# are we allowed to adjust material?



## KempoGuy06 (Apr 19, 2012)

I got in a discussion a couple weeks back with a classmate about some of out techniques. We were discussing how they could be adapted to this situation or that situation when we hit on a particular technique that i have difficulty executing as instructed due to my size and lack of flexibility. 

I told my friend that i had changed it a little to better suit my size and flexibility. He liked it so much that he know does it because it feel better to him.

Well another one of our classmates overhead the conversation and said that I should not change, that i have to keep working at it until I do it the way i was taught. I explained to him that it was nearly impossible and mildly painful to do it the way i was taught, so i changed it slightly so that i would be able perform the technique as best to my ability.

I was wondering what you all think. Am i right? Am i allowed to alter things to suit me? Or is the other guy right? Should i continue to practice at it until i get it down? what if i never do? do i just drop it? Im in a situation where i test for ranks, so does that mean i never move on until i get this down? (thats an extreme hypothetical but all the same it works for the thread)

Im curious as to what you have to say

B


----------



## Dirty Dog (Apr 19, 2012)

You should know how things are "properly" done, even if for some reason you're physically incapable of doing them that way. And you should strive to overcome your limits so as to be able to perform them properly. But ultimately, modifications are sometimes necessary. As an example, any time I am in a backstance with the left foot forward, I will not have my head and shoulders exactly as is proper. Why? Because I don't have an eye on that side of my face, and in a proper stance, I cannot see the target. When I teach, however, I make sure to demonstrate ther stance properly, and make sure that people are not copying me (unless, of course, they're also blind on that side...). Do I lose points when I'm grading or competing? Sure. But that doesn't change the realities of the situation.


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Apr 19, 2012)

Dirty Dog said:


> You should know how things are "properly" done, even if for some reason you're physically incapable of doing them that way. And you should strive to overcome your limits so as to be able to perform them properly. But ultimately, modifications are sometimes necessary. As an example, any time I am in a backstance with the left foot forward, I will not have my head and shoulders exactly as is proper. Why? Because I don't have an eye on that side of my face, and in a proper stance, I cannot see the target. When I teach, however, I make sure to demonstrate ther stance properly, and make sure that people are not copying me (unless, of course, they're also blind on that side...). Do I lose points when I'm grading or competing? Sure. But that doesn't change the realities of the situation.



Thanks!

I strive to do it properly like you said but my problem is when im inclose with someone and technique calls for a kicks. At 6'3" 245lbs that is demanding a lot from me. the best i could manage was a shot to the knees (which is effective none the less) but i want to be able to hit the proper target.

What i did was adjust my stance at the beginning and then add a step at the end so that i would have more room to kick the proper target at the end of the technique. nothing major and as far as believe my instructor is concerned he doesnt have a problem (i have not directly asked him about this but i have about other material and he says its fine as long as i know the proper way so that i can teach it to the lower ranks)

B


----------



## MJS (Apr 19, 2012)

KempoGuy06 said:


> I got in a discussion a couple weeks back with a classmate about some of out techniques. We were discussing how they could be adapted to this situation or that situation when we hit on a particular technique that i have difficulty executing as instructed due to my size and lack of flexibility.
> 
> I told my friend that i had changed it a little to better suit my size and flexibility. He liked it so much that he know does it because it feel better to him.
> 
> ...



I'm often confused, very confused, when I hear people say that things shouldn't have to be changed.  What people tend to forget, is that everyone is built differently.  What I can do, will differ from a smaller person, and it'll differ from a larger person.  So, that said, what I do is: I teach the tech as it was taught to me.  I then make adjustments accordingly.  I've had shorter females working with taller males, and say, "I can't reach his face with this shot." So, when I'd show them what to do, they'd be so hell bent on no changes, they'd say, "Yeah, but thats not the way the tech goes.  You're supposed to do this."  

So yes, IMO, I dont see anything wrong with slight changes.  Can't reach their face?  Thats ok, just move the target.  ie: hit them in the chest.


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Apr 19, 2012)

MJS said:


> I'm often confused, very confused, when I hear people say that things shouldn't have to be changed.  What people tend to forget, is that everyone is built differently.  What I can do, will differ from a smaller person, and it'll differ from a larger person.  So, that said, what I do is: I teach the tech as it was taught to me.  I then make adjustments accordingly.  I've had shorter females working with taller males, and say, "I can't reach his face with this shot." So, when I'd show them what to do, they'd be so hell bent on no changes, they'd say, "Yeah, but thats not the way the tech goes.  You're supposed to do this."
> 
> So yes, IMO, I dont see anything wrong with slight changes.  Can't reach their face?  Thats ok, just move the target.  ie: hit them in the chest.



I like this

Where does this mentality come from?

(Interesting question right here) do you find it more common in men or woman? what about kids vs adults?

At what point do you see this start to diminish? or do you know higher ranks that are sticklers about this?

B


----------



## punisher73 (Apr 19, 2012)

Things are set in place for a reason to instruct a specific lesson(s) and/or concepts.  That being said, if we have a limited physical ability that prevents us from doing it that way, we should talk to our instructor and have them give us an alternative that still will contain those things.

Beginners many times change things due to preference and lose lessons in their art that they don't even realize.  It is like doing away with a volume in a set of encyclopedias, and not knowing what was in there because it is gone.


----------



## MJS (Apr 19, 2012)

KempoGuy06 said:


> I like this



Thanks. 



> Where does this mentality come from?



Not a clue..lol.  I'd say from people who've been conditioned that change is a bad thing.  If you can't make it work as written, then you're doing it wrong.  Again, I'm not saying, to totally change the tech.  I mean, if you're doing Lone Kimono, don't say, "I dont like the idea of stepping back and striking the arm, so I'm going to eliminate that part and add something else in."  No, I'm saying, "Oh, when you go to strike down on his arm, you're not getting the desired effect because he's stronger and taller than you?  Ok, no problem.  Here, kick him in the balls first."   Or something of that nature...LOL.  



> (Interesting question right here) do you find it more common in men or woman? what about kids vs adults?



Moreso men and women vs. kids.




> At what point do you see this start to diminish? or do you know higher ranks that are sticklers about this?
> 
> B



Some that I've trained with are sticklers.  IMO, those people are sticklers because they don't put themselves into a position where change may need to happen.  When does it diminish?  When people realize that they don't need to or shouldn't be so bound by the techs.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 19, 2012)

In my opinion, this is a big, fat, "it depends".

If we are talking about fundamental skills, i.e. proper stances, transitions, basic strikes, etc., then no, don't just go changing that.  Assuming the instruction you are receiving is of high quality, then you are learning a specific way to do these things, based on certain principles.  When practicing and drilling, you should always adhere to those principles because that reinforces your execution.  Also, you need to understand that sometimes how things are drilled is not how you would actually use them in a real fight.  But drilling them in a certain way develops a foundational skill that will be brought into play every time you deliver the fundamental skills, even if the delivery is different from how it is drilled.

Now, if we are talking about the scripted Self Defense Scenario techniques that are pretty typical and common among many of the Hawaiian/Chow/Parker derived kenpo branches, then I would say there is more room for adjustments.  Personally, I have some strong reservations about this approach to structuring a curriculum, I honestly do not feel it's the best approach to training, but that is my opinion and many people feel it works quite well.  I do not believe that all of these kinds of SD techs were well designed to begin with, some are simply bad ideas from the ground up.  I think it just opens the door to making a lot of changes, and as long as the fundamental skills are adhered to and the foundational principles are kept in tact, then altering the SD techs probably doesn't matter so much, as long as there is a good reason for doing so and the result is something that actually makes sense.

If the quality of instruction you are receiving is not particularly high, then all of these issues may be simply jumbled and making changes isn't going to help you.  If this is the case, then you simply need a better instructor.  

Everybody believes that the instruction they are receiving is high quality.  Let's be honest: if you did not believe so, you would not continue to get that instruction.  So determining what is high quality and what is not, can be a tough call for someone to make.  Everyone makes a judgement based on their personal experiences.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Apr 19, 2012)

Flying Crane said:


> If we are talking about fundamental skills, i.e. proper stances, transitions, basic strikes, etc., then no, don't just go changing that.



Even that depends. Some of what I've altered to suit my monocular vision is pretty basic. Including proper stances. The changes were discussed with my Master, and he approves.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 19, 2012)

Dirty Dog said:


> Even that depends. Some of what I've altered to suit my monocular vision is pretty basic. Including proper stances. The changes were discussed with my Master, and he approves.



OK, well I suppose there are always exceptions.  But assuming the quality of the instruction is high and accurate, any changes made to this kind of thing should be done very carefully, and not done on a whim.


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 19, 2012)

MJS said:


> I'm often confused, very confused, when I hear people say that things shouldn't have to be changed.  What people tend to forget, is that everyone is built differently.  What I can do, will differ from a smaller person, and it'll differ from a larger person.  So, that said, what I do is: I teach the tech as it was taught to me.  I then make adjustments accordingly.  I've had shorter females working with taller males, and say, "I can't reach his face with this shot." So, when I'd show them what to do, they'd be so hell bent on no changes, they'd say, "Yeah, but thats not the way the tech goes.  You're supposed to do this."
> 
> So yes, IMO, I dont see anything wrong with slight changes.  Can't reach their face?  Thats ok, just move the target.  ie: hit them in the chest.


I'd agree.

There're things you shouldn't change; they're the key elements that make technique or sequence work.  But beyond that?  Adapt to the individual.  I've got a guy in my class who was badly injured years ago, and lost most use of an arm.  He knows the textbook way to do things, but obviously, can't.  EVERYTHING he does has been adapted, adjusted, and tweaked.  But if it maintains the key principles -- it's still OK.  

The other thing is that, in reality, nothing works exactly the same when it's really being used.  A punch that the script says goes to the head, they guy may turn a little away, and suddenly, there's no head to hit.  Script may say a shot to the groin makes the guy bend down into an uppercut... but you just kicked the guy with brass balls who doesn't even flinch, so now you either whiff completely with that uppercut, or modify it to extend out into a different punch.  And so on...  So it never hurts to practice some variants on the scripts, too.


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 19, 2012)

MJS said:


> If you can't make it work as written, then you're doing it wrong.  Again, I'm not saying, to totally change the tech.  I mean, if you're doing Lone Kimono, don't say, "I dont like the idea of stepping back and striking the arm, so I'm going to eliminate that part and add something else in."  No, I'm saying, "Oh, when you go to strike down on his arm, you're not getting the desired effect because he's stronger and taller than you?  Ok, no problem.  Here, kick him in the balls first."   Or something of that nature...LOL.


This reminds of the discussion with Ras & Doc not too long ago.

You have to learn the base technique, as is.  You have to understand it. Once you understand the principles that make it work -- you can change it.  That doesn't mean you can't make minor changes earlier, like hitting a chest instead of a face that you can't reach.  But before making significant alterations, understand the technique.  Too many people shortcut the process.  There is a point of "if you can't make it work, you must be doing it wrong."  But you also want to ask if it's the right technique for the situation, among other things.  And there's a point when you can and probably should make some changes.


----------



## Brian King (Apr 19, 2012)

A man was watching his wife prepare the family dinner and marveling at her well practiced efficiency. The way she moved about the kitchen and gathered the various ingredients was almost without thought yet had the efficiency of well thought out processes and practices. As she gathered the ham and cut about an inch of each end of the ham he asked why she did this. Her reply my mother did this with every ham didnt really satisfy his curiosity but fortunately the parents were coming over that night for supper and he could ask his mother-in-law why cut an inch off both ends of the ham. So, during the supper he brought up the question. He asked the question, why cut an inch off both ends of the ham? To which his mother-in-law thought about it for a moment, then said. Honey, the dish I cook the ham in was a nine inch dish and the hams were always just a bit too large for the dish that I used.

If a person is doing a very traditional martial art, some of the practices might be armor based, or weapon based, that feel weird or do not make much sense doing them today unarmored. Yet, for many of these traditional arts, the practice is not supposed to change but the practitioner is supposed to change. Before a person makes changes they should understand the why of the method. What are the purposes and the reasons something is done. Only after that is understood depending on the art/style should changes be considered.

For arts other than the very traditional keeping the methods alive for centuries ones, I think that making changes is ok for the individual practitioner as long as they *understand the technique(s) and that when they start teaching they first teach the non-modified technique rather than their modifications. If someone teaches their modifications rather than the original way, they are then creating a new style which might or might not be ok but regardless should be done or avoided on purpose. 

*By understand, I mean that they should know the strengths and weaknesses of both the non-modified and the modified techniques and should have thoroughly and severely tested the modifications for effectiveness, efficiency, and physical biomechanical safety.

FWIW - I do not practice kenpo/kempo so anyone reading my advice and/or opinions should bear that in mind. 

Warmest Regards
Brian King


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 19, 2012)

Brian King said:


> A man was watching his wife prepare the family dinner and marveling at her well practiced efficiency. The way she moved about the kitchen and gathered the various ingredients was almost without thought yet had the efficiency of well thought out processes and practices. As she gathered the ham and cut about an inch of each end of the ham he asked why she did this. Her reply &#8220;my mother did this with every ham&#8221; didn&#8217;t really satisfy his curiosity but fortunately the parents were coming over that night for supper and he could ask his mother-in-law why cut an inch off both ends of the ham. So, during the supper he brought up the question. He asked the question, &#8220;why cut an inch off both ends of the ham?&#8221; To which his mother-in-law thought about it for a moment, then said. &#8220;Honey, the dish I cook the ham in was a nine inch dish and the hams were always just a bit too large for the dish that I used.&#8221;



I've heard this story before.  I understand the spirit and the message behind it, but I think in many cases it misses the point.  It implies that traditional methods are rigid, unbending, unchanging, outdated and not useful.  That may be true in some cases but I think more often than not, it is simply not true.  Rather it reflects a lack of understanding of what is really happening, in the traditional methods.

I don't know what things are like in the traditional Japanese or Okinawan or other methods, but I train a very traditional Chinese method.  I can say that in my experience, the traditional methods have very specific ways of doing things, and it has nothing to do with being outdated or "cultural wrappings" or preserving an old method for posterity.  Those who believe it does, simply do not understand the method and what is being trained and accomplished with those methods, and they do not understand that the traditional methods are not opposed to being changed when it is appropriate.  My sifu does that all the time, and he explains why.


----------



## K-man (Apr 19, 2012)

Flying Crane said:


> In my opinion, this is a big, fat, "it depends".



Not fair! That's my comment and I have copyright!   

But to be serious, that is true.  When we talk of basics, have the basics changed?  I will give as an example differences between Japanese Goju karate as in Goju Kai and Okinawan Goju Ryu as taught at the Jundokan. Both styles originated from the teaching of Chogen Miyagi Sensei. The Japanese system is highly regulated while the Okinawan system is much more relaxed. So if we look at the stances, for example Shiko dachi (what a lot of people call 'horse stance' but it isn't) where the feet are roughly two shoulder widths apart, the feet are pointing out at a 45* angle and the knees are pushed out, in some instances so much that the direction of the knees is almost 180*. The body is lowered so the thighs are, in the extreme, parallel to the floor.







  (Sorry the picture didn't load. This was an extreme low stance.)

Now I couldn't achieve that stance when I was 30 years younger than I am now and I was always being told my stance wasn't correct.  Basically from day one my stance was as low as it was comfortable for me but technically wrong.

Then I changed to Okinawan Goju. Extreme stance is regarded there as not correct because you are limited in your ability to move quickly.






 (This picture didn't load either. It was a more relaxed, higher stance.)

All of a sudden my stance is perfect.  Even something as basic as a stance can be viewed differently within the same style so which s right? Answer, it depends. If you are in a kata competition, the extreme stance might get you a better score.  If you are using the stance the way it was intended, for self defence, then the second is correct. In some ways you could think of the extreme form as kihon (although I would argue against that proposition) and the higher, more relaxed, form as advance technique. In reality it has to come down to what you can physically do.

A second example is a jump kick in Sanseru kata.  Some older practitioners (and some younger ones too) can't physically perform that kick. In Goju Kai, that meant the kata was not being done correctly. In Okinawan Goju, the jump kick is not in the kata. There are two front kicks instead.  Which kata is correct? Same style, same roots, yet differences everywhere.

Whether realistically you can vary what is being taught in your dojo depends on how far up the tree you can access. My attitude has totally changed. If one of my guys modifies something slightly to make it work for him, most times I would say go for it. Whenever I have asked those above me a similar question, that is the answer I have been given.     :asian:


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 19, 2012)

Flying Crane said:


> I've heard this story before.  I understand the spirit and the message behind it, but I think in many cases it misses the point.  It implies that traditional methods are rigid, unbending, unchanging, outdated and not useful.  That may be true in some cases but I think more often than not, it is simply not true.  Rather it reflects a lack of understanding of what is really happening, in the traditional methods.
> 
> I don't know what things are like in the traditional Japanese or Okinawan or other methods, but I train a very traditional Chinese method.  I can say that in my experience, the traditional methods have very specific ways of doing things, and it has nothing to do with being outdated or "cultural wrappings" or preserving an old method for posterity.  Those who believe it does, simply do not understand the method and what is being trained and accomplished with those methods, and they do not understand that the traditional methods are not opposed to being changed when it is appropriate.  My sifu does that all the time, and he explains why.



There's also a story about a kata which included 3 steps backwards unexpectedly at one point.  Students looked into it, invented all sorts of explanations, like hopping over the bodies of the vanquished foes...  Eventually, someone got a chance to ask one of the earliest members.  The "real" explanation?  "The dojo we trained in back then was too short; if you didn't take those three steps back, you'd run into the wall on the next sequence."

There's certainly a place for doing things for tradition's sake.  But know why you're doing them -- both if you're going to change them, and if you're going to preserve them.

In this particular case -- the OP says that, without making some changes, he simply can't kick.  Due to his size, he's too close to his opponent.  Hey; don't kick if you're not at kicking range!  But know why smaller people are doing a kick there, too.


----------



## Buka (Apr 19, 2012)

KempoGuy06 said:


> I got in a discussion a couple weeks back with a classmate about some of out techniques. We were discussing how they could be adapted to this situation or that situation when we hit on a particular technique that i have difficulty executing as instructed due to my size and lack of flexibility.
> 
> I told my friend that i had changed it a little to better suit my size and flexibility. He liked it so much that he know does it because it feel better to him.
> 
> ...


 
The word Sensei means "born before" or "one who has lived before".  Both meanings refer to wisdom and experience, usually through age. The implication is that "Sensei" has lived this, it is not a question to him.

Simpler translation - Ask the boss.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 19, 2012)

jks9199 said:


> There's also a story about a kata which included 3 steps backwards unexpectedly at one point.  Students looked into it, invented all sorts of explanations, like hopping over the bodies of the vanquished foes...  Eventually, someone got a chance to ask one of the earliest members.  The "real" explanation?  "The dojo we trained in back then was too short; if you didn't take those three steps back, you'd run into the wall on the next sequence."
> 
> There's certainly a place for doing things for tradition's sake.  But know why you're doing them -- both if you're going to change them, and if you're going to preserve them.
> 
> In this particular case -- the OP says that, without making some changes, he simply can't kick.  Due to his size, he's too close to his opponent.  Hey; don't kick if you're not at kicking range!  But know why smaller people are doing a kick there, too.



we actually have limited space where we train, and we make adjustments steps when working our forms, all the time.  But we never codify those steps into the form.  Sounds like in the above example those steps got codified.  We simply recognize that I'm out of space and need to step back for the next section.  When the form is taught, it's taught as if there is enough space, without the adjustments.  The adjustments are simply used where necessary and it's up to the individual to recognize where and when that is.


----------



## MJS (Apr 20, 2012)

Flying Crane said:


> In my opinion, this is a big, fat, "it depends".
> 
> If we are talking about fundamental skills, i.e. proper stances, transitions, basic strikes, etc., then no, don't just go changing that. Assuming the instruction you are receiving is of high quality, then you are learning a specific way to do these things, based on certain principles. When practicing and drilling, you should always adhere to those principles because that reinforces your execution. Also, you need to understand that sometimes how things are drilled is not how you would actually use them in a real fight. But drilling them in a certain way develops a foundational skill that will be brought into play every time you deliver the fundamental skills, even if the delivery is different from how it is drilled.
> 
> ...



Yes, I agree with you 100% on the basics.  Whats interesting, and IIRC, what I'm about to say next, has been talked about before, with one of those folks being Doc.  Its interesting because at one of my old schools, you could have 2 or more versions of the way someone does a tech or kata.  Imagine the look on the students face, as well as mine, when I'd show something and they'd say, "Thats not the way I learned it from so and so."  So now, my version simply becomes another 'way' of doing the tech?  I mean, I dont expect everyone to move like a robot, but when you have drastic changes.....

Doc has said that nobody in his school is allowed to do that, and personally, I don't disagree.  I mean, like I said above...its one thing to show a variation, but everyone, IMO, should be on the same page with the base stuff, ie: SD, katas, stances, etc.


----------



## MJS (Apr 20, 2012)

jks9199 said:


> I'd agree.
> 
> There're things you shouldn't change; they're the key elements that make technique or sequence work. But beyond that? Adapt to the individual. I've got a guy in my class who was badly injured years ago, and lost most use of an arm. He knows the textbook way to do things, but obviously, can't. EVERYTHING he does has been adapted, adjusted, and tweaked. But if it maintains the key principles -- it's still OK.
> 
> The other thing is that, in reality, nothing works exactly the same when it's really being used. A punch that the script says goes to the head, they guy may turn a little away, and suddenly, there's no head to hit. Script may say a shot to the groin makes the guy bend down into an uppercut... but you just kicked the guy with brass balls who doesn't even flinch, so now you either whiff completely with that uppercut, or modify it to extend out into a different punch. And so on... So it never hurts to practice some variants on the scripts, too.



Exactly!  



jks9199 said:


> This reminds of the discussion with Ras & Doc not too long ago.
> 
> You have to learn the base technique, as is. You have to understand it. Once you understand the principles that make it work -- you can change it. That doesn't mean you can't make minor changes earlier, like hitting a chest instead of a face that you can't reach. But before making significant alterations, understand the technique. Too many people shortcut the process. There is a point of "if you can't make it work, you must be doing it wrong." But you also want to ask if it's the right technique for the situation, among other things. And there's a point when you can and probably should make some changes.



Agreed!  And speaking of that..lol...there is rd.2 going on over at Kenpotalk...lol.  Maybe its rd 3? LOL.  But yes, even in Arnis, there've been some things that've given me issues, ie: locks.  Amazing how a little tweak from someone who knows it better, can make it work for me.


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Apr 20, 2012)

Flying Crane said:


> In my opinion, this is a big, fat, "it depends".
> 
> If we are talking about fundamental skills, i.e. proper stances, transitions, basic strikes, etc., then no, don't just go changing that.  Assuming the instruction you are receiving is of high quality, then you are learning a specific way to do these things, based on certain principles.  When practicing and drilling, you should always adhere to those principles because that reinforces your execution.  Also, you need to understand that sometimes how things are drilled is not how you would actually use them in a real fight.  But drilling them in a certain way develops a foundational skill that will be brought into play every time you deliver the fundamental skills, even if the delivery is different from how it is drilled.



This makes sense and i understand the need to adhere to the way i was taught. I am making not critical changes to the core of said technique. no changes in positioning or strikes. Im simply altering it so that i can actually do it. 

What i actually do is instead of starting in a horse stance as instructed, i start in a half-moon stance. This allows me to complete the technique the rest of the way through and then be able to get my side kick up to the proper target.



> Now, if we are talking about the scripted Self Defense Scenario techniques that are pretty typical and common among many of the Hawaiian/Chow/Parker derived kenpo branches, then I would say there is more room for adjustments.  Personally, I have some strong reservations about this approach to structuring a curriculum, I honestly do not feel it's the best approach to training, but that is my opinion and many people feel it works quite well.  I do not believe that all of these kinds of SD techs were well designed to begin with, some are simply bad ideas from the ground up.  I think it just opens the door to making a lot of changes, and as long as the fundamental skills are adhered to and the foundational principles are kept in tact, then altering the SD techs probably doesn't matter so much, as long as there is a good reason for doing so and the result is something that actually makes sense.



Here, do you mean the eleventy billion different SD techs that are taught in various iterations of Kempo/Kenpo?



> If the quality of instruction you are receiving is not particularly high, then all of these issues may be simply jumbled and making changes isn't going to help you.  If this is the case, then you simply need a better instructor.
> 
> Everybody believes that the instruction they are receiving is high quality.  Let's be honest: if you did not believe so, you would not continue to get that instruction.  So determining what is high quality and what is not, can be a tough call for someone to make.  Everyone makes a judgement based on their personal experiences.



I believe my instructor is good and the instruction we are receiving is sound. As it is my first of two styles (the other being BJJ) i have no way to validate its quality.

B


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 20, 2012)

KempoGuy06 said:


> This makes sense and i understand the need to adhere to the way i was taught. I am making not critical changes to the core of said technique. no changes in positioning or strikes. Im simply altering it so that i can actually do it.
> 
> What i actually do is instead of starting in a horse stance as instructed, i start in a half-moon stance. This allows me to complete the technique the rest of the way through and then be able to get my side kick up to the proper target.



I don't know specifically what you are doing here, but I'll just say, is there a specific reason for starting in a horse?  Does that fundamentally affect how the basic tech, i.e. a punch, is delivered, by starting in a horse and transitioning into something else?  If so, then are you undermining that by using the "half-moon" stance?  I'd say that's the heart of the issue.  If you diminish your ability to deliver fundamental power, then the change is not good.  If it is purely a matter of positioning, then the change may be appropriate.  Sometimes fundamental skills feel awkward and require a lot of training before they become comfortable and begin  to feel "right".  Don't misunderstand that for something that needs to be changed.  I can't judge what you are doing, so you need to decided.  I'm just trying to give you something to think about.



> Here, do you mean the eleventy billion different SD techs that are taught in various iterations of Kempo/Kenpo?



ayup, that would be them.  And eleventy billion sounds about right.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 20, 2012)

MJS said:


> Its interesting because at one of my old schools, you could have 2 or more versions of the way someone does a tech or kata. Imagine the look on the students face, as well as mine, when I'd show something and they'd say, "Thats not the way I learned it from so and so." So now, my version simply becomes another 'way' of doing the tech? I mean, I dont expect everyone to move like a robot, but when you have drastic changes.....



In my school, we definitely have differences in how we do our forms.  The other students have been with sifu for decades and learned these forms years ago.  I've learned them more recently.  Sifu does make changes, and sometimes not everyone clues into those changes.  Sifu might make a change when he teaches the form to me, but if the other guys are busy working on something else, they might not realize that he did it.  But his changes are always to make something more useful or practical, or they provide a cleaner expression of the principles upon which the system is built.  Changes are not done for small reason, but they are definitely done.  And sometimes I'll ask him, if I am confused about something, should it be LIKE THIS, or LIKE THAT, and sometimes he will answer: either is fine, it's up to you.


----------



## Brian King (Apr 20, 2012)

Flying Crane wrote
"Sometimes fundamental skills feel awkward and require a lot of training before they become comfortable and begin to feel "right". Don't misunderstand that for something that needs to be changed."

QFT

It is important I think to not completely discard things that do not feel right or seem to be not worthwhile or high percentage. Rather than discarding I like to think of shelving it. Put it away for later exploration. Just because something is truth today does not mean it will be truth tomorrow. What is uncomfortable today might be very comfortable next year and then again uncomfortable the year after. It is important I think to take all assumptions especially those based on exploration and trial and error and to re-explore them. By assumptions I mean both those things we take as positive and negative truths.

Regards
Brian King


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 20, 2012)

Brian King said:


> Flying Crane wrote
> "Sometimes fundamental skills feel awkward and require a lot of training before they become comfortable and begin to feel "right". Don't misunderstand that for something that needs to be changed."
> 
> QFT
> ...



Thank you for reinforcing this.  

The system that I train uses some fundamental methods that simply do not match what most people think that a fighting method should look like.  It simly looks odd.  But there are very sound and important reasons for everything that we do.  It's just that you need to understand the reasons, and you need good instruction to recognize HOW these odd methods are building these important skills because if it is done incorrectly it LOOKS correct superficially, but there is no benefit from it.

If everyone judged based on what feels odd RIGHT NOW, then nobody would train our system, and nobody would get the benefits of our method.  Honestly, our system is dying, there are few people who do it, and few of those do it well.  I think a lot of people just see it and decide it doesn't make sense to them, so few people give it a chance, and fewer still stick with it long enough to start to "get" it.  But personally, I understand what is going on with it and I think it is extremely effective, I won't ever water it down to make it easier because doing so will pull the rug out from under everything that makes it good.

If you have good instruction then you just need to keep working on it and trust in the method.  Eventually it makes sense.  But again, that depends on having good instruction.


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Apr 20, 2012)

Flying Crane said:


> I don't know specifically what you are doing here, but I'll just say, is there a specific reason for starting in a horse?  Does that fundamentally affect how the basic tech, i.e. a punch, is delivered, by starting in a horse and transitioning into something else?  If so, then are you undermining that by using the "half-moon" stance?  I'd say that's the heart of the issue.  If you diminish your ability to deliver fundamental power, then the change is not good.  If it is purely a matter of positioning, then the change may be appropriate.  Sometimes fundamental skills feel awkward and require a lot of training before they become comfortable and begin  to feel "right".  Don't misunderstand that for something that needs to be changed.  I can't judge what you are doing, so you need to decided.  I'm just trying to give you something to think about.



The start of the tech goes as such
1.) from a horse stance, opponent attacks with a right, front two knuckle punch to the chest
2.) lean to the right while at the same time using a knife hand block with the left hand to block the attack, and grab the wrist
3.) while still holding the the arm with your right hand rotate your hand away from your body(like using the throttle on a bike), use you left hand to deliver a driving shuto to the elbow
4.) rotate the opponents arm towards you, while slipping your left hand under their arm and then deliver a reverse driving shuto to the elbow again
5.) using the right leg deliver a side blade kick to the ribs
6.) release arm, cross over in an on guard stance

that is the tech as best as i could describe it in words. at the beginning instead of the horse stance all i do is drop my left foot back about the length of my foot to 1.5x the length. it does nothing to cause me to not be able to block or deliver effective strikes. it actually gives me a slight better position in case the attacker was larger than i was a able to disturb my balance slightly

the main reason for that slight change is to give my long legs more clearance to deliver a strike to the proper target.

so i guess my question would be, is better for me to do the tech as it was taught and strike to area i can get to, or modify it slight to suit my body to hit all the targets that i was instructed to hit?



> ayup, that would be them.  And eleventy billion sounds about right.



i thought so. it is nuts. i see the need for 2-3 beginning techs in each category. Obviously they would be used to introduce the main and important concepts behind the techs for that category, and then maybe 2-3 advanced versions for said category to help you adapt to various situations. the rest of the time should be spent drilling those techs and then tweaking the situation. 

i dont know about you, but i would feel a lot more comfortable with 4-6 core techs for each category and then hours of training those and various iterations of how to use them from different angles, over training hours on 100+ techs for each category

B

PS-obviously my number are a little on the over-dramatic side but it helps with my point


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 20, 2012)

I'm not going to get into the choreography. But I'll try to make some points to get you looking at it the way that I am...
if I ask a question here, I'm not really looking for an answer back, rather I'm asking to get you to think about a certain point.



KempoGuy06 said:


> The start of the tech goes as such
> 1.) from a horse stance, opponent attacks with a right, front two knuckle punch to the chest
> 2.) lean to the right while at the same time using a knife hand block with the left hand to block the attack, and grab the wrist



what is the fundamental and strongest way to issue that knife hand block? What are the principles upon which that block are built, to make it the most effective and strongest that it can be? In the context of this choreography, are you able to deliver that knife hand block in this manner? If so, it's all good. If not, why? Is there a problem with the positioning? Is the knife hand block the best option under these circumstances?



> 3.) while still holding the the arm with your right hand rotate your hand away from your body(like using the throttle on a bike), use you left hand to deliver a driving shuto to the elbow



Shuto to the elbow...again, what are the driving principles that makes a shuto, ANY shuto strong and effective? Within this choreography, are you able to deliver a shuto in that same manner, or is it being compromised somehow? 



> 4.) rotate the opponents arm towards you, while slipping your left hand under their arm and then deliver a reverse driving shuto to the elbow again



Same questions for this Reverse Driving Shuto



> 5.) using the right leg deliver a side blade kick to the ribs



same questions for this side kick

This is how I am encouraging you to look at a technique. Not so much in terms of the specific choreography. The choreography is important, it must be conceptually sound and make sense, but it is of secondary importance. If those fundamental issues I've illustrated above are not in place, then the choreography itself doesn't matter. If there are fundamental problems, the choreography could be part of the problem, it might be demanding things that don't make sense from that particular position, that could undermine those fundamentals.

So again, with regard to that horse stance/half-moon stance substitution...does it undermine any of the foundational skills as you are applying them in the technique? If not, it may be an appropriate change. If so, then it is not an appropriate change.



> so i guess my question would be, is better for me to do the tech as it was taught and strike to area i can get to, or modify it slight to suit my body to hit all the targets that i was instructed to hit?



You will need to make this decision, but I think you should consider the issues I raised above, before you do so. And talk with your instructor about it and see what he thinks. I dont' know what level you are in your training. Some people have a greater "vision" of what is going on than others, it depends on the quality of instruction they have received, as well as how well they have grasped that instruction and how well they have trained their skills. Without working with you directly, I can only say that you will need to make the decision for yourself, but consider these issues that I've raised.



> i thought so. it is nuts. i see the need for 2-3 beginning techs in each category. Obviously they would be used to introduce the main and important concepts behind the techs for that category, and then maybe 2-3 advanced versions for said category to help you adapt to various situations. the rest of the time should be spent drilling those techs and then tweaking the situation.
> 
> i dont know about you, but i would feel a lot more comfortable with 4-6 core techs for each category and then hours of training those and various iterations of how to use them from different angles, over training hours on 100+ techs for each category
> 
> ...



I don't disagree, and your numbers are only a little over dramatic. ;-)


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Apr 20, 2012)

Flying Crane said:


> I'm not going to get into the choreography. But I'll try to make some points to get you looking at it the way that I am...
> if I ask a question here, I'm not really looking for an answer back, rather I'm asking to get you to think about a certain point.



ahhhh! i see what you did there. i think i finally understand.

The whole is important but the parts that make up the whole are more important. if each individual part is not understood that the whole will fall apart. so as long as the understand of that change i made is clear and doesnt affect the other parts or the whole than i am ok.

is that what you are pointing out?



> I don't disagree, and your numbers are only a little over dramatic. ;-)



its a little overwhelming at times.

especially the combinations 

B


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 20, 2012)

KempoGuy06 said:


> ahhhh! i see what you did there. i think i finally understand.
> 
> The whole is important but the parts that make up the whole are more important. if each individual part is not understood that the whole will fall apart. so as long as the understand of that change i made is clear and doesnt affect the other parts or the whole than i am ok.
> 
> ...



Yes, exactly!  that's where people go wrong, I think, both with SD techs and forms/kata.  they only look at the whole, at the choreography.  It becomes something to "get thru".  But then you are only thinking about getting to the end, you are not thinking about what is happeneing at every step along the way, making sure that every technique, every movement within the larger choreography, is being done correctly.  Because these techs and forms are only tools to teach you a skill, and that skill is both specific and nebulous because it needs to be applied a certain way to be effective, but once you understand that, then you can begin to realize that if you apply that skill with every movement you do, then ANY movement can be a potentially powerful technique, even if it is not part of the formal curriculum, even if it's not a "proper" punch.  But if you really really understand the concepts that make a movement work, you can simply apply it everywhere, to every movement that you make.

To get the benefits of training, you need to work deliberately, even slowly, thru the material to make sure every movement is correct.  Speeding thru it just causes problems, but people think that by going fast, they are being "realistic".  In truth, they just undermine the true skills, they never really develop skill beyond raw athletic ability and natural talent.

This is what the Chinese martial arts are all about, and it's why I don't like long lists of specific, heavily choreographed SD techniques.  I prefer a thorough understanding of the basics, and then forms that act as examples of how you put those basics into action.  Specific SD techs are, in my opinion, too "scenario specific" and they become a scripted answer to a particular attack.  I feel that's too limiting in how you should be looking at your material, and it's an inappropriate way to teach the fundamentals.  The fundamentals need to be taught separately, but I think many people believe the fundamentals are being TAUGHT in the SD techs, rather than being DRILLED in the techs.  This is a specific mindset that I am describing here, it's not easy to describe but I hope it's making sense.

My sifu always says, the form itself does not matter.  What matters is every single movement within the form, that it is done correctly.  If not, then the choreography is nothing more than exercise.  There is no martial potential with it.  Our forms are drills that help you develop these skills.  Too many people see forms as performance art, and they want to do it in a way that would impress an uneducated audience.  But forms were never originally intended to be that.  They are training drills, and what an audience might think of them is irrelevant.  But if the form helps you develop these skills, then eventually the form no longer matters because it has accomplished its purpose.  This is what is meant when we say, in the traditional arts, you eventually throw away the form or the technique.  The form or technique is not the goal.  The goal is to develop the true skill, and the form or technique is just a tool to help you get there.

A problem with many of the kenpo forms that I am familiar with (I was a Tracy kenpo shodan, I don't know what your lineage is so this may not apply) is that the forms are made up of existing SD techs.  OK, this is kinda weird, it's just a compilation of this stuff that you've already learned, heavily scripted.  It just becomes a collection and I believe that often they do not offer anything above what the individual SD techs already offer.  Putting them together into a form doesnt give you anything more than what you get by practicing those techs separately.  It is, in my opinion, a weird way to build forms.

Chinese forms take those fundamentals, and then give you examples of how to utilize those fundamentals in a moving and more dynamic situation.  So the forms provide a series of examples, without being so heavily scripted and "scenario specific" as the kenpo SD techs are.  I find them to be more useful, tho it requires a different mindset.

With the Chinese systems like the one that I train, if you are intelligent and have a good vision of the method, then you could learn all you need with just the basics and one or two forms.  Those examples could be enough to teach you all you need to know, IF you are smart enough to grasp it.  The problem is, most of us are not smart enough to grasp it with limited material.  We require more material, we need to go thru a longer learning process before we develop the vision to truly understand what is possible.  Once you gain that vision, then you realize that it's all in the basics.  And once you gain that vision, then you realize that you do not need to learn more material, even if the system has more material in the curriculum.  The goal is not to collect all the "material".  The goal is to understand the true skills, and once you do, you don't need any more material.


----------



## LawDog (May 4, 2012)

For personel use, absolutly. To instruct and pass on, no. 
Everyone is different physically and mentally so system material has to be adjusted so that it fits the individual during live/confrontational situations.


----------



## Dirty Dog (May 4, 2012)

LawDog said:


> For personel use, absolutly. To instruct and pass on, no.
> Everyone is different physically and mentally so system material has to be adjusted so that it fits the individual during live/confrontational situations.



Excellent point. I've mentioned, as one example, my own modification of the right back stance. When I'm demonstrating, however, I make it a point to demonstrate with the "normal" stance. Thanks to reflexes, this means I usually demonstrate it as a left back stance. And I make no secret of WHY my right back stance is "off" and stress that students ought not emulate that particular stance.


----------



## youngbraveheart (Aug 25, 2012)

As far as what we are taught for doing self-defense techniques, we have to make adjustments because of our height, body size, movements, etc. compared to the attacker. The one thing I was really glad about when I was accepted as a student was not having to memorize names or numbers for various techniques. We do not have set techniques that we have to perform or set ways to perform certain techniques. Our teacher will show a technique (that he probably made up on the spot) with certain moves involved that he wants to see. After we go through it a number of times, he might then show us what he himself would do, which would be shorter (in number of strikes), more direct, flowing, and more devastating - the more advanced techniques. He leads up to the more advanced flowing techniques once we can handle what he shows us. It is then up to us to remember the techniques.

I like when he shows how Great Grandmaster Chow would do a technique, how his father would do the technique, and how he would do the technique. All techniques are different, yet with the same result. One important thing my teacher stresses is that we don't try to be like him or anyone else - we have to be ourselves.

The forms are the only thing that we don't adjust or make changes to.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Aug 27, 2012)

Dirty Dog said:


> You should know how things are "properly" done, even if for some reason you're physically incapable of doing them that way. And you should strive to overcome your limits so as to be able to perform them properly. But ultimately, modifications are sometimes necessary. As an example, any time I am in a backstance with the left foot forward, I will not have my head and shoulders exactly as is proper. Why? Because I don't have an eye on that side of my face, and in a proper stance, I cannot see the target. When I teach, however, I make sure to demonstrate ther stance properly, and make sure that people are not copying me (unless, of course, they're also blind on that side...). Do I lose points when I'm grading or competing? Sure. But that doesn't change the realities of the situation.


The truth is we are all either left or right eye dominant so, you are right on in positioning yourself for reality's sake. The generic model is flawed.
Sean


----------



## Bigdavid5.0 (Nov 26, 2012)

Flying Crane said:


> OK, well I suppose there are always exceptions.  But assuming the quality of the instruction is high and accurate, any changes made to this kind of thing should be done very carefully, and not done on a whim.


I agree.Very good advice.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 26, 2012)

KempoGuy06 said:


> Am i allowed to alter things to suit me?



You are the master. Your style is your slave. There is no standard way to execute a technique. 

If you are 6 feet, your shoulder throw will be very difficult to work on your 5 feet opponent. It's better to train other techniqures that may fit your body shape better.


----------



## punisher73 (Nov 27, 2012)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You are the master. Your style is your slave. There is no standard way to execute a technique.
> 
> If you are 6 feet, your shoulder throw will be very difficult to work on your 5 feet opponent. It's better to train other techniqures that may fit your body shape better.



Could you define what you mean as a "standard way to execute a technique"?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 27, 2012)

punisher73 said:


> Could you define what you mean as a "standard way to execute a technique"?


I said, "There is 'no' standard way to execute a technique."

The simplest example is the "front cut (Osoto Gari)": You can

- back kick your opponent's leg off the ground.
- use your leg to block your opponent's leg and run him down.
- twist on his leg and crash his knee joint.
- ...

You can also throw your opponent 

- straight back.
- 45 degree.
- 90 degree.
- ...

There are all correct techniques. Since combat is 2 persons art, to be able to modify your technique to fit the combat situation is important.

Old MA saying said, "The name of the technique is not important. There exist no standard way to execute a technique".


----------



## punisher73 (Nov 28, 2012)

So, as I am understanding it.  There is no standard application of the technique.  But, there IS a best way to perform the technique for body mechanics to maximize it's use.  That was what my question was getting at and wanting you to further define it.

Using your Osoto Gari, we are all in agreement that adjustments are made due to physical limitations or based on the opponent.  But, what if you have a new student that thinks that they can now perform Osoto Gari without contact with the other person or the off balancing and they just want to kick out the leg.  What would you say to them or instruct them on?  This is the thrust of the discussion, changing things out of perference and not understanding.


----------

