Bruises, Indexes, and Halting Grapplers

JenniM said:
Just another voice to the testiment of SL4, I have been studying as a student of Dr Chapel since 2000, that is also with 25 years of motion Kenpo under my belt and not the air technique type either, having learnt and experienced the mechanisms and principles applied I would encourage anyone with an open mind to to seek out an SL4 instructor, if you take on board what is being given to you and most of the time freely, you will surely make your current level of Kenpo/MA more effective.

That is such a good attempt Dave at putting into words the complexities of such mechanisms.

It is always good to hear other peoples experiences especially when they start as a sceptic, take on board what Dr Chapel is teaching and then recreate it in a sterile environment. There is so much more out there if only we are willing to show some humility and seek it out.

With regard to Shortay,Soulman and Amrik, I am glad that you have learnt from what I first saw and sought out as exceptional Kenpo.

Kevin J Mills

Thank you sir for the kind words. We'll be working on the basic "Index Set" when I see you. :)
 
howardr said:
Regarding #2: that's what worries me! The cat'll be outta the bag and you wrestlers and grapplers will spread counters to these counters! Well, hopefully it will at least still work against the untrained and semi-trained.

Maybe some of this stuff should be kept on the low-down... :wink2:

Doesn't matter G., done properly, it is like trying to counter a moveable-immoveable object.

The bag is really deep. :)
 
Doc said:
However I am considering perhaps a video of a "charge and bounce" so its effects can be seen, but learning it requires a change in "Kenpo philosophy" that most are unwilling to do, and it cannot be learned any other way.
Dr. Chapel, one concern I have with a video (and I know you know this but I'd just like it said for the others): it only shows the viewer an external perspective. In other words, the viewer can see the attack, can see the defense and can see the outcome. What the viewer can't get is the internal feeling of what it's like to be aligned and withstand the attack and the internal feeling of what it's like to be the attacker and be misaligned (and, therefore, not really be able to attack further effectively).

Someone can watch and think that if he was the attacker, after being stopped initially ("bumped"), he could just do X, and then if he was was stopped while doing X, he could just do Y. After all, from the external video viewer perspective it doesn't "look" like there's anything to stop these further actions. But, what the viewer doesn't realize is that while the attacker is being stopped at various points he is being misaligned (which for the untrained will not be apparent at all) and controlled (to a decent degree not apparent as well to the untrained), such that those options, which might look from an external perspective as possibilities, are actually reduced or eliminated entirely. Viewers who have not experienced what is happening in the video (which really cannot be mimicked from simply watching, as Dr. Chapel has already mentioned, due to the underlying biomechanics of the movements; this too won't be apparent from watching the video) may think that the defender doesn't look very solid and thus what he is doing couldn't really work, so the attacker must not be really attacking, etc. Of course, the defender is solid, the attacker is misaligned/immobile/controlled, etc. But, unfortunately, you really can't see any of that on a video.

Dr. Chapel, I'm wondering if the above are the sort of considerations that make you hesistant to put out various video clips on SL4 material?
 
Another concern with videos and particularly SL-4 on video, would be that videos are best for conveying general principles, and SL-4 is distinctly non-general. Everything is specific, down to the most minute detail.

This is true even for the "basics".

The more advanced stuff (I imagine) would be way too risky to put on video form as I know Doc conducts extensive back ground checks before teaching the nerve work, techinques requiring resuscitation etc and one cannot control the audience of a video once it is released.
 
howardr said:
Dr. Chapel, one concern I have with a video (and I know you know this but I'd just like it said for the others): it only shows the viewer an external perspective. In other words, the viewer can see the attack, can see the defense and can see the outcome. What the viewer can't get is the internal feeling of what it's like to be aligned and withstand the attack and the internal feeling of what it's like to be the attacker and be misaligned (and, therefore, not really be able to attack further effectively).

Someone can watch and think that if he was the attacker, after being stopped initially ("bumped"), he could just do X, and then if he was was stopped while doing X, he could just do Y. After all, from the external video viewer perspective it doesn't "look" like there's anything to stop these further actions. But, what the viewer doesn't realize is that while the attacker is being stopped at various points he is being misaligned (which for the untrained will not be apparent at all) and controlled (to a decent degree not apparent as well to the untrained), such that those options, which might look from an external perspective as possibilities, are actually reduced or eliminated entirely. Viewers who have not experienced what is happening in the video (which really cannot be mimicked from simply watching, as Dr. Chapel has already mentioned, due to the underlying biomechanics of the movements; this too won't be apparent from watching the video) may think that the defender doesn't look very solid and thus what he is doing couldn't really work, so the attacker must not be really attacking, etc. Of course, the defender is solid, the attacker is misaligned/immobile/controlled, etc. But, unfortunately, you really can't see any of that on a video.

Dr. Chapel, I'm wondering if the above are the sort of considerations that make you hesistant to put out various video clips on SL4 material?

Absolutely. Even in class to the casual observer it looks "fake." The question comes up, "why didn't they just do blank?" The answer is obvious to me, - because they can't, but it LOOKS like they should be able to. Even when you demonstrate it on someone for the first time, they always have a puzzled look on their face, and say, "Do it again." as if they don't believe what they just experienced. It's a problem and why our videos stay in- house. Those who seek to discredit can find alot when they don't know what they're looking at. (never end a sentance this way - I know.)
 
Michael Billings said:

OK this one I tried and it worked. I applied it to a Circling Wing application also and it was structurally superior to what I had been doing before.

-Michael
That is only just the beginning sir. :)
 
The question comes up, "why didn't they just do blank?" The answer is obvious to me, - because they can't, but it LOOKS like they should be able to. -- Doc
This is the exact problem I have with posting a video. There are too many people who believe that simply seeing something enables them to criticize or perform the movements. There will be people who see the video, try it at home, and say it didn't work. The Braced Index involves to many factors to be able to learn from a video. (Even if people are told this, they will still try it).

However, demonstrations on video that are easily copied and tested at home are definetly of use. The Circling Wing example of touching your own head to increase structural integrity is a perfect example. It can be tested/copied by watching a video. Little instruction is necassary.
Doc always say's "Feeling is believing." I have never met anyone, instructor or otherwise, who consistently expects and encourages doubt, skepticism, and "trying it out." If you don't believe him, he say's, "Line up and test it out." Sure enough, he's right. If he finds something wrong he corrects the problem and we move on.
Doc has always had an open door policy to other martial artists. Come in, check it out, and maybe even sign a waver to feel some proof. After all, feeling is believing.
I have only been a direct student of Doctor Chapel's for about 7 months. When I have discussions with other martial artists and show them some SL4 examples they are consistently saying, "WOW." I have never tried to convert anyone, only to improve their execution of a Krav Maga technique or otherwise. They are always thankful.

oh, and...
I must admit I have an alterior motive. I don't want to be the one "bouncing" off a solid braced index! :)
 
Doc said:
Hey Amrik, I look forward to seeing you in your new uniform. :)


And what a wonderful uniform it is, I gave Mr Dean his and he said he had never been so excited over a piece of clothing as he was in getting his uniform :)

I endeavour to do the uniform Mr Mills and yourself Justice whilst wearing it and when not Work HArd TRain Hard and practice, practices, practice .....

Look forward to seeing you in May
 
I'd be interesting in seeing a video of this technique in action.

Quote:
The question comes up, "why didn't they just do blank?" The answer is obvious to me, - because they can't, but it LOOKS like they should be able to. -- Doc

This is the exact problem I have with posting a video. There are too many people who believe that simply seeing something enables them to criticize or perform the movements. There will be people who see the video, try it at home, and say it didn't work. The Braced Index involves to many factors to be able to learn from a video. (Even if people are told this, they will still try it).
Who cares about these people. Only a fool would try to learn a new technique described as complex from its teachers from a video. You already know they won't pick up on the subleties, which are apparently very important to this technique, so why worry...
 
Doc said:
As for the question about "why" grapplers don't use these things, always know that sport competition has always been the least sophisticated aspect of the "martial arts."
umm... no... Competition is the most technical...

Making something work against a uncooperative opponent is always more complicated then making it work against a cooperative one...

In that venue knowledge is supplanted by youth and athleticism
Yup, athleticism is importanin anything physical. Football, dance, manual labour and yes, fighting.

designed to function within set rules and venue limitations.
There are always rules, even if they are not written. Even on the "street". If you want fewer rules the first UFC's did that, as did a whole bunch of Vale Tudo stuff out of Brazil.

Thus it is a "game."
Yup, So is street fighting, just slight variations on a theme. And games tend to get extremely complicated. Think of Chess, or Go.

A serious game where injury is definitely possible, but still a game. Taken out of their element where there really are no rules on the street,
Sure there are, they are just different and not always something you volunteer into.

"shooting" takes on a different look.
Yes, being taken down on cement or into a wall would hurt a lot more. As well as skmirring around on your back under a knee mount.

Techniques someone would try in the "ring" don't look as promising on the street. Consequences of failure are too great where there is no referee or the option to "tap out" is removed and you could lose more than a match.
Slight variations in rules call for variations in tactics.

Do you really think a guy would jump in the air and spin some kind of kick and fall to the ground if he knew that if he missed and didn't incapacitate you,
Can't say I've seen much of that in MMA....

that you might shove your fingers as deep in his eye sockets as you can?
Not as easy as it sounds, generally people aren't to cooperative when you try this sort of thing.
 
umm... no... Competition is the most technical...

Making something work against a uncooperative opponent is always more complicated then making it work against a cooperative one...-- Andrew Green
Competition can hardly be considered more technical in such a all encompassing way. Your example is specific enough to point out the difference between a cooperative person and someone who isn't. Is that a suggestion that only competitors train with uncooperative people? Training (in our school) is not always done with a compliant opponent. In the early stages it must be to promote proper mechanics, but as time progresses the attacks become more aggressive, faster, and overall uncooperative. That's reality.
The point is that in a competition, take point fighting for example, you can deliver a blow that makes "trembling shock" and be considered a winner. In the street the point winning blow would have done nothing to end the fight.
I know a number of great competition fighters who leave competition because they lost to someone who just happened to be a bit faster and younger (Thus the athleticism comment) and give them a love tap that scored a point. They consistently say, "That wasn't a fight. Take it to the street and see what happens." And watching them it's obvious who would win.

Grappling competitions are much the same.
There are always rules, even if they are not written. Even on the "street". If you want fewer rules the first UFC's did that, as did a whole bunch of Vale Tudo stuff out of Brazil. --- Andrew Green
I don't know what street you are fighting in...
As far as the UFC and "fewer rules"... that is laughable. The rules of the UFC are geared towards enabling grapplers to win. Don't believe me, here are the list of fouls:





  1. Butting with the head.
  2. Eye gouging of any kind.
  3. Biting.
  4. Hair pulling.
  5. Fish hooking.
  6. Groin attacks of any kind.
  7. Putting a finger into any orifice or into any cut or laceration on an opponent.
  8. Small joint manipulation.
  9. Striking to the spine or the back of the head.
  10. Striking downward using the point of the elbow.
  11. Throat strikes of any kind, including, without limitation, grabbing the trachea.
  12. Clawing, pinching or twisting the flesh.
  13. Grabbing the clavicle.
  14. Kicking the head of a grounded opponent.
  15. Kneeing the head of a grounded opponent.
  16. Stomping a grounded opponent.
  17. Kicking to the kidney with the heel.
  18. Spiking an opponent to the canvas on his head or neck.
  19. Throwing an opponent out of the ring or fenced area.
  20. Holding the shorts or gloves of an opponent.
  21. Spitting at an opponent.
  22. Engaging in an unsportsmanlike conduct that causes an injury to an opponent.
  23. Holding the ropes or the fence.
  24. Using abusive language in the ring or fenced area.
  25. Attacking an opponent on or during the break.
  26. Attacking an opponent who is under the care of the referee.
  27. Attacking an opponent after the bell has sounded the end of the period of unarmed combat.
  28. Flagrantly disregarding the instructions of the referee.
  29. Timidity, including, without limitation, avoiding contact with an opponent, intentionally or consistently dropping the mouthpiece or faking an injury.
  30. Interference by the corner.
  31. Throwing in the towel during competition.
Oh, in case you think I am making it up... here you go.
That is, per your comment, "fewer rules."

And regarding rules in the street:
Sure there are, they are just different and not always something you volunteer into. -- Andrew Green
If you are going to make such a statement then tell us what the rules are because I am certain everyone would like to know. Maybe I've been leaving my house every day not knowing these rules.
If you assume that everyone on the street operates under ANY form of rules you are asking for possible death. Yes, a college frat boy might be content with throwing punches or rolling around on the ground in a contest of who has the biggest... However, we cannot count on the opponent being a frat boy. We assume the worst and prepare for it. The reason terrorists destroyed the world trade center had more to do with the American intelligence communities assumptions and "rules" about how terrorists behave/operate than about lack of intelligence data or sharing. They did not obey the "rules" and thus, dealt a terrible blow to America.
So go ahead and assume there are rules... you know what they say about assuming.

Slight variations in rules call for variations in tactics.
Vague. What are they?

Regarding digging your fingers into someones eye sockets:
Not as easy as it sounds, generally people aren't to cooperative when you try this sort of thing.
We agree on this, but that wasn't Doc's point. The point, if I may, is the possibility exists for it to happen. THE POSSIBILITY. If you were about to get into a fight and someone said to you, "I've seen this guy fight. He broke this guys arm in three places and blinded him in one eye." I bet you would think twice. Same goes for criminals who are about to rob a house. Tell them, "That guy has a handgun under his mattress while he sleeps. He shot the last guy who tried to rob him." The equation changes with the possibility of death or extreme injury.
Training and repetition harden the neural pathways. If you train under a set of rules of course you will find there are rules in the street!
 
Bode said:
Is that a suggestion that only competitors train with uncooperative people?
No, it's saying that once people stop cooperating it becomes competitive.

Training (in our school) is not always done with a compliant opponent. In the early stages it must be to promote proper mechanics, but as time progresses the attacks become more aggressive, faster, and overall uncooperative.
ok, so you are progressing into a competitive environment...?

The point is that in a competition, take point fighting for example, you can deliver a blow that makes "trembling shock" and be considered a winner. In the street the point winning blow would have done nothing to end the fight.
ok, why does everyone that argues against competition go back to pointfighting? Yup, it's silly, we all agree. It's like playing football and "pretending" to tackle each other while the refs decide if the pretended tackle was good or not.

I know a number of great competition fighters who leave competition because they lost to someone who just happened to be a bit faster and younger (Thus the athleticism comment) and give them a love tap that scored a point. They consistently say, "That wasn't a fight. Take it to the street and see what happens." And watching them it's obvious who would win.
So go full contact...

Grappling competitions are much the same.
No, they are full contact.

I don't know what street you are fighting in...
None, fighting in the streets is something I would try to avoid.

As far as the UFC and "fewer rules"... that is laughable. The rules of the UFC are geared towards enabling grapplers to win. Don't believe me, here are the list of fouls:
Actually, they are geared towards striking lately.

Makes sense, the 45 min stalemates on the ground are not good for the ratings.



  1. Butting with the head.
Works best on the ground, scorring a standing head butt is a rare thing compared to on the ground.
  1. Eye gouging of any kind.
Again, works best on the ground, you need control of someone to hit a target that small.
  1. Biting.
Same
  1. Hair pulling.
That is grappling...
  1. Fish hooking.
Again, grappling.

  1. Groin attacks of any kind.
Ok, I'll give you this one, but it's pretty even. Strikes and grabs work.
  1. Putting a finger into any orifice or into any cut or laceration on an opponent.
Grappling..
  1. Small joint manipulation.
Grappling...
  1. Striking to the spine or the back of the head.
Well, that is striking, so I'll give it to you. But I think they would be hard to get at without some control getting you on the guys back...
  1. Striking downward using the point of the elbow.
Only applicable on the ground when on top of someone.
  1. Throat strikes of any kind, including, without limitation, grabbing the trachea.
Bit of both
  1. Clawing, pinching or twisting the flesh.
Grappling
  1. Grabbing the clavicle.
Grappling
  1. Kicking the head of a grounded opponent.
One for striking!
  1. Kneeing the head of a grounded opponent.
Grappling, this is done from a control position
  1. Stomping a grounded opponent.
Striking
  1. Kicking to the kidney with the heel.
Grappling - Done from guard
  1. Spiking an opponent to the canvas on his head or neck.
Grappling
  1. Throwing an opponent out of the ring or fenced area.
Grappling
  1. Holding the shorts or gloves of an opponent.
Grappling
  1. Spitting at an opponent.
umm... neither...
  1. Engaging in an unsportsmanlike conduct that causes an injury to an opponent.
neither
  1. Holding the ropes or the fence.
not really either
  1. Using abusive language in the ring or fenced area.
neither
  1. Attacking an opponent on or during the break.
neither
  1. Attacking an opponent who is under the care of the referee.
neither
  1. Attacking an opponent after the bell has sounded the end of the period of unarmed combat.
neither
  1. Flagrantly disregarding the instructions of the referee.
neither
  1. Timidity, including, without limitation, avoiding contact with an opponent, intentionally or consistently dropping the mouthpiece or faking an injury.
neither
  1. Interference by the corner.
neither
  1. Throwing in the towel during competition.
neither

That is, per your comment, "fewer rules."
Got any that use less?
The first UFC's did, "No biting" No eye Gauging" and that was it. Got penalized with a fine afterwards.

If you are going to make such a statement then tell us what the rules are because I am certain everyone would like to know. Maybe I've been leaving my house every day not knowing these rules.
Rules change from one situation to another, but there are always rules.


If you assume that everyone on the street operates under ANY form of rules you are asking for possible death.

Sure, maybe not by choice but they are forced to follow rules. Environment is one, numbers is another.



The reason terrorists destroyed the world trade center
I thought it was American foriegn policy?




Training and repetition harden the neural pathways. If you train under a set of rules of course you will find there are rules in the street!

So best train under as few as you can and varrying them to build adaptability into your "style" because you never no what "rules" you might get stuck with. Right, isn't that what I have been saying?
 
So go full contact...-- Andrew Green
You can't. No one can. Unless they plan on having one fight a year and risk possible death. You can train with a degree of realism, but never full contact. Simply adding the tap out means you aren't training full contact. Even in "full contact" competitions there are rules that define full contact for that given venue.
If you say go full contact, then define it. What are the rules? We could argue semantics all day and become blue in the face. Be specific. (I think my definition of full contact is different than yours).

Regarding grappling competitioins:
No, they are full contact.
See above.

Actually, they are geared towards striking lately.
Makes sense, the 45 min stalemates on the ground are not good for the ratings.
-- Andrew Green
After this quote you stepped through all the fouls listed on the UFC website. I'm not sure how you interpreted this, but they are FOULS. Meaning you cannot perform the listed moves. The majority of the fouls favor the fact that a grappler can stay tightly wound around his opponent without fear of small joint manipulation, biting, eye gouging, etc... By not allowing someone to bite you are creating a competition where people are not afraid to roll around on the ground. They wont lose a chunk of muscle. (That's just one example)

Got any that use less?
The first UFC's did, "No biting" No eye Gauging" and that was it. Got penalized with a fine afterwards.
The street uses less. And no, the first UFC had more rules than that. Too bad I can't find a source to quote, but I doubt you can as well. Those were the general rules they promoted to the mass media, but read the fine print for the fighters contracts. I'm sure the rules are clear.

Rules change from one situation to another, but there are always rules.
Again, in your world there is.


Sure, maybe not by choice but they are forced to follow rules. Environment is one, numbers is another.
Ahhhh, I see the problem. Your defintion of rules is vastly different than most. Here is websters definition:
A usual, customary, or generalized course of action or behavior.

Environment or numbers (I am assuming you meant number of people) are not, per the common definition of rules, an "action" or "behavior."
If you expect to communicate and have a logical discussion we should be clear on the semantics.

I thought it was American foriegn policy?
Now you are just bating me. This isn't a forum for such discussioin. To be technical my comment should have said, " The reason terrorists were able to destroyed the world trade center."

So best train under as few as you can and varrying them to build adaptability into your "style" because you never no what "rules" you might get stuck with
And how do you train under few rules? Where do you draw the line? The very act of sparring or grappling and having respect for your training partner entails rules. You don't want to hurt them because they wont be able to train. Our classes would last 1 minute if we trained perfectly realistic. An elbow to the head or spine... class over.
 
As "just another jerk on the bus", I would like to pose a question: Is it possible to explore ideas in this media in a way that prompts thinking minds to take an idea to the next level? Case in point: Were I a grappler only, I would be curious if the state of "being in alignment/congruence" could be applied to the floor; if one could "index" while in the mount, and apply it to ground-fighting.

If I were only a stand-up fighter or kenpoist, I might ask, "what is this thing? Can it help my kenpo?" Mr. Conatser speaks in another tread of the importance of basics. Can I apply this to improving mine?

Any of these require humility & curiosity. There are some great "hints" dropped about what's out there, but you rarely see curious minds enquire. Only critical ones. I attempted to post some of the mechanisms and ideas to see if folks would go to the "curious and exploratory", as opposed to the "invested & critical". Hmm.

D.
 
Bode said:
After this quote you stepped through all the fouls listed on the UFC website. I'm not sure how you interpreted this, but they are FOULS. Meaning you cannot perform the listed moves. The majority of the fouls favor the fact that a grappler can stay tightly wound around his opponent without fear of small joint manipulation, biting, eye gouging, etc... By not allowing someone to bite you are creating a competition where people are not afraid to roll around on the ground. They wont lose a chunk of muscle. (That's just one example)
Think about this...

These fouls are used when "tightly wound around his opponent" as you state. WHO has the control to put these fouls to the most use at this range? The person in control, or the person being controlled?
 
Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
As "just another jerk on the bus", I would like to pose a question: Is it possible to explore ideas in this media in a way that prompts thinking minds to take an idea to the next level? Case in point: Were I a grappler only, I would be curious if the state of "being in alignment/congruence" could be applied to the floor; if one could "index" while in the mount, and apply it to ground-fighting.

If I were only a stand-up fighter or kenpoist, I might ask, "what is this thing? Can it help my kenpo?" Mr. Conatser speaks in another tread of the importance of basics. Can I apply this to improving mine?

Any of these require humility & curiosity. There are some great "hints" dropped about what's out there, but you rarely see curious minds enquire. Only critical ones. I attempted to post some of the mechanisms and ideas to see if folks would go to the "curious and exploratory", as opposed to the "invested & critical". Hmm.

D.

"WARNING, WARNING, DANGER WILL ROBINSON - TOO MUCH INFORMATION HAS CREATED BRAINLOCK AND DUG IN HEELS."

Seriously Dr. C, this is normal. I have experienced this many times. I have given information that should have produced significant inquiries from anyone who is interested in actually improving their knowledge base. I have also put physical experiments out there so the "curious" could physically test ideas for themselves. To date only Mr. Billings has engaged (on more than one occasion), and commented on his findings publicly.

It is my experience that some posters are not actually interested in what they perceive as "new knowledge/material" only in validation for what they already subscribe to. Then there are some like Mr. Green, who is so locked into his own positions, he eludes common sense to bolster his perspective. Others ask multi-part intricant questions, and then after lengthy detailed answers to their inquiries, you get little to no resposnse. One was even honest enough to say he wanted answers, but just not from me. Then there are those that would rather talk about anything but the art, and cite numerous non martial art books you should go read so you'd "understand" where they are coming from.

I have always promoted the examination and exchange of honest "information" and asked questions to promote thought and an open mind, and avoided "political correctness" which I hate because it stifles the free flow of that information. I have always told it "like it is" and given "credit where credit is due," popular or not. That is what real teachers do.

Mr. Parker did the same, (although I must admit later in his life his commercial art made him very political in his interactions with many) to promote the free excahnge of ideas. All his life he put it out there and waited to see who "really wanted to know." They "worshipped" and laughed at his jokes, but through the years he found that the majority only wanted to know one thing. - "When is the next rank test?" Once they got enough rank, or thought they learned as much as they needed to know, - they left the fold to set up their own shop with his material. (very little of his personal material)

For me, these forums are fascinating and despite some of the less than open minded, there are truly some very well educated and brilliant people that participate. But I have also found that more people read than participate, so no matter what the exchange is between posters - good or bad, informative or not, a greater service is being done for the readers who have the opportunity to come to MartialTalk to see all sides and make decisions about what is available and credible for themselves. That is why I make my home here on MartialTalk and that is the extent of my own agenda. Recently a few of my newer students have participated and I think the experience has been positive for them. Mostly good posters and exchanges, and I presume, good readers that allows me to keep my promise to my teacher - "Preach the gospel brother." he always said with a smile. :) I will. God I miss him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MJS
Back
Top