HKphooey
Senior Master
Last edited by a moderator:
Old School Doc in Action! :)
- Thread starter HKphooey
- Start date
Neat! Question: In the gun-behind-the-back scenario, I feel there's more control and follow-up options with the arm-bent block on the turn-around as shown, and it's how we often prefer to block knives in the FMA when feasible, but a few inches' misjudgement could mean missing the gun arm entirely. Most times I've seen something like this the arm has been straight and pointing down to ensure it engages the gun arm. What's the trade-off here from the Kenpo point-of-view?
girlbug2
Master of Arts
Doc is serious!
Hey Doc, bet you never thought these would show up on the Internet one day, eh?
Hey Doc, bet you never thought these would show up on the Internet one day, eh?
JTKenpo
Purple Belt
I would never try to speak for Doc but I believe the trade off is in the follow up move to break the offending arm. The top hand controls while the other breaks/hyperextends the arm, economy of motion.
Yes, I definitely see that--I'd rather be in the position he ends up in than the one I'm describing, both for follow-ups and control of the arm in general, but I also like that extra margin of error!
JTKenpo
Purple Belt
Doc
Senior Master
Good question sir, and I have taught it both ways. This was from the mid-eighties and a video project with one of my Taiji students. Mr. Parker wanted me to stay closer to the Motion-Kenpo written version of the technique here.
This method works well when you apply the Psychology of Confrontation information to the assault. Our philosophy with handguns especially is dependent on this component, and our law enforcement guys use it exclusively. Simply; if a guy wants to shoot you, than you are already shot. If he has a gun on you, and you're not shot, than his immediate intent is to intimidate and/or control. Doesn't mean he won't shoot you, it just means that he doesn't want to shoot you at that moment.
Because the assault is from the rear, we Index our head to the left and right to set up alignment. At the same time we raise our hands, NOT our elbows, and apply pressure against the weapon to cause him to press the weapon firmly into our backs. This allows us to take a slight step forward, causing him to follow. Once he takes a step toward us to follow, no matter how slight, he will lose lateral strength in his arm.
All of the movements that occur before our Initial Retaliation we term Surviving The Initial Assault, and all of the physical movements fall within anticipated reactions of the victim by the attacker. Therefore, the movements appear natural in our set up to retaliate.
This is when the turn occurs, and the physical control of the weapon begins, with assurance as to where the weapon is located. The straight arm method is also effective but there are some Startle Reflex issues that must be considered, that may make it slightly more difficult, but not greatly so.
Disclaimer: The rest of the moves of this scenario on this video was/is not in our curriculum, and was for the video project only.
Doc
Senior Master
Yes sir, this is the perspective we take for a handgun. It is one thing to Survive The Initial Assault, but without Immediate Retaliation, it may be a moot point.
Doc
Senior Master
Yes Ma'am, I have my good friend Jason Bugg to thank. I originally gave him some historical footage exclusively for his website project pre-YouTube. Some took footage from his site. I have a lot of vintage video, mostly from the early to mid-eighties. I've put some up on YouTube, and probably will post some more there when I sort through the footage. There a little from the seventies, but "back-in-the-day" film and later video was a big deal and very expensive and not generally available to the average guy without a significant money investment. That's why you don't see much from the era beyond professional work.
I also have the original reel of film of Ed Parker performing self defense techniques with Chuck Sullivan.
Thanks for the detailed explanation! I can see arguments for going both ways with this.
That makes a lot of sense in a statistical way and it's exactly what we say for the knife-in-the-face assault: If he had wanted to stab you, you would never have seen the knife. If he's standing there holding it out then you have a chance to apply initiative to your favor...though you're hardly in a happy situation.
I've heard that 90% of the time that someone pulls a gun and says "Get in the car/van" and the person runs away instead, no shot is fired. I don't know if it's true or not but I find it plausible. This looks like a situation where he's reasonably likely to shoot if pressed, esp. given the close quarters, but there's a chance to use the action/reaction gap to the defender's benefit.
It is a bigger motion and the bigger the motion, the sooner the person reacts. Even if the reaction is just to jump back due to surprise, that doesn't work to the defender's benefit here. The way demonstrated is a tighter motion. Is that how you mean this?
That makes a lot of sense in a statistical way and it's exactly what we say for the knife-in-the-face assault: If he had wanted to stab you, you would never have seen the knife. If he's standing there holding it out then you have a chance to apply initiative to your favor...though you're hardly in a happy situation.
I've heard that 90% of the time that someone pulls a gun and says "Get in the car/van" and the person runs away instead, no shot is fired. I don't know if it's true or not but I find it plausible. This looks like a situation where he's reasonably likely to shoot if pressed, esp. given the close quarters, but there's a chance to use the action/reaction gap to the defender's benefit.
It is a bigger motion and the bigger the motion, the sooner the person reacts. Even if the reaction is just to jump back due to surprise, that doesn't work to the defender's benefit here. The way demonstrated is a tighter motion. Is that how you mean this?
Doc
Senior Master
Statistically that is about right from the last available stats. A person who wants to just kill you, will do so on the spot. An abductor may want to kill you also, but he has something else in mind that he can't do where you are.
Well sir, it actually depends on what the motion is, not its size, relative to the expectations of the attacker. You can get away with almost anything as long as the attacker does not see it as "unusual," or threatening.
The hands down method we utilize for blades without projectile concerns, with attention focused on initial "poking" or stabbing, followed by usually a "slashing" move. The hands up method works as well, and both methodologies will work for either a gun or knife. My students often confuse the two, but are successful in application anyway.
The problem or concerns are, when taken by surprise, your "Startle Reflex" will brings your hands upward. If your desire, (or the lesson) is to use the straight arm approach, your arms now must be straightened to execute. Therefore we teach both methods to take advantage of the arm positions, no matter where they are. One way is taught in a handgun scenario, and the other in a knife scenario, even though they may be interchanged to an extent. The only differences will be the accompanying indices that set the your alignment, and misaligns the attacker sir.
Similar threads
