Touch'O'Death said:
No I believe in using both purposefull compliance and purposefull defiance. My argument is which method should be taught first to a beginner: asif you were aware, as if you were not aware. I'm suggesting that the idealy you are aware and the "what if" is that you are not; so, mace of aggression would be a prposefull compliance tech. Anyhow I would want my child weary of any approach. Its a natural instinct that should not be suppressed for the sake of politness and society.
Sean
Unfortunately sir you seem to have dug into a position that doesn't address any of the dissenting views here or even explain your own "unique" point of view. Your assersion that it is either "purposeful compliance or defiance," is in itself inaccurate. To wrap your argument within these parameters without consideration of what others have already made painfully obvious is bizarre.
To purposely comply with or defy any action in and of itself requires an "awareness." When training for a "push," or "grab," we are discussing completed acts that have already occurred. Compliance or defiance is not an issue. What is at hand is how we choose to react to these actions.
Push - To move an object by exerting force against it.
(it has already happened)
Grab - To capture or restrain.
(once again, it has already happened)
"Hands on" attacks may not be treated as "attempts" that suggest super human awareness. The idea that; "I will always see it coming and then react as it happens is ludcrious." To do so is to not train for reality, and ignores important mechanisms that allows Kenpo to deal with the effects of grappling type assaults, that may become horizontal if not addressed vertically.
To properly train and prepare for these actions, requires that we allow them to happen then react in a manner that is in our best interest and intentions. "Purposeful Compliance or Defiance" may then be employed only
after the fact. To insist on another course of action is unrealistic. I choose to teach my beginners "how" to react when these things happen to "survive the initial assault," and only then can you begin the process of retaliation. If you do not address them, then you have already lost.
As a byproduct of my longest career, I have had more potentially life threatening confrontations in a day then the average person would see in a lifetime. I continue to train those who risk their lives and trust that what I teach them is effective. Every incident a student experiences in the field and during ops, is brought back to the school and is examined in great detail for the purpose of validating the methodologies.
I will go back to my earlier suggestion that was ignored and recommend training these techniques with eyes closed. Can you handle it when you can't see it coming? If not, you're practicing impractical "attempts" and your beginners learn nothing in my opinion and experience, and are on the road to eventual failure sir.
I also know why many cling to this, "I'm always aware" edict. If these things aren't "attempts," most have no idea how to deal with them after the fact, and student will quickly find out that when they are grabbed or hugged, they have not been given the tools to survive.
I respectfully hope for the sake of your students you examine this carefully and perhaps use the "blind training" exercise to examine your "ideal" model for efficacy.
