# Kenpo And The Multiple Attacker



## MJS (Dec 27, 2010)

[yt]qUy21QAb4a8[/yt]


[yt]mSxk4MNPEzc&feature=channel[/yt]


[yt]HkTpwUzUxVM[/yt]

3 Kenpo multi man techniques.  I thought we could discuss what everyone thinks of the multi man Kenpo techs.  Good, bad, practical, not practical?  Do you train multi man defense other than the required techs and if so, what do you do?

As always, this discussion is not only limited to Kenpo folks.  I understand that non-Kenpo people probably will have no idea about the techs, but thats fine.  If multi man attacks is something that you train, please feel free to comment.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 27, 2010)

mmmmm.... I don't care much for the mass attack techs.   They just make too many assumptions and turn into overly complicated choreography.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 27, 2010)

They are a pain. I look at them as something I have to learn well so I can teach it later.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Dec 27, 2010)

I think they have some good things, but I think overall it was a great marketing tool to extend students studies in the system.
I know my own systems multiple attackers techniques are very similar with slight changes from the originals, and I am unsure on why al the changes were made, and how many were made by my instructor, and how many by his instructor.
I think if nothing else they are great ways to drill multiple attack scenarios as long as the attackers are given an intent and then told to go with it. Sometimes I tell them their intent is to grab, sometimes its to knock the "victim" out, sometimes its to tackle, its fun stuff.. I find my funnest work is done versus multiple attackers.. you really find out quickly where you are comfortable and where you are not lol


----------



## Big Don (Dec 27, 2010)

During my Black Belt test, there was multiple attacker sparring. Three of them and one of me. I don't know how many of them it would take to kick my ***, but, they were using 3 that day. I did as I've been trained, when I couldn't line them up, I put my back in the corner of the room and concentrated on fighting them off, and I was doing a damn good job of it too.
That, of course, is why my Sifu yelled "STOP!" and made me get in the center of the room so they could start again...


----------



## Chris Parker (Dec 28, 2010)

Hey Mike,

I'll refrain from critiquing the techniques themselves, as I don't think that's the important thing here. What is more important is the reason they are trained. Now, frankly, the attacking methods are unrealistic, as are the responces, but that's fine, as if I was looking at them from a hoplological point of view, I would say that they are not meant to teach practical "answers".

What they appear to me to teach are a series of possibilities and strategies, rather than anything else. It is showing an expression of Kenpo, rather than specific actions to be utilised. So if taken in that light, they do their job admirably, allowing the student to explore a higher-stress training situation, getting them able to focus on different things at once (combating the "tunnel vision" effect of adrenaline), working on continuous movement, linking techniques in sequence, and so on. But they aren't what I would call "realistic" strategies, tactics, or attacks.

Over on MAP there is a thread in the Ninjutsu section on group defences, so I'll just post my responce (how we deal with this situation) here:



> Group attacks/defence scenarios, yeah we train the concept. It's a build on previous topics, really, namely verbal defusion and pre-emptive striking.
> Essentially, we take the tact that one on one, sure. One on two, with some luck and the correct tactics. One versus three, take it as one on two (pre-emptive) and get distance against the third. Taking on three or more at once, uh, I wish you the best!
> Our group defences are based primarily on pre-emptive striking (if you wait for them to all attack, it's most likely too late.... after all, they aren't likely to wait their turn like the movies), and based on an understanding of who is the most dangerous.
> Realistically, the most basic tennet is to create the opportunity to escape. So our modern approach is actually based (strategically) on the group defences that appear in the scrolls, particularly Togakure Ryu. There, the common theme is simple: When outnumbered and out-gunned, don't fight! Create the opportunity and escape. And we then just follow that in a modern sense as well.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Dec 28, 2010)

Chris Parker said:


> and based on an understanding of who is the most dangerous.


 
I don't disagree with anything else you said, I also don't necessarily disagree with this, but it does remind me of that western movie "Unforgiven"
when Eastwood kills everyone in the saloon, and the writer/reporter guy is trying to question him about the order he took them out in..

*W.W. Beauchamp*: Who, uh, who'd you kill first? 
*Will Munny*: Huh? 
*W.W. Beauchamp*: When confronted by superior numbers, an experienced gunfighter will always fire on the best shot first. 
*Will Munny*: Is that so? 
*W.W. Beauchamp*: Yeah, Little Bill told me that. And you probably killed him first, didn't you? 
*Will Munny*: I was lucky in the order, but I've always been lucky when it comes to killin' folks. 
*W.W. Beauchamp*: And so, who was next? It was Clyde, right? You must have killed Clyde. Well, it could have been Deputy Andy. Wasn't it? Or, or... 
[_Will points the rifle in his face_] 
*Will Munny*: All I can tell you is who's gonna be last. 
[_Beauchamp quickly exits out the front door_]


----------



## Kempojujutsu (Dec 28, 2010)

When I tested for my first degree black belt, we had 3 attackers. One guy would go high to clinch so you couldn't punch the other guy would then go low to grab your legs. The last guy would start to punch. It didn't matter if you were in the middle of the room or against the wall, you were going to get a beat down. The main objective by the black belt panel was to see if you gave up and quit fighting or continue to fight tooth and nail.

We use multiple attackers stuff, but nothing is choreographed. It's more about concepts what to do, what not to do, etc. We break it down like two attackers to the front, attackers to front and side or back. This guy is attacking this guy is coming in to punch.


----------



## MJS (Dec 28, 2010)

Nice replies everyone.  Chris' reply really caught my attention.  Personally, I too, think that the multi man Kenpo techs, do not give a very realistic description of whats going to happen.  Of course, while all techs should be a foundation, and not something relied on 100%, I think that whats taught could be better. 

I lurk over at MAP, and yes, I have been following the thread that Chris mentions.  I like the idea of the pre-emptive strike, and for me, I focus on that even in the 1 on 1 techs, not just the multi man stuff, but I do think that given the fact that the odds are already stacked against us, the pre-empt is key.  

I think that the idea of stacking the opponents and if possibly, temporarily using one as a shield against the other(s) is a good tactic.  No, I'm not suggesting that we drag that on and on, but its possible, while using them as a shield, and of course, putting the pain on, that it may make others think twice.  OTOH, that may also backfire on us, due to the fact that some people would think just the opposite, view their 'friend' in duress, therefore, giving them the motivation of attack you stronger than they originally were.

Grabbing a weapon is also something that I'd consider doing.  Yes, this may be frowned upon by some, but frankly, at the moment, thats going to be the least of my worries.  Of course, if and when possible, getting the hell out of there is always a wise choice.  No need to stand around and play movie star. LOL

But, back to the Kenpo techs....Chris had mentioned that the attacks were not realistic.  I had said that the techs IMO are a foundation, and the student should be building from there.  So, this question is for Chris, and anyone else who wants to comment...should a more realistic attack be taught from the beginning or should they be taught as shown in the clips, but expanded upon later?  What should be done to make them more realistic?


----------



## MJS (Dec 28, 2010)

Flying Crane said:


> mmmmm.... I don't care much for the mass attack techs. They just make too many assumptions and turn into overly complicated choreography.


 
Yup, as usual, you and I are on the same page.   IMO, I think that by the time the multiples are addressed, it'd be possible to avoid the standard multis and go on to more practical things.  Nothing says that you have to go so fast that things look like crap, but I dont see why you can't start off with more movement, resistance, etc., right from the beginning.


----------



## Kempojujutsu (Dec 28, 2010)

Our concepts are based off the basic techniques we learn. You may have to cut a technique short, or use part of it on the second or third attacker. The main thing is not to dwell on one attacker too much, position yourself so you can fight one person at a time or use them as a shield or sometimes a bowling ball. Shoving them into other attackers, points of impact (a wall, car, trash can to name a few). Know when to get the hell out of dodge.


----------



## Chris Parker (Dec 29, 2010)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> I don't disagree with anything else you said, I also don't necessarily disagree with this, but it does remind me of that western movie "Unforgiven"
> when Eastwood kills everyone in the saloon, and the writer/reporter guy is trying to question him about the order he took them out in..
> 
> *W.W. Beauchamp*: Who, uh, who'd you kill first?
> ...


 
Ha, fun quotes!

To give you a better idea of what I mean, we have a basic concept known as "Behind, Side, Close". In essence, if accosted by a group, the most dangerous person is the one behind you (as you can't see them, and they can attack while you are distracted by the one in front, or grab you for the front guy to start hitting - oh, and yes we give methods to see if there's someone behind you without taking your eyes off the guy in front), so they get hit first. If there's no-one behind you, someone on the side is the most dangerous for much the same reasons, so they're next in our targetting list. If the entire group is in front of you, the one who is closest is the most dangerous, as they are in the best position to attack you, so they get hit first. That's really all I meant by "an understanding of who is the most dangerous".



MJS said:


> Nice replies everyone. Chris' reply really caught my attention. Personally, I too, think that the multi man Kenpo techs, do not give a very realistic description of whats going to happen. Of course, while all techs should be a foundation, and not something relied on 100%, I think that whats taught could be better.


 
Aw, shucks....

Honestly Mike, I think that has a lot to do with what the techniques are supposed to teach. I'll cover that in more detail in a bit.



MJS said:


> I lurk over at MAP, and yes, I have been following the thread that Chris mentions. I like the idea of the pre-emptive strike, and for me, I focus on that even in the 1 on 1 techs, not just the multi man stuff, but I do think that given the fact that the odds are already stacked against us, the pre-empt is key.


 
Okay, this is rather nasty to watch, but yesterday there was an assault here in Melbourne which was basically a single elbow to the head. The guy went down, hard, hit his head, and is currently fighting for his life in a coma. But it does show the power of a pre-emptive strike, and it's something that we also do one-on-one as well. It's interesting to see how strong such a tactic can be, so here you are. 

WARNING: This is security footage, and although there's no blood seen, and it's only one hit, it's pretty nasty.

http://www.news.com.au/national/man-elbowed-in-head-fights-for-life/story-e6frfkvr-1225977395883



MJS said:


> I think that the idea of stacking the opponents and if possibly, temporarily using one as a shield against the other(s) is a good tactic. No, I'm not suggesting that we drag that on and on, but its possible, while using them as a shield, and of course, putting the pain on, that it may make others think twice. OTOH, that may also backfire on us, due to the fact that some people would think just the opposite, view their 'friend' in duress, therefore, giving them the motivation of attack you stronger than they originally were.
> 
> Grabbing a weapon is also something that I'd consider doing. Yes, this may be frowned upon by some, but frankly, at the moment, thats going to be the least of my worries. Of course, if and when possible, getting the hell out of there is always a wise choice. No need to stand around and play movie star. LOL
> 
> But, back to the Kenpo techs....Chris had mentioned that the attacks were not realistic. I had said that the techs IMO are a foundation, and the student should be building from there. So, this question is for Chris, and anyone else who wants to comment...should a more realistic attack be taught from the beginning or should they be taught as shown in the clips, but expanded upon later? What should be done to make them more realistic?


 
Okay, as I said, it depends on what the techniques, or that part of the curriculum are meant to teach. Personally I feel, from looking at it, that these techniques are not about actually defending against a group. They are more about the aspects that I mentioned earlier. Really, this is one of those differences between a martial arts approach and a self defence approach. These are martial arts techiniques, and as such are not required to be more "realistic". Because honestly, if you wanted to make them "more realistic", the first thing to do is to throw them out almost entirely, as there is nothing actually realistic about them from the attacks, the positioning of the attackers, how they attack (unless they're bouncers, really), the tactics expressed, and more, and that robs the Kenpo practitioner of the lessons and benefits that the techniques actually offer.


----------



## MJS (Dec 29, 2010)

Chris Parker said:


> Ha, fun quotes!
> 
> To give you a better idea of what I mean, we have a basic concept known as "Behind, Side, Close". In essence, if accosted by a group, the most dangerous person is the one behind you (as you can't see them, and they can attack while you are distracted by the one in front, or grab you for the front guy to start hitting - oh, and yes we give methods to see if there's someone behind you without taking your eyes off the guy in front), so they get hit first. If there's no-one behind you, someone on the side is the most dangerous for much the same reasons, so they're next in our targetting list. If the entire group is in front of you, the one who is closest is the most dangerous, as they are in the best position to attack you, so they get hit first. That's really all I meant by "an understanding of who is the most dangerous".


 
Awareness 101.  I think that would be a good drill to do in class...slowly of course.  Have someone in a 1 on 1 situation, and without knowing who in the group was badguy #2, the inst. randomly picks someone to approach, and attack.  

Its funny actually...well, not really when you think about it, but I'm amazed at all the clueless people I see while in the grocery store.  If I were a professional thief, I'd have my pick of the litter of pocketbooks, that're left, unattended in shopping carts, while the customer is busy looking at the stuff on the shelf.  Amazing.







> Okay, this is rather nasty to watch, but yesterday there was an assault here in Melbourne which was basically a single elbow to the head. The guy went down, hard, hit his head, and is currently fighting for his life in a coma. But it does show the power of a pre-emptive strike, and it's something that we also do one-on-one as well. It's interesting to see how strong such a tactic can be, so here you are.
> 
> WARNING: This is security footage, and although there's no blood seen, and it's only one hit, it's pretty nasty.
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/national/man-elbowed-in-head-fights-for-life/story-e6frfkvr-1225977395883


 
WOW!!  That guy had no idea that shot was coming.  Of course, when I watched it, to me, it didn't look like they had a disagreement.  Of course, I saw that in the article, but with the way they were walking, talking, etc., I couldnt tell.  But yes, you're right, it does show the power and speed.




> Okay, as I said, it depends on what the techniques, or that part of the curriculum are meant to teach. Personally I feel, from looking at it, that these techniques are not about actually defending against a group. They are more about the aspects that I mentioned earlier. Really, this is one of those differences between a martial arts approach and a self defence approach. These are martial arts techiniques, and as such are not required to be more "realistic". Because honestly, if you wanted to make them "more realistic", the first thing to do is to throw them out almost entirely, as there is nothing actually realistic about them from the attacks, the positioning of the attackers, how they attack (unless they're bouncers, really), the tactics expressed, and more, and that robs the Kenpo practitioner of the lessons and benefits that the techniques actually offer.


 
Ok, I'm glad I wasn't drinking anything when I read this, otherwise you'd owe me a new keyboard! LOL!  The part I'm talking about is when you said to get rid of them entirely. Blunt and to the point, but in all seriousness, I agree.  But if the MAs, as you said in the other thread, deal with the during, then you'd think that they would or should be more realistic, no?  

But this is why I'm such a skeptic about the majority of the Kenpo techs.  Of course, anytime I talk 'bad' about them, the folks who love them, are so quick to say that its because I really dont 'know' the tech, thus its my inexperience talking.  Frankly, I find that laughable, and I could really care less, because there are quite a few who I talk to, who share the same views.  IMO, there are cases, when I think that something more realistic can be taught from the get go, and get the effectiveness driven home alot quicker, vs. taking things such as what I posted, and then looking for new ways.  

Lets see....take the unrealistic approach, drill that into the student, and then try to remold them, or....take a more realistic approach from the start and then have them work variations off of that.  I'll take option 2.


----------



## Chris Parker (Dec 30, 2010)

MJS said:


> Awareness 101. I think that would be a good drill to do in class...slowly of course. Have someone in a 1 on 1 situation, and without knowing who in the group was badguy #2, the inst. randomly picks someone to approach, and attack.
> 
> Its funny actually...well, not really when you think about it, but I'm amazed at all the clueless people I see while in the grocery store. If I were a professional thief, I'd have my pick of the litter of pocketbooks, that're left, unattended in shopping carts, while the customer is busy looking at the stuff on the shelf. Amazing.


 
Oh, there's a number of drills we use, a fair amount of scenario training, random set-ups, and more. Same with weapon attacks, and so on. But yeah, awareness can be rather lacking in the public gentry, can it not? 



MJS said:


> WOW!! That guy had no idea that shot was coming. Of course, when I watched it, to me, it didn't look like they had a disagreement. Of course, I saw that in the article, but with the way they were walking, talking, etc., I couldnt tell. But yes, you're right, it does show the power and speed.


 
The attack took place at about 6am as the two men were leaving a, ahem, "gentlemens establishment..." With the smile on the face of the guy that gets hit, I'd suggest that he perhaps made a joke that the other guy didn't think was funny. Assuming that a reasonable amount of alcohol had been imbibed, the resulting muscle relaxant effect would actually have made it worse, as there would be less muscular tension holding the neck straight, meaning that as he hit the ground, there was nothing softening the impact of his head on the concrete. But the way the attacker hit and turned away, completely cold was what gets me. 



MJS said:


> Ok, I'm glad I wasn't drinking anything when I read this, otherwise you'd owe me a new keyboard! LOL! The part I'm talking about is when you said to get rid of them entirely. Blunt and to the point, but in all seriousness, I agree. But if the MAs, as you said in the other thread, deal with the during, then you'd think that they would or should be more realistic, no?
> 
> But this is why I'm such a skeptic about the majority of the Kenpo techs. Of course, anytime I talk 'bad' about them, the folks who love them, are so quick to say that its because I really dont 'know' the tech, thus its my inexperience talking. Frankly, I find that laughable, and I could really care less, because there are quite a few who I talk to, who share the same views. IMO, there are cases, when I think that something more realistic can be taught from the get go, and get the effectiveness driven home alot quicker, vs. taking things such as what I posted, and then looking for new ways.
> 
> Lets see....take the unrealistic approach, drill that into the student, and then try to remold them, or....take a more realistic approach from the start and then have them work variations off of that. I'll take option 2.


 
Ha, glad I didn't cost you a new keyboard! But really, there's a few things to clarify here. Yes, you can remove these techniques from the syllabus and replace them with more "street effective" ones, but I'd only suggest doing that if you feel that the reasons that the techniques exist are understood, and either are sufficently covered by other areas, or not deemed necessary to be kept. As to martial arts being about the "during" phase, that's correct, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are supposed to be about combative effectiveness. I understand that one of the cornerstones of the value structure of Kenpo is the history of Ed Parker and others going out in Hawaii and being involved in fights, then taking back what they found worked and using it to create the art, but that may also be misunderstood. 

If we look at other martial arts whose technical curriculum is said to have come from direct experience, the techniques are rarely like those used by the developer. What gets brought back may be some technical aspect, but it is more often the principles and realisations of what the person thought was most important. So realism can be there, but it's not essential in martial arts. And when looking at the techniques of Kenpo (from an outsider perspective), that's certainly what it appears to be to me. And that's probably the source of the skepticism you feel about them, honestly. It just comes down to looking at each technique (or set of techniques) and asking yourself "What is this trying to teach me?"

To give you an idea of what I am talking about, there is a thread on MAP where I was basically trying to explain to a Bujinkan Judan (of all things....) how martial arts actually work, as he was seeming to expect that the traditional kata would just be about a realistic fight, which is far from the truth. From post 428 (page 29) through to page 30, then again (for a bit) on page 35: http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1074367073#post1074367073

Essentially, martial arts (techniques) are lessons, not applications.

So if you want to seriously prepare someone for a group assault, look to the drills listed above, work a lot on pre-emptive striking, and have a great focus on awareness. And don't worry about the Kenpo techniques. But if you want to get the lessons that the group scenarios in Kenpo teach, then you'll need to keep them. It's really up to the individual what is more important, street self defence or the martial art and it's lessons. And if the answer is both, then you'll need to recognise where they overlap, and where they don't.


----------



## MJS (Dec 31, 2010)

Chris Parker said:


> Oh, there's a number of drills we use, a fair amount of scenario training, random set-ups, and more. Same with weapon attacks, and so on. But yeah, awareness can be rather lacking in the public gentry, can it not?


 
Agreed.





> The attack took place at about 6am as the two men were leaving a, ahem, "gentlemens establishment..." With the smile on the face of the guy that gets hit, I'd suggest that he perhaps made a joke that the other guy didn't think was funny. Assuming that a reasonable amount of alcohol had been imbibed, the resulting muscle relaxant effect would actually have made it worse, as there would be less muscular tension holding the neck straight, meaning that as he hit the ground, there was nothing softening the impact of his head on the concrete. But the way the attacker hit and turned away, completely cold was what gets me.


 
Yeah, that guy didn't seem a bit concerned about the guy he just elbowed.  Of course, this is why I tend to stay away from bars, clubs, gentlemens clubs, etc, but if/when I do go, I usually like to make sure that a) I'm not alone and b) that at least a few that I'm with, are 'with it' enough that we look out for each other, aren't drinking, etc.  Places like this tend to breed nothing but trouble.





> Ha, glad I didn't cost you a new keyboard! But really, there's a few things to clarify here. Yes, you can remove these techniques from the syllabus and replace them with more "street effective" ones, but I'd only suggest doing that if you feel that the reasons that the techniques exist are understood, and either are sufficently covered by other areas, or not deemed necessary to be kept. As to martial arts being about the "during" phase, that's correct, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are supposed to be about combative effectiveness. I understand that one of the cornerstones of the value structure of Kenpo is the history of Ed Parker and others going out in Hawaii and being involved in fights, then taking back what they found worked and using it to create the art, but that may also be misunderstood.
> 
> If we look at other martial arts whose technical curriculum is said to have come from direct experience, the techniques are rarely like those used by the developer. What gets brought back may be some technical aspect, but it is more often the principles and realisations of what the person thought was most important. So realism can be there, but it's not essential in martial arts. And when looking at the techniques of Kenpo (from an outsider perspective), that's certainly what it appears to be to me. And that's probably the source of the skepticism you feel about them, honestly. It just comes down to looking at each technique (or set of techniques) and asking yourself "What is this trying to teach me?"
> 
> ...


 
I'll take a look at that other thread when I have a bit more time.   As for the other stuff...interesting that you mention making sure that its understood.  I often think that many of the changes that I see with certain things, came about, because people didn't understand it to begin with, so they changed it, yet the change was no better than the original.  My Arnis inst. is also a Kenpo BB.  Lately, during our lessons, we've been going over some Kenpo material.  He trained at the same school as I currently do, and its interesting, as there're a few things that he does, and I do, and there are obvious differences.  Not many, but a few, here and there.  

As for the techs...well, for myself, I like to view all the techs, not just the mult attacker ones, as building blocks.  It gives 1 possible example of many.  So, I work on that, and then using basics, am able to come up with numerous other examples of a tech.  There are 154 Kenpo techs, plus some extensions.  IMO, I dont think that we need hundreds upon hundreds of techs for a punch.  I dont think that we need countless set techs to address a punch if the badguy has his left foot forward, and punching with the right, BG has left foot forward, but we're standing with our right foot forward, and so forth.

Instead, as I said, I like to use a handful of techs as a base, and from there, rely on the basics, ie: the punches, kicks, footwork, blocks, etc. that we know, to form a spontaneous response to whats being presented to us.  After all, I'm not going to be sifting thru hundreds of preset moves, when that punch is heading to my face, I'm going to react accordingly.  

How does this relate to the multi man stuff?  I think that if someone wants to use one of those techs as a base, fine.  But, ya gotta expand from there, thus not falling back on another preset tech, but on your basics, and reacting to whats happening.  I think that alot of the time, people tend to rely too much on the techs instead of the basics.


----------



## billc (Dec 31, 2010)

I was never fond of the multiple attacker drills in kenpo because they seemed far too staged to be real.  There are some things you could learn from them but I think perhaps putting armor and head gear on everyone, and then going through  a little more free form multiple attacking would be helpful.  It would at least teach the importance of cardiovascular training.  I guess multiple drills that try to teach a little bit of each aspect of a multiple attack is the best you can do.  

A little knife goes a long way as well.  One of my classmates in Dts kali was confroted by 3-4 guys on his way home from work.  He had a small folder in his pocket which he drew and kept down along his leg out of their view.  He told the group that he just wanted to go home, but they kept trying to crowd him.  As he was backing away they caught a glimpse of his knife and they took off.  That would be one way to solve the multiple attacker problem.


----------



## Kempojujutsu (Dec 31, 2010)

Just watch some of the video's that MJS provided. The first video which I think they called Courting the Tiger.

The start of it was okay, but they did several things I do not like to do. One was fighting both attackers on opposite sides. As soon as I can free myself from their grab/attack, want to place one attacker in front of the other. The second thing I didn't care for was they turned and place there back to one of the attackers. I want to keep my eyes on what both attackers are doing. The second attacker could possible pull a knife/ grab something from the ground, such as a rock, bottle, stick. I would prefer to hit create some separation and get away, if they want to beat me up or kill me they are going to have to chase me first.


----------



## Yondanchris (Jan 1, 2011)

I think most of us have forgotten the main reason in training with techniques! 

We train our minds and muscles to automaticly respond in high-stress combat situations. 

Each of the American Kenpo Techniques shown is an attempt at co-ordinating belt specific techniques to complex situations to make students THINK!! 

I encourage multiple opponent training at Green-Brown belt to begin to open students minds on their technique and ability to disable their opponents in the most efficient way possible. 

Kenpo/Kempo is known for its ability to handle multiple opponents beause of the training 
by techniques and "dragon circle" exercises. We should recognize the need for the training and encourage others to embrace and support this type of training!


----------



## Chris Parker (Jan 2, 2011)

While not commenting on what Kenpo techinques are supposed to teach, I will state that the idea that they are teaching students to think is pretty much out. The basic idea of training is to remove the conscious mind and decision making process, as it is simply something that you don't get time for. The training should be to get the students to not think.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jan 2, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> While not commenting on what Kenpo techinques are supposed to teach, I will state that the idea that they are teaching students to think is pretty much out. The basic idea of training is to remove the conscious mind and decision making process, as it is simply something that you don't get time for. The training should be to get the students to not think.


 
I think this is another semantics issue.
I think the end result is to get the student to think as fast as possible, and respond appropriately.
I am not a believer in training your body to react on its own in a preset manner.
I believe in drilling so that you develop the feel for what you are doing.
I believe in freeflow practice to develop your perceptual and mental speed.
I believe that the thinking person will do better then the "unthinking" person the vast majority of time if all other things are equal.
I think this topic alone would be interesting enough to explore in another thread though.
I know that some martial arts like Krav Maga teach a simple burst pattern of moves and train it over and over to try to establish an unthinking response to danger.
I know that some forms of kenpo teach hundreds and hundreds of individual movements and expect their students to have them memorized so they can address any attack... I have heard that some have approximately 600 techniques? crazy.
I believe in teaching how to move as opposed to an opponent or opponents to maximize your ability to stay safe, and end a situation as efficiently as possible.
I think that this is entirely possible to do without hindering a persons ability to respond.
now the argument is going to be in how you train someone to respond, how quick they are able to respond, and what is to much information to try to sift through while responding... i think everyone is going to have different levels on each aspect.
I also think that simplifying it to much is bad.. so where is the line drawn on what is good, what is bad, and what is extreme in one direction or the other, both for an individual and for a group?


----------



## MJS (Jan 2, 2011)

I agree that in the end, the goal is to react, rather than have to think about what we're doing.  I guess it comes down to....how many techs do you need to get to this point?  While the techs, IMO, do help a student to think, I feel that there comes a time, when you should be able to think on your own, rather than having to have a tech to do all of the thinking for you.


----------



## MJS (Jan 2, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> I think this topic alone would be interesting enough to explore in another thread though.


 
So do I.  Not sure if you were thinking of the Kenpo section or Gen. Martial arts, but please feel free to start the discussion going.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jan 3, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> I think this is another semantics issue.
> I think the end result is to get the student to think as fast as possible, and respond appropriately.
> I am not a believer in training your body to react on its own in a preset manner.
> I believe in drilling so that you develop the feel for what you are doing.
> ...


 
Not really what I was getting at, I was refering more to the effects of adrenaline on someones mental faculties (and more), but I'll be happy to continue this in another thread. Look forward to the discussion!


----------



## MJS (Jan 10, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> Not really what I was getting at, I was refering more to the effects of adrenaline on someones mental faculties (and more), but I'll be happy to continue this in another thread. Look forward to the discussion!


 
Started that thread here.


----------

