Ted Sumner (Premier Login sjkenpo) Forum Owner from IP address 68.165.3.68
There is an excellent article in the September issue of "Black Belt Magazine" titled "Grounded in Reality" by Bakari Akil II, Ph.D. The article is the synopsis of, what I believe is, the first scientific study to test the widely professed postulate that "90 to 95% of all fights go to the ground".
The study examines 300 violent physical encounters involving 600 combatants. And while in no wise definitive, some of the interesting facts that the study revealed are:
1. Both fighters ended up on the ground only 42% of the time.
2. One fighter ended up on the ground 72% of the time.
3. The first person to hit the ground lost the encounter 59% of the time.
4. There is no discernable victor 33% of the time.
This was an exploratory study and more research is required to provide conclusive data, however, the initial findings are clearly indicative...stay on your feet.
Ted Good find and one I can go along with to the max.
I can recall as if it was yesterday fighting a big man who wished me harm it appeared. I was in uniform, clearly there to "protect and serve" as they say, and what a fight ensued... Mamma mia. Not being a small person I was at first going to try hand to hand and cuff him in a normal routine. It got ugly fast, I pushed of from him causing him to lose some balance and I struck numerous times with my Baton, "second growth hickory" and a wicked tool...
I hurt him and he gave up and was cuffed by another, as I then stood over him revolver in hand...with my baton in the other hand still touching him gently on the back of the neck Hmmmmmm
When it came to trial pre-lim actually, I had to testify and as things go I was called a liar and a brutal "cop". etc. etc...When it came time to wrap it up we had come back from lunch and I had been talking to the prosecutor and explained more about what had been raised by the defense.
He was a big guy and I thumped him hard, luckly that worked. I told the deputy DA it was sort of funny because the guy was very lucky I am not the kind who is looking for notches on my revolver. So we get back in and I tell about how I was about ready to use some lead on him (and not a "sap") with a few well placed shots. Back then much or what we carried was not copper coated... Your discretion..38's what a joke... I liked the lead spread better on contact.
He pointed out what I have said, many times. (question and answers) I am an expert with firearms and it pretty forgone conclusion what I aim at, I hit... He was held over and copped to what I am not sure, went from a 415 pc misd ended up booking 69 pc felony assault on PO, and that was when that section was hardly used. Probably copped to 242, time served probation for 3-5 years...
I never felt bad about those copping out back then, now I don't think it is a good thing, jail is a better location for them and off the street when they return to civilian life, they go back sometimes, sometimes not...Better for the man that night than ending up with a tag on his toe...I pointed that out to his defense. PD by the way.
Violence by him, like he was only going to do it again, it was a family dispute in the first place, all about violence. As we know more today, more police killed in that encounter and traffic accidents... Hmmm Baton is your seat belt, always have it on.
About time somebody did a study (even a minimal one) to try to aquire a somewhat realisitics fight-goes-to-ground statistic. Here, here, and bravo! The BJJ one always cracked me up, but everybody always got sucked right into believing it. I started out in grappling & have street-experience (unfortunately), so I couldn't believe how easily people got sucked-in. I guess it's due to lack of actual life-experience. Anyway . . . bravo.
I need to go find this, I am assuming its the newest issue and I dont have it yet.
I have always disagreed with the large percentages grapplers have stated in regards to fights going to the ground. Before I even started martial arts I was pretty wild, and ran with a wild group of people, I can only remember personally going to the ground three times, and friends of mine rarely going to the ground as well, none of us with any practical training, and that covered hundreds of fights.
I am curious if the article lists the particulars behind who they polled for the fights, what experience those people had or dont have, how many fights each combatant has had, and other details. I strongly believe that more experienced fighters will go the ground much less the the 42% listed, and I would imagine a large portion of the ones who went to the ground were unskilled. I am kind of surprised the first person to the ground only lost 59% of the time.
Thanks for the heads up on the study. This has been something I have been more then interested in for a long time, and have long disagreed with the comments that seem to be the norm. I hope if those questions are not answered that I might be able to get in touch with the author to personally ask him.
Good stuff.
Ted Sumner (Premier Login sjkenpo) Forum Owner 68.165.3.68
Re: Interesting
July 19 2008, 5:01 PM
This was an exploratory study. Rather than spend years looking for fights to watch, the researchers went to YouTube and studied 300 fights posted there. They did not research the training, skill levels or levels of intoxication of the combatants. There were some other interesting statistic that they did compile but I will leave it to the interested to purchase a copy of the magazine if they wish to examine that data.
So let's look at an interesting part of the numbers:
No discernible victor 33% of the time. This means in 67% of the confrontations there was a discernable victor.
The first person to hit the ground lost the encounter 59% of the time.
This results in the following: Only 8% (67%-59%) of the time was the person who hit the ground first able to successfully defend themselves. This number is actually 12% reversal rate (8%/67%) since the data only considers fights with a definitive outcome.
Conclusion:
Being forcibly put on the ground pretty much means your in a lot of trouble.
Some comments:
1) Being knocked to the ground by strikes is a bad thing.
2) Being taken down to the ground by wrestling is a bad thing.
3) The study does not make it clear if the majority of the combatants were knocked down by strikes or taken down by grappling/wrestling.
4) Try to refrain from throwing BJJ for grappling in all the time. BJJ does not have the best takedowns. Wrestlers and Judoka have many ways to put you on the ground with amplitude and control your movement when you get there.
5) If you find yourself in situations (1) or (2) it implies you opponent is much better than you since he's already established he has the ability to dominate the fight, or he has been very lucky. If it is the former you're in a lot of trouble.
6) I don't see how this discounts the importance of ground fighting/grappling. If I have a 12% chance of winning from the bottom, I think I should take every chance to make sure I put the other guy down first. I would think takedowns would have as much value as striking. It appears most of the comments have been to the contrary, with the posters seeming to infer from the data vindication of a bias against takedowns/grappling.
1. Indicates that 85-90% of all fights end up on the ground is not true.
2. Indicates that ending up on the ground based on something that your opponent has done to you (either striking or throwing you) is bad.
You are right, I don't think there is an indication either way to the pros and cons of ground fighting, per se.
What I see is that training in BJJ may improve your odds if you find yourself on the ground, however, if you can dominate the fight while on your feet, and effectively throw your opponent at will, then your chance of being the victor are vastly improved.
Based solely on this thread, it seems that my kenpo should focus first on dominating a fight with another striker, followed very closely by working on my ability to throw and simultaneously work defenses against the entries that people who throw will try and take, and third, the ground game.
No matter how good my ground game is, if I am thrown in the street, and that one stray little piece of gravel is where my kidney lands, the fight will be over before I can get enough control of myself to even try to defend.
If memory serves, this is the order of importance that Mitose placed the martial arts...striking, punching, and kicking, followed by throwing, followed by grappling. This study would seem to agree.
i can tell you first hand grappling/throwing arts are a must....
July 20 2008, 4:49 PM
in all situations....being a die hard striker from day one, thanks to my kenpo training, we were always taught that going to the ground is bad....and it is mind you in certain situations....but because of that mentality once we get there we have a tendency to lock up if we cannot return to our feet quickly. This lock-up time is the most critical in situations...especially a fight situation...this is the survive or die window.
Since i have been training in BJJ and Judo full time for a few monthes now, coupled with my kenpo and shootfighting training the throwing and grappling arts have made my striking much more precise. They also have given me certain footwork and angle manipulation I wouldn't have otherwise been able see and execute if i remained in the false sense of security provided to a "strikers only" mentality. Luckily....since kenpo has such a fierce dichotomy of technical standing joint manipulations within our technique system, and now that i have gotten the basics of these new arts down, I feel that all of us should be training in the grappling and throwing arts.....it keeps...well at least for me anyway...my strikes tighter...more precise...but allows me that small window of "not locking up" once I hit the ground and am not afforded the ability to stand quickly....if any of that makes any sense.
I absolutely agree with your post about the "locking up" problem.
I have observed that people who focus solely on striking tend to be a deer in headlights when they're going down. They also tend to panic if the person taking them down is significantly bigger than they are. And once they're on the ground, they tend to just hang on like a vise when they should be moving their hips to escape.
On the flip side, people who focus solely on grappling tend to do the same sort of things when faced with punches and kicks.
We react with what we train. If you didn't train for it, what will you react with?
Being slammed to the ground is definitely not a positive. But avoiding ground training is definitely not the answer. I don't think we need any statistics to help us figure that out.
I don't think that the statistics that Ted posted indicate that going to the ground is bad. I think they indicate that being put on the ground is bad.
I agree about locking up. I've seen it, and I've done it. But if you are thrown correctly and decisively, or hit hard enough to land on the ground, it will be a few seconds (at least) before anything is available to you, such as breathing, coming to your senses, trying to get back up, or grappling. An aggressive fighter who knows what he is doing will beat the tar out of you while you are in that transitory stun period.
It is not that being on the ground is bad, it seems to be based more on how and why you got there.
Thats a well thought out post and I can agree with alot of it.
I would say that the study is pretty much an interesting study, but not one that I would put much stock into based on where the info came from and the lack of any other information about the combatants.
I will say that if the information is completely accurate is does go a ways to showing that Grappling arts are not the end all be all as the previous comments about 90-95%of all fights going to the ground have in the past been used to indicate.
I would say that even with the lesser percentages, it still shows that training against grapplers, or grappling specifically is still a good idea.
I also think that for those that have limited time to spend training, that it leads to the justification of not taking only a grappling style art with limited time.
Personally when it comes to unarmed combat versus an unarmed opponent that at some point Grappling needs to be taught. Actually all ranges...outside of range, striking range, clinch range, takedown range, and grappling range. I still want to see a more detail oriented study done over a larger range of fights though. I would love to see some actual hard numbers.
Maybe you should go out and compile. Another board is talking about that very thing, about people who have done it, and been there and not just on the mat. Bouncers, police etc. etc.. The largest org. in "kenpo" is probably Kajukenbo and filled with those who do a lot of that for a living, so Ted has started it, others are going to continue to do it and not just talk about it.
Mixed martial art is what Kaju does has been that way since it started. I am not saying it is the best most well versed but it is better than some I have seen and compliant hitting and receiving.
John Bishop has a good book on it -Kaju- I recommend it for anyone who is truly interesed in its history.
You mentioned your history, I would think that is a good place to start. Kick boxing is about staying up on your feet. Then came the BJJ of laying on the mat for a half hour of action at a time reminds me of a Boa, fine if you are alone and have the time and no one else enters...I know it has morphed to a different art and if one finds someone who teachs the all around, that is good.
Watch the riots and you notice the one who stays up does not go down gets away to fight another day.
Staying up is important in life and death strugggle, every day in the street...So more is needed for sure...Good Job of reporting Ted.
I would recommend all to work on the staying up side and getting up if down. I am not one who likes to roll on the mat anymore and wrestle and end up with the cali ear, it happens in boxing also, if you spar, wearing head gear is good... I personally would not spend the money or time on a full fledged MMA that was not "JUJUTSU" or the wests idea of it in something like Cambo/Sambo... My humble opinion...
(The word Cambo(Sambo) is an acronym of САМозащита Без Оружия (SAMozashchita Bez Oruzhiya) meaning "self-defense without a weapon" in Russian. Sambo has its roots in Japanese judo and traditional folk styles of wrestling such as Armenian Koch, Georgian Chidaoba, Moldovan Trîntǎ, Uzbek Kurash, Mongolian Khapsagay and Azerbaijani Gulesh)
The Gracies were the first to start with the 90% of all fights end on the ground. They actually based their stats on LAPD statistics were multiple officers were putting subjects down to handcuff them. VERY different than what the public was lead to believe.
I used to work for a consulting firm that did studies and published statistics. The most important thing I learned from that job is that there is no such thing as an un-cooked-up statistic. What people don't ever read about is that there are hundreds or even thousands of wild-card factors that are necessarily thrown out of the study.
If I did a study that resulted in a statistic like "2% of all fights go to the ground". I might have thrown out: male versus female, kid versus grown up, drunk versus sober, weapon versus weaponless, icy footing, muddy or oily footing, 10 against 1, trained versus untrained, killer versus loudmouth, wrestler versus tae kwon do, BJJ sporting matches, etc. etc. etc. If I leave all those things in the study, I won't end up with a clear statistical percentage at all. If you want a statistic, you have to dramatically narrow down the scenario.
I think statistics are a cute little tool to help you plan the near future in a closed environment. But when your health or safety are on the line, statistics are useless.
the movie "The Happening" gives a remarkable illustration of the worthless nature of statistics.
didn't mean to post anonymous - april
This message has been edited by msaprilr from IP address 67.166.246.64 on Jul 21, 2008 12:10 PM
I was talking to a fellow LEO last week. He had just returned from a 40 hour training course conducted for LEOs by one of the Gracies. He was quite enthusiastic about it.
We were riding motorcycles so I did not get a chance to compare notes with him.
The PPCT GAGE (ground avoidance/ground escape) course (that I completed) teaches a fighting philosophy identical to original kenpo, i.e. don't be taken to the ground if possible (ground avoidance drills) and then get back to your feet as quickly as possible (ground escape drills).
I have to assume that the Gracies modified their stuff to take into consideration the equipment that officers wear (which hinders freedom of movement on the ground, etc)
My students learn the importance of 'rebounding fron the ground' and 'defense from All positions' starting at yellow belt; because bottom-line, MURPHY is a fickle 'ucker.
I teach tactical stand ups after all of all ground techniques, e.g. Bowing to Buddha, Kneeling Tiger, etc. A technique is not over until you regain your upright position.
There are certainly many techniques in the Parker / Tracy’s lineage that deal with ground techniques primarily getting to a point from the ground to an up and escape more so than the large percentage of other systems. One of the interesting concepts that has been shown to me was during the throwing and if you are going down, to grapple to an advantage point as the falling of the opponent and yourself occurs. The natural instinct is paying all your attention to the falling then after the fall the engaging. This concept was engaging during the falling and try to position oneself so that the opponent’s body is not on yours due to the fact that it is very difficult to take care of the fall if you are engaging in movements to take advantage of that momentary inattentiveness plus the weight of the opponents body may be a compromising situation. Yes, I was very unpleasantly surprised when this first happened. I guess this is the difference between sport and self defense.
As someone that uses statictical analysis in my profession, I would caution anyone against making conclusions based on this article. I am sure Dr. Bakari would be the first to admit that this is not by any measure a scientific study.
To start, a sample size of 300 is insufficient. Based on all physical conferentations that happen in just the U.S., you would need a sampling more on the order of 30,000 in order to draw any conclusions based on the data.
As metioned by "Anonymous" there are innumerous control factors that can effect the outcome of these fights. These cannot be documented or even identifed by watching youtube.
The statements made by "Joe" regarding the addition and subtraction of statistical percentages is mathematically unsound.
Don't misunderstand me. I am not saying anything in this article is incorrect. Only that you cannot draw any conclutions about what is likely, or for that matter unlikely, to happen in a fight based on this study.
The only purpose of statistical analysis is to gain knowledge that helps to predict what is likely to happen in the future given similar circumstances. Think for a moment about the types of people and situations in fights you see posted on youtube. If you think you are one of these people this study might be of value.
If the scenario is that bad it is time to use your second gun, because more than likly you have hands on your first. 2nd should be easily gotten to by either hand, but usually the left is where it is important. Why shooting with both hands is not always best to practice, one handed and two handed either side and often. Knives are very handy also, as more than one on you.
True . . . so what do you think about the validity of the '90%(+) of fights go to the ground' stat touted by the B.J-J guys? Ofcourse, the inference is that these fights go to the ground, as 'ground-fights'.
I have only been involved in one altercation in my adult life. My attacker did go to the ground, I did not, and as soon as he was down I took the opportunity to exit the situation. I have witnessed first hand maybe 5 or 6 other real street fights. In none of these did anyone go to the ground, in most cases a couple of guys got too intoxicated at a party and threw maybe 3 or 4 swings before someone pulled them apart. I'm just not the kind of guy that hangs around places where things like that happen often, so my personal knowledge of this is limited. What I do believe is the old boy scout moto, be prepared. Everything I know is an advantage. The more I know the more advantages I have. And you will fight the way you train. So yes I do consider ground fighting in my training, however it is not BJJ, more like Kenpo in a prone position. My instructor, when asked does cover how to adapt kenpo on the ground, and when you stop to think about it it is not much different than standing.
Please explain how addition and subtraction of small sample size data is mathematically unsound, particularly considering how the data has been presented.
What method would you suggest for drawing some manner of conclusions from the data presented? Or is your point that the whole study is worthless and there is nothing to be gained by discussing it.
Also, what line of work are you in in which you do statistics for a living?
Not statistically significant. It's basic statistical analysis. N (group size) has to be large enough for the standard deviation derived to be less than a certain percentage of that group thus making the results statistically significant.
Craig - I appreciate your honest reply and I agree with you about most statistics presented from the media are from sample sizes too small to draw conclusions from.
I was not trying to discount the study or draw any major conclusions from it, although I doubt it gives much insight. What I was trying to do was illustrate how the initial comments seemed to seize on the study's results as validation of the unimportance of ground fighting, when the numbers presented appeared to tell a different story.
I am quite familiar with standard deviations and sample size.
For the rest of the board, I'll talk a bit about the links supplied in layman's terms to help clarify. If you don't care, stop reading now it'll be boring.
A standard deviation gives us a feel for how much variance to expect when looking at large number of individuals. For example, if some one tells you the average (i.e. mean) income in a country $20000, that gives you no understanding what the variance is. Does that mean pretty much everyone make between $15000 and $25000 or is there a lot of poor people and a few rich ones? What is needed is the "standard deviation", which will tell you how much a value varies. If you are told the mean income is $20000 with a standard deviation of $3000 then that means around 68.27% of the population makes between $17000 and $23000. That gives you a feel for how the wealth is distributed in the country.
What everyone should remember is that a standard deviation is used for values over a continuum; such as weights of individuals in a population, heights, income, etc. It is not used with discrete values that have yes or no answers, such as "did the fight go to the ground".
If we were going to use standard deviations for ground fighting, you would have to have a way to quantify ground fighting as a "value" as opposed to yes/no. One way, would be to take the total time the fight spent on the ground and divide it by the total duration. This ratio would vary from 0 to 1 and fall as a normal (i.e. Gaussian) distribution. Would this tell us anything? Probably not, but it would be a way to use standard deviations when looking at this issue.
Although I am sure this is review for Mr. Niebank since he does this for a living.
We'll see what Mr. Niebank has to say since he made the comment about my post being "mathematically unsound" and appears to have strong opinions due to the nature of his employment, which relates to the reduction of statistics.
if so you have a frame to make that judgement...if not that's kinda hollow statement isn't it? And i agrre 100% about regaining your footing...but a point I am trying to emphatically make is the one that there is an entire strategy to regaining footing in a combat scenario....one that comes directly from BJJ and other grappling arts...one that kenpo doesn't really touch on very well in my humble opinion.
This message has been edited by KenpoKidZ from IP address 74.131.35.58 on Jul 28, 2008 9:00 AM
Yeah I have been on the ground! I respect the ground and I am not a ground creature I become an animal it is not pretty! If I were to stay on the ground I would want to die...to stand is to live. Really Zach I have experienced more than you can imagine...
I have no doubt whatsoever Mr. Simmons. Could you share some of the encounters, while I am a proponent of the benefits of grappling, obviously, I agree %100 that STAYING on the ground when knocked to it in a street fight will get you hurt. When you were knocked down in your confrontations...what were your hinderances as far a getting back up? Did you ever train in specifics as to how you returned to your feet? how were you knocked down? How did you land? I would really be interested in your answers sir.
Once knocked down get up do not get involved With your opponent. That being said, in most of my altercations I fought like a wildcat, bite, eyeshots to regain my footing then stomp the motherf##ker. In most cases I was pulled off the opponent to save their sorry ass! I never allowed myself on the ground it is total bullshit. Unless you are doing sport I DO NOT.
I get the fact that ur a wild tough ombre! there is no denial. Rather than the hyperboly, i suppose, what would you recommend from a technical standpoint from our list of techniques that would be beneficial in situations like these?
How did you get up? Were you stomped? Did you ever slip and fall again? did you breakfall?...etc...etc...
...in the meantime...I'm gonna go bang my head into a wall for a while....or maybe even the ground.
zach
This message has been edited by KenpoKidZ from IP address 74.131.35.58 on Jul 28, 2008 1:45 PM
Fang of the cobra is one technique that works standup against a wall on the ground with the opponent in the saddle. I use fang of the cobra to show people that if you use your kenpo effectivley it will work in any situation.
This argument seems to be spiraling out of control. Its kind of fun to watch. So far I agree with everyone. So i will offer my opinion while i have some free time in between lessons.
Master Simmons i agree with you if all you train in is grappling there will come a time when your grappling will fail you. If all you train in is your kenpo, kenpo will never fail you. BUT there are certain situations and people that may benefit from cross training in an MMA style like shootfighting. I train LEO's all the time I teach them kenpo. I also show them SOME shootfighing so that the can transition from a kenpo technique into a good position to handcuff the suspect. Always after a complete technique and honestly it is not alot of the stuff that you see in sport MMA . I think Sleeper is a good example of a kenpo technique that works perfectly for LEO. Secondly isn't it in the Art of War somewhere that you should know your enemy. I dont teach alot of my students shootfighting but when i get to a technique like "tackle techniques" i show them how to apply it against a well trained MMA fighter. And no i dont teach them to go to the ground. Full nelson is another example of a technique that would be put on by someone who is trained in a grappling style even though its been around forever. I think crossing the mountain is a perfect technique against a boxer or kickboxer. The point i am making is kenpo is a great style and taught properly will work in any situation i think it is the instructors job to prepare the student for any and all situations that might come up in the street .
Zach there have always been some form of sport martial arts since sumo was invented as a way of settling disputes in villages in ancinet japan. The problem is it wont work for everyone. April might disagree but you cant grapple with someone that outweighs you by 50-100 pounds. Also howmany likely postions are you likely to get in on the street . I doubt someone is going to attempt a flying armbar or even a singleleg takedown and be succsessful on the street. But if you are taken to the ground on the street knowing your kenpo as in targets to hit and ways to hit them can save your life shootfighiting can help but mainly from a bridge and roll situation i dont want to tap the guy out i want him off of me . But there will alwyas be those people who want to compete. fine i like to compete to, how many seniors on this bored trained or fought with joe lewis in the old days wasn't that the MMA of the day?
As long as the training meets the personal goals of the student then whatever your teaching them is fine.
I adapted something Mr. Tracy once said about the kosho to describe my opinion but thankyou for the compliment.A better way of saing it might be. You can have the kenpo without the MMA but you can't have the mma without the kenpo.
What it means is that the average kenpo student probably will never do a mma/shootfighting match in their process of learning. No one will walk up to them put a gun to their head and force them to do a sportmatch with rules and make sure they follow the rules. They are much more likley to get attacked on the street then forced to fight in the ring.
As long as the student is taught to do their kenpo for every conceavable attack including being put on the ground . Then their kenpo will never fail them. The STUDENT does not need to train in MMA, but it helps if the instructor has at least a working knowledge of a style like Shootfighting to help the student understand that trained opponents might fight in a diffrent way.
On a side note the average attacker usually has little to no training in the MA. Most people who train (I know there are exceptions I.e. convicts who train in prison) are not the same bad guys on the street. Im not sayin underestimate your opponent, but the only time your likely to face a world champion grappler is in the ring. Ill put money on a good kenpo purpple belt vs a wannabe mma star that doesn't put the time into train and thinks he's a badass because he wears a tapout shirt
Ian
tracyskaratestudios.com
This message has been edited by kenpobarney210 from IP address 70.143.73.237 on Jul 29, 2008 3:07 PM
That meshes very well with what I was taught. I was taught that kenpo is a complete art and that it is not necessary to look elsewhere for the supplementals. We had several students when I was first learning that would study boxing and/or judo and/or TKD "on the side" to make up for training that they perceived as lacking.
Over the years, I have continued to appreciate that philosophy referring to kenpo often as the "Ragu of martial arts" because, as the commercial says, "It's in there."
However, I have discovered that attending seminars will very often reveal, through the perspective of either another kenpo instructor, or from an instructor of a completely different art, an aspect of my kenpo that I had not discovered. Most often, I learn something completely new and earth shattering, and after some careful, obsessive study, "discover" that it was there all along, but I needed that other perspective to reveal it to me. Heck, I have students ask questions from alternate perspectives that occasionally open new areas to study.
I have found, over the years, that no matter the art, no matter the instructor, I will always view it through a kenpo-scope. And if it doesn't mesh with what I know to be kenpo, I will move on. If it does, I go back for more. I have gone to 5 of 7 years at Hanshi Roger Greene's, although I was told before I attended the first event that I would see "very little kenpo." My perspective when I left was that, no matter what it was called, it was all kenpo. And I keep going back for more.
I recall a colleague, a number of years ago, admonishing me because when he watched me spar, he saw "too much kenpo." He thought it was criticism. I took it as a compliment.
I believe that kenpo, if properly taught/trained, offers an effective solution to whatever self defense solution may arise.
Many times I go to a seminar and they look at my age and go "oh well" I'd say hey lets do this or that or how about showing me and I'll be the receiver and try and get me into this blah blah...So many times the key is to be the one they are trying to get the hold on..Why because you know the time to break from it later. I am not there to learn how to roll around on the ground I am there to see what they have and how to counter it.
Same with any thing you are doing with in the scope of fighting it is not about doing the drill it is about, how do you win if the guy pulls this one on you or that one...
Same on the ground get up struggle to get up if they are going for a hold get away from them slam um into something do something they don't expect...Like touching their foot LOL That is a classic and it went over their heads to this day...LOL
When I am done, I know what they know, they don't know what I do..Important for sure. You try and wrestle with me you better know what you are doing and good. I am a petite 240 this morn and if a 140 pound person takes me on well I guess I would be considered a bully, so I'd try to get out of it somehow.
and I'm right there with you, as I am also on the same page with Master Simmons, Mr Barney and Mr Hopper. It would be absolutely ignorant to stay down when knocked there on the street...as it would be to try to wrestle with someone with a severe weight advantage on me coupled with even the most vague knowledge of fighting. My point the entire time I suppose is this one: Train in what you want to be able to defend against. RECOGNITION IN ASSOCIATION.
Attacks on the street, just as with anything else, are changing and evolving, so IMHO we as instructors and martial artists must recognize that fact and ask ourselves how do we confront that evolution. People today are going to attack you much differently than 10,20,30 or 40 years ago thanks to the mass media ADD/ADHD culture bred by the mono-cultural corporate world we know today....information is way to easy to access versus then...ya know?
that is all, While I have been a proponent of the grappling arts as the pinch of salt in our batter....I always understand and know for a fact that without the kenpo eggs, th
