When Defending Yourself

[MJS]

In Kenpo, we have our 'Ideal Phase' techniques. This is the technique in its completion, start to finish. We have Grafting. This is being able to transition from one technique to another. Should the badguy do something out of the 'Ideal Phase' we 'graft' into another IP tech.

Reading and debating with others, it seems to me, that people tend to focus ALOT of the IP. If the badguy is throwing a roundhouse punch, and we go into 5 Swords, for example, should he do something else, people feel that they can and should just go into another IP tech., because afterall, if the techs. are 'internalized' as they supposedly should be, this shouldn't be an issue.

Of course, how many can actually say they have things internalized? How long does this take?

For myself, I use the IP techniques, for what, IMO, they were designed for...to give the students a base to build from, to give them 1 possible solution to an attack. However, IMHO, the students should not be bound by the techs. Now, when I say bound, I'm talking about relying just on those techs. This sort of goes back to a thread I started on KT. IMO, we should be taking our basics, which is what all of the techs are based on anyways, and being able to come up with something 'on the fly' so to speak.

For example: Those that love the IPs, will do 5 Swords, and then, when the badguy throws a left hook, will look for another IP, ie: Sword of Destruction. I say why? Why concern yourself with hoping that you'll be able to find the right IP tech., but instead, just react to whats happening, by using your basics. Why couldn't I cover such as you'd see in boxing? Why couldn't I do an outward block with my right, and then elbow the head? Why couldn't I do that outward block, double palms to the ears, thumbs to the eyes? What about readjusting, and going into a choke?

IMO, what should be internalized, is the basics. What will be your instinctive reaction? Going into a IP tech, or realizing that punch is coming, block and counter?

So, all that being said, I'm interested in hearing everyones thoughts. Do you spend all your time focusing on the IP techniques, being able to go from one to the next to the next, in an A-Z fashion, or falling back on the simple basics?

 

[Flying Crane]

Hi Michael,

I'm going to go ahead and paste my comments from the Gun Disarms thread, I feel like it's relevant here as well and it might help get the discussion going.

My comments:

Some people feel the techs are literally an answer to an attack. Other people feel the techs are simply mini-laboratories in which you use the components of the tech to explore the options and lessons that it presents, and understand what is possible in dealing with an attack. Some of these techs can be rather extensive, hitting the enemy over and over and over, issuing great bodily harm and mayhem, multiple bone breaks, etc. Most people will agree that, particularly with the more lengthy techs, you would never actually complete the entire tech on an attacker. You might get 2-4 shots into it and the situation will be resolved. You don't get to pick the bad guy up off the ground because, "I didn't finish the technique, I've still got to hit him 8 more times!!!"

I personally feel that a well-designed tech should fill both roles. On some level it ought to be logical and practical and useable as it is, right out of the box. If it isn't, then my BS sniffer goes off and I begin to question what lessons the tech has to teach if it contains some fundamentally flawed concepts. It is my personal opinion that there are some techs that were simply poorly designed and are bad ideas.

However, I also understand the need to look at the technique as a greater exploration of the possibilities, and the micro-lessons that the individual components have to teach. In that respect, the flow of the tech from begining to end is less important as a whole, and more important on the level of incremental examination.

So yes, I agree that these techs can contain lessons like, how to switch something up when things don't go the way I planned, as you describe.

In my view, I question how well this type of examination gets done. Granted, I cannot speak for everyone out there and how they do their training. But the typical examples that I see on places like Youtube, has people blazing thru the tech from start to finish, and whipping thru all the elements as if it is THE answer for this attack. I think if you want to look at the micro lessons, you need to do that deliberately. You cannot whip thru the entire technique as if you are defending for real, and pretend that those micro lessons will be absorbed. I think there needs to be a pointed examination of each portion, a discussion of, "So here we are working into this restraining hold, but if I lose my grip or the bad guy wriggles free, or his resistance is stronger than I expected, or I don't quite get his arm lined up properly and I realize I'm not going to get the hold, well then I can switch directions and work him into this one instead and his struggling helps push him into the next idea..." We don't see that kind of consideration in the typical demonstration seen online. Maybe when they teach their own students they do discuss this. But online, I don't usually see that as an element of what's happening. Instead, it's "Now hit him here, now hit him there, now put him into the arm lock, now let the arm lock go so we can hit him here and hit him there..." Often the techs are done with blazing speed, and the uke sort of just stands there and lets it all happen to him, absorbing what sometimes can be dozens of strikes. In my opinion, that approach to practice is decidedly NOT the "mini-lab" approach.

As far as the techs go, this is how I see it. Perhaps more directly to your point, I would agree that true mastery ought to be with the basics and one's ability to spontaneously use the basics to solve any problem. Maybe the SD techs are really meant to just get the juices flowing and figure that all out. Sometimes it seems like taking the long way around, tho.

 

[WC_lun]

I agree with your assessment that techniques are designed to give the student a base to build from. They should be presented as a way to learn the concepts and principles of a system. Once those are learned, technique becomes less meaningful. Did it work or didn't it work? Why? Who cares if it was this or that technique?

 

[Big Don]

We tend to mix about 70% techniques and basics 10% sparring and 20% grafting, at different belt levels, different formulas apply.

 

[Zoran]

I had a discussion with a Parker system 5th black on this. I asked if students are encouraged to react spontaneously to an attack. Meaning they can do what ever comes out. He said, "Yes, as long as they stay within the rules."

This method of thinking is not conducive to a spontaneous response. Making the student think is fine and has its place in training. However, there are times to let the student just react quickly and decisively without thought and allow them to make their mistakes. It allows them to learn from their mistakes and ingrains a pattern that promotes instantaneous response. Inevitably, a student will stop when they screw up. Huge no no. One must learn to continue moving and fighting regardless of screwing up. Worrying about what rules one is breaking is not going to help that. Besides, the only rule I know of is survival.

Anyways, I have a different thought process to this than some others due to the nature of the primary Kenpo system I have been trained in.

 

[Big Don]

I had a discussion with a Parker system 5th black on this. I asked if students are encouraged to react spontaneously to an attack. Meaning they can do what ever comes out. He said, "Yes, as long as they stay within the rules."

Your next question wasn't "Which rules?"

 

[just2kicku]

Okay, I'm gonna chime in with my 2¢. I think techniques are a good base for the basic movements. I'm a firm believer that most techniques will not work on the street, but gives you a foundation to work from.
I know my basic blocks, strikes and foot movements, that should be enough. When I tested,i didn't have to know any numbers (i.e. #1 punch out etc.) I was just attacked. It was up to me to figure out what I was going to do. If I missed a block our a strike, the attack didn't stop so I had to keep going. It was like that for knife and club attacks too. Yes,i got cut and took some pretty good lumps to the face and head.
So to me, techniques are just basics strung together to get you to think on your feet.
I don't know know if any of this makes any sense,sorry if it doesn't.

 

[Zoran]

Okay, I'm gonna chime in with my 2¢. I think techniques are a good base for the basic movements. I'm a firm believer that most techniques will not work on the street, but gives you a foundation to work from.
I know my basic blocks, strikes and foot movements, that should be enough. When I tested,i didn't have to know any numbers (i.e. #1 punch out etc.) I was just attacked. It was up to me to figure out what I was going to do. If I missed a block our a strike, the attack didn't stop so I had to keep going. It was like that for knife and club attacks too. Yes,i got cut and took some pretty good lumps to the face and head.
So to me, techniques are just basics strung together to get you to think on your feet.
I don't know know if any of this makes any sense,sorry if it doesn't.

I have also cross-trained and still train in Kajukenbo. It is a different from what the Parker group does. Kaju is more spontaneous. They tend to follow the "don't think just react" philosophy.

 

[Zoran]

Your next question wasn't "Which rules?"

Nope, would have been a good question.

 

[MJS]

I had a discussion with a Parker system 5th black on this. I asked if students are encouraged to react spontaneously to an attack. Meaning they can do what ever comes out. He said, "Yes, as long as they stay within the rules."

This method of thinking is not conducive to a spontaneous response. Making the student think is fine and has its place in training. However, there are times to let the student just react quickly and decisively without thought and allow them to make their mistakes. It allows them to learn from their mistakes and ingrains a pattern that promotes instantaneous response. Inevitably, a student will stop when they screw up. Huge no no. One must learn to continue moving and fighting regardless of screwing up. Worrying about what rules one is breaking is not going to help that. Besides, the only rule I know of is survival.

Anyways, I have a different thought process to this than some others due to the nature of the primary Kenpo system I have been trained in.

Couldn't agree more. I would've loved to have heard about the 'rules' this person mentions. LOL.

 

[Big Don]

As far as I am concerned, there are damn few rules worth acknowledging if it is my butt on the line.
Among them:
When violence is the answer, it is the ONLY answer

[FONT=&quot]If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Do not hit at all if it can be avoided, but never hit softly[/FONT]