An Attack That May Never Happen

[MJS]

While reading thru some posts in the Kenpo technical section, specifically the one on Repeated Devestation, there were a few posts that caught my eye.

Now, speaking for myself only, I like to train for the worst case scenario. IMO, I'd rather be over prepared, than under prepared. Now, I'll admit that my experience is small compared to some others both on the forum and outside of the forum. However, while someone may say that the odds of a certain attack happening are small, will never happen at all or that it never happened to them, I feel that its not wise to disregard certain things. For example, someone may say that training for a grappling attack is not important because they have not seen it or had it happen to them.

Looking thru our vast collection of techniques, we have a defense for pretty much every type of punch, defenses for club and blade, etc. Now, we still train those techniques right? So its very possible that we may never have a gun pointed at us, but again, we're still training the rod techniques right?

Seems to me that if we had the thought that certain things will never happen, why bother having those moves?

Thoughts?

 

[Flying Crane]

This is a question that I wrestle with constantly, along side a similar question: why do we need SO MANY techs, for the same attack?

I'm in the process of re-learning it all right now so maybe i'll gain some insights down the road. In the mean time, I try to reconcile the time and effort spent training things that "maybe" shouldn't be trained. I think there is something useful in there, and it's worth keeping. Some things work better for some people, not so good for others, so we learn a variety, and within that body of knowledge you can identify your favorites, the reliables that you know you can count on. But your list may be different from someone else's, and learning that variety gives you the tools and knowledge to make that decision.

Getting back to your original thought: for most people, it is highly unlikely that they will need to use their skills EVER, or at least rarely, maybe a couple times in their life. So given that, one could make an argument that it is pointless to train at all.

I certainly don't buy that argument, but it is a position that could be taken.

I think everyone speaks from their experience. Some people have much more experience than others, so perhaps their opinion carries more weight. But nobody knows it all, nobodys opinion is all knowing. Just because one person, who may be highly experienced, says "this kind of attack never happens", doesn't mean it's true. Someone else, even someone with very little experience, might say "hey, someone just did that to me last week, and i was able to escape using this tech!". It's all based on perspective and experience, and nobody has it all.

If it seems like a viable possibility to you, then keep training it. I doubt if I would practice techniques to defend against a company of bowmen firing at me from 50 paces, and me having no cover. I don't believe that will EVER happen, so I don't practice for it. But a grab, or push, or punch, or something, well, that just might happen, even if someone else says "no way, never".

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

Why bother having these moves? Exactly. There are some techniques in kenpo which seem so unsound to me...unlikely attacks, and some unlikely responses. I view kenpo techs as little labs designed to teach us how to use our bodies, both in relation to ourselves, and in relation to an opponent. To the extent that a tech has a viable lesson in it, I'll keep it and present it as such..."This tech teaches us how to..." (insert concepts & principles, NOT reactions to a specific attack).

If I can't fill in that sentence with something of value...something that stands up to the test of an uncooperative opponent, instinctive reactions, and a whole slew of other evaluation criteria, I either try to tweak it a bit to make it work, or round file it. I am one of those ridiculous heretics who DOES believe that some of the kenpo content is just filler, and I would rather not work filler. I would rather not bother having these moves.

Be good,

Dave

 

[Flying Crane]

Why bother having these moves? Exactly. There are some techniques in kenpo which seem so unsound to me...unlikely attacks, and some unlikely responses. I view kenpo techs as little labs designed to teach us how to use our bodies, both in relation to ourselves, and in relation to an opponent. To the extent that a tech has a viable lesson in it, I'll keep it and present it as such..."This tech teaches us how to..." (insert concepts & principles, NOT reactions to a specific attack).

If I can't fill in that sentence with something of value...something that stands up to the test of an uncooperative opponent, instinctive reactions, and a whole slew of other evaluation criteria, I either try to tweak it a bit to make it work, or round file it. I am one of those ridiculous heretics who DOES believe that some of the kenpo content is just filler, and I would rather not work filler. I would rather not bother having these moves.

Be good,

Dave

I see a lot to agree with here. I am certainly one to use a critical eye on the actual response, the meat of the technique. A specific attack may or may not be likely, and that might be a matter of opinion. But regardless, the response must make sense. Sometimes some of the techs just seem rediculous, and I think that is a different point of discussion.

 

[Andrew Green]

hat certain things will never happen, why bother having those moves?

I can give a partial answer, and leave it up to you to decide if it works or not for the question.

Consider that clasic outside of the wrist to outside of the wrist wing chun position. Bruce Lee even used it in Enter the Dragon.

Now, no one in the real world is ever going to walk up to you and pick a fight by adopting that position... unless they have seen too many Bruce Lee movies.

So why train from it? It represents a reference point of sorts. While that "get set" way of getting there will never happen, that basic position will happen quite frequently, although not as a freeze and hold, but just about every traditional style has attacks and blocks that will have you there quite often, whether it is a block or a strike or whatever.

It is also a fairly easy position to "force" I can attack in a certain way to pretty much guarantee a defence that gives a similar positioning. So it can very easily be gained as a first point of contact.

So while the how you get there is unrealistic (stand and pose) in reality getting there is somewhat likely. Especially if you try to do so intentionally. Therefore if you know that once you can get to that position you have a very good chance of winning, and you know that you can achieve that position fairly easily, it might make sense to spend a good deal of time training from it.

This is common in grappling as well, some guys get really good from a position, it might not even be a very dominate one, but it is one that they can get too fairly easily. If they know they can get there, and they know they can win from there they are in good shape. (ex. Half guard - Bottom)

As for unrealistic responses, well, lack of realistic sparring is my guess

 

[kidswarrior]

I found something in every preceding post to agree with, so chose not to quote any rather than too many.

And want to say right up front that this response is solely my experience, so may or may not have value to anyone else.

I've kept notes of essentially every Kempo technique I've ever learned, and most of the Kung Fu San Soo principles (my KFSS instructor didn't believe in specific preset techniques: just taught principles, and then showed numerous applications which we'd then practice).

But what I learned and what I teach are very different things. Have distilled the original techniques and principles-which-become-techniques down to around 100 preset techniques. That's white belt to 1st Black. And I demand they learn all from both sides of attack (instead of the standard right front step in attack, which I mostly learned). Now already, that's more techniques than I would use. So why teach that many? Two reasons.

First, the different techniques' angles, positions, objectives (hand strike, kick, offensive, defensive, etc.) create patterns of body movement (including evading, blocking, striking, takedowns, etc.) The more things we underststand/have experience that the body can do, the more options we have if we're really in danger at some point.

Second, eventually I want each student to choose from 6 to 12 favorite techniques, and make them his or hers. When I say, show me your techniques, this is what I'll mean (no one is at that point yet). Wasn't it Oyama who said, 'give me five techniques and I'll be undefeated.'? Not sure, but am sure it was Bill Wallace who this month in a major MA journal said after 45 years of training, he only has five techniques. Now if those two count on less than a half dozen techniques--obviously done to perfection--that's probably a good indicator of how it really works. I myself have 6 techniques I'd count on, and practice relentlessly. But that's culled from those hundreds. Wanting to give my students a similar opportunity, I teach the hundred so they can identify their 5 or 6; and their students need a similar opportunity, so will need to learn the 100 also.

 

[MJS]

This is a question that I wrestle with constantly, along side a similar question: why do we need SO MANY techs, for the same attack?


I'm in the process of re-learning it all right now so maybe i'll gain some insights down the road. In the mean time, I try to reconcile the time and effort spent training things that "maybe" shouldn't be trained. I think there is something useful in there, and it's worth keeping. Some things work better for some people, not so good for others, so we learn a variety, and within that body of knowledge you can identify your favorites, the reliables that you know you can count on. But your list may be different from someone else's, and learning that variety gives you the tools and knowledge to make that decision.

There was a similar question asked in the GMA section and a fantastic reply, which of course, I can't recall. LOL! In any case, someone could say that a roundhouse punch is a roundhouse punch, but what works for one may not work for the next. Additionally, the 'what if' also comes into play.

Getting back to your original thought: for most people, it is highly unlikely that they will need to use their skills EVER, or at least rarely, maybe a couple times in their life. So given that, one could make an argument that it is pointless to train at all.

I certainly don't buy that argument, but it is a position that could be taken.

Good point. Likewise, I don't buy it either. I'd rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.

I think everyone speaks from their experience. Some people have much more experience than others, so perhaps their opinion carries more weight. But nobody knows it all, nobodys opinion is all knowing. Just because one person, who may be highly experienced, says "this kind of attack never happens", doesn't mean it's true. Someone else, even someone with very little experience, might say "hey, someone just did that to me last week, and i was able to escape using this tech!". It's all based on perspective and experience, and nobody has it all.

True.

If it seems like a viable possibility to you, then keep training it. I doubt if I would practice techniques to defend against a company of bowmen firing at me from 50 paces, and me having no cover. I don't believe that will EVER happen, so I don't practice for it. But a grab, or push, or punch, or something, well, that just might happen, even if someone else says "no way, never".

Agreed.

Mike

 

[MJS]

Why bother having these moves? Exactly. There are some techniques in kenpo which seem so unsound to me...unlikely attacks, and some unlikely responses. I view kenpo techs as little labs designed to teach us how to use our bodies, both in relation to ourselves, and in relation to an opponent. To the extent that a tech has a viable lesson in it, I'll keep it and present it as such..."This tech teaches us how to..." (insert concepts & principles, NOT reactions to a specific attack).

I suppose this goes back to the commercial/motion discussions that pop up. Granted everyone trains for a different reason, but IMO, the MAs are primarily about defending yourself. That being said, one would think that the defenses, etc. would be sound rather than leaving us saying, "Hmm, that would never work."

Mike

 

[MJS]

I can give a partial answer, and leave it up to you to decide if it works or not for the question.

Consider that clasic outside of the wrist to outside of the wrist wing chun position. Bruce Lee even used it in Enter the Dragon.

Now, no one in the real world is ever going to walk up to you and pick a fight by adopting that position... unless they have seen too many Bruce Lee movies.

So why train from it? It represents a reference point of sorts. While that "get set" way of getting there will never happen, that basic position will happen quite frequently, although not as a freeze and hold, but just about every traditional style has attacks and blocks that will have you there quite often, whether it is a block or a strike or whatever.

It is also a fairly easy position to "force" I can attack in a certain way to pretty much guarantee a defence that gives a similar positioning. So it can very easily be gained as a first point of contact.

So while the how you get there is unrealistic (stand and pose) in reality getting there is somewhat likely. Especially if you try to do so intentionally. Therefore if you know that once you can get to that position you have a very good chance of winning, and you know that you can achieve that position fairly easily, it might make sense to spend a good deal of time training from it.

This is common in grappling as well, some guys get really good from a position, it might not even be a very dominate one, but it is one that they can get too fairly easily. If they know they can get there, and they know they can win from there they are in good shape. (ex. Half guard - Bottom)

As for unrealistic responses, well, lack of realistic sparring is my guess

This thread was started due to a discussion of a Kenpo technique against a full nelson. I agree though ( here I go agreeing again ) Many 'drills' are often looked at as static and therefore ineffective, however like the position you mention, there are reference points in them. Its up to the student to pull them out.

Sparring really wasnt a factor in the other discussion. My main point of this thread was we can't predict what will happen in a situation. We can try to attempt to control what happens, but things may change. Therefore, I'd rather be over than under prepared.

Mike

 

[HKphooey]

Why do we have car insurance? How often are we in accidents? It is there for "what if?".

Same goes for martial arts training. We train for "those situations" and along we meet some great people.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Spend the most time on the most likely attacks. Each tech really represents an area of study. You will find the basic motion really never changes.
sean

 

[14 Kempo]

For most of us, thank goodness, the attack will never happen. However, the minute you get too complacent, that is when you are at your weakest and when you will find yourself in a situation.

Thugs, bullies, whatever you want to call them, they prey on weakness, they want to feel fear, they want to feel in control. Those of us that study the martial arts, train to be in control, to control emotions, to then control situations with a calm mind. Most that train, have a different way about themselves, a confidence, an aura so to speak and could be another reason why we never see that attack. We don't look like an easy target, a victim.

We train to fight so that we don't have too.

 

[John Bishop]

Some things work better for some people, not so good for others, so we learn a variety, and within that body of knowledge you can identify your favorites, the reliables that you know you can count on.

But your list may be different from someone else's, and learning that variety gives you the tools and knowledge to make that decision.

This basically sums up my feelings pretty good.
One of my black belts who also has a 3rd dan in Shotokan described it this way. "Traditional arts try and make the students fit the art. Modern arts like Kajukenbo and Kenpo, try to make the art fit the students."

So, even though I don't believe there is a need to learn and practice flying kicks to knock soldiers off horses. Or the defenses against a sword strike that traditional arts may practice. I think the majority of Kajukenbo and EPAK techniques are useful to someone learning those arts.
Now someone can possibly pick the few techniques they like and spend years practicing them. But they will have to bypass learning the complete cirriculum and advancing in rank.
So it really depends on whether your interested in just learning self defense for yourself, or advancing in rank and someday passing on the system to others.

 

[LawDog]

I agree with Mr Bishop ad Flying Crane.
I do not believe that one should discard all techniques that do not work well for you or that you do not personally like because,
1) We all change with age, something that works really well when you are young might not when you are older,
2) Most of us from time to time will be in different geographical locations. Ex. fast footwork is hard to do on a snowy surface,
3) Your best moves will not work against all the different types of fighters,
4) As you become more experienced and skilled sometimes those moves that do not work well for you now will, in time, become your best moves.
Have fun training,
:ultracool

 

[Doc]

It's not about whether an attack will happen, it's about is it possible. There are too many skills people don't have, to worry about the obscure AND impossible. Guess there's no sense posting experiments to begin to make a determination.

 

[MJS]

Perhaps we can take this discussion in that direction then. Its possible that the person who is making threats to me has wrestled during high school and college. Could it be possible that he could attempt to clinch and slam me to the ground?

 

[Andrew Green]

Perhaps we can take this discussion in that direction then. Its possible that the person who is making threats to me has wrestled during high school and college. Could it be possible that he could attempt to clinch and slam me to the ground?

I think that given the number of people that have wrestling experience, and the popularity of MMA, the possibility of someone trying to take you down is higher then it was 10 years ago.

People fight how they are trained to, and if there is no training they fight the way they have seen others do so. Right now MMA is going to be the model used, where as a few years ago it would have been boxing, martial arts movies or hockey (all striking)

"Ground and Pound" is something that will seem like a good strategy to someone without any experience now, that is something fairly new in terms of what "the masses" would consider a good fight strategy.

 

[kidswarrior]

I think that given the number of people that have wrestling experience, and the popularity of MMA, the possibility of someone trying to take you down is higher then it was 10 years ago.

People fight how they are trained to, and if there is no training they fight the way they have seen others do so. Right now MMA is going to be the model used, where as a few years ago it would have been boxing, martial arts movies or hockey (all striking)

"Ground and Pound" is something that will seem like a good strategy to someone without any experience now, that is something fairly new in terms of what "the masses" would consider a good fight strategy.

I agree with everything except 'right now MMA is going to be the model used.' That's probably true for those you mention later who are 'without any experience now', but for those with street experience and no formal training, the boxing paradigm is still the preferred method in my geographical area. But as Law Dog said, things change over areas and time periods, so I wouldn't claim that this holds true elsewhere.

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

I think you're correct, Andrew. I've often lamented...when I was active in Gracie JJ, I was one of maybe 200 people in the U.S. who knew enough to work it. Walking down Main Street, Huntington Beach, surf punks were just targets with ego's, and no technology to back up their attitudes. Now, with so many fight academies around, and guys teaching their buddies in living rooms during UFC's that have been around for so long, everybody seems to know a little bit of something about superior positions, and laying down some ordnance from them.

I used to include some BJJ for my kenpo students as an adjunct for kicks & giggles; now, some of the vertical and horizontal grappling issues MUST be addressed for simple parity with the rats on the sidewalk.

I personally think some techs need to be seriously revisited & revised to reflect the changes in the personal combat zeitgeist created by the success of MMA events. Thrusting Prongs as a kenpo tech against a bearhug was an OK response when people grabbed you Wild Wild West style in bearhugs and tried to pick you up to sling you around. Now they shoot on you & clinch you. But the opening aspect of Thrusting Prongs...having the arms between you and the opponent and splitting your legs by stepping back into a forward bow...are close enough to getting an arm in for a sprawl, that it could be modified...deepen the rear-leg in the forward bow and drop the height while you pop back and straighten the arm(s) you have between you and the bad-guy, and you're now teaching something applicable in 20XX, versus 19XX.

When last I bounced, the only grapplers out there to worry about were freestyle wrestlers, and they kept giving up their backs; easy. Not anymore.

In the 154 tech EPKK cirriculum, are any listed as defense against a double-leg? What about a Muay Thai neck-wrestle clinch? Or a knee coming up at you from within that clinch? What about those nasty Chai Sirisute inward slicing elbows from that clinch? Or a head-butt? Nope. But I have some lousy Ram techniques I can try to tweak to make work on a double-leg take or shoot, originally designed for an unsophisticated bull-rush tackle by a half-drunken oaf.

IMO, what Parker did that was brilliant with the motion model, was to attempt to devise techniques against likely attacks from his era. Boxers, judo guys, thugs, etc. Concepts and principles of motion defense, applied to common attacks of the day. Some are still universal; there will always be some guy trying to take a poke at your melon, and those skills are often under-emphasized in a kenpo land obsessed with where on the clock to step in a wristgrab defense. But what's missing from the main body of kenpo training are solutions for stuff guys today are going to try to throw on you. Few, if any, are going to try to get you in a full nelson, but we have a couple techniques against it, just in case. Nobody trains in applying full nelsons, at any school I have ever worked out at. Even the wrestlers I've hooked up with don't go for those, or train for them.

In contrast, almost everyone now has learned how to go for shoots, clinches, and even some standing chokes (guillotine, hadaka-jime). Locking Horns isn't geared effectively for a guy who has you in a true guillotine, and the mechanically unsound single leg take embedded in the SD tech will only place you in the guys guard and get you stretched out while you pass out. And I challenge any AK guy out there to name an SD tech in the 154 system that's against a rear naked choke, standing, seated, or supine. OK...add prone, just for kicks. It ain't there. But untrained Joe Blow's are learning how to do these things; I trained the son of a recently deceased buddy of mine back in 2001-2. When I went to the wake after the funeral last year, the little gang-rats he hangs out with were doing our moves with each other in the garage. They had been working them, having gotten it second hand from the kid, and figuring the rest out from UFC re-runs.

Mr. Bishop mentioned passing whole systems on intact, and availability for promotion within the system. As a kenpo practitioner, it's been over 15 years since I worked on the AK long forms...I recognize them, and partially remember them, but the idea of spending hours ironing the kinks out of Form 5, 6, 7, etc., so I look really pretty doing nonsense is a profound waste of time. I would rather spend that time working solutions against a clinch, shoot, etc., and getting down my responses to a broad tire iron or ball bat swing, instead of Finger Set with foot maneuvers...things that we're starting to see more of as a result of the times. As a kenpo instructor, I cannot -- in good faith to myself -- teach that to future students with a straight face, telling them it's going to be OK. It's a lie, and I won't do it. As a kenpo black belt on a life-long journey, it means I will never see a promotion again. I have abandoned the core cirriculum around which promotions take place, and there is no Senior in front of whom I could test and have what I do recognized. They'll call out an advanced form..."Sorry. Don't do that one; waste of time." They'll call out a technique against a rear full nelson..."sorry; don't do that either...it's a stupid technique against an unlikely attack, and a waste of time to practice, so I threw it away". They'll call out Five Swords with extension, and the extension I do will be to throw him to the ground, kneel on him in a knee-up position, beat the hell out of him, then finish with an arm-break accross my thigh...not the EPAK extension the rest of the kenpo world is familiar with, but one I feel will better serve my students by giving them better tools.

So, my career in kenpo is done, in terms of eligibility for advancement. But at least my guys will be able to fight.

Sorry for the rant, but this is a thorn in my craw on an ongoing basis, and has been since the late 1980's.

Enjoy,

Dave

 

[Blindside]

Sorry for the rant, but this is a thorn in my craw on an ongoing basis, and has been since the late 1980's.

I'm not sorry, that may have been the best post I've seen on MartialTalk in a long long time!

Lamont