Larry Tatum in the magazines

[rmcrobertson]

1. Well, kids, I DO live in the 909 area code. And beyond the bias about working class people that this expresses, funny that all the, "respect," stuff has evaporated. I'll be darned.

2. I agree with Mr. Seabrook. I'd thought that all the article in, "Inside King Fu," really had to say, was that kenpo owed a lot to China...after all, Mr. Parker's first big book is called, "Secrets of Chinese Karate."

3. Not being the mouthpiece and all, I'd simply pass on what I've generally heard around the studio about "animal," styles--that obviously there's a lot of relation to them in kenpo, but that people misunderstand the point of the animal styles when they try to (for example) move exactly like a crane. The point seems to be to learn something about movement and styles of attack, and to try to learn what might be called the "spirit," of the way a kind of animal moves, not simply to imitate it.

 

[The Kai]

Actually I agree with you on the first two points (even not knowing where 909 is)

Kenpo has a ton of chinese influence, esp at higher belts

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

Robert: Sorry to hear you live in the 909. As a Kevin & Bean/KROQ morning show fan, the "land of the dirt people" will likely be the subject of ribbing for many yers to come. I'm not prejudiced, mind you; some of my friends are from the 909 (not to mention, that's a helluva commute for your work, no?).

The rest of you: As to animals in kenpo...Not all animal presence in kung-fu is pure presence. Meaning one can use the shape of the crane as a natural weapon, capitalizing on it's features, without being a Crane Kung-Fu practitioners; a Tigers Claw, without practicing Tiger KF. Kenpo, as it exists now, has a tremendous influence from multiple kung-fu "injections". In Hawaii, pretty much everybody is, or knows someone who is, a kung-fu practitioner. Chow's own material evidenced Chinese influence, even though his sources of claim are suspect.

In the continental US, Parker spent many hours training with kung-fu guys, as discussed in detail on oher threads. Splashing Hands, or some such thing, with Ark Wong; SanSoo with the Woo kids, and so on. Many of the circular and semi-circular deflective maneuver and attacks come from the chinese influence, and not the Japanese. No, I haven't seen the articles. So I cant speak to how they may be being applied in terms of context. Nevertheless, I percieve Mr. Tatum to be one of the few kenpoists who has maintained the ability to move similar to Parker, and having been on the uke end of Parkers speed and power, I'm confident that starting position offers little help for the soon-to-be-hospitalized.

"To feel is to believe". I suggest those of you who have doubts stop by Pasadena and take your issue up with Tatum. You may get the opportunity to "enjoy" a private tutorial.

Regards,

D.

 

[BlackCatBonz]

Robert, I haven't seen the article, I was just going by the posts. However, Todd was asking about the animals mentioned. From what I could come up with in my research over the years and reading Mitose's book. He (Mitose) did not use the animals and supposedly didn't believe in them. He said something like 'a man should fight like a man, not an animal'. Everything I researched says it was Professor Chow who added the animals and of course later on we know Adriano Emperado and Ed Parker both got involved in the Chinese martial arts. Anyone hear anything different? Respectfully, "Joe"

hi prof joe

as far as the animal thing, mitose did say that in one of his books. but......the contradiction as far as kosho goes lies in the fact that there are positions or postures in kosho that are named for animals....bird, dog, frog, and monkey.
the bird, dog and frog thing i am 99% sure about.....the monkey thing about 80%. the kamae is supposed to reflect the attitude towards the strikes, locks and evasions.

 

[James Kovacich]

I was wondering if Joe and others could be specific as to what they saw that seemed flawed to them? I haven't looked at the article, so I'd be interested to read the specific--and let me repeat, specific--criticism.

After all, any article requires a little willingness to take the situtation portrayed for what it is, rather than grouching because it isn't the be-all and end-all...so, were there specific problems with execution? or with kenpo principles?

I didn't buy the Budo International Issue I questioned about. But I will if you want me to be more detailed. But I remember seeing Tatum facing 1 attacker, scrapping with him. Tatums left foot forward to the attacker, right foot back. Tatum was issuing some attack or strike with his right arm to the attacker in front of him.

With his left arm (which is farthest from the attacker behind him) he eyejabbed the attacker that was coming at him from behind. He may or may not of used his rear leg too.

To me, not realistic and very risky. If you are in control of the opponent in front of you, then why is the the opponent in the rear still behind you?

Given as I stated earlier I knew it was posed but just not a realistic approach to fighting 2 attackers especially with one coming from behind.

 

[Karazenpo]

hi prof joe

as far as the animal thing, mitose did say that in one of his books. but......the contradiction as far as kosho goes lies in the fact that there are positions or postures in kosho that are named for animals....bird, dog, frog, and monkey.
the bird, dog and frog thing i am 99% sure about.....the monkey thing about 80%. the kamae is supposed to reflect the attitude towards the strikes, locks and evasions.

Interesting, Shawn. I read once that Mitose had business cards for his school and had the logo of a tiger on it which obviously contradicted what he had stated. It was in one of my old karate mags, can't recall who said it so I can't verify if it were true. Maybe someone here knows. As far as the 'monkey' goes, the original Kajukenbo forms were also called 'monkey dances' from what I understand. It was in reference to Choki Motobu who's nickname was 'Saru' which means monkey for they way he moved, another Okinawan connection to the Hawaiian derived kenpo. Sijo Emperado had stated once that all the old seniors knew the kenpo was Okinawan in origin but never said why. Obviously, Okinawan Kenpo was very heavily influenced by China and the animal patterns. Take care, Prof. Joe

 

[The Kai]

I didn't buy the Budo International Issue I questioned about. But I will if you want me to be more detailed. But I remember seeing Tatum facing 1 attacker, scrapping with him. Tatums left foot forward to the attacker, right foot back. Tatum was issuing some attack or strike with his right arm to the attacker in front of him.

With his left arm (which is farthest from the attacker behind him) he eyejabbed the attacker that was coming at him from behind. He may or may not of used his rear leg too.

To me, not realistic and very risky. If you are in control of the opponent in front of you, then why is the the opponent in the rear still behind you?

Given as I stated earlier I knew it was posed but just not a realistic approach to fighting 2 attackers especially with one coming from behind.

While this type of approach may work it is a last option, ironically itr is the option showed the most! I realize that the posing of the 2 attacker may demostrate reverse motion. Having seen a little of Mr tatum's Kenpo sparring tape (BTW great ideas) how would a mulitple attacker situation be dealth with in MR Tatum's kenpo sparring scenario??
BTW I wish I had Mr Tatum's hair, or really anyone else's for that matter

 

[rmcrobertson]

Please explain why this isn't realistic and is, "very risky," rather than simply asserting that it is. And please explain the question, "If you are in control of the opponent in front of you, then why is the the opponent in the rear still behind you?"

Sorry, I don't understand either point.

 

[James Kovacich]

Please explain why this isn't realistic and is, "very risky," rather than simply asserting that it is. And please explain the question, "If you are in control of the opponent in front of you, then why is the the opponent in the rear still behind you?"

Sorry, I don't understand either point.

Pretty simple. No real attackers are going to wait and attack separately. The attacker from the rear, in most cases, will be all over the defender while the defender is fighting the front attacker.

Now, even if there was a pause of some sort and the defender has time to look over his shoulder and see the 2nd attacker coming from the rear. The defenders left arm, reaching accross his own chest and eye jabbing someone attacking from behind him while simultaneously fighting someone in front of him is not going to work. A slight flinch of the 2nd attackers head is all that is needed and the eyejab will be nowhere near it's target and the defenders left arm will have no range of motion to adjust.

Like I slightly implied or was leading to. "If" the defender is in control of the front opponent, then the defender could take away a significant part of the risk of the rear attacker simply by using head control or a similar Kenpo method of redirecting his opponent to where he is not inbetween them.

Anytime a defender is directly between to attackers he is at a greater risk to defeat than the attackers are. In that situation if the rear attacker had a knife, the defender would be dead meat.

 

[Karazenpo]

Pretty simple. No real attackers are going to wait and attack separately. The attacker from the rear, in most cases, will be all over the defender while the defender is fighting the front attacker.

Now, even if there was a pause of some sort and the defender has time to look over his shoulder and see the 2nd attacker coming from the rear. The defenders left arm, reaching accross his own chest and eye jabbing someone attacking from behind him while simultaneously fighting someone in front of him is not going to work. A slight flinch of the 2nd attackers head is all that is needed and the eyejab will be nowhere near it's target and the defenders left arm will have no range of motion to adjust.

Like I slightly implied or was leading to. "If" the defender is in control of the front opponent, then the defender could take away a significant part of the risk of the rear attacker simply by using head control or a similar Kenpo method of redirecting his opponent to where he is not inbetween them.

Anytime a defender is directly between to attackers he is at a greater risk to defeat than the attackers are. In that situation if the rear attacker had a knife, the defender would be dead meat.

Very, very well put Jim. Officer Survival/Police Defensive Tactics concepts are totally in line with your premise. Well done!

 

[James Kovacich]

:asian:

Very, very well put Jim. Officer Survival/Police Defensive Tactics concepts are totally in line with your premise. Well done!

 

[rmcrobertson]

Ah. That's clearer. Now I can see exactly what you don't understand.

First off, I can tell you for a certainty that if Mr. Tatum goes for your eye, front or back, the eye is bye-bye. This would not be true of me, or of you--we're talking about a different level here.

More to the point, kenpo never relies on an assumption that the strike is always perfect and always has the desired effect. Your point about the rear attacker's head is well-taken--but what you miss is that, a) the shot (like a feint) must be threatening to cause the deflection, b) the response doesn't end with the eye-poke. It's the old ideal/what-if/formulation sequence, familiar to us kenpo types.

Nor do I quite see how the other principles you mention would be something that was NOT included in what you saw.

 

[Karazenpo]

Ah. That's clearer. Now I can see exactly what you don't understand.

First off, I can tell you for a certainty that if Mr. Tatum goes for your eye, front or back, the eye is bye-bye. This would not be true of me, or of you--we're talking about a different level here.

More to the point, kenpo never relies on an assumption that the strike is always perfect and always has the desired effect. Your point about the rear attacker's head is well-taken--but what you miss is that, a) the shot (like a feint) must be threatening to cause the deflection, b) the response doesn't end with the eye-poke. It's the old ideal/what-if/formulation sequence, familiar to us kenpo types.

Nor do I quite see how the other principles you mention would be something that was NOT included in what you saw.

Robert, I tried to stay away from this one so you wouldn't think I picked apart your posts as you had stated before but I have to give my opinion on this one so just take it as a healthy debate because that's all it is. Nothing more, nothing less.

First, you have a contradiction. You state: More to the point, kenpo never relies on an assumption that the strike is always perfect and always has the desired effect.

But prior to that you stated: First off, I can tell you for a certainty that if Mr. Tatum goes for your eye, front or back, the eye is bye-bye.

So I guess Mr. Tatum is perfect and he contradicts: kenpo never relies on an assumption that the strike is always perfect and always has the desired effect.

Next, you stated: This would not be true of me, or of you--we're talking about a different level here.

You can say that about yourself if you wish, since you know your own limitations but you should never make assumptions about someone elses ability that you don't even know, like Jim's. No one is perfect and no one is 100 per cent-100 per cent of the time, no one, no plan, that's why in the military they have what they call 'friction', a plan is drawn and then the alternatives in case something goes wrong. We do the same in law enforcement. It is a reality of training, a reality of combat, a reality of survival. It is what it is. Some of us have been there. Respectfully, Joe

 

[James Kovacich]

A couple of good points. I in no way doubt Larry's skill. I doubt the demonstrated techniques. I more than doubt, I know. I also know that if the technique being demonstrated is only good for those who are as highly skilled as Larry, then the technique is useless to 99.99% of the worlds population.

What Professor Joe calls "friction" is a near perfect one word desription of my system. I've trained in a lot of systems. I haven't mastered any except my own, and thats where it counts. I teach my students to beat all the susyems that I've been exposed to. A lot, and I mean a lot of people do not like those words coming out of my mouth. But it's true. MMA, Karate, Ju Jitsu, Gung-Fu, streetfighter, it dosen't matter. If they are true to their art, then they will be beat by not being allowed to "fight their fight." Once their system is nuetralized, the fight begins.

I don't teach unrealistic martial art that needs to be mastered to be used. My students know they will be hit and their whole basic phase 1 training builds a foundation of crosstraining in many arts including MMA alongside the basic curriculm of Kempo Ju Jitsu. Their "understanding" of technique comes together at differant times depending on the individual but when it "clicks" they are far ahead of "most" schools out there.

I say most, because I know that there are some instructors that really are great and others that "think" they are.

"Our" training is realistic or maybe not. That will always be judged differantly. But "unrealistic" technique is a waste.

P.S. For the record. About being at a "differant level." I've been around many great fighters. Some in here know some of them. But nobody I've ever met comes close to the skill level of Sifu Felix Macias Jr. For those that have doubt. We'll be here in august.
THE JKD BEACH CAMP
3 Days of Training with several top Jeet Kune Do Instructors including: Wililam Holland, Steve Johnson, Larry Hartsell, Tim Tackett, Lamar Davis, Chris Sutton,Felix Macias Jr. & Pat Strong

August 12, 13 & 14 2005
Jeet Kune Do Beach Camp
16400 Beach Blvd. #777
Huntington Beach Ca. 92649

http://www.ijkda.com/products.htm

That is not a challenge but some have made comments in the past and they are down down south.

 

[Karazenpo]

akja stated: I also know that if the technique being demonstrated is only good for those who are as highly skilled as Larry, then the technique is useless to 99.99% of the worlds population.

Man, are we on the same page, Jim, lol. As an afterthought to my last post I just logged in to say essentially the same thing!

 

[MisterMike]

Just my .02:

I have not seen the article but I have trained in Parker Kenpo. The techniques are put together to teach principles that you then practice. They will never be run the exact same way twice but are taught in the "ideal" phase first.

I think that to critique the techniques, people will have to say just what it is they disagree with. The principles of the technique I doubt were explained in the article (Again, I could be wrong) and if you do not have a Parker Kenpo background they may not make much sense until they are.

Being caught between 2 adversaries is how all of the 10 Parker KEnpo 2-man techniques start. At the completion of the techniques, you have seperated yourself from them further or gotten out of the middle. They do not train you to PUT yourself there.

I hope that helps.

 

[James Kovacich]

Professor Joe :asian:

Mister Mike, Thanks! Thats what I asked for before I was "tempted" to explain it myself. Thanx again! :asian:

 

[rmcrobertson]

I'd agree with MM's last post about kenpo two-man techniques.

I'd also take the idea a little further--complaining that if the situation were different, it wouldn't be wise to do what you were doing in a given situation doesn't make a lot of sense.

I guess we all have our, 'special pleading," to patch up what others see as cracks in techniques and their practicality. Some of you feel that adverting to Mr. Tatum's extraordinary skill is special pleading, done to cover up a) flaws in his technique, b) flaws in kenpo, c) fundamental unrealism about self-defense, d) the superiority of your methods and teaching.

Well, guess, what? except for point, d), you're basically right. It is, and the mere fact that Mr. Tatum really is that skilled doesn't necessarily cover things up.

But, Joe & Co., you too are special pleading. Look back at your posts--you're claiming a kind of, "street knowledge," that you probably think of as battle tested and FDA-approved. That's special pleading, used to fill in the gaps of what you're arguing for. I looked at your website, "akja," and if we want to get into unrealism--there're more than three things I saw that I'd criticize as being grossly unrealistic and dangerous.

Another kind of special pleading involves presuming that you, and only you, have seen the elephant. And I certainly agree that there are others far more experienced in getting their *** in trouble in a bar or an alley and having to fight their *** back out again. I train with several of them. Further, you might want to really think before you leap into the assumption that those of us you're pleased to think of as ivory-tower liberals and paper martial 'artists,' have never found themselves in a Bad Place. There's experience and then there's experience--and even assuming that nobody else's experience countsd next to yours (BIG assumption), you might want to chew on the notion that lots of people are every bit as experienced as you will ever be--just in different ways. Not better, but not worse either.

Another kind of special pleading involves the notion that UNLIKE kenpo, you train in systems and in ways that take this, "friction," into account. Oops. Not even remotely true, if you're running on the theory that kenpo has no place for either screwups or the consideration of other systems. And this would be obvious to you, if you'd thought rather than jumped--right on the surface of kenpo, there're the obvious multiple strikes, the easily-seen commitment to "sequential flow." Just look at a famous kenpo technique such a Five Swords, which has built into it the notion that stepping in and blocking didn't work, so you go for the throat with a hand sword; they ducked or checked or hunched their shoulder against the sword, so you drive in a heel palm; they come forward and try to grab you, so you uppercut them; they shrug that off and charge, so you step off line and...you get the point. And that's just one set of possible responses (it even leaves out the lower case stuff) to one set of possible attacker's responses. Yes, you can argue that none of this stuff will work, and we can discuss that. But claiming that this amounts to a philosophy of perfect strikes and ideal reactions...it's absurd.

Oh, and incidentally--very large chunks of kenpo are specifically designed and embedded in the system as ways of thinking about handling other sorts of martial arts. It's in the techs, the forms, the sets, right from the start. It's in the way that good kenpo training encourages what the Clyde calls, "the spirit of the attack," which is running dummies through a range of possible ways to attack. I personally didn't really get that until the guy who was unlucky enough to get stuck with helping teach me through about brown belt, Scott Higgins, took me through what the hip checks in Long Form 2 are for in one set of applications. Again, arguing about the WAY kenpo responds to other systems and styles is perfectly reasonable. Arguing that there is no such response is not. Of course, this is assuming that we're talking about good teaching--or don't you folks know anybody who makes you cringe when you see them teach what you teach? Ahura-Mazda knows that badly-taught "Reality-Based Fighting," MMA, etc. are at least as full of crap as badly-taught kenpo can be--and that's saying something.

And last. Where's all that respect I got lectured on, Joe? leaving that stupid issue aside quickly, here's the deal: yes, you can recite all the cliches and generalizations and shibboleths about, "realism," you want to. Let me guess. You'd rather have one technique that worked than 154 that didn't. Feeling is believing. When pure knuckles meet...wait a minnit, those're all kenpo cliches. Huh. It's almost like Mr. Parker worked to make kenpo practical too. I'll be darned.

But seriously, folks. As in any martial arts system, there're going to be different levels of achievement for different students. I've met folks who will ALWAYS be tougher, or better fighters, or bigger and stronger, or faster, or better at techniques, or whatever else you care to name. There're lots and lots of folks out there that I couldn've trained to fight since I was four, and they'd still wax my ***. Are you going to try and tell me that you've never met anybody like that? But here's the real point: if you're really going to be realistic, you need to accept that your notions of "street experience," and "practicality," rest on at least as many untested assumptions as anything you see in kenpo. For one thing, YOU CANNOT TEACH 'FOR-REAL,' EXPERIENCE. You're relying on notions of perfection in training.

However, a better point is that while there will always be different levels of skill evidenced by students, this doesn't have a damn thing to do with whether or not the system works. I happen to think that kenpo provides a very, very good--at times genius-level--way to train. I also happen to think that other things (age, skill, physicality, etc.) being roughly equal, a well-taught kenpo guy will win over others just about every time. Does this mean I can go punch out, say, one of the Gracies (any one, is my impression)? Of course not. They're out of my league as fighters, always were, always will be. So what? I'd get whupped by your average brown bear, too. And I think that the important thing is not to get one's advantages or disadvantages confused with the value of a fighting system.

This is perhaps a little long and rambly, so one last point: we ought to celebrate the fact that there are some people who know way more than we do, and who have put in the time to actualize more than we can, and who quite possibly had more talent to begin with than we ever did. Mr. Tatum's one of those people. Perfect? Obviously not. Nobody ever is....and as Michael Corleone teaches, "If history teaches us anything, it is that anyone can be hit." But funnily enough--wanna guess who I learned that from in martial arts?

Snipe less, appreciate more. Try to start by appreciating what I've tried to say here, rather than trying to score points at what you'll think of as my expense. Otherwise, this lengthy bit's my last, and I invite you to run up the score as high as you like.

 

[James Kovacich]

I'd agree with MM's last post about kenpo two-man techniques.

I'd also take the idea a little further--complaining that if the situation were different, it wouldn't be wise to do what you were doing in a given situation doesn't make a lot of sense.

I guess we all have our, 'special pleading," to patch up what others see as cracks in techniques and their practicality. Some of you feel that adverting to Mr. Tatum's extraordinary skill is special pleading, done to cover up a) flaws in his technique, b) flaws in kenpo, c) fundamental unrealism about self-defense, d) the superiority of your methods and teaching.

Well, guess, what? except for point, d), you're basically right. It is, and the mere fact that Mr. Tatum really is that skilled doesn't necessarily cover things up.

But, Joe & Co., you too are special pleading. Look back at your posts--you're claiming a kind of, "street knowledge," that you probably think of as battle tested and FDA-approved. That's special pleading, used to fill in the gaps of what you're arguing for. I looked at your website, "akja," and if we want to get into unrealism--there're more than three things I saw that I'd criticize as being grossly unrealistic and dangerous.

.

If you are referring to technique. You should of read this.

The below listed techniques are "posed" and are for demonstration purposes. We are making an attempt at exposing our system to the public. We will eventually list all of our basic technique but we will not demonstrate how we put it all together.
For those who undestand, some systems may call it "grafting" or a "matrix" while others like ours do not need a name for it, it just "is."
What makes our system unique is that we can use any of our techniques in conjunction with any other technique at any time.

1 thing is for sure. I have "total" quality control over my system (at this point and time). And the "meat and potatos" of my system will NEVER be on my website. For buisness purposes to recruit students we should have a presance on the net. But I am good at understanding other systems and if you put "your good stuff" on the net. I WILL take it disesct it and use what I feel fits in to my system.

For now, with the help of some good people, my system is fairly protected.

I do welcome your opinion. That is what this is a forum.

I think you may of been referring to this page.
http://www.scientific-streetfighting.com/academypics3.html

Just remember that these are basic technique training drills. No technique really works the way you learn. It's physically impossible. Also that page is basic Gung-Fu. There is no Trad. or or Braz. Ju Jitsu present. The Ju Jitsu is a core of the foundation of my students. I haven't evolved my site effectively to express my system to the public without giving it away for free.

I don't think I am great like Larry Tatum. I'm good and maybe great to some but apples don't compare to oranges.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Ah. So if you're arguing that what you saw in somebody else's picture is unrealistic, and part of the response is that some of what one saw in your pictures is unrealistic, your answer is that you always keep the real deep stuff out of your pictures.