# You need to ask "what if" like ras...or you suck



## ATACX GYM

http://martialtalkmagazine.com/you-need-to-ask-what-if-like-ras-or-you-suck-preface-part-a/



Whatdid you think Id let guys like Dochowever much I may respect them as martial artists and their accomplishmentscall me out and NOT respond? Please. This is THE ATACX GYM here. Dont make me go A MAN CALLED HAWK on you and call you a damn fool.

This article is the preface to a somewhat scathing and brutal point by point direct rebuttal to some of the positions taken by some of our esteemed Kenpo Elders like Doc and whoever agrees with the specific positions that Im rebuttingand in doing so I hope to make the position of my ATACX GYM clear. If youre sensitive? You dont want to read this article, because if you know me? You already know Im bringing the flame with every piece I write and this piece is no exception to the rule. If you dont know me? Read on, hopefully youll like what I have to say.
Lemme make this clear: the core and crux of THE ATACX GYM is Functional Versatility. To my knowledge, we are the only Kenpo Gym that developes our sequences with every consideration of h2h combat in mind from jumpstreet. We believe that the complete enchilada of self-defense360 degrees of technique application from any stance or position, ranging from firearms to ground grappling to Evasion and Escape to Rescue to Multifights Armed or Unarmed to First Aid etc etc and any combination thereofis what were supposed to learn. All of our techs and sequencesevery single onereflects this philosophy. We also have crafted a very unusual training paradigm reflective of our specific philosophy. We are extremely results orientedso much so that we guarantee specific results every 8 hours of training time with us. I know of no other Gym that makes such specific guarantees.
Here are the top issues that I have with people who champion the sucktastic dysfunctional more popular idea not Ideal Phase techs:
1. They dont train in a Functional/Alive fashion so 99% of the time their lack of Alive/Functional training virtually guarantees that they will fail to defend themselves when put to the test. How many students are paying for the priviledge of NOT being able to defend themselves?
This is ALIVE training defined by Matt Thornton. I like much of what he has to say, but he didnt originate his position [ which he'd be the first to acknowledge ]


2. Many Kenpoists will denigrate sports oriented martial arts with claims that we train for the street, not sport. No, they dont. If these so-called street oriented self-defense centered Kenpoists did as they claimed? Theyd be working on far more things than their sports combat brethren and theyd loooong be converts of Functional/Alive Training. There would be zero argument about universal performance in the most common ranges of h2h SD befalling citizens, LEO and HRSP types [ which my research leads me to define as: Projectile Weapon Range, Non-projectile Weapon Range, Stand Up, Clinch, Seated, Kneeling [ either and both knees ] Ground, Prone, Escape, Evasion, Rescue, Rescue and Escape/Evade, Multifight Armed and Unarmed, Transitions to and thru all of the above, Breakfalls, Rolls, First Aid and CPR ] and the absolute mandate to have universally applicable and universally trained sequences comprised of universally applicable and universally trained techs.
3. Most Kenpoists have been hugely duped brainwashed and mindwiped. They seek to cleave to a dysfunctional model of their IP training and identify this craptastic expression as the standard to live up to. Even if Doc Chapel hadnt completely nuked that crap by reciting the true history of the IP? Simply SPARRING and training functionally with [ whatever ] tech will ensure that it DOES NOT look like its dysfunctional predecessorbecause it works.
4. Now. Like I frequently say and Im repeating again: You dont have to wholesale adopt my specific comprehensive expression of doing any technique, but WHATEVER technique or sequence you train? It needs to work in EVERY PRIMARY ARMED OR UNARMED, MULTIFIGHT, RESCUE, EVADE/ESCAPE etc etc scenario. If you do this? Then whatever expression you come up with will be universally functional. You will discover that its alot more fun, alot more work, alot more rewarding in every sense, and that there IS a single expression of sayGRASP OF DEATHthat allows you to deal with each and every one of the primary self-defense considerations. This single expression should be your BASE technique; the technique that you personally practice and the one that you teach your students. Whatever refinements that you hit upon should start from your new, highly functional GRASP OF DEATH and NOT from the dysfunctional crap that passes as the Ideal Phase Grasp of Death.

You and I  must train Functionally. If you dont? Youre deceiving yourself, your students, the general public, and are likely contributing significantly to the likelihood of someone using your craptastic techs in a actual scrap ends up getting hurt. Thats on you but it reflects poorly on all of us who are responsible functional martial art instructors.
So.WHAT IF YOU KNOW ABOUT WEAPONS, GRAPPLERS, MULTIFIGHTS, LEG KICKS, ETC. BUT YOU CHOOSE NOT TO TRAIN YOUR STUDENTS FOR THESE AND OTHER BASIC REALITIES FROM DAY ONE?
ANSWER: YOU SUCK.
Thats whyYOU NEED TO ASK WHAT IF LIKE RAS...[ for the rest, click: http://martialtalkmagazine.com/you-need-to-ask-what-if-like-ras-or-you-suck-preface-part-a/ ]


----------



## Carol

Well now...THAT is an article, Ras! 

Who's the cat that won't cop out, when there's danger all about...


----------



## ATACX GYM

carol said:


> well now...that is an article, ras!
> 
> Who's the cat that won't cop out, when there's danger all about...




sho you right!!


----------



## Tames D

Who, or what is ras? Excuse my ignorance.


----------



## Cyriacus

Tames D said:


> Who, or what is ras? Excuse my ignorance.



The poster. Ras is His name.


----------



## oaktree

Hi I do not train in Kenpo but from the impression in your article it seems to be "why you are better than everyone else and how everyone else is *wrong but you.*
  Your article sounds more like an advertising ad and an attack on other Kenpoist who disagree with your methodology. To think that this is a Martial Talk magazine article is distasteful.


----------



## LawDog

I stepped in late here and at the moment I am evaluating what has really has been said here and why. But for the record, not all or even most Kenpo schools are sports focused. What is being said here is what most Kenpo "old schools" have been doing for decades. Many of us know well the streets and how to train for it. Some of todays schools, traditional, modern or mixed arts learn street techniques by seminars or by Master DVD.
Some of todays school head Instructors worked the street in one form or the other. It is easy to figure out who knows or does not really know, just pair them up against someone who does know and have a verbal sparring match.
Posting on a forum really doesn't prove much. Don't hit the style or a school just go after the expert who really isn't.


----------



## Chris Parker

For those that have the patience, what I feel is a big part of the reason for Ras (again!!) saying that he's the only one who does things right can be found in this thread: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?100693-Sword-and-hammer-pt-1-and-2.

Ras is wrong. Repeatedly. He misses what he's being corrected on. Repeatedly. He used Doc and others so support his ideas and defences, until at Kempotalk Doc in particular turned around and pointed out that Ras was wrong. Repeatedly. The entire article Ras has written also misses the point of what he was being corrected on. Repeatedly.

I'm increasingly of the opinion that Ras should just be ignored. Repeatedly.

But Bob? Take his self-aggrandizing, ego-centric, mis-appropriated sense of superiority fueled "article" and flush it. As Oaktree says, it's just distasteful having it as a legitimate article on the magazine.


----------



## Carol

LawDog said:


> I stepped in late here and at the moment I am evaluating what has really has been said here and why. But for the record, not all or even most Kenpo schools are sports focused. What is being said here is what most Kenpo "old schools" have been doing for decades. Many of us know well the streets and how to train for it. Some of todays schools, traditional, modern or mixed arts learn street techniques by seminars or by Master DVD.
> Some of todays school head Instructors worked the street in one form or the other. It is easy to figure out who knows or does not really know, just pair them up against someone who does know and have a verbal sparring match.
> Posting on a forum really doesn't prove much. Don't hit the style or a school just go after the expert who really isn't.



You sir have been sorely missed!!  Hope all is well :asian:


----------



## ATACX GYM

oaktree said:


> Hi I do not train in Kenpo but from the impression in your article it seems to be "why you are better than everyone else and how everyone else is *wrong but you.*
> Your article sounds more like an advertising ad and an attack on other Kenpoist who disagree with your methodology. To think that this is a Martial Talk magazine article is distasteful.



I suggest that you read the article again. My article was formulated as a response from a serious but essentially non-personal challenge by one of the ranking Kenpo Elders in the world, the highly esteemed Doc Chapel. I have never at any time said that everyone is wrong but me. Look at the article. I specifically refute that allegation.

It is not an advertising ad or an attack on other Kenposits who disagree with my methodology. However, it IS filled with blunt talk that is long overdue. Loooonnnng overdue. I warned the general public about the bluntness of my posts on this matter and I warned the general public that if you're of the more sensitive persuasion? My posts on this matter aren't for you. I then proceeded to provide empirical--not just anecdotal or my personal opinion, EMPIRICAL--data to support much of my position and opinions.

At no time--ever ever ever--did I say everyone else is wrong but me. I railed against TRAINING METHODS. I rail against DYSFUNCTION. And I rail against the sheep-like mentality that allows such drivel to exist...at the expense of Kenpo, TMA as a whole, and also at the expense of far too many of us from whatever martial art that doesn't use functional,universal performance as our litmus test for sufficient efficacy. Nowhere--NOWHERE, SIR--do I say anything like what you claim. 

Please produce the quotes that cause you problems, and I'll be happy to point out that your concerns are not only NOT borne out by the quotes but solidly and wholeheartedly reaffirm the truth that I have neeever eeeever made nor intimated the claim that everyone else is wrong but me.


----------



## LawDog

Greetings Carol,
when you rehab your house you know how your personel life can get.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Chris Parker said:


> For those that have the patience, what I feel is a big part of the reason for Ras (again!!) saying that he's the only one who does things right can be found in this thread: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?100693-Sword-and-hammer-pt-1-and-2.
> 
> Ras is wrong. Repeatedly. He misses what he's being corrected on. Repeatedly. He used Doc and others so support his ideas and defences, until at Kempotalk Doc in particular turned around and pointed out that Ras was wrong. Repeatedly. The entire article Ras has written also misses the point of what he was being corrected on. Repeatedly.
> 
> I'm increasingly of the opinion that Ras should just be ignored. Repeatedly.
> 
> But Bob? Take his self-aggrandizing, ego-centric, mis-appropriated sense of superiority fueled "article" and flush it. As Oaktree says, it's just distasteful having it as a legitimate article on the magazine.




Actually--as Chris the non-Kenpo man's link to my SWORD AND HAMMER PT. 1 AND 2 thread will resoundingly prove--there is not a single atom of his statements which at any time bear even the slightest factual similarity to the real world. His opinion is essentially comprised of utter contrariness...for the sake of being contrary. There is no--and never has been nor will there ever be--even the most inifinitesimal facts to support his negative opinions about me. 

I invite him and any and all critics to prove--PROVE--otherwise. Let us move beyond cogent posts to empirical data.

I have provided video evidence to buttress my position with real world data. I have provided historical evidence drawn from the pioneer of Kenpo himself to buttress my position. I disagree with several of our most decorated and respected Elders on various positions of import, but they all boil down to a simple, single concept:

Whatever technique that you learn? It must be universally functional. THE SAME TECHNIQUE OR SEQUENCE must operate equally well whether you're armed or not, in multifights or not, ground grappling or ground fighting or not, regardless of stance or position, in a 360 degree circle, whether you're escaping/evading or not, rescuing someone or not,address every concern in The Web of Knowledge, address transitioning to and through any or all of the above or not, and address any combination of any or all of the above. It's...the essence of common sense.

Not all or even most martial artists do so. Not all or even most martial artists are MANDATED to do so if they choose to do otherwise. But whatever concern they choose not to address and/or develope combat proficiency in? THAT'S THE CONCERN THAT THEY'RE VULNERABLE TO. You don't address and get proficient in offensive and defensive leg kicks/blocks? Well...guess who's getting kicked in the leg? You don't address ground submissions? Well...guess who's getting tapped snapped or napped? You don't address multifights? Well...guess who's gettin stomped in a multifight? Etc etc.

Btw Chris, I'm still waiting upon that video that you never produced to prove your point...which of course is never going to come because it's like all your other evidence: spurious and non-existent.


----------



## Carol

LawDog said:


> Greetings Carol,
> when you rehab your house you know how your personel life can get.



Ohhhh yes....I became a homeowner (condo owner) myself up in the 603 since we last chatted.  I can relate


----------



## ATACX GYM

LawDog said:


> Greetings Carol,
> when you rehab your house you know how your personel life can get.




I actually recall this gentleman...LawDog...from YOUTUBE. I hope that he's able to see that my blunt talk is simply that: accurate, not self-aggrandizing at all, direct, unflinching. It is a response borne from Doc's MT article challenge to me...WHAT IF RAS STOPPED ASKING WHAT IF?...and that article was borne from the multipage threads that arose on both KenpoTalk.com AAAAND here on MartialTalk.com due to my incessant questioning about the origins of The Ideal Phase...and the dysfunctionality of it.

How did it come about? Who authored each and every Ideal Phase? How did we get a UNIVERSAL Ideal Phase when Mr. Parker very specifically not only didn't want such a thing but his definition of The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique Process specifically prevents such a thing from occurring because each head of each Kenpo school and group were to fashion their OWN expression of Alternating Maces or Sword and Hammer or whatever?

Well, Doc answered. I agreed with everything except the stricture placed upon keeping one's response within a specific narrow band. Doc said essentially that alll Sword and Hammer sequences had room for individuality and were mandated to do so, but they all in the end had to bear a significant physical resemblance to this:

[video=youtube_share;oJbyIBmhDN0]http://youtu.be/oJbyIBmhDN0[/video]

My response was...what is significant about that up there^^? What's shown up above should be a White Belt drill that we learned to do when we learned how to throw handswords to the cardinal directions and any point in a 360 degree circle around us, repeat the drill with the hammerfist, then repeat with combinations of all the techniques we learned in White Belt [ in my Gym, this is BELOW WHITE BELT...it's a Pre-White Belt Level A technique. The lowest rank in my Gym ].

The difference when I teach my students our iteration of Sword and Hammer is that it presupposes a surprise attack that lands for the most part...and you must respond while you're dazed, in a position of disadvantage, and while being belabored with blows from your opponent. 

We recognize right off top that your opponent will not be helpfully standing still and posing for you, and the BG won't be sitting there allowing you to hit him. IN THE REAL WORLD, THE ATTACK THAT THE SWORD AND HAMMER IS SUPPOSED TO DEFEAT WILL BE SOMETHING LIKE THIS ATTACK:

[video=youtube_share;A36Bw5I3-g0]http://youtu.be/A36Bw5I3-g0[/video]

Will the most common training expression of THE SWORD AND HAMMER deal with that attack? NOPE. The TRAINING PARADIGM SUCKS. Kenpo doesn't suck. The Sword and Hammer doesn't suck. BUT THE TRAINING PARADIGM FOR THE MOST COMMON EXPRESSION OF THE SWORD AND HAMMER SUCKS. Do you understand and grasp the difference I'm making here? I have confidence that most of you do.

Now, look at the above attack, and consider that most flank attacks aren't even preceded by a grab [ essentially a Hockey Punch from the flanks ]. Guys just catch you nappin and FIRE A SUCKER PUNCH ON YOU. Like so:

[video=youtube_share;LFnIESr658k]http://youtu.be/LFnIESr658k[/video]

Do you train your Sword and Hammer...or ANY technique...to deal with that? Take a look-see at the most common Sword and Hammer and honestly ask yourself if you've trained for the more common reality that you'll be called upon to use it in. The truth is? The overwhelming majority of us...90%+ I'd guesstimate--have NOT trained our Sword and Hammer for this and have not changed our Sword and Hammer's expression to deal with this reality.

Now take the above and notice...these attacks can occur face to face, from the flanks, from the rear or any point in a 360 degree circle around you. Is your Sword and Hammer taught from DAY ONE to deal with this reality? Has your sensei sifu Coach whatever prepped you for this by changing the Sword and Hammer training methodology so that it's functional and it really works? No? Most haven't. 

But I have.

[video=youtube_share;AuvuhW1u2WE]http://youtu.be/AuvuhW1u2WE[/video]

How many Kenpo or Kempo instructors have considered making throws, takedowns, sweeps, displacements, unbalances, submission/compliance locks etc. an integral part of every single sequence they 
teach and teach the whole expression seamlessly meshed with the grappling arsenal at your belt rank? Answer: Nowhere near enough have done so.

But I have.


[video=youtube_share;R-mmdyIHkjs]http://youtu.be/R-mmdyIHkjs[/video]


What happens if you're KNOCKED DOWN by the surprise attack and you have to deal with a BG who's trying to stomp you out, punch you, knife you, or any combo of the above? 

[video=youtube_share;8XsykPOhBRI]http://youtu.be/8XsykPOhBRI[/video]

Is it a common sight in Kenpo for your Sword and Hammer or whatever sequence you prefer to be trained for this reality? No?

It is for me and my students. In THE ATACX GYM, you are taught to use THE EXACT SAME TECHNIQUES ON THE GROUND AS YOU DO ON YOUR FEET.

[video=youtube_share;R-mmdyIHkjs]http://youtu.be/R-mmdyIHkjs[/video]

But wait...what if he sucker punches you, switches sides and keeps punching you or goes for a chokehold? Well, we already showed you that at THE ATACX GYM we train our techs to strike in a circle and the cardinal directions [ showing the part of our hybrid lineage that's BKF-Parker-Tracy ]...but we also realize that students must be equipped with techniques that deal with all the primary h2h categories and attacks, so we train our SWORD AND HAMMER  vs these kinds of situations too:







So clearly I think Kenpo works. Clearly I think the techniques are valid. IT'S THE TRAINING PARADIGM AND ATTENDING MINDSET THAT IS DYSFUNCTIONAL AND PROBLEMATIC. The question isn't:"Why does THE ATACX GYM and a very veeerrry select few Kenpo schools even remotely address the kind of self-defense reality that I'm likely to encounter?" Nope. The question is:" WHY IN DA HELL DO THE OTHER 99% OF KENPO SCHOOLS NOT COVER THESE REALITIES?" 

That's the question. And it's not self-aggrandizing, it's not ego-centric. It's the straight up real world reality. It's blunt talk that we need. 

It's why you need to ask "What If" like Ras does...or you suck.


----------



## Flying Crane

Ras, I think there's a whole lot of people talking past each other here.  You believe in your methods and that causes you to critique and criticize what you perceive others are doing.  At the same time, other people believe in their methods, and they likewise critique and criticize what they see other people doing.  Including what they see you doing.

People are beholden to their methods, for better and for worse.  If they (and you) believe in what they do, have seen the "proof in the pudding", they (and you) are not going to be particularly receptive to someone telling them they are making some mistakes and might want to do it differently.  That's actually OK, there's nothing wrong with that.

I happen to agree with you in that I feel a whole lot of martial arts are being practiced poorly, taught by a whole lot of people who don't understand very well what they are doing and should simply not be teaching.  But there are also some very capable people out there, even those whose methods are fundamentally different from my own.  I can't really tell them they need to change because apparently they've got something that works well for them.

Your posts are very wordy and honestly it makes them difficult to read.  Not because I am unable to handle a difficult read, but because it comes off as garbled and artificially intellectualized in a way that the topic doesn't seem (to me, at least) to merit.  You also post a lot of video clips to support your positions, and refer to them as proof of your points.  I've seen some of your clips but not a lot of them.  Video is blocked for me at work, and that is where I am most of the time when I'm on the forums (the cat's out of the bag there...).  I rarely have the time or desire to go back at home to look at video.  However, the videos that I have seen have not, in my mind, been proof of anything.  At all.  They show you working on things, they illustrate an example of something that you do, but they are in no way, shape, or form, "proof" of anything.

You've initiated a number of threads that become exceptionally wordy and long and don't settle anything, they become circular arguments that don't end and don't resolve anything and get rehashed over and over in the various threads.  I don't really see the point of it all.

You have your ways that you believe in, other people have theirs, and it doesn't really matter if they don't meet.

For myself, as an ex-kenpo guy, I don't buy any of it.  For me, I realized the basic approach to the curriculum just isn't a good match, doesn't work for me.  So I do something else altogether.  That's just another example of two people (you and I) who both believe in what they do, who will never agree on the best approach to teaching and training, but who both get excellent results from what they do.

it ain't a crusade out there.  you don't need to convince or convert anyone.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Flying Crane said:


> Ras, I think there's a whole lot of people talking past each other here.  You believe in your methods and that causes you to critique and criticize what you perceive others are doing.  At the same time, other people believe in their methods, and they likewise critique and criticize what they see other people doing.  Including what they see you doing.
> 
> People are beholden to their methods, for better and for worse.  If they (and you) believe in what they do, have seen the "proof in the pudding", they (and you) are not going to be particularly receptive to someone telling them they are making some mistakes and might want to do it differently.  That's actually OK, there's nothing wrong with that.
> 
> I happen to agree with you in that I feel a whole lot of martial arts are being practiced poorly, taught by a whole lot of people who don't understand very well what they are doing and should simply not be teaching. .



Whassup FC!! You did see the parts where I repeatedly say that if [ whatever others are doing ] works in these ranges for them? Hey, not a problem. I'm not addressing them. I've also repeatedly stated that if [ whatever others are doing ] is all they want to do? That's ALSO cool with me. But if they're not training for various considerations in The Web of Knowledge? Well...

a) They'll be vulnerable to attacks that those considerations cover

b) That's proof of a insufficiently comprehensive training paradigm.


However, it IS somewhat of a crusade. People DO need convincing...not so much CONVERSION, but CONVINCING. Convincing of what? Convincing that oftentimes we need superior training paradigms to efficiently cover more practical, more comprehensive martial arts training. Basically? Take your [ whatever martial art ] any direction you want to go with it. Just make sure it works in the primary armed, h2h, ground and multifight scenarios. That is NOT being done and hasn't been done in TMA for far too long. 

That's our fault. Those of us who know better and don't do it enough. Don't show it enough. Don't prove it enough.




Flying Crane said:


> Your posts are very wordy and honestly it makes them difficult to read. Not because I am unable to handle a difficult read, but because it comes off as garbled and artificially intellectualized in a way that the topic doesn't seem (to me, at least) to merit.  .




I usually don't answer the above criticism because usually the people making them are:

a. Being Contrary for the sake of being contrary

b. Just looking to insult me

c. Brain Dead


But I know that you're not like that, Michael, so I'll answer this comment [ yet AGAIN ]:

To me and to quite a few who contact me on a weekly basis [ dozens and more ], my posts aren't overly wordy nor are they difficult to comprehend. They're pretty straightforward. The part that flips most people is that I've challenged many of their positions and/or beliefs in almost every sentence, and they're still attempting to digest one challenge or question when I hit them with a dozen more. To compound the matter, they oftentimes completely misunderstand or mischaracterize what I'm saying. They'll conflate, for instance, my utter disgust with and disdain for dysfunctional training with me saying that they and/or their martial art sucks. I have neeeeever said such a thing, and have repeatedly and in no uncertain terms repudiated even the notion of such a thing.

Even when I disagree with Chris Parker, I have never dissed his personal martial art. And I never will.

This whole conversation [ from my perspective ] revolves around training paradigms, their effectiveness or lack thereof, and the mindsets that they spawn. Even Functionality has a continuum. I am Functional, but I can be MORE  Functional...so I'm open to ideas drills suggestions and criticism along those lines. I have adopted the verbiage and corrections offered by others like Doc, Professor Durgan, and others [ even you, Michael ] when I agreed with the criticisms or even disagreed but found merit in the suggestion anyway.

It's worth noting that NONE of my critics have reciprocated. 

With that in mind...who is truly the person with the more open mind? Who is truly the person who is less ego-stricken? 

Something to ponder.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Carol said:


> Ohhhh yes....I became a homeowner (condo owner) myself up in the 603 since we last chatted.  I can relate



Yaaaayyy homeowners!


----------



## Flying Crane

ATACX GYM said:


> Whassup FC!! You did see the parts where I repeatedly say that if [ whatever others are doing ] works in these ranges for them? Hey, not a problem. I'm not addressing them. I've also repeatedly stated that if [ whatever others are doing ] is all they want to do? That's ALSO cool with me.



who do you think, out there, honestly believes that, "what I am doing is flawed, but I'll just keep doing it and pretend otherwise"?  I'd say just about nobody fits that description.  So if you believe what you stated above, then you are talking to nobody.

Whether or not something is flawed is a matter of perception.  Some people's perception may be sharper than others, but try and convince everyone that their perception isn't as accurate as yours, and you'll get a lot of pushback and resistance.  It just becomes this circular argument over and over and over and over and over and over......  we are talking about human nature.  From my perspective, kenpo is fundamentally flawed as a system and as a curriculum.  But whenever I made such a suggestion and said, hey maybe there are some things the kenpo community is confused on...well I got some serious hostility in response.  OK, I get it, my ballgame isn't the same ballgame they are playing and that's cool.  What works for me may not work for them and vice-versa.  That's the same thing you are doing.  Play your ballgame, they will play theirs, and the people who are looking for it will decide which ballgame they want to play.  There's nothing wrong with discussion and discourse, but I think you are deluding yourself over this need to convince and convert.  People ARE convinced, even if they aren't convinced by you.



> But if they're not training for various considerations in The Web of Knowledge? Well...
> 
> a) They'll be vulnerable to attacks that those considerations cover
> 
> b) That's proof of a insufficiently comprehensive training paradigm.



I came up in the Tracy kenpo lineage and we didn't have the web of knowledge.  I have read Mr. Parker's Infinite Insights series, so I have a very shallow familiarity with what it is, but not what it really contains.  Given that caveate, I don't see any use in the Web of Knowledge, and see zero "proof" of anything with it, one way or the other.  It's just a way of organizing some information, and I don't see it as being a useful tool.



> However, it IS somewhat of a crusade. People DO need convincing...not so much CONVERSION, but CONVINCING. Convincing of what? Convincing that oftentimes we need superior training paradigms to efficiently cover more practical, more comprehensive martial arts training. Basically? Take your [ whatever martial art ] any direction you want to go with it. Just make sure it works in the primary armed, h2h, ground and multifight scenarios. That is NOT being done and hasn't been done in TMA for far too long.



who's definition of superior?  Yours?  Again, who out there keeps training in something that they are convinced is inferior?  Everyone's got their perception of what is superior, what's the best way to go about it.  Everyone is already convinced, but not by you.  They are convinced by what they already do, or they would not do it.  Why would they then be convinced by you?  I personally think the superior way to do it includes dumping the whole approach that kenpo takes in its curriculum and doing things very differently.  But will I ever convince you or Luckkboxer or Doc of that?  Hell no.  You are pushing your notions of what is superior, and others aren't buying it.  And that will NEVER happen over an internet forum.  That's all there is to it.  Again, discussion and discourse is completely appropriate, but have some realistic expectations of what you might accomplish.

As far as what is being or not being done in TMAs, I think you don't know what is being done.  And do you include kenpo as a TMA in that assessment?  All kenpo branches and types and flavors?  I train a very traditional Chinese martial art and I have full faith in the system.  My skills with it may have room for improvement, but the system and the method make 110% good sense to me, I believe in it whole-heartedly.  But our approach to training and what we do with our material is very different from what I see you discussing and doing in your videos.  I am sure that if you looked at how we train, you would find faults or deficiencies in it.  I don't care, I'm not interested in convincing you or anyone else.  But I have the utmost confidence in our method and that's all that matters to me.  I don't care what the rest of the world might think about it. 

No, there is no crusade.



> That's our fault. Those of us who know better and don't do it enough. Don't show it enough. Don't prove it enough.



I'd say there are a lot more of "us" doing it than maybe you think.  But to whom do we need to show it and prove it?  I don't care what the world thinks of what I do, I'd rather keep it in my back pocket and let you or anyone else think it's no good.  That gives me an edge.

Those of us who know "better"?  How do you define that?  I think I know better, and that caused me to leave kenpo altogether, 100%.  You'll never agree with my decision, but should I be trying to convince you that I know better and you should be listening to me?

the circular arguments just continue and there is no resolution.  Just people talking past each other.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Flying Crane said:


> who do you think, out there, honestly believes that, "what I am doing is flawed, but I'll just keep doing it and pretend otherwise"?  I'd say just about nobody fits that description.  So if you believe what you stated above, then you are talking to nobody.
> 
> Whether or not something is flawed is a matter of perception.  Some people's perception may be sharper than others, but try and convince everyone that their perception isn't as accurate as yours, and you'll get a lot of pushback and resistance.  It just becomes this circular argument over and over and over and over and over and over......  we are talking about human nature.  From my perspective, kenpo is fundamentally flawed as a system and as a curriculum.  But whenever I made such a suggestion and said, hey maybe there are some things the kenpo community is confused on...well I got some serious hostility in response.  OK, I get it, my ballgame isn't the same ballgame they are playing and that's cool.  What works for me may not work for them and vice-versa.  That's the same thing you are doing.  Play your ballgame, they will play theirs, and the people who are looking for it will decide which ballgame they want to play.  There's nothing wrong with discussion and discourse, but I think you are deluding yourself over this need to convince and convert.  People ARE convinced, even if they aren't convinced by you.
> 
> 
> 
> I came up in the Tracy kenpo lineage and we didn't have the web of knowledge.  I have read Mr. Parker's Infinite Insights series, so I have a very shallow familiarity with what it is, but not what it really contains.  Given that caveate, I don't see any use in the Web of Knowledge, and see zero "proof" of anything with it, one way or the other.  It's just a way of organizing some information, and I don't see it as being a useful tool.
> 
> 
> 
> who's definition of superior?  Yours?  Again, who out there keeps training in something that they are convinced is inferior?  Everyone's got their perception of what is superior, what's the best way to go about it.  Everyone is already convinced, but not by you.  They are convinced by what they already do, or they would not do it.  Why would they then be convinced by you?  I personally think the superior way to do it includes dumping the whole approach that kenpo takes in its curriculum and doing things very differently.  But will I ever convince you or Luckkboxer or Doc of that?  Hell no.  You are pushing your notions of what is superior, and others aren't buying it.  And that will NEVER happen over an internet forum.  That's all there is to it.  Again, discussion and discourse is completely appropriate, but have some realistic expectations of what you might accomplish.
> 
> As far as what is being or not being done in TMAs, I think you don't know what is being done.  And do you include kenpo as a TMA in that assessment?  All kenpo branches and types and flavors?  I train a very traditional Chinese martial art and I have full faith in the system.  My skills with it may have room for improvement, but the system and the method make 110% good sense to me, I believe in it whole-heartedly.  But our approach to training and what we do with our material is very different from what I see you discussing and doing in your videos.  I am sure that if you looked at how we train, you would find faults or deficiencies in it.  I don't care, I'm not interested in convincing you or anyone else.  But I have the utmost confidence in our method and that's all that matters to me.  I don't care what the rest of the world might think about it.
> 
> No, there is no crusade.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say there are a lot more of "us" doing it than maybe you think.  But to whom do we need to show it and prove it?  I don't care what the world thinks of what I do, I'd rather keep it in my back pocket and let you or anyone else think it's no good.  That gives me an edge.
> 
> Those of us who know "better"?  How do you define that?  I think I know better, and that caused me to leave kenpo altogether, 100%.  You'll never agree with my decision, but should I be trying to convince you that I know better and you should be listening to me?
> 
> the circular arguments just continue and there is no resolution.  Just people talking past each other.





Mike...I don't know anyone who looks at their approach as "flawed". However, if you ask any of my Taekwondoin brethren if they have a substantial submission grappling arsenal standing and on the ground? The honest answer is NO. Does that leave them vulnerable to being subbed or facing a good wrestler who can gnp them? YES. Is there a way to train their TKD--without having to sacrifice their distinct TKD flavor and identity--to deal with competent submissions takedowns and gnp? YES. Is this routinely done? The honest answer is NO.

How do I know? Because I'm a 5th dan in TKD and when I made these suggestions? Many TKD guys went nuts...until I pointed out that Master Hee Il Cho has done the very thing I was talking about...although I started converting mine well before 1994, as I was learning TKD and HKD nearly hand in hand with each other. 

When I make comments about this or that art in TMA? They're GENERAL comments. There is NO WAY I'd know exactly what every single martial artist is doing, and I'm not interested in that. If I gave you the impression otherwise? I don't know how but I apologize for that. What I CAN say though--with certainty--refers to the GENERAL METHOD OF PRACTICE. The GENERAL training paradigm.

I'm a Judo black belt.Generally speaking? Judoka don't do jumpkicks or triple kicks, even in our self defense atemi-waza [ which I have learned ].

I'm a Kenpo 5th dan and a Hung Gar black sash. In general, you won't find Kenpoists or Kempoists--American, Chinese, Japanese, whatever---pulling off flying triangles or working the guard or pulling off The Flying Squirrel or The Spladle. In fact? Throws pins locks chokes and holds are not what these arts are generally known for...although they DO IN FACT possess these techs. Their training emphasis, IN GENERAL, is elsewhere...which gives them a largely "stand up striking" identity. Which means that they too are vulnerable to what they train LESS of or DON'T TRAIN.

Do the practitioners of ANY of these arts feel that their art is flawed? NO. Their art is NOT flawed. They have good reason to feel the way that they do. Now, can anyone from any of those arts improve drastically by employing a training paradigm that improves their entire martial arsenal [ inclusive of tactics and healing ] in every category and range of self defense? YES.

A training paradigm that improves martial performance, knowledge, etc. is a SUPERIOR training paradigm.

Therefore...Taekwondoin who reach into their art and realize that they have throws, locks etc. and proceed to practice throws locks takedowns ground strikes weapons and defenses against same have a TRAINING PARADIGM SUPERIOR to those who DON'T do so...even though all TKD practitioners in theory have THE SAME ARSENAL.

Chinese Kempoists who develope superior athleticism and comprehensive grappling and subgrappling have a superior TRAINING PARADIGM to those who don't...even though all Chinese Kempoists in theory have the same arsenal.

American Kenpoists who train their techniques and self-defense sequences to perform in every range of h2h combat and every category of combat HAVE A TRAINING PARADIGM SUPERIOR TO THOSE WHO DON'T.

Judoka who make it a point to cultivate comprehensive atemi waza as well as every aspect of their grappling game HAVE A TRAINING PARADIGM SUPERIOR TO THOSE WHO DON'T.

Capoeiristas who actually spar with weapons and train to make contact and realistically takedown and strike, etc etc in addition to cultivating their extraordinary vocabulary of movement, memorize and enrich the songs and music through direct contribution and participation, learn the history of capoeira, etc etc HAVE A TRAINING PARADIGM SUPERIOR TO THOSE WHO DON'T.

How do I know who has a superior training paradigm? Cuz superior martial arts performance is quantifiable: forms [ if your art has any ], weapon use, strikes locks chokes takedowns etc etc are all combat applicable and yield superior fighting skill. This rigorous physical training coupled with rigorous indoctrination in the various honorable martial arts codes of conduct tends to yield a disciplined, physically fit, honorable, long lived person who is a benefit to whatever community that this person belongs to.Furthermore... The greater your fighting  [and healing ] skill? The greater the ancillary benefits you receive: physical fitness, stress relief, self-confidence, etc.  

In short? The superior training paradigm perforce yields superior martial artists who perform their art in ways superior to those who don't. That's how I know. It's the most elementary, obvious common sense. 

Sooo...look at your training paradigm, and see what it doesn't cover. That's one of the two areas you can improve upon. The OTHER area that you can improve upon is the area that your art DOES cover. When you cover them both? Guess what?

You're employing a superior training paradigm. Easy.

Now maybe there are martial artists out there who are perfectly satisfied with what they ARE training and don't feel the need to train any other way or any other range or whatever. That is perfectly fine with me. Have at it and have fun. They're engaged in the method that they prefer, and that's great.

However, if they engaged in a training paradigm that covered more--and did so with at least equal quality to what they're covering now--they'd have a SUPERIOR training paradigm.

Floyd Mayweather is a boxer. Boxing is good. Kickboxing is better. If Floyd added savate or TKD or Muay Thai or Capoeira to his boxing base? He'd have a combatively SUPERIOR training paradigm...although he strongly prefers and is quite happy with his BOXING training and its paradigm.

I hope you grasp my point now.


----------



## Flying Crane

ATACX GYM said:


> Mike...I don't know anyone who looks at their approach as "flawed". However, if you ask any of my Taekwondoin brethren if they have a substantial submission grappling arsenal standing and on the ground? The honest answer is NO. Does that leave them vulnerable to being subbed or facing a good wrestler who can gnp them? YES. Is there a way to train their TKD--without having to sacrifice their distinct TKD flavor and identity--to deal with competent submissions takedowns and gnp? YES. Is this routinely done? The honest answer is NO.
> 
> How do I know? Because I'm a 5th dan in TKD and when I made these suggestions? Many TKD guys went nuts...until I pointed out that Master Hee Il Cho has done the very thing I was talking about...although I started converting mine well before 1994, as I was learning TKD and HKD nearly hand in hand with each other.
> 
> When I make comments about this or that art in TMA? They're GENERAL comments. There is NO WAY I'd know exactly what every single martial artist is doing, and I'm not interested in that. If I gave you the impression otherwise? I don't know how but I apologize for that. What I CAN say though--with certainty--refers to the GENERAL METHOD OF PRACTICE. The GENERAL training paradigm.
> 
> I'm a Judo black belt.Generally speaking? Judoka don't do jumpkicks or triple kicks, even in our self defense atemi-waza [ which I have learned ].
> 
> I'm a Kenpo 5th dan and a Hung Gar black sash. In general, you won't find Kenpoists or Kempoists--American, Chinese, Japanese, whatever---pulling off flying triangles or working the guard or pulling off The Flying Squirrel or The Spladle. In fact? Throws pins locks chokes and holds are not what these arts are generally known for...although they DO IN FACT possess these techs. Their training emphasis, IN GENERAL, is elsewhere...which gives them a largely "stand up striking" identity. Which means that they too are vulnerable to what they train LESS of or DON'T TRAIN.
> 
> Do the practitioners of ANY of these arts feel that their art is flawed? NO. Their art is NOT flawed. They have good reason to feel the way that they do. Now, can anyone from any of those arts improve drastically by employing a training paradigm that improves their entire martial arsenal [ inclusive of tactics and healing ] in every category and range of self defense? YES.
> 
> A training paradigm that improves martial performance, knowledge, etc. is a SUPERIOR training paradigm.
> 
> Therefore...Taekwondoin who reach into their art and realize that they have throws, locks etc. and proceed to practice throws locks takedowns ground strikes weapons and defenses against same have a TRAINING PARADIGM SUPERIOR to those who DON'T do so...even though all TKD practitioners in theory have THE SAME ARSENAL.
> 
> Chinese Kempoists who develope superior athleticism and comprehensive grappling and subgrappling have a superior TRAINING PARADIGM to those who don't...even though all Chinese Kempoists in theory have the same arsenal.
> 
> American Kenpoists who train their techniques and self-defense sequences to perform in every range of h2h combat and every category of combat HAVE A TRAINING PARADIGM SUPERIOR TO THOSE WHO DON'T.
> 
> Judoka who make it a point to cultivate comprehensive atemi waza as well as every aspect of their grappling game HAVE A TRAINING PARADIGM SUPERIOR TO THOSE WHO DON'T.
> 
> Capoeiristas who actually spar with weapons and train to make contact and realistically takedown and strike, etc etc in addition to cultivating their extraordinary vocabulary of movement, memorize and enrich the songs and music through direct contribution and participation, learn the history of capoeira, etc etc HAVE A TRAINING PARADIGM SUPERIOR TO THOSE WHO DON'T.
> 
> How do I know who has a superior training paradigm? Cuz superior martial arts performance is quantifiable: forms [ if your art has any ], weapon use, strikes locks chokes takedowns etc etc are all combat applicable and yield superior fighting skill. This rigorous physical training coupled with rigorous indoctrination in the various honorable martial arts codes of conduct tends to yield a disciplined, physically fit, honorable, long lived person who is a benefit to whatever community that this person belongs to.Furthermore... The greater your fighting [and healing ] skill? The greater the ancillary benefits you receive: physical fitness, stress relief, self-confidence, etc.
> 
> In short? The superior training paradigm perforce yields superior martial artists who perform their art in ways superior to those who don't. That's how I know. It's the most elementary, obvious common sense.
> 
> Sooo...look at your training paradigm, and see what it doesn't cover. That's one of the two areas you can improve upon. The OTHER area that you can improve upon is the area that your art DOES cover. When you cover them both? Guess what?
> 
> You're employing a superior training paradigm. Easy.
> 
> Now maybe there are martial artists out there who are perfectly satisfied with what they ARE training and don't feel the need to train any other way or any other range or whatever. That is perfectly fine with me. Have at it and have fun. They're engaged in the method that they prefer, and that's great.
> 
> However, if they engaged in a training paradigm that covered more--and did so with at least equal quality to what they're covering now--they'd have a SUPERIOR training paradigm.
> 
> Floyd Mayweather is a boxer. Boxing is good. Kickboxing is better. If Floyd added savate or TKD or Muay Thai or Capoeira to his boxing base? He'd have a combatively SUPERIOR training paradigm...although he strongly prefers and is quite happy with his BOXING training and its paradigm.
> 
> I hope you grasp my point now.



firstly, I don't take any insult at anything you say, so don't worry about that.  that was never my point in speaking up.

as to the rest, I do understand your point, but I don't agree with how you approach it.  I'm not interested in debating the differences, but I'll just say I don't agree.  Again, two people talking past each other.

I'm reminded of an ongoing debate I've had with my mother for far too many years.  She is a devout catholic and sees aspects of her religious faith in all aspects of her life.  I don't.  I've separated myself from the church and andy organized religion of all kinds, much to my mother's despair.  She keeps trying to pull me back into it.  I try to explain to her that while my path differs from hers, I am a good person, she did a good job raising her son to be a good person, and my path is the right path for me.  She can't leave it alone and keeps trying to tell me: well you are wrong about your choice because XYZ...

that's an argument that neither of us will win, neither of us will ever convince the other.  So I finally just said, this topic is not open for discussion or debate.  It just is what it is, end of story.

That's the same kind of debate that I see going on in your threads.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Flying Crane said:


> firstly, I don't take any insult at anything you say, so don't worry about that.  that was never my point in speaking up.
> 
> as to the rest, I do understand your point, but I don't agree with how you approach it.  I'm not interested in debating the differences, but I'll just say I don't agree.  Again, two people talking past each other.
> 
> I'm reminded of an ongoing debate I've had with my mother for far too many years.  She is a devout catholic and sees aspects of her religious faith in all aspects of her life.  I don't.  I've separated myself from the church and andy organized religion of all kinds, much to my mother's despair.  She keeps trying to pull me back into it.  I try to explain to her that while my path differs from hers, I am a good person, she did a good job raising her son to be a good person, and my path is the right path for me.  She can't leave it alone and keeps trying to tell me: well you are wrong about your choice because XYZ...
> 
> that's an argument that neither of us will win, neither of us will ever convince the other.  So I finally just said, this topic is not open for discussion or debate.  It just is what it is, end of story.
> 
> That's the same kind of debate that I see going on in your threads.





Okay I appreciate your perspective more now. But I must say...many people who talk with or debate with me and all those who visit my threads [ which oftentimes includes hundreds of people ] contribute things of great worth that come directly from our discussions on this thread. Furthermore? Quite a few of us--MOST of us, I would daresay, including you and I Michael--make connections through and over and above the topics discussed on my threads.

I think that's by far the most valuable and most consistent result from my threads. My threads result in faaaarrrr more unity and comraderie than vitriol and conflict...despite the sometimes inflammatory titles and initial content. And always always give the participants lots of food for thought.


----------



## Flying Crane

ATACX GYM said:


> Okay I appreciate your perspective more now. But I must say...many people who talk with or debate with me and all those who visit my threads [ which oftentimes includes hundreds of people ] contribute things of great worth that come directly from our discussions on this thread. Furthermore? Quite a few of us--MOST of us, I would daresay, including you and I Michael--make connections through and over and above the topics discussed on my threads.
> 
> I think that's by far the most valuable and most consistent result from my threads. My threads result in faaaarrrr more unity and comraderie than vitriol and conflict...despite the sometimes inflammatory titles and initial content. And always always give the participants lots of food for thought.



OK, fair enough I won't argue against that.  And none of what I've said is personal, you and I have agreed on some fundamental things, even when we have disagreed on the details.  Your threads are both frustrating and fun at the same time.  It's good to see you around here.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Flying Crane said:


> OK, fair enough I won't argue against that.  And none of what I've said is personal, you and I have agreed on some fundamental things, even when we have disagreed on the details.  Your threads are both frustrating and fun at the same time.  It's good to see you around here.




Lololol it's good to see you too and it's good to be back, man.


----------



## ATACX GYM

this is how to do sword and hammer on the ground:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sh...nd-hammer-on-the-ground&p=1487191#post1487191


----------



## ATACX GYM

I responded to an excellent post by LuckyKboxer on KenpoTalk.com regarding the subject matter of this thread. His post and my response...particularly this section I'm highlighting here...are very important as I address a very consistent fallacy in the thinking of those who somehow think that having one technique that combats all attacks in all primary h2h ranges of self-defense is somehow wrong,inefficient, both, etc etc:

http://www.kenpotalk.com/forum/show...ke-ras-or-you-suck-part-1&p=160535#post160535



29 Minutes Ago#35​

*ATACX GYM* 




*



*






Join DateFeb 2011LocationLong Beach CaPosts1,337




Total Awards: 2

Thanks502Thanked 570 Times in 411 Posts​

[h=2]
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Re: You need to ask what if like ras...or you suck [ part 1 ][/h]Okay seriously guys and gals...I'm going to have to emphasize a very very veeerrry important but highly overlooked point. As part of my response to the knowledgeable and skillful LuckyK aka David Arnold, I say the following:

*Response to your first paragraph: I always stated that if your techniques and sequences work reliably and functionally because you test them regularly vs escalating resistance? Great I have no beef with you. Nor are my comments directed toward you..and I mean the nonspecific broad definition of the word "you" here. However, this part: "..So learning to use every technique against every possible attack is not wrong, as much as it is not efficient." I disagree with. If all you have is Alternating Maces and somebody cracks you from behind then tackles you? Your Alternating Maces better Alternate and Mace him. If you haven't learned any STORM sequences but somebody slashes and stabs at you with their knife or bat? Your Maces need to Alternate on him. Etc. The real world reality is that you use what you have RIGHT NOW to overcome whatever assault that you have to deal with RIGHT NOW. Learning another technique later doesn't necessarily amp one's efficiency...if you train each tech and sequence for universal versatility. What you have is another tool that can get the job done, thus amping your potency AND your arsenal...but most importantly? It amps your understanding and application of effective efficient movement. Learning 5 Swords from a kneeling position really lets you do your Bow to Buddha better, for instance. But waiting til you learn Bow to Buddha to consider that:"Hey...I can do my 5 Swords kneeling too!" is actually not only inefficient; it can be TOO LATE to be of service to you. Cuz you're way more likely to be knocked down or find yourself scrambling to defend a tackle or coming up from a fall or roll as an Orange Belt than you are as a Brown Belt...so YOU NEED YOUR KNEELING 5 SWORDS NOW. You may find yourself too beat up or too dead or too raped or too bullied etc etc from NOT knowing your kneeling 5 Swords or NOT knowing how to use your 5 Swords from flat off your back to even reach your Kenpo Brown Belt.



*I can't emphasize this point enough. If your train each of your individual techniques...blocks, punches, kicks, stance transitions...in each of the ranges of h2h for civilians and LEO types, AND make sure that you train each tech against realistic, functional attacks drawn from The Web of Knowledge? You will have individual techniques that you have trained to serve you well in a real world encounter. You can train your Inside Block to deflect a knife, a punch, the clinch, the guard, etc....either all in the same day or most definitely in successive days. I've been doing it for awhile so I can teach any Kempo or Kenpo complete newbie how to do this and be comfortable in a hour or less. But you'll be workin your butt off. You'll get no less than 300 reps of that one technique in class that day. Usually 425-450...in conjunction with all the other stuff that we do to make sure that your stance and delivery is right. YOU WILL LEARN IT FAST. VERY FAST. And you'll learn it better and sooner than those who don't use similar principles.




If you do this with each technique? Then the SEQUENCES are likewise multifaceted and possess functional versatility. But you gotta train them anyway.

Therefore the argument that learning a technique or a sequence in such a way as to be effective against every range of combat is somehow ineffective...is imho both empirically incorrect and essentially provides a rationale for underpreparing our students.

MMA guys routinely teach their adherents to strike and grapple effectively in the same class. We in TMA have more to consider: weapons, multifights, de-escalation, escape, evade/escape, rescue...etc etc etc. As instructors, we should have already tested our techniques against stiff resistance in every one of these areas of self-defense and more. Therefore we already have techniques that perform in those situations.

We teach them to our students and have them perform likewise, so they KNOW FROM EXPERIENCE that they can do these techniques. If our students are trained with the proper rigor and diversity of skill set? They'll be quite confident in their ability to defend themselves or others when necessary. They won't underperform on the streets or anywhere else. Because there is more at stake? We in TMA have NO REASON OR JUSTIFICATION for NOT delivering the goods consistently--in all ranges and categories of combat--to our students. 

Now. Isn't the above a reasonable assertion?​


----------



## oaktree

Hi Atacx Gym,


> I suggest that you read the article again. My article was formulated as a response from a serious but essentially non-personal challenge by one of the ranking Kenpo Elders in the world, the highly esteemed Doc Chapel


 The title in my *opinion *already insinuates "_what if like RAS *OR YOU SUCK*_" As soon as you put the word suck in your title and using it to compare yourself VS. other people it shifts the balance in your favor, at least in my opinion. An article in or for a Martial art magazine is not to openly challange others who have made their contributions and it shows someone who has what seems a vendetta against Mr.Chapel even your wording "*highly esteemed Doc Chapel" *comes off as condescending. This is just my impression from the way you come off on the forum and your article.

How am I suppose to take this article seriously when your opening is this:


> Whatdid you think Id let guys like Dochowever much I may respect them as martial artists and their accomplishmentscall me out and NOT respond? Please. This is THE ATACX GYM here. Dont make me go A MAN CALLED HAWK on you and call you a damn fool.



Is this really what a premium article is and the best you have to offer as a writer for a magazine?
All the videos posted in the article just come off in my opinion of why you think your methods are superior over other's methods or to put it bluntly in your own words:


> ANSWER: YOU SUCK.
> Thats whyYOU NEED TO ASK WHAT IF LIKE RAS.





> Thats why people who decry what I do also suck.



Again if this is to be premuim articulated article for a magzine I expect better not blant attacks of Ad Hominem because others disagree with your line of thought even those who trained with Mr. Parker.  Anyway thats my observation and impression and I am not the only one who feels this way. This is my last post regarding this topic for I have nothing more to contribute by all means post your final thoughts so we both can move on. Thanks


----------



## Cyriacus

Ill just be sipping Lemonade.


----------



## Carol

I have popcorn. 

White Mountain Kettle Corn, to be exact.  Its quite good  opcorn:


----------



## 72ronin

Cant help but agree with Oaktree here.

If i had one suggestion, it would be to compliment your base art and work from there. You dont actualy need to state that there is a perceived flaw in the art as you see it, whether you perceive the techs to be stagnant or limited etc.
To be honest with you Ras, i came to a stage in training Shotokan Karate where i began to see what was being presented to me as, perhaps not leading to where i had thought it would in relation to my idea of Karate, but that was my flaw, not the systems.

The system still held the information, whether i could see it at that time or not. I could have walked at that point, and considered it limited to what has become known as a 3k Karate (kihon/kata/kumite) discipline, as at that point in my training these fundamental principals were the focus. Im glad i didnt. 
(I ofcourse only speak about the training i received and in no way speak of Shotokan as a whole)
Some time later, with a little crosstraining, the odd seminar (Iain Abernethy etc) i realised that the system was sitting there the whole time, waiting for me to be "able" to open it up, and i think this approach (that being, not expecting the goods from day one) has greater value.

But that is ofcourse just me, and the way i experienced it. How this relates to what ive read here is, the Doc and Chris and others etc, if i am reading it correctly, have touched on the importance of foundation.

If i had one critique, it would be the numerous arts stated as taught within your style. I dont know how others read it, but with a list so long i begin to see less and less actual potential of content in respect of the art listed. So it gets to the point where the list is no longer a promotion of, but something else entirely in my opinion. 

To cut a long story short, Shotokan doesnt fight exactly like the kata, lets consider the kata a foundation for a moment, In that respect, why is it that you would say Kenpo is limited?

Why not just say, this is where im going with what i have?


----------



## Dirty Dog

Since, clearly, everybody other than you sucks, and you're so vastly superior, why don't we see you with a bunch of world championship belts?


----------



## Yondanchris

Flying Crane said:


> who do you think, out there, honestly believes that, "what I am doing is flawed, but I'll just keep doing it and pretend otherwise"?



I continued to teach majorly flawed techniques and methods for 9 years for a major organization until I branched out via the Internet and observed other arts and instructors. 

I went solo in 2001 and enjoy broadening my abilities as an instructor and am particularly challenged by Ras and the Mad Hatter of Kenpo Clark Cole! 

Chris


----------



## ATACX GYM

oaktree said:


> Hi Atacx Gym,
> The title in my *opinion *already insinuates "_what if like RAS *OR YOU SUCK*_" As soon as you put the word suck in your title and using it to compare yourself VS. other people it shifts the balance in your favor, at least in my opinion. An article in or for a Martial art magazine is not to openly challange others who have made their contributions and it shows someone who has what seems a vendetta against Mr.Chapel even your wording "*highly esteemed Doc Chapel" *comes off as condescending. This is just my impression from the way you come off on the forum and your article.
> 
> How am I suppose to take this article seriously when your opening is this:
> 
> 
> Is this really what a premium article is and the best you have to offer as a writer for a magazine?
> All the videos posted in the article just come off in my opinion of why you think your methods are superior over other's methods or to put it bluntly in your own words:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again if this is to be premuim articulated article for a magzine I expect better not blant attacks of Ad Hominem because others disagree with your line of thought even those who trained with Mr. Parker.  Anyway thats my observation and impression and I am not the only one who feels this way. This is my last post regarding this topic for I have nothing more to contribute by all means post your final thoughts so we both can move on. Thanks




This is a pretty classy post, so allow me to help you out in several areas:

1. Scientists and others can have sharp differences and even have fiery public debates, but still have the respect for one another, no matter how wide and deep the divide may be on matters that they disagree on. That is the case with Doc and I. I have a great deal of respect for what Doc has done, continues to do, and will do...and it's my understanding that the respect is reciprocated.

2. As I stated previously...the title of this thread is a riff off of a "tongue in cheek" but legit poke Doc took at me as a result of our disagreement on several topics...the first and most significant of which revolves around The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique Process.

3. If you see the title as disrespectful? I understand. If you see that the material I wrote in the article is beneath what a premier magazine should allow? I understand. and I disagree on both points. The first point regarding disrespect? I already answered but must be undergirded with this fact:

You reached the opinions that you reached on your own. Without fact checking. You read the post that I wrote and you superimposed YOUR OWN meaning to the words. You--on your own--imposed a condescending connotation to what was in reality very sincere respect being paid to Doc. Let me tell you something you may not know: Doc made it possible for many Black people to continue to train in martial arts and get a fair shake. I know this for a fact. I saw it as a child and as a member of the BKF--which Doc co-founded--in the 80's and 90's. There is no way I--or almost any Black martial artist with knowledge of the journey made by people like Doc and my uncle that gave us the chance to REMAIN martial artists--disrespect Doc in the manner that you intimate I would, did, or might. However, enormous respect doesn't in any way cultivate blind obedience and acceptance. Doc and I quarrel and disagree occassionally...but only on nonpersonal issues.

Therefore:

4. A premium magazine owner would be [ and Bob Hubbard IS ] aware of all of these facts. A premier magazine and owner of said premier magazine would do THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what you encouraged. There would be room for the rational rebel, there would be space made for intelligent iconoclast...especially if said person or persons has proven his/her/their worth over and over again. The positions I take are solid positions, with solid powerful rationale and show an advanced grasp of the material. The questions I ask aren't sugar coated, and I challenge--directly, oftentimes without any sort of apology--positions behaviours techniques paradigms...whatever...that strikes me as sideways. I expect and encourage you to do the same, starting first with yourself, and including me and anyone else.

You can be sure that I will call out anyone...any...one...on anything that I think they're doing sideways. Not as a matter of disrespect, not for self-aggrandizing purposes...never would I or have I done such I thing. I will call out a person...anyone, starting with myself...for the purpose of serious martial growth in every regard.

5. Seriously...what is wrong with having a single sequence like, say...ALTERNATING MACES...and delving into it in a serious way? Who said that we can't have subholds, locks, displacements, etc. in it? Who said that we can't use other blocks, parries, slips, weapons inclusive of firearms, when we do our ALTERNATING MACES? What are the advantages of having an ALTERNATING MACE that can defeat choke holds, punches, kicks, the clinch, takedown attempts, multifights etc...as opposed to the 2 handed push it's supposed to defeat? What's wrong with seeing if the ALTERNATING MACES in its most popular form actually does what it purports to do by testing it out combatively? By comparing in contrasting?

Answer: NOTHING.

But who's doing such a thing?

Answer: NOBODY...except your friendly neighborhood two fisted MartialTalk and KenpoTalk renegade...THE ATACX GYM.

Here's the most popular form of ALTERNATING MACES:

[video=youtube_share;NddxZVayVso]http://youtu.be/NddxZVayVso[/video]


Here is MY ALTERNATING MACES:

[video=youtube_share;ZRmBV8LU3ng]http://youtu.be/ZRmBV8LU3ng[/video]

Note the questions I ask and the immediate real world improvements that I add...and note that uke ISN'T POSING FOR ME.

Have you ever used your ALTERNATING MACES vs the MUAY THAI CLINCH or basic head clinch? No? Have you ever applied a rear naked choke with your ALTERNATING MACES? No? Have you ever used your Alternating Maces with weapons? No? Why not?

[video=youtube_share;j18151f6tmo]http://youtu.be/j18151f6tmo[/video]

We KNOW why you haven't. The answer is because most instructors have been taught an inflexible paradigm for ALTERNATING MACES. It MUST BE THUS AND SO...DONE THIS WAY ONLY...AND NEVER ANYTHING DIFFERENT. The problem with that kind of thinking is that...it's NOT thinking. It's indoctrination, and flies in the face of the most basic street reality. 

You CAN enter the ALTERNATING MACES any which way you want to, and still be highly effective, thank you very much. If, that is, your instructor has a sufficiently functional training paradigm to rear you in:

[video=youtube_share;0I8JNJG3d84]http://youtu.be/0I8JNJG3d84[/video]


A quality, premium magazine recognizes ALL THESE THINGS...and allows the voice of the person unflinchingly espousing these common sense, meaty, empirical, functional, unapologetically realistic and highly versatile, very very very helpful approaches to be heard. Because a quality premium magazine with a quality owner recognizes and appreciates the distinction between someone denigrating an art and seeking to inflate his/her profile...and someone loving a martial art so much that he's willing to ask the tough questions, make the tough statements, take the unpopular stances...to prove and push the point of functional training that can will does and is 100% proven to save lives, increase martial quality, and all other things which we hold near and dear.

That's what I've done. 

You conflate challenging a dysfunctional training method and advocating its replacement with a functional model that meets the challenges of today's streets and society and saves lives with what amounts to me basically having a gigantic ego-gasm in public. I am certain that others feel this way, too. But...in addition to the foregoing, consider the following:

How strange would it be of me to ask the hard questions I have asked, to press and push upon the dysfunction in the extant most popular version of Kenpo and Kempo's self defense sequences...and then turn around and NOT show that I haven't directly addressed these matters myself? Would I not look more than a little odd if I sent out into the martial universe a clarion, demanding call to Functional Action and didn't show that I had the conviction of my own words by putting forth my techniques and sequences as an example of what I mean? Would that not be a mite...hypocritical of me? I would think so or at least I could see the validity of those charges being levelled at me. So I've stepped up and put myself out there; I showed myself on video doing what I said I would and could do. As you know by now, the internet can be an especially harsh place...as keyboard grandmasters can fillet whomever they please behind the vaunted protection of their screen name. But I step up to them anyway with full confidence that the evidence of my skill and technique will be sufficient to silence rational doubters and the questions that I ask can are and will be seen by serious martial artists as a call to action...a challenge to energize and functionalize, improve refine expand...the quality of our thinking, our training, and the results that we get.

Bottom line:why am I the only guy who does his SWORD AND HAMMER on the ground? Why am I the only guy who's SWORD AND HAMMER can and does not only set up throws but stops chokes? Sir...you shouldn't be saying anything like: " All the videos posted in the article just come off in my opinion of why you think your methods are superior over other's methods..." No, sir. I humbly submit that you SHOULD be asking:

"WHY DOESN'T MY SWORD AND HAMMER AND [ INSERT TECHNIQUE ] DO THE SAME THING THAT ATACX GYM'S SWORD AND HAMMER DOES?"

And the answer is: with all due respect, sir...your [ and I mean the general term "your/you" when I say this, not any specific person but a whole general category of "you's" ] training paradigm sucks. That's why you need to ask WHAT IF?  Not so you can be LIKE Ras and his ATACX GYM. No, sir. You need to ask WHAT IF so your training and practice of [ whatever martial art you study ] GETS BETTER.


I appreciate the tone and quality of post that you made, sir, but you and everyone who agrees with you is empirically wrong. I hope you can see that now. I don't care WHOSE functional paradigm you use...JUST MAKE IT FUNCTIONAL. And the more universally functional, the better.


6. So in closing? I appreciate your post. You are entitled to your opinions, whatever they may be...and I would be amongst the first to fight for your right to have and express them; however much I may disagree. But now that you have the PROPER CONTEXT for information that you thought you had the relevant data about? I'm sure you can see that there is significant if not overwhelming cause to conclude THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what you initially put forth as being right or at least reasonable...and which others have concurred with you about.

Thank you sir, for your post. I encourage all other dissenters and supporters to post their thoughts and provide further fuel for thought that will hopefully have the result of improving the quality of our martial training throughout our martial lifespan. 

AMANI...PEACE...

....see you on the mat. And you better not suck.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Sandanchris said:


> I continued to teach majorly flawed techniques and methods for 9 years for a major organization until I branched out via the Internet and observed other arts and instructors.
> 
> I went solo in 2001 and enjoy broadening my abilities as an instructor and am particularly challenged by Ras and the Mad Hatter of Kenpo Clark Cole!
> 
> Chris




Sandanchris is a quality martial artist whose outstanding accomplishments includes one of the best gathering of Kenpo Masters and Elders...THE KENPO OHANA. He is a shining example of what kenpoists and martial artists can and may be. Thank you for being you, sir.


----------



## ATACX GYM

72ronin said:


> Cant help but agree with Oaktree here.
> 
> If i had one suggestion, it would be to compliment your base art and work from there. You dont actualy need to state that there is a perceived flaw in the art as you see it, whether you perceive the techs to be stagnant or limited etc...
> Why not just say, this is where im going with what i have?




Sir, the above is a comment that I frequently receive, and my response remains steadfastly the same:

I have NEVER suggested nor believed that Kenpo is flawed in any way shape or form. My issues revolve around DYSFUNCTIONAL TRAINING METHODS. It's the TRAINING that I see being horrifically compromised, diluted, and--frankly--deeply mired in the sucktastic. It's this sucktastic TRAINING which produces over and over again martial artists calling themselves MASTER or GRANDMASTER...who perform techniques like this:

[video=youtube_share;9mkI9IYf8Qo]http://youtu.be/9mkI9IYf8Qo[/video]

Now, if the SYSTEM was flawed? There would be nothing I could do to save it other than to wholesale revamp or fix THE SYSTEM. I could not logically assert that THE SYSTEM is flawed and then...DISPLAY MY VARIANT OF THE SYSTEM WHICH WORKS. If the system is fatally compromised? Then whatever fix I applied to it results in something that is _other than the fatally compromised system._

KENPO IS NOT COMPROMISED. KENPO DOESN'T NEED TO BE SAVED. TO MY KNOWLEDGE? NO GENUINE MARTIAL ART NEEDS SAVING AND NO GENUINE MARTIAL ART HAS A SYSTEM THAT IS COMPROMISED.

And sir? The Functional Versatility that I display IS quite literally, to use your words:"...where im going with what i have." That's why I displayed it. Wouldn't it be very strange of me to so forthrightly belabor dysfunctional technique without offering my example of what I consider to be functional of me? Couldn't I be accused of just grandstanding? My posts could be accused of being 'sound and fury, signifying nothing'.

However, I physically demonstrate what I mean and we can compare and contrast quite powerfully. I am certain that such empirical comparison and contrasting provides the literal empirical evidence that torpedoes arguments revolving around self-aggrandizement or some fantastical position stating anything like a LESS universally functional variant of [ whatever technique ] is somehow or other more desirable than a MORE universally functional variant of [ whatever technique ].

Put bluntly? If you're a Yellow Belt who just learned Sword and Hammer? You're toast if you're caught in a chokehold.

Unless you train with somebody who thinks like me.

[video=youtube_share;vaNGwgrMSBM]http://youtu.be/vaNGwgrMSBM[/video]

Seriously. If somebody grabbed you in a headlock like THIS:

[video=youtube_share;FpT7r1kzkn4]http://youtu.be/FpT7r1kzkn4[/video]

or THIS:

[video=youtube_share;FBOfNHEtUCk]http://youtu.be/FBOfNHEtUCk[/video]

or THIS:

[video=youtube_share;YbbxPn81ioc]http://youtu.be/YbbxPn81ioc[/video]

Which technique sequence would you rather have as your GO TO move? The more "traditional" dysfunctional IP variant:

[video=youtube_share;WVmsVlz5pt8]http://youtu.be/WVmsVlz5pt8[/video]


Or a version that really works against real attacks and real resistance:

[video=youtube_share;hPkcflmZLmI]http://youtu.be/hPkcflmZLmI[/video]


The choice should be clear. And the difference between my version which actually works far more reliably in real life and that other stuff which basically sucks and is less reliable is...you guessed it...FUNCTIONAL TRAINING. 

The TECHNIQUES aren't the problem. THE  TRAINING PARADIGM IS. 

I'm just calling it how I see it, with no excuses, no sugar coating, no ulterior motive. I'm calling it like I call it because there's huuuge reason to call it that way, and the benefits we derived from whatever our martial art is would improve dramatically if we as a group collectively functionalized our training. Also? There wouldnt be reams of people out there with hugely false confidence in their ability to defend themselves, only to find that they've been duped after they're sporting that shiner from the bully, find themselves choked out or raped by that mugger, or head locked and beat up by some jerk or some thug.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Dirty Dog said:


> Since, clearly, everybody other than you sucks, and you're so vastly superior, why don't we see you with a bunch of world championship belts?




aaaannnd I already answered your false contentions several times before you even posted, Dirty Dog. Perhaps you should scour posts more comprehensively before you make some of your assertions. 





ATACX GYM said:


> I suggest that you read the article again. My article was formulated as a response from a serious but essentially non-personal challenge by one of the ranking Kenpo Elders in the world, the highly esteemed Doc Chapel. I have never at any time said that everyone is wrong but me. Look at the article. I specifically refute that allegation...
> 
> 
> At no time--ever ever ever--did I say everyone else is wrong but me. I railed against TRAINING METHODS. I rail against DYSFUNCTION. And I rail against the sheep-like mentality that allows such drivel to exist...at the expense of Kenpo, TMA as a whole, and also at the expense of far too many of us from whatever martial art that doesn't use functional,universal performance as our litmus test for sufficient efficacy. Nowhere--NOWHERE, SIR--do I say anything like what you claim.
> 
> Please produce the quotes that cause you problems, and I'll be happy to point out that your concerns are not only NOT borne out by the quotes but solidly and wholeheartedly reaffirm the truth that I have neeever eeeever made nor intimated the claim that everyone else is wrong but me.




Oh yeah...having a championship belt *does not* necessarily make you a champion. I know guys with champ belts who are solid fighters but if the shtf I'd call upon my 61 year old uncle and Grandmaster faster than them. Cuz these guys are really good at winning belts, and that CAN get you home safe. I respect that alot. My uncle is really good at MAKING SURE you get home safe.

He taught me to MAKE SURE I get home safe, too.


----------



## Josh Oakley

> But who's doing such a thing?
> 
> Answer: NOBODY...except your friendly neighborhood two fisted MartialTalk and KenpoTalk renegade...THE ATACX GYM.[/qoute]
> 
> Really? This again? You are NOT the only one. We've talked about this many, many times.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Josh Oakley said:


> But who's doing such a thing?
> 
> Answer: NOBODY...except your friendly neighborhood two fisted MartialTalk and KenpoTalk renegade...THE ATACX GYM.[/qoute]
> 
> Really? This again? You are NOT the only one. We've talked about this many, many times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I recall our conversations, Josh. Allow me to put the quote you have above in its proper context:
> 
> "5. Seriously...what is wrong with having a single sequence like, say...ALTERNATING MACES...and delving into it in a serious way? Who said that we can't have subholds, locks, displacements, etc. in it? Who said that we can't use other blocks, parries, slips, weapons inclusive of firearms, when we do our ALTERNATING MACES? What are the advantages of having an ALTERNATING MACE that can defeat choke holds, punches, kicks, the clinch, takedown attempts, multifights etc...as opposed to the 2 handed push it's supposed to defeat? What's wrong with seeing if the ALTERNATING MACES in its most popular form actually does what it purports to do by testing it out combatively? By comparing in contrasting?
> 
> Answer: NOTHING.
> 
> But who's doing such a thing?
> 
> Answer: NOBODY...except your friendly neighborhood two fisted MartialTalk and KenpoTalk renegade...THE ATACX GYM."
> 
> 
> This means that I'm the only one who--from jumpstreet--trains my whole sequences to be multifaceted and performed on the ground, with weapons, etc etc exactly as shown. As I have stated numerous times, we refine from there...but our base technique and self defense sequences are designed to perform regardless of category or range of primary h2h attack because our base sequences and every technique forming the sequence.
> 
> Having gone back and checked with ranking Tracy, SL-4, BKF, and numerous other Kenpo Master rank or higher sensei sifu and coaches...it is my understanding that I am indeed the only one who promotes such a training paradigm. There are others who've preceded me who've done something similar; I acknowledged this first in both our discussions and quite awhile ago on KT when I spoke of the hybrid lineage which set me on the path that birthed THE ATACX GYM. However, the specific purpose of crafting multifaceted self defense sequences that serve as is vs any primary LEO or civilian h2h threat is NOT something that anyone who I've spoken to has ever seen of or heard. Nor have I been able to pick up on Google or via street contacts people who do the totality of what I do.
> 
> I would actually like to meet them, if you know of them. That would be GREAT, actually. Lol.
> 
> You should also recall that I usually add the caveat [ and I did in this thread too ] that I'm either the only or one of the very few who do as I do. I made this comment while specifically referring to multifaceted self defense sequences. So if you took exception to that one quote of mine? I hope you are mollified by the existence of several others that more accurately reflect my position and acknowledge that there may be others whom I don't know of who are doing the same.
Click to expand...


----------



## ATACX GYM

Josh Oakley said:


> But who's doing such a thing?
> 
> Answer: NOBODY...except your friendly neighborhood two fisted MartialTalk and KenpoTalk renegade...THE ATACX GYM.[/qoute]
> 
> Really? This again? You are NOT the only one. We've talked about this many, many times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here's proof of my response and position which should allay your concerns, drawn from post #14, a full page before you made the above quoted comment...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ATACX GYM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question isn't:"Why does THE ATACX GYM and a very veeerrry select few Kenpo schools even remotely address the kind of self-defense reality that I'm likely to encounter?" .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This means that I acknowledge the fact/likelihood that there are others out there doing what I do...but they're very few in number when compared with the overwhelming majority of Kenpo schools. Were anything other than the extreme scarcity of schools and gyms with thoughts like mine the case? Then the positions and training paradigm that I advance wouldn't be met with such aghast shock and incredulity by quite a few people in quite a few quarters.
Click to expand...


----------



## Josh Oakley

Well, it seems like Speakman does. My instructor, A.C. Rainey, seems to. I've seen others as well.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Josh Oakley said:


> Well, it seems like Speakman does. My instructor, A.C. Rainey, seems to. I've seen others as well.




I've seen Mr. Speakman's work, and am an admirer of his. However, the difference seems to be that what I show standing is almost exactly the same thing that I do on the ground which is almost exactly what we do standing up. Same tech. Look at my Sword and Hammer video series as an example or my Alternating Maces videos. Mr. Speakman has groundfighitng and subs in a unique way but he doesn't have that tremendous similarity in the standing, ground, multifight, and armed ranges that I do.

I don't know your instructor, but I like him already. It is, however, my understanding that your instructor is a disciple of or friendly with SL-4. I heard on the grapevine that your instructor calls Doc..."Sifu" or something like that. If your instructor is a part of SL-4? Then the chances are very high that--while he might do something similar--he doesn't follow the same techniques almost exactly standing, grappling, on the ground and armed...aaaaannnd uses the same technique sequence versus every primary attack.from every range that I mentioned in THE ATACX GYM's variant of Web Of Knowledge.

But I'm very glad to hear somebody besides Mr. Speakman and I are doing stuff that includes vibrant grappling.


----------



## Flying Crane

Sandanchris said:


> I continued to teach majorly flawed techniques and methods for 9 years for a major organization until I branched out via the Internet and observed other arts and instructors.
> 
> I went solo in 2001 and enjoy broadening my abilities as an instructor and am particularly challenged by Ras and the Mad Hatter of Kenpo Clark Cole!
> 
> Chris



Did you continue to teach them while believing they were flawed?  Did you believe they perhaps had potential that you simply had not yet grasped, and so still had faith in them?  Did you recognize them as flawed after you began looking around, and was that realization what lead you to break away?

If you knew they were flawed and yet continued to teach them, what was your reasons for doing so?


----------



## MJS

ATACX GYM said:


> http://martialtalkmagazine.com/you-need-to-ask-what-if-like-ras-or-you-suck-preface-part-a/
> 
> 
> 
> Whatdid you think Id let guys like Dochowever much I may respect them as martial artists and their accomplishmentscall me out and NOT respond? Please. This is THE ATACX GYM here. Dont make me go A MAN CALLED HAWK on you and call you a damn fool.
> 
> This article is the preface to a somewhat scathing and brutal point by point direct rebuttal to some of the positions taken by some of our esteemed Kenpo Elders like Doc and whoever agrees with the specific positions that Im rebuttingand in doing so I hope to make the position of my ATACX GYM clear. If youre sensitive? You dont want to read this article, because if you know me? You already know Im bringing the flame with every piece I write and this piece is no exception to the rule. If you dont know me? Read on, hopefully youll like what I have to say.
> Lemme make this clear: the core and crux of THE ATACX GYM is Functional Versatility. To my knowledge, we are the only Kenpo Gym that developes our sequences with every consideration of h2h combat in mind from jumpstreet. We believe that the complete enchilada of self-defense360 degrees of technique application from any stance or position, ranging from firearms to ground grappling to Evasion and Escape to Rescue to Multifights Armed or Unarmed to First Aid etc etc and any combination thereofis what were supposed to learn. All of our techs and sequencesevery single onereflects this philosophy. We also have crafted a very unusual training paradigm reflective of our specific philosophy. We are extremely results orientedso much so that we guarantee specific results every 8 hours of training time with us. I know of no other Gym that makes such specific guarantees.
> Here are the top issues that I have with people who champion the sucktastic dysfunctional more popular idea not Ideal Phase techs:
> 1. They dont train in a Functional/Alive fashion so 99% of the time their lack of Alive/Functional training virtually guarantees that they will fail to defend themselves when put to the test. How many students are paying for the priviledge of NOT being able to defend themselves?
> This is ALIVE training defined by Matt Thornton. I like much of what he has to say, but he didnt originate his position [ which he'd be the first to acknowledge ]
> 
> 
> 2. Many Kenpoists will denigrate sports oriented martial arts with claims that we train for the street, not sport. No, they dont. If these so-called street oriented self-defense centered Kenpoists did as they claimed? Theyd be working on far more things than their sports combat brethren and theyd loooong be converts of Functional/Alive Training. There would be zero argument about universal performance in the most common ranges of h2h SD befalling citizens, LEO and HRSP types [ which my research leads me to define as: Projectile Weapon Range, Non-projectile Weapon Range, Stand Up, Clinch, Seated, Kneeling [ either and both knees ] Ground, Prone, Escape, Evasion, Rescue, Rescue and Escape/Evade, Multifight Armed and Unarmed, Transitions to and thru all of the above, Breakfalls, Rolls, First Aid and CPR ] and the absolute mandate to have universally applicable and universally trained sequences comprised of universally applicable and universally trained techs.
> 3. Most Kenpoists have been hugely duped brainwashed and mindwiped. They seek to cleave to a dysfunctional model of their IP training and identify this craptastic expression as the standard to live up to. Even if Doc Chapel hadnt completely nuked that crap by reciting the true history of the IP? Simply SPARRING and training functionally with [ whatever ] tech will ensure that it DOES NOT look like its dysfunctional predecessorbecause it works.
> 4. Now. Like I frequently say and Im repeating again: You dont have to wholesale adopt my specific comprehensive expression of doing any technique, but WHATEVER technique or sequence you train? It needs to work in EVERY PRIMARY ARMED OR UNARMED, MULTIFIGHT, RESCUE, EVADE/ESCAPE etc etc scenario. If you do this? Then whatever expression you come up with will be universally functional. You will discover that its alot more fun, alot more work, alot more rewarding in every sense, and that there IS a single expression of sayGRASP OF DEATHthat allows you to deal with each and every one of the primary self-defense considerations. This single expression should be your BASE technique; the technique that you personally practice and the one that you teach your students. Whatever refinements that you hit upon should start from your new, highly functional GRASP OF DEATH and NOT from the dysfunctional crap that passes as the Ideal Phase Grasp of Death.
> 
> You and I must train Functionally. If you dont? Youre deceiving yourself, your students, the general public, and are likely contributing significantly to the likelihood of someone using your craptastic techs in a actual scrap ends up getting hurt. Thats on you but it reflects poorly on all of us who are responsible functional martial art instructors.
> So.WHAT IF YOU KNOW ABOUT WEAPONS, GRAPPLERS, MULTIFIGHTS, LEG KICKS, ETC. BUT YOU CHOOSE NOT TO TRAIN YOUR STUDENTS FOR THESE AND OTHER BASIC REALITIES FROM DAY ONE?
> ANSWER: YOU SUCK.
> Thats whyYOU NEED TO ASK WHAT IF LIKE RAS...[ for the rest, click: http://martialtalkmagazine.com/you-need-to-ask-what-if-like-ras-or-you-suck-preface-part-a/ ]



To comment on the above:

1) I agree, that alot dont, but I don't think I'd go so far as to say everyone. But thats just me. 

2) On the flip side, how many sport oriented guys do what you mention?  I'd be willing to bet little to none.  

3) I'd be willing to bet that there're alot of sport oriented folks that are duped too.  

4) I do feel that if one is serious about training for the purpose of SD, then you should encompass all areas.  I often wonder how many people, who're out there, teaching gun disarms, actually know something about a gun.  The same with a knife.  I mean, there're alot of different guns and knives out there.  I think it'd be wise to know a little something and if you dont, either get yourself some knowledge or bring in someone who has that knowledge.  The same with grappling.  We have alot of takedown defenses in Kenpo, yet I wonder, how many of those same folks, actually have any grappling knowledge?


----------



## MJS

ATACX GYM said:


> Actually--as Chris the non-Kenpo man's link to my SWORD AND HAMMER PT. 1 AND 2 thread will resoundingly prove--there is not a single atom of his statements which at any time bear even the slightest factual similarity to the real world. His opinion is essentially comprised of utter contrariness...for the sake of being contrary. There is no--and never has been nor will there ever be--even the most inifinitesimal facts to support his negative opinions about me.
> 
> I invite him and any and all critics to prove--PROVE--otherwise. Let us move beyond cogent posts to empirical data.
> 
> I have provided video evidence to buttress my position with real world data. I have provided historical evidence drawn from the pioneer of Kenpo himself to buttress my position. I disagree with several of our most decorated and respected Elders on various positions of import, but they all boil down to a simple, single concept:
> 
> Whatever technique that you learn? It must be universally functional. THE SAME TECHNIQUE OR SEQUENCE must operate equally well whether you're armed or not, in multifights or not, ground grappling or ground fighting or not, regardless of stance or position, in a 360 degree circle, whether you're escaping/evading or not, rescuing someone or not,address every concern in The Web of Knowledge, address transitioning to and through any or all of the above or not, and address any combination of any or all of the above. It's...the essence of common sense.
> 
> Not all or even most martial artists do so. Not all or even most martial artists are MANDATED to do so if they choose to do otherwise. But whatever concern they choose not to address and/or develope combat proficiency in? THAT'S THE CONCERN THAT THEY'RE VULNERABLE TO. You don't address and get proficient in offensive and defensive leg kicks/blocks? Well...guess who's getting kicked in the leg? You don't address ground submissions? Well...guess who's getting tapped snapped or napped? You don't address multifights? Well...guess who's gettin stomped in a multifight? Etc etc.
> 
> Btw Chris, I'm still waiting upon that video that you never produced to prove your point...which of course is never going to come because it's like all your other evidence: spurious and non-existent.



I know we've talked, but I'm still having a hard time wrapping my head around the all encompassing, multi purpose one size fits all technique.  IMO, I think time would be better spent working on techs for each specific task, rather than taking a tech meant for a punch, and trying to make it work for a grab.  but thats just me.


----------



## MJS

Hmm...I'm going to toss something else into the mix here.  Since all we're doing is talking about Kenpo, I'm going to mention Kajukenbo.  Now, IMO, there's an art that does alot.  After watching the Fight Quest Kaju episode, it seems pretty apparent to me that they're pretty well rounded.  

Does anyone else agree? Disagree?  If so, I'm interested in hearing what you have to say.


----------



## Flying Crane

ATACX GYM said:


> Whatever technique that you learn? It must be universally functional. THE SAME TECHNIQUE OR SEQUENCE must operate equally well whether you're armed or not, in multifights or not, ground grappling or ground fighting or not, regardless of stance or position, in a 360 degree circle, whether you're escaping/evading or not, rescuing someone or not,address every concern in The Web of Knowledge, address transitioning to and through any or all of the above or not, and address any combination of any or all of the above. It's...the essence of common sense.



I gotta ask: by "technique" are you referring to the scripted kenpo Self Defense type combination techniques that are specific to a certain attack, or are you referring to the more fundamental techniques like a simple punch, or a block, or a kick?

If you are referring to the former, then as devil's advocate I need to ask, what's the point in having a curriculum, IF you can truly take one SD tech and apply it under all circumstances?  Why not have a couple of favorites, if you can use them always, and just throw the rest away?  Why burden yourself with a large curriculum that you don't need?

If you are referring to the latter, then I agree, you need to understand how your fundamentals can be used under all circumstances.  That is where the true secrets of the martial arts lie.  It's all in the fundamentals and understanding how universal they are, no matter what is happening.


----------



## ATACX GYM

MJS said:


> To comment on the above:
> 
> 1) I agree, that alot dont, but I don't think I'd go so far as to say everyone. But thats just me.
> 
> 2) On the flip side, how many sport oriented guys do what you mention?  I'd be willing to bet little to none.
> 
> 3) I'd be willing to bet that there're alot of sport oriented folks that are duped too.
> 
> 4) I do feel that if one is serious about training for the purpose of SD, then you should encompass all areas.  I often wonder how many people, who're out there, teaching gun disarms, actually know something about a gun.  The same with a knife.  I mean, there're alot of different guns and knives out there.  I think it'd be wise to know a little something and if you dont, either get yourself some knowledge or bring in someone who has that knowledge.  The same with grappling.  We have alot of takedown defenses in Kenpo, yet I wonder, how many of those same folks, actually have any grappling knowledge?



My responses to your enumerated post...


1. I never said "everyone" about anything. We're still in lockstep.

2. Most sport oriented guys do alot of what I mention...depending upon what sport they pursue. However, I know none that do ALL of what I mention.

3. There are sport oriented guys who are duped...but not about the supremacy of performance. If you pitched a performance oriented argument to them? The chances are high that they'd find merit in it. Not a single sport guy--not ONE--that I have met and spoke to over the past decades has had the SLIGHTEST problem with what I offer and maaaaannny of them have come to train with me directly after I tell them what I do.

4. CO-SIGN!!!


----------



## ATACX GYM

Flying Crane said:


> I gotta ask: by "technique" are you referring to the scripted kenpo Self Defense type combination techniques that are specific to a certain attack, or are you referring to the more fundamental techniques like a simple punch, or a block, or a kick?
> 
> If you are referring to the former, then as devil's advocate I need to ask, what's the point in having a curriculum, IF you can truly take one SD tech and apply it under all circumstances?  Why not have a couple of favorites, if you can use them always, and just throw the rest away?  Why burden yourself with a large curriculum that you don't need?
> 
> If you are referring to the latter, then I agree, you need to understand how your fundamentals can be used under all circumstances.  That is where the true secrets of the martial arts lie.  It's all in the fundamentals and understanding how universal they are, no matter what is happening.




I get this question alot too...and have answered it alot. I bet a smart guy like you, Michael, could answer this question rather expeditiously if you reflected upon it for a few minutes.

When I say technique, I mean a specific technique. Like a front kick or inside block. When I refer to a named scripted offensive and/or defensive, I use the word SEQUENCE. Like ALTERNATING MACES is a SEQUENCE.

Here are 2 of the most gargantuan benefit to having multiple techniques and sequences all multifaceted and multifunctional:

1. Immediately, from the word go, you have techniques and sequences that function vs any attack at any time, instead of having to wait for another lesson or another belt rank to have a HOPE of addressing a particular attack...

2. The techniques and sequences have a comprehensively synergistic effect. You have a million ways to do one thing and a million ways to do a million things.

And for those of you who swear that what I'm saying isn't part and parcel of Kenpo legacy and wasn't used or championed by Mr. Parker himself? Well...wrong you are, my friends:

http://www.kenpokarate.com/

"*50 Ways to Sunday*
​*The essentials of Kenpo training are in its techniques. Kenpo Karate, as with Kenpo Jujitsu, has over 700 distinct self-defense techniques, in addition to blocks (originally strikes) and 72 kicks. But it is not just the number of techniques, it's how they are taught that defines Kenpo.**About two weeks after my brother Jim and I began training with Ed Parker, Ed started an afternoon class, with Jim and me as his only students. The class never had more than four students at any one time, so it was like having a semi-private lesson each day with Ed. This allowed us to move quickly in the evening class from beginning to intermediate and advanced class.**One of the first things I learned was the "What if?" rule. It went like this: Ed would teach a technique and we would practice it. But the technique was always limited. "What if" the attacker grabbed you slightly differently? Or "What if" he grabbed with a different hand? Or what if, whatever. Ed would then show you a variation to the technique with lightening speed and a devastating power that sent you reeling and bruised for a week; and, if you were smart, you never asked "What if?" again. But, if you were really smart, you would get a new student to ask "What if?". You learned that for every technique there are numerous variations which would eventually be taught to cover each variations of the attack. Both Oshita and Chow emphasized that there were many ways and variations to the techniques used to defend against each attack.**




**At the time (1957-59) many of the Japanese Karate systems had a very limited number of moves, with a right punch being one move, a left punch being a second move, right and left punch being a third move, a block a fourth move, a block and punch a fifth move, a block and two punches a sixth move, and a block with a different hand another move, etc.; and, those styles required each move to be mastered before the next move was taught. Chow, Oshita and Parker all stressed the importance of learning many moves over mastering a single move. Ed Parker was 6' and 195#, Chow was 5'6" and 150# of solid muscle, Oshita was slightly over 5' and weighed about 100# (you never ask a woman Kenpo master her height or weight). What was best for one, was not best for the other, and all three emphasized, what was easy for one student might be difficult for another. One student might have fast hands, another fast feet, another student both and another student, neither; but each student would seek his level of ability.**How Kenpo is taught was put best by Oshita who told me another style would make me master one move at a time, one move a week, and in ten years I would have mastered 500 moves. But she would teach me ten, twenty, thirty or more moves a day, and I would not be very good at most of these when a new move was taught, but in a year I would master 1,000 moves. What's more, the moves I would master would not be the same as another student who had been taught the same moves. Each student would master what his mind and body found easiest. It was for this reason that there was no brown belt test at that time. For brown belt you had to know all the moves, but only be a master of most. The instructor would know when a student had progressed from Kyu to Dan, and each student would be different. But more importantly, a move that was difficult, or even impossible for the student when it is first taught, would become easier as he developed his Kenpo skills. When a student had mastered all the techniques, he would then become an Instructor. (Chow had no instructor rank and never used instructor on any of his certificates.)**I remember in April 1960, when I was an Ikkyu (1st degree brown belt) I flew to California where I showed Ed Parker what I had learned from both Chow and Oshita, and related some of the insight I had gained in how to practice the different techniques. Ed told me he had learned the same thing from Chow, and had not thought about it in years. He called the training method, "50 Ways to Sunday," meaning that a student would practice each techniques 50 Ways to Sunday - so many different ways that it would become natural.**Kenpo teaches that no one defense will work all the time, but the variations are the defense. In addition, as Oshita told me, you can practice a technique a thousand time, and it will only work for one attack; it is better to practice ten variations 100 times, so the mind and body can repeat the same move many different ways. The Way of Kenpo is in training, and one must not deviate from that Way...*


----------



## Flying Crane

ATACX GYM said:


> I get this question alot too...and have answered it alot. I bet a smart guy like you, Michael, could answer this question rather expeditiously if you reflected upon it for a few minutes.
> 
> When I say technique, I mean a specific technique. Like a front kick or inside block. When I refer to a named scripted offensive and/or defensive, I use the word SEQUENCE. Like ALTERNATING MACES is a SEQUENCE.
> 
> Here are 2 of the most gargantuan benefit to having multiple techniques and sequences all multifaceted and multifunctional:
> 
> 1. Immediately, from the word go, you have techniques and sequences that function vs any attack at any time, instead of having to wait for another lesson or another belt rank to have a HOPE of addressing a particular attack...
> 
> 2. The techniques and sequences have a comprehensively synergistic effect. You have a million ways to do one thing and a million ways to do a million things.
> 
> And for those of you who swear that what I'm saying isn't part and parcel of Kenpo legacy and wasn't used or championed by Mr. Parker himself? Well...wrong you are, my friends:



what you don't answer tho is: what is the point of having a million ways, if one or two really is all you need?  why burden yourself and your students?


----------



## LawDog

My brother in law drives a chevy 3/4 tom pickup and I drive a Jeep Sarah. Each vehicle has it's area of strenghts and weakness. Each vehicle has different options installed. They are of different size and shape. Both of these vehicles do have one thing in common, they both can bring you from point A to point B with little or no problem at all. Are the Martial Arts any different?
I am from the "old school" mindset of Keep It Simple Sir,(KISS). We believe only a few impacting techniques are needed to make knucle meet flesh, to make you opponts body fly threw the air and impact on the group and to hold / imobilize their bodys and mindsets against the floor.
Doc uses a different vehicle to get the same results. Even though we do not agree on alot of issues I do know that both he and I can get our vehicles from point A to point B. I do not have an issue to what his system does.
If they can get there so then what is the problem?
I am not taking sides but I am having a hard time following this thread.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Flying Crane said:


> what you don't answer tho is: what is the point of having a million ways, if one or two really is all you need?  why burden yourself and your students?




Define "ways". One or two "ways"? Is this the grappling and striking way? The weapon and multifighting way? The Hung Gar way? The Wing Chun way? The Muay Thai way? There are as many ways as there are problems and preferences. We _might_ have one or two ways when we only have one or two problems to solve and one or two preferences.


----------



## ATACX GYM

LawDog said:


> My brother in law drives a chevy 3/4 tom pickup and I drive a Jeep Sarah. Each vehicle has it's area of strenghts and weakness. Each vehicle has different options installed. They are of different size and shape. Both of these vehicles do have one thing in common, they both can bring you from point A to point B with little or no problem at all. Are the Martial Arts any different?
> I am from the "old school" mindset of Keep It Simple Sir,(KISS). We believe only a few impacting techniques are needed to make knucle meet flesh, to make you opponts body fly threw the air and impact on the group and to hold / imobilize their bodys and mindsets against the floor.
> Doc uses a different vehicle to get the same results. Even though we do not agree on alot of issues I do know that both he and I can get our vehicles from point A to point B. I do not have an issue to what his system does.
> If they can get there so then what is the problem?
> I am not taking sides but I am having a hard time following this thread.



I'm not disparaging Doc's and SL-4's methods either. I think they work. What I'm saying is focused purely upon TRAINING PARADIGMS and the mindset and knowledge base these training paradigms tend to create and cultivate. 

There are two and only two broad categories of training: The functional and dysfunctional. Both of them operate in a continuum. There can be techniques and sequences that are functional but can become more or less so, and there are techniques and sequences that are DYSfunctional, and can become more or less so...depending upon the training paradigm.


I further opined:

1. The more functional techniques and sequences are able to resolve successfully more attacks than the less functional techniques and sequences. The epitome of multifunctional techniques and sequences are the techniques and sequences that are trained against and successfully resolve every single category range and kind of attack most common in LEO and civilian h2h combat encounters. 

2. The training paradigm that gave rise to the most popular expression of what most people call THE IDEAL PHASE is dysfunctional and in serious need of functional upgrade

3. The resulting functional sequence [ whatever it is ] will not be the same expression that you see in the dysfunctional IDEAL PHASE...because it works

4. When you have to fight? You have to use the info and skills you have NOW to defeat whatever attack you are facing NOW. That's why having a FUNCTIONAL Delayed Sword [ although comparatively speaking a rare thing in Kenpo circles that I've seen and heard of ] is a good thing. It will resolve successfully the single attack that it's supposed to thwart. Having a UNIVERSALLY FUNCTIONAL Delayed Sword IS BETTER...as it resolves EVERY KIND OF ATTACK that you're likely to face. Remember...the BAD GUY IS NOT REQUIRED TO ATTACK US ONLY WITH THE ATTACKS THAT WE TRAINED TO DEFEAT. It is our responsiblity to impose our skill upon the BG...whatever he does, whatever the situation is. The best way to do that is via a Universally Functional technique and/or sequence.

5. Whatever lessons you may learn from a dysfunctional or less functional technique or sequence, you'd learn more of them better faster sooner and more permanently with a MORE functional technique or sequence...that _works better in fights too.

6. I have never said anyone's Kenpo sucks or that Kenpo sucks or that I'm better than anyone or that everyone has to do what I do or that I'm here to save Kenpo...what I have said in no uncertain terms is that DYSFUNCTIONAL TRAINING PARADIGMS SUCK._

7. Everyone else either agrees with, misunderstands or disagrees with parts or all of the foregoing.


----------



## Flying Crane

ATACX GYM said:


> Define "ways". One or two "ways"? Is this the grappling and striking way? The weapon and multifighting way? The Hung Gar way? The Wing Chun way? The Muay Thai way? There are as many ways as there are problems and preferences. We _might_ have one or two ways when we only have one or two problems to solve and one or two preferences.



you are avoiding the question.

take the "typical" EPAK curriculum, with some 154 SD techs plus extensions, if you do them.  If you can take every one of these and get each of them to work against anything, then why have so many?  Why not keep 2 or 3 or a half dozen of your favorites, just to give you some options, and dump the rest?  What is the point of having a fuller curriculum if you can get each tech to work against anything, from day one?

and, how can you have the time to drill a large curriculum like that, against everything?  That takes a huge amount of work and time and effort for each tech.  With a curriculum like that, to keep those skills sharp with all the techs, you would not have time to sleep or eat.  Only train.

You are the one stating that you can yourself, and you can teach your students, to use each technique against anything.  So there is no weapon way, there is no multi opponent way.  There is just "SD Technique" that you can use in all scenarios, including against weapons, against multiple opponents, when flat on your back, etc.

So I'm just saying, if this is true, what point do you see in keeping more that a couple of the SD techniques?

and since you brought it up, how would you define the Muay Thai way or the Hung Gar way, or the Wing Chun way?


----------



## ATACX GYM

Flying Crane said:


> you are avoiding the question.
> 
> take the "typical" EPAK curriculum, with some 154 SD techs plus extensions, if you do them.  If you can take every one of these and get each of them to work against anything, then why have so many?  Why not keep 2 or 3 or a half dozen of your favorites, just to give you some options, and dump the rest?  What is the point of having a fuller curriculum if you can get each tech to work against anything, from day one?
> 
> and, how can you have the time to drill a large curriculum like that, against everything?  That takes a huge amount of work and time and effort for each tech.  With a curriculum like that, to keep those skills sharp with all the techs, you would not have time to sleep or eat.  Only train.
> 
> You are the one stating that you can yourself, and you can teach your students, to use each technique against anything.  So there is no weapon way, there is no multi opponent way.  There is just "SD Technique" that you can use in all scenarios, including against weapons, against multiple opponents, when flat on your back, etc.
> 
> So I'm just saying, if this is true, what point do you see in keeping more that a couple of the SD techniques?
> 
> and since you brought it up, how would you define the Muay Thai way or the Hung Gar way, or the Wing Chun way?



I am not avoiding the question, I answered it directly already. But here's an expansion that might help you out here: having a million ways to do one thing and a million ways to do a million ways makes you a warrior veeeerrrrryyyyy hard to defend against and defeat. If you have 1 or 2 sequences...no matter versatile...at some point? You'll get caught. You're still ADAPTIBLE but you become PREDICTABLE to cagey foes after awhile [ if they survive the initial onslaught or if they've heard of your exploits and what you use to defeat guys ], and PREDICTABILITY limits your chances of success.

If you have 154 base sequences each comprised of techniques that are in and of themselves multifaceted? You NEVER become PREDICTABLE. You can FORCE your opponent into a shocked "whut tha holy f---!!!" moment and capitalize upon his/her/their mistake. You never develope a mental complacency from a unbroken string of successes using your "GO TO " sequences.

In essence? Having these sequences helps you to have an exapansive vocabulary of combat movement. The less expansive your vocabulary? The less conversations you can engage in and comprehend, the less material you can read, etc. etc. 


Training the 154 sequences is actually pretty easy. But first...lemme answer your question:

" and since you brought it up, how would you define the Muay Thai way or the Hung Gar way, or the Wing Chun way?"

To me, every martial art is essentially a combination of its philosophy and training paradigm. Use your body in such a way that you beat up the other guy/prevent you and yours from being injured, and develope the character and discipline to be a better more joyful human being in the process. That's pretty much it, imo.


Now the [ at first glance ] ponderous EPK system seems difficult to drill, but the truth is? It's NOT hard to do. 


[video=youtube_share;0I8JNJG3d84]http://youtu.be/0I8JNJG3d84[/video]


I can and do run the whole 154 sequence curriculum with mitt drills alone...and get crazy reps. It's even easier WITHOUT the mitts. Most of our week is dedicated purely to drills, weapons, kata and isolated sparring. It's EASY to do. I can and do drill whole belt ranks with a default technique with mitts alone. Today I did Purple and Blue Belt techs with the default technique being BEGGING HANDS. Easy money.


----------



## Twin Fist

dont feed the troll people. Ignore it and it will get huffy and go away. Trust me, it isnt worth it to get engaged with this clown.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Twin Fist said:


> dont feed the troll people. Ignore it and it will get huffy and go away. Trust me, it isnt worth it to get engaged with this clown.




I would respond to this, but your own posts and opinion on the matter are so devastatingly clear and true, that I'll let you tell on yourself:

taken from THIS post on Kenpotalk.com http://www.kenpotalk.com/forum/showt...799#post154799

*************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************




 Originally Posted by *Twin Fist*


I know of what i speak because i am an ***. Always have been, and everyone that knows me will testify, I am a giant ***. And there have been many, many times when i could have shared something, helped someone, or contributed, but being an *** stopped people from giving a crap what i had to say.

dont let that happen to you.

*****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

Don't worry, John aka Twin Fist...I will make sure that it won't happen to me. Thanks for the advice.


----------



## MJS

ATACX GYM said:


> My responses to your enumerated post...
> 
> 
> 1. I never said "everyone" about anything. We're still in lockstep.
> 
> 2. Most sport oriented guys do alot of what I mention...depending upon what sport they pursue. However, I know none that do ALL of what I mention.
> 
> 3. There are sport oriented guys who are duped...but not about the supremacy of performance. If you pitched a performance oriented argument to them? The chances are high that they'd find merit in it. Not a single sport guy--not ONE--that I have met and spoke to over the past decades has had the SLIGHTEST problem with what I offer and maaaaannny of them have come to train with me directly after I tell them what I do.
> 
> 4. CO-SIGN!!!



1) You said 'They' which I took as everyone.

2) They do weapon training, first aid, multi man attacks, etc.?  Really?  There may be a handful of gyms that do, but I'd wager that the majority of pure sport oriented places do not.

3) I disagree.  They're duped or were duped into thinking that what they were doing was the end all be all.  

4) Ok


----------



## Flying Crane

ATACX GYM said:


> I am not avoiding the question, I answered it directly already. But here's an expansion that might help you out here: having a million ways to do one thing and a million ways to do a million ways makes you a warrior veeeerrrrryyyyy hard to defend against and defeat. If you have 1 or 2 sequences...no matter versatile...at some point? You'll get caught. You're still ADAPTIBLE but you become PREDICTABLE to cagey foes after awhile [ if they survive the initial onslaught or if they've heard of your exploits and what you use to defeat guys ], and PREDICTABILITY limits your chances of success.
> 
> If you have 154 base sequences each comprised of techniques that are in and of themselves multifaceted? You NEVER become PREDICTABLE. You can FORCE your opponent into a shocked "whut tha holy f---!!!" moment and capitalize upon his/her/their mistake. You never develope a mental complacency from a unbroken string of successes using your "GO TO " sequences.
> 
> In essence? Having these sequences helps you to have an exapansive vocabulary of combat movement. The less expansive your vocabulary? The less conversations you can engage in and comprehend, the less material you can read, etc. etc.
> 
> 
> Training the 154 sequences is actually pretty easy. But first...lemme answer your question:
> 
> " and since you brought it up, how would you define the Muay Thai way or the Hung Gar way, or the Wing Chun way?"
> 
> To me, every martial art is essentially a combination of its philosophy and training paradigm. Use your body in such a way that you beat up the other guy/prevent you and yours from being injured, and develope the character and discipline to be a better more joyful human being in the process. That's pretty much it, imo.
> 
> 
> Now the [ at first glance ] ponderous EPK system seems difficult to drill, but the truth is? It's NOT hard to do.
> 
> 
> [video=youtube_share;0I8JNJG3d84]http://youtu.be/0I8JNJG3d84[/video]
> 
> 
> I can and do run the whole 154 sequence curriculum with mitt drills alone...and get crazy reps. It's even easier WITHOUT the mitts. Most of our week is dedicated purely to drills, weapons, kata and isolated sparring. It's EASY to do. I can and do drill whole belt ranks with a default technique with mitts alone. Today I did Purple and Blue Belt techs with the default technique being BEGGING HANDS. Easy money.



This is simply not an approach that I can agree with.  to each his own.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Flying Crane said:


> This is simply not an approach that I can agree with.  to each his own.



Okay. I'm cool with that.


----------



## ATACX GYM

MJS said:


> 1) You said 'They' which I took as everyone.
> 
> 2) They do weapon training, first aid, multi man attacks, etc.?  Really?  There may be a handful of gyms that do, but I'd wager that the majority of pure sport oriented places do not.
> 
> 3) I disagree.  They're duped or were duped into thinking that what they were doing was the end all be all.
> 
> 4) Ok






1. "They" doesn't mean "everyone"...but I see where you're coming from. I'll try to be more clear in the future.

2. Some do weapon training and mulit attacks, [ like the BKF and several associations I've become familiar with growing up, including Twin Dragons ], but none that I know of do First Aid/CPR. Like I said: they do "_a lot of what I mention..."  _not ALL of what I mention.

3. They weren't duped into thinking that what they do was the end all be all. They were already comfortable with the notion of cross-training. That was one of the main reasons why it was so easy to reach them: they were already adherents of the concept of the supremacy of performance.

4. Cool.


----------



## Chris Parker

This may take a page or two.... 



ATACX GYM said:


> Actually--as Chris the non-Kenpo man's link to my SWORD AND HAMMER PT. 1 AND 2 thread will resoundingly prove--there is not a single atom of his statements which at any time bear even the slightest factual similarity to the real world. His opinion is essentially comprised of utter contrariness...for the sake of being contrary. There is no--and never has been nor will there ever be--even the most inifinitesimal facts to support his negative opinions about me.



Well, let's look at what my statements say.

I said that you were wrong repeatedly. I have provided critiques that demonstrate that throughout the other thread, as well as having you demonstrate constantly your lack of understanding.

I said you have missed what you're being corrected on. Well, read the thread. You continue to miss what you're being corrected on here, there, and pretty well everywhere.

I said you used Doc to provide support for your statements (really, you were using your incorrect interpretations of Doc's words as some form of support for your statements), until Doc, on a thread on Kempotalk which was used in the Sword and Hammer thread, basically said, point blank, that you didn't get it. Again, that's in the thread.

The article you wrote here also misses what you were being corrected on both in that thread and in Doc's post/article. 

There really isn't anything that can be stated as "facts" (as in 1 + 1 = 2 kinda facts), as it's all in the observation. But simply reading it shows that everything I stated has support, and you're simply ignoring anything that genuinely challenges you. 



ATACX GYM said:


> I invite him and any and all critics to prove--PROVE--otherwise. Let us move beyond cogent posts to empirical data.



Empirical data that you keep missing the point? Read the thread.



ATACX GYM said:


> I have provided video evidence to buttress my position with real world data.



No, you've used video to demonstrate what you think you're saying, and what you think you're arguing with myself (and others). It's never once actually backed anything up, or provided anything of value to the questions you've been posed. The same goes with your "data".



ATACX GYM said:


> I have provided historical evidence drawn from the pioneer of Kenpo himself to buttress my position.



No, you've provided a few selected quotes, which you've misinterpreted and been corrected on by Doc and others, as some attempt at supporting your stance. It didn't work.



ATACX GYM said:


> I disagree with several of our most decorated and respected Elders on various positions of import, but they all boil down to a simple, single concept:
> 
> Whatever technique that you learn? It must be universally functional. THE SAME TECHNIQUE OR SEQUENCE must operate equally well whether you're armed or not, in multifights or not, ground grappling or ground fighting or not, regardless of stance or position, in a 360 degree circle, whether you're escaping/evading or not, rescuing someone or not,address every concern in The Web of Knowledge, address transitioning to and through any or all of the above or not, and address any combination of any or all of the above. It's...the essence of common sense.



Firstly, there is no such thing as a single technique that fits all situations. Thinking there is is a sign of amateurism when it comes to understanding martial arts. Especially for someone who claims the kinds of ranks and experience you do. Next, when it was pointed out to you that that was what you were saying on the Sword and Hammer thread, you denied it. Now you're saying it again? Really?

Let me help you out a bit here, Ras. Principles adapt, techniques are specific to circumstance. A technique is an expression of those principles (one possible one), and those principles can be utilised in many different ways and different circumstances, but even then, there are no principles that are equally good for all circumstances. So, no. You're wrong. Again.



ATACX GYM said:


> Not all or even most martial artists do so. Not all or even most martial artists are MANDATED to do so if they choose to do otherwise. But whatever concern they choose not to address and/or develope combat proficiency in? THAT'S THE CONCERN THAT THEY'RE VULNERABLE TO. You don't address and get proficient in offensive and defensive leg kicks/blocks? Well...guess who's getting kicked in the leg? You don't address ground submissions? Well...guess who's getting tapped snapped or napped? You don't address multifights? Well...guess who's gettin stomped in a multifight? Etc etc.



Please.

Tell me, do you train bomb disarmament as well?

But to the point, I train in all that and more, son, so I don't know who you're trying to convince of anything here. But what I don't do is make the mistake that a single set of actions (technique) is going to work in each situation. They simply can't. And each art has it's own focus, which dictates it's approach. I just don't think you understand martial arts enough to get that, though.



ATACX GYM said:


> Btw Chris, I'm still waiting upon that video that you never produced to prove your point...which of course is never going to come because it's like all your other evidence: spurious and non-existent.



You have to be kidding, yeah? A conversation from a year ago, where I ended by explaining my point, and telling you that if you still didn't get it that I might be able to put something together for you, but doubt it'd do much, and you're whining about it now? Everyone else could see what I was saying without the video, as the evidence that there were problems with your video are found in your video, not anything I could or would put up.



ATACX GYM said:


> I actually recall this gentleman...LawDog...from YOUTUBE. I hope that he's able to see that my blunt talk is simply that: accurate, not self-aggrandizing at all, direct, unflinching. It is a response borne from Doc's MT article challenge to me...WHAT IF RAS STOPPED ASKING WHAT IF?...and that article was borne from the multipage threads that arose on both KenpoTalk.com AAAAND here on MartialTalk.com due to my incessant questioning about the origins of The Ideal Phase...and the dysfunctionality of it.



I think it might be important to take a look at the actual article from Doc that has spurred this one from you here, Ras, as to many of the people here, your entire article/post doesn't have much context. So, to that end, here it is: http://martialtalkmagazine.com/what-if-ras-stop-asking-what-if-dr-ron-chapel/

There's quite a fair bit of information that Doc provides there, but the key to it, I feel, is the exact same thing that Flying Crane and myself said to you already (myself not even having a Kempo background, yet I could see it pretty damn clearly), in that you have missed the point of the Ideal Phase techniques themselves, critiquing people for teaching the base version, as it's not immediately going to what you think reality is. The reasons for the different versions are also explained by Doc, with a lot of the freedom coming from the fact that Ed Parker was getting people with other martial backgrounds to teach his system, by implementing his approaches over their mechanics and ideas... if today, students are coming in with only Kempo as their training, they need the more rigid, or solid mechanics to begin their study and exploration. 

In other words, you had a misunderstanding about the methods, you were corrected by someone who learnt directly from Ed Parker himself, and witnessed all of this developing, and you're still arguing that you know better what Ed Parker meant? Even though your contention isn't actually supported by Ed Parkers words unless you remove quite a few key statements and points from his words in the first place?



ATACX GYM said:


> How did it come about? Who authored each and every Ideal Phase? How did we get a UNIVERSAL Ideal Phase when Mr. Parker very specifically not only didn't want such a thing but his definition of The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique Process specifically prevents such a thing from occurring because each head of each Kenpo school and group were to fashion their OWN expression of Alternating Maces or Sword and Hammer or whatever?



No, the Ideal Phase Analytical Technique Process starts with a single, definite technique. From there, when you reach enough experience and understanding, you move onto "What If". Then, later, when you are a Master, then you can get to formulating your own version.



ATACX GYM said:


> Well, Doc answered. I agreed with everything except the stricture placed upon keeping one's response within a specific narrow band. Doc said essentially that alll Sword and Hammer sequences had room for individuality and were mandated to do so, but they all in the end had to bear a significant physical resemblance to this:
> 
> [video=youtube_share;oJbyIBmhDN0]http://youtu.be/oJbyIBmhDN0[/video]
> 
> My response was...what is significant about that up there^^? What's shown up above should be a White Belt drill that we learned to do when we learned how to throw handswords to the cardinal directions and any point in a 360 degree circle around us, repeat the drill with the hammerfist, then repeat with combinations of all the techniques we learned in White Belt [ in my Gym, this is BELOW WHITE BELT...it's a Pre-White Belt Level A technique. The lowest rank in my Gym.



You're kidding, right? What's significant about the fundamental form of Sword and Hammer? It teaches the lessons that are found in Sword and Hammer! That's why anything that claims to be Sword and Hammer, or a version of it from EPAK, needs to have similarities (at least!) to that version! That's really what you've been told, had explained to you, and been questioned on for 34 pages on the other thread! Hell, Ras, I was giving you lists of what is significant in that technique, but you don't have anywhere near the understanding to actually get what I was telling you. And your comment here shows that all you can see is a series of actions, not any of the lessons that are actually present. 

Can you see yet why I say you're still quite a bit behind here?



ATACX GYM said:


> The difference when I teach my students our iteration of Sword and Hammer is that it presupposes a surprise attack that lands for the most part...and you must respond while you're dazed, in a position of disadvantage, and while being belabored with blows from your opponent.
> 
> We recognize right off top that your opponent will not be helpfully standing still and posing for you, and the BG won't be sitting there allowing you to hit him. IN THE REAL WORLD, THE ATTACK THAT THE SWORD AND HAMMER IS SUPPOSED TO DEFEAT WILL BE SOMETHING LIKE THIS ATTACK:
> 
> [video=youtube_share;A36Bw5I3-g0]http://youtu.be/A36Bw5I3-g0[/video]



Oh, good, the videos again... 

See, now you keep saying that, but your contention (that that is the attack Sword and Hammer is supposed to deal with) is not supported by the technique Sword and Hammer itself, nor by anyone else from the Kempo community. What makes you think that the technique was designed to handle an attack not present in the technique itself? 

In other words, no.



ATACX GYM said:


> Will the most common training expression of THE SWORD AND HAMMER deal with that attack? NOPE. The TRAINING PARADIGM SUCKS. Kenpo doesn't suck. The Sword and Hammer doesn't suck. BUT THE TRAINING PARADIGM FOR THE MOST COMMON EXPRESSION OF THE SWORD AND HAMMER SUCKS. Do you understand and grasp the difference I'm making here? I have confidence that most of you do.
> 
> Now, look at the above attack, and consider that most flank attacks aren't even preceded by a grab [ essentially a Hockey Punch from the flanks ]. Guys just catch you nappin and FIRE A SUCKER PUNCH ON YOU. Like so:
> 
> [video=youtube_share;LFnIESr658k]http://youtu.be/LFnIESr658k[/video]



Dude, constantly posting the same videos doesn't make them any more right, nor your understanding any better. Does the most common form of Sword and Hammer deal with that attack? No. Is it supposed to? Only according to you. Most others can see what Sword and Hammer is actually dealing with, so your entire point is irrelevant. It's like arguing that a kick defence is useless against a bear hug... well, okay. But is it meant to be against a bear hug?

Again, this is why I say you just don't get the actual original technique itself, as you seem to want it (and most others) to be something they're not, then deride them for not being what you think they should be. On top of that, you claim it's the training paradigm, which is garbage. The fact that the technique isn't against a sucker punch is a matter of context and content for the technique, not a training approach that doesn't deal with sucker punches. I think you're using words you don't understand there.



ATACX GYM said:


> Do you train your Sword and Hammer...or ANY technique...to deal with that? Take a look-see at the most common Sword and Hammer and honestly ask yourself if you've trained for the more common reality that you'll be called upon to use it in. The truth is? The overwhelming majority of us...90%+ I'd guesstimate--have NOT trained our Sword and Hammer for this and have not changed our Sword and Hammer's expression to deal with this reality.



Considering that you don't understand the actual attack that Sword and Hammer deals with, despite it being repeatedly explained to you, I don't think you're really in any position to say who deals with any form of "reality".


ATACX GYM said:


> Now take the above and notice...these attacks can occur face to face, from the flanks, from the rear or any point in a 360 degree circle around you. Is your Sword and Hammer taught from DAY ONE to deal with this reality? Has your sensei sifu Coach whatever prepped you for this by changing the Sword and Hammer training methodology so that it's functional and it really works? No? Most haven't.
> 
> But I have.
> 
> [video=youtube_share;AuvuhW1u2WE]http://youtu.be/AuvuhW1u2WE[/video]



Dude, that video is so deeply flawed in terms of it's impracticalities and lack of realism that it'd take another thread or two to deal with. But more to the point, you're still missing the point of Sword and Hammer, instead trying to impose your personal beliefs onto it, rather than actually study the damn thing, and take from it what it teaches you.

You just don't get it.



ATACX GYM said:


> How many Kenpo or Kempo instructors have considered making throws, takedowns, sweeps, displacements, unbalances, submission/compliance locks etc. an integral part of every single sequence they
> teach and teach the whole expression seamlessly meshed with the grappling arsenal at your belt rank? Answer: Nowhere near enough have done so.
> 
> But I have.
> 
> 
> [video=youtube_share;R-mmdyIHkjs]http://youtu.be/R-mmdyIHkjs[/video]



So now you're asking who adds in aspects that aren't part of the basic principles and ideas at all? 

Study the technique itself, and learn what it's teaching. You don't have it yet. Once you do, you may realize just how redundant a lot of what you're saying and doing is.



ATACX GYM said:


> What happens if you're KNOCKED DOWN by the surprise attack and you have to deal with a BG who's trying to stomp you out, punch you, knife you, or any combo of the above?
> 
> [video=youtube_share;8XsykPOhBRI]http://youtu.be/8XsykPOhBRI[/video]



Seriously, stop with the videos. You're trying to make an argument which is based in a false understanding of the argument itself. All it's doing is showing that you didn't get what you were being told in the first place.



ATACX GYM said:


> Is it a common sight in Kenpo for your Sword and Hammer or whatever sequence you prefer to be trained for this reality? No?
> 
> It is for me and my students. In THE ATACX GYM, you are taught to use THE EXACT SAME TECHNIQUES ON THE GROUND AS YOU DO ON YOUR FEET.
> 
> [video=youtube_share;R-mmdyIHkjs]http://youtu.be/R-mmdyIHkjs[/video]



For crying out loud, Ras, no-one's arguing that training for practical application is bad, or having contingencies in your methods is bad, we're saying that what you're doing is based on a very shallow understanding of the realities and an almost complete lack of understanding of the techniques. Well, to be fair and not put words into anyone elses mouth, I'm saying that. 



ATACX GYM said:


> But wait...what if he sucker punches you, switches sides and keeps punching you or goes for a chokehold? Well, we already showed you that at THE ATACX GYM we train our techs to strike in a circle and the cardinal directions [ showing the part of our hybrid lineage that's BKF-Parker-Tracy ]...but we also realize that students must be equipped with techniques that deal with all the primary h2h categories and attacks, so we train our SWORD AND HAMMER  vs these kinds of situations too:



Wow, was that ever bad. But seriously, what is your point? That you can do things against different attacks? So what, you really think you're the only one? Is it just that when everyone else does essentially the same version of a particular technique (say, Sword and Hammer), demonstrating it as is as it's a clearly defined set of actions with distinct principles and lessons, therefore not trying to get it to fit every single possible occasion, that you think that no-one else deals with all the different forms of attack that might be encountered? Just because they don't show it with one technique in particular? Are you kidding? 

Listen, Ras, I deal with everything you've mentioned, and a whole hell of a lot more, but I can see the validity in Sword and Hammer (as well as the rest of the techniques) being codified and kept very definite in their teaching. You, on the other hand, seem to be so desperate for it to be a one-stop solution that you miss entirely the reason for Sword and Hammer existing in the first place. And these videos don't change that impression in the slightest.



ATACX GYM said:


> So clearly I think Kenpo works. Clearly I think the techniques are valid. IT'S THE TRAINING PARADIGM AND ATTENDING MINDSET THAT IS DYSFUNCTIONAL AND PROBLEMATIC. The question isn't:"Why does THE ATACX GYM and a very veeerrry select few Kenpo schools even remotely address the kind of self-defense reality that I'm likely to encounter?" Nope. The question is:" WHY IN DA HELL DO THE OTHER 99% OF KENPO SCHOOLS NOT COVER THESE REALITIES?"



But you haven't dealt with the training paradigm or mindset, you've changed the mechanics and context to an entirely different attack and response. And you're really not dealing in reality, you're dealing in the worst possible of martial catch-22's, the dreaded "What If?" loop.

My question would be why do you ignore the lessons of your own system, and still claim to be teaching and training in it? 



ATACX GYM said:


> That's the question. And it's not self-aggrandizing, it's not ego-centric. It's the straight up real world reality. It's blunt talk that we need.



It is self-aggrandizing and ego-centric in the way you present it. It's not real world reality, as it's based in imagining all kinds of possibilities, to the point that the very basis of the technique and the lessons are lost completely. And you're really not very good at blunt talk. Here's some blunt talk for you: 



ATACX GYM said:


> It's why you need to ask "What If" like Ras does...or you suck.



You only need to ask "What If" like Ras does if you don't have enough depth of understanding in the technique itself in the first place. In other words, asking "What If" the way you do is a pretty good indication that your training and education in the art itself, frankly, sucked.


----------



## Chris Parker

ATACX GYM said:


> Whassup FC!! You did see the parts where I repeatedly say that if [ whatever others are doing ] works in these ranges for them? Hey, not a problem. I'm not addressing them. I've also repeatedly stated that if [ whatever others are doing ] is all they want to do? That's ALSO cool with me. But if they're not training for various considerations in The Web of Knowledge? Well...
> 
> a) They'll be vulnerable to attacks that those considerations cover
> 
> b) That's proof of a insufficiently comprehensive training paradigm.



Hmm, I don't know if Michael saw them, but they seem to be somewhat lacking in your posts here... there's a lot of "if you're not doing it my way, you're doin' it wrong", though. Additionally, both of your points are not necessarily correct either... 



ATACX GYM said:


> However, it IS somewhat of a crusade. People DO need convincing...not so much CONVERSION, but CONVINCING. Convincing of what? Convincing that oftentimes we need superior training paradigms to efficiently cover more practical, more comprehensive martial arts training. Basically? Take your [ whatever martial art ] any direction you want to go with it. Just make sure it works in the primary armed, h2h, ground and multifight scenarios. That is NOT being done and hasn't been done in TMA for far too long.



Who says? Are you saying that Iaido (another art you claim some training in) should work against every type of modern attack? Judo needs to be able to deal with group attacks? You're just applying what you think the main purpose of martial arts is, you realize, even though you've actually got it fairly wrong. Out of interest, have you considered that you don't have the right answers, and that you're only trying to convince people as you don't understand the more "TMA" methodology? 



ATACX GYM said:


> That's our fault. Those of us who know better and don't do it enough. Don't show it enough. Don't prove it enough.



Look, I'm going to be blunt again. What you're doing doesn't convince many as you're doing it wrong. And that comes through whether you realize it or not. I deal with every situation you talk about, but in a much more concise, more powerful way. And I don't need to prove anything to anyone but my students. I can see what you're doing, and why, and believe me, you're heading in the wrong direction. Constantly asking "do you deal with this particular situation? How about this one? Or this one?" is pretty much all the evidence needed to demonstrate that, by the way.



ATACX GYM said:


> I usually don't answer the above criticism because usually the people making them are:
> 
> a. Being Contrary for the sake of being contrary
> 
> b. Just looking to insult me
> 
> c. Brain Dead



I'm never contrary for the sake of being contrary, I argue in order to demonstrate an opposing view (and demonstrate problems in the others persons argument). I don't look to insult you either. And "brain dead"? But you aren't looking to insult anyone either, are you.... hmm. 



ATACX GYM said:


> But I know that you're not like that, Michael, so I'll answer this comment [ yet AGAIN ]:
> 
> Then let's see what you've got.
> 
> 
> 
> ATACX GYM said:
> 
> 
> 
> To me and to quite a few who contact me on a weekly basis [ dozens and more ], my posts aren't overly wordy nor are they difficult to comprehend. They're pretty straightforward. The part that flips most people is that I've challenged many of their positions and/or beliefs in almost every sentence, and they're still attempting to digest one challenge or question when I hit them with a dozen more. To compound the matter, they oftentimes completely misunderstand or mischaracterize what I'm saying. They'll conflate, for instance, my utter disgust with and disdain for dysfunctional training with me saying that they and/or their martial art sucks. I have neeeeever said such a thing, and have repeatedly and in no uncertain terms repudiated even the notion of such a thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please.
> 
> You use overly heavy phrasing in order to imply some form of intellectual superiority, when that is far from the case. And the idea that people are reeling from one challenge to their beliefs when you hit them with a dozen more, and that's why they can't follow your arguments? Dude, that is so far from the case. It's more usually that you're arguing something that you aren't being argued with about.
> 
> 
> 
> ATACX GYM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even when I disagree with Chris Parker, I have never dissed his personal martial art. And I never will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nor I yours. Of course, none of this has anything to do with the discussion, so I'm not sure why you brought it up.
> 
> 
> 
> ATACX GYM said:
> 
> 
> 
> This whole conversation [ from my perspective ] revolves around training paradigms, their effectiveness or lack thereof, and the mindsets that they spawn. Even Functionality has a continuum. I am Functional, but I can be MORE Functional...so I'm open to ideas drills suggestions and criticism along those lines. I have adopted the verbiage and corrections offered by others like Doc, Professor Durgan, and others [ even you, Michael ] when I agreed with the criticisms or even disagreed but found merit in the suggestion anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm. Here's a suggestion, then. Take another look at the regular techniques, and try to understand their functionality. Don't dismiss them just because you can't see it... look deeper. Look at where they sit, and why they're structured the way they are. I promise you, they are that way for a reason.
> 
> 
> 
> ATACX GYM said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's worth noting that NONE of my critics have reciprocated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hang on, what? None of your critics (I'm assuming you're including myself there) have reciprocated? Do you mean none of us have turned around and said "Hey, Ras, I'm going to do what you suggested there!" Well, no. I, for one, find a large number of issues in what you're doing and how you're doing it, and went past that little phase quite a while ago. So there's little that I've seen from you that would help me. Instead, I've tried to help you. How open would you say you've been to that?
> 
> 
> 
> ATACX GYM said:
> 
> 
> 
> With that in mind...who is truly the person with the more open mind? Who is truly the person who is less ego-stricken?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Based on your interactions with myself, I'd say you're the more ego-driven person, the more arrogant, and the most incapable of hearing or understanding an argument... and for me to say you're more arrogant than me is really saying something!
> 
> 
> 
> ATACX GYM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Something to ponder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh... nope.
> 
> 
> 
> ATACX GYM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mike...I don't know anyone who looks at their approach as "flawed". However, if you ask any of my Taekwondoin brethren if they have a substantial submission grappling arsenal standing and on the ground? The honest answer is NO. Does that leave them vulnerable to being subbed or facing a good wrestler who can gnp them? YES. Is there a way to train their TKD--without having to sacrifice their distinct TKD flavor and identity--to deal with competent submissions takedowns and gnp? YES. Is this routinely done? The honest answer is NO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you'd get into the question of if it deals with things that go against the ideas and context of TKD, is it still TKD? Not every art needs, or even wants to deal with every range. There's a difference between a specialist system and a generalist one... and just because you think they should all be generalist doesn't mean that the specialist system is flawed, incomplete, wrong, or anything else. Again, for someone who claims so many arts, you really should be aware of this. It should be basic knowledge to you. The fact that you don't get it shows a lack of schooling, really.
> 
> 
> 
> ATACX GYM said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do I know? Because I'm a 5th dan in TKD and when I made these suggestions? Many TKD guys went nuts...until I pointed out that Master Hee Il Cho has done the very thing I was talking about...although I started converting mine well before 1994, as I was learning TKD and HKD nearly hand in hand with each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So again you did it all before anyone else... and you're a 5th Dan in TKD, yeah? Which organisation, out of interest?
> 
> 
> 
> ATACX GYM said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I make comments about this or that art in TMA? They're GENERAL comments. There is NO WAY I'd know exactly what every single martial artist is doing, and I'm not interested in that. If I gave you the impression otherwise? I don't know how but I apologize for that. What I CAN say though--with certainty--refers to the GENERAL METHOD OF PRACTICE. The GENERAL training paradigm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then avoid making definite statements, as you don't seem to get much of it.
> 
> 
> 
> ATACX GYM said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a Judo black belt.Generally speaking? Judoka don't do jumpkicks or triple kicks, even in our self defense atemi-waza [ which I have learned ].
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Judo black belt as well, huh? Through the Kodokan, of course?
> 
> And what on earth are you going on about with "Generally speaking? Judoka don't do jumpkicks or triple kicks"? Are you trying to imply that they need such things to be completely prepared for your ever-so-deadly streets? Or at all, for any reason? Do you have even the slightest clue about any of this?
> 
> 
> 
> ATACX GYM said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a Kenpo 5th dan and a Hung Gar black sash. In general, you won't find Kenpoists or Kempoists--American, Chinese, Japanese, whatever---pulling off flying triangles or working the guard or pulling off The Flying Squirrel or The Spladle. In fact? Throws pins locks chokes and holds are not what these arts are generally known for...although they DO IN FACT possess these techs. Their training emphasis, IN GENERAL, is elsewhere...which gives them a largely "stand up striking" identity. Which means that they too are vulnerable to what they train LESS of or DON'T TRAIN.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you enough training in any of the myriad systems you claim to be dan-ranked or equivalent in as to why they do things the way they do, and not another? Cause it's not sounding like you've learnt anything other than a bunch of mechanical actions, and anything deeper, or more important (powerful) has completely passed you by.
> 
> 
> 
> ATACX GYM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do the practitioners of ANY of these arts feel that their art is flawed? NO. Their art is NOT flawed. They have good reason to feel the way that they do. Now, can anyone from any of those arts improve drastically by employing a training paradigm that improves their entire martial arsenal [ inclusive of tactics and healing ] in every category and range of self defense? YES.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. You've missed the point of each, and why they don't feature the aspects you mention.
> 
> 
> 
> ATACX GYM said:
> 
> 
> 
> A training paradigm that improves martial performance, knowledge, etc. is a SUPERIOR training paradigm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think you know what that would be, though. You have what you think is superior, but there is really nothing other than your words, your flawed arguments, and your flawed videos to support it. Not enough, I fear.
> 
> 
> 
> ATACX GYM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore...Taekwondoin who reach into their art and realize that they have throws, locks etc. and proceed to practice throws locks takedowns ground strikes weapons and defenses against same have a TRAINING PARADIGM SUPERIOR to those who DON'T do so...even though all TKD practitioners in theory have THE SAME ARSENAL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And where are you pulling these imagined TKD schools from?
> 
> 
> 
> ATACX GYM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chinese Kempoists who develope superior athleticism and comprehensive grappling and subgrappling have a superior TRAINING PARADIGM to those who don't...even though all Chinese Kempoists in theory have the same arsenal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I don't know where you're getting any of this from....
> 
> 
> 
> ATACX GYM said:
> 
> 
> 
> American Kenpoists who train their techniques and self-defense sequences to perform in every range of h2h combat and every category of combat HAVE A TRAINING PARADIGM SUPERIOR TO THOSE WHO DON'T.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who says the other Kempo teachers don't deal in the different ranges, Ras? And does this have anything to do with your point, or have you gone off on another side argument that no-one really asked about again?
> 
> 
> 
> ATACX GYM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Judoka who make it a point to cultivate comprehensive atemi waza as well as every aspect of their grappling game HAVE A TRAINING PARADIGM SUPERIOR TO THOSE WHO DON'T.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're just going on hypotheticals, as you've decided what each art needs, are you?
> 
> 
> 
> ATACX GYM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capoeiristas who actually spar with weapons and train to make contact and realistically takedown and strike, etc etc in addition to cultivating their extraordinary vocabulary of movement, memorize and enrich the songs and music through direct contribution and participation, learn the history of capoeira, etc etc HAVE A TRAINING PARADIGM SUPERIOR TO THOSE WHO DON'T.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For crying out loud....
> 
> 
> 
> ATACX GYM said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do I know who has a superior training paradigm? Cuz superior martial arts performance is quantifiable: forms [ if your art has any ], weapon use, strikes locks chokes takedowns etc etc are all combat applicable and yield superior fighting skill. This rigorous physical training coupled with rigorous indoctrination in the various honorable martial arts codes of conduct tends to yield a disciplined, physically fit, honorable, long lived person who is a benefit to whatever community that this person belongs to.Furthermore... The greater your fighting [and healing ] skill? The greater the ancillary benefits you receive: physical fitness, stress relief, self-confidence, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ability to accurately assess such superiority is something I would question, though. Mainly as you've completely missed the basic criteria, instead looking to volume of possibilities, rather than actual training paradigms, you're addressing training breadth, which is a different thing.
> 
> In other words, how do you know who has a superior training paradigm? I don't think you do.
> 
> 
> 
> ATACX GYM said:
> 
> 
> 
> In short? The superior training paradigm perforce yields superior martial artists who perform their art in ways superior to those who don't. That's how I know. It's the most elementary, obvious common sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except you go in the opposite direction to one that would actually create the "superior martial artist", and look for things that don't generate such results, and have been shown to have less than studied in your assessment of such. And your statement of the obvious without actually listing anything specific may come across as common sense, but it's desperately lacking as an answer.
> 
> 
> 
> ATACX GYM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sooo...look at your training paradigm, and see what it doesn't cover. That's one of the two areas you can improve upon. The OTHER area that you can improve upon is the area that your art DOES cover. When you cover them both? Guess what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've missed the point of the art you're training in?
> 
> 
> 
> ATACX GYM said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're employing a superior training paradigm. Easy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, I was so close.... but no, Ras. What you've actually done is move away from the art you're supposed to be studying in a lot of cases. There's really not a lot "superior" about it, it's just different, and may suit some people, but not others.
> 
> 
> 
> ATACX GYM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now maybe there are martial artists out there who are perfectly satisfied with what they ARE training and don't feel the need to train any other way or any other range or whatever. That is perfectly fine with me. Have at it and have fun. They're engaged in the method that they prefer, and that's great.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, the token "politically correct" statement.... somehow I don't think you understand what that method of training really is, or it's reasons, though.
> 
> 
> 
> ATACX GYM said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, if they engaged in a training paradigm that covered more--and did so with at least equal quality to what they're covering now--they'd have a SUPERIOR training paradigm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And this is what shows that it was a token comment.
> 
> Ras, you can't say "hey, if you're happy doing what you're doing, great. But if you do what I say, then you'd be much better, cause you're not superior until you're doing what I say" and not have it come across as both insulting arrogant and desperately ignorant. Which is, frankly, how you come across.
> 
> 
> 
> ATACX GYM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Floyd Mayweather is a boxer. Boxing is good. Kickboxing is better. If Floyd added savate or TKD or Muay Thai or Capoeira to his boxing base? He'd have a combatively SUPERIOR training paradigm...although he strongly prefers and is quite happy with his BOXING training and its paradigm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the hell makes kickboxing "better" than boxing?!?!? Just because it includes kicking? Are you a complete ignoramus in these areas? And dude, Mayweather would break you in two without much problem, no matter how "superior" you think your approach is. Cause dude? It ain't.
> 
> 
> 
> ATACX GYM said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you grasp my point now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've always gotten what you think, Ras, it's just that it's flawed from the ground up. You, on the other hand, have never once understood the arguments presented to you, mainly due to your rather evident lack of proper education in these areas.
> 
> 
> 
> ATACX GYM said:
> 
> 
> 
> this is how to do sword and hammer on the ground:
> 
> http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sh...nd-hammer-on-the-ground&p=1487191#post1487191
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what on earth does this have to do with anything here? But don't worry, I'm heading over to see what you've done, and probably point out where you've gone wrong. Again.
> 
> 
> 
> ATACX GYM said:
> 
> 
> 
> I responded to an excellent post by LuckyKboxer on KenpoTalk.com regarding the subject matter of this thread. His post and my response...particularly this section I'm highlighting here...are very important as I address a very consistent fallacy in the thinking of those who somehow think that having one technique that combats all attacks in all primary h2h ranges of self-defense is somehow wrong,inefficient, both, etc etc:
> 
> http://www.kenpotalk.com/forum/show...ke-ras-or-you-suck-part-1&p=160535#post160535
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm, you mean how, when you were picked up on saying exactly that, you said that that wasn't what you meant, or believed? Now you're offering defence to such an idea? Right....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ATACX GYM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay seriously guys and gals...I'm going to have to emphasize a very very veeerrry important but highly overlooked point. As part of my response to the knowledgeable and skillful LuckyK aka David Arnold, I say the following:
> 
> *Response to your first paragraph: I always stated that if your techniques and sequences work reliably and functionally because you test them regularly vs escalating resistance? Great I have no beef with you. Nor are my comments directed toward you..and I mean the nonspecific broad definition of the word "you" here. However, this part: "..So learning to use every technique against every possible attack is not wrong, as much as it is not efficient." I disagree with. If all you have is Alternating Maces and somebody cracks you from behind then tackles you? Your Alternating Maces better Alternate and Mace him. If you haven't learned any STORM sequences but somebody slashes and stabs at you with their knife or bat? Your Maces need to Alternate on him. Etc. The real world reality is that you use what you have RIGHT NOW to overcome whatever assault that you have to deal with RIGHT NOW. Learning another technique later doesn't necessarily amp one's efficiency...if you train each tech and sequence for universal versatility. What you have is another tool that can get the job done, thus amping your potency AND your arsenal...but most importantly? It amps your understanding and application of effective efficient movement. Learning 5 Swords from a kneeling position really lets you do your Bow to Buddha better, for instance. But waiting til you learn Bow to Buddha to consider that:"Hey...I can do my 5 Swords kneeling too!" is actually not only inefficient; it can be TOO LATE to be of service to you. Cuz you're way more likely to be knocked down or find yourself scrambling to defend a tackle or coming up from a fall or roll as an Orange Belt than you are as a Brown Belt...so YOU NEED YOUR KNEELING 5 SWORDS NOW. You may find yourself too beat up or too dead or too raped or too bullied etc etc from NOT knowing your kneeling 5 Swords or NOT knowing how to use your 5 Swords from flat off your back to even reach your Kenpo Brown Belt.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> *
> So you're entire premise is basically that you need to be able to use each and every technique against any and all attacks, because you might not have been taught the actual technique yet that deals with a specific type of attack (knife, for instance)? As I said, Ras, you're thinking in terms of techniques (mechanical actions), and missing the part about how people learn. No, you don't need to teach that way, because if you do, then it'll take ages to move past one technique. There's a reason the higher-risk/higher-skill techniques (such as weapon defence) come later, namely that you need to earlier techniques and teachings to build your skills with so you can later perform such techniques. If a new student is faced with a knife, tell them to run, not try some half-baked idea based on a partially learnt and barely remembered technique that isn't suited for such defence from a class they've just started.
> 
> Simply put, garbage.
> 
> 
> 
> ATACX GYM said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't emphasize this point enough. If your train each of your individual techniques...blocks, punches, kicks, stance transitions...in each of the ranges of h2h for civilians and LEO types, AND make sure that you train each tech against realistic, functional attacks drawn from The Web of Knowledge? You will have individual techniques that you have trained to serve you well in a real world encounter. You can train your Inside Block to deflect a knife, a punch, the clinch, the guard, etc....either all in the same day or most definitely in successive days. I've been doing it for awhile so I can teach any Kempo or Kenpo complete newbie how to do this and be comfortable in a hour or less. But you'll be workin your butt off. You'll get no less than 300 reps of that one technique in class that day. Usually 425-450...in conjunction with all the other stuff that we do to make sure that your stance and delivery is right. YOU WILL LEARN IT FAST. VERY FAST. And you'll learn it better and sooner than those who don't use similar principles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, I use fast-track learning in the way I teach all the time. And you're a fair bit off in your maths there. Especially when dealing with martial arts.
> 
> 
> 
> ATACX GYM said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you do this with each technique? Then the SEQUENCES are likewise multifaceted and possess functional versatility. But you gotta train them anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, no. Mainly as there is a difference between the "technique" (individual block, stance, kick, whatever) and a technique (sequence, such as Sword and Hammer). And it just doesn't work that way.
> 
> 
> 
> ATACX GYM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore the argument that learning a technique or a sequence in such a way as to be effective against every range of combat is somehow ineffective...is imho both empirically incorrect and essentially provides a rationale for underpreparing our students.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think you know what "empirically" means there... but to the point, all you're actually doing is creating a false sense of confidence and preparation. There's just too much that doesn't work here, including the simple logistics of training a single technique in that way. It's just not possible.
> 
> 
> 
> ATACX GYM said:
> 
> 
> 
> MMA guys routinely teach their adherents to strike and grapple effectively in the same class. We in TMA have more to consider: weapons, multifights, de-escalation, escape, evade/escape, rescue...etc etc etc. As instructors, we should have already tested our techniques against stiff resistance in every one of these areas of self-defense and more. Therefore we already have techniques that perform in those situations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, what does the MMA thing have to do with anything? And training a single technique to deal with every possible attack doesn't really have anything to do with training/teaching striking and grappling in a single class... As to the rest, you seem to be going in another odd direction again....
> 
> 
> 
> ATACX GYM said:
> 
> 
> 
> We teach them to our students and have them perform likewise, so they KNOW FROM EXPERIENCE that they can do these techniques. If our students are trained with the proper rigor and diversity of skill set? They'll be quite confident in their ability to defend themselves or others when necessary. They won't underperform on the streets or anywhere else. Because there is more at stake? We in TMA have NO REASON OR JUSTIFICATION for NOT delivering the goods consistently--in all ranges and categories of combat--to our students.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This entire paragraph doesn't really seem to say anything. More at stake? How so? And having heaped mechanical methods doesn't mean that the students will perform properly if needed, nor is anything you've mentioned here geared up for their performance under pressure in a real situation. If anything, it's more geared up so they think that they have the answers (which won't actually be available to them) by loading them up with possibilities, rather than actually addressing skills that would be needed.
> 
> 
> 
> ATACX GYM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now. Isn't the above a reasonable assertion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, not really. Mainly as it doesn't address the actual question in any satisfactory fashion. You've basically just said that you don't know what they're going to need (how they're going to be attacked), or when they'll need it (when they'll be attacked), so you try to make sure that everything can be used in every possibility. Uh, already got that from you. Doesn't mean that you're on the right path.​
Click to expand...


----------



## Chris Parker

ATACX GYM said:


> This is a pretty classy post, so allow me to help you out in several areas:



This'll be fun... 



ATACX GYM said:


> 1. Scientists and others can have sharp differences and even have fiery public debates, but still have the respect for one another, no matter how wide and deep the divide may be on matters that they disagree on. That is the case with Doc and I. I have a great deal of respect for what Doc has done, continues to do, and will do...and it's my understanding that the respect is reciprocated.



Except, of course, such scientists don't refer to the opinions of others as "dooficity", imply that they are just trying to insult them, or suggest that they are "brain dead". Perchance you should look to your own behaviour before making such comparisons....



ATACX GYM said:


> 2. As I stated previously...the title of this thread is a riff off of a "tongue in cheek" but legit poke Doc took at me as a result of our disagreement on several topics...the first and most significant of which revolves around The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique Process.



Which it seems you still haven't understood the correction of.



ATACX GYM said:


> 3. If you see the title as disrespectful? I understand. If you see that the material I wrote in the article is beneath what a premier magazine should allow? I understand. and I disagree on both points. The first point regarding disrespect? I already answered but must be undergirded with this fact:
> 
> You reached the opinions that you reached on your own. Without fact checking. You read the post that I wrote and you superimposed YOUR OWN meaning to the words. You--on your own--imposed a condescending connotation to what was in reality very sincere respect being paid to Doc. Let me tell you something you may not know: Doc made it possible for many Black people to continue to train in martial arts and get a fair shake. I know this for a fact. I saw it as a child and as a member of the BKF--which Doc co-founded--in the 80's and 90's. There is no way I--or almost any Black martial artist with knowledge of the journey made by people like Doc and my uncle that gave us the chance to REMAIN martial artists--disrespect Doc in the manner that you intimate I would, did, or might. However, enormous respect doesn't in any way cultivate blind obedience and acceptance. Doc and I quarrel and disagree occassionally...but only on nonpersonal issues.
> 
> Therefore:



"Undergirded?" Hmm.

You say people that don't do what you do suck, and don't see how that could be disrespectful? And it really would help if you remembered that tone doesn't really come across with the typed word so easily, because a lot of your comments fit into that "lack of respect" basket.



ATACX GYM said:


> 4. A premium magazine owner would be [ and Bob Hubbard IS ] aware of all of these facts. A premier magazine and owner of said premier magazine would do THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what you encouraged. There would be room for the rational rebel, there would be space made for intelligent iconoclast...especially if said person or persons has proven his/her/their worth over and over again. The positions I take are solid positions, with solid powerful rationale and show an advanced grasp of the material. The questions I ask aren't sugar coated, and I challenge--directly, oftentimes without any sort of apology--positions behaviours techniques paradigms...whatever...that strikes me as sideways. I expect and encourage you to do the same, starting first with yourself, and including me and anyone else.
> 
> You can be sure that I will call out anyone...any...one...on anything that I think they're doing sideways. Not as a matter of disrespect, not for self-aggrandizing purposes...never would I or have I done such I thing. I will call out a person...anyone, starting with myself...for the purpose of serious martial growth in every regard.



Ooh, I'd love to tell you the actual comments there.... suffice to say that Bob is happy for there to be content, but the particular content...?

But really... "rational rebel"? "Intelligent iconoclast"? Are you trying to make me spit out my drink? "Proven worth"? Ha, I guess you are! No, your comments do not show an advanced grasp of anything. You have some physical skills and natural attributes that help you there, but you have come up sadly lacking in the most basic of concepts when questioned. You have one set of values, and as a result miss everything else. As for the rest? Well, there goes the rest of my drink!



ATACX GYM said:


> 5. Seriously...what is wrong with having a single sequence like, say...ALTERNATING MACES...and delving into it in a serious way? Who said that we can't have subholds, locks, displacements, etc. in it? Who said that we can't use other blocks, parries, slips, weapons inclusive of firearms, when we do our ALTERNATING MACES? What are the advantages of having an ALTERNATING MACE that can defeat choke holds, punches, kicks, the clinch, takedown attempts, multifights etc...as opposed to the 2 handed push it's supposed to defeat? What's wrong with seeing if the ALTERNATING MACES in its most popular form actually does what it purports to do by testing it out combatively? By comparing in contrasting?
> 
> Answer: NOTHING.
> 
> But who's doing such a thing?
> 
> Answer: NOBODY...except your friendly neighborhood two fisted MartialTalk and KenpoTalk renegade...THE ATACX GYM.



Oh dear lord... Delving into a technique in a serious way is great. Adding other elements can be fine, too, provided that the basic concepts are followed. Testing techniques and application is great as well... but the way you're doing it doesn't actually follow the ideas of the techniques themselves in a number of cases. And that's where it starts to come unglued.



ATACX GYM said:


> Here's the most popular form of ALTERNATING MACES:
> 
> [video=youtube_share;NddxZVayVso]http://youtu.be/NddxZVayVso[/video]
> 
> 
> Here is MY ALTERNATING MACES:
> 
> [video=youtube_share;ZRmBV8LU3ng]http://youtu.be/ZRmBV8LU3ng[/video]
> 
> Note the questions I ask and the immediate real world improvements that I add...and note that uke ISN'T POSING FOR ME.



Oh good, more videos.... 

Well, there are a few issues here as well, honestly. Firstly, can you consider filming these things indoors, if you're going to insist on putting them up? With the plane flying overhead, it's impossible to hear what you're saying. As to the rest, there's a few things that aren't really that good, but at least you've kept with the actual technique this time.... 



ATACX GYM said:


> Have you ever used your ALTERNATING MACES vs the MUAY THAI CLINCH or basic head clinch? No? Have you ever applied a rear naked choke with your ALTERNATING MACES? No? Have you ever used your Alternating Maces with weapons? No? Why not?
> 
> [video=youtube_share;j18151f6tmo]http://youtu.be/j18151f6tmo[/video]



Ah, now that's more like your kinda stuff... barely related to the actual technique. As far as "why not", I'd suggest because there are better techniques that are better suited to such situations. Trying to fit a square peg into a round hole when you have six round pegs to choose from instead just doesn't make any sense.

Additionally, there is no way you would be mistaken for Steven Seagal (or as doing Aikido) by anyone who has half a clue about it. And as to your comments about jujutsu (saying that you, meaning Kempo practitioners, have "access to the entire arsenal, the entire lineage of all disciplines, all disciplines relating to jujitsu (sic), we just have the striking elements that they don't"), dude, you are so way off base that it's almost embarrassing. You do not, emphatically, have "access to all disciplines" of Jujutsu, that's just a blatantly insane thing to state. And as far as "we just have the striking elements that they dont"? I really don't think you have any idea of what the term "jujutsu" incorporates, or can be used to refer to. I'll put it this way, in my system there are some half dozen or more jujutsu systems, and some are almost all grappling, others are primarily striking, others have large weaponry contingents, and so on. If you wanted credibility on your claims of such diverse training history, you just blew it with 5 seconds worth of video.

But I gotta say, Ras, your uke is posing for you.... 



ATACX GYM said:


> We KNOW why you haven't. The answer is because most instructors have been taught an inflexible paradigm for ALTERNATING MACES. It MUST BE THUS AND SO...DONE THIS WAY ONLY...AND NEVER ANYTHING DIFFERENT. The problem with that kind of thinking is that...it's NOT thinking. It's indoctrination, and flies in the face of the most basic street reality.
> 
> You CAN enter the ALTERNATING MACES any which way you want to, and still be highly effective, thank you very much. If, that is, your instructor has a sufficiently functional training paradigm to rear you in:
> 
> [video=youtube_share;0I8JNJG3d84]http://youtu.be/0I8JNJG3d84[/video]



Training a technique against pads is great, as well, but most of the rest of what you're doing isn't that impressive, honestly.



ATACX GYM said:


> A quality, premium magazine recognizes ALL THESE THINGS...and allows the voice of the person unflinchingly espousing these common sense, meaty, empirical, functional, unapologetically realistic and highly versatile, very very very helpful approaches to be heard. Because a quality premium magazine with a quality owner recognizes and appreciates the distinction between someone denigrating an art and seeking to inflate his/her profile...and someone loving a martial art so much that he's willing to ask the tough questions, make the tough statements, take the unpopular stances...to prove and push the point of functional training that can will does and is 100% proven to save lives, increase martial quality, and all other things which we hold near and dear.



Dude, get over yourself. You are not giving anything common sense, you're engaging in a petty debate after being schooled. You're not presenting anything "meaty", it's all rather basic, honestly, and pretty flawed in a number of cases. Empirical? Seriously, I don't think you understand what that means.... Functional? Not in a lot of cases. Unapologetically realistic? Nope. Highly versatile? Gonna disagree there as well. Very very very helpful approaches? Not a chance.

Egotistical, self-aggrandizing, arrogant? Yep. Ignorant of the realities? Sure. A loudmouth braggart whose claims outreach their displayed knowledge? Damn straight. And you don't really ask any "tough" questions, you just tell everyone else they're doing it wrong. 



ATACX GYM said:


> That's what I've done.



No, you haven't.



ATACX GYM said:


> You conflate challenging a dysfunctional training method and advocating its replacement with a functional model that meets the challenges of today's streets and society and saves lives with what amounts to me basically having a gigantic ego-gasm in public. I am certain that others feel this way, too. But...in addition to the foregoing, consider the following:



Right.... 



ATACX GYM said:


> How strange would it be of me to ask the hard questions I have asked, to press and push upon the dysfunction in the extant most popular version of Kenpo and Kempo's self defense sequences...and then turn around and NOT show that I haven't directly addressed these matters myself? Would I not look more than a little odd if I sent out into the martial universe a clarion, demanding call to Functional Action and didn't show that I had the conviction of my own words by putting forth my techniques and sequences as an example of what I mean? Would that not be a mite...hypocritical of me? I would think so or at least I could see the validity of those charges being levelled at me. So I've stepped up and put myself out there; I showed myself on video doing what I said I would and could do. As you know by now, the internet can be an especially harsh place...as keyboard grandmasters can fillet whomever they please behind the vaunted protection of their screen name. But I step up to them anyway with full confidence that the evidence of my skill and technique will be sufficient to silence rational doubters and the questions that I ask can are and will be seen by serious martial artists as a call to action...a challenge to energize and functionalize, improve refine expand...the quality of our thinking, our training, and the results that we get.



What "hard questions" do you think you've asked?

But I get that you think you have all the answers. Thing is, I don't think you understood enough to ask the questions in the first place. I think you skipped a number of steps, essential steps, first.



ATACX GYM said:


> Bottom line:why am I the only guy who does his SWORD AND HAMMER on the ground? Why am I the only guy who's SWORD AND HAMMER can and does not only set up throws but stops chokes? Sir...you shouldn't be saying anything like: " All the videos posted in the article just come off in my opinion of why you think your methods are superior over other's methods..." No, sir. I humbly submit that you SHOULD be asking:
> 
> "WHY DOESN'T MY SWORD AND HAMMER AND [ INSERT TECHNIQUE ] DO THE SAME THING THAT ATACX GYM'S SWORD AND HAMMER DOES?"



You want every Kempo student to go into their class, walk up to their instructor, and ask why they aren't doing things your way, and that's not you coming on here having an "ego-gasm"? In fact, you submit that idea "humbly"? Dude, I don't think you know what humility is.... 



ATACX GYM said:


> And the answer is: with all due respect, sir...your [ and I mean the general term "your/you" when I say this, not any specific person but a whole general category of "you's" ] training paradigm sucks. That's why you need to ask WHAT IF? Not so you can be LIKE Ras and his ATACX GYM. No, sir. You need to ask WHAT IF so your training and practice of [ whatever martial art you study ] GETS BETTER.



One more time, get over yourself. You do not have the answers. Your videos are evidence of that, and your posts back it up.



ATACX GYM said:


> I appreciate the tone and quality of post that you made, sir, but you and everyone who agrees with you is empirically wrong. I hope you can see that now. I don't care WHOSE functional paradigm you use...JUST MAKE IT FUNCTIONAL. And the more universally functional, the better.



Who says that anyone else isn't being functional, Ras? In fact, who says that they're not being more "functional" than you are? And again, I don't think you get what "empirical" means, the way you keep using it... 



ATACX GYM said:


> 6. So in closing? I appreciate your post. You are entitled to your opinions, whatever they may be...and I would be amongst the first to fight for your right to have and express them; however much I may disagree. But now that you have the PROPER CONTEXT for information that you thought you had the relevant data about? I'm sure you can see that there is significant if not overwhelming cause to conclude THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what you initially put forth as being right or at least reasonable...and which others have concurred with you about.



Dude... "So in closing" you're saying thanks, but you're completely wrong, and I won't listen to a thing you're saying? Why am I not surprised.... 



ATACX GYM said:


> Thank you sir, for your post. I encourage all other dissenters and supporters to post their thoughts and provide further fuel for thought that will hopefully have the result of improving the quality of our martial training throughout our martial lifespan.
> 
> AMANI...PEACE...
> 
> ....see you on the mat. And you better not suck.



I've put forth a number of thoughts... hmm.



ATACX GYM said:


> Sandanchris is a quality martial artist whose outstanding accomplishments includes one of the best gathering of Kenpo Masters and Elders...THE KENPO OHANA. He is a shining example of what kenpoists and martial artists can and may be. Thank you for being you, sir.



You're kidding, right? You can't be that transparent, surely.... people disagree with you, and you basically say "you're wrong because you disagree with me", but Chris says a nice thing, and he's a "shining example"? Nothing against Chris, but this is just blatant sucking up, dude.



ATACX GYM said:


> Sir, the above is a comment that I frequently receive, and my response remains steadfastly the same:
> 
> I have NEVER suggested nor believed that Kenpo is flawed in any way shape or form. My issues revolve around DYSFUNCTIONAL TRAINING METHODS. It's the TRAINING that I see being horrifically compromised, diluted, and--frankly--deeply mired in the sucktastic. It's this sucktastic TRAINING which produces over and over again martial artists calling themselves MASTER or GRANDMASTER...who perform techniques like this:
> 
> [video=youtube_share;9mkI9IYf8Qo]http://youtu.be/9mkI9IYf8Qo[/video]



The training methods are part of the art, Ras. So if you think that they're flawed, then you think the system is flawed. Unless you think that a martial art is just a collection of mechanical movements... which brings me back to you not really having any depth of understanding. And seriously, anything on "Expert Village" is typically less than stellar... 



ATACX GYM said:


> Now, if the SYSTEM was flawed? There would be nothing I could do to save it other than to wholesale revamp or fix THE SYSTEM. I could not logically assert that THE SYSTEM is flawed and then...DISPLAY MY VARIANT OF THE SYSTEM WHICH WORKS. If the system is fatally compromised? Then whatever fix I applied to it results in something that is _other than the fatally compromised system._



But here's the thing. What you're doing IS a completely different system. If you can't see that, honestly, that's your limitation.



ATACX GYM said:


> KENPO IS NOT COMPROMISED. KENPO DOESN'T NEED TO BE SAVED. TO MY KNOWLEDGE? NO GENUINE MARTIAL ART NEEDS SAVING AND NO GENUINE MARTIAL ART HAS A SYSTEM THAT IS COMPROMISED.



Oh, I can think of a number of examples.... 



ATACX GYM said:


> And sir? The Functional Versatility that I display IS quite literally, to use your words:"...where im going with what i have." That's why I displayed it. Wouldn't it be very strange of me to so forthrightly belabor dysfunctional technique without offering my example of what I consider to be functional of me? Couldn't I be accused of just grandstanding? My posts could be accused of being 'sound and fury, signifying nothing'.



And you think that you're not being thought of that way now? Hmm.... 



ATACX GYM said:


> However, I physically demonstrate what I mean and we can compare and contrast quite powerfully. I am certain that such empirical comparison and contrasting provides the literal empirical evidence that torpedoes arguments revolving around self-aggrandizement or some fantastical position stating anything like a LESS universally functional variant of [ whatever technique ] is somehow or other more desirable than a MORE universally functional variant of [ whatever technique ].



When confronted with criticisms of your videos, you refuse to listen, so comparing and contrasting isn't really present. Additionally, contrasting with other videos doesn't work when pointing out issues with your videos, it's more of a case of pointing it out in the video itself. Next, "literally" refers to written words, not moving video, so no, not "literally" anything. And it's not empirical either, it's highly subjective, so yet another case of you getting that word wrong. As far as "torpedoing arguments", I have yet to see anything you've put down actually do anything like that.

In other words, no.



ATACX GYM said:


> Put bluntly? If you're a Yellow Belt who just learned Sword and Hammer? You're toast if you're caught in a chokehold.
> 
> Unless you train with somebody who thinks like me.
> 
> [video=youtube_share;vaNGwgrMSBM]http://youtu.be/vaNGwgrMSBM[/video]



And we're back here, are we? What on earth makes that 'technique' Sword and Hammer? The attack is flawed, your interpretation is way off, your sarcasm is completely off base, you don't understand most of the action or the way things work, and more. Seriously, this is basically you screaming "I don't get it!".



ATACX GYM said:


> Seriously. If somebody grabbed you in a headlock like THIS:
> 
> [video=youtube_share;FpT7r1kzkn4]http://youtu.be/FpT7r1kzkn4[/video]
> 
> or THIS:
> 
> [video=youtube_share;FBOfNHEtUCk]http://youtu.be/FBOfNHEtUCk[/video]
> 
> or THIS:
> 
> [video=youtube_share;YbbxPn81ioc]http://youtu.be/YbbxPn81ioc[/video]
> 
> Which technique sequence would you rather have as your GO TO move? The more "traditional" dysfunctional IP variant:
> 
> [video=youtube_share;WVmsVlz5pt8]http://youtu.be/WVmsVlz5pt8[/video]
> 
> 
> Or a version that really works against real attacks and real resistance:
> 
> [video=youtube_share;hPkcflmZLmI]http://youtu.be/hPkcflmZLmI[/video]



So you're not suggesting Sword and Hammer then? Because frankly, I wouldn't go to Sword and Hammer for such an attack at all... I have a technique called Suito for such attacks (as well as others). 

But to answer your question, I'd rather (as an instructor) teach the first version (the Casa de Kempo one), as it's geared to teach the essential principles, tactics, and strategies that can be adapted in the way you show. I'm not going to give such variation and adaptation as "base versions" to students, as they won't be able to pull it off. 



ATACX GYM said:


> The choice should be clear. And the difference between my version which actually works far more reliably in real life and that other stuff which basically sucks and is less reliable is...you guessed it...FUNCTIONAL TRAINING.



No, the difference is that you're looking at what you think is a practical application, whereas the Casa de Kempo version is the teaching version. And to instill the lessons (functionally), go to the "teaching" version. I'd expect more experienced practitioners to be able to adapt in such a way as your video, but that's not how it'd be taught. It'd be like teaching advanced defensive driving to someone who doesn't even have a learner's permit yet. You saying it sucks just tells me that you don't understand the teaching methods (well, I already knew you didn't get that side of things....). 



ATACX GYM said:


> The TECHNIQUES aren't the problem. THE TRAINING PARADIGM IS.



I really, really don't think you get the context of that word. 



ATACX GYM said:


> I'm just calling it how I see it, with no excuses, no sugar coating, no ulterior motive. I'm calling it like I call it because there's huuuge reason to call it that way, and the benefits we derived from whatever our martial art is would improve dramatically if we as a group collectively functionalized our training. Also? There wouldnt be reams of people out there with hugely false confidence in their ability to defend themselves, only to find that they've been duped after they're sporting that shiner from the bully, find themselves choked out or raped by that mugger, or head locked and beat up by some jerk or some thug.



I really don't think you get how far off you are, though. On both sides of your argument (the more "standard" methods, as well as your own).



ATACX GYM said:


> aaaannnd I already answered your false contentions several times before you even posted, Dirty Dog. Perhaps you should scour posts more comprehensively before you make some of your assertions.



Nah, I'd be with Dirty Dog there... the systems you claim rank in include sporting systems. Hell, you claim a dan grade in Judo (again, from the Kodokan?), where the primary system of ranking is based in part on your competition results. So, if you have such a high degree of grades and experience in these sporting systems (5th Dan in TKD? Black belt in Judo?), where is some competitive trophy to demonstrate that?




ATACX GYM said:


> Oh yeah...having a championship belt *does not* necessarily make you a champion. I know guys with champ belts who are solid fighters but if the shtf I'd call upon my 61 year old uncle and Grandmaster faster than them. Cuz these guys are really good at winning belts, and that CAN get you home safe. I respect that alot. My uncle is really good at MAKING SURE you get home safe.
> 
> He taught me to MAKE SURE I get home safe, too.



Honestly, that says absolutely nothing to us. Being a champion doesn't make you a champion? What?



ATACX GYM said:


> I recall our conversations, Josh. Allow me to put the quote you have above in its proper context:
> 
> "5. Seriously...what is wrong with having a single sequence like, say...ALTERNATING MACES...and delving into it in a serious way? Who said that we can't have subholds, locks, displacements, etc. in it? Who said that we can't use other blocks, parries, slips, weapons inclusive of firearms, when we do our ALTERNATING MACES? What are the advantages of having an ALTERNATING MACE that can defeat choke holds, punches, kicks, the clinch, takedown attempts, multifights etc...as opposed to the 2 handed push it's supposed to defeat? What's wrong with seeing if the ALTERNATING MACES in its most popular form actually does what it purports to do by testing it out combatively? By comparing in contrasting?
> 
> Answer: NOTHING.
> 
> But who's doing such a thing?
> 
> Answer: NOBODY...except your friendly neighborhood two fisted MartialTalk and KenpoTalk renegade...THE ATACX GYM."



That doesn't change Josh's post, Ras.



ATACX GYM said:


> This means that I'm the only one who--from jumpstreet--trains my whole sequences to be multifaceted and performed on the ground, with weapons, etc etc exactly as shown. As I have stated numerous times, we refine from there...but our base technique and self defense sequences are designed to perform regardless of category or range of primary h2h attack because our base sequences and every technique forming the sequence.
> 
> Having gone back and checked with ranking Tracy, SL-4, BKF, and numerous other Kenpo Master rank or higher sensei sifu and coaches...it is my understanding that I am indeed the only one who promotes such a training paradigm. There are others who've preceded me who've done something similar; I acknowledged this first in both our discussions and quite awhile ago on KT when I spoke of the hybrid lineage which set me on the path that birthed THE ATACX GYM. However, the specific purpose of crafting multifaceted self defense sequences that serve as is vs any primary LEO or civilian h2h threat is NOT something that anyone who I've spoken to has ever seen of or heard. Nor have I been able to pick up on Google or via street contacts people who do the totality of what I do.
> 
> I would actually like to meet them, if you know of them. That would be GREAT, actually. Lol.



Have you considered that that's because everyone else gets that not everything suits each situation? In terms of someone who deals in the "totality" and range of what you do? Hi. Consider yourself introduced.



ATACX GYM said:


> You should also recall that I usually add the caveat [ and I did in this thread too ] that I'm either the only or one of the very few who do as I do. I made this comment while specifically referring to multifaceted self defense sequences. So if you took exception to that one quote of mine? I hope you are mollified by the existence of several others that more accurately reflect my position and acknowledge that there may be others whom I don't know of who are doing the same.



I think what Josh was getting at was the implication that you are so far beyond everyone else; in other words, the blatant arrogance based on little of value, in addition to your comments about being the only (one of the only) who are so advanced in their training methods....


----------



## Chris Parker

ATACX GYM said:


> I get this question alot too...and have answered it alot. I bet a smart guy like you, Michael, could answer this question rather expeditiously if you reflected upon it for a few minutes.
> 
> When I say technique, I mean a specific technique. Like a front kick or inside block. When I refer to a named scripted offensive and/or defensive, I use the word SEQUENCE. Like ALTERNATING MACES is a SEQUENCE.
> 
> Here are 2 of the most gargantuan benefit to having multiple techniques and sequences all multifaceted and multifunctional:
> 
> 1. Immediately, from the word go, you have techniques and sequences that function vs any attack at any time, instead of having to wait for another lesson or another belt rank to have a HOPE of addressing a particular attack...
> 
> 2. The techniques and sequences have a comprehensively synergistic effect. You have a million ways to do one thing and a million ways to do a million things.
> 
> And for those of you who swear that what I'm saying isn't part and parcel of Kenpo legacy and wasn't used or championed by Mr. Parker himself? Well...wrong you are, my friends:
> 
> http://www.kenpokarate.com/
> 
> "*50 Ways to Sunday*
> ​*The essentials of Kenpo training are in its techniques. Kenpo Karate, as with Kenpo Jujitsu, has over 700 distinct self-defense techniques, in addition to blocks (originally strikes) and 72 kicks. But it is not just the number of techniques, it's how they are taught that defines Kenpo.**About two weeks after my brother Jim and I began training with Ed Parker, Ed started an afternoon class, with Jim and me as his only students. The class never had more than four students at any one time, so it was like having a semi-private lesson each day with Ed. This allowed us to move quickly in the evening class from beginning to intermediate and advanced class.**One of the first things I learned was the "What if?" rule. It went like this: Ed would teach a technique and we would practice it. But the technique was always limited. "What if" the attacker grabbed you slightly differently? Or "What if" he grabbed with a different hand? Or what if, whatever. Ed would then show you a variation to the technique with lightening speed and a devastating power that sent you reeling and bruised for a week; and, if you were smart, you never asked "What if?" again. But, if you were really smart, you would get a new student to ask "What if?". You learned that for every technique there are numerous variations which would eventually be taught to cover each variations of the attack. Both Oshita and Chow emphasized that there were many ways and variations to the techniques used to defend against each attack.**
> 
> 
> 
> 
> **At the time (1957-59) many of the Japanese Karate systems had a very limited number of moves, with a right punch being one move, a left punch being a second move, right and left punch being a third move, a block a fourth move, a block and punch a fifth move, a block and two punches a sixth move, and a block with a different hand another move, etc.; and, those styles required each move to be mastered before the next move was taught. Chow, Oshita and Parker all stressed the importance of learning many moves over mastering a single move. Ed Parker was 6' and 195#, Chow was 5'6" and 150# of solid muscle, Oshita was slightly over 5' and weighed about 100# (you never ask a woman Kenpo master her height or weight). What was best for one, was not best for the other, and all three emphasized, what was easy for one student might be difficult for another. One student might have fast hands, another fast feet, another student both and another student, neither; but each student would seek his level of ability.**How Kenpo is taught was put best by Oshita who told me another style would make me master one move at a time, one move a week, and in ten years I would have mastered 500 moves. But she would teach me ten, twenty, thirty or more moves a day, and I would not be very good at most of these when a new move was taught, but in a year I would master 1,000 moves. What's more, the moves I would master would not be the same as another student who had been taught the same moves. Each student would master what his mind and body found easiest. It was for this reason that there was no brown belt test at that time. For brown belt you had to know all the moves, but only be a master of most. The instructor would know when a student had progressed from Kyu to Dan, and each student would be different. But more importantly, a move that was difficult, or even impossible for the student when it is first taught, would become easier as he developed his Kenpo skills. When a student had mastered all the techniques, he would then become an Instructor. (Chow had no instructor rank and never used instructor on any of his certificates.)**I remember in April 1960, when I was an Ikkyu (1st degree brown belt) I flew to California where I showed Ed Parker what I had learned from both Chow and Oshita, and related some of the insight I had gained in how to practice the different techniques. Ed told me he had learned the same thing from Chow, and had not thought about it in years. He called the training method, "50 Ways to Sunday," meaning that a student would practice each techniques 50 Ways to Sunday - so many different ways that it would become natural.**Kenpo teaches that no one defense will work all the time, but the variations are the defense. In addition, as Oshita told me, you can practice a technique a thousand time, and it will only work for one attack; it is better to practice ten variations 100 times, so the mind and body can repeat the same move many different ways. The Way of Kenpo is in training, and one must not deviate from that Way...*



Look, I'm going to be blunt. Your entire construct is deeply flawed, and you're misinterpreting what Ed Parker meant. There's a reason that self defence systems (as opposed to martial art systems) go in the opposite direction.



ATACX GYM said:


> I'm not disparaging Doc's and SL-4's methods either. I think they work. What I'm saying is focused purely upon TRAINING PARADIGMS and the mindset and knowledge base these training paradigms tend to create and cultivate.



What mindset do you think the training of techniques in a structured, consistent, dependable, and repeatable fashion creates? What do you think makes yours better? And how are you defining "paradigm"? 



ATACX GYM said:


> There are two and only two broad categories of training: The functional and dysfunctional. Both of them operate in a continuum. There can be techniques and sequences that are functional but can become more or less so, and there are techniques and sequences that are DYSfunctional, and can become more or less so...depending upon the training paradigm.



Ha, no, there's far more than that, you realize. There's also skill-building, auxillary, developmental, conditioning, and more. And even within functional and dysfunctional, there are different contexts and so on... so what you might not consider functional could be very functional in the context of learning the art, or developing skills for later techniques and methods... and what you consider functional could be very detrimental to the students development at that point in their development.



ATACX GYM said:


> I further opined:
> 
> 1. The more functional techniques and sequences are able to resolve successfully more attacks than the less functional techniques and sequences. The epitome of multifunctional techniques and sequences are the techniques and sequences that are trained against and successfully resolve every single category range and kind of attack most common in LEO and civilian h2h combat encounters.



No, not really. A functional technique does what it does well. End of story. If that is to be multifaceted, cool. If not, though, trying to force it to be doesn't make it "more functional", it makes it less-so, as you have missed the point of it. 



ATACX GYM said:


> 2. The training paradigm that gave rise to the most popular expression of what most people call THE IDEAL PHASE is dysfunctional and in serious need of functional upgrade



According to you. Although, to be fair, you haven't been able to explain what the core aspects are of the techniques in question either, so I don't know that you have any real ability to say what is needed or not.



ATACX GYM said:


> 3. The resulting functional sequence [ whatever it is ] will not be the same expression that you see in the dysfunctional IDEAL PHASE...because it works



Again, according to you. And again, as you seem to not get most of the actual techniques, I'm hesitant to think you have much real idea of what would be needed or not, or what the result would be.



ATACX GYM said:


> 4. When you have to fight? You have to use the info and skills you have NOW to defeat whatever attack you are facing NOW. That's why having a FUNCTIONAL Delayed Sword [ although comparatively speaking a rare thing in Kenpo circles that I've seen and heard of ] is a good thing. It will resolve successfully the single attack that it's supposed to thwart. Having a UNIVERSALLY FUNCTIONAL Delayed Sword IS BETTER...as it resolves EVERY KIND OF ATTACK that you're likely to face. Remember...the BAD GUY IS NOT REQUIRED TO ATTACK US ONLY WITH THE ATTACKS THAT WE TRAINED TO DEFEAT. It is our responsiblity to impose our skill upon the BG...whatever he does, whatever the situation is. The best way to do that is via a Universally Functional technique and/or sequence.



No. If you can give someone everything they need immediately.... you know, I can't even think of a finish to that sentence, as you just simply can't give someone everything they'd need immediately. Even if you tried, it doesn't work, as it needs time and experience to get it to work. Trying to make something into everything someone would need is desperately flawed, and based in a lack of reality.



ATACX GYM said:


> 5. Whatever lessons you may learn from a dysfunctional or less functional technique or sequence, you'd learn more of them better faster sooner and more permanently with a MORE functional technique or sequence...that _works better in fights too._



No, you learn what you need, the principles, the lessons etc from a structured technique designed to impart those specific lessons, rather than random applications of them before they've been learnt properly in the first place.



ATACX GYM said:


> _6. I have never said anyone's Kenpo sucks or that Kenpo sucks or that I'm better than anyone or that everyone has to do what I do or that I'm here to save Kenpo...what I have said in no uncertain terms is that DYSFUNCTIONAL TRAINING PARADIGMS SUCK._



You may want to reconsider the way you say it then... talking about other Kempo training methods as "craptastic", referring to "feeling the Kemponess of the situation" and such comes across as sarcastic and derogatory towards the art and all other practitioners of it.



ATACX GYM said:


> 7. Everyone else either agrees with, misunderstands or disagrees with parts or all of the foregoing.



On the whole, I disagree with you. But I'm sure you got that.



ATACX GYM said:


> I am not avoiding the question, I answered it directly already. But here's an expansion that might help you out here: having a million ways to do one thing and a million ways to do a million ways makes you a warrior veeeerrrrryyyyy hard to defend against and defeat. If you have 1 or 2 sequences...no matter versatile...at some point? You'll get caught. You're still ADAPTIBLE but you become PREDICTABLE to cagey foes after awhile [ if they survive the initial onslaught or if they've heard of your exploits and what you use to defeat guys ], and PREDICTABILITY limits your chances of success.



Uh, no. Having a million ways to do a million things really isn't something I'd recommend for a self defence form at all. In fact, quite the opposite. And what d'ya know? Pretty much all self defence instructors agree with me... 



ATACX GYM said:


> If you have 154 base sequences each comprised of techniques that are in and of themselves multifaceted? You NEVER become PREDICTABLE. You can FORCE your opponent into a shocked "whut tha holy f---!!!" moment and capitalize upon his/her/their mistake. You never develope a mental complacency from a unbroken string of successes using your "GO TO " sequences.



I have yet to see anything from you that even comes close to being unpredictable, to be frank, but that's kinda beside the point. 



ATACX GYM said:


> In essence? Having these sequences helps you to have an exapansive vocabulary of combat movement. The less expansive your vocabulary? The less conversations you can engage in and comprehend, the less material you can read, etc. etc.



And again, no. 



ATACX GYM said:


> Training the 154 sequences is actually pretty easy. But first...lemme answer your question:
> 
> " and since you brought it up, how would you define the Muay Thai way or the Hung Gar way, or the Wing Chun way?"
> 
> To me, every martial art is essentially a combination of its philosophy and training paradigm. Use your body in such a way that you beat up the other guy/prevent you and yours from being injured, and develope the character and discipline to be a better more joyful human being in the process. That's pretty much it, imo.



Then you missed a fair bit. But I have to say, I don't see that as actually answering the specific question that you were asked.



ATACX GYM said:


> Now the [ at first glance ] ponderous EPK system seems difficult to drill, but the truth is? It's NOT hard to do.
> 
> [video=youtube_share;0I8JNJG3d84]http://youtu.be/0I8JNJG3d84[/video]



Is there a reason you post the same damn videos over and over again in the same thread? Do you think we missed it the first time round?



ATACX GYM said:


> I can and do run the whole 154 sequence curriculum with mitt drills alone...and get crazy reps. It's even easier WITHOUT the mitts. Most of our week is dedicated purely to drills, weapons, kata and isolated sparring. It's EASY to do. I can and do drill whole belt ranks with a default technique with mitts alone. Today I did Purple and Blue Belt techs with the default technique being BEGGING HANDS. Easy money.



Easy money? Hmm.


----------



## Twin Fist

read my sig


----------



## LawDog

These posts are some of the longest that I have ever read. Carol I have the butter.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Allow me to summarize for anyone who hasn't read the whole 4000 page thread.
Ras: I'm awesome, you suck, and this is how everybody should do things. And BTW, I'm awesome and you suck.
Chris: Here's where you are wrong: (example after example)...
Ras: No. I'm awesome and you suck and anyone who disagrees with me sucks. And millions agree with me but they only say so in PMs. And anyway, I'm awesome and you suck.

Did I miss any important points?


----------



## ATACX GYM

Dirty Dog said:


> Allow me to summarize for anyone who hasn't read the whole 4000 page thread.
> Ras: I'm awesome, you suck, and this is how everybody should do things. And BTW, I'm awesome and you suck.
> Chris: Here's where you are wrong: (example after example)...
> Ras: No. I'm awesome and you suck and anyone who disagrees with me sucks. And millions agree with me but they only say so in PMs. And anyway, I'm awesome and you suck.
> 
> Did I miss any important points?



Yes, you missed every important point.


----------



## jks9199

Let's drop the daggers, everybody.

Keep to the topic, keep to discussing issues and *STOP THE SNIPING AND CHEAP SHOTS.*

In other, not so subtle words -- PLAY NICE.

*Attention all users:

Please keep the conversation polite and respectful.

jks9199
MT Asst Administrator
*


----------



## ATACX GYM

Chris Parker said:


> This'll be fun...
> 
> 
> 
> Except, of course, such scientists don't refer to the opinions of others as "dooficity", imply that they are just trying to insult them, or suggest that they are "brain dead". Perchance you should look to your own behaviour before making such comparisons....
> 
> 
> 
> Which it seems you still haven't understood the correction of.
> 
> 
> 
> "Undergirded?" Hmm.
> 
> You say people that don't do what you do suck, and don't see how that could be disrespectful? And it really would help if you remembered that tone doesn't really come across with the typed word so easily, because a lot of your comments fit into that "lack of respect" basket.
> 
> 
> 
> Ooh, I'd love to tell you the actual comments there.... suffice to say that Bob is happy for there to be content, but the particular content...?
> 
> But really... "rational rebel"? "Intelligent iconoclast"? Are you trying to make me spit out my drink? "Proven worth"? Ha, I guess you are! No, your comments do not show an advanced grasp of anything. You have some physical skills and natural attributes that help you there, but you have come up sadly lacking in the most basic of concepts when questioned. You have one set of values, and as a result miss everything else. As for the rest? Well, there goes the rest of my drink!
> 
> 
> 
> Oh dear lord... Delving into a technique in a serious way is great. Adding other elements can be fine, too, provided that the basic concepts are followed. Testing techniques and application is great as well... but the way you're doing it doesn't actually follow the ideas of the techniques themselves in a number of cases. And that's where it starts to come unglued.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh good, more videos....
> 
> Well, there are a few issues here as well, honestly. Firstly, can you consider filming these things indoors, if you're going to insist on putting them up? With the plane flying overhead, it's impossible to hear what you're saying. As to the rest, there's a few things that aren't really that good, but at least you've kept with the actual technique this time....
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, now that's more like your kinda stuff... barely related to the actual technique. As far as "why not", I'd suggest because there are better techniques that are better suited to such situations. Trying to fit a square peg into a round hole when you have six round pegs to choose from instead just doesn't make any sense.
> 
> Additionally, there is no way you would be mistaken for Steven Seagal (or as doing Aikido) by anyone who has half a clue about it. And as to your comments about jujutsu (saying that you, meaning Kempo practitioners, have "access to the entire arsenal, the entire lineage of all disciplines, all disciplines relating to jujitsu (sic), we just have the striking elements that they don't"), dude, you are so way off base that it's almost embarrassing. You do not, emphatically, have "access to all disciplines" of Jujutsu, that's just a blatantly insane thing to state. And as far as "we just have the striking elements that they dont"? I really don't think you have any idea of what the term "jujutsu" incorporates, or can be used to refer to. I'll put it this way, in my system there are some half dozen or more jujutsu systems, and some are almost all grappling, others are primarily striking, others have large weaponry contingents, and so on. If you wanted credibility on your claims of such diverse training history, you just blew it with 5 seconds worth of video.
> 
> But I gotta say, Ras, your uke is posing for you....
> 
> 
> 
> Training a technique against pads is great, as well, but most of the rest of what you're doing isn't that impressive, honestly.
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, get over yourself. You are not giving anything common sense, you're engaging in a petty debate after being schooled. You're not presenting anything "meaty", it's all rather basic, honestly, and pretty flawed in a number of cases. Empirical? Seriously, I don't think you understand what that means.... Functional? Not in a lot of cases. Unapologetically realistic? Nope. Highly versatile? Gonna disagree there as well. Very very very helpful approaches? Not a chance.
> 
> Egotistical, self-aggrandizing, arrogant? Yep. Ignorant of the realities? Sure. A loudmouth braggart whose claims outreach their displayed knowledge? Damn straight. And you don't really ask any "tough" questions, you just tell everyone else they're doing it wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> No, you haven't.
> 
> 
> 
> Right....
> 
> 
> 
> What "hard questions" do you think you've asked?
> 
> But I get that you think you have all the answers. Thing is, I don't think you understood enough to ask the questions in the first place. I think you skipped a number of steps, essential steps, first.
> 
> 
> 
> You want every Kempo student to go into their class, walk up to their instructor, and ask why they aren't doing things your way, and that's not you coming on here having an "ego-gasm"? In fact, you submit that idea "humbly"? Dude, I don't think you know what humility is....
> 
> 
> 
> One more time, get over yourself. You do not have the answers. Your videos are evidence of that, and your posts back it up.
> 
> 
> 
> Who says that anyone else isn't being functional, Ras? In fact, who says that they're not being more "functional" than you are? And again, I don't think you get what "empirical" means, the way you keep using it...
> 
> 
> 
> Dude... "So in closing" you're saying thanks, but you're completely wrong, and I won't listen to a thing you're saying? Why am I not surprised....
> 
> 
> 
> I've put forth a number of thoughts... hmm.
> 
> 
> 
> You're kidding, right? You can't be that transparent, surely.... people disagree with you, and you basically say "you're wrong because you disagree with me", but Chris says a nice thing, and he's a "shining example"? Nothing against Chris, but this is just blatant sucking up, dude.
> 
> 
> 
> The training methods are part of the art, Ras. So if you think that they're flawed, then you think the system is flawed. Unless you think that a martial art is just a collection of mechanical movements... which brings me back to you not really having any depth of understanding. And seriously, anything on "Expert Village" is typically less than stellar...
> 
> 
> 
> But here's the thing. What you're doing IS a completely different system. If you can't see that, honestly, that's your limitation.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I can think of a number of examples....
> 
> 
> 
> And you think that you're not being thought of that way now? Hmm....
> 
> 
> 
> When confronted with criticisms of your videos, you refuse to listen, so comparing and contrasting isn't really present. Additionally, contrasting with other videos doesn't work when pointing out issues with your videos, it's more of a case of pointing it out in the video itself. Next, "literally" refers to written words, not moving video, so no, not "literally" anything. And it's not empirical either, it's highly subjective, so yet another case of you getting that word wrong. As far as "torpedoing arguments", I have yet to see anything you've put down actually do anything like that.
> 
> In other words, no.
> 
> 
> 
> And we're back here, are we? What on earth makes that 'technique' Sword and Hammer? The attack is flawed, your interpretation is way off, your sarcasm is completely off base, you don't understand most of the action or the way things work, and more. Seriously, this is basically you screaming "I don't get it!".
> 
> 
> 
> So you're not suggesting Sword and Hammer then? Because frankly, I wouldn't go to Sword and Hammer for such an attack at all... I have a technique called Suito for such attacks (as well as others).
> 
> But to answer your question, I'd rather (as an instructor) teach the first version (the Casa de Kempo one), as it's geared to teach the essential principles, tactics, and strategies that can be adapted in the way you show. I'm not going to give such variation and adaptation as "base versions" to students, as they won't be able to pull it off.
> 
> 
> 
> No, the difference is that you're looking at what you think is a practical application, whereas the Casa de Kempo version is the teaching version. And to instill the lessons (functionally), go to the "teaching" version. I'd expect more experienced practitioners to be able to adapt in such a way as your video, but that's not how it'd be taught. It'd be like teaching advanced defensive driving to someone who doesn't even have a learner's permit yet. You saying it sucks just tells me that you don't understand the teaching methods (well, I already knew you didn't get that side of things....).
> 
> 
> 
> I really, really don't think you get the context of that word.
> 
> 
> 
> I really don't think you get how far off you are, though. On both sides of your argument (the more "standard" methods, as well as your own).
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, I'd be with Dirty Dog there... the systems you claim rank in include sporting systems. Hell, you claim a dan grade in Judo (again, from the Kodokan?), where the primary system of ranking is based in part on your competition results. So, if you have such a high degree of grades and experience in these sporting systems (5th Dan in TKD? Black belt in Judo?), where is some competitive trophy to demonstrate that?
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, that says absolutely nothing to us. Being a champion doesn't make you a champion? What?
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't change Josh's post, Ras.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you considered that that's because everyone else gets that not everything suits each situation? In terms of someone who deals in the "totality" and range of what you do? Hi. Consider yourself introduced.
> 
> 
> 
> I think what Josh was getting at was the implication that you are so far beyond everyone else; in other words, the blatant arrogance based on little of value, in addition to your comments about being the only (one of the only) who are so advanced in their training methods....





Againt my better judgement, I've decided to engage this line of...reasoning. But let's break this down into more bite-sized chunks so that it's more easily digested by the viewership. Chris Parker. Select one point that you want me to address, and present one question from the post above that you want me to address. I will address it. We will reach a clear understanding of the points that we'll probably perpetually disagree upon...and let's limit ourselves to 5 posts each to explain as clearly as possible our positions, perceptions, mis/understandings, reach an operational conclusion about whatever it is you choose...then move to the next matter in your post above. With the same constraints. This way my  threads don't become interminable shrill-fests, but instead feature straight-ahead, sensible, mature adult logic and data. Whaddya say?


----------



## ATACX GYM

jks9199 said:


> Let's drop the daggers, everybody.
> 
> Keep to the topic, keep to discussing issues and *STOP THE SNIPING AND CHEAP SHOTS.*
> 
> In other, not so subtle words -- PLAY NICE.
> 
> *Attention all users:
> 
> Please keep the conversation polite and respectful.
> 
> jks9199
> MT Asst Administrator
> *




Just saw this post. Acknowledged. My apologies for my part in the fracas.


----------



## Steve

Wow...  A lot of energy here.  Can someone just tell me what's at stake here?  


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Dirty Dog

ATACX GYM said:


> Yes, you missed every important point.



Perhaps, then, you'd like to take just one of the points  Chris has raised (your choice) and address it without your post boiling down to "I'm awesome and you suck"? Thanks.


----------



## rframe

This is so ridiculous, it's great entertainment.  Please continue.


----------



## Twin Fist

this is the most accurate portrayal of pretty much all of ras's post to date.



Dirty Dog said:


> Allow me to summarize for anyone who hasn't read the whole 4000 page thread.
> Ras: I'm awesome, you suck, and this is how everybody should do things. And BTW, I'm awesome and you suck.
> Chris: Here's where you are wrong: (example after example)...
> Ras: No. I'm awesome and you suck and anyone who disagrees with me sucks. And millions agree with me but they only say so in PMs. And anyway, I'm awesome and you suck.
> 
> Did I miss any important points?


----------



## Twin Fist

dont hold your breath. CAROL, pass that popcorn!!


Dirty Dog said:


> Perhaps, then, you'd like to take just one of the points  Chris has raised (your choice) and address it without your post boiling down to "I'm awesome and you suck"? Thanks.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Dirty Dog said:


> Perhaps, then, you'd like to take just one of the points  Chris has raised (your choice) and address it without your post boiling down to "I'm awesome and you suck"? Thanks.



Your post that I'm quoting above is numbered 72. This post of mine is numbered 69...and made more than an hour before you made the above^^^request.




ATACX GYM said:


> Againt my better judgement, I've decided to engage this line of...reasoning. But let's break this down into more bite-sized chunks so that it's more easily digested by the viewership. Chris Parker. Select one point that you want me to address, and present one question from the post above that you want me to address. I will address it. We will reach a clear understanding of the points that we'll probably perpetually disagree upon...and let's limit ourselves to 5 posts each to explain as clearly as possible our positions, perceptions, mis/understandings, reach an operational conclusion about whatever it is you choose...then move to the next matter in your post above. With the same constraints. This way my  threads don't become interminable shrill-fests, but instead feature straight-ahead, sensible, mature adult logic and data. Whaddya say?


----------



## Chris Parker

ATACX GYM said:


> Againt my better judgement, I've decided to engage this line of...reasoning. But let's break this down into more bite-sized chunks so that it's more easily digested by the viewership. Chris Parker. Select one point that you want me to address, and present one question from the post above that you want me to address. I will address it. We will reach a clear understanding of the points that we'll probably perpetually disagree upon...and let's limit ourselves to 5 posts each to explain as clearly as possible our positions, perceptions, mis/understandings, reach an operational conclusion about whatever it is you choose...then move to the next matter in your post above. With the same constraints. This way my  threads don't become interminable shrill-fests, but instead feature straight-ahead, sensible, mature adult logic and data. Whaddya say?



Okay, one point? 

As the majority of your posts seem to be trying to argue things you're not actually being asked about (such as your sudden inclusion of videos of Alternating Maces, a random post showing yet another version of your Sword and Hammer which answered absolutely nothing anyone had said, and so on), let's take it to the crux of the matter.

You know what, though? There really weren't many questions in all my posts there. More pointing out where you'd gone wrong (again). With that in mind, though, I'd ask this:

Why are the IP techniques taught and structured the way they are, if you feel that they are not well designed? Why, for instance, is Sword and Hammer designed the way it is?

Oh, and one other thing... how exactly do you define "paradigm"?


----------



## ATACX GYM

Chris Parker said:


> :
> 
> Why are the IP techniques taught and structured the way they are, if you feel that they are not well designed? Why, for instance, is Sword and Hammer designed the way it is?




Is this the primary question in the above quote? I asked you to choose ONE QUESTION AT A TIME to ensure clarity and a terminus, a step by step clear process with [ in comparison to our previous question and answer go rounds ] a relatively swift resolution. Is this question I quoted above the first question in your post above that you are asking me?


----------



## Chris Parker

It's the primary question related to the entire root of this thread, yeah. It's implied in everything I wrote. 

Or did you want me to pull apart your comments on "the entire lineage of all disciplines relating to jujutsu"?


----------



## ATACX GYM

Chris Parker said:


> :
> 
> Why are the IP techniques taught and structured the way they are, if you feel that they are not well designed? Why, for instance, is Sword and Hammer designed the way it is?




Is this the primary question in the above quote? I asked you to choose ONE QUESTION AT A TIME to ensure clarity and a terminus, a step by step clear process with [ in comparison to our previous question and answer go rounds ] a relatively swift resolution. Is this question I quoted above the first question in your post above that you are asking me?






Chris Parker said:


> It's the primary question related to the entire root of this thread, yeah. It's implied in everything I wrote.
> 
> Or did you want me to pull apart your comments on "the entire lineage of all disciplines relating to jujutsu"?



Is that a YES to my question put to you above?


----------



## Chris Parker

Yes.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Chris Parker said:


> Why are the IP techniques taught and structured the way they are, if you feel that they are not well designed? Why, for instance, is Sword and Hammer designed the way it is?
> 
> Oh, and one other thing... how exactly do you define "paradigm"?



The above question assumes that there is a such thing as Ideal Phase techniques...and that said IP technique has a singular universal expression to it.

This is a common misconception that many Kenpoists have. There is no such thing as a univesal Ideal Phase Technique. 

The Ideal Phase is actually and properly called The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique PROCESS. The purpose of this process to select a common streetfight scenario that a instructor or instructors wish to analyze and successfully resolve using Kenpo techniques concepts and principles. This process is strongly urged to be viewed in 3 ways:

1. The What If Phase

2. The Formulation Phase

3. The Equation Formula


So there are no actual legitimate basis for a universal IP expression.

The expression that has reached great uniformity and is the most popular expression of any Ideal Phase expression is the result of powerful kenpo businessmen collectively promoting a single expression in order to more easily regularize Kenpo expressions...despite Mr. Parker's wishes to the contrary. 


Sword and Hammer--and every other Ideal Phase "technique"--is drawn from an OUTLINE that loosely SUGGESTED an approach to be used in a manual called Big Red. They were not meant to be fully fleshed out combat model seqeunces...by design. This manual was initially designed FOR INSTRUCTORS NOT STUDENTS and its purpose was to teach instructors how to form...wait for it...THEIR OWN Ideal Phase expressions for their own schools and groups. Mr. Parker always wanted Kenpoists to think and express themselves independently, according to my interpretation of his work and the testimonials I've read of those who knew him.

This means that the instructors were supposed to practice and experiment with the techniques, develope a functional response of their own, teach said response to the students of their organization, and then watch their particular group's IP expression evolve among their particular group or organization etc. None of that happened. Instead, brain dead early generation Kenpo black belts simply copied the outline provided in Big Red...even when it didn't make sense...and passed it on to their students. Their students as a general rule mindlessly copied what they'd been shown because they wanted to advance to the next belt rank. And then the process was made even worse when the business decision was made--not by Mr. Parker--to sell Big Red to students. The overwhelming percentage of students [ of course ] are vastly underequipped to grasp materials that are advanced conceptual models for Master Rank instructors...but nobody cared about that. They wanted to get paid.

The lessons, their applicability, etc etc to be learned is a journey that each student must embark upon and discover on their own. Their instructor can guide them, but should not and cannot do the work FOR them. That means that I would learn something different in my journey exploring [ whatever IP sequence ] than would any other person. However, I believe that the common starting point common medium and common goal also lends a consistent commonality to any and every person learning [ whatever IP sequence ]...but that's my opinion.


----------



## Chris Parker

Personally, I think you're a bit out in your interpretation (I think Doc is rather more on the money), but more to the point, that didn't answer my question. Why is Sword and Hammer done the way it is? If you don't think it's functional, why, if Ed Parker wanted everything to be ultimately functional and individual to each person, is it done the way it is? How is it written in Big Red, for instance?

I'll explain why I'm asking. 

The way you address things seems to completely ignore the possibility that the techniques are done in a certain way for specific reasons, and that those reasons are linked into the position they have in the development of the students training. So I'm trying to get at whether or not you actually have enough understanding of why they are done the way they are before you decided that you knew better.

The above I've read from you before, and honestly, it doesn't really say anything.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Chris Parker said:


> Personally, I think you're a bit out in your interpretation (I think Doc is rather more on the money), but more to the point, that didn't answer my question. Why is Sword and Hammer done the way it is? If you don't think it's functional, why, if Ed Parker wanted everything to be ultimately functional and individual to each person, is it done the way it is? How is it written in Big Red, for instance?
> 
> I'll explain why I'm asking.
> 
> The way you address things seems to completely ignore the possibility that the techniques are done in a certain way for specific reasons, and that those reasons are linked into the position they have in the development of the students training. So I'm trying to get at whether or not you actually have enough understanding of why they are done the way they are before you decided that you knew better.
> 
> The above I've read from you before, and honestly, it doesn't really say anything.



I answered the question:

"
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Originally Posted by *Chris Parker*

Why are the IP techniques taught and structured the way they are, if you feel that they are not well designed? Why, for instance, is Sword and Hammer designed the way it is?


The answer I gave you is complete simple and direct.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Chris Parker said:


> . Why is Sword and Hammer done the way it is? If you don't think it's functional, why, if Ed Parker wanted everything to be ultimately functional and individual to each person, is it done the way it is? How is it written in Big Red, for instance?
> 
> I'll explain why I'm asking.
> 
> The way you address things seems to completely ignore the possibility that the techniques are done in a certain way for specific reasons, and that those reasons are linked into the position they have in the development of the students training. So I'm trying to get at whether or not you actually have enough understanding of why they are done the way they are before you decided that you knew better.



I translate the above to a series of questions:

1. Why is Sword and Hammer done the way it is?

2. If you don't think it's functional, why?

3. If Ed Parker wanted 

4. Why is Sword and Hammer done the way it is if Ed Parker wanted everything to be ultimately functional and individual to each person? 

5. Did you--Ras--have any idea of why the techniques are done in a certain way and the reasons behind their arrangement in that certain way before you decided that you knew better?


Would these five questions be an accurate reflection of the questions you wish answered?


----------



## ATACX GYM

I don't know exactly what happened but THIS is the post I meant to write.




Chris Parker said:


> . Why is Sword and Hammer done the way it is? If you don't think it's functional, why, if Ed Parker wanted everything to be ultimately functional and individual to each person, is it done the way it is? How is it written in Big Red, for instance?
> 
> I'll explain why I'm asking.
> 
> The way you address things seems to completely ignore the possibility that the techniques are done in a certain way for specific reasons, and that those reasons are linked into the position they have in the development of the students training. So I'm trying to get at whether or not you actually have enough understanding of why they are done the way they are before you decided that you knew better.



I translate the above to a series of questions:

1. Why is Sword and Hammer done the way it is?

2. If you don't think it's functional, why?

3 Why is Sword and Hammer done the way it is if Ed Parker wanted everything to be ultimately functional and individual to each person? 

4. Did you--Ras--consider the possibility that the techniques are done in a certain way for specific reasons?

5. Did you--Ras--consider that the specific reasons for these techniques are linked into the position they have in the development of the students training?
 6
. Ras, did you have any idea of why the techniques are done in a certain way and the reasons behind their arrangement in that certain way before you decided that you knew better?


Would these questions be an accurate reflection of the questions you wish answered?


----------



## Chris Parker

ATACX GYM said:


> I answered the question:
> 
> "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Chris Parker*
> 
> Why are the IP techniques taught and structured the way they are, if you feel that they are not well designed? Why, for instance, is Sword and Hammer designed the way it is?
> 
> 
> The answer I gave you is complete simple and direct.



No, it wasn't. It was answering a different question entirely, and in a far from simple and direct fashion.



ATACX GYM said:


> I translate the above to a series of questions:



Not really... 



ATACX GYM said:


> 1. Why is Sword and Hammer done the way it is?



Sword and Hammer was taken as representative, not particular. It was mentioned as it provides a common basis for comparison. But what I'm looking at is the reason it is structured the way it is.



ATACX GYM said:


> 2. If you don't think it's functional, why?



No, I have your reasons for that. And, as listed, I disagree, and feel that you don't understand it well enough (which is where this line of questioning is coming from).



ATACX GYM said:


> 3 Why is Sword and Hammer done the way it is if Ed Parker wanted everything to be ultimately functional and individual to each person?



As Doc has said, that's not the actual aim that Ed Parker had. In fact, it was only the mid-level blacks that should be looking at the "what if" question, and only the master-level ones who should be formulating. There's a big difference between being able to adapt the methods to a personal body-type, or change in situation, and abandoning it to create what you think is "functional", as if you try that too early you either don't have enough experience to understand what "functional" really is (or what realistic really is), or you're just going to go about making stuff up that might or might not be the art itself, leading to a dilution of Kempo as it has been created.

But again, to the point, the question is more asking why is it structured the way it is, not why isn't it something else. 



ATACX GYM said:


> 4. Did you--Ras--consider the possibility that the techniques are done in a certain way for specific reasons?



Ah, now we're getting to it.



ATACX GYM said:


> 5. Did you--Ras--consider that the specific reasons for these techniques are linked into the position they have in the development of the students training?



That's another part of it.



ATACX GYM said:


> 6. Ras, did you have any idea of why the techniques are done in a certain way and the reasons behind their arrangement in that certain way before you decided that you knew better?



There we go.



ATACX GYM said:


> Would these questions be an accurate reflection of the questions you wish answered?



The last couple are more what I'm asking.


----------



## Yondanchris

Flying Crane said:


> Did you continue to teach them while believing they were flawed?  Did you believe they perhaps had potential that you simply had not yet grasped, and so still had faith in them?  Did you recognize them as flawed after you began looking around, and was that realization what lead you to break away?
> 
> If you knew they were flawed and yet continued to teach them, what was your reasons for doing so?



At first I thought I was seeing the forest for the trees, but then after some real life confrontations (security) that ended well I realized it was the spontaneous formulation that saved my bacon and not the individual techniques. A few years later I came to understand that I was teaching a limited system (if you could call it a system) and that better techniques, methods, and paradigms where called for. That's when I was on the search for training in American Kenpo. Because of this continued training I am blending the systems together with my faith and "creating" Christian Kempo, taking methods-principles-and paradigms and applying them to my current knowledge.


----------



## Yondanchris

As someone who has trained with Prof. Ras on a few occasions, I will say this:

Ras is someone who has training in the martial arts, although some of which I cannot verify. But back in the day some of the SKK beaters such as Cerio, Parker, and others had little to no official studio time and lots of &#8220;hands on&#8221; experience. I would not want to face Prof. Ras on the street!

My understanding is that he would like to elevate the methods and training paradigms of all arts to include those he uses in his gym. Most of us will never have to pressure test our training in the sheer volume or method Prof. Ras does.

I can clearly see several aspects of his training that we should appreciate and consider on our own:

1. Contact Resistance Method (live attacks, weapons to targets, punching through not to target)

2. Emphasis on availability of techniques and not number of known techniques: &#8220;quality over quantity&#8221;. We see this from the Long Beach/BKF influence of his training.

3. Tailoring: Ras has adapted his training for his own needs and purposes given all &#8220;individual&#8221; variables.

4. Evaluation of knowledge based on instant data not on theory or guesses: He keeps what works for him. This is expressed though the argument over the &#8220;ideal&#8221; phase of techniques.

5. Rock-Drop-Lock: His expression of a common theme in mixed martial arts and in other &#8220;traditional arts&#8221;. Tonight while on the web, I came across a video by Mr. Van Donk about Bujinkan Ninjitsu and the philosophy of technique and training:

&#8220;7 Principles of instant defense:
1. Awareness &#8211; Mind as protection
2. Distance your body safely
3. Commit yourself to action
4. Do multiple hits for each attack
5. Grab hold and destroy their balance
6. Take them down. Close the Gap
7. Finnish. Subdue or get away&#8221;

Some areas in which I can disagree and still be able to glean from his videos:

1. Terminology &#8211; Prof. Ras misuses terminology (concepts, techniques, paradigms) and tries to fit squares into round holes to try to make his point. He should try to come up with his own terminology or properly define his terms so that everyone can be on the same page.

2. Ideal-what if- formulation &#8211; Prof. Ras is trying to use a concept from EPAK that does not need to apply to the training he offers in his gym. In fact, the continued reference to each of these topics convolutes the issue further. I believe Prof. Ras fits this formula better &#8220;see it &#8211; drop it &#8211; keep it&#8221;.

3. Aggressive attitude or Bravado &#8211; Due to his position, training, heritage ect&#8230;Prof. Ras sees things through his Long Beach lens. Would the conversations here on the internet be different if this lens was removed? I believe so!

This is just my evaluation from some training time and watching the online conversations here on Martial Talk. This observation is entirely my personal view, no harm or offense was intended. &#8220;don&#8217;t shoot the messenger&#8221;. I hope that this will give a &#8220;lens&#8221; for those who read/watch Prof. Ras online and to be able to glean something valuable to add to their training.

Chris


----------



## Twin Fist

No one questions his physical skill. But he's clearly doesn't know what he its talking about when he opens his mouth.he knows how but has no clues why and that would bee ok if he was humble enough to shut up and learn what he doesn't know.but no. any critique its meet with more **** talk challenges threats and insults followed by endless copy paste-O-Grams..............skill is wasted when the person dismisses every opinion not his own._


----------



## Chris Parker

Without "shooting the messenger" here.... 



Sandanchris said:


> As someone who has trained with Prof. Ras on a few occasions, I will say this:
> 
> Ras is someone who has training in the martial arts, although some of which I cannot verify. But back in the day some of the SKK beaters such as Cerio, Parker, and others had little to no official studio time and lots of &#8220;hands on&#8221; experience. I would not want to face Prof. Ras on the street!



It's obvious that Ras has had physical training, but he doesn't appear to have had what I would call an education. He comes across as having learnt a range of sequences of movements, and thinks that equates to different martial arts without understanding why each art does what it does, or doesn't. I mean, the guys talking about how "generally speaking, Judoka don't do jumping kicks, or triple spin kicks", and then goes on about how they'd be better if they had "such a full set of atemi". Are you kidding me? All that does is scream to me that he has no freakin' idea about martial arts themselves, all he can do is put together movements. This is why he can't follow any question I put to him, he simply doesn't have any education relating to it.



Sandanchris said:


> My understanding is that he would like to elevate the methods and training paradigms of all arts to include those he uses in his gym. Most of us will never have to pressure test our training in the sheer volume or method Prof. Ras does.



Yeah, Ras would love everyone to be just like Ras... thing is, most of what he's advocating is already done, typically in better, more structured ways. He's hardly new, unique, innovative, or anything of the kind. And if he'd actually get some education under a real school, as opposed to having learnt everything from his uncle (which is how it all reads... I'd say he's got no actual rank in Judo, for instance [meaning Kodokan], as he gets so much wrong there that it's just terrible, but has been taught "judo" by his uncle. Same with his Iaido claims, same with each different line of his Kempo [Shaolin, American, whatever], with maybe some of his TKD in an actual school), then he could actually a) be good, and b) realize that he's not really doing anything that much different or better than anyone else. As I've said to him, he's a few decades behind me in his understanding.



Sandanchris said:


> I can clearly see several aspects of his training that we should appreciate and consider on our own:
> 
> 1. Contact Resistance Method (live attacks, weapons to targets, punching through not to target)



And this is different to others how?



Sandanchris said:


> 2. Emphasis on availability of techniques and not number of known techniques: &#8220;quality over quantity&#8221;. We see this from the Long Beach/BKF influence of his training.



Again, this hardly a new concept, and when he's talking about using the same technique for every different circumstance, he's missed the point. And if he's genuinely after just the ones that work, he's best off just looking at one system, not the mess of 20 that he claims, as he's going in the exact wrong direction for that.



Sandanchris said:


> 3. Tailoring: Ras has adapted his training for his own needs and purposes given all &#8220;individual&#8221; variables.



Again, this is a very common concept. In fact, I can't think of any art that doesn't encourage such things. Even something as rigid as Iaido allows for personalisation of your performance, based on the length of your sword, and any personal issues you may have.



Sandanchris said:


> 4. Evaluation of knowledge based on instant data not on theory or guesses: He keeps what works for him. This is expressed though the argument over the &#8220;ideal&#8221; phase of techniques.



However his evaluations are often flawed, being based in a false environment (and yes, sparring is a false environment unless you're looking for what works in sparring), as well as missing the point of the way the ideal phase techniques are designed.



Sandanchris said:


> 5. Rock-Drop-Lock: His expression of a common theme in mixed martial arts and in other &#8220;traditional arts&#8221;. Tonight while on the web, I came across a video by Mr. Van Donk about Bujinkan Ninjitsu and the philosophy of technique and training:



Er, RVD gets a hell of a lot wrong as well, for the record... but that's beside the point. Basically, he's expressing a basic strategy, which is fine, but it's a flawed one for self defence. You don't want to "lock" in self defence (which is apparently what he's focused on...), you want to get away.

Oh, and "ninjutsu"... sorry, but there's a reason there.



Sandanchris said:


> &#8220;7 Principles of instant defense:
> 1. Awareness &#8211; Mind as protection
> 2. Distance your body safely
> 3. Commit yourself to action
> 4. Do multiple hits for each attack
> 5. Grab hold and destroy their balance
> 6. Take them down. Close the Gap
> 7. Finnish. Subdue or get away&#8221;



Yeah, I know that video. It's RVD's "Combat Ninjutsu" one... well, I'll put it this way, that video was given to me by my instructor with the words "Here, this is how bad a 10th Dan can be". RVD's list there actually contradicts the very art he's teaching, as well as the basic ideals of self defense in a couple of cases. 



Sandanchris said:


> Some areas in which I can disagree and still be able to glean from his videos:
> 
> 1. Terminology &#8211; Prof. Ras misuses terminology (concepts, techniques, paradigms) and tries to fit squares into round holes to try to make his point. He should try to come up with his own terminology or properly define his terms so that everyone can be on the same page.



Which he's been told.



Sandanchris said:


> 2. Ideal-what if- formulation &#8211; Prof. Ras is trying to use a concept from EPAK that does not need to apply to the training he offers in his gym. In fact, the continued reference to each of these topics convolutes the issue further. I believe Prof. Ras fits this formula better &#8220;see it &#8211; drop it &#8211; keep it&#8221;.



He uses EPAK terms and concepts, and uses EPAK techniques (which he denigrates) to compare to his "better, more functional" techniques... then when asked what the connection is, he says that he's not teaching EPAK(?!?!) Then why use the terms and do comparisons with EPAK techniques?!?! If he'd just say "hey, I'm teachings ATACX Gym Kempo, here's something we do", that would at least remove that side of things... wouldn't make his techniques magically great, but it'd remove the confusion to a degree.



Sandanchris said:


> 3. Aggressive attitude or Bravado &#8211; Due to his position, training, heritage ect&#8230;Prof. Ras sees things through his Long Beach lens. Would the conversations here on the internet be different if this lens was removed? I believe so!



Possibly. 



Sandanchris said:


> This is just my evaluation from some training time and watching the online conversations here on Martial Talk. This observation is entirely my personal view, no harm or offense was intended. &#8220;don&#8217;t shoot the messenger&#8221;. I hope that this will give a &#8220;lens&#8221; for those who read/watch Prof. Ras online and to be able to glean something valuable to add to their training.
> 
> Chris



Look, to be blunt Chris, he needs to be smacked upside the head, hard. Online the only way that can be done is to argue against everything he puts up... but his sense of ego doesn't let him see any criticism as valid. He thanks people for their criticism, then turns around and says "you're completely wrong and ignorant", but can't back it up. He then claims to have "atomically annihilated" their point, if it gets continued. His arguments really do often amount to "I'm great, you all suck, unless you agree with me, in which case you're a shining light of a martial artist", which is how he describes you when you back him up. 

And, bluntly, all you do when you do that is support his egotistical delusions. You rarely actually add anything to the conversation, just say something that supports Ras without being specific in your comments, or (such as in the ATACX Gym Judo thread), after two pages of Ras being shown as not having a clue about Judo, and having no idea about what he's actually showing, with Judoka and BJJ practitioners all pointing out the glaring issues with the technique, and his presentation of it, you come along and say "Very nice, thanks for sharing". I gotta ask, Chris, what did you think that would accomplish? It just looks like you're sucking up to him, for whatever reason. It's not keeping the peace, it's just a comment that shows that you didn't have much understanding of what Ras was showing either.

I'm not suggesting that you don't come onto his threads and support him, but if there's no point to doing so, why do it?


----------



## MJS

ATACX GYM said:


> 1. "They" doesn't mean "everyone"...but I see where you're coming from. I'll try to be more clear in the future.



Ok.  For clarification purposes, who are you referring to?



> 2. Some do weapon training and mulit attacks, [ like the BKF and several associations I've become familiar with growing up, including Twin Dragons ], but none that I know of do First Aid/CPR. Like I said: they do "_a lot of what I mention..."  _not ALL of what I mention.



All of the places that offer a sport art, ie: BJJ, MMA, etc, do not incorporate that into that training.  However, some of the schools, also offer SD oriented classes, however, they're seperate.  Furthermore, very few schools from what I've seen cover CPR, first aid, etc.  



> 3. They weren't duped into thinking that what they do was the end all be all. They were already comfortable with the notion of cross-training. That was one of the main reasons why it was so easy to reach them: they were already adherents of the concept of the supremacy of performance.



We may have to agree to disagree on this.  Royce was, for a long time, a 1 dimensional fighter.  Wasn't until he faced, I believe Matt Huges, that he started to work on boxing and kicking, however, those skills proved useless, as he still got his *** handed to him.  No, IMO, in the early days, it seemed that the pure BJJ guys only stressed that, saying that was all you need.  As time went on, sure, the value of crosstraining was seen by people.


----------



## Tez3

MJS said:


> Ok. For clarification purposes, who are you referring to?
> 
> 
> 
> All of the places that offer a sport art, ie: BJJ, MMA, etc, do not incorporate that into that training. However, some of the schools, also offer SD oriented classes, however, they're seperate. *Furthermore, very few schools from what I've seen cover CPR, first aid, etc.
> *
> 
> 
> We may have to agree to disagree on this. Royce was, for a long time, a 1 dimensional fighter. Wasn't until he faced, I believe Matt Huges, that he started to work on boxing and kicking, however, those skills proved useless, as he still got his *** handed to him. No, IMO, in the early days, it seemed that the pure BJJ guys only stressed that, saying that was all you need. As time went on, sure, the value of crosstraining was seen by people.



 All our fighters know CPR, they are all battlefield first aid trained. Sorry, just being cheeky. Apart from that our chief instructor is an ex army Combat Medical Technician so we get first aid stuff plus why things work from a physiological view. 

We have weapons in our club, the fighters will play with them sometimes for a change, they are shown how to use them but it's not 'training' as such, just for interest really. Perhaps when they are too old to fight they may take up weapons and/or train in a TMA style as a main style.


----------



## Twin Fist

the very title f this thread is insulting as hell and the mods should delete it


----------



## Tez3

Twin Fist said:


> the very title f this thread is insulting as hell and the mods should delete it



It's only insulting if you know what the heck it means! I don't tbh.


----------



## MJS

Chris Parker said:


> He uses EPAK terms and concepts, and uses EPAK techniques (which he denigrates) to compare to his "better, more functional" techniques... then when asked what the connection is, he says that he's not teaching EPAK(?!?!) Then why use the terms and do comparisons with EPAK techniques?!?! If he'd just say "hey, I'm teachings ATACX Gym Kempo, here's something we do", that would at least remove that side of things... wouldn't make his techniques magically great, but it'd remove the confusion to a degree.



This, IMHO, is probably the #1 reason why there's such a big issue here.  This is right along the lines with what I was saying in another post.  You can line up 5 Kenpoists, and have them do the same tech.  While there will most likely be slight differences, I feel its safe to say that the tech would still be recognizeable.  In this case, alot of what we're seeing looks nothing like what we see in 99% of the Kenpo schools out there.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Training now but I noted the responses ranging from page 6-7. Interesting, for the most part. I will respond to them when I return.


----------



## MJS

MJS said:


> Hmm...I'm going to toss something else into the mix here.  Since all we're doing is talking about Kenpo, I'm going to mention Kajukenbo.  Now, IMO, there's an art that does alot.  After watching the Fight Quest Kaju episode, it seems pretty apparent to me that they're pretty well rounded.
> 
> Does anyone else agree? Disagree?  If so, I'm interested in hearing what you have to say.



Just in case this was missed, ignored, etc.   Do they have the same 'issues' that EPAK supposedly has?


----------



## ATACX GYM

MJS said:


> Just in case this was missed, ignored, etc.   Do they have the same 'issues' that EPAK supposedly has?



I've known Kaju guys for decades. Many of them can bang. Some...not so much. I would say that most of the Kaju guys I know are the kinds that I wouldn't mind at all having with me when it's GO TIME...but many of the Kaju guys I know don't have a strong ground sub game


----------



## MJS

ATACX GYM said:


> I've known Kaju guys for decades. Many of them can bang. Some...not so much. I would say that most of the Kaju guys I know are the kinds that I wouldn't mind at all having with me when it's GO TIME...but many of the Kaju guys I know don't have a strong ground sub game



So going on this, am I safe to assume you feel they have the same issues as EPAK does?  To be more specific...would a thread like this, as well as all of the others, be warranted for Kaju?


----------



## Twin Fist

to a degree, but for the most part? no.

original method, tum pai, WHKD, Chain fa schools all do the techs differently. for that matter, KSDS (my school) and GM Forbach's people are both original method, but the techniques can be VERY different. 

kaju is NOT a technique based system like kenpo. kaju is movement based. so if you move right, no one gives you grief.

that being said, no one is kaju comes out and says "do it like me or you suck"


----------



## ATACX GYM

Sandanchris said:


> As someone who has trained with Prof. Ras on a few occasions, I will say this:
> 
> Ras is someone who has training in the martial arts, although some of which I cannot verify. But back in the day some of the SKK beaters such as Cerio, Parker, and others had little to no official studio time and lots of hands on experience. I would not want to face Prof. Ras on the street!
> 
> My understanding is that he would like to elevate the methods and training paradigms of all arts to include those he uses in his gym. Most of us will never have to pressure test our training in the sheer volume or method Prof. Ras does.
> 
> I can clearly see several aspects of his training that we should appreciate and consider on our own:
> 
> 1. Contact Resistance Method (live attacks, weapons to targets, punching through not to target)
> 
> 2. Emphasis on availability of techniques and not number of known techniques: quality over quantity. We see this from the Long Beach/BKF influence of his training.
> 
> 3. Tailoring: Ras has adapted his training for his own needs and purposes given all individual variables.
> 
> 4. Evaluation of knowledge based on instant data not on theory or guesses: He keeps what works for him. This is expressed though the argument over the ideal phase of techniques.
> 
> 5. Rock-Drop-Lock: His expression of a common theme in mixed martial arts and in other traditional arts. Tonight while on the web, I came across a video by Mr. Van Donk about Bujinkan Ninjitsu and the philosophy of technique and training:
> 
> 7 Principles of instant defense:
> 1. Awareness  Mind as protection
> 2. Distance your body safely
> 3. Commit yourself to action
> 4. Do multiple hits for each attack
> 5. Grab hold and destroy their balance
> 6. Take them down. Close the Gap
> 7. Finnish. Subdue or get away
> 
> Some areas in which I can disagree and still be able to glean from his videos:
> 
> 1. Terminology  Prof. Ras misuses terminology (concepts, techniques, paradigms) and tries to fit squares into round holes to try to make his point. He should try to come up with his own terminology or properly define his terms so that everyone can be on the same page.
> 
> 2. Ideal-what if- formulation  Prof. Ras is trying to use a concept from EPAK that does not need to apply to the training he offers in his gym. In fact, the continued reference to each of these topics convolutes the issue further. I believe Prof. Ras fits this formula better see it  drop it  keep it.
> 
> 3. Aggressive attitude or Bravado  Due to his position, training, heritage ectProf. Ras sees things through his Long Beach lens. Would the conversations here on the internet be different if this lens was removed? I believe so!
> 
> This is just my evaluation from some training time and watching the online conversations here on Martial Talk. This observation is entirely my personal view, no harm or offense was intended. dont shoot the messenger. I hope that this will give a lens for those who read/watch Prof. Ras online and to be able to glean something valuable to add to their training.
> 
> Chris





This is a good post. A few matters of clarification before I'm off to do other stuff:

"My understanding is that he would like to elevate the methods and training paradigms of all arts to include those he uses in his gym. Most of us will never have to pressure test our training in the sheer volume or method Prof. Ras does."--Sandanchris

Not quite sure what you mean by this, Sandanchris, so let me make my position on this matter clear: I wholeheartededly champion functional/Alive training. This means that we as instructors should teach techniques which we have used ourselves extensively on the mat, in real life, or both and that all of our training methods should be geared toward teaching techniques in the way that they are to actually be used in self defense. It is absolutely my belief that there is no lesson that a dysfunctional expression can teach that functional expression won't teach better AND more comprehensively, including things that the dysfunctional technique lacks the scope and depth to even approach because *the functional techniques work and the dysfunctional techniques don't work. *

I am an adherent of what I was first taught as THE I:3 WAY OF TEACHING but which decades later Matt Thornton called THE I-METHOD, and literally since age 6 I have been a convert to Alive/functional training.

This is THE I-METHOD:

[video=youtube_share;C-g6JTQDWNc]http://youtu.be/C-g6JTQDWNc[/video]


ALIVE TRAINING

[video=youtube_share;H3r-G33oKHc]http://youtu.be/H3r-G33oKHc[/video]

I also absolutely believe that alllll benefits...all mind-body-spirit cultivation, all character development, etc etc...actually comes from the real world, alive, perpetual refinement and elevation of the DOING, EXPERIMENTING WITH AND STUDYING, AND APPLYING THE  EXPERIMINTING AND STUDYING WITH MORE DOING of the thing in question. All sublime "lessons" to be taught in whatever technique like Captured Twigs you learn from...DOING,STUDYING, AND APPLYING THE STUDYING AND EXPERIEMENTING WITH MORE DOING Captured Twigs. Basically a combination of The Scientific Method applied to martial arts, the various sports performance sciences, and philosophy [ especially logic ] applied to martial arts. Do that and work it with alot of Alive/Functional stimuli. Alot of times. For your entire martial lifespan.

THE ART?

[video=youtube_share;m_ts8hRKBW0]http://youtu.be/m_ts8hRKBW0[/video]

A POWERFUL FORM OF YOGA

[video=youtube_share;kMAeeeAauEw]http://youtu.be/kMAeeeAauEw[/video]

Matt speaks of this beauty in combat sports. I see it geometrically transcending combat sports in our Traditional Martial Arts and expanding out to areas that aren't really reached or plumbed to any real depth by combat sports.

"2. Emphasis on availability of techniques and not number of known techniques: quality over quantity. We see this from the Long Beach/BKF influence of his training"

There is no question that Long Beach, the BKF, Southeast San Diego, Compton, Watts, and other places have had a lasting impact on my perceptions and approach. However, I actually take both a quality AND quantity approach. Sandanchris is absolutely right in that I insist upon the availability of techniques but I insist upon this availability in the sense of immediate universal application. By that I mean this:

When you're attacked or called upon for whatever reason to use your skills? The the skills that you have must meet the challenge that you face. If all you know is...Delayed Sword? And the BG tackles you and pulls a knife? You need to have a Delayed Sword that works in that situation. If all you have is Delayed Sword...and the BG grabs you in a full-nelson while his buddy moves in to work you over with fists? You need to have a Delayed Sword that works there too. If the BG grabs your lapel with one hand and pulls a gun with another? Your Delayed Sword needs to work then, too.

Every other technique and self defense sequence like Delayed Sword [ "sequence" is my own term which I use interchangeably with the CORRECT definition of Ideal Techniques; the definition for Ideal Technique is the specific expression for whatever sequence of techniques--like Delayed Sword--that you as the instructor has crafted for your particular school or gym, which follows the Ideal Phase Analytical Technique Process method and uses the 3 points of view...The What If&The Formulation Phases and The Equation Formula ] should be tested as functionally rigorously and comprehensively as possible and practical. The result is; every technique is usable in any situation. Depending on the number of techniques and Ideals you have, you could have up to about 154 ways to do one thing and 154 ways to do 154 things. That's an amazing, extremely difficult to predict or defend against arsenal which should give the comprehensively trained Kenpoist a gargantuan advantage over almost anyone else.

What I have essentially done is taken the attack and defense categories in The Web of Knowledge, added more categories to it, combined these with h2h ranges shown in CQC and MMA, and tested my every technique and ATACX GYM IDEAL TECHNIQUE against each and every consideration raised by all of the foregoing. To my knowledge? This matrix I have crafted is unique...although I personally know of various predecessors and precedents to portions of the methods that I use in my ATACX GYM.



"1. Terminology  Prof. Ras misuses terminology (concepts, techniques, paradigms) and tries to fit squares into round holes to try to make his point. He should try to come up with his own terminology or properly define his terms so that everyone can be on the same page."--Sandanchris

I'm not sure if this is correct. I know that I challenge the veracity of various terms used in Kenpo. Maybe that's it. Or maybe Sandanchris would be good enough to show me where I've misused Kenpo terminology concpets paradigms techniques etc. To my knowledge I haven't done such a thing and I certainly haven't meant to. If it's shown that I have? I will straightway make amends.


"2. Ideal-what if- formulation  Prof. Ras is trying to use a concept from EPAK that does not need to apply to the training he offers in his gym. In fact, the continued reference to each of these topics convolutes the issue further. I believe Prof. Ras fits this formula better see it  drop it  keep it.--Sandanchris

I actually have a pretty good grasp of this area, Sandanchris. Perhaps you could clarify your meaning further by furnishing examples of your meaning?


"3. Aggressive attitude or Bravado  Due to his position, training, heritage ectProf. Ras sees things through his Long Beach lens. Would the conversations here on the internet be different if this lens was removed? I believe so!"--Sandanchris

I think this is true too...but probably regarding different subtopics and topics. I have forthrightly challenged the TRAINING PARADIGM that gave rise to the commonly miscalled Ideal Phase techniques. I have said then and say now that they're dysfunctional. The Ideal Phase techniques _themselves _ aren't innately dysfunctional, but the _training paradigm giving rise to them *mandates* a dysfunctional, highly unrealistic expression_.This uncompromising stance of mine has earned me the wrath and flames of many a poster who think that I'm saying that THEY suck, or KENPO sucks or that I'm here to save Kenpo, etc etc.

My forthright challenges have been misinterpreted frequently as aggression and/or bravado. Neither is actually the case, and I have been careful to directly refute this contention whenever it's brought up.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Chris Parker said:


> Without "shooting the messenger" here....
> 
> 
> 
> It's obvious that Ras has had physical training, but he doesn't appear to have had what I would call an education. He comes across as having learnt a range of sequences of movements, and thinks that equates to different martial arts without understanding why each art does what it does, or doesn't. I mean, the guys talking about how "generally speaking, Judoka don't do jumping kicks, or triple spin kicks", and then goes on about how they'd be better if they had "such a full set of atemi". Are you kidding me? All that does is scream to me that he has no freakin' idea about martial arts themselves, all he can do is put together movements. This is why he can't follow any question I put to him, he simply doesn't have any education relating to it.
> 
> *[ ATACX GYM'S RESPONSES ARE IN BOLD...]*
> 
> *The entirety of the above is radically untrue and you utterly misconstrue and misunderstand basic statements of mine. At this point? I'm willing to simply concede that we have no common ground and suggest that we agree to disagree and leave further mutual discussion about topics that we disagree on alone.*
> 
> Yeah, Ras would love everyone to be just like Ras... thing is, most of what he's advocating is already done, typically in better, more structured ways. He's hardly new, unique, innovative, or anything of the kind. And if he'd actually get some education under a real school, as opposed to having learnt everything from his uncle (which is how it all reads... I'd say he's got no actual rank in Judo, for instance [meaning Kodokan], as he gets so much wrong there that it's just terrible, but has been taught "judo" by his uncle. Same with his Iaido claims, same with each different line of his Kempo [Shaolin, American, whatever], with maybe some of his TKD in an actual school), then he could actually a) be good, and b) realize that he's not really doing anything that much different or better than anyone else. As I've said to him, he's a few decades behind me in his understanding.
> 
> *Ras has repeatedly stated--for more than a year--the exact opposite of your contention, to wit: Ras doesn't want everyone to be just like Ras. I am, however, not at all surprised to see you conflate my insistence that whatever we as martial artists teach to our students we have used and continue to use successfully on the mat, professionally, on the streets or any combination of the above...and we teach our students to use the techniques in the same way that they will fight with them. You are sooo factually off base and wrong here it's...actually typical of  my discussions with you. My Judo black belt comes from a Kodokan certified Judo school. Your comments about Judo clearly show you have noooo idea what you're talking about and have never trained in and maybe never even heard of Kosen Judo...but I have done both. I have been told by luminaries like O'Sensei Ogden [ r.i.p. ] and  Heyward Nishioka that my Judo skills, balance,strength, explosivity and learning curve are all exceptional. My uncle did NOT teach me Judo. He did and continues to, however, teach me Iaido. As for whether or not you think I'm good? I'm sure it's clear by now that I don't care what your opinion is of me. Indulge yourself in that area however you please. Have fun.
> *
> 
> 
> And this is different to others how?
> 
> 
> 
> Again, this hardly a new concept, and when he's talking about using the same technique for every different circumstance, he's missed the point. And if he's genuinely after just the ones that work, he's best off just looking at one system, not the mess of 20 that he claims, as he's going in the exact wrong direction for that.
> *Miscomprehension. Factually incorrect. Just plain wrong. Again. As usual.*
> 
> 
> Again, this is a very common concept. In fact, I can't think of any art that doesn't encourage such things. Even something as rigid as Iaido allows for personalisation of your performance, based on the length of your sword, and any personal issues you may have.
> 
> *There is a difference between what an art allegedly espouses and how its practitioners in the main practice.*
> 
> However his evaluations are often flawed, being based in a false environment (and yes, sparring is a false environment unless you're looking for what works in sparring), as well as missing the point of the way the ideal phase techniques are designed.
> 
> *Your opinions that my evaluations are often flawed, etc. do not in any way make them flawed. Sparring is an activity which is defined by different people in different ways, and thus the activity changes according to their definition of it. Your definition of sparring isn't mine; however since we never will see video of you...there is no way for any of us to objectively evaluate anything that you do, is there? Quite courageous of you to unleash scathing criticism while ensuring that you never proffer video of yourself doing things your "more correct" way in order to edify us all. Reminds me of Teddy Roosevelt's quote again...*
> 
> 
> Er, RVD gets a hell of a lot wrong as well, for the record... but that's beside the point. Basically, he's expressing a basic strategy, which is fine, but it's a flawed one for self defence. You don't want to "lock" in self defence (which is apparently what he's focused on...), you want to get away.
> 
> *It is your opinion that "you don't want to "lock" in self defence (which is apparently what he's focused on...), you want to get away".  It is [ a part of ] MY opinion that in self-defense you want to DEFEND YOURSELF SUCCESSFULLY. By whatever means and whatever tools most available. This, to me, strongly suggests that one should have a high combat functional performance wavelength with as broad and as deep a set of skills as possible, inclusive of a solid grasp of all relevant principles, physical fitness to a superior degree, etc etc. But that's just a part of my opinion...*
> 
> Oh, and "ninjutsu"... sorry, but there's a reason there.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I know that video. It's RVD's "Combat Ninjutsu" one... well, I'll put it this way, that video was given to me by my instructor with the words "Here, this is how bad a 10th Dan can be". RVD's list there actually contradicts the very art he's teaching, as well as the basic ideals of self defense in a couple of cases.
> 
> 
> 
> Which he's been told.
> 
> 
> 
> He uses EPAK terms and concepts, and uses EPAK techniques (which he denigrates) to compare to his "better, more functional" techniques... then when asked what the connection is, he says that he's not teaching EPAK(?!?!) Then why use the terms and do comparisons with EPAK techniques?!?! If he'd just say "hey, I'm teachings ATACX Gym Kempo, here's something we do", that would at least remove that side of things... wouldn't make his techniques magically great, but it'd remove the confusion to a degree.
> 
> *He does not denigrate EPKK TECHNIQUES, he lambasts the more prevalent dysfunctional training paradigms and methods that gave rise to and perpetuate the most common expression of the so-called Ideal Phase techniques. And news flash...he ALWAYS says he's teaching ATACX GYM KENPO. See? ATACX GYM KENPO IS WRITTEN ON THE TITLE OF EVERY VIDEO. NOT EPAK KENPO. *
> 
> 
> Possibly.
> 
> 
> 
> Look, to be blunt Chris, he needs to be smacked upside the head, hard. Online the only way that can be done is to argue against everything he puts up... but his sense of ego doesn't let him see any criticism as valid. He thanks people for their criticism, then turns around and says "you're completely wrong and ignorant", but can't back it up. He then claims to have "atomically annihilated" their point, if it gets continued. His arguments really do often amount to "I'm great, you all suck, unless you agree with me, in which case you're a shining light of a martial artist", which is how he describes you when you back him up.
> 
> *You are again massively and habitually incorrect. There are criticisms that I have adhered to. You are just unaware of them. And almost all of yours have been easily disprovably empirically incorrect.*
> 
> And, bluntly, all you do when you do that is support his egotistical delusions. You rarely actually add anything to the conversation, just say something that supports Ras without being specific in your comments, or (such as in the ATACX Gym Judo thread), after two pages of Ras being shown as not having a clue about Judo, and having no idea about what he's actually showing, with Judoka and BJJ practitioners all pointing out the glaring issues with the technique, and his presentation of it, you come along and say "Very nice, thanks for sharing". I gotta ask, Chris, what did you think that would accomplish? It just looks like you're sucking up to him, for whatever reason. It's not keeping the peace, it's just a comment that shows that you didn't have much understanding of what Ras was showing either.
> 
> *Your opinion that I have egotistical delusions doesn't mean that I actually have them. Your assessment of the ATACX GYM JUDO thread is also similarly highly flawed, inaccurate, untrue, and...honestly...pretty funny in its dooficity. Let me assure you right now...having met Sandanchris...that Sandanchris is most definitely not a suck up. ESPECIALLY TO ME. He is a man of good standing and good character who wouldn't stoop to such a thing. And since he has actually met me and seen me move and felt my technique? Your opinion about his lack of understanding actually displays YOUR lack of understanding, sir.
> *
> I'm not suggesting that you don't come onto his threads and support him, but if there's no point to doing so, why do it?
> 
> 
> *There is an interesting inference in your quote above that implies that Sandanchris would willy nilly come onto my threads and support me. He would not, sir. If he says something supportive? It's because he sees reason and good cause to do so. If he disagrees with me--which he has ALSO placed on this thread--he does so because he sees reason and good cause to do so,sir. He has met me face to face. We have exchanged techniques. In mere minutes, I have shown his students how to break bear hugs with their Kempo salute and how to combatively apply various techniques that they were just shown minutes before...and to the credit of the foundation that Sandanchris has given them and to the credit of the swift, keen minds of his students? They immediately grasped and performed what I asked of them. In less than five minutes they went from being shown a technique that Sandanchris introduced them to all the way to applying it functionally against real world resistance. That says something about the skills of everyone involved...Sandanchris, his wonderful students, and yours truly
> 
> 
> Chris Parker. Let us agree to disagree and leave it at that. I will stay out of the threads that you author, and you reciprocate.*




I think I've said all that needs to be said here.


----------



## Twin Fist

dooficity?

and you wonder why no one takes you seriously.


----------



## MJS

ATACX GYM said:


> This is a good post. A few matters of clarification before I'm off to do other stuff:
> 
> "My understanding is that he would like to elevate the methods and training paradigms of all arts to include those he uses in his gym. Most of us will never have to pressure test our training in the sheer volume or method Prof. Ras does."--Sandanchris
> 
> Not quite sure what you mean by this, Sandanchris, so let me make my position on this matter clear: I wholeheartededly champion functional/Alive training. This means that we as instructors should teach techniques which we have used ourselves extensively on the mat, in real life, or both and that all of our training methods should be geared toward teaching techniques in the way that they are to actually be used in self defense. It is absolutely my belief that there is no lesson that a dysfunctional expression can teach that functional expression won't teach better AND more comprehensively, including things that the dysfunctional technique lacks the scope and depth to even approach because *the functional techniques work and the dysfunctional techniques don't work. *
> 
> I am an adherent of what I was first taught as THE I:3 WAY OF TEACHING but which decades later Matt Thornton called THE I-METHOD, and literally since age 6 I have been a convert to Alive/functional training.
> 
> This is THE I-METHOD:
> 
> [video=youtube_share;C-g6JTQDWNc]http://youtu.be/C-g6JTQDWNc[/video]
> 
> 
> ALIVE TRAINING
> 
> [video=youtube_share;H3r-G33oKHc]http://youtu.be/H3r-G33oKHc[/video]
> 
> I also absolutely believe that alllll benefits...all mind-body-spirit cultivation, all character development, etc etc...actually comes from the real world, alive, perpetual refinement and elevation of the DOING, EXPERIMENTING WITH AND STUDYING, AND APPLYING THE  EXPERIMINTING AND STUDYING WITH MORE DOING of the thing in question. All sublime "lessons" to be taught in whatever technique like Captured Twigs you learn from...DOING,STUDYING, AND APPLYING THE STUDYING AND EXPERIEMENTING WITH MORE DOING Captured Twigs. Basically a combination of The Scientific Method applied to martial arts, the various sports performance sciences, and philosophy [ especially logic ] applied to martial arts. Do that and work it with alot of Alive/Functional stimuli. Alot of times. For your entire martial lifespan.
> 
> THE ART?
> 
> [video=youtube_share;m_ts8hRKBW0]http://youtu.be/m_ts8hRKBW0[/video]
> 
> A POWERFUL FORM OF YOGA
> 
> [video=youtube_share;kMAeeeAauEw]http://youtu.be/kMAeeeAauEw[/video]
> 
> Matt speaks of this beauty in combat sports. I see it geometrically transcending combat sports in our Traditional Martial Arts and expanding out to areas that aren't really reached or plumbed to any real depth by combat sports.
> 
> "2. Emphasis on availability of techniques and not number of known techniques: &#8220;quality over quantity&#8221;. We see this from the Long Beach/BKF influence of his training"
> 
> There is no question that Long Beach, the BKF, Southeast San Diego, Compton, Watts, and other places have had a lasting impact on my perceptions and approach. However, I actually take both a quality AND quantity approach. Sandanchris is absolutely right in that I insist upon the availability of techniques but I insist upon this availability in the sense of immediate universal application. By that I mean this:



I have no issues with Matt.  I've seen alot of his stuff, and I've incorporated some of his ideas into my training.  I do agree that its important to have what he mentions, in your training.  



> When you're attacked or called upon for whatever reason to use your skills? The the skills that you have must meet the challenge that you face. If all you know is...Delayed Sword? And the BG tackles you and pulls a knife? You need to have a Delayed Sword that works in that situation. If all you have is Delayed Sword...and the BG grabs you in a full-nelson while his buddy moves in to work you over with fists? You need to have a Delayed Sword that works there too. If the BG grabs your lapel with one hand and pulls a gun with another? Your Delayed Sword needs to work then, too.



No you don't.  Nor do I think that one has to pull yet another tech from the laundry list, to take care of the next problem.  Like I've said, this is where the basics come in.  If I'm doing DS and something goes south, I simply just adapt to that change.  I simply abandon what I'm doing, adjust and move on.  I'm not sitting there saying, "Ok, well, I started doing tech A, but it failed, so now lets see....lemme do tech f, which is the 'what if'/'even if' A no longer works.  Sorry, IMO, when you're *** is on the line, it'd be crazy to think that someone is going to instantly recall the next best preset tech, before they get their *** kicked.  This is why I'm such a stickler of the basics.  

Remember my story that I told of when I was teaching a long time ago?  Had the class form a circle, 1 person in the middle, I'd call out attacks for the people on the outside.  I intentionally gave the student in the middle, an attack that they didn't have a preset defense for.  They froze like a deer and told me they didn't know a tech for that attack.  I asked if they knew how to block, punch, kick and move, to which they said yes.  I said, Good, then do it!  My point of this was to show them that they in fact did know what to do.  Who gives a crap if they do Attacking Mace, Delayed Sword or any of the other hundreds upon hundreds.  My goal is to teach them how to defend themselves, not have to rely on a huge list of stuff, that they're going to forget.  

Any time I've done a spontaneous reaction drill with my teacher, it was rare that I ever did a preset tech.  Parts of one?  Sure, but the full tech?  Rare if ever at all.  And thats fine, thats not what I was trying to do.  I wasn't trying and hoping to pull off one of the many.  I was trying to deal with the attack at hand.


----------



## MJS

Twin Fist said:


> to a degree, but for the most part? no.
> 
> original method, tum pai, WHKD, Chain fa schools all do the techs differently. for that matter, KSDS (my school) and GM Forbach's people are both original method, but the techniques can be VERY different.
> 
> kaju is NOT a technique based system like kenpo. kaju is movement based. so if you move right, no one gives you grief.
> 
> that being said, no one is kaju comes out and says "do it like me or you suck"



Ok, next question.  Kaju obviously has techs. ie: the grab arts, club techs, etc.  I assume those are required for promotion?  I mean, I'd think students have to know them, but the Kaju folks dont have the huge endless list Kenpo does?  Use the base tech as an idea, move right, keep it looking like Kaju and you're good to go?


----------



## ATACX GYM

MJS said:


> No you don't.  Nor do I think that one has to pull yet another tech from the laundry list, to take care of the next problem.  Like I've said, this is where the basics come in.  If I'm doing DS and something goes south, I simply just adapt to that change.  I simply abandon what I'm doing, adjust and move on.  I'm not sitting there saying, "Ok, well, I started doing tech A, but it failed, so now lets see....lemme do tech f, which is the 'what if'/'even if' A no longer works.  Sorry, IMO, when you're *** is on the line, it'd be crazy to think that someone is going to instantly recall the next best preset tech, before they get their *** kicked.  This is why I'm such a stickler of the basics.
> 
> Any time I've done a spontaneous reaction drill with my teacher, it was rare that I ever did a preset tech.  Parts of one?  Sure, but the full tech?  Rare if ever at all.  And thats fine, thats not what I was trying to do.  I wasn't trying and hoping to pull off one of the many.  I was trying to deal with the attack at hand.




Maybe I'm not being as clear as I wish to be here, because I agree with much of your post. What I'm saying specifically is that the so-called Ideal Phase techniques are generally not tested against anything except for the prescribed specific attack that they're to defend against. I haven't met anyone yet who forthrightly stated that they work their DS against the prescribed attack plus everything else too, like I do. There have got to be others who do,I just haven't read about or heard of them. 

I completely agree that one should use one's basics and whatever else you need to emerge as unscathed and safe as possible in a self-defense encounter. Imo Delayed Sword is one of those basics.

My point is...whatever rank you're at when you face an assault? You need to have the versatility already ingrained in you--subgrappling escapes strikes weapons parrying standing locks throws sweeps takedowns rolls  weapon use multifights whatever--already locked and loaded and ready to go.


----------



## Twin Fist

different branches, and the methods within those branches have thier own requirements for promotion, but yes, as a rule, everyone has required material for promotion. Also as a rule, it isnt a huge list like EPAK or Tracy's

The KSDS branch has few requirements, comparatively, but a higher level of understanding is required of the material for dan rank

there are, in the original method:
14 kata or palama's or pinions 
21 punch counters or "tricks"
15 grab arts
13 club counters
15 knife counters
8 2-man counters
6 3-man counters
1 4-man counter
this is the base of the original kajukenbo system

each branch has added to or changed this, but Sijo said he wanted everyone everywhere to include the basics.


----------



## Chris Parker

ATACX GYM said:


> This is a good post. A few matters of clarification before I'm off to do other stuff:



Of course, Chris basically comes to your defence without actually addressing anything in the thread, and it's a good post... honestly, I'd say it's misplaced loyalty.



ATACX GYM said:


> "My understanding is that he would like to elevate the methods and training paradigms of all arts to include those he uses in his gym. Most of us will never have to pressure test our training in the sheer volume or method Prof. Ras does."--Sandanchris
> 
> Not quite sure what you mean by this, Sandanchris, so let me make my position on this matter clear: I wholeheartededly champion functional/Alive training. This means that we as instructors should teach techniques which we have used ourselves extensively on the mat, in real life, or both and that all of our training methods should be geared toward teaching techniques in the way that they are to actually be used in self defense. It is absolutely my belief that there is no lesson that a dysfunctional expression can teach that functional expression won't teach better AND more comprehensively, including things that the dysfunctional technique lacks the scope and depth to even approach because *the functional techniques work and the dysfunctional techniques don't work.*



The big problem here (aside from the fact that that's not what "alive" training is about) is that by only teaching techniques that the instructor has experience in using, either on the mat or "in real life" (which seems to be the same thing to you, Ras, as you use them interchangabley...), then all you end up with is instructors teaching only what they can do, or what suits them, rather than what suits the students, which just limits the system. Additionally, who says that the instructor isn't just naturally talented and pulls off things that really shouldn't be taught? This then also leads to the idea that the naturally gifted instructor starts to believe that what they do is better than others, although they're missing many basic aspects... including the structure of what they consider "dysfunctional" techniques. They may be highly functional, just not in the way the naturally talented instructor understands. Hmm.



ATACX GYM said:


> I am an adherent of what I was first taught as THE I:3 WAY OF TEACHING but which decades later Matt Thornton called THE I-METHOD, and literally since age 6 I have been a convert to Alive/functional training.



You were six. Converted from what?

That aside, Ras, Matt's ideas are far from new. He's just packaged them with a new word. Everything he talks about is just what has been found in martial arts for centuries in different forms, combined with a lack of actual comprehension of what traditional methods are actually about.



ATACX GYM said:


> This is THE I-METHOD:
> 
> [video=youtube_share;C-g6JTQDWNc]http://youtu.be/C-g6JTQDWNc[/video]
> 
> 
> ALIVE TRAINING
> 
> [video=youtube_share;H3r-G33oKHc]http://youtu.be/H3r-G33oKHc[/video]



As I've indicated (and posted pretty overtly in the past), I'm not really a big fan of Matt's. It's not that I disagree with most of his ideas, it's just that his take on things is desperately flawed and rather limited. So that's not a sale for me.



ATACX GYM said:


> I also absolutely believe that alllll benefits...all mind-body-spirit cultivation, all character development, etc etc...actually comes from the real world, alive, perpetual refinement and elevation of the DOING, EXPERIMENTING WITH AND STUDYING, AND APPLYING THE  EXPERIMINTING AND STUDYING WITH MORE DOING of the thing in question. All sublime "lessons" to be taught in whatever technique like Captured Twigs you learn from...DOING,STUDYING, AND APPLYING THE STUDYING AND EXPERIEMENTING WITH MORE DOING Captured Twigs. Basically a combination of The Scientific Method applied to martial arts, the various sports performance sciences, and philosophy [ especially logic ] applied to martial arts. Do that and work it with alot of Alive/Functional stimuli. Alot of times. For your entire martial lifespan.



Then you're wrong. And if you think that a 'scientific approach/the scientific method' hasn't been applied to martial arts before? Then you're wrong again.



ATACX GYM said:


> THE ART?
> 
> [video=youtube_share;m_ts8hRKBW0]http://youtu.be/m_ts8hRKBW0[/video]
> 
> A POWERFUL FORM OF YOGA
> 
> [video=youtube_share;kMAeeeAauEw]http://youtu.be/kMAeeeAauEw[/video]
> 
> Matt speaks of this beauty in combat sports. I see it geometrically transcending combat sports in our Traditional Martial Arts and expanding out to areas that aren't really reached or plumbed to any real depth by combat sports.



You'll forgive me if I don't see anything of depth in anything you've presented, of course... 



ATACX GYM said:


> "2. Emphasis on availability of techniques and not number of known techniques: &#8220;quality over quantity&#8221;. We see this from the Long Beach/BKF influence of his training"
> 
> There is no question that Long Beach, the BKF, Southeast San Diego, Compton, Watts, and other places have had a lasting impact on my perceptions and approach. However, I actually take both a quality AND quantity approach. Sandanchris is absolutely right in that I insist upon the availability of techniques but I insist upon this availability in the sense of immediate universal application. By that I mean this:



Yes, everywhere you've been is far worse than anywhere anyone else has been... honestly, if pretty much anyone of any note with any credibility in the field of actual self defence and real world combatives goes directly against what you're presenting, I think I'll err on the side of the 99% of people known to be proven beyond their own words. Those that can explain both the how and the why, as it were.



ATACX GYM said:


> When you're attacked or called upon for whatever reason to use your skills? The the skills that you have must meet the challenge that you face. If all you know is...Delayed Sword? And the BG tackles you and pulls a knife? You need to have a Delayed Sword that works in that situation. If all you have is Delayed Sword...and the BG grabs you in a full-nelson while his buddy moves in to work you over with fists? You need to have a Delayed Sword that works there too. If the BG grabs your lapel with one hand and pulls a gun with another? Your Delayed Sword needs to work then, too.



You cannot give everything needed immediately. And if you think you can, you have no idea of the reality of the situation. Might a new student get attacked in a way that hasn't been covered in class yet? Yep, sure can. But no matter how much you try to give, there is always something you haven't prepared the student for, so don't try to do everything, it's the sign of an amateur who has a fair amount of insecurity about themselves and what they offer. You might as well argue about what they could be attacked with before attending the class, it's not in your control.



ATACX GYM said:


> Every other technique and self defense sequence like Delayed Sword [ "sequence" is my own term which I use interchangeably with the CORRECT definition of Ideal Techniques; the definition for Ideal Technique is the specific expression for whatever sequence of techniques--like Delayed Sword--that you as the instructor has crafted for your particular school or gym, which follows the Ideal Phase Analytical Technique Process method and uses the 3 points of view...The What If&The Formulation Phases and The Equation Formula ] should be tested as functionally rigorously and comprehensively as possible and practical. The result is; every technique is usable in any situation. Depending on the number of techniques and Ideals you have, you could have up to about 154 ways to do one thing and 154 ways to do 154 things. That's an amazing, extremely difficult to predict or defend against arsenal which should give the comprehensively trained Kenpoist a gargantuan advantage over almost anyone else.



Then why do all other Kempo practitioners, including those who trained directly under Ed Parker, disagree with your interpretation?



ATACX GYM said:


> What I have essentially done is taken the attack and defense categories in The Web of Knowledge, added more categories to it, combined these with h2h ranges shown in CQC and MMA, and tested my every technique and ATACX GYM IDEAL TECHNIQUE against each and every consideration raised by all of the foregoing. To my knowledge? This matrix I have crafted is unique...although I personally know of various predecessors and precedents to portions of the methods that I use in my ATACX GYM.



As I said, the sign of an amateur with insecurity issues.



ATACX GYM said:


> "1. Terminology &#8211; Prof. Ras misuses terminology (concepts, techniques, paradigms) and tries to fit squares into round holes to try to make his point. He should try to come up with his own terminology or properly define his terms so that everyone can be on the same page."--Sandanchris
> 
> I'm not sure if this is correct. I know that I challenge the veracity of various terms used in Kenpo. Maybe that's it. Or maybe Sandanchris would be good enough to show me where I've misused Kenpo terminology concpets paradigms techniques etc. To my knowledge I haven't done such a thing and I certainly haven't meant to. If it's shown that I have? I will straightway make amends.



Chris doesn't need to, Ras, everyone else already has. You just haven't listened.



ATACX GYM said:


> "2. Ideal-what if- formulation &#8211; Prof. Ras is trying to use a concept from EPAK that does not need to apply to the training he offers in his gym. In fact, the continued reference to each of these topics convolutes the issue further. I believe Prof. Ras fits this formula better &#8220;see it &#8211; drop it &#8211; keep it&#8221;.--Sandanchris
> 
> I actually have a pretty good grasp of this area, Sandanchris. Perhaps you could clarify your meaning further by furnishing examples of your meaning?



See Doc's comments, Ras. You don't have a good grasp on this area.



ATACX GYM said:


> "3. Aggressive attitude or Bravado &#8211; Due to his position, training, heritage ect&#8230;Prof. Ras sees things through his Long Beach lens. Would the conversations here on the internet be different if this lens was removed? I believe so!"--Sandanchris
> 
> I think this is true too...but probably regarding different subtopics and topics. I have forthrightly challenged the TRAINING PARADIGM that gave rise to the commonly miscalled Ideal Phase techniques. I have said then and say now that they're dysfunctional. The Ideal Phase techniques _themselves _ aren't innately dysfunctional, but the _training paradigm giving rise to them *mandates* a dysfunctional, highly unrealistic expression_.This uncompromising stance of mine has earned me the wrath and flames of many a poster who think that I'm saying that THEY suck, or KENPO sucks or that I'm here to save Kenpo, etc etc.



That's not what Chris was referring to, though. He's referring to your method of communication, the way you obstinately refuse to listen to actual criticism, instead resorting to things like this thread (and the article) in which you state that anyone not doing what you do sucks. And you haven't challenged any "training paradigm" when it all comes down to it.



ATACX GYM said:


> My forthright challenges have been misinterpreted frequently as aggression and/or bravado. Neither is actually the case, and I have been careful to directly refute this contention whenever it's brought up.



You've backpeddled when you were called on it, that's not the same thing. Hell, Ras, you've been banned because of it.



ATACX GYM said:


> *The entirety of the above is radically untrue and you utterly misconstrue and misunderstand basic statements of mine. At this point? I'm willing to simply concede that we have no common ground and suggest that we agree to disagree and leave further mutual discussion about topics that we disagree on alone.*




As you have never once been able to counter a single criticism or statement I have made, instead trying to simply state things are "radically untrue", backing out might have been your best option. But no. 



ATACX GYM said:


> *Ras has repeatedly stated--for more than a year--the exact opposite of your contention, to wit: Ras doesn't want everyone to be just like Ras. I am, however, not at all surprised to see you conflate my insistence that whatever we as martial artists teach to our students we have used and continue to use successfully on the mat, professionally, on the streets or any combination of the above...and we teach our students to use the techniques in the same way that they will fight with them. You are sooo factually off base and wrong here it's...actually typical of my discussions with you. My Judo black belt comes from a Kodokan certified Judo school. Your comments about Judo clearly show you have noooo idea what you're talking about and have never trained in and maybe never even heard of Kosen Judo...but I have done both. I have been told by luminaries like O'Sensei Ogden [ r.i.p. ] and Heyward Nishioka that my Judo skills, balance,strength, explosivity and learning curve are all exceptional. My uncle did NOT teach me Judo. He did and continues to, however, teach me Iaido. As for whether or not you think I'm good? I'm sure it's clear by now that I don't care what your opinion is of me. Indulge yourself in that area however you please. Have fun.*


*
*
Hang on, haven't you just suggested we don't further engage in discussion, as you're not enjoying it? Then you continue with the rest of the post? And talking about yourself in the third person is just so endearing... 

As for the rest... seriously, get over yourself. Of course I've heard of Koden Judo, it's high school Judo (well, a ruleset designed for high school players), and all other Judoka made the same comments I did. As far as your black belt coming from "a Kodokan school"? Huh? That's in Japan, mate. Did you go to Japan to get your Shodan? The comments made were that what you presented as Judo just wasn't. And if you couldn't see that, then that just shows that your education is desperately flawed or incomplete.



ATACX GYM said:


> *Miscomprehension. Factually incorrect. Just plain wrong. Again. As usual.*


*
*
That's not an argument, Ras. Mainly as I offered an opinion, which is shared by pretty much anyone who knows anything about this topic, so arguing that it's "factually incorrect" is not even understanding how to make an argument in the first place. If you're going to come up against someone like me in the future, learn to argue.



ATACX GYM said:


> *There is a difference between what an art allegedly espouses and how its practitioners in the main practice.*


*
*
What is that supposed to mean? It sounds like you're trying to argue with me without actually saying anything.... 



ATACX GYM said:


> *Your opinions that my evaluations are often flawed, etc. do not in any way make them flawed. Sparring is an activity which is defined by different people in different ways, and thus the activity changes according to their definition of it. Your definition of sparring isn't mine; however since we never will see video of you...there is no way for any of us to objectively evaluate anything that you do, is there? Quite courageous of you to unleash scathing criticism while ensuring that you never proffer video of yourself doing things your "more correct" way in order to edify us all. Reminds me of Teddy Roosevelt's quote again...*


*
*
Except that I gave quite detailed critiques as to what was flawed in your evaluations and methods, Ras. Video wasn't needed. And your Roosevelt quote was way out of context, for the record.



ATACX GYM said:


> *It is your opinion that "you don't want to "lock" in self defence (which is apparently what he's focused on...), you want to get away". It is [ a part of ] MY opinion that in self-defense you want to DEFEND YOURSELF SUCCESSFULLY. By whatever means and whatever tools most available. This, to me, strongly suggests that one should have a high combat functional performance wavelength with as broad and as deep a set of skills as possible, inclusive of a solid grasp of all relevant principles, physical fitness to a superior degree, etc etc. But that's just a part of my opinion...*


*
*
So no actual argument then?



ATACX GYM said:


> *He does not denigrate EPKK TECHNIQUES, he lambasts the more prevalent dysfunctional training paradigms and methods that gave rise to and perpetuate the most common expression of the so-called Ideal Phase techniques. And news flash...he ALWAYS says he's teaching ATACX GYM KENPO. See? ATACX GYM KENPO IS WRITTEN ON THE TITLE OF EVERY VIDEO. NOT EPAK KENPO.*


* 
*
Except you use the EPAK terminology, technique names etc, and often start with the EPAK form, then proceed to go on to demonstrate your "improved" version... and when called on your lack of understanding of the actual EPAK form, you have this "I wasn't showing EPAK, I was showing ATACX GYM Kempo..." uh, no, you were showing EPAK first. No sale.



ATACX GYM said:


> *You are again massively and habitually incorrect. There are criticisms that I have adhered to. You are just unaware of them. And almost all of yours have been easily disprovably empirically incorrect.*


*

*"Massively and habitually incorrect? Easily disprovably empirically incorrect?" Are you kidding me? This form of hyperbole is found when there is no argument, Ras. And you have never once managed to even counter one of my criticisms even slightly, let alone to the degree that you seem convinced that you have.



ATACX GYM said:


> *Your opinion that I have egotistical delusions doesn't mean that I actually have them. Your assessment of the ATACX GYM JUDO thread is also similarly highly flawed, inaccurate, untrue, and...honestly...pretty funny in its dooficity. Let me assure you right now...having met Sandanchris...that Sandanchris is most definitely not a suck up. ESPECIALLY TO ME. He is a man of good standing and good character who wouldn't stoop to such a thing. And since he has actually met me and seen me move and felt my technique? Your opinion about his lack of understanding actually displays YOUR lack of understanding, sir.*


* 
*
For crying out loud, Ras, everyone on your "Judo" thread said the same thing. It wasn't Judo, it wasn't BJJ, it was technically very flawed, and wasn't anything like what you presented it as being. Chris coming on and saying it was "very nice" in the face of that shows a lack of understanding of what Judo is. So, no.



ATACX GYM said:


> *There is an interesting inference in your quote above that implies that Sandanchris would willy nilly come onto my threads and support me. He would not, sir. If he says something supportive? It's because he sees reason and good cause to do so. If he disagrees with me--which he has ALSO placed on this thread--he does so because he sees reason and good cause to do so,sir. He has met me face to face. We have exchanged techniques. In mere minutes, I have shown his students how to break bear hugs with their Kempo salute and how to combatively apply various techniques that they were just shown minutes before...and to the credit of the foundation that Sandanchris has given them and to the credit of the swift, keen minds of his students? They immediately grasped and performed what I asked of them. In less than five minutes they went from being shown a technique that Sandanchris introduced them to all the way to applying it functionally against real world resistance. That says something about the skills of everyone involved...Sandanchris, his wonderful students, and yours truly*


*

*Please. This post is about a response to another of Chris' posts that serve no purpose other than to rush to your defence.



ATACX GYM said:


> *Chris Parker. Let us agree to disagree and leave it at that. I will stay out of the threads that you author, and you reciprocate.*




You're not here anymore, so this is kinda moot, but for the record, my immediate response to this was: no.

Firstly, I don't start threads, so your offer to avoid threads I started has the same weight as you saying that you won't post on days that have an "X" in them. Next, if you're putting bad material out there for criticism, I'm going to pull them apart. You don't get a free ride because you don't like the criticism and can't answer it. The best you could have done is put me on ignore, but that really wouldn't have stopped me from posting and pointing out flaws in each and every video you posted should I have wanted to.



ATACX GYM said:


> I think I've said all that needs to be said here.



I don't. But that's moot now as well, really.



ATACX GYM said:


> Maybe I'm not being as clear as I wish to be here, because I agree with much of your post. What I'm saying specifically is that the so-called Ideal Phase techniques are generally not tested against anything except for the prescribed specific attack that they're to defend against. I haven't met anyone yet who forthrightly stated that they work their DS against the prescribed attack plus everything else too, like I do. There have got to be others who do,I just haven't read about or heard of them.
> 
> I completely agree that one should use one's basics and whatever else you need to emerge as unscathed and safe as possible in a self-defense encounter. Imo Delayed Sword is one of those basics.
> 
> My point is...whatever rank you're at when you face an assault? You need to have the versatility already ingrained in you--subgrappling escapes strikes weapons parrying standing locks throws sweeps takedowns rolls  weapon use multifights whatever--already locked and loaded and ready to go.



And once again:

You cannot give everything needed immediately. And if you think you can, you have no idea of the reality of the situation. Might a new student get attacked in a way that hasn't been covered in class yet? Yep, sure can. But no matter how much you try to give, there is always something you haven't prepared the student for, so don't try to do everything, it's the sign of an amateur who has a fair amount of insecurity about themselves and what they offer. You might as well argue about what they could be attacked with before attending the class, it's not in your control.


----------



## oaktree

Is there a reason on why Ras was banned? Despite his view point and the bit of heated exchanges here I thought he at least was passionate about his art and kept things interesting.


----------



## Chris Parker

I'll let the moderation team comment if they want, but yes, there was a reason he was banned. And no, it wasn't from me reporting him.


----------



## Sukerkin

Because even malefactors have the right not to be 'shamed' further after they have earned a reprimand or disciplinary action, that's not really a question that will be answered in an open forum, *Oaktree*.  As I am not a Moderator any more, I have not been privy to the discussions on this one but be assured that bans are hard earned here at MT so it was not for something trivial.


----------



## MJS

oaktree said:


> Is there a reason on why Ras was banned? Despite his view point and the bit of heated exchanges here I thought he at least was passionate about his art and kept things interesting.



In a nutshell, a rule violation, one that he was spoken to in the past.  Thats all I'm saying.


----------



## Hand Sword

Hmmm.... a whole thread about martial artists arguing methods... what has it all come to? I say, let's go back to the time when the arguing was settled by dojo wars, fists, feet, blood, etc...  As Conan put it "Enough Talk!" But always remember...never, ever, talk about fight club! :wink1:


----------



## Hand Sword

Seriously, I like points of this debate on both sides. As a street kid back in the day, I can always appreciate the need to develop a more realistic scenario for training. Lord knows, to quote Attack "there was many a time" that I questioned things as a young punk and applaud his enthusiasm. However, what bugged me about his posts was the presupposition of his arguments. His view of the real attacks I did find pretty acurate as I have seen and participated (on both ends) in my experience. The only issue is the "yapping" mentioned in the videos and explanation. Of course, if you're "yapping" there is a huge opportunity for a friend to get involved from behind with a punch to the back of the head, reach around, etc.... However, being a martial artist, a generation X'er from the city, who says reality for us was "yapping" in the club or wherever? Reality, in a situation where many are around including the other's "homies" was, for us "it being on from jump!" Once it jumped off that was it--action-- not a "yap fest" as was mentioned. What happened to awareness, which serious practitioners work on? Taking action or preventing it in the first place is the key.

Another issue was attack's follow ups of after you've been stunned and the "right way" to do the techniques. Again, I like the explanation and ideas presented. The issue is with getting "your bell rung." Once stunned from shots to the end or attacked from behind suddenly (a sucker shot), you are unlikeliy to get your bearings or resort to training. The subconscious part of you mind takes over and one cover's up. In addition, let's say you could turn in or away as mentioned and follow up, there isn't likely to be any power or accuracy levels that would overwhelm the attacker. I've seen many get whacked like was mentioned and get into it. As an outsider's view, even with big monters, there was little power or strength once stunned. As for techniques, they are less likely to be pulled off until you can clear your head and get back into the fight. Until then, it's all instinct.


----------

