# IP Techniques: Do We Need Them?



## MJS

This thread is to discuss the value or not, of the Ideal Phase techniques.  I started this thread, as this subject is popping up in a few other areas in the Kenpo section, so in an effort to not sidetrack the other threads too much, I thought we could discuss it here. 

The IP techs are of course, a platform that we should be building from.  Of course, as many have said, we should be functional with the techs. as well.  

In another thread in this section, it was said that functionality is not a specific set of techniques.  Instead, its the underlying principle.

If we look at a boxer, we see a set of punches, but no preset techs. so to speak.  The punches can be put together in endless combos.  

So, that being said, wouldnt it be possible, to take our basics, ie: the punches, kicks, blocks, etc., eliminate the preset techs, and go right to creating a FM (functional method) technique?  In other words, instead of doing Attacking Mace in the IP and then FM for a right punch, just go right to a FM?  I mean, it'd almost make sense, especially if you have to change the IP to make it more functional, no?

In closing, let me say that this is just something that was sparked by recent discussion.  I have my own views on the techs, that may/may not reflect what I just said above.   I'll share those thoughts shortly.


----------



## Flying Crane

Hi Mike,

I am tempted to reply but I'm not sure I should, not really my field anymore.  I'll just say this much:  I no longer consider myself a kenpo guy, I made the decision that for me, kenpo is simply not a good fit.

I'll say this much more:  The whole issue of the techniques is a big part of the reason why.  I guess I find them unmanageable in the big picture.


----------



## Touch Of Death

FM... No static at all. I say keep the ideal phase for the lessons taught for that specific circumstance, but also teach point of origin for the reality and the changing dynamics of that reality.
Sean


----------



## Touch Of Death

Flying Crane said:


> Hi Mike,
> 
> I am tempted to reply but I'm not sure I should, not really my field anymore.  I'll just say this much:  I no longer consider myself a kenpo guy, I made the decision that for me, kenpo is simply not a good fit.
> 
> I'll say this much more:  The whole issue of the techniques is a big part of the reason why.  I guess I find them unmanageable in the big picture.


I would suggest you are simply evolving in your kenpo away from the techs, but the word means different things to different people. The Parameters defining the use of your fists is what it means, and your changing parameters are natural as you progress.
Sean


----------



## MJS

Flying Crane said:


> Hi Mike,
> 
> I am tempted to reply but I'm not sure I should, not really my field anymore. I'll just say this much: I no longer consider myself a kenpo guy, I made the decision that for me, kenpo is simply not a good fit.
> 
> I'll say this much more: The whole issue of the techniques is a big part of the reason why. I guess I find them unmanageable in the big picture.


 
By all means, please give your thoughts.   We've shared a number of discussions, both on the forum, and via PM.  I certainly value your thoughts on this.   But of course, if you would rather not, thats fine too.


----------



## ATACX GYM

From all the writings that I could get of GGMEP and the statements of those who knew him,even GGMEP didn't practice the techniques of the IP as they are presented to us.The Tracys said that GGMEP practiced each technique "50 Ways To Sunday".Do we see 50 Ways to Sunday in the IP presentation? Nope.We see 50 and more ways to get our asses kicked,though.Not being rude,just being honest.

The ideas and concepts of each and every one of the 72 SD templates are great.Their presentation is wakk as hell and need to be trash canned asap...then a comprehensive,totally functional upgrade in every way needs to supplant them AS THE BASE FROM WHICH WE START OUR STUDIES.And then we innovate even better functional material from there.Our evolution from kata to combat from spiritual and self-discipline to hardcore practicality,from art to science...because the functional method is the only real way to really do that.Imagine somebody trying to teach you some IP yoga so you can get flexible or a SWAT team doing some IP arresting of the bad guy to get rid of Columbian drug cartels or somebody telling Floyd Mayweather to "ideally" jab at Sugar Shane or Pacquiao.Now why in the hell would you NOT have the same "don't gimme that crap" expression on your face when somebody tells you to DEFEND YOUR LIFE,THE LIFE OF A LOVED ONE OR INNOCENT using some IP technique trained the IP way (meaning NO training against resistant opponents)?


----------



## Flying Crane

MJS said:


> By all means, please give your thoughts.  We've shared a number of discussions, both on the forum, and via PM. I certainly value your thoughts on this.  But of course, if you would rather not, thats fine too.


 
I don't mind sharing the thoughts, I just don't want to be disrespectful to the other kenpoists.  I personally find problems in kenpo as I understand it and as I've see it done otherwise, problems that make me realize it isn't right for me.  But that's me and not to be taken for others, and I don't want to come off as if I'm just bashing on it since I cannot consider myself involved any longer with it.  Just bad form, and that's what I want to avoid.

That being said, I'll throw out a couple ideas.  I think formulating the curriculum with a set of techs like most kenpo lineages do, is problematic.  I understand the notion that the techs teach ideas and concepts and are not meant to be done right-out-of-the-box, so to speak.  I get that.  But when we have such a large variety of techs for the same kinds of attacks, I think it instills the subconscious notion that we need to have a different response for the same attack, depending on minor variables, and I think that is detrimental to development.  It's my opinion that if one is really good at 3 or 4 concepts, they can probably manage 90% of what might come at them.  Lots of mileage out of a very small group of material.  But when we've got a few dozen techniques against a punch, for example, it builds the notion that we NEED a few dozen techs against a punch.  I feel we don't need that.  We need about 2-4, and that should take care of you.

I think sometimes the techs exist as sort of creativity for the sake of creativity, and many of them do not really add anything valuable to the training.  In fact, when they are overdone in volume they detract because they distract one from training what is really important.  Instead, one trains simply to keep up with the system, instead of training to develop skill.


----------



## Touch Of Death

ATACX GYM said:


> From all the writings that I could get of GGMEP and the statements of those who knew him,even GGMEP didn't practice the techniques of the IP as they are presented to us.The Tracys said that GGMEP practiced each technique "50 Ways To Sunday".Do we see 50 Ways to Sunday in the IP presentation? Nope.We see 50 and more ways to get our asses kicked,though.Not being rude,just being honest.
> 
> The ideas and concepts of each and every one of the 72 SD templates are great.Their presentation is wakk as hell and need to be trash canned asap...then a comprehensive,totally functional upgrade in every way needs to supplant them AS THE BASE FROM WHICH WE START OUR STUDIES.And then we innovate even better functional material from there.Our evolution from kata to combat from spiritual and self-discipline to hardcore practicality,from art to science...because the functional method is the only real way to really do that.Imagine somebody trying to teach you some IP yoga so you can get flexible or a SWAT team doing some IP arresting of the bad guy to get rid of Columbian drug cartels or somebody telling Floyd Mayweather to "ideally" jab at Sugar Shane or Pacquiao.Now why in the hell would you NOT have the same "don't gimme that crap" expression on your face when somebody tells you to DEFEND YOUR LIFE,THE LIFE OF A LOVED ONE OR INNOCENT using some IP technique trained the IP way (meaning NO training against resistant opponents)?


The ideal is important; because, it limits the student to the lesson. No one in any Kenpo, as far as I know, is advocating the IP only approach. 
Sean


----------



## marlon

ok, so i'll ask here as well.  The last comment said something very specific that a non AK person like myself may be confused by.  What is the ideal phase exactly?  Becuase trained in the non effective techniques and trained in a non effective manner are two different things to my understanding.  Does the IP techniques include a specific way of training and is the training the actual problem or the techniques?

REspectfully,
Marlon


----------



## marlon

Flying Crane said:


> I don't mind sharing the thoughts, I just don't want to be disrespectful to the other kenpoists. I personally find problems in kenpo as I understand it and as I've see it done otherwise, problems that make me realize it isn't right for me. But that's me and not to be taken for others, and I don't want to come off as if I'm just bashing on it since I cannot consider myself involved any longer with it. Just bad form, and that's what I want to avoid.
> 
> That being said, I'll throw out a couple ideas. I think formulating the curriculum with a set of techs like most kenpo lineages do, is problematic. I understand the notion that the techs teach ideas and concepts and are not meant to be done right-out-of-the-box, so to speak. I get that. But when we have such a large variety of techs for the same kinds of attacks, I think it instills the subconscious notion that we need to have a different response for the same attack, depending on minor variables, and I think that is detrimental to development. It's my opinion that if one is really good at 3 or 4 concepts, they can probably manage 90% of what might come at them. Lots of mileage out of a very small group of material. But when we've got a few dozen techniques against a punch, for example, it builds the notion that we NEED a few dozen techs against a punch. I feel we don't need that. We need about 2-4, and that should take care of you.
> 
> I think sometimes the techs exist as sort of creativity for the sake of creativity, and many of them do not really add anything valuable to the training. In fact, when they are overdone in volume they detract because they distract one from training what is really important. Instead, one trains simply to keep up with the system, instead of training to develop skill.


 

I have to say i understand your points.  I want to point out though that with proper attention, small variations and add up to major bang for your buck

Respectfully,
Marlon


----------



## Touch Of Death

marlon said:


> ok, so i'll ask here as well.  The last comment said something very specific that a non AK person like myself may be confused by.  What is the ideal phase exactly?  Becuase trained in the non effective techniques and trained in a non effective manner are two different things to my understanding.  Does the IP techniques include a specific way of training and is the training the actual problem or the techniques?
> 
> REspectfully,
> Marlon


The ideal phase is a specific defense against a specific attack. You can "what if" every tech to death, or you can learn that lesson and move on. If the attack calls for a single punch, and you change it all up because he may very well be throwing a flurry of punches, then you miss the lesson of the single attack. If you change up techs against a static opponent because he my be running, then you miss the lesson of the static attack, and so on.
Sean


----------



## jks9199

As I understand it, the Ideal Phase or model techniques were Ed Parker's way of encapsulating his fighting methods, principles, and style into a package that could be offered commercially.  The progression and sequence were intended to present those principles as the students training advanced.

But the Ideal Phase techniques weren't, as far as I understand it, meant to be "everything you need, how to handle every situation."  Once practiced, and internalized, the Ideal Phase techniques were meant to produce appropriate, effective responses when faced by an actual attack using those principles.

I really think it's comparable to training in Japanese koryu arts (and arts that train on the same principle).  The kata there are a tool for developing the appropriate movements and responses according to the principles in the art.  They aren't really meant as "if punched, do this... if someone swings a sword, do that", nor are they some coded secret repository of lethal secrets.  They're a pedagogic method.


----------



## MJS

marlon said:


> ok, so i'll ask here as well. The last comment said something very specific that a non AK person like myself may be confused by. What is the ideal phase exactly? Becuase trained in the non effective techniques and trained in a non effective manner are two different things to my understanding. Does the IP techniques include a specific way of training and is the training the actual problem or the techniques?
> 
> REspectfully,
> Marlon


 
The IP teaches a specific defense for a specific attack.  You could have multiple IP techs for similar attacks, yet there is a slight difference.  Ex: A double lapel grab...one tech may address the attacker pushing his arms out, the other, pulling you in.  

Of course, this is why we have 154 techs, 600 in Tracy, and so forth.  

My thoughts on the IP...I could go 2 different ways.  1) for the sake of the art, I teach them.  But, if I had it my way, I'd drastically trim them down.  As I said above, each tech is teaching something specific.  IMO, I think that its crazy to have a set tech to teach a defense if the guy attacks this way, that way, and every way in between. LOL.  I mean, under pressure, its gonna be pretty darn hard to be able to recall a tech to match the attack presented.  

Instead, it makes more sense to take a few techs for each level.  For reference, we'll use Attacking Mace, right step thru punch.  Train it in the IP, and then train it with a bunch of other variants, ie: a cross instead of a step thru, a jab and a cross, and so forth.  Instead of having to have a ton of preset moves to sort thru, you fall back on your basics.  Using my boxer example...the boxer has a jab, cross, hook, uppercut, yet there're numerous ways to combine those punches.  You shorten the required material, the student has less to practice, thus allowing more time to focus on fewer things, thus allowing them to get better, while at the same time, crafting their own tech, so to speak.

2) The second way would be to eliminate the techs altogether.  Strip the material to barebones.  Teach blocks, punches, strikes, kicks, footwork, etc, add in movement sooner, rather than training these things from a static stance, and have the student put their tools together to form a response.  ex: they know how to block, punch and move, so when the punch comes in, thats what they do.  

Personally, I like version 1 better.  Yes, because I dont have my own school, I teach the material as required at the school I'm a part of.  But I dont always gear my classes to learning a new tech.  Instead, I take something they already know, and I'll spend half the class or more, going over that tech, variations, etc.  I'm still teaching the IP, but where some other insts there may stop at that, I'm taking it to the next step and making it a more FM tech.


----------



## MJS

Flying Crane said:


> I don't mind sharing the thoughts, I just don't want to be disrespectful to the other kenpoists. I personally find problems in kenpo as I understand it and as I've see it done otherwise, problems that make me realize it isn't right for me. But that's me and not to be taken for others, and I don't want to come off as if I'm just bashing on it since I cannot consider myself involved any longer with it. Just bad form, and that's what I want to avoid.
> 
> That being said, I'll throw out a couple ideas. I think formulating the curriculum with a set of techs like most kenpo lineages do, is problematic. I understand the notion that the techs teach ideas and concepts and are not meant to be done right-out-of-the-box, so to speak. I get that. But when we have such a large variety of techs for the same kinds of attacks, I think it instills the subconscious notion that we need to have a different response for the same attack, depending on minor variables, and I think that is detrimental to development. It's my opinion that if one is really good at 3 or 4 concepts, they can probably manage 90% of what might come at them. Lots of mileage out of a very small group of material. But when we've got a few dozen techniques against a punch, for example, it builds the notion that we NEED a few dozen techs against a punch. I feel we don't need that. We need about 2-4, and that should take care of you.
> 
> I think sometimes the techs exist as sort of creativity for the sake of creativity, and many of them do not really add anything valuable to the training. In fact, when they are overdone in volume they detract because they distract one from training what is really important. Instead, one trains simply to keep up with the system, instead of training to develop skill.


 
QFT! Agreed Mike.   I have to wonder what the old school Kenpo days were like.  Did Chow have hundreds of techs at his school?  Or is the creation of all these hundreds of techs something that happened in present day?  

I have a hard time believing that we need 30 (just tossing out a random number) punch techs and all those tech are teaching something different.  I call BS on that.  We need 30 techs to teach us 30 different concepts?  Thats crazy.  LOL.  Supposedly there're many different applications to moves in a kata, so why can't we have several versions for 1 tech?  No reason why I can't take a Parker tech, and play with it, so I have 1 tech for a punch, yet make a change to how the person punches, and adapt on the fly.  

We can still have the IP techs as a base, but instead of 24 or 40 per belt, trim it to 6, but make those 6 functional.


----------



## jks9199

I think another thing to remember about these techniques is that (again, I'm going on my understanding, largely from various posts and discussions here) they were developed as part of a deliberate commercialization push by Ed Parker.  The Tracy's just picked up from that collection in their own way.  So... I can very definitely suspect that some of the quantity and structuring for belts was done for rather mercenary reasons...

It'd be great if Doc Chapel were to share his insights on this...


----------



## marlon

jks9199 said:


> I think another thing to remember about these techniques is that (again, I'm going on my understanding, largely from various posts and discussions here) they were developed as part of a deliberate commercialization push by Ed Parker.  The Tracy's just picked up from that collection in their own way.  So... I can very definitely suspect that some of the quantity and structuring for belts was done for rather mercenary reasons...
> 
> It'd be great if Doc Chapel were to share his insights on this...



Careful what you ask for...


----------



## Inkspill

I think they are absolutely necessary, in the correct order they are to be taught.

it's a curriculum built to teach in a logical progression. building upon what is known, increasing skill level, etc etc

the techniques introduce the Kenpoist to the study of motion and how to combine the "master key moves" - which means BASICS. putting it together, studying how the body moves, natural reactions, principles, etc, are studied through the techniques.

Look at traditional arts, like Shotokan.  at least back when I studied it, we spent a ton of time standing in a horse, practicing basics. moving, sliding the foot, 1, 2, 1, 2.

compare how the traditional guys move and how Kenpoists move.  Mr. Parker refined and sophisticated the movements! he also also refined and sophisticated the method of teaching, etc.

we still train the basics, but now we can become "magicians of motion", all for the purpose of stopping the bad guy and getting away.


----------



## Flying Crane

MJS said:


> QFT! Agreed Mike.  I have to wonder what the old school Kenpo days were like. Did Chow have hundreds of techs at his school? Or is the creation of all these hundreds of techs something that happened in present day?
> 
> I have a hard time believing that we need 30 (just tossing out a random number) punch techs and all those tech are teaching something different. I call BS on that. We need 30 techs to teach us 30 different concepts? Thats crazy. LOL. Supposedly there're many different applications to moves in a kata, so why can't we have several versions for 1 tech? No reason why I can't take a Parker tech, and play with it, so I have 1 tech for a punch, yet make a change to how the person punches, and adapt on the fly.
> 
> We can still have the IP techs as a base, but instead of 24 or 40 per belt, trim it to 6, but make those 6 functional.


 
Hi Mike,

I'll add to my thoughts with this:  I do believe that whatever one is practicing and teaching, it must have an ideal phase of some sort.  The student needs to have a clear instruction of what is happening and what the theory is behind it, and when learning something new it must be done in the ideal phase.  One cannot skip over that and hope for success.  It would be like taking a 16 year-old kid who just passed his drivers test and handing him the keys to a ferrari and telling him to take it out and see how he does at 140 mph.  Guaranteed crash there because the kid hasn't developed the skills to go at that speed, something that comes gradually and with experience.

Same with training martial arts.  You cannot skip the ideal phase and jump straight to full speed and full power.  Not gonna be able to handle it yet.

Maybe the problem is that many people don't look past the ideal phase and never try to train at a higher level of realism and intensity, to experience what that is like and how it affects application.  They work in the ideal phase and never progress beyond.


----------



## Flying Crane

Inkspill said:


> compare how the traditional guys move and how Kenpoists move. Mr. Parker refined and sophisticated the movements! he also also refined and sophisticated the method of teaching, etc.


 
I'll be honest and say that from what I've seen, the people who trained in a solid traditional school move far better than most of the kenpo people that I've seen.


----------



## MJS

Flying Crane said:


> Hi Mike,
> 
> I'll add to my thoughts with this: I do believe that whatever one is practicing and teaching, it must have an ideal phase of some sort. The student needs to have a clear instruction of what is happening and what the theory is behind it, and when learning something new it must be done in the ideal phase. One cannot skip over that and hope for success. It would be like taking a 16 year-old kid who just passed his drivers test and handing him the keys to a ferrari and telling him to take it out and see how he does at 140 mph. Guaranteed crash there because the kid hasn't developed the skills to go at that speed, something that comes gradually and with experience.
> 
> Same with training martial arts. You cannot skip the ideal phase and jump straight to full speed and full power. Not gonna be able to handle it yet.
> 
> Maybe the problem is that many people don't look past the ideal phase and never try to train at a higher level of realism and intensity, to experience what that is like and how it affects application. They work in the ideal phase and never progress beyond.


 
Hey Mike,

Yes, I agree, and thats why I still teach the IP techs.  My thing is, that I dont feel that we need an IP for every single attack.  I should be able to take 1 punch tech., work it in the IP, and from there, using the basics, be able to adapt and come up with a response for anything else off that 1 tech.  Ex: tech is taught as a right step thru.  Work it as a cross, work it against a jab and cross, work it against a jab and step thru, and so forth.  

I'm not saying to just have 1 punch tech, I'm saying that we dont need "X" number of punch techs to teach us a seperate, set response for various attacks.  Did that make sense? LOL.  In essance, we have a tech if the attacker is standing with his left forward, and does a step thru right.  Another tech if the attacker throws a cross.  Another tech is the attacker is standing with his left forward, but the defender is with his right forward, another.....  see what I'm saying?  When we reach the spontaneous phase, IMO, there isn't time to process hundreds of techs to find the 'right one' when that punch is racing to our head.  We just react, using our basics, and the platform the IP taught us. 

Of course, we still take our time.  Learn the stuff slow, no resistance, pressure, etc. and gradually build up.


----------



## Flying Crane

MJS said:


> Hey Mike,
> 
> Yes, I agree, and thats why I still teach the IP techs. My thing is, that I dont feel that we need an IP for every single attack. I should be able to take 1 punch tech., work it in the IP, and from there, using the basics, be able to adapt and come up with a response for anything else off that 1 tech. Ex: tech is taught as a right step thru. Work it as a cross, work it against a jab and cross, work it against a jab and step thru, and so forth.
> 
> I'm not saying to just have 1 punch tech, I'm saying that we dont need "X" number of punch techs to teach us a seperate, set response for various attacks. Did that make sense? LOL. In essance, we have a tech if the attacker is standing with his left forward, and does a step thru right. Another tech if the attacker throws a cross. Another tech is the attacker is standing with his left forward, but the defender is with his right forward, another..... see what I'm saying? When we reach the spontaneous phase, IMO, there isn't time to process hundreds of techs to find the 'right one' when that punch is racing to our head. We just react, using our basics, and the platform the IP taught us.
> 
> Of course, we still take our time. Learn the stuff slow, no resistance, pressure, etc. and gradually build up.


 
yeah, I believe that whatever your curriculum is, you must begin with ideal phase type training.  Slow and methodical, get it RIGHT in every way before you start picking up speed and pressure.

Regarding your other points, I think we're slipping into more of a discussion of how many techs to we really need.  We've been down that road before and I'm sure you know my feelings on it. 

By the way, I believe that if you isolate every tech in Tracys to Godan that involve a punch of some type, there's something like 170.


----------



## Touch Of Death

MJS said:


> Hey Mike,
> 
> Yes, I agree, and thats why I still teach the IP techs.  My thing is, that I dont feel that we need an IP for every single attack.  I should be able to take 1 punch tech., work it in the IP, and from there, using the basics, be able to adapt and come up with a response for anything else off that 1 tech.  Ex: tech is taught as a right step thru.  Work it as a cross, work it against a jab and cross, work it against a jab and step thru, and so forth.
> 
> I'm not saying to just have 1 punch tech, I'm saying that we dont need "X" number of punch techs to teach us a seperate, set response for various attacks.  Did that make sense? LOL.  In essance, we have a tech if the attacker is standing with his left forward, and does a step thru right.  Another tech if the attacker throws a cross.  Another tech is the attacker is standing with his left forward, but the defender is with his right forward, another.....  see what I'm saying?  When we reach the spontaneous phase, IMO, there isn't time to process hundreds of techs to find the 'right one' when that punch is racing to our head.  We just react, using our basics, and the platform the IP taught us.
> 
> Of course, we still take our time.  Learn the stuff slow, no resistance, pressure, etc. and gradually build up.


It isn't making sense to me. Each variation of attack is also coupled with variations in position; so, everything is different!!!!! I like to think of attack variations to be a different tense, and is the guy slightly to the right... to left... tall... short... My point is that you don't have to worry about adapting a single tech to various situations. In the end the student should develop a positional recognition, and feel comfortable through practicing the techs and playing with resistance at different points once the ideal is understood.
Sean


----------



## Flying Crane

I dunno.  Here's how I see it...

you punch at me with your right fist, I smash your punching arm with a pek chui and damage your arm, then I hit you with something, maybe a chuin chui (straight punch).

You punch at me with your left fist, I smash your punching arm with a pek chui and hit you with a chuin chui.

You give me a left-right combo, I smash with pek, pek, then follow with chuin.

You're taller or shorter than me, or slightly off on an angle instead of right in front, doesn't matter: Pek and then Chuin.

You punch at me from the right side, I still smash you with a pek, follow with a chuin, or maybe a baht gim ("sword-drawing punch").

You punch at me from the left side, I still smash you with a pek, follow with a chuin or maybe a baht gim.

You reach out to grab at my jacket, you guessed it: pek to chuin.

you succeed in grabbing my jacket, pek to chuin.

You try to push me, and again it's pek to chuin

You grab me by the shoulder(s), once again: pek to chuin.

My point is, most of these kinds of things you can deal with very simply with an aggressively destructive defensive technique (which may end the problem all by itself) followed by a finisher.  Lots and lots of different attacks, all handled with the same combo: pek-chuin.  Variations naturally fall into place depending on positioning, but the basic techs are the same, on solution for many problems.

why get so complicated?


----------



## Touch Of Death

Flying Crane said:


> I dunno.  Here's how I see it...
> 
> you punch at me with your right fist, I smash your punching arm with a pek chui and damage your arm, then I hit you with something, maybe a chuin chui (straight punch).
> 
> You punch at me with your left fist, I smash your punching arm with a pek chui and hit you with a chuin chui.
> 
> You give me a left-right combo, I smash with pek, pek, then follow with chuin.
> 
> You're taller or shorter than me, or slightly off on an angle instead of right in front, doesn't matter: Pek and then Chuin.
> 
> You punch at me from the right side, I still smash you with a pek, follow with a chuin, or maybe a baht gim ("sword-drawing punch").
> 
> You punch at me from the left side, I still smash you with a pek, follow with a chuin or maybe a baht gim.
> 
> You reach out to grab at my jacket, you guessed it: pek to chuin.
> 
> you succeed in grabbing my jacket, pek to chuin.
> 
> You try to push me, and again it's pek to chuin
> 
> You grab me by the shoulder(s), once again: pek to chuin.
> 
> My point is, most of these kinds of things you can deal with very simply with an aggressively destructive defensive technique (which may end the problem all by itself) followed by a finisher.  Lots and lots of different attacks, all handled with the same combo: pek-chuin.  Variations naturally fall into place depending on positioning, but the basic techs are the same, on solution for many problems.
> 
> why get so complicated?


I have no idea what you just said. LOL


----------



## MJS

Touch Of Death said:


> It isn't making sense to me. Each variation of attack is also coupled with variations in position; so, everything is different!!!!! I like to think of attack variations to be a different tense, and is the guy slightly to the right... to left... tall... short... My point is that you don't have to worry about adapting a single tech to various situations. In the end the student should develop a positional recognition, and feel comfortable through practicing the techs and playing with resistance at different points once the ideal is understood.
> Sean


 
http://kenpokarate.com/index.html

Read "50 ways to Sunday"



> A technique, like the 2-hand lapel grab (Kimono Grab), requires you to step back with your left foot when the opponent's arms are extended. But when his arms are bent, it's a different technique and you step forward, using different weapons. So "what if" the arms are bent and you can't straighten them as you step back and strike? Simple. You use a different weapon, striking a different target. Your left foot may have to step slightly to the side, or even directly to the right side. Your right upward strike can change to an asp strike, or go between the arms and twist the opponents arms. You might step back with the right foot and use the left hand defense, or any one of a number of variations - 50 Ways to Sunday. Because of the numerous variations, the defenses against a "Two Hand Lapel Grab" became different techniques, depending on the foot movement and hand weapons used, with the three major defenses being the Kimono Grab, Swinging Gate and Striking Asp.


My point....why do we need 3 seperate techniques?  I *think* we may be on the same page here, and perhaps its just a misunderstanding on wording.  I suppose its how we can look at it.  We could say that its 3 seperate techs.  We could say that its 3 variations on the same technique.  *I* view it as 3 seperate techs., because thats how its taught.  You have them listed and taught as seperate techs. as seen above.  

Again, my view is instead of making it 3 seperate techs, keep it as 1, with a bunch of variations.


----------



## Touch Of Death

MJS said:


> http://kenpokarate.com/index.html
> 
> Read "50 ways to Sunday"
> 
> 
> My point....why do we need 3 seperate techniques?  I *think* we may be on the same page here, and perhaps its just a misunderstanding on wording.  I suppose its how we can look at it.  We could say that its 3 seperate techs.  We could say that its 3 variations on the same technique.  *I* view it as 3 seperate techs., because thats how its taught.  You have them listed and taught as seperate techs. as seen above.
> 
> Again, my view is instead of making it 3 seperate techs, keep it as 1, with a bunch of variations.


I have always contended that it is all Delayed Sword; so, I see what you are saying but the techs from yellow to Blue are distinctly different enough to play around with.
Sean


----------



## MJS

Touch Of Death said:


> I have no idea what you just said. LOL


 
I do.   What he's saying is that no matter whats being thrown, you're not responding with 10 *different* techs, instead you're responding with the same thing, just applied to different attacks. 

I can take a tech such as Attacking Mace, and using the basic platform, with some slight modifications, depending on how the attack is, etc, come up with at lesat 5, if not a few more, different variations.  I dont need 5 seperate techs to teach me what to do.


----------



## Flying Crane

Touch Of Death said:


> I have no idea what you just said. LOL


 
figured, and now you know how non-kenpoists feel when they read thru the kenpo threads  ;-P

Pek chui is a type of punch, it's really kind of a heavy hammerfist done from the torso, not just an elbow-hinge hammerfist.  It can be thrown from many angles including verticle, horizontal, and in between, but in a very standard way it is probably most recognizeable striking down.  It is extremely useful in smashing down on a punching arm or other weapon that's coming at you, hurts like a major ***** to receive it, could easily damage the punching arm tremendously.  Our idea is, if you are stupid enough to stick it out at us, we are gonna destroy it.

Chuin chui is recognizeable as a straight punch.


----------



## Flying Crane

MJS said:


> I do.  What he's saying is that no matter whats being thrown, you're not responding with 10 *different* techs, instead you're responding with the same thing, just applied to different attacks.
> 
> I can take a tech such as Attacking Mace, and using the basic platform, with some slight modifications, depending on how the attack is, etc, come up with at lesat 5, if not a few more, different variations. I dont need 5 seperate techs to teach me what to do.


 
yes, and it's even simpler than that.  It's not a comlicated kenpo-ish type of tech combination with stepping, blocking, evading, and 14 follow-up blitz strikes.  It is literally just two types of punches/hand-strikes.  Adapted to the circumstances, but the same two punches.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Flying Crane said:


> figured, and now you know how non-kenpoists feel when they read thru the kenpo threads  ;-P
> 
> Pek chui is a type of punch, it's really kind of a heavy hammerfist done from the torso, not just an elbow-hinge hammerfist.  It can be thrown from many angles including verticle, horizontal, and in between, but in a very standard way it is probably most recognizeable striking down.  It is extremely useful in smashing down on a punching arm or other weapon that's coming at you, hurts like a major ***** to receive it, could easily damage the punching arm tremendously.  Our idea is, if you are stupid enough to stick it out at us, we are gonna destroy it.
> 
> Chuin chui is recognizeable as a straight punch.


I just hit him with a little Remo. LOL


----------



## clfsean

Flying Crane said:


> I dunno.  Here's how I see it...
> 
> you punch at me with your right fist, I smash your punching arm with a pek chui and damage your arm, then I hit you with something, maybe a chuin chui (straight punch).
> 
> You punch at me with your left fist, I smash your punching arm with a pek chui and hit you with a chuin chui.
> 
> You give me a left-right combo, I smash with pek, pek, then follow with chuin.
> 
> You're taller or shorter than me, or slightly off on an angle instead of right in front, doesn't matter: Pek and then Chuin.
> 
> You punch at me from the right side, I still smash you with a pek, follow with a chuin, or maybe a baht gim ("sword-drawing punch").
> 
> You punch at me from the left side, I still smash you with a pek, follow with a chuin or maybe a baht gim.
> 
> You reach out to grab at my jacket, you guessed it: pek to chuin.
> 
> you succeed in grabbing my jacket, pek to chuin.
> 
> You try to push me, and again it's pek to chuin
> 
> You grab me by the shoulder(s), once again: pek to chuin.
> 
> My point is, most of these kinds of things you can deal with very simply with an aggressively destructive defensive technique (which may end the problem all by itself) followed by a finisher.  Lots and lots of different attacks, all handled with the same combo: pek-chuin.  Variations naturally fall into place depending on positioning, but the basic techs are the same, on solution for many problems.
> 
> why get so complicated?



Keep it simple... the way it was meant to be... Gotta love Southern CMA... Gwa (Pek)/Chop (Chuin)/Sao (Kuhp) ...


----------



## Flying Crane

clfsean said:


> Keep it simple... the way it was meant to be... Gotta love Southern CMA... Gwa (Pek)/Chop (Chuin)/Sao (Kuhp) ...


 

ayup, and the pau chui and baht gim, holy hell good night!  Those are some scary ways to hit someone, there is a very real danger of killing someone outright with some of those.


----------



## clfsean

Flying Crane said:


> ayup, and the pau chui and baht gim, holy hell good night!  Those are some scary ways to hit someone, there is a very real danger of killing someone outright with some of those.



Yup... we don't use baht gim per se, we have chinji choi which is basically the same thing but done with the thumb forward/palm up & hitting with forearm. Niters... I'll leave a note on your shirt asking for a taxi ride to an ER... :angel:


----------



## Flying Crane

clfsean said:


> Yup... we don't use baht gim per se, we have chinji choi which is basically the same thing but done with the thumb forward/palm up & hitting with forearm. Niters... I'll leave a note on your shirt asking for a taxi ride to an ER... :angel:


 
we aim to hit with the thumb side of the fist, palm-up, but the forearm works if you are in tight or are using as a blocking technique instead.  Land that on the side of the head at the jaw-hinge, or on a rising path under the chin, snap that head back, probably break the neck and he lands on his head on the concrete.  Call the morgue. *shudder*

one of the things I like about it is where it comes from.  You are turned sideways with your arm crossed over, he thinks you are smothered with no way to punch.  Not so!  Out whips that fist from nowhere and it's all over.  If it's tight, just make it more verticle than horizontal or angled.  Slips right up to the chin.

That angled pek chui that gets you there in the first place is pretty nasty too.  We sometimes block with that instead of outright striking the head, and it has a way of sticking to the bad guy's arm and seriously yanking him along the path it follows.  Hit him on the side of the head with it and you won't get a chance to do the follow-up.


----------



## clfsean

Flying Crane said:


> we aim to hit with the thumb side of the fist, palm-up, but the forearm works if you are in tight or are using as a blocking technique instead.  Land that on the side of the head at the jaw-hinge, or on a rising path under the chin, snap that head back, probably break the neck and he lands on his head on the concrete.  Call the morgue. *shudder*
> 
> one of the things I like about it is where it comes from.  You are turned sideways with your arm crossed over, he thinks you are smothered with no way to punch.  Not so!  Out whips that fist from nowhere and it's all over.  If it's tight, just make it more verticle than horizontal or angled.  Slips right up to the chin.
> 
> That angled pek chui that gets you there in the first place is pretty nasty too.  We sometimes block with that instead of outright striking the head, and it has a way of sticking to the bad guy's arm and seriously yanking him along the path it follows.  Hit him on the side of the head with it and you won't get a chance to do the follow-up.



Eh color me stupid... I was talking about biu jong coming up from under like you talked about above with the baht gim. 

The chinji choi is equivalent to your down angled pek choi. Fist or forearm on that one too. Our pek is almost strictly vertical in delivery & shorter in motion, like you're firing it from your ear as if on the phone. Chinji is about the same, but angled across body, from "X" shoulder to "Y" hip. Our pek is "X" shoulder to "X" hip.

I prefer forearm for almost all of my circular strikes. Those bones are bigger, more dense & not to mention conditioned with lots of saam sing as opposed to the bones in my hands. My hands are good to go, but the forearms are (for me) a better striking tool.


----------



## MJS

Flying Crane said:


> yeah, I believe that whatever your curriculum is, you must begin with ideal phase type training. Slow and methodical, get it RIGHT in every way before you start picking up speed and pressure.


 
Yes sir, I agree with that.  



> Regarding your other points, I think we're slipping into more of a discussion of how many techs to we really need. We've been down that road before and I'm sure you know my feelings on it.


 
Yes, now that you mention it, I noticed that.  LOL, actually, that isn't where I was looking to take this thread, but somehow while the # of techs isnt the main thrust of the thread, it does play a small part.  I say that because while the IPs, IMO, are important to build a base from, I dont think we need 100+ to help us build that base.



> By the way, I believe that if you isolate every tech in Tracys to Godan that involve a punch of some type, there's something like 170.


 
Oh my....


----------



## Flying Crane

clfsean said:


> Eh color me stupid... I was talking about biu jong coming up from under like you talked about above with the baht gim.
> 
> The chinji choi is equivalent to your down angled pek choi. Fist or forearm on that one too. Our pek is almost strictly vertical in delivery & shorter in motion, like you're firing it from your ear as if on the phone. Chinji is about the same, but angled across body, from "X" shoulder to "Y" hip. Our pek is "X" shoulder to "X" hip.
> 
> I prefer forearm for almost all of my circular strikes. Those bones are bigger, more dense & not to mention conditioned with lots of saam sing as opposed to the bones in my hands. My hands are good to go, but the forearms are (for me) a better striking tool.


 
yeah, I know there's some terminology that isn't exactly the same from one system to another, that's OK.  We've also got long and short versions of many of the techs.  I think the important thing is, those strikes are devastatingly destructive and that's the point.  Root in and rotate and the bad guy goes down.

I know what you mean about the forearms.  We see it as the fist is at the most extended point and has the most momentum, but the flip side is if your fist doesn't survive the impact it doesn't help much.  Select your targets wisely.


----------



## Flying Crane

MJS said:


> Yes, now that you mention it, I noticed that. LOL, actually, that isn't where I was looking to take this thread, but somehow while the # of techs isnt the main thrust of the thread, it does play a small part. I say that because while the IPs, IMO, are important to build a base from, I dont think we need 100+ to help us build that base.


 
I'd say it plays a big part, actually.  At some point adding more techs just cannot be adding anything worthwhile and new, and I'd go so far as to say more and more of them become really questionable, actually not good ideas, even downright bad ideas.  You end up spread too thin, and a lot of the time is spent practicing bad material.  



> Oh my....


 
oh yes.


----------



## jks9199

I found a rather relevant qoute by chance HERE.


> *Ed Parker on Techniques: *
> 
> _I  teach Kenpo, not for the sake of teaching the techniques, but for the  principles involved in them. And even then, these principles must be  altered to fit the individual._
> _The  reason I give my techniques names is because there are certain  sequences associated with these terms. If I told a student tomorrow that  I was going to teach him a counter version to a double hand grab, it's  not as meaningful as when I say I'm going to teach him &#8216;Parting Wings.&#8217; _
> _You&#8217;ve  got to know how to vary things. A lot of the techniques I&#8217;ve worked  with, they&#8217;re ideas, they&#8217;re not rules. At any given time, any of my  moves can change from defense to offense, offense to defense. __Martial  artists, and Kenpo people especially, become so involved in doing the  techniques exactly right in such and such amount of time, that they get  caught in a pattern that they can&#8217;t break. That&#8217;s not what they&#8217;re for.  Specific moves, specific techniques are based, like the ABC&#8217;s in the  English language or standard football plays.  You have to have a point  of reference and from there the combinations are endless and limited  only by universal laws, laws that you can&#8217;t change._​


​


----------



## MJS

And this little gem from the same link.​ 




> The Ed Parker system of Kenpo has 154 self defense techniques. Each and every one of them work. But what is it that they actually do?





> The techniques of Kenpo teach you the principles of motion and how to use these principles to defend yourself. Although the techniques can work out on the street, any street altercation will change moment by moment. Therefore, an effective technique is one that has trained you to adapt to the moment, without relying on any one predetermined sequence. In class you learn techniques in prearranged sequence, similar to learning how to speak a language through practicing sample sentences. However once a language is learned, you no longer depend on sample sentences to have conversations. We simple converse in the language we have learned. The same is true in Kenpo Karate


----------



## Flying Crane

MJS said:


> And this little gem from the same link.​
> 
> 
> 
> ​





And this is actually why I have left kenpo, because at least for me the technique format, this way that the curriculum is designed and taught, fails to teach the principles that matter and that everyone seems so sure exist in them.  I've actually tried to engage discussions to determine just what those principles are, and more often than not there is little or no response.  I personally do not believe the the techniques deliver the goods in terms of teaching these principles.  If others believe they do, that's fine by me, but I just do not believe it's in there and at least for me, it simply does not work as a method of training and learning.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Flying Crane said:


> And this is actually why I have left kenpo, because at least for me the technique format, this way that the curriculum is designed and taught, fails to teach the principles that matter and that everyone seems so sure exist in them.  I've actually tried to engage discussions to determine just what those principles are, and more often than not there is little or no response.  I personally do not believe the the techniques deliver the goods in terms of teaching these principles.  If others believe they do, that's fine by me, but I just do not believe it's in there and at least for me, it simply does not work as a method of training and learning.


That would depend on who was teaching and how.
Sean


----------



## Flying Crane

Touch Of Death said:


> That would depend on who was teaching and how.
> Sean


 
that's true, but if it's out there I've not seen it yet.  Granted I've not seen everything and I don't claim that I have.  But I just reached a point where I realized this method doesn't work for me, isn't a good match for me, and I'm OK with that.


----------



## MJS

Flying Crane said:


> And this is actually why I have left kenpo, because at least for me the technique format, this way that the curriculum is designed and taught, fails to teach the principles that matter and that everyone seems so sure exist in them. I've actually tried to engage discussions to determine just what those principles are, and more often than not there is little or no response. I personally do not believe the the techniques deliver the goods in terms of teaching these principles. If others believe they do, that's fine by me, but I just do not believe it's in there and at least for me, it simply does not work as a method of training and learning.


 
Well, maybe we can change that.    Who knows, maybe we can work that discussion into this thread.  



Flying Crane said:


> that's true, but if it's out there I've not seen it yet. Granted I've not seen everything and I don't claim that I have. But I just reached a point where I realized this method doesn't work for me, isn't a good match for me, and I'm OK with that.


 
Man, this sounds like deja vu, because I've said the same thing myself, especially when it comes to grappling in Kenpo. LOL.


----------



## clfsean

Flying Crane said:


> I think the important thing is, those strikes are devastatingly destructive and that's the point. Root in and rotate and the bad guy goes down.


 
Bottom line!!! Booyah!!:whip1:



Flying Crane said:


> I know what you mean about the forearms. We see it as the fist is at the most extended point and has the most momentum, but the flip side is if your fist doesn't survive the impact it doesn't help much. Select your targets wisely.


 
Very true. You know as well as anybody who's been around for a while, a resisting opponent isn't going to stand there & go "Ok... here I am".  For me, like you, the fist is the end of the bat. Sometimes the ball isn't going to be on the outside. So I keep the inside of the bat just as ready as the outside if not preferred. The only way for me to not make a meaningful contact is for the opponent to just not be there.


----------



## MJS

I copy/pasted the following from Rich Hales site:

"The techniques of Kenpo teach you the principles of motion and how to use these principles to defend yourself. Although the techniques can work out on the street, any street altercation will change moment by moment. Therefore, an effective technique is one that has trained you to adapt to the moment, without relying on any one predetermined sequence. In class you learn techniques in prearranged sequence, similar to learning how to speak a language through practicing sample sentences. However once a language is learned, you no longer depend on sample sentences to have conversations. We simple converse in the language we have learned. The same is true in Kenpo Karate"

Mike (FC) stated:

"And this is actually why I have left kenpo, because at least for me the technique format, this way that the curriculum is designed and taught, fails to teach the principles that matter and that everyone seems so sure exist in them. I've actually tried to engage discussions to determine just what those principles are, and more often than not there is little or no response. I personally do not believe the the techniques deliver the goods in terms of teaching these principles. If others believe they do, that's fine by me, but I just do not believe it's in there and at least for me, it simply does not work as a method of training and learning."

So, in an effort to further the discussion, I thought that we could also address this.  So, what exactly are the missing principles?  Is it that the techniques are missing the real or alive feel to how the poop is really going to hit the fan?  If thats the case, then yeah, I agree, especially if the person doing them, never steps outside of the box, and is so bond by the techniques, that they think that if you just know the technique, that thats all that you'll need to know.  

I'll stop here for now, just to get the clarification, as if this isn't what Mike is talking about, I dont wanna ramble on and on....lol.


----------



## Flying Crane

clfsean said:


> Bottom line!!! Booyah!!:whip1:
> 
> 
> 
> Very true. You know as well as anybody who's been around for a while, a resisting opponent isn't going to stand there & go "Ok... here I am".  For me, like you, the fist is the end of the bat. Sometimes the ball isn't going to be on the outside. So I keep the inside of the bat just as ready as the outside if not preferred. The only way for me to not make a meaningful contact is for the opponent to just not be there.



yeah, that's a good way of putting it.  Sifu sometimes talks about nailing that incoming punch under the elbow with a pau chui or something right on the fist, but then he says, ya gotta have really good aim to hit it like that.  personally I think sometimes it's OK to go for the greater percentage shot even if the destructive potential is a tiny bit lower.  nuthin wrong with taking the safety margin.


----------



## Flying Crane

MJS said:


> So, in an effort to further the discussion, I thought that we could also address this.  So, what exactly are the missing principles?  Is it that the techniques are missing the real or alive feel to how the poop is really going to hit the fan?  If thats the case, then yeah, I agree, especially if the person doing them, never steps outside of the box, and is so bond by the techniques, that they think that if you just know the technique, that thats all that you'll need to know.
> 
> I'll stop here for now, just to get the clarification, as if this isn't what Mike is talking about, I dont wanna ramble on and on....lol.



we are getting dangerously close to me coming off as if I'm just ripping on kenpo with a good dose of sour grapes, and I don't want to do that.  I'm seeing the issue as a recognition that the kenpo way is not a good match for me, while others may feel it works quite well for them.  I don't want to just insult all the kenpoists, that's not my intention.  Maybe I've already crossed that line and it's too late, I dunno.

What I'll put forth is a brief description of how we do things in white crane, and what makes sense to me about it.  Maybe that perspective will give some insights and kenpoists can compare how they personally see and do kenpo, without me making a list of what I feel doesn't work about it.

we have a very specific method that we use in delivering our techniques in white crane.  And by "technique", in the context of white crane I mean every type of punch or strike, I am not referring to the often lengthy Self Defense techniques that are common to most of the Parker-derived kenpo lineages.

We use our foundation and stance to drive everything.  Beginning with the feet, we learn to press and brace them against the ground and create a rooting effect that gives us stability.  From there we practice a waist turning exercise, which teaches us to rotate the torso by driving the feet against the ground.  The feet actively press into and turn on the ground, and that action travels up thru the hips and into the torso and makes it rotate.  The rotation of the torso is specifically driven from that action with the feet on up, it is not done by turning at the shoulders and leading the turn from the top.  I always say, drive from the bottom, do not turn from the top.

When we deliver almost every type of strike or punch or technique, it comes from this rotation.  We very specifically link the travel of the punch to the turning of the body and we are very precise about matching those movements together.  The rotation drives the punch out.  In my observations, people often "pivot" their feet and throw a punch, but the timing is not together and the stance pivot actually did nothing to power that punch.  If they are not together, it does no good.  We practice this rotation back and forth all by itself, over and over, and we practice our various striking techniques with this rotation, over and over to develop that timing and ability to engage the whole body in delivering the technique.  The change from one stance to another as we rotate back and forth is where the work is being done.  The stance itself is just the ending posture.  The real work is being done between the stances, and if you screw it up then you diminish the effects.

We do not have a list of self defense techniques like kenpo has.  We do practice a curriculum of forms, some of which are quite long and taxing.  The forms can be fairly complex and challenging, and most people make the mistake of believing the forms are meant to teach self defense combinations.  They focus on the use of the specific movements, i.e. "when I step like this in the form and move my hand like THIS, I can use that combination to defend against a punch in THIS manner..."  I agree that this type of analysis is important.  however, I believe it is only of second importance and is not the most important thing.

What the forms teach us first and foremost is to keep that foundation strongly engaged no matter what we are doing.  The complex movements in the form make it challenging to keep the integrity of the foundation, but a real fight is even more challenging.  So the forms are an intermediate step towards being able to fight and being able to maintain that foundation during a rapidly changing situation with a lot of stepping and movements.  As we work through the form we keep the stances strong, the rooting engaged, and use that body rotation to drive every technique.  Like I said, the forms are long and we've got a fair number of them.  It is a challenge to work through a form and keep all the foundation engaged and deliver every technique properly.  Racing through your forms does not allow you to get the training benefits of this.  It is important to be methodical, and not go any faster than you can while maintaining all the foundation aspects.  Sifu harps on us about that and says, slow down and get it right.  If you race through and just go thru the motions, you get no benefit, you are only exercising, you get no martial development.  The form is NOT a dance, it is NOT an artistic endeavor, it is NOT a performance item.  It is a training tool and you only get the benefits when you know how to practice the form correctly and mindfully.

From there we can progress into partner drills to practice specific techniques with a partner.  Like my earlier post where I kept saying, "Pek chui to Chuin chui", we just work that on a partner.  He throws punches at me and I use my pek chui to smash him down and then counter.  But the point of the drill is not to just "do the movement".  It is to deliver the technique with that foundation that we've been working so hard to develop, so that it is devastating.  We have to wear arm pads when we do this because if not, we'd have to quit after about four shots, it is just that painful and destructive.  So we beat the hell out of each other's arms, but we aren't just swatting with our arm; we are delivering technique with full body engagement and rotation, rooted in.

This is in a nutshell the whole idea of white crane: to learn to use the whole body to deliver every technique that we do.  There are a few basic principles that permeate all of the system: rooting, rotation, extension, that's mostly it.  The whole system is built upon that, and those are the things that drive it all, that is the engine underneath it.  Once you understand this and develop the ability to do it, then any and every movement can become a devastating technique because it is all driven with the power of the whole body.

When I think of principles, I think of that kind of permeation, what drives everything.  Sometimes people talk about principles, but what they are describing are simply ideas that may be useful under specific circumstances.  That is not a principle, it does not drive the entire system, it is of limited use and depends on special circumstances.  The principles I consider do not depend on circumstances, they permeate everywhere in the system, under all conditions, almost without exception.


----------



## MJS

Flying Crane said:


> we are getting dangerously close to me coming off as if I'm just ripping on kenpo with a good dose of sour grapes, and I don't want to do that. I'm seeing the issue as a recognition that the kenpo way is not a good match for me, while others may feel it works quite well for them. I don't want to just insult all the kenpoists, that's not my intention. Maybe I've already crossed that line and it's too late, I dunno.


 
I'm sure I've crossed that line many times already. LOL.  But yes, I do see what you're saying.  Its not my intention either although I'm sure it sounds that way in many of my posts.  



> What I'll put forth is a brief description of how we do things in white crane, and what makes sense to me about it. Maybe that perspective will give some insights and kenpoists can compare how they personally see and do kenpo, without me making a list of what I feel doesn't work about it.
> 
> we have a very specific method that we use in delivering our techniques in white crane. And by "technique", in the context of white crane I mean every type of punch or strike, I am not referring to the often lengthy Self Defense techniques that are common to most of the Parker-derived kenpo lineages.
> 
> We use our foundation and stance to drive everything. Beginning with the feet, we learn to press and brace them against the ground and create a rooting effect that gives us stability. From there we practice a waist turning exercise, which teaches us to rotate the torso by driving the feet against the ground. The feet actively press into and turn on the ground, and that action travels up thru the hips and into the torso and makes it rotate. The rotation of the torso is specifically driven from that action with the feet on up, it is not done by turning at the shoulders and leading the turn from the top. I always say, drive from the bottom, do not turn from the top.
> 
> When we deliver almost every type of strike or punch or technique, it comes from this rotation. We very specifically link the travel of the punch to the turning of the body and we are very precise about matching those movements together. The rotation drives the punch out. In my observations, people often "pivot" their feet and throw a punch, but the timing is not together and the stance pivot actually did nothing to power that punch. If they are not together, it does no good. We practice this rotation back and forth all by itself, over and over, and we practice our various striking techniques with this rotation, over and over to develop that timing and ability to engage the whole body in delivering the technique. The change from one stance to another as we rotate back and forth is where the work is being done. The stance itself is just the ending posture. The real work is being done between the stances, and if you screw it up then you diminish the effects.
> 
> We do not have a list of self defense techniques like kenpo has. We do practice a curriculum of forms, some of which are quite long and taxing. The forms can be fairly complex and challenging, and most people make the mistake of believing the forms are meant to teach self defense combinations. They focus on the use of the specific movements, i.e. "when I step like this in the form and move my hand like THIS, I can use that combination to defend against a punch in THIS manner..." I agree that this type of analysis is important. however, I believe it is only of second importance and is not the most important thing.
> 
> What the forms teach us first and foremost is to keep that foundation strongly engaged no matter what we are doing. The complex movements in the form make it challenging to keep the integrity of the foundation, but a real fight is even more challenging. So the forms are an intermediate step towards being able to fight and being able to maintain that foundation during a rapidly changing situation with a lot of stepping and movements. As we work through the form we keep the stances strong, the rooting engaged, and use that body rotation to drive every technique. Like I said, the forms are long and we've got a fair number of them. It is a challenge to work through a form and keep all the foundation engaged and deliver every technique properly. Racing through your forms does not allow you to get the training benefits of this. It is important to be methodical, and not go any faster than you can while maintaining all the foundation aspects. Sifu harps on us about that and says, slow down and get it right. If you race through and just go thru the motions, you get no benefit, you are only exercising, you get no martial development. The form is NOT a dance, it is NOT an artistic endeavor, it is NOT a performance item. It is a training tool and you only get the benefits when you know how to practice the form correctly and mindfully.
> 
> From there we can progress into partner drills to practice specific techniques with a partner. Like my earlier post where I kept saying, "Pek chui to Chuin chui", we just work that on a partner. He throws punches at me and I use my pek chui to smash him down and then counter. But the point of the drill is not to just "do the movement". It is to deliver the technique with that foundation that we've been working so hard to develop, so that it is devastating. We have to wear arm pads when we do this because if not, we'd have to quit after about four shots, it is just that painful and destructive. So we beat the hell out of each other's arms, but we aren't just swatting with our arm; we are delivering technique with full body engagement and rotation, rooted in.
> 
> This is in a nutshell the whole idea of white crane: to learn to use the whole body to deliver every technique that we do. There are a few basic principles that permeate all of the system: rooting, rotation, extension, that's mostly it. The whole system is built upon that, and those are the things that drive it all, that is the engine underneath it. Once you understand this and develop the ability to do it, then any and every movement can become a devastating technique because it is all driven with the power of the whole body.
> 
> When I think of principles, I think of that kind of permeation, what drives everything. Sometimes people talk about principles, but what they are describing are simply ideas that may be useful under specific circumstances. That is not a principle, it does not drive the entire system, it is of limited use and depends on special circumstances. The principles I consider do not depend on circumstances, they permeate everywhere in the system, under all conditions, almost without exception.


 
Correct me if I'm wrong again, but I'm understanding this as a combination of not having a laundry list of technqiues, as well as more of a focus on getting the most bang for your buck with proper basics, ie: body position, footwork, getting the most power out of your move, etc.  

I think that many times, if we watch Kenpo, what we see if someone blasting away at the other guy, with more of an emphasis on speed vs power.  Am i correct in saying that?  If thats the case, then yes, I agree.  If we put that kind of power into our techs......

OTOH, watching a few top Kenpo guys, while they may not be doing it exactly as you describe, I do see a bit more of what you're describing in WC.


----------



## Flying Crane

MJS said:


> I'm sure I've crossed that line many times already. LOL.  But yes, I do see what you're saying.  Its not my intention either although I'm sure it sounds that way in many of my posts.
> 
> 
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong again, but I'm understanding this as a combination of not having a laundry list of technqiues, as well as more of a focus on getting the most bang for your buck with proper basics, ie: body position, footwork, getting the most power out of your move, etc.
> 
> I think that many times, if we watch Kenpo, what we see if someone blasting away at the other guy, with more of an emphasis on speed vs power.  Am i correct in saying that?  If thats the case, then yes, I agree.  If we put that kind of power into our techs......
> 
> OTOH, watching a few top Kenpo guys, while they may not be doing it exactly as you describe, I do see a bit more of what you're describing in WC.




Yes, the focus of the training is very different.  Seems to me that in kenpo people focus on what to do if X happens, while in traditional kung fu we focus more on HOW do we make something really powerful, and then application sort of falls into place and is simple and straight forward and to the point.  It doesn't need to be complicated combinations, just hit the guy and make it devastating.

I suspect some of the really good kenpo guys figure this out on some level, but I think the way the curriculum is structured doesn't have a systematic way of going about teaching and developing it.  Often the curriculum is so large that the curriculum itself becomes the focus, instead of making for solid fundamental skills.  My sifu repeatedly states that you don't need to learn the whole system of WC, not even most of it.  There are just a few very basic things, and the first form, maybe the second, if you know that much and you really understand it and you really develop those fundamentals, you've got way more than you really need to be able to fight if that's what you want to do.

He says (and I see the truth in this) that it all comes down to the basics.  The real reason we have a larger curriculum beyond just the basics and the first couple of forms is because most people are too stupid to recognize this.  So we all (himself included) need to go thru the process of learning more before we are ready to understand the truth that it all comes down to the fundamentals. Having gone thru the process of learning a larger curriculum, we are training our bodies to apply the fundamentals in different ways, and again that just brings it back to the fundamentals.

But the forms are constructed in a way to reinforce these lessons.  They are not just a bunch of SD techs linked together in some way.  They are sequences designed (if you understand it properly) to get you to focus on the fundamentals when you deliver and execute every portion of the form.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Touch Of Death said:


> The ideal is important; because, it limits the student to the lesson. No one in any Kenpo, as far as I know, is advocating the IP only approach.
> Sean


 

The IDEA is important.The IDEAL PHASE is garbage,to be blunt.I mean no disrespect,but the IDEAL PHASE very clearly and obviously puts forth a set of movements that are not only not functional but misleading; if you use the IDEAL PHASE to TRAIN or even INTRODUCE students to a technique? You're underpreparing them mentally and physically for the very rude reality of a SD encounter. I say...introduce the student and limit the student to the lesson BUT BE FUNCTIONAL ABOUT IT.This way THEY ACTUALLY LEARN A REAL WORLD LESSON.


See,it's the real world functionality of the IP (which is basically zero) which gives the lie to its worth as a desirable training tool that preps students for SD.Right out the gate teach a functional response to a functional attack,and you don't even need force at first.Not even in the beginning phases of sparring.(You WILL INCREASE RESISTANCE TO NEAR 100% AS A STUDENT'S PROFICIENCY AND SKILL INCREASES THOUGH,AND IN THE PROCESS DRAMATICALLY IMPROVE YOUR STUDENT'S REAL WORLD SD ABILITY,CONFIDENCE,AND ALL THE THINGS THAT THE IP PURPORTS TO ADDRESS POSITIVELY AND FLAT OUT DOESN'T BUT WHICH THE FUNCTIONAL/ALIVE METHOD DOES DO AND IN FAR SHORTER TME TO BOOT).Here's proof of my words:


This here is the IP version of ATTACKING MACES

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d46GowapCqU&feature=fvst


Functional Attacking Maces Intro:





 



Functional Attacking Maces sparring:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUtsjUJ7InU&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDxHsdUDLDU&feature=related


^^^I really get into a gajillion times more detail in my DVDs,but the sad thing is that too many people champion and defend the IP of the first video clip and actually delude themselves into thinking that they can fight like that.What's even worse is that there are people who learn the IP,proceed to trash can it and develope functional fighting methods wholly divergent from the IP,then come back to defend the IP like it has some worth.That's...just...terrible.The IP is trash.Period.Point blank.There.I said it.

What's also terrible is that there is NOTHING like even these little clips that I am putting out there in the Kenpo market.It's SAD.Frankly,I'm more than a little disappointed and offended that I'm the first that I know of to put out anything like what I have on my Youtube Channel.Fact is? The SD's should've been mandatory sparring tools since long before I was born.Fact is? Demo'ing technique and then sparring live with it should be so basic that it's expected and mandatory.No instructor should teach a student a technique that the instructor hasn't personally sparred with (preferably) or at least said instructor has lotsa sparring and SD experience and is able to engineer techniques that have combat applicability and even if the instructor doesn't spar with it? The instructors students do and do so under the instructor's close supervision so the instructor knows exactly what should and shouldn't be done.Like a boxing coach who used to box professionally.


So NO,the IP has no real place in the real world.It's fatally flawed in many areas and its need to be trash canned or gigantically upgraded to the functional is so extreme that it's criminal.And the funny thing is? GGMEP had a saying..."Train it 50 Ways To Sunday" that would have nicely done the trick.Take every single technique and work it from the primary assortment of basic what-ifs.Multifights armed ground grappling groundfighting (this is different than ground grappling) seated position,escape rescue standing position,CQB range,escape and rescue,etc. etc. The resulting technique is your functional base and THIS is what we should be teaching instead of that dangerously delusional dilapidated decrepit nonfunctional IP.


----------



## jks9199

Flying Crane said:


> We use our foundation and stance to drive everything. Beginning with the feet, we learn to press and brace them against the ground and create a rooting effect that gives us stability. From there we practice a waist turning exercise, which teaches us to rotate the torso by driving the feet against the ground. The feet actively press into and turn on the ground, and that action travels up thru the hips and into the torso and makes it rotate. The rotation of the torso is specifically driven from that action with the feet on up, it is not done by turning at the shoulders and leading the turn from the top. I always say, drive from the bottom, do not turn from the top.
> 
> When we deliver almost every type of strike or punch or technique, it comes from this rotation. We very specifically link the travel of the punch to the turning of the body and we are very precise about matching those movements together. The rotation drives the punch out. In my observations, people often "pivot" their feet and throw a punch, but the timing is not together and the stance pivot actually did nothing to power that punch. If they are not together, it does no good. We practice this rotation back and forth all by itself, over and over, and we practice our various striking techniques with this rotation, over and over to develop that timing and ability to engage the whole body in delivering the technique. The change from one stance to another as we rotate back and forth is where the work is being done. The stance itself is just the ending posture. The real work is being done between the stances, and if you screw it up then you diminish the effects.
> 
> ...
> 
> This is in a nutshell the whole idea of white crane: to learn to use the whole body to deliver every technique that we do. There are a few basic principles that permeate all of the system: rooting, rotation, extension, that's mostly it. The whole system is built upon that, and those are the things that drive it all, that is the engine underneath it. Once you understand this and develop the ability to do it, then any and every movement can become a devastating technique because it is all driven with the power of the whole body.
> 
> When I think of principles, I think of that kind of permeation, what drives everything. Sometimes people talk about principles, but what they are describing are simply ideas that may be useful under specific circumstances. That is not a principle, it does not drive the entire system, it is of limited use and depends on special circumstances. The principles I consider do not depend on circumstances, they permeate everywhere in the system, under all conditions, almost without exception.


 
Thanks!  We don't get there in exactly the same manner, but in Bando, we also use the whole body to generate power, and this just gave me a much better way to explain it than I've had in the past.

We also don't have a choreographed set of techniques in the same sense as the Kenpo sets.  We have some drills that I often compare to a musician's scales, where the basics are kind of cataloged for practice.  We have some combinations or sets that we use as well, that are general purpose techniques (running out of words!) kind of like the strike/block-counter that you described above. 

Our forms serve a number of purposes.  Some are meditative exercises.  Some (our basic forms) contain and teach certain principles.  Some are demonstrations or summations of a system, like the various Animal System forms.


----------



## clfsean

MJS said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong again, but I'm understanding this as a combination of not having a laundry list of technqiues, as well as more of a focus on getting the most bang for your buck with proper basics, ie: body position, footwork, getting the most power out of your move, etc.


 
Nah you got it. I can't speak for WC but what I know of it, it's like CLF in that there are a limited number of "hands" & you just learn to use them in any fashion/method needed by constant drilling. 

In CLF we have 10 "seed techniques". Once you have those 10, it becomes a matter of varying how it's performed & while it may have another "name", it's still just 1 of the 10.



MJS said:


> I think that many times, if we watch Kenpo, what we see if someone blasting away at the other guy, with more of an emphasis on speed vs power. Am i correct in saying that? If thats the case, then yes, I agree. If we put that kind of power into our techs......


 
From the kenpo I've seen on the web/movies & little real life, that's what I see. I see a flurry of blows without the body attached. Lots of rapid strikes, but no "visible" evidence of the body connecting to the arm/hand except maybe at the very end. If the body isn't there from the beginning, why begin? Mind you & I'm not knocking or disparaging kenpo & since I don't study it, I can only go by what I see... but truly the power should be visible in the body. If you throw a strike with the body connected, it's visble. I just don't see that in many examples I've seen of Kenpo.

Then again... I don't always see it in TCMA either or at least where I'm expecting to see it.


----------



## Inkspill

Flying Crane said:


> I'll be honest and say that from what I've seen, the people who trained in a solid traditional school move far better than most of the kenpo people that I've seen.


 
ok, I will ammend my thought and say that the movement is still basic. step and block, punch, step, punch, etc.


as for some other points brought up on the thread,



the more I see the more I realize that quality Kenpo is rare. yeah, it's bullspit when you see some guy slap somebody 8 times in 2 seconds, that is not effective, and not the way it was intended to be done. the techniques aren't written as "step the right foot toward 11 into right neutral bow with a right inward block, then glance through the targets as you execute five swords as quickly as possible nicking/slapping each target as fast as you can go"

but you still see folks doing it that way. and it's no wonder people look at it with doubt when it's done like crap


----------



## marlon

Flying Crane said:


> we are getting dangerously close to me coming off as if I'm just ripping on kenpo with a good dose of sour grapes, and I don't want to do that. I'm seeing the issue as a recognition that the kenpo way is not a good match for me, while others may feel it works quite well for them. I don't want to just insult all the kenpoists, that's not my intention. Maybe I've already crossed that line and it's too late, I dunno.
> 
> What I'll put forth is a brief description of how we do things in white crane, and what makes sense to me about it. Maybe that perspective will give some insights and kenpoists can compare how they personally see and do kenpo, without me making a list of what I feel doesn't work about it.
> 
> we have a very specific method that we use in delivering our techniques in white crane. And by "technique", in the context of white crane I mean every type of punch or strike, I am not referring to the often lengthy Self Defense techniques that are common to most of the Parker-derived kenpo lineages.
> 
> We use our foundation and stance to drive everything. Beginning with the feet, we learn to press and brace them against the ground and create a rooting effect that gives us stability. From there we practice a waist turning exercise, which teaches us to rotate the torso by driving the feet against the ground. The feet actively press into and turn on the ground, and that action travels up thru the hips and into the torso and makes it rotate. The rotation of the torso is specifically driven from that action with the feet on up, it is not done by turning at the shoulders and leading the turn from the top. I always say, drive from the bottom, do not turn from the top.
> 
> When we deliver almost every type of strike or punch or technique, it comes from this rotation. We very specifically link the travel of the punch to the turning of the body and we are very precise about matching those movements together. The rotation drives the punch out. In my observations, people often "pivot" their feet and throw a punch, but the timing is not together and the stance pivot actually did nothing to power that punch. If they are not together, it does no good. We practice this rotation back and forth all by itself, over and over, and we practice our various striking techniques with this rotation, over and over to develop that timing and ability to engage the whole body in delivering the technique. The change from one stance to another as we rotate back and forth is where the work is being done. The stance itself is just the ending posture. The real work is being done between the stances, and if you screw it up then you diminish the effects.
> 
> We do not have a list of self defense techniques like kenpo has. We do practice a curriculum of forms, some of which are quite long and taxing. The forms can be fairly complex and challenging, and most people make the mistake of believing the forms are meant to teach self defense combinations. They focus on the use of the specific movements, i.e. "when I step like this in the form and move my hand like THIS, I can use that combination to defend against a punch in THIS manner..." I agree that this type of analysis is important. however, I believe it is only of second importance and is not the most important thing.
> 
> What the forms teach us first and foremost is to keep that foundation strongly engaged no matter what we are doing. The complex movements in the form make it challenging to keep the integrity of the foundation, but a real fight is even more challenging. So the forms are an intermediate step towards being able to fight and being able to maintain that foundation during a rapidly changing situation with a lot of stepping and movements. As we work through the form we keep the stances strong, the rooting engaged, and use that body rotation to drive every technique. Like I said, the forms are long and we've got a fair number of them. It is a challenge to work through a form and keep all the foundation engaged and deliver every technique properly. Racing through your forms does not allow you to get the training benefits of this. It is important to be methodical, and not go any faster than you can while maintaining all the foundation aspects. Sifu harps on us about that and says, slow down and get it right. If you race through and just go thru the motions, you get no benefit, you are only exercising, you get no martial development. The form is NOT a dance, it is NOT an artistic endeavor, it is NOT a performance item. It is a training tool and you only get the benefits when you know how to practice the form correctly and mindfully.
> 
> From there we can progress into partner drills to practice specific techniques with a partner. Like my earlier post where I kept saying, "Pek chui to Chuin chui", we just work that on a partner. He throws punches at me and I use my pek chui to smash him down and then counter. But the point of the drill is not to just "do the movement". It is to deliver the technique with that foundation that we've been working so hard to develop, so that it is devastating. We have to wear arm pads when we do this because if not, we'd have to quit after about four shots, it is just that painful and destructive. So we beat the hell out of each other's arms, but we aren't just swatting with our arm; we are delivering technique with full body engagement and rotation, rooted in.
> 
> This is in a nutshell the whole idea of white crane: to learn to use the whole body to deliver every technique that we do. There are a few basic principles that permeate all of the system: rooting, rotation, extension, that's mostly it. The whole system is built upon that, and those are the things that drive it all, that is the engine underneath it. Once you understand this and develop the ability to do it, then any and every movement can become a devastating technique because it is all driven with the power of the whole body.
> 
> When I think of principles, I think of that kind of permeation, what drives everything. Sometimes people talk about principles, but what they are describing are simply ideas that may be useful under specific circumstances. That is not a principle, it does not drive the entire system, it is of limited use and depends on special circumstances. The principles I consider do not depend on circumstances, they permeate everywhere in the system, under all conditions, almost without exception.


 
Brilliant stuff and excellent training.  As I learn and teach shaolin kempo each technique is a mini form with the same focus trained into the forms and the techniques.  A greater demand for the more advanced students, of course.  Doing techniques on each other is a two person mini form and your practice woul be empty if youdid not focus on those principles of power, structure and alignment.  There are other principles as well, including control points and msk maniplation, positioning of your center etc...
You seem to have a good teacher, sir.  I have seen kempo/kenpo taught withiout this type of focus, it then becomes pure athleticism in its success and more often thn not pure disappointment and pain in its failure.  However, from what little I know of GM Ed Parker, he was more than aware of these principles and knew them to be essential to training
Respectfully,
Marlon


----------



## Flying Crane

clfsean said:


> From the kenpo I've seen on the web/movies & little real life, that's what I see. I see a flurry of blows without the body attached. Lots of rapid strikes, but no "visible" evidence of the body connecting to the arm/hand except maybe at the very end. If the body isn't there from the beginning, why begin? Mind you & I'm not knocking or disparaging kenpo & since I don't study it, I can only go by what I see... but truly the power should be visible in the body. If you throw a strike with the body connected, it's visble. I just don't see that in many examples I've seen of Kenpo.



I will add to this by saying that a lot of those lightning flurries include elements that seem to me to be really far-fetched.  Expectations of being able to accomplish things requiring a great deal of precision and set-up in the context of this rapid movement, things that just don't make sense at all in that context.  Makes me feel the combinations found in a lot of these SD techs are just not well thought out.  Somebody wrote it up at the drawing board and thought that in theory, on paper, it looks good.  But they failed to consider it realistically and recognize that there is no way in hell that's ever gonna work, so why pretend?


----------



## Touch Of Death

Flying Crane said:


> I will add to this by saying that a lot of those lightning flurries include elements that seem to me to be really far-fetched.  Expectations of being able to accomplish things requiring a great deal of precision and set-up in the context of this rapid movement, things that just don't make sense at all in that context.  Makes me feel the combinations found in a lot of these SD techs are just not well thought out.  Somebody wrote it up at the drawing board and thought that in theory, on paper, it looks good.  But they failed to consider it realistically and recognize that there is no way in hell that's ever gonna work, so why pretend?


I agree; however, some martial artist are better at using points on a circle than others. If they are not skilled, they flurry.
Sean


----------



## clfsean

Touch Of Death said:


> I agree; however, some martial artist are better at using points on a circle than others. If they are not skilled, they flurry.
> Sean


 
But doesn't that point back to basics? If basics aren't stressed, what is?

In CMA there's a saying.... No horse stance, no gung fu. If you don't have sound & secure basics to drive everything, everything else will falter & fail.


----------



## Inkspill

Touch Of Death said:


> I agree; however, some martial artist are better at using points on a circle than others. If they are not skilled, they flurry.
> Sean


 
you could also be skilled, but moving quicker than is effective for the intended reaction. I can finger whip quickly and it's not going to have much force on it, (snapping vs thrusting motion) however, with the principle of REGULATION OF POWER, I don't have to hit the eye very hard to have an effect, I could thrust a finger into the eye and blow his pupil out his ear, or I can use the finger whip and still get the guy to grab his eye and be in pain (distraction!)


----------



## Flying Crane

marlon said:


> You seem to have a good teacher, sir.  I have seen kempo/kenpo taught withiout this type of focus, it then becomes pure athleticism in its success and more often thn not pure disappointment and pain in its failure.  However, from what little I know of GM Ed Parker, he was more than aware of these principles and knew them to be essential to training
> Respectfully,
> Marlon



I am astounded at the level of quality in the instruction that I am now receiving.  I've had some very good instructors in the past but my current sifu stands on a level above them all.  He is a rare level of teacher, and there's just five of us studying with him in his back yard in the middle of the night.

Practicing kenpo without a solid foundation can give effective results, but it's much much more dependent on physical strength and athleticism, something that not everyone can count on.  Let's be honest: it's not that difficult to punch someone and hurt them, foundation or no, esp. if someone has a strong arm and shoulder.  But we are working to develop something better than that, a higher level of true skill that isn't reliant on brute strength or raw athleticism.

I never met Mr. Parker, I know a lot of people who knew him held him in high esteem.  I've heard others who knew him who did not hold his skills in such high esteem.  If he understood these issues it seems to me that the lessons failed to reach his students in many cases.


----------



## marlon

Flying Crane said:


> I am astounded at the level of quality in the instruction that I am now receiving. I've had some very good instructors in the past but my current sifu stands on a level above them all. He is a rare level of teacher, and there's just five of us studying with him in his back yard in the middle of the night.
> 
> Practicing kenpo without a solid foundation can give effective results, but it's much much more dependent on physical strength and athleticism, something that not everyone can count on. Let's be honest: it's not that difficult to punch someone and hurt them, foundation or no, esp. if someone has a strong arm and shoulder. But we are working to develop something better than that, a higher level of true skill that isn't reliant on brute strength or raw athleticism.
> 
> I never met Mr. Parker, I know a lot of people who knew him held him in high esteem. I've heard others who knew him who did not hold his skills in such high esteem. If he understood these issues it seems to me that the lessons failed to reach his students in many cases.


 

Again, I am not an AK practitioner, however, I can say that there are some have this knowledge and attribute GM Parker as the source...who knows in the end.  i was not there. There can be no high level skill without the training you pointed out.  None

Respectfully,
Marlon


----------



## MJS

Flying Crane said:


> Yes, the focus of the training is very different. Seems to me that in kenpo people focus on what to do if X happens, while in traditional kung fu we focus more on HOW do we make something really powerful, and then application sort of falls into place and is simple and straight forward and to the point. It doesn't need to be complicated combinations, just hit the guy and make it devastating.


 
Funny you should say that.  On a similar note, I've said many times, that often arts only deal with what I call the 'during' phase....the person is attacking, heres what you do.  And often leave out the 'before' and 'after' phase, which would be verbal de-escalation, etc, and how to deal with the aftermath of an attack. 

This is why, when I teach, I like to gear my classes more towards making what people already know better, vs. just teaching another technique, another kata, etc.  What good are 15 techs per belt going to do, if they all sucK? LOL.



> I suspect some of the really good kenpo guys figure this out on some level, but I think the way the curriculum is structured doesn't have a systematic way of going about teaching and developing it. Often the curriculum is so large that the curriculum itself becomes the focus, instead of making for solid fundamental skills. My sifu repeatedly states that you don't need to learn the whole system of WC, not even most of it. There are just a few very basic things, and the first form, maybe the second, if you know that much and you really understand it and you really develop those fundamentals, you've got way more than you really need to be able to fight if that's what you want to do.


 
And I've said myself, that we shouldn't have to learn hundreds of techs. to teach us every single principle in Kenpo.  There's that many principles?  BS!  This is why (and I know we didn't wanna talk about this ) I've said that there should be a smaller list per belt.  That way, more focus could be devoted to the material.  If you have 20 techs/belt, plus 2 katas, how long do you honestly think that someone is going to have to stay at that level, in order to really be competent? Now couple that with the fact that many people seem to be in a rush for rank.  



> He says (and I see the truth in this) that it all comes down to the basics. The real reason we have a larger curriculum beyond just the basics and the first couple of forms is because most people are too stupid to recognize this. So we all (himself included) need to go thru the process of learning more before we are ready to understand the truth that it all comes down to the fundamentals. Having gone thru the process of learning a larger curriculum, we are training our bodies to apply the fundamentals in different ways, and again that just brings it back to the fundamentals.


 
Yup, the basics, IMHO, are the keys.


----------



## MJS

clfsean said:


> Nah you got it. I can't speak for WC but what I know of it, it's like CLF in that there are a limited number of "hands" & you just learn to use them in any fashion/method needed by constant drilling.
> 
> In CLF we have 10 "seed techniques". Once you have those 10, it becomes a matter of varying how it's performed & while it may have another "name", it's still just 1 of the 10.


 
In the majority of the Parker Kenpo schools, its 24/belt.  My school, which is a Parker/Tracy hybrid, has about 20/belt.  IMO, anymore than 10 is too much.  Like I've said before, I see nothing why we cant just perform a tech differently.  Depending on how the person attacks, I should be able to come up with multiple ways to adapt 1 tech.  





> From the kenpo I've seen on the web/movies & little real life, that's what I see. I see a flurry of blows without the body attached. Lots of rapid strikes, but no "visible" evidence of the body connecting to the arm/hand except maybe at the very end. If the body isn't there from the beginning, why begin? Mind you & I'm not knocking or disparaging kenpo & since I don't study it, I can only go by what I see... but truly the power should be visible in the body. If you throw a strike with the body connected, it's visble. I just don't see that in many examples I've seen of Kenpo.
> 
> Then again... I don't always see it in TCMA either or at least where I'm expecting to see it.


 
You're correct.   Interestingly enough, one of the teachers at the school does Tai Chi.  Its interesting to work with him on techniques, because he'll add that into the tech and the result is obvious...to me anyways.   IMO, I think alot of times in Kenpo, power is sacrificed for speed.


----------



## clfsean

MJS said:


> In the majority of the Parker Kenpo schools, its 24/belt. My school, which is a Parker/Tracy hybrid, has about 20/belt. IMO, anymore than 10 is too much. Like I've said before, I see nothing why we cant just perform a tech differently. Depending on how the person attacks, I should be able to come up with multiple ways to adapt 1 tech.


 
Yep... the 10 seeds power the entire style. Obviously, an infinite number of variations & applications can be drawn from them. That's why they're referred to as seeds. What do you do with a seed? Plant it, water it, watch it grow. Same here.  




MJS said:


> You're correct.  Interestingly enough, one of the teachers at the school does Tai Chi. Its interesting to work with him on techniques, because he'll add that into the tech and the result is obvious...to me anyways.  IMO, I think alot of times in Kenpo, power is sacrificed for speed.


 
A good (truly good) taiji player can tool you quick & leave you wondering how it happened & if they're really good... when. :mst:


----------



## marlon

Wow. I just saw that you guys have 24 techniques per belt! It bothers me how much material we have in SK but...

White & yellow belt 7 techniques (3 punch counters and 4 jujitsu moves)
Orange 10 techniques
Purple & Blue 5 techniques
Blue stripe 3
green 9
Green brown stripe 10
Brown 3rd 8
brown 2nd 7
brown 1st 7
shodan 11
nidan 12
sandan 14
yondan 12
and then ten per dan after that.

Of course there are forms and training against grappling, grabs, chokes and weapons that is based on principles and flow with NO set techniques, for eah level after orange belt.  Beginners get some set techniques for this as they have little point of reference and usually don't have the basics of alignment I necessary for effective flow.

It takes an adult coming regularly and practicing at home 5-6 years to make it to shodan

You really have 24 per belt? That is quite a bit to work to perfect

I know it has been said over and over but only today did it register the amount of material your talking about
WOW


----------



## marlon

Flying Crane said:


> we are getting dangerously close to me coming off as if I'm just ripping on kenpo with a good dose of sour grapes, and I don't want to do that. I'm seeing the issue as a recognition that the kenpo way is not a good match for me, while others may feel it works quite well for them. I don't want to just insult all the kenpoists, that's not my intention. Maybe I've already crossed that line and it's too late, I dunno.
> 
> What I'll put forth is a brief description of how we do things in white crane, and what makes sense to me about it. Maybe that perspective will give some insights and kenpoists can compare how they personally see and do kenpo, without me making a list of what I feel doesn't work about it.
> 
> we have a very specific method that we use in delivering our techniques in white crane. And by "technique", in the context of white crane I mean every type of punch or strike, I am not referring to the often lengthy Self Defense techniques that are common to most of the Parker-derived kenpo lineages.
> 
> We use our foundation and stance to drive everything. Beginning with the feet, we learn to press and brace them against the ground and create a rooting effect that gives us stability. From there we practice a waist turning exercise, which teaches us to rotate the torso by driving the feet against the ground. The feet actively press into and turn on the ground, and that action travels up thru the hips and into the torso and makes it rotate. The rotation of the torso is specifically driven from that action with the feet on up, it is not done by turning at the shoulders and leading the turn from the top. I always say, drive from the bottom, do not turn from the top.
> 
> When we deliver almost every type of strike or punch or technique, it comes from this rotation. We very specifically link the travel of the punch to the turning of the body and we are very precise about matching those movements together. The rotation drives the punch out. In my observations, people often "pivot" their feet and throw a punch, but the timing is not together and the stance pivot actually did nothing to power that punch. If they are not together, it does no good. We practice this rotation back and forth all by itself, over and over, and we practice our various striking techniques with this rotation, over and over to develop that timing and ability to engage the whole body in delivering the technique. The change from one stance to another as we rotate back and forth is where the work is being done. The stance itself is just the ending posture. The real work is being done between the stances, and if you screw it up then you diminish the effects.
> 
> We do not have a list of self defense techniques like kenpo has. We do practice a curriculum of forms, some of which are quite long and taxing. The forms can be fairly complex and challenging, and most people make the mistake of believing the forms are meant to teach self defense combinations. They focus on the use of the specific movements, i.e. "when I step like this in the form and move my hand like THIS, I can use that combination to defend against a punch in THIS manner..." I agree that this type of analysis is important. however, I believe it is only of second importance and is not the most important thing.
> 
> What the forms teach us first and foremost is to keep that foundation strongly engaged no matter what we are doing. The complex movements in the form make it challenging to keep the integrity of the foundation, but a real fight is even more challenging. So the forms are an intermediate step towards being able to fight and being able to maintain that foundation during a rapidly changing situation with a lot of stepping and movements. As we work through the form we keep the stances strong, the rooting engaged, and use that body rotation to drive every technique. Like I said, the forms are long and we've got a fair number of them. It is a challenge to work through a form and keep all the foundation engaged and deliver every technique properly. Racing through your forms does not allow you to get the training benefits of this. It is important to be methodical, and not go any faster than you can while maintaining all the foundation aspects. Sifu harps on us about that and says, slow down and get it right. If you race through and just go thru the motions, you get no benefit, you are only exercising, you get no martial development. The form is NOT a dance, it is NOT an artistic endeavor, it is NOT a performance item. It is a training tool and you only get the benefits when you know how to practice the form correctly and mindfully.
> 
> From there we can progress into partner drills to practice specific techniques with a partner. Like my earlier post where I kept saying, "Pek chui to Chuin chui", we just work that on a partner. He throws punches at me and I use my pek chui to smash him down and then counter. But the point of the drill is not to just "do the movement". It is to deliver the technique with that foundation that we've been working so hard to develop, so that it is devastating. We have to wear arm pads when we do this because if not, we'd have to quit after about four shots, it is just that painful and destructive. So we beat the hell out of each other's arms, but we aren't just swatting with our arm; we are delivering technique with full body engagement and rotation, rooted in.
> 
> This is in a nutshell the whole idea of white crane: to learn to use the whole body to deliver every technique that we do. There are a few basic principles that permeate all of the system: rooting, rotation, extension, that's mostly it. The whole system is built upon that, and those are the things that drive it all, that is the engine underneath it. Once you understand this and develop the ability to do it, then any and every movement can become a devastating technique because it is all driven with the power of the whole body.
> 
> When I think of principles, I think of that kind of permeation, what drives everything. Sometimes people talk about principles, but what they are describing are simply ideas that may be useful under specific circumstances. That is not a principle, it does not drive the entire system, it is of limited use and depends on special circumstances. The principles I consider do not depend on circumstances, they permeate everywhere in the system, under all conditions, almost without exception.


 
Just curious FC,
have you tried to do any of your kenpo techniques and adhere to these principles?

Marlon


----------



## ATACX GYM

MJS said:


> I copy/pasted the following from Rich Hales site:
> 
> "The techniques of Kenpo teach you the principles of motion and how to use these principles to defend yourself. Although the techniques can work out on the street, any street altercation will change moment by moment. Therefore, an effective technique is one that has trained you to adapt to the moment, without relying on any one predetermined sequence. In class you learn techniques in prearranged sequence, similar to learning how to speak a language through practicing sample sentences. However once a language is learned, you no longer depend on sample sentences to have conversations. We simple converse in the language we have learned. The same is true in Kenpo Karate"
> 
> Mike (FC) stated:
> 
> "And this is actually why I have left kenpo, because at least for me the technique format, this way that the curriculum is designed and taught, fails to teach the principles that matter and that everyone seems so sure exist in them. I've actually tried to engage discussions to determine just what those principles are, and more often than not there is little or no response. I personally do not believe the the techniques deliver the goods in terms of teaching these principles. If others believe they do, that's fine by me, but I just do not believe it's in there and at least for me, it simply does not work as a method of training and learning."
> 
> So, in an effort to further the discussion, I thought that we could also address this. So, what exactly are the missing principles? Is it that the techniques are missing the real or alive feel to how the poop is really going to hit the fan? If thats the case, then yeah, I agree, especially if the person doing them, never steps outside of the box, and is so bond by the techniques, that they think that if you just know the technique, that thats all that you'll need to know.
> 
> I'll stop here for now, just to get the clarification, as if this isn't what Mike is talking about, I dont wanna ramble on and on....lol.


 

Rich Hales is paraphrasing GGMEP himself.I have videos in which GGMEP makes almost the exact same statements.The IDEAS that spawned the IP are GREAT IDEAS...but THE TRAINING METHOD ENSURES NEAR TOTAL OR ABSOLUTELY TOTAL FAILURE.In keeping with the analogy of language,learning the nonfunctional IP is akin to learning creole and Pig Latin so you can converse in English.The insant that you attempt to apply your creole and Pig Latin in an average English language conversation? You'll fail MISERABLY the overwhelming percentage of time,and THERE'S NO WAY that you can HOPE to partake in an discussion which requires moderate to advanced knowledge of the English language.The few times you succeed in even a marginal way of conveying your meaning to an English speaker is proof of the exception that cements the rule,not the other way around.After learning creole and Pig Latin and attempting for years to converse with English speakers,you begin to learn phrases and recognize strings of words and understand partial meanings...not because your creole or pig Latin works,but because you absorb some English merely due to immersion and saturation.YOU STILL SPEAK CREOLE AND PIG LATIN.Frankly,your English sucks and will stay on sucking status until you chuck the APPROACH you have to learning English.The IDEA of learning English is GREAT; your APPROACH will forever be flawed and nonfunctional.The IDEA BEHIND the IP is GREAT; the IP ITSELF SUCKS AND WILL FOREVER BE FLAWED AND NONFUNCTIONAL.

The Functional Method teaches you correct English from Day One.The actual alphabet,grammar,sentence structure,vocabulary,regional and national dialects,etymology...the works.IMMEDIATELY you improve.I mean...same day you initiate this method of learning with a competent--not even great,just marginally proficient--instructor you will note a clear improvement.Guess what? EVERY DAY that you address learning the English language this way you will CONTINUE to advance clearly and notably; and you will reap the benefits therefrom.Far beyond and far better than everything and anything that you did before because YOU WEREN'T LEARNING ENGLISH BEFORE,YOU WERE JUST AROUND ENGLISH SPEAKERS.You CANNOT RELIABLY LEARN ENGLISH if you study creole and Pig Latin and just hang around English speakers.Your approach was wrong and it will NEVER teach you English.Period.Full stop.That's all.

Translate the Functional,terrific,common sense idea behind the IP--which is to train specific forms of self-defense encounters as rigorously and consistently as we do free form sparring and sharpen the unique Kenpo movements in that environment as well,thus giving us the GIANT ADVANTAGE of muscle memory,technical advantage,technique,mental equilibrium,in short all the benefits accrued from training combatively--into functional,real world TRAINING of the SD sequences.The results will be spectacular and self-evident.We will also have ON HAND AT ALL TIMES the EMPIRICAL distinction between training functional sport combatives (boxing,MMA,wrestling,fencing,Olympic judo and tkd,etc.) and the far more comprehensive benefits of training FUNCTIONAL Traditional Martial Arts (TMA) like Kenpo (everything that sports combatives have PLUS real world self defense skills,weapons skills,true martial arts discipline honor excellent character and more which lasts; the practice of which IMPROVES YOUR PERSON AND ABILITIES THROUGHOUT YOUR LIFE TIME,not just the hand full of years that you can participate in a high impact sport).

Why do adherents of the IP champion it in the face of the obvious comprehensive superiority of the FM? Good question.It's like asking:"Why did it take The Gracie Revolution and the first UFCs to get martial artists in America to by and large realize we really don't know wth to do in the clinch or the ground?" There are still people who resist learning this range despite all of the massive benefits that are obviously accrued from studying vertical grappling (clinch range) ground grappling and groundfighting.Desite the fact that attacks and assaults (especially via surprise) in the clinch and ground and limited movement (in a bar,in a club,in a hallway,a stair case,between cars,in class,in bathrooms,pinned against a wall,on a bed,inside of/against a car,at a ATM,in a movie theater,any limited movement environment,etc.) range (oftentimes with weapons in the hands of the criminal) are THEE MOST COMMON ASSAULT SCENARIOS. I read threads on THIS SITE wherein MJS was asking common sense questions like:"So what do you do if the guy tackles you?" and was being belabored and flamed by posters who claimed that their (insert standup art) would prevent such a likelihood and then would cast direct aspersions upon MJS' good name merely for asking the question. There were PLENTY of people ON THIS SITE claiming that they could STOP THE TAKEDOWN AND DIDN'T NEED TO KNOW ANY GRAPPLING TO STOP A GRAPPLING ATTACK OR EVEN A GRAPPLER.And worst of all? *THEY WERE SAYING THIS AS RECENTLY AS 2002-2003 AND BEYOND*. This exact same complete denial of basic common sense sustains the fulminations against the FM...which includes the mandate to train ground and clinch and weapons combatives.And as long as this denial remains paramount in the eyes of most kenpoists? Kenpo will NEVER assume its rightful place of glory in the martial arts world.There ya go.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka

MJS said:


> This thread is to discuss the value or not, of the Ideal Phase techniques. I started this thread, as this subject is popping up in a few other areas in the Kenpo section, so in an effort to not sidetrack the other threads too much, I thought we could discuss it here.
> 
> The IP techs are of course, a platform that we should be building from. Of course, as many have said, we should be functional with the techs. as well.
> 
> In another thread in this section, it was said that functionality is not a specific set of techniques. Instead, its the underlying principle.
> 
> If we look at a boxer, we see a set of punches, but no preset techs. so to speak. The punches can be put together in endless combos.
> 
> So, that being said, wouldnt it be possible, to take our basics, ie: the punches, kicks, blocks, etc., eliminate the preset techs, and go right to creating a FM (functional method) technique? In other words, instead of doing Attacking Mace in the IP and then FM for a right punch, just go right to a FM? I mean, it'd almost make sense, especially if you have to change the IP to make it more functional, no?
> 
> In closing, let me say that this is just something that was sparked by recent discussion. I have my own views on the techs, that may/may not reflect what I just said above.  I'll share those thoughts shortly.


 
I would say... it depends. Depends on the quality of the instructor, the information in the IP SD tech, and the ability of the instructor to relay the quality of the enclosed information to the student. Too many factors to chalk succes or failure up to singular training methodologies.


----------



## ATACX GYM

marlon said:


> Just curious FC,
> have you tried to do any of your kenpo techniques and adhere to these principles?
> 
> Marlon


 
This is exactly the question that I was going to ask,Marlon,because my Kenpo instructors were ADAMANT and still ARE ADAMANT about doing this.The lighting fast kenpo movements are supposed to be delivered with a murderous full body commitment to a curvilinear body whip,along with the correct body alignment for each blow/stance/whatever.Many maaany kenpoists can spout the above and make it SOUND good,but then they proceed to destroy the body mechanics of each movement so that they're essentially "speed rushing" their opponents with swift "arm punches" and "leg kicks" without full body commitment to punches,kicks,checks,etc.Lots of us kenpoists agree on that point too.

What we oftentimes acrimoniously fued about is the physical articulation of the specifics of each of the above.What is the "correct" way or "more correct" way of doing such and such. have my own opinion about that matter and I am perfectly willing to concede that others have perfectly valid points and ideas or whatever about the matter which may even be better than my ideas and knowledge of the matter; but I know that my ideas work too because I regularly test them against all comers,including MMA dweebs.I will demo it in more of my videos with my more senior students.Btw...the danger of full body commitments in demos is that their destructive power is sooo incredible that we oftentimes have to tone it down so that the camera can see it and our students don't reflexively flinch in reaction to the oncoming blow and accidentally receive a full on shot (which can have BRUTAL consequences).


----------



## marlon

You know the best proof of your ideas would be the average student who has only learned through your method only in regular classes, not privates.  How they deal with the challenges you are accepting will speak volume.  Right now it is argueable that you "benefit" from the training you despise.  Just a thought
My apologies but I do not know your name ATAX

Respectfully,
Marlon


----------



## Flying Crane

marlon said:


> Just curious FC,
> have you tried to do any of your kenpo techniques and adhere to these principles?
> 
> Marlon



With a few of them I have, most of them are too complicated and convoluted and don't really blend so well.  To try and do this systematically would be to change kenpo into white crane, and then would bog white crane down with a bunch of stuff that frankly it doesn't need.  I don't see much benefit in doing so, beyond a very few exceptions.  And even with the few exceptions, its something I only do once in a while.


----------



## marlon

Flying Crane said:


> With a few of them I have, most of them are too complicated and convoluted and don't really blend so well. To try and do this systematically would be to change kenpo into white crane, and then would bog white crane down with a bunch of stuff that frankly it doesn't need. I don't see much benefit in doing so, beyond a very few exceptions. And even with the few exceptions, its something I only do once in a while.


 
Just to be clear, it wasn't a challenge or anything.  I really was just curious how it would feel to you done with proper principles.  Thanks for responding

Respectfully,
Marlon


----------



## Flying Crane

marlon said:


> Just to be clear, it wasn't a challenge or anything.  I really was just curious how it would feel to you done with proper principles.  Thanks for responding
> 
> Respectfully,
> Marlon



Oh of course, I did not take it as a challenge, it's a reasonable question.  I've thought about it, and those are the conclusions I found.


----------



## ATACX GYM

marlon said:


> You know the best proof of your ideas would be the average student who has only learned through your method only in regular classes, not privates. How they deal with the challenges you are accepting will speak volume. Right now it is argueable that you "benefit" from the training you despise. Just a thought
> My apologies but I do not know your name ATAX
> 
> Respectfully,
> Marlon


 

Actually we already see the superiority of the FM and its results loooong before any of us were born in places like the military and practically every single sport.Millions of people around the world every second of every day prove beyond a doubt the superiority of the FM.Even the most popular martial art in the world in terms of participation--Judo--is squarely centered in the FM.Nobody "ideally" sweeps chokes pins throws or locks you...they take you throw the real world methods of doing all of these things sans injuries during each of the three major phases of the FM.

And 95% of my students are group students.The guy behind the camera filming us is a "non-private lesson" student. Scott--the light kinned baldheaded guy helping me in my Alternating Attacking Maces videos--just signed on to my group class.I can take a complete stranger and make them functional in one hour because the FM works regardless of whoever whenever 95+% of the time.The IP fails at the same rate.


----------



## marlon

I have training in Judo and we learned to apply the chokes and throws against a compliant partner first.  Things got amped up as we became better.  Chokes due to their nature were heavily regulated in a dynamic fashion because of the potential damage we could do quickly, especially, if the partner was resisting and struggling.  ATACX are you speaking about the techniques of the kenpo IP or the method of teachinng the techiques? Remember I do not necessarily have the same understanding as the kenpo people here, so my apologies if the question seems silly. On another note do you teach all that material 24 techniques per belt? I am still stunned by the amount of material.

Repectfully,
Marlon


----------



## marlon

ATACX GYM said:


> Actually we already see the superiority of the FM and its results loooong before any of us were born in places like the military and practically every single sport.Millions of people around the world every second of every day prove beyond a doubt the superiority of the FM.Even the most popular martial art in the world in terms of participation--Judo--is squarely centered in the FM.Nobody "ideally" sweeps chokes pins throws or locks you...they take you throw the real world methods of doing all of these things sans injuries during each of the three major phases of the FM.
> 
> And 95% of my students are group students.The guy behind the camera filming us is a "non-private lesson" student. Scott--the light kinned baldheaded guy helping me in my Alternating Attacking Maces videos--just signed on to my group class.I can take a complete stranger and make them functional in one hour because the FM works regardless of whoever whenever 95+% of the time.The IP fails at the same rate.


 

Are you saying you can take someone with no training and teach them to defend themselves against and aggressive non compliant attacker in one hour?  With all due respect, that is a big claim.  How is such a thing possible?  How would you do that?

Please note I love and respect your enthusiasm and creativity and what you are bringing to the kenpo community.  I just want to learn and understand as best possible through the limited medium of the internet

Respectfully,
marlon


----------



## ATACX GYM

marlon said:


> I have training in Judo and we learned to apply the chokes and throws against a compliant partner first. Things got amped up as we became better. Chokes due to their nature were heavily regulated in a dynamic fashion because of the potential damage we could do quickly, especially, if the partner was resisting and struggling. ATACX are you speaking about the techniques of the kenpo IP or the method of teachinng the techiques? Remember I do not necessarily have the same understanding as the kenpo people here, so my apologies if the question seems silly. On another note do you teach all that material 24 techniques per belt? I am still stunned by the amount of material.
> 
> Repectfully,
> Marlon


 

I am talking about the methods of teaching and training which have a direct impact on the method of disseminating and practicing the IP.The idea behind the IP is COMMON SENSE AND GREAT,the METHOD OF TRAINING (ZERO) and it's PRESENTATION (ANUS) is horrifically objectionable.

I actually teach more than 24 techniques per belt.I average about 62 techniques per belt.And my students and clientele love it.

And I can take a complete n00b and have them be able to use a specific set of techniques...my guarantee is 1-3 techniques...in a fight when they leave class that night.I can do it EVERY night.Know why? Functional training,aka the Functional Method,aka ALIVENESS.That's why.And the students don't have deep set doubts in their ability either.I select a technique,show them the technical aspects of it,spend the majority of the class drilling that technique and then applying it against escalating levels of resistance.

Since you took judo before and I have a black belt in judo,let me put it in Judo terms.The first Judo technique I teach is falling.You will learn the Judo breakfalls messin with me.You will be one breakfalling individual for the majority of the class.I will also breakfall with the entire class when we go from one end of the mat to the other,I will constantly demonstrate proper technique AND solidarity with my students.I like to roll and breakfall so it's fun for me.Lol.

I spend 10 minutes carefully going over the specifics of the breakfall (forward back,side to side,but I put a good strong emphasis on forward and back falls as these are the most worrisome for beginners) and then I put them on the mat or grass.Sometimes I let them see me execute breakfalls on concrete just so that they know it can be done and it's invaluable.

I link breakfalls with the most basic of standup techniques and throws so students can see right off the utility of learning breakfalls.Those basic standup techniques are usually: stance,footwork,strikes,blocks,tai otoshi and osotogare...and then I will make you breakfall to the end of the room,get up,and repeat this series.You will do it for 4-5 minute rounds,in the air for one round,and then against a totally compliant partner for 3 rounds.

The next 4-5 minute rounds will consist of you blocking the light,low speed attacks of your partner,you countering,each of you grabbing a hold on the other's gi,executing a practice throw (osotogare and tai otoshi) with quarter resistance to each other,and then both of you having to do rolls.Guess what? The game we have here is a drill but you are actually performing unrehearsed blocks and counters.It's akin to sparring.The light resistance,btw,is with your partner attempting to regain their footing if you didn't do the osotogare or tai otoshi right.Still at half speed,not max speed.They also learn that striking and blocking sets you directly into grab/throw range without any special effort on the part of the grappler...if he/she knows how to strike well.They begin to see the large advantage that a well rounded martial artist has on less versatile opposition.

1-5 minute break period ensues.

The next 5 minute round consists of high speed uchikomi with the 10th rep being the throw at half speed.I want the n00bs to get a feel as to what it's like to rip off a high speed full power throw from out the gate...without actually endangering themselves or their partners by trying it out when they haven't had sufficient time to practice it.


If I allow any extra time ate this--usually the hour class is all I give unless it's near a weekend--that time can only be devoted to the punches throws and breakfalls. I wrap up class,encourage them to ask questions or whatever and tell me what they did like and don't like about class; this is how I learn from my students.

In one hour? I took someone who couldnt breakfall and now they can if thrown.I took someone and showed them how to punch and kick and throw by repeatedly focusing on quality reps and escalating resistance.I nan hour's time the average student gets in more than 200 reps of move,kick,block,punch,block,grab,throw,breakfall,and repeat.Sometimes I'll break the middle part of the class into The Gaunlet or Bull in The Ring and throw a student in there until everybody's had 2 go's at everyone in the class.I usually follow one drill directly with the other.Breaks the monotony and keeps the energy up.It really works.


----------



## marlon

ATACX GYM said:


> I am talking about the methods of teaching and training which have a direct impact on the method of disseminating and practicing the IP.The idea behind the IP is COMMON SENSE AND GREAT,the METHOD OF TRAINING (ZERO) and it's PRESENTATION (ANUS) is horrifically objectionable.
> 
> I actually teach more than 24 techniques per belt.I average about 62 techniques per belt.And my students and clientele love it.
> 
> And I can take a complete n00b and have them be able to use a specific set of techniques...my guarantee is 1-3 techniques...in a fight when they leave class that night.I can do it EVERY night.Know why? Functional training,aka the Functional Method,aka ALIVENESS.That's why.And the students don't have deep set doubts in their ability either.I select a technique,show them the technical aspects of it,spend the majority of the class drilling that technique and then applying it against escalating levels of resistance.
> 
> Since you took judo before and I have a black belt in judo,let me put it in Judo terms.The first Judo technique I teach is falling.You will learn the Judo breakfalls messin with me.You will be one breakfalling individual for the majority of the class.I will also breakfall with the entire class when we go from one end of the mat to the other,I will constantly demonstrate proper technique AND solidarity with my students.I like to roll and breakfall so it's fun for me.Lol.
> 
> I spend 10 minutes carefully going over the specifics of the breakfall (forward back,side to side,but I put a good strong emphasis on forward and back falls as these are the most worrisome for beginners) and then I put them on the mat or grass.Sometimes I let them see me execute breakfalls on concrete just so that they know it can be done and it's invaluable.
> 
> I link breakfalls with the most basic of standup techniques and throws so students can see right off the utility of learning breakfalls.Those basic standup techniques are usually: stance,footwork,strikes,blocks,tai otoshi and osotogare...and then I will make you breakfall to the end of the room,get up,and repeat this series.You will do it for 4-5 minute rounds,in the air for one round,and then against a totally compliant partner for 3 rounds.
> 
> The next 4-5 minute rounds will consist of you blocking the light,low speed attacks of your partner,you countering,each of you grabbing a hold on the other's gi,executing a practice throw (osotogare and tai otoshi) with quarter resistance to each other,and then both of you having to do rolls.Guess what? The game we have here is a drill but you are actually performing unrehearsed blocks and counters.It's akin to sparring.The light resistance,btw,is with your partner attempting to regain their footing if you didn't do the osotogare or tai otoshi right.Still at half speed,not max speed.They also learn that striking and blocking sets you directly into grab/throw range without any special effort on the part of the grappler...if he/she knows how to strike well.They begin to see the large advantage that a well rounded martial artist has on less versatile opposition.
> 
> 1-5 minute break period ensues.
> 
> The next 5 minute round consists of high speed uchikomi with the 10th rep being the throw at half speed.I want the n00bs to get a feel as to what it's like to rip off a high speed full power throw from out the gate...without actually endangering themselves or their partners by trying it out when they haven't had sufficient time to practice it.
> 
> 
> If I allow any extra time ate this--usually the hour class is all I give unless it's near a weekend--that time can only be devoted to the punches throws and breakfalls. I wrap up class,encourage them to ask questions or whatever and tell me what they did like and don't like about class; this is how I learn from my students.
> 
> In one hour? I took someone who couldnt breakfall and now they can if thrown.I took someone and showed them how to punch and kick and throw by repeatedly focusing on quality reps and escalating resistance.I nan hour's time the average student gets in more than 200 reps of move,kick,block,punch,block,grab,throw,breakfall,and repeat.Sometimes I'll break the middle part of the class into The Gaunlet or Bull in The Ring and throw a student in there until everybody's had 2 go's at everyone in the class.I usually follow one drill directly with the other.Breaks the monotony and keeps the energy up.It really works.


 
Thanks for the clarification. Training methods that don't include resistence won't work. My personal experience is that resistence too soon re enforces bad basics, especially in alignment and equillibrium, but perhaps that is my issue
. I don't know how AK generally teaches things but I am sure you read my argeement with Flying Crane on basics and practice and amping up prractice.

I have my brown belt in Judo (60 competition poins away from black belt but i don't care), so, I understand what you are saying. Most peple I teach have a hard time with tai otoshi so it seems you can teach that one better than me, at least. But most learn their fall and throws in about 20 minutes true.

as for the self defense techniques. I teach a simple one the first nightthat when they leave they could pull off the movement. but, for me to say that the right body mechanics are there for them to be able to defend with it against a stronger, bigger, faster aggressive attacker...after one hour of class. i doubt it. I am not that good a teacher. I doubt that I could teach a new student off the street in a week of classes to defend themselves well enough to win, against you attacking them all out. Could some joker bully jump them and attack and they drop him with the technique, using speed and surprise and luck. Yep .
After a month of training, a lot of the people who would jump them are in for a nasty surprise. Not just from set techniques but from their ability to respond with the proper body mechanics and target selection and mind set. After a year...no worries about most people. Will it all come out as set techniques, nope; will it all be kempo, yep.
It would be a learning experience for you to put up a video of you training a neew person (or how you would train a new person) in a techniques with all the foot work, alignment, structure and basics. you could condense by not videoing all the reps. But, it would be educational
Repestfully,
marlon


----------



## marlon

Also, which three techniques do you teach the new people first.  i would love to see them
thanks


----------



## ATACX GYM

marlon said:


> Thanks for the clarification. Training methods that don't include resistence won't work. My personal experience is that resistence too soon re enforces bad basics, especially in alignment and equillibrium, but perhaps that is my issue
> . I don't know how AK generally teaches things but I am sure you read my argeement with Flying Crane on basics and practice and amping up prractice.
> 
> I have my brown belt in Judo (60 competition poins away from black belt but i don't care), so, I understand what you are saying. Most peple I teach have a hard time with tai otoshi so it seems you can teach that one better than me, at least. But most learn their fall and throws in about 20 minutes true.
> 
> as for the self defense techniques. I teach a simple one the first nightthat when they leave they could pull off the movement. but, for me to say that the right body mechanics are there for them to be able to defend with it against a stronger, bigger, faster aggressive attacker...after one hour of class. i doubt it. I am not that good a teacher. I doubt that I could teach a new student off the street in a week of classes to defend themselves well enough to win, against you attacking them all out. Could some joker bully jump them and attack and they drop him with the technique, using speed and surprise and luck. Yep .
> After a month of training, a lot of the people who would jump them are in for a nasty surprise. Not just from set techniques but from their ability to respond with the proper body mechanics and target selection and mind set. After a year...no worries about most people. Will it all come out as set techniques, nope; will it all be kempo, yep.
> It would be a learning experience for you to put up a video of you training a neew person (or how you would train a new person) in a techniques with all the foot work, alignment, structure and basics. you could condense by not videoing all the reps. But, it would be educational
> Repestfully,
> marlon


 


IIRC,you asked me if I can take someone who has never had a single martial arts class and teach them to fight in 1 hour.The answer is YES.So can you in all likelihood.However,can I turn that person into a versatile martial artist in one hour? Hell no.They won't be able to flow from weapons to ground to back again with multiple options in one hour.They can in one week.One hour? Nope. Will they have SOME facility with weapons to the ground in one hour? YEP.

I have had a student come in from off the street and tell me that he and his friend are going to get jumped by bullies after school within 3 days. I trained them intensively then the day of the fight I accompanied them to school,spoke to the Vice Principal and made sure that TPB at school kept the bullies away that day.That weekend the bullies tried to jump the boys' girlfriends not 150 meters from my school and I witnessed the kids I trained (9th graders) tear off in the anal region of the 10th and 11th grade bullies pestering them. I stopped it when one of my boys started stomping on a downed bully and the other kid downed his opponent with a sweet ridgehand to the gonads.My enrollment doubled within a week,lolol.

The fastest turnaround I posted for a student was 45 minutes.Kid's mother came in and pled with me to train her son.She had no money,but she mentioned the name of one of the neighborhood bullies belonging to a neighborhood gang (Baby Insane Crips) and I was all for training him. 45 minutes and one jab and MT shin kick later,the bully was stretched out on the concrete insensate.I didn't teach him too much Kenpo because he would do hospital level damage to this (bigger meaner) bully because the smaller kid I was training had legit anger and beef with the bully (who'd taken several cherished toys,a few lil dollars and a NINTENDO DSI from the kid I was teaching) and I shudder to think what he would have done with a good eye poke,handsword, Raining Claw,and/or a 5 Swords added to the infamous Kenpo groin kick.Besides,K.I.S.S. in this situation most especially,right?

As for training a newb from zero to hero and filming it? Hmmm...thinking about it...


----------



## marlon

ATACX GYM said:


> IIRC,you asked me if I can take someone who has never had a single martial arts class and teach them to fight in 1 hour.The answer is YES.So can you in all likelihood.However,can I turn that person into a versatile martial artist in one hour? Hell no.They won't be able to flow from weapons to ground to back again with multiple options in one hour.They can in one week.One hour? Nope. Will they have SOME facility with weapons to the ground in one hour? YEP.
> 
> I have had a student come in from off the street and tell me that he and his friend are going to get jumped by bullies after school within 3 days. I trained them intensively then the day of the fight I accompanied them to school,spoke to the Vice Principal and made sure that TPB at school kept the bullies away that day.That weekend the bullies tried to jump the boys' girlfriends not 150 meters from my school and I witnessed the kids I trained (9th graders) tear off in the anal region of the 10th and 11th grade bullies pestering them. I stopped it when one of my boys started stomping on a downed bully and the other kid downed his opponent with a sweet ridgehand to the gonads.My enrollment doubled within a week,lolol.
> 
> The fastest turnaround I posted for a student was 45 minutes.Kid's mother came in and pled with me to train her son.She had no money,but she mentioned the name of one of the neighborhood bullies belonging to a neighborhood gang (Baby Insane Crips) and I was all for training him. 45 minutes and one jab and MT shin kick later,the bully was stretched out on the concrete insensate.I didn't teach him too much Kenpo because he would do hospital level damage to this (bigger meaner) bully because the smaller kid I was training had legit anger and beef with the bully (who'd taken several cherished toys,a few lil dollars and a NINTENDO DSI from the kid I was teaching) and I shudder to think what he would have done with a good eye poke,handsword, Raining Claw,and/or a 5 Swords added to the infamous Kenpo groin kick.Besides,K.I.S.S. in this situation most especially,right?
> 
> As for training a newb from zero to hero and filming it? Hmmm...thinking about it...


 

that i could probably do, but that is not a regular class situation or a regular student off the street.

really give some thought to the video. 

i posted a comment on your alternating maces post 
be well

Marlon


----------



## ATACX GYM

marlon said:


> that i could probably do, but that is not a regular class situation or a regular student off the street.
> 
> really give some thought to the video.
> 
> i posted a comment on your alternating maces post
> be well
> 
> Marlon


 

Oh yeah you mean the regular class? Yeah I take people from zero to functional in one class with usually a punch,block,kick,and trip ALL THE TIME.Bout last week? I saw one of my n00b girls (14 years old,they call her BLACK WIDOW,her name is LaShanda) play with her HS brother who said she still sucked.he playfully ot in his street fighter's stance (legs too wide,arms too high,but he had experience),playfully swung a hooking jab,whh LaShanda blocked.She feinted a reverse punch/cross at his already high guard,then she feinted a front kick (which made him lower his guard) and playfully fired a jab-cross-front kick (he blocked the jab,but she lightly smacked him on the stomach with the cross,caught him clean with the front kick on his thigh) then came back upstairs with a thrust punch that she stopped near his face.It would have been a full on uncontested grill smack had she not stopped it. Her brother,father and mother all laughed and promptly started calling her Ninja Negro.LOL.And oh yeah I responded to the Attacking Mace (or was it Alternating Maces?) question of yours.Keep it movin,my brutha.I enjoy conversing with you.


----------



## marlon

Well I grew up fighting, but most of my student population will never get into a fight.  We teach in different neighbourhoods, you and I.  That is a frustration of mine, because while I like that it is safe and affluent, it makes it all that much more difficult to push the limits of contact.  But, I get them there. It just takes longer.
I'm going to eat now.  i really enjoy these discussions.  When I heal up we can go back and forth with some video as well.
I look forward to the zero to ero project  
Be well
Marlon


----------



## Flying Crane

clfsean said:


> Yep... the 10 seeds power the entire style. Obviously, an infinite number of variations & applications can be drawn from them. That's why they're referred to as seeds. What do you do with a seed? Plant it, water it, watch it grow. Same here.



Just to make sure this is clear, what Sean is talking about are literally 10 different types of punch.  These are not complex self defense scenario techniques like what are commonly found in many kenpo lineages.


----------



## clfsean

Flying Crane said:


> Just to make sure this is clear, what Sean is talking about are literally 10 different types of punch.  These are not complex self defense scenario techniques like what are commonly found in many kenpo lineages.



Right... but a quick correction. The 10 seeds aren't just punches. There's bridging & grabbing in there too & they all involve theory of application & approach. But yes... you are the correct!

chaap (stabbing) 
gwa (hanging) 
sao (sweeping) 
kahp (pounding or  nailing) 
pao (exploding or cannon) 
ding (pressing) 
biu (shooting)  
jong (posting) 
kum (covering) 
nah (grab or seize)


----------



## Flying Crane

MJS said:


> Funny you should say that. On a similar note, I've said many times, that often arts only deal with what I call the 'during' phase....the person is attacking, heres what you do. And often leave out the 'before' and 'after' phase, which would be verbal de-escalation, etc, and how to deal with the aftermath of an attack.


 
I understand what you are saying here but I think this is a different issue as well.  Understanding the timeline in a physical altercation is important.  Understanding what may come before and build up to the attack, then dealing with the attack, then the de-escalation and emotional trauma that can set in, that kind of thing is important.  But it's a different thing that what CLFSEAN and I are referring to.  We are really looking at the specifics of how every strike or movement is best delivered, during the engagement, and what principles are present every time we do it..  We are looking at the fundamental mechanics of what makes a punch effective or not effective.  Why does one punch land with the power of a sledgehammer, while another punch that may look the same on the surface, seems to bounce off?  We are working on landing that sledgehammer every time, no matter what we do.



> This is why, when I teach, I like to gear my classes more towards making what people already know better, vs. just teaching another technique, another kata, etc. What good are 15 techs per belt going to do, if they all sucK? LOL.


 
this illustrates what I've said before, that the way the curriculum is structured makes the focus of training on the curriculum itself, rather than really developing skills.  When you hand a new student a list of material and tell him, "this is the stuff you need to know in order to make your next promotion", that puts it in his head that he needs to get that list down.  He focuses on that list, and being able to check each item off the list to say, "i've got that one..."  But it takes the mental focus away from really understanding the material and taking the time to develop that underlying ability to deliver every time.  So every class session is about getting that next bit off the list so I can be one step closer to promotion.



> And I've said myself, that we shouldn't have to learn hundreds of techs. to teach us every single principle in Kenpo. There's that many principles? BS! This is why (and I know we didn't wanna talk about this ) I've said that there should be a smaller list per belt. That way, more focus could be devoted to the material. If you have 20 techs/belt, plus 2 katas, how long do you honestly think that someone is going to have to stay at that level, in order to really be competent? Now couple that with the fact that many people seem to be in a rush for rank.


 
If someone believes their system has more than a handful of principles, I'd say they really do not understand what the principles are.  Using a big list of techs like this has tremendous potential to get out of control fast and become a runaway train.  

If one wants to use this kind of thing as a curriculum structure, I think the total list of SD techs should be small enough that all of them have been presented to the student within the first 2-3 belt levels, maybe a grand total of 20-30.  Then there is a limited number of them and the student can see them as vehicles for teaching the basics and options, but not looking to them as ultimate solutions to an attack.  But having yet another long list for every level well into black, that just doesn't make sense.  By the time someone reaches that level I cannot believe he still needs more of these things.  It just becomes a muddled mess and I believe it's a poor way to structure a curriculum.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka

This is for Ras, and others... targeting both sides of the fence. There is an old saying in strategic planning -- the monolith is unstable. Meaning, no one prespective is completly correct.

I have prolly 8+ years or more training in JKD under some pretty good guys; some buncha years training in FMA using "live" training methods, and some buncha years training in Muay Thai and Western Boxing. Moreover, I was one of the first kenpoists to start training in BJJ, back when the Gracie Academy in Torrance was about the only game in town. Followed Rickson when he left, and trained under his crew to Blue, then to Purple under a guy from Oslo's downline. Also trained a bunch in Japanese jujutsu, and have a Nidan in Judo. I mention this only to point out that I am familiar with what you are referring to as "functional training methods". 

When I first started haunting these sites, I was also tooting the "y'all are doing it wrong" horn, focusing principally on training methods. My reasoning was based on my experiences in the FMA, boxing, and Gracie methods. specifically, that I could take a relative novice, work them 2-3 times a week in GJJ/BJJ, then sick them on a seasoned stand-up, tournament champ black belt and have them pants the guy. Even went so far as to take a bunch of challenge matches, without the permission or awareness of my instructors... I would have been kicked out the Academy, so I darned well didn't let them know. I was doing this with a buddy of mine, who was also a kickboxer, japanese jujutsika, and overall beast of a bouncer, BEFORE taking -- and losing -- the Gracie challenge in Torrance, and becoming a student. 

That being said, these circumstances were never lethal. I never worried about whether or not the other guy was trying to kill me... just kick my ***. This is before the first UFC, btw... I had already been in GJJ for a couple years before the first one came along. Anyway, this is about training methods.

Another o.g. on these forums coined the phrase, "cuisinart kenpo", to refer to kenpo aimed at maiming the other guy with eye rips, throat chops, etc. There are always discussions about the legality of it, etc., but truth be simply known... That's is what I train for. I bounced for more than  a dozen years, picking places to work where I knew I would have a lot of chances to brawl. Because some drunk idiot doesn't deserve to have his eyes raked out, I typically relied on judo, jujutsu, and kick-boxing. I'll even say -- for people who insist point-sparring match-style karate has no self-defense applications -- I whupped on over half the people with a simple California blitz before latching onto them for a throw, then locking them up in a choke or control hold. I got in more than may fair share of fights, using kcikboxing/sparring+judo+jujutsu to come out on top in that vast majority of them. Only a few times did I have to resort to heavier guns.

In those brawls, I definitely got hurt a few times. Got busted up training (BJJ is hell on elbow ligaments and shoulders; boxing bad for the airways and ones good looks, and so on); got busted up fighting. Got busted up in a couple bad car wrecks. All leading up to a simple issue for me: I don't wanna fight anymore... it hurts too much to move ballistically, so I'm lazy and more picky about when and why I take off the seatbelt and get out of the car. It's going to hurt me just to move my old injuries at fighting speed, so I am by-gawd going to make sure I hurt you, too. Had that chat with Doc about a year ago, paraphrasing the old Shaft line... do you suppose being in chronic pain makes us less dangerous, or more? I voted more, because we ain't interested in trading shots tit-for-tat to see who has cooler moves; we just wanna be done with it, and go home.

I also -- after a change in relationship -- have kids now. Step-kids, but the closest I have ever had to little people who rely on me, so as far as I'm concerned, my kids. So, my reasons for fighting have changed. I no longer care if you're in my bar, drunk. I no longer care if you cut me off on the road, or don't like the look on my face. Things I would have boxed with someone over, or choked them out for, are no longer important to me. Hell, maybe it's just the natural lowering of testosterone levels associated with aging. But there is ONE thing that remains crystal clear to me, and that is this:

Nothing is worth fighting for, unless it is worth dying for. And if something is worth dying for, then it's worth killing for. And that's where kenpo comes in for me.

The way I train the Ideal Phase is geared towards developing specific skills, related to conducting dissection on live attackers. I train lethal or injurious variations of the first 2 or 3 moves in a tech, milking every ounce of Hammer I can get out of each, because I don't want to wrestle with some MMA steroid boy who is 25 years younger than I am, and who will kick my *** if I leave hiom the chance to. I don't wanna bloody their noses or even seal their breath; I want to make sure they are never able to bother my life, my family, or my tribe ever again. If I cannot justify removing a guy from the face of the planet, then I can't justify giving him a beat-down either. 

I bang pretty hard with some pretty large dudes. That is, I did. My Gracie training partner was a 5'10" powerlifter with no neck. My kenpo training partners have all been in the 6'2"+ and 265+ club, and black belts; all either cops, SEAL's, gang rats, enforcers, or the like... guys who have a vested interest in keeping it real, and ending it fast. Others just don't last long or come back, because we hit too hard. And, admittedly, I mix "live", or "functional" methods in with traditional ones... kinda hard not to after all that boxing, JKD, BJJ and randori.

The thing that sticks in my craw with these posts is the size of the brush with which traditional training methods gets painted. I can't stand the mountain of crappy kenpo that has piled up out there. That being said, not all people who train in kenpo traditionally suck wind so hard that they sound like a runway full of 747's. 

It has been my experience that _functional_ trumps _traditional_, up to the point of _cuisinart_. One of my favorite examples is what happened when my BJJ buddy and my kenpo beast-belt buddy got together to "work things out" (gods I feel old... this was prolly 19 or 20 years ago). We trained for a bit, then they decided to go at it. As long as it was about tippy-tap and getting there first, my kenpo buddy was hitting my BJJ thug in a 10-to-1 ratio. Then when they agreed to go full contact, my BJJ/Boxing buddy covered up against the hits, shot on my kenpo partner, pulled him to the ground and put him in an arm-bar, no prob. Then they decided to take it to the next level, still. Now, because it's rude to scrape up the eyes of a friend, they agreed on levels of contact to certain parts. When the cuisinart came out, my kenpo partner -- who trained traditionally -- had no problem finding targets on my BJJ/Boxing buddy. So much so that the BJJ guy was pleading for a ceasefire prolly 3 seconds after initial contact. He had shot on the knepo guy, and as he wrapped his arms around him, realized he had thumbs in his eyes, finger hooks in his nose, his feet had been kicked out from under him, and he had been hacked in the windpipe several times. He had also -- upon having his feet kicked out from under him -- been picked up by his nutsack, through his jeans, and been dropped on his temple onto the kenpoguys knee (the kenpo guy let him hit hard enough to ring his melon, but controlled his descent so nothing would get too beat up).

It was a fun experiment, and one we have repeated since with several other guys, from lotsa different backgrounds. Commercial kenpo training methods -- with some guy standing there with his arm sticking out while some other guy does a 25-move series on him -- has gotten silly. But not everybody who utilizes the ideal phases in training works it out that way. The problem with saying "everybody who does X is doing it wrong", is that you are assuming you have seen the way everybody does X. It's estimated that kenpo has about 2 million practitioners and adherents, worldwide. Seen 'em all, have ya'?

I agree that the typical studio approach will fail to prepare a student for real combat, damn near every time. But there's a lot of people who don't train in studios, or adhere to those methodologies. 

I do not train the skill of sticking my fingers into my partners eyes, by actually sticking my fingers into their eyes. Sessions would last 5 seconds, and be over, with all of us going to the hospital for cornea repair surgery. I DO train finding the eyes everytime I train a tech in the IP, and make it a point to change the path of my weapons to include such options into as many moves as can sustain them. I have also spent a lot of hours sticking my fingers into rice, sand, sundry fruits and vegetables, and doing my tameshiwara (sp?) with finger spears. As a result, when I have needed that particular skill, it has been there for me. 

I'm just sayin'... assuming everyone learned and trained the way you did before coming to your crystal-clear awarness of the shortcomings of earlier methods, doesn't mean all kenpoists train(ed) that way. It's that same sort of logical fallacy wherein the conclusion fails to properly follow the propositions. Kinda like,

Some dogs are brown
My dog is brown
Therefore, my dog is Some Dog!

The other part is another fallacy that bugs... just because they aint on here proving you wrong in video, means you're right. Just means you're louder and more prolific than they are.

Keep up the good work, and keep the bozo's ducking. I like the plain honesty, and the weekend fantasy warriors need to get shaken up once in awhile, lest they smoke too mcuh of their own dope and start buying too much of their own BS. By the way... the training approach you advocate is brutally similar to the JKD training methods. And the IP information base versus the "live" or functional method argument is one that Bruce Lee and Mr. Parker would often have. They never reached a conclusion, either, so you're in good company.

Be well,

D.


----------



## marlon

Damn.
thanks

Respectfully,
Marlon


----------



## ATACX GYM

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:


> This is for Ras, and others... targeting both sides of the fence. There is an old saying in strategic planning -- the monolith is unstable. Meaning, no one prespective is completly correct.
> 
> I have prolly 8+ years or more training in JKD under some pretty good guys; some buncha years training in FMA using "live" training methods, and some buncha years training in Muay Thai and Western Boxing. Moreover, I was one of the first kenpoists to start training in BJJ, back when the Gracie Academy in Torrance was about the only game in town. Followed Rickson when he left, and trained under his crew to Blue, then to Purple under a guy from Oslo's downline. Also trained a bunch in Japanese jujutsu, and have a Nidan in Judo. I mention this only to point out that I am familiar with what you are referring to as "functional training methods".
> 
> When I first started haunting these sites, I was also tooting the "y'all are doing it wrong" horn, focusing principally on training methods. My reasoning was based on my experiences in the FMA, boxing, and Gracie methods. specifically, that I could take a relative novice, work them 2-3 times a week in GJJ/BJJ, then sick them on a seasoned stand-up, tournament champ black belt and have them pants the guy. Even went so far as to take a bunch of challenge matches, without the permission or awareness of my instructors... I would have been kicked out the Academy, so I darned well didn't let them know. I was doing this with a buddy of mine, who was also a kickboxer, japanese jujutsika, and overall beast of a bouncer, BEFORE taking -- and losing -- the Gracie challenge in Torrance, and becoming a student.
> 
> That being said, these circumstances were never lethal. I never worried about whether or not the other guy was trying to kill me... just kick my ***. This is before the first UFC, btw... I had already been in GJJ for a couple years before the first one came along. Anyway, this is about training methods.
> 
> Another o.g. on these forums coined the phrase, "cuisinart kenpo", to refer to kenpo aimed at maiming the other guy with eye rips, throat chops, etc. There are always discussions about the legality of it, etc., but truth be simply known... That's is what I train for. I bounced for more than a dozen years, picking places to work where I knew I would have a lot of chances to brawl. Because some drunk idiot doesn't deserve to have his eyes raked out, I typically relied on judo, jujutsu, and kick-boxing. I'll even say -- for people who insist point-sparring match-style karate has no self-defense applications -- I whupped on over half the people with a simple California blitz before latching onto them for a throw, then locking them up in a choke or control hold. I got in more than may fair share of fights, using kcikboxing/sparring+judo+jujutsu to come out on top in that vast majority of them. Only a few times did I have to resort to heavier guns.
> 
> In those brawls, I definitely got hurt a few times. Got busted up training (BJJ is hell on elbow ligaments and shoulders; boxing bad for the airways and ones good looks, and so on); got busted up fighting. Got busted up in a couple bad car wrecks. All leading up to a simple issue for me: I don't wanna fight anymore... it hurts too much to move ballistically, so I'm lazy and more picky about when and why I take off the seatbelt and get out of the car. It's going to hurt me just to move my old injuries at fighting speed, so I am by-gawd going to make sure I hurt you, too. Had that chat with Doc about a year ago, paraphrasing the old Shaft line... do you suppose being in chronic pain makes us less dangerous, or more? I voted more, because we ain't interested in trading shots tit-for-tat to see who has cooler moves; we just wanna be done with it, and go home.
> 
> I also -- after a change in relationship -- have kids now. Step-kids, but the closest I have ever had to little people who rely on me, so as far as I'm concerned, my kids. So, my reasons for fighting have changed. I no longer care if you're in my bar, drunk. I no longer care if you cut me off on the road, or don't like the look on my face. Things I would have boxed with someone over, or choked them out for, are no longer important to me. Hell, maybe it's just the natural lowering of testosterone levels associated with aging. But there is ONE thing that remains crystal clear to me, and that is this:
> 
> Nothing is worth fighting for, unless it is worth dying for. And if something is worth dying for, then it's worth killing for. And that's where kenpo comes in for me.
> 
> The way I train the Ideal Phase is geared towards developing specific skills, related to conducting dissection on live attackers. I train lethal or injurious variations of the first 2 or 3 moves in a tech, milking every ounce of Hammer I can get out of each, because I don't want to wrestle with some MMA steroid boy who is 25 years younger than I am, and who will kick my *** if I leave hiom the chance to. I don't wanna bloody their noses or even seal their breath; I want to make sure they are never able to bother my life, my family, or my tribe ever again. If I cannot justify removing a guy from the face of the planet, then I can't justify giving him a beat-down either.
> 
> I bang pretty hard with some pretty large dudes. That is, I did. My Gracie training partner was a 5'10" powerlifter with no neck. My kenpo training partners have all been in the 6'2"+ and 265+ club, and black belts; all either cops, SEAL's, gang rats, enforcers, or the like... guys who have a vested interest in keeping it real, and ending it fast. Others just don't last long or come back, because we hit too hard. And, admittedly, I mix "live", or "functional" methods in with traditional ones... kinda hard not to after all that boxing, JKD, BJJ and randori.
> 
> The thing that sticks in my craw with these posts is the size of the brush with which traditional training methods gets painted. I can't stand the mountain of crappy kenpo that has piled up out there. That being said, not all people who train in kenpo traditionally suck wind so hard that they sound like a runway full of 747's.
> 
> It has been my experience that _functional_ trumps _traditional_, up to the point of _cuisinart_. One of my favorite examples is what happened when my BJJ buddy and my kenpo beast-belt buddy got together to "work things out" (gods I feel old... this was prolly 19 or 20 years ago). We trained for a bit, then they decided to go at it. As long as it was about tippy-tap and getting there first, my kenpo buddy was hitting my BJJ thug in a 10-to-1 ratio. Then when they agreed to go full contact, my BJJ/Boxing buddy covered up against the hits, shot on my kenpo partner, pulled him to the ground and put him in an arm-bar, no prob. Then they decided to take it to the next level, still. Now, because it's rude to scrape up the eyes of a friend, they agreed on levels of contact to certain parts. When the cuisinart came out, my kenpo partner -- who trained traditionally -- had no problem finding targets on my BJJ/Boxing buddy. So much so that the BJJ guy was pleading for a ceasefire prolly 3 seconds after initial contact. He had shot on the knepo guy, and as he wrapped his arms around him, realized he had thumbs in his eyes, finger hooks in his nose, his feet had been kicked out from under him, and he had been hacked in the windpipe several times. He had also -- upon having his feet kicked out from under him -- been picked up by his nutsack, through his jeans, and been dropped on his temple onto the kenpoguys knee (the kenpo guy let him hit hard enough to ring his melon, but controlled his descent so nothing would get too beat up).
> 
> It was a fun experiment, and one we have repeated since with several other guys, from lotsa different backgrounds. Commercial kenpo training methods -- with some guy standing there with his arm sticking out while some other guy does a 25-move series on him -- has gotten silly. But not everybody who utilizes the ideal phases in training works it out that way. The problem with saying "everybody who does X is doing it wrong", is that you are assuming you have seen the way everybody does X. It's estimated that kenpo has about 2 million practitioners and adherents, worldwide. Seen 'em all, have ya'?
> 
> I agree that the typical studio approach will fail to prepare a student for real combat, damn near every time. But there's a lot of people who don't train in studios, or adhere to those methodologies.
> 
> I do not train the skill of sticking my fingers into my partners eyes, by actually sticking my fingers into their eyes. Sessions would last 5 seconds, and be over, with all of us going to the hospital for cornea repair surgery. I DO train finding the eyes everytime I train a tech in the IP, and make it a point to change the path of my weapons to include such options into as many moves as can sustain them. I have also spent a lot of hours sticking my fingers into rice, sand, sundry fruits and vegetables, and doing my tameshiwara (sp?) with finger spears. As a result, when I have needed that particular skill, it has been there for me.
> 
> I'm just sayin'... assuming everyone learned and trained the way you did before coming to your crystal-clear awarness of the shortcomings of earlier methods, doesn't mean all kenpoists train(ed) that way. It's that same sort of logical fallacy wherein the conclusion fails to properly follow the propositions. Kinda like,
> 
> Some dogs are brown
> My dog is brown
> Therefore, my dog is Some Dog!
> 
> The other part is another fallacy that bugs... just because they aint on here proving you wrong in video, means you're right. Just means you're louder and more prolific than they are.
> 
> Keep up the good work, and keep the bozo's ducking. I like the plain honesty, and the weekend fantasy warriors need to get shaken up once in awhile, lest they smoke too mcuh of their own dope and start buying too much of their own BS. By the way... the training approach you advocate is brutally similar to the JKD training methods. And the IP information base versus the "live" or functional method argument is one that Bruce Lee and Mr. Parker would often have. They never reached a conclusion, either, so you're in good company.
> 
> Be well,
> 
> D.


 

^^^I LIKE THIS GUY!! ONE OF THE TOP 8 POSTS I'VE READ SINCE I'VE BEEN ON ANY MARTIAL SITE!!


Okay D I feel you...and that allows me to clarify something that seems to be an almost ingrained response to my contention that the FM is the ship and all else is the sea.

First? What you call "cuisinart" we call "overkill" or "hood kenpo". It too can be trained nonfunctionally and functionally.When trained functionally? It's the brutal stomach wrenching reason why the martial arts has such a lethal legendary reputation.I deliberately and specifically train this level and it's my top tier level of gitdown. Not "get down".No.GITdown.One word.Lol I know you feel me.Me n my training partners wear goggles and cups,we go half power to the throat.This way we can ACTUALLY TRAIN THE WAY WE FIGHT.We do this lightly about 1/wk and hard 1/month.Think wearing the goggles negate the thumbs gouging or finger jab/spear hand to the optics? Think again.Your eyes will water and the match will stop ( if you tap or verbally submit on time).Like I've said over and over in other posts,I'm a real believer in the functional expression of "point fighting" and have California Blitzed aka West Coast Rushed mmaaaanny an unsuspecting foolish mortal.When combined with "hood kenpo" aka "cuisineart"? Bad juju for the bad guy.Most efficient way to stomp out a group of bad guys and bounce too sans cutlery firearms or impromptu weaponry that I know of.

Second? The functional methods ingrained in you allowed you to execute your "cuisineart" strikes because your delivery systems...honed by years of functional training...is keen.I could show you a technique from capoeira (which I also train) and you'd be able to apply the less gymnastic moves almost immediately and with fighting aplomb due to the functional base you have acquired.The benefits of functional training are permanent.All that old skool hand conditioning is exactly that...HAND CONDITIONING.Conditioning methods are functional if they succeed in conditioning.There may be methods that are even better for combat conditioning (aka MORE functional),but that doesn't mean that the whole hands in rice and fruits and stuff doesn't work too.The IP expression and training methods,however,are NOT functional period and that's why they can't be hold a candle to functional/alive methods.

Third? I'm not talking the TRADITIONAL TECHNIQUES when I diss the IP...I'm talking THE TRAINING METHODS.And not ALL "TRADITIONAL" TRAINING METHODS,I'm SPECIFICALLY REFERRING TO THE IP.You're able to milk every ounce of Hammer in your techniques from the first 2-3 moves because you have a functional base.People who lack that base cannot do what you and I do until they acquire that base.Period full stop.Btw the IP is NOT THE SEQUENCE OF TECHNIQUES IN THE 72 SD MOVES...the IP IS THE WAY IN WHICH THEY ARE TAUGHT EXECUTED AND DISSEMINATED.If the IP permanently compromised the TECHNIQUES? I couldn't show a functional variant of say CAPTURED TWIGS while USING THOSE SAME TECHNIQUES.So the techniques which comprise Kenpo aren't flawed.I have a variant of Snaking Talons which my students call The Snake and Tiger Talon because we've modified it functionally.I've pulled this technique off on a bjj purple who was making Swiss Cheese of my guard,and he was thoroughly underjoyed.Again...it's not the techniques in Kenpo.It's how they're taught,trained,presented and disseminated.

Fourth: I know that I haven't seen all kenpo practitioners.Never said I have.I zeroed in on TRAINING METHODOLOGY,and it doesn't matter what kenpo guys or anyone else does after that. If they start with the IP sans any primary FM/ALIVE knowledge and application...they will AUTOMATICALLY receive LESS benefits than if they started training with the FM/ALIVE method.Every single time no matter what.And most of the time they wouldn't be able to fight off a JACKET,much less a mugger.

It's also a fact that all FM heads don't train exactly alike.That's silly to assume they do. You studied Gracie jj? I trained with Royce shortly after the Torrance facility jumped off but he was too expensive,then I trained with Paulo Guillobel and I'm about to start at the FIGHT ZONE with the Vieras.Think I'm gonna stay there until I get my black. None of those dudes train exactly alike.Floyd Mayweather,Pacquiao,Sugar Shane,Gamboa,Pernell Whitaker,Holyfield,Roy Jones Jr. etc. don't train exactly alike either.All are functional.You don't have to do exactly what I do to be functional,but you DO have to follow the precepts of functionality to be functional.

Fifth: The main reasons why I put such an emphasis on the video aspect of this are because the discussions would be INTERMINABLE otherwise and most of the people whom I ask to provide video empirical data probably have access to more and better--at least equal--video equipment than I do.Many of the very best IP exponents are wonderful with the spoken or printed word (can you say MARKETING?) but they SUCK in substance.The direct comparison and contrast slams home the point and the difference between what I advocate and what they advocate in a way that refutes and repudiates in an overwhelming empirical way their contentions.Without the video evidence? We'd be engaged in an interminable back and forth with no resolution in sight or even worse? The position of the IP supporters would win based purely upon the noise of the din and the size of the crowd...and lonely ole GALILEO ATACX would be like:"Yeah but..." So I never stated or inferred that by virtue of supplying video,I'm right.For years I couldn't upload nada to youtube,but my training methods were just as valid then as they are now in their main essence.What makes my argument is the overwhelming millenia of data supporting the superiority of the FM/ALIVE method visavis anything else,for the most part.The fallacy,therefore,is not in me saying that my ability to produce video of what I do is in essence the proof of the correctess of my positions.The fallacy is in reality absolutely and totally in the assumption that I assumed a position that I never have or inferred a position that never occurred to me;I have never done so and never will do so either.

The one thing that I had TOTALLY NO CLUE ABOUT was that Ed Parker and Bruce Lee would have this discussion...this debate...and apparently never managed to reach a mutually endorsable position on this matter.I think that there is a middle ground though.I think that Kenpo tends to have less functionality than JKD but alot more structure.That structure,however,is a monstrous hindrance--the "classical mess" incarnate--without the Directness,Simplicity,and Nonclassicalness of Bruce's JKD. But Bruce's JKD seems to lack a readily apparent structure.I'm aware of only are very few clearly JKD techniques other than say "THE STRAIGHT BLAST" that is a signature JKD technique.JKD seems to be a brilliant collection of principles aimed at stripping away from a mass of techniques to acquire efficiency directness and simplicity and maximizing interception,etc.But it doesn't have the foundation of a logical series of specific techniques.Apply JKD's philosophy to Kenpo's arsenal.Give JKD an arsenal for the more direct and explicable application of its techniques.Something like that.And maybe we can bridge the gap between the two titans.


----------



## OKenpo942

I think teaching the ideal phase techniques is a valuable method of teaching that there is more than one way to defend against the same attack and that because real self defense scenarios are dynamic and constantly changing and never predictable, it is paramount that you teach the ideal in many different ways in order to prepare for the unpredictable. 

I just had this discussion not too long ago with a beginner. He had stated that the techniques would never work in a real fight. I quickly agreed with him. He was confused and I explained to him that the techniques are not designed to work from start to finish in a real world situation. I said that if one block or parry from one technique worked with a counter attack from another technique, the effectiveness speaks for itself. It is building an arsenal over time that makes one more effective in his or her ability to defend themselves. I also believe that over time, your ability to adapt to a situation becomes second nature. Look at a technique line with a bunch of old timers. The techniques pretty much begin with only the initial defense, but then take on a nature of their own.

I don't get why one would limit themself to one way of defending against a certain attack and hope for the best. To me, that is hoping for the ideal in an uncertain event.

I think that the system Parker taught was a good one in that you don't teach a newbie to conquer and destroy at the very onset of your training. His system is just that, a system. If you look at the early techniques, they move away from the attack, not into it. Later you learn to incorporate your offense into your defense and vise versa. It is a maturing of the artist.

On another note. I do believe that one can limit themselves greatly if you only train in one way. Don't always have the same routine. This is why we run technique lines, spar, do katas, discuss principles and theory, etc. We were taught to ask the 'what if?' and were then shown the 'why' for that particular dilemma. Beginners were made into believers by being shown in this way. Like Mr. Parker said, "to feel is to believe". 

Mr. Parker believed that his art should be tailored to each individual and not the other way around. I guess this is why there are so many ways to defend against the same attack and so many ways to counter. A 6'5" 230 lb. man will react to and deal with an attack very differently than a 5'3" 115 lb. woman would. Because of their physical make up alone, the defenses and offenses would differ. The same would apply based on the physiology of the attacker.

I know I am rambling, but I don't understand why so many are so narrow minded. You have to have some way to teach and train. That is why there are so many different arts. One can't make everyone happy. You will never hear me bash another arts effectiveness or how Its deceased founder was wrong. They are very respected because their way has stood the test of time and they are respected by other masters. Granted, American Kenpo is very new in the world of martial arts as a system, however, the principles and inflluences (karate & kung fu) are nothing new.

I respect that all of us have different things that do and don't work for us and it is my hope that we all find those things that work best for us.

Oh, BTW the reply by Kembudo-Kai Kenpoka... Brilliant!!!

Thank you all,

James


----------



## ATACX GYM

OKenpo942 said:


> I think teaching the ideal phase techniques is a valuable method of teaching that there is more than one way to defend against the same attack and that because real self defense scenarios are dynamic and constantly changing and never predictable, it is paramount that you teach the ideal in many different ways in order to prepare for the unpredictable.
> 
> I just had this discussion not too long ago with a beginner. He had stated that the techniques would never work in a real fight. I quickly agreed with him. He was confused and I explained to him that the techniques are not designed to work from start to finish in a real world situation. I said that if one block or parry from one technique worked with a counter attack from another technique, the effectiveness speaks for itself. It is building an arsenal over time that makes one more effective in his or her ability to defend themselves. I also believe that over time, your ability to adapt to a situation becomes second nature. Look at a technique line with a bunch of old timers. The techniques pretty much begin with only the initial defense, but then take on a nature of their own.
> 
> I don't get why one would limit themself to one way of defending against a certain attack and hope for the best. To me, that is hoping for the ideal in an uncertain event.
> 
> I think that the system Parker taught was a good one in that you don't teach a newbie to conquer and destroy at the very onset of your training. His system is just that, a system. If you look at the early techniques, they move away from the attack, not into it. Later you learn to incorporate your offense into your defense and vise versa. It is a maturing of the artist.
> 
> On another note. I do believe that one can limit themselves greatly if you only train in one way. Don't always have the same routine. This is why we run technique lines, spar, do katas, discuss principles and theory, etc. We were taught to ask the 'what if?' and were then shown the 'why' for that particular dilemma. Beginners were made into believers by being shown in this way. Like Mr. Parker said, "to feel is to believe".
> 
> Mr. Parker believed that his art should be tailored to each individual and not the other way around. I guess this is why there are so many ways to defend against the same attack and so many ways to counter. A 6'5" 230 lb. man will react to and deal with an attack very differently than a 5'3" 115 lb. woman would. Because of their physical make up alone, the defenses and offenses would differ. The same would apply based on the physiology of the attacker.
> 
> I know I am rambling, but I don't understand why so many are so narrow minded. You have to have some way to teach and train. That is why there are so many different arts. One can't make everyone happy. You will never hear me bash another arts effectiveness or how Its deceased founder was wrong. They are very respected because their way has stood the test of time and they are respected by other masters. Granted, American Kenpo is very new in the world of martial arts as a system, however, the principles and inflluences (karate & kung fu) are nothing new.
> 
> I respect that all of us have different things that do and don't work for us and it is my hope that we all find those things that work best for us.
> 
> Oh, BTW the reply by Kembudo-Kai Kenpoka... Brilliant!!!
> 
> Thank you all,
> 
> James


 

Whassup James! I'm Ras.Head Coach of the ATACX GYM.

As you probably know by now,my main difference with your post is when you started with the IP and extrapolated from there to anywhere.The IP is nonfunctional.Since it's nonfunctional? There is nothing to learn from it other than..."This ish sucks and I got my butt kicked because of it." Teaching various methods of the IP that allegedly deals with the unpredictability of combat simply teaches various methods which FAIL,and therefore you're compounding the problem of the first technique.You are steadily building a strong case for the false belief that the majority of techniques that comprise American Kenpo and (in the minds of many) therefore American Kenpo itself is worthless and can't be relied upon to do it's NUMBER ONE job: DEFEND MY SELF AND/OR INNOCENTS AND LOVED ONES. Asking "What If?" from the IP simply spawns ANOTHER nonfunctional technique.In short,there is nothing of worth that is to be gleaned from the IP.Again,this debate gets short circuited INSTANTLY when you make a side by side comparison and contrast.The other major fallacy in this logic is:"Well,take a snippet from one technique and graft it to a snippet to another technique to deal with changing scenarios." Again,if the TRAINING PARADIGM is flawed,the RESULTS will be flawed.The IP is fatally flawed and nonfunctional.You CAN'T RELIABLY DEFEND YOURSELF WITH THE IP.Whether you're a 9'10" Goliath or a 3'6" "dwarf".Whether you do tech lines or circles,it doesn't matter.If you train "ideally"? You will receive a very UNideal butt kicking the overwhelming majority of the time.So going from one IP technique to another simply means that you're going from one technique that will gitcha butt kicked the way that you're training it to ANOTHER technique that will gitcha butt kicked due to the way that you're training it.I mean no disrespect here,Okenpo,I like you man.But it's overwhelmingly clear and obvious and logical that the IP doesn't work and teaching it as if it does work or is best for our students in ANY WAY isn't true.The Functional Method is the ship,all else is the sea.

Let's get past the talk and get right to the real comparisons of technique that breaks down what works and what doesn't.

Here are selections of the "traditional IP" ALTERNATING MACES:





 




 




 
^^^You will get your hat handed to you if you try that.

This is a functional base that Alternating Maces could be tried from:





 
Worlds apart.The IP fails.Notably.Look at the guys doing the IP.Stilted movement.Ridiculous distancing.Etc.We don't have to belabor the point because you acknowledged already in your post,my good OKenpo,that the IP doesn't work.Therefore you can't extrapolate from a nonfunctional approach and reach a functional one.You have to ABANDON the nonfunctional and find FUNCTIONAL methods to achieve your goal.Note that I used the EXACT SAME WEAPONS that are applied in Alternating Maces in the IP nonfunctional gitcha butt kicked version...just in my version? You DON'T gitcha butt kicked.Because my version is FUNCTIONAL.It's REALLY BEEN TESTED AGAINST PEOPLE REALLY TRYING TO PUSH/HIT/STAB/TACKLE/ETC ME and IT SHOWS IN THE WAY THAT I DO THE TECHNIQUE.So I usually DON'T get hurt,and THAT makes me confident in my techniques,and it does the same for my clients AND students.Lol.Therefore,discussions of unique kenpo movements,the undergirding philosophy,etc. can be had.Know why? You are encouraged to have these discussions and have faith in the answers that you find because...when you tested these techniques in adverse conditions like real sparring and/or on the street...THEY WORKED. If it DOESN'T save your tail? It FAILED and therefore the lesson that you should be learning is:"FIX THIS BECAUSE IT FAILED." There is NO BENEFIT IN and NO SENSE TO teaching techniques that DON'T WORK IN FIGHTS.That's idiocy.You ever see a boxing coach tell his student to "ideally" jab? You ever see a SWAT instructor tell his charge to "ideally" shoot the bad guy? Have you ever heard of a EOD instructor telling his charges to "ideally" blow that explosive device.You ever see Ray Lewis "ideally" tackle anyone? NO? Then DON'T "IDEALLY" TEACH SOMEONE TECHS WHEN THEIR LIVES OR THE LIVES OF OTHERS COULD BE ON THE LINE.Teach them the stuff that WORKS.Which is NOT the IP.The stuff that WORKS by DEFINITION is and CAN ONLY BE FUNCTIONAL.Full stop.I mean this with the greatest respect,my Kenpo brother OKenpo.

Now,I can take the Functional Method (FM)/ALIVE approach and not only teach you to defend yourself,but in actuality endow you with all the benefits allegedly the province of the IP but which in reality can ONLY be acquired through functional/alive means.

Here's the IP Captured Twigs:





 




 




 
Here's FUNCTIONAL Captured Twigs 





 




 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKAoR0eDa8I&feature=relatedCapturedTigs3

^^^^Now that's something that you can actually do and it keeps signal aspects of the Captured Twigs intact.It's modified by the most basic common sense and most importantly it's modified because it's been tested maaaany a time against ACTUALLY RESISTING SKILLED OPPONENTS and THIS METHOD WORKS.You really really get an in-depth understanding of the thought processes of techniques and their applications and whatnot when you test retest and retest your techniques vs escalating levels of real world resistance til you break through and find something that works under virtually ANY circumstance,and you use THAT FUNCTIONAL BASE as the launch pad for all other testing,tailoring and improvement.As you CAN improve something that ALREADY WORKS into something that WORKS BETTER.Teaching something which you KNOW DOESN'T WORK is just...irresponsible imho.There is no justification that can trump the fact that the techniques as taught don't work and you already know that...and the only cure is to devise methods that DO work.That,imho,is our mandate.From that functional base,all other boons benefits blessings and manna from heaven flow.


----------



## Thesemindz

When I first started teaching I taught the kenpo curriculum. Techniques, sets, forms. Some basics on the pads and line drills, mostly just technique lines and on the body. The original master of that school was a big believer that private lessons were for new material, group classes were for body work, and you could do PT on your own time.

When that school changed hands to a new master, a descendent of the first, the style became more inclusive and I began to introduce drills from other methods to my classes, as well as drawing more dynamic drills from the techniques to train the skills involved independent of the patterns themselves. For instance, if I was teaching a basic kick defense technique in class that day I would surround it with drills involving kicks in the air, on the bags, and on the body, stepping away from kicks, blocking kicks, and countering kicks. Only after teaching all those skills would I teach the kick defense technique. In this way, I could create a number of classes from each individual technique and pattern by constantly turning further inward and examining the depths of the material with my students.

Later, I taught kenpo at the park and out of my home and my students were a mix of civilians and trained martial artists from several different styles. Boxing, BJJ, kickboxing, kenpo, and tkd. Because of the wide range of experience and skill levels and the informal nature of our classes I found it much more effective to teach basics, principles, and spontaneous drills rather than a strict pattern based curriculum. I based my instruction on the kenpo techniques, pulling my drills and exercises from the material, but I presented it in blocks of related skills. For instance, I might take some of the beginner punch techniques and use them to build a class about stepping back from hand attacks with foot maneuvers and blocking, or I might teach a class on basic bearhug defenses or standing grappling based on the hammerlock techniques. It worked really well and I was able to teach both experienced and inexperienced students at the same time because I was teaching skills rather than techniques.

Now I'm teaching in a formal school again and the owner teaches a pattern heavy curriculum. So now I am combining the different approaches. I teach the techniques, sets, and forms to my students, I surround them with related drills, and we spend a large portion of each class on basics practice and skill building exercises so that we can continue to develop overall ability. A combination of basics work, solo practice, partner drills, pattern training, dynamic drills, and spontaneous activities makes up each of my classes, and that seems to be working well.

So I've gone both ways. I've taught and trained strict Ideal Phase techniques and I've also thrown them away completely and taught pure basics, skills, and concepts without any set patterns at all. What I've found is that both ways can work with the right students and the right instructors, and that each has its strengths and weaknesses. 

Strict pattern training has existed for thousands of years, I suggest reading Michael Rosenbaum's scholarly work "Kata and the Transmission of Knowledge in Traditional Martial Arts." It will enlighten you to the true history and purpose of so called "dead patterns." They are important and valuable ways of codifying the material and passing it on to the next generation of warriors in a formal and reliable manner. But they are often mistaken for the desired end, and so students become distracted with pursuit of perfect repetition rather than effective performance.

On the other hand, pattern free training can be extrememly effective and adaptable, but it does not have the same rigid structure to support the student. It demands more active participation and it is more difficult for the students to become instructors in their own right because the knowledge isn't formalized and codified and organized. That doesn't mean it's the wrong way to go, only that it's a different one.

More and more I try to take what I consider a mixed martial arts approach to training in kenpo. Lots of live training, lots of pad work and generic skills training and dynamic exercises. Lots of spontaneous self defense and competetive sparring type activities. Lots of body work and interactivity. But also with a solid core of context specific, rigid and sometimes ritualized patterns intended to teach important lessons about fighting. Targets, maneuvers, patterns of motion, concepts, etc. Yes, you are supposed to block a step through punch with a block/kick/chop combination. But you are also supposed to internalize that technique and its lessons so that you can spontaneously express what you've learned in a dynamic situation.

Ideal phase techniques are important because they are the beginning. I do not believe they are the end. But I am only a beginner. Perhaps someday when I am better and wiser I will return to the techniques again and find that I have traveled far only to come home again. Maybe it is not the techniques that are the problem.

I think there is a place for patterns and a place for freedom. I think that like any technical skill, we must first learn how to follow the rules, and only later how to break them. In order to effectively think outside the box, I think one must first understand the exact parameters of the box itself. But that's me. I'm open to the idea that I'm wrong.


-Rob


----------



## ATACX GYM

Thesemindz said:


> When I first started teaching I taught the kenpo curriculum. Techniques, sets, forms. Some basics on the pads and line drills, mostly just technique lines and on the body. The original master of that school was a big believer that private lessons were for new material, group classes were for body work, and you could do PT on your own time.
> 
> When that school changed hands to a new master, a descendent of the first, the style became more inclusive and I began to introduce drills from other methods to my classes, as well as drawing more dynamic drills from the techniques to train the skills involved independent of the patterns themselves. For instance, if I was teaching a basic kick defense technique in class that day I would surround it with drills involving kicks in the air, on the bags, and on the body, stepping away from kicks, blocking kicks, and countering kicks. Only after teaching all those skills would I teach the kick defense technique. In this way, I could create a number of classes from each individual technique and pattern by constantly turning further inward and examining the depths of the material with my students.
> 
> Later, I taught kenpo at the park and out of my home and my students were a mix of civilians and trained martial artists from several different styles. Boxing, BJJ, kickboxing, kenpo, and tkd. Because of the wide range of experience and skill levels and the informal nature of our classes I found it much more effective to teach basics, principles, and spontaneous drills rather than a strict pattern based curriculum. I based my instruction on the kenpo techniques, pulling my drills and exercises from the material, but I presented it in blocks of related skills. For instance, I might take some of the beginner punch techniques and use them to build a class about stepping back from hand attacks with foot maneuvers and blocking, or I might teach a class on basic bearhug defenses or standing grappling based on the hammerlock techniques. It worked really well and I was able to teach both experienced and inexperienced students at the same time because I was teaching skills rather than techniques.
> 
> Now I'm teaching in a formal school again and the owner teaches a pattern heavy curriculum. So now I am combining the different approaches. I teach the techniques, sets, and forms to my students, I surround them with related drills, and we spend a large portion of each class on basics practice and skill building exercises so that we can continue to develop overall ability. A combination of basics work, solo practice, partner drills, pattern training, dynamic drills, and spontaneous activities makes up each of my classes, and that seems to be working well.
> 
> So I've gone both ways. I've taught and trained strict Ideal Phase techniques and I've also thrown them away completely and taught pure basics, skills, and concepts without any set patterns at all. What I've found is that both ways can work with the right students and the right instructors, and that each has its strengths and weaknesses.
> 
> Strict pattern training has existed for thousands of years, I suggest reading Michael Rosenbaum's scholarly work "Kata and the Transmission of Knowledge in Traditional Martial Arts." It will enlighten you to the true history and purpose of so called "dead patterns." They are important and valuable ways of codifying the material and passing it on to the next generation of warriors in a formal and reliable manner. But they are often mistaken for the desired end, and so students become distracted with pursuit of perfect repetition rather than effective performance.
> 
> On the other hand, pattern free training can be extrememly effective and adaptable, but it does not have the same rigid structure to support the student. It demands more active participation and it is more difficult for the students to become instructors in their own right because the knowledge isn't formalized and codified and organized. That doesn't mean it's the wrong way to go, only that it's a different one.
> 
> More and more I try to take what I consider a mixed martial arts approach to training in kenpo. Lots of live training, lots of pad work and generic skills training and dynamic exercises. Lots of spontaneous self defense and competetive sparring type activities. Lots of body work and interactivity. But also with a solid core of context specific, rigid and sometimes ritualized patterns intended to teach important lessons about fighting. Targets, maneuvers, patterns of motion, concepts, etc. Yes, you are supposed to block a step through punch with a block/kick/chop combination. But you are also supposed to internalize that technique and its lessons so that you can spontaneously express what you've learned in a dynamic situation.
> 
> Ideal phase techniques are important because they are the beginning. I do not believe they are the end. But I am only a beginner. Perhaps someday when I am better and wiser I will return to the techniques again and find that I have traveled far only to come home again. Maybe it is not the techniques that are the problem.
> 
> I think there is a place for patterns and a place for freedom. I think that like any technical skill, we must first learn how to follow the rules, and only later how to break them. In order to effectively think outside the box, I think one must first understand the exact parameters of the box itself. But that's me. I'm open to the idea that I'm wrong.
> 
> 
> -Rob


 

Rob wrote a helluva post,didn't he? I like this guy!

Rob...I think there's an inherent incorrect assumption in most posts like yours (not so much in yours but I can still see it) about the Functional/Alive method so lemme clear that up from jump street: we use the same material that Kenpo has...because it's Kenpo.We have structure,progressions,etc.WE JUST MAKE IT WORK CUZ WE DO IT FUNCTIONALLY.You learn bow and bent kneel stances,nuetral stance,cat stance,allat stuff too.I take the techniques and the arsenal and progression of Kenpo as I learned them and teach every single step functionally.That means that the beginners who don't know jack? I tell them what our end result goal of whatever our lesson for the day is,show it to them,then show them step by step how to get there.Every single component is functional,and alive.Every single aspect of it.Stance training? Yep.Learn your blocks,slips,parries,sprawls,bobs and weaves from each stance,too,from each basic attack.Once you learn the proper position,you gotta move.And once you move,you gotta do some more stuff.All with the aid of an infinity of both live and patterned drills.When I run into a student--which is almost all of them--who doesn't know jack about how I teach on day one,I teach them how to use Peripheral Vision,the Nuetral Stance,basic blocks in the Star Block Set, parries slips bobs and weaves,etc.I am all over them to ensure their technical correctness.Then I make em work just that...nice and slow,1/4 speed so they can see the techniques coming...the first round.Then pick it up to half speed by round 3.They work nothing but the blocks for 3 rounds.Then I slowly build strikes into their blocks,and it takes literally never more than 2 rounds to make it pop.In 15 minutes I've taken somebody who wouldn't know karate from karaoke and they're running Kenpo techniques against live unscripted attacks.No need to start teaching them all that fake stuff for ANY reason.Once they get that? I teach them specific FUNCTIONAL counters.I make them kick.Lots.Make them kick before they block/defend,and kick again.I make them kick like kickin is all there is to it.Then I teach them Clinch work stuff.Basically the MT Judo and G-R clinch,and how to counter that with what they already know.Then teach them how MT,judoka,and wrestler guys counter,and how to counter that with Kenpo.It's incredibly simple,lotsa fun,and NEVER IP.After that? I teach them ground grappling.Always the bridge and roll from the mount first (with the headlock escape thrown in if they show a particular aptitude for it).In 60 minutes,I took somebody who thought "kenpo" was how country folks pronounce "kinfolk" and they can now go from Stand up to Clinch to Ground and back using Kenpo.This is how I build my ENTIRE arsenal in a functional,swift,very technically painstaking way.I do that with weapons and kata too.We are some weapon using, kata doing individuals,and I'm all over them so much that Olympic gymnastic judges seem nicer than Mother Theresa in comparison.

So we have a starting point with direction.That's functional.We have calisthenics drills that emulate the movements in question almost exactly...that are ALSO functional.We pay painstaking attention to detail.Functionally.The result? We learn more faster better deeper longer more realistically have more fun and can ACTUALLY DO WHAT WE CLAIM.We're superior in every single way.The IP kats simply can't do that.And NEVER will.As long as they're stuck on this "ideal" nonsense.I mean...have you seen a doctor "ideally" operate on a patient? Have you seen Jack Nicklaus "ideally" swing the golf club? Have you seen Kobe "ideally" make a jumpshot? Have you seen a cheetah "ideally" hunt a gazelle? Have you seen a SWAT guy "ideally' arrest the bad guy? Then...WITH YOUR LIFE OR THE LIFE OF LOVED ONES AND/OR INNOCENTS POSSIBLY ON THE LINE...why in the hell would you "ideally" learn ANYTHING and try to "ideally" defend yourself,while the bad guy is very functionally whoopin your azz? I'm just sayin.


----------



## Thesemindz

I'm with ya Ras, and I think our classes probably wouldn't look too different. I try to teach my students skills every night that could save their lives on the way back to their cars. But I teach karate to civilians in a strip mall. Pregnant women, the elderly and infirm, children. And yes, military, police personell, and security professionals. Every one of my students learns the way, but I can't always sit on them in their first class and slap them in the face. Sometimes I can't even sit on them period, or even have them lay on the ground, for months. That's why they don't learn even basic groundfighting for six months. Because I have to break them to karate, and that's a process. They learn to fight, I'll match my students against anyone, anytime. But they do so through ritual and rote, at least at first. That's what patterns are. I don't run a gladiator school, I teach at a dojo. The end result is the same.


-Rob


----------



## OKenpo942

ATACX GYM said:


> Whassup James! I'm Ras.Head Coach of the ATACX GYM.
> 
> As you probably know by now,my main difference with your post is when you started with the IP and extrapolated from there to anywhere.The IP is nonfunctional.Since it's nonfunctional? There is nothing to learn from it other than..."This ish sucks and I got my butt kicked because of it." Teaching various methods of the IP that allegedly deals with the unpredictability of combat simply teaches various methods which FAIL,and therefore you're compounding the problem of the first technique.You are steadily building a strong case for the false belief that the majority of techniques that comprise American Kenpo and (in the minds of many) therefore American Kenpo itself is worthless and can't be relied upon to do it's NUMBER ONE job: DEFEND MY SELF AND/OR INNOCENTS AND LOVED ONES. Asking "What If?" from the IP simply spawns ANOTHER nonfunctional technique.In short,there is nothing of worth that is to be gleaned from the IP.Again,this debate gets short circuited INSTANTLY when you make a side by side comparison and contrast.The other major fallacy in this logic is:"Well,take a snippet from one technique and graft it to a snippet to another technique to deal with changing scenarios." Again,if the TRAINING PARADIGM is flawed,the RESULTS will be flawed.The IP is fatally flawed and nonfunctional.You CAN'T RELIABLY DEFEND YOURSELF WITH THE IP.Whether you're a 9'10" Goliath or a 3'6" "dwarf".Whether you do tech lines or circles,it doesn't matter.If you train "ideally"? You will receive a very UNideal butt kicking the overwhelming majority of the time.So going from one IP technique to another simply means that you're going from one technique that will gitcha butt kicked the way that you're training it to ANOTHER technique that will gitcha butt kicked due to the way that you're training it.I mean no disrespect here,Okenpo,I like you man.But it's overwhelmingly clear and obvious and logical that the IP doesn't work and teaching it as if it does work or is best for our students in ANY WAY isn't true.The Functional Method is the ship,all else is the sea.
> 
> Let's get past the talk and get right to the real comparisons of technique that breaks down what works and what doesn't.
> 
> Here are selections of the "traditional IP" ALTERNATING MACES:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^You will get your hat handed to you if you try that.
> 
> This is a functional base that Alternating Maces could be tried from:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Worlds apart.The IP fails.Notably.Look at the guys doing the IP.Stilted movement.Ridiculous distancing.Etc.We don't have to belabor the point because you acknowledged already in your post,my good OKenpo,that the IP doesn't work.Therefore you can't extrapolate from a nonfunctional approach and reach a functional one.You have to ABANDON the nonfunctional and find FUNCTIONAL methods to achieve your goal.Note that I used the EXACT SAME WEAPONS that are applied in Alternating Maces in the IP nonfunctional gitcha butt kicked version...just in my version? You DON'T gitcha butt kicked.Because my version is FUNCTIONAL.It's REALLY BEEN TESTED AGAINST PEOPLE REALLY TRYING TO PUSH/HIT/STAB/TACKLE/ETC ME and IT SHOWS IN THE WAY THAT I DO THE TECHNIQUE.So I usually DON'T get hurt,and THAT makes me confident in my techniques,and it does the same for my clients AND students.Lol.Therefore,discussions of unique kenpo movements,the undergirding philosophy,etc. can be had.Know why? You are encouraged to have these discussions and have faith in the answers that you find because...when you tested these techniques in adverse conditions like real sparring and/or on the street...THEY WORKED. If it DOESN'T save your tail? It FAILED and therefore the lesson that you should be learning is:"FIX THIS BECAUSE IT FAILED." There is NO BENEFIT IN and NO SENSE TO teaching techniques that DON'T WORK IN FIGHTS.That's idiocy.You ever see a boxing coach tell his student to "ideally" jab? You ever see a SWAT instructor tell his charge to "ideally" shoot the bad guy? Have you ever heard of a EOD instructor telling his charges to "ideally" blow that explosive device.You ever see Ray Lewis "ideally" tackle anyone? NO? Then DON'T "IDEALLY" TEACH SOMEONE TECHS WHEN THEIR LIVES OR THE LIVES OF OTHERS COULD BE ON THE LINE.Teach them the stuff that WORKS.Which is NOT the IP.The stuff that WORKS by DEFINITION is and CAN ONLY BE FUNCTIONAL.Full stop.I mean this with the greatest respect,my Kenpo brother OKenpo.
> 
> Now,I can take the Functional Method (FM)/ALIVE approach and not only teach you to defend yourself,but in actuality endow you with all the benefits allegedly the province of the IP but which in reality can ONLY be acquired through functional/alive means.
> 
> Here's the IP Captured Twigs:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's FUNCTIONAL Captured Twigs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKAoR0eDa8I&feature=relatedCapturedTigs3
> 
> ^^^^Now that's something that you can actually do and it keeps signal aspects of the Captured Twigs intact.It's modified by the most basic common sense and most importantly it's modified because it's been tested maaaany a time against ACTUALLY RESISTING SKILLED OPPONENTS and THIS METHOD WORKS.You really really get an in-depth understanding of the thought processes of techniques and their applications and whatnot when you test retest and retest your techniques vs escalating levels of real world resistance til you break through and find something that works under virtually ANY circumstance,and you use THAT FUNCTIONAL BASE as the launch pad for all other testing,tailoring and improvement.As you CAN improve something that ALREADY WORKS into something that WORKS BETTER.Teaching something which you KNOW DOESN'T WORK is just...irresponsible imho.There is no justification that can trump the fact that the techniques as taught don't work and you already know that...and the only cure is to devise methods that DO work.That,imho,is our mandate.From that functional base,all other boons benefits blessings and manna from heaven flow.


 
Ras, thank you for the "hello". Great to meet you. 

I guess we don't really differ all that much in our approach. I appreciated the videos, although the ones available are rather poor examples (I'm sure you agree). 

I never trained at a formal dojo. I trained with a highly respected instructor at his home in his garage for several years. He has never owned or taught out of a formal dojo, at least not for the last thirty years or so and he has a very real world approach to teaching the Kenpo techniques. He does, however, teach the original 32 technique system.

Because he trains in such an informal manner and has so few students, he is able and does train for the more realistic scenarios. He trains the IP as well as the FM versions. I think that this is where we are quite similar. We first train the IP to give the beginner an idea. Kind of like teaching a child to write. First we teach them to write the individual letters, move on to writing words, eventually sentences, paragraphs, etc. Later we teach to express our own form of Kenpo, which I believe is what you are doing at ATACX. 

We differ in our approach to an extent, but I don't think that my way or your way is right or wrong. I do think that you do use the IP form of the techniques in your teaching as seen in your video. I think that you use it to enforce your FM approach. Therefore, the IP version is not at all useless. You are using it as the base for you version of the technique. I also think that Mr. Parker would smile at you and say, 'Finally, someone who gets it.'  He never named a successor for several reasons. One of which is he did not want the robots that were created by following his every thought and word to the "T". He wanted us to think outside of the box and realize that his system was not etched in stone. This is why his teachings to the different "old-timers" were all so different. The principles stayed constant, however, the methods varied.

Keep up the good work, but donn't completely shun the IP versions. You may not have realized it before, but you are using them in your instruction. 

God bless and stay safe,

James (OKenpo942)


----------



## MJS

Hi James,

Welcome to MT! 

Much like Ras, I too, tend to like a more functional technqiue.  I think while many of us are on the same page, there are some differences.  For myself, when I teach, I still do the IP tech., but I dont harp on it too long.  Once they get the basic idea, I like to take them to the next level.  Yes, I'll still have them perform the IP tech, with the attack being hard and fast, but from there, I'll mix it up a bit.  I'll do things such as:  have the attacker attack differently, ie: instead of doing a step thru punch, I'll have them do a cross, I'll have them add in different attacks, ie: a punch with the lapel grab, if the tech is defending just a right punch, I'll have them throw a left, then another right, maybe a kick, etc.  

This, IMO, starts to condition the student to not rely on the IP techs, to not be so bound by them, but instead, to start thinking outside the box, to fall back on their basics, and instinct.  I dont want to see them do Attacking Mace, Lone Kimono, etc, I want them to react.  If that means their defense is nothing more than a parry to the punch, a palm to the face, and a kick to the balls, then so be it.  The end result is they defended themselves, and thats what matters most to me.  

The main reason I do it this way, is because I have to.  Teaching at someone elses school, you have to do things their way.  But, as I said, thats fine...I still am able to do what I said above, and best of all, they like it.   Now, were I to teach a small group out of my garage, I'd eliminate 95% of the techs, take a handful of the most common street attacks, and go right to the more FM (functional model) techs, such as Ras does.


----------



## OKenpo942

MJS said:


> Hi James,
> 
> Welcome to MT!
> 
> Much like Ras, I too, tend to like a more functional technqiue. I think while many of us are on the same page, there are some differences. For myself, when I teach, I still do the IP tech., but I dont harp on it too long. Once they get the basic idea, I like to take them to the next level. Yes, I'll still have them perform the IP tech, with the attack being hard and fast, but from there, I'll mix it up a bit. I'll do things such as: have the attacker attack differently, ie: instead of doing a step thru punch, I'll have them do a cross, I'll have them add in different attacks, ie: a punch with the lapel grab, if the tech is defending just a right punch, I'll have them throw a left, then another right, maybe a kick, etc.
> 
> This, IMO, starts to condition the student to not rely on the IP techs, to not be so bound by them, but instead, to start thinking outside the box, to fall back on their basics, and instinct. I dont want to see them do Attacking Mace, Lone Kimono, etc, I want them to react. If that means their defense is nothing more than a parry to the punch, a palm to the face, and a kick to the balls, then so be it. The end result is they defended themselves, and thats what matters most to me.
> 
> The main reason I do it this way, is because I have to. Teaching at someone elses school, you have to do things their way. But, as I said, thats fine...I still am able to do what I said above, and best of all, they like it.  Now, were I to teach a small group out of my garage, I'd eliminate 95% of the techs, take a handful of the most common street attacks, and go right to the more FM (functional model) techs, such as Ras does.


 
I agree with your method to an extent, Rob. I would never take out 95% of the system. I feel that it cheats the student and gives them only part of the alphabet. I won't assume that in time, they are too stupid to figure out what works for them and what doesn't. I think that this is how you figured it out. You were given the whole and you figured the parts that work for you. 

I think that it is my responsibility to give them as much as I can and help them to keep an open mind to make their own decisions about what they want to use. I don't think that this is the case though for a newbie to martial arts. Most likely they have no base at all and thay need to be shown the basics first, given time to get a solid grasp of those basics, and then allow them to experiment.

We have enough thugs with no form. It is called an art for a reason.

Thanks for your input,

James


----------



## MJS

OKenpo942 said:


> I agree with your method to an extent, Rob. I would never take out 95% of the system. I feel that it cheats the student and gives them only part of the alphabet. I won't assume that in time, they are too stupid to figure out what works for them and what doesn't. I think that this is how you figured it out. You were given the whole and you figured the parts that work for you.
> 
> I think that it is my responsibility to give them as much as I can and help them to keep an open mind to make their own decisions about what they want to use. I don't think that this is the case though for a newbie to martial arts. Most likely they have no base at all and thay need to be shown the basics first, given time to get a solid grasp of those basics, and then allow them to experiment.
> 
> We have enough thugs with no form. It is called an art for a reason.
> 
> Thanks for your input,
> 
> James


 
Let me clarify my "95%"  comment.  As you know, in Kenpo, we have a huge number of technqiues.  Techniques to include defenses for a grab if the bad guy pulls in, if the bad guy pushes out, if he does a step thru, if he does this and we do that, if he stands one way, and we stand another.  

There are a number of ideas, principles, concepts, etc, that are in the art.  IMO, I find it hard to believe that we need allllll this stuff, to teach every single concept.  The concepts dont overlap?  Why do we need allll these techs. to teach us these things?  During a confrontation, the person is going to have to process the attack, sort thru a laundry list of techs, and attempt to pull something off.  During this time, he's probably going to be getting his *** kicked.  Some people talk about 'internalizing' the system.  How long does that take?  1 week? 1 month?  1 year? 30yrs?  

Instead, when I spoke of the "95%" I was talking about taking the common street attacks, ie: grabs from the front, the rear, some punch defenses, weapon defense, to also include things that I dont see taught in the art, such as gun to the back, the head from the back, knife to the throat from front and back.  Limit the techs per belt to 5 or 6 tops.  Teach the IP if you choose or go right to the FM and work a single tech so that it addresses a number of attacks.  Ex: Take Attacking Mace.  Work it against the step thru, work it against a cross, work it against a right/left combo.  IMO, theres no reason why we need seperate techs to teach us things that we could figure out on our own, using the concepts and ideas that're already taught to us.  This is done by using the basics.  IMO, the student isn't really missing out on much, as those concepts and ideas are still being taught.  

In essance, we're giving them a base, and as I said, using the basics, taught to formulate a response.  Ex: At one of my old schools, I had the class form a circle, with the outside people as the attackers, the inside person the defender.  I'd randomly call out attacks, and at times, I'd intentionally pick an attack that the student didn't have a preset tech for.  Usually the student would stop and say that they dont know a defense for that attack.  I'd ask them if they knew how to block, punch, kick, move?  They'd say yes, to which I'd say, then do it!   My point of this, was that they 'did' know what to do, but because they were so bound by the preset IP techs, they weren't thinking about anything other than that.  

Like I said earlier, I didn't care if they did Attacking Mace or simply step off, parried the punch, and punched to the face.  As long as they defend themselves, thats what matters most...to me anyways.  Sure, for the sake of rank promotion, sure, you're gonna have to do those preset moves.  But when your *** is on the line, fall back on your instinct and basics. 

I love to do spontaneous reaction drills with my teacher.  He'd randomly attack me and I had to a) defend or b) get hit.  Usually I'd do parts of a tech, but rarely a full tech.  Sometimes I did nothing that looked like a Kenpo tech. Sometimes I'd do something from Arnis.  Most importantly, I defended myself, and thats what my teacher wanted to see. 

Sorry for the long winded reply. 

Mike


----------



## OKenpo942

MJS said:


> Let me clarify my "95%" comment. As you know, in Kenpo, we have a huge number of technqiues. Techniques to include defenses for a grab if the bad guy pulls in, if the bad guy pushes out, if he does a step thru, if he does this and we do that, if he stands one way, and we stand another.
> 
> There are a number of ideas, principles, concepts, etc, that are in the art. IMO, I find it hard to believe that we need allllll this stuff, to teach every single concept. The concepts dont overlap? Why do we need allll these techs. to teach us these things? During a confrontation, the person is going to have to process the attack, sort thru a laundry list of techs, and attempt to pull something off. During this time, he's probably going to be getting his *** kicked. Some people talk about 'internalizing' the system. How long does that take? 1 week? 1 month? 1 year? 30yrs?
> 
> Instead, when I spoke of the "95%" I was talking about taking the common street attacks, ie: grabs from the front, the rear, some punch defenses, weapon defense, to also include things that I dont see taught in the art, such as gun to the back, the head from the back, knife to the throat from front and back. Limit the techs per belt to 5 or 6 tops. Teach the IP if you choose or go right to the FM and work a single tech so that it addresses a number of attacks. Ex: Take Attacking Mace. Work it against the step thru, work it against a cross, work it against a right/left combo. IMO, theres no reason why we need seperate techs to teach us things that we could figure out on our own, using the concepts and ideas that're already taught to us. This is done by using the basics. IMO, the student isn't really missing out on much, as those concepts and ideas are still being taught.
> 
> In essance, we're giving them a base, and as I said, using the basics, taught to formulate a response. Ex: At one of my old schools, I had the class form a circle, with the outside people as the attackers, the inside person the defender. I'd randomly call out attacks, and at times, I'd intentionally pick an attack that the student didn't have a preset tech for. Usually the student would stop and say that they dont know a defense for that attack. I'd ask them if they knew how to block, punch, kick, move? They'd say yes, to which I'd say, then do it!  My point of this, was that they 'did' know what to do, but because they were so bound by the preset IP techs, they weren't thinking about anything other than that.
> 
> Like I said earlier, I didn't care if they did Attacking Mace or simply step off, parried the punch, and punched to the face. As long as they defend themselves, thats what matters most...to me anyways. Sure, for the sake of rank promotion, sure, you're gonna have to do those preset moves. But when your *** is on the line, fall back on your instinct and basics.
> 
> I love to do spontaneous reaction drills with my teacher. He'd randomly attack me and I had to a) defend or b) get hit. Usually I'd do parts of a tech, but rarely a full tech. Sometimes I did nothing that looked like a Kenpo tech. Sometimes I'd do something from Arnis. Most importantly, I defended myself, and thats what my teacher wanted to see.
> 
> Sorry for the long winded reply.
> 
> Mike


 
I guess I am sort of a purist and having trained with Mr. Parker on a few occcasions, have too much respect for the system to edit it.

I do however agree with a lot of what you say. I agree that defenses against more conventional weapons are needed. I think that a lot of these defenses can be found in Krav Maga or contact any reputable defensive tactics instructor (DTI) in law enforcement and get some of the techniques they use. I don't believe you have to limit yourself to Kenpo, but American Kenpo is American Kenpo. It is what it is.

I love the spontaneous drills that you do with your students. My instructor did the same with us quite regularly and the beginners usually had the same response that you got. It was a valuable lesson. 

Loving the topic. Have a great night.

James


----------



## ATACX GYM

OKenpo942 said:


> I guess I am sort of a purist and having trained with Mr. Parker on a few occcasions, have too much respect for the system to edit it.
> 
> I do however agree with a lot of what you say. I agree that defenses against more conventional weapons are needed. I think that a lot of these defenses can be found in Krav Maga or contact any reputable defensive tactics instructor (DTI) in law enforcement and get some of the techniques they use. I don't believe you have to limit yourself to Kenpo, but American Kenpo is American Kenpo. It is what it is.
> 
> I love the spontaneous drills that you do with your students. My instructor did the same with us quite regularly and the beginners usually had the same response that you got. It was a valuable lesson.
> 
> Loving the topic. Have a great night.
> 
> James


 

Didn't GGMEP state that evolution and development is an essential aspect of Kenpo? That requires "editing",as I understand it...


----------



## OKenpo942

ATACX GYM said:


> Didn't GGMEP state that evolution and development is an essential aspect of Kenpo? That requires "editing",as I understand it...



Okay, I'll give you that one. Probably a poor choice of words, but I think my point is clear.

Be safe

James


----------



## ATACX GYM

OKenpo942 said:


> Okay, I'll give you that one. Probably a poor choice of words, but I think my point is clear.
> 
> Be safe
> 
> James


 

Yes I think your point is clear,man.I too do spontaneous drills and whatnot,and I believe that I'm the only one onsite that has put it on video and shared it (should be up on my Channel in the next week or two,and there're instances of isolated sparring where I show a technique and spar with it already up on my Youtube Channel).I've been doing them for years,and I posted writeups wherein I specifically refer to them.Idk if they're onsite,but they're definitely either here or on KenpoTalk.com.

I think that Doc or somebody mentioned that GGMEP was considering katas or some form of training regarding firearms.I know Doc mentioned that GGMEP was still developing Kenpo,adding deleting and altering at a very late time in his life (and maybe all the way until his untimely passing).I think very much that we should do the same,and that American Kenpo has PLENTY of space...in fact,IS DESIGNED...to encapsulate and manifest whatever we want to put in it.Doc is a long time trainer of police,former or current Sheriff,knows his way around the pistol and I bet he's used his Kenpo during the line of duty too.He and others here would be good sources to refer to regarding American Kenpo--which is DIFFERENT than ED PARKER'S American Kenpo--and firearms.

I do a variant of EPAK which is the root of my ATACX GYM system (we include a host of other arts and a very very yoga and athletics oriented program) and we ENERGETICALLY address firearms,knives,sticks,bats,chains,bottles,swords (sword attacks are way more common in California than you might think,and they're growing in popularity in other states apparently) as well as a lesser emphasis on the vast array of more traditional African Phillipino Indian European and Oriental weapons.


----------



## MJS

OKenpo942 said:


> I guess I am sort of a purist and having trained with Mr. Parker on a few occcasions, have too much respect for the system to edit it.


 
Points taken James.   Let me ask your thoughts on this, since you mentioned editing things.  What do you think of Paul Mills and Jeff Speakman, two men, who, IMO, are respected Kenpoists, in their own rights, and who've both made, IMO, substantial changes to the system.  

On a side note, I've spent quite a few years in the art myself, and I do enjoy it, otherwise, I'd have stopped long ago.  But, I think in some cases, it seems, to me anyways, that some things could follow the KISS principle, a bit more.  



> I do however agree with a lot of what you say. I agree that defenses against more conventional weapons are needed. I think that a lot of these defenses can be found in Krav Maga or contact any reputable defensive tactics instructor (DTI) in law enforcement and get some of the techniques they use. I don't believe you have to limit yourself to Kenpo, but American Kenpo is American Kenpo. It is what it is.


 
True, and thats one of the reasons I cross train.  OTOH, its interesting, because there're many people out there, who say that you dont need to look outside of Kenpo, that all of the answers are there.  I'll usually disagree with that, but again, thats just me. 



> I love the spontaneous drills that you do with your students. My instructor did the same with us quite regularly and the beginners usually had the same response that you got. It was a valuable lesson.


 
Agreed. 



> Loving the topic. Have a great night.
> 
> James


 
Likewise James.


----------



## Flying Crane

ATACX GYM said:


> Whassup James! I'm Ras.Head Coach of the ATACX GYM.
> 
> As you probably know by now,my main difference with your post is when you started with the IP and extrapolated from there to anywhere.The IP is nonfunctional.Since it's nonfunctional? There is nothing to learn from it other than..."This ish sucks and I got my butt kicked because of it." Teaching various methods of the IP that allegedly deals with the unpredictability of combat simply teaches various methods which FAIL,and therefore you're compounding the problem of the first technique.You are steadily building a strong case for the false belief that the majority of techniques that comprise American Kenpo and (in the minds of many) therefore American Kenpo itself is worthless and can't be relied upon to do it's NUMBER ONE job: DEFEND MY SELF AND/OR INNOCENTS AND LOVED ONES. Asking "What If?" from the IP simply spawns ANOTHER nonfunctional technique.In short,there is nothing of worth that is to be gleaned from the IP.Again,this debate gets short circuited INSTANTLY when you make a side by side comparison and contrast.The other major fallacy in this logic is:"Well,take a snippet from one technique and graft it to a snippet to another technique to deal with changing scenarios." Again,if the TRAINING PARADIGM is flawed,the RESULTS will be flawed.The IP is fatally flawed and nonfunctional.You CAN'T RELIABLY DEFEND YOURSELF WITH THE IP.Whether you're a 9'10" Goliath or a 3'6" "dwarf".Whether you do tech lines or circles,it doesn't matter.If you train "ideally"? You will receive a very UNideal butt kicking the overwhelming majority of the time.So going from one IP technique to another simply means that you're going from one technique that will gitcha butt kicked the way that you're training it to ANOTHER technique that will gitcha butt kicked due to the way that you're training it.I mean no disrespect here,Okenpo,I like you man.But it's overwhelmingly clear and obvious and logical that the IP doesn't work and teaching it as if it does work or is best for our students in ANY WAY isn't true.The Functional Method is the ship,all else is the sea.


 
Hi Ras,

I'm gonna give you a bit of friendly advice: Take a look at the bottom of your keyboard. There is an extra long key there, called the "space bar". It is your friend, please get acquainted with it.

After every punctuation ending a sentence, things like periods, exclamation marks, question marks, hit the space bar twice.  After every punctuation within a sentence, things like commas and semi-colons, hit the space bar once. It makes a huge difference and makes it a whole lot easier to read what you write and you might start getting more quality responses to your posts.

Maybe take a look at lengthy paragraphs and see if you might break them up into smaller paragraphs.

Otherwise it is just really really difficult to read the things you write, especially when it's in a lengthy paragraph like the one above.

thanks, and no insult intended.


----------



## OKenpo942

MJS said:


> Points taken James.   Let me ask your thoughts on this, since you mentioned editing things.  What do you think of Paul Mills and Jeff Speakman, two men, who, IMO, are respected Kenpoists, in their own rights, and who've both made, IMO, substantial changes to the system.
> 
> On a side note, I've spent quite a few years in the art myself, and I do enjoy it, otherwise, I'd have stopped long ago.  But, I think in some cases, it seems, to me anyways, that some things could follow the KISS principle, a bit more.
> 
> 
> 
> True, and thats one of the reasons I cross train.  OTOH, its interesting, because there're many people out there, who say that you dont need to look outside of Kenpo, that all of the answers are there.  I'll usually disagree with that, but again, thats just me.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> 
> 
> Likewise James.



I have never met either Mr. Speakman nor Mr. Mills, but I have seen them in some video clips and heard a lot about them. We are clearly talking about two very accomplished kenpoists who trained directly under Mr. Parker. The two of them, without question, have, what is discussed in another thread, a true "understanding" of the art (which I feel can be relative to each individual) as taught to them by Mr. Parker himself.

Both of the men you reference have amazing skill and teaching ability. If you were to study their teachings independently, I think you would find that both of them are consistent in teaching the underlying principles of EPAK. They have made it their own, but it is not so different from what Mr. Parker taught.

 It is well documented that the accumulative journal was created so that the "Ed Parker" schools would have a consistent curriculum to follow so that you could train at any given school and not be lost. The terminology would be the same, the principles would be the same, the school rules would be the same, etc.

Since Mr. Parker is not with us anymore to implement his own changes (which I strongly believe would be the case), We must rely, as they do in nearly every other art, on the definition of our "elders" perspectives on what they were taught and trust that they know what the heck they are talking about.

Are they teaching the EPAK system...? No, but I believe that they are teaching from the base concepts and what they know of what they were taught and that it is EPAK, just not the system as Mr. Parker put on paper. 

I think we are foolish to not listen to what each and every one of these first and second generation guys have to teach as they are our living resource into the mind of the late great Mr. Parker whom I did have the opportunity of training with, albeit as a kid, on a couple occasions. He was an amazing mind. 

As far as not looking outside of Kenpo? I think we are foolish there again if we don't. EPAK is a system built upon aspects of other arts. Mr. Parker himself wanted the art to be tailored to each individual. I think that this means as far as ones physical makeup goes as well as to each persons experiences (life on the street or other martial arts).  I think it is our duty to both preserve what Mr. Parker taught as well as to continue the evolution of this beautiful and effective art.

Hope I answered your questions. I tend to ramble a bit.

God bless and stay safe,

James


----------



## Doc

Taken from my current thread on KenpoTalk.
http://www.kenpotalk.com/forum/showthread.php?12596-Misc-FAQ-Ramblings-amp-Stuff

Misc FAQ: Ramblings & Stuff


Ideals, What ifs and other ramblings


What if? Consider these sirs; a well designed default scenario, (ideal), should already consider these things. In my teaching, this is a given. Every technique scenario I teach, regardless of level, has a base realism component of canceling additional aggression. Not just on the initial assault, but throughout the sequence through to its conclusion. 

In my view (supported by Parker), and the way I was taught by Mr. Parker, that is what the meaning of "ideal" is. The problem has always been since the launch into the "commercial era" of Kenpo, a misunderstanding of the function of the "manuals" and "Big Red" as guidelines, not instructional materials.

They were never designed to "stand alone" as instructional materials. As I've stated before, the only way Mr. Parker could proliferate his commercial product was to take black belts from other styles, and allowed them to teach his concepts. These black belts were to utilize the conceptual information as a starting point, and formulate their own product from it. 

There is nothing in those technique manuals, that provides a definitive solution to any assault scenario, and they were never meant to be. They were in fact created to give a reasonably intelligent teacher, a LOOSE, BROAD starting point to begin their own process of formulating technique scenarios for their own teaching. This was for their down-line in a school or organization, to provide particular consistency for a group that worked together, with a broad general consistency to the overall art. 

Once you stepped out of the lineage, school, or organization, there was NEVER an expectation of anything being the same with the commercial product. When Mr. Parker was alive, it essentially functioned as intended because only he could say "something is wrong," and if he didn't say it, no one could be criticized. The problem is, in business you can't tell people they're wrong. He accepted all of these people "as is," and had to "guide" them rather than "correct" them. If someone asked him specifically "how" a technique should be done, he always replied, "Show me how YOU do it." Than he would offer advice on how to improve their interpretation of the technique. He knew it didn't make sense to teach a definitive technique in a business art where he wasn't going to be available to reinforce that definitive process. Unfortunately, the confusion was massive, in part, because of Parker himself. I remember standing in the back leaning against the wall in street clothes at a seminar where Mr. Parker was going over some technique ideas. One green belt leaned over to another and whispered, "Mr. Parker is teaching the technique wrong." 

There was never ever anything wrong with the method of teaching, only the teachers that continued to deteriorate and spiral downward in knowledge and skill every generation. Their lack of understanding fueled a desire to have it both ways. They wanted thing fixed, but wanted "their fixed" to be everyone else's model, while they were allowed to explore and deviate to their desire. 

The methodology crosses over into all interpretations and levels of Kenpo as I teach, and follows the old Chinese Traditional methods of "style or family" interpretations of the overall art, which was always taught in "phases" just like Parker intended. 

Parker stated, and was very specific; In the first &#8220;phase&#8221; of learning the student should be subjected to a set curriculum with no variations, what ifs, or formulations because that is a different stage and to do otherwise not only confuses students, but doesn&#8217;t allow for enough physical repetition of the set model to create new synaptic pathways or &#8220;muscle memory.&#8221; "What if" training is for mid-level black belts, and formulation was for "masters" of the basics of the art. 

The business of selling the art, is what brought these things, along with 'tailoring," and "re-arrangement" concepts down to students not qualified or skilled enough to do so. However, it did keep people interested in the art, and was obviously good for business. Unfortunately, it was never ever good for the art itself. 

Mr. Parker supported my position, (or I supported his), in his own words from his published I.K.K.A. Green Belt Manual. These are direct quotes. 

&#8220;In this phase, the term ideal implies that the situation is fixed and that the "what if" questions required in Phase II are not to be included in Phase I." 

This is as I teach. The term &#8220;what if&#8217; is forbidden for lower students. It is their job to learn the material, the ABC's of function if you will. It is more important to concentrate on basic skills and physical vocabulary that emphasizes body mechanics and techniques that are absolutely functional and capable of standing alone. Every technique in Phase I explore concepts of application, and teachers specific skills that can be explored in subsequent phases or levels. Mr. Parker further explains the conceptual IDEAL technique, once again in his words from the same source material, and I quote ....

&#8220;Therefore, the IDEAL techniques are built around seemingly INFLEXIBLE and one dimensional assumptions for a good purpose. They provide us with a basis from which we may BEGIN our analytical process. Prescribed techniques applied to prescribed reactions are the keys that make a basic technique IDEAL or FIXED.&#8221; 

This is like a control model in any reliable scientific experiment. How can a beginning student begin the &#8220;analytical process&#8221; without a firm foundation to work from? When Ed Parker talked about &#8220;phases&#8221;, he wanted his black belt students to take his &#8220;ideas" and concepts, and create their own fixed technique. 

That is they were supposed to extrapolate the base technique from the manual, and his conceptual teachings. He was teaching his students with schools and clubs HOW TO CREATE THEIR OWN INTERPRETATIONS for their students. He wanted them to use the Phase I "motion" system to create a personal interpretation for their own students, while exploring concepts of what ifs and formulations with them as teachers. 

When you understand most of Ed Parker&#8217;s black belts came to him from other disciplines, you understand he had to teach on multiple levels with different people already established with schools and students all over the world. He knew if he began teaching someone already a black belt and students of his own &#8220;firm and different basics&#8221; he would loose them. That and his own personal availability to teach what was also evolving made that impossible. If he visited a student&#8217;s school in January and taught, when he saw him again the material could be different. 

To create the business, Parker had to alter the traditional method of teaching and give way for proliferation, with the intent of returning to the "old ways" on a larger scale later with selected participants. "Motion" was the mass-market vehicle, but not the best vehicle for the art. That would have to come later, once he made the decision that proliferation was necessary first. When Mr. Parker created motion-based kenpo, he literally changed the Phases to suit the business. 

In the traditional sense, Phase One was strict unalterable basics, forms, sets, and technique applications, as I teach now. Phase Two, allowed for additional "considerations," and Phase Three was for Master Professors only, who influenced the material the other two phases worked from. 

When he created the "motion-base" and dubbed it Phase One, it destroyed the foundation from which all traditional arts derive their identity. 

Instead, he allowed the identity to be drawn from its many ideas, instead of fixed principles of execution as other arts. This was the contradiction. While he quietly worked on Phase One American Kenpo, he promoted Phase One Motion-Kenpo, which has no place in traditional teaching. He told people to rely on motion, rearranging, and tailoring, while asserting that "Ideals should be fixed," and created by teachers. We must remember Mr. Parker was growing as a martial artist. He himself was not "fixed," and continued to change often. Motion-Kenpo was born in the late sixties. It became the problem child result of his many versions of his art, because it was out-of-control, but there wasn&#8217;t anything he could do about it, that wouldn't destroy the business he created. 

Therefore, Ed Parker confused students because in the business of Motion-Kenpo, he allowed three contradicting phases and a non-traditional method of teaching to exist all at the same time. Realizing there was nothing he could do to stop it, he just continued sharing. However, it was never his intent for students of the business of kenpo, to be subjected to anything but phase I motion under the guidance of a teacher who would create plausible and fixed ideals, and the art itself would have a functional ceiling, until he created the next level. 

Parker quotes continue; 

&#8220;In Phase I, structuring an IDEAL technique requires SELECTING A COMBAT SITUATION YOU WISH TO ANALYZE. Contained within the technique should be FIXED MOVES OF DEFENSE, OFFENSE, AND THE ANTICIPATED REACTIONS that can stem from them.&#8221; 

You can see here he&#8217;s talking to teachers of the art about the process they should use creating their own family style of his kenpo. Mr. Planas has stated this many times. The technique manuals are just a base of ideas to get the TEACHER started using Mr. Parker&#8217;s conceptual guidelines to insure function. Therefore, those who have used Motion-Kenpo as their base and then went on to create their own interpretation of techniques are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. No one is wrong, unless their interpretations are dysfunctional. 

The &#8220;hard curriculum&#8221; of Ed Parker was, and has never been generally taught. Not teaching commercially allowed Mr. Parker to teach me and create hard curriculum dictated by his ever evolving desires and philosophies. 

When Mr. Parker spoke of the "what if" he was speaking from the perspective of those who had enough knowledge to design their own techniques, and the mid-level skills and knowledge they should have for Phase II. Obviously "tailoring" is one thing but totally deviating from the "idea" of the manual meant you had to understand the process of designing a basic technique. In that process, you had to consider "what if" from the perspective of your external stimuli. 

In other words, "what if" is not what he might do, but what he will do when I interact with him. Therefore, when you design a default or Ideal technique you must take into consideration your attacker's possible reactions. 

Theoretically, when an attacker launches or initiates an assault, once you come in contact with him, you must consider what the results of your interaction will be in order to anticipate and plot your next move. 

It would seem to me that this is the stage where you apply effective techniques you have learned to a self defense encounter to arrive at the correct solution by technique selection not so much by variation. For example, if a 400-pound man grabs a smaller stature person by the lapel a technique like "Lone Kimono may not be the best solution. They may want to redirect his energy and use an alternate technique like "Conquering Shield." The focus here would be on learning HOW to analyze the attacker and situation, instead of focusing on the eternal variations of an existing technique. 

For those in the learning process choosing the correct response is more important than endless variations on a specific theme. 

_I would prefer to trust my spontaneity to a technique I have practiced a 1000 times, rather than tailoring a technique into something I may have done once. These two perspectives lead to much different approaches in the way you practice and learn a Kenpo system. _

The "what if" is irrelevant without a significant solid base curriculum that is "hard wired' into your synaptic pathways, and fortified against Adrenal Stress Syndrome. It is unfortunate for many reared in the "commercial motion phase," to grasp or accept this rather obvious (to me) fact. However, those from outside seem to see it rather quickly when it is properly explained. 

_If you are a lower level student, it is more important to choose the right technique that you've been instructed in well, than tailor a response spontaneously when you have limited information, and undeveloped muscle memory. All of these things are intrinsically tied together, and the multiple levels of traditional study may not be explored simultaneously from the lower end of the spectrum._ 

It is encumbered upon us with the knowledge to formulate proper ideals to ensure that these ideal techniques not only function, but also cover all of the relevant and simply inherent possibilities of the action. Any major possibilities should be handled in alternate scenarios. 
_
Nowhere in any of Ed Parkers writings does he refer to the techniques in the manuals, or anywhere else being Ideal. He is speaking conceptually as he usually did. He was specific about the concept, not about the model. _

This has always been an area of confusion. Mr. Parker is speaking to those who desire to create their own style and techniques, and the process they should use, while utilizing his concepts as a base or starting point. Part of the confusion exists because Mr. Parker was not just speaking to his own followers. Infinite Insights was not written exclusively for Kenpo people. Mr. Parker was writing for all martial artists whom he hoped would use this process of logic. It had worked for many years when he encountered people from other styles. Many of his top people came from somewhere else and joined him when he explained this approach. It made sense, so he hoped others who would read infinite insights might join him as well. He was expanding his sphere of influence. His writing was &#8220;open ended.&#8221; That is also, why there are contradictions in Infinite Insights. He was trying to write for Kenpo and others simultaneously. 

The prevailing level of Kenpo-Karate is supposed to teach you how to create your own effective style. That is why it is so flexible and interpretive. People all over the world have used this method very effectively. It is also why you cannot get two people together from even the same school who do all the techniques the same way, because they don&#8217;t have to. Concepts of Tailoring, Re-arrangement, and Equation Formulas that dominate make that impossible.

How can you emphasize all these things, and promote the Three Phases Concept simultaneously without giving people a definitive one way to do every technique, which he never did? 

You can't. 

How can you have an Equation Formula if you do not have an Ideal to begin with? 

You can't? 

For those who point to the &#8220;technique manuals&#8221; for the ideal technique, It&#8217;s no secret most of the techniques in the &#8220;manuals,&#8221; which were only supposed to give you general ideas, are NOT WORKABLE as they are written. Especially techniques that are hugs, locks, and holds, are not even clearly addressed. How many discussions have we had here about &#8220;modifications&#8221; to make a situation &#8220;work&#8221;? Do you really think Ed Parker would give you an ideal technique that didn&#8217;t work to begin with? 

When asked how a technique went, he always said the same thing, &#8220;Show me how YOU do it.&#8221; 

The &#8220;Three Phases Concept&#8221; is about a thought process. Mr. Parker had a problem with those who quoted him &#8220;chapter and verse&#8221; when he asked a question. He wanted people to think and even challenge him. He already knew what he wrote, but &#8220;what do you think&#8221; is what he wanted. If you did a technique, he never said, &#8220;You&#8217;re wrong.&#8221; He said, &#8220;Consider doing it this way, or maybe if you did this, it would work better for YOU.&#8221; So where is the ideal that is quoted so often? It doesn&#8217;t exist until YOU create it. Mr. Parker NEVER taught an IDEAL technique in motion kenpo-karate, he only spoke of the process. 

He spent time teaching me the process, and the hard principles you absolutely must know fro the process. That is what I teach. 

"What if his other foot is forward?" 

It doesn&#8217;t change anything. 

"What if he's about to throw a punch with the other hand? 

You control his width when you execute properly. 

"What if he tries to grapple?&#8221; 

The base controls the space. 

"What if ......." 

Shut up and train!


----------



## ATACX GYM

First off? Amazing post.I would hit the PRAISE button instead of the THANKS button if we had one.I'm on board for most of this post,and because it's so good? I have lotsa questions and a few comments.

Second? Soooo...Mr.Parker never set up a specific inflexible "ideal" tech for "Motion-based Kenpo" but spoke extensively of the principles of CREATING a primary scenario from which we are to explore using his techs and our ideas combined as a base? He NEVER created a "fixed" ideal? That's revolutionary info to quite a few people,I would guess.I count myself among the numer of people finding this info to be revolutionary.If so,I'm not quite sure I follow you in certain areas.

Let's take say Captured Twigs as an example.Exactly as you stated,the techs as written ARE NOT WORKABLE.I assume that Mr. Parker is the sole or at least primary author of these techs and most of their names,etc. My main problem is...even the attacks I saw him executing tech responses to on film were of the unrealistic,"ideal" variety.With his experience,I don't accept that he couldn't or didn't know far more realistic ways to address whatever base scenarios he faced using his techs. I mean from the perspective of the attacker AND the defender.Furthermore,I assume that the people who came to him from various other systems are somewhat proficient themselves,and while I completely agree with much of the printed word and with what I understand the end result/goal of the various ideas and principles are,the movements that are purported to reach that goal immediately ring my THAT ISH SUCKS radar. Perhaps this is the result of the horrific dilution of Kenpo as it moved away from its functional roots,but...I for one absolutely think that the whole of this would have been averted by simply using the common sense and extremely commonly known solution of starting off with techs and counters to techs that obviously work against the most common and plausible attacks from jump street.Showing stuff that works is THE BEST WAY to keep your message clear and your principles deeply embedded in whatever successive students you have.Nobody forgot how to throw jabs and hooks because Cus D'amato passed away,and nobody lost the importance of jabbing and hooking or creating better and better ways to jab,hook,etc. after the sad event of Cus's passing too.

In other words? If Mr. Parker knew that the stuff he spoke about didn't coincide with the stuff he knew,and that the stuff is unworkable? Mr. Parker should've started with stuff that worked...as the best demonstration of the control group and the principles and extrapolation and allat other stuff too. I don't see how such a elementary decision could have slipped by him or anyone else. I had a brown belt from hapkido join up with me last week. I simply showed him the stuff that works.That's what made everything else work too. Showed him how to use his rolling skills better,both combatively and for calisthenics.Mr. Parker could have simply shown stuff that works when demo'ing his techs instead of stuff that's clearly suspect,like this right here which he did with Huk Planas:

http://youtu.be/zAo3CBTYug4


If Mr. Parker didn't create a consistent expression for his "fixed ideal" then what is this that he's doing with Huk Planas? I'm not doubting your word,Doc...I'm trying to understand here. I like the idea that Mr.Parker never HIMSELF promoted a specific "fixed ideal" as THEE expression (maybe he demo'd AN expression but never believed in a set,inflexible "THEE" expression) of his principles,but he seems to have rather consistently over the years did the same or largely the same movements over and over again...and frankly the videos of the movements of uke that I saw him respond to are almost 100% unrealistic and the responses,as you correctly noted,"ARE UNWORKABLE". Soooo...why do such a thing EVER? Commercial Kenpo or not...it should still work. Kenpo has a great deal in common with most Chinese,Korean and Japanese systems...it takes very little work to bridge the gap between them.For instance,many of my TKD and TSD friends learn my ATACX GYM Kenpo strikes and they have a great time adding it to their TKD and TSD.They practice the self-defense techs and add their own spin to it.Only 1 of them in 14 years offered to merge with me,but literally dozens if not a few hundred instructor and Master rank guys have learned from me via seminars and just free sharing clinics (and in the process I learned alot from them) over the past 14 years and we had a great time.Very little conflict,and Kenpo fit well with them.Sooo even guys from other systems would be bowled over faster and in greater numbers if...the stuff obviously worked and could be demonstrated right off top as feasible.


See,you could demo something real world more slowly and then pick up the speed,and everybody could see it works for real.You never need to mess with the goofy stuff that doesn't work and all your principles,etc. would be intact. Boxers would slowly show a bob and weave on a guy trying to throw hooks and counter with say a uppercut and hook.They'd slip a jab and cross thrown at them, jab and cross done slowly,then show it at street speed.Omg it works. If the hard principles Mr. Parker showed you are indeed as potent as we trust your word that they are,and since functionality is a concept older than everyone under 10,000 years old...um...why didn't he just show THAT stuff from the gate? He doesn't even have to show his special secret weapons. Fact is...demos that work are ALSO demos that look good. So even drawing crowds to the art of Kenpo is answered by...doing stuff that works. It's just a matter of advertising the real deal stuff that you have...not advertising the unworkable stuff for any reason whatsoever.

Grappling is stifled by controlling the base? Show me please. Doesn't matter if I punch with the other hand? Show me that too,thanks! Love to see it.Ed Parker already knew it if he showed it to you,Doc.Soooo many laypersons, martial artists and police and soldiers etc. would be nodding their heads as Mr.Parker spoke about the wonders of Kenpo,or say the marketing and advertising wizards that comprise much of "commercial Kenpo" did the same.But then we break out with the kind of stuff that we just saw in the video with Huk Planas and then the peeps who were nodding their heads at our WORDS see our ACTIONS and say:"Waitaminnit...what izzis unworkable mess you're showing me after all that lovely verbiage and erudite yakkery about principles and stuff?" 

If it works? Show it. Then it'll sell itself. But THIS mess? That mess won't work. All of us know it. Sure Mr. Parker is human and stuff and that's both a strength and failing that we all share...but he knew that stuff didn't work BEFORE he starting demo'ing it with Huk.So why do that stuff that you know doesn't work at all and why not show the stuff that works from jump street?


----------



## Twin Fist

ATACX GYM said:


> If it works? Show it. Then it'll sell itself. But THIS mess? That mess won't work. All of us know it.





the irony is just too good to pass up.Pretty sure you were on the recieving end of that exact sentence about 2 weeks ago.Still no proof........ but i aint interested in wasting my time.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In regards to Kenpo, the techniques, as written, do work. They do exactly what they are supposed to do, teach concepts.

And they do that exceedingly well.

one must learn the concepts FIRST, or nothing else will be accomplished.

THATS why you learn it the right way,or "ideal phase" FIRST, so you dont end up with some jackass who thinks he knows everything but never learned the CONCEPTS in the first place.

IF you have taken the time, and learned the concepts, you will be able to adapt to any "what if"

Doc's post would seem to bear this out.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Twin Fist said:


> the irony is just too good to pass up.Pretty sure you were on the recieving end of that exact sentence about 2 weeks ago.Still no proof........ but i aint interested in wasting my time.
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> In regards to Kenpo, the techniques, as written, do work. They do exactly what they are supposed to do, teach concepts.
> 
> And they do that exceedingly well.
> 
> one must learn the concepts FIRST, or nothing else will be accomplished.
> 
> THATS why you learn it the right way,or "ideal phase" FIRST, so you dont end up with some jackass who thinks he knows everything but never learned the CONCEPTS in the first place.
> 
> IF you have taken the time, and learned the concepts, you will be able to adapt to any "what if"
> 
> Doc's post would seem to bear this out.


 

In regards to me being on the receiving end of the question I posed? Well,that was taken out of context.I'm asking the question from the perspective of someone who not only knows that EPAK works as I've used it many a time and did so again just yesterday but takes it on faith that Mr. Parker knew it as well...else it'd be pretty difficult for Mr.Parker to teach Doc techs and principles that work well if Mr. Parker didn't know them a priori. My question centered on TRAINING PHILOSOPHY,not TECHNICAL EFFICACY.

IIRC where you and I differed,Twin Fist,is on TECHNICAL EFFICACY.Whether a technique worked PERIOD,instead of TRAINING PHILOSOPHY.Perhaps you conflated the two.If you felt that head kicks,spin kicks,and combat acrobatics are asinine and they offend your TRAINING PHILOSOPHY but didn't take the position that these techniques DON'T WORK? Then I'd have never gainsayed your position.Instead,you repeatedly and bluntly stated that head kicks don't work in self defense.You also saw my cartwheel kick and on the basis of that alone contended that capoeira itself didn't work AT ALL,much less for self-defense. You then combined these three points as if they were one cogent position.I provided video of elite self-defense forces executing head kicks and combination kicks,showed the distinct parallel between capoeira rolls and movements and movements that spetsnaz and other guys do,and I presented video evidence of people like Anderson Silva and a host of other h2h specialists who are better than you either training in disciplines or successfully doing the exact same thing you said DIDN'T WORK PERIOD against people better than you (like Vitor Belfort and Randy Couture).Whether or not they did the tech in the Octagon is immaterial,because they're flat out better than you and so are their opponents.If they fought you in the alley or a stairwell and decided to boot your noggin? Your noggin would be booted.There ya are.And it's not because they're superhuman.I showed videos of lesser lights doing the same thing to opponents of roughly equal position.I'm thinking that if Raymond Daniels or Mike Pombeiro or Kim Do decided to boot your noggin? Your noggin would be booted.Despite the fact that they're point fighters.Same with the Lopez Family of USA OLYMPIC TAEKWONDO.Etc.It's not an issue of the technique's efficacy per se,but also how the tech is trained,who's attacking with the tech and who's defending v the tech.These are manageable variables that can very speedily be manipulated to your advantage the overwhelming majority of the time.In that sense,it doesn't vary AT ALL from any other self-defense tech...which myself and the likes of Flying Crane and Josh were saying over and over again.What's really hilarious is that over the decades there've been literally thousands of guys like Jeff Speakman and Sijo Muhammed  who are potent head kickers,yet you don't denigrate EPAK at all.Matta fact? GM Donnie Williams in a seminar in his tournament nearly 20 years ago when asked about The Founders specifically stated that DOC WAS A NOTED KICKER IN HIS DAY.

Back to the "ideal" phase...

...here's the bottom line on that,and it's OBVIOUS to anyone who places performance on a pedestal above all else: If you're doing it right? Your concepts are right.If you're doing it wrong? Your concepts--specifically TRAINING concepts--are wrong.If you're presenting defenses that don't work vs techs that are stilted as if they're viable self defense? That's wakk too.Doesn't matter if you're me,you,Mr.Parker,some Vulcans,or God. With the aforementioned as a given,then one of the questions I would ask is: Why not show the stuff that works from Day One? Taa-daaa.No problems.As Bruce Lee would say,there's none of the current bogging down of the system resultant from our gigantic misunderstanding and misapplication of the "classical mess". Against the bear hug? SHOW ONE KENPO TECH THAT WORKS EXACTLY AS SHOWN. Doc's SL-4 does that quite well,against the static bear hug.Once you know that? You can move onto other stuff.My ATACX GYM UPGRADED KENPO does that too.Very well. People can screech about whether or not it's the same stuff that THEY know,but one thing that can't be said with any form of accurate,truthful rigorousness is that my techs don't work.

Maybe Mr. Parker didn't figure that we were as a whole smart enough or prepped enough to grasp where he was going and more specifically start trying to get ourselves to get to "going" but using his techs and most importantly concepts as a base to "go" express and innovate. "How do YOU do it?" just like Doc said. I remember reading somewhere that Bruce had similar misgivings at some point,and back in the '60's Bruce was extremely secretive about what he did and how did his "personal" JKD. I remember a very senior Kenpo BB strongly intimating that Mr.Parker was similar in that regard,AND that Mr.Parker was skillful manipulator of the people around him.He could be a cutthroat political animal when he wished,this person rather bluntly confided,and even intimated that Mr.Parker wasn't above playing members of his own inner circle against one another.Combine this with what Doc stated regarding the difference between the triad of hard principles that Mr.Parker taught Doc,Mr.Parker's own personal continuing development and the commericalized "motion Kenpo"? We've got a pretty comprehensive explanation of the broad roots of dooficity that sprouted the welter of fueding Kenpo organizations that looks like the roots and branches of Yggdrasil and the Gordian Knot had a love child.

Glad I'm staunchly apolitical when it comes to Kenpo organizational mess.


----------



## Twin Fist

I think I will take SGM Parker's word for it, "coach"


----------



## Thesemindz

Ras, I think a big part of the disconnect in the Kenpo system as a whole is the idea that Mr. Parker came up with these ideas and then presented them as a unit to the martial arts world. The reality is that many of our techniques are versions of old Chinese techniques, adaptations of Japanese and Korean techniques from several styles, and even a little Professional Wrestling thrown into the mix. As Doc points out all the time, he surrounded himself with _other accomplished martial artists,_ and then explained his vision and told them to go out and reproduce it on their own. 

Some of them did, and have, and that's great. Some of them did for a while, and then stopped. Or did their own thing from day one. Or taught Parker's system, but then when Parker updated or changed the system they got tired of re-learning the "new" method and just went on teaching what they'd already learned. He was taking black belts in TKD and Shotokan and JiuJitsu and giving them a binder full of notes and saying, "go teach this, you can call it EPAK, and I'll endorse your school." It promoted his ideas, and everybody made a little cheddar, and karate was genuinely better for it. But a TKD guy is going to teach those techniques differently than a Karate guy, even if only in emphasis. And two generations later everybody's doing EPAK and none of it looks the same. 

Ed Parker's American Kenpo doesn't have a clear successor because it was never a unified practice to begin with. It was a bunch of dudes who trained with a genuine prodigy. Some were better, some were worse, all got a boost from standing in his shadow. Of course, he got a boost too. It's pretty clear that while he had ultimate say over what became canon, a number of the traditionally accepted patterns in the system were either originated by or contributed to by other black belts he worked with.

In the end, Mr. Parker _did_ start by showing us what works. What works is using your brain. To feel is to believe. So if you can't feel it, don't believe it. And if someone shows you something better, don't be an ignorant ***. Open your brain cage and let the knowledge pour in. He changed his techniques. He changed his teaching. He changed his method. Because he _learned._ Too many of us want to skip that step.

For lots of people all over the place the ideal phase techniques work just fine. For others, they are completely insufficient. I've had that argument many times. In the end, what works for _you_ is what's most important. And passing that on to our students. Because our instructors won't be fighting our battles. If you survive, you did it right. If you die, you did it wrong.

Now, as instructors we should make an effort only to teach the best material possible. Because we owe it to our students and those who came before us. You say show me a bearhug technique that works. I can make the bearhug techniques work just fine. But I don't stop teaching bearhugs at the techniques. I teach the bearhug as a fully developed techniques, from all directions, standing and lying down, arms pinned or free or both, lifting, pressing, and dropping, as a sacrifice technique or a control maneuver, in combination with grappling, poison hands, and off hand striking, and head position, and balance. I teach establishing a base, and grapevining, and counter-grappling, and sitting into the hug. And when you understand all that about bearhugs, the techniques make sense in a completely different way. Then the ideal phase technique has a context. Then you can make a bearhug defense work because you know what a bearhug is.

I think too many schools skip past the ideal phase of the basic maneuvers and techniques. There's no point discussing an ideal phase roundhouse kick defense if nobody understands an ideal phase roundhouse kick. You can't make a knife technique work if you don't understand knives. And when you do, you may realize that the ideal phase self defense technique doesn't work as written, or as taught, or as practiced. But that doesn't mean that there isn't an ideal response to a roundhouse kick. And I think many of us realize that and try to teach those responses.

In the end, Ideal Phase in the motion kenpo model seems to me to be most important as a way of transmitting the _basic elements of a system of striking and grappling based loosely on the chinese model of unarmed self-defense._ I know that in other, more specific methods such as SL4, the ideal phase has a different role. And I respect that. I want my students to be able to formulate spontaneously while using ideal basics. That's my goal. And the system I teach works very well for that. But it requires a knowledgable, experienced instructor with a dedication to self improvement and continuing education. Because the lists on the walls are just names. On their own, they aren't karate.

For the record, I don't think the knife techniques work, I wouldn't practice the gun techniques as written, and I think some of the combination defenses and two man techniques are too contrived to be much use on their own. But put in the context of a more fleshed out martial arts curriculum that addresses multiple phases of combat in a dynamic environment, I still think they have use. So I still teach them. In part, because Mr. Parker taught them and I want to continue to adhere to his tradition. I don't think that stops me from fostering effectiveness in my students.

Coming up, I was always taught that Kenpo is a system, not a style. I know that Doc emphasizes that his SL4 is actually the opposite, and I respect that. But the kenpo I was taught combines analyzation with application. Bookwork and body work. And it works. But only if you have good instructors to walk you through it. The lists are like a general set of directions based on landmarks instead of street addresses, but on their own they aren't enough to get you to the destination. That requires an experienced guide. And one who keeps going back over the territory to see if there's anything new he needs to learn.


-Rob


----------



## ATACX GYM

Twin Fist said:


> I think I will take SGM Parker's word for it, "coach"


 

Not surprised you'd take SGM Parker's word for it.Especially since that's exactly what he said NOT to do.You're supposed to make your own explorations,acquire your own knowledge,make your own interpretations using his techs and concepts as a base combined with whatever it is that you come up with. "How would YOU do it?" is how Doc said Mr.Parker would approach it,remember?


----------



## Flying Crane

Doc said:


> When you understand most of Ed Parkers black belts came to him from other disciplines, you understand he had to teach on multiple levels with different people already established with schools and students all over the world.


 
Hey Doc,

I've seen this comment a number of times, and I don't have the background to know the specifics.

Could you list some of the people from those days, and what their background was coming into kenpo?


----------



## Thesemindz

Twin Fist said:


> I think I will take SGM Parker's word for it, "coach"


 
But which word? He teaches Raining Lance on page 51 of The Women's Guide to Self Defense, and on page 146 of Kenpo Karate, and page 170 of Infinite Insights Into Kenpo Volume 5. And none of these defenses are exactly the same or exactly like the one in the EPAK manual, which is never taught the same way twice in any two schools. You don't even find this attack in Mitose's What is Self Defense, although you find similar defenses which could easily be adapted.

But regardless of what Mr. Parker's "word" was on the subject, there's another important issue here and that's that _these defenses aren't unique to Mr. Parker's work._ Take for instance the technique *Entangled Wing*.This same technique is taught in Nicolaes Petter's Clear Instructions for the Excellent Art of Wrestling as a defense against a Wrap Around Shoulder Lock like the one in *Obscure Claws*. First published in 1674. In Holland. And I don't think he invented it either.

The discussion is a little narrow minded. These techniques exist because throughout time and place man has tried to kill man, and that has led to a consensus about what works. It isn't TKD kicking or Kenpo striking or BJJ grappling or Boxing guard or Muay Thai roundhouse. It's just fighting. It's combat. There are ways to move the body to hurt someone, and we are all exploring and perfecting those ways. Ideal phase is the way you describe it in your school. But that's never static, because we're never done learning. We each express it differently because we've each learned different things _so far. _But there is no final say. Just more training.


-Rob


----------



## Twin Fist

Thesemindz said:


> But which word?
> 
> 
> -Rob




the one that created the 3 phase method of learning and innovation, as outlined by Doc.

anyone that jumps to phase 3, which as Doc has pointed out was only for senior professors, without having spent the 40 years required to do so doesnt know what they are talking about.

SGM PArker's go out and innovate should have been, and was prob meant to be "go out an innovate once you are qualified to do so"

thats the whole problem with Kenpo these days, too many people claiming they know more than Mr Parker did, or that they know BETTER than he did


----------



## ATACX GYM

Thesemindz said:


> Ras, I think a big part of the disconnect in the Kenpo system as a whole is the idea that Mr. Parker came up with these ideas and then presented them as a unit to the martial arts world. The reality is that many of our techniques are versions of old Chinese techniques, adaptations of Japanese and Korean techniques from several styles, and even a little Professional Wrestling thrown into the mix. As Doc points out all the time, he surrounded himself with _other accomplished martial artists,_ and then explained his vision and told them to go out and reproduce it on their own.
> 
> Some of them did, and have, and that's great. Some of them did for a while, and then stopped. Or did their own thing from day one. Or taught Parker's system, but then when Parker updated or changed the system they got tired of re-learning the "new" method and just went on teaching what they'd already learned. He was taking black belts in TKD and Shotokan and JiuJitsu and giving them a binder full of notes and saying, "go teach this, you can call it EPAK, and I'll endorse your school." It promoted his ideas, and everybody made a little cheddar, and karate was genuinely better for it. But a TKD guy is going to teach those techniques differently than a Karate guy, even if only in emphasis. And two generations later everybody's doing EPAK and none of it looks the same.
> 
> Ed Parker's American Kenpo doesn't have a clear successor because it was never a unified practice to begin with. It was a bunch of dudes who trained with a genuine prodigy. Some were better, some were worse, all got a boost from standing in his shadow. Of course, he got a boost too. It's pretty clear that while he had ultimate say over what became canon, a number of the traditionally accepted patterns in the system were either originated by or contributed to by other black belts he worked with.
> 
> In the end, Mr. Parker _did_ start by showing us what works. What works is using your brain. To feel is to believe. So if you can't feel it, don't believe it. And if someone shows you something better, don't be an ignorant ***. Open your brain cage and let the knowledge pour in. He changed his techniques. He changed his teaching. He changed his method. Because he _learned._ Too many of us want to skip that step.
> 
> For lots of people all over the place the ideal phase techniques work just fine. For others, they are completely insufficient. I've had that argument many times. In the end, what works for _you_ is what's most important. And passing that on to our students. Because our instructors won't be fighting our battles. If you survive, you did it right. If you die, you did it wrong.
> 
> Now, as instructors we should make an effort only to teach the best material possible. Because we owe it to our students and those who came before us. You say show me a bearhug technique that works. I can make the bearhug techniques work just fine. But I don't stop teaching bearhugs at the techniques. I teach the bearhug as a fully developed techniques, from all directions, standing and lying down, arms pinned or free or both, lifting, pressing, and dropping, as a sacrifice technique or a control maneuver, in combination with grappling, poison hands, and off hand striking, and head position, and balance. I teach establishing a base, and grapevining, and counter-grappling, and sitting into the hug. And when you understand all that about bearhugs, the techniques make sense in a completely different way. Then the ideal phase technique has a context. Then you can make a bearhug defense work because you know what a bearhug is.
> 
> I think too many schools skip past the ideal phase of the basic maneuvers and techniques. There's no point discussing an ideal phase roundhouse kick defense if nobody understands an ideal phase roundhouse kick. You can't make a knife technique work if you don't understand knives. And when you do, you may realize that the ideal phase self defense technique doesn't work as written, or as taught, or as practiced. But that doesn't mean that there isn't an ideal response to a roundhouse kick. And I think many of us realize that and try to teach those responses.
> 
> In the end, Ideal Phase in the motion kenpo model seems to me to be most important as a way of transmitting the _basic elements of a system of striking and grappling based loosely on the chinese model of unarmed self-defense._ I know that in other, more specific methods such as SL4, the ideal phase has a different role. And I respect that. I want my students to be able to formulate spontaneously while using ideal basics. That's my goal. And the system I teach works very well for that. But it requires a knowledgable, experienced instructor with a dedication to self improvement and continuing education. Because the lists on the walls are just names. On their own, they aren't karate.
> 
> For the record, I don't think the knife techniques work, I wouldn't practice the gun techniques as written, and I think some of the combination defenses and two man techniques are too contrived to be much use on their own. But put in the context of a more fleshed out martial arts curriculum that addresses multiple phases of combat in a dynamic environment, I still think they have use. So I still teach them. In part, because Mr. Parker taught them and I want to continue to adhere to his tradition. I don't think that stops me from fostering effectiveness in my students.
> 
> Coming up, I was always taught that Kenpo is a system, not a style. I know that Doc emphasizes that his SL4 is actually the opposite, and I respect that. But the kenpo I was taught combines analyzation with application. Bookwork and body work. And it works. But only if you have good instructors to walk you through it. The lists are like a general set of directions based on landmarks instead of street addresses, but on their own they aren't enough to get you to the destination. That requires an experienced guide. And one who keeps going back over the territory to see if there's anything new he needs to learn.
> 
> 
> -Rob


 

See why I like this guy?^^^Izzat a good post,or what? It's not often that Doc will weigh in at length on a topic,and he always merks it when he does...and a thread gets better still when Rob does stuff like this.Very good job,guys.Me like this convo.

Okay,but my point...the issue that I'm driving home...is being misunderstood.Allow me to simplify:

I already know that modern kenpo is a synthesis of Chinese,Japanese,Korean,and American influences.So did Mr.Parker. What I'm saying very simply and bluntly is: whatever alleged combat,mental,or whatever benefits that one may get from whichever way you do the ideal phase? You'll get more faster deeper and in all other ways better benefits if you make certain that your techs work as designed.Period.Therefore,as a matter of performance,the ideal phase as we have known it for the past 30 years is clearly inferior to the functional model. Doc says that Mr.Parker already knew this,which is a working hypothesis that I reached long before I ever heard the phrase:"ideal phase". As a matter of performance,we all agree more or less that the ideal phase--however it came to be,however it was authored--is inferior to the functional model.Otherwise,EVERY tech we've been shown would obviously and soundly work right from jump.Clearly that's not the case. Doc says that EPAK got out of Mr.Parker's control,which does an excellent job of explaining what happened FURTHER DOWN THE LINE to Kenpo.

Nobody has said anything that directly explains why Mr.Parker showed stuff which he knew doesn't work as shown when he already knew that showing stuff that works as shown is SUPERIOR to doing the opposite. I would guess that he looked at demo's as a way to entice the masses,but showing the stuff that works entices the masses more.Take a look at the popularity of boxing,judo,wrestling,etc. during Mr.Parker's time and ours.Boxing is still the king of sport combat,and judo is 2nd only to soccer in worldwide participation.Both put superior functionality with superior results squarely in the forefront.Take a look at yoga and tai chi.For matters of health? They're hands down the most popularly practiced arts and disciplines worldwide.Even in Mr.Parker's time.

That's it.That's my whole mantra.We know that quite a bit of what is in the ideal phase does NOT work as shown.No matter how vast and deep your knowledge gets,it's better if ALL your stuff works.Period.


----------



## Twin Fist

if you dont spend time learning the technique in the ideal phase, your techniques will be sloppy as **** no matter what else you try to do

lots of people want to run marathons, but you have to build up to it. You HAVE to crawl before you walk, walk before you run, and run before you run far.

thinking your can skip any part of that chain is .......incorrect


----------



## Thesemindz

I think part of why he had to teach his art through demonstration material is because he wanted to teach civilians. You're right, people are excited about what works. But they're also scared of it. By all accounts he took out the elements of ground work contained within the system because it was hard to sell in a commercial model. I think he wanted a product he could sell to kids, and moms, and business professionals who couldn't go into work tomorrow with black eyes or twisted ankles. If my wife so much as sprained her wrist she couldn't do her job. Period. We'd lose thousands and maybe she'd be fired. You can't teach someone like that competitive boxing.

But they can learn dance. And a good karate instructor can show them how the dance is really karate and how karate is really combat. I think he taught things that impressed the public so that they would come in the door and eat the cake. And once they ate the cake, they would develop a taste for bread.

I learned the Ideal Phase techniques of the motion system. And I learned that I needed to supplement my practice with live training and dynamic drills. It seems you learned the same lesson. Good thing Parker left something behind for us to find. I don't think he ever meant for us to stop looking once we did.

I'm not saying I know everything he knew, or better than he knew, or more than he knew. I probably never will. He was a unique man at a unique point in time. _But I'm not him._ I'm here. Now. And all I can do is my best. So I practice the method he left behind, while constantly seeking to improve the method I will leave behind. I think we're all on that path.


-Rob


----------



## Thesemindz

Twin Fist said:


> if you dont spend time learning the technique in the ideal phase, your techniques will be sloppy as **** no matter what else you try to do
> 
> lots of people want to run marathons, but you have to build up to it. You HAVE to crawl before you walk, walk before you run, and run before you run far.
> 
> *thinking your can skip any part of that chain is .......incorrect*


 
I agree completely. That's why I posted this up above.



> In the end, Mr. Parker _did_ start by showing us what works. What works is using your brain. To feel is to believe. So if you can't feel it, don't believe it. And if someone shows you something better, don't be an ignorant ***. Open your brain cage and let the knowledge pour in. He changed his techniques. He changed his teaching. He changed his method. *Because he learned. Too many of us want to skip that step.*


 
Any time the question is "how can I get better at kenpo?" the answer can only be "go back on to the training floor and do some more kenpo." In the end, marathon or sprint, we can only get there by putting one foot in front of the other.


-Rob


----------



## MJS

And IMO, this, I feel, is probably one of the main issues with the system.  Doc and Ras both touched on this, in saying that the techniques, as taught, are not workable.  This tells me, and Doc, or someone else who knows, please feel free to correct me, that it was either up to the a) teacher or b) student, to figure it out and make it work.  In a nutshell, he (Parker) wasn't going to spoon feed the students. 

So, if thats the case, then obviously, we dont see this happening, because of all the issues that we've been talking about for the last 8 pages. LOL.  

I think this is probably the #1 reason why we have people revamping the art, adding/removing things, and others saying that if that happens, you're no longer doing Kenpo.  Here's a thought....and again, I'm no expert on the art, so someone with more 'know', please comment.  Lets look at Kajukenbo.  We had Sijo who taught the art to many.  2 of those people are GGM Gaylord and GM Ramos.  Both of these gentlemen created their own versions, ie: the Gaylord and Ramos methods.  I have to wonder....in the Kaju world, are there people in the "Original" method, that feel that those 2 other methods, are not worthy of being called Kaju?  IMO, if I had to wager a guess, I'd say they're just as respected.  Funny...you have the yearly tourny in Vegas.....people from all Kaju branches go, right?  You had Fight Quest.....I wasn't there, but I'd imagine there were reps. from all branches.


----------



## Twin Fist

Well, in kaju, all branches are accepted and embraced and all are considered kaju equally.

Because Sijo appointed people as heads of the various styles, all within the system of Kajukenbo. 

the great mistake Ed Parker made was in not appointing a chain of command under him.


----------



## Doc

ATACX GYM said:


> Soooo...Mr.Parker never set up a specific inflexible "ideal" tech for "Motion-based Kenpo" but spoke extensively of the principles of CREATING a primary scenario from which we are to explore using his techs and our ideas combined as a base? He NEVER created a "fixed" ideal? That's revolutionary info to quite a few people,I would guess.I count myself among the numer of people finding this info to be revolutionary.


The technique manuals were originally a part of the "Big Red" business manual/guide that school owners were given, or should I say purchased. They a simple guide for them to work from to give them a base idea to begin the process of creating "ideals' for their students. The Web Of Knowledge was to give them the tactical assaults to consider, and the technique manuals the beginning of the answers to the questions. Instructors were to answer those questions to their satisfaction using Mr. Parker ideas and principles. The whole idea of creating "motion-based" Kenpo was because he couldn't be on the floor everywhere to teach everyone. That was impossible.


> Let's take say Captured Twigs as an example.Exactly as you stated,the techs as written ARE NOT WORKABLE.I assume that Mr. Parker is the sole or at least primary author of these techs and most of their names,etc. My main problem is...even the attacks I saw him executing tech responses to on film were of the unrealistic,"ideal" variety.With his experience,I don't accept that he couldn't or didn't know far more realistic ways to address whatever base scenarios he faced using his techs. I mean from the perspective of the attacker AND the defender.Furthermore,I assume that the people who came to him from various other systems are somewhat proficient themselves,and while I completely agree with much of the printed word and with what I understand the end result/goal of the various ideas and principles are,the movements that are purported to reach that goal immediately ring my THAT ISH SUCKS radar. Perhaps this is the result of the horrific dilution of Kenpo as it moved away from its functional roots,but...I for one absolutely think that the whole of this would have been averted by simply using the common sense and extremely commonly known solution of starting off with techs and counters to techs that obviously work against the most common and plausible attacks from jump street.Showing stuff that works is THE BEST WAY to keep your message clear and your principles deeply embedded in whatever successive students you have.Nobody forgot how to throw jabs and hooks because Cus D'amato passed away,and nobody lost the importance of jabbing and hooking or creating better and better ways to jab,hook,etc. after the sad event of Cus's passing too.
> 
> In other words? If Mr. Parker knew that the stuff he spoke about didn't coincide with the stuff he knew,and that the stuff is unworkable? Mr. Parker should've started with stuff that worked...as the best demonstration of the control group and the principles and extrapolation and allat other stuff too. I don't see how such a elementary decision could have slipped by him or anyone else. I had a brown belt from hapkido join up with me last week. I simply showed him the stuff that works.That's what made everything else work too. Showed him how to use his rolling skills better,both combatively and for calisthenics.Mr. Parker could have simply shown stuff that works when demo'ing his techs instead of stuff that's clearly suspect,like this right here which he did with Huk Planas:
> 
> http://youtu.be/zAo3CBTYug4
> 
> 
> If Mr. Parker didn't create a consistent expression for his "fixed ideal" then what is this that he's doing with Huk Planas? I'm not doubting your word,Doc...I'm trying to understand here. I like the idea that Mr.Parker never HIMSELF promoted a specific "fixed ideal" as THEE expression (maybe he demo'd AN expression but never believed in a set,inflexible "THEE" expression) of his principles,but he seems to have rather consistently over the years did the same or largely the same movements over and over again...and frankly the videos of the movements of uke that I saw him respond to are almost 100% unrealistic and the responses,as you correctly noted,"ARE UNWORKABLE". Soooo...why do such a thing EVER? Commercial Kenpo or not...it should still work. Kenpo has a great deal in common with most Chinese,Korean and Japanese systems...it takes very little work to bridge the gap between them.For instance,many of my TKD and TSD friends learn my ATACX GYM Kenpo strikes and they have a great time adding it to their TKD and TSD.They practice the self-defense techs and add their own spin to it.Only 1 of them in 14 years offered to merge with me,but literally dozens if not a few hundred instructor and Master rank guys have learned from me via seminars and just free sharing clinics (and in the process I learned alot from them) over the past 14 years and we had a great time.Very little conflict,and Kenpo fit well with them.Sooo even guys from other systems would be bowled over faster and in greater numbers if...the stuff obviously worked and could be demonstrated right off top as feasible.
> 
> 
> See,you could demo something real world more slowly and then pick up the speed,and everybody could see it works for real.You never need to mess with the goofy stuff that doesn't work and all your principles,etc. would be intact. Boxers would slowly show a bob and weave on a guy trying to throw hooks and counter with say a uppercut and hook.They'd slip a jab and cross thrown at them, jab and cross done slowly,then show it at street speed.Omg it works. If the hard principles Mr. Parker showed you are indeed as potent as we trust your word that they are,and since functionality is a concept older than everyone under 10,000 years old...um...why didn't he just show THAT stuff from the gate? He doesn't even have to show his special secret weapons. Fact is...demos that work are ALSO demos that look good. So even drawing crowds to the art of Kenpo is answered by...doing stuff that works. It's just a matter of advertising the real deal stuff that you have...not advertising the unworkable stuff for any reason whatsoever.
> 
> Grappling is stifled by controlling the base? Show me please. Doesn't matter if I punch with the other hand? Show me that too,thanks! Love to see it.Ed Parker already knew it if he showed it to you,Doc.Soooo many laypersons, martial artists and police and soldiers etc. would be nodding their heads as Mr.Parker spoke about the wonders of Kenpo,or say the marketing and advertising wizards that comprise much of "commercial Kenpo" did the same.But then we break out with the kind of stuff that we just saw in the video with Huk Planas and then the peeps who were nodding their heads at our WORDS see our ACTIONS and say:"Waitaminnit...what izzis unworkable mess you're showing me after all that lovely verbiage and erudite yakkery about principles and stuff?"
> 
> If it works? Show it. Then it'll sell itself. But THIS mess? That mess won't work. All of us know it. Sure Mr. Parker is human and stuff and that's both a strength and failing that we all share...but he knew that stuff didn't work BEFORE he starting demo'ing it with Huk.So why do that stuff that you know doesn't work at all and why not show the stuff that works from jump street?



What you're missing is historical context. You look at that material and you see disfunction. Well, so do I and so did Mr. Parker when he looked at the footage later. Surely you had to know he changed and grew over the years. You're looking at video over 40 years old. Mr. Parker was in his early thirties. But when those video and film were shot back in the fifties and sixties, that was revolutionary material. You lack context. ALL the arts looked similar back-in-the-day. Mr. Parker's book on Kenpo Karate published in 1961 displayed his Kenpo when he first came to the mainland. Than Secrets of Chinese Kenpo, published two-years later showed something completely different. Mr. Parker was evolving from a teacher who never had a set curriculum, to writing down his own ideas of techniques on 3x5 cards, to creating technique manuals that went through refinements until the day he died.

If you compare that footage to the fifties footage of Mr. Parker you see a change in philosophy and execution away from more hands on material, to almost exclusively "striking," which the "motion-philosophy" fits. There is no such animal in grappling arts because they are grounded in the philosophy of execution beyond the hypothetical. In jiujitsu or judo, you can either throw or lock, or you can't. There is no, "I could have ....."

The martial disciplines were just working their way into the western hemisphere, mostly through the melting pot of Hawaii, and with the exception of each disciplines chosen focus, they all looked equally primitive.

I had the film footage of Bruce Lee's famous demo at the IKC. My students in the seventies and eighties would beg me to set up the projector so they could see it. Once I did, they were bored. All I heard was "Is that it?' While pretty dull stuff even by late seventies and eighties standards, Bruce's Chinese Arts demo was sophisticated compared to most of the heavily Japanese Influenced arts that dominated at the time in the mid-sixties, in comparison. Researching through martial arts books, like I have on my shelf, from the fifties and sixties will reveal the same primitive structures and execution.

People often wondered why Mr. Parker never put the "proper" way to do a technique on film to stop the bickering over the "right" way to do a set technique in his commercial system. Mr. Parker was evolving his material on multiple levels. While he massaged his commercial Kenpo Karate, he also continued to work on his personal kenpo, his intended "American Kenpo."  The base philosophy of his commercial motion kenpo karate NEVER required it. It was designed to do the opposite. That was the job of all those black belts who were teaching. They were supposed to do the work, for their individual students. As long as their students performed to their teachers satisfaction, and the material worked for the students, than that is all the mattered. 

After all, it was a business, and servicing as many people as possible was the goal. There was no way Mr. Parker could create a technique, and than disseminate changes when he evolved to something he felt was better, let alone teach everyone the intricacies of execution all over the planet by himself. Motion based Kenpo-Karate placed the emphasis squarely on the shoulders of those who ran their own schools, because it was their school, their business, their students, and their responsibility. Mr. Parker didn't own those school, they did. Mr. Parker only owned two schools at one time.

Further, Mr. Parker realized he was evolving and changed material all the time. He created a Basics book to sell back in the sixties. Volume One had Mr. Parker doing basics stances and blocks. By the time it was printed, and he looked at it, he had decided the blocks were wrong and made changes already. He never did another volume.

You look at that video and see disfunction. I sat with Mr. Parker while we looked at that footage in the seventies, and he was so disgusted with what he saw of himself, he got up and stomped out of the room, and vowed never to put himself on film. 

He knew people would look at the material and not be open to change. They would use him as the model for what they were doing instead of thinking, after he himself had moved on. He hated looking at old footage of himself, and probably made the same observations you have made. He was his own harshest critic. 

All the footage seen later of Mr. Parker was taken by someone else. He never formally shot forms or techniques to teach how something should be done, only the philosophy and concepts of execution. The older footage was usually to get a particular region of the country started and keep everyone on the same page, nothing more. 

Unfortunately, the technique manuals were ultimately sold to students and then they became the standard of execution, rather than a basis to begin the process of thinking as he intended. It was easy. Just do what it says, even if it doesn't work. He and I had many arguments about his "kenpo-karate" and the plummeting standards. He always said the same thing, "It's their teachers fault, not mine."

Truth is, the many black belts that immigrated over, as well as most of the ones created by the system, let him down. The focus became money and rank, and they knew rank equalled more money if you ran a school. The higher rank, the more people you attracted, the more money you make. Rank became a part of the advertising. Martial Disciplines were never meant to be a business, because the philosophies of each clashes with the other, so it has always been a compromise from its inception.

Mr. Parker did the best he could with a situation that got out of his control. While his commercial art did its thing and made money for a lot of people, including him, he continued to perfect his craft on another level. Everyone saw it in seminars later, but few knew what he was doing, or how he did it because they were married to another concept, that Mr. Parker created only for a specific purpose of success. He sold the "motion," but that is not what he personally did.


----------



## Doc

Flying Crane said:


> Hey Doc,
> 
> I've seen this comment a number of times, and I don't have the background to know the specifics.
> 
> Could you list some of the people from those days, and what their background was coming into kenpo?


Go back to the era just before motion kenpo was created, and right after his first group of black belts. Virtually all of them. The rest of the modern day "seniors' were born in motion kenpo. Than the latest generation in the last decade or so, have recreated the trend, some through video and now add Kenpo to their school resume. The funny thing is, the latest generation to do that through video, looks as good or better than the originals that came up as the "motion" generation.


----------



## Doc

Twin Fist said:


> Well, in kaju, all branches are accepted and embraced and all are considered kaju equally.
> 
> Because Sijo appointed people as heads of the various styles, all within the system of Kajukenbo.
> 
> the great mistake Ed Parker made was in not appointing a chain of command under him.



We talked about that. Chain of command of what? What he had was a multi-national corporation where everyone had their differences, but they all had a level of allegiance to him, even if it was to get what they wanted. They all owned their own business or entity, and they only thing they got from Mr. Parker was the credibility of being a part of his organization and a sanctioning of rank. Without him personally, there was nothing. He was the glue that held all of these many factions from many eras, disciplines, and personalities together. Without him, you could have appointed anyone, and it would not have mattered.


----------



## Twin Fist

Doc said:


> The funny thing is, the latest generation to do that through video, looks as good or better than the originals that came up as the "motion" generation.



it is just like you mentioned, time enhances everything, and todays people are much more technical and have many more resources available to them to learn from, so it is easier for them to achieve the same level of technical skill

tho i still say you only REALLY learn from time on the mat


----------



## Doc

Twin Fist said:


> it is just like you mentioned, time enhances everything, and todays people are much more technical and have many more resources available to them to learn from, so it is easier for them to achieve the same level of technical skill
> 
> tho i still say you only REALLY learn from time on the mat



On that sir, we definitely agree.


----------



## Twin Fist

Doc said:


> We talked about that. Chain of command of what? What he had was a multi-national corporation where everyone had their differences, but they all had a level of allegiance to him, even if it was to get what they wanted. They all owned their own business or entity, and they only thing they got from Mr. Parker was the credibility of being a part of his organization and a sanctioning of rank. Without him personally, there was nothing. He was the glue that held all of these many factions from many eras, disciplines, and personalities together. Without him, you could have appointed anyone, and it would not have mattered.




Well, thats for sure, but one thing that Kaju does that Kenpo should have, was that each "branch" was recognized and the head of that branch was recognized by the founder, and granted the rank to run that branch.

would have helped (maybe) to avoid some of the uglier drama over the last 20 years


----------



## Doc

Twin Fist said:


> Well, thats for sure, but one thing that Kaju does that Kenpo should have, was that each "branch" was recognized and the head of that branch was recognized by the founder, and granted the rank to run that branch.
> 
> would have helped (maybe) to avoid some of the uglier drama over the last 20 years



Which in hindsight Parker wished he had done. He talked about creating different "families" on the same tree. This was not new, especially because Sijo Emperado was his senior, and gave Mr. Parker the bulk of his significant rank after he parted from Sifu Chow, and had done just that. But by the time he came to that realization it was too late. That branch of his Kenpo was out of control, and many of its practitioners had become so arrogant, they had no room for diverse opinions about anything. Even from within their own ranks. In fact, it hasn't changed that much, but I can remember the Sht storms I weathered for saying much of what I'm saying today, but some of the newer guard are only married to what's works, while the some of the older guys were married to their rank, and methods that generated prestige and/or money.


----------



## Twin Fist

that makes so much sense to me, i t really sounds like the man just had sooo many irons in the fire, he never got around to some of the things we really wanted to do


----------



## ATACX GYM

Twin Fist said:


> that makes so much sense to me, i t really sounds like the man just had sooo many irons in the fire, he never got around to some of the things we really wanted to do


 

I completely agree here...


----------



## ATACX GYM

Doc said:


> The technique manuals were originally a part of the "Big Red" business manual/guide that school owners were given, or should I say purchased. They a simple guide for them to work from to give them a base idea to begin the process of creating "ideals' for their students. The Web Of Knowledge was to give them the tactical assaults to consider, and the technique manuals the beginning of the answers to the questions. Instructors were to answer those questions to their satisfaction using Mr. Parker ideas and principles. The whole idea of creating "motion-based" Kenpo was because he couldn't be on the floor everywhere to teach everyone. That was impossible.
> 
> 
> What you're missing is historical context. You look at that material and you see disfunction. Well, so do I and so did Mr. Parker when he looked at the footage later. Surely you had to know he changed and grew over the years. You're looking at video over 40 years old. Mr. Parker was in his early thirties. But when those video and film were shot back in the fifties and sixties, that was revolutionary material. You lack context. ALL the arts looked similar back-in-the-day. Mr. Parker's book on Kenpo Karate published in 1961 displayed his Kenpo when he first came to the mainland. Than Secrets of Chinese Kenpo, published two-years later showed something completely different. Mr. Parker was evolving from a teacher who never had a set curriculum, to writing down his own ideas of techniques on 3x5 cards, to creating technique manuals that went through refinements until the day he died.
> 
> If you compare that footage to the fifties footage of Mr. Parker you see a change in philosophy and execution away from more hands on material, to almost exclusively "striking," which the "motion-philosophy" fits. There is no such animal in grappling arts because they are grounded in the philosophy of execution beyond the hypothetical. In jiujitsu or judo, you can either throw or lock, or you can't. There is no, "I could have ....."
> 
> The martial disciplines were just working their way into the western hemisphere, mostly through the melting pot of Hawaii, and with the exception of each disciplines chosen focus, they all looked equally primitive.
> 
> I had the film footage of Bruce Lee's famous demo at the IKC. My students in the seventies and eighties would beg me to set up the projector so they could see it. Once I did, they were bored. All I heard was "Is that it?' While pretty dull stuff even by late seventies and eighties standards, Bruce's Chinese Arts demo was sophisticated compared to most of the heavily Japanese Influenced arts that dominated at the time in the mid-sixties, in comparison. Researching through martial arts books, like I have on my shelf, from the fifties and sixties will reveal the same primitive structures and execution.
> 
> People often wondered why Mr. Parker never put the "proper" way to do a technique on film to stop the bickering over the "right" way to do a set technique in his commercial system. Mr. Parker was evolving his material on multiple levels. While he massaged his commercial Kenpo Karate, he also continued to work on his personal kenpo, his intended "American Kenpo." The base philosophy of his commercial motion kenpo karate NEVER required it. It was designed to do the opposite. That was the job of all those black belts who were teaching. They were supposed to do the work, for their individual students. As long as their students performed to their teachers satisfaction, and the material worked for the students, than that is all the mattered.
> 
> After all, it was a business, and servicing as many people as possible was the goal. There was no way Mr. Parker could create a technique, and than disseminate changes when he evolved to something he felt was better, let alone teach everyone the intricacies of execution all over the planet by himself. Motion based Kenpo-Karate placed the emphasis squarely on the shoulders of those who ran their own schools, because it was their school, their business, their students, and their responsibility. Mr. Parker didn't own those school, they did. Mr. Parker only owned two schools at one time.
> 
> Further, Mr. Parker realized he was evolving and changed material all the time. He created a Basics book to sell back in the sixties. Volume One had Mr. Parker doing basics stances and blocks. By the time it was printed, and he looked at it, he had decided the blocks were wrong and made changes already. He never did another volume.
> 
> You look at that video and see disfunction. I sat with Mr. Parker while we looked at that footage in the seventies, and he was so disgusted with what he saw of himself, he got up and stomped out of the room, and vowed never to put himself on film.
> 
> He knew people would look at the material and not be open to change. They would use him as the model for what they were doing instead of thinking, after he himself had moved on. He hated looking at old footage of himself, and probably made the same observations you have made. He was his own harshest critic.
> 
> All the footage seen later of Mr. Parker was taken by someone else. He never formally shot forms or techniques to teach how something should be done, only the philosophy and concepts of execution. The older footage was usually to get a particular region of the country started and keep everyone on the same page, nothing more.
> 
> Unfortunately, the technique manuals were ultimately sold to students and then they became the standard of execution, rather than a basis to begin the process of thinking as he intended. It was easy. Just do what it says, even if it doesn't work. He and I had many arguments about his "kenpo-karate" and the plummeting standards. He always said the same thing, "It's their teachers fault, not mine."
> 
> Truth is, the many black belts that immigrated over, as well as most of the ones created by the system, let him down. The focus became money and rank, and they knew rank equalled more money if you ran a school. The higher rank, the more people you attracted, the more money you make. Rank became a part of the advertising. Martial Disciplines were never meant to be a business, because the philosophies of each clashes with the other, so it has always been a compromise from its inception.
> 
> Mr. Parker did the best he could with a situation that got out of his control. While his commercial art did its thing and made money for a lot of people, including him, he continued to perfect his craft on another level. Everyone saw it in seminars later, but few knew what he was doing, or how he did it because they were married to another concept, that Mr. Parker created only for a specific purpose of success. He sold the "motion," but that is not what he personally did.


 

One helluva answer Doc.Thank you very much for providing crucial answers to issues that I had zero info about.Makes a LOT of sense.Of course you know that these answers in and of themselves give rise to a jillion others.I mean...a JILLION others. Like: what made Mr.Parker feel (correctly) that he could sell his Big Red or whatever to other school owners and that they would want it? Was this AFTER or BEFORE the IKC tournament? How'd he come up with the IKC? Why didn't he emphasize perpetual evolution so even if his students got all doofus (the exact same thing we saw famously happen to Bruce Lee's JKD)...the lesson would still be in perpetual evolution and Mr.Parker could still show himself gettin his film on and verbally stating on video,even,to expect his evolution to continue AND his students' evolution to continue...thus forestalling the crapganimousness.

But...that also gives rise to some questions that alotta peeps might find to be uncomfortable,to say the least.

Like: how is commercial Kenpo viable as a self-defense system AT ALL? If the blend of "whatever else"+EPAK="cash cow that gitcha *** kicked now Kenpo"...why would we want to use that? That would mean that a very sizable chuck of the the last 30 years was basically an exercise and crap multiplication...and most of the "grandmasters" that came to be are likewise feces.Especially since Mr.Parker's passing.thatcovers alot of ground.A WHOLE lotta ground.And where do the Tracys fit in all of this? And which branches of "motion-based Kenpo" are actually viable self-defense systems? How can we look up the officially sanctioned,true to the fact,for real First generation Ed Parker BBs and know that they were taught the "hard principles"? I mean...no disrespect...but all we have so far is Doc's word for stuff.While Doc's word is good enough for most of us? If someone were to challenge us on authenticated documented bare bone facts...we'd be up the creek cuz we ain't got none.So far.So how do we get them?

And how does all of this allow us to practice the ideal better (for those who want to) without sweating those of us like me who are NOT enthused with the ideal? I know that Doc made it clear that both my "functional" approach AND the "ideal" are correct...but what independent source do we have to verify that? Another senior EPAK black belt could just as persuasively argue something else,and this hypothetical senior BB might even have more seniority than Doc.

These are just the POLITE questions that spring to mind.I skipped the less polite stuff.Like: whaddup with all this focus on money,rep,and why would Mr. Parker...ah never mind.


----------



## Flying Crane

Doc said:


> Go back to the era just before motion kenpo was created, and right after his first group of black belts. Virtually all of them.


 
I guess I was wondering if you know specifically who came from what background?

and I am understanding your comment to imply that the very first students in Utah and in Southern California, prior to say, the very early 1960s, did NOT necessarily come from other backgrounds, and Mr. Parker taught them basics and foundation the way he wanted it done at that time.  Is this an accurate picture?



> The rest of the modern day "seniors' were born in motion kenpo. Than the latest generation in the last decade or so, have recreated the trend, some through video and now add Kenpo to their school resume. *The funny thing is, the latest generation to do that through video, looks as good or better than the originals that came up as the "motion" generation*.


 
oh my...


----------



## Thesemindz

Ras, here are MY answers to your questions.

1. Commercial Motion Based Kenpo is viable because the system contains a huge amount of useful information. But it still takes a good, knowledgable instructor to use that information properly.

2. We don't want to use the "cash cow Kenpo." That's just mini-mall karate. We want to use high quality, functional, dynamic Kenpo. A high percentage of Kenpo _is crap._ I'm sure you've seen it on YouTube. That's their problem. It's OUR responsibility to do the best karate WE can do. The impurities don't diminish the value of the gold. They just get burned away.

3. As far as "masters" go, you know the real when you see it. Chapél, Conatser, Tatum, Pick, Sullivan, Trejo, Planas, Mills, Labounty, Kelly, White. There are others. The real are still out there, and they're still busting *** to stay that way. I'm sure there are many more we'll never even hear about because they stay on the grind instead of on the forums. Respect.

4. My understanding is that the Tracy's trained with Parker, made significant contributions to the motion system, and then left at a young age to pursue their own method.

5. I don't think there's any way to label Kenpo by branches. It's just become too generic a term. I think all you can do is judge individual schools and individual instructors. Some are amazing, some are crap. To feel is to believe.

In the end, I'm less concerned all the time with what the seniors think. As a group, they let us down. As individuals, some of them have a lot to share. When Doc or Conatser speaks up, I listen. Doesn't mean I practice their methods, but I try to learn from them. Learning is what we should be focused on. 


-Rob


----------



## Thesemindz

I think the real answer to most of these questions is that tragically, Mr. Parker died young and suddenly. I think if he'd lived, things would be different. Maybe he would have gotten around to some of this if he'd had more time. That's too bad, but that's life. Maybe we'll see him again someday.


-Rob


----------



## MJS

ATACX GYM said:


> One helluva answer Doc.Thank you very much for providing crucial answers to issues that I had zero info about.Makes a LOT of sense.Of course you know that these answers in and of themselves give rise to a jillion others.I mean...a JILLION others. Like: what made Mr.Parker feel (correctly) that he could sell his Big Red or whatever to other school owners and that they would want it? Was this AFTER or BEFORE the IKC tournament? How'd he come up with the IKC? Why didn't he emphasize perpetual evolution so even if his students got all doofus (the exact same thing we saw famously happen to Bruce Lee's JKD)...the lesson would still be in perpetual evolution and Mr.Parker could still show himself gettin his film on and verbally stating on video,even,to expect his evolution to continue AND his students' evolution to continue...thus forestalling the crapganimousness.
> 
> But...that also gives rise to some questions that alotta peeps might find to be uncomfortable,to say the least.
> 
> Like: how is commercial Kenpo viable as a self-defense system AT ALL? If the blend of "whatever else"+EPAK="cash cow that gitcha *** kicked now Kenpo"...why would we want to use that? That would mean that a very sizable chuck of the the last 30 years was basically an exercise and crap multiplication...and most of the "grandmasters" that came to be are likewise feces.Especially since Mr.Parker's passing.thatcovers alot of ground.A WHOLE lotta ground.And where do the Tracys fit in all of this? And which branches of "motion-based Kenpo" are actually viable self-defense systems? How can we look up the officially sanctioned,true to the fact,for real First generation Ed Parker BBs and know that they were taught the "hard principles"? I mean...no disrespect...but all we have so far is Doc's word for stuff.While Doc's word is good enough for most of us? If someone were to challenge us on authenticated documented bare bone facts...we'd be up the creek cuz we ain't got none.So far.So how do we get them?
> 
> And how does all of this allow us to practice the ideal better (for those who want to) without sweating those of us like me who are NOT enthused with the ideal? I know that Doc made it clear that both my "functional" approach AND the "ideal" are correct...but what independent source do we have to verify that? Another senior EPAK black belt could just as persuasively argue something else,and this hypothetical senior BB might even have more seniority than Doc.
> 
> These are just the POLITE questions that spring to mind.I skipped the less polite stuff.Like: whaddup with all this focus on money,rep,and why would Mr. Parker...ah never mind.


 
I'm not Doc, but......

I think it goes back to what I said in my last post.  Mr. Parker left alot up to the people, to figure things out for themselves.  Would things be different today, if he were still with us, as far as making changes?  Who knows.  But, in the meantime, you just do what ya have to do. 

OTOH, I'd wager a bet that a good portion of the people in MA schools, really dont care or look at things as in depth as we do.  You and I Ras, pretty much share the same ideas, so we're going to view things a hell of alot different than say a guy who's just looking for something to do after work, to lose weight, meet new people, etc.  I've seen it countless times.  Now, of course, you'll also have your schools which attract certain types of people.  IIRC, Doc has said that a good portion if not all of his students, are Military, LEOs, etc, so yeah, their mindset is going to be more real deal and they will care what they're learning and how it works.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Thesemindz said:


> Ras, here are MY answers to your questions.
> 
> 1. Commercial Motion Based Kenpo is viable because the system contains a huge amount of useful information. But it still takes a good, knowledgable instructor to use that information properly.
> 
> 2. We don't want to use the "cash cow Kenpo." That's just mini-mall karate. We want to use high quality, functional, dynamic Kenpo. A high percentage of Kenpo _is crap._ I'm sure you've seen it on YouTube. That's their problem. It's OUR responsibility to do the best karate WE can do. The impurities don't diminish the value of the gold. They just get burned away.
> 
> 3. As far as "masters" go, you know the real when you see it. Chapél, Conatser, Tatum, Pick, Sullivan, Trejo, Planas, Mills, Labounty, Kelly, White. There are others. The real are still out there, and they're still busting *** to stay that way. I'm sure there are many more we'll never even hear about because they stay on the grind instead of on the forums. Respect.
> 
> 4. My understanding is that the Tracy's trained with Parker, made significant contributions to the motion system, and then left at a young age to pursue their own method.
> 
> 5. I don't think there's any way to label Kenpo by branches. It's just become too generic a term. I think all you can do is judge individual schools and individual instructors. Some are amazing, some are crap. To feel is to believe.
> 
> In the end, I'm less concerned all the time with what the seniors think. As a group, they let us down. As individuals, some of them have a lot to share. When Doc or Conatser speaks up, I listen. Doesn't mean I practice their methods, but I try to learn from them. Learning is what we should be focused on.
> 
> 
> -Rob


 

This is one helluva post,Rob.You,Flying Crane,my virtual philosophical and training twin MJS,and several others (of course Doc) have really put some excellent posts up.

Okay,this right here what I'm getting ready to say may offend some people.I'm not trying to offend anyone,but...I'm not especially concerned if anyone IS offended,either.With that disclaimer and spoiler warning/alert out of the way? Here we go:

Seems like Mr.Parker went in for the loot,perhaps cultivated a circle of people around him who felt that "their" version was authenticated by Mr.Parker the closer they were to him visavis the prestige that others in his select inner circle accorded; thus First Generation BBs felt themselves inherently superior to 2nd Gen BB's merely by proximity to Mr.Parker...when allat simply was NOT the case.Seems like Mr.Parker specifically chose the commercial model to popularize Kenpo and make loot.Basically,he got the loot and prestige of running an international,multilevel,money making conglomerate as its titular head...but never had to worry about the day to day concerns thereof.And then the various BBs he promoted to what would be the equivalent of VPs felt that they could and should strike out on their own; that their knowledge either was/is superior to Mr.Parker's or upon Mr.Parker's passing? Felt that their specific interpretation was superior to all others. Motion-Kenpo didn't get away...it did exactly what it was supposed to do.Get Mr.Parker paid and spread Kenpo's name.Inject tens if not hundreds of thousands of people worldwide with the basics of EPAK and encourage them to create their own expression therefrom.What nobody counted on was Mr.Parker's untimely passing and the impossibility of passing on the torch to Mr.Parker Jr.

Which means that EPAK is very much like Bruce's JKD...each of us were meant to have our own expression,everybody thought (erroneously) that the Founder's expression is TRUE Kenpo or JKD when the Founders never intended to be the primary expression of "true" martial art but instead they seemed to want to express THEMSELVES as best as they could using their concepts and precepts--which are more universal than they may appear to the uninitiated--and wanted us to do the same. So EPAK is a name.Only Ed Parker did Ed Parker's Kenpo. Exactly as Bruce did his own JKD.And Doc does HIS Kenpo,I do mine,and all of you do whatever you do.

So when we debate about the "ideal",many of us wind up talking about the specific relevance of the "ideal" to OUR OWN concept of what is "Ed Parker's American Kenpo". I understand that there are many here who wish to adhere to what they believe is as close an interpretation of Ed Parker's Kenpo as possible,and that's cool with me.Have fun with that.Me? I'm interested first and foremost in the combat effectiveness and real world street oriented scraptasticness of my (and by extension) others' training philosophy. So if your Delayed Sword doesn't look like mine? So? I don't give a damn about that,you guys and gals. I'm concerned about HOW EFFECTIVE it is and WHY you think it's effective and HOW YOU GOT THERE because...if we collab in what I called awhile ago a "Kenpo Lab"...hypothetically we'll come up with better solutions than any of us can find on our own. In keeping with the deep thinking that leads to the combat empiricism that Mr.Parker and Doc frequently allude to (Mr. Parker called Kenpo "the science of street fighting") if your stuff don't work? You don't have any scientific streetfighting...which means that you don't have KENPO.Ed Parker's or otherwise.


Which brings me squarely back to the OP of this thread.If it doesn't work? It's anus and should be trash binned.The starting idea was not for peeps to find something that doesn't work and somehow find wonderment and nobility in its failure to keep your anus intact when it's scrap time.There are NO benefits to having your anal region handed to you when you're studying these methods to keep your anal region intact,undamaged and immovably in its current location. The idea behind the "ideal" seems to be to encapsulate a real world street scenario and build techs around the concept of attacks and counters using Kenpo's unique movements+your own intellect and experience to successfully and speedily resolve the matter as a platform.Then from there you can explore all kinds of goodies.How can you explore those goodies? Because you dispatched the bad guy,kept your anus intact,and through the crucible of the mat experiences you have you began to note the deeper connections of mind and body and even spirit that occur from rigorous martial training DONE CORRECTLY. If your anus is damaged? There will be no exploration.If your MIND is DECEIVED (and oftentimes damaged as a result of this deception)? You can't make any true accurate valid explorations. You're adhering to illusion...and oftentimes you build this knee-jerk reflexive response to people pointing out the obvious.

The ideas behind the IP are great and NOT original to Mr.Parker.However,the IP's most common and prominent physical articulations sucks anus.Whether or not it's because the Motion Kenpo instructors didn't understand or give a damn about the intricacies that Mr.Parker was trying to impart isn't as important as understanding that the physical articulation of the IP is a fantastic expression of anal suckage. Defending such anal suckage perpetuates and proliferates anal suckitude.And some Kenpo folks are absolutely dedicated to being the very incarnation of anal sucktasticness.Now,if you found a way to make the IP work? It's NOT the IP.The split second it works? YOU MADE ADJUSTMENTS TO MAKE IT FUNCTIONAL.Exactly what you're supposed to do...the problem is? Too many "Kenpoists" have become converted to the Gospel of Nonfunctionality that their instructors were raised on and/or deliberately fed to them for the singlular purpose of welding those students to themselves and getting paid for it.It's part and parcel of every move,action,and everything.Quick: Name 5 Kenpo fighters who regularly and succesfully use The 5 Swords in high end competition! Quick now...name 10 of your Purple Belts routinely use 5 Swords during sparring? No answers? Didn't think so. The 5 Swords is a signature tech of Kenpo...like the jab is to boxing.Quick...name 5 high end boxers who jab regularly! Quick...name 5 or at least find video footage of 5 Amatuer boxers who use the jab (can you see competitions like THE GOLDEN GLOVE? You can? Okay then you can find THOUSANDS of amatuers who jab). That's my point.You gotta STRUGGLE to find peeps in Kenpo who can use the 5 Swords effectively,regularly,vs other Kenpoists and other stylists,etc.Not so with VIRTUALLY ANY OTHER MARTIAL ART. The system has the anal suckitude ingrained within it.Expunging such ingrained suckitude will requirean absolute focus on making the whole of Kenpo's TRAINING METHODS street functional.Kenpo's techs work fabulously when you train them with an eye toward performance.But stamping out the ingrained suckitude and inflexible dooficity embedded in the non-performance oriented crowd will require a relentless and almost Biblical thoroughness.Root and branch,folks.

The very fact that we're all effectively acknowledging that we can't do the "ideal" as shown as all the real world empirical denigration needed.If someone showed you a way to turn on your TV that DIDN'T turn on your TV...and they KNEW AHEAD OF TIME that it didn't? If someone claimed to fix your car but knew that they didn't fix it,charged you anyway,and you find out in the middle of a snowstorm 600 miles from home that you'd been duped? If you studied with someone who'd passed a test,knew the answers to pass the test,and deliberately furnished you with the wrong answers while claiming that they DID furnish you with the CORRECT answers? If someone knowingly showed you something that couldn't perform under the conditions they're claiming that it can,and you were duped into believing it until you found out (by dent of intellect or harsh reality) that it didn't? And then...when you called them on it...they had the absolute gall and unmitigated offensiveness to claim that you failed to understand the intricate in-depth lessons in learning stuff that DON'T WORK WHEN IT'S SUPPOSED TO WORK,and therefore YOU'RE AT FAULT? And they did all of this with a condescending arrogance to boot? You might feel called upon to make some impromptu readjustments of that person's anus...and understandably so.But this is exactly what the IP defenders and champions of the cause do when--after all their high falutin yakkitude--I simply reply with the irrefutable reality which is:

"But your techs DON'T WORK! Fight with these techs EXACTLY AS YOU SHOWED THEM TO ME AGAINST THE ATTACKS THAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO SUCCESSFULLY DEFEND AGAINST.You will have your anal area handed to you.You absolutely don't know what the hell you're talking about.You're not only a charlatan,but an ignorant insecure unintelligent immoral money grubbin egomaniacal one at that." 

If someone deliberately,knowingly and purposefully beforehand presented something as truth which they knew was false...you know what we call that kind of person and behaviour? 

We'd call that person a LIAR and what they were doing is LYING.

That's what's being done with the IP.Liars are lying.Straight up.So fix them as a whole and make them work.This is just the ESSENCE of common sense.There ya are.

--Ras,Head Coach of the ATACX GYM


----------



## Twin Fist

THE TECHNIQUES ARE IRRELEVANT

they exist ONLY to teach lessons

those lessons enable you to defend yourself

if you dont know the lessons, then NO, the techniques wont work

if you actually know what you are doing, you wont have a problem, you might not pull off a perfect 5 Swords, but it wont matter because the bad guy will still be in a coma.

arguing about weather or not the techniques themselves works sounds  a lot like:
1) "i think i am smarter than ed parker, see his stuff doesnt work"
2) "i am a total bad ***, see how awesome i am?"

and it is, frankly, boring

stop bitching about wether or not it works and practice practice practice, and before you know it, BOOM< it works

not directed at anyone in particular


----------



## ATACX GYM

Twin Fist said:


> THE TECHNIQUES ARE IRRELEVANT
> 
> they exist ONLY to teach lessons
> 
> those lessons enable you to defend yourself
> 
> if you dont know the lessons, then NO, the techniques wont work
> 
> if you actually know what you are doing, you wont have a problem, you might not pull off a perfect 5 Swords, but it wont matter because the bad guy will still be in a coma.
> 
> arguing about weather or not the techniques themselves works sounds a lot like:
> 
> 
> 1) "i think i am smarter than ed parker, see his stuff doesnt work"
> 2) "i am a total bad ***, see how awesome i am?"
> 
> 
> and it is, frankly, boring
> 
> stop bitching about wether or not it works and practice practice practice, and before you know it, BOOM< it works
> 
> not directed at anyone in particular


 

I consider this post to be directed at me,despite the disclaimer at the bottom,and I'm not bothered in the least by it.Even if it TRULY WASN'T aimed at me? So what.I'm answering anyway.

Techniques are of the second importance,and are the yang to the ying of whatever lessons they are to express or be functional models of.Repeat: Functional models of.They are the physical articulation of the lessons.The lessons are abstract,the techs are concrete.If the techs fail,then there is a failure to transmit the intended lesson...however solid and sensible the lesson is.The vehicle of TRANSMISSION--the way the techs are trained and executed,which is the vital vital vital difference and empirical irrefutable rebuttal to anything that anyone who claims that the IP as is is combatively functional--is fatally flawed.You're NOT KO'ing anyone with the 5 Swords...IF YOU CAN'T FIGHT WITH IT OR DON'T PRACTICE FIGHTING WITH IT.If you DO practice fighting with it against spontaneous attacks etc? You DID NOT do the IP.This is amazingly simple to prove.Here is the 5 swords in the IP:

http://youtu.be/hjlChmMnVJs

http://youtu.be/dHKQK2WPjnw

http://youtu.be/DwqDLEUe4aM <---This is 5 swords and shield and sword

^^^Do stuff like THAT,and you did the dominant IP expression or something of tremendous similarity.In 90%+ of actual fighting situations,you can't do things just like what is depicted...because what's depicted won't work as it's depicted.There will be no lesson learned except that it didn't work and you got your anal area pounded as a result.


If you CAN fight from it? YOU DIDN'T DO WHAT THE IP SHOWED EXACTLY AS SHOWN 90% OF THE TIME.The emphasis is on what the IP SHOWED.Simple. 

If you read Doc's post? Doc specifically stated that Mr.Parker didn't show a "hard and fast correct and right way" of doing things.Instead? Doc says Mr.Parker articulated abstract ideals and concepts which were meant to be the starting point for each teacher and subsequent student to build their own interpretations of WHICH SUCCESSFULLY WORKED IN COMBAT,while using his techs concepts and precepts."How do YOU do it?" is what Mr.Parker would say.He wouldn't watch you do something your way that would still get your head handed to you.He'd guide and correct and help you do things YOUR way...but MORE EFFICACIOUSLY.Doc said so.And this right here proves it:

http://youtu.be/6SIQ7ONlE1I

At :22 seconds,Mr.Parker says:"This is a street situation,I DIDN'T STEP BACK I STEPPED FORWARD"--the EXACT OPPOSITE OF THE IP AND FORM RECOMMENDATION--"and pooop! (Mr. Parker slashes the hammer fist inches in front of uke's face and across uke's nose in a transverse motion) dammit I broke his nose as well..." Therefore,we were SUPPOSED to make our own interpretations based upon grasping his concepts precepts and techs,AND THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO WORK.FOR US.Mr.Parker already had his own Kenpo which worked quite well.


Look at Mr. Parker explaining Reverse Motion:

http://youtu.be/psmYLNxQQMw

The first thing that should strike you is that Mr.Parker ISN'T POSING WITH HIS PUNCHES.He throws them slow enough to be blocked by the young Black belt,but if the young Black Belt misses the block? HE GETS HIT. Mr.Parker IS TEACHING STUFF THAT WORKS;STUFF THAT YOU CAN FIGHT WITH. And for those of you who swear that you need the nonfunctional goofy stuff to start to learn the basic common sense functional stuff? Mr. Parker's actions should be the ultimate awakening.He doesn't start the kid "IDEALLY" blocking.Nope.The kid BETTER BLOCK.Mr.Parker even corrects him for blocking incorrectly with one arm,and in the correction? MR. PARKER MAKES THE KID ACTUALLY BLOCK AND MOVE AWAY MR.PARKER'S PUNCH.He didn't IDEALLY block.He BLOCKED.FUNCTIONALLY.IN THE REAL WORLD. Nowhere do you get the sense that..."ahhh,this mess will getcha gluteal region punted some'airs roundabout Saturn"...which is VERY MUCH the apparent with that IP mess.Note how the physical actions DIRECTLY REFLECT THE REALITY OF THE LESSON.Mr.Parker could punch harder and harder and faster and faster and as long as the young Black belt could keep up? Mr.Parker's blows would STILL get blocked...BY REVERSE MOTION. This is the ESSENCE of common sense and functionality.It is THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what you assert.

Lookit Mr.Parker explain "Contouring". And note...THE ACTION SUITS THE WORD.There ISN'T any "posing". Mr. Parker says at :54 in that he "uses the shoulder as a fulcrum" AND THEN HE ACTUALLY DOES IT.He didn't IDEALLY do it.He REALLY did it.He FUNCTIONALLY did it.Just like I do. At 1:18-24 note the specific application of detail,of leverage,by Mr. Parker.Note how he specifically enjoins us not to "pushh TO,but push THROUGH"...AND THEN HE DOES IT.In the REAL WORLD.No faking.


http://youtu.be/byMvSDOCYE8



Now,most damningly...LOOK AT MR. PARKER SHOW A VARIATION OF SHORT FORM 1. Immediately,right out the gate,he's departed from the "sacrosanct" material that he himself originated awhile ago because he's evolved beyond it (exactly like Doc said) and he IMMEDIATELY APPLIES THE TECHS AS THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF THE SOUNDNESS OF THE LESSONS.You CANNOT separate the efficacy of the techs from the efficacy of the lessons.Mr.Parker is not only functional and focused ONLY on functionality,he gives those specific nuances of detail,of trajectory,of impact that can ONLY come from a man who's done this tech this way for real for a lifetime.A lifetime STEEPED IN FUNCTIONALITY,NOT DYSFUNCTIONAL 'IDEAL'.Here's the video:

http://youtu.be/inBCadw32MY



Basically,the split second you say that "IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO WORK"...you are also saying that it's NOT EPAK,it's NOT WHAT MR. PARKER WANTED,and it almost 100% certainly IS what Doc called "Motion Kenpo". And if you're cool with that? Fine.No worries.Whatever your position is on that matter? More power to you.But the facts are steadfast and unassailable and they don't in ANY way support your assertion and/or conclusion regarding the "irrelevance" of technique.

There isn't anything close to even the most oblique assertion or inference of:

1) "i think i am smarter than ed parker, see his stuff doesnt work"
2) "i am a total bad ***, see how awesome i am?"

(I'm quoting you,Twin Fist,in your post previous to mine)

Ed Parker himself,in word and deed,completely implodes your contentions and strips them of even the remotest quark or scintilla of accuracy or truth.Techs are irrevocably tied to concepts.Period. Mr. Parker was functional and so am I.Period. The IP is NOT functional.Championing the IP is championing dysfunction,which is the antithesis of EPAK.

Ed Parker didn't do Motion Kenpo.Neither do I. Ed Parker had his own expression of his art,and specifically wished us to develope our own.The entire concept of commercial Motion Kenpo--whatever else it entailed--had the development of each teacher's and student's specific Kenpo as a desired and accepted mandate.What wasn't expected was that somehow enough instructors would stray from the primary tenets that Mr.Parker expressed and most especially the entire art wasn't to devolve into the orgy of manure it's largely become.This hypothesis is drawn from what I understand from Doc's writings and post on this very thread.

Look...bottom line.If you can scrap with Kenpo? Great.Me too.If you love the IP? More power to you.However,if you assert that you can scrap with the IP as depicted? You're wrong.Furthermore--and Doc stressed this point in capital letters--IT DOESN'T WORK. Where we differ at are several points:

1) Doc says that Mr.Parker's hard principles of Kenpo were different than motion Kenpo's and therefore so is Doc's own personal Kenpo expression. I take this assertion to be true on faith.Doc says that Mr.Parker's hard principles are the bedrock for his ever expanding,ever evolving personal Kenpo expression.Evolving.Personal.Kenpo.Expression.

2) You and anyone who agrees with you are linked--no matter how you try to twist and turn and avoid it--to the irrefutable facts that there are principles and lessons behind each IP tech THAT THE TECH IS SUPPOSED TO PHYSICALLY EXPRESS. Guess what? The lessons may be terrific,BUT THE TECHS SUCK.The suckitude of the training of the techs is rooted in something that IS NOT the original idea of the IP,and therefore PREVENTS the transmission of the lessons that Mr.Parker wanted us to learn.

Look at this:



Doc said:


> The technique manuals were originally a part of the "Big Red" business manual/guide that school owners were given, or should I say purchased. They a simple guide for them to work from to give them a base idea to begin the process of creating "ideals' for their students. The Web Of Knowledge was to give them the tactical assaults to consider, and the technique manuals the beginning of the answers to the questions. Instructors were to answer those questions to their satisfaction using Mr. Parker ideas and principles. The whole idea of creating "motion-based" Kenpo was because he couldn't be on the floor everywhere to teach everyone. That was impossible.
> 
> 
> Mr. Parker's book on Kenpo Karate published in 1961 displayed his Kenpo when he first came to the mainland. Than Secrets of Chinese Kenpo, published two-years later showed something completely different. Mr. Parker was evolving from a teacher who never had a set curriculum, to writing down his own ideas of techniques on 3x5 cards, to creating technique manuals that went through refinements until the day he died.
> 
> 
> 
> People often wondered why Mr. Parker never put the "proper" way to do a technique on film to stop the bickering over the "right" way to do a set technique in his commercial system. Mr. Parker was evolving his material on multiple levels. While he massaged his commercial Kenpo Karate, he also continued to work on his personal kenpo, his intended "American Kenpo." The base philosophy of his commercial motion kenpo karate NEVER required it. It was designed to do the opposite. That was the job of all those black belts who were teaching. They were supposed to do the work, for their individual students. As long as their students performed to their teachers satisfaction, and the material worked for the students, than that is all the mattered.
> 
> 
> You look at that video and see disfunction. I sat with Mr. Parker while we looked at that footage in the seventies, and he was so disgusted with what he saw of himself, he got up and stomped out of the room, and vowed never to put himself on film.
> 
> He knew people would look at the material and not be open to change. They would use him as the model for what they were doing instead of thinking, after he himself had moved on. He hated looking at old footage of himself, and probably made the same observations you have made. He was his own harshest critic.
> 
> All the footage seen later of Mr. Parker was taken by someone else. He never formally shot forms or techniques to teach how something should be done, only the philosophy and concepts of execution.
> 
> Unfortunately, the technique manuals were ultimately sold to students and then they became the standard of execution, rather than a basis to begin the process of thinking as he intended. It was easy. Just do what it says, even if it doesn't work. He and I had many arguments about his "kenpo-karate" and the plummeting standards. He always said the same thing, "It's their teachers fault, not mine."
> 
> He sold the "motion," but that is not what he personally did.


 

There is no way that I thought for a moment that I was smarter than Mr.Parker.That was never even the remotest thought in my mind.As I stated,my focus has been functionality as far back as I can remember.The inapplicability of what I was being shown was empirically apparent to me AS A CHILD of 8 when I first started training seriously. Doc and Mr.Parker had a much more in-depth conversation about this very thing probably before the first time I was even old enough to step onto the mat and spar for real. This is NOT a discussion of who's smarter.This is a simple discussion of what works and what doesn't,why that's the case,and if Mr.Parker deliberately taught us stuff that DOESN'T work.

Doc said:"The Web Of Knowledge was to give them the tactical assaults to consider, and the technique manuals the beginning of the answers to the questions. Instructors were to answer those questions to their satisfaction using Mr. Parker ideas and principles."

Therefore,Mr.Parker's commercial instructors created the IP.It sucked.It didn't work then.It didn't work now. Not working in the future neither.We were NOT supposed to make stuff that sucked and didn't work then or now or in the future either.Doc clearly states that various foolish mortals of the Motion Kenpo variety looked at The Red Book as the unalterable,unassailable Word From On High...and totally totally missed the point.They "Just do what it says, even if it doesn't work".<---Doc

Full stop.Take a look-see at that one more once.They "just do what it says,even if it doesn't work." IT'S CLEARLY SUPPOSED TO WORK.

Therefore,my emphasis on MAKING EVERYTHING WORK COMBATIVELY IS EXACTLY WHAT MR.PARKER WANTED US TO DO.And I'm like the gajillionth person to think say and do this.And there will be a gajillion more functional Coaches like me...if we can save Kenpo's soul from being irretrievably annihilated and raped into oblivion by the nonfunctional dweebs.

Doc said:"You look at that video and see disfunction. I sat with Mr. Parker while we looked at that footage in the seventies, and he was so disgusted with what he saw of himself, he got up and stomped out of the room, and vowed never to put himself on film. 

He knew people would look at the material and not be open to change. They would use him as the model for what they were doing instead of thinking, after he himself had moved on. He hated looking at old footage of himself, and probably made the same observations you have made. He was his own harshest critic. "

^^^You know what this means? It means that--some 40 years after the fact--my observations are dead on target with what Mr.Parker said ABOUT HIMSELF some 40 years ago.Where your observations directly contradict or are in sharp variance with mine,we have Doc's personal experience of Mr.Parker being of a mind and position much closer to where I stand than where you are. It also means that--for the gazillionth time--Mr.Parker INSISTED THAT HIS STUFF WORK.If it doesn't work? Not only is that NOT EPAK it's NOT WHAT MR.PARKER WANTED. Again...you CANNOT learn ANYTHING of worth when you failed to defend yourself by faithfully using the IP...OTHER THAN THE IP DOESN'T WORK AND YOU NEED TO FIX IT. Guess what? MR. PARKER THOUGHT SO TOO.Not only did he NOT do what you're defending as some desirable and wonderful legacy of his which makes itself comprehensible only to those who relentlessly study the nonfunctional techs until they reach some form of Buddha-like revelation...Mr.Parker was VERY CLEAR as to WHOSE FAULT IT WAS that people fell for the craptasticness that is the CURRENT IP and DOMINANT IP for 40 years...

quoting Doc:


"Unfortunately, the technique manuals were ultimately sold to students and then they became the standard of execution, rather than a basis to begin the process of thinking as he intended. It was easy. Just do what it says, even if it doesn't work. He and I had many arguments about his "kenpo-karate" and the plummeting standards. He always said the same thing, "It's their teachers fault, not mine."

^^^^There ya go.It's supposed to work.You're supposed to think your way through the scenarios using Mr.Parkers techs concepts and precepts and develope stuff that WORKS IN SELF-DEFENSE,INTELLECTUALLY AND PHYSICALLY FOR YOU. What happened instead,among other things, was that Motion Kenpo dweebs refused to:" begin the process of thinking as he [Mr.Parker] intended. It was easy. Just do what it says, even if it doesn't work."<---Doc. So now we have a plethora of nonfunctional anus that we call the IP now.It CLEARLY wasn't what Mr.Parker envisioned. It was the Motion Kenpo instructors,Masters,etc. who did it.And when wrangled with about the very thing that I'm bemoaning right now...what did Mr.Parker say? "He always said the same thing, "It's their teachers fault, not mine."

Bang. If your teacher is showing you some IP techs that don't work? Your teacher IS NOT doing what Mr.Parker wanted.Your teacher got it wrong insofar as Mr.Parker would've been concerned,you got it wrong if you still use nonfunctional Motion Kenpo stuff and you're teaching your students wrong if you're teaching them that.And when I say "you" I mean the general,generic "you"--addressing anyone reading this post who's doing what Mr.Parker clearly didn't want us to do,according to Doc--not just YOU,Twin Fist.There ya are.


----------



## MJS

I remember one class that I was teaching.  The tech that we were doing eludes me at the moment, but in any case, instead of the attacker just standing there, he was giving some movement, and when the shots to the face came, he moved accordingly.  Well, that meant that he was no longer in the 'right position' for the defender to complete the tech, the way they'd practiced numerous times in the past.....doing the IP, assuming that that way was "the" way.  

So they say to me, "I can't reach the face with this strike." to which I said, "Well, thats ok, just adjust accordingly."

Their reply was, "Yeah, but we're supposed to do this, not that."

(Insert 1,000 facepalms here) LOL! LOL!  Despite my attempts at trying to reprogram, from the way that some of the other teachers were teaching, they were still under this impression that they had to do it that way.  

This is why I said earlier, that I'm not trying to pull off Delayed Sword, Attacking Mace or any other IP move, but instead, adjusting accordingly.  Sometimes, the person just isnt going to stand there like a zombie....they're gonna move, and maybe, just maybe, you wont be able to do the moves 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10, but instead, you may have to do 5,2,3,1,8,4,2, etc.


----------



## Twin Fist

do you think that the longer your post is, the more impressive it is gonna come across ? Cuz it doesnt. 

Like your videos. 7 minutes of you jawin, and 15 seconds of you doing something, at half speed with a compliant foe....  

Seriously, learn to cut to the chase.


----------



## Twin Fist

MJS said:


> they're gonna move, and maybe, just maybe, you wont be able to do the moves 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10, but instead, you may have to do 5,2,3,1,8,4,2, etc.




yeah, thats reality, but you need the IP to learn the techniques lessons, and then, after that you can go to the what if stage. Once you have learned what the techniques have to teach you, then you can go 5,7,1,9,2,4,6,4 because you already know how to chain techniques together in a logical sequence.

you do not know that right out of the gate, as  Doc said, his people are not allowed to ask "what if" for a LONG time.

anyone saying that the IP isnt teaching them something is too convinced that they already know it all..IMO


----------



## ATACX GYM

Twin Fist said:


> do you think that the longer your post is, the more impressive it is gonna come across ? Cuz it doesnt.
> 
> Like your videos. 7 minutes of you jawin, and 15 seconds of you doing something, at half speed with a compliant foe....
> 
> Seriously, learn to cut to the chase.


 

It took you 7 minutes to read that post? Your reading speed is...unimpressive. And it's NOT ME "jawin"...it's Mr.Parker who in word and deed is repudiating the entirety of your contention that "techniques are irrelevant" to the lesson being taught. And YES you CAN go at half speed and STILL be functional...and the "foe" wasn't compliant.The "foe" was EXECUTING THE TECH IN QUESTION AGAINST A PUNCH THAT WOULD HAVE HIT HIM HAD HE NOT BLOCKED.However slow the tech was,it would have hit had the block failed.Then Mr.Parker briefly picked the speed of the punches up until the young Black belt did the Reverse Motion block INSTINCTIVELY,and then Mr.Parker stopped and pointed that action out.With the forms vids and contouring,Mr.Parker actually executed the techs in question while "jawin" as you put it...so when we cut to the chase? Your contentions are thoroughly repudiated and mine are comprehensively upheld by the same person in whose name you are claiming to ardently and rigorously follow...Mr.Parker himself.And the 2nd most senior person on this board...Doc...also has direct experience confirming functionality to be the key and essence of both Mr.Parker's Kenpo and Doc's own.As it is with mine (some 40-50-60 years after Mr.Parker intro'd Kenpo to America).As it's NOT with yours...as your championing of the Motion Kenpo IP shows.

If we cut to the chase? You're wrong and you know it.To use some of the vernacular of the kids nowadays...:"YOU JUST GOT SERVED".


----------



## ATACX GYM

Twin Fist said:


> yeah, thats reality, but you need the IP to learn the techniques lessons, and then, after that you can go to the what if stage. Once you have learned what the techniques have to teach you, then you can go 5,7,1,9,2,4,6,4 because you already know how to chain techniques together in a logical sequence.
> 
> you do not know that right out of the gate, as Doc said, his people are not allowed to ask "what if" for a LONG time.
> 
> anyone saying that the IP isnt teaching them something is too convinced that they already know it all..IMO


 

What you're forgetting is that Doc actually has them perform against escalating levels of resistance,so they don't HAVE to ASK "What If"...THEY FACE "WHAT IF". Remember? In this very thread,Doc stated:"What if they punch with the other hand?" "Doesn't matter",Doc replies. "What if they try to grapple?" To which Doc basically said that proper execution of the base stops allat noize. The hypothetical student then says: "What if.." to which Doc answers:

SHUT UP AND TRAIN!!

The training contains the "What Ifs". The students FACE the punch from the other hand on the mat.They face the grappling.And then they HAVE their answers because IF THEY TRAIN FUNCTIONALLY they WILL BE CALLED UPON TO PERFORM FUNCTIONALLY.And the "What Ifs" are the essence of functionality,NOT the Motion Kenpo constructed IP. Exactly as MJS and I and Doc and others do...and exactly as you do NOT.


Look at SL-4 DELAYED SWORD


http://youtu.be/NaT1uAMg7yg

Look at the reestablishment of the 'base'. Look at the hand movements while covering out.You know what that hand movement has gotta be? It's gotta be some kind of vertical grappling countering upper body distance control/manipulation along with lower body footwork achieving same,and covering.You know how you learn to do those specific movements? When somebody grabs you,you execute the tech,AND YOU INCLUDE YOUR OPPONENT'S FUNCTIONAL RESPONSE.He may block the neck strike or smother it.He may punch toward you.He may rush you.He may do alotta stuff that isn't REMOTELY addressed in the IP.You then add what you learn to the base tech,which changes its execution,and bang! More functionality.

Look at the base IP Captured Twigs:

http://youtu.be/Y4FV0cNFDr0

http://youtu.be/IrtTTbqOpGQ


Look at mine,which is fnctional and covers everything from the grab to the ground...and you do essentially the same tech every time:


http://youtu.be/6swpRPoq05Q half hip heist


http://youtu.be/xevT5TPfcGE full hip heist

http://youtu.be/AKAoR0eDa8I ground grappling

Mine works.I spar with mine.That IP crap is wakk and doesn't work. Therefore the reason that students can be confidently forbidden to ask WHAT IF until they learn the tech is because the WHAT IFs are already covered and make themselves manifest on the mat,in just a matter of a week or two TOPS.Instead of NEVER manifesting themselves because the techs are nonfunctional IP championing Motion Kenpo to start with.


----------



## Twin Fist

your VIDEOS are 7 minutes of jawin, 15 seconds of half speed action with a compliant foe. I thought i was pretty clear about that.........I guess you are better at posting than reading

and uh?
*
"as your championing of the Motion Kenpo IP shows."
*
I am not championing ANYTHING*, *so if you have to make **** up to make a point, it is pretty clear you dont actually have one..... 
The only thing i have "championed" is that you cant go to phase 3 right off, you HAVE to start at phase 1 (or the IP, or whatever you call it) FIRST, and even Doc has said so too.

Parker created the 3 phase training model for a reason, and unlike some, I dont think i know better than he did.......

Now I would say that anyone that ONLY does IP training is full of crap, but then, I would also say that anyone that claims they can go right to phase 3 training, without spending time on IP training is also full of crap.

YOU have claimed you dont have to start with IP training, well, thats what YOU say.....And until you learn to post in something other than a wall of text, i cant deal with you.

PS, yes we know, you have told everyone 100 times, you are the bomb, you are the best, you are awesome...blah blah blah


----------



## Thesemindz

You paint a pretty grim picture of Mr. Parker and his intentions Ras. While I wouldn't refute the facts, I prefer to see him, his students, and the martial arts community in general in a slightly better light.

Ok, he created a system of techniques that are maybe marginally executable exactly as written and disseminated that throughout the country. And he got paid for it. But a man has a right to feed his family. And what did he really do? He took all his combined karate knowledge at a certain point in his life, condensed it down to a few hundred lessons, and had it put in a binder. Then he shopped those lessons around, and other karate guys took _his _lesson plan and sold it as _their_ kenpo. 

He was right. It was their teacher's fault. But I don't think he was a villian for doing it. You have to remember, _it was still the best thing going._ I have a lot of karate books. And most of the techniques shown in them are pretty basic. Out Block/Cross. Countergrab. Out Block/Front Kick. And that's the whole book. That's what was being shopped around at that time. Mr. Parker put together something far more complex. Was it perfect? No. But it was groundbreaking. And innovative. And a lot of us are better for it.

If he hadn't shopped it around and sold it to charlatans and spent so much time away from his family trying to promote it maybe it wouldn't be here for us to complain about. Personally, I'm thankful. Are the techniques perfect? I was never told they were supposed to be. I was told that they were supposed to demonstrate specific physical movements, combat scenarios, concepts, and interactions specific to unarmed combat. And not all techniques do all those things at the same time.

For instance, a technique like Lone Kimono works in a purely functional sense. Take him, break him, hit him in the throat. But a technique like Fallen Falcon could never be performed to completion, as written, against anything but a dead man. Fallen Falcon isn't supposed to be performed as written. It's a repository for a group of similiarly themed actions. Opponent prone face up at 3 with their near arm extended into your grab. Strikes to the near side, arm, and head.

Some techniques teach specific grappling moves that are important enough to have slapped a simple striking combination onto one end of just so they could get a name and make a spot on the list. Some techniques exist because Pro Wrestling was popular at the time and students would come into schools asking how to defend against popular wrestling holds. How many times do you see a full nelson in a real fight? Some techniques teach defense against a kick right side forward, left side forward, hands up, hands down, moving back, moving forward, moving laterally. Then the students could be encouraged to practice them "left and right handed" to double the amount of possible physical combinations! Some techniques exist because they are universal responses to common assaults, or throwbacks to old Chinese Chuan'Fa, or got picked up in a jiu jitsu class sometime. Some techniques exist to teach common striking combinations, or lock escapes. Sometimes the most important part of the technique isn't the technique at all, but the attack. When I teach Captured Twigs we spend most of our time talking about bearhugs, not stomp/elbow combinations.

There's a middle ground here Ras. There are people who only teach the Ideal Phase, never practice the techniques against resistance, don't spar, don't practice dynamic drills, and don't know their techniques don't work because _they don't practice them on the body. _

Then there are people who practice some version of the functional style. Usually one they came up with on their own based on something they learned from someone else and then made specific personal alterations to based on what they found worked. And they found out what worked by _working the material._

But those aren't the only two schools of thought. Many schools use the Ideal Phase techniques as a series of loose class plans around which they build drills and exercises drawn from the material. This is what I do, but so do many others in one form or another. My students are required to learn, perform, and understand the techniques in the Ideal Phase. But they understand that that is not intended to be the true combat expression of the kenpo that I teach. I may make changes to the material, but on their own, those changes aren't important, because the point is to teach the system as a whole, not to teach specific responses to specific defenses. I don't care if I step to 10 or 11 in this technique, or if I use a handsword to the throat or a backnuckle to the temple, because we're going to practice the technique in every direction anyway, with every basic to every target, against every attack, against resistance, while moving. Eventually. So Ideal Phase isn't really important to me except as a kind of footnote for the knowledge I want to teach today. I look up, see Deflecting Hammer and think, "ok, so front kicks, deflecting blocks, stepping away with defenses/in with counters, long range to short range, angular momentum, high hands/low hands/hi hands, bringing the target to the weapon, moving to the oustide of the opponent's stance, stepping in with checks, striking the head, inward elbow strikes, and push drag foot maneuvers." We're only gonna spend a few minutes on Deflecting Hammer, but we're gonna spend most of the class on all that other stuff. I keep the technique in the system because I need a place to teach all that stuff anyway. But I don't expect my students to deify Deflecting Hammer. I expect them to not get kicked in the balls.

I know there's a lot of crap kenpo. And I know we all kind of got the raw deal from the generation of kenpo seniors ahead of us. I remember the exact moment where I had that realization. I was on a bus. But there's more to it than that. We can't hold all the previous kenpo students and instructors responsible for not uniting and keeping Mr. Parker's creation alive. Every one of those guys had their own lives to live. And some of them _did_ try to make things work. And some of them still do. 

And maybe we're better off. Instead of one monolithic Church of Kenpo, we have some guys over there doing kenpo knife, and some guys over there doing kenpo groundfighting, and some guys over there doing kenpo with escrima, or with TKD, or with jiu jitsu. We have SL4 and 5.0 and ATACX GYM and more bastards and independents than we'll ever know. And sure, there's some crap. But there's some real bad dudes too.

Kenpo isn't perfect. Neither were any of the instructors who came before us. But that's humans for you. It's not all bad. And there are a lot of really great karate guys out there. I know sometimes it seems like you live in a world of idiots, but if you can see farther than others then maybe you've just looked farther. A lot of people are comfortable where they are at, that doesn't make them liars and theives. They may be wrong, and they should probably address that. But maybe they will someday. It's not my job to correct them. I'm working on my own kenpo. 

I'm teaching my students the patterns of kenpo, but I teach them basic boxing, kickboxing, groundfighting, and falls and throws and weapons work too. And we practice sparring and randori and kicking each other while we're laying on the floor and striking a prone opponent with a mantrap chair. I'm looking for techniques everywhere, I don't care if it's TKD or JKD or BJJ or MMA. If somebody has a good idea, we find a place for it in class. I don't care if it's in Sword of Destruction or Dance of Death, if it works, it's kenpo.

Parker had a lot of teachers, and students, and friends, and peers. He trained with a lot of people who are universally viewed as masters, like Gene Lebell, and he was obviously a rare mind. A unique individual in a pivotal time in history. And his art as it's most commonly practiced is only a reflection of where he was in his training at a certain point in his life.

Imagine if you took all your no doubt considerable knowledge and skill, put it in a book, and then that was what was practiced all over the world by hundreds of thousands of martial artists. You'd probably be pretty stoked, and you'd probably pursue that in good faith. But ten years later? Twenty years later? You might think that original version needed an update. By most accounts, Mr. Parker felt that way about what he'd created. But he died before he could update it. Which is sad, but not evil, and not really the most important thing.

It isn't up to Mr. Parker to make me good at karate. It's up to me. He left some signage for me to follow, but I'm alone on my path and I have to find my own way. I appreciate the techniques, and my understanding of the "ideal phase" allows me to use them as a valuable teaching tool. 

Your comparison between EPAK and JKD is not wrong, and not a coincidence. The two men knew each other, they shared ideas, they compared notes, they talked late into the night about their philosophies. And many of their beliefs were very similar. If you read the writings they left behind you see a clear progression from extremely traditional training methods and techniques to increasingly more realistic combat oriented concepts and techniques. Mr. Parker wrote Chinese Karate and The Law of the Fist before he wrote Infinite Insights. Mr. Lee wrote Chinese Gung Fu before he began his work on Jeet Kune Do. These were martial artists who were still learning. And their work reflects that. Of course they grew and changed over time, isn't that the lesson of martial arts? You get better. You understand more. Of course EPAK isn't perfect, Mr. Parker wasn't perfect. And he was far better than the vast majority of the people who've _ever taught his system._

Lots of karate instructors name their styles after themselves, few are practiced all over the world in their lifetime and beyond. It's not just because he was a crackin' good salesman. At a time when there weren't dozens of karate schools in even the smallest towns, he was one of the only people in the country practicing karate. At a time when every karate guy knew ever other karate guy, and everybody knew who the best was, Mr. Parker was already respected as a Master. And not just by dweebs. By full contact karate fighters, and hollywood stuntmen, and military men, and security professionals, and Elvis Presley. Sure, he was in it for the money. But we all have to pay the mortgage. And he was worth it. What happened after that is unfortunate, but it's not his fault, or kenpo's fault. It's bad instructors. It always comes back to the instructors.


-Rob


----------



## Thesemindz

Twin Fist said:


> The only thing i have "championed" is that you cant go to phase 3 right off, you HAVE to start at phase 1 (or the IP, or whatever you call it) FIRST, and even Doc has said so too.
> 
> Parker created the 3 phase training model for a reason, and unlike some, I dont think i know better than he did.......
> 
> Now I would say that anyone that ONLY does IP training is full of crap, but then, I would also say that anyone that claims they can go right to phase 3 training, without spending time on IP training is also full of crap.


 
Dude, you always make this a "so you think you're smarter than Ed Parker" debate. Nobody's challenging Ed Parker. Just because someone comes to a different conclusion, or uses a different training model, or teaches anything _else_ doesn't mean they think they're better than Ed Parker. Maybe you should come up with something else. Ed Parker doesn't need your help. Even dead, he can defend himself. He's that badass.


-Rob


----------



## Twin Fist

Rob, i know YOU are not......

BTW- your wall of text just made my eyes bleed....lol

but there is much truth there. There is no point or truth in critisizing SGM Parker for percieved flaws and faults, that are really just a lack of understanding.

take the technique, use teh three phase tier, learn the techniques lessons, and *then* expand.

but you cant skip "A" and expect to get anything from "B" or "C" cuz your basic understanding will suck ***.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Thesemindz said:


> You paint a pretty grim picture of Mr. Parker and his intentions Ras. While I wouldn't refute the facts, I prefer to see him, his students, and the martial arts community in general in a slightly better light.
> 
> Ok, he created a system of techniques that are maybe marginally executable exactly as written and disseminated that throughout the country. And he got paid for it. But a man has a right to feed his family. And what did he really do? He took all his combined karate knowledge at a certain point in his life, condensed it down to a few hundred lessons, and had it put in a binder. Then he shopped those lessons around, and other karate guys took _his _lesson plan and sold it as _their_ kenpo.
> 
> He was right. It was their teacher's fault. But I don't think he was a villian for doing it. You have to remember, _it was still the best thing going._ I have a lot of karate books. And most of the techniques shown in them are pretty basic. Out Block/Cross. Countergrab. Out Block/Front Kick. And that's the whole book. That's what was being shopped around at that time. Mr. Parker put together something far more complex. Was it perfect? No. But it was groundbreaking. And innovative. And a lot of us are better for it.
> 
> If he hadn't shopped it around and sold it to charlatans and spent so much time away from his family trying to promote it maybe it wouldn't be here for us to complain about. Personally, I'm thankful. Are the techniques perfect? I was never told they were supposed to be. I was told that they were supposed to demonstrate specific physical movements, combat scenarios, concepts, and interactions specific to unarmed combat. And not all techniques do all those things at the same time.
> 
> For instance, a technique like Lone Kimono works in a purely functional sense. Take him, break him, hit him in the throat. But a technique like Fallen Falcon could never be performed to completion, as written, against anything but a dead man. Fallen Falcon isn't supposed to be performed as written. It's a repository for a group of similiarly themed actions. Opponent prone face up at 3 with their near arm extended into your grab. Strikes to the near side, arm, and head.
> 
> Some techniques teach specific grappling moves that are important enough to have slapped a simple striking combination onto one end of just so they could get a name and make a spot on the list. Some techniques exist because Pro Wrestling was popular at the time and students would come into schools asking how to defend against popular wrestling holds. How many times do you see a full nelson in a real fight? Some techniques teach defense against a kick right side forward, left side forward, hands up, hands down, moving back, moving forward, moving laterally. Then the students could be encouraged to practice them "left and right handed" to double the amount of possible physical combinations! Some techniques exist because they are universal responses to common assaults, or throwbacks to old Chinese Chuan'Fa, or got picked up in a jiu jitsu class sometime. Some techniques exist to teach common striking combinations, or lock escapes. Sometimes the most important part of the technique isn't the technique at all, but the attack. When I teach Captured Twigs we spend most of our time talking about bearhugs, not stomp/elbow combinations.
> 
> There's a middle ground here Ras. There are people who only teach the Ideal Phase, never practice the techniques against resistance, don't spar, don't practice dynamic drills, and don't know their techniques don't work because _they don't practice them on the body. _
> 
> Then there are people who practice some version of the functional style. Usually one they came up with on their own based on something they learned from someone else and then made specific personal alterations to based on what they found worked. And they found out what worked by _working the material._
> 
> But those aren't the only two schools of thought. Many schools use the Ideal Phase techniques as a series of loose class plans around which they build drills and exercises drawn from the material. This is what I do, but so do many others in one form or another. My students are required to learn, perform, and understand the techniques in the Ideal Phase. But they understand that that is not intended to be the true combat expression of the kenpo that I teach. I may make changes to the material, but on their own, those changes aren't important, because the point is to teach the system as a whole, not to teach specific responses to specific defenses. I don't care if I step to 10 or 11 in this technique, or if I use a handsword to the throat or a backnuckle to the temple, because we're going to practice the technique in every direction anyway, with every basic to every target, against every attack, against resistance, while moving. Eventually. So Ideal Phase isn't really important to me except as a kind of footnote for the knowledge I want to teach today. I look up, see Deflecting Hammer and think, "ok, so front kicks, deflecting blocks, stepping away with defenses/in with counters, long range to short range, angular momentum, high hands/low hands/hi hands, bringing the target to the weapon, moving to the oustide of the opponent's stance, stepping in with checks, striking the head, inward elbow strikes, and push drag foot maneuvers." We're only gonna spend a few minutes on Deflecting Hammer, but we're gonna spend most of the class on all that other stuff. I keep the technique in the system because I need a place to teach all that stuff anyway. But I don't expect my students to deify Deflecting Hammer. I expect them to not get kicked in the balls.
> 
> I know there's a lot of crap kenpo. And I know we all kind of got the raw deal from the generation of kenpo seniors ahead of us. I remember the exact moment where I had that realization. I was on a bus. But there's more to it than that. We can't hold all the previous kenpo students and instructors responsible for not uniting and keeping Mr. Parker's creation alive. Every one of those guys had their own lives to live. And some of them _did_ try to make things work. And some of them still do.
> 
> And maybe we're better off. Instead of one monolithic Church of Kenpo, we have some guys over there doing kenpo knife, and some guys over there doing kenpo groundfighting, and some guys over there doing kenpo with escrima, or with TKD, or with jiu jitsu. We have SL4 and 5.0 and ATACX GYM and more bastards and independents than we'll ever know. And sure, there's some crap. But there's some real bad dudes too.
> 
> Kenpo isn't perfect. Neither were any of the instructors who came before us. But that's humans for you. It's not all bad. And there are a lot of really great karate guys out there. I know sometimes it seems like you live in a world of idiots, but if you can see farther than others then maybe you've just looked farther. A lot of people are comfortable where they are at, that doesn't make them liars and theives. They may be wrong, and they should probably address that. But maybe they will someday. It's not my job to correct them. I'm working on my own kenpo.
> 
> I'm teaching my students the patterns of kenpo, but I teach them basic boxing, kickboxing, groundfighting, and falls and throws and weapons work too. And we practice sparring and randori and kicking each other while we're laying on the floor and striking a prone opponent with a mantrap chair. I'm looking for techniques everywhere, I don't care if it's TKD or JKD or BJJ or MMA. If somebody has a good idea, we find a place for it in class. I don't care if it's in Sword of Destruction or Dance of Death, if it works, it's kenpo.
> 
> Parker had a lot of teachers, and students, and friends, and peers. He trained with a lot of people who are universally viewed as masters, like Gene Lebell, and he was obviously a rare mind. A unique individual in a pivotal time in history. And his art as it's most commonly practiced is only a reflection of where he was in his training at a certain point in his life.
> 
> Imagine if you took all your no doubt considerable knowledge and skill, put it in a book, and then that was what was practiced all over the world by hundreds of thousands of martial artists. You'd probably be pretty stoked, and you'd probably pursue that in good faith. But ten years later? Twenty years later? You might think that original version needed an update. By most accounts, Mr. Parker felt that way about what he'd created. But he died before he could update it. Which is sad, but not evil, and not really the most important thing.
> 
> It isn't up to Mr. Parker to make me good at karate. It's up to me. He left some signage for me to follow, but I'm alone on my path and I have to find my own way. I appreciate the techniques, and my understanding of the "ideal phase" allows me to use them as a valuable teaching tool.
> 
> Your comparison between EPAK and JKD is not wrong, and not a coincidence. The two men knew each other, they shared ideas, they compared notes, they talked late into the night about their philosophies. And many of their beliefs were very similar. If you read the writings they left behind you see a clear progression from extremely traditional training methods and techniques to increasingly more realistic combat oriented concepts and techniques. Mr. Parker wrote Chinese Karate and The Law of the Fist before he wrote Infinite Insights. Mr. Lee wrote Chinese Gung Fu before he began his work on Jeet Kune Do. These were martial artists who were still learning. And their work reflects that. Of course they grew and changed over time, isn't that the lesson of martial arts? You get better. You understand more. Of course EPAK isn't perfect, Mr. Parker wasn't perfect. And he was far better than the vast majority of the people who've _ever taught his system._
> 
> Lots of karate instructors name their styles after themselves, few are practiced all over the world in their lifetime and beyond. It's not just because he was a crackin' good salesman. At a time when there weren't dozens of karate schools in even the smallest towns, he was one of the only people in the country practicing karate. At a time when every karate guy knew ever other karate guy, and everybody knew who the best was, Mr. Parker was already respected as a Master. And not just by dweebs. By full contact karate fighters, and hollywood stuntmen, and military men, and security professionals, and Elvis Presley. Sure, he was in it for the money. But we all have to pay the mortgage. And he was worth it. What happened after that is unfortunate, but it's not his fault, or kenpo's fault. It's bad instructors. It always comes back to the instructors.
> 
> 
> -Rob


 

Helluva post man.There are many points in there which I agree with...but my main point which I emphasize over and over and over again is being missed by you guys in the most part.Here it is again:

I have no problem with people who love the IP for any reason not directed related to combat functionality.Have at the IP all you like,under those circumstances. But here IS NO COMBAT,CONCEPTUAL OR PRECEPTUAL BENEFIT TO THE IP PHYSICAL EXPRESSION BECAUSE IT'S NONFUNCTIONAL.Period.Therefore,it the IP- Functional Idea+Dysfunctional Physical Expression. This model is ALWAYS AND FOR PERPETUITY INFERIOR TO the model which I prefer and apparently Mister Parker and Doc have always used,which is: Multilayered Intellectually Potent Combat Functional Concept+Highly Functional,Highly Efficient Real World Physical Expression Of The Tech. This is so amazingly simple and obvious,that's it's almost disheartening to have this conversation in this area.

The Functional Model is ALWAYS better.Because IT FUNCTIONS. If you START with the nonfunctional IP...no matter what you do from there...you WILL NOT get the benefits associated with being functional from jump street. If the concept behind say,Deflecting Hammers,makes you think something like (as you said):"ok, so front kicks, deflecting blocks, stepping away with defenses/in with counters, long range to short range, angular momentum, high hands/low hands/hi hands, bringing the target to the weapon, moving to the oustide of the opponent's stance, stepping in with checks, striking the head, inward elbow strikes, and push drag foot maneuvers." That's GREAT.That's largely my thought process too.Know where we differ at? 

My Deflecting Hammer works EXACTLY AS IT IS,and therefore articulates the concepts and ideas that WE GET (not Mr. Parker or the Motion Kenpo guys who for the most part created what we think of as the physical articulation of the IP in the first place) much better than if the tech didn't work but the concept is sound. We might have an artichect who can diagram and plan the hell out of a house,but if the construction crew can't do the job? The result will be: NO HOUSE. That's exactly what the ideas behind the IP (great idea) and the physical articulation of the IP (NO HOUSE) are.

But let's stay focused on the point I'm raising.Twin Fist: Never thought of dissing Mr.Parker's intelligence.Why would I do such a thing? If I thought he was a fool,I wouldn't be practicing concepts and precepts which he popularized. However,the empirical irrefutable evidence remains that the IP is nonfunctional...and in order to make it work,YOU MUST CHANGE HOW YOU EXECUTE AND TRAIN THE TECHS.Repeat: in order to make it work,you MUST CHANGE how you EXECUTE AND TRAIN the techs.Therefore,beyond any form of discussion,the techs do NOT reflect the functional concepts behind it.Brainstorm: change all the nonfunctional crap which was so offensive to Mr.Parker (according to Doc's anecdote) that even when Mr.Parker SAW HIMSELF DOING HIS OWN TECHS,he got so offended that he got up and stomped out,and vowed to NEVER put himself on film again...to stuff that (even though it too will evolve) WILL WORK EVERY TIME and is therefore MANY TIMES SUPERIOR IN EVERY WAY TO ANY TECH THAT DOESN'T PHYSICALLY DO WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO DO. Period.Full stop.This isn't the Unification Theory,folks.If you teach me Deflecting Hammer and it's supposed to stop me from being kicked in the nuts? Dammit,it better work.Or else me and my sore nuts are gonna have a REAL problem with you. Now,AFTER IT WORKS...you can work all that other great stuff. You know....that "front kicks, deflecting blocks, stepping away with defenses/in with counters, long range to short range, angular momentum, high hands/low hands/hi hands, bringing the target to the weapon, moving to the oustide of the opponent's stance, stepping in with checks, striking the head, inward elbow strikes, and push drag foot maneuvers" stuff.Which I TOTALLY AGREE WITH. But if THE TECH AS IS DON'T WORK,then the EVERY STEP THAT IS USED TO TRAIN THE TECH IS SUSPECT TOO.Because you might take just as dysfunctional an approach TO THE COMPONENTS OF THE TECH as you do to EXPRESSING THE TECH which will result in...no surprise...A TECH THAT DOESN'T WORK.Conversely? If you train your techs every whichaway so that it DOES WORK? Then THE TECH YOU DO IS NOT THE IP CUZ THE IP DOESN'T WORK.Take a look-see at my Captured Twigs and Alternating Maces.I simply took the tech and made it work.Not that much of a change was made other than the part that is the MOST IMPORTANT which is: IT WORKS NOW.Like it's SUPPOSED TO WORK.Swear to God (don't mean you,Thesemindz,with this observation) some Kenpo folks are the only human beings on this Earth that I know of who will decry something laudable that does admirably and consistently exactly what it's supposed to do...while praising to the high heavens some crap that even THEY know DOES.NOT.WORK. If your Deflecting Hammer WORKS? Then IT'S FUNCTIONAL. If you stay true to the one and only true gospel of functionality. So when your variant of Deflecting Hammer works? Me and my not sore nuts are all happy happy joy joy now...and all of your other techs will ACTUALLY WORK TOO and WORK BETTER because ALL OF YOUR STUFF IS FUNCTIONAL...including the concepts and precepts behind them. And they're getting constantly refined in the process so it's GETTING MORE FUNCTIONAL.

If people are happy having a middle road between stuff that doesn't work and stuff that does? Cool.Maybe they're happy with the compromise that allows one nut to get kicked instead of two,too.Lol.Sallgood with me.I don't care about that at all.Whatever reason that anyone has to do the IP? Have at it. But one thing that NOBODY can claim is that something that's DYSFUNCTIONAL has ANYTHING BENEFICIAL OR EVEN EQUIVALENT WHATSOEVER to the FUNCTIONAL expression. If you use the IP "as a series of loose class plans around which they build drills and exercises drawn from the material"? Well that's a GOOD IDEA to me. I do something similar myself.The moment you or anyone else deliberately have students practiced DYSFUNCTIONAL ANYTHING...well,THAT'S the area that we disagree; but it's still coo. But the moment you have me practicing something THAT YOU KNOW AHEAD OF TIME DOES NOT do what you're telling me it does? Now THAT'S where we progress from a difference of opinion to an empirical break with truth and honesty.Truthfully and honestly,Deflecting Hammer for instance doesn't reliably protect my nuts in the IP variant.My version--which I'm putting up along with a boatload of other kenpo,kicking drills,and combat capoeira techs in about 2 weeks--works well every time.Cuz it's functional. And every student wants functional over dysfunctioanl.Doubt me? Betcha this: If you throw a real world kick at the nuts...however slow...betcha your students will be some FUNCTIONAL Deflecting Hammer doing individuals to keep their nuts safe.And they'll prefer that over getting their nads punted up amongst their ears,100% of the time.

I'm not sweating Mr.Parker for being paid for teaching.That's a GREAT idea.Hell,I charge people too (not a bunch of money...usually under $75/mo) so I'm not mad at Mr.Parker there at all.Doc already made it clear that Mr.Parker WAS NOT doing what Doc termed "motion-based Kenpo",and practically everyone beyond a specific demarcation line--after the first generation or something,gotta go back and look at Doc's post--WAS doing "motion-Kenpo". That means that practically everyone here except Doc and a few others have a lineage borne of "Motion Kenpo" and NOT EPAK...whatever claims to the contrary we might make.That includes me. My roots go back to Sijo Muhammed and a BB under Ed Parker in the 60's who taught my uncle's Coach.My uncle taught me. This timeline set in the mid-60's to the present would seem to be just before and right at the emergence of "motion Kenpo" as a burgoening commercial success and the very distinct separation of it from Mr.Parker's personal "American Kenpo" and even "hard principle American Kenpo" as a WHOLE (like Doc's SL-4)...down to the very second that I'm writing this post and beyond.


----------



## Thesemindz

Yah. I pretty much agree with all of that.

I guess the difference is that you practice the Self Defense Techniques as actual fighting techniques. As the correct, specific, functional response to a specific attack. I haven't done that in a long time. Once I realized they didn't work, which was probably around brown belt, I quit looking at them like that. I don't think of them like that, I don't even refer to them that way in my own head and writing. I think of them as patterns. Lessons. Like sets and forms and no more directly applicable to combat than Kicking Set 1 or Form 4. I think of them as coordination drills, and target demos, and thematically related series of movements. 

So I teach them, because I want all my students to learn that stuff, but I don't expect them to be executed in combat, or to work properly if they were. We practice them on the body because I want my students to practice those drills and exercises on flesh. But when we learn Hooking Wings for instance, I don't expect my students to be able to execute the entire striking pattern on an attackers head. Instead I expect them to learn short and long range strikes to the head and using foot maneuvers to change range. Then I teach them to spontaneously express those lessons in combat through the use of increasingly realistic solo and partner and competitive drills and activities.

I get what you're saying. You're techniques work as actual fighting moves. I teach a lot of techniques that work as actual fighting moves, such as clinch positions and grappling maneuvers and striking combinations, I just don't lump the self defense techniques in with those. I lump them in with the other kenpo patterns. They're more like a textbook to me than a series of instructions. So you're hitting people with the textbook too. I got no problem with that.

I'm sure you're way works. It looks neat, and I'm interested to see as you evolve it over time. I know I'm not teaching what I was six years ago, or six months ago. Do you find that you have to drastically reduce the size and complexity of the techniques to make them functional in your sense? I had considered doing that, reducing them down to minimal, high percentage, maneuvers, but I wanted to keep the longer choreographed pieces. Do you have choreographed, pre-arranged interactions or do you teach everything as "live" practice?


-Rob


----------



## Thesemindz

I'm curious Ras. Do you teach sets and forms?


-Rob


----------



## Carol

I was curious about that as well.  Your material seems to be more RBSD than other systems (which is not a bad thing at all).


----------



## ATACX GYM

Thesemindz said:


> Yah. I pretty much agree with all of that.
> 
> I guess the difference is that you practice the Self Defense Techniques as actual fighting techniques. As the correct, specific, functional response to a specific attack. I haven't done that in a long time. Once I realized they didn't work, which was probably around brown belt, I quit looking at them like that. I don't think of them like that, I don't even refer to them that way in my own head and writing. I think of them as patterns. Lessons. Like sets and forms and no more directly applicable to combat than Kicking Set 1 or Form 4. I think of them as coordination drills, and target demos, and thematically related series of movements.
> 
> So I teach them, because I want all my students to learn that stuff, but I don't expect them to be executed in combat, or to work properly if they were. We practice them on the body because I want my students to practice those drills and exercises on flesh. But when we learn Hooking Wings for instance, I don't expect my students to be able to execute the entire striking pattern on an attackers head. Instead I expect them to learn short and long range strikes to the head and using foot maneuvers to change range. Then I teach them to spontaneously express those lessons in combat through the use of increasingly realistic solo and partner and competitive drills and activities.
> 
> I get what you're saying. You're techniques work as actual fighting moves. I teach a lot of techniques that work as actual fighting moves, such as clinch positions and grappling maneuvers and striking combinations, I just don't lump the self defense techniques in with those. I lump them in with the other kenpo patterns. They're more like a textbook to me than a series of instructions. So you're hitting people with the textbook too. I got no problem with that.
> 
> I'm sure you're way works. It looks neat, and I'm interested to see as you evolve it over time. I know I'm not teaching what I was six years ago, or six months ago. Do you find that you have to drastically reduce the size and complexity of the techniques to make them functional in your sense? I had considered doing that, reducing them down to minimal, high percentage, maneuvers, but I wanted to keep the longer choreographed pieces. Do you have choreographed, pre-arranged interactions or do you teach everything as "live" practice?
> 
> 
> -Rob


 

Not only do my techs work as actual fighting moves,they also serve veeerrry functionally as lessons,sets,drills,etc.See,it's my experience that when you can fight with these techs,you HAVE TO grasp the functional concepts (THAT ARE REVEAL THEMSELVES DIFFERENTLY TO EACH OF US IN SPECIFICS BUT SHARE A COMMON THEME AND LESSON WHICH WE ALL INTERPRET IN OUR OWN WAY) behind them quite well. Then you can break each set down into functional mini labs. You can isolate and work each tech of each sequence and reeeeaaaallly learn lots from it that YOU CAN'T LEARN if it DOESN'T WORK.You can isolate and work each stance in each tech. Try Captured Twigs the traditional way.Cat Stance and all. But only seek to control his hands and use you energy and level changing,constantly moving stances--all the stances that you know at that rank (Yellow) which you deem applicable--to unbalance your opponent.To develope a body feel for his positioning and his sense of balance.To set him up for strikes. If you do the same tech along the lines and ranges that I require--Weapon Range,Standup,Clinch,Seated (Up-Seated,Seated-Seated,Seated-Ground),Standing-Ground,Ground-Ground,Armed and Multifight (including Armed Multifight) variants of all of this,Escape,Rescue,and Rescue and Escape variants of all of this--with my more functional expression? Lots and LOTS of lessons to be learned.Literally more than a lifetime of them. I will be long dead and so will my students and THEIR students before we even APPROACH A THOUSANDTH of what can be learned from these situations.

If you H-Wrap his hands and do a Cat Stance? You've applied a wrist lock and nearly thrown your opponent.Transition smoothly and explosively into a Bow or Nuetral Stance THROUGH HIM in the direction that your opponent's unbalanced? Off he flies. If you keep moving,keep grabbing,and transition explosively from stance to stance,through passed and beyond your opponent? You're grappling your butt off.Kenpo style. And almost nobody has a defense against it,because it's so unusual; looks like one thing or whatever but DOES NOT operate like that "one thing" . I have a whole DVD wherein we explore the stances,checks,Talons,etc and its grappling applications in what I call Grappling Stance Sets.Gonna see if I can put some of the footage on my Youtube Channel for review.

Interestingly,I don't actually REDUCE the number of techs that I have,I CONNECT them to a spare set of principles which are the well-spring of all my techs. Gives me infintely more TECHS than I even knew that I had prior to trying things this way. I pulled off a standing S-lock from Mr.Parker articulated them. So did Bruce Lee. Mestre Bimba (an old skool capoeira mestre of gigantic stature,founder of Regional) articulated them in sayings and songs and so have maaaaaany other mestres sifu sensei etc. etc. over the millenia.






Thesemindz said:


> I'm curious Ras. Do you teach sets and forms?
> 
> 
> -Rob


 

Not only do I teach sets and forms,I absolutely insist upon it. I remember a few MT guys were crakkin on me while doing one of the Finger Sets. "Dis ni44a doin sign language?" LOLOLOL. That was funny and that wouldn't've bothered me until the inevitable disses flipped onto the efficacy of Kenpo itself. "You gonna get robbed and ole dude's like:"GIMME YO DAMN MONEY!" and you're gonna be like (exaggerated sign language gestures):'I! DON'T! UNDERSTAND! YOU!' Man that ole bullsh.. kain't help you in a REAL fight!" 

Oh yeah? Let's see. Right now.

Check lead hand transverse across the body,crossing in front of and nullifying the ability to throw the cross.HWD manipulation.Simultaneous with the height width depth manipulation (HWD) was the stiffened finger jab to the groin with the rear hand.In Finger Set 2,that finger jab would go to the solar plexus. Down goes one. 

"OHHHH!!" The other 3 said. Then one of the 3--big dude,roundabout 6'2" 230--stepped up like:"Dawg you didn't just karate-fy my homeboy! You ole buff midget *** LEROY Machida havin,short *** FLYIN NEGRO CROUCHIN TEA ROLL lookin muddafuh! Time to drop some of this Muay Thai on you,son..."

Check leg kick from ole dude,intercept his jab with a sidekick,hard check,feint finger whip to the groin+stiffened finger thrust to the throat and he went down.

"DAYAMN!" chorused the remaining two.

"Must I do some American Kenpo sign language all up in here?" I asked them. "Nah brah we good." They responded."Ya boyz are good too.No real damage done." I replied.And went right back to my Finger Sets practice.

I love forms.Not only for their aesthetic value and the fact that they're mini-libraries of specific techs in specific belt ranks,but when coordinated with proper breathing and body alignment? They're fantastic yoga! And I'm a yoga fiend,folks.



Carol said:


> I was curious about that as well. Your material seems to be more RBSD than other systems (which is not a bad thing at all).


 

Thank you very much for the compliment! And yes,I have an absolute mandatory unequivocable requirement that every tech I teach must work.In every range of combat.I also need to have to have done the tech myself either in a fight or during sparring prior to teaching my students.Every single tech in Kenpo that I know? I've sparred or fought with. Lots. A whole lot. There are certain kinds of insights that you have only when you've energetically used the tech yourself.Alot.Against skilled resistance.Alot. I absolutely feel that I'm doing myself and my students a disservice if I teach them something that I haven't direct and comprehensive hands on experience with.There isn't a single SD tech in Kenpo that I can't fight with.Alot.Against anyone of any style or no style. That's how it should be,imo.


----------



## Twin Fist

TLDR

too long, didnt read.

bored now


----------



## ATACX GYM

Twin Fist said:


> TLDR
> 
> too long, didnt read.
> 
> bored now


 

Don't care. Thought I'd share that fun fact.


----------



## Carol

Ras, are you a student of Doc's?  Do you integrate much SL-4 in to your Kenpo?  Just asking because I looove Doc's stuff, but I'm exactly in the right part of the country to try it.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Twin Fist said:


> your VIDEOS are 7 minutes of jawin, 15 seconds of half speed action with a compliant foe. I thought i was pretty clear about that.........I guess you are better at posting than reading
> 
> and uh?
> 
> *"as your championing of the Motion Kenpo IP shows."*
> 
> I am not championing ANYTHING*, *so if you have to make **** up to make a point, it is pretty clear you dont actually have one.....
> The only thing i have "championed" is that you cant go to phase 3 right off, you HAVE to start at phase 1 (or the IP, or whatever you call it) FIRST, and even Doc has said so too.
> 
> Parker created the 3 phase training model for a reason, and unlike some, I dont think i know better than he did.......
> 
> Now I would say that anyone that ONLY does IP training is full of crap, but then, I would also say that anyone that claims they can go right to phase 3 training, without spending time on IP training is also full of crap.
> 
> YOU have claimed you dont have to start with IP training, well, thats what YOU say.....And until you learn to post in something other than a wall of text, i cant deal with you.
> 
> PS, yes we know, you have told everyone 100 times, you are the bomb, you are the best, you are awesome...blah blah blah


 
I know you were saying that I talk for 7 minutes etc. My comment was subtle sarcasm. Which you missed.You also missed the videos where I am sparring bareknuckle with someone going at significantly closer to street speeds.

By the way: where are your videos displaying your transcendental grasp of true self-defense Kenpo at hyper speeds vs a fully resistant training partner or street criminal? Love to see them.Love to see ANY video that you have,in fact.I'd love to compare the incredible intricacies and resounding secrets of your technique which you have plumbed to the depths of Kenponess with my techs.

My claim is NOT that nobody has to start with the IP in the sense of the idea BEHIND the PHSYICAL MOVEMENTS. My issue was,is,and remains the fact that the popular sequences that we conflate with articulating the physical functioning of the IP are dysfunctional and must be upgraded to functionality.All dysfunctional crap should be used as fertilizer or trashbinned,etc.

TWIN FIST:

"Now I would say that anyone that ONLY does IP training is full of crap, but then, I would also say that anyone that claims they can go right to phase 3 training, without spending time on IP training is also full of crap." 

^^^That's good to know.I never claimed to go right to phase 3 training...instead I've harped over and over again on the fact that I use the I:3 method (Introduction,Isolation,Integration) and all of this focuses on real world attacks.Realistic attacks are used and executed and defended against with all the requisite technical skill from day one...thus our drills responses counters interceptions etc. are also 100% real world and technically sound at all levels. You don't do this.That's cool with me.

Btw you DID champion Motion Kenpo,whether you knew it or not.Contrary to your claim,as Doc specifically stated,Mr.Parker DID NOT enshrine and create the specific physical movements of what we miscall the IP...he merely articulated concepts and showed techs. If asked how to do something,Mr.Parker would ask:"How do YOU do it?" according to Doc.The ideal phase is in actuality a concept which is supposed to be expressed numerous functional ways by using the techs that the Motion Kenpo teachers learned from Ed Parker,combined with their stuff,and taught to their students. So the split second you champion the IDEA of the IP? We agree. Where we differ is that you ALSO swear that the FUNCTIONAL IDEA behind the IP is encapsulated in the DYSFUNCTIONAL TECHS that we see. There are no lessons,nothing whatsoever of worth,to be drawn from a tech THAT DOESN'T WORK other than: THIS ISH DOESN'T WORK.FIX IT. That's all. I am absolutely of the unyielding uncompromising position that functional ideas concepts precepts etc. must be physically articulated by equally functional movements. That's where I differ with you and about 90% of kenpoists out there.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Carol said:


> Ras, are you a student of Doc's? Do you integrate much SL-4 in to your Kenpo? Just asking because I looove Doc's stuff, but I'm exactly in the right part of the country to try it.


 

Not a student of Doc's.I like his stuff too,but we have some rather sharp technical differences which are borne of our differing life experiences.Our SIMILAR stuff is borne of SIMILAR life experiences,too.Doc's got about 20 years on me,he's from L.A.,home of the driveby.I'm reppin those raw dawgs from East Side,North,and DT LBC (Long Beach City),Compton CA,plus the rough hood of Southeast San Diego. On top of that? I'm a BKF 2nd dan,South Central L.A and 109th and Broadway style; and Doc co-founded the BKF. If it wasn't for him? Guys like me literally couldn't train martial arts or compete fairly literally because I'm Black.So I owe him lots and lots,plus we have some experiential overlap;but he definitely outstrips me when it comes to "time on the mat".

But I can certainly hold my own in a side by side tech comparison with any Kenpoist breathing,I would say...without any arrogance either.Because I know my stuff works,and anybody who knows anything about functionality will say the same thing.The only difference between functional stylists is degree of functionality...and that degree tends to decrease as time passes.Me? I prefer a very comprehensive approach.Lotsa grappling,weapon use,joint locks,even finger locks.Every single one of the 72 SD techs comprising the spine of Kenpo I can fight with.From ANY hand held nonprojectile weapon to h2h combat range. And I add the ranges of Escape,Rescue,and Rescue&Escape to all of my techs. I have never,for instance,seen a Kenpo stylist use a standup Kenpo tech FUNCTIONALLY that also can be done FUNCTIONALLY in the exact same way or very close to it NO MATTER WHAT THE RANGE OF COMBAT.I can do and show video of it. I have never seen Doc on the ground so Idk about his ground grappling and groundfighting skill,but I hold a black belt in judo I have years of wrestling,boxing,Muay Thai,5th dan in tkd,dans in tangsoodo and othe disciplines and I hold a blue in bjj so I'm more than proficient on the ground both striking and subbing.Plus I'm more than able with weapons and I integrate weapons in every range,too. In every tech. Lolol people laugh when I break out the knives or tell them to go for their gun and say:"DO ALTERNATING MACES". Then the knives start flashing or they start trying to draw their gun while under attack,and the laughter STOPS.Then I show them how to do it. Then they LOVE IT.I show them ho to apply it to their katas and sets...without changing a single movement in the katas and sets.More loving of it.They musta thought I was Mcdonald's or something,cuz they Mclove ATACX GYM.Lol.

They pierce behind the veil of physical tech to the concept behind it,and they marry the concept to ANY movement that articulates the concept.Now they have AN INFINITY OF MOVEMENTS...from just ONE concept. And it's alll functional,they MUST spar with it,and they wind up learning all of this stuff VERY quickly.They can do whatever tech I show them the same day I teach them...and they can fight against a street fighter of roughly equivalent size etc. the same day I teach them.In 4 days of training,they can fight decently on the streets.In 1-2 weeks they'll mop the floor with any untrained streetfighter on their block.And it's not magic; people have known how to train for performance for MILLENIA...just some Kenpo folks in particular react with apoplectic raging indignation when you say:"Ahhhh...you CAN'T do what you said the tech is SUPPOSED to do trying it like that.And if it doesn't work? You're missing the concepts behind it ENTIRELY.Cuz the FIRST thing a self-defense martial art MUST DO RELIABLY is DEFEND YOURSELF SUCCESSFULLY." That's when they start with all that hokum about Buddha level lessons to be learned from feces. Yeah but...it's STILL feces.Lol.


----------



## Twin Fist

and the race card comes out


again


this guy is a joke.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Twin Fist said:


> and the race card comes out
> 
> 
> again
> 
> 
> this guy is a joke.


 

Sooo...giving the just accolades that is Doc's due=race card? You have THE WRONG pack of cards,and your brain needs an upgrade. I guess if anyone mentions how people like Martin Luther King and Thaddeus Stevens--a White man--helped bring about the end of legal apartheid in the United States during their respective eras,that would be "the race card" to you too. I guess if anyone mentioned the Woman's Suffrage Movement,they'd be playing "the gender card" in your opinion.Too many times before you respond to a post,Twin Fist,you hit the OFF button on your brain and let your fingers publicize the fact that you did so.

Whether or like you like it or want to deal with it,there was apartheid in America ("separate but not so equal") at that time...and everyone with a conscious and courage and awareness from W.E.B. DuBois to Rosa Parks,from Martin to Malcolm,from The Freedom Riders to President LBJ,from Thaddeus Stevens to Doc and Jerry Trimble and others rose to the call.They're HEROES and deserve recognition for their extreme bravery,foresight,and principled stance. 

It's astounding that you can take a multiparagraph response,distill it to one sentence that you dislike,and then distort out of context EVERYTHING even in the one sentence that you dislike,to fit your warped preconceptions. What...are you bucking for a PR job with The Tea Party? Everyone else was having a brisk,intellectual conversation that was positive and stimulating.We're not going to allow your incessant dooficity to disrupt the positivity of this exchange.

With all that in mind? We have proof imperishable that I'M not a joke,but I might be TELLING a joke...and if I were? The joke's on YOU.


----------



## Twin Fist

Doc got his bb from someone.........
steve sanders got his BB from someone......
thomas lapuppet got his bb from someone.......


that dog doesnt hunt on planet reality, and yeah, one retarded statement can and in your case DOES render anything else out of you irrelevant. To me at least

If Stephen King, who is an undisputed master of his craft came out and said he was a 9-11 truther, that little bit of crazy would ruin him for me, pretty much forever.

Thats why i am no longer a Jesse Ventura fan 

so yes, this latest (centainly not the first time, more like the 101st time you have done it) playing of the race card from you is the straw that has broken this camels back

you are boring, and exceedingly long winded. And whatever skill you claim to have (even tho no one has ever heard of you) is hidden under 14 layers of ego, chest thumping, crazy racist crap.

Good bye.

Dont bother responding cuz you are going to the iggy list and i wont see it.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Twin Fist said:


> Doc got his bb from someone.........
> steve sanders got his BB from someone......
> thomas lapuppet got his bb from someone.......
> 
> 
> that dog doesnt hunt on planet reality, and yeah, one retarded statement can and in your case DOES render anything else out of you irrelevant. To me at least
> 
> If Stephen King, who is an undisputed master of his craft came out and said he was a 9-11 truther, that little bit of crazy would ruin him for me, pretty much forever.
> 
> Thats why i am no longer a Jesse Ventura fan
> 
> so yes, this latest (centainly not the first time, more like the 101st time you have done it) playing of the race card from you is the straw that has broken this camels back
> 
> you are boring, and exceedingly long winded. And whatever skill you claim to have (even tho no one has ever heard of you) is hidden under 14 layers of ego, chest thumping, crazy racist crap.
> 
> Good bye.
> 
> Dont bother responding cuz you are going to the iggy list and i wont see it.


 

Exceptions don't prove the rule,Twin Fist.

W.E.B. DuBois got his Ph.d. from someone (Harvard),but racism and segregation was still the law of the land...and Black people as a whole were rigorously denied education.

Susan B.Anthony could read and write and asserted herself strongly,but women still couldn't vote.

General MacArthur and Richard Marcinko were/are hellacious warriors,but the Armed Forces were still lagging behind in material,tactics,and mindset in comparison to them.

Let's turn it another way:

Doc DID get his BB from Mr.Parker...AND STILL FELT THE NEED TO FOUND THE B.K.F. Unless you're inferring that Doc is a complete idiot,he must have had not just good and solid but immediate and overwhelming reason to conceive structure and launch the B.K.F. And Sijo Muhammed must have had equally compelling reason to join and help promote such an organization.Thomas LaPuppet--who my Uncle met and introduced me to--had every reason to like Doc and specifically told my uncle that "those soul brothers" are "doin it right" in reference to the BKF. Everyone you cited SUPPORTED THE IDEA OF THE BKF...INCLUDING MR. PARKER. Like I said...if I told a joke? The joke would be on YOU. But I don't need to because every time you post,you make people who have brainpower turned ON laugh at your preposterous illogic.

Yep.Your brain is still off. I'm responding to your post anyway because--since your brain stays on the "DEPOWERED" list--you haven't realized that when I respond to your POSTS,I'm really not addressing your PERSON. It became very clear from the first post you made that you're of the PDL--PERMANENTLY DOOFUS LEGION--so I took to responding to any reasonable intellect that might have suffered the misfortune of being stained by the concentrated ludicrousness that your posts incarnate.

Sooo...in the self-contained time warp of your mind,there wasn't a Civil Rights Movement? Doc,LBJ,Susan B. Anthony,Thaddeus Stevens,Rosa Parks,Medgar Evers,The Freedom Riders,Vietnam vets,any and all freedom fighters of whatever race anywhere from any time who opposed injustice and unfairness...these people aren't heroes to you? Well,on the REAL planet Reality,Twin Fist? There WAS a Civil Rights Movement. Thaddeus Stevens and the Radical Republicans ARE heroes. Susan B. Anthony--superheroine extraordinaire--DID help to usher in a staggering change which took huge courage. And Doc showed his heroic side because he DID co-found the BKF without which Black people COULD NOT participate in or get a fair shake in martial arts tournaments. You clearly don't reside on the same planet as the rest of us--The REAL planet REALITY--wherein the last 2 centuries (including Reconstruction and the heroics of the 99th Pursuit Squadron and the 108th Tank Battalion) really happened. 


You just helped me to understand why your posts so consistently have zero to do with the empirical real world,logic,sanity,or anything else worthwhile.You've ensured that you hit the OFF button on your brain before every post and then you post from Planet Idjit.Now it all makes sense.Thanks for the reveal.

Everyone else? With the continued absence of Twin Fist from this conversation,we may proceed apace with actually getting good and positive and wonderful things said,done and understood. This is a momentous day.


----------



## Twin Fist

So, to continue the topic.

one could liken the Ideal phase to kata training.

not directly combat training, but still an important and VITAL part of the process.

no martial art, and certainly not one as complex and multi layered as Kenpo is, and EPAK in particular, can be really learned without a multi stage approach to learning.


----------



## ATACX GYM

No,the IP is NOT like kata training. Kata training,as I understand it,is essentially and at once: 1) a library of techs for belt ranks which provides practitioners means of solo training and prevents an art from passing out of existence 2) A yogic exercise melding mind,body and spirit into martial movement and providing health benefits thereby 3) A possible repository for EVERY tech of an ENTIRE martial art.

According to Doc,in this post right here: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1397036&postcount=122

and the post of Doc's preceding it on page 8 of this thread,the IP is AN ABSTRACT IDEA which was passed out via Big Red to commercial Kenpo guys who were supposed to THINK and craft THEIR OWN FUNCTIONAL responses to self-defense scenarios using a combination of Mr.Parker's techs concepts etc. and their own techs,concepts,etc. then teach this amalgam to their students.

You were supposed TO THINK when using the IP...make functional responses that served the purpose of defeating whatever attack or whatever...and be enriched as a martial artist for the experience.

Unfortunately,the Motion Kenpo guys did NOT make functional techs.They taught some hodgepodge of dysfunctional crap to their students without challenging their students to think.To become functional and skilled. To perceive,employ and appreciate the principles of Kenpo in the employment of their techs and their lives.And the students just memorized the techs and thought that the techs in and of themselves ARE the IP.Not so.Too many of us conflated the TECHS with both the IDEA AND THE EXPRESSION of the IP.As soon as Doc said this,I got it. Boxing coaches use what is essentially the IP when they devise methods of slipping say the jab or blocking body shots and countering.The difference is? Boxing coaches actually go out and devise functional,workable drills for boxers to do which sharpen that skill set,and THEN have their boxers actually do precisely what they worked on in live,full fire sparring sessions. Motion Kenpoists don't do this.They don't craft functional responses and they don't spar.That's why their techs fail to achieve the specific desired goal,they can't fight with it successfully,and that's why they can't justify their actions even on an intellectual level...because there is only one place that their actions are beneficially rewarded: MONETARILY.


----------



## Thesemindz

ATACX GYM said:


> No,the IP is NOT like kata training. Kata training,as I understand it,is essentially and at once: 1) a library of techs for belt ranks which provides practitioners means of solo training and prevents an art from passing out of existence 2) A yogic exercise melding mind,body and spirit into martial movement and providing health benefits thereby 3) A possible repository for EVERY tech of an ENTIRE martial art.
> 
> According to Doc,in this post right here: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1397036&postcount=122
> 
> and the post of Doc's preceding it on page 8 of this thread,the IP is AN ABSTRACT IDEA which was passed out via Big Red to commercial Kenpo guys who were supposed to THINK and craft THEIR OWN FUNCTIONAL responses to self-defense scenarios using a combination of Mr.Parker's techs concepts etc. and their own techs,concepts,etc. then teach this amalgam to their students.
> 
> You were supposed TO THINK when using the IP...make functional responses that served the purpose of defeating whatever attack or whatever...and be enriched as a martial artist for the experience.
> 
> Unfortunately,the Motion Kenpo guys did NOT make functional techs.They taught some hodgepodge of dysfunctional crap to their students without challenging their students to think.To become functional and skilled. To perceive,employ and appreciate the principles of Kenpo in the employment of their techs and their lives.And the students just memorized the techs and thought that the techs in and of themselves ARE the IP.Not so.Too many of us conflated the TECHS with both the IDEA AND THE EXPRESSION of the IP.As soon as Doc said this,I got it. Boxing coaches use what is essentially the IP when they devise methods of slipping say the jab or blocking body shots and countering.The difference is? Boxing coaches actually go out and devise functional,workable drills for boxers to do which sharpen that skill set,and THEN have their boxers actually do precisely what they worked on in live,full fire sparring sessions. *Motion Kenpoists don't do this.They don't craft functional responses and they don't spar.That's why their techs fail to achieve the specific desired goal,they can't fight with it successfully,and that's why they can't justify their actions even on an intellectual level...because there is only one place that their actions are beneficially rewarded: MONETARILY*.


 
That's the problem bro. You're making too general an accusation here. Certainly _some_ people fall squarely and exactly into this category. Martialtalk has a policy against fraud busting, but it's not hard to find kenpo videos on the YouTube where guys have clearly never practiced their techniques on the body under dynamic conditions, with intensity, against resistance, and combinations, and in motion, etc. etc. etc.

But you lump *ALL *motion kenpo under this category. Now, that means either you think that everyone who learned the EPAK system, or some reasonably similar variant, is a moron who never bothered to practice beyond the written material in an ideal scenario in the air; *OR* you lump all people who do bad kenpo together under the heading "Motion Kenpo."

The reality is far more nuanced than that my friend. There are bad schools, and bad students. There are bad methods, and bad drills. There are bad kenpo practitioners. But there are also good Kenpo practitioners. There are many Kenpo stylists *like you* who see the IP material for what it is and evolve beyond it. And that process can take a lot of different paths.

I learned a style of kenpo taught by a guy who trained with Parker and the Tracy's. The techniques are largely EPAK techniques, although not usually the most recent and updated version. There are _some_ of the hard principles taught by Doc, although not as many, and there are _some _of the conceptual principles taught in EPAK, although not as many. That guy put his own spin on it, then taught it to my instructor who put his own spin on it, then taught it to me, and I put my own spin on it. I teach what I believe works, based on my experience. And my students spar with kenpo techniques, and karate style sparring, and ground fighting, and weapons and do a *ton* of dynamic drills. My karate works, which I've told Doc before. And my method works. But I also consider it a style of Motion Kenpo.

It's based on the EPAK system. It's based on combat applicable _motion_. It's based on motion concepts, like relationships of circles and angular footwork and complex paths of motion. I understand that there are other methods. Doc's method is based on specific bio-physical actions and structures. We address anatomy, but not nearly to the same degree he does even in his most basic classes. We focus on other things. But the method works. I've used it. Others have used it. I've trained with artists from many other styles, and my method does just fine. But I still consider it a Motion based method.

That's where you're going to lose people Ras. It's ok to be proud of what you do. It's ok to want others to do better. But when you tell them that their method is ****, they probably won't hear the rest of what you say. And while many of them _do _practice ****, not all of us do. There are many ways to skin cats. There is only one art of the sword.

You're arguments aren't wrong, but you are generalizing them to *ALL* motion kenpo. Ask Doc if he knows anyone who practices a style of Motion Based kenpo that works. I think you may be painting with too broad a brush here. You mention boxing coaches. For many of us, the Ideal Phase technique is like the Ideal Phase Jab/Cross combination. It exists as an abstract concept, and boxing coaches need to know that concept so that they can teach future boxers, but in combat the only Ideal Jab/Cross is the one that lands.


-Rob


----------



## Twin Fist

well said Rob, but some people are too busy trying to make sure everyone knows how awesome they are to actually LEARN anything


----------



## MJS

TF made, IMO, an interesting point when he mentioned kata and IP techs.  Now, on the surface, if you look at kata, you'll see what Matt Thorton has said...a dead pattern, and yes, if all someone does, is just run thru the kata, with no purpose or reason, then yeah, IMO, its dead.  But....if someone is making it alive and practical, then yeah, I can see use to it.  FWIW, I do and teach kata.  I am not as die hard as some.  

So, how does this go with IP techs?  If all you're doing with the techs is just going thru them, relaxed, then yeah, its no different than doing kata with no purpose behind it.


----------



## MJS

Regarding the motion Kenpo comments.  I stole this from the KN.  Had to paste the whole thing, as it seems you can link to a specific thing on the forum.  Oh well...anyways....




> A Sub-Level Four Self-Defense technique is uniquely different from Motion-Kenpo. A technique in Motion-Kenpo is, among other things, primarily a study of the effective use of motion in a combat scenario. Every hypothesis or technique theme is based and predicated on motion. Additionally, It does not explore hands on application of holds, hugs, locks, and seizures.
> A Sub-level Four technique is a case study of many different complex sciences presented in a practical application default technique modality, that reaches well beyond its obvious immediate effectiveness. This process subsequently addresses long term goals and applications.
> To this end through the entire first level of study, techniques are presented as hard curriculum with absolutely no exploration or adjustment of themes without instructor approval. This is not uncommon outside the bounds of loose structured Motion-Kenpo. In general, minor tailoring is only allowed to compensate for height or girth deficiencies. The proverbial Kenpo hypothesis what if is not allowed or entertained, and there are no Motion-Kenpo defined re-arrangement concepts.
> The base or default technique execution is conceptually inclusive of minor variables without significant adjustment. Major variables are assigned different Default Techniques. These are things that cannot be seen by the uneducated eye. When executed properly, major benefit is attained because each individual technique functions on multiple levels, and lays the base foundation for even more advanced application of a theme allowing sophisticated Destructive Modulation at upper levels.
> A technique teaches all the things listed below and additionally functions as a mini Taiji Chi-Gung form that may be practiced singularly without a partner to the same end without physical contact, when a partner is not available. A student is encouraged to study and explore body mechanic enhancing chi, and chi enhancing body movements, with as well as without a training partner.
> Proper anatomical movement and internal energy co-exist hand in hand and one cannot be attained without the presence of the other. Done properly, they spiral upward together as long as you continue to practice, without age barriers. SL-4 teaches immediate application of what the Chinese have traditionally waited years to explain to a very few.
> It cannot be over emphasized, these are things that are not visible to the uneducated eye, and cannot be understood anymore than you would movements of any discipline not explained to you. Sub-Level Four techniques are absolutely workable and effective and there are no throw away techniques.
> What is immediately discernable is when, at higher levels, a Control manipulation alternative might be to modulate destruction. This is what has prompted some to suggest, Its just contact manipulation, or They are just adding a manipulation to the technique. Nothing could be further from the truth.
> In fact a student is taught to execute the more destructive Destructive Sequencing first along with minor manipulations because full Control Manipulations require a much greater degree of skill and a higher physical commitment in training as well as practice. It is where the Ed Parker phrase to feel is to believe manifests itself.
> *The top 25 things in SL-4 Kenpo techniques NOT in Motion-Kenpo*
> 1.  The science of proper breathing through a Breathing Signature to enhance short-term explosive power, and enhance the training of long-term internal energy.
> 2.  Exploring the control and momentary movement, shifting and adjusting of your internal energy as well as your opponents for the purposes of enhancing your own strength while draining your opponents.
> 3.  The application of internal energy for immediate effectiveness in short term scenarios, with the long-term goal of increased permanent and growing enhancement.
> 4.  How the method and manner of execution enhances or detracts from the positive execution of all anatomical movement.
> 5.  The limitations of anatomical structure, which is greater than its effective applications, therefore motion may be infinite, but its practical effective use is not.
> 6.  How the proper placement and execution of basics can create a natural barrier and negate street grappling assaults within the framework of self-defense techniques, and counter the constant forward pressure of those attempting to seize or surround your torso.
> 7.  How the proper execution and placement of the armatures away from the body may be executed in a manner that allows them to not be corruptible or manipulated.
> 8. How a simple adjustment in height can counter a street grapplers change in height should he drop to attack your lower height zones.
> 9. How certain movements have an effect utilized in Psychology of Confrontation Concepts to enhance ones Mechanical Speed by elongating the Perceptual and Mental Speed of your opponent.
> 10. How certain Negative Physical Contact enhances your own structural integrity and therefore can have a positive effect.
> 11. How to move energy from one side of your body to another location through the manipulation of armatures.
> 12. How to create a burst of energy to enhance your movements.
> 
> 13. How to momentarily short circuit a persons nervous system in conjunction with an energy drain to enhance our own action by Completing the Circuit.
> 14. How to manipulate human anatomy through, touching, pulling, pushing, striking, twisting, torquing, hugging, and locking.
> 15. Each technique emphasizes the shifting and transfer of body weight in conjunction with applications for maximum effectiveness with other components.
> 16. Explores and teaches Negative and Positive Body posture from multiple perspectives including but not limited to;
> 17.  What postures opens specific cavities for effective destructive access.
> 18.  What natural weapons and their method of execution will give you access and activation.
> 20. How the proper angles and associated anatomical posture function as a unit to virtually guarantee effectiveness.
> 22.  What postures create a structural weakness in your opponent thereby virtually immobilizing him in many situations.
> 23. The location of nerve cavities and the order, posture and effects of sequential striking and what posture stifles or blocks his energy thereby weakening him and causing Physical/Mental Disassociation, (PMD). Sometimes called a Technical Knockout in sporting contests.
> 24.  How the Timing Signature teaches the correct rhythm to surge energy and negate opponent body mechanics. 25.  How the Grappling Signature sets your body mechanics during a technique to counter street grapplers.


 
So, as I said in my last post....if the MK guy is making things functional, fine.  If not, well....


----------



## Twin Fist

MJS said:


> TF made, IMO, an interesting point when he mentioned kata and IP techs.  Now, on the surface, if you look at kata, you'll see what Matt Thorton has said...a dead pattern, and yes, if all someone does, is just run thru the kata, with no purpose or reason, then yeah, IMO, its dead.  But....if someone is making it alive and practical, then yeah, I can see use to it.  FWIW, I do and teach kata.  I am not as die hard as some.
> 
> So, how does this go with IP techs?  If all you're doing with the techs is just going thru them, relaxed, then yeah, its no different than doing kata with no purpose behind it.




glad you picked up on what i was getting at.

kata can be a dead exercise, where you just learn a series of moves, like the IP training

or

it can be alive and vibrant and reactive to the realities of the self defense environment.

BUT

you need the Ideal phase to learn the technique BEFORE You try to adapt it to what if's 

and

you need to learn the moves in a kata BEFORE you can make it a living exercise.

for a good exampleof this, look at Ralph Castro's Shaolin Kenpo katas

they are designed to be a kata, AND a two person drill for defending and counter attacks


----------



## MJS

Twin Fist said:


> glad you picked up on what i was getting at.
> 
> kata can be a dead exercise, where you just learn a series of moves, like the IP training
> 
> or
> 
> it can be alive and vibrant and reactive to the realities of the self defense environment.
> 
> BUT
> 
> you need the Ideal phase to learn the technique BEFORE You try to adapt it to what if's
> 
> and
> 
> you need to learn the moves in a kata BEFORE you can make it a living exercise.
> 
> for a good exampleof this, look at Ralph Castro's Shaolin Kenpo katas
> 
> they are designed to be a kata, AND a two person drill for defending and counter attacks


 
Thanks.   I said this in other threads, but its worth saying again.  I teach the IP techs.  I do so because I have to.  I dont own my own school, so I have to do what everyone else does.  Even if I did own my own place, I'd still teach them.  Why?  Because I like to use them as a foundation, some sort of building block.  But, I stress to my students that they shouldnt be bound by them.  People talk about grafting from on IP to the next, to the next and so on and so on.  This is fine and dandy, but its not what I'm trying to stress.  I'm teaching them (the IPs) and then I toss in some other situations, in hopes that the students will start thinking outside of the box.  

Ras is going right to a FM model to get from A to F.  I'm teaching the IP, not harping on it for an eternity and then trying to move to a more functional, more spontaneous training environment.  I'm going from A to F too, just taking a different route.  

The same with kata.  I spent an entire class, having them go over 1 kata.  I used Short 2 as my model, and I gave them a bunch of examples, off of the first move alone.  I then had them work in groups, trying to figure out and come up with varous responses to the other moves.  Afterwards, I had everyone show off what they found.  I got alot of positive feedback, and most importantly, I made them think!  Sure, we could have them just run thru tech after tech, kata after kata, doing whats needed for their next belt, but whats that teaching them?  IMO, not a hell of alot. LOL.  Its one thing to go thru the moves, its another to really know what they're doing.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Thesemindz said:


> That's the problem bro. You're making too general an accusation here. Certainly _some_ people fall squarely and exactly into this category. Martialtalk has a policy against fraud busting, but it's not hard to find kenpo videos on the YouTube where guys have clearly never practiced their techniques on the body under dynamic conditions, with intensity, against resistance, and combinations, and in motion, etc. etc. etc.
> 
> But you lump *ALL *motion kenpo under this category. Now, that means either you think that everyone who learned the EPAK system, or some reasonably similar variant, is a moron who never bothered to practice beyond the written material in an ideal scenario in the air; *OR* you lump all people who do bad kenpo together under the heading "Motion Kenpo."
> 
> The reality is far more nuanced than that my friend. There are bad schools, and bad students. There are bad methods, and bad drills. There are bad kenpo practitioners. But there are also good Kenpo practitioners. There are many Kenpo stylists *like you* who see the IP material for what it is and evolve beyond it. And that process can take a lot of different paths.
> 
> I learned a style of kenpo taught by a guy who trained with Parker and the Tracy's. The techniques are largely EPAK techniques, although not usually the most recent and updated version. There are _some_ of the hard principles taught by Doc, although not as many, and there are _some _of the conceptual principles taught in EPAK, although not as many. That guy put his own spin on it, then taught it to my instructor who put his own spin on it, then taught it to me, and I put my own spin on it. I teach what I believe works, based on my experience. And my students spar with kenpo techniques, and karate style sparring, and ground fighting, and weapons and do a *ton* of dynamic drills. My karate works, which I've told Doc before. And my method works. But I also consider it a style of Motion Kenpo.
> 
> It's based on the EPAK system. It's based on combat applicable _motion_. It's based on motion concepts, like relationships of circles and angular footwork and complex paths of motion. I understand that there are other methods. Doc's method is based on specific bio-physical actions and structures. We address anatomy, but not nearly to the same degree he does even in his most basic classes. We focus on other things. But the method works. I've used it. Others have used it. I've trained with artists from many other styles, and my method does just fine. But I still consider it a Motion based method.
> 
> That's where you're going to lose people Ras. It's ok to be proud of what you do. It's ok to want others to do better. But when you tell them that their method is ****, they probably won't hear the rest of what you say. And while many of them _do _practice ****, not all of us do. There are many ways to skin cats. There is only one art of the sword.
> 
> You're arguments aren't wrong, but you are generalizing them to *ALL* motion kenpo. Ask Doc if he knows anyone who practices a style of Motion Based kenpo that works. I think you may be painting with too broad a brush here. You mention boxing coaches. For many of us, the Ideal Phase technique is like the Ideal Phase Jab/Cross combination. It exists as an abstract concept, and boxing coaches need to know that concept so that they can teach future boxers, but in combat the only Ideal Jab/Cross is the one that lands.
> 
> 
> -Rob


 

This is a TERRIFIC response,Rob...and I agree with practically everything you mention here. Except allow me to reiterate the very same thing that I've stated for many posts now:

If you stuff works? It's functional.Therefore I have zero practical self-defense differences with you.To me? The nuances are in the area of functionality.How dramatically a tech FAILED is NOT as important as knowing that it FAILED WHEN IT SHOULDN'T'VE HAVE.We know that the cure is FUNCITONAL TRAINING,so whatever happened to cause a tech to fail? It was directly due to a lack of functionality.So.Focus on how to make stuff WORK.So the nuances would be in that area.How WELL does it work? It WORKS,but can it WORK BETTER? The model T works.The Lexus works better. If it WORKS than we're cool. Remember,I speedily acknowledged that I was raised in the Motion Kenpo era too,but clearly my approach is the exact opposite of those who are dysfunctional. If you're functional,you're not following the training methods of Motion Kenpo that leads directly to dysfunction. You took the techs--which always worked--and devised a FUNCTIONAL TRAINING METHOD with them. I have ZERO COMPLAINT about that. Have at it and have fun and if we're in the same part of the country? Maybe we can workout together.

My focus centers specifically on functionality.Doc said that BIG RED was a business tool,a model,a "start up kit" for INSTRUCTORS to fashion functional ideal self-defense scenarios which combined the martial knowledge of these Motion Kenpo guys--who frequently came from other disciplines--with the techs and concepts of Mr.Parker.What wound up happening is that the Motion Kenpo instructors of that era eventually let BIG RED get sold to the students,and the students "just did what the book said to do,even if it did not work" [paraphrashing Doc].This right here is the demarcation line.If you took Mr.Parker's ideas,combined them with your own,AND THEY WORKED IN SELF-DEFENSE AND SPARRING? You did it right.You're FUNCTIONAL Motion Kenpo,which is what Mr.Parker wanted. If your IP techs don't do what they're advertised to do...that is DEFEND MYSELF AS THEY'RE TAUGHT...then there's a disconnect that's borne of either ignorance (you didn't know any better) or duplicity (you knew the stuff doesn't work but presented it as if it did). Both are rectified by Functional Training...which also connects you with the essential base of the intellectually rigorous concepts that spawned the IP in the first place.When you see Deflecting Hammer,you said that you spend very little time on the (dysfunctional) "traditional IP method" and instead move on to all those workable goodies that ARE FUNCTIONAL which you already mentioned.Yaaayyy you.You get it.

You did NOT make the rampant mistake that the DYSFUNCTIONAL Motion Kenpo guys did and still do, which was spawned by generations of Motion Kenpo instructors and misconstrued by both them and their students as a specific sequence of physically expressed techs vs a specific attack instead of a spring board to THINK ON YOUR OWN while using Mr.Parker's techs and concepts. Doc said Mr.Parker would ask:"How would YOU do it?" You had to show something that YOU did.AND IT HAD TO WORK.You showed and proved that your Motion Kenpo works.So does mine.Go team.

I clearly am not denigrating all of the Motion Kenpo crowd as a whole.I'm not telling other people that their style is ****. I'm specifically referring to the dysfunction that lead not only to the comprehensive misunderstanding that spawned the OP that subsequently spawned this multipage thread,but also the training methods which have plummeted Kenpo to near the basement of the martial arts world visavis effectiveness,when American Kenpo should CLEARLY be amongst the top tier martial science+arts on the planet. In my not so objective opinion,at any rate.Lol. Remember...if you took Mr.Parker's techs and concepts,added your own juice to it,AND IT WORKS AS INTENDED...THEN YOU ARE THE FUNCTIONAL "MOTION KENPO" THAT MISTER PARKER WANTED. Sijo Muhammad,my uncle who is my personal Grandmaster,and many other absolutely outstanding martial artists will rip your head off...and they're Motion Kenpo.FUNCTIONAL Motion Kenpo. Remember Doc said that Mister Parker would specifically blame THE TEACHERS if the students were dysfunctional.You get it.I get it.Lotsa people reading this thread get it.

But clearly most Kenpoists DON'T get it.Let's be real about that.They DON'T get it...for a variety of reasons.And unless those reasons change? They'll NEVER get it.And that's our fault,to an extent.We know that our stuff works as is and what we see from too many others doesn't. We don't have to BAD MOUTH people to make our point,all we have to do is keep on keepin on and make our presence heard seen and felt more widely...even if that means that we have to go to a tourney and wreck shop with FUNCTIONAL IKC techs.My crew might enter the IKC and do exactly that.But folks let's be honest adults and call a spade a spade.And don't back off of it.Cuz it IS a spade. People who think that I'm on some "look at how awesome" or "badass" I am trip? They don't get it...and never will until they open up their minds. My questions have been answered by almost an entirely organic development of my own on my martial path,andwithin this very thread by Doc,who is--to my knowledge--the ONLY guy on this board who still trains today and who trained DIRECTLY WITH Mister Parker during Kenpo's formative and developmental first 30-40 years or so. My position and his are roughly equivalent...I'm just newer to the boards and more blunt with my speech and have zero of the seniority and sway that Doc has.Lol.


----------



## ATACX GYM

MJS said:


> Thanks.  I said this in other threads, but its worth saying again. I teach the IP techs. I do so because I have to. I dont own my own school, so I have to do what everyone else does. Even if I did own my own place, I'd still teach them. Why? Because I like to use them as a foundation, some sort of building block. But, I stress to my students that they shouldnt be bound by them. People talk about grafting from on IP to the next, to the next and so on and so on. This is fine and dandy, but its not what I'm trying to stress. I'm teaching them (the IPs) and then I toss in some other situations, in hopes that the students will start thinking outside of the box.
> 
> Ras is going right to a FM model to get from A to F. I'm teaching the IP, not harping on it for an eternity and then trying to move to a more functional, more spontaneous training environment. I'm going from A to F too, just taking a different route.
> 
> The same with kata. I spent an entire class, having them go over 1 kata. I used Short 2 as my model, and I gave them a bunch of examples, off of the first move alone. I then had them work in groups, trying to figure out and come up with varous responses to the other moves. Afterwards, I had everyone show off what they found. I got alot of positive feedback, and most importantly, I made them think! Sure, we could have them just run thru tech after tech, kata after kata, doing whats needed for their next belt, but whats that teaching them? IMO, not a hell of alot. LOL. Its one thing to go thru the moves, its another to really know what they're doing.


 
What tends to shock people is that I'm an absolute stickler for forms. I show what the kata is intended to do...the theme behind each kata...and show how the physical techs reflect that theme.Then we set about working with them,just as you have,MJS. I already stated that you get a whole new appreciation for say Short 1 or 2 when you have knives,sticks,or a gun in your hand.Try that with someone else as a partner who's working with you in a reactive 2 man drill,but you and your partner are limited ONLY to he techs in Short 2.You'll be AMAZED at what's in there,if you haven't tried it.You'll have to guide your students a bit,and prompt them,and even step in and do a move or two FOR them to show them what they CAN do when they KNOW AND UNDERSTAND the Form,as opposed to regurgitate it as rote physical movements.I'm doing this again in my private class on Sunday.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Twin Fist said:


> well said Rob, but some people are too busy trying to make sure everyone knows how awesome they are to actually LEARN anything


 

And how would you know this about some people?


----------



## Thesemindz

I think we're basically in agreement Ras. I guess what I'm trying to convey is that I don't believe that Motion Kenpo as a method is inherently flawed. I think there are a lot of bad instructors. And that's sad. But there are a lot of bad instructors in every art. I just try to be a good one. And hope that along the way I can help others get better, and learn from those who have something to share.

I think there's a lot of amazing stuff in Motion Kenpo. But I've known instructors who never let their students practice _any_ kind of dynamic or competitive "sparring" style drills because they said that those kinds of activities built bad habits. They advocated pure basic practice and technique repetition and grafting drills, with the ultimate goal being perfect technique execution and position control in every violent encounter. I have heard advanced ranks in these kinds of methods claim that they can respond to any attack with a kenpo technique, and graft perfectly to another kenpo technique in any possible what if scenario. I've known several advanced rank instructors who've held some version of this position.

Personally, I can't see it. Maybe it's just because I'm not good enough at karate. But I've always felt that if I had that degree of control over a violent situation than _I wouldn't be in a fight in the first place._ I can't see a situation wherein I don't need to react dynamically, move and cover and evade and counter. So I see the Motion curriculum as a way of organizing every possible lesson for every possible violent confrontation, with the ultimate goal of transcending techniques and spontaneously expressing your combined knoweldge and skill across all disciplines to respond appropriately to a dynamic situation.

I can't really say the first way doesn't work, only that I've never been good enough at karate to make it work. I can say the second way works. Just tonight I taught a color belt class where I had men and women circling and punching and kicking and grappling and evading and defending and countering. At speed, with contact. And they are able to dynamically apply the guard sweeps, striking combinations, and fighting concepts I've been teaching them. So I've taken civilians off the street and taught them how to fight and low and behold, we just spent an hour and a half fighting. And I'm constantly demonstrating to them how this technique is Alternating Maces, and that technique is Parting Wings and how you can counter an open side jab with a parry to Mace of Aggression.

Because for me, the ultimate goal has always been actual combat performance. We aren't memorizing patterns, we're learning how to *fight*. At least, my students are.

You know, I had a very similar conversation several years ago with James Hawkins over on KenpoTalk, only I was the one holding the position that the techniques were non-functional and he had the position that they were. I actually have a lot of respect for that guy, he knows what he's talking about. I think we could probably have this argument all day. In the end, what makes it functional, or not, is whether or not you are actually using it.

Those instructors I know who didn't let their students spar? One reason, it teaches them to turn their backs to their opponents. *I call that bad instruction.* Sparring doesn't teach that. If anything, it teaches you _not_ to turn your back on your opponent. *Because he will hit you there.* But only if you actually practice where students can hit each other in the back. If you aren't, you aren't practicing a real fighting art. You are practicing a sport, or a tradition, or a dance. But if you can't stomp on someone's face, it isn't real combat.

That doesn't mean every drill is full street. Sometimes we're just hitting the pads, or practicing chi sao. But our students are taught real fighting. So they learn not to turn their back. Sure, new students turtle up and turn away, but they learn how to fight through that. _By fighting through it._ 

I've taught a fully functional system. I had a bunch of students with different fighting backgrounds who weren't interested in learning "kenpo" so much as learning "fighting." So I built my classes around the lessons in the Motion system, but left the actual curriculum out. Just basics practice, fighting techniques, and dynamic drills. Now I teach in another guy's American Kenpo school, so I teach all that stuff _with_ the Motion curriculum. Because these students are there to learn American Kenpo, and get belt ranks, and maybe be instructors themselves someday. It's a different environment, so I teach a different method.

I wonder just how pervasive the problem of bad kenpo is. I mean, obviously there is a lot of bad kenpo. Technique demonstrations, which are presumably people at least trying to do their best, where students are bouncing off their opponents with sloppy stances and weak basics. Sparring footage where the students just move straight in and straight out and trade ineffective strikes while being constantly battered by their opponent's equally ineffective strikes. Schools where the students *never* practice their techniques on the body or spar.

I honestly don't know how you could teach karate without _any_ physical contact. Too much is only really learned through physical interaction with a resisting opponents. But I've known of schools, kenpo schools, where this was the practice.

But how many of those can there really be? I mean, how many kenpo schools _don't_ teach basic boxing, or practice bag work, or drill their basics, or spar? I know there used to be a lot where there was no practice of groundfighting, but that's changing. How many no contact kenpo schools can there really be? I have to think that even most of the kenpo guys who's videos are just them practicing completely static Ideal Phase techniques spend a significant portion of their mat time on dynamic application. Don't they? Isn't it normal to discuss angles, and anatomy, and bio-physical response?

That's how I learned kenpo. Maybe I was just lucky. But I have to think that I'm not the exception. I went to Speakman's kenpo camp a million years ago and the kenpo students there seemed to know what they were doing. Although admittedly most of the seminars were devoted to technique practice on the body, which was mostly just standing still while somebody pounded you with a kenpo striking combination. Now that I think of it, we didn't do much spontaneous stuff in the kenpo seminars, mostly just pattern work, although we did do more dynamic stuff in the Benny Urquidez and Gokor Chivichian seminars.

Now you've got me wondering. Is kenpo really that bad off? Or does it just seem that way because of our limited perspective? All the local kenpo schools I know are great, but they also come from the same root, so maybe that doesn't mean anything.

I know the Kaju guys are starting to struggle with this in their community. I guess some of the old school think the practice has become increasingly more commercialized and less rigorous. So now they're having a bit of an identity crisis. Kajukenbo has always been kenpo's older, meaner brother. And now some feel it's straying from its own "funtional" roots.

Is it really that endemic? Is there a real risk that some kenpo schools will follow the new wave TKD model of martial arts themed "community centers" where adults and children can play karate side by side in pretty new outfits with flashy patches and shiny weapons and hefty monthly membership fees? I've always thought of kenpo as a true war art. Hitting people in the back and then kicking them when they're down. Punching someone in the groin and then ripping through their face with your open claw. That's the art I teach.

Is kenpo really so lost? Or is it just that the really hard workers don't spend time defending their method on the internet? It always comes back to the instructors. If the art is a failure, it is only and always the fault of bad instruction.

In the end, the only answer I see is to go back to class. Train more. Train harder. I teach my students that there are no shortcuts, that repetition is the mother of all skill. So when I doubt my method, I get on the floor and practice it. Then I learn where I am right, and where I am wrong.



> _&#8220;While the schools remain apart in thought and styles, they are bound together by the practice of sparring, which is the only standard value in the sport recognized by all who are responsible for advancing the true art of karate.&#8221;_
> 
> _Sihak Henry Cho_
> _Korean Karate, Free Fighting Techniques_​


 
-Rob


----------



## Thesemindz

Twin Fist said:


> So, to continue the topic.
> 
> one could liken the Ideal phase to kata training.
> 
> not directly combat training, but still an important and VITAL part of the process.
> 
> no martial art, and certainly not one as complex and multi layered as Kenpo is, and EPAK in particular, can be really learned without a multi stage approach to learning.


 
For a while I wanted to quit calling them Self Defense Techniques and rename them something else like Coordination Exercises. I don't really see them or practice them as actual fighting techniques in whole, although they all _contain_ actual fighting techniques. In the end, I just use the nomenclature everyone else is generally familiar with, even though I only find the term marginally accurate.

Sure, you can really defend yourself with some of the techniques, almost as they exist in the Ideal Phase. Delayed Sword. Lone Kimono. But come on, Circling Windmills? As a "self defense technique" that's a joke. As a mini-set, or a targeting drill, or a pattern exercise, or a movement activity, or pivoting practice sure. But as a "self defense technique?" I don't care how good you are. You can't do that technique in full as written. But that doesn't make it useless. Or even, to my mind, non-functional. I just assign it a different function.

I do think of the techniques as similar to kata, in the sense that they are patterns to practice with lessons to teach. Just really short, two person, interactive kata. Or drills. Or exercises. Or whatever else you want to call them.


-Rob


----------



## Twin Fist

exactly Rob

there are a bunch of epak techniques that i dont think i would ever use. or COULD ever use at my limited level of ability.

but that just means i need to practice more i guess. Cuz i know there is some goodness in there somewhere...lol


----------



## ATACX GYM

Circling Windmills,Broken Rod,Ram and the Bear,these techs...are absolutely horrible in their old skool articulation and are part of the more than 75% of the current and old skool Motion Kenpo IP which are utterly anus.However,taking those techs and making them functional IS OUR JOB.Mr.Parker tasked us with this very specific objective when BIG RED was designed to allow us subsequent Motion Kenpo guys to combine what we know with what Mr.Parker showed to reach our own FUNCTIONAL conclusion.

My Circling Windmills deals with multiple strikes,grabs,clinches,weapons,etc. like all my techs do.I can outright fight with my version of Circling Windmills. And btw about 30 years ago I came to the working hypothesis that many of the EPAK techs I learned were designed at once for single fights AND multifights...for persons of various size,strength,etc. So a small woman who's fit but weighs say a buck 10 facing off a 6'3" man twice her size may need the entire arsenal of a single EPAK tech to put him away and/or escape...especially if the assailant is armed and launched a surprise attack first.

In 2006 an ex-student of mine...a former member of The 5 footers...repulsed a would-be rapist who towered over her at 6'3" and about 240. He had the advantage of a surprise attack AND he had a knife.Since the attack happened in the early morning hours in a parking structure as she was going to her car,she had no help whatsoever to rely on.As he was trying to lift her skirt and pull her panties down,she used a knife disarm of ours which blends a outside block,a Kino Mutai bite,a Claw,and a finger and wristlock which shocked him into releasing the knife.The disarm also leaves you in possession of the knife so she smoothly used it to counterstrike with.She cut him twice but he managed to batter the knife away from her and knock her down again.He tried to kick her while she was down there but our CAPOEIRA training allowed her the massive movement arsenal to elude most of his attacks and denude them of power.He grabbed her and dragged her screaming squirming and striking back by the 3rd floor elevator which is a secluded and dark area at that time of night. She raked his face and he pinned her arms.They were against the wall now.She told me that what saved her here was again capoeira's vocabulary of movement combined with her incessant offense and basically her total resistance and will to survive.She kept moving and he dragged her to the ground where she transitioned from esquivas to negativas to vingativas to wrestling scrambles and even a partial Granby Roll which is also in capoeira.She didn't escape but it kept forcing him to move to stop her.She bit his face (I think she said it was his cheek,IDR right now gotta go back to my notes) while simultaneously executing Breaking the Fetters from off of her back and a basic butterfly sweep and scramble.During the scramble he grabbed her as she sought to flee and from this point forward something happened that I have never in life heard of before or since.

She told me she reverted into "savage animal survival" mode and executed THE ENTIRETY of our version of Repeated Devastation.He STILL didn't release her.She executed THE ENTIRETY of our variant of Begging Hands.STILL didn't escape.He flailed at her hit her almost knocked her down again and hurt her shoulder.Seized the front of her shirt.She executed THE ENTIRETY of our variant of SNAKING TALONS (SNAKE AND TIGER TALON) and STILL didn't escape him.He was scraped up and could barely see out of one eye now because she poked the other with a snake strike,he was breathing hard and stung,but he still kept coming.He tried to tackle her,knocked her down,she swept him AGAIN,he reversed her,she scrambled to escape,he grabbed her leg,she stomped his grabbing hand and clipped his face with a almost fully executed ATACX GYM capoeira luta variant of S-Dobrado which looks sorta like this:

http://youtu.be/vjg0mnVh4zI

but way more combative (you'll see it once my lazy younger brother puts the video footage up),and he weakened even more.But not enough.Then he tried to tackle her again,she sprawled on him to almost NO avail (he was too big and strong),executed THE ENTIRETY of our version of BROKEN RAM,THE ENTIRETY of LOCKED WING...here he weakened again...cracked him with a uppercut,the ENTIRETY of 5 SWORDS,punted his nuts,then she [her words] :"double palm heeled his chin,I did the spin [she meant irimi] you showed us last month while grabbing the back of his hoodie and slammed his ****in face as hard as I ****in could into the wall,kneed him in the back of the head and slammed his face into the wall again until I felt him go kinda limp.Then I stepped back and kicked him in the back of the head and ****in stomped on that ****er's head until my leg burned and then I ran downstairs and called the police."

To get an idea of how much damage she did? Remember that all my techs include the R.D.L. concept of my Gym (Rock,Drop and Lock) and you're required to do every technique on both sides.Our 5 Swords is in reality 10 Swords with joint locks sweeps displacements pushoffs unbalancing takedowns throws and kicks thrown in.The police had to take this guy to the hospital for fractures...despite the fact thst he was on some kinda mind altering drug.That explains why he was able to keep coming despite the onslaught she unleashed on him.She moved away to Corona right afterwards,but before she did? I gave her her brown belt.To this day she's the highest ranking female student I ever had.


----------



## Inkspill

that must have been hell. I'm happy to hear she made it through. there could be other reasons as to why he kept going, but even a doped up psycho can be blinded, he might not feel it, but if he can't see he can't fight. (can't stand, can't breathe, can't see, can't fight.. quicksilver method for you karate kid 3 fans) I hope he went to prison and somebody took him out.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Inkspill said:


> that must have been hell. I'm happy to hear she made it through. there could be other reasons as to why he kept going, but even a doped up psycho can be blinded, he might not feel it, but if he can't see he can't fight. (can't stand, can't breathe, can't see, can't fight.. quicksilver method for you karate kid 3 fans) I hope he went to prison and somebody took him out.


 

It was pretty rough for her...she moved to Corona.But she thrashed ole dude,Inkspill. Damaged his eye,multiple hairline fractures,and a few cracked teeth. And she's not afraid in Corona.She moved NOT because this experience was too much for her,but because she got a better job offer.Lol. Her assailant got a cold stretch in the pen because this wasn't his first assault.Think he has 10 more years before he's eleigible for parole.

Lolol my manz Inskpill quoted THE QUICKSILVER METHOD.That was sooo funny!


----------



## Thesemindz

As a brief aside, I'm a big believer in the quicksilver method. I teach it to my students. If he can't stand, or can't breathe, or can't see, he really CAN'T fight. I think that's a great approach.


-Rob


----------



## Thesemindz

Of course, we also train to be able to fight when WE can't stand or breathe or see.


-Rob


----------



## Doc

Whew! It's interesting because I had lunch with Lee Wedlake the other day, and we talked about this as well. There is nothing wrong with the idea of Kenpo based on "motion." Motion-Kenpo is fine. However, the "Ideal Technique" does not exist until it is created by the functional head of your group, or if you train alone, by you. Where Motion-Kenpo fails is when its practitioners read the manual and accept that written idea as the Ideal. It is not, and never has been. Motion-Kenpo is fine, unfortunately a great many of its teachers, and subsequently its students, suck big time. Lee Wedlake does Kenpo based on Motion, and he doesn't see that as a negative, but that's because he creates his own "ideals" and they work. Simple! You get out of Motion-Kenpo what your instructor puts in. If it isn't working, don't blame the Kenpo or Mr. Parker. Blame that guy you giving the money to for them worthless belts.


----------



## jfarnsworth

Doc said:


> ... You get out of Motion-Kenpo what your instructor puts in. If it isn't working, don't blame the Kenpo or Mr. Parker. Blame that guy you giving the money to for them worthless belts.


 No truer words have been spoken! Well said, sir!


----------



## Thesemindz

Doc said:


> *You get out of Motion-Kenpo what your instructor puts in. If it isn't working, don't blame the Kenpo or Mr. Parker. Blame that guy you giving the money to for them worthless belts.*


 
This.

It's funny. The TKD guys have two threads going right now where some of the old school are arguing for a functional TKD method that is actually tested in combat and effective in self defense, and some practitioners are arguing for non contact sparring activities to replace all combat drills because you can sell it easier. The big split there seems to be between TKD _that actually works in a fight_ and TKD that is practiced as a kind of martial arts style physical activity where students learn theory and technique but *never* apply either in combat.

For them, TKD has always been a sport style activity, and the idea of actually fighting is at best uninteresting to them, and sometimes frightening. In the eyes of some, actually fighting with your techniques seems completely unnecessary and ridiculous. I've read this attitude from some karateka too.

For guys like you and me Ras, that seems silly. How can you learn to fight without fighting? It would be like learning how to be a mechanic from a book without ever actually touching a car. You might grasp some of the concepts, but until you have oil all over your hands and parts all over the floor you don't really understand what you're dealing with. Yet for many, that's what martial arts are supposed to be. No body work. No actual fighting. Because they aren't interested, or they just want to get in shape, or the police can do all their fighting for them. So they don't _want_ to develop that side of the art. And some instructors don't want to offer it, because it's harder to sell, and harder to teach, and it opens you up to some serious liability if someone gets hurt. Which eventually they will, because you're practicing _hurting people._

This is becoming a problem everywhere where karate is taught. There will always be a split between those who believe in hard training, and those who believe in air karate. You can't worry about what their doing, any more than they can worry about our methods. They'll have more students, because it _is _easier to sell. But my students can fight. No doubt.

I teach at another guy's school, but there's never been any question about how karate should be taught for us. You practice throws by throwing, falls by falling, grapples by grappling, and fighting by fighting. There's a big difference between a school where the students *never* practice contact drills or spontaneous combat, and one where the students are striking, manhandling, and throwing each other to the ground from their very first class. Those are two completely different products that don't really have anything in common beyond the most superficial aesthetics.

In the end, all you can do is go back to your school and teach great classes. In the long run, the people who really matter will know which schools teach the real and which schools teach martial arts style dance. And your students will go on to teach a method that works, which is all you can really hope for anyway. It's on us, as instructors, to do our best. I consider it a point of personal honor that every single time I step on the training floor I teach the absolute best karate I can. That doesn't mean every class is a perfect 10. But I show up. I put in the effort. I do my best, with planning beforehand, and learning from my mistakes, and trying to find better ways to teach faster.

All lessons I learned from karate.


-Rob


----------



## ATACX GYM

Quote:
A Sub-Level Four Self-Defense technique is uniquely different from Motion-Kenpo. A technique in Motion-Kenpo is, among other things, primarily a study of the effective use of motion in a combat scenario. Every hypothesis or technique theme is based and predicated on motion. Additionally, It does not explore hands on application of holds, hugs, locks, and seizures. 
A Sub-level Four technique is a case study of many different complex sciences presented in a practical application default technique modality, that reaches well beyond its obvious immediate effectiveness. This process subsequently addresses long term goals and applications. 
To this end through the entire first level of study, techniques are presented as hard curriculum with absolutely no exploration or adjustment of themes without instructor approval. This is not uncommon outside the bounds of loose structured Motion-Kenpo. In general, minor tailoring is only allowed to compensate for height or girth deficiencies. The proverbial Kenpo hypothesis what if is not allowed or entertained, and there are no Motion-Kenpo defined re-arrangement concepts. 
The base or default technique execution is conceptually inclusive of minor variables without significant adjustment. Major variables are assigned different Default Techniques. These are things that cannot be seen by the uneducated eye. When executed properly, major benefit is attained because each individual technique functions on multiple levels, and lays the base foundation for even more advanced application of a theme allowing sophisticated Destructive Modulation at upper levels. 
A technique teaches all the things listed below and additionally functions as a mini Taiji Chi-Gung form that may be practiced singularly without a partner to the same end without physical contact, when a partner is not available. A student is encouraged to study and explore body mechanic enhancing chi, and chi enhancing body movements, with as well as without a training partner. 
Proper anatomical movement and internal energy co-exist hand in hand and one cannot be attained without the presence of the other. Done properly, they spiral upward together as long as you continue to practice, without age barriers. SL-4 teaches immediate application of what the Chinese have traditionally waited years to explain to a very few. 
It cannot be over emphasized, these are things that are not visible to the uneducated eye, and cannot be understood anymore than you would movements of any discipline not explained to you. Sub-Level Four techniques are absolutely workable and effective and there are no throw away techniques. 
What is immediately discernable is when, at higher levels, a Control manipulation alternative might be to modulate destruction. This is what has prompted some to suggest, Its just contact manipulation, or They are just adding a manipulation to the technique. Nothing could be further from the truth. 
In fact a student is taught to execute the more destructive Destructive Sequencing first along with minor manipulations because full Control Manipulations require a much greater degree of skill and a higher physical commitment in training as well as practice. It is where the Ed Parker phrase to feel is to believe manifests itself. 
*The top 25 things in SL-4 Kenpo techniques NOT in Motion-Kenpo* 
1. The science of proper breathing through a Breathing Signature to enhance short-term explosive power, and enhance the training of long-term internal energy. 
2. Exploring the control and momentary movement, shifting and adjusting of your internal energy as well as your opponents for the purposes of enhancing your own strength while draining your opponents. 
3. The application of internal energy for immediate effectiveness in short term scenarios, with the long-term goal of increased permanent and growing enhancement. 
4. How the method and manner of execution enhances or detracts from the positive execution of all anatomical movement. 
5. The limitations of anatomical structure, which is greater than its effective applications, therefore motion may be infinite, but its practical effective use is not. 
6. How the proper placement and execution of basics can create a natural barrier and negate street grappling assaults within the framework of self-defense techniques, and counter the constant forward pressure of those attempting to seize or surround your torso. 
7. How the proper execution and placement of the armatures away from the body may be executed in a manner that allows them to not be corruptible or manipulated. 
8. How a simple adjustment in height can counter a street grapplers change in height should he drop to attack your lower height zones. 
9. How certain movements have an effect utilized in Psychology of Confrontation Concepts to enhance ones Mechanical Speed by elongating the Perceptual and Mental Speed of your opponent. 
10. How certain Negative Physical Contact enhances your own structural integrity and therefore can have a positive effect. 
11. How to move energy from one side of your body to another location through the manipulation of armatures. 
12. How to create a burst of energy to enhance your movements. 

13. How to momentarily short circuit a persons nervous system in conjunction with an energy drain to enhance our own action by Completing the Circuit. 
14. How to manipulate human anatomy through, touching, pulling, pushing, striking, twisting, torquing, hugging, and locking. 
15. Each technique emphasizes the shifting and transfer of body weight in conjunction with applications for maximum effectiveness with other components. 
16. Explores and teaches Negative and Positive Body posture from multiple perspectives including but not limited to; 
17. What postures opens specific cavities for effective destructive access. 
18. What natural weapons and their method of execution will give you access and activation. 
20. How the proper angles and associated anatomical posture function as a unit to virtually guarantee effectiveness. 
22. What postures create a structural weakness in your opponent thereby virtually immobilizing him in many situations. 
23. The location of nerve cavities and the order, posture and effects of sequential striking and what posture stifles or blocks his energy thereby weakening him and causing Physical/Mental Disassociation, (PMD). Sometimes called a Technical Knockout in sporting contests. 
24. How the Timing Signature teaches the correct rhythm to surge energy and negate opponent body mechanics. 25. How the Grappling Signature sets your body mechanics during a technique to counter street grapplers. 


Before I get back on the whole Motion Kenpo thing? I read this post when MJS reprinted it...and NOBODY responded to this joint.Not even me. I was simply trying to digest this 25 point list and I still am.This whole approach is so incredible to me as to be almost insane.Can any of US make a list A TENTH as impressive as this list? Idk but my intuition gives me a rather resounding:"Not freakin likely" response.

I have been a staunch skeptic of internal energy charlatans,although I'm an absolute believer that internal energy--bioenegery,bioelectrical signatures--exist. In fact,science has removed the question from a matter of dispute to one of concrete certainty...bio-energy and bioelectric signatures exist.I remember when I first read this in my biology,A&P,and kinesiology classes. Jaw dropped to the floor,and I was exhilirated. I turned right around and started studying my Oriental sciences again and combined them with my Western science data...but I still haven't been able to find methods that trump what I currently know tech-wise regarding the combat applications of bioenergies to combat and life. I learned more details as to HOW these bioenergies work,but not the WHY or ways to DRAMATICALLY improve the applications of the techs I know and have already modified for functionality's sake. I study plyometrics and explosivity in all of its primary athletic components visavis speed-strength,stimuli response,stimuli recognition,and lots of other sciences thoroughly because I have long been interested as a matter of personal,scientific and athletic interest. A matter of maximizing human performance. I've incorporated this information alot with the use of feints,stance changes,motion,choice reaction,yadda yadda...but I don't have a list like Doc's.

My list would be totally different,and Idk if it would even reach 25 points.And Idk how sharply different it would be to "Motion Kenpo" because--if I understand the definition of "Motion Kenpo" aright--I'm doing Motion Kenpo right now.Lol. Doesn't Ed Parker Kenpo Techs and Concepts+Our Own Techs and Concepts=Ideal Techs We Teach=Motion Kenpo? If so...then ATACX GYM=Motion Kenpo.Despite the fact that ATACX GYM covers alot more ground than what is shown in the techs of Ed Parker Kenpo as I'm aware of it.

Back to Motion Kenpo...


...yeah like I said: if it's dysfunctional? It's wakk. The overwhelming majority of Kenpo schools out there sadly lack real scraptasticness and are highly dysfunctional combatively. Even though my Gym is a gym? It's not freakin Balley's.It's not cardio TMA. You'll get in fantastic shape quickly.Guaranteed.But you'll also catch bumps and bruises along the way.Guaranteed. If you don't like it? Lemme quote MARTIN from THE MARTIN LAWRENCE SHOW: 

"GET TUH STEPPIN!" 

Lolol.

With that being said?

Maybe we oughtta find ways to offer more combative fitness classes,because our functional drills for real self-defense are monsters for cardio,flexibility,balance,strength,explosivity,psychosomatic coordination,etc. etc. etc. I'm seriously giving it thought now. You know...kinda like GSP's RUSH FIT: http://youtu.be/wOFSxoKC7t0


----------



## MJS

Twin Fist said:


> exactly Rob
> 
> there are a bunch of epak techniques that i dont think i would ever use. or COULD ever use at my limited level of ability.
> 
> but that just means i need to practice more i guess. Cuz i know there is some goodness in there somewhere...lol


 
And this brings up yet another good point, and perhaps maybe this'd make an interesting topic all to itself, but here goes....

Yes, there're alot of techs that I dislike, mainly because I'm looking at them, thinking, "Umm...yeah, this'll never work!" yet I still teach those techs. to others, even if I hate them, think they suck, etc., because there may be some, who do like them, can make them work, etc.

I've had this discussion with FC......he's said, if *we* as teachers, can't make something work, or dont understand something, how're we supposed to teach it and make others understand it??


----------



## Twin Fist

countless times, i learn more from teaching than i do by doing it myself

teaching the technique to others deepens your own understanding of it.


----------



## Thesemindz

MJS said:


> And this brings up yet another good point, and perhaps maybe this'd make an interesting topic all to itself, but here goes....
> 
> Yes, there're alot of techs that I dislike, mainly because I'm looking at them, thinking, "Umm...yeah, this'll never work!" yet I still teach those techs. to others, even if I hate them, think they suck, etc., because there may be some, who do like them, can make them work, etc.
> 
> I've had this discussion with FC......he's said, if *we* as teachers, can't make something work, or dont understand something, how're we supposed to teach it and make others understand it??


 
There's two different points there.

1. Techniques I wouldn't use that others might.
2. Techniques I don't understand.

I teach plenty of the first kind. Just because I don't use Rear Leg Roundhouse Kicks in my own personal style doesn't mean I don't teach them in my method. I may not throw them often in fights, but I recognize their usefulness and effectiveness and I recognize that for other fighters, the Rear Leg Roundhouse Kick could be a foundational fighting technique. So I teach it, even though I don't use it, because others might and they need to know it.

I don't teach any of the second kind. I don't teach a single technique I don't understand. That doesn't mean every technique works as a fighting technique as written, see above discussion, but whether it's a fighting technique or a teaching technique *I understand it and I understand how to use it and I understand why I teach it and I understand what I want my students to learn from it*.

Does that mean my understanding is complete? Of course not. I am learning and growing all the time. Every time I teach a technique I learn another lesson about it. But I don't teach a single technique I don't understand. No instructor, Master or Head or Assistant should ever teach a technique they don't understand. 

That would be like me teaching you auto repair. I would have no idea what I was even looking at, you would gain nothing of use from the experience, and neither of us would grow from the practice. We would just stand there staring at the stuff under the hood with stupid looks on our faces until we gave up. And if I charged you for that? *Wow*.

Who's teaching techniques they don't understand? I mean really. Who out there is doing that? Is it that common?


-Rob


----------



## Doc

Thesemindz said:


> Who's teaching techniques they don't understand? I mean really. Who out there is doing that? Is it that common?



So common, it is the norm.


----------



## Doc

ATACX GYM said:


> Quote:
> A Sub-Level Four Self-Defense technique is uniquely different from Motion-Kenpo. A technique in Motion-Kenpo is, among other things, primarily a study of the effective use of motion in a combat scenario. Every hypothesis or technique theme is based and predicated on motion. Additionally, It does not explore hands on application of holds, hugs, locks, and seizures.
> A Sub-level Four technique is a case study of many different complex sciences presented in a practical application default technique modality, that reaches well beyond its obvious immediate effectiveness. This process subsequently addresses long term goals and applications.
> To this end through the entire first level of study, techniques are presented as hard curriculum with absolutely no exploration or adjustment of themes without instructor approval. This is not uncommon outside the bounds of loose structured Motion-Kenpo. In general, minor tailoring is only allowed to compensate for height or girth deficiencies. The proverbial Kenpo hypothesis what if is not allowed or entertained, and there are no Motion-Kenpo defined re-arrangement concepts.
> The base or default technique execution is conceptually inclusive of minor variables without significant adjustment. Major variables are assigned different Default Techniques. These are things that cannot be seen by the uneducated eye. When executed properly, major benefit is attained because each individual technique functions on multiple levels, and lays the base foundation for even more advanced application of a theme allowing sophisticated Destructive Modulation at upper levels.
> A technique teaches all the things listed below and additionally functions as a mini Taiji Chi-Gung form that may be practiced singularly without a partner to the same end without physical contact, when a partner is not available. A student is encouraged to study and explore body mechanic enhancing chi, and chi enhancing body movements, with as well as without a training partner.
> Proper anatomical movement and internal energy co-exist hand in hand and one cannot be attained without the presence of the other. Done properly, they spiral upward together as long as you continue to practice, without age barriers. SL-4 teaches immediate application of what the Chinese have traditionally waited years to explain to a very few.
> It cannot be over emphasized, these are things that are not visible to the uneducated eye, and cannot be understood anymore than you would movements of any discipline not explained to you. Sub-Level Four techniques are absolutely workable and effective and there are no throw away techniques.
> What is immediately discernable is when, at higher levels, a Control manipulation alternative might be to modulate destruction. This is what has prompted some to suggest, Its just contact manipulation, or They are just adding a manipulation to the technique. Nothing could be further from the truth.
> In fact a student is taught to execute the more destructive Destructive Sequencing first along with minor manipulations because full Control Manipulations require a much greater degree of skill and a higher physical commitment in training as well as practice. It is where the Ed Parker phrase to feel is to believe manifests itself.
> *The top 25 things in SL-4 Kenpo techniques NOT in Motion-Kenpo*
> 1. The science of proper breathing through a Breathing Signature to enhance short-term explosive power, and enhance the training of long-term internal energy.
> 2. Exploring the control and momentary movement, shifting and adjusting of your internal energy as well as your opponents for the purposes of enhancing your own strength while draining your opponents.
> 3. The application of internal energy for immediate effectiveness in short term scenarios, with the long-term goal of increased permanent and growing enhancement.
> 4. How the method and manner of execution enhances or detracts from the positive execution of all anatomical movement.
> 5. The limitations of anatomical structure, which is greater than its effective applications, therefore motion may be infinite, but its practical effective use is not.
> 6. How the proper placement and execution of basics can create a natural barrier and negate street grappling assaults within the framework of self-defense techniques, and counter the constant forward pressure of those attempting to seize or surround your torso.
> 7. How the proper execution and placement of the armatures away from the body may be executed in a manner that allows them to not be corruptible or manipulated.
> 8. How a simple adjustment in height can counter a street grapplers change in height should he drop to attack your lower height zones.
> 9. How certain movements have an effect utilized in Psychology of Confrontation Concepts to enhance ones Mechanical Speed by elongating the Perceptual and Mental Speed of your opponent.
> 10. How certain Negative Physical Contact enhances your own structural integrity and therefore can have a positive effect.
> 11. How to move energy from one side of your body to another location through the manipulation of armatures.
> 12. How to create a burst of energy to enhance your movements.
> 
> 13. How to momentarily short circuit a persons nervous system in conjunction with an energy drain to enhance our own action by Completing the Circuit.
> 14. How to manipulate human anatomy through, touching, pulling, pushing, striking, twisting, torquing, hugging, and locking.
> 15. Each technique emphasizes the shifting and transfer of body weight in conjunction with applications for maximum effectiveness with other components.
> 16. Explores and teaches Negative and Positive Body posture from multiple perspectives including but not limited to;
> 17. What postures opens specific cavities for effective destructive access.
> 18. What natural weapons and their method of execution will give you access and activation.
> 20. How the proper angles and associated anatomical posture function as a unit to virtually guarantee effectiveness.
> 22. What postures create a structural weakness in your opponent thereby virtually immobilizing him in many situations.
> 23. The location of nerve cavities and the order, posture and effects of sequential striking and what posture stifles or blocks his energy thereby weakening him and causing Physical/Mental Disassociation, (PMD). Sometimes called a Technical Knockout in sporting contests.
> 24. How the Timing Signature teaches the correct rhythm to surge energy and negate opponent body mechanics. 25. How the Grappling Signature sets your body mechanics during a technique to counter street grapplers.
> 
> 
> Before I get back on the whole Motion Kenpo thing? I read this post when MJS reprinted it...and NOBODY responded to this joint.Not even me. I was simply trying to digest this 25 point list and I still am.This whole approach is so incredible to me as to be almost insane.Can any of US make a list A TENTH as impressive as this list? Idk but my intuition gives me a rather resounding:"Not freakin likely" response.
> 
> I have been a staunch skeptic of internal energy charlatans,although I'm an absolute believer that internal energy--bioenegery,bioelectrical signatures--exist. In fact,science has removed the question from a matter of dispute to one of concrete certainty...bio-energy and bioelectric signatures exist.I remember when I first read this in my biology,A&P,and kinesiology classes. Jaw dropped to the floor,and I was exhilirated. I turned right around and started studying my Oriental sciences again and combined them with my Western science data...but I still haven't been able to find methods that trump what I currently know tech-wise regarding the combat applications of bioenergies to combat and life. I learned more details as to HOW these bioenergies work,but not the WHY or ways to DRAMATICALLY improve the applications of the techs I know and have already modified for functionality's sake. I study plyometrics and explosivity in all of its primary athletic components visavis speed-strength,stimuli response,stimuli recognition,and lots of other sciences thoroughly because I have long been interested as a matter of personal,scientific and athletic interest. A matter of maximizing human performance. I've incorporated this information alot with the use of feints,stance changes,motion,choice reaction,yadda yadda...but I don't have a list like Doc's.
> 
> My list would be totally different,and Idk if it would even reach 25 points.And Idk how sharply different it would be to "Motion Kenpo" because--if I understand the definition of "Motion Kenpo" aright--I'm doing Motion Kenpo right now.Lol. Doesn't Ed Parker Kenpo Techs and Concepts+Our Own Techs and Concepts=Ideal Techs We Teach=Motion Kenpo? If so...then ATACX GYM=Motion Kenpo.Despite the fact that ATACX GYM covers alot more ground than what is shown in the techs of Ed Parker Kenpo as I'm aware of it.
> 
> Back to Motion Kenpo...
> 
> 
> ...yeah like I said: if it's dysfunctional? It's wakk. The overwhelming majority of Kenpo schools out there sadly lack real scraptasticness and are highly dysfunctional combatively. Even though my Gym is a gym? It's not freakin Balley's.It's not cardio TMA. You'll get in fantastic shape quickly.Guaranteed.But you'll also catch bumps and bruises along the way.Guaranteed. If you don't like it? Lemme quote MARTIN from THE MARTIN LAWRENCE SHOW:
> 
> "GET TUH STEPPIN!"
> 
> Lolol.
> 
> With that being said?
> 
> Maybe we oughtta find ways to offer more combative fitness classes,because our functional drills for real self-defense are monsters for cardio,flexibility,balance,strength,explosivity,psychosomatic coordination,etc. etc. etc. I'm seriously giving it thought now. You know...kinda like GSP's RUSH FIT: http://youtu.be/wOFSxoKC7t0



"Internal Energy and Chi/Ki" are just another way of defining the culmination of energy and its subsequent results when the mind and bio-mechanical efficiency are brought to a repeatable level of effectiveness on demand, in conjunction with being able to induce the opposite in an attacker. It is so common among my students, my blacks belts take it for granted. "Camp Of The Masters" Brother.


----------



## Thesemindz

Doc said:


> So common, it is the norm.


 
Ok, but do you mean the norm like how I don't understand kenpo to the degree that you understand kenpo, or the norm like most instructors are just repeating the motions in the air without any understanding of what they're doing because that was what their instructors did? 

I mean, I'm willing to accept that sometimes I might answer a question wrong, or miss more sophisticated concepts and applications that I haven't advanced to yet, or simply not have an answer for a student. My knowledge is not limitless, my experience is brief, and I make the same mistakes every other human makes. But when I can't answer a student's question I go look for an answer from someone who understands more than I do.

When you say it's "the norm," do you mean most kenpo instructors and students don't have as much knowledge as you, or do you mean most kenpo instructors and students are stupidly waving their arms in the air and handing belts back and forth?

I'm not being accusatory. It's just hard for me to believe that we're the exception and not the rule. I don't think I'm the best kenpo instructor in the world, but I believe in my method and I make an effort to be a good teacher. Are you really saying that it's the norm for kenpo instructors to not have a clue what they're doing? Don't they fight? Don't they hit each other and kick each other?

I know in the past there's been times that I've described performing a technique a certain way and you've flat out told me that I was doing it in a way that was counter to proper anatomical structure. For instance, when I perform Five Swords I sometimes raise my lead elbow up to a horizontal plane to strike the opponent with a wedge created by my two arms. I've found that creating this kind of wedge with my two blocks at right angles is extremely painful when my opponent rams my lead elbow, and it helps to resist the force of larger incoming opponents. I've used this technique successfully many times. You've told me that this is incorrect and won't work.

I'm ok with that. I understand that you're teaching a different method, and that you have reasons for that position. I'm even willing to accept that your method might be better. But I don't know your method. So I have to teach what I know. And I know this technique works, even if you know that there's a better way to do it. I use these kinds of energized wedge positions in a number of places to create barriers against my opponent's force or to control his position. I may not be teaching the best way, but I'm teaching a way I understand that I know works.

So would that fall under the heading of "the norm" of people teaching techniques they don't really understand? Or would that fall under the heading of a technique I understand that you might understand better and have a better technique for in that context?


-Rob


----------



## MJS

Thesemindz said:


> There's two different points there.
> 
> 1. Techniques I wouldn't use that others might.
> 2. Techniques I don't understand.
> 
> I teach plenty of the first kind. Just because I don't use Rear Leg Roundhouse Kicks in my own personal style doesn't mean I don't teach them in my method. I may not throw them often in fights, but I recognize their usefulness and effectiveness and I recognize that for other fighters, the Rear Leg Roundhouse Kick could be a foundational fighting technique. So I teach it, even though I don't use it, because others might and they need to know it.
> 
> I don't teach any of the second kind. I don't teach a single technique I don't understand. That doesn't mean every technique works as a fighting technique as written, see above discussion, but whether it's a fighting technique or a teaching technique *I understand it and I understand how to use it and I understand why I teach it and I understand what I want my students to learn from it*.
> 
> Does that mean my understanding is complete? Of course not. I am learning and growing all the time. Every time I teach a technique I learn another lesson about it. But I don't teach a single technique I don't understand. No instructor, Master or Head or Assistant should ever teach a technique they don't understand.
> 
> That would be like me teaching you auto repair. I would have no idea what I was even looking at, you would gain nothing of use from the experience, and neither of us would grow from the practice. We would just stand there staring at the stuff under the hood with stupid looks on our faces until we gave up. And if I charged you for that? *Wow*.
> 
> Who's teaching techniques they don't understand? I mean really. Who out there is doing that? Is it that common?
> 
> 
> -Rob


 
Yup, what Doc said.  Rob, you'll have to forgive me, maybe it was 'make work', not understand.  I dont know about you, but I've come across a few techs that're just PITAs.  Interestingly enough, I've questioned techniques in the past, and still do, and you know what people say to me?  "Well, you dont understand the tech. so thats why you can't make it work."  Well, how about, maybe the tech just sucks and is too long and drawn out, thus making it not work and hard to understand. LOL.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Doc said:


> "Internal Energy and Chi/Ki" are just another way of defining the culmination of energy and its subsequent results when the mind and bio-mechanical efficiency are brought to a repeatable level of effectiveness on demand, in conjunction with being able to induce the opposite in an attacker. It is so common among my students, my blacks belts take it for granted. "Camp Of The Masters" Brother.


 
"Camp Of The Masters",huh? Think I might have to go there. How much does it cost? Where is it,Doc? I still want to see this stuff in action.Preferably sparring...not just demos. This sounds amazing,Doc. So amazing that it's...skeptic inducing to me. Not so much that the knowledge of bioelectric fields and whatnot,and even the most basic methods of manipulating bioelectric fields are literally not credible.I mean...if this knowledge is available via various methods of research? We should already have pretty commonly known and pretty commonly displayed methods of effectively using this knowledge in combat. Beyond what we currently know and do,or should I say COMMONLY know and do.

For instance,I already know that blows to specific muscles in specific ways will cause predictable reactions.Like we use Frictional Pulls after strikes during vertical grappling to effect lightning fast,extra vicious standing wristlocks that can easily break an assailant's wrist before he knows what's happened to him.We combine the strike AND the Frictional Pull with what I call the "body whip" motion that we see in many martial arts.Especially karate. I know how the impact on the nerves--say a bicep strike,or a whipping strike atop the forearm or a whipping strike combined with a Frictional Pull (we still oftentimes use the Crane Beak hand position,but any hand position that facilitates the desired result is acceptable)--has a specific response in the brain. 

But that's also the problem. There has to be a specific level of force delivered to the higher percentage targets on the body in order to cause the desired response in the human body.This level of force becomes progressively more difficult to generate during combat because adrenaline and combat focus amplifies one's energy "Fight or Flight" style; and this makes it difficult for people of the same size to pull any amazing nuerological stuff off.It's much harder for a smaller person when striking the general physique of a larger person. Therefore the chances of compelling the desired responses are also reducing.When compared with more standard combat methods? Well,the more standard combat methods--based upon my admitttedly shallow and narrow research in this area when compared to what I've learned and applied to the more common combat methods--seem to come out more consistently better. Maybe what can be done is some form of hybrid wherein the more common combat approach is used to simultaneously overwhelm the adversary/escape the conflict,in conjunction with manipulating the adversary by means of and into position for the more "occult" energy amping/draining methods.

My studies are flowing more and more along these lines. So far,though? It's still primarily about the strikes,weapons,and grappling far more than any chi application in combat. I just..tend to be deeply pessimisstic about such claims.Largely because I've never seen them work,and those who've sworn by them the most (in my experience) tend to be charlatans. Or just ignant. So whatever enlightenment you can provide Doc? Much appreciated,my brutha!


----------



## Thesemindz

MJS said:


> Yup, what Doc said. Rob, you'll have to forgive me, maybe it was 'make work', not understand. I dont know about you, but I've come across a few techs that're just PITAs. Interestingly enough, I've questioned techniques in the past, and still do, and you know what people say to me? "Well, you dont understand the tech. so thats why you can't make it work." Well, how about, maybe the tech just sucks and is too long and drawn out, thus making it not work and hard to understand. LOL.


 
Ok maybe. Sometimes you _do_ get students who just don't want to practice the technique or learn from the technique or _work on _the technique. But generally if an instructor's answer is "you just don't understand," then I think maybe that means that *they* don't understand. My students ask me questions all the time about why we do a certain technique this way or that way or why we don't do this instead or why we don't "just" do something they think is simpler. I can always show them _why_ we choose to do the technique the way we do, because I was taught that there should be at least three reasons for everything we do. If we can't defend it, we shouldn't teach it. At least that's what I was taught.

I think this discussion keeps going back again and again to what we mean by the term "ideal phase" techniques, and even what we mean when we refer to the "self defense techniques" and how we use them and how we teach them and why. For Ras, each technique should be specifically combat applicable. For me the techniques are the repository of the combat knowledge and are more like symbols used to represent martial arts theory. For some the techniques are specific bio-mechanical practices that should be practiced *exactly* the same way every time in order to build strict muscle memory responses. For others the techniques are *the* answer to every combat stimulus and all engagements should be immediately and rigorously defined by the appropriate kenpo self defense technique.

The problem isn't that some of us are right and some of us are wrong. I can imagine schools where every one of those philosophies is practiced successfully; just as I can imagine TKD and Muay Thai and BJJ schools that all manage to use completely different methods to successfully teach fighting. The problem is that as soon as we start to discuss it, we start misunderstanding each other and arguing because when we say the same words they don't mean the same thing. Kenpo doesn't always mean the same thing, and neither does "ideal phase" and neither does "self defense techniques." And so it's hard to have a discussion because we're comparing completely different fruits but calling them all apples.

It all goes back to the instructors, which we've all agreed on again and again. If *YOU *don't understand it's because *YOUR INSTRUCTORS* aren't doing their job. Period. That doesn't mean every technique will work for you, again I don't often use certain kicks and grapples and maneuvers. But not because I don't understand them. Just because I use other techniques that work better for *me*.

Now, there are other sets of techniques here we haven't discussed. There are other techniques I don't teach because I _can't_ perform them. For instance, I can't do a 720 degree tornado kick. So I can't teach a 720 degree tornado kick. There are other techniques I can't personally do but _can_ teach, such as the kipup, because I understand the practice but can't perform the technique because of pre-existing knee injuries which prevent me from executing it safely. Now, I don't actually teach either of these techniques as part of my method, but if a student were to ask me how to do them I could either explain it to them or not, based on my knowledge, and would direct them to where they _could _find more information.

There are also techniques which I don't teach because I don't know them. In fact, I don't know _most _martial arts techniques. I teach the small number of techniques I actually know, but there are many many martial arts styles out there I've never even been introduced to. So there's no way I could teach there techniques because I've never been exposed to them.

I teach what I know and understand. That doesn't mean I do everything I teach, some techniques aren't a good fit for my body size and type and abilities. Different practitioners will have different strengths. But everything I teach _can _be used and I know it works _because I've worked it_.

I don't know, I'm not in everybody else's school. I can only be in my school. It's just hard for me to believe so many instructors are teaching a method that just doesn't work. Is it possible it's just different from the method _you _are studying? I don't know. When I was coming up we were encouraged to question the teaching. And we were either given answers, or our instructors went and found the answers and got back to us.

When I was a kid I took TKD for about a year. I remember doing a kata and asking, "why do we do this and this and this." And my instructor told me that it was "just because it looks good." I've never forgotten that. Even as a beginner that answer didn't make any sense to me. I wasn't taking karate lessons to "look good." I was taking karate lessons to "learn to fight." And my instructor's answer told me, even as a yellow belt, that _he didn't know how the kata helped us learn how to fight. _As an instructor, this memory has helped to shape my approach. 

I never tell a student that they do a move "for looks." I tell them what the physical application is and then we practice it on the body. Even the bow, the presentation/salutation/greeting, and the training stances that bookend our sets and forms have specific physical applications we explore and practice. There are some small changes in the physical movements that allow for individual stylization, but the movements themselves each have specific purposes. It's never "just because it looks good."

I know some practitioners don't understand. I've worked with some very good TKD students, but I've also had TKD training partners who could do a flying side kick but couldn't understand basic principles like strong line/weak line. I've also met kenpo guys who practiced every attack as an "attempted" attack and never actually practiced their techniques with resistance. But I always assumed they were the exception, not the other way around.

Who would want to learn a system of techniques they couldn't use and didn't understand? What would they gain from that?


-Rob


----------



## Carol

Thesemindz said:


> Who would want to learn a system of techniques they couldn't use and didn't understand? What would they gain from that?
> 
> 
> -Rob



There are elements to this in Kenpo are they not?  Broken Gift, Broken Ram, for examples.  The techniques are "broken", yet they are still practiced and memorised and drilled in to muscle memory, just as much as a non-broken techniques.  Does that make sense?  

(Disclaimer, I didn't carry on with my Kenpo training long enough to learn an answer for myself.)


----------



## Thesemindz

Carol said:


> There are elements to this in Kenpo are they not? Broken Gift, Broken Ram, for examples. The techniques are "broken", yet they are still practiced and memorised and drilled in to muscle memory, just as much as a non-broken techniques. Does that make sense?
> 
> (Disclaimer, I didn't carry on with my Kenpo training long enough to learn an answer for myself.)


 
Not in my kenpo. Now, I don't practice either of those techniques exactly as they are practiced in the EPAK system. I was taught small variations on both of those particular techniques, as I was many other techniques. But I don't come from a pure EPAK line.

Both of those techniques, Broken Gift and Broken Ram, work in my method. The component pieces that make up the techniques work independently as strikes and grapples, and the techniques themselves work as fully functioning fighting combinations. In practice, they wouldn't be performed in the same fashion as in the "ideal phase," adjustments would have to be constantly made for position and timing, but the theory behind the techniques is sound. And once we've learned it, we practice that theory in a spontaneous environment to improve our ability to apply it on the body.

Broken Ram works as a defense against a low tackle or double leg pick, or a low lunge or rising lunge from the ground. One hand controls the opponents height, width, and depth zones while the other initially tries for a strikedown. Failing that, the circle is reversed to apply an impact grapple with insertion striking, then reversed again around the arm with strikes while the practitioner repositions himself and the opponent to expand and weaken the opponent's base, finally ending in a second attempted strikedown, this one a variant style "strikeaway" where the opponent is struck against his weak line. In practice, this is a highly dynamic striking/grappling response that works against a number of low line takedowns. It is an expansion of the strikedown concept we practiced in Charging Ram, and an exploration of how to control an opponent_ in the middle _of a continuing takedown attempt.

Broken Gift works as both an offensive and defensive technique which begins with a zone cancelling joint control arm bar and then transitions into holding and hitting. We practice upward flapping elbow control and striking against multiple targets, and adding impact striking to grapple techniques. Our technique ends differently with a head control maneuver that explores maintaining controlling contact with the opponent's head while changing position and then a lifting strike to a vulnerable target we have exposed through previous action. We practice rolling the energy through the opponent's arm to involuntarily blade his body and cancel his far weapons. From there, he can be dragged down or drawn into a number of trips and throws. We practice leading, controlling, and cancelling with the elbow pressure and using it to raise the opponent out of his base and then suddenly drop him into strikes. This technique works against a handshake, but it also works against any lead hand trap. You could pull it off from an open faced jab if you were fast enough, or capture your opponent in a hip throw and then unwind into the technique just as you would in Spiralling Twig. Again, the "ideal phase" is a simple representation of all these concepts, while in practice the movements would be far more dynamic and the practitioner would have to be constantly adjusting to changing conditions.

Maybe someone is teaching those techniques in a fashion that doesn't aid in their training, but it isn't me. I learned those techniques as fighting techniques, and I practice them that way, and I teach them that way.


-Rob


----------



## MJS

Thesemindz said:


> Ok maybe. Sometimes you _do_ get students who just don't want to practice the technique or learn from the technique or _work on _the technique. But generally if an instructor's answer is "you just don't understand," then I think maybe that means that *they* don't understand. My students ask me questions all the time about why we do a certain technique this way or that way or why we don't do this instead or why we don't "just" do something they think is simpler. I can always show them _why_ we choose to do the technique the way we do, because I was taught that there should be at least three reasons for everything we do. If we can't defend it, we shouldn't teach it. At least that's what I was taught.
> 
> I think this discussion keeps going back again and again to what we mean by the term "ideal phase" techniques, and even what we mean when we refer to the "self defense techniques" and how we use them and how we teach them and why. For Ras, each technique should be specifically combat applicable. For me the techniques are the repository of the combat knowledge and are more like symbols used to represent martial arts theory. For some the techniques are specific bio-mechanical practices that should be practiced *exactly* the same way every time in order to build strict muscle memory responses. For others the techniques are *the* answer to every combat stimulus and all engagements should be immediately and rigorously defined by the appropriate kenpo self defense technique.
> 
> The problem isn't that some of us are right and some of us are wrong. I can imagine schools where every one of those philosophies is practiced successfully; just as I can imagine TKD and Muay Thai and BJJ schools that all manage to use completely different methods to successfully teach fighting. The problem is that as soon as we start to discuss it, we start misunderstanding each other and arguing because when we say the same words they don't mean the same thing. Kenpo doesn't always mean the same thing, and neither does "ideal phase" and neither does "self defense techniques." And so it's hard to have a discussion because we're comparing completely different fruits but calling them all apples.
> 
> It all goes back to the instructors, which we've all agreed on again and again. If *YOU *don't understand it's because *YOUR INSTRUCTORS* aren't doing their job. Period. That doesn't mean every technique will work for you, again I don't often use certain kicks and grapples and maneuvers. But not because I don't understand them. Just because I use other techniques that work better for *me*.
> 
> Now, there are other sets of techniques here we haven't discussed. There are other techniques I don't teach because I _can't_ perform them. For instance, I can't do a 720 degree tornado kick. So I can't teach a 720 degree tornado kick. There are other techniques I can't personally do but _can_ teach, such as the kipup, because I understand the practice but can't perform the technique because of pre-existing knee injuries which prevent me from executing it safely. Now, I don't actually teach either of these techniques as part of my method, but if a student were to ask me how to do them I could either explain it to them or not, based on my knowledge, and would direct them to where they _could _find more information.
> 
> There are also techniques which I don't teach because I don't know them. In fact, I don't know _most _martial arts techniques. I teach the small number of techniques I actually know, but there are many many martial arts styles out there I've never even been introduced to. So there's no way I could teach there techniques because I've never been exposed to them.
> 
> I teach what I know and understand. That doesn't mean I do everything I teach, some techniques aren't a good fit for my body size and type and abilities. Different practitioners will have different strengths. But everything I teach _can _be used and I know it works _because I've worked it_.
> 
> I don't know, I'm not in everybody else's school. I can only be in my school. It's just hard for me to believe so many instructors are teaching a method that just doesn't work. Is it possible it's just different from the method _you _are studying? I don't know. When I was coming up we were encouraged to question the teaching. And we were either given answers, or our instructors went and found the answers and got back to us.
> 
> When I was a kid I took TKD for about a year. I remember doing a kata and asking, "why do we do this and this and this." And my instructor told me that it was "just because it looks good." I've never forgotten that. Even as a beginner that answer didn't make any sense to me. I wasn't taking karate lessons to "look good." I was taking karate lessons to "learn to fight." And my instructor's answer told me, even as a yellow belt, that _he didn't know how the kata helped us learn how to fight. _As an instructor, this memory has helped to shape my approach.
> 
> I never tell a student that they do a move "for looks." I tell them what the physical application is and then we practice it on the body. Even the bow, the presentation/salutation/greeting, and the training stances that bookend our sets and forms have specific physical applications we explore and practice. There are some small changes in the physical movements that allow for individual stylization, but the movements themselves each have specific purposes. It's never "just because it looks good."
> 
> I know some practitioners don't understand. I've worked with some very good TKD students, but I've also had TKD training partners who could do a flying side kick but couldn't understand basic principles like strong line/weak line. I've also met kenpo guys who practiced every attack as an "attempted" attack and never actually practiced their techniques with resistance. But I always assumed they were the exception, not the other way around.
> 
> Who would want to learn a system of techniques they couldn't use and didn't understand? What would they gain from that?
> 
> 
> -Rob


 
I think for the most part Rob, we're on the same page.  Yes, I've been there, like you, with the katas.  Asking what certain moves are for, why we're doing this or that, and having the "Well, thats the way its supposed to be done" reply.  Pisses me off to no end.  Thats one of the reasons why I give at least 1, sometimes more, applications to the kata moves.  

As for the techs....I suppose making them work and understanding them, go hand in hand.  Interestingly enough though, I get the impression from some, (not necessarily anyone on this forum or thread) that we should be able to do the IPs without any mods.  Yet we have people like Ras and myself, and probably others, saying thats not the case, that you do need to make changes, adjustments, etc.  

I teach all the techs that were taught to me.  Just because I may think something sucks ***, doesnt mean one of my students wouldn't have a different view.   But see, you and I are, IMO, doing the same thing, and you just said it yourself, in your reply to Carol.  You said that you were taught small variations, you dont come from a pure Parker lineage and those techs now work.  The same for me.   Dont get me wrong, I try not to deviate so far that its no longer (insert any tech here) but subtle stance changes, changes to compensate for height, etc, I do teach.  

I have to wonder...the folks that preach that we dont understand something...do they teach the IP techs as we'd see in Big Red?  Are they making no changes whatsoever?  For example, Clyde is one that often says that people dont understand the tech, thus thats why the person cant make it work.  Is it safe to say that he's teaching with no mods?  If you were to say to him that you made mods, do you think he'd tell you its because you dont understand it?  I dont know, thats why I'm asking. 

This is why, when I teach, I like to have a series of backup plans, in case the main plan fails.  Yeah, I know, we should have faith in what we do, but just like MA training doesnt make us supermen, the techs, IMO, aren't fool proof.


----------



## Thesemindz

MJS said:


> I think for the most part Rob, we're on the same page.  Yes, I've been there, like you, with the katas.  Asking what certain moves are for, why we're doing this or that, and having the "Well, thats the way its supposed to be done" reply.  Pisses me off to no end.  Thats one of the reasons why I give at least 1, sometimes more, applications to the kata moves.
> 
> As for the techs....I suppose making them work and understanding them, go hand in hand.  Interestingly enough though, I get the impression from some, (not necessarily anyone on this forum or thread) that we should be able to do the IPs without any mods.  Yet we have people like Ras and myself, and probably others, saying thats not the case, that you do need to make changes, adjustments, etc.
> 
> I teach all the techs that were taught to me.  Just because I may think something sucks ***, doesnt mean one of my students wouldn't have a different view.   But see, you and I are, IMO, doing the same thing, and you just said it yourself, in your reply to Carol.  You said that you were taught small variations, you dont come from a pure Parker lineage and those techs now work.  The same for me.   Dont get me wrong, I try not to deviate so far that its no longer (insert any tech here) but subtle stance changes, changes to compensate for height, etc, I do teach.
> 
> I have to wonder...the folks that preach that we dont understand something...do they teach the IP techs as we'd see in Big Red?  Are they making no changes whatsoever?  For example, Clyde is one that often says that people dont understand the tech, thus thats why the person cant make it work.  Is it safe to say that he's teaching with no mods?  If you were to say to him that you made mods, do you think he'd tell you its because you dont understand it?  I dont know, thats why I'm asking.
> 
> This is why, when I teach, I like to have a series of backup plans, in case the main plan fails.  Yeah, I know, we should have faith in what we do, but just like MA training doesnt make us supermen, the techs, IMO, aren't fool proof.



Honestly, I have a sneaking suspicion that if we were all on a training floor together for a couple of days we'd realize how similar our kenpo really is. Some are better, some are worse. Some, like Doc, may understand more. Maybe even far more. Some understand less. But it's hard for me to believe that people can do kenpo for any real length of time (decades) with seriousness and not figure at least a few things out.

You mention Clyde. I was thinking of him earlier in the thread when I was talking about instructors who adhere to a very strict ideal technique performance philosophy. I've seen him write many times about the importance of using the techniques, as written, and only grafting from one technique to another as circumstances dictate. Now I don't know him. I've seen some things he's posted and I've seen some videos of him training and I've seen his instructor on film. So I can't really make any comments on anything but my limited exposure to him. I think his instructor is legit. No doubt. I know not everyone does, but I have no problems with Master Tatum. I don't teach his method, but I've learned from it. And I've learned from what I've seen from Clyde too. So while I may not be able to perform kenpo at the level he advocates, I'm not willing to say it _can't_ be done. Just that I can't do it. So I teach a different method.

I was confused at the beginning of this thread because I thought Ras was arguing that the techniques didn't work. Which was hard for me to understand, because the techniques work great for me. But then I understood that he meant the techniques, specifically, as written, don't work. Well of course that's true. I've argued that many times. But I don't expect that of the techniques because I was never told that I should. The "ideal phase" techniques don't exist in a dynamic environment. In my method, they are static training models.

Clyde says the techniques are meant to be performed perfectly. But the techniques don't take into account dark stairwells, or tall grass, or your foot in a puddle. They don't take into account the size, or strength, or intentions of your attacker. They don't take into account whether your attacker is disabled, or a woman, or attacking you with a shovel or a chair or a rifle. They are far too limited to even come close to addressing these situations in a realistic fashion. I was always told that in the "ideal phase" I am practicing the technique on a flat, open surface against an opponent who is my exact size and shape who reacts perfectly to every strike. That's not a real combat situation, it's an "ideal" teaching scenario. But if a woman attacked Clyde in the dark with a shovel I imagine he'd be able to use his kenpo to defend himself.

I see the techniques as limitless, not limited. As a few hundred examples of fighting techniques, but certainly not *all* possible techniques and combinations. I make changes in stances, and weapons, and the order we teach them in, and the attacks for each techniques. It's not about "being smarter than Mr. Parker." God I wish we could put a bullet in that once and for all. It's about trying to find the best way to teach my students karate. It's an evolving process. Mr. Parker took something taught to him by Masters and made his own adjustments to it and then passed it on. He wasn't the originator. He wasn't the first Master. He was a link in a chain. An important link. A strong link. But the traditions pass beyond him in both directions. 

I respect him as the unquestionable Master he is. But I don't deify him, and I've seen far too much of kenpo history not to understand that he was a man with failings and goals and a family to feed. You don't take groundwork out of a fighting art because you want to make it a more effective fighting art. Parker practiced Judo and Jujutsu. He knew the importance of groundwork. Yet it is barely represented in the EPAK system. He knew the importance of stick and knife work, yet they are only slightly more present in the system. It's obvious, at least to me, that the EPAK system is a starting point, not an ending point.

But not everyone agrees. I've had people tell me that *every possible combat motion* is represented within the system. That's obviously false. I can't speak to whether Clyde can perform the techniques, in their "ideal phase" in a dynamic situation. I only know that I can't. But I don't intend to and I don't intend for my students to. I intend for them to learn _how _to fight by studying the techniques. 

Clyde might say that I don't understand the techniques. I've heard that before. Doc has said much the same to me before about one thing or another. I'm ok with that. I understand them to the degree that I do, fully aware that my understanding will grow in time. I wish I could study under a Master like they were able to. I have no one. I have to figure all this stuff out for myself. So I take what I understand, and I explore it with my students. And we fight, all the time, with our material to try to understand it better.

I mentioned how I practice Broken Ram upthread. Then, *that night*, I went into the school and practiced it with a student. I had him attack me with tackles, double and single leg takedowns, inside and outside reaps, ankle takedowns and rising takedowns from a kneeling position. And I practiced controlling his height, width, and depth with the pressure to his shoulder, while basing out and striking with my off hand, turning the corner, and opening up his base to push him over or strike him away. I practiced striking his arm, his body, his back, and his head as my arm circled over and under his arm in his tackle. I practiced getting inside his tackle and striking around it. Because that's how we practice Broken Ram. 

But before we can do that, I want my purple belts to be able to perform the "ideal phase" technique so that I can show them what they are learning. First they learn the static combination against an opponent posed in a specific position. Then we practice it as a dynamic engagement. Eventually, the student internalizes the lessons and is able to spontaneously express them according to context.

At least, that's how I do it.


-Rob


----------



## Doc

Thesemindz said:


> Ok, but do you mean the norm like how I don't understand kenpo to the degree that you understand kenpo, or the norm like most instructors are just repeating the motions in the air without any understanding of what they're doing because that was what their instructors did?
> 
> I mean, I'm willing to accept that sometimes I might answer a question wrong, or miss more sophisticated concepts and applications that I haven't advanced to yet, or simply not have an answer for a student. My knowledge is not limitless, my experience is brief, and I make the same mistakes every other human makes. But when I can't answer a student's question I go look for an answer from someone who understands more than I do.
> 
> When you say it's "the norm," do you mean most kenpo instructors and students don't have as much knowledge as you, or do you mean most kenpo instructors and students are stupidly waving their arms in the air and handing belts back and forth?
> 
> I'm not being accusatory. It's just hard for me to believe that we're the exception and not the rule. I don't think I'm the best kenpo instructor in the world, but I believe in my method and I make an effort to be a good teacher. Are you really saying that it's the norm for kenpo instructors to not have a clue what they're doing? Don't they fight? Don't they hit each other and kick each other?
> 
> I know in the past there's been times that I've described performing a technique a certain way and you've flat out told me that I was doing it in a way that was counter to proper anatomical structure. For instance, when I perform Five Swords I sometimes raise my lead elbow up to a horizontal plane to strike the opponent with a wedge created by my two arms. I've found that creating this kind of wedge with my two blocks at right angles is extremely painful when my opponent rams my lead elbow, and it helps to resist the force of larger incoming opponents. I've used this technique successfully many times. You've told me that this is incorrect and won't work.
> 
> I'm ok with that. I understand that you're teaching a different method, and that you have reasons for that position. I'm even willing to accept that your method might be better. But I don't know your method. So I have to teach what I know. And I know this technique works, even if you know that there's a better way to do it. I use these kinds of energized wedge positions in a number of places to create barriers against my opponent's force or to control his position. I may not be teaching the best way, but I'm teaching a way I understand that I know works.
> 
> So would that fall under the heading of "the norm" of people teaching techniques they don't really understand? Or would that fall under the heading of a technique I understand that you might understand better and have a better technique for in that context?
> 
> 
> -Rob



No my friend you are an exception far away from common. I've read about what you do, and the thought process you engage in. Doing something that is not optimal but still functional, just means you haven't found a better way, yet. But clearly you have the intellect and desire to do so. 

Unfortunately, the dysfunctional with no real effort to become functional is normal because of the lack of ability, or willingness to undertake the task. Mr. Parker always told me, "The easiest thing in the world to do is nothing." Because of how most received their rank and "training," they simply perpetuate what they were shown, with no desire or ability to do better. For some it is a matter of not having the personal tools and ability. For others who might venture down that path, they discover the task is a lot bigger than anyone could have imagined. 

It so much easier to just keep doing what you were shown, especially when it is never tested, and you and yours don't look any better or worse than others you come in contact with. Browse some of the stuff on YouTube to see what's the norm, then look at all the accolade comments. That my friend is the norm, not you.


----------



## Doc

Thesemindz said:


> Honestly, I have a sneaking suspicion that if we were all on a training floor together for a couple of days we'd realize how similar our kenpo really is. Some are better, some are worse. Some, like Doc, may understand more. Maybe even far more. Some understand less. But it's hard for me to believe that people can do kenpo for any real length of time (decades) with seriousness and not figure at least a few things out.
> 
> You mention Clyde. I was thinking of him earlier in the thread when I was talking about instructors who adhere to a very strict ideal technique performance philosophy. I've seen him write many times about the importance of using the techniques, as written, and only grafting from one technique to another as circumstances dictate. Now I don't know him. I've seen some things he's posted and I've seen some videos of him training and I've seen his instructor on film. So I can't really make any comments on anything but my limited exposure to him. I think his instructor is legit. No doubt. I know not everyone does, but I have no problems with Master Tatum. I don't teach his method, but I've learned from it. And I've learned from what I've seen from Clyde too. So while I may not be able to perform kenpo at the level he advocates, I'm not willing to say it _can't_ be done. Just that I can't do it. So I teach a different method.
> 
> I was confused at the beginning of this thread because I thought Ras was arguing that the techniques didn't work. Which was hard for me to understand, because the techniques work great for me. But then I understood that he meant the techniques, specifically, as written, don't work. Well of course that's true. I've argued that many times. But I don't expect that of the techniques because I was never told that I should. The "ideal phase" techniques don't exist in a dynamic environment. In my method, they are static training models.
> 
> Clyde says the techniques are meant to be performed perfectly. But the techniques don't take into account dark stairwells, or tall grass, or your foot in a puddle. They don't take into account the size, or strength, or intentions of your attacker. They don't take into account whether your attacker is disabled, or a woman, or attacking you with a shovel or a chair or a rifle. They are far too limited to even come close to addressing these situations in a realistic fashion. I was always told that in the "ideal phase" I am practicing the technique on a flat, open surface against an opponent who is my exact size and shape who reacts perfectly to every strike. That's not a real combat situation, it's an "ideal" teaching scenario. But if a woman attacked Clyde in the dark with a shovel I imagine he'd be able to use his kenpo to defend himself.
> 
> I see the techniques as limitless, not limited. As a few hundred examples of fighting techniques, but certainly not *all* possible techniques and combinations. I make changes in stances, and weapons, and the order we teach them in, and the attacks for each techniques. It's not about "being smarter than Mr. Parker." God I wish we could put a bullet in that once and for all. It's about trying to find the best way to teach my students karate. It's an evolving process. Mr. Parker took something taught to him by Masters and made his own adjustments to it and then passed it on. He wasn't the originator. He wasn't the first Master. He was a link in a chain. An important link. A strong link. But the traditions pass beyond him in both directions.
> 
> I respect him as the unquestionable Master he is. But I don't deify him, and I've seen far too much of kenpo history not to understand that he was a man with failings and goals and a family to feed. You don't take groundwork out of a fighting art because you want to make it a more effective fighting art. Parker practiced Judo and Jujutsu. He knew the importance of groundwork. Yet it is barely represented in the EPAK system. He knew the importance of stick and knife work, yet they are only slightly more present in the system. It's obvious, at least to me, that the EPAK system is a starting point, not an ending point.
> 
> But not everyone agrees. I've had people tell me that *every possible combat motion* is represented within the system. That's obviously false. I can't speak to whether Clyde can perform the techniques, in their "ideal phase" in a dynamic situation. I only know that I can't. But I don't intend to and I don't intend for my students to. I intend for them to learn _how _to fight by studying the techniques.
> 
> Clyde might say that I don't understand the techniques. I've heard that before. Doc has said much the same to me before about one thing or another. I'm ok with that. I understand them to the degree that I do, fully aware that my understanding will grow in time. I wish I could study under a Master like they were able to. I have no one. I have to figure all this stuff out for myself. So I take what I understand, and I explore it with my students. And we fight, all the time, with our material to try to understand it better.
> 
> I mentioned how I practice Broken Ram upthread. Then, *that night*, I went into the school and practiced it with a student. I had him attack me with tackles, double and single leg takedowns, inside and outside reaps, ankle takedowns and rising takedowns from a kneeling position. And I practiced controlling his height, width, and depth with the pressure to his shoulder, while basing out and striking with my off hand, turning the corner, and opening up his base to push him over or strike him away. I practiced striking his arm, his body, his back, and his head as my arm circled over and under his arm in his tackle. I practiced getting inside his tackle and striking around it. Because that's how we practice Broken Ram.
> 
> But before we can do that, I want my purple belts to be able to perform the "ideal phase" technique so that I can show them what they are learning. First they learn the static combination against an opponent posed in a specific position. Then we practice it as a dynamic engagement. Eventually, the student internalizes the lessons and is able to spontaneously express them according to context.
> 
> At least, that's how I do it.
> 
> 
> -Rob



Like I said.


----------



## Doc

MJS said:


> I think for the most part Rob, we're on the same page.  Yes, I've been there, like you, with the katas.  Asking what certain moves are for, why we're doing this or that, and having the "Well, thats the way its supposed to be done" reply.  Pisses me off to no end.  Thats one of the reasons why I give at least 1, sometimes more, applications to the kata moves.
> 
> As for the techs....I suppose making them work and understanding them, go hand in hand.  Interestingly enough though, I get the impression from some, (not necessarily anyone on this forum or thread) that we should be able to do the IPs without any mods.  Yet we have people like Ras and myself, and probably others, saying thats not the case, that you do need to make changes, adjustments, etc.
> 
> I teach all the techs that were taught to me.  Just because I may think something sucks ***, doesnt mean one of my students wouldn't have a different view.   But see, you and I are, IMO, doing the same thing, and you just said it yourself, in your reply to Carol.  You said that you were taught small variations, you dont come from a pure Parker lineage and those techs now work.  The same for me.   Dont get me wrong, I try not to deviate so far that its no longer (insert any tech here) but subtle stance changes, changes to compensate for height, etc, I do teach.
> 
> I have to wonder...the folks that preach that we dont understand something...do they teach the IP techs as we'd see in Big Red?  Are they making no changes whatsoever?  For example, Clyde is one that often says that people dont understand the tech, thus thats why the person cant make it work.  Is it safe to say that he's teaching with no mods?  If you were to say to him that you made mods, do you think he'd tell you its because you dont understand it?  I dont know, thats why I'm asking.
> 
> This is why, when I teach, I like to have a series of backup plans, in case the main plan fails.  Yeah, I know, we should have faith in what we do, but just like MA training doesnt make us supermen, the techs, IMO, aren't fool proof.


Here's the deal, and what makes guys like you exceptional. You THINK, and have the ability to make reasonable and rational choices because of your intellect. 

What most miss is, THERE IS NO IDEAL TECHNIQUE UNTIL YOU CREATE IT FOR YOUR STUDENTS, AND YOURSELF. Mr. Parker explained the process himself in the IKKA Green Belt Manual. YOU create the ideal. The written techniques were just ideas to begin your process, and force you into defending and dissecting progressive attacks from the Web of Knowledge. We were discussing that over on KenpoTalk where I break it down with Mr. Parker's own words.
http://www.kenpotalk.com/forum/showthread.php?12596-Misc-FAQ-Ramblings-amp-Stuff

Then you can train it without significant deviation to build real skills. But in doing so the process involved not only the ideal you create, but every ideal that comes before it, and after it, because everything you do should be interrelated. The same with "basics," froms and sets. Everything you do should point to somewhere else in your system, with a defined degree of function and usefulness, and it should be progressive with all material creating a platform for subsequent material, building progressive neuro-muscular pathways.

You are supposed to question the material. You are supposed to change it and make it functional. You are supposed to create your own ideal. Mr. Parker planted the seed. Now you must water and tend it and make it grow. That is what the commercial Kenpo based on motion was designed for. Guys like my good friend Clyde are not wrong, they are doing it as they see it, and if it works, than what is the problem? 

Motion Kenpo is not, nor has it ever been like any other Martial Art that came before it. It was created literally out of thin air to fill a need, and will only be as good or bad as its teachers. It is a loose set of guidelines and concepts that creates a training methodology that is flexible enough to accept all comers, either has individuals or as a group. This creates a bottom and a functional ceiling. But that does not mean the astute can't take it to some pretty lofty places. However, if you continue to soar upward, the first thing you will come to realize is that sooner or later you will abandon much of its concepts, as you seek to move beyond its platform and knowledge base to more intricate and education specific information. If that occurs, then it will have served its purpose, and done exactly what it was supposed to.


----------



## MJS

Hmm...had a nice reply all typed up last night, and lost the damn thing.  Oh well, lets try again. 




Thesemindz said:


> Honestly, I have a sneaking suspicion that if we were all on a training floor together for a couple of days we'd realize how similar our kenpo really is. Some are better, some are worse. Some, like Doc, may understand more. Maybe even far more. Some understand less. But it's hard for me to believe that people can do kenpo for any real length of time (decades) with seriousness and not figure at least a few things out.


 
Agreed, and I'd love a get together.   Seeing vs reading is IMO, so much easier.  Certainly eliminates alot of confusion. 



> You mention Clyde. I was thinking of him earlier in the thread when I was talking about instructors who adhere to a very strict ideal technique performance philosophy. I've seen him write many times about the importance of using the techniques, as written, and only grafting from one technique to another as circumstances dictate. Now I don't know him. I've seen some things he's posted and I've seen some videos of him training and I've seen his instructor on film. So I can't really make any comments on anything but my limited exposure to him. I think his instructor is legit. No doubt. I know not everyone does, but I have no problems with Master Tatum. I don't teach his method, but I've learned from it. And I've learned from what I've seen from Clyde too. So while I may not be able to perform kenpo at the level he advocates, I'm not willing to say it _can't_ be done. Just that I can't do it. So I teach a different method.


 
In your opinion of what you're read of him, do you take what he says as: a) adhere only to the way the IPs are done/written, such as we see in big red or b) learn the IP, untouched, and then, if need be, play around with it, changing/altering, etc, if needed?




> I was confused at the beginning of this thread because I thought Ras was arguing that the techniques didn't work. Which was hard for me to understand, because the techniques work great for me. But then I understood that he meant the techniques, specifically, as written, don't work. Well of course that's true. I've argued that many times. But I don't expect that of the techniques because I was never told that I should. The "ideal phase" techniques don't exist in a dynamic environment. In my method, they are static training models.


 
Dont wanna speak for Ras, but thats the impression that I got....that the IPs suck *** unless you change them, that theres no way in hell, they'd work, unless you change them.



> Clyde says the techniques are meant to be performed perfectly. But the techniques don't take into account dark stairwells, or tall grass, or your foot in a puddle. They don't take into account the size, or strength, or intentions of your attacker. They don't take into account whether your attacker is disabled, or a woman, or attacking you with a shovel or a chair or a rifle. They are far too limited to even come close to addressing these situations in a realistic fashion. I was always told that in the "ideal phase" I am practicing the technique on a flat, open surface against an opponent who is my exact size and shape who reacts perfectly to every strike. That's not a real combat situation, it's an "ideal" teaching scenario. But if a woman attacked Clyde in the dark with a shovel I imagine he'd be able to use his kenpo to defend himself.


 
Reading this, it implies that he'd make a change, if need be.  Reason I say that, is because IMO, if the circumstances are anything but ideal, it aint gonna work.



> I see the techniques as limitless, not limited. As a few hundred examples of fighting techniques, but certainly not *all* possible techniques and combinations. I make changes in stances, and weapons, and the order we teach them in, and the attacks for each techniques. It's not about "being smarter than Mr. Parker." God I wish we could put a bullet in that once and for all. It's about trying to find the best way to teach my students karate. It's an evolving process. Mr. Parker took something taught to him by Masters and made his own adjustments to it and then passed it on. He wasn't the originator. He wasn't the first Master. He was a link in a chain. An important link. A strong link. But the traditions pass beyond him in both directions.
> 
> I respect him as the unquestionable Master he is. But I don't deify him, and I've seen far too much of kenpo history not to understand that he was a man with failings and goals and a family to feed. You don't take groundwork out of a fighting art because you want to make it a more effective fighting art. Parker practiced Judo and Jujutsu. He knew the importance of groundwork. Yet it is barely represented in the EPAK system. He knew the importance of stick and knife work, yet they are only slightly more present in the system. It's obvious, at least to me, that the EPAK system is a starting point, not an ending point.
> 
> But not everyone agrees. I've had people tell me that *every possible combat motion* is represented within the system. That's obviously false. I can't speak to whether Clyde can perform the techniques, in their "ideal phase" in a dynamic situation. I only know that I can't. But I don't intend to and I don't intend for my students to. I intend for them to learn _how _to fight by studying the techniques.
> 
> Clyde might say that I don't understand the techniques. I've heard that before. Doc has said much the same to me before about one thing or another. I'm ok with that. I understand them to the degree that I do, fully aware that my understanding will grow in time. I wish I could study under a Master like they were able to. I have no one. I have to figure all this stuff out for myself. So I take what I understand, and I explore it with my students. And we fight, all the time, with our material to try to understand it better.
> 
> I mentioned how I practice Broken Ram upthread. Then, *that night*, I went into the school and practiced it with a student. I had him attack me with tackles, double and single leg takedowns, inside and outside reaps, ankle takedowns and rising takedowns from a kneeling position. And I practiced controlling his height, width, and depth with the pressure to his shoulder, while basing out and striking with my off hand, turning the corner, and opening up his base to push him over or strike him away. I practiced striking his arm, his body, his back, and his head as my arm circled over and under his arm in his tackle. I practiced getting inside his tackle and striking around it. Because that's how we practice Broken Ram.
> 
> But before we can do that, I want my purple belts to be able to perform the "ideal phase" technique so that I can show them what they are learning. First they learn the static combination against an opponent posed in a specific position. Then we practice it as a dynamic engagement. Eventually, the student internalizes the lessons and is able to spontaneously express them according to context.
> 
> At least, that's how I do it.
> 
> 
> -Rob


 
Likewise, as I've said, I still teach the techs the way they were taught to me.  But I like to expand on that, giving them other options, so as to not be bound by them.


----------



## Twin Fist

long winded aint ya?


much truth here





Thesemindz said:


> Honestly, I have a sneaking suspicion that if we were all on a training floor together for a couple of days we'd realize how similar our kenpo really is. Some are better, some are worse. Some, like Doc, may understand more. Maybe even far more. Some understand less. But it's hard for me to believe that people can do kenpo for any real length of time (decades) with seriousness and not figure at least a few things out.
> 
> You mention Clyde. I was thinking of him earlier in the thread when I was talking about instructors who adhere to a very strict ideal technique performance philosophy. I've seen him write many times about the importance of using the techniques, as written, and only grafting from one technique to another as circumstances dictate. Now I don't know him. I've seen some things he's posted and I've seen some videos of him training and I've seen his instructor on film. So I can't really make any comments on anything but my limited exposure to him. I think his instructor is legit. No doubt. I know not everyone does, but I have no problems with Master Tatum. I don't teach his method, but I've learned from it. And I've learned from what I've seen from Clyde too. So while I may not be able to perform kenpo at the level he advocates, I'm not willing to say it _can't_ be done. Just that I can't do it. So I teach a different method.
> 
> I was confused at the beginning of this thread because I thought Ras was arguing that the techniques didn't work. Which was hard for me to understand, because the techniques work great for me. But then I understood that he meant the techniques, specifically, as written, don't work. Well of course that's true. I've argued that many times. But I don't expect that of the techniques because I was never told that I should. The "ideal phase" techniques don't exist in a dynamic environment. In my method, they are static training models.
> 
> Clyde says the techniques are meant to be performed perfectly. But the techniques don't take into account dark stairwells, or tall grass, or your foot in a puddle. They don't take into account the size, or strength, or intentions of your attacker. They don't take into account whether your attacker is disabled, or a woman, or attacking you with a shovel or a chair or a rifle. They are far too limited to even come close to addressing these situations in a realistic fashion. I was always told that in the "ideal phase" I am practicing the technique on a flat, open surface against an opponent who is my exact size and shape who reacts perfectly to every strike. That's not a real combat situation, it's an "ideal" teaching scenario. But if a woman attacked Clyde in the dark with a shovel I imagine he'd be able to use his kenpo to defend himself.
> 
> I see the techniques as limitless, not limited. As a few hundred examples of fighting techniques, but certainly not *all* possible techniques and combinations. I make changes in stances, and weapons, and the order we teach them in, and the attacks for each techniques. It's not about "being smarter than Mr. Parker." God I wish we could put a bullet in that once and for all. It's about trying to find the best way to teach my students karate. It's an evolving process. Mr. Parker took something taught to him by Masters and made his own adjustments to it and then passed it on. He wasn't the originator. He wasn't the first Master. He was a link in a chain. An important link. A strong link. But the traditions pass beyond him in both directions.
> 
> I respect him as the unquestionable Master he is. But I don't deify him, and I've seen far too much of kenpo history not to understand that he was a man with failings and goals and a family to feed. You don't take groundwork out of a fighting art because you want to make it a more effective fighting art. Parker practiced Judo and Jujutsu. He knew the importance of groundwork. Yet it is barely represented in the EPAK system. He knew the importance of stick and knife work, yet they are only slightly more present in the system. It's obvious, at least to me, that the EPAK system is a starting point, not an ending point.
> 
> But not everyone agrees. I've had people tell me that *every possible combat motion* is represented within the system. That's obviously false. I can't speak to whether Clyde can perform the techniques, in their "ideal phase" in a dynamic situation. I only know that I can't. But I don't intend to and I don't intend for my students to. I intend for them to learn _how _to fight by studying the techniques.
> 
> Clyde might say that I don't understand the techniques. I've heard that before. Doc has said much the same to me before about one thing or another. I'm ok with that. I understand them to the degree that I do, fully aware that my understanding will grow in time. I wish I could study under a Master like they were able to. I have no one. I have to figure all this stuff out for myself. So I take what I understand, and I explore it with my students. And we fight, all the time, with our material to try to understand it better.
> 
> I mentioned how I practice Broken Ram upthread. Then, *that night*, I went into the school and practiced it with a student. I had him attack me with tackles, double and single leg takedowns, inside and outside reaps, ankle takedowns and rising takedowns from a kneeling position. And I practiced controlling his height, width, and depth with the pressure to his shoulder, while basing out and striking with my off hand, turning the corner, and opening up his base to push him over or strike him away. I practiced striking his arm, his body, his back, and his head as my arm circled over and under his arm in his tackle. I practiced getting inside his tackle and striking around it. Because that's how we practice Broken Ram.
> 
> But before we can do that, I want my purple belts to be able to perform the "ideal phase" technique so that I can show them what they are learning. First they learn the static combination against an opponent posed in a specific position. Then we practice it as a dynamic engagement. Eventually, the student internalizes the lessons and is able to spontaneously express them according to context.
> 
> At least, that's how I do it.
> 
> 
> -Rob


----------



## Twin Fist

i have known clyde for a LONG time, he was a 1st when i met him at a SoCal tourny, and there isnt much i disagree with him on when it comes to kenpo.

the answers are in teh techniques

maybe not the way we have been trained to look for them, but they ARE there, even if the answer is a "this is what not to do"


----------



## ATACX GYM

Just to clarify? I'd always been taught that if you learned somehting,it should work EXACTLY AS SHOWN.Maybe you'd tweak it so it worked better for you,and maybe it'd work better for others too...but the original material should work exactly as shown. Immediately--as an 8 year old--I noted that the techs I was being shown didn't work exactly as I was being taught. The hard truth is...whether the techs are used as symbols or concepts,whatever the techs symbolize or conceive would be infinitely better if those symbols and concepts actually did the job that they were purported to do.Why learn some dysfunctional algebra when you can learn algebra that works from jump street? Exactly what concepts have value if the concepts can't be expressed functionally...especially when there's a common sense,faster,more fun,infinitely more beneficial way to make these concepts functional in every regard mentally,physically,spiritually,and ethically? How can you teach me to turn on my computer when we're messing with a old skool radio...that doesn't even work? What comparable lessons can I learn from that which applies better to learning to turn on the computer...which is what I came to you for? How many people go to a massage parlor expecting to play SOCOM while eating pizza? Ridiculous,right? Then how can anyone with any validity state that they can show something which they know ahead of time is dysfunctional yet it has better or equal results to the functional expression? That's an impossibility.Now...some people may wish to start with the dysfunctional stuff and then move on to the functional.Cool with me.They may like and/or prefer that.Likewise cool with me.However,to state baldly or attempt to defend honestly and logically that any portion of dysfunctionality has any form of benefit equivalent with the real world functional approach is literally an argument of ignorance which is utterly repudiated by objective reality.

Before I knew that Doc knew the actual origins of The IP...I stated that the IDEAS BEHIND the IP (which were essentially common SD-specific situations used as a platform to test our techniques against) is not only a TERRIFIC idea that's NOT original to Kenpo,this very same concept could be used to perpetually distinguish us from the MMA types. The MMA types use basically Standup,Clinch and Ground as their launch pads for the applications of striking and grappling essentially rooted in MMA's Big Four--Boxing,MT Kickboxing,Wrestling and BJJ. The scenarios that we see in the 72 SD sequences of Kenpo are not those commonly seen in MMA,as Kenpo includes weapons and unusual situations like strikes off of handshakes,multiple assailants,diving escapes,weapons,clinch range,but no actual ground submissions (but it does include ground fighting).

I said that the GENERAL PHYSICAL ARTICULATION OF THE IP IDEAS--the SPECIFIC TECHS THAT ARE GENERALLY TAUGHT AS THE IP ITSELF--suck ***.And the general articulation DOES suck ***. Guys like MJS and ROB and Doc and others including myself are the exception,NOT the rule. I also opined on KenpoTalk several times that we should functionalize these techs,and even brainstorm together so that collectively we create a better sequence of techs for our students to use as platforms to explore and better Kenpo as a whole.If we did this? We could improve Kenpo dramatically in a single generation or less.

I received lotsa lotsa flakk for this opinion of mine,and especially the shy and retiring way that I defended it from the horrified reaction of specific segments of Kenpoists...including Clyde. To his credit,however,he created a video rebuttal to my Alternating Maces...and in the process proved my point.Lol.

Quite a few others disagreed with me to the point that they went beyond flaming,called me on my phone to disagree with me,and a few even set up challenge matches (which they never showed up for). I must say,however,that the overwhelming people who called me and disagreed with me maintained their civility,however energetically we initially disagreed...and almost every time they came to understand better my position and we were able to reach a more respectful accord with one another.As I continued to champion the Functional Concept,continued to laud the idea behind the IP (as I understood it at the time) and continued to pillory the techs purported to actually BE the IP,I came across MT and was delightfully surprised to see alot more people who'd long reached the same essential conclusion as I have.

Then Doc comes in and tells us all that Mr.Parker never created a set,solid specific IP--despite the fact that we see him doing what looks very much like the IP on video with guys like Huk and Larry Tatum--and that we were supposed to create the IP ourselves and then pass it on to our students. For the first time in my life,somebody mentions something called "Motion Kenpo" to me. Resolving the riddle of Motion Kenpo at once resolves the issue of Mr.Parker doing dysfunctional techs which were taken as the IP,instead of the functional ideas behind the IP which Mr.Parker was trying to convey. Sure he and we and all of us made mistakes--some of which are of the bionically stupid variety--and that compounded the difficulties that he and I and we all face. The revelation of "Big Red"--which to me was the name of a old skool ganxta from Piru I used to know until that very moment--further clarified matters to me,and now...

...now I think we've gone full circle.We were right,but insufficiently informed...which means that at some point? We could easily have set off on the wrong path and never known it until we were swallowed by ignorant oblivion. At the end of the day? It still boils down to: "Can you do what these techs are intended to do in a real SD situation?" In other words...ARE YOU FUNCTIONAL? Doc says Mr.Parker was. Works for me. Therefore we have 3 main categories of people in Kenpo and martial arts: The Functional Group makes everything work with an eye toward increasing functional performance.They absolutely believe that functionally grasping and executing the concepts,precepts,movements,etc. of Kenpo is the brain,heart and soul of Kenpo and will deliberately go far out of their way to learn more about themselves and Kenpo by among other things using this art and contact as the medium.No ground grappling in Kenpo? No prob.Apply your Kenpo techs on the ground against gradually stepped up resistance from sparring partners until you're able to go full tilt boogie. Then learn and cross-train with wrestling,sambo,judo,bjj,jujutsu...and put that AK twist on the principles of these arts because kenpo's roots are kenpojujutsu,so we're just reintro'ing stuff which was in the old skool curriculum,and updating the whole curriculum.Exactly like Mr.Parker would've liked us to do anyway. Think the whole "STORMS" thing in Kenpo sucks visavis functionality? FMA time...and put the Kenpo juice on it.And it's still Kenpo.Etc. This Functional Group still includes people like Clyde because if he can fight with his techs successfully? He's functional too...he just uses a different approach to his training.That's all.If you can fight with your techs? If you can use Kenpo's unique movements etc. to successfully defend yourself? You're Functional. Period. However much you differ from me or whoever in your training approach,your method is functional.

There is the Non-Contact Group,which doesn't seek to engage in SD or sparring but really uses Kenpo for exercise,confidence and its noncombat benefits. And there's a 3rd Group...basically Fence Sitters...that kinda do both.They kinda spar,and they do alot of Non-Contact.This group includes the Mcdojos with families joining and exercising together and having fun and nobody getting hit.This includes light contact Mcdojos to people who focus on forms and noncontact weapons forms competitions.It includes the social element of the Non-Contact group,but their overall performance wavelength and grasp of the art will fall sharply short of The Functional Group because they're not fully functional. But they have fun and they keep Kenpo growing.Most people in Kenpo--I'd wager 80% or more--fall within the 2nd and 3rd categories.They're the majority of the "supercommercial" Motion Kenpo schools with gigantic enrollment.

And to be clear even here? Teaching material of whatever nature tends to follow a progressive,functional approach which is essentially "introduction,isolation,and integration" no matter what other nomenclature is used.All the groups practicing Kenpo do so for various reasons,their training is correspondingly different...but their teaching is the same.Mostly functionally oriented toward whatever it is that they're trying to achieve.


----------



## Thesemindz

I get ya Ras. I remember when I first saw Doc refer to "Motion Kenpo." It's always been controversial. But I really embrace that term. I think it is a great descriptor of the kind of kenpo I teach and I regularly refer to what I do as motion kenpo.

I like your idea of brainstorming the techniques. I've done the same thing with my training partners and other instructors. I think some techniques (Fallen Falcon) are useful in a non-functional state because they do exist as mini-sets covering related skills or topics. But I still like to play with the techniques with a functional mindset. So how would you take a technique like Fallen Falcon and make it functional? Certainly you can't batter the poor man's elbow that many times. He'd pull it away from you and curl up into a ball, or roll towards you in an effort to shield the joint and grab at your legs. Would you change the technique after the first joint attack? Where then would you put the rest of the joint attacks demonstrated in that technique? In other techniques? Or would you drop them from the Standard Curriculum but leave them as basic techniques intended to be practiced separately and only alluded to within Fallen Falcon? 

At the same time, how do you determine what makes a technique functional vis a vis finishing moves? Do you think every technique needs to end with a high percentage "fight ender" in order to be considered functional? Or is it sufficient that the technique be executable within the specified combat scenario? Is Delayed Sword "functional?" Should techniques end with control maneuvers? Or coverouts? Or blows to the head?

It would seem from your videos and your writing that you also think that some degree of "live" training is required within the "ideal phase" of the technique in order to consider it "functional." For instance, your video on Captured Twigs seemed to be focused partially on the fact that dynamic bearhug applications aren't covered in the standard EPAK "ideal phase." So do techniques have to contain dynamic "give and take" activities in order to be considered functional? Do they have branches, for instance I'll do Captured Twigs A if he leans in with the hug, B if he lifts with the hug, C if he turns with the hug, or D if he sacrifices with the hug?

I think we can go a long way towards making the techniques "functional" and that's a lot of fun and I'm totally up for that. But in the end no matter what we do we are still trying to codify a dynamic situation. Techniques can never encompass all possibilities. At their absolute best they can only ever be templates designed for us to pattern motion off of, that we then learn to adapt to dynamic circumstances. The systems are artificial. Mastery of the techniques is not the goal. Martial efficacy is the goal. At least that's my goal. And passing that skill on to my students. In the end regardless of the techniques we practice or teach, or what changes we may make to them, there is only one art of the sword.

I think this discussion hasn't really ever been much about the techniques. I think it's been about training method all along. And it seems the answer we've all agreed to is that the correct method is the one that works. Kenpo is a very open ended art. I like that. I think it is meant to encompass everything, ultimately, and I hope to be a part of that. It is a young art, but it borrows heavily from a number of very old arts. We stand on the shoulders of giants, so to speak. And we're lucky to have genuine Masters in an age with instant long distance communication.

I'm excited about the future of kenpo. With guys changing the techniques, and adding other arts, and adding weapons. I've been looking at the kenpo on youtube. I like it. You've got the Casa de Kenpo guys demonstrating the straight up EPAK style. You've got the House of Kenpo guys showing off the kenpo ground grappling. You've got some guys called kenpoevolution showing off some kenpo stand up grappling. You've got the counterforcounter guys showing the stick work. You've got James Hawkins, and Jamie Seabrook, and Joshua Ryer, and Doc showing off his stuff and Ras making a million kenpo videos. Sure, there's some lousy stuff. But it seems to me like the majority of the stuff is good stuff. I'm glad it's out there. And I'm glad to be a part of kenpo at this point in history.

Kenpo should be number one. It has the capacity to encompass the strengths of all arts and ranges and styles of combat. It can be anything to anyone and exactly what each practitioner needs. But that takes good instructors. And I think having a core of instructors out there holding on to the old ways is good. But I think having a core of instructors out there asking why and challenging the established boundaries and belief systems is good too. I think we'll really thrive off that tension.


-Rob


----------



## Touch Of Death

Twin Fist said:


> i have known clyde for a LONG time, he was a 1st when i met him at a SoCal tourny, and there isnt much i disagree with him on when it comes to kenpo.
> 
> the answers are in teh techniques
> 
> maybe not the way we have been trained to look for them, but they ARE there, even if the answer is a "this is what not to do"


Of course you know Clyde. LOL 
Sean


----------



## ATACX GYM

Thesemindz said:


> I get ya Ras. I remember when I first saw Doc refer to "Motion Kenpo." It's always been controversial. But I really embrace that term. I think it is a great descriptor of the kind of kenpo I teach and I regularly refer to what I do as motion kenpo.
> 
> I like your idea of brainstorming the techniques. I've done the same thing with my training partners and other instructors. I think some techniques (Fallen Falcon) are useful in a non-functional state because they do exist as mini-sets covering related skills or topics. But I still like to play with the techniques with a functional mindset. So how would you take a technique like Fallen Falcon and make it functional? Certainly you can't batter the poor man's elbow that many times. He'd pull it away from you and curl up into a ball, or roll towards you in an effort to shield the joint and grab at your legs. Would you change the technique after the first joint attack? Where then would you put the rest of the joint attacks demonstrated in that technique? In other techniques? Or would you drop them from the Standard Curriculum but leave them as basic techniques intended to be practiced separately and only alluded to within Fallen Falcon?
> 
> At the same time, how do you determine what makes a technique functional vis a vis finishing moves? Do you think every technique needs to end with a high percentage "fight ender" in order to be considered functional? Or is it sufficient that the technique be executable within the specified combat scenario? Is Delayed Sword "functional?" Should techniques end with control maneuvers? Or coverouts? Or blows to the head?
> 
> It would seem from your videos and your writing that you also think that some degree of "live" training is required within the "ideal phase" of the technique in order to consider it "functional." For instance, your video on Captured Twigs seemed to be focused partially on the fact that dynamic bearhug applications aren't covered in the standard EPAK "ideal phase." So do techniques have to contain dynamic "give and take" activities in order to be considered functional? Do they have branches, for instance I'll do Captured Twigs A if he leans in with the hug, B if he lifts with the hug, C if he turns with the hug, or D if he sacrifices with the hug?
> 
> I think we can go a long way towards making the techniques "functional" and that's a lot of fun and I'm totally up for that. But in the end no matter what we do we are still trying to codify a dynamic situation. Techniques can never encompass all possibilities. At their absolute best they can only ever be templates designed for us to pattern motion off of, that we then learn to adapt to dynamic circumstances. The systems are artificial. Mastery of the techniques is not the goal. Martial efficacy is the goal. At least that's my goal. And passing that skill on to my students. In the end regardless of the techniques we practice or teach, or what changes we may make to them, there is only one art of the sword.
> 
> I think this discussion hasn't really ever been much about the techniques. I think it's been about training method all along. And it seems the answer we've all agreed to is that the correct method is the one that works. Kenpo is a very open ended art. I like that. I think it is meant to encompass everything, ultimately, and I hope to be a part of that. It is a young art, but it borrows heavily from a number of very old arts. We stand on the shoulders of giants, so to speak. And we're lucky to have genuine Masters in an age with instant long distance communication.
> 
> I'm excited about the future of kenpo. With guys changing the techniques, and adding other arts, and adding weapons. I've been looking at the kenpo on youtube. I like it. You've got the Casa de Kenpo guys demonstrating the straight up EPAK style. You've got the House of Kenpo guys showing off the kenpo ground grappling. You've got some guys called kenpoevolution showing off some kenpo stand up grappling. You've got the counterforcounter guys showing the stick work. You've got James Hawkins, and Jamie Seabrook, and Joshua Ryer, and Doc showing off his stuff and Ras making a million kenpo videos. Sure, there's some lousy stuff. But it seems to me like the majority of the stuff is good stuff. I'm glad it's out there. And I'm glad to be a part of kenpo at this point in history.
> 
> Kenpo should be number one. It has the capacity to encompass the strengths of all arts and ranges and styles of combat. It can be anything to anyone and exactly what each practitioner needs. But that takes good instructors. And I think having a core of instructors out there holding on to the old ways is good. But I think having a core of instructors out there asking why and challenging the established boundaries and belief systems is good too. I think we'll really thrive off that tension.
> 
> 
> -Rob


 

Fallen Falcon...that's funny that you brought that specific tech up in this post,man. We were just going over that again yesterday at a informal get together,wherein my version of doing it was met with resounding criticism by the Kenpo Masters in the crowd...despite the fact that my version was the ONLY version that worked when put to the test vs the judoka wrestlers hapkidoists and other kenpoists there,and the STUDENTS of the disapproving Kenpo Masters thought that my Falling Falcon was terrific.

Essentially Fallen Falcon is Kenpo's response to a common wrestling,streetfighting and judo position--the one hand lapel grab with the clinch--and we run our entire arsenal against it,just like we do everything else. Your comment here:



Thesemindz said:


> I think we can go a long way towards making the techniques "functional" and that's a lot of fun and I'm totally up for that. But in the end no matter what we do we are still trying to codify a dynamic situation. Techniques can never encompass all possibilities. At their absolute best they can only ever be templates designed for us to pattern motion off of, that we then learn to adapt to dynamic circumstances. The systems are artificial. Mastery of the techniques is not the goal. Martial efficacy is the goal. At least that's my goal. And passing that skill on to my students. In the end regardless of the techniques we practice or teach, or what changes we may make to them, there is only one art of the sword.-Rob


 

Is exactly on target.We address that comprehensively in the "integration" portion of our approach. Remember: introduction,isolation,integration...the I:3 Method that I use to teach my techs and most improtantly the principles behind the techs? Introduction is the phase wherein we intro the students to a specific tech and walk them through it til they're proficient in its execution solo and against a fully cooperative partner,ISOLATION--wherein we spar with the specific tech I or my fellow Coaches intro'd to the class against escalating levels of resistance until the student is able to execute the tech full force against full resistance. Then INTEGRATION--we integrate the tech back into our arsenal...and we run all the rest of our techs against that same scenario too.<--This is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL. We run ALL our techs against the same scenario. I can do ALTERNATING MACES vs a bear hug too.Attacking Maces too. And whatever single or series of techs that I have...against a bear hug.It's in this area that we learn to apply our arsenal against whatever scenario and this is how we flow functionally from whatever scenario to whatever tech we wish.We learn to apply virtually our entire submission arsenal against whatever scenario too.You should see us pull off our Kenpo Chicken Wings (Americanas and Kimuras mixed in with aikido locks) against the Bear Hug.Doesn't matter if you're standing or not,we'll nail you anyway.Doesn't matter if you roll this way or that,we'll still nail you...because all of that is part of our BASE TRAINING vs the tech. Remember in my vids how I kept insisting on being able to execute in a 360 degree circle,regardless of your position visavis your opponent,regardless of whatever weaponry you he/she/they had? Yep,that's the Integration Phase that I was alluding to.

Our Fallen Falcon defends the strikes ( pushes,kicks knees punches head butts,the entire range and gamut of punches) weapons and takedowns that we assume is coming from the one hand lapel grab,and we relentlessly counter with Kenpo strikes,the osotogare (yes we'll osoto you even if you're on your knees),and drill the BG with chain submissions comprised of wristlocks elbow extensions and armbars.Doesn't matter where the one hand grab comes from...front,side,back,ground,seated,vs a wall,clinch,prone,whatever wherever whoever.We do the same thing.Strikes,unbalances,trips,throws,takedowns,displacements,submissions.These techs flow well together and allow us to unleash a nonstop barrage of offense that executes exactly what the original physical execution of the Fallen Cross (as I learned it) seemed to want us to learn...and we can definitely attack the elbow relentlessly with the same attack regardless of what our opponent does.It's purrty funny. Our skilled grappling brethren--in the process of defending and counterattacking with their justly feared and vaunted grappling arsenal--leave themselves wide open to Kenpo's ferocious fighting arsenal. And our striking brethren--including the MT boyz who were there at the informal get together--leave themselves wide open to our unique Kenpo brand of strikes and subs.

Interestingly,the guys who gave us the most trouble were the Hapkido guys. Their blend of striking,throwing and subs and the unique platform that they launch from was sorta similar to ours...because I hold rank in Hapkido too. Hapkido is a part of our arsenal,and has been since Cliff Stewart intro'd me to W.A.R. (Within Arm's Reach) 20 years ago. We managed to overcome all of our Hapkido brothers that day,but it wasn't easy.None of the wins were easy wins,whatever the art.And I did most of the fighting for our Gym,which brings me to the next observation: I was the only "Master" rank striker actually striving with the students and grapplers.All the other "Masters" were chillin on the sidelines doing zero.I never liked that tableau...even as a student.I thought that our erstwhile "Masters" should be out there on the mat showing us how it's REALLY done.



Thesemindz said:


> I like your idea of brainstorming the techniques. I've done the same thing with my training partners and other instructors. I think some techniques (Fallen Falcon) are useful in a non-functional state because they do exist as mini-sets covering related skills or topics. But I still like to play with the techniques with a functional mindset. So how would you take a technique like Fallen Falcon and make it functional? Certainly you can't batter the poor man's elbow that many times. He'd pull it away from you and curl up into a ball, or roll towards you in an effort to shield the joint and grab at your legs. Would you change the technique after the first joint attack? Where then would you put the rest of the joint attacks demonstrated in that technique? In other techniques? Or would you drop them from the Standard Curriculum but leave them as basic techniques intended to be practiced separately and only alluded to within Fallen Falcon?
> 
> At the same time, how do you determine what makes a technique functional vis a vis finishing moves? Do you think every technique needs to end with a high percentage "fight ender" in order to be considered functional? Or is it sufficient that the technique be executable within the specified combat scenario? Is Delayed Sword "functional?" Should techniques end with control maneuvers? Or coverouts? Or blows to the head?
> 
> It would seem from your videos and your writing that you also think that some degree of "live" training is required within the "ideal phase" of the technique in order to consider it "functional." For instance, your video on Captured Twigs seemed to be focused partially on the fact that dynamic bearhug applications aren't covered in the standard EPAK "ideal phase." So do techniques have to contain dynamic "give and take" activities in order to be considered functional? Do they have branches, for instance I'll do Captured Twigs A if he leans in with the hug, B if he lifts with the hug, C if he turns with the hug, or D if he sacrifices with the hug?-Rob


 
To answer the question in your first paragraph? We practice Fallen Falcon against all of the basic positions in which we execute the tech: standing subs,side,or back,seated...ground vs weapons,multifights,escape,rescue,escape and rescue.Since this is the base,all primary options are already addressed as the base. And they're remarkably similar.Very little variation is needed.In my Captured Twigs variant,Captured Twigs 1-3 is only PART of THE BASE that we practice our escapes and counters against.We do THE SAME TECHS vs ALL of the scenarios I just laid out.For instance,in multifights? We learn to blend our strikes with our Captured Twigs countergrappling and striking.We get in depth explorations of the stances that we apply,pressure and whatnot in order to mix displacements with trips throws takedowns sweeps and more...off of the exact same techs that I showed in the empty hand variant that I have in my youtube videos. The nightmare scenario is the armed multifight when you've been bear hugged...and you DON'T have a weapon but all the bad guys DO.We can still get out but chances are high that you're getting stabbed and/or hit.But since we practice the techs vs these scenarios? We have a much higher chance of surviving without major injury.

Delayed Sword is functional.All of our basic combinations include subs and control holds.ALL of them.Remember ALL of our techs have the ATACX GYM R.D.L.--Rock Drop and Lock--as essential components to the techs.And remember--coverouts are ESCAPES,blows to the heads or ANYTHING that ends the conflict without retreat is a finishing tech.

Gotta go now but I hope that I addressed the majority of the matters that you brought up.Love those comments and questions,Rob!

--Ras,Head Coach of THE ATACX GYM


----------



## Twin Fist

Touch Of Death said:


> Of course you know Clyde. LOL
> Sean



and exactly what is this supposed to mean?


----------



## Touch Of Death

Twin Fist said:


> and exactly what is this supposed to mean?


Save for a huge difference in writting style, I would have thought you two were twin fists. To be exact.
Sean


----------



## Thesemindz

Once again Ras, I think the discussion here is more about training methods than techniques. What you describe as your "base technique" includes all the activities and drills we practice, I just don't consider that practice part of the "base technique." For instance, my base technique for Captured Twigs is this.



Escaping Capture

	Attack:  Bearhug, arms pinned
	Direction:  6 o&#8217;clock
	Family of Techniques:  Defense against hug/holds

1.Step with your left into a reverse horse stance facing 12 as you execute a left pinning check to the attacker&#8217;s hands on the front of your body.  The reason we step with our left into a horse stance is to line up our right-handed weapons to the attacker&#8217;s constant centerline.  Once you have stepped into the horse stance execute a right rear hammerfist strike to the attacker&#8217;s groin to get him to loosen up and release the grip (ideal phase.)

2.Pivot to a right cat stance with your stance facing 3.  Your arms will be in a right universal check.  When you pivot make sure to turn your hips hard and bring your left shoulder up hard too.  This way if there is still a slight grasp on the bearhug the pivot will break you free from the attacker&#8217;s arms. 

3.Execute a right side stomp to the side to the attacker&#8217;s left foot.  You can use the pivot from the cat stance to line this up by pivoting your right foot until you feel the attacker&#8217;s left foot.  As the attacker bends forward from the pain of the stomp execute a right outward elbow strike (that has a path similar to the obscure elbow strike) to the attacker&#8217;s face.  After the strike return the right hand to the universal check.

4. Face the opponent in a right neutral bow.

5. Drag step escape away from the opponent.


That doesn't include any of the drills and live training you discuss. We still do those things, we just don't consider it part of the "ideal phase" of the technique. Again, I feel like what you're describing is just good karate training. The problem is when you say "ideal phase" and I say "ideal phase" we aren't referring to the same aspects of our individual methods. They have some overlapping purpose, but they are inherently different components of what we do.

Which is fine. If it works, it works. BJJ schools teach a lot of the same techniques I do with a completely different method, and it seems to work for them. If you're curious to see some of the ways I train these techniques, I posted my class plans for next month on the general kenpo board.

This all has me thinking about something else. I teach in someone else's school, so I'm beholden to his class schedule, but how much time would you say you spend on a specific technique in a specific class? I can only spend so much time, and I have to keep teaching new techniques week after week. Ideally I'd like to be able to spend more time practicing each technique and drill, but there's never enough time and I'm always running my classes late anyway. I'm not super concerned because I feel like if they train in karate for the rest of their lives they'll pick up all these skills eventually anyway. But you describe a pretty intense training regimen with each of your techniques. Do you cover all these ranges and alternatives and options in the first class you teach a new technique? Do you spend several classes in a row on each technique? Or do you go back and reteach your techniques every few months to cover more advanced concepts? What is the length of your classes and how do you structure them in order to teach these skills?

I've been thinking about all the things I want my students to learn, and struggling with the fact that there's never enough time in one class to cover everything. How do you actually approach teaching your techniques against every category of attack, offensively and defensively, against single, mutliple, and armed opponents? Is that a fluid process that happens over the course of years, or do you expect your yellow belts to be absolutely proficient with their yellow belt techniques before they learn orange belt techniques? Do you have a regular curriculum and testing schedule? Or do you teach each student at their own pace and test them individually when you believe they are ready?


-Rob


----------



## ATACX GYM

Thesemindz said:


> Once again Ras, I think the discussion here is more about training methods than techniques. What you describe as your "base technique" includes all the activities and drills we practice, I just don't consider that practice part of the "base technique." For instance, my base technique for Captured Twigs is this.
> 
> 
> 
> Escaping Capture
> 
> Attack: Bearhug, arms pinned
> Direction: 6 oclock
> Family of Techniques: Defense against hug/holds
> 
> 1.Step with your left into a reverse horse stance facing 12 as you execute a left pinning check to the attackers hands on the front of your body. The reason we step with our left into a horse stance is to line up our right-handed weapons to the attackers constant centerline. Once you have stepped into the horse stance execute a right rear hammerfist strike to the attackers groin to get him to loosen up and release the grip (ideal phase.)
> 
> 2.Pivot to a right cat stance with your stance facing 3. Your arms will be in a right universal check. When you pivot make sure to turn your hips hard and bring your left shoulder up hard too. This way if there is still a slight grasp on the bearhug the pivot will break you free from the attackers arms.
> 
> 3.Execute a right side stomp to the side to the attackers left foot. You can use the pivot from the cat stance to line this up by pivoting your right foot until you feel the attackers left foot. As the attacker bends forward from the pain of the stomp execute a right outward elbow strike (that has a path similar to the obscure elbow strike) to the attackers face. After the strike return the right hand to the universal check.
> 
> 4. Face the opponent in a right neutral bow.
> 
> 5. Drag step escape away from the opponent.
> 
> 
> That doesn't include any of the drills and live training you discuss. We still do those things, we just don't consider it part of the "ideal phase" of the technique. Again, I feel like what you're describing is just good karate training. The problem is when you say "ideal phase" and I say "ideal phase" we aren't referring to the same aspects of our individual methods. They have some overlapping purpose, but they are inherently different components of what we do.
> 
> Which is fine. If it works, it works. BJJ schools teach a lot of the same techniques I do with a completely different method, and it seems to work for them. If you're curious to see some of the ways I train these techniques, I posted my class plans for next month on the general kenpo board.
> 
> This all has me thinking about something else. I teach in someone else's school, so I'm beholden to his class schedule, but how much time would you say you spend on a specific technique in a specific class? I can only spend so much time, and I have to keep teaching new techniques week after week. Ideally I'd like to be able to spend more time practicing each technique and drill, but there's never enough time and I'm always running my classes late anyway. I'm not super concerned because I feel like if they train in karate for the rest of their lives they'll pick up all these skills eventually anyway. But you describe a pretty intense training regimen with each of your techniques. Do you cover all these ranges and alternatives and options in the first class you teach a new technique? Do you spend several classes in a row on each technique? Or do you go back and reteach your techniques every few months to cover more advanced concepts? What is the length of your classes and how do you structure them in order to teach these skills?
> 
> I've been thinking about all the things I want my students to learn, and struggling with the fact that there's never enough time in one class to cover everything. How do you actually approach teaching your techniques against every category of attack, offensively and defensively, against single, mutliple, and armed opponents? Is that a fluid process that happens over the course of years, or do you expect your yellow belts to be absolutely proficient with their yellow belt techniques before they learn orange belt techniques? Do you have a regular curriculum and testing schedule? Or do you teach each student at their own pace and test them individually when you believe they are ready?
> 
> 
> -Rob


 

Training methods.I absolutely agree with you there.I recall bringing up that very same point some pages ago on this very thread and other threads like this one. We are totally in agreement there.

Where we differ--and not by much--is how our training methods impact the specific ways we teach,the specific techs we teach,and how broad the scenarios are that we teach.Every tech I have...from pre-White Level A to Coach Rank...is tested in the following ranges/scenarios: Standup 360 Degrees,Clinch 360 Degrees,Seated,360 Degrees,Standing-Seated,Seated-Seated 360 Degrees,Up-Down,Seated-Ground,Ground-Ground 360 Degrees,Armed Single,Unarmed and Armed Multifight,Escape,Rescue,and Escape and Rescue variants of each of these. Then as you hit the sash ranks in my Gym,you learn healing,joint and finger locks,First Aid and CPR (mandatory),and the more lethal techs which require the solid base of skill that comes from the "belt ranks"...including the more cunning,subtle methods of our brand of combat capoeira.Sashes cover offensive firearms use,too,as well as improvised weaponry. In my Gym? You have to EARN a White Belt.It's the 4th rank up. The entirety of Kenpo's SD arsenal of sequences is the covered by the time you hit the purple belt ranks of my Gym. My purples do Falling Falcon and all that other fun stuff with horrific efficiency.My WHITE belts do it with high skill. We do lotsa other stuff too but that's for a different post.

So whatever tech I teach,gets the 360 Degree multirange multiscenario treatment.IT'S NOT HARD.It's PRETTY EASY in fact. Teach a jab-cross-front kick,and say The I.O.U.D. (Inside Outside Upward Downward) Blocks.Doing this takes me no more than 12 minutes,usually 6-8 minutes.Focus on the step by step execution. Insist on 50 of each tech thrown in the air to get the movement and muscle memory down,and make them do the jab-cross-front kick combo up and down the gym about 5 times.That will equal 50 reps for most places.Pair off with partner.Have jabber jab-cross-front kick at partner as the partner first stands immobile at each of the cardinal directions for 10 reps each position,then have the partner move in any pattern or whatever that the partner wants within the circular orbit of the jabbing student WITHOUT attacking that student.Give them 2 minutes.The jabber has to fire to the body (not head) first,and must land 20 blows at 25% power in this 2 minute round,then they change roles. Now do the same thing with the blocks...except now one student jabs at 25% power and the other student must block.It's always a revelation when the student starts getting smacked with jabs from the back,lololol. This is how I teach students to "feel" their opponent even when their back is to them,look for shadows,use their peripheral vision,turn their heads to see their (moving) partner,and more. 3 rounds,2 minutes.They're sweating now. Break 2 minutes. Correct their mistakes. Run through every range of combat with partner drills of strikes and the I.O.U.D....including Escape,Rescue,plus Escape and Rescue.Intro the inside and outside "leg trip",insist on 60 reps of each tech per student in two 2 minute rounds,integrate with jab-cross-front kick,and I.O.U.D.,and repeat the whole process again.That's fun and the students pick it up FAST.The strikes and both defensive and offensive use of the blocks really opens up the grab and leg trip.3-two minute rounds of this,with each partner changing roles after 1 minute.2 minute break of me correcting them and then I make them go 3 full 2 minute rounds nonstop.Sweating and tired now.Break where I tell them how they sucked and what to fix.Lololol.Then I move on to following your partner down after the leg trip with a stomp-front kick-jab-block (used offensively as a check) jab-crossx2 combo,and a cover out.We practice that one in the air,and then with a totally nonresistant partner.The students--on their FIRST DAY--will already understand that they can do this against a moderately resisting opponent...but I do NOT let them stomp people or kick them while they're down on their first day. I divvy up the class into 2 lines facing each other,and we spend the rest of the time--usually 15 minutes--in mandatory light sparring,working the techs in 1-2 minute bursts while switching partners so everybody gets to try their techs against new people (sans the stomp and kick).The students also learn how to keep their legs from being grabbed in this scenario by using footwork,blocks and strikes (yep,the jab-cross-front kick and blocks that they've already been using) and as a result they get a deep grasp of the techs in question.

It's a good fun safe workout that teaches you how to scrap from day one...and makes you pay close attention to your technical execution too.All in 60 minutes.


----------



## Matt

Flying Crane said:


> I dunno.  Here's how I see it...
> 
> you punch at me with your right fist, I smash your punching arm with a pek chui and damage your arm, then I hit you with something, maybe a chuin chui (straight punch).
> 
> You punch at me with your left fist, I smash your punching arm with a pek chui and hit you with a chuin chui.
> 
> You give me a left-right combo, I smash with pek, pek, then follow with chuin.
> 
> You're taller or shorter than me, or slightly off on an angle instead of right in front, doesn't matter: Pek and then Chuin.
> 
> You punch at me from the right side, I still smash you with a pek, follow with a chuin, or maybe a baht gim ("sword-drawing punch").
> 
> You punch at me from the left side, I still smash you with a pek, follow with a chuin or maybe a baht gim.
> 
> You reach out to grab at my jacket, you guessed it: pek to chuin.
> 
> you succeed in grabbing my jacket, pek to chuin.
> 
> You try to push me, and again it's pek to chuin
> 
> You grab me by the shoulder(s), once again: pek to chuin.
> 
> My point is, most of these kinds of things you can deal with very simply with an aggressively destructive defensive technique (which may end the problem all by itself) followed by a finisher.  Lots and lots of different attacks, all handled with the same combo: pek-chuin.  Variations naturally fall into place depending on positioning, but the basic techs are the same, on solution for many problems.
> 
> why get so complicated?



I wish I could push the 'thanks' button more times. The reason I switched styles to the one I do now was that instead of 100+ techniques to black belt, and countless (literally) techniques in the system, I now focus on about 18, with 'ad-libs and variations', and on training at a very intense level. Getting better > Getting more.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Matt said:


> I wish I could push the 'thanks' button more times. The reason I switched styles to the one I do now was that instead of 100+ techniques to black belt, and countless (literally) techniques in the system, I now focus on about 18, with 'ad-libs and variations', and on training at a very intense level. Getting better > Getting more.


 
So what art do you study anyway? 18 techs in the whole system? Interesting...or do I misunderstand your point?

I completely agree with getting better>getting more,but there are quite a few functional philosophies that get us there.My ATACX GYM has 48 base techs at pre-white level A...the very first rank that you have when you enter.I cover empty hand,weapons (stick only at this rank),grappling and subs,takedowns,trips,displacements,throws,multifights,escape,rescue,escape and rescue,sets,breakfalls,verbal de-escalation,etc. The number of techs isn't really a reason to switch styles; the functionality and purpose of the techs and their compatibility with your specific goals should be centrally at issue.

I've created a plethora of functional phase techs and functional drills that speedily download the requisite basic performance skillz and we simply hone our skillz from there.


----------



## Twin Fist

Matt said:


> The reason I switched styles to the one I do now was that instead of 100+ techniques to black belt, and countless (literally) techniques in the system, I now focus on about 18, with 'ad-libs and variations', and on training at a very intense level. Getting better > Getting more.



sounds like kajukembo


----------



## ATACX GYM

Twin Fist said:


> sounds like kajukembo


 

Yeah it does...and a couple of others too...


----------



## MJS

I agree with the last few posters...Matt, TF, and Ras.  Whats interesting, is while I share that same line of thinking, is people will still disagree with this, saying that by limiting the number of things that you do, you're not teaching pure Kenpo, depriving people of valuable stuff, that the reason you teach a condensed list is because you dont understand the material....the list goes on and on. LOL.  

Again, while I teach all of the techs required for each belt level (way too many IMHO) I think that, as I've said in other threads, by focusing on a handful of common street attacks, for each belt level, drilling the hell out of them, and then working to apply each tech to a number of different scenarios, the student is better off in the long run.  

What I mean about applying the techs to various scenarios.....instead of having 7 techs that address a 2 hand lapel grab, each of them in and of itself, teaching a 'what if' response, have the student build their own 'what if' off of 1 tech.  Yeah, in the end, they're still ending up with the 'ad-libs' which is fine, they're just not getting bogged down with a bunch of preset techs that they need to spend time learning, when they could be learning something more productive.


----------



## Flying Crane

MJS said:


> ... teaching a 'what if' response, have the student build their own 'what if' off of 1 tech.


 
I'll suggest even a step further:  take one technique and see how many ways you can get it to work "right out of the box", against a variety of attacks.  If it's not workable that way, then maybe it's too complicated (note: I believe there is a big difference between "complicated" and "complex".  Complex can be good, if properly understood and kept in context.  Complicated is usually not good and leads to dysfunctionality).

By "variety of attacks", I don't mean things like, a punch from the front vs. a punch from an angle, or a punch with the same foot forward vs. a punch with the opposite foot forward.  To me, that's essentially the same attack.  What I mean is, a punch, a grab, a push, attacks from the front or side or rear, some very different things that all involve the bad guy coming at you in different ways and from different directions.

Usually the techs that work against a variety of attacks are straight forward and simple, and those are the ones with a much much much higher probability of success in a chaotic and changing scenario in a real-life defense situation.

Once you've worked that exercise to death, then you can look at how very minor adjustments and variations on that tech can make it work against even more different attacks.  That's where it can become an exercise in "what if".


----------



## MJS

Flying Crane said:


> I'll suggest even a step further: take one technique and see how many ways you can get it to work "right out of the box", against a variety of attacks. If it's not workable that way, then maybe it's too complicated (note: I believe there is a big difference between "complicated" and "complex". Complex can be good, if properly understood and kept in context. Complicated is usually not good and leads to dysfunctionality).
> 
> By "variety of attacks", I don't mean things like, a punch from the front vs. a punch from an angle, or a punch with the same foot forward vs. a punch with the opposite foot forward. To me, that's essentially the same attack. What I mean is, a punch, a grab, a push, attacks from the front or side or rear, some very different things that all involve the bad guy coming at you in different ways and from different directions.
> 
> Usually the techs that work against a variety of attacks are straight forward and simple, and those are the ones with a much much much higher probability of success in a chaotic and changing scenario in a real-life defense situation.
> 
> Once you've worked that exercise to death, then you can look at how very minor adjustments and variations on that tech can make it work against even more different attacks. That's where it can become an exercise in "what if".


 
Exactly!  Initially, what I was talking about was what you said in your opening line....to work, say, Attacking Mace, off of a step thru punch, a cross, a jab/cross, but when ya think about it, what you suggested, makes alot of very good sense.  

I mentioned a while back, probably in another thread, that during one class, I took Short 2, and had the students pair up, and work applications.  I gave them a bunch just off of the first move, which is rt. steps forward, rt, inward block, rt. outward handsword.  Some apps. that I gave them were:

blocks against a right or left punch
defense against an attempted grab, either hand
an attempted push, 1 or 2 hands.
lapel grab, rt or lt handed.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Flying Crane said:


> I'll suggest even a step further: take one technique and see how many ways you can get it to work "right out of the box", against a variety of attacks. If it's not workable that way, then maybe it's too complicated (note: I believe there is a big difference between "complicated" and "complex". Complex can be good, if properly understood and kept in context. Complicated is usually not good and leads to dysfunctionality).
> 
> By "variety of attacks", I don't mean things like, a punch from the front vs. a punch from an angle, or a punch with the same foot forward vs. a punch with the opposite foot forward. To me, that's essentially the same attack. What I mean is, a punch, a grab, a push, attacks from the front or side or rear, some very different things that all involve the bad guy coming at you in different ways and from different directions.
> 
> Usually the techs that work against a variety of attacks are straight forward and simple, and those are the ones with a much much much higher probability of success in a chaotic and changing scenario in a real-life defense situation.
> 
> Once you've worked that exercise to death, then you can look at how very minor adjustments and variations on that tech can make it work against even more different attacks. That's where it can become an exercise in "what if".


 

Remember how I keep saying that I work my entire arsenal of attacks in every position at 360 degrees vs multifights rescue,escape,rescue and escape,etc? This is what I mean.We work every single one of our techs--for example, Snaking Talons (our varient is the Snake and Tiger Talon) vs armed attacks,on the ground,etc.I already pointed out that we do this numerous times.What happens is that we develope an incredible array of unorthodox or at least unusual attacks vs all kinds of attacks.Try Captured Twigs vs jab and cross for instance.You wind up blocking strikes,counterstriking and ATTACKING WITH THE BEAR HUG.I insist that our counterstrikes do include the signature techs in the specific tech--like Captured Twigs--we're studying,i.e. hammerfist and Obscure Wing,palm strike,and my Gym's R.D.L. (Rock Drop and Lock,which are all forms of sweeps,takedowns,displacements,subs,weapon use,etc. with the idea to "Rock-stop them with blows,Drop-stop them with slams takedowns etc. Lock-stop them with submission/control holds) added on to whatever pre-white and white belt techs that we used to cross the gap.We've used Delayed Sword from The Butterfly Guard with horrific effect.You ever try Thundering Hammers from the MT clinch? Betcha nobody has tried that on your Muay Thai buddies either,and once you functionalize it? Very nasty surprise for them.Try Leaping Crane from off the point fighting blitz flying knee and clinch work.More nasty surprise. (Okay that mess is FUNNY to me;it hella works too.Wait until you see my video on it.Swear to God everybody of done this to gets this hella funny look on their face sooo much).


----------



## ATACX GYM

MJS said:


> Exactly! Initially, what I was talking about was what you said in your opening line....to work, say, Attacking Mace, off of a step thru punch, a cross, a jab/cross, but when ya think about it, what you suggested, makes alot of very good sense.
> 
> I mentioned a while back, probably in another thread, that during one class, I took Short 2, and had the students pair up, and work applications. I gave them a bunch just off of the first move, which is rt. steps forward, rt, inward block, rt. outward handsword. Some apps. that I gave them were:
> 
> blocks against a right or left punch
> defense against an attempted grab, either hand
> an attempted push, 1 or 2 hands.
> lapel grab, rt or lt handed.


 

You can do this off of knife,bat,bottle,club,chair,and stick thrusts and hooking swings (don't fake the funk though; make sure that the attacker is using the business end of the weapon when swinging at your student; it emphasizes over and over again the importance of dealing with/nuetralizing/evading the weapon threat in the real world way) and it works against guns pointed at you from close range too. It works against the single or two handed choke hold.Etc. Etc. I do it with my squad all the time.


----------



## ATACX GYM

I still think that we need to functionalize all of our techs;I.P. or not. Can you fight with them? No? Then WHATEVER benefits you get from them won't be anywhere near as much as what you'd get if you can actually...you know...make the techs WORK AS PRESCRIBED.If you can't get out of a arms in bear hug with Captured Twigs? Your CT sucks in comparison to what you'd learn if you your CT actually DOES allow you to escape a bear hug.There ya are.


----------

