Originally posted by Old Fat Kenpoka
I would like to hear a little more about WHY people think a particular person will have the most impact.
I'd really love to hear more of the whys? Thank you.
Somebody else: Dr. Chapel
I'm not entirely sure that my response to this poll is accurate because Dr. Chapel doesn't expend a lot of energy spreading his approach. I guess my vote would be more along the lines of, "Who
should or who
would you like to see impact EPAK in the next 10 years?"
Briefly
some of my reasons (in no particular order):
1. Excellent training methodology: realistic (unlike I've seen elsewhere)
2. IMO superior content: anatomically correct basics, non-pain reliant techniques, non-blunt force trauma reliant techniques, etc.
3. Deals realistically with grappling situations both in the initial assault and during the progression of the encounter
4. Formalized instruction (on the university model) by excellent instructors
5. Detailed written material. Oh, and did I say DETAILED written material?
6. His material includes the psychological aspect of self-defense situations. Vital but often neglected or cliched.
7. His entire approach is one of the only ones that I am aware of that is designed to be consistent with the expectations and reality of our legal system. This one is sadly neglected, entirely or just plain flouted in many other schools. And that's just begging for criminal and civil penalties (not to mention moral culpability).
8. As you get better less is more, more or less. I.e., the better you get the fewer strikes are necessary to extricate yourself from self-defense situations.
9. A whole science of alignments for yourself and misalignments to use against your aggressor. The alignments make you dramatically more powerful and rooted (while remaining just as fast or faster). The misalignments weaken your opponent, break him down, immobilize him. Once you can start to "see" these alignment/misalignment opportunities then IMO workable, spontaneous application and correction in the middle of an encounter against a resisting opponent is achievable. And isn't that the goal (or at least one of THE goals)?
10. Techniques, in their "ideal" stage, are designed to handle a wide range (within anatomically given limits) of assaults. I.e., techniques can actually work because the initial response is based upon a fairly small set of natural, instinctive, biomechanically correct reactions consistent with the inherent and automatic "startle" reflex. Therefore, given the appropriate training regimen one can eventually respond to non-scripted attacks with technique-like defenses. And, one also starts to realize that street attacks, in many instances, aren't really as unscripted as you might have previously thought (see The Psychology of Confrontation, The Gift of Fear).
11. Realistic attacks that are specifically delineated. Grabs are grabs, holds are holds, hugs are hugs, and attempts are attempts. And there is a BIG difference.
12. Oh, and he's funny too.
(see that helps when you're getting banged up!)
Well, I guess that wasn't too brief, but that's my "why" off the top of my head.
