# A kem/npo sytem



## Hand Sword (Jan 21, 2007)

Since of all us have very strong opinions about the Kem/npo sytems as a whole, as well as every detail that comprise each, let's be imaginative. We are all now Kem/npo Gods. We sit on top of our version of a kem/npo Mount Olympus. We All agree that we want to leave a serious Kem/npo legacy to the future martial artists. So, Let's create our Kem/npo style. I want specifics about EVERY detail we can think of. Nothing general liek "It's gotta be realistic". If that's your thought, fine, but be specific about realistic in what.. Hit every detail, strikes, kicks, blocks, and everything else in between. What is added, what is deleted, etc.. Let's start basic and build from there.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 22, 2007)

Holy smokes, man, where to start?


----------



## Ray (Jan 22, 2007)

Maybe we should back up and define what we mean by "kenpo," set forth the goals of our system.

For example: we could say that our kenpo is a self-defense technique based system or a master key based system.  We could create and practice specific techniques that (we believe) get us to the goal of the system; we could focus on master keys and spontaneously going from one to another. Etc.


----------



## MJS (Jan 22, 2007)

Hand Sword said:


> Since of all us have very strong opinions about the Kem/npo sytems as a whole, as well as every detail that comprise each, let's be imaginative. We are all now Kem/npo Gods. We sit on top of our version of a kem/npo Mount Olympus. We All agree that we want to leave a serious Kem/npo legacy to the future martial artists. So, Let's create our Kem/npo style. I want specifics about EVERY detail we can think of. Nothing general liek "It's gotta be realistic". If that's your thought, fine, but be specific about realistic in what.. Hit every detail, strikes, kicks, blocks, and everything else in between. What is added, what is deleted, etc.. Let's start basic and build from there.


 
Strikes, kicks and blocks:  Overall, I feel that this area is pretty well covered, so I wouldn't change too much.  Some things that I may add in would be some ideas/concepts from Boxing and the FMAs.  This would include punching and footwork.

Weapons:  I feel that the weapons work is pretty solid, but I'd include again, more input from the FMAs, such as Arnis, Kali, etc.  IMHO, if someone really wants to understand the ins and outs of weapons, its good to look at an art in which that is a specialty.  

Ground work:  I would want to include some solid grappling skills.  The goal is to defend yourself and escape with the best moves possible.  Not so much as to roll around for 15 min. looking for a submission, but an escape that'll get you back to your feet.


----------



## fuhok (Jan 22, 2007)

What an awesome topic! One goal that I think is paramount is developing the fighting spirit.  In many cases I have seen the contest go to the side that has decided that they want to win at all cost. 

As an example: I was a wrestler in high school and on time my coach lined up all the wrestlers against the wall heaviest to lightest.  He made me wrestle each person, for 30 seconds with no rest.  If I remember correctly their were about twenty five people. Needless to say I was worn out when I got to the light weights.  During tournaments if my sprit was lagging he would remind me that I have wrestled the entire team and held my own.  If I could do that then it would be easy to wrestle one guy for 6 mins.


----------



## marlon (Jan 22, 2007)

relaxation and proper body alignment, more concepts to develop power, internal training, deeper understanding of strike selection.  in depth practice and study of formms and techniques. clearer articulation (maybe standardized) of concepts
still pretty general...but to write it out would be the work of a book


----------



## Monadnock (Jan 22, 2007)

Kempo systems are about as numerous as the grains of sand on a beach. Each one emphasizes what's important to the particular founder. I think Ed Parker did a pretty good job of laying out the basics, a good set of techniques, and of course a comprehensive collection of forms and sets.

My system would be modeled after just such an approach but where Parker stopped, I would continue. His system was based purely on a scientific approach to self defense. I would like to incorporate more of the Eastern thought he selectively removed. Concepts like ki, mushin and zanshin. I believe his written works included a bit about spirit, but I've never met a teacher who brought it up in class. I think spirit is important.

Thanks,


----------



## Danjo (Jan 22, 2007)

Kenpo can be defined in part as technique/Combination/trick driven rather than kata driven. Usually involving high and low combinations mixing hand and foot strikes based on the autonomic reflex reactions of the nervous system. In other words, Kenpo flows and that is it's distinguishing characteristic IMO.


----------



## DavidCC (Jan 22, 2007)

Monadnock said:


> My system would be modeled after just such an approach but where Parker stopped, I would continue. His system was based purely on a scientific approach to self defense. I would like to incorporate more of the Eastern thought he selectively removed.


 
I don't understand, would you continue moving away from eastern mysticism towards scientific approach, or would you incorporate them back in???


----------



## DavidCC (Jan 22, 2007)

One thing I would add is a thorough study of the ATTACKS:  
What are common and what are uncommon methods of attack
state of mind behind each attack (trying to intimidate, flee, kill...)
how to properly perform each attack in training (at different intensities and speeds)

Related then is the training to respond to techniques.  Since we can't be eliciting real body responses with every repitition of technique, each student will need to be able to simulate the proper responses.

It would be important that there is a significant amount of time spent practicing WITH enough contact/intensity to get proper reponses from the attacker partner.  This benefits both students... but to practice this way all the time is not practical or efficient.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 22, 2007)

Monadnock said:


> Kempo systems are about as numerous as the grains of sand on a beach. Each one emphasizes what's important to the particular founder. I think Ed Parker did a pretty good job of laying out the basics, a good set of techniques, and of course a comprehensive collection of forms and sets.
> 
> My system would be modeled after just such an approach but where Parker stopped, I would continue. His system was based purely on a scientific approach to self defense. I would like to incorporate more of the Eastern thought he selectively removed. Concepts like ki, mushin and zanshin. I believe his written works included a bit about spirit, but I've never met a teacher who brought it up in class. I think spirit is important.
> 
> Thanks,


I felt getting rid of Eastern thought was an improvement.
Sean


----------



## Sigung86 (Jan 22, 2007)

Stances.  Movement to all corners from the stances, chewing gum.  Once you have the base, and the basics of motion, the rest would fall into place a lot more easily.


----------



## Blindside (Jan 22, 2007)

Monadnock said:


> My system would be modeled after just such an approach but where Parker stopped, I would continue. His system was based purely on a scientific approach to self defense. I would like to incorporate more of the Eastern thought he selectively removed. Concepts like ki, mushin and zanshin. I believe his written works included a bit about spirit, but I've never met a teacher who brought it up in class. I think spirit is important.


 
Mushin and Zanshin are taught, they just aren't taught by those names.  Every good martial art teaches those.  Ki, well, I prefer my kenpo to be a little more scientific than that. 

To quote Han: "Kid, I've flown from one side of this galaxy to the other, and I've seen a lot of strange stuff. But I've never seen anything to make me believe that there's one all-powerful Force controlling everything. There's no mystical energy field that controls MY destiny."


----------



## Monadnock (Jan 22, 2007)

DavidCC said:


> I don't understand, would you continue moving away from eastern mysticism towards scientific approach, or would you incorporate them back in???


 
I would have them both.


----------



## Monadnock (Jan 22, 2007)

Blindside said:


> Mushin and Zanshin are taught, they just aren't taught by those names. Every good martial art teaches those. Ki, well, I prefer my kenpo to be a little more scientific than that.


 
Which style of kempo are you referring to that teaches them, and by what names?


----------



## Monadnock (Jan 22, 2007)

Touch Of Death said:


> I felt getting rid of Eastern thought was an improvement.
> Sean


 
Not all Kempo systems made that mistake.


----------



## Carol (Jan 22, 2007)

Attention to conditioning and fitness.


----------



## Blindside (Jan 22, 2007)

Carol Kaur said:


> Attention to conditioning and fitness.


 
But.... but.... but in kenpo we need um, "back-up mass," just look at our seniors!

Lamont


----------



## Carol (Jan 22, 2007)

Blindside said:


> But.... but.... but in kenpo we need um, "back-up mass," just look at our seniors!
> 
> Lamont


 
:roflmao: 
:roflmao:


----------



## Blindside (Jan 22, 2007)

Monadnock said:


> Which style of kempo are you referring to that teaches them, and by what names?


 
If I tell you to train yourself to not anticipate and to move in the moment that is mushin.  I may not use the term, but it is the same thing.

If I tell you that you should train yourself to be at Condition yellow (Cooper color codes), that is zanshin, ready alertness with no focus.

I've seen this in Tracy's Kenpo and Kajukenbo and JKD and firearms defensive tactics.  

Lamont


----------



## Monadnock (Jan 22, 2007)

Blindside said:


> If I tell you to train yourself to not anticipate and to move in the moment that is mushin. I may not use the term, but it is the same thing.
> 
> If I tell you that you should train yourself to be at Condition yellow (Cooper color codes), that is zanshin, ready alertness with no focus.
> 
> ...


 
I think those are fair starts. Not all inclusive of the Japanese versions I would seek in my own system, but concise none the less. How would someone you tell go and "Train themselves" to do this? Is it done during class, or is it an a self-study?

Thanks,


----------



## Blindside (Jan 22, 2007)

Monadnock said:


> I think those are fair starts. Not all inclusive of the Japanese versions I would seek in my own system, but concise none the less. How would someone you tell go and "Train themselves" to do this? Is it done during class, or is it an a self-study?
> 
> Thanks,


 
Well, most of the interaction is done in class, so it is there where most of the training takes place.  For "mushin" we train reaction drills, where the receiver is being trained not to anticipate, that whatever comes you just react to.  So we don't train tech lines very often, your job is simply to pick up and counter what is coming.  We start slow with the white belts and by upper levels it is pretty well ingrained.  That is heavily simplified, but that is what we do.  

Zanshin is taught in everything, but sparring is a major tool.  Diffuse focus, random attacks from other members of the class, when you are already sparring with another.  If we could have a Kato in the class to randomly attack us, we probably would.   Outside of class, if members are together, particularly if we are travelling somewhere unfamiliar,  I'll sometimes say "don't look around, where is the nearest exit besides the one we came in at, and what does the bartender look like?"  That is obviously a very specific example, but it helps train people to be aware.  Just some examples.

Lamont


----------



## Hand Sword (Jan 22, 2007)

O.k. We've gotten alot here. LOL!  :asian:

Let's narrow it down a little, question by question. 

Starting with something simple. (
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





) We all agree to have a Kempo/Kenpo system. So, first question: Which one should we go with Ke*M*po, or Ke*N*po? Sounds silly a little, but, does make it difference apparently.

Next, I would say what is the focus of our system? This really requires some thought from all of you before answering. We're all aware of the Kemp/npo world now and what goes on so, which way for us? Meaning, Street effective? which would have intense physical, nasty training, and mindsets,  probably scaring away most students. Do we design it to be able to fight other systems like BJJ, Or, do we want to get our way out to anyone, and everyone that wants to learn? This would mean "watering down", marketing, etc.. which is seen now, as terrible things overall. To this question, if thinking it through, what is the focus of it? Physical training? Spiritual training? etc..

I think this answering this will adress the rest of what was described, as it is connected, in terms of theories, and apllications of a system, right down to techniques used.


----------



## Carol (Jan 22, 2007)

Hand Sword said:


> O.k. We've gotten alot here. LOL! :asian:
> 
> Let's narrow it down a little, question by question.
> 
> ...


 
I'm going to go against the grain a little bit.  

I don't know if this should be something that is agreed upon.  I think choice is better than enforced uniformity.

Different people want to see different things out of their training.  Different regions have different demands.  Different demographics have different needs and different worries.

Groundwork for example.   I don't think that it should be a 100% mandatory requirement for a Kenpo school to train/test in groundwork.  Nor do I think groundwork should be forbidden.  Nor do I think a groundgame is this all-telling litmus test that provides definitive proof as to whether a Kenpo school sucks or whether it's decent.  The same could be said for conditioning, weaponry, and many other aspects of the art.


----------



## Hand Sword (Jan 22, 2007)

True in our world now. However, We are the Gods that are leaving OUR way or system. So, It's what WE want it to be. Whowever follows as students of our legacy, will be into it and do it, others will go to other styles, as is done now.

So...Back to this first, before other debating. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Originally Posted by *Hand Sword* 

 
_O.k. We've gotten alot here. LOL! :asian:

Let's narrow it down a little, question by question. 

Starting with something simple. (
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




) We all agree to have a Kempo/Kenpo system. So, first question: Which one should we go with Ke*M*po, or Ke*N*po? Sounds silly a little, but, does make it difference apparently.

Next, I would say what is the focus of our system? This really requires some thought from all of you before answering. We're all aware of the Kemp/npo world now and what goes on so, which way for us? Meaning, Street effective? which would have intense physical, nasty training, and mindsets, probably scaring away most students. Do we design it to be able to fight other systems like BJJ, Or, do we want to get our way out to anyone, and everyone that wants to learn? This would mean "watering down", marketing, etc.. which is seen now, as terrible things overall. To this question, if thinking it through, what is the focus of it? Physical training? Spiritual training? etc..

I think this answering this will adress the rest of what was described, as it is connected, in terms of theories, and apllications of a system, right down to techniques used._


----------



## Danjo (Jan 23, 2007)

Kenmpo?


----------



## Carol (Jan 23, 2007)

Danjo said:


> Kenmpo?


 
Sure


----------



## Hand Sword (Jan 23, 2007)

O.K. everyone. 

So far We've got *Kenmpo *as the name of our system, over Kenpo or Kempo. Is this Cool with everyone else on the committee? If not, chime in.

If so ...
let's now address the next question:

_Next, I would say what is the focus of our system? This really requires some thought from all of you before answering. We're all aware of the Kemp/npo world now and what goes on so, which way for us? Meaning, Street effective? which would have intense physical, nasty training, and mindsets, probably scaring away most students. Do we design it to be able to fight other systems like BJJ, Or, do we want to get our way out to anyone, and everyone that wants to learn? This would mean "watering down", marketing, etc.. which is seen now, as terrible things overall. To this question, if thinking it through, what is the focus of it? Physical training? Spiritual training? etc..

I think this answering this will adress the rest of what was described, as it is connected, in terms of theories, and apllications of a system, right down to techniques used._


I have to leave this thread until later on today. I know we have other topics we all want to get into, but, as the creator of this thread, I'm asking all to *please *follow my outline of questions. PLEASE Keep any debating focussed to these two questions for now. We have to design this piece by piece. We'll get to the meat and potatoes, which will be some good debate later. I promise!


----------



## LawDog (Jan 23, 2007)

I might re-write my posting later on.


----------



## Hand Sword (Jan 23, 2007)

That will come later. Those proponents might not even be included, or included with a different emphasis. As I said, It's a later debate. For now I just want to get a name for our sytem, and the focus/intent of it's philosophy. So, Back to the Two questions:

_So far We've got *Kenmpo *as the name of our system, over Kenpo or Kempo. Is this Cool with everyone else on the committee? If not, chime in.

If so ...
let's now address the next question:

Next, I would say what is the focus of our system? This really requires some thought from all of you before answering. We're all aware of the Kemp/npo world now and what goes on so, which way for us? Meaning, Street effective? which would have intense physical, nasty training, and mindsets, probably scaring away most students. Do we design it to be able to fight other systems like BJJ, Or, do we want to get our way out to anyone, and everyone that wants to learn? This would mean "watering down", marketing, etc.. which is seen now, as terrible things overall. To this question, if thinking it through, what is the focus of it? Physical training? Spiritual training? etc..

I think this answering this will adress the rest of what was described, as it is connected, in terms of theories, and apllications of a system, right down to techniques used.


I have to leave this thread until later on today. I know we have other topics we all want to get into, but, as the creator of this thread, I'm asking all to *please *follow my outline of questions. PLEASE Keep any debating focussed to these two questions for now. We have to design this piece by piece. We'll get to the meat and potatoes, which will be some good debate later. I promise!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_


----------



## DavidCC (Jan 23, 2007)

What could it be focused on: self-defense, sport fighting, personal development, fitness.  Out of these I think the most important is self-defense.  It alone _can_ encompass the others to some extent.

So we should recognize some differences as  way to know what that focus might mean.

S.D. is not sport fighting.  SD situations are typically short in duration and explosive in intensity.  So what type of fitness training prepares best for that?  The insane training regimens of professional MMA fighters are far far beyond what we would need.  We could train for anaerobic bursts, I'm sure there are more qualified people than me to address this.

Although there are "no rules on the street" there are consequences to your actions.  And some students WILL have rules to follow on the street (LEOs).  So the system should avoid teaching techniques that bring legal trouble on our students or that rely on excessive unrepairable injury (eye gouges).  Teaching a neck break in response to a single-hand push for example might not be the most responsible thing to do.

I think that an important component of Self Defense is the maturity and control of the spirit, so the training should require that kind of development:  Intense and constant attention to detail, meditation and the mental "strategy" of fighting, and a high level of physical contact in the training.


----------



## DavidCC (Jan 23, 2007)

Hand Sword said:


> _ do we want to get our way out to anyone, and everyone that wants to learn? This would mean "watering down", marketing, etc.. which is seen now, as terrible things overall. _


 

Don't dilute the material!  Dilute the teaching.


We could have different programs, one aimed at producing a new generation of teachers of the art, and one aimed at teaching people to defend themselves.  Same material taught and tested at different levels.

For the elite class, they would be held to a very high standard of excellence: perform 90% correct 90% of the time.  They get the full nuances of it all over time.  They get the "why" whenever they master a "how".  The most rigorous training, longer hours, more time required to make ranks.  Some students will want to pursue this level of training but will be unable to fulfill its demands and those people would not be allowed to contune in this program.

For the general program, they might be held to a standard of 75% right 75% of the time.  This could still be functional, in that it could save their lives when the worst came to the worst, but they might never pursue their knowledge at a much deeper level.  maybe compare an EMT with an MD as a metaphor... (not that EMTs are only 75% successful LOL)

I wouldn't have any barriers (other than the student's commitment and level of effort) to movement between the classes.  not that I would let students waffle between the two, but I wouldn't stop anyone from trying to pursue which is right for them.

Even though it often seems that our Western Civilization is nothing but lazy quick-fixers, I think that a message could be successfully marketed that sold the value of the hard work and intensity we would offer, and the value it would add to a student.  But it will take time to "prove it" to the market.  We would have to not be afraid to turn away students who were not qualified, and make it well known that we do so.


----------



## Hand Sword (Jan 23, 2007)

DavidCC said:


> What could it be focused on: self-defense, sport fighting, personal development, fitness. Out of these I think the most important is self-defense. It alone _can_ encompass the others to some extent.


 
I agree with that. I would vote for our system being self defense themed also. Plus, I would agree that gaining a level of confidence definitely affects one's personal development, and fitness (the grueling repetitions  will do that). I wouldn't go with sport fighting personally. I would vote for just self defense themed. Sport fighting, IMHO, causes bad habts, and wrong mentality. If our students wanted to do that, I say, go do it on their own.



DavidCC said:


> S.D. is not sport fighting. SD situations are typically short in duration and explosive in intensity. So what type of fitness training prepares best for that? The insane training regimens of professional MMA fighters are far far beyond what we would need. We could train for anaerobic bursts, I'm sure there are more qualified people than me to address this.


 
I'd agree with this too. I think if we trained the self defense way, that kind of anaroebic burts would be developed. In terms of training it otherwise, I would go with some. I've always agreed with those that say, in the dojo, self defense should be the focus, if you want to train, jog etc.. on your own.



DavidCC said:


> Although there are "no rules on the street" there are consequences to your actions. And some students WILL have rules to follow on the street (LEOs). So the system should avoid teaching techniques that bring legal trouble on our students or that rely on excessive unrepairable injury (eye gouges). Teaching a neck break in response to a single-hand push for example might not be the most responsible thing to do.


 
I agree with some of this. We have to, and the student has to be responsible. Responses should fit the stimuli, without going overboard. As for those students with rules, doesn't that outside training cover it? I mean, If we have self defense as the focus of the system, can we leave out those really effective techniques, such as eye gouges? 



DavidCC said:


> I think that an important component of Self Defense is the maturity and control of the spirit, so the training should require that kind of development: Intense and constant attention to detail, meditation and the mental "strategy" of fighting, and a high level of physical contact in the training.


 
I agree with this completely. Mind set, and the training of it is a must in my opinion.


----------



## Hand Sword (Jan 23, 2007)

DavidCC said:


> Don't dilute the material! Dilute the teaching.


 
Agreed. If that is the choice. The system should never be compromised.



DavidCC said:


> We could have different programs, one aimed at producing a new generation of teachers of the art, and one aimed at teaching people to defend themselves. Same material taught and tested at different levels.


 
Interesting.



DavidCC said:


> For the elite class, they would be held to a very high standard of excellence: perform 90% correct 90% of the time. They get the full nuances of it all over time. They get the "why" whenever they master a "how". The most rigorous training, longer hours, more time required to make ranks. Some students will want to pursue this level of training but will be unable to fulfill its demands and those people would not be allowed to contune in this program.


 
I like that!



DavidCC said:


> For the general program, they might be held to a standard of 75% right 75% of the time. This could still be functional, in that it could save their lives when the worst came to the worst, but they might never pursue their knowledge at a much deeper level. maybe compare an EMT with an MD as a metaphor... (not that EMTs are only 75% successful LOL)


 
O.K.



DavidCC said:


> I wouldn't have any barriers (other than the student's commitment and level of effort) to movement between the classes. not that I would let students waffle between the two, but I wouldn't stop anyone from trying to pursue which is right for them.


 
Neither would I.



DavidCC said:


> Even though it often seems that our Western Civilization is nothing but lazy quick-fixers, I think that a message could be successfully marketed that sold the value of the hard work and intensity we would offer, and the value it would add to a student. But it will take time to "prove it" to the market. We would have to not be afraid to turn away students who were not qualified, and make it well known that we do so.


 
Agreed!


----------



## Gentle Fist (Jan 24, 2007)

Some of you have had some great ideas so far... I would add or subtract the following...

Ground Escapes - Some schools have them, but most lack good legit escapes.  After I started Gracie Jiujitsu I realized how weak Kenpo's escapes were. 

Throws - End fights quickly.  Not enough throwing in Kenpo.

Less Forms - Commercial Schools thrive on teaching students forms.  I don't see the need for them, when there is so much more you could be covering.  Less than 6 forms total would be fine.

18+ for Black Belts - TKD gets a bad rap and kenpo is starting to follow suit with "kiddie black belts"

Master Rankings - To be a 5th someone should have to be at least 35, 50 for 8th, 60 for 9th, 70 for 10th......  That way you have you time in.  It is not a race to 10th Dan!!!

The rest has pretty much already been covered.


----------



## marlon (Jan 24, 2007)

For the elite class, they would be held to a very high standard of excellence: perform 90% correct 90% of the time. They get the full nuances of it all over time. They get the "why" whenever they master a "how". The most rigorous training, longer hours, more time required to make ranks. Some students will want to pursue this level of training but will be unable to fulfill its demands and those people would not be allowed to contune in this program.


Character would need to be a requirement.  There is a long standing history of teachers only showing the full material to select students.  I do not think this should be advertised but i think that we are in a real sense morally responsible for what our students do with what we teach them...to a certain extent.  Therefore we should select who we give the full system to based on the above mentioned by David but also based on the character of the individual.  It also then, i suppose, means that we need to have high standards of conduct for ourselves and teach / encourage a certain standard of conduct and character to the students...especially the younger ones.

Respectfully,
Marlon


----------



## marlon (Jan 24, 2007)

Hand Sword said:


> O.K. everyone.
> 
> So far We've got *Kenmpo *as the name of our system, over Kenpo or Kempo. Is this Cool with everyone else on the committee? If not, chime in.
> 
> ...


 

i like a system built for self defense against multiple attackers.  mobile multiple striking.  thinking

Respectfully,
Marlon


----------



## Ray (Jan 24, 2007)

marlon said:


> For the elite class, they would be held to a very high standard of excellence: perform 90% correct 90% of the time.


90% correct, 90% of the time = an overall 81% success rate.


----------



## Carol (Jan 24, 2007)

OK for the heckuvit...

A formal education requirement would be added.   For a person to be able to execuote a move means the person can...execute a move.  It doesn't mean they can teach or run a business well enough to be able to pass on the art.  I'd suggest that the skillset of our teachers and school owners gets rounded out....say a minimum of a 2 year degree in a related field required to be a teacher, minimum of 4 year degree (preferably in Business) to be a school owner. 

Do away with belt ranks and other distractions and focus on the training.  No belt ranks, no belt tests, no belt test fees, no senior instructors, masters, or grandmasters.....just instructor, student, and art.


----------



## Blindside (Jan 24, 2007)

marlon said:


> Character would need to be a requirement. There is a long standing history of teachers only showing the full material to select students. I do not think this should be advertised but i think that we are in a real sense morally responsible for what our students do with what we teach them...to a certain extent. Therefore we should select who we give the full system to based on the above mentioned by David but also based on the character of the individual. It also then, i suppose, means that we need to have high standards of conduct for ourselves and teach / encourage a certain standard of conduct and character to the students...especially the younger ones.


 
How do you assess "character?" 
Particularly in kenpo, we have a very checkered past.  If you are claiming "moral responsibility" for what your students do, do you limit teaching the deadly eyegouge to only your most advanced students?  I don't think you do AK, but "Dance of Death" a low/mid ranking tech in the curricullum, you basically stomp the guy into a bloody mess when he is on the ground.  Do you eliminate that or move it into higher ranks because you are worried about the character of your lower ranked students?

Lamont


----------



## Blindside (Jan 24, 2007)

Carol Kaur said:


> OK for the heckuvit...
> 
> A formal education requirement would be added. For a person to be able to execuote a move means the person can...execute a move. It doesn't mean they can teach or run a business well enough to be able to pass on the art. I'd suggest that the skillset of our teachers and school owners gets rounded out....say a minimum of a 2 year degree in a related field required to be a teacher, minimum of 4 year degree (preferably in Business) to be a school owner.
> 
> Do away with belt ranks and other distractions and focus on the training. No belt ranks, no belt tests, no belt test fees, no senior instructors, masters, or grandmasters.....just instructor, student, and art.


 
Disagree completely on the formal education requirement.  I've seen several teachers with no education who were fine teachers, and several teachers with advanced degrees that had no business in the classroom.  And the ability to run a business should have no bearing on the art, it sounds like you are building a commercial concept right into the art, and I don't like it.

While I love the idea of getting rid of the belts and names, it probably isn't practical.  But what the hell, I'm with you on that.

Lamont


----------



## Carol (Jan 24, 2007)

Hey who said anything about practical?    This is just the Gods making a perfect world


----------



## DavidCC (Jan 24, 2007)

marlon said:


> For the elite class, they would be held to a very high standard of excellence: perform 90% correct 90% of the time. They get the full nuances of it all over time. They get the "why" whenever they master a "how". The most rigorous training, longer hours, more time required to make ranks. Some students will want to pursue this level of training but will be unable to fulfill its demands and those people would not be allowed to contune in this program.
> 
> 
> Character would need to be a requirement. There is a long standing history of teachers only showing the full material to select students. I do not think this should be advertised but i think that we are in a real sense morally responsible for what our students do with what we teach them...to a certain extent. Therefore we should select who we give the full system to based on the above mentioned by David but also based on the character of the individual. It also then, i suppose, means that we need to have high standards of conduct for ourselves and teach / encourage a certain standard of conduct and character to the students...especially the younger ones.
> ...


 
The level of commitment and hard work required for the higher level class would tend to weed out those with weaker characters.  And to borrow another idea from the SL-4 camp, we could do criminal background checks.



> can we leave out those really effective techniques, such as eye gouges?


There might be a place for this kind of primitive and rudimentary technique, but I don't think that this would be necessary if the system could teach more effective material.  Anyone can do an eye-poke or a groin-kick, can't we aim higher?




> A formal education requirement would be added


In the advanced class notice I describe that the students learn the "why" and the "how".  This goes a long way towards how to teach it.  But, as someone who is right now in an "Instructor's Training program" I think that we should include "how to teach" in the material.  And of course this gives a built-in stable of Instrictors for the public class LOL



> No belt ranks, no belt tests, no belt test fees, no senior instructors, masters, or grandmasters...


 
If you look at Professional Occupations and degree programs, there are ranks and tests and certificatiosn and titles, so they are not necessarily bad.  AA, BA, BS, MS, MBA, PhD, MD etc.  Freshman, Sophomore, Junior, Senior, CNA, RN, LPN... The ranks give us a defined progression through the material, and provide a means for students and teacher to identify immediately where someone is at in their progress.  Sure, I am the teacher, I know where all the students are at (when I am perfect).  But not everyone who needs the info has it as I do since I am the teacher.  if we stick to the 90/90 or 75/75 rules for evaluation, then we can rely that a belt means the same thing wherever it is awarded.

But I agree that we should remove the generation of revenue from the promotion process.  That is a corrupting influence.  We should set the tuition fees high enough to support the school, no miscellaneous fees required.

Do we want school owners who are part time or do we want them to be able to dedicate their lives to teaching and owning a school - professional Martial Art Teacher?  I've encountered some great people in both camps, and some real losers in both camps too.  So let's not assume that one model or the other necessarily leads to corruption... Should we encourage one model or the other, or leave it up to each teacher?



Are we ready to talk about the nature of the Art itself yet?


----------



## marlon (Jan 24, 2007)

please redefine the discussion you want about the nature of the art so we can focus in on it.

marlon


----------



## Blindside (Jan 24, 2007)

> Next, I would say what is the focus of our system? This really requires some thought from all of you before answering. We're all aware of the Kemp/npo world now and what goes on so, which way for us? Meaning, Street effective? which would have intense physical, nasty training, and mindsets, probably scaring away most students. Do we design it to be able to fight other systems like BJJ, Or, do we want to get our way out to anyone, and everyone that wants to learn? This would mean "watering down", marketing, etc.. which is seen now, as terrible things overall. To this question, if thinking it through, what is the focus of it? Physical training? Spiritual training? etc..


 
To bring us back on target:
I want a unarmed self defense system that is designed to address competant attackers.  This means high percentage counters to wrestlers shoots, boxer combinations, groundfighting (mostly on getting back up), some kicking, and various "trained" weapon user strategies.  I want the training to be heavily resistance based, with regular sparring.  I have zero heartache about throwing out forms/kata and replacing them with active drills.  Adjunct to the core unarmed system I want a weapon (knife/club/gun) based system that uses the same techniques but focusing on weapon application.

Thats all.

I don't want nunchaku, toothpick bo staffs,


----------



## marlon (Jan 24, 2007)

why do so many people not see the training / fighting benefits of forms?  If some want to throw them out there must be a reason....consider Emparado created some, so did Chow and so did Parker...they must have done so for a reason , let alone all the creators of traditional styles.

respectfully,
marlon


----------



## Blindside (Jan 24, 2007)

Do you really want to turn this thread into a "value of kata" debate?  There are plenty of other threads on that.

Lamont


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 24, 2007)

Blindside said:


> Do you really want to turn this thread into a "value of kata" debate? There are plenty of other threads on that.
> 
> Lamont


Theres no debate. Kata Stays.:soapbox:


----------



## Blindside (Jan 24, 2007)

Touch Of Death said:


> Theres no debate. Kata Stays.:soapbox:


 
You aren't really an AKer are you?  You used the word "kata."


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 24, 2007)

Blindside said:


> You aren't really an AKer are you? You used the word "kata."


Rather than correct your former terminology I chose to go with the flow and simply make my point. I am an AKer as it were, and resent the trap. I set them myself all the time, and I know 'em when I see 'em.
Sean:ultracool


----------



## evenflow1121 (Jan 24, 2007)

I think you'd have to go back to the basics, from the Parker System which is the only kenpo system I feel I can speak about with some accuracy.  The Kenpo that guys like Ibrao or Beeder, learned from Mr. Parker was probably not the same Kenpo that a lot of us here today learned, and still that Kenpo was quite effective as well and it was still Kenpo.  In my opinion one of the most amazing things regarding Kenpo is that you have a lot of people that bash or dont want to call anything Kenpo that deviates from the orthodox, but Kenpo itself has kept evolving through the decades during Mr. Parker and then after.


----------



## Hand Sword (Jan 24, 2007)

A lot of stuff going on here, which is great, but, I think we got a little ahead 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





. 

So, let me summize a little and then we'll go from there:


Our system will be referred to as *Kenmpo.*

It will be *self defense* *oriented *for all of the students. The training will be techniques oriented with some anaroebic conditioning for all. The system will have two segments: 1,  a regular type of class with the same elements just slightly less emphasis. 2. An elite version, with heavy emphasis on the techniques/ and contact, etc.. We wont turn anyone away, but, also won't be afraid to "lose" students, never comprimising the art, and the training.

Sounds good for our platform.

Now, since we have a real self defense (fighting) oriented system, do we go with Hard blocking (Star blocking system, 8pt. blocking system, etc..), or, do we go with Boxing type defenses: parrying, covering, bobbing, weaving, etc.., or all of the above?  

Next how do we develop, practice these defensive attributes? Stand in a horse stance and do it, do it in a boxing stance, and movement? c- stepping, 1/2 mooning, shuffling etc..?

What will be the ready stance? flat footed (neutral bow. 1/2 moon), or a boxing stance?

Remember, we're going for "real self defense" here. Don't be afraid to step out of your current training ways of your styles and give an honest opinion. Also , Give specific details !


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 25, 2007)

I'm already breaking away and marketing Wold's Kenmpo. I will on occassion print articles on the internet slamming the leaders of "Traditional Kenmpo". I may even "plan a murder or start a religion"(Jim Morrison).
Sean


----------



## Hand Sword (Jan 25, 2007)

Thank you for contributing to my thread.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 25, 2007)

Hand Sword said:


> Thank you for contributing to my thread.


Anytime.
Sean


----------



## DavidCC (Jan 25, 2007)

Hand Sword said:


> A lot of stuff going on here, which is great, but, I think we got a little ahead
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I think you are jumping the gun here.  how can I decide if it should prefer to dodge or block, be mobile or rooted, if I don't have an underlying strategy of how to win.

So, most Kempo or Kenpo systems I know of block more than dodge.  and use rooted stances more than light buoyant footwork.  What is the strategy behind that and is it one that we will adopt?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 25, 2007)

DavidCC said:


> I think you are jumping the gun here. how can I decide if it should prefer to dodge or block, be mobile or rooted, if I don't have an underlying strategy of how to win.
> 
> So, most Kempo or Kenpo systems I know of block more than dodge. and use rooted stances more than light buoyant footwork. What is the strategy behind that and is it one that we will adopt?


I think a mobility or stability strategy would be based on the opponents or opponent before you. Choosing one as a personal preference would be folly.
Sean


----------



## Hand Sword (Jan 25, 2007)

DavidCC said:


> I think you are jumping the gun here. how can I decide if it should prefer to dodge or block, be mobile or rooted, if I don't have an underlying strategy of how to win.
> 
> So, most Kempo or Kenpo systems I know of block more than dodge. and use rooted stances more than light buoyant footwork. What is the strategy behind that and is it one that we will adopt?


 

Not really. We've agreed on Real Self Defense as our theme. So, based on those attacks (for now punches), do we want to train ourselves to defend from flat footed stances, with hard blocks, be mobile like boxers/JKD, or cover/parry like them? Is the one, big, drunk, roundhouse what we're training to defend against? Boxers?

For T.O.D's  folly theory, It is my opinion, from all of my experiences, that you should be mobile, and remaining flat footed and rigid, under attack is folly. So, there is no "depending" on the opponent.


----------



## Blindside (Jan 25, 2007)

I would suggest a compromise, I don't want the hard blocks, but I want emphasis on parrying, and less so on covering.  The reason?  Covering doesn't work so good against weapons, and neither does hard blocking, so footwork and soft parries would be my preference.

Lamont


----------



## MJS (Jan 25, 2007)

Hand Sword said:


> O.K. everyone.
> 
> So far We've got *Kenmpo *as the name of our system, over Kenpo or Kempo. Is this Cool with everyone else on the committee? If not, chime in.
> 
> ...




I'd say design it so that it addresses a wide variety of attacks.  If the focus is going to be SD, watering things down would be a mistake IMO.  There should be a good physical side to it.


----------



## MJS (Jan 25, 2007)

Hand Sword said:


> It will be *self defense* *oriented *for all of the students. The training will be techniques oriented with some anaroebic conditioning for all. The system will have two segments: 1, a regular type of class with the same elements just slightly less emphasis. 2. An elite version, with heavy emphasis on the techniques/ and contact, etc.. We wont turn anyone away, but, also won't be afraid to "lose" students, never comprimising the art, and the training.


 
Sounds good! 




> Now, since we have a real self defense (fighting) oriented system, do we go with Hard blocking (Star blocking system, 8pt. blocking system, etc..), or, do we go with Boxing type defenses: parrying, covering, bobbing, weaving, etc.., or all of the above?


 
I'd go with a mixture of all of them.  



> Next how do we develop, practice these defensive attributes? Stand in a horse stance and do it, do it in a boxing stance, and movement? c- stepping, 1/2 mooning, shuffling etc..?


 
I'd start in a static position so the basic idea of the blocks can be learned.  From there, progress to movement.  I'd primarily use the boxing stance or neutral bow.  



> What will be the ready stance? flat footed (neutral bow. 1/2 moon), or a boxing stance?


 
I'd say train from all of them.  The natural or flat footed stance, as you called it, would be good to work from, as thats how we're standing the majority of the time.  Working from the other stances is good as well, as we'll need to be able to function during the 'heat' of the fight.


----------



## Hand Sword (Jan 26, 2007)

O.K. Since we're going for a real self defense theme, and we're on punch defenses at the moment, I have a few questions.

we're suggesting to mix hard blocking, with parrying, and other boxing type defenses. My question is: Can this really be trained to the effeciency that we're going for? What type of attacker are we looking at building around? Is it the one, big, roundhouse punch? A Boxer? (or similar, with fast multiple punches, and movement, kind of like these 20 something club tough guys). This would also decide our footwork and stances. I don't think "nuetral bowing" is ideal for this, as that was designed for that 1 punch scenario. Shouldn't our Kenmpo system abandon that, and focus on training the Boxing/JKD way. Thinking along the lines of: If we can train for the mean boxer, we can beat any 1 punch artist, or sloppy boxing attempt?


----------



## bill007 (Jan 26, 2007)

Hand Sword said:


> O.K. Since we're going for a real self defense theme, and we're on punch defenses at the moment, I have a few questions.
> 
> What type of attacker are we looking at building around? Is it the one, big, roundhouse punch? A Boxer? (or similar, with fast multiple punches, and movement, kind of like these 20 something club tough guys). This would also decide our footwork and stances.


 
All of these types, a complete system need everything works against any type of attacker, I suggest a high stance for the flowing motion and quick escape.


----------



## MJS (Jan 26, 2007)

Hand Sword said:


> O.K. Since we're going for a real self defense theme, and we're on punch defenses at the moment, I have a few questions.
> 
> we're suggesting to mix hard blocking, with parrying, and other boxing type defenses. My question is: Can this really be trained to the effeciency that we're going for? What type of attacker are we looking at building around? Is it the one, big, roundhouse punch? A Boxer? (or similar, with fast multiple punches, and movement, kind of like these 20 something club tough guys). This would also decide our footwork and stances. I don't think "nuetral bowing" is ideal for this, as that was designed for that 1 punch scenario. Shouldn't our Kenmpo system abandon that, and focus on training the Boxing/JKD way. Thinking along the lines of: If we can train for the mean boxer, we can beat any 1 punch artist, or sloppy boxing attempt?


 
Many Kenpo arts are already blending the two types of blocking, so I see nothing wrong with continuing.  I have techniques where the first move is a parry and others that start with an inward or outward block.  IMO, the block or the moves you choose to execute should depend on what your goal is.  A hard block can punish the arm and set you up for more of the same, while a parry, can easily transition to a joint lock.


----------



## Danjo (Jan 26, 2007)

Hand Sword said:


> O.K. Since we're going for a real self defense theme, and we're on punch defenses at the moment, I have a few questions.
> 
> we're suggesting to mix hard blocking, with parrying, and other boxing type defenses. My question is: Can this really be trained to the effeciency that we're going for? What type of attacker are we looking at building around? Is it the one, big, roundhouse punch? A Boxer? (or similar, with fast multiple punches, and movement, kind of like these 20 something club tough guys). This would also decide our footwork and stances. I don't think "nuetral bowing" is ideal for this, as that was designed for that 1 punch scenario. Shouldn't our Kenmpo system abandon that, and focus on training the Boxing/JKD way. Thinking along the lines of: If we can train for the mean boxer, we can beat any 1 punch artist, or sloppy boxing attempt?


 
Hmmm...you know, the more I read this thread and the posts on it I realize something. This was already done about 60 years ago In Hawaii. It's called Kajukenbo. Technique driven (versus kata driven), flowing, powerful, realistic defenses against boxers, wrestlers, judo, knives, clubs etc. etc. The blending of these various disciplines from the first white belt techniques through black belt is one of the hallmarks of the system. So my opinion is that if I were to come up with a "Kenmpo" system it would have to be a replication of Kajukenbo.


----------



## James Kovacich (Jan 26, 2007)

Danjo said:


> Hmmm...you know, the more I read this thread and the posts on it I realize something. This was already done about 60 years ago In Hawaii. It's called Kajukenbo. Technique driven (versus kata driven), flowing, powerful, realistic defenses against boxers, wrestlers, judo, knives, clubs etc. etc. The blending of these various disciplines from the first white belt techniques through black belt is one of the hallmarks of the system. So my opinion is that if I were to come up with a "Kenmpo" system it would have to be a replication of Kajukenbo.


Even with the kata?


----------



## Blindside (Jan 26, 2007)

Danjo said:


> Hmmm...you know, the more I read this thread and the posts on it I realize something. This was already done about 60 years ago In Hawaii. It's called Kajukenbo. Technique driven (versus kata driven), flowing, powerful, realistic defenses against boxers, wrestlers, judo, knives, clubs etc. etc. The blending of these various disciplines from the first white belt techniques through black belt is one of the hallmarks of the system. So my opinion is that if I were to come up with a "Kenmpo" system it would have to be a replication of Kajukenbo.


 
Your assuming the conclusions of kajukenbo were correct, and given all the variations of kaju its pretty hard to say what kaju is.  

Lamont


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 26, 2007)

MJS said:


> Many Kenpo arts are already blending the two types of blocking, so I see nothing wrong with continuing. I have techniques where the first move is a parry and others that start with an inward or outward block. IMO, the block or the moves you choose to execute should depend on what your goal is. A hard block can punish the arm and set you up for more of the same, while a parry, can easily transition to a joint lock.


The only difference between an hard block and a soft parry is the angle of incidence.
Sean


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 26, 2007)

Danjo said:


> Hmmm...you know, the more I read this thread and the posts on it I realize something. This was already done about 60 years ago In Hawaii. It's called Kajukenbo. Technique driven (versus kata driven), flowing, powerful, realistic defenses against boxers, wrestlers, judo, knives, clubs etc. etc. The blending of these various disciplines from the first white belt techniques through black belt is one of the hallmarks of the system. So my opinion is that if I were to come up with a "Kenmpo" system it would have to be a replication of Kajukenbo.


Maybe Kimo's but not all Kajukenbo can claim the same spirit.
Sean


----------



## Danjo (Jan 27, 2007)

Touch Of Death said:


> Maybe Kimo's but not all Kajukenbo can claim the same spirit.
> Sean


 
????

Whatever.


----------



## Danjo (Jan 27, 2007)

Blindside said:


> Your assuming the conclusions of kajukenbo were correct, and given all the variations of kaju its pretty hard to say what kaju is.
> 
> Lamont


 
The core is recognizable in all of the methods. Everyone individualizes things a bit to suit their body type and personal strengths, but I think the conclusions were correct. They may not be the only conclusions, but I see no reason to re-invent the wheel.


----------



## Danjo (Jan 27, 2007)

akja said:


> Even with the kata?


 Not a big fan of kata except for teaching the basics and how to transition from one move to the other. They were all taken from the defensive counters, not the other way around (except for our version of Nihanchi Shodan which is in there for it's historical value I think). We don't learn any kata after green belt.


----------



## Hand Sword (Jan 28, 2007)

I appreciate everyone's responses so far. As I first explained, I know that we are all avid martial artists, even if it's just our opinions, through much study time, one way or another. I am not trying to re invent the wheel, with my thread, just trying for a little analysis. It's true, there are styles, specifically from our "family", that were designed for the street. Times have changed,  (commercialising, softening, etc) so I figured a closer look at our ways might be in order. Back then, there was only so much stuff available for modification, and adaptation. Now, we have many ways available, as more styles are known, practiced, incorporated, etc.. I was hoping we could all break out of our style's thinking, or really scrutinize it, and contribute, honestly, with specifics.

So, to get back on track, and reign it in a little, we were discussing our styles way of dealing with punch attacks (for the time being). We had agreed That our goal was in realistic street defenses. For this I asked what type of puncher was going to be the focus? We have the person that throws that one, big, punch, which IMHO, was the one that are ways were designed against. They all speak of addressing the boxing attack, but I question if it's realistic. From what I've seen from our material, taking a "stance" and parrying, or hard blocking is inadequate. Movement, a narrower stance, Basically boxing/jkd style is the best to adress that person. From what I've seen over the years, kids on up, don't do the one punch attack. Its a fast flurry, sloppy boxing, grappling attacks. If this is so, wouldn't it be better to train for them? To add more of a boxing base to our art, since they specialize with the best punchers. I think this would change all of our ways, at least a little. Not a new wheel, just different material used to make it, other than stone.


----------



## DavidCC (Jan 29, 2007)

Since we have decided to focus on self defense, I think we should look at the statistics as to what types of attacks are most common, and address those with the highest priority.  

What state of mind is the victim in?  Aware of the attacker or unaware?  The nature of the attack - armed or unarmed; punch, tackle or kick; from the front, behind or side?  trying for one big surprise KO punch or squared off like a boxing match?  1 attacker or a group?

Once we have determined what we think is the right answer to all of these questions, we can look at techniques that fit those situations.  yes we should eventually cover all ranges and possibilities, but focus on the most likely scenarios and the highest-percentage responses to them, first.


----------



## Hand Sword (Jan 29, 2007)

That's what I was shooting for--LOL. I figured a punch attack was the most common attack, so I started there, and figured we'd cover the other scenarios after that. That's why I asked what kind of a puncher is most likely. From my experiences, it's not the one puncher, which I felt our current styles were designed for. Instead, I ran/run across a faster moving, boxing type, puncher. If so, that dictates a change of some sort, in all of our ways. The take a stance and block/parry, the way I've seen it done won't cut it anymore. That's why I figured adopting Boxing basics to start our defenses, getting away from the "hard" stuff, due to their specializing with dealing with the best punchers.  Deal with them, you can handle all of the rest.


----------



## bill007 (Jan 29, 2007)

Hand Sword said:


> That's what I was shooting for--LOL. I figured a punch attack was the most common attack, so I started there, and figured we'd cover the other scenarios after that. That's why I asked what kind of a puncher is most likely. From my experiences, it's not the one puncher, which I felt our current styles were designed for. Instead, I ran/run across a faster moving, boxing type, puncher. If so, that dictates a change of some sort, in all of our ways. The take a stance and block/parry, the way I've seen it done won't cut it anymore. That's why I figured adopting Boxing basics to start our defenses, getting away from the "hard" stuff, due to their specializing with dealing with the best punchers. Deal with them, you can handle all of the rest.


 
If it's a bar fight there's a lot of chance a pool cue will be swing at you..., the first time I went close to a fight that's what happens, maybe we can call it the Dufferin technique lol (Dufferin is the biggest cue maker)


----------



## Hand Sword (Jan 30, 2007)

Indeed it will! I agree with that, but, again, in terms of starting a system out, that scenario can be incorporated later on, once one has some competence. Percentages are highest for a punch, IMHO, so, I started there. As I pointed out, how we train for one who does that: a drunk, boxer, club tough guy, etc.. might change how we do everything else (movement, blocks, parries, stances, etc..)


So......in terms with adressing punch attacks, from a realistic oriented system, who is the puncher we'll train for?

I believe our sytems are designed for a one puncher, primarily. Those that address boxing, from what I've seen, realsitically, are inadequate. That's why I asked if the abandoning of our stances and Blocks would be in order, replaced by a boxing-defense/movement curriculum, as they specialize in dealing with the best punchers. Train for them, the rest is gravy.


----------



## Hand Sword (Feb 2, 2007)

Since it's been awhile, I'll pick it up from here. I say we should design our punch defenses to deal with a boxer. We should go with Boxing stances, footwork and defenses. I feel this will carry over to also deal with attackers that are bigger, and stronger, which parrying and moving should be preferred. It also goes against multiple attackers, where parrying, moving, covering etc. would be very beneficial, over stances and blocks. Finally, the movement, parrying, and the focus of dealing with fast hand attacks, from different angles, would be beneficial with dealing with weapon attacks.

Now that adresses movement, stances, and defenses. Now, what hand strikes do we practice? Which ones should be are excluded, if any?


----------



## MJS (Feb 2, 2007)

Hand Sword said:


> That's what I was shooting for--LOL. I figured a punch attack was the most common attack, so I started there, and figured we'd cover the other scenarios after that. That's why I asked what kind of a puncher is most likely. From my experiences, it's not the one puncher, which I felt our current styles were designed for. Instead, I ran/run across a faster moving, boxing type, puncher. If so, that dictates a change of some sort, in all of our ways. The take a stance and block/parry, the way I've seen it done won't cut it anymore. That's why I figured adopting Boxing basics to start our defenses, getting away from the "hard" stuff, due to their specializing with dealing with the best punchers. Deal with them, you can handle all of the rest.


 
The boxing stance is fine, but I still think that we shouldn't overlook the natural position.


----------



## MJS (Feb 2, 2007)

Hand Sword said:


> Now that adresses movement, stances, and defenses. Now, what hand strikes do we practice? Which ones should be are excluded, if any?


 
Well, if we're going to adapt the boxing stance, it would be good to include the standard punches you'd find in boxing.  The jab, cross, hook and uppercut.  I think that open hand strikes should be taught as well.  This can fall into the category of a slap, palm strike as well as raking strikes.  Not sure if elbows are falling into this category, but those should be included as well.  I think that the gunting or limb destruction that is found in the FMAs and some of the Kaju techniques is another good thing to add.

Mike


----------



## Brother John (Feb 2, 2007)

Hand Sword said:


> So, Let's create our Kem/npo style. I want specifics about EVERY detail we can think of. Let's start basic and build from there.


Wowie!!!
I'm glad you're not asking for any BIG task.....


Your Brother
John


----------



## RevIV (Feb 2, 2007)

bill007 said:


> If it's a bar fight there's a lot of chance a pool cue will be swing at you..., the first time I went close to a fight that's what happens, maybe we can call it the Dufferin technique lol (Dufferin is the biggest cue maker)


 
I have seen more pool balls thrown and used to bash someone than i have seen them hit people with the cue.  We better work faster blocking or a iron palm to catch that sucka'


----------



## Hand Sword (Feb 2, 2007)

Brother John said:


> Wowie!!!
> I'm glad you're not asking for any BIG task.....
> 
> 
> ...


 

Hey, I'm moving us around area by area (at least Trying to 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





)! Just follow my guidance, my brother, and you'll be fine. Big things are nothing more than a bunch of small things put together. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Start off with my last post.


----------



## Hand Sword (Feb 2, 2007)

_"The boxing stance is fine, but I still think that we shouldn't overlook the natural position_."

Agreed! As well as transitioning from that to the boxing way.



MJS said:


> Well, if we're going to adapt the boxing stance, it would be good to include the standard punches you'd find in boxing. The jab, cross, hook and uppercut. I think that open hand strikes should be taught as well. This can fall into the category of a slap, palm strike as well as raking strikes. Not sure if elbows are falling into this category, but those should be included as well. I think that the gunting or limb destruction that is found in the FMAs and some of the Kaju techniques is another good thing to add.
> 
> Mike


 
Just to play devil's advocate...Do we want the punches? Hands break, and get damaged for real, woulding it be better for the same movements, and rythm, execution etc..but, with open hand strikes? Plus, If we're focussing on Boxing attacks, wouldn't gung tanging be very difficult to pull off? Isn't that for a big, one punch attack? Wouldn't keeping it simpler be better?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 2, 2007)

Hand Sword said:


> _"The boxing stance is fine, but I still think that we shouldn't overlook the natural position_."
> 
> Agreed! As well as transitioning from that to the boxing way.
> 
> ...


That is why we should move a way from boxing style punches and teach dimensional stages of action. Punches would then not be so mutualy destructive.
Sean


----------



## DavidCC (Feb 2, 2007)

Well, I don't think I agree that if we train to fight a trained boxer we will also be optimally trained to deal with what (I thought) we had identified as our most likely attack - the overhand right.

Yeah it's in there, but will we be spending time learning to deal with attacks we will likely never see (solid boxer's combos) ?

I also don't prefer the boxing-style mobility, I think of Kempo as more destructive and 'to-the-point' than boxing...


----------



## bayonet (Feb 3, 2007)

> I think of Kempo as more destructive and 'to-the-point' than boxing


 
Your opinion will change quickly if you ever come up against a skilled boxer. Some boxers can be brutally destructive. Does the name Mike Tyson ring any bells? Gee, imagine how much more "destructive" Tyson would be if he studied kempo. Since your fond of traveling, try taking a trip to the Kronk gym in Detroit, walk in and tell them you think your kempo is more "to the point". Report back to us with your findings.


----------



## Hand Sword (Feb 3, 2007)

Touch Of Death said:


> That is why we should move a way from boxing style punches and teach dimensional stages of action. Punches would then not be so mutualy destructive.
> Sean


 

Sounds interesting. Care to elaborate further?


----------



## Hand Sword (Feb 3, 2007)

DavidCC said:


> Well, I don't think I agree that if we train to fight a trained boxer we will also be optimally trained to deal with what (I thought) we had identified as our most likely attack - the overhand right.
> 
> Yeah it's in there, but will we be spending time learning to deal with attacks we will likely never see (solid boxer's combos) ?
> 
> I also don't prefer the boxing-style mobility, I think of Kempo as more destructive and 'to-the-point' than boxing...


 

Actually, I kept asking the question about what would be the most common, but, it was never answered directly. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 So, I figured, if we can get used to Boxers, who are faster and better punchers than any over hand puncher on the street, we would be able to deal with any puncher. Next I figured, if we now have to deal with fast moving boxers, then we should look at those that specialize in doing so, which are boxers. I then realised, for all of our ways, stances and blocks, or even our way of parrying, would have to change, or be upgraded. 

As "to the point", I don't think it gets anymore so, than a flurry of punches, coming right at you. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I agree that kempo strikes can be more destructive, than punches, to the opponent, so that's why I still kept "open" hand strikes, with the boxing way of executing.

Just to be fair, I have had it out with a few boxers in my time, Their attacking methods, shouldn't be dealt with nuetral bows and blocks, IMHO. Those were designed for the one, big punch attack.


----------



## Hand Sword (Feb 3, 2007)

bayonet said:


> Your opinion will change quickly if you ever come up against a skilled boxer. Some boxers can be brutally destructive. Does the name Mike Tyson ring any bells? Gee, imagine how much more "destructive" Tyson would be if he studied kempo. Since your fond of traveling, try taking a trip to the Kronk gym in Detroit, walk in and tell them you think your kempo is more "to the point". Report back to us with your findings.


 
We have to play nice about this. However, the point IS a valid one. No dojo person is going to replicate boxing as well as boxers (unless they also box). So for a punch and defense of the punch situations, boxers do have an advantage over us. You can't out slug them. 


In general, I want us all to think through what we're saying or thinking. I don't want a flame fest of "my way is better than yours", so please no further sniping at each other. Just express the points/ counetr points without the " 'tude "


So for further posts, we are in a punch defense mode for now. The manner in which we'll do it has been touched on, a little above. Let's focus our thinking on this area for now, and what is related, which I've touched on, above.


----------



## MJS (Feb 3, 2007)

Hand Sword said:


> _"The boxing stance is fine, but I still think that we shouldn't overlook the natural position_."
> 
> Agreed! As well as transitioning from that to the boxing way.
> 
> ...


 
Isn't eliminating punches going to limit what we an do?  I mean sure we can apply a palm strike to the face or substitute a hook to the head for a slap to the ear, but what about the body?  





> Plus, If we're focussing on Boxing attacks, wouldn't gung tanging be very difficult to pull off? Isn't that for a big, one punch attack? Wouldn't keeping it simpler be better?


 
For myself, I'd rather not stand toe to toe and trade strikes.  Also, is it wise to limit our defense to taking these shots?  For example:  One possible defense against a hook to the head, is to raise the arm, placing your hand on the back of your head/neck and using the arm to absorb the punch.  Boxing has been around for a long time.  I just find it hard to believe that the founders of various arts, ie, Kenpo, Kajukenbo, did not have solid defenses against a boxer.  I mean, the last part of Kajuken*bo* stands for boxing.  

As for the gunting....this is why I was advocating the use of footwork.  With the proper angles, the gunting is possible.  Not meant to be a fight stopper but applied correctly, it'll cause some damage.

Mike


----------



## Hand Sword (Feb 3, 2007)

MJS said:


> Isn't eliminating punches going to limit what we an do? I mean sure we can apply a palm strike to the face or substitute a hook to the head for a slap to the ear, but what about the body?


 
Kicks to the body and lower, from out there, knees to the body, on the way in, and after high attacks, elbows to the body, over uppercuts. More body weight and power.  Otherwise your saying throw a punch from further out to the body, which would leave you compromised. If your close enough for correct uppercuts, elbows can be used in their place.






MJS said:


> For myself, I'd rather not stand toe to toe and trade strikes. Also, is it wise to limit our defense to taking these shots? For example: One possible defense against a hook to the head, is to raise the arm, placing your hand on the back of your head/neck and using the arm to absorb the punch. Boxing has been around for a long time. I just find it hard to believe that the founders of various arts, ie, Kenpo, Kajukenbo, did not have solid defenses against a boxer. I mean, the last part of Kajuken*bo* stands for boxing.


 
Me neither, and you would't be. Bobbing, weaving, slipping etc.. is going on, with covering. Besides taking the shots is bad because that means the punches are landing on your jaw. Absorbing with an arm is a valid defense especially if getting blitzed with a fluury. A one puncher, no problem there. As for the founder's and their ways. Yes, they all had boxing, and supposedly devised to deal with it. Yet, stances, and hard blocks, in the Asian manner still permiate the systems. (the bo stands for Chinese boxing (kung fu) 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




)



MJS said:


> As for the gunting....this is why I was advocating the use of footwork. With the proper angles, the gunting is possible. Not meant to be a fight stopper but applied correctly, it'll cause some damage.
> 
> Mike


 
I agree. Just thinking maybe a little too complex and dangerous to pull off, when it's fast and furious. Covering, moving, and countering much better IMHO. Against a one puncher, which is when they are used normally, just fine. My theme was train for the most difficult punchers, and this would easily prepare you to deal with the haymaker. Gung tings could be used, but, not truly necessary. For real self defense, keep it simplified and fast.


Just throwing stuff around for conversation and thinking purposes.


----------



## John Bishop (Feb 3, 2007)

Hand Sword said:


> As for the founder's and their ways. Yes, they all had boxing, and supposedly devised to deal with it. Yet, stances, and hard blocks, in the Asian manner still permiate the systems. (the bo stands for Chinese boxing (kung fu)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Another inaccuracy that has been passed down in some telling of history.  The "bo" stands for Chinese and Western boxing.  4 of the 5 Kajukenbo founders had western boxing experience.  Peter Choo's was very extensive, having won several military (Army) titles.  
Much of the footwork in Kajukenbo fighting is from western boxing or escrima.  Unlike many of the kenpo arts, open hand strikes are seldom used.  Only an occassional knife hand to the throat, palm heal strike to the jaw or ear.  
The majority of hand strikes are either boxer style punches, snap punches,  or escrima type hammerfists (cutting).  The karate & kenpo punches and kicks in Kajukenbo are primarily "snapped" verses thrusted.  The founders knew from their collaborations that a judo or jujitsu man could easily catch a thrusted punch, or kick.


----------



## Hand Sword (Feb 4, 2007)

:asian:

Thank you for the input, sir!

Good point on the thrusting vs. snapping, and getting "caught". Definitely something to consider for defense and offense.


----------



## Hand Sword (Feb 5, 2007)

Since we'll keep the punches, should we add the conditioning of the hands to the training? For the open hand strikes, the knife hand and palm heel, is that enough? Add more?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 6, 2007)

Hand Sword said:


> Since we'll keep the punches, should we add the conditioning of the hands to the training? For the open hand strikes, the knife hand and palm heel, is that enough? Add more?


Conditioning sounds good.
Sean


----------



## DavidCC (Feb 6, 2007)

What kind of conditioning?  You mean like, hitting successively harder targets, building up bone deposits until the hands are hard like rocks (and disfigured)?

Do we need to break thru the bamboo armor of the invading samurai LOL?

Are we planning to use our style to break out of pine boxes when we get buried alive ROFL?

I vote NO on "conditioning"

Totally unnecessary nowadays.  
Causes permanent damage to the body.  (Unlike warriors of the 17th century, I plan to live to old age...).  
It requires lots of time that can be better spent.

HOWEVER students should be hitting heavy bags, and each other, frequently.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 6, 2007)

DavidCC said:


> What kind of conditioning? You mean like, hitting successively harder targets, building up bone deposits until the hands are hard like rocks (and disfigured)?
> 
> Do we need to break thru the bamboo armor of the invading samurai LOL?
> 
> ...


Laughs


----------



## MJS (Feb 6, 2007)

Hand Sword said:


> Kicks to the body and lower, from out there, knees to the body, on the way in, and after high attacks, elbows to the body, over uppercuts. More body weight and power. Otherwise your saying throw a punch from further out to the body, which would leave you compromised. If your close enough for correct uppercuts, elbows can be used in their place.


 
So are all of the techniques going to use open hands?





> Me neither, and you would't be. Bobbing, weaving, slipping etc.. is going on, with covering. Besides taking the shots is bad because that means the punches are landing on your jaw. Absorbing with an arm is a valid defense especially if getting blitzed with a fluury. A one puncher, no problem there. As for the founder's and their ways. Yes, they all had boxing, and supposedly devised to deal with it. Yet, stances, and hard blocks, in the Asian manner still permiate the systems. (the bo stands for Chinese boxing (kung fu)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## MJS (Feb 6, 2007)

Hand Sword said:


> Since we'll keep the punches, should we add the conditioning of the hands to the training? For the open hand strikes, the knife hand and palm heel, is that enough? Add more?


 
Hmm...I'm not a big fan of that, so I vote to leave it out, mostly for the reasons Dave mentioned.


----------



## LawDog (Feb 6, 2007)

When you are in a conflict the doorways for your strikes are not stationary, they will be moving. If you execute a sword hand strike towards a soft area and your opponent moves you could impact a much harder area. If your hands are not conditioned the bone structure inside your hand could break. 
In a street type fight if you impact your opponent with a powerful fist strike to the head/face area and are not a large boned person you will probably break your hand.
Boxers and Kickboxers wrap their hands for a reason and that is to protect them from impact damage. Out in the street you can't walk around with your hands wrapped.
You need not disfigure your hands by using external conditioning techniques instead you can condition them internally.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 6, 2007)

LawDog said:


> When you are in a conflict the doorways for your strikes are not stationary, they will be moving. If you execute a sword hand strike towards a soft area and your opponent moves you could impact a much harder area. If your hands are not conditioned the bone structure inside your hand could break.
> In a street type fight if you impact your opponent with a powerful fist strike to the head/face area and are not a large boned person you will probably break your hand.
> Boxers and Kickboxers wrap their hands for a reason and that is to protect them from impact damage. Out in the street you can't walk around with your hands wrapped.
> You need not disfigure your hands by using external conditioning techniques instead you can condition them internally.


What he said!!!  Doesn't Kenmpo use Martgin for error?
Sean


----------



## Hand Sword (Feb 6, 2007)

MJS said:


> So are all of the techniques going to use open hands?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Don't know. That's what I've been asking. If we are going to be a real, self defense method, do we keep the blocks? If we come up against punchers other than the one, big, throwers, will those blocks be sufficient, or too slow? If we were training to deal with the best punchers (boxers) wouldn't that help us to handle the average puncher? Are the blocks totally necessary? Or, could boxing defenses (all combined) cover both areas of punchers?


----------



## Hand Sword (Feb 6, 2007)

DavidCC said:


> What kind of conditioning? You mean like, hitting successively harder targets, building up bone deposits until the hands are hard like rocks (and disfigured)?
> 
> Do we need to break thru the bamboo armor of the invading samurai LOL?
> 
> ...


 

I didn't mean that stuff, but, now that you mentioned it...........

Nah! A little too extreme .... (I think 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





). I just figured that since our hands won't be protected, and during fights, punches occasionally miss and hit other stuff, it might be good to have some conditioning. Maybe not to the point of the people that you described, but, some. Hitting the heavy bag (and each other) is a form of it too. I would start of with gloves, move to wraps, and then, finally, to bare fists. Once one can swat away on the bag, bare handed, not bleed, hurt etc.., good enough for me.


----------



## DavidCC (Feb 9, 2007)

LawDog said:


> When you are in a conflict the doorways for your strikes are not stationary, they will be moving. If you execute a sword hand strike towards a soft area and your opponent moves you could impact a much harder area. If your hands are not conditioned the bone structure inside your hand could break.
> In a street type fight if you impact your opponent with a powerful fist strike to the head/face area and are not a large boned person you will probably break your hand.
> Boxers and Kickboxers wrap their hands for a reason and that is to protect them from impact damage. Out in the street you can't walk around with your hands wrapped.
> You need not disfigure your hands by using external conditioning techniques instead you can condition them internally.


 
yes that makes perfect sense, could you go into the internal conditioning a little more, please?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 9, 2007)

Hand Sword said:


> Kicks to the body and lower, from out there, knees to the body, on the way in, and after high attacks, elbows to the body, over uppercuts. More body weight and power. Otherwise your saying throw a punch from further out to the body, which would leave you compromised. If your close enough for correct uppercuts, elbows can be used in their place.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Elbows over upper cutts, what the heck are you talking about? One naturaly flows into the other. And no proper elbows and proper upper-cutts are not done at the same dimensional stage of action!!!!!
Sean


----------



## LawDog (Feb 9, 2007)

David,
Not so as to tie up this thead in a day or so I will start another thread covering "conditioning". I will cover the hows / whys and the physics involved that make internal and external conditioning work.


----------



## Hand Sword (Feb 10, 2007)

Touch Of Death said:


> Elbows over upper cutts, what the heck are you talking about? One naturaly flows into the other. And no proper elbows and proper upper-cutts are not done at the same dimensional stage of action!!!!!
> Sean


 
Actually they are. Where does one throw an elbow strike? Where does one throw an uppercut? The fact that an elbow flows off of a punching movement also proves my case. Just as you might throw an uppercut, you could choose to bend the arm a little further, and strike with an elbow instead. You don't throw either, for real, far away. Both are done up close, bascically leaning on each other. That way, for both strikes, the power of your whole body is into the strikes, and the distance traveled is the least amount.

However, I was just going with a punch attack scenario, where it was parried into a knee strike to the ribs/gut. You are now close enough to elbow, or punch. The choice is yours. I was asking for effeciency, if one should go with punches, risking injury, or go with open hand strikes or elbows. I have been asking if we should go with open strikes over punches, or keep punches. Basically what hand strikes do we go with? What one's do we delete?


----------



## Hand Sword (Feb 10, 2007)

LawDog said:


> David,
> Not so as to tie up this thead in a day or so I will start another thread covering "conditioning". I will cover the hows / whys and the physics involved that make internal and external conditioning work.


 

It won't tie up the thread, please go into it if you wish to. It is relevant to what is being discussed.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 10, 2007)

Hand Sword said:


> Actually they are. Where does one throw an elbow strike? Where does one throw an uppercut? The fact that an elbow flows off of a punching movement also proves my case. Just as you might throw an uppercut, you could choose to bend the arm a little further, and strike with an elbow instead. You don't throw either, for real, far away. Both are done up close, bascically leaning on each other. That way, for both strikes, the power of your whole body is into the strikes, and the distance traveled is the least amount.
> 
> However, I was just going with a punch attack scenario, where it was parried into a knee strike to the ribs/gut. You are now close enough to elbow, or punch. The choice is yours. I was asking for effeciency, if one should go with punches, risking injury, or go with open hand strikes or elbows. I have been asking if we should go with open strikes over punches, or keep punches. Basically what hand strikes do we go with? What one's do we delete?


Intentionaly slipping the punch to put the elbow, instead, means you are throwing blind elbow strikes. You will at least admit that the angles are all changed up.
Sean


----------



## Hand Sword (Feb 10, 2007)

Nothing blind about them. A parry, with the hands to your right, with a knee, stepping down into a left round elbow for instance, you're not blind, you're looking at them all the way. As for angle changes, yes, probably sometimes, but, same for punches too. Point was, angles aside, elbow strikes could be used over punches in situations if you train that way, like the above scenario. That's all I was getting at. Should we go with punches? Open hand strikes? A combination of both? What do we avoid or delete, and what do we keep?


----------



## MJS (Feb 10, 2007)

Hand Sword said:


> Actually they are. Where does one throw an elbow strike? Where does one throw an uppercut? The fact that an elbow flows off of a punching movement also proves my case. Just as you might throw an uppercut, you could choose to bend the arm a little further, and strike with an elbow instead. You don't throw either, for real, far away. Both are done up close, bascically leaning on each other. That way, for both strikes, the power of your whole body is into the strikes, and the distance traveled is the least amount.
> 
> However, I was just going with a punch attack scenario, where it was parried into a knee strike to the ribs/gut. You are now close enough to elbow, or punch. The choice is yours. I was asking for effeciency, if one should go with punches, risking injury, or go with open hand strikes or elbows. I have been asking if we should go with open strikes over punches, or keep punches. Basically what hand strikes do we go with? What one's do we delete?


 
Maybe I'm just confused because its late, but here is my question.  I see what you're saying reagrding the uppercut and elbow and where they originate from.  However, if I'm going to throw an elbow to the body, wouldn't it make more sense to make it horizontal rather than vertical?  

As for damage to the hands.  What are your thoughts on hitting soft targets with the closed fist and hard targets with the open hand strikes?


----------



## Hand Sword (Feb 10, 2007)

So am I after 18 hrs. of reading and typing up papers for school 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 For the elbowing to the body, i think that is what I implied above which was just a second explanation of a scenario. The upper elbow was a different scenario that we were discussing. I was just trying tp point out that different elbow strikes could be used over punches, if going off of boxing defensive movements, as your in close. As for the3 damage to the hands, i see nothing wrong with your explanation, and I agree with it. I was just pointing out that sometimes, as both are moving and swinging, misses of those targets occur. Going off the premise of training to cover all of the bases, I brought up the idea that maybe punches were'nt all that necessary to be succesful, and gave an example (above). Just trying to build piece be piece and throwing out all of the ideas to kick the tires a little, with thoughts from everyone. That's all.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 13, 2007)

Hand Sword said:


> Nothing blind about them. A parry, with the hands to your right, with a knee, stepping down into a left round elbow for instance, you're not blind, you're looking at them all the way. As for angle changes, yes, probably sometimes, but, same for punches too. Point was, angles aside, elbow strikes could be used over punches in situations if you train that way, like the above scenario. That's all I was getting at. Should we go with punches? Open hand strikes? A combination of both? What do we avoid or delete, and what do we keep?


So you could do this in the dark?


----------



## Hand Sword (Feb 13, 2007)

Well...Yes I have. At night, or in a little light, you end up close, as no one swings away when they can't see. They try to grab you instead. So, if you're close, elbows, apply better than punches.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 14, 2007)

Hand Sword said:


> Well...Yes I have. At night, or in a little light, you end up close, as no one swings away when they can't see. They try to grab you instead. So, if you're close, elbows, apply better than punches.


You just can't accept that your better off guaging the elbow shot with your fists. So do slip the uppercutt in your "Flashing Wings"? If so why again? It would simply force you to muscle the shot based on the miss- alignment you choose to miss connection with the fist. 
Sean


----------



## g-bells (Feb 14, 2007)

question?
if your performing sensitevity drills will you not gain a certain amount of flow?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 14, 2007)

g-bells said:


> question?
> if your performing sensitevity drills will you not gain a certain amount of flow?


I don't see why not.
Sean


----------



## Hand Sword (Feb 14, 2007)

Touch Of Death said:


> You just can't accept that your better off guaging the elbow shot with your fists. So do slip the uppercutt in your "Flashing Wings"? If so why again? It would simply force you to muscle the shot based on the miss- alignment you choose to miss connection with the fist.
> Sean


 

We had seemed to come to a system that was realistic self defense based. We were going, so it seemed, with a Boxing stance and footwork, as well as boxing defenses, since they speacialize in dealing with the best punchers. This material would easily let you deal with your flashing wings scenario. The theory was if you can train for the best punchers, you could easily deal with a one puncher, on the street. It's better to be able to deal with both, rather than just one. I then asked , since we had our defense down, which hand strikes do we go with? Some said punches, open hand strikes etc.. I then asked, should punches be kept, as it is likely, you could hurt your hand. You could train the other stuff to take their place, meaning punches weren't really necessary. That's pretty much where we were.
Rather than go back and forth, I'll take your responses as a vote for the current Ken/mpo methods to deal with punches- blocks with stances.


----------



## MJS (Feb 15, 2007)

Ok...so it seems like we have covered blocks and strikes.  Lets move on to kicks.  I'd say all of the kicks that we already have are pretty solid, the front, round, instep and side kicks.  I think that we should keep the usual focus on the kicks, meaning that they all should really be no higher than chest level.  Of course from a closer position, such as a clinch, knees and stomps also come into play.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 15, 2007)

MJS said:


> Ok...so it seems like we have covered blocks and strikes. Lets move on to kicks. I'd say all of the kicks that we already have are pretty solid, the front, round, instep and side kicks. I think that we should keep the usual focus on the kicks, meaning that they all should really be no higher than chest level. Of course from a closer position, such as a clinch, knees and stomps also come into play.


Are these kicks insert or main move focused?


----------



## MJS (Feb 15, 2007)

Touch Of Death said:


> Are these kicks insert or main move focused?


 
My appologies, I'm not quite following you.  Earlier we were discussing blocks and strikes to include into the system.  The kicks I mentioned are also part of the system, to be used whenever applicable.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 15, 2007)

MJS said:


> My appologies, I'm not quite following you. Earlier we were discussing blocks and strikes to include into the system. The kicks I mentioned are also part of the system, to be used whenever applicable.


Are they inserted into the minor, minor, major move sequence all are techs are based off of, or are you making Kicks into major moves. This is important, and kenpo schools fall into one of these two catagories; so, inserts or major on those kicks?
Sean


----------



## MJS (Feb 15, 2007)

Touch Of Death said:


> Are they inserted into the minor, minor, major move sequence all are techs are based off of, or are you making Kicks into major moves. This is important, and kenpo schools fall into one of these two catagories; so, inserts or major on those kicks?
> Sean


 
Well, we have major and minor blocks right?  So why not have major and minor kicks?  Depending on what you're goal is, would determine whether its a major or minor kick, no?


----------



## Hand Sword (Feb 15, 2007)

I would go with a front kick, back kick, side kick, and a muay thai roundhouse (since where staying low), and an instep kick. I would get rid of any spinning, or jumping kicks.


----------



## MJS (Feb 15, 2007)

Hand Sword said:


> I would go with a front kick, back kick, side kick, and a muay thai roundhouse (since where staying low), and an instep kick. I would get rid of any spinning, or jumping kicks.


 
Sounds good to me.:ultracool


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 16, 2007)

MJS said:


> Well, we have major and minor blocks right? So why not have major and minor kicks? Depending on what you're goal is, would determine whether its a major or minor kick, no?


No! you may have major blocks but I aint ever heard of a major block. Why would you culminate a tech with a block? Is that a "one block one deflection" mentality?
Sean


----------



## MJS (Feb 16, 2007)

Touch Of Death said:


> No! you may have major blocks but I aint ever heard of a major block.


 
 




> Why would you culminate a tech with a block? Is that a "one block one deflection" mentality?
> Sean


 
I'm still not understanding what you're saying here.  When you do Short 1, do you not include major/minor blocks?

Mike


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 20, 2007)

MJS said:


> I'm still not understanding what you're saying here. When you do Short 1, do you not include major/minor blocks?
> 
> Mike


Those blocks are also strikes. 
Sean


----------



## MJS (Feb 26, 2007)

So..where did we leave off on this discussion?

Mike


----------



## Hand Sword (Feb 27, 2007)

What kicks would be used, and/or which would be deleted.

I said keep the front, back, instep, and side thrust kicks. Also the muay thai round kick, since we were staying low. For me, gone were the jumping and spinning kicks. I would also do away with side blade kicks, too much of a chance to injure yourself.


----------



## Brother John (Feb 27, 2007)

I would be all for deleting the inside and outside cresent kicks.
They're anatomically weak, they place the knee joint at a leverage disadvantage in the delivery of force and they're not very swift/powerful.
Not to mention they tend to telegraph due to their very path of travel.

...so if we're eliminating any kicks, I'd put those on the chopping block first.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Hand Sword (Feb 27, 2007)

Would you be willing to keep a low line crescent kick to the knee area, like Bruce Lee used to do, or, get rid of them all completely? Would that include axe kicks too?


----------



## Brother John (Feb 27, 2007)

No, axe kicks are 'ok', but really not so useful. Useable, but not useful. Therefore they'd be worth knowing but not worth focusing on. In my way of thinking, there are better ways of doing what an axe kick accomplishes without first needing to raise your leg above a target before dropping it. I think this makes one very suseptible to PROBLEMS. but it's not a bad kick. It's not anatomically weak like the cresent kicks.

No, I'd not do the low cresent either, it's still anatomically weak. 
I'd rather do a Thai type kick at that level/target anyway. STRONGER!!! Easier to deliver force and much better on the followthrough.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Hand Sword (Feb 27, 2007)

Sounds good to me. So, we got a Front kick, a back kick, a side thrust kick, a muay thai round house kick, and an instep kick.

We've excluded jumping kicks, spinning kicks, all crescent kicks, side blade kicks, and an axe kick (due to not being overly useful, and not being worth focussing on)


Anything else?


----------



## MJS (Feb 27, 2007)

I'd add in knees to that list.


----------



## Hand Sword (Feb 28, 2007)

I'll assume you mean the "keep list" 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





So that's  front, back, and side thrust kicks kept. Instep kicks (to the groin), and muay thai round kicks kept also. The kicks will stay low, maybe the highest strike being to the gut. We've added knee strikes too.

Gone are crescent kicks of all types, jumping kicks, spinning kicks, and axe kicks.

How about hook kicks?


----------



## MJS (Feb 28, 2007)

Hand Sword said:


> I'll assume you mean the "keep list"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Yes, the knees are keepers. 

Hooks aren't bad, again, as long as they're to the body.  I was also thinking of an inner arch kick.  Good in close strike which can go to the knee and rake down the shin to the instep.


----------



## RevIV (Feb 28, 2007)

I have found many scenarios that i like the axe kick.  When they are on the ground and you just drove a front ball into there ribs, and come back with the axe kick down.  Also if getting rid of Crescents, what about a chinese heal kick--for a keeper--  It is a craned kick that drives down at an angle typically hitting right above the knees. for instance. Rt. chinese heel kick would land on the outside of a persons left knee or the inside of a persons right knee.  great for close combat kicks. (even though that sounds like an oxymoron)
Jesse


----------



## Hand Sword (Feb 28, 2007)

Alright. Since it wasn't decided to be done away with, rather less focussed on, I guess we can keep the axe kick, here and there 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.

As for the heel kicks, I like it. Kind of like a stomp. Sounds good to me.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 28, 2007)

Hand Sword said:


> I'll assume you mean the "keep list"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There is nothing wrong with a properly done cresent kick. Its just a thrust kick with a clearing effect.
Sean


----------



## RevIV (Feb 28, 2007)

Hand Sword said:


> Alright. Since it wasn't decided to be done away with, rather less focussed on, I guess we can keep the axe kick, here and there
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Def. like a stomp kick.. and do not get me wrong,, you won't see me getting my axe kick up on anyones collar bone, unless of course i have already got them on the ground..
Jesse


----------



## Hand Sword (Feb 28, 2007)

:rofl:

I hear ya on that philosophy!


----------



## Brother John (Feb 28, 2007)

MJS said:


> I was also thinking of an inner arch kick.  Good in close strike which can go to the knee and rake down the shin to the instep.


splitting hairs here, I know....but.....
wouldn't that be more in the catagory of a 'stomp'??

Your Brother
John


----------

