Charging/Broken Ram

[JamesB]

Had these techniques on my mind for a while. Only concerned with the initial defence at the moment:

Attacker: from a crouching/lowered position, launches in for a tackle around your lower body with intent to take you to the ground. We practiced just this attack a few times on each other with mats on the ground, to make sure we all knew what the deal was.

Defense (both techs): drop your left foot back to a rear-twist at 5 o'clock (so your right foot is forward). Execute a *good* left outward extended block to the base of the attacker's neck. In other words, hammer *down* on his neck, forming a strong brace between you both with the blocking arm.

What I'm wondering about is the footwork. Firstly, we found this defence failed to work (at all) if we simply 'stepped back'. It didn't just 'not work' - it was pretty disasterous. Our test was simple - crash matts behind the defender, and the attacker (always stonger/heavier for the test) had instructions to take the defender to the ground. Not once could the defender stop the attacker's forward-momentum - each time he was swept off his feet.

Adding a foward-adjustment with the right foot worked a little better - so the footwork became 'step back to a rear-twist' with left foot, then step forwards with the right foot, still maintaining the same rear-twist, but it basically became a 'front twist' because of the _small_ forwards movement. At any rate the stance was much more stable like this (with the step forward), however it still only worked if you got the timing right, correctly gauged the distance with which to work, and executed a *strong* block to the neck (we wore padding!). Very little margin for error, and not convinced this is at all sufficient - we definitely need additional 'aborbing' footwork to stay on our feet.

Also made some interesting observations whilst conducting these tests: From a the attacker's point of view it was actually really hard to perform the take-down. Because the defender was moving off-center and away from you, it was really quite difficult to get a good hold and take them down. Could still do it, but we had to be determined. Got a lot more respect for grapplers now, who I guess can do this kind stuff in their sleep.

More interesting was the attacker's posture when he attacked. Invariably the attacker went to their left, going in with their right-shoulder first (i.e. leading with the right shoulder). As soon as I reversed the roles and taught the defence to the attackers, the next time they attacked they always went in with their *left* shoulder first - so there was a fair amount of cooperation from this point on, because the attacker wanted to give the defender room to do a successful technique.

Basically what we noticed was the natural instinct of the *comitted* attacker to go in with the right-shoulder making contact. It made the techs *much* harder to execute, because as the defender moved off to their right, the attacker was naturally going in that same direction. We did try Charging Ram with a downward-outward parry to the outside of the attacker's left arm (to redirect them) - it failed miserably because it was too easy to get caught up in the attacker's arms.

My hypothesis at this point was to do the technique off the other side - so as we defend, we move off-center to our *left*, into a left rear-twist, and execute a right-outward-extended block to the other side of the attacker's neck. It worked waaaaaay better - firstly we were blocking with our stronger arms, secondly because the attacker was not moving towards us so directly anymore.

This left me wondering why Charging-Ram and Broken-Ram taught this way - makes sense to me (at the moment) to do always attempt these 'off the other side'.

In conclusion, these were very simple tests, not at all scientific, but the results were interesting to me at any rate. Correct footwork is the key here. I know I'm missing something vital, and I'm asserting that the 'by the book' method is flawed from the outset and needs serious some modification to be successful. Only really interested in footwork at the moment.....Thoughts anyone?

 

[JamesB]

sorry about the triple-post guys, ISP went berserk on me and I thought these forums protected against multi-posting...admin has been notified!

 

[Carol]

sorry about the triple-post guys, ISP went berserk on me and I thought these forums protected against multi-posting...admin has been notified!

Hiya James...with my telecom geek hat on for a second...The forums have a timed protection against multiple postings. Once the timer expires, the protection expires. Don't sweat it.

Before you all get too in to a technical discussion, may I ask you a quick question? Where is this technique on your belt chart? I've seen it a few different places and I was just curious where it fell at your school.

Thanks! Now dig in....

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Looks like we had a database hiccup at that time (I got a notice on it). No worries.

Back to kenpo.

 

[JamesB]

Before you all get too in to a technical discussion, may I ask you a quick question? Where is this technique on your belt chart? I've seen it a few different places and I was just curious where it fell at your school.

Thanks! Now dig in....

Hi,
OK, Charging Ram for us is at Purple, Broken Ram is at Blue - we're on the 24-technique syllabus so I think this is fairly common.

My understanding is that both techniques are similar in their attack - the difference being Charging Ram is a low tackle with the attacker's arms tight in around you, Broken Ram is an 'arms wide' tackle. I see them as being essentially the same which is why I grouped them together like that. Happy to discuss nature of the attack if anyone's got any insights into that area!

 

[Doc]

Had these techniques on my mind for a while. Only concerned with the initial defence at the moment:

Attacker: from a crouching/lowered position, launches in for a tackle around your lower body with intent to take you to the ground. We practiced just this attack a few times on each other with mats on the ground, to make sure we all knew what the deal was.

Defense (both techs): drop your left foot back to a rear-twist at 5 o'clock (so your right foot is forward). Execute a *good* left outward extended block to the base of the attacker's neck. In other words, hammer *down* on his neck, forming a strong brace between you both with the blocking arm.

What I'm wondering about is the footwork. Firstly, we found this defence failed to work (at all) if we simply 'stepped back'. It didn't just 'not work' - it was pretty disasterous. Our test was simple - crash matts behind the defender, and the attacker (always stonger/heavier for the test) had instructions to take the defender to the ground. Not once could the defender stop the attacker's forward-momentum - each time he was swept off his feet.

Adding a foward-adjustment with the right foot worked a little better - so the footwork became 'step back to a rear-twist' with left foot, then step forwards with the right foot, still maintaining the same rear-twist, but it basically became a 'front twist' because of the _small_ forwards movement. At any rate the stance was much more stable like this (with the step forward), however it still only worked if you got the timing right, correctly gauged the distance with which to work, and executed a *strong* block to the neck (we wore padding!). Very little margin for error, and not convinced this is at all sufficient - we definitely need additional 'aborbing' footwork to stay on our feet.

Also made some interesting observations whilst conducting these tests: From a the attacker's point of view it was actually really hard to perform the take-down. Because the defender was moving off-center and away from you, it was really quite difficult to get a good hold and take them down. Could still do it, but we had to be determined. Got a lot more respect for grapplers now, who I guess can do this kind stuff in their sleep.

More interesting was the attacker's posture when he attacked. Invariably the attacker went to their left, going in with their right-shoulder first (i.e. leading with the right shoulder). As soon as I reversed the roles and taught the defence to the attackers, the next time they attacked they always went in with their *left* shoulder first - so there was a fair amount of cooperation from this point on, because the attacker wanted to give the defender room to do a successful technique.

Basically what we noticed was the natural instinct of the *comitted* attacker to go in with the right-shoulder making contact. It made the techs *much* harder to execute, because as the defender moved off to their right, the attacker was naturally going in that same direction. We did try Charging Ram with a downward-outward parry to the outside of the attacker's left arm (to redirect them) - it failed miserably because it was too easy to get caught up in the attacker's arms.

My hypothesis at this point was to do the technique off the other side - so as we defend, we move off-center to our *left*, into a left rear-twist, and execute a right-outward-extended block to the other side of the attacker's neck. It worked waaaaaay better - firstly we were blocking with our stronger arms, secondly because the attacker was not moving towards us so directly anymore.

This left me wondering why Charging-Ram and Broken-Ram taught this way - makes sense to me (at the moment) to do always attempt these 'off the other side'.

In conclusion, these were very simple tests, not at all scientific, but the results were interesting to me at any rate. Correct footwork is the key here. I know I'm missing something vital, and I'm asserting that the 'by the book' method is flawed from the outset and needs serious some modification to be successful. Only really interested in footwork at the moment.....Thoughts anyone?

Well if all you want is footwork, right foot steps out and forward toward 1:30, left foot to 4:30.

 

[kenpohack]

Doc does the techniques slightly different. I was taught to step to roughly 5 o'clock with my left foot into a rear twist for charging ram. For broken ram, we start in a right neutral bow and step of the cirlcle to roughly 5 o'clock.

The rationale that I was given was that charging ram was against a football tackle that you see coming. Broken ram is against a tackle where the attacker has already got his arm around you. It's important to note that the attacks are waist-level football attacks, as opposed to a wrestling shoot (which would aim below the knees, even at the ankles). None of the ram techniques will work against a shoot because kenpo favors an erect spine and the low level of attack would preclude defense within the confines of kenpo stances (short of moving completely out of the line of attack, which is not possible if you face a skilled grappler).

 

[Kenpojujitsu3]

Doc does the techniques slightly different. I was taught to step to roughly 5 o'clock with my left foot into a rear twist for charging ram. For broken ram, we start in a right neutral bow and step of the cirlcle to roughly 5 o'clock.

The rationale that I was given was that charging ram was against a football tackle that you see coming. Broken ram is against a tackle where the attacker has already got his arm around you. It's important to note that the attacks are waist-level football attacks, as opposed to a wrestling shoot (which would aim below the knees, even at the ankles). None of the ram techniques will work against a shoot because kenpo favors an erect spine and the low level of attack would preclude defense within the confines of kenpo stances (short of moving completely out of the line of attack, which is not possible if you face a skilled grappler).

There are exeptions to every rule and the erect spine is "favored" only as a starting postion. There are countless kenpo manuevers that abandon the erect spine "rule" when necessary. Also there are kenpo stances that drop low enough to deal with lower shoots. The "Kneels" come to mind as well as some positions shown in the upper forms. Also "The Sprawl" is in a number of techniques as well in several variations such as double-under, double-over, over-and-under, etc. I'm also not a fan of the "not possible" being a skilled grappler myself it is indeed possible to get out of the line of attack. It requires principles like everything else such as 1) Pay attention to opponents center of gravity, 2) ignore feints and "mis-steps", 3) pay attention to the range, 4) notice the level change, 5) Move the "target leg" first, etc.

However, I can concur with the much of the rest of your post such as one possibility of the rationale behind the attakcs and the level of the attacks in the ideal phase.

 

[JamesB]

The rationale that I was given was that charging ram was against a football tackle that you see coming. Broken ram is against a tackle where the attacker has already got his arm around you. It's important to note that the attacks are waist-level football attacks, as opposed to a wrestling shoot (which would aim below the knees, even at the ankles). None of the ram techniques will work against a shoot because kenpo favors an erect spine and the low level of attack would preclude defense within the confines of kenpo stances (short of moving completely out of the line of attack, which is not possible if you face a skilled grappler).

I wasn't sure on the difference in attack between these two techs - so that kind of makes sense. However what are you doing to survive Broken Ram if the attacker has already made contact with you? Simply stepping backwards was proving problematic - there was no way to stay on our feet with this way. what am I missing here?

 

[JamesB]

Well if all you want is footwork, right foot steps out and forward toward 1:30, left foot to 4:30.

I found (as attacker) that as soon as the defender moved away it was much more difficult to make contact - in other words the simple act of moving backwards/off center was enough to take the initial 'sting' out of the tackle because I'd focussed on the defender being in a particular place. As soon as they moved it was harder to keep the momentum going.

I'm wondering about your 'right foot steps out+forward to 1:30' - is this movement designed to not only move you off-center, but also to disorientate the attacker somewhat? I'm guessing that once you do step to 4:30 with the left, that you would employ additional PAMs or something?

Problem is I don't really understand how these techs work - I guess that much of the footwork needs to occur before the attacker makes contact - so there needs to be some anticipation of what is about to happen.

 

[Jimi]

I found your post an interesting read. I was training with a man in the late 80's who taught me what he called Kajukenbo (Again not name dropping here, the Kajukenbo Family does not seem to know who he was, and I am not associated with them, but I have a great deal of respect for them- That was just my disclaimer so to speak-LOL) and I consider myself a bastard kenpo/kenboist. What got my attention was the word RAM. Henry taught us several animal sets of principles, among them he showed us what he called RAM. To fight like a charging Bull, Ox, Ram, Boar, etc... The princple used a great deal of infighting, including elbows, knees, stomps, even a baisc tackle. The predominate principle he used to explain the RAM was using the headbutt. What he showed us at the time seemed a lot like Burmese/Thai kickboxing clinch work. When I mentioned this to him, he said "Yes!" He called them cousin in technique, not that the arts were related in lineage, rather they shared the same idea to crash/clash. Ever seen two Thai Kickboxers working in the clinch? To me they look like two RAMs banging away at one another. I realise that the techniques you described are not that close to what I have explained, but the word RAM caught my eye and brought back old memories. Sounds like what you described is similar to a shoot/tackle/takedown defense, I have respect for that. PEACE

 

[kenpohack]

I wasn't sure on the difference in attack between these two techs - so that kind of makes sense. However what are you doing to survive Broken Ram if the attacker has already made contact with you? Simply stepping backwards was proving problematic - there was no way to stay on our feet with this way. what am I missing here?

In Broken Ram, you circle around the opponents arm with your arm and step up the circle to hyper-extend his elbow with your body. When you step up the cirlce, you rotate to a reverse bow to break the elbow and stabilize your base.

 

[kenpohack]

There are exeptions to every rule and the erect spine is "favored" only as a starting postion. There are countless kenpo manuevers that abandon the erect spine "rule" when necessary. Also there are kenpo stances that drop low enough to deal with lower shoots. The "Kneels" come to mind as well as some positions shown in the upper forms. Also "The Sprawl" is in a number of techniques as well in several variations such as double-under, double-over, over-and-under, etc. I'm also not a fan of the "not possible" being a skilled grappler myself it is indeed possible to get out of the line of attack. It requires principles like everything else such as 1) Pay attention to opponents center of gravity, 2) ignore feints and "mis-steps", 3) pay attention to the range, 4) notice the level change, 5) Move the "target leg" first, etc.

However, I can concur with the much of the rest of your post such as one possibility of the rationale behind the attakcs and the level of the attacks in the ideal phase.

I hear what you're trying to say, but most grapplers don't telegraph shoots. In fact, skilled fighters will punch and kick to disguise range and shoot when they either back you up or see you counterattack. I agree that it is possible to move offline on a sloppy, telegraphed shoot. I've never seen such an attack from a good wrestler/grappler. My dad was a Minnesota State champion wrestler in high school and a member of the Navy's wrestling team. He taught me how to fake a disguise shoots. The ram techniques don't even remotely resemble such an attack.

You are correct that some of the kneel and bow techniques may blunt a shoot, but then you're engaged in a wrestling match. You might as well just sprawl because at least then you are in a position of advantage rather than parity. Plus, good wrestlers can go from one shoot to another seemlessly, so retreating or sidestepping may do little more than buy time and prolong the inevitable. Bow and kneel techniques do little more than create a clinch, closer to the ground no less. Watch Chuck Liddell, Matt Hughes, and Wanderlei Silva, or just about any other cage fighter...they all sprawl to blunt takedowns. They do this because it works. Kenpo is not cage fighting, but neither is it boxing. Jabs, right crosses, and slipping are still great techniques in a fight.

Ram techiques are great against football tackles, what they were designed for. Solid, low stances will help to blunt a good shoot, but a strong wrestler will still blow through a good kenpo stance, especially if you are in motion or transition. I know this not from theory or because my instructor said so. I know this from experience fighting wrestlers and very talented bjj practitioners.

 

[Kenpojujitsu3]

I hear what you're trying to say, but most grapplers don't telegraph shoots. In fact, skilled fighters will punch and kick to disguise range and shoot when they either back you up or see you counterattack. I agree that it is possible to move offline on a sloppy, telegraphed shoot. I've never seen such an attack from a good wrestler/grappler. My dad was a Minnesota State champion wrestler in high school and a member of the Navy's wrestling team. He taught me how to fake a disguise shoots. The ram techniques don't even remotely resemble such an attack.

You are correct that some of the kneel and bow techniques may blunt a shoot, but then you're engaged in a wrestling match. You might as well just sprawl because at least then you are in a position of advantage rather than parity. Plus, good wrestlers can go from one shoot to another seemlessly, so retreating or sidestepping may do little more than buy time and prolong the inevitable. Bow and kneel techniques do little more than create a clinch, closer to the ground no less. Watch Chuck Liddell, Matt Hughes, and Wanderlei Silva, or just about any other cage fighter...they all sprawl to blunt takedowns. They do this because it works. Kenpo is not cage fighting, but neither is it boxing. Jabs, right crosses, and slipping are still great techniques in a fight.

Ram techiques are great against football tackles, what they were designed for. Solid, low stances will help to blunt a good shoot, but a strong wrestler will still blow through a good kenpo stance, especially if you are in motion or transition. I know this not from theory or because my instructor said so. I know this from experience fighting wrestlers and very talented bjj practitioners.

You're mixing grappling and fighting indiscriminately which is a problem to say the least. You mention grappling matches and how a sprawl puts you in advantage and then mention punching and kicking which is no longer a grappling match. The Ram techniques don't address feints, mis-steps, mis directions, etc. in the ideal phase. Great, you are correct to a degree (ideal phase). Tell me which punch technique in Kenpo has feints, off angles, mis-steps, mis-directions, hand traps, etc. in the ideal phase attack. The answer is none. So following that logic none of the punch techniques will help with a boxer or other skilled puncher. The kenpo system ideal attacks for any given technique are not from skilled attackers. That's where what-if, formulation, internalization and analysis come into play.

If you watch the cage fighters you just mentioned you'll notice they "Blunt" takedowns as a first option to stay standing (especially Wanderlei and Chuck). They sprawl as a second option when they are late.

I've spent 20 years in Ju Jitsu and Wrestling. The first way taught (to me as the focus was on combat not pins and points) to stop a shoot involved a level change and "block" with the arms (the stance was similar to a wide kneel oddly enough). The second way (if you're a little late) involved a level change with a double-underhook to a tie up (another wide kneel). The third way (if you were way late or wanted to go to the ground for whatever reason) involved a full sprawl.

Don't confuse sport wrestling (Navy and High School programs) with wrestling for fighting and observe the fighters you mentioned very closely, you'll see a suprisingly low number of full sprawls unless they are late. Wanderlei Silva prefers an over-under because it transitions nicely to a thai clinch for his knees. Chuck prefers a double-under and uses his forearms in a manner similar to thrusting wedge to create space for punches. Matt Hughes uses Double-unders and transitions to a body lock for the slam.

"Most grapplers don't telegraph shoots" -- true, most GOOD graplers...

Most good strikers don't telegraph strikes either....so what ideal phase techniques deal with that?

Long story short the sprawl and a slew of other "grapple-stoppers" are already there. The intention however is different due to it being a street fight mentality instead of a sport "pin and score" mentality. This I know from experience not theory as you put it

Salute! :asian:

 

[Kenpojujitsu3]

I found (as attacker) that as soon as the defender moved away it was much more difficult to make contact - in other words the simple act of moving backwards/off center was enough to take the initial 'sting' out of the tackle because I'd focussed on the defender being in a particular place. As soon as they moved it was harder to keep the momentum going.

I'm wondering about your 'right foot steps out+forward to 1:30' - is this movement designed to not only move you off-center, but also to disorientate the attacker somewhat? I'm guessing that once you do step to 4:30 with the left, that you would employ additional PAMs or something?

Problem is I don't really understand how these techs work - I guess that much of the footwork needs to occur before the attacker makes contact - so there needs to be some anticipation of what is about to happen.[/quote]

Yes reading the attack is essential, however, it's an oft neglected skill/trait.

 

[kenpohack]

You're mixing grappling and fighting indiscriminately which is a problem to say the least. You mention grappling matches and how a sprawl puts you in advantage and then mention punching and kicking which is no longer a grappling match. The Ram techniques don't address feints, mis-steps, mis directions, etc. in the ideal phase. Great, you are correct to a degree (ideal phase). Tell me which punch technique in Kenpo has feints, off angles, mis-steps, mis-directions, hand traps, etc. in the ideal phase attack. The answer is none. So following that logic none of the punch techniques will help with a boxer or other skilled puncher. The kenpo system ideal attacks for any given technique are not from skilled attackers. That's where what-if, formulation, internalization and analysis come into play.

If you watch the cage fighters you just mentioned you'll notice they "Blunt" takedowns as a first option to stay standing (especially Wanderlei and Chuck). They sprawl as a second option when they are late.

I've spent 20 years in Ju Jitsu and Wrestling. The first way taught (to me as the focus was on combat not pins and points) to stop a shoot involved a level change and "block" with the arms (the stance was similar to a wide kneel oddly enough). The second way (if you're a little late) involved a level change with a double-underhook to a tie up (another wide kneel). The third way (if you were way late or wanted to go to the ground for whatever reason) involved a full sprawl.

Don't confuse sport wrestling (Navy and High School programs) with wrestling for fighting and observe the fighters you mentioned very closely, you'll see a suprisingly low number of full sprawls unless they are late. Wanderlei Silva prefers an over-under because it transitions nicely to a thai clinch for his knees. Chuck prefers a double-under and uses his forearms in a manner similar to thrusting wedge to create space for punches. Matt Hughes uses Double-unders and transitions to a body lock for the slam.

"Most grapplers don't telegraph shoots" -- true, most GOOD graplers...

Most good strikers don't telegraph strikes either....so what ideal phase techniques deal with that?

Long story short the sprawl and a slew of other "grapple-stoppers" are already there. The intention however is different due to it being a street fight mentality instead of a sport "pin and score" mentality. This I know from experience not theory as you put it

Salute! :asian:

Your analysis is absolutely correct. No kenpo technique from yellow to green addresses feints. Deceptive Panther addresses feints with the legs, but that's a different story. I'm not aware of any hand techniques that deal with feints in the ideal phase. However, this is what sparring is for. Self defense techniques are designed for committed attacks and serve as models to teach motion. Sparring is where the application of fighting, development and defense against feints, and maintainence of range is perfected. Where do we learn to spar against takedowns? We don't in kenpo. That's my point. Wrestlers and grapplers must practice sprawls and takedown defense ad nauseum against live opponents. Prior to application with live opponents, they practice in the air like we practice our basics. We don't practice these type of takedown defenses, whether in the air or on a body. This is why you can't apply a ram technique to even an average grappler, unless they shoot too high. We don't practice it. Remember the first time you tried a new technique on a body. Did you hit it flawlessly? Probably not. The opponent moved in an unexpected way to throw you off, or your timing was off, or you froze, or any number of maladies befell you.

Since only a small percentage of kenpo fighters cross train against grapplers, your average kenpo fighter is not likely to possess the skills to read a takedown attempt and formulate a defense. Even kenpo practitioners who train with grapplers don't practice takedown defense even one tenth as much as grapplers practice takedowns. Who's likely to win that match, whether a fight or a sparring match?

 

[Kenpojujitsu3]

Your analysis is absolutely correct. No kenpo technique from yellow to green addresses feints. Deceptive Panther addresses feints with the legs, but that's a different story. I'm not aware of any hand techniques that deal with feints in the ideal phase. However, this is what sparring is for. Self defense techniques are designed for committed attacks and serve as models to teach motion. Sparring is where the application of fighting, development and defense against feints, and maintainence of range is perfected. Where do we learn to spar against takedowns? We don't in kenpo. That's my point. Wrestlers and grapplers must practice sprawls and takedown defense ad nauseum against live opponents. Prior to application with live opponents, they practice in the air like we practice our basics. We don't practice these type of takedown defenses, whether in the air or on a body. This is why you can't apply a ram technique to even an average grappler, unless they shoot too high. We don't practice it. Remember the first time you tried a new technique on a body. Did you hit it flawlessly? Probably not. The opponent moved in an unexpected way to throw you off, or your timing was off, or you froze, or any number of maladies befell you.

Since only a small percentage of kenpo fighters cross train against grapplers, your average kenpo fighter is not likely to possess the skills to read a takedown attempt and formulate a defense. Even kenpo practitioners who train with grapplers don't practice takedown defense even one tenth as much as grapplers practice takedowns. Who's likely to win that match, whether a fight or a sparring match?

I've underlined the parts where you state we, Meaning where you train. Like I said previous, just because you're not being trained that way or taught it doesn't mean it isn't being taught elsewhere. You may be correct in that you don't spar against takedowns, however my guys/gals do. It's not that in kenpo we don't spar against takedowns, it's where you train you don't spar against takedowns. Many Kenpo schools in my area spar against takedowns as do the ones in the AKKS affiliated with Jeff Speakman, and the AKKI with Paul Mills.

Personally I can apply a ram technique to an average grappler even if they shoot low, but I'm a grappler myself so my ability to read and defend is a bit biased like I stated previous. You may not be able to use the rams yet given your skill level with the ram techniques (I think I remember that you're a blue belt). You can use what you train to use. You mentioned your dad taught you wrestling so you trained to use a sprawl. Train to use your rams and see what happens, is my advice. I've seen the first move (intercepting knee) of intercepting the ram used in the UFC, Pride, K1, Rings, etc with much success by the guys that train that movement. I've also seen Chuck Liddell, Vitor belfort, Wanderlei Silva, Matt Hughes, Pedro Rizzo, Randy Couture, Mike Van Arsdale, etc. use a Whizzer which is in Broken Ram.

The Bolded is what I pretty much agree with. But look at it another way for the sake of being open-minded. A small percentage of grapplers (as MMA is only a small percentage, wrestlers/Judoka/JuJitsuka/Sambo guys are the majority) train against strikers. Your average grappler is not likely to possess the skill to read a punch or kick and formulate a defense. Even grapplers who cross train with strikers don't practice striking defense even one-tenth as much as strikers practice striking.

See what I mean? It's not the system it's where you're taught it and who is emphasizing what. All I can say is that in the future when you gain more experience with the Kenpo system and how others are training you might see what I'm talking about. Until then, I'll have to agree to disagree because you haven't experienced what I have yet and I haven't experienced how you're trained either. All I know is that Kenpo is in there on both sides but we were both train it a little differently.

 

[Kenpoist]

Had these techniques on my mind for a while. Only concerned with the initial defence at the moment:

Attacker: from a crouching/lowered position, launches in for a tackle around your lower body with intent to take you to the ground. We practiced just this attack a few times on each other with mats on the ground, to make sure we all knew what the deal was.

Defense (both techs): drop your left foot back to a rear-twist at 5 o'clock (so your right foot is forward). Execute a *good* left outward extended block to the base of the attacker's neck. In other words, hammer *down* on his neck, forming a strong brace between you both with the blocking arm.

What I'm wondering about is the footwork. Firstly, we found this defence failed to work (at all) if we simply 'stepped back'. It didn't just 'not work' - it was pretty disasterous. Our test was simple - crash matts behind the defender, and the attacker (always stonger/heavier for the test) had instructions to take the defender to the ground. Not once could the defender stop the attacker's forward-momentum - each time he was swept off his feet.

Adding a foward-adjustment with the right foot worked a little better - so the footwork became 'step back to a rear-twist' with left foot, then step forwards with the right foot, still maintaining the same rear-twist, but it basically became a 'front twist' because of the _small_ forwards movement. At any rate the stance was much more stable like this (with the step forward), however it still only worked if you got the timing right, correctly gauged the distance with which to work, and executed a *strong* block to the neck (we wore padding!). Very little margin for error, and not convinced this is at all sufficient - we definitely need additional 'aborbing' footwork to stay on our feet.

Also made some interesting observations whilst conducting these tests: From a the attacker's point of view it was actually really hard to perform the take-down. Because the defender was moving off-center and away from you, it was really quite difficult to get a good hold and take them down. Could still do it, but we had to be determined. Got a lot more respect for grapplers now, who I guess can do this kind stuff in their sleep.

More interesting was the attacker's posture when he attacked. Invariably the attacker went to their left, going in with their right-shoulder first (i.e. leading with the right shoulder). As soon as I reversed the roles and taught the defence to the attackers, the next time they attacked they always went in with their *left* shoulder first - so there was a fair amount of cooperation from this point on, because the attacker wanted to give the defender room to do a successful technique.

Basically what we noticed was the natural instinct of the *comitted* attacker to go in with the right-shoulder making contact. It made the techs *much* harder to execute, because as the defender moved off to their right, the attacker was naturally going in that same direction. We did try Charging Ram with a downward-outward parry to the outside of the attacker's left arm (to redirect them) - it failed miserably because it was too easy to get caught up in the attacker's arms.

My hypothesis at this point was to do the technique off the other side - so as we defend, we move off-center to our *left*, into a left rear-twist, and execute a right-outward-extended block to the other side of the attacker's neck. It worked waaaaaay better - firstly we were blocking with our stronger arms, secondly because the attacker was not moving towards us so directly anymore.

This left me wondering why Charging-Ram and Broken-Ram taught this way - makes sense to me (at the moment) to do always attempt these 'off the other side'.

In conclusion, these were very simple tests, not at all scientific, but the results were interesting to me at any rate. Correct footwork is the key here. I know I'm missing something vital, and I'm asserting that the 'by the book' method is flawed from the outset and needs serious some modification to be successful. Only really interested in footwork at the moment.....Thoughts anyone?

We do the technique a little different from the onset. From the natural stance, shift (by sliding) your left foot to 3 o'clock (placing yourself into a right nuetral) while having your left hand parry the opponents left arm down and out (left crane's beak parry) - then proceed with your attack. Just like opening the door, these techniques are designed to get out of the way of the tackle (you will do force meets force with Intercepting the Ram). It doesn't sound like you are getting out of the way soon enough for the tackle and the twist stance is not going to provide a stable base to withstand a tackle. This is acounter to an "American football player" type tackle. For shootfighting, you may want to defend with another technique (sprawl/crossface/guillotine choke - as suggested by other poster's)

 

[Doc]

From the natural stance, shift (by sliding) your left foot to 3 o'clock (placing yourself into a right nuetral) while having your left hand parry the opponents left arm down and out (left crane's beak parry)

A "tackle" suggests that the attackers arms are coming wide and encircling, not like a low push to your upper legs. Therefore your description doesn't account for the left arm, and getting outside would be virtually impossible in a plausable tackling scenario, considering "tackles" tend to start from a distance of reasonable expectations of success. Additionally the act of, or 'sliding your foot' cannot yield a stable base absent a correcting mechnanism. It is not physically possible.

 

[Kenpoist]

A "tackle" suggests that the attackers arms are coming wide and encircling, not like a low push to your upper legs. Therefore your description doesn't account for the left arm, and getting outside would be virtually impossible in a plausable tackling scenario, considering "tackles" tend to start from a distance of reasonable expectations of success. Additionally the act of, or 'sliding your foot' cannot yield a stable base absent a correcting mechnanism. It is not physically possible.

Doc,
The charging ram technique is for a "tackle" with arms in close, so you are getting out of the way by sliding (this is how you get to the neutral bow - I will disagree with you that this cannot yield a stable base by sliding) your foot to 3 o'clock while parrying your attacker's left arm and delivering a right overhead downward chop.

Broken Ram is for the wide armed "tackle" which is why you trap your attacker's left arm with your right arm and proceed with the arm break.