# Assumptions and rules how do they affect our training and effect our responses.



## Kenpodoc (Mar 10, 2005)

I find that when I watch fight competitions that the rules of that competition determine the techniques that succeed.  Boxing, K-1, Pride, UFC, Wrestling, Thai, Point fighting, light contact continuous fighting, etc all have competitors who excell because they use the rules to define their technique.  as an example I once watched a pride fight where the attacker charged in for a 2 legged takedown.  The defender essentially did Intercepting the Ram and did a combined knee Hammerfist and dropped the atter to the mat.  Amusingly the man who fell into a fetal position was declared winner do to the illegal groin shot. 

What assumptions do we make in Kenpo that determine our techniques and training methods? As an example do EPAK knife techniques assume that the attacker is only carryingf one knife or do the overkill aspects of the technique cover the possibilty of multiple knives secreted on the attacker. Do EPAK assumptions create weaknesses that others can use to advantage. Does the emphasis on speed in the AKKI create their modifications? Does this emphasis create weaknesses.

Respectfully,

Jeff


----------



## distalero (Mar 10, 2005)

Kenpodoc said:
			
		

> I find that when I watch fight competitions that the rules of that competition determine the techniques that succeed.  Boxing, K-1, Pride, UFC, Wrestling, Thai, Point fighting, light contact continuous fighting, etc all have competitors who excell because they use the rules to define their technique.  as an example I once watched a pride fight where the attacker charged in for a 2 legged takedown.  The defender essentially did Intercepting the Ram and did a combined knee Hammerfist and dropped the atter to the mat.  Amusingly the man who fell into a fetal position was declared winner do to the illegal groin shot.
> 
> What assumptions do we make in Kenpo that determine our techniques and training methods? As an example do EPAK knife techniques assume that the attacker is only carryingf one knife or do the overkill aspects of the technique cover the possibilty of multiple knives secreted on the attacker. Do EPAK assumptions create weaknesses that others can use to advantage. Does the emphasis on speed in the AKKI create their modifications? Does this emphasis create weaknesses.
> 
> ...




As discovered in other threads, depends on who's kenpo is under discussion, but generally it seems that there are no "rules" within Kenpo (important concept), but rather "principles" which guide our responses in training, under the general assumtion that there are no rules anywhere, no how,  when the brown hits the aluminum. If you train with some venue's "rules" in mind then by definition you've narrowed your focus, and assumed that your opponent agrees. This isn't necessarily a bad thing (some people LIKE big plastic trophies), just, by Kenpo's lights, a potentially limiting thing.  So: principles, guiding responses, learned on a neural level, so that you don't have to struggle so much (or even consciously) when there are no rules.


----------



## Kenpodoc (Mar 10, 2005)

Symantics. As has been shown on other threads definitions of words can interfere with communication.  I will postulate that many of the "Principles" that people postulate are just rules and not true physical laws.  Mistaking the two can cause us to fail to fully assess our beliefs.  I think that Doc takes a hard line on the difference between principle and concept/guideline/etc. Initially I thought he was being too rigid, but the longer I watch people cite postulates and guidelines as facts, the more I understand his vehoment objection to the sloppy use of language. There are always rules and assumptions in any analysis.  Errors creep in when we don't understand what our assumptions are.

Let's take the example of the use of estrogen in post menopausal women.  There is very strong retrospective data showing that Postmenopausal women on estrogen have less heart disease than women off estrogen.  Prospective studies have since shown incresed risk of Heart Attack in women place on estrogen. It turns out that women were more likely to be placed on estrogen if they took care of themselves in other ways. and lived healthier more careful lifestyles.   These newest studies don't really provide the final answer.  They assume that it doesn't matter how long after monopause you start the estrogen.  Very possibly, estrogen benefit and risk is temporallly related to time after menopause and multiple other factors. These factors will need to be reexamined.

So Let's use EPAK as an example. (I purposefully put the question on this forum to open the question to other Martial artists.) "THE CLOCK PRINCIPLE" is not a principle in the strictest definition of an umutable law of nature.  It is a principle of EPAK in the more general definition as a guiding idea.  Most of the Principles of EPAK are realy concepts and rules which aid in the develpment of a system but for which exceptions exist.  Five swords as it is generally taught and pictured in Mr. Parkers books has to balance the problem of blocking distal to the inside of the hinge and the inward block which must be pulled considerable closer the the defenders body than a textbook inward block. I don't think this is really a problem but it does break one or the other beginners tenets in EPAK.

No one system is perfect (EPAK is fabulous, fun and effective however.) I believe that we always learn when we look back at our basic assumptions and question them.  It is popular in the United States to just shout down those with whom we disagree.  I like strong opinions and encourage them.  You mention "principles, guiding responses, learned on a neural level". Explain what you mean by this and what proof do we have that these are laws of nature as opposed to effective assumptions on which we base our practice but which may also lead to weaknesses.

Respectfully,

Jeff


----------



## distalero (Mar 10, 2005)

You and I generally aree. I guess I wasn't being very clear; my apologies. "Principles" I write in quotes because I DON'T take them to be laws of nature, at all, just observations, both ours and those handed to us to investigate. I agree, it's just semantics, and I also agree, it doesn't hurt to point out that we are throwing words/concepts around in a loose way. Kenpo ain't science, and anyone who believes the word "Science" is some sort of intensifier with reference to their practice, or a distinguishing factor opposed to somebody else's practice, just doesn't have a basic understanding of Science.
As far as the use of the word "neural" goes, I was making an essentially non scientific, tongue in cheek reference to another's comments. What I do mean by the concept, though, is simply the old, old MA acknowledgement that with repetition comes a kind of something, that exists even beyond "ownership" of a particular move or set of moves. It literally becomes unconscious. Short of this, I suppose you could look at it like the "patterning" one school of thought uses in therapy for autistic children.
So, again, because your question was about assumptions, rules: "principles" rather than "rules" (loose, sloppy, variable, effective, not so effective, possibly different from yours or mine, ANYTHING BUT SCIENTIFIC LAWS), guiding our training (because we're intellegent, and we see this as the intelligent way to BEGIN the practice, at least), with the overall assumption that there are no rules, in any sense of the term, when it gets crunchy. 
 :asian:


----------



## Zoran (Mar 14, 2005)

Kenpodoc said:
			
		

> What assumptions do we make in Kenpo that determine our techniques and training methods? As an example do EPAK knife techniques assume that the attacker is only carryingf one knife or do the overkill aspects of the technique cover the possibilty of multiple knives secreted on the attacker.


 We make all sorts of assumptions when teaching and learning a tech. I would say all techs are based on assumptions. For example in a defense against a knife thrust. You assume the knife wielding arm will be there when you execute an arm break (he doesn't snap it back like a jab). You assume it really is a thrust instead of a fake that can change directions and become a slash. We also assume we won't freak out and freeze like a deer in head lights.

 Any tech we learn we will make all sorts of assumptions. This is why I feel techniques are not the end all of training. In EPAK they call it the ideal phase of your training. But this Ideal Phase has more to do with the way you are attacked then the tech itself. There is more to becoming spontaneous and effective in self defense than learning the principles, how to graft, and look good doing it. You need to train in a way that really pushes you to the limits. In the real world, unexpected things happen. You should train for this.

  Anyways, just my opinion.


----------



## Doc (Mar 14, 2005)

Good discussion gentlemen. KenpoDoc in my opinion is correct in his assertion. When we latch onto "principles" that are in fact only conceptual ideas, we commit ourselves to certain assumptions that may not necessarily be as "cast in stone" as some might wish.

The other danger is to bring science to our endeavor that does not translate to the activity. Some aspects of Newtonian Physics apply to all objects where mass, acceleration, and bodies collide and it has its place in football as much as Kenpo.

However the mistake is usually made in not realizing that the science of human anatomy activity is a collection of science perspectives, that happens to include Human Anatomy Physiology as a major component. Here we can find immutable laws or principles as significant as anything in Newtonian Physics that dictate significant "assumptions" that may not necessarily be obvious to those not trained from its unique perspective. 

As KenpoDoc will tell you the body is not a solid, but a collection of materials from solids to fluids in various states of viscosity and therefore these dynamics must be considered. The body is also an active machine with a central processor that constantly monitors its environment through external sensors, and reacts accordingly keeping the machine minimally functional (and safe) while waiting for specific commands from the CPU. This machine is therefore in a constant state of flux from one jiffy-second to the next, and is programmed in many ways to respond to external stimuli in a specific manner or reflex outside our own directed thought process. A rigid Sub-skelatal framework connected by tissue of various density and flexibility with imposed mechanical limitations (unless you break the machine), floating in a gelatinous liquid that is contained by an epidermis.

So all of these sciences of physics and their attendant principles come together through the conduit of human anatomy. Now add another machine to the mix and have them interact and you began to see it is not as simple as some of us would like to think. The body has a nervous system you do not control, and works for you, but can also be used against you by the knowledgeable. There is such a thing as "martial science" but few have a grasp of its significance. 

From a simple structural integrity perspective, you have a machine that has (depending upon age) about 206 bones connected to each other with varying density of soft tissue. If you move any one of these bones in a manner inconsistent or contradictory with the overall well being of the machine as dictated by its learned responses and reflexes, it will break down structurally. No matter how much you desire something, or how you "feel" something should be done "conceptually" the body will dictate what is acceptable. Now you may over ride the body, but you cannot do so and maintain structure without inducing weakness or injury.  That gentlemen, is a physical principle of human anatomy. Immutable, indisputable, cast in stone fact you can hang your hat on. That is what I mean when I say "principle." Everything else is just a conceptual idea within the framework of the concept at large. But, what the hell do I know. Probably sounds crazy to some but I bet KenpoDoc and I could have a ball.


----------



## Simon Curran (Mar 15, 2005)

Assuming I understood what was being discussed there I think I learned something...


----------



## Ray (Mar 15, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> ...the body is not a solid, but a collection of materials from solids to fluids in various states of viscosity and therefore these dynamics must be considered....


Man, I wish I could grasp the depth of the kind of scientific knowledge that others have and underdstand how to use it to advance my skills. 

I'm still working on how to do "it" (punch, kick, throw, lock, etc), how to do it "faster" and which targets to do it to. (Without getting hit).


----------



## Kenpodoc (Mar 15, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> Man, I wish I could grasp the depth of the kind of scientific knowledge that others have and underdstand how to use it to advance my skills.
> 
> I'm still working on how to do "it" (punch, kick, throw, lock, etc), how to do it "faster" and which targets to do it to. (Without getting hit).


I wouldn't pretend to speak for Doc but one weakness I see is people "trying" to do it faster. Effective speed both real and percieved comes from proper mechanics. I find that if I try to move quicker than my "core" that i start to do the technique Fluttering Moth. I've seen others do the same.  Whe I watch old films of Mr. Parker he never seems to be in a  hurry and yet he moves like lightening. The body mechanics (anatomical allignment0 that Doc talks about are more complicated than this however.  Diffierent parts of the body working at varying speeds will affect the effect of strike. Thus a rapidly moving arm with an only partially engaged torso will cause a slight sharp force with a followup push.  I believe that this is why I've had large stron people his me with what looks like tremendous power and I've felt little pain (only superficial)  even though I've been pushed across the floor. I've also had small people hit me in such a manner that even though my body moves little a small bundle of energy feels like it moves through my torso causing deep visceral pain and the nausea that accompanies visceral injuries.

Respectfully,

Jeff


----------



## Kenpodoc (Mar 15, 2005)

An EPAK "principle" is "maintain your base." A good principle but perhaps not always understood in the more general manner.  When the grapplers took the Martial arts scene by surprise during the '90's one of the concepts that they brought was a more general concept of base. The need to stay vertical may open an Martial artist to certain attacks. One also needs to evaluate both dynamic and static stability. A twist stance by itself is not particularly stable and yet Mr. Parker has multiple transitional twist stances in his higher forms and in his multiple opponent techniques.  The rotational movements may well add a degree of stability not present at rest.  Further more if we restrict our thinking to the yellow belt method of a neutral bow as the ideal base we suddenly have our legs "double weighted" and limit our mobility.

Respectfully,

Jeff


----------



## Doc (Mar 15, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> Man, I wish I could grasp the depth of the kind of scientific knowledge that others have and underdstand how to use it to advance my skills.
> 
> I'm still working on how to do "it" (punch, kick, throw, lock, etc), how to do it "faster" and which targets to do it to. (Without getting hit).


Truth is, in the beginning it is not about "understanding" as much as it is "doing." One of the biggest problem I've observed with commercial Kenpo is a desire by every white belt to be a "scholar" at what he does while trying to "learn" to do it. This is a huge mistake.

Thus we have many disagreements and sometimes arguments between those with 50 years experience and those with 10 X less. But this is also because there are those who have been in the arts for decades who are no smarter today than when they made black. So it is difficult sometimes to know who is right. 

That is why real principles are so important, because they can be demonstrated and replicated consistently and placed into proper perspective by a competent teacher. The difficulting is not in "understanding" sir, but in finding someone who can teach you "how," which will ultimately lead to a measure of "understanding" through the experience. Conceptual ideas are great because they force you to think as Ed Parker wanted, but they are not principles of sciences. They do however allow you to experience different perspectives, until you find something you feel comfortable with within a particular set of circumstances. And that is what commercial motion based Kenpo is designed to do. It allows you to tailor your experience to your personal understanding as it works for you. And that is pure genius, but it doesn't contain any "principles" of execution.


----------



## Doc (Mar 15, 2005)

Zoran said:
			
		

> In EPAK they call it the ideal phase of your training.


Correction: In SOME EPAk they call it the "Ideal Phase." Even this Ed Parker concept is grossly misunderstood. The better question is if you subscribe to the term is, "Whose Ideal Phase?"


> But this Ideal Phase has more to do with the way you are attacked then the tech itself.


From a limited perspective that is true sir, but I suggest there must be an "Ideal Phase" for the response to begin the process of understanding real "principles." Otherwise I guess you just react "spontaneously." "Spontaneous" means "without thought." But spontaneity has physical perameters over and above "startle reflex" responses, and requires a learned physical response. Therefore these responses are learned in a "fixed" and predetermined model dictated by the "fixed" assault parameters that should all be based on sound physical priciples of human interaction and psychology.


> There is more to becoming spontaneous and effective in self defense than learning the principles, how to graft, and look good doing it.


Clearly you are speaking from the motion perspective which is only one perspective.


> In the real world, unexpected things happen. You should train for this.


My question for you is, from your perspective -  how do YOU train for the unexpected?


----------



## Zoran (Mar 15, 2005)

Hello Doc,

 Yes, I was speaking from a motion perspective.

 First, I would say that I am speaking of advanced level training. I do not suggest that the ideal phase should be discarded as it is needed to teach motion and principles.



			
				Doc said:
			
		

> My question for you is, from your perspective -  how do YOU train for the unexpected?


 First to clarify what I mean by the unexpected. I do not mean the bottle in the back of the head or sucker punch. What I mean is people will move and react in odd ways at times. I've seen and been in some odd situations when I bounced, as I'm sure you have as a PD. 

 This training can begin at intermediate on to the more advanced levels.

 1. Random attacks. Meaning the defender has no clue of what is being thrown at them. This can start as a single attack on to defending against combos. 

 2. Resistance of techs. The attacker resists any attempts at control, such as knife defense, or may block the strike, suddenly change body position, and etc. This can start at a passive mode, such as slightly resisting an arm bar. To a more aggressive defense and counter (without turning it into a sparring match). This also has the benefit that the person attacking learns the weaknesses of a tech from another perspective.

 3. Sparring. Not the point kind. Enforce good techniques that can easily translate into the street. In my opinion, most forms of sparring creates habits that can get you killed. At higher levels, black and up, I like sparring without pads and include elbows and knees using control. Egos have to be left at the door here as it can't turn into a contest (_someone always gets hurt if you do_). One has to acknowledge that hand blade to the throat that didn't make contact but got through your defense.

 There is more, but those are just a few. Also, level has to be taken into consideration. You would need to start easy and work your way up as you advance. Finally an instructor is necessary to coach and adjust. I use the word coach because it is different method of teaching than instruction of a technique. One of my responsibilities as an instructor is to prepare my students for the real world with what ever tools they already have at their disposal at their *current level*. Also, this is only one aspect of their training, this is not the end all either.

 We are from different systems, even if we are of the same lineage, so our way of training differs from EPAK. We are also a lot less structured than EPAK, and tend to lean more towards the conceptual. 

 I hope to one day get a chance to visit California. There a few schools I'd like to visit and instructors I'd like to meet (_such as yourself_). But until that day...



> From a limited perspective that is true *sir*


 If you don't mind, I would prefer you call me Zoran. It is not a limited perspective, only one angle of a perspective in relation to the topic at hand and some of the pit falls I've seen some Kenpo schools fall into (_again in relation to the lack of the type of training I described above_). EPAK is a robust system that requires an intimate knowledge of the system to impart properly to a student. I find many instructors lacking in this deep understanding of their system. As such, they tend to produce students that look mechanical to me and are unable to react well to enexpected changes. I do not fault the system, only the quality of some of the instructors I've seen.

 As usual, just my opinion.


----------



## Bode (Mar 16, 2005)

> Kenpo ain't science, and anyone who believes the word "Science" is some sort of intensifier with reference to their practice, or a distinguishing factor opposed to somebody else's practice, just doesn't have a basic understanding of Science.--distalero


  I disagree.
 In physics everything is based on approximation, but with varying degrees of accuracy. When NASA sends a rocket to the moon they are counting on some very complicated laws of physics. However, they are also rounding numbers, accounting for jitter in the spacecraft, and a multitude of other variables. They ALL matter, but they are all, at some level, approximations. When calculating how long it will take for an object to reach the ground if dropped from 2 feet we use a constant for gravity, 9.81 m per sq sec. The 9.81 number is rounded and not very specific, but it does the trick. The time for the object to fall 2 feet can be calculated with a high degree of accuracy. How specifc of an answer does the problem call for? 
 Why does this relate to Kenpo? Because, I believe what we do IS a science. Our minds and body's are well attuned to physics. We know that if we jump we can clear a fence, etc... Our bodies are making approximations as we walk, run, etc... Physics underly every movement we make so why shouldn't they be discussed, academically, as applicable to the Martial "Arts". In todays age can we really ignore science and keep calling what we do an "Art". 
 Our goal in the "Arts" is to strike someone and effect them in a way that ends the confrontation. Would you say that when struck in the neck with a solid handsword you can expect your opponent to react in a specific way? When I throw a ball at the ground I expect it to bounce back. Of course there are variables. A pebble might be in the way and perturb the return path, however, we can count on, for the most part, a clear outcome. We train with expectations about how the body will react when struck and those are very, very, accurate simply because they are based on physics! Our goal is to approximate human movement enough to create the desired response or outcome. 

  Of course, there is this one problem:


> What I mean is people will move and react in odd ways at times -- Zoran


 People react in odd ways due to the approximation being large (all variables were not taken into account). When someone is struck and doesn't react accordingly is it because of some weird, unknown, mystical phenomenon or is it because we didn't hit them hard enough? Or is the person simply too large? The goal is to take into account as many of the variables as possible in order to induce the necassary response. We do this by first understanding the basics of what happens when someone is struck and how a human body reacts. Of course these reactions are approximations, much like the gravity constant is an approximation. However, the approximatioins are GOOD ENOUGH to create the desired response. Training starts with less specific (i.e. larger approximations) targeting and learning the basic movements. As a result the errors are larger. The reactions of the opponent are less "predictable" and prone to being "unexpected". 
 As training progresses the targetting becomes more specifc and the basic movement become refined. As a result there are less and less approximations in the equation and as such, the opponents reactions are more predictable. 
 Spontaneity comes after time. At some point in your life you couldn't run. Now running has become as natural as walking. You make adjustments as you encounter the "unexpected". Basketball players are the perfect example. They are running, jumping, and, for the most part, not hurting each other or colliding into each other. They continually make adjustments and react to the other players. When someone attempts to stab you, but instead of lunging, pulls back, we react based upon our training. The training that, hopefully, has become as second nature as walking and is physically sound. And if, IF you were trained properly you might even be able to see the difference between a lunging strike and a snapping strike. They are fundamentally different and recognizable after long enough training. If the attacker, when practicing techniques, performs the attack with realism and conviction (which escalates as the student progresses) then after time almost anyone can recognize the difference between a lunge and a snap. 

 I must say that I have seen many a Kenpo video with deomonstrations where the attacker 1) attacks then 2) stands in one place while he is struck many, many times. Attacker never moves. Never reacts. I simply don't see the point. If we are to train for a realistic scenario then we must train with realistic reactions. It is one thing to diliver lightning fast strikes on a static object, but it's another do deliver lightning fast strikes on an object that is moving, reacting, and changing the equation. 
  Speed without application is useless. 
  My 2 cents. 
  Thanks.


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Mar 16, 2005)

Zoran hit the nail on the head.  It is not about rules or principles, it is about assumptions.  

Kenpo techniques incorporate several assumptions including:
*  Attackers will react to properly-delivered on-target Kenpo strikes in a way that opens additional targets for follow-up strikes.  
*  Attackers may grab or strike multple times during the execution of a technique requiring the Kenpoist to check and or adapt to maintain control of the encounter.
* The Kenpoist executes techniques with one or two feet on the ground providing a base.  

Some Kenpo assumptions are exclusionary:
* The attacker does not actually strike the Kenpoist causing pain, loss of breath, loss of base, loss of vision, etc.
* The Kenpoist remains standing and is not required to strike or escape from the ground underneath a mounted opponent. 
* The attacker does not grab, restrain, or mount the Kenpoist in such a way that there are no striking weapons available.

Freestyle sparring and/or kickboxing provides tools needed to overcome the exclusionary assumption that the Kenpois do not get hit.  Some Kenpoists also train specifically to overcome the challenges of fighting on the ground or when restrained by creating new techniques (ala the AKKI) or by cross-training (ala the Tracy's incorporation of Shootfighting and other Kenpoists explorations of Judo and Jiu Jitsu).


----------



## Bill Lear (Mar 16, 2005)

Old Fat Kenpoka said:
			
		

> Zoran hit the nail on the head. It is not about rules or principles, it is about assumptions.
> 
> Kenpo techniques incorporate several assumptions including:
> * Attackers will react to properly-delivered on-target Kenpo strikes in a way that opens additional targets for follow-up strikes.
> ...


I would even add that some Kenpo techniques opperate under the assumption that an attacker's reaction was not ideal when a precise properly delivered strike was executed.


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Mar 16, 2005)

Bill Lear said:
			
		

> I would even add that some Kenpo techniques opperate under the assumption that an attacker's reaction was not ideal when a precise properly delivered strike was executed.



OK.  Can you help me with an example?


----------



## Zoran (Mar 16, 2005)

Old Fat Kenpoka said:
			
		

> OK.  Can you help me with an example?


 I'm not an AK-ist, but I would say Five Swords comes to mind. If you hit with the first two strikes with any real power (_or the first one for that matter_), the others will not be there.


----------



## Bode (Mar 16, 2005)

See, the fact that we use the word assumptions seems incorrect. An assumption, according to websters.com
*5 a* *:* an assuming that something is true *b* *:* a fact or statement (as a proposition, axiom, postulate, or notion) taken for granted

 My problem is that the word assumption doesn't say much in regards to what we are assuming is true. It just say's we are assuming something is true. What is that "something" and can we account for it? I believe we can account for it with sound physical principles. 

 I like the word "approximations" better. Definition:
*1* *:* the act or process of drawing together
*2* *:* the quality or state of being close or near  <an _approximation_ to the truth>  <an _approximation_ of justice>
*3* *:* something that is approximate; _especially_ *:* a mathematical quantity that is close in value to but not the same as a desired quantity

 Why? Because the definition takes into account that our techniques or responses to an attack involve the "act of drawing together." (Drawing together visual stimulus, gauging the attackers body weight, strength of attack, etc...) In addition, as in my previous post, when striking the opponent (after a degree of training) the Kenpo practicioner creates a response that is "close in value to but not the same as the desired..." But it WORKS. It's good enough for the technique to work. 

 Even attacks are approximations. When practicing and your partner attacks and you take his speed and power into account. The attacker attempts to approximate what an attack would really be like so that you may train realistically and recognize the pattern of what a punch or kick looks like. Each person attacks approximately like another human, but not identically. 

 Thanks, Brad Bode


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Mar 16, 2005)

Zoran said:
			
		

> I'm not an AK-ist, but I would say Five Swords comes to mind. If you hit with the first two strikes with any real power (_or the first one for that matter_), the others will not be there.



Zoran, are you saying that the ideal phase of the technique is unrealistic in that it will put the attacker out of range or KO?  If so, then the Kenpoist has the luxury of adjusting their follow up by adjusting range or targets or by exiting.  

But, that isn't what I was talking about.  I was talking about the situation where, instead of doubling over or leaning back as expected in an ideal phase, the attacker ignores the pain and counter attacks from a well covered position and solid base.


----------



## Bill Lear (Mar 16, 2005)

Old Fat Kenpoka said:
			
		

> OK.  Can you help me with an example?


Lone Kimono and the extension for Lone Kimono come to mind. :xtrmshock


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Mar 16, 2005)

Bill Lear said:
			
		

> Lone Kimono and the extension for Lone Kimono come to mind. :xtrmshock



OK that's halfway there.  Lone Kimono extension assumes attacker doesn't go where you want him to.  But it doesn't really assume he is going to fight back and flail at you with all 3 free limbs.


----------



## Zoran (Mar 16, 2005)

Old Fat Kenpoka said:
			
		

> Zoran, are you saying that the ideal phase of the technique is unrealistic in that it will put the attacker out of range or KO? If so, then the Kenpoist has the luxury of adjusting their follow up by adjusting range or targets or by exiting.


 The Ideal Phase is unrealistic by nature. But it is necessary to teach a concept or just general motion.



			
				Old Fat Kenpoka said:
			
		

> But, that isn't what I was talking about. I was talking about the situation where, instead of doubling over or leaning back as expected in an ideal phase, the attacker ignores the pain and counter attacks from a well covered position and solid base.


 I agree and that was my point in my other post. For example, I had a situation where in a confrontation I hit my attacker hard with a handblade to the throat. I know I connected and felt the penetration, but physics went out the window as he came swinging like a lunatic. His mind, what ever was going through it when he got hit, decided to come at me harder than before, instead of being concerned that he was having a hard time breathing. He did run out of steam as he really wasn't getting enough oxygen for his physical exertion (_physics did eventually catch up_). Had I not been able to adapt to this sudden change, I would have been in a lot of trouble. 

 Again, it all comes down to training. If you are exposed to the unexpected early in your training, then you are more likely to be able to adapt when things do go south in the real world. 



			
				Old Fat Kenpoka said:
			
		

> OK that's halfway there. Lone Kimono extension assumes attacker doesn't go where you want him to. But it doesn't really assume he is going to fight back and flail at you with all 3 free limbs.


 One thing I like to do when teaching a technique class is having the attacker add a random second attack during the execution of a technique. I add this at the beginner level at the end of class every so often. It's a good way to slowly get the student prepared for more advanced training that will come later.

 My last comment I would like to make is there is a need for balance. I hear often that your best weapon is your mind. I have to disagree. Your best weapon is when your mind, body and spirit (heart) work in unison to create a functional whole. So the understanding of all these principles is not enough, you need the whole package. 

 Just some thoughts.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Mar 17, 2005)

Bode said:
			
		

> See, the fact that we use the word assumptions seems incorrect. An assumption, according to websters.com
> *5 a* *:* an assuming that something is true *b* *:* a fact or statement (as a proposition, axiom, postulate, or notion) taken for granted
> 
> My problem is that the word assumption doesn't say much in regards to what we are assuming is true. It just say's we are assuming something is true. What is that "something" and can we account for it? I believe we can account for it with sound physical principles.
> ...


Smallville:

Well said. Welcome to the fray.

DC


----------



## Bill Lear (Mar 17, 2005)

Old Fat Kenpoka said:
			
		

> OK that's halfway there. Lone Kimono extension assumes attacker doesn't go where you want him to. But it doesn't really assume he is going to fight back and flail at you with all 3 free limbs.


I cannot see how anyone could flail away at me with their other three limbs if I got the first move of a technique off on them. Sorry, but it just don't believe it would happen that way.

I've used Kenpo in a live situation more than once, and three times I pulled of a Kenpo technique. Most recently I managed to use Mace of Aggression against a right step through roundhouse punch. (I discovered a problem with this technique as a result. I ended up pulling the guys broken teeth out of my elbow after he hit the pavement.)


----------



## howardr (Mar 17, 2005)

Bill Lear said:
			
		

> I cannot see how anyone could flail away at me with their other three limbs if I got the first move of a technique off on them. Sorry, but it just don't believe it would happen that way.
> 
> I've used Kenpo in a live situation more than once, and three times I pulled of a Kenpo technique. Most recently I managed to use Mace of Aggression against a right step through roundhouse punch. (I discovered a problem with this technique as a result. I ended up pulling the guys broken teeth out of my elbow after he hit the pavement.)



Hey Billy. Congrats on successfully surviving the encounter. Would you mind providing a little more detail on how you used Mace of Aggression against a roundhouse punch?

Thanks.


----------



## Bill Lear (Mar 17, 2005)

howardr said:
			
		

> Hey Billy. Congrats on successfully surviving the encounter. Would you mind providing a little more detail on how you used Mace of Aggression against a roundhouse punch?
> 
> Thanks.


The guy was dancing around like a boxer when he committed to the first step-through roundhouse punch. I ducked under it (His forearm barely brushed the top of my head as I was ducking). The second time he came at me he committed to the same attack (which I knew he was going to do by the way he reset with his left foot forward and his right foot back).

When he came at me the second time I executed a double block against his forearm (similar to Five Swords). From there I latched onto his right arm with my left hand and tried to hit him with an inward elbow strike. The inward elbow barely missed, but the outward elbow caught him square in the teeth. It broke a hole in his front chompers reminiscent of a Looney Toons character eating a golf ball (Almost a perfect circle in the middle of his pearly whites).

When I got home later that day that I found his broken inscisors lodged in my elbow. It got infected (people have bacteria in their mouths, ya know?). I'm just glad I didn't get anything from him. There was a lot of blood on me when everything was said and done. It wasn't my blood though, and that's what counts I guess. Kenpo works.


----------



## distalero (Mar 17, 2005)

Bode said:
			
		

> I disagree.
> In physics everything is based on approximation, but with varying degrees of accuracy. When NASA sends a rocket to the moon they are counting on some very complicated laws of physics. However, they are also rounding numbers, accounting for jitter in the spacecraft, and a multitude of other variables. They ALL matter, but they are all, at some level, approximations. When calculating how long it will take for an object to reach the ground if dropped from 2 feet we use a constant for gravity, 9.81 m per sq sec. The 9.81 number is rounded and not very specific, but it does the trick. The time for the object to fall 2 feet can be calculated with a high degree of accuracy. How specifc of an answer does the problem call for?
> Why does this relate to Kenpo? Because, I believe what we do IS a science. Our minds and body's are well attuned to physics. We know that if we jump we can clear a fence, etc... Our bodies are making approximations as we walk, run, etc... Physics underly every movement we make so why shouldn't they be discussed, academically, as applicable to the Martial "Arts". In todays age can we really ignore science and keep calling what we do an "Art".
> Our goal in the "Arts" is to strike someone and effect them in a way that ends the confrontation. Would you say that when struck in the neck with a solid handsword you can expect your opponent to react in a specific way? When I throw a ball at the ground I expect it to bounce back. Of course there are variables. A pebble might be in the way and perturb the return path, however, we can count on, for the most part, a clear outcome. We train with expectations about how the body will react when struck and those are very, very, accurate simply because they are based on physics! Our goal is to approximate human movement enough to create the desired response or outcome......
> ...


I take your point about approximations; I certainly agree, and it's the point I was trying to make. I was contrasting a lay view of 'Science', as a cold, precise and universal set of "Laws" in APPLICATION, vs. what you've described here. Thanks for this clarification. In fact, I maintain that even if one's brand of Kenpo insists on every practioneer in the room doing a move exactly the same way, you'll probably be hard pressed then, and certainly later, to find everyone doing anything "exactly". Not by definition, anyhow. Nor should one, necessarily, which goes to your next point, where I don't agree.
After connecting with a solid handsword to an opponent's neck would I "count on , for the most part, a clear outcome"? Absolutely not (individual response is a biggie, as pointed out in a subsequent post here). Neither does Kenpo. "Move on to this next move, keeping in mind what you've just done", says Kenpo, conceptually. "Do a neat little set of such moves, so that you can call it a technique. Makes it easier to look at it, study it for any information you can take from it. We'll call this move the 'first move' of the technique, and this move the 'last' move. Arbitrary, but we don't want this thing to run on all night. And remember: the first thing you take from it? NO GUARANTEES." I wonder how we forget this. Confrontations, attack and response, CAN run on, until somebody missed something, making the other guy lucky. A pebble just became a boulder. OFK puts a list to this issue very well; I'd encourage everyone to go back and read it.
As for "Art" vs. "Science", an 'art' is accepted as interpretive, and 'science' is an accepted approach and a rigor in investigation of an hypothesis, but really, there can be a small difference between the two (medicine comes to mind), and in our case there's a whole lot of interpretation and very little science, so I think we can feel free to call it what we want.


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Mar 17, 2005)

Bill Lear said:
			
		

> The guy was dancing around like a boxer when he committed to the first step-through roundhouse punch. I ducked under it (His forearm barely brushed the top of my head as I was ducking). The second time he came at me he committed to the same attack (which I knew he was going to do by the way he reset with his left foot forward and his right foot back).
> 
> When he came at me the second time I executed a double block against his forearm (similar to Five Swords). From there I latched onto his right arm with my left hand and tried to hit him with an inward elbow strike. The inward elbow barely missed, but the outward elbow caught him square in the teeth. It broke a hole in his front chompers reminiscent of a Looney Toons character eating a golf ball (Almost a perfect circle in the middle of his pearly whites).
> 
> When I got home later that day that I found his broken inscisors lodged in my elbow. It got infected (people have bacteria in their mouths, ya know?). I'm just glad I didn't get anything from him. There was a lot of blood on me when everything was said and done. It wasn't my blood though, and that's what counts I guess. Kenpo works.



Good job Billy.  

I've also fought successfully and TKO'd an opponent without getting hit.  I was fortunate.  I saw his charge and hit him first. He didn't have the heart to continue fighting after my 3rd punch to his face.  

I have also seen a pair fight for 20 mintues+ in a bar and then the parking lot.  The fight was won by a furious drunk little guy with a minimal IQ and a very thick skull completely immune to the well-landed punches of his heavier stronger younger smarter and more skilled opponent.   

It is this situation that challenges the Kenpo assumption of technique flow and repeated strikes to dsiable an opponent.  Kenpo does work.  But it isn't always as easy as we would all hope.


----------



## Bode (Mar 17, 2005)

> And remember: the first thing you take from it? NO GUARANTEES. --distalero


 I agree.
 It's senseless to train with a 100% guarantee that each strike is perfect. Our techniques wouldn't need to go beyond the first strike if that were the case. "Counting on" a clear outcome does not mean you disregard the fact that the human machine is error prone. We train to reduce the erros by being specific with our response to an attack. If the attack suddenly changes due to a defunct handsword then we shift into another strike that might be completely unrelated in the hierarchy of techniques. 
 We are in agreement. 



> and in our case there's a whole lot of interpretation and very little science, so I think we can feel free to call it what we want.


 But here is where we disagree. My comment regarding approximations applies here. I believe that particular strikes have a repeatable outcome. I have seen or felt numerous people be knocked out from a very light series of or single taps to nerve points. Everyone reacted approximatly the same way. They stumble, look confused, and soon search for the ground. It's repeatable. The light tap was, of course, performed under ideal conditions. (A compliant person, matted floor, etc...) The real world is different and when a real fight occurs you cannot 100% guarantee anything. However, you can strive, through scientific study and methods, to achieve repeatability even in the real world situations. To use an extreme example. If I hit someone, full force, on the head, with a baseball bat, I am never guaranteed an outcome, but I think most would agree that you can be quite certain the person will fall. Why? Because everyone knows how much force can be generated from a baseball bat. There is science involved in this strike. Would you hit someone with a baseball bat as if it were a golf club, swinging from a downward to upward arc. Or would you use a baseball bat as it was intended? A baseball bat works best when used a specific way, which can be determined by trial and error or by scientific evaluation. The baseball swing is stronger if performed in a specific way. Science can prove it, repeat it. Why are martial arts any different? Why are they interpretive? Maybe we are agreeing and don't know it? 
 Is there interpretation only because someone hasn't codified the science behind the art? After all, you can't make millions defining the science behind martial arts. No one cares. No corporation can make a mint off of the findings. 
 Any MD will tell you they feel there is some art in what they do. (My friends do at least). However, the "art" or "interpretation" is built upon a vast amount of scientific knowledge. They filter the "art" through the science.
 It's not that I am arguing for the lack of interpretation or art, but that science should and can take the front seat. 
 Thanks for the very friendly discussion. You are forcing me to think and put my thoughts into words (which, as we all know, can be extremely difficult).
 -Brad Bode


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 17, 2005)

Bill Lear said:
			
		

> The guy was dancing around like a boxer when he committed to the first step-through roundhouse punch. I ducked under it (His forearm barely brushed the top of my head as I was ducking). The second time he came at me he committed to the same attack (which I knew he was going to do by the way he reset with his left foot forward and his right foot back).
> 
> When he came at me the second time I executed a double block against his forearm (similar to Five Swords). From there I latched onto his right arm with my left hand and tried to hit him with an inward elbow strike. The inward elbow barely missed, but the outward elbow caught him square in the teeth. It broke a hole in his front chompers reminiscent of a Looney Toons character eating a golf ball (Almost a perfect circle in the middle of his pearly whites).
> 
> When I got home later that day that I found his broken inscisors lodged in my elbow. It got infected (people have bacteria in their mouths, ya know?). I'm just glad I didn't get anything from him. There was a lot of blood on me when everything was said and done. It wasn't my blood though, and that's what counts I guess. Kenpo works.


Billy, 
I've spent my entire Kenpo Life listening to the Ed Parker and the Mike Pick digging teeth out of their natural weapon stories, and now you. This just has to be one of those things you have to conciously think about when you fight. I'll bet you pay more attention to angles these days.LOL
Sean


----------



## Bill Lear (Mar 17, 2005)

Old Fat Kenpoka,

You're right. It isn't easy. It does take time and practice. I'd say practice that involves a little realism in the studio perhaps. Thank you for you kind words.

I have seen fights that carried on for a lengthy period of time too. Most of which were alcohol induced episodes of stupidity. (I used to work as a bouncer at a local night club for a few years).

Sean,

You're right! I'll definately be looking at a different way to take care if it. Pulling teeth out of my knuckles and joints isn't something I'd like to repeat anytime soon.

Sheesh... There is definately something that feels right about the creed when you think about it. I'd feel pretty stupid getting a disease like HIV for something as simple as a traffic altercation or throwing someone out of a bar. I guess it is best to use it only when forced to, eh?

:asian:


----------



## Bode (Mar 17, 2005)

> I've spent my entire Kenpo Life listening to the Ed Parker and the Mike Pick digging teeth out of their natural weapon stories


 For all the science I mention it all comes down to the confrontation and whether or not you survive. Mr. Lear, in your case, you did. One can only train to reduce the likelyhood of failure. Success is not guaranteed.
 Congrats.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 17, 2005)

Bill Lear said:
			
		

> Old Fat Kenpoka,
> 
> You're right. It isn't easy. It does take time and practice. I'd say practice that involves a little realism in the studio perhaps. Thank you for you kind words.
> 
> ...


I wouldn't worry too much about Aids unless his mouth was already filled with blood at the time. Its the Heppatitus that will get ya.
Sean


----------

