# Kenpo Ground Fighting



## MJS

[yt]dVC3Fnr5kB0[/yt]


http://ltatum.com/movies/Week22/TipOfTheWeekMedW22.html


Here are 2 clips of whats being called grappling or ground fighting, in Kenpo. My intent isn't to bash the guys in the clips, but instead, to analyze and discuss the clips. I'm looking to discuss things such as...

What did you like/dislike about the clips?

What would you do or have done differently?

Do you think that the defenses that were presented were effective? Why/why not?

Just a few things to get the ball rolling.  You dont have to limit your replies to just those questions. And as always, this discussion is open to non Kenpoists as well.


----------



## MJS

Well, I'll start. 

1st clip:  This IMO, isn't a Kenpo specific escape from the guard.  I dont know about anyone else, but I've used the elbows to the inside of the legs, many times in a BJJ class.  As for the lock at the end...I wasn't crazy about that.  Personally, I'd have gone for a pass and transitioned to another position.

2nd clip:  This was an attempt at taking an upright tech. and trying to make it work on the ground.  IMO, instead of trying to do that, I'd rather add in some grappling, instead of trying to adapt something upright to the ground.  IMO, the tech itself probably would've had a different outcome, had the top guy been in a proper mount.  If that were the case, I dont believe that the knee shot would have been as effective.  

What do I do differently?  I cross train in BJJ.   Take the basics, drill the hell out of them, and add in some Kenpo where its applicable.   My intent isn't to stay on the ground any longer than necessary, but I do feel that knowing some submissions is important, should you not be able to get up as quick as you'd like.  You may find a neck that presents itself for a choke, an arm that presents itself for a lock.  May as well take advantage of them.


----------



## seasoned

MJS said:


> Well, I'll start.
> 
> 1st clip: This IMO, isn't a Kenpo specific escape from the guard. I dont know about anyone else, but I've used the elbows to the inside of the legs, many times in a BJJ class. As for the lock at the end...I wasn't crazy about that. Personally, I'd have gone for a pass and transitioned to another position.
> 
> 2nd clip: This was an attempt at taking an upright tech. and trying to make it work on the ground. IMO, instead of trying to do that, I'd rather add in some grappling, instead of trying to adapt something upright to the ground. IMO, the tech itself probably would've had a different outcome, had the top guy been in a proper mount. If that were the case, I dont believe that the knee shot would have been as effective.
> 
> What do I do differently? I cross train in BJJ.  Take the basics, drill the hell out of them, and add in some Kenpo where its applicable.  My intent isn't to stay on the ground any longer than necessary, but I do feel that knowing some submissions is important, should you not be able to get up as quick as you'd like. You may find a *neck that presents itself for a choke*, *an arm that presents itself for a lock.* May as well take advantage of them.


Sorry, I know very little about grappling, I study mostly stand up. I wish I could help get the thread off and running for you. My only comment would be there is a critical time frame to respond to an attack, standing or on the ground. That would be during the entry period. Once someone has you locked in it could be all over. I personally would take my chances with what I know best, and stick with it, (striking). :asian: Thanks MJS....


----------



## Steve

I don't have the necessary plug in in to see the web video you linked, but the one you embedded was interesting.  I'll take another look and give some specifics.

Okay:  At :35 his posture is low and he has no base.  Bottom guy, if competent, has chokes and sweeps available, and there's no way top guy can open the guard unless he first addresses his posture and base.  If you're going to be low and stall like that, you have to control bottom guy's arms, usually at the elbow or bicep.

:39 the guard opening.  Using the elbows to the inner thigh is only going to irritate a grappler.  Springing up as he does in order to load his elbow strike to the inner thighs raises his center of gravity and again is a great time for the bottom guy to sweep, like a hip bump or a scissor sweep.

After that, I can't comment really.  I honestly don't know why the bottom guy pretended to go unconscious.  

I'd say that this is a great example of what I've said in other threads.  You don't have to train in BJJ, Wrestling, Judo, Sambo or any other grappling art if you don't want to.  But if you want to know whether your techniques are practical, you should pressure test them at least periodically with a legit grappler.   When you don't, you get knockouts from the inner thigh and lots of keeyups like this.


----------



## Steve

Okay.  I saw the second video.  Once again, it's really impossible to critique is seriously because the uke was clearly an incompetent grappler.   Can kenpo techniques work on the ground?  Maybe.  Can we tell from either of these videos?  Nope.


----------



## MJS

stevebjj said:


> I don't have the necessary plug in in to see the web video you linked, but the one you embedded was interesting. I'll take another look and give some specifics.
> 
> Okay: At :35 his posture is low and he has no base. Bottom guy, if competent, has chokes and sweeps available, and there's no way top guy can open the guard unless he first addresses his posture and base. If you're going to be low and stall like that, you have to control bottom guy's arms, usually at the elbow or bicep.
> 
> :39 the guard opening. Using the elbows to the inner thigh is only going to irritate a grappler. Springing up as he does in order to load his elbow strike to the inner thighs raises his center of gravity and again is a great time for the bottom guy to sweep, like a hip bump or a scissor sweep.
> 
> After that, I can't comment really. I honestly don't know why the bottom guy pretended to go unconscious.
> 
> I'd say that this is a great example of what I've said in other threads. You don't have to train in BJJ, Wrestling, Judo, Sambo or any other grappling art if you don't want to. But if you want to know whether your techniques are practical, you should pressure test them at least periodically with a legit grappler. When you don't, you get knockouts from the inner thigh and lots of keeyups like this.


 


stevebjj said:


> Okay. I saw the second video. Once again, it's really impossible to critique is seriously because the uke was clearly an incompetent grappler. Can kenpo techniques work on the ground? Maybe. Can we tell from either of these videos? Nope.


 
Hey Steve,

Thanks for your feedback.   To address your posts...yes, I agree with the arm control.  As for the elbows to the inner thigh/knee area...I think its effective providing that you do something from there.  I've seen some people use that to escape, and then bring their knee/shin across one side, to begin an escape, usually a transition to side mount.  Do you use that type of escape and if so, what are your results, what do you do differently?

As for the last part of your first post...yup, can't disagree with that.   I have taken alot of flack, and still do from some Kenpo people, but thats ok, they're entitled to their opinion, and if this is what they want to do, well, I think the end result will be obvious. LOL.  

As for the 2nd clip...yes, one of my pet peeves about that one is the mount basically sucked.  Sometimes during rolling, I'll play around with various Kenpo techs, to see what I can find, if I can make something work, etc., and I've tried that knee to the butt, and it didn't work.  Of course the guy went flying off in the clip, but get in a proper mount, and I found that you end up hitting with more of your thigh, just about the knee, and all the top guy had to do, was adjust slightly and it basically cancelled that knee out.


----------



## Steve

MJS said:


> Hey Steve,
> 
> Thanks for your feedback.  To address your posts...yes, I agree with the arm control. As for the elbows to the inner thigh/knee area...I think its effective providing that you do something from there. I've seen some people use that to escape, and then bring their knee/shin across one side, to begin an escape, usually a transition to side mount. Do you use that type of escape and if so, what are your results, what do you do differently?


For this, the first thing is you need proper posture and solid base. Bringing the knee up is the first step, and gets you to what we call "combat base" at my school. It's a good, stable position and the knee keeps bad guy on the bottom from closing his guard back up. (http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1433/794860603_f52ac9c290.jpg) from Aesopian's excellent website. 

The knee slide pass is also solid. There are several good ways to do it, but they all involve either controlling bad guy's hips or head. One or the other. Without controlling the hips or the head, you'll either fail to pass guard, get swept or find the bad guy is suddenly on your back. 





> As for the last part of your first post...yup, can't disagree with that.  I have taken alot of flack, and still do from some Kenpo people, but thats ok, they're entitled to their opinion, and if this is what they want to do, well, I think the end result will be obvious. LOL.


 What are you going to do? Some people.  Right? 


> As for the 2nd clip...yes, one of my pet peeves about that one is the mount basically sucked. Sometimes during rolling, I'll play around with various Kenpo techs, to see what I can find, if I can make something work, etc., and I've tried that knee to the butt, and it didn't work. Of course the guy went flying off in the clip, but get in a proper mount, and I found that you end up hitting with more of your thigh, just about the knee, and all the top guy had to do, was adjust slightly and it basically cancelled that knee out.


If a guy gets that high on me, I'll often just slide under the leg he has up, come out the back and see if I can take the back from there.

For what it's worth, if you have a leg up like that, it can be a strong mount, but you typically want your down knee right behind his head, and the foot jammed in his armpit, with your hips low putting pressure on his chest. Think heavy. Then, when he reaches up you're in great shape to tear his arm off.


----------



## Chris Parker

Hey Mike,

I'm in pretty much complete agreement with Steve on the first one there, there's again a complete lack of understanding of the environment present (the issue with being a specialist system again....). Although I would still say that serious grapplers are not a requirement to train against (realistic, intense, yes. But that's not necessarily a trained attacker), it is an incredibly good idea to get an understanding of the ground if you're going to teach about it. 

That said, even an untrained guy on the street won't act like the "attacker" does here. The two common things that our guy on the bottom (the one who has pulled guard) would do, with no training, is to either try to keep distance by pushing you away with their legs, or pull you in tight. The reason is simple, it stops you being able to hit them (and before we get to him being the "attacker", being on your back like that, with someone above you, tends to put people in a "defensive" mind set). If their holding him back, then the guy on top isn't going to get his elbows in the way he does here. If being held in, then it will be incredibly difficult to get the seperation the defender requires to put the elbows in as well. So that part is not very well done.

The foot hold/strike to the inside of the knee, well, I can see the principle being used, but it's not very realistic here. As Steve said, it's rather open to far too many things, and doesn't take into account the realities of how people actually act/react.

As to the second one, how would you feel about my posting the PM that I sent in answer to that before?


----------



## punisher73

I think it's important also to distinguish between ground fighting and grappling.  In kenpo, the point is to get an escape and get back to the feet as quickly as possible.

That being said, as Steve pointed out you need to understand the basics of ground positioning etc. before you can escape safely.  

I have VERY limited grappling experience and one of the first things that popped into my head after he did the elbow escape was when he talked about the other leg coming back up is that with his bad posture if the bottom guy secured an arm he was in danger of being caught in a triangle choke or moving the hips and getting arm barred.

I think that if things like that are shown it should be prefaced with "these are some simple escapes if you find yourself on the ground by an inexperienced person, you will need a deeper understanding against a trained grappler"


----------



## Steve

On a slightly different note, it would seem to me that the most valuable training for someone not intending to be a specialist is from the bottom.  Chris' comment about who is really attacking and who is defending is spot on.   How to create space from the bottom and get back up would be the first things I'd teach a self defense class.  If you're not well versed on the ground that's exactly where you're likely to find yourself.  

While the techniques in the second video were unrealistic, I'll give him props for trying to demonstrate this.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

*For whatever reason I was unable to see the second video clip*.  As for the first clip it is hard to argue with Steve's initial post.  So many glaring errors like not controling the arms, having your eyes right up by the opponents hands, no base and easily swept, the elbow drive to the thigh will work against someone with no training but not somone with even a month of BJJ, MMA, Sambo, Judo, etc.  In other words *if the other guy knows something* and has trained a little and has even an ounce of mental will power and adrenaline flowing it probably will not work.  Not to excited about the leg lock at the end either!  I may be sounding like a broken record lately but if you want to learn grappling why not take the time and go learn from a qualified instructor in wrestling, sambo, MMA, BJJ, etc.  That way you can at least get good fundamental core basics and you can then modify and work with your existing system.  Makes perfect sense and you will not end up with *shoddy crappling! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



*


----------



## MJS

stevebjj said:


> For this, the first thing is you need proper posture and solid base. Bringing the knee up is the first step, and gets you to what we call "combat base" at my school. It's a good, stable position and the knee keeps bad guy on the bottom from closing his guard back up. (http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1433/794860603_f52ac9c290.jpg) from Aesopian's excellent website.
> 
> The knee slide pass is also solid. There are several good ways to do it, but they all involve either controlling bad guy's hips or head. One or the other. Without controlling the hips or the head, you'll either fail to pass guard, get swept or find the bad guy is suddenly on your back.


 
Good points. 




> What are you going to do? Some people. Right?


 
LOL, I know.  Actually, there is one person, a Kenpo guy, who comes to mind, that has quite a few YT clips of both Kenpo and grappling.  Amazing how he can transition so nicely.   YT is on the no-no list here at work, but I'll post a few later on.  I'm sure the differences will be obvious. 



> If a guy gets that high on me, I'll often just slide under the leg he has up, come out the back and see if I can take the back from there.


 
Good point.  You could probably shrimp out as well, and get guard, no?



> For what it's worth, if you have a leg up like that, it can be a strong mount, but you typically want your down knee right behind his head, and the foot jammed in his armpit, with your hips low putting pressure on his chest. Think heavy. Then, when he reaches up you're in great shape to tear his arm off.


----------



## MJS

Chris Parker said:


> Hey Mike,
> 
> I'm in pretty much complete agreement with Steve on the first one there, there's again a complete lack of understanding of the environment present (the issue with being a specialist system again....). Although I would still say that serious grapplers are not a requirement to train against (realistic, intense, yes. But that's not necessarily a trained attacker), it is an incredibly good idea to get an understanding of the ground if you're going to teach about it.
> 
> That said, even an untrained guy on the street won't act like the "attacker" does here. The two common things that our guy on the bottom (the one who has pulled guard) would do, with no training, is to either try to keep distance by pushing you away with their legs, or pull you in tight. The reason is simple, it stops you being able to hit them (and before we get to him being the "attacker", being on your back like that, with someone above you, tends to put people in a "defensive" mind set). If their holding him back, then the guy on top isn't going to get his elbows in the way he does here. If being held in, then it will be incredibly difficult to get the seperation the defender requires to put the elbows in as well. So that part is not very well done.
> 
> The foot hold/strike to the inside of the knee, well, I can see the principle being used, but it's not very realistic here. As Steve said, it's rather open to far too many things, and doesn't take into account the realities of how people actually act/react.


 
Nice.  Regarding the underlined part....couldn't agree more, and this is what I'm always saying when I'm debating with other Kenpo folks. Now, going on what you said, and maybe I'm just not reading right, so while you're saying that its not necessary to train against serious grapplers, you still feel that its important to work with a grappler to get an understanding of how they operate?





> As to the second one, how would you feel about my posting the PM that I sent in answer to that before?


 
Will do. Just have to find it. 

Well, that was easy to find.  Here is the reply you sent to me regarding that 2nd clip, that we discussed a while back.




> Hey Mike,
> 
> Well, the first thing I'm going to say is that that entire sequence (both on the ground and seated) is highly formalised, and requires a bit of adaptation for it to be a "street" effective technique. But I'm sure you can see that already. And that's actually fine, provided it's understood.
> 
> For example, the standing version has a shift back and deflection against the first punch (shifting into a "cat stance" to set up for the kick). Against the next punch (a rear, no step from the attacker), it is deflected again with a left palm, while kicking with the left foot to keep the attacker back. There is then a combination to finish. But to look at that first part, the attack is one step and two punches, and as the defenders first movement takes them backwards (out of range of the first punch), and the second, being a rear is actually shorter, the second punch is out of range and won't reach the target. This is why Larry uses no evasion on the second one. A very simple adaptation to make it more realistic (and still a formal, "classical" technique) would be to have the attacker step forward on that second punch, and combine that with the defender simply shifting slightly to the left as they deflect and kick. Then finish as desired.
> 
> To make it a "street" technique, change the attack to either a jab/right cross combination (for someone with a little boxing or skill behind them), and lower the kick to the knee, or possibly the hip, and a silght change to the postures to take the formality out of them (that's easier to show than write...).
> 
> When Larry shifts to the ground, we again get a very formalised approach. The half-kneel posture the guy on top is using is actually the more common "ground" posture in classical Japanese arts, as it allows you to get up again relatively easily in armour. When doing classical techniques, it's the posture I use. However, for the modern techniques, it is too high, too unstable, and there is too much risk of your leg being grabbed (which is a very bad thing...). But to the formal version...
> 
> As with the standing technique, the attacks are again out of range, so it is very safe for Larry to deflect them as they come in. His posture as well, with his right leg raised, but nothing else, is too much of a compromise. Ideally, I would suggest both knees raised, that would make the escape at the end easier to do as well. But I feel that Larry just modelled it on the "cat stance" from the standing version. Understandable, but not ideal. After deflecting both punches, he pulls on the right arm, and raises his right knee to take the guy off. Now, this works because of the top guys very high centre of balance.
> 
> To make this a practical street technique, have the guy on top in more of a typical "mount" position, leaning forward and dropping round punches down to the head (very typical, something you see schoolkids doing). The defence here is probably going to be more "jamming" techniques from the inside, rather than deflections from the outside. With the second punch, turn your jam into a catch, and strike to the body with a right punch (the same tactical concept as the kick in the standing version). Then, pull the guy in close, and buck your hips, turning to the side (I would choose your left, as that is the arm you have trapped) to take the guy over and off you. End on top, and finish as desired.
> 
> In each case, the art used is still Kenpo. However, it is tempered with an understanding of the realities of different environments. And this can be gained by training in arts that specialise is those different environments, but the base has to be there. Unfortunately for Larry, he doesn't demonstrate the understanding of those evironments here. That's not to say that he doesn't have the understanding, just that it is not shown here. These are formally demonstrated techniques, done for demonstration purposes, and that may go some way to explaining why they are done the way they are. But I personally would still make a few adjustments. The benefit of cross training various systems is that you can "test" your understanding in different environments, too many very established people are highly knowledgable in their own area, and can make anything work for themselves there, but lack the knowledge of anything outside of that. But no matter what is done, it always needs to be taken back to your original base, otherwise it isn't going to amount to anything.
> 
> Hope none of this was too harsh,
> Chris.


----------



## Chris Parker

MJS said:


> Nice.  Regarding the underlined part....couldn't agree more, and this is what I'm always saying when I'm debating with other Kenpo folks. Now, going on what you said, and maybe I'm just not reading right, so while you're saying that its not necessary to train against serious grapplers, you still feel that its important to work with a grappler to get an understanding of how they operate?


 
Hey Mike,

I think that you need to train against what you are going to face (concievably). BJJ trains to face BJJ practitioners (in competition), so their training is geared towards being successful against a trained grappler. Our training isn't geared towards that, so training against such is honestly little more than a waste of our time (note, I am not saying that it's without benefits, just that the benefits, weighed up against the needs, makes it time better spent on other things). So training against serious, skilled grapplers isn't necessary.

What is incredibly useful, if you are going to recognise that something like the ground (as an environment) is a possibility, even a likelihood, then it is important to understand that environment (note here, this comes down to the reason you are training. If it is for the skills of the system, mastery if you will, within it's parameters, then understanding things outside of the arts norm is not necessary. For example, I also train in a Kenjutsu system. The reasons for training in this system are about continuing the legacy and tradition of the art, perfecting the movements of the art, transmitting it properly with a sense of history, and so on. For this training, looking to "fill holes" to the training by adding things like groundfighting makes no sense, as it's not part of the reasons you train in that art. In my classical training and teaching, it's not a part of it. However, it certainly has to make an appearance in the modern self defence, or "street" aspect).

In order to understand it, go to someone who already understands it. This is part of why I trained in BJJ myself, simply to understand the environment (there were other reasons, but they're less important here). So it wasn't really to learn how a serious grappler works, it was more to understand the environment. When we do ground work, it's Ninjutsu, not BJJ. And it's trained against the types of attacks/situations that are most likely for us to find ourselves in.


----------



## MJS

http://www.youtube.com/user/kenpojujitsu3#p/c/93803219314AE864/4/kyO29-CZUMQ

Here are some clips of James Hawkins doing some Kenpo and some grappling in a few of the clips. IMO, this is a better example of what things should look like.


----------



## MJS

Chris Parker said:


> Hey Mike,
> 
> I think that you need to train against what you are going to face (concievably). BJJ trains to face BJJ practitioners (in competition), so their training is geared towards being successful against a trained grappler. Our training isn't geared towards that, so training against such is honestly little more than a waste of our time (note, I am not saying that it's without benefits, just that the benefits, weighed up against the needs, makes it time better spent on other things). So training against serious, skilled grapplers isn't necessary.
> 
> What is incredibly useful, if you are going to recognise that something like the ground (as an environment) is a possibility, even a likelihood, then it is important to understand that environment (note here, this comes down to the reason you are training. If it is for the skills of the system, mastery if you will, within it's parameters, then understanding things outside of the arts norm is not necessary. For example, I also train in a Kenjutsu system. The reasons for training in this system are about continuing the legacy and tradition of the art, perfecting the movements of the art, transmitting it properly with a sense of history, and so on. For this training, looking to "fill holes" to the training by adding things like groundfighting makes no sense, as it's not part of the reasons you train in that art. In my classical training and teaching, it's not a part of it. However, it certainly has to make an appearance in the modern self defence, or "street" aspect).
> 
> In order to understand it, go to someone who already understands it. This is part of why I trained in BJJ myself, simply to understand the environment (there were other reasons, but they're less important here). So it wasn't really to learn how a serious grappler works, it was more to understand the environment. When we do ground work, it's Ninjutsu, not BJJ. And it's trained against the types of attacks/situations that are most likely for us to find ourselves in.


 
Hey Chris,

As always, great reply.   While I do like to have something to fall back on, in this case, BJJ, I do like to take my Kenpo techs, that're defenses against various grappling type attacks, and make them work against the grappler, while still (hopefully) maintaining some sort of Kenpo flavor to them.  If my plan A starts to fail, I'll have B to fall back on.  I'll do the same thing with the weapon techs especially the knife stuff.  My Arnis teacher is also a BB in Kenpo, so many times, during a lesson, we'll play with the Kenpo knife stuff, and keeping the Arnis stuff in mind, see if we can find any holes, issues, potential problems, etc., with the Kenpo stuff and what we can do to fix it.  

IMO, it sounds like we're pretty much on the same road, more or less, but I may be drifting to the side streets from time to time. LOL.


----------



## Steve

MJS said:


> http://www.youtube.com/user/kenpojujitsu3#p/c/93803219314AE864/4/kyO29-CZUMQ
> 
> Here are some clips of James Hawkins doing some Kenpo and some grappling in a few of the clips. IMO, this is a better example of what things should look like.


Better.  The mount escape is solid and I like how he's up on his side and framing to create space, although getting under the top guys leg isn't quite as easy as he made it look.  While he might not sneak out, that's a solid way to get back to at least half guard, and if he stays up on his side, he'll have some options.

At 1:30 or so, that's commonly referred to as a tripod sweep and is also very solid.  I use that all the time.  Some things he does that I don't like, but I think he's trying to make it look easy, is he's not controlling at least one of his opponent's arms.  If you don't, the foot he has on the hip is asking for trouble.  Top guy can attack the ankle or simply shuck it across and pass the guard.

Relevant to the thread though, is that this isn't Kenpo used on the ground.  Those are techniques that most BJJ blue belts will be familiar and comfortable with.


----------



## MJS

stevebjj said:


> Better. The mount escape is solid and I like how he's up on his side and framing to create space, although getting under the top guys leg isn't quite as easy as he made it look. While he might not sneak out, that's a solid way to get back to at least half guard, and if he stays up on his side, he'll have some options.
> 
> At 1:30 or so, that's commonly referred to as a tripod sweep and is also very solid. I use that all the time. Some things he does that I don't like, but I think he's trying to make it look easy, is he's not controlling at least one of his opponent's arms. If you don't, the foot he has on the hip is asking for trouble. Top guy can attack the ankle or simply shuck it across and pass the guard.


 
Yeah, while there may be some iffy things, for lack of better words, I think its a better display.



> Relevant to the thread though, is that this isn't Kenpo used on the ground. Those are techniques that most BJJ blue belts will be familiar and comfortable with.


 
True, and now that you mention it, I have to wonder....was this his intent?  I mean, it could be that he just wanted to do half Kenpo/half BJJ or could it be that he feels that trying to do Kenpo techs on the ground is fruitless, so may as well show something that'll have more chance to success?

On a side note, James used to be a member here, but I believe his acct. is currently closed.  I see him from time to time on KenpoTalk.  Who knows, maybe he'll pop back on over here.


----------



## Steve

MJS said:


> Yeah, while there may be some iffy things, for lack of better words, I think its a better display.


  I wouldn't say iffy.  Overly optimistic, maybe.   The basic concepts are sound, and that's what's important.  Framing, controlling the inside space, improving position.





> On a side note, James used to be a member here, but I believe his acct. is currently closed.  I see him from time to time on KenpoTalk.  Who knows, maybe he'll pop back on over here.


Cool.


----------



## Chris Parker

Hey Mike,

Yeah, James stuff is definately better. He actually reminds me a bit of Charles Daniel (in his teaching style), so that was fun!

Like Steve, there were one or two things that had me going "uh, hang on a sec..." (such as the initial escape from the mount. The escape itself was fine, but by not trapping one of the arms and moving towards it, it left it rather open for the guy on top to post out, preventing the escape, which is a fairly natural thing to do. I'd catch at least one of the arms as they came out on the initial buck, for instance), but there is much better understanding of the ground as an environment, as well as what is and is not realistically possible.

With regard to Steve's point about this not being "Kenpo", but just techniques that any BJJ Blue Belt should know, I'm not sure I 100% agree with that. The mechanics may be similar to the point of being identical, but the reasons for employing them, and the tactical use of them are what makes something Kenpo, or BJJ. If he's employing things like the tripod sweep to switch position, gain the mount, and continue the ground game, that's very much BJJ. If he's doing it to maintain distance from an assailant who is bearing down on him, enabling him to continue in a stand-up fashion, then it "becomes" Kenpo. It's all down to why things are done, and how they are expressed. For example, I saw a lot of things that I could say aren't Kenpo, just because we have them too (a very Ganseki-type throw appeared at least twice, Musha Dori/Gyoja Dori elbow lift, Hon Gyaku , refered to as an "S" Lock....), but they are also a part of Kenpo. The mechanics don't make the art, in the end.


----------



## MJS

Chris Parker said:


> Hey Mike,
> 
> Yeah, James stuff is definately better. He actually reminds me a bit of Charles Daniel (in his teaching style), so that was fun!
> 
> Like Steve, there were one or two things that had me going "uh, hang on a sec..." (such as the initial escape from the mount. The escape itself was fine, but by not trapping one of the arms and moving towards it, it left it rather open for the guy on top to post out, preventing the escape, which is a fairly natural thing to do. I'd catch at least one of the arms as they came out on the initial buck, for instance), but there is much better understanding of the ground as an environment, as well as what is and is not realistically possible.
> 
> With regard to Steve's point about this not being "Kenpo", but just techniques that any BJJ Blue Belt should know, I'm not sure I 100% agree with that. The mechanics may be similar to the point of being identical, but the reasons for employing them, and the tactical use of them are what makes something Kenpo, or BJJ. If he's employing things like the tripod sweep to switch position, gain the mount, and continue the ground game, that's very much BJJ. If he's doing it to maintain distance from an assailant who is bearing down on him, enabling him to continue in a stand-up fashion, then it "becomes" Kenpo. It's all down to why things are done, and how they are expressed. For example, I saw a lot of things that I could say aren't Kenpo, just because we have them too (a very Ganseki-type throw appeared at least twice, Musha Dori/Gyoja Dori elbow lift, Hon Gyaku , refered to as an "S" Lock....), but they are also a part of Kenpo. The mechanics don't make the art, in the end.


 
Good points Chris.  Personally, thats my goal...to get back up, if I find myself on the ground.  I didn't get the impression that he was suggesting to stay on the ground, but someone else may view the clips differently, which is fine.   I try to focus enough on the basics.  That probably wont be enough to survive against anyone with any serious amount of mat time, but as we've talked about in other threads, that may be enough for the average Joe.


----------



## Chris Parker

Yeah, I didn't get the idea that James was advocating staying on the ground either, my point was more that he was employing the same mechanics as BJJ but not with their mindset (which in a lot of cases is to stay on the ground, where they can control things), which differentiates James' approach from actually being BJJ.


----------



## Steve

Chris Parker said:


> With regard to Steve's point about this not being "Kenpo", but just techniques that any BJJ Blue Belt should know, I'm not sure I 100% agree with that. The mechanics may be similar to the point of being identical, but the reasons for employing them, and the tactical use of them are what makes something Kenpo, or BJJ. If he's employing things like the tripod sweep to switch position, gain the mount, and continue the ground game, that's very much BJJ. If he's doing it to maintain distance from an assailant who is bearing down on him, enabling him to continue in a stand-up fashion, then it "becomes" Kenpo. It's all down to why things are done, and how they are expressed. For example, I saw a lot of things that I could say aren't Kenpo, just because we have them too (a very Ganseki-type throw appeared at least twice, Musha Dori/Gyoja Dori elbow lift, Hon Gyaku , refered to as an "S" Lock....), but they are also a part of Kenpo. The mechanics don't make the art, in the end.


the reason to use a tripod sweep is to reverse position so that you are now on top and your opponent is now on his back.  The end.  What you do from there is wide open.   I stand by the idea that it's just BJJ for a few reasons.  First, I would bet money that he learned the technique from a jitiero.  Second, it's common enough that I would call it a fundamental technique.  Third, the position you'll find yourself in after executing that technique is half guard or mount.  When someone's fighting back, you'll need to use MORE BJJ in order to get up and seperate.  Point is, you have options from there, but those options are essentially just more BJJ, whether you decide to ride into mount and punch the guy unconscious, attack an arm or a leg, or stand up and disengage.

Most relevant to this discussion though is that this is a guy who, like MJS and others on this board, is clearly crosstraining a little.  To his credit, he's not trying to put a square peg in a round hole.  Instead, he's taking practical BJJ techniques and incorporating them into his style.  It really only makes sense, but it's still BJJ.


----------



## Steve

Chris Parker said:


> Yeah, I didn't get the idea that James was advocating staying on the ground either, my point was more that he was employing the same mechanics as BJJ but not with their mindset (which in a lot of cases is to stay on the ground, where they can control things), which differentiates James' approach from actually being BJJ.


 chris, the bjj mindset, like everyone else's mindset, depends entirely on context.  If I'm in a tournament, I'll sweep for points and then work to pass guard and look for a submission.  If I'm defending myself, I'm looking to control position and escape or end things quickly.  Most people are like this.  I act differently with my friends on the weekend than I do in a meeting with my executive staff.  Most people do, and it's not all that difficult because it's contextual. Suggesting that we're mindless automatons who are slaves to a particular mindset is a little insulting, frankly.  

He's using solid, fundamental BJJ to his credit.


----------



## Chris Parker

Hey Steve,

There may be some crossed wires here, so I'll attempt to clarify.

I agree that it's obvious that James has cross trained in BJJ, there's really no question of that. However, if he is teaching the mechanics as part of a Kenpo system, within the parameters of a Kenpo system, and with the strategic approach of a Kenpo system, the movements can be classed as Kenpo (in the context described). If he uses BJJ mechanics combined with BJJ strategic approaches within the parameters of BJJ, then it remains BJJ, and not Kenpo. Here, he appears to be integrating his studies of BJJ into his teaching of Kenpo, thereby taking what is within the parameters of Kenpo, or adapting the BJJ aspects so they fit Kenpo better.

Again, a martial art is expressed through it's techniques, it isn't it's techniques in and of themselves. BJJ's techniques are an expression of it's strategic and tactical approach (it's philosophy, or it's mindset). In this it is the same as every other martial art out there, there was no implied suggestion of anything like being mindless automatons, simply that BJJ teaches you to apply BJJ, and only by applying BJJ are you actually doing BJJ. There are plenty of techniques in that system as well that I could claim as part of our traditions, if all we're going on is mechanics.


----------



## K831

Interesting. I can't help but think I am seeing a reflection of someones fundamental  understanding of Kenpo when I see their attempts to apply "kenpo" to the ground, or to some other application outside what is considered the norm. 

In the videos defense, perhaps these were never intended at all for use on a "grappler", but rather simply ideas to be derived from existing techniques and used against the untrained brawler who happens to land on top of you in a bar fight... much the same way the yellow and orange techniques wouldn't hold up well against a trained "boxer", at least not as they are written from the manual. Keep in mind, I don't like the vids, but that is my attempt to give them the benefit of the doubt. 

I think the biggest problem with all of this is paradigms. From what paradigm are we viewing ground fighting?  First, for some reason, people think "ground fighting" must be looked at through the BJJ lens. Problem, is, BJJ isn't ground fighting, its grappling, of a specific type. Second, when people attempt to apply their style, they seem to get stuck looking at it from that lens. Neither lens is actually "ground fighting" and so the outcome is usually a hodgepodge of nonsense.


----------



## Steve

I think the hardest thing for me to understand is the idea of training to fight someone who is untrained vs training to fight someone who is trained.  This "untrained brawler" or "drunk thug".  I understand the rationale, but I'm just not sure it makes any sense to me.

When you are assessing a potential threat in a bar, do you assume your opponent is unarmed, or are you careful to consider the possibility that he has a knife or a gun?  Isn't that part of self defense?  How is lack of training any different?  If I'm trained in BJJ, I'm armed.  Why wouldn't you train to account for that?

It seems much more reasonable, given a goal of preparing for self defense, to assume that every potential opponent is armed, whether that's with a weapon, with some training at a particular range, or both.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer

stevebjj said:


> I think the hardest thing for me to understand is the idea of training to fight someone who is untrained vs training to fight someone who is trained. This "untrained brawler" or "drunk thug". I understand the rationale, but I'm just not sure it makes any sense to me.
> 
> When you are assessing a potential threat in a bar, do you assume your opponent is unarmed, or are you careful to consider the possibility that he has a knife or a gun? Isn't that part of self defense? How is lack of training any different? If I'm trained in BJJ, I'm armed. Why wouldn't you train to account for that?
> 
> It seems much more reasonable, given a goal of preparing for self defense, to assume that every potential opponent is armed, whether that's with a weapon, with some training at a particular range, or both.


 
This seems to be the rationale that alot of my "brothers and sisters" in Kenpo follow..
I think you need to understand where it came from a bit better to understand why its where it is at now.
Ed Parker was teaching back in the 50s and 60s and back then there was not an explosion of martial arts studios and instructors all over the place. As I have been able to figure based on talking to many different people that were there, at the time, was that alot of the techniques we teach came about from students coming to him with real situations that happened and then figuring ways to deal with them. I think at the time and for at least a couple decades there was not access to martial arts schools, and what access was around was very strict and probably cut out alot of the troublemakers..
so in most cases I think it was safe to train for the untrained opponent who just wanted to knock your block off.... to use a phrase from the time..
20 years ago Ed Parker Passed away leaving a vast group of martial artists who idolized him, and wanted to be him and who carried forth the notion of the techniques in and how they were at the time.. Most of these people have continued to teach and spread the untrained attacked method to the point of ad nauseum...with many having never been in a fight... and many having students who have never been in a fight...
I mean lets face it most people who start taking martial arts develop enough common sense to avoid problems rather then face them and test their skills...

I have hated that untrained attacker mentallity for the longest time.. and am unsure why so many people still have that mentality, especially since MMA is so popular, the internet, television, magazines, books, and schools and instructors of all levels are popping up all over the planet, and a strict mentality of discipline is not a requirement at many places anymore. I personally have trained in places and talked to guys who specifically train to be detter fighters ont he street. I absolutely believe everyone should be training for reality, for the best trained fighters possible and allow the untrained people to become beaten by their own issues.

I have sought out and trained with people from many different arts and mentalities, and have changed up some of what I was taught and do based on what I have discovered.
Hell I have actually found myself all of a sudden a Brown Belt in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu having pursued it originally simply to get a better idea what the trained grappler will do, figuring 6 months or so would be enough... here i am years later in love with another art that I thought would only be reserved for Kenpo. Years spent trianing in Muay thai and Boxing and fighting to test my own knowledge and ability to use skills, and crosstraining with other arts to test those skills under fire.. I find that it has made working versus an untrained attacker fairly nominal at this point.. I mean big guys are dangerous regardless of skill level... but people with no training seem to move slow motion, out of range, and in desperation mode..

I have been watching the transition of many kenpo people into grappling, or groundfighting with a very high interest. and while I think alot of them have great ideas to cover that range of fighting, I think that the problems are ones that are too hard to really bust through... those bieng that most of the older kenpo guys who are high ranking and adding groundfighting to their curriculum are fairly set in their ways and instead of fully exploring the grappling range most seem to be briefly looking into and coming up with half hearted solutions that are not very practical against any but the most beginner grapplers...
or they have some decent solutions but do not allow the amount of time necessary to drill students through that range and give them a real feel and understanding of whats going on.. you just can't train a few basic movements ont he ground once or twice every 2-4 weeks and expect people to have any feel, or understanding of the range.. and most students are not able or willing to spend the amount of time necessary to advance in both stand up and grappling self defense at one time. so what you end up getting is a half hearted attempt by everyone to add this grappling range in to curriculums..

I am not sure what the answer will be.. I think that the ground range will continue to evolve in Kenpo, and embed itself into the system and change how it is presented and trained. But I am really unsure how in a commercial setting students who train on average 2 days a week for an hour at a time are going to really get this down and become proficient enough at it.. those are the two main problems in my eyes..
sure there are more but it is what it is.


----------



## MJS

K831 said:


> Interesting. I can't help but think I am seeing a reflection of someones fundamental understanding of Kenpo when I see their attempts to apply "kenpo" to the ground, or to some other application outside what is considered the norm.
> 
> In the videos defense, perhaps these were never intended at all for use on a "grappler", but rather simply ideas to be derived from existing techniques and used against the untrained brawler who happens to land on top of you in a bar fight... much the same way the yellow and orange techniques wouldn't hold up well against a trained "boxer", at least not as they are written from the manual. Keep in mind, I don't like the vids, but that is my attempt to give them the benefit of the doubt.
> 
> I think the biggest problem with all of this is paradigms. From what paradigm are we viewing ground fighting? First, for some reason, people think "ground fighting" must be looked at through the BJJ lens. Problem, is, BJJ isn't ground fighting, its grappling, of a specific type. Second, when people attempt to apply their style, they seem to get stuck looking at it from that lens. Neither lens is actually "ground fighting" and so the outcome is usually a hodgepodge of nonsense.


 
The 1st vid. was most likely to squash the detractors, such as people like myself..lol...who say that the ground is lacking.  The 2nd clip was put up probably because I had emailed Larry, and asked if he could put up a grappling TOW, which he did.  

IMHO, if we're really serious about training, should be prepared to deal with everyone from the average Joe with no training whatsoever, to someone with some skill.  I mean, think about it...if all we trained for was the AJ, whats going to happen when the skilled guy comes along?  We crumble and die?  Our goal shouldn't be to go toe to toe with Gracies evil twin, but who said we have to?  Isn't dirty fighting part of our art?  Yes, we still may get our *** handed to us, but I'd rather go out fighting, rather than just curling up because said person may have more skill.

And of course, this is why I suggest crosstraining or at least getting an understanding of how others work.  That way, we may be better prepared and able to adjust our techs accordingly.  You said it yourself....the yellow and orange techs wouldn't hold up well against a boxer.  Well, IMO, we should be looking at why or what we could do to fix that.


----------



## MJS

stevebjj said:


> I think the hardest thing for me to understand is the idea of training to fight someone who is untrained vs training to fight someone who is trained. This "untrained brawler" or "drunk thug". I understand the rationale, but I'm just not sure it makes any sense to me.


 
Wow, if I could rep ya about 10 more times for this post I would!!!  Couldnt agree more with this.  Sure, there are probably no armies of evil Gracies and Shamrocks and FMA killers running around, but OTOH, why should we assume everyone will be a pushover?  



> When you are assessing a potential threat in a bar, do you assume your opponent is unarmed, or are you careful to consider the possibility that he has a knife or a gun? Isn't that part of self defense? How is lack of training any different? If I'm trained in BJJ, I'm armed. Why wouldn't you train to account for that?


 
When I worked in Corrections, I assumed, until I knew for sure, that every inmate that I was dealing with, was armed with a makeshift weapon.  I assumed that every inmate, regardless of size, was a capable fighter.  And I'd be willing to bet that every LEO assumes that any time they deal with a person during an investigation, on a car stop, is possibly armed.  



> It seems much more reasonable, given a goal of preparing for self defense, to assume that every potential opponent is armed, whether that's with a weapon, with some training at a particular range, or both.


 
Yup.


----------



## MJS

LuckyKBoxer said:


> This seems to be the rationale that alot of my "brothers and sisters" in Kenpo follow..
> I think you need to understand where it came from a bit better to understand why its where it is at now.
> Ed Parker was teaching back in the 50s and 60s and back then there was not an explosion of martial arts studios and instructors all over the place. As I have been able to figure based on talking to many different people that were there, at the time, was that alot of the techniques we teach came about from students coming to him with real situations that happened and then figuring ways to deal with them. I think at the time and for at least a couple decades there was not access to martial arts schools, and what access was around was very strict and probably cut out alot of the troublemakers..
> so in most cases I think it was safe to train for the untrained opponent who just wanted to knock your block off.... to use a phrase from the time..
> 20 years ago Ed Parker Passed away leaving a vast group of martial artists who idolized him, and wanted to be him and who carried forth the notion of the techniques in and how they were at the time.. Most of these people have continued to teach and spread the untrained attacked method to the point of ad nauseum...with many having never been in a fight... and many having students who have never been in a fight...
> I mean lets face it most people who start taking martial arts develop enough common sense to avoid problems rather then face them and test their skills...
> 
> I have hated that untrained attacker mentallity for the longest time.. and am unsure why so many people still have that mentality, especially since MMA is so popular, the internet, television, magazines, books, and schools and instructors of all levels are popping up all over the planet, and a strict mentality of discipline is not a requirement at many places anymore. I personally have trained in places and talked to guys who specifically train to be detter fighters ont he street. I absolutely believe everyone should be training for reality, for the best trained fighters possible and allow the untrained people to become beaten by their own issues.
> 
> I have sought out and trained with people from many different arts and mentalities, and have changed up some of what I was taught and do based on what I have discovered.
> Hell I have actually found myself all of a sudden a Brown Belt in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu having pursued it originally simply to get a better idea what the trained grappler will do, figuring 6 months or so would be enough... here i am years later in love with another art that I thought would only be reserved for Kenpo. Years spent trianing in Muay thai and Boxing and fighting to test my own knowledge and ability to use skills, and crosstraining with other arts to test those skills under fire.. I find that it has made working versus an untrained attacker fairly nominal at this point.. I mean big guys are dangerous regardless of skill level... but people with no training seem to move slow motion, out of range, and in desperation mode..
> 
> I have been watching the transition of many kenpo people into grappling, or groundfighting with a very high interest. and while I think alot of them have great ideas to cover that range of fighting, I think that the problems are ones that are too hard to really bust through... those bieng that most of the older kenpo guys who are high ranking and adding groundfighting to their curriculum are fairly set in their ways and instead of fully exploring the grappling range most seem to be briefly looking into and coming up with half hearted solutions that are not very practical against any but the most beginner grapplers...
> or they have some decent solutions but do not allow the amount of time necessary to drill students through that range and give them a real feel and understanding of whats going on.. you just can't train a few basic movements ont he ground once or twice every 2-4 weeks and expect people to have any feel, or understanding of the range.. and most students are not able or willing to spend the amount of time necessary to advance in both stand up and grappling self defense at one time. so what you end up getting is a half hearted attempt by everyone to add this grappling range in to curriculums..
> 
> I am not sure what the answer will be.. I think that the ground range will continue to evolve in Kenpo, and embed itself into the system and change how it is presented and trained. But I am really unsure how in a commercial setting students who train on average 2 days a week for an hour at a time are going to really get this down and become proficient enough at it.. those are the two main problems in my eyes..
> sure there are more but it is what it is.


 
Well said IMO!!   Now, what I'm about to say next is just my opinion and observation:  Seems to me that Kajukenbo, has done the complete opposite, of what you described about Kenpo.  Seems like they trained for both the untrained and trained person, in addition to being more well rounded standing and on the ground.  

So now, you have people doing today, what Kaju people have been doing all along.  Personally, I love seeking out and training with new people, learning new things.  I remember the first time one of my training partners introduced me to grappling.  I loved it!  I dont focus on it as much as I should, mainly due to time, but I still enjoy rolling.  My goals with BJJ are pretty much the same as with my Kenpo.  While I do enjoy learning new techs., my focus, at least right now, is to, as I've said, work the basics.  I'd rather have a handful of things that I know I can do well, instead of 50 things that I suck at. LOL.  One of my New Years goals, is to a few BJJ classes and at least a private a month.


----------



## Flying Crane

I'd say that the general way that most Parker-derived kenpo lineages structure their curriculum creates a mindset that can make ground grappling awkward, conceptually.

When you've got a curriculum that consists of anywhere from dozens to hundreds of catalogued Self Defense Techniques, or responses to specific attacks, there is a tendency to want to create similar catalogued Self Defense Techniques that can be used in the grappling realm.  I think the very nature of grappling, the hands-on, squirming, manipulating, rolling, etc that is grappling, just makes it very very awkward to create this kind of technique for the catalogue.

In Tracys, we do a certain kind of basic falling and rolling, and then squirming and kicking to break away from an attacker and regain our feet.  I think it works in a basic way tho it's definitely not designed to outfight a grappler on the ground.  If a trained grappler were to see the material, I doubt he'd be impressed, but I think it's not a bad idea for a basic idea of getting back up if you go down.

However in addition to this, in the Nidan curriculum in Tracys we've got a half dozen or more catalogued techs for the ground.  They begin with the premise that you've been pushed in some way, so you go down and roll, and then from the ground you apply some kind of return strike, it could be a kick from the ground to the knee, or a leg entanglement, or a punch as the attacker rushes in, stuff like that.  I personally found these techs to be very very awkward to practice, it's just not a natural progression for this kind of situation.  It formalizes the scenario in a way that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

So to add serious grappling skills, where grappling and working on the ground is the real focus, I think it just takes kenpo folks outside of their way of looking at the curriculum.  They gotta recognize that it's a whole different animal, and if you want to gain those skills you gotta let go of some of that curriculum structure and train differently.

maybe that's a gap that isn't always bridged very well by kenpo folks who try to bring in ground fighting.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer

MJS said:


> Well said IMO!!  Now, what I'm about to say next is just my opinion and observation: Seems to me that Kajukenbo, has done the complete opposite, of what you described about Kenpo. Seems like they trained for both the untrained and trained person, in addition to being more well rounded standing and on the ground.
> 
> So now, you have people doing today, what Kaju people have been doing all along. Personally, I love seeking out and training with new people, learning new things. I remember the first time one of my training partners introduced me to grappling. I loved it! I dont focus on it as much as I should, mainly due to time, but I still enjoy rolling. My goals with BJJ are pretty much the same as with my Kenpo. While I do enjoy learning new techs., my focus, at least right now, is to, as I've said, work the basics. I'd rather have a handful of things that I know I can do well, instead of 50 things that I suck at. LOL. One of my New Years goals, is to a few BJJ classes and at least a private a month.


 
I dont know about that.. I have gotten to train with some Kajukenbo guys here and there over the years and not a single one of them had any good grappling except the ones who had crosstrained in Jiu Jitsu specifically. I have been wanting to find some more seasoned, veteran Kaju guys to see if that is as widespread as I tend to think it might be. I would classify all the Kaju guys in as similar to the Kenpo guys that I like to train with.. meaning they like to drill harder then average people do.
I think that it pretty much comes down to focused training.. I think the groundfighting I have seen from the vast majority of Kaju guys is similar to the Kenpo take on it that I have witnessed... they try to use the ground as a backstop to hold the opponent while they do some select punches, kickes then move out of the way..
My recommendation for eveyr stand up artist is to at some point in their training invest in at least 6 months of Jiu Jitsu, at minimum 2 times a week so that they can get an idea of the basic positions, and movements.. I would say if you are in a qualified place, 6 months will give you a great basis of the fundamentals, while not making you proficient, it will give you a great idea of what its about.. more then words could describe.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer

Flying Crane said:


> I'd say that the general way that most Parker-derived kenpo lineages structure their curriculum creates a mindset that can make ground grappling awkward, conceptually.
> 
> When you've got a curriculum that consists of anywhere from dozens to hundreds of catalogued Self Defense Techniques, or responses to specific attacks, there is a tendency to want to create similar catalogued Self Defense Techniques that can be used in the grappling realm. I think the very nature of grappling, the hands-on, squirming, manipulating, rolling, etc that is grappling, just makes it very very awkward to create this kind of technique for the catalogue.
> 
> In Tracys, we do a certain kind of basic falling and rolling, and then squirming and kicking to break away from an attacker and regain our feet. I think it works in a basic way tho it's definitely not designed to outfight a grappler on the ground. If a trained grappler were to see the material, I doubt he'd be impressed, but I think it's not a bad idea for a basic idea of getting back up if you go down.
> 
> However in addition to this, in the Nidan curriculum in Tracys we've got a half dozen or more catalogued techs for the ground. They begin with the premise that you've been pushed in some way, so you go down and roll, and then from the ground you apply some kind of return strike, it could be a kick from the ground to the knee, or a leg entanglement, or a punch as the attacker rushes in, stuff like that. I personally found these techs to be very very awkward to practice, it's just not a natural progression for this kind of situation. It formalizes the scenario in a way that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
> 
> So to add serious grappling skills, where grappling and working on the ground is the real focus, I think it just takes kenpo folks outside of their way of looking at the curriculum. They gotta recognize that it's a whole different animal, and if you want to gain those skills you gotta let go of some of that curriculum structure and train differently.
> 
> maybe that's a gap that isn't always bridged very well by kenpo folks who try to bring in ground fighting.


 
I think what you are describing with Ed Parker based kenpo karate is a misconception, that unfortunately alot of Ed Parker guys seem to fall into... or maybe paradigm is a better word..
In my opinion... and you will find people on all sides of the argument...trust me lol...
but in my opinion Ed Parkers techniques are vehicles to explain, train, and drill concepts and principles of fighting/self defense/efficient body movement. I think that to often people get caught up in the series of moves for the sake of saying i know XXXXXXXX technique... and lose the bigger picture of what is being taught.
If you approach it that way, then covering the ground is very similar. In BJJ you learn basics that you use in certain combinations to either advance your position, or to advance a submission move...which is exactly what our techniques in Kenpo are teaching us to do in a standing phase. I think its possible and probably fairly easy to make dozens of techniques for Jiu Jitsu to cover the same types of concepts and principles... but fear that if done the same thing would happen, and the more commercialized the process became the more emphasis would be placed on regurgitating the series of moves, rather then understanding the priciples or concepts or ideas being presented and understnad when they work, and when they dont work.
I think getting caught up in which art or version is better is going to be tough since there is a wide spectrum of ability amongst the instructors of each system.. I have seen really good and really horrible teachers in both systems....check that...all systems of martial arts..


----------



## K831

MJS said:


> IMHO, if we're really serious about training, should be prepared to deal with everyone from the average Joe with no training whatsoever, to someone with some skill.  I mean, think about it...if all we trained for was the AJ, whats going to happen when the skilled guy comes along?  We crumble and die?  Our goal shouldn't be to go toe to toe with Gracies evil twin, but who said we have to?  Isn't dirty fighting part of our art?  Yes, we still may get our *** handed to us, but I'd rather go out fighting, rather than just curling up because said person may have more skill.
> 
> You said it yourself....the yellow and orange techs wouldn't hold up well against a boxer.  Well, IMO, we should be looking at why or what we could do to fix that.



Hey Y'all are preaching to the choir. I am simply pointing out why I thought many of those flaws were present. 

As you know, I left "traditional EPAK" including the LTKKA (as well as other associations) to follow Paul Mills, purely because I didn't like the above mentioned methodology. 

Now, since the AKKI has changed the yellow techniques (and many others, including the knife and stick material, as we have discussed in the past) we have come under some fire from others. However, I think as the videos you posted show, the understanding of Kenpo held by those in the video is reflected in their very attempts to apply it to the ground. As I pointed out, part of the problem is that they are working against an "untrained grappler" in those vids.... and that is a trained mind-set left over from their commercial/traditional Kenpo.

Despite that, I'm not on the other side of the fence either... I don't think a Kenpoist who wants to add ground fighting or ground SD simply needs to go study BJJ... that is the same problem, other side of the spectrum, since BJJ isn't really "ground fighting" either.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer

K831 said:


> Hey Y'all are preaching to the choir. I am simply pointing out why I thought many of those flaws were present.
> 
> As you know, I left "traditional EPAK" including the LTKKA (as well as other associations) to follow Paul Mills, purely because I didn't like the above mentioned methodology.
> 
> Now, since the AKKI has changed the yellow techniques (and many others, including the knife and stick material, as we have discussed in the past) we have come under some fire from others. However, I think as the videos you posted show, the understanding of Kenpo held by those in the video is reflected in their very attempts to apply it to the ground. As I pointed out, part of the problem is that they are working against an "untrained grappler" in those vids.... and that is a trained mind-set left over from their commercial/traditional Kenpo.
> 
> Despite that, I'm not on the other side of the fence either... I don't think a Kenpoist who wants to add ground fighting or ground SD simply needs to go study BJJ... that is the same problem, other side of the spectrum, since BJJ isn't really "ground fighting" either.


 
out of curiosity what has the AKKI changed?
is the AKKI not a commercial Kenpo as well?
and what Grappling art would you consider the best, or closest to Ground fighting?

I am not saying I disagree with you on anything you said. I just dont understand, or know what you mean by these comments and wanted to get clarification before I have a reply thanks


----------



## Chris Parker

stevebjj said:


> I think the hardest thing for me to understand is the idea of training to fight someone who is untrained vs training to fight someone who is trained. This "untrained brawler" or "drunk thug". I understand the rationale, but I'm just not sure it makes any sense to me.
> 
> 
> 
> MJS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, if I could rep ya about 10 more times for this post I would!!! Couldnt agree more with this. Sure, there are probably no armies of evil Gracies and Shamrocks and FMA killers running around, but OTOH, why should we assume everyone will be a pushover?
Click to expand...

 
I'll see if I can explain a bit more, as this is not really what I am talking about. An untrained person is not an unskilled one, an unexperienced one, or not a dangerous one. And certainly not a pushover (if they were, there'd hardly be any reason to train, would there?).

The idea is really about understanding what you are training for. A street predator is concerned only with attacking, hurting, injuring. It's typically not anything personal, just a vent really. They are typically already experienced at hurting/assaulting people, and as such are confident in their successes and approach. They are also 110% commited to hurting you.

What they are not is a fighter. There is really no interest in fighting someone, just injuring them. This dictates completely different strategies and tactics to a "trained" fighter. So if your training is based around only a trained fighter, you may want to expand it. Again, both are dangerous, but they are also different, and preparing for one is not preparation for the other. There are similarities, but there are also big differences.



stevebjj said:


> When you are assessing a potential threat in a bar, do you assume your opponent is unarmed, or are you careful to consider the possibility that he has a knife or a gun? Isn't that part of self defense? How is lack of training any different? If I'm trained in BJJ, I'm armed. Why wouldn't you train to account for that?
> 
> 
> 
> MJS said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I worked in Corrections, I assumed, until I knew for sure, that every inmate that I was dealing with, was armed with a makeshift weapon. I assumed that every inmate, regardless of size, was a capable fighter. And I'd be willing to bet that every LEO assumes that any time they deal with a person during an investigation, on a car stop, is possibly armed.
Click to expand...

 
Again, lack of training is not the same as lack of danger, it is just a different form to expect, with different parameters, different tactics and strategies, different methods, and so on. And a capable fighter doesn't necessarily require training, after all. So assessing danger is definately part of it, agreed. But there's a big difference between assessing their ability to cause serious harm, and whether or not they've trained in one system or another. After all, are we to be expected to know every possible system that someone could have trained in, and ways to defeat them, or should it be more a matter of being able to recognise potential danger in any form (including the more likely without formal training), and have your own solidly drilled and tested strategies and tactics to handle that?



stevebjj said:


> It seems much more reasonable, given a goal of preparing for self defense, to assume that every potential opponent is armed, whether that's with a weapon, with some training at a particular range, or both.
> 
> 
> 
> MJS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup.
Click to expand...

 
No, I'd say it's much more reasonable to assume that a potential opponent is dangerous, for reasons such as previous experience, commitment to hurting you, and a percieved advantage (size, strength, alcohol, drugs, weapon, friends, prior success, etc). While training can make someone dangerous, it also tends to attract people who are less likely to be attackers (not saying it can't or doesn't happen, just that it is less likely than an "untrained" person), so training for the strategies and tactics of those less likely to be your opponents, rather than the tactics and strategies of those that are more likely doens't make much sense to me....

Recognise the danger they represent, and recognise that that does not equate to training.

Then again, I've often said that no martial art is really good for self defence (at it's purest form) as no martial art is designed for it. That's why the "self defence" part of my classes are removed from the "martial art" part of it. One provides form and structure for the other, but I don't mistake them for being the same thing.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer

Chris Parker said:


> Then again, I've often said that no martial art is really good for self defence (at it's purest form) as no martial art is designed for it. That's why the "self defence" part of my classes are removed from the "martial art" part of it. One provides form and structure for the other, but I don't mistake them for being the same thing.


 
see I hear this and the other one... Fighting and self defense are not the same....
and I have to say I think its a bit of a play on words.
maybe you can expand on what you mean by self defense at its purest form..?


----------



## Chris Parker

Cool. I've gone through this a few times, one more can't hurt....

The thing to look at here is what exactly martial arts are, and then look at exactly what self defence is. And look at where the two cross-over, which is not the largest place you will find....

A martial art is not designed for self defence. There are just too many differences between them. We'll go through them as bullet points, just for fun, looking at what martial arts present, and the way self defence actually is.

- Martial arts teach through the medium of combative themed techniques. These techniques are not really even about being combat effective in the main, as their primary purpose is not to teach combative effectiveness, but to teach the lessons of the art itself (it's principles, philosophy, values, strategies, tactics, and more).

- Self defence not about techniques. It is based in principles that are adaptable to various situations, and can (and often does) take it's base mechanics from a martial art form.

- Martial art techniques start with the conflict already engaged, removing the pre- and post-fight aspects.

- Self defence is all about the pre- and post-fight, handling the adrenaline, and so forth. It is based on awareness of the situation, and avoiding the conflict where possible.

- Martial arts teach complex movements and fine motor actions (as well as gross motor ones), which can teach some very important lessons in expressing the art itself.

- Self defence is purely gross-motor in it's physical methods, as that is what will be available under adrenaline and stress.

- Martial arts often teach responces to attacks that are not found in a modern environment, and responces that are not suitable in todays legal environments.

- Self defence requires that all attacks are realistic, and the legal system is understood and adhered to. This means covering such things as not going into overkill mode, the legal repercussions, if armed (say, a walking stick) then strikes to the head are not advised unless the opponents are also armed (at least here), and so on.

There's a lot more to this, but the basic point is that martial arts, while they can (and often do) provide the physical parameters, mechanics, and so on of a self defence program, they are not self defence when it comes down to it. They cover a different area of knowledge, have a different focus, a different teaching purpose, and more. As they provide the mechanics, however, they can form a great base for a good self defence program. In fact, most RBSD systems don't really bother with teaching such things as how to hit, as it's assumed that those taking the courses already have some martial arts background and can use the mechanics of their art within the self defence program.

Did that help?


----------



## Steve

K831 said:


> .
> 
> Despite that, I'm not on the other side of the fence either... I don't think a Kenpoist who wants to add ground fighting or ground SD simply needs to go study BJJ... that is the same problem, other side of the spectrum, since BJJ isn't really "ground fighting" either.


I'm curious about this, too.  It's pretty clear you have a specific idea in mind when you use the term "ground fighting."  If BJJ doesn't qualify, what does?


----------



## LuckyKBoxer

Chris Parker said:


> Cool. I've gone through this a few times, one more can't hurt....
> 
> The thing to look at here is what exactly martial arts are, and then look at exactly what self defence is. And look at where the two cross-over, which is not the largest place you will find....
> 
> A martial art is not designed for self defence. There are just too many differences between them. We'll go through them as bullet points, just for fun, looking at what martial arts present, and the way self defence actually is.
> 
> - Martial arts teach through the medium of combative themed techniques. These techniques are not really even about being combat effective in the main, as their primary purpose is not to teach combative effectiveness, but to teach the lessons of the art itself (it's principles, philosophy, values, strategies, tactics, and more).
> 
> - Self defence not about techniques. It is based in principles that are adaptable to various situations, and can (and often does) take it's base mechanics from a martial art form.
> 
> - Martial art techniques start with the conflict already engaged, removing the pre- and post-fight aspects.
> 
> - Self defence is all about the pre- and post-fight, handling the adrenaline, and so forth. It is based on awareness of the situation, and avoiding the conflict where possible.
> 
> - Martial arts teach complex movements and fine motor actions (as well as gross motor ones), which can teach some very important lessons in expressing the art itself.
> 
> - Self defence is purely gross-motor in it's physical methods, as that is what will be available under adrenaline and stress.
> 
> - Martial arts often teach responces to attacks that are not found in a modern environment, and responces that are not suitable in todays legal environments.
> 
> - Self defence requires that all attacks are realistic, and the legal system is understood and adhered to. This means covering such things as not going into overkill mode, the legal repercussions, if armed (say, a walking stick) then strikes to the head are not advised unless the opponents are also armed (at least here), and so on.
> 
> There's a lot more to this, but the basic point is that martial arts, while they can (and often do) provide the physical parameters, mechanics, and so on of a self defence program, they are not self defence when it comes down to it. They cover a different area of knowledge, have a different focus, a different teaching purpose, and more. As they provide the mechanics, however, they can form a great base for a good self defence program. In fact, most RBSD systems don't really bother with teaching such things as how to hit, as it's assumed that those taking the courses already have some martial arts background and can use the mechanics of their art within the self defence program.
> 
> Did that help?


 
Okay I see where you are coming from..
I think its alot of semantics to be honest.
I think that what you said can absolutely relate to some martial arts, but not all.
I agree with your first few points, and we cover those with our students as well.
where you start to lose me a litle bit is talking about the fine motor skills and gross motor skills. This is, in my mind, simply a byproduct of how often you train and how realistic that training is. the more you train under stressful real condition, the more you are going to be able to perform fine motor skills. The less you train then i absolutely agree that you will have alot of trouble performing anything but gross motor skills. I dont think this has anything to do with martial arts or self defense specifically though.
Alos traditionalized martial arts teach attacks that are not in our society today, thats a direct reflection of the instructor in my opinion, and teaching legal ramifications is also something we go into with our students.
I am not sure that I agree that it is as black and white as that.
Personally I would consider true self defense as good diet, nutrition, fitness, teeth care, etc.. since that is going to kill many more people then a bad guy with a gun..
but like I said I dont necessarily disagree with your comments, I see where you are coming from and appreciate you sharing it, I just think that it is not black and white, and depends on who is teaching, and the time that the student is going to put into it.


----------



## MJS

LuckyKBoxer said:


> I dont know about that.. I have gotten to train with some Kajukenbo guys here and there over the years and not a single one of them had any good grappling except the ones who had crosstrained in Jiu Jitsu specifically. I have been wanting to find some more seasoned, veteran Kaju guys to see if that is as widespread as I tend to think it might be. I would classify all the Kaju guys in as similar to the Kenpo guys that I like to train with.. meaning they like to drill harder then average people do.
> I think that it pretty much comes down to focused training.. I think the groundfighting I have seen from the vast majority of Kaju guys is similar to the Kenpo take on it that I have witnessed... they try to use the ground as a backstop to hold the opponent while they do some select punches, kickes then move out of the way..


 
Well, in that case, I'll defer to your experience, and that of any Kaju person on here, if they choose to post.  Like I said, I was only going on what I've seen, but obviously, given your ability to access Kaju vs. mine.....

Some that I have seen, John Bono and Greg Harper, both seem to emphasize grappling. But then again, I believe John has a background with Larry Hartsell, and I'm not sure of Greg Harpers grappling background.





> My recommendation for eveyr stand up artist is to at some point in their training invest in at least 6 months of Jiu Jitsu, at minimum 2 times a week so that they can get an idea of the basic positions, and movements.. I would say if you are in a qualified place, 6 months will give you a great basis of the fundamentals, while not making you proficient, it will give you a great idea of what its about.. more then words could describe.


 
QFT!!! I've suggested this as well. Never told anyone to stop Kenpo, but simply to spend some time, etc. as you suggested. And IMO, given the fact that there are BJJ schools everywhere you look, well, theres really no excuse. Lets see...right around my area, I have my friend, who's a Brown Belt under Roy Harris. I also have a BJJ/JJJ school just down the road. BJJ is offered 2x/week, with Rafael Barbosa. 

Like I said earlier, I do plan, in the new year, to devote more time to this. 

Edit:  Of course, whats interesting about what you suggest, is the fact that 9 out of 10 Kenpoists, will usually counter what you just said, with the following:  Theres no need to cross train...anything and everything is already in there.  You just need to know where to look.

Of course, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on that.


----------



## MJS

K831 said:


> Hey Y'all are preaching to the choir. I am simply pointing out why I thought many of those flaws were present.
> 
> As you know, I left "traditional EPAK" including the LTKKA (as well as other associations) to follow Paul Mills, purely because I didn't like the above mentioned methodology.
> 
> Now, since the AKKI has changed the yellow techniques (and many others, including the knife and stick material, as we have discussed in the past) we have come under some fire from others. However, I think as the videos you posted show, the understanding of Kenpo held by those in the video is reflected in their very attempts to apply it to the ground. As I pointed out, part of the problem is that they are working against an "untrained grappler" in those vids.... and that is a trained mind-set left over from their commercial/traditional Kenpo.
> 
> Despite that, I'm not on the other side of the fence either... I don't think a Kenpoist who wants to add ground fighting or ground SD simply needs to go study BJJ... that is the same problem, other side of the spectrum, since BJJ isn't really "ground fighting" either.


 
Grappling/Ground fighting...IMHO, I dont think that they're all that far apart.  They're both looking to reach the same goal, that being to finish the battle on the ground.  The main differences that I can see would be...the grappler is looking to finish with a sub. of some sort, whereas the ground fighter isn't really applying anything fancy per se, such as a lock, choke, etc., but going the G&P route.  

So, all that being said, I think that it should be fairly simple to change your method of attack, while still staying in the BJJ framework.  Of course, BJJ is only 1 example.  In my area, AFAIK, there aren't too many Judo schools that I know of, but thats an option.  Wrestling is another.  As far as I'm concerned, anything grappling is better than nothing.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer

MJS said:


> Well, in that case, I'll defer to your experience, and that of any Kaju person on here, if they choose to post.  Like I said, I was only going on what I've seen, but obviously, given your ability to access Kaju vs. mine.....
> 
> Some that I have seen, John Bono and Greg Harper, both seem to emphasize grappling. But then again, I believe John has a background with Larry Hartsell, and I'm not sure of Greg Harpers grappling background.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QFT!!! I've suggested this as well. Never told anyone to stop Kenpo, but simply to spend some time, etc. as you suggested. And IMO, given the fact that there are BJJ schools everywhere you look, well, theres really no excuse. Lets see...right around my area, I have my friend, who's a Brown Belt under Roy Harris. I also have a BJJ/JJJ school just down the road. BJJ is offered 2x/week, with Rafael Barbosa.
> 
> Like I said earlier, I do plan, in the new year, to devote more time to this.
> 
> Edit: Of course, whats interesting about what you suggest, is the fact that 9 out of 10 Kenpoists, will usually counter what you just said, with the following: Theres no need to cross train...anything and everything is already in there. You just need to know where to look.
> 
> Of course, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on that.


 
ya we actually have a 5th degree black belt in Kaju that coaches out muay Thai guys at our gym, he was also a professional muay thai fighter in Europe for several years, and that seems to be his passion at this time., I will make it a point to ask him about the grappling that he did, but I dont get the impression from him that hes a big grappling guy.

Funny story, I was doing some pit fighting, and no rules fighting in the early 90s, before I got into Kenpo Karate. The UFC Came out and I was interested in fighting, then the rules started changing and favoring grapplers which irritated me. I had fought a ton of wrestlers and never had a problem, but I was not a fool and realized that the rules were rapidly shifting in favor of a grappler. I was to proud to go train in Jiu Jitsu at the time, I "knew" i could beat grapplers with no rules, and was to stubborn to give it a shot... fast forward over 10 years....ACK... 10 years.... and I had a chance again to dive into Jiu Jitsu, my plan was to spend a short tiem to get to know what they do, make sure that my kenpo and muay thai, and boxing and wrestling knowedge was enough to beat them..
funny thing happened.. I fell in love with the art and the sport and have been going solid ever since.
I think alot of Kenpo guys are simply in a dream world in regards to their skills versus a grappler.. its one thing if you can train with a grappler and can keep them from taking you down, but the vast majority I have talked to who wont train in grappling simply "know" I personally find it embarassing to a point, and when given the chance I get on the mat with them and ask them to stop me from taking them down... I have yet to find the kenpo guy that can stop me from taking them down. Granted I am 6'3" and 250+ pounds, with a fairly extensive fightbackground, and currently a brown belt in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu and teach it, and consider take downs a specialty, but you would think it would be an eye opener for some of these guys... instead the vast majority of them write it off as me being a kenpo guy and not me using jiu jitsu skills.
The good thing I see is that most of the younger generation are crosstraining more, not just in Jiu Jitsu but muay thai, boxing, wrestling, and traditional and combative martial arts.
I think that this will only help improve our kenpo as a whole.
I just hope that many of this younger generation are able to get quality kenpo from the few great instructors still around and dont lose that for the other arts.
that remains to be seen.
I personally have hope that Kenpo will evolve still with future practitioners and teachers at and above the level of Ed Parker.. I have to believe this, if I didnt believe this I would stop dealing with Kenpo, but I think our future is bright, in a definite shift, and evolution... but bright, regardless of all the crap that seems to be front and center especially on the internet.


----------



## K831

div { margin: 0px; }


LuckyKBoxer said:


> out of curiosity what has the AKKI changed?
> is the AKKI not a commercial Kenpo as well?
> and what Grappling art would you consider the best, or closest to Ground fighting?
> 
> I am not saying I disagree with you on anything you said. I just dont understand, or know what you mean by these comments and wanted to get clarification before I have a reply thanks



No problem. First, let me say, I don't mean my "ground fighting" comments to be a downer on BJJ or any other style. It's contextual. 



LuckyKBoxer said:


> what has the AKKI changed?



I'm guessing you mean in general, as a detailed answer regarding  curriculum would be longer than I care to type, and longer than you  probably care to read. 

- Techniques from bottom to top have been changed to deal with a trained attacker. No more focus on rear step through punches and hay makers. Starting at white belt (yellow techs) punches are thrown off both the lead and rear hand, often in combination etc. 
- Techniques have been simplified and overly complex or redundant/flashy techniques dropped or replaced. 
- Less techniques, and less focus on shear number of memorized techniques.
- Much more focus on interactive sets and spontaneous drills. Concept vs. memorization
- Multiple attacker techniques completely changed. Far more practical and realistic. 
- Knife sets, drills and techniques completely different/spontaneous
-Club sets, drills and techniques completely different /spontaneous
- Integrated drills/principles/ and training regarding carry, draw/presentation of concealed weapons (knife and Pistol) 
- Evolving ground curriculum focused on both available submissions/GnP/weapons uses and deployment (while mounted/mount etc) positioning and techs to work back to ones feet. 
- Greater focus on live drills and less emphasis on static "Ok, 5 swords" or "ok, defense against a right step through". Focus on spontaneous action/reaction starting right away. 



LuckyKBoxer said:


> is the AKKI not a commercial Kenpo as well?





Not  in my experience. Both schools I went to had no commercial advertising, no contracts or agreements. We used space in  someone else gym, or a rec room at the local community college. We often trained in  my instructors basement. Memberships were based on invitation, not just anyone could  come and sign up. Seminars and camps are closed/invitation only. Now, having said  that, yes, there are members in the AKKI with commercial schools, and their version  of Kenpo may even be commercialized, I dont know and I doubt it. I have always  said though, it is more about the teacher than anything. I have one of the  best, progressive and open minded teachers in the AKKI. However, he is  working with one of the best systems as well, and Mr. Mills is supportive of and  drives innovation and change. 





LuckyKBoxer said:


> and what Grappling art would you consider the best, or closest to Ground fighting?





Definitions would probably help this discussion. My definition of fighting is drag out knock down anything goes fighting for my life. It isnt sport or competition. Thats not to devalue the testing and learning that happens while competing, rather, to keep the context in mind. 



I  think this is one of the more exciting areas of development in the martial arts. I dont have any one ground art in  mind. I think MMA competition, for example, has shown us what can happen when a  fight goes to the ground. Now, this is only in one narrow and controlled  context, however, it has still highlighted the need for some  understanding of the dynamics of takedowns, takedown defense and movement/mechanics on the  ground. Fighting however, needs a much broader brush than what I have seen in BJJ  classes.


 Its hard to consider an art a ground fighting art when certain "fighting" aspects arent being worked regularly and/or the training mindset is competition  training. I think ground fighting should be an anything goes mindset.  I have not yet been in a BJJ class that incorporated and regularly worked small joint manipulation/breaks, multiple attackers, weapon defense, weapon deployment, striking from the ground, positioning for soft target striking  etc. We are working in this direction in the AKKI. Some combatives curriculum are starting to incorporate this, but this isnt what you get when you go study BJJ. My BJJ experience has been focused on positioning to work for submissions. Ive never seen anyone in a BJJ class say you could have broken his fingers there you could have transitioned to standing there you could have deployed your carry knife there and cut him this way... you could have drawn your G19 from that position and fired... try it again. Or, would you have gone for that kimura if it was a bar fight and you had to deal with two guys? What would you have done differently?  IMO, thats the type of thing that would happen daily in a ground fighting system.  



I  carry a knife 99.7% of the time. I carry a firearm 70% of the time. I have plastic versions of each that fit in my real carry sheath/holster. I train in my real clothes. I draw my weapons while  being shot on, swept, clinched and with trained grapplers pulling guard. I work for  position to draw while mounted, guard, half guard etc against wrestlers and BJJ  BBs. I know I need to. I work for position to strike, or get up against these  same guys. If a BJJ player isnt preparing for that, he isnt preparing  to fight me on the ground, as his chances of finishing me before he is repeatedly cut/stabbed/shot pummeled and/or submitted isnt very high.  My  straight jits isnt all that good my ground scrappiness however, is coming right along. 



I think more and more  guys from different disciplines will really start working the ground, not  from a submission only, or competition only point of view, but from a  survive and kill point of view. As that happens, collaborative efforts will result  in well fleshed out and multi-dimensional ground fighting systems. That wont  fully happen though, until people quit saying, I do BJJ and that covers my SD  ground game.



stevebjj said:


> I'm curious about this, too. It's pretty clear you have a specific idea in mind when you use the term "ground fighting." If BJJ doesn't qualify, what does?




Hopefully the above made the ideas a bit more clear. It isnt that I dont think BJJ qualifies I just dont think it qualifies on its own. Choosing to stay on the ground and hunt for submissions while excluding the likely hood of weapons and multiple attackers, for instance, fails as a stand-alone ground fighting art. Thats not to diminish all that it has to offer though. However, Ive seen the failure clearly in my own attempts at working in outside material with my BJJ/wrestling buddies. Funny how them working for submissions suddenly becomes, Im going to try and not get stabbed this time pretty fast, which in turn forces me to acquire more skill in order to deploy my weapon while mounted, since I am now fighting a BJJ guy whose eyes have been opened from getting killed in the simulation multiple times.  Regardless, his mindset and approach is no longer what it was when he was just doing BJJ.


----------



## Chris Parker

LuckyKBoxer said:


> Okay I see where you are coming from..
> I think its alot of semantics to be honest.


 
I might suggest that if it's semantics to you (still), then you may not have gotten what I am trying to say. That, to me, is similar to saying that the only difference between badminton and tennis is semantics, honestly.



LuckyKBoxer said:


> I think that what you said can absolutely relate to some martial arts, but not all.


 
I have yet to encounter a single martial art that I would class as being designed for self defence. My comments apply to every single one I have ever seen, trained, studied, researched, heard about, discussed, or other. If you can point me to one that doesn't fit the descriptions I listed above, I'll be very happy to look at it.



LuckyKBoxer said:


> I agree with your first few points, and we cover those with our students as well.
> where you start to lose me a litle bit is talking about the fine motor skills and gross motor skills. This is, in my mind, simply a byproduct of how often you train and how realistic that training is. the more you train under stressful real condition, the more you are going to be able to perform fine motor skills. The less you train then i absolutely agree that you will have alot of trouble performing anything but gross motor skills. I dont think this has anything to do with martial arts or self defense specifically though.


 
Under adrenaline, one of the first things to happen is for any part of your brain not attuned for survival to start to shut down. This means that fine-motor skills, complex-motor skills, the ability to form sentences, and so on disappear. Yes, with a great deal of training you can make such things much more accessible, but that still takes us further from the requirements of a self defence system. 

There, the requirement is that the training is quick, and easily accessible soon after the training. And the only thing that fits that are gross-motor actions. This is why RBSD groups and DefTac programs work, they embrace that understanding. If something (such as fine-motor skills) take a decade or more instill in a person, that is not what is required for self defence. And that is what is needed for fine-motor to be accessible.

It's not that it has anything to do with martial arts or self defence, but an understanding of what is realistic (in terms of what is accessible, and how to make something accessible) is related to the teachings and methods of both. Martial arts can afford to spend time working on fine-motor and complex actions, as they are getting across lessons that are specific to the arts themselves, not ones that are necessarily to do with actual combative applications and effectiveness. A realistic self defence program, on the other hand, has to take into account the limitations of how our brains work, in regard to things like this.



LuckyKBoxer said:


> Alos traditionalized martial arts teach attacks that are not in our society today, thats a direct reflection of the instructor in my opinion, and teaching legal ramifications is also something we go into with our students.


 
Oh, I wasn't being that limited in my approach to martial arts. I was also including the very recent ones, all the way up to MMA. And it's not a reflection of the teacher, it's a reflection of the art. Or are you saying that teaching methods of swordsmanship in Kenjutsu, as the attacks encountered are not the same as found today, is due to the instructor?

When it comes to things such as teaching about the legal side of things, brilliant. To me, though, that is you taking into account the self defence side of things that you teach, as I highly doubt the martial art itself actually teaches the legal side of things. That is where it is up to the instructor, and that area of knowledge is removed, or seperate from the actual teachings of the martial art itself. And that is where a martial art is being used as a base for teaching self defence, but that is not to confuse the two as the same thing.



LuckyKBoxer said:


> I am not sure that I agree that it is as black and white as that.


 
No, neither self defence nor martial arts are black and white. But the seperations are rather obvious when you actually look at them objectively. The problems are that our media (such as television shows and movies) show an equation that basically says Martial Arts = Study of Violence, Violence = Fighting, Fighting = Self Defence, Self Defence = Learning about Violence = Martial Arts. In other words, movies state that problems culminate in physical violence, and by studying martial arts you can win the fight, whereas that is removed from the realities of violence, problems encountered, martial arts, and more. The other problem is that, frankly, most martial arts market themselves as being "effective for self defence", whether or not they actually have anything to offer in that area at all (physical techniques are the most minor aspect, so if that's all an art has to offer, it's not self defence. It's gone straight to the last resort, and missed everything that actually goes into self defence itself).



LuckyKBoxer said:


> Personally I would consider true self defense as good diet, nutrition, fitness, teeth care, etc.. since that is going to kill many more people then a bad guy with a gun..
> but like I said I dont necessarily disagree with your comments, I see where you are coming from and appreciate you sharing it, I just think that it is not black and white, and depends on who is teaching, and the time that the student is going to put into it.


 
Now, I'd consider those as part of just plain good living myself, not necessarily self defence (other than in the broadest of all senses, with prevention being better than cure). Self defence is not about avoiding death, it is about avoiding unnecessary danger and conflict, or handling it at worst. 

As to depending on who is teaching, well, yes and no. Some instructors are going to be more clued-up when it comes to self defence, and what is genuinely required, and they will do things such as adding an understanding of the legal repercussions (as you do) as an addendum to the art being taught. But that does not make the martial art self defence. It may make the classes more suitable as a self defence class, but that is due to the aspects that are not the martial art in the first place. The confusion comes in when people add a lot of these things to the martial art, but refer to it all under the one name, and think that because they teach it there, it is part of the art. It isn't.



LuckyKBoxer said:


> My recommendation for eveyr stand up artist is to at some point in their training invest in at least 6 months of Jiu Jitsu, at minimum 2 times a week so that they can get an idea of the basic positions, and movements.. I would say if you are in a qualified place, 6 months will give you a great basis of the fundamentals, while not making you proficient, it will give you a great idea of what its about.. more then words could describe.


 
Just finally, this is exactly what I meant when I mentioned that an understanding of the environment is necessary. Those clips at the beginning were missing the understanding that this experience provides, James' clips later showed that he had developed some understanding of it, through cross-training in BJJ obviously. That understanding of a new environment, provided that a real understanding of your own system exists in the first place, should ensure that you can adapt your own art to this new understanding, and keep it as, say in this example, Kenpo.


----------



## MJS

LuckyKBoxer said:


> ya we actually have a 5th degree black belt in Kaju that coaches out muay Thai guys at our gym, he was also a professional muay thai fighter in Europe for several years, and that seems to be his passion at this time., I will make it a point to ask him about the grappling that he did, but I dont get the impression from him that hes a big grappling guy.
> 
> Funny story, I was doing some pit fighting, and no rules fighting in the early 90s, before I got into Kenpo Karate. The UFC Came out and I was interested in fighting, then the rules started changing and favoring grapplers which irritated me. I had fought a ton of wrestlers and never had a problem, but I was not a fool and realized that the rules were rapidly shifting in favor of a grappler. I was to proud to go train in Jiu Jitsu at the time, I "knew" i could beat grapplers with no rules, and was to stubborn to give it a shot... fast forward over 10 years....ACK... 10 years.... and I had a chance again to dive into Jiu Jitsu, my plan was to spend a short tiem to get to know what they do, make sure that my kenpo and muay thai, and boxing and wrestling knowedge was enough to beat them..
> funny thing happened.. I fell in love with the art and the sport and have been going solid ever since.
> I think alot of Kenpo guys are simply in a dream world in regards to their skills versus a grappler.. its one thing if you can train with a grappler and can keep them from taking you down, but the vast majority I have talked to who wont train in grappling simply "know" I personally find it embarassing to a point, and when given the chance I get on the mat with them and ask them to stop me from taking them down... I have yet to find the kenpo guy that can stop me from taking them down. Granted I am 6'3" and 250+ pounds, with a fairly extensive fightbackground, and currently a brown belt in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu and teach it, and consider take downs a specialty, but you would think it would be an eye opener for some of these guys... instead the vast majority of them write it off as me being a kenpo guy and not me using jiu jitsu skills.
> The good thing I see is that most of the younger generation are crosstraining more, not just in Jiu Jitsu but muay thai, boxing, wrestling, and traditional and combative martial arts.
> I think that this will only help improve our kenpo as a whole.
> I just hope that many of this younger generation are able to get quality kenpo from the few great instructors still around and dont lose that for the other arts.
> that remains to be seen.
> I personally have hope that Kenpo will evolve still with future practitioners and teachers at and above the level of Ed Parker.. I have to believe this, if I didnt believe this I would stop dealing with Kenpo, but I think our future is bright, in a definite shift, and evolution... but bright, regardless of all the crap that seems to be front and center especially on the internet.


 
Nice post!   Can't disagree with anything that you said.  For me, I think that keeping up with the times is important.  Now, this doesnt mean that any time a new flavor of the month comes along, you have to abandon A and go to B, but simply look at B and see if its something that needs to be improved in your current art.  

Given the popularity of MMA/UFC, that wrestling is taught in many schools, I think that having the ground base is very important.  And no, I'm not buying the usual comments by some that 'its all in there'.  If it is in there, perhaps it needs to be polished up a bit, but at this time, I'm not seeing it.  And whats sad, is that its just not limited to grappling.  I've gone round and round with guys on the KN about the knife.  IMO, I dont think its that simple to take a blade, and toss Kenpo principles in, an poof...now you know how to fight offensively and defensively with a blade.  People would rather do that instead of seeking out a weapon based art, Kali, PT, Sayoc, Arnis, etc. 

But to each their own.  All I do is make the suggestion.  If people want to do it, great, IMO, those folks will continue to evolve and keep the art growing.  Those that dont...well, IMO, they wont evolve and the art will stay stagnant.

Funny though, how you have guys like Jeff Speakman and Paul Mills.  Jeff added in ground stuff, Paul made changes to his stuff.  Now, aside from video clips and talking to guys like K831, I've never had any first hand experience with any of their stuff.  But hey, at least they're making some waves.  Of course, you'll have people who say that now they're not doing Kenpo anymore, blah,blah, blah.  Again, thats fine.  They're doing more than some others are though.


----------



## MJS

Chris Parker said:


> I'll see if I can explain a bit more, as this is not really what I am talking about. An untrained person is not an unskilled one, an unexperienced one, or not a dangerous one. And certainly not a pushover (if they were, there'd hardly be any reason to train, would there?).
> 
> The idea is really about understanding what you are training for. A street predator is concerned only with attacking, hurting, injuring. It's typically not anything personal, just a vent really. They are typically already experienced at hurting/assaulting people, and as such are confident in their successes and approach. They are also 110% commited to hurting you.
> 
> What they are not is a fighter. There is really no interest in fighting someone, just injuring them. This dictates completely different strategies and tactics to a "trained" fighter. So if your training is based around only a trained fighter, you may want to expand it. Again, both are dangerous, but they are also different, and preparing for one is not preparation for the other. There are similarities, but there are also big differences.


 
I think I'm seeing your point here, but you dont feel that you can train for both?  The street guy, while he may not have formal training, has received his training, basically from fights on the street.  I'd consider your Tank Abbott and Kimbo Slice, your street fighters.  IMO, the only difference between them and a trained figher, is the formal training.  The 2 MMA guys in the bar, who're drinking, want to act tough, and start trouble with someone probably wont be looking to 'fight' me so to speak, but hurt me.  





> Again, lack of training is not the same as lack of danger, it is just a different form to expect, with different parameters, different tactics and strategies, different methods, and so on. And a capable fighter doesn't necessarily require training, after all. So assessing danger is definately part of it, agreed. But there's a big difference between assessing their ability to cause serious harm, and whether or not they've trained in one system or another. After all, are we to be expected to know every possible system that someone could have trained in, and ways to defeat them, or should it be more a matter of being able to recognise potential danger in any form (including the more likely without formal training), and have your own solidly drilled and tested strategies and tactics to handle that?


 
Points taken.  But OTOH, there've been many times when, during an intro lesson, I've shown people how to punch, kick, etc., and there've been many times its been fairly obvious that they've had some prior training.  No, I'd be impossible to train to defend against every single thing out there, but I dont think that its impossible to figure out if someone has no training, a little training or is highly trained.  Difficult?  Maybe.  Impossible? IMO, no.  And yes, I do agree that part of our training is, or should be, to recognize the potential threat before said threats is able to play out.  





> No, I'd say it's much more reasonable to assume that a potential opponent is dangerous, for reasons such as previous experience, commitment to hurting you, and a percieved advantage (size, strength, alcohol, drugs, weapon, friends, prior success, etc). While training can make someone dangerous, it also tends to attract people who are less likely to be attackers (not saying it can't or doesn't happen, just that it is less likely than an "untrained" person), so training for the strategies and tactics of those less likely to be your opponents, rather than the tactics and strategies of those that are more likely doens't make much sense to me....
> 
> Recognise the danger they represent, and recognise that that does not equate to training.
> 
> Then again, I've often said that no martial art is really good for self defence (at it's purest form) as no martial art is designed for it. That's why the "self defence" part of my classes are removed from the "martial art" part of it. One provides form and structure for the other, but I don't mistake them for being the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMO, I think that they could probably go hand in hand.
Click to expand...


----------



## MJS

K831 said:


> div { margin: 0px; }
> 
> 1) No problem. First, let me say, I don't mean my "ground fighting" comments to be a downer on BJJ or any other style. It's contextual.
> 
> 
> 
> 2) I'm guessing you mean in general, as a detailed answer regarding curriculum would be longer than I care to type, and longer than you probably care to read.
> 
> - Techniques from bottom to top have been changed to deal with a trained attacker. No more focus on rear step through punches and hay makers. Starting at white belt (yellow techs) punches are thrown off both the lead and rear hand, often in combination etc.
> - Techniques have been simplified and overly complex or redundant/flashy techniques dropped or replaced.
> - Less techniques, and less focus on shear number of memorized techniques.
> - Much more focus on interactive sets and spontaneous drills. Concept vs. memorization
> - Multiple attacker techniques completely changed. Far more practical and realistic.
> - Knife sets, drills and techniques completely different/spontaneous
> -Club sets, drills and techniques completely different /spontaneous
> - Integrated drills/principles/ and training regarding carry, draw/presentation of concealed weapons (knife and Pistol)
> - Evolving ground curriculum focused on both available submissions/GnP/weapons uses and deployment (while mounted/mount etc) positioning and techs to work back to ones feet.
> - Greater focus on live drills and less emphasis on static "Ok, 5 swords" or "ok, defense against a right step through". Focus on spontaneous action/reaction starting right away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3) Not in my experience. Both schools I went to had no commercial advertising, no contracts or agreements. We used space in someone else gym, or a rec room at the local community college. We often trained in my instructors basement. Memberships were based on invitation, not just anyone could come and sign up. Seminars and camps are closed/invitation only. Now, having said that, yes, there are members in the AKKI with commercial schools, and their version of Kenpo may even be commercialized, I dont know and I doubt it. I have always said though, it is more about the teacher than anything. I have one of the best, progressive and open minded teachers in the AKKI. However, he is working with one of the best systems as well, and Mr. Mills is supportive of and drives innovation and change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4) Definitions would probably help this discussion. My definition of fighting is drag out knock down anything goes fighting for my life. It isnt sport or competition. Thats not to devalue the testing and learning that happens while competing, rather, to keep the context in mind.
> 
> 
> 
> I think this is one of the more exciting areas of development in the martial arts. I dont have any one ground art in mind. I think MMA competition, for example, has shown us what can happen when a fight goes to the ground. Now, this is only in one narrow and controlled context, however, it has still highlighted the need for some understanding of the dynamics of takedowns, takedown defense and movement/mechanics on the ground. Fighting however, needs a much broader brush than what I have seen in BJJ classes.
> 
> 
> Its hard to consider an art a ground fighting art when certain "fighting" aspects arent being worked regularly and/or the training mindset is competition training. I think ground fighting should be an anything goes mindset. I have not yet been in a BJJ class that incorporated and regularly worked small joint manipulation/breaks, multiple attackers, weapon defense, weapon deployment, striking from the ground, positioning for soft target striking etc. We are working in this direction in the AKKI. Some combatives curriculum are starting to incorporate this, but this isnt what you get when you go study BJJ. My BJJ experience has been focused on positioning to work for submissions. Ive never seen anyone in a BJJ class say you could have broken his fingers there you could have transitioned to standing there you could have deployed your carry knife there and cut him this way... you could have drawn your G19 from that position and fired... try it again. Or, would you have gone for that kimura if it was a bar fight and you had to deal with two guys? What would you have done differently? IMO, thats the type of thing that would happen daily in a ground fighting system.
> 
> 
> 
> 5) I carry a knife 99.7% of the time. I carry a firearm 70% of the time. I have plastic versions of each that fit in my real carry sheath/holster. I train in my real clothes. I draw my weapons while being shot on, swept, clinched and with trained grapplers pulling guard. I work for position to draw while mounted, guard, half guard etc against wrestlers and BJJ BBs. I know I need to. I work for position to strike, or get up against these same guys. If a BJJ player isnt preparing for that, he isnt preparing to fight me on the ground, as his chances of finishing me before he is repeatedly cut/stabbed/shot pummeled and/or submitted isnt very high. My straight jits isnt all that good my ground scrappiness however, is coming right along.
> 
> 
> 
> I think more and more guys from different disciplines will really start working the ground, not from a submission only, or competition only point of view, but from a survive and kill point of view. As that happens, collaborative efforts will result in well fleshed out and multi-dimensional ground fighting systems. That wont fully happen though, until people quit saying, I do BJJ and that covers my SD ground game.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 6) Hopefully the above made the ideas a bit more clear. It isnt that I dont think BJJ qualifies I just dont think it qualifies on its own. Choosing to stay on the ground and hunt for submissions while excluding the likely hood of weapons and multiple attackers, for instance, fails as a stand-alone ground fighting art. Thats not to diminish all that it has to offer though. However, Ive seen the failure clearly in my own attempts at working in outside material with my BJJ/wrestling buddies. Funny how them working for submissions suddenly becomes, Im going to try and not get stabbed this time pretty fast, which in turn forces me to acquire more skill in order to deploy my weapon while mounted, since I am now fighting a BJJ guy whose eyes have been opened from getting killed in the simulation multiple times. Regardless, his mindset and approach is no longer what it was when he was just doing BJJ.


 
1) No problem my friend.   None taken.   You and I have had some great discussions here, so I didn't take that in a negative way. 

2) Sounds very good to me.   Personally, I've always been a fan of condensing alot of the material, as IMO, alot seems redundant.  I've also been a big fan of the spontaneous reaction drills, as IMO, I feel that will help people alot more than a static drill, in which everyone knows whats going to happen next.  In the beginning, to build off of, sure, those static things are fine, but if you're not moving forward from there....

3) I train in both.  Personally, I like the more private, garage type/basement settings the best.  Reason being is that many times, you get more of a serious feeling and more serious students.  People are there to train hard, learn, and put in the blood, sweat and tears.  NO fear of a lawsuit if, God forbid, you get hit too hard.

4) Good points.  I too, havent seen many BJJ schools offering that kind of stuff.  Of course, I have taken the traditional BJJ stuff, broke it down a bit, and tried to find where I could put in the stuff you mention.  But thats up to the person doing it.  Some will take their trianing to another level, others wont, just like we're seeing here in Kenpo. 

5) Good stuff, and certainly a wise thing to do. 

6) Yes, and thank you for your comments in this thread.


----------



## Chris Parker

Hey Mike,



MJS said:


> I think I'm seeing your point here, but you dont feel that you can train for both? The street guy, while he may not have formal training, has received his training, basically from fights on the street. I'd consider your Tank Abbott and Kimbo Slice, your street fighters. IMO, the only difference between them and a trained figher, is the formal training. The 2 MMA guys in the bar, who're drinking, want to act tough, and start trouble with someone probably wont be looking to 'fight' me so to speak, but hurt me.


 
Okay, here's where it gets fun. I don't think it's possible to train in a martial art without training against skilled attacks and defence methods, as that is the way the art is trained in the first place. When it comes to the self defence side of things, what must be taken into account is that any time you take to focus on something is time you are taking from focusing on something else. That is especially important in a generalist system, rather than a specialist, as the specialist is geared around a limited approach to begin with, and can spend a lot of time going through every tiny detail and approach within those parameters. A generalist system, though, can't afford to do that, as there simply isn't enough time to really cover everything in intimate detail. So it comes down to choosing the best use for the time you have available.



MJS said:


> Points taken. But OTOH, there've been many times when, during an intro lesson, I've shown people how to punch, kick, etc., and there've been many times its been fairly obvious that they've had some prior training. No, I'd be impossible to train to defend against every single thing out there, but I dont think that its impossible to figure out if someone has no training, a little training or is highly trained. Difficult? Maybe. Impossible? IMO, no. And yes, I do agree that part of our training is, or should be, to recognize the potential threat before said threats is able to play out.


 
Recognising if someone is trained in a dojo setting is a little different than recognising if the guy shoving your chest has some training behind him, though. After all, you could tell that the person was trained when they threw a kick or punch... did you want to wait that long (let the bad guy hit you) to tell whether or not they have any training?

Again, recognising danger (which can certainly include recognising previous training, although the way we approach that is to be able to recognise prefered ranges, and have a set of tactics to employ against that, which, for the record, can be easily adapted to skilled or unskilled attacks....) is definately a big part of self defence, it comes under the "awareness" aspect. But recognising exactly what everyone has been trained in, if anything, is not necessary.



MJS said:


> IMO, I think that they could probably go hand in hand.


 
Well, yeah. That's kinda my point when I say that martial arts provide the structure, mechanics, and so forth for a self defence program. But a martial art by itself is not a self defence program, or even self defence itself. And self defence is not necessarily anything to do with martial arts. But I feel that the two do work best together (if self defence is your aim).


----------



## MJS

Chris Parker said:


> Hey Mike,
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, here's where it gets fun. I don't think it's possible to train in a martial art without training against skilled attacks and defence methods, as that is the way the art is trained in the first place. When it comes to the self defence side of things, what must be taken into account is that any time you take to focus on something is time you are taking from focusing on something else. That is especially important in a generalist system, rather than a specialist, as the specialist is geared around a limited approach to begin with, and can spend a lot of time going through every tiny detail and approach within those parameters. A generalist system, though, can't afford to do that, as there simply isn't enough time to really cover everything in intimate detail. So it comes down to choosing the best use for the time you have available.


 
Figures, I type out a reply and lose it.  Sigh...here goes again.  Yes, I agree, many times in the arts, we focus on A, and it takes away from B, C, D and so forth.  Additionally, and I think that you said it in another post, but things such as what I call the before, during and after phases of a confrontation.  We always see the during, but how many times does the average place focus on things that could've been done to avoid in the first place?  What about dealing with the aftermath?  So yes I agree with you on that.  Funny...its not often that I find myself disagree with you all the time. LOL.  





> Recognising if someone is trained in a dojo setting is a little different than recognising if the guy shoving your chest has some training behind him, though. After all, you could tell that the person was trained when they threw a kick or punch... did you want to wait that long (let the bad guy hit you) to tell whether or not they have any training?
> 
> Again, recognising danger (which can certainly include recognising previous training, although the way we approach that is to be able to recognise prefered ranges, and have a set of tactics to employ against that, which, for the record, can be easily adapted to skilled or unskilled attacks....) is definately a big part of self defence, it comes under the "awareness" aspect. But recognising exactly what everyone has been trained in, if anything, is not necessary.


 
True, and I wasnt suggesting that we start reading minds to figure out someones background. LOL.  For example...I've heard people say that you could get somewhat of an idea of someones knife skill, depending on how they're holding the blade.  Additionally, I wasn't suggesting that we wait until they make contact with us either, but that almost implies that they will contact on the first hit anyways.  But it seems that we are both agreeing that awareness is one of the, if not THE key component here.  





> Well, yeah. That's kinda my point when I say that martial arts provide the structure, mechanics, and so forth for a self defence program. But a martial art by itself is not a self defence program, or even self defence itself. And self defence is not necessarily anything to do with martial arts. But I feel that the two do work best together (if self defence is your aim).


 
Agreed.


----------



## Chris Parker

MJS said:


> Figures, I type out a reply and lose it. Sigh...here goes again. Yes, I agree, many times in the arts, we focus on A, and it takes away from B, C, D and so forth. Additionally, and I think that you said it in another post, but things such as what I call the before, during and after phases of a confrontation. We always see the during, but how many times does the average place focus on things that could've been done to avoid in the first place? What about dealing with the aftermath? So yes I agree with you on that. Funny...its not often that I find myself disagree with you all the time. LOL.


 
Yep, and it's self defence systems that deal with that Before and After phase, as well as During. Martial arts only really deal with During. Exactly what I was talking about as one of the bigger differences between them, the entire focus of study is different.



MJS said:


> True, and I wasnt suggesting that we start reading minds to figure out someones background. LOL. For example...I've heard people say that you could get somewhat of an idea of someones knife skill, depending on how they're holding the blade. Additionally, I wasn't suggesting that we wait until they make contact with us either, but that almost implies that they will contact on the first hit anyways. But it seems that we are both agreeing that awareness is one of the, if not THE key component here.


 
Oh, there's lots of old stories about just that idea... But again it is that you are looking at self defence, rather than martial arts. Both are useful to each other, but they are not the same thing. Awareness is one of the most vital self defence skills there is, in order to avoid the conflict. Martial arts are different, in that there is often the idea of not avoiding the conflict, one of the systems I study is rather definate on that idea. 



MJS said:


> Agreed.


 
Good to hear! These conversations are such fun...


----------



## MJS

Chris Parker said:


> Yep, and it's self defence systems that deal with that Before and After phase, as well as During. Martial arts only really deal with During. Exactly what I was talking about as one of the bigger differences between them, the entire focus of study is different.


 
Of course, may not be a bad idea to inject some of the SD stuff into the MA classes.  





> Oh, there's lots of old stories about just that idea... But again it is that you are looking at self defence, rather than martial arts. Both are useful to each other, but they are not the same thing. Awareness is one of the most vital self defence skills there is, in order to avoid the conflict. Martial arts are different, in that there is often the idea of not avoiding the conflict, one of the systems I study is rather definate on that idea.


 
As I said above, it may not be a bad idea to inject some of this into the classes.  But then again, the more I think about it, I have to wonder how good of an idea it is.  Is a student really going to get something out of it, if they're your average 'hobbyist' student?





> Good to hear! These conversations are such fun...


 
Yes, they are.


----------



## MJS

[yt]t5jwLkWC5Gs[/yt]

Oh my, imagine that....some Kenpo grappling/groundfighting.  IMO, this was presented better than the last 2 clips.  Of course, I love the description:

"The "Jiu Jitsu for Kenpo" series introduces Brazilian Jiu Jitsu basics for Kenpoists not familiar with ground fighting. These basics can easily be incorporated into the Kenpo system and are vital in developing a well rounded martial artist."


Gee, this is something that I've been saying for.....oh man, its been so long, I've forgotten. LOL!  Seriously though, I think this is a good start.  I mean, here we see a standard escape that we'd probably see in every BJJ school.  Personally, while I try to keep things 'Kenpo' I'm not afraid to give credit where credit is due.  If I can borrow something from another art to make myself or my students better, I'll do it, without feeling bad about it.


----------



## Chris Parker

MJS said:


> Of course, may not be a bad idea to inject some of the SD stuff into the MA classes.


 


MJS said:


> As I said above, it may not be a bad idea to inject some of this into the classes. But then again, the more I think about it, I have to wonder how good of an idea it is. Is a student really going to get something out of it, if they're your average 'hobbyist' student?


 
I've been thinking about this today, and I think the issue is that many martial art instructors themselves don't really get where the division lies. Now, obviously it depends on the art itself as to how easy it is to create an integrated martial art/self defence teaching program, but that still doesn't make them the same thing. The catch is when a teacher is teaching a class, and peppers aspects of SD in the martial art lesson thinking that is part of the art itself, which it isn't. As a result they tend to say "No, my martial art is for self defence!", when the fact is more that their lessons incorporate aspects of self defence inbetween the martial arts, or that they themselves are training with self defence in mind regardless of how well it is catered for (with many thinking that physical methods of dealing with violence equals self defence).

Really, when it comes to the relationship between the two, I think it's similar to something like studying physics. In physics you need a good knowledge of maths... but you are expected to have that grounding outside of the physics class itself. Same thing with the self defence aspect. It's not where you learn the fighting aspects, but you are expected to have a grounding already. In most martial art classes, that grounding is found in the martial art side of things. But thinking that that makes the martial art self defence training in and of itself is like thinking that learning maths is the same as studying physics. Related, but not the same.

As for what the "hobbyist" student may get out of it, well, that's up to the student. But my take on it is that I present my classes, and if it appeals to a student (for whatever they get out of it), then great. If not, then there are other classes that don't, but I'm not going to change the classes for them.



MJS said:


> Yes, they are.


 
Glad you agree!


----------



## MJS

Chris Parker said:


> I've been thinking about this today, and I think the issue is that many martial art instructors themselves don't really get where the division lies. Now, obviously it depends on the art itself as to how easy it is to create an integrated martial art/self defence teaching program, but that still doesn't make them the same thing. The catch is when a teacher is teaching a class, and peppers aspects of SD in the martial art lesson thinking that is part of the art itself, which it isn't. As a result they tend to say "No, my martial art is for self defence!", when the fact is more that their lessons incorporate aspects of self defence inbetween the martial arts, or that they themselves are training with self defence in mind regardless of how well it is catered for (with many thinking that physical methods of dealing with violence equals self defence).
> 
> Really, when it comes to the relationship between the two, I think it's similar to something like studying physics. In physics you need a good knowledge of maths... but you are expected to have that grounding outside of the physics class itself. Same thing with the self defence aspect. It's not where you learn the fighting aspects, but you are expected to have a grounding already. In most martial art classes, that grounding is found in the martial art side of things. But thinking that that makes the martial art self defence training in and of itself is like thinking that learning maths is the same as studying physics. Related, but not the same.


 
IMO, while they are different, and probably best suited for seperate teachings, I think that its possible to inject it from time to time.  Again, the awareness/verbal defusing, etc, can be a class in itself and probably should be, I think it'd be worth making a habit of talking about it.  I mean, if we think about it, the average MA class, is going to focus on a wide array of attacks.  Just looking at the yellow and orange belt material at my school, there are punches, grabs, etc.  So, that being said, a month or more could be devoted to punches alone.  But if we think about it, how much time is really devoted to punches?  Grabs?  



> As for what the "hobbyist" student may get out of it, well, that's up to the student. But my take on it is that I present my classes, and if it appeals to a student (for whatever they get out of it), then great. If not, then there are other classes that don't, but I'm not going to change the classes for them.


 
This is probably a thread in itself, but yes, I do the same thing.  I teach as I see fit.  I have 2 classes a month that I teach.  I'm pretty free to do as I wish in those classes, and I've made it a point to tell people up-front, that my classes will probably be different from the other classes.  Will that deter some from attending, because they're looking for A, when I'm doing B?  Dont know.  





> Glad you agree!


----------



## Chris Parker

MJS said:


> IMO, while they are different, and probably best suited for seperate teachings, I think that its possible to inject it from time to time. Again, the awareness/verbal defusing, etc, can be a class in itself and probably should be, I think it'd be worth making a habit of talking about it. I mean, if we think about it, the average MA class, is going to focus on a wide array of attacks. Just looking at the yellow and orange belt material at my school, there are punches, grabs, etc. So, that being said, a month or more could be devoted to punches alone. But if we think about it, how much time is really devoted to punches? Grabs?


 
 Actually, that's exactly the way we do things (seperated, concentrating on a single topic at a time). We cover traditional, weapons, and street self defence as seperate concepts. To give you an idea, our street topics in Melbourne for this coming year will be:

January - Survival Tactics
February - Verbal Defusion
March - Group Defence
April - Knife Defence
May - Street Kicking
June - Street Throws/Takedowns
July - Ground Controls and Escapes
August - Close Quarters Brawling
September - Fight Science (Taking an opponent out of their favoured range)
October - Fight Science
November - Knife Defence
December - Pre-emptive Striking

Topics not covered in the coming year include:
Power Striking
Baseball Bat/Club Defence
Pistol Defence
Partner Protection
Buddy Guarding
and more. 

Now, we may go through those as individual workshops, but time is limited, so that's the schedule I have come up with.



MJS said:


> This is probably a thread in itself, but yes, I do the same thing. I teach as I see fit. I have 2 classes a month that I teach. I'm pretty free to do as I wish in those classes, and I've made it a point to tell people up-front, that my classes will probably be different from the other classes. Will that deter some from attending, because they're looking for A, when I'm doing B? Dont know.


 
I basically see it as I have certain things I can offer, if that appeals to you, come along. If it doesn't, well, don't. I'm not about to force you, after all. But attend the classes if you get something out of it, and enjoy it, whether it's a hobby or more to you is really up to you.


----------



## MJS

Chris Parker said:


> Actually, that's exactly the way we do things (seperated, concentrating on a single topic at a time). We cover traditional, weapons, and street self defence as seperate concepts. To give you an idea, our street topics in Melbourne for this coming year will be:
> 
> January - Survival Tactics
> February - Verbal Defusion
> March - Group Defence
> April - Knife Defence
> May - Street Kicking
> June - Street Throws/Takedowns
> July - Ground Controls and Escapes
> August - Close Quarters Brawling
> September - Fight Science (Taking an opponent out of their favoured range)
> October - Fight Science
> November - Knife Defence
> December - Pre-emptive Striking
> 
> Topics not covered in the coming year include:
> Power Striking
> Baseball Bat/Club Defence
> Pistol Defence
> Partner Protection
> Buddy Guarding
> and more.
> 
> Now, we may go through those as individual workshops, but time is limited, so that's the schedule I have come up with.


 
Good stuff.  As I only teach twice a month, I try to have a general focus or direction that I want to take with the class.  In my classes, I tend to focus not necessarily on always learning a new tech, but instead, taking what they already know, and looking at it in a variety of different ways.  So I'll take 1 or 2 techs, and focus on those for a few weeks, giving diferent variations, etc., each sessions.  





> I basically see it as I have certain things I can offer, if that appeals to you, come along. If it doesn't, well, don't. I'm not about to force you, after all. But attend the classes if you get something out of it, and enjoy it, whether it's a hobby or more to you is really up to you.


 
Ditto.  As I said in the other thread, I dont teach differently, I teach the same to all that're there.  Hopefully, everyone gets something out of it.


----------



## Hand Sword

That's a cool clip but terrifying as well. Now I'm not a BJJ BB, but, it's not an alien art to me either (I've seen the wrestling ways and BJJ ways). Having seen and done escapes, I would say this is not the best one for the street. Using both hands to push is a no no. Now, having it presented as such, a guy just sitting there, works fine. But one pounding away would have way too many openings when you use both hands. Plus, it's very easy to get your arms pinned when doing that and then "goodnight sweetheart!" I feel that this is more of a grappler to grappler move (Sport version) for an escape and not a practical street one for Kem/npoists.

As for the credit going where it deserves-absoluetly MJS! Also, filling gaps in your game-right on! If you are serious about defending yourself. Better to go to the real specialist systems to deal with the attacks. Escape from the best specialists and you're all set for the street.


----------



## MJS

I'll give 'em an "A" for effort, as while there are mistakes in their grappling, at least what they're doing, IMO, is a heck of alot better than the other clips we saw.  I'd imagine, at least I'd like to hope, that they're going to a legit BJJ school to get some solid inst., but who knows.


----------



## Flying Crane

MJS said:


> [yt]t5jwLkWC5Gs[/yt]
> 
> Oh my, imagine that....some Kenpo grappling/groundfighting.  IMO, this was presented better than the last 2 clips.  Of course, I love the description:
> 
> "The "Jiu Jitsu for Kenpo" series introduces Brazilian Jiu Jitsu basics for Kenpoists not familiar with ground fighting. These basics can easily be incorporated into the Kenpo system and are vital in developing a well rounded martial artist."
> 
> 
> Gee, this is something that I've been saying for.....oh man, its been so long, I've forgotten. LOL!  Seriously though, I think this is a good start.  I mean, here we see a standard escape that we'd probably see in every BJJ school.  Personally, while I try to keep things 'Kenpo' I'm not afraid to give credit where credit is due.  If I can borrow something from another art to make myself or my students better, I'll do it, without feeling bad about it.




hmmm... he starts out by pointing out that the guy on top has all the leverage to punch and pummel the guy on the bottom.  

But when he demonstrates his shrimping escape with both hands pushing on the hips and not guarding his head, why isn't the guy on top punching and pummeling him?


----------



## LuckyKBoxer

Flying Crane said:


> hmmm... he starts out by pointing out that the guy on top has all the leverage to punch and pummel the guy on the bottom.
> 
> But when he demonstrates his shrimping escape with both hands pushing on the hips and not guarding his head, why isn't the guy on top punching and pummeling him?


 
well my comment is he is showing one part of the drill, and didnt explain why the guy is not punching him. the key in most of what we do is timing, posture, and position.
this shrimping or hip escape movement is very good, but in a street situation you definitely want to break the guy on tops posture first, you can do this by driving your knee into his back so he falls foarward and posts his hands on the ground above your head, this gives yout he time to do the first leg in this hip escape, and then decide whether you are being given the proper catalyst to either continue on, defend punches, or rebreak his posture and continue.
like anything else we teach this is one piece.
a piece i absolutely agree with.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer

MJS said:


> I'll give 'em an "A" for effort, as while there are mistakes in their grappling, at least what they're doing, IMO, is a heck of alot better than the other clips we saw. I'd imagine, at least I'd like to hope, that they're going to a legit BJJ school to get some solid inst., but who knows.


 
I am not sure who you are talking about, but I know that the guy talking in the clip from casa de kenpo is Cliff Seminario, he has experience in Danzan ryu Jiu jitsu, and I know that he trained with Eddie Bravo as well. I do not know who or where he trains with now if he is training, but I was under the impression talking to him online on other sites that he has a fairly extensive jiu jitsu background.. I do not believe he is a black belt, but I could be wrong there as well.


----------



## Kempojujutsu

The knee push verision shown in the video clip is good for submission grappling when you don't have to worry about getting punched. You will have to tweak it a little if that is the method you choice to use. If I use my left hand to push on their right knee, my right hand comes up as if I am talking on a phone to protect my head from being punched or elbowed. 

I personally don't like the schrimp technique as well. My favorite is what we call the no hands escape. It's what Eddie Bravo does with a leg hook and goes into either Alcatraz or Guantanamo escape. I also prefer the bridge and roll, because it gets me off my back put bad guy on his back. I then can strike and pass/ escape his guard.


----------



## MJS

LuckyKBoxer said:


> I am not sure who you are talking about, but I know that the guy talking in the clip from casa de kenpo is Cliff Seminario, he has experience in Danzan ryu Jiu jitsu, and I know that he trained with Eddie Bravo as well. I do not know who or where he trains with now if he is training, but I was under the impression talking to him online on other sites that he has a fairly extensive jiu jitsu background.. I do not believe he is a black belt, but I could be wrong there as well.


 
Yes, I was talking about the last set of clips I posted, from casa de Kenpo.  As I said, I know of their Kenpo background, but anything else, I have no idea.  Of course, after reading your post, I now know that he has a grappling background.

Thanks for that info.


----------



## MJS

As for the YT clip...well, like I always say about YT...its showing one shot of the big picture, in this case, a mount escape.  Should he have went a step further and actually had the top guy throw some punches?  Probably, but he didn't, so, we take it for what it is, I suppose.   Like I said, if I were to rank all of the clips, I'd place the CDK clips in the #1 spot, and IMHO, their showing of the ground, was much better presented than in the other clips.  Again, thats just my opinion.  

As for using both hands, 1 hand, etc....yes, if you're just rolling for submissions, no shots being thrown, then its not that big of a deal, but if you're training MMA, or training for a street attack, then yes, after you get the basic fundamentals down, IMO, it'd be wise to start adding in the resistance, punches, etc.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Larry is ABSOLUTELY RIGHT to apply the techniques you learn standing on the ground,just modified for that environment.However,once again the lack of realistic training dramatically hampers him and anyone who trained that way in pretty much every regard.It's immediately apparent to all that the attacks and defenses are not done realistically and therefore whatever defense and coutnerattacks we develope from that model will be similarly hampered and impaired.

"Uke" on top should be striking with the intent to hit and/or grab.Doesn't have to be done full force right off top,I have my students use minimal force at first,but THEY HAVE TO TRY TO MAKE CONTACT AND KEEP THEIR POSITION ATOP THEIR TRAINING PARTNER.They are ordered to keep striking until their training partner escapes or the round (40 seconds for beginners,which is an ETERNITY when you first start out) ends.We then reverse; the student on bottom is now on top.Immediately the intense conditioning requirements for grappling sets in,and the student is glad for the step-by-step process I took them through previously because it alleviates much of the physical drain.My students learn from day one the incredible importance of training realistically,so they never have to deal with the extremely rude realities that await people who do what Larry just did.

I tell my students to unbalance their mounted opponents by kneeing them and by using modifications of the standing stances on the ground.The visual result is similar to shootwrestling judo and catchwrestling.I mean,think of the wide bent knee stance applied to the ground.It looks like the judo or bjj Bridge and Roll.When your opponent posts down with a hand to keep their position atop you? Well hell we Kenpo folks know how to check down on your arm or wrist to break your post.We know how to smack ya with a blizzard of in close strikes too while attempting our escapes.We know how to go from Wide Bent Knee to Left or Right Forward Bow,and if you've been taught to not only step 'to' but step "THROUGH" your opponent (as I teach my students to do),so we can effect a Bridge and Roll to any direction without any problem while applying our Kenpo strikes pushes,pulls,parries,or what have you.

This does NOT,however,obviate the need to study judo,bjj,wrestling,sambo,catchwrestling,etc. because we can learn a great deal about these arts and 'absorb what is useful' from it while applying our own unique brand of Kenpo to it.I've used Sword of Destruction from the Butterfly Guard (just the Horse Stance from off your back) great affect.It's truly a unique treat to introduce your sparring partner or even better some unsuspecting bad guy to the joys of the 5 Swords or Raining Claw or Striking Serpent Head from the kesagatame.Chin na/hapkido/aikido/Shackle Hand (African martial art)/Ungala (African martial art)/kali wristlocks combined with the blizzard of Kenpo strikes are sure to bring more joy to your sparring partners and amplify your self-defense skills.

Okay basically you get the idea now.Train realistically.Experiment with our stances and movement from the standing and ground grappling ranges.Focus on sport specific drills designed to rapidly facilitate proficiency in those areas and make up other drills for the same purpose. Be aware of what the proponents of grappling or firearms or stick and knife fighting or fencing or WHATEVER have found to be effective by studying them and their methods,incorporate it into Kenpo in the way that you see fit.There ya go.


----------



## ATACX GYM

MJS said:


> Well said IMO!!  Now, what I'm about to say next is just my opinion and observation: Seems to me that Kajukenbo, has done the complete opposite, of what you described about Kenpo. Seems like they trained for both the untrained and trained person, in addition to being more well rounded standing and on the ground.
> 
> So now, you have people doing today, what Kaju people have been doing all along. Personally, I love seeking out and training with new people, learning new things. I remember the first time one of my training partners introduced me to grappling. I loved it! I dont focus on it as much as I should, mainly due to time, but I still enjoy rolling. My goals with BJJ are pretty much the same as with my Kenpo. While I do enjoy learning new techs., my focus, at least right now, is to, as I've said, work the basics. I'd rather have a handful of things that I know I can do well, instead of 50 things that I suck at. LOL. One of my New Years goals, is to a few BJJ classes and at least a private a month.


 

The answer to the "time crunch" and the horrible lack of real world clinch work,throws,sweeps,takedowns,standing wrist and joint locks,extensive weapons technical training, ground grappling and ground fighting that severely hamstrings kenpo is all found in the same place: knowledgeable instructors who recognize that kenpo has as part of its lineage the entirety of grappling arts in jujutsu,judo and aikido as kenpojujutsu,and as the Chinese arts found their way into American Kenpo,we should make use of systems like Chin na sanda shuia chao (sp) etc. and apply them to our Kenpo base using sports specific drills.In a one hour class taught twice per week? I'd provide 15 minutes of instruction of standing strikes from Kenpo taught realistically designed to end the fight there, 15 minutes of clinch work, 15 minutes of ground work broken down into 7-1/2 minutes from the mount and 7-1/2 minutes being mounted,then 15 minutes of sparring designed to link all of these techniques together. Each segment would be broken into sport specific drilling for beginners of 1-1/2 minutes work followed by 1'1/2 minutes of rest when needed.I emphasize basic basic partner training here so they quickly acquire skill. A drill that I have used under this situation is the Backfist Reverse Punch And Block Drill.It teaches how to throw the backfist and reverse punch and how to use the upper block and downward parry plus body movement to defeat the technique very very quickly.And it's fun.I have the newbs use very light force,and target the top of the head with the back knuckle (protects the face as most of these newbs don't have protective head gear) and the stomach with the reverse punch.The defender must thwart the back knuckle with the upper block and the reverse punch with the push down palm parry/block.And then they switch roles,the defender becomes the attacker. From the very first moment,I tell each of them to try to make contact with their partner,as you're NOT helping your partner if you're not actually trying to hit them...but I insist on minimal power.I reenforce that it's a drill.I keep this drill going for 1-1/2 minutes followed by up to a 1-1/2 minute break.Very soon they've got the idea and they like it.

The process of trying to land the real world back knuckle and reverse punch leads them naturally and organically to close quarters.Oftentimes they get tangled up in each other's blocks and punches (laughing while doing so) and that lets me teach them a Clinch technique.If they're White belts,I teach them how to step through and push off their opponent and how to trip them,while immediately following up with that backfist reverse punch.





 
I then show what to do if they're pushed down or tripped and their opponent secures mount or up-down (the attacker is standing while you're grounded). I teach them to scramble to their feet if there's sufficient space (pushed away and you fell) or Bridge and Roll drills if you're tripped and your opponent mounts you.There you apply your blocks and body movement from standing while you're on the ground and fends off grabs combined with your Bridge and Roll,backfist reverse punch flurry,and back to your feet.

A good hour of work and sweat and everybody gets real world skill quickly,safely,enjoyably,they appreciate it,and they want more.Taaa-daaa!!


----------



## MJS

ATACX GYM said:


> Larry is ABSOLUTELY RIGHT to apply the techniques you learn standing on the ground,just modified for that environment.However,once again the lack of realistic training dramatically hampers him and anyone who trained that way in pretty much every regard.It's immediately apparent to all that the attacks and defenses are not done realistically and therefore whatever defense and coutnerattacks we develope from that model will be similarly hampered and impaired.
> 
> "Uke" on top should be striking with the intent to hit and/or grab.Doesn't have to be done full force right off top,I have my students use minimal force at first,but THEY HAVE TO TRY TO MAKE CONTACT AND KEEP THEIR POSITION ATOP THEIR TRAINING PARTNER.They are ordered to keep striking until their training partner escapes or the round (40 seconds for beginners,which is an ETERNITY when you first start out) ends.We then reverse; the student on bottom is now on top.Immediately the intense conditioning requirements for grappling sets in,and the student is glad for the step-by-step process I took them through previously because it alleviates much of the physical drain.My students learn from day one the incredible importance of training realistically,so they never have to deal with the extremely rude realities that await people who do what Larry just did.
> 
> I tell my students to unbalance their mounted opponents by kneeing them and by using modifications of the standing stances on the ground.The visual result is similar to shootwrestling judo and catchwrestling.I mean,think of the wide bent knee stance applied to the ground.It looks like the judo or bjj Bridge and Roll.When your opponent posts down with a hand to keep their position atop you? Well hell we Kenpo folks know how to check down on your arm or wrist to break your post.We know how to smack ya with a blizzard of in close strikes too while attempting our escapes.We know how to go from Wide Bent Knee to Left or Right Forward Bow,and if you've been taught to not only step 'to' but step "THROUGH" your opponent (as I teach my students to do),so we can effect a Bridge and Roll to any direction without any problem while applying our Kenpo strikes pushes,pulls,parries,or what have you.
> 
> This does NOT,however,obviate the need to study judo,bjj,wrestling,sambo,catchwrestling,etc. because we can learn a great deal about these arts and 'absorb what is useful' from it while applying our own unique brand of Kenpo to it.I've used Sword of Destruction from the Butterfly Guard (just the Horse Stance from off your back) great affect.It's truly a unique treat to introduce your sparring partner or even better some unsuspecting bad guy to the joys of the 5 Swords or Raining Claw or Striking Serpent Head from the kesagatame.Chin na/hapkido/aikido/Shackle Hand (African martial art)/Ungala (African martial art)/kali wristlocks combined with the blizzard of Kenpo strikes are sure to bring more joy to your sparring partners and amplify your self-defense skills.
> 
> Okay basically you get the idea now.Train realistically.Experiment with our stances and movement from the standing and ground grappling ranges.Focus on sport specific drills designed to rapidly facilitate proficiency in those areas and make up other drills for the same purpose. Be aware of what the proponents of grappling or firearms or stick and knife fighting or fencing or WHATEVER have found to be effective by studying them and their methods,incorporate it into Kenpo in the way that you see fit.There ya go.


 
Good points.  I agree with you on the aspect of training in a realistic fashion.  I think that many times, this is the problem with clips, especially with whats been posted for discussion....we see things done with no resistance, which of course is fine, while the person on the clip is trying to make their points.  But, after that, it'd be nice to see the same thing done with some resistance/aliveness, etc.  

I dont see any issue with fitting in some Kenpo stuff on the ground, but likewise, I do feel that its important to understand how the grappler works, and IMO, thats only going to happen by working with a grappler.



ATACX GYM said:


> The answer to the "time crunch" and the horrible lack of real world clinch work,throws,sweeps,takedowns,standing wrist and joint locks,extensive weapons technical training, ground grappling and ground fighting that severely hamstrings kenpo is all found in the same place: knowledgeable instructors who recognize that kenpo has as part of its lineage the entirety of grappling arts in jujutsu,judo and aikido as kenpojujutsu,and as the Chinese arts found their way into American Kenpo,we should make use of systems like Chin na sanda shuia chao (sp) etc. and apply them to our Kenpo base using sports specific drills.In a one hour class taught twice per week? I'd provide 15 minutes of instruction of standing strikes from Kenpo taught realistically designed to end the fight there, 15 minutes of clinch work, 15 minutes of ground work broken down into 7-1/2 minutes from the mount and 7-1/2 minutes being mounted,then 15 minutes of sparring designed to link all of these techniques together. Each segment would be broken into sport specific drilling for beginners of 1-1/2 minutes work followed by 1'1/2 minutes of rest when needed.I emphasize basic basic partner training here so they quickly acquire skill. A drill that I have used under this situation is the Backfist Reverse Punch And Block Drill.It teaches how to throw the backfist and reverse punch and how to use the upper block and downward parry plus body movement to defeat the technique very very quickly.And it's fun.I have the newbs use very light force,and target the top of the head with the back knuckle (protects the face as most of these newbs don't have protective head gear) and the stomach with the reverse punch.The defender must thwart the back knuckle with the upper block and the reverse punch with the push down palm parry/block.And then they switch roles,the defender becomes the attacker. From the very first moment,I tell each of them to try to make contact with their partner,as you're NOT helping your partner if you're not actually trying to hit them...but I insist on minimal power.I reenforce that it's a drill.I keep this drill going for 1-1/2 minutes followed by up to a 1-1/2 minute break.Very soon they've got the idea and they like it.
> 
> The process of trying to land the real world back knuckle and reverse punch leads them naturally and organically to close quarters.Oftentimes they get tangled up in each other's blocks and punches (laughing while doing so) and that lets me teach them a Clinch technique.If they're White belts,I teach them how to step through and push off their opponent and how to trip them,while immediately following up with that backfist reverse punch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I then show what to do if they're pushed down or tripped and their opponent secures mount or up-down (the attacker is standing while you're grounded). I teach them to scramble to their feet if there's sufficient space (pushed away and you fell) or Bridge and Roll drills if you're tripped and your opponent mounts you.There you apply your blocks and body movement from standing while you're on the ground and fends off grabs combined with your Bridge and Roll,backfist reverse punch flurry,and back to your feet.
> 
> A good hour of work and sweat and everybody gets real world skill quickly,safely,enjoyably,they appreciate it,and they want more.Taaa-daaa!!


 
My 'time crunch' is mainly due to my job.  I works nights with rotating days off.  This effects all of my training, not just BJJ.  But I make do.  I still get my training in.  I'm fortunate to have teachers who accomodate my crazy shifts. 

Anyways...I've heard some people say that there isn't as just jujitsu in Kenpo as there used to be, and I hear others say the opposite, that its still all there.  Guess it depends on who you're training with. 

BTW, nice clip.  When I have a bit more time, I'll check out all of your other clips.


----------



## ATACX GYM

MJS said:


> Good points. I agree with you on the aspect of training in a realistic fashion. I think that many times, this is the problem with clips, especially with whats been posted for discussion....we see things done with no resistance, which of course is fine, while the person on the clip is trying to make their points. But, after that, it'd be nice to see the same thing done with some resistance/aliveness, etc.
> 
> I dont see any issue with fitting in some Kenpo stuff on the ground, but likewise, I do feel that its important to understand how the grappler works, and IMO, thats only going to happen by working with a grappler.
> 
> 
> 
> My 'time crunch' is mainly due to my job. I works nights with rotating days off. This effects all of my training, not just BJJ. But I make do. I still get my training in. I'm fortunate to have teachers who accomodate my crazy shifts.
> 
> Anyways...I've heard some people say that there isn't as just jujitsu in Kenpo as there used to be, and I hear others say the opposite, that its still all there. Guess it depends on who you're training with.
> 
> BTW, nice clip. When I have a bit more time, I'll check out all of your other clips.


 

The primary traditional way to know what a competent experienced grappler will do is to grapple with a competent grappler.The most universal and consistent training paradigms for grappling are completely aligned with grappling sports/martial arts like wrestling,judo,bjj,sambo,etc. Grappling also includes MT wing chun kenpo and practically every martial art on earth,but the most developed and well known training methodologies go hand in hand with the sport that's big and uses these methods the most.In the USA,that's wrestling followed by judo and bjj.Why is that important? Because we can easily find ourselves embracing the methods for a specific sport or sports and conflating these SPORTS with "grappling" and "groundfighting" as a whole...especially since these sports are quite effective at grappling and have a giant arsenal in that range of combat that is of the first importance to any martial artist and which dramatically amplifies the lethality of our Kenpo.

We need to learn how to grapple.We need to study and train with an array of performance oriented grapplers,their coaches who design training sessions,workouts,diets,game planning,etc. for their grappling athletes.We NEED that in the worst way.But we need to do this in order to absorb the ESSENCE OF GRAPPLING for the purpose of amplifying our Kenpo skills.In other words,we absorb what is useful and use that knowledge in order to defeat opponents with only or primarily that skill set.
We need to take that same mindset to firearms,knife and stick play,multifights,escapes,jointlocks,forms,drills,etc.We need to be constantly studying the developing methods of sports and combat performance and apply that info to the huge huuuge arsenal that Kenpo offers us.

I will display these concepts via video too.If you've seen my latter videos,you will see that I give a step by step demo of the technique then follow that immediately with unscripted sparring wherein the specific skill set is tested against whatever attack and resistance that my opponent cares to offer (this is called Isolated Sparring).


----------



## MJS

ATACX GYM said:


> The primary traditional way to know what a competent experienced grappler will do is to grapple with a competent grappler.The most universal and consistent training paradigms for grappling are completely aligned with grappling sports/martial arts like wrestling,judo,bjj,sambo,etc. Grappling also includes MT wing chun kenpo and practically every martial art on earth,but the most developed and well known training methodologies go hand in hand with the sport that's big and uses these methods the most.In the USA,that's wrestling followed by judo and bjj.Why is that important? Because we can easily find ourselves embracing the methods for a specific sport or sports and conflating these SPORTS with "grappling" and "groundfighting" as a whole...especially since these sports are quite effective at grappling and have a giant arsenal in that range of combat that is of the first importance to any martial artist and which dramatically amplifies the lethality of our Kenpo.
> 
> We need to learn how to grapple.We need to study and train with an array of performance oriented grapplers,their coaches who design training sessions,workouts,diets,game planning,etc. for their grappling athletes.We NEED that in the worst way.But we need to do this in order to absorb the ESSENCE OF GRAPPLING for the purpose of amplifying our Kenpo skills.In other words,we absorb what is useful and use that knowledge in order to defeat opponents with only or primarily that skill set.
> We need to take that same mindset to firearms,knife and stick play,multifights,escapes,jointlocks,forms,drills,etc.We need to be constantly studying the developing methods of sports and combat performance and apply that info to the huge huuuge arsenal that Kenpo offers us.
> 
> I will display these concepts via video too.If you've seen my latter videos,you will see that I give a step by step demo of the technique then follow that immediately with unscripted sparring wherein the specific skill set is tested against whatever attack and resistance that my opponent cares to offer (this is called Isolated Sparring).


 
I think that sometimes, many people will view thigns like MMA, BJJ, as sports, and feel that those methods will not work for something like Kenpo.  I disagree due to the fact that nothing says that those methods can't be adapted to what you're doing.  99% of the time people hear BJJ, grappling, wrestling, and the first thing that comes to mind is the ground.  Well, of course you're going to be on the ground, but that doesnt mean that you have to make it look like a 30min grappling match on concrete.

People will disagree, but IMO, I feel that you need to work with people who specialize in a particular area, if you want to get good.  I wouldn't talk to a truck driver for advice on flying a plane.

And yes, regarding the last part of your post...when I train something, I start off slow, everything compliant, and gradually work up to the full resistance.  IMO, thats the best way to go.


----------



## ATACX GYM

MJS said:


> I think that sometimes, many people will view thigns like MMA, BJJ, as sports, and feel that those methods will not work for something like Kenpo. I disagree due to the fact that nothing says that those methods can't be adapted to what you're doing. 99% of the time people hear BJJ, grappling, wrestling, and the first thing that comes to mind is the ground. Well, of course you're going to be on the ground, but that doesnt mean that you have to make it look like a 30min grappling match on concrete.
> 
> People will disagree, but IMO, I feel that you need to work with people who specialize in a particular area, if you want to get good. I wouldn't talk to a truck driver for advice on flying a plane.
> 
> And yes, regarding the last part of your post...when I train something, I start off slow, everything compliant, and gradually work up to the full resistance. IMO, thats the best way to go.


 
The issue of focusing on a specialization in grappling is both common sense and can be fraught with that special passionate disagreement that alpha personality types tend to bring to issues of import to them,so I tend to be both forthright about my opinions and respectful of the perspectives of others but without the taste for "static" purely for the sake of "static" or disagreement.It makes perfect sense to NOT talk to a truck driver for advice on flying a plane,and it makes imho at least perfect sense to remind most of us that the sport paradigm of bjj is largely applicable to self-defense in unarmed one on one situations and Gracie Jiujitsu specifically is much more applicable to self-defense as a whole than the tourney oriented bjj is or may ever be.

But this discussion tends to then enter the realm of which grappling art is the most "complete",and this is where opinions tend to sharply diverge and that special ardor of alpha personality types tend to shine flare and clash the most.I wouldn't talk to a truck driver about flying planes,I'd talk to a pilot of the relevant plane type.But if the issue was operation of a mechanical conveyance of mass transportation,I'd get somebody certified at the highest levels I could who could operate trains,trucks,plains,submarines,space shuttles,etc. all the way down to skate boards and pogo sticks.Lol.In that vein,and if the wealth of grappling instruction options were open? I'd recommend a good catchwrestling or judo-sambo school as the base for grappling instruction.If you had to go to a "one-stop" school that offered all options? I'd recommend a school like mine or Burton Richardson's JKDU or Matt Thornton's Straightblast Gym.Since I lean toward the tremendous importance of the character building that is specific to TMA as an utterly essential component to functional self-defense,I prefer Gyms like mine which nail everything including forms and traditional weapons to a vibrant self-defense system,high performance athleticism (if you weren't an athlete when you came in,you WILL BE by the time you reach White Belt,lol),diet,regular competition in practically every form of competition style there is,but first and foremost street preparation and personal development.

Due to the varying options available to the general public,when it comes to grappling only disciplines? I tend to recommend old skool international style Judo over any others as they have athleticism,wider availability to the public,the entire arsenal of wrestling,many techniques from Russian Sambo,and Judo merged into an essential mix.The gi option better prepares you to use your opponent's clothing--even his ARMOR,as I actually had that experience once--against him in ways that he wouldn't be prepped for if he wasn't familiar with Judo.Judo's newaza isn't generally as intricate as bjj's newaza (I'm excluding Kozen Judo from this discussion for the sake of brevity) but Judo tends to produce the more capable,more athletic overall grappler imho.It's not accidental that most of the bjj luminaries have black belts in Judo but the converse is NOT true,and it's emphatically my opinion that most Olympian Judoka will mop the floor with most of the top flight bjj practitioners.Thus my recommendation.

Yes,I know that Chin Na is ill,and so is shuia chiao,so is Shackle Hands and Ungala and various amazing Hindu disciplines,etc.But the availability of it in the U.S.A.,its reputation,etc. is nothing like that of Judo.


----------



## celtic_crippler

I don't think there's anything I could add to the thread that hasn't already been addressed, especially by MJS and stevebjj. Many good points... 

I will say too many instructor's egos about their root style prevent them from growing and actually endanger their students. Put the ego aside, and if you're a "kenpo guy" and want to really learn how to deal with a guy on the ground; including how to escape and recover, then go find a BJJ or Grecko guy and train with them. Don't just "make stuff up."


----------



## K831

ATACX GYM said:


> The primary traditional way to know what a competent experienced grappler will do is to grapple with a competent grappler.



Without a doubt. The problem I have faced, is that while going to Judo and BJJ schools, I found out what they would do, in their realm, in a static setting, no more, no less. 

What I wanted to know was 1.) What do they do, how do they function 2.) what will they do, how will they function against my Kenpo/Kali etc 3.) What do I need to address in my training... which is based on how they handle what I present. 

The problem lies in the fact that when I attempt this experiment in traditional grappling schools or with guys who are grappling oriented all I hear is "Hey you can't do that.."

And thus it is only marginally beneficial. 

They typically aren't interested in trying the BJJ in a context that isn't, well, BJJ or MMA with its attendant rules. They are just like the Kenpo guys who don't want to grapple because they think they have it all already and to be proven contrary hurts their ego. Grapplers don't want to come to the realization that yes, the rules of competition greatly enhance your arts functionality, and yes, I just might get to my knife while you are working to pass my guard etc etc...


  Just like with anything, it has to be pressure tested to some degree.  Static competition is part of that, but a persons BJJ is only so pressure tested until they open up their experimenting and try it against multiple attackers, armed attackers and mean nasty biting clawing eye gouging ones. I dont see that happening in grappling schools, and with the few who have tried it with me, well, their paradigm was permanently altered. 

I have enjoyed your posts so far, and watched several of your videos, thanks for posting! 


MJS, we typically see pretty eye to eye on this stuff, so this is likely just semantics, nuance, details etc....but;



MJS said:


> I think that sometimes, many people will view thigns  like MMA, BJJ, as sports, and feel that those methods will not work for  something like Kenpo.



But they are sports, aren't they? MMA as we use the term these days is practically synonymous with the UFC, Octagon etc.... Sure, the root is "mixed martial arts" which could mean anything, but colloquially it means "I study boxing, MT Kickboxing, BJJ or wrestling" and they do so in the context of the sporting rules. 

When I read your quote and see the word "methods" I think of the methods BJJ and MMA use in training and preparing for a sporting event - which are in many ways incompatible or counter to SD training. Competition places arbitrary constraints that SD situations do not have. For this reasons, underlying philosophy and subsequent methods are in fact very important. 



MJS said:


> I disagree due to the fact that nothing says that  those methods can't be adapted to what you're doing.



Now, I'm splitting hairs here and this is just nuance, however it is worth fleshing out IMHO. Do you disagree? And if so, why do you feel the need to add the qualifier "those methods can be adapted". 

My thoughts are that you actually agree, otherwise you wouldn't feel the need for adapting. 

I agree with the essence of what you are saying, and we have talked about this enough that I know you evaluate your training add and adapt as needed... but how many really do that? The sad fact is most do not, and most honestly think, I go to bjj class one night a week, I have grappling SD covered. They really don't, if they don't work hard to adjust the METHODS and the PHILOSOPHY to one that fits real life SD. 



MJS said:


> 99% of the time  people hear BJJ, grappling, wrestling, and the first thing that comes to  mind is the ground.  Well, of course you're going to be on the ground,  but that doesnt mean that you have to make it look like a 30min  grappling match on concrete.



It doesn't mean that because you are conditioned from prior training and experience to know it should not mean that. In general, BJJ guys and MMA guys think it does mean that. I'm sure you have heard from your grappling buddies, just like I have "Kenpo/Kali/Boxing/TKD.... oh, I'll just get him on the ground and submit him."  Oh, really? 



MJS said:


> People will disagree, but IMO, I feel that you need to work with people  who specialize in a particular area, if you want to get good.  I  wouldn't talk to a truck driver for advice on flying a plane.



Nuance again but consider this;

If your concern is SD, then why would you ask someone who specializes in Greco wrestling or BJJ to help you with ground self defense? It isn't what they are specializing in. 

Using your analogy; a truck driver is trained. A truck Driver is licensed. A truck driver operates a large, complex and potentially dangerous vehicle. 

So far all of this fits a pilot right? The difference is that a truck is not a plane, and the road is not the sky. (I know duh..)

Apply the same logic to a BJJ guy. 

A BJJ guy is trained, he grapples... on the ground. But a BJJ match, a wrestling match... is not a life and death street fight. So, why do we ask them to help us prepare for a life and death (ground) street fight? WE SHOULDN'T unless we do so with our eyes wide open to all the problems, to all the context, to all the techniques and ideas they teach that we will need to drop or change or... adapt. 

Now, I know you do this.. but I know the vast majority do not. Which is why I come on the forums yelling no no no just taking a BJJ class doesn't fix your ground game as it relates to self defense and combatives. 

The DTE (Direct Torres Escrima) head instructor I am currently training under has 20+ years of Kali/Escrima/EPAK/amateur boxing/Lima Lama Kung fu/Judo and competitive western wrestling.  He has an associate instructor come in on Thursdays who is a BJJ black belt, but he over sees the class and constantly makes changes. I can tell you, his take on BJJ and the other grappling arts is fascinatingly different from other practitioners of those same arts. It has been awesome seeing his adaptation of those arts to a combative application. 

It has very much cemented my views on the changes that are absolutely mandatory when trying to apply BJJ etc to real life SD. 

Redundant philosophical soap box rant concluded. Thank you all for your patience.


----------



## Steve

I have a hard time believing that you can't find anyone at the BJJ or Judo schools who isn't up for some friendly crosstraining.  Why not try hooking up with some of the guys over at Bullshido.com for a throwdown?  I haven't been to one, but my impression is that they're douchebag and ego free places to try stuff out against guys who train in different styles. 

Point is, if you're not finding what you're looking for, I'd recommend not giving up.  There are tons of guys I know who are game for anything.  You can try some stuff out, they can try some stuff out.  Win/Win. 

As I said earlier, you don't have to TRAIN BJJ to get together and work out with guys who do.  If you don't want to train in BJJ, that's great.  Your choice.  But if you want to see how things work against a jitsuka, you need to try them out with a competent jitsuka.  Otherwise, it's delusion, and if you're training for SD, it might be a dangerous delusion.


----------



## ATACX GYM

K831 said:


> Without a doubt. The problem I have faced, is that while going to Judo and BJJ schools, I found out what they would do, in their realm, in a static setting, no more, no less.
> 
> What I wanted to know was 1.) What do they do, how do they function 2.) what will they do, how will they function against my Kenpo/Kali etc 3.) What do I need to address in my training... which is based on how they handle what I present.
> 
> The problem lies in the fact that when I attempt this experiment in traditional grappling schools or with guys who are grappling oriented all I hear is "Hey you can't do that.."
> 
> And thus it is only marginally beneficial.
> 
> They typically aren't interested in trying the BJJ in a context that isn't, well, BJJ or MMA with its attendant rules. They are just like the Kenpo guys who don't want to grapple because they think they have it all already and to be proven contrary hurts their ego. Grapplers don't want to come to the realization that yes, the rules of competition greatly enhance your arts functionality, and yes, I just might get to my knife while you are working to pass my guard etc etc...
> 
> 
> Just like with anything, it has to be pressure tested to some degree. Static competition is part of that, but a persons BJJ is only so pressure tested until they open up their experimenting and try it against multiple attackers, armed attackers and mean nasty biting clawing eye gouging ones. I dont see that happening in grappling schools, and with the few who have tried it with me, well, their paradigm was permanently altered.
> 
> I have enjoyed your posts so far, and watched several of your videos, thanks for posting!
> 
> 
> MJS, we typically see pretty eye to eye on this stuff, so this is likely just semantics, nuance, details etc....but;
> 
> 
> 
> But they are sports, aren't they? MMA as we use the term these days is practically synonymous with the UFC, Octagon etc.... Sure, the root is "mixed martial arts" which could mean anything, but colloquially it means "I study boxing, MT Kickboxing, BJJ or wrestling" and they do so in the context of the sporting rules.
> 
> When I read your quote and see the word "methods" I think of the methods BJJ and MMA use in training and preparing for a sporting event - which are in many ways incompatible or counter to SD training. Competition places arbitrary constraints that SD situations do not have. For this reasons, underlying philosophy and subsequent methods are in fact very important.
> 
> 
> 
> Now, I'm splitting hairs here and this is just nuance, however it is worth fleshing out IMHO. Do you disagree? And if so, why do you feel the need to add the qualifier "those methods can be adapted".
> 
> My thoughts are that you actually agree, otherwise you wouldn't feel the need for adapting.
> 
> I agree with the essence of what you are saying, and we have talked about this enough that I know you evaluate your training add and adapt as needed... but how many really do that? The sad fact is most do not, and most honestly think, I go to bjj class one night a week, I have grappling SD covered. They really don't, if they don't work hard to adjust the METHODS and the PHILOSOPHY to one that fits real life SD.
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't mean that because you are conditioned from prior training and experience to know it should not mean that. In general, BJJ guys and MMA guys think it does mean that. I'm sure you have heard from your grappling buddies, just like I have "Kenpo/Kali/Boxing/TKD.... oh, I'll just get him on the ground and submit him." Oh, really?
> 
> 
> 
> Nuance again but consider this;
> 
> If your concern is SD, then why would you ask someone who specializes in Greco wrestling or BJJ to help you with ground self defense? It isn't what they are specializing in.
> 
> Using your analogy; a truck driver is trained. A truck Driver is licensed. A truck driver operates a large, complex and potentially dangerous vehicle.
> 
> So far all of this fits a pilot right? The difference is that a truck is not a plane, and the road is not the sky. (I know duh..)
> 
> Apply the same logic to a BJJ guy.
> 
> A BJJ guy is trained, he grapples... on the ground. But a BJJ match, a wrestling match... is not a life and death street fight. So, why do we ask them to help us prepare for a life and death (ground) street fight? WE SHOULDN'T unless we do so with our eyes wide open to all the problems, to all the context, to all the techniques and ideas they teach that we will need to drop or change or... adapt.
> 
> Now, I know you do this.. but I know the vast majority do not. Which is why I come on the forums yelling no no no just taking a BJJ class doesn't fix your ground game as it relates to self defense and combatives.
> 
> The DTE (Direct Torres Escrima) head instructor I am currently training under has 20+ years of Kali/Escrima/EPAK/amateur boxing/Lima Lama Kung fu/Judo and competitive western wrestling. He has an associate instructor come in on Thursdays who is a BJJ black belt, but he over sees the class and constantly makes changes. I can tell you, his take on BJJ and the other grappling arts is fascinatingly different from other practitioners of those same arts. It has been awesome seeing his adaptation of those arts to a combative application.
> 
> It has very much cemented my views on the changes that are absolutely mandatory when trying to apply BJJ etc to real life SD.
> 
> Redundant philosophical soap box rant concluded. Thank you all for your patience.


 

^^^I love this guy! I even love the quotes in his sig!

The fact is that you're RIGHT.The rules of bjj,judo,catch,amatuer wrestling,etc. preclude many of the worst case scenarios that crop up in SD from occurring.Sneak attacks,multifights,"dirty techniques",weapons,predatory attacks,combinations of the above,attempts to run you over with a car,home invasions while you're sleeping,etc.I have seen and read many a fascinating argument postulated by Matt Thornton and Instructors of SBG that address this matter and in many ways I agree with them.In a nutshell,they argue that the sport combat systems foster great skill and facility not only in their specific sport but in the DELIVERY SYSTEMS for those kinds of attacks.Basically,if you're a kickboxer? You have the foundation to adapt say TKD and boxing to your arsenal alot more functionally and faster than say a tai chi guy's method of training and background would allow him to. SBG guys also work stick and knife very realistically,so they have the foundation to apply their weaponry to their skilled submission groundwork,although I've only seen Burton Richardson's JKDU guys do that (I've seen people apply their weapon skills on the ground,but generally their ground skill sucked but their weapon skill was superior,so the overall perception of the skill sets applied was clearly uneven).

Your instructor is a marvel,a treasure,a gem...stay with him and learn as much as you can! Lol.

Now...sport grappling guys and SD...yeah...

...I've had that experience too.My good friend and fellow Kenpo Master Rank instructor "kenpoOG" pointed out years ago that the grapplers and MMA guys are rapidly forming a nouveau "traditionalism" regarding an inflexible knee-jerk intolerance toward arts/approaches which isn't the sanctioned MMA or grappler methods and perspectives.Truthfully,I didn't find a significant number of people willing to roll with me AND apply SD considerations like weapons,multifights,"dirty tactics",etc. and I too ran into the unperturbable blitheness that many of them have regarding SD."I'll just take him down." "What if you're being carjacked?"  "I'll just raise my hands,pretend I'm going along with him and take him down." "You'll get shot." "I'll do better than your karate would do,pajama boy!" "You wear a gi in your bjj class,so you're a pajama boy too." "Ours are BETTER!"

Or...

(Grappler X shoots on me,I sprawl,he pulls guard,works sweeps,triangles,etc.I catch him with a Tiger Claw to his pubic hair through his gi pants and pull on those mugs.His guard POPS OPEN in surprised pain,I drill him with 5 Swords,he covers BUT IS BEING STEADILY BOMBARDED,I pass guard and go immediately to Dance of Death,the assistant instructor goes:"HEY YOU CAN'T DO THAT WILD CRAZY ***** IN HERE!" and my partner goes:"You can't go ape **** in my guard like that!" "Uhh,I didn't hit you hard at all,I just SURPRISED YOU and I just KEPT HITTING.But didn't you just tell me that your bjj would suffice to take a guy down and tap him? I'm only a blue,you're a purple,why didn't you tap me?" "I didn't know you were ****in gonna go ****in ape **** on me! And you know bjj.How many bad guys know bjj?" "Can you afford to find out in the midst of protecting your daughter from a carjacking rapist that your whole battle plan is that the bad guy doesn't know bjj...and you suddenly you find out that not only does he know bjj,HE HAS A GUN TOO? Cuz...you know...he wouldn't car jack you with his bjj.He'd look kinda silly butt scooting up to you and goin:"GIMME YA DAMN CAR KEYS!"...)
^^^THIS HAPPENED TO ME

So what I had to do was get an informal circle of grapplers who cross train with each other to also be cool with trying some of my "crazy SD stuff" while we worked out together,and it speedily caught on.I mean SPEEDILY.Our group has doubled in size and would have quintupled but we didn't want to have too many guys and personalities clashing too soon.We wanted to keep our informal circle informal fun high quality and minimum fuss.I suggest this method to anyone who doesn't have the time for or the access to a subgrappling class.I also suggest that you buy and study the DVDs of grappling arts that are functional and appeal to you...whatever they are.Then apply that knowledge to your base art.

Regarding thee ole SPORT V SD/STREET debate? Bottom line: it's easier to train SD functionally and downgrade to the sport combative side,than it is to start with the strengths and weaknesses of sport combat and UPGRADE TO SD.

Remember how Master Lloyd Irvin disarmed 2 armed men who stormed into his house and nuetralized Brandon Vera,while having Master Lloyd's wife at gunpoint? They also held Master Irvin at gunpoint and marched him into the back room.Imagine if all Master Irvin could do would be to grapple sans any real weapons defense proficiency.It could've ended very badly for him,his kids,and Brandon Vera.

Just recently a UFC fighter got stabbed in the shoulder with a knife during a fight outside a bar.I think he'd have a better chance at escaping the encounter unscathed or turning the tables on his attacker in that SD situation if he had say Burton Richardson's Battlefield Kali or my WEAPON ATACX to add to his MMA arsenal.Train for street.Ratchet down to sport.Imho functional SD includes the main components needed to have fun and compete well in tourneys.Have fun doing both.

And if you can? Please leave a comment on the videos of mine that you watch and find comment worthy.I very much enjoy your posts and look forward to more conversation with you and the other keen minds on this site.


----------



## MJS

ATACX GYM said:


> The issue of focusing on a specialization in grappling is both common sense and can be fraught with that special passionate disagreement that alpha personality types tend to bring to issues of import to them,so I tend to be both forthright about my opinions and respectful of the perspectives of others but without the taste for "static" purely for the sake of "static" or disagreement.It makes perfect sense to NOT talk to a truck driver for advice on flying a plane,and it makes imho at least perfect sense to remind most of us that the sport paradigm of bjj is largely applicable to self-defense in unarmed one on one situations and Gracie Jiujitsu specifically is much more applicable to self-defense as a whole than the tourney oriented bjj is or may ever be.
> 
> But this discussion tends to then enter the realm of which grappling art is the most "complete",and this is where opinions tend to sharply diverge and that special ardor of alpha personality types tend to shine flare and clash the most.I wouldn't talk to a truck driver about flying planes,I'd talk to a pilot of the relevant plane type.But if the issue was operation of a mechanical conveyance of mass transportation,I'd get somebody certified at the highest levels I could who could operate trains,trucks,plains,submarines,space shuttles,etc. all the way down to skate boards and pogo sticks.Lol.In that vein,and if the wealth of grappling instruction options were open? I'd recommend a good catchwrestling or judo-sambo school as the base for grappling instruction.If you had to go to a "one-stop" school that offered all options? I'd recommend a school like mine or Burton Richardson's JKDU or Matt Thornton's Straightblast Gym.Since I lean toward the tremendous importance of the character building that is specific to TMA as an utterly essential component to functional self-defense,I prefer Gyms like mine which nail everything including forms and traditional weapons to a vibrant self-defense system,high performance athleticism (if you weren't an athlete when you came in,you WILL BE by the time you reach White Belt,lol),diet,regular competition in practically every form of competition style there is,but first and foremost street preparation and personal development.
> 
> Due to the varying options available to the general public,when it comes to grappling only disciplines? I tend to recommend old skool international style Judo over any others as they have athleticism,wider availability to the public,the entire arsenal of wrestling,many techniques from Russian Sambo,and Judo merged into an essential mix.The gi option better prepares you to use your opponent's clothing--even his ARMOR,as I actually had that experience once--against him in ways that he wouldn't be prepped for if he wasn't familiar with Judo.Judo's newaza isn't generally as intricate as bjj's newaza (I'm excluding Kozen Judo from this discussion for the sake of brevity) but Judo tends to produce the more capable,more athletic overall grappler imho.It's not accidental that most of the bjj luminaries have black belts in Judo but the converse is NOT true,and it's emphatically my opinion that most Olympian Judoka will mop the floor with most of the top flight bjj practitioners.Thus my recommendation.
> 
> Yes,I know that Chin Na is ill,and so is shuia chiao,so is Shackle Hands and Ungala and various amazing Hindu disciplines,etc.But the availability of it in the U.S.A.,its reputation,etc. is nothing like that of Judo.


 
My apologies for not being as clear.   Usually, when I talk of grappling, I'm speaking in general terms.  In other words, I usually say any grappling training, any being defined as BJJ, wrestling, Judo, Sambo, JJJ, etc.  All of the grappling arts have something to offer IMHO.  

As for Burton and Matt...yes, I like what they have to offer.


----------



## MJS

K831 said:


> MJS, we typically see pretty eye to eye on this stuff, so this is likely just semantics, nuance, details etc....but;


 
Yes, we do. 





> But they are sports, aren't they? MMA as we use the term these days is practically synonymous with the UFC, Octagon etc.... Sure, the root is "mixed martial arts" which could mean anything, but colloquially it means "I study boxing, MT Kickboxing, BJJ or wrestling" and they do so in the context of the sporting rules.
> 
> When I read your quote and see the word "methods" I think of the methods BJJ and MMA use in training and preparing for a sporting event - which are in many ways incompatible or counter to SD training. Competition places arbitrary constraints that SD situations do not have. For this reasons, underlying philosophy and subsequent methods are in fact very important.


 
Agreed, and I myself have said many times, that under pressure, you will probably revert back to muscle memory.  Will a MMA fighter think of an eye shot or will the rule of no eye shots be engrained, and he wont do them, where as a Kenpo guy might.  My point was simply, while BJJ is typically geared towards sport and competition, I feel that it is possible to take the basics and gear them to what your training needs are.  Isn't that what Mr. Speakman and Mr. Mills do?  They're taking grappling moves and making them apply to Kenpo.  





> Now, I'm splitting hairs here and this is just nuance, however it is worth fleshing out IMHO. Do you disagree? And if so, why do you feel the need to add the qualifier "those methods can be adapted".
> 
> My thoughts are that you actually agree, otherwise you wouldn't feel the need for adapting.
> 
> I agree with the essence of what you are saying, and we have talked about this enough that I know you evaluate your training add and adapt as needed... but how many really do that? The sad fact is most do not, and most honestly think, I go to bjj class one night a week, I have grappling SD covered. They really don't, if they don't work hard to adjust the METHODS and the PHILOSOPHY to one that fits real life SD.


 
Yes, you see the point I was trying to make.  My apologies for the poor wording.   I agree that training in a grappling art is beneficial to Kenpo.  I disagree with those that say its all in there, you dont need to go to those other arts, etc.  How many actually take the step and go look at other things?  You're right, probably not that many.  





> It doesn't mean that because you are conditioned from prior training and experience to know it should not mean that. In general, BJJ guys and MMA guys think it does mean that. I'm sure you have heard from your grappling buddies, just like I have "Kenpo/Kali/Boxing/TKD.... oh, I'll just get him on the ground and submit him." Oh, really?


 
Agreed. 





> Nuance again but consider this;
> 
> If your concern is SD, then why would you ask someone who specializes in Greco wrestling or BJJ to help you with ground self defense? It isn't what they are specializing in.
> 
> Using your analogy; a truck driver is trained. A truck Driver is licensed. A truck driver operates a large, complex and potentially dangerous vehicle.
> 
> So far all of this fits a pilot right? The difference is that a truck is not a plane, and the road is not the sky. (I know duh..)
> 
> Apply the same logic to a BJJ guy.
> 
> A BJJ guy is trained, he grapples... on the ground. But a BJJ match, a wrestling match... is not a life and death street fight. So, why do we ask them to help us prepare for a life and death (ground) street fight? WE SHOULDN'T unless we do so with our eyes wide open to all the problems, to all the context, to all the techniques and ideas they teach that we will need to drop or change or... adapt.
> 
> Now, I know you do this.. but I know the vast majority do not. Which is why I come on the forums yelling no no no just taking a BJJ class doesn't fix your ground game as it relates to self defense and combatives.
> 
> The DTE (Direct Torres Escrima) head instructor I am currently training under has 20+ years of Kali/Escrima/EPAK/amateur boxing/Lima Lama Kung fu/Judo and competitive western wrestling. He has an associate instructor come in on Thursdays who is a BJJ black belt, but he over sees the class and constantly makes changes. I can tell you, his take on BJJ and the other grappling arts is fascinatingly different from other practitioners of those same arts. It has been awesome seeing his adaptation of those arts to a combative application.
> 
> It has very much cemented my views on the changes that are absolutely mandatory when trying to apply BJJ etc to real life SD.
> 
> Redundant philosophical soap box rant concluded. Thank you all for your patience.


 
I know, it does seem odd.  Why go to someone who spends 99% of their time on the ground, so we, as stand up fighters, can learn the ground...when thats not where we really wanna be? LOL.  But just like I feel that the MMA, BJJ, wrestler, etc, guy should work stand up, weapons, etc., and adapt their training accordingly, we should do the same thing.  

This is certainly turning into a great thread.


----------



## ATACX GYM

MJS said:


> Yes, we do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, and I myself have said many times, that under pressure, you will probably revert back to muscle memory. Will a MMA fighter think of an eye shot or will the rule of no eye shots be engrained, and he wont do them, where as a Kenpo guy might. My point was simply, while BJJ is typically geared towards sport and competition, I feel that it is possible to take the basics and gear them to what your training needs are. Isn't that what Mr. Speakman and Mr. Mills do? They're taking grappling moves and making them apply to Kenpo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you see the point I was trying to make. My apologies for the poor wording.  I agree that training in a grappling art is beneficial to Kenpo. I disagree with those that say its all in there, you dont need to go to those other arts, etc. How many actually take the step and go look at other things? You're right, probably not that many.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know, it does seem odd. Why go to someone who spends 99% of their time on the ground, so we, as stand up fighters, can learn the ground...when thats not where we really wanna be? LOL. But just like I feel that the MMA, BJJ, wrestler, etc, guy should work stand up, weapons, etc., and adapt their training accordingly, we should do the same thing.
> 
> This is certainly turning into a great thread.


 

This is INDEED turning into a great thread! lol.

But there is something that both of you have commented on and that I have too that I think needs more emphasis,and that is this: TRAINING FOR SD ALLOWS AN EASIER TRANSITION TO SPORT COMBAT THAN VICE VERSA. Does anyone disagree? If so...why? If not...why NOT? What training experiences in your background incline you toward one conclusion over the other?


----------



## K831

ATACX GYM said:


> But there is something that both of you have commented on and that I have too that I think needs more emphasis,and that is this: TRAINING FOR SD ALLOWS AN EASIER TRANSITION TO SPORT COMBAT THAN VICE VERSA. Does anyone disagree? If so...why? If not...why NOT? What training experiences in your background incline you toward one conclusion over the other?



You know, I actually haven't given this idea much thought in the past (at least not in the way you are framing it) so I don't have a fully developed opinion.

Most of my training has been SD oriented, but I have competed too. I wrestled in high school, did some local boxing competitions and did a few regional MMA competitions back in the early 2000's. 

My observations;

The wrestling and boxing were pretty easy to adapt to competition, since they are taught from that paradigm anyways. 

Here is the negatives I found in trying to go from SD to competition (as I have popped in and out of competition off and on throughout my martial arts journey);  As I spent more and more time with Kenpo and similar arts, my nuero muscular memory began to change, conditioned reactions changed etc. Immediate responses, second nature, no thought required responses became kicks to the groin and knee, open handed strikes to the throat, finger whips and jabs, elbows to the throat, spine and back of the head, hammer fists to the groin, and small joint breaks (fingers and wrist....) etc. They were so ingrained that when trying to compete later on, I realized I had to drop the vast majority of my arsenal, and that required constant "thinking in the ring" and thus hesitation. 

In addition, my defenses changed. For example, as a boxer/kickboxer, I would simply "cover" using typical elbow blocks that any boxer or kickboxer uses, or I would slip / duck ets. While kenpo and Escrima use these same techniques, there is much more emphasis on open handed checks, traps, jams, fanning and parry's. Why? Obviously there are many reasons, but just as one example, while someone swing a fist at you (especially a gloved one) can be dealt with by covering (elbow block) or slipping, this can be very dangerous if the attacker had a knife that you missed. So, where as the boxer would be sliced up quickly blocking that way, the Kenpoist or FMA practitioner has a defensive skill set better suited to dealing with the edged weapon. Same applies to dealing with the changing angles a skilled club user will attack with. Arts like Kenpo, Krav Maga and many FMA's have built in defenses for that situation that a kickboxer just isn't equipped with. This presented a problem however, because once my hands were wrapped and gloved, I couldn't check, trap and parry to the same degree, and I had to struggle and adjust again. The same is the case with gunting  in filipino arts. It' a great defensive/offensive technique that works particularly well with something in the hand (knife, pen, pencil etc) and can be made to work in some situations with knuckles - it is rendered useless in the ring with gloves however (which is why you get ***-clowns like Joe Rogan claiming such arts with trapping etc are worthless hence not in MMA). 

So that is my thoughts and examples as to the difficulty of going from a primarily SD and combatives style to competition. It takes some real re-wiring of the current programming. 

Now, as to the argument I would make in support of your statement; The above examples indicate that a person coming from a SD art simply has to dumb down what he knows to compete. However, someone coming from a competition only background simply has not been exposed to and is not aware of the many aspects of SD. This is why the MMA guys who come to our combatives class get stabbed and cut to death with our rubber chalk knives, and shot repeatedly with airsoft guns. They simply have no clue how to deal with it, and most genuinely thought that since they were bad a$$ in the ring/cage, surely they were in the street. Watching them deal with some of the combatives stuff (multi-attackers and weapons) is laughable. 

To their credit though, they are in shape (which many self defense guys skimp on) they are aggressive (because they spar all the time, again which many SD guys skimp on) and they have a good sense of distance and timing from that sparring, they just have never seen or thought about how to use distance and timing when the variables change. I know that many TMA and SD arts do use live drills and sparring etc.. but unfortunately the mcdojo syndrome took over for a long time, and we got a bad rep as a result.


----------



## K831

The one other area that some of the competitors who come out combatives nights really struggle (my new FMA instructor runs an MMA program and a boxing program, so they sometimes trickle into the other classes out of curiosity or because they get to know the few of us who do both) is on the take-down. It really takes a while for a lot of them to get their heads around this. Just watching any MMA event will show someone that as soon as a good grappler gets popped good in the head or is taking some abuse in the stand up, he shoots or clinches. In MMA, I don't blame them, because it is much harder to punish them for it. What happens repeatedly in the combatives class however, is that they shoot and when they don't get the shot, they continue to drive for it (just like you see in MMA competitions all the time). Problem is, while they drive for the single or push me up against the wall and hang on, I WILL use downward elbows on the back of the head, neck and spine. I will punt them when they have one knee on the ground. I will tear into their eyes while they drive the shot or clinch. I will use my other hand to draw my (rubber) knife they work for the take-down, sweep, for under hooks, hip control or whatever. They are SO CONDITIONED to drive for the take-down and so conditioned not to have to worry about any of that, that they give it no thought, and it takes numerous pummeling at 1/4 power for them to realize the dangers in shooting, but in particular, the dangers in pressing it if they don't get the take-down clean the first time. 

There was one big guy 225 or so who wrestled at the state uni here who came in. Tough athletic kid. I'm 185ish lean and he watched me one night giving it good to the other grapplers and stood right up and said "I'll take you down". Well, I'm scrappy but not stupid, and I knew he likely would. I told him to change and jump in. While he was changing I grabbed one of my hard plastic training knives and put it in my pants under my shirt. He came back out and we started moving around. He pressed just enough for me to start letting my hands go and as soon as I did, shot under a punch and got me... slammed me hard to, but all that weight came down on that hard plastic tip and the point was made. Would have rung me good on pavement, maybe knocked me out....but he would have died. It's just a different way of thinking.


----------



## ATACX GYM

K831 said:


> You know, I actually haven't given this idea much thought in the past (at least not in the way you are framing it) so I don't have a fully developed opinion.
> 
> Most of my training has been SD oriented, but I have competed too. I wrestled in high school, did some local boxing competitions and did a few regional MMA competitions back in the early 2000's.
> 
> My observations;
> 
> The wrestling and boxing were pretty easy to adapt to competition, since they are taught from that paradigm anyways.
> 
> Here is the negatives I found in trying to go from SD to competition (as I have popped in and out of competition off and on throughout my martial arts journey); As I spent more and more time with Kenpo and similar arts, my nuero muscular memory began to change, conditioned reactions changed etc. Immediate responses, second nature, no thought required responses became kicks to the groin and knee, open handed strikes to the throat, finger whips and jabs, elbows to the throat, spine and back of the head, hammer fists to the groin, and small joint breaks (fingers and wrist....) etc. They were so ingrained that when trying to compete later on, I realized I had to drop the vast majority of my arsenal, and that required constant "thinking in the ring" and thus hesitation.
> 
> In addition, my defenses changed. For example, as a boxer/kickboxer, I would simply "cover" using typical elbow blocks that any boxer or kickboxer uses, or I would slip / duck ets. While kenpo and Escrima use these same techniques, there is much more emphasis on open handed checks, traps, jams, fanning and parry's. Why? Obviously there are many reasons, but just as one example, while someone swing a fist at you (especially a gloved one) can be dealt with by covering (elbow block) or slipping, this can be very dangerous if the attacker had a knife that you missed. So, where as the boxer would be sliced up quickly blocking that way, the Kenpoist or FMA practitioner has a defensive skill set better suited to dealing with the edged weapon. Same applies to dealing with the changing angles a skilled club user will attack with. Arts like Kenpo, Krav Maga and many FMA's have built in defenses for that situation that a kickboxer just isn't equipped with. This presented a problem however, because once my hands were wrapped and gloved, I couldn't check, trap and parry to the same degree, and I had to struggle and adjust again. The same is the case with gunting in filipino arts. It' a great defensive/offensive technique that works particularly well with something in the hand (knife, pen, pencil etc) and can be made to work in some situations with knuckles - it is rendered useless in the ring with gloves however (which is why you get ***-clowns like Joe Rogan claiming such arts with trapping etc are worthless hence not in MMA).
> 
> So that is my thoughts and examples as to the difficulty of going from a primarily SD and combatives style to competition. It takes some real re-wiring of the current programming.
> 
> Now, as to the argument I would make in support of your statement; The above examples indicate that a person coming from a SD art simply has to dumb down what he knows to compete. However, someone coming from a competition only background simply has not been exposed to and is not aware of the many aspects of SD. This is why the MMA guys who come to our combatives class get stabbed and cut to death with our rubber chalk knives, and shot repeatedly with airsoft guns. They simply have no clue how to deal with it, and most genuinely thought that since they were bad a$$ in the ring/cage, surely they were in the street. Watching them deal with some of the combatives stuff (multi-attackers and weapons) is laughable.
> 
> To their credit though, they are in shape (which many self defense guys skimp on) they are aggressive (because they spar all the time, again which many SD guys skimp on) and they have a good sense of distance and timing from that sparring, they just have never seen or thought about how to use distance and timing when the variables change. I know that many TMA and SD arts do use live drills and sparring etc.. but unfortunately the mcdojo syndrome took over for a long time, and we got a bad rep as a result.


 
^^^I love this guy! Lolol.

My experiences run this gamut as well.I have found that it takes LESS training to transition from SD to sport combatives,but it DOES TAKE TRAINING.The mindsets are different,and the pride that we acquire from obtaining real skill in SD can take a drubbing if we don't make the MENTAL adjustment during sport combatives so that we perform well under those circumstances.Once we make the MENTAL adjustment and become comfy? The sport game is much easier.We ALREADY HAVE those skills,we just need to tweak them in a particular fashion...which can only come from training and sparring them in a specific way over a specific period of time.For me? It takes about 2 weeks for me to fully setlle into the groove of sport stuff.Moderate contact point fighting karate is the hardest transition for me because even the way I trained my Karate base (Kenpo) contains a great deal of violence that could land me in jail if I were to pull these things off in a tourney.However,I've long known this so I focus on sequences and setups that are both devastating enough to satisfy my tastes and fully legal in point tournies.

Which actually leads to another very interesting discussion: I HAVE NEVER SEEN ANYBODY PULL OFF ANY OF THE SELF-DEFENSE SEQUENCES IN TOURNIES.And you know what? My friend Clark aka kenpoteacher is the only other person besides myself or my martial arts bloodkin who both noted this and either suggested the use of various self-defense techniques in tournies.I used the BKF+my ATACX GYM juiced up version of the ALTERNATING MACES,5 Swords,Tripping Arrow (usually applied at the end of a combination,and I HAVE NEVER FAILED TO TAKE MY OPPONENT DOWN) and a whole plethora of other techniques.Now I will stop this here in order to avoid veering off onto a tangent,but I definitely think that the LACK of SPARRING AND TOURNEY USE of the 72 Self-Defense sequences are utterly essential.

Okay back to the main point of this thread and your well thought out posts,K831


----------



## ATACX GYM

K831 said:


> The one other area that some of the competitors who come out combatives nights really struggle (my new FMA instructor runs an MMA program and a boxing program, so they sometimes trickle into the other classes out of curiosity or because they get to know the few of us who do both) is on the take-down. It really takes a while for a lot of them to get their heads around this. Just watching any MMA event will show someone that as soon as a good grappler gets popped good in the head or is taking some abuse in the stand up, he shoots or clinches. In MMA, I don't blame them, because it is much harder to punish them for it. What happens repeatedly in the combatives class however, is that they shoot and when they don't get the shot, they continue to drive for it (just like you see in MMA competitions all the time). Problem is, while they drive for the single or push me up against the wall and hang on, I WILL use downward elbows on the back of the head, neck and spine. I will punt them when they have one knee on the ground. I will tear into their eyes while they drive the shot or clinch. I will use my other hand to draw my (rubber) knife they work for the take-down, sweep, for under hooks, hip control or whatever. They are SO CONDITIONED to drive for the take-down and so conditioned not to have to worry about any of that, that they give it no thought, and it takes numerous pummeling at 1/4 power for them to realize the dangers in shooting, but in particular, the dangers in pressing it if they don't get the take-down clean the first time.
> 
> There was one big guy 225 or so who wrestled at the state uni here who came in. Tough athletic kid. I'm 185ish lean and he watched me one night giving it good to the other grapplers and stood right up and said "I'll take you down". Well, I'm scrappy but not stupid, and I knew he likely would. I told him to change and jump in. While he was changing I grabbed one of my hard plastic training knives and put it in my pants under my shirt. He came back out and we started moving around. He pressed just enough for me to start letting my hands go and as soon as I did, shot under a punch and got me... slammed me hard to, but all that weight came down on that hard plastic tip and the point was made. Would have rung me good on pavement, maybe knocked me out....but he would have died. It's just a different way of thinking.


 

I find that both TMA and MMA-style guys tend to suck at the takedown,especially in the SD environment...usually because neither of them have been sufficiently introduced to the reality of weapons.I lol'd and texted my brother after I read your post about the 225 pound guy.I've deployed a finger nail clipper--YES A FINGER NAIL CLIPPER--with devastating effect while grappling on the ground one time.I was being handily handled by a talented bjj purple with 2 stripes (on his way to brown) when I snapped off a head butt (HARD) to his abdomen,Snaking Talone'd him (didn't get his eyes but he momentarily thrust him head out the way while seeking a devilish closed guard sweep) I disentangled his grip,dipped into thee ole sweats pocket and pulled out the finger nail clipper then got tuh clippin away on the tender inner thigh meat.His reaction was one for the ages.Then it was Dance of Death time,and game over.Lolololol.

Now,I'm 154lbs. at fighting trim and sometimes I'll power up to 158-60,and when I'm doing my hardcore superhealthy diet (which I'm making a vow to stick to from now on) I drop to 150-155 pounds,but with that "disproportionate strength of elite gymnasts and Bulgarian powerlifters",as a strength and conditioning coach once described me.Lololol.I face collegiate,university,and MMA wrestlers of 185-240 all the time.Sometimes I face judoka of up to 315 pounds.The takedown is a given in many instances...but sometimes it's ME doing the takedown on THEM,and it's never an EASY takedown for them when they DO get me down.

But every single time they take me down--even my wonderful fellow judoka with the ferocious and greatly underestimated gripping systems that judo is becoming more and more infamous for-- I note that I can get a good eye gouge off if I wanted to,and sometimes I 'poke' them on their eyebrows or the sides of their eyes to make my point ironclad.

What do you think about this scenario?


----------



## KenpoOG

I think that I am getting emotional over here. A quality discussion without at least one person breaking in with the ever so educated response of" Then why dont we see Kenpo in the UFC?"

BTW, my response is always" You DO see them brain trust, they are called punches. Kenpo=Fist Law. Do the math.


----------



## ATACX GYM

kenpoog said:


> i think that i am getting emotional over here. A quality discussion without at least one person breaking in with the ever so educated response of" then why dont we see kenpo in the ufc?"
> 
> btw, my response is always" you do see them brain trust, they are called punches. Kenpo=fist law. Do the math.


 

ahahahahahaha!!!!


----------



## Thesemindz

So tonight before class I went in early and took our B.O.B. (body opponent bag) off his base and laid him down on the floor. Then I spent about half an hour practicing all of our techniques through the black belt level against the B.O.B. from mount, rear mount, guard, rear guard, side mount, and scarf position.

Of course, not all the techniques applied exactly, and some didn't apply at all, but I was trying to explore where the striking and grappling combinations could be applied from each position. I also practiced full power strikes from each position and blocks and grapples in the air as well as position transfers.

I really enjoyed this. I got a great sweat on, I got to practice some full power strikes from ground positions and really explore where and how I can generate power while on the ground. The theme of tonight's class was Up/Down techniques, so we then went on to apply many of these same ideas during class itself.

We finished class with one minute exhibition rounds of ground fighting to dominance or submission and then I gave each of my students a chance for a round against me. It went really well and we all had a great time and learned a lot.

I also wanted to comment on the discussion upthread about takedowns. In this class, my students worked takedowns from the front, side, and rear, as well as sacrifice takedowns and falling with an opponent. We practiced falling into ground positions, and fighting out of ground positions. We practiced taking the opponent down and then attacking him with hands and feet and weapons from a standing position and we practiced defending against takedowns using sprawls and strikes. Kenpo has a ton of takedowns and takedown defenses, and they work if you practice them aggressively.

If you haven't put the B.O.B. on the ground and worked your techniques against him, I recommend it. I got a lot out of it and I'll definitely do it again. If you don't have a B.O.B., a heavy bag will do. Or even the top of a Wavemaster in a pinch.

Like I said, not everything translates perfectly. You have to look for the "situational approaches that are interchangeable." But many of the techniques, and many of the parts of the techniques, are directly applicable to the ground. Give it a shot. It's an eye opener.


-Rob


----------



## ATACX GYM

Thesemindz said:


> So tonight before class I went in early and took our B.O.B. (body opponent bag) off his base and laid him down on the floor. Then I spent about half an hour practicing all of our techniques through the black belt level against the B.O.B. from mount, rear mount, guard, rear guard, side mount, and scarf position.
> 
> Of course, not all the techniques applied exactly, and some didn't apply at all, but I was trying to explore where the striking and grappling combinations could be applied from each position. I also practiced full power strikes from each position and blocks and grapples in the air as well as position transfers.
> 
> I really enjoyed this. I got a great sweat on, I got to practice some full power strikes from ground positions and really explore where and how I can generate power while on the ground. The theme of tonight's class was Up/Down techniques, so we then went on to apply many of these same ideas during class itself.
> 
> We finished class with one minute exhibition rounds of ground fighting to dominance or submission and then I gave each of my students a chance for a round against me. It went really well and we all had a great time and learned a lot.
> 
> I also wanted to comment on the discussion upthread about takedowns. In this class, my students worked takedowns from the front, side, and rear, as well as sacrifice takedowns and falling with an opponent. We practiced falling into ground positions, and fighting out of ground positions. We practiced taking the opponent down and then attacking him with hands and feet and weapons from a standing position and we practiced defending against takedowns using sprawls and strikes. Kenpo has a ton of takedowns and takedown defenses, and they work if you practice them aggressively.
> 
> If you haven't put the B.O.B. on the ground and worked your techniques against him, I recommend it. I got a lot out of it and I'll definitely do it again. If you don't have a B.O.B., a heavy bag will do. Or even the top of a Wavemaster in a pinch.
> 
> Like I said, not everything translates perfectly. You have to look for the "situational approaches that are interchangeable." But many of the techniques, and many of the parts of the techniques, are directly applicable to the ground. Give it a shot. It's an eye opener.
> 
> 
> -Rob


 
How'd you do with Falcons of Force,Snakes of Wisdom and Courting The Tiger,etc? I've spent an entire class working on Falcons of Force alone.However,it's not uncommon for me to spend a week on the gajillion variants of one tech (meaning we do the same or very similar responses to whatever the attack is,just adjusted for weapons,multiple opponents,and the tactical goal of the drill like ESCAPE or RESCUE or both) and make it really fun in the process.I even identify where in our katas these techs are and create isolated drills where I make 2-man katas become isolated sparring.I use a little creativity.Like this: take,say,Short 1-3.Have one student use the blocks and movements from Short 1,whereas the other student can use the attacks from Short 2 or 3.They can ONLY use those techs...and have them go step by step through the form.Short 1 student defends,Short 2-3 attacks.By the 3rd time through,I let the Short 2-3 student use whatever order of attacks from the form that they want...and encourage the student using Short 1 to ATTACK with the blocks too (the blocks become hammerfist+forearm strikes with even some elbow strike action thrown in),thus making the student using Short 2-3 employ THE BLOCKS IN THOSE FORMS. Change roles now...the student formerly doing Short 1 is now doing short 2-3 and vice versa. Then let them spar with those techs.I do this with my beginners too...I just limit them to Short 1 only and make them see how they can use the blocks-strikes in sooo many scenarios.While mounted,I make them block the opponent's body,thighs,etc. and hammerfist these areas at the same time.We use the blocks to fight off chokes,grabs,weapons and holds,sweeps and help us scramble back to our feet,etc.You get the idea.

They learn HELLA FAST,man.They never get bored.They start coming to me with new ways of using techs or more importantly,circumstances I haven't thought of to use the techs (one of my students told me that he was playing PS3 with his brother,his brother was winning...until he used the Short 1 blocks to disarm him of the game controller,then bow stanced directly through and on top of his brother,stomping on his brother's unsuspecting hand in the process.While his brother was thus distracted,he won the game they were playing.Lololol. After he and I laughed about it,I made him do our Basics Calisthenics drill twice nonstop) and we begin to see that there is sooo much repetition of techs as we progress in Kenpo...if we bother to learn each tech in depth.


----------



## SenseiHitman

MJS said:


> KenpoJuJitsu3
> 
> Here are some clips of James Hawkins doing some Kenpo and some grappling in a few of the clips. IMO, this is a better example of what things should look like.



     Yes, I agree with you, that looked like Kempo, he was not just speed slapping a statue he was taking control, and he is totally right, "slow the H*LL down".  This video was refreshing to see.  I also saw a brief clip of Speakman performing his 5.0 and that was also refreshing.
     I got my black belts in both Jujitsu and Kenpo back in the1990s. I was very active then, and kept my eye on the other various methods taught at that time, however, since then I have retied to just training on my own with a couple select students, so it is as if I have been sleeping in a cave for a long time. unaware of the recent developments.  When I went to sleep, Kenpo was over commercialized and in disarray.  Recently,I began researching whats out their now, and in my opinion, Functional Kenpo and  Kenpo 5.0 are the future.  I hope to see more like this and less of the slap happy fake bull sh*t.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

SenseiHitman said:


> Yes, I agree with you, that looked like Kempo, he was not just speed slapping a statue he was taking control, and he is totally right, "slow the H*LL down".  This video was refreshing to see.  I also saw a brief clip of Speakman performing his 5.0 and that was also refreshing.
> I got my black belts in both Jujitsu and Kenpo back in the1990s. I was very active then, and kept my eye on the other various methods taught at that time, however, since then I have retied to just training on my own with a couple select students, so it is as if I have been sleeping in a cave for a long time. unaware of the recent developments.  When I went to sleep, Kenpo was over commercialized and in disarray.  Recently,I began researching whats out their now, and in my opinion, Functional Kenpo and  Kenpo 5.0 are the future.  I hope to see more like this and less of the slap happy fake bull sh*t.


Out of curiosity, what are your ranks in the arts you practice? I assumed until now that you were primarily a beginner based on your posts, but from this I'm guessing that is not the case. Also, your age changed on your profile from 13 to 47. I'm assuming that the 47 is correct and the 13 was just a technical issue with the site?


----------



## Touch Of Death

SenseiHitman said:


> Yes, I agree with you, that looked like Kempo, he was not just speed slapping a statue he was taking control, and he is totally right, "slow the H*LL down".  This video was refreshing to see.  I also saw a brief clip of Speakman performing his 5.0 and that was also refreshing.
> I got my black belts in both Jujitsu and Kenpo back in the1990s. I was very active then, and kept my eye on the other various methods taught at that time, however, since then I have retied to just training on my own with a couple select students, so it is as if I have been sleeping in a cave for a long time. unaware of the recent developments.  When I went to sleep, Kenpo was over commercialized and in disarray.  Recently,I began researching whats out their now, and in my opinion, Functional Kenpo and  Kenpo 5.0 are the future.  I hope to see more like this and less of the slap happy fake bull sh*t.


There is nothing wrong with the slap if you are using points of reference. It is often poorly imitated but there is a logic to it.


----------



## SenseiHitman

kempodisciple said:


> Out of curiosity, what are your ranks in the arts you practice? I assumed until now that you were primarily a beginner based on your posts, but from this I'm guessing that is not the case. Also, your age changed on your profile from 13 to 47. I'm assuming that the 47 is correct and the 13 was just a technical issue with the site?



5th degree black belt Way of Kempo Kenpo Karate.  2nd degree black belt Tsuru Michi Jujitsu.  1st degree black belt Way of Kempo Kempo Jujitsu .   Instructor Way of Kempo Kempo Bojitsu. Yes I am 47,  I would never claim to be 13, it was a tech. issue with the site.


----------



## Chris Parker

kempodisciple said:


> Out of curiosity, what are your ranks in the arts you practice? I assumed until now that you were primarily a beginner based on your posts, but from this I'm guessing that is not the case. Also, your age changed on your profile from 13 to 47. I'm assuming that the 47 is correct and the 13 was just a technical issue with the site?



Just a possibility here… are you perhaps confusing "SenseiHitman" with "SenseiBlackBelt"… who is 13, and very much a beginner?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Chris Parker said:


> Just a possibility here… are you perhaps confusing "SenseiHitman" with "SenseiBlackBelt"… who is 13, and very much a beginner?


Yes, I did. Thank you for pointing that out I had not realized that!


----------



## AIKIKENJITSU

MJS said:


> [yt]dVC3Fnr5kB0[/yt]
> 
> 
> http://ltatum.com/movies/Week22/TipOfTheWeekMedW22.html
> 
> 
> Here are 2 clips of whats being called grappling or ground fighting, in Kenpo. My intent isn't to bash the guys in the clips, but instead, to analyze and discuss the clips. I'm looking to discuss things such as...
> 
> What did you like/dislike about the clips?
> 
> What would you do or have done differently?
> 
> Do you think that the defenses that were presented were effective? Why/why not?
> 
> Just a few things to get the ball rolling.  You dont have to limit your replies to just those questions. And as always, this discussion is open to non Kenpoists as well.


lI couldn't see your ground techs, but that's OK. I'm an old Kenpoist that can still do Kenpo very well. I have taught both Tracy and Ed Parker starting 1973. I had a school for4 20 years and I always just taught adults. I stayed with American Kenpo, but it was incomplete. For one, there are no ground techs. I am 5'2" slim and Gracie jujitsu that some Kenpo schools are teaching is not for every one. Kenpo schools that are teaching two arts, is not a Kenpo school in my eyes. For one, Kenpo should be Kenpo. I have kept Kenpo but have developed 52 ground techniques to get you off the ground and onto your feet in seconds. I have also created techs up to 10th degree black and I have not accepted another art into my Kenpo curriculum. Many stludents can't do Gracie techs and some don't want it. It is ground fighting and wrestling on the ground. I do not believe you should be on the ground longer than a few seconds. . 
AKJ-American Kenpo
Sifu 10th degree black


----------



## Gerry Seymour

AIKIKENJITSU said:


> lI couldn't see your ground techs, but that's OK. I'm an old Kenpoist that can still do Kenpo very well. I have taught both Tracy and Ed Parker starting 1973. I had a school for4 20 years and I always just taught adults. I stayed with American Kenpo, but it was incomplete. For one, there are no ground techs. I am 5'2" slim and Gracie jujitsu that some Kenpo schools are teaching is not for every one. Kenpo schools that are teaching two arts, is not a Kenpo school in my eyes. For one, Kenpo should be Kenpo. I have kept Kenpo but have developed 52 ground techniques to get you off the ground and onto your feet in seconds. I have also created techs up to 10th degree black and I have not accepted another art into my Kenpo curriculum. Many stludents can't do Gracie techs and some don't want it. It is ground fighting and wrestling on the ground. I do not believe you should be on the ground longer than a few seconds. .
> AKJ-American Kenpo
> Sifu 10th degree black


Why does a Kenpo school no longer count as a Kenpo school if they offer additional arts?


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Why does a Kenpo school no longer count as a Kenpo school if they offer additional arts?



And more interestingly why would developing techniques be any more faithful to the spirit of kempo than just stealing some cool moves from other arts?

The advantage with just stealing moves would be you could use techniques from guys who have a clue as to what they are doing.


----------



## drop bear




----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> And more interestingly why would developing techniques be any more faithful to the spirit of kempo than just stealing some cool moves from other arts?
> 
> The advantage with just stealing moves would be you could use techniques from guys who have a clue as to what they are doing.


That was the other thought going on in my head (I'm not sure where else I'd have thoughts going on...maybe I don't want to know). If I make up some ground moves from what I know in NGA, I can make sure they work against the folks I train with. If I steal cool stuff from BJJ, Judo, or wrestling, I know they'll work against people who are better at ground work than the folks I train with.


----------



## Headhunter

drop bear said:


> And more interestingly why would developing techniques be any more faithful to the spirit of kempo than just stealing some cool moves from other arts?
> 
> The advantage with just stealing moves would be you could use techniques from guys who have a clue as to what they are doing.


It's not. Kenpo was always meant to be something that continued to evolve so using other systems is absolutely something ed Parker wanted and would've done had he not passed away when he did, it's a shame because he died in 1991 so 2 years before UFC started. Ed Parker was also a judo guy as well so he had grappling knowledge and with UFC he would've added more to kenpo. From what I've seen of this guy he's trying to sound clever that he's developed his own brand new techniques


----------



## Headhunter

AIKIKENJITSU said:


> lI couldn't see your ground techs, but that's OK. I'm an old Kenpoist that can still do Kenpo very well. I have taught both Tracy and Ed Parker starting 1973. I had a school for4 20 years and I always just taught adults. I stayed with American Kenpo, but it was incomplete. For one, there are no ground techs. I am 5'2" slim and Gracie jujitsu that some Kenpo schools are teaching is not for every one. Kenpo schools that are teaching two arts, is not a Kenpo school in my eyes. For one, Kenpo should be Kenpo. I have kept Kenpo but have developed 52 ground techniques to get you off the ground and onto your feet in seconds. I have also created techs up to 10th degree black and I have not accepted another art into my Kenpo curriculum. Many stludents can't do Gracie techs and some don't want it. It is ground fighting and wrestling on the ground. I do not believe you should be on the ground longer than a few seconds. .
> AKJ-American Kenpo
> Sifu 10th degree black


No you shouldn't be on the ground for more than a few seconds....but what happens if you are? Because no matter how good your kenpo is and your brand new techniques are you get put on your back by a good wrestler your going to struggle  getting him off you same with a bjj guy. Yes you can get him off but it won't be easy. Does your techniques take into consideration a good grappler or are you basing it on a guy with no training and have you tested your techniques against real grapplers in a live situation?


----------



## Blindside

AIKIKENJITSU said:


> lI couldn't see your ground techs, but that's OK. I'm an old Kenpoist that can still do Kenpo very well. I have taught both Tracy and Ed Parker starting 1973. I had a school for4 20 years and I always just taught adults. I stayed with American Kenpo, but it was incomplete. For one, there are no ground techs. I am 5'2" slim and Gracie jujitsu that some Kenpo schools are teaching is not for every one. Kenpo schools that are teaching two arts, is not a Kenpo school in my eyes. For one, Kenpo should be Kenpo. I have kept Kenpo but have developed 52 ground techniques to get you off the ground and onto your feet in seconds. I have also created techs up to 10th degree black and I have not accepted another art into my Kenpo curriculum. Many stludents can't do Gracie techs and some don't want it. It is ground fighting and wrestling on the ground. I do not believe you should be on the ground longer than a few seconds. .
> AKJ-American Kenpo
> Sifu 10th degree black



Any chance you have any video of your material?  

How big is your student base of students that you used to develop this system or who did you use to beta test this material on?  Lots of things work great in the dojo, particularly Kenpo techniques, but don't work as well when the other guy isn't cooperating.  Probably one of the biggest sticking points in kenpo as it is commonly taught.


----------



## Headhunter

Blindside said:


> Any chance you have any video of your material?
> 
> How big is your student base of students that you used to develop this system or who did you use to beta test this material on?  Lots of things work great in the dojo, particularly Kenpo techniques, but don't work as well when the other guy isn't cooperating.  Probably one of the biggest sticking points in kenpo as it is commonly taught.


Nah you've got to buy his book for that...


But kenpo techniques aren't meant to be done as they're taught that's not what they're for. It's like a catalogue of moves so yeah you practice them in sequences but when you need them you mix and match for what you need. Any competent instructor will tell you that and should be trained


----------



## Blindside

Headhunter said:


> Nah you've got to buy his book for that...
> 
> 
> But kenpo techniques aren't meant to be done as they're taught that's not what they're for. It's like a catalogue of moves so yeah you practice them in sequences but when you need them you mix and match for what you need. Any competent instructor will tell you that and should be trained



Of course, and we both know that many kenpo dojos get stuck doing more rote memorization then learning how to graft and flow between different pieces of techniques, and that even when they do there is a whole lot of stone statue kenpo going on.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Headhunter said:


> Nah you've got to buy his book for that...
> 
> 
> But kenpo techniques aren't meant to be done as they're taught that's not what they're for. It's like a catalogue of moves so yeah you practice them in sequences but when you need them you mix and match for what you need. Any competent instructor will tell you that and should be trained





Blindside said:


> Of course, and we both know that many kenpo dojos get stuck doing more rote memorization then learning how to graft and flow between different pieces of techniques, and that even when they do there is a whole lot of stone statue kenpo going on.



The more I hear of this, the more it sounds like NGA's "classical technique" approach, just taken in a different direction. And with the same risk: that people (students, and those same students later as instructors) will think the "technique" is the actual application. Within NGA, there are even some schools who have standardized what applications they teach, effectively reducing the learning to memorization and repetition, rather than learning the principles.


----------



## Blindside

gpseymour said:


> The more I hear of this, the more it sounds like NGA's "classical technique" approach, just taken in a different direction. And with the same risk: that people (students, and those same students later as instructors) will think the "technique" is the actual application. Within NGA, there are even some schools who have standardized what applications they teach, effectively reducing the learning to memorization and repetition, rather than learning the principles.



IMO Kenpo's greatest common fault is the lack of resistance training.  One of the reason's I moved away from it was because there was too much theory and not enough resistance.  My kenpo school had a dual personality, on Thursday you worked techniques and forms and on Tuesdays you fought.  We were turning out decent fighters because of  the regular and intensive sparring but we just looked like hybrid karate kickboxers, there wasn't anything "kenpo" about us aside from kicking people in the groin on a regular basis.  I think there is another way of making that leap between the technique idea (and kenpo techs are more like mini kata than a single lock or throw) and training against resistance than what my old school did.


----------



## Headhunter

Blindside said:


> Of course, and we both know that many kenpo dojos get stuck doing more rote memorization then learning how to graft and flow between different pieces of techniques, and that even when they do there is a whole lot of stone statue kenpo going on.


Tbh from what I've seen of kenpo now days. Is it's a bunch of lazy old men teaching who are to lazy to spar or do anything with resistance. They'd rather just do their forms and talk about the old days. Now not everyone's like that but I've seen a hell of a lot of it that's like that. I had one guy taking a warm up of basics once and was stopping every time we did a combo so he could give a 5 minute corrections speech. Now nothing against getting corrected but it's a warm up....your supposed to be warming not listening to a lecture


----------



## Headhunter

Blindside said:


> IMO Kenpo's greatest common fault is the lack of resistance training.  One of the reason's I moved away from it was because there was too much theory and not enough resistance.  My kenpo school had a dual personality, on Thursday you worked techniques and forms and on Tuesdays you fought.  We were turning out decent fighters because of  the regular and intensive sparring but we just looked like hybrid karate kickboxers, there wasn't anything "kenpo" about us aside from kicking people in the groin on a regular basis.  I think there is another way of making that leap between the technique idea (and kenpo techs are more like mini kata than a single lock or throw) and training against resistance than what my old school did.


It's funny really because once someone was doing a technique on me. I knew the guy was bad with his control and his move was a kick to the groin and I wasn't in the mood to stand there and take that so after the first punch to the face I stepped back (which is most likely what would happen if you get punched) and his kick missed. He started bitching at me for moving. I said well you just punched me in the face I'm not going to be just standing there letting you am I. He said okay well you do that to me and I'll move. So I did and he moved and all I did was move in a little more and landed the kick. Because I actually practiced different ranges and different set ups and counters to the techniques where as this guy hadn't


----------



## Blindside

Headhunter said:


> Tbh from what I've seen of kenpo now days. Is it's a bunch of lazy old men teaching who are to lazy to spar or do anything with resistance. They'd rather just do their forms and talk about the old days. Now not everyone's like that but I've seen a hell of a lot of it that's like that. I had one guy taking a warm up of basics once and was stopping every time we did a combo so he could give a 5 minute corrections speech. Now nothing against getting corrected but it's a warm up....your supposed to be warming not listening to a lecture



This is a bad and unsurprising trend for kenpo: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=kenpo,bjj


----------



## punisher73

Headhunter said:


> It's not. Kenpo was always meant to be something that continued to evolve so using other systems is absolutely something ed Parker wanted and would've done had he not passed away when he did, it's a shame because he died in 1991 so 2 years before UFC started. Ed Parker was also a judo guy as well so he had grappling knowledge and with UFC he would've added more to kenpo. From what I've seen of this guy he's trying to sound clever that he's developed his own brand new techniques



Correct, Ed Parker was a 3rd Dan in Judo.  He understood the grappling mentality and strategies.  Prof. Chow's brand of kenpo that was taught to Ed Parker was heavily influenced by Danzan-Ryu JJ in Hawaii.  The grab defenses in kenpo were designed against a judoka grabbing onto you and trying to break your balance.  That being said, most schools don't train it that way and they lightly come up and "grab" your shirt.  The technique, Lone Kimono that many people badmouth was used by Prof. Chow to break a judoka's arm one time when he grabbed and pushed.  The way it is practiced now....not so much.

It must remembered that Ed Parker had his own private style that had very strict ways of doing things and was a lot more than the public commercial system he showed.  Because SGM Parker was trying to expand his ideas he moved to a much more conceptual idea and it was supposed to be the job of the instructors to fill in the details of things.  Again, back to the example of the self-defense techniques.  You would first learn HOW to perform a wrist lock, or grab to throw properly before you learned how to defend against it.

Ed Parker also predicted the rise of grappling in combat sports due to the environment and rule sets.  He was good friends with Gene Lebell and understood much more that what his commercial system illustrates.


----------



## Martial D

Headhunter said:


> It's funny really because once someone was doing a technique on me. I knew the guy was bad with his control and his move was a kick to the groin and I wasn't in the mood to stand there and take that so after the first punch to the face I stepped back (which is most likely what would happen if you get punched) and his kick missed. He started bitching at me for moving. I said well you just punched me in the face I'm not going to be just standing there letting you am I. He said okay well you do that to me and I'll move. So I did and he moved and all I did was move in a little more and landed the kick. Because I actually practiced different ranges and different set ups and counters to the techniques where as this guy hadn't


Ya, it's kind of sad. A lot of TMA leave the concept of distance and timing at the door.

All the technique in the world is useless if you don't train those two things.


----------



## Buka

I really liked Ed Parker, he was a really nice and interesting man. Learned a lot from him. And, man, could he SCRAP. Really fast hands, too. _Really_ fast. 




 
Ed and I 1980 or so.

Fighting Ed was like fighting a fire hose filled with rocks.


----------



## Headhunter

Buka said:


> I really liked Ed Parker, he was a really nice and interesting man. Learned a lot from him. And, man, could he SCRAP. Really fast hands, too. _Really_ fast.
> 
> View attachment 22191
> Ed and I 1980 or so.
> 
> Fighting Ed was like fighting a fire hose filled with rocks.


Oh trust me my issue isn't with ed Parker it's with the people who are ruining his art by not following his basic wants for the system. The man was obviously a genius in both martial arts and business and though I never met him or saw him fight on the videos I've seen its obvious how fast and strong he was for a guy his size. I mean yeah he didn't have the body of a UFC fighter but that doesn't mean he can't fight (though it could've sad,y contributed to his heart attack that killed him)


----------



## Headhunter

Buka said:


> I really liked Ed Parker, he was a really nice and interesting man. Learned a lot from him. And, man, could he SCRAP. Really fast hands, too. _Really_ fast.
> 
> View attachment 22191
> Ed and I 1980 or so.
> 
> Fighting Ed was like fighting a fire hose filled with rocks.


Also what happened? Was your jacket in the wash that day lol


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Blindside said:


> IMO Kenpo's greatest common fault is the lack of resistance training.  One of the reason's I moved away from it was because there was too much theory and not enough resistance.  My kenpo school had a dual personality, on Thursday you worked techniques and forms and on Tuesdays you fought.  We were turning out decent fighters because of  the regular and intensive sparring but we just looked like hybrid karate kickboxers, there wasn't anything "kenpo" about us aside from kicking people in the groin on a regular basis.  I think there is another way of making that leap between the technique idea (and kenpo techs are more like mini kata than a single lock or throw) and training against resistance than what my old school did.


My solution has been to have three kinds of "sparring", plus one:

Sparring - strikes only (might allow a sweep if on mats).
Randori - standing grappling only (allow some slaps and such sometimes, to keep people honest, allow some move to ground control after a takedown).
Rolling - groundwork only (sometimes starting from an assigned takedown, always either to control or to escape). We don't do a lot of this...if I had more classes, I'd spend more time on this.
Mixed sparring - Any/all of the above, with a focus of trying to get past striking defense to get a takedown. This I keep light and technical, both because it's more chaotic and because it takes up a lot of space when it escalates.
I don't spend enough time (by my own judgment) on this. There's just not enough time to spend. So I do spend most of the sparring time on strikes-only sparring (#1). That might change if/as I have a group of more experienced students.


----------



## Buka

Headhunter said:


> Oh trust me my issue isn't with ed Parker it's with the people who are ruining his art by not following his basic wants for the system. The man was obviously a genius in both martial arts and business and though I never met him or saw him fight on the videos I've seen its obvious how fast and strong he was for a guy his size. I mean yeah he didn't have the body of a UFC fighter but that doesn't mean he can't fight (though it could've sad,y contributed to his heart attack that killed him)





Headhunter said:


> Also what happened? Was your jacket in the wash that day lol



I didn't think you had an issue with Ed Parker, I was just yapping because I hadn't thought about Ed in a while. When I was twelve I saw him on the Lucy Show and I knew I was doomed to do Martial Arts forever.
So far, so good.  
(The title of that episode was Lucy and Viv do Judo.)


As for my gi top, some days we just wore school t-shirts when we fought. I'm sure I had one in my bag if the need arose. I always carried everything I might need for any given Martial situation. On that particular day Ed was doing a seminar for Kenpo Black Belts and I was his designated Uke. And I wasn't even a Kenpo student at the time. I know that might sound odd, but Ed liked to throw some curve balls to the Kenpo Mucky Mucks at times. Man, did I have me some fun.


----------



## Headhunter

Buka said:


> I didn't think you had an issue with Ed Parker, I was just yapping because I hadn't thought about Ed in a while. When I was twelve I saw him on the Lucy Show and I knew I was doomed to do Martial Arts forever.
> So far, so good.
> (The title of that episode was Lucy and Viv do Judo.)
> 
> 
> As for my gi top, some days we just wore school t-shirts when we fought. I'm sure I had one in my bag if the need arose. I always carried everything I might need for any given Martial situation. On that particular day Ed was doing a seminar for Kenpo Black Belts and I was his designated Uke. And I wasn't even a Kenpo student at the time. I know that might sound odd, but Ed liked to throw some curve balls to the Kenpo Mucky Mucks at times. Man, did I have me some fun.


Was that really awful sketch show where you can see ep Parker laughing at how stupid it is


----------



## punisher73

Blindside said:


> IMO Kenpo's greatest common fault is the lack of resistance training.  One of the reason's I moved away from it was because there was too much theory and not enough resistance.  My kenpo school had a dual personality, on Thursday you worked techniques and forms and on Tuesdays you fought.  We were turning out decent fighters because of  the regular and intensive sparring but we just looked like hybrid karate kickboxers, there wasn't anything "kenpo" about us aside from kicking people in the groin on a regular basis.  I think there is another way of making that leap between the technique idea (and kenpo techs are more like mini kata than a single lock or throw) and training against resistance than what my old school did.



Most schools don't teach them, but SGM Parker's "Freestyle Techniques" were supposed to be a method to bridge the gap between the self-defense techniques and free sparrring.


----------



## Blindside

Headhunter said:


> Was that really awful sketch show where you can see ep Parker laughing at how stupid it is



I Love Lucy was one of the most popular shows on television in the 50s, one the of early sitcoms. 
edit: Hey look Dance of Death and I forgot what a terrible spinning back kick Mr. Parker had.


----------



## AIKIKENJITSU

MJS said:


> [yt]dVC3Fnr5kB0[/yt]
> 
> 
> http://ltatum.com/movies/Week22/TipOfTheWeekMedW22.html
> 
> 
> Here are 2 clips of whats being called grappling or ground fighting, in Kenpo. My intent isn't to bash the guys in the clips, but instead, to analyze and discuss the clips. I'm looking to discuss things such as...
> 
> What did you like/dislike about the clips?
> 
> What would you do or have done differently?
> 
> Do you think that the defenses that were presented were effective? Why/why not?
> 
> Just a few things to get the ball rolling.  You dont have to limit your replies to just those questions. And as always, this discussion is open to non Kenpoists as well.


Fifty years in Kenpo and I've learned one thing, get off the ground now! I use the basic leg trap and throwing my hip up and to the left side, while pulling his arm to the left side. I then never start hitting him on the ground, I jump up and onto my feet. Others may be behind him so be ready. 
Sifu
Puyallup, WA


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

AIKIKENJITSU said:


> Fifty years in Kenpo and I've learned one thing, get off the ground now! I use the basic leg trap and throwing my hip up and to the left side, while pulling his arm to the left side. I then never start hitting him on the ground, I jump up and onto my feet. Others may be behind him so be ready.
> Sifu
> Puyallup, WA


Is there a reason you include your length of time training kenpo in each post? Having it in your profile is normally enough, or answering questions regarding it-if anyone has questions, they can ask. Otherwise, I find you get better discussion if you let your posts speak for themselves. 
Given most people here have trained for decades, not many are going to be too swayed by your 50 years.


----------



## Oily Dragon

AIKIKENJITSU said:


> Fifty years in Kenpo and I've learned one thing,


Toad style is immensely powerful?  I agree.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Is there a reason you include your length of time training kenpo in each post?


I've always sort of assumed it was due to insecurity, given that his earned rank is really quite low and he's merely self-promoted.


----------



## AIKIKENJITSU

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Is there a reason you include your length of time training kenpo in each post? Having it in your profile is normally enough, or answering questions regarding it-if anyone has questions, they can ask. Otherwise, I find you get better discussion if you let your posts speak for themselves.
> Given most people here have trained for decades, not many are going to be too swayed by your 50 years.


No one's perfect.
Sifu
Puyallup, WA


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

AIKIKENJITSU said:


> No one's perfect.
> Sifu
> Puyallup, WA


Just to clarify, that wasn't a condemnation of you or your writing style, just some friendly advice.


----------

