I'd agree with MM's last post about kenpo two-man techniques.
I'd also take the idea a little further--complaining that if the situation were different, it wouldn't be wise to do what you were doing in a given situation doesn't make a lot of sense.
I guess we all have our, 'special pleading," to patch up what others see as cracks in techniques and their practicality. Some of you feel that adverting to Mr. Tatum's extraordinary skill is special pleading, done to cover up a) flaws in his technique, b) flaws in kenpo, c) fundamental unrealism about self-defense, d) the superiority of your methods and teaching.
Well, guess, what? except for point, d), you're basically right. It is, and the mere fact that Mr. Tatum really is that skilled doesn't necessarily cover things up.
But, Joe & Co., you too are special pleading. Look back at your posts--you're claiming a kind of, "street knowledge," that you probably think of as battle tested and FDA-approved. That's special pleading, used to fill in the gaps of what you're arguing for. I looked at your website, "akja," and if we want to get into unrealism--there're more than three things I saw that I'd criticize as being grossly unrealistic and dangerous.
Another kind of special pleading involves presuming that you, and only you, have seen the elephant. And I certainly agree that there are others far more experienced in getting their *** in trouble in a bar or an alley and having to fight their *** back out again. I train with several of them. Further, you might want to really think before you leap into the assumption that those of us you're pleased to think of as ivory-tower liberals and paper martial 'artists,' have never found themselves in a Bad Place. There's experience and then there's experience--and even assuming that nobody else's experience countsd next to yours (BIG assumption), you might want to chew on the notion that lots of people are every bit as experienced as you will ever be--just in different ways. Not better, but not worse either.
Another kind of special pleading involves the notion that UNLIKE kenpo, you train in systems and in ways that take this, "friction," into account. Oops. Not even remotely true, if you're running on the theory that kenpo has no place for either screwups or the consideration of other systems. And this would be obvious to you, if you'd thought rather than jumped--right on the surface of kenpo, there're the obvious multiple strikes, the easily-seen commitment to "sequential flow." Just look at a famous kenpo technique such a Five Swords, which has built into it the notion that stepping in and blocking didn't work, so you go for the throat with a hand sword; they ducked or checked or hunched their shoulder against the sword, so you drive in a heel palm; they come forward and try to grab you, so you uppercut them; they shrug that off and charge, so you step off line and...you get the point. And that's just one set of possible responses (it even leaves out the lower case stuff) to one set of possible attacker's responses. Yes, you can argue that none of this stuff will work, and we can discuss that. But claiming that this amounts to a philosophy of perfect strikes and ideal reactions...it's absurd.
Oh, and incidentally--very large chunks of kenpo are specifically designed and embedded in the system as ways of thinking about handling other sorts of martial arts. It's in the techs, the forms, the sets, right from the start. It's in the way that good kenpo training encourages what the Clyde calls, "the spirit of the attack," which is running dummies through a range of possible ways to attack. I personally didn't really get that until the guy who was unlucky enough to get stuck with helping teach me through about brown belt, Scott Higgins, took me through what the hip checks in Long Form 2 are for in one set of applications. Again, arguing about the WAY kenpo responds to other systems and styles is perfectly reasonable. Arguing that there is no such response is not. Of course, this is assuming that we're talking about good teaching--or don't you folks know anybody who makes you cringe when you see them teach what you teach? Ahura-Mazda knows that badly-taught "Reality-Based Fighting," MMA, etc. are at least as full of crap as badly-taught kenpo can be--and that's saying something.
And last. Where's all that respect I got lectured on, Joe? leaving that stupid issue aside quickly, here's the deal: yes, you can recite all the cliches and generalizations and shibboleths about, "realism," you want to. Let me guess. You'd rather have one technique that worked than 154 that didn't. Feeling is believing. When pure knuckles meet...wait a minnit, those're all kenpo cliches. Huh. It's almost like Mr. Parker worked to make kenpo practical too. I'll be darned.
But seriously, folks. As in any martial arts system, there're going to be different levels of achievement for different students. I've met folks who will ALWAYS be tougher, or better fighters, or bigger and stronger, or faster, or better at techniques, or whatever else you care to name. There're lots and lots of folks out there that I couldn've trained to fight since I was four, and they'd still wax my ***. Are you going to try and tell me that you've never met anybody like that? But here's the real point: if you're really going to be realistic, you need to accept that your notions of "street experience," and "practicality," rest on at least as many untested assumptions as anything you see in kenpo. For one thing, YOU CANNOT TEACH 'FOR-REAL,' EXPERIENCE. You're relying on notions of perfection in training.
However, a better point is that while there will always be different levels of skill evidenced by students, this doesn't have a damn thing to do with whether or not the system works. I happen to think that kenpo provides a very, very good--at times genius-level--way to train. I also happen to think that other things (age, skill, physicality, etc.) being roughly equal, a well-taught kenpo guy will win over others just about every time. Does this mean I can go punch out, say, one of the Gracies (any one, is my impression)? Of course not. They're out of my league as fighters, always were, always will be. So what? I'd get whupped by your average brown bear, too. And I think that the important thing is not to get one's advantages or disadvantages confused with the value of a fighting system.
This is perhaps a little long and rambly, so one last point: we ought to celebrate the fact that there are some people who know way more than we do, and who have put in the time to actualize more than we can, and who quite possibly had more talent to begin with than we ever did. Mr. Tatum's one of those people. Perfect? Obviously not. Nobody ever is....and as Michael Corleone teaches, "If history teaches us anything, it is that anyone can be hit." But funnily enough--wanna guess who I learned that from in martial arts?
Snipe less, appreciate more. Try to start by appreciating what I've tried to say here, rather than trying to score points at what you'll think of as my expense. Otherwise, this lengthy bit's my last, and I invite you to run up the score as high as you like.
