Kenpo Ground Fighting

[LuckyKBoxer]

Cool. I've gone through this a few times, one more can't hurt....

The thing to look at here is what exactly martial arts are, and then look at exactly what self defence is. And look at where the two cross-over, which is not the largest place you will find....

A martial art is not designed for self defence. There are just too many differences between them. We'll go through them as bullet points, just for fun, looking at what martial arts present, and the way self defence actually is.

- Martial arts teach through the medium of combative themed techniques. These techniques are not really even about being combat effective in the main, as their primary purpose is not to teach combative effectiveness, but to teach the lessons of the art itself (it's principles, philosophy, values, strategies, tactics, and more).

- Self defence not about techniques. It is based in principles that are adaptable to various situations, and can (and often does) take it's base mechanics from a martial art form.

- Martial art techniques start with the conflict already engaged, removing the pre- and post-fight aspects.

- Self defence is all about the pre- and post-fight, handling the adrenaline, and so forth. It is based on awareness of the situation, and avoiding the conflict where possible.

- Martial arts teach complex movements and fine motor actions (as well as gross motor ones), which can teach some very important lessons in expressing the art itself.

- Self defence is purely gross-motor in it's physical methods, as that is what will be available under adrenaline and stress.

- Martial arts often teach responces to attacks that are not found in a modern environment, and responces that are not suitable in todays legal environments.

- Self defence requires that all attacks are realistic, and the legal system is understood and adhered to. This means covering such things as not going into overkill mode, the legal repercussions, if armed (say, a walking stick) then strikes to the head are not advised unless the opponents are also armed (at least here), and so on.

There's a lot more to this, but the basic point is that martial arts, while they can (and often do) provide the physical parameters, mechanics, and so on of a self defence program, they are not self defence when it comes down to it. They cover a different area of knowledge, have a different focus, a different teaching purpose, and more. As they provide the mechanics, however, they can form a great base for a good self defence program. In fact, most RBSD systems don't really bother with teaching such things as how to hit, as it's assumed that those taking the courses already have some martial arts background and can use the mechanics of their art within the self defence program.

Did that help?

Okay I see where you are coming from..
I think its alot of semantics to be honest.
I think that what you said can absolutely relate to some martial arts, but not all.
I agree with your first few points, and we cover those with our students as well.
where you start to lose me a litle bit is talking about the fine motor skills and gross motor skills. This is, in my mind, simply a byproduct of how often you train and how realistic that training is. the more you train under stressful real condition, the more you are going to be able to perform fine motor skills. The less you train then i absolutely agree that you will have alot of trouble performing anything but gross motor skills. I dont think this has anything to do with martial arts or self defense specifically though.
Alos traditionalized martial arts teach attacks that are not in our society today, thats a direct reflection of the instructor in my opinion, and teaching legal ramifications is also something we go into with our students.
I am not sure that I agree that it is as black and white as that.
Personally I would consider true self defense as good diet, nutrition, fitness, teeth care, etc.. since that is going to kill many more people then a bad guy with a gun..
but like I said I dont necessarily disagree with your comments, I see where you are coming from and appreciate you sharing it, I just think that it is not black and white, and depends on who is teaching, and the time that the student is going to put into it.

 

[MJS]

I dont know about that.. I have gotten to train with some Kajukenbo guys here and there over the years and not a single one of them had any good grappling except the ones who had crosstrained in Jiu Jitsu specifically. I have been wanting to find some more seasoned, veteran Kaju guys to see if that is as widespread as I tend to think it might be. I would classify all the Kaju guys in as similar to the Kenpo guys that I like to train with.. meaning they like to drill harder then average people do.
I think that it pretty much comes down to focused training.. I think the groundfighting I have seen from the vast majority of Kaju guys is similar to the Kenpo take on it that I have witnessed... they try to use the ground as a backstop to hold the opponent while they do some select punches, kickes then move out of the way..

Well, in that case, I'll defer to your experience, and that of any Kaju person on here, if they choose to post. Like I said, I was only going on what I've seen, but obviously, given your ability to access Kaju vs. mine.....

Some that I have seen, John Bono and Greg Harper, both seem to emphasize grappling. But then again, I believe John has a background with Larry Hartsell, and I'm not sure of Greg Harpers grappling background.

My recommendation for eveyr stand up artist is to at some point in their training invest in at least 6 months of Jiu Jitsu, at minimum 2 times a week so that they can get an idea of the basic positions, and movements.. I would say if you are in a qualified place, 6 months will give you a great basis of the fundamentals, while not making you proficient, it will give you a great idea of what its about.. more then words could describe.

QFT!!! I've suggested this as well. Never told anyone to stop Kenpo, but simply to spend some time, etc. as you suggested. And IMO, given the fact that there are BJJ schools everywhere you look, well, theres really no excuse. Lets see...right around my area, I have my friend, who's a Brown Belt under Roy Harris. I also have a BJJ/JJJ school just down the road. BJJ is offered 2x/week, with Rafael Barbosa.

Like I said earlier, I do plan, in the new year, to devote more time to this.

Edit: Of course, whats interesting about what you suggest, is the fact that 9 out of 10 Kenpoists, will usually counter what you just said, with the following: Theres no need to cross train...anything and everything is already in there. You just need to know where to look.

Of course, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on that.

 

[MJS]

Hey Y'all are preaching to the choir. I am simply pointing out why I thought many of those flaws were present.

As you know, I left "traditional EPAK" including the LTKKA (as well as other associations) to follow Paul Mills, purely because I didn't like the above mentioned methodology.

Now, since the AKKI has changed the yellow techniques (and many others, including the knife and stick material, as we have discussed in the past) we have come under some fire from others. However, I think as the videos you posted show, the understanding of Kenpo held by those in the video is reflected in their very attempts to apply it to the ground. As I pointed out, part of the problem is that they are working against an "untrained grappler" in those vids.... and that is a trained mind-set left over from their commercial/traditional Kenpo.

Despite that, I'm not on the other side of the fence either... I don't think a Kenpoist who wants to add ground fighting or ground SD simply needs to go study BJJ... that is the same problem, other side of the spectrum, since BJJ isn't really "ground fighting" either.

Grappling/Ground fighting...IMHO, I dont think that they're all that far apart. They're both looking to reach the same goal, that being to finish the battle on the ground. The main differences that I can see would be...the grappler is looking to finish with a sub. of some sort, whereas the ground fighter isn't really applying anything fancy per se, such as a lock, choke, etc., but going the G&P route.

So, all that being said, I think that it should be fairly simple to change your method of attack, while still staying in the BJJ framework. Of course, BJJ is only 1 example. In my area, AFAIK, there aren't too many Judo schools that I know of, but thats an option. Wrestling is another. As far as I'm concerned, anything grappling is better than nothing.

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

Well, in that case, I'll defer to your experience, and that of any Kaju person on here, if they choose to post. Like I said, I was only going on what I've seen, but obviously, given your ability to access Kaju vs. mine.....

Some that I have seen, John Bono and Greg Harper, both seem to emphasize grappling. But then again, I believe John has a background with Larry Hartsell, and I'm not sure of Greg Harpers grappling background.





QFT!!! I've suggested this as well. Never told anyone to stop Kenpo, but simply to spend some time, etc. as you suggested. And IMO, given the fact that there are BJJ schools everywhere you look, well, theres really no excuse. Lets see...right around my area, I have my friend, who's a Brown Belt under Roy Harris. I also have a BJJ/JJJ school just down the road. BJJ is offered 2x/week, with Rafael Barbosa.

Like I said earlier, I do plan, in the new year, to devote more time to this.

Edit: Of course, whats interesting about what you suggest, is the fact that 9 out of 10 Kenpoists, will usually counter what you just said, with the following: Theres no need to cross train...anything and everything is already in there. You just need to know where to look.

Of course, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on that.

ya we actually have a 5th degree black belt in Kaju that coaches out muay Thai guys at our gym, he was also a professional muay thai fighter in Europe for several years, and that seems to be his passion at this time., I will make it a point to ask him about the grappling that he did, but I dont get the impression from him that hes a big grappling guy.

Funny story, I was doing some pit fighting, and no rules fighting in the early 90s, before I got into Kenpo Karate. The UFC Came out and I was interested in fighting, then the rules started changing and favoring grapplers which irritated me. I had fought a ton of wrestlers and never had a problem, but I was not a fool and realized that the rules were rapidly shifting in favor of a grappler. I was to proud to go train in Jiu Jitsu at the time, I "knew" i could beat grapplers with no rules, and was to stubborn to give it a shot... fast forward over 10 years....ACK... 10 years.... and I had a chance again to dive into Jiu Jitsu, my plan was to spend a short tiem to get to know what they do, make sure that my kenpo and muay thai, and boxing and wrestling knowedge was enough to beat them..
funny thing happened.. I fell in love with the art and the sport and have been going solid ever since.
I think alot of Kenpo guys are simply in a dream world in regards to their skills versus a grappler.. its one thing if you can train with a grappler and can keep them from taking you down, but the vast majority I have talked to who wont train in grappling simply "know" I personally find it embarassing to a point, and when given the chance I get on the mat with them and ask them to stop me from taking them down... I have yet to find the kenpo guy that can stop me from taking them down. Granted I am 6'3" and 250+ pounds, with a fairly extensive fightbackground, and currently a brown belt in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu and teach it, and consider take downs a specialty, but you would think it would be an eye opener for some of these guys... instead the vast majority of them write it off as me being a kenpo guy and not me using jiu jitsu skills.
The good thing I see is that most of the younger generation are crosstraining more, not just in Jiu Jitsu but muay thai, boxing, wrestling, and traditional and combative martial arts.
I think that this will only help improve our kenpo as a whole.
I just hope that many of this younger generation are able to get quality kenpo from the few great instructors still around and dont lose that for the other arts.
that remains to be seen.
I personally have hope that Kenpo will evolve still with future practitioners and teachers at and above the level of Ed Parker.. I have to believe this, if I didnt believe this I would stop dealing with Kenpo, but I think our future is bright, in a definite shift, and evolution... but bright, regardless of all the crap that seems to be front and center especially on the internet.

 

[K831]

div { margin: 0px; }

out of curiosity what has the AKKI changed?
is the AKKI not a commercial Kenpo as well?
and what Grappling art would you consider the best, or closest to Ground fighting?

I am not saying I disagree with you on anything you said. I just dont understand, or know what you mean by these comments and wanted to get clarification before I have a reply thanks

No problem. First, let me say, I don't mean my "ground fighting" comments to be a downer on BJJ or any other style. It's contextual.

what has the AKKI changed?

I'm guessing you mean in general, as a detailed answer regarding curriculum would be longer than I care to type, and longer than you probably care to read.

- Techniques from bottom to top have been changed to deal with a trained attacker. No more focus on rear step through punches and hay makers. Starting at white belt (yellow techs) punches are thrown off both the lead and rear hand, often in combination etc.
- Techniques have been simplified and overly complex or redundant/flashy techniques dropped or replaced.
- Less techniques, and less focus on shear number of memorized techniques.
- Much more focus on interactive sets and spontaneous drills. Concept vs. memorization
- Multiple attacker techniques completely changed. Far more practical and realistic.
- Knife sets, drills and techniques completely different/spontaneous
-Club sets, drills and techniques completely different /spontaneous
- Integrated drills/principles/ and training regarding carry, draw/presentation of concealed weapons (knife and Pistol)
- Evolving ground curriculum focused on both available submissions/GnP/weapons uses and deployment (while mounted/mount etc) positioning and techs to work back to ones feet.
- Greater focus on live drills and less emphasis on static "Ok, 5 swords" or "ok, defense against a right step through". Focus on spontaneous action/reaction starting right away.

is the AKKI not a commercial Kenpo as well?

Not in my experience. Both “schools” I went to had no commercial advertising, no contracts or agreements. We used space in someone else gym, or a rec room at the local community college. We often trained in my instructor’s basement. Memberships were based on invitation, not just anyone could come and sign up. Seminars and camps are closed/invitation only. Now, having said that, yes, there are members in the AKKI with commercial schools, and their version of Kenpo may even be commercialized, I don’t know and I doubt it. I have always said though, it is more about the teacher than anything. I have one of the best, progressive and open minded teachers in the AKKI. However, he is working with one of the best systems as well, and Mr. Mills is supportive of and drives innovation and change.

and what Grappling art would you consider the best, or closest to Ground fighting?

Definitions would probably help this discussion. My definition of “fighting” is drag out knock down anything goes fighting for my life. It isn’t sport or competition. That’s not to devalue the testing and learning that happens while competing, rather, to keep the context in mind.



I think this is one of the more exciting areas of development in the martial arts. I don’t have any one “ground art” in mind. I think MMA competition, for example, has shown us what can happen when a fight goes to the ground. Now, this is only in one narrow and controlled context, however, it has still highlighted the need for some understanding of the dynamics of takedowns, takedown defense and movement/mechanics on the ground. “Fighting” however, needs a much broader brush than what I have seen in BJJ classes.


It’s hard to consider an art a “ground fighting art” when certain "fighting" aspects aren’t being worked regularly and/or the training mindset is competition training. I think “ground fighting” should be an “anything goes” mindset. I have not yet been in a BJJ class that incorporated and regularly worked small joint manipulation/breaks, multiple attackers, weapon defense, weapon deployment, striking from the ground, positioning for soft target striking etc. We are working in this direction in the AKKI. Some combatives curriculum are starting to incorporate this, but this isn’t what you get when you go study “BJJ”. My BJJ experience has been focused on positioning to work for submissions. I’ve never seen anyone in a BJJ class say “you could have broken his fingers there… you could have transitioned to standing there… you could have deployed your carry knife there and cut him this way... you could have drawn your G19 from that position and fired... try it again.” Or, “would you have gone for that kimura if it was a bar fight and you had to deal with two guys? What would you have done differently?” IMO, that’s the type of thing that would happen daily in a “ground fighting” system.



I carry a knife 99.7% of the time. I carry a firearm 70% of the time. I have plastic versions of each that fit in my real carry sheath/holster. I train in my real clothes. I draw my weapons while being shot on, swept, clinched and with trained grapplers pulling guard. I work for position to draw while mounted, guard, half guard etc against wrestlers and BJJ BB’s. I know I need to. I work for position to strike, or get up against these same guys. If a BJJ player isn’t preparing for that, he isn’t preparing to fight me on the ground, as his chances of finishing me before he is repeatedly cut/stabbed/shot pummeled and/or submitted isn’t very high. My straight jits isn’t all that good… my ground scrappiness however, is coming right along.



I think more and more guys from different disciplines will really start working the ground, not from a submission only, or competition only point of view, but from a “survive and kill” point of view. As that happens, collaborative efforts will result in well fleshed out and multi-dimensional “ground fighting” systems. That won’t fully happen though, until people quit saying, “I do BJJ and that covers my SD ground game.”

I'm curious about this, too. It's pretty clear you have a specific idea in mind when you use the term "ground fighting." If BJJ doesn't qualify, what does?

Hopefully the above made the ideas a bit more clear. It isn’t that I don’t think BJJ qualifies… I just don’t think it qualifies on its own. Choosing to stay on the ground and hunt for submissions while excluding the likely hood of weapons and multiple attackers, for instance, fails as a stand-alone “ground fighting” art. That’s not to diminish all that it has to offer though. However, I’ve seen the failure clearly in my own attempts at working in outside material with my BJJ/wrestling buddies. Funny how them working for submissions suddenly becomes, “I’m going to try and not get stabbed this time” pretty fast, which in turn forces me to acquire more skill in order to deploy my weapon while mounted, since I am now fighting a BJJ guy whose “eyes have been opened” from getting killed in the simulation multiple times. Regardless, his mindset and approach is no longer what it was when he was just doing BJJ.

 

[Chris Parker]

Okay I see where you are coming from..
I think its alot of semantics to be honest.

I might suggest that if it's semantics to you (still), then you may not have gotten what I am trying to say. That, to me, is similar to saying that the only difference between badminton and tennis is semantics, honestly.

I think that what you said can absolutely relate to some martial arts, but not all.

I have yet to encounter a single martial art that I would class as being designed for self defence. My comments apply to every single one I have ever seen, trained, studied, researched, heard about, discussed, or other. If you can point me to one that doesn't fit the descriptions I listed above, I'll be very happy to look at it.

I agree with your first few points, and we cover those with our students as well.
where you start to lose me a litle bit is talking about the fine motor skills and gross motor skills. This is, in my mind, simply a byproduct of how often you train and how realistic that training is. the more you train under stressful real condition, the more you are going to be able to perform fine motor skills. The less you train then i absolutely agree that you will have alot of trouble performing anything but gross motor skills. I dont think this has anything to do with martial arts or self defense specifically though.

Under adrenaline, one of the first things to happen is for any part of your brain not attuned for survival to start to shut down. This means that fine-motor skills, complex-motor skills, the ability to form sentences, and so on disappear. Yes, with a great deal of training you can make such things much more accessible, but that still takes us further from the requirements of a self defence system.

There, the requirement is that the training is quick, and easily accessible soon after the training. And the only thing that fits that are gross-motor actions. This is why RBSD groups and DefTac programs work, they embrace that understanding. If something (such as fine-motor skills) take a decade or more instill in a person, that is not what is required for self defence. And that is what is needed for fine-motor to be accessible.

It's not that it has anything to do with martial arts or self defence, but an understanding of what is realistic (in terms of what is accessible, and how to make something accessible) is related to the teachings and methods of both. Martial arts can afford to spend time working on fine-motor and complex actions, as they are getting across lessons that are specific to the arts themselves, not ones that are necessarily to do with actual combative applications and effectiveness. A realistic self defence program, on the other hand, has to take into account the limitations of how our brains work, in regard to things like this.

Alos traditionalized martial arts teach attacks that are not in our society today, thats a direct reflection of the instructor in my opinion, and teaching legal ramifications is also something we go into with our students.

Oh, I wasn't being that limited in my approach to martial arts. I was also including the very recent ones, all the way up to MMA. And it's not a reflection of the teacher, it's a reflection of the art. Or are you saying that teaching methods of swordsmanship in Kenjutsu, as the attacks encountered are not the same as found today, is due to the instructor?

When it comes to things such as teaching about the legal side of things, brilliant. To me, though, that is you taking into account the self defence side of things that you teach, as I highly doubt the martial art itself actually teaches the legal side of things. That is where it is up to the instructor, and that area of knowledge is removed, or seperate from the actual teachings of the martial art itself. And that is where a martial art is being used as a base for teaching self defence, but that is not to confuse the two as the same thing.

I am not sure that I agree that it is as black and white as that.

No, neither self defence nor martial arts are black and white. But the seperations are rather obvious when you actually look at them objectively. The problems are that our media (such as television shows and movies) show an equation that basically says Martial Arts = Study of Violence, Violence = Fighting, Fighting = Self Defence, Self Defence = Learning about Violence = Martial Arts. In other words, movies state that problems culminate in physical violence, and by studying martial arts you can win the fight, whereas that is removed from the realities of violence, problems encountered, martial arts, and more. The other problem is that, frankly, most martial arts market themselves as being "effective for self defence", whether or not they actually have anything to offer in that area at all (physical techniques are the most minor aspect, so if that's all an art has to offer, it's not self defence. It's gone straight to the last resort, and missed everything that actually goes into self defence itself).

Personally I would consider true self defense as good diet, nutrition, fitness, teeth care, etc.. since that is going to kill many more people then a bad guy with a gun..
but like I said I dont necessarily disagree with your comments, I see where you are coming from and appreciate you sharing it, I just think that it is not black and white, and depends on who is teaching, and the time that the student is going to put into it.

Now, I'd consider those as part of just plain good living myself, not necessarily self defence (other than in the broadest of all senses, with prevention being better than cure). Self defence is not about avoiding death, it is about avoiding unnecessary danger and conflict, or handling it at worst.

As to depending on who is teaching, well, yes and no. Some instructors are going to be more clued-up when it comes to self defence, and what is genuinely required, and they will do things such as adding an understanding of the legal repercussions (as you do) as an addendum to the art being taught. But that does not make the martial art self defence. It may make the classes more suitable as a self defence class, but that is due to the aspects that are not the martial art in the first place. The confusion comes in when people add a lot of these things to the martial art, but refer to it all under the one name, and think that because they teach it there, it is part of the art. It isn't.

My recommendation for eveyr stand up artist is to at some point in their training invest in at least 6 months of Jiu Jitsu, at minimum 2 times a week so that they can get an idea of the basic positions, and movements.. I would say if you are in a qualified place, 6 months will give you a great basis of the fundamentals, while not making you proficient, it will give you a great idea of what its about.. more then words could describe.

Just finally, this is exactly what I meant when I mentioned that an understanding of the environment is necessary. Those clips at the beginning were missing the understanding that this experience provides, James' clips later showed that he had developed some understanding of it, through cross-training in BJJ obviously. That understanding of a new environment, provided that a real understanding of your own system exists in the first place, should ensure that you can adapt your own art to this new understanding, and keep it as, say in this example, Kenpo.

 

[MJS]

ya we actually have a 5th degree black belt in Kaju that coaches out muay Thai guys at our gym, he was also a professional muay thai fighter in Europe for several years, and that seems to be his passion at this time., I will make it a point to ask him about the grappling that he did, but I dont get the impression from him that hes a big grappling guy.

Funny story, I was doing some pit fighting, and no rules fighting in the early 90s, before I got into Kenpo Karate. The UFC Came out and I was interested in fighting, then the rules started changing and favoring grapplers which irritated me. I had fought a ton of wrestlers and never had a problem, but I was not a fool and realized that the rules were rapidly shifting in favor of a grappler. I was to proud to go train in Jiu Jitsu at the time, I "knew" i could beat grapplers with no rules, and was to stubborn to give it a shot... fast forward over 10 years....ACK... 10 years.... and I had a chance again to dive into Jiu Jitsu, my plan was to spend a short tiem to get to know what they do, make sure that my kenpo and muay thai, and boxing and wrestling knowedge was enough to beat them..
funny thing happened.. I fell in love with the art and the sport and have been going solid ever since.
I think alot of Kenpo guys are simply in a dream world in regards to their skills versus a grappler.. its one thing if you can train with a grappler and can keep them from taking you down, but the vast majority I have talked to who wont train in grappling simply "know" I personally find it embarassing to a point, and when given the chance I get on the mat with them and ask them to stop me from taking them down... I have yet to find the kenpo guy that can stop me from taking them down. Granted I am 6'3" and 250+ pounds, with a fairly extensive fightbackground, and currently a brown belt in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu and teach it, and consider take downs a specialty, but you would think it would be an eye opener for some of these guys... instead the vast majority of them write it off as me being a kenpo guy and not me using jiu jitsu skills.
The good thing I see is that most of the younger generation are crosstraining more, not just in Jiu Jitsu but muay thai, boxing, wrestling, and traditional and combative martial arts.
I think that this will only help improve our kenpo as a whole.
I just hope that many of this younger generation are able to get quality kenpo from the few great instructors still around and dont lose that for the other arts.
that remains to be seen.
I personally have hope that Kenpo will evolve still with future practitioners and teachers at and above the level of Ed Parker.. I have to believe this, if I didnt believe this I would stop dealing with Kenpo, but I think our future is bright, in a definite shift, and evolution... but bright, regardless of all the crap that seems to be front and center especially on the internet.

Nice post! Can't disagree with anything that you said. For me, I think that keeping up with the times is important. Now, this doesnt mean that any time a new flavor of the month comes along, you have to abandon A and go to B, but simply look at B and see if its something that needs to be improved in your current art.

Given the popularity of MMA/UFC, that wrestling is taught in many schools, I think that having the ground base is very important. And no, I'm not buying the usual comments by some that 'its all in there'. If it is in there, perhaps it needs to be polished up a bit, but at this time, I'm not seeing it. And whats sad, is that its just not limited to grappling. I've gone round and round with guys on the KN about the knife. IMO, I dont think its that simple to take a blade, and toss Kenpo principles in, an poof...now you know how to fight offensively and defensively with a blade. People would rather do that instead of seeking out a weapon based art, Kali, PT, Sayoc, Arnis, etc.

But to each their own. All I do is make the suggestion. If people want to do it, great, IMO, those folks will continue to evolve and keep the art growing. Those that dont...well, IMO, they wont evolve and the art will stay stagnant.

Funny though, how you have guys like Jeff Speakman and Paul Mills. Jeff added in ground stuff, Paul made changes to his stuff. Now, aside from video clips and talking to guys like K831, I've never had any first hand experience with any of their stuff. But hey, at least they're making some waves. Of course, you'll have people who say that now they're not doing Kenpo anymore, blah,blah, blah. Again, thats fine. They're doing more than some others are though.

 

[MJS]

I'll see if I can explain a bit more, as this is not really what I am talking about. An untrained person is not an unskilled one, an unexperienced one, or not a dangerous one. And certainly not a pushover (if they were, there'd hardly be any reason to train, would there?).

The idea is really about understanding what you are training for. A street predator is concerned only with attacking, hurting, injuring. It's typically not anything personal, just a vent really. They are typically already experienced at hurting/assaulting people, and as such are confident in their successes and approach. They are also 110% commited to hurting you.

What they are not is a fighter. There is really no interest in fighting someone, just injuring them. This dictates completely different strategies and tactics to a "trained" fighter. So if your training is based around only a trained fighter, you may want to expand it. Again, both are dangerous, but they are also different, and preparing for one is not preparation for the other. There are similarities, but there are also big differences.

I think I'm seeing your point here, but you dont feel that you can train for both? The street guy, while he may not have formal training, has received his training, basically from fights on the street. I'd consider your Tank Abbott and Kimbo Slice, your street fighters. IMO, the only difference between them and a trained figher, is the formal training. The 2 MMA guys in the bar, who're drinking, want to act tough, and start trouble with someone probably wont be looking to 'fight' me so to speak, but hurt me.

Again, lack of training is not the same as lack of danger, it is just a different form to expect, with different parameters, different tactics and strategies, different methods, and so on. And a capable fighter doesn't necessarily require training, after all. So assessing danger is definately part of it, agreed. But there's a big difference between assessing their ability to cause serious harm, and whether or not they've trained in one system or another. After all, are we to be expected to know every possible system that someone could have trained in, and ways to defeat them, or should it be more a matter of being able to recognise potential danger in any form (including the more likely without formal training), and have your own solidly drilled and tested strategies and tactics to handle that?

Points taken. But OTOH, there've been many times when, during an intro lesson, I've shown people how to punch, kick, etc., and there've been many times its been fairly obvious that they've had some prior training. No, I'd be impossible to train to defend against every single thing out there, but I dont think that its impossible to figure out if someone has no training, a little training or is highly trained. Difficult? Maybe. Impossible? IMO, no. And yes, I do agree that part of our training is, or should be, to recognize the potential threat before said threats is able to play out.

No, I'd say it's much more reasonable to assume that a potential opponent is dangerous, for reasons such as previous experience, commitment to hurting you, and a percieved advantage (size, strength, alcohol, drugs, weapon, friends, prior success, etc). While training can make someone dangerous, it also tends to attract people who are less likely to be attackers (not saying it can't or doesn't happen, just that it is less likely than an "untrained" person), so training for the strategies and tactics of those less likely to be your opponents, rather than the tactics and strategies of those that are more likely doens't make much sense to me....

Recognise the danger they represent, and recognise that that does not equate to training.

Then again, I've often said that no martial art is really good for self defence (at it's purest form) as no martial art is designed for it. That's why the "self defence" part of my classes are removed from the "martial art" part of it. One provides form and structure for the other, but I don't mistake them for being the same thing.

IMO, I think that they could probably go hand in hand.

 

[MJS]

div { margin: 0px; }

1) No problem. First, let me say, I don't mean my "ground fighting" comments to be a downer on BJJ or any other style. It's contextual.



2) I'm guessing you mean in general, as a detailed answer regarding curriculum would be longer than I care to type, and longer than you probably care to read.

- Techniques from bottom to top have been changed to deal with a trained attacker. No more focus on rear step through punches and hay makers. Starting at white belt (yellow techs) punches are thrown off both the lead and rear hand, often in combination etc.
- Techniques have been simplified and overly complex or redundant/flashy techniques dropped or replaced.
- Less techniques, and less focus on shear number of memorized techniques.
- Much more focus on interactive sets and spontaneous drills. Concept vs. memorization
- Multiple attacker techniques completely changed. Far more practical and realistic.
- Knife sets, drills and techniques completely different/spontaneous
-Club sets, drills and techniques completely different /spontaneous
- Integrated drills/principles/ and training regarding carry, draw/presentation of concealed weapons (knife and Pistol)
- Evolving ground curriculum focused on both available submissions/GnP/weapons uses and deployment (while mounted/mount etc) positioning and techs to work back to ones feet.
- Greater focus on live drills and less emphasis on static "Ok, 5 swords" or "ok, defense against a right step through". Focus on spontaneous action/reaction starting right away.





3) Not in my experience. Both “schools” I went to had no commercial advertising, no contracts or agreements. We used space in someone else gym, or a rec room at the local community college. We often trained in my instructor’s basement. Memberships were based on invitation, not just anyone could come and sign up. Seminars and camps are closed/invitation only. Now, having said that, yes, there are members in the AKKI with commercial schools, and their version of Kenpo may even be commercialized, I don’t know and I doubt it. I have always said though, it is more about the teacher than anything. I have one of the best, progressive and open minded teachers in the AKKI. However, he is working with one of the best systems as well, and Mr. Mills is supportive of and drives innovation and change.







4) Definitions would probably help this discussion. My definition of “fighting” is drag out knock down anything goes fighting for my life. It isn’t sport or competition. That’s not to devalue the testing and learning that happens while competing, rather, to keep the context in mind.



I think this is one of the more exciting areas of development in the martial arts. I don’t have any one “ground art” in mind. I think MMA competition, for example, has shown us what can happen when a fight goes to the ground. Now, this is only in one narrow and controlled context, however, it has still highlighted the need for some understanding of the dynamics of takedowns, takedown defense and movement/mechanics on the ground. “Fighting” however, needs a much broader brush than what I have seen in BJJ classes.


It’s hard to consider an art a “ground fighting art” when certain "fighting" aspects aren’t being worked regularly and/or the training mindset is competition training. I think “ground fighting” should be an “anything goes” mindset. I have not yet been in a BJJ class that incorporated and regularly worked small joint manipulation/breaks, multiple attackers, weapon defense, weapon deployment, striking from the ground, positioning for soft target striking etc. We are working in this direction in the AKKI. Some combatives curriculum are starting to incorporate this, but this isn’t what you get when you go study “BJJ”. My BJJ experience has been focused on positioning to work for submissions. I’ve never seen anyone in a BJJ class say “you could have broken his fingers there… you could have transitioned to standing there… you could have deployed your carry knife there and cut him this way... you could have drawn your G19 from that position and fired... try it again.” Or, “would you have gone for that kimura if it was a bar fight and you had to deal with two guys? What would you have done differently?” IMO, that’s the type of thing that would happen daily in a “ground fighting” system.



5) I carry a knife 99.7% of the time. I carry a firearm 70% of the time. I have plastic versions of each that fit in my real carry sheath/holster. I train in my real clothes. I draw my weapons while being shot on, swept, clinched and with trained grapplers pulling guard. I work for position to draw while mounted, guard, half guard etc against wrestlers and BJJ BB’s. I know I need to. I work for position to strike, or get up against these same guys. If a BJJ player isn’t preparing for that, he isn’t preparing to fight me on the ground, as his chances of finishing me before he is repeatedly cut/stabbed/shot pummeled and/or submitted isn’t very high. My straight jits isn’t all that good… my ground scrappiness however, is coming right along.



I think more and more guys from different disciplines will really start working the ground, not from a submission only, or competition only point of view, but from a “survive and kill” point of view. As that happens, collaborative efforts will result in well fleshed out and multi-dimensional “ground fighting” systems. That won’t fully happen though, until people quit saying, “I do BJJ and that covers my SD ground game.”




6) Hopefully the above made the ideas a bit more clear. It isn’t that I don’t think BJJ qualifies… I just don’t think it qualifies on its own. Choosing to stay on the ground and hunt for submissions while excluding the likely hood of weapons and multiple attackers, for instance, fails as a stand-alone “ground fighting” art. That’s not to diminish all that it has to offer though. However, I’ve seen the failure clearly in my own attempts at working in outside material with my BJJ/wrestling buddies. Funny how them working for submissions suddenly becomes, “I’m going to try and not get stabbed this time” pretty fast, which in turn forces me to acquire more skill in order to deploy my weapon while mounted, since I am now fighting a BJJ guy whose “eyes have been opened” from getting killed in the simulation multiple times. Regardless, his mindset and approach is no longer what it was when he was just doing BJJ.

1) No problem my friend. None taken. You and I have had some great discussions here, so I didn't take that in a negative way.

2) Sounds very good to me. Personally, I've always been a fan of condensing alot of the material, as IMO, alot seems redundant. I've also been a big fan of the spontaneous reaction drills, as IMO, I feel that will help people alot more than a static drill, in which everyone knows whats going to happen next. In the beginning, to build off of, sure, those static things are fine, but if you're not moving forward from there....

3) I train in both. Personally, I like the more private, garage type/basement settings the best. Reason being is that many times, you get more of a serious feeling and more serious students. People are there to train hard, learn, and put in the blood, sweat and tears. NO fear of a lawsuit if, God forbid, you get hit too hard.

4) Good points. I too, havent seen many BJJ schools offering that kind of stuff. Of course, I have taken the traditional BJJ stuff, broke it down a bit, and tried to find where I could put in the stuff you mention. But thats up to the person doing it. Some will take their trianing to another level, others wont, just like we're seeing here in Kenpo.

5) Good stuff, and certainly a wise thing to do.

6) Yes, and thank you for your comments in this thread.

 

[Chris Parker]

Hey Mike,

I think I'm seeing your point here, but you dont feel that you can train for both? The street guy, while he may not have formal training, has received his training, basically from fights on the street. I'd consider your Tank Abbott and Kimbo Slice, your street fighters. IMO, the only difference between them and a trained figher, is the formal training. The 2 MMA guys in the bar, who're drinking, want to act tough, and start trouble with someone probably wont be looking to 'fight' me so to speak, but hurt me.

Okay, here's where it gets fun. I don't think it's possible to train in a martial art without training against skilled attacks and defence methods, as that is the way the art is trained in the first place. When it comes to the self defence side of things, what must be taken into account is that any time you take to focus on something is time you are taking from focusing on something else. That is especially important in a generalist system, rather than a specialist, as the specialist is geared around a limited approach to begin with, and can spend a lot of time going through every tiny detail and approach within those parameters. A generalist system, though, can't afford to do that, as there simply isn't enough time to really cover everything in intimate detail. So it comes down to choosing the best use for the time you have available.

Points taken. But OTOH, there've been many times when, during an intro lesson, I've shown people how to punch, kick, etc., and there've been many times its been fairly obvious that they've had some prior training. No, I'd be impossible to train to defend against every single thing out there, but I dont think that its impossible to figure out if someone has no training, a little training or is highly trained. Difficult? Maybe. Impossible? IMO, no. And yes, I do agree that part of our training is, or should be, to recognize the potential threat before said threats is able to play out.

Recognising if someone is trained in a dojo setting is a little different than recognising if the guy shoving your chest has some training behind him, though. After all, you could tell that the person was trained when they threw a kick or punch... did you want to wait that long (let the bad guy hit you) to tell whether or not they have any training?

Again, recognising danger (which can certainly include recognising previous training, although the way we approach that is to be able to recognise prefered ranges, and have a set of tactics to employ against that, which, for the record, can be easily adapted to skilled or unskilled attacks....) is definately a big part of self defence, it comes under the "awareness" aspect. But recognising exactly what everyone has been trained in, if anything, is not necessary.

IMO, I think that they could probably go hand in hand.

Well, yeah. That's kinda my point when I say that martial arts provide the structure, mechanics, and so forth for a self defence program. But a martial art by itself is not a self defence program, or even self defence itself. And self defence is not necessarily anything to do with martial arts. But I feel that the two do work best together (if self defence is your aim).

 

[MJS]

Hey Mike,



Okay, here's where it gets fun. I don't think it's possible to train in a martial art without training against skilled attacks and defence methods, as that is the way the art is trained in the first place. When it comes to the self defence side of things, what must be taken into account is that any time you take to focus on something is time you are taking from focusing on something else. That is especially important in a generalist system, rather than a specialist, as the specialist is geared around a limited approach to begin with, and can spend a lot of time going through every tiny detail and approach within those parameters. A generalist system, though, can't afford to do that, as there simply isn't enough time to really cover everything in intimate detail. So it comes down to choosing the best use for the time you have available.

Figures, I type out a reply and lose it. Sigh...here goes again. Yes, I agree, many times in the arts, we focus on A, and it takes away from B, C, D and so forth. Additionally, and I think that you said it in another post, but things such as what I call the before, during and after phases of a confrontation. We always see the during, but how many times does the average place focus on things that could've been done to avoid in the first place? What about dealing with the aftermath? So yes I agree with you on that. Funny...its not often that I find myself disagree with you all the time. LOL.

Recognising if someone is trained in a dojo setting is a little different than recognising if the guy shoving your chest has some training behind him, though. After all, you could tell that the person was trained when they threw a kick or punch... did you want to wait that long (let the bad guy hit you) to tell whether or not they have any training?

Again, recognising danger (which can certainly include recognising previous training, although the way we approach that is to be able to recognise prefered ranges, and have a set of tactics to employ against that, which, for the record, can be easily adapted to skilled or unskilled attacks....) is definately a big part of self defence, it comes under the "awareness" aspect. But recognising exactly what everyone has been trained in, if anything, is not necessary.

True, and I wasnt suggesting that we start reading minds to figure out someones background. LOL. For example...I've heard people say that you could get somewhat of an idea of someones knife skill, depending on how they're holding the blade. Additionally, I wasn't suggesting that we wait until they make contact with us either, but that almost implies that they will contact on the first hit anyways. But it seems that we are both agreeing that awareness is one of the, if not THE key component here.

Well, yeah. That's kinda my point when I say that martial arts provide the structure, mechanics, and so forth for a self defence program. But a martial art by itself is not a self defence program, or even self defence itself. And self defence is not necessarily anything to do with martial arts. But I feel that the two do work best together (if self defence is your aim).

Agreed.

 

[Chris Parker]

Figures, I type out a reply and lose it. Sigh...here goes again. Yes, I agree, many times in the arts, we focus on A, and it takes away from B, C, D and so forth. Additionally, and I think that you said it in another post, but things such as what I call the before, during and after phases of a confrontation. We always see the during, but how many times does the average place focus on things that could've been done to avoid in the first place? What about dealing with the aftermath? So yes I agree with you on that. Funny...its not often that I find myself disagree with you all the time. LOL.

Yep, and it's self defence systems that deal with that Before and After phase, as well as During. Martial arts only really deal with During. Exactly what I was talking about as one of the bigger differences between them, the entire focus of study is different.

True, and I wasnt suggesting that we start reading minds to figure out someones background. LOL. For example...I've heard people say that you could get somewhat of an idea of someones knife skill, depending on how they're holding the blade. Additionally, I wasn't suggesting that we wait until they make contact with us either, but that almost implies that they will contact on the first hit anyways. But it seems that we are both agreeing that awareness is one of the, if not THE key component here.

Oh, there's lots of old stories about just that idea... But again it is that you are looking at self defence, rather than martial arts. Both are useful to each other, but they are not the same thing. Awareness is one of the most vital self defence skills there is, in order to avoid the conflict. Martial arts are different, in that there is often the idea of not avoiding the conflict, one of the systems I study is rather definate on that idea.

Agreed.

Good to hear! These conversations are such fun...

 

[MJS]

Yep, and it's self defence systems that deal with that Before and After phase, as well as During. Martial arts only really deal with During. Exactly what I was talking about as one of the bigger differences between them, the entire focus of study is different.

Of course, may not be a bad idea to inject some of the SD stuff into the MA classes.

Oh, there's lots of old stories about just that idea... But again it is that you are looking at self defence, rather than martial arts. Both are useful to each other, but they are not the same thing. Awareness is one of the most vital self defence skills there is, in order to avoid the conflict. Martial arts are different, in that there is often the idea of not avoiding the conflict, one of the systems I study is rather definate on that idea.

As I said above, it may not be a bad idea to inject some of this into the classes. But then again, the more I think about it, I have to wonder how good of an idea it is. Is a student really going to get something out of it, if they're your average 'hobbyist' student?

Good to hear! These conversations are such fun...

Yes, they are.

 

[MJS]

[yt]t5jwLkWC5Gs[/yt]

Oh my, imagine that....some Kenpo grappling/groundfighting. IMO, this was presented better than the last 2 clips. Of course, I love the description:

"The "Jiu Jitsu for Kenpo" series introduces Brazilian Jiu Jitsu basics for Kenpoists not familiar with ground fighting. These basics can easily be incorporated into the Kenpo system and are vital in developing a well rounded martial artist."


Gee, this is something that I've been saying for.....oh man, its been so long, I've forgotten. LOL! Seriously though, I think this is a good start. I mean, here we see a standard escape that we'd probably see in every BJJ school. Personally, while I try to keep things 'Kenpo' I'm not afraid to give credit where credit is due. If I can borrow something from another art to make myself or my students better, I'll do it, without feeling bad about it.

 

[Chris Parker]

Of course, may not be a bad idea to inject some of the SD stuff into the MA classes.

As I said above, it may not be a bad idea to inject some of this into the classes. But then again, the more I think about it, I have to wonder how good of an idea it is. Is a student really going to get something out of it, if they're your average 'hobbyist' student?

I've been thinking about this today, and I think the issue is that many martial art instructors themselves don't really get where the division lies. Now, obviously it depends on the art itself as to how easy it is to create an integrated martial art/self defence teaching program, but that still doesn't make them the same thing. The catch is when a teacher is teaching a class, and peppers aspects of SD in the martial art lesson thinking that is part of the art itself, which it isn't. As a result they tend to say "No, my martial art is for self defence!", when the fact is more that their lessons incorporate aspects of self defence inbetween the martial arts, or that they themselves are training with self defence in mind regardless of how well it is catered for (with many thinking that physical methods of dealing with violence equals self defence).

Really, when it comes to the relationship between the two, I think it's similar to something like studying physics. In physics you need a good knowledge of maths... but you are expected to have that grounding outside of the physics class itself. Same thing with the self defence aspect. It's not where you learn the fighting aspects, but you are expected to have a grounding already. In most martial art classes, that grounding is found in the martial art side of things. But thinking that that makes the martial art self defence training in and of itself is like thinking that learning maths is the same as studying physics. Related, but not the same.

As for what the "hobbyist" student may get out of it, well, that's up to the student. But my take on it is that I present my classes, and if it appeals to a student (for whatever they get out of it), then great. If not, then there are other classes that don't, but I'm not going to change the classes for them.

Yes, they are.

Glad you agree!

 

[MJS]

I've been thinking about this today, and I think the issue is that many martial art instructors themselves don't really get where the division lies. Now, obviously it depends on the art itself as to how easy it is to create an integrated martial art/self defence teaching program, but that still doesn't make them the same thing. The catch is when a teacher is teaching a class, and peppers aspects of SD in the martial art lesson thinking that is part of the art itself, which it isn't. As a result they tend to say "No, my martial art is for self defence!", when the fact is more that their lessons incorporate aspects of self defence inbetween the martial arts, or that they themselves are training with self defence in mind regardless of how well it is catered for (with many thinking that physical methods of dealing with violence equals self defence).

Really, when it comes to the relationship between the two, I think it's similar to something like studying physics. In physics you need a good knowledge of maths... but you are expected to have that grounding outside of the physics class itself. Same thing with the self defence aspect. It's not where you learn the fighting aspects, but you are expected to have a grounding already. In most martial art classes, that grounding is found in the martial art side of things. But thinking that that makes the martial art self defence training in and of itself is like thinking that learning maths is the same as studying physics. Related, but not the same.

IMO, while they are different, and probably best suited for seperate teachings, I think that its possible to inject it from time to time. Again, the awareness/verbal defusing, etc, can be a class in itself and probably should be, I think it'd be worth making a habit of talking about it. I mean, if we think about it, the average MA class, is going to focus on a wide array of attacks. Just looking at the yellow and orange belt material at my school, there are punches, grabs, etc. So, that being said, a month or more could be devoted to punches alone. But if we think about it, how much time is really devoted to punches? Grabs?

As for what the "hobbyist" student may get out of it, well, that's up to the student. But my take on it is that I present my classes, and if it appeals to a student (for whatever they get out of it), then great. If not, then there are other classes that don't, but I'm not going to change the classes for them.

This is probably a thread in itself, but yes, I do the same thing. I teach as I see fit. I have 2 classes a month that I teach. I'm pretty free to do as I wish in those classes, and I've made it a point to tell people up-front, that my classes will probably be different from the other classes. Will that deter some from attending, because they're looking for A, when I'm doing B? Dont know.

Glad you agree!

 

[Chris Parker]

IMO, while they are different, and probably best suited for seperate teachings, I think that its possible to inject it from time to time. Again, the awareness/verbal defusing, etc, can be a class in itself and probably should be, I think it'd be worth making a habit of talking about it. I mean, if we think about it, the average MA class, is going to focus on a wide array of attacks. Just looking at the yellow and orange belt material at my school, there are punches, grabs, etc. So, that being said, a month or more could be devoted to punches alone. But if we think about it, how much time is really devoted to punches? Grabs?

Actually, that's exactly the way we do things (seperated, concentrating on a single topic at a time). We cover traditional, weapons, and street self defence as seperate concepts. To give you an idea, our street topics in Melbourne for this coming year will be:

January - Survival Tactics
February - Verbal Defusion
March - Group Defence
April - Knife Defence
May - Street Kicking
June - Street Throws/Takedowns
July - Ground Controls and Escapes
August - Close Quarters Brawling
September - Fight Science (Taking an opponent out of their favoured range)
October - Fight Science
November - Knife Defence
December - Pre-emptive Striking

Topics not covered in the coming year include:
Power Striking
Baseball Bat/Club Defence
Pistol Defence
Partner Protection
Buddy Guarding
and more.

Now, we may go through those as individual workshops, but time is limited, so that's the schedule I have come up with.

This is probably a thread in itself, but yes, I do the same thing. I teach as I see fit. I have 2 classes a month that I teach. I'm pretty free to do as I wish in those classes, and I've made it a point to tell people up-front, that my classes will probably be different from the other classes. Will that deter some from attending, because they're looking for A, when I'm doing B? Dont know.

I basically see it as I have certain things I can offer, if that appeals to you, come along. If it doesn't, well, don't. I'm not about to force you, after all. But attend the classes if you get something out of it, and enjoy it, whether it's a hobby or more to you is really up to you.

 

[MJS]

Actually, that's exactly the way we do things (seperated, concentrating on a single topic at a time). We cover traditional, weapons, and street self defence as seperate concepts. To give you an idea, our street topics in Melbourne for this coming year will be:

January - Survival Tactics
February - Verbal Defusion
March - Group Defence
April - Knife Defence
May - Street Kicking
June - Street Throws/Takedowns
July - Ground Controls and Escapes
August - Close Quarters Brawling
September - Fight Science (Taking an opponent out of their favoured range)
October - Fight Science
November - Knife Defence
December - Pre-emptive Striking

Topics not covered in the coming year include:
Power Striking
Baseball Bat/Club Defence
Pistol Defence
Partner Protection
Buddy Guarding
and more.

Now, we may go through those as individual workshops, but time is limited, so that's the schedule I have come up with.

Good stuff. As I only teach twice a month, I try to have a general focus or direction that I want to take with the class. In my classes, I tend to focus not necessarily on always learning a new tech, but instead, taking what they already know, and looking at it in a variety of different ways. So I'll take 1 or 2 techs, and focus on those for a few weeks, giving diferent variations, etc., each sessions.

I basically see it as I have certain things I can offer, if that appeals to you, come along. If it doesn't, well, don't. I'm not about to force you, after all. But attend the classes if you get something out of it, and enjoy it, whether it's a hobby or more to you is really up to you.

Ditto. As I said in the other thread, I dont teach differently, I teach the same to all that're there. Hopefully, everyone gets something out of it.

 

[Hand Sword]

That's a cool clip but terrifying as well. Now I'm not a BJJ BB, but, it's not an alien art to me either (I've seen the wrestling ways and BJJ ways). Having seen and done escapes, I would say this is not the best one for the street. Using both hands to push is a no no. Now, having it presented as such, a guy just sitting there, works fine. But one pounding away would have way too many openings when you use both hands. Plus, it's very easy to get your arms pinned when doing that and then "goodnight sweetheart!" I feel that this is more of a grappler to grappler move (Sport version) for an escape and not a practical street one for Kem/npoists.

As for the credit going where it deserves-absoluetly MJS! Also, filling gaps in your game-right on! If you are serious about defending yourself. Better to go to the real specialist systems to deal with the attacks. Escape from the best specialists and you're all set for the street.

 

[MJS]

I'll give 'em an "A" for effort, as while there are mistakes in their grappling, at least what they're doing, IMO, is a heck of alot better than the other clips we saw. I'd imagine, at least I'd like to hope, that they're going to a legit BJJ school to get some solid inst., but who knows.