I love my short time so far in kenpo. One thing I've notice among
boards in other places is in make believe scenarios about attacks
in the street, the replies that come in often are typically "eye
gouge, strike to the throat, etc. Something typically fatal. How
many of you here feel that each bar fight, street threat is a
threat on your life? I haven't been in a fight in over 15 years,
and I hope to never again, but I'll tell ya .. never during that time,
did I EVER intend on killing someone. And seeing how in the
decent amount of fights that I've been in, and didn't win all of
them, I think it's safe to say that it wasn't the intention of those
guys to kill me either, since I'm still alive. When I'm being taught
new techniques, I say to myself, "well maybe I'll elbow him in
the solarplexus, instead of the nose/eyes on this one" or "a
fist the the chin will hurt, and not maim in this case". I've posted
this topic on previous posts, and the typical reply is "if it's not
life or death, then you can probably walk away". I don't feel
that's always the case. Opinions?

Dunno about you but I am waaaaay easy going...until I snap. Then it's go time.

At that point I consider it me or him and I'm sure it'll be me who is still awake.

Before that though mostly I just laugh and walk away.

I belive that if it come down to me or him then, we are both going in a vehicle with sirens him in an ambulance me in a cop car.

I personally think that part of being a true martial artist is knowing how far to go. You can disable an attacker without crippling or killing them.

I mean, sure I can knuckle punch the throat, collapsing it and watching the poor shmuck gurgle as he sofacates. Or, I can go for the spinal shot that either kills or paralyzes. But why?

If my purpose is to survive, I don't have to do that much damage. I can disable him long enough to escape. I mean, think about it. Even in a life-or-death situation, you're gonna have to answer to the law at some point. Better to answer to his lawyer about his 2 broken wrists, than his widow.

:asian:

I'm not a Kenpoka, I hope you don't mind me jumping in here...

I would never suggest that someone have it in their minds to kill an opponent in a street fight. However, I would suggest that someone be *prepared* to kill an opponent if it came down to it.

If in the midst of a fight someone pulled a weapon, intending to kill you, it is very possibly that you may have to end their life to survive the experiance.

It's a situation judged by what is currently taking place. If a drunk buddy at a bar swings on you, tearing his eyes out probably wouldn't feel too grand (and it leaves that damn mush all over your hands). Kidding aside, I think it's necessary for people to develop the instincts to be able to take life if the situation arises that calls for it.

Shots to the throat, eye gouges and whatnot, with control, can be more of a deterant then anything. A quick, non-penetraing shot to the adam's apple can definately make an attacker think twice about what they are doing....and often disrupt their mindset enough to end the confrontation.

You are right Kaith, but there are times when there amy not be a choice. I would rather be the one walikg if there was no other choice. It is better to be judged by 12 than to be carried by 6.

Originally posted by Kaith Rustaz
I personally think that part of being a true martial artist is knowing how far to go. You can disable an attacker without crippling or killing them.

When I got to college the school offered judo, aikido, and kenpo. I checked them all out. The kenpo group turned me off with their "maim them, kill them, then maim them again" attitude. If we were still occupied by the British, maybe I'd need that kind of attitude, but if I had done that to a fellow college student in a bar the consequences would have been dire, and rightfully so. I took judo and aikido (until I injured my wrist). I liked the philosophies better.

I agree that one must be prepared for this possibility, but one must be prepared for many possibilities. The drunk brother-in-law is probably a more likely scenario for most of us.

Our Creed says, "should I be forced to defend myself, my
principles or my honor; should it be a matter of life
or death, of right or wrong; " ... there's more there than
just "should I be forced to defend my life". I may need to
be an attacker one day, to defend someone that's getting
the snot beat out of him/her. I can't think of the scenario,
really, unless some man was attacking my wife or something,
but I just feel it in my bones that it could be difficult to get
out of a fight, yet my life isn't at stake.

Kenpoois tdo not train for overkill they train for overskill. This maim, kill, maim attitude, is just to know what to do if for some reason the attacker keeps coming. It looks brutal from the outside, but there is a lot of knowledge hidden in the techniques. It is very easy for the kenpo student to change the strike from lethal to just painful. I would rather have that nastiness to back me up when it counts. Some looks to the martial arst for enlightenment. I came for protection til the day I choose to look for enlightenment.

If I had to, I guess I would, but...I like to think theres always an alternative. It really depends on the situation. The drunk at the bar, is alot different than being alone, in a demiliterized area at 4am.

The Kenpo techniques seem to seek to give you a huge variety of techniques to choose from in any given situation.

The Arnis techniques seek to give you the building blocks to a personalized arsenal to choose from in any given situation.

What most arts fail to do, at the lower belt levels, is give you the ability to know what to use when. I may seek only to stun, but the result may be fatal as I don't know where the "pull" point is. (adv. white in kenpo, white in arnis). That ability takes time, different for everyone.

And on the "mindset" of each art, they vary. Thats part of why there are so many arts. Each one fits a particular viewpoint.

IMHO. :)

Imagine if you will, a bowl, with smaller bowls each fitting inside it. Imagine now that the effort an attacker puts in is water that is being poured into the bowl.

The more "water" he puts in will fill up each larger bowl as it spills over. The less "water" he puts in means less spillage.

It's up to the attacker for me how much response he gets. The more he puts in the more response he gets as he reaches and surpasses the capacity of each bowl.

But make no mistake about it. I like to hurt him. I have no problem with that. It was his choice. Not mine. He could have taken his water elsewhere.

Gou, that was quite the answer. Very impressive, you are trying to live up to the philospher title.

I can claim the title quite easily. I have a university degree in Philosophy. While many claim to be a philosopher I have the paperwork behind my name. However, in my spare time I still like to punch people in the face.
:erg:

What can one do with a degree in philsophy. I am not trying to be derogatory I am just curious. I understand what a punch to the face can do, so what about the degree?

hahahaha .. Gou and Rob, you two slay me! Rob beat me to
it, I was gonna say "How Bruce Lee-ish of you" It makes a
VERY valid point, and I enjoyed reading it! I like having the
arsenal also ... there's a lot of drugged attackers out there!

For me one of the biggest deciding factors is having a choice. Who was it that said,

"The warrior chooses to live the life of a pacifist, others are condemned to it."

I want the option to be able to do serious harm in an instant...that doesn't mean all I can do is serious harm. That means as a (hopefully ;) ) well adjusted adult I can choose the level of response I desire to give to an attack.

I cannot think of a worse scenario than the one where a person has trained for years thinking they could defend themselves and their family only to find out when it was real that they could not. How sad.

It is a whole different question if the person has trained all of those years for something other than self defense purposes (ie. health, enlightenment, etc.)...then they are like the person who does Tae Bo and thinks they study karate. Hopefully in studying for self defense we also seek the other development as well to temper our choices.

Just thoughts...
John

If I had a penny for every time I was asked that question....

Most people teach. Some go to law. We always had a share of lawyers who went to school to take courses when they were aiming to be judges. Many are professional advocates.

Cool, I was just curious. And the next time I will give you a penny for answering the question.

I've known several martial artists who were either studying or had degrees in Philosophy.

Of course, I've heard Gou can actually move with the best. :)

Originally posted by Kaith Rustaz
I've known several martial artists who were either studying or had degrees in Philosophy.


Ah yes...I know just what you mean (http://us.imdb.com/Title?0098206).

My second judo instructor was pursuing his Ph.D. in philosophy at the time, and eventually received it.

Oh...my...god...the movie roadhouse has been the bane of my existence for years. Someway, Patrick Swayze will pay for my suffering.
:cuss:

No Kaith. You misheard them. I can move the best of them...but only after a nice big bowl of chili.
:rofl:

Originally posted by Kaith Rustaz
I may seek only to stun, but the result may be fatal as I don't know where the "pull" point is. (adv. white in kenpo, white in arnis). That ability takes time, different for everyone.

And on the "mindset" of each art, they vary. Thats part of why there are so many arts. Each one fits a particular viewpoint.





Two very good points Kaith, on the first point, maybe rather than "pull" the technique, you should just alter or adjust your target. Ie. we all know that a favourite technique in American Kenpo for a lot of people would be the good old elbow smash to the head. This could do some serious damage. If the face is the target, you could smash the cheek bone, or the jaw bone, and possibly cause serious permanent scarring or worse. If on the other hand we drop that elbow smash and use it against the SIDE of the neck, we then have either a complete knock out with no permanent damage, or a partial knock out with no permanent damage. Either way we go home, he's still breathing, but neither of us are dead.

On the second point, that was why I changed from American Kenpo, the only school in my state was fully into kill crush destroy, to Ryukyu Kempo, their objectives are a little more humane.

--Dave :asian:

While I agree that mercy is something that higher life forms ascribe to I also feel that should someone else make the decision to attack you they themselves asked for the response given.

If I run up to a bear and kick it in the nuts I have to expect some consequence.

Originally posted by GouRonin
While I agree that mercy is something that higher life forms ascribe to I also feel that should someone else make the decision to attack you they themselves asked for the response given.


Whatever that response might be?


If I run up to a bear and kick it in the nuts I have to expect some consequence.

Of course-the bear doesn't have sufficient intelligence to do much more than act on instinct.

Humans have the option of turning the other cheek. From this. eye for an eye, etc., comes the legal requirement of a proportionate response.

Kaith, a martial arts philosophy forum, quick!

There is a Parker quote stating "Whatever the attitude, so is the response." I also stated my theory of response earlier on this forum. Basically I think that whatever they give then the response should be appropriate. But that is my own opinion. Mostly because I'm lazy.:rolleyes:

But overall, it would also depend on the grievence of the attack and how it was done. ie - violence level, type, etc.

As for the bear, the bear does the same instinctively. Once it feels safe then it ends.

If anything the need to use only justifiable force is a legal issue. Turning the other cheek is a christian/religious issue altogether and since I am not bound to that religion then I do't need to play by those rules. Mercy is not bound to a worship of any god for it to be used. As Portia from the Shakespearian play said, and I loosly quote, "The quality of mercy is not strained. It dropeth from the sky as gentle rain."

Originally posted by GouRonin
If anything the need to use only justifiable force is a legal issue. Turning the other cheek is a christian/religious issue altogether and since I am not bound to that religion then I do't need to play by those rules.

In effect, you are bound by those rules if you are under any legal system inherited from the British who have a system based on (Judeo-)Christian ethics. The notion of proprortionate response is taken from the "eye for an eye" injunction, i.e., not more than an eye for an eye, not more than a tooth for a tooth, as I indicated in my post--the legal requirement follows from this biblical notion of fairness. It needn't have been that way, e.g. samurai legally allowed to cut down peasants for the slightest of offenses.


Mercy is not bound to a worship of any god for it to be used. As Portia from the Shakespearian play said, and I loosly quote, "The quality of mercy is not strained. It dropeth from the sky as gentle rain."

I suspect that dropping from the sky was an allusion to God in Heaven being its source, and this was in The Merchant of Venice which of course has overtly religious overtones, but I nonetheless agree. I approach it from a martial arts philosophy point of view. I learned most of mine from Okinawan karate which had a strong disposition towards not fighting being the morally right thing to do. There are famous stories of karate masters rescuing someone from a beating and taking the beating themselves without striking a single blow in response (how Christ-like an image!) because they knew they were tough enough to not be seriously injured. I don't rise to that ideal, but I do see a difference between training to be able to defend myself as opposed to training to be able to hurt others.

I suspect that you and I are not far apart in our views in actuality--this medium has a way of magnifying small differences. I doubt either of us would intentionally go overboard on someone and that both of us would do what was necessary to protect ourselves and those about whom we care. But I know I have always seen kenpo as being biased towards the "how much can I hurt this person" rather than the "how well can I defend myself" end of the spectrum. It has been interesting to learn on this forum that many kenpo practitioners have a more sophisticated view than the "maim them, kill them, then maim them some more" attitude I've always associated with kenpo based on my limited experiences with it. I had a perhaps simplistic view of it.

I still like, "He who hestitates, meditates in a horizontal position."

Originally posted by arnisador
I do see a difference between training to be able to defend myself as opposed to training to be able to hurt others.


Hear, hear.

I used to subscribe to the "MDK" mentality, but I have found that with a change in attitude toward, Life Defense (mine and his), as opposed to Self Defense (mine at the expense of his), not only has my technical ability improved, but I have fallen in love with training again.

As you said though, arnisador, it is the Okinawan disposition towards not fighting being the morally right thing to do.

I think the attitude change came with the change in system for me.

--Dave

I have to agree that law in our area comes from the biblical ideal.

As for how much can I hurt someone as opposed to how well I can defend myself. Well. I see your point.

I only like to hurt people based on how much they want to hurt me. LOL!

According to the Canadian Criminal Code you may defend yourself with whatever force neccessary, which means the least amount of force possible.

This is a great line of discussion here!!!! Regardless of personal views on defense of oneself, this thread allows the rookies or nubes to develop their own mindset, and gives the more seasons players a chance to re-evaluate theirs.
The sad issue of this is that regardless of how we defend ourselves the fight has a chance to not be over when one of the opponents falls. (which has already been mentioned)
I feel that during our training is the time to decide. We train the way we hope we will respond on the street (which is a given). Once that decision is made we have to stick to it, believe in it and understand the consquences we face regardless of the outcome.
The trick is to respond with no doubts or regrets..............
I hope my rants adds to this discussion.
Bob
p.s.
"Let the winds of the hatred take them to the destruction they seek"
I read that in a book once, I hope I wrote it correctly......

Originally posted by Kirk
I love my short time so far in kenpo. One thing I've notice among
boards in other places is in make believe scenarios about attacks
in the street, the replies that come in often are typically "eye
gouge, strike to the throat, etc. Something typically fatal. How
many of you here feel that each bar fight, street threat is a
threat on your life? I haven't been in a fight in over 15 years,
and I hope to never again, but I'll tell ya .. never during that time,
did I EVER intend on killing someone. And seeing how in the
decent amount of fights that I've been in, and didn't win all of
them, I think it's safe to say that it wasn't the intention of those
guys to kill me either, since I'm still alive. When I'm being taught
new techniques, I say to myself, "well maybe I'll elbow him in
the solarplexus, instead of the nose/eyes on this one" or "a
fist the the chin will hurt, and not maim in this case". I've posted
this topic on previous posts, and the typical reply is "if it's not
life or death, then you can probably walk away". I don't feel
that's always the case. Opinions? You have a very good point sir. I personally feel that the individual practitioner must know themselves well enough to make the accurate call in possible violent confrontations. I would not expect the yellow theu purple belts to have enough knowledge of self to understand this type of enlightenment. Yet, from blue belt thru the dan ranks, it would be expected of the practitioner to experience some type of progressive awakening of the spirit which will enable the stylist to understand the basic intent of others in communicative interaction. For is not the highest degree of martial skill that of non combative interaction? This is what we all as martial practitioners of the Way should strive to attain in our interactive communication with others! The style of kenpo that i practice is strictly defensive and we study the mind of the attacker in order to become his/her mindset at the particular point of noncommunicative and communicative interaction. From the simple walk by body language to the actual walk-up confrontation; as well as the actual physical attack itself! This gives us as practitioners the ability to yield in our communication and yet not be controlled by our possible attacker's intent. Usually, the would be assailant see's our stern firm physical determination and senses our intent of not to physically harm or control them, and go on to another victim. Though this is good for us because the attacker see's a part of him/herself within us; the poor guy/gal somewhere down the line will have to experience this guy's/gal's violent controlling intent and possibly be left for dead as an end result! So, this understanding tends to be a double edged sword with one surviving one edge and another falling prey to the other edge of the blade. Thus, we as kenpo practitioners must always strive to teach and practice the enlightenment of self. For a true Master is the Master Of Him/Herself! Sincerely, In Humility; Chiduce!

Wow, that attacker sure sees a lot in you.

While I agree that body positioning does play some role I would suggest that it's not as dominant as put here. But that's my opinion.

Originally posted by GouRonin
Wow, that attacker sure sees a lot in you.

While I agree that body positioning does play some role I would suggest that it's not as dominant as put here. But that's my opinion. The streets and their respective sides of town or sections of the city are very similar to separate sections of a mental ward. With each ward having it's respective level of psycosis. The east side being multiple personality; west side being chlostraphobic; north side being drug addicted; and south side functioning combinations of all and phyiscally handicapped! Each intercommunicative confrontation is different and dis- respecting an individual from each side has it's different consequences. A wave and smile on the west side will do; the strictly business approach may do for the day or even half a day on the east side; the give up a dollar for a snack will do on the north side; and acknowledging the voice of pro-choice will do on the south side! Entering into a ward with the wrong tools to window shop can be very very dangerous. Don't become the dummy in the window! Sincerely, In Humility; Chiduce!

Originally posted by Chiduce
The streets and their respective sides of town or sections of the city are very similar to separate sections of a mental ward. With each ward having it's respective level of psycosis. Entering into a ward with the wrong tools to window shop can be very very dangerous. Don't become the dummy in the window!

I understand what you are saying. I just think you're previous post makes large assumptions of the aggressive mindset that might not be totally accurate. I agree with some if not most of what you state but just not to the degree that you state it.

As an aside I have worked in a psychiatric facility and continue to work in the psychiatric field.

Originally posted by GouRonin


I understand what you are saying. I just think you're previous post makes large assumptions of the aggressive mindset that might not be totally accurate. I agree with some if not most of what you state but just not to the degree that you state it.

As an aside I have worked in a psychiatric facility and continue to work in the psychiatric field. I understand your point here! I would be skeptical myself if i had heard those assumptions with no further iterations! I stressed those assumptions from my own previous physical experience in life's street environments. My experiences of being shot at; attacked by over 5 individuals at one time; being held hostage (mind you, this sir is not military experience) but street ( even though i'am a vet); robbed, and almost killed as well as myself inflicting potentially fatal damage upon different attacking mind sets of individuals leads me to these final conclusions of the attacker's mind! I commend you on working with those whom need that extra helping hand; for at one point in my life i too was one of those whom you now help. I presently work with and sponsor recovering alcoholics and those afflicted by addiction to drugs! Getting a chance to experience those who are learning to read, write, eat, sleep, regain broken family relationships, see a single mother who's children were wards of the state be returned to her; and live productively again gives me solace and serenity! They too, represent and were at one time the attacker's, the inflicters of serious damage among whom ever they could prey upon. It is good to know that there is always hope through change, forgiveness through faith and perserverance, and a new life through spiritual growth! Sabba passa akaranam, or Avoid all evil! Sincerely, In Humility; Chiduce!

Holy Crud!!

And I thought us engineers had a bad time with structural damage upon our fellow structures!

If a philosopher can collect teeth and justify it, then EFFIN-A- it's open season for us physical blokes!!!!

The attitude of training is a non-issue. Do you want a fight to be pretty?? Don't fight. It IS about maiming. It IS about goring. When you have a seven foot homeboy coming down on your ays with full intent of pounding you into oblivion, it is no time to "effectiveley control him"- you introduce his ass to Jesus and get outta there fast. Self defense occurs when you made the decision to be in that situation. If you are turned off by blood and gore and brutalizing someone, then hope you are never faced with a real situation. If someone were to attack me or my girls, they would be lucky to die- no Shine-ola. They would need a bag to contain the spooge.

Originally posted by vincefuess
Holy Crud!! If a philosopher can collect teeth and justify it, then EFFIN-A- it's open season for us physical blokes!!!!

I'm not sure how I should take that.
:rolleyes:

Well, Gou...

What I actually meant was that those who pursue degrees in philosophy are generally perceived as being scholars of a caliber which transcends physical violence- more spiritual perhaps? Not the kind of folk who are likely to rip another being to shreds.

Not that us engineers are known for being a bunch of rockin-a$$ scrappers, for that matter either! LOL!! Buddy, I can weild a mean-a$$ pocket protector!!!! Don't push me or I will be forced to jab you with my compass!

It was just a tongue-in-cheek analysis.

I like the way you look at things, Gou- and I enjoy your posts.

Vince

I like the way you look at things, Gou- and I enjoy your posts.

Oh Get a room!!!!!!!


Just kidding, I enjoy posts from the both of you.