Techniques: Change or Modification?

[Kenpo Yahoo]

Are there any EPAK techniques that you feel are outdated? Are there any techniques that would work better if they were modified slightly? Please explain.

For instance in another thread someone brought up a combination attack Brown Belt technique, it was suggested by another poster that the tech. might work better if the attack was a right-left punch, instead of a left-right punch. Does anyone else have a technique that they would like to discuss?

[MisterMike]

I would vote for the gun techniques. I think they are a little unrealistic as they do not gain complete control of the weapon.

I think they could be modified to work better. But they were not original techniqes, as they came from Form 6.

[kenpo3631]

Originally posted by MisterMike
I would vote for the gun techniques. I think they are a little unrealistic as they do not gain complete control of the weapon.

I think they could be modified to work better. But they were not original techniqes, as they came from Form 6.

That the gun techniques and knive techniques are interchangable to some degree.

[Goldendragon7]

Originally posted by kenpo3631
The gun techniques and knive techniques are interchangable to some degree.


Agreed, but so are many of the other techniques as well.

:asian:

[cdhall]

Originally posted by MisterMike
I would vote for the gun techniques. I think they are a little unrealistic as they do not gain complete control of the weapon.

I think they could be modified to work better. But they were not original techniqes, as they came from Form 6.

Mr. Speakman told us in Dec 2002 in a seminar that he teaches what he got from Mr. Parker with 5 exceptions. He changed Shielding Hammer and he changed 4 of the 5 knife/lance techniques to reflect the knife sparring and knifework Mr. Parker was doing with Mr. Speakman, Mr. Hawkins, Ms. Hale and Mr. Silantri (I think that was the group) in the lessons they took weekly at his house.

I had only seen some of the knife techniques at that point so I can't comment further but Mr. Speakman thought Mr. Parker would have evolved the knife techniques to reflect sparring at some point in the future and I thought he said that Mr. Parker had changed the empty hand similarly in the past which is sort of what led Mr. Speakman to this conclusion.

I'm afraid that is all I know. I hope it was useful, I can't really comment any further and I have seen enough interesting stuff lately to convince me to see more of the system before I personally start making judgements about changing stuff. I have not been through the whole system so I'm not slighting MisterMike or anyone else, I just don't think I'm ready with an evaluation of my own.
:asian:

[MisterMike]

Originally posted by kenpo3631
That the gun techniques and knive techniques are interchangable to some degree.

Yes, I think all of the techniques in Form 6 are related/what-if's.

I think Twisted Rod and Broken Rod are pretty good as they are because they get two hands on the gun hand/arm pretty fast.

Defying the Rod only has you with one hand on the gun hand while you are slicing across the eyes/kicking the opponent. I think this leaves an opening for the opponent to jerk the gun back and out of your grip.

Capturing the Rod starts off good as you are gripping him with 2 hands, but I don't like letting go to do the eye poke. I would prefer to go right into the wrist twist.

My favored gun disarms come from Aiki-Jujutsu, where the focus is more on controlling the hand holding the gun and less on striking/kicking the opponent.

There are more variations for gun disarms than someone using their front hand either directly in front of you or behind you while standing.

Respectfully,

[dcence]

This is my criteria for a technique that needs some modification, updating regardless of system:

(1) Does it flow, on a body not just in the air?
(2) Does it require your opponent to actually cooperate with you (considering an opponent will do the opposite)? In other words, does the sequence of moves within a technique allow for manipulation of the opponent from one move into another against their will?
(3) A technique that at its base must be altered significantly to account for differing angles or paths of execution, i.e, straight vs. roundhouse.
(4) A technique that depends on or does not account for a follow up strike
(5) A technique that depends upon a fully committed attack and leaves you exposed if it is a feint.

Probably the technique that never passed muster with me is Circling Windmills with all of its eye-slices as the opponent just stands there. After trying unsuccessfully to get that technique to rock and seeing so many flounder with this technique, I started asking, "Is there some of this that needs to be rethunk?"

The knife techniques are difficult to do unless the attacker thrusts and leaves his hand out for you. They are nigh impossible if the attacker makes a whipping or snapping (jabbing) attack. The forumula is "divert, seize, control, disarm." I would insert "daze" between divert and seize.

Derek

[True2Kenpo]

Fellow Kenpoists,

With the topic of this thread in mind, what do you feel about the knife technique Entwined Lance?

AND what modifications might you have made?

Thanks in advance.

Respectfully,
Joshua Ryer
IKKA
UPK Pittsburgh

[dcence]

That the gun techniques and knive techniques are interchangable to some degree.

As pointed out by Mr. C., the interchangibility doesn't stop there.

But, if you are dealing with a knife, you do have to make sure, with whatever move you use, that you won't get cut if the attacker withdraws the knife, cutting on the way out. You can get cut as easily on the way in as on the way out. Any knife technique that does not quickly control at the elbow allows for this danger. For example, try Twisted Rod on me with a knife and I will check your hands, withdraw the knife and cut them on the way out, well before the take-down/disarm. Glancing Lance provides control at the elbow, but Thrusting Lance does not in my opinion. If you don't check the elbow, the knife can cut on the way out.

Do an experiment. Have someone do the thrusting knife techniques on you. Attack, then at their first move see if you can check their hand with your free hand, withdraw the knife before they get to move #2, and cut them on the way out. Just an experiment.


I think Twisted Rod and Broken Rod are pretty good as they are because they get two hands on the gun hand/arm pretty fast.

Defying the Rod only has you with one hand on the gun hand while you are slicing across the eyes/kicking the opponent. I think this leaves an opening for the opponent to jerk the gun back and out of your grip.

Capturing the Rod starts off good as you are gripping him with 2 hands, but I don't like letting go to do the eye poke. I would prefer to go right into the wrist twist.

Gun techniques with one hand don't concern me that much because a gun is bulky and provides for a relataively good grip for even one hand. In fact, I don't like tying up two hands on one of theirs. Their attention will be primarily on that gun and this is a good opportunity for you to "daze" them with one hand while you hold the gun hand with one hand. As long as you are out of the way of the bullet, the disarm can come after you daze them a little with a free hand strike. The disarm is easier on a dazed opponent, than on one with full faculties. Maybe just a different philosophy.

Derek

[dcence]

Hi Josh,

How have you been?


With the topic of this thread in mind, what do you feel about the knife technique Entwined Lance?

You posted this simultaneous with my last post which coincidentally talks about knife techniques. Well here are my thoughts on Entwined Lance --

Likes:
(1) Strike on first move (I am a believer in "early dazement", especially with weapons involved);
(2) Good attack at the attacker's foundation.

Dislikes:
(1) Too much footwork in the first move to get your angle of deviation -- makes it too slow for a knife defense;
(2) Exposing the width of my body in the first move is dangerous if they thrust, check and then slice back across under my arm (which is a common drill we do);
(3) Works better for a high knife thrust, but abysmally for a low knife thrust (and we don't always really know which it will be, do we);
(4) Letting go of a knife to do an eye-poke. I would hold onto that hand, beat them to a pulp with the rest of the technique and then disarm with the last move;
(5) No check at the elbow to prevent a check/withdraw (see prior post), but this is somewhat mitigated by the strike in the first move, if successful.

Just some thoughts.
Derek

[kenpo12]

Gun techniques with one hand don't concern me that much because a gun is bulky and provides for a relataively good grip for even one hand.

What if you're dealing with an automatic? You can't hold the weapon with one hand if they fire because the slide will cut your hand all up.

[kenpo12]

(4) Letting go of a knife to do an eye-poke. I would hold onto that hand, beat them to a pulp with the rest of the technique and then disarm with the last move;

How do you do this techinique? The way we do it you don't let go of the knife to do the eye poke, infact that's where the disarm comes in.

[True2Kenpo]

Originally posted by dcence
Hi Josh,

How have you been?



You posted this simultaneous with my last post which coincidentally talks about knife techniques. Well here are my thoughts on Entwined Lance --

Likes:
(1) Strike on first move (I am a believer in "early dazement", especially with weapons involved);
(2) Good attack at the attacker's foundation.

Dislikes:
(1) Too much footwork in the first move to get your angle of deviation -- makes it too slow for a knife defense;
(2) Exposing the width of my body in the first move is dangerous if they thrust, check and then slice back across under my arm (which is a common drill we do);
(3) Works better for a high knife thrust, but abysmally for a low knife thrust (and we don't always really know which it will be, do we);
(4) Letting go of a knife to do an eye-poke. I would hold onto that hand, beat them to a pulp with the rest of the technique and then disarm with the last move;
(5) No check at the elbow to prevent a check/withdraw (see prior post), but this is somewhat mitigated by the strike in the first move, if successful.

Just some thoughts.
Derek

Mr. Ence,

I am doing really well sir! It is great to hear from you. How are you?

I agree with your likes and dislikes. And as one could see from your list (and what I truly feel towards the tech.) the "dislikes" out weigh the "likes".

I just think that if time was given, Mr. Parker would have worked further on the knife and gun techniques and I think this is one area Kenpo is slightly weak, but with work we could greatly improve.

Respectfully,
Joshua Ryer
IKKA
UPK Pittsburgh

[Brenwulv]

Originally posted by kenpo12
What if you're dealing with an automatic? You can't hold the weapon with one hand if they fire because the slide will cut your hand all up.

Would you rather a cut up hand or a hole in your forehead?


Joel

[MisterMike]

The disarm is easier on a dazed opponent, than on one with full faculties. Maybe just a different philosophy.

I think controlling the gun with one hand would be easier if they are stunned/dazed.

Two hands controlling the weapon when they are not.

You still have to daze them before they shoot you, so now you have to do 2 things, control the firearm and stun them, before they pull the trigger or are able to realize your intent and pull it away from you.

I prefer to attack the wrist joint thereby controlling the person so it doesn't become a tug-of-war over the weapon. Even if they are able to punch/kick me once, I still control the gun. Again, just different philosophies/tactics.

:asian:

[Karazenpo]

I'm a police officer (since 1977) and a police defensive tactics instructor, Michael is right. Control of the gun is imperative, both hands should be used if possible. As far as edged weapons are concerned, here goes. The Calibre Press (Charles Remsberg & Dennis Anderson) started hosting Police Survival Seminars for law enforcement personal in the 80's. They have also published several books. They had a extremely professional staff and researched edged weapons thoroughly. Their expert consultant & adviser was Dan Inosanto. Five years of research went into those, both police and civillian, who survived edged weapon attacks (some were trained, some weren't). Their conclusion was 'undisputed' that those who survived had control of the knife weilding arm or hand. They put this concept together with an acronym-G.U.N., meaning Grab-Undo-Neutralize. I will have to go along with this because in police survival training everything is researched for total realism and practicality because the people you are training will most likely face these situations at some time in their carreers. They can't afford to go by theory. They go by 'real world' experiences. If, as an instructor, you teach them something that has no merit, you could be very well sending them to their deaths. Law enforcement personnel are only taught to go empty hand against an edged weapon if the handgun was not accessable at the time. We train officers to expect to see their own blood. There is a 90 percent chance or better that you will be cut so this is the mindset we give them. I teach my kempo students the same way. Now, nothing is 100 per cent, so it is possible on a bare arm or wrist where someone is bleeding or very sweaty one could lose their grip on the knife hand.
Some others may come back at me and say, 'well I used this or that and it worked'. My answer to that is 'anything can work' but would it be classified as a legitimate knife technique? I know of a police officer who was a golden gloves boxer who threw a right hook at a guy who held a gun on him (he was interviewed by Remsberg & Anderson), the dude was knocked out before he hit the ground! It worked but it wouldn't be taught as a gun technique. Respectfully Shihan Joe Shuras

[Elfan]

Did the reserach show a relashionship between survivial rates and wheather the knife was used in a "slashing" vs "stabbing" attack?

[Karazenpo]

From what I can recall, there were as varied as the attackers. Emotionally disturbed people (EDP's) with their overhead or 'buzzsaw attacks (Anthony Perkins "Pyscho" type), to straight in thrusts and slashes. I would like to also point out that some of the best if not the best at knife fighters are the Filipinos. If you look at their empty hand defenses you usually see traps. As a matter of fact in my lineage of kempo (Karazenpo Go Shinjutsu & Nick Cerio's Kenpo) trapping is also popular against knives but then again these systems are subsystems of Kajukenbo and we all know of the heavy Filipino influence of Kajukenbo. Respectfully, Shihan Joe Shuras

[dcence]

What if you're dealing with an automatic? You can't hold the weapon with one hand if they fire because the slide will cut your hand all up.

This would be true of one hand or two hand, but it is better than getting shot. but really, generally, your hand is holding the attacker's hand around the gun. I don't think it is wise just to grab the gun, but more the hand holding the gun. But it is still a good point you make as there is also the heat of the fired gun, or the escaping heat from an automatic, you have to be concerned with.

Derek

[dcence]

How do you do this techinique? The way we do it you don't let go of the knife to do the eye poke, infact that's where the disarm comes in.

Hi Matt,

You can do this, of course, though I don't think it is generally taught. The disarm is somewhat problematic at that point you are talking about because in the heat of things there is the chance your left hand in an effort to disarm will slide down onto the blade. If there is a finger guard, it sure helps, but it is still very dangerous.

Honestly, this technique stinks for a defense against a full intent knife attack, IMO. So I don't do it anyway. If I were to get a hold of the wrist if he is still holding a knife, I wouldn't be letting go to do an eye poke.

Derek

[dcence]

Control of the gun is imperative, both hands should be used if possible. As far as edged weapons are concerned, here goes. The Calibre Press (Charles Remsberg & Dennis Anderson) started hosting Police Survival Seminars for law enforcement personal in the 80's. They have also published several books. They had a extremely professional staff and researched edged weapons thoroughly. Their expert consultant & adviser was Dan Inosanto. Five years of research went into those, both police and civillian, who survived edged weapon attacks (some were trained, some weren't). Their conclusion was 'undisputed' that those who survived had control of the knife weilding arm or hand. They put this concept together with an acronym-G.U.N., meaning Grab-Undo-Neutralize.

I think we all agree with you in getting and maintaining control. It is always good to get the perspective of someone on the force. I agree with these concepts, but they may get you only half way there. Putting two hands (or one hand) on a gun will have the attacker do what? - put his other hand on the gun. And you have a wrestling match for control of the gun, which the attacker established before you did. You have a 50/50 chance (maybe less) of getting it away from the attacker by just trying to manipulate it away. What I am saying is don't forget you have feet to kick out their foundation, and an extra hand you can use to strike. These things help the odds of getting a gun away.

It is important to establish control and disarm if you can. What you use to accomplish this will vary with the strength and determination of the attacker.

[Karazenpo]

Derek, you make some excellent points, it's obvious that you are knowledgable. I agree on using the feet, we teach that but mostly when immobilizing the wrist with both hands on a knife attack. A gun is a little different. I do what I call a three-prong backup. Say the gun is in attacker's right hand and you are in reach. Simultaneously twist your torso (as if slipping a punch), have your right hand come up under the barrel and your left hand over the top of the gun, sometimes this action also jams the gun-semi-autos may still be able to get one round off if it is what is called 'street ready'-one round already racked in the chamber. As you do this, again this is all simultaneously, you re-direct the gun away and in circle back toward the attacker's face. Not only do you strike his face with the weapon but his finger is still in the trigger guard in which case it is easily broken (in a real life situation it was sheared-documented case). So, essentially you would have to fail in all three areas to get shot. Slipping, re-directing and jamming. The beauty of this technique is that it also can be done with little modification from all directions including a gun threat to your back, head, etc. Try this, see what you think but when doing it full speed make sure your partner does not have his finger in the trigger guard and becareful when you re-direct-it's easy to cap him in the face with the gun! Let me know! Respectfully, Shihan Joe Shuras

[dcence]

Derek, you make some excellent points, it's obvious that you are knowledgable. I agree on using the feet, we teach that but mostly when immobilizing the wrist with both hands on a knife attack. A gun is a little different. I do what I call a three-prong backup. Say the gun is in attacker's right hand and you are in reach. Simultaneously twist your torso (as if slipping a punch), have your right hand come up under the barrel and your left hand over the top of the gun, sometimes this action also jams the gun-semi-autos may still be able to get one round off if it is what is called 'street ready'-one round already racked in the chamber. As you do this, again this is all simultaneously, you re-direct the gun away and in circle back toward the attacker's face. Not only do you strike his face with the weapon but his finger is still in the trigger guard in which case it is easily broken (in a real life situation it was sheared-documented case). So, essentially you would have to fail in all three areas to get shot. Slipping, re-directing and jamming. The beauty of this technique is that it also can be done with little modification from all directions including a gun threat to your back, head, etc. Try this, see what you think but when doing it full speed make sure your partner does not have his finger in the trigger guard and becareful when you re-direct-it's easy to cap him in the face with the gun! Let me know! Respectfully, Shihan Joe Shuras

Knowledgeable? Not really. Always questioning, though.

What you describe sounds very similar if not identical to a technique we have "Twisted Rod" if I am reading you correctly. And it is useful.

I guess the point I am making is not in disagreement with you or others, just a reminder that to depend solely/principally upon manipulation with two hands for disarming is to concede the upper hand to the opponent, assuming relatively equal ability between the two involved. The attacker already has his hand on the "handle" of the gun or other weapon and has much more control of the weapon, initially at least, than the attackee. He definitely has the upperhand in control of the weapon. There has to be a turning of the tables to get more control of his weapon than he has himself. So you start at a disadvantage in an uphill battle.

This can be turned to an advantage as you described in the breaking of the finger on the trigger. I question that maintaining a two hand control over a weapon is superior to a one hand control/one hand striking approach. Both approaches are taught in Kenpo and both serve a purpose in their respective circumstances.

When weapons are involved, we all have a tendency, a very natural and reasonable one, to focus on the weapon. The person who can remember his other natural weapons at his disposal has the ability to gain an advantage.

It reminds me of story Mr. Parker used to tell about when he was bodyguarding Elvis. They were in a restaurant/bar and the bartender asked Mr. Parker what he would do if he did this (like so many people do when they want to test if you know what you are doing) -- the bartender grabbed a baseball bat from under the bar and made swinging motion with two hands at Mr. Parker sitting on the stool. Mr. Parker checked the bartender's lead arm at the elbow, stopping the motion of the bat and poked him in the eye. Mr. Parker said that all the guy had to do was let go of the bat with the checked hand and continue the motion of the bat with the other, but the bartender was too focused on using both hands to swing that he didn't think of this. (I don't think think the bartender was trying to knock Mr. Parker's head off, just being a playful idiot. Otherwise, I think Parker would have used something other than an eye poke.) The point was that you can check two hands with one when the person is focused on the weapon and use the other hand to strike.

Thanks for your valuable posts.
Derek