You need to ask "what if" like ras...or you suck

[Chris Parker]

Whassup FC!! You did see the parts where I repeatedly say that if [ whatever others are doing ] works in these ranges for them? Hey, not a problem. I'm not addressing them. I've also repeatedly stated that if [ whatever others are doing ] is all they want to do? That's ALSO cool with me. But if they're not training for various considerations in The Web of Knowledge? Well...

a) They'll be vulnerable to attacks that those considerations cover

b) That's proof of a insufficiently comprehensive training paradigm.

Hmm, I don't know if Michael saw them, but they seem to be somewhat lacking in your posts here... there's a lot of "if you're not doing it my way, you're doin' it wrong", though. Additionally, both of your points are not necessarily correct either...

However, it IS somewhat of a crusade. People DO need convincing...not so much CONVERSION, but CONVINCING. Convincing of what? Convincing that oftentimes we need superior training paradigms to efficiently cover more practical, more comprehensive martial arts training. Basically? Take your [ whatever martial art ] any direction you want to go with it. Just make sure it works in the primary armed, h2h, ground and multifight scenarios. That is NOT being done and hasn't been done in TMA for far too long.

Who says? Are you saying that Iaido (another art you claim some training in) should work against every type of modern attack? Judo needs to be able to deal with group attacks? You're just applying what you think the main purpose of martial arts is, you realize, even though you've actually got it fairly wrong. Out of interest, have you considered that you don't have the right answers, and that you're only trying to convince people as you don't understand the more "TMA" methodology?

That's our fault. Those of us who know better and don't do it enough. Don't show it enough. Don't prove it enough.

Look, I'm going to be blunt again. What you're doing doesn't convince many as you're doing it wrong. And that comes through whether you realize it or not. I deal with every situation you talk about, but in a much more concise, more powerful way. And I don't need to prove anything to anyone but my students. I can see what you're doing, and why, and believe me, you're heading in the wrong direction. Constantly asking "do you deal with this particular situation? How about this one? Or this one?" is pretty much all the evidence needed to demonstrate that, by the way.

I usually don't answer the above criticism because usually the people making them are:

a. Being Contrary for the sake of being contrary

b. Just looking to insult me

c. Brain Dead

I'm never contrary for the sake of being contrary, I argue in order to demonstrate an opposing view (and demonstrate problems in the others persons argument). I don't look to insult you either. And "brain dead"? But you aren't looking to insult anyone either, are you.... hmm.

But I know that you're not like that, Michael, so I'll answer this comment [ yet AGAIN ]:

Then let's see what you've got.

To me and to quite a few who contact me on a weekly basis [ dozens and more ], my posts aren't overly wordy nor are they difficult to comprehend. They're pretty straightforward. The part that flips most people is that I've challenged many of their positions and/or beliefs in almost every sentence, and they're still attempting to digest one challenge or question when I hit them with a dozen more. To compound the matter, they oftentimes completely misunderstand or mischaracterize what I'm saying. They'll conflate, for instance, my utter disgust with and disdain for dysfunctional training with me saying that they and/or their martial art sucks. I have neeeeever said such a thing, and have repeatedly and in no uncertain terms repudiated even the notion of such a thing.

Please.

You use overly heavy phrasing in order to imply some form of intellectual superiority, when that is far from the case. And the idea that people are reeling from one challenge to their beliefs when you hit them with a dozen more, and that's why they can't follow your arguments? Dude, that is so far from the case. It's more usually that you're arguing something that you aren't being argued with about.

Even when I disagree with Chris Parker, I have never dissed his personal martial art. And I never will.

Nor I yours. Of course, none of this has anything to do with the discussion, so I'm not sure why you brought it up.

This whole conversation [ from my perspective ] revolves around training paradigms, their effectiveness or lack thereof, and the mindsets that they spawn. Even Functionality has a continuum. I am Functional, but I can be MORE Functional...so I'm open to ideas drills suggestions and criticism along those lines. I have adopted the verbiage and corrections offered by others like Doc, Professor Durgan, and others [ even you, Michael ] when I agreed with the criticisms or even disagreed but found merit in the suggestion anyway.

Hmm. Here's a suggestion, then. Take another look at the regular techniques, and try to understand their functionality. Don't dismiss them just because you can't see it... look deeper. Look at where they sit, and why they're structured the way they are. I promise you, they are that way for a reason.

It's worth noting that NONE of my critics have reciprocated.

Hang on, what? None of your critics (I'm assuming you're including myself there) have reciprocated? Do you mean none of us have turned around and said "Hey, Ras, I'm going to do what you suggested there!" Well, no. I, for one, find a large number of issues in what you're doing and how you're doing it, and went past that little phase quite a while ago. So there's little that I've seen from you that would help me. Instead, I've tried to help you. How open would you say you've been to that?

With that in mind...who is truly the person with the more open mind? Who is truly the person who is less ego-stricken?

Based on your interactions with myself, I'd say you're the more ego-driven person, the more arrogant, and the most incapable of hearing or understanding an argument... and for me to say you're more arrogant than me is really saying something!

Something to ponder.

Uh... nope.

Mike...I don't know anyone who looks at their approach as "flawed". However, if you ask any of my Taekwondoin brethren if they have a substantial submission grappling arsenal standing and on the ground? The honest answer is NO. Does that leave them vulnerable to being subbed or facing a good wrestler who can gnp them? YES. Is there a way to train their TKD--without having to sacrifice their distinct TKD flavor and identity--to deal with competent submissions takedowns and gnp? YES. Is this routinely done? The honest answer is NO.

Then you'd get into the question of if it deals with things that go against the ideas and context of TKD, is it still TKD? Not every art needs, or even wants to deal with every range. There's a difference between a specialist system and a generalist one... and just because you think they should all be generalist doesn't mean that the specialist system is flawed, incomplete, wrong, or anything else. Again, for someone who claims so many arts, you really should be aware of this. It should be basic knowledge to you. The fact that you don't get it shows a lack of schooling, really.

How do I know? Because I'm a 5th dan in TKD and when I made these suggestions? Many TKD guys went nuts...until I pointed out that Master Hee Il Cho has done the very thing I was talking about...although I started converting mine well before 1994, as I was learning TKD and HKD nearly hand in hand with each other.

So again you did it all before anyone else... and you're a 5th Dan in TKD, yeah? Which organisation, out of interest?

When I make comments about this or that art in TMA? They're GENERAL comments. There is NO WAY I'd know exactly what every single martial artist is doing, and I'm not interested in that. If I gave you the impression otherwise? I don't know how but I apologize for that. What I CAN say though--with certainty--refers to the GENERAL METHOD OF PRACTICE. The GENERAL training paradigm.

Then avoid making definite statements, as you don't seem to get much of it.

I'm a Judo black belt.Generally speaking? Judoka don't do jumpkicks or triple kicks, even in our self defense atemi-waza [ which I have learned ].

Judo black belt as well, huh? Through the Kodokan, of course?

And what on earth are you going on about with "Generally speaking? Judoka don't do jumpkicks or triple kicks"? Are you trying to imply that they need such things to be completely prepared for your ever-so-deadly streets? Or at all, for any reason? Do you have even the slightest clue about any of this?

I'm a Kenpo 5th dan and a Hung Gar black sash. In general, you won't find Kenpoists or Kempoists--American, Chinese, Japanese, whatever---pulling off flying triangles or working the guard or pulling off The Flying Squirrel or The Spladle. In fact? Throws pins locks chokes and holds are not what these arts are generally known for...although they DO IN FACT possess these techs. Their training emphasis, IN GENERAL, is elsewhere...which gives them a largely "stand up striking" identity. Which means that they too are vulnerable to what they train LESS of or DON'T TRAIN.

Have you enough training in any of the myriad systems you claim to be dan-ranked or equivalent in as to why they do things the way they do, and not another? Cause it's not sounding like you've learnt anything other than a bunch of mechanical actions, and anything deeper, or more important (powerful) has completely passed you by.

Do the practitioners of ANY of these arts feel that their art is flawed? NO. Their art is NOT flawed. They have good reason to feel the way that they do. Now, can anyone from any of those arts improve drastically by employing a training paradigm that improves their entire martial arsenal [ inclusive of tactics and healing ] in every category and range of self defense? YES.

No. You've missed the point of each, and why they don't feature the aspects you mention.

A training paradigm that improves martial performance, knowledge, etc. is a SUPERIOR training paradigm.

I don't think you know what that would be, though. You have what you think is superior, but there is really nothing other than your words, your flawed arguments, and your flawed videos to support it. Not enough, I fear.

Therefore...Taekwondoin who reach into their art and realize that they have throws, locks etc. and proceed to practice throws locks takedowns ground strikes weapons and defenses against same have a TRAINING PARADIGM SUPERIOR to those who DON'T do so...even though all TKD practitioners in theory have THE SAME ARSENAL.

And where are you pulling these imagined TKD schools from?

Chinese Kempoists who develope superior athleticism and comprehensive grappling and subgrappling have a superior TRAINING PARADIGM to those who don't...even though all Chinese Kempoists in theory have the same arsenal.

Yeah, I don't know where you're getting any of this from....

American Kenpoists who train their techniques and self-defense sequences to perform in every range of h2h combat and every category of combat HAVE A TRAINING PARADIGM SUPERIOR TO THOSE WHO DON'T.

Who says the other Kempo teachers don't deal in the different ranges, Ras? And does this have anything to do with your point, or have you gone off on another side argument that no-one really asked about again?

Judoka who make it a point to cultivate comprehensive atemi waza as well as every aspect of their grappling game HAVE A TRAINING PARADIGM SUPERIOR TO THOSE WHO DON'T.

So you're just going on hypotheticals, as you've decided what each art needs, are you?

Capoeiristas who actually spar with weapons and train to make contact and realistically takedown and strike, etc etc in addition to cultivating their extraordinary vocabulary of movement, memorize and enrich the songs and music through direct contribution and participation, learn the history of capoeira, etc etc HAVE A TRAINING PARADIGM SUPERIOR TO THOSE WHO DON'T.

For crying out loud....

How do I know who has a superior training paradigm? Cuz superior martial arts performance is quantifiable: forms [ if your art has any ], weapon use, strikes locks chokes takedowns etc etc are all combat applicable and yield superior fighting skill. This rigorous physical training coupled with rigorous indoctrination in the various honorable martial arts codes of conduct tends to yield a disciplined, physically fit, honorable, long lived person who is a benefit to whatever community that this person belongs to.Furthermore... The greater your fighting [and healing ] skill? The greater the ancillary benefits you receive: physical fitness, stress relief, self-confidence, etc.

Your ability to accurately assess such superiority is something I would question, though. Mainly as you've completely missed the basic criteria, instead looking to volume of possibilities, rather than actual training paradigms, you're addressing training breadth, which is a different thing.

In other words, how do you know who has a superior training paradigm? I don't think you do.

In short? The superior training paradigm perforce yields superior martial artists who perform their art in ways superior to those who don't. That's how I know. It's the most elementary, obvious common sense.

Except you go in the opposite direction to one that would actually create the "superior martial artist", and look for things that don't generate such results, and have been shown to have less than studied in your assessment of such. And your statement of the obvious without actually listing anything specific may come across as common sense, but it's desperately lacking as an answer.

Sooo...look at your training paradigm, and see what it doesn't cover. That's one of the two areas you can improve upon. The OTHER area that you can improve upon is the area that your art DOES cover. When you cover them both? Guess what?

You've missed the point of the art you're training in?

You're employing a superior training paradigm. Easy.

Ah, I was so close.... but no, Ras. What you've actually done is move away from the art you're supposed to be studying in a lot of cases. There's really not a lot "superior" about it, it's just different, and may suit some people, but not others.

Now maybe there are martial artists out there who are perfectly satisfied with what they ARE training and don't feel the need to train any other way or any other range or whatever. That is perfectly fine with me. Have at it and have fun. They're engaged in the method that they prefer, and that's great.

Ah, the token "politically correct" statement.... somehow I don't think you understand what that method of training really is, or it's reasons, though.

However, if they engaged in a training paradigm that covered more--and did so with at least equal quality to what they're covering now--they'd have a SUPERIOR training paradigm.

And this is what shows that it was a token comment.

Ras, you can't say "hey, if you're happy doing what you're doing, great. But if you do what I say, then you'd be much better, cause you're not superior until you're doing what I say" and not have it come across as both insulting arrogant and desperately ignorant. Which is, frankly, how you come across.

Floyd Mayweather is a boxer. Boxing is good. Kickboxing is better. If Floyd added savate or TKD or Muay Thai or Capoeira to his boxing base? He'd have a combatively SUPERIOR training paradigm...although he strongly prefers and is quite happy with his BOXING training and its paradigm.

What the hell makes kickboxing "better" than boxing?!?!? Just because it includes kicking? Are you a complete ignoramus in these areas? And dude, Mayweather would break you in two without much problem, no matter how "superior" you think your approach is. Cause dude? It ain't.

I hope you grasp my point now.

I've always gotten what you think, Ras, it's just that it's flawed from the ground up. You, on the other hand, have never once understood the arguments presented to you, mainly due to your rather evident lack of proper education in these areas.

this is how to do sword and hammer on the ground:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sh...nd-hammer-on-the-ground&p=1487191#post1487191

And what on earth does this have to do with anything here? But don't worry, I'm heading over to see what you've done, and probably point out where you've gone wrong. Again.

I responded to an excellent post by LuckyKboxer on KenpoTalk.com regarding the subject matter of this thread. His post and my response...particularly this section I'm highlighting here...are very important as I address a very consistent fallacy in the thinking of those who somehow think that having one technique that combats all attacks in all primary h2h ranges of self-defense is somehow wrong,inefficient, both, etc etc:

http://www.kenpotalk.com/forum/show...ke-ras-or-you-suck-part-1&p=160535#post160535

Hmm, you mean how, when you were picked up on saying exactly that, you said that that wasn't what you meant, or believed? Now you're offering defence to such an idea? Right....

Okay seriously guys and gals...I'm going to have to emphasize a very very veeerrry important but highly overlooked point. As part of my response to the knowledgeable and skillful LuckyK aka David Arnold, I say the following:

Response to your first paragraph: I always stated that if your techniques and sequences work reliably and functionally because you test them regularly vs escalating resistance? Great I have no beef with you. Nor are my comments directed toward you..and I mean the nonspecific broad definition of the word "you" here. However, this part: "..So learning to use every technique against every possible attack is not wrong, as much as it is not efficient." I disagree with. If all you have is Alternating Maces and somebody cracks you from behind then tackles you? Your Alternating Maces better Alternate and Mace him. If you haven't learned any STORM sequences but somebody slashes and stabs at you with their knife or bat? Your Maces need to Alternate on him. Etc. The real world reality is that you use what you have RIGHT NOW to overcome whatever assault that you have to deal with RIGHT NOW. Learning another technique later doesn't necessarily amp one's efficiency...if you train each tech and sequence for universal versatility. What you have is another tool that can get the job done, thus amping your potency AND your arsenal...but most importantly? It amps your understanding and application of effective efficient movement. Learning 5 Swords from a kneeling position really lets you do your Bow to Buddha better, for instance. But waiting til you learn Bow to Buddha to consider that:"Hey...I can do my 5 Swords kneeling too!" is actually not only inefficient; it can be TOO LATE to be of service to you. Cuz you're way more likely to be knocked down or find yourself scrambling to defend a tackle or coming up from a fall or roll as an Orange Belt than you are as a Brown Belt...so YOU NEED YOUR KNEELING 5 SWORDS NOW. You may find yourself too beat up or too dead or too raped or too bullied etc etc from NOT knowing your kneeling 5 Swords or NOT knowing how to use your 5 Swords from flat off your back to even reach your Kenpo Brown Belt.​

So you're entire premise is basically that you need to be able to use each and every technique against any and all attacks, because you might not have been taught the actual technique yet that deals with a specific type of attack (knife, for instance)? As I said, Ras, you're thinking in terms of techniques (mechanical actions), and missing the part about how people learn. No, you don't need to teach that way, because if you do, then it'll take ages to move past one technique. There's a reason the higher-risk/higher-skill techniques (such as weapon defence) come later, namely that you need to earlier techniques and teachings to build your skills with so you can later perform such techniques. If a new student is faced with a knife, tell them to run, not try some half-baked idea based on a partially learnt and barely remembered technique that isn't suited for such defence from a class they've just started.

Simply put, garbage.

I can't emphasize this point enough. If your train each of your individual techniques...blocks, punches, kicks, stance transitions...in each of the ranges of h2h for civilians and LEO types, AND make sure that you train each tech against realistic, functional attacks drawn from The Web of Knowledge? You will have individual techniques that you have trained to serve you well in a real world encounter. You can train your Inside Block to deflect a knife, a punch, the clinch, the guard, etc....either all in the same day or most definitely in successive days. I've been doing it for awhile so I can teach any Kempo or Kenpo complete newbie how to do this and be comfortable in a hour or less. But you'll be workin your butt off. You'll get no less than 300 reps of that one technique in class that day. Usually 425-450...in conjunction with all the other stuff that we do to make sure that your stance and delivery is right. YOU WILL LEARN IT FAST. VERY FAST. And you'll learn it better and sooner than those who don't use similar principles.

Dude, I use fast-track learning in the way I teach all the time. And you're a fair bit off in your maths there. Especially when dealing with martial arts.

If you do this with each technique? Then the SEQUENCES are likewise multifaceted and possess functional versatility. But you gotta train them anyway.

Uh, no. Mainly as there is a difference between the "technique" (individual block, stance, kick, whatever) and a technique (sequence, such as Sword and Hammer). And it just doesn't work that way.

Therefore the argument that learning a technique or a sequence in such a way as to be effective against every range of combat is somehow ineffective...is imho both empirically incorrect and essentially provides a rationale for underpreparing our students.

I don't think you know what "empirically" means there... but to the point, all you're actually doing is creating a false sense of confidence and preparation. There's just too much that doesn't work here, including the simple logistics of training a single technique in that way. It's just not possible.

MMA guys routinely teach their adherents to strike and grapple effectively in the same class. We in TMA have more to consider: weapons, multifights, de-escalation, escape, evade/escape, rescue...etc etc etc. As instructors, we should have already tested our techniques against stiff resistance in every one of these areas of self-defense and more. Therefore we already have techniques that perform in those situations.

Uh, what does the MMA thing have to do with anything? And training a single technique to deal with every possible attack doesn't really have anything to do with training/teaching striking and grappling in a single class... As to the rest, you seem to be going in another odd direction again....

We teach them to our students and have them perform likewise, so they KNOW FROM EXPERIENCE that they can do these techniques. If our students are trained with the proper rigor and diversity of skill set? They'll be quite confident in their ability to defend themselves or others when necessary. They won't underperform on the streets or anywhere else. Because there is more at stake? We in TMA have NO REASON OR JUSTIFICATION for NOT delivering the goods consistently--in all ranges and categories of combat--to our students.

This entire paragraph doesn't really seem to say anything. More at stake? How so? And having heaped mechanical methods doesn't mean that the students will perform properly if needed, nor is anything you've mentioned here geared up for their performance under pressure in a real situation. If anything, it's more geared up so they think that they have the answers (which won't actually be available to them) by loading them up with possibilities, rather than actually addressing skills that would be needed.

Now. Isn't the above a reasonable assertion?

No, not really. Mainly as it doesn't address the actual question in any satisfactory fashion. You've basically just said that you don't know what they're going to need (how they're going to be attacked), or when they'll need it (when they'll be attacked), so you try to make sure that everything can be used in every possibility. Uh, already got that from you. Doesn't mean that you're on the right path.​

 

[Chris Parker]

This is a pretty classy post, so allow me to help you out in several areas:

This'll be fun...

1. Scientists and others can have sharp differences and even have fiery public debates, but still have the respect for one another, no matter how wide and deep the divide may be on matters that they disagree on. That is the case with Doc and I. I have a great deal of respect for what Doc has done, continues to do, and will do...and it's my understanding that the respect is reciprocated.

Except, of course, such scientists don't refer to the opinions of others as "dooficity", imply that they are just trying to insult them, or suggest that they are "brain dead". Perchance you should look to your own behaviour before making such comparisons....

2. As I stated previously...the title of this thread is a riff off of a "tongue in cheek" but legit poke Doc took at me as a result of our disagreement on several topics...the first and most significant of which revolves around The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique Process.

Which it seems you still haven't understood the correction of.

3. If you see the title as disrespectful? I understand. If you see that the material I wrote in the article is beneath what a premier magazine should allow? I understand. and I disagree on both points. The first point regarding disrespect? I already answered but must be undergirded with this fact:

You reached the opinions that you reached on your own. Without fact checking. You read the post that I wrote and you superimposed YOUR OWN meaning to the words. You--on your own--imposed a condescending connotation to what was in reality very sincere respect being paid to Doc. Let me tell you something you may not know: Doc made it possible for many Black people to continue to train in martial arts and get a fair shake. I know this for a fact. I saw it as a child and as a member of the BKF--which Doc co-founded--in the 80's and 90's. There is no way I--or almost any Black martial artist with knowledge of the journey made by people like Doc and my uncle that gave us the chance to REMAIN martial artists--disrespect Doc in the manner that you intimate I would, did, or might. However, enormous respect doesn't in any way cultivate blind obedience and acceptance. Doc and I quarrel and disagree occassionally...but only on nonpersonal issues.

Therefore:

"Undergirded?" Hmm.

You say people that don't do what you do suck, and don't see how that could be disrespectful? And it really would help if you remembered that tone doesn't really come across with the typed word so easily, because a lot of your comments fit into that "lack of respect" basket.

4. A premium magazine owner would be [ and Bob Hubbard IS ] aware of all of these facts. A premier magazine and owner of said premier magazine would do THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what you encouraged. There would be room for the rational rebel, there would be space made for intelligent iconoclast...especially if said person or persons has proven his/her/their worth over and over again. The positions I take are solid positions, with solid powerful rationale and show an advanced grasp of the material. The questions I ask aren't sugar coated, and I challenge--directly, oftentimes without any sort of apology--positions behaviours techniques paradigms...whatever...that strikes me as sideways. I expect and encourage you to do the same, starting first with yourself, and including me and anyone else.

You can be sure that I will call out anyone...any...one...on anything that I think they're doing sideways. Not as a matter of disrespect, not for self-aggrandizing purposes...never would I or have I done such I thing. I will call out a person...anyone, starting with myself...for the purpose of serious martial growth in every regard.

Ooh, I'd love to tell you the actual comments there.... suffice to say that Bob is happy for there to be content, but the particular content...?

But really... "rational rebel"? "Intelligent iconoclast"? Are you trying to make me spit out my drink? "Proven worth"? Ha, I guess you are! No, your comments do not show an advanced grasp of anything. You have some physical skills and natural attributes that help you there, but you have come up sadly lacking in the most basic of concepts when questioned. You have one set of values, and as a result miss everything else. As for the rest? Well, there goes the rest of my drink!

5. Seriously...what is wrong with having a single sequence like, say...ALTERNATING MACES...and delving into it in a serious way? Who said that we can't have subholds, locks, displacements, etc. in it? Who said that we can't use other blocks, parries, slips, weapons inclusive of firearms, when we do our ALTERNATING MACES? What are the advantages of having an ALTERNATING MACE that can defeat choke holds, punches, kicks, the clinch, takedown attempts, multifights etc...as opposed to the 2 handed push it's supposed to defeat? What's wrong with seeing if the ALTERNATING MACES in its most popular form actually does what it purports to do by testing it out combatively? By comparing in contrasting?

Answer: NOTHING.

But who's doing such a thing?

Answer: NOBODY...except your friendly neighborhood two fisted MartialTalk and KenpoTalk renegade...THE ATACX GYM.

Oh dear lord... Delving into a technique in a serious way is great. Adding other elements can be fine, too, provided that the basic concepts are followed. Testing techniques and application is great as well... but the way you're doing it doesn't actually follow the ideas of the techniques themselves in a number of cases. And that's where it starts to come unglued.

Here's the most popular form of ALTERNATING MACES:

[video=youtube_share;NddxZVayVso]http://youtu.be/NddxZVayVso[/video]


Here is MY ALTERNATING MACES:

[video=youtube_share;ZRmBV8LU3ng]http://youtu.be/ZRmBV8LU3ng[/video]

Note the questions I ask and the immediate real world improvements that I add...and note that uke ISN'T POSING FOR ME.

Oh good, more videos....

Well, there are a few issues here as well, honestly. Firstly, can you consider filming these things indoors, if you're going to insist on putting them up? With the plane flying overhead, it's impossible to hear what you're saying. As to the rest, there's a few things that aren't really that good, but at least you've kept with the actual technique this time....

Have you ever used your ALTERNATING MACES vs the MUAY THAI CLINCH or basic head clinch? No? Have you ever applied a rear naked choke with your ALTERNATING MACES? No? Have you ever used your Alternating Maces with weapons? No? Why not?

[video=youtube_share;j18151f6tmo]http://youtu.be/j18151f6tmo[/video]

Ah, now that's more like your kinda stuff... barely related to the actual technique. As far as "why not", I'd suggest because there are better techniques that are better suited to such situations. Trying to fit a square peg into a round hole when you have six round pegs to choose from instead just doesn't make any sense.

Additionally, there is no way you would be mistaken for Steven Seagal (or as doing Aikido) by anyone who has half a clue about it. And as to your comments about jujutsu (saying that you, meaning Kempo practitioners, have "access to the entire arsenal, the entire lineage of all disciplines, all disciplines relating to jujitsu (sic), we just have the striking elements that they don't"), dude, you are so way off base that it's almost embarrassing. You do not, emphatically, have "access to all disciplines" of Jujutsu, that's just a blatantly insane thing to state. And as far as "we just have the striking elements that they dont"? I really don't think you have any idea of what the term "jujutsu" incorporates, or can be used to refer to. I'll put it this way, in my system there are some half dozen or more jujutsu systems, and some are almost all grappling, others are primarily striking, others have large weaponry contingents, and so on. If you wanted credibility on your claims of such diverse training history, you just blew it with 5 seconds worth of video.

But I gotta say, Ras, your uke is posing for you....

We KNOW why you haven't. The answer is because most instructors have been taught an inflexible paradigm for ALTERNATING MACES. It MUST BE THUS AND SO...DONE THIS WAY ONLY...AND NEVER ANYTHING DIFFERENT. The problem with that kind of thinking is that...it's NOT thinking. It's indoctrination, and flies in the face of the most basic street reality.

You CAN enter the ALTERNATING MACES any which way you want to, and still be highly effective, thank you very much. If, that is, your instructor has a sufficiently functional training paradigm to rear you in:

[video=youtube_share;0I8JNJG3d84]http://youtu.be/0I8JNJG3d84[/video]

Training a technique against pads is great, as well, but most of the rest of what you're doing isn't that impressive, honestly.

A quality, premium magazine recognizes ALL THESE THINGS...and allows the voice of the person unflinchingly espousing these common sense, meaty, empirical, functional, unapologetically realistic and highly versatile, very very very helpful approaches to be heard. Because a quality premium magazine with a quality owner recognizes and appreciates the distinction between someone denigrating an art and seeking to inflate his/her profile...and someone loving a martial art so much that he's willing to ask the tough questions, make the tough statements, take the unpopular stances...to prove and push the point of functional training that can will does and is 100% proven to save lives, increase martial quality, and all other things which we hold near and dear.

Dude, get over yourself. You are not giving anything common sense, you're engaging in a petty debate after being schooled. You're not presenting anything "meaty", it's all rather basic, honestly, and pretty flawed in a number of cases. Empirical? Seriously, I don't think you understand what that means.... Functional? Not in a lot of cases. Unapologetically realistic? Nope. Highly versatile? Gonna disagree there as well. Very very very helpful approaches? Not a chance.

Egotistical, self-aggrandizing, arrogant? Yep. Ignorant of the realities? Sure. A loudmouth braggart whose claims outreach their displayed knowledge? Damn straight. And you don't really ask any "tough" questions, you just tell everyone else they're doing it wrong.

That's what I've done.

No, you haven't.

You conflate challenging a dysfunctional training method and advocating its replacement with a functional model that meets the challenges of today's streets and society and saves lives with what amounts to me basically having a gigantic ego-gasm in public. I am certain that others feel this way, too. But...in addition to the foregoing, consider the following:

Right....

How strange would it be of me to ask the hard questions I have asked, to press and push upon the dysfunction in the extant most popular version of Kenpo and Kempo's self defense sequences...and then turn around and NOT show that I haven't directly addressed these matters myself? Would I not look more than a little odd if I sent out into the martial universe a clarion, demanding call to Functional Action and didn't show that I had the conviction of my own words by putting forth my techniques and sequences as an example of what I mean? Would that not be a mite...hypocritical of me? I would think so or at least I could see the validity of those charges being levelled at me. So I've stepped up and put myself out there; I showed myself on video doing what I said I would and could do. As you know by now, the internet can be an especially harsh place...as keyboard grandmasters can fillet whomever they please behind the vaunted protection of their screen name. But I step up to them anyway with full confidence that the evidence of my skill and technique will be sufficient to silence rational doubters and the questions that I ask can are and will be seen by serious martial artists as a call to action...a challenge to energize and functionalize, improve refine expand...the quality of our thinking, our training, and the results that we get.

What "hard questions" do you think you've asked?

But I get that you think you have all the answers. Thing is, I don't think you understood enough to ask the questions in the first place. I think you skipped a number of steps, essential steps, first.

Bottom line:why am I the only guy who does his SWORD AND HAMMER on the ground? Why am I the only guy who's SWORD AND HAMMER can and does not only set up throws but stops chokes? Sir...you shouldn't be saying anything like: " All the videos posted in the article just come off in my opinion of why you think your methods are superior over other's methods..." No, sir. I humbly submit that you SHOULD be asking:

"WHY DOESN'T MY SWORD AND HAMMER AND [ INSERT TECHNIQUE ] DO THE SAME THING THAT ATACX GYM'S SWORD AND HAMMER DOES?"

You want every Kempo student to go into their class, walk up to their instructor, and ask why they aren't doing things your way, and that's not you coming on here having an "ego-gasm"? In fact, you submit that idea "humbly"? Dude, I don't think you know what humility is....

And the answer is: with all due respect, sir...your [ and I mean the general term "your/you" when I say this, not any specific person but a whole general category of "you's" ] training paradigm sucks. That's why you need to ask WHAT IF? Not so you can be LIKE Ras and his ATACX GYM. No, sir. You need to ask WHAT IF so your training and practice of [ whatever martial art you study ] GETS BETTER.

One more time, get over yourself. You do not have the answers. Your videos are evidence of that, and your posts back it up.

I appreciate the tone and quality of post that you made, sir, but you and everyone who agrees with you is empirically wrong. I hope you can see that now. I don't care WHOSE functional paradigm you use...JUST MAKE IT FUNCTIONAL. And the more universally functional, the better.

Who says that anyone else isn't being functional, Ras? In fact, who says that they're not being more "functional" than you are? And again, I don't think you get what "empirical" means, the way you keep using it...

6. So in closing? I appreciate your post. You are entitled to your opinions, whatever they may be...and I would be amongst the first to fight for your right to have and express them; however much I may disagree. But now that you have the PROPER CONTEXT for information that you thought you had the relevant data about? I'm sure you can see that there is significant if not overwhelming cause to conclude THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what you initially put forth as being right or at least reasonable...and which others have concurred with you about.

Dude... "So in closing" you're saying thanks, but you're completely wrong, and I won't listen to a thing you're saying? Why am I not surprised....

Thank you sir, for your post. I encourage all other dissenters and supporters to post their thoughts and provide further fuel for thought that will hopefully have the result of improving the quality of our martial training throughout our martial lifespan.

AMANI...PEACE...

....see you on the mat. And you better not suck.

I've put forth a number of thoughts... hmm.

Sandanchris is a quality martial artist whose outstanding accomplishments includes one of the best gathering of Kenpo Masters and Elders...THE KENPO OHANA. He is a shining example of what kenpoists and martial artists can and may be. Thank you for being you, sir.

You're kidding, right? You can't be that transparent, surely.... people disagree with you, and you basically say "you're wrong because you disagree with me", but Chris says a nice thing, and he's a "shining example"? Nothing against Chris, but this is just blatant sucking up, dude.

Sir, the above is a comment that I frequently receive, and my response remains steadfastly the same:

I have NEVER suggested nor believed that Kenpo is flawed in any way shape or form. My issues revolve around DYSFUNCTIONAL TRAINING METHODS. It's the TRAINING that I see being horrifically compromised, diluted, and--frankly--deeply mired in the sucktastic. It's this sucktastic TRAINING which produces over and over again martial artists calling themselves MASTER or GRANDMASTER...who perform techniques like this:

[video=youtube_share;9mkI9IYf8Qo]http://youtu.be/9mkI9IYf8Qo[/video]

The training methods are part of the art, Ras. So if you think that they're flawed, then you think the system is flawed. Unless you think that a martial art is just a collection of mechanical movements... which brings me back to you not really having any depth of understanding. And seriously, anything on "Expert Village" is typically less than stellar...

Now, if the SYSTEM was flawed? There would be nothing I could do to save it other than to wholesale revamp or fix THE SYSTEM. I could not logically assert that THE SYSTEM is flawed and then...DISPLAY MY VARIANT OF THE SYSTEM WHICH WORKS. If the system is fatally compromised? Then whatever fix I applied to it results in something that is other than the fatally compromised system.

But here's the thing. What you're doing IS a completely different system. If you can't see that, honestly, that's your limitation.

KENPO IS NOT COMPROMISED. KENPO DOESN'T NEED TO BE SAVED. TO MY KNOWLEDGE? NO GENUINE MARTIAL ART NEEDS SAVING AND NO GENUINE MARTIAL ART HAS A SYSTEM THAT IS COMPROMISED.

Oh, I can think of a number of examples....

And sir? The Functional Versatility that I display IS quite literally, to use your words:"...where im going with what i have." That's why I displayed it. Wouldn't it be very strange of me to so forthrightly belabor dysfunctional technique without offering my example of what I consider to be functional of me? Couldn't I be accused of just grandstanding? My posts could be accused of being 'sound and fury, signifying nothing'.

And you think that you're not being thought of that way now? Hmm....

However, I physically demonstrate what I mean and we can compare and contrast quite powerfully. I am certain that such empirical comparison and contrasting provides the literal empirical evidence that torpedoes arguments revolving around self-aggrandizement or some fantastical position stating anything like a LESS universally functional variant of [ whatever technique ] is somehow or other more desirable than a MORE universally functional variant of [ whatever technique ].

When confronted with criticisms of your videos, you refuse to listen, so comparing and contrasting isn't really present. Additionally, contrasting with other videos doesn't work when pointing out issues with your videos, it's more of a case of pointing it out in the video itself. Next, "literally" refers to written words, not moving video, so no, not "literally" anything. And it's not empirical either, it's highly subjective, so yet another case of you getting that word wrong. As far as "torpedoing arguments", I have yet to see anything you've put down actually do anything like that.

In other words, no.

Put bluntly? If you're a Yellow Belt who just learned Sword and Hammer? You're toast if you're caught in a chokehold.

Unless you train with somebody who thinks like me.

[video=youtube_share;vaNGwgrMSBM]http://youtu.be/vaNGwgrMSBM[/video]

And we're back here, are we? What on earth makes that 'technique' Sword and Hammer? The attack is flawed, your interpretation is way off, your sarcasm is completely off base, you don't understand most of the action or the way things work, and more. Seriously, this is basically you screaming "I don't get it!".

Seriously. If somebody grabbed you in a headlock like THIS:

[video=youtube_share;FpT7r1kzkn4]http://youtu.be/FpT7r1kzkn4[/video]

or THIS:

[video=youtube_share;FBOfNHEtUCk]http://youtu.be/FBOfNHEtUCk[/video]

or THIS:

[video=youtube_share;YbbxPn81ioc]http://youtu.be/YbbxPn81ioc[/video]

Which technique sequence would you rather have as your GO TO move? The more "traditional" dysfunctional IP variant:

[video=youtube_share;WVmsVlz5pt8]http://youtu.be/WVmsVlz5pt8[/video]


Or a version that really works against real attacks and real resistance:

[video=youtube_share;hPkcflmZLmI]http://youtu.be/hPkcflmZLmI[/video]

So you're not suggesting Sword and Hammer then? Because frankly, I wouldn't go to Sword and Hammer for such an attack at all... I have a technique called Suito for such attacks (as well as others).

But to answer your question, I'd rather (as an instructor) teach the first version (the Casa de Kempo one), as it's geared to teach the essential principles, tactics, and strategies that can be adapted in the way you show. I'm not going to give such variation and adaptation as "base versions" to students, as they won't be able to pull it off.

The choice should be clear. And the difference between my version which actually works far more reliably in real life and that other stuff which basically sucks and is less reliable is...you guessed it...FUNCTIONAL TRAINING.

No, the difference is that you're looking at what you think is a practical application, whereas the Casa de Kempo version is the teaching version. And to instill the lessons (functionally), go to the "teaching" version. I'd expect more experienced practitioners to be able to adapt in such a way as your video, but that's not how it'd be taught. It'd be like teaching advanced defensive driving to someone who doesn't even have a learner's permit yet. You saying it sucks just tells me that you don't understand the teaching methods (well, I already knew you didn't get that side of things....).

The TECHNIQUES aren't the problem. THE TRAINING PARADIGM IS.

I really, really don't think you get the context of that word.

I'm just calling it how I see it, with no excuses, no sugar coating, no ulterior motive. I'm calling it like I call it because there's huuuge reason to call it that way, and the benefits we derived from whatever our martial art is would improve dramatically if we as a group collectively functionalized our training. Also? There wouldnt be reams of people out there with hugely false confidence in their ability to defend themselves, only to find that they've been duped after they're sporting that shiner from the bully, find themselves choked out or raped by that mugger, or head locked and beat up by some jerk or some thug.

I really don't think you get how far off you are, though. On both sides of your argument (the more "standard" methods, as well as your own).

aaaannnd I already answered your false contentions several times before you even posted, Dirty Dog. Perhaps you should scour posts more comprehensively before you make some of your assertions.

Nah, I'd be with Dirty Dog there... the systems you claim rank in include sporting systems. Hell, you claim a dan grade in Judo (again, from the Kodokan?), where the primary system of ranking is based in part on your competition results. So, if you have such a high degree of grades and experience in these sporting systems (5th Dan in TKD? Black belt in Judo?), where is some competitive trophy to demonstrate that?

Oh yeah...having a championship belt does not necessarily make you a champion. I know guys with champ belts who are solid fighters but if the shtf I'd call upon my 61 year old uncle and Grandmaster faster than them. Cuz these guys are really good at winning belts, and that CAN get you home safe. I respect that alot. My uncle is really good at MAKING SURE you get home safe.

He taught me to MAKE SURE I get home safe, too.

Honestly, that says absolutely nothing to us. Being a champion doesn't make you a champion? What?

I recall our conversations, Josh. Allow me to put the quote you have above in its proper context:

"5. Seriously...what is wrong with having a single sequence like, say...ALTERNATING MACES...and delving into it in a serious way? Who said that we can't have subholds, locks, displacements, etc. in it? Who said that we can't use other blocks, parries, slips, weapons inclusive of firearms, when we do our ALTERNATING MACES? What are the advantages of having an ALTERNATING MACE that can defeat choke holds, punches, kicks, the clinch, takedown attempts, multifights etc...as opposed to the 2 handed push it's supposed to defeat? What's wrong with seeing if the ALTERNATING MACES in its most popular form actually does what it purports to do by testing it out combatively? By comparing in contrasting?

Answer: NOTHING.

But who's doing such a thing?

Answer: NOBODY...except your friendly neighborhood two fisted MartialTalk and KenpoTalk renegade...THE ATACX GYM."

That doesn't change Josh's post, Ras.

This means that I'm the only one who--from jumpstreet--trains my whole sequences to be multifaceted and performed on the ground, with weapons, etc etc exactly as shown. As I have stated numerous times, we refine from there...but our base technique and self defense sequences are designed to perform regardless of category or range of primary h2h attack because our base sequences and every technique forming the sequence.

Having gone back and checked with ranking Tracy, SL-4, BKF, and numerous other Kenpo Master rank or higher sensei sifu and coaches...it is my understanding that I am indeed the only one who promotes such a training paradigm. There are others who've preceded me who've done something similar; I acknowledged this first in both our discussions and quite awhile ago on KT when I spoke of the hybrid lineage which set me on the path that birthed THE ATACX GYM. However, the specific purpose of crafting multifaceted self defense sequences that serve as is vs any primary LEO or civilian h2h threat is NOT something that anyone who I've spoken to has ever seen of or heard. Nor have I been able to pick up on Google or via street contacts people who do the totality of what I do.

I would actually like to meet them, if you know of them. That would be GREAT, actually. Lol.

Have you considered that that's because everyone else gets that not everything suits each situation? In terms of someone who deals in the "totality" and range of what you do? Hi. Consider yourself introduced.

You should also recall that I usually add the caveat [ and I did in this thread too ] that I'm either the only or one of the very few who do as I do. I made this comment while specifically referring to multifaceted self defense sequences. So if you took exception to that one quote of mine? I hope you are mollified by the existence of several others that more accurately reflect my position and acknowledge that there may be others whom I don't know of who are doing the same.

I think what Josh was getting at was the implication that you are so far beyond everyone else; in other words, the blatant arrogance based on little of value, in addition to your comments about being the only (one of the only) who are so advanced in their training methods....

 

[Chris Parker]

I get this question alot too...and have answered it alot. I bet a smart guy like you, Michael, could answer this question rather expeditiously if you reflected upon it for a few minutes.

When I say technique, I mean a specific technique. Like a front kick or inside block. When I refer to a named scripted offensive and/or defensive, I use the word SEQUENCE. Like ALTERNATING MACES is a SEQUENCE.

Here are 2 of the most gargantuan benefit to having multiple techniques and sequences all multifaceted and multifunctional:

1. Immediately, from the word go, you have techniques and sequences that function vs any attack at any time, instead of having to wait for another lesson or another belt rank to have a HOPE of addressing a particular attack...

2. The techniques and sequences have a comprehensively synergistic effect. You have a million ways to do one thing and a million ways to do a million things.

And for those of you who swear that what I'm saying isn't part and parcel of Kenpo legacy and wasn't used or championed by Mr. Parker himself? Well...wrong you are, my friends:

http://www.kenpokarate.com/

"

50 Ways to Sunday

​

The essentials of Kenpo training are in its techniques. Kenpo Karate, as with Kenpo Jujitsu, has over 700 distinct self-defense techniques, in addition to blocks (originally strikes) and 72 kicks. But it is not just the number of techniques, it's how they are taught that defines Kenpo.About two weeks after my brother Jim and I began training with Ed Parker, Ed started an afternoon class, with Jim and me as his only students. The class never had more than four students at any one time, so it was like having a semi-private lesson each day with Ed. This allowed us to move quickly in the evening class from beginning to intermediate and advanced class.One of the first things I learned was the "What if?" rule. It went like this: Ed would teach a technique and we would practice it. But the technique was always limited. "What if" the attacker grabbed you slightly differently? Or "What if" he grabbed with a different hand? Or what if, whatever. Ed would then show you a variation to the technique with lightening speed and a devastating power that sent you reeling and bruised for a week; and, if you were smart, you never asked "What if?" again. But, if you were really smart, you would get a new student to ask "What if?". You learned that for every technique there are numerous variations which would eventually be taught to cover each variations of the attack. Both Oshita and Chow emphasized that there were many ways and variations to the techniques used to defend against each attack.

At the time (1957-59) many of the Japanese Karate systems had a very limited number of moves, with a right punch being one move, a left punch being a second move, right and left punch being a third move, a block a fourth move, a block and punch a fifth move, a block and two punches a sixth move, and a block with a different hand another move, etc.; and, those styles required each move to be mastered before the next move was taught. Chow, Oshita and Parker all stressed the importance of learning many moves over mastering a single move. Ed Parker was 6' and 195#, Chow was 5'6" and 150# of solid muscle, Oshita was slightly over 5' and weighed about 100# (you never ask a woman Kenpo master her height or weight). What was best for one, was not best for the other, and all three emphasized, what was easy for one student might be difficult for another. One student might have fast hands, another fast feet, another student both and another student, neither; but each student would seek his level of ability.How Kenpo is taught was put best by Oshita who told me another style would make me master one move at a time, one move a week, and in ten years I would have mastered 500 moves. But she would teach me ten, twenty, thirty or more moves a day, and I would not be very good at most of these when a new move was taught, but in a year I would master 1,000 moves. What's more, the moves I would master would not be the same as another student who had been taught the same moves. Each student would master what his mind and body found easiest. It was for this reason that there was no brown belt test at that time. For brown belt you had to know all the moves, but only be a master of most. The instructor would know when a student had progressed from Kyu to Dan, and each student would be different. But more importantly, a move that was difficult, or even impossible for the student when it is first taught, would become easier as he developed his Kenpo skills. When a student had mastered all the techniques, he would then become an Instructor. (Chow had no instructor rank and never used instructor on any of his certificates.)I remember in April 1960, when I was an Ikkyu (1st degree brown belt) I flew to California where I showed Ed Parker what I had learned from both Chow and Oshita, and related some of the insight I had gained in how to practice the different techniques. Ed told me he had learned the same thing from Chow, and had not thought about it in years. He called the training method, "50 Ways to Sunday," meaning that a student would practice each techniques 50 Ways to Sunday - so many different ways that it would become natural.Kenpo teaches that no one defense will work all the time, but the variations are the defense. In addition, as Oshita told me, you can practice a technique a thousand time, and it will only work for one attack; it is better to practice ten variations 100 times, so the mind and body can repeat the same move many different ways. The Way of Kenpo is in training, and one must not deviate from that Way...

Look, I'm going to be blunt. Your entire construct is deeply flawed, and you're misinterpreting what Ed Parker meant. There's a reason that self defence systems (as opposed to martial art systems) go in the opposite direction.

I'm not disparaging Doc's and SL-4's methods either. I think they work. What I'm saying is focused purely upon TRAINING PARADIGMS and the mindset and knowledge base these training paradigms tend to create and cultivate.

What mindset do you think the training of techniques in a structured, consistent, dependable, and repeatable fashion creates? What do you think makes yours better? And how are you defining "paradigm"?

There are two and only two broad categories of training: The functional and dysfunctional. Both of them operate in a continuum. There can be techniques and sequences that are functional but can become more or less so, and there are techniques and sequences that are DYSfunctional, and can become more or less so...depending upon the training paradigm.

Ha, no, there's far more than that, you realize. There's also skill-building, auxillary, developmental, conditioning, and more. And even within functional and dysfunctional, there are different contexts and so on... so what you might not consider functional could be very functional in the context of learning the art, or developing skills for later techniques and methods... and what you consider functional could be very detrimental to the students development at that point in their development.

I further opined:

1. The more functional techniques and sequences are able to resolve successfully more attacks than the less functional techniques and sequences. The epitome of multifunctional techniques and sequences are the techniques and sequences that are trained against and successfully resolve every single category range and kind of attack most common in LEO and civilian h2h combat encounters.

No, not really. A functional technique does what it does well. End of story. If that is to be multifaceted, cool. If not, though, trying to force it to be doesn't make it "more functional", it makes it less-so, as you have missed the point of it.

2. The training paradigm that gave rise to the most popular expression of what most people call THE IDEAL PHASE is dysfunctional and in serious need of functional upgrade

According to you. Although, to be fair, you haven't been able to explain what the core aspects are of the techniques in question either, so I don't know that you have any real ability to say what is needed or not.

3. The resulting functional sequence [ whatever it is ] will not be the same expression that you see in the dysfunctional IDEAL PHASE...because it works

Again, according to you. And again, as you seem to not get most of the actual techniques, I'm hesitant to think you have much real idea of what would be needed or not, or what the result would be.

4. When you have to fight? You have to use the info and skills you have NOW to defeat whatever attack you are facing NOW. That's why having a FUNCTIONAL Delayed Sword [ although comparatively speaking a rare thing in Kenpo circles that I've seen and heard of ] is a good thing. It will resolve successfully the single attack that it's supposed to thwart. Having a UNIVERSALLY FUNCTIONAL Delayed Sword IS BETTER...as it resolves EVERY KIND OF ATTACK that you're likely to face. Remember...the BAD GUY IS NOT REQUIRED TO ATTACK US ONLY WITH THE ATTACKS THAT WE TRAINED TO DEFEAT. It is our responsiblity to impose our skill upon the BG...whatever he does, whatever the situation is. The best way to do that is via a Universally Functional technique and/or sequence.

No. If you can give someone everything they need immediately.... you know, I can't even think of a finish to that sentence, as you just simply can't give someone everything they'd need immediately. Even if you tried, it doesn't work, as it needs time and experience to get it to work. Trying to make something into everything someone would need is desperately flawed, and based in a lack of reality.

5. Whatever lessons you may learn from a dysfunctional or less functional technique or sequence, you'd learn more of them better faster sooner and more permanently with a MORE functional technique or sequence...that works better in fights too.

No, you learn what you need, the principles, the lessons etc from a structured technique designed to impart those specific lessons, rather than random applications of them before they've been learnt properly in the first place.

6. I have never said anyone's Kenpo sucks or that Kenpo sucks or that I'm better than anyone or that everyone has to do what I do or that I'm here to save Kenpo...what I have said in no uncertain terms is that DYSFUNCTIONAL TRAINING PARADIGMS SUCK.

You may want to reconsider the way you say it then... talking about other Kempo training methods as "craptastic", referring to "feeling the Kemponess of the situation" and such comes across as sarcastic and derogatory towards the art and all other practitioners of it.

7. Everyone else either agrees with, misunderstands or disagrees with parts or all of the foregoing.

On the whole, I disagree with you. But I'm sure you got that.

I am not avoiding the question, I answered it directly already. But here's an expansion that might help you out here: having a million ways to do one thing and a million ways to do a million ways makes you a warrior veeeerrrrryyyyy hard to defend against and defeat. If you have 1 or 2 sequences...no matter versatile...at some point? You'll get caught. You're still ADAPTIBLE but you become PREDICTABLE to cagey foes after awhile [ if they survive the initial onslaught or if they've heard of your exploits and what you use to defeat guys ], and PREDICTABILITY limits your chances of success.

Uh, no. Having a million ways to do a million things really isn't something I'd recommend for a self defence form at all. In fact, quite the opposite. And what d'ya know? Pretty much all self defence instructors agree with me...

If you have 154 base sequences each comprised of techniques that are in and of themselves multifaceted? You NEVER become PREDICTABLE. You can FORCE your opponent into a shocked "whut tha holy f---!!!" moment and capitalize upon his/her/their mistake. You never develope a mental complacency from a unbroken string of successes using your "GO TO " sequences.

I have yet to see anything from you that even comes close to being unpredictable, to be frank, but that's kinda beside the point.

In essence? Having these sequences helps you to have an exapansive vocabulary of combat movement. The less expansive your vocabulary? The less conversations you can engage in and comprehend, the less material you can read, etc. etc.

And again, no.

Training the 154 sequences is actually pretty easy. But first...lemme answer your question:

" and since you brought it up, how would you define the Muay Thai way or the Hung Gar way, or the Wing Chun way?"

To me, every martial art is essentially a combination of its philosophy and training paradigm. Use your body in such a way that you beat up the other guy/prevent you and yours from being injured, and develope the character and discipline to be a better more joyful human being in the process. That's pretty much it, imo.

Then you missed a fair bit. But I have to say, I don't see that as actually answering the specific question that you were asked.

Now the [ at first glance ] ponderous EPK system seems difficult to drill, but the truth is? It's NOT hard to do.

[video=youtube_share;0I8JNJG3d84]http://youtu.be/0I8JNJG3d84[/video]

Is there a reason you post the same damn videos over and over again in the same thread? Do you think we missed it the first time round?

I can and do run the whole 154 sequence curriculum with mitt drills alone...and get crazy reps. It's even easier WITHOUT the mitts. Most of our week is dedicated purely to drills, weapons, kata and isolated sparring. It's EASY to do. I can and do drill whole belt ranks with a default technique with mitts alone. Today I did Purple and Blue Belt techs with the default technique being BEGGING HANDS. Easy money.

Easy money? Hmm.

 

[Twin Fist]

read my sig

 

[LawDog]

These posts are some of the longest that I have ever read. Carol I have the butter.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Allow me to summarize for anyone who hasn't read the whole 4000 page thread.
Ras: I'm awesome, you suck, and this is how everybody should do things. And BTW, I'm awesome and you suck.
Chris: Here's where you are wrong: (example after example)...
Ras: No. I'm awesome and you suck and anyone who disagrees with me sucks. And millions agree with me but they only say so in PMs. And anyway, I'm awesome and you suck.

Did I miss any important points?

 

[ATACX GYM]

Allow me to summarize for anyone who hasn't read the whole 4000 page thread.
Ras: I'm awesome, you suck, and this is how everybody should do things. And BTW, I'm awesome and you suck.
Chris: Here's where you are wrong: (example after example)...
Ras: No. I'm awesome and you suck and anyone who disagrees with me sucks. And millions agree with me but they only say so in PMs. And anyway, I'm awesome and you suck.

Did I miss any important points?

Yes, you missed every important point.

 

[jks9199]

Let's drop the daggers, everybody.

Keep to the topic, keep to discussing issues and STOP THE SNIPING AND CHEAP SHOTS.

In other, not so subtle words -- PLAY NICE.

Attention all users:

Please keep the conversation polite and respectful.

jks9199
MT Asst Administrator

 

[ATACX GYM]

This'll be fun...



Except, of course, such scientists don't refer to the opinions of others as "dooficity", imply that they are just trying to insult them, or suggest that they are "brain dead". Perchance you should look to your own behaviour before making such comparisons....



Which it seems you still haven't understood the correction of.



"Undergirded?" Hmm.

You say people that don't do what you do suck, and don't see how that could be disrespectful? And it really would help if you remembered that tone doesn't really come across with the typed word so easily, because a lot of your comments fit into that "lack of respect" basket.



Ooh, I'd love to tell you the actual comments there.... suffice to say that Bob is happy for there to be content, but the particular content...?

But really... "rational rebel"? "Intelligent iconoclast"? Are you trying to make me spit out my drink? "Proven worth"? Ha, I guess you are! No, your comments do not show an advanced grasp of anything. You have some physical skills and natural attributes that help you there, but you have come up sadly lacking in the most basic of concepts when questioned. You have one set of values, and as a result miss everything else. As for the rest? Well, there goes the rest of my drink!



Oh dear lord... Delving into a technique in a serious way is great. Adding other elements can be fine, too, provided that the basic concepts are followed. Testing techniques and application is great as well... but the way you're doing it doesn't actually follow the ideas of the techniques themselves in a number of cases. And that's where it starts to come unglued.



Oh good, more videos....

Well, there are a few issues here as well, honestly. Firstly, can you consider filming these things indoors, if you're going to insist on putting them up? With the plane flying overhead, it's impossible to hear what you're saying. As to the rest, there's a few things that aren't really that good, but at least you've kept with the actual technique this time....



Ah, now that's more like your kinda stuff... barely related to the actual technique. As far as "why not", I'd suggest because there are better techniques that are better suited to such situations. Trying to fit a square peg into a round hole when you have six round pegs to choose from instead just doesn't make any sense.

Additionally, there is no way you would be mistaken for Steven Seagal (or as doing Aikido) by anyone who has half a clue about it. And as to your comments about jujutsu (saying that you, meaning Kempo practitioners, have "access to the entire arsenal, the entire lineage of all disciplines, all disciplines relating to jujitsu (sic), we just have the striking elements that they don't"), dude, you are so way off base that it's almost embarrassing. You do not, emphatically, have "access to all disciplines" of Jujutsu, that's just a blatantly insane thing to state. And as far as "we just have the striking elements that they dont"? I really don't think you have any idea of what the term "jujutsu" incorporates, or can be used to refer to. I'll put it this way, in my system there are some half dozen or more jujutsu systems, and some are almost all grappling, others are primarily striking, others have large weaponry contingents, and so on. If you wanted credibility on your claims of such diverse training history, you just blew it with 5 seconds worth of video.

But I gotta say, Ras, your uke is posing for you....



Training a technique against pads is great, as well, but most of the rest of what you're doing isn't that impressive, honestly.



Dude, get over yourself. You are not giving anything common sense, you're engaging in a petty debate after being schooled. You're not presenting anything "meaty", it's all rather basic, honestly, and pretty flawed in a number of cases. Empirical? Seriously, I don't think you understand what that means.... Functional? Not in a lot of cases. Unapologetically realistic? Nope. Highly versatile? Gonna disagree there as well. Very very very helpful approaches? Not a chance.

Egotistical, self-aggrandizing, arrogant? Yep. Ignorant of the realities? Sure. A loudmouth braggart whose claims outreach their displayed knowledge? Damn straight. And you don't really ask any "tough" questions, you just tell everyone else they're doing it wrong.



No, you haven't.



Right....



What "hard questions" do you think you've asked?

But I get that you think you have all the answers. Thing is, I don't think you understood enough to ask the questions in the first place. I think you skipped a number of steps, essential steps, first.



You want every Kempo student to go into their class, walk up to their instructor, and ask why they aren't doing things your way, and that's not you coming on here having an "ego-gasm"? In fact, you submit that idea "humbly"? Dude, I don't think you know what humility is....



One more time, get over yourself. You do not have the answers. Your videos are evidence of that, and your posts back it up.



Who says that anyone else isn't being functional, Ras? In fact, who says that they're not being more "functional" than you are? And again, I don't think you get what "empirical" means, the way you keep using it...



Dude... "So in closing" you're saying thanks, but you're completely wrong, and I won't listen to a thing you're saying? Why am I not surprised....



I've put forth a number of thoughts... hmm.



You're kidding, right? You can't be that transparent, surely.... people disagree with you, and you basically say "you're wrong because you disagree with me", but Chris says a nice thing, and he's a "shining example"? Nothing against Chris, but this is just blatant sucking up, dude.



The training methods are part of the art, Ras. So if you think that they're flawed, then you think the system is flawed. Unless you think that a martial art is just a collection of mechanical movements... which brings me back to you not really having any depth of understanding. And seriously, anything on "Expert Village" is typically less than stellar...



But here's the thing. What you're doing IS a completely different system. If you can't see that, honestly, that's your limitation.



Oh, I can think of a number of examples....



And you think that you're not being thought of that way now? Hmm....



When confronted with criticisms of your videos, you refuse to listen, so comparing and contrasting isn't really present. Additionally, contrasting with other videos doesn't work when pointing out issues with your videos, it's more of a case of pointing it out in the video itself. Next, "literally" refers to written words, not moving video, so no, not "literally" anything. And it's not empirical either, it's highly subjective, so yet another case of you getting that word wrong. As far as "torpedoing arguments", I have yet to see anything you've put down actually do anything like that.

In other words, no.



And we're back here, are we? What on earth makes that 'technique' Sword and Hammer? The attack is flawed, your interpretation is way off, your sarcasm is completely off base, you don't understand most of the action or the way things work, and more. Seriously, this is basically you screaming "I don't get it!".



So you're not suggesting Sword and Hammer then? Because frankly, I wouldn't go to Sword and Hammer for such an attack at all... I have a technique called Suito for such attacks (as well as others).

But to answer your question, I'd rather (as an instructor) teach the first version (the Casa de Kempo one), as it's geared to teach the essential principles, tactics, and strategies that can be adapted in the way you show. I'm not going to give such variation and adaptation as "base versions" to students, as they won't be able to pull it off.



No, the difference is that you're looking at what you think is a practical application, whereas the Casa de Kempo version is the teaching version. And to instill the lessons (functionally), go to the "teaching" version. I'd expect more experienced practitioners to be able to adapt in such a way as your video, but that's not how it'd be taught. It'd be like teaching advanced defensive driving to someone who doesn't even have a learner's permit yet. You saying it sucks just tells me that you don't understand the teaching methods (well, I already knew you didn't get that side of things....).



I really, really don't think you get the context of that word.



I really don't think you get how far off you are, though. On both sides of your argument (the more "standard" methods, as well as your own).



Nah, I'd be with Dirty Dog there... the systems you claim rank in include sporting systems. Hell, you claim a dan grade in Judo (again, from the Kodokan?), where the primary system of ranking is based in part on your competition results. So, if you have such a high degree of grades and experience in these sporting systems (5th Dan in TKD? Black belt in Judo?), where is some competitive trophy to demonstrate that?



Honestly, that says absolutely nothing to us. Being a champion doesn't make you a champion? What?



That doesn't change Josh's post, Ras.



Have you considered that that's because everyone else gets that not everything suits each situation? In terms of someone who deals in the "totality" and range of what you do? Hi. Consider yourself introduced.



I think what Josh was getting at was the implication that you are so far beyond everyone else; in other words, the blatant arrogance based on little of value, in addition to your comments about being the only (one of the only) who are so advanced in their training methods....

Againt my better judgement, I've decided to engage this line of...reasoning. But let's break this down into more bite-sized chunks so that it's more easily digested by the viewership. Chris Parker. Select one point that you want me to address, and present one question from the post above that you want me to address. I will address it. We will reach a clear understanding of the points that we'll probably perpetually disagree upon...and let's limit ourselves to 5 posts each to explain as clearly as possible our positions, perceptions, mis/understandings, reach an operational conclusion about whatever it is you choose...then move to the next matter in your post above. With the same constraints. This way my threads don't become interminable shrill-fests, but instead feature straight-ahead, sensible, mature adult logic and data. Whaddya say?

 

[ATACX GYM]

Let's drop the daggers, everybody.

Keep to the topic, keep to discussing issues and STOP THE SNIPING AND CHEAP SHOTS.

In other, not so subtle words -- PLAY NICE.

Attention all users:

Please keep the conversation polite and respectful.

jks9199
MT Asst Administrator

Just saw this post. Acknowledged. My apologies for my part in the fracas.

 

[Steve]

Wow... A lot of energy here. Can someone just tell me what's at stake here?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Dirty Dog]

Yes, you missed every important point.

Perhaps, then, you'd like to take just one of the points Chris has raised (your choice) and address it without your post boiling down to "I'm awesome and you suck"? Thanks.

 

[rframe]

This is so ridiculous, it's great entertainment. Please continue.

 

[Twin Fist]

this is the most accurate portrayal of pretty much all of ras's post to date.

Allow me to summarize for anyone who hasn't read the whole 4000 page thread.
Ras: I'm awesome, you suck, and this is how everybody should do things. And BTW, I'm awesome and you suck.
Chris: Here's where you are wrong: (example after example)...
Ras: No. I'm awesome and you suck and anyone who disagrees with me sucks. And millions agree with me but they only say so in PMs. And anyway, I'm awesome and you suck.

Did I miss any important points?

 

[Twin Fist]

dont hold your breath. CAROL, pass that popcorn!!

Perhaps, then, you'd like to take just one of the points Chris has raised (your choice) and address it without your post boiling down to "I'm awesome and you suck"? Thanks.

 

[ATACX GYM]

Perhaps, then, you'd like to take just one of the points Chris has raised (your choice) and address it without your post boiling down to "I'm awesome and you suck"? Thanks.

Your post that I'm quoting above is numbered 72. This post of mine is numbered 69...and made more than an hour before you made the above^^^request.

Againt my better judgement, I've decided to engage this line of...reasoning. But let's break this down into more bite-sized chunks so that it's more easily digested by the viewership. Chris Parker. Select one point that you want me to address, and present one question from the post above that you want me to address. I will address it. We will reach a clear understanding of the points that we'll probably perpetually disagree upon...and let's limit ourselves to 5 posts each to explain as clearly as possible our positions, perceptions, mis/understandings, reach an operational conclusion about whatever it is you choose...then move to the next matter in your post above. With the same constraints. This way my threads don't become interminable shrill-fests, but instead feature straight-ahead, sensible, mature adult logic and data. Whaddya say?

 

[Chris Parker]

Againt my better judgement, I've decided to engage this line of...reasoning. But let's break this down into more bite-sized chunks so that it's more easily digested by the viewership. Chris Parker. Select one point that you want me to address, and present one question from the post above that you want me to address. I will address it. We will reach a clear understanding of the points that we'll probably perpetually disagree upon...and let's limit ourselves to 5 posts each to explain as clearly as possible our positions, perceptions, mis/understandings, reach an operational conclusion about whatever it is you choose...then move to the next matter in your post above. With the same constraints. This way my threads don't become interminable shrill-fests, but instead feature straight-ahead, sensible, mature adult logic and data. Whaddya say?

Okay, one point?

As the majority of your posts seem to be trying to argue things you're not actually being asked about (such as your sudden inclusion of videos of Alternating Maces, a random post showing yet another version of your Sword and Hammer which answered absolutely nothing anyone had said, and so on), let's take it to the crux of the matter.

You know what, though? There really weren't many questions in all my posts there. More pointing out where you'd gone wrong (again). With that in mind, though, I'd ask this:

Why are the IP techniques taught and structured the way they are, if you feel that they are not well designed? Why, for instance, is Sword and Hammer designed the way it is?

Oh, and one other thing... how exactly do you define "paradigm"?

 

[ATACX GYM]

:

Why are the IP techniques taught and structured the way they are, if you feel that they are not well designed? Why, for instance, is Sword and Hammer designed the way it is?

Is this the primary question in the above quote? I asked you to choose ONE QUESTION AT A TIME to ensure clarity and a terminus, a step by step clear process with [ in comparison to our previous question and answer go rounds ] a relatively swift resolution. Is this question I quoted above the first question in your post above that you are asking me?

 

[Chris Parker]

It's the primary question related to the entire root of this thread, yeah. It's implied in everything I wrote.

Or did you want me to pull apart your comments on "the entire lineage of all disciplines relating to jujutsu"?

 

[ATACX GYM]

:

Why are the IP techniques taught and structured the way they are, if you feel that they are not well designed? Why, for instance, is Sword and Hammer designed the way it is?

Is this the primary question in the above quote? I asked you to choose ONE QUESTION AT A TIME to ensure clarity and a terminus, a step by step clear process with [ in comparison to our previous question and answer go rounds ] a relatively swift resolution. Is this question I quoted above the first question in your post above that you are asking me?

It's the primary question related to the entire root of this thread, yeah. It's implied in everything I wrote.

Or did you want me to pull apart your comments on "the entire lineage of all disciplines relating to jujutsu"?

Is that a YES to my question put to you above?