delta1

Other. Yep. Top center of breastbone, but not focused. You can glance at the eyes to read his spirit or intent, but only very quickly once a fight is immenent or has started. Never fixate or linger there.

I'll bet! I've heard of a system that mixes American Kenpo with Shotokan, but I don't remember what it is called. They have a eb site, which is about all I know of them. I'll see if I saved it somewhere. Is thatwhat your system does?

They probably have their reasons. Actually, sparing before having a good grounding in your basics and combinations/techniques can (but doesn't have to) lead to bad habbits. Maybe you should talk to your instructor and find out what their reasoning is, but I wouldn't quit just over that. Do you do a lot of drills? Do you do them with force? If so, you are building muscle memory, recognition, and understanding for the time you are ready to start sparing. I'm like you, I love to spar! But sometimes you have to trust the methods your instructor uses to train you. Every system is different, and who's to say which methods are best- and for who? Much as I'd like to tell you to just run out and find a Kenpo school, it's not allways the best advice. And, in the end, it's your decission. I'm just adviseing (since you asked) that you give it a lot of seriouse thought before you jump. All schools, systems and methods have strengths and weaknesses. The main thing is to find what suits you and stick with it. Look around and even work with other styles. But don'tjump every time you see something more interesting, because you'll never learn much more than basics that way.

I've said it before, but it bears repeating: the only real difference in most styles is the principles and concepts they emphasize! But the basic principles of motion and power are consistent and unchanging, and there are only so many things the human body can do.

cfr, the school you attended sounds like a good mix. Schools vary with the intensity of their training in all systems, even the 'full contact' sport schools. I'd recomend you consider staying with them (though it's only based on the styles, not on any particular knowlege of the school). You can often find some dedicated students that are willing to mix it up a little on the side, and you can invite the seriouse ones from different ystems and schools and sort of share the knowlege- and the pain! The FMA's are generally good weapons training for about anything you can pick up, providing you don't get into a 'keep the opponent at bay' mindset. For firearms, some of the best methods I've seen are in the SCARS system. I'm not a big fan of their general system overall, but they did an excellant job on firearms defense, both pistols and long guns. Their tapes are a little expensive, though. Of course, I recomend you look into any Kenpo schools in your area if you really want to change. I know of some in Spokane and Northern Idaho that train some of their students for full contact sports fights. But the system is really designed for street self defense, including practical weapons defenses. But where you've already got 14 mo invested in a school that sounds like it could be good, I'd say think hard before jumping styles. In the martial arts more than most anything else I've seen, the grass allways looks greener. There's allways a better, more ultimate style, or a more famouse instructor (at least in his mind), or a better lineage... .

Often when I'm walking, sitting, or doing most anything that doesn't require a lot of thought, I contemplate and review techniques or moves and applications in my mind. I get so wraped up in this that I move my hands or do foot maneuvers without thinking. I've even assaulted innocent hatracks, posts, and garbage cans in passing! Now, people that know me know I'm strange, different- wierd, even. But it can draw some interesting looks from strangers! Any of you do this? You might try it, if for no other reason than it discourages salesmen, political activists, missionaries, and other nuisances!

Pretty good clips! Thx!

Thanks. I knew there had to be some reason othre than poor ballance. Couldn't quite see an MT fighter leaving himself too open!

SevenStar, you *^#@ ! (Relax, you new guys and mods- that just means 'grappler'. It's an old joke between us.) Any way, it's good to hear from you again. Most of the stuff you said is good, but you had to go and screw the above statement up! Those reactions are taught as the most common, usual, normal reaction to particular strikes. They are not taught as an absolute. Drugs and alcohol, screwed up cns, or just a bad opponent who can eat any pain can change things. Also, strikes don't allways land as you planned when you threw them. So no, we aren't taught to depend on them. When we get into the variable phases of learning technique, this is explored. Ask your Kenpo buddies to explain grafting and technique flow to you, and you'll start to get an idea how we handle this. As to your friend, it sounds like he fell into two traps the inexperienced often get into with any art. Unfortunately, some experienced martial artists often do this when looking at other styles, even though they should know better. First, they assume that these techniques are meant as rote responses to given situations or attacks, meant to be called up off a list and run as written. They aren't. They are tools for training. Second, he assumes because you can't make it work on him in a demonstration, it won't work. But those moves were meant to be delivered with force, to hurt and cause dammage. Even if your friend had the Kenpo guy hit him hard, he wasn't hit full force. And the demo was set up to run a technique, not to estroy an opponent if the reaction wasn't there. Look at it this way- would you let an inexperienced person put a choke hold on you to demonstrate the effectiveness of your escapes? I only work some techniques on inexperienced people I know well enough to be sure they'll take my warning to heart when I tell them to fake certain parts. Otherwise, I'll have to really apply the technique and they'll get hurt. Edit: I still got asterixed, and for a common, clean word! I can't win!

Excellant answer, which bears repeating... Depends on what is necessary for protection and what you want to do with his strike. But AK teaches never to move more than you need to. Never do what you'll have to undo, and no wasted movement. Those wide blocks tend to leave you open and off ballance (or at least in a position to be easily unballanced). Sometimes your 'block' is right by and in contact with your head. Example: and upward elbow strike is the same as an upward elbow block. Which is another thing about our blocks- they seldom just block, and often don't even block. A block should do more than just stop a strike. It should establish some kind of control over your opponent. Obviously, as a begginer, blocks mostly block. But early on the concept is expanded to be offensive and proactive, not just defensive. Back to distance, we have several kinds of blocks that are drilled in our basics. Take outward blocks. An extended outward goes out 45' from your torsoe, and all angles are at 45'. Useful for things like street roundhouse punches, but we'd never use it for something like a straightpunch. A short outward is in closer, andis used a lot more than an extended outward. A vertical outward has the forearm straight up and not as far from your face. Getting in closer, there are other blocks that are right up by your face/head. Probably sounds like overkill, and maybe a little confusing. But the idea is to train to put up only what you need. Again, depends on what you have to work with and what you want to do. Sometimes our blocks are more to move him than to protect us. We train to move the target as we block, so the block either opens him up, or drives his arm across his body, or something else nefariouse in intent. If the target isn't there, the block usually isn't needed for defense. We also have a full arsenal of parries, checks, cranes, etc. to do whatever we want. Another thing we do that I love is to hook our blocks. This can pull your opponent in just enough to momentarily upset his ballance, and even if you only get the punch on its' way back it can work better than getting it on its' way in. Works great like that for jabs in close. Another thing we do a lot of is double factor our blocks, or throw a minor then a major block. This is often done when steping back from a forceful strike, especially kicks. The minor block is the first thrown, and has less power but gets there faster. Since you are moving out of the way, it probably won't even make contact with the strike. The major block is thrown to move him positionally, not to protect you. Another reason we may throw up a minor block is as a check in case he changes the trajectory of his strike. We don't double factor every block because it isn't allways necessary, and in the wrong circumstances could leave you open.

Sounds like an American system! Don't know which one you're talking about, but I'd look more at what they do and how they do it than what they call themselves. I've seen some, made up of different systems from different countries that used parts of the names of all the contributing styles that were actually pretty good. Not all are good, obviously. But not all are bad either.

Videos can be made to show anything you want. Not all videos of fights show all fights going to ground. Yes. Yes. Usually, in my experience, the guy standing up will try to kick the floored opponents brains out. This is still stand up fighting. But if the standing fighter mounts and pounds the floored fighter, it's still basically a stand up fight in a horizontal plane. With the exception of chokes (which rarely occurs- I can only recall a couple of times in a real fight) no one intentionally gets down and rolls with a downed opponent. A downed fighter may manage to bring down the other fighter, and grappling would be a good thing to know then. But if we're talking percentages, the standup from start to finish has the edge. And they all started upright. I love it when they try that! There are soooo many things to do to them at that point... ! On the other hand, a seriouse clinch as part of an offensive strategy to take the fight to your own range is dangerouse. All standup fighting styles should work on defending and fighting in this situation. It is mostly an ad campaign by the Gracies. But there may be some truth in your reasoning. We all tend to focus on defending what we do, while disregarding what the other guy does. One of the great things about MMA competitions is that they have convinced a lot of people that there's no one solution. You need standup striking, stand up grappling, ground grappling, and I'd say ground striking as well. How you mix it is up to your individual tastes and needs, and of course what's available. But to say that all, or almost all fights go to the ground is as extreme and unrealistic as the guy that says he can't be taken to the ground. I'm not a grappler, but I've worked with them and fought them (friendly), and they can take you down- but not every time.

Wait a minute. You're talking about American Kenpo? And they don't know how to defend against a groin shot? Something isn't right there... And, there's no such thing as a cheap shot! I don't know who said it first, but there's a saying that "If you find yourself in a fair fight, you just didn't prepare well enough!" One of the tenets we (AK) live by! I suggest you kick them in the groin, then work on your own defenses 'cause they'll probably change their minds pretty quick!

We'll adopt you as an honorary Kenpoka, but you have to promise to get over to that school and work out with them every once in a while! Honestly, only 30 mi. and you havn't checked them out? My school is over 120 mi. away! But I do have the IKCA videos to work with any time.

I couldn't get the first link either. But I saw the second, and it reminded me of something I was going to ask you guys. When he kicks, the fighter throws his arm (same side as the kick) down and out for ballast. I've seen kickboxers and Muay Thai do this, as well as some TKD schools. I can almost understand it when leaning back (though I'm not a fan of leaning), but I've seen it done from an upright posture also. My question concerns having that arm way down, leaving your upper body open. If your opponent gets in to jam, you are on one leg with one major weapon completely out of battery. Is this something you do every time you kick, or just when you think you can get away with it? What do you gain from this technique that makes it worth the risk?

Agreed. Full Salute!

Yes. I like whatever works, and they do work.

Vinnie, if you box, then you know more about it than me- I'll have to give you that. And yes, covering with the forearms works- we do that too. But you have to understand its limmitations when fighting without gloves. They can be grabed or craned and moved out of the way just as a strike lands. Also, this is one good example of an application for a block. An inward block to a covering forearm can cut, or clear enough that the upper case of that block is a hammerfist strike. Maybe not as much force as an unobstructed strike, but enough to keep you unballanced and on the defensive, and to set up another strike. I've said elsewhere that I do not give boxing short shrift. A good boxer can pick you apart like almost no one else. If you can do it, I'd say boxing is a good secondary art to improve whatever style you like. But outside the ring, it has some seriouse limmitations. My opinion- your mileage may varry.

Looks like a posed photo op to me. I've fought a couple of Shotokan guys. Trust me, they aren't that open. They are also well drilled in their basics, and hit with a lot of power (which that stance won't generate- but it sure looks pretty! ).

I've seen several videos of street fights that do not go to the ground. I've seen and been in many fights that did not go to the ground. I'll grant you that in a really seriouse fight, where one or both fighters intend to do real dammage to each other, there's a good chance that at least one will go down. But this is often the result of a good striking game, not just grappling. I'm not dissrespecting grappling, nor saying it isn't a good thing to learn. But a lot of grapplers, especially BJJers, have a really good propoganda thing going where they have convinced everyone that all fights go to the ground. They don't. They've also mixed the phrase 'going to the ground' with 'grappling/ground fighting'. It isn't necessarily. Also, grapplers do learn to strike, and most strikers these days (talking of only the combative arts here) learn to grapple. But obviousely the emphasis is different. Which is better? Whatever you like- take your pick.

If all you do is stand there and block, yes. But no seriouse style really does that, and especially not Kenpo. Blocks primarily establish some kind of control over your opponent. They may also double as a strike. Many times, they don't even catch his strike on the way in, but on the way out. As for the boxers cover being better, without gloves, it doesn't even protect his face better. It certainly doesn't protect his lower body better. And hisfootwork is good, but very limmited. The boxers main advantages are that the few things they do, they do really well (with some problems in their punching). They are usually extremely well conditioned, and they train a lot with intent and hard contact. But a similarly well trained Kenpoist has trained a much bigger arsenal, has a system designed to use and protect the whole body, and is much more maneuverable. I gotta disagree totally with you here. You seem to be speaking from a complete lack of understanding of both systems.

Well, that comment certainly begs an explanation

All else being equal, I'd say the Kenpo practitioner has the advantage. And the two styles do mix well in some respects. The best at this I've seen is the BKF. If you ever get a chance to work with them, don't pass it up! Remember that the boxers stances, tactics,and footwork are designed for a sport that has rules to restrict target areas and techniques, and they depend a lot on wearing heavy padded gloves. This can all work against the boxer. But, notice I said "all else being equal." I'd never disrespect or underestimate a boxer.

Don't be bitter! Besides, as soon as we startedexperimenting with this, most of us ran and hid! Me. AKTS & IKCA.

Tae Kwon Do (TKD) can be a very effective combative martial art. It is mostly in how it is taught and trained. But most TKD is sport oriented, not fighting, and there's a big difference. Most any style can be an effective fighting art if taught and trained for that purpose. But the instructor has to have an excellant understanding of the principles and concepts involved, and know the difference in purpose of sport moves and seriouse combat. The first thing that even the TKD schools do when training for combat is to get rid of a lot of high kicks and flashy moves. And they start varrying the ranges in their one steps and sparing. They also start actually hitting each other. And they practice their moves under force and speed. That's what I'd look for in any prospective self defense school.