Wednesday, January 22, 2014

The Laws of Kenpo: Law 2 Strike First


The Law: This principle has several meanings. First, it indicates that kenpo is primarily a striking art. Seventy percent hands and 30 percent feet is the classical breakdown, but you can change the proportion according to the circumstances or your body build.
The second meaning is that if a confrontation is inevitable—a thug is climbing through your bathroom window at 2 o’clock in the morning and he starts swinging a baseball bat—you should not wait for the aggressor to attack first. You need to hit him first with a foot, a fist, an elbow or a knee. You also need to hit hard and hit continuously until he is subdued.
The kenpo curriculum also includes numerous grappling and throwing techniques, but research has shown they are used in less than 25 percent of the encounters practitioners have found themselves in, and they are ineffective against multiple attackers. Because grappling uses four times as much strength and energy as striking does, it has been deemed a last resort suitable for use only if your opponent penetrates your first and second lines of defense: your feet and fists, respectively.


Grey Commentary: I think that while the law of first strike and the idea of not waiting around for your opponent to assault you before deciding to act is sound, I feel that this is not applicable to every situation especially in cases of self defence or in work related environments such as security and law enforcement
 
I believe as far as the grappling commentary is concerned unless you are in a LE or security position grappling and locking up on an people and essentially trying to effect some kind of an “arrest” is not wise your goal should be to strike quickly and fiercely and get off the line of attack and get far away. Grappling with the intention of breaking a limb is applicable in my eyes as it is an effective way of incapacitating a foe that being said there are much faster ways of breaking limbs. My priority is to strike quickly and get as far away from this fight as possible if I am not being paid to be in this fight why would I ever want to stay there?

My stance on that is also not a whole “police/security vs civilian” argument it is simply examining the requirements of the situation if I am a police officer or a security officer I will need to detain the subject I am fighting with because they may be involved in a criminal investigation or might be trespassing and property or might need to be detained for other reasons related to their assault or attempt to flee. If I am a civilian and I do not have devices to restrain an individual it is not an effective use of energy to attempt such techniques.


The one spot I do see an applicable stance on locks and grappling would be to remove an intruder (like the bathroom window) from your home or place of business. strike first with multiple attacks some stunning blows followed by a power shot or two, circle around to a side, apply a joint lock and remove them from the area. That is in my eyes a very street relevant stance for grappling tactics.

No comments:

Post a Comment