An Attack That May Never Happen

[Kenpojujitsu3]

I don't believe the initial discussion from which this thread spun off was whether or not it is "likely". I believe the original claim was more on the lines of "it's impossible". We've seen personal testimony here, and a video example, of the real possibility, even if it might still be arguably "unlikely", a point which those with far more experience than I have are free to debate.

I've never had a real fight in my life. I've never been attacked in any of the myriad of methods for which I practice defenses. I guess my experience informs me that being attacked is highly unlikely. Should I quit training altogether?

Yes, by the logic presented so far, quit now. It is not likely that you will ever by attacked by anyone or anything. As a matter of fact it's not just unlikely it's impossible.

 

[Flying Crane]

One of my friends e-mailed me to say he read my post, and that I was being an *** to Flying Crane, speaking down to him. First, let me apologize for that tone if it's coming accross that way; not my intent, and not what's in my head. I have great respect for Michaels reasoning, even when we don't agree, and have for several years now that we've been on the same boards.

Dave

Hey, don't worry 'bout that, no offense taken. :asian: As to my own admitted lack of experience in real life fighting, it's something I am pretty happy about. 23 years in the martial arts, never needed to use it for real. Got close a few times, but i'm a pretty good talker, and when that fails, my nike-jutsu is top notch.

One thing I've always felt about your contributions is that they are well thought out and clear, even when those of others are not, and esp. with the SL4 discussions I have certainly appreciated that.

Doc stated in the other thread, as well as in this one (page one, post #15) that the full nelson is impossible, and this implies that it is a complete waste of time to train for it.

But we have a couple people here who have expressed their personal experience in seeing it done, or having it done on them. That, to me, speaks pretty strongly that it is NOT impossible. Now, maybe that cop that Lawdog knows was lame and stupid for letting it happen to him in the bikerbar. Maybe KJJ3's experience with it was likewise lame and never should have happened. I don't know, I wasn't there, I'm certainly not going to pass judgement on it. But the fact is, IT HAPPENED. I think nobody here is in a position to dispute that. Whether or not these individuals should have been smart enough to prevent it from happening is immaterial.

And I think this illustrates the reality that combat is chaotic and unpredictable, and can change quickly and often. What we might think can NEVER HAPPEN, just might happen someday, and I personally wouldn't put that into the category of "planned failure". I think it's just recognizing that many things are out of our control, and we just have to deal with it and find a way to pull it into our control if we are forced to.

This unpredictability is also part of why I've made it a point to avoid fighting whenever possible. I had a scabby faced punk following me down the street, doing his best to pick a fight with me, even to the point of adopting a pseudo-muay thai stance and throwing a couple of ineffective roundhouse kicks at me. I outweighed him by probably 30-40 pounds, and towered over him by at least a couple inches. I'm only 5'10" or so, and I weigh all of 155, so that gives you an idea of his size. Something about the whole situation just smelled funky. I knew he had 4 or 5 friends, but they hung back a while and were about a half a block away. But I just couldn't shake the feeling that because he was so outmatched otherwise, he just HAD to have a knife or something in the mix, and he was waiting for his chance to stick it in. So I was in no hurry to engage him, even tho he was trying pretty hard. Then his friends came running up, I knew that if I got surrounded I was dead meat, so I showed them the quality of my nike-jutsu. My masculinity has never been threatened by that kind of thing. Fighting, in my opinion, is deadly serious business, and I freely admit that it scares the hell out of me.

Now, you yourself have admitted to having a little material to deal with the full nelson. For the sake of argument and discussion, maybe that 5 or 10 minutes is all it takes to give someone what they need to deal with this possibility. Maybe only an occasional revisitation is necessary, and maybe it doesn't need to be trained as much as other material. But I'd say it's 5 or 10 minutes well spent.

You feel that the formalized kenpo material that deals with the full nelson is untrustworthy. OK, I can certainly accept that evaluation. I have often questioned the value of many of our techs as well. Maybe that isn't the best solution. Maybe your 5-10 minute lesson is all you need. OK, there it is, you got what you need.

But I think the lesson from all this is that the full nelson, for right or wrong, is not impossible.

 

[SL4Drew]

"Likely" has jack poo to do with what was expressly stated as "impossible". Parameters cannot change impossibility by the very definition of impossible...and all the explaining and trying to change impossible to improbable won't help either.

Salute.

It's not impossible to score a touchdown in the NFL. But I don't know about you, but I don't believe it's possible to score a touchdown in the NBA...

The "impossible" comment was made within a context. Just like saying humans can't fly or breath under water. All those things are impossible in one context, but entirely possible in another.

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

Nike-jutsu rocks. Guys like that kid are typically scouts for a jumping party. And like I used to tell my students: There is no dishonor or shame in surviving and stayin' pretty.

I'm reminded of a story of an American serviceman on a trainride to an aikido class. The train is being botherd by a drunk Japanses ruffian, and the American is going through possible moves in his mind. An old man in the car gets the ruffian talking, and the bad guy breaks down in tears, describing how difficult life has been on him and his family in the post-war years. The first version I read had the old man and the serviceman disembark at the same stop and start walking to the same address, with the old man turning out to be Ueshiba, and the pacifist approach representing the ultimate in martial arts competency. I later read the original version that was autobiographical of the author, and it didn't have the oldster as Ueshiba, but the lesson from the original stayed in my brain, even if it was fictitious.

Train hard, prepare for battle, then keep your sword hidden under your bed and pray it never comes out. I suspect the same can apply to full-nelsons.

D.

 

[Flying Crane]

It's not impossible to score a touchdown in the NFL. But I don't know about you, but I don't believe it's possible to score a touchdown in the NBA...

The "impossible" comment was made within a context. Just like saying humans can't fly or breath under water. All those things are impossible in one context, but entirely possible in another.

Now wait a minute. Go back to post #15 on page one of this thread. Please explain to me the "context" conditioning this comment. Feel free to look into the original thread from which this one spun off as well. It was stated by Doc that it is impossible to apply a full nelson on someone who hasn't been essentially beaten close to unconscious already.

Now ok, we can cut the Youtube video out that James posted, because that film is from a specific kind of sporting event. My dad wrestled in high school, and I remember him teaching me the full nelson when I was a kid, and it was certainly in the context of being a valid and effective technique, both in a wrestling match and for real fighting. I personally feel that it has validity in the discussion, but for the sake of argument, let's just eliminate that.

We still have Lawdog's example, as well as James' personal experiences. These were full nelsons done on the "street", in a real attack/fight. It doesnt' sound like Lawdog's cop buddy, nor James, were semi-unconscious when it happened.

So how do these examples fall outside the special "context" under which Doc made his statement? If his statements weren't intended to be taken within the context of a real fight, a real attack, real self defense on the street, then what was the context? Because those are certainly the context for Lawdog's and James' experiences.

Doc certainly has a lot more experience and knowledge than I do, I would never try to argue that point. But I'm sorry, he is not omniscient. He made some pretty strong and opinionated statements about the full nelson. We have others here with direct personal experiences that contradict Doc's statements.

You can sit there all day and say "Doc is right, it's impossible to apply a full nelson", and you can repeat that over and over. But in the face of others experience, it just doesn't hold water.

I don't see much to salvage by trying to push the point and claim that somehow Doc's comments are still correct. In this case, looks to me like he is wrong.

 

[Flying Crane]

Nike-jutsu rocks. Guys like that kid are typically scouts for a jumping party. And like I used to tell my students: There is no dishonor or shame in surviving and stayin' pretty.

I'm reminded of a story of an American serviceman on a trainride to an aikido class. The train is being botherd by a drunk Japanses ruffian, and the American is going through possible moves in his mind. An old man in the car gets the ruffian talking, and the bad guy breaks down in tears, describing how difficult life has been on him and his family in the post-war years. The first version I read had the old man and the serviceman disembark at the same stop and start walking to the same address, with the old man turning out to be Ueshiba, and the pacifist approach representing the ultimate in martial arts competency. I later read the original version that was autobiographical of the author, and it didn't have the oldster as Ueshiba, but the lesson from the original stayed in my brain, even if it was fictitious.

Train hard, prepare for battle, then keep your sword hidden under your bed and pray it never comes out. I suspect the same can apply to full-nelsons.

D.

Damn right Nike-jutsu rocks. I've used it more than once, and it's one technique that never let me down.

I read that same aikido story. It is also one that I remember from time to time, tho I never read the version with Ueshiba as the old man. It's a good story, with a good perspective on life.

So far the sword has stayed in the scabbard, but my hand has been on the hilt a few times.

 

[Kenpojujitsu3]

It's not impossible to score a touchdown in the NFL. But I don't know about you, but I don't believe it's possible to score a touchdown in the NBA...

The "impossible" comment was made within a context. Just like saying humans can't fly or breath under water. All those things are impossible in one context, but entirely possible in another.

Unfortunately, there is no such thing as context regarding the term impossible. It is by definition an absolute term. You can attempt to add all the qualifiers you want to justify your position but the definition remains the same. Even the qualifier Doc included "anatomically" (Post #32) means based on the anatomy of the human body. The anatomy does not change with rules, environment, postioning, activity, etc. Therefore anatomically impossible is fundamentally incorrect.

Impossible:

1) not capable of occurring or being accomplished (notice no qualifier)
2) totally unlikely (Notice "totally" another absolute term)
3) something that cannot be done (Notice no qualifier)

Totally:

1) wholly
2) to a complete degree or to the full or entire extent

Anatomically:

1) with respect to anatomy

Anatomy:

1) the science which studies the structure of parts of the body
2) The study of the structure of the body and the inter-relations of its parts
3) The physical structure of an internal structure of an organism or any of its parts

NOTICE: no mention of activity, environment, parameter, rule or context is made in any given defintion of the terms used. I guess the structure of the human body changes depending on the activity, rules or environment which makes the impossible possible in the "proper context". Is that what you're trying to sell me on? And before someone goes there with the whole "alignment" conversation, structure and configuration are two different things. Configuration changes, structure does not.

 

[Kenpojujitsu3]

......Now ok, we can cut the Youtube video out that James posted, because that film is from a specific kind of sporting event.

Doc certainly has a lot more experience and knowledge than I do, I would never try to argue that point. But I'm sorry, he is not omniscient. He made some pretty strong and opinionated statements about the full nelson. We have others here with direct personal experiences that contradict Doc's statements.

You can sit there all day and say "Doc is right, it's impossible to apply a full nelson", and you can repeat that over and over. But in the face of others experience, it just doesn't hold water.

I don't see much to salvage by trying to push the point and claim that somehow Doc's comments are still correct. In this case, looks to me like he is wrong.

No we don't need to throw that out. A sport or a fight does not change anatomy no matter how hard some may protest. A picture is worth a thousand words and a video is a bunch of sequenced pictures. It's there, it's visible, it happened on a living, breathing and resisting piece of human ANATOMY.

Doc isn't all-knowing? I must have missed that memo and others too. Because even in the midst of clear visual contradictory evidence some are trying to change the scope of what has already been said. Sorry, but I'm not going to casually let "anatomically impossible" get redefined to "contextually improbable" irregardless of who said it and how much I respect them.

 

[Flying Crane]

No we don't need to throw that out. A sport or a fight does not change anatomy no matter how hard some may protest. A picture is worth a thousand words and a video is a bunch of sequenced pictures. It's there, it's visible, it happened on a living, breathing and resisting piece of human ANATOMY.

Doc isn't all-knowing? I must have missed that memo and others too. Because even in the midst of clear visual contradictory evidence some are trying to change the scope of what has already been said. Sorry, but I'm not going to casually let "anatomically impossible" get redefined to "contextually improbable" irregardless of who said it and how much I respect them.

Oh I agree, the video is, in my opinion, relevant to the discussion. Just for the sake of argument I was personally willing to let that one go as it is taken out of the context of street self defense. I guess I was willing to let that little bit of context get defined, but really I am in full agreement, it is definitely relevant. But even if the video is eliminated, I don't think it in any way weakens the rest of the evidence.

As to Doc's statement, he made it, no one else did. He hasn't come back at this point to clarify or otherwise discuss it, there have only been others who have discussed it. If he has further input, I am sure we would all appreciate seeing what he might have to say about it. But given what was said in the other thread, and in this one, his position seemed pretty clear to me at least. Maybe there is more to the story, i'm always willing to consider what more someone might have to say...

 

[Doc]

It is always easy to either take things out of context, or focus of a familiar part of the equation instead of the whole of what I said. Human nature I guess. I know I covered all the bases and always qualify my statements as I did here. It is "Anatomically impossible" within the context of the self-defense technique scenario of the discussion. The scenario is a Kenpo self-defense technique single assault from the rear, where someone comes up behind you to put you in a full nelson with no other physical interaction or secondary attack or attackers, and not in a sport wrestling match. That's the technique scenario as taught in the system.

Under the self-defense attack scenario perameters, the assault completion is still anatomically impossible. I can't help but notice I actually suggested an experiment "within that context" as the technique is taught, and people have chosen to argue, the merits of my statement without taking the time to even try the in context physical experiment.

I have given everything in my posts to make my point. On top of that I also stated I STILL TEACH IT for the body mechanics in the event the scenario isn't exactly as taught, in spite of it being unlikely in most circumstances including impossible in the technique. When my statements are read in their entirety, they are appropriate and correct. Part of the initial defense is exactly as Dr. Dave describes, which can be utilized in other scenarios as well, in conjunction with other mechanics to adjust for body momentum and stabilizing the platform.

Funny I thought this discussion would go in the direction of "How do I defend against it." rather than focusing on wholly out of context "what ifs" and adjusted scenarios to fit a particular perspective. That's what others did. They emailed me and asked my opinion, disagreed to an extent but saw my point AFTER they worked the experiment I suggested. Their next question was, what would you do if it happened anyway. I gave them the answer as I teach it regularly. Have a good day.

 

[Ray]

Doc isn't all-knowing? I must have missed that memo and others too. Because even in the midst of clear visual contradictory evidence some are trying to change the scope of what has already been said. Sorry, but I'm not going to casually let "anatomically impossible" get redefined to "contextually improbable" irregardless of who said it and how much I respect them.

Doc knows what he's talking about. If you are able to attend one of his seminars, or classes, he will show you simply that he does. He will provide you with reasoning, ways you can experiment and test what he says.

 

[Kenpojujitsu3]

Doc knows what he's talking about. If you are able to attend one of his seminars, or classes, he will show you simply that he does. He will provide you with reasoning, ways you can experiment and test what he says.

That doesn't change what I have seen and felt. I can assume that you have been punched before if you have done Kenpo or Martial Arts. Now can Doc or anyone else tell you "it's impossible to be punched" and you actually believe it? Do you then disregard your own experiences because someone lese told you otherwise? I hope not.

P.S. I have no doubts of Doc's knowledge or abilities except where what he or anyone else states directly conflicts with my personal experiences. My beliefs can be challenged my experiences can not. I keep in touch with Doc regularly through e-mail. There is no question of his knowledge except that he is human and does not know everything. Again something I could say about anyone. Seems you felt I was slighting him. If so, not so and I'm sure Doc knows that or he would call me on it personally.

 

[Kenpojujitsu3]

It is always easy to either take things out of context, or focus of a familiar part of the equation instead of the whole of what I said. Human nature I guess.

You didn't actually provide a context, one could be assumed but you stated none in Posts 15 or 32.

I know I covered all the bases and always qualify my statements as I did here.

Generally true, but not this time. Some assumptions are being made here as to what is "commonly" understood.

It is "Anatomically impossible" within the context of the self-defense technique scenario of the discussion. The scenario is a Kenpo self-defense technique single assault from the rear, where someone comes up behind you to put you in a full nelson with no other physical interaction or secondary attack or attackers, and not in a sport wrestling match. That's the technique scenario as taught in the system.

I'd still say improbable and not impossible based on personal experiences. I have seen on multiple occasions where someone snuck up behind someone and just put the lock on before any reaction was made. Others will disagree but I still saw it happen...multiple times. My personal situation was a singular altercation that became a multple altercation if that makes sense. Maybe Baltimore, MD is just that different from the rest of the 'science' world. Stranger things have happened.

Under the self-defense attack scenario perameters, the assault completion is still anatomically impossible. I can't help but notice I actually suggested an experiment "within that context" as the technique is taught, and people have chosen to argue, the merits of my statement without taking the time to even try the in context physical experiment.

I can't help but state that this would be an assumption of what others have or have not tried. Unless you and Collins are still spying on me

I have given everything in my posts to make my point. On top of that I also stated I STILL TEACH IT for the body mechanics in the event the scenario isn't exactly as taught, in spite of it being unlikely in most circumstances including impossible in the technique. When my statements are read in their entirety, they are appropriate and correct. Part of the initial defense is exactly as Dr. Dave describes, which can be utilized in other scenarios as well, in conjunction with other mechanics to adjust for body momentum and stabilizing the platform.

Agree to disagree. This will get nowhere as I cannot be convinced to refute what I myself have seen and/or felt. Even the scenario you gave in this post of singular attack from rear with no other attackers or attacks involved contradicts what I have personally seen. Just reminds my of what my professors have been known to state. "Even in the world of science there are few if any absolutes..."

Funny I thought this discussion would go in the direction of "How do I defend against it." rather than focusing on wholly out of context "what ifs" and adjusted scenarios to fit a particular perspective. That's what others did.

Not really, this spun off of you posting "impossible" in post 15 and "anatomically impossible" in post 32. You may have felt that it was commonly understood that you meant "within the context of a singular assalut with no distractions on a sunny day in California... " But you did not state that in this thread (until this post) and assumed others were following. It seems apparent that everyone was not...specifically the one's who are not regularly exposed to SL-4 methodolgies.

They emailed me and asked my opinion, disagreed to an extent but saw my point AFTER they worked the experiment I suggested. Their next question was, what would you do if it happened anyway. I gave them the answer as I teach it regularly. Have a good day.

Having a great day as always Doc P.S. People are loving (actually hating) the e-mails you sent me regarding politics, economics, etc. Good stuff.

 

[MJS]

Well, seeing that this discussion at this time is focused on the Full Nelson, may as well continue along those lines. This thread was spun from the Repeated Devestation thread. However, we can discuss any technique and/or attack that is deemed 'impossible.' In this post I had asked two questions. For the sake of the discussion, I'd be interested in hearing the answers to those questions.

Mike

 

[Kenpojujitsu3]

Well, seeing that this discussion at this time is focused on the Full Nelson, may as well continue along those lines. This thread was spun from the Repeated Devestation thread. However, we can discuss any technique and/or attack that is deemed 'impossible.' In this post I had asked two questions. For the sake of the discussion, I'd be interested in hearing the answers to those questions.

Mike

"1) Why not teach everyone the same? If one move is more effective than the other, why not teach the more effective one? Thats what I meant by wouldn't you want to be as effective as possible."

To my limited Knowledge Mr. Parker was fond of teaching different people different things to set up "little experiments". Some would try this and some would try that and he'd check back in to get fresh lines of thought on possible innovations and refinements. I'm also told he did this to provide signatures so that he would know who learned from who.

I have no knowledge of your second question.

 

[Ray]

That doesn't change what I have seen and felt. I can assume that you have been punched before if you have done Kenpo or Martial Arts. Now can Doc or anyone else tell you "it's impossible to be punched" and you actually believe it? Do you then disregard your own experiences because someone lese told you otherwise? I hope not.

P.S. I have no doubts of Doc's knowledge or abilities except where what he or anyone else states directly conflicts with my personal experiences. My beliefs can be challenged my experiences can not. I keep in touch with Doc regularly through e-mail. There is no question of his knowledge except that he is human and does not know everything. Again something I could say about anyone. Seems you felt I was slighting him. If so, not so and I'm sure Doc knows that or he would call me on it personally.

Funny thing, I was punched more often before I learned kenpo.

I don't think you slighted Doc and I'm not his defender. I just think he's an honest guy who has testable thesis.

I could understand, for example that you threw a hard left hook and overcommitted; and that your victim ducked below it, coming up outside of your left; grabbed your left front shoulder with his left hand, pulled you so that your back spun to him and he was able to lace one of your arms into something like a half-nelson while using his other arm to apply a choke (with your coat or shirt). When I hear "full-nelson" I think of it as an double arm bar with both hands high, and it seems tough to be forced into--but of course, once it's on and properly chinched...

Then again, punches have been attempted on me more times than a take down, grab, lock or hold. But what I really, really used to hate is when people would just turn and run...forcing me (in my job at the time) to have to run after them.

 

[Kenpojujitsu3]

But what I really, really used to hate is when people would just turn and run...forcing me (in my job at the time) to have to run after them.

This was too funny. Almost as funny as the kool-aid man on KN.

 

[Ray]

Almost as funny as the kool-aid man on KN.

A true classic.

Have a nice weekend.

 

[MJS]

"1) Why not teach everyone the same? If one move is more effective than the other, why not teach the more effective one? Thats what I meant by wouldn't you want to be as effective as possible."

To my limited Knowledge Mr. Parker was fond of teaching different people different things to set up "little experiments". Some would try this and some would try that and he'd check back in to get fresh lines of thought on possible innovations and refinements. I'm also told he did this to provide signatures so that he would know who learned from who.

I have no knowledge of your second question.

Question: Did these 'experiments' consist of slight changes in a technique or were they major differences which could possibly lead to the tech. being less effective than another version?

Additionally, I find it interesting that my questions have gone unanswered. If we are going to all have a discussion on a technique that supposedly does not work, is impossible, etc., it would be nice to hear of versions or techniques that do work.

Mike

 

[Kenpojujitsu3]

Question: Did these 'experiments' consist of slight changes in a technique or were they major differences which could possibly lead to the tech. being less effective than another version?

Additionally, I find it interesting that my questions have gone unanswered. If we are going to all have a discussion on a technique that supposedly does not work, is impossible, etc., it would be nice to hear of versions or techniques that do work.

Mike

1) Both. A slight change can cause a major difference.

2) For every technique out there, there will be someone that claims the technique doesn't work, someone that claims it does, someone that says the attack will never happen and someone who has had that attack happen to them. Just like the vast majority of Kenpoists who spout the rhetoric against high kicking. Though high kicking is no longer my #1 option when I was in TKD before I "converted" to Kenpo I had no problems kicking people in the face during my time in the local ghettoes here before I heard that is was a "bad idea" to kick high. It's fighting which is not pretty and very chaotic. The only absolute is that there are none. There is even one noted instructor who claims that Delayed Sword will not work against a punch....yeah....ok...I didn't get that memo.