# Kempo/Kenpo techniques



## Monkey Turned Wolf (May 17, 2019)

Rather than derail headhunter's thread further, but to explain the difference between what kempo/kenpo considers a technique versus a boxing straight punch as @Rat compared it to, I figured I would post a few videos of kempo/kenpo techniques from different styles. All of them should be brown belt level techniques, to show some moderately advanced ones, before they get ridiculous.

This one is from american kenpo: 




This one is from Shaolin Kempo Karate: 




This one is from Tracy Kenpo:


----------



## Headhunter (May 18, 2019)

The first 2 videos are the same one


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (May 18, 2019)

Headhunter said:


> The first 2 videos are the same one


Oops, thanks for the catch. This is the one I meant to link for American Kenpo:


----------



## skribs (May 18, 2019)

I would call these "combinations" or "drills" instead of "techniques".  I also don't see why these can't be taught in a slightly different way that doesn't use someone else's curriculum.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (May 18, 2019)

skribs said:


> I would call these "combinations" or "drills" instead of "techniques".  I also don't see why these can't be taught in a slightly different way that doesn't use someone else's curriculum.


You can, and it's been done a bunch of time. But you would have to change anywhere from 50 to over a hundred techniques for that, while ensuring that you still have all the different principles being taught in them. It's a lot of work when there's already a full system of sets in place that teaches them.

It would be the equivalent of saying "I don't see why you can't just change all the forms slightly so you aren't using someone else's curriculum." You'd have to do it in a way that keeps all the purposes of the forms while making them not appear to be the same...why bother doing all of that just to teach what you're already teaching?


----------



## Flying Crane (May 18, 2019)

skribs said:


> I would call these "combinations" or "drills" instead of "techniques".  I also don't see why these can't be taught in a slightly different way that doesn't use someone else's curriculum.


Yeah, I think there tends to be a difference between “techniques” which would be the most basic such as a front kick or a knife hand, as opposed to a “self defense technique” which are these choreographed scenarios with an attacker and a defender. But the “self defense techniques” tend to get shortened to just “techniques”.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (May 18, 2019)

Kempos just been one of those things, not really common where i am.  (at least past someone just putting kempo in their school/style name)

I take it they are meant to do a fair amount of sparring?  

i would also think it would be pretty fun to try their stick defence against a FMA person.  Like reverse it kind of, try it against someone who has started with a weapon.  I generally think trying any weapon defence against people who train to use it would be pretty fun.


----------



## skribs (May 18, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> Yeah, I think there tends to be a difference between “techniques” which would be the most basic such as a front kick or a knife hand, as opposed to a “self defense technique” which are these choreographed scenarios with an attacker and a defender. But the “self defense techniques” tend to get shortened to just “techniques”.



Which is why another word, like "drill" sounds more accurate to me.



kempodisciple said:


> It would be the equivalent of saying "I don't see why you can't just change all the forms slightly so you aren't using someone else's curriculum." You'd have to do it in a way that keeps all the purposes of the forms while making them not appear to be the same...why bother doing all of that just to teach what you're already teaching?



I also don't see the problem with this.  I mean, look at Taekwondo, Tang Soo Do, and Shotokan Karate forms.


----------



## CB Jones (May 18, 2019)

@kempodisciple 

I see....we dont refer to those as techniques.  We refer to those as one step drills or self defense drills.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 18, 2019)

skribs said:


> Which is why another word, like "drill" sounds more accurate to me.
> 
> 
> 
> I also don't see the problem with this.  I mean, look at Taekwondo, Tang Soo Do, and Shotokan Karate forms.


Yeah, it’s just vocabulary.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (May 18, 2019)

skribs said:


> Which is why another word, like "drill" sounds more accurate to me.


Yup, i realized that. Which is why i made this post to show the difference in terms between arts


----------



## drop bear (May 18, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> You can, and it's been done a bunch of time. But you would have to change anywhere from 50 to over a hundred techniques for that, while ensuring that you still have all the different principles being taught in them. It's a lot of work when there's already a full system of sets in place that teaches them.
> 
> It would be the equivalent of saying "I don't see why you can't just change all the forms slightly so you aren't using someone else's curriculum." You'd have to do it in a way that keeps all the purposes of the forms while making them not appear to be the same...why bother doing all of that just to teach what you're already teaching?



Which happens anyway as people start to move around.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 18, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


>


Your opponent throws 1 punch. You counter with 5 moves while he is still frozen in his punch. Is this realistic? In the normal situation, if you make 1 move, your opponent will respond with 1 move. When you make your 2nd move, he will respond with your 2nd move.

Unless you are 5 times faster than your opponent, this kind of training is not realistic IMO.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (May 18, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Your opponent throws 1 punch. You counter with 5 moves while he is still frozen in his punch. Is this realistic? In the normal situation, if you make 1 move, your opponent will respond with 1 move. When you make your 2nd move, he will respond with your 2nd move.
> 
> Unless you are 5 times faster than your opponent, this kind of training is not realistic IMO.


There's different purposes to the techs beyond just countering with five different moves, which I honestly don't care to get into at the moment. Maybe in a few days I'll be up for it.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 18, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> There's different purposes to the techs beyond just countering with five different moves, which I honestly don't care to get into at the moment. Maybe in a few days I'll be up for it.


You can train your partner drill in 2 ways:

1. Your opponent attack you, you counter.
2. You attack your opponent, he responds, you counter to his respond.

I don't like 1. But most MA schools use this approach. You throw a slow punch. I use 5 fast moves to counter it. This will make me to look fast. Also I don't like my training have to depend on "you punch first".

I prefer 2 > 1. If you attack fast and your opponent also responds fast, you have to respond fast to his fast respond. This kind of training will be closer to the combat speed. Also in this kind of training, you will never see your opponent just freezes in the air.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 18, 2019)

This drill training is more realistic. You kick me. I block it. I kick you. You block it. We assume that you and I have the same speed.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 18, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Your opponent throws 1 punch. You counter with 5 moves while he is still frozen in his punch. Is this realistic? In the normal situation, if you make 1 move, your opponent will respond with 1 move. When you make your 2nd move, he will respond with your 2nd move.
> 
> Unless you are 5 times faster than your opponent, this kind of training is not realistic IMO.


These things are open for criticism on many levels and as I’ve said, I realized this approach is a poor match for me.

There are plenty of people who like it and feel that it works well for them.  I guess that’s one of the beautiful things about the martial arts.  There are many methods with many different approaches to training.  Something to fit for nearly everyone.

Just because you or I may not like something does not mean it is bad for everyone.  There is a whole lot of subjectivity in this stuff.

Good advice for everyone:  find the best teacher and best method that you can.  Do that method.  If you ever find a method that you feel is better, then do that.


----------



## CB Jones (May 18, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Your opponent throws 1 punch. You counter with 5 moves while he is still frozen in his punch. Is this realistic? In the normal situation, if you make 1 move, your opponent will respond with 1 move. When you make your 2nd move, he will respond with your 2nd move.
> 
> Unless you are 5 times faster than your opponent, this kind of training is not realistic IMO.



They are not intended to be realistic.

They are a drill.  They teach you how to flow from technique to technique and help you build speed and smoothness from technique to technique.

They also help you understand what techniques flow good together.

You get realistic training in the form of live sparring.


----------



## Star Dragon (May 18, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> Yeah, I think there tends to be a difference between “techniques” which would be the most basic such as a front kick or a knife hand, as opposed to a “self defense technique” which are these choreographed scenarios with an attacker and a defender. But the “self defense techniques” tend to get shortened to just “techniques”.



In Kenpo, we call '(self-defence) techniques' what other arts may refer to as '(self-defence) sequences' or combinations. Some Japanese arts use the term 'waza' here.

Whereas the 'techniques' of other arts are 'basics' to us ('kihon' in certain Japanese styles).

It's really all just a matter of differences in terminology.


----------



## Star Dragon (May 18, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> You can, and it's been done a bunch of time. But you would have to change anywhere from 50 to over a hundred techniques for that, while ensuring that you still have all the different principles being taught in them. It's a lot of work when there's already a full system of sets in place that teaches them.
> 
> It would be the equivalent of saying "I don't see why you can't just change all the forms slightly so you aren't using someone else's curriculum." You'd have to do it in a way that keeps all the purposes of the forms while making them not appear to be the same...why bother doing all of that just to teach what you're already teaching?



No need to change the content of the curriculum. As far as I know, altering the names by which you call things would suffice to nullify any copyright claims.


----------



## Star Dragon (May 18, 2019)

Rat said:


> Kempos just been one of those things, not really common where i am.  (at least past someone just putting kempo in their school/style name)
> 
> I take it they are meant to do a fair amount of sparring?
> 
> i would also think it would be pretty fun to try their stick defence against a FMA person.  Like reverse it kind of, try it against someone who has started with a weapon.  I generally think trying any weapon defence against people who train to use it would be pretty fun.



I basically agree.

However, and just talking about Parker style Kenpo here, some people like to critisize  its club defences, saying they would not work against an experienced FMA practitioner. However, those folks frequently forget to take the difference between a _stick_ and a _club_ into consideration.

The EPAK* system's 'storm techniques' are designed for club attacks, not for stick attacks, which would require a different approach. The former weapon being heavier and therefore less flexible in application, which means attacks with them tend to require more commitment. Perhaps think of how one would be swinging a baseball bat...

*EPAK = Ed Parker Kenpo


----------



## CB Jones (May 18, 2019)

Star Dragon said:


> No need to change the content of the curriculum. As far as I know, altering the names by which you call things would suffice to nullify any copyright claims.



Altering the names within a copyrighted curriculum would still be copyright infringement.


----------



## Headhunter (May 18, 2019)

Rat said:


> Kempos just been one of those things, not really common where i am.  (at least past someone just putting kempo in their school/style name)
> 
> I take it they are meant to do a fair amount of sparring?
> 
> i would also think it would be pretty fun to try their stick defence against a FMA person.  Like reverse it kind of, try it against someone who has started with a weapon.  I generally think trying any weapon defence against people who train to use it would be pretty fun.


The kenpo club techniques aren't made to fight stick fighters they're about idiots swinging a club wildly at your head. Because it's far more likely that'll happen to you than an expert stick fighter attacking you


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 18, 2019)

CB Jones said:


> They are a drill.  They teach you how to flow from technique to technique ...


The issue is what technique that you are going to flow into depends on your opponent's respond. By using your approach, since your opponent does not respond, you don't know what technique to flow into.

One of my favor drill is to use downward parry on my opponent's boxing guard.

- 25% of the chance that he will resist (force against force).
- 75% of the chance that he will borrow my force and hook punch or hay-maker on my head (borrow my force).

Since I'm ready to respond to both of his responds (in training), I can be 1 step ahead of him (in fighting).

When I make 1 move, my opponent will respond with 1 move. I can then take advantage on his respond. This way I can train a much more realistic combo. I want my opponent to respond. I don't want him to freeze.

A good training partner can help me to develop good timing. It makes no sense for my training partner to act like my striking dummy.


----------



## Buka (May 18, 2019)

I don't see how anyone could copyright a Martial Arts technique.

I'd love to see a judge's face if that case came before him.


----------



## Star Dragon (May 18, 2019)

skribs said:


> Which is why another word, like "drill" sounds more accurate to me.



The drills that I am familiar with tend to be shorter and more stationary than your typical Kenpo technique. Also, there is often a direct back and forth (for instance, after I have blocked your attack, my counter punch becomes the attack that in turn triggers your defence sequence).

Surely you can (and actually should) take parts of Kenpo self-defence techniques (sequences) and drill them in isolation.

Bear in mind that the SD techniques are designed as textbook examples of how various basics may be combined and applied. They are not meant as prescriptions of how to handle a given situation best, which depends on so many factors that require a more flexible approach.

Virtually every case of real-life application of a Kenpo technique I heard about included some adaptation to given circumstances.



> I also don't see the problem with this.  I mean, look at Taekwondo, Tang Soo Do, and Shotokan Karate forms.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 18, 2019)

CB Jones said:


> They are a drill.  They teach you how to flow from technique to technique ...


Here is another example. When you sweep your opponent's leading leg, he can

1. escape your sweep - bend his leg and let your sweeping leg to go under it.
2. force against force - turn his shin bone into your sweep.

Your respond to your opponent's respond will be different between 1 and 2. In other words, you don't know which technique that you will flow into. It will depend on your opponent's respond.

If I make 1 move and you freeze, how do I know which move that I should flow into?


----------



## Star Dragon (May 18, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The issue is what technique that you are going to flow into depends on your opponent's respond. By using your approach, since your opponent does not respond, you don't know what technique to flow into.
> 
> One of my favor drill is to use downward parry on my opponent's boxing guard.
> 
> ...



Unlike a striking dummy (such as a BOB), a good training partner will mimick the effects that your moves might have on them. The sequences were designed taking the adversary's involuntary reactions into account; we call that 'body manipulation'.

After practising what we call the 'ideal phase' follows the 'what if' stage,  where we explore various possible follow-ups on the adversary's side as well as other variables.

Eventually, we (hopefully) advance to the 'formulation' stage, where there are no more preset techniques, as we have learned to react to any situation effectively and spontaneously.

However, we also practise defences against  combination attacks right from the onset.


----------



## CB Jones (May 18, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The issue is what technique that you are going to flow into depends on your opponent's respond. By using your approach, since your opponent does not respond, you don't know what technique to flow into.



Again it's not a drill where you are working on your response to your opponent. 

When you punch a heavy bag....do you hit it once and then stand there and wait for it response?

And you dont have to wait for a response from your opponent....you can throw specific combinations.  You see this often in full contact fighting...specific drilled combinations.....just like hitting a bag.

For example....one combination my son likes is backhand to head...reverse punch to body...front roundhouse kick to head...and exit.

He doesnt need a que to start the next technique in the combination...it flows naturally....as one technique is retracting... the next is being thrown.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 18, 2019)

CB Jones said:


> For example....one combination my son likes is backhand to head...reverse punch to body...front roundhouse kick to head...and exit.
> 
> He doesnt need a que to start the next technique in the combination...it flows naturally....as one technique is retracting... the next is being thrown.


You don't need training partner to train pre-defined drills. You can train solo and still get the same benefit such as

- jab, cross combo,
- roundhouse kick, side kick combo,
- side kick, spin back fist combo,
- ...

The benefit of partner training is your opponent can

- escape your attack so you can take advantage on his stepping back (train your chasing footwork).
- block your attack so you can take advantage on his blocking (train your grab, arm wrap, pull, ...).

For example, if your opponent blocks your punch, you can grab his blocking arm, pull his arm, you then punch with your other hand. If your opponent just freezes and doesn't evet block your punch, how can you practice your grab, pull, and ...?


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (May 18, 2019)

Headhunter said:


> The kenpo club techniques aren't made to fight stick fighters they're about idiots swinging a club wildly at your head. Because it's far more likely that'll happen to you than an expert stick fighter attacking you



In fairness, FMA is growing more popular in some places and then we have HEMA being resurrected in some areas.Im not entirely sure how well a fencer would yield a stick or a club though, but thats been a pretty big English institution and in some European countries.    Kendos pretty popular, they are the only couple of official styles i know which do weapons, other than training organizations which have weapons courses, kind of like shiv works and all those shooting places in the U.S.  Or job specific training like police, security, corrections soldiers for public order duties etc.

I generally would like to learn to use weapons as part of martial training and not just focus on disarms, it gives you a appreciation for them, and a ability to use them if the person drops them or someone else gets involved etc.    If you appreciate how to use it, you could develop a plan to deal with someone suing it against you better. 


Kind of off topic or not really related to the point, but i think i could have beaten some of the terrible knife defence i was witness to by mimicking a "stance" i saw in a book for how to hold it.


----------



## skribs (May 18, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You can train your partner drill in 2 ways:
> 
> 1. Your opponent attack you, you counter.
> 2. You attack your opponent, he responds, you counter to his respond.
> ...



I find that in most situations, when you score a hit on your opponent or you grab their arm, they will freeze.  It's like that MMA fighter vs. Traditional Grand Master fight, where the TMA guy does very well for the first 5 seconds of the fight, but as soon as he gets hit once the fight is over.

How it typically works for me if someone throws a slew of punches, is I'll block several punches and then as soon as I can do something to upset their combo, I have control, and they're on the defensive.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 19, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> You can, and it's been done a bunch of time. But you would have to change anywhere from 50 to over a hundred techniques for that, while ensuring that you still have all the different principles being taught in them. It's a lot of work when there's already a full system of sets in place that teaches them.
> 
> It would be the equivalent of saying "I don't see why you can't just change all the forms slightly so you aren't using someone else's curriculum." You'd have to do it in a way that keeps all the purposes of the forms while making them not appear to be the same...why bother doing all of that just to teach what you're already teaching?


Those function as forms, from what I understand. My stance on forms is that they are useful, but not necessary. Kempo could be taught without using any of those - teaching the transitions and techniques (using the common definition, rather than the Kempo definition). It would seem to long-time practitioners as "not Kempo", because those Techniques (using the Kempo definition) are how they most easily recognize the art), but the end result would still be Kempo. 

Would that be worth the effort? I don't know. I strongly considered ditching the Classical forms of the Techniques in NGA when I created my curriculum. I'm used to them, so kept them, but I did change about half of them (almost 25 of the 50) substantially enough that most NGA instructors would think it came from a different style. If the changes are driven by an effort to improve, they're likely not as difficult to make as it would seem.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 19, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> Yeah, I think there tends to be a difference between “techniques” which would be the most basic such as a front kick or a knife hand, as opposed to a “self defense technique” which are these choreographed scenarios with an attacker and a defender. But the “self defense techniques” tend to get shortened to just “techniques”.


I tend to talk about Techniques (where there's a style/art-specific usage of that term) vs. techniques (the common usage of the term). Of course, in speech, we can't see whether the T is capitalized or not.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 19, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Your opponent throws 1 punch. You counter with 5 moves while he is still frozen in his punch. Is this realistic? In the normal situation, if you make 1 move, your opponent will respond with 1 move. When you make your 2nd move, he will respond with your 2nd move.
> 
> Unless you are 5 times faster than your opponent, this kind of training is not realistic IMO.


It's like boxing drills using focus mitts. They're training combinations and transitions, and the other guy is just serving as a target. There are situations where those combinations could occur in exactly that sequence, if the opponent moves for an attack that creates that exact opening. It's unlikely, but then any specific combination is unlikely if we look just at the statistics. But a boxer who practices jab-jab-cross-duck-uppercut doesn't need to see that exact combination. He's practicing jab-jab, jab-cross, cross-duck, and duck-uppercut...just putting them all together to work on flow. Any of those two-step combinations are more likely to happen.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 19, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You can train your partner drill in 2 ways:
> 
> 1. Your opponent attack you, you counter.
> 2. You attack your opponent, he responds, you counter to his respond.
> ...


The problem with #1 is mostly in how people use and understand it. The heavy bag doesn't fight back, either, but we all understand the utility of that tool. If I do 5 moves in response to one from a person, they're just a more interesting heavy bag. There's only an issue if I think I should actually be able to get in those 5 moves before he responds.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 19, 2019)

Star Dragon said:


> I basically agree.
> 
> However, and just talking about Parker style Kenpo here, some people like to critisize  its club defences, saying they would not work against an experienced FMA practitioner. However, those folks frequently forget to take the difference between a _stick_ and a _club_ into consideration.
> 
> ...


I'll even go further and say there's a distinction between learning some basic defenses that will work against a gumby with a stick, versus learning what will work against an experience stick fighter. I don't claim to teach the latter, because that takes more time than I'm willing to devote in my training and curriculum. I teach the former, and consider that sufficient. My "club defenses" cover both stick (I use rattan a lot in training) and club (I have several heavy MP batons and occasionally bring in things like baseball bats to work with).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 19, 2019)

CB Jones said:


> Altering the names within a copyrighted curriculum would still be copyright infringement.


Agreed, assuming the copyright (I suppose that's what it would be, and not a patent) covers the process, not the name. In fact, the names are probably harder to copyright/trademark than the process.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 19, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The issue is what technique that you are going to flow into depends on your opponent's respond. By using your approach, since your opponent does not respond, you don't know what technique to flow into.
> 
> One of my favor drill is to use downward parry on my opponent's boxing guard.
> 
> ...


It's training muscle memory. We all do this, in every art, style, and approach I've ever seen. Some of the training simply doesn't involve responding to a partner, because we know what comes next. Any time we're training combinations, that's what we're doing. Sometimes we get the other person to provide input, but we still know what the next move is, and aren't actually responding to their movement in the drill. I agree it's preferable if we add in those inputs to give a chance to learn to recognize that pattern of movement coming at us, but think of working focus mitts - there's no real input (fighter blocking, slipping, throwing punches) to learn from there, either. Yet it works quite well.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 19, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Here is another example. When you sweep your opponent's leading leg, he can
> 
> 1. escape your sweep - bend his leg and let your sweeping leg to go under it.
> 2. force against force - turn his shin bone into your sweep.
> ...


So you practice both combinations, and others that are common. That's what drills are for.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 19, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You don't need training partner to train pre-defined drills. You can train solo and still get the same benefit such as
> 
> - jab, cross combo,
> - roundhouse kick, side kick combo,
> ...


You're right - you don't need one. But there's also no specific harm in having one.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (May 19, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> This one is from Tracy Kenpo:





Star Dragon said:


> I basically agree.
> 
> However, and just talking about Parker style Kenpo here, some people like to critisize  its club defences, saying they would not work against an experienced FMA practitioner. However, those folks frequently forget to take the difference between a _stick_ and a _club_ into consideration.
> 
> ...



I have no problem with practicing techniques against an unskilled stick/club attack, but this has a glaring problem regardless.

Look at the range. If the defender stood perfectly still and did nothing, the attacker would not actually hit him with the stick. It would be her wrist coming down on his head. Best case scenario, maybe it would be the butt of the stick making contact, but no one, trained or not, uses a stick that way. Having a club gives you range, You don't hold a stick and then step forward with a straight arm hammerfist attack that ignores the entire length of the stick.

I don't know why this practice is so endemic among kenpo schools. I searched YouTube for "kenpo club defense" and 70% of the results had the same thing. In some cases it would actually have been the attackers forearm impacting rather than the weapon. I did eventually find a few examples where it would be the weapon making contact, but even then the point of impact would have been along the 1/3 of the weapon closest to the grip rather than near the end of the club. Even an untrained person can usually figure out that is less than ideal.

In my opinion, understanding distance is one of the most important aspects of fighting skill. Training with drastically incorrect distancing is counterproductive, especially when it's never acknowledged and the participants don't even seem to be aware of it.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 19, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> But a boxer who practices jab-jab-cross-duck-uppercut doesn't need to see that exact combination. He's practicing jab-jab, jab-cross, cross-duck, and duck-uppercut...just putting them all together to work on flow.


For boxer, a punch is just a punch. For non-boxer, a punch can be a punch followed by a grab and pull. if your opponent doesn't block your punch, your grab and pull will not work.

I have many Kempo friends. The block, grab, pull and punch back with another hand do exist in their system.

If you do care about the striking art and wrestling art integration, the grab and pull is a must.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 19, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> If I do 5 moves in response to one from a person, they're just a more interesting heavy bag.


A training partner should function more than a heavy bag.

For example, the following training cannot be done if your opponent just stands there and does nothing.

- You punch.
- I block with one hand and back fist with another hand.
- You block.
- I re-block your block and change my back fist into hook punch.
- You block.
- I re-block your block and ...


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 19, 2019)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I have no problem with practicing techniques against an unskilled stick/club attack, but this has a glaring problem regardless.
> 
> Look at the range. If the defender stood perfectly still and did nothing, the attacker would not actually hit him with the stick. It would be her wrist coming down on his head. Best case scenario, maybe it would be the butt of the stick making contact, but no one, trained or not, uses a stick that way. Having a club gives you range, You don't hold a stick and then step forward with a straight arm hammerfist attack that ignores the entire length of the stick.
> 
> ...


I think this happens a lot in arts training against something they don't teach. I see it with roundhouse punches in NGA schools that don't teach a round punch. I teach round punches (roundhouse, hook, etc.) as part of my curriculum, so students tend to give better punches when they are the "attacker". I teach some stick work, so students tend to give better stick attacks than at schools that don't teach how to use it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 19, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> For boxer, a punch is just a punch. For non-boxer, a punch can be a punch followed by a grab and pull. if your opponent doesn't block your punch, your grab and pull will not work.
> 
> I have many Kempo friends. The block, grab, pull and punch back with another hand do exist in their system.
> 
> If you do care about the striking art and wrestling art integration, the grab and pull is a must.


All of that is true. And they have drills that work that combination. My point is that those drills don't mean they can't do something else - it's just a drill like any combination drill.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 19, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> A training partner should function more than a heavy bag.


Why?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 19, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> All of that is true. And they have drills that work that combination. My point is that those drills don't mean they can't do something else - it's just a drill like any combination drill.


We can only discuss a clip that has been put up in the forum. We can't discuss any clip that we don't see.

Since the Kempo Karate has strong influence from the CMA, the block, grab, pull, and punch back with another hand is in their DNA.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 19, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Why?


I may pay somebody $20 per hour to be my training partner. I don't have to pay a striking dummy.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 19, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> We can only discuss a clip that has been put up in the forum. We can't discuss any clip that we don't see.
> 
> Since the Kempo Karate has strong influence from the CMA, the block, grab, pull, and punch back with another hand is in their DNA.


Okay.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 19, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I may pay somebody $20 per hour to be my training partner. I don't have to pay a striking dummy.


I've never paid anyone to be my training partner.

Sometimes, all I need is someone I can move around to try things on. BOB isn't great for that, though he can serve if I don't need any movement. The only way I can get real limbs to work with is a training partner. Everyone has some drills where the training partner is mostly passive, so far as I can tell.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 19, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I've never paid anyone to be my training partner.
> 
> Sometimes, all I need is someone I can move around to try things on. BOB isn't great for that, though he can serve if I don't need any movement. The only way I can get real limbs to work with is a training partner. Everyone has some drills where the training partner is mostly passive, so far as I can tell.


Usually if you throw your training partner 100 times, you will let your training partner to throw you 100 times. One day when you are 80 years old and your body just can't afford to be thrown 100 times on the ground, you may have to pay someone in order to continue your training.

When you run your shin bone inside of your opponent's leading leg, when he steps back, you can sweep his other leg. This will require that your opponent to step back.

A good training partner will provide that opportunity for you (feed you). That's the benefit to have a life training partner than just to have a striking dummy.
.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 19, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Usually if you throw your training partner 100 times, you will let your training partner to throw you 100 times. One day when you are 80 years old and your body just can't afford to be thrown 100 times on the ground, you may have to pay someone in order to continue your training.
> 
> When you run your shin bone inside of your opponent's leading leg, when he steps back, you can sweep his other leg. This will require that your opponent to step back.
> 
> ...


That's what students are for. 

Seriously, when I'm 80, I'll probably just be training whatever I can still do, and be more focused on passing along whatever I can to others. I don't really enjoy 1-on-1 training - groups are much more fun - so when I can't take the falls, it's unlikely I'll still be training myself on throws with much frequency.


----------



## Buka (May 19, 2019)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I have no problem with practicing techniques against an unskilled stick/club attack, but this has a glaring problem regardless.





I see what you did there, you rascal.


A "glaring" problem. Well, yeah, it is after all, a technique called "_Blocking the Sun_".

All kidding aside, your comments on distance are spot on. I wish more schools of striking spent more time teaching the basics and subtleties of distance.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 19, 2019)

Buka said:


> View attachment 22260
> 
> I see what you did there, you rascal.
> 
> ...


Yeah, really it does not take much sophistication to recognize how to hit with the tip, and how to swing the stick/club in such a way that the defender would take the block at the tip of the stick, and that would break his arm or wrist and the rest of what he thought he would do is then moot.


----------



## Anarax (May 19, 2019)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I don't know why this practice is so endemic among kenpo schools. I searched YouTube for "kenpo club defense" and 70% of the results had the same thing. In some cases it would actually have been the attackers forearm impacting rather than the weapon. I did eventually find a few examples where it would be the weapon making contact, but even then the point of impact would have been along the 1/3 of the weapon closest to the grip rather than near the end of the club. Even an untrained person can usually figure out that is less than ideal.



One training drill we use in Kali is the defender puts on a stick sparring helmet and the attacker(who knows how to swing a stick) swings at your head will full force with 100% intent. You break in and counter with an unarmed technique. It helps you learn range awareness very quickly.


----------



## dvcochran (May 19, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> But the “self defense techniques” tend to get shortened to just “techniques”.


We do use the term techniques for single movements but use the phrases one, two or three step sparring for something similar to the videos. A misnomer is that none of our step sparring drills (self defense techniques) have only one technique. I am not sure where the name got started.


----------



## dvcochran (May 19, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Your opponent throws 1 punch. You counter with 5 moves while he is still frozen in his punch. Is this realistic? In the normal situation, if you make 1 move, your opponent will respond with 1 move. When you make your 2nd move, he will respond with your 2nd move.
> 
> Unless you are 5 times faster than your opponent, this kind of training is not realistic IMO.


I have a hard time agreeing with this unless your 1st technique effectively takes your opponent out. If however, your 1st technique rocks, gets them off balance, distracted, affects their vision, etc.... then certainly you will have an opportunity to follow your 1st strike before they can react. You see this quite often in boxing and ring fights.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (May 19, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> We do use the term techniques for single movements but use the phrases one, two or three step sparring for something similar to the videos. A misnomer is that none of our step sparring drills (self defense techniques) have only one technique. I am not sure where the name got started.


I was always under the probably wrong impression 1/2/3 step sparring is based on the amount of back and forth- 1step sparring, the uke just punches, and then you do your technique. 2step, the uke punches, you respond, the uke kicks, you respond finiahing technique. 3step, uke punches, you vlock and strike, uke attempts to grab you, you break grab and kick, uke blocks kick and kicks back, you block kick and punch. Is that the case, or did i make that all up in my head?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 20, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> unless your 1st technique effectively takes your opponent out.


My Karate friends told me that the karate strategy is "1 punch to kill". We all want to train effective finish moves. Effective knock down skill or effective take down skill is our goal. With this kind of goal in mind, the training will be different.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 20, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> - 1step sparring, the uke just punches, and then you do your technique.
> - 2step, the uke punches, you respond, the uke kicks, you respond finiahing technique.
> - 3step, uke punches, you vlock and strike, uke attempts to grab you, you break grab and kick, uke blocks kick and kicks back, you block kick and punch.


Do you also train you attack first such as a foot sweep (or a low roundhouse kick) to your opponent's leading leg?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (May 20, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Your opponent throws 1 punch. You counter with 5 moves while he is still frozen in his punch. Is this realistic? In the normal situation, if you make 1 move, your opponent will respond with 1 move. When you make your 2nd move, he will respond with your 2nd move.
> 
> Unless you are 5 times faster than your opponent, this kind of training is not realistic IMO.





Kung Fu Wang said:


> Do you also train you attack first such as a foot sweep (or a low roundhouse kick) to your opponent's leading leg?



So my answer to both of these is the same, and keep in mind I've been to 4 different schools in NY/NJ, but I have no way of saying if my experience is typical.

So the first thing to say I think has already been said: trainign these combos is no different than a 1234/jab-cross-hook-uppercut in boxing. You're training to make specific parts fluid, you don't need to be able to do a full combination, but you do need to be able to follow something up after a strike lands. By practicing 5 different strikes in a row, you're learning how to follow up regardless of when/what strike you manage to hit with. No one would actually assume you are five times faster than your opponent (although in fairness I can think of situations where I was rocked, and had to back the F up while my sparring partner executed more than a 5 point combo, before I could re-center myself to respond. Check out the most recent heavyweight boxing championship and you'll see the same thing).

As for the second part: yes. In every kempo/kenpo school I trained in, once you reached a certain level of skill, a huge percentage of the drills were "This guy who knows how to fight will continue attacking you. Block avoid, land strikes, until you find the option to land a combo." That meant both that I would figure out ways to respond to thinks like a low roundhouse, and I would learn to perform those strikes while trying to prevent a counterattack. I can't guarantee that's across the board for kenpo/kempo, but from my experience it has been.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (May 20, 2019)

CB Jones said:


> They are not intended to be realistic.
> 
> They are a drill.  They teach you how to flow from technique to technique and help you build speed and smoothness from technique to technique.
> 
> ...


Thank you. You said this much better and simpler than I could.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (May 20, 2019)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I have no problem with practicing techniques against an unskilled stick/club attack, but this has a glaring problem regardless.
> 
> Look at the range. If the defender stood perfectly still and did nothing, the attacker would not actually hit him with the stick. It would be her wrist coming down on his head. Best case scenario, maybe it would be the butt of the stick making contact, but no one, trained or not, uses a stick that way. Having a club gives you range, You don't hold a stick and then step forward with a straight arm hammerfist attack that ignores the entire length of the stick.
> 
> ...


So I'm going to preface this by saying I have no video evidence to support my argument. Actually, there is video evidence, from one of my SKK studios (I'm actually in the videos), but they are password protected, and I don't think they want them shared here. 

The videos that I'm aware of generally teach how to perform the movements. For that purpose, it's not a concern what the range is, or if the person would actually succeed with the attack. But when people learn it this is the general process from what I've seen: Initially like the video shows: an attack that will not hit, you practice the movement. Then, an attack that will hit, practiced in a drill, where you respond to the one specific attack. Then: The person attacks however they feel will be effective (could be an overhand swing, underhand swing ,stab, baseball bat swing, etc), and you respond with the appropriate tech for the situation. Than, you give one person a club one person open handed, and tell them go wild. The person who's attacking has the goal of hitting the other person with the club, stick, etc. as much as they can, while the other person has the goal of stopping them as much as possible. The reason you wouldn't see that in an online video is it's not actually teaching a way to block it; presumably the person already has learned all the ways to block it, and it's just a matter of using footwork, handspeed, and luck to be successful. 

As a result, the footwork learning range is taught separately from the tech. Im not sure why that wouldn't be available on youtube, but I'm also not sure how to specifically google distancing footwork for weapons. As a side note, I learned most of my distancing techniques from fencing, and 2 of my kenpo instructors had experience in fencing, so that may influence my experiences. I can say that in my USSD studio, where they had no experience in kali or fencing, they talked about how the last 2/3rds of the stick/club are the most dangerous, and the importance of staying either fully out of range, or jumping in as quickly as possible to mitigate the damage.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (May 20, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> We can only discuss a clip that has been put up in the forum. We can't discuss any clip that we don't see.
> 
> Since the Kempo Karate has strong influence from the CMA, the block, grab, pull, and punch back with another hand is in their DNA.


Are you saying this is a bad thing or a good thing? I've successfully used that combo a ton of times in sparring systems that allow it (depending on what you're grabbing), and considering kempo's main goal is to transition from far-close-far-close, it's a very gtood way of doing it.


----------



## RTKDCMB (May 20, 2019)

Buka said:


> A "glaring" problem. Well, yeah, it is after all, a technique called "_Blocking the Sun_".


You could just use sunblock.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 20, 2019)

RTKDCMB said:


> You could just use sunblock.


That's just bad.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (May 20, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> So I'm going to preface this by saying I have no video evidence to support my argument. Actually, there is video evidence, from one of my SKK studios (I'm actually in the videos), but they are password protected, and I don't think they want them shared here.
> 
> The videos that I'm aware of generally teach how to perform the movements. For that purpose, it's not a concern what the range is, or if the person would actually succeed with the attack. But when people learn it this is the general process from what I've seen: Initially like the video shows: an attack that will not hit, you practice the movement. Then, an attack that will hit, practiced in a drill, where you respond to the one specific attack. Then: The person attacks however they feel will be effective (could be an overhand swing, underhand swing ,stab, baseball bat swing, etc), and you respond with the appropriate tech for the situation. Than, you give one person a club one person open handed, and tell them go wild. The person who's attacking has the goal of hitting the other person with the club, stick, etc. as much as they can, while the other person has the goal of stopping them as much as possible. The reason you wouldn't see that in an online video is it's not actually teaching a way to block it; presumably the person already has learned all the ways to block it, and it's just a matter of using footwork, handspeed, and luck to be successful.
> 
> As a result, the footwork learning range is taught separately from the tech. Im not sure why that wouldn't be available on youtube, but I'm also not sure how to specifically google distancing footwork for weapons. As a side note, I learned most of my distancing techniques from fencing, and 2 of my kenpo instructors had experience in fencing, so that may influence my experiences. I can say that in my USSD studio, where they had no experience in kali or fencing, they talked about how the last 2/3rds of the stick/club are the most dangerous, and the importance of staying either fully out of range, or jumping in as quickly as possible to mitigate the damage.


It’s good to hear that correct footwork and distancing are taught eventually, but I really don’t care for the pedagogical approach you describe. In my mind, footwork and distancing are probably the most important aspect of the technique. If you start with the wrong distance, then your timing, footwork, and angling will all be incorrect and will need to be fixed when you progress to training with the correct distance. For that matter, the incorrect attack is putting the attacker’s arm in an unrealistic position, so even if you are just focused on the hand movements those will also need to be tweaked when you get to more realistic training. Why not start training with the correct distance from day one?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 20, 2019)

Tony Dismukes said:


> It’s good to hear that correct footwork and distancing are taught eventually, but I really don’t care for the pedagogical approach you describe. In my mind, footwork and distancing are probably the most important aspect of the technique. If you start with the wrong distance, then your timing, footwork, and angling will all be incorrect and will need to be fixed when you progress to training with the correct distance. For that matter, the incorrect attack is putting the attacker’s arm in an unrealistic position, so even if you are just focused on the hand movements those will also need to be tweaked when you get to more realistic training. Why not start training with the correct distance from day one?


Agreed, assuming what he's saying is they make the attack from an incorrect range (which seems to be the case). We can get the range right and pull the strike, or use a soft weapon, to give a chance to practice the technique more realistically. It is my experience that beginner attacks given with poor intent (wrong range, sloppy attack, etc.) turn into bad habits on both sides, and require a lot of work to correct.


----------



## skribs (May 20, 2019)

I think part of the problem is that when you view a technique in a video, it is:

Being done in slow motion so you can see the parts together
A demonstration of how the technique can work, instead of a demonstration of the technique actually working
Done without the ability to feel what is happening
Done without the ability of the instructor making the video being able to critique your technique while you do the technique
You get a snapshot of the technique in the "no resistance" or "passive resistance" phase, because usually active resistance doesn't make for a good demonstration video
One of the best examples, I watched a video of two guys who were critiquing another video, to see if the self defense in that video was correct.  Well, these two guys tried a simple hand grab escape, and failed miserably at it.  The hand-grab was a cross-arm grab, where the attacker takes their right hand, and grabs the defender's right wrist.  The technique was to open your hand wide (to flex your wrist), and pull your thumb towards their thumb.

Where these two guys went wrong, is the way they grabbed.  Instead of grabbing with their thumb on top, they grabbed with their fingers on top (reached over the arm to grab instead of just straight across).  Now, this wouldn't be an issue (you can still go thumb to thumb), but they didn't understand the principle of the technique.  They only copied the movement, which in this case meant they were trying to pull their hand free by pull their hand into the palm of the other person.

On the one hand, these guys failed to understand the concept, and I have criticized them for it in the comments of the video.  However, if 2 trained MMA fighters can't figure out that concept based on the video, then the video's done a poor job teaching self defense to the unitiated.

Had the person who made the original video been present, they could have said "he's grabbing you the other way, so you have to pull your hand out the other way."  In this case, it would make a lot more sense, and maybe they would have understood how the technique works.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 20, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> Are you saying this is a bad thing or a good thing? I've successfully used that combo a ton of times in sparring systems that allow it (depending on what you're grabbing), and considering kempo's main goal is to transition from far-close-far-close, it's a very gtood way of doing it.


It's a good thing.

Again, this will require that your opponent to block your punch. IMO, counter to counter should also be included into the drills.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 20, 2019)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Why not start training with the correct distance from day one?


If you let your opponent to enter your kicking range and your leg hasn't kick out, there is something wrong with your kicking skill. In other words, it's not that easy to enter the kicking range without having to deal with a powerful kick.

Sometime I don't understand why people train so many different techniques to deal with punch. A front toes push kick, or a 45 degree downward hay-maker should be able to deal with all punches.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (May 20, 2019)

Tony Dismukes said:


> It’s good to hear that correct footwork and distancing are taught eventually, but I really don’t care for the pedagogical approach you describe. In my mind, footwork and distancing are probably the most important aspect of the technique. If you start with the wrong distance, then your timing, footwork, and angling will all be incorrect and will need to be fixed when you progress to training with the correct distance. For that matter, the incorrect attack is putting the attacker’s arm in an unrealistic position, so even if you are just focused on the hand movements those will also need to be tweaked when you get to more realistic training. Why not start training with the correct distance from day one?


The idea is to break down the teaching/learning to manageable parts. I'm not sure if it's better to do that or not, but considering you eventually learn how to do the tech's fully/in the appropriate situation at full speed, it seems to work. The only issue IMO is that some people spend too much time in the stage you see in the videos, rather than moving on.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 20, 2019)

skribs said:


> "he's grabbing you the other way, so you have to pull your hand out the other way."


As long as you twist your arm to against your opponent's thumb (1 finger) instead of to against your opponent's other 4 fingers, you are doing the right thing.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 20, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> The only issue IMO is that some people spend too much time in the stage you see in the videos, rather than moving on.


If your 1st counter move is a foot sweep, or a punch to the back of the head, the video will look completely different.

- Your opponent punch you.
- You use foot sweep, or hay-maker to the back of his head to take/knock him down.

You then walk away with a smile on your face. That will be the best self-defense video.


----------



## skribs (May 20, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> As long as you twist your arm to against your opponent's thumb (1 finger) instead of to against your opponent's other 4 fingers, you are doing the right thing.



I agree.  Like I said, the people in the video tried to recreate the movement (i.e. pull your hand towards your shoulder) instead of the concept (pull your thumb toward their thumb).  They weren't even going for the 4 fingers, they were going into the palm!  Which is even worse.

Or maybe it was a straight-arm grab and it was the opposite, but you get my point.


----------



## skribs (May 20, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It's a good thing.
> 
> Again, this will require that your opponent to block your punch. IMO, counter to counter should also be included into the drills.



I think that depends on how comfortable you are with the drill itself, first.  Especially because there are a nearly infinite number of ways you can respond to a punch.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 20, 2019)

skribs said:


> there are a nearly infinite number of ways you can respond to a punch.


I only train 2 moves to against a punch.

1. Toes push kick to his chest (leg is longer than arm).
2. 45 degree downward hay-maker (circular move against straight line).

The nice thing about 2 is I can establish a clinch (arm contact) after that. Also my arm will always be on top of my opponent's arm.


----------



## skribs (May 20, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I only train 2 moves to against a punch.
> 
> 1. Toes push kick to his chest (leg is longer than arm).
> 2. 45 degree downward hay-maker (circular move against straight line).
> ...



That's what you train.  Your opponent can do a lot of different things outside of that.  So if you want to drill for your opponents possible counters, you need to be aware of them.

Edit to add:  your opponent can roll his hand back over yours to fight that motion.  You won't always be over his hand.


----------



## wab25 (May 20, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> For boxer, a punch is just a punch.


This is incorrect. A lot of people short change boxing.... A boxer has a lot of skill (more than most martial artists) and a lot of time spent applying his art (more than most martial artists) against resisting opponents.

A punch, as used by a boxer is:

A punch designed to do damage or knock out the other guy.
A range finder to check distance.
Is used to keep or make distance.
Is used to keep the other guy busy, while you close distance.
An interrupter, designed to interrupt what the other guy is doing.
A distractor, I punch over here to draw your attention away from what I want to do.
Is used to hide the next punch. (punch them in the face to block their vision, so you can land the next punch)
Is used as a set up. (if I punch the body, he will start to drop his guard so I can punch his face)
Is used to unbalance the other guy.
Is used to initiate a response, sometimes a specific response. (throw a lazy jab, to get the opponent to throw a cross over it, because you want to counter punch his cross)
I could go on. But a boxers punches are used to do lots of things. A good counter puncher can get his opponent off balance the way he wants to, the same as a martial artist would need a pull to accomplish.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> I only train 2 moves to against a punch.
> 
> 1. Toes push kick to his chest (leg is longer than arm).
> 2. 45 degree downward hay-maker (circular move against straight line).
> ...


Another thing a boxer can use his punch for is to feint. He stands too close for you to kick, then feints the right, drawing out your 45 degree downward hay-maker, then he throws the right straight across the top of your downward hay-maker... They should have a name for such a punch... they do, its called a right cross, because it crosses over your outstretched hand. 

Now, if he throws the 1, 2 first a few times, allowing you to have success with your 45 degree downward hay-makers... increasing the power each time... and then feints, there is a good chance you fall off balance trying the downward hay-maker, expecting do deal with a lot of power... now you fall straight into that right cross, or upper cut or left hook...


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (May 20, 2019)

wab25 said:


> I could go on. But a boxers punches are used to do lots of things. A good counter puncher can get his opponent off balance the way he wants to, the same as a martial artist would need a pull to accomplish.



I would probably add more to that if they dont do sport boxing and go back to its pre civilizing routes. (which frankly i wish was  common but hey ho)


----------



## drop bear (May 20, 2019)

CB Jones said:


> They are not intended to be realistic.
> 
> They are a drill.  They teach you how to flow from technique to technique and help you build speed and smoothness from technique to technique.
> 
> ...



You can drill realistically if you wanted though. Which should still teach whatever flow you are trying to achieve there. 

I am not sure how hitting unrealistic objectives in a drill makes the techniques any more learnable.


----------



## drop bear (May 20, 2019)

Headhunter said:


> The kenpo club techniques aren't made to fight stick fighters they're about idiots swinging a club wildly at your head. Because it's far more likely that'll happen to you than an expert stick fighter attacking you



You are also far more likely to be able to stop an idiot swinging a club if you can stop a competent guy. 

They don't negate each other.


----------



## drop bear (May 20, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> It's training muscle memory. We all do this, in every art, style, and approach I've ever seen. Some of the training simply doesn't involve responding to a partner, because we know what comes next. Any time we're training combinations, that's what we're doing. Sometimes we get the other person to provide input, but we still know what the next move is, and aren't actually responding to their movement in the drill. I agree it's preferable if we add in those inputs to give a chance to learn to recognize that pattern of movement coming at us, but think of working focus mitts - there's no real input (fighter blocking, slipping, throwing punches) to learn from there, either. Yet it works quite well.



Realistic expectations. So if your partner doesn't move. Then you need a coach with enough knowledge to jump up and say you will never get away with that. 

You can do anything on pads. Doesn't mean you should.


----------



## drop bear (May 20, 2019)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I have no problem with practicing techniques against an unskilled stick/club attack, but this has a glaring problem regardless.
> 
> Look at the range. If the defender stood perfectly still and did nothing, the attacker would not actually hit him with the stick. It would be her wrist coming down on his head. Best case scenario, maybe it would be the butt of the stick making contact, but no one, trained or not, uses a stick that way. Having a club gives you range, You don't hold a stick and then step forward with a straight arm hammerfist attack that ignores the entire length of the stick.
> 
> ...



Because the drill has to work first and foremost. You get it a lot in styles where the drill working is the ultimate aim of the training.

This mentality means eventually you get an Aikido black belt grading where you are throwing ten guys on their heads at a time.


----------



## drop bear (May 20, 2019)

Rat said:


> I would probably add more to that if they dont do sport boxing and go back to its pre civilizing routes. (which frankly i wish was  common but hey ho)



Yeah. If only there was a style out there that allowed striking and grappling.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 20, 2019)

drop bear said:


> You are also far more likely to be able to stop an idiot swinging a club if you can stop a competent guy.
> 
> They don't negate each other.


It's largely a matter of priorities, I think. I can train to the "deal with an idiot" level without anything close to the investment of time needed to get to the "deal with a competent stick fighter" level. Just like I don't try to train my mount escapes to deal with a BJJ black belt.


----------



## CB Jones (May 20, 2019)

drop bear said:


> You can drill realistically if you wanted though. Which should still teach whatever flow you are trying to achieve there.



Ok



drop bear said:


> I am not sure how hitting unrealistic objectives in a drill makes the techniques any more learnable.



They dont make them more learnable....its just *a* drill that can help teach putting techniques together.


----------



## drop bear (May 20, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> It's largely a matter of priorities, I think. I can train to the "deal with an idiot" level without anything close to the investment of time needed to get to the "deal with a competent stick fighter" level. Just like I don't try to train my mount escapes to deal with a BJJ black belt.



They are the same mount escapes. That is the point.

Techniques that work against gumbies are lumped in to outlying techniques. Fun to know but not core training.


----------



## drop bear (May 20, 2019)

CB Jones said:


> Ok
> 
> 
> 
> They dont make them more learnable....its just a drill that can help teach putting techniques together.



So if I get the same benefit from training a realistic scenario and an unrealistic one.

Why?


----------



## drop bear (May 20, 2019)

drop bear said:


> They are the same mount escapes. That is the point.
> 
> Techniques that work against gumbies are lumped in to outlying techniques. Fun to know but not core training.








This is cool. But it isn't core.


----------



## CB Jones (May 20, 2019)

drop bear said:


> So if I get the same benefit from training a realistic scenario and an unrealistic one.
> 
> Why?



We will drill the combination without it being live and without resistance....allowing you to focus on the combo itself.  As you get the combo down then you speed up and add resistance and work up to throwing it against live resistance and then in live sparring.

Also with no resistance you can slow down and understand what techniques flow together or what position your body need to be in to throw the combo and defend counters.

Some people just process info different....and seems to help the lower belts understand by slowing it down a little.


----------



## dvcochran (May 20, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> I was always under the probably wrong impression 1/2/3 step sparring is based on the amount of back and forth- 1step sparring, the uke just punches, and then you do your technique. 2step, the uke punches, you respond, the uke kicks, you respond finiahing technique. 3step, uke punches, you vlock and strike, uke attempts to grab you, you break grab and kick, uke blocks kick and kicks back, you block kick and punch. Is that the case, or did i make that all up in my head?


I never thought about it from the attackers side but I would say you are totally correct. Works both ways I suppose.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (May 20, 2019)

CB Jones said:


> We will drill the combination without it being live and without resistance....allowing you to focus on the combo itself.  As you get the combo down then you speed up and add resistance and work up to throwing it against live resistance and then in live sparring.
> 
> Also with no resistance you can slow down and understand what techniques flow together or what position your body need to be in to throw the combo and defend counters.
> 
> Some people just process info different....and seems to help the lower belts understand by slowing it down a little.


Starting a drill with no resistance and working your way up through mild, moderate, and eventually full resistance is fine. I have no problems with that. My objection is starting the drill from an incorrect range that changes crucial details of what makes the techique work.


----------



## CB Jones (May 20, 2019)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Starting a drill with no resistance and working your way up through mild, moderate, and eventually full resistance is fine. I have no problems with that. My objection is starting the drill from an incorrect range that changes crucial details of what makes the techique work.



Agree.

Kung fu wang posted that it was unrealistic to not provide resistance or the drill not being live.

That is what I was referring to when I said the point is it not about being realistic.


----------



## drop bear (May 20, 2019)

CB Jones said:


> Agree.
> 
> Kung fu wang posted that it was unrealistic to not provide resistance or the drill not being live.
> 
> That is what I was referring to when I said the point is it not about being realistic.



Not really.  His issue was that with resistance the drill would collapse.

Either by being somehow so fast he can only get one punch to your five or upward blocking a wrist because the attacker forgot he had a stick in his hand.

See I would have done drills that work with resistance but trained without. Just as a consistency thing.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 21, 2019)

CB Jones said:


> Kung fu wang posted that it was unrealistic to not provide resistance or the drill not being live.
> 
> That is what I was referring to when I said the point is it not about being realistic.


The issue is if your opponent doesn't resist (such as block your punch), you can't borrow his resistance force.

What is "combo" training? IMO, combo training is you make a move, your opponent responds to it, you then respond to his respond.

A good training partner needs to provide his opponent opportunity to train "respond to respond". For example.

- You right punch at your opponent.
- He uses right upward block to block your punch.
- You use left upward block to re-block his upward block (help his upward block to move even higher).
- You then change your right punch into an upward elbow strike to his chest.

In order to train this combo, your opponent's upward block is required. Without it, your right straight punch that change into an upward elbow strike won't make sense.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 21, 2019)

The following 2 steps training should make sense.

1. A punches B. B blocks it (A trains offense. B trains defense).
2. A punches B. B blocks it. A grabs and pulls B's block arm and punches B with another hand (A trains combo).

If A and B switch sides, both can train

- offense,
- defense,
- combo.

This way, nothing can be missing in training. You can make 5 levels deep if you want to.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 21, 2019)

drop bear said:


> They are the same mount escapes. That is the point.
> 
> Techniques that work against gumbies are lumped in to outlying techniques. Fun to know but not core training.


Some of them are the same mount escapes. Some of the things I can use to upset the structure of someone with little training are easy to learn and easy to try (a good way to feel out their competency), but wouldn't work on a competent ground grappler who has learned to defend against (or make use of) grips, for instance.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 21, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Not really.  His issue was that with resistance the drill would collapse.
> 
> Either by being somehow so fast he can only get one punch to your five or upward blocking a wrist because the attacker forgot he had a stick in his hand.
> 
> See I would have done drills that work with resistance but trained without. Just as a consistency thing.


It's not much different from boxing combos on focus mitts. There's no resistance there, and you're consistently delivering several punches in a combination (sometimes with one "counter" that you have to duck).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 21, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The issue is if your opponent doesn't resist (such as block your punch), you can't borrow his resistance force.
> 
> What is "combo" training? IMO, combo training is you make a move, your opponent responds to it, you then respond to his respond.
> 
> ...


That's a different kind of drill. Using one doesn't exclude the opportunity for the other. Except for the occasional swipe to give you something to duck, focus mitt work doesn't include "borrowing" from the opponent, either.

I use focus mitts sometimes, and see this drill as being similar. I also use drills where the uke (opponent) counters, and it flows to a next technique. That's not a better drill - it's a different drill.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 21, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> That's not a better drill - it's a different drill.


Why do you think it's not a better drill? You can learn "borrow force" if your opponent blocks your punch. You can't learn that if your opponent doesn't.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 21, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Why do you think it's not a better drill? You can learn "borrow force" if your opponent blocks your punch. You can't learn that if your opponent doesn't.


All true. But you can't practice the same way with that that you can with focus mitts (where you actually get to punch the target over and over, sometimes with a bit of force). Each has advantages. As long as they're used appropriately, I don't see one as "better".


----------



## wab25 (May 21, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Why do you think it's not a better drill? You can learn "borrow force" if your opponent blocks your punch. You can't learn that if your opponent doesn't.


Some of us, speaking of myself personally, are not gifted martial artists, or even highly coordinated.

It took me quite a while to learn boxing footwork and how to connect my body and punches to that footwork. Now, I am learning Shotokan Karate. The footwork is different. The mechanics of how those connections are made are just enough different. Due to my non-giftedness in martial arts and that I originally learned footwork and body connection from another art, there are some simple Karate punches that drive me nuts... in the pat your head, rub your tummy, while standing on one foot and counting backwards, the odd numbers from 100, sort of way. Now, I am asked to do a block, that I am ok at, with a new footwork, then transition to a technique that I can barely do, by itself, while someone is punching at me, requiring me to blend with... all at the same time. First, I am going to get hit. (ask me how I know...) Second, I am not going to be able to get the combination right. Third, and most important, I will not be able to improve, no matter how many times I get hit. In fact, when I get tired of getting hit, I will start doing something else instead. Which means I will not ever be able to use this Karate approach in sparring, or any where else.

For me, it helps to work out the coordination for the combo first, so that I can do it reasonably well. Then ramp up the resistance and realism of the drills. You see some people that can punch the air properly, but put a target in front of them (focus mit) and they fall forward, and unbalance themselves trying to hit harder. You can see all kinds of people who train only hitting other people and heavy bags, that always fall into their punches, giving up their structure and balance. Having the other person hit back at them, is not going to help fix the issues with stance, balance and structure.

Maybe I am just the doofuss here, with serious coordination problems. But, learning things a bit at a time... breaking complex movements down to their simple components, certainly helps me to learn things quicker. So, for me, which drill is better: the one that gets me to do the technique properly or the one that has me do it against a realistic and resisting opponent? I need both (and a few in between) or I will never get it. (even then, I have my doubts...) They are different drills, that work on different parts. I need all the parts. Take one away, and I won't get it. But, maybe you have better students than I am... who knows.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 21, 2019)

wab25 said:


> Having the other person hit back at them, is not going to help fix the issues with stance, balance and structure.


Your opponent doesn't have to hit back. He just need to respond to your attack.

I may look at this from a "set up" point of view.

In

- wrestling art, My opponent has good balance. When I pull him and if he resists, I can borrow his resistance force, change my pulling into pushing. I need my opponent's resistance fore here to train my "pull and push".

- striking art, My opponent has strong boxing guard. When I kick his groin, he drops guard to block my kick. I can then punch his face while it's open. I need my opponent's downward block here to train my "kick low and punch high".


----------



## wab25 (May 21, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> - striking art, My opponent has strong boxing guard. When I kick his groin, he drops guard to block my kick. I can then punch his face while it's open. I need my opponent's downward block here to train my "kick low and punch high".


Hope you don't ever have me as your student. I would first have to learn how to kick low. Then how to punch high. On top of that, I will have to practice throwing the low kick, followed by the high punch. Otherwise you will see me throw the low kick, bringing his guard down, followed by me putting my kicking foot back down, taking 3 or 4 stutter steps to reset my stance, stepping forward to get into range and finally throwing an off balance high punch that has no structure behind it. Meanwhile, the other guy brought his guard back up 5 steps ago. My conclusion: your combo sucks.

However, if you let me work on the parts, then the combo, and then with a partner... I might have a good chance at doing it correctly. My conclusion about your combo might change as well.


----------



## CB Jones (May 21, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The issue is if your opponent doesn't resist (such as block your punch), you can't borrow his resistance force.



But someone doesnt always have to borrow resistance force or see the response before the next technique.

For example... my son (he is a lefty) can slip a jab, then step to the outside of his opponent lead foot and throw a reverse punch to body, right hook/overhand right to head, roundhouse kick to body and then exit.  He doesnt need to borrow resistance force after each technique.  He can throw that combo without looking for his opponents every response and then get back out of range.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> What is "combo" training



Working specific combinations of techniques such as:

Backhand, reverse punch, front roundhouse kick

Jab, straight right, hook

Backhand, reverse punch, side kick

Etc...


----------



## Buka (May 21, 2019)

wab25 said:


> Some of us, speaking of myself personally, are not gifted martial artists, or even highly coordinated.
> 
> It took me quite a while to learn boxing footwork and how to connect my body and punches to that footwork. Now, I am learning Shotokan Karate. The footwork is different. The mechanics of how those connections are made are just enough different. Due to my non-giftedness in martial arts and that I originally learned footwork and body connection from another art, there are some simple Karate punches that drive me nuts... in the pat your head, rub your tummy, while standing on one foot and counting backwards, the odd numbers from 100, sort of way. Now, I am asked to do a block, that I am ok at, with a new footwork, then transition to a technique that I can barely do, by itself, while someone is punching at me, requiring me to blend with... all at the same time. First, I am going to get hit. (ask me how I know...) Second, I am not going to be able to get the combination right. Third, and most important, I will not be able to improve, no matter how many times I get hit. In fact, when I get tired of getting hit, I will start doing something else instead. Which means I will not ever be able to use this Karate approach in sparring, or any where else.
> 
> ...



A lot of my students learned in exactly the way you describe. (a nice trip down memory lane)

So that's exactly how I taught them.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 21, 2019)

wab25 said:


> I would first have to learn how to kick low. Then how to punch high.


In the long fist system, kick low and punch high can be learned during the 1st month of training. It's in the 1st part (total 10 parts) of the Tantui form (the 1st form to learn).


----------



## drop bear (May 21, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> It's not much different from boxing combos on focus mitts. There's no resistance there, and you're consistently delivering several punches in a combination (sometimes with one "counter" that you have to duck).



The aim of combination punching is because they are defending.

So exactly the opposite.


----------



## wab25 (May 21, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In the long fist system, kick low and punch high can be learned during the 1st month of training. It's in the 1st part (total 10 parts) of the Tantui form (the 1st form to learn).


How, exactly, is this any more realistic than any of the videos you critique in this thread? In fact, this seems to be supporting the view point of learn the basics first, then the combinations, then add a partner and resistance.


----------



## Buka (May 21, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In the long fist system, kick low and punch high can be learned during the 1st month of training. It's in the 1st part (total 10 parts) of the Tantui form (the 1st form to learn).



That kick and punch seem to be pretty much on the same height level to me. And what is the purpose of the other arm position, please?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 21, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Your opponent doesn't have to hit back. He just need to respond to your attack.
> 
> I may look at this from a "set up" point of view.
> 
> ...


I'll argue you don't need their downward block to train that punching combination. You'll need it to train the recognition of the opening, but you can train that combination on a heavy bag, focus mitts, etc. - none of which provide that downward block.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 21, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In the long fist system, kick low and punch high can be learned during the 1st month of training. It's in the 1st part (total 10 parts) of the Tantui form (the 1st form to learn).


But the form doesn't have anyone providing the downward block.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 21, 2019)

drop bear said:


> The aim of combination punching is because they are defending.
> 
> So exactly the opposite.


So, you don't think someone can train combos without someone blocking? I'd argue - rather strongly - that they absolutely can. And that they can deliver some combos regardless of whether the person blocks or not, though it may change what comes after the combo. A jab that lands will often cause only a slight change in posture (of the recipient), so whether they block it or not, you may be able to follow with the same next attack.


----------



## drop bear (May 21, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> So, you don't think someone can train combos without someone blocking? I'd argue - rather strongly - that they absolutely can. And that they can deliver some combos regardless of whether the person blocks or not, though it may change what comes after the combo. A jab that lands will often cause only a slight change in posture (of the recipient), so whether they block it or not, you may be able to follow with the same next attack.



People can train whatever they want. Doesn't mean they are going to gain an increase in ability because of it though.

I can train pads like a dumbo.  Or I can train them realistically. It isn't a case where "You do pads so it is the same"


----------



## drop bear (May 21, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> So, you don't think someone can train combos without someone blocking? I'd argue - rather strongly - that they absolutely can. And that they can deliver some combos regardless of whether the person blocks or not, though it may change what comes after the combo. A jab that lands will often cause only a slight change in posture (of the recipient), so whether they block it or not, you may be able to follow with the same next attack.



I don't think this.





Is teaching the same thing as this.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 21, 2019)

drop bear said:


> I don't think this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 That’s a demo, not a drill.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 21, 2019)

drop bear said:


> People can train whatever they want. Doesn't mean they are going to gain an increase in ability because of it though.
> 
> I can train pads like a dumbo.  Or I can train them realistically. It isn't a case where "You do pads so it is the same"


That doesn’t seem to be a continuation from the post I responded to.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (May 21, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> That’s a demo, not a drill.


I presume you’re referring to the second video. The first is pretty standard Muay Thai pad training.


----------



## drop bear (May 21, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> That’s a demo, not a drill.



It's a demo of a drill.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 21, 2019)

wab25 said:


> How, exactly, is this any more realistic than any of the videos you critique in this thread? In fact, this seems to be supporting the view point of learn the basics first, then the combinations, then add a partner and resistance.


You use

1. partner drill to "develop" your technique.
2. sparring/wrestling to "test" your technique.
3. solo drill (or form) to "polish" your technique..
4. equipment training to "enhance" your technique.

IMO, 1 -> 2 -> 3 -> 4 should be the right order.

The partner drill is the basic.


----------



## drop bear (May 21, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> That doesn’t seem to be a continuation from the post I responded to.



Ok. To put simply.

It is nothing like pads.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 21, 2019)

Buka said:


> That kick and punch seem to be pretty much on the same height level to me. And what is the purpose of the other arm position, please?


The purpose of the back arm position is to make sure that your punching arm and your chest can make a perfect 180 degree straight line. This can give you the maximum amount of punching distance, the principle of "long" fist (vs. "short" fist that chest and arm may make a 90 degree angle).

The low kick and high punch is more noticeable in this Tan Tui form (same form as the other clip).


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 21, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> But the form doesn't have anyone providing the downward block.


The form can only "polish" your skill after you have "develop" your skill. You cannot "develop" skill through the form.

A MA skill require timing, opportunity, angle, power, and balance. Without a life training partner, timing, opportunity, and angle make no sense. In other words, you can't develop any MA skill without a life training partner.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 21, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> It's not much different from boxing combos on focus mitts. There's no resistance there, and you're consistently delivering several punches in a combination (sometimes with one "counter" that you have to duck).


Again, your training partner can help you to train more than your focus mitts can. My main point is you should not waste your opportunity to have a training partner.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 21, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The purpose of the back arm position is to make sure that your punching arm and your chest can make a perfect 180 degree straight line. This can give you the maximum amount of punching distance, the principle of "long" fist (vs. "short" fist that chest and arm may make a 90 degree angle).
> 
> The low kick and high punch is more noticeable in this Tan Tui form (same form as the other clip).


I don’t really understand this within this context.  We do it in Tibetan Crane, but we are rotating the torso and pulling that arm back to augment that rotation.  In this, there is no rotation and no pull-back.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 21, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> I don’t really understand this within this context.  We do it in Tibetan Crane, but we are rotating the torso and pulling that arm back to augment that rotation.  In this, there is no rotation and no pull-back.


It's very basic level training and similar to the Taiji "single whip" training (Taiji came from long fist).


----------



## Flying Crane (May 21, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It's very basic level training and similar to the Taiji "single whip" training (Taiji came from long fist).


But taiji has torso rotation.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 22, 2019)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I presume you’re referring to the second video. The first is pretty standard Muay Thai pad training.


Yes - I should have been clearer. I was referring to the Kempo video. The MT video was a drill, and the Kempo video was a demo, so I wouldn't expect them to have a lot in common.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 22, 2019)

drop bear said:


> It's a demo of a drill.


That wasn't what I saw in it. He said he was showing applications. The way I've always heard "application" used, it refers to things that are beyond the drill. Whether we agree wit the usefulness of the application or not, it's not meant to be training a combination the way pad work does. I think their "Techniques" are often meant to train what pad work does, though I personally prefer the pad work (the Techniques seem to be another of those beginning points that gets over-emphasized).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 22, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Ok. To put simply.
> 
> It is nothing like pads.


The Techniques that teach a combo are a bit like pads in their purpose. It misses some elements that would have to be trained elsewhere (don't get to actually hit, which is probably the strongest thing in favor of pads), but the basic process is the same - you have targets you're practicing combos at. They're closer to focus mitts, because you can't hit focus mitts with the force you can strike MT pads. They'd be closest to the starting point of mitt work, before the mitt-wearer starts moving.

I prefer the pads over the form for most things. The form (since it uses an actual person as the target) can give people a better visualization and understanding of the targets they're attacking.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 22, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The form can only "polish" your skill after you have "develop" your skill. You cannot "develop" skill through the form.
> 
> A MA skill require timing, opportunity, angle, power, and balance. Without a life training partner, timing, opportunity, and angle make no sense. In other words, you can't develop any MA skill without a life training partner.


My point is that you can, in fact, practice the combo without that block. It's there in that form, just as in the Kempo Technique. I agree with you that learning the technique should come before practicing the motion in a form. The use of the Kempo Techniques (forms) doesn't preclude also having a live, reactive (whether resistive or not) training partner during other exercises. The Kempo Technique is just a form.


----------



## drop bear (May 22, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> The Techniques that teach a combo are a bit like pads in their purpose. It misses some elements that would have to be trained elsewhere (don't get to actually hit, which is probably the strongest thing in favor of pads), but the basic process is the same - you have targets you're practicing combos at. They're closer to focus mitts, because you can't hit focus mitts with the force you can strike MT pads. They'd be closest to the starting point of mitt work, before the mitt-wearer starts moving.
> 
> I prefer the pads over the form for most things. The form (since it uses an actual person as the target) can give people a better visualization and understanding of the targets they're attacking.



The aim of pads is to represent real time fighting movement as closely as you can. While also isolating certain aspects of that fight.

So if you are magically running rings around a guy in a manner that is unlikely to ever occur.

You are doing it wrong.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 22, 2019)

drop bear said:


> The aim of pads is to represent real time fighting movement as closely as you can. While also isolating certain aspects of that fight.
> 
> So if you are magically running rings around a guy in a manner that is unlikely to ever occur.
> 
> You are doing it wrong.


I don't think the intent of the Kempo Technique is to suggest you're going to get several moves to their one move (though some probably think that's what they're learning). It's simply training one possible string of movements from one starting point. I'd like it better if it showed the actual responses that lead to the next movement, rather than having the "attacker" stand still while they complete. My point is just that if you inserted the missing movements that create/allow each next response, it wouldn't materially change the movement of the person doing the Technique. Focus mitts do much the same thing - you don't get to see the reactions that lead from jab to cross to hook, and have to learn those reactions in a different drill.


----------



## drop bear (May 22, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I don't think the intent of the Kempo Technique is to suggest you're going to get several moves to their one move (though some probably think that's what they're learning). It's simply training one possible string of movements from one starting point. I'd like it better if it showed the actual responses that lead to the next movement, rather than having the "attacker" stand still while they complete. My point is just that if you inserted the missing movements that create/allow each next response, it wouldn't materially change the movement of the person doing the Technique. Focus mitts do much the same thing - you don't get to see the reactions that lead from jab to cross to hook, and have to learn those reactions in a different drill.



No they don't.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 22, 2019)

drop bear said:


> No they don't.


What don't what?


----------



## drop bear (May 22, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> What don't what?



A three or four punch combination is likey to actually occur.

The Kempo combination is not likely to occur. Because nobody is ever going to let you do that.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 22, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The form can only "polish" your skill after you have "develop" your skill. You cannot "develop" skill through the form.



Of course you can.  It is a form of practice.  Practice helps you develop a skill.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 22, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> Of course you can.  It is a form of practice.  Practice helps you develop a skill.


You may use the term "practice" more general than I do. To me, practice include develop, test, polish, and enhance.

In my school, we start with partner drills (We don't start with solo form or solo drill). After student are familiar with the partner drills, The partner drill without partner then become the solo drill.

In the following clip, his opponent blocks his kick, blocks his punch, ... He does 1 move, his opponent respond with 1 move.








Flying Crane said:


> But taiji has torso rotation.


No sure what you are talking about here. Linear move does not need torso rotation, but circular move does. In that form, it's just a linear punch.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 22, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> No sure what you are talking about here. Linear move does not need torso rotation, but circular move does. In that form, it's just a linear punch.



So in the context of the TomTui or long fist, what purpose does holding the second hand extended and to the back, like it is done in that clip?  If there is no rotation, then why is the arm in that position?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 22, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> So in the context of the TomTui or long fist, what purpose does holding the second hand extended and to the back, like it is done in that clip?  If there is no rotation, then why is the arm in that position?


Most people's punch out their right hands, there will be an angle between their right arm and their chest. That will not be their maximum extension.

This is called "short fist" method.












If he can make his right arm and his chest to be a straight line, he will have the maximum reach. The back left straight arm just to pull his left shoulder back so his body can make that perfect straight line.

This is called "long fist" method.






This training can also be seen in the sword training.


----------



## CB Jones (May 22, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You may use the term "practice" more general than I do. To me, practice include develop, test, polish, and enhance.
> 
> In my school, we start with partner drills (We don't start with solo form or solo drill). After student are familiar with the partner drills, The partner drill without partner then become the solo drill.
> 
> ...


----------



## Flying Crane (May 22, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Most people's punch out their right hands, there will be an angle between their right arm and their chest. That will not be their maximum extension.
> 
> This is called "short fist" method.
> 
> ...


So it is strictly for reach?


----------



## Star Dragon (May 22, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Here is another example. When you sweep your opponent's leading leg, he can
> 
> 1. escape your sweep - bend his leg and let your sweeping leg to go under it.
> 2. force against force - turn his shin bone into your sweep.
> ...



At least in EPAK, different reactions of the adversary are being addressed in the 'what if' phase of training.


----------



## Star Dragon (May 22, 2019)

Rat said:


> In fairness, FMA is growing more popular in some places and then we have HEMA being resurrected in some areas.Im not entirely sure how well a fencer would yield a stick or a club though, but thats been a pretty big English institution and in some European countries.    Kendos pretty popular, they are the only couple of official styles i know which do weapons, other than training organizations which have weapons courses, kind of like shiv works and all those shooting places in the U.S.  Or job specific training like police, security, corrections soldiers for public order duties etc.
> 
> I generally would like to learn to use weapons as part of martial training and not just focus on disarms, it gives you a appreciation for them, and a ability to use them if the person drops them or someone else gets involved etc.    If you appreciate how to use it, you could develop a plan to deal with someone suing it against you better.
> 
> ...



Weapon training is indeed part of Kenpo's curriculum, at least in EPAK and at an advanced stage. In fact, GM Parker was pretty badass with the knife. Kenpo's principles and even very moves can easily be adapted to knife and to club/stick fighting and actually make for an interesting alternative to FMA and other methods.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 22, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> So it is strictly for reach?


The chest and arms make a straight line is also good for stretching..


----------



## Flying Crane (May 22, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The chest and arms make a straight line is also good for stretching..


I understand that, we do it in Tibetan crane as well.  We also recognize the reach that the turned torso provides and the reduced target from the turned profile.  But it is the act of turning the torso, the rotation, that provides power in the punch.  Without the rotation, it seems like just an arm-driven punch, no power other than the strength of the arm.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 23, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> I understand that, we do it in Tibetan crane as well.  We also recognize the reach that the turned torso provides and the reduced target from the turned profile.  But it is the act of turning the torso, the rotation, that provides power in the punch.  Without the rotation, it seems like just an arm-driven punch, no power other than the strength of the arm.


Here is the long fist punch training that arm and chest make a perfect line.






The circular striking is not the long fist strong point. This is why some long fist guys also cross train the Tong Bei,






or Pi Gua.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 23, 2019)

Sorry! This is suppose to be a Kempo thread. Hope we can go back to the Kempo discussion.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (May 23, 2019)

I found this and thought i would just link it in as its based on Kenpo.


----------



## JR 137 (May 23, 2019)

I’ve never trained EPAK, so I don’t know their philosophy on why they do stuff like the original intent of the thread was getting at. My take on it...

In Seido, we do a bunch of what others would call one-steps. 10 basic/beginner ones (20 if you count right punch coming at you and left punch), 10 intermediate. Advanced ones are different enough to not call one-step. 

These things don’t pretend to tell you that’s how an actual fight is going to play out. They teach timing a single punch, where and how to block, where to strike and with what, etc. They’re all PRINCIPLES. They teach movement that gets you out of doing the same repeated block-punch-kick routine. No one’s going to step in at you in a karate front leaning stance with a straight right punch while they chamber the left hand under their armpit, and no one’s going to respond with “intermediate self defense number 5.” But by practicing that, you have those tools available to you to modify depending on the situation. It’s like doing kata with a partner in a sense. 

Is this the be all, end all of Seido? Not even close. You’ve got to learn to walk before you become a world class sprinter. So you go slow at first with no resistance and no real speed. Then you pick up the pace. Then you resist. Then you counter. Then your partner counters your counter. American football teams practice their plays without a defense in front of them. Why? To learn the play. Then they add a defense that lets them do their thing. Then they pick up the pace and resistance until they’re doing it in practically full game intensity. And they’ll continually cycle through them. I’ve seen a few NY Giants preseason practices as they used to have camp 10 minutes from my house.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 23, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Here is the long fist punch training that arm and chest make a perfect line.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I’m not going to comment on the tong bei nor the piqua because I have no experience with them.

That long fist punch is very similar to how we punch in Tibetan crane.  Not the same, but very similar.  I would argue that it IS a circular punch.  The path of the punch is straight, but the power is generated in a circular method, through torso rotation.

This is different from what I see in tam tui, however.  Many of the punches in that form lack the torso rotation.  They simply punch straight out, with the other arm extended behind.  I actually learned two versions of that form a long time ago.  I never understood that bit, and never asked my Sifu.  My bad.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 23, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> This is different from what I see in tam tui, however.  Many of the punches in that form lack the torso rotation.  They simply punch straight out, with the other arm extended behind.  I actually learned two versions of that form a long time ago.  I never understood that bit, and never asked my Sifu.  My bad.


The long fist Tan Tui training is the 1st grade training material. When you learn "This is a book", you won't get into fancy grammar such as "If I had had ... , I would have had ...".

IMO, long fist is good to foundation development. After that, one needs to cross train other MA styles for power generation, speed generation, and throwing skill. For example, your white crane system has better power generation method than the long fist has.


----------



## Star Dragon (May 23, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In the long fist system, kick low and punch high can be learned during the 1st month of training. It's in the 1st part (total 10 parts) of the Tantui form (the 1st form to learn).



That punch is strangely reminiscent of Wado-ryu's tobikomi tsuki.


----------



## Star Dragon (May 23, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The chest and arms make a straight line is also good for stretching..



I like going into this posture with a kettlebell.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 24, 2019)

drop bear said:


> A three or four punch combination is likey to actually occur.
> 
> The Kempo combination is not likely to occur. Because nobody is ever going to let you do that.


That's a different issue. I agree some of the Kempo combinations are a lot less likely. I don't think they're as impossible as they seem when you watch the Technique, because they're not intended to be done in that sequence to someone who's not moving (and I'm not sure why they don't actually have the "attacker" moving). The main point of them, though is not the specific combination, but the flow between any two techniques. How realistic they are is a different question.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 24, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I'm not sure why they don't actually have the "attacker" moving.


They can always use the 2 men form approach instead.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (May 24, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> They can always use the 2 men form approach instead.


Which kenpo does.


----------



## Headhunter (May 24, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> Which kenpo does.


2 man set, really like that set, whether or not it's realistic that's another debate but at my stage of life I'm not that bothered about all that anymore. It's a nice set to work through. It's a ***** to work without a partner though


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (May 24, 2019)

Headhunter said:


> 2 man set, really like that set, whether or not it's realistic that's another debate but at my stage of life I'm not that bothered about all that anymore. It's a nice set to work through. It's a ***** to work without a partner though


I learned a couple two main sets...all of them are weird to do by yourself. Some movements just dont make sense, if you dont have someone else there


----------



## Flying Crane (May 24, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> I learned a couple two main sets...all of them are weird to do by yourself. Some movements just dont make sense, if you dont have someone else there


I learned one when I was training kenpo.  It was weird even with a partner.


----------



## drop bear (May 24, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> That's a different issue. I agree some of the Kempo combinations are a lot less likely. I don't think they're as impossible as they seem when you watch the Technique, because they're not intended to be done in that sequence to someone who's not moving (and I'm not sure why they don't actually have the "attacker" moving). The main point of them, though is not the specific combination, but the flow between any two techniques. How realistic they are is a different question.



There are instances in drilling where you move from one unlikely technique to another to teach flow.

Multiple kicks would be one example. So you wouldn't throw 10 kicks in a row in a fight but it makes your kick and return a bit quicker.

But that still doesn't open the door for training things as a combination that is never going to happen.

You should go from one part of the combination to another intelligently. Exactly for that reason of teaching flow.

And looking at the combinations they are exactly intended to be used on someone who isn't moving. Which is why they don't intelligently move from one technique to another and achieve unrealistic results.

And transitioning is a major player as to why you will either get your head smashed in or not in a fight. 

And that is striking and grappling.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 25, 2019)

drop bear said:


> There are instances in drilling where you move from one unlikely technique to another to teach flow.
> 
> Multiple kicks would be one example. So you wouldn't throw 10 kicks in a row in a fight but it makes your kick and return a bit quicker.
> 
> ...


Again, that's arguing a different question. My point was - and remains - that it's not a real problem that the "attacker" isn't presenting things to work with, because it seems the Techniques are mostly using the same approach as focus mitts. Focus mitts don't give much input, either (they provide a target, and sometimes a swipe to change levels with, and not much more).

I don't know enough about what was intended when the Techniques were assembled to know if they make sense under that intention. I don't personally like some of the combinations I've seen, but I accept some of them might even be designed to work on a specific bit of movement, solely for the sake of mobility. I just don't know what the purpose is, nor do I know enough of the curriculum to judge them in context.

I still don't think they're designed on the expectation that the other person will not move. The Kempo folks I've talked with all had significant resistive training (live sparring, etc.) in their Kempo schools, so it seems unlikely they'd be under the consistent illusion you can take 3-5 (sometimes complex) steps while the other guy doesn't respond at all.


----------



## drop bear (May 25, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Again, that's arguing a different question. My point was - and remains - that it's not a real problem that the "attacker" isn't presenting things to work with, because it seems the Techniques are mostly using the same approach as focus mitts. Focus mitts don't give much input, either (they provide a target, and sometimes a swipe to change levels with, and not much more).
> 
> I don't know enough about what was intended when the Techniques were assembled to know if they make sense under that intention. I don't personally like some of the combinations I've seen, but I accept some of them might even be designed to work on a specific bit of movement, solely for the sake of mobility. I just don't know what the purpose is, nor do I know enough of the curriculum to judge them in context.
> 
> I still don't think they're designed on the expectation that the other person will not move. The Kempo folks I've talked with all had significant resistive training (live sparring, etc.) in their Kempo schools, so it seems unlikely they'd be under the consistent illusion you can take 3-5 (sometimes complex) steps while the other guy doesn't respond at all.



It is training to stage fight. Not training to actually fight.

You can do that and spar. But just the drills don't help the sparring much because they are mostly unrelated.

Where alternatively pad drills do help sparring because you are training fighting movements not stage fighting movements.

So you have drills for demos.





And drills for fighting.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 25, 2019)

drop bear said:


> It is training to stage fight. Not training to actually fight.
> 
> You can do that and spar. But just the drills don't help the sparring much because they are mostly unrelated.
> 
> ...


Pads help more IF you use them differently. You could really train badly with pads, too. That's my point. Using a semi-static partner isn't an issue, if it's done well. What is "well"? That depends what the purpose is.

What you see as "stage fighting" prep, and I see as an odd combination of moves, might be just training ranges of movement. I dunno.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 25, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> the Techniques are mostly using the same approach as focus mitts.


Both you and I have right leg forward.

1. I use right hand to push on your right arm. I then use left hand to strike your head.
2. You use left arm to block my left strike.
3. I use right hand to pull your left arm to my left. I then sweep your right leg to my right.

In this example, if you don't use left arm to block my left hand strike, how will I be able to grab your left back arm (since it's so far away from me)?

Many of your set up will require your opponent's respond. If your opponent doesn't respond to your strike, he cannot help you to develop certain combo skill.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 25, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Both you and I have right leg forward.
> 
> 1. I use right hand to push on your right arm. I then use left hand to strike your head.
> 2. You use left arm to block my left strike.
> ...


If I don't offer that arm, you can't. So that series - if done with a partner - requires that input. Not all combinations do.


----------



## drop bear (May 25, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Pads help more IF you use them differently. You could really train badly with pads, too. That's my point. Using a semi-static partner isn't an issue, if it's done well. What is "well"? That depends what the purpose is.
> 
> What you see as "stage fighting" prep, and I see as an odd combination of moves, might be just training ranges of movement. I dunno.



Just because you can train badly with pads. And just because you may also spar doesn't lend any justification for doing a drill that doesn't appear to be teaching anything useful.

You should train well with pads do some sort of realistic drills and spar.

And by the way. 

"People can train whatever they want. Doesn't mean they are going to gain an increase in ability because of it though.

I can train pads like a dumbo. Or I can train them realistically. It isn't a case where "You do pads so it is the same""


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 25, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> If I don't offer that arm, you can't. So that series - if done with a partner - requires that input. Not all combinations do.


Here is another example.

When I use my shin bone to smash on the inside of your leading leg, if you

- resist, I can bite your leg down to the ground.
- escape, I can step in and attack your other leg while you are shifting weight.

If you only offer me with 1 respond, I can't train the other situation. Your opponent supposes to "feed" you the opportunity that you need in order to develop your skill.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 25, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Just because you can train badly with pads. And just because you may also spar doesn't lend any justification for doing a drill that doesn't appear to be teaching anything useful.
> 
> You should train well with pads do some sort of realistic drills and spar.
> 
> ...


You seem to be arguing against a statement I've never made. I only said that that the concept of these Techniques is similar to the concept of training with pads: no realistic input, and practicing combinations.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 25, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Here is another example.
> 
> When I use my shin bone to smash on the inside of your leading leg, if you
> 
> ...


I could give you 1,000 examples of combinations that require input. I could also give you 1,000 examples of combinations that can be practiced without it. Neither has much significance to the point I made.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 25, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I could give you 1,000 examples of combinations that require input. I could also give you 1,000 examples of combinations that can be practiced without it. Neither has much significance to the point I made.


How do you train your combo in throwing art? You use hip throw on your opponent, your opponent

- steps in front of you, You use leg to block his leg.
- resists you and sinks down. You turn around and use double legs to take him down.
- ...

Can you train any throwing combo without your opponent's respond?


----------



## drop bear (May 25, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> You seem to be arguing against a statement I've never made. I only said that that the concept of these Techniques is similar to the concept of training with pads: no realistic input, and practicing combinations.



So this conversation here.

I said.

"Not really. His issue was that with resistance the drill would collapse.

Either by being somehow so fast he can only get one punch to your five or upward blocking a wrist because the attacker forgot he had a stick in his hand.

See I would have done drills that work with resistance but trained without. Just as a consistency thing."


You said.

"It's not much different from boxing combos on focus mitts. There's no resistance there, and you're consistently delivering several punches in a combination (sometimes with one "counter" that you have to duck)."

And the difference is the boxing pad combinations will work with resistance. The Kempo drill will not.

So the concept is different. A bad drill without resistance isn't the same a a good drill.

Which follows Tonys point.

"It’s good to hear that correct footwork and distancing are taught eventually, but I really don’t care for the pedagogical approach you describe. In my mind, footwork and distancing are probably the most important aspect of the technique. If you start with the wrong distance, then your timing, footwork, and angling will all be incorrect and will need to be fixed when you progress to training with the correct distance. For that matter, the incorrect attack is putting the attacker’s arm in an unrealistic position, so even if you are just focused on the hand movements those will also need to be tweaked when you get to more realistic training. Why not start training with the correct distance from day one?"

See nobody has said unresisted drills are bad. But they have to be geared to work against resistance. Because that is the point.

They are not separate drills. They are not different techniques. To resisted drills. 

So an unrealistic drill is not like pad work just because they are both drills.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 25, 2019)

Are there really that much difference between the striking art partner drill and the wrestling art partner drill?

If his 1st punch can knock his opponent down, why does he need the rest of his moves for?






In the following clip, he can take his opponent down with his 1st attack.






In the following clip, he can't take his opponent down with his 1st attack and even his  2nd attack because his opponent steps back twice.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 26, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> How do you train your combo in throwing art? You use hip throw on your opponent, your opponent
> 
> - steps in front of you, You use leg to block his leg.
> - resists you and sinks down. You turn around and use double legs to take him down.
> ...


Not many, that's where those 1,000 examples are. But there are some. If I'm holding his arm, I could practice combinations transitioning from one side of the arm to the other without him moving. I'm not sure why I would, but I could.

I can train pretty much any striking combo without a partner's response (which I know since I can train them on a heavy bag. That's where the other 1,000 come from.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 26, 2019)

drop bear said:


> So this conversation here.
> 
> I said.
> 
> ...



Okay, I think this started in response off of some other stuff too, but you may be right - maybe I lost the thread.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 26, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Okay, I think this started in response off of some other stuff too, but you may be right - maybe I lost the thread.


I think you did. 

The main issue is since 99% of the time, your opponent will respond to you attack, IMO, those training will be more realistic.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 26, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I think you did.
> 
> The main issue is since 99% of the time, your opponent will respond to you attack, IMO, those training will be more realistic.


My point was that training a sequence without a response doesn’t make the training useless. If t did, both the heavy bag and focus mitts would need to go.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 26, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> My point was that training a sequence without a response doesn’t make the training useless. If t did, both the heavy bag and focus mitts would need to go.


Of course the heavy bag and focus mitts training (A) are both useful. But it cannot replace a respond training partner (B).

All I'm trying to say is:

A + B > A


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 26, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Of course the heavy bag and focus mitts training (A) are both useful. But it cannot replace a respond training partner (B).
> 
> All I'm trying to say is:
> 
> A + B > A


Agreed.


----------



## Star Dragon (May 27, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Are there really that much difference between the striking art partner drill and the wrestling art partner drill?
> 
> If his 1st punch can knock his opponent down, why does he need the rest of his moves for?



Ideally that will indeed be the case. But unlike Japanese Karate styles, in Kenpo we just don't want to rely on the 'one shot, one kill' philosophy.

If a situation happens to work out that way, that's great. However, we are aware that in the real world, you can never be too sure how much of an effect any of your techniques is going to have. If the adversary tolerates or evades it, we want something else in place without delay. So they will feel overwhelmed with a flurry of effective blows coming in from multiple directions.

This is a realistic and highly effective approach to self-defence.



> In the following clip, he can take his opponent down with his 1st attack.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## JR 137 (May 27, 2019)

Star Dragon said:


> Ideally that will indeed be the case. But unlike Japanese Karate styles, in Kenpo we just don't want to rely on the 'one shot, one kill' philosophy.
> 
> If a situation happens to work out that way, that's great. However, we are aware that in the real world, you can never be too sure how much of an effect any of your techniques is going to have. If the adversary tolerates or evades it, we want something else in place without delay. So they will feel overwhelmed with a flurry of effective blows coming in from multiple directions.
> 
> This is a realistic and highly effective approach to self-defence.


I’m pretty sure none of the Japanese karate styles literally rely on the “one strike, one kill” philosophy.

You’re taking the phrase too literally. Kind of like how the “there is no first strike in karate” phrase gets taken too literally.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 27, 2019)

Star Dragon said:


> But unlike Japanese Karate styles, in Kenpo we just don't want to rely on the 'one shot, one kill' philosophy.


One of my Karate friends who loved to ride in police car. When police needed to arrest someone, he would step out and tested his "one punch knock down". From what he told me, most of the time, his opponent would drop after 1 punch.

How about "one take down and end the stand up game" philosophy. If punch is not effective enough to knock your opponent down, will take down be better option instead?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 27, 2019)

Star Dragon said:


> in Kenpo we just don't want to rely on the 'one shot, one kill' philosophy.


IMO, all MA system try to develop effective finish moves. If we have to deal with multiple opponents and if our punch don't have enough knock down power, we will be in big trouble (because we may not have chance to throw that many punches).


----------



## drop bear (May 27, 2019)

By the way I trained with a karate guy who could legitimately fight.

So it definitely can be done.






Coach doing the comentry.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 27, 2019)

Star Dragon said:


> in Kenpo we just don't want to rely on the 'one shot, one kill' philosophy.


In that clip, he punches on his opponent's body. If he punches on his opponent's head, the result can be different. A 45 degree downward  hay-maker on the back of your opponent's head can knock your opponent down quite easily.

IMO, it's not that difficult to knock your opponent down by 1 punch if you know where to punch.


----------



## Buka (May 27, 2019)

drop bear said:


> By the way I trained with a karate guy who could legitimately fight.
> 
> So it definitely can be done.
> 
> ...



Maybe I’m fortunate, I’ve trained with a whole lot of Karate guys who could legitimately fight.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 27, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In that clip, he punches on his opponent's body. If he punches on his opponent's head, the result can be different. A 45 degree downward  hay-maker on the back of your opponent's head can knock your opponent down quite easily.
> 
> IMO, it's not that difficult to knock your opponent down by 1 punch if you know where to punch.


And land the punch.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 27, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> And land the punch.


Here is my question. It doesn't matter which MA system that you (general YOU) may train. If you doesn't train full contact. how can you develop your confidence in your knock down power? If you have not knocked down 100 guys in the past, how will you know that you will be able to knock down the 101th guy? I have lost my confidence in non-full contact training long time ago.

The same issue doesn't exist in the throwing art. If you have taken down 100 guys in the past, you know that your chance to take down the 101th guy will be high.

- I can take a guy down 100 times without hurting him.
- I can't knock a guy down 100 times without hurting him.

This is why IMO, it's no fun to train the striking art.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (May 28, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In that clip, he punches on his opponent's body. If he punches on his opponent's head, the result can be different. A 45 degree downward  hay-maker on the back of your opponent's head can knock your opponent down quite easily.
> 
> IMO, it's not that difficult to knock your opponent down by 1 punch if you know where to punch.


As a point of clarification, the punch isn't actually to the person's body, it's a punch to his armpit. And there is a punch afterwards to the back of the head (in the video it looks like a shuto/"sideways spearhand" to the neck, I learned it as a rolling backfist)


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 28, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Here is my question. It doesn't matter which MA system that you (general YOU) may train. If you doesn't train full contact. how can you develop your confidence in your knock down power? If you have not knocked down 100 guys in the past, how will you know that you will be able to knock down the 101th guy? I have lost my confidence in non-full contact training long time ago.
> 
> The same issue doesn't exist in the throwing art. If you have taken down 100 guys in the past, you know that your chance to take down the 101th guy will be high.
> 
> ...


There actually is a problem in grappling arts that is analogous. If your partner is compliant - even partially (not fighting back very much) - then you don't really know if you can take down someone who's resisting the takedown. I think striking practice should include some actual punching of people who are trying to punch back, and I don't think it has to require knocking them down - power can be tested and developed on a heavy bag. I think grappling practice should include some actual taking down of people who don't want to be taken down (it doesn't have to be all techniques).


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jun 6, 2019)

Generally speaking, if you hit the person first, you tend to win the fight.   especially if you hit them in the jaw or in a place you stun them then you get two free hits in.      And you can look put plenty of videos of people face to face with each other and the first to hit usually wins if they land it and it gives no reaction time ability as its posturing stage.  

The same sort of rule applies to shooting situations as well, the first person to land shots on target tends to win, getting shot is pretty demoralizing and if its your first time getting shot at effective suppression is pretty demoralizing.  

Just feel like that should be brought up because "one shot one kill" was brought up.  But the jaw is a good place to hit to cause the type of damage you need to perform that, i think body shots are more hit and miss unless you get them good in a organ, which might be harder than just clocking them on a jaw.     Kind of a lateish response.


----------



## Buka (Jun 6, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Here is my question. It doesn't matter which MA system that you (general YOU) may train. If you doesn't train full contact. how can you develop your confidence in your knock down power? If you have not knocked down 100 guys in the past, how will you know that you will be able to knock down the 101th guy? I have lost my confidence in non-full contact training long time ago.
> 
> The same issue doesn't exist in the throwing art. If you have taken down 100 guys in the past, you know that your chance to take down the 101th guy will be high.
> 
> ...



I am of a completely different opinion. There is nothing more fun than striking arts.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 6, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Here is my question. It doesn't matter which MA system that you (general YOU) may train. If you doesn't train full contact. how can you develop your confidence in your knock down power? If you have not knocked down 100 guys in the past, how will you know that you will be able to knock down the 101th guy? I have lost my confidence in non-full contact training long time ago.
> 
> The same issue doesn't exist in the throwing art. If you have taken down 100 guys in the past, you know that your chance to take down the 101th guy will be high.
> 
> ...


It is not so difficult.  You hit things like heavy bags.  You develop your power.  

And you work on application skills with partners.  You do not need to go full contact on your partner to know you can take someone out.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 6, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> It is not so difficult.  You hit things like heavy bags.  You develop your power.
> 
> And you work on application skills with partners.  You do not need to go full contact on your partner to know you can take someone out.



A bag sort of doesn't develop power. Unless you already know how to develop power.

Which is why for all you guys who do striking and have to contend with these sort of doughy punches. Have that issue.

And that by the way will also tie in with gassing out in the first 10 seconds.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 7, 2019)

Rat said:


> Generally speaking, if you hit the person first, you tend to win the fight.   especially if you hit them in the jaw or in a place you stun them then you get two free hits in.      And you can look put plenty of videos of people face to face with each other and the first to hit usually wins if they land it and it gives no reaction time ability as its posturing stage.
> 
> The same sort of rule applies to shooting situations as well, the first person to land shots on target tends to win, getting shot is pretty demoralizing and if its your first time getting shot at effective suppression is pretty demoralizing.
> 
> Just feel like that should be brought up because "one shot one kill" was brought up.  But the jaw is a good place to hit to cause the type of damage you need to perform that, i think body shots are more hit and miss unless you get them good in a organ, which might be harder than just clocking them on a jaw.     Kind of a lateish response.


Something to remember: the videos you see are edited. What I mean by that is you're going to see more videos of more interesting things. One-shot knockdowns are more interesting, more notable, so are probably more likely to show up in a video. They're also easier to compile into longer vidoes - nobody is compiling "20 6-shot KO's". While it's best to get the first shot in, whether that gets you to a win (or even stuns the other guy long enough to get in another shot, much less two more) depends on a lot of factors...including the person you punched.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 7, 2019)

drop bear said:


> A bag sort of doesn't develop power. Unless you already know how to develop power.
> 
> Which is why for all you guys who do striking and have to contend with these sort of doughy punches. Have that issue.
> 
> And that by the way will also tie in with gassing out in the first 10 seconds.


I didn't follow the thought to that last sentence, DB...

Anyway, my thoughts on bags and power: it's where people can work on developing power. Just hitting the bag - you're right, that won't develop power. But folks can gain confidence and not hold back so much once they're sure they won't hurt themselves. And then they start learning to generate real power (now that they're not holding it back so much).


----------



## drop bear (Jun 7, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I didn't follow the thought to that last sentence, DB...
> 
> Anyway, my thoughts on bags and power: it's where people can work on developing power. Just hitting the bag - you're right, that won't develop power. But folks can gain confidence and not hold back so much once they're sure they won't hurt themselves. And then they start learning to generate real power (now that they're not holding it back so much).



This is kind of a Gumby explanation so bear with me.

Ok what happens is you punch through the bag like everyone kind of tells you to do. But the bag gives the wrong feed back a bit. And basically to get the best reaction out of a bag you need to push the bag.

So what you wind up doing on the bag when you hit with power is to stay connected to the bag for a long time and continue to drive the punch. And this is generally how a hard punch works if you only ever received feedback from a bag.

You are basically pushing it.

Now when you crack someone in the head all that push is doing pretty much nothing but wasting energy. And you don't get that nice crisp snap connection you get this dull hit that never seems to feel solid.

But when you are hopped up you tend to want to hit as hard as you can and so lean towards that kind of punch.

But it takes a lot of effort and doesn't really hurt all that much and will very quickly gas you out.

Brophy tent gives a good example of these two styles at play.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 7, 2019)

drop bear said:


> This is kind of a Gumby explanation so bear with me.
> 
> Ok what happens is you punch through the bag like everyone kind of tells you to do. But the bag gives the wrong feed back a bit. And basically to get the best reaction out of a bag you need to push the bag.
> 
> ...


Thanks, that makes sense, and is a pretty concise explanation, actually. Well done.

I have noticed that almost everyone starts out (and continues, if not guided) trying to make the bag move. If anything, they do more of this with kicks, but it's definitely a common thing with punches. I have to work to get folks focused on getting some snap into the punch. Once they get that snap going, most still require guidance as they increase power, to keep from doing exactly what you're talking about. But once they get that down, the bag is where they work on power.

(I've seen folks teaching kicks this way, even with kicks that are not really well suited to pushing. Drives me kinda nuts.)


----------



## SK101 (Feb 8, 2022)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Your opponent throws 1 punch. You counter with 5 moves while he is still frozen in his punch. Is this realistic? In the normal situation, if you make 1 move, your opponent will respond with 1 move. When you make your 2nd move, he will respond with your 2nd move.
> 
> Unless you are 5 times faster than your opponent, this kind of training is not realistic IMO.


2 Techniques posted do exactly that and the 3rd system posted AKK has many, if not most techniques taught off a single strike - Initial reasoning in Shaolin Kempo is to teach where to hit and with what to hit not to make it look like a real fight. Sparring and sparring drills are more the area for defend/counter/defend/counter type of training, but pieces of Combos/DMs/Kempos/Forms can be broken out and used in the same way. I can teach someone to play football by putting them into the game their 1st day to make it "realistic" for them or I can start off with basics and work my way toward reality. In my opinion SKK is often taught with too much dependence on sparring to develop the reaction side of the system, but if an SKK instructor does a good job teaching people in the sparring ring then the Combinations can be thought of as the building blocks to get a person ready for the sparring portion of their training. Me personally I like lots of drills to bridge the lack of reaction needed for most combinations while decreasing the amount of variables a student has to deal with in sparring. Many people may say on a combination the person is being hit and the body is being manipulated to bring them into the next move. I agree with that, but it is the initial hitting of the attacker that is the weak link for many. You can't get to the end unless you have a great beginning. In my opinion back to lots of drills and working just the very beginning of the combos.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 8, 2022)

SK101 said:


> You can't get to the end unless you have a great beginning. In my opinion back to lots of drills and working just the very beginning of the combos.


If you want to use a jab to set up a cross, do you want to put 100% power into your jab?

The interested questions are:

- Which training is better? One step sparring, or continuous sparring?
- Should one train one step sparring before continuous sparring?
- Could one develop bad habit through one step sparring (such as don't know how to use move 1 to set up move 2)?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 8, 2022)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you want to use a jab to set up a cross, do you want to put 100% power into your jab?
> 
> The interested questions are:
> 
> ...


I don't think that's a question with a binary response. Every type of fight training I have any familiarity with has some form of X-step sparring/drill. Most also have some form of continuous sparring/randori/rolling. They serve different purposes.


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 8, 2022)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you want to use a jab to set up a cross, do you want to put 100% power into your jab?


sure.  Because the point is I want him to go down, not that I want to drop him specifically with a cross.  If he goes down with the jab, I’m done.  No need for the cross.  The cross isn’t the final goal.  The cross is ready in case the first shot didn’t finish the job.  It’s a good automatic combination, so a good strategy. But if you can land the jab, then land it like you mean it.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 8, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> If he goes down with the jab, I’m done.  No need for the cross.


Agree! When you have tried 3 times with your jab, you still cannot drop your opponent, you may try the jab-cross combo. When you do that, you may just use jab as a set up.


----------



## punisher73 (Feb 10, 2022)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you want to use a jab to set up a cross, do you want to put 100% power into your jab?
> 
> The interested questions are:
> 
> ...



As to the first question, both are different strategies that can be used.  In Japanese Karate, for example, they pulled in the concept of "one strike/one kill" into the mentality from sword fighting into their karate where they train each strike to be a fight ender.  BUT, to understand it properly, it does NOT mean that you only have "one bullet in the gun" so to speak.  It means that every strike you throw should have the intent to end the fight instantly.  To use a Western Boxing example, Jack Dempsey referred to his jab as a "Left Jolt" and wanted it to also be a power punch.

As to the "one step sparring".  This is a concept that has been largely misunderstood from its original intent.  Originally, it would have been referred to as "Ippon Kumite".  The concept was that it was one moment in time.  You are attacked and respond to interrupt the attacker so he can't utilize a continuous attack on you.  To use a Western Boxing example again for reference, the idea of throwing a jab at your opponent to disrupt his timing and set point so he doesn't use a combination on you.

ANY sparring method can lead to bad habits if not trained properly under proper guidance.  You put someone into sparring without proper tools on how to use them and you can immediately develop someone who is very "gun shy" and won't engage properly or trying to overpower their technique with muscle instead of using proper technique.

Back to Kenpo techniques.  They are meant to be drills that develop flow and targeting based on the opponent's reactions.  They are NOT meant to run the entire technique in a real situation.  This is not different than boxing trainers I have seen utilize 10-20 strike combinations as drills for their fighters for the same reason.


----------

