Toning Down The Techniques

[MJS]

In another thread, this thread from KT was mentioned. While reading a few of those posts, I started thinking about our Kenpo techniques. If we look at them, we see some pretty brutal stuff. Eye pokes, groin kicks, breaks, stomps, you name it, its probably in a technique.

Doc commented that if someone has to do those things, then they haven't learned any martial arts skills. Now, I find myself agreeing and disagreeing with part of this, and hopefully Doc, or another SL4 student will chime in, for the specifics of the way things are done with those techs.

Now, I agree that we should not have to rely on those things to win. if we can't figure out a few other ways to defend ourselves, what have we really learned? Additionally, if thats all we know, then we'll probably find ourselves doing some overkill with alot of things that don't warrant that type of response.

On the other hand, there may be some cases, where we do need those extreme measures, so not doing them could be the difference between winning and losing.

Back to the techniques. Should we change/modify what we do, to avoid the brutal aspect or just go with the tech. as written? So, think Lone Kimono....a simple left hand lapel grab and the first move entails a rising strike to the elbow, in an effort to get a break or hyper extension. Following that, is a strike down on that same arm and then an outward handsword to the neck.

Thoughts?

 

[exile]

In another thread, this thread from KT was mentioned. While reading a few of those posts, I started thinking about our Kenpo techniques. If we look at them, we see some pretty brutal stuff. Eye pokes, groin kicks, breaks, stomps, you name it, its probably in a technique.

Doc commented that if someone has to do those things, then they haven't learned any martial arts skills. Now, I find myself agreeing and disagreeing with part of this, and hopefully Doc, or another SL4 student will chime in, for the specifics of the way things are done with those techs.

Now, I agree that we should not have to rely on those things to win. if we can't figure out a few other ways to defend ourselves, what have we really learned? Additionally, if thats all we know, then we'll probably find ourselves doing some overkill with alot of things that don't warrant that type of response.

On the other hand, there may be some cases, where we do need those extreme measures, so not doing them could be the difference between winning and losing.

Back to the techniques. Should we change/modify what we do, to avoid the brutal aspect or just go with the tech. as written? So, think Lone Kimono....a simple left hand lapel grab and the first move entails a rising strike to the elbow, in an effort to get a break or hyper extension. Following that, is a strike down on that same arm and then an outward handsword to the neck.

Thoughts?

I'm not really sure why there's a problem. All MAs were, originally, systems of effective self-defense against a violent, dangerous attacker. They have been used in this way repeatedly as far back as we have any records for; certainly, their use in military combatives suggests that there are plenty of highly skilled practitioners who are nonetheless quite capable of using them to terminate an attack in the absolute minimum of time. Once you're under attack, your life is definitely in jeopardy, and you are well-advised to do what you need to do to preserve it at minimum risk to yourself—which means, ending the attack, on your terms, in the shortest possible time.

I cannot understand how taking this approach to a conflict represents a lack of martial skills. The whole point of Okinawan karate—the rootstock of Shotokan and other Japanese systems, of Kenpo, of Taekwondo—was maximum damage to an attacker in minimum time with minimum risk. Is efficiency in executing the techs of a skill set evidence of a lack of skill? Or are we looking at some artificial 'æsthetic' criterion, like the conceit in knife-fighting that terminating your opponent's attack with the edge of the blade is 'more elegant' than using a stabbing thrust for that effect? This sounds akin to the view that a pretty six-move forced mate in chess is somehow more skillful than a blunt-force three move forced mate. I don't know where such an idea might have come from, but it sounds like a personal taste issue, having nothing to do with the actual skill level of the practitioner.

Excess force is always to be avoided, but that doesn't sound to me like the issue. If you look at effective bunkai for karate and TKD forms, they involve extreme damage—hard strikes to temple and throat, neck twists, eye strikes. Why is the ability to impose these decisively terminal countermeasures on a dangerous attacker not evidence of skill, if the practitioner can do it at will in the face of an all-out physical assault? I don't get it....

 

[suicide]

i guess if its a obnoxious drunk that you no you could smash then yeah a basic lone kimono would be cool but what if its a ex con fresh out of state prison on drugs trying to robb you ? then brown belt techs and some would be called for %-}

 

[Thesemindz]

I think the advanced student can choose to execute the technique to varying degrees of intensity.

If someone grabs me, and I push their arm off of my chest, shove their leg away from me to cancel their off hand, and push them away, haven't I just executed Delayed Sword? It may not be the same degree of force, but it's built on the same chassis.

We can do that with all of our techniques, and even our basics. Can't a punch be a push, or a push a palm strike?

We don't always have to turn it up to 11, but I'm glad my amp goes up that far in case I need that little extra oomph.


-Rob

 

[suicide]

:jediduel:

 

[LawDog]

One must be able to "justify" the use of these types of mamming techniques.
Probably ok when,
*they are much bigger and stronger,
*likelyhood of very serious bodily harm,
*he is armed,
*more than one opponent,
*etc.
If you have that advantage of superior ability and size then you might not want to use them.
Judged by six - carried by six is easy to say but if / when it happens to you then behind the ole bars you could be and / or out of pocket forever you will be.
:uhyeah:

 

[Carol]

And the key to doing that is in the mind. Fighting on the street can't always be about pure instinct.

 

[punisher73]

You need appropriate levels of force. If a drunk buddy at your Christmas party is a little agitated and grabs your suit lapel, do you think violently breaking his arm is going to endear you to the boss and other co-workers? Now if a drunk outside of a bar grabs your shirt and he has a beer bottle in his other hand, then you have the tools to break the grabbing arm as you move offline and then strike to the throat to end it.

If all you have in your tool box is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail...

 

[exile]

You need appropriate levels of force. If a drunk buddy at your Christmas party is a little agitated and grabs your suit lapel, do you think violently breaking his arm is going to endear you to the boss and other co-workers? Now if a drunk outside of a bar grabs your shirt and he has a beer bottle in his other hand, then you have the tools to break the grabbing arm as you move offline and then strike to the throat to end it.

If all you have in your tool box is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail...

Right, but it's not clear that that's exactly what Doc was saying:

I don't teach it. Don't need to. In the old days we called that "Women's Self-Defense Class." If one adult male has to stick his fingers in another adult man's eyes for throwing a punch at him, than he hasn't been taught any martial arts skills. That's what we used to teach women in a one time, two-hour rape prevention seminar.

It looks to me as though the idea here is that regardless of the context of the punch, Doc is saying that an eye-strike indicates minimal levels of skill. If the punch is thrown in the context of a surprise attack in an otherwise empty parking garage at 10:45 Wednesday night, you'd better do whatever you have to to terminate the fight favorably, and fast. Eye strikes are highly effective, and there are plenty of eye-strike-applicable movements in classical katas and hyung motions derived from those katas. Chotoku Kyan was notorious for all kinds of horrific attacks on the face of his adversaries... would we say that he wasn't taught any MA skills?

You can argue about whether excessive force was involved or not, but it seems to me that what's at issue in Mike's post is something different: whether these simple, brutal techniques are regarded in some quarters as evidence of lack of technical skill. Since the point of the MAs is to give you a maximum margin of safety when you're under physical assault, though, I don't see the basis for that kind of complaint. The karate-based arts are all about striking—that's their strategic plan. Controlling moves to set up a finishing strike or take the attacker down, sure... but you've still got to deal with him once he's down, or he'll be back at you once he gets up; at least, you have to assume that, eh? In a genuinely dangerous situation, you really don't have much choice but to inflict enough damage to incapacite your attack as quickly as you can—the longer the fight goes on, the more chance you have of getting hurt. Given all that, what on earth is wrong with eye strikes or comparably damaging techs? How do they count as 'low skill' techniques, when the whole point is to get a dangerous attacker out of the fight?
__________________

 

[punisher73]

I think you are right. Many of the traditional applications involve "soft tissue" strikes to the throat, eyes, etc. They were designed in a time when you didn't have to worry about getting arrested for "excessive force" when some bandit mugged you on a country road. You only had to worry about getting away with your life. The applications and lessons that are taught fit the culture and the times they were created for.

Doc's viewpoint is not from a TMA, but a CMA influenced approach through SGM Parker's kenpo. Ed Parker created his version of kenpo to fit into an american style of fighting and framework. Doc has written about this before and as he made his kenpo more available to the masses SGM Parker knew that he couldn't control the quality of that information so he put in lower level applications to give people a viable means as they sought out and learned better ways to control and end the fight. If you look at many of the techniques found in SGM Parker's kenpo (the commercial side of it) you will see a disportionate response to the attack. For example, in the yellow belt techniques there is "Sword and Hammer", a new student learns that when someone grabs your right shoulder, how to strike them in the throat with a knifehand strike ( the sword) and then follow it up with a hammer to the groin.

It teaches certain applications and principles for the new student to apply, but it is NOT legal to use this technique as written. There is a higher level of knowledge that a student learns to control this without resorting to lethal force right off the bat. I think the point of this is, not to only rely on the eye strikes and throat strikes, but start to expand from there and come up with varying levels of response for the situation. Then if really needed you know what tool fits the job.

 

[exile]

I think you are right. Many of the traditional applications involve "soft tissue" strikes to the throat, eyes, etc. They were designed in a time when you didn't have to worry about getting arrested for "excessive force" when some bandit mugged you on a country road. You only had to worry about getting away with your life. The applications and lessons that are taught fit the culture and the times they were created for.

Doc's viewpoint is not from a TMA, but a CMA influenced approach through SGM Parker's kenpo. Ed Parker created his version of kenpo to fit into an american style of fighting and framework. Doc has written about this before and as he made his kenpo more available to the masses SGM Parker knew that he couldn't control the quality of that information so he put in lower level applications to give people a viable means as they sought out and learned better ways to control and end the fight. If you look at many of the techniques found in SGM Parker's kenpo (the commercial side of it) you will see a disportionate response to the attack. For example, in the yellow belt techniques there is "Sword and Hammer", a new student learns that when someone grabs your right shoulder, how to strike them in the throat with a knifehand strike ( the sword) and then follow it up with a hammer to the groin.

It teaches certain applications and principles for the new student to apply, but it is NOT legal to use this technique as written. There is a higher level of knowledge that a student learns to control this without resorting to lethal force right off the bat. I think the point of this is, not to only rely on the eye strikes and throat strikes, but start to expand from there and come up with varying levels of response for the situation. Then if really needed you know what tool fits the job.

Yes, this makes sense, p.

 

[seasoned]

Always try deescalating first because you can take an innocent confrontation and turn it into a life and death situation real fast, just by what you say or do.

 

[Jdokan]

Avoid, Check, Maim, Kill

I think this says it all....

Applied appropriately what else do we need???

 

[KempoGuy06]

Avoid, Check, Maim, Kill

I think this says it all....

Applied appropriately what else do we need???

the hard and brutal techs are there for a reason, if they have been there that long than i see no reason in taking them away.

As for the situation, i agree with the above. Use what logic you can in the heat of the moment, if to much forced is used for what the situation warranted, then oh well, you are alive and hopefully unharmed. Like in previous post "better to be judged by twelve than carried by six". A far as Im concerned i will use whatever tools necessary to defend myself or loved ones, and no one will tell me other wise

B

 

[Bill Mattocks]

People may have their own internal ethical or moral reasons to attempt to use less force or less lethal techniques when engaged in self-defense. To each their own, I say.

However, it pays to know the laws regarding self-defense where you live. I live in Michigan. Here are the important excerpts from the Michigan law on self-defense:

SELF-DEFENSE ACT
Act 309 of 2006
AN ACT to clarify the rights and duties of self-defense and the defense of others.
780.972 Use of deadly force by individual not engaged in commission of crime; conditions.
Sec. 2.
(1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies:

(a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.

(b) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent sexual assault of himself or herself or of another individual.

(2) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses force other than deadly force may use force other than deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if he or she honestly and reasonably believes that the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual.

Please note that there is nothing in here about level of force used. There is nothing about being told by the police "You should have just twisted his arm, not broken it." The persistent rumors about 'level of force' or 'disproportionate force' apply to police, not to the ordinary citizen.

The law in Michigan only distinguishes between two kinds of force - deadly force and 'other than' deadly force. That's it. So if you knock a mugger down and pin him until the police arrive, great. If you kick both his knees backward and he'll never walk again, also great.

Michigan has other laws relating to self-defense, including a prohibition on lawsuits - so you cannot even be sued, and another that says if you are sued on the basis that you were not entitled to use self-defense and the judge/jury rules in your favor, the plaintiff has to pay your court costs, lawyer fees, lost work wages, etc, etc.

About the worst thing that can happen to you if you apply 'too much force' in defending yourself in Michigan is if a prosecuting attorney decides that you did NOT "honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary," etc.

I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice. However, I do recommend looking up the law on self-defense in your own state or community and reading it. It's worth knowing.

And again, if you feel that less force is desirable, even if the law would otherwise permit it, then go with that. Most of you know, my own self-defense belief is that any altercation with an assailant is automatically a life-and-death struggle, so I would first attempt to disengage if I could, even if the law authorizes me to take more direct action.

 

[KenpoDave]

I was taught that the more skill one has, the less harm one should have to do.

One of my students was brought in to see the Chief of Police after executing an arrest in which the suspect was put in the hospital. The Chief complimented him on his martial arts prowess, and told him that he was probably the best tactical fighter on the force. He followed that with, "If you're really that good, why do you have to hurt people." It was a good lesson for him, one I had preached many times. But from the Chief...

Morihei Ueshiba developed aikido (the way of harmony) as the highest expression of his art. Mitose stated that true self defense was to escape a situation with no physical contact between opponents.

A higher level of skill should allow you some room to operate and to make some choices. It may be necessary to move up and down the force continuum as the situation unfolds. Aside from the physical skill necessary to do what needs to be done, there is skill involved in choosing the appropriate solution to the situation at hand, and skill at being able to adjust it.

It is my opinion that real skill comes from assessing a situation correctly in a split second, and effecting a positive defensive solution using the minimum amount of destruction necessary. That includes recognizing the danger ahead of time and avoiding it. It also includes adjusting my response based on the intent of the attacker, the skill of the attacker, other individuals who may be harmed by a possible wrong decision on my part, legalities, etc.

There is responsibility with skill.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

With respect, I disagree with your statements.

I was taught that the more skill one has, the less harm one should have to do.

As an ethical belief, that's fine.

One of my students was brought in to see the Chief of Police after executing an arrest in which the suspect was put in the hospital. The Chief complimented him on his martial arts prowess, and told him that he was probably the best tactical fighter on the force. He followed that with, "If you're really that good, why do you have to hurt people." It was a good lesson for him, one I had preached many times. But from the Chief...

A police officer has obligations that ordinary citizens do not, including the general obligation to use the minimum amount of force required to affect an arrest. That is partially because police officers are required to put their lives in jeopardy as part of their job description.

I do not think such advice is applicable to, or wise, for an ordinary citizen.

Morihei Ueshiba developed aikido (the way of harmony) as the highest expression of his art. Mitose stated that true self defense was to escape a situation with no physical contact between opponents.

I agree, and I believe that self-defense begins with situational awareness, and includes simple expedients like removing yourself from dangerous situations before they become dangerous to you, if you can. Running away works too, if that avenue is open to you. It's all 'self-defense'.

The primary directive of self-defense is just that - self defense. If you can back away from a challenge or a fight and avoid it altogether, that is a much safer alternative than engaging in a fight, even if you are confident of victory.

However, if you cannot avoid violence, then again, the first and only rule is to defend yourself. Nothing else matters.

A higher level of skill should allow you some room to operate and to make some choices. It may be necessary to move up and down the force continuum as the situation unfolds. Aside from the physical skill necessary to do what needs to be done, there is skill involved in choosing the appropriate solution to the situation at hand, and skill at being able to adjust it.

If you are talking about sparring or kumite, then I agree.

If you are talking about self-defense, I could not disagree more.

First - self-defense is a life-or-death struggle. You have no assurance that if you lose, you will live. You must assume that if you lose, you die.

Second - if you are indeed fighting for your life, there is no 'situation' to allow to unfold. You goal must be to end the confrontation as quickly as possible, because every blow you trade, every second you are still struggling, is another step closer to your own death.

Third - again, if you are indeed fighting for your life, your assailant is not holding back. They are using everything they have, and they are fully determined to kill you using any means necessary. If they have a knife, they will use it. If they have a gun, they will use it. If they have not used it yet, it is because they prefer not to unless they should begin to lose, then they will. Every moment you delay ending the fight, they have another opportunity to use that hidden weapon on you and kill you.

Fourth - you may well know your own skill, but you do not know your attacker's. He may be evenly matched with you, he may be better. Or he may be stronger, faster, more experienced, flat-out lucky, or just immune to pain due to drugs, etc. Your careful escalation may quickly result in your own overmatching with a singe decisive blow against you.

Fifth - the mind boggles at the potential plight of the poor student, who knows a variety of techniques and is trying to sort through them in search of the least lethal whilst being pummeled.

It is my opinion that real skill comes from assessing a situation correctly in a split second, and effecting a positive defensive solution using the minimum amount of destruction necessary.

That may indeed be "real skill." If it is, you can have it. I will inartfully and inelegantly bash in an attacker's head with a brick, if one happens to be handy.

That includes recognizing the danger ahead of time and avoiding it. It also includes adjusting my response based on the intent of the attacker, the skill of the attacker, other individuals who may be harmed by a possible wrong decision on my part, legalities, etc.

I do not care what the attacker's intent is. I'm under attack. I will assume he intends to kill me. I will also assume his skill is greater than mine, so I will use everything I have to defeat him. I will attempt to avoid harming others only in the sense that I always aim center mass. As to legalities, I would presume that I am fighting only because I have been attacked and I am reasonably in fear of my life. I can think of no other reason I'd be fighting. If so, I have no fear of legal consequences. My life is my first priority, the rest can wait.

There is responsibility with skill.

When self-defense is involved, I think the biggest responsibility that martial arts skills teaches is that fights can often be avoided, and should. Knowing that many of us are skilled in ending human lives should also teach us not to take human life casually. These, I agree with.

Once the need to defend one's life is upon them, I think the only responsibility is to survive. How that is done is really of no consequence.

 

[Thesemindz]

Mr. Mattocks, that is a great post.

I have often said much the same thing, to much derision.

There is a big, BIG, difference between martial dueling and self defense.

One is a competitive activity where my goal is victory, one may very well be the last thing I ever experience on this earth and the only goal is making it home to see my family one more time.

You can't equate the two, and all the talk of mastery allowing for less violence doesn't apply to self defense. Self defense is about survival, and there is no time to screw around.

That doesn't mean every self defense situation requires you to kill your opponent. Sometimes it's best to walk, or run, away. Sometimes you can just push an opponent down and then run. But when you have to fight for your life, there's no time to play games.

I too would apply the "brick" defense if necessary.


-Rob

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Mr. Mattocks, that is a great post.

I have often said much the same thing, to much derision.

There is a big, BIG, difference between martial dueling and self defense.

One is a competitive activity where my goal is victory, one may very well be the last thing I ever experience on this earth and the only goal is making it home to see my family one more time.

You can't equate the two, and all the talk of mastery allowing for less violence doesn't apply to self defense. Self defense is about survival, and there is no time to screw around.

That doesn't mean every self defense situation requires you to kill your opponent. Sometimes it's best to walk, or run, away. Sometimes you can just push an opponent down and then run. But when you have to fight for your life, there's no time to play games.

I too would apply the "brick" defense if necessary.

Thank you for the kind words. On re-reading my own words, I would like to add that it is not my 'intent' to kill the person who attacks me. If I kick out a knee and they fall down and can no longer attack me, I will stop. If I kick 'em in the pills and they double over and stagger away, same thing. What I mean is that self-defense is no holds barred. I will eye gouge, I will bite, I will pull hair, I will rip off an ear or crush a windpipe - whatever has to be done to ensure I walk away. I don't want to kill anyone - I don't even want to hurt anyone. I just want to live.

 

[Thesemindz]

I don't want to kill anyone - I don't even want to hurt anyone. I just want to live.

Bingo.


-Rob