# Question about a technique against a tackle



## CB2379 (Jul 20, 2004)

Hi Everyone,
Yesterday I learned a technique named Intercepting the Ram, which is a technique against an attempted tackle in which the person ultimately has made contact is attempted to wrap his arm around you.

The first part of the technique calls for the defender to step to the side and raise the right leg to crush his chest while taking the right fist and hammering the back of the neck. 

I am somewhat concerned about whether going on one foot while someone charges you will cause more harm for the defender because it might throw them off balance. I know we are taught to drop our weight and with out knees locked but I think that as someone charges you with full force, taking a slight step away and raising your leg could hurt you more then them.

Does anyone have any insight on this so I can take these suggestions to my class tomorrow?

Thanks,
Chuck


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 20, 2004)

My suggestions would be that:

1. Put that first hammer-fist into the attacker's left kidney, not the back of their neck, so that after the strike you'll have the forearm to check down on their back;

2. Use that one-legged stance only transitionally, so that as the attacker shoves you back the move into a left neutral bow with a left overhead elbow becomes easier;

3. Make sure you get a determined dummy who'll enforce the attack and try to run you over; I had trouble with this technique for years, until it was pointed out that without a determined attacker, the technique ind3eed doesn't make a lot of sense;

4. Maybe look at the different ways that, "Intercepting," teaches you to get off-line and respond to a front tackle, including using that left forearm to, "guide," the attacker where you want them.

Hope that helps.


----------



## Ceicei (Jul 20, 2004)

I believe there is one move before the kneeing move in that technique, "Intercepting the Ram". The way I learned it was with a "body parry" (similar to the first move of "Intellectual Departure" technique). This helps set it up for the simultaneous knee/downward hammerfist before doing the downard elbow strike.

If you don't understand what I mean by "body parry", I will explain further.

- Ceicei


----------



## Rainman (Jul 20, 2004)

CB2379 said:
			
		

> Hi Everyone,
> Yesterday I learned a technique named Intercepting the Ram, which is a technique against an attempted tackle in which the person ultimately has made contact is attempted to wrap his arm around you.
> 
> The first part of the technique calls for the defender to step to the side and raise the right leg to crush his chest while taking the right fist and hammering the back of the neck.
> ...



Don't be concerned about moving into an attack.  It takes some time to get used to but stick with it.   I believe you step into towards 1:30, this does 2 things.  One you have moved yourself off his line of attack therefore taking some of his power away.  Two you are now in a better angle to attack with the Knee to the solar plexus and hamerfist to the base of the skull.   These two strikes are designed to take the opponent out.   When the targets are hit (and I mean accurately) with medium force, the opponent will be stunned, hard and accurate he will be out and possibley not breathing regularly... use caution and resist using the knee to the face... don't want teeth stuck in your knee.


----------



## mj-hi-yah (Jul 21, 2004)

So far I think Chuck you are getting some very interesting and useful advice!

We take our first step to 11 with the left leg, and the target as I was taught is the right knee to the face as you do a right hammer to the base of the neck. These strikes are simultaneous. It is very interesting to compare the differences here and certainly worth exploring. 





> 1. Put that first hammer-fist into the attacker's left kidney, not the back of their neck, so that after the strike you'll have the forearm to check down on their back;


Interesting target. Where do you take your first step Robert? 



> 2. Use that one-legged stance only transitionally, so that as the attacker shoves you back the move into a left neutral bow with a left overhead elbow becomes easier;
> 
> 3. Make sure you get a determined dummy who'll enforce the attack and try to run you over; I had trouble with this technique for years, until it was pointed out that without a determined attacker, the technique ind3eed doesn't make a lot of sense


 Agreed on both counts...the attacker is continuing in, and we practice it like as if he is rushing and continues to follow in in three directions as the move flows along. I felt it didn't make sense for a long time as well, and because of that have worked it many many times. A determined attacker is key  .




> 4. Maybe look at the different ways that, "Intercepting," teaches you to get off-line and respond to a front tackle, including using that left forearm to, "guide," the attacker where you want them.


Yes I think that is a great way to look at it as you are getting off-line of the low charge (tackle) from 12:00. The way we are taught we use two open palm checks to guide our attacker. The first one is immediately after the hammer...your right hand checks at their right shoulder holding them back for the execution of the left elbow to the spine and the second one comes after the left elbow. The left hand guides the left side of the head with an open palm as your body pivots towards 9:00 for the final move. 



> If you don't understand what I mean by "body parry", I will explain further.


 Ceicei we don't do a body parry, but it'd be great to hear your explanation if you have time to share!








> One you have moved yourself off his line of attack therefore taking some of his power away. Two you are now in a better angle to attack with the Knee to the solar plexus and hamerfist to the base of the skull.


 Hi Rainman..which leg are you stepping with to start the technique? 





> These two strikes are designed to take the opponent out. When the targets are hit (and I mean accurately) with medium force, the opponent will be stunned, hard and accurate he will be out and possibly not breathing regularly... use caution and resist using the knee to the face... don't want teeth stuck in your knee


 Good point about the teeth...that'd be nasty. In working this move a lot in our teaching class I found the most helpful thing to work on with the charging was using the checks - controlling his movement and both times that we step back it's into a twist so that we are able to unwind for the left elbow to the spine and also unwind as we do the mastoid punch and heel to the solar plexus or groin. So the unwinds with the checks (help keep the move tight) and combined with a determined dummy it becomes so much clearer!


----------



## pete (Jul 21, 2004)

> Does anyone have any insight on this so I can take these suggestions to my class tomorrow? - cb2379



think about the specific nature of the attack, (ie, range and distance) and your first response... in the words of little richard "gonna have some fun tonite. wooo"

pete.


----------



## MisterMike (Jul 21, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> My suggestions would be that:
> 
> 
> 2. Use that one-legged stance only transitionally, so that as the attacker shoves you back the move into a left neutral bow with a left overhead elbow becomes easier;



CB2379,

This is a result we were taught to expect as well. The one-legged stance will have a bracing angle when delivering the knee strike, but most likely you will get pushed back into a left neutral bow.


----------



## mhouse (Jul 21, 2004)

I don't have an American Kenpo background but I do have a question on the setup of the technique.  

 If the attacker is coming at you for a tackle with the ultimate goal of wrapping their arms around you, it seems that stepping out of the line of the attack would be difficult. Don't you run the risk of getting caught in one of the out stretched arms?  It would seem that if you are close enough to knee the chest and strike the back of the neck (or kidney) you would be in reach of the arms.

 I don't have a technique against this particular attack so I'm very interested to hear how this one works.


----------



## MisterMike (Jul 21, 2004)

mhouse said:
			
		

> I don't have an American Kenpo background but I do have a question on the setup of the technique.
> 
> If the attacker is coming at you for a tackle with the ultimate goal of wrapping their arms around you, it seems that stepping out of the line of the attack would be difficult. Don't you run the risk of getting caught in one of the out stretched arms?  It would seem that if you are close enough to knee the chest and strike the back of the neck (or kidney) you would be in reach of the arms.
> 
> I don't have a technique against this particular attack so I'm very interested to hear how this one works.



In Intercepting the Ram, you stay pretty much in line with the attacker and "let" him get his arms around you. The knee strike is the major move that should take the wind out of his sails.

It is followed by a hammerfist strike to the kidney and an elbow strike to the spine.....among other followups to the facial area.

In other Ram techniques, as we refer to them, you step to the side and let one arm have you, such as Broken Ram, which hints at what happens to that arm.

All of the techniques require a good "foundation" in the Kenpo stances or you will be off balanced. Typically the Ram techniques are taught at the intermediate to advanced levels, but every school is different.


----------



## mj-hi-yah (Jul 21, 2004)

mhouse said:
			
		

> I don't have an American Kenpo background but I do have a question on the setup of the technique.
> 
> If the attacker is coming at you for a tackle with the ultimate goal of wrapping their arms around you, it seems that stepping out of the line of the attack would be difficult. Don't you run the risk of getting caught in one of the out stretched arms? It would seem that if you are close enough to knee the chest and strike the back of the neck (or kidney) you would be in reach of the arms.
> 
> I don't have a technique against this particular attack so I'm very interested to hear how this one works.


 Sounds good Mister Mike I agree about the good foundation in stances...Here's the way I know it... you are stepping and issuing the knee to the face and the hammer at the same time. They are coming in at you in a low charge, so their head is down and leading the way in. You are side stepping but also meeting their action with your strikes. And as Rainman points out if done correctly with even medium force it will stun your attacker. It's the element of surprise as well, as a charging person will be expecting to move you back for a possible takedown, instead you are moving in on their tackle and by slightly side stepping it in the transitional one legged stance with immediate strikes you negate or lessen their forward momentum. If the first strikes fail they continue in and by stepping back in a twist and checking their right shoulder you are able to unwind as they follow in again and then land the left elbow to the spine as your weight settles from the unwind...If they continue to follow you in after the elbow to the spine your left hand reaches around the left side of their face and checks guiding them as you step back in a twist towards 9:00 with your left leg. You unwind to face 9:00 and you do a right vertical punch to their left mastoid and at the same time your right heel comes up to strike their groin which is now behind you. 

I'm going to try it with the different targets. I hope it makes sense mhouse. See what you think!


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 21, 2004)

Try stepping to 11:30 as the knee comes up. 

I agree that the targets are adaptable. However, in the base technique, the knee goes to the center of mass and the hammer to the kidney, not the head: the point, I'd argue, is to jump off-line and to the left of the charge. 

The second strike is to the base of the neck, or between the shoulders with an elbow, which fits a little better than a hammer and allows dropping the forearm around the neck to, "guide," the attacker.

Again, the strikes are of course adaptable. But I'd recommend learning the technique in the ideal phase first, at least.


----------



## mj-hi-yah (Jul 21, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Try stepping to 11:30 as the knee comes up.
> 
> I agree that the targets are adaptable. However, in the base technique, the knee goes to the center of mass and the hammer to the kidney, not the head: the point, I'd argue, is to jump off-line and to the left of the charge.
> 
> ...


Thanks Robert  :asian:


----------



## CB2379 (Jul 21, 2004)

hi everyone,
Thank you all for your responses! I definately see the different points of view here! I have a private lesson with my instructor later today and I will ask him about all this. 

Thanks again,
Chuck


----------



## Rainman (Jul 21, 2004)

> Hi Rainman..which leg are you stepping with to start the technique?



My bad, should have been 11:00- with the left foot.  There are only two real choices here, learn to survive the initial attack or attack the attack.   To see how good your tek is have some one tackle you from different distances... but not further than ten feet.


----------



## mj-hi-yah (Jul 21, 2004)

Rainman said:
			
		

> My bad, should have been 11:00- with the left foot. There are only two real choices here, learn to survive the initial attack or attack the attack. To see how good your tek is have some one tackle you from different distances... but not further than ten feet.


Thanks, and great suggestion on the distancing! We were working it at a fairly close range. It will be interesting to test that.  

MJ :asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 21, 2004)

I agree about the different distances, but I would suggest limiting them to no more than perhaps four feet. After all, why stand in front of some guy who's obviously running towards you from ten feet away, in order to tackle you?


----------



## mj-hi-yah (Jul 21, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I agree about the different distances, but I would suggest limiting them to no more than perhaps four feet. After all, why stand in front of some guy who's obviously running towards you from ten feet away, in order to tackle you?


Robert,
That was the original thought. It couldn't hurt to try the different ranges though, just like I like to work it with people of different sizes...or maybe (hee hee) it will _hurt_ _more_ :uhyeah: !

MJ :asian:


----------



## Rainman (Jul 21, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I agree about the different distances, but I would suggest limiting them to no more than perhaps four feet. After all, why stand in front of some guy who's obviously running towards you from ten feet away, in order to tackle you?



two steps in one second closes ten feet... anything else from the Mcdojo by McRobertson?   :whip:


----------



## Ceicei (Jul 21, 2004)

mj-hi-yah said:
			
		

> Ceicei we don't do a body parry, but it'd be great to hear your explanation if you have time to share!


 Oh, it is not officially called a "body parry" and it is not a new move in Kenpo. It's just my own term of being able to have a certain move etched in my mind to help me remember better (hence the reason I put that in quotes). If you are aware of how Intellectual Departure starts, it is basically just physically sidestepping off the line of attack while using an arm/hand to check. Others have already mentioned this with Intercepting the Ram in checking the head while sidestepping, so I do not see any need to explain further.

- Ceicei


----------



## mj-hi-yah (Jul 21, 2004)

Ceicei said:
			
		

> Oh, it is not officially called a "body parry" and it is not a new move in Kenpo. It's just my own term of being able to have a certain move etched in my mind to help me remember better (hence the reason I put that in quotes). If you are aware of how Intellectual Departure starts, it is basically just physically sidestepping off the line of attack while using an arm/hand to check. Others have already mentioned this with Intercepting the Ram in checking the head while sidestepping, so I do not see any need to explain further.
> 
> - Ceicei


 OK got it!


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 22, 2004)

Dear Rainman:

Thanks for the energizing discourtesy; I particularly enjoyed the, "McDojo," crack, given that I am a student at Mr. Tatum's in Pasadena--which, I believe, you know very well. 

However, let me take up the issue you raised. 

Some time ago, I had a brown belt show me Thrusting Prongs against a distant charge. After the thumb healed, I thought a bit about the logic of standing there until the last minute and waiting to receive a hug of some sort from a distance. it seem to me that it makes about as much sense as practicing, say, Lone Kimono with the attacker charging from ten feet away, or Twin Kimono with the dummy coming in like Frankenstein from a distance.

Could there be situations in which this might happen? Sure. Attackers, like defenders, do all sorts of dumb things. There might be situations in which you would want to jump left in response not only to a charge and attempted tackle, but to a second attacker. Can you choose to stand there and await a charge? Absolutely; I just don't think that makes a lot of sense, given that there are far easier ways to respond to somebody charging in with their head down--like stepping off-line and delivering a couple of kicks, for example. 

As for your contention of, "two steps, ten feet, one second," I am afraid that I am doubtful. Do you have evidence for this contention? Not only does it seem unlikely--even Darryl Liner takes longer, as I've had occasion to discover--but you are assuming that the defender isn't doing anything during that second other than standing there and waiting for the arrival. Why do that?

I am always perfectly happy to discuss ideas. I would suggest that even you might from time to time find discussion helpful, provided that you can put aside your insistence upon personal attacks, and simply present your own ideas also. Regrettably, however, I suspect that you will find it necessary to respond with some further piece of vituperation. And, I suspect, this has ultimately far more to do with my instructor than my simple disagreement.

Please feel free to slang. I will not be responding to further bad manners, for the same reason that I would not be standing directly in front of, say, Gokor as he charges in from ten feet plus. I couldn't bear the sound of his giggling, as I threw my very best knee and hammer to small effect.


----------



## pete (Jul 22, 2004)

robert, i agree with your assessment of the technique, the nature of the attack, regardless of where and with whom you receive instruction. 

i look at the nature of the attack as having a descending force.  the attacker is within striking distance, and rather than striking he decides to dive at you thighs to take you down... you, as the defender borrow force and meet his descending force with an ascending knee.  if he's seriously diving, the knee will probably be wedged into his sternum and your hammer will come down on his back and you can push your right elbow into the back of his neck... if he's slower or you're quicker, the knee will be placed into his face and the hammer will strike the back or side of his head.

if the guy is coming in from a mile away, the force is more horizontal. he's probably hunched down a step or 2 before he reaches you... in this case we have an old kenpo tecchnique called Tackle Techniques,which you step back and chop out to his neck or clavicle and do some other nasty stuff, but keeping him in front of you.

if he's coming on strong and you can't keep him in front, well do the matador technique we call Charging Ram.

lotsa good stuff, no need for name calling...

"sneaky" pete


----------



## Michael Billings (Jul 22, 2004)

Just an FYI (and yes, I did note the discourtesy), in law enforcement we count an actual second with a timer - 10 feet is only 2-3 long steps sprinting.  This is done in the "Surviving a Knife Attack" scenarios and we cannot draw and clear without retreating since we KNOW you can reach at least 10' - 15' in a second to a second and a half.

 That being said, regarding Intercepting the Ram: Stepping off the line, dropping your center as you throw the knee strike, the hammerfist to the back of the opponent's kidney, and subsequent elbow & hammerfist to keep the opponent's heigth in check by effectively suppressing the  H & W zone, while the knee should have helped control depth and Heigth, seems very effective to me.   An inserted neck break after the hammerfist, the sequential flow down and up the circle give you a great amount of power for the follow-through.  I have had no problem with the hands if I really strike at least hard enough to get a reaction.

 -Michael


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 22, 2004)

Reasonable points, gentlemen, especially since you've checked, Michael. I do tend to agree with Pete--I guess it's because my point really boils down to saying that nobody's going to come at you with an obvious tackle from very many feet away--I suspect that, as Pete noted, they're going to start high and drop when they're close.

I also agree that  the  school should be irrelevant. I just resented the "McDojo," remark, made by somebody who should know better, so I stuck in the name, which I rarely do.

Anyway, thanks.


----------



## Seig (Jul 22, 2004)

I would like to make a point about the 21' "rule". It is not universally true. At my last "Defensive Tactics" refresher class, I proved that an officer that is trained properly and that practices regularly can in fact clear and fire his weapon at least twice in that time frame. Where the real problem arises is in the momentum of the attacker, if you do not move off line from the attacker as  you are firing, he may still reach you.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Jul 23, 2004)

Seig said:
			
		

> I would like to make a point about the 21' "rule". It is not universally true. At my last "Defensive Tactics" refresher class, I proved that an officer that is trained properly and that practices regularly can in fact clear and fire his weapon at least twice in that time frame. Where the real problem arises is in the momentum of the attacker, if you do not move off line from the attacker as you are firing, he may still reach you.


Knew a cop who got his shots off on a Samoan closing and firing at the same time. Capped the guy, but ended up underneath him till backup peeled the bad guy off.


----------



## Karazenpo (Aug 5, 2004)

Remember, in the prearranged training environment you always know it's coming and you will always be better prepared to react quicker. So, personally, I feel no matter how many rounds one can accurately get off in training, one cannot count on the same performance in reality. You have to leave room for a 'buffer' zone. I also don't like going into a one-point balance position on a guy who's diving for my legs to take me down, it may lead you into going down much easier. If you mean a knee strike after you avert his attack, I agree, but I wouldn't intercept his attack with one. I had a guy go for my legs in an in-close situation while trying to take him in. I went into a 'wrestler's sprawl' and then manipulated him into a frontal headlock. It worked for me.


----------



## Kempojujutsu (Aug 5, 2004)

As far as grappling and the tackle technique. Most grapplers don't start 10 feet out then shoot in. Maybe the guy off the street who has no training what so ever will do this. We usually start from about 3-4 feet or even closer to get an effective tackle.

Now to the defense of this tackle. We usually try and sprawl on the guy, while shoveling his head to the ground. A cross face neck crank can be gotten from here. If they happen to catch a leg, will shoot the leg back, which helps to drive them down. once down on the ground knees to the head and follow up hand strikes.

If they get an effective tackle on me, I will pull guard on them and try to finish them off with strikes or some kind of submission technique. 

Overall to defend the tackle, one must have good balance, keep attacker from getting too close to the legs and be ready to fight from the ground if needed.


----------



## hedgehogey (Aug 5, 2004)

Aww man. Everyone was being really amusingly candid with the one legged anti-grappling, and you two just HAD to inject a dose of reality and ruin my amusement, didn't you?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 6, 2004)

1. Always read the earlier posts, before feeling excessively superior. Several people made the specific point that a tackle is going to come from fairly close.

2. Ya might want to think through the notion that one person's dreams of perfect technique are necessarily superior to another's, simply because they invoke grappling. Or, you might want to recognize that you too are relying upon the same notions of technology that you keep decrying.

3. The point, in the end, is to develop options.


----------



## Karazenpo (Aug 6, 2004)

Kempojujutsu said:
			
		

> As far as grappling and the tackle technique. Most grapplers don't start 10 feet out then shoot in. Maybe the guy off the street who has no training what so ever will do this. We usually start from about 3-4 feet or even closer to get an effective tackle.
> 
> Now to the defense of this tackle. We usually try and sprawl on the guy, while shoveling his head to the ground. A cross face neck crank can be gotten from here. If they happen to catch a leg, will shoot the leg back, which helps to drive them down. once down on the ground knees to the head and follow up hand strikes.
> 
> ...



I completely agree with Kempojujutsu, it appears to me he's 'been there, done that'!


----------



## Karazenpo (Aug 6, 2004)

hedgehogey said:
			
		

> Aww man. Everyone was being really amusingly candid with the one legged anti-grappling, and you two just HAD to inject a dose of reality and ruin my amusement, didn't you?



Good point when you say 'reality'. Theories and concepts can be interesting but there's nothing like reality fighting to know what is applicable in the real world vs. the dojo.


----------



## Kempojujutsu (Aug 6, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 1. Always read the earlier posts, before feeling excessively superior. Several people made the specific point that a tackle is going to come from fairly close.
> 
> 2. Ya might want to think through the notion that one person's dreams of perfect technique are necessarily superior to another's, simply because they invoke grappling. Or, you might want to recognize that you too are relying upon the same notions of technology that you keep decrying.
> 
> 3. The point, in the end, is to develop options.



artyon:  artyon: 

Not sure if your points are directed at me. But where did I post that my techniques were superior or perfect to anyone elses? I just listed what I would do in that situation. I do agree with you on the distance of the tackle being done. That was the only thing that I repeted in this post. Can I have a say so in the matter? Or is this just your thread to post in? I will be glad to leave and not give any more input.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 6, 2004)

Perhaps if you read the post immediately before my last, to which I responded...

However, if you insist upon jamming the glove on your hand, I will say that it seems to me that every time these arguments begin, the, "grappling," contingent insists upon technique in a fashion that is exactly the same as the fashion of the, "stand-up," guys they are attacking. They simply prefer rasslin', and different techniques.

I'd have thought you'd want the common ground that the mention of, "options," afforded....


----------



## Andrew Green (Aug 7, 2004)

Based on a untrained person trying to tackle with the intent of wrapping there arms around you, you should have no trouble getting double underhooks, adda partial sprawl and you are now on your feet and ready to start unloading those knees.

But keep both feet on the ground until you stop his forward momentum if you want to have any feet left on the ground afterwards...


----------



## Karazenpo (Aug 12, 2004)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Based on a untrained person trying to tackle with the intent of wrapping there arms around you, you should have no trouble getting double underhooks, adda partial sprawl and you are now on your feet and ready to start unloading those knees.
> 
> But keep both feet on the ground until you stop his forward momentum if you want to have any feet left on the ground afterwards...



Another one who has obviously 'been there, done that'.  Andrew, I couldn't have said it any better!


----------



## marshallbd (Aug 13, 2004)

Karazenpo said:
			
		

> Another one who has obviously 'been there, done that'.  Andrew, I couldn't have said it any better!


Joe,
I was up your way last month and was planning on dropping in to say hello but ran into some difficulty and could not make it.  Sorry I missed the cup of joe with joe!  I am going to head that way again next summer and I'll give it a second try then.
Beau


----------



## Karazenpo (Aug 13, 2004)

marshallbd said:
			
		

> Joe,
> I was up your way last month and was planning on dropping in to say hello but ran into some difficulty and could not make it.  Sorry I missed the cup of joe with joe!  I am going to head that way again next summer and I'll give it a second try then.
> Beau



Hey Beau, sorry we missed each other, next summer it is! "Joe"


----------



## GAB (Sep 3, 2004)

Hi, 
The idea to shoot some one as they come in to tackle is...well, and then you have the running tackle scenerio, and the close in, putting their arms around you, and then you have 140 pound person against a 240 person, it depends which is which. :idunno: 

It's pretty hard to discuss, unless we are talking apples and apples and no other item like an orange or a lemon. 

If the person has a weapon, what kind of a weapon, are you authorized to 
take a life or does the situation determine the right to take a life? Or just defending your self. 

Which state do you live in? What are the "Rules or Laws" in allowing to taking a life or great bodily harm?? What country are you in?

I think the word, "option" is probably the best in regard to any situation, also each situation must be decided on the particulars. Opinion is another way to put it when discussing these hypothetical situations. 

If you have only been taught the, right cross, then you are in trouble.

In the school of thought I will address this with, is, we have the 3foot, 6foot, and 12 foot, situation. 
Many situations for each distance and many ideas for each situation.

So we have a thought that is, conceptualization, taking everything and putting it in the brain and with the amount of training and the degree of expertise will determine the response. Processing the input then coming up with a tactic. :whip: 

Training has a lot to with what you will do, also policies if you have them (some Dept you work for) or just a rough and tumble.

Yes options is the key, and one of them is how long do you train?

How many schools teach a two month basic or a three month, then go on from there?

Then there is the carrot with the stick attitude, yep, options and training.

Last but not least. 
I was working out with an LEO yesterday, we talked about different systems Aikido, Kaju etc. He said he used to take Kajukenbo, but stopped because it was not within his Dept. policy. To brutal. :idunno: 

So see we have another thought to contend with, which form of training are you going to have to take, if you are under the thump, sort of. 

Regards, Gary :asian:


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Sep 3, 2004)

getting out of the way of speeding cars is a surefire way of not getting hit by them

shawn


----------



## GAB (Sep 4, 2004)

Hi, To stay on topic, well done Shawn and brief also. 

Lets say we should actually move into a left angle towards 1030, (we use eight)  rather then 1100 or 1130 :whip:that way they will miss us altogether and as they go by we sweep the foot causing them to fall headlong into (they were trying to crush as well as tackle) the brick building that is behind us because, we took that position for advantage so no one could sneek up on us. Another option?

Regards, Gary:asian:


----------



## Andrew Green (Sep 5, 2004)

Again, on a untrained person maybe, but this will not work on a trained person this will not work.


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Sep 5, 2004)

ive worked with many trained people......but the one thing you have to count on is intent. if someone attacks you without intent, then that attack is not real, and the outcome will not be based in reality.
example:if i was running at you with the intent of tackling you to do damage, whether i was trained or not, the body moves in specific manner, and uses a specific method of targetting the victim (tunnel vision). when someone is in this type of attack mode, the defense that Gary suggested will work everytime simply because the trained or untrained person attacking with intent is seeking you out naturally.
how do i know this? as a bouncer i have had more than my share of encounters with tacklers and would-be shootfighters. get out of the way of speeding cars....you wouldnt stand in front of a car racing down the road and try to stop it with an oi-zuki.....why do it as a tackle defense?

shawn


----------



## ppko (Sep 5, 2004)

BlackCatBonz said:
			
		

> ive worked with many trained people......but the one thing you have to count on is intent. if someone attacks you without intent, then that attack is not real, and the outcome will not be based in reality.
> example:if i was running at you with the intent of tackling you to do damage, whether i was trained or not, the body moves in specific manner, and uses a specific method of targetting the victim (tunnel vision). when someone is in this type of attack mode, the defense that Gary suggested will work everytime simply because the trained or untrained person attacking with intent is seeking you out naturally.
> how do i know this? as a bouncer i have had more than my share of encounters with tacklers and would-be shootfighters. get out of the way of speeding cars....you wouldnt stand in front of a car racing down the road and try to stop it with an oi-zuki.....why do it as a tackle defense?
> 
> shawn


Yess I totally agree, even in a classroom environment there has to be intent there or you will never know if it will work.  Somethings will not work if the intent is not there or if you are going slow, I have found this many times


----------



## Kenpo Yahoo (Sep 30, 2004)

I haven't posted on this forum in months, mainly because of the assinine statements made by certain people with no REAL experience.  This thread should serve as proof enough.  ANYWAY..... 

I don't understand why you would want to "A"- stand on one leg when someone is trying to tackle you (whether it's from 21 feet or 21 cm, whether it's transitional or just traditional.. I don't get it), or "B"- REACH over their bodies to land a hammer fist to the kidney (remember it's not the caboose that's trying to hurt you, it's the locamotive).  

Why wouldn't you attack the first target that presents itself.......  like ...... I don't know.... maybe the head?  Keeping your hands between you and the attacker (some might know this as wedging) while solidifying your base.  This could at least keep a "wedge" (see it's not a bad word) between you and the attacker that can help prevent a wrap-up and takedown.  It might give you a few options too, like maybe strikes to the head and neck, perhaps you can pancake the guy, or even shoot into a sprawl and pound the guy.  At the very least you should be able to fall into the guard and pull off a quick scissor sweep, at least on a relatively unskilled individual, and end up in the mount or back on your feet.  No one is saying that you should "wrassle" with the guy, but when was the last time you heard someone say,"you know what.... the foundation under your house has too much support, I think we should completely dig out one corner of your house so that the entire corner has nothing under it for a good foot and a half to two feet..... whaddaya say?" Makes sense to me, why would I want extra support?  Oh yeah that's right..... so that it can stand up to the forces exerted over that particular area.   

Oh by the way I have attended a number of seminars taught by OTHER SENIORS, and in one seminar in particular the senior actually had people starting their attacks from a substantial distance (10 feet or so) to give the student enough time to react. Yeah.. by the way, the technique was actually against a punch, which the senior required the attacker to take 2-3 full steps before throwing the punch.  HMMMMMM..... there's a thought....... Instead of making the student faster (both physically and mentally), this SENIOR decided to make the attacker slower so the student could pull off the written technique.  What's more important? Doing the technique for the sake of the technique, or teaching the student how to actually survive a confrontation.

Oh well....... I'm not sure why I even bother.


----------



## Karazenpo (Sep 30, 2004)

Kenpo Yahoo said:
			
		

> I haven't posted on this forum in months, mainly because of the assinine statements made by certain people with no REAL experience.  This thread should serve as proof enough.  ANYWAY.....
> 
> I don't understand why you would want to "A"- stand on one leg when someone is trying to tackle you (whether it's from 21 feet or 21 cm, whether it's transitional or just traditional.. I don't get it), or "B"- REACH over their bodies to land a hammer fist to the kidney (remember it's not the caboose that's trying to hurt you, it's the locamotive).
> 
> ...



Kenpo Yahoo, Right on! I've always said in the arts there is too much reliance on 'in theory only' and 'dojo play'. Many hone their techniques and skills just to look good performing them, like a choreographed movie or demo. These 'techniques' or 'concepts' have no merit in the real world. Problem is, many don't get to test them in reality and eventually the ideas are accepted and both student and instructor develop a false sense of security, hense, the birth of the 'dojo warrior'. My solution to this is very simple. Run your techniques or concepts past experienced law enforcement personal, bodyguards, concert security personal, bartenders and doormen or bouncers. Hey, being in law enforcement for over 28 years I've even ran a few things past some violent criminals I've dealt with , why not? These are the guys we're learning to defend against so I pick their brain a little and get a good idea of their take on it and where their coming from. Know what the bad guys know and use..... It works!


----------



## Hand Sword (Oct 7, 2004)

Kenpo Yahoo said:
			
		

> I haven't posted on this forum in months, mainly because of the assinine statements made by certain people with no REAL experience.  This thread should serve as proof enough.  ANYWAY.....
> 
> I don't understand why you would want to "A"- stand on one leg when someone is trying to tackle you (whether it's from 21 feet or 21 cm, whether it's transitional or just traditional.. I don't get it), or "B"- REACH over their bodies to land a hammer fist to the kidney (remember it's not the caboose that's trying to hurt you, it's the locamotive).
> 
> ...


 Right on! I agree with you and Karazenpo. The problem is, for a long time now, the martial arts have become very watered down. The focus of most who attend classes seems to be everything but hard core self defense. For instructors, it's seems to be more about making money (which isn't wrong if that's your profession), than to focus on the old school training. The majority of people, both kids and adults, couldn't take that abuse, and would quit. It seems like dojos have become day care centers, or living xerox machines, with people preaching the new philosophies of commercialism. I'm a new member here, so I would guess that you and others here come from the old school, or have professions that force you to think about training in that fassion, which I have also chose to focus on, always researching on better ways. Sorry to say, like everything else, money has corrupted the martial arts, causing politics, and divisions, which is truly sad. Gone are the days of pounding the makiwara until the blood flows down your forearm, letting it scab over and then going at it again, the next day. Us old schoolers are dinosaurs, the public has become softer, and that's the way it will continue overall, forcing serious people to underground dojos, which is where the martial arts, I beleive, belong.

Just felt the need to respond, I been getting in that argument for years, even with "seniors" who should know better, but, only care about the almighty $.


----------



## Kenpomachine (Oct 7, 2004)

Hand Sword, had you stopped to think that those seniors were only worrying about long term health? Bleeding yourself everyday is not the most clever thing you must do, being it well ahead the staying in front of a locomotive trying to ram you. (So we can try and get this back on topic, lol)


----------



## Andrew Green (Oct 7, 2004)

If all someone is interested in is long term health, then they would do best not to sell what they do as effective techniques.

It is also possible to train effectively in techniques that work without making the attacker telegraph to the point of silliness safely.


----------



## dcence (Oct 7, 2004)

Having grown up in EPAK, this technique always bothered me as a football player and a wrestler.  I would never, ever go to one foot if someone is coming at me with what looks like a tackle.  It is about the easiest way to end up on your back I can think of.  There are so many better things to do than this technique with both of your feet on the ground.  If someone comes at me with a tackle, I am keeping both feet on the ground, getting off the line, getting low and putting my arms between us.


----------



## Kenpomachine (Oct 10, 2004)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> If all someone is interested in is long term health, then they would do best not to sell what they do as effective techniques.


 No way, you'll need your techniques to be effective as well if you don't want to end in hospital after a real encounter in the street. What I was trying to say is that you need to balance your training so as not to harm yourself just in case, while keeping it effective, through proper body mechanics, use of protections when needed, etc.



> Gone are the days of pounding the makiwara until the blood flows down your forearm, letting it scab over and then going at it again, the next day.


 So you see, watering down attacks is another matter... and problem. 

 If someone is trying to ram me and weights more than 100 Kg, I'll make sure I'm not in his way when the hit is supposed to happen. With the momentum built and my 55 Kg it would be very unlikely that I stopped him.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 10, 2004)

Not that this'll have any effect upon the decided, but y'all might want to at least notice a few things--which have already been brought up, but were ignored by some:

a) we were discussing a specific technique, called "Intercepting the Ram," not responses to an attempted tackle in general;

b) a number of folks specifically brought up the idea that it would be nuts--and unnecessary--to stand there directly in front of somebody charging from 10-15 feet away;

c) a number of folks brought up the fact that the technique takes you off-line, so that you do NOT stand directly in front of such an attacker;

d) more than one person remarked that this particular technique also rests on the notion that you've got yourself caught a bit, that the initial response was not sufficient, that you are being forced back towards the ground by a determined attacker;

e) there are other techniques in kenpo such as Charging Ram which involve, quite precisely, "keeping both feet on the ground, getting off the line, getting low and putting my arms between us." 

f) sorry, but I wasn't taught that one simply stands there and waits.

The proponents of the MMAs and grappling arts have a lot to say; I thank them for it, it's been helpful. However, y'all need to realize that a lot of what you're kvetching about is BAD kenpo, and not what I was taught--or, it's your failure to realize that there's a difference between where you start as a student, and where you're trying to get to.

And oh yes--I repeat: some of this "argument," is being carried on by folks who prefer their own set of shibboleths to those of others.


----------



## Mark Weiser (Oct 10, 2004)

I would have to say that standing there and waiting for someone to make contact with from a rush such as a tackle is absurd. 

Remember Ed Parker in his Books Infinite Insights states that Distance is your friend and that Stances are the very foundation of Kenpo. So to stand there and get tackled and going to the ground is again absurd. 

Then again if you are in a situation where you could get tackled. You must find an exit or create distance from the aggressor.  Remember to round off corners and elongate circles as SGM Parker taught his students.


----------



## GAB (Oct 10, 2004)

Hi Robert,

Yes, is not that the truth.

Point well taken.

When you play with the bull, you might get the horn. Many styles and system's

I notice that EPAK is almost 50% on the poll, so the deck is stacked in the first place.

How many practioners are in EPAK, nation or world wide? Then take the rest of us, you have an uphill battle.

ThroughBred in horses comes to mind. They do great things to other breeds when brought into the different blood lines. And visa-:idunno: versa, I say play all the games in the room and then pick which one you prefer.

I see why the minority vs the majority, is such an antagonistic state.

Again thanks for the insight.

Hollywood you have to love that place.

Regards, Gary


----------



## GAB (Oct 10, 2004)

Hi Mark,

See that is exactly what EPAK is up against.

Where do you think EP got that thought ? Did it spring from, his own well?

Plagerize, comes to mind. Ed was famous for it, read the Will Tracy articles at SanJoseKenpo. Is it wrong, yes and no.

Complicated, well read, doing your homework, all those things comes to mind. Picking your battle ground, is another.

I have noticed some are very liberal in their ideas, regarding politics and very conservative, in their thoughts about others rights, to the same thing they point out in other threads. Interesting.

When you are very right and very left do they actually meet in the middle?

I really enjoy this board. Thanks Kaith.

Regards, Gary


----------



## Karazenpo (Oct 10, 2004)

GAB said:
			
		

> Hi Mark,
> 
> See that is exactly what EPAK is up against.
> 
> ...



Good one, Gary, I follow you.


----------



## Karazenpo (Oct 10, 2004)

dcence said:
			
		

> Having grown up in EPAK, this technique always bothered me as a football player and a wrestler.  I would never, ever go to one foot if someone is coming at me with what looks like a tackle.  It is about the easiest way to end up on your back I can think of.  There are so many better things to do than this technique with both of your feet on the ground.  If someone comes at me with a tackle, I am keeping both feet on the ground, getting off the line, getting low and putting my arms between us.



dcence, you are right on the money! Again, it's obvious your experience comes from either reality training and/or practical experience, not in 'theory' or soley in the dojo. Good job! I hear ya!


----------



## GAB (Oct 10, 2004)

Hi Joe:ultracool .

Today is Sunday and we all need to get along, right?

We will see, I try to be peaceful, but you still have to prepare for war.

Kinda sad in some respects, but if you have been doing it for 52 years you get used to it. 

Fear, is one thing respect, is another.

When I went through the acadamy they taught us, they are different and the same. Just whose neighborhood you go into.

Back to the topic, the 3', 6', 12', range idea works for me as long as you are not surprised. 
That is where training and technique merge, it is also where they fall apart if you don't have the mindset to go with the rest of this stuff.:mp5: 

You ever wonder why the old warriors go someplace and just relax???

Reminds me of the movie, High Noon. Lon Chaney Jr was right on.
So was Gary Cooper and Grace Kelly. ( I know they played a part, not real)

No wonder, why it won the awards it did, it was right on then, and still is.

That is the old mentality of stories from the past? Was that plagerized or ???

Just a great movie. Good points made all over the place.

Regards, Gary


----------



## True2Kenpo (Oct 14, 2004)

Great topic and posts!

Just my thoughts, and this was mentioned on several occasions...  this technique causes much concern for many practicioners.

First I feel this technique is a very well designed technique when applied with the proper timing (and the proper attack).  

I think the knee strike is based on timing and being able to read the attacker as he covers the distance needed to close the gap.  If the attacker closes the gap and goes from the "contact penetration" phase to the "contact munipulation" phase, then you would just "delete" the knee and continue with your followup, feet planted and stable knowing that being on one leg would be dangerous.

Respectfully,
Joshua Ryer


----------



## Kenpo Yahoo (Oct 14, 2004)

Not to pick on you Josh, because I do understand what your were saying, but your statement brought to mind something that me and some of my kenpo buddies were talking about this week.



> First I feel this technique is a very well designed technique when applied with the proper timing (and the proper attack).



Again not to pick on Josh, but the wording reminded me of an old Jim Carrey skit on In Living Color.  The one where he was a women's self defense instructor, who was teaching a defense against a knife and got stabbed by his student.  While bleeding profusely, he went on to inform the student that like most beginners in the martial arts the woman attacked wrong.  

Sometimes I think we get so caught up in the TECHNIQUE itself and forget that we have tools and concepts in place that when used correctly will provide a response for a number of different attacks.  

Again, I don't think that Josh was implying this but it just reminded me of a conversation from earlier.  (I'm at work now so I had to cut this a little short I will post more later).


----------



## True2Kenpo (Oct 14, 2004)

Kenpo Yahoo said:
			
		

> Not to pick on you Josh, because I do understand what your were saying, but your statement brought to mind something that me and some of my kenpo buddies were talking about this week.
> 
> Again not to pick on Josh, but the wording reminded me of an old Jim Carrey skit on In Living Color.  The one where he was a women's self defense instructor, who was teaching a defense against a knife and got stabbed by his student.  While bleeding profusely, he went on to inform the student that like most beginners in the martial arts the woman attacked wrong.
> 
> ...



Kenpo Yahoo,

Hello sir.  I understand your point of my wording and it is funny as well because I just recently downloaded that particular clip to my computer at the school, thanks to Mr. Dahl of Denmark for finding it for me   Great clip. (If anyone has not seen it, I will be sure to e-mail it!)

In anycase, I kind of left out the details when I mentioned, "... if properly attacked."  The way I see this attack and the way I present it to my students in the school is to be dealing with a experienced wrestler/ grappler shooting at your legs from a closer distance...  rather than this running bull approach from a longer distance.  Yes, the technique can deal with this attack as well.  I do not want to sound like I am throwing certain attacks to the side, however I feel a shoot is harder to contend with.

I recommend everyone to approach this particular attack in many ways... from a slight angle, very close, a slight run, a hesitate wrestler, a full out charge, and so on...  My original point in the post above was for the placement of the knee strike.

Sorry for the missing details.  Wish you the best.

Respectfully,
Josh


----------



## True2Kenpo (Oct 14, 2004)

Here is the clip mentioned, 

http://www.martialartsteachers.com/...ey+Karate+Segment&action=download&file_id=348

Hope you enjoy!


----------



## parkerkarate (Oct 14, 2004)

I have seen this before, but it is still funny, anything with Jim Carrey is funny.  Except his last movie, that was just wierd.


----------



## TChase (Oct 15, 2004)

True2Kenpo said:
			
		

> Here is the clip mentioned,
> 
> http://www.martialartsteachers.com/index.php?page=Jim+Carrey+Karate+Segment&action=download&file_id=348
> 
> Hope you enjoy!


Funny stuff.  I love that clip.


----------



## hammer (Jan 23, 2005)

*This is CRAZY*: Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer In waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and llsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a total mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mind deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. amzanig, huh? :uhyeah: ]

Hey i loved it kenpo yahoo


----------



## Karazenpo (Jan 23, 2005)

hammer said:
			
		

> *This is CRAZY*: Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer In waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and llsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a total mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mind deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. amzanig, huh? :uhyeah: ]
> 
> Hey i loved it kenpo yahoo



LOL, I like that one Hammer, and I had no problem easily reading it either, lol, good one!


----------



## triwahine (Jan 24, 2005)

hammer said:
			
		

> *This is CRAZY*: Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer In waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and llsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a total mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mind deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. amzanig, huh? :uhyeah: ]
> 
> Hey i loved it kenpo yahoo



Hammer,

I had no problem reading this.  Thanks for sharing.


----------



## hammer (Jan 25, 2005)

*This is CRAZY*: Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer In waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and llsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a total mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mind deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. amzanig, huh? :uhyeah: ]

Gents i better get in quick , this was taken from KENPO YAHOO, quote, my post was refering thanks to KENPO YAHOO , I THOUGHT IS WAS PRETTY COOL, also lol,


----------



## koga ha (Jan 26, 2005)

CB2379 said:
			
		

> Hi Everyone,
> Yesterday I learned a technique named Intercepting the Ram, which is a technique against an attempted tackle in which the person ultimately has made contact is attempted to wrap his arm around you.
> 
> The first part of the technique calls for the defender to step to the side and raise the right leg to crush his chest while taking the right fist and hammering the back of the neck.
> ...


i was to lazy to read all the posts; sorry if i repeat what someone already said.

i really don't like assuming, but i assume you are practicing a tackle coming from the waste on down.  so, with that assumption...

i would drop my left arm under the attackers right arm and hook it.  at the same time, i would put my right hand on the back of the attackers neck.

now, lift up on the arm that's hooked and push down the the back of the neck and flip the attacker over. 

you should find yourself mounted on top and in position to do your thing.

as always, this opinion may not reflect the views on this board.


----------



## Seabrook (Jan 26, 2005)

When executing Intercepting the Ram, try to keep redirecting your opponent into each of your strikes so that each move flows into the next.

Jamie Seabrook
http://www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com


----------



## pete (Jan 26, 2005)

koga ha said:
			
		

> i really don't like assuming, but i assume you are practicing a tackle coming from the waste on down. so, with that assumption...
> 
> i would drop my left arm under the attackers right arm and hook it. at the same time, i would put my right hand on the back of the attackers neck.
> 
> ...


sounds like grafting to the extension of Locked Wing... works for me. 
good "even-if" in the event he doesn't follow along your redirection.

pete.


----------



## parkerkarate (Jan 26, 2005)

When I wast taught this technique a couple of years ago, I was to keep retreating. You would explode in the begining with the knee to his fase, the heal palm, and the hammer fist. And than start to retreat while snapping his kneck and all of that. Try that.


----------



## Kenpobuff (Feb 15, 2005)

In my Kenpo system we call it "Meeting the Tackle" which is a defense from a low two armed tackle to the legs not the body.  I'm am not comfortable with the technique but with practice maybe it works.  I am happy that there are so many different versions to this, maybe I can use your ideas to make it easier for me.  

This technique is taught in our 2nd Brown and in this situation we are taught the technique by raising your left knee prior to the attack, one legged stance (which is awkward for me when someone is coming at you with any speed, kind of like a "Karate Kid" crane stance).  Just as they try to grab your legs you deliver a right knee strike to their head followed by a downward hammerfist to the back of their head/neck.  Step back into a Left Side Horse Stance while delivering a Left Downward Elbow Strike to their back.  Step back with your left foot into a Right Twist Stance while checking their head with your left hand.  Deliver a Right Inward Elbow Sandwich Strike with your left hand to the opponents head as you untwist into a Right Side Horse Stance.  Turn to face 6:00 in a Right Reverse Bow.  Check on top of their head with your right hand and deliver a Right Upward Rear Heel Hook Kick to their groin.  Cover out.

That's how I learned it and I want to again thank you all for the different versions.  I think I will mention the variations to my instructor and see what he thinks.


----------

