Q an A

[cdhall]

Back to the QnA.

Mr. C. Why did Mr. Parker find it necessary to show anyone 44 explicit ways to defend against a Right Roundhouse Punch but not one explicit way to defend against a "mount" particularly when:

1. Most fights go to the ground
2. Most fights end on the ground
3. Most fights last less than 30 seconds
4. Mr. Parker considered being taken to the ground more dangerous than being punched at



I think most of the above are correct, but please if you correct any of my presumptions, don't forget to answer the question.

 

[Doc]

Originally posted by cdhall

1. Most fights go to the ground

No they don't. that was a marketing strategy put forth by the gracies to sell their brand of competition "judo" they call Brazilian jiujitsu.

2. Most fights end on the ground

Same answer. the American culture does not fight on the ground, particularly in adulthood.

3. Most fights last less than 30 seconds

The length of the fight is irrelevent to the question of "mounting."

4. Mr. Parker considered being taken to the ground more dangerous than being punched at

Really not true. Mr. Parker felt that grappling" had been thoroughly explored. He knew that a grappler in a competition venue was a formidable opponent because that's all they train for from day one, but he too was an accomplished grappler from the Dan Zan Ryu System of Henry Okazaki. Chow too was a "mat specialist" who loved to grapple as well.

Parker felt the real area to explore was how NOT to go to the ground and we came up with some very interesting stuff.

In the American culture of stand up fighting, there exists an unwritten rule that suggest if two guys go down, they will disengage, stand up, and start over. Everyone knows and understands the consequences of being on the ground whether you're winning or not. Losing is but a bystander and a boot away. In my adult experience, I have rarely seen two adult men wrestling around on the ground who were not both drunk. The Gracies did one hell of a sales job. I hear that all the time, until I ask the question, "When is the last time you saw two men not drunk wrestling on the ground?"

 

[Kirk]

Originally posted by jbkenpo
Come on Kirk....don't be that way...If we can't laugh at ourselves it's not worth it...

You've chatted with me enough to know I don't take myself too seriously..:erg:

LOL! The joke wasn't at YOUR expense, it was at mine (and
Gou's). Although DAMNED funny, I couldn't be complimentative!
I had to "say" something.

 

[Goldendragon7]

Originally posted by cdhall
Why did Mr. Parker find it necessary to show anyone 44 explicit ways to defend against a Right Roundhouse Punch but not one explicit way to defend against a "mount"?

Priorities!

In all the confrontations I have been in (which were few) the only time I went to the ground is when I wanted to, not to say that there isn't a time that could be useful, but I agree with the doc, Mr. Parker just initially developed what was most necessary at the time.

 

[brianhunter]

Originally posted by cdhall
Back to the QnA.

1. Most fights go to the ground
2. Most fights end on the ground
3. Most fights last less than 30 seconds
4. Mr. Parker considered being taken to the ground more dangerous than being punched at

Doug,

You can ground fight without being on the ground, and fights can end with somebody on the ground it doesnt have to be you.
Yes the fights I have been in have been quick probably less then 30 seconds, and they havent went to the ground unless I allowed them too. Guys still have a hieght width and depth on the ground and they can still be cancelled using what you know from Kenpo. a guy shoots a single leg dropping into a good forward bow with a overhead verticle elbow is a good answer, thats in one of the rams if I remember right....we have tools, some very good ones to stay off the ground.

 

[Ginsu]

The length of the fight is irrelevent to the question of "mounting."

Doc,
I know you were explaining a valid point and this is solely based on my perverse sense of humor it would seem. However when I read your comment on this I took it the complete wrong way and could not stop laughing. Thank you for the laugh even though you did not mean it. Oh and yes I got the actual meaning but the twisted funny one I enjoyed more.


Ginsu

 

[cdhall]

Originally posted by Doc
No they don't. that was a marketing strategy put forth by the gracies to sell their brand of competition "judo" they call Brazilian jiujitsu.
...
The Gracies did one hell of a sales job.

Thank you Doc for a very solid reply.

However, I got my info mostly from Sifu Swan in 1984 before I'd ever heard of the Gracies. And I got some of it from Mr. LaBounty too I think. Either that most fights go to the ground or that most fights end in 30 seconds. I thought he presented this to us as info backed up by police records but I can't be sure.

Just letting you all know where I get some of this stuff. Mr. Swan also perpetuated the rumor (at least one of his busiest teachers did-the guy that taught my class 1-2 times/week) that Mr. Parker didn't teach anymore either, so I know some of the info there was suspcious. But Sifu Swan did have grappling nights. Nothing like Gracie stuff, mostly college wrestling stuff I think.

This board is a great resource. I can fully understand how Mr. Parker thought that perhaps jiu-jitsu "had been done to death" and wanted to focus on how to stay standing. When I first saw UFC 1 I asked Mr. Duffy why Gracie didn't get kicked in the teeth when he came in at his opponent's knees for a takedown. Later on I learned Intercepting the Ram and I was even more puzzled. I thought we were supposed to stuff people that came in at us. Particularly if they are diving head first at your knee or foot.

Oh well. I understand strikers have since made great progress in the NHB arenas. I need to watch some of those I guess. Thanks again.

 

[Nightingale]

Charging Ram works nicely against a mount. So does Broken Ram.

However, I agree that I would like to see more in the way of groundfighting (not grappling, which is like wrestling, but groundfighting and ground self defense) in the Kenpo curriculum. Just saying "its in there" isn't enough. I'd like to see some techniques for when both you and the attacker are on the ground, and some techniques for when you're on the ground, but your attacker isn't.

When you go to the ground, which can happen, but doesn't happen as often as some grapplers would like us to believe, things change. All of a sudden, you don't have that solid base that so much of kenpo requires. You don't have the same kind of leverage you have standing up, and you're looking at things from a weird angle. These are problems that need to be anticipated and trained for. We train our stand up kenpo to the point that its instinct. Why don't we do this for ground kenpo as well?

Many schools say "its in there" but many don't actually tell you how its in there.

Not criticising, only curious.

-N-

 

[Hollywood1340]

When GM Pelligrini was here, he brought up this very point. "Where did they get the statistic that fights go to the ground? Have you ever been called and a polled? "Excuse me sir, how many fights have you had that go the ground?" Never. So where did they get it? There's only been to times I've gone to the ground. Both times I was nearly killed. The ground is not your friend." EPAK seems to have the notion, *If you hit the ground, get back up* which it what it does, very nicely. IMO "Being on the ground" means you're standing, and the're on the ground. Just my 0.02

 

[Ginsu]

We train our stand up kenpo to the point that its instinct. Why don't we do this for ground kenpo as well?

I think that the point being made here and being missed somewhat is that by training your kenpo to the point that it is instinct is that you are doing the same thing for ground Kenpo as it was put.

Granted there are not any techniques where both you and the attacker are on the ground that I can think off, but I can think of a few off the top of my head where you are on the ground and your attacker is not.

Also why should it have to be a specific technique where you are on the ground and your opponent is not. Take for example Clutching Feathers (no bald comments here please), if you are somehow knocked down and the attacker reaches out to grab you by the hair are you telling me that technique will not work?

Just some thoughts...

Ginsu

 

[jfarnsworth]

Originally posted by cdhall
When I first saw UFC 1 I asked Mr. Duffy why Gracie didn't get kicked in the teeth when he came in at his opponent's knees for a takedown. Later on I learned Intercepting the Ram and I was even more puzzled. I thought we were supposed to stuff people that came in at us. Particularly if they are diving head first at your knee or foot.

If you have an opponent that knows how to shoot takedowns your not going to get off that knee strike!! Sorry but I do like the ram techniques but I really don't feel they will work a talented shooter. If you want to talk about the everyday joe then they will work well. :asian:

Once again this is just my view point.

 

[Nightingale]

Originally posted by Ginsu
I think that the point being made here and being missed somewhat is that by training your kenpo to the point that it is instinct is that you are doing the same thing for ground Kenpo as it was put.

Granted there are not any techniques where both you and the attacker are on the ground that I can think off, but I can think of a few off the top of my head where you are on the ground and your attacker is not.

Also why should it have to be a specific technique where you are on the ground and your opponent is not. Take for example Clutching Feathers (no bald comments here please), if you are somehow knocked down and the attacker reaches out to grab you by the hair are you telling me that technique will not work?

Just some thoughts...

Ginsu

Clutching feathers may work... it may not... I have no idea. I've never tried it. that's my point.

 

[cdhall]

Originally posted by Goldendragon7
Priorities!

In all the confrontations I have been in (which were few) the only time I went to the ground is when I wanted to, not to say that there isn't a time that could be useful, but I agree with the doc, Mr. Parker just initially developed what was most necessary at the time.

Sir,

This seems to substantiate my claim that Mr. Parker didn't put any "isolated grappling techniques/drills" into the system because of

a) Priorities
b) vast amount of Judo/Jiu-Jitsu training available to everyone (since perhaps the 50's)

Is this not correct?

Again, I'm not saying we can't adapt to groundfighting, I'm just saying that it is not outlined in the curriculum and you and Doc both seem to agree because Mr. Parker wanted to focus on striking and staying on your feet.

:asian:

 

[Goldendragon7]

Originally posted by nightingale8472
I would like to see more in the way of groundfighting (not grappling, which is like wrestling, but groundfighting and ground self defense) in the Kenpo curriculum. Just saying "its in there" isn't enough. Many schools say "its in there" but many don't actually tell you how its in there.

It "is" in the system, but consider this more a problem of the instructor or organizations philosophy and teaching methods. Many seem to assume that you only teach the "obvious" techniques that were "given them" and some don't seem to realize that there is much, much more to the system. Makes me wonder what some do for actual drills......... what do they do for warm ups or do they, what do they do for bag work, what do they do for stretching, what do they do for power training, what do they do for..... (any numerous different areas of training that are not WRITTEN DOWN IN A COOKIE CUTTER MANNER FOR THEM)?

Originally posted by nightingale8472
We train our stand up kenpo to the point that its instinct. Why don't we do this for ground kenpo as well?

Again, I point to the instructor or organization. I know several studios that are not having this problem (must be local issue for some):rofl:

:asian:

 

[Goldendragon7]

Originally posted by cdhall
Sir,

This seems to substantiate my claim that Mr. Parker didn't put any "isolated grappling techniques/drills" into the system because of

a) Priorities
b) vast amount of Judo/Jiu-Jitsu training available to everyone (since perhaps the 50's)

Is this not correct?

Again, I'm not saying we can't adapt to groundfighting, I'm just saying that it is not outlined in the curriculum and you and Doc both seem to agree because Mr. Parker wanted to focus on striking and staying on your feet.

:asian:

"What e v e rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr"

 

[cdhall]

Originally posted by Goldendragon7
"What e v e rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr"

Ahem.
Sir, this is QnA...

Can I use this in class? Can I quote you?

 

[Goldendragon7]

Originally posted by cdhall
Ahem. Sir, this is QnA...

I will only respond and explain until it becomes redundant & ridiculous.

:asian:

 

[Doc]

Originally posted by Ginsu



Doc,
I know you were explaining a valid point and this is solely based on my perverse sense of humor it would seem. However when I read your comment on this I took it the complete wrong way and could not stop laughing. Thank you for the laugh even though you did not mean it. Oh and yes I got the actual meaning but the twisted funny one I enjoyed more.


Ginsu

Actually you were the only one that got it.

 

[Doc]

Originally posted by jfarnsworth
If you have an opponent that knows how to shoot takedowns your not going to get off that knee strike!! Sorry but I do like the ram techniques but I really don't feel they will work a talented shooter. If you want to talk about the everyday joe then they will work well. :asian:

Once again this is just my view point.

It's all in the training. You see much less of that even in those competitions because fighters have adjusted.

In our classroom, we actually have students get down in a three point stance like football and bring it as a tackle should be. If you get knocked down, you're not doing it right. We also imploy unique concepts that work to enhance survivability that work very well.

 

[jfarnsworth]

Originally posted by Doc
It's all in the training.

I'm only going by my experiences on the mat by doing and by watching. I wrestled a few state champs in high school. I'll say you won't necessarily run into one on the street much less pick a fight with one of these guys but you won't have much reaction time to a takedown by someone with this kind of experience. :asian: