In another thread

See here:

Many feel that AK has many "holes" or un-addressed situations within....

http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11296&perpage=15&pagenumber=2



there was discussion regarding the USEFULLNESS of rolling when going to the ground. I did not want to pull the discussion off track there by disagreeing or agreeing with other's posts, but it brought an interesting question up.

In part I would have agreed a few months ago that Kenpo lacked "some" ground work, based on the fact that it is not an area frequently explored in depth by most instructors. I have since changed my opinion. I disagree strongly with those who state we have no ground work, rather I would concede that they have none "in their experience." Kenpo is three dimensional and techniques can be applied from the ground as I worked in a Women's Self Defense class over the past 6 weeks.

We need something if we are tripped by a curb, or step in a hole when pushed from behind, and thus, Encounter with Danger serves us well and should not be discarded or minimized in terms of what it teaches.

Over the past few months I have been exposed to a couple more systems that use rolling as a defense and as an offense. One is Russian Systema, (ok, a bit much for me with the rolling) and the Silat sub-system Harimau (which I saw in action and it was very, very effective.) Both fall outside the range of BJJ, which I do see as a ground art, but not necessarily as a "rolling" art. But pieces of both appear in our techniques and Contact or Control Manipulations, you just have to start thinking outside the box and reinterpret what you are seeing.

I am curious as to what other Kenpoist think? Have you really played with, then worked the techniques from the ground? Can "rolling", one of our more advanced MANEUVERS be utilized in the context of developing a good ground game in American Kenpo, without deviating from the Principles, Concepts and Theories as set out for EPAK practitionaers?

Whew, long question. Both barrels were firing today.

-Michael

Sir:

As I have posted a few times on here perhaps, I have used 2-3 Techniques such as Snapping Twig when working with Grappling and they can work quite well, especially when just pulling out Concepts from them. I mean in Snapping Twig, if you destroy one of his arms and he is using it for a base, he will fall onto your oncoming strikes.

That is about all the experience I have. Except to say that kicking someone who is coming at you is very effective whether standing up or on the ground. I like this in Encounter with Danger and I also like working Leap from Danger which I know does not go to the ground of course.

Thanks again for your website, Mr. Billings. I had to refer to it to finish this post.
:asian:

Originally posted by cdhall
[B]Sir:

[quote]As I have posted a few times on here perhaps, I have used 2-3 Techniques such as Snapping Twig when working with Grappling and they can work quite well, especially when just pulling out Concepts from them. I mean in Snapping Twig, if you destroy one of his arms and he is using it for a base, he will fall onto your oncoming strikes.

Could you give us an example of the way you made this tech. work? What positions were you and your opp. in when you did this?

Thanks,

Mike

Orig. posted by Michael Billings
I would have agreed a few months ago that Kenpo lacked "some" ground work,

I have since changed my opinion, rather I would concede that they have none "in [THEIR] experience based on the fact that it is not an area that THEY frequently explore in depth!"

Have you really played with, then worked the techniques from the ground?

"Rolling, Falling, Vaulting, etc.", are some of our more advanced MANEUVERS utilized in the context of developing a good ground game in American Kenpo, without deviating from the Principles, Concepts and Theories.-Michael


I agree, somewhere along the line we have missed "variable expansion" to the examples within the BASE 154.

:asian:

I always thought that Mr. Parker did not want to go to the ground. He preferred to be standing in case there were more than one attacker.

Gracie is pretty tough on the ground in those toughman contests because he knows no-body is going to slide under the ropes and kick him in the head while he's grappling.

OK - enough of Devil's advocate...

I'd have liked to have seen more ground work in Kenpo rather than just at a seminare here and there. I think the potential is there given the extensibility of the system.

Originally posted by MisterMike
I always thought that Mr. Parker did not want to go to the ground. He preferred to be standing in case there were more than one attacker.


Exactly, he preferred Not to go to the ground, thus the attention to his priority.

Originally posted by MisterMike
I'd have liked to have seen more ground work in Kenpo rather than just at a seminare here and there. I think the potential is there given the extensibility of the system.


I think many today "are" going back and bringing out more attention and drilling on this portion of our Art.

:asian:

A few years ago, June 1999 I think. GM Larry Tatum came to Exeter, England to give a 2 day seminar.

On the second day he told us how he was getting his high grade students to apply their existing knowledge of kenpo to the ground. At first they struggled but soon saw the light.

He demonstated 2 "new" kenpo ground techniques that he had created and used me as the dummy. He told us that he was putting together an additional 24 technique syllabus on ground fighting.

I don`t know if the 24 groundwork techniques were finished or not. I guess I`ll have to email GM Tatum.

Cheers Dom
:asian:

Originally posted by Dominic Jones
A few years ago, June 1999 I think. GM Larry Tatum came to Exeter, England to give a 2 day seminar.

On the second day he told us how he was getting his high grade students to apply their existing knowledge of kenpo to the ground. At first they struggled but soon saw the light.

He demonstated 2 "new" kenpo ground techniques that he had created and used me as the dummy. He told us that he was putting together an additional 24 technique syllabus on ground fighting.

I don`t know if the 24 groundwork techniques were finished or not. I guess I`ll have to email GM Tatum.

Cheers Dom
:asian:

Maybe Robert can shed some light on this seeing that he trains with LT.

Mike

E-mail or phone the man, would be my advice. Why settle for me?

Um...I might note, however, that I've discussed some of the techniques on this forum--and basically been told I'm an idiot to think that would work. Just go back through the discussions...back...back...a few months ago.

Funny, too, how whenever we discuss possible lacunae in kenpo--it always lapses into a discussion of grappling/gropundfighting.

Originally posted by Dominic Jones
A few years ago, June 1999 I think. GM Larry Tatum came to Exeter, England to give a 2 day seminar.

On the second day he told us how he was getting his high grade students to apply their existing knowledge of kenpo to the ground. At first they struggled but soon saw the light.

He demonstated 2 "new" kenpo ground techniques that he had created and used me as the dummy. He told us that he was putting together an additional 24 technique syllabus on ground fighting.

I don`t know if the 24 groundwork techniques were finished or not. I guess I`ll have to email GM Tatum.

Cheers Dom
:asian:

Let us know when and/or if they are ready... I'd be very curious to what these new techniques would be...

I always loved the names that give insight to what the technique does.

The additional ones my instructor has (on top of the core techniques) have the word "badger" as part of the technique name to represent being on our backs on the ground. Not sure if he made them or if our local 3rd dan instructor passed these to us.

- Ceicei

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Funny, too, how whenever we discuss possible lacunae in kenpo--it always lapses into a discussion of grappling/gropundfighting.

Thanks to Dictionary.com for cluing me in.

Without going into the "forbidden topic" I think the general reason people find things lacking in Kenpo is that according to Infinite Insights Book 5, the way the system is presented, and presumably in the manuals that I have never seen, there are several lacunae.

On the other hand that very same system is designed to teach you to spontaneously "adapt and overcome" so it is also likely that what is on the page is only the beginning. As Doc has said several times, Everything is not in Infinite Insights. And as I pointed out regarding Mr. Tatum's Tip of the Week#9, that armlock/takedown is not in Attacking Mace either, but he put it in and he used Kenpo Principles and Concepts to do it very fluidly so I have to confess "it's in there" just liked in the old Ragu commercials.

I think the general argument regarding lacunae is that if you go by what is written down, there are lots of them. But as Clyde and probably you rmcrobertson have both said repeatedly, this is why you need an instructor...

OK, that was my 2 cents. I think I'm about 4 posts away from being a Martial Talk Master Black Belt now. Woo Hoo!
:boing1:

Um...I might note, however, that I've discussed some of the techniques on this forum--and basically been told I'm an idiot to think that would work. Just go back through the discussions...back...back...a few months ago.


Just for S&G's why don't you list them again


Funny, too, how whenever we discuss possible lacunae in kenpo--it always lapses into a discussion of grappling/gropundfighting.


I'd be happy to talk to you about the unrealistic and mostly ineffective weapons techniques. How about the ridiculousness of the 2-man techniques? How about the problems with some of the combination attacks? Or the "hug" attacks?

Groundfighting seems to be the focus because everyday keeps screaming that it's there, but no one is really explaining where it is or how it is used. Mr. Billings is the only person I can think of on your side of the argument that has offered up any semblance of a correlation between EPAK and groundfighting. If you want to get all haughty about it why don't you just list the techniques that can directly translate to the ground? I'm up for conversing much like I did with Mr. Billings in the other thread, but you seem to resort to intellectual cheap-shots when you see things aren't going your way.

I'm willing to discuss if you are, but I still think that someone should list the EPAK techniques that translate to ground defenses. It wouldn't require indepth explanation, if the correlation is that visible then we would all see it right away. Something like this may also end this particular line of posting.

just a thought

Originally posted by Kenpo Yahoo
[quote]Just for S&G's why don't you list them again

Yes, I have also made this request and am still waiting.



I'd be happy to talk to you about the unrealistic and mostly ineffective weapons techniques. How about the ridiculousness of the 2-man techniques? How about the problems with some of the combination attacks? Or the "hug" attacks?

Again, very familiar. I believe that I have also touched on your same request Kenpo Yahoo.

Groundfighting seems to be the focus because everyday keeps screaming that it's there, but no one is really explaining where it is or how it is used. Mr. Billings is the only person I can think of on your side of the argument that has offered up any semblance of a correlation between EPAK and groundfighting. If you want to get all haughty about it why don't you just list the techniques that can directly translate to the ground? I'm up for conversing much like I did with Mr. Billings in the other thread, but you seem to resort to intellectual cheap-shots when you see things aren't going your way.

I agree!

I'm willing to discuss if you are, but I still think that someone should list the EPAK techniques that translate to ground defenses. It wouldn't require indepth explanation, if the correlation is that visible then we would all see it right away. Something like this may also end this particular line of posting.

Again, another request that I have also had, and am still waiting for.



And a very good one at that!:D

Mike

Dear Guys:

Been there, tried that.

I am sorry, but I don't see the point of trying to explain to folks who seem to need to get personal. I don't claim--how many times have I posted this?--to be Ahura-Mazda's gift to kenpo, I don't claim to be able to lick everybody in the world. (And a good thing too, all things considered.) I simply think I've been taught well, and I have a few intelligent things to say about some things in kenpo.

Or to flip it around--can you honestly say that you've been as forthcoming, or as specific, as you want me to be?

Or there's the uselessness of the bearhug and the two-man attacks--uh, nope. I've TRIED grabbing the likes of Clyde...

As for my name, it's, "Robert," or "Doctor Robertson," as I tell my students. I prefer Robert, but if you'd like something more formal...

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
[B]Dear Guys:


[quote]Or to flip it around--can you honestly say that you've been as forthcoming, or as specific, as you want me to be?

I have been. I was asking for an example of techs. For example, parting wings- 2 hand push. How is this used on the ground? I have a few ideas that come to mind and well as some counters. Thats all we're asking here.

Mike

Well, if you have, "some ideas," why not simply state them? I mean, if you want to teach, you need to show as well as to rip at...and if you'll just explaain what you mean, we can all learn something. It's so simple.

And why not explore--and discuss--the holes, the uselessnesses, the lacks, in YOUR home arts? In your own practice? I mean, I try to maintain--and be honest about--a lively sense of my own limitations...

I don't see why I should continue to serve as your clay pigeon. I've tried several times to explain, only to have the Holy Authority of the Street invoked again and again. The issue of grappling/groundfighting has done been whupped. Enough.

So Shawn--exactly what's the difficulty you have with executing the bear hug/the two-man techniques?

And why not explore--and discuss--the holes, the uselessnesses, the lacks, in YOUR home arts? In your own practice? I mean, I try to maintain--and be honest about--a lively sense of my own limitations...


Was it not this discussion of holes, or more correctly stated the lack of emphasis, in kenpo that created this thread and several of its predecessors? I'm an AKKI'er who is glad that his association is looking more into the groundfighting. Unfortunately everyone sees this issue as black and white, instead of taking a middle of the road stance and trying to explain what can be done to either bring this subject to light or develop it more extensively.

You continue to say that you have listed these techniques or ideas in the past, but I've yet to see where you have addressed this subject. Do we not perform takedowns ourselves? Look at Dance of Death.

Just this week we worked Dance of Death from the offensive and defensive positions. Offensively, we worked the entry into the takedown (which looks oddly similiar to a single leg just with an elbow assisted strikedown. Then defensively we worked our response to the takedown which resulted in the offensive guy ending up on his butt or on his back. This then allowed us to stand-up (a crucial skill) circle "toriador- style" enter with strikes and set the mount, which allowed the guy on bottom to work one of several mount escapes one of which is the basic bridge. He would then break the guard, if necessary, and get back to his feet.

After working our kenpo for a while, then working this positioning drill for a while, we went to pure grappling for an hour or so. This is what we're doing at the school where I train.


I don't see why I should continue to serve as your clay pigeon. I've tried several times to explain, only to have the Holy Authority of the Street invoked again and again. The issue of grappling/groundfighting has done been whupped. Enough.


No one is asking you to be a clay pigeon, but I am getting aweful sick and tired of all the EPAK'ers telling us that groundfighting is built into the system, but not providing any further details. So far, at least from the ground perspective, we have talked about bridgeing, the scissor sweep, and an ankle pick that work from the mount, the open guard, and you on your back v.s. a standing attacker, respectively. Yet the only material you offer up are shoulder rolls and back kicks. Where are the sweeps, reversals, etc.? Everyone's argument is that I'll poke your eye out :shrug:, well before you can get to that all-damaging eye poking position you may have to change positions or avoid some strikes. So where does EPAK address this in regards to ground work?

I apologize for using this thread to continue this particular argument but everyone seems to be yelling, but no one is really saying anything.

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
[quote]Well, if you have, "some ideas," why not simply state them? I mean, if you want to teach, you need to show as well as to rip at...and if you'll just explaain what you mean, we can all learn something. It's so simple.

Explain what I mean?? And you should talk Rob? Why dont you give some explaination? Instead you choose to just say over and over and over and over "Its in there!!" Ok, here's my example of a tech. and a possible counter. Parting wings. If the mounted person is attempting a choke or a punch, you can use your hands to block his strike and then proceed to do a swordhand to his throat. The possible counter-- a head butt or he could use his chest and slam down onto your face.

And why not explore--and discuss--the holes, the uselessnesses, the lacks, in YOUR home arts? In your own practice? I mean, I try to maintain--and be honest about--a lively sense of my own limitations...

The holes in my home arts. OK. Well, as you know, I"m doing BJJ to address the ground issue. I work different drills from the clinch position, so I can get work from that next range of combat. As for the techs. in Kenpo. I'll take some of them, and try to make some mods. to them. Jus trying to look at the "What Ifs" As for my punching skills. Well, I have said before that I'm not the worlds best puncher, so I work with people who are good at punching, as well as sparring and bag drills.

I don't see why I should continue to serve as your clay pigeon. I've tried several times to explain, only to have the Holy Authority of the Street invoked again and again. The issue of grappling/groundfighting has done been whupped. Enough.

Your clay pigeon! LOL! Again Rob, all we're doing here is just trying to keep the discussion rolling. Myself as well as others have offered suggestions, and all you say is, "Why? Its already there?" You talk about this "fantasy" that we all seem to have. Well, IMO, its you that has the fantasy.

Mike

Well, that's certainly more specific than you've been in the past.

Thank you; please continue. I believe it will always be more authoritative--and easier--to discuss what YOU do, rather than to keep worrying about what you think others do.

I think it's great you do what you do. Nifty. So why bother to keep telling me--and others in "EPAK," (the second most unpleasant acronym--right next to, "BJJ") what they don't do? I learn from your explanations, not from attacks in which--sorry--there seems to be a lot of fundamental misunderstanding.

Where are, "the sweeps and reversals?" No sweeps? Do you know the brown techniques? the extensions on the techniques? You might want to get ahold of Mr. Tatum's tapes, especially the Blue Belt endings...and as for the reversals, well, hang out with Clyde. Or look at the "what-ifs," in techniques such as, say, Crossing Talon and Darting Mace and Entangled Wing. Look at, say, the last chunk of Long Form 2--what are those pivots into forward bows and twist stances with downward heel-palms for?

By the way, please re-read my posts. I haven't mentioned, "shoulder rolls and back kicks," to my knowledge. Could you point out where I did?

Just explain. It's all that's necessary. Or, to get gnomic, lengthen your own line, and let me worry about mine.

Rob- Thank you for the reply. It has been well taken! Just one thing that I'd like to add. In reference to your statement, "Its always easier to discuss what YOU do" and "I learn from your explainations" Ok, if thats true, then let me ask this question. Why, way back, when all of this ground debating started, and I mention that I do it to suplement the 'lack' of it in Kenpo, did I get attacked? I was stating what I DO, and yet I still had replies that looked so down on it?

Mike

Originally posted by Kenpo Yahoo
Just for S&G's why don't you list them again



I'd be happy to talk to you about the unrealistic and mostly ineffective weapons techniques. How about the ridiculousness of the 2-man techniques? How about the problems with some of the combination attacks? Or the "hug" attacks?



Groundfighting seems to be the focus because everyday keeps screaming that it's there, but no one is really explaining where it is or how it is used. Mr. Billings is the only person I can think of on your side of the argument that has offered up any semblance of a correlation between EPAK and groundfighting. If you want to get all haughty about it why don't you just list the techniques that can directly translate to the ground? I'm up for conversing much like I did with Mr. Billings in the other thread, but you seem to resort to intellectual cheap-shots when you see things aren't going your way.

I'm willing to discuss if you are, but I still think that someone should list the EPAK techniques that translate to ground defenses. It wouldn't require indepth explanation, if the correlation is that visible then we would all see it right away. Something like this may also end this particular line of posting.

just a thought

I'm not going to take any cheap shots or claim to have any great wisdom that no one else has. I will however simply state that the greatest problem in my opinion with translating Kenpo to the ground is that all to often the masses are trying to just make a technique work in a horizontal position. All though this does work for a few of the techniques, it is the underlying priciples and concepts of many other techiques that will lead an individual to better understand the realm of ground fighting. It is not difficult, nor is there any great secret to it, but the path is the lesson not the destination.
Some of us just don't talk as much as others! :asian: :asian:

i have not been on ma talk for awhile but here it goes. this is a good thread i would like to point out first off. to really appreciate what kenpo has to offer you have to train in the ground arts to really find the link in kenpo with an educated opinion,not just say it's in there. i have trained extensively in the jkd grappling(larry hartsell line) and have done kenpo since 1983 epak style and yes it does have it in there but you need some experience cross training or an instructor with the experience to guide.

later
jay:D :asian:

Rmcrobertson:

My comment about sweeps and reversals were in regards to being on the ground not on my feet.

What I find interesting is that as much as we argue about how we will or won't go to the ground, we fail to realize that many of our own techniques are designed to take an opponent to the ground. Heck I was taught as early as white belt to sweep at the end of deflecting hammer, that's a takedown isn't it? So why then is it so hard to imagine that someone might be training to take us to the ground?

Also, my comments about back kicks and shoulder rolls were in reference to the techniques Encounter with Danger and Leap from Danger that were introduced to the discussion of "Holes in kenpo."

Again, It seems that everyone wants to shout at the top of their lungs that kenpo teaches groundwork, yet no one is willing to put it on the line to start listing techniques. If the relationship is so pervasive then it shouldn't be hard to list these ideas and correlations.

Again, It seems that everyone wants to shout at the top of their lungs that kenpo teaches groundwork, yet no one is willing to put it on the line to start listing techniques. If the relationship is so pervasive then it shouldn't be hard to list these ideas and correlations.

I don't think you can list techniques that work on the ground, because they will not be run the same. I think you may find pieces of them that work in ground situations though.

If you allow the art to show you, it will. To get ideas started, take some available ground fighting positions and start to work with them. For instance:

1. Defender on back, opponent standing in front
2. Defender on back, opponent stradling
3. Opponent on back, defender stradling
4. Defender on back, opponent laying across
5. Opponent on back, defender laying across
6. Opponent on back, defender on back (choke)
7. Defender seated, opponent standing behind

These are just a few. You have to consider that the ground is going to be a limiting factor for Depth, (which was Heigth in standing techniques) but the same principles apply. It is principles that will show you the answers, not just more techniques in a book.

I'm willing to discuss if you are, but I still think that someone should list the EPAK techniques that translate to ground defenses.

Imagine you are on your back, attacker is straddling you across the midsection. He is choking you.

Use Tripping Arrow, by grabbing his right elbow with your left and and do a right palm heel to the ear. Clear his left arm with your right returning elbow. Next move, instead of the sweep, use the same motion to scissor by pushing off with your right foot and shooting your left leg under your body. At the same time, palm heel (or inward elbow) to the face and pull down on his right arm with your left hand. This will have you roll over on top of him.

This is very similar to the AKKI technique Rolling Thunder.

Just a thought.

Another.

You are on your back. Attacker laying on top of you in a choke hold where his arms are around your neck and his head is close to yours. Think about using Striking Serpent's head (or for AKKI'ers -- try Crashing Thunder if their head is close but not too close). Then proceed with the Tripping Arrow type roll/reversal to get on top.

Just some thoughts on how kenpo techniques can be used on the ground.

The fact remains that is you don't practice these techniques (or any others for that matter) from these different positions, you will NOT be able to do them at zero time.

Derek

I like the explanation for Tripping Arrow. It is similar in exexution to one I do, but actually may "fit" a little better. Will try it tomorrow night.

Oss,
-Michael

Back to the original question at hand...I don't think we should discard Encounter with Danger.

Kenpo has many techniques against punches, kicks, charges. You can execute any of these techniques against attempted grabs. If you can make them work great!

Kenpo has many techniques against grabs, holds, and chokes. We would never have to ever use any of these If we are so invulnerable against punches, kicks, and charges.

Encounter with Danger can be a very effective technique to keep somone from striking you or mounting you on the ground. But, just as we have standing grab/choke/lock defenses for when our punch/kick/charge defenses fail, we need to have escape techniques for when Encounter with Danger fails.

Kenpo teaches students to "what-if" and to graft techniques when situations change. Encounter with Danger can fail in several ways:
1) Attackers can block/deflect the kicks and pass your legs to get on top of you.
2) Attackers can catch your legs while you kick and put you in an ankle or leg lock.
3) Turning your back during a cover out is a bad idea. Going onto your stomach to execute the final kicks is a bad idea. If the opponent moves or attacks you are very vulnerable to the attackers stomps or to a rear mount--the most undesirable grappling position.

Encounter with Danger needs to be supplemented with counters to the three failure modes I've mentioned. Students need to know what to do if their legs are passed and the opponent attempts a mount. Students need to know how to escape an ankle or leg lock. Students need to know to avoid going onto their stomachs and how to get an opponent off their back when they are on the ground.

By supplementing Encounter with Danger with additional ground material, Kenpo's ground game can be as multi-faceted as its standup game. Just as we don't assume we can never be grabbed while standing--and we train for it, we must not assume we cannot be grabbed while on the ground--and we must train for it.

Sir, excellent,eeeexxxcelent!!!

Homer's Boss

See, this is what I'm talking about. Here we have 2 excellent examples of techs. on the ground given by OFK and dcence! By giving examples we can look further at how you can apply the techs. on the ground!

Mike

Thanks guys. It only took me five months to come up with a decent example. I owe this recent epiphany to the stimulating discussion on this thread.

The question of whether or not to discard Encounter with Danger or not is actually not the best question. The better questions are:
1) are there situations not addressed by the 250 (or Tracy 600 technique) Kenpo curriculums?
2) Do Kenpo training methods adequately prepare students to deal with attackers who fight back during technique execution?

As you may have guessed, I think there are situations not addressed by the Kenpo techniques and extension. We debate the ground-fighting thing endlessly. What about defence/disarm against a rifle at close range? We have knife, club, and gun defenses. The principles of gun and club apply against a rifle but need to be combined into a Kenpo technique. Has anyone done this? The Krav Maga guys have several excellent rifle disarms.

As you may have also guessed, I think that Kenpo training methods are based too much on traditional Asian martial arts methods. While many Kenpoists really bang in Freestyle and Technique-lines, I am not sure how many Kenpoists are training against someone who is trying to stop the execution of their Kenpo technique. For instance, we have all done Technique Lines where an attacker throws a hard fast punch or combination and then stands there while we block and thump on them. How many of us have done technique lines where the attacker throws his combination, tries to block/evade our counter-strikes, and keeps attacking? How many of us have attended seminars or worked with other martial artists and tried to do our kenpo techniques against someone who is trying to do their boxing, wrestling, Judo, or TKD technique?

The question of whether to discard a Kenpo technique is not the question Kenpoists need to address to preserve/improve Kenpo. The question(s) we need to address are how do we ensure Kenpo remains the most effective self-defense system as it was when Mr. Parker was creating and refining it in the mid-late 20th Century?

Originally posted by Old Fat Kenpoka

[quote]The question of whether or not to discard Encounter with Danger or not is actually not the best question. The better questions are:
1) are there situations not addressed by the 250 (or Tracy 600 technique) Kenpo curriculums?
2) Do Kenpo training methods adequately prepare students to deal with attackers who fight back during technique execution?

1-I'm sure that there are many.

2- I would hope so. If you watch the tech. lines though, that is something that you do not see.

As you may have guessed, I think there are situations not addressed by the Kenpo techniques and extension. We debate the ground-fighting thing endlessly. What about defence/disarm against a rifle at close range? We have knife, club, and gun defenses. The principles of gun and club apply against a rifle but need to be combined into a Kenpo technique. Has anyone done this? The Krav Maga guys have several excellent rifle disarms.

I'm not too impressed with the KM knife work, but there gun disarms seem to be effective.

As you may have also guessed, I think that Kenpo training methods are based too much on traditional Asian martial arts methods. While many Kenpoists really bang in Freestyle and Technique-lines, I am not sure how many Kenpoists are training against someone who is trying to stop the execution of their Kenpo technique. For instance, we have all done Technique Lines where an attacker throws a hard fast punch or combination and then stands there while we block and thump on them. How many of us have done technique lines where the attacker throws his combination, tries to block/evade our counter-strikes, and keeps attacking? How many of us have attended seminars or worked with other martial artists and tried to do our kenpo techniques against someone who is trying to do their boxing, wrestling, Judo, or TKD technique?

This is were your aliveness comes into play. Matt Thorton (JKD) is really big on this. Sometimes during my BJJ class, we'll take a certain move, and work is slowly to start, and then gradually add more resistance and fight back by the other person. This, IMO, is probably the best way to see if your stuff is going to really work.

Mike

Mike:

I agree that Krav Maga knife work is pretty simplistic. FMA and Kenpo have much more sophisticated knife techniques. I haven't seen any system with as many gun disarms as KM and I haven't seen any others with a rifle disarm.

I agree with you completely on the BJJ training method. If only there was a way to do that safely with Kenpo techniques...

Have you (or anyone else here) read either "Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Theory and Technique" by Renzo and Royler Gracie or "Mastering Ju Jitsu" by Renzo Gracie? In both of those books, there are about three pages which should really be read by EVERY martial artist regardless of whether they want to grapple or not. Those pages are the ones discussing the "fundamental dilema of martial arts training" The premise is that there are two types of martial arts training methods:
1) The Aiki Jujitsu and Traditional Martial Arts method is to learn a large repertoire of deadly and dangerous techniques. The techniques are so dangerous they must be practiced with control, without actually hitting targets, and/or with a cooperating partner in order to avoid frequent serious injury. The advantage of this training method is that the student learns movements that could quickly and decisively end a fight. The disadvantage is that the student never actually executes the movements properly in a training environment. Examples are eye-strikes, gouges, bone-breaking strikes, throat strikes.
2) The Judo, BJJ and Boxing method is to limit the techniques to those that can be executed full-speed and full-power against a resisting partner. The advantage is that by eliminating dangerous and deadly techniques, the student can spar for much longer periods without injury and can practice their techniques in a much more realistic manner against a fully resisting partner. The disadvantage is that the student does not include those dangerous strikes in their repertoire and may not be prepared to defend against them.

I think this analysis can teach us much about our training and about how we determine what works and what doesn't.

I think this will be the third time I've done so in this particular thread, but I would like to thank Mr. Ence and OFK again for their excellent posts.

Since this is starting to look like a dead horse that has been run over with a steamroller I will back off of the ground thing at least for know. I do appreciate all those who were willing to engage in the conversation and share ideas. Maybe someone will start a list, maybe no one will, but hopefully everyone has picked up a few ideas along the way, afterall isn't that what these forums are for?

This is what I am talking about when I mention that the attacker throws an attack and then stands there. Wouldn't the Kenpoist's technique be even more effective if he practiced it against an opponent who fought back, who didn't stand there like a rag doll?

http://www.akki.com/vegas/september2003/video_5words.htm

Wouldn't the Kenpoist's technique be even more effective if he practiced it against an opponent who fought back, who didn't stand there like a rag doll?

I don't want to sound like I'm pushing a product, but Zack Whitson's "Kenpo Counterpoint" video directly addresses this question. I am just starting to work through this material and find it very valuable.

Lamont

1) The Aiki Jujitsu and Traditional Martial Arts method is to learn a large repertoire of deadly and dangerous techniques. The techniques are so dangerous they must be practiced with control, without actually hitting targets, and/or with a cooperating partner in order to avoid frequent serious injury. The advantage of this training method is that the student learns movements that could quickly and decisively end a fight. The disadvantage is that the student never actually executes the movements properly in a training environment.

OFK, you're on track here regarding the cruelness of these techniques but just as in Kenpo there are strikes that you don't actually ever "do" like eye pokes but it doesn't mean they are done improperly.

Aiki Jujutsu was created to protect the palace. It became the training required to win wars. It was not until the -Do forms came about that Ukemi was systematized to allow training partners to escape the throws. You wouldn't design techniqes for people to roll out of if they were truely meant for war. So the training took a special individual, a different approach to the "self-defense" offered in America.


:asian:

Originally posted by Old Fat Kenpoka

[quote]Have you (or anyone else here) read either "Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Theory and Technique" by Renzo and Royler Gracie or "Mastering Ju Jitsu" by Renzo Gracie? In both of those books, there are about three pages which should really be read by EVERY martial artist regardless of whether they want to grapple or not. Those pages are the ones discussing the "fundamental dilema of martial arts training" The premise is that there are two types of martial arts training methods:
1) The Aiki Jujitsu and Traditional Martial Arts method is to learn a large repertoire of deadly and dangerous techniques. The techniques are so dangerous they must be practiced with control, without actually hitting targets, and/or with a cooperating partner in order to avoid frequent serious injury. The advantage of this training method is that the student learns movements that could quickly and decisively end a fight. The disadvantage is that the student never actually executes the movements properly in a training environment. Examples are eye-strikes, gouges, bone-breaking strikes, throat strikes.
2) The Judo, BJJ and Boxing method is to limit the techniques to those that can be executed full-speed and full-power against a resisting partner. The advantage is that by eliminating dangerous and deadly techniques, the student can spar for much longer periods without injury and can practice their techniques in a much more realistic manner against a fully resisting partner. The disadvantage is that the student does not include those dangerous strikes in their repertoire and may not be prepared to defend against them.

Yes, I have the Mastering JJ book by Renzo. I have yet to finsih the book, but I do recall the above statements.

Mike

This is what I am talking about when I mention that the attacker throws an attack and then stands there. Wouldn't the Kenpoist's technique be even more effective if he practiced it against an opponent who fought back, who didn't stand there like a rag doll?

http://www.akki.com/vegas/september...ideo_5words.htm


Alright I said I wouldn't post anymore, but that was about groundfighting, this is different.

It's pretty hard to take a single video and make blanket determinations about an entire system. Just like everyone else in kenpo, their are times when we run static technique lines to evaluate a students understanding of a scripted technique or even just to teach a technique sequence. As the student progresses we begin throwing in combination attacks on their techniques like Delayed sword and sword of destruction (I had my orange belts working this last week, we do the tech a little different than most). The key is that once this is taught it becomes fair game. In future technique lines or drills they are expected to be able to pick up the combination if it occurs or simply finish the ideal technique if it does not. This is why the techniques have to be designed to work for both situations and not require split second changes to account for something else. Then later on, students begin to apply "Tap and Trap" drills as well as obstruction removal manuevers.

In the case of Five swords we worked several variations, 1)left- right punch 2)right- left punch 3) Right punch but attacker blocks your outward chop with left hand (several different trapping variations to work from here) 4) attacker begins to cover up at some point in the technique (this calls for obstruction removal or target change i.e. graft a new technique based on desired targets). These are just a few of the ideas that we work at our school, all which were taught at the AKKI camps.

I agree that many kenpo orgs. and schools teach their students how to kill mannequins but to a degree this is necessary if for no other reason than to ingrain an ideal sequence of motion. As the student progresses there should definately be resistance or continued action on the part of the attacker. This is a subject that I'm sure Mr. Mills has been teaching for many years, but it has most certainly been a addressed and continuously developed since the associations inception in '97.

Originally posted by Kenpo Yahoo
Alright I said I wouldn't post anymore, but that was about groundfighting, this is different.

It's pretty hard to take a single video and make blanket determinations about an entire system. Just like everyone else in kenpo, their are times when we run static technique lines to evaluate a students understanding of a scripted technique or even just to teach a technique sequence. As the student progresses we begin throwing in combination attacks on their techniques like Delayed sword and sword of destruction (I had my orange belts working this last week, we do the tech a little different than most). The key is that once this is taught it becomes fair game. In future technique lines or drills they are expected to be able to pick up the combination if it occurs or simply finish the ideal technique if it does not. This is why the techniques have to be designed to work for both situations and not require split second changes to account for something else. Then later on, students begin to apply "Tap and Trap" drills as well as obstruction removal manuevers.

In the case of Five swords we worked several variations, 1)left- right punch 2)right- left punch 3) Right punch but attacker blocks your outward chop with left hand (several different trapping variations to work from here) 4) attacker begins to cover up at some point in the technique (this calls for obstruction removal or target change i.e. graft a new technique based on desired targets). These are just a few of the ideas that we work at our school, all which were taught at the AKKI camps.

I agree that many kenpo orgs. and schools teach their students how to kill mannequins but to a degree this is necessary if for no other reason than to ingrain an ideal sequence of motion. As the student progresses there should definately be resistance or continued action on the part of the attacker. This is a subject that I'm sure Mr. Mills has been teaching for many years, but it has most certainly been a addressed and continuously developed since the associations inception in '97.

You bring up many good points. When I would teach the techs. to my students, I would expalin to them that this is the "ideal" phase. Everything is going to work perfectly. After they begin to progress and have a good understanding of the techs. I would then tell them that THEY now have to expand on the tech. and make it work for them. By putting them in different situations, that they have not yet experienced, it forces them to be creative and come up with something to do. Of course, in 5 swords, its just off of that one punch. We all know how to block, punch and kick, so if the attacker does something different, they should be able to respond properly.

I do see what OFK is talking about though. Its not an attack on Mr. Mills or his brand of Kenpo, its something that is seen everywhere. Looking back at my post about the way I train my BJJ, I think this is something that needs to be done with the Kenpo. Just a thought.

Mike

My point about the AKKI Five Swords video is that all the Kenpo technique videos I've found are like this. Attcker throws a poor excuse for an attack, defender slaps him in the chest a few times while attacker stands there like a zombie, then defender covers out into a neutral bow while attacker stands there unhurt or fakes a TKO/KO.

Does anyone consider this particular clip a good example of Kenpo or is it a bad example? (In my Kenpo school, this would be a bad example).

Where is the Kenpo realism? Has anyone captured on video and posted it onto the web? I'd love to see it.

Originally posted by Old Fat Kenpoka


Does anyone consider this particular clip a good example of Kenpo or is it a bad example? (In my Kenpo school, this would be a bad example).

Where is the Kenpo realism? Has anyone captured on video and posted it onto the web? I'd love to see it.

Sounds like an interesting topic for a new thread.

My point about the AKKI Five Swords video is that all the Kenpo technique videos I've found are like this. Attcker throws a poor excuse for an attack, defender slaps him in the chest a few times while attacker stands there like a zombie, then defender covers out into a neutral bow while attacker stands there unhurt or fakes a TKO/KO.

Does anyone consider this particular clip a good example of Kenpo or is it a bad example? (In my Kenpo school, this would be a bad example).

You need to understand the purpose of those clips. There are two versions of 5 swords both with different timing patterns. It was not a real fight. It was not meant to inflict pain. I know the individuals in those clips and they can inflict pain and harm if they want. Both examples were executed with speed , articulation and control. Control being the operative word. Obviously the guy stands there very still so as not to get hit. The idea of the clips is to show how you can use two completely different timing patterns for one single technique.

What do you want them to do -- try and dodge the strikes? When that happens the dummy usually gets clocked by the next strike because they move into it.

All Kenpo techniques require the opponent to stand there like a wooden dummy while the other guy goes to town. This is the way it has been done time in memoriam.

However, in the AKKI our Brown Belt techniques are composed of ones where the guy actually blocks a few of your strikes and becomes very active in the process. The AKKI curriculum is the only one I know that has specific required techniques where the opponent actually tries to thwart your technique and you are required to counter his counter, so to speak, though there may be others I don't know about.

It is not just good Kenpo, I think it is great Kenpo if you understand the purpose of the clips, but certainly it is not realistic for someone just to stand there and take a bunch of shots, but then again, the guy doing the technique would not be pulling the shots either if it were a real fight.

Derek

See, this is what I'm talking about. Here we have 2 excellent examples of techs. on the ground given by OFK and dcence! By giving examples we can look further at how you can apply the techs. on the ground!

My Tripping Arrow example was an attempt to show people what Kenpo Yahoo was asking for. The fact remains though that EPAK is slim on the ground fighting whether you acknowledge it or not and you have to look deep to find things that will work on the ground. You can find some things, but it is not readily evident as reflected by people unable to answer the simple question of -- give me an example. Even if you do find them, as in my example, unless you practice them a lot, you won't be able to do them at crunch time. And you won't practice them unless they are a specific part of a required curriculum. So, the EPAK system is a poor system to teach you ground fighting in my opinion.

Derek

However, in the AKKI our Brown Belt techniques are composed of ones where the guy actually blocks a few of your strikes and becomes very active in the process. The AKKI curriculum is the only one I know that has specific required techniques where the opponent actually tries to thwart your technique and you are required to counter his counter, so to speak, though there may be others I don't know about.

This is great! I would love to see some video clips. Where can I find clips of stuff like this?

Originally posted by Old Fat Kenpoka
This is great! I would love to see some video clips. Where can I find clips of stuff like this?

OFK- If you go onto the AKKI website, you'll find more there!

Mike

Reagrding people standing there and not moving while the other person delievers multiple strikes. This is just my observation so I'm open for feedback. I believe the idea here is to hit the attacker and continue hitting him so that he does not have a chance to think about countering or hitting you back. An example- If you were attempting to do a tech. against a wrist grab. Prior to beginning the tech. you kick to the knee, and then continue the movement. By doing this, it momentarily takes your opps. attention from the wrist to the pain in his knee.

The idea of the tech. in question, 5 swords, is to immediately strike to the neck after blocking the punch, therefore taking his attention away from the punch. Of course, like dcence mentioned, you do want to be prepared for the 'what ifs' in the event the opp. does counter your moves.

Just a thought.

Mike

Mike: Thanks. I have looked at all the videos on the AKKI site in the past (and again today) and they are all pretty similar.

Rolling Thunder is a pretty cool mount defense. I'd love to seed more Kenpoists embrace this technique.

Five Swords (Glancing Blades in the spin-off system I studied) is one of my favorite Kenpo techniques. I used to do it in technique demonstration competition and change the ending to add a lot more hand strikes. I am just surprised that an organization of the caliber of the AKKI would post these videos. The attack isn't worth defending against, it doesn't seem that the strikes are aimed at the proper targets, I don't see contact. The attacker isn't doing much acting to make his partner look good.

Beyond that, I'd love to see a video of this (or any other Kenpo technique) done against a resisting partner who tries to execute a follow-up strike or move out of position or fight back.

Beyond that, I'd love to see a video of this (or any other Kenpo technique) done against a resisting partner who tries to execute a follow-up strike or move out of position or fight back.


Feel free to make your own videos and put them out for everyone to critique.

Huh, that's weird. Last night, I was going over the extension to Triggered Salute with one of my 13-year-old wunderkinder, and I kept trying to punch him with the left after shoving with the right...and then jumped into advanced class, where among other things we worked the extension to Sleeper with the dummy attempting to reach in and yank the hands of his/her neck...then we worked something Cliff Seminerio came up with, a "trio," in which one is forced from Thrusting Prongs to Crashing Wings to Tripping Arrow, as the dummy repeatedly ducks and regrabs...

But no. I for one never work techs against a resisting opponent.

Huh, that's weird. Last night, I was going over the extension to Triggered Salute with one of my 13-year-old wunderkinder, and I kept trying to punch him with the left after shoving with the right...and then jumped into advanced class, where among other things we worked the extension to Sleeper with the dummy attempting to reach in and yank the hands of his/her neck...then we worked something Cliff Seminerio came up with, a "trio," in which one is forced from Thrusting Prongs to Crashing Wings to Tripping Arrow, as the dummy repeatedly ducks and regrabs...

That's not weird. That is exactly what you should be doing in my opinion at some level. Those type of things make the technique much more lively.

Derek

Uh, actually my point was that it's not weird or extra or unusual at all. I see I explained myself badly; thanks.