What Ifs

[Twin Fist]

thats where grafting comes in.

if you really know your techniques, you can flow from one to another as the situation changes.

 

[Stephen Kurtzman]

Twin Fist,

I agree. What-ifs give you mechanical practice in applying principles such as grafting, insertion, deletion, etc. based on the situation as it differs from the ideal. Which, as gets back to my original point, should be very much a sensitivity exercise.

peace,
stephen

 

[pete]

My problem with this is that the extensions do not anticipate the opponent "did something else". They anticipate the opponent is in the exact position they would be at the end of a perfectly executed base technique. How would you do the extension to, say, Dance of Death, if the opponent did something else? If they aren't on their back with their right foot held with your left hand, how would you flip them? How would you do the extension to Leaping Crane if the opponent isn't on their knees with their head sandwiched between your hand and your elbow?

peace,
stephen

you really did not LEARN the extensions, did you?

 

[Stephen Kurtzman]

you really did not LEARN the extensions, did you?

Actually, I did at the Pasadena studio under Messrs. Girard and Trejo. But you take what you've learned as gospel and reject other ideas. That's the Kenpo spirit!

peace,
stephen

 

[pete]

...you take what you've learned as gospel and reject other ideas. That's the Kenpo spirit!

Actually, you made the following definitive statements:

What-ifs have nothing to do with the extensions

and

The extensions are all ideal phase

and

the extensions do not anticipate the opponent "did something else".

seems like the pot is calling mr black a kettle.

couple of questions to ponder:
1. Triggered Salute: why is the target of the final strike in the base tech changed when leading into the extension?

2. Lone Kimono: why does the direction of the circle made by the right palm continue counter-clockwise after the break/hyperextend in the extension, when in the base tech it reverses direction?

I will listen and learn if these questions can be answered and still maintain your 3 definitive statements... in the spirit of kenpo, i am all ears.

pete.

 

[Flying Crane]

I kid you not: Doc has guys who will have spent more mat hours between 2nd and 1st degree brown, than most kenpo black belts will have spent on the mat working for their first degree black belt.

D.

Hi Dave,

I'm curious as to how you define "mat hours".

Is that strictly time spent with the instructor, or do you also count time outside of class when a student is practicing on his own?

thanks.

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

Let me try saying this about the extensions as a "what if", or the "what if's" as what-if's. In the old instruction manuals, you'll find at the tail end of the write up, several bullet points. Among them, prescribed "what if's". These were there to teach you how to be flexible in applying the basics within the techniques. "What if his left foot is forward, instead of his right? What if the push is more to the centerline than side? What if his arm is bent and tense, instead of straight?".

These are included because they are meant to be explored. Exploration encourages critical thinking. More interaction with the material. This, in turn (and here's the big part kids) encourages spontaneous reaction capability: The ultimate goal of all that thoughtful training we done as kenpo students. That I have from the horses mouth itself. Not to mention, you can find it in his books. Just look. We were never, ever, ever meant to apply the techs as written, but merely use them as practice opportunities to develop the skills we would congeal into an ability to respond on the fly. Informed spontaneity.

Let's say...just to beat it to death some more...5 Swords. The base tech is there in the training mauals of the IKKA, written by Mr. Parker, or in conjunction with him, under his supervision, and subject to his ongoing and constant edits. So are lists of What-Ifs. Also put there by him, or added in future edits, based on his supervision. The description for the base will include something like "and cover out to X:30" in the description. In the notes for the extension, the moves will pick up somwhere between the last strike, and the coverout. Followed by more what-if's. What if the kick to the back of the knee fails to force the attacker down? How else might we cancel his height from this position? etc.

So...since they are both in the teaching manuals of the IKKA -- the what-if's AND the extensions, with MORE what if's attached to the extensions -- should I assume they are meant to be exclusive of each other, or all part of detailed study of the AK system?

The extensions are really not a what if -- we have those already. They are also not meant to be your fallback in the event you sucked so bad at the ideal, that your bad guy is still standing: Honestly, if he's still standing, go back to orange belt and work on your basics, and power principles, cuz your basics blow. They ARE meant to provide further opportunity of deeper exploration into the concepts and principles of kenpo.

Great example = Hooking Wings. We have that "in-out-up-down" pattern in the beginning with the hands, then in the extension we repeat that pattern in a turned mirror/reverse motion kind of way with the feet. We also get to explore what happens when we strike deeply enough with the kicks to effect strike manipulation...having the bad guy where we need him on later kicks, because we hit him hard enough to put him there with earlier kicks. Or, alternately, it's just some bunch of moves put together to waste your time and take your money. (there's always that argument)

Now, except for the forst 32, I don't do the extensions anymore, and I'll be glad to tell you why. Staying with the example of HW...I can spend a half hour on dialing in on the clever angles, paths, timing, etc., in the extension, or I could spend that half hour working the "Inward-Downward Hammerfist with Mariage of Gravity" part at the beginning -- on a heavy bag, makiwara, focus mitts, etc. In my mind, each prepares me for a different ability. If I'm jumped in the parking lot on the way home, the extension will have prepared me to apply some clever approaches to Cat Com, controlling the lower case, destroying the attackers base -- and with that -- creating new targets of opportunity (don't miss that kids....it was a joke of Mr. Parkers..."I'm going to create a target of opportunity") -- etc. Or, I can just nail him in the TMJ with my 230 pounds with the same hammerfist I just did 1000 times against hard, resistant surfaces. No matter what he comes at me with. Because one of the SKILLS of exploring the WHAT-IF's of Hooking Wings is the ability to intercept an attack, clear the attackers hands from an ability to defend against an impending counter, and create a target of opportunity.

In one case, I've explored options, learned some twicksie stuff, and looked pretty cool for a spell in the mirrors. In the other case, I've tempered a weapon. I've hammered on heated iron to make it steel, and now I'm blasting my attacker in the side of the head with that steel weapon I've created. In other words, I personally prefer the iron-worker approach to the watch-maker approach. What can I say: I'd rather be a barbarian viking with a hammer, than a noble frenchman with a rapier. They are all still tools of destruction; it's just preference.

In short, the what-if's and extensions aren't either/or if you wish to practice the complete system. Both are necessary to understand, appreciate, and teach the reach and breadth of the Ed Parker system of Kenpo Karate. But what-if's are not extensions, and the extensions are not what-if's. What they BOTH are is more opportunity to interact with the concepts, principles, and applications of the basics, so you can develop the skills and abilities to make this stuff up on the spot, as needed. Informed spontaneity.

Be well,

Dave

Doubt it? Look it up. Ask around. Read the old mans written stuff, and interview the ancients still around who ran with him. You are never supposed to make it through a technique. You aren't even supposed to be trying to think about which technique applies while you are under attack. Finger pointing to the moon, folks. Look at the moon, not the finger.

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

Hi Dave,

I'm curious as to how you define "mat hours".

Is that strictly time spent with the instructor, or do you also count time outside of class when a student is practicing on his own?

thanks.

In Docs student manual, one of the requirements is time spent practicing on your own. But that's not the hours I'm referring to. By "Mat hours", I'm referring to being in the studio, either actively in class, off in a corner with a training partner working on material, or off in a corner working on a set, form, etc., with Doc eye-balling you from that darned chair of his. Which he never stays in. You might get yelled at once or twice, but all you have to do is wait a minute, and he'll holler, "You're doin' it all wrong", and heave up outta that chair to come over and tune you up a bit.

 

[Stephen Kurtzman]

seems like the pot is calling mr black a kettle.

Not quite, Pete.

It is possible to disagree in absolute terms without calling into question the character of the poster. I did not implicitly call him a liar by questioning whether he learned what he learned. That is what you did in your response to me. There is a difference.

One can disagree with an open mind. It is hard to name call with an open mind.

Please refer to Dr. Crouch's discourse on What-ifs. He expressed my understanding more eloquently than did I.

peace,
stephen

 

[pete]

Nobody is calling anyone a liar... I just think it ironic for you to state so factually and accuse others of not being open minded.

To that point, I've quoted 3 statements you made and provided specific examples where, as I've been taught, disprove your statements.

In the spirit of Kenpo (your words again), I've asked 2 questions relative to those specific examples, to which you've chosen not to address. Instead, you've chosen to dig in and distract the discussion with fluff about an open mind...

here they are again, I remain receptive to your answers...

1. Triggered Salute: why is the target of the final strike in the base tech changed when leading into the extension?

2. Lone Kimono: why does the direction of the circle made by the right palm continue counter-clockwise after the break/hyperextend in the extension, when in the base tech it reverses direction?

pete

 

[MJS]

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

In the Headlock example, the A, B, and C are against different types of headlock grabs. They address different ways that someone might apply a headlock to you, and the resulting positions you might find yourself in.

Some techs don't "add on" with the variations, but they give other finishing options. These might be used depending on the position of the attacker at that point, and they help the student recognize that that can be an issue. Crash of the Eagle comes to mind with that.

Other techniques do sort of add on a bit. I'm not very familiar with the extensions used by the later lineages. I think I've seen a bit of them on the web, but I've never seen them up close. But from what I've seen, I'd say the Tracy variations are not nearly so extensive in what they are adding on, as the extensions are. Winding Elbows comes to mind with that.

Sounds pretty much like the Parker system, only difference being, is that instead of an a,b,c, etc. there are just different techs. for each situation. From what I've seen in the version of the Tracy system that I train in, there seems to be both.

 

[MJS]

My problem with this is that the extensions do not anticipate the opponent "did something else". They anticipate the opponent is in the exact position they would be at the end of a perfectly executed base technique. How would you do the extension to, say, Dance of Death, if the opponent did something else? If they aren't on their back with their right foot held with your left hand, how would you flip them? How would you do the extension to Leaping Crane if the opponent isn't on their knees with their head sandwiched between your hand and your elbow?

peace,
stephen

I think someone else mentioned it already, but this is really where the grafting would come into play. The techniques are not set in stone, and IMO, neither are the extensions. I view them as just one option, however, I don't think that we should be bound by that particular ext. Additionally, anything extra that we add onto a tech. is really an extension to address a what if.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Umm...ok. Would you care to elaborate more on this?

While, yes, the extensions contain information, I would consider them more as references to an area of study. I suppose I find my self in the agreement that the basic motion of the original techs are just repeated over and over based on point of origin or the return motion habbits of the martial arts practitoner. The teqniques themselves are all ideas of motion meant to be studied and expanded upon -- not -- with extra moves, but experience, study, and a basic familiarity with what ever story a teqnique is in reference to.
Sean

 

[Stephen Kurtzman]

Nobody is calling anyone a liar... I just think it ironic for you to state so factually and accuse others of not being open minded.

Pete, you were the one who attacked me. I've no interest in fighting with you.

The matter at hand is "What-ifs". The extensions are not what-ifs. Dr. Crouch expressed my view better than I did. If you wish to disagree to be disagreeable, find someone who will play with you.

peace,
stephen

 

[Stephen Kurtzman]

Additionally, anything extra that we add onto a tech. is really an extension to address a what if.

I think we are not speaking the same language.

If at the end of the base technique, the man is in the position predicted by the ideal phase, what "What if" is being addressed by continuing to strike him? What I was taught is that "What-ifs" are used to analyze variations from the ideal. Extending a technique is not varying from the ideal. It is extending the ideal.

peace,
stephen

 

[Stephen Kurtzman]

I've asked 2 questions relative to those specific examples, to which you've chosen not to address.

Pete, in the spirit of shutting down your distraction of trying to challenge me, the way I learned the extensions, there is no difference. You clearly learned different extensions.

peace,
stephen

 

[SL4Drew]

So, my question for Doc, his students and everyone else is...did I sum that post up correctly? Do you teach the extensions? Why/why not?

Doc never taught the extensions. He didn't think much of them. What he used to do (and what made/makes more sense to me) is to 'graft' instead. You graft on some sequence you already knew from elsewhere onto the end of the technique. I don't know for sure if he began this before Mr. Parker died, but it certainly didn't begin much later.

That being said, he ultimately dropped even those. I have to agree with the previous observation that they are busy work, primarily to keep students in the schools and keep instructors teaching and charging. Doc has always emphasized a solid base. So, as you might guess the base technique gets the most attention. He demands that it be supremely functional and capable of standing on its own. Dr. Dave spoke on this at length. I'll just add a bit from my own point of view.

The base is where it is at. That's what you train. It's what you do most often. It is most likely going to be where you begin to operate from. I feel the base is especially important in situations where you are entwined with your attacker, like a bear hug or lapel grab. The whole beginning sequence is about moving from the place of disadvantage your attacker has placed you in, to recovering, becoming stronger, and placing your attacker in a weakened position. This is extremely important to surviving 'hands on' assaults. So, you work the base hard to ensure that you do all those things. It just becomes instinctive.

In my experience, people want to rush past that and begin hitting the guy back. The extensions only encourage this. So, besides being a fantasy, they perpetuate a philosophy where you assume no matter how he puts his hands on you, there is no problem 'getting' free to start clobbering the attacker. When instead you approach things from Doc's direction, you'll find the what-if diminish to only a few true variables. This is because you are in a position of strength and the attacker is in a position of weakness when you begin to retaliate. You've limited his options and given your self a few things just to tee off on.

 

[DavidCC]

In Docs student manual

Coursebook.

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

Coursebook.

Thanks. It slipped.

 

[DavidCC]

Thanks. It slipped.

He'll getcha for that!