Lee Morrison/Kelly McCann street fight seminar

[GreenieMeanie]

Looks very much like stuff I was taught--but I'd like to know if any of you recongnize anything in here, that has routes, in specific TMAs.

Was never taught technical raking though, wouldn't be particularly useful unless you paired it with followups.

 

[Flying Crane]

Ok, I’m not going to comment on the second video, as my fingernails tend to be fairly soft and I keep them cut very short so they don’t snag and get turned backwards. In a nutshell, I don’t see my fingernails as a reliable self-defense tool. I can deliver a pretty powerful tigerclaw strike however, hitting with the palm and fingertips (not engaging the nails). I’ll leave it at that.

For the first video I have some comments. The first thing is that compilations like this, where it rather quickly cuts from one thing to another, often leave me wondering what, if any, consistent engine is under the hood. The compilation of short clips does not give me a chance to evaluate whether there is a systematic delivery system, or if it is just a collection of tricks designed as responses to particular types of attacks. Furthermore, if this is a seminar with attendees who do not regularly train with the instructor, then to the extent that a delivery system exists, how well do the attendees understand it? And if the answer is “not very well” then how effective can they be with the material that they learn?

Moving on from that, the material itself reminds me of the Ed Parker derived branches of kenpo, which includes the Tracy lineage which I trained in the past. The bulk of the curriculum consists of self-defense scenarios with an attacker, and a prescribed defense to be executed by the defender. Collectively these are usually referred to as “self-defense techniques”. Some of the ideas within these techniques can be good, others can be bad. How well they get trained varies from school-to-school, so it is difficult to comment on consistency of quality within these lineages. But at any rate, I think this approach to training would be familiar to anyone who has spent time within the Parker-derived kenpo lineages.

 

[GreenieMeanie]

Ok, I’m not going to comment on the second video, as my fingernails tend to be fairly soft and I keep them cut very short so they don’t snag and get turned backwards. In a nutshell, I don’t see my fingernails as a reliable self-defense tool. I can deliver a pretty powerful tigerclaw strike however, hitting with the palm and fingertips (not engaging the nails). I’ll leave it at that.

For the first video I have some comments. The first thing is that compilations like this, where it rather quickly cuts from one thing to another, often leave me wondering what, if any, consistent engine is under the hood. The compilation of short clips does not give me a chance to evaluate whether there is a systematic delivery system, or if it is just a collection of tricks designed as responses to particular types of attacks. Furthermore, if this is a seminar with attendees who do not regularly train with the instructor, then to the extent that a delivery system exists, how well do the attendees understand it? And if the answer is “not very well” then how effective can they be with the material that they learn?

Moving on from that, the material itself reminds me of the Ed Parker derived branches of kenpo, which includes the Tracy lineage which I trained in the past. The bulk of the curriculum consists of self-defense scenarios with an attacker, and a prescribed defense to be executed by the defender. Collectively these are usually referred to as “self-defense techniques”. Some of the ideas within these techniques can be good, others can be bad. How well they get trained varies from school-to-school, so it is difficult to comment on consistency of quality within these lineages. But at any rate, I think this approach to training would be familiar to anyone who has spent time within the Parker-derived kenpo lineages.

Thank you for that insight.

I don't personally consider it "short clips," but maybe that's just because I've seen it before or variations of it, so I understand the context of what they're demonstrating.

I know that a portion of this is lineaged with the WWII combatives era, so there are definitely roots with Asian systems--the question is which ones.

 

[Flying Crane]

My guess is that much of what is here would be found within traditional methods in various places. What’s old is new, etc., complete the circle and stuff.

As a personal observation, the typical training that I have experienced in Tibetan crane and Wing Chun, as examples of Chinese methods, is simply gone about in a very different manner. In my opinion, that can be good and can be bad, it isn’t all one-sided. Overall, I prefer the opproach of these methods, but I can see value in the “self-defense technique/scenario” approach typical of kenpo and what is presented in the above video, but on a much more limited basis than what is typically seen in the kenpo lineages, and more as an approach to give beginners something more direct to work with until they can better understand the overall approach that the Chinese methods take. Then these prescribed self-defense techniques are no longer needed as a crutch, and spontaneity takes over.

 

[GreenieMeanie]

My guess is that much of what is here would be found within traditional methods in various places. What’s old is new, etc., complete the circle and stuff.

As a personal observation, the typical training that I have experienced in Tibetan crane and Wing Chun, as examples of Chinese methods, is simply gone about in a very different manner. In my opinion, that can be good and can be bad, it isn’t all one-sided. Overall, I prefer the opproach of these methods, but I can see value in the “self-defense technique/scenario” approach typical of kenpo and what is presented in the above video, but on a much more limited basis than what is typically seen in the kenpo lineages, and more as an approach to give beginners something more direct to work with until they can better understand the overall approach that the Chinese methods take. Then these prescribed self-defense techniques are no longer needed as a crutch, and spontaneity takes over.

In essence-- you mean that what's presented here, is quite possibly watered down practical and simple versions of what exists in Asian martial arts, as supposed to just "taking what you need"?

 

[wab25]

Looks very much like stuff I was taught--but I'd like to know if any of you recongnize anything in here, that has routes, in specific TMAs.

I am kind of curious to know which of these techniques is not in TMA...?

I have seen all of that in Danzan Ryu. I have also seen all of that in Shotokan Karate. In fact, I have seen it taught and done better in TMAs. This guy tends to pull his hand back in order to punch.... I love sparring people that do that. His gun disarms will get him shot.... I am not a fan of the way he teaches and does those.... But, on the whole, I have trained all of those in both Danzan Ryu and Shotokan, seen a bunch of them in TKD (though I have not spent time in TKD, just the odd class here and there and working with people who have put time in TKD)

 

[Flying Crane]

In essence-- you mean that what's presented here, is quite possibly watered down practical and simple versions of what exists in Asian martial arts, as supposed to just "taking what you need"?

I wouldn’t necessarily say “watered-down” because I think that implies a negative connotation and I’m not convinced it is deserved. One thing that I have learned to keep in the front of my mind in these discussions is that different people relate to different approaches in training in different ways. This means that what might be a good method for one person to train might be a terrible choice for another. So all I can really do is decide for myself whether I might find something appealing or not, and why I feel that way about it. But I cannot dictate how others relate to it and feel about it, and that can make it an excellent vehicle for them. My own method looks a bit unusual to an audience raised on MMA for example, and gets little interest from that crowd. I’m fine with that.

So I guess perhaps what I am saying is, I don’t think there is anything truly new or revolutionary there. Old ideas that hold water get presented in new context. Sometimes it might be done better than before, for various reasons, and other times not as well, again for various reasons. Quality depends on specifics. I am not in a position to evaluate the quality in this video, although I do have some impressions that may or may not be accurate, but without a greater presentation of the underlying methodology I can’t really comment with certainty.

 

[hoshin1600]

As to the video of Kelly, I don't see anything in there that I haven't done in traditional uechi Ryu karate. Same strikes with the exception of the open palm he was doing. I prefer the closed fist. But has the same weight drop, same twisting body torque, same timing. You could put myself or some of the uechi guys I know in the same room and you wouldn't be able to tell who was traditional and who was combatives.
The second video ,I'm not a fan of finger nail stuff, fingers yes. But again nothing new that can't be found in traditional arts.

 

[drop bear]

Thank you for that insight.

I don't personally consider it "short clips," but maybe that's just because I've seen it before or variations of it, so I understand the context of what they're demonstrating.

I know that a portion of this is lineaged with the WWII combatives era, so there are definitely roots with Asian systems--the question is which ones.

Yeah. The chin jab is very defendo.

 

[drop bear]

I wouldn’t necessarily say “watered-down” because I think that implies a negative connotation and I’m not convinced it is deserved. One thing that I have learned to keep in the front of my mind in these discussions is that different people relate to different approaches in training in different ways. This means that what might be a good method for one person to train might be a terrible choice for another. So all I can really do is decide for myself whether I might find something appealing or not, and why I feel that way about it. But I cannot dictate how others relate to it and feel about it, and that can make it an excellent vehicle for them. My own method looks a bit unusual to an audience raised on MMA for example, and gets little interest from that crowd. I’m fine with that.

So I guess perhaps what I am saying is, I don’t think there is anything truly new or revolutionary there. Old ideas that hold water get presented in new context. Sometimes it might be done better than before, for various reasons, and other times not as well, again for various reasons. Quality depends on specifics. I am not in a position to evaluate the quality in this video, although I do have some impressions that may or may not be accurate, but without a greater presentation of the underlying methodology I can’t really comment with certainty.

There is no depth to it. That part is watered down.

All the striking is done from directly in front and in range where you are the most vulnerable to getting struck back.

There is no option for if you are getting struck back.

Which I assume they are hoping aggression will solve that problem.

But being aggressive also needs to have a bunch of back of house training.

 

[GreenieMeanie]

I am kind of curious to know which of these techniques is not in TMA...?

I have seen all of that in Danzan Ryu. I have also seen all of that in Shotokan Karate. In fact, I have seen it taught and done better in TMAs. This guy tends to pull his hand back in order to punch.... I love sparring people that do that. His gun disarms will get him shot.... I am not a fan of the way he teaches and does those.... But, on the whole, I have trained all of those in both Danzan Ryu and Shotokan, seen a bunch of them in TKD (though I have not spent time in TKD, just the odd class here and there and working with people who have put time in TKD)

I'm sure they'll all in TMA--the question is which.

Gun though, I highly doubt is TMA. He actually says in the video it's what Fairbarn taught to OSS/WWII commandos. Here is the old training footage:

The disarms I've seen from the back are either like that, or under and over. Not sure if there's really a significant difference? He may be adding more detail to the technique off-camera.

 

[Flying Crane]

I'm sure they'll all in TMA--the question is which.

I imagine they are found in many. I don’t know that it would be realistic to try to determine specifics of exactly where this material was adopted from. Would it matter?

 

[GreenieMeanie]

There is no depth to it. That part is watered down.

All the striking is done from directly in front and in range where you are the most vulnerable to getting struck back.

There is no option for if you are getting struck back.

Which I assume they are hoping aggression will solve that problem.

But being aggressive also needs to have a bunch of back of house training.

There's more to it than what's being shown.

I posted this, not realizing that I'm the only this makes sense to, because I've been taught the curriculum before, and had the **** beaten out of me in scenario training trying to remember it. It's almost a sort of review for me.

I imagine they are found in many. I don’t know that it would be realistic to try to determine specifics of exactly where this material was adopted from. Would it matter?

Nah, just an academic question. I'm not gonna hunt the OG systems, that would not be worth the trouble, and I already have muscle memory for other things.

 

[drop bear]

There's more to it than what's being shown.

I posted this, not realizing that I'm the only this makes sense to, because I've been taught the curriculum before, and had the **** beaten out of me in scenario training trying to remember it. It's almost a sort of review for me.

There is a lot more to it.

You could do that sequence. Just you should always be trying to strike from a position of advantage.

And for me it is those details I want to be paying for.

 

[GreenieMeanie]

There is a lot more to it.

You could do that sequence. Just you should always be trying to strike from a position of advantage.

And for me it is those details I want to be paying for.

I agree.

The clips were free. You do get what you pay for.

 

[GreenieMeanie]

There is a lot more to it.

You could do that sequence. Just you should always be trying to strike from a position of advantage.

And for me it is those details I want to be paying for.

Damn--I just said I agree with you.

Where's the calender, fireworks, and champagne?

 

[wab25]

Gun though, I highly doubt is TMA.

I guess that depends on your definition of TMA... Danzan Ryu has a list of gun disarms. The Shotokan Karate I studied, had their list of gun disarms... though I am not sure how codified that is in Shotokan. However, the concepts that are used in the gun disarms are simply principles and ideas that are taught in the system itself, used in a different context.

He actually says in the video it's what Fairbarn taught to OSS/WWII commandos. Here is the old training footage:

The disarms I've seen from the back are either like that, or under and over. Not sure if there's really a significant difference? He may be adding more detail to the technique off-camera.

There is quite a bit of difference between what was demonstrated and what you are showing in the Fairbarn footage. In the Fairbarn footage, the guy's first move is turning to get offline, while entering... once he gets in and has control of the arm, he immediately takes the attacker down. Your guy's first move is to push back into the gun... I did not listen to the audio and don't know what he is saying about it... but when you watch him, his back suddenly presses into the gun before he rotates. That impulse into the gun can many times cause the other guy to pull the trigger in response... been there, done that with simunition guns... if you impulse back into the gun I am holding, you get shot, point blank in the back.... if you roll offline, without pressing back into the gun, you get much farther offline before I can react and pull the trigger... the difference here is subtle, but important. Your guy then makes no attempt to take the guy down, he relies on his "unbreakable" control of the arm, to keep punching him in the face.... if he slips out, your guy is directly in front of the gun barrel.

As for the disarms from the front... he only goes for a quarter turn to get offline, and does not even get that far when he moves. Further, he stays in front of the gun, instead of getting inside the gun... again, if he loses any control at all of the gun, he is immediately in front of the barrel. Further, his other hand immediately goes right in front of the barrel... which is a good way to get your hand / arm shot. Some time with simunition or airsoft will quickly show how often waving that hand across the barrel will get it shot.

One of the things that the Fairbarn guy does, is that as he turns offline, he enters inside the gun and gets close to the other guy. If he loses control of the arm, the other guy still has to make space and or maneuver to bring the barrel of the gun back on him. This is absent in your guys demo. So, while it is similar, it is not the same thing. Regardless of what he is teaching off camera, he is not demonstrating those things while on camera...

 

[GreenieMeanie]

I guess that depends on your definition of TMA... Danzan Ryu has a list of gun disarms. The Shotokan Karate I studied, had their list of gun disarms... though I am not sure how codified that is in Shotokan. However, the concepts that are used in the gun disarms are simply principles and ideas that are taught in the system itself, used in a different context.


There is quite a bit of difference between what was demonstrated and what you are showing in the Fairbarn footage. In the Fairbarn footage, the guy's first move is turning to get offline, while entering... once he gets in and has control of the arm, he immediately takes the attacker down. Your guy's first move is to push back into the gun... I did not listen to the audio and don't know what he is saying about it... but when you watch him, his back suddenly presses into the gun before he rotates. That impulse into the gun can many times cause the other guy to pull the trigger in response... been there, done that with simunition guns... if you impulse back into the gun I am holding, you get shot, point blank in the back.... if you roll offline, without pressing back into the gun, you get much farther offline before I can react and pull the trigger... the difference here is subtle, but important. Your guy then makes no attempt to take the guy down, he relies on his "unbreakable" control of the arm, to keep punching him in the face.... if he slips out, your guy is directly in front of the gun barrel.

As for the disarms from the front... he only goes for a quarter turn to get offline, and does not even get that far when he moves. Further, he stays in front of the gun, instead of getting inside the gun... again, if he loses any control at all of the gun, he is immediately in front of the barrel. Further, his other hand immediately goes right in front of the barrel... which is a good way to get your hand / arm shot. Some time with simunition or airsoft will quickly show how often waving that hand across the barrel will get it shot.

One of the things that the Fairbarn guy does, is that as he turns offline, he enters inside the gun and gets close to the other guy. If he loses control of the arm, the other guy still has to make space and or maneuver to bring the barrel of the gun back on him. This is absent in your guys demo. So, while it is similar, it is not the same thing. Regardless of what he is teaching off camera, he is not demonstrating those things while on camera...

I was gonna buy his streaming content, for indepth review.

It'll be telling to compare that full footage, to what's shown here.

 

[drop bear]

I agree.

The clips were free. You do get what you pay for.

I don't think you do. I think that is essentially the end of their technical discussion. With mabye a "lift your elbow higher" or something.

And then you will go drill that on pads. And mabye wack a red man around.

There is kind of a movement now that timing is superior to technique. And they are not applying timing to that at all.

 

[GreenieMeanie]

I guess that depends on your definition of TMA... Danzan Ryu has a list of gun disarms. The Shotokan Karate I studied, had their list of gun disarms... though I am not sure how codified that is in Shotokan. However, the concepts that are used in the gun disarms are simply principles and ideas that are taught in the system itself, used in a different context.


There is quite a bit of difference between what was demonstrated and what you are showing in the Fairbarn footage. In the Fairbarn footage, the guy's first move is turning to get offline, while entering... once he gets in and has control of the arm, he immediately takes the attacker down. Your guy's first move is to push back into the gun... I did not listen to the audio and don't know what he is saying about it... but when you watch him, his back suddenly presses into the gun before he rotates. That impulse into the gun can many times cause the other guy to pull the trigger in response... been there, done that with simunition guns... if you impulse back into the gun I am holding, you get shot, point blank in the back.... if you roll offline, without pressing back into the gun, you get much farther offline before I can react and pull the trigger... the difference here is subtle, but important. Your guy then makes no attempt to take the guy down, he relies on his "unbreakable" control of the arm, to keep punching him in the face.... if he slips out, your guy is directly in front of the gun barrel.

As for the disarms from the front... he only goes for a quarter turn to get offline, and does not even get that far when he moves. Further, he stays in front of the gun, instead of getting inside the gun... again, if he loses any control at all of the gun, he is immediately in front of the barrel. Further, his other hand immediately goes right in front of the barrel... which is a good way to get your hand / arm shot. Some time with simunition or airsoft will quickly show how often waving that hand across the barrel will get it shot.

One of the things that the Fairbarn guy does, is that as he turns offline, he enters inside the gun and gets close to the other guy. If he loses control of the arm, the other guy still has to make space and or maneuver to bring the barrel of the gun back on him. This is absent in your guys demo. So, while it is similar, it is not the same thing. Regardless of what he is teaching off camera, he is not demonstrating those things while on camera...

I just watched it again. I don't see the issues you see. The movements are still generally correct from what's shown, and he just doesn't emphasize the distinction importance of the individual motions when showing them in those few seconds.