Originally posted by Kenpo Yahoo
What? No questions, concerns or comments. WOW!!! This is a first.
Comments on the AKKI video clips
Caveats: (a) I've seen 42 AKKI video clips that probably amount to only 10-15 minutes worth of footage (but I have read most of the material on the AKKI site and on associated sites), (b) video clips as such are a limited medium to express a three dimensional "must be felt" art, (c) I've never met Mr. Mills nor as far as I'm aware any of his students, and (d) I have only about 6 years experience in Kenpo (so, I'm a fairly new student compared to many that post here).
Comments/Questions/Suggestions:
1. The video clip quality is pretty good (could be a little better) but the clips should be longer (don't we all have broadband?

). Longer clips would help us to get the context of what is going on. Something further in this regard just occured to me: when demonstrating fast combination strikes it is imperative to have the highest quality (smoothest) video possible (even at the expense of large file sizes) because otherwise it's just a blur with slapping sounds. The quality of these videos is enough that one can get most of it, but it still could be a bit better so that the individual strikes can be more readily discerned.
2. I like the clip of Mr. Mills when he hits L-5 (11.mpg, I think). More like that please. This gets to an issue that I'm wondering about. When he shows the strike to L-5 and breaks it down, we are able to see the reaction that occurs. I think that's a realistic scenario, and demonstrates how one can set up a sequence of strikes given predictable opponent reactions. However, in several of the other clips (01.mpg, 06.mpg, 07.mpg, 17.mpg) none of that occurs as there is essentially (a few minor exceptions in 06.mpg) no opponent reaction.
Therefore, I'm left to conclude that the strikes themselves must not be causing involuntary reactions on the part of the dummies else they would be reacting. That's pretty obvious. As much as some of these shots might sting they don't strike me as "stoppers" or "controllers."
One might argue that they could increase the power to cause the dummy to react properly. It may be said that they are not doing that in order to illustrate certain points or as to not unnecessarily injure their partners. That may be all good and true, but...I truly wonder if such raw speed could be maintained while delivering the power, penetration, etc. required to do serious damage and control your oppponent. If you do step up the power/penetration don't you at least have to wait for the opponent to react (at least somewhat) rather than just going through a flurry of strikes? And, in striking deep enough to do the real damage, won't that by necessity mean that you cannot "hurry" through your strikes, they would have to be slowed down? I'm also concerned that such speed practice (as opposed to the somewhat slower, methodical but powerfully penetrating types of strikes) will be what will "come out" during a real live confrontration, and it may not do the job.
3. I liked the fact that in a few instances a more realistic sort of attack was presented. I'm referring specifically to some of the punching attacks that did not employ the classic step-through.
4. Just for the record: I'm not against speed, I'm just not for speed for its own sake to the detriment of power. Unfortunately, some of the clips seem to me to show just that. I'd love to see some AKKI clips that show the realistic mix of speed and power that affects the opponent bodily/mentally. That's (speed strikes with an unreacting dummy), I think, what lends credence to the (often) legitimate complaint that the dummies just stand there like unresisting, stone statutes, which is not very realistic. To me, if techniques are executed with proper speed and power, which lends to control and physical and mental immobilization then the result should be evident when witnessed (whether live or via video) or felt. If that is done properly then the opponent won't be an unmoving statute, but neither will he be able to resist and that should be also evident if witnessed or especially if experienced.
5. Please more videos!
Thanks.