questioning the cirriculum

Craig,

I question every tech in the cirriculum. The reason is that is the only way we learn to understand and apply the principles found within it. The techs are only examples of what may present themselves through observation of engagement. When I look at sleeper,dance of death and thundering hammers I see the relationship of the master key moves,and movement. These three techs start the same and the initial response by us are the same. We just go to different height zones of the attacker, which allows for further expansion of the suffix of the tech. The problem isnt the step to 10:30,but the timing of execution we place with it.

I have been shown to simply slip the punch and go directly into say, the inward horizontal forearm strike for thundering hammers.The problem I see with this, has to do with the fact that there is nothing keeping the attacker from elongating his step thruogh,and shooting a simultaneous kick to the groin. Again it has to do with the observational aspect of the tech.

The commercial version of the cirriculum is the one thats found in the red book handed out to the school owners of Mr. Parkers system. It works great. But remember this: Depending on who is teaching it, and the principles they expand on for each tech, depends on the understanding level of that teacher,and how they were taught. Often we say that this tech teaches this principle,and thats the whole focus,never considering the cross applications of related techs.

What I consider the family version to be, is what I find effective within the relationships of family related groupings and what principles apply within them.

Again this is soley my perspective and not ment to be the norm of the system.

Thanks for your question.
Brad