# What Ifs



## MJS (Mar 21, 2009)

In the "Toning down the techniques" thread, a segment of one of Docs replies caught my eye, so rather than sidetrack that thread, I thought I'd start a new one, and pick his brain a bit more.  Of course, anyone else is free to comment as well. 

In this post, I asked the following question:


"True. Now, we've all been thru the commercial vs non commercial debates, so I'll ask you this: I'm going to say that Doc is not running a commercial school. Correct me if I'm wrong on this. So, if thats the case, how does his initial instruction compare to a commercial school? Does he have people doing forms for 2-3 yrs before showing an application?"

to which the reply was:

*The interpretation of Kenpo I was taught and teach, as well as all of the Ed Parker Lineage, is technique based, not forms based, so the idea of doing forms for years before knowing what they mean is a foreign concept. My teaching is absolutely grounded in a working understanding of hard basic applications. Not only do you need to have a consistent neutral bow as an example, you must know the base associated footwork, and be capable of performing it without being knocked off your axis under extreme pressure. That is a curriculum mandate. Everything that you are taught, you must be able to perform under realistic conditions, and may not move on until you can demonstrate it consistently. There are no "what if" scenarios. "There is no try, you must do." My female students especially appreciate the approach.*

Now, the part that caught my eye was towards the end, with the comment: There are no 'what if' scenarios.

Now, we usually hear that we need to get the base techniques down first, and then worry about the what ifs, the "Well, what if the bad guy does this or that, then what?" type of questions.  I was taught, and always hear that that is what the extensions were for...to address those situations.

Now, perhaps, and please correct me if I'm reading wrong, but I took that part of Docs post as....the base technique should be all thats needed.  The opponent should not be allowed or able to do anything else, and if they can, then the base wasn't done correctly.  

So, my question for Doc, his students and everyone else is...did I sum that post up correctly?  Do you teach the extensions?  Why/why not?


----------



## Hand Sword (Mar 21, 2009)

My problem, considers the overall idea of perfection. The response can be taken as this is all we need, because if we do it right, the results are "X." I feel there is some to maybe a lot of truth in that philosophy, and there is no doubt that perfect practice leads to desired results. However, what sticks me is the under real conditions idea. Now, I don't mean that training a certain way can't be used for real. Far from that. So, please don't take it as anyway else. The issue is that there is no such thing as a constant. There are always glitches that happen, even under the best set up and controlled situations. There are too many variables that come into play under real situations. What if's are going to happen no matter what.

I also take the idea of one's work/life experience combined with the hard training. As an example, law enforcement/security related. Most of the time in those areas you can to a certain point dictate to another and get responses or put yourself in a position to achieve a consistent patterned response. Eventually, it becomes almost second nature or instinctive. A dojo consisting of that type of clientele will develop a system/ ideology that is different from anything else.  Average people training and living their lives develop very little of those attributes. What if's are viable in generating the development of the martial mind.


----------



## suicide (Mar 21, 2009)

what if the opponent pulls out a ak47 ? what ifs are endless :BSmeter:


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Mar 21, 2009)

As a typical Gemini, I'm of two minds about it. First off, Mike, I think you kinda nailed it in your description. The techniques and basics in SL4 are trained to be effectively foolproof. In a given context, you use your body thusly, and can reasonably expect response X from the attacker. Seems like Fiction? Let's train the hell out of it against guys who are resistant, and see what happens.

Many of the guys at Docs are LEO. So the next level of feedback would be...did they try it? Did it work? Do they show up at school saying, "Doc, dude, you bum-steered me with that whole thing...I used my body thusly, and the heavily tatted, well-muscled and street-seasoned gang-rat ducked my gig and kicked the crap outta me; thank god for back-up, or I might not have made it home to my family." But that's not what they're coming home saying. They show up saying, "Doc, dude...worked just like in practice".

So, how do we rectify these results with the positive results of guys who do train what-if scenarios? Easy. Even the guys in the commercial cirriculum who stay in it long enough to *intelligently* explore the options in the what-if's, have been in it long enough to develop the actual *skills and abilities* that result from *dilligent* training. In other words, the SKILL of blocking is developed by wrangling with the material and -- over years of practice -- having thrown thousands of blocks. The SKILL tells us...it doesn't matter if we use an inward or outward, position-dependent: It matters that you get your hands up between his fist and your head.

Technique drills are a context for discussion, practice, and the development of procedural skills sets. The physical ability to do some thing X (like protect your head). Some X's are more effective when evaluated along a scale, based on certain criteria. There are conditions where an Inward Block would be a better selection than an outward. But...did you get your hands up? Is your nose stilll straight, your jaw not sideways, and your eyes still open?

In the motion kenpo model, we use the what-if's to prompt higher-level thinking about the material....basically, to sneakily push you to *interact more with the material.* Because *the more you interact with it, the better you're going to get at the SKILLS that result from practice*. 

Motion Model: Let's do Star Block Set a dozen times, then look at category completion of inward versus outward blocks, against left versus right punches, moving to inside versus outside lines. Result? The skill of getting a block up between his fist and your head, developed by having thrown a thousand in those marathon workouts. SL4 model: While y'all do that, we're just gonna practice stepping into a really solid neutral bow with a really stable inward block....a couple thousand times. Result? The skill of getting a hand up between his fist, and your head.

Now, as a kenpoist raised in the motion model, lovin the SL4 model, but not getting enough time on the mat with it (so I still train in my motion material, and teach mostly motion stuff with some SL inserted for better basics and movement chaining), I prefer the stability of the SL4 inward block. I get my hands up, but I also pay greater attention to where on the bad guy the block makes contact, at what angle, what the path of penetration is, how my body posture and the timing of my movements during the step and block beef up the desired effects, etc. So when I land it, I've messed with his game a lot more than I have with many of the motion-model blocks. I like messing with his game.

In both cases, *skill development is a by-product of programming procedural memory to be respondent to context-dependent environmental stimuli* (neither is gonna start throwing blocks in the air because they decided they want a Starbucks mocha, instead of a latte' ... wrong context). In both cases, how we work on the skill...what we want as the result, and what we're gonna do to get it... are different. "What if" scenarios in the motion model are meant to get you to consider different stimuli, so you broaden your training arena, compelling you to interact with the material more. One is never, ever, ever supposed to try to flip through the mental rolodex of 154 techniques + extensions + what-if's, to pick the "right one". Practice of the aforementioned is supposed to have engrained in you an ability to apply basics. Your own intelligence is supposed to prime you to respond in a spontaneous phase reaction, applying the right tool for the right job. This is the same intelligence that permits us to dialogue about intangibles such as logic, justice, imagination, pity, hope, patience, and belief. Absent this intelligence, Humanity is nothing more than a bunch of poorly coordinated monkeys that keep falling out of trees. So...kenpo, as the thinking-mans pugilistic art, provides us an opportunity to use this intelligence, priming it with an aim towards application in non-concrete contexts: Nobody will ever feed me the stimulus for Heavenly Ascent perfectly right, at the precise time I'm thinking about wondering what it's like to use it. 

Oddly, some of the same applications of rehearsal, prosedural memory, and applied intelligence apply in many ways with SL4. We learn techniques. More important than the techniques are the basics within the techniques, and the skills developed at *delivering those basics*. I know I never expect to get through an SL4 tech on a bad guy. Mainly, I expect to whack him once, mebbe twice, and be done with it. Because of where and how I whacked him, and what I did with my body WHILE I whacked him to make it an exceptionally hard whack. Leading to a shorter answer for the other questions: No, we don't do the extensions. In motion model, more interaction with diversity is used to engender skills. In SL4 model, I.D. the key-core critical skills, and train for them. Instead of doing an X on a horizontal plane, cuz we already did one on the vertical plane earlier, ask: What is the purpose of the strikes in the X? To knock the guy out? Great. Instead of studying possible motion patterns in extensions, let's study knockouts so that the first moves get it right. 

Ah, but wait. The extensions also carry patterns of angles of disturbance and such to lower carriage targets, Why? To teach destabilization and improve compliance? SL4: Idea...let's make a study out of how to destabilize and force compliance from the moments of first contact (hence, doing that Inward Block thousands of times, paying attention to where and how it lands, striving for specific effect). If every cause has an effect, shouldn't every effect have a cause? Great! Let's reverse engineer effects for causes, then implement those findings into the "how to" part of the basics!

In other words, the need for the extensions gets obviated by spending the time working on skill development. Focus on "get better at your stuff, to get more out of it", instead of "get more stuff to get better at it".

Windy, but whaddya expect: I wrote it.

D.


----------



## KenpoDave (Mar 21, 2009)

MJS said:


> Now, perhaps, and please correct me if I'm reading wrong, but I took that part of Docs post as....the base technique should be all thats needed. The opponent should not be allowed or able to do anything else, and if they can, then the base wasn't done correctly.


 
That is how I have been taught.


----------



## marlon (Mar 29, 2009)

[/quote]
Now, perhaps, and please correct me if I'm reading wrong, but I took that part of Docs post as....the base technique should be all thats needed. The opponent should not be allowed or able to do anything else, and if they can, then the base wasn't done correctly. 

So, my question for Doc, his students and everyone else is...did I sum that post up correctly? Do you teach the extensions? Why/why not?

[/quote]


Before i had the pleasure of asking Doc some questions and taking the time to study his responses, i never thought about this area and now i teach that the first part of the base technique done correctly should obviate finishing the technique. The rest of the technique (and i would imagine extensions) are taught as indexes of knowledge. also, the part of the technique one uses (in SKK at least) does not necessarily start from the beginning so the 'rest' of the technique can be applied as needed like a part of a form / mini form to be applied as needed. the whole form (technique) is learned and practiced with precise and specific execution so that when needed it or what ever part of it 'comes out' the right way, effectively correctly and smoothly.

Respectfully,
Marlon


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 31, 2009)

MJS said:


> In the "Toning down the techniques" thread, a segment of one of Docs replies caught my eye, so rather than sidetrack that thread, I thought I'd start a new one, and pick his brain a bit more. Of course, anyone else is free to comment as well.
> 
> In this post, I asked the following question:
> 
> ...


Extensions are not the answers to a "what if". They are simply collections and or busy work. 
Sean


----------



## Matt (Mar 31, 2009)

I often encounter what-if questions. They are infrequently useful, but most of the time they spiral to silliness. That's why I introduce radioactive monkeys early on, usually in a van, with machine guns. Because after that, 'what if he has a bottle instead of a knife' sounds pretty stupid. 

What if there's two of them and you have a cold? What if a van load of radioactive monkeys armed with machine guns attack you? Sharks with lasers? Jedi Squirrels? Now we're really in trouble....

If radioactive monkeys don't work, I fall back on, "Then you die."


----------



## Stephen Kurtzman (Apr 1, 2009)

MJS said:


> Now, the part that caught my eye was towards the end, with the comment: There are no 'what if' scenarios.
> 
> Now, we usually hear that we need to get the base techniques down first, and then worry about the what ifs, the "Well, what if the bad guy does this or that, then what?" type of questions.  I was taught, and always hear that that is what the extensions were for...to address those situations.
> 
> ...



What-ifs have nothing to do with the extensions.

The extensions are all ideal phase. Anything new in them (e.g. stomping on base of the spine in Dance of Death, etc.) is old in the sense that you learn no new basic skills. You are just applying the knowledge you should have gotten from the basics in differing situations.

As for the idea that WHAT-IFs are unnecessary because the base technique should work (or you are doing it wrong), I have to disagree.

First, I acknowledge that WHAT-IF questions from beginners are often misguided. I'm reminded of the student who I was loosely holding in an arm bar asking "What if I moved around like this and came back up at you?". That question was answered by "Okay, try it and let's see what happens", followed by him finding it quite difficult to "move around like this" when I was not being so light with the arm bar. It was still a teaching moment, but it wasn't exactly a WHAT-IF scenario.

WHAT-IFs should be simple. Rube-Goldberg-like complexity or incredible rubber-armed men that can throw a thrust punch at your stomach and strike you in the face are not realistic nor instructive. Good WHAT-IFs are simple variations from the ideal. What if the opponent isn't in the ideal position and I respond with this technique? What if the opponent's attack varies from the ideal attack? What if environmental factors don't allow me the freedom to move in that direction? What if I miss that check or this strike?

It is all fine and good to say that the ideal should work. But the real world isn't ideal. I don't think Mr. Parker would have brought the subject up if he thought it was only for those who can't make the ideal techniques work.

If you want to understand the importance of WHAT-IFs think about what you will learn by them. I don't mean think about the righteous variation on the ideal you will come up with. I mean what sensitivity to your opponent will be required for you to even detect you are not in an ideal situation? At the spontaneous level, Kenpo is using your training to respond to the dynamics of the encounter. You should not be thinking ideal and what-if at that point. In other words, WHAT-IFs give you a different perspective on developing sensitivity.

peace,
stephen


----------



## pete (Apr 1, 2009)

Touch Of Death said:


> Extensions are not the answers to a "what if". They are simply collections and or busy work. Sean


 only to those that do not understand them.

let me clarify: extensions provide explicit anwers to what-ifs, only when the instructor can explictly teach it.  the base techniques have the same answers, however they may not be in all cases as explicit. Therefore, the teacher of a 'base-only' syllabus must know how to teach an explicit lesson from what may only be implied in the base.

either case requires an instructor with a good understanding of the material. basically comes down to a teaching choice.

pete


----------



## pete (Apr 1, 2009)

Stephen Kurtzman said:


> What-ifs have nothing to do with the extensions.


 not so. as i was taught, they do.





Stephen Kurtzman said:


> The extensions are all ideal phase.


 no so, as i was taught, the extensions support the ideal and provide ideas for changes in environment and target availability during the course of the altercation.





Stephen Kurtzman said:


> Anything new in them (e.g. stomping on base of the spine in Dance of Death, etc.) is old in the sense that you learn no new basic skills. You are just applying the knowledge you should have gotten from the basics in differing situations.


 agree.





Stephen Kurtzman said:


> As for the idea that WHAT-IFs are unnecessary because the base technique should work (or you are doing it wrong), I have to disagree.
> 
> First, I acknowledge that WHAT-IF questions from beginners are often misguided. I'm reminded of the student who I was loosely holding in an arm bar asking "What if I moved around like this and came back up at you?". That question was answered by "Okay, try it and let's see what happens", followed by him finding it quite difficult to "move around like this" when I was not being so light with the arm bar. It was still a teaching moment, but it wasn't exactly a WHAT-IF scenario.


 that is a good example of developing the skill level to execute the base tech correctly.  What-ifs can occur when either (a) your opponent is more skilled, (b) the situation causes you to respond below your optimal skill level (surprise, fear, etc), (c) the environment presents an unexpected challenge, (d) the situation changes during the course of the altercation. 

correspondingly (a) train diligently to the highest level of skill you can, and do not underestimate your opponent, (b) train the mind to dissolve/release emotional blockages that can impede your performance, (c) train the mind for calm awareness so that you can process sensatory messages (d) train sensitivity exercises to be able to better respond to changes that occur.

pete


----------



## MJS (Apr 1, 2009)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:


> As a typical Gemini, I'm of two minds about it. First off, Mike, I think you kinda nailed it in your description. The techniques and basics in SL4 are trained to be effectively foolproof. In a given context, you use your body thusly, and can reasonably expect response X from the attacker. Seems like Fiction? Let's train the hell out of it against guys who are resistant, and see what happens.
> 
> Many of the guys at Docs are LEO. So the next level of feedback would be...did they try it? Did it work? Do they show up at school saying, "Doc, dude, you bum-steered me with that whole thing...I used my body thusly, and the heavily tatted, well-muscled and street-seasoned gang-rat ducked my gig and kicked the crap outta me; thank god for back-up, or I might not have made it home to my family." But that's not what they're coming home saying. They show up saying, "Doc, dude...worked just like in practice".
> 
> ...


 
Sorry I'm so late in getting back to this. Well, as always, I can always count on a well thought out, extremely detailed answer. Thank you Dave! 

Alot to process here, so I'm going to try to sum up a few things:

So, I'm safe to assume that the SL4 folks really seem to focus more on refining the basics? Not saying this is a bad thing, but I'm taking it as they're focusing more than the average commercial school would? As well as really working on hitting the proper target to get the maximum results.

So in a nutshell, again, if I'm reading right, the SL4 model is pretty failsafe? In other words, the 'what if' is totally taken out of the equation because it'll never get to that point? I'm also going to assume that at no point has this ever failed?

Why don't the motion or commercial schools focus on this?  I mean, if the extensions are really not needed, and what is really needed is just more work on basics, why isn't it done?  

Mike


----------



## MJS (Apr 1, 2009)

KenpoDave said:


> That is how I have been taught.


 
Dave,

In the Tracy system there are obviously many more techs. than the 154.  I've seen Tech. 1 with a,b,c,d,e,f after it.  Would those be considered extensions or just more parts to the tech?  In other words, Headlock A may be just 2 moves, B is those same 2 moves with 2 more added on, etc.


----------



## MJS (Apr 1, 2009)

Touch Of Death said:


> Extensions are not the answers to a "what if". They are simply collections and or busy work.
> Sean


 
Umm...ok.  Would you care to elaborate more on this?


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 1, 2009)

MJS said:


> Dave,
> 
> In the Tracy system there are obviously many more techs. than the 154. I've seen Tech. 1 with a,b,c,d,e,f after it. Would those be considered extensions or just more parts to the tech? In other words, Headlock A may be just 2 moves, B is those same 2 moves with 2 more added on, etc.


 
Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

In the Headlock example, the A, B, and C are against different types of headlock grabs.  They address different ways that someone might apply a headlock to you, and the resulting positions you might find yourself in.

Some techs don't "add on" with the variations, but they give other finishing options.  These might be used depending on the position of the attacker at that point, and they help the student recognize that that can be an issue.  Crash of the Eagle comes to mind with that.

Other techniques do sort of add on a bit.  I'm not very familiar with the extensions used by the later lineages.  I think I've seen a bit of them on the web, but I've never seen them up close.  But from what I've seen, I'd say the Tracy variations are not nearly so extensive in what they are adding on, as the extensions are.  Winding Elbows comes to mind with that.


----------



## MJS (Apr 1, 2009)

Stephen Kurtzman said:


> What-ifs have nothing to do with the extensions.


 
Guess we were taught differently.  



> The extensions are all ideal phase. Anything new in them (e.g. stomping on base of the spine in Dance of Death, etc.) is old in the sense that you learn no new basic skills. You are just applying the knowledge you should have gotten from the basics in differing situations.
> 
> As for the idea that WHAT-IFs are unnecessary because the base technique should work (or you are doing it wrong), I have to disagree.
> 
> ...


 
I guess I'm viewing it like this....we hope that what we do initially will work.  We hope that by hitting someone in a certain spot, a certain way, etc that the desired results will be acheived.  But IMO, and this is what I asked Dave (Kembudo kai) but is there any possibility that this could fail?  So, assuming that it did, and the person did something else, we're going to need something else to fall back on.  Therefore that is why I do the extensions.


----------



## MJS (Apr 1, 2009)

pete said:


> only to those that do not understand them.
> 
> let me clarify: extensions provide explicit anwers to what-ifs, only when the instructor can explictly teach it. the base techniques have the same answers, however they may not be in all cases as explicit. Therefore, the teacher of a 'base-only' syllabus must know how to teach an explicit lesson from what may only be implied in the base.
> 
> ...


 


pete said:


> not so. as i was taught, they do. no so, as i was taught, the extensions support the ideal and provide ideas for changes in environment and target availability during the course of the altercation. agree. that is a good example of developing the skill level to execute the base tech correctly. What-ifs can occur when either (a) your opponent is more skilled, (b) the situation causes you to respond below your optimal skill level (surprise, fear, etc), (c) the environment presents an unexpected challenge, (d) the situation changes during the course of the altercation.
> 
> correspondingly (a) train diligently to the highest level of skill you can, and do not underestimate your opponent, (b) train the mind to dissolve/release emotional blockages that can impede your performance, (c) train the mind for calm awareness so that you can process sensatory messages (d) train sensitivity exercises to be able to better respond to changes that occur.
> 
> pete


 
Good points Pete, especially with your 2nd post.  The beginning of your 2nd post, you listed a-d.  This is why I asked about whether or not there was any room for failure with the SL4 model.  As I said, we can hope that what we do will work, but as you pointed out, and I agree, other things may dictate what we can/can't do.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 1, 2009)

I have long thought that the extended version should be the regular version, because at low levels, the beginner would need to land more hits.

the advanced person shouldnt need as many hits, and should default to a shorter version.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Apr 1, 2009)

MJS said:


> Sorry I'm so late in getting back to this. Well, as always, I can always count on a well thought out, extremely detailed answer. Thank you Dave!
> 
> Alot to process here, so I'm going to try to sum up a few things:
> 
> ...


 
I wrote a lengthy response over on kenpotalk on SL4 and grappling. Used 5 Swords as an example, in which the SL4 model pre-engineers what-if's into the positions, responses, anatomical checks, etc. I'd post a link, but kinda suck at it. 

Consider Inward Block. Typical kenpo class = hit a horse stance, 10 inward blocks on teachers count, before moving onto the other blocks for each belt level, mebbe blocking set, mebbe short 1, then 2, then Long 1, etc. In an SL4 class, we'll spend an hour being tutored on how to properly step into a right NB with Rt. Inward Block, including all sorts of odd things we do to make our own body stronger and more stable during the execution (for kicks, lets be minimalistic and say "Doc has us add the Parker stomp and slap checks". There's more than that, but it'll do for now). The next couple hours will be spent doing that same motion against numerous attacks, exploring what happens when you target different parts. 

New meaning of What If: What if I do this hammering block to the biceps? Shoulder joint just south of where the humerus bone leaves the shoulder joint? What about just into the clavicle? Acromioclavicular joint? Each of these against a pusg vs a punch vs a club attack vs a bum rushing bearhug vs a...you get the point. Different depths of penetration at each target are explored, as are the effects of different directions of umph with various depths of penetration, each having a different effect on the skeletal response of the attacker.

So, by the end of the night, you will have delivered hundreds of solid inward blocks to guys coming at you full-bore or darned near it (we only hold back until you get it, then we try and knock you over or knock you down...realistic practice prepares one better for realistic application). Next day, feel like you've been in a couple of low-speed car wrecks, all in one night. Shoulders hurt; neck feels whiplashed; legs are sore, bruises cover your arms, shoulders, chest, etc. But you by-gosh know HOW to throw a reinforced, braced, and rock-solid inward block against pretty much any attack against which you'd like to know one. And the sessions will also include throwing on chestplates, shooting on each other, turning the IB into a defense against a shoot by dropping the elbow into the nerve bundles in the crotch of the neck, and other fun apps.

This will go on for 3 to 6 hours, for one nights workout. Maybe, Doc will add some follow-up strikes, making an AOD drill out of it for some extra eye-hand coordination, and asundry other reasons. So then, the next class session (god forbid you missed Tuesday night, or you'll be lost on Thursday night) you'll do 3 hours of hammering on each other in full-out "step-slap-stomp-hammer" sequences against any number of attacks (knife, ball-bat, punch, push, shoot, etc.), followed by 3 more hours of his hubud-like AOD drills (ain't hubud, but prolly the easiest way to describe the give-&-take nature of the AOD drills to someone who may have an FMA background). Compare this to the 10 inward blocks from a horse stance, in an hour-long session that also has blocking set 1 and 2 to cover, teaching a whole class a series of dance steps with little to no CONTACT RESISTANCE training.

Different assumptions lead to different training approaches. Different approaches yield different practical outcomes of training. It's still an inward block; it's still kenpo; it's still just stepping forward into a right neutral bow with a reinforced right inward block. But the training model that extends from the different underlying starting positions is what sets it apart, in my mind. I kid you not: Doc has guys who will have spent more mat hours between 2nd and 1st degree brown, than most kenpo black belts will have spent on the mat working for their first degree black belt. But it's not just the time at task that makes the difference; it's what the tasks themselves consist of.

And that's just the lonely Inward Block...now what about the rest of the 5 Swords technique? By the time you've put in the months it takes to get the SL4 minutae "right" in Docs version of 5 Swords, it's a much more formidable version than the one being raced through by guys who are on the mat 2, maybe 4 hours a week, never taking the time to explore the basics, applied in isolation. I don't know if "failsafe" applies, as much as training for planned success, rather than planned failure. And putting in the challenges to see if it works, then the training to embed it into automaticity.

Hoped it helped,

D.


----------



## Stephen Kurtzman (Apr 1, 2009)

MJS said:


> I guess I'm viewing it like this....we hope that what we do initially will work.  We hope that by hitting someone in a certain spot, a certain way, etc that the desired results will be acheived.  But IMO, and this is what I asked Dave (Kembudo kai) but is there any possibility that this could fail?  So, assuming that it did, and the person did something else, we're going to need something else to fall back on.  Therefore that is why I do the extensions.



My problem with this is that the extensions do not anticipate the opponent "did something else". They anticipate the opponent is in the exact position they would be at the end of a perfectly executed base technique. How would you do the extension to, say, Dance of Death, if the opponent did something else? If they aren't on their back with their right foot held with your left hand, how would you flip them? How would you do the extension to Leaping Crane if the opponent isn't on their knees with their head sandwiched between your hand and your elbow?

peace,
stephen


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 1, 2009)

thats where grafting comes in.

if you really know your techniques, you can flow from one to another as the situation changes.


----------



## Stephen Kurtzman (Apr 2, 2009)

Twin Fist,

I agree. What-ifs give you mechanical practice in applying principles such as grafting, insertion, deletion, etc. based on the situation as it differs from the ideal. Which, as gets back to my original point, should be very much a sensitivity exercise.

peace,
stephen


----------



## pete (Apr 2, 2009)

Stephen Kurtzman said:


> My problem with this is that the extensions do not anticipate the opponent "did something else". They anticipate the opponent is in the exact position they would be at the end of a perfectly executed base technique. How would you do the extension to, say, Dance of Death, if the opponent did something else? If they aren't on their back with their right foot held with your left hand, how would you flip them? How would you do the extension to Leaping Crane if the opponent isn't on their knees with their head sandwiched between your hand and your elbow?
> 
> peace,
> stephen


 
you really did not LEARN the extensions, did you?


----------



## Stephen Kurtzman (Apr 2, 2009)

pete said:


> you really did not LEARN the extensions, did you?



Actually, I did at the Pasadena studio under Messrs. Girard and Trejo. But you take what you've learned as gospel and reject other ideas. That's the Kenpo spirit!

peace,
stephen


----------



## pete (Apr 2, 2009)

Stephen Kurtzman said:


> ...you take what you've learned as gospel and reject other ideas. That's the Kenpo spirit!


 Actually, you made the following definitive statements:



			
				Stephen Kurtzman said:
			
		

> What-ifs have nothing to do with the extensions


 and 





			
				Stephen Kurtzman said:
			
		

> The extensions are all ideal phase


 and 





			
				Stephen Kurtzman said:
			
		

> the extensions do not anticipate the opponent "did something else".


 
seems like the pot is calling mr black a kettle.

couple of questions to ponder:
1. Triggered Salute: why is the target of the final strike in the base tech changed when leading into the extension?

2. Lone Kimono: why does the direction of the circle made by the right palm continue counter-clockwise after the break/hyperextend in the extension, when in the base tech it reverses direction?

I will listen and learn if these questions can be answered and still maintain your 3 definitive statements... in the spirit of kenpo, i am all ears.

pete.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 2, 2009)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:


> I kid you not: Doc has guys who will have spent more mat hours between 2nd and 1st degree brown, than most kenpo black belts will have spent on the mat working for their first degree black belt.
> 
> D.


 
Hi Dave,

I'm curious as to how you define "mat hours".  

Is that strictly time spent with the instructor, or do you also count time outside of class when a student is practicing on his own?

thanks.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Apr 2, 2009)

Let me try saying this about the extensions as a "what if", or the "what if's" as what-if's. In the old instruction manuals, you'll find at the tail end of the write up, several bullet points. Among them, prescribed "what if's". These were there to teach you how to be flexible in applying the basics within the techniques. "What if his left foot is forward, instead of his right? What if the push is more to the centerline than side? What if his arm is bent and tense, instead of straight?".

These are included because they are meant to be explored. Exploration encourages critical thinking. More interaction with the material. This, in turn (and here's the big part kids) encourages spontaneous reaction capability: The ultimate goal of all that thoughtful training we done as kenpo students. That I have from the horses mouth itself. Not to mention, you can find it in his books. Just look. We were never, ever, ever meant to apply the techs as written, but merely use them as practice opportunities to develop the skills we would congeal into an ability to respond on the fly. Informed spontaneity.

Let's say...just to beat it to death some more...5 Swords. The base tech is there in the training mauals of the IKKA, written by Mr. Parker, or in conjunction with him, under his supervision, and subject to his ongoing and constant edits. So are lists of What-Ifs. Also put there by him, or added in future edits, based on his supervision. The description for the base will include something like "and cover out to X:30" in the description. In the notes for the extension, the moves will pick up somwhere between the last strike, and the coverout. Followed by more what-if's. What if the kick to the back of the knee fails to force the attacker down? How else might we cancel his height from this position? etc.

So...since they are both in the teaching manuals of the IKKA -- the what-if's AND the extensions, with MORE what if's attached to the extensions -- should I assume they are meant to be exclusive of each other, or all part of detailed study of the AK system?

The extensions are really not a what if -- we have those already. They are also not meant to be your fallback in the event you sucked so bad at the ideal, that your bad guy is still standing: Honestly, if he's still standing, go back to orange belt and work on your basics, and power principles, cuz your basics blow. They ARE meant to provide further opportunity of deeper exploration into the concepts and principles of kenpo. 

Great example = Hooking Wings. We have that "in-out-up-down" pattern in the beginning with the hands, then in the extension we repeat that pattern in a turned mirror/reverse motion kind of way with the feet. We also get to explore what happens when we strike deeply enough with the kicks to effect strike manipulation...having the bad guy where we need him on later kicks, because we hit him hard enough to put him there with earlier kicks. Or, alternately, it's just some bunch of moves put together to waste your time and take your money. (there's always that argument)

Now, except for the forst 32, I don't do the extensions anymore, and I'll be glad to tell you why. Staying with the example of HW...I can spend a half hour on dialing in on the clever angles, paths, timing, etc., in the extension, or I could spend that half hour working the "Inward-Downward Hammerfist with Mariage of Gravity" part at the beginning -- on a heavy bag, makiwara, focus mitts, etc. In my mind, each prepares me for a different ability. If I'm jumped in the parking lot on the way home, the extension will have prepared me to apply some clever approaches to Cat Com, controlling the lower case, destroying the attackers base -- and with that -- creating new targets of opportunity (don't miss that kids....it was a joke of Mr. Parkers..."I'm going to create a target of opportunity") -- etc. Or, I can just nail him in the TMJ with my 230 pounds with the same hammerfist I just did 1000 times against hard, resistant surfaces. *No matter what he comes at me with*. Because one of the SKILLS of exploring the WHAT-IF's of Hooking Wings is the ability to intercept an attack, clear the attackers hands from an ability to defend against an impending counter, and *create a target of opportunity*.

In one case, I've explored options, learned some twicksie stuff, and looked pretty cool for a spell in the mirrors. In the other case, I've tempered a weapon. I've hammered on heated iron to make it steel, and now I'm blasting my attacker in the side of the head with that steel weapon I've created. In other words, I personally prefer the iron-worker approach to the watch-maker approach. What can I say: I'd rather be a barbarian viking with a hammer, than a noble frenchman with a rapier. They are all still tools of destruction; it's just preference.

In short, the what-if's and extensions aren't either/or if you wish to practice the complete system. Both are necessary to understand, appreciate, and teach the reach and breadth of the Ed Parker system of Kenpo Karate. But what-if's are not extensions, and the extensions are not what-if's. What they BOTH are is more opportunity to interact with the concepts, principles, and applications of the basics, so you can develop the skills and abilities to make this stuff up on the spot, as needed. Informed spontaneity.

Be well,

Dave

Doubt it? Look it up. Ask around. Read the old mans written stuff, and interview the ancients still around who ran with him. You are never supposed to make it through a technique. You aren't even supposed to be trying to think about which technique applies while you are under attack. Finger pointing to the moon, folks. Look at the moon, not the finger.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Apr 2, 2009)

Flying Crane said:


> Hi Dave,
> 
> I'm curious as to how you define "mat hours".
> 
> ...


 
In Docs student manual, one of the requirements is time spent practicing on your own. But that's not the hours I'm referring to. By "Mat hours", I'm referring to being in the studio, either actively in class, off in a corner with a training partner working on material, or off in a corner working on a set, form, etc., with Doc eye-balling you from that darned chair of his. Which he never stays in. You might get yelled at once or twice, but all you have to do is wait a minute, and he'll holler, "You're doin' it all wrong", and heave up outta that chair to come over and tune you up a bit.


----------



## Stephen Kurtzman (Apr 2, 2009)

pete said:


> seems like the pot is calling mr black a kettle.



Not quite, Pete. 

It is possible to disagree in absolute terms without calling into question the character of the poster. I did not implicitly call him a liar by questioning whether he learned what he learned. That is what you did in your response to me. There is a difference.

One can disagree with an open mind. It is hard to name call with an open mind.

Please refer to Dr. Crouch's discourse on What-ifs. He expressed my understanding more eloquently than did I.

peace,
stephen


----------



## pete (Apr 2, 2009)

Nobody is calling anyone a liar... I just think it ironic for you to state so factually and accuse others of not being open minded.

To that point, I've quoted 3 statements you made and provided specific examples where, as I've been taught, disprove your statements.  

In the spirit of Kenpo (your words again), I've asked 2 questions relative to those specific examples, to which you've chosen not to address.  Instead, you've chosen to dig in and distract the discussion with fluff about an open mind... 

here they are again, I remain receptive to your answers...



> 1. Triggered Salute: why is the target of the final strike in the base tech changed when leading into the extension?
> 
> 2. Lone Kimono: why does the direction of the circle made by the right palm continue counter-clockwise after the break/hyperextend in the extension, when in the base tech it reverses direction?


 
pete


----------



## MJS (Apr 2, 2009)

Flying Crane said:


> Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
> 
> In the Headlock example, the A, B, and C are against different types of headlock grabs. They address different ways that someone might apply a headlock to you, and the resulting positions you might find yourself in.
> 
> ...


 

Sounds pretty much like the Parker system, only difference being, is that instead of an a,b,c, etc. there are just different techs. for each situation.  From what I've seen in the version of the Tracy system that I train in, there seems to be both.


----------



## MJS (Apr 2, 2009)

Stephen Kurtzman said:


> My problem with this is that the extensions do not anticipate the opponent "did something else". They anticipate the opponent is in the exact position they would be at the end of a perfectly executed base technique. How would you do the extension to, say, Dance of Death, if the opponent did something else? If they aren't on their back with their right foot held with your left hand, how would you flip them? How would you do the extension to Leaping Crane if the opponent isn't on their knees with their head sandwiched between your hand and your elbow?
> 
> peace,
> stephen


 
I think someone else mentioned it already, but this is really where the grafting would come into play.  The techniques are not set in stone, and IMO, neither are the extensions.  I view them as just one option, however, I don't think that we should be bound by that particular ext.  Additionally, anything extra that we add onto a tech. is really an extension to address a what if.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 2, 2009)

MJS said:


> Umm...ok. Would you care to elaborate more on this?


While, yes, the extensions contain information, I would consider them more as references to an area of study. I suppose I find my self in the agreement that the basic motion of the original techs are just repeated over and over based on point of origin or the return motion habbits of the martial arts practitoner. The teqniques themselves are all ideas of motion meant to be studied and expanded upon -- not -- with extra moves, but experience, study, and a basic familiarity with what ever story a teqnique is in reference to. 
Sean


----------



## Stephen Kurtzman (Apr 2, 2009)

pete said:


> Nobody is calling anyone a liar... I just think it ironic for you to state so factually and accuse others of not being open minded.



Pete, you were the one who attacked me. I've no interest in fighting with you.

The matter at hand is "What-ifs". The extensions are not what-ifs. Dr. Crouch expressed my view better than I did. If you wish to disagree to be disagreeable, find someone who will play with you.

peace,
stephen


----------



## Stephen Kurtzman (Apr 2, 2009)

MJS said:


> Additionally, anything extra that we add onto a tech. is really an extension to address a what if.



I think we are not speaking the same language.

If at the end of the base technique, the man is in the position predicted by the ideal phase, what "What if" is being addressed by continuing to strike him? What I was taught is that "What-ifs" are used to analyze variations from the ideal. Extending a technique is not varying from the ideal. It is extending the ideal.

peace,
stephen


----------



## Stephen Kurtzman (Apr 2, 2009)

pete said:


> I've asked 2 questions relative to those specific examples, to which you've chosen not to address.



Pete, in the spirit of shutting down your distraction of trying to challenge me, the way I learned the extensions, there is no difference. You clearly learned different extensions.

peace,
stephen


----------



## SL4Drew (Apr 2, 2009)

MJS said:


> So, my question for Doc, his students and everyone else is...did I sum that post up correctly? Do you teach the extensions? Why/why not?


 
Doc never taught the extensions. He didn't think much of them. What he used to do (and what made/makes more sense to me) is to 'graft' instead. You graft on some sequence you already knew from elsewhere onto the end of the technique. I don't know for sure if he began this before Mr. Parker died, but it certainly didn't begin much later.

That being said, he ultimately dropped even those. I have to agree with the previous observation that they are busy work, primarily to keep students in the schools and keep instructors teaching and charging. Doc has always emphasized a solid base. So, as you might guess the base technique gets the most attention. He demands that it be supremely functional and capable of standing on its own. Dr. Dave spoke on this at length. I'll just add a bit from my own point of view.

The base is where it is at. That's what you train. It's what you do most often. It is most likely going to be where you begin to operate from. I feel the base is especially important in situations where you are entwined with your attacker, like a bear hug or lapel grab. The whole beginning sequence is about moving from the place of disadvantage your attacker has placed you in, to recovering, becoming stronger, and placing your attacker in a weakened position. This is extremely important to surviving 'hands on' assaults. So, you work the base hard to ensure that you do all those things. It just becomes instinctive.

In my experience, people want to rush past that and begin hitting the guy back. The extensions only encourage this. So, besides being a fantasy, they perpetuate a philosophy where you assume no matter how he puts his hands on you, there is no problem 'getting' free to start clobbering the attacker. When instead you approach things from Doc's direction, you'll find the what-if diminish to only a few true variables. This is because you are in a position of strength and the attacker is in a position of weakness when you begin to retaliate. You've limited his options and given your self a few things just to tee off on.


----------



## DavidCC (Apr 3, 2009)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:


> In Docs student manual



Coursebook.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Apr 3, 2009)

DavidCC said:


> Coursebook.


 
Thanks. It slipped.


----------



## DavidCC (Apr 3, 2009)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:


> Thanks. It slipped.



He'll getcha for that!


----------



## pete (Apr 3, 2009)

you can minimize the variables that can present a change from the ideal, but total elimination would mean perfection. well, i am sorry but nobody is perfect, and even if you can can come close to perfection on a good day... everyone has bad days.  face it, the simple fact that you are put into a position to use your martial training to protect yourself... it ain't a good day!

problem with a lot of kenpo around, is some kind of notion that the 'technique', base and/or extension, comes all as the result of a single stimulus: the initial attack. Fact is, practicing an extended sequence of strikes and maneuvers based on that initial instant will leave you with a huge gap in consciousness that may no longer apply to the here-and-now, and be used by your opponent to his advantage.

instead, each and every move in a technique is a prevention to being hit or controlled, a response to changes in the situation, or both.  the 'extensions' are ideas that provide more explicit examples of using kenpo to do this.  the extensions are not needed to do this, as it is all implied within the base techniques, but as i said earlier, they can provide a teaching tool for students and instructors who may not work as well with the abstract.

pete


----------



## MJS (Apr 5, 2009)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:


> Let me try saying this about the extensions as a "what if", or the "what if's" as what-if's. In the old instruction manuals, you'll find at the tail end of the write up, several bullet points. Among them, prescribed "what if's". These were there to teach you how to be flexible in applying the basics within the techniques. "What if his left foot is forward, instead of his right? What if the push is more to the centerline than side? What if his arm is bent and tense, instead of straight?".
> 
> These are included because they are meant to be explored. Exploration encourages critical thinking. More interaction with the material. This, in turn (and here's the big part kids) encourages spontaneous reaction capability: The ultimate goal of all that thoughtful training we done as kenpo students. That I have from the horses mouth itself. Not to mention, you can find it in his books. Just look. We were never, ever, ever meant to apply the techs as written, but merely use them as practice opportunities to develop the skills we would congeal into an ability to respond on the fly. Informed spontaneity.
> 
> ...


 
Been busy, but I didn't want to neglect this thread or this post.  Thanks again Dave for your input!   Question regarding the underlined part.  Maybe I'm just not reading right, but I take that then that while the extensions teach you to explore a bit more, even that is really not needed because if it the base is done right, you wont need to go any further.  

But, I can't help but to refer back to Petes last post and I know I touched on it in one of my earlier posts.  But, regardless of how much we drill the basics, what if, for lack of better words, something fails?  I mean, it seems to me, and again, maybe I'm just misunderstanding, but is it really possible to totally eliminate failure?  We've seen guys in the UFC fight 10 fights undefeated, and the 11th fight, they get KOd.


----------



## MJS (Apr 5, 2009)

Stephen Kurtzman said:


> I think we are not speaking the same language.
> 
> If at the end of the base technique, the man is in the position predicted by the ideal phase, what "What if" is being addressed by continuing to strike him? What I was taught is that "What-ifs" are used to analyze variations from the ideal. Extending a technique is not varying from the ideal. It is extending the ideal.
> 
> ...


 
If he is in the predicted response and everything is going according to plan, then no, we wouldn't need a what if.  But, if we didn't strike him hard enough to get the desired result, if we missed, we would need to adjust to that response.  

I get the impression that many of the textbook techs. are designed for a specific attack with specific movement by the attacker.  Opponent steps forward with right leg and throws a right punch.  Fine.  If the opponent throws a right cross, keeping his rt. back, we have no choice but to adapt, because anything that we had initially intended on doing to his right leg, is no cancelled altogether or limited.  So now, technically that tech. is no longer in the ideal phase.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Apr 5, 2009)

MJS said:


> Been busy, but I didn't want to neglect this thread or this post. Thanks again Dave for your input!  Question regarding the underlined part. Maybe I'm just not reading right, but I take that then that while the extensions teach you to explore a bit more, even that is really not needed because if it the base is done right, you wont need to go any further.
> 
> But, I can't help but to refer back to Petes last post and I know I touched on it in one of my earlier posts. But, regardless of how much we drill the basics, what if, for lack of better words, something fails? I mean, it seems to me, and again, maybe I'm just misunderstanding, but is it really possible to totally eliminate failure? We've seen guys in the UFC fight 10 fights undefeated, and the 11th fight, they get KOd.


 
No. It is not possible to eliminate the potential for failure. What is within our reach is the ability to prepare ourselves to do the best we can with what we have to work with. The extensions will not do that for you *any more* or *any less* than interaction with any of the basics in isolation, ideal phase training, or what-if scenarios.

There are basics: The actual moves we would block, strike, kick, move around with while responding to attack. There are concepts and principles demonstrated in plausible combinations of basics, meant to show us how the basics can be applied in different contexts (we call them "techniques"). Thanks to the exponential nature of basics in combination, we have a lot of techniques. And extensions.

But when the SHTF, we are not flipping the pages of a mental rolodex to see if we should be doing Reversing Mace or Repeating Mace. We are deflecting an attack so it doesn't hit us, then hitting back at what is naturally open, or at a target we purposefully opened. A SKILL & ABILITY developed by training in the techs.

The techniques are the chalkboard, not the lesson. Extensions? What-ifs? Sam ting. SPONTANEOUS PHASE is the desired goal. Responding intuitively and intelligently to sudden violence, with skills developed through practice, over time.

More important than the specific choreography is the focus, intent, earnestness, and studiousness you bring to your training sessions, while interacting with the material. It goes back to that whole "boxers only have a half-dozen blows" thing, but they train like maniacs on them.

Rich Hale tells a story relating a conversation he had with Mr. Parker about the extensions and complexity of later forms, sets, etc. Mr. Parker gruffly says, "Where do you think I would put my best stuff. At the end, where only the few guys who make it to black belt will interact with it, or at the beginning...where students of the system have to interact with it often? Each time they review. You can't get IN to an extension without going through the ideal...so it forces them to practice it some more, and interact with the material more often."

Cursory reading about the aorta in an anatomy book does not instill the same knowledge & level of understanding as spending 4 hours in the AM dissecting cadavers every morning for a week, followed by 2 hours reading the aorta chapter over and over, and 4 more hours ripping through flash cards over and over and over, learning every nuance about how many arteries split off the aorta and where, and what each is called. A year later, you may not remember all their names, but you sure as heck won't forget the general location and function of the aorta. Remembered moreso for all the extra attention you paid while overlearning, by *increased interaction with the material*.

In the IKKA instuctional manuals are "what if's". Questions that require you to think. To interact critically with the material, and develop specific skills in the process. Geared towards helping you become self-correcting, by learning how to think WHILE developing specific skills and abilities. Each time you explore and enact a what-if, you're hitting your stances, getting your hands up, throwing strikes HOPEFULLY with all of your power principles in place, and developing the eye-hand coordination to keep from getting bopped on the head, stuck with a knife, whacked with a club, whatever. The stuff you are doing with the basics WHILE you train is what develops the skills you will need when you are attacked.

If a guy swung a club at your head, and you missed which Storm tech perfectly fit the attack (Oh, crap...it is his right foot forward, or left? Is it a descending angle more than an inward? Where's his weight?), as long as you got your hands up, stepped offline, and hit the guy hard and often while checking his ability to use his weapon, I'd say you performed actual kenpo, perfectly. A skill gained subsequent to interaction with the material. Base, extension, what-if...doesn't mattter, as long as you are earnest in your engagement, and paying attention to the details in execution of the basics.

D.


----------



## Matt (Apr 5, 2009)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:


> The techniques are the chalkboard, not the lesson. Extensions? What-ifs? Sam ting.



That's a fantastic point. Often as teachers folks plan activities. That's the wrong way to start. Proper curriculum design starts with what we want students to know and be able to do. 

Then, you decide how you will know that they can do it, and then you figure out the way you will get them to know it. 

The techniques are the activities. Sort of like making something out of clay in art class. It's the making, not the mug.


----------



## MJS (Apr 5, 2009)

SL4Drew said:


> Doc never taught the extensions. He didn't think much of them. What he used to do (and what made/makes more sense to me) is to 'graft' instead. You graft on some sequence you already knew from elsewhere onto the end of the technique. I don't know for sure if he began this before Mr. Parker died, but it certainly didn't begin much later.
> 
> That being said, he ultimately dropped even those. I have to agree with the previous observation that they are busy work, primarily to keep students in the schools and keep instructors teaching and charging. Doc has always emphasized a solid base. So, as you might guess the base technique gets the most attention. He demands that it be supremely functional and capable of standing on its own. Dr. Dave spoke on this at length. I'll just add a bit from my own point of view.
> 
> ...


 
For the life of me, I don't understand...well, I understand to a point....why all schools don't train like this.  My teacher, Thank God, is a stickler for the basics, so this rubs off on the rest of the students.  Granted, its not the level that Doc is taking it, but at least its being drilled more than the average place.  

I would say in addition to wanting to move on quickly, as you said, and hit the person, people also assume that once they have the basic movements in a tech. that they're all set to move on.  They're not.

Hopefully, one of these days, I'll find my way to Ca. and train with you guys.  I'm sure it'll be an eye opening experience.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Apr 5, 2009)

Matt said:


> That's a fantastic point. Often as teachers folks plan activities. That's the wrong way to start. Proper curriculum design starts with what we want students to know and be able to do.
> 
> Then, you decide how you will know that they can do it, and then you figure out the way you will get them to know it.
> 
> The techniques are the activities. Sort of like making something out of clay in art class. It's the making, not the mug.


 

Wish I could take credit. But it's a Conatser thing. And in absolute keeping with the way Mr. P. thought and communicated, such that I wouldn't be surprised if that's where Mr. C. got it from.


----------



## Matt (Apr 5, 2009)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:


> Wish I could take credit. But it's a Conatser thing. And in absolute keeping with the way Mr. P. thought and communicated, such that I wouldn't be surprised if that's where Mr. C. got it from.



I can't take credit for it either. It's just one of those things teachers are expected to do. Hopefully it's catching on.


----------



## Doc (Apr 12, 2009)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

Instead he allowed the identity to be drawn from its many ideas, instead of fixed principles of execution as other arts. This was the contradiction. While he quietly worked on Phase One, American Kenpo, he promoted Phase One Motion-Kenpo which has no place in traditional teaching. He told people to rely on motion, rearranging, and tailoring, while asserting that "Ideals should be fixed," and created by teachers. We must remember Mr. Parker was growing as a martial artist. He himself was not "fixed," and continued to change often. Motion-kenpo was born in the late sixties, and became the problem child of his many versions of his art, because it was out-of-control, and there was nothing he could do about it that wouldn't destroy the business he created. 

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

Parker quotes continue; 

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is encumbered upon us with the knowledge to formulate proper ideals to ensure that these ideal techniques not only function, but cover all of the relevant and simply inherent possibilities of the action. Any major possibilities should be handled in alternate scenarios.

Nowhere in any of Ed Parkers writings does he make reference to the techniques in the manuals, or anywhere else being Ideal. He is speaking conceptually as he usually did. He was specific about the concept, not about the model.


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


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

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

You can't. 


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

You can't?

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

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


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

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

"What if his other foot is forward?"

Doesn't change anything.

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

You control his width when you execute properly.

"What if he tries to grapple."

The base controls the space.

"What if ......."

Shut up and train!


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Apr 12, 2009)

It's about time you chimed in.


----------



## Doc (Apr 12, 2009)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:


> It's about time you chimed in.



Me thinks your britches are getting a tad snug. It's time for you to get a good tuning up and an oil change, as I remind you of a few things.

Naw, I'll just wait and let Dr. Stone do it. After all, he actually comes to class, and at the rate you're going .......


----------



## MJS (Apr 18, 2009)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:


> No. It is not possible to eliminate the potential for failure. What is within our reach is the ability to prepare ourselves to do the best we can with what we have to work with. The extensions will not do that for you *any more* or *any less* than interaction with any of the basics in isolation, ideal phase training, or what-if scenarios.
> 
> There are basics: The actual moves we would block, strike, kick, move around with while responding to attack. There are concepts and principles demonstrated in plausible combinations of basics, meant to show us how the basics can be applied in different contexts (we call them "techniques"). Thanks to the exponential nature of basics in combination, we have a lot of techniques. And extensions.
> 
> ...


 


Doc said:


> What if? Consider this sirs; a well designed default scenario, (ideal), should already take these things into account. In my teaching, this is a given. Every technique scenario I teach, regardless of level, has a base realism component of canceling additional aggression. Not just on the initial assault, but throughout the sequence through to its conclusion.
> 
> In my view (supported by Parker), and the way I was taught by Mr. Parker, that is what the meaning of "ideal" is. The problem has always been since the launch into the "commercial era" of Kenpo, a misunderstanding of the function of the "manuals" and "Big Red" as guidelines, not instructional materials.
> 
> ...


 
Gentlemen,

Thank you both for 2 well thought out replies.   So, in a nutshell, the exts., are really not needed, and the key to success, really lies in the basics.  Like I said in an earlie post, why the heck dont people just focus on that more, instead of doing something a handful of times, thinking they have it, and want to move on?  I mean, I know in todays world, the belts seem to be on a higher priority than making sure your stuff looks good and can work.  IMO, I'd rather put out students who can do their stuff, instead of a bunch that do their stuff half ***.  

Whats that Kaju saying that I always see...."Kajukenbo is not a if you can afford it, we award it art."  Maybe that should be the motto for all schools.


----------



## LawDog (Apr 22, 2009)

In the older Kodokan Judo that I was trained in there were 40 main techniques. The "what if" questions were answered when the students was shown the transitional techniques and the 5 position applications. In the impacting arts the "what if" questions are also answered when the advanced student is taught the "free flow" applications and drills.
*free flow - how to break the bonds of restrictive patterns.
If any student on a regular basis asks "what if" then I would say that the student is looking to be entertained not trained.


----------



## Doc (Apr 22, 2009)

LawDog said:


> In the older Kodokan Judo that I was trained in there were 40 main techniques. The "what if" questions were answered when the students was shown the transitional techniques and the 5 position applications. In the impacting arts the "what if" questions are also answered when the advanced student is taught the "free flow" applications and drills.
> *free flow - how to break the bonds of restrictive patterns.
> If any student on a regular basis asks "what if" then I would say that the student is looking to be entertained not trained.



Dam.


----------



## DavidCC (Apr 27, 2009)

LawDog said:


> If any student on a regular basis asks "what if" then I would say that the student is looking to be entertained not trained.


 
there's a quotable line for sure


----------

