Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
MJS said:Kenpo contains some devastating techniques, many containing breaks, rakes to the eyes, etc. However, is every attack going to require taking it to such extremes? Would a lock be a better option depending on the situation?
Thoughts?
MJS said:Kenpo contains some devastating techniques, many containing breaks, rakes to the eyes, etc. However, is every attack going to require taking it to such extremes? Would a lock be a better option depending on the situation?
Thoughts?
JamesB said:However consider what you will do once you have your assailant under control in some form of lock - at some stage you must let go and then what? Can you guarantee that you can safely let go and walk away?
Consider that not every branch of Kenpo focusses on the "maiming" aspect of the art. Dr Chapel in particular has a very different approach to controlling an assailant which (AFAIK) does not employ the use of lethal techniques such as eye/throat-strikes. However from what little I have been exposed to of his art it is much more effective than the "blunt force trauma" methods that appear popular in main-stream kenpo-karate.
Consider also that you don't actually have to jab your fingers into someone's eye-socket to control them. Even a light touch is enough. A simple "wipe" of the hand in front of the attacker's eyes is enough to disorientate them enough to cause realignments in their body structure, making subsequent strikes more effective. Try looking at any of your techniques that contain "eye slices" and ask yourself happens if you didn't actually make contact with the eyes - i.e. specially, what happens to a person's physiology when you cut across their vision and how can you exploit this?
But really I agree with you. Blinding someone because they have grabbed you is totally unacceptable. Breaking someone's joints/tendons is just as bad. Maybe there would be a situation which would warrant such lethal responses but you would find it hard to justify these actions should you find yourself in court.
James
MJS said:Very good point. This is why I stated that it would all depend on the situation. We certainly will not know what will happen, but it may be another option until you can get help if it was available. Locks can also be translated into throws. Tossing someone to the ground, may provide a bit of humiliation on their part, possibly causing them to rethink their actions.
It totally depends on the given situation. Everything has a context. That, in my opinion, is one of the most powerful things about Kenpo.... it's versatility. The more experienced you are the more options you realize, Lock/Sprain/Break, rake/poke/gouge, buckle/break ...etc.MJS said:Kenpo contains some devastating techniques, many containing breaks, rakes to the eyes, etc. However, is every attack going to require taking it to such extremes? Would a lock be a better option depending on the situation?
Thoughts?
JamesB said:Definitely agree with you here. I think even the act of tying someone up so that you have complete control over them would be very effective in subduing their initial aggression. I imagine that one would be able to sense the likelyhood of further retaliation prior to releasing control. Should the attacker "reengage" a more measured (i.e. destructive) response would be required.
I guess one would ideally knockout/disable the attacker in a non-destructive way at this point but without the specific knowledge+training in this area the snapping bones+tendons would be the way to go...
You probably have far more experience than I but from my perspective the "default techniques" teach the "most destructive" response first of all and it then depends on the instructor to provide the insights into the different posibilities with regards to the level of destruction and "higher levels" of control.
I do believe that the "gauge+chop+break" emphasis of old became mainstream due to influences like the kungfu films of the seventies (i.e. Bruce Lee etc) and was what people wanted at the time - it seems to me that kenpo-karate became popular because it was so destructive. I'm not so sure that this aspect of the art is so relevant today and personally the "SL4" or non-lethal approaches are far more interesting to me.
Nice thread!
Brother John said:It totally depends on the given situation. Everything has a context. That, in my opinion, is one of the most powerful things about Kenpo.... it's versatility. The more experienced you are the more options you realize, Lock/Sprain/Break, rake/poke/gouge, buckle/break ...etc.
options options options...
Your Brother
John
shesulsa said:One thing about breaking is that once the joint is broken, much of the pain goes away, so your pain compliance goes away. quote]
Oof i think if i broke someone's arm and he still wanted to fight on, then i might as well just give up and bend over there and then as he's obviously completely mental!
Can that really happen?
swiftpete said:Oof i think if i broke someone's arm and he still wanted to fight on, then i might as well just give up and bend over there and then as he's obviously completely mental!
Can that really happen?
Actually destruction is not the answer. Anatomical Restrictive Body Positioning and manipulation works just fine. The problem with most "locks" and "hold" is they are based on pain compliance. This is a mistake. "Any technique that relies wholly upon pain to be effective will ultimely fail." - Ed Parker.jdinca said:Yup. Mental, in a rage, on drugs. I've assisted in taking down people on pcp, usually takes a six to one ratio. I've seen them break handcuffs and their own wrist at the same time. If a broken arm doesn't stop them, you need something even more destructive, or preferrably, run like hell. :EG:
Doc said:Actually destruction is not the answer. Anatomical Restrictive Body Positioning and manipulation works just fine. The problem with most "locks" and "hold" is they are based on pain compliance. This is a mistake. "Any technique that relies wholly upon pain to be effective will ultimely fail." - Ed Parker.
Your goal should be "control" not pain, or even destruction. Pain and/or destruction should at the most be a vicarious byproduct of your actions not your goal. This one of many mandates to Kenpo Locks as it was dictated to me.
Your points are well taken sir, but to "rountinely" teach or perform extreme destruction, is a poor self defense model for ethical, moral, as well as legal reasons. Circumstances where someone would die because your action of striking the throat in "Sword & Hammer," (right flank shoulder grab) in most empty hand scenarios is unacceptable. So would destroying a limb joint, possible creating long term or permanent disability, simply because you have control of it also be unacceptable.searcher said:Doc, if we are having to use our techniques to defend ourselves is it not wise to destroy what we can get ahold of? Is this not what we must do or is it taking defense to the extreme? In your opinion would there ever be a situation that would warrant breaking? I am very interested in your views on this.