Getting old with Kenpo

[drop bear]

Ahh, healing crystals..... nice use of a diversionary tactic to attempt to undermine my post..off balance and change the discussion...which is completely unassociated and not applicable to the discussion...

So, only testing in what, an MMA ring, or a BJJ mat is acceptable then? How do you change standards?....since real world situations and applications do not seem to be viable to you. You also need to take into consideration that there is a world of difference between testing in a controlled situation and a real world person who is not at all concerned about safety or controlling their anger who does not give a hot about the person they are attacking

And I'm not saying you are stopping anyone, just feel you, and others, are telling him his personal experience is wrong...were you there? Or is it there were no cameras, referees, mats/rings, protective gear, and AC it did not happen and if it did, it is absolute nonsense, is that it?

Ok.

"You also need to take into consideration that there is a world of difference between testing in a controlled situation and a real world person who is not at all concerned about safety or controlling their anger who does not give a hot about the person they are attacking"

No there isn't. Because I have tested in sport and it works under the above conditions.

In fact it works better under the above conditions.

And I can literally show evidence of successful street encounters. (I am pretty sure I still have my police statement somewhere where I took a bow and arrow off an armed robber.)

Without any sort of standard. Everything is whatever I say it is. And I am benefited by making myself appear more impressive than I am. Because the winner is the guy who appears most convincing.

It makes martial artists the equivalent of instagram.

I don't know if Kempo is good or not. But I do know when people subscribe to bad arguments that lead to a dishonest representation of that art.

This is the standard you are willing to defend. Then this is the standard you accept.

Now.

I explained how to set a better standard. I laid down in a post how I would justify a system with evidence and examples. So that if someone says a system doesn't work. I have mabye more of a counter argument than yes it does. You are mean.

If you look. That is basically all I did here.

Because the old days of of posters here dog piling insane arguments and insults on people was not the rosy forum you are describing.

 

[drop bear]

@drop bear would it be more helpful for him to say "Kenpo can work" or "What I learned in kenpo absolutely helped me" rather than the absolute statement "Kenpo works" ?

It seems you still very much have a thing against anecdotal evidence, which on some level I understand. But what he has learned in kenpo has helped him in those situations. I get that people can say literally anything and assume a causal relationship between event and consequence. But I just think life is not a clinical, sterile lab to draw such a conclusion about something as chaotic as a fight.

I can just see this descending into "well his kenpo didn't work, his fists did / his genetics did / his parents giving birth to him did".

No. Kempo works because this list of examples is just a better more well thought out statement.

And then you show evidence of kempo working somewhere and how their training methods are consistant with results or something.

If you look up in the thread I did a whole thing on lachlan guiles's leglock system to show how you would demonstrate with evidence that something does work.

Otherwise there has now been this argument twice that training success cannot somehow be reflected in a fight. But. Go back to "kempo works"

Is there anything that justifies that argument other than someone said it?

And that is where you start to get the problems you get.

Because what you then get is techniques, systems and ideas that don't work. That as soon as you try them on someone who isn't gifting those techniques to you you basically fail and cannot apply them.

But you get told they will work on the street under conditions you cannot see or experience because I have done it and it does work.

And that moves from a critical thinking to theist thinking or belief.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Ok.

"You also need to take into consideration that there is a world of difference between testing in a controlled situation and a real world person who is not at all concerned about safety or controlling their anger who does not give a hot about the person they are attacking"

No there isn't. Because I have tested in sport and it works under the above conditions.

In fact it works better under the above conditions.

And I can literally show evidence of successful street encounters. (I am pretty sure I still have my police statement somewhere where I took a bow and arrow off an armed robber.)

Without any sort of standard. Everything is whatever I say it is. And I am benefited by making myself appear more impressive than I am. Because the winner is the guy who appears most convincing.

It makes martial artists the equivalent of instagram.

I don't know if Kempo is good or not. But I do know when people subscribe to bad arguments that lead to a dishonest representation of that art.

This is the standard you are willing to defend. Then this is the standard you accept.

Now.

I explained how to set a better standard. I laid down in a post how I would justify a system with evidence and examples. So that if someone says a system doesn't work. I have mabye more of a counter argument than yes it does. You are mean.

If you look. That is basically all I did here.

Because the old days of of posters here dog piling insane arguments and insults on people was not the rosy forum you are describing.

I'm not the one talking about a standard...you are.... all I am doing is asking why when @Old Kenpo Warrior says Kenpo works for him. you and others are telling him it doesn't.... you are the one claiming that his claims puts martial arts on a par with video games or drugs. And I don't see association there either, as sensationalized as it was... One's personal experience is generally not transferable you are judging his point of view with your point of view..... and that simply does not work well.

as for the difference, my experience says yes there is a difference, I too have dealt with both...and there is a big difference between facing someone who is wants to win and some one who really wants to hurt you...and I am happy to hear your confrontation did not show you that. But after 60 confrontations in 2 months....sadly my experience taught me otherwise (and I worked there longer than 2 months, I only tracked 2 months)

And to be honest, my original post was not directed at you, I expected this from you and I know there is nothing I, or anyone else would say to change your position..... And there no sense in going on with this, history on MT has taught me, you and I rarely agree and we never will on this.

I have enjoyed this conversation....

 

[drop bear]

I'm not the one talking about a standard...you are.... all I am doing is asking why when @Old Kenpo Warrior says Kenpo works for him. you and others are telling him it doesn't.... you are the one claiming that his claims puts martial arts on a par with video games or drugs. And I don't see association there either, as sensationalized as it was... One's personal experience is generally not transferable you are judging his point of view with your point of view..... and that simply does not work well.

as for the difference, my experience says yes there is a difference, I too have dealt with both...and there is a big difference between facing someone who is wants to win and some one who really wants to hurt you...and I am happy to hear your confrontation did not show you that. But after 60 confrontations in 2 months....sadly my experience taught me otherwise (and I worked there longer than 2 months, I only tracked 2 months)

And to be honest, my original post was not directed at you, I expected this from you and I know there is nothing I, or anyone else would say to change your position..... And there no sense in going on with this, history on MT has taught me, you and I rarely agree and we never will on this.

I have enjoyed this conversation....

Yeah. But it isn't opinion vs opinion. That is where you are making the intellectual mistake.

I am not forming an opinion. I am saying no evidence was provided that kempo works.

If you have the opinion it works that's fine. But people also have the opinion healing crystals work.

If you think it is my duty to just believe everyone's opinions. Then you are incorrect there as well.

If you want people to have the opinion kempo works. Show some sort of reason for people to have that opinion.

 

[_Simon_]

No. Kempo works because this list of examples is just a better more well thought out statement.

And then you show evidence of kempo working somewhere and how their training methods are consistant with results or something.

If you look up in the thread I did a whole thing on lachlan guiles's leglock system to show how you would demonstrate with evidence that something does work.

Otherwise there has now been this argument twice that training success cannot somehow be reflected in a fight. But. Go back to "kempo works"

Is there anything that justifies that argument other than someone said it?

And that is where you start to get the problems you get.

Because what you then get is techniques, systems and ideas that don't work. That as soon as you try them on someone who isn't gifting those techniques to you you basically fail and cannot apply them.

But you get told they will work on the street under conditions you cannot see or experience because I have done it and it does work.

And that moves from a critical thinking to theist thinking or belief.

Okay.

I do get your thoughts on there has to be a standard, and also that simply someone saying it works doesn't really mean anything.

I just can't understand the whole "this martial arts system is proven to work/ it's all about the system". Some better prepare you for a violent encounter, sure. But again, life is not a clinical, sterile laboratory. With laboratory conditions. That apply DIRECTLY to everyday life in the chaotic nature of violence. With 100% guaranteed "cause-effect".

I agree having a standard and not being delusional are crucial. But the absolutist black and white thinking isn't even the application of critical thinking but a severe departure from that.

And you saying you have proof your system works because of disarming that robber, you're essentially saying that, without fail, if robber after robber after robber come at you, the exact same result will inevitably occur.

I think it's simply healthier and far more accurate to say "kenpo/insert MA here can work..." (the "dot-dot-dot" perhaps being the crucial point). But I get that you care about MA alot and I do respect that you want a standard, and are sick of the delusional claims. I get tired of those too. I'm just putting forward some different thoughts to consider. In our sparring session recently I got punched hard in the nose and kicked in the groin. Did my system fail me? I also parried and evaded alot of strikes and gave a few. Does my system work? Or did those things just happen? It worked sometimes, it didn't in others. I made it work sometimes, I failed to use it in others.

The training you do can certainly reflect in the outcomes of a fight. Absolutely. And for sure someone just saying it obviously doesn't make it so. But it feels more fluid than this and to me seems on more of a spectrum than an either/or thought system. Some better prepare you. I'm not the authority on what ones do that. But applying what you've been training can exist despite it not being from an "evidence-based, full proof system." I'm not saying it's all about the individual, nor am I saying it's all about the system. I think it's a blend of both, and also a smattering of unpredictable stuff we simply can't control in life.

And very much misapplying your thought on the theistic domain here. "Critical thinking" does not engender and cover eeeevery... siiiingle... sphere of life.

 

[drop bear]

And you saying you have proof your system works because of disarming that robber, you're essentially saying that, without fail, if robber after robber after robber come at you, the exact same result will inevitably occur.

Ok. This. Think about the issue this creates and how you would solve it.

So the issue is we don't have a repeatable situation that we can base a self defence concept on. . So how do we fix that?

 

[_Simon_]

Ok. This. Think about the issue this creates and how you would solve it.

So the issue is we don't have a repeatable situation that we can base a self defence concept on. . So how do we fix that?

I think it's not about infallibility in method/result, but more in increasing likelihoods and expertise in situations similar.

There is a severe issue in any black and white lens of "this system works, look at my version of proof". Absolute statements especially when it comes to unpredictable nature of violent encounters can be just as dangerous as saying "oh this happened once, so I'm invincible".

Sometimes it doesn't need to even replicate the "street encounters" to a tee. High pressure physical and psychological training can breed a resilience and ability that can significantly aid you in handling yourself. But not guarantee. That's my main point. You seem to poo-poo anything that doesn't follow this hardcore scientific methodology. Anecdotes don't matter to you in this slightest. What anecdotes DO achieve is they can potentially hint at effectiveness of training in other systems that don't necessarily apply the competition standards you often speak of. What anecdotes can severely fail in is it is essentially word of mouth, and can be misperception, fabrication, delusional, and ending up saying things like a system works (guaranteed).

Enhance and develop physical and mental ability in fighting and under pressure, and it's possible but not guaranteed you will handle yourself. I can offer no other solution than this

But my point is there are many methods out there. Some may be more effective and some less, and I have no diagram to say which is which. We've all seen videos of really unrealistic stuff working in fights. Does this prove that that method or system is effective? Well... no. Can it be? Under certain circumstances, yes. Laboratories can replicate predictable results. When out in the open it brings in a vast array of confounding variables which are now a big part of the results.

By all means apply critical thinking. All I'm saying is I don't feel it's as clear cut as this. Otherwise it's only the arts that you can apply your particular standards to that are deemed the only effective ones.

 

[jergar]

Hello Kenpo folk
I began my Kenpo journey in 1968, studying with Larry Robbins to green belt, and moved on to John Stevenson where I received my 3rd Black Belt. For a brief period, I was under the roof of Rod Martain in Mountain View California. I've used Kenpo in real street-fighting situations on numerous occasions. I still have a white scar, about an 8th of an inch long where I got nicked when I faced a knife-wielding attacker in Golden Gate Park. I got a nick he got a broken arm. My point with this story is that I'm hearing a great deal these days that Kenp doesn't work on the street. Enough! It works. I'm 70 years old and practice my Kenpo techniques every day. I retired from teaching four years ago. These days I limit my kicks to below the waist. I work speed drills and the power cell of every technique.
Just wondering if there are any other old Kenpo Warriors still active.

Hi Old Kenpo Warrior, hey i'm 67 and have been practicing Kung Fu San Soo for 35 of those years and I get the same thing from persons who don't know what they are talking about. That won't work on the street etc. etc. I too have used my art on the street on various thugs and all I can say is that it works for ME. I'm still training with the same instructor at Kung Fu San Soo, Riverside ca. As far as proving it ,I'm old school like you a man's word still means something to me. Kenpo is a fine art I have worked with one person who is our age that trained with Larry Parker, his techniques are good and blends pretty well with SanSoo so it's all good in my opinion . Peace!

 

[drop bear]

I think it's not about infallibility in method/result, but more in increasing likelihoods and expertise in situations similar.

There is a severe issue in any black and white lens of "this system works, look at my version of proof". Absolute statements especially when it comes to unpredictable nature of violent encounters can be just as dangerous as saying "oh this happened once, so I'm invincible".

Sometimes it doesn't need to even replicate the "street encounters" to a tee. High pressure physical and psychological training can breed a resilience and ability that can significantly aid you in handling yourself. But not guarantee. That's my main point. You seem to poo-poo anything that doesn't follow this hardcore scientific methodology. Anecdotes don't matter to you in this slightest. What anecdotes DO achieve is they can potentially hint at effectiveness of training in other systems that don't necessarily apply the competition standards you often speak of. What anecdotes can severely fail in is it is essentially word of mouth, and can be misperception, fabrication, delusional, and ending up saying things like a system works (guaranteed).

Enhance and develop physical and mental ability in fighting and under pressure, and it's possible but not guaranteed you will handle yourself. I can offer no other solution than this

But my point is there are many methods out there. Some may be more effective and some less, and I have no diagram to say which is which. We've all seen videos of really unrealistic stuff working in fights. Does this prove that that method or system is effective? Well... no. Can it be? Under certain circumstances, yes. Laboratories can replicate predictable results. When out in the open it brings in a vast array of confounding variables which are now a big part of the results.

By all means apply critical thinking. All I'm saying is I don't feel it's as clear cut as this. Otherwise it's only the arts that you can apply your particular standards to that are deemed the only effective ones.

What proof should I have considered in this case?

 

[drop bear]

I think it's not about infallibility in method/result, but more in increasing likelihoods and expertise in situations similar.

There is a severe issue in any black and white lens of "this system works, look at my version of proof". Absolute statements especially when it comes to unpredictable nature of violent encounters can be just as dangerous as saying "oh this happened once, so I'm invincible".

Sometimes it doesn't need to even replicate the "street encounters" to a tee. High pressure physical and psychological training can breed a resilience and ability that can significantly aid you in handling yourself. But not guarantee. That's my main point. You seem to poo-poo anything that doesn't follow this hardcore scientific methodology. Anecdotes don't matter to you in this slightest. What anecdotes DO achieve is they can potentially hint at effectiveness of training in other systems that don't necessarily apply the competition standards you often speak of. What anecdotes can severely fail in is it is essentially word of mouth, and can be misperception, fabrication, delusional, and ending up saying things like a system works (guaranteed).

Enhance and develop physical and mental ability in fighting and under pressure, and it's possible but not guaranteed you will handle yourself. I can offer no other solution than this

But my point is there are many methods out there. Some may be more effective and some less, and I have no diagram to say which is which. We've all seen videos of really unrealistic stuff working in fights. Does this prove that that method or system is effective? Well... no. Can it be? Under certain circumstances, yes. Laboratories can replicate predictable results. When out in the open it brings in a vast array of confounding variables which are now a big part of the results.

By all means apply critical thinking. All I'm saying is I don't feel it's as clear cut as this. Otherwise it's only the arts that you can apply your particular standards to that are deemed the only effective ones.

Bear in mind this is what you are advocating.

Creating a very light weight, collapsible baton - feedback needed

What reasons? Fiddly, fragile (one of my FMA teachers actually did a test with a number of common folders, wearing mail hand protection, and found that quite a number of them collapsed or came unlocked and folded on the hand when thrusting, and even among trainers that I've owned, I've found...

www.martialtalk.com

Without the burden of proof anyone can literally say anything.

Which then becomes this fantasy role play.

 

[_Simon_]

What proof should I have considered in this case?

Well, none really! It can be as simple as ah that's interesting how it worked for him in that circumstance, and perhaps asking specifics as to what happened.
Of course, I'd have issue too with the statement "this style works", as it's not as clear cut. Could say what I did I can see came from my training, so my training helped in that circumstance. It "can work".

But I honestly dont know what proof you're looking for. Do you really consider multiple popular YouTube videos as proof? Or very specific ruled competition record? Even a video you could edit quite heavily, there is some crazy fancy technology nowadays!

Bear in mind this is what you are advocating.

Creating a very light weight, collapsible baton - feedback needed

What reasons? Fiddly, fragile (one of my FMA teachers actually did a test with a number of common folders, wearing mail hand protection, and found that quite a number of them collapsed or came unlocked and folded on the hand when thrusting, and even among trainers that I've owned, I've found...

www.martialtalk.com

Without the burden of proof anyone can literally say anything.

Which then becomes this fantasy role play.

You KNOW I am not saying or advocating that, and purposely ignoring the whole context of what I've said. That's quite a leap to make. It's like it's either your way of hardcore reductionist scientific method with definitive cause-effect and undeniable proof thereof, or it's absolute fantasy. No room for grey areas, or that it could exist on a continuum/spectrum? As life isn't a lab but much more fluid process, where learning can contribute in various ways and skills can enhance likelihoods but not guarantee. I mean, you can even look at elite sport. If I did the EXACT same training regime/system as Roger Federer, would I be guaranteed to win all those titles? No. Would it help? Of course.

Something as chaotic and unpredictable as defending yourself... some things can help, some things may not. By all means try to acquire evidence, but drawing definitive conclusion which ignores the impact other training can have doesn't make sense. If you think that means I'm advocating fantasy... well that's rather interesting.

 

[drop bear]

Well, none really! It can be as simple as ah that's interesting how it worked for him in that circumstance, and perhaps asking specifics as to what happened.
Of course, I'd have issue too with the statement "this style works", as it's not as clear cut. Could say what I did I can see came from my training, so my training helped in that circumstance. It "can work".

But I honestly dont know what proof you're looking for. Do you really consider multiple popular YouTube videos as proof? Or very specific ruled competition record? Even a video you could edit quite heavily, there is some crazy fancy technology nowadays!


You KNOW I am not saying or advocating that, and purposely ignoring the whole context of what I've said. That's quite a leap to make. It's like it's either your way of hardcore reductionist scientific method with definitive cause-effect and undeniable proof thereof, or it's absolute fantasy. No room for grey areas, or that it could exist on a continuum/spectrum? As life isn't a lab but much more fluid process, where learning can contribute in various ways and skills can enhance likelihoods but not guarantee. I mean, you can even look at elite sport. If I did the EXACT same training regime/system as Roger Federer, would I be guaranteed to win all those titles? No. Would it help? Of course.

Something as chaotic and unpredictable as defending yourself... some things can help, some things may not. By all means try to acquire evidence, but drawing definitive conclusion which ignores the impact other training can have doesn't make sense. If you think that means I'm advocating fantasy... well that's rather interesting.

Yeah. But we are also taking the extreme end of anecdotal evidence here and expecting to make a pretty big conclusion from it.

If it wasn't such a huge leap. I possibly wouldn't be so picky about it.

But read that thread on light weight battons. It is literally everyone just saying stuff and expecting people to believe it.

It doesn't make the conversation any more productive. Because there is no fixed ground to work with.

 

[_Simon_]

Yeah. But we are also taking the extreme end of anecdotal evidence here and expecting to make a pretty big conclusion from it.

If it wasn't such a huge leap. I possibly wouldn't be so picky about it.

But read that thread on light weight battons. It is literally everyone just saying stuff and expecting people to believe it.

It doesn't make the conversation any more productive. Because there is no fixed ground to work with.

Read through it and agreed about that thread, all completely hypothetical and conclusions drawn from them. But the thing is you do that too

I could for example choke a guy unconscious more quickly than you could knife a guy unconscious.

It takes forever to stab a guy until he looses the ability to fight back.

(The 'could' bit suggests potential which is good, but the next bit is presumptive)

Can we really provide solid evidence as to the most effective weapon in a self defense situation? How could we even do that?

Even your statements about the umbrella not being deadly were presumptive. Seems you disagreed simply because of notion you hold that 'everyone incorrectly says that everything is deadly'. It's not really a basis to make an argument from...

The huge leap you speak of seems to be the statement being said "this works" rather than "it can work". But I think your issue with anecdotal evidence seems to be more the whole "it happened this way for me therefore it works." Fair enough. But then you're discounting anecdote completely when it surely can be of some value. I agree with not using it as sole evidence to make a leap. But agreed using anecdotes taking away the certainty of proof. Which I simply don't think exists in this particular sphere of self defense. Like I said, to me it seems more like a spectrum of what training can aid you, and that there are so many variables to it that finding some pure, absolute eternally conclusive proof/evidence is rather lofty and not realistic...

To suggest I am playing the hypothetical talk game and advocating the fantasy argument is to completely miss the gist of what I'm saying. I'm saying it's not as clinical, absolute and cause-effect as you put forth. I don't know how many times I can repeat myself here, so I'll most likely just bow out here, we'll see lol.

 

[drop bear]

Read through it and agreed about that thread, all completely hypothetical and conclusions drawn from them. But the thing is you do that too


(The 'could' bit suggests potential which is good, but the next bit is presumptive)

Can we really provide solid evidence as to the most effective weapon in a self defense situation? How could we even do that?

You are correct.

Without some sort of structure. We do not have a platform to determine what is real and what isn't.

Now. If fighting is chaotic and there is no laboratory test. That's it. We are done. We have no way of knowing and everything is as good as everything else.

Now this makes all martial arts equally viable. But it also makes everything equally viable.

And we wind up with this.

 

[_Simon_]

You are correct.

Without some sort of structure. We do not have a platform to determine what is real and what isn't.

Now. If fighting is chaotic and there is no laboratory test. That's it. We are done. We have no way of knowing and everything is as good as everything else.

Now this makes all martial arts equally viable. But it also makes everything equally viable.

And we wind up with this.

Agreed about a platform/structure etc.

But any good structural basis will take into account the element of variability and unpredictability. This does NOT suggest I'm saying "oh everything's good, it all works", but I'm merely suggesting it isn't as concrete a process as to the outcome of training. Increasing ability, skill, psychological basis is a continuum of sorts and could potentially be generalised across a vast array of situations (in terms of its ability to be functional). Different systems/MAs will emphasise different aspects and focus. Some aspects to the exclusion of others.

But not only the unpredictability aspect, what you train in some or even many MA simply can work. Likelihoods are what fluctuates and are influenced.

Hence, to bring it riiiight back, the OP's Kenpo training helped him immensely. I'll stick with that. Yes it's a leap to therefore conclude "Kenpo works", as I wouldn't even know what that means to be honest. It's the same as saying "punches work". Well... sort of. But not really guaranteed huh? Developing a strong punch, good alignment, accuracy, power, whatever, increased the likelihood of it working. But if the target you launched at changed angle slightly, you may break your hand, lose this imaginary fight. Do punches work?

 

[drop bear]

Agreed about a platform/structure etc.

But any good structural basis will take into account the element of variability and unpredictability. This does NOT suggest I'm saying "oh everything's good, it all works", but I'm merely suggesting it isn't as concrete a process as to the outcome of training. Increasing ability, skill, psychological basis is a continuum of sorts and could potentially be generalised across a vast array of situations (in terms of its ability to be functional). Different systems/MAs will emphasise different aspects and focus. Some aspects to the exclusion of others.

But not only the unpredictability aspect, what you train in some or even many MA simply can work. Likelihoods are what fluctuates and are influenced.

Hence, to bring it riiiight back, the OP's Kenpo training helped him immensely. I'll stick with that. Yes it's a leap to therefore conclude "Kenpo works", as I wouldn't even know what that means to be honest. It's the same as saying "punches work". Well... sort of. But not really guaranteed huh? Developing a strong punch, good alignment, accuracy, power, whatever, increased the likelihood of it working. But if the target you launched at changed angle slightly, you may break your hand, lose this imaginary fight. Do punches work?

Yeah. But we are discussing a claim with no background and no context from a guy we know nothing about that happened once?

Then for some reason the person who makes that claim seems to be surprised The response is "cool story bro". Not just by me apparently either. It seems to be a general response he has had issues with.

I don't think the argument that it isn't as concrete as you might think applies here. Because of the incredibly vague nature of the claim.

Now I suggested how to make a better case for something works. Which in this instance would be almost anything.

But apparently making a good case (or any case in this instance) for something working isn't seen as a thing martial artist do.

And this is the most concerning aspect of this discussion.

 

[jergar]

Hi Old Kenpo Warrior, hey i'm 67 and have been practicing Kung Fu San Soo for 35 of those years and I get the same thing from persons who don't know what they are talking about. That won't work on the street etc. etc. I too have used my art on the street on various thugs and all I can say is that it works for ME. I'm still training with the same instructor at Kung Fu San Soo, Riverside ca. As far as proving it ,I'm old school like you a man's word still means something to me. Kenpo is a fine art I have worked with one person who is our age that trained with Larry Parker, his techniques are good and blends pretty well with SanSoo so it's all good in my opinion . Peace!

Correction Ed Parker !

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Will it be better to say that my punch/kick/throw work instead?

You train MA to develop some door guarding skill. Which MA system that you train is not important.

Does your

- puncg can knock your opponent down?
- kick can knock your opponent down?
- throw can take your opponent down?

Do you have effective tools in your toolbox to finish a fight?

 

[drop bear]

Will it be better to say that my punch/kick/throw work instead?

You train MA to develop some door guarding skill. Which MA system that you train is not important.

Does your

- puncg can knock your opponent down?
- kick can knock your opponent down?
- throw can take your opponent down?

Do you have effective tools in your toolbox to finish a fight?

And to put in context. Mike tyson recently bashed a dude sort of on the street. So works. But that dude didn't put up much of a fight.