# take downs



## Manny (Jan 13, 2010)

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

Thanx.

manny


----------



## chaos1551 (Jan 13, 2010)

In my limited experience, kenpo is mainly a stand-up art.  However, I'm learning takedowns and standing pins utilizing joint locks in some of my techniques.  Emerging storm is one I just learned last night that sends an attacker to the ground so you can kick their ribs and face.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jan 13, 2010)

Apparently you haven't been introduced to the leg buckle. 

In my experience there are all kinds of take-downs ranging from basic C-Steps to sweeps to leg buckles as mentioned above. 

In order to understand how to defend against something it helps to understand how it is executed.


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 13, 2010)

Manny said:


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



Check out Jeff Speakman's Kenpo 5.0 system for an interesting demonstration of EPAK with some elements of Brazilian Jiujitsu added.


----------



## MJS (Jan 13, 2010)

Manny said:


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


 
If you're looking for things such as a double leg or things that you would normally see in a BJJ class, no, you wont see that in Kenpo.  You will see takedowns, as in leg sweeps, leg buckles, as CC mentioned.  Jeff Speakman has added in some BJJ type moves to his Kenpo that he teaches.


----------



## MattJ (Jan 14, 2010)

Hi Manny. Kenpo does have some takedowns. Some of them are similar to stuff you see in MMA/BJJ/Judo/Aikido, but not exactly the same. You see them in techniques like Dance of Death, The Sleeper, Tripping Arrow, Squatting Sacrifice, and in the extensions to Bowing to Buddha and Twisted Twig. Probably a few others, but I can't remember them all anymore, LOL. 

Your instructor should be able to demonstrate them to you. Dedicated grapplers are going to be much better at them for the most part, though.


----------



## kenpofighter (Jan 14, 2010)

MattJ about said it. Kenpo mostly is a stand up art. Ed Parker (creator) was a big guy and most likely did not want to roll around on the ground with his opponent. But you will find a few hip throws and leg buckles putting your opponent on the ground instead of yourself. Plus a few time finding yourself on the ground with the goal of getting back on your feet!


----------



## madeku (Jan 14, 2010)

i wouldn't say there's as much "using the opponent's energy against him" in american kenpo as in say aikido.. more of a disrupting his balance, or finding weaknesses in his structure/stance and then exploiting it. like in traditional jujitsu. i believe Mr Parker had a black belt in Jujitsu, or Judo. can't remember. so he was somewhat familiar with ground work, even though that wasn't a main focus like today.

although one technique comes to mind, "back breaker".. sans everything after you get around the guy and grab his shoulders.. the back breaking parts of course.. not very aikido like. lol.. just throw the guy down on the ground.


----------



## ackks10 (Jan 15, 2010)

i was just going to say  "back breaker" but u beat me to it, and also let me say that you can do alot of "WHAT IF'S"  later on down the line.


----------



## kenpofighter (Jan 15, 2010)

Ed Parkers did study judo and later a little boxing before he was introduced to Frank Chow and then to Frank's brother (a US Coast Guard at the time) William Chow. It was from William where Parker received more training. But kenpo does have some takedowns: falling falcons, brushing the storm, sleeper, back breaker, leap of death, destructive fans, dance of death are some of the takedowns in kenpo.


----------



## ackks10 (Jan 15, 2010)

there is no difference if you are standing up doing kenpo or laying on the ground doing kenpo,because it all works the same


----------



## MJS (Jan 17, 2010)

ackks10 said:


> there is no difference if you are standing up doing kenpo or laying on the ground doing kenpo,because it all works the same


 
That may be true to a point, but I think there're alot of times, when people tend, IMO, to delude themselves into thinking what they're doing on the ground will actually work.  I can't help but refer back to a video clip of a high ranking Kenpoist doing some 'grappling.'


----------



## seasoned (Jan 17, 2010)

ackks10 said:


> there is* no difference* if you are *standing up* doing kenpo *or laying on the ground* doing kenpo,*because it all works* *the same*


I don't practice Kenpo, but my feeling are the same for the art I teach. It is all about adapting to the situation.


----------



## ackks10 (Jan 17, 2010)

MJS said:


> That may be true to a point, but I think there're alot of times, when people tend, IMO, to delude themselves into thinking what they're doing on the ground will actually work.  I can't help but refer back to a video clip of a high ranking Kenpoist doing some 'grappling.'



what i mean Mike is that if someone keeps pushing you and you tell them to stop and they don't,now the next time that person pushed you he would get a finger in the eye,,now i remember awhile back i was at this gas station (to make a long story short) the gas guy tried to cheat me and i caught it,so i said something to him,while this was going on Mom and Pop was in the car,so when i said something to him he yelled at me and tried to hit me,(the gas man not pop) he thew the punch i did a finger spear to his eye,so after that (when he could see ) he ran at me and because we had some ice and snow on the ground as he grabbed i fell to my knees, as i tried to get up i slipped again,as i was on the ground the man was on top of me,  so i grabbed his hair and the tubin came off, his head went back i took my right palm  and hit him under the chin, he ran away into the office, so it works both ways, sorry this was so long.


----------



## MJS (Jan 20, 2010)

ackks10 said:


> what i mean Mike is that if someone keeps pushing you and you tell them to stop and they don't,now the next time that person pushed you he would get a finger in the eye,,now i remember awhile back i was at this gas station (to make a long story short) the gas guy tried to cheat me and i caught it,so i said something to him,while this was going on Mom and Pop was in the car,so when i said something to him he yelled at me and tried to hit me,(the gas man not pop) he thew the punch i did a finger spear to his eye,so after that (when he could see ) he ran at me and because we had some ice and snow on the ground as he grabbed i fell to my knees, as i tried to get up i slipped again,as i was on the ground the man was on top of me, so i grabbed his hair and the tubin came off, his head went back i took my right palm and hit him under the chin, he ran away into the office, so it works both ways, sorry this was so long.


 
I think you may have mentioned this to me during one of our chats.   I see what you're saying.  I'll give you a call over the weekend. 

Mike


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jan 20, 2010)

I think an interesting aspect of Kenpo that most don't look at, is that we gain control of our opponents, we cancel their Height, Width, and Depth zones and take away their ability to stay balanced...
there are several points in our techniques where we could choose to throw or take people down. AS has already been mentioned above, our traditional?? curriculum includes Buckles, and Sweeps, and trips, but not alot of throws.. I have found that learning Throws from other arts fits in very well wwith what I do in Kenpo and combine well with our Sweeps, Buckles, and Trips.


----------



## K831 (Jan 20, 2010)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> I think an interesting aspect of Kenpo that most don't look at, is that we gain control of our opponents, we cancel their Height, Width, and Depth zones and take away their ability to stay balanced...
> there are several points in our techniques where we could choose to throw or take people down. AS has already been mentioned above, our traditional?? curriculum includes Buckles, and Sweeps, and trips, but not alot of throws.. I have found that learning Throws from other arts fits in very well wwith what I do in Kenpo and combine well with our Sweeps, Buckles, and Trips.



Agreed. One reason (as I understand it) for utilizing a buckle over a Judo throw etc.. is that Kenpo was designed from the beginning for multiple attackers and the potential of weapons, both situations where you want your hands free and stay mobile to engage the next target, and don't want to get tied up grabbing and opponent with one or both hands to hip toss him. Rather, a buckle while striking drops him and you move seamlessly on to the next target. Hands don't get tied up, and you don't lose mobility by momentarily hoisting someone else weight.




MJS said:


> That may be true to a point, but I think there're alot of times, when people tend, IMO, to delude themselves into thinking what they're doing on the ground will actually work. I can't help but refer back to a video clip of a high ranking Kenpoist doing some 'grappling.'



I agree. We may be able to, in many instances, say that "Kenpo will work on the ground as it does standing" and I think there is a lot of truth to that, but only if you have practiced making it work on the ground. 

Also, how good was this "high ranking Kenpoist" really? I know some highly ranked Kenpoists who couldn't punch there way out of a paper bag. They are often some of the more "vocal".


----------



## MattJ (Jan 20, 2010)

ackks10 said:


> there is no difference if you are standing up doing kenpo or laying on the ground doing kenpo,because it all works the same


 
No sir, that is not true. Striking arts are at a huge disadvantage on the ground. Weight transfer and hip torque will be compromised, and shoulder penetration is also compromised if you are on your back. Most kenpo schools (including all the ones I trained at) did not work for position on the ground before the advent of the UFC, which is a skill in itself. 

I agree that there are similarities, and some things can work just as well, but to say that there is "no difference" is wrong.


----------



## K831 (Jan 20, 2010)

MattJ said:


> No sir, that is not true. Striking arts are at a huge disadvantage on the ground. Weight transfer and hip torque will be compromised, and shoulder penetration is also compromised if you are on your back. Most kenpo schools (including all the ones I trained at) did not work for position on the ground before the advent of the UFC, which is a skill in itself.
> 
> I agree that there are similarities, and some things can work just as well, but to say that there is "no difference" is wrong.



I agree with most of this, however, I think the phrase "at a huge disadvantage" is only true if UFC type rules are in place to limit the striker. 

I know from personal, real time experience that devastating strikes can be administered while that grappler is concerning himself with "working for position" or executing a submission.  

I don't mean to say that a Kenpoist or any other striker shouldn't gain some ground experience or learn the basics of positioning/transitioning, however, too many go from a striking mindset on their feet, to a "grappling" mindset on the ground, forgetting all their striking tools. This is counter to good self defense.


----------



## MJS (Jan 20, 2010)

Well, since it was asked, here is the clip:
http://ltatum.com/movies/Week22/TipOfTheWeekMedW22.html

Now, as I said, striking can be done on the ground, but depending on your position, certain things may/may not work.  In the clip that I posted, sure, that'll work if the person is positioned such as we see.  But....were this person to be in a true mount position, the knee strike that was shown will not work because a) you will be striking more with the thigh, not the knee, b) without the proper set-up, the person on top will not move as easy as we saw, and it should be fairly simple to recover.  

The intention is there, but IMO, you can't just take a standing tech., put yourself on the ground and expect that same thing to work, without making some changes.  

The goal, IMO, is not to turn the SD situation into a long grappling match.  I think having an understanding of how a grappler works, is important.  From there, we can adapt our Kenpo techs. accordingly.  But, to just wing it....not good IMO.


----------



## MJS (Jan 20, 2010)

Just wanted to be clear on something.  My intent is not to bash Larry Tatum.  The man is a great Kenpoist.  I've had the chance to train with him at a seminar, and I enjoyed it very much.  The clip is simply an example, a discussion point, of a standing tech. that is being attempted, while in a horizontal position.


----------



## MattJ (Jan 21, 2010)

K831 said:


> I agree with most of this, however, I think the phrase "at a huge disadvantage" is only true if UFC type rules are in place to limit the striker.


 
Genuinely curious and not trying to be argumentive, but which rules are you referring to? 



> I know from personal, real time experience that devastating strikes can be administered while that grappler is concerning himself with "working for position" or executing a submission.


 
Sure, especially if the striker is on top. My comments about disadvantage were from the perspective of the striker being on the bottom - no hip torque, no weight transfer, limited shoulder rotation, etc. 



> I don't mean to say that a Kenpoist or any other striker shouldn't gain some ground experience or learn the basics of positioning/transitioning, however, too many go from a striking mindset on their feet, to a "grappling" mindset on the ground, forgetting all their striking tools. This is counter to good self defense.


 
Agreed, knowledge of all phases of combat are required to be most effective.


----------



## K831 (Jan 21, 2010)

MattJ said:


> Genuinely curious and not trying to be argumentive, but which rules are you referring to?



  I am primarily a Kenpo guy, but I get out to all the local schools 
and do at least a class or two, I enjoy seeing what other styles are doing. One of my favorites to visit is Krav Maga. I like Kenpo better for various reasons, but I really enjoy visiting the Krav guys. One of the local schools here put on a Saturday workshop all about surviving the ground in a street fight. It was basically taking the premise that nowadays there are a lot of BJJ guys running around since UFC is so popular how do you deal with BJJ guy on the ground?

  Well, we had worked such things in my Kenpo school, but knowing of the Krav guys tenacity, aggressiveness and outright violent approach to dealing with any threat, I checked it out.

  Ill continue that story in a minute, but to answer your question directly, the following rules;

  1.    Butting with the head. 
2.   Eye gouging of any kind. 
3.   Biting. 
4.   Hair pulling. 
5.   Fish hooking. 
6.   Groin attacks of any kind. 
7.   Putting a finger into any orifice or into any cut or laceration on an opponent. 
8.   Small joint manipulation. 
9.   Striking to the spine or the back of the head. 
10. Striking downward using the point of the elbow. 
11. Throat strikes of any kind, including, without limitation, grabbing the trachea. 
12. Clawing, pinching or twisting the flesh. 
13. Grabbing the clavicle.  

  The Krav school (having an MMA curriculum at the school and a competition team) had a few of their top BJJ guy roll with us. They also had a couple of guys from local BJJ clubs show up. 

  The seminar went as follows;  We start standing up, one striker, one grappler. We spar until the grappler has a shot, most often he gets it and ends on the ground, choked out. 

We film it. We re-watch it as a class. We look for the following;

  1.)Once he  started the shot or had your hips/legs, could you have (see rule #2 #4 #7 #9 #10 #11)

  2.)Once on the ground, how quickly could you have gotten fingers to eyes, get hold of a wrist or fingers (most of us in Kenpo, Krav etc can administer a wrist lock or bend a finger backwards) get a good grip of hair, bite the throat or face, fish hook or head butt?

  Then we ran the drill again, at various speeds. Guess what? It was very, very rare that any of the BJJ guys had time to solidify position or sink a submission before they were bitten (all over the face and neck, even arms and legs at times) before they were overwhelmed with fingers all over their face and applying (soft) pressure to the eyes, their heads being turned by handfuls of hair or ears, thumbs and wrists being twisted and bent, and many, many short quick (but soft) whips and chops being landed to the throat. 

  It was dirty, brutal, ugly and it was shocking how quickly the ground fight turned into who can get to whose eyes first, never mind who could get a RNC or Kimura. 

  Secondly we ran the drill with a rubber knife in the waist band. Every time someone shot on me they were gutted in moments. (Incidentally I carry a knife 99.8% of the time I leave the house)

  Lastly, we ran it with multiple attackers. You dont want to take a guy the ground if he still has a friend standing. 

  The class only reinforced what I already believed;

  1.) You DO NOT want to go to the ground outside the ring and the rules

  2.) Its all about MINDSET. If you switch to wrestling mode when you get taken down, you will get choked out. If you stay in your Kenpo/Krav/Kali/Kaju (all my favorites start with K) mode of brutally attacking soft targets, anything goes, you can exploit the fact that the grappler doesnt typically train that way, and the fact that he thinks now I have you. 

  In the cage, with rules, no weapons etc, yes the grappler has a huge advantage over the striker. In the street, if my mindset is correct, I think he is at a disadvantage. 

  I have been taken to the ground in a real altercation once in the last year, and that experience bore the truth of the above notion. 

  Having said all this, a Kenpo guy with some knowledge of basic positioning/transitioning on the ground can utilize everything above with greater success. That is why I would encourage anyone to gain some ground experience but I dont think that means learn BJJ or learn some submissions.  I think that is virtually a waste of time for the SD.


----------



## MJS (Jan 21, 2010)

K831 said:


> I am primarily a Kenpo guy, but I get out to all the local schools
> and do at least a class or two, I enjoy seeing what other styles are doing. One of my favorites to visit is Krav Maga. I like Kenpo better for various reasons, but I really enjoy visiting the Krav guys. One of the local schools here put on a Saturday workshop all about surviving the ground in a street fight. It was basically taking the premise that nowadays there are a lot of BJJ guys running around since UFC is so popular how do you deal with BJJ guy on the ground?
> 
> Well, we had worked such things in my Kenpo school, but knowing of the Krav guys tenacity, aggressiveness and outright violent approach to dealing with any threat, I checked it out.
> ...


 
Very nice post, and I agree 100%.  One of the things that really stuck out to me, one of the things that I find myself saying all the time, is the underlined part.


----------



## MattJ (Jan 21, 2010)

K831 said:


> 1.)Once he started the shot or had your hips/legs, could you have (see rule #2 #4 #7 #9 #10 #11)
> 
> 2.)Once on the ground, how quickly could you have gotten fingers to eyes, get hold of a wrist or fingers (most of us in Kenpo, Krav etc can administer a wrist lock or bend a finger backwards) get a good grip of hair, bite the throat or face, fish hook or head butt?
> 
> ...


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



> Secondly we ran the drill with a rubber knife in the waist band. Every time someone shot on me they were gutted in moments. (Incidentally I carry a knife 99.8% of the time I leave the house)


 
Yikes! Good luck with that one in court, LOL. 



> Lastly, we ran it with multiple attackers. You dont want to take a guy the ground if he still has a friend standing.


 
Agreed, and this is common sense that most grapplers are well aware of. 



> In the cage, with rules, no weapons etc, yes the grappler has a huge advantage over the striker. In the street, if my mindset is correct, I think he is at a disadvantage.


 
Again, the early UFC's show otherwise.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jan 21, 2010)

If the UFC has proven anything, it's that you should be the best well-rounded fighter you can be. 

Keep in mind, the early UFC's were a promotional stunt for the Gracie family. ...just sayin' 

Even so, there were plenty of knock outs and TKO's... even some of the "submission" wins were actually due to strikes (UFC 2 Johnny Rhodes VS David Levicki.) 

There have been just as many great "striker" UFC champions as "grappler" UFC champions. 

Let's keep things in perspective. There is no be-all-end-all style or school of martial art. Individuals have to work out what works best for them and take what they can from where they can. 

You need to train so that you make sure you have the proper tools in your tool box to get the job done when needed; whatever that job may be. That means planning for any eventuality. 

Now, back to the regularly scheduled topic of this thread: Take-downs. LOL


----------



## MattJ (Jan 21, 2010)

Celtic, I actually agree with your post almost completely. The only line I have a problem with is this:



celtic_crippler said:


> Keep in mind, the early UFC's were a promotional stunt for the Gracie family. ...just sayin'


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

Just wanted to clarify that for folks who haven't seen the early UFC's.


----------



## ackks10 (Jan 23, 2010)

MattJ said:


> No sir, that is not true. Striking arts are at a huge disadvantage on the ground. Weight transfer and hip torque will be compromised, and shoulder penetration is also compromised if you are on your back. Most kenpo schools (including all the ones I trained at) did not work for position on the ground before the advent of the UFC, which is a skill in itself.
> 
> I agree that there are similarities, and some things can work just as well, but to say that there is "no difference" is wrong.



i understand what u r saying, and i watched the LT clip ,and you r right about kenpo schools not teaching alot of ground stuff,(but i work on it) they should
but it is what it is.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 look ma i can't breath.


----------



## ackks10 (Jan 23, 2010)

just though of something, the picture is not of me,the way i put the words kind of looks like I'm saying its me, just trying to be funny sorry


----------



## sjansen (Jan 23, 2010)

Kenpo does not use moves on the ground. Kenpo takes people to the ground. Once your opponent is on the ground you can strike and knee to keep them there, but there is nothing done like arm barrs and the like. They take too much time. In that time, their friends or bystanders might knee you or stomp on you. Kenpo is for the street. On the street, you have to stay modile and will only loose if you stay on the ground.


----------



## MJS (Jan 23, 2010)

MattJ said:


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


 
Thats correct...the original rule list was much shorter than we see today.  However, I think its safe to say that we have all seen many fights, in which its stopped momentarily due to a finger to the eye, knee to the groin, etc.  Additionally, the Kajukenbo Fight Quest episode, showed Jimmy taking a downward elbow to the back, which pretty much took him out for a few.  





> Yikes! Good luck with that one in court, LOL.


 
Well, I suppose the same could be said about any weapon.  Then again, speaking only for myself, if its a matter of life or death, I'm going to grab whatever I can get my hands on, and I'm going to use it.  I'll deal with the aftermath later on.  





> Agreed, and this is common sense that most grapplers are well aware of.


 
Interestingly enough, I've yet to see any solid methods that grapplers use, of defending against this type of attack.  Now, I'm not saying that Kenpo has the market cornered on mult. attack defense, but at least they have something.  With all of the grappling DVDs out there, I've yet to see one on multi man attacks.  Then again, I have heard, many times, the reply, "Well, I'll just kick them in the balls and run."  Well, yeah, sure, that is one option, but listening to the people who say that, I get the impression that that is their only option.  





> Again, the early UFC's show otherwise.


 
The majority of MMA/BJJ schools that I've seen, do not focus on anything but the sport aspect.  Sure, there may be some that do, but those classes are a) seperate from the regular ones, and b) not focused on nearly as much as the sport aspect.


----------



## K831 (Jan 23, 2010)

MattJ said:


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



I'm not interested in looking to any organized, refereed, one on one, on a mat, sporting event as my litmus test for real combat. Many of the things that I explained worked so well in the Krav Maga class were still illegal in the early UFC's. 





MattJ said:


> Yikes! Good luck with that one in court, LOL.



This is a non-issue for me in this context. 

I think we are probably coming from pretty different backgrounds and experiences. Different paradigm of self defense. I try to avoid altercations these days, but If you shoot on me, you will get stabbed until you stop. I will not let some grappler wrap his arms around my neck because I was too concerned about the jury to take immediate action. If I don't have a knife, the tactics and strikes will be just as brutal. If someone puts their hands on me, (especially if my family is with me) my default position is that they mean to do me the gravest of harm. 






MattJ said:


> Agreed, and this is common sense that most grapplers are well aware of.



Not in my experience. It never ceases to amaze me how many guys talk about "taking him down and choking him out" like it is a magic pill. If they were so aware of the problems of going to the ground in a real altercation, they would spend less time rolling and more time in other arts. They don't, because they train for competition, naively believing that "early UFC's" are realistic examples of using BJJ in the street. 






MattJ said:


> Again, the early UFC's show otherwise.



Early UFC's show that BJJ/Wrestling works very well in one on one, controlled, reffereed competitions. They show nothing more, nothing less.

I have had the (unfortunate) opportunity to apply my tactics against those who chose to try and take me to the ground and "grapple". Experience bears out my previous conclusions.


----------



## MattJ (Jan 24, 2010)

K831 said:


> I'm not interested in looking to any organized, refereed, one on one, on a mat, sporting event as my litmus test for real combat. Many of the things that I explained worked so well in the Krav Maga class were still illegal in the early UFC's.


 
Really? Are you familiar with the (lack of) rules of the early UFC's? The rules that you quoted are for the Unified Rules of MMA, which came long after the original UFC's. There seems to be a lot of confusion about that from some people. But in any case, I wasn't claiming the UFC to represent street fighting. My point was the resistance offered in that type of compeitition is similar to any other kind of fight. A punch is a punch, etc.



> I think we are probably coming from pretty different backgrounds and experiences.


 
What makes you think that? I don't recall you asking about my background.



> Different paradigm of self defense. I try to avoid altercations these days, but If you shoot on me, you will get stabbed until you stop. I will not let some grappler wrap his arms around my neck because I was too concerned about the jury to take immediate action. If I don't have a knife, the tactics and strikes will be just as brutal. If someone puts their hands on me, (especially if my family is with me) my default position is that they mean to do me the gravest of harm.


 
Again, not arguing you right to do whatever. Just making a point of the consequenses of stabbing someone. 



> Not in my experience. It never ceases to amaze me how many guys talk about "taking him down and choking him out" like it is a magic pill. If they were so aware of the problems of going to the ground in a real altercation, they would spend less time rolling and more time in other arts. They don't, because they train for competition, naively believing that "early UFC's" are realistic examples of using BJJ in the street.


 
I can only assume you don't train with many grapplers.  Lots of them come from striking and RBSD backgrounds. 



> Early UFC's show that BJJ/Wrestling works very well in one on one, controlled, reffereed competitions. They show nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> I have had the (unfortunate) opportunity to apply my tactics against those who chose to try and take me to the ground and "grapple". Experience bears out my previous conclusions.


 
With all due respect, you are in the minority in that respect. The popularity of grappling speaks for itself in that regard. This is not a knock on any non-grappling art, just my own experience.


----------



## MattJ (Jan 24, 2010)

MJS said:


> Thats correct...the original rule list was much shorter than we see today. However, I think its safe to say that we have all seen many fights, in which its stopped momentarily due to a finger to the eye, knee to the groin, etc. Additionally, the Kajukenbo Fight Quest episode, showed Jimmy taking a downward elbow to the back, which pretty much took him out for a few.


 
Sure, again, these things *can* work. The problem is people that think that they will stop every opponent all the time. I can also think of many times when groin kicks and eye-pokes happened in the UFC, and the fight didn't stop, and the guy that got kneed/poked won (remember Hughes/Trigg 2)?



> Interestingly enough, I've yet to see any solid methods that grapplers use, of defending against this type of attack. Now, I'm not saying that Kenpo has the market cornered on mult. attack defense, but at least they have something.


 
Bleh. IMHO, Kenpo has some of the worst multi-opponent defense I have ever seen - many of the techniques actually keep you _inbetween the opponents!_ Madness, especially for anyone that has sparred multi-opponent before. Aikido is much better as far as I'm concerned. Aikido footwork is some of the best for that situation. 



> With all of the grappling DVDs out there, I've yet to see one on multi man attacks.


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



> Then again, I have heard, many times, the reply, "Well, I'll just kick them in the balls and run." Well, yeah, sure, that is one option, but listening to the people who say that, I get the impression that that is their only option.


 
That is basically what you learn in kenpo, LOL.



> The majority of MMA/BJJ schools that I've seen, do not focus on anything but the sport aspect. Sure, there may be some that do, but those classes are a) seperate from the regular ones, and b) not focused on nearly as much as the sport aspect.


 
True, most do. But as I have mentioned before, the resistance element is the same in competition or on the street.


----------



## MJS (Jan 24, 2010)

MattJ said:


> Sure, again, these things *can* work. The problem is people that think that they will stop every opponent all the time. I can also think of many times when groin kicks and eye-pokes happened in the UFC, and the fight didn't stop, and the guy that got kneed/poked won (remember Hughes/Trigg 2)?


 
But, I'm the first one to also say that I'm not a member of the 1 shot/1 kill club. IMHO, there're way too many people, who think that the eye shot, the groin hit, etc are the 'deadly' fight enders. For me, I use things to set up other shots. Can the 1 shot KO happen? Of course, but again, I'm relying on a series of hits, not just one.





> Bleh. IMHO, Kenpo has some of the worst multi-opponent defense I have ever seen - many of the techniques actually keep you _inbetween the opponents!_ Madness, especially for anyone that has sparred multi-opponent before. Aikido is much better as far as I'm concerned. Aikido footwork is some of the best for that situation.


 
You did read what I said right? I said I'm not saying that Kenpo has the market cornered on multi attack defense, but at least they have something. Personally I think many of the weapon defenses suck, but at least the art offers something. IMO, its up to each individual to make sure that their skills are up to par. If that means looking at another art, ie: crosstraining, to get that quality defense, then so be it. 





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


 
You're right...it does require you to remain upright. So if thats the case, how can the art (BJJ) be billed as some complete, ultimate fighting art? Its not complete, as its missing something. 

As for disregarding something...LOL...I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. If you've really ever read any of my past posts, you'd have seen that I'm a big advocate for Kenpoists to learn more about the ground, because IMHO, that is one big area that Kenpo is lacking in. I've also said, that if one really wants to be complete, you'll be well rounded in all ranges...punching, kicking, clinch, grappling, weapons. Not sure where you got the idea that I was dismissing anything. Everything, IMO, has a potential weakness, shortcoming, whatever you want to call it. Kenpo IMO, is weak on the ground, yet its a pretty good stand up art. BJJ is weak when it comes to stand up, yet it pretty much kicks *** on the ground. 





> That is basically what you learn in kenpo, LOL.


 
LMAO, and if thats the only thing, the only option that someone has, they better re-evaluate their training, because something is seriously lacking. This is why the MMA guys always poke fun at the TMAs, always talking about their d3adl3y shots. Gotta have more in the tool box than just a groin kick, eye shot, etc. Once again, as I've said many times, dont rely on JUST those shots, but instead, rely on a series of things to get the job done.





> True, most do. But as I have mentioned before, the resistance element is the same in competition or on the street.


 
Yes, the resistance is there in both, but obviously both are 2 different things. You're going to fight like you train.


----------



## K831 (Jan 25, 2010)

MattJ said:


> Really? Are you familiar with the (lack of) rules of the early UFC's?



Was biting allowed? Was eye gouging allowed? Those were the primary two I mentioned earlier, that you completely ignored. 



MattJ said:


> I wasn't claiming the UFC to represent street fighting. My point was the resistance offered in that type of compeitition is similar to any other kind of fight. A punch is a punch, etc.



Sure you were. Do you not see the contradiction in your statement? You don't think it represents a real fight, but you think the level of resistance is similar to any other type of fight? You either think it stands as a representation of street fighting, or you don't. If you don't, then you CAN'T USE IT AS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT WILL OR WILL NOT WORK. At least not to the degree you do. 





MattJ said:


> What makes you think that? I don't recall you asking about my background.



I don't need to know your background. I have LEO and military friends who can't fight their way out of a paper bag, but their "backgrounds" would suggest otherwise to most. What makes me think that we come from different backgrounds and have a different paradigm concerning self defense is that 1.) you refer to "early UFC's" as your chief example and 2.) you essentially dismissed the knife training  I mentioned because it may get me into trouble "in court". The fact that you would mention either in the context of this discussion indicates to me that our experiences and perceptions are worlds apart. 





MattJ said:


> I can only assume you don't train with many grapplers. Lots of them come from striking and RBSD backgrounds.



I do in fact, although it is difficult to get them to want to try and shoot for a takedown or work for a submission when they know you wont abide by BJJ/wrestling "rules and fouls".  No one wants to get bit now do they?  

I know several grapplers who moved into the realm of RBSD. I don't know any who still find much value in submission work etc, as it does not work when the "reality" of weapons, multi attackers, and biting, clawing dirty SOB's come into play. 



MattJ said:


> With all due respect, you are in the minority in that respect. The popularity of grappling speaks for itself in that regard. This is not a knock on any non-grappling art, just my own experience.



I appreciate the respect, and despite our difference in opinion you have been cordial. However, and with all due respect, I am quite comfortable in the minority opinion. It is when I find myself following the masses that I stop and reevaluate. I do not get my direction regarding self defense from what is trendy at the time. BJJ is popular precisely because of the type of events we are discussing, and because you can study it without getting punched in the face. Were I to use popularity as a gauge for quality as you suggest, well then, I guess I would listen to teeny bop prefab bands, and start shopping at Hollister or something. No way my friend.


----------



## MattJ (Jan 25, 2010)

MJS said:


> But, I'm the first one to also say that I'm not a member of the 1 shot/1 kill club. IMHO, there're way too many people, who think that the eye shot, the groin hit, etc are the 'deadly' fight enders. For me, I use things to set up other shots. Can the 1 shot KO happen? Of course, but again, I'm relying on a series of hits, not just one.


 
OK, I guess we're in agreement then. 



> You did read what I said right?


 
Yes, I did.



> I said I'm not saying that Kenpo has the market cornered on multi attack defense, but at least they have something. Personally I think many of the weapon defenses suck, but at least the art offers something. IMO, its up to each individual to make sure that their skills are up to par. If that means looking at another art, ie: crosstraining, to get that quality defense, then so be it.


 
I think this is where we disagree. I don't see having bad techniques as a positive, even if it's "something". Between the multi-opponent techniques in EPAK and nothing, I would take nothing. Simple instinct would be better. I agree that most of the weapons stuff is not great either, but some of them are workable - moreso than the 2-mans. JMO.




> You're right...it does require you to remain upright. So if thats the case, how can the art (BJJ) be billed as some complete, ultimate fighting art? Its not complete, as its missing something.


 
??????? 

I'm not sure if this is directed at me. I made a specific point of saying that expecting ANY art to be complete is ridiculous. You'll have to explain what you mean, or who you were directing this to here. Sensing a bit of hostility here......?



> As for disregarding something...LOL...I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. If you've really ever read any of my past posts, you'd have seen that I'm a big advocate for Kenpoists to learn more about the ground, because IMHO, that is one big area that Kenpo is lacking in. I've also said, that if one really wants to be complete, you'll be well rounded in all ranges...punching, kicking, clinch, grappling, weapons. Not sure where you got the idea that I was dismissing anything. Everything, IMO, has a potential weakness, shortcoming, whatever you want to call it. Kenpo IMO, is weak on the ground, yet its a pretty good stand up art. BJJ is weak when it comes to stand up, yet it pretty much kicks *** on the ground.


 
I didn't mean to imply that *you* were disregarding, and attempted to word my post non-specifically ("the mentality" instead of "your mentality", "anyone" instead of "you", etc).  Fail on my part, I guess. 



> LMAO, and if thats the only thing, the only option that someone has, they better re-evaluate their training, because something is seriously lacking. This is why the MMA guys always poke fun at the TMAs, always talking about their d3adl3y shots. Gotta have more in the tool box than just a groin kick, eye shot, etc. Once again, as I've said many times, dont rely on JUST those shots, but instead, rely on a series of things to get the job done.


 
Agreed! Cross-training FTW.



> Yes, the resistance is there in both, but obviously both are 2 different things. You're going to fight like you train.


 
Not sure what that means (seems to cut both ways, yes?), but OK.

K831 - 



> Was biting allowed? Was eye gouging allowed? Those were the primary two I mentioned earlier, that you completely ignored.


 
I didn't ignore them. My response was to your list of the Unified Rules of MMA. My point hasn't changed, though. Relying on those against people that train MMA is not a safe bet, any more than anything else is. 



> Sure you were. Do you not see the contradiction in your statement? You don't think it represents a real fight, but you think the level of resistance is similar to any other type of fight? You either think it stands as a representation of street fighting, or you don't. If you don't, then you CAN'T USE IT AS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT WILL OR WILL NOT WORK. At least not to the degree you do.


 
I'm quite sure you can't read my mind. I clearly said that UFC DOES NOT EQUAL STREETFIGHT. That the resistance is similar does not change my argument. Boxing and Judo also offer similar levels of opponent resistance (albeit narrower in scope), but I make no claims for those arts as being "a representation of street fighting", either. Kindly do not put words in my mouth.

Boxing punches and Judo throws are mechanically identical to their streetfighting counterparts. That is what I meant. 



> What makes me think that we come from different backgrounds and have a different paradigm concerning self defense is that 1.) you refer to "early UFC's" as your chief example and 2.) you essentially dismissed the knife training I mentioned because it may get me into trouble "in court". The fact that you would mention either in the context of this discussion indicates to me that our experiences and perceptions are worlds apart.


 
I did not dismiss (the effectiveness of) your knife example - I only made a point of the legal consequences of stabbing someone........who may not even be armed? But in any case, a quick check of respective profiles indicates more similarity than not.  Your assumption appears to be incorrect. 



> do in fact, although it is difficult to get them to want to try and shoot for a takedown or work for a submission when they know you wont abide by BJJ/wrestling "rules and fouls". No one wants to get bit now do they?
> 
> I know several grapplers who moved into the realm of RBSD. I don't know any who still find much value in submission work etc, as it does not work when the "reality" of weapons, multi attackers, and biting, clawing dirty SOB's come into play.


 
Some don't mind working different scenarios.


----------



## TigerCraneGuy (Jan 27, 2010)

K831 said:


> I am primarily a Kenpo guy, but I get out to all the local schools
> and do at least a class or two, I enjoy seeing what other styles are doing. One of my favorites to visit is Krav Maga. I like Kenpo better for various reasons, but I really enjoy visiting the Krav guys. One of the local schools here put on a Saturday workshop all about surviving the ground in a street fight. It was basically taking the premise that &#8220;nowadays there are a lot of BJJ guys running around since UFC is so popular&#8221; how do you deal with BJJ guy on the ground?
> 
> Well, we had worked such things in my Kenpo school, but knowing of the Krav guys tenacity, aggressiveness and outright violent approach to dealing with any threat, I checked it out.
> ...


 
Agree 110%.

And before anyone asks, I train Speakman's 5.0, which does a huge amount of groundwork; I may not be crash-hot at it, but the ground is not unfamiliar territory for me. Bottom-line: I'm not an anti-groundwork naysayer.

That said, I've now got a number of Jim Grover / Kelly McCann's Modern Combatives DVDs, and his anti-takedown material is pretty brutal. Very much along the lines of the Krav guys you mention. Like them, he's extremely aggressive in his approach to groundfighting. Here are just two examples from Disc 2:

1) When he demonstrated his version of the full-sprawl, he did so with twin elbow shots to the back, dropping his weight into the maneauver.

2) When he fired a barrage of palm-heels and hammerfists (combatives guys call it 'cycling', I think) to his training partner's back (and the guy was HUGE) from a hasty half-sprawl position, he wound up with *massive* counterclockwise circles and literally dropped the strikes in with his full weight behind them again.

3) Needless to say, though built like a tank, his huge training partner face-planted almost immediately. Both times. And from what I observed, said big guy was really shooting in hard and fast. No compliant crap there! 
Sort of like the FightQuest episode MJS mentioned, where Jimmy got dropped with an aggressive downward elbow. Seemed pretty effective: gotta try that (albeit with open palms) in sparring sometime.

Now just imagine combining that sort of power-generation with a knife fast-drawn to a Pakal reverse grip (been playing around with James Keatings' DrawPoint material as well).

Puts things in perspective and forces one to be more wary of when and where you attempt to go to the ground.

Cheers
TCG


----------



## MJS (Jan 27, 2010)

MattJ said:


> OK, I guess we're in agreement then.


 
Ok. 





> Yes, I did.
> 
> 
> 
> I think this is where we disagree. I don't see having bad techniques as a positive, even if it's "something". Between the multi-opponent techniques in EPAK and nothing, I would take nothing. Simple instinct would be better. I agree that most of the weapons stuff is not great either, but some of them are workable - moreso than the 2-mans. JMO.


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

Seriously though...this is why I take alot of the stuff with a grain of salt.  I tell people that I cross train, to which I'm told that I dont have to and I do it, because I dont understand the system.  Hmm...well, that may be the case, but when I look at some of the stuff, and then look at arts that specialize in certain areas, and then compare the 2....lets just say that I'm happy and thankful with the cross training.   I also think that alot of the time, people take the techs. as set in stone, they can't be changed.  I say why not?  What works for me, may not work for my teacher, you or anyone else.  So, I'd think that we should be taking the stuff and trying to make it work for us, even if it means making a change.  As for the multi man techs....again, I say take 'em with a grain of salt.  Of course, I'm looking at them, maybe taking some ideas they're teaching, and figure things out on the fly.  I'm not crazy about some of the multi man Tracy techs either, so I guess it goes both ways. LOL.  






> ???????
> 
> I'm not sure if this is directed at me. I made a specific point of saying that expecting ANY art to be complete is ridiculous. You'll have to explain what you mean, or who you were directing this to here. Sensing a bit of hostility here......?


 
That was directed at what you said here:

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

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





> I didn't mean to imply that *you* were disregarding, and attempted to word my post non-specifically ("the mentality" instead of "your mentality", "anyone" instead of "you", etc). Fail on my part, I guess.


 
No problem.    Simple misunderstanding.  Happens all the time on forums.  





> Agreed! Cross-training FTW.


 






> Not sure what that means (seems to cut both ways, yes?), but OK.


 
I believe this was in response to your comment on ring fighting and street fighting.  We both agree that there is resistance.  I was simply saying that since both are different, at least IMO they are, that there will be a difference in the way techs are done.  I think that you and K381 were going back and forth about this, to which it seemed that you both disagreed with each other as well.


----------



## K831 (Jan 27, 2010)

TigerCraneGuy,

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

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

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

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

Hence the ongoing argument. 



MJS said:


> I believe this was in response to your comment on ring fighting and street fighting.  We both agree that there is resistance.  I was simply saying that since both are different, at least IMO they are, that there will be a difference in the way techs are done.  I think that you and K381 were going back and forth about this, to which it seemed that you both disagreed with each other as well.



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

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


----------



## MJS (Jan 28, 2010)

K831 said:


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


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



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


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





> Yes, we had a little communication breakdown there. I have hard time understanding the "I don't think the ring and the street are the same but I use the ring as my reference and that isn't contradictory" line of thinking.
> 
> It is what it is. I know what I know and I know what I've been through. This is just fun banter and a chance to find a few like minded guys across the country!


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


----------



## MattJ (Jan 28, 2010)

MJS said:


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


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



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


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



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


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

K831 - 



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


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


----------



## K831 (Jan 28, 2010)

MattJ said:


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




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

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

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


----------



## MattJ (Jan 28, 2010)

K831 - 



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


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




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


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



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


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


----------



## K831 (Jan 28, 2010)

MattJ said:


> K831 -





MattJ said:


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


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





MattJ said:


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





MattJ said:


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


 



MattJ said:


> Not disputing that those things can work, but





MattJ said:


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


 


MattJ said:


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


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

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



MattJ said:


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


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

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






MattJ said:


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


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


----------



## MJS (Jan 28, 2010)

MattJ said:


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


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

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

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





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


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

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

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





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


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


----------



## MattJ (Jan 29, 2010)

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

K831 - 

You are indeed using a strawman argument on me. In any of those quotes, please point out where I have ever said that the UFC is *the same* as a street-fight. I have even specifically said the opposite. I was quite specific in mentioning the mechanical similarities, and acknowledge that the mental pressure would not be the same. _No_ type of training can simulate that fear and pressure of an actual assault. Your constant mis-interpretation is incorrect. If I said "diesel and gasoline are not the same things, but they are both fuel", you cannot accuse me of saying that "diesel and gasoline are the same thing", which is basically what you are doing here. 

And I assume you can't possibly mean that sparring has _no_ relevance to real world fighting, as you quote here seems to imply? -



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


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

MJS - 



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


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



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


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

Cheers.


----------



## K831 (Jan 29, 2010)

MattJ said:


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



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

For example:

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

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

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




MattJ said:


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



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




MattJ said:


> I was quite specific in mentioning the mechanical similarities,



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

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




MattJ said:


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



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





MattJ said:


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


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

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


----------



## MJS (Jan 29, 2010)

MattJ said:


> Interesting, if mildly frustrating debate here. EDIT to add that my comments here are based on the impression that I got from K831's earlier posts, which implied that foul techniques would automatically beat grapplers. If I have mis-interpreted, please ignore every post I have in this thread, LOL.
> 
> K831 -
> 
> You are indeed using a strawman argument on me. In any of those quotes, please point out where I have ever said that the UFC is *the same* as a street-fight. I have even specifically said the opposite. I was quite specific in mentioning the mechanical similarities, and acknowledge that the mental pressure would not be the same. _No_ type of training can simulate that fear and pressure of an actual assault. Your constant mis-interpretation is incorrect. If I said "diesel and gasoline are not the same things, but they are both fuel", you cannot accuse me of saying that "diesel and gasoline are the same thing", which is basically what you are doing here.


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

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

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



> And I assume you can't possibly mean that sparring has _no_ relevance to real world fighting, as you quote here seems to imply? -


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





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


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



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


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

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





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


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


----------



## MattJ (Jan 29, 2010)

K831 - 



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


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



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


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



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


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



> We disagree here, while I agree it is benificial for any SD striking stylist to gain some ground awareness, I do not think studying BJJ is the way to do it. Not unless you have a very non traditional, combative oriented BJJ instructor, in which case, he wouldn't real be teaching BJJ.
> 
> As I said before, the manner in which BJJ works for position and then works for submission, is virtually worthless in the street. If you do find yourself on the ground, it it the WRONG APPROACH to transition into. Hence my prompt leaving of the BJJ school after a few visits, and my focus with a catchwrestler/Sambo guy. Much more effective approach for the street, that integrates much better into dirty striking on the ground. Which is all you really should be doing on the ground, anyways.


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

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

MJS - 



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


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



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


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



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


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



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


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



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


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


----------



## K831 (Jan 29, 2010)

MattJ said:


> K831 -
> 
> I guess I'm still having a problem with the logic that your singular story trumps the multitude of other experiences that were the opposite.



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

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

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

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



MattJ said:


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



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

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

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


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 29, 2010)

Manny said:


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


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

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


----------



## MattJ (Jan 29, 2010)

K831 said:


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


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



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


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



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


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



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


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



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


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



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


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

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


----------



## K831 (Jan 29, 2010)

MJS said:


> Very simple...you fight like you train.


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

Um.. no you probably wont. 




MJS said:


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



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

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

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

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

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

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








MJS said:


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



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

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


----------



## K831 (Jan 29, 2010)

MattJ said:


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



OOhhh Eemmm GGGEE as my youngest siblings would say. 

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

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

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

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

The early UFC's you keep mentioning: 



MattJ said:


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



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

They are not realistic. At all. 

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


----------



## MattJ (Jan 29, 2010)

K831 said:


> OOhhh Eemmm GGGEE as my youngest siblings would say.


 
No need to be snide. 



> You want to use an accidental eye poke as an example of how eye gouging doesn't work reliably.
> 
> When I ask if that eye poke was done as it would be in the context we are discussing (the street) you take that to the furthest possible extreme on the other side...that I think you must kill someone to prove a technique worthy? Wow.


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



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


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



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


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



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


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



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


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

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


----------



## K831 (Jan 29, 2010)

From this.....



MattJ said:


> No need to be snide.


 
To this....



MattJ said:


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



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



MattJ said:


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


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

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


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

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


----------



## MattJ (Jan 30, 2010)

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


 
You haven't been cherry-picking? - 



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


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

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



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


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



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


 
OK, that was funny!  

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


----------



## MJS (Jan 30, 2010)

MattJ said:


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


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





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


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

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




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


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





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


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





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


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


----------



## MJS (Jan 30, 2010)

K831 said:


> Why this is lost on so many still eludes me. Even in our seminars, some MMA guy will raise his hand and say "well, I wouldn't do that in the street just because I do it in the ring" or "oh, I would just add that, I would remember that the street is different if I was in a real street fight."
> 
> Um.. no you probably wont.


 
Agreed.  






> Couple of things. First, the multi man techs. in the AKKI curriculum are the same originals from the EPAK system.
> 
> They have not been re-written and re-designed like the knife and club offensive and defensive material or the sets, drills and freestyle (some of them) have been.
> 
> ...


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

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






> I would suppose so!  And to be honest, it was really hard for me to find guys that wanted to work the ground the way I did. I went into many BJJ and MMA schools etc and they were all coming at it from the wrong paradigm.
> 
> My AKKI school has some good "Kenpo ground stuff" and we have some senior BB's who are highly ranked BJJ players, were collegiate wrestlers etc.. so the resource is there, however, you can only cover so much material in two classes a week. I wanted to train more than that so I found a good FMA place and some mean ol catch wrestlers that have learned to apply their grappling to a "strike-position-strike-get up ASAP" philosophy. So much better than rolling around looking for a submission stuff I did in the BJJ classes I tried.


----------



## K831 (Jan 30, 2010)

MJS said:


> And this is exactly what I was talking about in my other post. Its up to the student to figure some things out for themselves as well. A story that I always tell....when I used to have the class do techniques, many times, I'd have everyone make a big circle, give everyone a number, put someone in the middle, and have the others attack as I called the number, much like we saw in Fight Quest, with the Kaju episode.


 

That Bull ring drill is one of my favorites. It is one of the drills we get the most bloody lips, bloody noses and bruises from haha. In fact, two of my teeth are chipped from a few of us getting over zeoulous in that drill haha. 

Mass attack drills are a lot of fun. Have you seen any of the Atienza Kali mass attack youtube clips?


----------



## MattJ (Jan 30, 2010)

MJS said:


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


 
The goal is different? How do you mean? Everyone wants to survive, yes? 



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


 
OK, although this was clearly not what I addressed. 



> As for my 'drunken' friends and family....you're assuming that all of my friends and family get plastered at every function. LOL. Couldn't be further from the truth. Personally, its very rare that I drink, and when I do, its not enough to get me drunk. Frankly, I can't stand the taste.


 
I was most certainly not "assuming" your friends/relatives are drunks. It was just an example. You guys are pretty touchy here. That said, I do not drink, either. Never have.



> That being said, its very rare that I put myself in a position in which I'm around a bunch of drunks. As for how I would handle a drunk friend or family member....again, those people are not stumbling, but if someone were to attack me, I would first assess...is this person, this family member, really trying to cause me harm? I would certainly hope not, and IMO, it'd be unlikely, but if it did come to that, I'd address it accordingly.


 
Something other than deadly force? 



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


 
Broken arms and legs do happen. Not quite as rare as you might think. Frank Mir broke Tim Sylvia's arm when Tim wouldn't tap. Razak Al-Hassan also had his arm broken when he wouldn't tap. Shinya Aoki broke Hirota's arm. Cung Le broke Frank Shamrock's arm with a kick! I'm sure everyone remembers Corey Hill's horrific shin break. Lots more if you care to look; broken jaws and orbital bones everywhere. MMA is not pattycake. 



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


 
*sigh*

Another inaccurate assumption. I'm really trying to understand all the hostility here. Is it just the mere mention of BJJ/MMA that causes knives to be drawn? I think I have been reasonable. I mean, I'm a kenpo guy, too, but I don't get all bent out of shape if someone were to say that *gasp* kenpo is not complete and/or could learn something from the MMA paradigm. 

Disappointing that you are also trying to strawman me here - your post count and position here would have me believe that you would be past that kind of thing. Feel free to actually *read* my posts - instead of making incorrect assumptions - and you will see that is not what I practice for. My point was that those things are practiced "for real" in class, and could be done the same way on the street. Can't say that for eye gouges or throat shots, can we? And what do you do if someone else puts YOU on the ground? I find it odd that so many people assume that they can reliably put someone else on the ground, and never consider that same strategy may be employed upon _themselves_. 

Seems pretty shortsighted to me, but what do I know! You guys are apparently the experts.


----------



## K831 (Jan 30, 2010)

MattJ said:


> Another inaccurate assumption. I'm really trying to understand all the hostility here. Is it just the mere mention of BJJ/MMA that causes knives to be drawn?



It has nothing to do with mentioning BJJ/MMA, it has to do with the fact that we have answered all your questions, given examples, personal experiences, training methodologies and on and on, and its as if you have forgotten the first ten posts. 

You don't like someones answer, explanation or questions, you default to naming your favorite logical fallacy or something near to a personal jab. 

Ex: 



MattJ said:


> Disappointing that you are also trying to strawman me here - your post count and position here would have me believe that you would be past that kind of thing. Feel free to actually *read* my posts - instead of making incorrect assumptions






MattJ said:


> My point was that those things are practiced "for real" in class, and could be done the same way on the street. Can't say that for eye gouges or throat shots, can we? And what do you do if someone else puts YOU on the ground? I find it odd that so many people assume that they can reliably put someone else on the ground, and never consider that same strategy may be employed upon _themselves_.
> 
> Seems pretty shortsighted to me, but what do I know! You guys are apparently the experts.





Seriously though, the last bit quoted above is a perfect example of how difficult you are being. I have (and so has MJS) explained in several posts that I take seriously the possibility of someone putting me on the ground, or ending up there via slipping etc etc.. This started with me giving you and example of an all day Krav seminar I attended called "what to do if you end up on the gound with a BJJ player"... I have mentioned that I train with a catch wrestler, MJS has mentioned the training he has done on the ground, both of us have made it clear that we look to strike from the ground and work back to our feet, not hunt for submissions. You have discussed this with us, then 5 posts later, you go back to saying;  



MattJ said:


> And what do you do if someone else puts YOU on the ground? I find it odd that so many people assume that they can reliably put someone else on the ground, and never consider that same strategy may be employed upon _themselves_.



WHAT??


It was my intention to make my previous post my last, however, I am just baffled that you are trying to keep this going in circles. 

I get it, you train BJJ and want to defend it. I honestly wish you the best of luck with it. 

Ok, now I really am making my exit.


----------



## MattJ (Jan 31, 2010)

K831 said:


> You don't like someones answer, explanation or questions, you default to naming your favorite logical fallacy or something near to a personal jab.


 
You mean like inferring someone is a "nutrider" or a "fanboy" or that someone is "crazy" or that someone couldn't possibly have similar training and experience? You mean like that? Well, if those don't count, I guess you're right. I don't think it's improper or impolite to correct someone else's factually inaccurate assumptions. My apologies. 



> Seriously though, the last bit quoted above is a perfect example of how difficult you are being. I have (and so has MJS) explained in several posts that I take seriously the possibility of someone putting me on the ground, or ending up there via slipping etc etc.. This started with me giving you and example of an all day Krav seminar I attended called "what to do if you end up on the gound with a BJJ player"... I have mentioned that I train with a catch wrestler, MJS has mentioned the training he has done on the ground, both of us have made it clear that we look to strike from the ground and work back to our feet, not hunt for submissions. You have discussed this with us, then 5 posts later, you go back to saying


 
Yes, unfortunately, I have had to repeat and clarify several times because of strawman arguments being made against me (ie; that I think MMA is the same as a streefight; that I have no training in foul techniques, that I would seek to use submissions as a primary strategy in a real fight, etc). You guys seem to be taking my prescence here as some kind of of TMA vs MMA dig, when I have repeatedly advocated for both. I gave a detailed, on-topic answer to the original question, and have offered reasonable replies to everything else. I have asked questions and gotten no reply. Not sure what you guys want. *shrug*


----------



## MJS (Jan 31, 2010)

K831 said:


> That Bull ring drill is one of my favorites. It is one of the drills we get the most bloody lips, bloody noses and bruises from haha. In fact, two of my teeth are chipped from a few of us getting over zeoulous in that drill haha.
> 
> Mass attack drills are a lot of fun. Have you seen any of the Atienza Kali mass attack youtube clips?


 
Haven't seen any of those clips, but I'll check them out.


----------



## MJS (Jan 31, 2010)

MattJ said:


> The goal is different? How do you mean? Everyone wants to survive, yes?


 
Whats the worst thing thats going to happen when someone loses the MMA fight?  How many times have you seen these grown men, come close to breaking down in tears in the ring?  Difference is, is that if they lose, they lose no more than their ego.  You lose when someone is trying to rob or rape you, and it could be your life.





> OK, although this was clearly not what I addressed.


 
Clarify then please if I misunderstood.





> I was most certainly not "assuming" your friends/relatives are drunks. It was just an example. You guys are pretty touchy here. That said, I do not drink, either. Never have.


 
LOL, I'm not touchy.  





> Something other than deadly force?


 
Did you read what I said?  In my lifetime, I've never been in a physical confrontation with any family members, nor friends.  As I said, if it came to that, I'd address it accordingly.  Keep in mind, the guy trying to mug me, isn't going to think twice about killing me.  The drunk family member...well, they're drunk right?  Not likely that sober, they'd try to kill me.  So, seeing that you're a) looking for specifics, and b) probably trying to set me up for your own purposes....I'd address it accordingly, just like I'd address accordingly, the guy trying to rob my house, attack me, mug me, etc.  





> Broken arms and legs do happen. Not quite as rare as you might think. Frank Mir broke Tim Sylvia's arm when Tim wouldn't tap. Razak Al-Hassan also had his arm broken when he wouldn't tap. Shinya Aoki broke Hirota's arm. Cung Le broke Frank Shamrock's arm with a kick! I'm sure everyone remembers Corey Hill's horrific shin break. Lots more if you care to look; broken jaws and orbital bones everywhere. MMA is not pattycake.


 
And in todays UFC events, fighter safety is #1.  How many times have we seen people complain because they felt fights got stopped too early?  Happens all the time.  I said its rare, not that it never happens.  And I never said MMA was pattycake, however, its not the deciding factor on ring vs. street fighting either.





> *sigh*
> 
> Another inaccurate assumption. I'm really trying to understand all the hostility here. Is it just the mere mention of BJJ/MMA that causes knives to be drawn? I think I have been reasonable. I mean, I'm a kenpo guy, too, but I don't get all bent out of shape if someone were to say that *gasp* kenpo is not complete and/or could learn something from the MMA paradigm.
> 
> ...


 
Bro, I'm not the only one reading your posts.  I think its safe for me to say that K831 is reading them the same way.  Do you really want me to go back and copy/paste your posts, to show you what you're saying?  I think its you thats not reading.  You're making it seem like I said I'd never end up on the ground.  Please, show me where I said that!  Here is what I said...

"Me...if I end up there, I'll do my best to get back to my feet. If, and only if, a sub. presents itself, I might take advantage of it, but if you think I'm going to intentionally look for one, you're crazy."

So, show me...where did I assume anything??  I think my post was pretty clear, but it seems that you're trying to twist whats being said, to suit yourself.  

Here is what you said:

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

This reads to me, that you advocate the idea of going to the ground.  You said the takedowns and subs are as real in class as they would be on the street.  And you'd be surprised as to how easy it is to fit in the dirty shots.  Problem is, the guys that dont train it as often or at all for that matter, won't be thinking about it.  I can't speak for how you train, but I can for how I train.  I have no issue fitting those things in, and from what I've read from K831, neither does he.

Additionally, regarding this comment from you:


"Another inaccurate assumption. I'm really trying to understand all the hostility here. Is it just the mere mention of BJJ/MMA that causes knives to be drawn? I think I have been reasonable. I mean, I'm a kenpo guy, too, but I don't get all bent out of shape if someone were to say that *gasp* kenpo is not complete and/or could learn something from the MMA paradigm." 

Bro, obviously you havent read many of my posts, past and present, because if you had, you'd see, that I'm a big advocate of saying that there are things in Kenpo that need to be improved upon.  Do I need to find those posts for you?  I've also said many times, that both the TMAs and MMA can benefit from each other.  I've said it many, many times.  If you've missed it, oh well, dont know what to tell ya, other than to search my posts, and see for yourself.  I've added in many MMA related things to my personal training.  I cross train in other arts besides Kenpo, to further round out my skill set.  Difference between me and the MMA ground worshippers, is that I dont swing from the nuts of the Gracies or other MMA heros.  Those guys eat, sleep, breath and **** Gracie and grappling, as if its the best thing since sliced bread.  I dont.  They dont see the weak spots, I do.


----------



## MJS (Jan 31, 2010)

MattJ said:


> You mean like inferring someone is a "nutrider" or a "fanboy" or that someone is "crazy" or that someone couldn't possibly have similar training and experience? You mean like that? Well, if those don't count, I guess you're right. I don't think it's improper or impolite to correct someone else's factually inaccurate assumptions. My apologies.


 
Hmm...IIRC, I dont believe I came out and called YOU Matt, a nutrider, did I?  I believe the first time I used the term, you asked me if I was calling you one, and I stated no.  Then again, why are you taking so much offense to the term?  If you're not one, then you have nothing to worry about, do you? 





> Yes, unfortunately, I have had to repeat and clarify several times because of strawman arguments being made against me (ie; that I think MMA is the same as a streefight; that I have no training in foul techniques, that I would seek to use submissions as a primary strategy in a real fight, etc). You guys seem to be taking my prescence here as some kind of of TMA vs MMA dig, when I have repeatedly advocated for both. I gave a detailed, on-topic answer to the original question, and have offered reasonable replies to everything else. I have asked questions and gotten no reply. Not sure what you guys want. *shrug*


 
Perhaps its the way your posts are coming across.  It may not seem like it to you, but apparently there're 2 people here who are thinking differently.  We've gone back and pointed posts out....is this something we have to keep doing?  I think that I've been pretty clear in my posts as well, but again, if you're reading them differently, I can't control that.  This is a forum, where many times, intent is lost in translation.  We're reading words, trying to get the point that the other person is trying to make.  I'm sure, were we all face to face, our intent would be better understood, as we could now hear the words, rather than see them.


----------



## MattJ (Feb 1, 2010)

MJS - 



> Whats the worst thing thats going to happen when someone loses the MMA fight? How many times have you seen these grown men, come close to breaking down in tears in the ring? Difference is, is that if they lose, they lose no more than their ego. You lose when someone is trying to rob or rape you, and it could be your life.


 
Already addressed this in terms of broken bones, etc. More than just ego, sir. 



> Clarify then please if I misunderstood.



I mentioned drunks, with the implication that they appeared to be non-life-threatening (friends, relatives, associates, etc). You jumped into armed attackers and assault scenarios, which I took as a strawman.



> Bro, I'm not the only one reading your posts. I think its safe for me to say that K831 is reading them the same way. Do you really want me to go back and copy/paste your posts, to show you what you're saying?


 
Feel free, as I have been quite specific, like above.  I have also apologized if I thought I was wrong.  

I do understand that both you and K831 are good with cross-training, we all seem to agree with that. 



> This reads to me, that you advocate the idea of going to the ground. You said the takedowns and subs are as real in class as they would be on the street. And you'd be surprised as to how easy it is to fit in the dirty shots. Problem is, the guys that dont train it as often or at all for that matter, won't be thinking about it. I can't speak for how you train, but I can for how I train. I have no issue fitting those things in, and from what I've read from K831, neither does he.


 
See, here's where it starts to break down. You are strawman-ing me again here. Here's my quote from earlier in the thread:



> "I personally think that BJJ is great to keep me from going to the ground, or getting to a better position from the ground in order to use my kenpo striking. But that's just me"


 
So, I am not necessarily advocating going to the ground willy-nilly. It would depend entirely on the situation, much like your ability to "address it accordingly" in the case of drunks, correct? And FWIW, we spent a good bit of last night's class working hairgrabs in particular. It worked once for me getting a gogoplata, and another time I got armbarred for my trouble, LOL. 



> Difference between me and the MMA ground worshippers, is that I dont swing from the nuts of the Gracies or other MMA heros. Those guys eat, sleep, breath and **** Gracie and grappling, as if its the best thing since sliced bread. I dont. They dont see the weak spots, I do.


 
Once again, why are you bringing this up with me? This comment is irrelavent and seems personal, despite your denials. Nothing in my comments would fit any of those descriptions. 



> This is a forum, where many times, intent is lost in translation. We're reading words, trying to get the point that the other person is trying to make. I'm sure, were we all face to face, our intent would be better understood, as we could now hear the words, rather than see them.


 
I would think so, too. We actually seem much closer in thought than these words would appear. Cheers.


----------



## MJS (Feb 1, 2010)

MattJ said:


> MJS -
> 
> 
> 
> Already addressed this in terms of broken bones, etc. More than just ego, sir.


 
And as I said sir, its rare that it happens.  Again, NOT saying it doesn't but you're making it sound like it happens all the time, when in fact it does not.  





> I mentioned drunks, with the implication that they appeared to be non-life-threatening (friends, relatives, associates, etc). You jumped into armed attackers and assault scenarios, which I took as a strawman.


 
You mentioned that AFTER is said that I view a street fight as a life and death situation.  POst 49 had me saying that, post 50 had you asking if I'd view it in the same way if it was a drunk family member or friend.





> Feel free, as I have been quite specific, like above. I have also apologized if I thought I was wrong.


 
Didn't you see that I already gave 1 example in my last post?  Either you missed it accidentally or on purpose.  



> I do understand that both you and K831 are good with cross-training, we all seem to agree with that.


 
We're making progress...we're agreeing on something. 





> See, here's where it starts to break down. You are strawman-ing me again here. Here's my quote from earlier in the thread:
> 
> 
> 
> So, I am not necessarily advocating going to the ground willy-nilly. It would depend entirely on the situation, much like your ability to "address it accordingly" in the case of drunks, correct? And FWIW, we spent a good bit of last night's class working hairgrabs in particular. It worked once for me getting a gogoplata, and another time I got armbarred for my trouble, LOL.


 
So, its not ok for me to strawman you, but fine for you to do it?  Look at this quote from you:



> *sigh*
> 
> Another inaccurate assumption. I'm really trying to understand all the hostility here. Is it just the mere mention of BJJ/MMA that causes knives to be drawn? I think I have been reasonable. I mean, I'm a kenpo guy, too, but I don't get all bent out of shape if someone were to say that *gasp* kenpo is not complete and/or could learn something from the MMA paradigm.
> 
> Disappointing that you are also trying to strawman me here - your post count and position here would have me believe that you would be past that kind of thing. Feel free to actually *read* my posts - instead of making incorrect assumptions - and you will see that is not what I practice for. My point was that those things are practiced "for real" in class, and could be done the same way on the street. Can't say that for eye gouges or throat shots, can we? *And what do you do if someone else puts YOU on the ground? I find it odd that so many people assume that they can reliably put someone else on the ground, and never consider that same strategy may be employed upon themselves. *


 
Take note of the bold/underlined part.  You ask this question, clearly after I explained my thoughts here:

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






> Once again, why are you bringing this up with me? This comment is irrelavent and seems personal, despite your denials. Nothing in my comments would fit any of those descriptions.


 
Ok. 





> I would think so, too. We actually seem much closer in thought than these words would appear. Cheers.


 
I extended the offer to K831, and I'll do the same for you.  If you ever find yourself in the CT. area, let me know.  It'd be great to meet up and do some training.


----------



## K831 (Feb 1, 2010)

MJS said:


> I extended the offer to K831, and I'll do the same for you.  If you ever find yourself in the CT. area, let me know.  It'd be great to meet up and do some training.



I sense a lot of eye gouging in the future!


----------



## MattJ (Feb 1, 2010)

MJS said:


> You mentioned that AFTER is said that I view a street fight as a life and death situation. POst 49 had me saying that, post 50 had you asking if I'd view it in the same way if it was a drunk family member or friend.


 
Yes, exactly - AFTER you had mentioned the life/death thing. I was referring to a different scenario. It's not fair for me to ask about drunks, but it's fair for other points to be made to me about curbs and broken glass (because every single fight happens outside in a bad neighborhood, of course). Some might see a double-standard there. 

Anyway, I see we are locked in a "But You.....!!!" kind of thing here. I guess we can assume that all relevant points have been made, LOL. 



> I extended the offer to K831, and I'll do the same for you. If you ever find yourself in the CT. area, let me know. It'd be great to meet up and do some training.


 
I appreciate the offer! Cheers.


----------



## MJS (Feb 1, 2010)

MattJ said:


> Yes, exactly - AFTER you had mentioned the life/death thing. I was referring to a different scenario. It's not fair for me to ask about drunks, but it's fair for other points to be made to me about curbs and broken glass (because every single fight happens outside in a bad neighborhood, of course). Some might see a double-standard there.


 
I believe I gave an answer about the friends/family as well.   You're free to ask about whatever you'd like.  I'll answer to the best of my ability.   I simply wanted to clarify, as it seemed that (again, this is just the impression that I got from your post) you were thinking that I would do the same to a family member, as I would to a total stranger, who was trying to attack me.  Of course, as I said, the family member, being under the influence of something, under normal circumstances, would not attack me.  



> Anyway, I see we are locked in a "But You.....!!!" kind of thing here. I guess we can assume that all relevant points have been made, LOL.


 
Most likely. 





> I appreciate the offer! Cheers.


----------



## MJS (Feb 1, 2010)

K831 said:


> I sense a lot of eye gouging in the future!


 
LMAO!!!  I gotta see if Bob can get an eye gouge icon.


----------



## LawDog (Feb 2, 2010)

When I crossed trained in EPAK during the 80's into the 90's the system used what is known as "impact" jujitsu techniques. I know that Mr. Parker did not like to fall or to be on the ground,(at least that is what he told us).


----------

