Sword & Hammer, Obscure Wing

[Touch Of Death]

Les
We step with our left as in a cover; so, I probably won't be trying any of that step with the right foot stuff, but thanks :asian:
Sean

Now that it has been brought up, does anyone else cover with the left or is it just me?

 

[Thesemindz]

Lastly, the system is set up for the right side, and accounts for the left in certain instances. Kind of how most people are right handed with only a section of lefties. Sure I could have learned everything on the other side, but then most of my techs would be for someone attacking with a left. Not who's most likely to attack me.

For me, and most lefties I guess, it a right handed world, so work with it. Know thy enemy, so to speak.

Joel

Wow Joel, those are really great points, and being a "righty" I'd never considered the plight of the left handed man. Or at least, not seriously considered it. I mean, I watch The Simpsons, but I've never actually been to a Leftorium.

Thanks.

-Rob

 

[rmcrobertson]

Yep, Rob, I checked, and in "Infinite Insights," Vol. 2, "Physical Analyzation I," page 52, there is both an overhead view of a horse stance with the toes pointing inward, and the remark, "Your feet are pigeon toed. If you were to extend two imaginary lines in the direction your toes are pointed, both lines would intersect...."

It may be worth adding, in the context of "Sword and Hammer," that the playing around with the horse stance and strikes out of a horse stance gets done (among other places) through Striking Set 1, and in the last moves of Long Form 1.

And...well..as an official member of the Whomp That Dead Horse Club, there is again a difference between being right-sided (which kenpo is) and right-haanded (which I don't think kenpo is).

 

[Nick Ellerton]

Look when you are taught the technique you are always told to look b4 you execute the strike. But how do you no when it happen the right time to execute the strike when you arnt looking. you can usually tell by the grab and the situation. But always look!!!. Obscure wing peripheral vision can prevent you looking well not prevent meaning you do not have to turn your head! to see what is happening because of the back elbow strike to begin with it is evident that it is a close range technique. And when it comes to sword and hammer. When you step back, you upper pectoral gurdle rotates and unless you deliberately dont turn your head then you will see your attacker anyway and this technique allows that short period of time to pull the strike should it be someone you dont feel like hurting.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Look when you are taught the technique you are always told to look b4 you execute the strike. But how do you no when it happen the right time to execute the strike when you arnt looking. you can usually tell by the grab and the situation. But always look!!!. Obscure wing peripheral vision can prevent you looking well not prevent meaning you do not have to turn your head! to see what is happening because of the back elbow strike to begin with it is evident that it is a close range technique. And when it comes to sword and hammer. When you step back, you upper pectoral gurdle rotates and unless you deliberately dont turn your head then you will see your attacker anyway and this technique allows that short period of time to pull the strike should it be someone you dont feel like hurting.

When are you stepping back?

 

[Doc]

First, I'd argue that there's a considerable difference between being right-handed and being right sided.

Second, sorry Pete, but in a kenpo horse stance the toes do indeed turn inward...and the weight goes to the outside edge of the foot.

Thanks.

That is correct sir. In fact you both are correct. The feet are curved and when properly placed parallel to each other, the toes will point inward given the impression of the feet turned inward but not so.

The way the visual cortex line of sight works in human anatomy is, it tends to draw on particular reference points of the body to determine position. When looking at the feet for stances, the toes are the reference point. When blocking, the hand position can sometimes fool your mind as well into believing your block is correct when it is not.

If the weight isn't evenly distributed toward the outside edge of the foot as stated, I guarantee you have no upper body structural integrity.

Human anatomy is very complex, and even more so in applications as dynamic as the teaching of American kenpo.

 

[Doc]

Now that it has been brought up, does anyone else cover with the left or is it just me?

Our curriculum does as well, despite to the contrary I've seen in Parker Manuals.

 

[Nick Ellerton]

The way i was taught it in sword and hammer to gain more emphasis on power in the technique step back as to about 4 30 when you execute the outward hand sword to send their head back more pushing their groin forward making the strikes more effective plus the rotation of you upper pectoral gurdle is great for the power of the strike.

 

[Doc]

The way i was taught it in sword and hammer to gain more emphasis on power in the technique step back as to about 4 30 when you execute the outward hand sword to send their head back more pushing their groin forward making the strikes more effective plus the rotation of you upper pectoral gurdle is great for the power of the strike.

????? Anybody?

 

[Doc]

if you stand with the arches of your feet parallel, the insides of the big toes will splay outwards creating a deficiency... now make the insides of your big toes parallel and you will find the feeling of being pigeon-toed...

what you want to avoid is being pigeon-toed to the extent of having your big toes actually pointed inward.

From the inside your feet are concave and when actually parallel, your toes point inward.

 

[Doc]

I guess my response is that I don't consider performing techniques on the "left hand" side an attempt to create ambidexterity, rather it is merely an excercise designed to convey a lesson.

The teaching process in modern times has a limited amount of time to convey some very complex ideas, and then transform them into effective physical action. In a limited curriculum environment, such as in the commercial motion based art this approach might have some viability. However in my own teaching, we focus on anatomical driven principles and therefore this “motion on both sides concept” is limiting.

Human anatomy is very complex, however motion is not in comparison. Anatomy requires specific applications. Motion is abstract but can be applied. But sans application is useless.

In an attempt to defend one's self, a person simply may step wrong. If I find my left foot forward, for whatever reason, I can still perform Delayed Sword.

You train to react properly under stress, much like the military and or civilian public safety. Properly trained you just “do.” If done properly it will tap into existing facets of human anatomy and reinforce them rather than attempt to create completely new synaptic pathways. New pathways are “soft” and therefore susceptible to ***, (Adrenal Stress Syndrom), which will cause the body to “stutter’ even when the brain knows what to do. This is why the chemicals in an “Adrenal Dump” interrupt the synaptic pathways and soft muscle memory.

It's really more of an intellectual excercise. I got the impression, and again this was merely my understanding of what you wrote, that you felt that perfoming the same technique "mirror imaged" was detrimental to a student's growth. If that was the case, how does performing them in the forms change that? Is it only "self-defeating" when you perform them on a person?

Forms are devoid of “external stimuli, with a minimum if any of “stress,” therefore hard muscle memory is not accessed. A huge difference from reacting to possible injury, especially from “soft muscle memory” not solidified through proper and realistic training and understanding.

In your response to my question, you discussed the origin of the chinese sets and forms, as well as the "lower belt" material. I'm curious, for purely historical reasons, where did forms 4,5, and 6 come from? I had been taught that they were Mr. Parker's creations, is that not true? When you state that, "none of the forms are wholly Ed Parker creations but all contain his input and the final product is by his design," do you really mean none of the forms, or are you only reffering to the forms you specifically mentioned in your post? I'm only asking you as someone who was there.

I’m referring to all of them. Once again, "… none of the forms are wholly Ed Parker creations but all contain his input and the final product is by his design, …"

Ed Parker did not create the forms move for move, anymore did he did any other facet of any of his Kenpo interpretations. He gleaned information from other people, extrapolated information, and determined what he wanted and why. But much of the information came from his seniors in the art, but he put it together in a unique methodology.

I particularly liked the point you made about forms showing you "mirror imaged" ideas rather than techniques. Is the point to show that what works on the left works on the right, conceptually speaking?

No. It’s to work opposite sides of the brain to work toward basic symmetrical, (NOT ambidextrous) skills. To examine how the brain and body work in strange ways through its crossed symmetrical motor control, try this.

While sitting at the computer raise your right foot off the floor slightly. Then begin to rotate your foot in clockwise circle.

Then attempt to “write” a numerical “6” in the air with you index finger.

The movement of the finger along with other factors will cause your foot to reverse direction involuntarily or shut it down altogether. You will not be successful in this exercise.

Movement is one thing. Anatomical movement is another.

As a quick side note, how does all this apply to left handed people? I know the majority of people, myself included, are right handed. Do left handed people have different anatomical structure? Are they better off to perform the techniques left handed, or are they still better to perform them the way they are intended? I don't really have any idea on this, but I would think that you have run into this in your own instruction and perhaps have an answer.

No sir. Left-handed people with no previous training have no more difficulty than a right-handed person. No one is truly ambidextrous. Most people are activity dedicated preferenced. There are some things they prefer to do on one side or the other, but not both. Most write on one side only, but there are things you prefer to do left-handed more comfortably.

I really do enjoy your perspective on things and hold you in high regard, I hope that I haven't offended you by accidently putting words in your mouth.

Not at all sir. This thread is what this forum is all about. We may not always agree, but we can politely discuss our differences, exchange information, and come away better than we were. All of this done with intelligence and class, while we delve deeper into our common interest. That’s why I don’t frequent other popular forums. The moderators here do a great job. Besides no one has been misquoted more than me. :asian:

 

[rmcrobertson]

Uh...just tried the foot-and-finger thing...didn't get it the first time, but I can actually do it.

I knew there was something basically corss-wired in there.

As for the Great Sword & H controversy, well, first off, if you're getting pulled to your right, your head' s going to go right anyway...

And as for stepping to 4:30, I'd argue that if you do this against a flank attack, you are opening an excellent line of entry to the groin.

Works on boys, works on girls.

 

[Thesemindz]

Uh...just tried the foot-and-finger thing...didn't get it the first time, but I can actually do it.

Yah, my mom told me about this about a year ago. Usually, I can't get it first try, my foot goes haywire and starts going all over the place. Second try I can almost always get it though and then I'm able to repeat it. At least till I try again later.

-Rob

 

[Touch Of Death]

Our curriculum does as well, despite to the contrary I've seen in Parker Manuals.

Thanks Doc,
I was just talking to a freind today about this whom used to train in the IKKA and he explained that he was taught to step into a horse and make his strikes off to the side while in a horse. I started making a list of problems that this might cause: 1. you really have to look good and hard before steping into potential right crosses; however if you step with the left you can look and step at the same time. 2. This would be just about the only tech that didn't require you becoming neutral to your oponent, which would make it an anomoly, and anomilies should be discarded; because, it should all feel the same. 3. you aren't launching, effectivly, into your first strike. 4. If you do cover with the left this tech is mearly a variation on Sword of Destruction or if the cross is thrown (and it will be), it becomes B1A;where as, out of an horse it becomes a bad variation of obscure wing which I suppose answers the question as to why Mr. Lear lumped these techs toguether on this very thread 5. Strikes directly to the side of an horse are weak and should really be more at a 45 degree angle, which means, to get power your going to have to step a little further back and expose your targets to do so.

I'll just leave it at that for now. :asian:
Sean

 

[rmcrobertson]

Well, I'd argue that one's guy's horse stance is another guy's neutral, depending on what your orientation happens to be. But a good point, Sean.

I figured, too, wotthell, look it up.

From the LTKKA technique manual, page 6:

"As your opponent attacks you with a right flank shoulder grab, pin his left hand to your shoulder with your left hand. Keep your elbow anchored for support. Step to 3 o'clock into a right neutral bow with your right foot. Simultaneously execute a right outward handsword to opponent's throat."

Can we talk about Obscure Sword and Falcons of Force, now?

 

[Touch Of Death]

Well, I'd argue that one's guy's horse stance is another guy's neutral, depending on what your orientation happens to be. But a good point, Sean.

I figured, too, wotthell, look it up.

From the LTKKA technique manual, page 6:

"As your opponent attacks you with a right flank shoulder grab, pin his left hand to your shoulder with your left hand. Keep your elbow anchored for support. Step to 3 o'clock into a right neutral bow with your right foot. Simultaneously execute a right outward handsword to opponent's throat."

Can we talk about Obscure Sword and Falcons of Force, now?

Alright dagnabit, I suppose you can name a few techs that fit your way but l still don't like the fact that your lauch off the left foot is weeeeeeaaaaaak! Even you have to admit that a cover gives you more power. You have not gotten off the line of attack either; so , enjoy that knuckle sandwich.
Sean

Ps And further more, if he stiff arms you, you ain't stepping in with that weak launch.

 

[Brenwulv]

Alright dagnabit, I suppose you can name a few techs that fit your way but l still don't like the fact that your lauch off the left foot is weeeeeeaaaaaak! Even you have to admit that a cover gives you more power. You have not gotten off the line of attack either; so , enjoy that knuckle sandwich.
Sean

Ps And further more, if he stiff arms you, you ain't stepping in with that weak launch.

So maybe it's not the strongest possible stance to work with, but since it's a soft tissue target does it make it less valid?

Stepping off the attack line is the best notion in some cases, somtimes we move in or away too, but won't the handsword deflect any incoming strike?

For the PS, if he's stiff arming, then there's no need to worry about the other hand, because it won't reach your head now will it?

I can understand your reasoning, but I also see the reasoning for the other ways stated.... well some of them at least

Joel

 

[Doc]

So maybe it's not the strongest possible stance to work with, but since it's a soft tissue target does it make it less valid?
Stepping off the attack line is the best notion in some cases, somtimes we move in or away too, but won't the handsword deflect any incoming strike?
For the PS, if he's stiff arming, then there's no need to worry about the other hand, because it won't reach your head now will it?
I can understand your reasoning, but I also see the reasoning for the other ways stated.... well some of them at least

Not withstanding stepping TOWARD your attacker with your right foot, which seems to be common and obviously effective for some, I was taught quite differently by Ed Parker Sr.

First we examined the attack which was determined to be a CLOSE grab to the shoulder from the flank at 3:00 with the body bladed and a possible right hand held in reserve. The reasons why are:

The INITIAL intent here of the attacker is to intimidate first and foremost with a limited control factor. This is the reason for the CLOSE grab.

A person with intent to intimidate and control will NOT do so with an extended arm. Clearly he is not afraid of you or he would not touch you, or he would launch a blind strike from more to the rear with no initial touching to signal the coming attack.

Because he is CLOSE, and considering the level this technique is taught, the student is taught to step away with the left to 9:00. Moving AWAY from the attacker and a possible follow up right hand, to a stronger stance and space needed to launch a retaliatory strike with the extended arm on that side for power.

Additinally by APPEARING to "move away" you are lulling your attacker to sleep with an apparent reaction anticipated by the attacker. One that appears that you have been intimidated and are attempting to flee, when in reality you are preparing your initial retaliation. This also gives you the opportunity to INDEX your weapon with no obvious signs of resistance.

This action also will cause him to tighten his grip, (quite desireable) and shift his body weight in anticipation of countering the resistance, (also very desireable) much like what many of you know as "Obscure Sword."

"PINNING" the hand is not a factor and is contridictory body movement much like the previous exercise that, among other factors creates lateral asymetrical pacifity of one hand which retards the active entity and destroys structural integrity of the body in its entirety.

Instead a "Slapcheck" would be utilized for "Directional Harmony" (and other reasons) to make the initial strike devastating, and probably capable with proper targeting of terminating the attack singularly.

So maybe it's not the strongest possible stance to work with, but since it's a soft tissue target does it make it less valid?

First the stance is extremely strong, and the strike is not be a soft tissue strike in our curriculum. Although the prevailing option is to the throat, that will get you jail time for someone putting his hand on your shoulder no matter how aggressive he is.

Stepping off the attack line is the best notion in some cases, somtimes we move in or away too, but won't the handsword deflect any incoming strike?

In my opinion, no and it should NOT be depended on to do so.

For the PS, if he's stiff arming, then there's no need to worry about the other hand, because it won't reach your head now will it?

If he is "stiff-arming" it is a different attacker and therefore a different response should be forthcoming. "Stiff-arming" is not a minor variation of the default attack theme.

The next level in the curriculum for this technique is "Obscure Wing" which now presumes your level of skill has risen to the point that when your attacker grabs with the extended arm, you are then capable of reacting sooner and "meeting" him with your elbow as he pulls and steps in to intimidate.

Clearly there are many variations for this rather simple technique. This is only how I was taught and the reasons we worked out for the methodology based on actual "street experience" and judicial notice of the complexities of the criminal justice system from a law enforcement officers perspective.

 

[Touch Of Death]

So maybe it's not the strongest possible stance to work with, but since it's a soft tissue target does it make it less valid?

Stepping off the attack line is the best notion in some cases, somtimes we move in or away too, but won't the handsword deflect any incoming strike?

For the PS, if he's stiff arming, then there's no need to worry about the other hand, because it won't reach your head now will it?

I can understand your reasoning, but I also see the reasoning for the other ways stated.... well some of them at least

Joel

Well I just asked the people I train with about this and basicly was set straight. If its a touch or a push you step away with the left foot and if you feel a pull of any kind you step in with the right. The soft target thing is a dead end street, because he may be checking or his motor cycle helmet might get in the way (Ha Ha). As Robert Stated you really should at least back up your strikes with the structural integrety of a neutral. The ideal phase I know has no pressure so there is nothing hindering you from stepping up the circle and off the line of attack; also, our attack comes from 4:30.
Sean

 

[Brenwulv]

Not withstanding stepping TOWARD your attacker with your right foot, which seems to be common and obviously effective for some, I was taught quite differently by Ed Parker Sr.

First we examined the attack which was determined to be a CLOSE grab to the shoulder from the flank at 3:00 with the body bladed and a possible right hand held in reserve. The reasons why are:

The INITIAL intent here of the attacker is to intimidate first and foremost with a limited control factor. This is the reason for the CLOSE grab.

Okay, my attack is a bit father away, so I can understand the differences. In essence they aim to turn you towards them for whatever reason, intimidation or otherwise.

A person with intent to intimidate and control will NOT do so with an extended arm. Clearly he is not afraid of you or he would not touch you, or he would launch a blind strike from more to the rear with no initial touching to signal the coming attack.

Okay.

First the stance is extremely strong, and the strike is not be a soft tissue strike in our curriculum. Although the prevailing option is to the throat, that will get you jail time for someone putting his hand on your shoulder no matter how aggressive he is.

In my opinion, no and it should NOT be depended on to do so.

If someone grabs me to turn me into a strike and I hit him in the throat, just enough to stop the attack, I'll be in trouble? I'm sure I'll get questioned, but if I don't crush his throat or anything....

Second point, his punch would more than likely be loaded up for the strike, probably by his shoulder (right punch). If my handsword is going toward his head at the same time, how can my hand/arm not deflect the strike in some way?

If he is "stiff-arming" it is a different attacker and therefore a different response should be forthcoming. "Stiff-arming" is not a minor variation of the default attack theme.

The statement was if he's stiff-arming I can't step into the attack. My response was if he's stiff-arming, he can't hit me with the other hand. Of course something like that will warrant a different response.

The next level in the curriculum for this technique is "Obscure Wing" which now presumes your level of skill has risen to the point that when your attacker grabs with the extended arm, you are then capable of reacting sooner and "meeting" him with your elbow as he pulls and steps in to intimidate.

Clearly there are many variations for this rather simple technique. This is only how I was taught and the reasons we worked out for the methodology based on actual "street experience" and judicial notice of the complexities of the criminal justice system from a law enforcement officers perspective.

Okay.

Joel