# Kenpo 5.0 Commercial



## HKphooey (Sep 22, 2008)




----------



## arnisador (Sep 22, 2008)

Is that a throat kick on a downed man with a frshly-broken arm at about 32 seconds in?


----------



## MA-Caver (Sep 22, 2008)

arnisador said:


> Is that a throat kick on a downed man with a frshly-broken arm at about 32 seconds in?


 Looks like it.


----------



## arnisador (Sep 22, 2008)

Eh...that's not how I'd want to advertise my school if I had one. It's hard for me to imagine situations in which that'd be defensible...they're certainly rare enough to not merit inclusion in a brief commercial.

This is the overkill thing, folks.


----------



## thetruth (Sep 23, 2008)

I also don't think cutting a guy up with a knife after he has only punched you is defensible either.


Cheers
Sam :asian:


----------



## stickarts (Sep 23, 2008)

Thanks for posting!


----------



## terryl965 (Sep 23, 2008)

I believe this was over kill and not a good way to promote a school, just my opinion.


----------



## clfsean (Sep 23, 2008)

Looks that like normal overkill laden ken(m)po to me too... 

It's one thing to hit enough to stop an attack & practice good self defense. 

The rest are lawsuits and/or felony jail time waiting.


----------



## DavidCC (Sep 23, 2008)

most kenpo teachers don;t seem to care aoubt legal ramifications.

But its ok becasue most of the stuff they teach won't let them survive past the inital assault anyway LOL!!


----------



## ackks10 (Sep 23, 2008)

OMG!!!!!:bomb:


----------



## JTKenpo (Sep 23, 2008)

DavidCC said:


> most kenpo teachers don;t seem to care aoubt legal ramifications.
> 
> But its ok becasue most of the stuff they teach won't let them survive past the inital assault anyway LOL!!


 
ummm are you no longer a Kempo guy???????

Any one that has never kicked an attacker while on the ground has never been in a real altercation.  Sure let him get back up so he can cut your throat while you walk away thinking how nice it was for you to defend yourself without hurting the bad guy.  

In a life or death situation you are worried about a lawsuit!!!  Give me a break, thats the biggest pile of......oh never mind keep breaking boards, they don't hit back.


----------



## RevIV (Sep 23, 2008)

So many people forget why we teach the overkill in the first place.  In the world of perfection, yes a lot of the Kempo would be overkill.  In the world of reality, people block, dodge, duck and move out of the way.. and sometimes hit back.  We teach continous motion so if we miss once we know the next natural movement just keeps coming.  I wish someone told the guy who kicked me in the head last time i was in a tussle that it was illegal.  Also- if your getting mugged, defend yourself and pound the guy into the ground he probably is not going to sue you,, He did just try to mug you.  But then again there is always the story of the burglar who fell through the skylight, landed on a knife and sued the family.


----------



## arnisador (Sep 23, 2008)

RevIV said:


> So many people forget why we teach the overkill in the first place.  In the world of perfection, yes a lot of the Kempo would be overkill.  In the world of reality, people block, dodge, duck and move out of the way.. and sometimes hit back.  We teach continous motion so if we miss once we know the next natural movement just keeps coming.



If you missed, it's likely because something happened that you didn't expect/want to happen...so the "next" movement is apt to fail also, isn't it? If a jab doesn't land, do you follow up with a cross to the place where you now know the opponent's head isn't located?



> Also- if your getting mugged, defend yourself and pound the guy into the ground



In this clip the defender dropped his opponent, broke his arm with a figure-four arm lock (indicated by the tap), stood up, then kicked him in the Adam's apple. If you're in the Army in Iraq, fine--that's war. If you're in the Oktoberfest in Cincinnati, maybe not.

As someone whose art focuses on weapons, including the kind with sharp edges, I'm well aware that a serious or fatal injury is always a possibility. But it shouldn't be a goal. We don't practice to stab maimed people on the ground. If the time ever comes for that I figure I can ad lib it.

Surely an ad like this is intended to get kids who are afraid of being bullied in school as much as anything else. If that's so, this seems an inappropriate ad.


----------



## JTKenpo (Sep 23, 2008)

arnisador said:


> If you missed, it's likely because something happened that you didn't expect/want to happen...so the "next" movement is apt to fail also, isn't it? If a jab doesn't land, do you follow up with a cross to the place where you now know the opponent's head isn't located?
> 
> 
> ROFL!!!!  Are you kidding me?  So what, you stop and smile at each other and see who blinks?  Are you saying that in every sparring match you have ever been in you connected with every strike?  Do you throw the cross, YES and the hook that comes after that and the uppercut.....overhand right will probably get used too as well as elbows knees and the book shelf sitting on top of the trash can...


----------



## DavidCC (Sep 23, 2008)

you are right, won't be time to think of legal consequences in teh middl eof defending myself, so I amke sure to train appropriate responses to differnet level of attack.

Will I crush some guys throat because he put his hand on my shoulder?  or poke his eye out for pushing me? not as a first response, but if he elevates, I can too.

it gets back to the whole idea of "I knew how to poke a guy's eyes out and crush his testicles before I ever walked in the dojo, so what am I paying to learn"


----------



## DavidCC (Sep 23, 2008)

RevIV said:


> I wish someone told the guy who kicked me in the head last time i was in a tussle that it was illegal.


 
Well, I'm sure he knew but didn't care.
I'm not being facetious.
If you respond to an attack in ways that you know are illegal, you are only slightly better, morally, than that guy; and legally not any better.


----------



## JTKenpo (Sep 23, 2008)

DavidCC said:


> you are right, won't be time to think of legal consequences in teh middl eof defending myself, so I amke sure to train appropriate responses to differnet level of attack.
> 
> Will I crush some guys throat because he put his hand on my shoulder? or poke his eye out for pushing me? not as a first response, but if he elevates, I can too.
> 
> it gets back to the whole idea of "I knew how to poke a guy's eyes out and crush his testicles before I ever walked in the dojo, so what am I paying to learn"


 

Well I'm not sure what you are paying for, according to the website in your signature you are paying for Kempo yet you say that most Kempo teaches you material that wouldn't get you through the initial attack.


----------



## JTKenpo (Sep 23, 2008)

DavidCC said:


> Well, I'm sure he knew but didn't care.
> I'm not being facetious.
> If you respond to an attack in ways that you know are illegal, you are only slightly better, morally, than that guy; and legally not any better.


 

Ok lets take it out of the kids class, you teach your adults and you yourself would stare down an attacker/attackers and wait for them to strike first?  Then you are right you probably wouldn't make it through the initial attack.  Three men are standing in front of you demanding your life, who hits who first?  I do, and I contemplate my morality as I live to go home to my family.


----------



## ackks10 (Sep 23, 2008)

i know one thing, if a kenpo person hit someone and he go's to the ground from being hit, he should not be getting up any time soon,and yes i know what i'm talking about,because i had to do it  a couple times in life.
now if someone tried to hit you, and you have to do something?and he go's down and stays there and don't try to get up, and you go over and kick him in the throat,well yes you then have a big problem, you see (in NJ) when the threat is no longer there and you still hit the person, you may very well have to come up with bail money.:soapbox:


----------



## Mark L (Sep 23, 2008)

I'll leave alone the comparison of legality and morality in a self defense situation, it's a fools errand.

Remember "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"?  Anyone messes with that and they've lost the right to ***** about my morality, and self defense _is_ legal.

The commercial is typical of slap happy kempo against compliant partners.  That doesn't mean we're all like that, or maybe not even that dojo.  It's advertising, for crying out loud, who thinks any of it is based in reality?

As for anticipating that the "next" move will also fail?  Absolutely, count on it.  Something will invariably happen that you didn't anticipate, that's why continuing until the threat is removed is mandated.  Honest, hard, unscripted, resistant opponent training is necessary (though it's probably too ugly to use in a commercial).


----------



## girlbug2 (Sep 23, 2008)

ackks10 said:


> i know one thing, if a kenpo person hit someone and he go's to the ground from being hit, he should not be getting up any time soon,and yes i know what i'm talking about,because i had to do it a couple times in life.
> now if someone tried to hit you, and you have to do something?and he go's down and stays there and don't try to get up, and you go over and kick him in the throat,well yes you then have a big problem, you see (in NJ) when the threat is no longer there and you still hit the person, you may very well have to come up with bail money.:soapbox:


 
The person who is being attacked must make the determination on his/her own when the threat is no longer there. In my case, I am not that fast of a runner. If I were attacked, I would consider the threat to be no longer there when I could reasonably get away without the fear of being chased down again for round 2.


----------



## RevIV (Sep 23, 2008)

DavidCC said:


> it gets back to the whole idea of "I knew how to poke a guy's eyes out and crush his testicles before I ever walked in the dojo, so what am I paying to learn"


 
Accuracy.

-DVC-


----------



## kidswarrior (Sep 23, 2008)

In my own limited experience and understanding, redundancy or overkill have always been tenets of Ken/mpo techniques. How and when the strikes stop is where judgment--and maybe luck--comes in. That judgment imho is the responsibility of the instructor to instill over time as part of the art. At least, as an instructor, I assume it as such.


----------



## thetruth (Sep 24, 2008)

I think as long as, deep down, you are happy to go to prison if you badly injure someone or kill them then so be it.  If you knock a guy to the ground and then kick him in the throat  to make sure he doesn't, well you had better make sure he was getting up almost at the time you kicked or it is jail for you.  I think after someone is down well an ankle or arm stomp are probably a better option.  Taking to a man singing punches witha knife(as I said before) is just plain crap and I wouldn't send my kid there on that image alone.  I like kenpo and did it for a few years but I don't remember any knife vs unarmed attacker scenarios.


Cheers
Sam:asian:


----------



## JTKenpo (Sep 24, 2008)

ackks10 said:


> i know one thing, if a kenpo person hit someone and he go's to the ground from being hit, he should not be getting up any time soon,and yes i know what i'm talking about,because i had to do it a couple times in life.
> now if someone tried to hit you, and you have to do something?and he go's down and stays there and don't try to get up, and you go over and kick him in the throat,well yes you then have a big problem, you see (in NJ) when the threat is no longer there and you still hit the person, you may very well have to come up with bail money.:soapbox:


 
George, 
I didn't kick him, I stumbled on him trying to get away in fear of my life.


----------



## DavidCC (Sep 24, 2008)

JTKenpo said:


> Ok lets take it out of the kids class, you teach your adults and you yourself would stare down an attacker/attackers and wait for them to strike first? Then you are right you probably wouldn't make it through the initial attack. Three men are standing in front of you demanding your life, who hits who first? I do, and I contemplate my morality as I live to go home to my family.


 


JTKenpo said:


> Well I'm not sure what you are paying for, according to the website in your signature you are paying for Kempo yet you say that most Kempo teaches you material that wouldn't get you through the initial attack.


 
I don't know what gives you the idea that I would wait around for someone to hit me.  In my state (and most others I am sure) "Assault" is the making of a credible threat of violence and having the means and opportunity to carry it out.  So I am assaulted before the first punch is thrown and so even a pre-emptive strike is self-defense when you have been assaulted.

Now if you know the guy is going to hit you do you need some fancy kempo technique?  

We teach that the techniques are designed to get you out of bad situations - situations where you are surprised and must first survive the initial attack, single or multiple strikes.  I look at most SKK techniques and I don't see any attempt to prevent or protect from follow-up strikes (please start another thread if you want to to discuss that!, its a great topic ), or to deal with the forward momentum/pressure and possibility of a grappling or take-down follow-up.  So that is why I say a lot of kempo that is taught will not get you through the initial attack.

If your training puts you in control of the situation, in control of the attacker's ability to continue the attack, and in control of our own fear and adrenaline rush, then you should have the ability to control the amount of damage that you apply - anywhere from a control lock, to a knockout shot to a sensitive target, to a lethal strike or choke.  if you have no control of the attacker and no control of yourself then your best option is to cause as much damage as possible as quikcly as possible and hope there are no witnesses or the County Prosecutor is on your side.  

"hurt them bad and keep hurting them bad until they stop" this is what we teach in our Women's Self Defense classes since they are designed to be very short classes and the ladies have no time to develop a deeper level of skill required for more modulated (responsible and accountable) responses.  It is our opinion that the legal system is much more likely to be lenient with a young woman who blinded a rapist than it would with a young man, a martial artist, who blinds or maims a guy in a street fight.

Big Picture : Self Defense is all about continuing your life the way you want to live it; and even if you survive an assault (and battery) if you have to get invovled with the legal system, well, who wants that in their life LOL??


----------



## arnisador (Sep 24, 2008)

JTKenpo said:


> George,
> I didn't kick him, I stumbled on him trying to get away in fear of my life.



There are cameras everywhere...and clips like this showing it's an intentional, rehearsed technique.


----------



## JTKenpo (Sep 24, 2008)

arnisador said:


> There are cameras everywhere...and clips like this showing it's an intentional, rehearsed technique.


 
Paranoid much?  Um you are a FMA guy right?  So tell me how do you legally defend yourself with a two foot machedi?


----------



## arnisador (Sep 24, 2008)

I rarely have one with me. We have emoty hand techniques too.


----------



## JTKenpo (Sep 24, 2008)

DavidCC said:


> I don't know what gives you the idea that I would wait around for someone to hit me. In my state (and most others I am sure) "Assault" is the making of a credible threat of violence and having the means and opportunity to carry it out. So I am assaulted before the first punch is thrown and so even a pre-emptive strike is self-defense when you have been assaulted.
> 
> Now if you know the guy is going to hit you do you need some fancy kempo technique?
> 
> ...


 
To summarize, no one attack deals with everything (no matter what system you study).  Another reason to continue your training (maybe thats what you are paying for).  Hmmm sounds like a good reason to know multiple techniques on each side of the body, but we have already covered that haven't we, also might be beneficial to know how to start and stop techniques and insert other techniques what do they call that again ahhh yes grafting is it, but we have covered that too.  David I don't intend to change your mind about anything and I have said before your conflicting views within posts make it difficult to know where you are coming from.  Again you are bashing the system in which you proudly confess in your own signature.


----------



## JTKenpo (Sep 24, 2008)

arnisador said:


> I rarely have one with me. We have emoty hand techniques too.


 
nevermind


----------



## JTKenpo (Sep 24, 2008)

"We teach that the techniques are designed to get you out of bad situations - situations where you are surprised and must first survive the initial attack, single or multiple strikes. I look at most SKK techniques and I don't see any attempt to prevent or protect from follow-up strikes (please start another thread if you want to to discuss that!, its a great topic ), or to deal with the forward momentum/pressure and possibility of a grappling or take-down follow-up. So that is why I say a lot of kempo that is taught will not get you through the initial attack."

Maybe the way you have been taught but let me ask you this, would Doc agree that SL4 follows that logic?

How many SKK teachers have you had?

You know what, nevermind have fun.


----------



## Brian Jones (Sep 24, 2008)

Doesn't anyone thin it a bit premature to judge someone's morals or teachign based ona commercial?  remeber what a commercial does, it sells a product.  Or at least is designed to whet your appetite.  I am sure there are reasons behind the technique.  Besides are't we who teach "dance of death" all the way through the extension being a bit sanctimoneous talking someone else and "overkill"?

Brian Jones


----------



## DavidCC (Sep 24, 2008)

JTKenpo said:


> "We teach that the techniques are designed to get you out of bad situations - situations where you are surprised and must first survive the initial attack, single or multiple strikes. I look at most SKK techniques and I don't see any attempt to prevent or protect from follow-up strikes (please start another thread if you want to to discuss that!, its a great topic ), or to deal with the forward momentum/pressure and possibility of a grappling or take-down follow-up. So that is why I say a lot of kempo that is taught will not get you through the initial attack."
> 
> Maybe the way you have been taught but let me ask you this, would Doc agree that SL4 follows that logic?


 
Well, in case you ahven't cehcked out of this discussion, I will answer that:
Would Doc agree??  I can't speak for him, but where do you think I got these ideas from???  The SKK that my teacher teaches is more and more influenced by the ideas and advice that we get from Doc.


----------



## DavidCC (Sep 24, 2008)

JTKenpo said:


> To summarize, no one attack deals with everything (no matter what system you study). Another reason to continue your training (maybe thats what you are paying for). Hmmm sounds like a good reason to know multiple techniques on each side of the body, but we have already covered that haven't we, also might be beneficial to know how to start and stop techniques and insert other techniques what do they call that again ahhh yes grafting is it, but we have covered that too. David I don't intend to change your mind about anything and I have said before your conflicting views within posts make it difficult to know where you are coming from. Again you are bashing the system in which you proudly confess in your own signature.


 
what conflicting views?
I believe it is important to be able to defend yourself form attacks with the left or right, but I don't believe that memorizing mirror-image techniques is the best way to do that.  Is that what you mean?

I believe the study of grafting of techniques can be useful in training position recognition; but for the most part I think spending time studying grafting is just fingerpainting.  Also a well-designed combination takes advantage of specific sequences of action that support each other, and grafting something into the middle or end of a sequence generally reduces the effectiveness of that sequence.  How many of the grafts you like would really be practical IF your attacker is responding realistically to yoru actions?  That's the problem I see with most grafts - they only work with spread-eagle-statue ukes.

I am very clear in my own mind with what I believe, perhaps my writing is not so clear, if I seem to be contradicting myself.  I'd appreciate if you pointed out some of my contradictions, my bet is that you just didn't get or didn't like what I had to say.

Yeah. I'll bash my own system, becasue my ego is not tied to having people believe that "my system" is great, so I have no qualms about talking about its weaknesses.   It never was much more than streetfighting tricks anyway, even before Gascon bailed on Emperado, before a purple belt named Pesare left Gascon, before a Shodan named Villari granted himself a 10th, before Charlie Mattera decided that what he learned from Fred V was too hard for soccer Moms and 7 year olds... and now it's mostly just dojo dancing a la USSD.  

The only hope I see is that people like the representatives of SKK on this board are working hard to distance us from that crap, but numerically the USSD blackbelts who couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag far outnumber the independent schools / teachers / students who actually train hard for reality.

So there ya go, I'm sure I'll get some neg rep for that rant ROFL. But what do I know, I'm just a green belt and probably will remain so forever :soapbox:


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Sep 24, 2008)

DavidCC said:


> most kenpo teachers don;t seem to care aoubt legal ramifications.
> 
> But its ok becasue most of the stuff they teach won't let them survive past the inital assault anyway LOL!!


 
bwa-AH-HAH-HAH!!!

Friggin birlliant, Mr. Carnley.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Sep 24, 2008)

RevIV said:


> Accuracy.
> 
> -DVC-


 
Hang on. We are arguing that accuracy is preferable to mauling...but we must practice mauling, because we may lack the accuracy, necessitating fallback positions based on planned failure?

I practice target shooting, so I can shoot the guy, but really only ever club him with my .45, cuz I might miss if I actually start squeezing off rounds.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Sep 24, 2008)

Just to be clear, allow me to pontificate a  moment on techniques.

Each Self-Defense technique in kenpo is designed NOT as a specific counter to a specific attack. Rather, techniques provide scenario-based response solutions that illustrate for the student what it looks like to apply certain basics, concepts, and principles of combative motion to plausible contexts.

Many kenpo SD Techs get to 12-16 moves long before closing. These are not meant to be overkill or overskill techs. They are, again, merely chalkboards on which the lessons are drawn. The chalkboard, folks, is not the lesson. If it is, then let's just take the chalkboards coaches use to teach their teams the plays, and set the boards on the field to do the actual playing. Makes about as much darned sense as ragging on the choreography of a technique.

Settling weight into basics; mobility within certain relative positions; angles of attack in application of basics from different positions; force multipliers; balance; coordination; etc. One of my favorite quotes from Mr. Parker, modified, is that techniques aren't to teach you a move, but to teach you HOW to move; not to teach you what to think, but teach you HOW to think.

Each technique has a theme, concepts, and principles. A good instructor will use the technique as a mini-lab to elucidate these ideas, making them salient for the student, then allowing the student to develop an experiential understanding through practice and rehearsal.

Haven't watched the vid in the OP; prolly won't. Doesn't matter. It's not a technique designed to teach the user how to hack up an unarmed opponent; you don't really need any training for that...we have millennia of bladed combat deaths by killers who never even heard of kenpo. What it will do is provide opportunities for exploring the concepts and principles of defensive motion, in static and changing contexts.

Missing from many kenpo lineages is the concept of managing or responding to force escalations. Technique formulations would likely have served modern life and litigation better if they all followed algorhythms involving attempts at de-escalation, then evasive maneuvering, then maintaining an opponent, then injuring them to a stop point (given the chance to quit), then either further putting the beat down on the guy, or making it easier for him to walk away, depending on their choice. 

One of the first techniques in the Parker system has us using deadly force against what could just be a surprise shoulder rub from an amorous acquaintence. Seem a little funky to anyone?


----------



## arnisador (Sep 24, 2008)

Brian Jones said:


> Doesn't anyone thin it a bit premature to judge someone's morals or teachign based ona commercial?



If someone is putting that in a commercial to air on TV in hopes of attracting students, I feel I can comment on that person's judgment. They may teach a great and ethical class but this is not good business sense and doesn't present a good image of the arts, in my opinion...and that affects all martial arts businesses, fairly or not.


(By the way, I _do _appreciate the irony of talking about bad business sense for a small business as we prepare to bail the experts with good business sense out to the tune of $700 billion.)


----------



## thetruth (Sep 25, 2008)

No one has mentioned what I referred to earlier.  So do you kenpo guys practice techniques knife vs unarmed??     Or is that part of the video ridiculous overkill??

Cheers
Sam:asian:


----------



## Mark L (Sep 25, 2008)

thetruth said:


> No one has mentioned what I referred to earlier. So do you kenpo guys practice techniques knife vs unarmed?? Or is that part of the video ridiculous overkill??
> 
> Cheers
> Sam:asian:


Our weapon techniques are limited to defense against weapons, and weapon vs. weapon.  Mostly bo (a Japanese word for stick) since it has the most relevance in our society, sticks are just _everywhere_ (at least where I live).  We also have a few nunchaku and sai techniques to offer a different range perspective.  Using a knife offensively vs. an unarmed opponent is something we play with occassionally, but it isn't our area of expertise or part of the curriculum.


----------



## JTKenpo (Sep 25, 2008)

thetruth said:


> No one has mentioned what I referred to earlier. So do you kenpo guys practice techniques knife vs unarmed?? Or is that part of the video ridiculous overkill??
> 
> Cheers
> Sam:asian:


 
As a drill or exercise to understand paths of motion for the knife (slicing,  fileting)  and to understand trapping but no not a staple of self defense.


----------



## thetruth (Sep 25, 2008)

JTKenpo said:


> As a drill or exercise to understand paths of motion for the knife (slicing,  fileting)  and to understand trapping but no not a staple of self defense.




The only reason I asked is because in that ad it looked like a self defense scenario.  I wouldn't have put in an ad for a martial arts school.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Sep 25, 2008)

thetruth said:


> The only reason I asked is because in that ad it looked like a self defense scenario. I wouldn't have put in an ad for a martial arts school.


 
Some in kenpo have worked with SOG's teaching sentry removal. I teach grafting FMA knife and stick patterns and kenpo hand patterns to having a knife in one hand and side-arm in the other, in close-quarters scenarios.

Knife to hand is, as stated, a teaching model or drill scenario for the purposes of teaching angles of attack, complementary angles, weapon/target selection with position recognition, and so on. I, also, would not put it in a commercial.

Some techniques in the beginning of the system were purportedly tamed by Mr. Parker during a franchising effort, on account of how bad for business it would be for Mom to come walking in and see the kids her little Johnny would be training with taking shots at each others eyes, throats, and knees. While we learn these targets in subsequent sessions, they are left for later dates, and taught to students already growing in the system. I lump knife training in that same category.


----------



## Monadnock (Sep 25, 2008)

thetruth said:


> No one has mentioned what I referred to earlier. So do you kenpo guys practice techniques knife vs unarmed?? Or is that part of the video ridiculous overkill??
> 
> Cheers
> Sam:asian:


 
No, I dont think it is. Why would you to toe to toe with someone who although unarmed, may have a clear size advantage over you?

If I am confronted/cornered by some monster, and I have a knife, you bet your whole piggy bank I'm going to draw it. And if he still comes in, well, he asked for it.

I have absolutely no clue where these "martial artists" of the moral majority come off saying I cannot defend myself by whatever means necessary.

I suppose children's class registrations are significantly up though, as that is what most schools cater to now.


----------



## DavidCC (Sep 25, 2008)

thetruth said:


> No one has mentioned what I referred to earlier. So do you kenpo guys practice techniques knife vs unarmed?? Or is that part of the video ridiculous overkill??
> 
> Cheers
> Sam:asian:


 
We have one technique where you take the knife from the attacker and use it on him.  And 2 where you gain control of the attacker's knife hand and use it to injure himself.  Since my teacher has now borken with Christopher Geary he is making some chjange sto what we teach, and the first one is likely to be dropped because of its impracticality and legal ramifications should you actually perform it as taught.

Building on what Dr. Crouch wrote above, it is a lesson on disarming, and so not entirely invaluable... so we'll see...


----------



## RevIV (Sep 25, 2008)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:


> Hang on. We are arguing that accuracy is preferable to mauling...but we must practice mauling, because we may lack the accuracy, necessitating fallback positions based on planned failure?
> 
> I practice target shooting, so I can shoot the guy, but really only ever club him with my .45, cuz I might miss if I actually start squeezing off rounds.


 
?


----------



## RevIV (Sep 25, 2008)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:


> Hang on. We are arguing that accuracy is preferable to mauling...but we must practice mauling, because we may lack the accuracy, necessitating fallback positions based on planned failure?
> 
> I practice target shooting, so I can shoot the guy, but really only ever club him with my .45, cuz I might miss if I actually start squeezing off rounds.


 
Hang on.. I was answering something for DavidCC.  He asked why would i take karate if all i learn is to poke eyes and kick groin "he already knew that"  I was being funny and said you pay to learn better accuracy -- joke not understood, thats fine.


----------



## RevIV (Sep 25, 2008)

On the subject one of my students was almost mugged last night coming out of a bank after hours making deposits.  2 assailants cornered him and wanted his money.. Funny thing was, he had none, he could not deposit his checks because he forgot his wallet at home and showed the attackers that his pockets were empty.  He held only his cell phone in his hand and repeatedly told his attackers that all he had to do was hit send and it was on automatic to the police.  The moral of the story..  they smashed the cell out of his hand, in the same motion of the phone falling to the ground he drove his fingers into the first guys eye sockets, then turned and drilled the 2nd guy in the groin with a kick and then followed up with at least 5 shots to his face because he did not go down on the first kick, he then turned back to the 1st guy and kicked him sqaure in the knee.  Sounds kempo to me, and its just what he was taught---- with accuracy.


----------



## DavidCC (Sep 25, 2008)

RevIV said:


> Hang on.. I was answering something for DavidCC. He asked why would i take karate if all i learn is to poke eyes and kick groin "he already knew that" I was being funny and said you pay to learn better accuracy -- joke not understood, thats fine.


 

Well, I got it


----------



## RevIV (Sep 25, 2008)

DavidCC said:


> Well, I got it


 
I knew you would which is why i thought it was funny.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 25, 2008)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:


> Each Self-Defense technique in kenpo is designed NOT as a specific counter to a specific attack. Rather, techniques provide scenario-based response solutions that illustrate for the student what it looks like to apply certain basics, concepts, and principles of combative motion to plausible contexts.


 
hmmm... I can't help feeling that this is sort of an over-simplification.

I understand and agree with what you are saying, but at the same time, techs also ought to be a good solution to a specific attack.  

Maybe the later Parker lineages are doing things differently enough from the Tracy methods that we are really playing a different game, so my comments may be out of line here.  But I did sit in and watch a friend's brown belt test under John Sepulveda a number of years ago, and I saw a whole lot that looked very similar to what we are doing in Tracys.

At any rate, it seems to me that the techs are designed to be an effective solution to an attack.  At the same time, you cannot expect to get a full technique off as it's written, because reality rarely follows a perfect theoretical progression, altho it may be possible.  This requires an ability to ad-lib and spontaneously design something to fit the situation, as that situation changes.  So in that regard, the tech is a lesson on the chalkboard, as you put it.  But it should also be able to work as taught, or nearly so, on a base level.

I'll admit, I have my favorites in the system, and there are those that I don't care so much for.  Not all of them seem equally practical, at least to me.  But I think on the base level, the tech must have some actual usefulness as it is, or else it won't be a good chalkboard lesson either.

And yes, every tech ought to be applied with solid basics underneath it.

On numerous occasions, my instructor has talked about certain techs from our system that he has successfully and effectively used during his law enforcement career.  They haven't always been exactly as written, but they've certainly been close enough to be able to say, "hey, that was XYZ from 2nd Brown!".


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Sep 25, 2008)

Flying Crane said:


> hmmm... I can't help feeling that this is sort of an over-simplification.
> 
> I understand and agree with what you are saying, but at the same time, techs also ought to be a good solution to a specific attack.
> 
> ...


 
When I was at Bob Whites in Southern Cal, we had BB there who was Santa Ana PD. Big guy; solid basics, strong hitter. On a bus, in the aisle, bad guy tries a straight knife thrust jab at our boy. He goes into 5 Swords, even though 5 Swords is not taught as a self-defense technique against a straight knife attack in narrow surroundings. He gets the block and the chop off, but the palm-heel hits air. Why? Bad guy down from the chop.

I agree that the techs should present us with sound solutions in example; part of training for successful compilation on the fly is knowing what good compilation looks like, and drilling in some viable combinations. Taking the extreme, he would have had to apologize to the bad guy while waking him up, hand him back the knife, and ask that he comes at him again so he could use one of the EPAK "lance" techniques that was a more proper fit to the attack. However, his skills and abilities...target tracking, defensive perimeter, weapon/target accuracy (both inward block and outward chop), his study and rehearsal to put his mass behind his weapons using directional harmony...all these are basics skills, honed through rehearsal.

Technically, he did it wrong. Realistically, he got home that night to his family. In EPAK, particularly, many of the techs go on ad nauseum...20 moves, strung in a row. To me, that's time spent on planned failure that COULD have been spent polishing basics and applied principles, so that the bad guy goes down the first couple times you hit him.

On KT, one guy yanked a quote from me for his sig line that perfectly states my thoughts. Basically, if the fight ain't over after the first couple of moves, your basics stink, and you hit like a little girl. Obnoxious, I know. Not meant to provoke, but to shine a light on the importance of training for success in the delivery of force multipliers in basics.

D.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 25, 2008)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:


> When I was at Bob Whites in Southern Cal, we had BB there who was Santa Ana PD. Big guy; solid basics, strong hitter. On a bus, in the aisle, bad guy tries a straight knife thrust jab at our boy. He goes into 5 Swords, even though 5 Swords is not taught as a self-defense technique against a straight knife attack in narrow surroundings. He gets the block and the chop off, but the palm-heel hits air. Why? Bad guy down from the chop.


 
good example of an effective use of a tech, as taught.  The fact that the fight was over before he completed the tech doesn't mean it was wrong, or that he made a mistake, or that the tech wasn't a good idea.  In fact, the tech was such a good idea that only a portion of it was necessary to be effective.  The fact that 5 Swords is against a punch and not a knife is immaterial, in my mind.  He saw the similarity in the attack, and responded appropirately.



> Taking the extreme, he would have had to apologize to the bad guy while waking him up, hand him back the knife, and ask that he comes at him again so he could use one of the EPAK "lance" techniques that was a more proper fit to the attack. However, his skills and abilities...target tracking, defensive perimeter, weapon/target accuracy (both inward block and outward chop), his study and rehearsal to put his mass behind his weapons using directional harmony...all these are basics skills, honed through rehearsal.
> 
> Technically, he did it wrong...


 
I understand you are illustrating the extreme, but even so, I just can't look at it this way.  He didn't do it wrong.  He applied a tech to a different, but somewhat similar situation, and it worked.  That's not wrong in any way.  It's creatively right.  and once again, it's an example of a tech utilized as taught, regardless of the fact that the guy was holding a knife instead of throwing a punch.



> Realistically, he got home that night to his family.


 
and that's what matters.



> In EPAK, particularly, many of the techs go on ad nauseum...20 moves, strung in a row. To me, that's time spent on planned failure that COULD have been spent polishing basics and applied principles, so that the bad guy goes down the first couple times you hit him.


 
yes, and we have some of those as well, and I always had a bit of a problem with them.  Seems to me that you can't realistically plan beyond 3 or 4 shots, because it's unrealistic to expect things to stick to plan that far out of the starting block.  In those cases where the tech goes on for so long, I think it's just a case of perhaps getting carried away in designing the tech.  Or I guess another way to look at it is to take the individual moves/strikes from these techs and see them as individual possibilites. But in the context of one super-long tech, I don't think it's so realistic. 



> On KT, one guy yanked a quote from me for his sig line that perfectly states my thoughts. Basically, if the fight ain't over after the first couple of moves, your basics stink, and you hit like a little girl. Obnoxious, I know. Not meant to provoke, but to shine a light on the importance of training for success in the delivery of force multipliers in basics.
> 
> D.


 
I agree with this.  I think the mistake that lies in the design of the superlong techs is in thinking that it's a safeguard in case something goes wrong.  I think that is absolutely not true.  The very fact that you can go from the one strike to the next assumes that everything has gone the way you planned, so that he is positioned for the next strike.  But if this is true, then the fight is already over.  If everything had gone perfectly and you actually land all 17 strikes, the guy ought to be nothing more than a lump of jelly.  But if something actually goes wrong he won't be where you expect him to be, you won't land those other strikes and you gotta do something else.  The tech didn't plan for problems, it assumed you will turn him into jelly, and that's not realistic either, at least not in a sane world.

Getting back to the topic of the thread, with regards to the 5.0 commercial and the throat stomp.  We gotta remember that these arts we practice come from a different era and different society when and where real destruction of a human being in self defense was not frowned upon so much as it is now.  In that regard, some of it is outdated.  Society is different now, and we view violence and the appropriate response to violence in a different way.  What was acceptable and even necessary 300 years ago is no longer so today, because of our law enforcement and court systems that we now have.  But the martial arts as we practice them have not necessarily been updated in that regard.

To illustrate an extreme example, we could look at the traditional weapon arts, like the katana, or Chinese jian and dao, or spear.  These are archaic weapons that we cannot readily carry on the street, and there is a next-to-zero possibility that we will ever use one of these to defend our lives.  Yet many of us still enjoy training in these, even tho we haven't found a way to update them to make them acceptable for the street in today's society.  

It may be the same thing in kenpo, and we see it in many of the other arts as well.  The Philippine arts were mentioned, because they practice a lot with knives.  It's pretty hard to try and go "half-way" with a knife.  If you pull that knife to use it, I think you ought to expect to kill the guy.  Same thing with a gun, and a gun is acceptable in our society for self-defense, given some legal guidelines.  But if you pull that gun to use it, you expect and intend to kill the guy.  

Well, why not with your bare hands and feet as well?  The thing about the hands and feet is that it is possible to pull back and go "half-way" if you feel it's appropriate.  But if you only train for the half-way, then you won't know how to go to the extreme, if that proves to be necessary.  If you practice big movements, you can always modify and go smaller.  But if you only practice small movements, you won't be able to adjust and go big if needed.  Same thing here.

Once upon a time, the ancestors of the arts that we practice were meant to be used to maime and kill as quickly as possible.  In that era, and in those places, people needed to defend themselves.  They often could not rely upon the police or the legal system to protect themselves or their families or their village.  They were on their own, so they devised effective methods to maime and kill, and they did it when necessary, and probably often even when not necessary.  Life was different then, and life was valued differently.

We still have these elements in our arts, and we should not forget that.  It's not always appropriate today, but that doesn't mean we should eliminate these elements from what we do.  I don't intend to give up my swords or spears or archery equipment, just because I'll never use it to defend myself.  It's all part of the bigger picture.

Maybe the presentation in the commercial was a bit odd or arguably inappropriate, but that doesn't mean it should be eliminated from practice.

That's my thoughts, anyway.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Sep 25, 2008)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:


> When I was at Bob Whites in Southern Cal, we had BB there who was Santa Ana PD. Big guy; solid basics, strong hitter. On a bus, in the aisle, bad guy tries a straight knife thrust jab at our boy. He goes into 5 Swords, even though 5 Swords is not taught as a self-defense technique against a straight knife attack in narrow surroundings. He gets the block and the chop off, but the palm-heel hits air. Why? Bad guy down from the chop.
> 
> I agree that the techs should present us with sound solutions in example; part of training for successful compilation on the fly is knowing what good compilation looks like, and drilling in some viable combinations. Taking the extreme, he would have had to apologize to the bad guy while waking him up, hand him back the knife, and ask that he comes at him again so he could use one of the EPAK "lance" techniques that was a more proper fit to the attack. However, his skills and abilities...target tracking, defensive perimeter, weapon/target accuracy (both inward block and outward chop), his study and rehearsal to put his mass behind his weapons using directional harmony...all these are basics skills, honed through rehearsal.
> 
> ...


He didn't technicaly do anything wrong. Five swords may be used against a thrust when timming and environment keeps you on the inside.
Sean


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Sep 25, 2008)

Touch Of Death said:


> He didn't technicaly do anything wrong. Five swords may be used against a thrust when timming and environment keeps you on the inside.
> Sean


 
Ayup. Kinda my point, really.


----------



## thetruth (Sep 26, 2008)

Monadnock said:


> No, I dont think it is. Why would you to toe to toe with someone who although unarmed, may have a clear size advantage over you?
> 
> If I am confronted/cornered by some monster, and I have a knife, you bet your whole piggy bank I'm going to draw it. And if he still comes in, well, he asked for it.
> 
> ...



Given that the police will find not only that you had a knife but you were trained to use it I think you will be in deep ****.   Whether we like it or not we have to be proportionate in our defense. Apart from legal ramifications I would feel terrible if I cut a guy to bits just because he was having a bad day and tried to beat me up.  

Cheers
Sam:asian:


----------



## Mark L (Sep 26, 2008)

thetruth said:


> Apart from legal ramifications I would feel terrible if I cut a guy to bits just because he was having a bad day and tried to beat me up.
> 
> Cheers
> Sam:asian:


I'd feel bad if i cut a guy, or knocked out teeth, or broke his arm, or tore up his knee, etc.  Real bad for a very long time, since I do have a conscious.  But having a bad day is in no way an excuse for battery.  I'd feel worse if _I_ got any of the above because _someone else_ had a bad day.


----------



## JTKenpo (Sep 26, 2008)

thetruth said:


> Given that the police will find not only that you had a knife but you were trained to use it I think you will be in deep ****. Whether we like it or not we have to be proportionate in our defense. Apart from legal ramifications I would feel terrible if I cut a guy to bits just because he was having a bad day and tried to beat me up.
> 
> Cheers
> Sam:asian:


 
...and you are perfectly within your right to feel that way.   I don't.  If some idiot thought he was having a bad day before trying to mug me I'm putting him through the blender and making him understand that you do not have the right to try and forcefully take it out on me, thats what a heavy bag is for. Being proportionate in your defense is again subjective, you don't know the attackers intent.  Are they just trying to take out their frustrations at work on you or do they want your life.  I do believe in escalating the response of defense.  Here is how I see it, dirtbag starts with me I respond 1) he walks away so do I; 2) he retaliates so do I then see 1; 3) he fights like his life depends on it, then it does.


----------



## marlon (Sep 26, 2008)

RevIV said:


> So many people forget why we teach the overkill in the first place. In the world of perfection, yes a lot of the Kempo would be overkill. In the world of reality, people block, dodge, duck and move out of the way.. and sometimes hit back. We teach continous motion so if we miss once we know the next natural movement just keeps coming. I wish someone told the guy who kicked me in the head last time i was in a tussle that it was illegal. Also- if your getting mugged, defend yourself and pound the guy into the ground he probably is not going to sue you,, He did just try to mug you. But then again there is always the story of the burglar who fell through the skylight, landed on a knife and sued the family.


 

While i agree with almost everything you said here, i never teach a technique with the idea of what you miss.  there are better reasons for follow up than assuption of failure.  proper follow up for control reasons and to end the threat is never overkill

respectfully,
Marlon


----------



## ackks10 (Sep 27, 2008)

RevIV said:


> On the subject one of my students was almost mugged last night coming out of a bank after hours making deposits.  2 assailants cornered him and wanted his money.. Funny thing was, he had none, he could not deposit his checks because he forgot his wallet at home and showed the attackers that his pockets were empty.  He held only his cell phone in his hand and repeatedly told his attackers that all he had to do was hit send and it was on automatic to the police.  The moral of the story..  they smashed the cell out of his hand, in the same motion of the phone falling to the ground he drove his fingers into the first guys eye sockets, then turned and drilled the 2nd guy in the groin with a kick and then followed up with at least 5 shots to his face because he did not go down on the first kick, he then turned back to the 1st guy and kicked him sqaure in the knee.  Sounds kempo to me, and its just what he was taught---- with accuracy.





Hey Jess, that's why i like you,and to use your word's my friend

"sounds like kenpo to me" it is and it was, and will always be kenpo
and i'm happy that your guy did not get hurt,but i see he did make a  deposit after all,IN THE GUYS EYES, AND GROIN!!!!:uhyeah:


----------



## thetruth (Sep 27, 2008)

JTKenpo said:


> Being proportionate in your defense is again subjective, you don't know the attackers intent.



True but in that scenario the attacker threw a punch, the defender who already had a knife in his hand proceeded to cut him up.  I don't know anywhere where that would be considered justifiable.  When I wrote my previous response I was referring directly to that clip not speaking in general.

Cheers
Sam:asian:


----------



## thetruth (Sep 27, 2008)

thetruth said:


> True but in that scenario the attacker threw a punch, the defender who already had a knife in his hand proceeded to cut him up.



Before anyone else gets in I will note that the attacker is an idiot in this case for attacking a guy with a visible knife but that isn't the point of the debate.


----------



## marlon (Sep 27, 2008)

RevIV said:


> On the subject one of my students was almost mugged last night coming out of a bank after hours making deposits. 2 assailants cornered him and wanted his money.. Funny thing was, he had none, he could not deposit his checks because he forgot his wallet at home and showed the attackers that his pockets were empty. He held only his cell phone in his hand and repeatedly told his attackers that all he had to do was hit send and it was on automatic to the police. The moral of the story.. they smashed the cell out of his hand, in the same motion of the phone falling to the ground he drove his fingers into the first guys eye sockets, then turned and drilled the 2nd guy in the groin with a kick and then followed up with at least 5 shots to his face because he did not go down on the first kick, he then turned back to the 1st guy and kicked him sqaure in the knee. Sounds kempo to me, and its just what he was taught---- with accuracy.


 

i love this!!!  Don't forget the teacher who prepared him for such a confrontation.  Remeber it is not just the art...training is truth

Respectfully,
Marlon


----------



## Jdokan (Oct 1, 2008)

thetruth said:


> Before anyone else gets in I will note that the attacker is an idiot in this case for attacking a guy with a visible knife but that isn't the point of the debate.


 

Tough Call....my take on this is: you come to beat me up...all I want is out the door....I don't want to fight, take the chance you may leave me permenantly injured....As a result I will take my knife out and cut you...At least give you the option to walk away.....Wanna be a tough and try to punch me anyways??...I will attempt to hack off, slice, cut (choose your vernacular) to protect myself....Each time somebody elects to engage into a fight (war) one of your options is death...I don't want that to be mine...I will do whatever to keep my health....and my first option is always walk away....

This to some may come across violent..but what do we practice?  These are fighting arts designed to preserve life specifically ours (or those we protect) from those that do not hold any value for our life...
This is not debating a sports team loses, etc.....somebody WANTS to punch your face in......step on you while you're down....what the hell is that????.....When you cross the line of non social behavior then the rules that are in place of typical social behavior don't apply....


----------



## jmoree (Oct 2, 2008)

I 100% agree with practicing O V E R K I L L.  

If you practice techniques 1, 2, & 3 (i.e. to an attacker's punch) over and over you can get good at it no doubt.  However, not evey attacker (person's body) is the same....might get a different body response, pain response, ect.  If your uke in the dojo 'goes along' with these 3 you become comfortable with that.  If your REAL opponent doesn't go down after 3, and you're not used to going any further, thus hesitation, and thus a fight that goes on longer than it should, thus possibly not in your favor.

We train in 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 .... Strike, kick, break, lock, choke, throw, tear, maim, smash, kick head, whatever.  Hopefully, the 'bad guy' was out on 3; but if not, now you've trained to keep going w/out hesitation.  If you get to 8 and the guy is still standing, then either he's really good or you've really messed up. 

Also, if you train to 'nicely' take someone down, that's great for a drunk jerk now and again who starts crap with you at a bar.  But someone trying to take your life, or love's life, combat in war, ect, you must learn how to further the attack.  If you only train in nicely doing something, it's harder to take it to the higher levels if/when necessary.  If you train in maim/death/destory, it's whole easier to tone it down rather than up in a 3-5 second situation.  

The confines of the law are different per state.  In GA (to summarize), if I felt like my life was in danger I can protect myself if it means taking his life.  Of course, should it end up in court I have to be able to prove that I felt that level of threat.  I'm not going to disarm someone with a knife and leave them standing so they can come at me again; I may not get lucky the 2nd time.  I'd rather be judged by 12 than buried by 6.  

If you live in GA and are interested in the laws pertaining to self-defense:
http://law.onecle.com/georgia/16/index.html
Check out Title 16,                          Section 16-3-21 to 16-3-26

Oh, and nice promo!


----------



## SL4Drew (Oct 2, 2008)

jmoree said:


> ***I'd rather be judged by 12 than buried by 6.


 
I see and hear people regurgitate this quote without any real thought as to what they are saying. There are relatively severe consequences to taking someone's life. Setting aside the moral issues, think first about what you'll face: you face arrest, a lengthy investigation and trial (taking a year or more out of your life), and incarceration for what is usually a lengthy time. Then consider what this will do to your job, your friends, and your family. The factor in the legal costs and other costs, and you're not going to Disneyland soon even if you win.

You speak of using deadly force on a disarmed attacker, if your deadly assault is successful then you are a murderer. Maybe despite the law, the jury will decide the guy "deserved killing" but if not, then after being tried by 12, you are now a felon with a lengthy sentence to serve. If he's subdued, he's subdued--you can't stomp on his head because he _used_ to be a threat. You don't think that guys' family might think you were really the bad guy for killing a man that was no longer a threat and/or defenseless. Maybe your neighbors and the prosecutor would think so too. For the rest of your life you'll be "that guy."

I think far too often this sort of a teenage-macho-Ramboesque thinking by some confuses a true life and death situation with one where they'll have an "excuse" to actually "do" all this cool stuff they've learned. If anything, such thinking demonstrates alarming ignorance and immaturity.  

I am also reminded of what that sage Dr. Dave said, "If your attacker isn't down in three moves--your basics suck and you hit like a girl."


----------



## MJS (Oct 2, 2008)

Great thread, and I wish I had joined in sooner. But better late than never I guess. :ultracool

The techniques that are taught, should, IMO, be nothing more than a single platform to build from. I don't think that we should be bound to follow the techs. in a textbook fashion, but instead, be able to adapt to the situation we're faced with. Is Kenpo overkill? I suppose it depends on how you look at it. The extensions...aren't they deisgned to take care of the what if, or even if? Perhaps those are whats viewed as the over kill.

I do find it interesting when I see hints of, "Well, if the basics were done right...." I'm not saying that its not important to have solid basics, of course it is. However, it seems to me that that line is going on the assumption that the opponent will go down with one hit. 

I think this is pretty interesting. As far as how far to go goes....like I said, for myself, I think its important to assess whats presented to you. Now, I'm no LEO, but I'd think that if someone places their hands on you, that falls into the assault category, so a hit to the face or kick to the groin is well within your rights. Taking his eyes? Well, that may be pushing it a bit.  Then again, that may be the only option you have, depending on what you have available at the time. Pulling a weapon on you...well, I'm going to certainly be in fear of my life, and I'm not going to take the chance that he's simply using it for intimidation, but instead to actually use. So, if I'm going to be a 'bad guy' or looked down upon for taking his eyes, or breaking a limb, then so be it. If a reasonable person can't see that, then perhaps they should put themselves into that situation before casting judgement as to whether or not someone was justified in doing that. I wonder what they would do?

This brings me to another point of the Ken(m)po arts...it seems like the majority of what was taught is that violent, nasty stuff, that we're not supposed to use because it'll get us in trouble. Did Parker teach that down and dirty stuff, or was there something else that he only taught to a select few? 

If we look at Kajukenbo, they have their groundwork. Now, I think Kaju is a fantastic art and I'm not bashing it in any way, shape or form. Look at this clip though. Is continuing the strikes on the ground a 'bad thing?' Sorry, but just because you take the person down, doesn't mean that they're done assaulting you. The techs. in that clip, began standing, the bad guy took a beating, was taken down, and beat some more. Overkill? IMO no.


----------



## JTKenpo (Oct 2, 2008)

SL4Drew said:


> I see and hear people regurgitate this quote without any real thought as to what they are saying. There are relatively severe consequences to taking someone's life. Setting aside the moral issues, think first about what you'll face: you face arrest, a lengthy investigation and trial (taking a year or more out of your life), and incarceration for what is usually a lengthy time. Then consider what this will do to your job, your friends, and your family. The factor in the legal costs and other costs, and you're not going to Disneyland soon even if you win.
> 
> You speak of using deadly force on a disarmed attacker, if your deadly assault is successful then you are a murderer. Maybe despite the law, the jury will decide the guy "deserved killing" but if not, then after being tried by 12, you are now a felon with a lengthy sentence to serve. If he's subdued, he's subdued--you can't stomp on his head because he _used_ to be a threat. You don't think that guys' family might think you were really the bad guy for killing a man that was no longer a threat and/or defenseless. Maybe your neighbors and the prosecutor would think so too. For the rest of your life you'll be "that guy."
> 
> ...


 
Ok lets take all the machismo out.  Lets say your basics are solid.  Lets say you effectively block the guys attack and retaliate with any strike you would like to imagine.  Since your basics are solid you knock him to the ground.  He falls and cracks his skull open on the curbing of the sidewalk and dies.  Are you no less at fault then if you were trying to crack his head open on the sidewalk?  The end result is the same and as you pointed out you will always be "that guy" cuase who is gonna believe your story anyway.   So keep training to be nice to your attacker and if you close your eyes they might go away.


----------



## SL4Drew (Oct 2, 2008)

JTKenpo said:


> Ok lets take all the machismo out. Lets say your basics are solid. Lets say you effectively block the guys attack and retaliate with any strike you would like to imagine. Since your basics are solid you knock him to the ground. He falls and cracks his skull open on the curbing of the sidewalk and dies. Are you no less at fault then if you were trying to crack his head open on the sidewalk? The end result is the same and as you pointed out you will always be "that guy" cuase who is gonna believe your story anyway. So keep training to be nice to your attacker and if you close your eyes they might go away.


 
Are you really telling me you can't tell the difference between causing your attacker to fall which then accidentally results in his death and stomping on his head which then results in his death?


----------



## MJS (Oct 2, 2008)

SL4Drew said:


> Are you really telling me you can't tell the difference between causing your attacker to fall which then accidentally results in his death and stomping on his head which then results in his death?


 
I'm not speaking for JT, just replying as another poster.  I didn't see anything in his post regarding stomping on the head.  Lets look at what he said again:



> Ok lets take all the machismo out. Lets say your basics are solid. Lets say you effectively block the guys attack and retaliate with any strike you would like to imagine. *Since your basics are solid you knock him to the ground. He falls and cracks his skull open on the curbing of the sidewalk and dies. Are you no less at fault then if you were trying to crack his head open on the sidewalk?* The end result is the same and as you pointed out you will always be "that guy" cuase who is gonna believe your story anyway. So keep training to be nice to your attacker and if you close your eyes they might go away.


 
Different method of the head injury, same results.  Fact is, the guy whacked the hell out of his head.  We block and counter strike to the stomach, which causes the offender to fall and crack his head open.  We take the bad guy down and slam his head against the sidewalk a few times.  Either way, its going to be frowned upon.


----------



## JTKenpo (Oct 2, 2008)

SL4Drew said:


> Are you really telling me you can't tell the difference between causing your attacker to fall which then accidentally results in his death and stomping on his head which then results in his death?


 

Of course I can, but can a jury?  And as MJS pointed out, not quite what I said.

Nicely put MJS couldn't have said it better.


----------



## SL4Drew (Oct 2, 2008)

MJS said:


> I'm not speaking for JT, just replying as another poster. I didn't see anything in his post regarding stomping on the head. Lets look at what he said again


 
You're right--I apologize.  I should have asked, "Are you really telling me you can't tell the difference between causing your attacker to fall which then accidentally results in his death and _bashing his head on the pavement _which then results in his death?"


----------



## SL4Drew (Oct 2, 2008)

MJS said:


> Different method of the head injury, same results


 
Entirely different levels of ethical and legal culpability.  

Is this an example of what I am talking about?  Have we as martial artists really lost so much perspective we can't tell the difference between an accidental death and murder? I can't be the only one that sees a difference in continuing to use _lethal_ force against a unarmed, injured attacker, which will quite probably lead to their death, and a situation where you use _non-lethal_ force against a guy in self-defense, he falls, hits his head, and dies.


----------



## JTKenpo (Oct 2, 2008)

SL4Drew said:


> Entirely different levels of ethical and legal culpability.
> 
> Is this an example of what I am talking about? Have we as martial artists really lost so much perspective we can't tell the difference between an accidental death and murder? I can't be the only one that sees a difference in continuing to use _lethal_ force against a unarmed, injured attacker, which will quite probably lead to their death, and a situation where you use _non-lethal_ force against a guy in self-defense, he falls, hits his head, and dies.


 
My point is that morally no there is no difference still dead and legally unless you have credible witnesses there will be no difference either.


----------



## JTKenpo (Oct 2, 2008)

JTKenpo said:


> My point is that morally no there is no difference still dead and legally unless you have credible witnesses there will be no difference either.


 

but I can except that I am just morally inept.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Oct 2, 2008)

I often tell an odd ",an walks into a bar" joke at the beginning of kenpo seminars I teach. It goes, "This man walked into the bar, so I whipped our my .45 Colt Combat Commander, shoved the barrel in his mouth, breaking his teeth and tearing his lips as I pushed, then squeezed off a round, blowing out the back of his head and spattering blood and brains all over the wall behind him. What? What are you looking at? He shouldn't have walked into the bar!"

One of the first techniques we learn in yellow belt has us hacking a guy in the throat with a chop, because he placed his hand on our shoulder. Something in there about "as the attitude, so the response."


----------



## JTKenpo (Oct 2, 2008)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:


> I often tell an odd ",an walks into a bar" joke at the beginning of kenpo seminars I teach. It goes, "This man walked into the bar, so I whipped our my .45 Colt Combat Commander, shoved the barrel in his mouth, breaking his teeth and tearing his lips as I pushed, then squeezed off a round, blowing out the back of his head and spattering blood and brains all over the wall behind him. What? What are you looking at? He shouldn't have walked into the bar!"
> 
> One of the first techniques we learn in yellow belt has us hacking a guy in the throat with a chop, because he placed his hand on our shoulder. Something in there about "as the attitude, so the response."


 
and yet we still study kenpo


----------



## Doc (Oct 2, 2008)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:


> I often tell an odd ",an walks into a bar" joke at the beginning of kenpo seminars I teach. It goes, "This man walked into the bar, so I whipped our my .45 Colt Combat Commander, shoved the barrel in his mouth, breaking his teeth and tearing his lips as I pushed, then squeezed off a round, blowing out the back of his head and spattering blood and brains all over the wall behind him. What? What are you looking at? He shouldn't have walked into the bar!"
> 
> One of the first techniques we learn in yellow belt has us hacking a guy in the throat with a chop, because he placed his hand on our shoulder. Something in there about "as the attitude, so the response."



Most of this controversy is a product of, and began with the motion based Kenpo that teaches "overkill" by necessity to insure functionality. Higher levels of kenpo do not take that approach, and neither did Ed Parker in his personal Kenpo. You can also see that influence on his son, in some of the things that Ed Parker Jr. is doing now as well. But when you have a commercial self-defense course, all of them do the same thing. Poke them in the eyes, smash the testicles, rupture the throat, stomp them when they are down, take your keys and put them between yor fingers and slash the face, etc. 

When have you seen a self-defense class that didn't teach that way. Why? Because most of those classes are designed for women and girls, and motion based Kenpo is partially derived from that concept. It's called quick and easy skills to teach someone for survival.

The differences however becomes significant when you extrapolate a base self-defense course into a martial art system with progressive ranks, which has become the norm today even beyond "kenpo" and its derivatives. It begins with mayhem, and adds more and more mayhem as you go higher in the art. The higher your rank, the more rips, claws, stomps, and gouges. Of course, this happens to be exactly inverse of every tradtional martial art that preceded it. 

However, if a woman was attacked by some guy, if she poked him the eyes, or smashed him in the throat and he died, the law would give the advantage to the woman in our society in most gender based physical confrontations in general, and in an attack scenario in particular. Under most interpretations of the law, a woman has a greater opportunity to articulate that she was "in fear of her life," than a man. This bias is built into most aspects of the law. After all most have mothers, daughters, and wives, and anything that happened to someone who attacked one of them would not be enough.

But anyone who has found themselves in an art that teaches this "overkill" perspective should be wary. It may be cavalier to suggest "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by six," but that "judged by twelve" is a lot more significant and complicated than most realize. You not only can lose everything you have, but be incarcerated on top of it. In other words, quick death or a slow one. Some would say so what's the choice?

Try something novel. Learn  real martial skills that give you options beyond a poke in the eye or stomping a downed attacker no longer a threat. Your wife or mother may get away with it, but you're going to jail, and your wife or mother will be on the street when you lose the house paying for your defense, or in the civil law suit. You see, muggers have family and access to lawyers too.


----------



## MJS (Oct 3, 2008)

SL4Drew said:


> You're right--I apologize. I should have asked, "Are you really telling me you can't tell the difference between causing your attacker to fall which then accidentally results in his death and _bashing his head on the pavement _which then results in his death?"


 


SL4Drew said:


> Entirely different levels of ethical and legal culpability.
> 
> Is this an example of what I am talking about? Have we as martial artists really lost so much perspective we can't tell the difference between an accidental death and murder? I can't be the only one that sees a difference in continuing to use _lethal_ force against a unarmed, injured attacker, which will quite probably lead to their death, and a situation where you use _non-lethal_ force against a guy in self-defense, he falls, hits his head, and dies.


 
Even in self defense, our actions are still going to be under the microscope.  Hell, even a cop that shoots someone has do be on desk duty or some Admin. type position, until its decided whether or not it was justfied or not.  We're probably going to be judged by a panel of people who have no martial arts experience or ones that have a limited one, possibly a distorted one, at best.  

Perhaps you missed my first post in this thread...the one where I said that I feel that its important to assess the situation thats presented to you at the time.  Perhaps we should be basing our response off of that.  And yes, if someone is trying to cause me or someone I'm with, serious bodily harm, you wouldn't respond in a like fashion?  Someone trying to hit me and knock my head off....is a parry to the punch and an elbow to their head too much?  How about breaking the arm holding the knife that the guy is trying to gut me with.  Is that too much?  I'm sorry, I'm not going to stand around and play patty cake with someone trying to mug me.  I'm minding my own business, and some dirtbag comes up and tries to take my money....screw him, he gets what he deserves, and if that means knocking a few teeth out of his mouth, maybe he'll think twice when he looks in the mirror, about doing that again.  

We seem to be focusing alot on what others are doing.  You do SL4...perhaps you could share with us, your response to various assaults.  A grab, a punch, attacked with a weapon.

I look forward to your reply. 

Mike


----------



## MJS (Oct 3, 2008)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:


> I often tell an odd ",an walks into a bar" joke at the beginning of kenpo seminars I teach. It goes, "This man walked into the bar, so I whipped our my .45 Colt Combat Commander, shoved the barrel in his mouth, breaking his teeth and tearing his lips as I pushed, then squeezed off a round, blowing out the back of his head and spattering blood and brains all over the wall behind him. What? What are you looking at? He shouldn't have walked into the bar!"
> 
> *One of the first techniques we learn in yellow belt has us hacking a guy in the throat with a chop, because he placed his hand on our shoulder. Something in there about "as the attitude, so the response."*


 
As JT said, yet we still train every day.  Then again, and I think I've said this before in other posts/threads, but perhaps we should be able to shift on the fly, so to speak, and modify what we do.  Instead of that hit to the throat, perhaps a backfist or open hand hit to the face instead.  Then again, what about that kick to the groin in Delayed Sword?  Hell, that has a throat shot and one to the groin.

Of course, many of us, myself included, have other tools in our toolbox, so we could attempt something less brutal such as a lock, but even that may not be a good option.  Will it work?  Will this guy feel any pain?  Will we end up breaking something in the process?


----------



## MJS (Oct 3, 2008)

Doc said:


> Most of this controversy is a product of, and began with the motion based Kenpo that teaches "overkill" by necessity to insure functionality. Higher levels of kenpo do not take that approach, and neither did Ed Parker in his personal Kenpo. You can also see that influence on his son, in some of the things that Ed Parker Jr. is doing now as well. But when you have a commercial self-defense course, all of them do the same thing. Poke them in the eyes, smash the testicles, rupture the throat, stomp them when they are down, take your keys and put them between yor fingers and slash the face, etc.
> 
> When have you seen a self-defense class that didn't teach that way. Why? Because most of those classes are designed for women and girls, and motion based Kenpo is partially derived from that concept. It's called quick and easy skills to teach someone for survival.
> 
> ...


 
What are your thoughts on this Doc?  This happened not long ago.  So, IMHO, had the husband not been bound and beat, I say by all means, someone does this to someone, and they deserve every damn thing that happens to them.  And if that consists of picking up a knife and using it, in order to save my family, then I'm going to do it, and anyone who says that they'd take it easy on people like that are kidding themselves and everyone else.  

I think someone else mentioned it in another post, but what happens when the 'less lethal' shots we're throwing are not having any effect?  I think assuming that they always will is setting us up to fail.  

This happened a few nights ago.  The people in question have no remorse about causing serious bodily harm to the victim.  Would an eye shot or throat shot be out of line in these cases?  Frankly Doc, and with all due respect, I don't really care if those are viewed as shots only a woman should do, because when its 3 against one, sure, I may get my rear end kicked, but I'm not going out without a fight.  And if taking the eyes of one of these guys is what it takes to get home safe, then thats what I'm doing.  

Like I said and I find myself saying it again...assess the situation.  If faced with what I just linked, would a less lethal shot be better?  Sorry, 3 to 1 odds....I want to get home at the end of the night.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Oct 3, 2008)

If all you have is a hammer...

I don't think he's suggesting you empty your toolbox of panic-level life-saving tool, but rather ALSO spend some time developing the wrench, screwdriver, pliers, saw, etc. Have more options than going right to maiming.

Develop the critical skills to figger when locking him up in a hold is sufficient, or when you gotta grab him by the hair with one hand and break his nose with the other, when a solid rib shot will suffice, or when it's time to go off and start taking eyes, throats, knees and temples. I open my eyes and there's an armed assailant in my home hovering over my bed, it's on. 25 year old road rager at a stoplight who I have 50 pounds on? Tough sell in court that he had a 2 week hospital stay coming over a mutual combat temper tantrum.


----------



## DavidCC (Oct 3, 2008)

In many states, a many-on-one attack is considered lethal force and so defending yourself with lethal force is justified; same with use of a weapon by an attacker.

being attacked by multiple attackers with weapons justifies beyond lethal force, which means you can legally eat their souls.  Which, you know, sucks for them...
verkill:


----------



## JTKenpo (Oct 3, 2008)

DavidCC said:


> In many states, a many-on-one attack is considered lethal force and so defending yourself with lethal force is justified; same with use of a weapon by an attacker.
> 
> being attacked by multiple attackers with weapons justifies beyond lethal force, which means you can legally eat their souls. Which, you know, sucks for them...
> verkill:


 
Unless of course the others say they weren't involved and it was this crazy kung fu guy that jackie chaned there friend and they were just trying to get their friend out of there alive


----------



## SL4Drew (Oct 3, 2008)

MJS said:


> Perhaps you missed my first post in this thread...the one where I said that I feel that its important to assess the situation thats presented to you at the time. Perhaps we should be basing our response off of that.


 
What prompted my post was this: "The confines of the law are different per state. In GA (to summarize), if I felt like my life was in danger I can protect myself if it means taking his life. Of course, should it end up in court I have to be able to prove that I felt that level of threat. I'm not going to disarm someone with a knife and leave them standing so they can come at me again; I may not get lucky the 2nd time. I'd rather be judged by 12 than buried by 6."

This statement clearly indicated a willingness to use lethal force when faced when lethal force. Fine. What I have consistently had an issue with was the indication that to continue to use lethal force against an unarmed attacker (who has presumably been injured by you) is all right because 'it's better to be tried by 12.' You are not privileged to use lethal force against someone not presenting you with that same level of force. Otherwise you could just shoot the dirt bag that pushed you...




MJS said:


> And yes, if someone is trying to cause me or someone I'm with, serious bodily harm, you wouldn't respond in a like fashion? Someone trying to hit me and knock my head off....is a parry to the punch and an elbow to their head too much? How about breaking the arm holding the knife that the guy is trying to gut me with. Is that too much? I'm sorry, I'm not going to stand around and play patty cake with someone trying to mug me. I'm minding my own business, and some dirtbag comes up and tries to take my money....screw him, he gets what he deserves, and if that means knocking a few teeth out of his mouth, maybe he'll think twice when he looks in the mirror, about doing that again.


 
I don't understand why the assumption is I am advocating 'patty-cake' or 'closing your eyes to an attacker.' I never said you can't or shouldn't act in self-defense. But self-defense isn't a magic line that once crossed you are suddenly justified in doing anything you want, e.g. shooting the guy that pushed you.

SL4 does just fine without the soft tissue strikes and the general mayhem you often see. To continue to suck Dr. Dave into this discussion (because we love him), he has related the story where he blew his shoulder out when having a student do the first 'block' in Five Swords. If you can accomplish this, why would you then continue to attack an one-armed man and bounce his grill off the street? 

The point of self-defense is defense, which should be obvious from the name. Overkill is not defense--its name also says it all. I feel the point of being an 'advanced practitioner' of the arts is to be able to modulate the destructive force you can deploy. As Doc stated above, this traditional has been the goal of the old masters. Anyone remember this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_Ycw0d_Uow

The last time I looked at the UCRs, 2/3 of aggravated assault victims knew their assailant. If you went out drinking with Bob from the mailroom and he tried to assault you, is ripping his testicles off really the way you want to go?


----------



## SL4Drew (Oct 3, 2008)

DavidCC said:


> being attacked by multiple attackers with weapons justifies beyond lethal force, which means you can legally eat their souls...


 
I didn't know Doc taught you that technique too. :mst:


----------



## JTKenpo (Oct 3, 2008)

SL4Drew said:


> I didn't know Doc taught you that technique too. :mst:


 

I'll pay to be at that seminar!!!

but seriously my point is this if you go into a conflict with an end result in mind your more than likely to loose one way or another.


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 3, 2008)

Doc said:


> But anyone who has found themselves in an art that teaches this "overkill" perspective should be wary. It may be cavalier to suggest "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by six," but that "judged by twelve" is a lot more significant and complicated than most realize. You not only can lose everything you have, but be incarcerated on top of it. In other words, quick death or a slow one. Some would say so what's the choice?
> 
> Try something novel. Learn real martial skills that give you options beyond a poke in the eye or stomping a downed attacker no longer a threat. Your wife or mother may get away with it, but you're going to jail, and your wife or mother will be on the street when you lose the house paying for your defense, or in the civil law suit. You see, muggers have family and access to lawyers too.


 
Fantastic comments (as usual).  I get sick of the bravado of the "tried by 6/carried by 12" statement.  Personally, I'd rather have the physical skills and legal knowledge to respond to force appropriately and be neither tried nor carried.  Or at least have a good chance of avoiding either result!  Even if you're in the right, a civil suit can easily cost tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars...


----------



## DavidCC (Oct 3, 2008)

well, he put his hand on my shoulder...


----------



## Doc (Oct 3, 2008)

MJS said:


> What are your thoughts on this Doc?  This happened not long ago.  So, IMHO, had the husband not been bound and beat, I say by all means, someone does this to someone, and they deserve every damn thing that happens to them.  And if that consists of picking up a knife and using it, in order to save my family, then I'm going to do it, and anyone who says that they'd take it easy on people like that are kidding themselves and everyone else.
> 
> I think someone else mentioned it in another post, but what happens when the 'less lethal' shots we're throwing are not having any effect?  I think assuming that they always will is setting us up to fail.
> 
> ...



Wait a minute. I carry a gun everyday, and if I felt my life or the life of one of my daughters was in danger I wouldn't try some lock on a guy, I'd cap him in a heart beat or resort to other extreme destructive measures. I don't coddle idiots who want to hurt me. In street self-defense everything goes, but my beef is with the rush to blind a guy, or collapse his wind pipe on a less than lethal assault. It is wholly unethical, immoral, and illegal.

You don't teach a guy to stick his fingers in a man's eyes because he throws a punch. You don't teach a guy to smash someone's wind pipe for putting his hand on your shoulder. That's teaching a disproportionate response to the attack, and can have legal consequences. Acceptable in a commercial women's street self defense course, but not in an ethically grounded legitimate martial art. The safety valve for the teacher is, he teaches possible responses. The practitioner is responsible for their actions.

But still, that doesn't mean that under some circumstances you can't poke a man in the eyes and blind him when he throws a punch at you. It always depends on the circumstances.

The problem is in commercialism you teach the easy stuff. Poking someone in the eyes is easy. So easy that sometimes it happens by accident. This is not significant skill. Imagine some guy that's wear a ton of red on his belt, and all he can teach you is to just strike, strike, and more strikes. This is the lowest form of any art, and is an instinctual survival mode that we are born with. Smash, poke, stomp, kick, etc. Everybody can do that, without training, and I see it all the time in street thugs.

It's a cultural sales job. Real martial arts take lots of time with a rare knowledgeable and experienced teacher. They've sold a "self defense course" to the American Public based on it being "Easy, effective, and anyone can do it, even children." and they're right. Read the brochures and the websites. Why is it that in the early years of the arts, we never saw women or children studying until judo came along? Judo was the first quasi-commercial sport/art that made allowances for age, size, and gender so everyone could particpate. But, they also never called it self-defense.

Can you imagine going into a real kwoon or dojo with a legit master telling you, "Oh this is easy stuff, you'll make black in no time." When a guy tells you how easy it is to learn, I think he's making a significant statement about himself. All of my experiences with real masters telling stories of their training were the exact opposite. Their training was intense, physical, and the weak didn't stay. 

But fortunately and unfortunately this is not real martial arts. It's commercial self-defense, and they are not the same thing. Commercial self-defense schools are more plentiful than gas stations. Real martial art masters are rare, and unfortunately there aren't enough to go around. Some arts have some really good people, a few masters and maybe one grandmaster. It's gotten to the point that in the commercial arts, dam near everyone is at least a professor or master with more high ranks than lower belts. It's a business first. The problem arises when those that study these art courses are without perspective, and believe what they have learned is a significant art with significant information. They are quick to argue what they haven't learned because what they know has to be significant. They have to put other information down, or what they have learned and their ranks become insignificant.

Many smart people have figured out what they learned is shallow material, and have embarked onto "cross training." They go to other arts to fix the problems that are glaringly obvious in what they've been taught. I personally don't like the concept, but it beats the hell out of doing commercial martial arts and declaring as some do, "It contains everything. You just have to find it." I just hope you find what you need before you actually need it. It's better than thinking you're sitting on top of the mountain, when you really sitting on a small hill in the shadow of a real mountain you're choosing to ignore.

I've been lucky in my lifetime to be in a room with real masters from various arts. They never argued about which was best. they traded ideas, and exchanged methods, and broke bread often. Modern so-called masters tend to want students to be exclusive, and view others as competitors. Its all about the business and personal status that fuels the business.

But everything is relative. There is nothing wrong with ranking, or wearing the degrees, but remember what, where, and how you got it. When you "graduate" from elementary school, you are indeed a graduate. But, don't strut around like you just got out of grad school. And when a real professor suggest there may be more than what you know, be man enough to at least listen. - or not!


----------



## MJS (Oct 4, 2008)

You know, anytime we discuss something on the net, there is always a very good chance that things are going to be misunderstood.  Now, maybe I'm misunderstanding or maybe not, but it just seemed to me that there were some that were totally against any sort of 'violent' technique.  

Perhaps I gave the impression that I was in favor of nothing but that, however, if we look at my first post and ones I've made in the past on similar subjects, we should see that I always say that its important to assess the situation and base your response off of that.  

I have a number of 'tools' in my toolbox.  Punching, kicking, joint locking, grappling, etc.  By all means, if the situation can be resolved with words, fine.  If that doesn't work, and it takes a punch or kick, fine.  If it takes slamming the person and kicking him on the ground, fine.  Will I or should we always resort to that?  Of course not, but we should keep that as an option, should we need it.

If someone is hell bent on knocking my head off, I really don't think thats the time or place for a lock.  Perhaps that'd be better suited for someone less of a threat, such as being intoxicated.


----------



## MJS (Oct 4, 2008)

I was initially going to make this next post a seperate thread, but now that I think about it, its better suited here.  Lets look at the following attacks, the response and what the response should be or better yet, for those that are not crazy about the 'textbook' response, what you would do.  

Sword and Hammer:  Attack is a grab to the shoulder, yet the first move is a throat strike.

Delayed Sword:  A lapel grab, and the moves include a groin shot and throat hit.

5 Swords:  Throat shot and eye shot...for a roundhouse punch.

Deflecting Hammer: Front kick, and we elbow the head.


In closing I'll say this...I was thinking about this thread today and the various responses that were made so far.  If we look at this post on another thread, we see the following:

*4. "Ed Parkers Kenpo Karate"* A series of personal issues causes Ed Parker to decide to enter the commercial marketplace and expand in the second half of the sixties. Looking for a method that differed from the kenpo franchises that preceded him that he felt were flawed, he drew upon his many "transfer" black belts from other styles. Stumbling upon "motion" as a base concept, it allowed him to create loose conceptual guidelines for already competent black belts. This further gave him the freedom to travel conducting seminars, belt tests, and selling, while seeing the majority of his "students" two or three times a year and usually once at the IKC. Most of the well known black belts came up under this system. Some better than others. Some spent their own dime and came to see Parker often when he was in town like Dennis Conatser who I always plug because I think he brilliant.

Some came very late in the eighties and is the reason they are not on the family tree. The rest came after Parker's death. Most of the older seniors rejected it and/or left. This was what he was sharing with a few private students in an effort to cash in on the publicity of Larry Tatum's student Jeff Speakman's movie, "Perfect Weapon." He hoped to rekindle a chain of schools that he directly financially controlled. All of his schools and his black belt students had defected years ago. He maintained only one profitable school run by Larry Tatum in the eighties until he changed personnel. 

*5. "Ed Parker's Personal American Kenpo"* The ever evolving personal art of Ed Parker that included elements left out of his commercial diversion or off shoots and other interpretations as well. (nerve meridians, mat work, manipulations, structural integrity, etc) This included all the things that students couldn't duplicate because Parker didn't generally teach it. Here lies all the things that some have discovered is missing from his diversion art that he never wrote about anywhere. "Slap-Check" comes to mind. I gave what he shared with me my own name after he passed based on phrases Parker used to describe it to differeniate between it and other versions of what he taught. However in reality it is the "American Kenpo" Parker was utilizing before he passed away that was still evolving. Others that he may have taught may have other names for it, but to understand it, a person would have had to evolve with Parker into it because of a lack of its hard codification. 


So, and this is not intended as a slam on anyone, but reading those 2 posts, it almost seems as if Parker set up certain people for failure.  Now, seeing that Doc is really the only active Senior we have posting on MT, I hope that he'd be kind enough to reply. 

If we look at the posts above, we see what appears to be 2 different Kenpo systems, one being something that is designed for the masses, and the other being reserved for the more serious student.  Now, I haven't seen all of the top Kenpoists, so I don't know what model they're following.  Does Tatum teach 4 or 5?  Seems like a no brainer that Doc is doing 5.   What about Mike Pick?  Palanzo and Planas?

If all someone knows is version 4, then how can anyone expect to hear anything different?  I mean, the talk of the 'violent' side is really all they know, if thats all their teacher knows.  So, for those who learned version 4, well, chances are, if someone grabs their shoulder, the offending party will probably end up with a hit to the neck, versus a nerve shot.

Enough rambling...I'm looking forward to hearing from Doc and others. 

Of course, what I should be doing is hopping on a plane to So.Cal and having a workout with Doc.  

Mike


----------



## Doc (Oct 4, 2008)

MJS said:


> I was initially going to make this next post a seperate thread, but now that I think about it, its better suited here.  Lets look at the following attacks, the response and what the response should be or better yet, for those that are not crazy about the 'textbook' response, what you would do.
> 
> Sword and Hammer:  Attack is a grab to the shoulder, yet the first move is a throat strike.
> 
> ...





> So, and this is not intended as a slam on anyone, but reading those 2 posts, it almost seems as if Parker set up certain people for failure.  Now, seeing that Doc is really the only active Senior we have posting on MT, I hope that he'd be kind enough to reply.


Set up for failure? No not really. For students, he gave them something they didn't have before, access to a practical street oriented martial art, (something that didn't exist previously on any scale), and a measure of skill and confidence. Did the system turn them into "street warriors?" Not even close. But, clearly they had the opportunity to develop more skill than they had when they came in the door. Some skill is better than no skill, and the accompanying confidence is immeasurable. When you're hungry and stop at McDonald's, it may not be the best meal decision, but you don't leave hungry. If you're smart, when the opportunity presents itself, you eat better. When the art you study no longer meets your need or growth, than seek something else.

For many it was the most physicality they had seen in their life. Mr. Parker took a "women's self-defense course" and made a viable art, and insured it would have a measure of physical success in application through its methodology. While on one hand it can be viewed as promoting extreme mayhem, like any other art, the student is responsible for what he does.

But Ed Parker always reminded the students not to make it any more than it is. He always reminded his students; "It's a wise man that knows what he does not know." "Just because the red show, don't mean that you know." "Pride and ego are the anesthesia of ignorance." "A mind is like a parachute, it only works when it's open." etc.


> If we look at the posts above, we see what appears to be 2 different Kenpo systems, one being something that is designed for the masses, and the other being reserved for the more serious student.  Now, I haven't seen all of the top Kenpoists, so I don't know what model they're following.  Does Tatum teach 4 or 5?  Seems like a no brainer that Doc is doing 5.   What about Mike Pick?  Palanzo and Planas?


Well commenting on what others do is inappropriate because only they know   what they do, and if they don't come online and explain, its difficult to assess without participation. But when attempting to make a determination of where they are, begin with several questions; 

What was Ed Parker doing at the time they came along? Mr. Parker changed quickly and often in the beginning. Did they stay around and evolve with Ed Parker? If they didn't live close, and left for years for any reason, evolving with him would be difficult. At best they would be "stuck in an era. 

Where did they live in relationship to Ed Parker? If they weren't even in the same state that tells you a lot. There are a lot who didn't live in Southern California. If you saw the man every other month, that's still only six times a year.

Did Mr. Parker ever sever his relationship with them, or vice versa? Many received blacks belts in the sixties and virtually left Kenpo, only to pop up just before he passed or even afterwards. A look at the family tree discloses many of those black belts that have no family tree of their own. This suggests they hadn't been active. 

Finally, what are they doing now? Are they running a business making a living in Kenpo? One school or many? Are they primarily on the seminar circuit? Many black belts were "born" in the motion kenpo business era, and that is all they have ever done. 

Keep in mind, Ed Parker changed often and quickly in the beginning, before the commercial product was created. But he was in his twenties and early thirties and the new kid on the block among the many masters of Southern California. He was evolving, and if you didn't stay close and change with him, it would have been difficult no matter what your desire.

My personal assessment is pretty simple. Most are doing whatever Parker was doing when they met him with rare exception. Some have made minor philosophical changes, rearrangements etc, but Parker encouraged that when motion kenpo came along, and that is a good thing.


> If all someone knows is version 4, then how can anyone expect to hear anything different?  I mean, the talk of the 'violent' side is really all they know, if thats all their teacher knows.  So, for those who learned version 4, well, chances are, if someone grabs their shoulder, the offending party will probably end up with a hit to the neck, versus a nerve shot.


Well you may be correct sir, but you know it's about personal responsibility. Just because you took a class from someone and he showed you how to do it, doesn't make it right. As a cop, when I first started all they gave me was a revolver, shotgun, a car, and some bullets. No baton, handcuffs, nothing. They other stuff I had to go out and get myself. But, I was expected to use reasonable force, even though all they gave me were deadly force instruments.

In my book, there are no excuses. If some guy puts his hand on your shoulder, and you handsword him in the throat and he dies, I don't think anyone will give you a pass because you took a karate class and that's all you knew.


> Of course, what I should be doing is hopping on a plane to So.Cal and having a workout with Doc.


On my way to Ireland sir to smack some of my guys over there. See you when I get back? Ohio perhaps? Love t' meet ya.


----------



## JTKenpo (Oct 6, 2008)

MJS said:


> I was initially going to make this next post a seperate thread, but now that I think about it, its better suited here. Lets look at the following attacks, the response and what the response should be or better yet, for those that are not crazy about the 'textbook' response, what you would do.
> 
> Sword and Hammer: Attack is a grab to the shoulder, yet the first move is a throat strike.
> 
> ...


 
I hate posting after doc, how are you supposed to follow that.  Oh well.  Thanks doc.

Mike for me personally you have to look at intent and not put the attacks in a vacuum.  Sure if some one puts their hand on your shoulder with no intent of harm sword and hammer is a little harsh, but if it is 2am and some sketchy character is leaning on you asking for money with three other sketchy friends just behind him well now we see a proportionate response.  The same can be said for any attack, Delayed sword...is the person grabbing you your buddy and you guys like opposing football teams and his just lost or is it some jerk you don't know who is holding you so he can clobber you with the other hand.  So on and so forth.  It goes right along with the morality question, if put in a vacuum right and wrong are easy enough to distinguish but the plain fact of the matter is we don't live in a vacuum.


----------



## MJS (Oct 6, 2008)

Doc said:


> Set up for failure? No not really. For students, he gave them something they didn't have before, access to a practical street oriented martial art, (something that didn't exist previously on any scale), and a measure of skill and confidence. Did the system turn them into "street warriors?" Not even close. But, clearly they had the opportunity to develop more skill than they had when they came in the door. Some skill is better than no skill, and the accompanying confidence is immeasurable. When you're hungry and stop at McDonald's, it may not be the best meal decision, but you don't leave hungry. If you're smart, when the opportunity presents itself, you eat better. When the art you study no longer meets your need or growth, than seek something else.
> 
> For many it was the most physicality they had seen in their life. Mr. Parker took a "women's self-defense course" and made a viable art, and insured it would have a measure of physical success in application through its methodology. While on one hand it can be viewed as promoting extreme mayhem, like any other art, the student is responsible for what he does.
> 
> ...


 
Well, as always, a well thought out reply. Thanks Doc!   I guess 'failure' was the wrong word to use.  I guess what I meant was, one would think that people would want to learn the entire system, and that instead of having multiple versions, such as 4 and 5 that we saw above, that all of the 'less lethal' so to speak, moves, would also be taught.  Of course, as you said, depending on the time they spent, etc, that would determine what they did learn and what they missed out on.

On my way to Ireland sir to smack some of my guys over there. See you when I get back? Ohio perhaps? Love t' meet ya.[/quote]

Have a safe trip.   I doubt I'll be doing any more traveling this year.  Perhaps next year. 

Mike


----------



## MJS (Oct 6, 2008)

JTKenpo said:


> I hate posting after doc, how are you supposed to follow that. Oh well. Thanks doc.
> 
> Mike for me personally you have to look at intent and not put the attacks in a vacuum. Sure if some one puts their hand on your shoulder with no intent of harm sword and hammer is a little harsh, but if it is 2am and some sketchy character is leaning on you asking for money with three other sketchy friends just behind him well now we see a proportionate response. The same can be said for any attack, Delayed sword...is the person grabbing you your buddy and you guys like opposing football teams and his just lost or is it some jerk you don't know who is holding you so he can clobber you with the other hand. So on and so forth. It goes right along with the morality question, if put in a vacuum right and wrong are easy enough to distinguish but the plain fact of the matter is we don't live in a vacuum.


 
Can't disagree with that.


----------



## DavidCC (Oct 6, 2008)

I can add a small detail:
there is a huge difference between a handsword to the front of the throat and the side of the neck.


----------



## Doc (Oct 6, 2008)

JTKenpo said:


> I hate posting after doc, how are you supposed to follow that.  Oh well.  Thanks doc.
> 
> Mike for me personally you have to look at intent and not put the attacks in a vacuum.  Sure if some one puts their hand on your shoulder with no intent of harm sword and hammer is a little harsh, but if it is 2am and some sketchy character is leaning on you asking for money with three other sketchy friends just behind him well now we see a proportionate response.  The same can be said for any attack, Delayed sword...is the person grabbing you your buddy and you guys like opposing football teams and his just lost or is it some jerk you don't know who is holding you so he can clobber you with the other hand.  So on and so forth.  It goes right along with the morality question, if put in a vacuum right and wrong are easy enough to distinguish but the plain fact of the matter is we don't live in a vacuum.



I think you "follow" very well sir. Mr. Parker, because of the commercial nature and intended purpose of the vehicle had to insure on some level it would be functional. Its teaching of extreme mayhem was no different than any other self-defense course. That is, it always presented each scenario as a "life or death" situation. Why? because that is when human instincts of survival are tapped into, and it makes sense.

However unlike a self-defense course, students had an ongoing relationship with instructors, and were supposed to understand "when" to resort to these measures. "I've never heard an instructor from commercial kenpo tell a student, "OK, you're at a birthday party and your best friend has had too much to drink, and he grabs you by your shoulder. Now waste him with Sword and Hammer."

Adult students are supposed to bring the same discretionary skills they use in their everyday life to their training. Mr. Parker took for granted students already knew it was improper to smash somebody's windpipe because they tapped you on the shoulder and asked you the time.

He however, was concerned about the influx of younger people into the commercial system. So much so that my thesis for my 7th was based on creating a curriculum specifically for them, that would not disrupt the ranking process. Unfortunately children were not the only ones he needed to be concerned with. In one instance, he had an adult white belt who had got into a fight and did a technique where you jump on a guys back, smash his head into the ground, break his neck, break his nose, slam his head into the ground again, and then kick him in the head. The attacker ended up paralyzed. He had saw this done in an advanced class, and this incident was the origin of the "beginners can't watch advance class policy."

The truth is the commercial kenpo is inherently violent, and Mr. Parker always said, "it is what it is." He was concerned but he always said, "These people need this stuff. No matter what you do, most will only use it when they need it, especially women. But like anything else, if you put a gun in the hand of a monkey, somebody is going to get shot." Mr. Parker was very concerned about the egos and machoism that began to grow among some. he used to say they "got the red swagger." But he also said, there was "nothing you could do about it, because an idiot will always find a way to misuse something."

The higher level of information imparts skill that allows a person to express they're humanity along with the skill. It also is the hardest and most demanding, labor intensive, and most time consuming, with a requirement of a true master level teacher. Something the system alone is incapable of producing. A person may be a "master" in the commercial motion based Kenpo, but it doesn't take long once they step outside of that venue, to discover there is a whole lot missing. Any of the many who have taken up the traditional Filipino, Japanese, Chinese, and Indonesian arts will tell you that.

The deadly aspects of Kenpo are not in the commercial product for many reasons, and Mr. Parker purposely distanced himself from most who were learning, and kept a great deal essentially to himself for other reasons as well. Check the creed, "... right or wrong, life or death." he wanted it said at the beginning and end of every class for a reason, but whatever a student did, it was on them - just like any other self-defense course.


----------



## Doc (Oct 6, 2008)

MJS said:


> I guess what I meant was, one would think that people would want to learn the entire system, and that instead of having multiple versions, such as 4 and 5 that we saw above, that all of the 'less lethal' so to speak, moves, would also be taught.  Of course, as you said, depending on the time they spent, etc, that would determine what they did learn and what they missed out on.



Very true, but for many the material wasn't available, so it wasn't their fault. Most learned only what was available, and didn't know other aspects even existed. But, later still many were so caught up in the commercial system and making a living working what they knew, they couldn't see anything else.

So for the masses it simply didn't exist, and for the rest it wasn't available. The problem was, as the red grew the less interest many had in anything more anyway. Mr. Parker hinted at a lot of material, but trusted very few. He had the "white belt experience I spoke of above, but he also had his own personal experience. 

He was driving with his wife one day, and got into an argument with a guy that cut him off in traffic. They both pulled over and Parker handled it, "Hawaiian style." The guy was bloodied and unconscious and Parker jumped back in his car and left. He literally was scared to death of the prospect that he might have killed the guy, and that never left his mind. Ultimately he discovered the guy was alright because he saw him driving down the road weeks later. Up until that point Parker was beset with sleepless nights and was constantly praying in church for "forgiveness." The incident had a profound impact on what he was doing and his ensuing  philosophy and personal evolution.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 6, 2008)

MJS said:


> Even in self defense, our actions are still going to be under the microscope.



There's a thread on this Indianapolis area incident elsewhere on the site:
*Prosecutor: Fatal attack was justified*




> Robert McNally will not face criminal charges in the death of David Meyers, Brizzi said in a statement.
> 
> _*Meyers, 52, climbed through a window and tried to assault McNally's 17-year-old daughter in her bedroom*_ at about 3:20 a.m. Sunday, police said.
> 
> ...



Lengthier stories made it apparent that the father had not used a chokehold as we understand it but was laying on the intruder, holding him down with an arm around his neck. When the police arrived they had to tell him he could finally let go. The autopsy indicated that the intruder's heart disease contributed to his death.

A few days after the attack, but before the story above, this story was the front page headline in the Indianapolis Star:
*When deadly force is justified*

*Advocates say laws protect the right to self-defense, but opponents fear they encourage violence*


The story doesn't explicitly quote people calling for the father to be prosecuted, but indicates that there are those who oppose the law that shields him from prosecution.

So, theorize all you want, folks...but a 64 year old man in his own house defended his daughter from sexual assault against an armed man who was a convicted felon, using only his hands. The felon died from the man's actions and his own pre-existing heart condition, and some people think the law that protects the homeowner is too broad. So if you think you're justified in bashing a man's head in on the street, be aware that there are people (and jurisdictions) that disagree. It doesn't matter whether you think that's right or not.


----------



## JTKenpo (Oct 6, 2008)

arnisador said:


> There's a thread on this Indianapolis area incident elsewhere on the site:
> *Prosecutor: Fatal attack was justified*
> 
> 
> ...


 
But I would still sleep better knowing that perv is dead.  Right or wrong.


----------



## Doc (Oct 6, 2008)

arnisador said:


> There's a thread on this Indianapolis area incident elsewhere on the site:
> *Prosecutor: Fatal attack was justified*
> 
> 
> ...



I see it everyday, and it was a focus of mine with Mr. Parker because I am in law enforcement, and that was a big part of our focus.

*I doubt anyone ever has said it better sir.*


----------



## Doc (Oct 6, 2008)

JTKenpo said:


> But I would still sleep better knowing that perv is dead.  Right or wrong.



Maybe. Consider your ability to "sleep better at night" while locked down in a mens correctional facility, AND the fact that you are no longer there to protect your child from the rest of the scum out there. Who's going to take your place?


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Oct 7, 2008)

Doc said:


> Maybe. *Consider your ability to "sleep better at night" while locked down in a mens correctional facility*, AND the fact that you are no longer there to protect your child from the rest of the scum out there. Who's going to take your place?


 
Ayup. I wrecked a guy at a stoplight...he was an aggressive driver in a road-rage snit, terrorizing a young mom with toddlers in her car; sparked my "Crusader Rabbit" sense of right and wrong. He got out, and I broke him up. Badly. Joints a-failing, facial lacerations, limbs pointing the wrong way, etc. I was mortified to go home, sure the PD would be there waiting for me, reviewing the entire thing in my head obsessively, realizing I had caused unjustifiable harm to the man. My "defense" ended after the 1st or second shot; I could've stopped, he would've had a bloody nose or lip and the wind knocked out of him, gotten the point, and we all would have gone home, no prob. But... The rest was punishment, and it just doesn't hold up in court.

You only gotta have one of those, "When is the doorbell gonna ring with Sherrifs comin' to take me away on a warrant?" nights sleep to get you thinking that...mebbe the rip & tear model of kenpo isn't the best option for living in modern society. Thank you for your contributions, sir, to mroe civil and sane defense models.

D.


----------



## DavidCC (Oct 7, 2008)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:


> Ayup. I wrecked a guy at a stoplight...he was an aggressive driver in a road-rage snit, terrorizing a young mom with toddlers in her car; sparked my "Crusader Rabbit" sense of right and wrong. He got out, and I broke him up. Badly. Joints a-failing, facial lacerations, limbs pointing the wrong way, etc. I was mortified to go home, sure the PD would be there waiting for me, reviewing the entire thing in my head obsessively, realizing I had caused unjustifiable harm to the man. My "defense" ended after the 1st or second shot; I could've stopped, he would've had a bloody nose or lip and the wind knocked out of him, gotten the point, and we all would have gone home, no prob. But... The rest was punishment, and it just doesn't hold up in court.
> 
> You only gotta have one of those, "When is the doorbell gonna ring with Sherrifs comin' to take me away on a warrant?" nights sleep to get you thinking that...mebbe the rip & tear model of kenpo isn't the best option for living in modern society. Thank you for your contributions, sir, to mroe civil and sane defense models.
> 
> D.


 
and you seemed like such a nice guy... mental note - "do not cut Dave off in traffic".


----------



## JTKenpo (Oct 7, 2008)

Doc said:


> Maybe. Consider your ability to "sleep better at night" while locked down in a mens correctional facility, AND the fact that you are no longer there to protect your child from the rest of the scum out there. Who's going to take your place?


 
So what we let the system do it's job?  No offense Doc but how many guys have you collared and were back on the street in no time flat?  I'm sure you see that everyday as well.  I respectfully disagree with being nice to someone that tries to harm my family.  By nice I mean bloody nose and wind knocked out of them as put by kempuda. And by this line of thought I can't defend my child to begin with.  

Again, I respectfully disagree on this one.


----------



## JTKenpo (Oct 7, 2008)

Doc said:


> Maybe. Consider your ability to "sleep better at night" while locked down in a mens correctional facility, AND the fact that you are no longer there to protect your child from the rest of the scum out there. Who's going to take your place?


 
Doc I hope some day I am lucky enough to train with you in person.  So staying on this thread line of everyone saying you have to stop once the threat is neutralized could you tell me at what point the threat is neutralized here?





 
and is that a knife to the groin of a downed man?





 

Don't get me wrong, I Love it but it looks like rip and tear to me.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 7, 2008)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:


> My "defense" ended after the 1st or second shot; I could've stopped, he would've had a bloody nose or lip and the wind knocked out of him, gotten the point, and we all would have gone home, no prob. But... The rest was punishment, and it just doesn't hold up in court.
> 
> ...you thinking that...mebbe the rip & tear model of kenpo isn't the best option for living in modern society. Thank you for your contributions, sir, to mroe civil and sane defense models.
> 
> D.


 
It's not my intention to assign blame or otherwise point fingers, so consider this just me being the Devil's Advocate.

Is this a flaw in the system, or a failure of the individual?  I suspect the results would not have been greatly different if the training had been in, say, classical Goju Ryu or Wing Chun or something, instead of Mayhem Kenpo.  

The inclination to go too far lies within the person, while the method itself is just a tool that develops certain skills.  The degree to which those skills are put to use on a bad guy is a result of decisions made by the individual.

A reasonable person has the duty to recognize when he is about to go too far.  The type of training he has had is, in my opinion, not to blame.  We all gotta use our noggins, and we all gotta be willing to accept the consequences of our own decisions.

Be careful to whom you give a loaded gun.  Be careful to whom you teach dangerous skills.  But in the end, it is the responsibility of the person to recognize when it's time to quit.  What method he has trained in is irrelevant.


----------



## Doc (Oct 7, 2008)

JTKenpo said:


> Doc I hope some day I am lucky enough to train with you in person.  So staying on this thread line of everyone saying you have to stop once the threat is neutralized could you tell me at what point the threat is neutralized here?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Check the videos sir, they were from the early/mid-eighties while Mr. Parker was alive, and were posted as nostalgia. You'll also notice those video were never brought to light until recently. They have never been represented as "what anyone should do," or what I teach. They are just old videos of guys messing around in the school, and having fun.

The one technique is straight out of the motion kenpo book. I demonstrated it. The knife technique was in fact a control technique, and then we were having "fun" at the end in the classroom talking about what some might teach. We have often mocked what we call the "scorched earth" ideas of self-defense. That doesn't mean anyone advocates the method.

Mr. Parker had old footage of himself ripping, slashing, breaking, and stomping downed people as well, but if you asked him he would tell you the same things I've said. I have footage of me shooting a non-moving unarmed man shaped target, doesn't mean I advocate that behavior in application.

You would have served yourself better sir, to simply disagree with the perspective presented. Intelligent people can always do that. Pulling up video from over two decades ago to suggest a philosophical contradiction  is not much of a rebuttal.


----------



## JTKenpo (Oct 7, 2008)

Doc said:


> Check the videos sir, they were from the early/mid-eighties while Mr. Parker was alive, and were posted as nostalgia. You'll also notice those video were never brought to light until recently. They have never been represented as "what anyone should do," or what I teach. They are just old videos of guys messing around in the school, and having fun.
> 
> The one technique is straight out of the motion kenpo book. I demonstrated it. The knife technique was in fact a control technique, and then we were having "fun" at the end in the classroom talking about what some might teach. We have often mocked what we call the "scorched earth" ideas of self-defense. That doesn't mean anyone advocates the method.
> 
> ...


 
That wasn't my intent at all sir and I am sorry if you took it that way.  I was having fun as well.  Oh well do as I say not as I do I guess.  

Why teach it if you don't advocate it I guess is my point here?


----------



## DavidCC (Oct 7, 2008)

JTKenpo said:


> That wasn't my intent at all sir and I am sorry if you took it that way.


 



JTKenpo said:


> Oh well do as I say not as I do I guess.


 
Weren't you the one who criticized me for contradicting myself? :erg:


----------



## Doc (Oct 7, 2008)

JTKenpo said:


> That wasn't my intent at all sir and I am sorry if you took it that way.  I was having fun as well.  Oh well do as I say not as I do I guess.
> 
> Why teach it if you don't advocate it I guess is my point here?



The point is a simple one sir, I wasn't teaching it on the videos.

Having fun is cool, don't sweat it. But when you're having fun, make it a little more obvious - please? I'm not offended sir, and neither should you be. 

I apologize if you took it that way, but the thread and your previous statements and responses suggested you were attempting to rebuttal my position with old non-instructive video.


----------



## JTKenpo (Oct 7, 2008)

DavidCC said:


> Weren't you the one who criticized me for contradicting myself? :erg:


 

Doc's got me all twisted up, I don't know what my point is anymore....


----------



## Doc (Oct 7, 2008)

JTKenpo said:


> Doc's got me all twisted up, I don't know what my point is anymore....



See, there YALL go. Blamin' it on the brother again!        *KIDDING!*


----------



## JTKenpo (Oct 7, 2008)

Doc said:


> The point is a simple one sir, I wasn't teaching it on the videos.
> 
> Having fun is cool, don't sweat it. But when you're having fun, make it a little more obvious - please? I'm not offended sir, and neither should you be.
> 
> I apologize if you took it that way, but the thread and your previous statements and responses suggested you were attempting to rebuttal my position with old non-instructive video.


 
Yeah after I posted I looked and said I probably should have put some smiley faces or something.  Oh well I have been accused of many things but smooth was not any of them.

It wasn't a rebuttal just my underlying feeling that kenpo is brutal and as the saying goes you can take the boy out of the white trash but you can't take the white trash out of the boy.

The whole thread has me thinking of the movie "Devils Advocate" where Al Paccino is giving a monologue about g_d (if you haven't seen the movie Paccino is the devil) and he says g-d gave you free choice but then told you not to use it "look but don't touch;  touch but don't feel;  feel but don't taste"


----------



## marlon (Oct 7, 2008)

You know one thing i love sk is that almost every counter we have moves quickly into a  control of then other person.  Youy can finish them or control them the option is yours but the techniques take you to that point beautifully.  Until i learned a few things from Doc it is one of the big differences i saw btwn sk and ak.

respectfully,
Marlon


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 7, 2008)

JTKenpo said:


> So what we let the system do it's job?  No offense Doc but how many guys have you collared and were back on the street in no time flat?  I'm sure you see that everyday as well.  I respectfully disagree with being nice to someone that tries to harm my family.  By nice I mean bloody nose and wind knocked out of them as put by kempuda. And by this line of thought I can't defend my child to begin with.
> 
> Again, I respectfully disagree on this one.



There's a very significant difference between defending yourself and destroying another human being with deliberation and intent.  Note the two accounts posted both involve people going too far in the heat of the moment -- not intentionally and deliberately.  Both people felt guilt and remorse over their actions, and were rightfully concerned about the implications of their actions.  Neither were people who regularly and as part of their professional life used calibrated force against another person to subdue and control them.  (Want to see someone who's a real expert in using JUST enough force to control some one -- look at some of the nurses in a psych ward.)

Recall my comments elsewhere regarding the bravado of the statement "It's better to be tried by twelve than carried by six."  I'd say it's better to know what you're doing and avoid EITHER option.  That doesn't mean getting pounded till the cops arrive.  What it does mean is that your use of force must be reasonable and appropriate to the threat presented -- and must cease when the threat is no longer perceived.  (Again, in the previously posted accounts, I'd note that they did stop, even if not at the earliest point possible -- which is why I used *no longer perceived* not stopped.)  You can't "save society the cost of the trial" and kill someone without significant and appropriate justification.



Flying Crane said:


> It's not my intention to assign blame or otherwise point fingers, so consider this just me being the Devil's Advocate.
> 
> Is this a flaw in the system, or a failure of the individual?  I suspect the results would not have been greatly different if the training had been in, say, classical Goju Ryu or Wing Chun or something, instead of Mayhem Kenpo.
> 
> ...



Fantastic post -- and you beat me to several points.  Ultimately, every sequence of techniques can be interrupted at various points.  Just because the form teaches "trap the kick, spin breaking the leg, stomp over the leg to destroy the knee and hip, roll smashing the spine and dislocating the remains of the leg, stomping the head as you rise to face a new opponent" (yes -- that's a real sequence in one advanced form I know), that doesn't mean you HAVE to do all of it.  You can stop, you can simply roll and dislocate, etc.    The key is to learn the options, and control the your reactions.



Doc said:


> Check the videos sir, they were from the early/mid-eighties while Mr. Parker was alive, and were posted as nostalgia. You'll also notice those video were never brought to light until recently. They have never been represented as "what anyone should do," or what I teach. They are just old videos of guys messing around in the school, and having fun.
> 
> The one technique is straight out of the motion kenpo book. I demonstrated it. The knife technique was in fact a control technique, and then we were having "fun" at the end in the classroom talking about what some might teach. We have often mocked what we call the "scorched earth" ideas of self-defense. That doesn't mean anyone advocates the method.
> 
> ...



Context is always important; just because I demonstrate something that goes to an extreme conclusion doesn't mean it's appropriate for every circumstance or needs to be carried to it's conclusion.


----------



## DavidCC (Oct 8, 2008)

marlon said:


> You know one thing i love sk is that almost every counter we have moves quickly into a control of then other person. Youy can finish them or control them the option is yours but the techniques take you to that point beautifully. Until i learned a few things from Doc it is one of the big differences i saw btwn sk and ak.
> 
> respectfully,
> Marlon


 
yeah, I like that too


----------



## Doc (Oct 8, 2008)

jks9199 said:


> There's a very significant difference between defending yourself and destroying another human being with deliberation and intent.  Note the two accounts posted both involve people going too far in the heat of the moment -- not intentionally and deliberately.  Both people felt guilt and remorse over their actions, and were rightfully concerned about the implications of their actions.  Neither were people who regularly and as part of their professional life used calibrated force against another person to subdue and control them.  (Want to see someone who's a real expert in using JUST enough force to control some one -- look at some of the nurses in a psych ward.)
> 
> Recall my comments elsewhere regarding the bravado of the statement "It's better to be tried by twelve than carried by six."  I'd say it's better to know what you're doing and avoid EITHER option.  That doesn't mean getting pounded till the cops arrive.  What it does mean is that your use of force must be reasonable and appropriate to the threat presented -- and must cease when the threat is no longer perceived.  (Again, in the previously posted accounts, I'd note that they did stop, even if not at the earliest point possible -- which is why I used *no longer perceived* not stopped.)  You can't "save society the cost of the trial" and kill someone without significant and appropriate justification.
> 
> ...


Who said "logic was dead." So simple isn't it? You wouldn't think we needed such a lengthy discussion to arrive at your simple and cogent point of common sense sir.


----------



## MJS (Oct 9, 2008)

DavidCC said:


> I can add a small detail:
> there is a huge difference between a handsword to the front of the throat and the side of the neck.


 
And this is why, IIRC, I stated earlier that we should be able to adapt and change to whats presented to us at the time.  Hell in 5 Swords I was taught a few different versions, one being the 4 finger eye shot and another a palm to the face.


----------



## MJS (Oct 9, 2008)

Doc said:


> Very true, but for many the material wasn't available, so it wasn't their fault. Most learned only what was available, and didn't know other aspects even existed. But, later still many were so caught up in the commercial system and making a living working what they knew, they couldn't see anything else.
> 
> So for the masses it simply didn't exist, and for the rest it wasn't available. The problem was, as the red grew the less interest many had in anything more anyway. Mr. Parker hinted at a lot of material, but trusted very few. He had the "white belt experience I spoke of above, but he also had his own personal experience.
> 
> He was driving with his wife one day, and got into an argument with a guy that cut him off in traffic. They both pulled over and Parker handled it, "Hawaiian style." The guy was bloodied and unconscious and Parker jumped back in his car and left. He literally was scared to death of the prospect that he might have killed the guy, and that never left his mind. Ultimately he discovered the guy was alright because he saw him driving down the road weeks later. Up until that point Parker was beset with sleepless nights and was constantly praying in church for "forgiveness." The incident had a profound impact on what he was doing and his ensuing philosophy and personal evolution.


 
Thanks Doc.   Regarding this and post #99.  I have a few questions:

1) You stated that Mr. Parker assumed that people would have the common sense to know that hitting your drunk friend in the throat at a party is wrong.  So, seeing that he had 2 versions, the commercial and the non commercial, for lack of better words...wouldn't it just be better to teach 1 version...perhaps the one that you teach?  I mean, obviously there is a heck of alot more in-depth study, but isn't that the point of arts like Kenpo....to put in alot of time, to really learn the art?  If someone wanted to learn the 'faster' version, do something like Krav Maga or another RBSD based art.  

2) Going on what you and Doc Dave have said, let me give the following scenarios to make sure I'm following correctly.

A) You're confronted by the road rage driver at the intersection.  You do whats necessary to end it, simply hitting him with 2 shots.  Result: You should be safe for your actions.

B) Same situation only he doesn't stop after 2 shots, so you hit with him 2 more.  Still doesn't stop so you do 3 more.  It stops.  Result:  Still safe because he continued to escalate, you responded and stopped when the threat was done.

C)  Same situation, only after those 2 or 3 shots he goes down and you continue to kick in his ribs, and stomp his head.  Result: Keep your back to the wall because Bubba will be waiting for you.


----------



## DavidCC (Oct 9, 2008)

MJS said:


> If someone wanted to learn the 'faster' version, do something like Krav Maga or another RBSD based art


 
Yeah, but then Ed Parker doesn't get paid! 

but seriously, I don't think choices like that were available when Mr. Parker made these decisions.  In fact he opeend the door for that kind of thing, in a way.


----------



## MJS (Oct 9, 2008)

DavidCC said:


> Yeah, but then Ed Parker doesn't get paid!
> 
> but seriously, I don't think choices like that were available when Mr. Parker made these decisions. In fact he opeend the door for that kind of thing, in a way.


 
Good points!


----------



## SL4Drew (Oct 9, 2008)

MJS said:


> 2) Going on what you and Doc Dave have said, let me give the following scenarios to make sure I'm following correctly.


 
Hey, it's not like they were the only two arguing against overkill...I'm hurt.


----------



## MJS (Oct 9, 2008)

SL4Drew said:


> Hey, it's not like they were the only two arguing against overkill...I'm hurt.


 
My apologies....I'll rephrase that to say Doc, Dave and Drew.


----------



## MJS (Oct 29, 2008)

MJS said:


> Thanks Doc.  Regarding this and post #99. I have a few questions:
> 
> 1) You stated that Mr. Parker assumed that people would have the common sense to know that hitting your drunk friend in the throat at a party is wrong. So, seeing that he had 2 versions, the commercial and the non commercial, for lack of better words...wouldn't it just be better to teach 1 version...perhaps the one that you teach? I mean, obviously there is a heck of alot more in-depth study, but isn't that the point of arts like Kenpo....to put in alot of time, to really learn the art? If someone wanted to learn the 'faster' version, do something like Krav Maga or another RBSD based art.
> 
> ...


 
Seems like this thread got bumped to the bottom, so I thought I'd bump it back up for discussion, as well as for some clarification on the above post.

Looking forward to the replies. 

Mike


----------



## Doc (Oct 29, 2008)

DavidCC said:


> Yeah, but then Ed Parker doesn't get paid!
> 
> but seriously, I don't think choices like that were available when Mr. Parker made these decisions.  In fact he opeend the door for that kind of thing, in a way.



You are 100% correct on all counts.


----------



## Doc (Oct 29, 2008)

MJS said:


> Thanks Doc.   Regarding this and post #99.  I have a few questions:
> 
> 1) You stated that Mr. Parker assumed that people would have the common sense to know that hitting your drunk friend in the throat at a party is wrong.  So, seeing that he had 2 versions,


He had more versions than that and NONE of them were ever "finalized."


> the commercial and the non commercial, for lack of better words...wouldn't it just be better to teach 1 version...perhaps the one that you teach?


There is essentially only one commercial model. That is the Kenpo that the majority are familiar with in some form based on "motion." Easy to sale.


> I mean, obviously there is a heck of alot more in-depth study, but isn't that the point of arts like Kenpo....to put in alot of time, to really learn the art?


For some yes, but obviously there is a market for less than in-depth information, if you can get rank or status for it.


> If someone wanted to learn the 'faster' version, do something like Krav Maga or another RBSD based art.


There was no widely available system that awarded rank for continuous study at the time. Certainly in-depth material is better, but it has a less of an appeal for the masses, which includes limited intellectual and physical ability children who make up a substantially lucrative part of the market. Additionally, where were all of the teachers going to magically appear from. What was available were the self-defense courses motion-kenpo is based on. There is a reason why Ed Parker Sr. is known as the Father of American Karate. He is often cited incorrectly as the "Father of American Kenpo." Although he never claimed that distinction, it certainly was true. However, he did claim the "Father of American karate" title.


----------

