take downs

[MJS]

TigerCraneGuy,

Agreed. I'll have to check out the DVD's you mentioned.

You are correct though, you can stop most shots, and once on the ground, you can inflict such violent damage that very, very few people will ever sink a submission

I firmly believe that the study of submission grappling is virtually worthless in its translation to street SD. Learn some basic positioning and transitions so you don't panic.

Yes sir, I agree with this. This is what I do when I grapple...focus on the basics, drill the hell out of them, and work on adding in the other 'dirty' stuff. A good example of this is the Maurice Smith/Mark Coleman fight. I forget which UFC it was, but thats not important. My point of bringing this up, is that Mo worked with Frank Shamrock, learning some of the basics, which was enough to fend off Coleman, who really didn't have much in the way of subs. and it was obvious that Mo was frustrating the hell out of Mark. The fight eventually was stood back up, and ended in KO.

There are and always will be problems with this discussion though. First, the honest truth is, many people have not experienced the degree of violence in their lives that would allow them to comprehend the type of approach (beyond the theoretical) that would allow them to deal with a ground fighter the way we are discussing. Second, many people hesitate to commit truly violent acts. Most peoples natures, inhibitions, social programing etc would cause them to hesitate before thrusting their finger 2 knuckles deep into someones eye and into their Grey matter. They would hesitate to bite through someones throat or jugular. Because of that, there is a disconnect when this topic is discussed. Third, people training MMA, competition, BJJ etc have to defend what they put time into and no one on that side wants to say "what I am doing isn't really about warfare, or SD". Add to that that even most of the skilled teachers and trainers out there haven't ever actually fought for there lives. Of course, many of those who have are only able to teach the easiest and safest things to learn. The first Marine Force Recon guy in my AKKI Kenpo class really enlighten me to the whole "spec ops techniques" ploy.

Hence the ongoing argument.

Agreed. We can train as real as possible, use scenarios, etc. but you're right...when it comes down to it, many probably will cringe at the thought of actually doing the dirty fighting.

Yes, we had a little communication breakdown there. I have hard time understanding the "I don't think the ring and the street are the same but I use the ring as my reference and that isn't contradictory" line of thinking.

It is what it is. I know what I know and I know what I've been through. This is just fun banter and a chance to find a few like minded guys across the country!

Amen brother, and likewise I've enjoyed my banter with you as well. I'm confused as well with the ring/street/same thinking. Yes, resistance is there for both, but...fighting in the ring and fighting for your life when someone is trying to rape you, carjack you, mug you, etc. is different, very different. And yes, I believe you addressed that confusion in this post.

 

[MattJ]

Someone could take this statement as being contradicting. The way I read this is...you say all the mutli man techs suck. I say its better than nothing. You say that most of the weapon stuff sucks. I agree. But then you say that some are workable. So we have bad weapon techs., but some are workable, but you dont think that having 'something' is positive, if its bad? Did any of that make sense? LOL.

I didn't think I was being contradictory. I said I didn't like the multi-opponent stuff, and I didn't like the weapons stuff either. Some of the weapons stuff is workable, where none of the 2-mans are, but that is just MHO. I don't consider the weapons stuff as much of a positive either, if that clarifies. I would point people wanting to learn weapons to weapons specific arts.

That was directed at what you said here:

"Probably because multi-opponent defense requires one to stay upright. if so much as one of the opponents gets you down, you are toast. grappling arts actually help in this regardm since you learn to handle the clinch and resist takedowns, not to mention escape if you DO get taken down. But the mentality of expecting one art to be complete is pretty ridiculous to me. Would anyone expect a boxing class to teach them about kicking? To disregard grappling because of limited multi-opponent technique is pretty silly."

I highlighted my original comments, and I guess I still don't understand, but it's all cool.

And no, no hostility was intended. Sorry if thats the impression that you got. I've said many times, that no art is complete, yet how many MMA nutriders do we see on various forums, say that it is? IMO, there're systems that do specialize in certain areas, and we should be looking at those, to see how they address certain things, compared to the way Kenpo does. Ex: Kenpo has takedown defenses, so does BJJ. BJJ is a proven grapling art. Test yourself against the BJJ guy, using the Kenpo defense. Will it work? If so, great. If not, we need to figure out why. This is what I do, and why I love to crosstrain.

Sure, I've always been about crosstraining. I don't consider myself a "MMA nutrider", as I do not train MMA, and have much more EPAK training than I do BJJ. But I do like MMA as a sport, and a training method. I have found that the practical nature of sparring and resistance balances nicely with the unpracticable aspects of RBSD training.

K831 -

Third, people training MMA, competition, BJJ etc have to defend what they put time into and no one on that side wants to say "what I am doing isn't really about warfare, or SD".

And the same thing is true on the other side with RBSD types claiming the effectiveness of things that cannot be proven in practice. Round and round it goes, LOL! Cheers, guys.

 

[K831]

And the same thing is true on the other side with RBSD types claiming the effectiveness of things that cannot be proven in practice. Round and round it goes, LOL! Cheers, guys.

This is true. However, RBSD of any quality is coming from x soldiers, LEO, bouncers, often from war torn countries (see Krav) lending it far more credence than and MMA fighter saying "it worked well in my padded ring with the ref standing there."

Now, not all RBSD and styles indigenous to violent countries meet that criteria, however, there is far more material that does than that found within competition.

Lastly, I have in fact utilized much of what I am discussing here, albeit shockingly brutal, which is why the theoretical arguments mean less to me, than perhaps many others. This is further extended by the fact that I am fortunate enough to train with men who many times have been down that road. When they teach me something they say "works" I know they aren't talking about and arbitrary competition.

 

[MattJ]

K831 -

This is true. However, RBSD of any quality is coming from x soldiers, LEO, bouncers, often from war torn countries (see Krav) lending it far more credence than and MMA fighter saying "it worked well in my padded ring with the ref standing there."

Are you still comparing MMA to battlefield fights? Haven't we established this is not a valid comparison already............? One might think you were trying to create a strawman argument with me.

Now, not all RBSD and styles indigenous to violent countries meet that criteria, however, there is far more material that does than that found within competition.

Meh. Techniques without the foundation of proper timing and distancing are often fairly useless. Those skills, effectively and reliably imparted by sparring, are what makes any technique viable, IME. This is why "limited sport fighters" often whip the tar out of non-sparring folk. Attributes + skill > (particular) techniques. RBSD technique can certainly work, and the benefit is that they are designed to work without much in the way of attributes/skill. It's better to have both, IMHO. Didn't Ed Parker say something like "I would rather fight with 5 good techniques than have 50 bad ones fight me?" (bad paraphrase)

Lastly, I have in fact utilized much of what I am discussing here, albeit shockingly brutal, which is why the theoretical arguments mean less to me, than perhaps many others. This is further extended by the fact that I am fortunate enough to train with men who many times have been down that road. When they teach me something they say "works" I know they aren't talking about and arbitrary competition.

Yes, you sound very brutal! I can imagine people with that kind of training.

 

[K831]

K831 -

Are you still comparing MMA to battlefield fights? Haven't we established this is not a valid comparison already............? One might think you were trying to create a strawman argument with me.

One would think by now we have established that, and yet, statements like the ones you made (quoted below) make it clear you are still using them as a valid comparison;

Really? Are you familiar with the (lack of) rules of the early UFC's? The rules that you quoted are for the Unified Rules of MMA, which came long after the original UFC's.

My point was the resistance offered in that type of compeitition is similar to any other kind of fight. A punch is a punch, etc.

Not disputing that those things can work, but

I think the early limited-rules UFC's (rememeber that downward elbows, groin hits and hair grabs were all legal) showed that most of those things are difficult to get or not nearly as effective as one might think.

Again, the early UFC's show otherwise.

I see this gets tossed around by a lot of people. While I agree that is true, there was *nothing* in the rules that gave the Gracies, or grapplers of any type, any kind of advantage, beyond merely allowing grappling at all. The implication that the matches were rigged or tilted in grappler's favor is demonstrably false.

I have never used MMA, the UFC or the early UFC as any kind of indicator of the effectiveness of any style or any set of tactics or techniques.

You have. I will continue to address it, so long as you continue to purport that what happens in a competition of any kind lends credibility to it as a SD technique. Clearly I am not miss representing your position - we can work entirely off your own quotes one by one if you would like.

Meh. Techniques without the foundation of proper timing and distancing are often fairly useless. Those skills, effectively and reliably imparted by sparring, are what makes any technique viable, IME. This is why "limited sport fighters" often whip the tar out of non-sparring folk. Attributes + skill > (particular) techniques. RBSD technique can certainly work, and the benefit is that they are designed to work without much in the way of attributes/skill. It's better to have both, IMHO. Didn't Ed Parker say something like "I would rather fight with 5 good techniques than have 50 bad ones fight me?" (bad paraphrase)

If ever there was a straw man, lol. You successfully defended the notion that those who spar will ultimately win out over those who don't. Bravo. Of course, no one in this thread ever took an opposing opinion.

While some Kenpo, Kali, RBSD techniques will be altered so as not to permanently maim ones practice buddy, the notion that they aren't practiced in such a way as to gain an understanding of real time distance, speed, angles etc is just silly.

Yes, you sound very brutal! I can imagine people with that kind of training.

It's by degrees of course. Some people have had more occurrences of violence in there life, and some have had less. Regardless, I am not speaking as one who has never had to fight for self preservation.

 

[MJS]

I didn't think I was being contradictory. I said I didn't like the multi-opponent stuff, and I didn't like the weapons stuff either. Some of the weapons stuff is workable, where none of the 2-mans are, but that is just MHO. I don't consider the weapons stuff as much of a positive either, if that clarifies. I would point people wanting to learn weapons to weapons specific arts.

Just so I understand this....as long as something works, in this case some of the weapon techs. thats ok. But if nothing works, such as the mutli man techs. then its not ok, and we should just do away with all of them and find a better method altogether?

To expand a bit more...I believe I touched on this in another post, where I said that its up to each person to make sure they're keeping themselves in check. Yes, I said it in post 35. So, I think that many times, people get so set with the techniques, that they look at those as the end all, be all answer, when in reality, the techs are giving a possible solution to the problem. May not be the best solution, but its giving an example. It may be a crappy example, but its something. Again, its up to the student to take it to the next level, and I get the impression that many do not. So the result is that you have people thinking that the weapon techs. are great, when in reality.....

A few weeks ago, I was working Kenpo knife techs with my Arnis inst. who is also a Kenpo BB. We broke each of them down, and compared it to Arnis, looking for some weak areas, possible counters, etc. and sure enough, there were some interesting findings. So, much like the weapon techs. I'll also take the multi man stuff, and try to fine tune it. If I can, great. If I can't, then I'll find something that suits me. This seems to be what Paul Mills has done with his Kenpo. He's made some changes, and IMO, supercharged alot of stuff.

I highlighted my original comments, and I guess I still don't understand, but it's all cool.

I'll try to backtrack a bit. Post 23, K831 stated that he ran a drill with mult. attackers and states that the last place you want to be is on the ground. Post 25, you state that you agree with that, and that most grapplers understand that. Post 31, I state that if grapplers are aware of that, then they would also know that they're going to need some alternatives to grappling. I state that their only solution is to kick the guy in the balls and run, which is only 1 option and that they dont seem to have anything else and if the system that they (the grappler) bills as being so good for SD, that you'd figure they'd have more solutions, but they dont.

Post 34, you state that multi man defense requires you to be upright, which is a no brainer. You state that Kenpo relies on groin kicks. You state that to think that 1 art is complete is crazy thinking. Post 35 has me replying to you, stating that BJJ claims to be so good at SD, yet lacks in a given area. I also state that its important to have more than 1 option, ie: something else other than just hoping your nut kick will work. You also state that the resistance level is the same in both the ring and the street. I disagreed, because while it is there, the ring and the street are different, thus giving different resistance.

It then progresses to where we are currently. I think we both agree that some sort of crosstraining is necessary.

Sure, I've always been about crosstraining. I don't consider myself a "MMA nutrider", as I do not train MMA, and have much more EPAK training than I do BJJ. But I do like MMA as a sport, and a training method. I have found that the practical nature of sparring and resistance balances nicely with the unpracticable aspects of RBSD training.

I wasn't calling you a nutrider, just making a blanket statement. There are many who think that their art is complete. This applies to MMA people and yes, even some Kenpo people. To each their own I suppose.

 

[MattJ]

Interesting, if mildly frustrating debate here. EDIT to add that my comments here are based on the impression that I got from K831's earlier posts, which implied that foul techniques would automatically beat grapplers. If I have mis-interpreted, please ignore every post I have in this thread, LOL.

K831 -

You are indeed using a strawman argument on me. In any of those quotes, please point out where I have ever said that the UFC is *the same* as a street-fight. I have even specifically said the opposite. I was quite specific in mentioning the mechanical similarities, and acknowledge that the mental pressure would not be the same. No type of training can simulate that fear and pressure of an actual assault. Your constant mis-interpretation is incorrect. If I said "diesel and gasoline are not the same things, but they are both fuel", you cannot accuse me of saying that "diesel and gasoline are the same thing", which is basically what you are doing here.

And I assume you can't possibly mean that sparring has no relevance to real world fighting, as you quote here seems to imply? -

You have. I will continue to address it, so long as you continue to purport that what happens in a competition of any kind lends credibility to it as a SD technique.

So you feel that sparring, even the early UFC's - with few rules and no gloves, etc, - does not have any credibility in SD terms? None? That's a pretty extreme view, and not one shared by the vast majority of martial artists that I have seen. I would be interested to hear how you think it would be mechanically different or easier/more effective to do foul techniques on the street compared to those early UFC's. Remember that there were no ref stoppages in the early ones, either, per your earlier comments.

MJS -

Just so I understand this....as long as something works, in this case some of the weapon techs. thats ok. But if nothing works, such as the mutli man techs. then its not ok, and we should just do away with all of them and find a better method altogether?

Well no, that is not exactly what I meant. If a given art does something better, then it would make sense to study that art, rather than bad bits of the same thing in another "more complete" art. Hope that clarifies.

Post 35 has me replying to you, stating that BJJ claims to be so good at SD, yet lacks in a given area.

Important point here. I agree that BJJ often lacks in stand-up (and never claimed it was complete, which is why I was confused that you were bringing that point up to me) . This is why I am a fan of cross-training. Where EPAK is often not good on the ground, and BJJ is often not great in stand-up, put the 2 together and you get.........

Cheers.

 

[K831]

Interesting, if mildly frustrating debate here. EDIT to add that my comments here are based on the impression that I got from K831's earlier posts, which implied that foul techniques would automatically beat grapplers. If I have mis-interpreted, please ignore every post I have in this thread, LOL.

Part of this issue is that you seem to be trying to take my arguments/MJS arguments and make them absolutes.

For example:

I never said that you think the UFC and a street fight are the same, rather, that you put to much trust in the early UFC/UFC's ability to gauge the effectiveness of a given style or set of tactics and its success in the street. Where I quoted you in my last post indicates not that you think they are the exact same, but rather, that you believe if it works in the early UFC, it will work in the street (i.e. BJJ). With that notion, I disagree.

I would never say, "BJJ overcame strikers in the UFC, so a BJJ player has a huge advantage on the ground in the street too".

You said that, and I know it to be incorrect. The argument then contained our reasoning. Yours was largely the example provided by the early UFC and by BJJ's current popularity. I pointed out some of my RBSD type training by sharing my Krav Maga story, and also indicated that I have had several occasions to do it for real. Not to try and position my self as a bad a$$, but rather, to explain that I have ended up on the ground with skilled grapplers, and taken them apart in precisley that you are contending wouldn't work that well.

In any of those quotes, please point out where I have ever said that the UFC is *the same* as a street-fight.

As I pointed out, I am not arguing that you think they are the exact same, rather, that you think they are too similiar. Similar enough to use the early UFC as an indicator of BJJ's likely success in the street, or the "huge advantage" it has on the ground over a striker. I believe that advantage is so large in the ring only, not in the street, for reasons I have already mentioned.

I was quite specific in mentioning the mechanical similarities,

Right, but you are missing the point in doing so. When we drill a one-two count with open hands designed to target the eye's/throat that becomes mechanichaly different than the MMA fighter training his one-two with his hands wrapped and gloves, we have a clear difference. Throw in head buts, downward elbows, sprawls drilled with shots to the neck, spine and eyes, drilling strikes where the other hand draws a knife/gun and on and on and on you end up with different mechanics (nuanced though they may be) but more importantly A DIFFERENT SET OF NEURO-MUSCULAR-MEMORY.

In the street, (given the proper training) this give the non grappler, non MMA fighter the advantage. The list of street vs cage situations where this subtle difference becomes significant it are many. I can give lots of examples if it would help. My experience dealing physically with MMA practitioners and BJJ players, bears this out.

And I assume you can't possibly mean that sparring has no relevance to real world fighting...you feel that sparring, even the early UFC's - with few rules and no gloves, etc, - does not have any credibility in SD terms? None?

Again, your creating absolutes where there are none. Sparring is invaluable, but only to the degree that spar realistically. Simply gloving up and having contact does not mean what you are doing is the best, or even good, for the street.

Important point here. I agree that BJJ often lacks in stand-up (and never claimed it was complete, which is why I was confused that you were bringing that point up to me) . This is why I am a fan of cross-training. Where EPAK is often not good on the ground, and BJJ is often not great in stand-up, put the 2 together and you get.........

Cheers.

We disagree here, while I agree it is benificial for any SD striking stylist to gain some ground awareness, I do not think studying BJJ is the way to do it. Not unless you have a very non traditional, combative oriented BJJ instructor, in which case, he wouldn't real be teaching BJJ.

As I said before, the manner in which BJJ works for position and then works for submission, is virtually worthless in the street. If you do find yourself on the ground, it it the WRONG APPROACH to transition into. Hence my prompt leaving of the BJJ school after a few visits, and my focus with a catchwrestler/Sambo guy. Much more effective approach for the street, that integrates much better into dirty striking on the ground. Which is all you really should be doing on the ground, anyways.

 

[MJS]

Interesting, if mildly frustrating debate here. EDIT to add that my comments here are based on the impression that I got from K831's earlier posts, which implied that foul techniques would automatically beat grapplers. If I have mis-interpreted, please ignore every post I have in this thread, LOL.

K831 -

You are indeed using a strawman argument on me. In any of those quotes, please point out where I have ever said that the UFC is *the same* as a street-fight. I have even specifically said the opposite. I was quite specific in mentioning the mechanical similarities, and acknowledge that the mental pressure would not be the same. No type of training can simulate that fear and pressure of an actual assault. Your constant mis-interpretation is incorrect. If I said "diesel and gasoline are not the same things, but they are both fuel", you cannot accuse me of saying that "diesel and gasoline are the same thing", which is basically what you are doing here.

K831 commented in his own post, but I'll toss in my 2 pennies too. I think that we're all somewhat agreeing, but there's still some confusion. For myself, I dont want to use what I see happening in the ring, as the deciding factor, as to what is going to work or not work, and IMHO, there're way too many MMA fanboys that think the opposite. They see their heros doing something, and assume that a) that tech is high percentage and b) that because it worked for their hero fighter, that it'll work for them too, when in reality, how can one assume that it will? I mean, I'm not built like Royce, so what HE can do, what HE can make work, I may not. Its no different than me and my Kenpo inst. I'm taller and built different, so what he can pull off, compared to what I can pull off, and vice versa, is different.

I still teach moves that for ME, are not high percentage. Why? Because someone else may find value in them.

As for simulating the fear, etc. Well, LEO and Military branches do this all the time. LEOs use a FATS simulator (Firearms Training Simulator). I had the chance to try this out one day as well. Sure, we know that the badguy shooting at me really isn't going to kill me, but its the mental training. Its amazing how, when you're faced with that stress, you could be the greatest shot one min. and suck the next...because of that stress. The military plays their 'wargames' too. I have a friend in the reserves, and he's always telling me about his weekend training. Peyton Quinn used this type of training. Its all the mindset. My point is, and has been, that yes, there is stress in both the ring and the street. Difference being, that in the street, I'm fighting for my life. One mistake could get me killed, whereas in the ring, whats the worst thats going to happen? I lose the match.

And I assume you can't possibly mean that sparring has no relevance to real world fighting, as you quote here seems to imply? -

It does, but again, it all comes down to how its trained and what the focus is.

So you feel that sparring, even the early UFC's - with few rules and no gloves, etc, - does not have any credibility in SD terms? None? That's a pretty extreme view, and not one shared by the vast majority of martial artists that I have seen. I would be interested to hear how you think it would be mechanically different or easier/more effective to do foul techniques on the street compared to those early UFC's. Remember that there were no ref stoppages in the early ones, either, per your earlier comments.

Very simple...you fight like you train. I have my bread and butter moves. Its interesting because many times, while running thru spontaneous tech. drills, I find myself doing the same things over and over and over. Why? Because I feel confident in that move, so I keep doing it. I'm not saying that there are no BJJ schools that offer SD, but the majority that I see are sport training.

MJS -



Well no, that is not exactly what I meant. If a given art does something better, then it would make sense to study that art, rather than bad bits of the same thing in another "more complete" art. Hope that clarifies.

I try to stick with my base (Kenpo) but I'm not afraid to look outside either. Remember in my last post, when I was talking about the knife techs? I still try to keep it 'Kenpo', working out some kinks, but if all else fails, I have the Arnis to fall back on. As I said, I think that many times, we have to not be so bound by things. The empty hand techs. give us a base, but they're not or should not be set in stone. When I run thru techs. its very rare that, during that spontaneous drill, I do a full Kenpo tech. But, you'll always see me doing parts, using the concepts, etc. So, again, this is what I do with the knife stuff, and what we should be doing with the multi man stuff as well.

Seeing that this has come up, and that K831 has trained with Mr. Mills, I'm interested in hearing how the AKKI has addressed the mutli man attacks. Maybe he can share some insight with us.

Important point here. I agree that BJJ often lacks in stand-up (and never claimed it was complete, which is why I was confused that you were bringing that point up to me) . This is why I am a fan of cross-training. Where EPAK is often not good on the ground, and BJJ is often not great in stand-up, put the 2 together and you get.........

Cheers.

I think we've covered this, and found that we're in agreement on the cross training. I was simply stating that many of the fanboys think that it is the best, when it really isn't in that area. Perhaps that example was used to explain something else, and the intent or point got lost in the shuffle. I believe the way K831 and I train the ground vs. the way the average BJJ guy trains it, are 2 different animals.

 

[MattJ]

K831 -

Part of this issue is that you seem to be trying to take my arguments/MJS arguments and make them absolutes.

Well, to be fair, I don't think I have made any "absolute" statements at all. I am no master, but I have been in MA long enough to know that nothing - MMA or RBSD - is completely reliable in a real fight.

You said that, and I know it to be incorrect. The argument then contained our reasoning. Yours was largely the example provided by the early UFC and by BJJ's current popularity. I pointed out some of my RBSD type training by sharing my Krav Maga story, and also indicated that I have had several occasions to do it for real. Not to try and position my self as a bad a$$, but rather, to explain that I have ended up on the ground with skilled grapplers, and taken them apart in precisley that you are contending wouldn't work that well.

I guess I'm still having a problem with the logic that your singular story trumps the multitude of other experiences that were the opposite. I have never disputed that foul moves cannot work, and spent time in an art studying them myself. My point was that they are not as reliable as some make them out to be. My experience in BJJ class, for instance, has been somewhat different. I have been poked and kneed in class, and sometimes it has stopped me cold. Other times it did nothing.

Right, but you are missing the point in doing so. When we drill a one-two count with open hands designed to target the eye's/throat that becomes mechanichaly different than the MMA fighter training his one-two with his hands wrapped and gloves, we have a clear difference. Throw in head buts, downward elbows, sprawls drilled with shots to the neck, spine and eyes, drilling strikes where the other hand draws a knife/gun and on and on and on you end up with different mechanics (nuanced though they may be) but more importantly A DIFFERENT SET OF NEURO-MUSCULAR-MEMORY.

Like in the early UFC's, you mean? All the techniques mentioned here, save the eye shots, were legal in those early events. Not making an absolute, just adding to my point above.

We disagree here, while I agree it is benificial for any SD striking stylist to gain some ground awareness, I do not think studying BJJ is the way to do it. Not unless you have a very non traditional, combative oriented BJJ instructor, in which case, he wouldn't real be teaching BJJ.

As I said before, the manner in which BJJ works for position and then works for submission, is virtually worthless in the street. If you do find yourself on the ground, it it the WRONG APPROACH to transition into. Hence my prompt leaving of the BJJ school after a few visits, and my focus with a catchwrestler/Sambo guy. Much more effective approach for the street, that integrates much better into dirty striking on the ground. Which is all you really should be doing on the ground, anyways.

Well, now you are throwing absolutes around, yes? I find it somewhat humorous to think that the BJJ position-before-submission approach is so street-worthless in your view, in light of BJJ's origin as a NHB street-fighting art in Brazil. I personally think that BJJ is great to keep me from going to the ground, or getting to a better position from the ground in order to use my kenpo striking. But that's just me.

That said, I have heard good things about Sambo and catchwrestling, too.

MJS -

As for simulating the fear, etc. Well, LEO and Military branches do this all the time. LEOs use a FATS simulator (Firearms Training Simulator). I had the chance to try this out one day as well. Sure, we know that the badguy shooting at me really isn't going to kill me, but its the mental training. Its amazing how, when you're faced with that stress, you could be the greatest shot one min. and suck the next...because of that stress.

That is essentially the same rationale used for sparring and competition.

Difference being, that in the street, I'm fighting for my life.

Hmmm......parsing your agument pretty heavily here. Every street-fight is a fight to the death? What about drunken friends/relatives, etc? Do we throat-punch and eye-gouge them , too?

One mistake could get me killed, whereas in the ring, whats the worst thats going to happen? I lose the match.

Broken arms, legs, jaws, etc? I'm sure we've all seen these in MMA, for instance.

I'm not saying that there are no BJJ schools that offer SD, but the majority that I see are sport training.

See, here I reading a bit of condescension with the "sport training". The takedowns and submissions in grappling are as real in class as they would be on the street. Limited as they are, they are real in their scope, something that cannot be said for eyegouges, for instance. At least not in any EPAK school I have been to, LOL!

When I run thru techs. its very rare that, during that spontaneous drill, I do a full Kenpo tech. But, you'll always see me doing parts, using the concepts

Excellent! So many people miss the point of kenpo, and just become technique collectors. I use kenpo concepts like tracking, marriage of gravity, zones of obscurity, and checking in my sparring all the time. They work well when put into practice, which is something that many kenpo folk don't do, sadly.

 

[K831]

K831 -

I guess I'm still having a problem with the logic that your singular story trumps the multitude of other experiences that were the opposite.

Oh come now, you mean the "singular story" I happened to share in this thread? Are you just choosing to ignore the many inferences I have made to other training, seminars and to real life occurrences?

What multitude of other experiences show that BJJ is the approach to take for the street? What multitude of experiences show that BJJ can overcome the tactics I have previously described? Will you cite the early UFC's again?

BJJ is a "ground fighting art" and yet most understand that it is silly to go to the ground in the street.

Not only is it a ground fighting art, it's focus is on getting the opponent there, and staying there, whereas, it would seem, if the ground is not a good place to be, shouldn't our training focus on getting free and getting back up?

My experience in BJJ class, for instance, has been somewhat different. I have been poked and kneed in class, and sometimes it has stopped me cold. Other times it did nothing.

This statement speaks clearly to the disconnect I mentioned in other posts. The background and paradigm we have are just different. I find it highly illuminating that you would cite this as any type of proof or indicator.

When you were poked in the eye and it did nothing, was that poke an accident? Or tell me, was your opponent trying with all his might and energy to drive his finger as deep into your eye as he possible could, while butting and clawing with all his might? Did he try and bounce your head off the pavement? Did he bite viciously any part of your body that got near his mouth? The list is endless, I think it is safe to say, by your references, you have not tried BJJ on that type of opponent. All those I know who have, quickly abandonded the position-submission process, as they would be left in a heap before sinking anything.

Everyone uses the UFC or some accidental poke as a reference. Until you have been on the ground with an animal who engages with all he has in the attempt to claw, bite, butt slam and break small parts of you, the situation just won't be comprehend the same.

 

[Flying Crane]

Does American Kenpo have some takedowns,trows and pins to the groud? Yes I know kenpo is mainly a striking art but want to know if there are some kind of movements like in aikido, not really aikido, I mean control techs were one can break grabs or redirect punches using the bad guys force to send it to the ground and pin him to the floor?

Thanx.

manny

I cannot speak for any lineage but my own experience in the lineage in which I train.

that being said, in the Tracy lineage we do have such methods.

 

[MattJ]

Oh come now, you mean the "singular story" I happened to share in this thread? Are you just choosing to ignore the many inferences I have made to other training, seminars and to real life occurrences?

I was referring to you as a single story, not any particular one you mentioned. Apologies for lack of clarity.

What multitude of other experiences show that BJJ is the approach to take for the street? What multitude of experiences show that BJJ can overcome the tactics I have previously described?

I believe I have addressed this before in terms of the early UFC's, and BJJ's overall popularity. EDIT to add that I re-read your statement above, and was not referring to BJJ (in particular) superiority over any other art, rather that foul techniques are not the massive advantage that they are pitched to be. I consider myself to be primarily an EPAK guy, and fouls haven't worked very well on me as a kenpo guy, if that helps. I do not believe any one art is superior to the other in totality, only in specific areas.

BJJ is a "ground fighting art" and yet most understand that it is silly to go to the ground in the street.

Yet, it is the stated goal of most arts - including many kenpo techniques - to put people on the ground by whatever means, yes? Which leads me to:

Not only is it a ground fighting art, it's focus is on getting the opponent there, and staying there, whereas, it would seem, if the ground is not a good place to be, shouldn't our training focus on getting free and getting back up?

Sure, and this is where you are somewhat off-base about what BJJ is. There are two components to the art, offensive and defensive. The offensive part of the art does involve putting the opponent on the ground, and maybe following them down, too. The defensive part is where someone has put *us* on the ground, and *we* are attempting to gain dominant position, which may include getting up. Even BJJ competitions follow this mindset - points are given for takedowns and escaping from the bottom, but not for pulling guard. FWIW.

When you were poked in the eye and it did nothing, was that poke an accident? Or tell me, was your opponent trying with all his might and energy to drive his finger as deep into your eye as he possible could, while butting and clawing with all his might? Did he try and bounce your head off the pavement? Did he bite viciously any part of your body that got near his mouth?

Do your training partners routinely do any of these things? I think it's safe to say that no one's training is that vicious. This is where I have a problem with your line of reasoning - by disallowing something like the early UFCs (no refs, no gear, few rules), what standard or representation do you use that could be more realistic? Your standard would seem to indicate that I have to kill someone to prove efficacy. I find that a bit extreme, LOL.

The list is endless, I think it is safe to say, by your references, you have not tried BJJ on that type of opponent. All those I know who have, quickly abandonded the position-submission process, as they would be left in a heap before sinking anything.

I have also worked with another guy who trained the Shredder extrensively (I assume you know what that is), and yes, he really did gouge me in the eyes (and nose and mouth), but was not able to stop me from clinching him. He also punched another member in the throat. Hard! Pretty scary to watch, but again, if you don't get those perfect, they are not fight stoppers. But I suppose these are not good enough either. I'll try to kill someone tonight if I can, LOL. *

* that is a joke for the LE and FBI who may be reading!

 

[K831]

Very simple...you fight like you train.

Why this is lost on so many still eludes me. Even in our seminars, some MMA guy will raise his hand and say "well, I wouldn't do that in the street just because I do it in the ring" or "oh, I would just add that, I would remember that the street is different if I was in a real street fight."

Um.. no you probably wont.

Seeing that this has come up, and that K831 has trained with Mr. Mills, I'm interested in hearing how the AKKI has addressed the mutli man attacks. Maybe he can share some insight with us.

Couple of things. First, the multi man techs. in the AKKI curriculum are the same originals from the EPAK system.

They have not been re-written and re-designed like the knife and club offensive and defensive material or the sets, drills and freestyle (some of them) have been.

Having said that, it is general knowledge that there are some flaws with these techniques, and when they are worked in an AKKI school, the approach is;

"here is how it was originally written, here is what is good about the technique, and here is what is tactically unsound... can you formulate from this?"

Mr. Mills has said they are being re-worked and replaced, but to my knowledge, the new AKKI multi attacker techniques have not been "released". We do however have some pretty good drills we use geared towards teaching the student to formulate and utilize pieces of the techniques they do have in multi attacker situations, focusing on appropriate angles (footwork) speed of action, and theory regarding who to hit first in a group, who to move to next and so on.

So it is progressing and developing and it is not presented as "these old techniques are how you deal with mult attackers" but technically, the techniques are the same as they were originally.

I believe the way K831 and I train the ground vs. the way the average BJJ guy trains it, are 2 different animals.

I would suppose so! And to be honest, it was really hard for me to find guys that wanted to work the ground the way I did. I went into many BJJ and MMA schools etc and they were all coming at it from the wrong paradigm.

My AKKI school has some good "Kenpo ground stuff" and we have some senior BB's who are highly ranked BJJ players, were collegiate wrestlers etc.. so the resource is there, however, you can only cover so much material in two classes a week. I wanted to train more than that so I found a good FMA place and some mean ol catch wrestlers that have learned to apply their grappling to a "strike-position-strike-get up ASAP" philosophy. So much better than rolling around looking for a submission stuff I did in the BJJ classes I tried.

 

[K831]

Do your training partners routinely do any of these things? I think it's safe to say that no one's training is that vicious.

OOhhh Eemmm GGGEE as my youngest siblings would say.

You want to use an accidental eye poke as an example of how eye gouging doesn't work reliably.

When I ask if that eye poke was done as it would be in the context we are discussing (the street) you take that to the furthest possible extreme on the other side...that I think you must kill someone to prove a technique worthy? Wow.

As I have explained ad nauseum, your example of an accidental eye poke that "did nothing" to stop you was a bit silly, given the context.

My standard, as I have explained, is having done what I describe. Training with others who have done so.

The early UFC's you keep mentioning:

This is where I have a problem with your line of reasoning - by disallowing something like the early UFCs (no refs, no gear, few rules), what standard or representation do you use that could be more realistic?

Few rules? Sure, they were a touch rougher than our current version, but many mainstays of street violence were not allowed. I seem to remember they still happened on a mat, away from pavement, curbs, broken glass. If memory serves the use of any weapon was illegal, as were multiple attackers, or heck, even blindsiding someone when they weren't ready. Not to mention the biting, eye gouging etc.

They are not realistic. At all.

The standard or representation are my real experiences coupled with the thousands of real experiences amassed by LEO, soldiers and many in various security and protection fields, not to mention the guys out there teaching and training who come from a terribly violent past. I still baffles me that you would consider the early UFC as a standard or representation at all when it comes to SD. Why would I go roll at BJJ school when there are so many teaching who are outside of that rule/competition mindset, and when my own experience have already shown me the ineffectiveness of BJJ outside its current and popular context?

 

[MattJ]

OOhhh Eemmm GGGEE as my youngest siblings would say.

No need to be snide.

You want to use an accidental eye poke as an example of how eye gouging doesn't work reliably.

When I ask if that eye poke was done as it would be in the context we are discussing (the street) you take that to the furthest possible extreme on the other side...that I think you must kill someone to prove a technique worthy? Wow.

I did offer another example......? The killing thing was obviously in jest, although I'm starting to see that a sense of humor of lacking around here.

As I have explained ad nauseum, your example of an accidental eye poke that "did nothing" to stop you was a bit silly, given the context.

Was my eye not poked either way? It wasn't silly when it happened, LOL. You also seem to be missing my point that just because someone *wants* to poke me in the eye or whatever, doesn't mean that they actually are able to.

My standard, as I have explained, is having done what I describe. Training with others who have done so.

You are avoiding my question: If you find the early UFC's so unrealistic, what do you consider an effective simulation? I'm not saying that pretending to gouge people's eyes is worthless, but is it more realistic than people actually hitting and submitting each other? I can't see where it is.

Few rules? Sure, they were a touch rougher than our current version, but many mainstays of street violence were not allowed. I seem to remember they still happened on a mat, away from pavement, curbs, broken glass. If memory serves the use of any weapon was illegal, as were multiple attackers, or heck, even blindsiding someone when they weren't ready. Not to mention the biting, eye gouging etc.

I guess I will repeat for the umpteenth time that the UFC is not a streetfight. Thought we had been over this before. It is the closest simulation I can think of, but it is not a streetfight (remember my diesel/gas analogy earlier). There is no simulation that you like? Nothing that's even close? You said that sparring was good if it was realistic enough, so I figured that the early UFC's in particular would fit your bill, but you say below that they are "not realistic. At all". So, what kind of sparring is more realistic? Or did you mean there is some other type of training that is more realistic? And please, let's not mention your real fights. Fighting is fighting, not training. Feel free to assume that I have no street-fighting experience, for the sake of argument. Be that as it may, how do I ever get any kind of experience? I am not going to beat up people on the street for maximum realism. That is not training.

They are not realistic. At all.
The standard or representation are my real experiences coupled with the thousands of real experiences amassed by LEO, soldiers and many in various security and protection fields, not to mention the guys out there teaching and training who come from a terribly violent past. I still baffles me that you would consider the early UFC as a standard or representation at all when it comes to SD. Why would I go roll at BJJ school when there are so many teaching who are outside of that rule/competition mindset, and when my own experience have already shown me the ineffectiveness of BJJ outside its current and popular context?

I have to think that either you haven't ever seen the early UFC's, or you are just being dishonest. Not at all realistic? Come one, man. That is some serious denial! Seems kind of knee-jerk irrational to me. The majority of the untutored public seems to think it's pretty close, and they would have no bias either way.

And I don't remember shilling for anyone to go to a BJJ school. Judo, catch, Sambo, wrestling, etc are all good grappling arts. I think it's great that so many people have decided to supplement their stand-up training with grappling - in whatever art they choose.

 

[K831]

From this.....

No need to be snide.

To this....

The killing thing was obviously in jest, although I'm starting to see that a sense of humor of lacking around here.

Now that right there is funny. You can jest, I cannot. Your cherry picking is a hindrance to the conversation.

It is the closest simulation I can think of, but it is not a streetfight

Since things that typically occur in a street fight do not happen in the UFC, I do not see it as a close simulation.

You keep saying realistic. Realistic of what? Yea, the UFC is a realistic representation of two guys who come out with their hands up, knowing they are going to fight, knowing the other doesn't have a weapon, knowing his friends wont jump in and so on. The average person may in fact think that is how violence happens on the street. You may think that. It isn't true. Since these kinds of "simulations" do not take into account those things (which are quite common in a real violent encounter) then no, I do not consider them realistic simulations of what would happen in the "street". Not one time while working security have I ever seen a fight break out where all parties involved touched gloves and then went at it without any other interference, no use of chairs or broken bottles or any other safety rules. It just doesn't happen.


As to your last question, no. No amount of training or simulations will ever be the same as doing it for real.

No matter. I'm glad you enjoy BJJ and the earl UFC's and I wish you well. If you are ever in AZ, we can BBQ and then I'll promptly gouge you in the eye! Ha.

 

[MattJ]

Now that right there is funny. You can jest, I cannot. Your cherry picking is a hindrance to the conversation.

You haven't been cherry-picking? -

Since things that typically occur in a street fight do not happen in the UFC, I do not see it as a close simulation.

You keep saying realistic. Realistic of what? Yea, the UFC is a realistic representation of two guys who come out with their hands up, knowing they are going to fight, knowing the other doesn't have a weapon, knowing his friends wont jump in and so on. The average person may in fact think that is how violence happens on the street. You may think that. It isn't true. Since these kinds of "simulations" do not take into account those things (which are quite common in a real violent encounter) then no, I do not consider them realistic simulations of what would happen in the "street". Not one time while working security have I ever seen a fight break out where all parties involved touched gloves and then went at it without any other interference, no use of chairs or broken bottles or any other safety rules. It just doesn't happen.

You are assuming that EVERY SINGLE fight outside the UFC involves multiple opponents and guns and broken bottles? Where do you do security? Iraq? The vast majority of violence is two people beating the crap out of each other. Do other, more violent assaults happen? Sure. But those are hardly the only kind, and you know it. You are cherry picking. Check YouTube or Google if you don't believe me.

I have also worked in the security field, and still have my MD state police clearance card. So feel free to assume that I don't know what I'm talking about, even though I have demonstrated several of your assumptions to be incorrect.

As to your last question, no. No amount of training or simulations will ever be the same as doing it for real.

Yet again, you have avoided answering my question. We have long ago established that training is not the same as a real fight. I take it you have no answer, then.

No matter. I'm glad you enjoy BJJ and the earl UFC's and I wish you well. If you are ever in AZ, we can BBQ and then I'll promptly gouge you in the eye! Ha.

OK, that was funny!

BTW, despite the bristle in our respective points above, I appreciate the BBQ offer. I have been to AZ (Glendale) to visit my inlaws, and really enjoyed it out there. I will bring protective goggles, though. :ultracool

 

[MJS]

MJS -



That is essentially the same rationale used for sparring and competition.

Well, yes, however, the goal and mindset are different.

Hmmm......parsing your agument pretty heavily here. Every street-fight is a fight to the death? What about drunken friends/relatives, etc? Do we throat-punch and eye-gouge them , too?

I'm not going to assume that the person standing across from me, is just going to do nothing more than yell at me, try to intimidate me, attack me with fists or with weapons, so yes, in todays world, with the badguy not giving a crap about you, I will look at it as a fight to the death.

As for my 'drunken' friends and family....you're assuming that all of my friends and family get plastered at every function. LOL. Couldn't be further from the truth. Personally, its very rare that I drink, and when I do, its not enough to get me drunk. Frankly, I can't stand the taste. That being said, its very rare that I put myself in a position in which I'm around a bunch of drunks. As for how I would handle a drunk friend or family member....again, those people are not stumbling, but if someone were to attack me, I would first assess...is this person, this family member, really trying to cause me harm? I would certainly hope not, and IMO, it'd be unlikely, but if it did come to that, I'd address it accordingly. Were one of them to pick up a knife and come after me, then yes, if it meant causing damage, then so be it.

Broken arms, legs, jaws, etc? I'm sure we've all seen these in MMA, for instance.

Rare that that happens in MMA. There have been a few, IIRC, Gracie vs. Jason Deluca (sp) in which Royce really cranked his arm.

See, here I reading a bit of condescension with the "sport training". The takedowns and submissions in grappling are as real in class as they would be on the street. Limited as they are, they are real in their scope, something that cannot be said for eyegouges, for instance. At least not in any EPAK school I have been to, LOL!

So you're advocating going to the ground in a street fight, and looking for a submission? LMAO!! Alrighty then. If thats what YOU want to do, go for it man. Me...if I end up there, I'll do my best to get back to my feet. If, and only if, a sub. presents itself, I might take advantage of it, but if you think I'm going to intentionally look for one, you're crazy.

Excellent! So many people miss the point of kenpo, and just become technique collectors. I use kenpo concepts like tracking, marriage of gravity, zones of obscurity, and checking in my sparring all the time. They work well when put into practice, which is something that many kenpo folk don't do, sadly.

I do all the techs., I teach all the techs., but as I said, I have my bread and butter moves.

 

[MJS]

Why this is lost on so many still eludes me. Even in our seminars, some MMA guy will raise his hand and say "well, I wouldn't do that in the street just because I do it in the ring" or "oh, I would just add that, I would remember that the street is different if I was in a real street fight."

Um.. no you probably wont.

Agreed.

Couple of things. First, the multi man techs. in the AKKI curriculum are the same originals from the EPAK system.

They have not been re-written and re-designed like the knife and club offensive and defensive material or the sets, drills and freestyle (some of them) have been.

Having said that, it is general knowledge that there are some flaws with these techniques, and when they are worked in an AKKI school, the approach is;

"here is how it was originally written, here is what is good about the technique, and here is what is tactically unsound... can you formulate from this?"

Mr. Mills has said they are being re-worked and replaced, but to my knowledge, the new AKKI multi attacker techniques have not been "released". We do however have some pretty good drills we use geared towards teaching the student to formulate and utilize pieces of the techniques they do have in multi attacker situations, focusing on appropriate angles (footwork) speed of action, and theory regarding who to hit first in a group, who to move to next and so on.

So it is progressing and developing and it is not presented as "these old techniques are how you deal with mult attackers" but technically, the techniques are the same as they were originally.

And this is exactly what I was talking about in my other post. Its up to the student to figure some things out for themselves as well. A story that I always tell....when I used to have the class do techniques, many times, I'd have everyone make a big circle, give everyone a number, put someone in the middle, and have the others attack as I called the number, much like we saw in Fight Quest, with the Kaju episode. Many times, the student in the middle was faced with an attack that they had not yet learned a preset defense for, so they'd look at me with this deer in the head lights look. I'd stop everyone, and ask the student if they knew how to block, punch, kick and move? They would say yes. I'd then tell them to do it! It was amazing to see the 'light' go on, because now they knew what I was getting at.

On another note....I worked some interesting, non Kenpo related, multi man attacks today. Good stuff.

I would suppose so! And to be honest, it was really hard for me to find guys that wanted to work the ground the way I did. I went into many BJJ and MMA schools etc and they were all coming at it from the wrong paradigm.

My AKKI school has some good "Kenpo ground stuff" and we have some senior BB's who are highly ranked BJJ players, were collegiate wrestlers etc.. so the resource is there, however, you can only cover so much material in two classes a week. I wanted to train more than that so I found a good FMA place and some mean ol catch wrestlers that have learned to apply their grappling to a "strike-position-strike-get up ASAP" philosophy. So much better than rolling around looking for a submission stuff I did in the BJJ classes I tried.