Techniques vs. Other Attacks

[MJS]

In my IP Technique thread, in this section, Ras and FC both made some interesting and good points, with things that they said about the techs. Here are there posts:

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.

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.

So, it got me thinking....how many others do this? I thought, for the sake of the thread, we could pick 2 techs, and discuss how you perform them against attacks other than what the IP is meant to be.

To start, we'll use Attacking Mace and Lone Kimono.

Yes, I know it can be hard to visualize by reading vs. physically seeing whats going on, but I thought this would be a fun thread.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Attacking mace works pretty well against most verbal attacks. I will have to think on others, but the lesson in Lone kimono is to create distance, stabalize your base, etc. which is a beginning concept that will work on just about anything coming from any direction except guns, knives, and clubs, but you can work them in; however, Attacking Mace is the safer idea in the long run, although it requires more skill to perform. Its more of a stop action concept.
Sean

 

[MJS]

Bumping this back up for discussion. I'm hoping that Ras, FC and others will join in. Anyways, to contribute to my own thread here....

LK vs. a punch: Striking down on the arm and following up with the handsword to the neck.

LK vs. a knife: From a straight thrust, you could step back and strike down on the arm, while using your other for control.

AM vs. a grab: You could do the inward block against the outside of the arm, causing a break or hyperextension.

Just a few things to get the ball rolling here.

 

[ATACX GYM]

whassup! just saw this and I'll cook up a full powered full length response tomorrow.This whole concept as you know is one of the top two absolute essentials for each and every tech of THE ATACX GYM. Every tech we have must be fully applicable one on one and in multifights (armed unarmed and mixed) seated standing kneeling or on the ground (armed unarmed mixed and multifight) and taught for escape rescue and escape and rescue. Since LK is one of my upcoming videos I'll let off on AM. I already showed on video on my page AM vs a punch and a MT clinch.I'll step into this thread with a comprehensive answer tomorrow and thanks for opeing this thread.

 

[MJS]

whassup! just saw this and I'll cook up a full powered full length response tomorrow.This whole concept as you know is one of the top two absolute essentials for each and every tech of THE ATACX GYM. Every tech we have must be fully applicable one on one and in multifights (armed unarmed and mixed) seated standing kneeling or on the ground (armed unarmed mixed and multifight) and taught for escape rescue and escape and rescue. Since LK is one of my upcoming videos I'll let off on AM. I already showed on video on my page AM vs a punch and a MT clinch.I'll step into this thread with a comprehensive answer tomorrow and thanks for opeing this thread.

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.

 

[ATACX GYM]

Okay I'm back in da house!


My answer with AM,LK and all other techs are the same: I train them against everything. The gargantuan gargantuan gargantuan advantage of training techs this way is that you have the whole arsenal of Kenpo at your hand in any situation ready to go and almost NOBODY has ANY chance of defending against the onslaught that is unleashed upon them. The techs come too fast and they're too unorthodox for the overwhelming majority of people to hope to stop including--sadly--far too many Kenpo folks. You also experience first hand how so many Kenpo techs are simply mirrors of other techs and movements and you very quickly,very instinctively acquire a very high level of ability,a very deep grasp of the subtleties of the art,and innumerable other subtleties that are way beyond the scope of the OP. I don't think that I've attained the rarefied refinement understanding wisdom etc. but my Kenpo has grown in gigantic,heretofore impossible leaps and bounds once I instituted the method of training tha we adopt in the ATACX GYM and we're the only "Kenpo" school that I know of that gets genuine respect and appreciation from the local MMA guys. I'm invited to their events all the time and I give seminars to MMA people and they love it.

I have videos of me using Attacking Mace with my R.D.L. (Rock Drop and Lock) concept on my Channel. But I've used MACK ATTACK (our slang shorthand for Attacking Mace) offensively and preemptively against a guy holding a knife,I used it in the MT clinch,I used it just yesterday while passing guard and establishing the floating knee,and I used it when a guy at Denny's playfully (but mistakenly) "jumped" me when I was coming out of the bathroom (he thought I was his brother who was ALSO in the public restroom; I didn't hurt him. I simply redirected him against the wall,checked his hand down,and stopped the right cross to his face. He was in such a totally defenseless position that he was no threat and he started apologizing profusely.We all had a good laugh and a orange juice about it; gave them a couple of flyers). I used the MACK ATTACK to counter a choke and a armbar before,countered a bear hug with MACK ATTACK and handled multifights with MACK ATTACK.

With LK I've defended against wristlocks,collar and lapel chokes,extracting myself from tie ups and grabs,and I've defended against weapons launched at me or touching me or causing me pain using that same tech (well,our variant of it anyway). I've countered the Floating Knee with this tech and even RNC. There are more examples but I have to jump offline about now...

 

[ATACX GYM]

Now that I think about it,I've also used both MACK ATTACK and LK against various forms of pushes and pulls,yanks snatches and trips...and this leads me to another oft-asked question that I've had to contend with which says a very great deal about those who ask the question:

Some Kenpoists--ONLY Kenpoists--ask me why I have techs at all.They ask: Why not just have one tech for every attack? The answer to that is simple: I have one response to every attack: MOTION. That motion encapsulates every tech I have ever known. The many techs--all tested functionally over and over again--comprise the motion that I will use against and as each and every attack,defense,escape,etc. that I will employ.You really really become skilled with Grafting,seeing holes and opportunities to attack escape and counter,etc. This method of training really really drills in the "lessons" that you learn from each tech...and each lesson that you learn is valuable. It doesn't have to be the supposed scripted lesson that Mister Parker set out for us...as long as it's a functional lesson that keeps building not only onto itself but into other areas (which will either immediately or eventually encapsulate the lesson that Mister Parker wanted us to learn anyway) you're good.It also gives us a dazzling,devastating arsenal that is veeerrrry hard to overcome by anyone including other Kenpoists. I cannot emphasize this enough. There are waaaay too few Kenpoists doing what my ATACX GYM is doing( to my knowledge),and as a result? These techs haven't entered the public consciousness and my students and I pretty much mop the floor with people without much effort. It's purrty hilarious.

The next question I get tends to be: well,why doesn't your techs look like say Doc Chapel's or some such? That right there should let you know that you're not learning the true lessons of each tech.

No,that's wrong too. There is a philosophy,a purpose,behind the martial curriculum that Doc has that is different from mine.He's had the great honor pleasure and experience of working with Mister Parker for decades and having firsthand teaching counseling discussions disagreements etc. with Mister Parker and he has primary materials that Mister Parker gave him.These things combined with Doc's personal evolution led to his current stance and position. I've only seen Mister Parker once live and in person,and never took a lesson from him. I have,however,been fortunate enough to live through and during various martial arts revolutions from Bruce Lee to the Gracie Revolution which led directly to the current MMA revolution,and my purpose,philosophy and martial curriculum reflects that reality and its impact specifically on me and the students I've gotten to teach. That not only makes us functional but it makes us very different...and that's also what Mister Parker wanted. He didn't want us all to be robots programmed to imitate him (and even if he did I wasn't gonna do that anyway) but instead we are responsible for making our own discoveries and developments of the techs that we've received and more.My curriculum isn't inferior to Doc's or vice versa,instead our Kenpo is good for Kenpo and martial arts in general.

 

[ATACX GYM]

And here's a vid showing a dose of kenpo+capoeira,showing that capoeira works too if trained functionally.

 

[Yondanchris]

MOTION. That motion encapsulates every tech I have ever known. The many techs--all tested functionally over and over again--comprise the motion that I will use against and as each and every attack,defense,escape,etc.

BINGO!! Motion has always been the key to Kenpo! Most people worry about the weapons to targets and belly button up Kenpo. But they loose sight of the full package of
Base + Weapons to Targets + Motion = Kenpo. I love how you mentioned how the techniques are so interrelated that we loose sight of the reality of Kenpo....soooo true!
Unfortunately your message to the Kenpo world is mainly unheard because you have actually applied your training to reality.....Keep doing what your doing!

 

[ATACX GYM]

And here's a vid showing a dose of kenpo+capoeira,showing that capoeira works too if trained functionally.

That's the actual link. My bad you guys.

 

[Flying Crane]

Bumping this back up for discussion. I'm hoping that Ras, FC and others will join in. Anyways, to contribute to my own thread here....

LK vs. a punch: Striking down on the arm and following up with the handsword to the neck.

LK vs. a knife: From a straight thrust, you could step back and strike down on the arm, while using your other for control.

AM vs. a grab: You could do the inward block against the outside of the arm, causing a break or hyperextension.

Just a few things to get the ball rolling here.

Hi Mike,

I've been giving this some thought for a while since I saw you bumped it up again. Am a bit hesitant to comment much because my thoughts will probably just annoy the kenpo people, but I'll go ahead anyway.

my feelings are that the very format of the Self Defense techniques is problematic and not the best way to structure a curriculum. The issue as it relates to this thread is not so much about taking the SD techs and applying them to other scenarios, but rather recognizing that a few simple, basic techniques (not to be confused with the formalized, scripted Self Defense Techniques) can be used in all kinds of situations to great effect. The Formalized SD Techs are, in my opinion, too highly scripted which pigeon-holes them into mostly being useful only for the one situation as they are formally taught. I think it makes it difficult to make them useful outside that situation.

If you are fluent with the simpler basic techs, meaning the hand strikes, blocks, stepping, kicks, and do not get wrapped up in the long, scripted Self Defense Techniques, then you can see how that basic stuff can be applied at will, in any situation.

One big problem with having the formalized SD Techs is that it creates a mindset that one NEEDS to have a different tech for every situation. It's easy to pay lipservice to the notion that the SD Techs are a mini lab, teaching concepts to work on, and not meant to be used as taught. I understand that notion, but at the same time sort of call BS on it. While the concept may hold some truth, at the same time the SD Tech ought to have some level of useability right-out-of-the-box. Otherwise, on a theoretical level, it has nothing to teach. So the whole approach creates this mindset that SD Techs are necessary in order to deal with an attack. Once that mindset is created, it becomes difficult to see around it. You've given examples yourself, where you drill students and then you give them an attack that they've not had a SD TEch for yet, and they freeze up with the deer in the headlights look. They have developed that mindset that the SD Techs are necessary, or they cannot function. It's a good thing that you teach your students to work around the SD Techs and get creative. But perhaps they wouldn't have that problem in the first place if that mindset of reliance on the SD Techs was never created in the first place.

the size of the curriculum contributes to this problem as well. How many SD Techs exist against a punch? Some of those techs are just redundant (from my own experience, anyway), and some of them exist to deal with different variables that may pop up in that punch. Again, it reinforces that mindset, that a distinct SD Tech is necessary for every variance. I just disagree with that notion. I believe very strongly that fluency with the basics, and elimination of scripted SD Techs will give one much more mileage under a much wider range of possible situations. It has the added benefit of streamlining the curriculum so you can spend your time training what matters, and not waste time trying to keep up with a runaway curriculum for the sake of keeping the "whole system" intact.

Now I am going to accept that most experienced kenpoists understand that a distinct SD Tech is NOT necessary for every possible situation. People are able to largely recognize that fact. But the way the curriculum is structured still reinforces that mindset, whether one recognizes otherwise or not. It creates problems with the learning process, and is misguiding to a more novice or intermediate level student. That is where a lot of the damage can be done, in the formative early stages of learning the method. Once the mindset is established, it is more difficult to break out of it at the advanced levels. Instead, I think a better approach is to instill from the beginning the ability to recognize how the basics and fundamentals have tremendously wide application possibilities.

 

[ATACX GYM]

Hi Mike,

I've been giving this some thought for a while since I saw you bumped it up again. Am a bit hesitant to comment much because my thoughts will probably just annoy the kenpo people, but I'll go ahead anyway.

my feelings are that the very format of the Self Defense techniques is problematic and not the best way to structure a curriculum. The issue as it relates to this thread is not so much about taking the SD techs and applying them to other scenarios, but rather recognizing that a few simple, basic techniques (not to be confused with the formalized, scripted Self Defense Techniques) can be used in all kinds of situations to great effect. The Formalized SD Techs are, in my opinion, too highly scripted which pigeon-holes them into mostly being useful only for the one situation as they are formally taught. I think it makes it difficult to make them useful outside that situation.

If you are fluent with the simpler basic techs, meaning the hand strikes, blocks, stepping, kicks, and do not get wrapped up in the long, scripted Self Defense Techniques, then you can see how that basic stuff can be applied at will, in any situation.

One big problem with having the formalized SD Techs is that it creates a mindset that one NEEDS to have a different tech for every situation. It's easy to pay lipservice to the notion that the SD Techs are a mini lab, teaching concepts to work on, and not meant to be used as taught. I understand that notion, but at the same time sort of call BS on it. While the concept may hold some truth, at the same time the SD Tech ought to have some level of useability right-out-of-the-box. Otherwise, on a theoretical level, it has nothing to teach. So the whole approach creates this mindset that SD Techs are necessary in order to deal with an attack. Once that mindset is created, it becomes difficult to see around it. You've given examples yourself, where you drill students and then you give them an attack that they've not had a SD TEch for yet, and they freeze up with the deer in the headlights look. They have developed that mindset that the SD Techs are necessary, or they cannot function. It's a good thing that you teach your students to work around the SD Techs and get creative. But perhaps they wouldn't have that problem in the first place if that mindset of reliance on the SD Techs was never created in the first place.

the size of the curriculum contributes to this problem as well. How many SD Techs exist against a punch? Some of those techs are just redundant (from my own experience, anyway), and some of them exist to deal with different variables that may pop up in that punch. Again, it reinforces that mindset, that a distinct SD Tech is necessary for every variance. I just disagree with that notion. I believe very strongly that fluency with the basics, and elimination of scripted SD Techs will give one much more mileage under a much wider range of possible situations. It has the added benefit of streamlining the curriculum so you can spend your time training what matters, and not waste time trying to keep up with a runaway curriculum for the sake of keeping the "whole system" intact.

Now I am going to accept that most experienced kenpoists understand that a distinct SD Tech is NOT necessary for every possible situation. People are able to largely recognize that fact. But the way the curriculum is structured still reinforces that mindset, whether one recognizes otherwise or not. It creates problems with the learning process, and is misguiding to a more novice or intermediate level student. That is where a lot of the damage can be done, in the formative early stages of learning the method. Once the mindset is established, it is more difficult to break out of it at the advanced levels. Instead, I think a better approach is to instill from the beginning the ability to recognize how the basics and fundamentals have tremendously wide application possibilities.

Either somebody has read my months of railing against this very thing since I first came to KenpoTalk or we think very much alike or both...

 

[Flying Crane]

Either somebody has read my months of railing against this very thing since I first came to KenpoTalk or we think very much alike or both...

I think you and I have arrived at a similar conclusion thru different routes, and we express ourselves differently. Nevertheless, I think we get to the same place.

 

[Flying Crane]

A few more thoughts come to mind now that I'm thinking about it all.

My kenpo training was the Tracy lineage, and the concept of Grafting was not part of what we did. I suppose it was in there subconsciously, but it wasn't ever something we deliberately worked on. From what I understand of it, Grafting is something that kenpoists of later lineages use to deal with creativity, or a changing situation. It involves situation recognition, being able to see how a situation has changed in the middle of chaos, and recognizing how the new situation relates to a different SD Tech, and changing on the fly into that different SD Tech to deal with the situation.

In my opinion, this is a cumbersome way to develop creativity and sponteneity (if it is indeed even possible to develop true creativity and sponteneity in this way). It still relies on a curriculum of pre-scripted SD Techs, and complicates the situation by having to recognize positional similarities from one tech to another, and making that change. I think that's way too complicated and cumbersome to be realistic and cannot give a reasonable expectation of success. It demands too much thinking, too much brain activity, in a chaotic and changing and violent situation.

I think a better way to deal with it is to throw away those scripted SD Techs and develop true sponteneity and true creativity from the very beginning, by developing a real understanding of the possibilities of those sharply honed basics. I do not believe Grafting is a viable approach. Grafting still results in a heavily scripted solution to a dynamic problem. Round hole, square peg.

 

[MJS]

Hi Mike,

I've been giving this some thought for a while since I saw you bumped it up again. Am a bit hesitant to comment much because my thoughts will probably just annoy the kenpo people, but I'll go ahead anyway.

Sorry its taken me so long to reply to this. Anyways...by all means, post away! If someone gets annoyed, then so be it. I'm sure I've pissed off my share of fellow Kenpoists, with things that I've said, either because I've called certain people on things, and they didn't like me questioning some 'suspect' actions of others, or because I didn't bow down and kiss their ***, when they'd give their supposed 'superior' wisdom. Oh well....

my feelings are that the very format of the Self Defense techniques is problematic and not the best way to structure a curriculum. The issue as it relates to this thread is not so much about taking the SD techs and applying them to other scenarios, but rather recognizing that a few simple, basic techniques (not to be confused with the formalized, scripted Self Defense Techniques) can be used in all kinds of situations to great effect. The Formalized SD Techs are, in my opinion, too highly scripted which pigeon-holes them into mostly being useful only for the one situation as they are formally taught. I think it makes it difficult to make them useful outside that situation.

If you are fluent with the simpler basic techs, meaning the hand strikes, blocks, stepping, kicks, and do not get wrapped up in the long, scripted Self Defense Techniques, then you can see how that basic stuff can be applied at will, in any situation.

One big problem with having the formalized SD Techs is that it creates a mindset that one NEEDS to have a different tech for every situation. It's easy to pay lipservice to the notion that the SD Techs are a mini lab, teaching concepts to work on, and not meant to be used as taught. I understand that notion, but at the same time sort of call BS on it. While the concept may hold some truth, at the same time the SD Tech ought to have some level of useability right-out-of-the-box. Otherwise, on a theoretical level, it has nothing to teach. So the whole approach creates this mindset that SD Techs are necessary in order to deal with an attack. Once that mindset is created, it becomes difficult to see around it. You've given examples yourself, where you drill students and then you give them an attack that they've not had a SD TEch for yet, and they freeze up with the deer in the headlights look. They have developed that mindset that the SD Techs are necessary, or they cannot function. It's a good thing that you teach your students to work around the SD Techs and get creative. But perhaps they wouldn't have that problem in the first place if that mindset of reliance on the SD Techs was never created in the first place.

the size of the curriculum contributes to this problem as well. How many SD Techs exist against a punch? Some of those techs are just redundant (from my own experience, anyway), and some of them exist to deal with different variables that may pop up in that punch. Again, it reinforces that mindset, that a distinct SD Tech is necessary for every variance. I just disagree with that notion. I believe very strongly that fluency with the basics, and elimination of scripted SD Techs will give one much more mileage under a much wider range of possible situations. It has the added benefit of streamlining the curriculum so you can spend your time training what matters, and not waste time trying to keep up with a runaway curriculum for the sake of keeping the "whole system" intact.

Now I am going to accept that most experienced kenpoists understand that a distinct SD Tech is NOT necessary for every possible situation. People are able to largely recognize that fact. But the way the curriculum is structured still reinforces that mindset, whether one recognizes otherwise or not. It creates problems with the learning process, and is misguiding to a more novice or intermediate level student. That is where a lot of the damage can be done, in the formative early stages of learning the method. Once the mindset is established, it is more difficult to break out of it at the advanced levels. Instead, I think a better approach is to instill from the beginning the ability to recognize how the basics and fundamentals have tremendously wide application possibilities.

May as well lump my reply to address all of this, since no doubt my reply will hit on each point you've made. You and I share alot of views, so as you know, I've said similar things before. Its interesting because certain poeple seem to thrive on the mindset that you need a tech. for each and every possible attack. I disagree, and have said that one should be able to take the basics, which compile every tech, put them together,and formulate a response for whatever the attack may be.

People frown on that, because they say that its no longer Kenpo. I disagree. As long as you're keeping with the principles, ideas, etc, then yeah, it'll still be Kenpo. I'll use this as an example: There are certain attacks, in which we dont have a preset tech. IIRC, there is no stationary knife held to the back, nor is there one that addresses a knife held to the throat from the front or rear. That being said, we'd have to do what we said above...use the basics to form a response. So, I ask those who say that you need each and every preset...what do you do for the attacks in which a preset doesnt exist?

 

[MJS]

To expand further...watching Ras' clips of, I believe, Checking the storm, in which he worked against a knife....well, unless I missed it, but I didn't see something that looked like CTS, in the typical written fashion, but instead, simple ideas and concepts from that tech, which he used when defending against the knife.