# Weapon Techniques



## MJS (Jun 25, 2007)

A while back, I started this thread.  There were a few posts where it was stated that the weapons techniques needed an overhaul.  I thought I'd start this thread for the discussion of the club and knife techniques in the Kenpo system.  

Looking at the blade/stick techs. that we have, what would you overhaul?  What would you add in place of something that was removed?

Mike


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 25, 2007)

I don't know enough to comment intelligently on this matter (yet), but that's never stopped me before. 

The Kenpo Knife techniques are designed to present the 'Kenpo' ideas, more than they are designed to present 'Knife' ideas. Kenpo is a checking system. How many times do we 'check' the knife in Raining Lance? Over, and over, and over, and over, we check that knife. That is the Kenpo way: check a weapon, counter with other weapons. 

Raining Lance is a 'Kenpo' weapon technique.

We've all heard the idea 'control - disarm - technique', but in our Kenpo techniques, we often skip the 'disarm' portion of the equation, don't we? 

I think, in Form 6 perhaps (still haven't learned this form), we are presented with a bit clearer instruction on that 'control - disarm - technique' idea. I'm not certain of that, because it is still above my pay grade. 

If my understanding of what Form 6 is beginning to teach, the application of weapon fighting doesn't show up to the student until after Form 6. Maybe real weapon fighting is not part of our system, at all. Maybe that's the design. "Then here are my weapons, karate, my empty hands."

I'm patient, for now. Maybe in another five years, I'll begin to figure it out.


----------



## Blindside (Jun 25, 2007)

MJS said:


> Looking at the blade/stick techs. that we have, what would you overhaul? What would you add in place of something that was removed?


 
Whats the knife tech where you turn your back on the guy and hit him with a spinning elbow?  That sounds like a great idea, just peachy.  

I'd like to see techs that address slashing knife attacks, it seems like that category got misplaced somewhere.  You have thrusting club attacks but no slashing knives.... that makes sense.  I'd also like to see examples versus the "grab and stab" shanking type attacks.  Mostly I'd like to remove the assumption of a moronic adversary.

Lamont


----------



## tellner (Jun 25, 2007)

Honest opinion? If the knife and counter-knife material are designed to "feel Kenpoey" rather than specifically to help you survive an encounter with an armed assailant throw them all the hell out right away. Teach nothing or send them to people who really understand armed assaults and how to deal with them rather than teaching bad stuff. That sort of thing is way too serious for artistic flourishes, unworkable demonstrations of skill or look and feel at the expense of functionality.

If someone has a knife and doesn't know jack-all about it you are in deadly danger no matter how many black belts you have. Period. If he has some good formal or on-the-job training you wouldn't believe how bad (and probably short) your day is about to become. It's not that much better when you also have a knife. The Indonesians have a saying that "After a knife fight the loser is ashes, but the winner is charcoal." All that goes triple or quadruple for your students. They deserve better than something which gives a stylistic flavor but is less than the most effective pragmatic material you can possibly provide. 

I may have given this cautionary story before. It bears repeating. One of my training brothers is a fifth degree black belt in Kajukenbo (obligatory Kenpo content). At least he was fifth dan a few years ago. He may have gotten another stripe since then. He absolutely refuses to teach any of the knife stuff from the style. Why? It's because of one of his students.

The student was a black belt. One evening he and a couple friends were attacked by a larger group. Some of them had knives. The student did one of his knife counters picture perfect. According to the people with him it was like he was going for his belt test.

The knife went under his arm and gave him a fatal wound in the side of the chest. 

My friend got out the magic markers and went through every one of the knife defenses with one of his instructors full bore. None of them worked. Since then he's torn them all out of his teaching manual because stylistic purity is less important than living students. There are specialists in weapons. I beg you to learn from them if the Kenpo weapons curriculum is anything less than the absolute best you can find.


----------



## tellner (Jun 25, 2007)

Blindside said:


> Whats the knife tech where you turn your back on the guy and hit him with a spinning elbow?  That sounds like a great idea, just peachy.


Ye gawds and little fishes. Anyone who teaches that should be taken out and shot before one of his students takes that seriously and gets a punctured lung or bleeds out from a kidney shot. That's criminal.



> Mostly I'd like to remove the assumption of a moronic adversary.



_*AMEN!*_


----------



## Blindside (Jun 26, 2007)

Yeah, found it:
Piercing Lance (Front- Right Knife Thrust, your Arms Up) 
1. An attacker at 12 o'clock comes at you with a right knife thrust. 

2. Standing in a left neutral bow, with your hands raised, step your right foot to 7:30 as you simultaneously execute a right hooking outward downward parry to the outside of your attacker's right wrist, redirecting the weapon to 4:30. As your parry makes contact, execute a left palm parry to the outside of your attacker's right elbow. Slide your left hand to your attacker's right wrist and grab it. 

3. Slide your right foot clockwise towards 1 o'clock into a left neutral bow to buckle your attacker's right leg with your right leg. (Your left hand is still grabbing your attacker's right.) Simultaneously execute a right back elbow strike to your attacker's right or left ribcage, depending upon how you line up to your attacker and what is available. 
4+ armbreak, yada yada yada
------------------
Between 2 and 3.  Opponent's left hand checks your left elbow while pulling back on the knife, free his arm and back-cutting you on the innter upper arm in the process.  You hit him with your elbow, congratulations.
He loops his left arm over your left shoulder and around your neck, his right repeatedly pistons his knife in and out of your right kidney while your right hand tries ineffectively to provide a shield for said kidney.  

Lamont


----------



## teej (Jun 26, 2007)

You are thinking in a way that has crippled American Kenpo and that is that we are a "technique based system". Meaning if someone does this, you have to do this tecnique or that technique. If someone has a knife and attacks me this way the student is suppose to do raining lance, if the attack is this way, I am supposed to do thrusting lance... etc.

The techniques we learn are "NOT THE ANSWER". Mr. Parker designed the "techniques" as desquised repitition. The techniques are a PUZZLE teaching MANY thing, not that you are supposed to do them completely if someone attacks you in a certain way. 

Yes, the techniques can possibly work step for step under the correct circumstances. Step for step the knife techniques are not the best to do in all situations but remember this- ALL of the EP techniques should be over in the first couple of moves. Take scrapping hoof for example. Do you think you are honsestly supposed to do the entire technique using both legs??

No, you practice both legs so you learn how to do the technique with both legs. Now take that principle and apply it to all of your techniques. Discect each technique. What are the legs and feet doing? Look at the foot work. Examine all of the stirkes envolved. What type of blocks, parries, checks are there? Examine the disarms. Is there an arm bar or arm break? Compare the arm break to other breaks in other techniques and see how they relate. Is there a take down? If so, how and why does it work? Compare it to other take downs or examine all the take downs in form 5.

That is another good point, form 5 our take down form. The entire form has take downs. Lets forget the techniques and look at all the various takedowns. Take downs from the front, from the back, from the side, pulling the bottom of the opponent out or the opposite taking the top of the opponent over. ALL of our techniques are like that, they are a puzzle to be taken appart and examined. Look at each piece to see what it is teaching you if you practice the technique.

Look at the knife techniques at each individual piece to see what it is teaching you, not that you have to do the technique step per step as taught. Disguised repetition. If you practice the technique as taught, your body is learning to move in certian ways instead of the constant line drills over and over again. Techniques are a way for you to practice.

No, we should not change the knife techniques as they are designed to teach us different principles. You can change your knife approach to how you would deal with a knife attack and use that in spontaneous drills if you apply the kenpo mechanics but over haul the techniques? No way! You would be taking out what GM Ed Parker was trying to teach you in that technique. Your job is to take the technique appart and find out what he was trying to teach you.

Yours in kenpo, Teej


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Jun 26, 2007)

Blindside said:


> Yeah, found it:
> Piercing Lance (Front- Right Knife Thrust, your Arms Up)
> 1. An attacker at 12 o'clock comes at you with a right knife thrust.
> 
> ...


 
This sounds good, but no. If we are to assume that a technique is bogus because it can be countered then no technique of any martial system works. Yes, moves can be countered....often in a simple fashion. This is or should be obvious. The defense is usually simpler than the offense. That is the nature of martial arts.

Show me a move that cannot be countered of any system....

Piercing Lance is a variation of the 'Kote Gaeshi' and 'Irimi Nage' taught in Ju Jitsu and Aikido systems as a basic counter to a mid-to-low line thrust attack. It's also taught in many Military, local law enforcement and CQC courses in various variations.... I'd say it may be worth a closer look than the old "that move won't work, all you have to do is this!"....well....in that case no move works and we should all quit martial arts now.

1) The punch will never work...all you have to is parry
2) The shoot doesn't work...all you have to do is sprawl
3) The leg kick doesn't work..all you have to do is lift your shin
4) The rear naked choke doesn't work....all you have to do is tuck your chin
5) The armbar doesn't work....all you have to do is keep the elbows in
6) Piercing Lance doesn't work..all you have to do is....

See what I mean?


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Jun 26, 2007)

teej said:


> You are thinking in a way that has crippled American Kenpo and that is that we are a "technique based system". Meaning if someone does this, you have to do this tecnique or that technique. If someone has a knife and attacks me this way the student is suppose to do raining lance, if the attack is this way, I am supposed to do thrusting lance... etc.
> 
> The techniques we learn are "NOT THE ANSWER". Mr. Parker designed the "techniques" as desquised repitition. The techniques are a PUZZLE teaching MANY thing, not that you are supposed to do them completely if someone attacks you in a certain way.
> 
> ...


 
I agree with some of this and disagree with some of this.  I'll keep it short.....Has it ever crossed anyone's mind that Ed Parker did not have the best ideas about everything?  I know, I know...heresy.


----------



## arnisador (Jun 26, 2007)

teej said:


> Mr. Parker designed the "techniques" as desquised repitition. The techniques are a PUZZLE



Wow, this is very different from what I've usually heard about Kenpo.

The spinning defense against the knife would have to be an absolute last resort, for the knife-in-the-kidney reason given above most notably.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Jun 26, 2007)

Teej & James; Good posts.

One of my ongoing soapbox issues is the linear thinking used by kenpoka around the use of self-defense techniques. Skills and abilities are taught and developed through study of the techniques. They are not meant to be single-solutions to specific attacks. They ARE designed to teach you how to think and use your body. Breaking down the specifics to learn how to hit what parts of him from what relative positions and angles are available or made, and how to generate destructive force while CYOA are all part of what we're supposed to get from practice. 

The linear thinking (1 to 1...this kenpo technique for that attack) reminds me of lower developmental thinking stages in psych...as when a kid judges that the tall skinny 12 oz. glass holds more water than the short one, simply because it looks bigger/taller. As we age, and our brain develops, we start to realize the effect of dimension on volume...a concept ungraspable at earlier stages of development. Unfortunately, we now have these same kids teaching geometry & trig/kenpo, while lacking the understanding that's yet to come.

Kenpo techs are learning opportunities; mini labs to explore your bod in motion, in relationship to the specific objectives of self defense, and to your opponent's actions/reactions. Five Swords doesn't teach a defense against a punch; if that's all you want, simply lean or step away, or get your hands up for him to run into. It provides you an opportunity to explore the application of your strategies and basics and from various relative positions to your opponent, and how your basics can be applied to manage that positioning.

Attempting the Lance techniques in response to the live action of an attacker with bad intent is gonna land you in the hospital or morgue. Train the hell out of them, but NOT for skill against a knife. For other reasons, related to developing your basics. Since you can't always run, learn some Shuai Chiao, Japanese Jujutsu, Silat, and Kali; train the hell outta them. Then still try to run, using your now-stellar knepo basics to check off the attacks while yo feets do their stuff.

Best Regards,

Dave Crouch


----------



## Blindside (Jun 26, 2007)

teej said:


> No, we should not change the knife techniques as they are designed to teach us different principles. You can change your knife approach to how you would deal with a knife attack and use that in spontaneous drills if you apply the kenpo mechanics but over haul the techniques? No way! You would be taking out what GM Ed Parker was trying to teach you in that technique. Your job is to take the technique appart and find out what he was trying to teach you.
> 
> Yours in kenpo, Teej


 
I understand this about kenpo, really I do.  But do you think it is possible to teach such lessons in the form of high percentage SD techniques?  

I don't think I could face a student and say "this is the technique, but don't actually do it, it will get you killed, instead look at the motion it could teach you...."  That teaching method makes absolutely no sense to me.  

Lamont


----------



## Blindside (Jun 26, 2007)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:


> This sounds good, but no. If we are to assume that a technique is bogus because it can be countered then no technique of any martial system works. Yes, moves can be countered....often in a simple fashion. This is or should be obvious. The defense is usually simpler than the offense. That is the nature of martial arts.
> 
> Show me a move that cannot be countered of any system....


 
I agree, but I don't try to kick a knife out of someones hand ala Chuck Norris/Lorenzo Lamas because its a low percentage move.  I also consider this tech a low percentage move because it is so easily countered for so little gain (elbow to the ribs?)  A movement like this isn't even in my top 10 for what I'd recommend someone to do, I can't in good faith even suggest this to a student.

Lamont


----------



## teej (Jun 26, 2007)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:


> Teej & James; Good posts.
> 
> One of my ongoing soapbox issues is the linear thinking used by kenpoka around the use of self-defense techniques. Skills and abilities are taught and developed through study of the techniques. They are not meant to be single-solutions to specific attacks. They ARE designed to teach you how to think and use your body. Breaking down the specifics to learn how to hit what parts of him from what relative positions and angles are available or made, and how to generate destructive force while CYOA are all part of what we're supposed to get from practice.
> 
> ...


 
YES!!! you understand.......Thank you


----------



## teej (Jun 26, 2007)

Blindside said:


> I understand this about kenpo, really I do. But do you think it is possible to teach such lessons in the form of high percentage SD techniques?
> 
> I don't think I could face a student and say "this is the technique, but don't actually do it, it will get you killed, instead look at the motion it could teach you...." That teaching method makes absolutely no sense to me.
> 
> Lamont


 
You are not supposed to face a student and tell them they are supposed to do a certain technique if someone does a certain thing. As an instructor you provide options for each individual student. The EP kenpo technique is strictly a teaching tool. Too many instructors out there do not understand why Mr. Parker designed them. I suggest contacting Huk Planas and ask him what the techniques are for and how the instructor is supposed to use them in teaching? More specifically why?

The kenpo technique training HAS to be combined with class spontaneous reaction drills and a lot of them! EP American Kenpo is an art of body mechanics. How the students body moves and responds, not which technique is used.

It is hard to explain typing on a computer. I suggest asking at a camp or lesson where an experienced senior is instructing. Why do you teach short form 1 over and over again? Why do you have your students perform it for every test? Because of everything shrt 1 teaches the student, ie. various ways to face an opponent while stepping away from him [retreating] or teaching the body how to generate proper torque both direct rotational and counter rotational torque, right???

Would you tell a student to defend himself using short form one? No, but practicing the form teaches the body important principles and mechanics. The techniques as the same thing. You practice the techniques and the students body learns certain things. You have to break down the technique to find out what it is teaching you or as an instructor, what you are teaching the student with the technique.

Did that help?  Yours in kenpo, Teej


----------



## Blindside (Jun 26, 2007)

> The kenpo technique training HAS to be combined with class spontaneous reaction drills and a lot of them! EP American Kenpo is an art of body mechanics. How the students body moves and responds, not which technique is used.


 
Yes, I absolutely agree.

But I'm not going to drill something into muscle memory that I think is crap, particularly entry lines on a weapon, to get the theoretical benefit of motion contained within the tech.  You react the way you train.  

I guess I just disagree with this teaching model.  Some answers are more right than others.

Lamont


----------



## teej (Jun 27, 2007)

Blindside said:


> Yes, I absolutely agree.
> 
> But I'm not going to drill something into muscle memory that I think is crap, particularly entry lines on a weapon, to get the theoretical benefit of motion contained within the tech. You react the way you train.
> 
> ...


 
Although "crap" is a tad harsh, I honestly agree with your thinking but as I progressed in rank and was taught by better instructors I was made to understand the system more. This "technique teaching method" of EP kenpo is the "commercialized" version and it has caused a lot of misunderstanding over the years.

That is why I suggest to you to search out Huk Planas and direct this question to him because you study the Filipino arts and Huk is Filipino. Huks' brother is very good in the Filipino arts and Mr. Planas teaches Filipino methods for dealing with knives.

He is the one I feel can better explain this concept to you. You are a smart guy, search out this answer better. Knife defenses should never be about a "technique". Knife defenses are concepts that have to be practiced in  flow type drills.

As for piercing lance, something doesn't seem correct with what you posted. The knife should be disarmed before you spin with the elbow.
I'll check my manual and notes later today.

Thanks for the thought provoking exchange, yours in kenpo, Teej


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Jun 27, 2007)

Blindside said:


> I agree, but I don't try to kick a knife out of someones hand ala Chuck Norris/Lorenzo Lamas because its a low percentage move. I also consider this tech a low percentage move because it is so easily countered for so little gain (elbow to the ribs?) A movement like this isn't even in my top 10 for what I'd recommend someone to do, I can't in good faith even suggest this to a student.
> 
> Lamont


 
I guess I'm not seeing the low percentage part of this move given the attack that it is for, a fully committed practically lunging stab(although I may be biased having been taught this move seperately in different systems..gotta have some merit if different systems and different people with different philosophies on combat agree on a common movement) .  You get out of the way ala a bullfighter and proceed to break the guys arm and/or wrist....and all of this occurs in the first beat.  What I see is guys turning the first part of the move into 89 steps and the attackers doing stabs that aren't fully committed (the other knife techniques already address this).  Then people say "this move sucks".  Well if you change the attack I guess so.  And I still have yet to see a move that cannot be countered easily.  The defnse is always easy if you know what is coming...at least it should be for the semi-skilled.

Side Note: the elbow to the ribs is not the main point of the first move...it's just icing on the cake. But everyone seems to think that the elbow is the point(pun intended).


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Jun 27, 2007)

teej said:


> As for piercing lance, something doesn't seem correct with what you posted. The knife should be disarmed before you spin with the elbow.


 
Apparently this is not being taught in most places like I thought/hoped it was.


----------



## MJS (Jun 28, 2007)

Blindside said:


> Whats the knife tech where you turn your back on the guy and hit him with a spinning elbow? That sounds like a great idea, just peachy.
> 
> I'd like to see techs that address slashing knife attacks, it seems like that category got misplaced somewhere. You have thrusting club attacks but no slashing knives.... that makes sense. I'd also like to see examples versus the "grab and stab" shanking type attacks. Mostly I'd like to remove the assumption of a moronic adversary.
> 
> Lamont


 
Interestingly enough, I'm sure depending on who you said that to, you'd hear, "Well, if you have an attack for a round house/backhand club attack, theres your slashing kinfe defense!"  I'm not disagreeing with you here, just giving the reply that I've got in the past. 

As for the shank type attack...yes, I agree, it would be nice to have examples. 

Mike


----------



## MJS (Jun 28, 2007)

teej said:


> You are thinking in a way that has crippled American Kenpo and that is that we are a "technique based system". Meaning if someone does this, you have to do this tecnique or that technique. If someone has a knife and attacks me this way the student is suppose to do raining lance, if the attack is this way, I am supposed to do thrusting lance... etc.
> 
> The techniques we learn are "NOT THE ANSWER". Mr. Parker designed the "techniques" as desquised repitition. The techniques are a PUZZLE teaching MANY thing, not that you are supposed to do them completely if someone attacks you in a certain way.
> 
> ...


 
Nice post!   Two things relevent to this discussion, came up in other discussions that I've had with my instructors recently.  First off, I'll start by saying that what you just said, is the same thing I say to people: "Use the techs. as a foundation to build off of."  

Just this past Tuesday, I was going thru some techs. with my instructor.  Of course, always keeping my on my toes, and making me think, he'll throw in little things, outside of the textbook way of doing the technique.  During one move, where I was supposed to parry and grab the arm, controlling it, he pulled his hand back pretty quick (just like any Joe on the street would) so I wasn't able to maintain control.  However, this didn't stop me from finishing the technique, as I just adapted to what he did and finished the move.  

A few weeks ago, during a private Arnis lesson, my inst. and I were working on some of the basic disarms.  One thing led to another and we were discussing actually being able to pull these off in a sparring type situation.  Textbook, no, pretty hard to do.  However, we went over some scenarios in which we found ourselves in a position to do them.  

Point of that was...they are valid moves, just need to know where to apply them. 

Mike


----------



## Blindside (Jun 28, 2007)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:


> I guess I'm not seeing the low percentage part of this move given the attack that it is for, a fully committed practically lunging stab(although I may be biased having been taught this move seperately in different systems..gotta have some merit if different systems and different people with different philosophies on combat agree on a common movement) .


 
Different attack, I try not to assume over-commitment on the part of my opponent.  

Lamont


----------



## Blindside (Jun 28, 2007)

MJS said:


> Interestingly enough, I'm sure depending on who you said that to, you'd hear, "Well, if you have an attack for a round house/backhand club attack, theres your slashing kinfe defense!" I'm not disagreeing with you here, just giving the reply that I've got in the past.


 
Yes, I've gotten that reply in the past as well.  I didn't buy it as a green belt, I don't buy it now.

Lamont


----------



## teej (Jun 28, 2007)

Again, I can't stress enough that EP kenpo techniques are a puzzle, they are ideas to be studied, broken apart to find the lessons to be learned.

Are you forgetting these principles:

_To any given base, whether it is a single move or a series of movements, you can:_

Prefix it - add a move or moves before it,
Suffix it - add a move or moves after it,
Insert - add a simultaneous move with the already established sequence (this move can be used as a (a) pinning check - using pressure against an opponent's weapons to nullify their delivery, or (b) positioned check - where you place the hand or leg in a defensive position or angle to minimize entry to your vital areas
Re-arrange - change the sequence of the moves,
Alter the - (a) weapon, (b) target, or (c) both weapon and target,
Adjust the - (a) range, (b) angle of execution (which affects width and height), or (c) both angle of execution and range,
Regulate the - (a) speed, (b) force, (c) both speed and force, or (d) intent and speed,
Delete - exclude a move or moves from the sequence.
Don't like piercing lance for a knife you say? You wouldn't be the first or last to say this. Apply #5 and make the attack a thrusting club or punch.

"We don't address slashing knife attacks." Really? What if you looked at "returning storm" and made the attack a slashing knife attack? Of course you might want to apply #3 and insert a disarm or maybe add the extension from crossing talon?

These principles in and of themselves should tell the EP kenpo student that these "techniques" are not set in stone. They are learning models.

Go through ALL of your techniques and put a knife in the attackers hand. Which entries do you feel comfortable with, which ones don't you? 

What about this for possibly teaching piercing lance if you are not comfortable with it. You teach the technique as taught for a knife. [nothing like a knife coming at you to get the student to move off the line.] Then run your practice session using it and after ask your class what they think of it. [make them think]

You come back explaining to your class that with your escrima background you would not apply this for a knife and explain why. Then tell your class, however; lets look at this again and make the attack a thrusting short club. Practice it some more and again ask for their thoughts.

You are not only with your thoughs concerning this topic. That is why I am suggesting you ask Huk Planas. It is not my place to post his thoughts, but I have attended plenty of his seminars and tested in front of him. He teaches escrima drills and he teaches the kenpo knife techniques and I have heard his comments/answers for your questions.

Again, techniques are a teaching model of ideas and principles not answers for attacks. In the "perfect ideal phase" all of the techniques can work as taught, but we are not in a perfect world. The streets are not the ideal phase safe classroom environment. That is why principles #1-8 above are supposed to be, in fact I'll go out on a limb here and say - "must be" taught and applied in out teachings. More spontaneous drills in class. I personally am a big proponent of less techniques and more class drills. 

Yours in kenpo, Teej


----------



## Blindside (Jun 28, 2007)

> You are not only with your thoughs concerning this topic. That is why I am suggesting you ask Huk Planas. It is not my place to post his thoughts, but I have attended plenty of his seminars and tested in front of him. He teaches escrima drills and he teaches the kenpo knife techniques and I have heard his comments/answers for your questions.
> 
> Again, techniques are a teaching model of ideas and principles not answers for attacks. In the "perfect ideal phase" all of the techniques can work as taught, but we are not in a perfect world. The streets are not the ideal phase safe classroom environment. That is why principles #1-8 above are supposed to be, in fact I'll go out on a limb here and say - "must be" taught and applied in out teachings. More spontaneous drills in class. I personally am a big proponent of less techniques and more class drills.


 
I appreciate the suggestion of contact Mr. Planas.  To be honest I don't really feel I need to, I have an effective weapon curricullum, it just doesn't come from kenpo.  One that teaches that movement X is flipping moronic against this angle knife slash and why, so I suggest you do movement Y instead, 'course if they are good they are going to counter by doing movement Z, so you better save your *** by doing movement A.  

Again, its a difference in teaching models, and I don't agree with the one that you are presenting as the AK commercial model.

Lamont


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Jun 28, 2007)

Blindside said:


> Different attack, I try not to assume over-commitment on the part of my opponent.
> 
> Lamont


 
In actual combat yes assumption is the mother of all..... In learning however, all basic learning begins with an assumption or hypothesis.  In martial arts of all forms (at least the many I've experienced) the basic attack is the assumption for the learning model.  It's like trying to do an FMA counter to a #1 strike against a number #5 strike...not exactly the best idea.  Same thing here.  You want to work within the model of piercing lance?  then use the right assumption.  If you want to start with a different assumption then don't complain the movemove doesn't fit that different assumption.  Gift of Destruction is not going to save you from a roundhouse club.  An 'umpa' bridge is not going to help you counter a sweep. etc.


----------



## teej (Jun 28, 2007)

Blindside said:


> I appreciate the suggestion of contact Mr. Planas. To be honest I don't really feel I need to, I have an effective weapon curricullum, it just doesn't come from kenpo. One that teaches that movement X is flipping moronic against this angle knife slash and why, so I suggest you do movement Y instead, 'course if they are good they are going to counter by doing movement Z, so you better save your *** by doing movement A.
> 
> Again, its a difference in teaching models, and I don't agree with the one that you are presenting as the AK commercial model.
> 
> Lamont


 
I appologize completely as I assumed your were an Ed Parker Kenpo black belt teaching the EP system. Thinking you were an EP kenpo instructor, I was trying to help you understand the thinking behind the commercial model teaching. I do not agree with all of it either, but I understand the reasoning.

If I wasn't a second generation EP black belt and studied another style, I most probably would have the exact same views as you do. Do not get me wrong as I do understand where your thinking is coming from and I am sure you are teaching effective material. But let me assure you that "taught correctly" the EP material is very effective. The key seems to be finding who can teach it correctly. 

Again, I understand your points and again my apologies for my assumptions.

Yours in the arts, Teej


----------



## Blindside (Jun 29, 2007)

teej said:


> I appologize completely as I assumed your were an Ed Parker Kenpo black belt teaching the EP system. Thinking you were an EP kenpo instructor, I was trying to help you understand the thinking behind the commercial model teaching. I do not agree with all of it either, but I understand the reasoning.
> 
> If I wasn't a second generation EP black belt and studied another style, I most probably would have the exact same views as you do. Do not get me wrong as I do understand where your thinking is coming from and I am sure you are teaching effective material. But let me assure you that "taught correctly" the EP material is very effective. The key seems to be finding who can teach it correctly.
> 
> ...


 
No worries, I actually spent several years trying to get weapon material  out of several kenpo lineages, and wasn't realy happy with what I got, I wound up in Pekiti, and that was like the holy grail.   I haven't really felt a need to go back since.  

Lamont


----------



## Blindside (Jun 29, 2007)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:


> In actual combat yes assumption is the mother of all..... In learning however, all basic learning begins with an assumption or hypothesis. In martial arts of all forms (at least the many I've experienced) the basic attack is the assumption for the learning model. It's like trying to do an FMA counter to a #1 strike against a number #5 strike...not exactly the best idea. Same thing here. You want to work within the model of piercing lance? then use the right assumption. If you want to start with a different assumption then don't complain the movemove doesn't fit that different assumption. Gift of Destruction is not going to save you from a roundhouse club. An 'umpa' bridge is not going to help you counter a sweep. etc.


 
I think I've learned Piercing Lance from three completely different AK lineages, only one of them suggested that the technique was only for a commited lunge, and that was more like "this works better when the guy commits."  Which is sort of redundant, everything works better if the guy overcommits.     

Lamont


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Jun 29, 2007)

Blindside said:


> I think I've learned Piercing Lance from three completely different AK lineages, *only one of them suggested that the technique was only for a commited lunge, and that was more like "this works better when the guy commits." Which is sort of redundant, everything works better if the guy overcommits.*
> 
> Lamont


 
:rofl: All you can say to something like that is "Well Duh!!!" then ask "can you show me the defense that works best when the attacker doesn't commit?" Then stand, wait and watch the puzzled expression.


----------



## nlkenpo (Jul 2, 2007)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:


> 1) The punch will never work...all you have to is parry
> 2) The shoot doesn't work...all you have to do is sprawl
> 3) The leg kick doesn't work..all you have to do is lift your shin
> 4) The rear naked choke doesn't work....all you have to do is tuck your chin
> ...


 
Great reply, kudo's to James !!!

I always tell my students to not concentrate on the 100 reasons a technique won't work or can be countered. Concentrate on the single reason it will work or the one thing you might learn from it.


----------



## kenpostudent (Jul 10, 2007)

This discussion may be a little above my pay grade, but is there any defense in kenpo against the guy who tries to pick you off a piece at a time with knife jabs and slashes? What can you do against that kind of attack, period? If an opponent doesn't commit, what options do you have? You'll have to attack at an opportune moment or try to draw a commitment, right? Either way, you are likely to get cut...and maybe killed.

I have been taught that kenpo knife techniques are against a particular kind of knife as well as a particular type of attack: a thrust with a stiletto. A "Crocodile Dundee" knife is more akin to a small sword. If someone had a knife like that, why would they thrust with it? It would make more sense to slash than stab. If you have a switchblade, wouldn't you want to stab because the blade is thin and doesn't have much of an edge? That's how my instructor explained it to me. I may be way off base. Any thoughts?


----------



## teej (Jul 10, 2007)

In the class room you are taught in the "ideal" phase. ie, the attacker is attacking with this foot forward and attacking with this arm in such a manner, etc. As a 3rd brown I am sure you are familiar with the 3 phases of combat that Ed Parker taught.

From learning a specific technique this way, your classroom drills have to move on to drills where you increase the distance between you and your opponent and the opponent moves around trying to attack. [kind of like sparring with a training knife. you are unarmed, the attacker has a knife.]

You have to use your foot work, blocks and parries and keep moving until the attacker does over commit. Stop thinking that every time the attacker pokes at you that you are supposed to disarm him.

Move!!! Keep moving!!! Try not to get cut or poked. When you do get touched with the training knife, "DO NOT STOP WHAT YOU ARE DOING AND SAY, "OH YOU GOT ME"!!!! [boy do I hate that, teaching yourself to stop when the knife touches you may very well get you killed]

Keep moving. When your partner finally commits then try a disarming technique. If the attacker comes in and you parry somehow and are close to him, stick to him until you can do something. If you loose control of the situation, get distance between you. Push him, hit kick or punch, but get some distance and start movning around again until the next commited attack.

After you successfully disarm your attacker, then and only then, go back and examine any mistakes you made. Does kenpo have anything for someone trying to pick you off piece at a time?? Yes it is called "footwork" and phase 3 of your training, "spontaneous drill training".

Hope this helped, Teej


----------

