J
jbclinic
Guest
here's a thought, can you attack with kenpo techniques? opions and solutions, lets here them!
Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
well, from a strict kenpo technique angle, the Tracy system has a small number of directly offense techniques such as Crossing the Guard in Orange Belt, Returning Viper and Returning Thunder in Blue Belt, Slicing Knee in Third Brown, and Turning the Key in Green.
I am not sure you need to use them to attack. If you launch the attack, we can probably assume you are the first to make a move and you can direct a simple attack to a vulnerable target. However, if the opponent reacts successfully to your attack, this may be where your techniques come into play. Your initial attack may become more of a set-up for a successful technique later.
I am not sure you need to use them to attack. If you launch the attack, we can probably assume you are the first to make a move and you can direct a simple attack to a vulnerable target. However, if the opponent reacts successfully to your attack, this may be where your techniques come into play. Your initial attack may become more of a set-up for a successful technique later.
Dark Kenpo Lord
Brown Belt
jbclinic said:
Is this some sort of trick question or you really don't know the answer?
DarK LorD
bujuts
Green Belt
jbclinic said:
Bloody good question. I personally feel kenpo is an attacking system to begin with. I say that in terms of the overall objective of my kenpo in a confrontation - to protect my peace. One's peace is of course how they define it - yourself, your loved ones, the innocent, a friend, your country, etc. Not for sport, not for title, not for recognition or ego, but simply the human right to exist and protect that which is mine. From this platform, a human's ethical, moral, and spiritual parameters should establish when one should engage.
For me, kenpo is necessary when all diplomacy has failed, when all attempts to avoid the situation have failed, when I have taken all the legal precautions necessary, when the assailant's actions / intent meet my pretermined criteria of when to engage. Self defense is no longer part of my equation once that threshold has been crossed. We must resort to physical violence and take out that which threatens our peace. Action to action, the attacker must become the attacked.
So, we learn kenpo as a defense system, yes. But I see self defense more as a way of life. Avoiding trouble, using kindness, environmental awareness, walk a quiet path, and health at all levels - these are in my mind self defense, because in their own way they work to keep away the bad, human or otherwise. Kenpo is for when these all fail, it is the 12 gauge under my bed when the door to my house of peace has been kicked in.
Kenpo is brutal. It is designed to eliminate the threat of other humans to one's peace by whatever means necessary - which may mean simply avoidance, it may mean submitting, it may mean hurting, it may mean maimiing, and it may mean killing.
Back to your question, then. Can it be an attacking system? In my opinion, it is. It is for those rare times when we must take action agressively and dominate our space. Techniques are by necessity taught against certain attacks, certain situations, and with specific conditions. But they are a learning platform, a forum on which we learn all the nuances of human combatives. But as we integrate motions and principles contained within them, the walls that segregate them begin to disappear. We develop free flowing action, and this action is attacking, dominating, anhialating, and most importantly justified based on the moral and ethical parameters we establish within our selves to warrant such violence.
I keep a .357 near my pillow, and I will be a happy man if I go to the grave without ever having had to use it on another human in self offense. The same is true for kenpo.
Im my book, I vote it is an attacking system. I look forward to other inputs on this thread.
Great topic, thanks for the post.
Steven Brown
UKF
Of course, why wouldn't you?
Sean
Sean
celtic_crippler
Senior Master
Doc said:
That's the way I feel about it. I was trained that if you percieve an an emmante threat you should react. "He who hesitates, meditates in the horizontal position." -SGM Ed Parker. I was always taught that Kenpo was more aggressive than a lot of arts and was trained to be that way in terms of self defense.
Assault is not necessarily someone hitting or swinging at you. Depending on your state (province, etc) the laws may differ so I would encourage you to find out. But in most cases an individual does not have to make contact with your person to be considered Assault. That's actually considered Battery when they make contact with your person. People like Doc, that have law enforcement backgrounds, could probably elaborate further.
Kembudo-Kai Kempoka
Senior Master
jbclinic said:
a punch is a punch is a...aww, nevermind. At this point, what really is the point?
jdinca
Master Black Belt
Of course. There are techniques where you take the offensive before the attacker ever makes a move. Three Hands of China and Passing Warrior from our system come to mind.
In a general sense, there's no such thing as self defense. If attacked and all you do is defend yourself, you're most like going to lose. In an attack situation, you should be thinking offense, take control of the situation and end it on your terms. As a result, you could consider everything you do as an attack but one provoked by someone else.
In a general sense, there's no such thing as self defense. If attacked and all you do is defend yourself, you're most like going to lose. In an attack situation, you should be thinking offense, take control of the situation and end it on your terms. As a result, you could consider everything you do as an attack but one provoked by someone else.
I agree you should not be in attack mode; however, the duality of your motion, does make it like a chess game. Maybe attack isn't the word but you must be aggressive and try to stay ahead. If your black, play like its opposite day.Seig said:
Sean
jbclinic said:
Attacking meaning before your opponent throws anything or begins to make an aggressive move? Not too sure i'd want to look like the aggressor in that situation. Now, as he beings to move, sure concepts, ideas, etc. such as pinning and checking or an actual technique once the strike is thrown...yes, I can see that happening.
Mike
jdinca
Master Black Belt
MJS said:
How much of an agressive move do you think there needs to be before you respond? I really think this is a gray area. One, I don't see why I would wait until somebody takes a swing at me before I respond, and two, if I KNOW it's going to happen and I end it before it starts, am I now seen as the aggressor in the situation? The solution is somewhere in the middle but where?
jdinca said:
If the person in front of you is simply yelling and acting like a complete fool, IMHO, he has not yet physically assaulted you. Saying that he is going to kill you, knock your head off, etc., are simply words. He has not yet attempted or completed the act. We can also look at your next paragraph, which fits in nicely with the first one.
Once he begins to draw back to strike, that is IMO the time to move. I agree, why wait until the punch is half way to your face before you begin a counter. My appologies if I was not clear about that in my last post. This is where the pre-emptive strike comes in.
No, you're not being seen as the aggessor. By giving the impression that you don't want to fight, ie: verbal de-escalation, hands up in a non-threatening posture, but still up to aid in the pre-emptive, etc. will certainly make you look like you do not want to fight. The act of him drawing back to hit you is the aggression on his part.
jdinca
Master Black Belt
MJS said:
Nothing there to disagree with. Just because he's being stupid is no reason to clean his clock.
Let's change the scenario to a dark street with nobody else around and you're approached by somebody who wants your wallet. Is the demand enough provocation, without him making a threatening move?
jdinca said:
Agreed.
I'd have to say it's all going to depend on the person in that situation. Simply asking for the wallet is IMO, no different than the above situation where the person is yelling at you. Now, if a weapon is present, he makes an aggressive move towards me or appears to be reaching for something...well, I'm certainly not going to stand around and wait to see what it is.
And of course, we can look at the other end as well. People say your wallet, car and money can be replaced, your life can't. Very true, but there is nothing to say that you still won't lose your life after you give up what they want. So, do we give it up and hope that they leave or do we fight back?
Doc
Senior Master
For those that want to go that way, let's be clear. An assault has occurred when someone makes a threat, and they have the clear and present ability to complete that threat. A person standing across the street threatening to knock your head off is exercising free speech and personal 'puffery.' A person within striking range who makes the same threat, has 'assaulted' you. A person who swings and makes contact has committed a 'battery' upon your person. An assault does not require contact, and a 'battery' is a completed 'assault.'
And if you are assaulted, I feel its OK to hit him or do whatever you need to do to nullify the threat and or take care of pressing concerns. Mr. Parker always said the longer you wait, the harder the situation becomes to deal with. Waiting to be a victim of battery may not be the wisest course of action once threatened.Doc said:
Sean
Similar threads
