Toning Down The Techniques

[Doc]

This, in particular, is worthy of a repeat. Very eloquently stated, sir.

Or as Lee Marvin said to Charles Bronson in the Dirty Dozen, "You only made one mistake. You let them see you do it."

 

[MJS]

Regarding training (from my SL4 perspective), if I train every day to gouge someone's eyes out, then if someone takes a swing at me I will have to override that “muscle memory” to employ reasonable force. I, of course, don't assume that every attack will be an attempt to kill me, so I don't want my automatic response to be maiming or killing actions. If the circumstances dictate escalation, then I will adjust accordingly, and do whatever it takes.

This is why I suggested that its important to be able to adapt to the situation. Some may call for more force than others.

 

[Doc]

This is why I suggested that its important to be able to adapt to the situation. Some may call for more force than others.

We're on the same page sir, it just seems so many lean heavily in one direction, they need to be reminded of what they are training for. If defending yourself ultimately destroys you and your family's life because you lacked the skill to modulate your response, it serves no purpose.

Especially when you factor in most people never have physical confrontations after adulthood their entire life, and of the small percentage that do, even than less than 1% are actually life and death. People need to realize that perhaps they are not as skilled as they think they are if all they can do is attack soft tissue with blunt force. Everyone is born with some level of that skill, so where is all this training to justify these lofty ranks and titles?

 

[MJS]

While we essentially agree sir on the base premise, I disagree that there is a strong relationship between "polishing" an uninstinctive roundhouse kick skill, and the natural propensity to use instinctive defense mechanisms under duress, thus my "untrained" reference to a mother protecting her child.

I was just thinking that while something may be an 'instinct' IMO, it may be even more effective if instead of just swinging wildly, the strikes be more finetuned. Woman A just swinging her hands with no rhyme or reason, vs Woman B who knew where to hit, how to form the hand in the correct position for whatever strike is being thrown to avoid injury.

The mechanisms to mechanically refine specific martial function are extremely sophisticated in most cases. The slash, poke, smash, scratch, bite, spit, and stomp of most modern arts are not.

That is why they are "emphasized" in short duration self-defense courses of a few hours. They are primarily instinctive, and are relatively easy to reinforce over much more difficult skills to acquire.

It is also, by design, why the methodology was chosen for commercial self defense teaching. Relatively speaking - it's easy. It is also why it is "de-emphasized" in more difficult and passive disciplines like Aikido and judo, but take note it is even relatively absent in the more aggressive Jiujitsu, Hapkido, Karate-do arts, etc. as well. They are a result of "stripping down" traditional material for quick effectiveness, over labor and knowledge intensive longer term training.

While its effectiveness has no argument, its ethical applications bare strong scrutiny, and its proponent's students must be reminded that it is they alone who must embrace the consequences of their actions should their use be misplaced in a circumstance. For it is they who will bare the brunt of societies wrath for its social misuse monetarily, emotionally, and possibly even physically. As a public law enforcement officer the bulk of my adult life, I truly understand both sides of the argument, but have also have had a personal hand in incarcerating more than one good guy/gal "defending" themselves inappropriately.

While for some including its teachers, it's a wild fantasy fueled by many who have never had an actually life and death encounter, who dream of enacting personal justice on those who would violate them.

While the position is noble, and I stand in that line myself, personal justice and redemption must be tempered by ethical restraint, and hopefully bolstered by the possession of sufficient skill and ability to moderate the response appropriately to the circumstance. If one does not have that ability, than in our modern society, their training is deficient until they can sir.

While many who have never been there will cavalierly spout slogans of "judged by 12 over carried by 6," it is not so cavalier when you factor your own freedom, and the personal wealth of you and your family into the equation. Maybe that's why so many young dumb males gravitate to some arts. They have nothing to lose but their own freedom, while the more mature stop and think of the grave consequences.

A few questions:

1) It seems to me, and if you'd rather not answer this on a public forum, please feel free to PM me, but every other Kenpo inst. that I see is teaching the same thing....the brutal aspect of the art. So, are these people wrong? Did Mr. Parker, due to the need from the majority of people seeking training, teach the brutal aspect because those folks didn't want to train hard, put in the time to learn the softer side? Isn't this setting people up to fail? I mean, if everyone is running around doing the brutal stuff, well....

2) For those that are against the brutal side, how do you all gear your training? I mean, if someone is going to say that something is not correct, the next thing is to give a reason why. That being said, for someone punching you, grabbing you, attempting to hit you with a weapon, how do you all deal with the attack? Do you handle it in a more passive fashion or go with the brutal fashion?

3) I came across this recent post. Thought it was pretty interesting, and hopefully I can get some feedback from the Kaju people on here as well. Was this person who the story is about wrong for how he handled the situation? Is the attitude of the Kaju people wrong? I ask this because this, from what I've read is what its all about....surviving on the street.

As far as the 'judged by 12, carried by 6' comment goes....I'm going to base my response on the situation. If some guy follows me to the parking lot, accusing me of cutting him off in traffic, and starts to aggressively move towards me, fists clenched, face red, I don't think that is the time to talk. I don't think that is the time to get in the car and try to leave, and the reasons should be obvious. A physical assault is about to take place, and I'm in fear of my life, my safety, the safety of anyone with me, so if that means an elbow to the face and a kick to the groin, then yes, your Honor, I was in fear for my life and that is what I did.

I started a thread in the Gen. Sd section titled, "The fear of defending yourself." IMHO, the #1 reason why people are afraid to defend themselves is because of a lawsuit. Of course, for someone to think that I'm going to stand idle, after years of training, and be someones punching bag, frankly, I don't really care what someone thinks, I'm going to defend myself. Any juror with half a brain, were they in the same situation, should defend themselves as well and see the fact that I was in fear.

 

[Doc]

I was just thinking that while something may be an 'instinct' IMO, it may be even more effective if instead of just swinging wildly, the strikes be more finetuned. Woman A just swinging her hands with no rhyme or reason, vs Woman B who knew where to hit, how to form the hand in the correct position for whatever strike is being thrown to avoid injury.



A few questions:

1) It seems to me, and if you'd rather not answer this on a public forum, please feel free to PM me, but every other Kenpo inst. that I see is teaching the same thing....the brutal aspect of the art. So, are these people wrong? Did Mr. Parker, due to the need from the majority of people seeking training, teach the brutal aspect because those folks didn't want to train hard, put in the time to learn the softer side? Isn't this setting people up to fail? I mean, if everyone is running around doing the brutal stuff, well....

2) For those that are against the brutal side, how do you all gear your training? I mean, if someone is going to say that something is not correct, the next thing is to give a reason why. That being said, for someone punching you, grabbing you, attempting to hit you with a weapon, how do you all deal with the attack? Do you handle it in a more passive fashion or go with the brutal fashion?

3) I came across this recent post. Thought it was pretty interesting, and hopefully I can get some feedback from the Kaju people on here as well. Was this person who the story is about wrong for how he handled the situation? Is the attitude of the Kaju people wrong? I ask this because this, from what I've read is what its all about....surviving on the street.

As far as the 'judged by 12, carried by 6' comment goes....I'm going to base my response on the situation. If some guy follows me to the parking lot, accusing me of cutting him off in traffic, and starts to aggressively move towards me, fists clenched, face red, I don't think that is the time to talk. I don't think that is the time to get in the car and try to leave, and the reasons should be obvious. A physical assault is about to take place, and I'm in fear of my life, my safety, the safety of anyone with me, so if that means an elbow to the face and a kick to the groin, then yes, your Honor, I was in fear for my life and that is what I did.

I started a thread in the Gen. Sd section titled, "The fear of defending yourself." IMHO, the #1 reason why people are afraid to defend themselves is because of a lawsuit. Of course, for someone to think that I'm going to stand idle, after years of training, and be someones punching bag, frankly, I don't really care what someone thinks, I'm going to defend myself. Any juror with half a brain, were they in the same situation, should defend themselves as well and see the fact that I was in fear.

Crap I posted a lengthy response and now its not here. crap.

 

[MJS]

Crap I posted a lengthy response and now its not here. crap.

Thats happened to me many times. It sucks. Anytime I am posting something long, I've begun to copy it before hitting send. Eases the pain a bit if the system loses it.

I would however, like to hear your thoughts though, if you don't mind re-typing.

 

[SL4Drew]

1) It seems to me, and if you'd rather not answer this on a public forum, please feel free to PM me, but every other Kenpo inst. that I see is teaching the same thing....the brutal aspect of the art. So, are these people wrong? Did Mr. Parker, due to the need from the majority of people seeking training, teach the brutal aspect because those folks didn't want to train hard, put in the time to learn the softer side? Isn't this setting people up to fail? I mean, if everyone is running around doing the brutal stuff, well....

I'll share with you what I think. If you consider that a lot of people out there have never had a punch thrown in anger at them, there are many people who will never be in a scrape, let alone a serious one. These are the kind of people that don't have thugs for friends and don't hang out in places where fighting is somewhat common. In my experience, many of these people come into Kenpo (or the martial arts more generally) for insurance against a violent encounter. So, their stated goal is to do Kenpo for self-defense. At least at first, they aren't interest in self-mastery, developing martial skill, or piercing the veil of the 'secrets.' They just want to deal with the dude that may want to hurt them.

In a commercial environment, this has a few consequences. And remember at its core, Ed Parker's Kenpo was almost always a commercial martial art. If you tell this guy, "do this form for 2-3 years, and then I'll start to show you applications," I doubt you'll keep them for very long. They want to learn to defend themselves now. So, this drives the information you have to present to them if you want to keep them.

Second, these people also tend to be adults with other things going on in their lives, wives, kids, jobs, social obligations, etc. Many of these people don't want to commit a lot of time to being on the floor. The "Tracy's model" of 1/2 hour privates tends to exploit this quite well. So, what can you teach people willing to commit to an hour or less a week of training (with maybe a little self-directed study on their time)? It has to be information stripped down to its basic (brutal) effectiveness. As a result, I wouldn't say he was setting his students up for failure because in the parameters he was working with he probably made the best choices for them and himself.

And basic 'self-defense' is easy to teach and lends it self to commercial enterprise. You have customers unaccustomed to violence, who want to learn to defend themselves in the shortest time possible. And you have rent to pay, a mortgage, loan payments, bills, and so on. Add to that, in the allotted time, you can't make all the corrections you may want, you can't emphasize basics to level they are most likely needed, and you can't get too 'deep.' So, not only is it easy to learn, but it then is easy to teach.

Consider that to maximize your profit in a commercial enterprise, you have to have other teachers and/or schools. With a relatively easy to teach and to learn curriculum, you can have assistant instructors that are one belt ahead of their students and you can sell franchises to a guy that never did martial arts before. Ed Parker and the Tracys were brilliant in giving the public what they wanted and making a bundle of cash while doing it.

I think by the point in the 70's and 80's where the real problem with this strategy became apparent, i.e. high ranking people that came up in the commercial vehicle and only knew 'self-defense', what were you going to do about it? The system and the model has its own inertia, and even if Mr. Parker just up and quit teaching, his commercial system would continue. So, he kept selling people what they knew and wanted. You can't fully blame him, as the customer is always right. And almost everyone got into Kenpo because of his commercial system. What he did with the IKKA and his system is unparalleled in the martial arts.

2) For those that are against the brutal side, how do you all gear your training? I mean, if someone is going to say that something is not correct, the next thing is to give a reason why. That being said, for someone punching you, grabbing you, attempting to hit you with a weapon, how do you all deal with the attack? Do you handle it in a more passive fashion or go with the brutal fashion?

When you train under a person of substantial knowledge, like Doc, it becomes apparent pretty fast that they are plenty of ways to address a situation without maiming the guy. You can of course fall to that if you need to, but that isn't the purpose of the training. Doc has developed the material to emphasize first surviving the assault. If you can do that successfully, then you have the ability to modulate your retaliation. You can move into a control manipulation, you can strike, or if the situation warranted it, you could attempt to de-escalate it. With a deep bag of tricks, you have a lot options, once you are in control of the situation.

As far as the 'judged by 12, carried by 6' comment goes....I'm going to base my response on the situation. If some guy follows me to the parking lot, accusing me of cutting him off in traffic, and starts to aggressively move towards me, fists clenched, face red, I don't think that is the time to talk.

Maybe, maybe not. I think rather than be certain ahead of time, it is best to follow your intuition at the time. That being said, consider Mr. Parker's menu of death story. The guy wanted to fight with him really bad till he psyched him out. Or I've heard a couple stories of Jimmy Woo 'freezing a guy's heart' with a look. Also consider, just because it looks like he wants to trade punches with you now, doesn't mean if things are going bad he isn't going to pull out a knife and stick you. Maybe if you just take the blame and apologize, he'll get back in the car after just posturing. And he'll have just avoided making a really big mistake.

I am not advocating you second guess your self during a conflict, but consider not every potentially violent conflict has to end in violence. But if that is your mindset, then that's what'll you see and that's what you'll do.

I don't think that is the time to get in the car and try to leave, and the reasons should be obvious. A physical assault is about to take place, and I'm in fear of my life, my safety, the safety of anyone with me, so if that means an elbow to the face and a kick to the groin, then yes, your Honor, I was in fear for my life and that is what I did.

I started a thread in the Gen. Sd section titled, "The fear of defending yourself." IMHO, the #1 reason why people are afraid to defend themselves is because of a lawsuit. Of course, for someone to think that I'm going to stand idle, after years of training, and be someones punching bag, frankly, I don't really care what someone thinks, I'm going to defend myself. Any juror with half a brain, were they in the same situation, should defend themselves as well and see the fact that I was in fear.

I disagree. I can't think of an assault I have heard of where the victim say, "I would of defended myself, but I was afraid of being sued or going to jail." The bottom line is most people aren't able to handle violence. Lt. Col. Grossman talks a lot about this, and I agree with what he says on the subject. He calls it a universal phobia of human-to-human violence. Call it whatever you want, but the fight or flight response is pretty powerful. Untrained people usually don't handle it well and often fail to act. Under that kind of stress you may lose fine motor control, empty your bowels, stutter, get tunnel vision, lose the ability to think rationally, and so on. Your brain won't be thinking about lawsuits when faced with a real threat to your person. He, like so many before him, recognize that training will allow most people to operate under that kind of stress.

And because you fall to your level of training, it is important that you have solid training. I believe part of the responsibility of the instructor is to provide the training necessary for the student to overcome the adrenaline dump and other associated physiological responses so they are able to survive an assault. That is why the 'Redman' training is usually a part of a woman's self-defense class.

Also, because you sink to your training, if you train to maim someone, that is going to be your instinctual response. Since it is the case that the student will reflexively do those things which may be inappropriate for something like a shove, it is incumbent upon teachers not to inculcate inappropriate responses into the students. The training floor (or the mind) the proper place to consider your moral, legal, and ethical obligations, rather than ignore them, then act reflexively in a way that you may not truly be comfortable with.

 

[KenpoDave]

1) It seems to me, and if you'd rather not answer this on a public forum, please feel free to PM me, but every other Kenpo inst. that I see is teaching the same thing....the brutal aspect of the art. So, are these people wrong? Did Mr. Parker, due to the need from the majority of people seeking training, teach the brutal aspect because those folks didn't want to train hard, put in the time to learn the softer side? Isn't this setting people up to fail? I mean, if everyone is running around doing the brutal stuff, well....

You have to have a starting point. People typically come in wanting effective self defense, and in the beginning, the basic, brutal stuff is the way to go. Unfortunately, most people don't stick around long enough to get much beyond that. What's the saying..."1 in 1,000 will make black belt?" Forget black belt, how many yellow belt promotions have you given vs. any other belt? We always seem to be teaching more beginners than anything else.

I like this poker analogy. As a teacher, I like to give my students the royal flush of self defense skills. Once they have it, teaching them to bluff is easy. Think about it. In a card game, the guy with the really awesome hand rarely has to show it. Nobody calls the "bluff."

2) For those that are against the brutal side, how do you all gear your training? I mean, if someone is going to say that something is not correct, the next thing is to give a reason why. That being said, for someone punching you, grabbing you, attempting to hit you with a weapon, how do you all deal with the attack? Do you handle it in a more passive fashion or go with the brutal fashion?

I am not against brutal. I am for being able to choose. I also believe that it is easier to tone it down on the fly than to escalate. Since you fall to the level of your training, the assumption that you might rise with the necessary force continuum is flawed. I'd rather start at the top. From my limited real life experience, I have found that if I can project the intent of death at the beginning, rarely do I have to use even passive force.

 

[Danjo]

Personally, I always go for the brutal. It's like therapy. Kidding.

In actuality, as a teacher of behavior conduct disorder kids, I find myself using restraints in most of the "altercations" I am involved with. I'm either breaking up fights, or having to "escort" someone somewhere against their will (sometimes even holding them while they are being handcuffed). Violence is almost never directed towards me in those situations.

Were I to be attacked in the street, however, I'm going for it to the max. I am not going to assume that he doesn't have friends waiting to help him out, or a weapon hidden that he may get desperate enough to take out if things aren't going his way. If someone attacks me in the street, I'm going to assume my life is in danger and act accordingly. Therefore, that's how we train in Kajukenbo.

 

[MJS]

I'll share with you what I think. If you consider that a lot of people out there have never had a punch thrown in anger at them, there are many people who will never be in a scrape, let alone a serious one. These are the kind of people that don't have thugs for friends and don't hang out in places where fighting is somewhat common. In my experience, many of these people come into Kenpo (or the martial arts more generally) for insurance against a violent encounter. So, their stated goal is to do Kenpo for self-defense. At least at first, they aren't interest in self-mastery, developing martial skill, or piercing the veil of the 'secrets.' They just want to deal with the dude that may want to hurt them.

So, are you saying that someone can't develop those things you mention if their primary goal is self defense? Or do you feel that those things come afterwards?

In a commercial environment, this has a few consequences. And remember at its core, Ed Parker's Kenpo was almost always a commercial martial art. If you tell this guy, "do this form for 2-3 years, and then I'll start to show you applications," I doubt you'll keep them for very long. They want to learn to defend themselves now. So, this drives the information you have to present to them if you want to keep them.

True. Now, we've all been thru the commercial vs non commercial debates, so I'll ask you this: I'm going to say that Doc is not running a commercial school. Correct me if I'm wrong on this. So, if thats the case, how does his initial instruction compare to a commercial school? Does he have people doing forms for 2-3 yrs before showing an application?

Second, these people also tend to be adults with other things going on in their lives, wives, kids, jobs, social obligations, etc. Many of these people don't want to commit a lot of time to being on the floor. The "Tracy's model" of 1/2 hour privates tends to exploit this quite well. So, what can you teach people willing to commit to an hour or less a week of training (with maybe a little self-directed study on their time)? It has to be information stripped down to its basic (brutal) effectiveness. As a result, I wouldn't say he was setting his students up for failure because in the parameters he was working with he probably made the best choices for them and himself.

Going on what you said, I'm going to assume that people that train with Doc also have lives, wives, kids, etc. outside of the training hall. So, if he does have those types of people, what keeps them coming back? I don't know the schedules of every student that trains with him, so whether they spend an hour a week or 5, I'd have to assume that he isn't teaching them stripped info. Would you say that the others that trained under Parker, ie: Tatum, Palanzo, etc., were just interested in the commercial, bare bones material or were they interested in what was taught to Doc? I say this, because it seems to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, but he (Doc) got something that nobody else did.

And basic 'self-defense' is easy to teach and lends it self to commercial enterprise. You have customers unaccustomed to violence, who want to learn to defend themselves in the shortest time possible. And you have rent to pay, a mortgage, loan payments, bills, and so on. Add to that, in the allotted time, you can't make all the corrections you may want, you can't emphasize basics to level they are most likely needed, and you can't get too 'deep.' So, not only is it easy to learn, but it then is easy to teach.

Ok.

Consider that to maximize your profit in a commercial enterprise, you have to have other teachers and/or schools. With a relatively easy to teach and to learn curriculum, you can have assistant instructors that are one belt ahead of their students and you can sell franchises to a guy that never did martial arts before. Ed Parker and the Tracys were brilliant in giving the public what they wanted and making a bundle of cash while doing it.

I think by the point in the 70's and 80's where the real problem with this strategy became apparent, i.e. high ranking people that came up in the commercial vehicle and only knew 'self-defense', what were you going to do about it? The system and the model has its own inertia, and even if Mr. Parker just up and quit teaching, his commercial system would continue. So, he kept selling people what they knew and wanted. You can't fully blame him, as the customer is always right. And almost everyone got into Kenpo because of his commercial system. What he did with the IKKA and his system is unparalleled in the martial arts.

Ok

When you train under a person of substantial knowledge, like Doc, it becomes apparent pretty fast that they are plenty of ways to address a situation without maiming the guy. You can of course fall to that if you need to, but that isn't the purpose of the training. Doc has developed the material to emphasize first surviving the assault. If you can do that successfully, then you have the ability to modulate your retaliation. You can move into a control manipulation, you can strike, or if the situation warranted it, you could attempt to de-escalate it. With a deep bag of tricks, you have a lot options, once you are in control of the situation.

I havent been around as many Kenpo higher ups as you or some others probably have, so let me ask this: Is anyone else teaching this method?

Maybe, maybe not. I think rather than be certain ahead of time, it is best to follow your intuition at the time. That being said, consider Mr. Parker's menu of death story. The guy wanted to fight with him really bad till he psyched him out. Or I've heard a couple stories of Jimmy Woo 'freezing a guy's heart' with a look. Also consider, just because it looks like he wants to trade punches with you now, doesn't mean if things are going bad he isn't going to pull out a knife and stick you. Maybe if you just take the blame and apologize, he'll get back in the car after just posturing. And he'll have just avoided making a really big mistake.

I am not advocating you second guess your self during a conflict, but consider not every potentially violent conflict has to end in violence. But if that is your mindset, then that's what'll you see and that's what you'll do.

Well, as I've said many times, I'm a fan of trying to verbally defuse something first. However, if that isn't working or if there is just no time to even try, then what options are left? Keep talking? Let him approach me, and hope that he doesnt knock my head off? I'm looking at it like this...he can talk and posture all he wants from a distance. Once he gets within my personal space, I'm taking that as a threat. Now, I never said that I was going to take his eye, but I'm not just going to stand there. If I'm in the wrong for kicking the guy in the groin and elbowing him in the face, then so be it.

I disagree. I can't think of an assault I have heard of where the victim say, "I would of defended myself, but I was afraid of being sued or going to jail." The bottom line is most people aren't able to handle violence. Lt. Col. Grossman talks a lot about this, and I agree with what he says on the subject. He calls it a universal phobia of human-to-human violence. Call it whatever you want, but the fight or flight response is pretty powerful. Untrained people usually don't handle it well and often fail to act. Under that kind of stress you may lose fine motor control, empty your bowels, stutter, get tunnel vision, lose the ability to think rationally, and so on. Your brain won't be thinking about lawsuits when faced with a real threat to your person. He, like so many before him, recognize that training will allow most people to operate under that kind of stress.

This is why I like to scenario train, to better prepare for things like this.

And because you fall to your level of training, it is important that you have solid training. I believe part of the responsibility of the instructor is to provide the training necessary for the student to overcome the adrenaline dump and other associated physiological responses so they are able to survive an assault. That is why the 'Redman' training is usually a part of a woman's self-defense class.

See my reply just above this.

Also, because you sink to your training, if you train to maim someone, that is going to be your instinctual response. Since it is the case that the student will reflexively do those things which may be inappropriate for something like a shove, it is incumbent upon teachers not to inculcate inappropriate responses into the students. The training floor (or the mind) the proper place to consider your moral, legal, and ethical obligations, rather than ignore them, then act reflexively in a way that you may not truly be comfortable with.

Fortunately, my other arts in addition to Kenpo, provide me with a wide variety of things to pick from. For a simple shove, I can't see breaking the guys arm, but I also dont see anything wrong with a lock, or simply knocking the hand away. Something like Triggered Salute followed by a lock hardly seems as brutal as an eye shot. However, my intentions are not to play games either. If the person isn't getting the hint, well....

In closing, I notice a few parts to my post were overlooked:

2) For those that are against the brutal side, how do you all gear your training? I mean, if someone is going to say that something is not correct, the next thing is to give a reason why. That being said, for someone punching you, grabbing you, attempting to hit you with a weapon, how do you all deal with the attack? Do you handle it in a more passive fashion or go with the brutal fashion?

3) I came across this recent post. Thought it was pretty interesting, and hopefully I can get some feedback from the Kaju people on here as well. Was this person who the story is about wrong for how he handled the situation? Is the attitude of the Kaju people wrong? I ask this because this, from what I've read is what its all about....surviving on the street.


I almost get the impression that this thread is turning into a discussion on my choices of action. As I said, if someone thinks that my solutions are wrong, thats fine, and accept that. However, its only natural for the person who disagrees, to offer up what they do.

 

[MJS]

Personally, I always go for the brutal. It's like therapy. Kidding.

LOL!

In actuality, as a teacher of behavior conduct disorder kids, I find myself using restraints in most of the "altercations" I am involved with. I'm either breaking up fights, or having to "escort" someone somewhere against their will (sometimes even holding them while they are being handcuffed). Violence is almost never directed towards me in those situations.

I'm in favor of restraints as well. Of course, there're pros and cons to them, but I still find value in them.

Were I to be attacked in the street, however, I'm going for it to the max. I am not going to assume that he doesn't have friends waiting to help him out, or a weapon hidden that he may get desperate enough to take out if things aren't going his way. If someone attacks me in the street, I'm going to assume my life is in danger and act accordingly. Therefore, that's how we train in Kajukenbo.

Well, this was my line of thinking as well. I don't wanna assume that the guy who is rushing towards me, wants to continue to verbally assault me, when he could've continued to do that from a distance. I'm going to assume that he is intent on causing me serious harm.

 

[Danjo]

The thing about using restraints is that

1) They are allowed according to California Ed Code.:

"44807. Every teacher in the public schools shall hold pupils to a
strict account for their conduct on the way to and from school, on
the playgrounds, or during recess. A teacher, vice principal,
principal, or any other certificated employee of a school district,
shall not be subject to criminal prosecution or criminal penalties
for the exercise, during the performance of his duties, of the same
degree of physical control over a pupil that a parent would be
legally privileged to exercise but which in no event shall exceed the
amount of physical control reasonably necessary to maintain order,
protect property, or protect the health and safety of pupils, or to
maintain proper and appropriate conditions conducive to learning."

and 2) They have a pretty good psychological effect. When someone grabs you and renders you unable to move, it leaves an impression. Fortunately a school situation like ours, I generally don't have to worry about getting jumped. I wouldn't use them in a street confrontation due to not wanting to have my back exposed while using them.

 

[MJS]

Good info Dan!

I was hoping that the questions that I had asked of a few others would get answered. I'm interested in hearing how they deal with someone punching or grabbing them, as well as their thoughts on that Kaju link I posted.

 

[DavidCC]

Going on what you said, I'm going to assume that people that train with Doc also have lives, wives, kids, etc. outside of the training hall. ... so whether they spend an hour a week or 5, ...

From what I saw when I went out there, the students regularly put in about 12 hours of class time on the mats per week.

"There is no basic information, only basic application"

 

[SL4Drew]

I spoke to Doc and below you'll find what he thinks.

So, are you saying that someone can't develop those things you mention if their primary goal is self defense? Or do you feel that those things come afterwards?

Not at all. Like everything else, it depends upon what your goals are, and what you are willing to do to get to those goals. I have students looking for self-defense expertise, (like my law enforcement officers), but all of my students want that on some level, and all are willing to invest the time needed to get a more complete perspective and long lasting skills. They understand coming in, that it is a process. I have students who have been with me over thirty years.

True. Now, we've all been thru the commercial vs non commercial debates, so I'll ask you this: I'm going to say that Doc is not running a commercial school. Correct me if I'm wrong on this. So, if thats the case, how does his initial instruction compare to a commercial school? Does he have people doing forms for 2-3 yrs before showing an application?

The interpretation of Kenpo I was taught and teach, as well as all of the Ed Parker Lineage, is technique based, not forms based, so the idea of doing forms for years before knowing what they mean is a foreign concept. My teaching is absolutely grounded in a working understanding of hard basic applications. Not only do you need to have a consistent neutral bow as an example, you must know the base associated footwork, and be capable of performing it without being knocked off your axis under extreme pressure. That is a curriculum mandate. Everything that you are taught, you must be able to perform under realistic conditions, and may not move on until you can demonstrate it consistently. There are no "what if" scenarios. "There is no try, you must do." My female students especially appreciate the approach.

Going on what you said, I'm going to assume that people that train with Doc also have lives, wives, kids, etc. outside of the training hall. So, if he does have those types of people, what keeps them coming back? I don't know the schedules of every student that trains with him, so whether they spend an hour a week or 5, I'd have to assume that he isn't teaching them stripped info. Would you say that the others that trained under Parker, ie: Tatum, Palanzo, etc., were just interested in the commercial, bare bones material or were they interested in what was taught to Doc? I say this, because it seems to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, but he (Doc) got something that nobody else did.

My students come back because they keep improving their skills, and become more and more knowledgeable EVERY CLASS. Guys that have been around twenty plus years keep shaking their heads at the voluminous nature of the information available if you just continue to walk through the door. My oldest student is 69 years old, and he started with Ed Parker in 1964. He's in class regularly asking questions, and shaking his head in amazement.


I can not say what the others were interest in, but I think it was a matter of what Parker wanted to teach them based on their circumstances, and what he needed at the time, along with other factors. The two you mentioned were and still are in the commercial business of Kenpo. If you have guys making money for you and for themselves teaching a commercial product, why would you do anything else? Joe was on the east coast running a chain of schools when he met Mr. Parker, and then all those schools became IKKA affiliated schools. Larry ran the only school that ever made a profit that Ed Parker owned. You don't screw your business by running people away with more intense and demanding teaching.

I havent been around as many Kenpo higher ups as you or some others probably have, so let me ask this: Is anyone else teaching this method?

I cannot speak for others all I can say it was I've seen from my own personal experiences, and from my interaction with Parker. With that qualification, the answer is no. But that is not to say it is some kind of secret, it is just a more intense and higher level of knowledge. Ed parker never taught me a "technique." He taught me the true underlying principles, not concepts. Physically demanding, unyielding, no wiggle room, must be done exactly this way, principles. I've never come in contact with anyone who utilizes the same method.

Well, as I've said many times, I'm a fan of trying to verbally defuse something first. However, if that isn't working or if there is just no time to even try, then what options are left? Keep talking? Let him approach me, and hope that he doesnt knock my head off? I'm looking at it like this...he can talk and posture all he wants from a distance. Once he gets within my personal space, I'm taking that as a threat. Now, I never said that I was going to take his eye, but I'm not just going to stand there. If I'm in the wrong for kicking the guy in the groin and elbowing him in the face, then so be it.

No problem there. Knock his head off. Just don't blind the guy for throwing a punch at you. I don't teach passivity. What I teach is aggressive, and can be brutal. But it is moral and not maiming for the given circumstances.

Fortunately, my other arts in addition to Kenpo, provide me with a wide variety of things to pick from. For a simple shove, I can't see breaking the guys arm, but I also dont see anything wrong with a lock, or simply knocking the hand away. Something like Triggered Salute followed by a lock hardly seems as brutal as an eye shot. However, my intentions are not to play games either. If the person isn't getting the hint, well....

I've been a cop for over thirty years. I don't play games with people. Comply or face the consequences. I'm not going to get hurt.

In closing, I notice a few parts to my post were overlooked:

2) For those that are against the brutal side, how do you all gear your training? I mean, if someone is going to say that something is not correct, the next thing is to give a reason why. That being said, for someone punching you, grabbing you, attempting to hit you with a weapon, how do you all deal with the attack? Do you handle it in a more passive fashion or go with the brutal fashion?

The appropriate level for the circumstances, that does include brutal if necessary.

3) I came across this recent post. Thought it was pretty interesting, and hopefully I can get some feedback from the Kaju people on here as well. Was this person who the story is about wrong for how he handled the situation? Is the attitude of the Kaju people wrong? I ask this because this, from what I've read is what its all about....surviving on the street.

Perfectly reasonable. Probably didn't go far enough.

I almost get the impression that this thread is turning into a discussion on my choices of action. As I said, if someone thinks that my solutions are wrong, thats fine, and accept that. However, its only natural for the person who disagrees, to offer up what they do.

Fair enough.

 

[SL4Drew]

Well, as I've said many times, I'm a fan of trying to verbally defuse something first. However, if that isn't working or if there is just no time to even try, then what options are left? Keep talking? Let him approach me, and hope that he doesnt knock my head off? I'm looking at it like this...he can talk and posture all he wants from a distance. Once he gets within my personal space, I'm taking that as a threat. Now, I never said that I was going to take his eye, but I'm not just going to stand there. If I'm in the wrong for kicking the guy in the groin and elbowing him in the face, then so be it.

For my part I wanted to offer a clarification that seems necessary. I have been advocating using appropriate force to subdue a threat. I think by some this has been interpreted as me advocating some sort of gentle passivity. It is not. Because the default position among many is to train to use excessive (disproportionate) force for the situation, I have made a point of arguing against such a mindset. But that doesn't mean you don't mop the floor with the guy when the situation warrants it.

So, I am not advocating against violence (or if you prefer brutality,) rather it is better understood that I am advocating against unnecessary and disproportionate violence. This is especially so when considering the use of violence from a training perspective.

 

[MJS]

From what I saw when I went out there, the students regularly put in about 12 hours of class time on the mats per week.

"There is no basic information, only basic application"

Of course, there are more things to consider. Things such as:

How long are the classes?

What hours to the students who train have?

What type of lifestyle the students have?

For myself, I normally work the 4pm-12am shift. That does not allow me to make it to too many classes, so I have to rely on privates and class time when I can make it.

The school I attend is open 2 days a week, Tue and Thur for noon time classes. Those classes are 1hr. Depending on my days off, which rotate every 3 weeks, that will determine what night classes I can attend.

My wife is supportive of my training. I was training long before she came into my life, she knows that, and is fine with it. However, due to my schedule, (she works days...830am-5pm, Mon-Fri) I do cherish the time we do have, so there are days, when yes, spending time with her, vs. going to class, I stay home.

Now, if I worked during the day, and classes were 3-4 hrs long, well, its a no brainer that one would be able to train for 12 hrs a week. Additionally, keep in mind that the average MA class is 1-1 1/2 hrs long. Most places teach kids, so they have to work that into their schedule, so yes, its possible that an adult class in the average school could be 2 times a week, giving 2-3hrs of training each week.

 

[MJS]

For my part I wanted to offer a clarification that seems necessary. I have been advocating using appropriate force to subdue a threat. I think by some this has been interpreted as me advocating some sort of gentle passivity. It is not. Because the default position among many is to train to use excessive (disproportionate) force for the situation, I have made a point of arguing against such a mindset. But that doesn't mean you don't mop the floor with the guy when the situation warrants it.

So, I am not advocating against violence (or if you prefer brutality,) rather it is better understood that I am advocating against unnecessary and disproportionate violence. This is especially so when considering the use of violence from a training perspective.

Thank you for the reply. While it may have been missed in translation, I think we're on the same page. Then again, our interpretation of whats unnecessary and disproportionate may vary.

 

[MJS]

I spoke to Doc and below you'll find what he thinks.



Not at all. Like everything else, it depends upon what your goals are, and what you are willing to do to get to those goals. I have students looking for self-defense expertise, (like my law enforcement officers), but all of my students want that on some level, and all are willing to invest the time needed to get a more complete perspective and long lasting skills. They understand coming in, that it is a process. I have students who have been with me over thirty years.



The interpretation of Kenpo I was taught and teach, as well as all of the Ed Parker Lineage, is technique based, not forms based, so the idea of doing forms for years before knowing what they mean is a foreign concept. My teaching is absolutely grounded in a working understanding of hard basic applications. Not only do you need to have a consistent neutral bow as an example, you must know the base associated footwork, and be capable of performing it without being knocked off your axis under extreme pressure. That is a curriculum mandate. Everything that you are taught, you must be able to perform under realistic conditions, and may not move on until you can demonstrate it consistently. There are no "what if" scenarios. "There is no try, you must do." My female students especially appreciate the approach.





My students come back because they keep improving their skills, and become more and more knowledgeable EVERY CLASS. Guys that have been around twenty plus years keep shaking their heads at the voluminous nature of the information available if you just continue to walk through the door. My oldest student is 69 years old, and he started with Ed Parker in 1964. He's in class regularly asking questions, and shaking his head in amazement.


I can not say what the others were interest in, but I think it was a matter of what Parker wanted to teach them based on their circumstances, and what he needed at the time, along with other factors. The two you mentioned were and still are in the commercial business of Kenpo. If you have guys making money for you and for themselves teaching a commercial product, why would you do anything else? Joe was on the east coast running a chain of schools when he met Mr. Parker, and then all those schools became IKKA affiliated schools. Larry ran the only school that ever made a profit that Ed Parker owned. You don't screw your business by running people away with more intense and demanding teaching.




I cannot speak for others all I can say it was I've seen from my own personal experiences, and from my interaction with Parker. With that qualification, the answer is no. But that is not to say it is some kind of secret, it is just a more intense and higher level of knowledge. Ed parker never taught me a "technique." He taught me the true underlying principles, not concepts. Physically demanding, unyielding, no wiggle room, must be done exactly this way, principles. I've never come in contact with anyone who utilizes the same method.




No problem there. Knock his head off. Just don't blind the guy for throwing a punch at you. I don't teach passivity. What I teach is aggressive, and can be brutal. But it is moral and not maiming for the given circumstances.




I've been a cop for over thirty years. I don't play games with people. Comply or face the consequences. I'm not going to get hurt.



The appropriate level for the circumstances, that does include brutal if necessary.



Perfectly reasonable. Probably didn't go far enough.



Fair enough.

Thank you.

 

[tigdra]

I don't know I have read the thread and I have a few observations. I don't really understand the logic.

Training to main or kill is bad because in the moment you'll forget to close your fist and hit the cheek bone instead of poking into the eyes.

But training to hit the check bone with your fist all the time and then trying to break the habit and open your hand when the time comes is ok.

Yet closing the fist is a much more instinctive reaction than palming, poking etc.

And now that we are on the subject if more often than not we would like to use as little force as possible then why don't we all practice aikido and sometimes practice moderately forceful techniques and rarely practice killing tech.

Wouldn't that be considered even more advanced training.

So following that train of thought then we should have a gun but prefer to carry a stun gun and we should practice using our stun guns more than our handguns.

Personally if someone wants to teach a toned down system because they feel that it is superior let them. I will train myself to maim, tame. kill and everything in between. When it comes time for me to defend my life I will do what needs to be done.