# Kenpo on the ground- part 2



## MJS (Jan 23, 2004)

I recently emailed Larry tatum and asked him if he could to a TOW with some grappling.  He did.  You can view it either by going to his site or its also on the kenpo net forum.  

The attack is someone moutned on top and he's defending from the bottom.

I think it would be interesting to hear everyones thoughts on this.  There is quite the debate on the KN about this! LOL!

Mike


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by MJS _
> *I recently emailed Larry tatum and asked him if he could to a TOW with some grappling.  He did.  You can view it either by going to his site or its also on the kenpo net forum.
> 
> The attack is someone moutned on top and he's defending from the bottom.
> ...


 I have yet to read the debate on the kenponet, but my first impression is not good. The guy standing over Mr. Tatum left a gap so wide a whale could swim through. I wanna see defenses against real grappling! At best this was a way to avoid being mounted by a guy that would rather punch you than acheive the mount. Your next E-mail should say, "Ok, now show us some moves against a **GRAPPLER**  that is on you like white on rice."
Sean


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 23, 2004)

I read the debate and of course the usual suspects were offended by the least bit of critisizm. My absolute favorite is when some guy ask the rhetoricle question "would you teach kenpo to a white belt with realistic attacks?" My answer would be, HELL YES!!! but I think he was looking for a "no".
Sean


----------



## MJS (Jan 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Touch'O'Death _
> *I have yet to read the debate on the kenponet, but my first impression is not good. The guy standing over Mr. Tatum left a gap so wide a whale could swim through. I wanna see defenses against real grappling! At best this was a way to avoid being mounted by a guy that would rather punch you than acheive the mount. Your next E-mail should say, "Ok, now show us some moves against a **GRAPPLER**  that is on you like white on rice."
> Sean *



Right on my friend!!  I agree 100%  That was however my original intent when I sent  the email.  I was hoping to see someone on top, punching away.  There was a HUGE gap with the guy on top.  

Mike


----------



## MJS (Jan 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Touch'O'Death _
> *I read the debate and of course the usual suspects were offended by the least bit of critisizm. My absolute favorite is when some guy ask the rhetoricle question "would you teach kenpo to a white belt with realistic attacks?" My answer would be, HELL YES!!! but I think he was looking for a "no".
> Sean *



Another good point!!  Once the new student grasps the ideas, and they are serious about learning real SD, then yeah, start picking up the pace.  You need to crawl before you walk and walk before you run, so the first day, to start beating the crap out of them...well, some of them might run for the door, but then again, everybody trains for different reasons.  Myself, I want to know that what I'm doing is gonna work if I need it.  I dont want to find out when its too late, that the past 17yrs of my training was a waste because I just got my a** kicked!  And I would think that I'm not the only one with that mindset.  

Of course, maybe that is why some people think that you need to train for 20yrs before you get the full understanding, and that the reality based or "quick" arts are no good.  My question--Why the hell do you have to wait that long???  If I can learn something in a short amount of time and defend myself, well, after all, isnt that the goal????

Mike


----------



## dcence (Jan 23, 2004)

It is very easy to pick apart a video clip because it doesn't have this or that.  It really is.  I think people are missing the point that the video is demonstrating A and many who might criticize were looking for B.  You aren't criticizing Tatum as a martial artist; he just isn't addressing the situation some might like addressed.

If the guy was fully mounted he would probably have to alter what he was demonstrating.  The attacker's center of gravity is very high and is something a good fighter wouldn't do in that situation, but that really isn't what was being demonstrated.

I am not a Tatum apologist, but make sure before criticizing a video clip, ask yourself what is he attempting to show, and then does he competently show what he is attempting to show.

I agree the attack isn't the most dangerous or difficult to deal with because of the points made already, but neither is a handshake and Kenpo has a lot of techniques for those.  While there is some cross-over, there is a big practical gap between groundfighting and trying to adopt a stand up technique on your back and a guy kneeling over you.


----------



## Thesemindz (Jan 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Touch'O'Death _
> *I read the debate and of course the usual suspects were offended by the least bit of critisizm. My absolute favorite is when some guy ask the rhetoricle question "would you teach kenpo to a white belt with realistic attacks?" My answer would be, HELL YES!!! but I think he was looking for a "no".
> Sean *



Hi Sean, I posted that. Are you saying you punch a white belt in the face as hard and fast as you can? Are you trying to argue that a step-through punch is realistic on its own merit? The attacks might be conceptually realistic and can certaintly be executed that way, but don't you teach beginners bigger, blockier attacks so that they can begin to explore basic motion? Are you saying a single step-through punch with no follow up attack is a "realistic" attack?

I didn't realize I was one of the usual suspects. 


I love that movie.

-Rob


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Jan 23, 2004)

By now you have observed that I am the one who started the ugly debate about the TOW.

I just think it would be great to see Mr. Tatum smack and toss somebody who is properly mounted.  A couple of minor modifications to the technique and I am sure we would have something that I would be proud to e-mail my BJJ pals and say "Look!  That's Kenpo!"


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Thesemindz _
> *Hi Sean, I posted that. Are you saying you punch a white belt in the face as hard and fast as you can? Are you trying to argue that a step-through punch is realistic on its own merit? The attacks might be conceptually realistic and can certaintly be executed that way, but don't you teach beginners bigger, blockier attacks so that they can begin to explore basic motion? Are you saying a single step-through punch with no follow up attack is a "realistic" attack?
> 
> I didn't realize I was one of the usual suspects.
> ...


 First of all, step through punches occur only in a karate studio, and training against them is unrealistic. Blocks can be punched through; so, we don't teach white belts that they will save them either. We teach them what will work, and offer them the chance to feel it working. Its up to the instructor to pull his punch until they got it right. And as stated above the whole lets use attacks a student will never encounter to teach basic motion is the reason its taking twenty years to learn to defend ourselves. I know, I know, you are probably wondering, "what does work against real punches?". Well I'll save you twenty years and tell you to get off the line of attack and cover.   :asian:


----------



## MJS (Jan 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Old Fat Kenpoka _
> *By now you have observed that I am the one who started the ugly debate about the TOW.
> 
> I just think it would be great to see Mr. Tatum smack and toss somebody who is properly mounted.  A couple of minor modifications to the technique and I am sure we would have something that I would be proud to e-mail my BJJ pals and say "Look!  That's Kenpo!" *



OFK started the debate and I sent the email.  There were no ill intentions behind this, just the fact that I felt that it would be good to see this addressed by a Kenpoist.  LT is the only one doing a TOW, so I felt it would be good for everyone to see.

Mike


----------



## MJS (Jan 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Touch'O'Death _
> 
> 
> > And as stated above the whole lets use attacks a student will never encounter to teach basic motion is the reason its taking twenty years to learn to defend ourselves. I know, I know, you are probably wondering, "what does work against real punches?". Well I'll save you twenty years and tell you to get off the line of attack and cover.   :asian: [/B]
> ...


----------



## Fastmover (Jan 23, 2004)

I have really enjoyed this debate on the forum. I have to agree with Mr. Ence That this attack wouldnt be one in which a goodsmart fighter would attempt in a ground situation. If anything this clip shows what not to do with your center of gravity when on top in a fight. If you carry yourself this high allowing That much space, you can and will be thrown off balance which is what the clip does show. 

Being on bottom with someone mounted on you really stinks, especially if the person knows how to set up the ride correctly. To make matters even worse is the reason you ended up in this situation. For the person to be mounted, you are hurt, tired, and/ or this fighter is much better then you. All in all Id say youve have a bad day and its getting worse real fast. 

From my experience if the fighter on top is an experience ground fighter, even the hip Heist or Umpa is going to be hard to pull off. Personally I have a lot of success with The elbow escape but even that opens one up to punches, chokes, and arm bars. Did I mention that being mounted really sucks!!!! So maybe the word of the day is avoidance. Even skilled fighters get the living crap beat out of them when someone mounts on them. 

Still with all this in mind I think it is important to address the worst case scenario when dealing with the ideal phase of any technique. With this in mind hopefully you will not develop a false sense of security with your abilities and from this develop the skills to handle any situationno matter how dire. 

Bottom line, I would say it is better to be the mountee and not the mounted. Can I say that???

Oh well back to reading..........

Take Care

John


----------



## Thesemindz (Jan 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Touch'O'Death _
> *First of all, step through punches occur only in a karate studio, and training against them is unrealistic. Blocks can be punched through; so, we don't teach white belts that they will save them either. We teach them what will work, and offer them the chance to feel it working. Its up to the instructor to pull his punch until they got it right. And as stated above the whole lets use attacks a student will never encounter to teach basic motion is the reason its taking twenty years to learn to defend ourselves. I know, I know, you are probably wondering, "what does work against real punches?". Well I'll save you twenty years and tell you to get off the line of attack and cover.   :asian: *



Wow. Actually I was wondering. Get off the line of attack and cover. That's good advice. Reminds me of Checking the Storm, Thrusting Salute, Repeating Mace, Reversing Mace, Leaping Crane, Evading the Storm, Charging Ram, Shield and Sword, Gathering Clouds, Circling the Horizon, Detour from Doom, Protecting Fans, and Prance of the Tiger. Of course, those are all unrealistic attacks, so those examples probably don't count. And obviously some of those aren't punch techniques, so I'd have to adapt what I'd learned in, for instance, Charging Ram, to defend against a real punch.

Kenpo works, and it doesn't take twenty years. All it takes is a good instructor and a student.

-Rob


----------



## Thesemindz (Jan 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Thesemindz _
> *Hi Sean, I posted that. Are you saying you punch a white belt in the face as hard and fast as you can? Are you trying to argue that a step-through punch is realistic on its own merit? The attacks might be conceptually realistic and can certaintly be executed that way, but don't you teach beginners bigger, blockier attacks so that they can begin to explore basic motion? Are you saying a single step-through punch with no follow up attack is a "realistic" attack?
> 
> I didn't realize I was one of the usual suspects.
> ...






> _Originally posted by Touch'O'Death _
> *First of all, step through punches occur only in a karate studio, and training against them is unrealistic. Blocks can be punched through; so, we don't teach white belts that they will save them either. We teach them what will work, and offer them the chance to feel it working. Its up to the instructor to pull his punch until they got it right. And as stated above the whole lets use attacks a student will never encounter to teach basic motion is the reason its taking twenty years to learn to defend ourselves. I know, I know, you are probably wondering, "what does work against real punches?". Well I'll save you twenty years and tell you to get off the line of attack and cover.   :asian: *




I wanted to address this seperately. It seems as though I said that you attack beginners in an unrealistic way to let them learn, and you implied that that was not only a waste of time, but also detrimental to their training. You then went on to say that "Its up to the instructor to pull his punch until they got it right." To me that seems to be saying the same thing I said. A punch thrown without deadly intent and at only half speed isn't anymore "realistic" than a step through punch. They are merely examples for the student to work around.

I do agree with you about blocks though. We teach students that on their own, blocks do not work as defensive maneuvers, do to action being faster than reaction. Instead, stance changes to get out of the way of attacks is a better decision and then the block can be used offensively as a strike against the attackers natural weapons rather than defensively. 

-Rob


----------



## MJS (Jan 24, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Thesemindz _
> *Wow. Actually I was wondering. Get off the line of attack and cover. That's good advice. Reminds me of Checking the Storm, Thrusting Salute, Repeating Mace, Reversing Mace, Leaping Crane, Evading the Storm, Charging Ram, Shield and Sword, Gathering Clouds, Circling the Horizon, Detour from Doom, Protecting Fans, and Prance of the Tiger. Of course, those are all unrealistic attacks, so those examples probably don't count. And obviously some of those aren't punch techniques, so I'd have to adapt what I'd learned in, for instance, Charging Ram, to defend against a real punch.
> 
> Kenpo works, and it doesn't take twenty years. All it takes is a good instructor and a student.
> ...



I dont think it was meant as those techs. being poor, I think that he was referring to the way that the attack is delivered.  By stopping the punch short...of course like I said you dont want to KO the new student on the 1st day....but by stopping short, they are getting a flase sence of security.  If you are always stopping short, whats gonna happen when the attacker doesnt stop short?  The student will most likely get hit.

Mike


----------



## Thesemindz (Jan 24, 2004)

> _Originally posted by MJS _
> *I dont think it was meant as those techs. being poor, I think that he was referring to the way that the attack is delivered.  By stopping the punch short...of course like I said you dont want to KO the new student on the 1st day....but by stopping short, they are getting a flase sence of security.  If you are always stopping short, whats gonna happen when the attacker doesnt stop short?  The student will most likely get hit.
> 
> Mike *



That's why you don't always stop short. You throw attacks that the students can work around, and as they become more proficient the attack becomes more aggressive. I don't attack a white belt for delayed sword the same way I attack a black belt. The white belt needs to learn about distance and timing, the black belt just better get outta the way. Otherwise he's going to get clocked by a very real punch.

-Rob


----------



## MJS (Jan 24, 2004)

The below interview was done with the late John McSweeney. It is basically an interview that I got emailed to me from a friend. I copied it EXACTLY the way it was in the interview. I found this VERY interesting. There are some things in this interview that I have said to some of the die hard Kenpo guys. Again, funny how I'm not the only one who says stuff like this.

Question twelve: We know that Kenpo is very good for hand technique but, there is a lot of talk today about grappling technique and on-the-ground moves. Does Kenpo emphasize that? If so, why don't people know about it and if not, did you add it to the style? 

"I added ground grappling to my style years ago because I had a heavy background in Judo. It is my opinion that you need defense against grapplers especially if you're thrown to the ground. In Kenpo which is an in-fighting art, if you miss with a strike, or if you're not powerful enough to stop something, they can grab you and immobilize you and throw you to the ground. Then you have a major problem. 

"My theory is to learn enough about ground fighting, for instance bridging and escapes. If you're not a grappler don't try to become one. Stay with the art you learned but, learn enough ground fighting to enable you to escape and get back to your feet. I don't train people to be wrestlers because that's a whole separate art, and to be a good wrestler takes years, just as it is to be a good boxer or Kung Fu man. You don't do it overnight, it takes years of training. It's also a whole different philosophy. The wrestler wants to grab and hold you and choke you out or lock you into a submission hold. Kenpo people e are taught to knock people out quickly. 

"So to answer your question, Kenpo does not teach anything about grappling, and it is a shortcoming of the art. But this is true of many of the hand arts. Grapping is just not part of the systems. But, just as a good grappler would want to learn a few good hand strikes, so too would a hand man want to learn a few tricks from the ground. My students are taught ground work but that is because of my background. I teach them enough to get a person off them. A well-rounded instructor should be able to give you some instruction in basic ground work. However, if your teacher is not a grappler, then I suggest find a good teacher in Judo and learn the basics. This knowledge can serve you well.


----------



## Thesemindz (Jan 25, 2004)

I totally agree man. I think it is necessary to learn alot about grappling. I don't completely agree that it is absent from the system, I just think you have to really, really look for it. As I learn more about grappling, I see that most of the motion was contained within things I've already learned in kenpo, I'd just never practiced that application before. Training in grappling makes us better fighters and better martial artists.

Yep. Grappling sure is a good thing.                And



-Rob


----------



## Rick Wade (Jan 26, 2004)

I would say that Kenpo is a thinking man's art.

The grappling is built in you just have to be smart enough to see it.  Some schools teach it and some not so much.  I agree there isn't any techniques that I know of that start out on the ground already wraped up if that is what you are talking about.  However there are some that end up in a chock hold (the sleeper).  There are some that show how to get out of a chock (Thundering Hammer).  There are several others for ankle and leg locks.  

Thanks
Rick


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 26, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Rick Wade _
> *I would say that Kenpo is a thinking man's art.
> 
> The grappling is built in you just have to be smart enough to see it.  Some schools teach it and some not so much.  I agree there isn't any techniques that I know of that start out on the ground already wraped up if that is what you are talking about.  However there are some that end up in a chock hold (the sleeper).  There are some that show how to get out of a chock (Thundering Hammer).  There are several others for ankle and leg locks.
> ...


 Or rather I would say the instructor has to be smart enough to teach it. Why is it hidden within the system again?
Sean


----------



## MJS (Jan 26, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Rick Wade _
> *I would say that Kenpo is a thinking man's art.
> 
> The grappling is built in you just have to be smart enough to see it.  Some schools teach it and some not so much.  I agree there isn't any techniques that I know of that start out on the ground already wraped up if that is what you are talking about.  However there are some that end up in a chock hold (the sleeper).  There are some that show how to get out of a chock (Thundering Hammer).  There are several others for ankle and leg locks.
> ...



While this may be true to an extent, I would think that if you wanted to teach something to someone, that you'd have to at least know a little about what you're teaching.  If you watch the video clip, you might see what I'm talking about.  Again, anything can be done if the person is set up properly.  This IMO, is a perfect example of that.

Mike


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 27, 2004)

I was just wondering if you could refer us to videos of your own martial arts work.

Thanks.


----------



## MisterMike (Jan 27, 2004)

The guy was more like kneeling over Mr. Tatum, which may be fairly applicable on the street, as opposed to some Gracie wrestling match. But yea, there was definitely room to play there. Heck, he coulda just pulled a Jackie Chan and grabbed his legs and slid himself behind they attacker, then kicked him in the back to send him off.

I don't think the knee-bump would eject anyone off of a person, but in that scenario, it seems there was some borrowed force with the guy punching downward. A good hard knee to the tailbone mighta worked though.

Kenpo is more of a striking art, so I wasn't expecting some grappling comeback, but boy did that front leg look good for a twistin' 

I gave it 3 outta 5 stars. Might not of been the ideal groundfighting scenario most talk about, but it was one out of the million and a half possibilities.


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Jan 27, 2004)

There was some rough housing resulting in crying in my son's preschool class yesterday.  One of the 3-year olds knocked another one down, sat on him, and wouldn't let his classmate up until a teacher intervened.  

That is a mount.  You don't need years of training in order to know that if you are stradling someone who is prone on the ground you should sit down on them.  

This has nothing to do with the Gracies.  It has everything to do with having even a minimum sense of realism in your training and in video instruction.  The message Mr. Tatum was trying to communicate was completely lost because the attack was too weak to be taken seriously or to enable him to establish credibility in that situation.


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Jan 27, 2004)

Good idea, Robert.  I have a 1992 tournament video with a Black Belt self-defense technique demonstration division in its entirety where I won 2nd place (Marcus Buonifoglio won 3rd and another Black Belt from my school won 1st).   I'll see if I can get that converted to a PC format.

As far as instructional videos on the web, what would you like to see?  MMA, BJJ, Judo, Kickboxing, street fights?  There are many links we could dig up for you that would demonstrate a high degree of realism within their given rule sets.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 27, 2004)

I realize that this won't do the slightest good, but the Tip was meant to illustrate the application of a vertical technique in a horizontal plane. Please go back and listen to the commentary.

I realize this won't faze anybody, but the dummy is a purple belt with a bum knee. If you do this tech with your knees down, and you dummy up sloppily, your knee tends to get torqued rather badly. There is further discussion of this on KenpoNet.

I realize that several won't believe this BUT I HAVE DONE THIS PARTICULAR TECHNIQUE BOTH AS A DUMMY AND ON THE GROUND, WITH KNEES ON AND OFF THE MAT. It is, in point of fact, very difficult to reach the face with punches unless at least one knee is down. When you get your knees down, lean in and swing hard and fast, you get hosed--unless, of course, they freeze. 

I realize that this will simply be read as more evidence that I am a hidebound traditionalist with no understanding whatsoever of What Can Happen, but personally, I've been running one tech or another for peeling somebody off since 1993. At that same studio.

And I realize this is likely to get ignored, but I a) am quite well aware of most of the biggies in grappling, b) have indeed practiced this stuff but am by no means a genius at it, c) have indeed learned stuff from these arguments. 

Again, I'd like to see demos of grappling techs--shown for the same reasons, to illustrate a concept--considered to be more realistic. I will bet you a shiny new nickel that I can come up with just as many objections, all based in complaining about realism.

I am also quite acutely aware that martial arts instructors can set things up to make themselves look good, and so limit the nature of attacks and responses, and so condition their students to over-respect them, that nothing real gets taught. I have a pretty good idea of how this happens, too, so I tend to be skeptical and watchful. No matter who's the head of my school. Can all of you folks say the same?

There is no such thing as a perfect, invulnerable technique.


----------



## MJS (Jan 28, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *I was just wondering if you could refer us to videos of your own martial arts work.
> 
> Thanks. *



No,sorry Robert, but I have no tapes.  I can however recommend some very good ones if you're interested.

Mike


----------



## MJS (Jan 28, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> 
> 
> > *I realize that this won't do the slightest good, but the Tip was meant to illustrate the application of a vertical technique in a horizontal plane. Please go back and listen to the commentary.*
> ...


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 29, 2004)

One of your better responses, Michael.


----------



## MJS (Jan 29, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *One of your better responses, Michael. *



Thank you Robert.

Mike


----------



## MisterMike (Jan 29, 2004)

Group hug! Group hug! Can ya feel it!!??

artyon:


----------



## fist of fury (Feb 10, 2004)

Just thought this thread might be of intrest to the kenpoists here


http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9236


----------



## MisterMike (Feb 10, 2004)

Not too interesting unless your into bashing other peoples styles. One thing that gets me is these "groud fighters" think they have the market cornered, trouble is, you have to get your opponent down there.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 10, 2004)

It's a shame that the bullshido people are such dorks, because I absolutely love the IDEA of what they're doing. But as I will now be noting every time they come up in conversation, note that a) nobody seems to use their real name; b) everybody picks the sort of alias I usually associate with 12-year-olds playing with Pokemon or Transformer; c) everybody swaggers a lot.

Pity, really. Martial arts could use some debunking (OK, a LOT of debunking), and if you dig through the...uh...well...the organ waving, they have a lot of good things to say.


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Feb 10, 2004)

> One thing that gets me is these "groud fighters" think they have the market cornered, trouble is, you have to get your opponent down there.



One thing that bothers me is that these "Karate Fighters" think they have the market cornered, trouble is, you have to stay on your feet.



> It's a shame that the bullshido people are such dorks, because I absolutely love the IDEA of what they're doing. But as I will now be noting every time they come up in conversation, note that a) nobody seems to use their real name; b) everybody picks the sort of alias I usually associate with 12-year-olds playing with Pokemon or Transformer; c) everybody swaggers a lot.



Don't have to have a nickname to be a dork.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 10, 2004)

> _Originally posted by MisterMike _
> *Not too interesting unless your into bashing other peoples styles. One thing that gets me is these "groud fighters" think they have the market cornered, trouble is, you have to get your opponent down there. *


 If you train to attack your opponents weakest base of support (right from B1A and B1B on), and your opponent knows anything, someone is going to fall down. If it is him and you are late on the pretty double cross out, you be grapplin'
Sean


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Feb 10, 2004)

Think about all the Karate tournaments you've been to?  Ever see anyone fall down during sparring competition?  Yeah, me too.  Gee, and they weren't even fighting someone trying to take them down!


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 10, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Old Fat Kenpoka _
> *Think about all the Karate tournaments you've been to?  Ever see anyone fall down during sparring competition?  Yeah, me too.  Gee, and they weren't even fighting someone trying to take them down! *


Not to mention snow, ice, gravel, oil based jello(hee hee).
Sean


----------



## MisterMike (Feb 10, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Old Fat Kenpoka _
> *Think about all the Karate tournaments you've been to?  Ever see anyone fall down during sparring competition?  Yeah, me too.  Gee, and they weren't even fighting someone trying to take them down! *



Actually, they probably weren't even fighting. If that's what they take to the street, well.......


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 10, 2004)

> _Originally posted by MisterMike _
> *Actually, they probably weren't even fighting. If that's what they take to the street, well....... *


 Obviously your position(ha ha) on the subject is that you opponent will be hard pressed to get you down and then they will be rendered defensles by your minor move extraviganza. We come from a school of thought that there is no disgrace in being thrown. That is... we don't put up that little what, me, worry ? barrier that seems to permiate the mentalities of those who do stand up training. Its going to happen. Let the ground be your freind. Learn how to go right from the breakfall... or hope it doesn't happen. You decide.  :asian: 
Sean


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 10, 2004)

No, OFK, one does not. 

However, it does seem to be the case that these guys all need names like, "Vicious Spear of Death," to get through the day...and yet people laugh at Freud.

From now on, perhaps I'll borrow from Randy Newman and call myself, "Mighty Sword..."

And am I hallucinating, or did everybody on this thread pretty much agree some time back that y'all might get knocked down from time to time (or in my case, fall down...as in this one test, during which some really big putz threw me, spine first, into a bench one of the judges was sitting on...which is why I got up and chased him out the door), and it would behoove us a) not to freak, b) to be able to at least get back up?


----------



## psi_radar (Feb 10, 2004)

Those Bullshido guys ARE funny, but they take to criticism with a shotgun rather than a scalpel. I'm not a huge fan of "Rolling Thunder," but I think the first part has some merit. 

It seems like the MMA and BJJ guys rank on us Kenpo guys for not addressing the ground game, then when someone makes an attempt, it's not good enough.


----------



## Fastmover (Feb 10, 2004)

> _Originally posted by psi_radar _
> * I'm not a huge fan of "Rolling Thunder," but I think the first part has some merit.
> 
> *



What do you feel is wrong with Rolling Thunder?

Thanks


----------



## psi_radar (Feb 10, 2004)

> What do you feel is wrong with Rolling Thunder?



Hoo boy. Ok, hopefully without getting into a whole new rigamarole, the first part is pretty textbook groundfighting, I just don't buy the "dance of death" part at the end. If the attacker's smart enough to get you in the mount to begin with, then they probably will hold the guard on you once you reverse them--and a good guard requires some skill and time to slip. 

Rolling Thunder seems to make the assumption that your first hits/reversal will allow you to pretty much skip away, hitting as you go, which I know is not always the case. Granted, this is a technique set in the ideal phase. I can see why it was formulated as it was--"Ok, when I'm in the guard, positionally, what Kenpo technique best fits the situation? Dance of death!" [The problem with this is that in dance of death, you are working from a takedown rather than coming up from the ground--rather than trying to rise, you're slamming downward. Quite different forces happening there.] 

In the most likely scenario, even if I slipped the guard I'd be more tempted to move to a leg lock, move to the mount or side mount, slam the groin with a knee or just stand up and get away. Any of those options seem more practical and possible to me.

That said, I'm glad Mr. Mills and his group are trying to address the ground game. I think as more time is spent on this--and as some instructors unabashedly crosstrain--we'll start to see more and better ground techniques generated out of the Kenpo community.


----------



## MisterMike (Feb 10, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Touch'O'Death _
> *Obviously your position(ha ha) on the subject is that you opponent will be hard pressed to get you down and then they will be rendered defensles by your minor move extraviganza. We come from a school of thought that there is no disgrace in being thrown. That is... we don't put up that little what, me, worry ? barrier that seems to permiate the mentalities of those who do stand up training. Its going to happen. Let the ground be your freind. Learn how to go right from the breakfall... or hope it doesn't happen. You decide.  :asian:
> Sean *



Well, no, I guess it's not so obvious. My position was that these guys (and I'm referring to most of the posters in the supplied thread above) seem to think they have the market cornered on "real world fighting" because they can groundfight and Kenpo people slap each other. I'm sure a lot of fights do go to the ground, and in some cases because one person was already losing the fight while he was up.

As I read more replies however, my position shifts more to include the idea that with your member name, you may fit in well with them.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 10, 2004)

> _Originally posted by MisterMike _
> *Well, no, I guess it's not so obvious. My position was that these guys (and I'm referring to most of the posters in the supplied thread above) seem to think they have the market cornered on "real world fighting" because they can groundfight and Kenpo people slap each other. I'm sure a lot of fights do go to the ground, and in some cases because one person was already losing the fight while he was up.
> 
> As I read more replies however, my position shifts more to include the idea that with your member name, you may fit in well with them. *


 My member name comes from a video game Bart Simpson played instead of attending his kenpo class. I just thought I sensed an, "'I'm never goin' to the ground" in your posts. This is to be expected from people who call themselves Mike 
Sean


----------



## MisterMike (Feb 10, 2004)

Hehe - OK good. I'd rather see you posting on MT anyways 

I actually love ground fighting, I just prefer to stomp.


----------



## Zoran (Feb 25, 2004)

MJS said:
			
		

> The below interview was done with the late John McSweeney. It is basically an interview that I got emailed to me from a friend. I copied it EXACTLY the way it was in the interview. I found this VERY interesting. There are some things in this interview that I have said to some of the die hard Kenpo guys. Again, funny how I'm not the only one who says stuff like this.
> 
> Question twelve: We know that Kenpo is very good for hand technique but, there is a lot of talk today about grappling technique and on-the-ground moves. Does Kenpo emphasize that? If so, why don't people know about it and if not, did you add it to the style?
> 
> ...



John McSweeney was always a bit of a "rogue" when it came to mainstream Kenpo. He sort of did his own thing and didn't care what others thought. It's one of the things I loved about the man.

It is true, there was some ground work in his form of Kenpo long before the BJJ days. However, it has evolved quite a bit since then and will continue to do so. What I like about my instructor, is he saw the need to better address gound fighting within his system. Which he has through various mediums and is slowly integrating this into his system (kenpoizing it). We have one day a week now set aside for ground fighting classes run by one of our black belts. Eventually, it will be fully integrated.


----------



## MJS (Feb 25, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Not too interesting unless your into bashing other peoples styles. One thing that gets me is these "groud fighters" think they have the market cornered, trouble is, you have to get your opponent down there.



I agree with OFK and his reply.  My 2 cents regarding this---Looking back to the first UFC, I bet the majority of stand up fighters never dreamed that they'd end up on their backs.  Its really not that difficult due to the fact that any time the stand up guy extends a limb, the grappler will take advantage of it.

Mike


----------



## MJS (Feb 25, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Actually, they probably weren't even fighting. If that's what they take to the street, well.......



Not sure how many tournys you've been to, but the majority of the ones I've been to, have all had someone fall, stumble, etc. and what happened???  The ref was right there to break the action.  

Mike


----------



## Dark Kenpo Lord (Feb 25, 2004)

MJS said:
			
		

> I agree with OFK and his reply. My 2 cents regarding this---Looking back to the first UFC, I bet the majority of stand up fighters never dreamed that they'd end up on their backs. Its really not that difficult due to the fact that any time the stand up guy extends a limb, the grappler will take advantage of it.
> 
> Mike


The UFC ring was designed by the Gracies to limit the amount of damage to themselves, not the standup guys.   Change the ring, change the outcome.

Dark Lord


----------



## Dark Kenpo Lord (Feb 25, 2004)

MJS said:
			
		

> Not sure how many tournys you've been to, but the majority of the ones I've been to, have all had someone fall, stumble, etc. and what happened??? The ref was right there to break the action.
> 
> Mike


 
Not in the IKC's, you had a three second rule that allowed the one on the ground or the one standing to score in that position.   I saw a lot of cups get kicked straight up with a heel from the guy on the ground because the one standing up didn't control the fall because most times, it was accidental.   It was even more rare to see the standup fighter score than the guy on the ground.    They didn't allow kicks below the waist, except to groin, which limited their targets for any sort of follow up after the fall.

Dark Lord


----------



## cfr (Feb 25, 2004)

Im sure this would work against a live, resisting opponent. LOL. Does anyone know if this has been tried against a real grappler??? The outcome??? Not theory, but actually tested?

cfr
Proud member of the "shake n' bake, impatient, want it all my way right now, just really not understanding the deeper meaning of it all" club.

Hey, I just came up with my new signiture... :boing2:


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Feb 25, 2004)

Dark Kenpo Lad:



> The UFC ring was designed by the Gracies to limit the amount of damage to themselves, not the standup guys. Change the ring, change the outcome.


I don't think you know what are you talking about!  The early UFC ring had almost no restrictions except for no biting or groin kicking.  After Rorion Gracie sold the UFC, they instituted rules favoring the standup strikers such as
* standing the fighters up when doing a checkup similar to a standing 8 count
* making them wear gloves
* having time-limited rounds.



> Not in the IKC's, you had a three second rule that allowed the one on the ground or the one standing to score in that position. I saw a lot of cups get kicked straight up with a heel from the guy on the ground because the one standing up didn't control the fall because most times, it was accidental. It was even more rare to see the standup fighter score than the guy on the ground. They didn't allow kicks below the waist, except to groin, which limited their targets for any sort of follow up after the fall.


WTF?   My experience judging and competing is that the standing guy scored more often -- but like Mike said the referee was right there to break things up after only 3 seconds when not more than one or two strikes was ever thrown.


----------



## Zoran (Feb 26, 2004)

Old Fat Kenpoka said:
			
		

> Dark Kenpo Lad:
> 
> 
> I don't think you know what are you talking about!  The early UFC ring had almost no restrictions except for no biting or groin kicking.  After Rorion Gracie sold the UFC, they instituted rules favoring the standup strikers such as
> ...



It's all about the money. Supposedly it's designed for the fighters safety. Actually it's designed to make the fights more exciting, as the fighters tend to have to beat on each other more, which brings them more sponsors and spectators.

Oh, it was no biting and eye gouging. Groin kicking was allowed, as was any kick, even against the joint.


----------



## MJS (Feb 26, 2004)

Dark Kenpo Lord said:
			
		

> The UFC ring was designed by the Gracies to limit the amount of damage to themselves, not the standup guys.   Change the ring, change the outcome.
> 
> Dark Lord



Well, lets not make excuses for the stand up guys here.  Keep in mind, that if you really want to be adept with your skills, you should be training in shoes, especially if the majority of your training is done barefoot.  A few other things to look at also.  If you look at some of the Graice in Action tapes, you'll see fights that take place outside of a ring.  Also, some of the NHB matches use a boxing ring, and the stand up guys are having the same problem.  I think Pride uses that type of ring.

Mike


----------



## MJS (Feb 26, 2004)

Zoran said:
			
		

> It's all about the money. Supposedly it's designed for the fighters safety. Actually it's designed to make the fights more exciting, as the fighters tend to have to beat on each other more, which brings them more sponsors and spectators.
> 
> Oh, it was no biting and eye gouging. Groin kicking was allowed, as was any kick, even against the joint.



Personally, I look more forward to seeing some tech. rather than 2 guys just beat the heck out of each other while throwing crapply techs.  

Mike


----------



## MJS (Feb 26, 2004)

Dark Kenpo Lord said:
			
		

> Not in the IKC's, you had a three second rule that allowed the one on the ground or the one standing to score in that position.   I saw a lot of cups get kicked straight up with a heel from the guy on the ground because the one standing up didn't control the fall because most times, it was accidental.   It was even more rare to see the standup fighter score than the guy on the ground.    They didn't allow kicks below the waist, except to groin, which limited their targets for any sort of follow up after the fall.
> 
> Dark Lord



Well, there are many different tournys. out there, and it has been many years since I've competed.

Mike


----------



## MJS (Feb 26, 2004)

> cfr
> Proud member of the "shake n' bake, impatient, want it all my way right now, just really not understanding the deeper meaning of it all" club.
> 
> Hey, I just came up with my new signiture... :boing2:



Hey, I like that one!!!! :boing2: 

Mike


----------



## 8253 (Feb 27, 2004)

i once heard an interesting theory about defending yourself from the ground with someone on top of you.  It was pretty much grabbing hold of them and letting them flail around untill they are worn out, or untill you can do some type of decisive damage to remove them.


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Feb 27, 2004)

> i once heard an interesting theory about defending yourself from the ground with someone on top of you. It was pretty much grabbing hold of them and letting them flail around untill they are worn out, or untill you can do some type of decisive damage to remove them.



I think you have this upside down.  The theory is you get on top of someone and let the bottom guy flail around until they are worn out.   Then you pound their face into the ground, choke them out, or break their arm.


----------



## MJS (Feb 27, 2004)

8253 said:
			
		

> i once heard an interesting theory about defending yourself from the ground with someone on top of you.  It was pretty much grabbing hold of them and letting them flail around untill they are worn out, or untill you can do some type of decisive damage to remove them.



Ok....and why would you want someone to lay on top of you until they are worn out???  Dont you think that YOU are gonna be pretty worn out too???

Mike


----------



## MJS (Feb 27, 2004)

I was originally gonna start another thread, but I think I'll just add this right into this one.  A funny thing happened the other day while I was grappling.  I was grappling with a friend who also has a background in Kenpo.  We were going over some mount escapes, against a 2 handed choke.  Pretty much, the 2 moves that he did looked very similar to crossing talon and mace of aggression.  We went over this a few times, and I was sitting there thinking to myself, "Wow, here's 2 Kenpo techs. that I found right in a mount escape.  Now, I know that this will sound strange to some, due to the fact that I'm a big fan of grappling and crosstraining, and also saying that its not in there.  However, I think after sitting down and really looking at some of the techs. there are many that can fit right into the ground game.  I think one of the problems is, is that the grapplers, myself included, are just looking at escapes strictly from a grapplers POV.  

Granted, the tech. that we did from the mount, were not textbook crossing talon and mace of aggression, but there were moves that were very similar.

Hope that this clears some things up a little!

Mike


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Feb 27, 2004)

Mike:  I think you've been talking to Clyde too much. :boing2:


----------



## MJS (Feb 27, 2004)

Old Fat Kenpoka said:
			
		

> Mike:  I think you've been talking to Clyde too much. :boing2:



I've only talked to him twice and it always seems that I have a better understanding of the art after the chat is over. Hmm....if only I had called him sooner, maybe the Kenpo/BJJ debate would not have gone on for soooooo long and the fighting would have been ALOT less, and maybe I'd have a better understanding of the art. 

As far as my 'discovery' goes..LOL...my training partner and I came up with that on our own.  I did mention it to Clyde and I got the response that I thought I would!!

Mike


----------



## Dark Kenpo Lord (Feb 28, 2004)

MJS said:
			
		

> I've only talked to him twice and it always seems that I have a better understanding of the art after the chat is over. Hmm....if only I had called him sooner, maybe the Kenpo/BJJ debate would not have gone on for soooooo long and the fighting would have been ALOT less, and maybe I'd have a better understanding of the art.
> 
> As far as my 'discovery' goes..LOL...my training partner and I came up with that on our own. I did mention it to Clyde and I got the response that I thought I would!!
> 
> Mike


The force in this one will soon be greater than expected  OB won

Dark Lord


----------



## Dark Kenpo Lord (Feb 28, 2004)

Old Fat Kenpoka said:
			
		

> Mike: I think you've been talking to Clyde too much. :boing2:


And you haven't talked to him enough LOL

Dark Lord


----------



## MJS (Feb 28, 2004)

Dark Kenpo Lord said:
			
		

> And you haven't talked to him enough LOL
> 
> Dark Lord



 :cheers: 

Mike


----------



## Dark Kenpo Lord (Feb 28, 2004)

MJS said:
			
		

> I I think one of the problems is, is that the grapplers, myself included, are just looking at escapes strictly from a grapplers POV.
> 
> Granted, the tech. that we did from the mount, were not textbook crossing talon and mace of aggression, but there were moves that were very similar.
> 
> Mike


This is an issue that every Kenpoist and Grappler should address.      Seems your epiphanies are the innovation that others may be seeking for enlightenment.

Dark Lord


----------



## MJS (Mar 22, 2004)

I saw that this thread started to die out, so I thought I'd stir the pot a little.  Not sure if its in the stores yet, but I just got the May 2004 issue of Black Belt.  Interesting article in it called, "Grappling Strategies Every Striker Needs To Know"  It talks about many different things, but it does mention something that I, as well as OFK and some of the other ground advocates.  It says 3 things that you should focus on.

1- Avoiding a takedown

2- Escaping from the ground.

3- Striking from the ground.

It goes on to say that if you want to succeed in doing this, then you need to train with a grappler!!!!!  It goes on to show examples of what you can do, as well as an interview with Erik Paulson, who if you dont know, is an outstanding grappler.  

Anyway, I thought that it was pretty interesting.  I actually laughed to myself when reading the article thinking, "Wow, this is exactly the same thing that I've been saying for soooo long."

Mike


----------



## MJS (Mar 24, 2004)

What, no comments on the above??????? :idunno: 

Mike


----------



## Zoran (Mar 24, 2004)

MJS said:
			
		

> What, no comments on the above??????? :idunno:
> 
> Mike



What's there to say. It seems that there will be people that will never agree on this subject. 

I wrote a short example of how our system deals with grappling techs on another forum. John McSweeney started us on the road to this as he was teaching this before the MMA craze.




> *General grouping of techs:*
> 
> *Before Take Down:* This includes avoidance and during take down. The old low takle just doesn't cut it anymore. Grapplers have taken the low tackle to an art. Avioding such take downs have to be addressed. Also, in the event you are going down, if you like it or not, there are some general techs, while going down, that will help in getting you in the top position or even cause some damage.
> 
> ...



3- Striking from the ground. - That is something that is completely different from stiking while standing. Fully extending a punch for example can put you in a bad situation. But if done properly, will help open up some opportunities that may not be readily available. But unless you strike a vital targer, such as eyes and throat, you will not disable your attacker, just enrage them. Also the old idea that going to the eyes when on the ground will work every time is a myth, as proficient grapplers know how to avoid such tactics.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Mar 24, 2004)

I had a thought. Incorporating grappling 101 into kenpo as an "elective course" running parallel to about green-3rd brown, starting out by giving common grappling trainiing drills/sequences kenpo-sounding names.  The the terminology brainiacs can figure out which kenpo terminologies apply to what moves.

Along the idea that certain things in kenpo are given their own codes...

Training sequences that end in a choke = "heaven", because of the sense of one coming to consciousness from a carotid choke that they were just part of a really important conversation, but can't remember what it was.

So, at the risk of possibly sounding sillier than something like "squeezing the peach", "heart of heaven" would be to mount someone, use the chest to pressure their elbow accross their body to turn them prone (the heart part), then choke them till they turn blue (the 'heaven' part).


----------



## MJS (Mar 24, 2004)

Zoran said:
			
		

> What's there to say. It seems that there will be people that will never agree on this subject.



True, but I was just giving a little food for thought.



> I wrote a short example of how our system deals with grappling techs on another forum. John McSweeney started us on the road to this as he was teaching this before the MMA craze.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And the above sounds awesome!!  Sounds like you have a good thing going!!

Mike


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Mar 24, 2004)

Mike, thanks for reviving one of my favorite threads.

Zoran, thanks for adding your enlightened perspective.

When I first started Kenpo in 1973, in 6th grade, no school kid would ever ever ever kick in a school yard fight.  You could box, and you could wrestle.  You could knock a kid down, mount him, and punch him.  But, if you kicked, you were fighting dirty and the spectators would join against you.  I kicked a guy in my 7th grade science class who took a swing at me.  Knocked the wind out of him.  Boy did I get in trouble!

Over the next 20 years, Karate, Kung Fu, and then TKD schools became common.  When I last looked at the statistics 10 years ago, 1-million Americans were actively training in Martial Arts and 9-million had trained at some point in their lifetime.  I would expect that the number is double that now.  Kicking is no longer fighting dirty.  It is something you can reasonably expect to see and do in a school yard or street fight.  

In the early 90's, the Gracie family started the UFC.  Grappling gained new respect.  High-school and college wrestlers and Judoka came out of hiding.  Lots of people started training in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu.  In the late 90's a sheik from Abu Dhabi started an international submission wrestling competition.  Grappling without a gi started to become popular even for those not interested in MMA.   Kids are starting to do submission grappling.   Soon, our kids will be doing suplexes and ending school yard fights with triangles and rear naked chokes instead of with lunge kicks.  It's only a matter of time.  If you don't believe me, send me an e-mail and I'll send you a highlight clip from a local tournament with little kids grappling.

So what is Kenpo's answer to all of this.  Of course, Kenpo being what it is, has many answers.  One answer is to embrace the march of time and add grappling programs at Kenpo schools.  Another similar answer is to incorporate grappling techniques into a modified Kenpo curriculum.  A final answer, one that I feel won't stand the test of time, is to keeep Kenpo as it was 20 or 30 years ago and ignore the rising popularity of grappling.


----------



## MJS (Mar 24, 2004)

Old Fat Kenpoka said:
			
		

> Mike, thanks for reviving one of my favorite threads.
> 
> Zoran, thanks for adding your enlightened perspective.
> 
> ...



OFK- You're quite welcome!!!!  As for your post...well, like always, I AGREE 100%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mike


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Mar 24, 2004)

Some of the old Vale Tudo guys -- who had a running feud with the Gracies in Brazil -- have already worked out some pretty good blows from the ground, both from superior positions, and from inferior positions.  Granted, from an inferior positiion you might just piss off a guy who's set to pummel you horribly, but maybe you can at least get some licks in.

Combining kenpo w/ BJJ? Easy. Go knee-up on a guy...as mentioned earlier, similar in position to a close, deep or wide kneel, depending on how you play it...then start working him with your kenpo combinations from a stooped position.  Transitionally shift your weight off the rear foot, and stomp the face or head with it, pinning it btw your Docs and the concrete, then like a snap kick, quickly return it to position on the ground behind you. Positional secondary striking = lift your knee of the chest ever so slightly for a split second, then let it drop down again with all oyur weight.  Bounce on the guys rib cage doing this over and over, and when he raises the upper part of his torso towards you (up from the ground), stoop down a little further and plant a hard inward elbow from the same side you're kneeling on him.

Old kenpo used to be called "grab and beat karate". Lends itself well to striking from the mounted position (circling hammerfists, inward-outward-&-upward elbows, chopping hooks, smothering punches).

Avoiding the skilled shoot is the hard part, because the grappler doesn't even have to be a skilled thrower.  We used to grapple judo guys, and let them be responsible for the take down: they would latch on to us and throw us, and we'd just hand on for the ride and drag them down with.  

For shooting drills, used to take a heavy bag with the rings stripped off, stand it up, and practice (repeatedly) dropping in low for variotions of the approach on a sinbgle-leg or double-leg take-down from wrestling. Also used to practice hooking each leg from various angles around the bag to assist the TD. Practiced sprawls, as well as sprawl counters.  I used to cheat in "no hitting" matches, by using glancing blows to pressure points and neuro-vascular bundles on the way to positions from the shoot or during it.  Ain't that a kenpo principle?

Train hard and conquer,

D.


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Mar 24, 2004)

Here is the link to the kids highlight video I mentioned above from OnTheMat.com.

http://www.onthemat.com/Images/paininc/painfeb04/pain04_kids.mov

This was from the Pain, Inc. regional tournament on Feb 21, 2004 in Capitola, CA.  Here is the article about the tournament.  

http://www.onthemat.com/painin04.html


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Mar 24, 2004)

Old Fat Kenpoka said:
			
		

> Mike, thanks for reviving one of my favorite threads.
> 
> Zoran, thanks for adding your enlightened perspective.
> 
> ...


Awesome...couldn't agree with you more.  "Kenpo traditionalists" (an oxymoron) run the risk of making kenpo ther next TKD...outdated, outmoded, and absolutely useless in the street.


----------



## Zoran (Mar 24, 2004)

Old Fat Kenpoka said:
			
		

> So what is Kenpo's answer to all of this.  Of course, Kenpo being what it is, has many answers.  One answer is to embrace the march of time and add grappling programs at Kenpo schools.  Another similar answer is to incorporate grappling techniques into a modified Kenpo curriculum.



This is essential if we are to keep up with the times. As long as you address it, you are moving forward. Believing your system doesn't need to address it, will leave you in the dust. For example, my instructor is not a ground fighting expert, and as he's in his mid 60's will probably never be one. However, he does realize the need for it so he takes advantage of outside sources and his black belts to help incorporate it into the system. We have some very good people now in that department, like Keith Hackney who runs his own MMA school.

One thing to keep your thoughts on is that ground fighting, for the most part, is a form of sparring. Try to focus on what would be the best for self defense on the street. While staying on the ground and trying to get a submission is a good training tool, it should not be the focus of ones training. Fighting from the ground can get you in a lot of trouble in the real world (getting kicked in the head by someone else for example). Also, it can require a large amount of time to get someone in a submission hold and for it to take effect. I usually have a personal 5 second rule. If it takes longer than that, then there is something wrong and I need to re-evaluate my methods.


----------



## MJS (Mar 25, 2004)

Zoran said:
			
		

> This is essential if we are to keep up with the times. As long as you address it, you are moving forward. Believing your system doesn't need to address it, will leave you in the dust. For example, my instructor is not a ground fighting expert, and as he's in his mid 60's will probably never be one. However, he does realize the need for it so he takes advantage of outside sources and his black belts to help incorporate it into the system. We have some very good people now in that department, like Keith Hackney who runs his own MMA school.



WOW!!  Seems like I find myself agreeing more and more with people here, and this is just another of those times!!!  The above sounds like something that I, as well as others like OFK have been preaching for.....wow..how long??? LOL



> One thing to keep your thoughts on is that ground fighting, for the most part, is a form of sparring. Try to focus on what would be the best for self defense on the street. While staying on the ground and trying to get a submission is a good training tool, it should not be the focus of ones training. Fighting from the ground can get you in a lot of trouble in the real world (getting kicked in the head by someone else for example). Also, it can require a large amount of time to get someone in a submission hold and for it to take effect. I usually have a personal 5 second rule. If it takes longer than that, then there is something wrong and I need to re-evaluate my methods.



Again, my thoughts exactly!  

Mike


----------



## Zoran (Mar 25, 2004)

MJS said:
			
		

> WOW!!  Seems like I find myself agreeing more and more with people here, and this is just another of those times!!!  The above sounds like something that I, as well as others like OFK have been preaching for.....wow..how long??? LOL



Yes, I know, I've been watching and you all have had quite a bit of grief for it. I figured once everybody calms down, maybe I'll jumb in. Truthfully, we've had ground work for a very long time and I'm sure others have also. Since the UFC, we've slowly been working towards a decent curriculum and training method following sound self defense principles. As Kenpoists, we do not wish to become another MMA school as Kenpo is not about competition. Kenpo's history, starting from Hawaii, has always been about logic and what works. Why change that now.

But thank you to all the trail blazers. :asian: 
That took the brunt of all the fire.  :mp5:


----------

