# What is our base?



## Touch Of Death

After being recently informed, by a well respected Kenpo Master, that it is idiotic to believe the yellow belt material is the base of our art, What is the base of the art?
Sean


----------



## Blindside

Your basics, meaning punch, kick, block, stance, etc. Everything else is a combination of those.

Given that the American Kenpo yellow belt was designed after the remainder of the curriculum (for kids) and revised at least once, it is hard to argue that it is the base of the system. I see it in a continuum of training, but if this was truly the "base" I would expect to see a greater variety of footwork. The uppercase motion may be there, but the footwork is lacking significant examples.


----------



## Milt G.

Touch Of Death said:


> After being recently informed, by a well respected Kenpo Master, that it is idiotic to believe the yellow belt material is the base of our art, What is the base of the art?
> Sean


 
Hello...

It is the "base" of the first belt level.  Nothing more and nothing less.  
As Mr. Glass stated.  It was added later on and was not original to the "classic" curriculum of Kenpo.  How can you add a "true" base to anything after it is constructed?

I believe the yellow belt came into real prominence in the very early 80's, although I am sure some would argue that it was earlier or later.  With the commercial boom, part two.  Kenpo is about "argue", it seems.  A worthy topic to argue in most cases.

If you ask five Kenpo "masters" the same question you are likely to get, at least, four different answers.  See there...  I was a little P.C....    Kenpo is about individual study, experimentation, understanding and discovery.  Many perceive the same things differently.  Enjoy the ride...

Interesting topic.  Thank you,
Milt G.


----------



## MattJ

Touch Of Death said:


> After being recently informed, by a well respected Kenpo Master, that it is idiotic to believe the yellow belt material is the base of our art, What is the base of the art?
> Sean


 
That's a good question, and I would guess that it depends upon what time-frame we are discussing. I would argue that, currently, the yellow belt material is the defacto base for the art. It is the first thing that people learn, and contains enough material to create effective self-defense. When students used to ask me "when will we learn enough to be able to fight?", I would just point to the yellow belt charts. So many folks do not engage in a deep enough study of what they are currently working on before trying to get to the next level.

Further back in time...........?


----------



## DavidCC

What does it mean to be the "base" of an Art?

I thought the "base" of American kenpo was chow's hawaiian kenpo and Ark Wong's kung fu.  so maybe the definition of "base of an art" needs to be defined before a good answer can be given?

the yellow techs are the vehicle through which a teacher teaches the initial ideas of the system (for some teachers at least) is that some kind of definition of "base"?


----------



## DavidCC

Blindside said:


> Given that the American Kenpo yellow belt was designed after the remainder of the curriculum (for kids) and revised at least once, it is hard to argue that it is the base of the system. I see it in a continuum of training, but if this was truly the "base" I would expect to see a greater variety of footwork. The uppercase motion may be there, but the footwork is lacking significant examples.



Interesting, that is almost the exact same answer T.O.D. was told by the 'well respected master' LOL


----------



## Touch Of Death

DavidCC said:


> What does it mean to be the "base" of an Art?
> 
> I thought the "base" of American kenpo was chow's hawaiian kenpo and Ark Wong's kung fu. so maybe the definition of "base of an art" needs to be defined before a good answer can be given?
> 
> the yellow techs are the vehicle through which a teacher teaches the initial ideas of the system (for some teachers at least) is that some kind of definition of "base"?


That where everyone was missing what I was saying. If *you *do kenpo, your base is the yellow belt material, the art itself was devised from what ever sources you can name. To automaticly defy the point someone is making, when it is quite obvious that the practitioners begin with the yellow belt material and the art has a varied history is not exactly the most intellegent way to discuss what a base is, when it both points are quite valid. context is everything and that well respected "Master" knew the difference but chose to act as if he didn't.
Sean


----------



## Touch Of Death

DavidCC said:


> Interesting, that is almost the exact same answer T.O.D. was told by the 'well respected master' LOL


You may notice that despite revisions, everyone is introduced to kenpo with some yellow belt variant.
Sean


----------



## Blindside

Touch Of Death said:


> You may notice that despite revisions, everyone is introduced to kenpo with some yellow belt variant.
> Sean


 
In the ongoing discussion about what the base is, the base(ics) are the foundation of the building, yellow belt is the lobby.


----------



## MJS

I'm going with Blindside on this.  I'm curious as to what is so special about the yellow belt material, that it would be considered the base?  If we look at all of the techniques, while they, as we move up in rank, may teach a more advanced attack, have more detailed movement, etc., they all consist of what I consider to be basics, ie: blocks, punches, kicks, footwork, etc.  

That being said, I feel its those things that are the base.  Without those, then nothing we do will amount to anything, because if the basics suck, then everything else will too.


----------



## JamesB

There's no disputing that 'yellow belt' as we know it arrived later. But that doesn't mean it can't be considered the base of the system, as it contains the fundamental components that can be seen repeated later in the system at orange onwards - namely, neutral bows, inward blocks, outward blocks etc. 

Whilst it can be considered that yellow-belt is a 'stripped down' kenpo, made simpler for women+children, that doesn't have to mean it's not the base. Personally I believe that the less complex yellow-belt curriculum exposes the base of kenpo in a clearer way, and by doing that highlights the foundation on which one can see the rest of kenpo has been built. Yes I know, yellow came afterwards and orange/purple etc were not derived from the yellow-belt technques/forms. 

I just look at it the other way - yellow-belt was created to provide a clearer view of the foundation of kenpo. The base was already there, yellow-belt just gives us a simpler definition.


----------



## MJS

JamesB said:


> There's no disputing that 'yellow belt' as we know it arrived later. But that doesn't mean it can't be considered the base of the system, as it contains the fundamental components that can be seen repeated later in the system at orange onwards - namely, neutral bows, inward blocks, outward blocks etc.
> 
> Whilst it can be considered that yellow-belt is a 'stripped down' kenpo, made simpler for women+children, that doesn't have to mean it's not the base. Personally I believe that the less complex yellow-belt curriculum exposes the base of kenpo in a clearer way, and by doing that highlights the foundation on which one can see the rest of kenpo has been built. Yes I know, yellow came afterwards and orange/purple etc were not derived from the yellow-belt technques/forms.
> 
> I just look at it the other way - yellow-belt was created to provide a clearer view of the foundation of kenpo. The base was already there, yellow-belt just gives us a simpler definition.


 
I agree that the above mentioned things are used later in other techniques.  But...I teach those things first, before they learn a technique, then those tools are put together in a preset pattern.  Later on, I encourage the student to not think in a preset pattern, but to eventually just be able to react, using whatever tool is best suited for that moment.  So, to clarify, I teach the punches, blocks, kicks, stances, from a static position first, then introduce them with the techs.  

If those things are in other techs., then aside from the attack being more advanced, you could teach a blue belt tech to a yellow belt and still show them the concepts of a neutral bow, blocks, etc.


----------



## Doc

I guess it really depends upon "what" kenpo you're talking about, and when it was practiced if one chooses to go down that road. My only question is, "How could something be considered the base, when it itself is comprised of other base" material? Then the "Base of the art, would have a base." Then the question could come up, "What is the base of the base of the art?" Then those base moves are comprised of other smaller physical movements that must be done a certain way, so "What is the base, of the base, of the base of the art ..... ?

So for me, in reality I feel the base of any art is its driving philosophies, concepts, and principles to express those philosophies within the context of the art. This is what gives any art a "Martial Identity" that separates it from other like-arts. It is the reason MMA doesn't bite or poke. It is the reason TKD doesn't allow groin kicks and handwork is minor to kicking. It is why Judo does, randori, and Filipino has sticks and knife work. It is the reason that real arts have real science principles to express it over conceptual ideas which are nothing more than empty philosophies.

To suggest it is a series of techniques, or forms, or sets ignores the reality that all of those things are made up of basic physical skills that all arts possess on some level and choose to teach. Which would mean the base of one art is really not much different form any other art making the question itself, moot.


----------



## MJS

Doc said:


> I guess it really depends upon "what" kenpo you're talking about, and when it was practiced if one chooses to go down that road. My only question is, "How could something be considered the base, when it itself is comprised of other base" material? Then the "Base of the art, would have a base." Then the question could come up, "What is the base of the base of the art?" Then those base moves are comprised of other smaller physical movements that must be done a certain way, so "What is the base, of the base, of the base of the art ..... ?
> 
> So for me, in reality I feel the base of any art is its driving philosophies, concepts, and principles to express those philosophies within the context of the art. This is what gives any art a "Martial Identity" that separates it from other like-arts. It is the reason MMA doesn't bite or poke. It is the reason TKD doesn't allow groin kicks and handwork is minor to kicking. It is why Judo does, randori, and Filipino has sticks and knife work. It is the reason that real arts have real science principles to express it over conceptual ideas which are nothing more than empty philosophies.
> 
> To suggest it is a series of techniques, or forms, or sets ignores the reality that all of those things are made up of basic physical skills that all arts possess on some level and choose to teach. Which would mean the base of one art is really not much different form any other art making the question itself, moot.


 
I guess I was looking at it like a house.  You need to have a foundation first, then put up the walls, then the roof.  If you tried to put a roof on first, nothing would be there to hold it up.  If we dont know how to punch or move first, then is anything else we do going to be effective?

I dont know...maybe I'm just missing something, but I'd think that we'd have to start somewhere with something.

BTW, its nice to see you posting again Doc.  I was wondering where you were.


----------



## pete

The base of the art is not getting hit.


----------



## MJS

Doc said:


> I guess it really depends upon "what" kenpo you're talking about, and when it was practiced if one chooses to go down that road. My only question is, "How could something be considered the base, when it itself is comprised of other base" material? Then the "Base of the art, would have a base." Then the question could come up, "What is the base of the base of the art?" Then those base moves are comprised of other smaller physical movements that must be done a certain way, so "What is the base, of the base, of the base of the art ..... ?
> 
> So for me, in reality I feel the base of any art is its driving philosophies, concepts, and principles to express those philosophies within the context of the art. This is what gives any art a "Martial Identity" that separates it from other like-arts. It is the reason MMA doesn't bite or poke. It is the reason TKD doesn't allow groin kicks and handwork is minor to kicking. It is why Judo does, randori, and Filipino has sticks and knife work. It is the reason that real arts have real science principles to express it over conceptual ideas which are nothing more than empty philosophies.
> 
> To suggest it is a series of techniques, or forms, or sets ignores the reality that all of those things are made up of basic physical skills that all arts possess on some level and choose to teach. Which would mean the base of one art is really not much different form any other art making the question itself, moot.


 
In addition to what you said about the philosophies, which I do agree seperates each art in its unique way, I'd also say that while all arts have punches, kicks, stances and blocks, each art is unique in the way it executes each of those.  So, wouldnt that make each art different?


----------



## Doc

MJS said:


> I guess I was looking at it like a house.  You need to have a foundation first, then put up the walls, then the roof.  If you tried to put a roof on first, nothing would be there to hold it up.  If we dont know how to punch or move first, then is anything else we do going to be effective?
> 
> I dont know...maybe I'm just missing something, but I'd think that we'd have to start somewhere with something.
> 
> BTW, its nice to see you posting again Doc.  I was wondering where you were.



Of course you're right sir but, all arts have the same building blocks, albeit they may be assembled somewhat differently. I guess my answer is tied closely to the over-riding philosophy I was taught that states Stances, Punches, Kicks, Strikes, and Footwork are the universal base of ALL arts, but to what degree, what you emphasize, and how you execute those things is what separate one art from another.

Life and work has been really weighing me down, thanks for noticing sir.


----------



## Doc

MJS said:


> In addition to what you said about the philosophies, which I do agree seperates each art in its unique way, I'd also say that while all arts have punches, kicks, stances and blocks, each art is unique in the way it executes each of those.  So, wouldnt that make each art different?



You're so quick I couldn't even finish before you finished it for me. You are absolutely right sir. No doubt, and that is where most arts also fall apart because they tend to "mumble" their own building blocks for the sake of expediency and retention. It is a paradox in that it is what separates most arts, but also what makes most of them pretty much the same.


----------



## Doc

pete said:


> The base of the art is not getting hit.



Something many seem to forget Pete.

"When it happens I won't even notice, cause I'll be too busy lookin good!" - WIlliams (from Enter the Dragon)


----------



## celtic_crippler

Doc said:


> Something many seem to forget Pete.
> 
> "When it happens I won't even notice, cause I'll be too busy lookin good!" - WIlliams (from Enter the Dragon)


 
Man...you're straight out of a comic book. LOL

Glad you're back!!!!!


----------



## Touch Of Death

MJS said:


> I'm going with Blindside on this. I'm curious as to what is so special about the yellow belt material, that it would be considered the base? If we look at all of the techniques, while they, as we move up in rank, may teach a more advanced attack, have more detailed movement, etc., they all consist of what I consider to be basics, ie: blocks, punches, kicks, footwork, etc.
> 
> That being said, I feel its those things that are the base. Without those, then nothing we do will amount to anything, because if the basics suck, then everything else will too.


Well if the yellow belt techs aren't the base, then should we just skip teaching them and teach the techs that are the base? At what belt level do we finaly learn a base?
Sean


----------



## Touch Of Death

Blindside said:


> In the ongoing discussion about what the base is, the base(ics) are the foundation of the building, yellow belt is the lobby.


You have got to be kidding me. Is that how you describe the yellow belt material to your students?
Sean


----------



## Touch Of Death

Doc said:


> I guess it really depends upon "what" kenpo you're talking about, and when it was practiced if one chooses to go down that road. My only question is, "How could something be considered the base, when it itself is comprised of other base" material? Then the "Base of the art, would have a base." Then the question could come up, "What is the base of the base of the art?" Then those base moves are comprised of other smaller physical movements that must be done a certain way, so "What is the base, of the base, of the base of the art ..... ?
> 
> So for me, in reality I feel the base of any art is its driving philosophies, concepts, and principles to express those philosophies within the context of the art. This is what gives any art a "Martial Identity" that separates it from other like-arts. It is the reason MMA doesn't bite or poke. It is the reason TKD doesn't allow groin kicks and handwork is minor to kicking. It is why Judo does, randori, and Filipino has sticks and knife work. It is the reason that real arts have real science principles to express it over conceptual ideas which are nothing more than empty philosophies.
> 
> To suggest it is a series of techniques, or forms, or sets ignores the reality that all of those things are made up of basic physical skills that all arts possess on some level and choose to teach. Which would mean the base of one art is really not much different form any other art making the question itself, moot.


They teach the principles with techs and forms. And base is not the question, its the foundation. The techniques are what students begin learning as soon as they walk in the door.
Sean


----------



## Doc

Touch Of Death said:


> They teach the principles with techs and forms. And base is not the question, its the foundation. The techniques are what students begin learning as soon as they walk in the door.
> Sean



YOUR door.


----------



## Touch Of Death

So it's only our door. How long do your students study before you introduce them to the yellow belt material?
Sean


----------



## Doc

Touch Of Death said:


> So it's only our door. How long do your students study before you introduce them to the yellow belt material?
> Sean


Basics are yellow material. However, In general it takes about a diligent month to get to the first yellow technique.


----------



## Blindside

Touch Of Death said:


> You have got to be kidding me. Is that how you describe the yellow belt material to your students?
> Sean



No, I had to come up with that for this conversation, the lobby offers direction and an introduction to the building/art.  Kenpo was taught without it before and could be so taught again.  Would you be unable to teach kenpo without the first 10 techniques?


----------



## MJS

Doc said:


> Of course you're right sir but, all arts have the same building blocks, albeit they may be assembled somewhat differently. I guess my answer is tied closely to the over-riding philosophy I was taught that states Stances, Punches, Kicks, Strikes, and Footwork are the universal base of ALL arts, but to what degree, what you emphasize, and how you execute those things is what separate one art from another.
> 
> Life and work has been really weighing me down, thanks for noticing sir.


 
Well, its nice to see you back.  I see your point.



Doc said:


> You're so quick I couldn't even finish before you finished it for me. You are absolutely right sir. No doubt, and that is where most arts also fall apart because they tend to "mumble" their own building blocks for the sake of expediency and retention. It is a paradox in that it is what separates most arts, but also what makes most of them pretty much the same.


 
Good point.


----------



## MJS

Touch Of Death said:


> Well if the yellow belt techs aren't the base, then should we just skip teaching them and teach the techs that are the base? At what belt level do we finaly learn a base?
> Sean


 
Umm...where did I say not to teach the yellow techs?  I simply said that I feel that the basics are the base, because without those, we wont have anything to build from.  Punches, kicks, stances, etc are found in every tech.  IMO, the only difference between a yellow belt attack and a green belt attack, is the level.  The kicks and other stuff is still there...its the difference, IMO, of what the attack is and how the moves are put together.  

So, what level do we learn a base?  I'd say white.


----------



## MJS

Doc said:


> Basics are yellow material. However, In general it takes about a diligent month to get to the first yellow technique.


 
And rightfully so, IMO.  I mean, if they can't do a correct punch, kick, stance, etc. then they're probably not going to be able to put them all together in a tech.

This reminds me of when I'd teach a tech. to someone.  They'd go thru it and say, "Ok, I got it. Whats next?"  Needless to say, 99% of the time, they didn't 'have it.'


----------



## Touch Of Death

MJS said:


> Umm...where did I say not to teach the yellow techs? I simply said that I feel that the basics are the base, because without those, we wont have anything to build from. Punches, kicks, stances, etc are found in every tech. IMO, the only difference between a yellow belt attack and a green belt attack, is the level. The kicks and other stuff is still there...its the difference, IMO, of what the attack is and how the moves are put together.
> 
> So, what level do we learn a base? I'd say white.


In some kenpo and not all, the first techs you learn are foundations on which to build more complex techniques such as the orange belt, purple belt and so on. If the first ten are not the foundation or "base" if you will, why teach them? As for forms, if short one is not a base to build Long I. off of then throw that out too. How is that ever gonna help you? And you mentioned levels... I'm suggesting the yellow belt material is the "first level".
Sean


----------



## Touch Of Death

Doc said:


> Basics are yellow material. However, In general it takes about a diligent month to get to the first yellow technique.


A whole month? And your students don't build the colored belt techs from the first set of techs you teach them, because they are not foundations in any sense?
Sean


----------



## kaizasosei

the base of the art, which is external and traditional becomes the base of the practitioner.  But before that, and at the start and during the learning process there is the innate understanding in the practitioner.  A person starting martial arts will see and understand when it comes to the practical external execution of techniques. But that act of observation and the subsequent development of skills, is something internal.  So the base is really the soul, the funk.  Perhaps it can somehow be stimulated in young years or be inside the genetic memory of the practitioner, even latently.

As it is often said that the beginner martial artist will try to win, the middle practitioner will try to study technique and the master will try to better himself and his actions. 

Then one could also speculate further that there are aesthetic aspects within the martial arts that have to do with symetry, lines, even grace(see taichi).  At the very same time one must also take into account that the martial arts, as any actions, will affect the body and mind. With martial arts the movements are infinately free and the possibilities  quite endless. 
So one could say the base is the willpower, the goals that one has and the inspiration that drives you to achieve them. 
Then there is form, physical feeling-what is good for the body?, what not?-what makes the technique effective, what not?- what will affect the body how. How to make the spirit stronger and the body supple yet strong in the best way

The base is starts off somewhere between hard and soft.
There is no separation from that level.  We're all in the same boat yet with our own respective decisions and destinies.


j


----------



## Blindside

Touch Of Death said:


> In some kenpo and not all, the first techs you learn are foundations on which to build more complex techniques such as the orange belt, purple belt and so on. If the first ten are not the foundation or "base" if you will, why teach them? As for forms, if short one is not a base to build Long I. off of then throw that out too. How is that ever gonna help you? And you mentioned levels... I'm suggesting the yellow belt material is the "first level".
> Sean


 
Now you are offering multiple bases, a base for your forms, a base for your techniques, how many bases does the art have?  Is there a base set or do the sets represent a base in themselves?  You originally asked about what is THE base, singular, and perhaps it is simply a disagreement about what you mean by "base" that is leading to miscommunication.    



> After being recently informed, by a well respected Kenpo Master, that it is idiotic to believe the yellow belt material is *the* base of our art, What is *the* base of the art?
> Sean


 
Is yellow belt THE base for the material in the forms, or in the freestyle techniques?


----------



## MJS

Touch Of Death said:


> In some kenpo and not all, the first techs you learn are foundations on which to build more complex techniques such as the orange belt, purple belt and so on. If the first ten are not the foundation or "base" if you will, why teach them? As for forms, if short one is not a base to build Long I. off of then throw that out too. How is that ever gonna help you? And you mentioned levels... I'm suggesting the yellow belt material is the "first level".
> Sean


 
I see what you're saying Sean, but I can't help but to repeat myself and say that the basics are the stances, punches, kicks, etc.  You gotta walk before you run, right?  So if that person doesnt have a solid base first, that base being what I said, ie: the proper way to punch, kick, block, move, etc. then if they try to go headfirst into a tech., against someone who is moving, resisting, etc, their defense will probably fail.  

The forms are, IMO, nothing more than movements that we already know...once we learn the basic movement, ie: punching, kicking, stances, etc.  You compared S1 being a preface to L1.  Aside from L1 being more advanced, complex, whatever, the basics are still there.  You need a basic base, before you can have a more advanced base.


----------



## pete

1. learn to stand
2. learn to breathe
3. learn to walk
4. do all 3 without getting hit
5. learn to hit back without hurting themselves

give 'em a technique, because it keeps them quiet while you teach them 1-5.

pete


----------



## Doc

pete said:


> 1. learn to stand
> 2. learn to breathe
> 3. learn to walk
> 4. do all 3 without getting hit
> 5. learn to hit back without hurting themselves
> 
> give 'em a technique, because it keeps them quiet while you teach them 1-5.
> 
> pete



Priceless! Shamelessly stolen.


----------



## Doc

MJS said:


> I see what you're saying Sean, but I can't help but to repeat myself and say that the basics are the stances, punches, kicks, etc.  You gotta walk before you run, right?  So if that person doesnt have a solid base first, that base being what I said, ie: the proper way to punch, kick, block, move, etc. then if they try to go headfirst into a tech., against someone who is moving, resisting, etc, their defense will probably fail.
> 
> The forms are, IMO, nothing more than movements that we already know...once we learn the basic movement, ie: punching, kicking, stances, etc.  You compared S1 being a preface to L1.  Aside from L1 being more advanced, complex, whatever, the basics are still there.  You need a basic base, before you can have a more advanced base.



Absolutely sir. Many in some forms of Kenpo miss or skip this "basic" fact because the art doesn't contain physical basics and were never emphasized by its creator. For them, the self defense techniques are the basics because that has always been the commercial area of emphasis. People argue over "how" a technique should be done but rarely discuss the proper execution of basic stances, footwork, etc. The true base of ANY art. The rest is simply an expression of those foundational tools, or base. The other view is kinda like trying to swim, when you haven't been taught how to stroke, kick, or breathe - you drown.


----------



## Ray

Doc said:


> Absolutely sir. Many in some forms of Kenpo miss or skip this "basic" fact because the art doesn't contain physical basics and were never emphasized by its creator. For them, the self defense techniques are the basics because that has always been the commercial area of emphasis. People argue over "how" a technique should be done but rarely discuss the proper execution of basic stances, footwork, etc. The true base of ANY art. The rest is simply an expression of those foundational tools, or base. The other view is kinda like trying to swim, when you haven't been taught how to stroke, kick, or breathe - you drown.


I don't know whether the physical basics were or weren't "emphasized by its creator" but I do know that you "old guys" sure seem to loathe poor physical basics, and have a really keen eye at spotting them at trying to correct poor fools like me.


----------



## Doc

Doc said:


> Priceless! Shamelessly stolen.



I'd like to add; not only shamelessly stolen, I intend to use it tonight.


----------



## Doc

Ray said:


> I don't know whether the physical basics were or weren't "emphasized by its creator" but I do know that you "old guys" sure seem to loathe poor physical basics, and have a really keen eye at spotting them at trying to correct poor fools like me.



Old? Old?  Uh, old? 

Anyway, let me give you some historical perspective. Mr. Parker tried one and only once at codifying basics. 

He published a "Basics Booklet" for beginner students in the sixties. It featured him with a little camera trickery on the cover in street clothes, threatening himself in a gi, with a knife. Also featured were student Tom Gow. 

In the inside Mr. Parker demonstrated basic stances, and blocks, and put them in the context of essentially the first part of Short Form One. By the time it was printed, Mr. Parker had already decided 90% of it was not what he wanted. 

He was in the process of refining basics until he passed, but he never taught them because that is not what people wanted. He used to tell me, "If I went out and taught for two hours and did nothing but stances and footwork, pretty soon there would be nobody showing up but me. You have to give them what they want, not what they need."

The proof of that was in the Friday Night Classes he started teaching in Pasadena. He told me, "Classes got smaller and smaller, and one day I was the only one that showed up." He said, "I vowed that day, that I would NEVER teach another Friday Night Class at the Pasadena School for those guys." And he didn't.


----------



## pete

Doc said:


> I'd like to add; not only shamelessly stolen, I intend to use it tonight.


 Doc - no shame in 'stealing' a gem like that... you think i made that up all on my own!?! we are all borrowers!


----------



## Flying Crane

Doc said:


> Old? Old? Uh, old?
> 
> He was in the process of refining basics until he passed, but he never taught them because that is not what people wanted. He used to tell me, "If I went out and taught for two hours and did nothing but stances and footwork, pretty soon there would be nobody showing up but me. You have to give them what they want, not what they need."
> 
> The proof of that was in the Friday Night Classes he started teaching in Pasadena. He told me, "Classes got smaller and smaller, and one day I was the only one that showed up." He said, "I vowed that day, that I would NEVER teach another Friday Night Class at the Pasadena School for those guys." And he didn't.


 
I help my kung fu sifu teach White Crane to a very small group of interested guys.  There are currently three of them, one of whom is not so regular, and with another one expressing interest in joining.  We'll see.

I've been with my sifu for 12 years now.  Mostly he teaches taiji to middle-aged and older folks who want exercise, but I convinced him to teach me white crane on the side.  

Over the years, we've had a very small number of people come in asking to do white crane, and sifu would turn them over to me.  Most of them didn't come back after 3 or 4 sessions, some never returned after the first.  I figured it was just my winning personality.  Now I've got 3, and maybe a 4th, these guys have been with me for around a year, little more for one, little less for the others, but this is what I've got after working on this stuff for 12 years.  We focus very very heavily on the basics.  Just teaching these guys to develop our specific method of power generation has taken months and months, and they get frustrated but they also have the occasional "lightbulb" moment.  All we do for two hours is work on the basics, with some application of those basics. 

A few months ago I was honored to be accepted into my sigung's training group, where he only teaches four disciples, all of whom have been with him for 30 or 40 or more years.  So now I train with my sisuk and my sigung, in sigung's back yard in private, and probably I will be the last student that Sigung will ever accept.  We focus heavily on the basics, making stances and footwork right, using the proper power generation that is specific to this system, and making sure this foundation carries thru in the forms practice.  And like I said, I am the fifth member of a group of five, working in private in Sigung's back yard, this man who has been teaching white crane for probably 50 years.

My Dai Sisuk has talked about the old days when sigung used to have a school open to the public in Chinatown.  That was decades ago.  He laughs at the idea of people coming in to "steal" your material, because he says, people look at this stuff and don't understand it and don't stick around to learn it properly, so what can they steal?  You can hide the "secrets" right out in the open, let everyone see it all, because nobody will understand it nor undertake the effort to learn it properly. 

You can focus on the basics, and people will still come.  But you won't ever make a living doing it.


----------



## Touch Of Death

I agree that the context seems to be changing but I still contend that yellow belt is the first level and that all that it entails, including the yellow belt techs are the foundation upon which we build an orangelt and so on. Of course the techs themselves are just ideas, and the extensions are a bunch of busy work added through out the years. Most students start aout at yelow and build their second level techs from the experiences of dealing with the first level techs. For many kenpoists Attitude is the base, but you instill it with the experience of the yellow belt material and the experiences there of. The first level techniques are meant to be built on.
Sean


----------



## MJS

Doc said:


> Old? Old? Uh, old?
> 
> Anyway, let me give you some historical perspective. Mr. Parker tried one and only once at codifying basics.
> 
> He published a "Basics Booklet" for beginner students in the sixties. It featured him with a little camera trickery on the cover in street clothes, threatening himself in a gi, with a knife. Also featured were student Tom Gow.
> 
> In the inside Mr. Parker demonstrated basic stances, and blocks, and put them in the context of essentially the first part of Short Form One. By the time it was printed, Mr. Parker had already decided 90% of it was not what he wanted.
> 
> *He was in the process of refining basics until he passed, but he never taught them because that is not what people wanted. He used to tell me, "If I went out and taught for two hours and did nothing but stances and footwork, pretty soon there would be nobody showing up but me. You have to give them what they want, not what they need."*
> 
> The proof of that was in the Friday Night Classes he started teaching in Pasadena. He told me, "Classes got smaller and smaller, and one day I was the only one that showed up." He said, "I vowed that day, that I would NEVER teach another Friday Night Class at the Pasadena School for those guys." And he didn't.


 
And the bold part Sir, hits the nail right on the head.  Its sad, because now all you're going to have is a bunch of kata and tech collectors, how can blaze thru material, but in reality, the material they have stinks.  People, unfortunately, dont want quality, they want quantity.


----------



## Doc

pete said:


> Doc - no shame in 'stealing' a gem like that... you think i made that up all on my own!?! we are all borrowers!



Well I'm "borrowing" that one from you!


----------



## Doc

Flying Crane said:


> I help my kung fu sifu teach White Crane to a very small group of interested guys.  There are currently three of them, one of whom is not so regular, and with another one expressing interest in joining.  We'll see.
> 
> I've been with my sifu for 12 years now.  Mostly he teaches taiji to middle-aged and older folks who want exercise, but I convinced him to teach me white crane on the side.
> 
> Over the years, we've had a very small number of people come in asking to do white crane, and sifu would turn them over to me.  Most of them didn't come back after 3 or 4 sessions, some never returned after the first.  I figured it was just my winning personality.  Now I've got 3, and maybe a 4th, these guys have been with me for around a year, little more for one, little less for the others, but this is what I've got after working on this stuff for 12 years.  We focus very very heavily on the basics.  Just teaching these guys to develop our specific method of power generation has taken months and months, and they get frustrated but they also have the occasional "lightbulb" moment.  All we do for two hours is work on the basics, with some application of those basics.
> 
> A few months ago I was honored to be accepted into my sigung's training group, where he only teaches four disciples, all of whom have been with him for 30 or 40 or more years.  So now I train with my sisuk and my sigung, in sigung's back yard in private, and probably I will be the last student that Sigung will ever accept.  We focus heavily on the basics, making stances and footwork right, using the proper power generation that is specific to this system, and making sure this foundation carries thru in the forms practice.  And like I said, I am the fifth member of a group of five, working in private in Sigung's back yard, this man who has been teaching white crane for probably 50 years.
> 
> My Dai Sisuk has talked about the old days when sigung used to have a school open to the public in Chinatown.  That was decades ago.  He laughs at the idea of people coming in to "steal" your material, because he says, people look at this stuff and don't understand it and don't stick around to learn it properly, so what can they steal?  You can hide the "secrets" right out in the open, let everyone see it all, because nobody will understand it nor undertake the effort to learn it properly.
> 
> You can focus on the basics, and people will still come.  But you won't ever make a living doing it.



Good for you sir. Sounds like we're in the same boat. One of the things that Mr. Parker hoped to do was bridge that gap by creating an art that had all of the knowledge and applications of the old world traditions, but with a modern American spin of fairly quick applications, while teaching strong foundational material. He felt if he removed the cultural rituals that intentionally elongated the process of learning, he could find a reasonable compromise. This was his American Kenpo, not the Kenpo Karate branded with his name for commercial purposes. The kenpo that we argue about because there was nothing ever precisely physically demanded. 

This is what I'm trying to continuously do today from his personal instruction. Find that balance, focus on precise basics an applications, while giving people functional skills. Mr. Parker continued that process but only in private, and it never reached his students at large. But he did get the ball rolling and spread the idea around the world. Only money, egos, and the quest for rank and power corrupted what was actually a pretty good start.

Once again sir, much respect to you and your teacher. It is not easy for the masses, but when you simply put the art first above everything else, it becomes a labor of love, and a passion that will never die.


----------



## Flying Crane

Doc said:


> Good for you sir. Sounds like we're in the same boat. One of the things that Mr. Parker hoped to do was bridge that gap by creating an art that had all of the knowledge and applications of the old world traditions, but with a modern American spin of fairly quick applications, while teaching strong foundational material. He felt if he removed the cultural rituals that intentionally elongated the process of learning, he could find a reasonable compromise. This was his American Kenpo, not the Kenpo Karate branded with his name for commercial purposes. The kenpo that we argue about because there was nothing ever precisely physically demanded.
> 
> This is what I'm trying to continuously do today from his personal instruction. Find that balance, focus on precise basics an applications, while giving people functional skills. Mr. Parker continued that process but only in private, and it never reached his students at large. But he did get the ball rolling and spread the idea around the world. Only money, egos, and the quest for rank and power corrupted what was actually a pretty good start.
> 
> Once again sir, much respect to you and your teacher. It is not easy for the masses, but when you simply put the art first above everything else, it becomes a labor of love, and a passion that will never die.


 
I was lucky to meet the right people and then stick with it long enough to be taken seriously for my intentions.  Then, those people were generous enough to open the right doors for me.  I am tremendously fortunate and owe a big debt of gratitude, and I don't forget it.

The experience has affected all of my martial training, not just in my white crane.

Thank you for the acknowledgement.


----------



## Doc

Flying Crane said:


> I was lucky to meet the right people and then stick with it long enough to be taken seriously for my intentions.  Then, those people were generous enough to open the right doors for me.  I am tremendously fortunate and owe a big debt of gratitude, and I don't forget it.
> 
> The experience has affected all of my martial training, not just in my white crane.
> 
> Thank you for the acknowledgement.



Same for me, and the reason I continue his work in his name, and give him all the credit sir.

Backatcha.


----------



## MJS

Flying Crane said:


> I was lucky to meet the right people and then stick with it long enough to be taken seriously for my intentions. Then, those people were generous enough to open the right doors for me. I am tremendously fortunate and owe a big debt of gratitude, and I don't forget it.
> 
> The experience has affected all of my martial training, not just in my white crane.
> 
> Thank you for the acknowledgement.


 


Doc said:


> Same for me, and the reason I continue his work in his name, and give him all the credit sir.
> 
> Backatcha.


 
I agree with that 100%.  Its amazing what the right teacher can do for your training.


----------



## MJS

Touch Of Death said:


> I agree that the context seems to be changing but I still contend that yellow belt is the first level and that all that it entails, including the yellow belt techs are the foundation upon which we build an orangelt and so on. Of course the techs themselves are just ideas, and the extensions are a bunch of busy work added through out the years. Most students start aout at yelow and build their second level techs from the experiences of dealing with the first level techs. For many kenpoists Attitude is the base, but you instill it with the experience of the yellow belt material and the experiences there of. The first level techniques are meant to be built on.
> Sean


 
So, you're using the techniques to teach the basics?


----------



## Ray

Doc said:


> Old? Old? Uh, old?
> 
> Anyway, let me give you some historical perspective. Mr. Parker tried one and only once at codifying basics.


I apoligize about the "old" comment...I only meant it relative to...ah never mind.

My point is, you and some others are real serious about the basics being done correctly.  You have a set of measurable criteria for them, etc.  

For me, it enlightening that you and those others (some of who area considered "seniors") concentrate so much on the basic fundmamentals.


----------



## silvestre

an interview with MR PARKER, I read that the American Kenpo  comes from the Chinese KEMPO







best regards


----------



## Luther

When I was learning kenpo in the 80's, at our school we had what were called the "First 5's". It was the first 5 classes that were one on one with an instructor. It entailed all the basic motion , foot maneuvers, principles and terminology you needed to participate in group classes. It was very basic Kenpo and it was required for anyone that wanted to participate in the group classes, even if you were a black belt from another style that wanted to learn Kenpo. I always assumed these things to be the base of the art as everything I learned was built upon these basics.  Horse stance, Slautes, bowing, all hand techniques basically from starblock as it was taught then. neutral bow and basic foot maneuvers, stepping back, stepping through, step drag, drag step. It was an introduction to terminology and principles as well. toe heel line, Knee heel line, Tracking, economy of motion, margin for error, drop, torque, reciprocation and more from lone kimono. Even sayings were introduced. It was an amazing amount of "motion knowledge" for the first 5 days but by the time you were in your first group class you could participate and know what was expected for school etiquette etc. You had your "kenpo base" it seems to me at that time. It was then that we went on to learn the techniques, principles and forms for yellow belt as well as the sayings. Again this was only at the school I went to. It seemed very logical to me.


----------



## Touch Of Death

MJS said:


> So, you're using the techniques to teach the basics?


Its an introduction to working basics on a live body.
Sean


----------



## MJS

Touch Of Death said:


> Its an introduction to working basics on a live body.
> Sean


 
Dont you think that things should be learned individually first before putting them all together?  I mean, if a person can't do a solid punch or stance in a static fashion first, how are they going to put it together with movement?


----------



## Doc

Luther said:


> When I was learning kenpo in the 80's, at our school we had what were called the "First 5's". It was the first 5 classes that were one on one with an instructor. It entailed all the basic motion , foot maneuvers, principles and terminology you needed to participate in group classes. It was very basic Kenpo and it was required for anyone that wanted to participate in the group classes, even if you were a black belt from another style that wanted to learn Kenpo. I always assumed these things to be the base of the art as everything I learned was built upon these basics.  Horse stance, Slautes, bowing, all hand techniques basically from starblock as it was taught then. neutral bow and basic foot maneuvers, stepping back, stepping through, step drag, drag step. It was an introduction to terminology and principles as well. toe heel line, Knee heel line, Tracking, economy of motion, margin for error, drop, torque, reciprocation and more from lone kimono. Even sayings were introduced. It was an amazing amount of "motion knowledge" for the first 5 days but by the time you were in your first group class you could participate and know what was expected for school etiquette etc. You had your "kenpo base" it seems to me at that time. It was then that we went on to learn the techniques, principles and forms for yellow belt as well as the sayings. Again this was only at the school I went to. It seemed very logical to me.


You're talking about the old Arthur Murray Dance Studio Business Plan brought to the commercial martial arts business that started everyone with 5 private lessons, half hour each for a set fee. It was known in the business to many as "Looky Loo" money. You couldn't lose. You invested an hour and half to indoctrinate potential students and set them up to "close" the contract for group lessons. If they take a couple lessons and don't come back, you still made a buck on their curiosity.


----------



## Luther

Doc said:


> You're talking about the old Arthur Murray Dance Studio Business Plan brought to the commercial martial arts business that started everyone with 5 private lessons, half hour each for a set fee. It was known in the business to many as "Looky Loo" money. You couldn't lose. You invested an hour and half to indoctrinate potential students and set them up to "close" the contract for group lessons. If they take a couple lessons and don't come back, you still made a buck on their curiosity.



That is interesting to say the least. When you say it was intended to indoctrinate someone from a teaching perspective the "looky loo" makes it sound as if money and or a contract was the only thing accomplished during this process. I wanted to take epak because my friends were in epak. The money was never an issue for me. I wanted to be good at Ed Parker's Kenpo. I can see now how it was simply a taste of kenpo like you said, definably not the base. It is a starting point for me. To me it defined alot of things and introduced me to better motion. Even if it was Arthur Murrays idea to increase sales. Thank you for your insight Mr. Chapel.


----------



## Doc

Luther said:


> That is interesting to say the least. When you say it was intended to indoctrinate someone from a teaching perspective the "looky loo" makes it sound as if money and or a contract was the only thing accomplished during this process. I wanted to take epak because my friends were in epak. The money was never an issue for me. I wanted to be good at Ed Parker's Kenpo. I can see now how it was simply a taste of kenpo like you said, definably not the base. It is a starting point for me. To me it defined alot of things and introduced me to better motion. Even if it was Arthur Murrays idea to increase sales. Thank you for your insight Mr. Chapel.


It was and is a good business plan. Some find this a negative, however without a good business plan there is no school. Business requires a compromise to be successful. The Martial Arts has never been a good business endeavor, and you cannot teach the true in-depth material in a commercial environment because clientele won't support it. It is what it is.


----------



## Touch Of Death

MJS said:


> Dont you think that things should be learned individually first before putting them all together? I mean, if a person can't do a solid punch or stance in a static fashion first, how are they going to put it together with movement?


Sure, but this isn't rocket science.
Sean


----------



## Blindside

Touch Of Death said:


> Sure, but this isn't rocket science.
> Sean



You wouldn't know it with the amount of jargon that Mr. Parker came up with.


----------



## MattJ

Blindside said:


> You wouldn't know it with the amount of jargon that Mr. Parker came up with.


 
Haha, while I agree that there is some overkill, many of Mr Parker's descriptions made clear heretofore obscure concepts. Things like marriage of gravity, tracking, borrowed force, etc. These things were nearly unexplainable or fell under catch-all terms like chi, ki, spirit, etc. 

While I feel that kenpo is a good SD art, IMHO, it's real strength is as a teaching/learning art.  Training kenpo will allow you to quickly assimilate other arts.


----------



## chaos1551

Doc said:


> It was and is a good business plan. Some find this a negative, however without a good business plan there is no school. Business requires a compromise to be successful. The Martial Arts has never been a good business endeavor, and you cannot teach the true in-depth material in a commercial environment because clientele won't support it. It is what it is.


 
"Looky loo" is ingenious, in my opinion.  Generally speaking, it is a good plan for both the instructor and the prospective student.  My instructor uses the plan and it helped me make a decision about enrolling in his school without having to worry about getting into or out of a contract; it also helped me feel honorable about the possibility of walking away if it didn't work out.  When a plan like "looky loo" is used, all the money is out on the table, so to speak, so there should be no love lost over money regardless of the outcome of the first few lessons.

I believe the kenpo base (or the base of any system, really) would be the terminology (verbal or non-verbal) that allows a teacher to impart the knowledge of the kenpo system.


----------



## MJS

Touch Of Death said:


> Sure, but this isn't rocket science.
> Sean


 
Sure, to someone who a) already has a prior martial arts background or b) someone who is above average, and is very quick to pick things up.  But, the average Joe, someone new to the arts, never doing stuff like this before, is usually, in my experience, pretty uncoordinated.  

Walking and running isn't rocket science either.  Yet we learn to walk before we run.


----------



## Touch Of Death

MJS said:


> Sure, to someone who a) already has a prior martial arts background or b) someone who is above average, and is very quick to pick things up. But, the average Joe, someone new to the arts, never doing stuff like this before, is usually, in my experience, pretty uncoordinated.
> 
> Walking and running isn't rocket science either. Yet we learn to walk before we run.


OK, so after they stand in a horse learning to hammer to the corner of the imaginary box, for a few minutes, they get to do it on a body. Its a contact art; and contact should be part of your base. As for walking and running, most people that walk in the door understand how to step forward or back; so, after learning brief method of execution set, they get real bodies with real attacks. You can call the method of execution set our base, but, I still contend that all the yellow belt material is the base. And how long should we make them stand there and do a three move set before experiencing a body? We are talking a matter of hours here, not months or years.
Sean


----------



## Luther

Touch Of Death said:


> OK, so after they stand in a horse learning to hammer to the corner of the imaginary box, for a few minutes, they get to do it on a body. Its a contact art; and contact should be part of your base. As for walking and running, most people that walk in the door understand how to step forward or back; so, after learning brief method of execution set, they get real bodies with real attacks. You can call the method of execution set our base, but, I still contend that all the yellow belt material is the base. And how long should we make them stand there and do a three move set before experiencing a body? We are talking a matter of hours here, not months or years.
> Sean



I would contend that Doc made a good point saying that The driving philosophies, concepts, and  principles to express those philosophies within the context of the art are the base of any art. you could call it the method of execution as an encompassing term but it would not be brief in every school. it is interesting to ponder though.


----------



## MJS

Touch Of Death said:


> OK, so after they stand in a horse learning to hammer to the corner of the imaginary box, for a few minutes, they get to do it on a body. Its a contact art; and contact should be part of your base. As for walking and running, most people that walk in the door understand how to step forward or back; so, after learning brief method of execution set, they get real bodies with real attacks. You can call the method of execution set our base, but, I still contend that all the yellow belt material is the base. And how long should we make them stand there and do a three move set before experiencing a body? We are talking a matter of hours here, not months or years.
> Sean


 
IIRC, Doc made a post (I'll have to try and find it) in which he was talking about how long it takes someone in his school, to advance, as far as techniques go.  I got the impression from that post, that the student in his school, doesnt move forward until things are perfect or damn close to it.  

So going on that, your post here, would disagree with that line of teaching.  

Sure, I would, after they got used to the basic movement of the strike, have them hit a target, ie:focus mit, but no, on the first day, they would not move on to techniques.  Sorry, as I said, unless we're talking about the above adverage person, there is no way someone with no prior training, is going to, with any amount of effectiveness, be able to do a tech.  Most intro lessons that I would teach were 30min.  9 times out of 10, I'd teach a few simple punches, blocks, and kics, and you could see that their head was spinning.  Besides, whats the rush?  The basics are the foundation, IMHO, and if they suck, then nothing else they do will matter because that will suck too.

Same thing applies to grappling.  Position before submission....because if your position sucks, so will your techniques.


----------



## Touch Of Death

MJS said:


> IIRC, Doc made a post (I'll have to try and find it) in which he was talking about how long it takes someone in his school, to advance, as far as techniques go. I got the impression from that post, that the student in his school, doesnt move forward until things are perfect or damn close to it.
> 
> So going on that, your post here, would disagree with that line of teaching.
> 
> Sure, I would, after they got used to the basic movement of the strike, have them hit a target, ie:focus mit, but no, on the first day, they would not move on to techniques. Sorry, as I said, unless we're talking about the above adverage person, there is no way someone with no prior training, is going to, with any amount of effectiveness, be able to do a tech. Most intro lessons that I would teach were 30min. 9 times out of 10, I'd teach a few simple punches, blocks, and kics, and you could see that their head was spinning. Besides, whats the rush? The basics are the foundation, IMHO, and if they suck, then nothing else they do will matter because that will suck too.
> 
> Same thing applies to grappling. Position before submission....because if your position sucks, so will your techniques.


We wnat our students to use what they learn the minute they walk out the door, not six months. How? Teach broader generalized principles. Instant contact is a must.
sean


----------



## MJS

Touch Of Death said:


> We wnat our students to use what they learn the minute they walk out the door, not six months. How? Teach broader generalized principles. Instant contact is a must.
> sean


 
You know, after I made my post this morning, I started thinking about this very thing you just said, as I've said the same thing too.  I agree, that someone should be able to defend themselves, relatively soon, not necessarily the same day they walk out of a class, but within say a 1-2 month period.  Of course, we do need to keep in mind, that they will still be limited as to what they can/can't do, as it'd be impossible to cover everything all at once.

However, if we do this, then we need to focus and dedicate our time to specific things.  In other words, take the material, strip it down to the bare bones, essential things, and focus on that.  So, we have to take something like kata, put that on the back burner, and focus on other stuff, ie: techniques.

Again, while I do agree with this line of thinking, we need to be realistic with ourselves, and understand that not everyone that walks in the door will be capable of this, coordinated for this, etc.  I've been teaching for a long time, and I've seen a wide variety of people walk thru the door.  I'm not saying that everyone is slow at learning, but not everyone is quick either.  Of course, just because someone thinks they 'have it' doesnt necessarily mean that that is the case.  I've had people ask for more of a kata, or another tech., and when I ask to see what they've already done, many times, they're going thru the movements, but the fine points are not there.  Whats the sense of giving them more, if what they already know, sucks?  So show them more, so more can suck?  Sorry, I dont teach that way.


----------



## Flying Crane

Touch Of Death said:


> We wnat our students to use what they learn the minute they walk out the door, not six months. How? Teach broader generalized principles. Instant contact is a must.
> sean


 
I'll actually disagree with this.  Expecting or intending for students to be able to use the material immediately is misguided, in my opinion.

We need to establish the foundation.  That starts with stances and footwork.  Then fundamental blocks and deflections, striking with the upper limbs, and striking with the lower limbs.  More complex combinations come later.  If the foundation is deficient, nothing else matters.  build a house on a sand dune, and it will fall down when the wind blows.  Build it on granite, it will stand forever.

I understand the quick-use sentiment, and to some degree I think there is room for it in the big picture.  But making this a major emphasis can harm the student's development in the long run.

A lot of things do not pay quick dividends, but give a huge payout later on if they are developed properly.  This takes time.  If it is done right, the ultimate level of development will be much higher.

If most attention is given to the quick-use ideas, then the foundation is ignored, or not given the attention it needs.  The ultimate level of skill will be much lower, down the road.  Then, all kinds of bad habits need to be corrected before this handicap can be overcome.

If someone needs or wants self-defense right now, they should go buy a gun and learn how to use it, and get a valid conceal-carry permit.  Even that takes some time and effort to develop proficiency.  Nothing is instant and immediate.

Martial arts are not an answer to quick self-defense.  Kenpo is a body of knowledge with a skillset that takes time to develop.  It is not a quick-fix, tho I think a lot of people try to use it as such.  I think it's unreasonable to expect useful skills quickly, in kenpo or any martial art.  I'd say that a dedicated student with a reasonable level of natural ability could begin to be effective with kenpo skills after six months.  Sooner than that, I think is unreasonable.  And this assumes the student is dedicated in training.  If not, and if natural ability is lacking, it could be much much longer.

Now, I know that we all have stories of the student who had one lesson and successfully defended herself against an attacker the next day.  Sure, that happens.  There are always exceptions to the rule.  But I don't think you can present this as the norm or what is to be expected.  Most people won't be able to pull it off, and there is no sense in lying to them about it.

Drill the fundamentals.  Build the foundation.  Everything else will be much better if you do.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Flying Crane said:


> I'll actually disagree with this. Expecting or intending for students to be able to use the material immediately is misguided, in my opinion.
> 
> We need to establish the foundation. That starts with stances and footwork. Then fundamental blocks and deflections, striking with the upper limbs, and striking with the lower limbs. More complex combinations come later. If the foundation is deficient, nothing else matters. build a house on a sand dune, and it will fall down when the wind blows. Build it on granite, it will stand forever.
> 
> I understand the quick-use sentiment, and to some degree I think there is room for it in the big picture. But making this a major emphasis can harm the student's development in the long run.
> 
> A lot of things do not pay quick dividends, but give a huge payout later on if they are developed properly. This takes time. If it is done right, the ultimate level of development will be much higher.
> 
> If most attention is given to the quick-use ideas, then the foundation is ignored, or not given the attention it needs. The ultimate level of skill will be much lower, down the road. Then, all kinds of bad habits need to be corrected before this handicap can be overcome.
> 
> If someone needs or wants self-defense right now, they should go buy a gun and learn how to use it, and get a valid conceal-carry permit. Even that takes some time and effort to develop proficiency. Nothing is instant and immediate.
> 
> Martial arts are not an answer to quick self-defense. Kenpo is a body of knowledge with a skillset that takes time to develop. It is not a quick-fix, tho I think a lot of people try to use it as such. I think it's unreasonable to expect useful skills quickly, in kenpo or any martial art. I'd say that a dedicated student with a reasonable level of natural ability could begin to be effective with kenpo skills after six months. Sooner than that, I think is unreasonable. And this assumes the student is dedicated in training. If not, and if natural ability is lacking, it could be much much longer.
> 
> Now, I know that we all have stories of the student who had one lesson and successfully defended herself against an attacker the next day. Sure, that happens. There are always exceptions to the rule. But I don't think you can present this as the norm or what is to be expected. Most people won't be able to pull it off, and there is no sense in lying to them about it.
> 
> Drill the fundamentals. Build the foundation. Everything else will be much better if you do.


I can understand avoiding complex material, but the simple stuff is pretty simple.
Sean


----------



## Flying Crane

Touch Of Death said:


> I can understand avoiding complex material, but the simple stuff is pretty simple.
> Sean


 
yes and no.  It can seem simple, but it can actually take a long time to make it really good.  

A stance all by itself might seem simple, and maybe a new student can get it "good enough" fairly soon, but I'll bet that the finer details need correcting for a long time.  

But adding the torque necessary when delivering a punch, or a block, or the shift needed to deliver a good kick while not compromising that stance, can be very complicated for a beginner.  

Now elevate it to the level of a self defense tech that might have two or three or more steps and stance changes, one or two blocking/defensive maneuvers, and a couple of counter attacks, and it's really really complex.  Far too much for a beginner to tackle, without losing integrity in every aspect of the technique.  STeps end up in the wrong places, stances and stance changes get sloppy, defenses get sloppy, counter attacks get sloppy.  Especially when they are working with a partner before they've even made it solid as a solo act.  

Working with a partner makes everything sloppy, because that's the unpredictable nature of reality.  But the student needs to make it solid without the partner first, or the slop just gets worse and worse.  A student needs to practice and develop it as cleanly and solidly as possible, because it will be sloppy when done for real on an opponent.  If the base was not adequately developed, the slop could make it fall apart completely.

No need to rush.  Where's everyone headed to in such a hurry?  Slow down and get it right.  Pay attention to the fundamentals.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Flying Crane said:


> yes and no. It can seem simple, but it can actually take a long time to make it really good.
> 
> A stance all by itself might seem simple, and maybe a new student can get it "good enough" fairly soon, but I'll bet that the finer details need correcting for a long time.
> 
> But adding the torque necessary when delivering a punch, or a block, or the shift needed to deliver a good kick while not compromising that stance, can be very complicated for a beginner.
> 
> Now elevate it to the level of a self defense tech that might have two or three or more steps and stance changes, one or two blocking/defensive maneuvers, and a couple of counter attacks, and it's really really complex. Far too much for a beginner to tackle, without losing integrity in every aspect of the technique. STeps end up in the wrong places, stances and stance changes get sloppy, defenses get sloppy, counter attacks get sloppy. Especially when they are working with a partner before they've even made it solid as a solo act.
> 
> Working with a partner makes everything sloppy, because that's the unpredictable nature of reality. But the student needs to make it solid without the partner first, or the slop just gets worse and worse. A student needs to practice and develop it as cleanly and solidly as possible, because it will be sloppy when done for real on an opponent. If the base was not adequately developed, the slop could make it fall apart completely.
> 
> No need to rush. Where's everyone headed to in such a hurry? Slow down and get it right. Pay attention to the fundamentals.


Create distance, stabalize your base, defend with your most coordinated hand to the front... That takes almost no time at all.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka

Touch Of Death said:


> You may notice that despite revisions, everyone is introduced to kenpo with some yellow belt variant.
> Sean


 
I wasn't. I was intoduced into the Orange belt stuff; never saw the yellow until years later, and was surprised to learn there was such a beast. Used to call the foundation material the "WOP" material -- W = White, O = Orange, P = Purple. No yellow. Old format.


----------



## punisher73

Touch Of Death said:


> We wnat our students to use what they learn the minute they walk out the door, not six months. How? Teach broader generalized principles. Instant contact is a must.
> sean


 

What do you mean by "instant contact"?  Hitting a live person or using pads or heavy bag?

Most of the boxing trainers I have read talk about the progression a student should have and they don't get into the ring with a person for awhile after learning the mechanics of the punch, and then getting it down on a heavy bag, then onto focus mitts.  Then when they do get into the ring, it is limited sparring to focus on a specific thing.  To shorten the process ingrains too many bad habits because the student has too many variables to work with.

Now, let's say you are talking about Kenpo.  The student should have the mechanics down of stepping back and blocking and getting into a strong stable stance, because if it's not a good stance it's not going to matter what follows to be effective.  Next step is after they can get into a strong stable stance, they need to be able to throw the block so it has structural integrity and does what it's supposed to do, otherwise what follows doesn't matter.  THEN, you would have them transition from neutral bow into forward bow to execute the punch.  They need to be able to transfer properly so that each link in the chain adds to the speed/power of the punch.  

There are two schools of though to training.

1) Teach them strong fundamentals and make sure they are correct and can be used properly and this may take a bit of time.

2) Teach them fast so they can apply it right then and hope that through time they develop the tools into a strong foundation to keep building their skill level.

Eventually both ways should end up at the same goal of having a competant fighter with strong fundamentals.


----------



## MattJ

Agreed. Both methods can work fine. I personally feel that stance training is a bit of a waste of time, as stances do not really come into play when in a real fight or even sparring, for the most part. I stressed the concept of _footwork_, as opposed to _stances_.

But again, either method can work.


----------



## MJS

I agree with what others have said.  Yes, both methods will work.  What it comes down to, is what your goal is....show them the entire system or strip it down, focusing on specific things, that would allow for quicker progression.  

Either way, its still going to be a process.  One may be slightly quicker than the other, but no, to think that someone is going to take a newbie, show them a few things, and after 30min, 1hr, etc., that they're really going to be remotely effective, is, IMHO, wishful thinking at best.


----------



## MJS

MattJ said:


> Agreed. Both methods can work fine. I personally feel that stance training is a bit of a waste of time, as stances do not really come into play when in a real fight or even sparring, for the most part. I stressed the concept of _footwork_, as opposed to _stances_.
> 
> But again, either method can work.


 
I agree with the footwork, but even with the footwork, you still have to be in some sort of 'stance' if anything is to be effective.  Of course, 'stance' is a broad term, so for the sake of this thread, Im assuming that what you talk about stances, you're talking about the typical Kenpo stances, ie: neutral bow, reverse, cat, etc.?  If thats the case, then yes, I agree.  While I teach them in class, when I spar/fight, Im not doing a cat stance either. LOL.  My footwork is more boxing like, as well as adding the footwork from the FMAs.  Works for me.


----------



## Flying Crane

Touch Of Death said:


> Create distance, stabalize your base, defend with your most coordinated hand to the front... That takes almost no time at all.


 
It takes no time at all to mimick the movement and do it poorly.

It takes a lot longer to do it well, with good technique, and with a high level of effectiveness.

You want quick?  Like I said earlier, buy a gun.


----------



## Flying Crane

punisher73 said:


> Eventually both ways should end up at the same goal of having a competant fighter with strong fundamentals.


 
should, but I don't believe it does.  I believe option #2 never gives the same level of results because it builds on top of a poor foundation, and people never go back and fix it.


----------



## Flying Crane

MattJ said:


> Agreed. Both methods can work fine. I personally feel that stance training is a bit of a waste of time, as stances do not really come into play when in a real fight or even sparring, for the most part. I stressed the concept of _footwork_, as opposed to _stances_.
> 
> But again, either method can work.


 
I'll completely disagree with you on this.  Stances are extremely important, and many people do not give them the attention that they need.  And it shows clearly when they do their martial arts.  Poor stances prevent the development of good techniques.  Lots and lots and lots of people have poor techniques, stemming from poor stances.  Just look around on youtube for plenty of example.


----------



## punisher73

Flying Crane said:


> I'll completely disagree with you on this. Stances are extremely important, and many people do not give them the attention that they need. And it shows clearly when they do their martial arts. Poor stances prevent the development of good techniques. Lots and lots and lots of people have poor techniques, stemming from poor stances. Just look around on youtube for plenty of example.


 

Agreed.  Watch a good boxer and freeze their movement in time and you will see "stance" when they are throwing a technique.  They know how to settle and transition to develop power in their technique.  

ALL stances are transitional and should be used to support the angle of attack or defense of what you are doing.  Because as MA's we are more concerned about things other than fists, we need a wider range of defense and an ability to employ our own diverse arsenal.  Add some grappling (clinch etc.) and you REALLY see the need for stances to maintain posture and counterattack.


----------



## punisher73

Flying Crane said:


> should, but I don't believe it does. I believe option #2 never gives the same level of results because it builds on top of a poor foundation, and people never go back and fix it.


 

I agree with this, but sometimes to keep students this is what is required.  It needs to be a mixture of the two.  You need students to pay the bills, but you need your hardcore students to keep the art alive.


----------



## MattJ

MJS said:


> Im assuming that what you talk about stances, you're talking about the typical Kenpo stances, ie: neutral bow, reverse, cat, etc.? If thats the case, then yes, I agree.


 
Yes, that is what I was referring to.

Flying Crane and punisher - 

You are free to disagree, but boxers/kickboxers/MMA folk do not train 'stances', and do just fine. To try to "freeze" their motion belies my point about footwork. Stances are by definition static, and I can't see many times where one would want to be static in any kind of martial arts scenario (sparring or otherwise).


----------



## Flying Crane

punisher73 said:


> Agreed. Watch a good boxer and freeze their movement in time and you will see "stance" when they are throwing a technique. They know how to settle and transition to develop power in their technique.
> 
> ALL stances are transitional and should be used to support the angle of attack or defense of what you are doing. Because as MA's we are more concerned about things other than fists, we need a wider range of defense and an ability to employ our own diverse arsenal. Add some grappling (clinch etc.) and you REALLY see the need for stances to maintain posture and counterattack.


 
I used to be sort of dazzled by the speed that a lot of kenpoists show on youtube clips.  I thought, wow, those guys are really fast, blisteringly fast.  I never clued into a lot of their stances.

Once I clued into the stances, I began to realize that many of these really fast guys have really lousy stances.  Their feet are sliding all over the place.  Feet are rolling up onto the sides, nothing is rooted on the ground, their feet are actually off the ground when delivering these techniques with blinding speed, they actually jump off the ground a little bit when striking something or when transitioning into the next strike, etc.  This bleeds power and stability from the technique in all directions.  It becomes dazzling speed with nothing behind it.  A palace built on a sand dune.

I try to be tactful and not make personal attacks on people here in the forums, but I'll be honest and say that I've seen this kind of thing with some of our members here.  I won't name names, but people here have posted their videos, and a lot of what I see, I think really is not very good.  But people are proud of what they post.

I don't post my own stuff, so I don't comment about what other people post, at least not directly.  But from what I've seen on youtube and whatnot, I think a lot of people who honesty believe they are really skilled, are actually really lacking.  Much of it has to do with their stances.  

Regarding the grappling issue that you mentioned, my kenpo teacher trained for a bit with the San Jose State University Judo team when he was young, after he had earned his kenpo shodan.  When those guys would try and throw him, he would drop into a solid horse stance, and it became really really difficult for them to throw him down.

Stances go a long way in making everything a whole lot better.


----------



## Flying Crane

punisher73 said:


> I agree with this, but sometimes to keep students this is what is required. It needs to be a mixture of the two. You need students to pay the bills, but you need your hardcore students to keep the art alive.


 
I understand, it is the reality of running a school. 

The teacher needs to really make a point of working the stancework in on the sly, if you follow this route.  Once you go too far down the road, it is impossible to fix it.

I don't think people necessarily need to stand in a horse stance for a half hour or something, altho this does help to build strength and learn to relax and settle into the stance properly.  But when executing technique and kata, the teacher needs to harp on proper stances within the execution.  Students get lazy or sloppy and stances suffer.  Doing that kata?  fine, get the stances right when you are doing it.  Delayed Sword?  Your stance was off, do it over.  and again.  and again...


----------



## Flying Crane

MattJ said:


> Yes, that is what I was referring to.
> 
> Flying Crane and punisher -
> 
> You are free to disagree, but boxers/kickboxers/MMA folk do not train 'stances', and do just fine. To try to "freeze" their motion belies my point about footwork. Stances are by definition static, and I can't see many times where one would want to be static in any kind of martial arts scenario (sparring or otherwise).


 
Maybe you could give a bit more description of what you mean by "training in stances".  What process or exercise are you envisioning, with this phrase?


----------



## MattJ

Flying Crane said:


> Maybe you could give a bit more description of what you mean by "training in stances". What process or exercise are you envisioning, with this phrase?


 
I didn't mean to drag this thread further off topic, but since I was asked, stance training as seen in most kenpo schools. Students get in a horse. Then a reverse bow, etc. Unneccesary, IMHO. Just show them footwork, and tell them to keep their feet roughly shoulder width.


----------



## Flying Crane

MattJ said:


> I didn't mean to drag this thread further off topic, but since I was asked, stance training as seen in most kenpo schools. Students get in a horse. Then a reverse bow, etc. Unneccesary, IMHO. Just show them footwork, and tell them to keep their feet roughly shoulder width.


 
I don't think it's off topic at all, since we are discussing kenpo's base and in my opinion, stances are a very very important part of that base.

I pulled in a couple of my latest posts giving my thoughts on stances and what I see in a lack of stances.  Do you find disagreement with what I'm saying here?  Do you see things differently?



Flying Crane said:


> I don't think people necessarily need to stand in a horse stance for a half hour or something, altho this does help to build strength and learn to relax and settle into the stance properly. But when executing technique and kata, the teacher needs to harp on proper stances within the execution. Students get lazy or sloppy and stances suffer. Doing that kata? fine, get the stances right when you are doing it. Delayed Sword? Your stance was off, do it over. and again. and again...


 



Flying Crane said:


> I used to be sort of dazzled by the speed that a lot of kenpoists show on youtube clips. I thought, wow, those guys are really fast, blisteringly fast. I never clued into a lot of their stances.
> 
> Once I clued into the stances, I began to realize that many of these really fast guys have really lousy stances. Their feet are sliding all over the place. Feet are rolling up onto the sides, nothing is rooted on the ground, their feet are actually off the ground when delivering these techniques with blinding speed, they actually jump off the ground a little bit when striking something or when transitioning into the next strike, etc. This bleeds power and stability from the technique in all directions. It becomes dazzling speed with nothing behind it. A palace built on a sand dune.
> 
> I try to be tactful and not make personal attacks on people here in the forums, but I'll be honest and say that I've seen this kind of thing with some of our members here. I won't name names, but people here have posted their videos, and a lot of what I see, I think really is not very good. But people are proud of what they post.
> 
> I don't post my own stuff, so I don't comment about what other people post, at least not directly. But from what I've seen on youtube and whatnot, I think a lot of people who honesty believe they are really skilled, are actually really lacking. Much of it has to do with their stances.
> 
> Regarding the grappling issue that you mentioned, my kenpo teacher trained for a bit with the San Jose State University Judo team when he was young, after he had earned his kenpo shodan. When those guys would try and throw him, he would drop into a solid horse stance, and it became really really difficult for them to throw him down.
> 
> Stances go a long way in making everything a whole lot better.


----------



## MJS

I agree with FC regarding the discussion of stances.  We've got a good discussion going here, so I'd like to keep it going. 

On the subject of stances:  IMO, I think alot of times, and not just with Kenpo, people see a stance, and ask just that..."How or why the hell would you fight out of something like that?"  I view stances as a momentary transition, in whatever we're doing.  If we broke down some techniques, we'd see numerous stances, yet we're not locked into any one stance for more than a brief moment.  

A boxer is in a stance, but he's moving, using footwork, etc., while fighting.


----------



## Blindside

GT Gaje of Pekiti Tirsia Kali is very adamant that his system doesn't teach "stances" he teaches footwork.  And a very specific method of footwork it is, the guys who have it down well are incredibly fluid in their motion and rooted when the strike calls for it.  The guys who don't have it, well don't.

As a kenpoist I look at the PTK footwork and see "cat, neutral, forward, neutral, front to back switch, cat, cat, neutral, twist, etc."  

Same result, different approach, I'm not sure one is more successful than the other.


----------



## Luther

MattJ said:


> Yes, that is what I was referring to.
> 
> Flying Crane and punisher -
> 
> You are free to disagree, but boxers/kickboxers/MMA folk do not train 'stances', and do just fine. To try to "freeze" their motion belies my point about footwork. Stances are by definition static, and I can't see many times where one would want to be static in any kind of martial arts scenario (sparring or otherwise).



They call it footwork. but they are stances. Being Static or stopping motion is something else.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Flying Crane said:


> I used to be sort of dazzled by the speed that a lot of kenpoists show on youtube clips. I thought, wow, those guys are really fast, blisteringly fast. I never clued into a lot of their stances.
> 
> Once I clued into the stances, I began to realize that many of these really fast guys have really lousy stances. Their feet are sliding all over the place. Feet are rolling up onto the sides, nothing is rooted on the ground, their feet are actually off the ground when delivering these techniques with blinding speed, they actually jump off the ground a little bit when striking something or when transitioning into the next strike, etc. This bleeds power and stability from the technique in all directions. It becomes dazzling speed with nothing behind it. A palace built on a sand dune.
> 
> I try to be tactful and not make personal attacks on people here in the forums, but I'll be honest and say that I've seen this kind of thing with some of our members here. I won't name names, but people here have posted their videos, and a lot of what I see, I think really is not very good. But people are proud of what they post.
> 
> I don't post my own stuff, so I don't comment about what other people post, at least not directly. But from what I've seen on youtube and whatnot, I think a lot of people who honesty believe they are really skilled, are actually really lacking. Much of it has to do with their stances.
> 
> Regarding the grappling issue that you mentioned, my kenpo teacher trained for a bit with the San Jose State University Judo team when he was young, after he had earned his kenpo shodan. When those guys would try and throw him, he would drop into a solid horse stance, and it became really really difficult for them to throw him down.
> 
> Stances go a long way in making everything a whole lot better.


We don't teach stance set, as a result of what you are talking about; why have some yellow belt reinforce bad stance work over and over.
Sean


----------



## Flying Crane

Touch Of Death said:


> We don't teach stance set, as a result of what you are talking about; why have some yellow belt reinforce bad stance work over and over.
> Sean


 
I don't know stance set so I cannot comment specifically.

However, assuming that stance set is designed to teach and reinforce good stances, then why not insist that the students keep good stances when doing it, or any other set or kata?

It's only bad stance work if the teacher allows it to be so.  It's the teacher's job to correct the student, fix the stances, and do not allow students to get away with bad stances.

sets and kata and techniques are no magic guarantee that the student is doing it right.  The instructor needs to correct the student, and make sure the student is executing the material correctly.  The material is only a tool used to develop skills.  If the tool isn't used correctly, the results are lacking.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Flying Crane said:


> I don't know stance set so I cannot comment specifically.
> 
> However, assuming that stance set is designed to teach and reinforce good stances, then why not insist that the students keep good stances when doing it, or any other set or kata?
> 
> It's only bad stance work if the teacher allows it to be so. It's the teacher's job to correct the student, fix the stances, and do not allow students to get away with bad stances.
> 
> sets and kata and techniques are no magic guarantee that the student is doing it right. The instructor needs to correct the student, and make sure the student is executing the material correctly. The material is only a tool used to develop skills. If the tool isn't used correctly, the results are lacking.


We don't want people doing static stancework at all, only proper manueuvering; my point is that stancework at all is bad stancework. We teach motion.
sean


----------



## MattJ

FC - 



> But when executing technique and kata, the teacher needs to harp on proper stances within the execution. Students get lazy or sloppy and stances suffer. Doing that kata? fine, get the stances right when you are doing it. Delayed Sword? Your stance was off, do it over. and again. and again...


 
For kata, certainly stance training is required, and to an extent, also in technique training ie; because it has to be done a certain, specific way. 



> Feet are rolling up onto the sides, nothing is rooted on the ground, their feet are actually off the ground when delivering these techniques with blinding speed, they actually jump off the ground a little bit when striking something or when transitioning into the next strike


 
Sure, and some of these problems I would attribute to poor footwork. Knowing stances is good, but knowing when to use them is a different skill, IMHO - and that is where footwork comes in. I specifically attribute poor grounding to a lack of contact/resistance training ie; not enough bag work or contact sparring.



> When those guys would try and throw him, he would drop into a solid horse stance, and it became really really difficult for them to throw him down.


 
Haha, hasn't been my experience with most kenpo people, but good for him! But at the same time, we've all seen the immobile, deep-stance guys who get lit up by those with more fluid footowork. Both ways have plusses and minuses. 

MJS - 



> ..."How or why the hell would you fight out of something like that?" I view stances as a momentary transition, in whatever we're doing. If we broke down some techniques, we'd see numerous stances, yet we're not locked into any one stance for more than a brief moment.


 
Exactly - which has always begged the question (for me), "why bother with stances, then?" 

Blindside - 



> Same result, different approach, I'm not sure one is more successful than the other.


 
Yeah, I'm not saying that emphasis on footwork way will get _better_ results - just _faster_.


----------



## Flying Crane

Touch Of Death said:


> We don't want people doing static stancework at all, only proper manueuvering; my point is that stancework at all is bad stancework. We teach motion.
> sean


 

I'll point you back to my post, #89 and ask: do you agree or disagree, or have any other comments on what I say in that post?


----------



## Touch Of Death

Flying Crane said:


> I don't think it's off topic at all, since we are discussing kenpo's base and in my opinion, stances are a very very important part of that base.
> 
> I pulled in a couple of my latest posts giving my thoughts on stances and what I see in a lack of stances. Do you find disagreement with what I'm saying here? Do you see things differently?


 You realy just need a teacher to point out to the student, the concept of bending their knees (which is what should have happened in 90% of the you tube vids), point out depth and width issues, and show them how to manuever; so, the snap shot stances you say are part of the base are just a part of a broader generalized principle.
sean


----------



## Flying Crane

MattJ said:


> FC -
> 
> For kata, certainly stance training is required, and to an extent, also in technique training ie; because it has to be done a certain, specific way.


 
why do you feel it is required for kata, when you don't feel it's important otherwise?  Feel free to correct me if I've mischaracterized what you're saying here.



> Sure, and some of these problems I would attribute to poor footwork. Knowing stances is good, but knowing when to use them is a different skill, IMHO - and that is where footwork comes in. I specifically attribute poor grounding to a lack of contact/resistance training ie; not enough bag work or contact sparring.


 
footwork and stance training are actually closely connected.  How you move should connect from one "stance" to another, even if your time in that position is only for an instant.  But that instant of stance, when used appropriately, is extremely important to the quality of your technique.

Bagwork and contact sparring usually undermines stances, if the stances were not properly developed first.  You need to build stances in order to hit the bag well, or spar well.  Sparring and bagwork, without good stances first, will not make the stances better.  Poor grounding is due to a lack of attention and training in proper stances and the related footwork.



> Haha, hasn't been my experience with most kenpo people, but good for him! But at the same time, we've all seen the immobile, deep-stance guys who get lit up by those with more fluid footowork. Both ways have plusses and minuses.


 
He didn't just stand there and hold a horse and let the guys tug away at him.  Of course they would eventually throw him if that is what he did.  Rather, when they moved in to execute the technique, at that crucial moment is when he would drop into the stance to cut them off.  The time spent in the stance was only momentary.  But when you know when and where and how to hit them, the stances make a huge difference. 




> Yeah, I'm not saying that emphasis on footwork way will get _better_ results - just _faster_.


 
this begs the question: what do you feel is better in the long run, Better, or Faster results?


----------



## Flying Crane

Touch Of Death said:


> You realy just need a teacher to point out to the student, the concept of bending their knees (which is what should have happened in 90% of the you tube vids), point out depth and width issues, and show them how to manuever; so, the snap shot stances you say are part of the base are just a part of a broader generalized principle.
> sean


 
Do you think pointing that out once is enough?  This is the kind of thing that students need over and over and over.  It's a very rare student who can learn something once, do it perfectly, and never need corrections again.  Most students need constant reminders over a long period of time.  

I think that is what most students do not get.  I think they do not get it because their instructors did not get it, and do not understand it themselves, and therefor cannot teach it.  I think that a lot of people who are "teachers" should not be teaching.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Flying Crane said:


> Do you think pointing that out once is enough? This is the kind of thing that students need over and over and over. It's a very rare student who can learn something once, do it perfectly, and never need corrections again. Most students need constant reminders over a long period of time.
> 
> I think that is what most students do not get. I think they do not get it because their instructors did not get it, and do not understand it themselves, and therefor cannot teach it. I think that a lot of people who are "teachers" should not be teaching.


Its an imaginary teacher that only has to say it once. LOL I would go so far as to say that all teachers of the martial arts are missing something. 
sean


----------



## MattJ

Flying Crane said:


> why do you feel it is required for kata, when you don't feel it's important otherwise? Feel free to correct me if I've mischaracterized what you're saying here.


 
No, you're not mischaracterizing. It's required for kata because _that's what kata is_ - a bunch of stances and strikes strung together in a certain order. However, I feel kata is a waste of time, too. LOL. 



> footwork and stance training are actually closely connected.


 
Only if you teach stances. Other styles seem to show that it's not necessary.



> How you move should connect from one "stance" to another, even if your time in that position is only for an instant. But that instant of stance, when used appropriately, is extremely important to the quality of your technique.


 
I agree that knowledge of good footwork is important. 



> Bagwork and contact sparring usually undermines stances, if the stances were not properly developed first. You need to build stances in order to hit the bag well, or spar well. Sparring and bagwork, without good stances first, will not make the stances better. Poor grounding is due to a lack of attention and training in proper stances and the related footwork.


 
We clearly have a different experience here. Not sure what kind of sparring and bagwork you are referring to.



> this begs the question: what do you feel is better in the long run, Better, or Faster results?


 
You are assuming that one way is better? I prefer faster, if the results are going to be the same.


----------



## Flying Crane

MattJ said:


> No, you're not mischaracterizing. It's required for kata because _that's what kata is_ - a bunch of stances and strikes strung together in a certain order. However, I feel kata is a waste of time, too. LOL.


 
you don't have to like kata, and you don't need to do it in your practice or in what you teach.  that's your choice.

However, you do not understand what kata is, nor how to use it as a training tool.



> Only if you teach stances. Other styles seem to show that it's not necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> We clearly have a different experience here. Not sure what kind of sparring and bagwork you are referring to.
> 
> 
> 
> You are assuming that one way is better? I prefer faster, if the results are going to be the same.


 
I think you and I have a deep divide in how we approach our training, and in what we understand to be important.  Without actually being able to see what you are doing, I don't think I can comment further, nor carry an internet discussion about it.  Too much of it needs to be seen and felt, and cannot be adequately typed out.  I'll just leave it at that.


----------



## Touch Of Death

MattJ said:


> No, you're not mischaracterizing. It's required for kata because _that's what kata is_ - a bunch of stances and strikes strung together in a certain order. However, I feel kata is a waste of time, too. LOL.
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you teach stances. Other styles seem to show that it's not necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that knowledge of good footwork is important.
> 
> 
> 
> We clearly have a different experience here. Not sure what kind of sparring and bagwork you are referring to.
> 
> 
> 
> You are assuming that one way is better? I prefer faster, if the results are going to be the same.


So, why is Kata a bad idea?
Sean


----------



## Flying Crane

Touch Of Death said:


> Its an imaginary teacher that only has to say it once.


 
no, I think there are lots and lots of teachers who only say it once.

However, it's an imaginary student who only needs to hear it once.



> I would go so far as to say that all teachers of the martial arts are missing something.
> sean


 
some more than others.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Flying Crane said:


> no, I think there are lots and lots of teachers who only say it once.
> 
> However, it's an imaginary student who only needs to hear it once.
> 
> [quote
> I would go so far as to say that all teachers of the martial arts are missing something.
> sean
> 
> some more than others.


 I agree, unless you are refering to me, then screw you hippy. LOL:uhyeah: Actually some students just aren't ready to hear and work with what a teacher says to them. Time and practice helps.
Sean


----------



## Flying Crane

Touch Of Death said:


> I agree, unless you are refering to me, then screw you hippy. LOL:uhyeah: Actually some students just aren't ready to hear and work with what a teacher says to them. Time and practice helps.
> Sean


 
I'm not pointing fingers at anyone, least of all someone I haven't met and haven't seen his work.

and yes, I am a hippy at heart.


----------



## MattJ

FC - 



> However, you do not understand what kata is, nor how to use it as a training tool.


 
Huh? Do you know me? I'm quite sure you can't read my mind, and you apparently don't know my background, either. I haven't made any assumptions about your ability to spar or hit a bag. WTH! 

Touch of Death - 



> So, why is Kata a bad idea?


 
Thought I was fairly clear? Same reason that stance training is a waste of time. Footwork, striking coordination, etc, can be learned faster in other ways. But we're getting way off topic, yes? I wasn't trying to start a kata/anti-kata thing. I gave my opinion about it because it was posited to me about stance training.


----------



## MJS

Flying Crane said:


> It takes no time at all to mimick the movement and do it poorly.
> 
> It takes a lot longer to do it well, with good technique, and with a high level of effectiveness.
> 
> You want quick? Like I said earlier, buy a gun.


 
Agreed.  Just like I said in an earlier post, even if things are shortened for the sake of learning faster, time, quality time at that, still needs to be put in.


----------



## MJS

MattJ said:


> FC -
> 
> 
> 
> For kata, certainly stance training is required, and to an extent, also in technique training ie; because it has to be done a certain, specific way.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, and some of these problems I would attribute to poor footwork. Knowing stances is good, but knowing when to use them is a different skill, IMHO - and that is where footwork comes in. I specifically attribute poor grounding to a lack of contact/resistance training ie; not enough bag work or contact sparring.
> 
> 
> 
> Haha, hasn't been my experience with most kenpo people, but good for him! But at the same time, we've all seen the immobile, deep-stance guys who get lit up by those with more fluid footowork. Both ways have plusses and minuses.
> 
> MJS -
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly - which has always begged the question (for me), "why bother with stances, then?"
> 
> Blindside -
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm not saying that emphasis on footwork way will get _better_ results - just _faster_.


 
Why teach the stances?  Well, thats a good question, and I would say it depends on you're teaching.  If you are teaching kata, then IMO, yes, the stances will need to be taught, other wise, the student will aimlessly be going thru the kata, having no clue what they're doing.

If the techs. are taught, then to some extent, I'd imagine they'd still need to be taught, again, so the student has some sort of idea as to what they're doing.  

Again, some sort of footwork/stance will need to be taught, but IMO, I'd say it all comes down to how its being taught.  I teach them, but I also teach that they're momentary spots, not something you stay in for "X" amount of time.

For the record, I teach kata, but I'm not as much of a 'fan' of it as some.  Again, to each his own.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Forms or Kata are about you and how you move. If you watch a person do a form it gives you a pretty good idea of what the practitioner knows and how they move. It teaches both control and timing. Its also a good indicater of consitstancy.
Sean


----------



## Doc

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:


> I wasn't. I was intoduced into the Orange belt stuff; never saw the yellow until years later, and was surprised to learn there was such a beast. Used to call the foundation material the "WOP" material -- W = White, O = Orange, P = Purple. No yellow. Old format.



Those whose introduction to Kenpo started after the commercial era might be surprised to know it began without any Yellow or Orange Belt.


----------



## Flying Crane

MattJ said:


> FC -
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? Do you know me? I'm quite sure you can't read my mind, and you apparently don't know my background, either. I haven't made any assumptions about your ability to spar or hit a bag. WTH!


 
The comment you made about what kata is, tells me that you do not understand it. I know that kata is more than what you described it. You are welcome to revise your description of kata, if you like.

again, you don't have to like kata, you don't have to practice it or teach it, and you can certainly develop skills without it. 

But if your description of what kata is, is an accurate statement of what you honestly believe it to be, then you do not understand it. That's OK. I don't know anything about automobile mechanics. I can barely change a flat tire.


----------



## MattJ

MJS - 



> Why teach the stances? Well, thats a good question, and I would say it depends on you're teaching. If you are teaching kata, then IMO, yes, the stances will need to be taught, other wise, the student will aimlessly be going thru the kata, having no clue what they're doing.
> 
> If the techs. are taught, then to some extent, I'd imagine they'd still need to be taught, again, so the student has some sort of idea as to what they're doing.


 
Yes, exactly, this was the point I was trying to make with FC regarding stance training. Kata training requires stance training. 

Touch of Death - 



> Forms or Kata are about you and how you move. If you watch a person do a form it gives you a pretty good idea of what the practitioner knows and how they move. It teaches both control and timing. Its also a good indicater of consitstancy.


 
Yes, in a very static and non-specific way. I don't agree that kata can teach or show timing or targeting in any relevant way. You will have a much better idea of how they move (ie; application) by watching them hit something or spar, or some other resistant drill. 

FC - 



> The comment you made about what kata is, tells me that you do not understand it. I know that kata is more than what you described it. You are welcome to revise your description of kata, if you like.


 
Please remind me of my "description" of kata. I gave an opinion. 



> again, you don't have to like kata, you don't have to practice it or teach it, and you can certainly develop skills without it.


 
OK, so what are we disagreeing about? I never said anyone *shouldn't* do kata if they like it or get something out of it. 



> But if your description of what kata is, is an accurate statement of what you honestly believe it to be, then you do not understand it.


 
You are extremely arrogant. I can therefore assume from your "description" of bagwork and sparring that you don't know anything about either of those, right? Works both ways. It wouldn't even surprise me to find out that I outrank you or have been training longer. You might want to check your assumptions at the door.

EDIT to add that I approach martial arts training very much from an application oriented POV, if that helps anyone understand where I'm coming from here.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Doc said:


> Those whose introduction to Kenpo started after the commercial era might be surprised to know it began without any Yellow or Orange Belt.


A dying breed. Most people that do kenpo now, and I mean in to the 90%+ use the colored belt system, and I don't think anyone would be suprised that you did things differently before there was a commercial colored belt system.
Sean


----------



## Touch Of Death

MattJ said:


> MJS -
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, exactly, this was the point I was trying to make with FC regarding stance training. Kata training requires stance training.
> 
> Touch of Death -
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, in a very static and non-specific way. I don't agree that kata can teach or show timing or targeting in any relevant way. You will have a much better idea of how they move (ie; application) by watching them hit something or spar, or some other resistant drill.
> 
> FC -
> 
> 
> 
> Please remind me of my "description" of kata. I gave an opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> OK, so what are we disagreeing about? I never said anyone *shouldn't* do kata if they like it or get something out of it.
> 
> 
> 
> You are extremely arrogant. I can therefore assume from your "description" of bagwork and sparring that you don't know anything about either of those, right? Works both ways. It wouldn't even surprise me to find out that I outrank you or have been training longer. You might want to check your assumptions at the door.
> 
> EDIT to add that I approach martial arts training very much from an application oriented POV, if that helps anyone understand where I'm coming from here.


Perhaps you don't consider methods of execution in any relavant way.
Sean


----------



## MattJ

ToD - 

Not sure what you mean. Please clarify.


----------



## Flying Crane

MattJ said:


> You are extremely arrogant. I can therefore assume from your "description" of bagwork and sparring that you don't know anything about either of those, right? Works both ways. It wouldn't even surprise me to find out that I outrank you or have been training longer. You might want to check your assumptions at the door.



And there we were, actually having a discussion.  I'm not interested in your rank, it doesn't really mean much to me, nor impress me one way or the other.  

if you are happy with what you do and how you do it, carry on by all means.  It's none of my business and I won't try and give you a different perspective.  doesn't really matter to me.


----------



## Luther

TOD is a blackbelt. There is no need to go on about it. While fundamentally we may disagree on points he has a depth of knowledge that deserves respect without threatening him or demeaning him about his bag work or whatever.


----------



## Doc

Luther said:


> TOD is a blackbelt. There is no need to go on about it. While fundamentally we may disagree on points he has a depth of knowledge that deserves respect without threatening him or demeaning him about his bag work or whatever.



"WFD." Isn't everybody?


----------



## Luther

Doc said:


> "WFD." Isn't everybody?



heh maybe...I dunno. I just love Kenpo.


----------



## Flying Crane

Luther said:


> TOD is a blackbelt. There is no need to go on about it. While fundamentally we may disagree on points he has a depth of knowledge that deserves respect without threatening him or demeaning him about his bag work or whatever.



He was aiming his derision at me, not TOD.  Thanks, tho.


----------



## Flying Crane

Flying Crane said:


> I don't think people necessarily need to stand in a horse stance for a half hour or something, altho this does help to build strength and learn to relax and settle into the stance properly.



I wanted to clarify my thought here a little.

I actually think that standing in stance is a good practice, develops a strong stance, and should be a regular part of practice. 

However, I understand why people do not do it, given limited time to train and other obligations.  I'll admit that it's not as regular a part of my own training as I would like it to be.

Given how most of us are pressed for training time, maybe we might get more benefit if other things were sacrificed instead.  Do we need two dozen or more kata, for example?  Maybe a dozen good kata are all we need in that department.  Maybe some of the time spent on so much kata could be better spent on stances.


----------



## punisher73

MattJ said:


> Yes, that is what I was referring to.
> 
> Flying Crane and punisher -
> 
> You are free to disagree, but boxers/kickboxers/MMA folk do not train 'stances', and do just fine. To try to "freeze" their motion belies my point about footwork. Stances are by definition static, and I can't see many times where one would want to be static in any kind of martial arts scenario (sparring or otherwise).


 
I think you misunderstood what I meant.  Stances are NOT static, they might be isolated in training to understand what they are for but you are not meant to just stand in them.

One of the first things you learn in a good boxing gym is how to stand.  There are in fact various boxing stances used to employ that particular type of strategy and guard.  Some are more side on and some are a bit more squared, but you learn how to stand, how to hold your hands, where the feet should be pointed and how to distribute weight.  The footwork drills ALL work on maintaining this optimal position.  Why?  In boxing, you only have to worry about hands coming at you from the waist up.  You don't have an opponent charging you, you don't have a knee coming up into your face when you bend over.  Stances in MA's are meant to deal with these other variables.  

Look at a martial art like Judo.  They teach a specific way to stand and a way to counter throws.  No Judoka would confuse that you just stand in that stance the whole time.  Go to any MMA gym and they will have you stand a certain way to learn how to employ your tools.  They take into consideration that you need a slightly wider base than a stand up game alone to help avoid takedowns, they also understand that you need to be slightly more squared up than a regular boxing stance to employ your leg kicks.  

They ALL employ stances, it's just that MA's break it down more to understand what each one is for and when to employ it.  I do agree, that many people DON'T learn to be fluid and solid in their footwork and tend to stand in place (much like a newbie to boxing).

The other consideration is MA's are designed for a civilian self-defense scenario.  The assault is happening so you don't have to worry about closing the distance and jockeying for position in and out of range as you do in sparring or a match.  Both combatants are right on top of each other and you need stability alot more than mobility.  

I wish I could find the interview I read from an ex-boxing champ when he talked about getting assaulted by multiple people on the street.  His response was along the lines of setting into a deep stance for power and hitting each one with a right cross.  Sounds alot like a traditional kata to me.


----------



## MattJ

Flying Crane said:


> He was aiming his derision at me, not TOD. Thanks, tho.


 
That is correct, although I did not threaten anyone. And I was merely responding in kind to the "derision" FC aimed at me here:



> But if your description of what kata is, is an accurate statement of what you honestly believe it to be, then you do not understand it.


----------



## Flying Crane

MattJ said:


> That is correct, although I did not threaten anyone. And I was merely responding in kind to the "derision" FC aimed at me here:



As I said earlier, we were having a discussion.

You made a comment about what kata is, and I went out on a limb and assumed that you meant what you said.

My understanding of kata is that it is much deeper than your description.  Given my experiences, it is my observation that you don't understand what kata really is and how it is intended to be used as a training tool.

And I'll say it for the third time: you don't need to like kata.  You don't need to train it, and you don't need to teach it.  You can certainly develop skills without it.  I'm not telling you that you are wrong for not liking kata and for not training it.  But given what you said earlier, I am saying that I do not believe you understand it.


----------



## MattJ

punisher73 said:


> I think you misunderstood what I meant. Stances are NOT static, they might be isolated in training to understand what they are for but you are not meant to just stand in them.


 
I don't think I misunderstood - I disagree, though. You seem to be referring to stances in the course of overall footwork, which is the same thing that I'm talking about. 



> One of the first things you learn in a good boxing gym is how to stand.


 
But not to the extent that you see in most MA schools. Stances are shown, then they have you move around with them. At least as much as I've seen.



> Why? In boxing, you only have to worry about hands coming at you from the waist up. You don't have an opponent charging you, you don't have a knee coming up into your face when you bend over. Stances in MA's are meant to deal with these other variables.


 
MMA and Muay Thai do deal with those, and don't spend more than cursory time on stances. 



> Look at a martial art like Judo. They teach a specific way to stand and a way to counter throws. No Judoka would confuse that you just stand in that stance the whole time. Go to any MMA gym and they will have you stand a certain way to learn how to employ your tools. They take into consideration that you need a slightly wider base than a stand up game alone to help avoid takedowns, they also understand that you need to be slightly more squared up than a regular boxing stance to employ your leg kicks.


 
Sure, but again, those stances are shown in the context of overall footwork. 



> They ALL employ stances, it's just that MA's break it down more to understand what each one is for and when to employ it. I do agree, that many people DON'T learn to be fluid and solid in their footwork and tend to stand in place (much like a newbie to boxing).


 
Fair enough. 



> The other consideration is MA's are designed for a civilian self-defense scenario. The assault is happening so you don't have to worry about closing the distance and jockeying for position in and out of range as you do in sparring or a match. Both combatants are right on top of each other and you need stability alot more than mobility.


 
Sure, I agree with that, although I think that clinch training is overall more effective than stance training, since you have to take into account the opponent pulling and pushing the upper body, etc. I certainly think there is a time and place for pure isolation training, like stance work in kenpo, but I believe it should be much less than more active work.


----------



## MattJ

Flying Crane said:


> As I said earlier, we were having a discussion.


 
So, it's a 'discussion' when you make an insulting assumption about me, but it's 'derision' when I do it back to you. Got it.



> You made a comment about what kata is, and I went out on a limb and assumed that you meant what you said.
> 
> My understanding of kata is that it is much deeper than your description.


 
My understanding that kata is a waste of time comes from my experiences, which have equal merit with yours.



> Given my experiences, it is my observation that you don't understand what kata really is and how it is intended to be used as a training tool.


 
So, I can make the same observations re: your comments on sparring and bagwork, yes? 



> But given what you said earlier, I am saying that I do not believe you understand it.


 
*sound of buzzer*

See, it would be OK for you to say, "I disagree with that", or "I think kata is great because XYZ" (as other here have done). But you are simply trying to character assassinate me because you feel insulted about my opinion.


----------



## Flying Crane

MattJ said:


> So, it's a 'discussion' when you make an insulting assumption about me, but it's 'derision' when I do it back to you. Got it.



I think you need to get a thicker skin.  I wasn't throwing insults at you.  Why do you read what I say as an insult?



> My understanding that kata is a waste of time comes from my experiences, which have equal merit with yours.



you have experiences from which you draw conclusions.  You had not commented on your experience, rather you commented on what kata is.  You gave a description.  Here it is: 



MattJ said:


> It's required for kata because _that's what kata is_ - a bunch of stances and strikes strung together in a certain order.



If this is the sum total of what you feel kata is, then your description shows an incomplete understanding.  I pointed that out.  If you want to refine your kata description, then do so.



> So, I can make the same observations re: your comments on sparring and bagwork, yes?



I'm here for discussion.  Say what you want.  I don't believe I've said much about bag work, nor sparring, other than that I don't believe they are good methods for building stances and rooting.  To think so puts the cart before the horse.  Rather, if your they are not well developed prior, then bag work and sparring can cause them to deteriorate even more.  It's a bit like building a house without a foundation, and expecting the foundation to appear somehow once the house is finished.

If you want to comment on that, if you want to disagree and explain where I'm mistaken, go ahead.  this is a discussion forum, after all.  I won't be insulted if you tell me I'm wrong.


----------



## MattJ

Flying Crane said:


> I think you need to get a thicker skin. I wasn't throwing insults at you. Why do you read what I say as an insult?


 
I was assuming, since you mentioned my "derision" in reply to you. "Derision" is an insult, yes? You must have felt insulted, and replied emotionally. BTW, you seem to be the only here personally insulted by my opinion on kata. Although I am awaiting response from ToD, to be certain. 



> If this is the sum total of what you feel kata is, then your description shows an incomplete understanding. I pointed that out. If you want to refine your kata description, then do so.


 
I don't recall saying that was my "sum total understanding" - that was your term. If you can point out where I mentioned that, then do so. 

However, my description is mechanically accurate, which was the context in which I used it in my original response when asked about stance training.



> I'm here for discussion. Say what you want. I don't believe I've said much about bag work, nor sparring, other than that I don't believe they are good methods for building stances and rooting. To think so puts the cart before the horse. Rather, if your they are not well developed prior, then bag work and sparring can cause them to deteriorate even more. It's a bit like building a house without a foundation, and expecting the foundation to appear somehow once the house is finished.


 
I don't agree that is putting the cart before the horse - they are two entirely separate things. How does kata prepare one for striking something? One could do umpteen strikes in the air, and still have poor alignment when finally hitting something like a bag or a person in sparring. Neither does kata "develop" the ability to root - that comes from resistance. 



> If you want to comment on that, if you want to disagree and explain where I'm mistaken, go ahead. this is a discussion forum, after all. I won't be insulted if you tell me I'm wrong.


 
Again, please grow a thicker skin. I am not here to tell anyone that they are "wrong". I am merely offering my opinion - without insulting anyone first.


----------



## Flying Crane

MattJ said:


> I was assuming, since you mentioned my "derision" in reply to you. "Derision" is an insult, yes? You must have felt insulted, and replied emotionally. BTW, you seem to be the only here personally insulted by my opinion on kata. Although I am awaiting response from ToD, to be certain.



Well, trying to play the rank and time card looked to me like a deliberate attempt at a slight.  Maybe you didn't intend it that way, but it looked that way.  I wasn't insulted because I didn't care, but I think the other poster saw it as derision and perhaps inappropriate and unnecessary.  He also thought you were aiming it at TOD.  I just clarified that point. 

I've read your profile.  According to that, I've been training for about a decade longer than you.  You don't list your rank, but I wouldn't be surprised if you are ranked higher than me.  Many people are, including many who have trained for less time than me.  Does that mean you are better?  Does that mean I am better?  I don't know, and really don't care.  I don't think the time and rank are relevant to this discussion because it doesn't establish anything that matters to the discussion.



> I don't recall saying that was my "sum total understanding" - that was your term. If you can point out where I mentioned that, then do so.



alrighty, finally you say so.  Flesh it out, it adds to the discussion.



> However, my description is mechanically accurate, which was the context in which I used it in my original response when asked about stance training.



that's where I disagree.  Your description is, in my experience, only mechanically accurate on a superficial level.  I don't think it hits the real notion of what kata is.  That's why I don't feel you understand kata.  If you've got something to add about that, then please do so.  Add to the discussion.  But kata was not my intended topic of discussion here.  It just came up into the picture.



> I don't agree that is putting the cart before the horse - they are two entirely separate things. How does kata prepare one for striking something? One could do umpteen strikes in the air, and still have poor alignment when finally hitting something like a bag or a person in sparring. Neither does kata "develop" the ability to root - that comes from resistance.



again, kata was not my intended topic of discussion.  But I will say that, in my training, kata does all these things.  That doesn't discount the other things, like sparring and bagwork.  Those are part of the picture, they all can reinforce the other when used properly together.  But kata, when understood thoroughly and trained properly, does all that you mention above.


----------



## Touch Of Death

MattJ said:


> I was assuming, since you mentioned my "derision" in reply to you. "Derision" is an insult, yes? You must have felt insulted, and replied emotionally. BTW, you seem to be the only here personally insulted by my opinion on kata. Although I am awaiting response from ToD, to be certain.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall saying that was my "sum total understanding" - that was your term. If you can point out where I mentioned that, then do so.
> 
> However, my description is mechanically accurate, which was the context in which I used it in my original response when asked about stance training.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree that is putting the cart before the horse - they are two entirely separate things. How does kata prepare one for striking something? One could do umpteen strikes in the air, and still have poor alignment when finally hitting something like a bag or a person in sparring. Neither does kata "develop" the ability to root - that comes from resistance.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, please grow a thicker skin. I am not here to tell anyone that they are "wrong". I am merely offering my opinion - without insulting anyone first.


You see, I have spent a good part of the day, and on unauthorized breaks at work last night, trying to perfect my step throughs, using Kata; so, I guess I'm saying I am always doing some kind of Kata at some point during any given day; so, I just am not seeing your point at all; in fact, I kinda feel sorry for you.
Sean


----------



## MattJ

FC - 



> Well, trying to play the rank and time card looked to me like a deliberate attempt at a slight. Maybe you didn't intend it that way, but it looked that way. I wasn't insulted because I didn't care, but I think the other poster saw it as derision and perhaps inappropriate and unnecessary. He also thought you were aiming it at TOD. I just clarified that point.
> 
> I've read your profile. According to that, I've been training for about a decade longer than you. You don't list your rank, but I wouldn't be surprised if you are ranked higher than me. Many people are, including many who have trained for less time than me. Does that mean you are better? Does that mean I am better? I don't know, and really don't care. I don't think the time and rank are relevant to this discussion because it doesn't establish anything that matters to the discussion.


 
I doubt that you have been training 10 years longer than I have. The time stated in my profile was for EPAK only. And you're right, perhaps it's no more relevant than you trying to judge my kata knowledge over the internet from one statement you took out of context. 



> alrighty, finally you say so. Flesh it out, it adds to the discussion.


 
What kind of strawman is this? 



> that's where I disagree. Your description is, in my experience, only mechanically accurate on a superficial level. I don't think it hits the real notion of what kata is. That's why I don't feel you understand kata. If you've got something to add about that, then please do so. Add to the discussion. But kata was not my intended topic of discussion here. It just came up into the picture.


 
I agree it's not the topic of discussion, but remember that I was only responding because YOU brought it up. Remember? - 



> I don't think people necessarily need to stand in a horse stance for a half hour or something, altho this does help to build strength and learn to relax and settle into the stance properly. But when executing technique *and kata*, the teacher needs to harp on proper stances within the execution. Students get lazy or sloppy and stances suffer. *Doing that kata?* fine, get the stances right when you are doing it. Delayed Sword? Your stance was off, do it over. and again. and again...


 
If you feel it's off topic (which I did mention before, even about stances), feel free to change the subject. I did not mention it first. 



> But kata, when understood thoroughly and trained properly, does all that you mention above.


 
Kata alone cannot work timing, or distancing, or resistance, and to suggest otherwise is specious at best. There are things that people can get out of kata, but those are not elements that one can. I never said kata was *useless* (implying that there is nothing one can gain); I said it was a *waste of time*, implying there are other things I think would be more useful to work on. 

ToD - 



> so, I just am not seeing your point at all; in fact, I kinda feel sorry for you.


 
I guess that makes two of us; I don't understand your point, either. I feel sorry for you that you feel sorry for me. I am doing just fine.


----------



## Flying Crane

MattJ said:


> FC -
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt that you have been training 10 years longer than I have. The time stated in my profile was for EPAK only.


 
alrighty then, I guess you know best.  Again, I really really don't care, as was my point in my earlier comments.  People on this forum generally don't put much stock into things like rank, which was the other half of this point that you raised.  What matters a lot more is how you can contribute to the discussion.  Add something to it, carry the discussion to a deeper level and we all can benefit.  I can't believe I've gotten into this pissing match with you.



> And you're right, perhaps it's no more relevant than you trying to judge my kata knowledge over the internet from one statement you took out of context.


 
look, if you told me that a circle is a shape with four straight sides and four 90 degree angles, I know that you do not understand what a circle is.  No amount of experience is going to change that fact.  

I've invited you to show me where I'm wrong, convince me you understand kata.  You have not done so.  I don't know why.  You can't?  You don't want to?  You are just angry at me and don't want to look for a way to have a beneficial discussion?  I dunno.  I don't much care at this point.



> I agree it's not the topic of discussion, but remember that I was only responding because YOU brought it up. Remember? -


 
I brought up kata as an example of where one can work on proper stance development.  I still believe that stances are an important part of the foundation of any martial art, including kenpo.  Granted, stances are different in different systems, and the approach to training them can be different, but they are still extremely important.  That's my position on stances.



> Kata alone cannot work timing, or distancing, or resistance, and to suggest otherwise is specious at best. There are things that people can get out of kata, but those are not elements that one can. I never said kata was *useless* (implying that there is nothing one can gain); I said it was a *waste of time*, implying there are other things I think would be more useful to work on.


 
I never said kata alone was the answer to everything.  Look at my last post, I said things like bagwork and sparring have their place in the big picture, along with kata.  But your comments here reinforce my feeling that you don't really understand kata.  

For the fourth time, it's really OK that you don't like and don't train kata.  I don't care.  But I don't believe you understand kata.  I guess that does make it a *waste of time* for you.  But not for someone who understands it.

Seems to me you've decided that you are gonna be offended by everything I say here.  I guess you and I just cannot have a discussion, so I won't try any longer, and I don't expect you to either.  It's not worth the energy to sit and argue on the internet like this.  I was actually prepared to let this go a couple pages back.  It's often impossible to adequately describe and discuss things on the internet, when they really require a hands-on experience to get the real message thru.  I let myself get sucked back into it because I thought I might be able to clarify some points, but either I've failed to do so, or you don't want to see it.  I don't care which it is at this point.


----------



## Touch Of Death

MattJ said:


> FC -
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt that you have been training 10 years longer than I have. The time stated in my profile was for EPAK only. And you're right, perhaps it's no more relevant than you trying to judge my kata knowledge over the internet from one statement you took out of context.
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of strawman is this?
> 
> 
> 
> I agree it's not the topic of discussion, but remember that I was only responding because YOU brought it up. Remember? -
> 
> 
> 
> If you feel it's off topic (which I did mention before, even about stances), feel free to change the subject. I did not mention it first.
> 
> 
> 
> Kata alone cannot work timing, or distancing, or resistance, and to suggest otherwise is specious at best. There are things that people can get out of kata, but those are not elements that one can. I never said kata was *useless* (implying that there is nothing one can gain); I said it was a *waste of time*, implying there are other things I think would be more useful to work on.
> 
> ToD -
> 
> 
> 
> I guess that makes two of us; I don't understand your point, either. I feel sorry for you that you feel sorry for me. I am doing just fine.


That's funny, Short Form One is supposed to teach us the timing of blocking out of a cover, but forms don't help with timing.?
Sean


----------



## MattJ

> look, if you told me that a circle is a shape with four straight sides and four 90 degree angles, I know that you do not understand what a circle is. No amount of experience is going to change that fact.


 
Please tell me how my mechanical description of kata is inaccurate. 



> I've invited you to show me where I'm wrong, convince me you understand kata. You have not done so. I don't know why. You can't? You don't want to? You are just angry at me and don't want to look for a way to have a beneficial discussion? I dunno. I don't much care at this point.


 
I am not burdened by having to prove _your_ description of kata - which you have not made, BTW. That I do not like kata does not mean that I don't understand it. For instance, you told me in the last post that kata can teach all the things I said it can't. Please explain how it can show distancing and timing and resistance. Show me that _I'm_ wrong.



> I brought up kata as an example of where one can work on proper stance development. I still believe that stances are an important part of the foundation of any martial art, including kenpo. Granted, stances are different in different systems, and the approach to training them can be different, but they are still extremely important. That's my position on stances.


 
Fair enough. 



> Seems to me you've decided that you are gonna be offended by everything I say here.


 
Surprisingly, I do get offended when people make baseless, insulting assumptions about me. 



> I guess you and I just cannot have a discussion, so I won't try any longer, and I don't expect you to either. It's not worth the energy to sit and argue on the internet like this. I was actually prepared to let this go a couple pages back. It's often impossible to adequately describe and discuss things on the internet, when they really require a hands-on experience to get the real message thru. I let myself get sucked back into it because I thought I might be able to clarify some points, but either I've failed to do so, or you don't want to see it. I don't care which it is at this point.


 
I was prepared to have a discussion without you insulting me. We still can, as far as I am concerned. I don't hold grudges.


----------



## MattJ

Touch Of Death said:


> That's funny, Short Form One is supposed to teach us the timing of blocking out of a cover, but forms don't help with timing.?
> Sean


 
What timing is that showing, though? Not timing relative to someone actually hitting you, which is what I was talking about.  That is the only important timing, IMHO. Kata cannot simulate that.


----------



## Touch Of Death

MattJ said:


> What timing is that showing, though? Not timing relative to someone actually hitting you, which is what I was talking about. That is the only important timing, IMHO. Kata cannot simulate that.


Again Kata is about you and how you move. Did you know there are seven different types of speed? Before we start a big discussion about timing, what is your defenition of timing?
Sean


----------



## Flying Crane

MattJ said:


> Please tell me how my mechanical description of kata is inaccurate.


 
alright, I'll come back to the table again.  Look, honestly I don't intend any insult.  Maybe my initial comment about you not understanding kata was more blunt than it needed to be.  I might have worded that differently, so point taken.

I don't feel your description is necesarily inaccurate, so much as it doesn't really hit the depth of what kata has to offer.   Yes, kata is a series of movements, stepping, stances, defensive, offensive movements, etc.  On a superficial level that is what kata is, a collection of techniques strung together.

But it goes deeper than that, and it is more than just a way to catalog techniques.  It's also a way to drill the fundamentals of the system within that string of movements.  It develops the base and foundation for each technique, and it is challenging because when moving from one technique to another, it is easy to get sloppy with the foundation.  People often get too excited about moving quickly, speeding thru the kata, and they let their foundation fall apart.  This is why, in my earlier posts from a couple pages back, I say you can look all over Youtube and see examples of poor kata, particularly in kenpo.  These guys have these blindingly fast hands, but their stances and footwork (related issues) is sloppy and unrooted.

I don't train exclusively kenpo.  I also train in the Chinese arts.  In that training, I've got some teachers who really harp on stances and basics, and nit-pick these details in the forms.  Before I trained with these folks, I admit, I used to just fly thru my forms, pay lipservice to the importance of stances and basics and getting the forms *right*, but in hindsight I wasn't living up to what I was saying.  Since I've been working with these folks, I've given a lot more attention to these basics, both as stand-alone concepts, and within the forms, and my technique has improved tremendously.  We have a specific way of generating power in our strikes, it's fairly different from kenpo.  It's not worth going into the details because it's tough to describe in words without showing.  But I'll say that when my stances improved, my power increased noticeably.  And I can see the difference when I hit the bag.  My rooting is more solid, and it gives me the base to deliver the goods with more authority.  Before this, my rooting would sometimes slip, and I could tell when I hit the bag that my power would bleed off.  Root the stance, build the foundation, deliver a frighteningly powerful strike.  

Within the forms, we pay attention to every step and make sure our foundation is strong, and the technique is delivered strongly.  My sigung says, the form itself doesn't matter.  What matters is every single movement within the form.  If those movements are done correctly, you have good technique, and the form is good.  If those individual moves are not done correctly, you can blaze thru the form but it's all hollow, no foundation, poor technique, only good for exercise.  No martial power.

I feel that a lot of people sort of look at kata on a superficial level as just a bunch of techniques, or, worse yet, a required exercise in memorization for the next belt test.  Youtube examples often support my feelings on this.  But when you approach kata in the right way, with the appropriate attention to every detail along the way, it builds outstanding fundamentals and powerful technique, which can then be further honed on the heavybag and within a resistance/partner training exercise such as sparring.  But, in my opinion, that foundation work needs to be done first, before jumping into sparring and the heavy bag.  If you don't understand your foundation first, these other exercises will just make it fall apart.  Then it just becomes sloppy brawling, and if one is happy with that, there is no need to study a more sophisticated method like kenpo.



> I am not burdened by having to prove _your_ description of kata - which you have not made, BTW. That I do not like kata does not mean that I don't understand it. For instance, you told me in the last post that kata can teach all the things I said it can't. Please explain how it can show distancing and timing and resistance. Show me that _I'm_ wrong.


 
see above.  



> Fair enough.


 
thx.



> I was prepared to have a discussion without you insulting me. We still can, as far as I am concerned. I don't hold grudges.


 
I'll keep at it for a while.


----------



## MattJ

Touch Of Death said:


> Again Kata is about you and how you move. Did you know there are seven different types of speed? Before we start a big discussion about timing, what is your defenition of timing?
> Sean


 
I typically only refer to mental, physical and perceptual speed types. 

Well, I am not trying to create a scientific defition of timing here. But as I use it in martial terms, I refer to the ability to act first or react for superior effect to an opponent.


----------



## MattJ

Flying Crane said:


> I don't feel your description is necesarily inaccurate, so much as it doesn't really hit the depth of what kata has to offer. Yes, kata is a series of movements, stepping, stances, defensive, offensive movements, etc. On a superficial level that is what kata is, a collection of techniques strung together.


 
OK.



> But it goes deeper than that, and it is more than just a way to catalog techniques. It's also a way to drill the fundamentals of the system within that string of movements. It develops the base and foundation for each technique, and it is challenging because when moving from one technique to another, it is easy to get sloppy with the foundation. People often get too excited about moving quickly, speeding thru the kata, and they let their foundation fall apart. This is why, in my earlier posts from a couple pages back, I say you can look all over Youtube and see examples of poor kata, particularly in kenpo. These guys have these blindingly fast hands, but their stances and footwork (related issues) is sloppy and unrooted.


 
Agreed. I have seen many of those same vids. I was guilty of "over-revving" my kenpo back in the day, too. 



> I don't train exclusively kenpo. I also train in the Chinese arts. In that training, I've got some teachers who really harp on stances and basics, and nit-pick these details in the forms. Before I trained with these folks, I admit, I used to just fly thru my forms, pay lipservice to the importance of stances and basics and getting the forms *right*, but in hindsight I wasn't living up to what I was saying.


 
Sure, and I agree that cross-training is an excellent idea to be able to view the shortcomings of an art through a less-filtered lens. Many people don't get that perspective that one can only get from training something else. 



> Since I've been working with these folks, I've given a lot more attention to these basics, both as stand-alone concepts, and within the forms, and my technique has improved tremendously. We have a specific way of generating power in our strikes, it's fairly different from kenpo. It's not worth going into the details because it's tough to describe in words without showing.


 
I don't have much CMA experience, but I have trained with others enough to know that there can be fairly different ways to create power in strikes. Some styles typically show kicks starting from the foot or knee, and others show them starting from the hip - or even the shoulders. 



> But I'll say that when my stances improved, my power increased noticeably. And I can see the difference when I hit the bag. My rooting is more solid, and it gives me the base to deliver the goods with more authority. Before this, my rooting would sometimes slip, and I could tell when I hit the bag that my power would bleed off. Root the stance, build the foundation, deliver a frighteningly powerful strike.


 
Interesting point here, and this may be where the kata/no kata point gets lost. Perhaps this isn't a either/or scenario, but one of timing (hello ToD!  ). My experience really has been pretty much the opposite ie; seeing people that have some kata but no bag work do poorly when striking the bag. You seem to be coming from a bit more advanced point, where one has some kata AND some bag work, and use the kata to reinforce your bag work. Does that sound right? If so, then I can more understand your POV here, although we are approaching it from differing 'timings'.



> Within the forms, we pay attention to every step and make sure our foundation is strong, and the technique is delivered strongly. My sigung says, the form itself doesn't matter. What matters is every single movement within the form. If those movements are done correctly, you have good technique, and the form is good. If those individual moves are not done correctly, you can blaze thru the form but it's all hollow, no foundation, poor technique, only good for exercise. No martial power.


 
I can agree with this to a point, but _realizing_ that martial power requires something other than kata. This is where I personally see other methods being more useful. I suppose you could say I regard it as "cutting out the middle man". 



> I feel that a lot of people sort of look at kata on a superficial level as just a bunch of techniques, or, worse yet, a required exercise in memorization for the next belt test. Youtube examples often support my feelings on this. But when you approach kata in the right way, with the appropriate attention to every detail along the way, it builds outstanding fundamentals and powerful technique, which can then be further honed on the heavybag and within a resistance/partner training exercise such as sparring. But, in my opinion, that foundation work needs to be done first, before jumping into sparring and the heavy bag. If you don't understand your foundation first, these other exercises will just make it fall apart. Then it just becomes sloppy brawling, and if one is happy with that, there is no need to study a more sophisticated method like kenpo.


 
Sure, and that is very fair point with regards to kenpo in particular - there _are_ forms in the system, so they must be learned, and should be learned well if you're going to bother at all. My comments were more in regard to martial arts training in general, and not kenpo, which was why I was not trying to take the thread off-topic in the first place, LOL. 

I guess I feel that the foundations built in kata, compared to other, more resistant work, are so fundamentally different that they are not really comparable. But that is not to say that I regard all isolation training as useless - the mental gymanastics fostered in pulling different bunkai out of a given kata, as opposed to rote memorization, are certainly a good thing. They can be a good workout, and help with internalizing unfamiliar combinations and movements. 

So, again, not that I find kata utterly useless. More a question of the ratio in total training. 



> see above.


 
Thank you. I hope this has clarified my position for you.


----------



## Flying Crane

MattJ said:


> OK.
> 
> Sure, and I agree that cross-training is an excellent idea to be able to view the shortcomings of an art through a less-filtered lens. Many people don't get that perspective that one can only get from training something else.
> 
> I don't have much CMA experience, but I have trained with others enough to know that there can be fairly different ways to create power in strikes. Some styles typically show kicks starting from the foot or knee, and others show them starting from the hip - or even the shoulders.


 
I'll try to give a brief description of how we generate power in the system I study, Tibetan White Crane.  We use a turning and pivot of the entire body, starting with the feet, to drive our various punches.  We really do hit with the entire body.  I know that most systems will claim that they pivot and put the body behind their punches, and it's true, they do that.  But I think in White Crane we emphasize this to a greater extent, pay a lot of attention to it, and drill it to a more extreme extent than other systems do.  Once you learn to do this with large, almost exaggerated movements, you are then able to shorten the movement while still generating the same type of power. But you need to go thru the learning and developmental stages of the big movements first, before you can be effective with the smaller movements.  Getting the stances right, so you don't wobble and you stay rooted is extremely important in how we generate this power.  

I feel that my experience in the Chinese arts gives me some advantages that can carry into my kenpo as well.  Kenpo forms are kind of funny.  Many of them are actually made up of the self defense techs that comprise the curriculum.  Doing Short 3?  Start with Two-Headed Serpent to 12:00, then Circling Elbows stepping to 3:00...etc. (Tracy's background, you might not recognize our tech names).  It's easy to mentally compartmentalize these pieces of the form and just think of them as the SD tech.  While doing this, it's easy to forget to pay attention to the details, while thinking, "Ok, now I do tech XYZ to this angle..."   

Chinese forms are different.  Chinese systems do not typically have a list of SD techs like kenpo has.  Instead, we have our basic techniques and methods of generating power, and we have our forms.  The movements and combinations in the forms have definite useful interpretations, but you do not go into learning the form having already learned what that particular combo is for.  It's looser, with more room for creative interpretation of how to apply it.  I think that creates a different mindset.  It encourages the analyzation of every little movement, to make it just right, rather than thinking about plunking a chunk of previously learned movement into the next part the way kenpo forms can do.  Not sure if I'm describing this clearly.  But I feel my analyzation of my Chinese forms has been more thorough, because of how they are taught.  

But once I woke up to this, I started taking the same analytical approach with my kenpo kata.  This isn't to say that my kenpo instructor glosses over these details or doesn't go in depth with the form.  It's just that the emphasis is different, and I think it took, like you mention, the different perspective to reinforce for me, the best way of looking at it.



> Interesting point here, and this may be where the kata/no kata point gets lost. Perhaps this isn't a either/or scenario, but one of timing (hello ToD!  ). My experience really has been pretty much the opposite ie; seeing people that have some kata but no bag work do poorly when striking the bag. You seem to be coming from a bit more advanced point, where one has some kata AND some bag work, and use the kata to reinforce your bag work. Does that sound right? If so, then I can more understand your POV here, although we are approaching it from differing 'timings'.


 
It seems to me that these are exercises that need to be ongoing and simultaneous, but somehow the base needs to be established first.  You work basics and kata to develop the base, then you strengthen the base and develop the ability to hit, on the bag.  You keep working the basics and kata to continue the development, and keep working the bag to put the basics under pressure of contact.  They work hand-in-hand.  I feel that you need to take the time to develop the base first, however, before you jump on the bag.  If you hit the bag before you have some level of base, then you don't understand how to root, when you hit the bag.  I think that is the main difference in how we are looking at it.  Initially, develop the base without the bag.  But then, bagwork goes hand-in-hand with the other stuff.  Fundamentals of all kinds, hand strikes, kicks, combos, need to be worked on the bag, but you need to make sure you are rooted with a strong foundation for every strike you land, or your founation is weak and you bleed away your power.

I think the same goes with sparring and other partnering drills.  If you do that too soon, without a foundation, it all falls apart because the chaos of that kind of encounter makes it difficult to hold the foundation together.  You end up jumping around and throwing random stuff that does not follow the methods and techniques of your system.  As I said earlier, it just becomes brawling, which can be effective in its own way, but isn't kenpo.  If you have a strong foundation, you can hold it together better, while sparring or partnering



> I can agree with this to a point, but _realizing_ that martial power requires something other than kata. This is where I personally see other methods being more useful. I suppose you could say I regard it as "cutting out the middle man".


 
again, I never said kata alone.  It all goes hand-in-hand, but I think the order in which it is trained is important.  Train basics, stances and footwork, punches, kicks, as a solo exercise to develop the base.  Then work the bag to learn how to maintain integrity of the techniques while actually striking something.  Then you can partner and spar, and maintain the integrity of the techniques while under the more chaotic pressure of that kind of engagement.



> I guess I feel that the foundations built in kata, compared to other, more resistant work, are so fundamentally different that they are not really comparable.


 
It is my opinion that they are so different because people throw them out the window when they start to spar.  If people are going to learn a sophisticated system like kenpo, then they should figure out how to use their kenpo in their sparring.  If they throw out their kenpo and just spar like a kickboxer or something, then they have given up on their kenpo.

Sparring is a weird thing, and there are different types of sparring.  I think the open, duellist sparring isn't always the best kind for kenpo, because kenpo was really a self-defense art and the SD techs are designed with that in mind.  I think partnering drills that take a more SD focused approach make more sense, considering what kenpo was designed to deal with.  When you get into a ring to compete, or spar in that manner, the kenpo methodologies just don't work so well in that approach. So kenpo people turn into kickboxers instead, and they throw their kenpo out the window.



> Thank you. I hope this has clarified my position for you.


 
I think we've still got a difference in how we look at things, but I appreciate the discussion.  It's more fun to share ideas and perspectives than argue about perceived insults that may or may not have been intended.  Thanks.


----------



## MattJ

Flying Crane said:


> Chinese forms are different. Chinese systems do not typically have a list of SD techs like kenpo has. Instead, we have our basic techniques and methods of generating power, and we have our forms. The movements and combinations in the forms have definite useful interpretations, but you do not go into learning the form having already learned what that particular combo is for. It's looser, with more room for creative interpretation of how to apply it. I think that creates a different mindset.


 
Yes, I agree totally. The Okinawan and Japanese/Korean forms I have seen were similarly "undefined" in terms of application, which was a shock to me coming from a kenpo background. I was like "What do you mean you don't know what the application for that move is?!" LOL. Someone had to explain the concept of "bunkai" to me. 



> It encourages the analyzation of every little movement, to make it just right, rather than thinking about plunking a chunk of previously learned movement into the next part the way kenpo forms can do. Not sure if I'm describing this clearly. But I feel my analyzation of my Chinese forms has been more thorough, because of how they are taught.


 
I think I get your point, sure. I'm not sure it fosters _more_ analyzation than kenpo kata, but it's certainly of a different quality. 



> It seems to me that these are exercises that need to be ongoing and simultaneous, but somehow the base needs to be established first. You work basics and kata to develop the base, then you strengthen the base and develop the ability to hit, on the bag. You keep working the basics and kata to continue the development, and keep working the bag to put the basics under pressure of contact. They work hand-in-hand. I feel that you need to take the time to develop the base first, however, before you jump on the bag. If you hit the bag before you have some level of base, then you don't understand how to root, when you hit the bag. I think that is the main difference in how we are looking at it. Initially, develop the base without the bag. But then, bagwork goes hand-in-hand with the other stuff. Fundamentals of all kinds, hand strikes, kicks, combos, need to be worked on the bag, but you need to make sure you are rooted with a strong foundation for every strike you land, or your founation is weak and you bleed away your power.


 
I agree that rooting and dynamic stability are important. 



> I think the same goes with sparring and other partnering drills. If you do that too soon, without a foundation, it all falls apart because the chaos of that kind of encounter makes it difficult to hold the foundation together. You end up jumping around and throwing random stuff that does not follow the methods and techniques of your system. As I said earlier, it just becomes brawling, which can be effective in its own way, but isn't kenpo. If you have a strong foundation, you can hold it together better, while sparring or partnering


 
Sure, and to be clear, I don't recommend throwing beginners into full MMA sparring or bagwork without having developed skills in isolation, although I prefer partner work to that end. 



> again, I never said kata alone. It all goes hand-in-hand, but I think the order in which it is trained is important. Train basics, stances and footwork, punches, kicks, as a solo exercise to develop the base. Then work the bag to learn how to maintain integrity of the techniques while actually striking something. Then you can partner and spar, and maintain the integrity of the techniques while under the more chaotic pressure of that kind of engagement.


 
Sure, but as I mentioned above, sparring isn't neccesarily all-out. When I started BJJ, they didn't have us free-roll right away. They showed us the mount, and then had us simply try to hold the mount while the other person tried to shake us off. That's it. Isolation, but with resistance. Was it sloppy? Sure. That is the nature of resistance. But everyone gets better with time. I used to teach stand-up sparring in a similar way. After showing someone the basics of a defensive posture, I would throw light jabs (only jabs) at them, while they defended, moving around. Nice and easy. Nothing full-on, just something active to get them used to how it works in a realistic (but safe and skill-appropriate) setting.



> It is my opinion that they are so different because people throw them out the window when they start to spar. If people are going to learn a sophisticated system like kenpo, then they should figure out how to use their kenpo in their sparring. If they throw out their kenpo and just spar like a kickboxer or something, then they have given up on their kenpo.


 
Now this, we totally agree on. Nothing brought more kenpo tears to my eyes than seeing people use tracking, obscure zones, borrowed force, etc in techniques, and then totally forget them in sparring. HELLO! These aren't theories to be studied academically - USE THEM. Even checks! Kenpo 101, for crying out loud, and how many people actually use them in sparring? I'm crying again......... 



> Sparring is a weird thing, and there are different types of sparring. I think the open, duellist sparring isn't always the best kind for kenpo, because kenpo was really a self-defense art and the SD techs are designed with that in mind. I think partnering drills that take a more SD focused approach make more sense, considering what kenpo was designed to deal with. When you get into a ring to compete, or spar in that manner, the kenpo methodologies just don't work so well in that approach. So kenpo people turn into kickboxers instead, and they throw their kenpo out the window.


 
Right, see above. 



> I think we've still got a difference in how we look at things, but I appreciate the discussion. It's more fun to share ideas and perspectives than argue about perceived insults that may or may not have been intended. Thanks.


 
Cheers.


----------



## aolujumu

From my understanding could it be
maintaining your territory of defense
even when attacked, use defensive
attack to maintain or redirect the motion
of your oponent?


----------



## Flying Crane

MattJ said:


> Yes, I agree totally. The Okinawan and Japanese/Korean forms I have seen were similarly "undefined" in terms of application, which was a shock to me coming from a kenpo background. I was like "What do you mean you don't know what the application for that move is?!" LOL. Someone had to explain the concept of "bunkai" to me.


 
yes, "shock" is a good word for it. The first time I worked with a TKD club, I was already a kenpo shodan (kenpo was the first art I trained in). The teacher walked me thru his black belt level form, to give me a sense of what the system was like. I asked about the application of the movements, and his answers were, "well, this in a punch, and this is a block, you can use it whereever..." I kept thinking about my kenpo forms where every combination of movement was very clear in how it was intended to be used. I think the looser, more open interpretation isn't so shocking, as the fact that the teacher didn't seem to actually know the bunkai. Beyond the obvious basic "this is a punch", he couldn't tell me anything else. Well, where would I actually use this particular punch, in the way it is in combination and used in the form? He didn't know.

Then I walked him thru a midlevel kenpo form, I think Short Three if I remember correctly (this was in about 1991 or so, memory is a bit vague). I showed him the application of every segment. I think he was overwhelmed. He was a decent TKD guy all in all, but the approach to the material was just very different and he didn't know how to relate to it.



> I think I get your point, sure. I'm not sure it fosters _more_ analyzation than kenpo kata, but it's certainly of a different quality.


 
I think for me, it is turning out to be more analyzation, even if that isn't necessarily the rule for all people. I've got these guys who keep harping on the details. I described our method of generating power for the strikes in White Crane. As we work thru our forms, every technique needs to follow that pivot and turning method, while keeping solid, rooted stances as a platform for throwing those strikes. That's what they nit-pick on. "Your knee wobbled and compromised your stance, you lost your power, don't let that happen. You didn't turn enough to drive the punch, get that pivot better. You didn't pivot enough in preparation for the next strike, so you didn't have the potential to unwind and drive the next strike." that kind of thing. Trying to maintain the stances while using our methods for driving the power in every portion of the form requires a huge amount of attention to the details. And if you start moving thru it too fast, it's easy for it to break down. If we are whipping thru the forms too fast, Sigung says, "Slow down and get it right! What's your problem? You in a hurry? You got somewhere you gotta go? You wanna go home and watch TV? Don't be in a hurry, slow down and get every part of it right.!!!"



> I agree that rooting and dynamic stability are important.


 
this brings up a question I have for you. You mentioned in an earlier post that you don't work stances, rather you work footwork, and I'll ask for some clarification on this point. You recognize the importance of rooting. My understanding of it is that when you root, at that point, you've got to be in an optimal posture for the rooting to be effective while delivering the strike. In essence, this is a "stance", even tho it may only be for a moment. In Tracys, we find the "Fighting Horse" stance works well for this. Hit the stance for that moment when you need to land the strike, but then you can move on and be mobile. You don't need to just stand in stance for a long period of time. You can be mobile when necessary, but then root and hit the "stance" when necessary. 

So how do you work rooting? What is the "stance" that you use when you root?



> Sure, and to be clear, I don't recommend throwing beginners into full MMA sparring or bagwork without having developed skills in isolation, although I prefer partner work to that end.
> 
> Sure, but as I mentioned above, sparring isn't neccesarily all-out. When I started BJJ, they didn't have us free-roll right away. They showed us the mount, and then had us simply try to hold the mount while the other person tried to shake us off. That's it. Isolation, but with resistance. Was it sloppy? Sure. That is the nature of resistance. But everyone gets better with time. I used to teach stand-up sparring in a similar way. After showing someone the basics of a defensive posture, I would throw light jabs (only jabs) at them, while they defended, moving around. Nice and easy. Nothing full-on, just something active to get them used to how it works in a realistic (but safe and skill-appropriate) setting.


 
the way you present this is a lot more reasonable in my mind, than how it sounded initially. I guess this is what happens when you get the full story, rather than just read the headlines. Thanks for the clarification.

And yes, I do believe you can use controlled partnerwork and "babystep" sparring drills to develop skills in beginning and intermediate students. I do not believe that you need to develop master level technique and stances and fundamentals, before you can start using the heavy bag and working with a partner, and I don't think it makes sense to throw students into all-out free sparring without working up to it first. All of these aspects of training are a progression, after all.



> Now this, we totally agree on. Nothing brought more kenpo tears to my eyes than seeing people use tracking, obscure zones, borrowed force, etc in techniques, and then totally forget them in sparring. HELLO! These aren't theories to be studied academically - USE THEM. Even checks! Kenpo 101, for crying out loud, and how many people actually use them in sparring? I'm crying again.........


 
I'll be the first to admit that I'm not the best example of this, but at least I recognize it and understand what we ought to be striving for.



> Cheers.


 
cheers and thanks, I'm enjoying the discussion.


----------



## MattJ

Flying Crane said:


> I think the looser, more open interpretation isn't so shocking, as the fact that the teacher didn't seem to actually know the bunkai. Beyond the obvious basic "this is a punch", he couldn't tell me anything else. Well, where would I actually use this particular punch, in the way it is in combination and used in the form? He didn't know.


 
I guess I was more shocked that there wasn't one particular, codified interpretation for those kata techniques, and that so many people spent so much time interpreting them!



> I think for me, it is turning out to be more analyzation, even if that isn't necessarily the rule for all people. I've got these guys who keep harping on the details. I described our method of generating power for the strikes in White Crane. As we work thru our forms, every technique needs to follow that pivot and turning method, while keeping solid, rooted stances as a platform for throwing those strikes. That's what they nit-pick on. "Your knee wobbled and compromised your stance, you lost your power, don't let that happen. You didn't turn enough to drive the punch, get that pivot better. You didn't pivot enough in preparation for the next strike, so you didn't have the potential to unwind and drive the next strike." that kind of thing.


 
I can remember working with some higher-rank EPAK folk, and them tearing apart what I thought were well-done forms. Got many of the critcisms you noted, and others - wasn't looking before I turned, feet pointed wrong way in some stances, improper joint synergy, etc. Many of the points had some functional merit in reducing likelihood of joint injury, and increased stability.




> this brings up a question I have for you. You mentioned in an earlier post that you don't work stances, rather you work footwork, and I'll ask for some clarification on this point. You recognize the importance of rooting. My understanding of it is that when you root, at that point, you've got to be in an optimal posture for the rooting to be effective while delivering the strike. In essence, this is a "stance", even tho it may only be for a moment. In Tracys, we find the "Fighting Horse" stance works well for this. Hit the stance for that moment when you need to land the strike, but then you can move on and be mobile. You don't need to just stand in stance for a long period of time. You can be mobile when necessary, but then root and hit the "stance" when necessary.


 
I should clarify that I _do_ work stances and postures, in the context of overall footwork. So, it's not that I reject stances as a concept; I just prefer to work them in a more active manner, as I perceive they will actually be used. We didn't use the fighting horse in EPAK that much, but I rememeber seeing it in the Infinite Insights books.



> So how do you work rooting? What is the "stance" that you use when you root?


 
Fair question. I guess I don't look at rooting or floating as totally seperate things, but as parts of a continuum. There are times when you want to be rooted (throwing strikes, receiving strikes that you cannot avoid, some forms of being clinched to be thrown, or takedown attempts). But even then, rooting to me is more nebulous - it is not always a 50/50 split on weight distribution. Rooting can occur on one leg simply by lowering your center of gravity, for instance. Even when punching from a fighting horse, weight will shift to the forward leg to acheive some body weight transfer, say to 60/40 or maybe even 70/30. Hell, it could theoretically be 90/10 or so - but now you are using the opponent to root you, LOL. I have found that target pad work really helps with that - attempting to hit a moving target can really upset the root that one *thinks* they have. Swing too wide, lean too much......kiss the floor. Very embarassing, and I have done it myself. 

At the same time, there are times when one can use the opponent's _expectation_ of you rooting to your advantage - they think you are locked into a position, and you "float" out of the way. Aikido has some really good ideas in that respect, which I have incorporated into my footwork. 

So, I don't have a particular stance that I use for rooting, because in my experience, rooting is best shown in the continuum of footwork, depending on what is occuring between you and the opponent.



> the way you present this is a lot more reasonable in my mind, than how it sounded initially. I guess this is what happens when you get the full story, rather than just read the headlines. Thanks for the clarification.


 
Certainly, and I'm getting a better sense of where you're coming from, too. 



> And yes, I do believe you can use controlled partnerwork and "babystep" sparring drills to develop skills in beginning and intermediate students. I do not believe that you need to develop master level technique and stances and fundamentals, before you can start using the heavy bag and working with a partner, and I don't think it makes sense to throw students into all-out free sparring without working up to it first. All of these aspects of training are a progression, after all.


 
Absolutely. 



> I'll be the first to admit that I'm not the best example of this, but at least I recognize it and understand what we ought to be striving for.


 
Ha, I'm no great brain or fighter, either. I have very limited athletic ability, but that hasn't stopped me from applying the stuff I'm learning. I actually haven't trained EPAK in a formal setting since 1999. But I work with other people and try to _apply_ what I learned in more active formats. Working with Wing Chun really helped me get better with tracking, since their Chi Sao exercise is basically how to apply it! Cool stuff.



> cheers and thanks, I'm enjoying the discussion.


 
Ditto! Nice to be able to get technical. Cheers.


----------



## Touch Of Death

MattJ said:


> I typically only refer to mental, physical and perceptual speed types.
> 
> Well, I am not trying to create a scientific defition of timing here. But as I use it in martial terms, I refer to the ability to act first or react for superior effect to an opponent.


Refining your motion in kata will help, it also helps develop good habbits, such a staying down in stance, keeping good posture, ect, because, facing off with an opponent is no time to be thing about principles of motion.
Sean


----------



## MJS

So....did we ever come to a conclusion as to what our base is?


----------



## celtic_crippler

MJS said:


> So....did we ever come to a conclusion as to what our base is?


 
Here's my $0.02 for what it's worth...

The main principle from which our fundamentals evolve is to establish spontaneous effecient and effective responses to various attacks. 

The early material, usually covered at yellow belt level, involves establishing basic stances (most importantly the neutral bow), basic blocks, basic strikes, and basic principles such as gravitational marriage. 

These early basics are the foundation which we continue to build our skills and knowledge upon. If you fail to establish this base, then everything you do from that point forward will be flawed until and unless you go back and correct it. 

Therefore, I would hold that what you should be learning at yellow belt is indeed our "base."


----------



## Touch Of Death

MJS said:


> So....did we ever come to a conclusion as to what our base is?


Yes, its the experience of becoming a yellow belt.:soapbox:
Sean


----------



## Touch Of Death

Rember Jimi Hendrix and the Yellow Belt Experience? :ultracool


----------



## MattJ

Touch Of Death said:


> Yes, its the experience of becoming a yellow belt.:soapbox:
> Sean


 
Well, at least we all seem to agree on this.


----------



## Touch Of Death

MattJ said:


> Well, at least we all seem to agree on this.


This is not true; hence, this thread. LOL
Sean


----------



## Touch Of Death

So, in conclusion the base is of course, logic, basics, and fitness with the fringe base being sets, forms, techniques, and freestyle. That being said the introduction you receive to Kenpo is the yellow belt material: the forms introduction uses Short form one as a base on which to build the other forms; the first five techs are bases on which to build more complex techs; hands sets, kicking sets; et cetera. If you want to point to one specific thing and call it the base that's fine; because, all of it is a foundation upon which we can build, but it gets old if you think people are idiots for understanding that it might be possible for people to learn Kenpo without singling out one thing as the end all be all base; unless, we are talking about attitude.:ultracool
sean


----------



## Yondanchris

Doc said:


> Same for me, and the reason I continue his work in his name, and give him all the credit sir.
> 
> Backatcha.




In who's name, and the credit is going to whom?


----------



## Touch Of Death

Sandanchris said:


> In who's name, and the credit is going to whom?


Ed Parker.


----------



## Yondanchris

Touch Of Death said:


> Ed Parker.




Okay I am now going to commit heresy here, I seriously thought Doc was 
going to say God....Im like "right on"....but alas I was wrong....


----------



## Touch Of Death

Sandanchris said:


> Okay I am now going to commit heresy here, I seriously thought Doc was
> going to say God....Im like "right on"....but alas I was wrong....


He very well may have been. I am just assuming.


----------

