Kenpo 5.0 Commercial

[MJS]

I often tell an odd ",an walks into a bar" joke at the beginning of kenpo seminars I teach. It goes, "This man walked into the bar, so I whipped our my .45 Colt Combat Commander, shoved the barrel in his mouth, breaking his teeth and tearing his lips as I pushed, then squeezed off a round, blowing out the back of his head and spattering blood and brains all over the wall behind him. What? What are you looking at? He shouldn't have walked into the bar!"

One of the first techniques we learn in yellow belt has us hacking a guy in the throat with a chop, because he placed his hand on our shoulder. Something in there about "as the attitude, so the response."

As JT said, yet we still train every day. Then again, and I think I've said this before in other posts/threads, but perhaps we should be able to shift on the fly, so to speak, and modify what we do. Instead of that hit to the throat, perhaps a backfist or open hand hit to the face instead. Then again, what about that kick to the groin in Delayed Sword? Hell, that has a throat shot and one to the groin.

Of course, many of us, myself included, have other tools in our toolbox, so we could attempt something less brutal such as a lock, but even that may not be a good option. Will it work? Will this guy feel any pain? Will we end up breaking something in the process?

 

[MJS]

Most of this controversy is a product of, and began with the motion based Kenpo that teaches "overkill" by necessity to insure functionality. Higher levels of kenpo do not take that approach, and neither did Ed Parker in his personal Kenpo. You can also see that influence on his son, in some of the things that Ed Parker Jr. is doing now as well. But when you have a commercial self-defense course, all of them do the same thing. Poke them in the eyes, smash the testicles, rupture the throat, stomp them when they are down, take your keys and put them between yor fingers and slash the face, etc.

When have you seen a self-defense class that didn't teach that way. Why? Because most of those classes are designed for women and girls, and motion based Kenpo is partially derived from that concept. It's called quick and easy skills to teach someone for survival.

The differences however becomes significant when you extrapolate a base self-defense course into a martial art system with progressive ranks, which has become the norm today even beyond "kenpo" and its derivatives. It begins with mayhem, and adds more and more mayhem as you go higher in the art. The higher your rank, the more rips, claws, stomps, and gouges. Of course, this happens to be exactly inverse of every tradtional martial art that preceded it.

However, if a woman was attacked by some guy, if she poked him the eyes, or smashed him in the throat and he died, the law would give the advantage to the woman in our society in most gender based physical confrontations in general, and in an attack scenario in particular. Under most interpretations of the law, a woman has a greater opportunity to articulate that she was "in fear of her life," than a man. This bias is built into most aspects of the law. After all most have mothers, daughters, and wives, and anything that happened to someone who attacked one of them would not be enough.

But anyone who has found themselves in an art that teaches this "overkill" perspective should be wary. It may be cavalier to suggest "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by six," but that "judged by twelve" is a lot more significant and complicated than most realize. You not only can lose everything you have, but be incarcerated on top of it. In other words, quick death or a slow one. Some would say so what's the choice?

Try something novel. Learn real martial skills that give you options beyond a poke in the eye or stomping a downed attacker no longer a threat. Your wife or mother may get away with it, but you're going to jail, and your wife or mother will be on the street when you lose the house paying for your defense, or in the civil law suit. You see, muggers have family and access to lawyers too.

What are your thoughts on this Doc? This happened not long ago. So, IMHO, had the husband not been bound and beat, I say by all means, someone does this to someone, and they deserve every damn thing that happens to them. And if that consists of picking up a knife and using it, in order to save my family, then I'm going to do it, and anyone who says that they'd take it easy on people like that are kidding themselves and everyone else.

I think someone else mentioned it in another post, but what happens when the 'less lethal' shots we're throwing are not having any effect? I think assuming that they always will is setting us up to fail.

This happened a few nights ago. The people in question have no remorse about causing serious bodily harm to the victim. Would an eye shot or throat shot be out of line in these cases? Frankly Doc, and with all due respect, I don't really care if those are viewed as shots only a woman should do, because when its 3 against one, sure, I may get my rear end kicked, but I'm not going out without a fight. And if taking the eyes of one of these guys is what it takes to get home safe, then thats what I'm doing.

Like I said and I find myself saying it again...assess the situation. If faced with what I just linked, would a less lethal shot be better? Sorry, 3 to 1 odds....I want to get home at the end of the night.

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

If all you have is a hammer...

I don't think he's suggesting you empty your toolbox of panic-level life-saving tool, but rather ALSO spend some time developing the wrench, screwdriver, pliers, saw, etc. Have more options than going right to maiming.

Develop the critical skills to figger when locking him up in a hold is sufficient, or when you gotta grab him by the hair with one hand and break his nose with the other, when a solid rib shot will suffice, or when it's time to go off and start taking eyes, throats, knees and temples. I open my eyes and there's an armed assailant in my home hovering over my bed, it's on. 25 year old road rager at a stoplight who I have 50 pounds on? Tough sell in court that he had a 2 week hospital stay coming over a mutual combat temper tantrum.

 

[DavidCC]

In many states, a many-on-one attack is considered lethal force and so defending yourself with lethal force is justified; same with use of a weapon by an attacker.

being attacked by multiple attackers with weapons justifies beyond lethal force, which means you can legally eat their souls. Which, you know, sucks for them...
verkill:

 

[JTKenpo]

In many states, a many-on-one attack is considered lethal force and so defending yourself with lethal force is justified; same with use of a weapon by an attacker.

being attacked by multiple attackers with weapons justifies beyond lethal force, which means you can legally eat their souls. Which, you know, sucks for them...
verkill:

Unless of course the others say they weren't involved and it was this crazy kung fu guy that jackie chaned there friend and they were just trying to get their friend out of there alive

 

[SL4Drew]

Perhaps you missed my first post in this thread...the one where I said that I feel that its important to assess the situation thats presented to you at the time. Perhaps we should be basing our response off of that.

What prompted my post was this: "The confines of the law are different per state. In GA (to summarize), if I felt like my life was in danger I can protect myself if it means taking his life. Of course, should it end up in court I have to be able to prove that I felt that level of threat. I'm not going to disarm someone with a knife and leave them standing so they can come at me again; I may not get lucky the 2nd time. I'd rather be judged by 12 than buried by 6."

This statement clearly indicated a willingness to use lethal force when faced when lethal force. Fine. What I have consistently had an issue with was the indication that to continue to use lethal force against an unarmed attacker (who has presumably been injured by you) is all right because 'it's better to be tried by 12.' You are not privileged to use lethal force against someone not presenting you with that same level of force. Otherwise you could just shoot the dirt bag that pushed you...

And yes, if someone is trying to cause me or someone I'm with, serious bodily harm, you wouldn't respond in a like fashion? Someone trying to hit me and knock my head off....is a parry to the punch and an elbow to their head too much? How about breaking the arm holding the knife that the guy is trying to gut me with. Is that too much? I'm sorry, I'm not going to stand around and play patty cake with someone trying to mug me. I'm minding my own business, and some dirtbag comes up and tries to take my money....screw him, he gets what he deserves, and if that means knocking a few teeth out of his mouth, maybe he'll think twice when he looks in the mirror, about doing that again.

I don't understand why the assumption is I am advocating 'patty-cake' or 'closing your eyes to an attacker.' I never said you can't or shouldn't act in self-defense. But self-defense isn't a magic line that once crossed you are suddenly justified in doing anything you want, e.g. shooting the guy that pushed you.

SL4 does just fine without the soft tissue strikes and the general mayhem you often see. To continue to suck Dr. Dave into this discussion (because we love him), he has related the story where he blew his shoulder out when having a student do the first 'block' in Five Swords. If you can accomplish this, why would you then continue to attack an one-armed man and bounce his grill off the street?

The point of self-defense is defense, which should be obvious from the name. Overkill is not defense--its name also says it all. I feel the point of being an 'advanced practitioner' of the arts is to be able to modulate the destructive force you can deploy. As Doc stated above, this traditional has been the goal of the old masters. Anyone remember this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_Ycw0d_Uow

The last time I looked at the UCRs, 2/3 of aggravated assault victims knew their assailant. If you went out drinking with Bob from the mailroom and he tried to assault you, is ripping his testicles off really the way you want to go?

 

[SL4Drew]

being attacked by multiple attackers with weapons justifies beyond lethal force, which means you can legally eat their souls...

I didn't know Doc taught you that technique too. :mst:

 

[JTKenpo]

I didn't know Doc taught you that technique too. :mst:

I'll pay to be at that seminar!!!

but seriously my point is this if you go into a conflict with an end result in mind your more than likely to loose one way or another.

 

[jks9199]

But anyone who has found themselves in an art that teaches this "overkill" perspective should be wary. It may be cavalier to suggest "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by six," but that "judged by twelve" is a lot more significant and complicated than most realize. You not only can lose everything you have, but be incarcerated on top of it. In other words, quick death or a slow one. Some would say so what's the choice?

Try something novel. Learn real martial skills that give you options beyond a poke in the eye or stomping a downed attacker no longer a threat. Your wife or mother may get away with it, but you're going to jail, and your wife or mother will be on the street when you lose the house paying for your defense, or in the civil law suit. You see, muggers have family and access to lawyers too.

Fantastic comments (as usual). I get sick of the bravado of the "tried by 6/carried by 12" statement. Personally, I'd rather have the physical skills and legal knowledge to respond to force appropriately and be neither tried nor carried. Or at least have a good chance of avoiding either result! Even if you're in the right, a civil suit can easily cost tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars...

 

[DavidCC]

well, he put his hand on my shoulder...

 

[Doc]

What are your thoughts on this Doc? This happened not long ago. So, IMHO, had the husband not been bound and beat, I say by all means, someone does this to someone, and they deserve every damn thing that happens to them. And if that consists of picking up a knife and using it, in order to save my family, then I'm going to do it, and anyone who says that they'd take it easy on people like that are kidding themselves and everyone else.

I think someone else mentioned it in another post, but what happens when the 'less lethal' shots we're throwing are not having any effect? I think assuming that they always will is setting us up to fail.

This happened a few nights ago. The people in question have no remorse about causing serious bodily harm to the victim. Would an eye shot or throat shot be out of line in these cases? Frankly Doc, and with all due respect, I don't really care if those are viewed as shots only a woman should do, because when its 3 against one, sure, I may get my rear end kicked, but I'm not going out without a fight. And if taking the eyes of one of these guys is what it takes to get home safe, then thats what I'm doing.

Like I said and I find myself saying it again...assess the situation. If faced with what I just linked, would a less lethal shot be better? Sorry, 3 to 1 odds....I want to get home at the end of the night.

Wait a minute. I carry a gun everyday, and if I felt my life or the life of one of my daughters was in danger I wouldn't try some lock on a guy, I'd cap him in a heart beat or resort to other extreme destructive measures. I don't coddle idiots who want to hurt me. In street self-defense everything goes, but my beef is with the rush to blind a guy, or collapse his wind pipe on a less than lethal assault. It is wholly unethical, immoral, and illegal.

You don't teach a guy to stick his fingers in a man's eyes because he throws a punch. You don't teach a guy to smash someone's wind pipe for putting his hand on your shoulder. That's teaching a disproportionate response to the attack, and can have legal consequences. Acceptable in a commercial women's street self defense course, but not in an ethically grounded legitimate martial art. The safety valve for the teacher is, he teaches possible responses. The practitioner is responsible for their actions.

But still, that doesn't mean that under some circumstances you can't poke a man in the eyes and blind him when he throws a punch at you. It always depends on the circumstances.

The problem is in commercialism you teach the easy stuff. Poking someone in the eyes is easy. So easy that sometimes it happens by accident. This is not significant skill. Imagine some guy that's wear a ton of red on his belt, and all he can teach you is to just strike, strike, and more strikes. This is the lowest form of any art, and is an instinctual survival mode that we are born with. Smash, poke, stomp, kick, etc. Everybody can do that, without training, and I see it all the time in street thugs.

It's a cultural sales job. Real martial arts take lots of time with a rare knowledgeable and experienced teacher. They've sold a "self defense course" to the American Public based on it being "Easy, effective, and anyone can do it, even children." and they're right. Read the brochures and the websites. Why is it that in the early years of the arts, we never saw women or children studying until judo came along? Judo was the first quasi-commercial sport/art that made allowances for age, size, and gender so everyone could particpate. But, they also never called it self-defense.

Can you imagine going into a real kwoon or dojo with a legit master telling you, "Oh this is easy stuff, you'll make black in no time." When a guy tells you how easy it is to learn, I think he's making a significant statement about himself. All of my experiences with real masters telling stories of their training were the exact opposite. Their training was intense, physical, and the weak didn't stay.

But fortunately and unfortunately this is not real martial arts. It's commercial self-defense, and they are not the same thing. Commercial self-defense schools are more plentiful than gas stations. Real martial art masters are rare, and unfortunately there aren't enough to go around. Some arts have some really good people, a few masters and maybe one grandmaster. It's gotten to the point that in the commercial arts, dam near everyone is at least a professor or master with more high ranks than lower belts. It's a business first. The problem arises when those that study these art courses are without perspective, and believe what they have learned is a significant art with significant information. They are quick to argue what they haven't learned because what they know has to be significant. They have to put other information down, or what they have learned and their ranks become insignificant.

Many smart people have figured out what they learned is shallow material, and have embarked onto "cross training." They go to other arts to fix the problems that are glaringly obvious in what they've been taught. I personally don't like the concept, but it beats the hell out of doing commercial martial arts and declaring as some do, "It contains everything. You just have to find it." I just hope you find what you need before you actually need it. It's better than thinking you're sitting on top of the mountain, when you really sitting on a small hill in the shadow of a real mountain you're choosing to ignore.

I've been lucky in my lifetime to be in a room with real masters from various arts. They never argued about which was best. they traded ideas, and exchanged methods, and broke bread often. Modern so-called masters tend to want students to be exclusive, and view others as competitors. Its all about the business and personal status that fuels the business.

But everything is relative. There is nothing wrong with ranking, or wearing the degrees, but remember what, where, and how you got it. When you "graduate" from elementary school, you are indeed a graduate. But, don't strut around like you just got out of grad school. And when a real professor suggest there may be more than what you know, be man enough to at least listen. - or not!

 

[MJS]

You know, anytime we discuss something on the net, there is always a very good chance that things are going to be misunderstood. Now, maybe I'm misunderstanding or maybe not, but it just seemed to me that there were some that were totally against any sort of 'violent' technique.

Perhaps I gave the impression that I was in favor of nothing but that, however, if we look at my first post and ones I've made in the past on similar subjects, we should see that I always say that its important to assess the situation and base your response off of that.

I have a number of 'tools' in my toolbox. Punching, kicking, joint locking, grappling, etc. By all means, if the situation can be resolved with words, fine. If that doesn't work, and it takes a punch or kick, fine. If it takes slamming the person and kicking him on the ground, fine. Will I or should we always resort to that? Of course not, but we should keep that as an option, should we need it.

If someone is hell bent on knocking my head off, I really don't think thats the time or place for a lock. Perhaps that'd be better suited for someone less of a threat, such as being intoxicated.

 

[MJS]

I was initially going to make this next post a seperate thread, but now that I think about it, its better suited here. Lets look at the following attacks, the response and what the response should be or better yet, for those that are not crazy about the 'textbook' response, what you would do.

Sword and Hammer: Attack is a grab to the shoulder, yet the first move is a throat strike.

Delayed Sword: A lapel grab, and the moves include a groin shot and throat hit.

5 Swords: Throat shot and eye shot...for a roundhouse punch.

Deflecting Hammer: Front kick, and we elbow the head.


In closing I'll say this...I was thinking about this thread today and the various responses that were made so far. If we look at this post on another thread, we see the following:

4. "Ed Parkers Kenpo Karate" A series of personal issues causes Ed Parker to decide to enter the commercial marketplace and expand in the second half of the sixties. Looking for a method that differed from the kenpo franchises that preceded him that he felt were flawed, he drew upon his many "transfer" black belts from other styles. Stumbling upon "motion" as a base concept, it allowed him to create loose conceptual guidelines for already competent black belts. This further gave him the freedom to travel conducting seminars, belt tests, and selling, while seeing the majority of his "students" two or three times a year and usually once at the IKC. Most of the well known black belts came up under this system. Some better than others. Some spent their own dime and came to see Parker often when he was in town like Dennis Conatser who I always plug because I think he brilliant.

Some came very late in the eighties and is the reason they are not on the family tree. The rest came after Parker's death. Most of the older seniors rejected it and/or left. This was what he was sharing with a few private students in an effort to cash in on the publicity of Larry Tatum's student Jeff Speakman's movie, "Perfect Weapon." He hoped to rekindle a chain of schools that he directly financially controlled. All of his schools and his black belt students had defected years ago. He maintained only one profitable school run by Larry Tatum in the eighties until he changed personnel.

5. "Ed Parker's Personal American Kenpo" The ever evolving personal art of Ed Parker that included elements left out of his commercial diversion or off shoots and other interpretations as well. (nerve meridians, mat work, manipulations, structural integrity, etc) This included all the things that students couldn't duplicate because Parker didn't generally teach it. Here lies all the things that some have discovered is missing from his diversion art that he never wrote about anywhere. "Slap-Check" comes to mind. I gave what he shared with me my own name after he passed based on phrases Parker used to describe it to differeniate between it and other versions of what he taught. However in reality it is the "American Kenpo" Parker was utilizing before he passed away that was still evolving. Others that he may have taught may have other names for it, but to understand it, a person would have had to evolve with Parker into it because of a lack of its hard codification.


So, and this is not intended as a slam on anyone, but reading those 2 posts, it almost seems as if Parker set up certain people for failure. Now, seeing that Doc is really the only active Senior we have posting on MT, I hope that he'd be kind enough to reply.

If we look at the posts above, we see what appears to be 2 different Kenpo systems, one being something that is designed for the masses, and the other being reserved for the more serious student. Now, I haven't seen all of the top Kenpoists, so I don't know what model they're following. Does Tatum teach 4 or 5? Seems like a no brainer that Doc is doing 5. What about Mike Pick? Palanzo and Planas?

If all someone knows is version 4, then how can anyone expect to hear anything different? I mean, the talk of the 'violent' side is really all they know, if thats all their teacher knows. So, for those who learned version 4, well, chances are, if someone grabs their shoulder, the offending party will probably end up with a hit to the neck, versus a nerve shot.

Enough rambling...I'm looking forward to hearing from Doc and others.

Of course, what I should be doing is hopping on a plane to So.Cal and having a workout with Doc.

Mike

 

[Doc]

I was initially going to make this next post a seperate thread, but now that I think about it, its better suited here. Lets look at the following attacks, the response and what the response should be or better yet, for those that are not crazy about the 'textbook' response, what you would do.

Sword and Hammer: Attack is a grab to the shoulder, yet the first move is a throat strike.

Delayed Sword: A lapel grab, and the moves include a groin shot and throat hit.

5 Swords: Throat shot and eye shot...for a roundhouse punch.

Deflecting Hammer: Front kick, and we elbow the head.


In closing I'll say this...I was thinking about this thread today and the various responses that were made so far. If we look at this post on another thread, we see the following:

4. "Ed Parkers Kenpo Karate" A series of personal issues causes Ed Parker to decide to enter the commercial marketplace and expand in the second half of the sixties. Looking for a method that differed from the kenpo franchises that preceded him that he felt were flawed, he drew upon his many "transfer" black belts from other styles. Stumbling upon "motion" as a base concept, it allowed him to create loose conceptual guidelines for already competent black belts. This further gave him the freedom to travel conducting seminars, belt tests, and selling, while seeing the majority of his "students" two or three times a year and usually once at the IKC. Most of the well known black belts came up under this system. Some better than others. Some spent their own dime and came to see Parker often when he was in town like Dennis Conatser who I always plug because I think he brilliant.

Some came very late in the eighties and is the reason they are not on the family tree. The rest came after Parker's death. Most of the older seniors rejected it and/or left. This was what he was sharing with a few private students in an effort to cash in on the publicity of Larry Tatum's student Jeff Speakman's movie, "Perfect Weapon." He hoped to rekindle a chain of schools that he directly financially controlled. All of his schools and his black belt students had defected years ago. He maintained only one profitable school run by Larry Tatum in the eighties until he changed personnel.

5. "Ed Parker's Personal American Kenpo" The ever evolving personal art of Ed Parker that included elements left out of his commercial diversion or off shoots and other interpretations as well. (nerve meridians, mat work, manipulations, structural integrity, etc) This included all the things that students couldn't duplicate because Parker didn't generally teach it. Here lies all the things that some have discovered is missing from his diversion art that he never wrote about anywhere. "Slap-Check" comes to mind. I gave what he shared with me my own name after he passed based on phrases Parker used to describe it to differeniate between it and other versions of what he taught. However in reality it is the "American Kenpo" Parker was utilizing before he passed away that was still evolving. Others that he may have taught may have other names for it, but to understand it, a person would have had to evolve with Parker into it because of a lack of its hard codification.

So, and this is not intended as a slam on anyone, but reading those 2 posts, it almost seems as if Parker set up certain people for failure. Now, seeing that Doc is really the only active Senior we have posting on MT, I hope that he'd be kind enough to reply.

Set up for failure? No not really. For students, he gave them something they didn't have before, access to a practical street oriented martial art, (something that didn't exist previously on any scale), and a measure of skill and confidence. Did the system turn them into "street warriors?" Not even close. But, clearly they had the opportunity to develop more skill than they had when they came in the door. Some skill is better than no skill, and the accompanying confidence is immeasurable. When you're hungry and stop at McDonald's, it may not be the best meal decision, but you don't leave hungry. If you're smart, when the opportunity presents itself, you eat better. When the art you study no longer meets your need or growth, than seek something else.

For many it was the most physicality they had seen in their life. Mr. Parker took a "women's self-defense course" and made a viable art, and insured it would have a measure of physical success in application through its methodology. While on one hand it can be viewed as promoting extreme mayhem, like any other art, the student is responsible for what he does.

But Ed Parker always reminded the students not to make it any more than it is. He always reminded his students; "It's a wise man that knows what he does not know." "Just because the red show, don't mean that you know." "Pride and ego are the anesthesia of ignorance." "A mind is like a parachute, it only works when it's open." etc.

If we look at the posts above, we see what appears to be 2 different Kenpo systems, one being something that is designed for the masses, and the other being reserved for the more serious student. Now, I haven't seen all of the top Kenpoists, so I don't know what model they're following. Does Tatum teach 4 or 5? Seems like a no brainer that Doc is doing 5. What about Mike Pick? Palanzo and Planas?

Well commenting on what others do is inappropriate because only they know what they do, and if they don't come online and explain, its difficult to assess without participation. But when attempting to make a determination of where they are, begin with several questions;

What was Ed Parker doing at the time they came along? Mr. Parker changed quickly and often in the beginning. Did they stay around and evolve with Ed Parker? If they didn't live close, and left for years for any reason, evolving with him would be difficult. At best they would be "stuck in an era.

Where did they live in relationship to Ed Parker? If they weren't even in the same state that tells you a lot. There are a lot who didn't live in Southern California. If you saw the man every other month, that's still only six times a year.

Did Mr. Parker ever sever his relationship with them, or vice versa? Many received blacks belts in the sixties and virtually left Kenpo, only to pop up just before he passed or even afterwards. A look at the family tree discloses many of those black belts that have no family tree of their own. This suggests they hadn't been active.

Finally, what are they doing now? Are they running a business making a living in Kenpo? One school or many? Are they primarily on the seminar circuit? Many black belts were "born" in the motion kenpo business era, and that is all they have ever done.

Keep in mind, Ed Parker changed often and quickly in the beginning, before the commercial product was created. But he was in his twenties and early thirties and the new kid on the block among the many masters of Southern California. He was evolving, and if you didn't stay close and change with him, it would have been difficult no matter what your desire.

My personal assessment is pretty simple. Most are doing whatever Parker was doing when they met him with rare exception. Some have made minor philosophical changes, rearrangements etc, but Parker encouraged that when motion kenpo came along, and that is a good thing.

If all someone knows is version 4, then how can anyone expect to hear anything different? I mean, the talk of the 'violent' side is really all they know, if thats all their teacher knows. So, for those who learned version 4, well, chances are, if someone grabs their shoulder, the offending party will probably end up with a hit to the neck, versus a nerve shot.

Well you may be correct sir, but you know it's about personal responsibility. Just because you took a class from someone and he showed you how to do it, doesn't make it right. As a cop, when I first started all they gave me was a revolver, shotgun, a car, and some bullets. No baton, handcuffs, nothing. They other stuff I had to go out and get myself. But, I was expected to use reasonable force, even though all they gave me were deadly force instruments.

In my book, there are no excuses. If some guy puts his hand on your shoulder, and you handsword him in the throat and he dies, I don't think anyone will give you a pass because you took a karate class and that's all you knew.

Of course, what I should be doing is hopping on a plane to So.Cal and having a workout with Doc.

On my way to Ireland sir to smack some of my guys over there. See you when I get back? Ohio perhaps? Love t' meet ya.

 

[JTKenpo]

I was initially going to make this next post a seperate thread, but now that I think about it, its better suited here. Lets look at the following attacks, the response and what the response should be or better yet, for those that are not crazy about the 'textbook' response, what you would do.

Sword and Hammer: Attack is a grab to the shoulder, yet the first move is a throat strike.

Delayed Sword: A lapel grab, and the moves include a groin shot and throat hit.

5 Swords: Throat shot and eye shot...for a roundhouse punch.

Deflecting Hammer: Front kick, and we elbow the head.


In closing I'll say this...I was thinking about this thread today and the various responses that were made so far. If we look at this post on another thread, we see the following:

4. "Ed Parkers Kenpo Karate" A series of personal issues causes Ed Parker to decide to enter the commercial marketplace and expand in the second half of the sixties. Looking for a method that differed from the kenpo franchises that preceded him that he felt were flawed, he drew upon his many "transfer" black belts from other styles. Stumbling upon "motion" as a base concept, it allowed him to create loose conceptual guidelines for already competent black belts. This further gave him the freedom to travel conducting seminars, belt tests, and selling, while seeing the majority of his "students" two or three times a year and usually once at the IKC. Most of the well known black belts came up under this system. Some better than others. Some spent their own dime and came to see Parker often when he was in town like Dennis Conatser who I always plug because I think he brilliant.

Some came very late in the eighties and is the reason they are not on the family tree. The rest came after Parker's death. Most of the older seniors rejected it and/or left. This was what he was sharing with a few private students in an effort to cash in on the publicity of Larry Tatum's student Jeff Speakman's movie, "Perfect Weapon." He hoped to rekindle a chain of schools that he directly financially controlled. All of his schools and his black belt students had defected years ago. He maintained only one profitable school run by Larry Tatum in the eighties until he changed personnel.

5. "Ed Parker's Personal American Kenpo" The ever evolving personal art of Ed Parker that included elements left out of his commercial diversion or off shoots and other interpretations as well. (nerve meridians, mat work, manipulations, structural integrity, etc) This included all the things that students couldn't duplicate because Parker didn't generally teach it. Here lies all the things that some have discovered is missing from his diversion art that he never wrote about anywhere. "Slap-Check" comes to mind. I gave what he shared with me my own name after he passed based on phrases Parker used to describe it to differeniate between it and other versions of what he taught. However in reality it is the "American Kenpo" Parker was utilizing before he passed away that was still evolving. Others that he may have taught may have other names for it, but to understand it, a person would have had to evolve with Parker into it because of a lack of its hard codification.


So, and this is not intended as a slam on anyone, but reading those 2 posts, it almost seems as if Parker set up certain people for failure. Now, seeing that Doc is really the only active Senior we have posting on MT, I hope that he'd be kind enough to reply.

If we look at the posts above, we see what appears to be 2 different Kenpo systems, one being something that is designed for the masses, and the other being reserved for the more serious student. Now, I haven't seen all of the top Kenpoists, so I don't know what model they're following. Does Tatum teach 4 or 5? Seems like a no brainer that Doc is doing 5. What about Mike Pick? Palanzo and Planas?

If all someone knows is version 4, then how can anyone expect to hear anything different? I mean, the talk of the 'violent' side is really all they know, if thats all their teacher knows. So, for those who learned version 4, well, chances are, if someone grabs their shoulder, the offending party will probably end up with a hit to the neck, versus a nerve shot.

Enough rambling...I'm looking forward to hearing from Doc and others.

Of course, what I should be doing is hopping on a plane to So.Cal and having a workout with Doc.

Mike

I hate posting after doc, how are you supposed to follow that. Oh well. Thanks doc.

Mike for me personally you have to look at intent and not put the attacks in a vacuum. Sure if some one puts their hand on your shoulder with no intent of harm sword and hammer is a little harsh, but if it is 2am and some sketchy character is leaning on you asking for money with three other sketchy friends just behind him well now we see a proportionate response. The same can be said for any attack, Delayed sword...is the person grabbing you your buddy and you guys like opposing football teams and his just lost or is it some jerk you don't know who is holding you so he can clobber you with the other hand. So on and so forth. It goes right along with the morality question, if put in a vacuum right and wrong are easy enough to distinguish but the plain fact of the matter is we don't live in a vacuum.

 

[MJS]

Set up for failure? No not really. For students, he gave them something they didn't have before, access to a practical street oriented martial art, (something that didn't exist previously on any scale), and a measure of skill and confidence. Did the system turn them into "street warriors?" Not even close. But, clearly they had the opportunity to develop more skill than they had when they came in the door. Some skill is better than no skill, and the accompanying confidence is immeasurable. When you're hungry and stop at McDonald's, it may not be the best meal decision, but you don't leave hungry. If you're smart, when the opportunity presents itself, you eat better. When the art you study no longer meets your need or growth, than seek something else.

For many it was the most physicality they had seen in their life. Mr. Parker took a "women's self-defense course" and made a viable art, and insured it would have a measure of physical success in application through its methodology. While on one hand it can be viewed as promoting extreme mayhem, like any other art, the student is responsible for what he does.

But Ed Parker always reminded the students not to make it any more than it is. He always reminded his students; "It's a wise man that knows what he does not know." "Just because the red show, don't mean that you know." "Pride and ego are the anesthesia of ignorance." "A mind is like a parachute, it only works when it's open." etc.

Well commenting on what others do is inappropriate because only they know what they do, and if they don't come online and explain, its difficult to assess without participation. But when attempting to make a determination of where they are, begin with several questions;

What was Ed Parker doing at the time they came along? Mr. Parker changed quickly and often in the beginning. Did they stay around and evolve with Ed Parker? If they didn't live close, and left for years for any reason, evolving with him would be difficult. At best they would be "stuck in an era.

Where did they live in relationship to Ed Parker? If they weren't even in the same state that tells you a lot. There are a lot who didn't live in Southern California. If you saw the man every other month, that's still only six times a year.

Did Mr. Parker ever sever his relationship with them, or vice versa? Many received blacks belts in the sixties and virtually left Kenpo, only to pop up just before he passed or even afterwards. A look at the family tree discloses many of those black belts that have no family tree of their own. This suggests they hadn't been active.

Finally, what are they doing now? Are they running a business making a living in Kenpo? One school or many? Are they primarily on the seminar circuit? Many black belts were "born" in the motion kenpo business era, and that is all they have ever done.

Keep in mind, Ed Parker changed often and quickly in the beginning, before the commercial product was created. But he was in his twenties and early thirties and the new kid on the block among the many masters of Southern California. He was evolving, and if you didn't stay close and change with him, it would have been difficult no matter what your desire.

My personal assessment is pretty simple. Most are doing whatever Parker was doing when they met him with rare exception. Some have made minor philosophical changes, rearrangements etc, but Parker encouraged that when motion kenpo came along, and that is a good thing.

Well you may be correct sir, but you know it's about personal responsibility. Just because you took a class from someone and he showed you how to do it, doesn't make it right. As a cop, when I first started all they gave me was a revolver, shotgun, a car, and some bullets. No baton, handcuffs, nothing. They other stuff I had to go out and get myself. But, I was expected to use reasonable force, even though all they gave me were deadly force instruments.

In my book, there are no excuses. If some guy puts his hand on your shoulder, and you handsword him in the throat and he dies, I don't think anyone will give you a pass because you took a karate class and that's all you knew.

Well, as always, a well thought out reply. Thanks Doc! I guess 'failure' was the wrong word to use. I guess what I meant was, one would think that people would want to learn the entire system, and that instead of having multiple versions, such as 4 and 5 that we saw above, that all of the 'less lethal' so to speak, moves, would also be taught. Of course, as you said, depending on the time they spent, etc, that would determine what they did learn and what they missed out on.

On my way to Ireland sir to smack some of my guys over there. See you when I get back? Ohio perhaps? Love t' meet ya.[/quote]

Have a safe trip. I doubt I'll be doing any more traveling this year. Perhaps next year.

Mike

 

[MJS]

I hate posting after doc, how are you supposed to follow that. Oh well. Thanks doc.

Mike for me personally you have to look at intent and not put the attacks in a vacuum. Sure if some one puts their hand on your shoulder with no intent of harm sword and hammer is a little harsh, but if it is 2am and some sketchy character is leaning on you asking for money with three other sketchy friends just behind him well now we see a proportionate response. The same can be said for any attack, Delayed sword...is the person grabbing you your buddy and you guys like opposing football teams and his just lost or is it some jerk you don't know who is holding you so he can clobber you with the other hand. So on and so forth. It goes right along with the morality question, if put in a vacuum right and wrong are easy enough to distinguish but the plain fact of the matter is we don't live in a vacuum.

Can't disagree with that.

 

[DavidCC]

I can add a small detail:
there is a huge difference between a handsword to the front of the throat and the side of the neck.

 

[Doc]

I hate posting after doc, how are you supposed to follow that. Oh well. Thanks doc.

Mike for me personally you have to look at intent and not put the attacks in a vacuum. Sure if some one puts their hand on your shoulder with no intent of harm sword and hammer is a little harsh, but if it is 2am and some sketchy character is leaning on you asking for money with three other sketchy friends just behind him well now we see a proportionate response. The same can be said for any attack, Delayed sword...is the person grabbing you your buddy and you guys like opposing football teams and his just lost or is it some jerk you don't know who is holding you so he can clobber you with the other hand. So on and so forth. It goes right along with the morality question, if put in a vacuum right and wrong are easy enough to distinguish but the plain fact of the matter is we don't live in a vacuum.

I think you "follow" very well sir. Mr. Parker, because of the commercial nature and intended purpose of the vehicle had to insure on some level it would be functional. Its teaching of extreme mayhem was no different than any other self-defense course. That is, it always presented each scenario as a "life or death" situation. Why? because that is when human instincts of survival are tapped into, and it makes sense.

However unlike a self-defense course, students had an ongoing relationship with instructors, and were supposed to understand "when" to resort to these measures. "I've never heard an instructor from commercial kenpo tell a student, "OK, you're at a birthday party and your best friend has had too much to drink, and he grabs you by your shoulder. Now waste him with Sword and Hammer."

Adult students are supposed to bring the same discretionary skills they use in their everyday life to their training. Mr. Parker took for granted students already knew it was improper to smash somebody's windpipe because they tapped you on the shoulder and asked you the time.

He however, was concerned about the influx of younger people into the commercial system. So much so that my thesis for my 7th was based on creating a curriculum specifically for them, that would not disrupt the ranking process. Unfortunately children were not the only ones he needed to be concerned with. In one instance, he had an adult white belt who had got into a fight and did a technique where you jump on a guys back, smash his head into the ground, break his neck, break his nose, slam his head into the ground again, and then kick him in the head. The attacker ended up paralyzed. He had saw this done in an advanced class, and this incident was the origin of the "beginners can't watch advance class policy."

The truth is the commercial kenpo is inherently violent, and Mr. Parker always said, "it is what it is." He was concerned but he always said, "These people need this stuff. No matter what you do, most will only use it when they need it, especially women. But like anything else, if you put a gun in the hand of a monkey, somebody is going to get shot." Mr. Parker was very concerned about the egos and machoism that began to grow among some. he used to say they "got the red swagger." But he also said, there was "nothing you could do about it, because an idiot will always find a way to misuse something."

The higher level of information imparts skill that allows a person to express they're humanity along with the skill. It also is the hardest and most demanding, labor intensive, and most time consuming, with a requirement of a true master level teacher. Something the system alone is incapable of producing. A person may be a "master" in the commercial motion based Kenpo, but it doesn't take long once they step outside of that venue, to discover there is a whole lot missing. Any of the many who have taken up the traditional Filipino, Japanese, Chinese, and Indonesian arts will tell you that.

The deadly aspects of Kenpo are not in the commercial product for many reasons, and Mr. Parker purposely distanced himself from most who were learning, and kept a great deal essentially to himself for other reasons as well. Check the creed, "... right or wrong, life or death." he wanted it said at the beginning and end of every class for a reason, but whatever a student did, it was on them - just like any other self-defense course.

 

[Doc]

I guess what I meant was, one would think that people would want to learn the entire system, and that instead of having multiple versions, such as 4 and 5 that we saw above, that all of the 'less lethal' so to speak, moves, would also be taught. Of course, as you said, depending on the time they spent, etc, that would determine what they did learn and what they missed out on.

Very true, but for many the material wasn't available, so it wasn't their fault. Most learned only what was available, and didn't know other aspects even existed. But, later still many were so caught up in the commercial system and making a living working what they knew, they couldn't see anything else.

So for the masses it simply didn't exist, and for the rest it wasn't available. The problem was, as the red grew the less interest many had in anything more anyway. Mr. Parker hinted at a lot of material, but trusted very few. He had the "white belt experience I spoke of above, but he also had his own personal experience.

He was driving with his wife one day, and got into an argument with a guy that cut him off in traffic. They both pulled over and Parker handled it, "Hawaiian style." The guy was bloodied and unconscious and Parker jumped back in his car and left. He literally was scared to death of the prospect that he might have killed the guy, and that never left his mind. Ultimately he discovered the guy was alright because he saw him driving down the road weeks later. Up until that point Parker was beset with sleepless nights and was constantly praying in church for "forgiveness." The incident had a profound impact on what he was doing and his ensuing philosophy and personal evolution.