Many feel that AK has many "holes" or un-addressed situations within....

[Goldendragon7]

our Curriculums..... My question is, what are these "holes" such as grappling or combination attacks {kick punch or L - R Punch combination}, and what can be done to "upgrade" or "adjust" or what are [you or your studio] doing about them?

 

[KenpoMatt]

One hole, IMHO, is the lack of ground fighting. Yeah, I know, you've never heard that before. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to take it to the ground. I just want to know how to get the hell out if I find myself there.

My school offers a judo class once a week and BJJ seminars ever couple of weeks. Granted, I'll never been a expert ground-fighter playing judo once a week. But, I really am learning something.

My instructor brought in a judoka because he wants his students to be well rounded fighters. I appreciate that.

 

[MartialArtsGuy]

Kenpo Matt

The good thing about kenpo is that if you look at it according to the three divisions of the art, which are basics, self-defense, and freestyle, than you can easily see how ground work can fit in. Basicly freestyle does not have to be limited to a verticle plane. Spar on the ground, Many styles call it randori. We do this at my school.

It's not such a bad thing to look at some of the grappling styles to get some ideas, hell this is right in line with what American Kenpo is anyway. It's a highly functional mutt of styles that harmonize under some sound principles. Thats the good thing about having a conceptual system. It's easy to make things fit it with it. Just make sure your focus stays in self-defense. Like you said, nobody wants to purposely roll around on the ground for a long period of time during an attack.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Leaving the grappling question aside--it's boring--I hadn't known that there weren't any kenpo techs designed against, "combination," attacks....I'd thought that beginning with Delayed Sword, ALL the techniques took such attacks into consideration, though of course that won't necessarily become recognizable or useful until after learning, say, Glancing Wing, Entwined Maces, Fatal Deviation, et al...

I think, actually, the more interesting question is this: what makes people feel that they HAVE to go outside a well-designed system, in pursuit of some dream of becoming a warrior prepared for everything? After all, I tend to find that these supposed, "flaws," come of of my own failures, my own, "holes," not what's available, 'within," kenpo...

Could I (or anybody) go learn what, say Gene LeBell teaches, and profit from it? Absolutely. Could I go learn, "combat handgun," (ha!) and get a lot? Sure. learn escrima and get something? Sure. Iaido? Sure. A knife system, a stick system, and on and on and on? Absolutely. Where's it end? Noplace; it doesn't. And nothing's wrong wwith that; in faact, nothing's beetter than that. Will this mean that I am absolutely prepared for everything, that I will be unbeatable? Oh, hell no. And, I have a job. I even like to think I have a life.

Yes, I know the response. There's nothing wrong with learning some grappling, boxing, judo, etc. I agree; I just wrote that. I simply want to know why this has to be grounded on the ideas of "flaw," the idea of, "being prepared for anything," the idea of "realism--the reality of infinite threat," the dream of "warriorhood," for people who mostly live in cities and have desk jobs. Exceptions to this? Sure--cops, for example, do well to study some form of judo, handgun methods, etc...And what's more, there seem to be all sorts of examples of folks who won't see what kenpo offers until they go look somewheres else...nothing wrong with that, either.

But I personally suspect that this has more to do with avoiding confronting ourselves--I know, I know, another of those, "useless," traditional goals, but still darn the the only one worth a rap--than cross-training because of the flaws in kenpo. From what I can see--and admittedly, it ain't that much--a chunk of what's going on is the revision of kenpo until it HAS holes in it, then turning around and saying, "Wow, look at all the holes." I personally think that confronting such issues would do us all a helluva lot more good than learning one more system...

 

[Goldendragon7]

Orig posted by MartialArtsGuy
The good thing about kenpo is that it does not have to be limited to a verticle plane.

Man, now if you can just get the word out!!

Excellent MAG!!!

:asian:

 

[Kenpo Yahoo]

Here's a big surprise: I totally disagree with Robert.

I believe that there are a FEW holes in the EPAK system. That is not to say that Mr. Parker did not have the answers himself or that he never taught these particular "patches" to any of his students, but that a majority of kenpoists do not know or do not teach these aspects of the curriculum.

I think the absence of ground material is a weakness. No I don't think kenpoists should be learning armbars and choke outs, but if you get tackled or you take someone down what type of base should you establish? Are you able to get to a superior position from here? i.e. one that will provide you with the most control over your opponent as well as allow you the most manueverability, do you know what a superior position is? The main purpose of the ground curriculum should be to get back to your feet, where you can utilize the majority of your training. Well how do you stand up if you are on the ground and your opponent is on his feet? There are a few tricks to this that will help keep you from getting pounded. Also, learning what someone has to do in order to take you down should be beneficial in helping you prevent it.

I think a lot of the combination techniques should be changed. I've never liked the idea of doing a crossover step, or twist stance while addressing an opponents attack. I feel that these stances despite their transitory nature weaken your base significantly. I would rather sacrifice any power (percieved or not) that I could generate from this stance and work from one with a wider base, mainly a neutral bow, which might allow me to make up the lost power by allowing for more hip rotation when I strike. I also don't think that many of the defenses are very realistic or leave you enough margin for error. In otherwords, can the same technique be used if both punchs are straight or if both are roundhouse haymakers?

Knife and club curriculum. We have all these defenses against knives and clubs, yet most kenpoists idea of using these weapons in an offensive manner is to simply perform an empty hand technique with one of the weapons in hand. I believe that the better you understand something the more capable you are of being able to defend against it. This even translates back to groundfighting and takedowns as I mentioned earlier. If you know what to look for, there is a good chance that you can prevent it. How do you perform your knife defense technique against someone who is making use of a return cut?

These are a few of the problems that I have with the current EPAK curriculum. I would like to point out that during my post I used several statements like: "I think..", "I believe...", "I feel..." to denote my personal opinions. I don't claim to be a master of EPAK or any other category of martial art. These are just my opinions based on what I know and where I am currently at in my training as a second degree blackbelt in kenpo.

 

[Goldendragon7]

Orig. posted by rmcrobertson
I'd thought that beginning with Delayed Sword, ALL the techniques took such attacks into consideration, though of course that won't necessarily become recognizable or useful until after learning, say, Glancing Wing, Entwined Maces, Fatal Deviation, et al...

Consider the possibility that not all instructors or for that matter students, are the of the same caliber. With that in mind, it is possible that you or others may have been taught or introduced to the material with differing methods {some great, some possibly not so great}. Poor instruction or student forgetfulness can be a real factor here.

I agree with you that "Kenpo" does within its structure have the capability to reveal such considerations but the transmitters or receivers of the Art is where I think the problem may lie.

Orig. posted by rmcrobertson
I think, actually, the more interesting question is this: what makes people feel that they HAVE to go outside a well-designed system, in pursuit of some dream of becoming a warrior prepared for everything? After all, I tend to find that these supposed, "flaws," come of my own failures, my own, "holes," not what's available, 'within," kenpo...

I think the statement above fits here as well. If you are taught with a particular mindset on the system, you may feel a need to go "elsewhere" to find answers that in reality may already be there but you just haven't realized that yet.

Orig. posted by rmcrobertson
I simply want to know why this has to be grounded on the ideas of "flaw," the idea of, "being prepared for anything," the idea of "realism--the reality of infinite threat," the dream of "warriorhood," for people who mostly live in cities and have desk jobs. What's more, there seem to be all sorts of examples of folks who won't see what kenpo offers until they go look somewheres else...nothing wrong with that, either.

Good questions. I think "different strokes for different folks". "There are many roads that lead to Rome" some may just be on different roads, you Robert, may have found the freeway!

Orig. posted by rmcrobertson
I personally suspect that this has more to do with avoiding confronting ourselves - than cross-training because of the flaws in Kenpo System itself.

From what I can see--and admittedly, it ain't that much--a chunk of what's going on is the revision of kenpo until it HAS holes in it, then turning around and saying, "Wow, look at all the holes." I personally think that confronting such issues would do us all a helluva lot more good than learning one more system...

When Mr. Parker came across a "problem area" that was necessary to address, he dedicated time to study the "issue" and find a solution. I do agree with you {this is getting scary LOL}, that revision by individuals that may not be qualified WILL and HAS <<<MADE>>> "holes" that were not there before [except to the ones making the revisions], and then passed on to the student mass who then eventually come across a differing opinion and Viola....... a conflict.

:asian:

 

[Kenpo Yahoo]

rmcrobertson:
I simply want to know why this has to be grounded on the ideas of "flaw," the idea of, "being prepared for anything," the idea of "realism--the reality of infinite threat," the dream of "warriorhood," for people who mostly live in cities and have desk jobs.

If everyone had this attitude the only art around would be Tae Kwon Do. God help us all.

 

[Goldendragon7]

Orig. posted by Kenpo Yahoo
I believe that there are a FEW holes in the EPAK system.
That is not to say that Mr. Parker did not have the answers himself or that he never taught these particular "patches" to any of his students, but that a --majority-- of kenpoists do not know or do not teach these aspects of the curriculum.

Help me out here.... first you say that there are a few holes in AK, but then you say that Mr. Parker probably had many of the answers and possibly taught them to "patches" or certain students. You then go on to state that a MAJORITY of Kenpoists do not know or teach these aspects.

If there are "Holes" in the system, it would mean that the system itself is lacking, which is quite different than the instructors not teaching these aspects. I do agree that a majority do not teach these aspects for one reason or another. Kenpo does create the ability to drift to ones "comfort zone". I know many that are great at different areas of our system but terrible at other areas. Water seeks its own level.

Orig. posted by Kenpo Yahoo
I think the absence of ground material is a weakness.

We do have groundwork, {Volume II, Chapter 7, page 105} maybe it needs to be emphasized and expanded a bit, I agree but it's there.

Orig. posted by Kenpo Yahoo
No I don't think kenpoists should be learning armbars and choke outs, but if you get tackled or you take someone down what type of base should you establish? Are you able to get to a superior position from here? i.e. one that will provide you with the most control over your opponent as well as allow you the most maneuverability, do you know what a superior position is?

I disagree, we SHOULD LEARN ARMBARS AND CHOKES, this is as Kenpo as anything else. It all has its place. You bring up valid points, "what if" you get tackled, and end up on the ground... we should know how to maneuver and get back up. 1 Example: Leap from Danger (rear 2-handed push).

Orig. posted by Kenpo Yahoo
The main purpose of the ground curriculum should be to get back to your feet, where you can utilize the majority of your training. Well how do you stand up if you are on the ground and your opponent is on his feet? There are a few tricks to this that will help keep you from getting pounded.

What about Encounter with Danger?

Orig. posted by Kenpo Yahoo
Learning what someone has to do in order to take you down should be beneficial in helping you prevent it.

Agreed, just as learning about the nunchaku allows you to evaluate the skill of your opponent with them.

Orig. posted by Kenpo Yahoo
I think a lot of the combination techniques should be changed. I've never liked the idea of doing a crossover step, or twist stance while addressing an opponents attack. I feel that these stances despite their transitory nature weaken your base significantly. I would rather sacrifice any power (perceived or not) that I could generate from this stance and work from one with a wider base, mainly a neutral bow, which might allow me to make up the lost power by allowing for more hip rotation when I strike.

Now, this is very difficult to answer on the net, it would be of great advantage to be able to work together and "show" what you are doing so as to be able to examine the interpretation that you may have vs. that of someone else's. This interaction will of course be very helpful and help solve many misunderstandings or give ideas to tailor a quality response.

You may not have to "sacrifice" anything, there may be some little point that may be missing in your understanding of the technique that will make that little light bulb go on.

Orig. posted by Kenpo Yahoo
I also don't think that many of the defenses are very realistic or leave you enough margin for error. In otherwords, can the same technique be used if both punches are straight or if both are roundhouse haymakers?

Again, perception and interpretation can be a huge factor. I find little things that are in the systems "knowledge bank" all the time that I may have overlooked or not applied in certain techniques.

I rarely like to change anything, but rather expand my understanding of the "Ideal", and study the numerous possibilities of the "what if", so that I can "Formulate", when necessary.

Orig. posted by Kenpo Yahoo
These are a few of the problems that I have with the current EPAK curriculum. I would like to point out that during my post I used several statements like: "I think..", "I believe...", "I feel..." to denote my personal opinions.

I don't claim to be a master of EPAK or any other category of martial art. These are just my opinions based on what I know and where I am currently at in my training as a second degree blackbelt in kenpo.

You bring up some great points for discussion and we thank you for your participation and comments, as always.

:asian:

 

[rmcrobertson]

Dear, "Kenpo Yahoo:"

Sorry, but all the things you kvetch about, I've been taught or figured out. Within the framework of kenpo--including the stuff about, "just doing the techs with a knife in your hand," as though that weren't the right apporach. Does that mean I'm great at them? Nope. Just means it's in there.

If you think that're no info in kenpo for using a knife in the context of
"return," in various senses, you might want to take another look at Entwined Lance, just to mention the most obvious...

As for the rear crosses/twists...well, a number of the techniques (see defl. hammer and Swing. Pendulum) teach that a good block and a soild base is not always the best idea...getting the hell off line is often wiser...which is a big chunk of what these stances and transitionss are for, to say nothing of their application against somebody on the ground...

As for the, "attitude," well, I've no good idea why that's the issue. I might reciprocate, and remark that the, "attitude," of constantly haring off to other systems--especially in a society that encourages the commodification of knowledge and an utter lack of attention span--is exactly what our problem is, but I don't actually quite think that. What I do think is that citing somebody's attitude is a consistent way to avoid actually discussing their ideas and the issues.

 

[Kenpo Yahoo]

Goldendragon7
Help me out here.... first you say that there are a few holes in AK, but then you say that Mr. Parker probably had many of the answers and possibly taught them to "patches" or certain students. You then go on to state that a MAJORITY of Kenpoists do not know or teach these aspects.

This was merely a statement of respect. I was simply giving Mr. Parker the benefit of the doubt, that he MAY have had the answer or that he MAY have taught these ideas to someone. Honestly, if these concepts were as wide spread as many would have you believe then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Goldendragon7
I do agree that a majority do not teach these aspects for one reason or another. Kenpo does create the ability to drift to ones "comfort zone". I know many that are great at different areas of our system but terrible at other areas. Water seeks its own level.

The system is only as good as what is being taught. Who gives a flying rats butt if so and so used to do this but nobody does this anymore because nobody knows how.

We do have groundwork, {Volume II, Chapter 7, page 105} maybe it needs to be emphasized and expanded a bit, I agree but it's there.

Great, I sure hope that your attacker or your students attacker stays within the realm of one page of text. To suggest that any one subject especially one as complex as groundwork can be boiled down to one page of text is asinine.

I disagree, we SHOULD LEARN ARMBARS AND CHOKES, this is as Kenpo as anything else. It all has its place. You bring up valid points, "what if" you get tackled, and end up on the ground... we should know how to maneuver and get back up. 1 Example: Leap from Danger (rear 2-handed push).

Okay fine, then teach them, but do you know the proper way to do an armbar so as to prevent your opponent from rolling out or at least set up your position to move to the next submission if need be?

You bring up valid points, "what if" you get tackled, and end up on the ground... we should know how to maneuver and get back up. 1 Example: Leap from Danger (rear 2-handed push).

Great so if they get pushed at their mid to lower back or get tackled from behind, then what should they do? Neither of these situations will allow you to roll, so then what happens? I guess you are just screwed huh?!?! :shrug: Is this part of the groundfighting curriculum you teach.

What about Encounter with Danger?

So you would have your students try to kick at high targets without the use of their hips for speed and power, even if this works they are on all fours facing away from their opponent. This is one way of getting up, not a very good one, but a way nevertheless.

Now, this is very difficult to answer on the net, it would be of great advantage to be able to work together and "show" what you are doing so as to be able to examine the interpretation that you may have vs. that of someone else's. This interaction will of course be very helpful and help solve many misunderstandings or give ideas to tailor a quality response.

I agree that SOME of my complaints could be based on interpretation, but I also have been taught much more efficient ways of doing these other things. That is where the majority of my criticism comes from.

Again, perception and interpretation can be a huge factor. I find little things that are in the systems "knowledge bank" all the time that I may have overlooked or not applied in certain techniques.

I rarely like to change anything, but rather expand my understanding of the "Ideal", and study the numerous possibilities of the "what if", so that I can "Formulate", when necessary.

I totally agree with you on the perception thing. I hope I'm not coming off like too much of an @$$, but we are coming from different times. I always hear that most of the guys who went to Parker way back in the day already had some training in another art and it was their experience that helped him out considerably. However now-a-days if you train in another art you are a heretic or an "Art Collector" and while I do agree this is somewhat of an epidemic I don't think it is the viral plague that some would have you believe.

As always I thank you for the discussion, I hope it continues.

 

[Kenpo Yahoo]

Sorry, but all the things you kvetch about, I've been taught or figured out. Within the framework of kenpo--including the stuff about, "just doing the techs with a knife in your hand," as though that weren't the right apporach. Does that mean I'm great at them? Nope. Just means it's in there.

If you are simply doing the empty hand techniques with a knife in your hand then you aren't using the instrinsic qualities of the blade to their full extent, thus limiting your potential. This also means you that you are making big movements (easier to disarm)with a weapon that should remain in contact with your opponent throughout its use. If this is your answer then you do not understand the knife.

If you think that're no info in kenpo for using a knife in the context of
"return," in various senses, you might want to take another look at Entwined Lance, just to mention the most obvious...

This is a good start, but ALL of your techniques should take into account that your opponent COULD do a back cut or return cut just like all your techniques should work regardless of whether your attacker throws a straight or roundhouse punch. If this simple idea isn't considered then you will get cut because of your lack of understanding not your attackers brilliance.

As for the rear crosses/twists...well, a number of the techniques (see defl. hammer and Swing. Pendulum) teach that a good block and a soild base is not always the best idea...getting the hell off line is often wiser...which is a big chunk of what these stances and transitionss are for, to say nothing of their application against somebody on the ground...

So a quick offline manuever like pushdragging off to the side or triangle stepping would be out of the question? Both of these manuevers leave you with a far more stable base than the crossover or twist stance and are far less commited. So you use twist stances when you are on the ground, how exactly?

I simply want to know why this has to be grounded on the ideas of "flaw," the idea of, "being prepared for anything," the idea of "realism--the reality of infinite threat," the dream of "warriorhood," for people who mostly live in cities and have desk jobs. Exceptions to this? Sure--cops, for example, do well to study some form of judo, handgun methods, etc...And what's more, there seem to be all sorts of examples of folks who won't see what kenpo offers until they go look somewheres else...nothing wrong with that, either.

Great so the rest of us should just dial 911 when someone attacks us. Just be sure to tell your attacker to wait 5-15 minutes before they hurt you. Yep no reason at all to prepare for an attack. Oh yeah, why do so many police officers train in the martial arts, could it be because they feel like their departmental training isn't sufficient? hmmmm...... So technically aren't we training those who might one day be protecting us or our loved ones? Interesting.......

What I do think is that citing somebody's attitude is a consistent way to avoid actually discussing their ideas and the issues.

I've stated my concerns over the issues. The ball, so to speak, is now in your court.

 

[pete]

this argument will go on until reunification...sorry, wrong thread, but same point...tastes great, less filling.

my take on things is that there are big holes if you stay "on book". But, that is not what Kenpo training is supposed to be about.

From what I understand, Ed Parker built his Kenpo from many sources, keeping the best, discarding the rest. Well that gives us kind of a Parker's Greatest Hits collection, where if you just go straight through it, you will come up short in a few areas. Just like if you go out an buy the Beatles #1 Hits CD and listen to it every day for several years and then think you know the Beatles music... well, you'll be in for a big surprise when you listen to the White Album, or side 2 of Abbey Road.

Limiting your ground fighting to Encounter with Danger is not enough, there are drills and exercises that can be introduced to supplement... drills from other arts or older Parker systems that can be used to supplement training.

I also find that Kenpo can be interpreted by some into a memory game. Rather than internalizing movements and responses, students begin to work too hard on executing a technique as fast as possible upon hearing its name (Pavlovian Kenpo.) This tends to breed the fast and the furious (Vin Diesel Kenpo.) It also has a contagious effect down the line, and comes across as sloppy.

I have "gone outside" to study Tai Chi to supplement my Kenpo and improve what I feel is missing.

 

[howardr]

I find myself in the odd position of agreeing with both Mr. Robertson and Kenpo Yahoo! Perhaps a Hegelian synthesis is forming...

Points of agreement with Mr. Robertson (that I think are fair representations of his view) with some elaboration on my part:
1. Kenpo techniques should (at some point at least) take into account realistic followup strikes. And not just strikes but followup grabs and holds (successful and attempted). If an instructor does not teach that then it is the instructor and not Kenpo that is flawed. I can say that from experience because that is exactly what I am being taught in the instruction that I am receiving now.
2. The most excellent point about a well-designed system being sufficient for the average, normal person, not the spec op soldier or the UFC professional brawler. It should be geared around a person with a job and life outside of the martial arts. Further, the art should be capable of being learned and successfully used by a person with ordinary physical abilities, and not reserved for those of gifted physical abilities. In real life, you train for the most likely eventualities not with the unwarranted assumption that unless your art will allow the average normal Joe to vanquish Tank Abbott then it's worthless. That's entirely unreasonable but precisely the blather that many critics of both Kenpo and traditional martial arts tirelessly raise.

There is a one aspect of Kenpo Yahoo's post that I agree with and do not think necessarily contradicts Mr. Robertson's perspective:

That there might be many Kenpoists who do not know or do not teach (more likely, I think, the former) these aspects (grappling, groundfighting, combination attacks, etc.) of the curriculum. In my experience of only about 5 years in Kenpo (I know, I'm just neophyte) that is what I've observed. Until recently, when I've trained at a few different EPAK schools (I've moved several times in recent years), followup attacks, grappling, and a few other imporant things were conspicuously absent. And I mean utterly not there. Now, I've found that indeed it is with the teacher and not the art where this absence lies.

One point of my own (not originated by me but being raised by me here in this thread) that I haven't seen addressed in this thread, but I've noticed as a significant weakness or flaw as the art has been taught, is a dearth of realistic attacks and responses by dummies. This is fatal if not corrected. Unfortunately, it's as deadly as it is rampant.

In sum, I think part of what Mr. Robertson and Kenpo Yahoo are saying is reconciliable in that one could say that the art as taught is often flawed but that is due to improper teaching methodology and lack of knowledge from instructors (rather than an inherent weakness of the system). Kenpo is a blueprint, occassionally a fairly detailed one, rarely a poor one, but most often a general guide that needs to be fleshed out by a competent teacher. Where there's no competent teacher, there's no competent Kenpo. The good news is that a good teacher will provide a complete system that will allow a normal individual to be able to adequately defend himself within reason. Nothing more is needed nor should it be.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Dear folks:

Wow. Except for Howard R.--with whom I still disagree in part--I am stunned by the sheer number of technical--let alone strategic!--errors in those posts.

Just for openers--who the hell taught Encounter With Danger without driving the hip into the kicks? Sorry, no. I've spent one too many Wednesdays on the mat, trying to flip from side to side in a logical extension of this technique, with my instructor yelling and a 16-year-old bouncing into the air with each pivot...

Hm.

 

[Kenpo Yahoo]

Just for openers--who the hell taught Encounter With Danger without driving the hip into the kicks?

This is your only comeback? My school and association quit teaching Encounter with Danger a long time ago, and while I wasn't there to hear the OFFICIAL reason I am all too glad to know that this will no longer be used to give my students a false sense of security that could get them injured.

While I agree with several individuals who suggest that the system may not be taught in its intended entirety, I posit that the system is only as good as what is being taught to it's students. If the system contains Knifework, Clubwork, Gunwork, Groundwork, Takedowns, Striking, Manuevering, etc, but no one is teaching people how to do these things properly or if they are just aren't teaching them period, then it isn't a part of the system.!.!.!.! This means if one person isn't taught an aspect of the system and then this same person teaches this system to 100 people then the error is propagated to each of those 100 people on top of whatever error was in the initial system. This then becomes the system that this generation practices and teaches to the next, which based on interpretation propagates further error. Look how far down the line you are and think about how much error could be in YOUR system or how much information YOU could have missed out on because someone decided to leave at a certain time or didn't think that a particular aspect was very important or just plain didn't understand a certain topic. You may not care about these things, but it is rediculous to belittle those who do.

Mr. rmcroberston you have cried foul because I suggested that your attitude of seeking anything less than perfection would mean the eventual death of our art. Perhaps it is the pervasiveness of such an attitude that has attributed to the snapshot interpretations and shotty work that has left the system with the aforementioned holes.

If you wish to speak about a specific topic please bring it to our attention. Kenpo in my opinion does not address groundwork in an effective manner. Teaching someone to roll out of a rear push, regardless of the effectiveness of its execution does not qualify as groundwork and will not protect you or your students when struggling on the ground. Encounter with Danger, in the manner you describe does not account for the attacker changing position, only a straight line attack. What will you do, I wonder, when your attacker walks around you while you bounce around on your hands and knees.

Also, I might point out the fact that you have neglected to mention combination attacks, knife, club, or gunwork.

Good evening.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Please go back and re-read my posts, which specifically mention knives and combination attacks, as well as ground-fighting.

As for, "Encounter With Danger," this is far from the only thing having to do with ground fighting that I've discussed. You really need to read what you're attacking a little more carefully. However, I think that from what you've written, your school's having done away with the technique illustrates what I originally noted--that removing techs from kenpo teaching, then turning around and claiming that kenpo lacks something specific that just happened to be in the bit that got removed, is--while logical--a little weird. In this particular case, some of the classes revolved around flipping from hip to hip and changing directions as the attacker attempted to get in close--but, it seems to me, that's a little difficult to get to if you've taken Encounter (and all that it represents) out of the system.

To continue in reverse order, nope, that's not all I might write. And I don't cry foul--don't even understand why that's on your agenda--and, I might as well note, I'm not all that far down the line you've constructed. I might explain, but, since I get the impression that you're not actually reading what I'm writing, I think it best to stop here.

Thank you for your comments.

 

[howardr]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Dear folks:

Wow. Except for Howard R.--with whom I still disagree in part--I am stunned by the sheer number of technical--let alone strategic!--errors in those posts.

Hm.

Mr. Robertson,

I'm not asking this as an attempt to generate dissension as an end in itself, but which part of my post did you disagree with? I'd like to make sure that I didn't mischaracterize what I took to be your argument.

Thanks.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Oh, my apologies, HowardR. It was just the Hegelian synthesis argument--I see the discussion as being in part incompatible, not contradictory.

Thanks for your courteous question, however. I should've been clearer.

 

[Doc]

Unfortunately there are a great many huge holes, and the so-called teachers are responsible for them, not the art.

Mr. Parker says,"There is no such thing as basics, just a basic understanding, and most don't even have that."