Sub Level Four kenpo article

[kenpo12]

I was curious if anyone else the Martial Arts Magazine article this last month about Sub Level 4's grappling defense techniques? Of those who read it, what do you think of the techniques? I know Dr. Chapel posts on here sometimes, I'd also be curious if he may have a little more insight to the article.

Thank you,

Matt

 

[MJS]

I read it and thought it was pretty interesting. There is actually a post on one of these threads where we were discussing it. I did have a few questions about some of the things that he was doing, but after having Doc answer them and then applying what he said, it actually worked pretty good.

Mike

 

[arnisador]

It was interesting. Bringing the feet together for the bear hug surprised me--most people advise getting a wide base first!

 

[kenpo12]

Arnisador,

I agree that was strange, most of the grapplers I know would use that to slide their grip down to around the knees for a takedown. Maybe I'm missing something.

 

[MJS]

Originally posted by kenpo12
Arnisador,

I agree that was strange, most of the grapplers I know would use that to slide their grip down to around the knees for a takedown. Maybe I'm missing something.

Not all the time. From the clinching position, there are many different ways to take the person down.

Mike

 

[kenpo12]

MJS,

Not all the time. From the clinching position, there are many different ways to take the person down.

I totally agree, I think Arnisador was referring to a specific rear grab technique in the article where the person is bear hugged from the rear (arms free) and the defender steps forward with one foot and then brings the other foot up to an attention stance before stepping out to widen the base.

Matt

 

[MJS]

Originally posted by kenpo12
MJS,



I totally agree, I think Arnisador was referring to a specific rear grab technique in the article where the person is bear hugged from the rear (arms free) and the defender steps forward with one foot and then brings the other foot up to an attention stance before stepping out to widen the base.

Matt

I see what you're saying. I was referring to the statement that you made-

I agree that was strange, most of the grapplers I know would use that to slide their grip down to around the knees for a takedown. Maybe I'm missing something.

I thought that you were talking about actually taking the person down.

Mike

 

[kenpo12]

MJS,

Have you read the article I'm referring to? The reason I ask is there are quite a few "attmepted" clinches in it, I was hoping you had an opinion on the clinch defenses.

 

[kenpo12]

My last post made me think of another curiosity I have. Dr. Chapel has on many occasions mentioned how "motion kenpo" people place to much emphasis on defending "attempted" grabs/hold as opposed to training to escape holds that are put on and yet the article in Martial Arts Magazine shows almost all "attempted" clinch/grab defenses. The only full on grab was the rear bear hug. I'm hoping the Doc can comment.

 

[MJS]

Originally posted by kenpo12
MJS,

Have you read the article I'm referring to? The reason I ask is there are quite a few "attmepted" clinches in it, I was hoping you had an opinion on the clinch defenses.

Yes I have read it. Unfortunately, I cant find the mag. so I"m having a hard time picturing the exact series of movements shown. In response to a question that I asked Doc, he did comment that the techs. shown were against more of a street grappler rather than a BJJ stylist. The defenses that were shown did provide a good example of giving yourself a base to prevent from being taken down. Of course, there is only so much that can be shown in a magazine. I'm sure that if one applied the principles shown, then even if the person grabbing moved and attempted a different takedown, you can still apply the same ideas.

Again, this is something that you're not going to be doing without striking. I mean, I'm sure that while the person is defending, using Docs ideas, you will also be counter striking.

I hope that this helped to answer your question a little more.

Mike

 

[MJS]

Originally posted by kenpo12
My last post made me think of another curiosity I have. Dr. Chapel has on many occasions mentioned how "motion kenpo" people place to much emphasis on defending "attempted" grabs/hold as opposed to training to escape holds that are put on and yet the article in Martial Arts Magazine shows almost all "attempted" clinch/grab defenses. The only full on grab was the rear bear hug. I'm hoping the Doc can comment.

IMO, its important to be able to do both.

Mike

 

[Doc]

Originally posted by MJS
Yes I have read it. Unfortunately, I cant find the mag. so I"m having a hard time picturing the exact series of movements shown. In response to a question that I asked Doc, he did comment that the techs. shown were against more of a street grappler rather than a BJJ stylist. The defenses that were shown did provide a good example of giving yourself a base to prevent from being taken down. Of course, there is only so much that can be shown in a magazine. I'm sure that if one applied the principles shown, then even if the person grabbing moved and attempted a different takedown, you can still apply the same ideas.

Again, this is something that you're not going to be doing without striking. I mean, I'm sure that while the person is defending, using Docs ideas, you will also be counter striking.

I hope that this helped to answer your question a little more.

Mike

You're correct. I always make a distinction between "street grapplers" and "competition." In competition you have nothing to lose but the match. On the street you risk serious injury or death, which limits street grappling options for most.

The story was exploring different principles, not techniques. The presumption is the "attempted takedown/clinch" is preceded by a striking assault which was thwarted. This is a very likely scenario on the street where strikes of some type almost always lead in a
face-to- face confrontation. In the ring a guy may square of with you and dive for your feet but that is not likely in the street. I don't teach "competition" defense. The escalation of force philosophy places striking first as counters to strikes.

Glad I stopped in to see what you guys were talking about.

 

[Doc]

Originally posted by MJS
Yes I have read it. Unfortunately, I cant find the mag. so I"m having a hard time picturing the exact series of movements shown. In response to a question that I asked Doc, he did comment that the techs. shown were against more of a street grappler rather than a BJJ stylist. The defenses that were shown did provide a good example of giving yourself a base to prevent from being taken down. Of course, there is only so much that can be shown in a magazine. I'm sure that if one applied the principles shown, then even if the person grabbing moved and attempted a different takedown, you can still apply the same ideas.

Again, this is something that you're not going to be doing without striking. I mean, I'm sure that while the person is defending, using Docs ideas, you will also be counter striking.

I hope that this helped to answer your question a little more.

Mike

You're correct. I always make a distinction between "street grapplers" and "competition." In competition you have nothing to lose but the match. On the street you risk serious injury or death, which limits street grappling options for most.

The story was exploring different principles, not techniques. The presumption is the "attempted takedown/clinch" is preceded by a striking assault which was thwarted. This is a very likely scenario on the street where strikes of some type almost always lead in a
face-to- face confrontation. In the ring a guy may square of with you and dive for your feet but that is not likely in the street. I don't teach "competition" defense. The escalation of force philosophy places striking first as counters to strikes.

I am a regular writer contributor on the Martial Arts Magazine staff for Inside Kung-Fu.

Glad I stopped in to see what you guys were talking about.

 

[kenpo12]

In the ring a guy may square of with you and dive for your feet but that is not likely in the street.

Doc,

I'm curious as to what would make you say this? There are so many more people studying grappling now, that I think it is very likely someone would shoot for your legs. I've also known people in the past (especially shorter guys) that shooting for a single or double leg was staple for them. I knew guys in high school that were doing "ground and pound" long before it became popular in the UFC. LOL

 

[Doc]

Originally posted by kenpo12
Doc,

I'm curious as to what would make you say this? There are so many more people studying grappling now, that I think it is very likely someone would shoot for your legs. I've also known people in the past (especially shorter guys) that shooting for a single or double leg was staple for them. I knew guys in high school that were doing "ground and pound" long before it became popular in the UFC. LOL

There aren't More people studying grappling now. In fact more participated in grappling in the forties and fifties. The first arts to gain wide acceptance were "real" jiujitsu and judo taught in the military and in country. Every boys club and YMCA had a judo club. Then there was the great wrestling craze of the fifties with greats like "Judo" Gene LeBell, "Gorgeous" George, Freddy Blasie" etc. All the kids were were doing wrestling moves on the playground before they began to mimic Bruce Lee in their fight scenarios. No, wrestling was MUCH bigger then in terms of participation, and attendance at "fights" 2 and 3 days a week at local venues like the "Olympic Auditorium" in Los Angeles alternating hights with "Roller Derby" and boxing.

No offense, but you sound as if a fight is some kind of "open all styles welcome tournament." Trust me sir, it is not.

It is simply not my experience and I am almost sixty years old, and have been in the arts, and on the streets as a way of life since I was 10 years old.

When you say "studied" you're talking about a very small segment of the population. Most people have never studied any art, and those who have done some grappling have done so from a competition perspective, not as a street fighting thug.

Street fighting precludes a great deal of "competitive" strategies. Getting in fights in high school is one thing, but when two high school kids square off empty handed, I don't think the thought of "life or death" enters their mind. If you knew that diving at someones feet could possibly end your life if you were unsuccessful, you would not likely do it. Your options change significantly.

In all my years on the street in ghettos across this country and even outside this country I have never seen or heard from my working associates about "competition" grappling techniques as first option in any serious confrontation. Most peple are not "street people" or have that kind of on-going day-to-day experience unless you're a criminal or a cop whose must fight for your life on a regular basis. Most people never even come close to that kind of experience in a lifetime.

One law enforcement officer who posts from time to time said he too had only seen someone do something like that only once in 20 years of working the street. The "stats" just don't bare it out. I see a mentality among some young martial artist that suggests that when you have a confrontation, your attacker is going to be a "skilled, grappling, ninja, kenpo, kali kickass, with a knife. It simply isn't so. Most aren't, and the few that are, are not mugging or getting in fights every night.

The muggers have a different mentality and particular "mugging skills" developed through interaction and experience on the street that most will never have, and those methods are quick, fast, and usually "sneaky." Their intent is too quickly disable, not to go to the ground or lay on the ground ever. 2 drunk guys in the bar parking lot maybe, but not serious life threatening attacks.

I've seen my share of life and death struggles and none of them look like the UFC. My teacher came from a serious ghetto and was a "street fighter" because he had to be to survive, where fighting was life and death. He grappled and had a black belt in a grappling art.

He too saw the fallacy and although he believed you absolutely should have grappling skills, he identified other things as more important and more likely to initiate a confrontation and placed things in their order of importance in skill developement. He never dismissed it, he just knew the real world attackers had no desire to "lock up" with you on the ground. In fact the opposite is true. "Sneak up the guy, strike fast and hard and hopefuly end it with one punch." My experiences mirror my teacher who was a wily street fight veteran.

Grappling competitors don't train for any of the things that occcur in the street because in competition, their "illegal." No Holds Barred" means "within the rules." Where I work, their are no rules on the bad guys. "You grapple with me and bring any soft tissue near my mouth and I'll remove a chunk of fleash" He used to say. "Grapplers don't train for that and reate by quickly disengaging" he went on. " It's just a different mentality on the street" he always said, and I found him to be right.

Just my humble experience and opinion, and you know what everyone says about opinions. Whatever you do, enjoy your activity and have fun, and forget the "2 warriors goint at it scenario." That's a commercial. All fights DO NOT go to the ground. But if you choose to you can. I just don't think if you're in Compton (a local rough urban city) you like it down there, if you survive the experience.

 

[kenpo12]

I just don't think if you're in Compton (a local rough urban city) you like it down there, if you survive the experience.

Ya got that right!


I agree with you on most points, accept I think the attitude of many of the modern grapplers is different than the ones of 50 years ago. I see alot more ego and eagerness to fight on the street. Granted if I do what I should (which I do) and stay away from ego driven street fights than it should be a non issue. Thank you for your response, I appreciate you willingness to share your knowlege and opinions.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Well, worked in Compton 8+ years, never had to do either. But I certainly agree that rolling around in the parking lot behind DA Barbecue (they still there? it was good...got pointed there by my students) at about, say, 11:00 any Sat. night might very well lead to sorrow...

 

[Doc]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Well, worked in Compton 8+ years, never had to do either. But I certainly agree that rolling around in the parking lot behind DA Barbecue (they still there? it was good...got pointed there by my students) at about, say, 11:00 any Sat. night might very well lead to sorrow...

Still there and still good. Unfortunately Compton these days isn't as nice as it used to be. L.A. County Sheriff's have taken over police jurisdiction and one of my students is the captain in charge. Not a nice place. Still lots of nice people, but the others .....

 

[Michael Billings]

UKS Camps, me and my students always went to Compton for breakfast. Never had to worry about anything that early, but boy did I hear the stories.

Kudo's to your student Doc, and "Be Safe"

-Michael

 

[Doc]

Originally posted by Michael Billings
UKS Camps, me and my students always went to Compton for breakfast. Never had to worry about anything that early, but boy did I hear the stories.

Kudo's to your student Doc, and "Be Safe"

-Michael

Thank you we appreciate that. I also have 2 black belt brothers who are L.A. Deputies as well. It's crazy out there.