IP Techniques: Do We Need Them?

[MJS]

Hmm...had a nice reply all typed up last night, and lost the damn thing. Oh well, lets try again.

Honestly, I have a sneaking suspicion that if we were all on a training floor together for a couple of days we'd realize how similar our kenpo really is. Some are better, some are worse. Some, like Doc, may understand more. Maybe even far more. Some understand less. But it's hard for me to believe that people can do kenpo for any real length of time (decades) with seriousness and not figure at least a few things out.

Agreed, and I'd love a get together. Seeing vs reading is IMO, so much easier. Certainly eliminates alot of confusion.

You mention Clyde. I was thinking of him earlier in the thread when I was talking about instructors who adhere to a very strict ideal technique performance philosophy. I've seen him write many times about the importance of using the techniques, as written, and only grafting from one technique to another as circumstances dictate. Now I don't know him. I've seen some things he's posted and I've seen some videos of him training and I've seen his instructor on film. So I can't really make any comments on anything but my limited exposure to him. I think his instructor is legit. No doubt. I know not everyone does, but I have no problems with Master Tatum. I don't teach his method, but I've learned from it. And I've learned from what I've seen from Clyde too. So while I may not be able to perform kenpo at the level he advocates, I'm not willing to say it can't be done. Just that I can't do it. So I teach a different method.

In your opinion of what you're read of him, do you take what he says as: a) adhere only to the way the IPs are done/written, such as we see in big red or b) learn the IP, untouched, and then, if need be, play around with it, changing/altering, etc, if needed?

I was confused at the beginning of this thread because I thought Ras was arguing that the techniques didn't work. Which was hard for me to understand, because the techniques work great for me. But then I understood that he meant the techniques, specifically, as written, don't work. Well of course that's true. I've argued that many times. But I don't expect that of the techniques because I was never told that I should. The "ideal phase" techniques don't exist in a dynamic environment. In my method, they are static training models.

Dont wanna speak for Ras, but thats the impression that I got....that the IPs suck *** unless you change them, that theres no way in hell, they'd work, unless you change them.

Clyde says the techniques are meant to be performed perfectly. But the techniques don't take into account dark stairwells, or tall grass, or your foot in a puddle. They don't take into account the size, or strength, or intentions of your attacker. They don't take into account whether your attacker is disabled, or a woman, or attacking you with a shovel or a chair or a rifle. They are far too limited to even come close to addressing these situations in a realistic fashion. I was always told that in the "ideal phase" I am practicing the technique on a flat, open surface against an opponent who is my exact size and shape who reacts perfectly to every strike. That's not a real combat situation, it's an "ideal" teaching scenario. But if a woman attacked Clyde in the dark with a shovel I imagine he'd be able to use his kenpo to defend himself.

Reading this, it implies that he'd make a change, if need be. Reason I say that, is because IMO, if the circumstances are anything but ideal, it aint gonna work.

I see the techniques as limitless, not limited. As a few hundred examples of fighting techniques, but certainly not all possible techniques and combinations. I make changes in stances, and weapons, and the order we teach them in, and the attacks for each techniques. It's not about "being smarter than Mr. Parker." God I wish we could put a bullet in that once and for all. It's about trying to find the best way to teach my students karate. It's an evolving process. Mr. Parker took something taught to him by Masters and made his own adjustments to it and then passed it on. He wasn't the originator. He wasn't the first Master. He was a link in a chain. An important link. A strong link. But the traditions pass beyond him in both directions.

I respect him as the unquestionable Master he is. But I don't deify him, and I've seen far too much of kenpo history not to understand that he was a man with failings and goals and a family to feed. You don't take groundwork out of a fighting art because you want to make it a more effective fighting art. Parker practiced Judo and Jujutsu. He knew the importance of groundwork. Yet it is barely represented in the EPAK system. He knew the importance of stick and knife work, yet they are only slightly more present in the system. It's obvious, at least to me, that the EPAK system is a starting point, not an ending point.

But not everyone agrees. I've had people tell me that every possible combat motion is represented within the system. That's obviously false. I can't speak to whether Clyde can perform the techniques, in their "ideal phase" in a dynamic situation. I only know that I can't. But I don't intend to and I don't intend for my students to. I intend for them to learn how to fight by studying the techniques.

Clyde might say that I don't understand the techniques. I've heard that before. Doc has said much the same to me before about one thing or another. I'm ok with that. I understand them to the degree that I do, fully aware that my understanding will grow in time. I wish I could study under a Master like they were able to. I have no one. I have to figure all this stuff out for myself. So I take what I understand, and I explore it with my students. And we fight, all the time, with our material to try to understand it better.

I mentioned how I practice Broken Ram upthread. Then, that night, I went into the school and practiced it with a student. I had him attack me with tackles, double and single leg takedowns, inside and outside reaps, ankle takedowns and rising takedowns from a kneeling position. And I practiced controlling his height, width, and depth with the pressure to his shoulder, while basing out and striking with my off hand, turning the corner, and opening up his base to push him over or strike him away. I practiced striking his arm, his body, his back, and his head as my arm circled over and under his arm in his tackle. I practiced getting inside his tackle and striking around it. Because that's how we practice Broken Ram.

But before we can do that, I want my purple belts to be able to perform the "ideal phase" technique so that I can show them what they are learning. First they learn the static combination against an opponent posed in a specific position. Then we practice it as a dynamic engagement. Eventually, the student internalizes the lessons and is able to spontaneously express them according to context.

At least, that's how I do it.


-Rob

Likewise, as I've said, I still teach the techs the way they were taught to me. But I like to expand on that, giving them other options, so as to not be bound by them.

 

[Twin Fist]

long winded aint ya?


much truth here

Honestly, I have a sneaking suspicion that if we were all on a training floor together for a couple of days we'd realize how similar our kenpo really is. Some are better, some are worse. Some, like Doc, may understand more. Maybe even far more. Some understand less. But it's hard for me to believe that people can do kenpo for any real length of time (decades) with seriousness and not figure at least a few things out.

You mention Clyde. I was thinking of him earlier in the thread when I was talking about instructors who adhere to a very strict ideal technique performance philosophy. I've seen him write many times about the importance of using the techniques, as written, and only grafting from one technique to another as circumstances dictate. Now I don't know him. I've seen some things he's posted and I've seen some videos of him training and I've seen his instructor on film. So I can't really make any comments on anything but my limited exposure to him. I think his instructor is legit. No doubt. I know not everyone does, but I have no problems with Master Tatum. I don't teach his method, but I've learned from it. And I've learned from what I've seen from Clyde too. So while I may not be able to perform kenpo at the level he advocates, I'm not willing to say it can't be done. Just that I can't do it. So I teach a different method.

I was confused at the beginning of this thread because I thought Ras was arguing that the techniques didn't work. Which was hard for me to understand, because the techniques work great for me. But then I understood that he meant the techniques, specifically, as written, don't work. Well of course that's true. I've argued that many times. But I don't expect that of the techniques because I was never told that I should. The "ideal phase" techniques don't exist in a dynamic environment. In my method, they are static training models.

Clyde says the techniques are meant to be performed perfectly. But the techniques don't take into account dark stairwells, or tall grass, or your foot in a puddle. They don't take into account the size, or strength, or intentions of your attacker. They don't take into account whether your attacker is disabled, or a woman, or attacking you with a shovel or a chair or a rifle. They are far too limited to even come close to addressing these situations in a realistic fashion. I was always told that in the "ideal phase" I am practicing the technique on a flat, open surface against an opponent who is my exact size and shape who reacts perfectly to every strike. That's not a real combat situation, it's an "ideal" teaching scenario. But if a woman attacked Clyde in the dark with a shovel I imagine he'd be able to use his kenpo to defend himself.

I see the techniques as limitless, not limited. As a few hundred examples of fighting techniques, but certainly not all possible techniques and combinations. I make changes in stances, and weapons, and the order we teach them in, and the attacks for each techniques. It's not about "being smarter than Mr. Parker." God I wish we could put a bullet in that once and for all. It's about trying to find the best way to teach my students karate. It's an evolving process. Mr. Parker took something taught to him by Masters and made his own adjustments to it and then passed it on. He wasn't the originator. He wasn't the first Master. He was a link in a chain. An important link. A strong link. But the traditions pass beyond him in both directions.

I respect him as the unquestionable Master he is. But I don't deify him, and I've seen far too much of kenpo history not to understand that he was a man with failings and goals and a family to feed. You don't take groundwork out of a fighting art because you want to make it a more effective fighting art. Parker practiced Judo and Jujutsu. He knew the importance of groundwork. Yet it is barely represented in the EPAK system. He knew the importance of stick and knife work, yet they are only slightly more present in the system. It's obvious, at least to me, that the EPAK system is a starting point, not an ending point.

But not everyone agrees. I've had people tell me that every possible combat motion is represented within the system. That's obviously false. I can't speak to whether Clyde can perform the techniques, in their "ideal phase" in a dynamic situation. I only know that I can't. But I don't intend to and I don't intend for my students to. I intend for them to learn how to fight by studying the techniques.

Clyde might say that I don't understand the techniques. I've heard that before. Doc has said much the same to me before about one thing or another. I'm ok with that. I understand them to the degree that I do, fully aware that my understanding will grow in time. I wish I could study under a Master like they were able to. I have no one. I have to figure all this stuff out for myself. So I take what I understand, and I explore it with my students. And we fight, all the time, with our material to try to understand it better.

I mentioned how I practice Broken Ram upthread. Then, that night, I went into the school and practiced it with a student. I had him attack me with tackles, double and single leg takedowns, inside and outside reaps, ankle takedowns and rising takedowns from a kneeling position. And I practiced controlling his height, width, and depth with the pressure to his shoulder, while basing out and striking with my off hand, turning the corner, and opening up his base to push him over or strike him away. I practiced striking his arm, his body, his back, and his head as my arm circled over and under his arm in his tackle. I practiced getting inside his tackle and striking around it. Because that's how we practice Broken Ram.

But before we can do that, I want my purple belts to be able to perform the "ideal phase" technique so that I can show them what they are learning. First they learn the static combination against an opponent posed in a specific position. Then we practice it as a dynamic engagement. Eventually, the student internalizes the lessons and is able to spontaneously express them according to context.

At least, that's how I do it.


-Rob

 

[Twin Fist]

i have known clyde for a LONG time, he was a 1st when i met him at a SoCal tourny, and there isnt much i disagree with him on when it comes to kenpo.

the answers are in teh techniques

maybe not the way we have been trained to look for them, but they ARE there, even if the answer is a "this is what not to do"

 

[ATACX GYM]

Just to clarify? I'd always been taught that if you learned somehting,it should work EXACTLY AS SHOWN.Maybe you'd tweak it so it worked better for you,and maybe it'd work better for others too...but the original material should work exactly as shown. Immediately--as an 8 year old--I noted that the techs I was being shown didn't work exactly as I was being taught. The hard truth is...whether the techs are used as symbols or concepts,whatever the techs symbolize or conceive would be infinitely better if those symbols and concepts actually did the job that they were purported to do.Why learn some dysfunctional algebra when you can learn algebra that works from jump street? Exactly what concepts have value if the concepts can't be expressed functionally...especially when there's a common sense,faster,more fun,infinitely more beneficial way to make these concepts functional in every regard mentally,physically,spiritually,and ethically? How can you teach me to turn on my computer when we're messing with a old skool radio...that doesn't even work? What comparable lessons can I learn from that which applies better to learning to turn on the computer...which is what I came to you for? How many people go to a massage parlor expecting to play SOCOM while eating pizza? Ridiculous,right? Then how can anyone with any validity state that they can show something which they know ahead of time is dysfunctional yet it has better or equal results to the functional expression? That's an impossibility.Now...some people may wish to start with the dysfunctional stuff and then move on to the functional.Cool with me.They may like and/or prefer that.Likewise cool with me.However,to state baldly or attempt to defend honestly and logically that any portion of dysfunctionality has any form of benefit equivalent with the real world functional approach is literally an argument of ignorance which is utterly repudiated by objective reality.

Before I knew that Doc knew the actual origins of The IP...I stated that the IDEAS BEHIND the IP (which were essentially common SD-specific situations used as a platform to test our techniques against) is not only a TERRIFIC idea that's NOT original to Kenpo,this very same concept could be used to perpetually distinguish us from the MMA types. The MMA types use basically Standup,Clinch and Ground as their launch pads for the applications of striking and grappling essentially rooted in MMA's Big Four--Boxing,MT Kickboxing,Wrestling and BJJ. The scenarios that we see in the 72 SD sequences of Kenpo are not those commonly seen in MMA,as Kenpo includes weapons and unusual situations like strikes off of handshakes,multiple assailants,diving escapes,weapons,clinch range,but no actual ground submissions (but it does include ground fighting).

I said that the GENERAL PHYSICAL ARTICULATION OF THE IP IDEAS--the SPECIFIC TECHS THAT ARE GENERALLY TAUGHT AS THE IP ITSELF--suck ***.And the general articulation DOES suck ***. Guys like MJS and ROB and Doc and others including myself are the exception,NOT the rule. I also opined on KenpoTalk several times that we should functionalize these techs,and even brainstorm together so that collectively we create a better sequence of techs for our students to use as platforms to explore and better Kenpo as a whole.If we did this? We could improve Kenpo dramatically in a single generation or less.

I received lotsa lotsa flakk for this opinion of mine,and especially the shy and retiring way that I defended it from the horrified reaction of specific segments of Kenpoists...including Clyde. To his credit,however,he created a video rebuttal to my Alternating Maces...and in the process proved my point.Lol.

Quite a few others disagreed with me to the point that they went beyond flaming,called me on my phone to disagree with me,and a few even set up challenge matches (which they never showed up for). I must say,however,that the overwhelming people who called me and disagreed with me maintained their civility,however energetically we initially disagreed...and almost every time they came to understand better my position and we were able to reach a more respectful accord with one another.As I continued to champion the Functional Concept,continued to laud the idea behind the IP (as I understood it at the time) and continued to pillory the techs purported to actually BE the IP,I came across MT and was delightfully surprised to see alot more people who'd long reached the same essential conclusion as I have.

Then Doc comes in and tells us all that Mr.Parker never created a set,solid specific IP--despite the fact that we see him doing what looks very much like the IP on video with guys like Huk and Larry Tatum--and that we were supposed to create the IP ourselves and then pass it on to our students. For the first time in my life,somebody mentions something called "Motion Kenpo" to me. Resolving the riddle of Motion Kenpo at once resolves the issue of Mr.Parker doing dysfunctional techs which were taken as the IP,instead of the functional ideas behind the IP which Mr.Parker was trying to convey. Sure he and we and all of us made mistakes--some of which are of the bionically stupid variety--and that compounded the difficulties that he and I and we all face. The revelation of "Big Red"--which to me was the name of a old skool ganxta from Piru I used to know until that very moment--further clarified matters to me,and now...

...now I think we've gone full circle.We were right,but insufficiently informed...which means that at some point? We could easily have set off on the wrong path and never known it until we were swallowed by ignorant oblivion. At the end of the day? It still boils down to: "Can you do what these techs are intended to do in a real SD situation?" In other words...ARE YOU FUNCTIONAL? Doc says Mr.Parker was. Works for me. Therefore we have 3 main categories of people in Kenpo and martial arts: The Functional Group makes everything work with an eye toward increasing functional performance.They absolutely believe that functionally grasping and executing the concepts,precepts,movements,etc. of Kenpo is the brain,heart and soul of Kenpo and will deliberately go far out of their way to learn more about themselves and Kenpo by among other things using this art and contact as the medium.No ground grappling in Kenpo? No prob.Apply your Kenpo techs on the ground against gradually stepped up resistance from sparring partners until you're able to go full tilt boogie. Then learn and cross-train with wrestling,sambo,judo,bjj,jujutsu...and put that AK twist on the principles of these arts because kenpo's roots are kenpojujutsu,so we're just reintro'ing stuff which was in the old skool curriculum,and updating the whole curriculum.Exactly like Mr.Parker would've liked us to do anyway. Think the whole "STORMS" thing in Kenpo sucks visavis functionality? FMA time...and put the Kenpo juice on it.And it's still Kenpo.Etc. This Functional Group still includes people like Clyde because if he can fight with his techs successfully? He's functional too...he just uses a different approach to his training.That's all.If you can fight with your techs? If you can use Kenpo's unique movements etc. to successfully defend yourself? You're Functional. Period. However much you differ from me or whoever in your training approach,your method is functional.

There is the Non-Contact Group,which doesn't seek to engage in SD or sparring but really uses Kenpo for exercise,confidence and its noncombat benefits. And there's a 3rd Group...basically Fence Sitters...that kinda do both.They kinda spar,and they do alot of Non-Contact.This group includes the Mcdojos with families joining and exercising together and having fun and nobody getting hit.This includes light contact Mcdojos to people who focus on forms and noncontact weapons forms competitions.It includes the social element of the Non-Contact group,but their overall performance wavelength and grasp of the art will fall sharply short of The Functional Group because they're not fully functional. But they have fun and they keep Kenpo growing.Most people in Kenpo--I'd wager 80% or more--fall within the 2nd and 3rd categories.They're the majority of the "supercommercial" Motion Kenpo schools with gigantic enrollment.

And to be clear even here? Teaching material of whatever nature tends to follow a progressive,functional approach which is essentially "introduction,isolation,and integration" no matter what other nomenclature is used.All the groups practicing Kenpo do so for various reasons,their training is correspondingly different...but their teaching is the same.Mostly functionally oriented toward whatever it is that they're trying to achieve.

 

[Thesemindz]

I get ya Ras. I remember when I first saw Doc refer to "Motion Kenpo." It's always been controversial. But I really embrace that term. I think it is a great descriptor of the kind of kenpo I teach and I regularly refer to what I do as motion kenpo.

I like your idea of brainstorming the techniques. I've done the same thing with my training partners and other instructors. I think some techniques (Fallen Falcon) are useful in a non-functional state because they do exist as mini-sets covering related skills or topics. But I still like to play with the techniques with a functional mindset. So how would you take a technique like Fallen Falcon and make it functional? Certainly you can't batter the poor man's elbow that many times. He'd pull it away from you and curl up into a ball, or roll towards you in an effort to shield the joint and grab at your legs. Would you change the technique after the first joint attack? Where then would you put the rest of the joint attacks demonstrated in that technique? In other techniques? Or would you drop them from the Standard Curriculum but leave them as basic techniques intended to be practiced separately and only alluded to within Fallen Falcon?

At the same time, how do you determine what makes a technique functional vis a vis finishing moves? Do you think every technique needs to end with a high percentage "fight ender" in order to be considered functional? Or is it sufficient that the technique be executable within the specified combat scenario? Is Delayed Sword "functional?" Should techniques end with control maneuvers? Or coverouts? Or blows to the head?

It would seem from your videos and your writing that you also think that some degree of "live" training is required within the "ideal phase" of the technique in order to consider it "functional." For instance, your video on Captured Twigs seemed to be focused partially on the fact that dynamic bearhug applications aren't covered in the standard EPAK "ideal phase." So do techniques have to contain dynamic "give and take" activities in order to be considered functional? Do they have branches, for instance I'll do Captured Twigs A if he leans in with the hug, B if he lifts with the hug, C if he turns with the hug, or D if he sacrifices with the hug?

I think we can go a long way towards making the techniques "functional" and that's a lot of fun and I'm totally up for that. But in the end no matter what we do we are still trying to codify a dynamic situation. Techniques can never encompass all possibilities. At their absolute best they can only ever be templates designed for us to pattern motion off of, that we then learn to adapt to dynamic circumstances. The systems are artificial. Mastery of the techniques is not the goal. Martial efficacy is the goal. At least that's my goal. And passing that skill on to my students. In the end regardless of the techniques we practice or teach, or what changes we may make to them, there is only one art of the sword.

I think this discussion hasn't really ever been much about the techniques. I think it's been about training method all along. And it seems the answer we've all agreed to is that the correct method is the one that works. Kenpo is a very open ended art. I like that. I think it is meant to encompass everything, ultimately, and I hope to be a part of that. It is a young art, but it borrows heavily from a number of very old arts. We stand on the shoulders of giants, so to speak. And we're lucky to have genuine Masters in an age with instant long distance communication.

I'm excited about the future of kenpo. With guys changing the techniques, and adding other arts, and adding weapons. I've been looking at the kenpo on youtube. I like it. You've got the Casa de Kenpo guys demonstrating the straight up EPAK style. You've got the House of Kenpo guys showing off the kenpo ground grappling. You've got some guys called kenpoevolution showing off some kenpo stand up grappling. You've got the counterforcounter guys showing the stick work. You've got James Hawkins, and Jamie Seabrook, and Joshua Ryer, and Doc showing off his stuff and Ras making a million kenpo videos. Sure, there's some lousy stuff. But it seems to me like the majority of the stuff is good stuff. I'm glad it's out there. And I'm glad to be a part of kenpo at this point in history.

Kenpo should be number one. It has the capacity to encompass the strengths of all arts and ranges and styles of combat. It can be anything to anyone and exactly what each practitioner needs. But that takes good instructors. And I think having a core of instructors out there holding on to the old ways is good. But I think having a core of instructors out there asking why and challenging the established boundaries and belief systems is good too. I think we'll really thrive off that tension.


-Rob

 

[Touch Of Death]

i have known clyde for a LONG time, he was a 1st when i met him at a SoCal tourny, and there isnt much i disagree with him on when it comes to kenpo.

the answers are in teh techniques

maybe not the way we have been trained to look for them, but they ARE there, even if the answer is a "this is what not to do"

Of course you know Clyde. LOL
Sean

 

[ATACX GYM]

I get ya Ras. I remember when I first saw Doc refer to "Motion Kenpo." It's always been controversial. But I really embrace that term. I think it is a great descriptor of the kind of kenpo I teach and I regularly refer to what I do as motion kenpo.

I like your idea of brainstorming the techniques. I've done the same thing with my training partners and other instructors. I think some techniques (Fallen Falcon) are useful in a non-functional state because they do exist as mini-sets covering related skills or topics. But I still like to play with the techniques with a functional mindset. So how would you take a technique like Fallen Falcon and make it functional? Certainly you can't batter the poor man's elbow that many times. He'd pull it away from you and curl up into a ball, or roll towards you in an effort to shield the joint and grab at your legs. Would you change the technique after the first joint attack? Where then would you put the rest of the joint attacks demonstrated in that technique? In other techniques? Or would you drop them from the Standard Curriculum but leave them as basic techniques intended to be practiced separately and only alluded to within Fallen Falcon?

At the same time, how do you determine what makes a technique functional vis a vis finishing moves? Do you think every technique needs to end with a high percentage "fight ender" in order to be considered functional? Or is it sufficient that the technique be executable within the specified combat scenario? Is Delayed Sword "functional?" Should techniques end with control maneuvers? Or coverouts? Or blows to the head?

It would seem from your videos and your writing that you also think that some degree of "live" training is required within the "ideal phase" of the technique in order to consider it "functional." For instance, your video on Captured Twigs seemed to be focused partially on the fact that dynamic bearhug applications aren't covered in the standard EPAK "ideal phase." So do techniques have to contain dynamic "give and take" activities in order to be considered functional? Do they have branches, for instance I'll do Captured Twigs A if he leans in with the hug, B if he lifts with the hug, C if he turns with the hug, or D if he sacrifices with the hug?

I think we can go a long way towards making the techniques "functional" and that's a lot of fun and I'm totally up for that. But in the end no matter what we do we are still trying to codify a dynamic situation. Techniques can never encompass all possibilities. At their absolute best they can only ever be templates designed for us to pattern motion off of, that we then learn to adapt to dynamic circumstances. The systems are artificial. Mastery of the techniques is not the goal. Martial efficacy is the goal. At least that's my goal. And passing that skill on to my students. In the end regardless of the techniques we practice or teach, or what changes we may make to them, there is only one art of the sword.

I think this discussion hasn't really ever been much about the techniques. I think it's been about training method all along. And it seems the answer we've all agreed to is that the correct method is the one that works. Kenpo is a very open ended art. I like that. I think it is meant to encompass everything, ultimately, and I hope to be a part of that. It is a young art, but it borrows heavily from a number of very old arts. We stand on the shoulders of giants, so to speak. And we're lucky to have genuine Masters in an age with instant long distance communication.

I'm excited about the future of kenpo. With guys changing the techniques, and adding other arts, and adding weapons. I've been looking at the kenpo on youtube. I like it. You've got the Casa de Kenpo guys demonstrating the straight up EPAK style. You've got the House of Kenpo guys showing off the kenpo ground grappling. You've got some guys called kenpoevolution showing off some kenpo stand up grappling. You've got the counterforcounter guys showing the stick work. You've got James Hawkins, and Jamie Seabrook, and Joshua Ryer, and Doc showing off his stuff and Ras making a million kenpo videos. Sure, there's some lousy stuff. But it seems to me like the majority of the stuff is good stuff. I'm glad it's out there. And I'm glad to be a part of kenpo at this point in history.

Kenpo should be number one. It has the capacity to encompass the strengths of all arts and ranges and styles of combat. It can be anything to anyone and exactly what each practitioner needs. But that takes good instructors. And I think having a core of instructors out there holding on to the old ways is good. But I think having a core of instructors out there asking why and challenging the established boundaries and belief systems is good too. I think we'll really thrive off that tension.


-Rob

Fallen Falcon...that's funny that you brought that specific tech up in this post,man. We were just going over that again yesterday at a informal get together,wherein my version of doing it was met with resounding criticism by the Kenpo Masters in the crowd...despite the fact that my version was the ONLY version that worked when put to the test vs the judoka wrestlers hapkidoists and other kenpoists there,and the STUDENTS of the disapproving Kenpo Masters thought that my Falling Falcon was terrific.

Essentially Fallen Falcon is Kenpo's response to a common wrestling,streetfighting and judo position--the one hand lapel grab with the clinch--and we run our entire arsenal against it,just like we do everything else. Your comment here:

I think we can go a long way towards making the techniques "functional" and that's a lot of fun and I'm totally up for that. But in the end no matter what we do we are still trying to codify a dynamic situation. Techniques can never encompass all possibilities. At their absolute best they can only ever be templates designed for us to pattern motion off of, that we then learn to adapt to dynamic circumstances. The systems are artificial. Mastery of the techniques is not the goal. Martial efficacy is the goal. At least that's my goal. And passing that skill on to my students. In the end regardless of the techniques we practice or teach, or what changes we may make to them, there is only one art of the sword.-Rob

Is exactly on target.We address that comprehensively in the "integration" portion of our approach. Remember: introduction,isolation,integration...the I:3 Method that I use to teach my techs and most improtantly the principles behind the techs? Introduction is the phase wherein we intro the students to a specific tech and walk them through it til they're proficient in its execution solo and against a fully cooperative partner,ISOLATION--wherein we spar with the specific tech I or my fellow Coaches intro'd to the class against escalating levels of resistance until the student is able to execute the tech full force against full resistance. Then INTEGRATION--we integrate the tech back into our arsenal...and we run all the rest of our techs against that same scenario too.<--This is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL. We run ALL our techs against the same scenario. I can do ALTERNATING MACES vs a bear hug too.Attacking Maces too. And whatever single or series of techs that I have...against a bear hug.It's in this area that we learn to apply our arsenal against whatever scenario and this is how we flow functionally from whatever scenario to whatever tech we wish.We learn to apply virtually our entire submission arsenal against whatever scenario too.You should see us pull off our Kenpo Chicken Wings (Americanas and Kimuras mixed in with aikido locks) against the Bear Hug.Doesn't matter if you're standing or not,we'll nail you anyway.Doesn't matter if you roll this way or that,we'll still nail you...because all of that is part of our BASE TRAINING vs the tech. Remember in my vids how I kept insisting on being able to execute in a 360 degree circle,regardless of your position visavis your opponent,regardless of whatever weaponry you he/she/they had? Yep,that's the Integration Phase that I was alluding to.

Our Fallen Falcon defends the strikes ( pushes,kicks knees punches head butts,the entire range and gamut of punches) weapons and takedowns that we assume is coming from the one hand lapel grab,and we relentlessly counter with Kenpo strikes,the osotogare (yes we'll osoto you even if you're on your knees),and drill the BG with chain submissions comprised of wristlocks elbow extensions and armbars.Doesn't matter where the one hand grab comes from...front,side,back,ground,seated,vs a wall,clinch,prone,whatever wherever whoever.We do the same thing.Strikes,unbalances,trips,throws,takedowns,displacements,submissions.These techs flow well together and allow us to unleash a nonstop barrage of offense that executes exactly what the original physical execution of the Fallen Cross (as I learned it) seemed to want us to learn...and we can definitely attack the elbow relentlessly with the same attack regardless of what our opponent does.It's purrty funny. Our skilled grappling brethren--in the process of defending and counterattacking with their justly feared and vaunted grappling arsenal--leave themselves wide open to Kenpo's ferocious fighting arsenal. And our striking brethren--including the MT boyz who were there at the informal get together--leave themselves wide open to our unique Kenpo brand of strikes and subs.

Interestingly,the guys who gave us the most trouble were the Hapkido guys. Their blend of striking,throwing and subs and the unique platform that they launch from was sorta similar to ours...because I hold rank in Hapkido too. Hapkido is a part of our arsenal,and has been since Cliff Stewart intro'd me to W.A.R. (Within Arm's Reach) 20 years ago. We managed to overcome all of our Hapkido brothers that day,but it wasn't easy.None of the wins were easy wins,whatever the art.And I did most of the fighting for our Gym,which brings me to the next observation: I was the only "Master" rank striker actually striving with the students and grapplers.All the other "Masters" were chillin on the sidelines doing zero.I never liked that tableau...even as a student.I thought that our erstwhile "Masters" should be out there on the mat showing us how it's REALLY done.

I like your idea of brainstorming the techniques. I've done the same thing with my training partners and other instructors. I think some techniques (Fallen Falcon) are useful in a non-functional state because they do exist as mini-sets covering related skills or topics. But I still like to play with the techniques with a functional mindset. So how would you take a technique like Fallen Falcon and make it functional? Certainly you can't batter the poor man's elbow that many times. He'd pull it away from you and curl up into a ball, or roll towards you in an effort to shield the joint and grab at your legs. Would you change the technique after the first joint attack? Where then would you put the rest of the joint attacks demonstrated in that technique? In other techniques? Or would you drop them from the Standard Curriculum but leave them as basic techniques intended to be practiced separately and only alluded to within Fallen Falcon?

At the same time, how do you determine what makes a technique functional vis a vis finishing moves? Do you think every technique needs to end with a high percentage "fight ender" in order to be considered functional? Or is it sufficient that the technique be executable within the specified combat scenario? Is Delayed Sword "functional?" Should techniques end with control maneuvers? Or coverouts? Or blows to the head?

It would seem from your videos and your writing that you also think that some degree of "live" training is required within the "ideal phase" of the technique in order to consider it "functional." For instance, your video on Captured Twigs seemed to be focused partially on the fact that dynamic bearhug applications aren't covered in the standard EPAK "ideal phase." So do techniques have to contain dynamic "give and take" activities in order to be considered functional? Do they have branches, for instance I'll do Captured Twigs A if he leans in with the hug, B if he lifts with the hug, C if he turns with the hug, or D if he sacrifices with the hug?-Rob

To answer the question in your first paragraph? We practice Fallen Falcon against all of the basic positions in which we execute the tech: standing subs,side,or back,seated...ground vs weapons,multifights,escape,rescue,escape and rescue.Since this is the base,all primary options are already addressed as the base. And they're remarkably similar.Very little variation is needed.In my Captured Twigs variant,Captured Twigs 1-3 is only PART of THE BASE that we practice our escapes and counters against.We do THE SAME TECHS vs ALL of the scenarios I just laid out.For instance,in multifights? We learn to blend our strikes with our Captured Twigs countergrappling and striking.We get in depth explorations of the stances that we apply,pressure and whatnot in order to mix displacements with trips throws takedowns sweeps and more...off of the exact same techs that I showed in the empty hand variant that I have in my youtube videos. The nightmare scenario is the armed multifight when you've been bear hugged...and you DON'T have a weapon but all the bad guys DO.We can still get out but chances are high that you're getting stabbed and/or hit.But since we practice the techs vs these scenarios? We have a much higher chance of surviving without major injury.

Delayed Sword is functional.All of our basic combinations include subs and control holds.ALL of them.Remember ALL of our techs have the ATACX GYM R.D.L.--Rock Drop and Lock--as essential components to the techs.And remember--coverouts are ESCAPES,blows to the heads or ANYTHING that ends the conflict without retreat is a finishing tech.

Gotta go now but I hope that I addressed the majority of the matters that you brought up.Love those comments and questions,Rob!

--Ras,Head Coach of THE ATACX GYM

 

[Twin Fist]

Of course you know Clyde. LOL
Sean

and exactly what is this supposed to mean?

 

[Touch Of Death]

and exactly what is this supposed to mean?

Save for a huge difference in writting style, I would have thought you two were twin fists. To be exact.
Sean

 

[Thesemindz]

Once again Ras, I think the discussion here is more about training methods than techniques. What you describe as your "base technique" includes all the activities and drills we practice, I just don't consider that practice part of the "base technique." For instance, my base technique for Captured Twigs is this.



Escaping Capture

Attack: Bearhug, arms pinned
Direction: 6 o&#8217;clock
Family of Techniques: Defense against hug/holds

1.Step with your left into a reverse horse stance facing 12 as you execute a left pinning check to the attacker&#8217;s hands on the front of your body. The reason we step with our left into a horse stance is to line up our right-handed weapons to the attacker&#8217;s constant centerline. Once you have stepped into the horse stance execute a right rear hammerfist strike to the attacker&#8217;s groin to get him to loosen up and release the grip (ideal phase.)

2.Pivot to a right cat stance with your stance facing 3. Your arms will be in a right universal check. When you pivot make sure to turn your hips hard and bring your left shoulder up hard too. This way if there is still a slight grasp on the bearhug the pivot will break you free from the attacker&#8217;s arms.

3.Execute a right side stomp to the side to the attacker&#8217;s left foot. You can use the pivot from the cat stance to line this up by pivoting your right foot until you feel the attacker&#8217;s left foot. As the attacker bends forward from the pain of the stomp execute a right outward elbow strike (that has a path similar to the obscure elbow strike) to the attacker&#8217;s face. After the strike return the right hand to the universal check.

4. Face the opponent in a right neutral bow.

5. Drag step escape away from the opponent.


That doesn't include any of the drills and live training you discuss. We still do those things, we just don't consider it part of the "ideal phase" of the technique. Again, I feel like what you're describing is just good karate training. The problem is when you say "ideal phase" and I say "ideal phase" we aren't referring to the same aspects of our individual methods. They have some overlapping purpose, but they are inherently different components of what we do.

Which is fine. If it works, it works. BJJ schools teach a lot of the same techniques I do with a completely different method, and it seems to work for them. If you're curious to see some of the ways I train these techniques, I posted my class plans for next month on the general kenpo board.

This all has me thinking about something else. I teach in someone else's school, so I'm beholden to his class schedule, but how much time would you say you spend on a specific technique in a specific class? I can only spend so much time, and I have to keep teaching new techniques week after week. Ideally I'd like to be able to spend more time practicing each technique and drill, but there's never enough time and I'm always running my classes late anyway. I'm not super concerned because I feel like if they train in karate for the rest of their lives they'll pick up all these skills eventually anyway. But you describe a pretty intense training regimen with each of your techniques. Do you cover all these ranges and alternatives and options in the first class you teach a new technique? Do you spend several classes in a row on each technique? Or do you go back and reteach your techniques every few months to cover more advanced concepts? What is the length of your classes and how do you structure them in order to teach these skills?

I've been thinking about all the things I want my students to learn, and struggling with the fact that there's never enough time in one class to cover everything. How do you actually approach teaching your techniques against every category of attack, offensively and defensively, against single, mutliple, and armed opponents? Is that a fluid process that happens over the course of years, or do you expect your yellow belts to be absolutely proficient with their yellow belt techniques before they learn orange belt techniques? Do you have a regular curriculum and testing schedule? Or do you teach each student at their own pace and test them individually when you believe they are ready?


-Rob

 

[ATACX GYM]

Once again Ras, I think the discussion here is more about training methods than techniques. What you describe as your "base technique" includes all the activities and drills we practice, I just don't consider that practice part of the "base technique." For instance, my base technique for Captured Twigs is this.



Escaping Capture

Attack: Bearhug, arms pinned
Direction: 6 o’clock
Family of Techniques: Defense against hug/holds

1.Step with your left into a reverse horse stance facing 12 as you execute a left pinning check to the attacker’s hands on the front of your body. The reason we step with our left into a horse stance is to line up our right-handed weapons to the attacker’s constant centerline. Once you have stepped into the horse stance execute a right rear hammerfist strike to the attacker’s groin to get him to loosen up and release the grip (ideal phase.)

2.Pivot to a right cat stance with your stance facing 3. Your arms will be in a right universal check. When you pivot make sure to turn your hips hard and bring your left shoulder up hard too. This way if there is still a slight grasp on the bearhug the pivot will break you free from the attacker’s arms.

3.Execute a right side stomp to the side to the attacker’s left foot. You can use the pivot from the cat stance to line this up by pivoting your right foot until you feel the attacker’s left foot. As the attacker bends forward from the pain of the stomp execute a right outward elbow strike (that has a path similar to the obscure elbow strike) to the attacker’s face. After the strike return the right hand to the universal check.

4. Face the opponent in a right neutral bow.

5. Drag step escape away from the opponent.


That doesn't include any of the drills and live training you discuss. We still do those things, we just don't consider it part of the "ideal phase" of the technique. Again, I feel like what you're describing is just good karate training. The problem is when you say "ideal phase" and I say "ideal phase" we aren't referring to the same aspects of our individual methods. They have some overlapping purpose, but they are inherently different components of what we do.

Which is fine. If it works, it works. BJJ schools teach a lot of the same techniques I do with a completely different method, and it seems to work for them. If you're curious to see some of the ways I train these techniques, I posted my class plans for next month on the general kenpo board.

This all has me thinking about something else. I teach in someone else's school, so I'm beholden to his class schedule, but how much time would you say you spend on a specific technique in a specific class? I can only spend so much time, and I have to keep teaching new techniques week after week. Ideally I'd like to be able to spend more time practicing each technique and drill, but there's never enough time and I'm always running my classes late anyway. I'm not super concerned because I feel like if they train in karate for the rest of their lives they'll pick up all these skills eventually anyway. But you describe a pretty intense training regimen with each of your techniques. Do you cover all these ranges and alternatives and options in the first class you teach a new technique? Do you spend several classes in a row on each technique? Or do you go back and reteach your techniques every few months to cover more advanced concepts? What is the length of your classes and how do you structure them in order to teach these skills?

I've been thinking about all the things I want my students to learn, and struggling with the fact that there's never enough time in one class to cover everything. How do you actually approach teaching your techniques against every category of attack, offensively and defensively, against single, mutliple, and armed opponents? Is that a fluid process that happens over the course of years, or do you expect your yellow belts to be absolutely proficient with their yellow belt techniques before they learn orange belt techniques? Do you have a regular curriculum and testing schedule? Or do you teach each student at their own pace and test them individually when you believe they are ready?


-Rob

Training methods.I absolutely agree with you there.I recall bringing up that very same point some pages ago on this very thread and other threads like this one. We are totally in agreement there.

Where we differ--and not by much--is how our training methods impact the specific ways we teach,the specific techs we teach,and how broad the scenarios are that we teach.Every tech I have...from pre-White Level A to Coach Rank...is tested in the following ranges/scenarios: Standup 360 Degrees,Clinch 360 Degrees,Seated,360 Degrees,Standing-Seated,Seated-Seated 360 Degrees,Up-Down,Seated-Ground,Ground-Ground 360 Degrees,Armed Single,Unarmed and Armed Multifight,Escape,Rescue,and Escape and Rescue variants of each of these. Then as you hit the sash ranks in my Gym,you learn healing,joint and finger locks,First Aid and CPR (mandatory),and the more lethal techs which require the solid base of skill that comes from the "belt ranks"...including the more cunning,subtle methods of our brand of combat capoeira.Sashes cover offensive firearms use,too,as well as improvised weaponry. In my Gym? You have to EARN a White Belt.It's the 4th rank up. The entirety of Kenpo's SD arsenal of sequences is the covered by the time you hit the purple belt ranks of my Gym. My purples do Falling Falcon and all that other fun stuff with horrific efficiency.My WHITE belts do it with high skill. We do lotsa other stuff too but that's for a different post.

So whatever tech I teach,gets the 360 Degree multirange multiscenario treatment.IT'S NOT HARD.It's PRETTY EASY in fact. Teach a jab-cross-front kick,and say The I.O.U.D. (Inside Outside Upward Downward) Blocks.Doing this takes me no more than 12 minutes,usually 6-8 minutes.Focus on the step by step execution. Insist on 50 of each tech thrown in the air to get the movement and muscle memory down,and make them do the jab-cross-front kick combo up and down the gym about 5 times.That will equal 50 reps for most places.Pair off with partner.Have jabber jab-cross-front kick at partner as the partner first stands immobile at each of the cardinal directions for 10 reps each position,then have the partner move in any pattern or whatever that the partner wants within the circular orbit of the jabbing student WITHOUT attacking that student.Give them 2 minutes.The jabber has to fire to the body (not head) first,and must land 20 blows at 25% power in this 2 minute round,then they change roles. Now do the same thing with the blocks...except now one student jabs at 25% power and the other student must block.It's always a revelation when the student starts getting smacked with jabs from the back,lololol. This is how I teach students to "feel" their opponent even when their back is to them,look for shadows,use their peripheral vision,turn their heads to see their (moving) partner,and more. 3 rounds,2 minutes.They're sweating now. Break 2 minutes. Correct their mistakes. Run through every range of combat with partner drills of strikes and the I.O.U.D....including Escape,Rescue,plus Escape and Rescue.Intro the inside and outside "leg trip",insist on 60 reps of each tech per student in two 2 minute rounds,integrate with jab-cross-front kick,and I.O.U.D.,and repeat the whole process again.That's fun and the students pick it up FAST.The strikes and both defensive and offensive use of the blocks really opens up the grab and leg trip.3-two minute rounds of this,with each partner changing roles after 1 minute.2 minute break of me correcting them and then I make them go 3 full 2 minute rounds nonstop.Sweating and tired now.Break where I tell them how they sucked and what to fix.Lololol.Then I move on to following your partner down after the leg trip with a stomp-front kick-jab-block (used offensively as a check) jab-crossx2 combo,and a cover out.We practice that one in the air,and then with a totally nonresistant partner.The students--on their FIRST DAY--will already understand that they can do this against a moderately resisting opponent...but I do NOT let them stomp people or kick them while they're down on their first day. I divvy up the class into 2 lines facing each other,and we spend the rest of the time--usually 15 minutes--in mandatory light sparring,working the techs in 1-2 minute bursts while switching partners so everybody gets to try their techs against new people (sans the stomp and kick).The students also learn how to keep their legs from being grabbed in this scenario by using footwork,blocks and strikes (yep,the jab-cross-front kick and blocks that they've already been using) and as a result they get a deep grasp of the techs in question.

It's a good fun safe workout that teaches you how to scrap from day one...and makes you pay close attention to your technical execution too.All in 60 minutes.

 

[Matt]

I dunno. Here's how I see it...

you punch at me with your right fist, I smash your punching arm with a pek chui and damage your arm, then I hit you with something, maybe a chuin chui (straight punch).

You punch at me with your left fist, I smash your punching arm with a pek chui and hit you with a chuin chui.

You give me a left-right combo, I smash with pek, pek, then follow with chuin.

You're taller or shorter than me, or slightly off on an angle instead of right in front, doesn't matter: Pek and then Chuin.

You punch at me from the right side, I still smash you with a pek, follow with a chuin, or maybe a baht gim ("sword-drawing punch").

You punch at me from the left side, I still smash you with a pek, follow with a chuin or maybe a baht gim.

You reach out to grab at my jacket, you guessed it: pek to chuin.

you succeed in grabbing my jacket, pek to chuin.

You try to push me, and again it's pek to chuin

You grab me by the shoulder(s), once again: pek to chuin.

My point is, most of these kinds of things you can deal with very simply with an aggressively destructive defensive technique (which may end the problem all by itself) followed by a finisher. Lots and lots of different attacks, all handled with the same combo: pek-chuin. Variations naturally fall into place depending on positioning, but the basic techs are the same, on solution for many problems.

why get so complicated?

I wish I could push the 'thanks' button more times. The reason I switched styles to the one I do now was that instead of 100+ techniques to black belt, and countless (literally) techniques in the system, I now focus on about 18, with 'ad-libs and variations', and on training at a very intense level. Getting better > Getting more.

 

[ATACX GYM]

I wish I could push the 'thanks' button more times. The reason I switched styles to the one I do now was that instead of 100+ techniques to black belt, and countless (literally) techniques in the system, I now focus on about 18, with 'ad-libs and variations', and on training at a very intense level. Getting better > Getting more.

So what art do you study anyway? 18 techs in the whole system? Interesting...or do I misunderstand your point?

I completely agree with getting better>getting more,but there are quite a few functional philosophies that get us there.My ATACX GYM has 48 base techs at pre-white level A...the very first rank that you have when you enter.I cover empty hand,weapons (stick only at this rank),grappling and subs,takedowns,trips,displacements,throws,multifights,escape,rescue,escape and rescue,sets,breakfalls,verbal de-escalation,etc. The number of techs isn't really a reason to switch styles; the functionality and purpose of the techs and their compatibility with your specific goals should be centrally at issue.

I've created a plethora of functional phase techs and functional drills that speedily download the requisite basic performance skillz and we simply hone our skillz from there.

 

[Twin Fist]

The reason I switched styles to the one I do now was that instead of 100+ techniques to black belt, and countless (literally) techniques in the system, I now focus on about 18, with 'ad-libs and variations', and on training at a very intense level. Getting better > Getting more.

sounds like kajukembo

 

[ATACX GYM]

sounds like kajukembo

Yeah it does...and a couple of others too...

 

[MJS]

I agree with the last few posters...Matt, TF, and Ras. Whats interesting, is while I share that same line of thinking, is people will still disagree with this, saying that by limiting the number of things that you do, you're not teaching pure Kenpo, depriving people of valuable stuff, that the reason you teach a condensed list is because you dont understand the material....the list goes on and on. LOL.

Again, while I teach all of the techs required for each belt level (way too many IMHO) I think that, as I've said in other threads, by focusing on a handful of common street attacks, for each belt level, drilling the hell out of them, and then working to apply each tech to a number of different scenarios, the student is better off in the long run.

What I mean about applying the techs to various scenarios.....instead of having 7 techs that address a 2 hand lapel grab, each of them in and of itself, teaching a 'what if' response, have the student build their own 'what if' off of 1 tech. Yeah, in the end, they're still ending up with the 'ad-libs' which is fine, they're just not getting bogged down with a bunch of preset techs that they need to spend time learning, when they could be learning something more productive.

 

[Flying Crane]

... teaching a 'what if' response, have the student build their own 'what if' off of 1 tech.

I'll suggest even a step further: take one technique and see how many ways you can get it to work "right out of the box", against a variety of attacks. If it's not workable that way, then maybe it's too complicated (note: I believe there is a big difference between "complicated" and "complex". Complex can be good, if properly understood and kept in context. Complicated is usually not good and leads to dysfunctionality).

By "variety of attacks", I don't mean things like, a punch from the front vs. a punch from an angle, or a punch with the same foot forward vs. a punch with the opposite foot forward. To me, that's essentially the same attack. What I mean is, a punch, a grab, a push, attacks from the front or side or rear, some very different things that all involve the bad guy coming at you in different ways and from different directions.

Usually the techs that work against a variety of attacks are straight forward and simple, and those are the ones with a much much much higher probability of success in a chaotic and changing scenario in a real-life defense situation.

Once you've worked that exercise to death, then you can look at how very minor adjustments and variations on that tech can make it work against even more different attacks. That's where it can become an exercise in "what if".

 

[MJS]

I'll suggest even a step further: take one technique and see how many ways you can get it to work "right out of the box", against a variety of attacks. If it's not workable that way, then maybe it's too complicated (note: I believe there is a big difference between "complicated" and "complex". Complex can be good, if properly understood and kept in context. Complicated is usually not good and leads to dysfunctionality).

By "variety of attacks", I don't mean things like, a punch from the front vs. a punch from an angle, or a punch with the same foot forward vs. a punch with the opposite foot forward. To me, that's essentially the same attack. What I mean is, a punch, a grab, a push, attacks from the front or side or rear, some very different things that all involve the bad guy coming at you in different ways and from different directions.

Usually the techs that work against a variety of attacks are straight forward and simple, and those are the ones with a much much much higher probability of success in a chaotic and changing scenario in a real-life defense situation.

Once you've worked that exercise to death, then you can look at how very minor adjustments and variations on that tech can make it work against even more different attacks. That's where it can become an exercise in "what if".

Exactly! Initially, what I was talking about was what you said in your opening line....to work, say, Attacking Mace, off of a step thru punch, a cross, a jab/cross, but when ya think about it, what you suggested, makes alot of very good sense.

I mentioned a while back, probably in another thread, that during one class, I took Short 2, and had the students pair up, and work applications. I gave them a bunch just off of the first move, which is rt. steps forward, rt, inward block, rt. outward handsword. Some apps. that I gave them were:

blocks against a right or left punch
defense against an attempted grab, either hand
an attempted push, 1 or 2 hands.
lapel grab, rt or lt handed.

 

[ATACX GYM]

I'll suggest even a step further: take one technique and see how many ways you can get it to work "right out of the box", against a variety of attacks. If it's not workable that way, then maybe it's too complicated (note: I believe there is a big difference between "complicated" and "complex". Complex can be good, if properly understood and kept in context. Complicated is usually not good and leads to dysfunctionality).

By "variety of attacks", I don't mean things like, a punch from the front vs. a punch from an angle, or a punch with the same foot forward vs. a punch with the opposite foot forward. To me, that's essentially the same attack. What I mean is, a punch, a grab, a push, attacks from the front or side or rear, some very different things that all involve the bad guy coming at you in different ways and from different directions.

Usually the techs that work against a variety of attacks are straight forward and simple, and those are the ones with a much much much higher probability of success in a chaotic and changing scenario in a real-life defense situation.

Once you've worked that exercise to death, then you can look at how very minor adjustments and variations on that tech can make it work against even more different attacks. That's where it can become an exercise in "what if".

Remember how I keep saying that I work my entire arsenal of attacks in every position at 360 degrees vs multifights rescue,escape,rescue and escape,etc? This is what I mean.We work every single one of our techs--for example, Snaking Talons (our varient is the Snake and Tiger Talon) vs armed attacks,on the ground,etc.I already pointed out that we do this numerous times.What happens is that we develope an incredible array of unorthodox or at least unusual attacks vs all kinds of attacks.Try Captured Twigs vs jab and cross for instance.You wind up blocking strikes,counterstriking and ATTACKING WITH THE BEAR HUG.I insist that our counterstrikes do include the signature techs in the specific tech--like Captured Twigs--we're studying,i.e. hammerfist and Obscure Wing,palm strike,and my Gym's R.D.L. (Rock Drop and Lock,which are all forms of sweeps,takedowns,displacements,subs,weapon use,etc. with the idea to "Rock-stop them with blows,Drop-stop them with slams takedowns etc. Lock-stop them with submission/control holds) added on to whatever pre-white and white belt techs that we used to cross the gap.We've used Delayed Sword from The Butterfly Guard with horrific effect.You ever try Thundering Hammers from the MT clinch? Betcha nobody has tried that on your Muay Thai buddies either,and once you functionalize it? Very nasty surprise for them.Try Leaping Crane from off the point fighting blitz flying knee and clinch work.More nasty surprise. (Okay that mess is FUNNY to me;it hella works too.Wait until you see my video on it.Swear to God everybody of done this to gets this hella funny look on their face sooo much).

 

[ATACX GYM]

Exactly! Initially, what I was talking about was what you said in your opening line....to work, say, Attacking Mace, off of a step thru punch, a cross, a jab/cross, but when ya think about it, what you suggested, makes alot of very good sense.

I mentioned a while back, probably in another thread, that during one class, I took Short 2, and had the students pair up, and work applications. I gave them a bunch just off of the first move, which is rt. steps forward, rt, inward block, rt. outward handsword. Some apps. that I gave them were:

blocks against a right or left punch
defense against an attempted grab, either hand
an attempted push, 1 or 2 hands.
lapel grab, rt or lt handed.

You can do this off of knife,bat,bottle,club,chair,and stick thrusts and hooking swings (don't fake the funk though; make sure that the attacker is using the business end of the weapon when swinging at your student; it emphasizes over and over again the importance of dealing with/nuetralizing/evading the weapon threat in the real world way) and it works against guns pointed at you from close range too. It works against the single or two handed choke hold.Etc. Etc. I do it with my squad all the time.