Positional Strategy

[Old Fat Kenpoka]

Does Kenpo have a hierarchy of positions that contribute to our combat strategy? I have not seen any formal hierarchy in my long but limited Kenpo experience.

Those who’ve followed my posts know that I have recently embraced (pun intended) Brazilian Jiu Jitsu and have been espousing it’s ground techniques and training methods. I will NOT do so here. I would like to introduce one concept from Brazilian Jiu Jitsu that I think they have articulated well and that I think is directly relevant to Kenpo, and ask my Kenpo brethren to articulate Kenpo’s equivalent concept so that I (and everyone else here) can better understand it.

The fighting strategy of BJJ is built around the concept of positional hierarchy. Every BJJ’er uses positional hierarchy to drive strategy in randori, competition, and fighting. The strategy is simple: strive to move to more dominant positions where you can more easily strike and execute submissions and where your opponent cannot easily strike and execute submissions.

Following is a paraphrase of the positional hierarchy from Renzo Gracie’s Mastering Ju Jitsu book: hierarchy starts with the strongest position down to a neutral position and then down to the weakest positions. The weakest positions are the reverse of the strongest positions.

Top-rear mount (strongest)
Bottom-rear mount
Mount
Knee-on-belly
Side-control
Turtle
Half-Guard
Guard (neutral)
Half-Guard
Turtle
Side-control
Knee-on-belly
Mount
Bottom-rear mount
Top-rear mount (weakest)

Many properly executed Kenpo techniques are designed to end with the attacker prone (and hopefully unconscious) on the ground and the defender in a fighting stance covered out at a safe distance. Arguably, this is the ideal position for a Kenpoist to be in during a fight. Another advantageous position for a Kenpoist would be standing over a prone opponent raining down strikes as in many of the techniques in Long 5. Another strong position would be in a fighting stance behind a kneeling opponent. A desirable, but less strong position, would be beside an attacker with checks in place. A neutral position would be facing an opponent with both fighters in a neutral bow. Disadvantageous positions would be the reverse of the above. The worst, of course, lying unconscious in front of an attacker. Next worse might be underneath a standing attacker. Kneeling with your back to an attacker would be pretty bad as well. And so on.

What is Kenpo’s hierarchy? Is it relevant to Kenpo’s combat strategy?

 

[Touch Of Death]

I'll throw out a number one... neutrality. This changes based on range.

 

[Old Fat Kenpoka]

Sean: Thanks. I think we need more than one position to form a hierarchy though.

And, I forgot to mention grabs, joint-locks, etc. as good/bad positions. We could probably incorporate the Web of Knowledge breakdown of techniques as well.

 

[c2kenpo]

I don't have one available to share with everyone. But Skip Hancocks Kenpo 2000 Cycle of Considerations is probably the closest thing of a heirarchy of Kenpo fighting there is. It takes the art form and moves it into the extemporaneous level taking in all aspects of environment, attitude, weapons, stance, purpose, etc.

That and the KenpoScpoe wich works on the ideas of Attitude, Basics, Fitness, and Logic.

www.kenpo2000.com if you would like to purchase them. I suggest them.

David Gunzburg

 

[Touch Of Death]

what he said.

 

[Handsword]

I think that this is a good, thought-provoking question, but for that reason it's probably less likely to get much of a response (unlike a less helpful, emotion-provoking question ). Okay, that's my gripe with recent trends on this forum out of the way, let's move on ...


I haven't come across any hierarchy of positions in Kenpo, but I'll have a go at "putting some bones in the skelelton" on an idea:

Firstly, lets assume that you and the opponent are within mutual striking distance, and that both parties are conscious (otherwise, the first ideal position has your opponent unconscious on the opposite side of the planet).

I'm also assuming that no contact is made (to restrict specific details like - your knee in his groin and fingers in eyes while he's falling backwards ...)

And one last boundary on this potenitally-very-big-list is that there are only 3 possible directions (in front, behind and to the side).

Okay, here goes:

1 - Opponent lying flat, face down on ground; you standing closer to his head than legs.
2 - Same as above with opponent face up.
3 - Opponent lying flat, face down on ground; you standing to the side.
4 - Same as above with opponent face up.
5 - Opponent lying flat, face down on ground; you standing closer to his legs than head.
6 - Same as above with opponent face up.
7, 8 & 9 - Opponent kneeling; you standing behind, then to the side, then in front.
11, 12, 13 - Opponent standing; you standing behind, then to the side, then in front.
14 - 26 - The opposite of the above.

There's a few positons I haven't added (eg. on all fours, on both knees, sitting up etc), but I think it's possible to see where they'd fit in to the above.

Now when contact is made, it is obviously better that you are the person striking, checking or applying some other sort of control than the other person. If, in all of the positions above, you were doing the one thing (eg. punching the opponent in the head), then I believe that the above hierarchy would still apply (eg. it would be better to be striking the opponent in the head while they were face down, than when they were standing in front of you.

But if you were making contact in one position and not another, then the order may need to be shuffled a bit. For example, it could be argued that it is better to have the opponent in an arm lock while he is kneeling and you are to the side (#8), than to have no contact while he is on the ground, face up with his legs between the two of you (#5).

I think that the ground fighting position hierarchy that was mentioned would mesh pretty well into the hiearchy above between #1 and #6 (for those comfortable with such grappling positions).

When distance is applied to the hiearchy, then things get a bit messier (eg. I'd prefer to be closer to an opponent facing away, but at a safe distance to an opponent facing me).

Well I just wrote more than I thought I would - that's the skeleton - if anyone wants to make any chiropractic adjustments then please do ...

 

[Old Fat Kenpoka]

Handsword: Thank you! Very thoughtful.

Anyone else?

 

[ProfessorKenpo]

Ok, I'll have a go

Opponent unconscious and you walking away to go home and eat pizza and have liquid refreshment

Opponent unconscious

Opponent conscious

Opponent conscious and swinging

Opponent conscious and has a knife

Opponent conscious and has a gun

Opponent conscious and has a gun 10ft away pointed at you

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

 

[Old Fat Kenpoka]

Clyde: That was pretty funny! But seriously, you are one of the brighter and more senior posters on here. When you are working a technique line or sparring, where do you like to fight from? The opponents back? Inside, Outside, Centerline? Would you rather be behind a standing opponent or in front of a kneeling one? Can we apply our Kenpo theories to relative positions? I look forward to your reply.

 

[ProfessorKenpo]

Originally posted by Old Fat Kenpoka
Clyde: That was pretty funny! But seriously, you are one of the brighter and more senior posters on here. When you are working a technique line or sparring, where do you like to fight from? The opponents back? Inside, Outside, Centerline? Would you rather be behind a standing opponent or in front of a kneeling one? Can we apply our Kenpo theories to relative positions? I look forward to your reply.

To be honest, one is as good as the other, as long as I've got some dimensions cancelled I'm not really concerned, and to be more honest, I never really thought about it because of the dimensional zone principles. I do believe in disruption of opponents centerlines (plural for a reason), once that happens, you control the fight

LOL @OFK, he said in front of a kneeling one ROFLMAO.

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

P.S. thanks for the compliment as well

 

[Old Fat Kenpoka]

Thanks Clyde.

You know, I never thought about it either before my BJJ baptism. But I did work on it in my Kenpo school for many years. I used to drill quite a bit to get outside kicks and punches and work around to the opponents back and bring them to their knees. I also used to practive controlling the middle in sparring by keeping in close and countering without recoil or setup from whatever hand I had just used to block. I do think that Dimensional Zone Theory applies directly to positions, I was hoping one of the EPAK Cognocenti could describe it in terms of relative positions.

 

[ProfessorKenpo]

After reading Handsword's reply I would concur with what he has.

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

 

[Handsword]

How would one rate the dimensional zones in a hierarchy?

Obviously having all three zones (height, depth, width) cancelled is most favourable and having none of the zones cancelled is least favourable. What about all the combinations in between?

Is there logic to justify such a hierachy (eg. to say that cancelling just width is favourable to just depth), or would this just be a matter of personal preference?

 

[Touch Of Death]

I prefer to be behind the guy and attacking his width zones.

 

[ProfessorKenpo]

Originally posted by Handsword
How would one rate the dimensional zones in a hierarchy?

Obviously having all three zones (height, depth, width) cancelled is most favourable and having none of the zones cancelled is least favourable. What about all the combinations in between?

Is there logic to justify such a hierachy (eg. to say that cancelling just width is favourable to just depth), or would this just be a matter of personal preference?

Yea, I suppose it's more personal preference than a hierarchy really. I would ideally like to cancel all dimensions simultaneously if possible, if not, cancel the one I'm most likely to have used against me and will allow me to strike most effectively while nullifying my opponents actions. By cancelling one dimension you will most likely get a residual effect of cancelling another ie. kicking the leg into a broader base of your opponent will not only cancel height but width or vice versa, it depends on the application you're using for it. These considerations also have to be referenced to the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd person perspectives as well to be more complete.


Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

 

[ProfessorKenpo]

Originally posted by Touch'O'Death
I prefer to be behind the guy and attacking his width zones.

How do you attack a width zone from behind?

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

 

[Michael Billings]

... Clyde, was this a rhetorical question? I am sure it was. For others, you have to control width to prevent spinning maneuvers, could include:

Knife Edge kicks
Strikes to the Kidney
Strikes down to the hip pointers

I am thinking of active "attacks", not positional or active checks. Of course any strike can be considered an active check.

 

[ProfessorKenpo]

Originally posted by Michael Billings
... Clyde, was this a rhetorical question? I am sure it was. For others, you have to control width to prevent spinning maneuvers, could include:

Knife Edge kicks
Strikes to the Kidney
Strikes down to the hip pointers

I am thinking of active "attacks", not positional or active checks. Of course any strike can be considered an active check.

I don't see how you can attack a zone, controlling it and striking thru it, most noteably the depth zone, but attacking it I don't get.

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

 

[Michael Billings]

Clyde,

I meant, more precisely, that you control the width zone through your attack. I tend to be pretty aggressive anyway, and think of any block or active check as a strike. Hence, I thought I knew what TOD meant when he was talking about "attacking the width zones."

My bad.

 

[dcence]

I don't think Kenpo has a litany list of relative positions ranked according to one being better than the other. Kenpo addresses it more in an analytical method in the self defense considerations, environment, range, position, stances, manuevers.... And then within the range factor you have the dimensional stages of range.

A fight is too dynamic to say in every instance one position is better than the other. For example, it may be better generally to be on the outside of the opponent's attack, but not if moving there puts you closer to the opponent's friend who is also ready to clock you. In that instance, you would want to be on the inside of the opponent's attack to provide a blockade or buffer to the other potential attacker. That is where environment will trump position.

Derek Ence