusts the already learned pattern to more effectively deal with that specific attack. Again, it's a different training methodology. One that's been tried and refined. You may disagree. And that's fine. What works for you works for you and I'm not disputing that. I think that's great. And I think it's great that it works for your students. But one thing you might want to consider is that the reason that it may work for your student's isn't necessarily that your technique or your training method is better, but that you just tend to attract very like-minded individuals with similar capabilities to your own. Not saying that's the case, but might be something to think about.

Whaddup KG! I like your post as usual. And I like MJS' post...also as usual.

If you did your S&H and I did my S&H...would a 3rd party recognize mine? Depends on who the 3rd party is and how they trained.

That's the crux and the key. Is the Sword and Hammer ONLY the deployment of that particular combo vs ONLY a specific attack and nothing more? Depends on who you ask.

Here's something else: can I do the more common version of Sword and Hammer? Clearly I can. It requires less than my variant does. If I and my students can do more, than it follows that we can do less. And right there we have the answer: performance. If we can do a more complex tech correctly against resistance and do it reliably over and over again then the issue of whether or not we can and have learned the lessons of a less involved sequence is automatically answered in the same sense that a quantum physicist has already answered whether or not he or she can do algebra...simply by doing quantum physics.

The converse is NOT true.

Most kenpoists DO NOT spar with their SD techs, therefore their claims that I haven't learned the lessons extant in a less involved tech is simply disproved by my ability to proficiently perform my version...which is more difficult and more comprehensive by a stretch.And yo KG I actually DO LIKE the fact that you pointed out my hybrid background and Attacking the Circle. I've known that tech for 34 years or so now. Lolol. Btw the Tracys don't show their techs wholesale on the ground, don't have the subholds and don't have the weaponry intrinsic to their system that mine does, so...you only answered part of my question. I'm still waiting for an answer for the majority of my question.

And there IS a possibility that martial artists with backgrounds similar to mine could basically take a buffet menu approach and snag a little here and there without sufficiently delving into the depths of each dish. In fact? It's a distinct danger.

But my background isn't one of those.

I learned the whole system of Parker Kenpo. Step by step. Every set, every form, every tech. I was mandated to do so. I'm very good with the traditional form of Sword and Hammer and every single other tech. I know how to fight with it. This is why I have made the changes that I have. I used them as a platform, and--through sparring against other Kenpoists and other stylists--immediately [ like at age 8 ] was exposed to the limits in the traditional approach. Note that I said the traditional approach imo is limited. Not the art. Not the techs. The approach. The training paradigm.

I learned every other art I study...every one...step by step. And what I saw immediately was that there were techs at all ranks and especially low ranks which other systems didn't have and which exploited weaknesses in and complimented strengths of other arts.

For instance, the Tang Soo Do guys I trained with tended to kick with more emphasis on power than my TKD brethren, but my TKD brethren had better combinations and a larger arsenal of kicks. TSD and TKD had terrific breakfalls, TSD focused on harder linear punching but TKD the self defense art had more joint breaks [ yeah, TKD has lotsa standing joint breaks ].

HKD was the most complete striking-grappling system I was exposed to while growing up, but the HKD guys who could strike really well didn't grapple that well, and vice versa.
Boxing had the best hands and the best and most reliable training methods, hands down. Boxing was also my very first martial art. I still box. Love boxing.

Each art exposed holes in the other's training paradigm and skill sets. Boxers would knock your head off...unless you kicked or tackled them. Etc etc. You guys know the deal.

I would watch this kind of thing happen all the time and I asked once..."Soooo...what if the Hapkidoka grabs you and throws you?" My boxing coach said:"He kain't grab you if you knock him da **** out." My Kenpo, TKD, TSD and hybrid guys said basically the same thing.

I asked the HKD guys:"Why don't you move your head move and use hook punches and jab?" The answer was: if you block you don't have to move your head, and if you train right? You'll kick grab throw and tackle the guy who jabs you.And the HKD guys proceeded to throw almost everyone, too.

And that kept happening for the most part. Sometimes the strikers would knock the HKD guy out, sometimes the strikers would last longer...but 7,8 out of 10 times the strikers would get taken down and out. So I kept asking and kept being told that the strikers who got taken down didn't practice their art well enough and the HKD guys kept telling me that the pure strikers lacked proper training.But I could see--clear as day--where HKD guys were open to being hit. They didn't move their head or protect their nads enough. Their legs were exposed to joint kicks. They weren't mobile enough on their feet. They didn't have the conditioning and firepower of boxers. They didn't have the kicking and striking arsenal of my striking brethren, although they could kick and strike pretty good.

I was too young to do anything other than trust in the word of my seniors and work diligently at my craft. But I never shook the belief that there should be a single training paradigm that encompasses all of this stuff and doesn't take forever to do.

As a Coach and Head Coach, I noted the reality that noobs are the ones most likely to get tackled. Noobs are the most likely to get knifed. The people who are most likely to have bad stuff happen to them in a SD situation are the noobs. Multifights, straight beat up in 1 on 1 fights. It's the noobs who get toasted first and fastest and hurt the most. They couldn't wait to [ Whatever ] Belt to learn how to slip punches, to defend tackles, to wield and defend against weapons,etc. They had to fight from off their backs NOW, to take down the BG NOW, to apply subgrappling now,to multifight now, to roll breakfall escape and rescue NOW.

I resolved to craft the kind of training paradigm that I noted that I needed and many others did too when I was growing up.

The need is even more prevalent now that martial arts and MMA has proliferated to the point that elementary school kids are recognizing SUPERMAN PUNCHES,armbars, triangle chokes, MT clinches and takedowns. The chances that MMA emulating meatheads would bully kids or become criminals is at a high and getting higher. The need for immediate comprehensive and versatile skills that can be built upon for life is paramount.

Therefore, the reason that my techs look different is because they ARE different.

The reason that my sequences function exactly as shown vs multiple stimuli is because they were first tested vs multiple stimuli and designed with that goal in mind.

Because...a student may have to scrap right now with what you taught them and they may have only learned 3 techs and maybe one sequence. But each and every tech and sequence is primed and ready to go in virtually any situation and the student is likewise mentally physically and emotionally set. They aren't just regurgitating a tech, they have sparred and trained and they've made cognitive connections and they know how to adjust adapt and get down in exactly the same way that you'd expect your students to be able to pull off a block and reverse punch on the street. That's what I think I've achieved.

So when you point out the Tracys? Well yeah they were part of the influence I drew from in the formulation of my paradigm. Mr. Parker's IIIK Book 4 page 130 has graphics about this too. 360 degrees of self defense was basic in my upbringing, but what didnt happen and wasn't even considered was translating the standup techs nearly wholesale into groundfighting. I completely agree about the nuances addressed in Crash of the Eagle and other wonderful techs...and that's part of my point. I bet that had the Tracys' considered and/or known the intricacies of groundfighting and if the threat of grappling multifights and weapon attacks were as prevalent then as they are now? The Tracys and people like the Tracys would have considered those realities while fashioning their techs...and their techs would be different and more capable as a result. And everyone would sing their praises.

Unless their name was The ATACX GYM. Lol.

My entire system is built upon the supposition that my techs have to deal with every and any kind of attack...and it has to be done at the novice rank and with novice techs. Then built all the way up to the highest levels. Right off top, that requires a sharp shift in training paradigm and right off top it produces a more comprehensively skilled martial artist. This is a good thing...and many other people are doing it too. And yes, it is wholly and entirely possible that I attact more likeminded people purely because of my training paradigm [ but most people have no idea about the specifics of what I teach, they just heard through word of mouth that I'm good ], but that doesn't change the fact that said training paradigm is more versatile and at least as comprehensive as the more traditional training models.

 

[ATACX GYM]

Sorry, Ras, but gonna have to call you on a few points here. You say that you learned the entirety of the EPAK curriculum and every other art you studied. Fine. I'll take your word for that. But it is clear that you don't have a complete understanding of the Tracy system. Tracy's does indeed have an extensive ground-fighting curriculum, and always have had. We can go into the history of why the ground-game was de-emphasized for a time, but most here already know it. And the ground-game was never eliminated, you just had to want to learn it. Mr. Tracy, just like Mr. Parker, came from a wrestling/Judo background. He is extremely knowledgable about the ground game. I know, because I've rolled with him. And I also come from a wrestling background. Same with weapons. It's very dangerous to assume that everything you learned is everything they know. As you said, you use a different training paradigm. Glad you said others were doing it too. I already knew that, though. Some of them were even doing it before you were. You can believe that your paradigm is better, but again that depends on "better for what". I'm not disputing that it's better for you or for others that share similar goals, etc. And I'm not going to pretend I'm qualified to judge whether it is better in any other respects. There are others, though that may. And, honestly, Tracy's follows a very different training paradigm than most EPAK isntructors I know. Speaking of Mr. Tracy personally, he's very much "if I show you one corner of the room and you can't find the other three, I don't have time for you." Or, as Doc has said about Mr. Parker "if you don't ask the right questions, I can't give you the answers." Then again, if you ask the right questions, he's very forthcoming. It's very much a Chinese-influenced thing. And again, your paradigm might be better for what you need, but that in and of itself doesn't mean it produces better or more versatile or comprehensively skilled artists. That's a very subjective thing. You might produce more effective student more quickly than the average Tracy/EPAK studio, but then again you are admitting that most kenpo people don't practice sparing with techs or breakfalls or weapons, etc. I do. I know others that do. And I'm glad you do. Like you said - maybe I'm not the person you're speaking to. But then again, maybe most of the guys here aren't either. But keep on keeping on, brother. You make me think and question what I do. Sometimes it confirms what I'm already doing. Sometimes it makes me go back and reconsider things or try something new. That's never a bad thing.

aaand the response:

Oooops, my bad KG. As always, I respect your posts and your opinions...even during the few times that I disagree. Same with both Docs,sumdumguy, Thesemindz, jdinca,LuckyK, MarkC,profesormental and lotsa others here.

I did NOT learn the Tracy system step by step. I thought I made that clear when I said I hadn't heard of "Reaching for the Moon" in LIFE. Let me clarify...the arts that I mentioned specifically [ Parker Kenpo,Functional TKD, Functional TSD,Functional HKD, boxing, Judo, wrestling, Functional Capoeira, SKK, Hung Gar, etc ] these arts I've learned from the ground up...in oftentimes a much more traditional way than how I present them. I'm still learning iaido now, and I'm constantly going back to Earp's spot [ I call our gun range head pistolero Wyatt Earp, and he calls me "mini-B.A." as in B.A. BARACHAS from The A-Team lolol. Beats the hell outta being called "giant-B.O." like Body Odor] to learn more and more.

For some reason, the Tracy system was NOT something I learned top to bottom...but I would have liked to. And I was and am heavily influenced by some of their training models and many of their techniques I've been shown without even knowing their names. Or maybe the names were changed to reflect the changes that were made in the sequence. I have never ever ever seen a single Tracy ground tech. Ever [ unless it was shown to me without attributing it to The Tracys ]. Are you saying that The Tracys were grappling even in the 80's? Did they teach their students ground and standup grappling to submission? It's my understanding just recently--yesterday--when talking to a Tracy friend of mine that they do not translate their SD sequences wholesale to the ground, to weapon use etc etc. My friend was adamant about this. He said that I am absolutely the only one he's ever even heard of who does such a thing and set out to do exactly that. Is this also your experience, KG?

Most of what I do I know I personally saw a precedent for, so I didn't get the feeling that my stuff was all that different or whatever as I climbed the ranks [ rank is something else I don't care for; once I got to Instructor/Coach skill level? That's all I cared about. Master this and Professor that? Yeah whatever dawg have fun with that ]. I didn't think that what I'm doing now was all that different than what alot if not most people were doing, and I didn't learn differently until I ventured forth from my old home dojos. I knew almost nothing of Kenpolitics until I arrived onsite, and I knew zero of most Kenpo names. Mr. Sumner,Planas, and most of those guys? Never heard of them until I got here. Tatum? Vaguely heard his name, along with Spry. Pretty much it was Bruce Lee, Mr. Parker, The Tracys, Doc and the BKF whose names rang in my circles...and Doc's name rang the loudest. But 95% of our focus was on the mat...the other names came up only during historical discussions. We were busy doing, and not giving a damn about politicking. I'm still like that today, so I tend to say things that can wholly offend people and I don't even know it because I've always been raised with the belief that all that yakkity yakk has to be shown and proven on the mat FIRST; then you can talk. Our best and most common--and still to this day my favorite and most used--method of underlining our skills was simply to first go out on the mat and take on all comers.

Now when I say "most Kenpo schools this" and "most Kenpo schools that"...what I'm referring to more specifically is "most Kenpo schools who follow the training paradigm and methods as I understand them in the context of the discussion that we're discussing in this thread". Now since the above is a mouthfull? I tend to say it once or ride off of another poster whose alread said or implied such and then not repeat it again every time that it's applicable. It's my understanding from what I've seen over the last 20 years and what I've read on this site and others over the last few years while cruising the net that most Kenpo schools do not seamlessly craft their techs with empty hand h2h, weapons, multifights, groundfighting and groundgrappling, escape, rescue...rescue AND escape, etc etc in mind. I do. That alone dramatically transforms many of the techs that I have and which I teach. When I share these techs, most of the time people are like:"That's cool Ras! Never seen Kenpo like yours before!" Which used to kinda baffle me because the first thing I'm thinking is:"How old is your teacher?" Because I took it for granted that instructors fought and they knew that grappling ,multifights, nonfirearm and firearm weaponry are a reality that we need to address from the ground floor up.

And then there was that vocal minority who'd screech at me:"That's not Kenpo and that's not what we learned and you don't know Kenpo and you suck and blah blah blah.." which [ if you guys recall ] was literally the first wave of responses that I got when I asked a simple question of the IKCA guys shortly after my arrival here. You guys already know how shy I'm not so I replied with one of my patented ATACX GYM zingers and off we go. It was from a combination of the former [ much more numerous group ] and the noisy latter [ they made noise out of all proportion to their size, like The Tea Party stereotypes do, lololol. Okay all you for real Tea Partyers? This is a disclaimer: I'm j/k so don't get your TP-Defender Bot mode on, okay? ] that I began to conclude that my methods are now not only distinctly in the minority but perhaps wholly new in some areas.

In my subsequent studies and searches, I have yet to find anyone else with a training paradigm as different and comprehensive as mine. But I note that I don't see anyone with say Rob's training method except him,and only SL-4 guys do their stuff...but my stuff is the one that ticks people off or shocks people the most. The reason is that my stuff has an expression that is much different than that of many Kenpoists because it includes more [ so kill that argument about how I don't understand stuff, guys and gals...I do understand and very well ] but I use the names that I've always used and was brought up with.

Nobody put too much stock in the name of a tech beyond its pnuemonic value and what it's supposed to teach, where I come from. If your 5 Swords was different than mine? We didn't quibble about the name...we wanted to know if it worked, how it worked, why it worked and how well it worked. Then we'd see why you called your joint YOUR 5 Swords. Never have I heard that I had to look similarly to Joe Blow down the street just because we used part of a name that was similar...until I got online.

So...I don't care about allat either. I'll keep calling my techs what I always called them. Just so happens that almost 95% of my tech names are NOT similar to the Parker System joints. But where they are? Not changing them. I already made distinctions by calling them ATACX GYM [INSERT TECH NAME] RADIUS R.D.L. And if that's not sufficient for you guys who are harping on the name? Sorry...kinda. But that's how it is. Themz the breaks.

The Tracys taught groundwork in the context of how they learned and trained it under Mr. Parker. There is no comprehensive ground grappling system like you might see in JJ. Rather, it is a limited curriculum of falling and scrambling to get back up to your feet to carry the fight from there. If you are looking for a more comprehensive ground game to submission, you will be disappointed. However, the limited curriculum follows the concept that we do not wish to be on the ground, so we have a stragety for breaking away and getting back to our feet. That's really it.

From Ted Sumner, I understand that is how things were trained in the early days when the Tracys trained under Mr. Parker. Lots if falling and rolling and kicking from the ground, etc. That is how Ted trained with the Tracys in the early 1960s, and Ted still includes that in what he teaches now. Much of this did not get codified into specific SD techs, it was just the "groundwork" that was done, and if people are strictly following the written curriculum, then they missed out on this part of it.

^^^This is gold and squares with my experiences growing up. The HKD guys would throw the crap outta the Kenpo and TKD guys...the Kenpo guys would oftentimes be smashed by the throw until they and the TKD guys dusted off their breakfalling [ not just rolling, BREAKFALLING ] skills. And then the HKD guys would have to follow the Kenpo guys to the mat and apply a subhold but alot of times the Kenpo guys would lash out wolverine style from off their backs and scramble to their feet. They'd have to get lasso'd and slammed a couple of times before the HKD guys and Judo guys could pull off a kesagatame and subhold.

Part of what I specifically set out to do was to marry groundFIGHTING with groundGRAPPLING all the way to weapons [inclusive of firearms ] armed multifights, subholds etc. All with the same tech. And you can see the Tracy/old skool Parker/Oshita/Chow influence in that I have a main sequence and have a RADIUS [ 360 degree radius ] and R.D.L.L.P. [ ROCK with your strikes DROP/Displace/Destroy with your takedowns slams throws displacement techs, LOCK with your subholds and locks, LOAD your nonfirearm weapons, and POP with your firearm weaponry ] mandate for every sequence.

Ras, thanks for some of the clarification. I think I may not have fully understood some of your points. As Flying Crane pointed out, the CODIFIED ground curriculum in Tracy's concentrates mainly on breakfalls and getting back to one's feet. Although striking and kicking from the ground as well as different scissoring and step-over holds are also present. In that respect, that you codify this info may indeed be unique. However, it would be erroneous to assume that the codified material represents the entirety of the Tracy's knowledge. Again, the Tracys came from a wrestling background and Parker from a Judo background. The Tracy's also did further study of grappling and weapons after the split from EPAK. However, not all of their information is readily available. Again, in my experience, Mr. Tracy follows a very Chinese approach to teaching. Again, it's about asking the right questions. I specifically asked him about whether of not kenpo had had grappling at one time and if so, why we no longer see it. What I got was not only a history lesson, but also a lesson in grappling (and I already had a wrestling background). Specifically, he spent a lot of time showing how kenpo and judo flow back and forth. Afterward, on his recommendation, I did some training with a very knowledgeable judoka (Mr. Tracy recommended further study into Judo, but I had to find the instructor on my own). Since I asked Mr. Tracy about grappling (as kenpo specializes in striking), I asked my Judo instructor about striking. Again, it's about asking the right questions. Amazing thing is how much his atemi-waza resembled the kenpo with which I was already familiar. The problem was never that the info wasn't there - it's just that a large majority of the students weren't interested in learning it. I've had Judo instructors tell me the same thing about striking in Judo.

 

[Twin Fist]

you lost this one, either man up and humble up and admit it, or, not

seriously, you are verging on being a punch line at this point.

 

[Josh Oakley]

At this point, I'm convinced Ras just isn't listening. Ras, much love for you... but I'm out of this one. Back to lurker status.

 

[Twin Fist]

agreed

 

[Josh Oakley]

agreed

You and I agreeing on something. That's a bit of a new experience! Lol


Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk

 

[ATACX GYM]

At this point, I'm convinced Ras just isn't listening. Ras, much love for you... but I'm out of this one. Back to lurker status.

Ohhh...Ras was listening. I was simply patiently waiting for someone to make the final step so that I could wrap everything up in a single, decisive response.

And sure enough...

Originally Posted by Doc But I suspect you're not trying to turn a yellow belt into an know-it-all urban ninja because of what MIGHT happen one day. I know, I'll each you calculus while you're learning to add and subtract, because you may need to address a complex math problem immediately. You never know right? RAS doesn't understand life. You can't start at the top of the mountain, no matter how badly you need to be there right now. "But you don't understand, I need to defend myself against everything today." OK, than I'll show you everything today, but what will you have at the end of the day. No matter how urgent some might think they need it now, if you give them too much you are doing them a disservice. I suspect, Ras' students would be happy with whatever he taught them, as longs as it worked. I think HE thinks they need all of that stuff now, not them. It's like I have to tell my own teachers, "Stop telling them things they don't need, and drill what they need to progress." But Ras, is an expert in everything, so maybe he has a handle on something. Who knows?

Okay I had to answer this one...because this in several crucial areas is WAY OFF. Allll of the way off. Not even close. I mean that respectfully too.

Listen up. Cuz this is simple.

Learning to use your inside block to also block a knife attack is common sense, not paranoia.

Learning to use your inside block to stop the clinch is common sense...not paranoia.

Learning to do all of this with one tech is efficient intelligent and common sense...not overtraining. Not rushing your student. It's literally not so.

It's not contrary to how the human body learns and it has nothing whatsoever to do with anything other than a sensible training paradigm. If that were so? Then I couldn't do it and neither can my students. But we've been doing it for decades. Observe how the human body can learn these movements in a matter of moments:

[video=youtube_share;kEZ-zAUEkR4]http://youtu.be/kEZ-zAUEkR4[/video]

If others don't wanna do it? Cool have at it. But claims that it's contrary to how humans learn or it's starting at the top of the mountain are flawed. It's a common sense, easy to grasp, training paradigm that literally takes less than 15 minutes to do. So when people say that stuff, it reflects their own preferences experiences and training paradigms...and that's cool. Respect to that if that's how they do things and best of luck. If it works? Even better and more props to you.

Learning to stop the takedown, strike, and submit is so common that it's the world's fastest growin money combat sport and it's called MMA...but when I say I can and do do it with my Kenpo and I've been doing it BEFORE MMA took off? Somehow it's sheer lunacy to some. To me? That says alot more about where they're at than where I'm at. Again, that's not being disrespectful that is just direct honest talk.

When you take the rules off MMA, add weapons and multifights and use it for the streets, does that make you paranoid or some slobbering ninja wannabe?

NO

[video=youtube_share;a1fA42Q_NEE]http://youtu.be/a1fA42Q_NEE[/video]



[video=youtube_share;hq1yqcWfMlI]http://youtu.be/hq1yqcWfMlI[/video]


My martial arts brethren, there are very well researched, very sensible, very progressive, very results oriented methods of approaching martial arts that aren't the norm for Kenpoists...and accepted by military and LEO groups. And they're also fully functional and viable for citizens. That's cool. That's laudable. Me? I try to learn from that stuff too. Those guys in the above video do much of the stuff I talk about and which I do. It's a different paradigm but a very viable effective laudable and good paradigm.

And Doc? Unlike me...those guys are NOT an expert at everything. And yeah, me and them CAN hear Jimi AND we can play classical music and international music besides. Cuz we like music and realize that there's more than one style of music out there; and the more instruments that you can play well? The better musician you are. Lololololol. [ Yall Doc Defender-Bots chill I'm just pokin fun at him and he's just messin with me too ].


When you add in pistols and CQB and cop stuff to the above? You're STILL not paranoid or a ninja. You get Burton mixed with THIS guy:

[video=youtube_share;1RROfS6tznw]http://youtu.be/1RROfS6tznw[/video]


[video=youtube_share;3RrY80wvoVI]http://youtu.be/3RrY80wvoVI[/video]


When you add Kenpo and Capoeira and stuff to those guys above? You know you might get something like THIS guy

[video=youtube_share;OgiiyO05OL4]http://youtu.be/OgiiyO05OL4[/video]


Okay.


Now, does any of the above mean that anybody's paradigm invalidates anybody else's?

NO.

Does any of the above mean that just because you train to do more than one thing, you're somehow paranoid or less scientific or less technique oriented than anybody else?

NO

In order to do more correctly? You HAVE TO LEARN TECHNIQUES AND TECHNIQUE INTEGRATION MORE INTENSIVELY.

Does doing high reps result in reduced technical skill?

NO. NOT IF YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING AND YOU EMPLOY A TRAINING PARADIGM DESIGNED TO REMOVE THAT CONCERN SUCCESSFULLY

^^^^I do a whoooolllle looot of this with martial arts techs. Been doing it since 1994.

Okay, now that we established that this is being done and it can be done well and you don't have to be some kind of weirdo to train this way, let's no bring that stuff up again anymore. We're not talking about good kenpo vs bad kenpo, traditionalists vs the renegade ATACX GYM CQB.

What we're REALLY talking about is training methods and paradigms, and the preferences and loyalties that they engender. And I know that we all energetically defend our preferred method. Alright cool. Have at it and enjoy. However, none of that should preclude us having adult conversations which make it extra difficult to have a straightforward conversation--even when we have spirited disagreements about stuff--that precludes or makes it difficult for us to learn stuff of value from each other that we may not have known previously.

Oh yeah...Doc...remember all that about how science proves that my method is contrary to how the human body learns? Wellllll....

http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/5858.aspx


The paradigm showed here proves that complex learning skills are learned quickly and adjustments are made quickly but not as quickly as in lower intensity environments. It also shows that we humans very quickly learn to correct and generalize to other similar movements and do so within a very very short period of time. Which squares 100% with my step by step progression and my whole contention about the specific way in which I build chains.

I have literally hundreds of pieces of scientific research validating my position here. It's not a question. It's verified scientific data. I told you guys that I'm not kidding, that I have hundreds of studies that verify my position.

And yes before anyone asks? My training paradigm has corrected the conditions shown and NO I didn't innovate it I just altered and applied it...which is technically innovation but I'm not the originator of the methods which spawned my variant which results in synergistically combining multiple methods and putting that ATACX GYM flava twist on it.

Okay. Now that THAT'S over...does any of this deny the scientific veracity of Doc's position? Does it mean that there's nothing to learn from Doc?

NO. It simply proves that there are other valid ways...and learning is perpetual.

Doc...remember when a certain Kenpo luminary from a organization that you founded once said that you thought that you could learn to fight by reading books and going to school? Remember that criticism [ you should, the person who is credited with the quote is very well known and a BKF man] ? Well, I disagreed in the dojo with this person and before they kicked me out? I pointed out that it seems to me that you're marrying technical knowledge with combat skill and however talented or knowledgeable a person is...without study? You won't be AS knowledgeable as someone like you in certain areas and those "certain areas" could really provide a qualitative difference. I'm thinking that knowing what would happen to the Bladder if I hit it just so and tilt your hips back thusly can help me overcome the Golgi tendon's reflex when I'm trying to break your arm cuz you're trying to knife me or shoot me might be some information I wanna know. Ya heard me?

Well...your approach was touted by many and actually done by few. And understood by far less.Let's be real and say almost nobody in the Kenpo world knows close to what you know about your stuff. Including moi.

Well,I'm doing something similar...in the sense that next to nobody else is doing it and there is a great deal of blowback just because I'm doing it and sharing my findings and asserting my positions. And very few people know what I know about my stuff. Including you.

So let's share. Let's talk. All of us. One and all. Let's get better together. We don't have to adopt each other's style or method, but we can LEARN something from each other and APPLY IT to our stuff. That's what I've been saying since day one. Literally. Search my posts.

Cuz that's a Kenpo Lab and that's what I came here for.


So if guys think that my ATTACKING TWINS is flawed? That's GOOD man. We can work that out. I might learn something, and I can prove that it DOES work so they can learn something too...if both parties are willing to learn.

Now...even my detractors have to acknowledge this. I do take in what's being said and I have made changes along the lines of some of what my critics have offered; whether the criticism was meant to be constructive or not. The converse has not happened a single time...even when I've been proven to be right. So yeah I will learn. Yeah I will change.

But you gotta show me what you mean and prove it, just like I have to/should have to do with you.

AND THAT'S GOOD.

Discussion and debate is good. Idc how many of you guys jump on the 'diss ATACX GYM' train, makes me not a single nevermind...like the old saying goes. Lolol. What IS important is that the discussion is happening. People are thinking interacting reflecting growing...and hopefully not reflexively hewing to their positions just because it's their positions.

Doc. You called me out and corrected me on Big Red and The Ideal Phase. I thank you for that. You schooled me on a bunch of stuff and I learned from you. I hope to STILL learn from you, but if you don't wanna share with me? That's cool too. I still respect you as a Kenpo Elder.

But you said stuff regarding my training model which is proveably untrue. Just as you said that you would challenge me to go beyond:" Look at me"...I will challenge you to go beyond: "Because I said." And I will challenge you to substantiate the claims that you make in the name of science. Not because I don't think you know what you're talking about, but its' that "Because I said" ain't hackin it. No good martial artist will take that at face value if they're serious about their path, imo.

So expect that challenge. The moment it looks like you said "Because I said" that challenge is coming. Every time, man. Every single time. With respect, but with rigor. You said in several posts over the last year that you don't want YES MEN and that you enjoy discussions and challenges. Well, you'll get that in spades from me.

"Don't call it a comeback...I been here for years..."

I hope this post clarifies matters.

 

[Josh Oakley]

We've both already read that. You're still not listening. Back to lurking, because the roundabout is at this point ridiculous.

 

[Chris Parker]

Hmm, I take a couple of days off, and this is what happens?

Ras, you still haven't listened to a single thing that I have said from the beginning. That's the issue. So, to that end, I'm going to say it one more time. Do try to listen, son.

But first, to answer Mike.

I just have 2 things to say:

1) Regarding my take on what I thought you were asking...lol...yeah, looks like I may've misunderstood you. To be honest, I never really gave the question much thought, though it is a good question you asked.

Welcome to my way of looking at techniques and martial arts, my friend...

2) From a non Kenpo point of view, in your opinion, what do you feel are the lessons presented in the standard S&H?

Sure. In fact, to steal out of Ras' playbook, here's one I prepared earlier (post 246, way back on page 17....):

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....

Anything you want cleared up, just ask.

And if you are going to jump on Ras for a word using a word... FREAKING KNOW WHAT IT FREAKING MEANS! "Detractor" means "one who disparages someone or something". Yes Ras has detractors. A couple of people here are indeed detractors. Twin Fist, your side comment about Ras not being important enough to have detractors was nonsensical. To disparage someone or something literally means to regard of represent it as being of little worth. You have done that repeatedly. Hell, regardless the level of Ras's importance or lack thereof, the very act saying he is "not important enough to have detractors" makes you, by the very definition of the word, A FREAKING DETRACTOR!!!!!

(Though you were one long before that)

Ras is using the word correctly.

Hey, Josh. Yeah, that wasn't John, it was myself. And honestly, mate? I stick by it. To look back at the word, to "detract" means to remove from, typically to lower or remove importance. Your provided definition also gives a reference to "disparage", referring to represent (something) of being of little worth... which implies there being an inherent level of importance attributed in the first place. In other words, for there to be detractors of something, there needs to be some importance there in the first place, which I don't see with Ras. He goes on to demonstrate this point on the Kenpotalk thread, talking about big names being "laughed at" before they did things like establish Delta Force, then linked it all to himself by saying that he is now being laughed at (presumably by the same people). This is the level that Ras presents himself as being at, and that's what I mean when I say he's not important enough to have detractors.

I know what the word means, and no he's not using it correctly. He's using it to present himself as being greater than all others. And, frankly, his approach is different, but he's far from the level he wants to be seen as. Hence, he's not important enough to truly have detractors.

As I stated to Chris Parker, when I use the terms "craptastic" "dooficity" etc these are tongue-in-cheek phrases. Where I'm from, these phrase are FUNNY, they're clearly not demeaning or insulting. As I said to Chris Parker in this very thread...if you're offended? Right here and right now I offer you and anyone else so offended an apology; I really wasn't trying to offend. When I am purposefully trying to offend? You'll know.

Perhaps a portion of this misunderstanding IS "a communication failure" as you hypothesize.

Ras, I don't think you understand how you come across... but, to help you, you are not using such terms "tongue in cheek". That would imply that it is being used in a humourous ironic form. In other words, when you describe a common Kenpo technique as "craptastic", if you were using the term "tongue in cheek", that would mean you thought the technique was very good. You are using what you feel is slightly lighter language to express your distaste and disapproval of the techniques. When it comes to your usage of "dooficity" towards my posts, that can only be taken offensively. It was not tongue in cheek, as evidenced by the rest of your post.

Now, let's get to it.

I wasn't going to answer this post at first, but...

"My question is what does Ras think needs to be there for it to be Sword and Hammer? That's it. If it's just the use of swordhand and hammerfist, fine... but I think that means he misses the majority of the lessons present."--Chris Parker.

No. You're the one who misses the relevant factors, as I have cited Mr. Parker's definition of The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique Process, and answered this question already multiple times.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sh...d-and-hammer-pt-1-and-2&p=1466741#post1466741

Dude, it's a simple question, what aspects go into a technique to make it Sword and Hammer, as opposed to any other technique... not what is the process by which it is developed, not how did you come up with yours, the question is simply what makes yours even a version of the one you put it up against? What elements are there that make your technique related? What is Sword and Hammer, when it all comes down to it! You have failed in 32 pages to even begin to address that question, and honestly, I don't think you understand this incredibly simple question. That is what I have meant when I've said you don't understand the structure of techniques. You have provided no evidence to the contrary, despite having 32 pages to do so.

You're either ducking the question, or you don't understand it.

"You put up three videos all showing the same basic technique (some variation, but all recognisably the same thing) as the baseline form of Sword and Hammer. Whether or not there is a "standard" form, you have demonstrated, in the first goddamn post, that there is a basic form given to Sword and Hammer (or Pin Step Chop, or whatever other name it's given), and that form has a range of standard elements that are present and consistent..."--Chris Parker

No you're incorrect. The 3 other videos of the more common expression of Sword and Hammer--which is a noncombat model, a guideline which was NEVER supposed to be a hard and fast technique per Mr. Parker himself--are the direct results of lack of understanding or even use of The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique PROCESS.

Those other folks' videos embody the misunderstanding which has torpedoed much of Kenpo in that too many Kenpoists conflate the noncombat model with some fictional nonexistent universal standard of execution. The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique PROCESS is NOT some form of master key method that helps you arrive to a specific physical articulation of a technique. The Ideal Phase is equivalent to The Scientific Method. You use it and the integrity of the process of your technique selection and application is beyond dispute. Your conclusions ARE valid..whether or not other scientists agree that your findings are final or not.

Mine follows the Ideal Phase Analytical Technique PROCESS.

What? You present three very similar versions of a technique, demonstrate more versions at the beginning of your clips, and it's not presenting it as a "standard" version? It's not showing that there is a basic form, or guide? It's not demonstrating that Sword and Hammer has a range of standard elements that are present and consistent? You really can't be serious here, Ras...

Each version is not "hard and fast", either. They each have differences between them, whether in distancing, stances, angling, targeting, or more... so I'm not sure what you think is "hard and fast" about the way it's presented. And the other videos don't embody any misunderstanding, they present the way the damn technique is taught. You'd really do well to understand the difference, son.

The idea of what the "real" Ideal Phase Analytical Process is, or meant to achieve, is frankly irrelevant to my comment. Your argument has as much relevance as if we were discussing a particular song (oh, let's say, Stairway to Heaven), and you showed a version of "Immigrant Song" as the same one, then started talking about how Led Zepellin wrote songs when asked what made you think that your song was Stairway to Heaven....

"I'll put it bluntly. Your technique is Sword and Hammer for your version of Kenpo. It is not a "better" version of the one you are lambasting. It is not even a version of the one you are lambasting. That is the goddamn point..."--Chris Parker

I've only been saying that my Sword and Hammer is my Ideal for my Gym and AN Kenpo Idea for 20+ pages prior to you finally grasping the point and finally getting a glimmer of understanding. So, if I'm a idiot yet I've tumbled to a conclusion 20+ pages before you did and kept arguing that point until you finally saw the light that I knew of before I made the thread...then what does that make you? Just curious...

Page one, dude. On page one I was saying that what you did wasn't a version of the base technique, and have been trying ever since to get you to say why you think it is. You have failed consistently, and my comments there are basically my pointing out that you have not demonstrated in any way that your technique is a "version of Sword and Hammer" as you present it, instead, it is a completely unrelated technique (honestly with very little basis other than some trial and error, and some rather flawed understanding of reality and applicability on your end) that you use the same name for... which means that your demonstration of the more common form, both in your posts, and at the start of your clips themselves, is completely irrelevant and frankly a waste of time.

Basically, you have in no way been able to demonstrate any connection between the common version, and what you call Sword and Hammer. My observation is that you simply don't understand the concept I'm discussing, as frankly, you don't have the education.

"And dude, "the sooner we can dispense with comparing my expression to a standard which does not exist"... the reason we're comparing your version with the one you presented as a baseline version is because you presented them to be compared, you compare them in your own videos, this entire thread is about comparing them! What the hell is wrong with you?!?!..."--Chris Parker

The reason this entire thread exists is because people like you who have no clue of what the REAL Ideal Phase Analytical Technique PROCESS is...have no clue of what the REAL Ideal Phase Analytical Technique Process IS. And you're militant in your ignorance.

No, the reason this thread exists is because you started it as a way of showing your approach as being "better", despite flaws throughout your reasoning, understanding, and technique. And I have not been discussing the Ideal Phase Process, or whatever, because that's not the damn point. You presented a technique, called Sword and Hammer, as a version of a commonly taught technique called Sword and Hammer, despite your technique and the common one sharing almost nothing between them. I have since asked repeatedly what makes yours a version of the common one, which you have failed to do. It has continued the way it has because you haven't been able to answer that question, instead bringing in things like the Ideal Phase Process, while that has never been part of what I've been asking.

Again, I haven't been asking how you came up with your technique, I've been asking why you think it's a version of the common technique.

"By the way, what really sinks you is this:

Originally Posted by ATACX GYMJust some--not all--of the Kenpo Principles that I see in my Sword and Hammer and even some in the more common expression are:

Particularly the bold..."--Chris Parker

I see principles in the more common version, but...let's compare The Ideal Phase Process to the quadratic equation for this instance. Seeing the more common noncombat model Sword and Hammer is like seeing somebody skim over the quadratic formula and then misuse it. I recognize what's being ATTEMPTED, but I see that it's doomed to fail and why...because I use the Quadratic Equation properly and I'm good at math. Or in keeping with The Scientific Method metaphor [ the Scientific Method very briefly is the process of: Observation, Hypothesis, Experimentation, Conclusion ]? The more common version lacks Experimentation, therefore its conclusions are ALWAYS invalid.

The problem was that I asked what makes Sword and Hammer a unique technique, separate to the other techniques in the curriculum, and you answered with a list of Kenpo principles that you see in your technique... in other words, all you did was say that what you did was Kenpo, which wasn't what was questioned. You didn't understand the question, you defended something that wasn't questioned, you showed no understanding of the structure of techniques, and so on.

And everything you say here? Complete garbage, Ras.

": A combat model? Who said it was? I even postulated a better way for you to approach it that says it isn't one. Approved by Ed Parker? How about approved in his organisation later, that would account for the name (EPAK), yeah? As far as "standard", a quick google search turned up many videos and many descriptions all of which follow the same principles, ideas, tactics, strategies, and more. So to take the term "standard" as "typical", or "common", well, just look around..."--Chris Parker

The purpose of The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique Process is to give rise to give rise to functional, viable combat models grounded in Kenpo principles.Who said it was a combat model? Mr. Parker did. You failed to grasp that...even after 20+ pages of me telling you so and providing quotes from Doc and Mr. Parker on the matter.

EPAK is a business acronym which came about after Mr. Parker's death. He did NOT approve of the acronym or the process which gave rise to this so-called Ideal Phase Technique stuff. The authors of the source material flatly refute and contradict you at every turn, sir...which makes you wrong. Period.

I really can't believe you just made that argument, Ras, as it shows that either you just don't hear what's being said, or you don't understand what you're saying... Look again at that description you just gave for the Process, Ras. You state that "the Ideal Phase Analytical Technique Process is to give rise to functional, viable combat models", not be them in the beginning. The techniques provide the framework of tactics and lessons that you then use to create viable applications, within that framework, not just abandoning it.

And for crying out loud, Ras, what does when the term "EPAK" was created have to do with anything?!? Seriously, Ras, there isn't anything that refutes the simple observation that there is a common form of Sword and Hammer, so, uh... what?

"And Ras, we're not championing it, we're just saying that you don't get it, and your technique is not a version of it in the same way that a car is not a different version of a bus... or motorbike...

Failure to understand this argument simply shows you to have no clue whatsoever about the structure of techniques...

And grow up in your language, you sound like a 15 year old, full of self importance, with no sense of reality around him. I'm fed up reading it, and I feel that others are too (as they've basically said as much to you privately, and on the thread itself)"--Chris parker

Yes you were championing it, yes I do get it you don't get it, my technique is a version of Sword and Hammer, yes I do know quite a bit about the structure of techniques...and if I'm linguistically a 15 year old then, Chris...

I think it's a decent technique, yeah. But that's beside the point. I think your technique has a large number of flaws. But that's also beside the point. The point is that you present yours as a version of the common form, and it flatly isn't. You have not been able to demonstrate that it is, you have not been able to answer even what would be required for a technique to be Sword and Hammer in the first place.

...I'd rather be linguistically a 15 year old who has a thorough grasp of the material and overmastered you with it then someone who you approve of linguistically and is as completely and totally incorrect as consistently as you have been. Btw, this linguistic 15 year old managed to overmaster your position completely and publically without resorting even infrequently to invectives. You cannot make such a claim.

Dude, your entire debating style is one step above a kid running around a playground, "shooting" other kids with his finger, and, despite not really aiming anywhere in their direction, yelling "I got you, I got you!!" to everyone else.... you have shown no real grasp of the material, let alone thorough, Ras. You haven't "overmastered" anything.

Oh, and the 15 year old comment is the level of debating maturity and depth you've been showing, as displayed through your vocabulary, not your vocabulary itself.

Chris doesn't have a point. He doesn't have a point because his position comes from swearing [ and being wrong about ] the combat viability in a noncombat model which was never supposed to be a SD tech and therefore cannot work exactly as shown in a SD situation and then compounded his mistake by failing to recognize the combat viability of a sequence that works exactly and precisely as shown in the relevant combat situation. There is no argument that can ennoble his position with even a scintilla of accuracy for that very reason. His position is irrevocably compromised, perpetually untrue.

Wow, have you missed everything I've said for 32 pages, boy. Go back, re-read it, and try again.

"Not every movement is a technique but every technique is a movement. You have to train your mind to move your body with better quality. The more quality movements you get..the better anything you do in the martial arts becomes. That's how you improve organically and synergistically."--Frank Shamrock to me, when he was based out of the RAW Center

Frankly, I think you don't understand what Frank was saying to you, as you seem to miss the point rather badly.

Consider something else...would we be having this kind of discussion that delves into the history and systemic structure of EPKK and the validity of training models...would we even be challenging each other to think critically like this at all in anything approaching this vein...if I hadn't put up my variant of Sword and Hammer?

There is a great deal of value in threads like this one. And so far? Guys like MJS, Josh and I are the ones who are probing and asking these kinds of questions the most.

What have my detractors contributed in and of themselves of like value? This is not a diss, I'm genuinely curious.

What have we contributed? Seriously? Ras, we've been trying to get some answers out of you... if you'd been able to answer them, you may have been received a little better. But you have shown no understanding, no depth of knowledge, and instead chosen to constantly claim superiority in every way... what have you contributed? Really?

 

[Josh Oakley]

Awww, man. Now you're just going to get the whole thing going again.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk