# Revisiting The Techniques



## MJS (Aug 21, 2006)

Came across the subject of knife techniques over on KT, but thought I'd bring it here as well, to get some feedback.

There seems to be a bit of concern with the way some of these techniques are executed, with some saying that if its done the 'textbook way' there is a very good chance you'll end up getting seriously hurt.

So, the question is, if these techniques are ineffective, what are the solutions to making them better?


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Aug 21, 2006)

Actually doing them correctly with emphasis on the underlying principles, not copying someone else's motion.

1) The knife techniques aren't designed for the knife expert just like none of the other techniques aren't designed for the expert in it's particular attack category.

2) There seems to be this trend in knife techniques were people say "This knife technique won't work because all the guy has to do is this to stop it". Duh, that's called the What-If and every technique has a way (and a simple one I might add) to kill the whole technique and necessitate a change-up.

3) If any of the techniques are done the "textbook" way then why is anyone continuing passed the third or fourth move?  Why do we have extensions AFTER we broke someones neck (like in The Back Breaker)?  Because things go wrong and that's what you train for, the book doesn't cover that.  When was the last time someone went to "drivers ed" and had an instructor try to hit them with another car to simulate a random accident occuring? Never. But no one seems to question that drivers ed works despite the fact that it does not make anyone experience the more dangerous variables of driving.

Food for thought....


----------



## MJS (Aug 22, 2006)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:
			
		

> Actually doing them correctly with emphasis on the underlying principles, not copying someone else's motion.
> 
> 1) The knife techniques aren't designed for the knife expert just like none of the other techniques aren't designed for the expert in it's particular attack category.
> 
> ...


 
1) I would think that it would be a good idea to take into consideration the likelyhood of facing someone better.  If what you're saying is true, what would be the best ways to improve on those techniques?

2) Well, looking at this:
http://www.kenpotalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2517

it seems like a) there is a problem with the first move, b) unless I'm missing it, I don't see anyone discussing the solutions.

3) Well, this is what I was hoping to discuss...the part when things go wrong.  As for drivers ed...yes, we both agree that it does and does not teach/address certain areas.  Can we simulate the "What if" in the techniques? Sure.  Can we simulate a crash?  Most courses do not do this, so that would most likely lead to a new driver covering their eyes and hoping for the best, rather than attempt an evasive maneuver.  

Mike


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Aug 22, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> 1) I would think that it would be a good idea to take into consideration the likelyhood of facing someone better. If what you're saying is true, what would be the best ways to improve on those techniques?
> 
> 2) Well, looking at this:
> http://www.kenpotalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2517
> ...


 
1) absolutely! that likelihood must be considered and is quite circular in thought. The "expert" generally won't attack with the methods our 'ideal' phase outlines. So we what-if the techniques and attacks to make them more realistic. In what-if-ing the techniques and attacks we inevitably end up in a position found in the ideal phase of another technique and can then return to ideal phase there just to repeat the process if another variable is introduced.

2) I don't think there are any problems with the moves for the attacks they are defending against. The main problem is that the committed lunges, and stabs aren't the "expert attacks". Want to correct something? Where are the slash defenses? Oh that's right, they're addressed in the club techniques with minor adjustments to address the blade.  Besids techniques are just vehicles to get the principles across.  that whole divert-sieze, control, disarm thing and other meaningless stuff like that 

3) When something goes wrong, chosse to do something else. When something goes right, you may still choose to do something else. The majority of weapon defenses have the same trends :

A) the initial moves are designed to disarm the attacker but people continue with the technique "as written" and ask "this doesn't make sense, why am I doing this if he still has the weapon?" Possible answer: because IDEALY he doesn't have the weapon anymore.

B) The kenpo rule is "divert, seize, control, disarm." When a weapon technique fails to adhere to this rule people don't what-if the technique or ask why. There is a reason for the diversion from the rule (pun intended).

4) The Kenpo technique on that post you hotlinked seems to be Thrusting Lance, I've had the unfortunate pleasure of actually using that one for real. Here's how it went.

A) Jerk tried to stab me and I hit his wrist and has groin, he dropped the knife. (Weapon diverted and disarmed no seize and control available).

B) with no more knife to worry about there was no need to manipulate his arm and break his wrist to get rid of the knife and risk a grappling match.

C) Obscure elbow, uppercut, sandwich, handsword, hammer fist (Locking Horns into Detour from Doom) go home to my family in one piece.

In my opinion the technique did exactly what it was supposed do. But there are those that would say "you had to change it so it didn't work" my response: "I choose to change things and made it home to my son, it worked fine in my textbook"


----------



## Carol (Aug 22, 2006)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:
			
		

> In my opinion the technique did exactly what it was supposed do. But there are those that would say "you had to change it so it didn't work" my response: "I choose to change things and made it home to my son, it worked fine in my textbook"


 
I don't see that as you had to change it to make it work.  You reacted to the situation as warranted.  If the attacker had not dropped the knife you would likely have done differently.

It reminds me of the time when my instructor said "If you are in a street fight, are you going to do all the steps of Dance of Death on your attacker?  No!  You're going to get the guy down and you're going to get yourself out of there."

It's the live situation, not Infinite Insights, that determines the most appropriate moves to defend against an attack.

That you made it home to your son is the best news of all.


----------



## RichK (Aug 22, 2006)

Hmmmmmmm, look at "Raining Lance". Are you going to pull the knife out of the leg to stab them in the chest and then slice through across the throat? Umm I don't think sooooooo. A) legal issue: once you disarm and incapacitate you are legally bound to STOP B) has anyone here ever handled a bloody knife? If so than you understand why the knife is not coming out of the leg. I just used the one technique as an example so dn't be going to town on me by trying to compare my statement to "Glancing Lance".


----------



## jazkiljok (Aug 22, 2006)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:
			
		

> Actually doing them correctly with emphasis on the underlying principles, not copying someone else's motion.
> 
> 1) The knife techniques aren't designed for the knife expert just like none of the other techniques aren't designed for the expert in it's particular attack category.



but the weapons disarms do require for you to be an expert to execute them. they are vastly more complex than modern systems and even traditional ones. 





			
				Kenpojujitsu3 said:
			
		

> 2) There seems to be this trend in knife techniques were people say "This knife technique won't work because all the guy has to do is this to stop it". Duh, that's called the What-If and every technique has a way (and a simple one I might add) to kill the whole technique and necessitate a change-up.



i think the trend is more about fancy martial art disarms being unrealistic and impractical. KISS is what most security/LEO professionals preach right after they encourage you to first run.



			
				Kenpojujitsu3 said:
			
		

> 3) If any of the techniques are done the "textbook" way then why is anyone continuing passed the third or fourth move?  Why do we have extensions AFTER we broke someones neck (like in The Back Breaker)?  Because things go wrong and that's what you train for, the book doesn't cover that.  When was the last time someone went to "drivers ed" and had an instructor try to hit them with another car to simulate a random accident occuring? Never. But no one seems to question that drivers ed works despite the fact that it does not make anyone experience the more dangerous variables of driving.
> 
> Food for thought....



Why indeed. there is quite a few maiming actions after you  break some one's neck in back breaker before you even get to the extension. Why? i don't beleive that arguing about things going wrong can explain the purpose. considering that the time it takes to get thru even an extension is mere seconds, where does one find time to assess the situation? when does one have the time to notice that a neck is truly broken or some one is just stunned? oddly, the solutions to all attacks keep calling for extra curricular maiming as you go up the latter-- (and why is breaking a neck called for against some one punching you?). 


as to your driver's ed analogy- i think you have to take into account that you can't stop a car from hitting yours in an accident. it's not anything you can train to avoid.

the weapons disarms as taught and written just don't seem sound enough to practice for true self-defense reasons.


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Aug 22, 2006)

RichK said:
			
		

> Hmmmmmmm, look at "Raining Lance". Are you going to pull the knife out of the leg to stab them in the chest and then slice through across the throat? Umm I don't think sooooooo. A) legal issue: once you disarm and incapacitate you are legally bound to STOP B) has anyone here ever handled a bloody knife? If so than you understand why the knife is not coming out of the leg. I just used the one technique as an example so dn't be going to town on me by trying to compare my statement to "Glancing Lance".


 
Speaking of Book versions, if you'll look at the Infinite Insights you'll see Raining Lance outlined with text and pictures.  Notice that no mention of pulling the knife out is made in the text or shown in the pictures.  I have no idea where the pull the knife out idea came from.  It's not a viable technique for a number of reasons such as 1) Blood is slick and 2) the knife has a handle to grab, it's true...but it's still in the other guys hand unless he "lets" you grab the knife like they do in class.


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Aug 22, 2006)

jazkiljok said:
			
		

> but the weapons disarms do require for you to be an expert to execute them. they are vastly more complex than modern systems and even traditional ones.


 
unfortunately the curse of most martial arts systems as oppossed to self defense systems (there is a BIG difference) is that the martial arts system requires you to be an expert while the self defense program does not.  That's why people preach that there's more to martial arts than just fighting.  In short, agreed.



			
				jazkiljok said:
			
		

> I think the trend is more about fancy martial art disarms being unrealistic and impractical. KISS is what most security/LEO professionals preach right after they encourage you to first run.


 
True keep it simple, which is why students of Kenpo are taught that the techniques offer the idea and basics of what CAN be done, not what MUST be done. Unfortunately many instructors teach people that the moves are meant to be done from start to finish. Not true in the slightest.



			
				jazkiljok said:
			
		

> Why indeed. there is quite a few maiming actions after you break some one's neck in back breaker before you even get to the extension. Why? i don't beleive that arguing about things going wrong can explain the purpose. considering that the time it takes to get thru even an extension is mere seconds, where does one find time to assess the situation? when does one have the time to notice that a neck is truly broken or some one is just stunned? oddly, the solutions to all attacks keep calling for extra curricular maiming as you go up the latter-- (and why is breaking a neck called for against some one punching you?).


 
The techniques are meant to give options and you brought up another problem in alot of kenpo schools...."Speed kills.....your technique". The way I was taught there are various pause points within all the techniques that allow a moment to survey, assess and reassess. Unfortunately these aren't taught everywhere and people do "90 mile an hour kenpo" with no time to assess and reassess the situation. If something goes wrong you CAN go to the extension or you CAN go to another extension or you CAN go to another base technique or you CAN attempt an exit. The techniques teach options from different positions but people think they are to be done from step A to step Z with every letter in between which is where the "extra-curricular maiming" or "over kill" comments come in it. It's not what MUST be done but simply what CAN be done. This isn't the systems problem but rather the way some people are taught it.




			
				jazkiljok said:
			
		

> as to your driver's ed analogy- I think you have to take into account that you can't stop a car from hitting yours in an accident. it's not anything you can train to avoid.


 
Incorrect (IMHO) you can stop a car from hitting yours by avoiding the other car. Though it's not always possible to avoid there are many cases where it is. Unfortunately I know this from experience. On 6/12 and 6/16 I had two seperate car accidents totalling my cars. The first was a man running from the cops running a red light and blindsiding me - unavoidable as I never saw him. The second was a man turning in front of me illegally. I saw him but reacted to slow in turning and breaking - this was avoidable.



			
				jazkiljok said:
			
		

> the weapons disarms as taught and written just don't seem sound enough to practice for true self-defense reasons.


 
As taught yes, there are parts left out such as 1) pauses to assess, 2) reasoning and mentality that leads to certain movments, 3) Exit points or "control release", 4) where to graft and where not to, 5) body mechanics behind the "motion", 6) Why the techniques are being done (hint it's not all about combat effectiveness only after the first assault, variables are built in and to be considered but seldom mentioned in many places).

As written the techniques are only a frame and the real meat is left out. people forget that the manuals were originally meant to be a VERY GENERAL guide for techniques to mention SOME improtant points to remind people of what to do when practicing. Now people think the manual is the Bible with all the answers. The manuals are just "Cliff's Notes" if that much.


----------



## MJS (Aug 23, 2006)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:
			
		

> 1) absolutely! that likelihood must be considered and is quite circular in thought. The "expert" generally won't attack with the methods our 'ideal' phase outlines. So we what-if the techniques and attacks to make them more realistic. In what-if-ing the techniques and attacks we inevitably end up in a position found in the ideal phase of another technique and can then return to ideal phase there just to repeat the process if another variable is introduced.
> 
> 2) I don't think there are any problems with the moves for the attacks they are defending against. The main problem is that the committed lunges, and stabs aren't the "expert attacks". Want to correct something? Where are the slash defenses? Oh that's right, they're addressed in the club techniques with minor adjustments to address the blade. Besids techniques are just vehicles to get the principles across. that whole divert-sieze, control, disarm thing and other meaningless stuff like that
> 
> ...


 
As always James, a well thought out reply! Thank you! 

Looking at the link, I may be wrong, but I get the impression that the direction is going in, is, doing the technique as written, without any changes, people questioning certain moves, and others saying, well if you do those moves in that way, you'll be likely to encounter problems.  Again, unless I'm missing it, I'm not seeing anyone saying, well, just omit the move in question and go on to something else.  You and I are in agreement that the techs. should be giving a foundation to build off of.  I was working some techs. yesterday in class.  With the way I was attacked, the textbook version didn't pan out, which forced me to change the remainder of the tech.  

BTW, glad to hear that everything worked out for you when you had to apply that tech. in real life!:ultracool 

Mike


----------



## RichK (Aug 23, 2006)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:
			
		

> Speaking of Book versions, if you'll look at the Infinite Insights you'll see Raining Lance outlined with text and pictures. Notice that no mention of pulling the knife out is made in the text or shown in the pictures. I have no idea where the pull the knife out idea came from. It's not a viable technique for a number of reasons such as 1) Blood is slick and 2) the knife has a handle to grab, it's true...but it's still in the other guys hand unless he "lets" you grab the knife like they do in class.


Man I need to get to my storage locker to pull out my Infinate Insights books.


----------



## Sigung86 (Aug 24, 2006)

I'm thinking that "Raining Lance" with all the slicing and dicing is something that someone made up.  Kind of a "Damn!  Wouldn't that be cool!" kind of an extension.  

All that extra stuff goes beyond the scope of the technique into the realm of artsy-fartsy.

And as a kind of quick reply to whoever it was above that said that you have to stop after a certain extent into a technique...
If someone comes at you with a knife, that is intent, under law in Missouri anyway, to use deadly force.  Deadly force can and probably should be met with deadly force.

Kenpo aside, if a fellow comes at me with a knife, and I have a pistol, and the wherewithall to use said pistol ... Guess what... 

For all his Kenpo wisdom, and skills, when SGM Parker would be bodyguarding Elvis, guess what he carried, and guess what ankle holster he carried it in...

Just thoughts about getting combat down to where it is.


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Aug 24, 2006)

Sigung86 said:
			
		

> Kenpo aside, if a fellow comes at me with a knife, and I have a pistol, and the wherewithall to use said pistol ... Guess what...


 
I got it! You're going to grab the gun in a reverse grip and use it as a kenpo weapon to bludgeon them with! Like doing five swords with a pistol in your hand.  Am I close? LOL!!


----------



## jazkiljok (Aug 25, 2006)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:
			
		

> unfortunately the curse of most martial arts systems as oppossed to self defense systems (there is a BIG difference) is that the martial arts system requires you to be an expert while the self defense program does not.  That's why people preach that there's more to martial arts than just fighting.  In short, agreed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



thanks, an excellent response. i will still stay pragmatic in my viewpoints in regards to the knife teks and self-defense but appreciate your perspective on the subject.


----------

