Larry Tatum in the magazines

[James Kovacich]

I haven't see the article yet but I will take a look the next couple of days when I hit our local Chapters Bookstore.

The one thing I can say - it's a lot easier to criticize magazine photos than it is to see him move in person. I know I have posed for technique photos before and when I have seen the finished product, I thought - shoot, I could have made that look a lot better than it did.

Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com

I'm NOT criticizing the man. I'm saying the technique in relation with the 2nd (rear) attacker could be better. It's an open discussion. Larry's pictures were exposed to the public and I even achknowledged that I DID NOT read the article, just looked at the pictures.

I

 

[James Kovacich]

The critique advanced would be equally well applied to the claim that, "he should have tossed his front opponent into the rear opponent."

1. What's the rear attacker doing while all this tossing's going on? Having a soda?

2. I should like to see a guy I work out with who is 6' 9," extremely athletic, and quite advanced in kenpo, blithely "tossed," to the rear.

My point, in other words, is that the claim of, "more realism," simply reflects a different set of philosophies, NOT simply the way things must be. In fact, the specific option discussed here is far less realistic that the basic kenpo approach of going after both guys pretty much simultaneously, then reassessing the situation.

First, Larry and the 2 attackers were close to being the same size. Size is not the issue here.

And since you reverted to what the 2nd attacker is doing "dringking a soda." You backed up my earlier claim.

"No real attackers are going to wait and attack separately. The attacker from the rear, in most cases, will be all over the defender while the defender is fighting the front attacker."

And you are way off base if you think my senario is less realistic than getting run over while trying to give an almost impossible backward eyejab.
If they attacked simultaneously, Nobody, not even Larry could pull of that technique. The pictures clearly shows the eyejab after he deals with the first opponent.

And we are discussing those pictures. Please I'm not trying to make an issue of the man, just the techniques demonstrated.

And Mac, please explain yourself better if I'm wrong. You asked me to explain better and I did.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Ah, but you said that you'd do something different. Which implied a different scenario. What's more, your whole claim rested on the idea of, "what-if," so, what if the attacker's 6'9" becomes a legitimate question. Nor have you answered the question of why your particular way of avoiding dealing with both attackers is preferable to what you see as somebody else's avoiding dealing with both attackers. What if he doesn't step in neatly as you wish? What if he counters your, "toss?" What if the rear guy doesn't wait?

The magazine gives an illustration of a particular situation. If things change, the response would have to change. But saying that if things were different, what was done to counter something else wouldn't work so the whole thing's invalid seems a little illogical. After all, "tossing," the front attacker won't work if somebody's dropping a piano on your head, so your whole approach is invalid and of course that argument makes no sense.

In brief, you're confusing your different approach with the necessary, correct approach. Could be worse, could be better. But the ONLY approach? Nope.

I realize you won't buy this. But I am telling you that with this particular martial artist, you couldn't be wronger about the eye-poke.

Nor do I agree that martial arts that take time and effort to learn, and in which some people learn more, are inferior. One counter would be that it is grossly unrealistic to tell people that a couple simple things will save their *** invariably. Among other things, the overwhelming majority of people WILL NOT respond usefully to an attack without training--which is a big part of what training's for.

You also seem to be pushing the old, "I'd rather have one technique that worked than 154 that don't," argument. I'd respond with an old idea about the complaint that fields like philosophy take what's really very simple and make it obscure, all so academics can have jobs.

Nope. When it's done properly, philosophical language talks about simple things simply, and complex things in a complex language that suits the real complexity of what's being described--sorry, everything is not a ducky and a horsie, and complaining about the complexity of language used to describe the true complexity of the world is like complaining that Einstein used math.

OF COURSE one keeps self-defense as simple as possible. My idea of a really nifty technique? "Hm. That bar has no windows, and 43 motorcycles parked out front. Guess I'll go home and have a beer." My idea of the famous Five Swords in all its complexity? Ball kick the bastard really hard and run away.

Regrettably, things don't always work out so niftily. The basic approach, in kenpo, is to always have someplace to go next. Would eye-poking a rear attacker be the only possible response, or the end of all responses if that didn't work? Of course not.

 

[James Kovacich]

Ah, but you said that you'd do something different. Which implied a different scenario. What's more, your whole claim rested on the idea of, "what-if," so, what if the attacker's 6'9" becomes a legitimate question. Nor have you answered the question of why your particular way of avoiding dealing with both attackers is preferable to what you see as somebody else's avoiding dealing with both attackers. What if he doesn't step in neatly as you wish? What if he counters your, "toss?" What if the rear guy doesn't wait?

If the guy was 6'9" then the eyejab would be even MORE out of the question. :uhyeah: And what your saying there describes the way I train. I don't know what your talking about stopping neatly. I don't need that. The pictures implied that the rear attack came AFTER the frontal attack. Thats where that came from.

The magazine gives an illustration of a particular situation. If things change, the response would have to change. But saying that if things were different, what was done to counter something else wouldn't work so the whole thing's invalid seems a little illogical. After all, "tossing," the front attacker won't work if somebody's dropping a piano on your head, so your whole approach is invalid and of course that argument makes no sense.


Here your just misunderstanding or I'm not coming accross well enough. His right hand is in good position to grab the front attacker and with a SIMPLE step to the right with his right foot he CAN easily put the front attacker in the rear attackers face. BASED on the pictures. And I've stuck as much as possible to the techniques in the pictures, so I AM making sense. You're talking about invalidating a technique because someone can drop a piano. Where did that come from and who is not making sense? :uhyeah:


In brief, you're confusing your different approach with the necessary, correct approach. Could be worse, could be better. But the ONLY approach? Nope.


I never said my approach to "the said senario" was the only approach. Only easier and more realistic.


I repeatedly said it was not about the martial artist. It's about the technique. And you said "about what I'm pushing?" You don't have a clue at what I really do and that is making your confusion even worse. Hope I don't piss you off, but I have say it like I see it, as you do too!

 

[rmcrobertson]

If the pictures implied that the rear attack came later, insofar as you were concerned, then there is little point in trying to step aside and throw the front attacker in the situation that you saw. Among other things, if he's hanging back, he'll see the toss coming. Moreover, if the rear attacker's hanging back, then there's nothing wrong with the eye-poke.

I find the tossing the front guy around quite unrealistic. I also don't think that you're helping your cause by writing, "I never said my approach was...(the only approach)...only easier and more realistic."

Unless, of course, you're now arguing that what Mr. Parker taught was unnecessarily difficult and largely unrealistic, as opposed to your ideas.

I also note that you chose not to respond to my remarks about complexity in kenpo.

 

[James Kovacich]

If the pictures implied that the rear attack came later, insofar as you were concerned, then there is little point in trying to step aside and throw the front attacker in the situation that you saw. Among other things, if he's hanging back, he'll see the toss coming. Moreover, if the rear attacker's hanging back, then there's nothing wrong with the eye-poke.

I find the tossing the front guy around quite unrealistic. I also don't think that you're helping your cause by writing, "I never said my approach was...(the only approach)...only easier and more realistic."

Unless, of course, you're now arguing that what Mr. Parker taught was unnecessarily difficult and largely unrealistic, as opposed to your ideas.

I also note that you chose not to respond to my remarks about complexity in kenpo.

The 2nd attacker may see the first attacker being swung into him. Yes, can happen. Not a problem. The defender STILL will be in a better position than staying inbetween the 2 attackers. And the eyejab is not a good response. The reach is all wrong. You really have to see the picture.


you said that I said my approach was the one one. I NEVER said that. The complexity of Kenpo is not my game, it's yours and I can't answer it, nor will I try to answer it.

Real fighting involves tossing, throwing, grabbing. Theres nothing unrealistic about that. If you can't see it, you can't see it. But don't say that I said things that I did not say.

I asked for a "Kenpo view" first before I made ANY technical analsys. I didn't open the door for my view, you asked for it. :uhyeah:

 

[rmcrobertson]

Ah. Your opinion--and it is an opinion, not a fact--is that kenpo remains fundamentally impractical, unlike realistic arts that emphasize tossing, throwing, grabbing. It's that old song.

Yellow Belt: Of the first ten techniques,

Delayed Sword: Defense against a right-hand grab/left punch.
Alternating Maces: defense vs. a two-hand push.
Deflecting Hammer: Often taught with take-down as, "extension."
Grasp of Death: Defense against a left-sided sided head-lock.
Captured Twigs: Defense against a rear bear-hug, arms pinned.
Mace of Aggression: Defense against a two-hand pull from the front.
Sword and Hammer: Defense against a shoulder grab from the right side.

Hey, looka that. Defenses right at the start vs. grabs, locks and pulls on your left side, back side, front, and right side. Right at the start, one gets pulled left, forwards, right. One gets pushed backwards, and yanked forwards. Huh. Wonder why Mr. Parker put THAT in the system? And I even left out the gawdawful, older early technique, Spreading Branches (vs. rear bear-hug),

Orange belt: Of the first eight techniques,

Clutching Feathers defense vs. hair-grab, and punch.
Triggered Salute: def. vs. right push
Dance of Death: First formal takedown of opponent.
Scraping Hooves: Def. vs. attempted full nelson. Ext. features buckle/takedown.
Gift of Destruction: def. vs. "handshake," pull and accompanying punch.

...and that's just off the top of my head, from memory, in the first two minutes of consideration.

Tossing? Not so much, no. It's probably unrealistic to think that throwing big guys around will work all that well, unless you're an even bigger guy. And what's more, that's the kind of move that encourages mere strength...important, but limited.

As for the "I never said that," here's what you wrote:

"I never said my approach to "the said senario" was the only approach. Only easier and more realistic."

Loose translation: "You're welcome to do whatever impractical, wacko thing you come up with. Who knows, maybe it'll work. But if you want to really learn how to fight for real..."

 

[James Kovacich]

Ah. Your opinion--and it is an opinion, not a fact--is that kenpo remains fundamentally impractical, unlike realistic arts that emphasize tossing, throwing, grabbing. It's that old song.

Yellow Belt: Of the first ten techniques,

Delayed Sword: Defense against a right-hand grab/left punch.
Alternating Maces: defense vs. a two-hand push.
Deflecting Hammer: Often taught with take-down as, "extension."
Grasp of Death: Defense against a left-sided sided head-lock.
Captured Twigs: Defense against a rear bear-hug, arms pinned.
Mace of Aggression: Defense against a two-hand pull from the front.
Sword and Hammer: Defense against a shoulder grab from the right side.

Hey, looka that. Defenses right at the start vs. grabs, locks and pulls on your left side, back side, front, and right side. Right at the start, one gets pulled left, forwards, right. One gets pushed backwards, and yanked forwards. Huh. Wonder why Mr. Parker put THAT in the system? And I even left out the gawdawful, older early technique, Spreading Branches (vs. rear bear-hug),

Orange belt: Of the first eight techniques,

Clutching Feathers defense vs. hair-grab, and punch.
Triggered Salute: def. vs. right push
Dance of Death: First formal takedown of opponent.
Scraping Hooves: Def. vs. attempted full nelson. Ext. features buckle/takedown.
Gift of Destruction: def. vs. "handshake," pull and accompanying punch.

...and that's just off the top of my head, from memory, in the first two minutes of consideration.

Tossing? Not so much, no. It's probably unrealistic to think that throwing big guys around will work all that well, unless you're an even bigger guy. And what's more, that's the kind of move that encourages mere strength...important, but limited.

As for the "I never said that," here's what you wrote:

"I never said my approach to "the said senario" was the only approach. Only easier and more realistic."

Loose translation: "You're welcome to do whatever impractical, wacko thing you come up with. Who knows, maybe it'll work. But if you want to really learn how to fight for real..."

Now you're loose translating me. Stick to the facts. I Have. :uhyeah:

I think you're going over the deep end on this. I didn't say my technique couldn't be countered. Where are you dreaming this stuff up from???

OFFENSE IS DEFENSE AND DEFENSE IS OFFENSE.

 

[John Bishop]

Still pictures are very seldom a good indication of the effectiveness of a technique. This is especially true concerning magazine articles.
Having written 67 magazine articles, I can tell you that "space" is more important to the magazine then the accurate illustration of the technique.
In other words you may shoot a technique in 8-10 photos, and then the edited article and photos go to a "art director" (who's probably not a martial artist). His job is to make it all fit into the "space" alloted for the article.
In other words, he/she will throw out pictures that don't fit into the "space". So your technique which looked good in 10 pictures, is now illustrated with 6 pictures.
So if you took one of your techniques, and left out 2/3 moves, what would it look like?

 

[BlackCatBonz]

i still stick by positioning and unpredictable movement..........if you're in a bad position you use unpredictable movement to get in a good one....if you're in a good one, use unpredictable movement to defeat them.

 

[Karazenpo]

akja (Jim) stated: "Real fighting involves tossing, throwing, grabbing. Theres nothing unrealistic about that".

I say: I'm sorry, I don't care who disagrees with me on this one but nearly three decades dealing with violence, Jim is RIGHT!

 

[rmcrobertson]

I'm afraid that I really can't give a seminar on how to read good in this forum.

However, one of the basics of good reading is that there is a surface meaning, and a, "depth," a set of implications and connections in every text.

On the surface, "akja," has repeatedly used phrases such as, "the eyejab is not a good response. The reach is all wrong," as well as insisting that, "my approach to "the said senario" was...easier and more realistic." It is difficult to see how to read this as something other than a statement that a) this particular practice, b) a rather good kenpoist's way of responding to a particular attack, are unrealistic, more-difficult, and--your word--"wrong." Please explain what you actually meant.

As for the "depth," well, your explicit statement was, "Real fighting involves tossing, throwing, grabbing," as opposed to what you thought you saw in the demonstrated kenpo. I do not see how it's that much of a leap to conclude that you consider kenpo generally unrealistic because of its lack of education in tossing, throwing, and grabbing.

To return to the same technique list:

At yellow belt, the attacker/"uke," learns:

1. How to grab an opponent by the lapel or shoulder/how to push them (Delayed Sword)
2. How to deliver a good two-hand push (Alt. Maces)
3. An optional basic takedown (Deflecting Hammer)
4. How to do a basic headlock (Grasp of Death)
5. How to do a decent bear-hug (Captured Twigs)...

..and so on and so forth.

I'm certainly not arguing that I can defeat everybody because I Do Kenpo. That would be extremely silly, given that there are always at least three or four guys at the studio who can walk right through me, I've worked out with more than three guys from other styles who can walk right through me...and to really ice the cake, I live in So Cal, where (despite the fact that as what's 'is name wrote, "California is to martial arts as garlic is to vampires,") I can certainly get my head stuffed somewhere unpleasant in all sorts of different venues. (Hell, they're still letting that Gene Le Bell guy run around loose....aaack.)

What I am indeed saying is that a) you're mistaken in running down what you saw in the magazine; b) there's plenty of what you consider to be realism in well-taught kenpo.

 

[BlackCatBonz]

akja (Jim) stated: "Real fighting involves tossing, throwing, grabbing. Theres nothing unrealistic about that".

I say: I'm sorry, I don't care who disagrees with me on this one but nearly three decades dealing with violence, Jim is RIGHT!

i agree!

 

[Karazenpo]

i agree!

Thanks, Shawn!

 

[MJS]

I'd like to address a few things.

First off, lets try to tone it down just a little so as to avoid having this thread locked.

Second, Mr. Bishop brought up some very good points in his post. Anytime we are looking at a picture, its going to be difficult to grasp exactly whats being done. There have been many times I've looked at tech. pics and have been lost as to how they're getting from move to move.

Third, we can sit here and beat this to death, but the fact remains that there are many different ways to approach this subect. Does this mean that Tatum is wrong? No. Does this mean that Prof. Joe and Akja are wrong? No. We are facing a situation where we can't possibly predict whats going to happen, therefore, there really is no cut and dry answer to the problem. What works for one, may not work for another. I have not seen the pics. in question, so I can't give my input to that, only on what I'm reading here.

Again, lets try to mellow out a little and get back to some friendly discussion.

Mike

 

[GAB]

Hi All,

I believe we are not taking into account the spontaneous or conceptualization of the various moves that come off of one movement to another...

Oops, I missed that therefore I will do this and then react to his reaction..or follow through with a second strike and a third or not...

Or shifting in a car you are going for third but you got 5th so now you have to get back to 4th...You might have to go into an evasive action to gain the control for an attack, or let them break away or come in to your head as you are coming up from a bent leg position and straighting to comb your hair and strike with an elbow...Then drop down with a hammer fist and break the collar bone...

Continuous motion and striking, you dont see that in stills, sometimes you dont see it in videos unless you slow down and watch carefully....

Like John Bishop said you remove some movement just fill in with visualization and calm calculated determination to destroy what is closest to you..

Like in the Last Samuri movie. Mushin, no mind, calm... It slows down and you think you are moving very slow but you are not..It is the way for the mind to keep away the fear that can deprive you of what you have to do.

Fight or flight is always present, training is the only way to overcome the fear and apprehension that causes the chemical release that is a biological function. Calm before the storm, when it is over you can think about it time and again...

What did you do champ? I saw my opening, I took it he dropped his hand for a split second and I went over it and knocked him out...I pictured it in my mind two rounds ago...

Regards, Gary

PS, look at it like a drill don't nit pick it just train and you will see what it does and does not do....

 

[The Kai]

I think Mr bishop had a good point, magazines will always cut up your offerings, also standing between two attackers has more "zip" than angling off.

What did you do champ? I saw my opening, I took it he dropped his hand for a split second and I went over it and knocked him out...I pictured it in my mind two rounds ago...

Is this a real quote ?

 

[Seabrook]

Still pictures are very seldom a good indication of the effectiveness of a technique. This is especially true concerning magazine articles.
Having written 67 magazine articles, I can tell you that "space" is more important to the magazine then the accurate illustration of the technique.
In other words you may shoot a technique in 8-10 photos, and then the edited article and photos go to a "art director" (who's probably not a martial artist). His job is to make it all fit into the "space" alloted for the article.
In other words, he/she will throw out pictures that don't fit into the "space". So your technique which looked good in 10 pictures, is now illustrated with 6 pictures.
So if you took one of your techniques, and left out 2/3 moves, what would it look like?

Exactly my point Mr. Bishop...well put.

Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com

 

[Karazenpo]

First off, I'd like to say everyone, Robert, Jim, John, Mike, Shawn, Jamie...have all made some great points, I think that goes without saying. In defense of Jim, he is not questioning Mr. Tatum's abilities whatsoever, who would? Larry Tatum is one of the seniors who has proved himself many times over, that too should go without saying. I did not see the photo shoot so I stay reserved on most of this discussion except for one issue. 'Absolutes'......there aren't any. I have seen a bank robbery video of an off duty police officer and the suspect exchanging gun fire from something like three feet away and missing each other. The cop qualified expert at the range, go figure! I'm sure some of the LEO's on this forum recall the incident. That's why, years ago, more emphasis was put in on close range 'point' firing rather than using the 'sights' at distance. Stress factors are amazing in life/death situations. Perceptions become distorted. Time and movement can appear to slow down (which can actually help you), objects and people can appear farther way, rooms or areas appear bigger, it's weird! So my point is no matter who you are or how good you are I just don't count on anything 100 per cent, I always keep in the back of my mind something can go wrong. Who the heck ever though Buster Douglas would have knocked out Mike Tyson that year? Expect the unexpected.

As far as having someone behind you is not a good position, well, of course it's not but like Robert and others stated, sometimes you may have no choice. First rule of officer survival is to have your stance set so your firearm is at your rear side farthest away from your opponent and not to ever have anyone behind you. Well, try doing that in a crowded bar on a disturbance call or a party. It can't be reasonably done and you have to learn to protect and defend from the position your in, not the position you would like to be in. Just my thoughts. Great discussion. True also, mag photos can't show everything, just one possible scenerio. With respect, Prof. Joe

 

[James Kovacich]

I'm afraid that I really can't give a seminar on how to read good in this forum.

However, one of the basics of good reading is that there is a surface meaning, and a, "depth," a set of implications and connections in every text.

On the surface, "akja," has repeatedly used phrases such as, "the eyejab is not a good response. The reach is all wrong," as well as insisting that, "my approach to "the said senario" was...easier and more realistic." It is difficult to see how to read this as something other than a statement that a) this particular practice, b) a rather good kenpoist's way of responding to a particular attack, are unrealistic, more-difficult, and--your word--"wrong." Please explain what you actually meant.

As for the "depth," well, your explicit statement was, "Real fighting involves tossing, throwing, grabbing," as opposed to what you thought you saw in the demonstrated kenpo. I do not see how it's that much of a leap to conclude that you consider kenpo generally unrealistic because of its lack of education in tossing, throwing, and grabbing.

To return to the same technique list:

At yellow belt, the attacker/"uke," learns:

1. How to grab an opponent by the lapel or shoulder/how to push them (Delayed Sword)
2. How to deliver a good two-hand push (Alt. Maces)
3. An optional basic takedown (Deflecting Hammer)
4. How to do a basic headlock (Grasp of Death)
5. How to do a decent bear-hug (Captured Twigs)...

..and so on and so forth.

I'm certainly not arguing that I can defeat everybody because I Do Kenpo. That would be extremely silly, given that there are always at least three or four guys at the studio who can walk right through me, I've worked out with more than three guys from other styles who can walk right through me...and to really ice the cake, I live in So Cal, where (despite the fact that as what's 'is name wrote, "California is to martial arts as garlic is to vampires,") I can certainly get my head stuffed somewhere unpleasant in all sorts of different venues. (Hell, they're still letting that Gene Le Bell guy run around loose....aaack.)

What I am indeed saying is that a) you're mistaken in running down what you saw in the magazine; b) there's plenty of what you consider to be realism in well-taught kenpo.

First. I DO NOT think Kenpo is unrealistic or weak or anything of the sort. I am very close to my wifes uncle. We share long martial conversations. He was first a student of Ralph Castellano and received his first colored belt from Mr. Parker at Castellonos school. He received his black belt in 1970 from Ray Sabega (may have spelled that one wrong maybe Zabega). He to this day still trains with his instructor Ray Sabega.

But what they did is something what "most" people in most arts, including Kenpo don't do. They truely thought "out of the box." And they have they're own method. They both trained in Inayan Eskrima under Suro Mike Inay and "shortened and refined" "all" of their art and what they have today is truely their own.

I have NO REASON to dismiss Kenpo any other art, just some of they're close minded practioners. Thats my right. We all have rights.

Please I hope your not implying that a yellow belt is ready for reality self defense.

The truth is Kenpo is more realistic than most arts out there but an art is only as good as it's practioners. All I wanted was discussion, not a fight. If feelings are hurt, then I'm sorry.

I think John was on the money about the article.