# Throws/take downs of Judo



## teej (Jan 13, 2004)

My undertanding is that in the old days at the Pasadena school, before all the material and techniques were put on paper, they used practice judo a lot. Particularly the throws and take downs.

When American Kenpo was formulized with all the material and techniques, that all stopped. (remember, Kenpo is a stand up art)

I am wondering why? And as Mr. Billings pointed out in another thread, we are still taught a front shoulder roll. I am wondering why Mr. Parker did not have a few techniques that had even a couple of throws and/or take downs.

Doc, or any of the Seniors out there, did you ever hear a discussions on this? Was there any particular reason?

I realize that now there is a lot of popularity with ground stuff, and in the old days, this was a stand up art trying to avoid being taken to the ground, but if you guys used to practice throws and take downs, why were they left out completely? 

What were the views on this at that time?

Another historical one   Yours in Kenpo,
Teej


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 13, 2004)

I'm no senior; however, from what I understand it was not uncommon for Martial artists of that day to have familiarized themselves with judo. The idea that Mr. Parker invented an art that negates the need for groundwork is hilarious and I can't wait to read some replies supporting this concept. Lets take the technique "Sleeper" as an example. It is taught today with a simple sweep and turn or you can use a full judo takedown where you completely lift your oponents leg off the ground with your own whilst bending at the waist. The question would not be which is the proper method, but which method fits the situation and are you skilled enough to be on the ground with the guy. People would always ask Mr. Parker how he might escape this or that hold and his answer would always be,"first of all your not going to get me in this hold, but here is what I would do". The techniques are all gists of what may or may not happen. Its up to the practitioner to work all the possibilities, and not just assume a mastery.
Sean


----------



## Michael Billings (Jan 13, 2004)

Long Form 5 is a takedown form.  Tom Kelly, Sr. has been sweeping, reaping, and generally tearing opponent's bases out from under them forever, as do most of the Seniors I have met and been fortuanate enough to train with at camps or seminars.

My school requires, all the falls - front, front roll, side, and back ... plus a few I don't have a name for.  This is pretty standard with all the Kenpo schools I know of.  There are loads of throws, takedowns, buckles and sweeps as you progress, and almost every extension has one, if not more of these incorporated.  Destroying the base is highly valued.  At Green, every cover-out requires a sweep, if possible ... and it has been that way at least since I started Kenpo in 1979.

Maybe I am just living in an isolated kind of world here, but has something changed that I missed?

-Michael


----------



## Steve Howard (Jan 13, 2004)

Michael and Sean are right, kenpo still retains a  great  deal  of its original judo application... it's just a matter of the individual curriculum  and instructor's knowledge as to when and to what degree these aspects are introduced and/or  emphasised.   If you're ever lucky enough to spend  some  time  on  the  mats  with a skilled judoka,  I highly  recommend  it.    The correllation with kenpo is readily apparent and will really open up the possibilites in the application of your kenpo technique (as a side note, many of  judo's atemi-waza  [striking techniques]  bear   more  than just a  passing resemblance to kenpo self-defense patterns).

salute,
Steve Howard
www.kenporaw.bravepages.com


----------



## teej (Jan 14, 2004)

You are all correct in this, and I know that also, especially with the extensions. I need to rethink my question so I can post it more accurately.  I am rushing as I have to get my children to school.

Part of my question is to some of the seniors concerning training in Pasadena. I got off the phone yesterday with a senior and he was explaining  to me how training in Pasadena changed after the system, as we know it now, was systemized, put on paper etc. 

Don't have time right now to elaborate, but as was explained to me, the grappling/ jundo practice changed. The in class drills or work outs changed. I don't want to speculate from those of us that were not there. I was hoping to get the views from some of the people that trained there durning that transitional time.

This is more of a historical question. What was it like training there before, durning, and after the system was all put on paper?

So I would like to correct my original thread post, and I do know, am aware of, and teach all the take downs and extensions. (heck I have a nice scare where my ear was almost ripped off on the mat, hard to forget that) I am aware of the take down, locks and hold our current techniques have. (my oversite in my original post for giving the impression the system doesn't)

So I may not be explaining it correctly, but my interpretation from my phone conversation yesterday, was that the emphasis on in class judo type training, drills, something to that effect, changed.  
The opinion related to me was that there was noy as much emphasis on these drills anymore after the curriculum changed. So my question is about the training environment there in Pasadena  durning that time frame. If you weren't there, then you don't know. If you were there, can you share your views please. If you know someone who was there, will you take the time to contact them and get their perspective please.

There have been several posts concerning "holes in Kenpo" and "Kenpo on the ground", etc. This is how my phone conversation topic started. Did ground work training drills go on in Pasadena in the early years? Was it part of the old curriculum or an extra segment of class? etc

Well if I didn't clarify my original post, I made a bigger mess. I hope not. Thanks guys and gals,

Your brother in Kenpo,
Teej


----------



## hector (Jan 14, 2004)

Difficult question, and may be only we can expose interpretations here.   
My point of view is that although Parker had advanced knowledge of Judo like black belt, he defined to the Judo and the Jiu Jitsu like wrestling styles and that karate and kenpo were styles of oriental boxing.   
When Parker begins to carry out the changes and to structure the Kenpo in the 60, its idea was probably to be different with another arts, so that nobody could say that kenpo was a karate mixture with Judo.  This way the kenpo achieved an identity.  
     On the other hand, many of the thowings of the Judo use both hands in the control and the opponent's direction, they reduce our capacity to be able to hit and they expose our back dangerously, that which affects the control on the opponent's zones and many possibilities for a counterattack.  
    I invite those who were in the transition to expose their points of view on the topic.

Hector


----------



## kenpo12 (Jan 14, 2004)

I study both kenpo and judo and the throws of Judo are quite different than the strike downs of kenpo.  I do see similarities in the setup but the techniques are very different.
  As far as NeWaza or ground grappling, I have never heard from anyone in kenpo that there was any significant training in the past with that but I may be wrong.


----------



## MJS (Jan 14, 2004)

> _Originally posted by kenpo12 _
> [  As far as NeWaza or ground grappling, I have never heard from anyone in kenpo that there was any significant training in the past with that but I may be wrong. [/B]



Neither have I.  I keep hearing that its in there, but it seems that no one can give an explaination of it, other than, "Yes, its in there!"  Doesnt sound like much of an explaination to me!

Mike


----------

