# Break Or Lock?



## MJS (Dec 27, 2005)

Kenpo contains some devastating techniques, many containing breaks, rakes to the eyes, etc.  However, is every attack going to require taking it to such extremes?  Would a lock be a better option depending on the situation?

Thoughts?


----------



## JamesB (Dec 27, 2005)

MJS said:
			
		

> Kenpo contains some devastating techniques, many containing breaks, rakes to the eyes, etc. However, is every attack going to require taking it to such extremes? Would a lock be a better option depending on the situation?
> 
> Thoughts?


 
Here's my take on this subject. Sure, Kenpo contains some pretty devastating techniques, and depending on the situation a "locking" strategy can certainly help to control an assailant. I would definitely look to subdue/control someone in a non-lethal way if at all possible.

However consider what you will do once you have your assailant under control in some form of lock - at some stage you must let go and then what? Can you guarantee that you can safely let go and walk away?

Consider that not every branch of Kenpo focusses on the "maiming" aspect of the art. Dr Chapel in particular has a very different approach to controlling an assailant which (AFAIK) does not employ the use of lethal techniques such as eye/throat-strikes. However from what little I have been exposed to of his art it is much more effective than the "blunt force trauma" methods that appear popular in main-stream kenpo-karate.

Consider also that you don't actually have to jab your fingers into someone's eye-socket to control them. Even a light touch is enough. A simple "wipe" of the hand in front of the attacker's eyes is enough to disorientate them enough to cause realignments in their body structure, making subsequent strikes more effective. Try looking at any of your techniques that contain "eye slices" and ask yourself happens if you didn't actually make contact with the eyes - i.e. specially, what happens to a person's physiology when you cut across their vision and how can you exploit this?

But really I agree with you. Blinding someone because they have grabbed you is totally unacceptable. Breaking someone's joints/tendons is just as bad. Maybe there would be a situation which would warrant such lethal responses but you would find it hard to justify these actions should you find yourself in court. 

James


----------



## jdinca (Dec 27, 2005)

MJS said:
			
		

> Kenpo contains some devastating techniques, many containing breaks, rakes to the eyes, etc. However, is every attack going to require taking it to such extremes? Would a lock be a better option depending on the situation?
> 
> Thoughts?


 
Depends, it's important to have a proportional response, especially from a legal point of view. If a drunk in a bar throws a punch, I would be more likely to use a lock and ask him nicely not to do that anymore. If someone takes a swipe at me with a knife or is threatening one of my kids or a loved one, I'm going to snap his arm like a twig and probably do a few other things as well. Or, I'm going to get my butt kicked, which is probably the more likely scenario.  

I feel it's important to know the lethal strikes, i.e. eye gouges, throat punches for that life or death situation but I also think it's important to know how and when to use less force. I agree with comments I've read that the more experience you have, the less you need to use these lethal strikes to subdue an attacker but most martial artists are not at that level and need all the tools they can to survive an attack.


----------



## MJS (Dec 27, 2005)

JamesB said:
			
		

> However consider what you will do once you have your assailant under control in some form of lock - at some stage you must let go and then what? Can you guarantee that you can safely let go and walk away?


 
Very good point. This is why I stated that it would all depend on the situation. We certainly will not know what will happen, but it may be another option until you can get help if it was available.  Locks can also be translated into throws.  Tossing someone to the ground, may provide a bit of humiliation on their part, possibly causing them to rethink their actions.



> Consider that not every branch of Kenpo focusses on the "maiming" aspect of the art. Dr Chapel in particular has a very different approach to controlling an assailant which (AFAIK) does not employ the use of lethal techniques such as eye/throat-strikes. However from what little I have been exposed to of his art it is much more effective than the "blunt force trauma" methods that appear popular in main-stream kenpo-karate.
> 
> Consider also that you don't actually have to jab your fingers into someone's eye-socket to control them. Even a light touch is enough. A simple "wipe" of the hand in front of the attacker's eyes is enough to disorientate them enough to cause realignments in their body structure, making subsequent strikes more effective. Try looking at any of your techniques that contain "eye slices" and ask yourself happens if you didn't actually make contact with the eyes - i.e. specially, what happens to a person's physiology when you cut across their vision and how can you exploit this?


 
Good points!



> But really I agree with you. Blinding someone because they have grabbed you is totally unacceptable. Breaking someone's joints/tendons is just as bad. Maybe there would be a situation which would warrant such lethal responses but you would find it hard to justify these actions should you find yourself in court.
> 
> James


 
This is kind of where I was going with this thread. Trying to look at the situation from another POV.

Mike


----------



## pete (Dec 27, 2005)

all kenpo techniques have built-in opportunity for locks, some obvious while other not so obvious.  personally, this is a training goal for me... to develop that skill to readily identify and apply locks based on opportunity presented in kenpo (specifically epak).

my understanding of this skill is that at such an opportunity you can: lock to submit, lock to throw, or lock to strike.  

lock to submit is ok to diffuse a situation where the attacker is motivated by ego.  he doesn't really want to fight, but does out of pride, over a woman or money, or induced by alchohol.  its good for public places, where he can be released without fear of retribution. 

where it fails is multiple attacker scenarios. since you will likely be using your whole body and both hands to keep him restrained, you are exposed to a second attacker.  this is where a throw can rid you #1 quickly enough to deal with #2.  

downside here is, #1 can come back and eventually you will lose to multiple attackers.  this is where the striking comes in.  it may be slower that the throw, but can be disabling so there is less chance of a return.

i think this is fascinating aspect of kenpo, good topic.

pete


----------



## JamesB (Dec 27, 2005)

MJS said:
			
		

> Very good point. This is why I stated that it would all depend on the situation. We certainly will not know what will happen, but it may be another option until you can get help if it was available. Locks can also be translated into throws. Tossing someone to the ground, may provide a bit of humiliation on their part, possibly causing them to rethink their actions.


 
Definitely agree with you here. I think even the act of tying someone up so that you have complete control over them would be very effective in subduing their initial aggression. I imagine that one would be able to sense the likelyhood of further retaliation prior to releasing control. Should the attacker "reengage" a more measured (i.e. destructive) response would be required. 

I guess one would ideally knockout/disable the attacker in a non-destructive way at this point but without the specific knowledge+training in this area the snapping bones+tendons would be the way to go...

You probably have far more experience than I but from my perspective the "default techniques" teach the "most destructive" response first of all and it then depends on the instructor to provide the insights into the different posibilities with regards to the level of destruction and "higher levels" of control. 

I do believe that the "gauge+chop+break" emphasis of old became mainstream due to influences like the kungfu films of the seventies (i.e. Bruce Lee etc) and was what people wanted at the time - it seems to me that kenpo-karate became popular because it was so destructive. I'm not so sure that this aspect of the art is so relevant today and personally the "SL4" or non-lethal approaches are far more interesting to me.

Nice thread!
James


----------



## Cog (Dec 28, 2005)

I haven't read through the other responses, but I have to say that I've only needed to use controlling techniques since I started Kenpo (1999). A little fingerlock and a foot shove goes a long way toward reducing a drunk and disorlerly charge .


----------



## Brother John (Dec 28, 2005)

MJS said:
			
		

> Kenpo contains some devastating techniques, many containing breaks, rakes to the eyes, etc. However, is every attack going to require taking it to such extremes? Would a lock be a better option depending on the situation?
> 
> Thoughts?


It totally depends on the given situation. Everything has a context. That, in my opinion, is one of the most powerful things about Kenpo.... it's versatility. The more experienced you are the more options you realize, Lock/Sprain/Break, rake/poke/gouge,  buckle/break ...etc.
options options options...

Your Brother
John


----------



## MJS (Dec 28, 2005)

JamesB said:
			
		

> Definitely agree with you here. I think even the act of tying someone up so that you have complete control over them would be very effective in subduing their initial aggression. I imagine that one would be able to sense the likelyhood of further retaliation prior to releasing control. Should the attacker "reengage" a more measured (i.e. destructive) response would be required.


 
Good point.  Thats beauty of locks...they can flow from one to the next.  I dont look at them as the end all, be all answer, just an option.



> I guess one would ideally knockout/disable the attacker in a non-destructive way at this point but without the specific knowledge+training in this area the snapping bones+tendons would be the way to go...


 
Considering the world we live in today, my take is to attempt to defuse a situation in the least violent fashion as possible.  Of course, if talking, leaving, etc. is not an option, then yes, more force would be necessary.



> You probably have far more experience than I but from my perspective the "default techniques" teach the "most destructive" response first of all and it then depends on the instructor to provide the insights into the different posibilities with regards to the level of destruction and "higher levels" of control.


 
True.  The base techniques should be taught first and foremost.  Looking at the 'what ifs' or other options should come later.  



> I do believe that the "gauge+chop+break" emphasis of old became mainstream due to influences like the kungfu films of the seventies (i.e. Bruce Lee etc) and was what people wanted at the time - it seems to me that kenpo-karate became popular because it was so destructive. I'm not so sure that this aspect of the art is so relevant today and personally the "SL4" or non-lethal approaches are far more interesting to me.


 
I credit my FMA training to giving me a better understanding of locking and applying it to the Kenpo techniques.  I only know of SL4 from what I've read online, but it does seem to follow these principles.



> Nice thread!


 
Thanks!  And this has been a great discussion as well!  I hope that more people chime in and give their thoughts as well.

Mike


----------



## MJS (Dec 28, 2005)

Brother John said:
			
		

> It totally depends on the given situation. Everything has a context. That, in my opinion, is one of the most powerful things about Kenpo.... it's versatility. The more experienced you are the more options you realize, Lock/Sprain/Break, rake/poke/gouge, buckle/break ...etc.
> options options options...
> 
> Your Brother
> John


 
Well said Bro John!!  As you said, if we really take a look at the wide scope of things, the possibilities are endless.

Mike


----------



## shesulsa (Dec 28, 2005)

One thing about breaking is that once the joint is broken, much of the pain goes away, so your pain compliance goes away.  LEO application has to be careful too, because if you damage a joint you could permanently injure or incapacitate leaving you open for a lawsuit. Ick.

Then incapacitating an offending limb might be exactly what you need in a citizen self-defense situation.  So I'd agree that it just depends.


----------



## swiftpete (Dec 28, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> One thing about breaking is that once the joint is broken, much of the pain goes away, so your pain compliance goes away. quote]
> 
> Oof i think if i broke someone's arm and he still wanted to fight on, then i might as well just give up and bend over there and then as he's obviously completely mental!
> Can that really happen?


----------



## swiftpete (Dec 28, 2005)

Quoting for that one didnt work for some reason, but i'm sure you all get the idea anyhow!


----------



## jdinca (Dec 28, 2005)

swiftpete said:
			
		

> Oof i think if i broke someone's arm and he still wanted to fight on, then i might as well just give up and bend over there and then as he's obviously completely mental!
> Can that really happen?


 
Yup. Mental, in a rage, on drugs. I've assisted in taking down people on pcp, usually takes a six to one ratio. I've seen them break handcuffs and their own wrist at the same time. If a broken arm doesn't stop them, you need something even more destructive, or preferrably, run like hell. :EG:


----------



## swiftpete (Dec 28, 2005)

Wow, i'm glad i've never had to take down someone like that. If I do, I'll have to remember to break a knee if poss then to stop them chasing, then run! I've often heard about PCP and the superhuman strength people have on it, a lot of my friends use various types of drugs but i've never seen any of them on that stuff though. Maybe it's not that popular in england.


----------



## Doc (Dec 29, 2005)

jdinca said:
			
		

> Yup. Mental, in a rage, on drugs. I've assisted in taking down people on pcp, usually takes a six to one ratio. I've seen them break handcuffs and their own wrist at the same time. If a broken arm doesn't stop them, you need something even more destructive, or preferrably, run like hell. :EG:


Actually destruction is not the answer. Anatomical Restrictive Body Positioning and manipulation works just fine. The problem with most "locks" and "hold" is they are based on pain compliance. This is a mistake. "Any technique that relies wholly upon pain to be effective will ultimely fail." - Ed Parker.

Your goal should be "control" not pain, or even destruction. Pain and/or destruction should at the most be a vicarious byproduct of your actions not your goal. This one of many mandates to Kenpo Locks as it was dictated to me.


----------



## shesulsa (Dec 29, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> Actually destruction is not the answer. Anatomical Restrictive Body Positioning and manipulation works just fine. The problem with most "locks" and "hold" is they are based on pain compliance. This is a mistake. "Any technique that relies wholly upon pain to be effective will ultimely fail." - Ed Parker.
> 
> Your goal should be "control" not pain, or even destruction. Pain and/or destruction should at the most be a vicarious byproduct of your actions not your goal. This one of many mandates to Kenpo Locks as it was dictated to me.



Sometimes putting the joint in a controlled position involves pain, but I'd have to agree that controlling the joint is, of course, what you want to do.


----------



## pete (Dec 29, 2005)

the joint is the gateway... controlling the opponent's center though the spine is what you want to do.


----------



## searcher (Dec 29, 2005)

Doc, if we are having to use our techniques to defend ourselves is it not wise to destroy what we can get ahold of?  Is this not what we must do or is it taking defense to the extreme?   In your opinion would there ever be a situation that would warrant breaking?   I am very interested in your views on this.


----------



## Doc (Dec 29, 2005)

searcher said:
			
		

> Doc, if we are having to use our techniques to defend ourselves is it not wise to destroy what we can get ahold of?  Is this not what we must do or is it taking defense to the extreme?   In your opinion would there ever be a situation that would warrant breaking?   I am very interested in your views on this.


Your points are well taken sir, but to "rountinely" teach or perform extreme destruction, is a poor self defense model for ethical, moral, as well as legal reasons. Circumstances where someone would die because your action of striking the throat in "Sword & Hammer," (right flank shoulder grab) in most empty hand scenarios is unacceptable. So would destroying a limb joint, possible creating long term or permanent disability, simply because you have control of it also be unacceptable.

Fingers to the eyes, claws, throat smashes, groin strikes, etc are all part and parcel of "quick & easy" self defense models taught throughout this country in school, colleges, and community services courses of short duration usually aimed at women.

This is the same as it is in other self defense courses that teach the same thing. The problem is those course are and were taught primarily to women who by the nature of our society when attacked by a male, face extreme circumstances in almost every scenario.

When Mr. Parker launched his motion based commercial product, he used this as a base to ensure there would be a level of effectiveness to the material taught to people of all ages and both genders in store front businesses and YWCA classes.

*The moral aspect of this model is the personal responsibility of the individual and not the model itself, and is expressed as such in its creed. (Empty hands, forced to defend myself, life or death, Right or wrong).
*

In that sense, the teaching of this material and its methods is an anomoly in the tradition of the martial arts that preceded it. Traditionally arts are taught slow, building skill and confidence and they too reach a level of destruction but absent these soft tissues assaults, instead relying on strength, power, endurance, and blunt force trauma. Only after training for years was a student supposed to be skilled enough to be taught information that didn't require extreme responses in rountine attacks. 

Traditionally, the higher form of any art has always stressed the lack of destruction and the ability of the true master to dispatch an attacker, and leave him unharmed if desired. The anomolous motion kenpo is inverse. Because of the lack of certain information, the longer you study the more destructive it becomes, repeating incessantly these same soft tissue strikes, and stomping those who are already on the ground helpless from previous soft tissue assaults like entertainment style wrestling. In any jurisdiction I know, this would get anyone incarcerated for an "extreme response." Certainly women are given more a benefit of the doubt, but even they could be locked up for performing "extensions" on a helpless male.

I believe, (primarily because we talked about it), that Mr. Parkers' goal was to take his "Chinese Kenpo" and distill it into an "American Kenpo" where all the elements prevelent in the traditional Chinese Arts would be refined into western scientific terms and understanding, but devoid of the time elongating traditional accoutrements that have no relevance to the American Culture of street self defense. 

By virtue of my profession in law enforcement and previous training, we worked on much of this material, however Mr. Parker didn't have time to codify this information into a progressive structured system, and that is one of the reasons why the business model of motion based kenpo prevails in proliferation and popularity. 

As a side note it should be stated; despite many who use the term "American Kenpo Karate," Mr. Parker only used the term "karate" associated with motion kenpo in his "Ed Parker's Kenpo Karate." Parker abandoned the term "karate" when he switched to "Chinese Kenpo" in his own development and study, with no intent to return to it. But the "American Kenpo" term was subjugated when he splintered the business away from his own evolution of His personal use of American Kenpo to sell commercial kenpo which emphasized the word "karate" to the masses for familiarity.

This model while obviously effective in many instances, is *NOT* representative of the bulk of Ed Parker's skill and knowledge, but a successful diversion that barely scratched the surface of his available evolving knowledge.


----------



## Cujo (Dec 29, 2005)

Just another leo thought.

The minimum force needed to control the situation. We will all be held accountable for the force that we use against another, so just make sure that you respond with that in mind. To respond to an attack by a stumbling drunk with lethal or maiming techniques would be crimminal.

Pax
Cujo


----------



## MJS (Dec 29, 2005)

searcher said:
			
		

> Doc, if we are having to use our techniques to defend ourselves is it not wise to destroy what we can get ahold of? Is this not what we must do or is it taking defense to the extreme? In your opinion would there ever be a situation that would warrant breaking? I am very interested in your views on this.


 
This is why its so very important to exercise proper judgement as well as having an understanding of self defense laws.  I've used the example of Lone Kimono in the past.  For a simple lapel grab, I can't see breaking or hyperextending the elbow when there are other options to choose from.

Just my .02


----------



## jdinca (Dec 30, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> Actually destruction is not the answer. Anatomical Restrictive Body Positioning and manipulation works just fine. The problem with most "locks" and "hold" is they are based on pain compliance. This is a mistake. "Any technique that relies wholly upon pain to be effective will ultimely fail." - Ed Parker.
> 
> Your goal should be "control" not pain, or even destruction. Pain and/or destruction should at the most be a vicarious byproduct of your actions not your goal. This one of many mandates to Kenpo Locks as it was dictated to me.



Destructive is probably not the best term. My answer was more along the lines of dealing with someone whacked out on pcp, where the pain threshold is almost nonexistent, which can decrease the ability to "control". Someone in this condition will fight a hold, even if it means breaking or dislocating something. Hence the six to one ratio.

Your point is well taken in other situations about control v. damage. Properly done, pain from most locks should be a result of the person in the lock fighting it, not the lock itself. This is also how I am taught. Thank's for your input!


----------



## Doc (Dec 30, 2005)

jdinca said:
			
		

> Destructive is probably not the best term. My answer was more along the lines of dealing with someone whacked out on pcp, where the pain threshold is almost nonexistent, which can decrease the ability to "control". Someone in this condition will fight a hold, even if it means breaking or dislocating something. Hence the six to one ratio.
> 
> Your point is well taken in other situations about control v. damage. Properly done, pain from most locks should be a result of the person in the lock fighting it, not the lock itself. This is also how I am taught. Thank's for your input!


Consider the possibility of a person under the influence of a mind altering drug with no pain response, being anatomically misaligned and incapable of significant movement or hurting themselves or you.


----------



## jdinca (Dec 30, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> Consider the possibility of a person under the influence of a mind altering drug with no pain response, being anatomically misaligned and incapable of significant movement or hurting themselves or you.



You've given me thought for another thread regarding law enforcement training in this area. I've worked with many agencies and there's a lot of inconsistency in the level of training in this respect.

Thanks for your thoughts. :asian:


----------



## Doc (Dec 30, 2005)

jdinca said:
			
		

> You've given me thought for another thread regarding law enforcement training in this area. I've worked with many agencies and there's a lot of inconsistency in the level of training in this respect.
> 
> Thanks for your thoughts. :asian:


As a 30 year law enforcement professional in the public sector, as well as an academy instructor, to say "inconsistency" is being kind. Give me a shout whn you start the new thread.


----------



## searcher (Jan 3, 2006)

Thanks Doc.   I am glad you to take the time to answer.  It is great post.


----------

