We had a sesson that was closed before, I am posting a video that was on the closed thread. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33mcQivFCZs"]Kajukenbo - Angel GarcÃa - YouTube[/ame] I believe this video shows what will happen if you don't cover and what will happen if you do. The attacker is going to go where the cover is not. IMHO... I believe it is worth watching with the idea that you are looking at someone attacking not defending. So with that in mind what do you think can be done and when does the defender become the attacker? Can you see the attacker being caught and then being the attacked and not just defending? Do you think this would be a proper tech. for a Law Enforcement situation? Where are the proper principles, of defending rather, (attack) then offense? Gary
That is one of my favorite videos showing Kajukenbo. It basically goes through all the main principles used in Kajukenbo: 1. block and stun, 2. lock and control, 3. unbalance and takedown, 4. ground attack if necessary. :love: Attacker is just a convention meaning "who started the assault" (a way of identifying between two people in training). At close quarters, both the attacker and defender can be engaged in offensive and defense. Following the principles... the first principle is roughly translated to "don't get hit" which means that the goal is not to be hit. This could be from blocking and/or evading or later by controlling the enemy. If one starts to attack and ends up getting nailed by counter punches, etc. then they have to start back over with the first principle "don't get hit". The techniques shown are not with the intent to kill but to stun and break. The stun part is probably permitted through the continuum of force. I believe however, the lock and takedown need to be with the intent to control, whereas in Kajukenbo, the lock and takedown are with the intent to break bones, so the techniques would have to be a more control oriented variation for it be acceptable for law enforcement. I would like to add that rendering a perpetrator unconscious is a way to control them. And with your experience, I'm sure you know a police officer "punching out" an attacker is not unheard of, no matter what the proper tech. is supposed to be, doing so has saved lives. Only the principles of "don't get hit" and "control opponent" (stun, knockout, lock, takedown, etc.) are probably considered defensive principles. The rest is "continuous offense" and is clearly not defensive but could be absolutely necessary in order to "not get hit again" because at close quarters, the enemy can attack back faster than one has time to react so there is almost no way to wait for an attack and block it, you have to attack to protect yourself.
Um....correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what you are trying to say is, "what if the guy fights back instead of being a punching dummy?" If that's the case, then I'd say this is where the principle of "alive" training must come in to fill the gaps that preset techniques miss. If you only train pre-choreographed techniques (No matter how practical they may be) you will never be able to fight properly, period. Introducing drills and isolation sparring which has both partners actively attacking and defending is where skill is born, and utilizing that skill in free-form sparring within all 3 ranges of combat is where fighting prowess is born. There's nothing wrong with the techniques, but neglecting the possibility that the guy might "not" die after being knee'd in the gut is simply unacceptable.
Kempofist mentions: There's nothing wrong with the techniques, but neglecting the possibility that the guy might "not" die after being knee'd in the gut is simply unacceptable. I mention: Yes I agree with you regarding this type of strike. When I was on the job, the knee drop was a very useful tech.. You would drop into the person with your knee after you had knocked/taken them to the ground. Someone in an altercation with an officer had died because, injury to the spline and liver area. They put out an order that the tech. was no longer acceptable this was over 30 years ago. I feel teaching this is something that should be tempered with quite a bit of knowledge explaining the damage that can be done and the responsibility that goes along with the tech. Gary
I think that one of the major principles that rebel stressed is avoid AND strike not avoid THEN strike enten jizai (attack and defence are one.) Good video. koyo edit (BGile) Yup!! give the gengbangers guns and handcuff the police!! Isn't it always the same???
Kempofist mentions: Introducing drills and isolation sparring which has both partners actively attacking and defending is where skill is born, and utilizing that skill in free-form sparring within all 3 ranges of combat is where fighting prowess is born I mention: Yes, the drills are very good, then they (practioners) are able to have some sort of security in the idea they are able to repel an attacker. The spontanious ability comes after. When someone does freestyle, what some are calling "aliveness", then it all comes into play. The katas, forms or dances are a way of showing the art but not in an antagonistic way. Especially if you are doing it to preserve the art from your oppressors. Some Katas "flow" while others are forced. Since Professor Chow was not into the kata form of teaching you see much more explosive techs.. Most who teach are not teaching the mentality of both. To bad. Trying to combine the two is very tricky, teaching it incorrect is all that has happened in many of the arts. IMHO Gary
Careful with agreeing with me on anything regarding Kempo or training. I'm way beyond a Kempo black sheep, you don't want to join me
KempoFist, Ever hear the song "Black Sheep of the Family", by John Anderson The Tech's of Chow have to be a real reminder to others, of what works and what does not. "Go Shin Jutsu" IMHO. Good stuff. LOL Gary
Well, Are pitching machines useful for developing a good backhand in tennis? Or is the only way to improve one's skill to actually play a game? Are punching bags and focus mitts useful for training? Or do you actually have to fight every session to improve? Take a look at Chuck Liddell's training videos and read the descriptions of what is offered: http://www.islandmartialarts.com/index.cfmac=ShowProducts&CatID=64&SetCat=1 I see that he does spend a lot of time working on specific drills and skills without going "Live" all of the time. You have to develop your techniques to a high level of proficiency in order to be effective. Drills are the way to do this. It all goes into improving your fight game. Plus, I have never ever heard of a Kajukenbo school that didn't do a lot of sparring.
Don't get me wrong, if anything I was defending the video. But to stick with your analogy there's quite a difference between practicing your tennis or baseball swing with a high speed batting machine (isolation drilling) than having someone lob a slow toss at you for you to knock out of the park (compliant punching in). Also, there's no player in the world that gets good whacking away in a batting cage. To get good, you play the game, simple as that. Great boxers aren't made by hitting heavybags, great wrestlers aren't made by lifting weights and great fighters aren't made by practicing compliant drills. All of which can supplement and be an integral part of training that greatly aids in the development of their specific craft, but that point is neither here nor there. My point in my response was more to say that anyone can criticize a technique demonstration, but it's rather pointless because it is what it is, a demonstration. No one's saying that is the end-all be-all of what will happen in that given scenario, it's just one possibility of a counter. To expand upon this I would ask anyone criticizing these videos if they would make the same criticizms of a BJJ instructor who was showing a reversal from side control that ended in an armbar within 3 steps. After all in order for the set technique or drill to work those 3 steps MUST happen in sequence. Now the counter-argument is that BJJers don't rely on a technique to get "pulled off" and flow with the moment, and there is where I say "aliveness" comes into play. If schools acknowledge that techniques are not an end to themselves, but rather a part of the whole, then all the problems disappear. When did I ever say that drills weren't necessary? When did I ever say that sparring was all that was needed to be spent doing? I am the biggest advocate of drilling, but I'm also an even bigger critic of people who spend way too much time within the first stage of drilling which consists of compliant punching in, with little to no resistance. After the basic concepts of the technique are sufficiently grasped, resistance, and eventually counters must be added into the "drill" in order for someone to become well rounded at executing proper technique with efficiency within that specific range or scenario.
KempoFist mentions; When did I ever say that drills weren't necessary? When did I ever say that sparring was all that was needed to be spent doing? I am the biggest advocate of drilling, but I'm also an even bigger critic of people who spend way too much time within the first stage of drilling which consists of compliant punching in, with little to no resistance. After the basic concepts of the technique are sufficiently grasped, resistance, and eventually counters must be added into the "drill" in order for someone to become well rounded at executing proper technique with efficiency within that specific range or scenario I mention; Yes. Drills and doing the things necessary to be proficient at what you are trying to accomplish without being injured is the goal, I would believe. The goal of not getting hit, is to move and deflect, putting up your guard in a way to protect you. Not to be able to absorb and get hurt and thinking you can brush it off. Absorbing punch's is a good fighter, in the minds of some. When getting tagged and knocked out you are taking some big chance's of really getting hurt. So do you continue to take punch's until it does not hurt any longer, like toughing up (deadening) your shins??? The way is to be properly trained and most of the person's learning the way of Martial Arts will never use them in a ring or on the street or any other location. Other then to train and keep in shape. So why would you want to be hurt doing it? Practicing with a wooden dummy or a makiwara to toughen your hands, hitting something that does not hit back and breaking boards is foolish for the average person. It only ends up in injury and sometimes it never goes away. Bags that are forgivable and not as hard are better for the average person. To spar lightly is the way prior to going into a ring, egos seem to get in the way most of the time and someone ends up getting hurt for life. If you hurt the person and they are unable to do their job it is liability we are talking. The people who are accident prone are that way from being improperly trained or taught. To be reckless is something most of us can not afford to be/do. If you are not covered up the trainer lets you know by mentioning it, (in one form or another) not by punching you there to make you hurt. Not taking the person to far by getting them hurt is the proper way. Learning to shoot and hit something is proper so is learning to defend against a blade, do we absorb bullets or knife cuts to make us tougher? Do you go out there and allow someone to shoot at you LOL... Yes in certain instances you do, in the military or some other line of work. But you are going to be compensated if you are injured, hopefully. I read an interesting thought, regarding what the word Dojo really means. It has to do with the mind, not the location you are working in. Gary
Learning to deal with the reality of getting hit I feel is very much part of any legitimate "self defense" program. Without that, everything else goes out the window once contact is made. Learning to protect yourself, block, deflect, cover is a must, and once proper form is made, getting hit becomes ALOT less likely. Usually schools that don't engage in free-form sparring, that just all of a sudden try to engage in it, are the ones that end up getting hurt; because their students aren't used to that level of contact or comittment and end up failing at stopping the blows from hitting them (like what would happen in a real fight). Drilling is the first step. Isolation sparring the second. And eventually down the road, when proficiency has been shown, freestyle sparring can be allowed. edit* oh yeah, and what's with the "KempoFist mentions" crap? I don't mention anything, I DECLARE it!
Danjo mentions, Some people should just stay at home and not hurt. I'll say, The Musashi quote is interesting Dan, so I'll just add, he never trained with a partner. He never got injured by others for his duels. he never subjected himself to the normal situation of what you are talking about. Interesting I'd say. Regards, Gary
Musashi also fought with a weapon that could instantly kill his opponents, and utilized a technique that broke the traditions of formal etiquette that his foes followed thus earning him easy victories.
KempoFist declares, Musashi also fought with a weapon that could instantly kill his opponents, and utilized a technique that broke the traditions of formal etiquette that his foes followed thus earning him easy victories. I'll say: He was very inovative and did some things to ruffle his opponents ability to concentrate and thereby had the advantage. A book I am reading right now called "The Lone Samurai" make's a statement many times, that his duels were with his favorite "wooden weapons" and not the traditional sword. This person mentions 60 duels with one draw. His fight on Ganryujima with Sasaki Kojiro, his weapon of choice was a wooden sword that he carved out of an oar (needed the length). After that fight he disappeared for a while as many times before and trained. He was very adept at his art of the two swords. Which he perfected as he got older. Pretty mysterious individual that is for sure. Dan Inosanto mentions that the two sword system was learned from the same people that were advocating it in the Phillippines (interesting statement) and it was Musashi's ability to adapt on a moments notice to be able to win, that helped him to be so good. Exceptional to say the least. His thoughts on where your mind should be and how it should never stop is very interesting. There are many that do not like to spar or be hit until the match. I believe it makes good sense. I just found it interesting that Dan would pick for his signature someone who never trained with or was seen much during the periods, unless it was at the fight and then gone. When he turned to the artistic mode of Painting, Shodo and some sculptures he was seen more at locations as a guest (older years) Gary
Gary, as much as you'd like to believe that you can workout in the corner of some dojo (or whatever it is that you do) when no one else is there and become a good martial artist, I disagree. I find it especially fascinating that you train in FMA and don't spar or have contact. When I took Escrima for 10 months, I got the hell beat out of me. It was ALL sparring, ALL the time. What style so you study that has no sparring? Gary, All I can say is that I am too young to have trained with Musashi. But I still like his quotes. Maybe you should move onto the painting and sculpturing phase of your martial arts career too? BTW: Are you related to David Brewer who just became the LA Unified School District Superintendant? I know that you mentioned that all Brewer's were related a while back. Dan
