Ki Chuan Do - one of the best Self Defense systems

[oldyangtaijiquan]

But now return to argument. Any suggestion/recommendation in the field of RBSD or Close Combat ?
Any opinon about Sammy Franco, Richard Dimitri, Tony Blauer, Marc MacYoung, Geoff Thompson, Peyton Quinn, Jim Grover or Carl Cestari and their systems?

 

[oldyangtaijiquan]

I made a little analysis of last generation (or almost) self defense systems and I found that the more interesting could be:
- SPEAR (Spontaneous Protection Enabling Accelerated Response) by Tony Blauer
- Ki Chuan Do by John Perkins
- Systema by Mikhail Ryabko (and Vladimir Vasiliev)
This are (instinctive and natural) movement based self defense systems and not (fixed and prearranged) technique based martial arts. They affirm to be easy to learn and effective to use. Are any of them the self defense system of tomorrow (future)?

 

[FearlessFreep]

I think you are presenting a 'false dilemma'

 

[still learning]

Hello, to the KCD person! It is nice you are excited about your new art, this is good. Each and everyone of us who trains in other arts think the same thing as you do. We all believe what we are learning is the true thing for us.

Read any martial art magazine(the ads) and you will see the same claims as yours, This is not to put your KCD down, but to let you see many others claim the same things (our arts works). If one trains well it will work!

Is there a perfect martial art for everyone? There will be as many answers as there are people. Enjoy your KCD let it be the "proof" when the time comes?

Remember martial arts is not about fighting/defense but avoiding and awareness, to be a good person and to help others grow to be a better person.

 

[Matt Stone]

I made a little analysis of last generation (or almost) self defense systems

And your "analysis" consisted of what, precisely? Attending classes? "Field research" of some kind, inquiring of current, active students of all three systems what their experiences have been? Side by side comparisons of attack/defense examples from each method to determine efficiency and practicality?

Probably not... I suspect you read magazine articles, most of which are nothing more than infomercials in print.

and I found that the more interesting

"Most interesting?" So it isn't an issue of applicability or legitimacy, just their interest factor that swayed your decision?

- SPEAR (Spontaneous Protection Enabling Accelerated Response) by Tony Blauer

A method constantly under suspicion and criticism interenet-wide... I have yet to hear anything favorable from non-SPEAR sources about this program, meaning I have no objective review of their methods upon which to base an opinion...

- Ki Chuan Do by John Perkins

A method that, like SPEAR above, lacks independent and objective favorable review.

- Systema by Mikhail Ryabko (and Vladimir Vasiliev)

Another art that, unfortunately, has yet to earn a satisfactory amount of respect, though it is on its way... I've studied Systema (and plan to continue doing so upon my return to the US), and in viewing Systema in comparison with the other two "arts" listed above, I find it is like them in no way beyond extremely superficial similarities (e.g. Western creation, no costume uniform, no belts, no forms).

This are (instinctive and natural) movement based self defense systems and not (fixed and prearranged) technique based martial arts.

It strikes me that you've been a victim of the same catchphrase marketing that many, many others have fallen victim to... You don't understand the terms you're throwing around, but parrot them to sound intelligent. Let me explain:

1) "Instinctive and natural" - This implies methods that are already ingrained in the human neural net, movements (like walking) that occur without conscious effort. This does not, however, imply that such movements are already perfect, which seems to be the implication made by the kinds of training you are "interested" in. Competitive speed walkers still work on the technique of walking, competitive runners work on their technique as well to develop their running form to its most efficient state. It cannot be argued that walking and running are not "instinctive and natural" movements, however it is demonstrated daily that they can be developed far beyond their "instinctive and natural" condition. That is what regular ol' martial arts training does...

A punch is a punch is a punch, right? Wrong. Like walking and running, punching is "instinctive and natural." It is a gross movement created by the contraction of the pectoral muscles to thrust the arm in a forward motion. This movement can be trained to be more efficient and more powerful, to reduce lost power by punching at a correct angle, etc. Just punching however you like because it is "natural and instinctive" is settling for far less refined technique, less power, and less damaging potential.

Your argument for the benefit of "natural and instinctive" needs some work...

2) "Fixed and prearranged" - This implies methods that are "if he throws a punch to your head, do X; if he throws a punch to the body, do Y." This belief that traditional martial arts training (or even non-traditional arts) actually trains this way is absurd, and is a perversion of the popular theories presented by Bruce Lee in JKD. Bruce's concern was that if all people did was one-step fighting (where the attacker strikes/kicks and the defender responds with a particular set of techniques to practice their application), their reactions would be confined and limited, lacking "emotional content" (whatever that meant). This is far from the case in anything beyond mini-mall McDojos.

Individual techniques, much like riding a bike, must be practiced to develop them to be "instinctive and natural," to be as efficient as possible, and to become deeply ingrained into the student's physical repertoire. Practicing sets of techniques against particular attacks allows the student to see the application value and to become comfortable with their use. It is absolutely no different than what boxers and wrestlers have done for several centuries - practicing given combinations of movements to examine, understand, and incorporate their application in a specific instance. Saying that this kind of training, when done correctly, is somehow less effective than the "natural and instinctive" training done in pseudo-modern arts is, again, absurd. It has withstood the test of time and has been shown to be effective and efficient.

Unfortunately what people drawn to "natural and instinctive" training with no "fixed patterns or techniques" really appear to be saying is that they want a "just add water" style that they can become instantly proficient in. They don't want to invest years of training to develop themselves fully; they want to "just add water" and poof they're a walking juggernaught in close combat... It just isn't going to happen. In fact, when such a belief is taken to its logical extreme, it invalidates training in martial arts of any kind! It still takes quite some time and not an unimpressive amount of training to become skilled in any of the above mentioned arts or in any traditional style... That's the nature of training - it takes time and effort. Anything else is just fooling oneself into a false sense of security.

They affirm to be easy to learn and effective to use. Are any of them the self defense system of tomorrow (future)?

They affirm that, but there is little in the way of direct evidence to suppor their claims (or the claims of other styles) beyond competition performance. I've already addressed their "easy to learn" hook previously. Easy to learn doesn't mean instantly learned; just like traditional arts (which are also easy to learn) it's still going to take time and effort.

As far as being the "self defense system of tomorrow," how could any art, unless it held some amazing revelation previously undiscovered in over 5000 years of martial history, become such a thing? I suspect your desires are unrealistic in the extreme, and you might want to reconsider what it is, exactly, that you expect to get out of martial training.

Lastly, whoever said that "martial arts is not about fighting/defense but avoiding and awareness, to be a good person and to help others grow to be a better person," was sadly mistaken... Martial training has always been primarily about developing fighting skill; it was with the pacification of Japan that the budo approach instead of the bujutsu approach was first publicized, but that was because Japan was a conquered nation and martial arts practice had been outlawed by the Occupation Forces. It sounds nice to say, but if you deny that martial arts is primarily, first and foremost, concerned with the development of combative ability, you are just as much a symptom of the problem with modern martial arts as the "super Soke," the 22 year old 9th degree Grandmasters, and the belt mill international hall of fame organizations... The "good person," "self-confidence," and other benefits of martial training are not the focus - they are side effects of strong, realistic training.

Now I'm done. I return you to your regularly scheduled programming...

:asian:

 

[sgtmac_46]

Your post bought to mind a little known system called LLAP-GOCH.
It is the secret Welsh art of self defence that requires NO INTELLIGENCE, STRENGTH or PHYSICAL courage, anybody ever read about it?

LLAP-GOCH is, by far, the most lethal secret system known to man. http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/8456/Llapgoch.htm

 

[oldyangtaijiquan]

What people trains believe that is the best system, especially if they achieve a mastery in their art/system. A big part of success in self defense depends of the person and not so many of the system used. But there are differences between systems that made some systems for a shade (or more) better than anothers. We can say that the success/efficacy of a particular self defense system depends upon person (potential) and system (potential). No system alone can guarantee you a success.

I agree that in many things tha above self defense systems are not known and are by many considered questionable, but in my opinion they are very successful/efficient systems (and for sorrow they are also in many aspects very commercial - because are limited to a certain person/founder). The above are in many aspects commercial programs, but this don't mean that they are not good.

Has anybody experience with Tony Blauer and his system SPEAR? Any detailed description / overview of SPEAR?
As I found around he uses the "flinch response" (push away danger) in his system. He drive forward the arms in a "wedge" or spear striking the arms and the chest/clavial line. The SPEAR gets it's name from the position you make with your hands/arms after a flinch (hands out in front of your face, elbows at just over 90 degrees, thumbs almost touching, the hard bones of your forearm are now facing out, head down looking through your thumbs). Is interesting that SPEAR has many similarities with KCD! The only differenche is that KCD seems civils and SPEAR for military, but this is not true because all two train people in civilian/police/military fields.

 

[Don Roley]

Is interesting that SPEAR has many similarities with KCD!

Not so surprising though. Tony Blaur teaches through video and anyone can buy them. Including someone claiming to be the head of an ancient martial art that in reality he created. The problem with cases like this is that they tend to be Martial Arts Pirates rather than an effective art.

 

[oldyangtaijiquan]

Tony Blauer developed his system in 1987, while John Perkins developed his system in 1978! Both systems uses flinch response (fright reaction) and and »V« shaped close combat continius hitting. I think that nobody of them really invented that movements, but that they found how useful and effective they are and included them in them systems.
Also Perkins uses methods as yielding, droping energy and guided chaos that are characteristic of his style!
But I heard that many copied stuff from Tony Blauer and his ideas.

 

[Don Roley]

Tony Blauer developed his system in 1987, while John Perkins developed his system in 1978!

I see no reason to believe you considering all the red flags that has gone on before. The easiest explination is that you are Perkins and are re-writing history.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I see no reason to believe you considering all the red flags that has gone on before. The easiest explination is that you are Perkins and are re-writing history.

Ya' think?

 

[Matt Stone]

What people trains believe that is the best system, especially if they achieve a mastery in their art/system.

While I'd normally be inclined to agree with that statement, I believe you are making it as a defense against derogatory comments made regarding the specific style you are training in... It isn't politically correct to say it out loud (but then I've never been concerned with being politically correct), but the simple fact remains there are good styles/systems and there are crap style/systems. Just because someone "believes" their style/system is good doesn't make it so. Belief gets you only so far, and the bulk of the claims made so far by KDC don't pass the common sense test. Simple, really...

A big part of success in self defense depends of the person and not so many of the system used. But there are differences between systems that made some systems for a shade (or more) better than anothers.

This is the first coherent and approximately correct thing you've said so far! Congratulations!

Even someone from a good style/system can be a total wad if they fail to either train, or if they train they don't train realistically; similarly someone from a lower quality style can do well if they train properly. But stating this is very similar to saying "if you go outside during monsoon, you'll probably get wet." It really doesn't bear discussion, the truth of it being so indisputable. So whatever points you may have earned for saying it, are taken away by the fact that it shouldn't need to be said...

We can say that the success/efficacy of a particular self defense system depends upon person (potential) and system (potential). No system alone can guarantee you a success.

Which really takes away from the "-proof" part of "attack-proof," don't you think? When someone hears that a garment is "flame retardant," they know that it shouldn't burn, but it could. If they hear that the same garment is "flame proof," they'll fully expect it not to burn at all, no matter what. In the same thought process, if someone hears KCD will make them "attack proof," what do you think their assumption will be? Besides "wrong" that is? :idunno:

I agree that in many things tha above self defense systems are not known and are by many considered questionable, but in my opinion they are very successful/efficient systems (and for sorrow they are also in many aspects very commercial - because are limited to a certain person/founder). The above are in many aspects commercial programs, but this don't mean that they are not good.

I can say that from my experience Systema is most certainly not a "commercial" program. Vlad has certainly developed quite a few videos to sell to those interested in such things, and he does conduct quite a few seminars (as do many of the senior Systema instructors), but this is due to the still quite small community that Systema practitioners belong to. Without the videos as references, and without the seminars for learning, the System would be hard pressed to grow and spread. The prices for seminars, videos, etc., are all far more reasonable than the prices I've seen for seminars in other arts... Far, far, far more reasonable!

The only differenche is that KCD seems civils and SPEAR for military, but this is not true because all two train people in civilian/police/military fields.

Please understand that a seminar here or there, or having military/law enforcement personnel as students does not constitute "training the military" or "teaching law enforcement." That is a gripe I have with quite a few unethical martial artists who want to find some shred of legitimacy by linking their training with those kinds of organizations. I have had students that were Military Intelligence, Special Forces, Rangers, Military Police and Infantry. That does not in any way, shape, nor form mean I can claim to be an instructor to those branches, or the Army in general. I taught a class, and those people happened to take it. I've taught units before as well, as part of their recreation program within the unit, but that still doesn't mean I can make claims about teaching the military... I am who I am, I train in what I train in, and I've had students from varied backgrounds. That is all. And, I suspect, it is just the same for Blauer, Tucci, your KCD founder, and any of the other martial arts teachers making the same claims... Please don't use it any longer to support the validity of KCD, because it rings hollow with those of us in the military who know better.

 

[oldyangtaijiquan]

I am not Perkins and I think that Perkins has no reason to lie about the origins of his system. No Perkins, no Blauer invented that but they used what works and created their own systems.

But what about SPEAR? Any experience with that system?

 

[Don Roley]

I am not Perkins and I think that Perkins has no reason to lie about the origins of his system.

And we should just take your word for this after all the accounts that cast doubt on Perkins' integrity and ability?

 

[Matt Stone]

...I think that Perkins has no reason to lie about the origins of his system...

Everyone has a reason to lie when there is something to gain. The trick is whether or not that person actually does.

I've had opportunity numerous times to lie about my own training. I've lived and taught in countries where Yiliquan had never been heard of (hell, for that matter, it hasn't been heard of much in the US, either!), and could have very easily and convincingly laid it on so thick that I'd be the super-uber-most-high-exalted-lord-utmost of Yiliquan ever...

But I didn't.

Why? Something I like to call "humility," a characteristic uncommon these days, it seems, but something my mama instilled in me from an early age.

Search around MT and you'll find a thread about "curriculum vitae." Search for that phrase in particular, and you should find a post where I come perfectly clean with my background. I'll never lie and say I've done something I haven't, earned a rank I don't possess, or trained in something longer than I really did. I don't do it to impress others, either. Well, except my kids, but I have a duty to impress them so they learn to be good people when they grow up. But I don't do it for anyone else other than that person in the mirror I see every morning... If I can't look him in the eyes, straight and steady, unyielding, knowing I did the right thing, then I'll know what I did was wrong...

I think Shakespeare said "Your honor is your life; let none dispute it." Maybe he didn't. I don't care. The point is that without honor, without truth, honesty, and forthright behavior, your entire life comes under the scrutiny of others, and it is a shadow that no amount of good deeds can erase. You will walk with that mark the rest of your days...

So what reason would Perkins have to lie? The same reasons anyone else would... :idunno:

 

[Flatlander]

Which really takes away from the "-proof" part of "attack-proof," don't you think? When someone hears that a garment is "flame retardant," they know that it shouldn't burn, but it could. If they hear that the same garment is "flame proof," they'll fully expect it not to burn at all, no matter what. In the same thought process, if someone hears KCD will make them "attack proof," what do you think their assumption will be? Besides "wrong" that is?

Are you suggesting that it might be approriate to change the system's name to "attack-retardant"? :lol2:

Yes, I always laugh at my own jokes.....

 

[FearlessFreep]

LLAP-GOCH is, by far, the most lethal secret system known to man. http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/8456/Llapgoch.htm

[font=Arial,Helvetica][size=+2]HOW do I learn?[/size][/font] No, you mean 'How do You Learn'. I know already.

Love it...

 

[Randy Strausbaugh]

Are you suggesting that it might be approriate to change the system's name to "attack-retardant"? :lol2:

Yes, I always laugh at my own jokes.....

No problem with that- it was a good one! artyon:

 

[sgtmac_46]

I am not Perkins and I think that Perkins has no reason to lie about the origins of his system. No Perkins, no Blauer invented that but they used what works and created their own systems.

But what about SPEAR? Any experience with that system?

You mean no reason to lie other than ego and economic gain. I mean, as we all KNOW, nobody lies for those reasons. "Hey, trust me, would I lie to you."

 

[Don Roley]

You know, a lot of this could all be solved if only one little thing was done.

This is on the attack proof web site at the very top.

Learn from a veteran of over 100 documented brutally violent life-and-death confrontations what WORKS and what DOESN'T.

Ok, so they say things are documented. They should point people in the direction of where to get those documents for themselves. I am sure many people would be willing to call or visit someplace to get to the truth.

If it turns out that there is over a hundred life- and- death situations involving Perkins, then maybe some of us will gain some respect for him. But if all we hear is excuses and dancing around the subject- then I for one can only say that it is pure fraud.

At this point in the game according to the fraud play book, we should hear some excuses from OldYangTaiChi about how he is not Perkins and does not know himself how to access these documents. But he will continue to try to assure us that this art is the greatest ever made. :uhyeah:

I will say right now that nothing short of providing the documented proof they freely made claims of on their web site will satisfy the critics here. If OldYang wants to convince people and stop them from laughing at Perkins, then he should point them in that direction. But I feel that we will not see that happen and this train wreck of a thread with people making fun of the silly claims and incompetence of Perkins will continue.