our Curriculums..... My question is, what are these "holes" such as grappling or combination attacks {kick punch or L - R Punch combination}, and what can be done to "upgrade" or "adjust" or what are [you or your studio] doing about them?

:confused:

One hole, IMHO, is the lack of ground fighting. Yeah, I know, you've never heard that before. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to take it to the ground. I just want to know how to get the hell out if I find myself there.

My school offers a judo class once a week and BJJ seminars ever couple of weeks. Granted, I'll never been a expert ground-fighter playing judo once a week. But, I really am learning something.

My instructor brought in a judoka because he wants his students to be well rounded fighters. I appreciate that.

Kenpo Matt

The good thing about kenpo is that if you look at it according to the three divisions of the art, which are basics, self-defense, and freestyle, than you can easily see how ground work can fit in. Basicly freestyle does not have to be limited to a verticle plane. Spar on the ground, Many styles call it randori. We do this at my school.

It's not such a bad thing to look at some of the grappling styles to get some ideas, hell this is right in line with what American Kenpo is anyway. It's a highly functional mutt of styles that harmonize under some sound principles. Thats the good thing about having a conceptual system. It's easy to make things fit it with it. Just make sure your focus stays in self-defense. Like you said, nobody wants to purposely roll around on the ground for a long period of time during an attack.

Leaving the grappling question aside--it's boring--I hadn't known that there weren't any kenpo techs designed against, "combination," attacks....I'd thought that beginning with Delayed Sword, ALL the techniques took such attacks into consideration, though of course that won't necessarily become recognizable or useful until after learning, say, Glancing Wing, Entwined Maces, Fatal Deviation, et al...

I think, actually, the more interesting question is this: what makes people feel that they HAVE to go outside a well-designed system, in pursuit of some dream of becoming a warrior prepared for everything? After all, I tend to find that these supposed, "flaws," come of of my own failures, my own, "holes," not what's available, 'within," kenpo...

Could I (or anybody) go learn what, say Gene LeBell teaches, and profit from it? Absolutely. Could I go learn, "combat handgun," (ha!) and get a lot? Sure. learn escrima and get something? Sure. Iaido? Sure. A knife system, a stick system, and on and on and on? Absolutely. Where's it end? Noplace; it doesn't. And nothing's wrong wwith that; in faact, nothing's beetter than that. Will this mean that I am absolutely prepared for everything, that I will be unbeatable? Oh, hell no. And, I have a job. I even like to think I have a life.

Yes, I know the response. There's nothing wrong with learning some grappling, boxing, judo, etc. I agree; I just wrote that. I simply want to know why this has to be grounded on the ideas of "flaw," the idea of, "being prepared for anything," the idea of "realism--the reality of infinite threat," the dream of "warriorhood," for people who mostly live in cities and have desk jobs. Exceptions to this? Sure--cops, for example, do well to study some form of judo, handgun methods, etc...And what's more, there seem to be all sorts of examples of folks who won't see what kenpo offers until they go look somewheres else...nothing wrong with that, either.

But I personally suspect that this has more to do with avoiding confronting ourselves--I know, I know, another of those, "useless," traditional goals, but still darn the the only one worth a rap--than cross-training because of the flaws in kenpo. From what I can see--and admittedly, it ain't that much--a chunk of what's going on is the revision of kenpo until it HAS holes in it, then turning around and saying, "Wow, look at all the holes." I personally think that confronting such issues would do us all a helluva lot more good than learning one more system...

Orig posted by MartialArtsGuy
The good thing about kenpo is that it does not have to be limited to a verticle plane.

Man, now if you can just get the word out!!

Excellent MAG!!!

:asian:

Here's a big surprise: I totally disagree with Robert.

I believe that there are a FEW holes in the EPAK system. That is not to say that Mr. Parker did not have the answers himself or that he never taught these particular "patches" to any of his students, but that a majority of kenpoists do not know or do not teach these aspects of the curriculum.

I think the absence of ground material is a weakness. No I don't think kenpoists should be learning armbars and choke outs, but if you get tackled or you take someone down what type of base should you establish? Are you able to get to a superior position from here? i.e. one that will provide you with the most control over your opponent as well as allow you the most manueverability, do you know what a superior position is? The main purpose of the ground curriculum should be to get back to your feet, where you can utilize the majority of your training. Well how do you stand up if you are on the ground and your opponent is on his feet? There are a few tricks to this that will help keep you from getting pounded. Also, learning what someone has to do in order to take you down should be beneficial in helping you prevent it.

I think a lot of the combination techniques should be changed. I've never liked the idea of doing a crossover step, or twist stance while addressing an opponents attack. I feel that these stances despite their transitory nature weaken your base significantly. I would rather sacrifice any power (percieved or not) that I could generate from this stance and work from one with a wider base, mainly a neutral bow, which might allow me to make up the lost power by allowing for more hip rotation when I strike. I also don't think that many of the defenses are very realistic or leave you enough margin for error. In otherwords, can the same technique be used if both punchs are straight or if both are roundhouse haymakers?

Knife and club curriculum. We have all these defenses against knives and clubs, yet most kenpoists idea of using these weapons in an offensive manner is to simply perform an empty hand technique with one of the weapons in hand. I believe that the better you understand something the more capable you are of being able to defend against it. This even translates back to groundfighting and takedowns as I mentioned earlier. If you know what to look for, there is a good chance that you can prevent it. How do you perform your knife defense technique against someone who is making use of a return cut?

These are a few of the problems that I have with the current EPAK curriculum. I would like to point out that during my post I used several statements like: "I think..", "I believe...", "I feel..." to denote my personal opinions. I don't claim to be a master of EPAK or any other category of martial art. These are just my opinions based on what I know and where I am currently at in my training as a second degree blackbelt in kenpo.

Orig. posted by rmcrobertson
I'd thought that beginning with Delayed Sword, ALL the techniques took such attacks into consideration, though of course that won't necessarily become recognizable or useful until after learning, say, Glancing Wing, Entwined Maces, Fatal Deviation, et al...


Consider the possibility that not all instructors or for that matter students, are the of the same caliber. With that in mind, it is possible that you or others may have been taught or introduced to the material with differing methods {some great, some possibly not so great}. Poor instruction or student forgetfulness can be a real factor here.

I agree with you that "Kenpo" does within its structure have the capability to reveal such considerations but the transmitters or receivers of the Art is where I think the problem may lie.

Orig. posted by rmcrobertson
I think, actually, the more interesting question is this: what makes people feel that they HAVE to go outside a well-designed system, in pursuit of some dream of becoming a warrior prepared for everything? After all, I tend to find that these supposed, "flaws," come of my own failures, my own, "holes," not what's available, 'within," kenpo...


I think the statement above fits here as well. If you are taught with a particular mindset on the system, you may feel a need to go "elsewhere" to find answers that in reality may already be there but you just haven't realized that yet.

Orig. posted by rmcrobertson
I simply want to know why this has to be grounded on the ideas of "flaw," the idea of, "being prepared for anything," the idea of "realism--the reality of infinite threat," the dream of "warriorhood," for people who mostly live in cities and have desk jobs. What's more, there seem to be all sorts of examples of folks who won't see what kenpo offers until they go look somewheres else...nothing wrong with that, either.


Good questions. I think "different strokes for different folks". "There are many roads that lead to Rome" some may just be on different roads, you Robert, may have found the freeway!

Orig. posted by rmcrobertson
I personally suspect that this has more to do with avoiding confronting ourselves - than cross-training because of the flaws in Kenpo System itself.

From what I can see--and admittedly, it ain't that much--a chunk of what's going on is the revision of kenpo until it HAS holes in it, then turning around and saying, "Wow, look at all the holes." I personally think that confronting such issues would do us all a helluva lot more good than learning one more system...


When Mr. Parker came across a "problem area" that was necessary to address, he dedicated time to study the "issue" and find a solution. I do agree with you {this is getting scary LOL}, that revision by individuals that may not be qualified WILL and HAS <<<MADE>>> "holes" that were not there before [except to the ones making the revisions], and then passed on to the student mass who then eventually come across a differing opinion and Viola....... a conflict.

:asian:

rmcrobertson:
I simply want to know why this has to be grounded on the ideas of "flaw," the idea of, "being prepared for anything," the idea of "realism--the reality of infinite threat," the dream of "warriorhood," for people who mostly live in cities and have desk jobs.


If everyone had this attitude the only art around would be Tae Kwon Do. God help us all. :eek:

Orig. posted by Kenpo Yahoo
I believe that there are a FEW holes in the EPAK system.
That is not to say that Mr. Parker did not have the answers himself or that he never taught these particular "patches" to any of his students, but that a --majority-- of kenpoists do not know or do not teach these aspects of the curriculum.


Help me out here.... first you say that there are a few holes in AK, but then you say that Mr. Parker probably had many of the answers and possibly taught them to "patches" or certain students. You then go on to state that a MAJORITY of Kenpoists do not know or teach these aspects.

If there are "Holes" in the system, it would mean that the system itself is lacking, which is quite different than the instructors not teaching these aspects. I do agree that a majority do not teach these aspects for one reason or another. Kenpo does create the ability to drift to ones "comfort zone". I know many that are great at different areas of our system but terrible at other areas. Water seeks its own level.

Orig. posted by Kenpo Yahoo
I think the absence of ground material is a weakness.


We do have groundwork, {Volume II, Chapter 7, page 105} maybe it needs to be emphasized and expanded a bit, I agree but it's there.

Orig. posted by Kenpo Yahoo
No I don't think kenpoists should be learning armbars and choke outs, but if you get tackled or you take someone down what type of base should you establish? Are you able to get to a superior position from here? i.e. one that will provide you with the most control over your opponent as well as allow you the most maneuverability, do you know what a superior position is?


I disagree, we SHOULD LEARN ARMBARS AND CHOKES, this is as Kenpo as anything else. It all has its place. You bring up valid points, "what if" you get tackled, and end up on the ground... we should know how to maneuver and get back up. 1 Example: Leap from Danger (rear 2-handed push).

Orig. posted by Kenpo Yahoo
The main purpose of the ground curriculum should be to get back to your feet, where you can utilize the majority of your training. Well how do you stand up if you are on the ground and your opponent is on his feet? There are a few tricks to this that will help keep you from getting pounded.


What about Encounter with Danger?

Orig. posted by Kenpo Yahoo
Learning what someone has to do in order to take you down should be beneficial in helping you prevent it.


Agreed, just as learning about the nunchaku allows you to evaluate the skill of your opponent with them.

Orig. posted by Kenpo Yahoo
I think a lot of the combination techniques should be changed. I've never liked the idea of doing a crossover step, or twist stance while addressing an opponents attack. I feel that these stances despite their transitory nature weaken your base significantly. I would rather sacrifice any power (perceived or not) that I could generate from this stance and work from one with a wider base, mainly a neutral bow, which might allow me to make up the lost power by allowing for more hip rotation when I strike.


Now, this is very difficult to answer on the net, it would be of great advantage to be able to work together and "show" what you are doing so as to be able to examine the interpretation that you may have vs. that of someone else's. This interaction will of course be very helpful and help solve many misunderstandings or give ideas to tailor a quality response.

You may not have to "sacrifice" anything, there may be some little point that may be missing in your understanding of the technique that will make that little light bulb go on.

Orig. posted by Kenpo Yahoo
I also don't think that many of the defenses are very realistic or leave you enough margin for error. In otherwords, can the same technique be used if both punches are straight or if both are roundhouse haymakers?


Again, perception and interpretation can be a huge factor. I find little things that are in the systems "knowledge bank" all the time that I may have overlooked or not applied in certain techniques.

I rarely like to change anything, but rather expand my understanding of the "Ideal", and study the numerous possibilities of the "what if", so that I can "Formulate", when necessary.

Orig. posted by Kenpo Yahoo
These are a few of the problems that I have with the current EPAK curriculum. I would like to point out that during my post I used several statements like: "I think..", "I believe...", "I feel..." to denote my personal opinions.

I don't claim to be a master of EPAK or any other category of martial art. These are just my opinions based on what I know and where I am currently at in my training as a second degree blackbelt in kenpo.


You bring up some great points for discussion and we thank you for your participation and comments, as always.

:asian:

Dear, "Kenpo Yahoo:"

Sorry, but all the things you kvetch about, I've been taught or figured out. Within the framework of kenpo--including the stuff about, "just doing the techs with a knife in your hand," as though that weren't the right apporach. Does that mean I'm great at them? Nope. Just means it's in there.

If you think that're no info in kenpo for using a knife in the context of
"return," in various senses, you might want to take another look at Entwined Lance, just to mention the most obvious...

As for the rear crosses/twists...well, a number of the techniques (see defl. hammer and Swing. Pendulum) teach that a good block and a soild base is not always the best idea...getting the hell off line is often wiser...which is a big chunk of what these stances and transitionss are for, to say nothing of their application against somebody on the ground...

As for the, "attitude," well, I've no good idea why that's the issue. I might reciprocate, and remark that the, "attitude," of constantly haring off to other systems--especially in a society that encourages the commodification of knowledge and an utter lack of attention span--is exactly what our problem is, but I don't actually quite think that. What I do think is that citing somebody's attitude is a consistent way to avoid actually discussing their ideas and the issues.

Goldendragon7
Help me out here.... first you say that there are a few holes in AK, but then you say that Mr. Parker probably had many of the answers and possibly taught them to "patches" or certain students. You then go on to state that a MAJORITY of Kenpoists do not know or teach these aspects.


This was merely a statement of respect. I was simply giving Mr. Parker the benefit of the doubt, that he MAY have had the answer or that he MAY have taught these ideas to someone. Honestly, if these concepts were as wide spread as many would have you believe then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Goldendragon7
I do agree that a majority do not teach these aspects for one reason or another. Kenpo does create the ability to drift to ones "comfort zone". I know many that are great at different areas of our system but terrible at other areas. Water seeks its own level.


The system is only as good as what is being taught. Who gives a flying rats butt if so and so used to do this but nobody does this anymore because nobody knows how.


We do have groundwork, {Volume II, Chapter 7, page 105} maybe it needs to be emphasized and expanded a bit, I agree but it's there.


Great, I sure hope that your attacker or your students attacker stays within the realm of one page of text. To suggest that any one subject especially one as complex as groundwork can be boiled down to one page of text is asinine.


I disagree, we SHOULD LEARN ARMBARS AND CHOKES, this is as Kenpo as anything else. It all has its place. You bring up valid points, "what if" you get tackled, and end up on the ground... we should know how to maneuver and get back up. 1 Example: Leap from Danger (rear 2-handed push).


Okay fine, then teach them, but do you know the proper way to do an armbar so as to prevent your opponent from rolling out or at least set up your position to move to the next submission if need be?


You bring up valid points, "what if" you get tackled, and end up on the ground... we should know how to maneuver and get back up. 1 Example: Leap from Danger (rear 2-handed push).


Great so if they get pushed at their mid to lower back or get tackled from behind, then what should they do? Neither of these situations will allow you to roll, so then what happens? I guess you are just screwed huh?!?! :shrug: Is this part of the groundfighting curriculum you teach.


What about Encounter with Danger?


So you would have your students try to kick at high targets without the use of their hips for speed and power, even if this works they are on all fours facing away from their opponent. This is one way of getting up, not a very good one, but a way nevertheless.


Now, this is very difficult to answer on the net, it would be of great advantage to be able to work together and "show" what you are doing so as to be able to examine the interpretation that you may have vs. that of someone else's. This interaction will of course be very helpful and help solve many misunderstandings or give ideas to tailor a quality response.


I agree that SOME of my complaints could be based on interpretation, but I also have been taught much more efficient ways of doing these other things. That is where the majority of my criticism comes from.


Again, perception and interpretation can be a huge factor. I find little things that are in the systems "knowledge bank" all the time that I may have overlooked or not applied in certain techniques.

I rarely like to change anything, but rather expand my understanding of the "Ideal", and study the numerous possibilities of the "what if", so that I can "Formulate", when necessary.


I totally agree with you on the perception thing. I hope I'm not coming off like too much of an @$$, but we are coming from different times. I always hear that most of the guys who went to Parker way back in the day already had some training in another art and it was their experience that helped him out considerably. However now-a-days if you train in another art you are a heretic or an "Art Collector" and while I do agree this is somewhat of an epidemic I don't think it is the viral plague that some would have you believe.

As always I thank you for the discussion, I hope it continues.

Sorry, but all the things you kvetch about, I've been taught or figured out. Within the framework of kenpo--including the stuff about, "just doing the techs with a knife in your hand," as though that weren't the right apporach. Does that mean I'm great at them? Nope. Just means it's in there.


If you are simply doing the empty hand techniques with a knife in your hand then you aren't using the instrinsic qualities of the blade to their full extent, thus limiting your potential. This also means you that you are making big movements (easier to disarm)with a weapon that should remain in contact with your opponent throughout its use. If this is your answer then you do not understand the knife.


If you think that're no info in kenpo for using a knife in the context of
"return," in various senses, you might want to take another look at Entwined Lance, just to mention the most obvious...


This is a good start, but ALL of your techniques should take into account that your opponent COULD do a back cut or return cut just like all your techniques should work regardless of whether your attacker throws a straight or roundhouse punch. If this simple idea isn't considered then you will get cut because of your lack of understanding not your attackers brilliance.


As for the rear crosses/twists...well, a number of the techniques (see defl. hammer and Swing. Pendulum) teach that a good block and a soild base is not always the best idea...getting the hell off line is often wiser...which is a big chunk of what these stances and transitionss are for, to say nothing of their application against somebody on the ground...


So a quick offline manuever like pushdragging off to the side or triangle stepping would be out of the question? Both of these manuevers leave you with a far more stable base than the crossover or twist stance and are far less commited. So you use twist stances when you are on the ground, how exactly?


I simply want to know why this has to be grounded on the ideas of "flaw," the idea of, "being prepared for anything," the idea of "realism--the reality of infinite threat," the dream of "warriorhood," for people who mostly live in cities and have desk jobs. Exceptions to this? Sure--cops, for example, do well to study some form of judo, handgun methods, etc...And what's more, there seem to be all sorts of examples of folks who won't see what kenpo offers until they go look somewheres else...nothing wrong with that, either.


Great so the rest of us should just dial 911 when someone attacks us. Just be sure to tell your attacker to wait 5-15 minutes before they hurt you. Yep no reason at all to prepare for an attack. Oh yeah, why do so many police officers train in the martial arts, could it be because they feel like their departmental training isn't sufficient? hmmmm...... So technically aren't we training those who might one day be protecting us or our loved ones? Interesting.......


What I do think is that citing somebody's attitude is a consistent way to avoid actually discussing their ideas and the issues.


I've stated my concerns over the issues. The ball, so to speak, is now in your court.

this argument will go on until reunification...sorry, wrong thread, but same point...tastes great, less filling.

my take on things is that there are big holes if you stay "on book". But, that is not what Kenpo training is supposed to be about.

From what I understand, Ed Parker built his Kenpo from many sources, keeping the best, discarding the rest. Well that gives us kind of a Parker's Greatest Hits collection, where if you just go straight through it, you will come up short in a few areas. Just like if you go out an buy the Beatles #1 Hits CD and listen to it every day for several years and then think you know the Beatles music... well, you'll be in for a big surprise when you listen to the White Album, or side 2 of Abbey Road.

Limiting your ground fighting to Encounter with Danger is not enough, there are drills and exercises that can be introduced to supplement... drills from other arts or older Parker systems that can be used to supplement training.

I also find that Kenpo can be interpreted by some into a memory game. Rather than internalizing movements and responses, students begin to work too hard on executing a technique as fast as possible upon hearing its name (Pavlovian Kenpo.) This tends to breed the fast and the furious (Vin Diesel Kenpo.) It also has a contagious effect down the line, and comes across as sloppy.

I have "gone outside" to study Tai Chi to supplement my Kenpo and improve what I feel is missing.

I find myself in the odd position of agreeing with both Mr. Robertson and Kenpo Yahoo! Perhaps a Hegelian synthesis is forming...

Points of agreement with Mr. Robertson (that I think are fair representations of his view) with some elaboration on my part:
1. Kenpo techniques should (at some point at least) take into account realistic followup strikes. And not just strikes but followup grabs and holds (successful and attempted). If an instructor does not teach that then it is the instructor and not Kenpo that is flawed. I can say that from experience because that is exactly what I am being taught in the instruction that I am receiving now.
2. The most excellent point about a well-designed system being sufficient for the average, normal person, not the spec op soldier or the UFC professional brawler. It should be geared around a person with a job and life outside of the martial arts. Further, the art should be capable of being learned and successfully used by a person with ordinary physical abilities, and not reserved for those of gifted physical abilities. In real life, you train for the most likely eventualities not with the unwarranted assumption that unless your art will allow the average normal Joe to vanquish Tank Abbott then it's worthless. That's entirely unreasonable but precisely the blather that many critics of both Kenpo and traditional martial arts tirelessly raise.

There is a one aspect of Kenpo Yahoo's post that I agree with and do not think necessarily contradicts Mr. Robertson's perspective:

That there might be many Kenpoists who do not know or do not teach (more likely, I think, the former) these aspects (grappling, groundfighting, combination attacks, etc.) of the curriculum. In my experience of only about 5 years in Kenpo (I know, I'm just neophyte) that is what I've observed. Until recently, when I've trained at a few different EPAK schools (I've moved several times in recent years), followup attacks, grappling, and a few other imporant things were conspicuously absent. And I mean utterly not there. Now, I've found that indeed it is with the teacher and not the art where this absence lies.

One point of my own (not originated by me but being raised by me here in this thread) that I haven't seen addressed in this thread, but I've noticed as a significant weakness or flaw as the art has been taught, is a dearth of realistic attacks and responses by dummies. This is fatal if not corrected. Unfortunately, it's as deadly as it is rampant.

In sum, I think part of what Mr. Robertson and Kenpo Yahoo are saying is reconciliable in that one could say that the art as taught is often flawed but that is due to improper teaching methodology and lack of knowledge from instructors (rather than an inherent weakness of the system). Kenpo is a blueprint, occassionally a fairly detailed one, rarely a poor one, but most often a general guide that needs to be fleshed out by a competent teacher. Where there's no competent teacher, there's no competent Kenpo. The good news is that a good teacher will provide a complete system that will allow a normal individual to be able to adequately defend himself within reason. Nothing more is needed nor should it be.

Dear folks:

Wow. Except for Howard R.--with whom I still disagree in part--I am stunned by the sheer number of technical--let alone strategic!--errors in those posts.

Just for openers--who the hell taught Encounter With Danger without driving the hip into the kicks? Sorry, no. I've spent one too many Wednesdays on the mat, trying to flip from side to side in a logical extension of this technique, with my instructor yelling and a 16-year-old bouncing into the air with each pivot...

Hm.

Just for openers--who the hell taught Encounter With Danger without driving the hip into the kicks?


This is your only comeback? My school and association quit teaching Encounter with Danger a long time ago, and while I wasn't there to hear the OFFICIAL reason I am all too glad to know that this will no longer be used to give my students a false sense of security that could get them injured.

While I agree with several individuals who suggest that the system may not be taught in its intended entirety, I posit that the system is only as good as what is being taught to it's students. If the system contains Knifework, Clubwork, Gunwork, Groundwork, Takedowns, Striking, Manuevering, etc, but no one is teaching people how to do these things properly or if they are just aren't teaching them period, then it isn't a part of the system.!.!.!.! This means if one person isn't taught an aspect of the system and then this same person teaches this system to 100 people then the error is propagated to each of those 100 people on top of whatever error was in the initial system. This then becomes the system that this generation practices and teaches to the next, which based on interpretation propagates further error. Look how far down the line you are and think about how much error could be in YOUR system or how much information YOU could have missed out on because someone decided to leave at a certain time or didn't think that a particular aspect was very important or just plain didn't understand a certain topic. You may not care about these things, but it is rediculous to belittle those who do.

Mr. rmcroberston you have cried foul because I suggested that your attitude of seeking anything less than perfection would mean the eventual death of our art. Perhaps it is the pervasiveness of such an attitude that has attributed to the snapshot interpretations and shotty work that has left the system with the aforementioned holes.

If you wish to speak about a specific topic please bring it to our attention. Kenpo in my opinion does not address groundwork in an effective manner. Teaching someone to roll out of a rear push, regardless of the effectiveness of its execution does not qualify as groundwork and will not protect you or your students when struggling on the ground. Encounter with Danger, in the manner you describe does not account for the attacker changing position, only a straight line attack. What will you do, I wonder, when your attacker walks around you while you bounce around on your hands and knees.

Also, I might point out the fact that you have neglected to mention combination attacks, knife, club, or gunwork.

Good evening.

Please go back and re-read my posts, which specifically mention knives and combination attacks, as well as ground-fighting.

As for, "Encounter With Danger," this is far from the only thing having to do with ground fighting that I've discussed. You really need to read what you're attacking a little more carefully. However, I think that from what you've written, your school's having done away with the technique illustrates what I originally noted--that removing techs from kenpo teaching, then turning around and claiming that kenpo lacks something specific that just happened to be in the bit that got removed, is--while logical--a little weird. In this particular case, some of the classes revolved around flipping from hip to hip and changing directions as the attacker attempted to get in close--but, it seems to me, that's a little difficult to get to if you've taken Encounter (and all that it represents) out of the system.

To continue in reverse order, nope, that's not all I might write. And I don't cry foul--don't even understand why that's on your agenda--and, I might as well note, I'm not all that far down the line you've constructed. I might explain, but, since I get the impression that you're not actually reading what I'm writing, I think it best to stop here.

Thank you for your comments.

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Dear folks:

Wow. Except for Howard R.--with whom I still disagree in part--I am stunned by the sheer number of technical--let alone strategic!--errors in those posts.

Hm.

Mr. Robertson,

I'm not asking this as an attempt to generate dissension as an end in itself, but which part of my post did you disagree with? I'd like to make sure that I didn't mischaracterize what I took to be your argument.

Thanks.

Oh, my apologies, HowardR. It was just the Hegelian synthesis argument--I see the discussion as being in part incompatible, not contradictory.

Thanks for your courteous question, however. I should've been clearer.

Unfortunately there are a great many huge holes, and the so-called teachers are responsible for them, not the art.

Mr. Parker says,"There is no such thing as basics, just a basic understanding, and most don't even have that."

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Leaving the grappling question aside--it's boring--I hadn't known that there weren't any kenpo techs designed against, "combination," attacks....I'd thought that beginning with Delayed Sword, ALL the techniques took such attacks into consideration, though of course that won't necessarily become recognizable or useful until after learning, say, Glancing Wing, Entwined Maces, Fatal Deviation, et al...

[quote]I think, actually, the more interesting question is this: what makes people feel that they HAVE to go outside a well-designed system, in pursuit of some dream of becoming a warrior prepared for everything? After all, I tend to find that these supposed, "flaws," come of of my own failures, my own, "holes," not what's available, 'within," kenpo...

Well, different strokes for different folks! There are obviously some people who want to go outside of the art to learn.

Could I (or anybody) go learn what, say Gene LeBell teaches, and profit from it? Absolutely. Could I go learn, "combat handgun," (ha!) and get a lot? Sure. learn escrima and get something? Sure. Iaido? Sure. A knife system, a stick system, and on and on and on? Absolutely. Where's it end? Noplace; it doesn't. And nothing's wrong wwith that; in faact, nothing's beetter than that. Will this mean that I am absolutely prepared for everything, that I will be unbeatable? Oh, hell no. And, I have a job. I even like to think I have a life.

There are many "ideas" that were taken from other arts. Does this mean that the person teaching them is an expert? No! Unless they continue to learns these ideas, then the knowledge that they have will only go so far. Sure there is some grappling in Kenpo, but like it was already said, it only addresses a few very limited things.

Yes, I know the response. There's nothing wrong with learning some grappling, boxing, judo, etc. I agree; I just wrote that. I simply want to know why this has to be grounded on the ideas of "flaw," the idea of, "being prepared for anything," the idea of "realism--the reality of infinite threat," the dream of "warriorhood," for people who mostly live in cities and have desk jobs. Exceptions to this? Sure--cops, for example, do well to study some form of judo, handgun methods, etc...And what's more, there seem to be all sorts of examples of folks who won't see what kenpo offers until they go look somewheres else...nothing wrong with that, either.

Being prepared for anything. Wiil any of us? Probably not. But, I'd hate to know that the art that I devoted "X" number of years learning did not help me when I got attacked by something that was never touched on before. Realism- do you need to train with a real knife/gun for this? Nope. But adding a little aliveness into the training would help. Warriorhood- LOL! What does having a desk job have to do with it????? Just cuz you have a job like that, does not mean that on your way back to your car, parked in the lot in the big city, you won't get mugged.

But I personally suspect that this has more to do with avoiding confronting ourselves--I know, I know, another of those, "useless," traditional goals, but still darn the the only one worth a rap--than cross-training because of the flaws in kenpo. From what I can see--and admittedly, it ain't that much--a chunk of what's going on is the revision of kenpo until it HAS holes in it, then turning around and saying, "Wow, look at all the holes." I personally think that confronting such issues would do us all a helluva lot more good than learning one more system...

Again, nobody ever said to spend another 5yrs learning another art, but only to take ideas and add them to the Kenpo.

Mike

Originally posted by Kenpo Yahoo
[quote]Here's a big surprise: I totally disagree with Robert.

Me too!

Knife and club curriculum. We have all these defenses against knives and clubs, yet most kenpoists idea of using these weapons in an offensive manner is to simply perform an empty hand technique with one of the weapons in hand. I believe that the better you understand something the more capable you are of being able to defend against it. This even translates back to groundfighting and takedowns as I mentioned earlier. If you know what to look for, there is a good chance that you can prevent it. How do you perform your knife defense technique against someone who is making use of a return cut?

Good point Kenpo Yahoo!! Many arts have these defenses. However, only on a limited basis. There are some people that might find knife/stickwork very interesting. They are not going to be able to get that Inst. if their instructors knowledge is limited. I find the Filipino arts very interesting. After spending 4yrs with my Arnis Inst. I feel that I can address this issue much better than I did with the Kenpo.

Mike

Originally posted by Kenpo Yahoo
If everyone had this attitude the only art around would be Tae Kwon Do. God help us all. :eek:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Mike

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
[B]Please go back and re-read my posts, which specifically mention knives and combination attacks, as well as ground-fighting.

[quote]As for, "Encounter With Danger," this is far from the only thing having to do with ground fighting that I've discussed. You really need to read what you're attacking a little more carefully. However, I think that from what you've written, your school's having done away with the technique illustrates what I originally noted--that removing techs from kenpo teaching, then turning around and claiming that kenpo lacks something specific that just happened to be in the bit that got removed, is--while logical--a little weird. In this particular case, some of the classes revolved around flipping from hip to hip and changing directions as the attacker attempted to get in close--but, it seems to me, that's a little difficult to get to if you've taken Encounter (and all that it represents) out of the system.

Take what is usefull and discard the rest. That is something that Bruce Lee has said over and over, and that is a big thing with JKD. If I'm correct in assuming that Kenpo Yahoo is from the Paul Mills branch, then I'd have to say, from what I've seen, Mills has done some excellent things with Kenpo. Just because he (Mills) has taken out and added things does not make it any less of an art. I mean, Tatum might not do this, and I'm sure he doesnt, but again, that makes Mills a bad guy cuz he did this? If anything, he has added some grappling, and looked at the stick/knife work a little closer.

Mike

Originally posted by Doc
Unfortunately there are a great many huge holes, and the so-called teachers are responsible for them, not the art.

Mr. Parker says,"There is no such thing as basics, just a basic understanding, and most don't even have that."

True!! Doc- Very wise words. Thank you!:asian:

Mike

Take what is usefull and discard the rest. That is something that Bruce Lee has said over and over, and that is a big thing with JKD.

That's what Ed Parker did as well, and he "script" is now Parker's Greatest Hits. See my previous reference to the Beatles music.

To "get it", you've got to get past the mechanics and limitations of 150 techniques and 9 forms, or whatever your numbers might be, and understand the principles. Apply the principles standing up, sitting down, on the ground, or in outer space... with your Kenpo instructor if possible, or with masters of other arts if necessary.

Life has its limitations, and everyone can't learn everything at once. Life is also too short to keep out of the forbidden zone, but in the words of Dr Zaius, you may not like what you find...

Originally posted by Goldendragon7
our Curriculums..... My question is, what are these "holes" such as grappling or combination attacks {kick punch or L - R Punch combination}, and what can be done to "upgrade" or "adjust" or what are [you or your studio] doing about them?

:confused:

Very quickly
:roflmao:
right, like I can be brief.

I just went to a Shen Chuan Seminar at Mr. Billings' studio Sat 10/25 and it could very well have validated everything I have ever heard Doc say.

Mr. Lansdale struck "loosely" with dead weight. Showed us a pressure point attack that Mr. Parker must have been FULLY aware of when he set down 5 Swords. And Mr. Lansdale, about 5'8" and not exactly trim, Manhandled the 6ft monsters he brought in with him. Mopped the floor with them. Dropped them at will, knocked one out. And almost always with "No effort" and didn't leave a mark on them to speak of.

Mr. Parker surely had this stuff hidden within the system as Doc has said. He almost certainly in my opinion did set up the curriculum at least partially as "something to sell." Mr. Lansdale is too good and taught too much undisputably effective stuff for us to not directly address in EPAK. Primarily he dealt with balance disruptions and nerve strikes and I swear I saw some or all of 5 Swords, Dominating Circles, Thrusting Wedge/Heavenly Ascent/Parting Wings on Sat.

I don't know why we don't address that stuff directly. For me, I will seek more of it out to compensate. I look forward to seeing Doc one day. I accidentally nearly knocked out my partner on Sat during one of the drills we were having trouble with and my face is still sore from where Mr. Lansdale attacked a pressure point. I also either lost my vision or nearly blacked out several times on one of the drills.

In short, the stuff was almost diametrically opposite what EPAK focuses on and it was Highly effective. And very humane. As I said, Mr. Lansdale was always in control of his opponent and his strikes were very much like slaps. I could just imagine Mr. Parker slapping through some people and "mystically" wiping them out and this being the source of the slap-art and Magician of Motion rumors AND the source of many of Doc's assertions.

Mr. Lansdale also said that many Martial Arts look like this at the higher levels which makes me think this is also compatible with Doc's statmements of Sub-Level 4 being a higher state of Kenpo.

Mr. Lansdale also nearly knocked out one of Mr. Billings' bruisers as well. And yes, he did say that pressure point knock-outs/attacks can be more devastating and harmful than just knocking someone on their butt with a more traditional strike.

His seminar was amazing. I may write more in a more proper review elsewhere.

But we are lacking this in EPAK and I intend to investigate it directly to suppliment my striking. Although I prefer these methods to much of EPAK's overwhelming flurry of maiming and killing strikes. Yes I know they can be regulated etc but this stuff was so effective and effortless that I wonder if Mr. Parker Jr. was not right on about Kenpo being his Dad's "sick fantasy;" especially when you consider Leap of Death and Dance of Death for example which I believed Mr. Parker, Jr. both mentioned as examples when making this statement.
:soapbox:

Hey, what is the smiley for Ramble, Ramble, Ramble...?
:idunno:

If you see kenpo--or any really good martial art--as just a stack of techniques, there will never be enough techniques in any system for you.

And once again, all the stuff I've seen claimed here as "outside," kenpo, I've met "inside," kenpo."

Other than that, I don't see the point in continuing this discussion. Again, my posts simply aren't getting read very well by the folks who are disagreeing with them so vehemently.

The strikes and principles that Prof. Lansdale taught are within our system of EPAK. Joe Lansdale does not usually teach them before Black. He came from a Kenpo system circa 1960' something, and his guys do a Combat Hapkido, Kenpo cross, and really hit hard and bump through Black. Even he said it was all in Kenpo at higher levels.

At Black they see the system's "soft" side. The Chin Na, Aki-Jitsu, softer applications, are not thrown in. He did mention not really believing in Chi, rather proper body mechanics and neuro-musculature, and how it works. He did not talk about this much since he was doing a seminar on what I specifically asked for. He had told me he does not usually do this for a first seminar, but was willing to for me.

Once again, I reiterate that it is not holes in Kenpo, but rather the level of the instructor, or their willingness and ability to teach this that can be lacking.

P.S. - I think the quote I heard from Edmund Jr. was:



You get the first strike in (which could have been a block), and if lucky, the second strike ... the rest was my Dad's Kenpo Fantasy.



However, he may have said it differently at different times. I personally love the "Kenpo Fantasy",
"- It is not Overkill, rather Overskill"

What Holes in Kenpo??

Respectfully,
-Michael

[i]Originally posted by rmcrobertson

And once again, all the stuff I've seen claimed here as "outside," kenpo, I've met "inside," kenpo."

Other than that, I don't see the point in continuing this discussion. Again, my posts simply aren't getting read very well by the folks who are disagreeing with them so vehemently. [/B]

Its not that we're disagreeing 100%. It has been said that the "stuff" is in there, but its the depth that it has. Its touched on breifly, and then thats it!

Mike

I would just like to make a few comments. Chokeholds and sleepers are imperative to learn for street survival-just ask any law enforcement officer, special ops military or gin mill bouncers. We use a lot of armbars in police work but I wouldn't say they're imperative for street survival but I'd put them in the 'good to know' category. The best way to learn to defend against a weapon is to understand that weapon-to know how to use it, be it a knife, gun or club., etc. Respectfdully, "Joe"

So, through this thread we find Kenpo practitioners with a hunger for more training relative to specific aspects of martial arts they find missing, incomplete, or lacking in their Kenpo practice. Is it the system, the instructor, or the student? Who cares, its real and it exists and should be addressed.

Ground fighting, Weapon defenses, Internalization, and Joint manipulations and Nerve strikes have been mentioned. How about actually discussing HOW these concepts can be introduced to students who desire to learn them...

I'll start with my experience with Tai Chi, which I go for instruction with a Master of the art. In addition to learning a fascinating art unto itself, I've found that by applying it principles, Tai Chi has improved my focus, balance, and posture in executing Kenpo techniques and forms. Pushing Hands practice has improved my sparring technique, by applying concepts of yielding, leading, expanding and sinking. Yes... all principles relative to Kenpo concepts, but this has helped me "get it"... and help others as well.

I'm interested in similar ideas to integrate groundfighting, weapon defenses, Chin na, etc... I was very impressed by a seminar given by Zach Whitson who developed a Counterpoint drill using Kenpo techniques based on his experience with Filipino Martial Arts.

And for those who don't see the point in continuing these discussions, well, umm ergh, eh... you don't have to.

Originally posted by MJS
Its not that we're disagreeing 100%. It has been said that the "stuff" is in there, but its the depth that it has. Its touched on breifly, and then thats it! Mike


Yes, the Base 154 System is just that a "Base". An Series of "Possible Solutions" or "Examples" from which then we must continue and STUDY with Variable Expansion to develop the "What It's" of the Base Curriculum. We couldn't have EVERY POSSIBLE EXAMPLE Listed out unless you want to end up with 600 + techniques [that is an extremely conservative figure there actually could be unlimited possibilities] but we don't have 10 lifetimes to do this. So some is left up to us to search out the depth of the material we have before us {which is incredible already}.

It is all in your perspective and understanding of the material. Yes, we all could and should put more attention to Basics which include Body Maneuvers such as Falling, Throwing, Rolling, Choking, Arm Bars etc.. the list goes on doesn't it. :)

This is a great example of how each of us have a good grasp on certain areas of the art yet we realize that we are not so knowledgeable or skillful in other areas..... this does not mean Kenpo doesn't have it, just that we have not been exposed to it by someone that does know about our personal lacking areas.

:asian:

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Oh, my apologies, HowardR. It was just the Hegelian synthesis argument--I see the discussion as being in part incompatible, not contradictory.

Thanks for your courteous question, however. I should've been clearer.

Hehe...well my fault. I was just trying to be a card, but ended up more like a boob!

Originally posted by Michael Billings
The strikes and principles that Prof. Lansdale taught are within our system of EPAK. Joe Lansdale does not usually teach them before Black. He came from a Kenpo system circa 1960' something, and his guys do a Combat Hapkido, Kenpo cross, and really hit hard and bump through Black. Even he said it was all in Kenpo at higher levels.

At Black they see the system's "soft" side. The Chin Na, Aki-Jitsu, softer applications, are not thrown in. He did mention not really believing in Chi, rather proper body mechanics and neuro-musculature, and how it works. He did not talk about this much since he was doing a seminar on what I specifically asked for. He had told me he does not usually do this for a first seminar, but was willing to for me.

Once again, I reiterate that it is not holes in Kenpo, but rather the level of the instructor, or their willingness and ability to teach this that can be lacking.

What Holes in Kenpo??

Respectfully,
-Michael

I don't think Kenpo is necessarily lacking much...everything is there, maybe not as effective as it could be in some instances, but it is there.

One of the strengths of a standard Kenpo practicioner with a solid background is that they pickup motion from other systems quicker than average. This may be a function of our never ending analysis of motion.

I think anyone visiting a school to do a seminar will speak nice of that system. If they really thought that much of it, they be studying it instead of what they are teaching. I think that is a patented approach to get invited back. The "at the higher levels" line is interesting because I didn't see in his credentials where he actually reached them IN American Kenpo so how would he know. Is he on the family tree? I've seen one picture of Mr. Landsdale with Mr. Sullivan & LeRoux, I wonder if he was old school or new school IKCA?

I don't think Doug's instructor is lacking in his level (you have an intimate training history with him so I'll let you make that call)...and Doug is a 2nd Brown who met Mr. Parker and has gone to some lengths to try to understand "the Paker Way", if there is one..

To me the danger that Kenpo Instructors face is their preoccupation with writing other systems principle and concepts off as already in the system. We say, it is already in the system, when the application, intent and train methodology isn't there on our part. We have something similar, but it isn't the same. Let's acknowledge that at least. An example is the FMA guntings. Sure we have an inside parry and we have an inward hammering raking strike, but we don't apply them with in the same manner so the results are different. Do we have similar variations? Yes. So is it in Kenpo? Yes, but not really.

Once again, it doesn't mean we are lacking. We just may be lacking their particular application or take on a topic. Each system has its own reciept for destruction and their spice rack may have some things in it that ours doesn't. It sounds like this program added several spices that hadn't previously been on the racks...

If some of this stuff can't be acknowledged, then I agree that level of the instructor may be lacking...

jb:asian:

I have an idea.!.!.!.!

Since everyone is arguing that the EPAK system is full of ground techniques, ideas, concepts, etc... why don't we list them, some of the positions they can be used from, and what the intended use is?

Rather than put it all here why don't we just start another thread and put in all the material. However, this thread should be qualified to some degree, so let's keep it to techniques that can be used when:
you are on the ground versus
a) an attacker who is on the ground
b) an attacker who is on his feet

Listing something like this might help to quell me and my fellow groundfighting advocates. Plus I think it would be a valuable resource to all students of kenpo. This shouldn't be hard since it is such a big part of the system.

This was not intended to point out any deficiencies of Doug's instructor, AT ALL.!!!

I have the highest respect for Mr. Duffy's Kenpo, after all I was with him for 14+ years. I was suggesting that what may be taught to Doug, may be appropriate for his level. That was the purpose of the quote you picked up off the other thread I started.

Joe is clearly grounded in Kenpo, but I do not know his lineage, nor do I really care since I did not go there for Kenpo, but rather was invited to teach for him at one of his camps. We made a good personal connection and since he was in town to premier his movie, I thought it might be nice for him to teach a seminar. Don't write more into this than is there. I just liked him.

Doug has to explain whatever he feels, as I am unable to. I, in fact, disagreed with him in that I think Kenpo does have what was taught. The Shen Chuan principles do mirror our American Kenpo in a significant way ... now where they come from, yo no sey? He came from a time when the Kenpo had bigger circles, but you see the old techniques (Tracy, TRACO or NCKKA) reflected. Whatever the issue, I do not want to get on the wrong side of Mr. Duffy, that is why I am replying publically, I did not infer in any way that Doug's instructor was deficient, nor was that my intent. What Doug saw, I have seen other very high ranking Kenpo Black Belts do, there is nothing new, it just varies when and where you see it.

(Just my opinion on the last sentence.)

Anyhow, you might even like a seminar, it is all Kenpoee looking to me.

-Michael

Originally posted by Goldendragon7
Yes, the Base 154 System is just that a "Base". An Series of "Possible Solutions" or "Examples" from which then we must continue and STUDY with Variable Expansion to develop the "What It's" of the Base Curriculum. We couldn't have EVERY POSSIBLE EXAMPLE Listed out unless you want to end up with 600 + techniques [that is an extremely conservative figure there actually could be unlimited possibilities] but we don't have 10 lifetimes to do this. So some is left up to us to search out the depth of the material we have before us {which is incredible already}.


So, am I to understand that from white to black is just the bare minimum, ie. only 10% of the available knowledge? How much more then is really there to learn beyond first black (what I'm asking here isn't on how many techniques, but rather on specific principles and concepts not taught to lower belts)? It was my impression the white-black cover all the basic principles/concepts and then proceed on beyond to teach/create more techniques based on these concepts? Am I off base with that impression?

:idunno:

But I am ignorant as to what the dans really involve.... There is very little that is said or discussed regarding what techniques or forms are learned for those ranks higher than first black that a friend kind of teasily mentioned "the knowledge is reserved only for the secret society of the black belts". :wink1:

I guess I can summarize my inquiry into two questions [mindful of many friends who stop training at first black]: What motivation is there to continue training on beyond first black? What can we expect to pursue once obtaining first black? :confused:

- Ceicei

Good to see this debate still rages.

so here are my three cents:

1) The ground fighting in Infinite Insights works fine when the attacker is standing and/or at a distance. It doesn't work so well when the person is on top of you .

2) It is interesting that some of the people defending EPAK as being complete/without holes/effective on the ground, etc. have never studied another art and are unwilling to do so.

3) No system or style is "complete". Every system or style has trade-offs and limitations. In order to best defend ourselves, we need to understand the advantages and disadvantages of the system(s) we practice.

i really get a few chuckles from the #2's... in'eresting to say the least.

I always find it interesting when people look at an entity as vast as EPAK, and make a declaritive statement as to what it is lacking or missing. Of course the statement itself alludes to the fact the individual making the declaration must be all knowledgeable regarding every facet of the art in existence. This attitude is pretty arrogant. I've been in the arts almost 47 years and haven't even come close.

Ed Parker was working on learning things up until the day he passed on as a perpetual student. He had already "covered the bases and took care of the holes," but was always moving to higher levels in every aspect of what HE DID, but not always what HE TAUGHT to most. The proof is in people like myself, Mr. Landsdale, and others that exist.

However, if one is unwilling to declare themselves "all knowing," then perhaps the "holes" they speak of is within their and/or their instructors experiences and not the art itself. So can we please stop this debate relative to the art, and instead speak of what YOU know or don't know. But of course that would mean you would have to say things like, "MY kenpo or MY instructors Kenpo doesn't always work and address certain things I see in other arts" Stop blaming the art and instead start looking in the mirror or give your teacher a hard look. Of course that would mean the belt he gave you might not be worth a much as you would like. Maybe belts are not what we should be looking at. But most of all, stop passing what you see as deficiencies in what YOU know and do, to others. EPAK as I see it is just fine. If you see it differently than that is YOUR experience, and frankly, YOUR problem. This is a case of "Misery loves company." ... and clearly a lot of people are misrable.

I've had many an argument with those who would discount MY experieces in Kenpo because of what THEY don't know. Now they have a right to question WHY they don't have certain information, but not WHY I Do. And just maybe they need to add Mr. Landsdale to their list of people who don't do things the way THEY do.

Mr. Lansdale sounds like my kinda guy. From the sixties uh? You mean before "conceptual" or "commercial" or the dreaded "motion" Kenpo existed? And you mean he does Kenpo but differently with different principles? Well I'm shocked! Shocked, do here me, just shocked to find gambling in this casino. What was that tune again?

This is not directed at anyone in particular. But people need to face reality. Things have changed in the last 13 years since Mr. Parker's death. Mr. Parker died before the real popularity of BJJ and UFC. There are many more times the people studying ground fighting today than there were 13 years ago. Then think of the hundreds of thousands of kids taught how to wrestle in our own schools every year. Those kids know how to take you down, and quick. They will either lock you up if you get close or they will fake high and shoot for your ankles. And, believe me, they are very good at it. Yet, EPAK has not one single groundfighting technique where the attacker has taken you to the ground and is on top of you. I can't believe for one instant that Mr. Parker would have left things the way they are with the extreme popularity of BJJ and UFC and the number of people training in this methodology.

Neither Charging Ram nor any of the other Rams is going to teach you how to defend against someone shooting for your legs. I was a wrestler (mediocre at best) in high school and I laugh at those who think they will be able to stop even someone like me from shooting at their leg and taking them down with a "ram" technique, and there are a lot of people much better at it than me.

Do I think this merits abandoning Kenpo and running out and joining the BJJ crowd? Heck no. But it does require some innovation to defend against this type of attack. I really think groundfighting is the worst thing you can do in the street because of environmental concerns; I don't train people to do it. But, there are HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people who don't agree with me and are being trained to do just that -- fake high and shoot for the ankles. So do you sit idly by and hope Charging Ram will keep you off the ground? If you do, you will get the surprise of your life if it ever happens to you.

I am sure I will get keyboard kenpoists theorizing that "well, we have all the principles to deal with someone shooting at your ankles so I will be able to deal spontaneously with this situation after my extensive training in X number of techniques for other attacks" but that is a pipe dream. You can practice Intercepting the Ram until the sheep come home, but you won't be able to stop a mediocre wrestler or a BJJ practitioner from taking you down UNLESS you have actually practiced doing it, not just theorizing about it at the computer screen. And the fact of the matter is you won't practice it unless you have a technique that teaches you how to do it.

I am NOT advocating running out and training in BJJ or some other art (though it doesn't hurt and I am not advocating against it) but I do believe it is naive, to say the least, to think you can defend yourself against a person trained to take you down unless you have taken the time to really work it. And the "Ram" techniques will not get you there. The "ram" techniques really only address a tackle and those are very limited. Well, someone shooting for your ankle is very different from someone doing the old football tackle.

This is important -- the best thing you can learn in this regard is not how to fight on the ground, but how to keep from being taken down in the first place. It requires real skill to prevent a take down because there are people that can do it in the blink of an eye.

In the AKKI, we have tried to address this phenomenon, because it is just that -- a phenomenon. There are thousands and thousands of people being trained to fake a side kick or jab and then shoot for your legs, and they can do it before you even think Charging Ram. In the AKKI, we have a series of techniques that first teach you to avoid the take down, then they teach you how to hopefully extricate yourself from the ground fighting arena and get you back on your feet if you are taken down. These techniques use Kenpo principles, but translated into the ground fighting realm. Does it cover every ground fighting possibility? No, but it at least gives you a framework or platform in which you can now use your Kenpo based skills. I would much rather train to address this real threat than to defend against the oh-so-scary handshake attack.

If I was a woman, I would be a lot less concerned about someone punching me or kicking me than someone trying to force me to the ground.

Again, if you train on how not to be taken down, the need to learn how to fight on the ground diminishes greatly (though you should also know something of fighting on the ground in case it does happen). But you actually have to train it. Anyway, that is the approach we have taken in the AKKI by developiig some basic techniques that address ground fighting.

Derek

The techniques are merely studies of motion. You can take ten and study them until the cows come home and still become a good fighter. As long as you use "metaphors" such as the equation formula, you can very the attacks and responses for the rest of you life and still come up with answers to new problems. You can add ten and be that much better off; however, you can no longer devote the time and energy you spent on the original ten. Add twenty more or one-hundred-twenty more and that is that much less of a study you have to do.
We've added a technique to the list called "Escape from the Bear"
It is simply an escape from the mount but in using that old equation formula we must learn a lot about what can happen in this positon, both on top and on bottom. Each little nuance and arm bar could recieve its own name but for now we are content using "escape from the bear "as a catagory rather than an individual idea. Did Kenpo already have these ideas locked away somewhere? Probably, but not in that context.
Sean

Derek: Thank you for your eloquent post.

I've been trying to make this point here for about six months now. I think Kenpo principles are wonderful. I wish I understood them better.

I agree with you: If you don't know specific techniques to defend against takedowns and escape from the ground, you are going to find it dificcult to adapt Kenpo principles on the fly.

The analogy that comes to mind is this: Kenpo people are like English Professors. English professors may know grammar better than anyone else. They may be well read and know literature and know writing techniques. They may have the best vocabularies. But, if that English professor has never studied Greek, then he won't be able to communicate when he finds himself stuck in Greece.

Trying to state this whole problem by labeling it as "holes" or "weaknesses" isn't necessarily the best approach. Perhaps it is more like Kenpo is one language with a grammar and literature as rich or richer than any. But grappling and ground fighting are other languages. Grammar may be very similar (or it may not be), some of the words may even be the same. But being fluent in one language doesn't automatically make you fluent in another.

Originally posted by Old Fat Kenpoka
But grappling and ground fighting are other languages. Grammar may be very similar (or it may not be), some of the words may even be the same. But being fluent in one language doesn't automatically make you fluent in another. [/B]
Street Grappling and groundfighting are the same language, just a different dialect that I teach. Although this "dialect" shouldn't be neglected, bi-pedal creatures should place an emphasis on the common language first before adding esoteric dialects of unusual weapons and obscure circumstances. Despite the sales job by some, the "groundfighting," knife weilding, round off flip flop dialects are not as prominent in real life as some would have you think. That being said, I place the proper amount of emphasis on them within realistic context with no problems or complaints yet. Considering what I have done for a living for over a quarter of a century, my sense of reality is rather pronounced and intact.

That being said, I agree that most don't even speak the common language well enough to effectively communicate, let alone the dialects.

I would like to thank OFK and Mr. Ence for their posts. Mr. Ence has a deeper understanding of kenpo than I will ever have, and what's better is that he can execute everything that he talks about. Unlike many armchair martial artists.

I know that this is an argument that will never end, but I take heart in the fact that there are individuals who try to better themselves and their students and because of this they help enrich the art itself.

I still think it would be good to list the EPAK techniques that people are using on the ground. I wonder, what technique would you teach to a girl who finds herself on her back in a guard type position (i.e. a rape type scenario)? I don't see this addressed anywhere in the system. How long has rape been a problem? This same technique could be used by a guy who was tackled, or for whatever reason finds himself on his back in the guard.

I don't think we need to cover every single scenario, but look at how much time we spend learning defenses against right punchs. Surely we can make a little time to look at a handful of different scenarios on the ground.

this IS AK 's matter and i should NOT jump in BUT i would like to comment a few things if you don't mind

2 types of people here

1-"HOLE" people and "UNHOLE" people.

i would hope "UNHOLE" people give "HOLE" people an opportunity to EXPLAIN why they think there are "holes" in AK in more DETAILS if you haven't done that.

if you do that, it's very nice for you.

"HOLE" people should be more SPECIFIC when discussing why there are "holes" in AK

i think this is what "HOLE" people should do. YOu should bring out a technique to address this "ground and grappling" issue

For exame: "HOLE" people say "technique 1" doesn't work in "ground and grappling" situation because of this and that reasons.

and after that, "UNHOLE" people say No and why this "technique 1" should work.

if we do that, we will understand better and perhaps , learning more about AK


if all "HOLE" people say is AK doesn't work, it is very GENERAL and is not specific. Of course, we will get NOWHERE

if nobody understands what i try to say here, it is OK. Maybe, somebody here will say better than me.

thanks

Originally posted by Kenpo Yahoo
I think a lot of the combination techniques should be changed. I've never liked the idea of doing a crossover step, or twist stance while addressing an opponents attack. I feel that these stances despite their transitory nature weaken your base significantly. I would rather sacrifice any power (percieved or not) that I could generate from this stance and work from one with a wider base, mainly a neutral bow, which might allow me to make up the lost power by allowing for more hip rotation when I strike. I also don't think that many of the defenses are very realistic or leave you enough margin for error. In otherwords, can the same technique be used if both punchs are straight or if both are roundhouse haymakers?

The statement you are making here forces me to ask you how you are doing your crossovers and twist stances because a lot of power can be generated by either with out sacrificing stability. The neutral bow is the only stance in which you are in a state of balance. You should be striking while moving into the neutral bow or moving out of the neutral bow. When you are not in the neutral bow you are transitioning, which means you are employing one of the three power principles. To not use one of the stances or foot maneuvers would severely impair your ability to engage all of your potential power. In the UKF we believe that all of the stances are as important as the neutral bow. However, you have to execute them properly just like anything else or you will take yourself out of anatomical alignment. I have to assume, based on your statement, that you are not doing this stance or foot maneuver correctly. I would welcome a description of how you do these.

Respectfully,
salute,
Mike Miller UKF

Originally posted by kenpo2dabone
[B]... The neutral bow is the only stance in which you are in a state of balance.

I disagree and find significant balance in all stances. Yes even the cat stance.


To not use one of the stances or foot maneuvers would severely impair your ability to engage all of your potential power. In the UKF we believe that all of the stances are as important as the neutral bow. However, you have to execute them properly just like anything else or you will take yourself out of anatomical alignment.


I totally agree with that statement.

Somewhere along the line the suggestion I made about a person personalizing THEIR experiences in Kenpo, and to not extrapolate it to all of Kenpo has been ignored. Stop talking about what Kenpo does or does not have, and begin talking about what YOU do or do not know. This is not directed at anyone in particular, but think about it. How can anyone tell me what's missing in my Kenpo? I don't tell people what they don't have. I listen well, ask pertinent questions, and draw reasonable conclusions based on what they have to say. I know for sure, if someone isn't a current student of mine, they have no clue to what I do, how I do it, and what is covered. I bet the same holds true for most teachers who have been around for more than a minute.

Standing in a school with a gi and black belt on doesn't make you anymore a teacher, than standing in a garage wearing coveralls makes you a mechanic.:rofl:

Originally posted by kenpo2dabone
I would welcome a description of how you do these.



that is what I MEANT. We are getting somewhere ;) Simply sit back and wait for other to *PROVIDE* more details;)

Originally posted by Kenpo Yahoo

[quote]I still think it would be good to list the EPAK techniques that people are using on the ground. I wonder, what technique would you teach to a girl who finds herself on her back in a guard type position (i.e. a rape type scenario)? I don't see this addressed anywhere in the system. How long has rape been a problem? This same technique could be used by a guy who was tackled, or for whatever reason finds himself on his back in the guard.

It amazes me as to all the posts with people saying that this is already there or that is already there and doesnt need to be addressed, but I have yet to see an example to some of these techs. applied on the ground. I, as well as a few others, would like an explaination as to how some people are using these techs. to defend themselves on the ground. There are many saying that its there, but when it comes time to explain it, I see no answers.

Mike

Originally posted by dcence
This is not directed at anyone in particular. But people need to face reality. Things have changed in the last 13 years since Mr. Parker's death. Mr. Parker died before the real popularity of BJJ and UFC. There are many more times the people studying ground fighting today than there were 13 years ago. Then think of the hundreds of thousands of kids taught how to wrestle in our own schools every year. Those kids know how to take you down, and quick. They will either lock you up if you get close or they will fake high and shoot for your ankles. And, believe me, they are very good at it. Yet, EPAK has not one single groundfighting technique where the attacker has taken you to the ground and is on top of you. I can't believe for one instant that Mr. Parker would have left things the way they are with the extreme popularity of BJJ and UFC and the number of people training in this methodology.

Neither Charging Ram nor any of the other Rams is going to teach you how to defend against someone shooting for your legs. I was a wrestler (mediocre at best) in high school and I laugh at those who think they will be able to stop even someone like me from shooting at their leg and taking them down with a "ram" technique, and there are a lot of people much better at it than me.

Do I think this merits abandoning Kenpo and running out and joining the BJJ crowd? Heck no. But it does require some innovation to defend against this type of attack. I really think groundfighting is the worst thing you can do in the street because of environmental concerns; I don't train people to do it. But, there are HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people who don't agree with me and are being trained to do just that -- fake high and shoot for the ankles. So do you sit idly by and hope Charging Ram will keep you off the ground? If you do, you will get the surprise of your life if it ever happens to you.

I am sure I will get keyboard kenpoists theorizing that "well, we have all the principles to deal with someone shooting at your ankles so I will be able to deal spontaneously with this situation after my extensive training in X number of techniques for other attacks" but that is a pipe dream. You can practice Intercepting the Ram until the sheep come home, but you won't be able to stop a mediocre wrestler or a BJJ practitioner from taking you down UNLESS you have actually practiced doing it, not just theorizing about it at the computer screen. And the fact of the matter is you won't practice it unless you have a technique that teaches you how to do it.

I am NOT advocating running out and training in BJJ or some other art (though it doesn't hurt and I am not advocating against it) but I do believe it is naive, to say the least, to think you can defend yourself against a person trained to take you down unless you have taken the time to really work it. And the "Ram" techniques will not get you there. The "ram" techniques really only address a tackle and those are very limited. Well, someone shooting for your ankle is very different from someone doing the old football tackle.

This is important -- the best thing you can learn in this regard is not how to fight on the ground, but how to keep from being taken down in the first place. It requires real skill to prevent a take down because there are people that can do it in the blink of an eye.

In the AKKI, we have tried to address this phenomenon, because it is just that -- a phenomenon. There are thousands and thousands of people being trained to fake a side kick or jab and then shoot for your legs, and they can do it before you even think Charging Ram. In the AKKI, we have a series of techniques that first teach you to avoid the take down, then they teach you how to hopefully extricate yourself from the ground fighting arena and get you back on your feet if you are taken down. These techniques use Kenpo principles, but translated into the ground fighting realm. Does it cover every ground fighting possibility? No, but it at least gives you a framework or platform in which you can now use your Kenpo based skills. I would much rather train to address this real threat than to defend against the oh-so-scary handshake attack.

If I was a woman, I would be a lot less concerned about someone punching me or kicking me than someone trying to force me to the ground.

Again, if you train on how not to be taken down, the need to learn how to fight on the ground diminishes greatly (though you should also know something of fighting on the ground in case it does happen). But you actually have to train it. Anyway, that is the approach we have taken in the AKKI by developiig some basic techniques that address ground fighting.

Derek

Excellent post!!!!!:asian:

Mike

So your advice would be to throw out all the "Ram," techniques altogether? Hm. Interesting, especially since I was chewed out--back about 1996--for not understanding that Charging Ram was essentially to be used when the attacker abruptly went from having his guard up, to dropping low and attempting to take you down, as a wrestler would.

By the way, the first time this issue of grappling came up, I described the use of several techs on the ground. I was told that a) I didn't do that, b) it wouldn't work (though not why), c) yeah, but then if you do that, he can just...

I think Mr. Chap'el put matters very well.

And before ya blast away, remember: I am not by any means claiming to be an accomplished grappler. Or knife fighter. Or stick maven. Or Underwater Jedi. Or Master of the Whirling Pterodactyls...

I think you failed to understand, or grasp what Dcence was saying.

Reading and grasp working fine, thanks. Kenpo needs to establish a base in grappling from which to take advantage of "ordinary," kenpo. Necessary because so many are out there studying take-downs. They have this in the AKKI. Nearly everybody else just theorizes rather than doing. This is the new reality. Techs like "Charg. Ram," are out of touch with the new reality.

Suggestion: rather than suggesting that others can't handle ideas, how 'bout just advancing your own explanation?

I disagree and find significant balance in all stances. Yes even the cat stance.

By not being in a state of balance he means being in a state of engagement. In the UKF we use the term balance as the opposite of engagement. Don't take it as being wobbly and falling over. :asian:


Tom Chase
UKF

Originally posted by Sworn_Enemy
By not being in a state of balance he means being in a state of engagement. In the UKF we use the term balance as the opposite of engagement. Don't take it as being wobbly and falling over. :asian:


Tom Chase
UKF
Thank you very much for the explanation. I learn something new everyday.

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Interesting, especially since I was chewed out--back about 1996--for not understanding that Charging Ram was essentially to be used when the attacker abruptly went from having his guard up, to dropping low and attempting to take you down, as a wrestler would.


Funny that is how I was taught as well. In fact Parker went so far as to have me explode out of a three-point stance like a defensive down lineman in football. He said if you can handle that, the rest is easy. And he did handle it.


Master of the Whirling Pterodactyls...

I wish you hand't brought that up. Now someone will claim it.

Originally posted by Doc
Funny that is how I was taught as well. In fact Parker went so far as to have me explode out of a three-point stance like a defensive down lineman in football. He said if you can handle that, the rest is easy. And he did handle it.



I wish you hand't brought that up. Now someone will claim it. I too am a master of the whirling pterodactyls.

I see some are looking for specific EPAK techniques used on the ground. I don't know about others but, Parker has always had techniques specifically created for the ground that are not a re-working of other techniques in my study. Just as we have continued and created techniques for other areas not addressed in the commercial curriculum, like slashing blades, automatic handguns held "street style," rear arm-bar chokes, blades to the throat while pinned, shotguns and rifles front and rear, etc.

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
[quote]By the way, the first time this issue of grappling came up, I described the use of several techs on the ground. I was told that a) I didn't do that, b) it wouldn't work (though not why), c) yeah, but then if you do that, he can just...

For the sake of the discussion, could you list a tech or two? Maybe if a few techs. were listed, then we could look at them to see what counters, if any, are available from the ground.

Thanks,

Mike

Originally posted by Doc
I disagree and find significant balance in all stances. Yes even the cat stance.



I totally agree with that statement.

Somewhere along the line the suggestion I made about a person personalizing THEIR experiences in Kenpo, and to not extrapolate it to all of Kenpo has been ignored. Stop talking about what Kenpo does or does not have, and begin talking about what YOU do or do not know. This is not directed at anyone in particular, but think about it. How can anyone tell me what's missing in my Kenpo? I don't tell people what they don't have. I listen well, ask pertinent questions, and draw reasonable conclusions based on what they have to say. I know for sure, if someone isn't a current student of mine, they have no clue to what I do, how I do it, and what is covered. I bet the same holds true for most teachers who have been around for more than a minute.

Standing in a school with a gi and black belt on doesn't make you anymore a teacher, than standing in a garage wearing coveralls makes you a mechanic.:rofl:

Good point Doc. Unfortuantely, not everybody can train with the top guys or move to the location where they are, so in that case, you're left with whatever it may be that you have. Granted, everybody trains differently, but when you have more than 1 person saying that it lacks ground work, that IMO, says something!

Mike

The neutral bow is the only stance in which you are in a state of balance. You should be striking while moving into the neutral bow or moving out of the neutral bow. When you are not in the neutral bow you are transitioning, which means you are employing one of the three power principles.


I don't think it's the only stance in which you are in a state of balance. You could move from a cat or natural position. These two positions having more to do with your weight distribution and foot location as opposed to whether your heel is up or not, but this is splitting hairs.


In the UKF we believe that all of the stances are as important as the neutral bow. However, you have to execute them properly just like anything else or you will take yourself out of anatomical alignment. I have to assume, based on your statement, that you are not doing this stance or foot maneuver correctly.


I will concede to this, odds are that I may not be doing this right.
I never claimed to be a kenpo master, but I don't think "mastership" is a requisite of common-sense.

When your feet are crossed in a twist stance or crossover, despite how balanced you feel, it is possible for your opponent to lunge forward and knock you over. While some may argue that this is possible regardless of the stance, I say, "why should we help the situation by binding our legs and limiting our mobility.
That's right, while you are generating power through your stance you are also binding your legs with each other. You are now committed to forward movement, twisting out, or if you want you can move backwards against all that force that you just created. Please tell me if I'm wrong. I don't claim to know everything about kenpo, I just have several little things that I've been working on for a while that kinda bug me. This crossover thing is one of them.

Let me ask you this, would you ever do a crossover stance during one of the ram techniques? Why or why not? I sure as heck wouldn't, I don't have enough mass to play that game, especially when the guys I'm working out with are all 6' - 6'5" and 200-260 lbs.

if any of you here WANTS to learn a REAL kenpo technique, head to 'kenpo general" IMMEDIATELY.

"biting technique" in "new kenpo basic" thread.

you are talking about a technique which will work every time and every place ;)

i guess Mike Tyson is on the ring again :D

Edit: Why do we need to argue whether AK techniques don't work in particular situation HERE when we simply follow below link to learn more about Kenpo "basic" from another Kenpo fella?

:D:D

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11337


:confused:

CoolKempoDude wrote that there are two types of people here: "hole" and "unhole". I think many would put me in a 3rd category: "ahole". ;)

Again:

1) twist stances take you off-line in a different fashion from a step-off;
2) twist stances are useful against an opponent on the ground;
3) twist stances can close off lines of entry in techniques such as Ram and the Eagle.

So...what happens to crossing out, if there're no twist stances?

Originally posted by Doc
I see some are looking for specific EPAK techniques used on the ground. I don't know about others but, Parker has always had techniques specifically created for the ground that are not a re-working of other techniques in my study. Just as we have continued and created techniques for other areas not addressed in the commercial curriculum, like slashing blades, automatic handguns held "street style," rear arm-bar chokes, blades to the throat while pinned, shotguns and rifles front and rear, etc.

you mean we don't spend as much time to *develop* or *focus on* ground technique as we do in other areas in AK?????

Also, what do you mean "not a re-working of other techniques"?

Originally posted by Old Fat Kenpoka
CoolKempoDude wrote that there are two types of people here: "hole" and "unhole". I think many would put me in a 3rd category: "ahole". ;)

:rofl: You're not an "ahole" OFK. I'm sure people have put me in that category also.

Mike

Fellow Kenpoist:

When we discuss "holes" in Kenpo, and specifically in the so called "ground game", I get a little weirded out. I could easily answer charge for charge and word for word what techniques I use or teach on the ground. For example a version of Delayed Sword where the left hand creates a hook in the right arm, the inward handsword is an eye thrust or pressure point above the mandibular, the kick (after the left leg hooks their right, creating and anchor) is a "bump" to roll them so I am in the mount.

** Note: This is a self-defense application against a rapist (in my IDEAL phase), after all, we have to start somewhere.

What I see most of you referring to as "holes" is "how does a Kenpo stand up fighter, survive or beat a BJJ or Shoot Fighter?"

It is a very limited argument based upon the mistaken fact that someone once said "90% of all fights go to the ground." That is a faulty premise to start with, unless you are a law enforcement officer tasked with "restraining" and "arresting" perpetrators. Another exception is if you work in Mental Health and do a lot of restraints (as I did in another lifetime).

My adult and adolescent experience whether working security at concerts or being a bouncer at a bar, outside the context of law enforcement or the hospital, I have had 0% confrontations go to the ground. I just don't usually have the time to argue point for point the way some of you WANT TO, as if somehow this willingness to argue make YOU right.

Why don't you try some of the techniques outside of the context of "playing a ground game" with someone else who has that skill set, put yourself in the place of a woman waking up in the middle of the night with a knife at the front of your throat, or the blade at the side of your neck. What does work for you? My techniques stand me in good stead here, with appropriate modifications given orientation and weapons. Rather than dismiss, try them, see if you can make something work rather than be disparaging about other's mentality toward the ground.

Self-Defense is different from fighting per se, whether on the ground or on your feet. It is different from grappling, although grappling COULD well be a component.

Just my 3 cents worth (inflation you know?)
-Michael

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
[B]Again:

[quote]1) twist stances take you off-line in a different fashion from a step-off;

True
2) twist stances are useful against an opponent on the ground;

Can you explain further? Is the opp. on the ground and you standing, or both on the ground?

Mike

I dont think that those of us that are advocates of the ground are saying that you should take the fight to the ground. We are instead, saying that in the event that you should find yourself there- IE: tripped, thrown, etc. that you should know what to do. Do 90% of all fights go to the ground? Probably not. Do 0% of them go to the ground? Probably not. There is a time and place for everything, so just because one person has not encountered this, does NOT mean that someone else will have the same outcome. If 2 people are pushing, shoving, grabbing, etc. while standing (standing grappling) whats to say that it wont go down? Predicting the outcome of a situation is impossible. Yes, in the perfect world, we can say, "Well, if I was attacked like this I'd do that, and if I was attacked like that I'd do this!" Like it was said before, that is a pipe dream!

IMO, the idea of the ground, is to get back to your feet as soon as possible. Unless you're entering a MMA fight, who wants to roll for 20min?

Mike

Originally posted by Old Fat Kenpoka
CoolKempoDude wrote that there are two types of people here: "hole" and "unhole". I think many would put me in a 3rd category: "ahole". ;)

do not think that way, my friend.

some AK people are mad at hell because you say there are "holes" in AK. It also means what they learned is NO good.

BUT everybody entitles for their own opinion whether other like it or not.

try to be SPECIFIC and more details about 1 particular AK technique which doesn't work in "ground" and i'm sure other will show you their side of story.

in the end, you are in "unhole" category or *these* people are in "hole" category

you are in "hole" catory for NOW;)

Thanks CoolKempoDude. I will always be in the "hole" category because I think EVERY system must have holes. Systems were created by people and nobody's perfect.

So your advice would be to throw out all the "Ram," techniques altogether? Hm. Interesting, especially since I was chewed out--back about 1996--for not understanding that Charging Ram was essentially to be used when the attacker abruptly went from having his guard up, to dropping low and attempting to take you down, as a wrestler would.

I believe whoever chewed you out should apologize to you, because he or she doesn't understand how a grappler attacks.

Robert, don't read into my post what is not there. I never said throw out the Ram techniques. We in the AKKI teach Ram techniques, but Doc's post illustrates my point. Ram techniques are for tackles, like football players might execute, not for the people who shoot for the legs. Look at Broken Ram and Intercepting Ram. Where is the attacker's height? -- at your legs? No, at your torso. All of the Ram technqiues deal with a tackle to the mid-section, not a single or double leg takedown, which is as basic and natural to grapplers as a punch is to us.

Just think about Charging Ram. The whole premise is moving off the line by moving your rear foot up the circle. Well, you know what? As a wrestler I am shooting for that lead leg, which just sits there like a drumstick on Thanksgiving Day.

Keep the Ram techniques; practice them. But don't think that knowledge will directly translate to a guy who shoots low and then comes up underneath your defense, like a wrestler or BJJ practitioner would.

I am not saying there are holes. I believe wholeheartedly Kenpo has the answers, but only if you actually take your knowledge and practice it in different contexts, in this case of a grappler -- not the football player.

We can either recognize a weakness (which to me is just an opportunity to learn) and make it a strength by addressing it or ignore it and be defeated by it.

Derek

Runners apply principles of breathing, balance, conditioning, body positioning, pace and timing, etc. Swimmers use the same principles. However, the actual techniques used in swimming are not the same as in running. And, a runner who has never taken a swimming lesson is going to have a pretty hard time applying those principles in the pool.

As Mike reiterated and I previously posted, its not neccessarily that you take an opponent to the ground. The point is you may very well find yourself on the ground, again, trip, slip, taken down, an act of God, whatever, it happens and if you prepare for it, it won't freak you out. You will repond properly. I believe in the Military special ops planning they have a term called 'friction'. You make your ideal plan and then list everything that can go wrong or off track and make a plan for that. Sometimes, though, you may want to take an assailant down with you as a single or double leg takedown. This strategy can totally disorientate a good aggressive fighter who wasn't prepared to be taken off his feet like that. To be taken to the ground like this not only can demoralize a good fighter but can stun or knock him out also. I think what we need in discussions like this are those that have more real world street experience. In the martial arts in general, there is too much fighting in theory and that's, imho, not how it works. When we hear comments like, 'I don't go to the ground, so I don't train that way', a flag should go up that tells us the author of such comments has very little if any at all street experience and certainly no reality training. I don't mean to offend anyone but don't you have to agree on that?

Courtesy or our old friend Clyde T. O'Briant, this topic is now active on the KenpoNet complete with a quote from dcence!

Originally posted by Old Fat Kenpoka
Courtesy or our old friend Clyde T. O'Briant, this topic is now active on the KenpoNet complete with a quote from dcence!

post link here pls. Easy access.

we can compare the *result* from 2 different places. Awesome;)

Courtesy or our old friend Clyde T. O'Briant, this topic is now active on the KenpoNet complete with a quote from dcence!

Well, I will have to check it out. Nice to know Clyde is still around.

Originally posted by Doc
I see some are looking for specific EPAK techniques used on the ground. I don't know about others but, Parker has always had techniques specifically created for the ground that are not a re-working of other techniques in my study. Just as we have continued and created techniques for other areas not addressed in the commercial curriculum, like slashing blades, automatic handguns held "street style," rear arm-bar chokes, blades to the throat while pinned, shotguns and rifles front and rear, etc.

So if these are not in the commerical curriculum, when or at what level would these techniques be taught?

- Ceicei

I'm curious. Do any of you guys ever go nag judo, jiu-jitu, etc., with all the holes in their techniques, in their system?

Nor do I understand why you'd keep the Ram techniques, given their uselessness. But I'm pretty sure the folks who got on my case about doing them knew what they were talking about.

One last point: the moves do not have to be in the techniques, in the sense of being articulated in the defender's moves, to be, "in the system." Look at the attacks.

At yellow:
Del. Sword teaches dummies a right hand grab
Capt. Twigs teaches a rear bear hug
Grasp of Death teaches a right head-lock
Mace of Aggression teaches a front two-hand grab
...and I'm sure others can extend this list at least as well as I can.

Or look at the grappling/takedowns built into the techniques. Isn't there a takedown in Dance of Death? A response to being bent over forwards by an opponent who's trying the ol' suplex in Locking Horns? And on and on and on? Up through, say, Falling Falcon, the extensions to Evading the Storm, Circling Wing, Crashing Wings, Locked Wing, and on and on and on? Hell, half the extensions must deal with a grounded opponent...

Yes, for the 95th time. I personally could spend more time doing this stuff, as I've been writing for the past six months. Among other things, y'all are quite right to point out that there's an important question of one's comfort zone--if never on back, never learn to be relaxed down there.

Oh well.

Don't have to nag BJJers about deficiencies in their system...they readily admit them and many cross-train in boxing, kick-boxing, wrestling, and Judo.

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
[quote]I'm curious. Do any of you guys ever go nag judo, jiu-jitu, etc., with all the holes in their techniques, in their system?

Like OFK said, many of them are already doing it.
.

Or look at the grappling/takedowns built into the techniques. Isn't there a takedown in Dance of Death? A response to being bent over forwards by an opponent who's trying the ol' suplex in Locking Horns? And on and on and on? Up through, say, Falling Falcon, the extensions to Evading the Storm, Circling Wing, Crashing Wings, Locked Wing, and on and on and on? Hell, half the extensions must deal with a grounded opponent...

Yes, there is a take down in DofD. That is not the issue. The front headlock in Locking Horns is your standing grappling, which I believe we have all agreed is in there. We are addressing you being down with the person. In DofD, you're not on the ground with him, instead, you're doing your tech. and extension upright.

Mike

Originally posted by Kenpo Yahoo
I don't think it's the only stance in which you are in a state of balance. You could move from a cat or natural position. These two positions having more to do with your weight distribution and foot location as opposed to whether your heel is up or not, but this is splitting hairs. I will concede to this, odds are that I may not be doing this right. I never claimed to be a kenpo master, but I don't think "mastership" is a requisite of common-sense. When your feet are crossed in a twist stance or crossover, despite how balanced you feel, it is possible for your opponent to lunge forward and knock you over. While some may argue that this is possible regardless of the stance, I say, "why should we help the situation by binding our legs and limiting our mobility.


First, let me say thank you for not taking offense to my post. I think allot of people would have. It says allot for your character.

Second, What I mean by the neutral bow being the only stance in which you are in a state of balance is that it is not a transitional stance, though it can be. It is a stance that we transition in and out of. In sense it is the begining and ending of all of our transitions. All of the other stances only have balance if you stop in them. When performing a technique we transition through them with out stopping. If you do not stop, you are not in balance. You are engaged. If you are engaged you are employing one of the three power principles. You can not be in a state of balance and employ the power principles. I know allot of people view balance as, if you are not falling down then you are in balance. This is not necessarily true. When we walk we are really doing several controlled falls in a row while keeping our mass moving forward. We are not in a state of balance when we are walking but we are not falling down either.

Third, you should not be crossed up at all on either the crossover or the twist stance. The twist stance has about the same depth as the neutral bow. A common mistake that I see is that people tend to pull their front foot back and slide their front heel over their centerline. They end up with their back knee pressed against the back of their front knee. Basically they are walking a tight rope. So, of coarse there is no stability in the stance. When done properly, their should be a good ten to twelve inches between your knees. A way to practice this is to stand in a good neutral bow with toe-heel alignment. This sets your width. To check your depth, simply drop your back knee to the ground. It should touch the ground at about the same line as your front heel. Now stand back up and rotate on the ball of your front foot. Your foot should go from your toes pointing to 1:30 to pointing to 10:30. Allow your back heel to come off the ground and your knee to point directly forward. Basically you are reversing your toe-heel alignment. You are going from front toe back heel to front heel back toe alignment. To check if you maintained the proper depth and width of the twist stance simply drop your back knee to the ground again. Your knee should still be on the same line as your heel however your heel should be right next to your knee now. My neutral bow is about 22 inches wide and my twist is about 15 inches wide. My neutral bow is about 31 inches deep while my twist is actually about 32 inches deep. I am about six feet tall. Not that these would be the same demensions for everybody my size but I would expect them to be somewhat comparable. Everybody is built a little different.

That's right, while you are generating power through your stance you are also binding your legs with each other. You are now committed to forward movement, twisting out, or if you want you can move backwards against all that force that you just created. Please tell me if I'm wrong. I don't claim to know everything about kenpo, I just have several little things that I've been working on for a while that kinda bug me. This crossover thing is one of them.

I am going to have to say, respectfully, that I feel that you are wrong in this case. If done the way I described above the twist stance is not binding at all and it energizes your power rather than hinder hit. The crossover forward or backward for that matter utilizes the twist stance as well. From say a left neutral bow step forward with your right foot into a right twist stance (as I have described it above) then continue your stepthrough with your left foot into a left neutral bow again. Lots of inertial engagement or back-up mass can be generated from this foot meneuver.


Let me ask you this, would you ever do a crossover stance during one of the ram techniques? Why or why not? I sure as heck wouldn't, I don't have enough mass to play that game, especially when the guys I'm working out with are all 6' - 6'5" and 200-260 lbs. [/B]

Sure I would. If the situation warranted it. If for some reason my attacker ended up away from me and I wanted to close the distance between us then a cross over is a viable foot meneuver to do this. But that goes for any technique not just the ram techniques. I am 6 foot 250 pounder and I have been hit by guys that are practicaly half my size using these foot meneuvers and stances and believe me they had no problem moving my mass.

Salute,
Mike Miller UKF

Originally posted by Doc
I disagree and find significant balance in all stances. Yes even the cat stance.

Please read my post which responds to kenpo yahoo. I desribe what I meant in a little more detail. I am curious if you agree or not.

Salute,
Mike Miller UKF

Originally posted by Michael Billings
Fellow Kenpoist:

When we discuss "holes" in Kenpo, and specifically in the so called "ground game", I get a little weirded out. I could easily answer charge for charge and word for word what techniques I use or teach on the ground. For example a version of Delayed Sword where the left hand creates a hook in the right arm, the inward handsword is an eye thrust or pressure point above the mandibular, the kick (after the left leg hooks their right, creating and anchor) is a "bump" to roll them so I am in the mount.

-Michael
Oh, its all delayed sword, baby.:asian:

Nor do I understand why you'd keep the Ram techniques, given their uselessness. But I'm pretty sure the folks who got on my case about doing them knew what they were talking about.

If you are talking to me, I didn't see anyone say they were useless. I certainly didn't. They are useful for the attack against which they were designed - a tackle, but not a single or double leg takedown which is a different animal.

To all in general:

My posts are meant in the most constructive way. It is to help others see this from a grappler's point of view and LEARN from it. I am not about tearing down Kenpo, but building it up.

I am less about what to do on the ground than I am in learning how to stay off the ground, what NOT to do if I end up on the ground and how to get off it ASAP. Those are valuable skills. If you work those skills great, if not I believe you should. But anyone is free to disagree.

Dcence I completely see where you were coming from. I don't think you were tearing anything down. I enjoyed your insite. Where in Idaho are you?

Hey, I second Mr. Ence's post. While I'm probably a little more brash and not quite as well spoken I mainly just want to learn about what's out there. I don't exactly agree with a lot of what is being said just like most of you probably think I'm an idiot, but that's the way it goes.

Kenpo2dabone:
Thank you for your explanation. That is not how I was taught to do the crossovers or the twists. I will play with the stance again and see how it works.

Mr. Billings:
Thank you for taking the time to explain the technique. What you are describing sounds a lot like a scissor sweep, although I don't HOOK with my left leg. This is a good maneuver to teach your students, one which essentially needs to be done as fast as possible since the attacker just has to realize that you are trying to sweep him and widen their base a couple of inches. The scissor sweep is a good one to know, but is easy to counter. This is why I think a good curriculum would have at least three different manuevers that can be used interchangeably from a couple of key postitions. Notice I didn't say techniques. You could have 1 technique for the guard, 1 technique for the mount, 1 technique for the half guard, and 1 technique for the cross face and teach 3 variations of each based on your opponents reaction.

I wanted to point out that a couple of weeks ago I watched a Machado Blue Belt Teach a dozen or so kenpo guys how to do this the scissor sweep. Each of these guys has been doing delayed sword for at least five years and they all had problems executing this sweep at first. This alone leads me to believe that the sequence you suggest isn't one that would be easily extrapolated from delayed sword if one had never worked the sweep before.

This is why I think it would be good to list the EPAK techniques that people teach for ground situations. I'm willing to bet that most have never been taught the ground uses of these techniques.

Aimed at no one in particular, but I think there is a tendancy for many to confuse techniques used in a competition venue with "street attacks" and assaults.

On the street a person might be inclined to execute a tackling type attack. However I have had my share of encounters and witnessed and investigated many more all over the U.S. and even outside the country in some pretty dangerous neighborhoods and areas. I have NEVER seen, heard, or investigated anyone attempting to execute a "competition" technique in the street in thirty years..

My point is a simple one. As an example, "shooting for the legs" is a technique that is executed within a rule structure in a competition that limits the physical penalty for being unsuccessful. Worse case scenario, you lose the contest. Changing the venue to one that suggests that if you are unsuccessful you may die, or at the least sustain serious physical injury removes such assaults from most physical vocabularies.

Such grappling assaults are unrealistic on the streets of any "hood" in the world. The price you pay is just too severe if you are unsuccessful. Besides that is a specialized skill specifically for those who compete, not for "real" street fighters whose purpose is to intimidate, assault, jack, rape, kidnap, kill, or rob you. The F.B. I. nationwide statistics support this.

That doesn't mean I shouldn't consider such things in a self-defense curriculum, but assaults must be categorized in order of probability. In my own experience, as well as the experiences of all of my colleagues (that includes Mr. Parker), someone attacking you on the street by "shooting" at your ankles is not a likely scenario.

A bear hug is more likely than a tackle, which is more likely than an ankle shoot. Statistically, your most common empty hand physical assault is a right punch because most people are right handed. That doesn't mean we shouldn't consider initiated left punches or follow ups, but this obsession with the idea that everyone who assaults us is a supreme ninja shoot fighting grappling double knife wielding stick master is keeping many from examining why there basic techniques don't work. We're worried about "ankle tackles" when we can't stop that right cross, or more appropriately, the bear hug.

How many initiated back fists would you throw if you knew a person might gouge your eyes out if you missed? In competition you'll try anything because the worse that happens is you lose the contest. On the street is a different story. Your life is on the line and that changes your options significantly.

Some may dismiss what I have to say, but my "urban street creds" and experience are pretty solid. I have and still do take my life in hand everytime I hit the bricks. Much more than most who have different professions. I seek out those who would rather kill me than be subjected to incarcration, so I know "killers" and fighters. But to be honest, I don't know what happens in areas of the country where there isn't any asphault or concrete, but the F.B.I. stats seem to suggest there is no difference.

Fix the Kenpo you have, and worry about fighting "Wolverine" later, - or not.

Dr. Robertson is right.

Ceicei, 1st off, sorry for not answering sooner. I will try to be more timely in the future! :)

Originally posted by Ceicei
So, am I to understand that from white to black is just the bare minimum, ie. only 10% of the available knowledge?
- Ceicei

No, I never quoted any percentages. If I were it would be somewhat higher, but, I view our base system is like the alphabet which has 26 letters to form its base, out of those 26 letters comes millions of words, out of our Base system comes unlimited expansions. :)

Originally posted by Ceicei
How much more then is really there to learn beyond first black (what I'm asking here isn't on how many techniques, but rather on specific principles and concepts not taught to lower belts)?
- Ceicei

I don't know exactly what your curriculum consists of or how it was taught to you, so it makes it difficult to answer you with a cut and dry answer. I can tell you this, If you ask any upper rank individual they will tell you there is plenty to not only learn, but know better and understand thoroughly, even if you have been taught a good base!

Originally posted by Ceicei
It was my impression the white-black cover all the basic principles/concepts and then proceed on beyond to teach/create more techniques based on these concepts? Am I off base with that impression? :idunno:
- Ceicei

In most circumstances I agree, you learn "most" of the P/C/T but, there could be a few that slipped past for any number or reasons.

Originally posted by Ceicei
A friend kind of teasingly mentioned "the knowledge is reserved only for the secret society of the black belts". :wink1:
- Ceicei

Keep that mysticism alive!!! :rofl:

Originally posted by Ceicei
What motivation is there to continue training on beyond first black?
- Ceicei

Greater Knowledge and Understanding as well as Greater Physical and Teaching skills for starters. (this is also a large list)

Originally posted by Ceicei
What can we expect to pursue once obtaining first black? :confused:
- Ceicei

The Depth of the Art.

:asian:

Thanks for the response:

I am not sure about the scissor as the person was sitting on my legs pinning them and reaching with the hands going for my throat when I executed the Delayed Sword variation I described earlier. It was in the context of a Women's Self Defense seminar, and it worked against the 240 lb guy on top of me. I had to work techniques requiring minimal effort or training as the class was only 6 weeks long and had to include everything from hair grabs to slapping, punching, lots of bear hugs (thanks DOC, that is what I have seen also), and attacks in chairs, with weapons, ect.

We were already on the ground and it was the typical foot or leg "hook" BJJ guys use to get a leverage point, not a sweep or scissor, easier done that explained given different attacker's reactions. But it was still based on Delayed Sword and recognizable as such to my Brown Belts surveying and assisting in my teaching the course. FUN STUFF, but very scary for the women and somewhat uncomfortable for me to teach due to the strong sexual content and implied, if not explicit violence of blinding or trying to kill an attacker. OK, OK, so I admit I liked it. And I got to stretch outside the box a bit, but it was still all Kenpo to me.

-Michael

(edited to change name addressed to.)

Originally posted by Goldendragon7
Ceicei, 1st off, sorry for not answering sooner. I will try to be more timely in the future! :)

Thank you kindly for taking the time to reply. :asian:

No, I never quoted any percentages. If I were it would be somewhat higher, but, I view our base system is like the alphabet which has 26 letters to form its base, out of those 26 letters comes millions of words, out of our Base system comes unlimited expansions.

That percentage was my estimate according to how I had perceived it. I didn't mean to imply that you mentioned percentages. However, your analogy with the alphabet/words made it so much more clear. I understand better the overall picture.

I don't know exactly what your curriculum consists of or how it was taught to you, so it makes it difficult to answer you with a cut and dry answer.

Oh, I am aware that schools, even if some might happen be teaching with the same curriculum, would differ simply because of the background/experience/training of the instructors. Because of that, I was not expecting you to magically know how things would be with my school. Basically, I only sought a generic response that could apply to the majority of schools, such as you did below:

I can tell you this, If you ask any upper rank individual they will tell you there is plenty to not only learn, but know better and understand thoroughly, even if you have been taught a good base!

I guess that I had a temporary worry whether there would be anything more new to learn beyond first black. I rest assured there is plenty to continue on, as evidently shown from the intense discussions of various topics on this EPAK forum.

I get the impression there seem to be a concentration of BBs in this forum than in others. Perhaps there appear to be more kenpo people on MT.

In most circumstances I agree, you learn "most" of the P/C/T but, there could be a few that slipped past for any number or reasons.


Would that be intentional? I surely hope there is plenty more of P/C/Ts left to learn.

Keep that mysticism alive!!! :rofl:

Ah yes, I intend to be part of the "secret society of the black belts" some years down the road and carry on that mysticism! :rofl:

Greater Knowledge and Understanding as well as Greater Physical and Teaching skills for starters. (this is also a large list). The Depth of the Art.

Thank you for explaining more what goes on beyond first black. I will continue on, just as my motto says, martial arts is for life, not the color of the belt. :asian:

- Ceicei

Originally posted by kenpo2dabone

[quote]Sure I would. If the situation warranted it. If for some reason my attacker ended up away from me and I wanted to close the distance between us then a cross over is a viable foot meneuver to do this. But that goes for any technique not just the ram techniques. I am 6 foot 250 pounder and I have been hit by guys that are practicaly half my size using these foot meneuvers and stances and believe me they had no problem moving my mass.

Yes, that is one way to close the distance, but there are others besides the twist.

Mike

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Michael Billings
Thanks for the response:

I am not sure about the scissor as the person was sitting on my legs pinning them and reaching with the hands going for my throat when I executed the Delayed Sword variation I described earlier. [QUOTE]

So how would you do the kick which is part of that tech from the ground with someone sitting on the legs? Do you just toss that kick out or just modify it?

- Ceicei

Originally posted by Ceicei
Thank you kindly for taking the time to reply & explaining more what goes on beyond first black. :asian:
I will continue on, just as my motto says, martial arts is for life, not the color of the belt. :asian: - Ceicei


Anytime! Ask away if something is not clear! :)

Yes, keep on the road, but check your compass once in a while! ;)

:asian:

Ok, seeing that some think that they will never encounter certain kinds of attacks, let me ask this question. If a guy gets into a fight and he is a boxer, such as Mike Tyson, what do you think that he's going to resort to for his defense? Well, in addtition to biting:D he'll most likely punch. A TKD man will most likely kick. A Wing Chun man will probably be protecting his center line, while trying to take yours as well as trapping. A wrestler will most likely clinch.

Will you always be attacked by someone who is a MA? Probably not. Instead it will be your typical thug. Then again, you should be prepared to deal and be familiar with as many different situations as possible.

Taking their opp. out of his game should be the #1 goal. Example- I'm not the greatest puncher. Its something that I need to work on, something that I am working on, and also something that I'm not afraid to admit. I'm not going to stand and box someone, knowing that its a weakness of mine. Instead, I'm going to be trying to clinch, where I can work knees, elbows, etc. By doing this, it takes away from your opp. Same goes for a grappler. If someone wants to grapple, take them out of their game by trying to keep them on their feet.

The point of the story- dont think that just because it didnt happen to you in your "X" number of situations, that it won't happen to someone else!

Mike

Originally posted by MJS
Ok, seeing that some think that they will never encounter certain kinds of attacks, you should be prepared to deal and be familiar with as many different situations as possible. Just because it didnt happen to you in your "X" number of situations, dosen't mean that it won't happen to someone else! Mike


Absolutely! Which is why our curriculum has so many different facets to it.

As a beginner, we must first learn some coordination and general knowledge about fighting and movement. Along the way be exposed to several different examples or scenarios (since our personal experiences may be limited), then of course train so as to be prepared for the "possibility" of any number of such encounters and develop the ability to formulate for ANY given situation (This of course is a tall order and one in which we are debating about). Just how to do this and what do you need to do to do it. :)

In the end.... "Condition and Guts, take over where knowledge and skill end".

:asian:

"It's not whose right, but whose left".

Hey Doc, in all due respect I would have to say I did see someone shoot for the legs on the street and they did it successfully. I was pulling up to a scene outside a club on a weekend night and as I was approaching this guy was shooting kicks at this other guy-mid to high. As I exited my cruiser and was running up to the scene the other guy came straight in at his legs and took him down to the ground and got in one punch to the mouth, almost two (just missed him) before I could break it up. That was probably, almost 20 years ago, but it stuck in my head and although I haven't seen it since, I saw it once-it worked and once is good enough for me! Respectfully submitted, Shihan Joe Shuras

Originally posted by Karazenpo
Hey Doc, in all due respect I would have to say I did see someone shoot for the legs on the street and they did it successfully. I was pulling up to a scene outside a club on a weekend night and as I was approaching this guy was shooting kicks at this other guy-mid to high. As I exited my cruiser and was running up to the scene the other guy came straight in at his legs and took him down to the ground and got in one punch to the mouth, almost two (just missed him) before I could break it up. That was probably, almost 20 years ago, but it stuck in my head and although I haven't seen it since, I saw it once-it worked and once is good enough for me! Respectfully submitted, Shihan Joe Shuras
Hey Joe, of course you're right. But I never said ignor it, just put it in context.

Doc, Okay, I got it! Agreed, sir.

Mr. Billings
I am not sure about the scissor as the person was sitting on my legs pinning them and reaching with the hands going for my throat when I executed the Delayed Sword variation I described earlier.


Then you are talking about a "Bridge-ing" manuever, correct?
When I refered to the rape scenario, I was referring to having your opponent between your legs. Don't get me wrong it sounds like you are teaching something of value, it just wasn't what I had in mind when asking the question, but thanks for sharing anyway.

The mount is a difficult position to work in. If your opponent has you mounted, you are usually in a very bad situation and depending on how well you bridge and how they set their weight you may not be able to take them over. This is why it would be better to teach a strategy of three or four variations that work from a particular position as opposed to just teaching the one technique. Just having one technique in your arsenal is like getting in a gun fight with a musket. If you can get it to work then great but if you miss then your screwed. You should always have a good back up plan.

Hey Doc, I've seen two different guys on two different occasions do a single leg take down in a bar and they both went off with out a hitch, well at least not until security got involved .:boxing:

Aimed at no one in particular, but I think there is a tendancy for many to confuse techniques used in a competition venue with "street attacks" and assaults.

Hi Doc,

I have been involved in what I consider only a limited number of street altercations. But my wrestling buddy from another high school did just what you seem to think is not a big risk at a party where some guy ticked him off. He did a classic double leg takedown, climbed up the guys back as he tried to squirm away (which is a very natural thing to do especially for trained Kenpoists who find themselves on the ground after they are told not to worry it won't happen) and proceeded to give the guy a repeated concrete facial on the curb.

Considering my 'limited" experience, the law of averages makes this one event significant to me (and that was well before the BJJ craze where many are being taught to do these type of things).

So if anyone wants to say they have NEVER seen it happen and suggests we put this way down on the priority list, I won't argue; I'll just let them tell it to the guy who now knows exactly what the Las Vegas gutters taste like.

Derek

From just the limited posts above it looks like these things happen more often than some people think.

If you are prepared, you shall not fear.

Originally posted by MJS
Yes, that is one way to close the distance, but there are others besides the twist.

Absolutely, I never implied that it was. I was merely responding to what Kenpo Yahoo asked and he specifically asked about the twist and the crossover. I did not mention all of the others because they weren't asked about. I use all of the stances and all of the foot maneuvers as needed depending on how a situation unfolds. MY point was that none of them should be discarded as they all have an important place in Kenpo. I will add this. In my experience in Kenpo, if I can't make something work, 90 to 95% of the time, it is because I am doing it wrong, not because the technique or foot maneuver or stance the system in general is flawed. This is what I suggesting to Kenpo Yahoo and offered him a way to check what he was doing.

Salute,
Mike Miller UKF

Originally posted by kenpo2dabone
Absolutely, I never implied that it was. I was merely responding to what Kenpo Yahoo asked and he specifically asked about the twist and the crossover. I did not mention all of the others because they weren't asked about. I use all of the stances and all of the foot maneuvers as needed depending on how a situation unfolds. MY point was that none of them should be discarded as they all have an important place in Kenpo. I will add this. In my experience in Kenpo, if I can't make something work, 90 to 95% of the time, it is because I am doing it wrong, not because the technique or foot maneuver or stance the system in general is flawed. This is what I suggesting to Kenpo Yahoo and offered him a way to check what he was doing.

Salute,
Mike Miller UKF

:asian: Mike