Re: One Strike One Kill in Karate but not Kenpo.
I've always assumed that the 'one strike/one kill' slogan was shorthand for, `aim to incapacitate the attacker via the shortest path it takes to set up a terminal strike'. The idea behind the slogan, I've always thought, is that you should be aiming to deliver a strike that damages your attacker so severely that he can no longer fight after that strike is delivered.
To administer such a strike, though, you need to deliver the blow so that a highly vulnerable vital area is sufficiently damaged. That will, typically, be a target on the head or throat(groin and abdomen strikes could in principle have the same effect, but these tend to be harder to get clear access to). And to deliver the necessary force to such points on the attacker's upper body, you have to utilize set-up moves which force the attacker's head into a lower close-range position while depriving him of the usual protections available for such targets. This means trapping and controlling movements, pins and throws, prior to the crushing terminal strike to the larynx, or temple or other upper-body target.
That's where the grappling/controlling moves that are so widely recognized as part of Okinawan karate come in. And the really good, realistic bunkai for kata, as a couple of people have already noted, make it clear that a typical combat interpretatation of a `minimal combat subsequence' usually involves three or four steps which lead, inevitably, no matter how noncompliant the attacker is, to the finishing destructive move. But I don't see this as incompatible with the `one strike/one kill' idea, as long as we understand that the slogan is telling you to exploit the biomechanical possibilities to set up a situation, through the use of forcing moves, where a single strike can be delivered that will damage your attacker past the point where he can stand, much less continue the fight...
Another of the original Four HEROIC Cynical Curmudgeons!
All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be sceptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis... which is supported by no appearance of probability.
—from Dialogues concerning Natural Religion, Part XI, by David Hume (1711–1776)
Let not him that seeketh cease until he find, And finding he shall wonder, And wondering he shall reign, And reigning he shall rest.