# What'd your method of teaching the Dimensional Zone Theory? When?



## Kenposcholar

At what point do you teach the Dimensional Zone Theory to your students and how? Our school doesn't particularly have a point in time, specific technique, or form that we teach this concept. Same thing about the four quadrants.
Thanks,
       Kenposcholar


----------



## Touch Of Death

We teach neutrality, somewhere around the first day, and introduce what neutrality is not, in the coming months to follow.


----------



## jvbird

Must be a Skip disciple...me as well...


----------



## Tiger84

Kenposcholar said:


> At what point do you teach the Dimensional Zone Theory to your students and how? Our school doesn't particularly have a point in time, specific technique, or form that we teach this concept. Same thing about the four quadrants.
> Thanks,
> Kenposcholar


You teach them when they become relevant.. at yellow belt. Students are introduced to zone theories when they start doing techniques. The focus at this time is mainly on cancelling your opponents zones i.e. height, width, depth. As new techniques deal with more zones you point them out and as they advance they should be asking "if my opponent has all these zones do I" and you say "you don't know the half of it" lol.


----------



## Sifu Cole

Kenposcholar said:


> At what point do you teach the Dimensional Zone Theory to your students and how? Our school doesn't particularly have a point in time, specific technique, or form that we teach this concept. Same thing about the four quadrants.
> Thanks,
> Kenposcholar



Umm, which one?
I usually just throw book thee of I.I. at students and see what they get out of it. No, just kidding.

The first dimensional discussion is the HWD of tge beginners NB.
Body mechanics determine each individual NB. Rarely are the HWD of NB's the same, but how you get there us easy and works well as long as you have two feet.

The next step is to discuss how to move through each dimension. Pivotting, weight shifting and gauging each stance for what it is for.
Pivotting on the feet and pivotting the hips.

Next, the conceptual box (a box partially covering the top two dimensions of heightand) and it's extended version, the conceptual rectangle.

We create imaginary anchor points of time and space along the corners, mid lines as well as outside the lines for the extended outward block.

There you go, three examples of dimendion in training.

Clark


----------



## Kenposcholar

Sifu Cole said:


> Umm, which one?
> I usually just throw book thee of I.I. at students and see what they get out of it. No, just kidding.
> 
> The first dimensional discussion is the HWD of tge beginners NB.
> Body mechanics determine each individual NB. Rarely are the HWD of NB's the same, but how you get there us easy and works well as long as you have two feet.
> 
> The next step is to discuss how to move through each dimension. Pivotting, weight shifting and gauging each stance for what it is for.
> Pivotting on the feet and pivotting the hips.
> 
> Next, the conceptual box (a box partially covering the top two dimensions of heightand) and it's extended version, the conceptual rectangle.
> 
> We create imaginary anchor points of time and space along the corners, mid lines as well as outside the lines for the extended outward block.
> 
> There you go, three examples of dimendion in training.
> 
> Clark



Thanks! I really appreciate the insight in your teaching style.


----------



## Sami Ibrahim

Kenposcholar said:


> At what point do you teach the Dimensional Zone Theory to your students and how? Our school doesn't particularly have a point in time, specific technique, or form that we teach this concept. Same thing about the four quadrants.
> Thanks,
> Kenposcholar



I introduce dimensional zone theory during the first lesson when  I start teaching Environmental Awareness and reading and communicating with Body Language. 

I often use the analogy of a "snake" to explain how an enemy would opt to move around without drawing attention, where a predator may place themselves and how they would position their body so that they are coiled to strike prey. I want my students to start thinking about people that are "coiled to spring" and to associate their training partner with predators and attacks with the lethality that snake bites conjure up. When they have made that connection and I get into manipulating of Height, Width and Depth Zones their is a greater appreciation for the effects of "disrupting the coiled snake" or breaking the link in the coiled energy so that the enemy loses the lethality in their attack.


----------



## Kenposcholar

Sami Ibrahim said:


> I introduce dimensional zone theory during the first lesson when  I start teaching Environmental Awareness and reading and communicating with Body Language.
> 
> I often use the analogy of a "snake" to explain how an enemy would opt to move around without drawing attention, where a predator may place themselves and how they would position their body so that they are coiled to strike prey. I want my students to start thinking about people that are "coiled to spring" and to associate their training partner with predators and attacks with the lethality that snake bites conjure up. When they have made that connection and I get into manipulating of Height, Width and Depth Zones their is a greater appreciation for the effects of "disrupting the coiled snake" or breaking the link in the coiled energy so that the enemy loses the lethality in their attack.



Thanks for the explanation! Really enjoy the snake metaphor as I hadn't heard it before.


----------



## Headhunter

To me that stuff doesn't matter. Kenpo is a street fighting art so the main purpose is to learn the self defence. I believe there's to much theory in kenpo. The techniques work but but it's bogged down with things like that. That's what puts a lot of people off the art they simply don't care about that stuff they just to learn self defence. 

If people want to learn that stuff later on then great but it shouldn't be something that you're forced to learn


----------



## Touch Of Death

Headhunter said:


> To me that stuff doesn't matter. Kenpo is a street fighting art so the main purpose is to learn the self defence. I believe there's to much theory in kenpo. The techniques work but but it's bogged down with things like that. That's what puts a lot of people off the art they simply don't care about that stuff they just to learn self defence.
> 
> If people want to learn that stuff later on then great but it shouldn't be something that you're forced to learn


Actually these are the details where the Devil hangs out.


----------



## Sami Ibrahim

Headhunter said:


> To me that stuff doesn't matter. Kenpo is a street fighting art so the main purpose is to learn the self defence. I believe there's to much theory in kenpo. The techniques work but but it's bogged down with things like that. That's what puts a lot of people off the art they simply don't care about that stuff they just to learn self defence.
> 
> If people want to learn that stuff later on then great but it shouldn't be something that you're forced to learn



Kenpo movements without understanding why is a very dangerous thing.


----------



## Headhunter

Sami Ibrahim said:


> Kenpo movements without understanding why is a very dangerous thing.


Yeah I've heard that before. I don't bye it. I've seen guys who know all the techniques and forms but couldn't say a thing about it and they're amazing I wouldn't want to go against them.

Same with my own kids I taught them kenpo for self defence and didnt teach them all that and they're very capable at what they do and have used the moves to defend themselves.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Headhunter said:


> Yeah I've heard that before. I don't bye it. I've seen guys who know all the techniques and forms but couldn't say a thing about it and they're amazing I wouldn't want to go against them.
> 
> Same with my own kids I taught them kenpo for self defence and didnt teach them all that and they're very capable at what they do and have used the moves to defend themselves.


There is actually a logic to kenpo kicking, It's not just the moves, you kick when its the fastest thing to do, based on a theory of combat. Some call it the Dimensional Zone Theory...


----------



## Sami Ibrahim

Headhunter said:


> Yeah I've heard that before. I don't bye it. I've seen guys who know all the techniques and forms but couldn't say a thing about it and they're amazing I wouldn't want to go against them.
> 
> Same with my own kids I taught them kenpo for self defence and didnt teach them all that and they're very capable at what they do and have used the moves to defend themselves.



I don't doubt you, you can produce a very dangerous practitioner of Kenpo without them understanding the logic of the system. For example, if all they know is that if they move like this they hit harder or if they do that they will snap an elbow, that is enough to be dangerous, they don't need to know how a fulcrum works or what class of lever they are using when they snap that joint, they don't need to know what dimensional options they cancel out when they twist a neck in a particular way as long as they know the HOW and get the desired result. The only real benefits to knowing WHY and improving ones understanding of the logic of the system is to take the ideas that exist within the box of the system and be able to adapt them to solves unfamiliar problems and to help answer a students questions when they eventually ask their instructor WHY are we doing it this way and not this other way or WHY is my technique not working and for those rare few who have unlimited time on their hands and want to really tweak or sophisticate a movement to get more bang for their efforts they can engineer a more devastating application. If the original how they are taught is plenty effective enough and they don't have any ambition to be future instructors I understand why some would not bother explaining the WHY.


----------



## Kenposcholar

I think it is the difference between having a conversation with an uneducated person and an english graduate. They are both able to communicate better than a non-english speaker; however, one of them is more adept at formulating new or more advanced sentences that weren't explicitly taught/read/simple.


----------



## Sami Ibrahim

As long as people don't confuse knowing of a concept or Kenpo Principle with actually having ingrained it so that it fortifies or otherwise enhances their application. When I see someone that is fighting exceptionally well, I notice the concepts and principles at work in everything they are doing and when I see someone that is fighting ineffectively I see the concepts and principles missing or being bastardized. In either case the knowledge and awareness of these concepts and principles are not as important as their actual manifesting during action. 

If a guy throws a punch and he has no back up mass, no torque, very little momentum, poor structural alignment, holding his breath, head looking down and eyes looking away, body floating up and footwork over pivoting, upper and lower body disconnected and out of sync, tension long before impact (breaks on), poor angle of incidence so penetration is instead dispersed over a wide surface area, no limitations on his opponents dimensional zones such that they can respond and defend his punch easily, has no mechanisms in place from preventing counters, all his vital targets left wide open, center-line offered up on a silver plate, piss poor target selection and so on, Inevitably this guy would be destroyed if his opponent has any skill at all. If the reverse is true but the puncher has no knowledge of these things but they are still ingrained in his application that would be enough to be effective. So in that sense knowledge of it is not as important as being able to manifest it during the moment of truth.


----------



## Headhunter

Sami Ibrahim said:


> As long as people don't confuse knowing of a concept or Kenpo Principle with actually having ingrained it so that it fortifies or otherwise enhances their application. When I see someone that is fighting exceptionally well, I notice the concepts and principles at work in everything they are doing and when I see someone that is fighting ineffectively I see the concepts and principles missing or being bastardized. In either case the knowledge and awareness of these concepts and principles are not as important as their actual manifesting during action.
> 
> If a guy throws a punch and he has no back up mass, no torque, very little momentum, poor structural alignment, holding his breath, head looking down and eyes looking away, body floating up and footwork over pivoting, upper and lower body disconnected and out of sync, tension long before impact (breaks on), poor angle of incidence so penetration is instead dispersed over a wide surface area, no limitations on his opponents dimensional zones such that they can respond and defend his punch easily, has no mechanisms in place from preventing counters, all his vital targets left wide open, center-line offered up on a silver plate, piss poor target selection and so on, Inevitably this guy would be destroyed if his opponent has any skill at all. If the reverse is true but the puncher has no knowledge of these things but they are still ingrained in his application that would be enough to be effective. So in that sense knowledge of it is not as important as being able to manifest it during the moment of truth.


My problem is there's a lot of senior grades in kenpo that I've seen who can talk for hours about concepts but quite honestly I don't believe they can fight. I'm not saying that's every kenpo guy because of course it's not but I have observed a small number who can talk for days but when it comes down to doing the techniques or sparring they can't do it. That's my problem. It's like a kid who can tell you everything about a car, how the engine works how to put it together etc but it doesn't matter if you can't drive the thing.


----------



## Sami Ibrahim

Headhunter said:


> My problem is there's a lot of senior grades in kenpo that I've seen who can talk for hours about concepts but quite honestly I don't believe they can fight. I'm not saying that's every kenpo guy because of course it's not but I have observed a small number who can talk for days but when it comes down to doing the techniques or sparring they can't do it. That's my problem. It's like a kid who can tell you everything about a car, how the engine works how to put it together etc but it doesn't matter if you can't drive the thing.



I have run into those guys as well, I recall one guy who had me convinced that he was a bad-motha-sucka, trained SWAT team, grew up in a Biker Gang, roomed with a pro MMA guy (who he trained with) had pictures with dang near all the Kenpo Seniors, could talk Kenpo for hours and if you dummied for him during a technique he would hit you hard. Then we got around to sparring and it would have been hilarious if not for his high rank, he ran around screaming in pain and made excuses that his real specialty was grappling on account of the MMA background, so we all played along and decided to just roll, he was screaming and tapping out on the transitions not even any actual locks, so yeah I get it...


----------



## RavenDarkfellow

Headhunter said:


> To me that stuff doesn't matter. Kenpo is a street fighting art so the main purpose is to learn the self defence. I believe there's to much theory in kenpo. The techniques work but but it's bogged down with things like that. That's what puts a lot of people off the art they simply don't care about that stuff they just to learn self defence.
> 
> If people want to learn that stuff later on then great but it shouldn't be something that you're forced to learn




The thing about the theory is that-- while you don't have to completely understand it to make techniques work-- it's core to understanding the system of Kenpo (or any martial art for that matter) as a whole.

When I was training in Kenpo, I LOVED learning about the philosophy/theory behind it all, because when you understand all that (the very essence of "why" you're doing anything) then the techniques begin to teach themselves.  The theory tells you why any of the techniques you learn are going to work-- if you knew 100% of the theory, and 0% of the actual techniques (somehow... I dunno how that would be possible, but stay with me) you could figure out exactly how to accomplish the same outcome for a vast majority of the techniques.  

Sure, if you were a brand-new clean-slate beginner, you would need people to show you how to throw an effective strike, where to land it, etc.; but the techniques would unfold for you on their own.

Philosophy and theory are extremely important.


----------



## Headhunter

RavenDarkfellow said:


> The thing about the theory is that-- while you don't have to completely understand it to make techniques work-- it's core to understanding the system of Kenpo (or any martial art for that matter) as a whole.
> 
> When I was training in Kenpo, I LOVED learning about the philosophy/theory behind it all, because when you understand all that (the very essence of "why" you're doing anything) then the techniques begin to teach themselves.  The theory tells you why any of the techniques you learn are going to work-- if you knew 100% of the theory, and 0% of the actual techniques (somehow... I dunno how that would be possible, but stay with me) you could figure out exactly how to accomplish the same outcome for a vast majority of the techniques.
> 
> Sure, if you were a brand-new clean-slate beginner, you would need people to show you how to throw an effective strike, where to land it, etc.; but the techniques would unfold for you on their own.
> 
> Philosophy and theory are extremely important.


What is the prime focus of kenpo? It is a self defence based system.

That means teaching what works. Not standing there teaching a lecture about category completion or quadrant zones or major minor moves. The time wasted talking could be much better spent drilling the technique which is what will save your life if your attacked.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

I'll approach this with no real reference to kenpo/kempo, in hopes of removing some of the attachment to some of these ideas (and because I know almost nothing about ken/mpo ).

I think some level of theory is important - knowing why a setup/entry is done a certain way (to break structure, close off responses, etc.) is important. Knowing it as a specific theory is not. Whether someone knows my structure-breaking approach, speaks of the principle of kuzushi as taught in Judo, or whatever, that doesn't matter - so long as they know they need to do that thing (breaking structure/balance) before or during a grappling move. The same goes for using angles and levels in strikes. They need to know why they change angles and levels, but whether they know it as the triangles seen in Silat, the angles discussed in Shotokan, the western Boxing model, or using Wing Chun's centerline concept isn't all that important. Specific models only matter, IMO, insofar as they become a common vocabulary (and, thus, a shorthand) within a specific group. That means they matter more within a school than within an art.

Some of us REALLY like discussing the theory and concepts. I'm one of those. But I also know that this level of discussion isn't important in general to developing functional skills...at least not for everyone. Some people learn faster when they have a strong, robust conceptual model to work with (that's me). Most folks don't benefit as much, and some will actually find it more confusing than helpful.


----------



## Headhunter

gpseymour said:


> I'll approach this with no real reference to kenpo/kempo, in hopes of removing some of the attachment to some of these ideas (and because I know almost nothing about ken/mpo ).
> 
> I think some level of theory is important - knowing why a setup/entry is done a certain way (to break structure, close off responses, etc.) is important. Knowing it as a specific theory is not. Whether someone knows my structure-breaking approach, speaks of the principle of kuzushi as taught in Judo, or whatever, that doesn't matter - so long as they know they need to do that thing (breaking structure/balance) before or during a grappling move. The same goes for using angles and levels in strikes. They need to know why they change angles and levels, but whether they know it as the triangles seen in Silat, the angles discussed in Shotokan, the western Boxing model, or using Wing Chun's centerline concept isn't all that important. Specific models only matter, IMO, insofar as they become a common vocabulary (and, thus, a shorthand) within a specific group. That means they matter more within a school than within an art.
> 
> Some of us REALLY like discussing the theory and concepts. I'm one of those. But I also know that this level of discussion isn't important in general to developing functional skills...at least not for everyone. Some people learn faster when they have a strong, robust conceptual model to work with (that's me). Most folks don't benefit as much, and some will actually find it more confusing than helpful.


I love kenpo but it's theory is frankly...Well it's like trying to sound to clever. There's things li,e category completion. Which means if you do a move on one side later you'll do it again on another side to complete  the category. Yeah it's interesting but I don't believe it's essential. It turns people off. They want to be punching and kicking and blocking not having a lecture that's what school is for. Also simPly some aren't smart enough for it. I don't mean that as an insult. But simply not everyone is able to understand that stuff and it turns people away


----------



## Flying Crane

My impression of some of the “theory” in kenpo is that it is an attempt by people to add a scientific level of analysis that I do not believe is supportable.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Headhunter said:


> I love kenpo but it's theory is frankly...Well it's like trying to sound to clever. There's things li,e category completion. Which means if you do a move on one side later you'll do it again on another side to complete  the category. Yeah it's interesting but I don't believe it's essential. It turns people off. They want to be punching and kicking and blocking not having a lecture that's what school is for. Also simPly some aren't smart enough for it. I don't mean that as an insult. But simply not everyone is able to understand that stuff and it turns people away


It doesn't even have to be a matter of intelligence. Some folks simply aren't wired to understand things that way, but can understand exactly the same concepts a different way.

It sounds like some principles (like category completion) are more a point for instructors and curriculum designers, and really wouldn't be of much interest to the student.

EDIT: And I'll add that naming the principles is helpful for principles that get referenced a lot (creates a shorthand), but can get in the way for other principles. I can't really think why that principle wouldn't just be described as "always practice on both sides" or something like that.


----------



## Headhunter

Flying Crane said:


> My impression of some of the “theory” in kenpo is that it is an attempt by people to add a scientific level of analysis that I do not believe is supportable.


Some parts of the theory I do enjoy but that's for me to research in my own time. To many places stand around discussing theory in class for over half an hour and to me that's ridiculous. It's to much of a peeing contest just to show how smart they are


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Headhunter said:


> Some parts of the theory I do enjoy but that's for me to research in my own time. To many places stand around discussing theory in class for over half an hour and to me that's ridiculous. It's to much of a peeing contest just to show how smart they are


Standing around listening to someone talk for 30 minutes during a class without actually training during that time? Yeah, that’s bad regardless of how good the art or the theory being discussed. I’ll run my mouth sometimes during  Q&A at the end of the class, but if you have a half hour to do it in then that’s time which could be spent working.


----------



## drop bear

Tony Dismukes said:


> Standing around listening to someone talk for 30 minutes during a class without actually training during that time? Yeah, that’s bad regardless of how good the art or the theory being discussed. I’ll run my mouth sometimes during  Q&A at the end of the class, but if you have a half hour to do it in then that’s time which could be spent working.



Unless it is Danaher or someone.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Headhunter said:


> Some parts of the theory I do enjoy but that's for me to research in my own time. To many places stand around discussing theory in class for over half an hour and to me that's ridiculous. It's to much of a peeing contest just to show how smart they are


In most cases, I think theory is best saved for after-training beer.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Tony Dismukes said:


> Standing around listening to someone talk for 30 minutes during a class without actually training during that time? Yeah, that’s bad regardless of how good the art or the theory being discussed. I’ll run my mouth sometimes during  Q&A at the end of the class, but if you have a half hour to do it in then that’s time which could be spent working.


Eh, theory has it's place, and I could easily see myself spending more than an hour talking about it. The thing is that I don't do that in class. I'll stick around after class, or talk about it during stretching/warm up, but I don't want more than 10-15 minutes at max in class time (and not every class).


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

kempodisciple said:


> Eh, theory has it's place, and I could easily see myself spending more than an hour talking about it. The thing is that I don't do that in class. I'll stick around after class, or talk about it during stretching/warm up, but I don't want more than 10-15 minutes at max in class time (and not every class).


Just going to add: When I teach a class, even though I like to talk about theory, theory never comes up. Unless you're going to count theory as "Punch this way otherwise you're going to hurt your elbow." or "You can guard either like this, or like this, depending on your X preference.Try out both." along with answering questions.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

kempodisciple said:


> Just going to add: When I teach a class, even though I like to talk about theory, theory never comes up. Unless you're going to count theory as "Punch this way otherwise you're going to hurt your elbow." or "You can guard either like this, or like this, depending on your X preference.Try out both." along with answering questions.


I can certainly be guilty of talking too much when teaching (I know that will shock everyone here at MT), but I try to keep it within reason. I'm more likely to get wordy in answer to a complex question than when introducing a topic. Theory is fun, but mostly for those who already have basic competence, and are starting to think more about they why of things.


----------

