Question about a technique against a tackle

[GAB]

Hi, To stay on topic, well done Shawn and brief also.

Lets say we should actually move into a left angle towards 1030, (we use eight) rather then 1100 or 1130 :whip:that way they will miss us altogether and as they go by we sweep the foot causing them to fall headlong into (they were trying to crush as well as tackle) the brick building that is behind us because, we took that position for advantage so no one could sneek up on us. Another option?

Regards, Gary:asian:

 

[Andrew Green]

Again, on a untrained person maybe, but this will not work on a trained person this will not work.

 

[BlackCatBonz]

ive worked with many trained people......but the one thing you have to count on is intent. if someone attacks you without intent, then that attack is not real, and the outcome will not be based in reality.
example:if i was running at you with the intent of tackling you to do damage, whether i was trained or not, the body moves in specific manner, and uses a specific method of targetting the victim (tunnel vision). when someone is in this type of attack mode, the defense that Gary suggested will work everytime simply because the trained or untrained person attacking with intent is seeking you out naturally.
how do i know this? as a bouncer i have had more than my share of encounters with tacklers and would-be shootfighters. get out of the way of speeding cars....you wouldnt stand in front of a car racing down the road and try to stop it with an oi-zuki.....why do it as a tackle defense?

shawn

 

[ppko]

ive worked with many trained people......but the one thing you have to count on is intent. if someone attacks you without intent, then that attack is not real, and the outcome will not be based in reality.
example:if i was running at you with the intent of tackling you to do damage, whether i was trained or not, the body moves in specific manner, and uses a specific method of targetting the victim (tunnel vision). when someone is in this type of attack mode, the defense that Gary suggested will work everytime simply because the trained or untrained person attacking with intent is seeking you out naturally.
how do i know this? as a bouncer i have had more than my share of encounters with tacklers and would-be shootfighters. get out of the way of speeding cars....you wouldnt stand in front of a car racing down the road and try to stop it with an oi-zuki.....why do it as a tackle defense?

shawn

Yess I totally agree, even in a classroom environment there has to be intent there or you will never know if it will work. Somethings will not work if the intent is not there or if you are going slow, I have found this many times

 

[Kenpo Yahoo]

I haven't posted on this forum in months, mainly because of the assinine statements made by certain people with no REAL experience. This thread should serve as proof enough. ANYWAY.....

I don't understand why you would want to "A"- stand on one leg when someone is trying to tackle you (whether it's from 21 feet or 21 cm, whether it's transitional or just traditional.. I don't get it), or "B"- REACH over their bodies to land a hammer fist to the kidney (remember it's not the caboose that's trying to hurt you, it's the locamotive).

Why wouldn't you attack the first target that presents itself....... like ...... I don't know.... maybe the head? Keeping your hands between you and the attacker (some might know this as wedging) while solidifying your base. This could at least keep a "wedge" (see it's not a bad word) between you and the attacker that can help prevent a wrap-up and takedown. It might give you a few options too, like maybe strikes to the head and neck, perhaps you can pancake the guy, or even shoot into a sprawl and pound the guy. At the very least you should be able to fall into the guard and pull off a quick scissor sweep, at least on a relatively unskilled individual, and end up in the mount or back on your feet. No one is saying that you should "wrassle" with the guy, but when was the last time you heard someone say,"you know what.... the foundation under your house has too much support, I think we should completely dig out one corner of your house so that the entire corner has nothing under it for a good foot and a half to two feet..... whaddaya say?" Makes sense to me, why would I want extra support? Oh yeah that's right..... so that it can stand up to the forces exerted over that particular area.

Oh by the way I have attended a number of seminars taught by OTHER SENIORS, and in one seminar in particular the senior actually had people starting their attacks from a substantial distance (10 feet or so) to give the student enough time to react. Yeah.. by the way, the technique was actually against a punch, which the senior required the attacker to take 2-3 full steps before throwing the punch. HMMMMMM..... there's a thought....... Instead of making the student faster (both physically and mentally), this SENIOR decided to make the attacker slower so the student could pull off the written technique. What's more important? Doing the technique for the sake of the technique, or teaching the student how to actually survive a confrontation.

Oh well....... I'm not sure why I even bother.

 

[Karazenpo]

I haven't posted on this forum in months, mainly because of the assinine statements made by certain people with no REAL experience. This thread should serve as proof enough. ANYWAY.....

I don't understand why you would want to "A"- stand on one leg when someone is trying to tackle you (whether it's from 21 feet or 21 cm, whether it's transitional or just traditional.. I don't get it), or "B"- REACH over their bodies to land a hammer fist to the kidney (remember it's not the caboose that's trying to hurt you, it's the locamotive).

Why wouldn't you attack the first target that presents itself....... like ...... I don't know.... maybe the head? Keeping your hands between you and the attacker (some might know this as wedging) while solidifying your base. This could at least keep a "wedge" (see it's not a bad word) between you and the attacker that can help prevent a wrap-up and takedown. It might give you a few options too, like maybe strikes to the head and neck, perhaps you can pancake the guy, or even shoot into a sprawl and pound the guy. At the very least you should be able to fall into the guard and pull off a quick scissor sweep, at least on a relatively unskilled individual, and end up in the mount or back on your feet. No one is saying that you should "wrassle" with the guy, but when was the last time you heard someone say,"you know what.... the foundation under your house has too much support, I think we should completely dig out one corner of your house so that the entire corner has nothing under it for a good foot and a half to two feet..... whaddaya say?" Makes sense to me, why would I want extra support? Oh yeah that's right..... so that it can stand up to the forces exerted over that particular area.

Oh by the way I have attended a number of seminars taught by OTHER SENIORS, and in one seminar in particular the senior actually had people starting their attacks from a substantial distance (10 feet or so) to give the student enough time to react. Yeah.. by the way, the technique was actually against a punch, which the senior required the attacker to take 2-3 full steps before throwing the punch. HMMMMMM..... there's a thought....... Instead of making the student faster (both physically and mentally), this SENIOR decided to make the attacker slower so the student could pull off the written technique. What's more important? Doing the technique for the sake of the technique, or teaching the student how to actually survive a confrontation.

Oh well....... I'm not sure why I even bother.

Kenpo Yahoo, Right on! I've always said in the arts there is too much reliance on 'in theory only' and 'dojo play'. Many hone their techniques and skills just to look good performing them, like a choreographed movie or demo. These 'techniques' or 'concepts' have no merit in the real world. Problem is, many don't get to test them in reality and eventually the ideas are accepted and both student and instructor develop a false sense of security, hense, the birth of the 'dojo warrior'. My solution to this is very simple. Run your techniques or concepts past experienced law enforcement personal, bodyguards, concert security personal, bartenders and doormen or bouncers. Hey, being in law enforcement for over 28 years I've even ran a few things past some violent criminals I've dealt with , why not? These are the guys we're learning to defend against so I pick their brain a little and get a good idea of their take on it and where their coming from. Know what the bad guys know and use..... It works!

 

[Hand Sword]

I haven't posted on this forum in months, mainly because of the assinine statements made by certain people with no REAL experience. This thread should serve as proof enough. ANYWAY.....

I don't understand why you would want to "A"- stand on one leg when someone is trying to tackle you (whether it's from 21 feet or 21 cm, whether it's transitional or just traditional.. I don't get it), or "B"- REACH over their bodies to land a hammer fist to the kidney (remember it's not the caboose that's trying to hurt you, it's the locamotive).

Why wouldn't you attack the first target that presents itself....... like ...... I don't know.... maybe the head? Keeping your hands between you and the attacker (some might know this as wedging) while solidifying your base. This could at least keep a "wedge" (see it's not a bad word) between you and the attacker that can help prevent a wrap-up and takedown. It might give you a few options too, like maybe strikes to the head and neck, perhaps you can pancake the guy, or even shoot into a sprawl and pound the guy. At the very least you should be able to fall into the guard and pull off a quick scissor sweep, at least on a relatively unskilled individual, and end up in the mount or back on your feet. No one is saying that you should "wrassle" with the guy, but when was the last time you heard someone say,"you know what.... the foundation under your house has too much support, I think we should completely dig out one corner of your house so that the entire corner has nothing under it for a good foot and a half to two feet..... whaddaya say?" Makes sense to me, why would I want extra support? Oh yeah that's right..... so that it can stand up to the forces exerted over that particular area.

Oh by the way I have attended a number of seminars taught by OTHER SENIORS, and in one seminar in particular the senior actually had people starting their attacks from a substantial distance (10 feet or so) to give the student enough time to react. Yeah.. by the way, the technique was actually against a punch, which the senior required the attacker to take 2-3 full steps before throwing the punch. HMMMMMM..... there's a thought....... Instead of making the student faster (both physically and mentally), this SENIOR decided to make the attacker slower so the student could pull off the written technique. What's more important? Doing the technique for the sake of the technique, or teaching the student how to actually survive a confrontation.

Oh well....... I'm not sure why I even bother.

Right on! I agree with you and Karazenpo. The problem is, for a long time now, the martial arts have become very watered down. The focus of most who attend classes seems to be everything but hard core self defense. For instructors, it's seems to be more about making money (which isn't wrong if that's your profession), than to focus on the old school training. The majority of people, both kids and adults, couldn't take that abuse, and would quit. It seems like dojos have become day care centers, or living xerox machines, with people preaching the new philosophies of commercialism. I'm a new member here, so I would guess that you and others here come from the old school, or have professions that force you to think about training in that fassion, which I have also chose to focus on, always researching on better ways. Sorry to say, like everything else, money has corrupted the martial arts, causing politics, and divisions, which is truly sad. Gone are the days of pounding the makiwara until the blood flows down your forearm, letting it scab over and then going at it again, the next day. Us old schoolers are dinosaurs, the public has become softer, and that's the way it will continue overall, forcing serious people to underground dojos, which is where the martial arts, I beleive, belong.

Just felt the need to respond, I been getting in that argument for years, even with "seniors" who should know better, but, only care about the almighty $.

 

[Kenpomachine]

Hand Sword, had you stopped to think that those seniors were only worrying about long term health? Bleeding yourself everyday is not the most clever thing you must do, being it well ahead the staying in front of a locomotive trying to ram you. (So we can try and get this back on topic, lol)

 

[Andrew Green]

If all someone is interested in is long term health, then they would do best not to sell what they do as effective techniques.

It is also possible to train effectively in techniques that work without making the attacker telegraph to the point of silliness safely.

 

[dcence]

Having grown up in EPAK, this technique always bothered me as a football player and a wrestler. I would never, ever go to one foot if someone is coming at me with what looks like a tackle. It is about the easiest way to end up on your back I can think of. There are so many better things to do than this technique with both of your feet on the ground. If someone comes at me with a tackle, I am keeping both feet on the ground, getting off the line, getting low and putting my arms between us.

 

[Kenpomachine]

If all someone is interested in is long term health, then they would do best not to sell what they do as effective techniques.

No way, you'll need your techniques to be effective as well if you don't want to end in hospital after a real encounter in the street. What I was trying to say is that you need to balance your training so as not to harm yourself just in case, while keeping it effective, through proper body mechanics, use of protections when needed, etc.

Gone are the days of pounding the makiwara until the blood flows down your forearm, letting it scab over and then going at it again, the next day.

So you see, watering down attacks is another matter... and problem.

If someone is trying to ram me and weights more than 100 Kg, I'll make sure I'm not in his way when the hit is supposed to happen. With the momentum built and my 55 Kg it would be very unlikely that I stopped him.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Not that this'll have any effect upon the decided, but y'all might want to at least notice a few things--which have already been brought up, but were ignored by some:

a) we were discussing a specific technique, called "Intercepting the Ram," not responses to an attempted tackle in general;

b) a number of folks specifically brought up the idea that it would be nuts--and unnecessary--to stand there directly in front of somebody charging from 10-15 feet away;

c) a number of folks brought up the fact that the technique takes you off-line, so that you do NOT stand directly in front of such an attacker;

d) more than one person remarked that this particular technique also rests on the notion that you've got yourself caught a bit, that the initial response was not sufficient, that you are being forced back towards the ground by a determined attacker;

e) there are other techniques in kenpo such as Charging Ram which involve, quite precisely, "keeping both feet on the ground, getting off the line, getting low and putting my arms between us."

f) sorry, but I wasn't taught that one simply stands there and waits.

The proponents of the MMAs and grappling arts have a lot to say; I thank them for it, it's been helpful. However, y'all need to realize that a lot of what you're kvetching about is BAD kenpo, and not what I was taught--or, it's your failure to realize that there's a difference between where you start as a student, and where you're trying to get to.

And oh yes--I repeat: some of this "argument," is being carried on by folks who prefer their own set of shibboleths to those of others.

 

[Mark Weiser]

I would have to say that standing there and waiting for someone to make contact with from a rush such as a tackle is absurd.

Remember Ed Parker in his Books Infinite Insights states that Distance is your friend and that Stances are the very foundation of Kenpo. So to stand there and get tackled and going to the ground is again absurd.

Then again if you are in a situation where you could get tackled. You must find an exit or create distance from the aggressor. Remember to round off corners and elongate circles as SGM Parker taught his students.

 

[GAB]

Hi Robert,

Yes, is not that the truth.

Point well taken.

When you play with the bull, you might get the horn. Many styles and system's

I notice that EPAK is almost 50% on the poll, so the deck is stacked in the first place.

How many practioners are in EPAK, nation or world wide? Then take the rest of us, you have an uphill battle.

ThroughBred in horses comes to mind. They do great things to other breeds when brought into the different blood lines. And visa-:idunno: versa, I say play all the games in the room and then pick which one you prefer.

I see why the minority vs the majority, is such an antagonistic state.

Again thanks for the insight.

Hollywood you have to love that place.

Regards, Gary

 

[GAB]

Hi Mark,

See that is exactly what EPAK is up against.

Where do you think EP got that thought ? Did it spring from, his own well?

Plagerize, comes to mind. Ed was famous for it, read the Will Tracy articles at SanJoseKenpo. Is it wrong, yes and no.

Complicated, well read, doing your homework, all those things comes to mind. Picking your battle ground, is another.

I have noticed some are very liberal in their ideas, regarding politics and very conservative, in their thoughts about others rights, to the same thing they point out in other threads. Interesting.

When you are very right and very left do they actually meet in the middle?

I really enjoy this board. Thanks Kaith.

Regards, Gary

 

[Karazenpo]

Hi Mark,

See that is exactly what EPAK is up against.

Where do you think EP got that thought ? Did it spring from, his own well?

Plagerize, comes to mind. Ed was famous for it, read the Will Tracy articles at SanJoseKenpo. Is it wrong, yes and no.

Complicated, well read, doing your homework, all those things comes to mind. Picking your battle ground, is another.

I have noticed some are very liberal in their ideas, regarding politics and very conservative, in their thoughts about others rights, to the same thing they point out in other threads. Interesting.

When you are very right and very left do they actually meet in the middle?

I really enjoy this board, Thanks Kaith.

Regards, Gary

Good one, Gary, I follow you.

 

[Karazenpo]

Having grown up in EPAK, this technique always bothered me as a football player and a wrestler. I would never, ever go to one foot if someone is coming at me with what looks like a tackle. It is about the easiest way to end up on your back I can think of. There are so many better things to do than this technique with both of your feet on the ground. If someone comes at me with a tackle, I am keeping both feet on the ground, getting off the line, getting low and putting my arms between us.

dcence, you are right on the money! Again, it's obvious your experience comes from either reality training and/or practical experience, not in 'theory' or soley in the dojo. Good job! I hear ya!

 

[GAB]

Hi Joe:ultracool .

Today is Sunday and we all need to get along, right?

We will see, I try to be peaceful, but you still have to prepare for war.

Kinda sad in some respects, but if you have been doing it for 52 years you get used to it.

Fear, is one thing respect, is another.

When I went through the acadamy they taught us, they are different and the same. Just whose neighborhood you go into.

Back to the topic, the 3', 6', 12', range idea works for me as long as you are not surprised.
That is where training and technique merge, it is also where they fall apart if you don't have the mindset to go with the rest of this stuff.:mp5:

You ever wonder why the old warriors go someplace and just relax???

Reminds me of the movie, High Noon. Lon Chaney Jr was right on.
So was Gary Cooper and Grace Kelly. ( I know they played a part, not real)

No wonder, why it won the awards it did, it was right on then, and still is.

That is the old mentality of stories from the past? Was that plagerized or ???

Just a great movie. Good points made all over the place.

Regards, Gary

 

[True2Kenpo]

Great topic and posts!

Just my thoughts, and this was mentioned on several occasions... this technique causes much concern for many practicioners.

First I feel this technique is a very well designed technique when applied with the proper timing (and the proper attack).

I think the knee strike is based on timing and being able to read the attacker as he covers the distance needed to close the gap. If the attacker closes the gap and goes from the "contact penetration" phase to the "contact munipulation" phase, then you would just "delete" the knee and continue with your followup, feet planted and stable knowing that being on one leg would be dangerous.

Respectfully,
Joshua Ryer

 

[Kenpo Yahoo]

Not to pick on you Josh, because I do understand what your were saying, but your statement brought to mind something that me and some of my kenpo buddies were talking about this week.

First I feel this technique is a very well designed technique when applied with the proper timing (and the proper attack).

Again not to pick on Josh, but the wording reminded me of an old Jim Carrey skit on In Living Color. The one where he was a women's self defense instructor, who was teaching a defense against a knife and got stabbed by his student. While bleeding profusely, he went on to inform the student that like most beginners in the martial arts the woman attacked wrong.

Sometimes I think we get so caught up in the TECHNIQUE itself and forget that we have tools and concepts in place that when used correctly will provide a response for a number of different attacks.

Again, I don't think that Josh was implying this but it just reminded me of a conversation from earlier. (I'm at work now so I had to cut this a little short I will post more later).