There's a certain contingent on this board that constantly complains about the lack of attacker resistance during Kenpo technique execution. The argument goes something like this: when Kenpoists execute their techniques against an attacker, typically the attacker just stands with their arm extended, offering no resistance, while the Kenpoist pounds away with a flurry of strikes. This we are told is not realistic as it does not take into account: (1) a resisting opponent, who would attempt follow-up strikes and (2) further bodily movement such as evasion, additional grabs, holds, pins, takedowns, etc.
One might want to call the phenonmenon described above as: Kenpo wooden dummy syndrome. Well, what exactly should happen during technique execution?
Some points to consider:
(1) shouldn't the opponent react realistically to various strikes? E.g., a hand-sword to the bridge of the nose will cause a person to react and not just stand there as if frozen. A punch to the ribs will cause the arm to withdraw to protect the injured area. Etc.
(2) shouldn't the execution of at least certain of the strikes in the technique by the Kenpoist cause the opponent to react in a certain fairly predicatable manner? Obviousy, we cannot perform hand-swords to the bridge of our attacker's nose, but we can strike and make substantial contact to the ribs, chest, etc. In other words, shouldn't a vital part of realistic technique execution be the control and immobilization of the opponent? If a technique is not causing the opponent to be controlled, moved, etc., then isn't it still just "air karate?" I know that I've been hit (even without close to full force or penetration) properly (right weapon to right target, right angle, etc.) and I've been stunned and controlled such that I couldn't react (at least for the moment) while further strikes/manipulations in the technique were performed.
(3) Shouldn't attacker resistance, and follow-up strikes be taken into account in a properly executed technique? That is to say that if the technique isn't performed realistically then the attacker should try to continue with their assault. This should be used to show the technique executitioner that they were not properly controlling their opponent. When I've been the attacker, and have had the technique performed as it should be, I couldn't continue the assault (as I was either stunned, knocked out, controlled, or some combination of the above). Also, the technique (and techniques in conjunction with one another) should take into account a resisting attacker who will attempt (and who likely wanted to attempt) further strikes, manipulations, and so on. This is why Sword of Destruction can easily become Double Maces or Sword of Doom (Delayed Sword to most of you). Other techniques, if performed correctly, such as Shielding Hammer, preclude the likely followup strike intended by the attacker.
Any thoughts on this subject (as I see this being raised constantly)?
Howard
One might want to call the phenonmenon described above as: Kenpo wooden dummy syndrome. Well, what exactly should happen during technique execution?
Some points to consider:
(1) shouldn't the opponent react realistically to various strikes? E.g., a hand-sword to the bridge of the nose will cause a person to react and not just stand there as if frozen. A punch to the ribs will cause the arm to withdraw to protect the injured area. Etc.
(2) shouldn't the execution of at least certain of the strikes in the technique by the Kenpoist cause the opponent to react in a certain fairly predicatable manner? Obviousy, we cannot perform hand-swords to the bridge of our attacker's nose, but we can strike and make substantial contact to the ribs, chest, etc. In other words, shouldn't a vital part of realistic technique execution be the control and immobilization of the opponent? If a technique is not causing the opponent to be controlled, moved, etc., then isn't it still just "air karate?" I know that I've been hit (even without close to full force or penetration) properly (right weapon to right target, right angle, etc.) and I've been stunned and controlled such that I couldn't react (at least for the moment) while further strikes/manipulations in the technique were performed.
(3) Shouldn't attacker resistance, and follow-up strikes be taken into account in a properly executed technique? That is to say that if the technique isn't performed realistically then the attacker should try to continue with their assault. This should be used to show the technique executitioner that they were not properly controlling their opponent. When I've been the attacker, and have had the technique performed as it should be, I couldn't continue the assault (as I was either stunned, knocked out, controlled, or some combination of the above). Also, the technique (and techniques in conjunction with one another) should take into account a resisting attacker who will attempt (and who likely wanted to attempt) further strikes, manipulations, and so on. This is why Sword of Destruction can easily become Double Maces or Sword of Doom (Delayed Sword to most of you). Other techniques, if performed correctly, such as Shielding Hammer, preclude the likely followup strike intended by the attacker.
Any thoughts on this subject (as I see this being raised constantly)?
Howard
