# An Attack That May Never Happen



## MJS (Apr 4, 2007)

While reading thru some posts in the Kenpo technical section, specifically the one on Repeated Devestation, there were a few posts that caught my eye.

Now, speaking for myself only, I like to train for the worst case scenario.  IMO, I'd rather be over prepared, than under prepared.  Now, I'll admit that my experience is small compared to some others both on the forum and outside of the forum.  However, while someone may say that the odds of a certain attack happening are small, will never happen at all or that it never happened to them, I feel that its not wise to disregard certain things.  For example, someone may say that training for a grappling attack is not important because they have not seen it or had it happen to them.  

Looking thru our vast collection of techniques, we have a defense for pretty much every type of punch, defenses for club and blade, etc.  Now, we still train those techniques right?  So its very possible that we may never have a gun pointed at us, but again, we're still training the rod techniques right?  

Seems to me that if we had the thought that certain things will never happen, why bother having those moves?  

Thoughts?


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 4, 2007)

This is a question that I wrestle with constantly, along side a similar question:  why do we need SO MANY techs, for the same attack?

I'm in the process of re-learning it all right now so maybe i'll gain some insights down the road.  In the mean time, I try to reconcile the time and effort spent training things that "maybe" shouldn't be trained.  I think there is something useful in there, and it's worth keeping.  Some things work better for some people, not so good for others, so we learn a variety, and within that body of knowledge you can identify your favorites, the reliables that you know you can count on.  But your list may be different from someone else's, and learning that variety gives you the tools and knowledge to make that decision.

Getting back to your original thought: for most people, it is highly unlikely that they will need to use their skills EVER, or at least rarely, maybe a couple times in their life.  So given that, one could make an argument that it is pointless to train at all.

I certainly don't buy that argument, but it is a position that could be taken.

I think everyone speaks from their experience.  Some people have much more experience than others, so perhaps their opinion carries more weight.  But nobody knows it all, nobodys opinion is all knowing.  Just because one person, who may be highly experienced, says "this kind of attack never happens", doesn't mean it's true.  Someone else, even someone with very little experience, might say "hey, someone just did that to me last week, and i was able to escape using this tech!".   It's all based on perspective and experience, and nobody has it all.

If it seems like a viable possibility to you, then keep training it.  I doubt if I would practice techniques to defend against a company of bowmen firing at me from 50 paces, and me having no cover.  I don't believe that will EVER happen, so I don't practice for it.  But a grab, or push, or punch, or something, well, that just might happen, even if someone else says "no way, never".


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Apr 4, 2007)

Why bother having these moves? Exactly. There are some techniques in kenpo which seem so unsound to me...unlikely attacks, and some unlikely responses. I view kenpo techs as little labs designed to teach us how to use our bodies, both in relation to ourselves, and in relation to an opponent. To the extent that a tech has a viable lesson in it, I'll keep it and present it as such..."This tech teaches us how to..." (insert concepts & principles, NOT reactions to a specific attack).

If I can't fill in that sentence with something of value...something that stands up to the test of an uncooperative opponent, instinctive reactions, and a whole slew of other evaluation criteria, I either try to tweak it a bit to make it work, or round file it. I am one of those ridiculous heretics who DOES believe that some of the kenpo content is just filler, and I would rather not work filler. I would rather not bother having these moves.

Be good,

Dave


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 4, 2007)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:


> Why bother having these moves? Exactly. There are some techniques in kenpo which seem so unsound to me...unlikely attacks, and some unlikely responses. I view kenpo techs as little labs designed to teach us how to use our bodies, both in relation to ourselves, and in relation to an opponent. To the extent that a tech has a viable lesson in it, I'll keep it and present it as such..."This tech teaches us how to..." (insert concepts & principles, NOT reactions to a specific attack).
> 
> If I can't fill in that sentence with something of value...something that stands up to the test of an uncooperative opponent, instinctive reactions, and a whole slew of other evaluation criteria, I either try to tweak it a bit to make it work, or round file it. I am one of those ridiculous heretics who DOES believe that some of the kenpo content is just filler, and I would rather not work filler. I would rather not bother having these moves.
> 
> ...


 
I see a lot to agree with here.  I am certainly one to use a critical eye on the actual response, the meat of the technique.  A specific attack may or may not be likely, and that might be a matter of opinion.  But regardless, the response must make sense.  Sometimes some of the techs just seem rediculous, and I think that is a different point of discussion.


----------



## Andrew Green (Apr 4, 2007)

MJS said:


> hat certain things will never happen, why bother having those moves?



I can give a partial answer, and leave it up to you to decide if it works or not for the question.

Consider that clasic outside of the wrist to outside of the wrist wing chun position.  Bruce Lee even used it in Enter the Dragon.  

Now, no one in the real world is ever going to walk up to you and pick a fight by adopting that position... unless they have seen too many Bruce Lee movies.

So why train from it?  It represents a reference point of sorts.  While that "get set" way of getting there will never happen, that basic position will happen quite frequently, although not as a freeze and hold, but just about every traditional style has attacks and blocks that will have you there quite often, whether it is a block or a strike or whatever.

It is also a fairly easy position to "force" I can attack in a certain way to pretty much guarantee a defence that gives a similar positioning.  So it can very easily be gained as a first point of contact.

So while the how you get there is unrealistic (stand and pose) in reality getting there is somewhat likely.  Especially if you try to do so intentionally.  Therefore if you know that once you can get to that position you have a very good chance of winning, and you know that you can achieve that position fairly easily, it might make sense to spend a good deal of time training from it.

This is common in grappling as well, some guys get really good from a position, it might not even be a very dominate one, but it is one that they can get too fairly easily.  If they know they can get there, and they know they can win from there they are in good shape.  (ex. Half guard - Bottom)

As for unrealistic responses, well, lack of realistic sparring is my guess


----------



## kidswarrior (Apr 4, 2007)

I found something in every preceding post to agree with, so chose not to quote any rather than too many.

And want to say right up front that this response is solely my experience, so may or may not have value to anyone else. 

I've kept notes of essentially every Kempo technique I've ever learned, and most of the Kung Fu San Soo principles (my KFSS instructor didn't believe in specific preset techniques: just taught principles, and then showed numerous applications which we'd then practice). 

But what I learned and what I teach are very different things. Have distilled the original techniques and principles-which-become-techniques down to around 100 preset techniques. That's white belt to 1st Black. And I demand they learn all from both sides of attack (instead of the standard right front step in attack, which I mostly learned). Now already, that's more techniques than _I_ would use. So why teach that many? Two reasons. 

First, the different techniques' angles, positions, objectives (hand strike, kick, offensive, defensive, etc.) create patterns of body movement (including evading, blocking, striking, takedowns, etc.) The more things we underststand/have experience that the body can do, the more options we have if we're really in danger at some point. 

Second, eventually I want each student to choose from 6 to 12 favorite techniques, and make them his or hers. When I say, show me _your _techniques, this is what I'll mean (no one is at that point yet). Wasn't it Oyama who said, 'give me five techniques and I'll be undefeated.'? Not sure, but am sure it was Bill Wallace who this month in a major MA journal said after 45 years of training, he only has five techniques. Now if those two count on less than a half dozen techniques--obviously done to perfection--that's probably a good indicator of how it really works. I myself have 6 techniques I'd count on, and practice relentlessly. But that's culled from those hundreds. Wanting to give my students a similar opportunity, I teach the hundred so they can identify their 5 or 6; and their students need a similar opportunity, so will need to learn the 100 also.


----------



## MJS (Apr 4, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> This is a question that I wrestle with constantly, along side a similar question: why do we need SO MANY techs, for the same attack?
> 
> 
> I'm in the process of re-learning it all right now so maybe i'll gain some insights down the road. In the mean time, I try to reconcile the time and effort spent training things that "maybe" shouldn't be trained. I think there is something useful in there, and it's worth keeping. Some things work better for some people, not so good for others, so we learn a variety, and within that body of knowledge you can identify your favorites, the reliables that you know you can count on. But your list may be different from someone else's, and learning that variety gives you the tools and knowledge to make that decision.


 
There was a similar question asked in the GMA section and a fantastic reply, which of course, I can't recall. LOL!  In any case, someone could say that a roundhouse punch is a roundhouse punch, but what works for one may not work for the next.  Additionally, the 'what if' also comes into play.



> Getting back to your original thought: for most people, it is highly unlikely that they will need to use their skills EVER, or at least rarely, maybe a couple times in their life. So given that, one could make an argument that it is pointless to train at all.
> 
> I certainly don't buy that argument, but it is a position that could be taken.


 
Good point.  Likewise, I don't buy it either.  I'd rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.



> I think everyone speaks from their experience. Some people have much more experience than others, so perhaps their opinion carries more weight. But nobody knows it all, nobodys opinion is all knowing. Just because one person, who may be highly experienced, says "this kind of attack never happens", doesn't mean it's true. Someone else, even someone with very little experience, might say "hey, someone just did that to me last week, and i was able to escape using this tech!". It's all based on perspective and experience, and nobody has it all.


 
True.



> If it seems like a viable possibility to you, then keep training it. I doubt if I would practice techniques to defend against a company of bowmen firing at me from 50 paces, and me having no cover. I don't believe that will EVER happen, so I don't practice for it. But a grab, or push, or punch, or something, well, that just might happen, even if someone else says "no way, never".


 
Agreed. 

Mike


----------



## MJS (Apr 4, 2007)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:


> Why bother having these moves? Exactly. There are some techniques in kenpo which seem so unsound to me...unlikely attacks, and some unlikely responses. I view kenpo techs as little labs designed to teach us how to use our bodies, both in relation to ourselves, and in relation to an opponent. To the extent that a tech has a viable lesson in it, I'll keep it and present it as such..."This tech teaches us how to..." (insert concepts & principles, NOT reactions to a specific attack).


 
I suppose this goes back to the commercial/motion discussions that pop up.  Granted everyone trains for a different reason, but IMO, the MAs are primarily about defending yourself.  That being said, one would think that the defenses, etc. would be sound rather than leaving us saying, "Hmm, that would never work."

Mike


----------



## MJS (Apr 4, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> I can give a partial answer, and leave it up to you to decide if it works or not for the question.
> 
> Consider that clasic outside of the wrist to outside of the wrist wing chun position. Bruce Lee even used it in Enter the Dragon.
> 
> ...


 
This thread was started due to a discussion of a Kenpo technique against a full nelson.  I agree though ( here I go agreeing again ) Many 'drills' are often looked at as static and therefore ineffective, however like the position you mention, there are reference points in them.  Its up to the student to pull them out.  

Sparring really wasnt a factor in the other discussion.  My main point of this thread was we can't predict what will happen in a situation.  We can try to attempt to control what happens, but things may change.  Therefore, I'd rather be over than under prepared. 

Mike


----------



## HKphooey (Apr 4, 2007)

Why do we have car insurance?  How often are we in accidents?  It is there for "what if?".

Same goes for martial arts training.  We train for "those situations" and along we meet some great people.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 4, 2007)

Spend the most time on the most likely attacks. Each tech really represents an area of study. You will find the basic motion really never changes.
sean


----------



## 14 Kempo (Apr 4, 2007)

For most of us, thank goodness, the attack will never happen. However, the minute you get too complacent, that is when you are at your weakest and when you will find yourself in a situation.

Thugs, bullies, whatever you want to call them, they prey on weakness, they want to feel fear, they want to feel in control. Those of us that study the martial arts, train to be in control, to control emotions, to then control situations with a calm mind. Most that train, have a different way about themselves, a confidence, an aura so to speak and could be another reason why we never see that attack. We don't look like an easy target, a victim.

We train to fight so that we don't have too.


----------



## John Bishop (Apr 4, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> Some things work better for some people, not so good for others, so we learn a variety, and within that body of knowledge you can identify your favorites, the reliables that you know you can count on.
> 
> But your list may be different from someone else's, and learning that variety gives you the tools and knowledge to make that decision.



This basically sums up my feelings pretty good.  
One of my black belts who also has a 3rd dan in Shotokan described it this way.  "Traditional arts try and make the students fit the art.  Modern arts like Kajukenbo and Kenpo, try to make the art fit the students."

So, even though I don't believe there is a need to learn and practice flying kicks to knock soldiers off horses.  Or the defenses against a sword strike that traditional arts may practice.  I think the majority of Kajukenbo and EPAK techniques are useful to someone learning those arts.   
Now someone can possibly pick the few techniques they like and spend years practicing them.  But they will have to bypass learning the complete cirriculum and advancing in rank.  
So it really depends on whether your interested in just learning self defense for yourself, or advancing in rank and someday passing on the system to others.


----------



## LawDog (Apr 5, 2007)

I agree with Mr Bishop ad Flying Crane.
I do not believe that one should discard all techniques that do not work well for you or that you do not personally like because,
1) We all change with age, something that works really well when you are young might not when you are older,
2) Most of us from time to time will be in different geographical locations. Ex. fast footwork is hard to do on a snowy surface,
3) Your best moves will not work against all the different types of fighters,
4) As you become more experienced and skilled sometimes those moves that do not work well for you now will, in time, become your best moves.
Have fun training,
:ultracool


----------



## Doc (Apr 5, 2007)

It's not about whether an attack will happen, it's about is it possible. There are too many skills people don't have, to worry about the obscure AND impossible. Guess there's no sense posting experiments to begin to make a determination.


----------



## MJS (Apr 5, 2007)

Perhaps we can take this discussion in that direction then.  Its possible that the person who is making threats to me has wrestled during high school and college.  Could it be possible that he could attempt to clinch and slam me to the ground?


----------



## Andrew Green (Apr 5, 2007)

MJS said:


> Perhaps we can take this discussion in that direction then.  Its possible that the person who is making threats to me has wrestled during high school and college.  Could it be possible that he could attempt to clinch and slam me to the ground?



I think that given the number of people that have wrestling experience, and the popularity of MMA, the possibility of someone trying to take you down is higher then it was 10 years ago.

People fight how they are trained to, and if there is no training they fight the way they have seen others do so.  Right now MMA is going to be the model used, where as a few years ago it would have been boxing, martial arts movies or hockey (all striking)

"Ground and Pound" is something that will seem like a good strategy to someone without any experience now, that is something fairly new in terms of what "the masses" would consider a good fight strategy.


----------



## kidswarrior (Apr 5, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> I think that given the number of people that have wrestling experience, and the popularity of MMA, the possibility of someone trying to take you down is higher then it was 10 years ago.
> 
> People fight how they are trained to, and if there is no training they fight the way they have seen others do so.  Right now MMA is going to be the model used, where as a few years ago it would have been boxing, martial arts movies or hockey (all striking)
> 
> "Ground and Pound" is something that will seem like a good strategy to someone without any experience now, that is something fairly new in terms of what "the masses" would consider a good fight strategy.



I agree with everything except 'right now MMA is going to be the model used.' That's probably true for those you mention later who are 'without any experience now', but for those with street experience and no formal training, the boxing paradigm is still the preferred method in my geographical area. But as Law Dog said, things change over areas and time periods, so I wouldn't claim that this holds true elsewhere.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Apr 5, 2007)

I think you're correct, Andrew. I've often lamented...when I was active in Gracie JJ, I was one of maybe 200 people in the U.S. who knew enough to work it. Walking down Main Street, Huntington Beach, surf punks were just targets with ego's, and no technology to back up their attitudes. Now, with so many fight academies around, and guys teaching their buddies in living rooms during UFC's that have been around for so long, everybody seems to know a little bit of something about superior positions, and laying down some ordnance from them.

I used to include some BJJ for my kenpo students as an adjunct for kicks & giggles; now, some of the vertical and horizontal grappling issues MUST be addressed for simple parity with the rats on the sidewalk. 

I personally think some techs need to be seriously revisited & revised to reflect the changes in the personal combat zeitgeist created by the success of MMA events. Thrusting Prongs as a kenpo tech against a bearhug was an OK response when people grabbed you Wild Wild West style in bearhugs and tried to pick you up to sling you around. Now they shoot on you & clinch you. But the opening aspect of Thrusting Prongs...having the arms between you and the opponent and splitting your legs by stepping back into a forward bow...are close enough to getting an arm in for a sprawl, that it could be modified...deepen the rear-leg in the forward bow and drop the height while you pop back and straighten the arm(s) you have between you and the bad-guy, and you're now teaching something applicable in 20XX, versus 19XX.

When last I bounced, the only grapplers out there to worry about were freestyle wrestlers, and they kept giving up their backs; easy. Not anymore. 

In the 154 tech EPKK cirriculum, are any listed as defense against a double-leg? What about a Muay Thai neck-wrestle clinch? Or a knee coming up at you from within that clinch? What about those nasty Chai Sirisute inward slicing elbows from that clinch? Or a head-butt? Nope. But I have some lousy Ram techniques I can try to tweak to make work on a double-leg take or shoot, originally designed for an unsophisticated bull-rush tackle by a half-drunken oaf.

IMO, what Parker did that was brilliant with the motion model, was to attempt to devise techniques against likely attacks from his era. Boxers, judo guys, thugs, etc. Concepts and principles of motion defense, applied to common attacks of the day. Some are still universal; there will always be some guy trying to take a poke at your melon, and those skills are often under-emphasized in a kenpo land obsessed with where on the clock to step in a wristgrab defense. But what's missing from the main body of kenpo training are solutions for stuff guys today are going to try to throw on you. Few, if any, are going to try to get you in a full nelson, but we have a couple techniques against it, just in case. Nobody trains in applying full nelsons, at any school I have ever worked out at. Even the wrestlers I've hooked up with don't go for those, or train for them.

In contrast, almost everyone now has learned how to go for shoots, clinches, and even some standing chokes (guillotine, hadaka-jime). Locking Horns isn't geared effectively for a guy who has you in a true guillotine, and the mechanically unsound single leg take embedded in the SD tech will only place you in the guys guard and get you stretched out while you pass out. And I challenge any AK guy out there to name an SD tech in the 154 system that's against a rear naked choke, standing, seated, or supine. OK...add prone, just for kicks. It ain't there. But untrained Joe Blow's are learning how to do these things; I trained the son of a recently deceased buddy of mine back in 2001-2. When I went to the wake after the funeral last year, the little gang-rats he hangs out with were doing our moves with each other in the garage. They had been working them, having gotten it second hand from the kid, and figuring the rest out from UFC re-runs.

Mr. Bishop mentioned passing whole systems on intact, and availability for promotion within the system. As a kenpo practitioner, it's been over 15 years since I worked on the AK long forms...I recognize them, and partially remember them, but the idea of spending hours ironing the kinks out of Form 5, 6, 7, etc., so I look really pretty doing nonsense is a profound waste of time. I would rather spend that time working solutions against a clinch, shoot, etc., and getting down my responses to a broad tire iron or ball bat swing, instead of Finger Set with foot maneuvers...things that we're starting to see more of as a result of the times. As a kenpo instructor, I cannot -- in good faith to myself -- teach that to future students with a straight face, telling them it's going to be OK. It's a lie, and I won't do it. As a kenpo black belt on a life-long journey, it means I will never see a promotion again. I have abandoned the core cirriculum around which promotions take place, and there is no Senior in front of whom I could test and have what I do recognized. They'll call out an advanced form..."Sorry. Don't do that one; waste of time." They'll call out a technique against a rear full nelson..."sorry; don't do that either...it's a stupid technique against an unlikely attack, and a waste of time to practice, so I threw it away". They'll call out Five Swords with extension, and the extension I do will be to throw him to the ground, kneel on him in a knee-up position, beat the hell out of him, then finish with an arm-break accross my thigh...not the EPAK extension the rest of the kenpo world is familiar with, but one I feel will better serve my students by giving them better tools.

So, my career in kenpo is done, in terms of eligibility for advancement. But at least my guys will be able to fight. 

Sorry for the rant, but this is a thorn in my craw on an ongoing basis, and has been since the late 1980's.

Enjoy,

Dave


----------



## Blindside (Apr 5, 2007)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:


> Sorry for the rant, but this is a thorn in my craw on an ongoing basis, and has been since the late 1980's.


 
I'm not sorry, that may have been the best post I've seen on MartialTalk in a long long time!

Lamont


----------



## kenpo_guy (Apr 5, 2007)

Dr. Dave

I have read your posts for quite some time now, I must say that you make so much sense that sometimes when you make it sound so easy people just say HUH?  I wanted to continue with a point that you have made about rank advancement in Kenpo.  When I first started Kenpo I was told you want _xth _Degree go to college, you want to learn how to fight and be a Black Belt then train here.  Our school was a backyard school, I trained there for 8 years and we were all 18-23 when we started.  Training was physical and I learned how our techniques really worked by having them done on me.  Sparring was always in all ranges: striking, clinching, and ground grappling.  I wrestled in high school and two years in college, thought I was pretty hot stuff until I got kicked in the nuts about hundred times and could never take or hold down my Sifu in any position, so I just got the hell punched and kicked out of me.  I also learned Chin Na such as grabbing to seperate muscle and tendon, this really hurts and makes it difficult when in grappling range trying to take someone down.  We worked judo throws, naked chokes, scarf holds, and the like.  I think that once you have graduated from our school its more about how you maintain and refine your skill sets.  In athletics you are either a "coach" or not.  Your performance, the way you carry yourself and your program, your athletes performance are what set you apart from your peers.  Those peers are the ones that determine your "rank" or status within the community, sounds kinds like the old school way in the MA community.  One you become a Sifu its entirely up to decide if yhou will be a GOOD or BAD Sifu.  Although you may never gain "rank" in Kenpo again you already have by continuing the training and refining your skills to pass on to the ones who really matter your students.  Those around you that really KNOW recognize you for that.  I realize that you do not need the validation of some random guy who has only been in it for half the time and signifincantly less experience than you have, but I wanted to throw out my .02.  Thank you for all of your posts, I have learned much.
Salute, Tony


----------



## DavidCC (Apr 5, 2007)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:


> As a kenpo black belt on a life-long journey, it means I will never see a promotion again. I have abandoned the core cirriculum around which promotions take place, and there is no Senior in front of whom I could test and have what I do recognized. Enjoy,
> 
> Dave


 
Time to get a couple of protegees, think up an acronym, and design a patch. :cheers:  You are wasting time, Dr. Dave, how long do you think it will take to teach all you have to teach?  Better get started my friend.


----------



## MJS (Apr 5, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> I think that given the number of people that have wrestling experience, and the popularity of MMA, the possibility of someone trying to take you down is higher then it was 10 years ago.
> 
> People fight how they are trained to, and if there is no training they fight the way they have seen others do so. Right now MMA is going to be the model used, where as a few years ago it would have been boxing, martial arts movies or hockey (all striking)
> 
> "Ground and Pound" is something that will seem like a good strategy to someone without any experience now, that is something fairly new in terms of what "the masses" would consider a good fight strategy.


 
Well Andrew, lately there has been alot of agreeing going on, and by the looks of this post, the agreeing is going to continue!!  I agree 100% with this post!!:ultracool 

The UFC brought alot into the mix, so as you said, the odds of someone having some sort of grappling background is pretty high!!

Mike


----------



## MA-Caver (Apr 5, 2007)

If I am repeating something that someone else here has said then I'll apologize in advance... but with so many lengthy replies I just decided to reply to the intial post and go from there. 

Not being a Kempoist or even a Kenpoist I still like to put in my input. For what ever it's worth :uhyeah: 

For a few years I was another MT-er's favorite at home practice "uke" as she worked her way up her current belt of 2nd Brown from a blue (EPAK). Applying my own knowledge of various MA and my own experiences of various types of attacks (upon my own person and witnessing others) I too began to wonder why so many techniques (with that art) for the same basic attack. 
As time went on and the number of moves per technique increased per belt I could gradually see the wisdom of SGM Parker's creation and application of these various techniques. Now the only similarites that I have with GM Parker is that he and I were real-world-street fighters in our younger days. 
On the street you're never going to be guaranteed that everyone is going to punch, kick, use a "club", knife or even a gun in the same way. As time goes on and the higher your ranking belt gets this will become evident that the ability to have instantaneous adaptation to the immediate ever changing circumstances/situation is a high priority. You may be right in the middle of a tech when your attacker/opponent doesn't react in the manner prescribed. Some guys you can give them that hard knuckle-fisted punch square in their solar-plexus and they'll fold right over and you can walk away, others will take the exact same punch (at your full power) and just be standing there smiling at you. Ohh-kay, *that* didn't work lets try THIS! 
A Kenpoist explained to me this way: "GM Parker was a genius in that he viewed the human body as a paper-clip. Keep bending the paper-clip back down and back up again and again and eventually it'll break." (or something like that... it's been a few years). 

I've been in situations to where everything SHOULD'VE worked; catch the guy's punch and twist under it and bring him to my shoulder for a nice roll-over throw... umm nope, seems he was ready for that particular move or just managed to plant his weight just right... so stomp on his foot and rake his shin and reach behind me with my free hand and give the ole sac a good yank. There! That done it. 

We hope we'll never be attacked but having that awareness and expecting the unexpected and being prepared for the unexpected will go a long way and bring alllll that training to fruition. :asian:


----------



## thardey (Apr 5, 2007)

Without meaning to step on anybody's toes, I ran across the original question from the main page, and I had a thought that may have been touched on, but I think is important, and should be expanded.

I think it is important to spend most of your time dealing with a left-foot forward one-two attack, since the majority of the people will attack with a right-hand strong boxing type attack first, even if they plan on going to the ground later. You should also spend some time training against left-handed attacks, since there are fewer left-handers, but still a substantial amount.

Less time for purely kicking attacks, grappling, etc, proportionate to how many people are likely to throw those attacks.

But -- here's the deal breaker.

In my training, I like to think "What's the last thing this guy expects me to do, that's still viable?" I think most people who spend time training think the same way. If I have to fight a boxer, I'll pretend to box, and then kick him in the knee -- that sort of thing. If I end up on the ground with a high school wrester, I'll let him spend his energy taking me to my back, but keep a hand free to poke his eyes (or, in the case of a "frendly" wresting match with my buddy, I let him "pin" me, then casually reached to his throat and pinched  he let go right now!)

So if I hear of an attack that nobody trains for because it "never happens" guess what attack I'll be learning? The attack that nobody's trained to deal with!

So we have to keep training against these attacks, because people are always looking for "blind spots" -- that's how martial culture changes through time and geography. We just need to keep them in perspective.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Apr 5, 2007)

DavidCC said:


> Time to get a couple of protegees, think up an acronym, and design a patch. :cheers: You are wasting time, Dr. Dave, how long do you think it will take to teach all you have to teach? Better get started my friend.


 
I still have too much to learn. One lifetime is not enough.

And to be fair to the kenpo purists, I have to say that there are guys out there who can make some unlikely chit work. Techniques I'll have abandoned as pointless, guys like Mr. Hale will make me look silly by turning me upside down with them, or bring them to life by pointing out something I've missed for 35 years like an idiot. But it still seems, to me, that there are an awful lot of approaches not accounted for in the core kenpo cirriculum that need to be, as well as lots of stuff that is accounted for that's unnecessary puff stuff.

Moreover, there are "progressive" kenpoists like Mr. Chape'l (yes, Doc, I try your experiments even when nobody else is listening) who continue to amaze and teach me by providing clean-ups and vital tweaks to cause a kenpo tech to own the attackers hide despite various resistances. But my question/criticism always returns to this: How many kenpo clubs are out there? By contrast, in how many of them does one regularly get on the mat with the greats and near greats? I've been lucky, with immediate access over several years to some of kenpo's bets, and I still haven't scratched the surface.

As an obsessive kenpo hobbyist in this for life, I will always be out to learn the next kewl way to clean up my kenpo. Some of that I'll pass on to my future long-term students, as I use their longevity to meter their interest. But for the vast bulk of students I get, I'm gonna stick to simple stuff that works well, most of the time.

D.


----------



## D.Cobb (Apr 6, 2007)

When I was learning EPAK, I was taught that the techniques were not that important... It was the principles behind them that counts. When the question arose as to why so many defenses for each attack, the reason was that each new technique was designed to add to the principles learnt in the preceding tech.

--Dave


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Apr 6, 2007)

D.Cobb said:


> When I was learning EPAK, I was taught that the techniques were not that important... It was the principles behind them that counts. When the question arose as to why so many defenses for each attack, the reason was that each new technique was designed to add to the principles learnt in the preceding tech.
> 
> --Dave


 
And that is the purpose of kenpo. Techniques are not meant to be actual responses, in my book. Rather, they are meant to be plausible fictions that serve as the context for a lesson. They are the chalk and blackboard, not the lessons themselves.

But you would be surprised how many times I've been in keyboard-kenpo arguments with guys on these threads, because they're insisting that some dude should have used Grasp of Death instead of Grip of Death, because of how the attacker was standing or some such silliness. My reply is typically: No, you should have hit the guy with what was available to you, and kept on hitting him until he was no longer moving. The weapons and options available from any given position have been taught to you in the techniques, so use them.

D.


----------



## Joe Shuras (Apr 6, 2007)

LawDog said:


> I agree with Mr Bishop ad Flying Crane.
> I do not believe that one should discard all techniques that do not work well for you or that you do not personally like because,
> 1) We all change with age, something that works really well when you are young might not when you are older,
> 2) Most of us from time to time will be in different geographical locations. Ex. fast footwork is hard to do on a snowy surface,
> ...


 
I agree with John Bishop, Flying Crane and Al C. I believe we are all on the same page, gentlemen. I always use this analogy to get across my point. We may all go to the same restuarant for dinner, let's say the four of us here. We're given a menu of dinner choices, all prepared by the same chef at the same restuarant, yet, we may all choose something different. However, we picked what suited our indivivdual and personal tastes. An instructor has to broaden his perspective of currciulum and becareful of what he discards because as the saying goes; One man's trash is another man's treasure. What works for me, my body style and attributes may not work for you, and vice-versa or as Ed Parker stated: Every Kenpo black belt is a style within themselves. This fits all the Hawaiian derived Kenpo/Kempo/Kajukenbo systems imho.  - Joe


----------



## Joe Shuras (Apr 6, 2007)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:


> And that is the purpose of kenpo. Techniques are not meant to be actual responses, in my book. Rather, they are meant to be plausible fictions that serve as the context for a lesson. They are the chalk and blackboard, not the lessons themselves.
> 
> But you would be surprised how many times I've been in keyboard-kenpo arguments with guys on these threads, because they're insisting that some dude should have used Grasp of Death instead of Grip of Death, because of how the attacker was standing or some such silliness. My reply is typically: No, you should have hit the guy with what was available to you, and kept on hitting him until he was no longer moving. The weapons and options available from any given position have been taught to you in the techniques, so use them.
> 
> D.


 
*Dave, you make some excellent points and I couldn't agree more. I came upon this post this morning on San Jose Kenpo forum. You're comments would be appreciated.*

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Trebuchet][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Trebuchet] 
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Trebuchet] [/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Trebuchet]*Return to Forum* [/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Trebuchet]*Interesting, VERY Interesting!*

[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Trebuchet]April 5 2007 at 1:52 PM[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Trebuchet] Mills Crenshaw 				Mills Crenshaw				  (Login MillsCrenshaw)
from IP address 72.25.160.238[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Trebuchet]The pressures of work have kept me from following the discussion threads for some time. Much to my surprise, on returning, I find an &#8220;intellectual&#8221; discussion (argument?) over how many techniques can be removed from Kenpo before it ceases to be Kenpo; and whether the &#8220;slaps,&#8221; so called, are necessary.

Forgive me for being blunt but it reminds me of the arguments between theologians about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I&#8217;m just a poor country boy. All I know about Kenpo is what I learned from my friend and teacher Ed Parker; and from efforts to think creatively as he taught us all to do. If I contradict some of the pronouncements of more exalted Masters, Grand Masters, Wizards and Grand Poo-Baughs, please forgive me...after all, I&#8217;m a mere mortal.

Kenpo, as I was taught, is not just a collection of techniques with colorful names. It is, instead, a way of looking at real and potential threats and disposing of those threats with devastating and overwhelming force. The body must be trained to act on the brain&#8217;s instinctive recognition of those threats; but it is that mind-body linkage more than a specific group of techniques that is the core of Kenpo. Put 80% of the techniques you have learned in the waste basket and a Kenpo trained mind would still respond effectively to a new, previously unpracticed attack. Basic skills are part of that core. Blocks, secondary blocks, counters, strikes, kicks, footwork...all must be mastered so that the mind-body linkage becomes a formidable weapon. It is mastery of these basic skills that forges the link between mind and body. Take away that link and it is no longer Kenpo. No matter the nomenclature, techniques are merely a collection of pre-programmed responses to specific threats. The forms are catalogues of those techniques&#8212;but Kenpo is the threat perception skill-set, together with the mind-body automatic response to those threats, more than the collection of techniques. Let me illustrate the concept this way. If a savant, with a photographic memory, were able to memorize every technique ever taught by all the black belt instructors who ever lived, would that body of knowledge be kenpo? No! Why? Because if his mind was incapable of perceiving the threat and his body unable to automatically react to the threat he would be helpless in spite of his knowledge. That is NOT Kenpo. The total skill, not inapplicable knowledge, is the essence of Kenpo. But then, that&#8217;s just what I&#8217;ve been taught and what I&#8217;ve perceived through the years.

The most troubling set of discussions are those concerning the &#8220;SLAPS.&#8221; Showmanship? Unnecessary? Slaps? Friends, I don&#8217;t know where you learned Kenpo or who&#8217;s been talking with you; but those comments demonstrate a basic lack of understanding of basic Kenpo theory and combat reality. Ed Parker developed a system of secondary BLOCKS out of the realization that even the most skilled combatant can be faked out of position by a skilled opponent. When making a block or strike, a properly trained Kenpo warrior will make a secondary block protecting that area of the body left exposed by the primary block or strike. A block in mid air is weak and can be driven back into your body. (Put that to the test. Make a right inward block and put your open left hand in front of your face as a secondary block. Have another student throw a hard punch into that open hand. Most of the time you&#8217;ll find yourself with a face full of fist.) If, however, as you make that secondary block you drive the heal of your left hand into your right biceps, you will find the secondary block is solid and will withstand a very powerful punch. The popping sound of that secondary block anchoring itself to your biceps will only be described as a &#8220;slap&#8221; by the untrained or ill-informed. Sometimes the secondary block is made in a &#8220;wiping&#8221; motion that hooks the oncoming punch and slams it to the protecting arm or shoulder. (With a popping sound, yes, but it sure as heck isn't a "slap") Powerful secondary blocks, firmly anchored against the body, are such a basic part of an Ed Parker trained warrior that if those secondary blocks are missing it is a telling sign of a poorly trained pretender. But then, that&#8217;s just one country boy&#8217;s opinion.

Cordially,
Mills Crenshaw

[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Trebuchet] [/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Trebuchet]*Respond to this message* [/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Trebuchet] 
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT] 

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Trebuchet] 
[/FONT]


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 6, 2007)

Joe Shuras said:


> I agree with John Bishop, Flying Crane and Al C. I believe we are all on the same page, gentlemen. I always use this analogy to get across my point. We may all go to the same restuarant for dinner, let's say the four of us here. We're given a menu of dinner choices, all prepared by the same chef at the same restuarant, yet, we may all choose something different. However, we picked what suited our indivivdual and personal tastes. An instructor has to broaden his perspective of currciulum and becareful of what he discards because as the saying goes; One man's trash is another man's treasure. What works for me, my body style and attributes may not work for you, and vice-versa or as Ed Parker stated: Every Kenpo black belt is a style within themselves. This fits all the Hawaiian derived Kenpo/Kempo/Kajukenbo systems imho. - Joe


 

I think maybe the topic has shifted a little from MJS' initial intention.  I think rather than looking at why we have so many defenses against similar attacks (sorry, that was really my own digression in the beginning of the thread), what he is really looking at is, are some attacks really so highly unlikely that it is simply a waste of time to prepare for them?  

Some people believe certain stylized attacks are impossible to actually carry out in the real world.  If this is actually true, then it is kind of a waste of time to prepare for them.  I guess not everyone believes that it's true.  What one person believes will never happen, or could never happen, another person believes could happen and might happen.  I guess you need to satisfy yourself about the possibility of a certain type of attack happening and being successful.  If you think it could happen, then you should prepare for it.  If not, then don't.


----------



## Doc (Apr 6, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> Some people believe certain stylized attacks are impossible to actually carry out in the real world.  If this is actually true, then it is kind of a waste of time to prepare for them.  I guess not everyone believes that it's true.  What one person believes will never happen, or could never happen, another person believes could happen and might happen.  I guess you need to satisfy yourself about the possibility of a certain type of attack happening and being successful.  If you think it could happen, then you should prepare for it.  If not, then don't.


Of course you're correct. It is a matter of prioritization based on personal preferences. This is the Kenpo desease that infects the commercial system that turns everyone, regardless of knowledge or skill set into a designer of his own style. I've seen raw beginners to so-called experts expressing themeselves as to how they think a technique should be done. 

The idea of tailoring and rearranging along with other "designer" concepts is what has made the commercial system popular. Anybody may do anything that suits them, and as long as the individual is satisfied with their performance, its fine. Kinda learn the forms and sets so you can test, and then tossem'. Understand them? Unnecessary. Make them actually work? Who cares. Give them some more stuff to "perform" so they can get another rank. That is where all the fluff and crap material comes from.

Now the base system itself, is not as bad as it sounds, but too many of those that call themselves teachers are. It is a business that feeds upon itself, and contridicts on some level its reason for existing. The balancing act between making money and turning out reasonably skilled martial artist is difficult for the most adept teachers. For the bulk of the less than competent, it isn't even possible, and profit is the driving force.

This contridiction has driven Mr. Parker's idea of what should be a functioning albeit commercial system into the ground. The bar is set so low, the idea of what is and looks good is virtually dysfuctional. Most don't know the simplest of basics, but can roll, jump, wirl, yell, and stomp with enthusiasm, while wearing uniforms with enough patches to shame a Nascar driver, and be awarded rank. 

As I said earlier the "full nelson" attack is anatomically impossible and I stand by that statement, but I still teach the counter-mechanics because they are important, and reinforce other themes inherent in the system as I teach it. My students know the attack itself is dysfuctional, but they love what they learn from exploring their own body mechanics AND how they fuction in other attacks that ARE more likely to happen. 

Therefore ALL the bases are covered. Exposed to an improbable situation, but putting it in proper perspective. Learning the relative function of the inherent body mechanics, without having them tied exclusively to a dysfuctional technique scenario. And lastly and least important, if the heavens split open and Bruce Lee himself is resurrected to seek one of them out and attack them with a full nelson, they'll be ready. 

I teach a highly functional A-to-Z system. Students learn what I have to teach, not what they want to learn, unless they agree with the system. When I'm through with them, they can do whatever they want and rearrange, tailor, delete and insert to their hearts content. I have one problem - I can't make any money or get rid of any of them.


----------



## kidswarrior (Apr 6, 2007)

Doc said:


> As I said earlier the "full nelson" attack is anatomically impossible and I stand by that statement, but I still teach the counter-mechanics because they are important, and reinforce other themes inherent in the system as I teach it. My students know the attack itself is dysfuctional, but they love what they learn from exploring their own body mechanics AND how they fuction in other attacks that ARE more likely to happen.
> 
> Therefore ALL the bases are covered. Exposed to an improbable situation, but putting it in proper perspective. Learning the relative function of the inherent body mechanics, without having them tied exclusively to a dysfuctional technique scenario. And lastly and least important, if the heavens split open and Bruce Lee himself is resurrected to seek one of them out and attack them with a full nelson, they'll be ready.
> 
> I teach a highly functional A-to-Z system. Students learn what I have to teach, not what they want to learn, unless they agree with the system. When I'm through with them, they can do whatever they want and rearrange, tailor, delete and insert to their hearts content. I have one problem - I can't make any money or get rid of any of them.



Doc, you're one of a kind, sir. Really appreciate your take on things.


----------



## cubankenpo (Apr 6, 2007)

Hi bros
When u train , ur preparing yourself against many situations, we know some things which we use in our style need a little changes cause they are old, but u have to adapt  them to our times, and to us , some people  like grappling more than  kicks or punch but it doesnt mean kicks and punch are not important, 
u have to b a step ahead from the present, u have to train situation non happen , your brain must know the situation before happen, , thats why we  train  diferent situation in diferent places
Joe


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 6, 2007)

Doc said:


> As I said earlier the "full nelson" attack is anatomically impossible and I stand by that statement, but I still teach the counter-mechanics because they are important, and reinforce other themes inherent in the system as I teach it. My students know the attack itself is dysfuctional, but they love what they learn from exploring their own body mechanics AND how they fuction in other attacks that ARE more likely to happen.
> 
> Therefore ALL the bases are covered. Exposed to an improbable situation, but putting it in proper perspective. Learning the relative function of the inherent body mechanics, without having them tied exclusively to a dysfuctional technique scenario. And lastly and least important, if the heavens split open and Bruce Lee himself is resurrected to seek one of them out and attack them with a full nelson, they'll be ready.


 

I certainly understand and appreciate your position with regard to the full nelson.  I think the reality is that not everyone agrees with it, as it all comes down to personal experience and personal perspective, which may or may not be accurate.  If I recall correctly, I think someone else in that other discussion mentioned having seen it done for real, or maybe it was done on him for real.  Maybe I don't remember that correctly.  But at any rate, different people have different opinions on it, maybe you think their idea is foolish, maybe they think yours is foolish  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





.

At any rate, if someone chooses to believe the attack is viable, then they should practice a viable defense against it.  Whatever their solution to the attack, it should be well-thought out and effective.  The reality may be that they will never have a reason to ever use it, but at least they are practiceing a defense that works and makes sense, built upon solid ideas and skills.

I might decide that an attack with a longbow at 50 paces is viable and realistic.  So maybe I practice diving and rolling quickly behind whatever cover might be available, and making myself a difficult target.  To believe an attack like that might actually happen is sort of foolish in today's day and age.  But at least my response to that attack does make sense.  What else would you do if someone started shooting arrows at you?  And maybe those skills I develop just might come in handy in some other way, even if I never need to use them to dodge arrows.

Kind of similar to your second paragraph that I quoted here.

By the way, I'd be curious to hear what other attacks we have defenses for, that you feel the attack itself is improbably or impossible.


----------



## LawDog (Apr 6, 2007)

I have personally seen a"full nelson"attack done. Around 1984 - 86 I was working a detail inside one of our local "biker bars", it was called the Steer Club. A fight between two rival groups developed, I called for backup. A short time later the first officer arrived and entered the building and just for a moment I looked away, when I looked back a large biker had the backup officer in a full nelson. It took several double handed thrusting blows with the steel ball end of my baton into the bikers shoulder blade area to get him to release.
Nothing is impossible if a situation arises that will allow it to occur.


----------



## Doc (Apr 6, 2007)

LawDog said:


> I have personally seen a"full nelson"attack done. Around 1984 - 86 I was working a detail inside one of our local "biker bars", it was called the Steer Club. A fight between two rival groups developed, I called for backup. A short time later the first officer arrived and entered the building and just for a moment I looked away, when I looked back a large biker had the backup officer in a full nelson. It took several double handed thrusting blows with the steel ball end of my baton into the bikers shoulder blade area to get him to release.
> Nothing is impossible if a situation arises that will allow it to occur.



I might add I qualified my "impossible" comment in the original reply. I grew up in, and worked South Central Los Angeles and Compton for decades, so I've seen my share as well. I also note you had to go back a couple of decades to a biker bar to find an example. For the bulk of the people, that's a huge improbability exclusive of the anatomical restrictions. Of course you can put any hold on anyone who's borderline conscious.


----------



## LawDog (Apr 6, 2007)

Doc,
My backup was not border line conscious when the biker got him, though the biker was later on.
It matters not if it was a decade ago or yesterday the fact is that it happened.
Doc, from what you have said I am wondering if were/are you a L.E.O.? Were you a street cop?


----------



## Doc (Apr 6, 2007)

LawDog said:


> Doc,
> My backup was not border line conscious when the biker got him, though the biker was later on.
> It matters not if it was a decade ago or yesterday the fact is that it happened.
> Doc, from what you have said I am wondering if were/are you a L.E.O.? Were you a street cop?



35 years, and until I can sell at least one daughter, still counting.


----------



## SL4Drew (Apr 6, 2007)

Doc said:


> I have one problem - I can't make any money or get rid of any of them.


 
Who? What? Did someone say something? :jaws:


----------



## MJS (Apr 7, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> I think maybe the topic has shifted a little from MJS' initial intention. I think rather than looking at why we have so many defenses against similar attacks (sorry, that was really my own digression in the beginning of the thread), what he is really looking at is, are some attacks really so highly unlikely that it is simply a waste of time to prepare for them?


 
Yes, that was my original intent, although the little bit of drift that has happened has been very informative.  



> Some people believe certain stylized attacks are impossible to actually carry out in the real world. If this is actually true, then it is kind of a waste of time to prepare for them. I guess not everyone believes that it's true. What one person believes will never happen, or could never happen, another person believes could happen and might happen. I guess you need to satisfy yourself about the possibility of a certain type of attack happening and being successful. If you think it could happen, then you should prepare for it. If not, then don't.


 
Good point.  Like I said, we have defenses for a number of attacks.  I havent had a gun pulled on me (thank God) but I still work gun defense.  

Mike


----------



## MJS (Apr 7, 2007)

Doc said:


> Of course you're correct. It is a matter of prioritization based on personal preferences. This is the Kenpo desease that infects the commercial system that turns everyone, regardless of knowledge or skill set into a designer of his own style. I've seen raw beginners to so-called experts expressing themeselves as to how they think a technique should be done.


 
Taking this analogy, would you say a 5'3 woman should be able to make a technique work against a 6'5 man in the same way two males the same height would?



> The idea of tailoring and rearranging along with other "designer" concepts is what has made the commercial system popular. Anybody may do anything that suits them, and as long as the individual is satisfied with their performance, its fine. Kinda learn the forms and sets so you can test, and then tossem'. Understand them? Unnecessary. Make them actually work? Who cares. Give them some more stuff to "perform" so they can get another rank. That is where all the fluff and crap material comes from.


 
Isn't this a pretty big assumption of all 'commercial' schools?



> Now the base system itself, is not as bad as it sounds, but too many of those that call themselves teachers are. It is a business that feeds upon itself, and contridicts on some level its reason for existing. The balancing act between making money and turning out reasonably skilled martial artist is difficult for the most adept teachers. For the bulk of the less than competent, it isn't even possible, and profit is the driving force.


 
So every school is out to make money rather than produce quality students?



> This contridiction has driven Mr. Parker's idea of what should be a functioning albeit commercial system into the ground. The bar is set so low, the idea of what is and looks good is virtually dysfuctional. Most don't know the simplest of basics, but can roll, jump, wirl, yell, and stomp with enthusiasm, while wearing uniforms with enough patches to shame a Nascar driver, and be awarded rank.


 
Hmmm..I have two gis with no patches on them at all.  When I do choose to place a patch upon them, it will consist of the school patch.  Additionally, my instructor is big on basics, so again, it seems like lumping all schools that fit that 'commercial' mold is incorrect.



> As I said earlier the "full nelson" attack is anatomically impossible and I stand by that statement, but I still teach the counter-mechanics because they are important, and reinforce other themes inherent in the system as I teach it. My students know the attack itself is dysfuctional, but they love what they learn from exploring their own body mechanics AND how they fuction in other attacks that ARE more likely to happen.


 
Aside from the full nelson which seems that it was applied in LawDogs post, what other attacks are anatomically impossible?

Mike


----------



## Doc (Apr 7, 2007)

MJS said:


> Taking this analogy, would you say a 5'3 woman should be able to make a technique work against a 6'5 man in the same way two males the same height would?


I assume your question is rhetorical. In the traditional (less commercial by construct) arts, "tailoring" is the provence of experienced teachers not students seeking to be taught how to make something work.


> Isn't this a pretty big assumption of all 'commercial' schools?


Since when have I ever said ALL commercial schools?


> So every school is out to make money rather than produce quality students?


I'm going to assume you're being rhetorical again because I don't think anybody has ever said that. But that being said, most folow the standards they know and have been brought up with. For many, especially in recent years, they simply don't know what's correct because they themselves have never been taught. Therefore they may have good intentions, but unfortunately that is not enough.


> Hmmm..I have two gis with no patches on them at all.  When I do choose to place a patch upon them, it will consist of the school patch.  Additionally, my instructor is big on basics, so again, it seems like lumping all schools that fit that 'commercial' mold is incorrect.


Sounds to me like you're personalizing the discussion. Perhaps you should go back and read my responses objectively. "Commercial " has nothing to do with being paid for your services. It's a system that was designed to be a commercial business that has inherent limitations in its design, no matter how good the intentions. Some teach the "commercial" system for free, but that doesn't change the system itself or somehow make it better. The instructor is the only real barometer of the quality of instruction, based upon his background, knowledge, and teaching ability. The commercial system was designed around him, and functioned reasonbly well in the beginning. Its deterioration was noted by Ed Parker himself, as he watched it spiral out of control downward. He died before he could even begin to try to get it back on track.

His words to me were, "It's an entity feeding upn itself, and therefore is self consuming and not capable of artisitically sustaining itself."


> Aside from the full nelson which seems that it was applied in LawDogs post, what other attacks are anatomically impossible?
> 
> Mike


Most of the "entertainment wrestling stuff." Work it out. I rarely if ever make all encompassing remarks about anything or anybody, and anyone who reads my writings know that if I do, its a matter of physics and I still qualify my responses, so please don't suggest that I do or have done that.


----------



## MJS (Apr 9, 2007)

Doc said:


> I assume your question is rhetorical. In the traditional (less commercial by construct) arts, "tailoring" is the provence of experienced teachers not students seeking to be taught how to make something work.


 
So, back to the question.  If a teacher 'tailored' a technique to meet the needs I listed, is that acceptable?



> Since when have I ever said ALL commercial schools?


 
Sorry, but with the way the reply was phrased it seemed to me that you were making a blanket statement.  



> I'm going to assume you're being rhetorical again because I don't think anybody has ever said that. But that being said, most folow the standards they know and have been brought up with. For many, especially in recent years, they simply don't know what's correct because they themselves have never been taught. Therefore they may have good intentions, but unfortunately that is not enough.


 
You said this:



> The idea of tailoring and rearranging along with other "designer" concepts is what has made the commercial system popular. Anybody may do anything that suits them, and as long as the individual is satisfied with their performance, its fine. Kinda learn the forms and sets so you can test, and then tossem'. Understand them? Unnecessary. Make them actually work? Who cares. Give them some more stuff to "perform" so they can get another rank. That is where all the fluff and crap material comes from.


 
Again, reading that, to me, sounded like you were lumping all commercial schools together.



> Sounds to me like you're personalizing the discussion. Perhaps you should go back and read my responses objectively. "Commercial " has nothing to do with being paid for your services. It's a system that was designed to be a commercial business that has inherent limitations in its design, no matter how good the intentions. Some teach the "commercial" system for free, but that doesn't change the system itself or somehow make it better. The instructor is the only real barometer of the quality of instruction, based upon his background, knowledge, and teaching ability. The commercial system was designed around him, and functioned reasonbly well in the beginning. Its deterioration was noted by Ed Parker himself, as he watched it spiral out of control downward. He died before he could even begin to try to get it back on track.


 
Commercial

*



			2 a
		
Click to expand...

*


> *:* viewed with regard to profit <a _commercial_ success> *b* *:* designed for a large market


 




> Most of the "entertainment wrestling stuff." Work it out. I rarely if ever make all encompassing remarks about anything or anybody, and anyone who reads my writings know that if I do, its a matter of physics and I still qualify my responses, so please don't suggest that I do or have done that.


 
Well, I agree that much of what is called wrestling, such as what we'd see on TV, is not practical.  I was referring more towards being attacked by someone who has a grappling background.


----------



## MJS (Apr 14, 2007)

Just wanted to bump this thread back up, as we had a number of great replies, and IMO, I think that there is more to discuss, seeing that we have such a wide assortment of techniques.  

Lately, it seems if someone disagrees with someone or something that was said, those people leave and the thread dies.  Disagreements are part of life.  

Anyway...back to the discussion.  

Mike


----------



## kidswarrior (Apr 14, 2007)

MJS said:


> Now, speaking for myself only, I like to train for the worst case scenario.  IMO, I'd rather be over prepared, than under prepared....while someone may say that the odds of a certain attack happening are small, will never happen at all or that it never happened to them, I feel that its not wise to disregard certain things.  For example, someone may say that training for a grappling attack is not important because they have not seen it or had it happen to them.
> 
> Looking thru our vast collection of techniques, we have a defense for pretty much every type of punch, defenses for club and blade, etc.  Now, we still train those techniques right?



I've been thinking a lot about this since this thread began, and come to a couple conclusions.

I believe the Kempo I learned had too many _*rehearsed *_techniques, and too little reliance on our _*unrehearsed *_principles. By this I mean most kenpo/kempo systems seem to have 150-300 specific techniques and more forms than we can really use, all done a very particular way, in response to a very certain situation. Realistically, I can't see myself or my students having 300 possible rehearsed responses at the ready at all times. So I've cut this down to 96 for 1st BB along with 12 forms, and even this pushes the limits of my comfort zone.

At the same time, the unrehearsed principles of our systems--our strategic framework, upon which all those specific techniques should hang--seems to get short shrift. By this I mean we spend very little time on the bunkai for those forms, and the  free-wheeling use of what we've learned in the techniques. The latter usually takes the form of sparring, but if we essentially use kickboxing equipment and rules for sparring, how close is that really to replicating the ken/kempo we've learned--the soft tissue attacks, joint manipulations, hyperextensions, etc., in other words, the deadly art that we practice in those 150+ techniques. 

So my point is this: _IMHO we are far too heavily invested in rehearsed techniques, and far too divested of the rich possibilities inherent in the unrehearsed side of our art._ I am thinking specifically of the sub-art of bunkai--how much do we go past rehearsing the forms to the dirty work of applying them? Kane & Wilder have done good work in issuing a wake up call here, as has Abernethy, and there are others. And how have we invented ways to practice our art that simulates reality more closely than reverting to kickboxing, or perhaps at the most SanShou (adding sweeps and limited throws)?

In case you haven't guessed, I really am thinking out loud, and attempting to come up with a more balanced, and so in my mind a more realistic and rich, approach to this art I love. If I sound preachy or pompous, please be assured I'm targeting my own shortcomings and failure to sufficiently understand, and I welcome your input. :asian:


----------



## Jdokan (Apr 15, 2007)

kidswarrior said:


> I've been thinking a lot about this since this thread began, and come to a couple conclusions.
> 
> I believe the Kempo I learned had too many _*rehearsed *_techniques, and too little reliance on our _*unrehearsed *_principles. By this I mean most kenpo/kempo systems seem to have 150-300 specific techniques and more forms than we can really use, all done a very particular way, in response to a very certain situation. Realistically, I can't see myself or my students having 300 possible rehearsed responses at the ready at all times. So I've cut this down to 96 for 1st BB along with 12 forms, and even this pushes the limits of my comfort zone.
> 
> ...


 
I fully AGREE with this....too much material...
I have cut material back to 20 techniques and 12 forms for Black....Spending more on Committing these to memory so that reaction come from these techniques....I hope to have #1 become a starting point for knife, club, etc.....I am hoping to get back to what I believe we started with.....
We me and a couple of friends get together to work out I try to make my sparring technique emulate how I do my combinations.....


----------



## MJS (Apr 16, 2007)

kidswarrior said:


> I've been thinking a lot about this since this thread began, and come to a couple conclusions.
> 
> I believe the Kempo I learned had too many _*rehearsed *_techniques, and too little reliance on our _*unrehearsed *_principles. By this I mean most kenpo/kempo systems seem to have 150-300 specific techniques and more forms than we can really use, all done a very particular way, in response to a very certain situation. Realistically, I can't see myself or my students having 300 possible rehearsed responses at the ready at all times. So I've cut this down to 96 for 1st BB along with 12 forms, and even this pushes the limits of my comfort zone.
> 
> ...


 
Yes, you bring up some good points.  If we look at the Parker and Tracy systems, we'll see quite a large number of techniques, moreso with Tracy, which I believe is around 600.  Now we can say a punch is a punch, so why do we need "X" number of punch techniques when 5 will do?  But, how do we know that those 5 will meet my needs, your needs or someone else?  So, I may need a different set of 5.  

Now, we look at some of the grab techniques.  We have the Ram techniques in Parker all for a tackle.  But are they all for a tackle or various stages of a tackle?  So we could have a tech. for a lapel grab, but what if the person grabs and pulls?  What if they grab and push?  Same techn. isn't going to work.  Thus the reason for such a wide variety of moves.  

As far as understanding the moves of forms, well I've always felt that was important.  Why have someone run thru a set of moves, clueless as to what they're doing right?

Mike


----------



## kidswarrior (Apr 16, 2007)

MJS said:


> Now we can say a punch is a punch, so why do we need "X" number of punch techniques when 5 will do? But, how do we know that those 5 will meet my needs, your needs or someone else? So, I may need a different set of 5.
> 
> Now, we look at some of the grab techniques. We have the Ram techniques in Parker all for a tackle. But are they all for a tackle or various stages of a tackle? So we could have a tech. for a lapel grab, but what if the person grabs and pulls? What if they grab and push? Same techn. isn't going to work. Thus the reason for such a wide variety of moves.
> 
> Mike


 
Yes, I understand that this is the reason for the abundance of techniques.  But what I'm saying is that if a system has a different technique for each 'stage' or angle of an attack, this is redundant to me. 

An analogy: if we were to photograph the attack/counter with a movie camera (the kind with individual frames--do they even have these anymore?), later we could look at it frame by frame and see something different in each frame. And we could even film with multiple cameras to get various angles, so each would show something a little different. Now, we _could_ say each frame represents a different attack, or a different stage of the attack, or a different angle of attack, and so requires a different response. And this would not be wrong, per se.

But in my mind, the attack is better thought of as flowing, just as it will in reality and as it would appear as a movie scene. If the attacker changes the angle slightly, I personally don't want to add a whole new technique (call it a new scene); I just want to understand the principle behind the technique (the point of the scene), so I can adjust on the fly. In other words, all the freeze frames, the different possible angles, speeds, etc. are just all parts of the same essential attack (e.g., a straight right, roundhouse right, these attacks using a kick, etc.). That is, they are just the same movie scene filmed with slight variations. 

I know in Kempo we like our techniques, but as a contrast, some Kung Fu San Soo masters don't teach ANY techniques. They teach the _principles and the basics: _the strikes, the holds, seizes, takedowns, whatever, and it's up to the individual fighter to put together whatever combinations work for him or her at the given moment. It's _very_ effective. 

I have split the difference, and given about 100 techniques for my students to use, but mostly that's just until they gain several years of confidence, and can then make up their own combinations on the spot. Sort of a bridge to San Soo ('free fighting') thinking.

I don't know if this will make sense to anyone but me, but that's my thinking at the moment. :ultracool


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 16, 2007)

kidswarrior said:


> Yes, I understand that this is the reason for the abundance of techniques.  But what I'm saying is that if a system has a different technique for each 'stage' or angle of an attack, this is redundant to me.
> 
> An analogy: if we were to photograph the attack/counter with a movie camera (the kind with individual frames--do they even have these anymore?), later we could look at it frame by frame and see something different in each frame. And we could even film with multiple cameras to get various angles, so each would show something a little different. Now, we _could_ say each frame represents a different attack, or a different stage of the attack, or a different angle of attack, and so requires a different response. And this would not be wrong, per se.
> 
> ...


 

In my opinion, you are dead-on with this assessment.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 16, 2007)

MJS said:


> Now we can say a punch is a punch, so why do we need "X" number of punch techniques when 5 will do? But, how do we know that those 5 will meet my needs, your needs or someone else? So, I may need a different set of 5.
> 
> Mike


 
You make some good points Mike, but let's look at this a little differently.  

How really different is one set of 5 from another?  I would bet that the "meat" of the technique is quite similar.  Probably the initial response to the punch is very similar, and this is what is important because this is how you survive the attack and begin to respond effectivly.  There aren't a whole lot of different ways that really make sense, when doing this.  Outside of a few possibilities, new ideas start to get kind of flambouyant and in my opinion, become less viable and less likely to work. 

What differs is the follow-thru.  How many ways can we destroy someone, AFTER we have nullified the attack using one of a short list of effective methods?  It seems to me that this is where most of the techs really differ.  And some of these follow-thrus can get pretty flambouyant as well, and unlikely.  But in my opinion, this is where you should be free to use your own imagination and use what works best for you.  

So yes, there are different ways to deal with a punch, and some work better for some people, not so well for others.  But really, when we look at the important part of the tech, there aren't so many methods that are truly different.  Most of the ones that work effectively, are probably a variation of a short list of possibilities.

Go thru your tech lists, and compile all the defenses against a punch.  Take a look at the initial response.  I'll bet you find that the one's that you would trust, all could be lumped by similarity into a short list of general groupings.  The ones that fall outside these groupings are probably the ones that you instictively feel suspicious of, and it's probably because they really arent' good ideas to begin with.

In my opinion, there definitely ARE certain techs that were simply poorly contrived, bad ideas to begin with, and should be dumped.  The notion that "YOU JUST DON"T UNDERSTAND IT WELL ENOUGH" doesn't always hold water, in my opinion.


----------



## kidswarrior (Apr 16, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> You make some good points Mike, but let's look at this a little differently.
> 
> How really different is one set of 5 from another? I would bet that the "meat" of the technique is quite similar. Probably the initial response to the punch is very similar, and this is what is important because this is how you survive the attack and begin to respond effectivly. There aren't a whole lot of different ways that really make sense, when doing this. Outside of a few possibilities, new ideas start to get kind of flambouyant and in my opinion, become less viable and less likely to work.
> 
> What differs is the follow-thru. How many ways can we destroy someone, AFTER we have nullified the attack using one of a short list of effective methods? It seems to me that this is where most of the techs really differ. And some of these follow-thrus can get pretty flambouyant as well, and unlikely. But in my opinion, this is where you should be free to use your own imagination and use what works best for you.


 
Exactly.



> Go thru your tech lists, and compile all the defenses against a punch. Take a look at the initial response. I'll bet you find that the one's that you would trust, all could be lumped by similarity into a short list of general groupings. The ones that fall outside these groupings are probably the ones that you instictively feel suspicious of, and it's probably because they really arent' good ideas to begin with.


 
Spot on, again, IMHO. :ultracool 

And Mike, I'm not saying you're wrong.  I think it's a matter of preference. If s.o. wants to learn 600 techniques, that's fine with me. They just won't learn them from me.


----------



## MJS (Apr 16, 2007)

kidswarrior said:


> Yes, I understand that this is the reason for the abundance of techniques.  But what I'm saying is that if a system has a different technique for each 'stage' or angle of an attack, this is redundant to me.
> 
> An analogy: if we were to photograph the attack/counter with a movie camera (the kind with individual frames--do they even have these anymore?), later we could look at it frame by frame and see something different in each frame. And we could even film with multiple cameras to get various angles, so each would show something a little different. Now, we _could_ say each frame represents a different attack, or a different stage of the attack, or a different angle of attack, and so requires a different response. And this would not be wrong, per se.
> 
> ...


 


Flying Crane said:


> You make some good points Mike, but let's look at this a little differently.
> 
> How really different is one set of 5 from another? I would bet that the "meat" of the technique is quite similar. Probably the initial response to the punch is very similar, and this is what is important because this is how you survive the attack and begin to respond effectivly. There aren't a whole lot of different ways that really make sense, when doing this. Outside of a few possibilities, new ideas start to get kind of flambouyant and in my opinion, become less viable and less likely to work.
> 
> ...


 


kidswarrior said:


> Exactly.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Both of you are making some good points and no worries, I didn't take any of the posts as someone being wrong.   I myself came from both a Parker and currently a Tracy background.  In both cases, my instructors have a condensed list of material.  I stated the 5 techniques because usually when these types of discussions come up, thats usually what someone comments on, ie: what works for one, may not work for the next.  

Mike, you made a great point when you said this:



> Go thru your tech lists, and compile all the defenses against a punch. Take a look at the initial response. I'll bet you find that the one's that you would trust, all could be lumped by similarity into a short list of general groupings. The ones that fall outside these groupings are probably the ones that you instictively feel suspicious of, and it's probably because they really arent' good ideas to begin with.


 
Despite how many techniques my inst. teaches, I have my favorite ones.  Even when running thru material in a technique line, there are more times than not, that I find myself doing the same punch technique over and over. 

Mark:  I can't disagree with what you said.    I've always tried to make a point of telling students that the techs. in and of themselves are a base to build off of.  They're teaching principles that the student should build off of.  Ultimately, that IMHO, is the main goal...to be able to react to what being presented at the moment.


----------



## kidswarrior (Apr 17, 2007)

MJS said:


> Both of you are making some good points and no worries, I didn't take any of the posts as someone being wrong.  I myself came from both a Parker and currently a Tracy background. In both cases, my instructors have a condensed list of material. I stated the 5 techniques because usually when these types of discussions come up, thats usually what someone comments on, ie: what works for one, may not work for the next.
> 
> Mike, you made a great point when you said this:
> 
> ...


 
OK, Mike. Thanks.

Now that you've been nice to me, let me put you on the spot (no good deed goes unpunished, eh?). :ultracool If you were designing your own system, can I ask you what range (number) of techniques would you aim for?


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 17, 2007)

kidswarrior said:


> If you were designing your own system, can I ask you what range (number) of techniques would you aim for?


 
Mind if I jump in here and give my own thoughts?

I actually did this at one point, a couple years ago.  I went thru the entire Tracy curriculum and whittled it away to get rid of the stuff I didn't feel merited keeping.  I have sort of abandoned that for now, as I am retraining the Tracy system with a new teacher, and I want to get the strongest understanding of the material that I can, before I start thinking about making any changes.

But I categorized all the attack types, and looked at the ones that made sense to me, and dumped the ones that didn't.  And I liberally made changes to improve upon what I had.  

I simplified a lot of the stuff.  Cut out many of the variations, and many of the follow-ups when they just seemed to go on and on.  And I cut out a lot of the techs that seemed like repetions of earlier techs.  

I think it makes sense to identify the main initial responses that are effective, and have maybe a couple different variations on those themes, but not more than that.  Just enough to stimulate the creative juices, but also the base tech should be reliable all by itself.

I don't recall offhand just how many Punch defenses I ended up with, for example.  But I shortened the complete list down to about 85 or 90 that I liked.  This was taken from the entire Tracy curriculum, but the material above Shodan I was only briefly familiar with so I could never claim true ownership of that.  But the entire curriculum is some 381 different techs, plus variations.


----------



## kidswarrior (Apr 17, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> Mind if I jump in here and give my own thoughts?
> 
> I actually did this at one point, a couple years ago. I went thru the entire Tracy curriculum and whittled it away to get rid of the stuff I didn't feel merited keeping. I have sort of abandoned that for now, as I am retraining the Tracy system with a new teacher, and I want to get the strongest understanding of the material that I can, before I start thinking about making any changes.
> 
> ...


 
Thanks, Michael. That was what I was looking for. Glad you 'jumped in'. My question wasn't really directed at Mike, so much as myself (Mike just happened to start the thread, so sort of can't get away ). I'm in the process of doing exactly what you did, and wanted confirmation/ feedback from some reliable people, such as you two.

Mike, feel free to respond anyway if you want--or not. Didn't really want to put you on the spot. :lol2: Just looking for ideas from people I trust. :asian:


----------



## MJS (Apr 17, 2007)

kidswarrior said:


> OK, Mike. Thanks.
> 
> Now that you've been nice to me, let me put you on the spot (no good deed goes unpunished, eh?). :ultracool If you were designing your own system, can I ask you what range (number) of techniques would you aim for?


 


kidswarrior said:


> Thanks, Michael. That was what I was looking for. Glad you 'jumped in'. My question wasn't really directed at Mike, so much as myself (Mike just happened to start the thread, so sort of can't get away ). I'm in the process of doing exactly what you did, and wanted confirmation/ feedback from some reliable people, such as you two.
> 
> Mike, feel free to respond anyway if you want--or not. Didn't really want to put you on the spot. :lol2: Just looking for ideas from people I trust. :asian:


 
Yeah, sure, go ahead..put me on the spot!!:lol: 

As for the question.  I would most likely do what my instructor is doing right now..keep around 14 per belt.  In my lesson today, we were running thru some techs., and he stated pretty much what I find myself saying...teach the techniques, step by step for learning purposes, to the students.  However, when the poop hits the fan, he's looking for a reaction.  If a technique is pulled off, great.  If not, block, counter strike, etc.


----------



## kidswarrior (Apr 17, 2007)

MJS said:


> Yeah, sure, go ahead..put me on the spot!!:lol:
> 
> As for the question.  I would most likely do what my instructor is doing right now..keep around 14 per belt.  In my lesson today, we were running thru some techs., and he stated pretty much what I find myself saying...teach the techniques, step by step for learning purposes, to the students.  However, when the poop hits the fan, he's looking for a reaction.  If a technique is pulled off, great.  If not, block, counter strike, etc.



Yeah, I thought we were on the same page.  If you teach 14 per belt, and they really buy in to 8-9 of those (and just don't 'get' the rest due to body type, striker vs. grappler, redundancy with a prior technique they like better, etc.), then we're probably thinking they'll absorb/practice 'for life' 80-100. Anyway, it seems we're all in the same ballpark (just mixed the metaphor, but too tired to fix it), which is very helpful for me. :ultracool

And don't worry, Mike, I'm sure that won't be the last time _I put you on BLAST_. Feel free to reciprocate, tho.... :highfive:


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 17, 2007)

kidswarrior said:


> Thanks, Michael. That was what I was looking for. Glad you 'jumped in'. My question wasn't really directed at Mike, so much as myself (Mike just happened to start the thread, so sort of can't get away ). I'm in the process of doing exactly what you did, and wanted confirmation/ feedback from some reliable people, such as you two.
> 
> Mike, feel free to respond anyway if you want--or not. Didn't really want to put you on the spot. :lol2: Just looking for ideas from people I trust. :asian:


 

I'm going to try to dig up an old thread where I had some thoughts on this that you might find interesting.  I'll let you know when I find it, I believe it was probably before you jumped on the scene here...


----------



## kidswarrior (Apr 18, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> I'm going to try to dig up an old thread where I had some thoughts on this that you might find interesting.  I'll let you know when I find it, I believe it was probably before you jumped on the scene here...


 Would love to see it.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 18, 2007)

kidswarrior said:


> Would love to see it.


 

OK Mark,  Here is the thread.

http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=29947&highlight=kosho+ryu

It's a discussion about Kosho Shorei Ryu, of James Mitose.  It's a long thread, 11 or so pages.  It has a lot of unfortunate bickering, as James Mitose is a controversial character.  You might want to skim thru the thread to get the gist of the discussion, but my own thoughts are primarily contained in posts # 97, 99, and 103, which are all on page 7. Starting on Page 6 might make sense, I think the lead-in to my thoughts begin about there.

It was just a thought I had at the time, regarding all the SD techs that we practice.  I have absolutely no proof that my thoughts are historically accurate.  But it's an interesting thought, nonetheless.  Enjoy.


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Apr 18, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> I certainly understand and appreciate your position with regard to the full nelson. I think the reality is that not everyone agrees with it, as it all comes down to personal experience and personal perspective, which may or may not be accurate. If I recall correctly, *I think someone else in that other discussion mentioned having seen it done for real, or maybe it was done on him for real.* Maybe I don't remember that correctly. But at any rate, different people have different opinions on it, maybe you think their idea is foolish, maybe they think yours is foolish
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
That someone was me and you are right on both counts.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 18, 2007)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:


> That someone was me and you are right on both counts.


 

Thank you, and my instructor has indicated the same.


----------



## LawDog (Apr 18, 2007)

Flying Crane,
On posting # 36 I also stated that I have seen this done.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 18, 2007)

LawDog said:


> Flying Crane,
> On a previous posting I also stated that I have seen this done.


 

Yes, I definitely noticed that as well.  thank you, I for one am happy to hear your examples and experiences.  I think it adds to the complete picture.


----------



## kidswarrior (Apr 18, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> Yes, I definitely noticed that as well. thank you, I for one am happy to hear your examples and experiences. I think it adds to the complete picture.


 
I second Flying Crane on this!


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Apr 18, 2007)

For the purpose of discussing the "impossible"

3:00 mark.

Note: Very conscious and very non-compliant. Also skilled at and knowledgeable of countering this type of move as this is Olympic Level.

[yt]6I5hRWjOn-c[/yt]


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 18, 2007)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:


> For the purpose of discussing the "impossible"
> 
> 3:00 mark.
> 
> ...


 

I think it's actually at about 5:30, as the film counts down backwards.

Good find.  Not a standup full nelson, but there it is, very clear.


----------



## kidswarrior (Apr 18, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> OK Mark, Here is the thread.
> 
> http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=29947&highlight=kosho+ryu
> 
> ...


 
Thanks, Michael. I'll look it over carefully. :asian:


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Apr 18, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> I think it's actually at about 5:30, as the film counts down backwards.
> 
> Good find. Not a standup full nelson, but there it is, very clear.


 
yeah on youtube it counts up and embedded it counts down, go figure.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Apr 18, 2007)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:


> For the purpose of discussing the "impossible"
> 
> 3:00 mark.
> 
> Note: Very conscious and very non-compliant. Also skilled at and knowledgeable of countering this type of move as this is Olympic Level.


 
So, I got this buddy, Shaun. He and I are discussing full-nelsons in the park one day. His background is a BB in Shorinji Kempo, Wado-ryu (since very small), and a butt-load of jujutsu. We're in our early to mid twenties at this time, but both been in this stuff since we could crawl, and both pretty sure of ourselves. I start to force his head down to the ground under the nelson, using some nasty tricks I picked up on the journey. All at once, I can't bend him. He's pressing his fingers into his forehead, and his forehead into his fingers. Cheap trick, but worked beautifully. (I should mention he ran for a spell with some of Wally Jay's guys, and picked up some cool, cheap tricks along the way...very talented martial artist...so much so, he gave a half-dozen PD a run for their money while being arrested for DWB...he only shucked and shrugged, and helped gravity do what it does; never threw a blow, but they just kept hitting the ground. My man was cuffed through all this...he just didn't feel like being cuffed, AND clubbed).

Later that week, I bring this up to another buddy of mine named Jeff, who was a direct student of the old man. He thinks I'm an idiot for even letting it get to that point...where you have to fight out of it. So, I do my damnedest to put it on him while he basically just vigorously says "No!", and sloughs me off. He never clocked me, but he could slap me (that was the agreement), and I never got it on him. As a bouncer, I worked with lots of guys who wrestled; we even had an olympic judoist in the stable. We repeated that experiment on many occasions with all comers. "Just say No, while you wiggle and twist". They never got one on me.

Some years later, I'd see footage of Royler doing the shuck and jive on some Torrance PD dudes at a demo. They're about 4 on 1 (maybe more, maybe less...been awhile), trying to swarm him. He just keeps twisting and turning and twirling. Akin to what we would do against a nelson attempt to make a point.

When I was merely 16, one of the local post-college stoner-thugs wanted to give me a ration...go after the geeky karate boy so he could feel better about his own lousy life. He put me in his best nelson; I offered no resistance (a dear friend had been killed in a car wreck, and I was melancholic...not interested in fighting). He chided me, and I just waited. There was no pain, only restricted motion in one or two planes. Then he started verbally badgering the young lady I had been walking with. I slipped it effortlessly...he was worse at it than the spec ops guys I was training with at the time, and we did work escapes in the context of arrest and  detainment prevention techniques (how not to get caught and questioned). He tried again to get me in it, as well as some basic elbow locks/cranks as transitions to the position. I was a 150 lb 6'4" beanpole who was a skinny weakling; he was about a 245 lbs 6' ball-player & college wrestler with a lot of confidence in his strength and skill. He never got it once I stopped letting him.

I've also seen Olympic wrestling footag...a Russian guy breaking necks by suplexing athletes from other countries and landing them on their heads...athletes who were Olympic level wrestlers, in the Olympics. Doesn't mean it's a likely attack. My chances of being suplexed by that Russian wrestler are about 1 in 6.5 billion...should I have a technique against it? Or would I be better off spending my time prepping for the hefty right hand I'm waaay more likely to bump into? Your personal experience has informed you that this is a liklihood to be prepared for. Mine has informed me of the exact opposite.

Be good,

D.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 18, 2007)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:


> Your personal experience has informed you that this is a liklihood to be prepared for. Mine has informed me of the exact opposite.
> 
> Be good,
> 
> D.


 

I don't believe the initial discussion from which this thread spun off was whether or not it is "likely".  I believe the original claim was more on the lines of "it's impossible".  We've seen personal testimony here, and a video example, of the real possibility, even if it might still be arguably "unlikely", a point which those with far more experience than I have are free to debate.

I've never had a real fight in my life.  I've never been attacked in any of the myriad of methods for which I practice defenses.  I guess my experience informs me that being attacked is highly unlikely.  Should I quit training altogether?


----------



## MJS (Apr 18, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> I don't believe the initial discussion from which this thread spun off was whether or not it is "likely". I believe the original claim was more on the lines of "it's impossible". We've seen personal testimony here, and a video example, of the real possibility, even if it might still be arguably "unlikely", a point which those with far more experience than I have are free to debate.
> 
> I've never had a real fight in my life. I've never been attacked in any of the myriad of methods for which I practice defenses. I guess my experience informs me that being attacked is highly unlikely. Should I quit training altogether?


 
Mike, you hit the nail on the head with this post!:ultracool


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Apr 18, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> I don't believe the initial discussion from which *this thread* spun off was whether or not it is "likely". I believe the original claim was more on the lines of "it's impossible". We've seen personal testimony here, and a video example, of the real possibility, even if it might still be arguably "unlikely", a point which those with far more experience than I have are free to debate.
> 
> I've never had a real fight in my life. I've never been attacked in any of the myriad of methods for which I practice defenses. I guess my experience informs me that being attacked is highly unlikely. Should I quit training altogether?


 
If you're a pacifist, yes. Or maybe it's just a case of the Dirty Harry line about a good man knowing his limitations. The irony of someone who has never had to use their stuff telling old battle cruisers about combat prep is...

I still hold to it being impossible against an even mildly informed defender, or even just a spastically resisting street punk. The wrestler is taught to use wrestling, not martial arts. It's a competition for positional dominance, and often lacks any structural shoring in transition or response; it certainly lacks opportunity for most of what's great in what we do in kenpo or jujutsu. I don't consider this athlete getting topped by another athlete as proof of this being a viable attack requiring studied defense. 5 minutes is all I need to show a person how not to get caught in this...and that will be plugging them into their own spasticity, not spent reiewing some deep, arcane kenpo wisdom. Not years of repetition on unecessarily complex choreography agaiunst unlikely attacks. 

And the name of the *thread* is "An attack that MAY NEVER happen." May is not a definitive. Last I checked, I was still replying in this *thread*.

I still say "bah!" to full nelson defenses, and can't help but look sideways at folks who find themselves in one...be they wrestlers, karateka, kenpoists, or just plain drunk brawlers. Awake and in a mood, you just should never find yourself there. Wrestling rules forbid spastic writhing and twirling, followed by a pop in the mouth.

I like Long 3 as a thematic form, but unfortunately it has some nelson stuff in it, and that ridiculous Silk tech. Take a random guess at how often I expect to find myself needing to use Wings of Silk? And, yes...I have stopped practicing it. I'd rather put that time in on the heavy bag. Along with the time spent on Scraping Hoof and the other nelson kids.

D.


----------



## MJS (Apr 18, 2007)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:


> I still hold to it being impossible against an even mildly informed defender, or even just a spastically resisting street punk. The wrestler is taught to use wrestling, not martial arts. It's a competition for positional dominance, and often lacks any structural shoring in transition or response; it certainly lacks opportunity for most of what's great in what we do in kenpo or jujutsu. I don't consider this athlete getting topped by another athlete as proof of this being a viable attack requiring studied defense. 5 minutes is all I need to show a person how not to get caught in this...and that will be plugging them into their own spasticity, not spent reiewing some deep, arcane kenpo wisdom. Not years of repetition on unecessarily complex choreography agaiunst unlikely attacks.


 
What about the biker that Lawdog mentioned?



> And the name of the *thread* is "An attack that MAY NEVER happen." May is not a definitive. Last I checked, I was still replying in this *thread*.


 
Thru out this thread, there have been comments regarding 'impossible' attacks.  Like I said in my OP, I have not had a gun pointed at me, and that may never happen, but I still train the disarms.  The major line of thinking seems to be, its better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it. 



> I still say "bah!" to full nelson defenses, and can't help but look sideways at folks who find themselves in one...be they wrestlers, karateka, kenpoists, or just plain drunk brawlers. Awake and in a mood, you just should never find yourself there. Wrestling rules forbid spastic writhing and twirling, followed by a pop in the mouth.


 
Ok. 



> I like Long 3 as a thematic form, but unfortunately it has some nelson stuff in it, and that ridiculous Silk tech. Take a random guess at how often I expect to find myself needing to use Wings of Silk? And, yes...I have stopped practicing it. I'd rather put that time in on the heavy bag. Along with the time spent on Scraping Hoof and the other nelson kids.
> 
> D.


 
I'm getting the impression that the line of thinking should be, "The odds of this happening are so small, I don't need to train for it."  My next question:  Its seems like Parker taught certain things for those "commercial" dojos, with less than a handful being taught things more 'effective' things.  So one would think or at least this is what I'm thinking...that if you're going to train, and the goal is SD, why wouldn't you want to be as effective as possible?


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Apr 19, 2007)

One of my friends e-mailed me to say he read my post, and that I was being an *** to Flying Crane, speaking down to him. First, let me apologize for that tone if it's coming accross that way; not my intent, and not what's in my head. I have great respect for Michaels reasoning, even when we don't agree, and have for several years now that we've been on the same boards.

What IS in my head, but didn't state clearly, is the difference between the "two truths". Objective and Subjective. Objectively, a wall may be green. Subjectively, being colorblind, that wall looks gray to me. Both are true, but the subjective is more real to me than the Pantone light wave reflection of the wall.

Should events be trained for? Explored, yes. Trained for? Depends on what you find in exploration. LawDawg explored, and had the biker experience. He will vote to keep nelson replies in. I explored, and found them unecessary. I still teach how to address them (Shauns fingers-to-forehead, squirm like hell, bust the guy in the grill), but that's covered in about a 5-10 minute seminar while discussing other techs that share some conceptual themes. In my subjective evaluation, not enough of a threat to warrant more consideration than that.

A single signal only communicates meaning based on perspective. Positioning. I've been a lucky SOB, in that I've always managed to find people to train with who possess hardened, experiential perspectives that appeal to my twisted preferences. One of my profs was a spec ops fellow in Viet Nam, and after. Lotsa good experience to bring to the table. I've managed to land with folks like this over the years. Currently, my training buddy is a retired SEAL who saw duty in Panama, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and others. Not an amateur in CQB. We have both been impressed by the knifework of a fellow whos stuff has seen action in the deserts; very impressive gent (picture Parker whipping out techs, but they are knife combo's). I will weigh thier opinions more heavily around what works in certain scenarios because of stuff they have seen. They may not be right. Objectively, they may have some glaring errors in approach or reasoning. Subjectively, though, their techs and errors have combined successfully enough with luck to allow us to gather on the same mat to discuss these things. 

Objectively, a comprehensive self-defense system ought to have a solution they explore in preparation for a concievable assault. Likely, or unlikely. Note: Chapel says he thinks it's impossible, but he offers a SD tech/solution anyway. My experience of him as a professor is that he's not apt to waste time on something he considers completely useless. I consider the kenpoo techs for the rear full nelson weak, the attack flawed, but still make sure I drill my "assertive spasticity" solution with all my people, because it isn't self-evident in the rush of brawling. And some rehearsal is necessary for success, IMO. So I still address it.

*Mr. Slosek wrote:*
*"...if you're going to train, and the goal is SD, why wouldn't you want to be as effective as possible?"*

I would argue that training to remove yourself from a completed nelson is planned failure, which is always a bad theme in training. Some guy starts shooting on you and going for position, do you wait to see where he's planning on going with it before you react, or do you react to your attacker & environemnt and respond to the already extant conditions at hand? Training to be as effective as possible would, to me, invole the idea of working to knock a guy out, or sprawl, or reverse the throw, or block the mount, or escape the mount, or reverse position, or block a hand as it snakes around your throat, or not give up your back, or any of a number of options that present themselves on the way to finding yourself in a rear choke with hooks in...as opposed to working kenpo techniques against a completed rear choke,. If you find yourself there, the technology in your SD tech's that has failed you up to this point won't all at once kick in and provide you brilliant success from within a completed assault. 

Sam ting with the nelson. You have all of the fighting ranges available to you that had to get worked through before he had a completed, unlikely control manipulation on you. He likely lobbed a puch at your head on the way in; or shot to a shoulder grab, arm control, or bearhug while transitioning to the nelson attempt; perhaps he approached from "the dark". He probably would be forced to get one arm at a time, giving you ample time to respond. Or, he's trying to slip both arms up and under your armpits, magically unnoticed as his fingers slip behind your neck and interlace. But you have no inclination he's there until he's got the hold completely on, and is compelling you downward? Nah. Plenty of opportunity to respond before this point. If you've let things get so bad that Scraping Hoof is your only remaining option, you suck at fighting and deserve to get tooled in the nelson. 

2 scenarios I can foresee that might find you in a completed nelson, and you're screwed in each.

1. Bad guy holds you or loved one at gunpoint while his accomplice places you in it. Bad News = your or your loved one are still at gunpoint, regardless of your twicksy kenpo.

2. You've been in a brawl with multiples, and while messing with a couple of the first bad guys, a 3rd or 4th slips into the dogpile and goes for this, which you don't notice because of the melee chaos, so you find yourself in it, helpless. Bad News = if your losing this badly against multiples, you were going to lose, and were already losing, anyway...this is just a new nail in an already seconds-old coffin. He or his buddies were in the middle of beating the piss out of you in the first place for you not to see it coming.

To be as effective as possible in self-defense would include environmental awareness to see it coming and block it, just like we do when we raise a knee into the guys ribs to prevent him from mounting us from side-mount. It would also include knwledge of structural integrity issues that work for or against you in relative positions, and the ability to use this information to prevent your opponent from destabilizing your neuro-mechanical congruency (have your buddy place you in a full neslon, then try to force you over or down. Push both of your palms into your forehead, while activelt pushing your forehead forward into the palms. Let me know how well the nelson works). NOT just worst-case scenario planning. Otherwise, we'd be learning re-writes of some idiot version of Wings of Silk as a defense against being rear-mounted and choked in Mata Leon. Or is that in Form 4 somewhere?

Be good and train sensibly,

Dave


----------



## MJS (Apr 19, 2007)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:


> Should events be trained for? Explored, yes. Trained for? Depends on what you find in exploration. LawDawg explored, and had the biker experience. He will vote to keep nelson replies in. I explored, and found them unecessary. I still teach how to address them (Shauns fingers-to-forehead, squirm like hell, bust the guy in the grill), but that's covered in about a 5-10 minute seminar while discussing other techs that share some conceptual themes. In my subjective evaluation, not enough of a threat to warrant more consideration than that.
> 
> A single signal only communicates meaning based on perspective. Positioning. I've been a lucky SOB, in that I've always managed to find people to train with who possess hardened, experiential perspectives that appeal to my twisted preferences. One of my profs was a spec ops fellow in Viet Nam, and after. Lotsa good experience to bring to the table. I've managed to land with folks like this over the years. Currently, my training buddy is a retired SEAL who saw duty in Panama, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and others. Not an amateur in CQB. We have both been impressed by the knifework of a fellow whos stuff has seen action in the deserts; very impressive gent (picture Parker whipping out techs, but they are knife combo's). I will weigh thier opinions more heavily around what works in certain scenarios because of stuff they have seen. They may not be right. Objectively, they may have some glaring errors in approach or reasoning. Subjectively, though, their techs and errors have combined successfully enough with luck to allow us to gather on the same mat to discuss these things.
> 
> ...


 
Dave, as always, a detailed reply.   Now, when you mentioned your friends who have alot of knife work, I tend to agree with that.  Thats one of the reasons I personally favor the FMAs over other things when it comes to blade and stick work.  These guys do it all the time, so why not train with someone whos art comes from a culture where blades are commonplace?  The same for ground work.  If I want to learn ground defense, be it submissions or some basics, I'm going to lean towards BJJ.  Of course, we're all different, so someone may disagree with my analogy, which is fine.  What I find beneficial, may not be to them. 

Now you mentioned how Doc teaches a defense for the full nelson, and quoted a portion of what I said.  For reference, my post here:



> I'm getting the impression that the line of thinking should be, "The odds of this happening are so small, I don't need to train for it." My next question: Its seems like Parker taught certain things for those "commercial" dojos, with less than a handful being taught things more 'effective' things. So one would think or at least this is what I'm thinking...that if you're going to train, and the goal is SD, why wouldn't you want to be as effective as possible?


 
It seems like Parker taught things to those 'commercial' minded people differently than he taught others, such as Doc.  My question is two fold.

1) Why not teach everyone the same?  If one move is more effective than the other, why not teach the more effective one?  Thats what I meant by wouldn't you want to be as effective as possible.

2) You stated that Doc teaches a defense for the nelson.  What is that defense like and how does it compare to what one would see in those 'commercial' schools?

Now of course you would want to begin your defense before the hold is applied.  I agree.  I know somewhere on here, theres been discussion of Delayed Sword as a defense against a grab and a punch.  If I see a hand coming towards me, I don't care if its a push, punch or an attempted grab, I'm going to react ASAP.  But we still train punch defense and grab defense, which in essence is the worst case right?  I mean, we've been grabbed, so we need to escape from that grab, no?  I train defense against a double and single leg takedown and I also will put myself on the bottom in side mount from the start, and work from there.  

I hope this made sense. 

Mike


----------



## SL4Drew (Apr 19, 2007)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:


> For the purpose of discussing the "impossible"
> 
> 3:00 mark.
> 
> Note: Very conscious and very non-compliant. Also skilled at and knowledgeable of countering this type of move as this is Olympic Level.


 
Sure, if you change the parameters of the attack, the environment, available defenses, available offenses, and impose "rules" the attack is likely...

But none has ever put me in a far-ankle cradle outside of a wrestling match...


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Apr 19, 2007)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:


> If you're a pacifist, yes. Or maybe it's just a case of the Dirty Harry line about a good man knowing his limitations. The irony of someone who has never had to use their stuff telling old battle cruisers about combat prep is...
> 
> *I still hold to it being impossible against an even mildly informed defender, or even just a spastically resisting street punk. The wrestler is taught to use wrestling, not martial arts.* It's a competition for positional dominance, and often lacks any structural shoring in transition or response; it certainly lacks opportunity for most of what's great in what we do in kenpo or jujutsu. I don't consider this athlete getting topped by another athlete as proof of this being a viable attack requiring studied defense. 5 minutes is all I need to show a person how not to get caught in this...and that will be plugging them into their own spasticity, not spent reiewing some deep, arcane kenpo wisdom. Not years of repetition on unecessarily complex choreography agaiunst unlikely attacks.
> 
> ...


 
Doc explicitly stated that it was anatomically IMPOSSIBLE, meaning could NEVER happen.  My personal experiences and observations contradict that, so as much as I love to agree with Doc, on this one I have seen and felt different.  You spun it into what is "likely" which is 'Apples and Oranges'.  *And I guess I'll be standing on the wall while you look sideways at me.  So be it....but it doesn't change the difference between possibility and probability.  I guess I was even less then mildly informed then....but informed enough to get out of it and make street pizza out of the guy.* You also state that you could show someone how not to be caugh in it in 5 minutes.  Doc stated that the intrinsic qualities of the body's natural defenses would take care of it...unless the person is semi-conscious....of which my personal life again flatly states otherwise....and I'm far from the 'common slouch'.


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Apr 19, 2007)

SL4Drew said:


> Sure, if you change the parameters of the attack, the environment, available defenses, available offenses, and impose "rules" the attack is likely...
> 
> But none has ever put me in a far-ankle cradle outside of a wrestling match...


 
"Likely" has jack poo to do with what was expressly stated as "impossible".  Parameters cannot change impossibility by the very definition of impossible...and all the explaining and trying to change impossible to improbable won't help either.

Salute.


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Apr 19, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> I don't believe the initial discussion from which this thread spun off was whether or not it is "likely". I believe the original claim was more on the lines of "it's impossible". We've seen personal testimony here, and a video example, of the real possibility, even if it might still be arguably "unlikely", a point which those with far more experience than I have are free to debate.
> 
> I've never had a real fight in my life. I've never been attacked in any of the myriad of methods for which I practice defenses. I guess my experience informs me that being attacked is highly unlikely. Should I quit training altogether?


 
Yes, by the logic presented so far, quit now.  It is not likely that you will ever by attacked by anyone or anything. As a matter of fact it's not just unlikely it's impossible.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 19, 2007)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:


> One of my friends e-mailed me to say he read my post, and that I was being an *** to Flying Crane, speaking down to him. First, let me apologize for that tone if it's coming accross that way; not my intent, and not what's in my head. I have great respect for Michaels reasoning, even when we don't agree, and have for several years now that we've been on the same boards.
> 
> Dave


 

Hey, don't worry 'bout that, no offense taken.  :asian:  As to my own admitted lack of experience in real life fighting, it's something I am pretty happy about.  23 years in the martial arts, never needed to use it for real.  Got close a few times, but i'm a pretty good talker, and when that fails, my nike-jutsu is top notch.

One thing I've always felt about your contributions is that they are well thought out and clear, even when those of others are not, and esp. with the SL4 discussions I have certainly appreciated that.

Doc stated in the other thread, as well as in this one (page one, post #15) that the full nelson is impossible, and this implies that it is a complete waste of time to train for it.

But we have a couple people here who have expressed their personal experience in seeing it done, or having it done on them.  That, to me, speaks pretty strongly that it is NOT impossible.  Now, maybe that cop that Lawdog knows was lame and stupid for letting it happen to him in the bikerbar.  Maybe KJJ3's experience with it was likewise lame and never should have happened.  I don't know, I wasn't there, I'm certainly not going to pass judgement on it.  But the fact is, IT HAPPENED.  I think nobody here is in a position to dispute that.  Whether or not these individuals should have been smart enough to prevent it from happening is immaterial.

And I think this illustrates the reality that combat is chaotic and unpredictable, and can change quickly and often.  What we might think can NEVER HAPPEN, just might happen someday, and I personally wouldn't put that into the category of "planned failure".  I think it's just recognizing that many things are out of our control, and we just have to deal with it and find a way to pull it into our control if we are forced to.

This unpredictability is also part of why I've made it a point to avoid fighting whenever possible.  I had a scabby faced punk following me down the street, doing his best to pick a fight with me, even to the point of adopting a pseudo-muay thai stance and throwing a couple of ineffective roundhouse kicks at me.  I outweighed him by probably 30-40 pounds, and towered over him by at least a couple inches.  I'm only 5'10" or so, and I weigh all of 155, so that gives you an idea of his size.  Something about the whole situation just smelled funky.  I knew he had 4 or 5 friends, but they hung back a while and were about a half a block away.  But I just couldn't shake the feeling that because he was so outmatched otherwise, he just HAD to have a knife or something in the mix, and he was waiting for his chance to stick it in.  So I was in no hurry to engage him, even tho he was trying pretty hard.  Then his friends came running up, I knew that if I got surrounded I was dead meat, so I showed them the quality of my nike-jutsu.  My masculinity has never been threatened by that kind of thing.  Fighting, in my opinion, is deadly serious business, and I freely admit that it scares the hell out of me.

Now, you yourself have admitted to having a little material to deal with the full nelson.  For the sake of argument and discussion, maybe that 5 or 10 minutes is all it takes to give someone what they need to deal with this possibility.  Maybe only an occasional revisitation is necessary, and maybe it doesn't need to be trained as much as other material.  But I'd say it's 5 or 10 minutes well spent.

You feel that the formalized kenpo material that deals with the full nelson is untrustworthy.  OK, I can certainly accept that evaluation.  I have often questioned the value of many of our techs as well.  Maybe that isn't the best solution.  Maybe your 5-10 minute lesson is all you need.  OK, there it is, you got what you need.

But I think the lesson from all this is that the full nelson, for right or wrong, is not impossible.


----------



## SL4Drew (Apr 19, 2007)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:


> "Likely" has jack poo to do with what was expressly stated as "impossible". Parameters cannot change impossibility by the very definition of impossible...and all the explaining and trying to change impossible to improbable won't help either.
> 
> Salute.


 
It's not impossible to score a touchdown in the NFL. But I don't know about you, but I don't believe it's possible to score a touchdown in the NBA...

The "impossible" comment was made within a context. Just like saying humans can't fly or breath under water. All those things are impossible in one context, but entirely possible in another.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Apr 19, 2007)

Nike-jutsu rocks. Guys like that kid are typically scouts for a jumping party. And like I used to tell my students: There is no dishonor or shame in surviving and stayin' pretty.

I'm reminded of a story of an American serviceman on a trainride to an aikido class. The train is being botherd by a drunk Japanses ruffian, and the American is going through possible moves in his mind. An old man in the car gets the ruffian talking, and the bad guy breaks down in tears, describing how difficult life has been on him and his family in the post-war years. The first version I read had the old man and the serviceman disembark at the same stop and start walking to the same address, with the old man turning out to be Ueshiba, and the pacifist approach representing the ultimate in martial arts competency. I later read the original version that was autobiographical of the author, and it didn't have the oldster as Ueshiba, but the lesson from the original stayed in my brain, even if it was fictitious.

Train hard, prepare for battle, then keep your sword hidden under your bed and pray it never comes out. I suspect the same can apply to full-nelsons.

D.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 19, 2007)

SL4Drew said:


> It's not impossible to score a touchdown in the NFL. But I don't know about you, but I don't believe it's possible to score a touchdown in the NBA...
> 
> The "impossible" comment was made within a context. Just like saying humans can't fly or breath under water. All those things are impossible in one context, but entirely possible in another.


 

Now wait a minute.  Go back to post #15 on page one of this thread.  Please explain to me the "context" conditioning this comment.  Feel free to look into the original thread from which this one spun off as well.  It was stated by Doc that it is impossible to apply a full nelson on someone who hasn't been essentially beaten close to unconscious already.  

Now ok, we can cut the Youtube video out that James posted, because that film is from a specific kind of sporting event.  My dad wrestled in high school, and I remember him teaching me the full nelson when I was a kid, and it was certainly in the context of being a valid and effective technique, both in a wrestling match and for real fighting.  I personally feel that it has validity in the discussion, but for the sake of argument, let's just eliminate that.  

We still have Lawdog's example, as well as James' personal experiences.  These were full nelsons done on the "street", in a real attack/fight.  It doesnt' sound like Lawdog's cop buddy, nor James, were semi-unconscious when it happened.  

So how do these examples fall outside the special "context" under which Doc made his statement?  If his statements weren't intended to be taken within the context of a real fight, a real attack, real self defense on the street, then what was the context?  Because those are certainly the context for Lawdog's and James' experiences.

Doc certainly has a lot more experience and knowledge than I do, I would never try to argue that point.  But I'm sorry, he is not omniscient.  He made some pretty strong and opinionated statements about the full nelson.  We have others here with direct personal experiences that contradict Doc's statements.  

You can sit there all day and say "Doc is right, it's impossible to apply a full nelson", and you can repeat that over and over.  But in the face of others experience, it just doesn't hold water.

I don't see much to salvage by trying to push the point and claim that somehow Doc's comments are still correct.  In this case, looks to me like he is wrong.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 19, 2007)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:


> Nike-jutsu rocks. Guys like that kid are typically scouts for a jumping party. And like I used to tell my students: There is no dishonor or shame in surviving and stayin' pretty.
> 
> I'm reminded of a story of an American serviceman on a trainride to an aikido class. The train is being botherd by a drunk Japanses ruffian, and the American is going through possible moves in his mind. An old man in the car gets the ruffian talking, and the bad guy breaks down in tears, describing how difficult life has been on him and his family in the post-war years. The first version I read had the old man and the serviceman disembark at the same stop and start walking to the same address, with the old man turning out to be Ueshiba, and the pacifist approach representing the ultimate in martial arts competency. I later read the original version that was autobiographical of the author, and it didn't have the oldster as Ueshiba, but the lesson from the original stayed in my brain, even if it was fictitious.
> 
> ...


 
Damn right Nike-jutsu rocks.  I've used it more than once, and it's one technique that never let me down.

I read that same aikido story.  It is also one that I remember from time to time, tho I never read the version with Ueshiba as the old man.  It's a good story, with a good perspective on life.

So far the sword has stayed in the scabbard, but my hand has been on the hilt a few times.


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Apr 19, 2007)

SL4Drew said:


> It's not impossible to score a touchdown in the NFL. But I don't know about you, but I don't believe it's possible to score a touchdown in the NBA...
> 
> The "impossible" comment was made within a context. Just like saying humans can't fly or breath under water. All those things are impossible in one context, but entirely possible in another.


 
Unfortunately, there is no such thing as context regarding the term impossible. It is by definition an absolute term. You can attempt to add all the qualifiers you want to justify your position but the definition remains the same. Even the qualifier Doc included "anatomically" (Post #32) means based on the anatomy of the human body. The anatomy does not change with rules, environment, postioning, activity, etc. Therefore anatomically impossible is fundamentally incorrect.

Impossible:

1) not capable of occurring or being accomplished (notice no qualifier)
2) totally unlikely (Notice "totally" another absolute term)
3) something that cannot be done (Notice no qualifier)

Totally:

1) wholly
2) to a complete degree or to the full or entire extent

Anatomically:

1) with respect to anatomy

Anatomy:

1) the science which studies the structure of parts of the body
2) The study of the structure of the body and the inter-relations of its parts
3) The physical structure of an internal structure of an organism or any of its parts

NOTICE: no mention of activity, environment, parameter, rule or context is made in any given defintion of the terms used.  I guess the structure of the human body changes depending on the activity, rules or environment which makes the impossible possible in the "proper context".  Is that what you're trying to sell me on? And before someone goes there with the whole "alignment" conversation, structure and configuration are two different things.  Configuration changes, structure does not.


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Apr 19, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> ......Now ok, we can cut the Youtube video out that James posted, because that film is from a specific kind of sporting event.
> 
> *Doc certainly has a lot more experience and knowledge than I do, I would never try to argue that point. But I'm sorry, he is not omniscient. He made some pretty strong and opinionated statements about the full nelson. We have others here with direct personal experiences that contradict Doc's statements. *
> 
> ...


 
No we don't need to throw that out.  A sport or a fight does not change anatomy no matter how hard some may protest.  A picture is worth a thousand words and a video is a bunch of sequenced pictures.  It's there, it's visible, it happened on a living, breathing and resisting piece of human ANATOMY.

*Doc isn't all-knowing?* I must have missed that memo and others too.  Because even in the midst of clear visual contradictory evidence some are trying to change the scope of what has already been said.  Sorry, but I'm not going to casually let "anatomically impossible" get redefined to "contextually improbable" irregardless of who said it and how much I respect them.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 19, 2007)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:


> No we don't need to throw that out. A sport or a fight does not change anatomy no matter how hard some may protest. A picture is worth a thousand words and a video is a bunch of sequenced pictures. It's there, it's visible, it happened on a living, breathing and resisting piece of human ANATOMY.
> 
> Doc isn't all-knowing? I must have missed that memo and others too. Because even in the midst of clear visual contradictory evidence some are trying to change the scope of what has already been said. Sorry, but I'm not going to casually let "anatomically impossible" get redefined to "contextually improbable" irregardless of who said it and how much I respect them.


 

Oh I agree, the video is, in my opinion, relevant to the discussion.  Just for the sake of argument I was personally willing to let that one go as it is taken out of the context of street self defense.  I guess I was willing to let that little bit of context get defined, but really I am in full agreement, it is definitely relevant.  But even if the video is eliminated, I don't think it in any way weakens the rest of the evidence.

As to Doc's statement, he made it, no one else did.  He hasn't come back at this point to clarify or otherwise discuss it, there have only been others who have discussed it.  If he has further input, I am sure we would all appreciate seeing what he might have to say about it.  But given what was said in the other thread, and in this one, his position seemed pretty clear to me at least.  Maybe there is more to the story, i'm always willing to consider what more someone might have to say...


----------



## Doc (Apr 19, 2007)

It is always easy to either take things out of context, or focus of a familiar part of the equation instead of the whole of what I said. Human nature I guess. I know I covered all the bases and always qualify my statements as I did here. It is "Anatomically impossible" within the context of the self-defense technique scenario of the discussion. The scenario is a Kenpo self-defense technique single assault from the rear, where someone comes up behind you to put you in a full nelson with no other physical interaction or secondary attack or attackers, and not in a sport wrestling match. That's the technique scenario as taught in the system. 

Under the self-defense attack scenario perameters, the assault completion is still anatomically impossible. I can't help but notice I actually suggested an experiment "within that context" as the technique is taught, and people have chosen to argue, the merits of my statement without taking the time to even try the in context physical experiment. 

I have given everything in my posts to make my point. On top of that I also stated I STILL TEACH IT for the body mechanics in the event the scenario isn't exactly as taught, in spite of it being unlikely in most circumstances including impossible in the technique. When my statements are read in their entirety, they are appropriate and correct. Part of the initial defense is exactly as Dr. Dave describes, which can be utilized in other scenarios as well, in conjunction with other mechanics to adjust for body momentum and stabilizing the platform. 

Funny I thought this discussion would go in the direction of "How do I defend against it." rather than focusing on wholly out of context "what ifs" and adjusted scenarios to fit a particular perspective. That's what others did. They emailed me and asked my opinion, disagreed to an extent but saw my point AFTER they worked the experiment I suggested. Their next question was, what would you do if it happened anyway. I gave them the answer as I teach it regularly. Have a good day.


----------



## Ray (Apr 19, 2007)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:


> *Doc isn't all-knowing?* I must have missed that memo and others too. Because even in the midst of clear visual contradictory evidence some are trying to change the scope of what has already been said. Sorry, but I'm not going to casually let "anatomically impossible" get redefined to "contextually improbable" irregardless of who said it and how much I respect them.


Doc knows what he's talking about.  If you are able to attend one of his seminars, or classes, he will show you simply that he does.  He will provide you with reasoning, ways you can experiment and test what he says.


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Apr 20, 2007)

Ray said:


> Doc knows what he's talking about. If you are able to attend one of his seminars, or classes, he will show you simply that he does. He will provide you with reasoning, ways you can experiment and test what he says.


 
That doesn't change what I have seen and felt.  I can assume that you have been punched before if you have done Kenpo or Martial Arts.  Now can Doc or anyone else tell you "it's impossible to be punched" and you actually believe it? Do you then disregard your own experiences because someone lese told you otherwise? I hope not.

P.S. I have no doubts of Doc's knowledge or abilities except where what he or anyone else states directly conflicts with my personal experiences.  My beliefs can be challenged my experiences can not.  I keep in touch with Doc regularly through e-mail.  There is no question of his knowledge except that he is human and does not know everything. Again something I could say about anyone.  Seems you felt I was slighting him. If so, not so and I'm sure Doc knows that or he would call me on it personally.


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Apr 20, 2007)

Doc said:


> It is always easy to either take things out of context, or focus of a familiar part of the equation instead of the whole of what I said. Human nature I guess.


 
You didn't actually provide a context, one could be assumed but you stated none in Posts 15 or 32.



> I know I covered all the bases and always qualify my statements as I did here.


 
Generally true, but not this time. Some assumptions are being made here as to what is "commonly" understood.




> It is "Anatomically impossible" within the context of the self-defense technique scenario of the discussion. The scenario is a Kenpo self-defense technique single assault from the rear, where someone comes up behind you to put you in a full nelson with no other physical interaction or secondary attack or attackers, and not in a sport wrestling match. That's the technique scenario as taught in the system.


 
I'd still say improbable and not impossible based on personal experiences. I have seen on multiple occasions where someone snuck up behind someone and just put the lock on before any reaction was made. Others will disagree but I still saw it happen...multiple times. My personal situation was a singular altercation that became a multple altercation if that makes sense. Maybe Baltimore, MD is just that different from the rest of the 'science' world. Stranger things have happened.



> Under the self-defense attack scenario perameters, the assault completion is still anatomically impossible. I can't help but notice I actually suggested an experiment "within that context" as the technique is taught, and people have chosen to argue, the merits of my statement without taking the time to even try the in context physical experiment.


 
I can't help but state that this would be an assumption of what others have or have not tried. Unless you and Collins are still spying on me  



> I have given everything in my posts to make my point. On top of that I also stated I STILL TEACH IT for the body mechanics in the event the scenario isn't exactly as taught, in spite of it being unlikely in most circumstances including impossible in the technique. When my statements are read in their entirety, they are appropriate and correct. Part of the initial defense is exactly as Dr. Dave describes, which can be utilized in other scenarios as well, in conjunction with other mechanics to adjust for body momentum and stabilizing the platform.


 
Agree to disagree. This will get nowhere as I cannot be convinced to refute what I myself have seen and/or felt. Even the scenario you gave in this post of singular attack from rear with no other attackers or attacks involved contradicts what I have personally seen. Just reminds my of what my professors have been known to state. "Even in the world of science there are few if any absolutes..."




> Funny I thought this discussion would go in the direction of "How do I defend against it." rather than focusing on wholly out of context "what ifs" and adjusted scenarios to fit a particular perspective. That's what others did.


 
Not really, this spun off of you posting "impossible" in post 15 and "anatomically impossible" in post 32. You may have felt that it was commonly understood that you meant "within the context of a singular assalut with no distractions on a sunny day in California... " But you did not state that in this thread (until this post) and assumed others were following. It seems apparent that everyone was not...specifically the one's who are not regularly exposed to SL-4 methodolgies.



> They emailed me and asked my opinion, disagreed to an extent but saw my point AFTER they worked the experiment I suggested. Their next question was, what would you do if it happened anyway. I gave them the answer as I teach it regularly. Have a good day.


 
Having a great day as always Doc  P.S. People are loving (actually hating) the e-mails you sent me regarding politics, economics, etc. Good stuff.


----------



## MJS (Apr 20, 2007)

Well, seeing that this discussion at this time is focused on the Full Nelson, may as well continue along those lines.  This thread was spun from the Repeated Devestation thread.  However, we can discuss any technique and/or attack that is deemed 'impossible.'  In this post I had asked two questions.  For the sake of the discussion, I'd be interested in hearing the answers to those questions. 

Mike


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Apr 20, 2007)

MJS said:


> Well, seeing that this discussion at this time is focused on the Full Nelson, may as well continue along those lines. This thread was spun from the Repeated Devestation thread. However, we can discuss any technique and/or attack that is deemed 'impossible.' In this post I had asked two questions. For the sake of the discussion, I'd be interested in hearing the answers to those questions.
> 
> Mike


 
"1) Why not teach everyone the same? If one move is more effective than the other, why not teach the more effective one? Thats what I meant by wouldn't you want to be as effective as possible."

To my limited Knowledge Mr. Parker was fond of teaching different people different things to set up "little experiments".  Some would try this and some would try that and he'd check back in to get fresh lines of thought on possible innovations and refinements.  I'm also told he did this to provide signatures so that he would know who learned from who.

I have no knowledge of your second question.


----------



## Ray (Apr 20, 2007)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:


> That doesn't change what I have seen and felt.  I can assume that you have been punched before if you have done Kenpo or Martial Arts.  Now can Doc or anyone else tell you "it's impossible to be punched" and you actually believe it? Do you then disregard your own experiences because someone lese told you otherwise? I hope not.
> 
> P.S. I have no doubts of Doc's knowledge or abilities except where what he or anyone else states directly conflicts with my personal experiences.  My beliefs can be challenged my experiences can not.  I keep in touch with Doc regularly through e-mail.  There is no question of his knowledge except that he is human and does not know everything. Again something I could say about anyone.  Seems you felt I was slighting him. If so, not so and I'm sure Doc knows that or he would call me on it personally.


Funny thing, I was punched more often before I learned kenpo.  

I don't think you slighted Doc and I'm not his defender.  I just think he's an honest guy who has testable thesis.

I could understand, for example that you threw a hard  left hook and overcommitted; and that your victim ducked below it, coming up outside of your left; grabbed your left front shoulder with his left hand, pulled you so that your back spun to him and he was able to lace one of your arms into something like a half-nelson while using his other arm to apply a choke (with your coat or shirt).  When I hear "full-nelson" I think of it as an double arm bar with both hands high, and it seems tough to be forced into--but of course, once it's on and properly chinched...

Then again, punches have been attempted on me more times than a take down, grab, lock or hold.  But what I really, really used to hate is when people would just turn and run...forcing me (in my job at the time) to have to run after them.


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Apr 20, 2007)

Ray said:


> But what I really, really used to hate is when people would just turn and run...forcing me (in my job at the time) to have to run after them.


 
This was too funny.  Almost as funny as the kool-aid man on KN.


----------



## Ray (Apr 20, 2007)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:


> Almost as funny as the kool-aid man on KN.


A true classic.  

Have a nice weekend.


----------



## MJS (Apr 23, 2007)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:


> "1) Why not teach everyone the same? If one move is more effective than the other, why not teach the more effective one? Thats what I meant by wouldn't you want to be as effective as possible."
> 
> To my limited Knowledge Mr. Parker was fond of teaching different people different things to set up "little experiments". Some would try this and some would try that and he'd check back in to get fresh lines of thought on possible innovations and refinements. I'm also told he did this to provide signatures so that he would know who learned from who.
> 
> I have no knowledge of your second question.


 
Question:  Did these 'experiments' consist of slight changes in a technique or were they major differences which could possibly lead to the tech. being less effective than another version?

Additionally, I find it interesting that my questions have gone unanswered.  If we are going to all have a discussion on a technique that supposedly does not work, is impossible, etc., it would be nice to hear of versions or techniques that do work.

Mike


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Apr 24, 2007)

MJS said:


> Question: Did these 'experiments' consist of slight changes in a technique or were they major differences which could possibly lead to the tech. being less effective than another version?
> 
> Additionally, I find it interesting that my questions have gone unanswered. If we are going to all have a discussion on a technique that supposedly does not work, is impossible, etc., it would be nice to hear of versions or techniques that do work.
> 
> Mike


 
1) Both.  A slight change can cause a major difference.

 2) For every technique out there, there will be someone that claims the technique doesn't work, someone that claims it does, someone that says the attack will never happen and someone who has had that attack happen to them.  Just like the vast majority of Kenpoists who spout the rhetoric against high kicking.  Though high kicking is no longer my #1 option when I was in TKD before I "converted" to Kenpo I had no problems kicking people in the face during my time in the local ghettoes here before I heard that is was a "bad idea" to kick high.  It's fighting which is not pretty and very chaotic.  The only absolute is that there are none.  There is even one noted instructor who claims that Delayed Sword will not work against a punch....yeah....ok...I didn't get that memo.


----------



## Doc (Apr 24, 2007)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:


> 1)  There is even one noted instructor who claims that Delayed Sword will not work against a punch....yeah....ok...I didn't get that memo.


Neither did I. Another suggests the "vertical block" is useless so I guess we all just have to get together and do show and tell dog. I suspect there is some truth in all perspectives.


----------



## SL4Drew (Apr 24, 2007)

MJS said:


> Well, seeing that this discussion at this time is focused on the Full Nelson, may as well continue along those lines. This thread was spun from the Repeated Devestation thread. However, we can discuss any technique and/or attack that is deemed 'impossible.' In this post I had asked two questions. For the sake of the discussion, I'd be interested in hearing the answers to those questions.
> 
> Mike


 
From your other post:

1) Why not teach everyone the same? If one move is more effective than the other, why not teach the more effective one? Thats what I meant by wouldn't you want to be as effective as possible.


My response:

I would say that is a function of A LOT of things. The student's interest, focus, and desire are a big part. And being an instructor of a commercial school brings with it additional considerations. Every time you change the material you inevitably lose students. So if effectiveness is your paramount concern, yes you might jettison less effective material. But if instead the bottom line is you concern, then you will be very slow to change--at least the material you teach to your paying students. Never mind some people are unwilling to change.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Apr 24, 2007)

I'm with ya, drew. 

For #1: You cannot teach everyone to the same quality for two reasons...capacity, and willingness. Capacity: Can't get 20 gallons in a ten gallon bucket. And, as un-PC as it is to say, not everyone is built with the same intelligences. Willingness: The better something works, in general, the more it hurts to train. Not that many soccer mom families out there willing to get down and dirty with the PD, spec-ops, bruisers, etc. So you have to have 2 versions of what you teach: Open door, and closed door. One pays the light bills, the other keeps your interest in the arts for years to come.

2. I forget. I think it was a question about nelson stuff. Mandela, maybe. OK; I got it. The bulk of the nelson techs (take the 3 most common in order to be taught) rely on pain and shock, not mechanical advantage. The second of the two has some mechanical efficacy to it, but #1 and #3 rely on the guy responding to being popped and loosening his grip. What if adrenal dump over-rides pain reception? I'm having a time of it with a new training podnah, ...old SEAL, feels no pain. The way he knows he's standing in a fire is by the smell of his cooking feet. So pain compliance techs are out. Luckily, Doc has provided nelson solutions that are structurally based, and break down the integrity of the bad guy while shoring up your own, and allow you some better "how to" to break the hold.

Banging in drills with an old spook who doesn't feel owie's is a treat, but requires a willingness to get beat up along the way yourself; he may not feel pain, but knows when his melon's been shaken, and is quick to return the favor. Each session ends with me hobbling home, bruised like a mammy-jammer. I'm diggin it, and will keep showing up to train until I can't, because of that whole "weakness leaving the body" thang. Nights in Torrance on the SL-4 mat are akin to 40 to 60 low-speed car accidents each session -- having your skeleton rattled around by techs that target structural penetration, with you being the one getting hit. All night, several nights a week, Docs guys show up to ring each others melons in a quest for mastering what works. Not many out there are going to choose to capitalize on an opportunity to train in pain; to get home late to a handful of advil. This, principally, is why you cannot teach everybody to the same standard. Capacity, and Willingness.

Be good,

Dr. Dave


----------



## DavidCC (Jun 19, 2007)

I'd like to resurrect this old thread by posting a picture of someone doing a full nelson in Doc Chapel's school 







from the amazing collection of photos the Ed Parker Jr posted at 
http://americankenpoforum.com/photos/epj/picture1111.aspx


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Jun 19, 2007)

DavidCC said:


> I'd like to resurrect this old thread by posting a picture of someone doing a full nelson in Doc Chapel's school
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Looks like the "hand on forehead" position mentioned earlier that renders the nelson next to impossible to complete.


----------



## LawDog (Jun 19, 2007)

In this photograph the full nelson is not being applied correctly. The attacker usually will lower himself so that, when reaching up from under the arms he can reach up higher behind the head. This attacker should have his hands up higher along the base of the skill, this will give the attacker more leverage to force his opponents chin down against the chest area, )for the choke). This attacker is standing straight up, his hips should be bent forward, this will force his opponent back over his heels, breaking his balance.
Pressure being applied to the back of the head does not come from your wrists alone. You should use the contact point where your arms and your opponents armpits meet as a pivot point, torque your torso back, lifting your elbows upward and at the same time rolling your forarms forward and down. Now your whole body goes into the lock.
This is just my observation of this photograph, not the entire thread subject.


----------



## Ray (Jun 19, 2007)

Doc said:


> Another suggests the "vertical block" is useless so I guess we all just have to get together and do show and tell dog. I suspect there is some truth in all perspectives.


Oddly enough when I mentioned the thought: "a vertical outward block is not cocked nor ready to strike" to a 12 year old yellow belt student, she said "yah, but this is how my arm is before I do that downward elbow in Crossing Talons."


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Jun 19, 2007)

LawDog said:


> In this photograph the full nelson is not being applied correctly. The attacker usually will lower himself so that, when reaching up from under the arms he can reach up higher behind the head. This attacker should have his hands up higher along the base of the skill, this will give the attacker more leverage to force his opponents chin down against the chest area, )for the choke). This attacker is standing straight up, his hips should be bent forward, this will force his opponent back over his heels, breaking his balance.
> Pressure being applied to the back of the head does not come from your wrists alone. You should use the contact point where your arms and your opponents armpits meet as a pivot point, torque your torso back, lifting your elbows upward and at the same time rolling your forarms forward and down. Now your whole body goes into the lock.
> This is just my observation of this photograph, not the entire thread subject.


 
Sounds like Ju Jitsu


----------



## Doc (Jun 19, 2007)

LawDog said:


> In this photograph the full nelson is not being applied correctly. The attacker usually will lower himself so that, when reaching up from under the arms he can reach up higher behind the head. This attacker should have his hands up higher along the base of the skill, this will give the attacker more leverage to force his opponents chin down against the chest area, )for the choke). This attacker is standing straight up, his hips should be bent forward, this will force his opponent back over his heels, breaking his balance.


You're correct, except the attack was not attempted in this photo. It was in the midst of a discussion. A person to attack has to do exactly what you described, and in the process he misaligns himself, and makes himself susceptable to the mechanisms that will cancel his action.

The counter that we use was derived in discussions and teachings with my teacher, and his friend and consult Gene LeBell, and was echoed by Wally Jay. Although my teacher Ed Parker is no longer with us, the other 2 gentlemen are still around, and I'm sure available for consultation for anyone significantly curious about their perspective. Additionally, we have an ongoing relationhip with our MSU School of Mushin Ryu Jiujitsu, whose head is ranked at 7th in Danzan Ryu, and 9th in Mushin Ryu Jiujitsu.

Each of the automomous schools of the MSU regularly consult with each other to insure the efficacy of all aspects of curriculum, that include; W.A.R. (Withing Arms Reach), Pukulan Kilat Silat, and Danzan Ryu Jiujitsu. This in conjuction with my personal ongoing relationships with various seniors and masters in their various arts, including Gene Lebell.

I've given my opinion of the subject that is reflected in my associates views as well, and also explained why I still teach the attack.


----------



## Doc (Jun 22, 2007)

Ray said:


> Oddly enough when I mentioned the thought: "a vertical outward block is not cocked nor ready to strike" to a 12 year old yellow belt student, she said "yah, but this is how my arm is before I do that downward elbow in Crossing Talons."



It just proves there is wisdom even in the young (in the art) sir.


----------

