Kenpo Ground Fighting

[MJS]

Hey Mike,

Yeah, James stuff is definately better. He actually reminds me a bit of Charles Daniel (in his teaching style), so that was fun!

Like Steve, there were one or two things that had me going "uh, hang on a sec..." (such as the initial escape from the mount. The escape itself was fine, but by not trapping one of the arms and moving towards it, it left it rather open for the guy on top to post out, preventing the escape, which is a fairly natural thing to do. I'd catch at least one of the arms as they came out on the initial buck, for instance), but there is much better understanding of the ground as an environment, as well as what is and is not realistically possible.

With regard to Steve's point about this not being "Kenpo", but just techniques that any BJJ Blue Belt should know, I'm not sure I 100% agree with that. The mechanics may be similar to the point of being identical, but the reasons for employing them, and the tactical use of them are what makes something Kenpo, or BJJ. If he's employing things like the tripod sweep to switch position, gain the mount, and continue the ground game, that's very much BJJ. If he's doing it to maintain distance from an assailant who is bearing down on him, enabling him to continue in a stand-up fashion, then it "becomes" Kenpo. It's all down to why things are done, and how they are expressed. For example, I saw a lot of things that I could say aren't Kenpo, just because we have them too (a very Ganseki-type throw appeared at least twice, Musha Dori/Gyoja Dori elbow lift, Hon Gyaku , refered to as an "S" Lock....), but they are also a part of Kenpo. The mechanics don't make the art, in the end.

Good points Chris. Personally, thats my goal...to get back up, if I find myself on the ground. I didn't get the impression that he was suggesting to stay on the ground, but someone else may view the clips differently, which is fine. I try to focus enough on the basics. That probably wont be enough to survive against anyone with any serious amount of mat time, but as we've talked about in other threads, that may be enough for the average Joe.

 

[Chris Parker]

Yeah, I didn't get the idea that James was advocating staying on the ground either, my point was more that he was employing the same mechanics as BJJ but not with their mindset (which in a lot of cases is to stay on the ground, where they can control things), which differentiates James' approach from actually being BJJ.

 

[Steve]

With regard to Steve's point about this not being "Kenpo", but just techniques that any BJJ Blue Belt should know, I'm not sure I 100% agree with that. The mechanics may be similar to the point of being identical, but the reasons for employing them, and the tactical use of them are what makes something Kenpo, or BJJ. If he's employing things like the tripod sweep to switch position, gain the mount, and continue the ground game, that's very much BJJ. If he's doing it to maintain distance from an assailant who is bearing down on him, enabling him to continue in a stand-up fashion, then it "becomes" Kenpo. It's all down to why things are done, and how they are expressed. For example, I saw a lot of things that I could say aren't Kenpo, just because we have them too (a very Ganseki-type throw appeared at least twice, Musha Dori/Gyoja Dori elbow lift, Hon Gyaku , refered to as an "S" Lock....), but they are also a part of Kenpo. The mechanics don't make the art, in the end.

the reason to use a tripod sweep is to reverse position so that you are now on top and your opponent is now on his back. The end. What you do from there is wide open. I stand by the idea that it's just BJJ for a few reasons. First, I would bet money that he learned the technique from a jitiero. Second, it's common enough that I would call it a fundamental technique. Third, the position you'll find yourself in after executing that technique is half guard or mount. When someone's fighting back, you'll need to use MORE BJJ in order to get up and seperate. Point is, you have options from there, but those options are essentially just more BJJ, whether you decide to ride into mount and punch the guy unconscious, attack an arm or a leg, or stand up and disengage.

Most relevant to this discussion though is that this is a guy who, like MJS and others on this board, is clearly crosstraining a little. To his credit, he's not trying to put a square peg in a round hole. Instead, he's taking practical BJJ techniques and incorporating them into his style. It really only makes sense, but it's still BJJ.

 

[Steve]

Yeah, I didn't get the idea that James was advocating staying on the ground either, my point was more that he was employing the same mechanics as BJJ but not with their mindset (which in a lot of cases is to stay on the ground, where they can control things), which differentiates James' approach from actually being BJJ.

chris, the bjj mindset, like everyone else's mindset, depends entirely on context. If I'm in a tournament, I'll sweep for points and then work to pass guard and look for a submission. If I'm defending myself, I'm looking to control position and escape or end things quickly. Most people are like this. I act differently with my friends on the weekend than I do in a meeting with my executive staff. Most people do, and it's not all that difficult because it's contextual. Suggesting that we're mindless automatons who are slaves to a particular mindset is a little insulting, frankly.

He's using solid, fundamental BJJ to his credit.

 

[Chris Parker]

Hey Steve,

There may be some crossed wires here, so I'll attempt to clarify.

I agree that it's obvious that James has cross trained in BJJ, there's really no question of that. However, if he is teaching the mechanics as part of a Kenpo system, within the parameters of a Kenpo system, and with the strategic approach of a Kenpo system, the movements can be classed as Kenpo (in the context described). If he uses BJJ mechanics combined with BJJ strategic approaches within the parameters of BJJ, then it remains BJJ, and not Kenpo. Here, he appears to be integrating his studies of BJJ into his teaching of Kenpo, thereby taking what is within the parameters of Kenpo, or adapting the BJJ aspects so they fit Kenpo better.

Again, a martial art is expressed through it's techniques, it isn't it's techniques in and of themselves. BJJ's techniques are an expression of it's strategic and tactical approach (it's philosophy, or it's mindset). In this it is the same as every other martial art out there, there was no implied suggestion of anything like being mindless automatons, simply that BJJ teaches you to apply BJJ, and only by applying BJJ are you actually doing BJJ. There are plenty of techniques in that system as well that I could claim as part of our traditions, if all we're going on is mechanics.

 

[K831]

Interesting. I can't help but think I am seeing a reflection of someones fundamental understanding of Kenpo when I see their attempts to apply "kenpo" to the ground, or to some other application outside what is considered the norm.

In the videos defense, perhaps these were never intended at all for use on a "grappler", but rather simply ideas to be derived from existing techniques and used against the untrained brawler who happens to land on top of you in a bar fight... much the same way the yellow and orange techniques wouldn't hold up well against a trained "boxer", at least not as they are written from the manual. Keep in mind, I don't like the vids, but that is my attempt to give them the benefit of the doubt.

I think the biggest problem with all of this is paradigms. From what paradigm are we viewing ground fighting? First, for some reason, people think "ground fighting" must be looked at through the BJJ lens. Problem, is, BJJ isn't ground fighting, its grappling, of a specific type. Second, when people attempt to apply their style, they seem to get stuck looking at it from that lens. Neither lens is actually "ground fighting" and so the outcome is usually a hodgepodge of nonsense.

 

[Steve]

I think the hardest thing for me to understand is the idea of training to fight someone who is untrained vs training to fight someone who is trained. This "untrained brawler" or "drunk thug". I understand the rationale, but I'm just not sure it makes any sense to me.

When you are assessing a potential threat in a bar, do you assume your opponent is unarmed, or are you careful to consider the possibility that he has a knife or a gun? Isn't that part of self defense? How is lack of training any different? If I'm trained in BJJ, I'm armed. Why wouldn't you train to account for that?

It seems much more reasonable, given a goal of preparing for self defense, to assume that every potential opponent is armed, whether that's with a weapon, with some training at a particular range, or both.

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

I think the hardest thing for me to understand is the idea of training to fight someone who is untrained vs training to fight someone who is trained. This "untrained brawler" or "drunk thug". I understand the rationale, but I'm just not sure it makes any sense to me.

When you are assessing a potential threat in a bar, do you assume your opponent is unarmed, or are you careful to consider the possibility that he has a knife or a gun? Isn't that part of self defense? How is lack of training any different? If I'm trained in BJJ, I'm armed. Why wouldn't you train to account for that?

It seems much more reasonable, given a goal of preparing for self defense, to assume that every potential opponent is armed, whether that's with a weapon, with some training at a particular range, or both.

This seems to be the rationale that alot of my "brothers and sisters" in Kenpo follow..
I think you need to understand where it came from a bit better to understand why its where it is at now.
Ed Parker was teaching back in the 50s and 60s and back then there was not an explosion of martial arts studios and instructors all over the place. As I have been able to figure based on talking to many different people that were there, at the time, was that alot of the techniques we teach came about from students coming to him with real situations that happened and then figuring ways to deal with them. I think at the time and for at least a couple decades there was not access to martial arts schools, and what access was around was very strict and probably cut out alot of the troublemakers..
so in most cases I think it was safe to train for the untrained opponent who just wanted to knock your block off.... to use a phrase from the time..
20 years ago Ed Parker Passed away leaving a vast group of martial artists who idolized him, and wanted to be him and who carried forth the notion of the techniques in and how they were at the time.. Most of these people have continued to teach and spread the untrained attacked method to the point of ad nauseum...with many having never been in a fight... and many having students who have never been in a fight...
I mean lets face it most people who start taking martial arts develop enough common sense to avoid problems rather then face them and test their skills...

I have hated that untrained attacker mentallity for the longest time.. and am unsure why so many people still have that mentality, especially since MMA is so popular, the internet, television, magazines, books, and schools and instructors of all levels are popping up all over the planet, and a strict mentality of discipline is not a requirement at many places anymore. I personally have trained in places and talked to guys who specifically train to be detter fighters ont he street. I absolutely believe everyone should be training for reality, for the best trained fighters possible and allow the untrained people to become beaten by their own issues.

I have sought out and trained with people from many different arts and mentalities, and have changed up some of what I was taught and do based on what I have discovered.
Hell I have actually found myself all of a sudden a Brown Belt in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu having pursued it originally simply to get a better idea what the trained grappler will do, figuring 6 months or so would be enough... here i am years later in love with another art that I thought would only be reserved for Kenpo. Years spent trianing in Muay thai and Boxing and fighting to test my own knowledge and ability to use skills, and crosstraining with other arts to test those skills under fire.. I find that it has made working versus an untrained attacker fairly nominal at this point.. I mean big guys are dangerous regardless of skill level... but people with no training seem to move slow motion, out of range, and in desperation mode..

I have been watching the transition of many kenpo people into grappling, or groundfighting with a very high interest. and while I think alot of them have great ideas to cover that range of fighting, I think that the problems are ones that are too hard to really bust through... those bieng that most of the older kenpo guys who are high ranking and adding groundfighting to their curriculum are fairly set in their ways and instead of fully exploring the grappling range most seem to be briefly looking into and coming up with half hearted solutions that are not very practical against any but the most beginner grapplers...
or they have some decent solutions but do not allow the amount of time necessary to drill students through that range and give them a real feel and understanding of whats going on.. you just can't train a few basic movements ont he ground once or twice every 2-4 weeks and expect people to have any feel, or understanding of the range.. and most students are not able or willing to spend the amount of time necessary to advance in both stand up and grappling self defense at one time. so what you end up getting is a half hearted attempt by everyone to add this grappling range in to curriculums..

I am not sure what the answer will be.. I think that the ground range will continue to evolve in Kenpo, and embed itself into the system and change how it is presented and trained. But I am really unsure how in a commercial setting students who train on average 2 days a week for an hour at a time are going to really get this down and become proficient enough at it.. those are the two main problems in my eyes..
sure there are more but it is what it is.

 

[MJS]

Interesting. I can't help but think I am seeing a reflection of someones fundamental understanding of Kenpo when I see their attempts to apply "kenpo" to the ground, or to some other application outside what is considered the norm.

In the videos defense, perhaps these were never intended at all for use on a "grappler", but rather simply ideas to be derived from existing techniques and used against the untrained brawler who happens to land on top of you in a bar fight... much the same way the yellow and orange techniques wouldn't hold up well against a trained "boxer", at least not as they are written from the manual. Keep in mind, I don't like the vids, but that is my attempt to give them the benefit of the doubt.

I think the biggest problem with all of this is paradigms. From what paradigm are we viewing ground fighting? First, for some reason, people think "ground fighting" must be looked at through the BJJ lens. Problem, is, BJJ isn't ground fighting, its grappling, of a specific type. Second, when people attempt to apply their style, they seem to get stuck looking at it from that lens. Neither lens is actually "ground fighting" and so the outcome is usually a hodgepodge of nonsense.

The 1st vid. was most likely to squash the detractors, such as people like myself..lol...who say that the ground is lacking. The 2nd clip was put up probably because I had emailed Larry, and asked if he could put up a grappling TOW, which he did.

IMHO, if we're really serious about training, should be prepared to deal with everyone from the average Joe with no training whatsoever, to someone with some skill. I mean, think about it...if all we trained for was the AJ, whats going to happen when the skilled guy comes along? We crumble and die? Our goal shouldn't be to go toe to toe with Gracies evil twin, but who said we have to? Isn't dirty fighting part of our art? Yes, we still may get our *** handed to us, but I'd rather go out fighting, rather than just curling up because said person may have more skill.

And of course, this is why I suggest crosstraining or at least getting an understanding of how others work. That way, we may be better prepared and able to adjust our techs accordingly. You said it yourself....the yellow and orange techs wouldn't hold up well against a boxer. Well, IMO, we should be looking at why or what we could do to fix that.

 

[MJS]

I think the hardest thing for me to understand is the idea of training to fight someone who is untrained vs training to fight someone who is trained. This "untrained brawler" or "drunk thug". I understand the rationale, but I'm just not sure it makes any sense to me.

Wow, if I could rep ya about 10 more times for this post I would!!! Couldnt agree more with this. Sure, there are probably no armies of evil Gracies and Shamrocks and FMA killers running around, but OTOH, why should we assume everyone will be a pushover?

When you are assessing a potential threat in a bar, do you assume your opponent is unarmed, or are you careful to consider the possibility that he has a knife or a gun? Isn't that part of self defense? How is lack of training any different? If I'm trained in BJJ, I'm armed. Why wouldn't you train to account for that?

When I worked in Corrections, I assumed, until I knew for sure, that every inmate that I was dealing with, was armed with a makeshift weapon. I assumed that every inmate, regardless of size, was a capable fighter. And I'd be willing to bet that every LEO assumes that any time they deal with a person during an investigation, on a car stop, is possibly armed.

It seems much more reasonable, given a goal of preparing for self defense, to assume that every potential opponent is armed, whether that's with a weapon, with some training at a particular range, or both.

Yup.

 

[MJS]

This seems to be the rationale that alot of my "brothers and sisters" in Kenpo follow..
I think you need to understand where it came from a bit better to understand why its where it is at now.
Ed Parker was teaching back in the 50s and 60s and back then there was not an explosion of martial arts studios and instructors all over the place. As I have been able to figure based on talking to many different people that were there, at the time, was that alot of the techniques we teach came about from students coming to him with real situations that happened and then figuring ways to deal with them. I think at the time and for at least a couple decades there was not access to martial arts schools, and what access was around was very strict and probably cut out alot of the troublemakers..
so in most cases I think it was safe to train for the untrained opponent who just wanted to knock your block off.... to use a phrase from the time..
20 years ago Ed Parker Passed away leaving a vast group of martial artists who idolized him, and wanted to be him and who carried forth the notion of the techniques in and how they were at the time.. Most of these people have continued to teach and spread the untrained attacked method to the point of ad nauseum...with many having never been in a fight... and many having students who have never been in a fight...
I mean lets face it most people who start taking martial arts develop enough common sense to avoid problems rather then face them and test their skills...

I have hated that untrained attacker mentallity for the longest time.. and am unsure why so many people still have that mentality, especially since MMA is so popular, the internet, television, magazines, books, and schools and instructors of all levels are popping up all over the planet, and a strict mentality of discipline is not a requirement at many places anymore. I personally have trained in places and talked to guys who specifically train to be detter fighters ont he street. I absolutely believe everyone should be training for reality, for the best trained fighters possible and allow the untrained people to become beaten by their own issues.

I have sought out and trained with people from many different arts and mentalities, and have changed up some of what I was taught and do based on what I have discovered.
Hell I have actually found myself all of a sudden a Brown Belt in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu having pursued it originally simply to get a better idea what the trained grappler will do, figuring 6 months or so would be enough... here i am years later in love with another art that I thought would only be reserved for Kenpo. Years spent trianing in Muay thai and Boxing and fighting to test my own knowledge and ability to use skills, and crosstraining with other arts to test those skills under fire.. I find that it has made working versus an untrained attacker fairly nominal at this point.. I mean big guys are dangerous regardless of skill level... but people with no training seem to move slow motion, out of range, and in desperation mode..

I have been watching the transition of many kenpo people into grappling, or groundfighting with a very high interest. and while I think alot of them have great ideas to cover that range of fighting, I think that the problems are ones that are too hard to really bust through... those bieng that most of the older kenpo guys who are high ranking and adding groundfighting to their curriculum are fairly set in their ways and instead of fully exploring the grappling range most seem to be briefly looking into and coming up with half hearted solutions that are not very practical against any but the most beginner grapplers...
or they have some decent solutions but do not allow the amount of time necessary to drill students through that range and give them a real feel and understanding of whats going on.. you just can't train a few basic movements ont he ground once or twice every 2-4 weeks and expect people to have any feel, or understanding of the range.. and most students are not able or willing to spend the amount of time necessary to advance in both stand up and grappling self defense at one time. so what you end up getting is a half hearted attempt by everyone to add this grappling range in to curriculums..

I am not sure what the answer will be.. I think that the ground range will continue to evolve in Kenpo, and embed itself into the system and change how it is presented and trained. But I am really unsure how in a commercial setting students who train on average 2 days a week for an hour at a time are going to really get this down and become proficient enough at it.. those are the two main problems in my eyes..
sure there are more but it is what it is.

Well said IMO!! Now, what I'm about to say next is just my opinion and observation: Seems to me that Kajukenbo, has done the complete opposite, of what you described about Kenpo. Seems like they trained for both the untrained and trained person, in addition to being more well rounded standing and on the ground.

So now, you have people doing today, what Kaju people have been doing all along. Personally, I love seeking out and training with new people, learning new things. I remember the first time one of my training partners introduced me to grappling. I loved it! I dont focus on it as much as I should, mainly due to time, but I still enjoy rolling. My goals with BJJ are pretty much the same as with my Kenpo. While I do enjoy learning new techs., my focus, at least right now, is to, as I've said, work the basics. I'd rather have a handful of things that I know I can do well, instead of 50 things that I suck at. LOL. One of my New Years goals, is to a few BJJ classes and at least a private a month.

 

[Flying Crane]

I'd say that the general way that most Parker-derived kenpo lineages structure their curriculum creates a mindset that can make ground grappling awkward, conceptually.

When you've got a curriculum that consists of anywhere from dozens to hundreds of catalogued Self Defense Techniques, or responses to specific attacks, there is a tendency to want to create similar catalogued Self Defense Techniques that can be used in the grappling realm. I think the very nature of grappling, the hands-on, squirming, manipulating, rolling, etc that is grappling, just makes it very very awkward to create this kind of technique for the catalogue.

In Tracys, we do a certain kind of basic falling and rolling, and then squirming and kicking to break away from an attacker and regain our feet. I think it works in a basic way tho it's definitely not designed to outfight a grappler on the ground. If a trained grappler were to see the material, I doubt he'd be impressed, but I think it's not a bad idea for a basic idea of getting back up if you go down.

However in addition to this, in the Nidan curriculum in Tracys we've got a half dozen or more catalogued techs for the ground. They begin with the premise that you've been pushed in some way, so you go down and roll, and then from the ground you apply some kind of return strike, it could be a kick from the ground to the knee, or a leg entanglement, or a punch as the attacker rushes in, stuff like that. I personally found these techs to be very very awkward to practice, it's just not a natural progression for this kind of situation. It formalizes the scenario in a way that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

So to add serious grappling skills, where grappling and working on the ground is the real focus, I think it just takes kenpo folks outside of their way of looking at the curriculum. They gotta recognize that it's a whole different animal, and if you want to gain those skills you gotta let go of some of that curriculum structure and train differently.

maybe that's a gap that isn't always bridged very well by kenpo folks who try to bring in ground fighting.

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

Well said IMO!! Now, what I'm about to say next is just my opinion and observation: Seems to me that Kajukenbo, has done the complete opposite, of what you described about Kenpo. Seems like they trained for both the untrained and trained person, in addition to being more well rounded standing and on the ground.

So now, you have people doing today, what Kaju people have been doing all along. Personally, I love seeking out and training with new people, learning new things. I remember the first time one of my training partners introduced me to grappling. I loved it! I dont focus on it as much as I should, mainly due to time, but I still enjoy rolling. My goals with BJJ are pretty much the same as with my Kenpo. While I do enjoy learning new techs., my focus, at least right now, is to, as I've said, work the basics. I'd rather have a handful of things that I know I can do well, instead of 50 things that I suck at. LOL. One of my New Years goals, is to a few BJJ classes and at least a private a month.

I dont know about that.. I have gotten to train with some Kajukenbo guys here and there over the years and not a single one of them had any good grappling except the ones who had crosstrained in Jiu Jitsu specifically. I have been wanting to find some more seasoned, veteran Kaju guys to see if that is as widespread as I tend to think it might be. I would classify all the Kaju guys in as similar to the Kenpo guys that I like to train with.. meaning they like to drill harder then average people do.
I think that it pretty much comes down to focused training.. I think the groundfighting I have seen from the vast majority of Kaju guys is similar to the Kenpo take on it that I have witnessed... they try to use the ground as a backstop to hold the opponent while they do some select punches, kickes then move out of the way..
My recommendation for eveyr stand up artist is to at some point in their training invest in at least 6 months of Jiu Jitsu, at minimum 2 times a week so that they can get an idea of the basic positions, and movements.. I would say if you are in a qualified place, 6 months will give you a great basis of the fundamentals, while not making you proficient, it will give you a great idea of what its about.. more then words could describe.

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

I'd say that the general way that most Parker-derived kenpo lineages structure their curriculum creates a mindset that can make ground grappling awkward, conceptually.

When you've got a curriculum that consists of anywhere from dozens to hundreds of catalogued Self Defense Techniques, or responses to specific attacks, there is a tendency to want to create similar catalogued Self Defense Techniques that can be used in the grappling realm. I think the very nature of grappling, the hands-on, squirming, manipulating, rolling, etc that is grappling, just makes it very very awkward to create this kind of technique for the catalogue.

In Tracys, we do a certain kind of basic falling and rolling, and then squirming and kicking to break away from an attacker and regain our feet. I think it works in a basic way tho it's definitely not designed to outfight a grappler on the ground. If a trained grappler were to see the material, I doubt he'd be impressed, but I think it's not a bad idea for a basic idea of getting back up if you go down.

However in addition to this, in the Nidan curriculum in Tracys we've got a half dozen or more catalogued techs for the ground. They begin with the premise that you've been pushed in some way, so you go down and roll, and then from the ground you apply some kind of return strike, it could be a kick from the ground to the knee, or a leg entanglement, or a punch as the attacker rushes in, stuff like that. I personally found these techs to be very very awkward to practice, it's just not a natural progression for this kind of situation. It formalizes the scenario in a way that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

So to add serious grappling skills, where grappling and working on the ground is the real focus, I think it just takes kenpo folks outside of their way of looking at the curriculum. They gotta recognize that it's a whole different animal, and if you want to gain those skills you gotta let go of some of that curriculum structure and train differently.

maybe that's a gap that isn't always bridged very well by kenpo folks who try to bring in ground fighting.

I think what you are describing with Ed Parker based kenpo karate is a misconception, that unfortunately alot of Ed Parker guys seem to fall into... or maybe paradigm is a better word..
In my opinion... and you will find people on all sides of the argument...trust me lol...
but in my opinion Ed Parkers techniques are vehicles to explain, train, and drill concepts and principles of fighting/self defense/efficient body movement. I think that to often people get caught up in the series of moves for the sake of saying i know XXXXXXXX technique... and lose the bigger picture of what is being taught.
If you approach it that way, then covering the ground is very similar. In BJJ you learn basics that you use in certain combinations to either advance your position, or to advance a submission move...which is exactly what our techniques in Kenpo are teaching us to do in a standing phase. I think its possible and probably fairly easy to make dozens of techniques for Jiu Jitsu to cover the same types of concepts and principles... but fear that if done the same thing would happen, and the more commercialized the process became the more emphasis would be placed on regurgitating the series of moves, rather then understanding the priciples or concepts or ideas being presented and understnad when they work, and when they dont work.
I think getting caught up in which art or version is better is going to be tough since there is a wide spectrum of ability amongst the instructors of each system.. I have seen really good and really horrible teachers in both systems....check that...all systems of martial arts..

 

[K831]

IMHO, if we're really serious about training, should be prepared to deal with everyone from the average Joe with no training whatsoever, to someone with some skill. I mean, think about it...if all we trained for was the AJ, whats going to happen when the skilled guy comes along? We crumble and die? Our goal shouldn't be to go toe to toe with Gracies evil twin, but who said we have to? Isn't dirty fighting part of our art? Yes, we still may get our *** handed to us, but I'd rather go out fighting, rather than just curling up because said person may have more skill.

You said it yourself....the yellow and orange techs wouldn't hold up well against a boxer. Well, IMO, we should be looking at why or what we could do to fix that.

Hey Y'all are preaching to the choir. I am simply pointing out why I thought many of those flaws were present.

As you know, I left "traditional EPAK" including the LTKKA (as well as other associations) to follow Paul Mills, purely because I didn't like the above mentioned methodology.

Now, since the AKKI has changed the yellow techniques (and many others, including the knife and stick material, as we have discussed in the past) we have come under some fire from others. However, I think as the videos you posted show, the understanding of Kenpo held by those in the video is reflected in their very attempts to apply it to the ground. As I pointed out, part of the problem is that they are working against an "untrained grappler" in those vids.... and that is a trained mind-set left over from their commercial/traditional Kenpo.

Despite that, I'm not on the other side of the fence either... I don't think a Kenpoist who wants to add ground fighting or ground SD simply needs to go study BJJ... that is the same problem, other side of the spectrum, since BJJ isn't really "ground fighting" either.

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

Hey Y'all are preaching to the choir. I am simply pointing out why I thought many of those flaws were present.

As you know, I left "traditional EPAK" including the LTKKA (as well as other associations) to follow Paul Mills, purely because I didn't like the above mentioned methodology.

Now, since the AKKI has changed the yellow techniques (and many others, including the knife and stick material, as we have discussed in the past) we have come under some fire from others. However, I think as the videos you posted show, the understanding of Kenpo held by those in the video is reflected in their very attempts to apply it to the ground. As I pointed out, part of the problem is that they are working against an "untrained grappler" in those vids.... and that is a trained mind-set left over from their commercial/traditional Kenpo.

Despite that, I'm not on the other side of the fence either... I don't think a Kenpoist who wants to add ground fighting or ground SD simply needs to go study BJJ... that is the same problem, other side of the spectrum, since BJJ isn't really "ground fighting" either.

out of curiosity what has the AKKI changed?
is the AKKI not a commercial Kenpo as well?
and what Grappling art would you consider the best, or closest to Ground fighting?

I am not saying I disagree with you on anything you said. I just dont understand, or know what you mean by these comments and wanted to get clarification before I have a reply thanks

 

[Chris Parker]

I think the hardest thing for me to understand is the idea of training to fight someone who is untrained vs training to fight someone who is trained. This "untrained brawler" or "drunk thug". I understand the rationale, but I'm just not sure it makes any sense to me.

Wow, if I could rep ya about 10 more times for this post I would!!! Couldnt agree more with this. Sure, there are probably no armies of evil Gracies and Shamrocks and FMA killers running around, but OTOH, why should we assume everyone will be a pushover?

I'll see if I can explain a bit more, as this is not really what I am talking about. An untrained person is not an unskilled one, an unexperienced one, or not a dangerous one. And certainly not a pushover (if they were, there'd hardly be any reason to train, would there?).

The idea is really about understanding what you are training for. A street predator is concerned only with attacking, hurting, injuring. It's typically not anything personal, just a vent really. They are typically already experienced at hurting/assaulting people, and as such are confident in their successes and approach. They are also 110% commited to hurting you.

What they are not is a fighter. There is really no interest in fighting someone, just injuring them. This dictates completely different strategies and tactics to a "trained" fighter. So if your training is based around only a trained fighter, you may want to expand it. Again, both are dangerous, but they are also different, and preparing for one is not preparation for the other. There are similarities, but there are also big differences.

When you are assessing a potential threat in a bar, do you assume your opponent is unarmed, or are you careful to consider the possibility that he has a knife or a gun? Isn't that part of self defense? How is lack of training any different? If I'm trained in BJJ, I'm armed. Why wouldn't you train to account for that?

When I worked in Corrections, I assumed, until I knew for sure, that every inmate that I was dealing with, was armed with a makeshift weapon. I assumed that every inmate, regardless of size, was a capable fighter. And I'd be willing to bet that every LEO assumes that any time they deal with a person during an investigation, on a car stop, is possibly armed.

Again, lack of training is not the same as lack of danger, it is just a different form to expect, with different parameters, different tactics and strategies, different methods, and so on. And a capable fighter doesn't necessarily require training, after all. So assessing danger is definately part of it, agreed. But there's a big difference between assessing their ability to cause serious harm, and whether or not they've trained in one system or another. After all, are we to be expected to know every possible system that someone could have trained in, and ways to defeat them, or should it be more a matter of being able to recognise potential danger in any form (including the more likely without formal training), and have your own solidly drilled and tested strategies and tactics to handle that?

It seems much more reasonable, given a goal of preparing for self defense, to assume that every potential opponent is armed, whether that's with a weapon, with some training at a particular range, or both.

Yup.

No, I'd say it's much more reasonable to assume that a potential opponent is dangerous, for reasons such as previous experience, commitment to hurting you, and a percieved advantage (size, strength, alcohol, drugs, weapon, friends, prior success, etc). While training can make someone dangerous, it also tends to attract people who are less likely to be attackers (not saying it can't or doesn't happen, just that it is less likely than an "untrained" person), so training for the strategies and tactics of those less likely to be your opponents, rather than the tactics and strategies of those that are more likely doens't make much sense to me....

Recognise the danger they represent, and recognise that that does not equate to training.

Then again, I've often said that no martial art is really good for self defence (at it's purest form) as no martial art is designed for it. That's why the "self defence" part of my classes are removed from the "martial art" part of it. One provides form and structure for the other, but I don't mistake them for being the same thing.

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

Then again, I've often said that no martial art is really good for self defence (at it's purest form) as no martial art is designed for it. That's why the "self defence" part of my classes are removed from the "martial art" part of it. One provides form and structure for the other, but I don't mistake them for being the same thing.

see I hear this and the other one... Fighting and self defense are not the same....
and I have to say I think its a bit of a play on words.
maybe you can expand on what you mean by self defense at its purest form..?

 

[Chris Parker]

Cool. I've gone through this a few times, one more can't hurt....

The thing to look at here is what exactly martial arts are, and then look at exactly what self defence is. And look at where the two cross-over, which is not the largest place you will find....

A martial art is not designed for self defence. There are just too many differences between them. We'll go through them as bullet points, just for fun, looking at what martial arts present, and the way self defence actually is.

- Martial arts teach through the medium of combative themed techniques. These techniques are not really even about being combat effective in the main, as their primary purpose is not to teach combative effectiveness, but to teach the lessons of the art itself (it's principles, philosophy, values, strategies, tactics, and more).

- Self defence not about techniques. It is based in principles that are adaptable to various situations, and can (and often does) take it's base mechanics from a martial art form.

- Martial art techniques start with the conflict already engaged, removing the pre- and post-fight aspects.

- Self defence is all about the pre- and post-fight, handling the adrenaline, and so forth. It is based on awareness of the situation, and avoiding the conflict where possible.

- Martial arts teach complex movements and fine motor actions (as well as gross motor ones), which can teach some very important lessons in expressing the art itself.

- Self defence is purely gross-motor in it's physical methods, as that is what will be available under adrenaline and stress.

- Martial arts often teach responces to attacks that are not found in a modern environment, and responces that are not suitable in todays legal environments.

- Self defence requires that all attacks are realistic, and the legal system is understood and adhered to. This means covering such things as not going into overkill mode, the legal repercussions, if armed (say, a walking stick) then strikes to the head are not advised unless the opponents are also armed (at least here), and so on.

There's a lot more to this, but the basic point is that martial arts, while they can (and often do) provide the physical parameters, mechanics, and so on of a self defence program, they are not self defence when it comes down to it. They cover a different area of knowledge, have a different focus, a different teaching purpose, and more. As they provide the mechanics, however, they can form a great base for a good self defence program. In fact, most RBSD systems don't really bother with teaching such things as how to hit, as it's assumed that those taking the courses already have some martial arts background and can use the mechanics of their art within the self defence program.

Did that help?

 

[Steve]

.

Despite that, I'm not on the other side of the fence either... I don't think a Kenpoist who wants to add ground fighting or ground SD simply needs to go study BJJ... that is the same problem, other side of the spectrum, since BJJ isn't really "ground fighting" either.

I'm curious about this, too. It's pretty clear you have a specific idea in mind when you use the term "ground fighting." If BJJ doesn't qualify, what does?