Addy Hernandez on the Ultimate Self Defence

[Sandstorm]

This was inspired in part by the other thread about the 'best martial art'. I was reading one of Addy Hernandez' articles in the latest IKF.
(For those of you who aren't familiar with her and her partner, Joseph Simonet, here's a link... http://www.kifightingconcepts.com/ )

Now, this article focuses on 'the Ultimate Self Defence'. There seems to be a trend whereby people copare street fighting to UFC/Cage/NHB fighting, due to the closeness in realism to an actual street fight. The main comparison is ranges. The fact that they are all covered in a full contact level, unlike in any other combat sport.

Now, she mentions a list of arts that are street compliant, yet would fall short against an MMA fighter. Her conclusion was that there was actually one art that would stand up against an MMA fighter, and that was 'Tracy's Kempo'. Now, having never studied that particular system, I can't vouch for it's effectiveness, but surely, at the end of the day, we are talking sport versus street, which are two very different entities. Now, I am not saying the likes of Jens Pulver and Chuck Liddel etc would not be able to command a streetfight with ease, they would. But chances are, they won't adopt the stance or footwork or even submissions they use in the Octagon/Cage etc.

Now, is it that this system covers everything through it's syllabus, where other classes/arts would teach defence techniques 'off the record' so to speak? Is that what makes this system work? Or is she somewhat biased for some reason I'm missing?

I appreciate your thoughts on this issue. I am a fan of the KI concepts and Simonet and Hernandez are people I have respect for. I also love MMA and used to compete professionally, so this is in no way a smite against anyone or anything.

Kind regards
John

 

[exile]

Now, she mentions a list of arts that are street compliant, yet would fall short against an MMA fighter.

My question: how the hell would she know?

Let's take a ROK White Tiger commando, trained in the military TKD that freaked out the Viet Cong so much that their field command directed their fighters to avoid CQ contact with Korean infantry unless they had overwhelming numerical advantage during the Viet Nam war (documentation in Stuart Anslow's TKD book, citation on request). This guy was trained to kill an enemy within a few seconds of combat, very likely with neck breaks or strikes to the throat or head, using a field-adapted application of the TKD that Gen. Choi and Nam Tae Hi devised. The 11th ROK Marine Company used these skills at Tra Binh Dong to shatter a much larger North Vietnamese/Viet Cong assault, doing horrific damage to the enemy and earning a full grade promotion for every man in the Company. They were written up in the US Marine Corp's own newsletter (citation on request). Did Addy Hernandez inquire as to how many Tracy's Kenpo- or MMA-trained military brigades had that kind of success under battlefield conditions with full kit?

And someone has the sheer bloody arrogance to take their particular style as a standard for 'hard application' and judge others against it? Do we need to do a body count comparison, then? Because I've no doubt about the numbers that the ROK military, trained in TKD across the board and feared by their communist enemies in two bloody wars, could put up. Fighting range?? That's supposed to be an argument for style comparison, as vs. training protocol??

I suggest Ms. Hernandez come back when she has some dead enemy soldiers to compare with the ROK's track record...

BTW, I hope it's clear I'm not knocking Tracy's, MMA, or anything else. My target here is the notion that you can talk about which style is better than which other style. As an old professor of mine told me once, long, long ago, you can't kill a bad idea, apparently.

 

[Sandstorm]

My question: how the hell would she know?

Let's take a ROK White Tiger commando, trained in the military TKD that freaked out the Viet Cong so much that their field command directed their fighters to avoid CQ contact with Korean infantry unless they had overwhelming numerical advantage during the Viet Nam war (documentation in Stuart Anslow's TKD book, citation on request). This guy was trained to kill an enemy within a few seconds of combat, very likely with neck breaks or strikes to the throat or head, using a field-adapted application of the TKD that Gen. Choi and Nam Tae Hi devised. The 11th ROK Marine Company used these skills at Tra Binh Dong to shatter a much larger North Vietnamese/Viet Cong assault, doing horrific damage to the enemy and earning a full grade promotion for every man in the Company. They were written up in the US Marine Corp's own newsletter (citation on request). Did Addy Hernandez inquire as to how many Tracy's Kenpo- or MMA-trained military brigades had that kind of success under battlefield conditions with full kit?.

Thank you for that post. A really interesting piece of history that I am going to look into. Only having done TKD for a short time as a youth, I haven't dabbled in Korean history hardly at all.

BTW, I hope it's clear I'm not knocking Tracy's, MMA, or anything else. My target here is the notion that you can talk about which style is better than which other style. As an old professor of mine told me once, long, long ago, you can't kill a bad idea, apparently.

Yes, it is clear. Although I understand your drawing the ROK into this discussion, I believe that the primary idea behind the topic was art vs MMA fighters. I think she was stating that while each of the arts have their merits, there are pitfalls that, when encountering a trained MMA fighter, that art would fall short. I don't believe there was any reference to military training, which, to me at least, is an entirely different ball game. I know many military personnel who have entered the MMA arena. I've also trained members of the military myself, but we're talking killing here, as opposed to self preservation without a prison sentence.

Anyone/anything that compares one art to another is ridiculous, the reason I brought this issue up was because it was in a well publicised magazine and it is almost stating that this Tracy's Kempo was some kind of unique system. I just wanted to check the validity of that statement.

Thanks for the response, most interesting

Kind regards
John

 

[exile]

Thank you for that post. A really interesting piece of history that I am going to look into. Only having done TKD for a short time as a youth, I haven't dabbled in Korean history hardly at all.

TKD actually has a glorious history as a battlefield combative system. There are quite a few of us on MartialTalk who hold that as kind of the model of TKD that we pursue in our own training, and teaching insofar as we can. It's been all but snuffed out by the relentless pursuit of sport TKD under the Olympic banner... but those days may well be coming to an end. There's some good evidence of a change in the wind and a return to the kind of combat-effective training routines for TKD that were so effective in the past.

Yes, it is clear. Although I understand your drawing the ROK into this discussion, I believe that the primary idea behind the topic was art vs MMA fighters. I think she was stating that while each of the arts have their merits, there are pitfalls that, when encountering a trained MMA fighter, that art would fall short. I don't believe there was any reference to military training, which, to me at least, is an entirely different ball game. I know many military personnel who have entered the MMA arena. I've also trained members of the military myself, but we're talking killing here, as opposed to self preservation without a prison sentence.

Anyone/anything that compares one art to another is ridiculous, the reason I brought this issue up was because it was in a well publicised magazine and it is almost stating that this Tracy's Kempo was some kind of unique system. I just wanted to check the validity of that statement.

Right, I understand your point, John. The problem is always when things are framed in terms of style rather than training protocol. The TMAs are dangerous when trained to be, and recreational, if I can put it like that, when trained to be. For TKD, and Karate increasingly, there's been much more emphasis on the recreational aspect than the combative side... but as I say, there's some grounds for thinking that the pendulum is swinging back the other way...

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Didn't I just kill this whole debate like a YEAR ago in a thread that's now one of my blog posts?

 

[exile]

Didn't I just kill this whole debate like a YEAR ago in a thread that's now one of my blog posts?

But where's the link? You can't just post a teaser like that, Andy!

 

[tellner]

The fact that she and her teacher/husband both do Tracy's Kenpo might have something to do with it

 

[MJS]

This was inspired in part by the other thread about the 'best martial art'. I was reading one of Addy Hernandez' articles in the latest IKF.
(For those of you who aren't familiar with her and her partner, Joseph Simonet, here's a link... http://www.kifightingconcepts.com/ )

Now, this article focuses on 'the Ultimate Self Defence'. There seems to be a trend whereby people copare street fighting to UFC/Cage/NHB fighting, due to the closeness in realism to an actual street fight. The main comparison is ranges. The fact that they are all covered in a full contact level, unlike in any other combat sport.

Now, she mentions a list of arts that are street compliant, yet would fall short against an MMA fighter. Her conclusion was that there was actually one art that would stand up against an MMA fighter, and that was 'Tracy's Kempo'. Now, having never studied that particular system, I can't vouch for it's effectiveness, but surely, at the end of the day, we are talking sport versus street, which are two very different entities. Now, I am not saying the likes of Jens Pulver and Chuck Liddel etc would not be able to command a streetfight with ease, they would. But chances are, they won't adopt the stance or footwork or even submissions they use in the Octagon/Cage etc.

Now, is it that this system covers everything through it's syllabus, where other classes/arts would teach defence techniques 'off the record' so to speak? Is that what makes this system work? Or is she somewhat biased for some reason I'm missing?

I appreciate your thoughts on this issue. I am a fan of the KI concepts and Simonet and Hernandez are people I have respect for. I also love MMA and used to compete professionally, so this is in no way a smite against anyone or anything.

Kind regards
John

I would say that her choice of which art would do best, stems from the fact that she and Joe are ranking black belts in Tracy Kenpo. To help you understand the art better, if you're familiar with Ed Parker, you should be able to get a pretty good picture of what Tracy Kenpo is like. Not exactly the same, but similar. I transitioned from Parker to Tracy, and IMO, its was an extremely easy move, due to the similarities.

I would also say, that while I've never met either Joe or Addy in person, I've seen them on tape, on youtube and have read various articles about them and what they teach. IMO, Joe seems to take the training up a notch, to a level that I have to wonder if other Kenpoists do the same. Basically, it seems to me that he isn't one to frown upon crosstraining and really pressure testing his stuff.

As for whether or not an MMA fighter would be beat by a Kenpo guy....I certainly don't want to take anything away from any of the MMA guys. As I've said, they have alot of guts to do what they do. However, I'm also a believer in the saying, 'you fight like you train' so where as something may be second nature to a Kenpo person, it might not to a MMAist. Example: Hand Joe a stick or knife and put him up against someone who doesn't train that stuff, and I'd be willing to bet that he'd come out on top.

We can all benefit from each other. In other words, a TMA person and benefit from MMA training and vice versa. Alot of it is going to come down to how you train.

 

[Sandstorm]

Thank you for the comments. I understand that they are both high ranking MAists and hold high grades in Tracy Kenpo. Joseph holding 9th dan and Addy holding 4th dan. But surely if a bias were towards anything, it would be towards Josephs 'Art And Science Of Mook Jong', as this is a system created by him.
I think, a little later when I have time, I will post the whole article. This will give a more focused idea of where this debate stems from.
As I said in my opening post, I have much respect for both teachers/practitioners as they are both very open minded with regards to cross training and are willing an open to learn new arts/techniques. This is why I was so surprised to see an art singled out as being the most effective against an MMAist.

Thanks again

John

 

[KenpoTex]

never mind...

 

[Sandstorm]

never mind...

Any chance you could elaborate?

 

[KenpoTex]

I started typing a reply and then decided I didn't feel like getting into the tired old "MMA vs. TMA" debate again...I wasn't able to delete my post, hence the "never mind."

Some of my general thoughts on the subject can be found in post #24 in this thread and in a few other threads on the topic.

 

[Sandstorm]

Thank you Kenpotex.
I understand your point, however this is not an MMA vs TMA thread. I am trying to figure out why someone like Addy would single out an art as being superior. After all, she has studied many, and her influence is great. Just don't get why someone who cross trains as much as her would choose one art over another when putting it against MMA. I'm not sure anyone has the answer, it's just an open question regarding the subject and her choices for an article. There is so much more to MA than the ongoing debate about 'whose art is best' etc. It's tiresome and worn out by now.

Kind regards

John

 

[KenpoTex]

fair enough...I understood your intent, it just seems that these threads always drift in that direction.

 

[kidswarrior]

My question: how the hell would she know?

Let's take a ROK White Tiger commando, trained in the military TKD that freaked out the Viet Cong so much that their field command directed their fighters to avoid CQ contact with Korean infantry unless they had overwhelming numerical advantage during the Viet Nam war....

The ROK's freaked us all out...and they were on our side. :lol:

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

The ROK's freaked us all out...and they were on our side. :lol:

No question that they freaked out everyone.

MMA, TKD, Kenpo, Kempo, RBSD, Kyokushinkai, Boxing, MCMAP, Ninjutsu, IRT, Systema, etc., etc., etc. In the end it comes down to the person and their ability to make their training work in the moment.

 

[jks9199]

Thank you for the comments. I understand that they are both high ranking MAists and hold high grades in Tracy Kenpo. Joseph holding 9th dan and Addy holding 4th dan. But surely if a bias were towards anything, it would be towards Josephs 'Art And Science Of Mook Jong', as this is a system created by him.
I think, a little later when I have time, I will post the whole article. This will give a more focused idea of where this debate stems from.
As I said in my opening post, I have much respect for both teachers/practitioners as they are both very open minded with regards to cross training and are willing an open to learn new arts/techniques. This is why I was so surprised to see an art singled out as being the most effective against an MMAist.

Thanks again

John

I'm sure many of us are interested in what the original article you're referring to says. Let me just drop a reminder regarding MT's rules on copyright. You're OK posting a portion of the article, and a link to the rest, but to include the entire article, you'll need written documentation of permission from the copyright holder. If there's any doubt... just share the link.

 

[exile]

The ROK's freaked us all out...and they were on our side. :lol:

No question that they freaked out everyone.

MMA, TKD, Kenpo, Kempo, RBSD, Kyokushinkai, Boxing, MCMAP, Ninjutsu, IRT, Systema, etc., etc., etc. In the end it comes down to the person and their ability to make their training work in the moment.

One of the possible sources of confusion on this point—one that AH may be falling into here—is people talking about the technical content of styles when what's really involved is a kind of training format that may reflect the attitudes and ideas of the founder. It could well be that Tracy's K people do train at a much closer range, which is where street attacks typically begin, than most TKD schools encourage—it wouldn't surprise me in the least if that were true; maybe Tracy really took that goal personally very seriously. What the ROK example shows is that when you define survival under extreme combat conditions as the goal of your training—something that obviously was going to uppermost in the minds of Gen. Choi, Nam Tae Hi, and the other military officers who brought TKD training to the ROK infantry and special ops forces—you get a very combat-worthy result. And if you were to take any of the CMAs, or FMAs, or any other traditional MA style, I'm quite sure, and define the mission of the instructors in that style along the same lines as the South Korean military cadres did in the Korean War/late Kwan era, I think you'd find exactly the same thing. So the question is, who among the leaders of the various TMA communities emphasized effective combat, and who de-emphasized it?

In the case of TKD, we already know who wanted what and who the usual suspects are when it comes to the dilution of street-effectiveness as a shaping influence on the curriculum. In the case of Karate, we know that a slightly out-of-phase parallel development to TKD took place. We know that that kind of tournament sparring emphasis is much less in, say, Jiujitsu and Hapkido, and that these arts emphasize CQ applications resulting in severe damage to a garden variety street thug. We know that the Kempoists and Kajukenbo arts stressed 'pressure-testing' under violent conditions from the getgo, pretty much. So even though these approaches have, I would argue, a good deal of overlap in technical content, for reasons we've all talked about a million times, the fact is that schools in these respective different styles are probably going to line up, numerically, in one or the other side of a scale from totally SD focused to totally recreational/competitive. When we talk about TKD or Isshin-ryu or KM, in other words, we're not talking about the availability of effective SD skills, but the probability that those skills will be stressed in the training students receive in the majority of schools in those styles.

Obviously, I'd like to see a major shift in those numbers within TKD in the direction of what a majority of CHKD or KM schools teach. I don't know that that's ever gonna happen, but it could. But it's not just TKD's problem, or TKD/Karate's problem. Most people, I suspect, find the kind of training necessary for reliable SD capabilities too intimidating, too scary—not just because that training is pretty brutal, with a lot more potential for injury than standard foot-tag competitive sparring from 8 or more feet back is, but maybe more basically, because it forces people to visualize, seriously and vividly, being in situations in which their lives, in effect, are on the line in a particularly nasty way. And most people do not want to think about that sort of thing. Of course, if you're a soldier, you have no choice in the matter. So in the end, that's why military TKD, or military-grade Karate or Arnis or etc. is not going to sell especially well...

Hell, maybe most of the people who would sign up for something like that are already doing Kenpo, IRT or KM!

 

[Twin Fist]

I know one thing for sure.

Addy?


hawt

that is all.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

But where's the link? You can't just post a teaser like that, Andy!

*SIGH* If I must

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=57960