Many feel that AK has many "holes" or un-addressed situations within....

[Doc]

I always find it interesting when people look at an entity as vast as EPAK, and make a declaritive statement as to what it is lacking or missing. Of course the statement itself alludes to the fact the individual making the declaration must be all knowledgeable regarding every facet of the art in existence. This attitude is pretty arrogant. I've been in the arts almost 47 years and haven't even come close.

Ed Parker was working on learning things up until the day he passed on as a perpetual student. He had already "covered the bases and took care of the holes," but was always moving to higher levels in every aspect of what HE DID, but not always what HE TAUGHT to most. The proof is in people like myself, Mr. Landsdale, and others that exist.

However, if one is unwilling to declare themselves "all knowing," then perhaps the "holes" they speak of is within their and/or their instructors experiences and not the art itself. So can we please stop this debate relative to the art, and instead speak of what YOU know or don't know. But of course that would mean you would have to say things like, "MY kenpo or MY instructors Kenpo doesn't always work and address certain things I see in other arts" Stop blaming the art and instead start looking in the mirror or give your teacher a hard look. Of course that would mean the belt he gave you might not be worth a much as you would like. Maybe belts are not what we should be looking at. But most of all, stop passing what you see as deficiencies in what YOU know and do, to others. EPAK as I see it is just fine. If you see it differently than that is YOUR experience, and frankly, YOUR problem. This is a case of "Misery loves company." ... and clearly a lot of people are misrable.

I've had many an argument with those who would discount MY experieces in Kenpo because of what THEY don't know. Now they have a right to question WHY they don't have certain information, but not WHY I Do. And just maybe they need to add Mr. Landsdale to their list of people who don't do things the way THEY do.

Mr. Lansdale sounds like my kinda guy. From the sixties uh? You mean before "conceptual" or "commercial" or the dreaded "motion" Kenpo existed? And you mean he does Kenpo but differently with different principles? Well I'm shocked! Shocked, do here me, just shocked to find gambling in this casino. What was that tune again?

 

[dcence]

This is not directed at anyone in particular. But people need to face reality. Things have changed in the last 13 years since Mr. Parker's death. Mr. Parker died before the real popularity of BJJ and UFC. There are many more times the people studying ground fighting today than there were 13 years ago. Then think of the hundreds of thousands of kids taught how to wrestle in our own schools every year. Those kids know how to take you down, and quick. They will either lock you up if you get close or they will fake high and shoot for your ankles. And, believe me, they are very good at it. Yet, EPAK has not one single groundfighting technique where the attacker has taken you to the ground and is on top of you. I can't believe for one instant that Mr. Parker would have left things the way they are with the extreme popularity of BJJ and UFC and the number of people training in this methodology.

Neither Charging Ram nor any of the other Rams is going to teach you how to defend against someone shooting for your legs. I was a wrestler (mediocre at best) in high school and I laugh at those who think they will be able to stop even someone like me from shooting at their leg and taking them down with a "ram" technique, and there are a lot of people much better at it than me.

Do I think this merits abandoning Kenpo and running out and joining the BJJ crowd? Heck no. But it does require some innovation to defend against this type of attack. I really think groundfighting is the worst thing you can do in the street because of environmental concerns; I don't train people to do it. But, there are HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people who don't agree with me and are being trained to do just that -- fake high and shoot for the ankles. So do you sit idly by and hope Charging Ram will keep you off the ground? If you do, you will get the surprise of your life if it ever happens to you.

I am sure I will get keyboard kenpoists theorizing that "well, we have all the principles to deal with someone shooting at your ankles so I will be able to deal spontaneously with this situation after my extensive training in X number of techniques for other attacks" but that is a pipe dream. You can practice Intercepting the Ram until the sheep come home, but you won't be able to stop a mediocre wrestler or a BJJ practitioner from taking you down UNLESS you have actually practiced doing it, not just theorizing about it at the computer screen. And the fact of the matter is you won't practice it unless you have a technique that teaches you how to do it.

I am NOT advocating running out and training in BJJ or some other art (though it doesn't hurt and I am not advocating against it) but I do believe it is naive, to say the least, to think you can defend yourself against a person trained to take you down unless you have taken the time to really work it. And the "Ram" techniques will not get you there. The "ram" techniques really only address a tackle and those are very limited. Well, someone shooting for your ankle is very different from someone doing the old football tackle.

This is important -- the best thing you can learn in this regard is not how to fight on the ground, but how to keep from being taken down in the first place. It requires real skill to prevent a take down because there are people that can do it in the blink of an eye.

In the AKKI, we have tried to address this phenomenon, because it is just that -- a phenomenon. There are thousands and thousands of people being trained to fake a side kick or jab and then shoot for your legs, and they can do it before you even think Charging Ram. In the AKKI, we have a series of techniques that first teach you to avoid the take down, then they teach you how to hopefully extricate yourself from the ground fighting arena and get you back on your feet if you are taken down. These techniques use Kenpo principles, but translated into the ground fighting realm. Does it cover every ground fighting possibility? No, but it at least gives you a framework or platform in which you can now use your Kenpo based skills. I would much rather train to address this real threat than to defend against the oh-so-scary handshake attack.

If I was a woman, I would be a lot less concerned about someone punching me or kicking me than someone trying to force me to the ground.

Again, if you train on how not to be taken down, the need to learn how to fight on the ground diminishes greatly (though you should also know something of fighting on the ground in case it does happen). But you actually have to train it. Anyway, that is the approach we have taken in the AKKI by developiig some basic techniques that address ground fighting.

Derek

 

[Touch Of Death]

The techniques are merely studies of motion. You can take ten and study them until the cows come home and still become a good fighter. As long as you use "metaphors" such as the equation formula, you can very the attacks and responses for the rest of you life and still come up with answers to new problems. You can add ten and be that much better off; however, you can no longer devote the time and energy you spent on the original ten. Add twenty more or one-hundred-twenty more and that is that much less of a study you have to do.
We've added a technique to the list called "Escape from the Bear"
It is simply an escape from the mount but in using that old equation formula we must learn a lot about what can happen in this positon, both on top and on bottom. Each little nuance and arm bar could recieve its own name but for now we are content using "escape from the bear "as a catagory rather than an individual idea. Did Kenpo already have these ideas locked away somewhere? Probably, but not in that context.
Sean

 

[Old Fat Kenpoka]

Derek: Thank you for your eloquent post.

I've been trying to make this point here for about six months now. I think Kenpo principles are wonderful. I wish I understood them better.

I agree with you: If you don't know specific techniques to defend against takedowns and escape from the ground, you are going to find it dificcult to adapt Kenpo principles on the fly.

The analogy that comes to mind is this: Kenpo people are like English Professors. English professors may know grammar better than anyone else. They may be well read and know literature and know writing techniques. They may have the best vocabularies. But, if that English professor has never studied Greek, then he won't be able to communicate when he finds himself stuck in Greece.

Trying to state this whole problem by labeling it as "holes" or "weaknesses" isn't necessarily the best approach. Perhaps it is more like Kenpo is one language with a grammar and literature as rich or richer than any. But grappling and ground fighting are other languages. Grammar may be very similar (or it may not be), some of the words may even be the same. But being fluent in one language doesn't automatically make you fluent in another.

 

[Doc]

Originally posted by Old Fat Kenpoka
But grappling and ground fighting are other languages. Grammar may be very similar (or it may not be), some of the words may even be the same. But being fluent in one language doesn't automatically make you fluent in another. [/B]

Street Grappling and groundfighting are the same language, just a different dialect that I teach. Although this "dialect" shouldn't be neglected, bi-pedal creatures should place an emphasis on the common language first before adding esoteric dialects of unusual weapons and obscure circumstances. Despite the sales job by some, the "groundfighting," knife weilding, round off flip flop dialects are not as prominent in real life as some would have you think. That being said, I place the proper amount of emphasis on them within realistic context with no problems or complaints yet. Considering what I have done for a living for over a quarter of a century, my sense of reality is rather pronounced and intact.

That being said, I agree that most don't even speak the common language well enough to effectively communicate, let alone the dialects.

 

[Kenpo Yahoo]

I would like to thank OFK and Mr. Ence for their posts. Mr. Ence has a deeper understanding of kenpo than I will ever have, and what's better is that he can execute everything that he talks about. Unlike many armchair martial artists.

I know that this is an argument that will never end, but I take heart in the fact that there are individuals who try to better themselves and their students and because of this they help enrich the art itself.

I still think it would be good to list the EPAK techniques that people are using on the ground. I wonder, what technique would you teach to a girl who finds herself on her back in a guard type position (i.e. a rape type scenario)? I don't see this addressed anywhere in the system. How long has rape been a problem? This same technique could be used by a guy who was tackled, or for whatever reason finds himself on his back in the guard.

I don't think we need to cover every single scenario, but look at how much time we spend learning defenses against right punchs. Surely we can make a little time to look at a handful of different scenarios on the ground.

 

[CoolKempoDude]

this IS AK 's matter and i should NOT jump in BUT i would like to comment a few things if you don't mind

2 types of people here

1-"HOLE" people and "UNHOLE" people.

i would hope "UNHOLE" people give "HOLE" people an opportunity to EXPLAIN why they think there are "holes" in AK in more DETAILS if you haven't done that.

if you do that, it's very nice for you.

"HOLE" people should be more SPECIFIC when discussing why there are "holes" in AK

i think this is what "HOLE" people should do. YOu should bring out a technique to address this "ground and grappling" issue

For exame: "HOLE" people say "technique 1" doesn't work in "ground and grappling" situation because of this and that reasons.

and after that, "UNHOLE" people say No and why this "technique 1" should work.

if we do that, we will understand better and perhaps , learning more about AK


if all "HOLE" people say is AK doesn't work, it is very GENERAL and is not specific. Of course, we will get NOWHERE

if nobody understands what i try to say here, it is OK. Maybe, somebody here will say better than me.

thanks

 

[kenpo2dabone]

Originally posted by Kenpo Yahoo
I think a lot of the combination techniques should be changed. I've never liked the idea of doing a crossover step, or twist stance while addressing an opponents attack. I feel that these stances despite their transitory nature weaken your base significantly. I would rather sacrifice any power (percieved or not) that I could generate from this stance and work from one with a wider base, mainly a neutral bow, which might allow me to make up the lost power by allowing for more hip rotation when I strike. I also don't think that many of the defenses are very realistic or leave you enough margin for error. In otherwords, can the same technique be used if both punchs are straight or if both are roundhouse haymakers?

The statement you are making here forces me to ask you how you are doing your crossovers and twist stances because a lot of power can be generated by either with out sacrificing stability. The neutral bow is the only stance in which you are in a state of balance. You should be striking while moving into the neutral bow or moving out of the neutral bow. When you are not in the neutral bow you are transitioning, which means you are employing one of the three power principles. To not use one of the stances or foot maneuvers would severely impair your ability to engage all of your potential power. In the UKF we believe that all of the stances are as important as the neutral bow. However, you have to execute them properly just like anything else or you will take yourself out of anatomical alignment. I have to assume, based on your statement, that you are not doing this stance or foot maneuver correctly. I would welcome a description of how you do these.

Respectfully,
salute,
Mike Miller UKF

 

[Doc]

Originally posted by kenpo2dabone
... The neutral bow is the only stance in which you are in a state of balance.

I disagree and find significant balance in all stances. Yes even the cat stance.

To not use one of the stances or foot maneuvers would severely impair your ability to engage all of your potential power. In the UKF we believe that all of the stances are as important as the neutral bow. However, you have to execute them properly just like anything else or you will take yourself out of anatomical alignment.

I totally agree with that statement.

Somewhere along the line the suggestion I made about a person personalizing THEIR experiences in Kenpo, and to not extrapolate it to all of Kenpo has been ignored. Stop talking about what Kenpo does or does not have, and begin talking about what YOU do or do not know. This is not directed at anyone in particular, but think about it. How can anyone tell me what's missing in my Kenpo? I don't tell people what they don't have. I listen well, ask pertinent questions, and draw reasonable conclusions based on what they have to say. I know for sure, if someone isn't a current student of mine, they have no clue to what I do, how I do it, and what is covered. I bet the same holds true for most teachers who have been around for more than a minute.

Standing in a school with a gi and black belt on doesn't make you anymore a teacher, than standing in a garage wearing coveralls makes you a mechanic.:rofl:

 

[CoolKempoDude]

Originally posted by kenpo2dabone
I would welcome a description of how you do these.

that is what I MEANT. We are getting somewhere Simply sit back and wait for other to *PROVIDE* more details

 

[MJS]

Originally posted by Kenpo Yahoo

I still think it would be good to list the EPAK techniques that people are using on the ground. I wonder, what technique would you teach to a girl who finds herself on her back in a guard type position (i.e. a rape type scenario)? I don't see this addressed anywhere in the system. How long has rape been a problem? This same technique could be used by a guy who was tackled, or for whatever reason finds himself on his back in the guard.

It amazes me as to all the posts with people saying that this is already there or that is already there and doesnt need to be addressed, but I have yet to see an example to some of these techs. applied on the ground. I, as well as a few others, would like an explaination as to how some people are using these techs. to defend themselves on the ground. There are many saying that its there, but when it comes time to explain it, I see no answers.

Mike

 

[MJS]

Originally posted by dcence
This is not directed at anyone in particular. But people need to face reality. Things have changed in the last 13 years since Mr. Parker's death. Mr. Parker died before the real popularity of BJJ and UFC. There are many more times the people studying ground fighting today than there were 13 years ago. Then think of the hundreds of thousands of kids taught how to wrestle in our own schools every year. Those kids know how to take you down, and quick. They will either lock you up if you get close or they will fake high and shoot for your ankles. And, believe me, they are very good at it. Yet, EPAK has not one single groundfighting technique where the attacker has taken you to the ground and is on top of you. I can't believe for one instant that Mr. Parker would have left things the way they are with the extreme popularity of BJJ and UFC and the number of people training in this methodology.

Neither Charging Ram nor any of the other Rams is going to teach you how to defend against someone shooting for your legs. I was a wrestler (mediocre at best) in high school and I laugh at those who think they will be able to stop even someone like me from shooting at their leg and taking them down with a "ram" technique, and there are a lot of people much better at it than me.

Do I think this merits abandoning Kenpo and running out and joining the BJJ crowd? Heck no. But it does require some innovation to defend against this type of attack. I really think groundfighting is the worst thing you can do in the street because of environmental concerns; I don't train people to do it. But, there are HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people who don't agree with me and are being trained to do just that -- fake high and shoot for the ankles. So do you sit idly by and hope Charging Ram will keep you off the ground? If you do, you will get the surprise of your life if it ever happens to you.

I am sure I will get keyboard kenpoists theorizing that "well, we have all the principles to deal with someone shooting at your ankles so I will be able to deal spontaneously with this situation after my extensive training in X number of techniques for other attacks" but that is a pipe dream. You can practice Intercepting the Ram until the sheep come home, but you won't be able to stop a mediocre wrestler or a BJJ practitioner from taking you down UNLESS you have actually practiced doing it, not just theorizing about it at the computer screen. And the fact of the matter is you won't practice it unless you have a technique that teaches you how to do it.

I am NOT advocating running out and training in BJJ or some other art (though it doesn't hurt and I am not advocating against it) but I do believe it is naive, to say the least, to think you can defend yourself against a person trained to take you down unless you have taken the time to really work it. And the "Ram" techniques will not get you there. The "ram" techniques really only address a tackle and those are very limited. Well, someone shooting for your ankle is very different from someone doing the old football tackle.

This is important -- the best thing you can learn in this regard is not how to fight on the ground, but how to keep from being taken down in the first place. It requires real skill to prevent a take down because there are people that can do it in the blink of an eye.

In the AKKI, we have tried to address this phenomenon, because it is just that -- a phenomenon. There are thousands and thousands of people being trained to fake a side kick or jab and then shoot for your legs, and they can do it before you even think Charging Ram. In the AKKI, we have a series of techniques that first teach you to avoid the take down, then they teach you how to hopefully extricate yourself from the ground fighting arena and get you back on your feet if you are taken down. These techniques use Kenpo principles, but translated into the ground fighting realm. Does it cover every ground fighting possibility? No, but it at least gives you a framework or platform in which you can now use your Kenpo based skills. I would much rather train to address this real threat than to defend against the oh-so-scary handshake attack.

If I was a woman, I would be a lot less concerned about someone punching me or kicking me than someone trying to force me to the ground.

Again, if you train on how not to be taken down, the need to learn how to fight on the ground diminishes greatly (though you should also know something of fighting on the ground in case it does happen). But you actually have to train it. Anyway, that is the approach we have taken in the AKKI by developiig some basic techniques that address ground fighting.

Derek

Excellent post!!!!!:asian:

Mike

 

[rmcrobertson]

So your advice would be to throw out all the "Ram," techniques altogether? Hm. Interesting, especially since I was chewed out--back about 1996--for not understanding that Charging Ram was essentially to be used when the attacker abruptly went from having his guard up, to dropping low and attempting to take you down, as a wrestler would.

By the way, the first time this issue of grappling came up, I described the use of several techs on the ground. I was told that a) I didn't do that, b) it wouldn't work (though not why), c) yeah, but then if you do that, he can just...

I think Mr. Chap'el put matters very well.

And before ya blast away, remember: I am not by any means claiming to be an accomplished grappler. Or knife fighter. Or stick maven. Or Underwater Jedi. Or Master of the Whirling Pterodactyls...

 

[Shiatsu]

I think you failed to understand, or grasp what Dcence was saying.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Reading and grasp working fine, thanks. Kenpo needs to establish a base in grappling from which to take advantage of "ordinary," kenpo. Necessary because so many are out there studying take-downs. They have this in the AKKI. Nearly everybody else just theorizes rather than doing. This is the new reality. Techs like "Charg. Ram," are out of touch with the new reality.

Suggestion: rather than suggesting that others can't handle ideas, how 'bout just advancing your own explanation?

 

[Sworn_Enemy]

I disagree and find significant balance in all stances. Yes even the cat stance.

By not being in a state of balance he means being in a state of engagement. In the UKF we use the term balance as the opposite of engagement. Don't take it as being wobbly and falling over. :asian:


Tom Chase
UKF

 

[Doc]

Originally posted by Sworn_Enemy
By not being in a state of balance he means being in a state of engagement. In the UKF we use the term balance as the opposite of engagement. Don't take it as being wobbly and falling over. :asian:


Tom Chase
UKF

Thank you very much for the explanation. I learn something new everyday.

 

[Doc]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Interesting, especially since I was chewed out--back about 1996--for not understanding that Charging Ram was essentially to be used when the attacker abruptly went from having his guard up, to dropping low and attempting to take you down, as a wrestler would.

Funny that is how I was taught as well. In fact Parker went so far as to have me explode out of a three-point stance like a defensive down lineman in football. He said if you can handle that, the rest is easy. And he did handle it.

Master of the Whirling Pterodactyls...

I wish you hand't brought that up. Now someone will claim it.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Originally posted by Doc
Funny that is how I was taught as well. In fact Parker went so far as to have me explode out of a three-point stance like a defensive down lineman in football. He said if you can handle that, the rest is easy. And he did handle it.



I wish you hand't brought that up. Now someone will claim it.

I too am a master of the whirling pterodactyls.

 

[Doc]

I see some are looking for specific EPAK techniques used on the ground. I don't know about others but, Parker has always had techniques specifically created for the ground that are not a re-working of other techniques in my study. Just as we have continued and created techniques for other areas not addressed in the commercial curriculum, like slashing blades, automatic handguns held "street style," rear arm-bar chokes, blades to the throat while pinned, shotguns and rifles front and rear, etc.