Kenpo 5.0 Commercial

[Mark L]

No one has mentioned what I referred to earlier. So do you kenpo guys practice techniques knife vs unarmed?? Or is that part of the video ridiculous overkill??

Cheers
Sam:asian:

Our weapon techniques are limited to defense against weapons, and weapon vs. weapon. Mostly bo (a Japanese word for stick) since it has the most relevance in our society, sticks are just everywhere (at least where I live). We also have a few nunchaku and sai techniques to offer a different range perspective. Using a knife offensively vs. an unarmed opponent is something we play with occassionally, but it isn't our area of expertise or part of the curriculum.

 

[JTKenpo]

No one has mentioned what I referred to earlier. So do you kenpo guys practice techniques knife vs unarmed?? Or is that part of the video ridiculous overkill??

Cheers
Sam:asian:

As a drill or exercise to understand paths of motion for the knife (slicing, fileting) and to understand trapping but no not a staple of self defense.

 

[thetruth]

As a drill or exercise to understand paths of motion for the knife (slicing, fileting) and to understand trapping but no not a staple of self defense.

The only reason I asked is because in that ad it looked like a self defense scenario. I wouldn't have put in an ad for a martial arts school.

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

The only reason I asked is because in that ad it looked like a self defense scenario. I wouldn't have put in an ad for a martial arts school.

Some in kenpo have worked with SOG's teaching sentry removal. I teach grafting FMA knife and stick patterns and kenpo hand patterns to having a knife in one hand and side-arm in the other, in close-quarters scenarios.

Knife to hand is, as stated, a teaching model or drill scenario for the purposes of teaching angles of attack, complementary angles, weapon/target selection with position recognition, and so on. I, also, would not put it in a commercial.

Some techniques in the beginning of the system were purportedly tamed by Mr. Parker during a franchising effort, on account of how bad for business it would be for Mom to come walking in and see the kids her little Johnny would be training with taking shots at each others eyes, throats, and knees. While we learn these targets in subsequent sessions, they are left for later dates, and taught to students already growing in the system. I lump knife training in that same category.

 

[Monadnock]

No one has mentioned what I referred to earlier. So do you kenpo guys practice techniques knife vs unarmed?? Or is that part of the video ridiculous overkill??

Cheers
Sam:asian:

No, I dont think it is. Why would you to toe to toe with someone who although unarmed, may have a clear size advantage over you?

If I am confronted/cornered by some monster, and I have a knife, you bet your whole piggy bank I'm going to draw it. And if he still comes in, well, he asked for it.

I have absolutely no clue where these "martial artists" of the moral majority come off saying I cannot defend myself by whatever means necessary.

I suppose children's class registrations are significantly up though, as that is what most schools cater to now.

 

[DavidCC]

No one has mentioned what I referred to earlier. So do you kenpo guys practice techniques knife vs unarmed?? Or is that part of the video ridiculous overkill??

Cheers
Sam:asian:

We have one technique where you take the knife from the attacker and use it on him. And 2 where you gain control of the attacker's knife hand and use it to injure himself. Since my teacher has now borken with Christopher Geary he is making some chjange sto what we teach, and the first one is likely to be dropped because of its impracticality and legal ramifications should you actually perform it as taught.

Building on what Dr. Crouch wrote above, it is a lesson on disarming, and so not entirely invaluable... so we'll see...

 

[RevIV]

Hang on. We are arguing that accuracy is preferable to mauling...but we must practice mauling, because we may lack the accuracy, necessitating fallback positions based on planned failure?

I practice target shooting, so I can shoot the guy, but really only ever club him with my .45, cuz I might miss if I actually start squeezing off rounds.

?

 

[RevIV]

Hang on. We are arguing that accuracy is preferable to mauling...but we must practice mauling, because we may lack the accuracy, necessitating fallback positions based on planned failure?

I practice target shooting, so I can shoot the guy, but really only ever club him with my .45, cuz I might miss if I actually start squeezing off rounds.

Hang on.. I was answering something for DavidCC. He asked why would i take karate if all i learn is to poke eyes and kick groin "he already knew that" I was being funny and said you pay to learn better accuracy -- joke not understood, thats fine.

 

[RevIV]

On the subject one of my students was almost mugged last night coming out of a bank after hours making deposits. 2 assailants cornered him and wanted his money.. Funny thing was, he had none, he could not deposit his checks because he forgot his wallet at home and showed the attackers that his pockets were empty. He held only his cell phone in his hand and repeatedly told his attackers that all he had to do was hit send and it was on automatic to the police. The moral of the story.. they smashed the cell out of his hand, in the same motion of the phone falling to the ground he drove his fingers into the first guys eye sockets, then turned and drilled the 2nd guy in the groin with a kick and then followed up with at least 5 shots to his face because he did not go down on the first kick, he then turned back to the 1st guy and kicked him sqaure in the knee. Sounds kempo to me, and its just what he was taught---- with accuracy.

 

[DavidCC]

Hang on.. I was answering something for DavidCC. He asked why would i take karate if all i learn is to poke eyes and kick groin "he already knew that" I was being funny and said you pay to learn better accuracy -- joke not understood, thats fine.

Well, I got it

 

[RevIV]

Well, I got it

I knew you would which is why i thought it was funny.

 

[Flying Crane]

Each Self-Defense technique in kenpo is designed NOT as a specific counter to a specific attack. Rather, techniques provide scenario-based response solutions that illustrate for the student what it looks like to apply certain basics, concepts, and principles of combative motion to plausible contexts.

hmmm... I can't help feeling that this is sort of an over-simplification.

I understand and agree with what you are saying, but at the same time, techs also ought to be a good solution to a specific attack.

Maybe the later Parker lineages are doing things differently enough from the Tracy methods that we are really playing a different game, so my comments may be out of line here. But I did sit in and watch a friend's brown belt test under John Sepulveda a number of years ago, and I saw a whole lot that looked very similar to what we are doing in Tracys.

At any rate, it seems to me that the techs are designed to be an effective solution to an attack. At the same time, you cannot expect to get a full technique off as it's written, because reality rarely follows a perfect theoretical progression, altho it may be possible. This requires an ability to ad-lib and spontaneously design something to fit the situation, as that situation changes. So in that regard, the tech is a lesson on the chalkboard, as you put it. But it should also be able to work as taught, or nearly so, on a base level.

I'll admit, I have my favorites in the system, and there are those that I don't care so much for. Not all of them seem equally practical, at least to me. But I think on the base level, the tech must have some actual usefulness as it is, or else it won't be a good chalkboard lesson either.

And yes, every tech ought to be applied with solid basics underneath it.

On numerous occasions, my instructor has talked about certain techs from our system that he has successfully and effectively used during his law enforcement career. They haven't always been exactly as written, but they've certainly been close enough to be able to say, "hey, that was XYZ from 2nd Brown!".

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

hmmm... I can't help feeling that this is sort of an over-simplification.

I understand and agree with what you are saying, but at the same time, techs also ought to be a good solution to a specific attack.

Maybe the later Parker lineages are doing things differently enough from the Tracy methods that we are really playing a different game, so my comments may be out of line here. But I did sit in and watch a friend's brown belt test under John Sepulveda a number of years ago, and I saw a whole lot that looked very similar to what we are doing in Tracys.

At any rate, it seems to me that the techs are designed to be an effective solution to an attack. At the same time, you cannot expect to get a full technique off as it's written, because reality rarely follows a perfect theoretical progression, altho it may be possible. This requires an ability to ad-lib and spontaneously design something to fit the situation, as that situation changes. So in that regard, the tech is a lesson on the chalkboard, as you put it. But it should also be able to work as taught, or nearly so, on a base level.

I'll admit, I have my favorites in the system, and there are those that I don't care so much for. Not all of them seem equally practical, at least to me. But I think on the base level, the tech must have some actual usefulness as it is, or else it won't be a good chalkboard lesson either.

And yes, every tech ought to be applied with solid basics underneath it.

On numerous occasions, my instructor has talked about certain techs from our system that he has successfully and effectively used during his law enforcement career. They haven't always been exactly as written, but they've certainly been close enough to be able to say, "hey, that was XYZ from 2nd Brown!".

When I was at Bob Whites in Southern Cal, we had BB there who was Santa Ana PD. Big guy; solid basics, strong hitter. On a bus, in the aisle, bad guy tries a straight knife thrust jab at our boy. He goes into 5 Swords, even though 5 Swords is not taught as a self-defense technique against a straight knife attack in narrow surroundings. He gets the block and the chop off, but the palm-heel hits air. Why? Bad guy down from the chop.

I agree that the techs should present us with sound solutions in example; part of training for successful compilation on the fly is knowing what good compilation looks like, and drilling in some viable combinations. Taking the extreme, he would have had to apologize to the bad guy while waking him up, hand him back the knife, and ask that he comes at him again so he could use one of the EPAK "lance" techniques that was a more proper fit to the attack. However, his skills and abilities...target tracking, defensive perimeter, weapon/target accuracy (both inward block and outward chop), his study and rehearsal to put his mass behind his weapons using directional harmony...all these are basics skills, honed through rehearsal.

Technically, he did it wrong. Realistically, he got home that night to his family. In EPAK, particularly, many of the techs go on ad nauseum...20 moves, strung in a row. To me, that's time spent on planned failure that COULD have been spent polishing basics and applied principles, so that the bad guy goes down the first couple times you hit him.

On KT, one guy yanked a quote from me for his sig line that perfectly states my thoughts. Basically, if the fight ain't over after the first couple of moves, your basics stink, and you hit like a little girl. Obnoxious, I know. Not meant to provoke, but to shine a light on the importance of training for success in the delivery of force multipliers in basics.

D.

 

[Flying Crane]

When I was at Bob Whites in Southern Cal, we had BB there who was Santa Ana PD. Big guy; solid basics, strong hitter. On a bus, in the aisle, bad guy tries a straight knife thrust jab at our boy. He goes into 5 Swords, even though 5 Swords is not taught as a self-defense technique against a straight knife attack in narrow surroundings. He gets the block and the chop off, but the palm-heel hits air. Why? Bad guy down from the chop.

good example of an effective use of a tech, as taught. The fact that the fight was over before he completed the tech doesn't mean it was wrong, or that he made a mistake, or that the tech wasn't a good idea. In fact, the tech was such a good idea that only a portion of it was necessary to be effective. The fact that 5 Swords is against a punch and not a knife is immaterial, in my mind. He saw the similarity in the attack, and responded appropirately.

Taking the extreme, he would have had to apologize to the bad guy while waking him up, hand him back the knife, and ask that he comes at him again so he could use one of the EPAK "lance" techniques that was a more proper fit to the attack. However, his skills and abilities...target tracking, defensive perimeter, weapon/target accuracy (both inward block and outward chop), his study and rehearsal to put his mass behind his weapons using directional harmony...all these are basics skills, honed through rehearsal.

Technically, he did it wrong...

I understand you are illustrating the extreme, but even so, I just can't look at it this way. He didn't do it wrong. He applied a tech to a different, but somewhat similar situation, and it worked. That's not wrong in any way. It's creatively right. and once again, it's an example of a tech utilized as taught, regardless of the fact that the guy was holding a knife instead of throwing a punch.

Realistically, he got home that night to his family.

and that's what matters.

In EPAK, particularly, many of the techs go on ad nauseum...20 moves, strung in a row. To me, that's time spent on planned failure that COULD have been spent polishing basics and applied principles, so that the bad guy goes down the first couple times you hit him.

yes, and we have some of those as well, and I always had a bit of a problem with them. Seems to me that you can't realistically plan beyond 3 or 4 shots, because it's unrealistic to expect things to stick to plan that far out of the starting block. In those cases where the tech goes on for so long, I think it's just a case of perhaps getting carried away in designing the tech. Or I guess another way to look at it is to take the individual moves/strikes from these techs and see them as individual possibilites. But in the context of one super-long tech, I don't think it's so realistic.

On KT, one guy yanked a quote from me for his sig line that perfectly states my thoughts. Basically, if the fight ain't over after the first couple of moves, your basics stink, and you hit like a little girl. Obnoxious, I know. Not meant to provoke, but to shine a light on the importance of training for success in the delivery of force multipliers in basics.

D.

I agree with this. I think the mistake that lies in the design of the superlong techs is in thinking that it's a safeguard in case something goes wrong. I think that is absolutely not true. The very fact that you can go from the one strike to the next assumes that everything has gone the way you planned, so that he is positioned for the next strike. But if this is true, then the fight is already over. If everything had gone perfectly and you actually land all 17 strikes, the guy ought to be nothing more than a lump of jelly. But if something actually goes wrong he won't be where you expect him to be, you won't land those other strikes and you gotta do something else. The tech didn't plan for problems, it assumed you will turn him into jelly, and that's not realistic either, at least not in a sane world.

Getting back to the topic of the thread, with regards to the 5.0 commercial and the throat stomp. We gotta remember that these arts we practice come from a different era and different society when and where real destruction of a human being in self defense was not frowned upon so much as it is now. In that regard, some of it is outdated. Society is different now, and we view violence and the appropriate response to violence in a different way. What was acceptable and even necessary 300 years ago is no longer so today, because of our law enforcement and court systems that we now have. But the martial arts as we practice them have not necessarily been updated in that regard.

To illustrate an extreme example, we could look at the traditional weapon arts, like the katana, or Chinese jian and dao, or spear. These are archaic weapons that we cannot readily carry on the street, and there is a next-to-zero possibility that we will ever use one of these to defend our lives. Yet many of us still enjoy training in these, even tho we haven't found a way to update them to make them acceptable for the street in today's society.

It may be the same thing in kenpo, and we see it in many of the other arts as well. The Philippine arts were mentioned, because they practice a lot with knives. It's pretty hard to try and go "half-way" with a knife. If you pull that knife to use it, I think you ought to expect to kill the guy. Same thing with a gun, and a gun is acceptable in our society for self-defense, given some legal guidelines. But if you pull that gun to use it, you expect and intend to kill the guy.

Well, why not with your bare hands and feet as well? The thing about the hands and feet is that it is possible to pull back and go "half-way" if you feel it's appropriate. But if you only train for the half-way, then you won't know how to go to the extreme, if that proves to be necessary. If you practice big movements, you can always modify and go smaller. But if you only practice small movements, you won't be able to adjust and go big if needed. Same thing here.

Once upon a time, the ancestors of the arts that we practice were meant to be used to maime and kill as quickly as possible. In that era, and in those places, people needed to defend themselves. They often could not rely upon the police or the legal system to protect themselves or their families or their village. They were on their own, so they devised effective methods to maime and kill, and they did it when necessary, and probably often even when not necessary. Life was different then, and life was valued differently.

We still have these elements in our arts, and we should not forget that. It's not always appropriate today, but that doesn't mean we should eliminate these elements from what we do. I don't intend to give up my swords or spears or archery equipment, just because I'll never use it to defend myself. It's all part of the bigger picture.

Maybe the presentation in the commercial was a bit odd or arguably inappropriate, but that doesn't mean it should be eliminated from practice.

That's my thoughts, anyway.

 

[Touch Of Death]

When I was at Bob Whites in Southern Cal, we had BB there who was Santa Ana PD. Big guy; solid basics, strong hitter. On a bus, in the aisle, bad guy tries a straight knife thrust jab at our boy. He goes into 5 Swords, even though 5 Swords is not taught as a self-defense technique against a straight knife attack in narrow surroundings. He gets the block and the chop off, but the palm-heel hits air. Why? Bad guy down from the chop.

I agree that the techs should present us with sound solutions in example; part of training for successful compilation on the fly is knowing what good compilation looks like, and drilling in some viable combinations. Taking the extreme, he would have had to apologize to the bad guy while waking him up, hand him back the knife, and ask that he comes at him again so he could use one of the EPAK "lance" techniques that was a more proper fit to the attack. However, his skills and abilities...target tracking, defensive perimeter, weapon/target accuracy (both inward block and outward chop), his study and rehearsal to put his mass behind his weapons using directional harmony...all these are basics skills, honed through rehearsal.

Technically, he did it wrong. Realistically, he got home that night to his family. In EPAK, particularly, many of the techs go on ad nauseum...20 moves, strung in a row. To me, that's time spent on planned failure that COULD have been spent polishing basics and applied principles, so that the bad guy goes down the first couple times you hit him.

On KT, one guy yanked a quote from me for his sig line that perfectly states my thoughts. Basically, if the fight ain't over after the first couple of moves, your basics stink, and you hit like a little girl. Obnoxious, I know. Not meant to provoke, but to shine a light on the importance of training for success in the delivery of force multipliers in basics.

D.

He didn't technicaly do anything wrong. Five swords may be used against a thrust when timming and environment keeps you on the inside.
Sean

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

He didn't technicaly do anything wrong. Five swords may be used against a thrust when timming and environment keeps you on the inside.
Sean

Ayup. Kinda my point, really.

 

[thetruth]

No, I dont think it is. Why would you to toe to toe with someone who although unarmed, may have a clear size advantage over you?

If I am confronted/cornered by some monster, and I have a knife, you bet your whole piggy bank I'm going to draw it. And if he still comes in, well, he asked for it.

I have absolutely no clue where these "martial artists" of the moral majority come off saying I cannot defend myself by whatever means necessary.

I suppose children's class registrations are significantly up though, as that is what most schools cater to now.

Given that the police will find not only that you had a knife but you were trained to use it I think you will be in deep ****. Whether we like it or not we have to be proportionate in our defense. Apart from legal ramifications I would feel terrible if I cut a guy to bits just because he was having a bad day and tried to beat me up.

Cheers
Sam:asian:

 

[Mark L]

Apart from legal ramifications I would feel terrible if I cut a guy to bits just because he was having a bad day and tried to beat me up.

Cheers
Sam:asian:

I'd feel bad if i cut a guy, or knocked out teeth, or broke his arm, or tore up his knee, etc. Real bad for a very long time, since I do have a conscious. But having a bad day is in no way an excuse for battery. I'd feel worse if I got any of the above because someone else had a bad day.

 

[JTKenpo]

Given that the police will find not only that you had a knife but you were trained to use it I think you will be in deep ****. Whether we like it or not we have to be proportionate in our defense. Apart from legal ramifications I would feel terrible if I cut a guy to bits just because he was having a bad day and tried to beat me up.

Cheers
Sam:asian:

...and you are perfectly within your right to feel that way. I don't. If some idiot thought he was having a bad day before trying to mug me I'm putting him through the blender and making him understand that you do not have the right to try and forcefully take it out on me, thats what a heavy bag is for. Being proportionate in your defense is again subjective, you don't know the attackers intent. Are they just trying to take out their frustrations at work on you or do they want your life. I do believe in escalating the response of defense. Here is how I see it, dirtbag starts with me I respond 1) he walks away so do I; 2) he retaliates so do I then see 1; 3) he fights like his life depends on it, then it does.

 

[marlon]

So many people forget why we teach the overkill in the first place. In the world of perfection, yes a lot of the Kempo would be overkill. In the world of reality, people block, dodge, duck and move out of the way.. and sometimes hit back. We teach continous motion so if we miss once we know the next natural movement just keeps coming. I wish someone told the guy who kicked me in the head last time i was in a tussle that it was illegal. Also- if your getting mugged, defend yourself and pound the guy into the ground he probably is not going to sue you,, He did just try to mug you. But then again there is always the story of the burglar who fell through the skylight, landed on a knife and sued the family.

While i agree with almost everything you said here, i never teach a technique with the idea of what you miss. there are better reasons for follow up than assuption of failure. proper follow up for control reasons and to end the threat is never overkill

respectfully,
Marlon