# Larry Tatum in the magazines



## James Kovacich (Feb 4, 2005)

Anyone see Larry Tatum in the current issues of Budo International and Inside Kung Fu?

I'm particularly interested on the Kenpoist's view on his techniques fighting against 2 opponents, as seen in Budo International.


----------



## The Kai (Feb 4, 2005)

I have both the mags, just not in front of me-so I will generalize a bit.  Mr Tatum always has a good article on kenpo.  However there are two things that drive me nuts.

1.) Fighting two guys by standing in between them (I know that you don't al;ways have a choice), but the you should be using your strikes, blocks to manouever away
2.)  The Animal styles of Kenpo.  Need I say more?


----------



## Seabrook (Feb 4, 2005)

Please elaborate on what you mean by point #2.

Thanks,

Jamie Seabrook

http://www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com


----------



## The Kai (Feb 4, 2005)

The animal sets of Kenpo??  Where did that come from??  Yes I know that there are eagle beak strikes and Tiger claws not really a Animal style though.  At least it's not the dark side of kenpo with the heretofore hidden Ninja stuff

T


----------



## KempoShaun (Feb 4, 2005)

I still love the surfer pose in Budo Intl!


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 8, 2005)

I'm not sure I see your point, Tod. Was it that kenpo's sets and forms have no connections to some of the so-called, "animal," styles of traditional Chinese arts? Or was it just that you disagreed with what you saw about how to maneuver two guys who are attacking you? Could you explain what you mean?


Incidentally, didn't you swipe, "The Kai," from "Deep Space 9?"


----------



## The Kai (Feb 9, 2005)

```
I'm not sure I see your point, Tod. Was it that kenpo's sets and forms have no connections to some of the so-called, "animal," styles of traditional Chinese arts?
```
IMHO Kenpo is a fantastic system, able to move away from the feudal animalism, so no there is no connection there.  Just the idea that please put in your magazine I'll do whatever.  Mr Tatum is one of our seniors I'm sure that he has so much knowledge, it seems a shame to get the podium and not inform or educate



```
Or was it just that you disagreed with what you saw about how to maneuver two guys who are attacking you? Could you explain what you mean?
```

 I have a real problem withthe idea of standing between 2 (or more) attackers and trying to riccochet between them


```
Incidentally, didn't you swipe, "The Kai," from "Deep Space 9?"
```
That would be childish and foolish, actually the name comes from a sci-fi series "Farscape".  Just kidding Kai actually translates out to "School", very close to the Kan in Shotokan
Todd


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 9, 2005)

*Just kidding Kai actually translates out to "School", very close to the Kan in Shotokan*

Yes, Kai and Kan are at least as far as I know the same. When I trained under my brother-in-law his school name was The Newark Zen Bujutsukan.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 9, 2005)

I'm still not sure I see your purpose, Todd. Is it to point out that some of the kenpo techniques against two people are fundamentally wrong? Or that some of the principles expressed are basically incorrect? Or that there was something mechanically wrong with what was pictured? Or that Mr. Tatum doesn't know what he's doing?

I also still don't get the point about what you're now calling, "feudal animalism." Your avatar or whatever says that you're ranked in Kajukenbo? Does that system have NO ties to its past? Mayse I'm wrong, but I'd thought the atricle you're offened by was in, "Inside Kung Fu," and he was trying to bridge from kenpo back to...well, kung fu?

You seem to be grumpy about something, and not quite willing to explain what it is. So...how 'bout just saying what you mean? Or maybe you could simply explain what you think would be better than what you saw in the article?

Oh, incidentally...one of the things that's going on in such kenpo techniques as, "Grasping Eagles," (Oh, darn, there's that pesky animal name...) or, "Parting of the Snakes," (oops, more 'nanimals), might perhaps be teaching to maneuver your opponents, when you cannot maneuver yourself right away?


----------



## Brian Jones (Feb 9, 2005)

Personally I liked Mr. Miller's article in Inside Kung Fu.  it was certainly better than a similar aritcle that came out in Black Belt a month or two ago. I thought the aritlce did a nice of job of showing how Ameircan kenpo looks at the "animal" positions without leaning too heavily on the Kung Fu animal system prospects.
   As far as teh Budo artilce. I have it.  I don't train with Mr. tatum or any of his students but I imagine he wouldn't prefer to be between 2 or more people ina mass attack situation. But as the tech's show sometimes you don't get to do what you prefer.  That's why we have Mass Attck tech's dealing with this.  Besides there is just so much you can show in a photo anyway.

Brian Jones


----------



## The Kai (Feb 9, 2005)

What past???  One thing that can be figured out that no one knows where kenpo can from much beyond Mitose.  So therefore any connect is merely assumed or conjecture, unless you know of some direct connection between the 2.
the two man attck, probaly teachs important principles, but by far Don't stand between two mean people!
Again Mr Tatum is one of your most Visible seniors, I think that his knowledge is vast.  His mechanics are fantastic
as I understand it the name of techniques has nothing to do with the animal systems but memory devices. Talon is a Grab, not so much the eagle system, raining Lance a overhead strike, not so much a Rain Style
I'm sorry if I seem grumpy


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 9, 2005)

Well--and here's my last post on the matter of your apparent dislike for my instructor's appearance in a magazine--I think you have to accept the basic premise, though of course it's best not to get stuck between two angry people. Though I have to add--having been one of the angry people in a demo or two, being angry doesn't seem to help much.

I recently had some things to say about a Systema article in "Asian Martial Arts," that got some folks a little pissed off at me. I felt that I was asking about what sure looked like some bad ideas and moves in that particular context, rather than arguing against the whole premise. 

Of course it would be best not to get stuck like this. And of course, the history of kenpo (as for nearly all martial arts) rapidly trails off into dream. That said, I still don't get what the beef with either the pictured techniques or the picturing of kenpo's debt to Chinese martial arts would be.

But that's my last word on the subject.


----------



## The Kai (Feb 9, 2005)

Actually I did'nt really mean to dis your instructor, having seen the clips from the website he has the tools, the knowledge.  My though is why not share it?  What sets kenpo apart?

Yes all arts are in some way indebited to the Chinese martial Arts, but kenpo is not necassirly a chinese art
I'm sorry if I rubbed you the wrong way


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 14, 2005)

Good responses. I really wanted to hear a "Kenpo view" first because I didn't want to trash someone who is a good martial artist. But I really would say that the techniques in the Budo International article really were weak from a self defense stand point. From what I remember everything seemed off.

After seeing more realistic Kenpo, I wonder if there was a reason for "posing" that sort of technique.


----------



## Brian Jones (Feb 14, 2005)

If I had to guess why it was posed this way, I have a couple of answers. One, as I said before, sometimes you don't get the "ideal" situation and you need to know what to do. Secondly for a photo shoot you need to be able to see evryone clearly and what they are doing. This isn't to defend the Budo mag by the way. I thought Mr. Tatum's interview was helpful to introduce kenpo to those who haven't ben exposed to it before. But the magazine is one big classified. Even the articles are there to introduce merchandise.

Brian Jones


----------



## Karazenpo (Feb 14, 2005)

Robert stated: "Though I have to add--having been one of the angry people in a demo or two, being angry doesn't seem to help much."

I say: "True, but that's a 'demo' though......"


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 14, 2005)

I was wondering if Joe and others could be specific as to what they saw that seemed flawed to them? I haven't looked at the article, so I'd be interested to read the specific--and let me repeat, specific--criticism.

After all, any article requires a little willingness to take the situtation portrayed for what it is, rather than grouching because it isn't the be-all and end-all...so, were there specific problems with execution? or with kenpo principles?


----------



## Karazenpo (Feb 14, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I was wondering if Joe and others could be specific as to what they saw that seemed flawed to them? I haven't looked at the article, so I'd be interested to read the specific--and let me repeat, specific--criticism.
> 
> After all, any article requires a little willingness to take the situtation portrayed for what it is, rather than grouching because it isn't the be-all and end-all...so, were there specific problems with execution? or with kenpo principles?



Robert, I haven't seen the article, I was just going by the posts. However, Todd was asking about the animals mentioned. From what I could come up with in my research over the years and reading Mitose's book. He (Mitose) did not use the animals and supposedly didn't believe in them. He said something like 'a man should fight like a man, not an animal'. Everything I researched says it was Professor Chow who added the animals and of course later on we know Adriano Emperado and Ed Parker both got involved in the Chinese martial arts. Anyone hear anything different? Respectfully, "Joe"


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Feb 15, 2005)

I know the guy is a senior, and all. I just have a hard time with mullets and lamb chops in the 21st century. Unless you live in the 909 area code. Or Tenessee.

D.


----------



## Seabrook (Feb 15, 2005)

Karazenpo said:
			
		

> Robert, I haven't seen the article, I was just going by the posts. However, Todd was asking about the animals mentioned. From what I could come up with in my research over the years and reading Mitose's book. He (Mitose) did not use the animals and supposedly didn't believe in them. He said something like 'a man should fight like a man, not an animal'. Everything I researched says it was Professor Chow who added the animals and of course later on we know Adriano Emperado and Ed Parker both got involved in the Chinese martial arts. Anyone hear anything different? Respectfully, "Joe"


There is a lot of Chinese Kung Fu contained in Kenpo. In addition to our circular patterns when employing forms, techniques, ect, what makes Kenpo so practical is that we believe in using EVERYTHING that works. That includes tiger claws to such areas as the face, throat, or groin, crane strikes to vital areas and for hooking and breaking purposes, leopard strikes to the throat, snake strikes to the eyes and throat, and devasting heel palms that can penetrate vital areas of the body or hit the joints (typical of Dragon style kung fu). As a black belt in Kung Fu as well, I see tons and tons of parallels between Kenpo and Kung Fu. In fact, as we advance to higher levels of Kenpo and more sophisticated basics, Kenpo takes on a much more Chinese influence than the early belt levels.  

Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 15, 2005)

1. Well, kids, I DO live in the 909 area code. And beyond the bias about working class people that this expresses, funny that all the, "respect," stuff has evaporated. I'll be darned.

2. I agree with Mr. Seabrook. I'd thought that all the article in, "Inside King Fu," really had to say, was that kenpo owed a lot to China...after all, Mr. Parker's first big book is called, "Secrets of Chinese Karate."

3. Not being the mouthpiece and all, I'd simply pass on what I've generally heard around the studio about "animal," styles--that obviously there's a lot of relation to them in kenpo, but that people misunderstand the point of the animal styles when they try to (for example) move exactly like a crane. The point seems to be to learn something about movement and styles of attack, and to try to learn what might be called the "spirit," of the way a kind of animal moves, not simply to imitate it.


----------



## The Kai (Feb 15, 2005)

Actually I agree with you on the first two points (even not knowing where 909 is) 

Kenpo has a ton of chinese influence, esp at higher belts


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Feb 15, 2005)

Robert:  Sorry to hear you live in the 909. As a Kevin & Bean/KROQ morning show fan, the "land of the dirt people" will likely be the subject of ribbing for many yers to come. I'm not prejudiced, mind you; some of my friends are from the 909 (not to mention, that's a helluva commute for your work, no?).

The rest of you: As to animals in kenpo...Not all animal presence in kung-fu is _pure _presence. Meaning one can use the shape of the crane as a natural weapon, capitalizing on it's features, without being a Crane Kung-Fu practitioners; a Tigers Claw, without practicing Tiger KF. Kenpo, as it exists now, has a tremendous influence from multiple kung-fu "injections". In Hawaii, pretty much everybody is, or knows someone who is, a kung-fu practitioner. Chow's own material evidenced Chinese influence, even though his sources of claim are suspect.

In the continental US, Parker spent many hours training with kung-fu guys, as discussed in detail on oher threads. Splashing Hands, or some such thing, with Ark Wong; SanSoo with the Woo kids, and so on. Many of the circular and semi-circular deflective maneuver and attacks come from the chinese influence, and not the Japanese. No, I haven't seen the articles. So I cant speak to how they may be being applied in terms of context. Nevertheless, I percieve Mr. Tatum to be one of the few kenpoists who has maintained the ability to move similar to Parker, and having been on the uke end of Parkers speed and power, I'm confident that starting position offers little help for the soon-to-be-hospitalized.

"To feel is to believe". I suggest those of you who have doubts stop by Pasadena and take your issue up with Tatum. You may get the opportunity to "enjoy" a private tutorial.

Regards,

D.


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Feb 15, 2005)

Karazenpo said:
			
		

> Robert, I haven't seen the article, I was just going by the posts. However, Todd was asking about the animals mentioned. From what I could come up with in my research over the years and reading Mitose's book. He (Mitose) did not use the animals and supposedly didn't believe in them. He said something like 'a man should fight like a man, not an animal'. Everything I researched says it was Professor Chow who added the animals and of course later on we know Adriano Emperado and Ed Parker both got involved in the Chinese martial arts. Anyone hear anything different? Respectfully, "Joe"


hi prof joe

as far as the animal thing, mitose did say that in one of his books. but......the contradiction as far as kosho goes lies in the fact that there are positions or postures in kosho that are named for animals....bird, dog, frog, and monkey.
  the bird, dog and frog thing i am 99% sure about.....the monkey thing about 80%. the kamae is supposed to reflect the attitude towards the strikes, locks and evasions.


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 15, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I was wondering if Joe and others could be specific as to what they saw that seemed flawed to them? I haven't looked at the article, so I'd be interested to read the specific--and let me repeat, specific--criticism.
> 
> After all, any article requires a little willingness to take the situtation portrayed for what it is, rather than grouching because it isn't the be-all and end-all...so, were there specific problems with execution? or with kenpo principles?



I didn't buy the Budo International Issue I questioned about. But I will if you want me to be more detailed. But I remember seeing Tatum facing 1 attacker, scrapping with him. Tatums left foot forward to the attacker, right foot back. Tatum was issuing some attack or strike with his right arm to the attacker in front of him.

With his left arm (which is farthest from the attacker behind him) he eyejabbed the attacker that was coming at him from behind. He may or may not of used his rear leg too. 

To me, not realistic and very risky. If you are in control of the opponent in front of you, then why is the the opponent in the rear still behind you?

Given as I stated earlier I knew it was posed but just not a realistic approach to fighting 2 attackers especially with one coming from behind.


----------



## Karazenpo (Feb 15, 2005)

BlackCatBonz said:
			
		

> hi prof joe
> 
> as far as the animal thing, mitose did say that in one of his books. but......the contradiction as far as kosho goes lies in the fact that there are positions or postures in kosho that are named for animals....bird, dog, frog, and monkey.
> the bird, dog and frog thing i am 99% sure about.....the monkey thing about 80%. the kamae is supposed to reflect the attitude towards the strikes, locks and evasions.



Interesting, Shawn. I read once that Mitose had business cards for his school and had the logo of a tiger on it which obviously contradicted what he had stated. It was in one of my old karate mags, can't recall who said it so I can't verify if it were true. Maybe someone here knows. As far as the 'monkey' goes, the original Kajukenbo forms were also called 'monkey dances' from what I understand. It was in reference to Choki Motobu who's nickname was 'Saru' which means monkey for they way he moved, another Okinawan connection to the Hawaiian derived kenpo. Sijo Emperado had stated once that all the old seniors knew the kenpo was Okinawan in origin but never said why. Obviously, Okinawan Kenpo was very heavily influenced by China and the animal patterns. Take care, Prof. Joe


----------



## The Kai (Feb 15, 2005)

akja said:
			
		

> I didn't buy the Budo International Issue I questioned about. But I will if you want me to be more detailed. But I remember seeing Tatum facing 1 attacker, scrapping with him. Tatums left foot forward to the attacker, right foot back. Tatum was issuing some attack or strike with his right arm to the attacker in front of him.
> 
> With his left arm (which is farthest from the attacker behind him) he eyejabbed the attacker that was coming at him from behind. He may or may not of used his rear leg too.
> 
> ...


While this type of approach may work it is a last option, ironically itr is the option showed the most!  I realize that the posing of the 2 attacker may demostrate reverse motion. Having seen a little of Mr tatum's Kenpo sparring tape (BTW great ideas) how would a mulitple attacker situation be dealth with in MR Tatum's kenpo sparring scenario??
BTW I wish I had Mr Tatum's hair, or really anyone else's for that matter


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 15, 2005)

Please explain why this isn't realistic and is, "very risky," rather than simply asserting that it is. And please explain the question, "If you are in control of the opponent in front of you, then why is the the opponent in the rear still behind you?"

Sorry, I don't understand either point.


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 15, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Please explain why this isn't realistic and is, "very risky," rather than simply asserting that it is. And please explain the question, "If you are in control of the opponent in front of you, then why is the the opponent in the rear still behind you?"
> 
> Sorry, I don't understand either point.




Pretty simple. No real attackers are going to wait and attack separately. The attacker from the rear, in most cases, will be all over the defender while the defender is fighting the front attacker.

Now, even if there was a pause of some sort and the defender has time to look over his shoulder and see the 2nd attacker coming from the rear. The defenders left arm, reaching accross his own chest and eye jabbing someone attacking from behind him while simultaneously fighting someone in front of him is not going to work. A slight flinch of the 2nd attackers head is all that is needed and the eyejab will be nowhere near it's target and the defenders left arm will have no range of motion to adjust.

Like I slightly implied or was leading to. "If" the defender is in control of the front opponent, then the defender could take away a significant part of the risk of the rear attacker simply by using head control or a similar Kenpo method of redirecting his opponent to where he is not inbetween them.

Anytime a defender is directly between to attackers he is at a greater risk to defeat than the attackers are. In that situation if the rear attacker had a knife, the defender would be dead meat.


----------



## Karazenpo (Feb 15, 2005)

akja said:
			
		

> Pretty simple. No real attackers are going to wait and attack separately. The attacker from the rear, in most cases, will be all over the defender while the defender is fighting the front attacker.
> 
> Now, even if there was a pause of some sort and the defender has time to look over his shoulder and see the 2nd attacker coming from the rear. The defenders left arm, reaching accross his own chest and eye jabbing someone attacking from behind him while simultaneously fighting someone in front of him is not going to work. A slight flinch of the 2nd attackers head is all that is needed and the eyejab will be nowhere near it's target and the defenders left arm will have no range of motion to adjust.
> 
> ...



Very, very well put Jim. Officer Survival/Police Defensive Tactics concepts are totally in line with your premise. Well done!


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 15, 2005)

:asian: 





			
				Karazenpo said:
			
		

> Very, very well put Jim. Officer Survival/Police Defensive Tactics concepts are totally in line with your premise. Well done!


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 15, 2005)

Ah. That's clearer. Now I can see exactly what you don't understand.

First off, I can tell you for a certainty that if Mr. Tatum goes for your eye, front or back, the eye is bye-bye. This would not be true of me, or of you--we're talking about a different level here.

More to the point, kenpo never relies on an assumption that the strike is always perfect and always has the desired effect. Your point about the rear attacker's head is well-taken--but what you miss is that, a) the shot (like a feint) must be threatening to cause the deflection, b) the response doesn't end with the eye-poke. It's the old ideal/what-if/formulation sequence, familiar to us kenpo types.

Nor do I quite see how the other principles you mention would be something that was NOT included in what you saw.


----------



## Karazenpo (Feb 15, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Ah. That's clearer. Now I can see exactly what you don't understand.
> 
> First off, I can tell you for a certainty that if Mr. Tatum goes for your eye, front or back, the eye is bye-bye. This would not be true of me, or of you--we're talking about a different level here.
> 
> ...



Robert, I tried to stay away from this one so you wouldn't think I picked apart your posts as you had stated before but I have to give my opinion on this one so just take it as a healthy debate because that's all it is. Nothing more, nothing less.

First, you have a contradiction. You state: More to the point, kenpo never relies on an assumption that the strike is always perfect and always has the desired effect.

But prior to that you stated: First off, I can tell you for a certainty that if Mr. Tatum goes for your eye, front or back, the eye is bye-bye. 

So I guess Mr. Tatum is perfect and  he contradicts: kenpo never relies on an assumption that the strike is always perfect and always has the desired effect.

Next, you stated: This would not be true of me, or of you--we're talking about a different level here.

You can say that about yourself if you wish, since you know your own limitations but you should never make assumptions about someone elses ability that you don't even know, like Jim's.  No one is perfect and no one is 100 per cent-100 per cent of the time, no one, no plan, that's why in the military they have what they call 'friction', a plan is drawn and then the alternatives in case something goes wrong. We do the same in law enforcement. It is a reality of training, a reality of combat, a reality of survival. It is what it is. Some of us have been there.  Respectfully, Joe


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 16, 2005)

A couple of good points. I in no way doubt Larry's skill. I doubt the demonstrated techniques. I more than doubt, I know. I also know that if the technique being demonstrated is only good for those who are as highly skilled as Larry, then the technique is useless to 99.99% of the worlds population.

What Professor Joe calls "friction" is a near perfect one word desription of my system. I've trained in a lot of systems. I haven't mastered any except my own, and thats where it counts. I teach my students to beat all the susyems that I've been exposed to. A lot, and I mean a lot of people do not like those words coming out of my mouth. But it's true. MMA, Karate, Ju Jitsu, Gung-Fu, streetfighter, it dosen't matter. If they are true to their art, then they will be beat by not being allowed to "fight their fight." Once their system is nuetralized, the fight begins.

I don't teach unrealistic martial art that needs to be mastered to be used. My students know they will be hit and their whole basic phase 1 training builds a foundation of crosstraining in many arts including MMA alongside the basic curriculm of Kempo Ju Jitsu. Their "understanding" of technique comes together at differant times depending on the individual but when it "clicks" they are far ahead of "most" schools out there.

I say most, because I know that there are some instructors that really are great and others that "think" they are.

"Our" training is realistic or maybe not. That will always be judged differantly. But "unrealistic" technique is a waste.

P.S. For the record. About being at a "differant level." I've been around many great fighters. Some in here know some of them. But nobody I've ever met comes close to the skill level of Sifu Felix Macias Jr. For those that have doubt. We'll be here in august.
*THE JKD BEACH CAMP
3 Days of Training with several top Jeet Kune Do Instructors including: Wililam Holland, Steve Johnson, Larry Hartsell, Tim Tackett, Lamar Davis, Chris Sutton,Felix Macias Jr. & Pat Strong

August 12, 13 & 14 2005
Jeet Kune Do Beach Camp
16400 Beach Blvd. #777
Huntington Beach Ca. 92649*

http://www.ijkda.com/products.htm

*That is not a challenge but some have made comments in the past and they are down down south.*


----------



## Karazenpo (Feb 16, 2005)

akja stated: I also know that if the technique being demonstrated is only good for those who are as highly skilled as Larry, then the technique is useless to 99.99% of the worlds population.

Man, are we on the same page, Jim, lol. As an afterthought to my last post I just logged in to say essentially the same thing!


----------



## MisterMike (Feb 16, 2005)

Just my .02:

I have not seen the article but I have trained in Parker Kenpo. The techniques are put together to teach principles that you then practice. They will never be run the exact same way twice but are taught in the "ideal" phase first.

I think that to critique the techniques, people will have to say just what it is they disagree with. The principles of the technique I doubt were explained in the article (Again, I could be wrong) and if you do not have a Parker Kenpo background they may not make much sense until they are.

Being caught between 2 adversaries is how all of the 10 Parker KEnpo 2-man techniques start. At the completion of the techniques, you have seperated yourself from them further or gotten out of the middle. They do not train you to PUT yourself there.

I hope that helps.


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 16, 2005)

Professor Joe :asian: 

Mister Mike, Thanks! Thats what I asked for before I was "tempted" to explain it myself. Thanx again! :asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 16, 2005)

I'd agree with MM's last post about kenpo two-man techniques.

I'd also take the idea a little further--complaining that if the situation were different, it wouldn't be wise to do what you were doing in a given situation doesn't make a lot of sense.

I guess we all have our, 'special pleading," to patch up what others see as cracks in techniques and their practicality. Some of you feel that adverting to Mr. Tatum's extraordinary skill is special pleading, done to cover up a) flaws in his technique, b) flaws in kenpo, c) fundamental unrealism about self-defense, d) the superiority of your methods and teaching.

Well, guess, what? except for point, d), you're basically right. It is, and the mere fact that Mr. Tatum really is that skilled doesn't necessarily cover things up.

But, Joe & Co., you too are special pleading. Look back at your posts--you're claiming a kind of, "street knowledge," that you probably think of as battle tested and FDA-approved. That's special pleading, used to fill in the gaps of what you're arguing for. I looked at your website, "akja," and if we want to get into unrealism--there're more than three things I saw that I'd criticize as being grossly unrealistic and dangerous. 

Another kind of special pleading involves presuming that you, and only you, have seen the elephant. And I certainly agree that there are others far more experienced in getting their *** in trouble in a bar or an alley and having to fight their *** back out again. I train with several of them. Further, you might want to really think before you leap into the assumption that those of us you're pleased to think of as ivory-tower liberals and paper martial 'artists,' have never found themselves in a Bad Place. There's experience and then there's experience--and even assuming that nobody else's experience countsd next to yours (BIG assumption), you might want to chew on the notion that lots of people are every bit as experienced as you will ever be--just in different ways. Not better, but not worse either.

Another kind of special pleading involves the notion that UNLIKE kenpo, you train in systems and in ways that take this, "friction," into account. Oops. Not even remotely true, if you're running on the theory that kenpo has no place for either screwups or the consideration of other systems. And this would be obvious to you, if you'd thought rather than jumped--right on the surface of kenpo, there're the obvious multiple strikes, the easily-seen commitment to "sequential flow." Just look at a famous kenpo technique such a Five Swords, which has built into it the notion that stepping in and blocking didn't work, so you go for the throat with a hand sword; they ducked or checked or hunched their shoulder against the sword, so you drive in a heel palm; they come forward and try to grab you, so you uppercut them; they shrug that off and charge, so you step off line and...you get the point. And that's just one set of possible responses  (it even leaves out the lower case stuff) to one set of possible attacker's responses. Yes, you can argue that none of this stuff will work, and we can discuss that. But claiming that this amounts to a philosophy of perfect strikes and ideal reactions...it's absurd.

Oh, and incidentally--very large chunks of kenpo are specifically designed and embedded in the system as ways of thinking about handling other sorts of martial arts. It's in the techs, the forms, the sets, right from the start. It's in the way that good kenpo training encourages what the Clyde calls, "the spirit of the attack," which is running dummies through a range of possible ways to attack. I personally didn't really get that until the guy who was unlucky enough to get stuck with helping teach me through about brown belt, Scott Higgins, took me through what the hip checks in Long Form 2 are for in one set of applications. Again, arguing about the WAY kenpo responds to other systems and styles is perfectly reasonable. Arguing that there is no such response is not. Of course, this is assuming that we're talking about good teaching--or don't you folks know anybody who makes you cringe when you see them teach what you teach? Ahura-Mazda knows that badly-taught "Reality-Based Fighting," MMA, etc. are at least as full of crap as badly-taught kenpo can be--and that's saying something.

And last. Where's all that respect I got lectured on, Joe? leaving that stupid issue aside quickly, here's the deal: yes, you can recite all the cliches and generalizations and shibboleths about, "realism," you want to. Let me guess. You'd rather have one technique that worked than 154 that didn't. Feeling is believing. When pure knuckles meet...wait a minnit, those're all kenpo cliches. Huh. It's almost like Mr. Parker worked to make kenpo practical too. I'll be darned.

But seriously, folks. As in any martial arts system, there're going to be different levels of achievement for different students. I've met folks who will ALWAYS be tougher, or better fighters, or bigger and stronger, or faster, or better at techniques, or whatever else you care to name. There're lots and lots of folks out there that I couldn've trained to fight since I was four, and they'd still wax my ***. Are you going to try and tell me that you've never met anybody like that? But here's the real point: if you're really going to be realistic, you need to accept that your notions of "street experience," and "practicality," rest on at least as many untested assumptions as anything you see in kenpo. For one thing, YOU CANNOT TEACH 'FOR-REAL,' EXPERIENCE. You're relying on notions of perfection in training. 

However, a better point is that while there will always be different levels of skill evidenced by students, this doesn't have a damn thing to do with whether or not the system works. I happen to think that kenpo provides a very, very good--at times genius-level--way to train. I also happen to think that other things (age, skill, physicality, etc.) being roughly equal, a well-taught kenpo guy will win over others just about every time. Does this mean I can go punch out, say, one of the Gracies (any one, is my impression)? Of course not. They're out of my league as fighters, always were, always will be. So what? I'd get whupped by your average brown bear, too. And I think that the important thing is not to get one's advantages or disadvantages confused with the value of a fighting system.

This is perhaps a little long and rambly, so one last point: we ought to celebrate the fact that there are some people who know way more than we do, and who have put in the time to actualize more than we can, and who quite possibly had more talent to begin with than we ever did. Mr. Tatum's one of those people. Perfect? Obviously not. Nobody ever is....and as Michael Corleone teaches, "If history teaches us anything, it is that anyone can be hit." But funnily enough--wanna guess who I learned that from in martial arts?

Snipe less, appreciate more. Try to start by appreciating what I've tried to say here, rather than trying to score points at what you'll think of as my expense. Otherwise, this lengthy bit's my last, and I invite you to run up the score as high as you like.


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 16, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I'd agree with MM's last post about kenpo two-man techniques.
> 
> I'd also take the idea a little further--complaining that if the situation were different, it wouldn't be wise to do what you were doing in a given situation doesn't make a lot of sense.
> 
> ...



If you are referring to technique. You should of read this.

*The below listed techniques are "posed" and are for demonstration purposes. We are making an attempt at exposing our system to the public. We will eventually list all of our basic technique but we will not demonstrate how we put it all together.
For those who undestand, some systems may call it "grafting"  or a "matrix" while others like ours do not need a name for it, it just "is."
What makes our system unique is that we can use any of our techniques in conjunction with any other technique at any time.*

1 thing is for sure. I have "total" quality control over my system (at this point and time). And the "meat and potatos" of my system will NEVER be on my website. For buisness purposes to recruit students we should have a presance on the net. But I am good at understanding other systems and if you put "your good stuff" on the net. I WILL take it disesct it and use what I feel fits in to my system.

For now, with the help of some good people, my system is fairly protected.

I do welcome your opinion. That is what this is a forum.

I think you may of been referring to this page.
http://www.scientific-streetfighting.com/academypics3.html

Just remember that these are basic technique training drills. No technique really works the way you learn. It's physically impossible. Also that page is basic Gung-Fu. There is no Trad. or or Braz. Ju Jitsu present. The Ju Jitsu is a core of the foundation of my students. I haven't evolved my site effectively to express my system to the public without giving it away for free.

I don't think I am great like Larry Tatum. I'm good and maybe great to some but apples don't compare to oranges.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 16, 2005)

Ah. So if you're arguing that what you saw in somebody else's picture is unrealistic, and part of the response is that some of what one saw in your pictures is unrealistic, your answer is that you always keep the real deep stuff out of your pictures.


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 16, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Ah. So if you're arguing that what you saw in somebody else's picture is unrealistic, and part of the response is that some of what one saw in your pictures is unrealistic, your answer is that you always keep the real deep stuff out of your pictures.


You're an OK guy.

 I'm not in the publics eye. For the most part I have time on my side to express myself. I do agree with more of your stuff than you think.


----------



## Karazenpo (Feb 16, 2005)

Robert, I am not 'claiming' a type of street knowledge, I would think that by now I would have something to offer with nearly three decades as an LEO. I do not think I'm the only deal in town for there are many on this forum who are either LEO's or have backgrounds in reality fighting, some have worked in bars, security or perhaps the bodyguard business and let's not forgot those military veterans of 'Special Ops'. My pet peeve in the martial arts, however, is this: being lectured by those who don't have a clue how their 'stuff' would work in reality. It's like a Sgt. in wartime who leads his men through two tours of duty and got them through alive and then some Lt., wet behind the ears, comes out of West Point and he's put in charge. The reality is the Lt. takes a back seat to the Sgt. in the field, ask any combat veteran, because he is the man the men trust and believe in, he's proved himself. As you stated earlier about 'angry attackers' that you were an 'angry attacker' in a demo or two and it really didn't help against one of your instructors. Well, Robert, of course not because the 'uke' always gets beat up! Just like the bad guys in the movies. That statement alone makes one second guess you.

Perhaps you know this or perhaps you don't, but check this out if you like. Mr. Parker loved teaching police offciers during the formation of AK. They would act an an extension of himself and report back to him what worked and what didn't work, some things were kept, some modified and some thrown out. After all, he couldn't go test his stuff himself by looking for fights and what better way to get a handle on things then to go to the guys that deal with the same people that would attack you or mug you. No special pleading here, it just happens to be the way it is, like it or not.

You also stated you think I feel nobody elses experience counts! Well, bad assumption on your part and you know what they say about assumptions! If you read my posts in the past you will see that in an attempt to gather more information in reality fighting I have informally interviewed violent offenders that I have come in contact with over the years to pick their brains, from 'sucker punchers' to 'murders', no embellishment here, I could name names if I had too. What better way to find out how they attack, what they actually do, their strategy, their favorite techniques, how they use a knife, etc, etc. So, Robert, I totally respect what everyone has to bring to the table when it comes to my self improvement as a police officer and a teacher, even the criminals!

As far as cliches some of us use go, we've had this discussion before, c'ome on now, look at all the literary b.s. you write! Gimme a break, will ya! Gary stated you seem to very very, very narrow minded. I don't think any of us ever heard you use the term 'I stand corrected', 'I was mistaken or wrong', yet many of us have conceded in the past and accepted it if we felt the other debater made a valid point. Respect Robert? Look at one of your recent posts; How did it start? Something like 'Okay kids'....kids Robert?  Very condescending, ya think? You know what kids say? They say my instructor is better then your instructor, my style is better than your style, my instructor never misses, my instructor is the 'only deal in town', blah, blah, blah...that's what kids say. How about the assumption on Jim's abilities, someone you don't even know. Was that fair and respectful?

You vented and I vented and I hope once and for all we can put this b.s. behind us and have informative discussions in a friendly atmosphere. I sincerely mean that.  Take care, "Joe"


----------



## TChase (Feb 16, 2005)

Karazenpo said:
			
		

> Robert, I am not 'claiming' a type of street knowledge, I would think that by now I would have something to offer with nearly three decades as an LEO. I do not think I'm the only deal in town for there are many on this forum who are either LEO's or have backgrounds in reality fighting, some have worked in bars, security or perhaps the bodyguard business and let's not forgot those military veterans of 'Special Ops'. My pet peeve in the martial arts, however, is this: being lectured by those who don't have a clue how their 'stuff' would work in reality. It's like a Sgt. in wartime who leads his men through two tours of duty and got them through alive and then some Lt., wet behind the ears, comes out of West Point and he's put in charge. The reality is the Lt. takes a back seat to the Sgt. in the field, ask any combat veteran, because he is the man the men trust and believe in, he's proved himself. As you stated earlier about 'angry attackers' that you were an 'angry attacker' in a demo or two and it really didn't help against one of your instructors. Well, Robert, of course not because the 'uke' always gets beat up! Just like the bad guys in the movies. That statement alone makes one second guess you.
> 
> Perhaps you know this or perhaps you don't, but check this out if you like. Mr. Parker loved teaching police offciers during the formation of AK. They would act an an extension of himself and report back to him what worked and what didn't work, some things were kept, some modified and some thrown out. After all, he couldn't go test his stuff himself by looking for fights and what better way to get a handle on things then to go to the guys that deal with the same people that would attack you or mug you. No special pleading here, it just happens to be the way it is, like it or not.
> 
> You also stated you think I feel nobody elses experience counts! Well, bad assumption on your part and you know what they say about assumptions! If you read my posts in the past you will see that in an attempt to gather more information in reality fighting I have informally interviewed violent offenders that I have come in contact with over the years to pick their brains, from 'sucker punchers' to 'murders', no embellishment here, I could name names if I had too. What better way to find out how they attack, what they actually do, their strategy, their favorite techniques, how they use a knife, etc, etc. So, Robert, I totally respect what everyone has to bring to the table when it comes to my self improvement as a police officer and a teacher, even the criminals!


Excellent post Joe!  You pretty much summed up the reasons I joined the UKF and why I continue to follow Mr. Picks teachings.


----------



## Danjo (Feb 16, 2005)

akja said:
			
		

> A couple of good points. I in no way doubt Larry's skill. I doubt the demonstrated techniques. I more than doubt, I know. I also know that if the technique being demonstrated is only good for those who are as highly skilled as Larry, then the technique is useless to 99.99% of the worlds population.


Exactly right. Unless it can be transmitted effectively to the average student, then it's only good for show. I love watching Cirqu de Solei, but there's no way I would ever attempt that. If one of those guys tried to teach that stuff as a practical exercise for the masses, they'd be laughed at. (Not that what Tatum does is the equivalent of what those guys can do, but you get the point.) BTW, how many eyes etc. has Larry Tatum had to pluck out under real conditions before?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 16, 2005)

1. Well, "Danjo," I don't know. I think ten or eleven, but I'll ask later this afternoon. And yourself?

2. Yep, pretty much what I thought you'd say, Joe. I actually argued that there were a lot of different elephants to see, and suggested that while being a cop certainly gives you lots of honorable experience I don't have, I didn't exactly just fall off the sugar beet truck last night either. Not only does claiming experience that others supposedly don't have remain special pleading, but you might find myself and others a lot more receptive if...oh, never mind. What's the use? You've decided about somebody you've never met, and nothing I could possibly write would cause you to sit down and think that through.

3. Or to put all this another way, I'm acutely aware of my limitations. Are you?


----------



## Danjo (Feb 16, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 1. Well, "Danjo," I don't know. I think ten or eleven, but I'll ask later this afternoon. And yourself?


The answer is none for me. But then...I'm not making that claim for myself. Nor would I claim to be able to pick a fly out of the air with chopsticks. You, on the other hand, are making a direct claim that Tatum could get that eye no matter what. Hence, me asking his "batting average on eyeballs."


----------



## Karazenpo (Feb 16, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 1. Well, "Danjo," I don't know. I think ten or eleven, but I'll ask later this afternoon. And yourself?
> 
> 2. Yep, pretty much what I thought you'd say, Joe. I actually argued that there were a lot of different elephants to see, and suggested that while being a cop certainly gives you lots of honorable experience I don't have, I didn't exactly just fall off the sugar beet truck last night either. Not only does claiming experience that others supposedly don't have remain special pleading, but you might find myself and others a lot more receptive if...oh, never mind. What's the use? You've decided about somebody you've never met, and nothing I could possibly write would cause you to sit down and think that through.
> 
> 3. Or to put all this another way, I'm acutely aware of my limitations. Are you?



Hi Robert. First, I thought you were through with this topic. Second, yes I am aware of your limitations, to quote Inspector Harry Callahan (Dirty Harry): "You're a good man and a good man always knows his limitations'. Just teasing Robert, we all have limitations for it's part of the human condition. Third, yep, pretty much you being a little hypocritical commenting on me using 'cliches' Robert for what is this quote from you I just read on another topic?: "Good poets borrow. Great ones steal." Shakespeare was a great thief. It's all bricolage.  'Cliche' I think!  No Robert, I don't think you just fell off the turnip truck and I do think through what you write and if you go back on other topics you'll see I've validated your viewpoints on certain issues. Look, I'm extending the olive branch, if I have seemed in the past to have got on your case a little it's because sometimes you do come off condescending and I don't mean just to me but to other posters too. Maybe that's just your way and you don't mean anything by it but that's how I and others took it. And hey, before I became a cop, I went to college to be a high school history teacher, go figure, lol. Peace brother, Sincerely "Joe"


----------



## Michael Billings (Feb 16, 2005)

Gentlemen,

 I realize that there is an attempt being made here to remain civil.  Please watch the sarcasm and keep the conversation polite and respectful.  

 -Michael Billings
  -MT Moderator-


----------



## Kenpohermit (Feb 16, 2005)

While one way of dealing with multiple opponents is to line them up or place the one your dominating in front of the other attacker or to step-pivot-turn to face the same direction one of the attackers is facing while dealing with them so that you can see the attacker that is comming from behind. There is a lot of assumption that this placement can always be acheived. Further more it is not always what you want to do. Specially in the case of being in a hurry for example you really would like to get to your cousin who is being stomped by someone but 2 attackers are trying to do the same thing to you, You could play the get them in each other's way game or you could just move in on them so they are nearly the same distance apart then you can deal with both of them at the same time which is faster. Granted it would take more skill to do so effectively. 

The other thing is that while your dealing with one opponent you catch the other in the corner of your eye comming from behind of course if you study American Kenpo you were probably already aware what friends this guy had in the room. So while you were in the middle of your sequential explosion you simply expand a little, perhaps with an eye strike to obscure the leg you have at the same time placed between there legs now if you hit the eye or they flinch back helping to expose that groin either way your set up works just fine. Then you have that concept about the Universal Pattern expanded that can be placed on top of your body (like in Infinite Insights Volume 4) to show you the various paths your strikes can travel now if the opponents have come into range of one of those paths you can launch a single weapon along that path and nail both of them. While I did not see the pictures that you folks have talked about but I have seen pictures of Mr. Tatum dealing with multiple opponents he had them all under control the fact that he was using his upper body and his lower body to deal with multiple opponent bodies at the same time just made it all the more effective in terms of not standing around trying to defend but rather going on the offense before the attackers even get a chance to attack (as it should be) What I am saying is I dont think its impractical at all. 

And now this part is debatable but in my opinion with American Kenpo's speed and multiple striking combinations and aggressive attitude, dealing effectively with 2 opponents at the same time is a very possible reality. Specially for someone past the brown belt level.

Respectfully 
Sami


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Feb 16, 2005)

you can pontificate the virtues of multiple opponent defenses til you're blue in the face. the simple fact is.....it's never cut and dry.
you can have the flashiest hand movements and the explosiveness of a nuclear warhead, but in the end its all position, position, position and the ability to move in an unpredictable manner that confuses your opponents senses.


----------



## Karazenpo (Feb 17, 2005)

BlackCatBonz said:
			
		

> you can pontificate the virtues of multiple opponent defenses til you're blue in the face. the simple fact is.....it's never cut and dry.
> you can have the flashiest hand movements and the explosiveness of a nuclear warhead, but in the end its all position, position, position and the ability to move in an unpredictable manner that confuses your opponents senses.



I like that, Shawn. I tend to agree. "Position", a very good point!


----------



## Kenpohermit (Feb 17, 2005)

I didnt mean to make it sound "cut and dry"  
You talk about position and confusing your opponents. 
I can agree both would be nice if it were so "cut and dry"
but like you point out, it is not cut and dry... 

If you are able to move to such a great position all the time while 
confusing your opponents thats great but then we have the
situations were gaining "position" may not be possible in the moment, 
so which one of us is really making it sound cut and dry the one that 
is telling you things dont always go as we like so we should know how to 
deal in other situations or the one who sums up all multiple opponent situations as a matter of position and confusing opponents. Well here is a thought now that they are confused and your in a great postion, when do you get around to stopping them and possibly saving the life of a friend of yours? (versus simply position, confuse and escape) 

Respectfully
Sami 

PS: I would like to share idea's with you not argue tell I am blue in the face so I apologize in advance if it seems like I am trying to argue with you.


----------



## The Kai (Feb 17, 2005)

The problem is if you have the time to move,or act to confuse opponent, it is to much time and movement.

Position is critical but sometimes you do get stuck twitx a rock and a hard place!


----------



## Karazenpo (Feb 17, 2005)

The Kai said:
			
		

> The problem is if you have the time to move,or act to confuse opponent, it is to much time and movement.
> 
> Position is critical but sometimes you do get stuck twitx a rock and a hard place!



Can't argue that point either, Todd. Sometimes we have to fend from the position we're stuck in! Very true.


----------



## Seabrook (Feb 17, 2005)

Danjo said:
			
		

> The answer is none for me. But then...I'm not making that claim for myself. Nor would I claim to be able to pick a fly out of the air with chopsticks. You, on the other hand, are making a direct claim that Tatum could get that eye no matter what. Hence, me asking his "batting average on eyeballs."


Danjo,

Why in the world are you arguing with Robert about this? Larry Tatum is Kenpo's finest and the point Robert was making, was yes, Larry Tatum is master craftsman at the art, and it wouldn't take him long to catch those eyes with his speed and accuracy. Could he get to them 10 times out of 10? Who knows, but I wouldn't want to find out or volunteer. 

Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com


----------



## GAB (Feb 17, 2005)

Seabrook said:
			
		

> Danjo,
> 
> Why in the world are you arguing with Robert about this? Larry Tatum is Kenpo's finest and the point Robert was making, was yes, Larry Tatum is master craftsman at the art, and it wouldn't take him long to catch those eyes with his speed and accuracy. Could he get to them 10 times out of 10? Who knows, but I wouldn't want to find out or volunteer.
> 
> ...


Hi,

Yes, is that not the truth...

I was just talking about him with a fellow Martial Artist, about who could lead the way for the man on top of the hill regarding EPAK...(because reading your book)...

GM Tatum's name is very high on the list...He went forth and tamed the OX.

Jamie, 

I want to thank you for writing the book I am reading at present, good information...I believe it is something that will help all who like Martial Arts and especially for the EPAK people...Reminds me of a See's candy sampler, good stuff for your "Craftsman toolbox"...

Regards, Gary


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 17, 2005)

The responses are coming in the way I hoped. Thanx. 

I still have a hard time "comsuming" that eyejab. His left foot is forward and left arm reaches across his chest to eyejab the oncoming rear attacker.

The only way I think that could be used is if that was my only option. 

I think he should stepped 1 step to the right with his right foot and tossed his frontal attacker into the rear attacker. He already launched a successful attack on the frontal attacker and his left arm would of been of better use and more effective assissting his right arm (which was nearly in place already) with the toss.


----------



## Seabrook (Feb 17, 2005)

GAB said:
			
		

> Jamie,
> 
> I want to thank you for writing the book I am reading at present, good information...I believe it is something that will help all who like Martial Arts and especially for the EPAK people...Reminds me of a See's candy sampler, good stuff for your "Craftsman toolbox"...
> 
> Regards, Gary


Thanks Gary....looking forward to your feedback upon completion.

Cheers,
Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com


----------



## Seabrook (Feb 17, 2005)

akja said:
			
		

> The responses are coming in the way I hoped. Thanx.
> 
> I still have a hard time "comsuming" that eyejab. His left foot is forward and left arm reaches across his chest to eyejab the oncoming rear attacker.
> 
> ...


I haven't see the article yet but I will take a look the next couple of days when I hit our local Chapters Bookstore. 

The one thing I can say - it's a lot easier to criticize magazine photos than it is to see him move in person. I know I have posed for technique photos before and when I have seen the finished product, I thought - shoot, I could have made that look a lot better than it did. 

Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 17, 2005)

The critique advanced would be equally well applied to the claim that, "he should have tossed his front opponent into the rear opponent."

1. What's the rear attacker doing while all this tossing's going on? Having a soda?

2. I should like to see a guy I work out with who is 6' 9," extremely athletic, and quite advanced in kenpo, blithely "tossed," to the rear. 

My point, in other words, is that the claim of, "more realism," simply reflects a different set of philosophies, NOT simply the way things must be. In fact, the specific option discussed here is far less realistic that the basic kenpo approach of going after both guys pretty much simultaneously, then reassessing the situation.


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 17, 2005)

Seabrook said:
			
		

> I haven't see the article yet but I will take a look the next couple of days when I hit our local Chapters Bookstore.
> 
> The one thing I can say - it's a lot easier to criticize magazine photos than it is to see him move in person. I know I have posed for technique photos before and when I have seen the finished product, I thought - shoot, I could have made that look a lot better than it did.
> 
> ...


I'm NOT criticizing the man. I'm saying the technique in relation with the 2nd (rear) attacker could be better. It's an open discussion. Larry's pictures were exposed to the public and I even achknowledged that I DID NOT read the article, just looked at the pictures.

I


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 17, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> The critique advanced would be equally well applied to the claim that, "he should have tossed his front opponent into the rear opponent."
> 
> 1. What's the rear attacker doing while all this tossing's going on? Having a soda?
> 
> ...



First, Larry and the 2 attackers were close to being the same size. Size is not the issue here.

And since you reverted to what the 2nd attacker is doing "dringking a soda." You backed up my earlier claim. 

*"No real attackers are going to wait and attack separately. The attacker from the rear, in most cases, will be all over the defender while the defender is fighting the front attacker."*

And you are way off base if you think my senario is less realistic *than getting run over while trying to give an almost impossible backward eyejab.*
If they attacked simultaneously, Nobody, not even Larry could pull of that technique. *The pictures clearly shows the eyejab after he deals with the first opponent.* 

And we are discussing those pictures. Please I'm not trying to make an issue of the man, just the techniques demonstrated.

And Mac, please explain yourself better if I'm wrong. You asked me to explain better and I did.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 17, 2005)

Ah, but you said that you'd do something different. Which implied a different scenario. What's more, your whole claim rested on the idea of, "what-if," so, what if the attacker's 6'9" becomes a legitimate question. Nor have you answered the question of why your particular way of avoiding dealing with both attackers is preferable to what you see as somebody else's avoiding dealing with both attackers. What if he doesn't step in neatly as you wish? What if he counters your, "toss?" What if the rear guy doesn't wait?

The magazine gives an illustration of a particular situation. If things change, the response would have to change. But saying that if things were different, what was done to counter something else wouldn't work so the whole thing's invalid seems a little illogical. After all, "tossing," the front attacker won't work if somebody's dropping a piano on your head, so your whole approach is invalid and of course that argument makes no sense.

In brief, you're confusing your different approach with the necessary, correct approach. Could be worse, could be better. But the ONLY approach? Nope.

I realize you won't buy this. But I am telling you that with this particular martial artist, you couldn't be wronger about the eye-poke. 

Nor do I agree that martial arts that take time and effort to learn, and in which some people learn more, are inferior. One counter would be that it is grossly unrealistic to tell people that a couple simple things will save their *** invariably. Among other things, the overwhelming majority of people WILL NOT respond usefully to an attack without training--which is a big part of what training's for. 

You also seem to be pushing the old, "I'd rather have one technique that worked than 154 that don't," argument. I'd respond with an old idea about the complaint that fields like philosophy take what's really very simple and make it obscure, all so academics can have jobs.

Nope. When it's done properly, philosophical language talks about simple things simply, and complex things in a complex language that suits the real complexity of what's being described--sorry, everything is not a ducky and a horsie, and complaining about the complexity of language used to describe the true complexity of the world is like complaining that Einstein used math.

OF COURSE one keeps self-defense as simple as possible. My idea of a really nifty technique? "Hm. That bar has no windows, and 43 motorcycles parked out front. Guess I'll go home and have a beer." My idea of the famous Five Swords in all its complexity? Ball kick the bastard really hard and run away.

Regrettably, things don't always work out so niftily. The basic approach, in kenpo, is to always have someplace to go next. Would eye-poking a rear attacker be the only possible response, or the end of all responses if that didn't work? Of course not.


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 17, 2005)

Ah, but you said that you'd do something different. Which implied a different scenario. What's more, your whole claim rested on the idea of, "what-if," so, what if the attacker's 6'9" becomes a legitimate question. Nor have you answered the question of why your particular way of avoiding dealing with both attackers is preferable to what you see as somebody else's avoiding dealing with both attackers. What if he doesn't step in neatly as you wish? What if he counters your, "toss?" What if the rear guy doesn't wait?

*If the guy was 6'9" then the eyejab would be even MORE out of the question.  :uhyeah:   And what your saying there describes the way I train. I don't know what your talking about stopping neatly. I don't need that. The pictures implied that the rear attack came AFTER the frontal attack. Thats where that came from.*

The magazine gives an illustration of a particular situation. If things change, the response would have to change. But saying that if things were different, what was done to counter something else wouldn't work so the whole thing's invalid seems a little illogical. After all, "tossing," the front attacker won't work if somebody's dropping a piano on your head, so your whole approach is invalid and of course that argument makes no sense.


*Here your just misunderstanding or I'm not coming accross well enough. His right hand is in good position to grab the front attacker and with a SIMPLE step to the right with his right foot he CAN easily put the front attacker in the rear attackers face. BASED on the pictures. And I've stuck as much as possible to the techniques in the pictures, so I AM making sense. You're talking about invalidating a technique because someone can drop a piano. Where did that come from and who is not making sense?  :uhyeah: *


In brief, you're confusing your different approach with the necessary, correct approach. Could be worse, could be better. But the ONLY approach? Nope.


*I never said my approach to "the said senario" was the only approach. Only easier and more realistic.*


*I repeatedly said it was not about the martial artist. It's about the technique. And you said "about what I'm pushing?" You don't have a clue at what I really do and that is making your confusion even worse. Hope I don't piss you off, but I have say it like I see it, as you do too!*


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 17, 2005)

If the pictures implied that the rear attack came later, insofar as you were concerned, then there is little point in trying to step aside and throw the front attacker in the situation that you saw. Among other things, if he's hanging back, he'll see the toss coming. Moreover, if the rear attacker's hanging back, then there's nothing wrong with the eye-poke.

I find the tossing the front guy around quite unrealistic. I also don't think that you're helping your cause by writing, "I never said my approach was...(the only approach)...only easier and more realistic." 

Unless, of course, you're now arguing that what Mr. Parker taught was unnecessarily difficult and largely unrealistic, as opposed to your ideas.

I also note that you chose not to respond to my remarks about complexity in kenpo.


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 17, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> If the pictures implied that the rear attack came later, insofar as you were concerned, then there is little point in trying to step aside and throw the front attacker in the situation that you saw. Among other things, if he's hanging back, he'll see the toss coming. Moreover, if the rear attacker's hanging back, then there's nothing wrong with the eye-poke.
> 
> I find the tossing the front guy around quite unrealistic. I also don't think that you're helping your cause by writing, "I never said my approach was...(the only approach)...only easier and more realistic."
> 
> ...


The 2nd attacker may see the first attacker being swung into him. Yes, can happen. Not a problem. The defender STILL will be in a better position than staying inbetween the 2 attackers. And the eyejab is not a good response. The reach is all wrong. You really have to see the picture.


you said that I said my approach was the one one. I NEVER said that. The complexity of Kenpo is not my game, it's yours and I can't answer it, nor will I try to answer it.

Real fighting involves tossing, throwing, grabbing. Theres nothing unrealistic about that. If you can't see it, you can't see it. But don't say that I said things that I did not say.

I asked for a "Kenpo view" first before I made ANY technical analsys. I didn't open the door for my view, you asked for it. :uhyeah:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 17, 2005)

Ah. Your opinion--and it is an opinion, not a fact--is that kenpo remains fundamentally impractical, unlike realistic arts that emphasize tossing, throwing, grabbing. It's that old song.

Yellow Belt: Of the first ten techniques, 

Delayed Sword: Defense against a right-hand grab/left punch.
Alternating Maces: defense vs. a two-hand push.
Deflecting Hammer: Often taught with take-down as, "extension."
Grasp of Death: Defense against a left-sided sided head-lock. 
Captured Twigs: Defense against a rear bear-hug, arms pinned.
Mace of Aggression: Defense against a two-hand pull from the front.
Sword and Hammer: Defense against a shoulder grab from the right side.

Hey, looka that. Defenses right at the start vs. grabs, locks and pulls on your left side, back side, front, and right side. Right at the start, one gets pulled left, forwards, right. One gets pushed backwards, and yanked forwards. Huh. Wonder why Mr. Parker put THAT in the system? And I even left out the gawdawful, older early technique, Spreading Branches (vs. rear bear-hug), 

Orange belt: Of the first eight techniques,

Clutching Feathers defense vs. hair-grab, and punch.
Triggered Salute: def. vs. right push
Dance of Death: First formal takedown of opponent.
Scraping Hooves: Def. vs. attempted full nelson. Ext. features buckle/takedown.
Gift of Destruction: def. vs. "handshake," pull and accompanying punch.

...and that's just off the top of my head, from memory, in the first two minutes of consideration.

Tossing? Not so much, no. It's probably unrealistic to think that throwing big guys around will work all that well, unless you're an even bigger guy. And what's more, that's the kind of move that encourages mere strength...important, but limited. 

As for the "I never said that," here's what you wrote:

"I never said my approach to "the said senario" was the only approach. Only easier and more realistic."

Loose translation: "You're welcome to do whatever impractical, wacko thing you come up with. Who knows, maybe it'll work. But if you want to really learn how to fight for real..."


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 17, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Ah. Your opinion--and it is an opinion, not a fact--is that kenpo remains fundamentally impractical, unlike realistic arts that emphasize tossing, throwing, grabbing. It's that old song.
> 
> Yellow Belt: Of the first ten techniques,
> 
> ...



Now you're loose translating me.   Stick to the facts. I Have. :uhyeah:

I think you're going over the deep end on this. I didn't say my technique couldn't be countered. Where are you dreaming this stuff up from???

*OFFENSE IS DEFENSE AND DEFENSE IS OFFENSE.*


----------



## John Bishop (Feb 17, 2005)

Still pictures are very seldom a good indication of the effectiveness of a technique.  This is especially true concerning magazine articles.
Having written 67 magazine articles, I can tell you that "space" is more important to the magazine then the accurate illustration of the technique.
In other words you may shoot a technique in 8-10 photos, and then the edited article and photos go to a "art director" (who's probably not a martial artist).  His job is to make it all fit into the "space" alloted for the article.  
In other words, he/she will throw out pictures that don't fit into the "space".  So your technique which looked good in 10 pictures, is now illustrated with 6 pictures.  
So if you took one of your techniques, and left out 2/3 moves, what would it look like?


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Feb 17, 2005)

i still stick by positioning and unpredictable movement..........if you're in a bad position you use unpredictable movement to get in a good one....if you're in a good one, use unpredictable movement to defeat them.


----------



## Karazenpo (Feb 17, 2005)

akja (Jim) stated: "Real fighting involves tossing, throwing, grabbing. Theres nothing unrealistic about that".

I say: I'm sorry, I don't care who disagrees with me on this one but nearly three decades dealing with violence, Jim is RIGHT!


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 17, 2005)

I'm afraid that I really can't give a seminar on how to read good in this forum.

However, one of the basics of good reading is that there is a surface meaning, and a, "depth," a set of implications and connections in every text.

On the surface, "akja," has repeatedly used phrases such as, "the eyejab is not a good response. The reach is all wrong," as well as insisting that, "my approach to "the said senario" was...easier and more realistic."  It is difficult to see how to read this as something other than a statement that a) this particular practice, b) a rather good kenpoist's way of responding to a particular attack, are unrealistic, more-difficult, and--your word--"wrong." Please explain what you actually meant.

As for the "depth," well, your explicit statement was, "Real fighting involves tossing, throwing, grabbing," as opposed to what you thought you saw in the demonstrated kenpo. I do not see how it's that much of a leap to conclude that you consider kenpo generally unrealistic because of its lack of education in tossing, throwing, and grabbing.

To return to the same technique list:

At yellow belt, the attacker/"uke," learns:

1. How to grab an opponent by the lapel or shoulder/how to push them (Delayed Sword)
2. How to deliver a good two-hand push (Alt. Maces)
3. An optional basic takedown (Deflecting Hammer)
4. How to do a basic headlock (Grasp of Death)
5. How to do a decent bear-hug (Captured Twigs)...

..and so on and so forth.

I'm certainly not arguing that I can defeat everybody because I Do Kenpo. That would be extremely silly, given that there are always at least three or four guys at the studio who can walk right through me, I've worked out with more than three guys from other styles who can walk right through me...and to really ice the cake, I live in So Cal, where (despite the fact that as what's 'is name wrote, "California is to martial arts as garlic is to vampires,") I can certainly get my head stuffed somewhere unpleasant in all sorts of different venues. (Hell, they're still letting that Gene Le Bell guy run around loose....aaack.)

What I am indeed saying is that a) you're mistaken in running down what you saw in the magazine; b) there's plenty of what you consider to be realism in well-taught kenpo.


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Feb 17, 2005)

Karazenpo said:
			
		

> akja (Jim) stated: "Real fighting involves tossing, throwing, grabbing. Theres nothing unrealistic about that".
> 
> I say: I'm sorry, I don't care who disagrees with me on this one but nearly three decades dealing with violence, Jim is RIGHT!


i agree!


----------



## Karazenpo (Feb 17, 2005)

BlackCatBonz said:
			
		

> i agree!



Thanks, Shawn!


----------



## MJS (Feb 17, 2005)

I'd like to address a few things.

First off, lets try to tone it down just a little so as to avoid having this thread locked.

Second, Mr. Bishop brought up some very good points in his post.  Anytime we are looking at a picture, its going to be difficult to grasp exactly whats being done.  There have been many times I've looked at tech. pics and have been lost as to how they're getting from move to move.  

Third, we can sit here and beat this to death, but the fact remains that there are many different ways to approach this subect.  Does this mean that Tatum is wrong? No.  Does this mean that Prof. Joe and Akja are wrong? No.  We are facing a situation where we can't possibly predict whats going to happen, therefore, there really is no cut and dry answer to the problem.  What works for one, may not work for another.  I have not seen the pics. in question, so I can't give my input to that, only on what I'm reading here.

Again, lets try to mellow out a little and get back to some friendly discussion.

Mike


----------



## GAB (Feb 18, 2005)

Hi All,

I believe we are not taking into account the spontaneous or conceptualization of the various moves that come off of one movement to another... 

Oops, I missed that therefore I will do this and then react to his reaction..or follow through with a second strike and a third or not...

Or shifting in a car you are going for third but you got 5th so now you have to get back to 4th...You might have to go into an evasive action to gain the control for an attack, or let them break away or come in to your head as you are coming up from a bent leg position and straighting to comb your hair and strike with an elbow...Then drop down with a hammer fist and break the collar bone...

Continuous motion and striking, you dont see that in stills, sometimes you dont see it in videos unless you slow down and watch carefully....

Like John Bishop said you remove some movement just fill in with visualization and calm calculated determination to destroy what is closest to you..

Like in the Last Samuri movie. Mushin, no mind, calm... It slows down and you think you are moving very slow but you are not..It is the way for the mind to keep away the fear that can deprive you of what you have to do.

Fight or flight is always present, training is the only way to overcome the fear and apprehension that causes the chemical release that is a biological function. Calm before the storm, when it is over you can think about it time and again...

What did you do champ? I saw my opening, I took it he dropped his hand for a split second and I went over it and knocked him out...I pictured it in my mind two rounds ago...

Regards, Gary

PS, look at it like a drill don't nit pick it just train and you will see what it does and does not do....


----------



## The Kai (Feb 18, 2005)

I think Mr bishop had a good point, magazines will always cut up your offerings, also standing between two attackers has more "zip" than angling off.

_What did you do champ? I saw my opening, I took it he dropped his hand for a split second and I went over it and knocked him out...I pictured it in my mind two rounds ago...
_
Is this a real quote ?


----------



## Seabrook (Feb 18, 2005)

John Bishop said:
			
		

> Still pictures are very seldom a good indication of the effectiveness of a technique. This is especially true concerning magazine articles.
> Having written 67 magazine articles, I can tell you that "space" is more important to the magazine then the accurate illustration of the technique.
> In other words you may shoot a technique in 8-10 photos, and then the edited article and photos go to a "art director" (who's probably not a martial artist). His job is to make it all fit into the "space" alloted for the article.
> In other words, he/she will throw out pictures that don't fit into the "space". So your technique which looked good in 10 pictures, is now illustrated with 6 pictures.
> So if you took one of your techniques, and left out 2/3 moves, what would it look like?


Exactly my point Mr. Bishop...well put.

Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com


----------



## Karazenpo (Feb 18, 2005)

First off, I'd like to say everyone, Robert, Jim, John, Mike, Shawn, Jamie...have all made some great points, I think that goes without saying. In defense of Jim, he is not questioning Mr. Tatum's abilities whatsoever, who would? Larry Tatum is one of the seniors who has proved himself many times over, that too should go without saying. I did not see the photo shoot so I stay reserved on most of this discussion except for one issue. 'Absolutes'......there aren't any. I have seen a bank robbery video of an off duty police officer and the suspect exchanging gun fire from something  like three feet away and missing each other. The cop qualified expert at the range, go figure! I'm sure some of the LEO's on this forum recall the incident. That's why, years ago, more emphasis was put in on close range 'point' firing rather than using the 'sights' at distance. Stress factors are amazing in life/death situations. Perceptions become distorted. Time and movement can appear to slow down (which can actually help you), objects and people can appear farther way, rooms or areas appear bigger, it's weird! So my point is no matter who you are or how good you are I just don't count on anything 100 per cent, I always keep in the back of my mind something can go wrong. Who the heck ever though Buster Douglas would have knocked out Mike Tyson that year? Expect the unexpected.

As far as having someone behind you is not a good position, well, of course it's not but like Robert and others stated, sometimes you may have no choice. First rule of officer survival is to have your stance set so your firearm is at your rear side farthest away from your opponent and not to ever have anyone behind you. Well, try doing that in a crowded bar on a disturbance call or a party. It can't be reasonably done and you have to learn to protect and defend from the position your in, not the position you would like to be in. Just my thoughts. Great discussion. True also, mag photos can't show everything, just one possible scenerio. With respect, Prof. Joe


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 18, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I'm afraid that I really can't give a seminar on how to read good in this forum.
> 
> However, one of the basics of good reading is that there is a surface meaning, and a, "depth," a set of implications and connections in every text.
> 
> ...



First. I DO NOT think Kenpo is unrealistic or weak or anything of the sort. I am very close to my wifes uncle. We share long martial conversations. He was first a student of Ralph Castellano and received his first colored belt from Mr. Parker at Castellonos school. He received his black belt in 1970 from Ray Sabega (may have spelled that one wrong maybe Zabega). He to this day still trains with his instructor Ray Sabega.

But what they did is something what "most" people in most arts, including Kenpo don't do. They truely thought "out of the box." And they have they're own method. They both trained in Inayan Eskrima under Suro Mike Inay and "shortened and refined" "all" of their art and what they have today is truely their own.

I have NO REASON to dismiss Kenpo any other art, just some of they're close minded practioners. Thats my right. We all have rights. 

*Please I hope your not implying that a yellow belt is ready for reality self defense. * 

The truth is Kenpo is more realistic than most arts out there but an art is only as good as it's practioners. All I wanted was discussion, not a fight. If feelings are hurt, then I'm sorry.

I think John was on the money about the article.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 18, 2005)

I think that this is about as good a place as there's going to be for me to say that I've made the points I wished to make and to thank you for the conversation.


----------

