Kenpo Principles: Angle of Cancellation

[Celtic_Crippler]

The "Encyclopedia of Kenpo" defines Angle of Cancellation as a controlled angle which places an opponent in a prcarious position, which will minimize or even nullify the use of thier weapons.

Prior to control, the angle can be created by directly meeting the force, employing total collision, or triggered by a partial angle of deflection, either by meeting or riding said force.

What are some applications?
What are some techniques that demonstrate this principle well?
How does this principle apply or relate to other principles?
Can you elaborate on this principle and its applications?
How about we just talk about this principle? LOL

[amylong]

Hmmm.

Would it be an angle of cancellation to get behind someone, like in Backbreaker?

I know the goal is always to cancel at least two of the three zones, but I could certainly use some review on how to apply this concept.

This is a good topic.

--Amy

[hemi]

Forgive me if this is a stupid question but what’s the difference between an Angle of Cancellation and a positional/cross check?

Wouldn’t both remove an opponent’s ability to attack easily with one or more weapons?


As for the example of tech used, Twisted Twig

[thedan]

Quickly (on the flt again), but I believe in the discussion on parries, we are talking about a serries of angles of cancelation. First, meet and move his punch, then redirect the force of that punch onto the new path. Finally, we reverse direction and change force vector to apply a pinning check.

However, the idea of an angle of cancelation, as I understand it, is more a concept than a principle. Principles are unchangeable laws of natural movement. Concepts are how we apply those principles, and can (and do) varry quite a lot.

Dan C

edit; You don't just cancel the weapon like this. You cancel his centerline by crossing him up and closeing him while his base is set to support an open posture, and by extension you cancel all three dimensions. Dan.

[John Brewer]

How about in techs such as Detour from Doom or Intercepting the Ram where we move up the circle and change the angle on the attacker?

[michaeledward]

I have heard the term, but it is not one we regularly banter about in our studio. From the initial description, my thoughts went to Leaping Crane, where the kick turns the body away.

But, being as unfamiliar with the term as I am, I decided to take a peek in the Mr. Hale's Kenpo Journal; in which, the term is mentioned five times in the 'Technique Notes' section. I'll throw out the techniques listed:

• Twirling Wings
• Menacing Twirl
• Glancing Lance
• Thrusting Lance
• Protecting Fans

This is probably not a comprehensive list of where this principle is applied, but it might further the discussion.

[Rob Broad]

Very nice Michael, now if we could only get Mr. Hale onto this site imagine the tech discussions we could have each month.

[Mikael151]

Would it be positioning your body/weapons in a way that neutralizes your opponent's actions?

[michaeledward]

As I indicated, I thought of how the kick in Leaping Crane turns the attacker away ... but the notes seem to indicate that it is something else ... as that kick is not directly cancelling a weapon.

While turning the body cancels all the weapons, the techniques listed seem to represent direct contact on a weapon to cancel it.

For instance, in Twirling Wings, one of the techniques directly referenced above, our left outward block turns the attackers body away from us - cancelling the effectiveness of his grab - and exposes his ribs for our inward elbow - a precarious position to be in, defensively.

If we look to Menacing Twirl, we turn the opposite way from Twirling Wings, but, it the heel palm strike to the face that puts the attacker in a precarious position.

So, it may be a bit more than 'positioning' ourselves effectively; it seems we have to position the attacker in a way that restricts his ability to respond.

Sort of ... maybe...

[Billy Lear]

As I indicated, I thought of how the kick in Leaping Crane turns the attacker away ... but the notes seem to indicate that it is something else ... as that kick is not directly cancelling a weapon.

While turning the body cancels all the weapons, the techniques listed seem to represent direct contact on a weapon to cancel it.

For instance, in Twirling Wings, one of the techniques directly referenced above, our left outward block turns the attackers body away from us - cancelling the effectiveness of his grab - and exposes his ribs for our inward elbow - a precarious position to be in, defensively.

If we look to Menacing Twirl, we turn the opposite way from Twirling Wings, but, it the heel palm strike to the face that puts the attacker in a precarious position.

So, it may be a bit more than 'positioning' ourselves effectively; it seems we have to position the attacker in a way that restricts his ability to respond.

Sort of ... maybe...

I thought that the legs and feet were considered natural weapons. I could be wrong, but I think that the kick in leaping crane does, infact, utilize an angle of cancellation.

[Billy Lear]

Angle of Cancellation is not the method you use to cancel your opponent's possible responses, but rather the PATH you utilize when you use your body or natural weapons to nullify your opponent's possible retaliatory efforts.

I hope this makes sense.

[Celtic_Crippler]

Hmmm.

Would it be an angle of cancellation to get behind someone, like in Backbreaker?

I know the goal is always to cancel at least two of the three zones, but I could certainly use some review on how to apply this concept.

This is a good topic.

--Amy

That would be more along the lines of "Angle of Obscurity." "Angle of Cancellation" is more related to altering one's height, depth, or width zones.

[Mikael151]

That would be more along the lines of "Angle of Obscurity." "Angle of Cancellation" is more related to altering one's height, depth, or width zones.

I think I understand thanks, Billy Lear, and C.C. If you were to execute a block that turned your attacker's body; the angle in which their body moved could prevent them from attacking with the other side. Checking height, width, and depth by your response can keep your opponent from countering your counter, thus making your self defense response more effective.

[Billy Lear]

I think I understand thanks, Billy Lear, and C.C. If you were to execute a block that turned your attacker's body; the angle in which their body moved could prevent them from attacking with the other side. Checking height, width, and depth by your response can keep your opponent from countering your counter, thus making your self defense response more effective.

Situationally, yes.

Let's say that I'm facing an attacker at 12 o'clock and executing a left inward block to the outside of his right straight step-through punch. The angle I block on will determine the likelyhood of a response, and the possible angles he can respond from.

If my block travels toward my attacker's right arm at a 45º angle (toward 1:30) and ends between my opponent's shoulder and elbow, I am likely to temporarily cancel his height, width, and depth zones (thus utilizing an Angle of Cancellation).

If my block travels perpendicular toward my attacker's right arm at a 90º angle (toward 3 o'clock) I run the risk of sending him into orbit. If this happens he could come back at me with either a spinning back-knuckle or spinning back-kick, while borrowing the force from my block.

I hope this helps.

[Mikael151]

Great example. Thanks!

[Dr. Dave in da house]

Very nice Michael, now if we could only get Mr. Hale onto this site imagine the tech discussions we could have each month.

I posted an invitation to Mr. Hale over on MT, then spoke with him on the phone shortly after. I sure do hope he spends more time here, because his 2-cents about what he read already has me going back to my notes to look something up that I somehow managed to avoid attending to in the course of the last 30+ years.

He described some of the posts from the Triggered Salute thread, and commented on how some of the observations and technical changes seemd to reflect not knowing the THEME of a technique, ala Mr. Parker. As I thought about it, I couldn't recall ever knowing the theme of a technique. I've immersed myself into academic kenpo on many occasions, and somehow never managed to review that memo. He noted some of the comments on the pin were quite appropriate.

He also very appropriately (and in the friendly, non-tude manner that tends to be Mr. Hale) noted that deleting or changing techs without being able to interview Mr. Parker as to "why" the "what" was in there is a little short-sighted, and leads to information being dropped out that is perfectly viable information. He extrapolated on the themes of some other classic kenpo techniques, some of which I was versed in coincidentally, but certainly not due to the focused intent of knowing it by rote. He also noted that not all the techniiques are viable for application as they stand, but that does not mean they are not without their learnable/applicable lessons, contained within the theme.

As Rob Broad requested in another thread, there are a lot of goopd guys out there with a lot to offer. If any of the other all y'all happen to have Mr. Hale's e-mail, be sure to pester him to join in. If not, e-mail me at kenpochiro@yahoo.com, and I'll send you his e-mail address so you can pester him. I'm sure he'll like it.

Off to read up on themes,

Dave

[Rob Broad]

I posted an invitation to Mr. Hale over on MT, then spoke with him on the phone shortly after. I sure do hope he spends more time here, because his 2-cents about what he read already has me going back to my notes to look something up that I somehow managed to avoid attending to in the course of the last 30+ years.

He described some of the posts from the Triggered Salute thread, and commented on how some of the observations and technical changes seemd to reflect not knowing the THEME of a technique, ala Mr. Parker. As I thought about it, I couldn't recall ever knowing the theme of a technique. I've immersed myself into academic kenpo on many occasions, and somehow never managed to review that memo. He noted some of the comments on the pin were quite appropriate.

He also very appropriately (and in the friendly, non-tude manner that tends to be Mr. Hale) noted that deleting or changing techs without being able to interview Mr. Parker as to "why" the "what" was in there is a little short-sighted, and leads to information being dropped out that is perfectly viable information. He extrapolated on the themes of some other classic kenpo techniques, some of which I was versed in coincidentally, but certainly not due to the focused intent of knowing it by rote. He also noted that not all the techniiques are viable for application as they stand, but that does not mean they are not without their learnable/applicable lessons, contained within the theme.

As Rob Broad requested in another thread, there are a lot of goopd guys out there with a lot to offer. If any of the other all y'all happen to have Mr. Hale's e-mail, be sure to pester him to join in. If not, e-mail me at kenpochiro@yahoo.com, and I'll send you his e-mail address so you can pester him. I'm sure he'll like it.

Off to read up on themes,

Dave

Thank you for inviting him, and please post what you find out about themes on here.

[Rich_Hale]

Welcome to my first post on Kenpo Talk, and thank you Dr. Dave for the invitation to speak. (Not to mention the past two days (some 10 to 12 hours) of intense Kenpo mat time and conversation. I’m looking forward to dinner tonight, where you are not allowed to hit, kick . . . or choke me.)

An Angle of Cancellation is the result of an action – not the action itself. Crosschecking is an action that creates a result. So if I were to (aggressively) crosscheck someone, I could possibly create an Angle of Cancellation, but I can not have an Angle of Cancellation without first pushing, pulling, striking, etc.

Amy asks if The Backbreaker is an example of using an Angle of Cancellation:

Although The Backbreaker may appear to provide you with an Angle of Cancellation it really does not. What you are actually doing is using an Angle of Efficiency (also known as an Angle of Positioning) to place yourself in a position to create an Angle of Disturbance. It is this Angle of Disturbance that prevents him from delivering back elbows, back kicks, spinning attacks, etc.

The key to understanding Angle of Cancellation is to start with studying the five techniques in which Mr. Parker uses the term (in the technique notes) and do so from the second point of view. In case you missed that lesson, the second point of view is your opponent’s point of view – not your own.

The reason for this is that it is one thing to say if I do this – you will react in this way, but I very often see students react in such a way as to please the instructor – either out of respect, fear or a little of both.

To feel is to believe, so instead of thinking about how doing these five techniques limit our opponent’s ability to attack, have a partner do the techniques on you and feel how your own ability to maneuver is limited.

Twirling Wings: Did the defenders first move put your body in such a position that you found it difficult to retaliate, or did it simply push your left arm off to the side? Done properly the first move of Twirling Wings will twist the attackers body at the hips putting his entire body in a precarious position.

Menacing Twirl: When the defender spun around and whacked your arm, which was grabbing his belt, did it twist your body, or did it simply knock your hand away?

Protecting Fans: Did the defender right extended outward block (most often accompanied with a follow up grab and pull) twist your body down and around, or did it simply deflect your right punch out of the way?

Glancing Lance: Did the initial defensive maneuver simply get him out of the way of your knife attack, or did it darn near jerk you onto your knees as his yanked on your attacking arm and blasted it with blasting inward heal palm?

Thrusting Lance: Did the defenders initial sequence jerk your body into a position that limited your ability to attack, or was he simply holding onto your right wrist as he shuffled in with a heel palm to your groin?

Be careful not to confuse just getting out of the way of an attack with an angle of cancellation. Dare I say we get out of the way of our opponent’s attack during all of our techniques (story of the 50 cent fan), but only during specific technique sequences do we place our opponent in such a position that the position itself limits their ability to attack.

I think Michael is correct with Leaping Crane being a great example of creating an angle of cancellation right down to the kick being what created the angle.

In order to prove (or disprove) this statement let’s visualize Leaping Crane up to the point of leaping, striking, kicking, and landing. We don’t need the back knuckle or any further defense (in order to pause here) as we have created an angle of cancellation, placing our opponent in a position where he is, temporarily, unable to do us significant harm.

Now let’s do Gathering Clouds to a similar point. We step, strike, chop, and settle into our right neutral bow - now pause. How comfortable are you in this position in relation to your opponent and his weapons? Note that even though you have done the same basic movements as leaping crane, you have not created an angle of cancellation. Maybe you have hurt your opponent, thus temporally limiting his retaliation, but there is no angle of cancellation.

Note: This is only a good example if you use Leaping Crane for a step through punch and Gathering Clouds for a shuffle punch (like Dance of Death). This places you behind your opponent in Leaping Crane and in front of your opponent in Gathering Clouds.

Himi asks: What’s the difference between an Angle of Cancellation and a positional/cross check? Wouldn’t both remove an opponent’s ability to attack easily with one or more weapons?

Yes, both would possibly remove your opponent’s ability to attack, but so would stepping out of his range, or kicking his feet out from under him. This being said, I do see a closer relationship between crosschecking and angle of cancellation than between cross-checking and angle of departure, but still each are clearly different principles.

But a stupid question this is not. Note that the action in Twirling Wings is a cross-check, resulting in an angle of cancellation. So compare this cross-check to one where you simply take a left-to-left stance, with an opponent, then use your left hand to pin your opponent’s left hand across his body. You have cross-checked his left hand, but have done little to cancel his ability to kick, head butt or bite.

Now take the same left hand and instead of simply pinning his hand with it, jerk his left hand down and across his body while pulling him toward you. Now you have, not only, cross-checked his left hand, but altered his height, width, and depth, thus canceling his ability to punch, kick, head butt, or bite.

The Dan suggests that an Angle of Cancellation is not a principle, but a concept . . . can’t say I agree with this. Mr. Parker describes a Principle as: A comprehensive and fundamental rule stemming from a theory which, through devoted analysis, developed into the proven characteristics and facts that made it doctrine.

It is very well proven that if we can create an Angle of Cancellation our opponent will be, at least momentarily, positioned in such a way as to be little or no threat to us.

A Concept, on the other hand, is like me thinking that if I were to jump straight up in the air and slap both your ears with the bottoms of my feet, then stomp your clavicles, the combination of intense pain and shock would inevitably give you a heart attack. Okay, someone say . . . prove it!

A concept is just the idea itself prior to any research or experimentation. So the above statement would start as a Concept until I did it a few times, which would move it into the Theory category. But let’s say I pulled it off time and time again (sure) and all my opponents did indeed drop dead. It is still a theory until I can prove it was a heart attack that killed them.

In closing, don’t limit your study to the five techniques highlighted in the Kenpo Journal for examples of Angle of Cancellation. Angles of Cancellation are everywhere. Just because Mr. Parker didn’t say to check and cover in every technique, doesn’t mean the checks and covers should go missing.

Mr. Parker’s technique notes were created to bring attention to many different situations and principles – over a span of 154 techniques. For him to mention every principle in every technique could be overwhelming, but that does not mean we have to stop looking.

Again, I thank your for the opportunity to offer my opinion.

Rich Hale - A student of Ed Parker's Kenpo

[Celtic_Crippler]

That post was quite refreshing as well as informative. Thank you.

[jfarnsworth]

Mr. Hale,
Thank you for the post.