# Developing effective techniques



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Aug 15, 2003)

Once upon a time there was a thread titled "are all these techniques really necessary?"  Several people made some excellent posts.  That thread got sidetracked and is now locked.  I think that the thread had some excellent stuff that is worth pursuing.  So...

How do you develop effective techniques?


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Aug 15, 2003)

This is a very old question. To answer it, one must answer a few other questions and examine some assumptions.

What differentiates Kenpo from Japanese/Okinawan Karate? There are several things: including A) theories, principles, vocabulary; B) a larger alphabet of motion and vocabulary of techniques, C) and technique practice. Let me discuss each of these: 
A) Kenpo principles are a great innovation enabling the Kenpoist to have a better understanding of motion and self-defensea truly significant innovation. Can you learn the theories, principles, and vocabulary without all of the Kenpo techniques? Yes.
B) Kenpo provides techniques for just a tremendous variety of stand-up situations. 
This is another great Kenpo innovation. Can you have Kenpos larger alphabet and repertoire without all of those techniques? No. 
C) Kenpos greatest innovation over traditional Japanese/Okinawan Karate is technique practice. In the traditional Karate training Ive seen, techniques are limited to Kata practice. Partner self-defense technique is usually no-contact, very rudimentary, and with little or no application of principles. While you could argue that Kenpo principles can be taught with a smaller technique list, Kenpos repertoire could not be taught and Kenpo technique practice would be diminished by a limited repertoire.

What differentiates Kenpo from stand-up sport combatives such as boxing, kick-boxing, and Muay Thai? There are several things: A) ring vs street focus, B) training methodology, and C) repertoire of techniques. 
A) Kenpos street focus means that Kenpo progress is measured via the awarding of belts after a subjective measurement of proficiency in principles and repertoire. Sport combatives measure performance via ring-records. 
B) The training methods differ to support the measurement criteria and objectives of the art/sport. 
C) The repertoire of techniques is perhaps the key differentiator driving the difference in measurement of proficiency and in training method. Kenpo includes many deadly and dangerous techniques that cannot be practiced full-force. These dangerous techniques include strikes to the eye, throat, groin, and joints. Sport combatives have rules prohibiting these dangerous moves thus limiting their repertoire. Because the dangerous moves are removed, sport combatives can train full-power against resisting partners. The sport-combatives training method is an innovation over and above Kenpos technique training. All of the stand-up sport comabitives have a very limited technique repertoire but train very effectively with their repertoire. No one questions the punching or kicking prowess of a professional fighter. Boxers and kickboxers would argue: No, all those Kenpo techniques are not necessary.

What differentiates grappling sport combatives such as Wrestling, Judo, and Brazilian Jiu Jitsu from striking sport combatives? Injuries are more common in striking combatives compared to grappling combatives. It would be rare for a boxer or kickboxer to spar for 30-minutes or an hour 4 or 5 days a week the way Grapplers do. Grappling sport combatives have a much larger repertoire of techniques than boxing and kickboxing. The lower injury rate facilitates the greater training time and the practice of a greater number of techniques with a partner. I would argue that grappling styles have an even larger repertoire of techniques than Kenpo. Grapplers might argue that Kenpo doesnt have too many techniques  they might even argue that Kenpo does not have enough techniques! 

This leads to the final and most important question: What differentiates Kenpo technique training from Grappling technique training? Both grappling styles and Kenpo have a huge repertoire of techniques designed to protect against most every situation. The training method is the difference. Kenpo innovated over Karate by allowing techniques to be practiced independently from Kata. Kenpo further innovated by allowing contact on a cooperative Uke. Kenpo has missed the sport combative innovation of practicing the entire repertoire of techniques against a fully resisting opponent who is simultaneously trying to execute techniques and defeat you. 

So, in conclusion: the question of whether there are too many techniques in Kenpo is not the right question. The right question is this: Does Kenpos technique training method enable the Kenpoist to learn to apply the principles and execute techniques in a realistic combat situation. And that should be the subject of further discussion..


----------



## Michael Billings (Aug 15, 2003)

... and an excellent proposition!!

I will start the ball rolling by pointing out there are different levels of resistance with training partners.  Although it does not consistantly rise to the level of what grapplers deal with every class or competition, it is possible to have a much more resistant uki that you attribute.

Note that the FIST gear or Red Man suits allow full contact except to the head, and you can still have pretty liberal contact.  The suits do restrict range of motion, but definitly give you the immediate feedback about whether your techniques work.  You can then alternate with an unpadded partner and limit the contact, while getting more realistic "reactions" to strikes to vital targets.  Even this drill incurrs some injury, primarily bruises to the torso when you "pick it up."

The suits are expensive to say the least.  But Brown through 3rd Black I was tested with an opponent in gear and had to "make" the techniques work at power and speed.  It is an awakening if you have only worked with a compliant or slightly resistant buddy.


----------



## Ender (Aug 15, 2003)

Well what do you recommend to enable the Kenpoist to learn to apply the principles and execute techniques ??


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Aug 15, 2003)

I recommend a combination of "traditional" Kenpo technique training, Karate sparring, drills where the attack is unknown or unplanned, and "alive" training where the uke does not cooperate but instead resists and fights back.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Aug 15, 2003)

We work ideas like picking different beats of a technique to have your opponent work his tech on you. Part of the benefit is that you are no longer at the ready position waiting to be attacked. In fact the whole standing with your feet toguether with your arms at you side thing is a big no no in our school. We let the guys down the street teach that.
Sean


----------



## satans.barber (Aug 16, 2003)

Have any of you ever trained with someone who's offered to let you do a  technique on them properly (or one each maybe)? Some people are fairly unhinged, I could imagine someone saying 'just do it' and letting you pull off a full technique - I guess that'd let you know for real if a technique was effective or not!

Pretty dangerous though!

Ian.


----------



## MJS (Aug 16, 2003)

I feel that if you want to develop good tech. then you need to be able to apply them with some contact.  Of course, you always here people say, "Well, if there is too much contact, then the student is gonna leave!"  People that sign up for MA lessons, should be told up front that there WILL be contact.  The MA's are not for everyone.  If someone doesnt think that they can handle the contact, then they should find another activity!

Of course, you want to have control to an extent.  If you and your partner are always getting hurt, then your injuries are going to prevent you from continuing the training.  

Apply a choke or grab with enough force and resistance to give it that "real" feeling.  For punching, put on some hand protection and try to hit the person.  If you train yourself with that realism, then if you need to defend yourself on the street, where someone is really trying to take your head off, your body and mind will be conditioned enough to respond properly to the attack!

Mike


----------



## Brother John (Aug 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MJS _
> *I feel that if you want to develop good tech. then you need to be able to apply them with some contact.
> 
> Of course, you want to have control to an extent.  If you and your partner are always getting hurt, then your injuries are going to prevent you from continuing the training.
> Mike *



I agree on both points.
As both of my instructors have taught me, if you train by stopping your punch before much contact... you'll get really really good at missing. 
But how much contact and when. That's a very important detail, and not one that you can exactly pin down to a belt level (generally). But for argument sake, I'd say that a beginer should show control by only ending up with a touch, intermediate students with a good 'smack' and advanced more than that... but short of making things crunch.
Hows that for scientific?:rofl: 
Just a thought...
what do you guys think???
Your Brother
John


----------



## MJS (Aug 19, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Brother John _
> *I agree on both points.
> As both of my instructors have taught me, if you train by stopping your punch before much contact... you'll get really really good at missing.
> But how much contact and when. That's a very important detail, and not one that you can exactly pin down to a belt level (generally). But for argument sake, I'd say that a beginer should show control by only ending up with a touch, intermediate students with a good 'smack' and advanced more than that... but short of making things crunch.
> ...



Sounds good to me!!! 

Mike


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Aug 19, 2003)

I think it is important to start contact from the very beginning.   Beginners need to develop confidence in making contact to the body ASAP.  They also need to develop confidence and composure receiving body shots ASAP.   Control to the head, groin, spine, and joints must be exercised in order to avoid injury at all ranks.  

That control is one of the key dilemas of Kenpo training.  Can we really develop effective techniques without the contact?  We can develop effective body shots by practicing contact.  We can develop effective head shots by sparring training.  However, it is difficult to know if joint locks/breaks, claws, and gouges really work because they can never be trained with hard contact.  

We would require Brown and Black belts to do techniques with controlled eye-strikes stopped jsut in front of the face.  We would also require them to do the strikes contacting the eyebrow or cheek.  Claws were required to slap the face hard.  That way, we could simulate the movements.  

Again, contact vs control on dangerous strikes is a key dilema in Kenpo technique training for which there is no perfect solution.  I'd be happy to hear others opinions.


----------



## twinkletoes (Aug 19, 2003)

I agree, and beginners should not just be introduced to contact, but also to resistance.  There are too many instructors out there that are not training against resistance.  

Instead of finding someone who will LET you do a tech. full out on them, find someone who is willing to try to STOP you from doing your tech, and willing to get hit full out in the process.  Then see what develops.

The irony of the kenpo development is that when Ed Parker and his students were developing the techniques, they were canonizing they successful approaches.  In making them scripted, the took away the process of development from future generations of students.  Now people have pre-contrived answers handed to them, on the supposition that they work.  It was the development phase, not the product, that brought them such skills.  We are trying to become da Vinci by tracing the Mona Lisa.  

~TT


----------



## twinkletoes (Aug 19, 2003)

Oh, and I almost forgot.

Techniques seem to be used to introduce tactics, by being examples of principles and strategies.  Certainly effective techniques should use only the most effective principles.  It seems to me that tactics have gotten confused over the years via all these techniques that are unrealistic or meant to teach some obscure principle.  Overall, it has lead away from useful principle.  Maybe we need to spend some time exploring "truth in combat" before we know what we should be teaching in our techniques.

~TT


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Aug 19, 2003)

TT:  Amen.


----------



## Kenpomachine (Aug 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by twinkletoes _
> * Maybe we need to spend some time exploring "truth in combat" before we know what we should be teaching in our techniques.
> 
> ~TT *



I don't want to learn true combat. OI only want to learn self defense, and if I learn some sparring along the way, great! But that's not the reason most people do kenpo (combat).
If you want true combat go to the military and ask them to send you to Liberia, Iraq, Afghanistan...


----------



## MJS (Aug 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Kenpomachine _
> *I don't want to learn true combat. OI only want to learn self defense, and if I learn some sparring along the way, great! But that's not the reason most people do kenpo (combat).
> If you want true combat go to the military and ask them to send you to Liberia, Iraq, Afghanistan... *



I think what TT is saying is that we should know what is going to work/not work as far as defending ourselves goes, before teaching it to students.  We all have different goals in the arts, and I'm not knocking you for your goals.  

There is alot that is taught, that would probably get the person using it killed before it would save their life.  IMO, SD, not matter how you sugar coat it, is fighting.  If someone attacks you, and you defend yourself, you are fighting.  

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your post, so please feel free to give input!

Mike


----------



## Kenpomachine (Aug 20, 2003)

True, self defense is fighting in a way. But combat is a fighting you were looking for and wanted, and self defense is a survival fight.

You may think that kenpo techniques doesn't work. But I read somewhere that Parker and his student working for law enforcement bodies and as security men tested most of the curricula life.

Paul Mills worked in a night club in Vegas and had to deal with bullies, and there's plenty of law enforcement personnel training kenpo. Tell them that their techniques don't work and they'll be laughing hard.

If the techniques don't work for you, then try to do them with hard contact on your cooperative partner, unexpected. See the reaction, see how it went. If it didn't work, then you have some problem with the technique.

I have many problems with different techniques. Some of them are applying the locks correctly, some others are that I consider some attacks silly and I thus work the technique with prejudices.  Some of my stances are not so stable as I should make them.

But it's my fault, not the techniques. And it's nothing training won't arrange


----------



## twinkletoes (Aug 20, 2003)

kenpomachine,

It seems we are using the same terms differently again.  I will avoid the word 'combat', because some people think of it differently.  I think we should use a word that you just introduced.  I like it.  

Let's use a word that we all think of in the same way:  survival.  

Survival is doing whatever it takes to be the one left standing after a violent encounter.  Survival is about avoidance and awareness in the early stages, walking, talking, and running away as it escalates, and doing whatever is necessary to end a dangerous situation once it has developed.  

My goal in "self defense training" is survival.  I want to be the one who walks (runs) away of his own free will, if a situation develops that far.  

So what methods should be used to train for survival?  

1)  Awareness and avoidance.  We need to address recognizing a situation that could develop into violence.

2)  De-escalation.  We need to find ways around a situation (walk, talk, or run).  We need to defuse a situation that is getting hot.

3)  The actual fight stage.  We need to have tactics that address the combative stage of the situation, allowing us to escape the situation as successfully as possible.

Now, you have said something VERY correct in your last post, and I want to highlight it.  You said "It's nothing training won't arrange."  This is dead-on, 100% correct.  It's ALL about the training.  

99% of the effectiveness of an art is not the curriculum, it's the training.  (I will touch on the other 1% in a second).  

Let's say you train Muay Thai, or BJJ, or wrestling, but you never train it against a resisting opponent.  Your training will, undoubtedly, not prepare you to use your style against another person.  You will lack any and all ability to use your art under fire.  To say it plainly, it will not work.  I don't care how many hours of shadowboxing or shadow-wrestling you went through, and how many thousand armlocks you did on your practice dummy, or how many times you kicked the heavy bag, you will still lack the skills necessary (timing and distancing, among others) to use these against someone who is fighting back.

Now, let's say you take ANY art, from Tai Chi to Tae Kwon Do, and you train it fully against resistance (free resistance, not scripted resistance) all the time.  You let your partner try to stop you, and you work on the techniques until you can pull them off against anyone, no matter what they do.  Will it matter what style you do?  Not much.  And you will be able to employ the techniques consistently, in the face of a dynamic, changing, and reisisting environment.  You will have usable skills.

Now, the last 1% is in the curriculum.  In doing all that alive training, you will find that you only use certain things, and there are certain things that are very low percentage techniques (if they are EVER applicable).  I'm sure you can think of arts that have moves that, for these purposes, are pretty useless.  What should those people do?  Should they adapt their curriculum around what really has application?  I am inclined to say so.  

So our suggestion now is to test all of it, in this alive format, with heavy resistance, until each of us experiences firsthand what works (for you, for your students, for advanced people, for beginners, etc.).  Take notes.  Make observations.  See what works, and under what circumstances.

At that point, we will have a large well of experiences to draw from.  Then we will be ready to say what principles should be emphasized, what tactics should be taught, and to whom.  Now, the irony here may be that the process will educate our students better than "techniques" ever could.  But that is a different issue.  Perhaps it needs its own thread.  Either way, at that point, it will be clear what needs to stay and what doesn't.

~TT


----------



## MartialArtsGuy (Aug 20, 2003)

I think the systematic method TT has typed up is worthy of attention. Also, you put it in a respectfull tone.


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Aug 20, 2003)

TT:  You said it perfectly.  

Think of doing lone kimono while the attacker is alternately pulling/pushing you back and forth and side to side while punching you with his free hand and kicking you with both feet and knees.  You had better make that technique work!


----------



## twinkletoes (Aug 20, 2003)

I have nothing BUT respect for anyone who wants to improve themselves, their health, and their ability to defend themselves.  It is not an easy undertaking.

I also have no ill-will towards any TMAists, ESPECIALLY kenpoka.  This month marks 15 years in Kenpo for me, and I am continually having my eyes opened through contact with other martial artists of all kinds.  I am learning how much there is left to learn, so to speak.  

I also spent many many years convinced that kenpo was one of the most street-effective martial arts out there.  For a time I thought otherwise.  Now I am realizing that it IS the training, not the curriculum (to a point).  I am making sure that all the classes I teach, even the kenpo ones, are alive and skill-building.  

While I don't find myself teaching kata that much (gotta leave something for the other instructors  ) I find that the kenpo is usually on the right track....  

~TT


----------



## Seig (Aug 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by twinkletoes _
> *I agree, and beginners should not just be introduced to contact, but also to resistance.  There are too many instructors out there that are not training against resistance.
> 
> Instead of finding someone who will LET you do a tech. full out on them, find someone who is willing to try to STOP you from doing your tech, and willing to get hit full out in the process.  Then see what develops.
> ...


I have to disagree with you there.  Mr. Parker frequently said that the techniques were ideas, not rules.  You should not ofllow them hard and fast but use them to develop your own style from the sytem he provided.


----------



## twinkletoes (Aug 20, 2003)

Seig,

I think we are agreeing, in different words.

I think that the techniques were meant as ideas--as good examples to teach principles.  

I think that since then, people have taken them too literally, and obsess over the details while missing the forest for the trees.  

The goal is to use them to learn how one _could_ improvise, but instead many people only learn to parrot.  


~TT


----------



## MJS (Aug 21, 2003)

True-  The tech. should be taught as 1 solution to the problem, not the only solution.  In a situation, you might find yourself doing part of a move from one tech. and another move from a different tech.  

When I taught the techs. to the students, I tried to stress to them that I"m giving them a series of options.  Its up to them to take those options and turn them into solutions.  Many times, I'd have the group form a circle, with 1 student in the middle and the others attacking one at a time.  At times, I'd give the middle student an attack that he/she had never seen before.  They would stand there and look dumbfounded.  I'd say to them, do you know how to punch, block, kick??  Well, of course they did, so I'd tell them to get creative and do something using the skills that they already had.  Rather than rely on their instincts, they were relying or hoping to rely on a preset tech.

Mike


----------



## Kenpomachine (Aug 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by twinkletoes _
> *So our suggestion now is to test all of it, in this alive format, with heavy resistance, until each of us experiences firsthand what works (for you, for your students, for advanced people, for beginners, etc.).  Take notes.  Make observations.  See what works, and under what circumstances.*



TT, maybe I didn't explain myself well, but that's exactly the way kenpo was developed and is exactly the way kenpo IS being developed right now. 

The only problem I have with this is that not everybody is capable of being creative, and that's were the CV cames into play, imho.

Also, what may work for you, might not work for me. I had one of your unresisting partners showing me how he did a certain lock in a technique. Well, he didn't do the lock, he just pushed downwards and that was enough because of the weight difference (55 kg vs 75-80 kg). The point being made was that I had to do the lock properly if I wanted to make the tech work for me, while he didn't need to. So you have  to take that into account when developing a technique that will work for everybody and has sound principles. OK, I think I have confused things more.... :S


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 21, 2003)

Well, I'll say it again.

1. This big new modern training is the way I was taught and am being taught and try to teach. It's clearly the way a lot of the, "old-fashioned," guys were taught, and how they teach.

2. What one should do as an advanced student, how one learned, and how one teaches, are three different things.

3. Fancy ideas and cool technologies are, too often, shoved upon beginning students. Who do not need to learn to be creative. They need to learn how to block and punch.

4. No form of training is perfect. No new set of skills will render us invulnerable.

5. There's a difference between, "creativity," and "fingerpainting." Premature inventiveness leads to fingerpainting, not creativity.

6. The set curriculum is set for good reasons that do not necessarily have anything to do with what is ordinarily thought of as fighting.

7. All too often, we are "improving," kenpo right out of existence--either by superadding junk, or improvising technique that doesn't logically fit concepts and principles, or eliminating sets and forms and techniques that don't immediately suit our little ideas of, "what works."

8. merely being a very good martial artist and knowing a lot doesn't make you Ed Parker.

But then, you all probably knew I thought this way already.


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Aug 21, 2003)

Robert:  I have to agree with you on most of your points.  

1.  But probably not on the first point.  There IS a fundamental difference in training methods between Kenpo, traditional martial arts, and sport combatives (please see my post at the beginning of this thread).  Kenpo techniques (not sparring, but the 250 techniques), with hard contact on partners who don't fight back, is somewhere in between traditional training and sport combatives training.  You are  at one of the best schools out there (from everything I've ever heard about Mr. Tatum).  Unfortunately, not everyone else is.

2.  This is an excellent point.  I'd love to hear more from you on this.  

3.  Now you are sounding like me!

4.  Now you are sounding even more like me.

5.  This is a great analogy.  There is also a difference between creativity and tracing.  Painting without creativity is just tracing.

6.  I agree again.

7.  I think there was another thread on this topic.

8.  Right you are!


----------



## Kenpomachine (Aug 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Well, I'll say it again.
> 
> 1. This big new modern training is the way I was taught and am being taught and try to teach. It's clearly the way a lot of the, "old-fashioned," guys were taught, and how they teach. *



Yes, yes and yes 
And I agree in the rest too, except on this one:



> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *5. There's a difference between, "creativity," and "fingerpainting." Premature inventiveness leads to fingerpainting, not creativity. *



Altamira's and other prehistorical caves are fingerpainted, and they're certainly creative.

Premature inventiveness might avoid you to grow and learn new things to an extent. That I'll concede you. But premature inventiveness might also lead to greater creativity at a later stage.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 21, 2003)

Actually, my understanding was that the Altamira, "paintings," were done with a variety of techniques, inclusing a sort of very early airbrushing...

But that's just me being nittley-pickley.

More importantly, so far, I haven't met anybody usefully "creative," who was pretty rigorously drilled...but I've met several, "creative," types who couldn't do basics to save their life...and at times, had elaborate jutifications as to why their sloppy technique was a good thing...

But then, I tend to be on the side of the anals in this...


----------



## Kenpomachine (Aug 22, 2003)

I've seen people really creative here in Spain, and they all have good foundations and technique. On of them is on this forum (Sergio Jódar) and I think Clyde can atest to his technique level too.

So there may be a cultural side to creativity too?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 22, 2003)

Oops and geewhillikers, my bad. I'd meant to write that I hadn't seen anybody who was usefully creative who WASN'T well-drilled in basics.

And my point was, of course, that just telling students to go and be creative is not only worthless, it's actively bad for their "creativity..."

"Creativity." Now there's a word to be avoided at all costs--along with "combat," and "Bruce Lee," and, "fill your cup," and...


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Aug 22, 2003)

Robert, Kenpomachine:

The debate between you two appears to be about when to introduce creativity.  What are the prerequisites to development of technique creativity?  At what belt/proficiency level should creativity be introduced and how should it be introduced.  I have my opinion (of course), but I'd like to hear yours first.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Aug 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Old Fat Kenpoka _
> *Robert, Kenpomachine:
> 
> The debate between you two appears to be about when to introduce creativity.  What are the prerequisites to development of technique creativity?  At what belt/proficiency level should creativity be introduced and how should it be introduced.  I have my opinion (of course), but I'd like to hear yours first. *


Perhaps the question should be... when do we teach the equation formula. To make this stuff work on the street it has to be right away.
Sean


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Aug 22, 2003)

Good point, Sean.

When do you teach the equation formula.  After that, when and how do you teach students to be totally spontaneous in their self-defense techniques?


----------



## Michael Billings (Aug 22, 2003)

I "teach" the Equation Formula very, very early - as do most EPAK schools; then you try to teach them to rearrange, insert, delete, prefix, or suffix first, as these are "easier" for beginners.  

Now when do they go from Primitive, to Mechanical?  Can they defend themselves before they reach the Spontaneous stage?  Sure they can!  Most Brown belts are Mechanical most of the time ... and I have seen Black Belts the same way, it is just that their "Mechanical" has gotten very, very fast. 

The true use of the Equation Formula from early on gives you another *Kenpo Tool* (credit to Dennis Conater), along with strong basics ... to begin building a truely Spontaneous and Effective technique fighter (this as v. a "brawler")

Just my thoughts, but yall helped me catagorize this process.

OSS
-MB


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 22, 2003)

Actually, I have no interest in such a debate, because I absolutely don't believe in introducing creativity in the sense apparently under discussion at any stage whatsoever. I believe in learning kenpo, drilling drilling drilling drilling, working the forms, and letting Nature take its course. Why? because if you do that, your personality will emerge in a meaningful way. It can't help it.

So when would I introduce creativity? At what rank? meaningless question. Sorry, but I fundamentally disagree with the entire premise.

And as for the, "equation formula..." it's just a metaphor, ya know, not real math. All it says is that within a rigidly-arranged structure, there's room to rearrange in several ways...to shuffle the deck of cards. But that's a structural combinatory that works like shuffling cards or DNA...it is very much NOT "fingerpainting."

Even Mozart got beat into endless practice, endless work as a "child prodigy." And a lot of Beethoven sounds like--as B. said--rearrangements of Mozart.


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Aug 22, 2003)

I agree with Robert about the equation formula:  it's another example of Kenpo analysis paralysis if you try to apply it too methodically to too much material.  It IS a good tool if used sparingly though.  

OK, so let's go with Robert's other point that creativitiy is not a positive for the developing student.  What about spontaneity?  When does everyone think a student should be able to spontaneously respond to an attack?  When they respond spontaneously, do you expect them to respond with a canned technique, to improvise ala the equation formula, or come up with something...er...creative?  Again, I have a strong opinion here but I'd like to hear from everyone else first.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Aug 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Actually, I have no interest in such a debate, because I absolutely don't believe in introducing creativity in the sense apparently under discussion at any stage whatsoever. I believe in learning kenpo, drilling drilling drilling drilling, working the forms, and letting Nature take its course. Why? because if you do that, your personality will emerge in a meaningful way. It can't help it.
> 
> So when would I introduce creativity? At what rank? meaningless question. Sorry, but I fundamentally disagree with the entire premise.
> ...


Robert, Robert, Robert. 
There you go again. The equation formula is not a metaphore it is an actual tool to use when a prearranged sequence of movements( now there is a meaningless metaphor) starts to go awry. That usualy happens the second you start moving. All your moves have counters you know! The equation formula allows you to counter the counter. Mozart was a manic deppresive genious and one day another such as Jimmi Hendrix will come along and rewrite the rule books. I love the way you just dismiss Kenpo concepts that don't fit your dogma and to that I say, "excuse me but my karma just ran over your dogma"
Sean


----------



## Kenpomachine (Aug 23, 2003)

Ok, we have yellow belts doing some free basics at their exams. Are they prearranged moves? No. They're only recquired to do punches and kicks and stances and blocks that they know and imagine they're being attacked. That's creativity at the lower belts. 

Of course, what is expected of higher ranking belts is more variety and better technique. And then, against opponents, that it works. Maybe they're not long techniques, and maybe they're not as complex. But it helps you go outside the stablished materials and began being creative. 

Techniques for championships have a lot of hours of work behind them, so they're different from the above drills, which deal more with reaction. That's different from moving in a spontaneous, primitive or mechanical stage, though.


----------



## Kenpomachine (Aug 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Oops and geewhillikers, my bad. I'd meant to write that I hadn't seen anybody who was usefully creative who WASN'T well-drilled in basics.  *



Yes, but creativity may be built with basic drills.



> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *And my point was, of course, that just telling students to go and be creative is not only worthless, it's actively bad for their "creativity..."
> 
> "Creativity." Now there's a word to be avoided at all costs--along with "combat," and "Bruce Lee," and, "fill your cup," and... *



Agreed, but you have to learn to use the tools kenpo has to go and explore other things and make your own combinations for moves that aren't in the curriculum.


----------



## Brother John (Aug 24, 2003)

Mr. Robertson

I found your reply very thought provoking, so I hope you dont mind if I single it out for a bit more discussion. Its meant in the spirit of discussion/conversation so although I may disagree too and fro, its just a chat betwixt friends. ((and not JUST between us, others may interject too thats why Im putting this on an OPEN forum))

So here goes. For the sake of speed please allow me to interject my comments and questions between the words of your own post. (hope thats not too confusing)



> 1. This big new modern training is the way I was taught and am being taught and try to teach. It's clearly the way a lot of the, "old-fashioned," guys were taught, and how they teach.



Not really sure what you are trying to get at with this. Are you saying that many of the things that some people say is new is actually quite old? That theres nothing new under the sun? Could be. Sort of an irrelevant point I think. I dont care as much about the date of its creation and induction as its ability to make my hammers thunder and my crane leap. 



> 3. Fancy ideas and cool technologies are, too often, shoved upon beginning students. Who do not need to learn to be creative. They need to learn how to block and punch.



Amen!!!



> 4. No form of training is perfect. No new set of skills will render us invulnerable.



But thats not a good argument for not seeking improvement in your way of training. Invulnerability is a pipe dream, I just want tomorrow to find me better than today.



> 5. There's a difference between, "creativity," and "fingerpainting." Premature inventiveness leads to fingerpainting, not creativity.



This statement carries the presupposition that the creativity in question is premature. What would you say to a person creating w/in Kenpo, but done thoughtfully and after a great deal of work? This wouldnt be premature would it? What could prevent this person from creating?



> 6. The set curriculum is set for good reasons that do not necessarily have anything to do with what is ordinarily thought of as fighting.



I dont really understand what you are talking about as you left it a little open ended and didnt say what these other good reasons are. Are you talking about Mr. Parkers efforts to create a business out of Kenpo there are those that argue that some of the curricula was created to fill time between belts. I dont know if I agree with that 100%but its plausible I suppose.  Maybe if you could let us know what those other good reasons are that havent a thing to do with what we ordinarily think of as fighting. 



> 7. All too often, we are "improving," kenpo right out of existence--either by superadding junk, or improvising technique that doesn't logically fit concepts and principles, or eliminating sets and forms and techniques that don't immediately suit our little ideas of, "what works."



I guess that this paragraph, in the context of some of your other points, leaves me wondering if youre implying that those who strive to improve Kenpo are extinguishing Kenpo OR that some are and some arent. In other words are you saying that your opinion is that all those who add, improvise concepts & principles or eliminate sets & forms & techniques are eliminating Kenpo or just some? I guess that coming from my side of the fence has me wondering this as I hail from an association that practices an American Kenpo Karate that has eliminated some sets & techniques, definitely created new ones as well as new concepts and training practices. Not that I take offense if thats what you believe. Not everyone will always agree with what others dothatd make life too boring. Just want to explore your reasoning as I know you to be a person who puts thought and consideration into  whatever you do. 



> 8. merely being a very good martial artist and knowing a lot doesn't make you Ed Parker.



 Are you then claiming that only Ed Parker Sr. can improve, innovate and create in Kenpo?

Thanks for considering my questions and points.

Your brother
John


----------



## parkerkarate (Feb 10, 2004)

I have found that much of what we do in Kenpo is munipulate the opponent. Once you learn how the opponent will react to your offence you can build off of that. From there you can peice together movements, some to stun the guy for the next hit and others to truely hurt them. And then of course you can come up extensions which will blow the opponent away taking Bow of Compulsion for example. Just some things for you to think about.


----------



## Brother John (Oct 3, 2004)

Just wondering if my questions were ever going to be addressed. 
I thought we had a good 'conversation' of sorts.

Maybe we could pick up where we left off...

Your Brother
John


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 3, 2004)

Whoops, my screw-up.

Here's what I meant. 

First off, the point about Mr. Parker: he was in a unique historical and cultural situation, of the sort you cannot plan in advance or create yourself. It's like being Shakespeare or Mozart; talent ain't enough, hard work ain't enough--you have to be born into the right place at the right time.

Moreover, "Mr. Parker," serves as the sort of idea that Michel Foucault calls an, "author-function:" if you look at all the bits and pieces of American kenpo that come from others (Jimmy Wing Woo, Chuck Sullivan, many others), well, he's kinda serving as the label on the can...except, I insist, the teaching system's rather brilliant, Arthur Murray or not.

Right now, though, it looks to me (like I'd know) that a very great deal of the talk-talk about "innovation," and "creativity," is really just marketing, together with the importation of the American prediliction for "efficiency," and a lot of capitalist ideology, which also pushes, "modernization," at every level. 

Then too, I personally think that a lot of what's discussed on these forums, and apparently a lot of the way kenpo gets taught, says a lot more about male fantasy than it does good practice. These ideas of invulnerability, of perfection, of threats everywhere--uh, well, I think of Freud's essay, "The Uncanny," and follow-up discussion by folks like Neil Hertz and Rosalind Krauss among others. It has more to do with a kind of armoring up...and if folks think THAT'S an annoying comment, they might want to go look at the essays I just mentioned in reference to just what exactly it is that's being armored. Let's just say that there's a deep suspicion that when somebody says, "You're being a dick," they're right.

Last, I honestly think that the whole, "creativity," jazz is about the last thing we ought to worry about. In fact, I think it's a great way to duck the realities of plain old garden-variety sweat...the other stuff will come along in its own good time, and moreover the popular history of the word, "creativity," doesn't suggest real progress at all, to me.

Anyway...


----------



## Brother John (Oct 3, 2004)

> First off, the point about Mr. Parker: he was in a unique historical and cultural situation, of the sort you cannot plan in advance or create yourself. It's like being Shakespeare or Mozart; talent ain't enough, hard work ain't enough--you have to be born into the right place at the right time.
> Moreover, "Mr. Parker," serves as the sort of idea that Michel Foucault calls an, "author-function:" if you look at all the bits and pieces of American kenpo that come from others (Jimmy Wing Woo, Chuck Sullivan, many others), well, he's kinda serving as the label on the can...except, I insist, the teaching system's rather brilliant, Arthur Murray or not.


Thanks for replying so soon. I thought it'd been a simple oversight, you are very 'prolific' on this and other forums...lots O' oars in the water and all. 

First off: What is Foucault's "author-function" in a nutshell. I think I might be able to infer the gist of it, but I'd like to not suppose that I understand: it generally leads me down the wrong path and I end up missing some good info.

I have to agree wholeheartedly that Mr. Parker Sr. was the right man at the right time in the right environment surrounded by the right people. It's as though (as far as martial arts goes at least) he had destiny/karma/luck/synchronicity/giftedness and a shaving from the Blarney Stone on his side! Everything was just so for the creation of American Kenpo Karate. Agreed.
BUT: Why does that preclude others, especially those of his own system who devoted themselves to learning/understanding and teaching it, from taking it's configuration and altering it to increase proficiency and accelerate the rate at which the general student aquires the skill/knowledge/ability?

Please note: I can only speak of my own experience from within the American Kenpo Karate International (AKKI), a changed/augmented/altered version of it's parent art....Ed Parker's American Kenpo Karate as taught in the IKKA. Even then, I can only speak for myself. 

You see, I take it a lot like most other 'studies' or sciences. For instance physics: if we had left it at Newton...we wouldn't have gone far. (He'd be more like Chow in this analogy...not a perfect analogy, but I'm trying it out)
Albert Einstein would be like our Ed Parker Sr., one whose depth of insight and understanding turned everything around and set up an astoundingly deep study. What Einstein left us with is still functional and deep...
but it lead men like Stephen Hawkings to make some other very insightful and also deep extrapolations from where he left off. 

I guess I'm saying that I don't think any GIANT is so tall that others can not stand on their shoulders and see even further.



> Right now, though, it looks to me (like I'd know) that a very great deal of the talk-talk about "innovation," and "creativity," is really just marketing, together with the importation of the American prediliction for "efficiency," and a lot of capitalist ideology, which also pushes, "modernization," at every level.


I really don't mean this to sound rude Robert, please know that...but:
How do you know?
I realize that you qualified what you said with (Like I'd know), but you are putting forth your thoughts on this as though you did. How much investigation have you made into ours or some of the other branches of American Kenpo to investigate these claims. I realize that it doesn't interest you enough probably... you are more than pleased with what you are learning in the LTKKA, as you should be...it's quality stuff. But that doesn't mean it's the "only quality" right? The fact that what Mr. Parker left us with was Monumental doesn't preclude others taking it further, I think. So... since you are putting this forward as though you did know.... how did you arrive at this conclusion?? 


> These ideas of invulnerability, of perfection, of threats everywhere


Who is it, what group is it, that is claiming these things? Iv'e not heard that anywhere. Well...ok, maybe from some of the inflated ego's in BJJ, but not Kenpo. 


> Last, I honestly think that the whole, "creativity," jazz is about the last thing we ought to worry about. In fact, I think it's a great way to duck the realities of plain old garden-variety sweat


Seems to me that you are assuming that those who claim to have innovated didn't pay their due on the matts or spend their time sweating and working hard. I have NO idea about any other camp, but I can say without reservation: not Paul Mills. 
It also seems (I could be wrong) that you are assuming that those who practice in a system that makes these claims of 'greater proficiency' innovation, creativity..etc. Anything that deviates from EPAK... don't work hard.
Not us.

I must leave my computer now, but I'll return later to finish. Please reply if you want in the meantime though.

THanks for restarting the conversation.

Your Brother
John


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 3, 2004)

The Foucault thingy is pretty easy to understand: it's kind of like saying that Mr. Parker's name works more or less as a brand name does--think, "Betty Crocker"--and it looks as though you've pretty m uch got it anyway. The reference is to Michel Foucault, "What Is An Author?" in his collection, "Language, Counter-Memory, Practice."

As for the "how the heck do YOU know?" question, which seems pretty legit to me, well, first off, I'm going by the sorts of comments I see a lot on these forums. second off---hm. Should I name names? Not really needed...let's just say that I've seen several videos of different martial arts instructors who push speed, speed, speed, and throw around a lot of arcane language--and what I actually see are big instructors whacking the hell out of smaller students. Sort of an unhappy combo of hypnosis, group-think, bullying...of course, it's just a video, and for some, the head of my own school has looked just as bad.

Of course, I suspect that some of this just comes out of my own lack of expertise and diverse experience in the martial arts world. But then, I'm a helluva lot more impressed by Gene LeBell than by Bruce Lee, so maybe it's just my views.

Thank you for the courteous question; I hope I answered politely about what I thought.


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Oct 3, 2004)

im not a student of EPAK, and maybe i am out of line saying this because i am not affiliated with the teachings, but i do understand the background.
learning technique for technique sake is fine as a training tool to develop speed, accuracy, and stamina. but to teach technique as a basis for self defense is only a set-up for failure. a technique should be a vehicle for teaching concepts and principles for self defense. even if you have 3000 techniques memorized.....is that enough to deal with every situation? or would it be better to say that a group of techniques teaches a student this group of principles, and this group another. 
again.....i have never studied EPAK, but my experience in MA's has always been in kempo, and not just kosho-ryu. the first system i studied taught no techniques, but it did teach principles of movement and you built from those principles. 
some might say "wow..no techniques?" 
with no techniques, i didnt have to worry about one failing, but i was left with an endless combination of movement.

shawn


----------



## Dark Kenpo Lord (Oct 3, 2004)

BlackCatBonz said:
			
		

> im not a student of EPAK, and maybe i am out of line saying this because i am not affiliated with the teachings, but i do understand the background.
> learning technique for technique sake is fine as a training tool to develop speed, accuracy, and stamina. but to teach technique as a basis for self defense is only a set-up for failure. a technique should be a vehicle for teaching concepts and principles for self defense. even if you have 3000 techniques memorized.....is that enough to deal with every situation? or would it be better to say that a group of techniques teaches a student this group of principles, and this group another.
> again.....i have never studied EPAK, but my experience in MA's has always been in kempo, and not just kosho-ryu. the first system i studied taught no techniques, but it did teach principles of movement and you built from those principles.
> some might say "wow..no techniques?"
> ...


Man, you guys will never get the message of what we're truly about because you're always in the peanut gallery instead of on the floor with us. Yes, you're out of line because you have no idea how I, or we, train, only how you and those around you do. Until you've experienced it, don't comment on it, simple enough.

DarK LorD


----------



## Brother John (Oct 3, 2004)

> The Foucault thingy is pretty easy to understand: it's kind of like saying that Mr. Parker's name works more or less as a brand name does--think, "Betty Crocker"--and it looks as though you've pretty m uch got it anyway. The reference is to Michel Foucault, "What Is An Author?" in his collection, "Language, Counter-Memory, Practice."


I think I see what you are saying. It's like if I begin a 'lecture' in class to my students with "Mr. Parker always said..." and now they are supposed to perk up all the more and buy it hook line and sinker regardless...because it was first qualified as coming from "The Source".  Plus "Betty" didn't write all of the recipes...but they do go in Her box, so it must be good. Am I getting it teach?
My ears perked up when you mentioned the name "Foacault". I read "Foacault's Pendulum" by Umberto Eco a couple of years ago... just couldn't recall the significance of "Foacault" or his darn Pendulum in the book.  :idunno:  I'll leave it to you well read litterary types.  :asian:  Meanwhile I'll keep shouting at the screen as though the QB of the GIANTS can actually hear me...
or wants too.  :uhyeah: 



> As for the "how the heck do YOU know?" question,
> I'm going by the sorts of comments I see a lot on these forums.
> I've seen several videos of different martial arts instructors who push speed, speed, speed, and throw around a lot of arcane language--and what I actually see are big instructors whacking the hell out of smaller students. Sort of an unhappy combo of hypnosis, group-think, bullying...of course, it's just a video, and for some, the head of my own school has looked just as bad.


First off, please let me say this: If I am one of those people whose comments you are referring too...please know this: I am NO authority on the AKKI! Oh, I can answer many questions about it, but much of my knowledge is second hand at best.  Believe me, I'm NO representative of the association at this point in my journey. ((Who knows about later, maybe if the stars align and I find the Ruby slippers and win the lotto...that woudn't hurt)) There are Orange Belts who've had more contact with Mr. Mills or the first generation students of Mr. Mills than I have, and sadly...I've not been able to attend one of our semi-annual camps in Las Vegas in some time. I keep in touch, get with my instructor who lives 9 hours away, and I keep working with what I've got...but PLEASE don't look to me as indicative of the AKKI. Though on the internet I'm probably one of the more active/outspoken people...and I sure can give my "Rah-Rah-Rah..." for our team. Being out of touch doesn't make me less enthusiastic, just behind and HUNGRY. 
A better choice would be Mr. Derek C. Ence, who used to post here some and posts on other sites more than here. If you are looking to Posts to give you a barometer of an association (more on that in a moment)...Mr. Ence would get you MUCH MUCH closer to bulls-eye than the likes of your Brother John. By FAR. Mr. John Connolly of Texas would also be a Fine choice above and beyond me. He posts here too and fro as "Fastmover". A top notch guy!

Secondly: ((here's the part, Robert, where I tell you something you already know full well)) Seldom, if EVER, do the opinions of a few..._posted to an internet forum_.. give one a good basis on which to make a decision about diddly-squat. An internet forum is NO barometer for an art nor for an association/branch of that art! The internet is broad and far reaching, but it's shallow.  I think you know what I mean as I believe you've said as much yourself previously. 

Next: The videos. 
The videos on the AKKI forum. I don't quite know what to say about them. I like them, and I don't. I like them because I know the tremendous speed and power of Mr. Mills and the other individuals in the videos... it's impressive!!! I'd been in the martial arts for some time before I first witnessed ANYONE or ANYTHING about the AKKI. I was already in Love with Kenpo from a good deal of previous exposure...including attending a couple of seminars by Mr. Parker. ((that was a treat to say the least)) My best friend from my youth had moved away and was testing for his Black in the AKKI at one of the Vegas camps. I was responsible for his introduction into the martial arts in the first place, and we really are just like brothers. Well...he flew my wife and I to Vegas to witness his test. MAN...what an experience!! I watched the test, then I watched two days full of seminars! I was 110% blown away!! (Sorry, I'm sliding into my Rah-Rah-Rah bit... indulge me and chalk it up to enthusiastic youth) Those videos are show-casing Mr. Mills' most talked about ability...to move like lightening. What they aren't showing you is that Mr. Mills is also a whole package...timing, power, form, knowledge, insight, understanding...all of it. They (the videos) also aren't doing anything to be 'instructive'. See, Mr. Tattum and others have put out instructional videos with which they've tried to bring forth something from particular techniques or whathaveyou... those on the AKKI forum do not teach. It's not their purpose. They give you NO sense of the curriculum or it's worth. They've not got a thing to do with what is innovative about the AKKI material or what the effects of said innovations have on the students/members are.


> of course, it's just a video, and for some, the head of my own school has looked just as bad.


Yes, good point. It's just a video...and a non-instructive one at that.

Next: The 'Arcane Language'. 
I know where you are coming from, but I disagree with the conclusions it seems to have lead you to. 
When I first started to investigate Kenpo in my youth I was SO impressed with the techniques!! But I felt that the terminology was odd and very verbose. I was used to the nice, neat (well...usually) terminology of science with it's roots in Latin. But then there's these concepts/principles things that are used in Kenpo (mind you, I'm using the name Kenpo generally for all branches that came from EPAK as well as EPAK its self...especially since at that time, EPAK was ALL I knew of)...and these require codification if they are to be passed on to students so that they don't have to reinvent the wheel. 
Well, I think that Mr. Mills has some very unique insights into Kenpo...things that needed to be codified for us to learn. I don't find Mr. Mills' and the AKKI's verbiage to be so different in use or applicability than most of what you can find from Mr. Parker and the IKKA. I mean, I know what to do with "internal and external elastic recoil" just as much as I do with "marriage of gravity" and "angle of incidence". My problem with any of it is this: "The Map is NOT the territory". We sometimes get too caught up in our favorite terms and forget to focus on the lessons that they are meant to codify. Bruce Lee might have slapped us on the head for staring at the finger instead of gazing at the Moon.  :supcool: Or as my good friend Brian is fond of saying "Too many Cliff Claven's in Kenpo". 
SO my point? I don't see how an AKKI person bandying about some arcane sounding wordage is any different than an IKKA or LTKKA person bandying about some arcane sounding wordage. Truth be known, if you are ever taught the meaning of these terms and taught to apply what they represent.... they are quite useful. I know I'm better at Kenpo for them, bet you are too. Nomenclature is always 'arcane' to those who aren't informed. 



> Of course, I suspect that some of this just comes out of my own lack of expertise and diverse experience in the martial arts world. But then, I'm a helluva lot more impressed by Gene LeBell than by Bruce Lee, so maybe it's just my views.


I don't know about your lack of expertise in the martial arts world, you know your own back yard (Kenpo) well enough.  :asian:  and I'd be more petrified of Mr. LeBell than Mr. Lee too. (like degrees of petrification matter...) Something about the sound and feel of my bones splintering and joints rending that makes me wanna curl up in the fetal position, whimper and reach for my blankie. 

Thank you as well, Robert,for this polite exchange; really! All too often when subjects like these come up on forums (shallow as they may be, we do go on typing don't we?) we get mad, take sides, get defensive...but don't talk it out and come to a better understanding of one another.
I'm really enjoying this!

Your Brother
John


----------



## Brother John (Oct 3, 2004)

BlackCatBonz said:
			
		

> im not a student of EPAK, and maybe i am out of line saying this because i am not affiliated with the teachings, but i do understand the background.
> learning technique for technique sake is fine as a training tool to develop speed, accuracy, and stamina. but to teach technique as a basis for self defense is only a set-up for failure. a technique should be a vehicle for teaching concepts and principles for self defense. even if you have 3000 techniques memorized.....is that enough to deal with every situation? or would it be better to say that a group of techniques teaches a student this group of principles, and this group another.
> again.....i have never studied EPAK, but my experience in MA's has always been in kempo, and not just kosho-ryu. the first system i studied taught no techniques, but it did teach principles of movement and you built from those principles.
> some might say "wow..no techniques?"
> ...


Shawn:



> a technique should be a vehicle for teaching concepts and principles for self defense.


IT IS. 
Thing is, if you don't have a technique...
then your 'concepts and principles' have gotta WALK to the Ball!
((NO VEHICLE))
It appears that you have no idea of what American Kenpo teaches, why it teaches it or what we gain from it.

This sounds like an issue for you. 
Mayhap you should've created your own thread for it, you'd get more replies.

Your Brother
John


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Oct 4, 2004)

wow.....y'all get testy about techniques

shawn


----------



## Brother John (Oct 4, 2004)

BlackCatBonz said:
			
		

> wow.....y'all get testy about techniques
> 
> shawn


Nah...not really. In the long run you can take'm or leave'm I guess. Your prerogative. 
What does get my ire up is someone from the outside, peeking inside and then letting us know what's wrong with what we are doing. It is:
A: Innacurate, way off the mark in-fact.
B: Rude.
C: Misguided/illogical
D: All of A-B and C

Answer:  D

Next: View this connundrum...


> im not a student of EPAK





> i have never studied EPAK


Yet you were making judgemental statements about what's wrong with the American Kenpo way of looking at and doing techniques (Which conclusions were wrong in the first place)

Then there's this here beaut...


> a technique should be a vehicle for teaching concepts and principles for self defense


    ((a true statement by the way, the closest you got to the way we do things...but then you have to go and muddy the water with this chum.......)


> the first system i studied taught no techniques, but it did teach principles of movement and you built from those principles.


IF techniques are the vehicle for teaching concepts and principles, yet your art taught no techniques...then HOW could you be taught the concepts and principles. You CONTRADICTED yourself badly. If you are going to take pot-shots from the outside in, at least agree with yourself from one sentence to the next. 



> with no techniques, i didnt have to worry about one failing, but i was left with an endless combination of movement.


Wow...no techniques   .  (see...you said someone would say that....Your'e psychic) No wonder you wouldn't have to worry about 'failing', that would demand a criteria for failure... no curriculum, no criteria for pass or fail....I'M GOIN TO DISNEYLAND!!! NO failure all around!!! Whoohoooooo...

By the way, those 'endless combinations of movement'...combinations of what? Not techniques surely...
But then...combinations of what??
 :idunno: 
Ponderous


Even Your Brother
John


----------



## Touch Of Death (Oct 4, 2004)

BlackCatBonz said:
			
		

> im not a student of EPAK, and maybe i am out of line saying this because i am not affiliated with the teachings, but i do understand the background.
> learning technique for technique sake is fine as a training tool to develop speed, accuracy, and stamina. but to teach technique as a basis for self defense is only a set-up for failure. a technique should be a vehicle for teaching concepts and principles for self defense. even if you have 3000 techniques memorized.....is that enough to deal with every situation? or would it be better to say that a group of techniques teaches a student this group of principles, and this group another.
> again.....i have never studied EPAK, but my experience in MA's has always been in kempo, and not just kosho-ryu. the first system i studied taught no techniques, but it did teach principles of movement and you built from those principles.
> some might say "wow..no techniques?"
> ...


I completly agree with you. Being technique focused, is more of a savy business idea than a sound fighting method. It keeps the students begging for more when they were actualy handed all the tools they needed on the first tech. Pass me a peanut.  
Sean


----------



## Dark Kenpo Lord (Oct 5, 2004)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> I completly agree with you. Being technique focused, is more of a savy business idea than a sound fighting method. It keeps the students begging for more when they were actualy handed all the tools they needed on the first tech. Pass me a peanut.
> Sean


 
So what exactly is your art then Sean?   If you don't like the premise what AK teaches, why are you doing it?

DarK LorD


----------



## Touch Of Death (Oct 5, 2004)

Dark Kenpo Lord said:
			
		

> So what exactly is your art then Sean?   If you don't like the premise what AK teaches, why are you doing it?
> 
> DarK LorD


I'm not in your kind of Kenpo, we are not technique focused; so, I 'm not "doing it", to answer your question.  We happen to be eight consideration focused, and we use the techs to explore the considerations of combat. Look Clyde its very simple techs are very specific reactions to very specific situations, but when you step back they all have common threads. Look at "Delayed Sword" Its two minor moves and one major move and cross out. Now look at "sword of destruction"... Two minor moves and one major and cross out. And the list goes on. Heck you could teach the whole art baseed on Mr. Parkers "Dinner" analogy... appetizer, main course, and dessert. To someone thats not EPAK this all seems pretty basic, but the premise of AK is not teching omnipotent techs; its premise is to teach us to fight.
Sean


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 5, 2004)

You do realize that what you're really doing is going back to older Chinese approaches--look at the "Eight Considerations," title, even--think "Eight Trigrams Boxing," and a whole buncha other schools from classical China. 

I thought it was all about Progress?

Then, of course, there's the fact that students need structures--which we can discuss and explain, as opposed to these "considerations," which seem to dissolve into woodsmoke every time an explanation and some detail is asked for.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Oct 5, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> You do realize that what you're really doing is going back to older Chinese approaches--look at the "Eight Considerations," title, even--think "Eight Trigrams Boxing," and a whole buncha other schools from classical China.
> 
> I thought it was all about Progress?
> 
> Then, of course, there's the fact that students need structures--which we can discuss and explain, as opposed to these "considerations," which seem to dissolve into woodsmoke every time an explanation and some detail is asked for.


Which tech fails to be encompassed by the considerations of combat? The structure is outward motion follow up and inward motion follow up. The rest is all variation. Everything is the start of an "ideal phase"because there is no such thing, Its all basics and logic. But do tell, what part of Mr. Pakers considerations of combat fades in to wood smoke? And why ? 
Sean


----------



## Touch Of Death (Oct 5, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I thought it was all about Progress?


Progress? Being technique focused is not progress, its a specialization. BCB's "no techniques / no mistakes" is the same as "everythings the start of an ideal phase"; because, that also implies you haven't made a mistake. You are looking at the world through a great big pair of technique glasses, and feeling sorry for people that only train 100 techs as opposed to 156. It implies that those 300 tech people must really be onto something.  Where the Bruce Lee heads when I need 'em?
Sean


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Oct 5, 2004)

brother john
my statement simply implies that, even though you are learning hundreds of techniques, you are still limiting yourself by virtue of number of techniques.
you can have 10000 techniques but somewhere down the line.....maybe number five, you're just rehashing old news. sit back and look at what the technique is teaching, technique be damned. you should be able to defend yourself with any motion as long as you understand the principles governing that motion......if you dont learn the principles, you've learned nothing but a bunch of useless techniques.
there are thousands of cobs of corn in a cornfield.....but its all corn.

shawn


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Oct 5, 2004)

sean
i think the only mistake would be starting a technique that one has learned by rote in a real situation and trying to follow through with it and it not working, and then standing there as you get socked in the teeth wondering what happened. ive seen this loads of times. a good aiki practitioner can show tons of techniques that work great in a lot of situations, but a great one wont be bound by technique.
learning techniques is NOT the way to technical understanding.....understand the principle behind its movement, and you're on your way.

shawn


----------



## Brother John (Oct 5, 2004)

OK Shawn-
Listen, I was getting all snide with you before and dismissing your point out of hand. Ill grow up now and stop that in the interest of  trying to understand one anotherwhich in the end I think helped Robert and I understand each other better. So, apology having been given, lets move on and discuss. 

What both you and Todd have talked about is both on the mark and off of it. Heres what I mean. I think that when you said 
learning technique for technique sake is fine as a training tool to develop speed, accuracy, and stamina. but to teach technique as a basis for self defense is only a set-up for failure.
You are correct. If we learn the techniques and think Now I KNOW what Ill do when attacked in these ways. Wed be in error, and a good instructor would tell us so. Where you, I believe, are incorrect is in assuming that that is in fact what we are doing. It is not. To do so would be foolish. Mr. Parker seems to have enjoyed the analogy between learning Kenpo and learning to speak another language. I do too, and I think it lends itself well to this issue. 

If I were to try to teach you Japanese and I gave you lessons that contained 1000 of the most common Japanese phrases youd learn a bit of Japanese, but youd not become fluent. If someone spoke to you in Japan and phrased it in an uncommon way, youd be thrown for a loop. Youd still sound VERY much like a tourist. If I gave you lessons based on 10o,000 of the most common Japanese phrases, same deal; youd have a better vocabulary but not a better usage thereof; youd not be able to really express yourself well in the languageno one would ever claim that you were well spoken & persuasive in Japanese. IF however I gave you 500 of the most common phrases AND taught you their rules of grammar and syntaxetc.; then had you study and rearrange parts of the phrases to be able to make new phrases of your ownin other words, IF I taught you how to formulate your own phrases and made you practice doing so over and over in varying situations and with different shades of nuanceTHEN you could become fluent. You may still need to increase your vocabularybut thatd come with time and experience. THIS, in my mind, is very similar to the use of techniques in American Kenpo!

If I teach you 1000 of the best techniques against 250 of the most common types of attacks youd probably be able to move in those techniques just finebut youd not be fluent, the ramming speed of combat and the adrenal surge it gives plus the amazing amount of variables that enter into the circumstances of actual combat would trip you up, present you with something that you didnt expect or fell outside the bounds of your 1000 techniques. Youd be the stammering dumbfounded tourist in Japan again. 

IF I teach you 100,000 techniques against the 1000 most common types of attacksNOW Ive actually made matters worse. Instead of only a few to choose from, now youd have to search through the huge compendium of techs in your head to find the right one, and even nowthere may not be one. Youd lose. Period.

IF however, I give you 150 techniques against 15 of the most common types of attacksand then teach you HOW they work and WHY they workand make you practice rearranging them in different ways to meet different needs in the flow of actionTHEN youd be fluid & fluent. 

You see Shawn, the techniques are a point of reference given to us to be able to understand how to meet the needs of the moment in many different contexts and circumstances. Their purpose, as you accurately stated, is as a vehicle for us to be able to know what works and whyto be able to internalize the principles and make use of the concepts that make these things function welland then to be able to manipulate them spontaneously in order best adapt to the needs of ..whatever. The techniques arent there for us to execute verbatim from the belt manuals. Being able to simply regurgitate a by the book technique is not what will save our keester in the heat of a fight it will be our ability to adapt in the ways we have been trained. The list of techniques, no matter 32-24-16 or 5 per belt, are sequential lessons a structure so that we can pass along the understanding that they contain. Without the structure.we are guessing. But the techniques arent the answer, they are the question. Its what we do with them that makes us better able to adapt and survive. 

Besides, theres a lot more than JUST self-defense techniques in what we do in American Kenpo. There are forms, sets, freestyle techs, freestyle sparing, two man drills, weapons, weapon sets, weapon drills, weapon techniqueslet alone all of the myriad ways that our instructors can take simple combinations of basics and work us up and down the floor for a good workout. Even the 8 considerations are nothing more than a conceptual paradigm, a lens through which to view the entire curriculum and practice of Kenpo. 

I hope Im being clear, I get awfully wordy sometimes.
I hope we can discuss this more.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Touch Of Death (Oct 5, 2004)

What if you had one key that opened up all the doors..


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 5, 2004)

There is no one key that opens all the doors.

Moreover, you don't have one, Shawn. How do I know? Because I've never seen you explain anything about kenpo that isn't already contained within what I've learned. 

For example, these, "eight considerations:" how exactly do they differ from Mr. Parker's, "considerations of combat?" 

If the sort of kenpo I learned were only techniques, you might have a point. It isn't: there're sets, forms, sparring, basics, theoretical knowledge at all levels...and above all there's the reality of practice.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Oct 5, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> There is no one key that opens all the doors.
> 
> Moreover, you don't have one, Shawn. How do I know? Because I've never seen you explain anything about kenpo that isn't already contained within what I've learned.
> 
> ...


 The "eight" considerations are the considerations of combat Robert. I just didn't call it by the exact terminology taught to you. We don't call them the eight considerations either; because, attitude is always first, which would make it nine. Anyways thats what they called 'em when I was a kid, and I thought maybe you knew what I was refering too. so, to answer your question... not a damn thing. I'm not claiming to have new info Robert. Thats the whole point!
Its all there right under your nose. And yes there is only one key the considerations of combat, as you call them.
Sean


----------



## Dark Kenpo Lord (Oct 5, 2004)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> The "eight" considerations are the considerations of combat Robert. I just didn't call it by the exact terminology taught to you. We don't call them the eight considerations either; because, attitude is always first, which would make it nine. Anyways thats what they called 'em when I was a kid, and I thought maybe you knew what I was refering too. so, to answer your question... not a damn thing. I'm not claiming to have new info Robert. Thats the whole point!
> Its all there right under your nose. And yes there is only one key the considerations of combat, as you call them.
> Sean


Sean, you don't get it, you won't get it, and it's futile for your semi-literate brain to absorb the knowledge that we pass to our students.    You don't understand the art much less have the ability to convey it.  

DarK LorD


----------



## Dark Kenpo Lord (Oct 5, 2004)

Brother John said:
			
		

> I hope Im being clear, I get awfully wordy sometimes.
> I hope we can discuss this more.
> 
> Your Brother
> John


Right on John, keep it coming.

DarK LorD


----------



## Oak Bo (Oct 5, 2004)

That was a good post Brother John, please keep sharing.
 :asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 5, 2004)

And how exactly do you TEACH these "eight considerations," which are really nine considerations (a curious approach to counting, which ought to suggest something's amiss right there?)

If they aren't new, why do you keep going on about progress and creativity?

My basic point's this: without the techniques, forms, etc., I simply don't see how a student's supposed to learn--with the exception perhaps of the occasional (much less common than some might think) genius?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Oct 5, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> And how exactly do you TEACH these "eight considerations," which are really nine considerations (a curious approach to counting, which ought to suggest something's amiss right there?)
> 
> If they aren't new, why do you keep going on about progress and creativity?
> 
> My basic point's this: without the techniques, forms, etc., I simply don't see how a student's supposed to learn--with the exception perhaps of the occasional (much less common than some might think) genius?


I was using old terminology for your benefit. Was it  bad terminology? yes, that is why everyone renamed it. So what's amiss with the "considerations of combat"?. Your the one that just used the term progress, why are you accusing me of going on and on about it?

Clyde,
What ever it is you are selling. I don't want any part of it.
Sean


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 5, 2004)

Fine Sean.

What exactly are your "eight considerations," no really nine, and would you mind giving me an illustration of how exactly you would teach a typical lesson?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Oct 5, 2004)

If you have already rejected them and don't know them already, naming them for you isn't going to help. Just keep on with your environment and targets thing; it gives you the need for the 154 techs. I won't try to take that away. By the way I didn't reject the techs we just don't promote based on how many you aquire.
Sean

PS since you asked (attitude, environment, range, position, maneuvers, targets weapon, angle, and cover)


----------



## Dark Kenpo Lord (Oct 6, 2004)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> If you have already rejected them and don't know them already, naming them for you isn't going to help. Just keep on with your environment and targets thing; it gives you the need for the 154 techs. I won't try to take that away. By the way I didn't reject the techs we just don't promote based on how many you aquire.
> Sean
> 
> PS since you asked (attitude, environment, range, position, maneuvers, targets weapon, angle, and cover)


Lord help us if you actually have students to project this arcane knowledge you possess.    By the way, look at your tag at the end of your post, it's almost what I've been spouting, Environment and Target availability.    The eight considerations come into play once the tech. has been initiated.

FYI, it's 154 base plus extensions.    So, If I learn to breathe correctly do I get an 8th or do I just get into a good neutral bow?

DKL


----------



## GAB (Oct 6, 2004)

Hi DKL,

Up early as usual, I was on the SanJoseKenpo board and observed a question about the 9 rules of kenpo (Stategy, A book of five rings).

It is interesting what one see's as 'knowledge' and others notice as 'arcane'.

A package wrapped up in different paper and presented to an unknowing group of people, like an old book of saying's from 3000 years ago (I have read even longer,like maybe 5000,) and then giving credit to the person saying it. 

Kind of reminds me of 'Aesop fables'. 

It is all based upon 'Knowledge' and the ability to 'distribute' it to the new and ever consuming public.

I like the way, Hollywood takes an old tale and wraps it up into a modern story, most of the consuming public know's no difference, but the critic who is well endowed with information, looks at it from a different angle.

Just my observation.

Regards, Gary


----------



## loki09789 (Oct 6, 2004)

Old Fat Kenpoka said:
			
		

> Once upon a time there was a thread titled "are all these techniques really necessary?" Several people made some excellent posts. That thread got sidetracked and is now locked. I think that the thread had some excellent stuff that is worth pursuing. So...
> 
> How do you develop effective techniques?


I haven't read through the other posts (and can't remember if I posted here before) but I would think that just following the Technique acquisition process of Form, Power, Focus and Speed would be the way to develop effective techniques.

Speed would have to be specified (Mechanical speed, muscular speed, reaction speed) so that you knew what you were trying to accomplish in your short term training goals, but the process seems to be effective as a development tool.


----------



## The Kai (Oct 6, 2004)

GAB said:
			
		

> Hi DKL,
> 
> Up early as usual, I was on the SanJoseKenpo board and observed a question about the 9 rules of kenpo (Stategy, A book of five rings).
> 
> ...


?????????????????


----------



## The Kai (Oct 6, 2004)

BlackCatBonz said:
			
		

> brother john
> my statement simply implies that, even though you are learning hundreds of techniques, you are still limiting yourself by virtue of number of techniques.
> you can have 10000 techniques but somewhere down the line.....maybe number five, you're just rehashing old news. sit back and look at what the technique is teaching, technique be damned. you should be able to defend yourself with any motion as long as you understand the principles governing that motion......if you dont learn the principles, you've learned nothing but a bunch of useless techniques.
> there are thousands of cobs of corn in a cornfield.....but its all corn.
> ...


The techniques reach, mimick the principles.  How do you illustrate your principles?  By showing a technique-then the student shows you your technique (or a close variation of it) to illustrate your techique!  Techniques are boat or bridge to cross a river, the object is'nt the boat or bridge but the opposite shore.  
Todd


----------



## GAB (Oct 6, 2004)

Hi Kai,

I understand what you are saying, but 'alas' you no get mine.

Oh well. (_ I _know redundent)

Regards, Gary

Are you following me?????


----------



## Brother John (Oct 6, 2004)

Hey DKL-
Thanks for the compliment man! Knowing what a straight shooter you are, the impact of a compliment from you is all the more profound!  :asian:  So thanks Bro.

Shawn (blackcatbonz) and Touch of Death:
I wrote a longish reply to you both but hadn't heard any of your thoughts/reactions to it...
As I said at the end, I hope we could discuss it further. 
please?  :idunno: 
You guys don't wana play w/me no mo?
Or yas just doesn't wana write a book report/review? ( I did write a Long'n didn't I?)
1way or the other: I do hope to hear from you on it.

(I'll soon contact the 'Cliff's Notes' people to see if they can break my posts/replies down into easier to handle chunks   :ultracool  )

Your Brother
John


----------



## The Kai (Oct 6, 2004)

GAB said:
			
		

> Hi Kai,
> 
> I understand what you are saying, but 'alas' you no get mine.
> 
> ...


Not even close!!  The 5 considerations and the book of 5 rings are opposite ends of the spectrum.  Both are important but to say one is the same as the other shows that you are merely trying despertly trying to grind a point in!
Hollywood has changed look at the difference between a BW silent film vs. just about any movie today!
Todd


----------



## Touch Of Death (Oct 6, 2004)

Dark Kenpo Lord said:
			
		

> Lord help us if you actually have students to project this arcane knowledge you possess.    By the way, look at your tag at the end of your post, it's almost what I've been spouting, Environment and Target availability.    The eight considerations come into play once the tech. has been initiated.
> 
> FYI, it's 154 base plus extensions.    So, If I learn to breathe correctly do I get an 8th or do I just get into a good neutral bow?
> 
> DKL


So, it seems "you" have evolved passed Mr. Parkers methods and not I. That little quip about when they start proves you didn't understand them enough to keep them or discard them, but by all means discard them. It suits you. :asian:  
Sean
PS Award yourself a tenth for all I care, anyone who evolves passed the cycle of consideratitons might as well.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 6, 2004)

Sean, the way you keep ducking simple and straightforward questions is making it look as though either a) you don't know the answer, or b) you're selling snake oil. I assume that neither is true, so let me ask a third time:

What exactly are these eight no nine considerations--not just names, but meanings--and how exactly do you teach them to students?

I can tell you exactly how I teach, say, a typical first lesson to a beginner. I can tell you why I'm doing what I'm doing, and I can describe some situations in which I'd change things around a little--and right or wrong, I can tell you why I do that, too. I can also go up the ladder, describe some typical problems students have and discuss ways to fix them, discuss a typical group class and why it's taught that way. Hell, I can even reflect on my own training and discuss why I was taught the way I was taught. And I don't have to get into fancy language, either.

It's a lot like what I tell writing students: generalizations, cliches, moralism, all represent attempts to BS rather than to explain, to fill up the page rather than to learn and to discuss and to analyze---so, without the generalizations and cliches and moralisms, what exactly do you do to teach these "eight considerations," in, say, a first lesson for a beginner?

If you simply explain, we can discuss it. But, sorry, what you're producing is the impression that (for whatever reason), this is just nonsense....I assume that's not true, so could you just explain?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Oct 6, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Sean, the way you keep ducking simple and straightforward questions is making it look as though either a) you don't know the answer, or b) you're selling snake oil. I assume that neither is true, so let me ask a third time:
> 
> What exactly are these eight no nine considerations--not just names, but meanings--and how exactly do you teach them to students?
> 
> ...


Robert,
Lets assume the cycle is a game and the object is to get the ball to fall through all the slots; its actualy how I have veiwed your ideal phase of every tech thing so I'll attempt to apply that to the cycle. Now just as in your even if phase, once the slots line up you then complete whatever tech conitions were favorable for. Its sort of the same with the cycle, except with the cycle, you keep going back to tweak whats wrong before you ever get to targets. If you duck a punch then you deal with that danger before targets again become an issue. This can be done by affecting the attitude (act like it hurt or act like it didn't) changing your position, manuevering, heck I not sure what else to say when you lumped it all into environment; so, I guess for your understanding, targets are not an issue until environmental conditions are favorable. However you seem to have discarded the rest of the cycle as inconsequencial as well... Those are your specifics. One major difference is that the cylcle is not an attempt to line up a tech, its an attempt to to survive from move to move. Any given tech would then contain multiple uses of the cycle. For some more than others. 
Sean


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 6, 2004)

I'm sorry, Sean, but that's not even remotely responsive to the question. It's exactly the sort of thing that I meant when I said that you were producing the impression that a) you don't know, and b) the whole thing's just snake oil.

I asked exactly what you teach a student, and gave the example of a first lesson. OK, when I teach a beginner their first lesson, I pretty much follow Mr. Parker's 70s and 80s guidelines--and, for that matter, pretty much the classic way beginners are taught. 

The goals are, first, to a) get a beginner used to being on the mat a little; b) start (only start) to develop their sense of a strong yet flexible base, c) introduce a basic punch, block, kick, d) if they're getting that, intro a first technique as a combination of basics, e)  if at all possible, to encourage a beginner to feel a little of their own power.

So, I begin by teaching a decent step-out into a meditating horse stance, without necessarily explaining that I want them to start thinking about a) stance, b) directional harmony, c) marriage of gravity, and a few other concepts that I won't go into here. I tend to emphasize that they step out cleanly, get their hands up, tuck their toes in and get their head up most of all, so that they can start building a strong foundation in terms of stance and in terms of reaction to attacks. I have them step out from an attention stance several times, remarking that they want to practice this until they have some sense of it, before I go further, and I stare down at their feet a lot, to help make the point of stance, stance, stance. Then I....get the picture?

Now you can argue or disagree with the approach or whatever you want, but at least you can tell what the approach is--and, you can tell what specific ideas it's based on. Hell, if you want you can pretty much identify what sort of kenpo it is...

What I DON'T do is to throw a lot of theory at them (and this is a guy who studied literary and cultural theory at the grad level talking, so...), or, "just have them fight," or, "teach them principles," or whatever else will confuse the hell out of beginners.

By the way, Mr. Parker's first two considerations of combat are 1) acceptance, 2) environment--check "Inf. Insights." Could you explain how therse are a) confusing, b) inferior to the "cycle of consdierations," list? 

This'll be my last post until you say something specific. I don't see the point in quarreling over explanations that don't explain a darn thing, and abstract theories whose connections to reality are not laid out.


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Oct 6, 2004)

brother john
you hit the nail on the head........once again, my only beef with teaching from a technique base is that "some" not "all" people, get lost in the technique. thats why i said something along the lines of by the fifth technique you start rehashing.
now i do understand the fact that you need more than 5, simply because each individual will not necessarily "get" it if you show them one way
now i understand all about free sparring and experimentation........i was merely saying this, give a technique to work a principle from.....and then throw the technique out the window and see how a student applies the principle learned in the technique.
now i know some people might be guffawing at me right now and saying, "this guy is an a$$hole".
but more often than not a teacher will get caught up in this technique business, drill the techniques and forget to explain the finite details of the principle of application, i think we are on the same page here.
ive met a lot of guys who have their own smoke blowing up their own ****, and they would better like to yell and scream,  rather than discuss something that doesnt fit in with their viewpoint....
cheers brother john!

shawn


----------



## Touch Of Death (Oct 6, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, Sean, but that's not even remotely responsive to the question. It's exactly the sort of thing that I meant when I said that you were producing the impression that a) you don't know, and b) the whole thing's just snake oil.
> 
> I asked exactly what you teach a student, and gave the example of a first lesson. OK, when I teach a beginner their first lesson, I pretty much follow Mr. Parker's 70s and 80s guidelines--and, for that matter, pretty much the classic way beginners are taught.
> 
> ...


Well for one thing you aren't paying me enough to publicly teach what we teach our students. When I get a chance I will privately discuss this with you. By the way acceptance is combat specific, and attitude is "always" first. Think of it a broadening the defenition.
Sean
PS It appears you do not accept Private messages feel free to E - mail me a Kenpossessed@yahoo.com or not.


----------



## GAB (Oct 6, 2004)

Hi Kai,

So that is what you got out of what I said?

OK.

Regards, Gary


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 7, 2004)

Sean, that's unadulterated ********. 

Knowledge should be available to anyone who's willing to work for it--and what's more, the petty little clutching of one's precious (yes, Gollum...down) secrets flies in the face of the fact that there ARE no goddamn secrets in kenpo, except for the ones we keep from ourselves and from our students.

If you were taught to say that sort of thing, you were taught badly. If you've come up with it on your own, you've gone way, way off the beam.  

I'm not paying you a darn thing--and you aren't paying me, and yet oddly, I'm perfectly willing to describe what I do when I teach--at any level. Know why? First off, because it's like cross-country skiing--the trail's there for everybody, yet after the first half-mile, it's empty. Second off, because it's how I was taught--by people who were generous with their expertise and their time, and who stuck me with the obligation of trying to do likewise.

And there's another reason that what you're saying is ********. I've been teaching for quite a long time now, and you know what? It's always the petty people--whether in kollege or in kenpo--who clutch what they know to their breast, and make squeaking noises when other people ask them to share. You know why? Because generally speaking, they don't have anything serious to share, and they don't want others to find out.

Sorry, man, but as a professional teacher I am deeply offended. And, I might add--as an intellectual type, I can recognize ******** when I read it. Ah yes...I would demonstrate my ESP, but your doubt has disturbed the astral plane...I cannot explain the Path, each being must Walk the Path for Themselves...For Lo, you must dDop and Give Me Pushups, for Thou hast Come to the Table before Thy Master...

Sorry, again, but I'd genuinely thought that you simply were trained differently, and I was interested to find out what you knew. You've convinced me otherwise.


----------



## bzarnett (Oct 7, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> What exactly are these eight no nine considerations--not just names, but meanings--and how exactly do you teach them to students?


Summary:

1. Attitude - the arrange of your body our your opponent's body. Your mental and emotional position in relationship to your environment, predicament, and other individuals. Acceptance that danger exists. Acceptance that you are in a confrontation are aspects of attitude. It's the greater principle.

2. Environment - what is in, on, and around you. How does the two big macs sitting in the pit of your stomach effect you. You have a wall to your left and behind you. It's icy outside on your winter street.

3. DSA - Dimensional stages of action. What stage of action are you? Do you have to close the gap? Are you in a critical distance for contact penetration? What about your opponent? Is my opponent in range and I'm not?

4. Positions - how I or my opponent arrange our bodies. The "Ground Game" would be a positional element. I am on the ground and my opponent is on top of me. My opponent grabs me from the side.

5. Manuevers - how I interact with my opponent using foot and body manuevers. This includes stance shifts. 

6. Targets - part of economy of motion (choose the best target, the best weapon, at the best angle in the least amount of time to create a desired effect). What is the effect I want? Do I want to take out my opponent's foundation? Do I need to anatomically position him? What is the effect I need?

7. Weapons - what natural, man-made, or environmental weapon am I going to use to hit my target. What fits the target? I want to strike so what weapon do I have that allows for contact penetration?

8. Angle - angle of execution, angle of incidence, etc. The angles I need to create a desired effect.

9. Cover - after the situation has been controlled (or I think it has) and I have stopped my opponent (or I think I have) I cover. Do I need to re-engage? Perhaps.

All of this stuff is described in the Infinite Insights series and the Encylopedia. In some circumstances, the higher level principle was used. For example "Attitude" over "Acceptance".

There are other helpful tips in the manuals - the ones that describe the themes, what-ifs, etc. (like seen in Volume 5. of Infinite Insights).

Use of the Cycle of Considerations/Prepartory Considerations are key in fully understanding the What-If scenarios in Kenpo techniques (IMHO).

Just some thoughts. In regards to teaching? Do you have something specific?

Bryan


----------



## Brother John (Oct 7, 2004)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> Robert,
> Lets assume the cycle is a game and the object is to get the ball to fall through all the slots; its actualy how I have veiwed your ideal phase of every tech thing so I'll attempt to apply that to the cycle. Now just as in your even if phase, once the slots line up you then complete whatever tech conitions were favorable for. Its sort of the same with the cycle, except with the cycle, you keep going back to tweak whats wrong before you ever get to targets. If you duck a punch then you deal with that danger before targets again become an issue. This can be done by affecting the attitude (act like it hurt or act like it didn't) changing your position, manuevering, heck I not sure what else to say when you lumped it all into environment; so, I guess for your understanding, targets are not an issue until environmental conditions are favorable. However you seem to have discarded the rest of the cycle as inconsequencial as well... Those are your specifics. One major difference is that the cylcle is not an attempt to line up a tech, its an attempt to to survive from move to move. Any given tech would then contain multiple uses of the cycle. For some more than others.
> Sean


I must admit Sean
You really threw me with this one. I've read it several times now and I really don't understand your point, what you are getting at or.......anything. I don't know if it's just me or what, but I'd like to try to understand your position... so could you please clarify: what is your point?
Thanks

Your Brother
John


----------



## GAB (Oct 7, 2004)

Brother John said:
			
		

> OK Shawn-
> Listen, I was getting all snide with you before and dismissing your point out of hand. Ill grow up now and stop that in the interest of trying to understand one anotherwhich in the end I think helped Robert and I understand each other better. So, apology having been given, lets move on and discuss.
> 
> What both you and Todd have talked about is both on the mark and off of it. Heres what I mean. I think that when you said
> ...


 
Hi John,

Your take on this is very astute, I also enjoyed the signature on this one.
It is something to be able to put into words what you are thinking.
I know that is a simple statement, but its very correct in this particular post and then with the signature, like I said, well done.

I understand that a compliment from me is not much, but I enjoyed this post very much.

Thanks for the lesson. 

Regards, Gary


----------



## Brother John (Oct 7, 2004)

GAB said:
			
		

> Hi John,
> 
> Your take on this is very astute, I also enjoyed the signature on this one.
> It is something to be able to put into words what you are thinking.
> ...



Hey Gary-
A compliment from a gentleman is always appreciated! Thank you.
I'm glad you enjoyed my jabber.
It makes me smile that you considered me astute...
this world needs more 'stutes'  

Your Brother
John


----------



## GAB (Oct 7, 2004)

Hi,

I would just like to offer this.

In Kosho the use of the eight fold path, the octogon, and the four directional folds of the body.

These are the terms that Hanshi Bruce uses in his book, Kosho Ryu Kempo,
'The last Disciple"

I have read quite a few of the books that the late SGMEP wrote, how many of you have read the book I just referred to?

I believe this discussion is a good one, it conveys the essence of critical thought.

I really believe that when giving out information we take and try to convey it as our own way of thinking, based on the reading and the knowledge you possess, experience and other numerous considerations that all go into each and everyone of us.

In the Marine Corps. They taught you what they thought, you needed to know, on how to win the battle, that you might be in if going to war, or other such things.

The knowledge and the effort they put you through, the grinder, the intense training, the breaking down, the rebuilding. If it was your muscles responding to growing bigger and stronger, or your mind, which is not quite as easy to observe.

This is where, I believe the martial and the civilian teaching differ. Obvious huh. Not really. 
We who have been there and done that look at life different, then others who have not. 
That does not mean much, and some will take it out of context, but the making up of the man or person you want at your side when times get rough
is very complicated.

The same as what goes into making up the person you want to be in your school, and the ability to read them and know what to teach them on a personal level, these are things that Hanshi Bruce teaches.

So everyperson who is learning from him is not learning the same.

Why? Because everyone is different. So now he has programs that are personalized.

Everyone has the basics. Just like in the Corps. 

If you are a cook or a tailor or a truck driver you have to go through the 'Basics'.

Then you go on to learn what you as an individual can and will be the best for the Corps. They send you where they think you are needed, to serve them the Corps and not you.

This is the Same in Law Enforcement and the same in Hanshi Bruce's program.

After reading Roberts last post I feel he is a very good teacher, maybe even excellent comes to mind.

Thanks for sharing the information and the lessons in your post Robert.

That does not mean we will agree or not, but it does put a different perspective on how I will view this person.

The only thing I ask of others is to look at what Hanshi Bruce is trying to teach and not at the other BS.

Read his books as well.

To become a professor of anything, you must be well read and have gone through the system. 
Whether it is the system of hard knocks or the system, that our Government has tried to set up for us, to learn.

Elementary, Junior and Senior High. Going on to college is also much more available to the 'commoner, underpriviliged, poor, etc.

I am enjoying this Thread very much. Thanks again for the lesson's and the insight.

Last but not least, Hanshi Bruce reminds us that the best Self Defense is 'Peace and Harmony'. 
If you are going to war or not you must be ready for it.

That is the bottom line, being ready, does not mean you have got to fight all the time to prove it, it just means you need to have the knowledge to be able to do it, and the ability. Some do, some don't.

If you have not read Hanshi's Books and received his information, how can you compare your information.

I have read both Parker's, and Juchnik's, have you.

It is like going to school the next day and not reading the chapter you were told would be discussed in the class.

Just my, Rambling thoughts, etc.

Regards, Gary


----------



## The Kai (Oct 7, 2004)

Gab

Yes I own the books you are referring to

So if you want to talk about the 8 angles let me know

If a program is taught on concepts and principles it cannot be personalized, per se. 
Todd


----------



## Touch Of Death (Oct 7, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Sean, that's unadulterated ********.
> 
> Knowledge should be available to anyone who's willing to work for it--and what's more, the petty little clutching of one's precious (yes, Gollum...down) secrets flies in the face of the fact that there ARE no goddamn secrets in kenpo, except for the ones we keep from ourselves and from our students.
> 
> ...


Excuse me, but its not my place to tell you what the students are taught when they walk in the door. Its not my school. I am respecting others. And "no" ,our lesson plan is not bound by a "should be available" clause. If you think attitude and acceptance are the same, so be it. We teach differently (that was free). If you are teaching that they are the same, there is no use in selling it; so, it might as well be free; because only those told the "force" is strong in them would buy it. Now I will, however, paraphrase a lesson so you will calm down. Lets just say you want to maintain a state of well being, even when under attack. For every fraction of an instant that goes by this is compromised, either intentionaly or unintentionaly. Now by considering the possibilities and the roadblocks that occur, you are then constantly cycling through avery short list of concerns.(for this excercise we'll call them... oh, I don't know ...considerations) This is not a combat excercise, its a way of life. Cover does not mean you are done with the tech and are crossing out, although it certainly could in that instance on a broader scale. So, a lesson plan would be, "survive in this manner". Now that I mention it I suppose the cycle of considerations would be more like a game of "snakes and latters" instead of the pinball y'all are teaching. What are some ways to enhance survival?... lets see: attitude, logic, basics, and fitness. The list I just described are the parameters defining your thinking and your actions. You might even say they are the laws of the fist.(feel free to shorten that to LAW OF THE FIST or you may even call it Kenpo if you want to get all sentimental for the oriental culture Mr. Parker was exposed to in Hawaii) One thing we don't do, is start teaching them "Delayed Sword". Hope that helps.
Sean


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 7, 2004)

So to quote "The Core," my best guess is, you don't know.

For the fourth time: I am asking what you teach students to do, PHYSICALLY, not theoretically. 

To quote, "Blade Runner," "We're physical."

Thanks, bzarnet, for the explanation. I see that these Considerations are, as I thought, virtually identical to Mr. Parker's list, which are available to anyone in "Infinite Insights."

I am afraid, however, that I am quite baffled by the evasions. Why wouldn't it be one's "place," to explain? How does what sure looks like armchair kenpo actually work to teach students?

It should be easy for any teacher to describe a typical lesson at different levels, to discuss rationales, to explain the history of teaching that way, to reflect upon their own training and understanding. Not to be able to do so--and to try and paper over such a set of mistakes by suggesting that Here There Be Big Secrets--is a good chunk of what's wrong with kenpo these days.

Come on, Sean--just a beginner's lesson. Describe one; what actually do you teach? What do you expect a student to do? Why? How's what you teach tied to the development of kenpo? What have you learned by teaching? What holes do you see in your own PHYSICAL practice?

Knowledge is democratic, in the sense that Chaucer advocated when he approvingly described his Clerk in the "Canterbury Tales," as a man who would gladly learn and gladly teach. Knowledge is elitist, in that only some people are willing to pay for knowledge, and I ain't talking 'bout money, neither.

But there are no secrets in kenpo, except for the ones we try to keep or refuse to look at.

Or to put this another way, borrowing from my own teacher--REAL confidence is based on the development of skill. It doesn't come just from walking up to a student and saying: "Here...I give you confidence."


----------



## Touch Of Death (Oct 7, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> So to quote "The Core," my best guess is, you don't know.
> 
> For the fourth time: I am asking what you teach students to do, PHYSICALLY, not theoretically.
> 
> ...


Allright damnit, we teach a new student margin for error. are you happy? In relation to the cycle, that and proper methods of execution  pretty much covers the physical aspecs of training. A stable base give you MFO ect.
Sean


----------



## Touch Of Death (Oct 7, 2004)

Ok if its so easy, why would you have a student fight on the inside as opposed to outside? and why would you have them step forward instead of back? Why start with your hands down instead of up? What do you tell your students??? And don't say catagory completion.
Sean


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 7, 2004)

Gee, I didn't know there'd be a quiz. I guess trying to deflect the question back is easier than actually explaining how the lessons are done, and why, eh?

1. You don't teach a student to "fight on the inside," in some abstract sense at all, because fighting isn't abstract. This is why there are techniques like Five Swords.

2. You don't abstractly teach a student to step forward instead of back (advance rather than retreat, gee, did I get it right?)--you teach them the old yellow belt techs, then you teach the oranges; you teach Short Form 1, which retreats; you teach Short Form 2, which advances.

3. You don't maunder on about hands up, hands down; you work through the system (at yellow belt: Delayed Sword, hands down; Deflecting Hammer, hands/guard up) and, having established basic binary oppositions, you wait until such opportune moments as Circling Windmills to explain what they've been working on all along, rather than being so damn impressed with your own knowledge/so worried you don't really know that you lumber the poor student with all sorts of irrelevant theory.

4. I tell my students they should practice, so that they learn solid self-defense and do not fall prey to every snake-oil salesman who rolls through town in a wagon.

Is all of this a complete discussion? Not by any means; just a sketch of a beginning. Oh, and incidentally--I've NEVER had anything in kenpo explained to me as just, "category completion." Get the bark on the right tree, willya?

Gee, Sean, still waiting to hear exact descriptions of what it is that you do when you teach, and when you learn. Funny how those never seem to be forthcoming...can I see the Perpetual Motion Machine? uh....no...it's being repaired...can you demonstrate Therapeutic Touch?...uh, no...your cynicism destroys my link to my chi...


----------



## bzarnett (Oct 7, 2004)

One reason for teaching something like Five Swords is in relationship to the Cycle of Considerations/Preparatory Considerations - time and environment. 

The attack of Five swords is where our opponent throws a right roundhouse punch toward our face. That is the attack. If we examine this in terms of COC/PC, we first have the attitude/acceptance thing (get back to this later). We than have a look at our environment. For 5 swords, our environment does not allow us to move backwards or to the outside of our opponent's punch thus we move forward and to the inside of the punch. Our dimensional stage of action is "contact penetration." Some of the what-ifs of this technique can be based on what-if my opponent is in contact (versus contact penetration) or what-if my opponent is at contact manipulation. What if my opponent is in contact penetration and I am in contact, etc.

The COC/PC help us intelligently formulate or graft appropriatly.

When I teach a new student this material my expectation is that they understand that it exists (COC/PC), and that they interpret it as a tool to better manage a confrontation extemporaneously. They might be able to name all the elements but they might not be able to pull it off. Over the next few levels we introduce a variety of aspects.

So how do I teach environment? Well some basic examples would be:

1. Provide environmental limitations during the execution of a technique. For example, you can't move off the blue area. Or place them in a corner, etc.

2. Provide environmental objects that they might trip over or hinder there ability to manuever (kicking shields, etc.). Maybe I drop down a weapon. 

3. We get them dressed up in there non-workout clothing and see what they can do. Maybe we get them engaged without and warm-up to see how there muscles react (Arnica gel/oil is important here). How about telling everyone to eat a big bowl of Pasta or 3 Big Macs and try a few things out? Have a headache? Work on twirling sacrafice and see how it goes?

DSA is even more fun. The number one training drill for this? Contact. Even at yellow belt have them start to make contact. Let them get the feel of when they are in contact penetration or contact or out of contact altogether.

The COC/PC are part of the core Theme/attack in the self-defense techniques.

As a cool exercise, list out a bunch of techniques and have your students determine:

1. The Environmental Conditions
2. The initial dimensional stage of action (for you and your opponent)
3. The positions you are in
4. What manuevers do you need to execute to be in critical distance.

Cheers,
Bryan


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Oct 7, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 1. You don't teach a student to "fight on the inside," in some abstract sense at all, because fighting isn't abstract. This is why there are techniques like Five Swords.


fighting isnt abstract? since when. 
again with the technique.
it sounds like you're trying to fit everything into a neat categorized package, fighting isnt neat and A+B does not always equal C.
the only thing that you can count on in a self defense situation is that an opponent will attack you naturally and from multiple attack angles. practicing a technique from a single attack angle has no basis in reality, other than trying to build up speed and accuracy.
a great teacher once said, "speed is bull$hit, timing is of the essence." 
developing timing is much harder than developing speed......hitting someone 5 or 6 times in one second is useless.......with timing, one hit is all it should take.
a car doesnt have to run over a person 5 or 6 times to get the job done.

shawn


----------



## psi_radar (Oct 7, 2004)

I'd like to point out something that has so far not been covered in this discussion: creativity is fun. 

A good portion of the people here involved in this discussion are teachers. As such, you are required to pass on fundamental, base knowledge of the art. These techniques are the known applications of the principles, and as examples are exceptional study guides. And as Kenpo teachers, you develop an intimate knowledge of the material, and continually find new rewards as minutiae are revealed and new truths unfold. Now, bear me out with this, but my perspective, I believe is similar to other students' and differing from yours at a primitive level. As teachers, you are required to have a level of mastery that serves both as an ideal for your students and as your bread-and-butter. You have an investment in the material I don't have. Though I show my teacher, my fellow students, and the art the respect they deserve, I don't have the  constraints of perfection upon me. I don't enter class with a solemn determination to stay faithful to the strictures of Kenpo. That's the teachers' job. Sometimes, I'll "fingerpaint" in front of the whole class if I feel like it. Sometimes I prefer fine art. And sometimes I'll contentedly trace.

I started Kenpo as a means to learn self defense, stay in shape, and have something for myself away from family and work. I never set out to be "a Kenpo master," rather, a good martial artist. Time and money wouldn't allow more--and those are the bald facts. Once I got proficient at the techniques, tailoring a technique or modifying it to my liking was the most natural and enjoyable pursuit of all, because it was then a product of my own expression. It's funny that someone mentioned jazz a ways back; I think there's a nice parallel between musical improvisation and Kenpo. There are structures you can follow, but nothing feels quite like the sensation of freedom when you diverge from the strict architecture and live spontaneously in the moment, under no one's rules but your own.


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Oct 7, 2004)

well said, psi
but why not abandon the technique altogether and just apply your knowledge.
i still stick to the fact that people get caught up on technique, and more is better.
the standpoint that i teach from is this..........when class starts, i will ask someone to attack, anyway they wish, and simply build from there on a principle basis, such as body folding for nage waza, understanding angle of attack and defense. yes, it might be harder for the student to grasp because there is no hard and fast technique rule to go by.......but when the student does come to an understanding of the principle, they can apply it to anything.
some may ask, "how can you possibly grade or understand one's ability level without having a set of techniques to judge by?"
simple......when a student demonstrates a working knowledge of a principle its plain to see.......rather than see them go through the "motions". they will be able to apply that principle in any sort of attack situation, and see the principle in action when doing bunkai of kata. e.g. picking the first movement in pinan(heian) shodan....the gedan barai and seeing the myriad ways of applying it.

shawn


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Oct 7, 2004)

Wow...this thread has really soared into outer space....You guys actually teach techniques via all this theoretical discussion?  To me it seems like learning Quantum Physics in order to become a construction laborer.  Whatever happened to "One picture is worth a thousand words" and K.I.S.S.???


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Oct 7, 2004)

well.....i dont teach techniques.......and to me it is simple.

shawn


----------



## The Kai (Oct 7, 2004)

While it is true a car only has to hit you once, people have neither the mass, density or hardness of any car!!

Alaso a car does'nt have to hit you with any timing maerely a lot of brute force and blunt impact
while timing is critical, speed is a hell of an advantage.
Of course you teach technique, unless you refuse to demonstrate your principles!


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Oct 7, 2004)

if you dont understand the car analogy......im afraid you dont understand the point.
think about it some more

shawn


----------



## MJS (Oct 7, 2004)

BlackCatBonz said:
			
		

> with timing, one hit is all it should take.
> a car doesnt have to run over a person 5 or 6 times to get the job done.
> 
> shawn



Yes, in the 'perfect world' the one shot is great, but then again, do we live in that perfect world?? I don't know about anyone else but I'm not gonna rely on the one shot one kill mentality.

Mike


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 7, 2004)

I'm wit' you, Alan.

Car, schmar....how do you teach somebody to be a car? "And if your hands were made out of metal," as Crow T. Robot says, "that would mean something."

Sorry, guys, but martial arts lessons do not work when the student stands there and the teacher walks around pontificating. You can have all the theoretical understanding you like, but you had damn well better be able to punch good and move your feet.

One word I think y'all are searching for is "praxis:" the integration of thought and action.

The techniques are an indispensible means to an end, not the end itself, sure. Obviously. Be creative, whatever that means? Sure, obviously. But you have to respect the level that you're at--it's just as good as any other level. 

In martial arts, theory always comes LAST: it is an articulation of the student's intellectual understanding, which comes LAST. And again, kids, this is a guy who studied Jacques Derrida in grad school--if such a being tells you that you're wacked out in Theoryland, believe me, you are hopelessly lost in Theoryland. 

I'm STILL waiting to read a plain description or two of what you fellas do when you teach. Not the highfalutin' theory, not the abstractions, not the evasions, not the newspeak, but plain, simple descriptions and explanation. 

Hey, just describe an actual lesson that you've recently taught. 

I can do that with kenpo; can do that with English. Can explain what I taught, why I taught it, what the history of that approach was, why I thought it worked well or badly--and not the abstractions, either--what I physically, tangibly, actually, did.

Y'all are convincing me that you don't know what you're talking about, which can't be true. 

By the way, BCB, your claim that you don't teach technique is deeply undercut by your repeated references to the applications of specific kata.

Or, y'all can just keep up with the evasions. Or are we near the abuse phase of the confidence game yet?


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Oct 7, 2004)

robert, what abuse?
i described exactly how i go about teaching principle through movement, without using "specific preset technique"
thats what my argument was about right from the beginning, preset technique.
nobody said anyone was standing around pontificating either. MA can only be learned by "doing it". thats precisely what i do when i teach. i dont want to see a bunch of people regurgitating a technique, i want to see them act in the now. 
you're an educated man.......did your professors just give you all the answers first and hand you a test......no...they debate and make you think.. and they are quite happy, most of them, when you make it seem like you see things their way on a paper...lol
i never said i deal in abstractions......but i did say that fighting is abstract, if it wasnt every fight would be the same and no one would watch boxing.
i see your approach as a very analytical, and technical way.....very scientific, nothing wrong with that at all. 
as far as kata go.......that is about as into "technique" as i get.
take a traditional martial arts movement like a lower level parry, and take them through the entire range of motion and all the things that can be applied with it....if we are getting into semantics, then yes,that is a technique. 
but,teaching from a principle or a theoretical standpoint is also scientific, just a different approach.
you dont have to keep telling us about your education......your words speak for themselves, and i enjoy reading your posts.

shawn


----------



## The Kai (Oct 8, 2004)

BlackCatBonz said:
			
		

> if you dont understand the car analogy......im afraid you dont understand the point.
> think about it some more
> 
> shawn


It is a bad analogy there is nothing to understand.  Actually if a car hits you at 8 MPH VS. a car hits you at 80MPH makes a difference so your analogy works for speed and brute strenght!  Does it matter at what point in your stride a car slams into you?


----------



## Brother John (Oct 8, 2004)

> you hit the nail on the head........once again, my only beef with teaching from a technique base is that "some" not "all" people, get lost in the technique.


1st: In my opinion if you aren't in American Kenpo Karate and have never trained in American Kenpo Karate...then how do you know anything about 





> "some" not "all" people


 of American Kenpo Karate students?
What's your basis for comparison if you are talking from a zero level of experience in that which you are espousing to Know something about??
Besides, what does "Lost in the technique" mean??

You said that I hit the nail on the head and yet you continue to rail against the very nail I hit. 
Now it seems to me that you aren't here to reason it out, but to prop up an agenda you had from the start.

BTW: real fighting/combat has *never ever* been 'abstract'. Infact I can't think of anything less concrete except maybe the fact that 1+1=2. You may think of it or your preparation for it in 'abstract' ways, but when it happens and it's the moment of impact...it's very concrete. 
http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=abstract
OR
http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=concrete
(in the last one, especially 3a)

later...
Your Brother
John


----------



## pete (Oct 8, 2004)

first, i may be going against better judgement by jumping in here, but, i never was particularly good at judgement or keeping my mouth shut, so...

i do, in fact, train in epak...not necessarily the same system or curriculum as brother john or robert, but close enough to have a basic agreement with their position. robert's beginner lesson plan seems similar to what i'd do. i may stress stances and blocks a little more than offensive moves intially, but like i said before, close enough. 

then we'd introduce techniques and basics, partner drills and pad work for repetition and practice to develop skill... good skills instill good basics, good basics instill good techniques, and here ya go... good techniques instill good principles, and good principles are then internalized to develop a good martial artist.

i agree with robert than you cannot pontificate theories and principles without doin' it.  initially, you want to have a beginner do it physically, but not that far down the road it becomes apparent, even to a rank beginner, that there are simialities in the techniques, or conversely differences that may seem contradictory... here is where the principles can be introduced, to clarify what the student has discovered and questioned.  if the student doesn't notice or question, they should be prompted towards thinking.  yes, the techniques become the vessel to teach the principles (thanks bro')

now, i think i understand where shawn (black cat bonz) may be coming from with some people getting "lost in technique".  this could be where the connection from one technique to another is never made, or never prompted by the instructor. the student may become a collector of techniques, each one named and kept in its own little box with no relation to others.  past a certain level this is just wrong.  the connection between movement in techniques and forms are there to relate one to the principles in different applications and conditions. otherwise, you can place the colored foot outlines down on the mats and learn to dance ala arthur murray.

so if we take robert's approach and continue into intermediate levels without binding the material together by the underlying principles, students may get lost in technique... but, i just can't see how shawn's  approach of how "no form no technique" can be taught to a rank beginner. 

i guess, where i'm going with all this, is thinking that you guys are so diametricaly opposed, that you actually agree with each other but are way off in timing... meaning is robert's description appropriate for a beginner and shawn's approach more for a seasoned martial artist... and somewhere in between, you need a little of both?

and sean (touch o' death), i really have no idea where you're heading???

pete


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 8, 2004)

First off, B'cat, I see your point. However, I take it as pretty snide--and a common form of abuse--when I get responses that include, "if you'll just settle down," and "you don't have to keep telling us about your education." The which I only mentioned to suggest that if I'm saying you're off in theory la-la land, believe me, you are indeed off in theory la-la land.

I quite agree that all human action is driven by theory, ideology, history, etc. However, a martial art--any martial art!--had better be grounded on physical movement in some fashion. I've never heard of an art that doesn't do this before--and, sorry, but I simply ain't buying this generalizing and needlessly-abstract jazz. Nor am I buying the notion that because jazz and other art forms RESEMBLE martial arts, you should, like, teach martial arts that way. Y'all are confusing where you get to eventually with what you should teach...and oh, by the way...Wynton Marsalis may play jazz, but he was classically trained, alas. You know...scales, arpeggios, rhythm exercises, etc. I saw Gene Kelly tap dance in roller skates the other night, but he did not get to that by just sticking on skates and going at it. He got there by long, slow, boring, repetitive, necessary practice.

I suspect that in the end, talk-talk about, "creativity" and repetition of the usual unfounded slurs about GOOD kenpo aside, many of you all are teaching techniques. 

I still marvel at the extent to which tese last three pages have grown out of twists and turns, as folks work hard to avoid doing something very simple:describe a lesson. OK, "there is no typical lesson," fine, utter claptrap (and further claptrap because any decent teacher should be able to sketch  one out) but fine--so, describe one, in detail, that you taught last week.

Don't tell me I'm being mean; don't go off about how, "you're not paying me," or, "it isn't my place to give away Secret Training Techs of the Tibetan Yaks," or, "you don't need to flash your eddication," or whatever. Why not just describe the lesson, explain your purposes in teaching that way, explain how you learned to teach that way, discuss what you think worked and what you think didn't.

What's the big deal? Well, the big deal appears to be that either a) folks couldn't do this with a gun held to their head; b) folks don't know what they're doing, nor why; c) folks are teaching something hopelessly abstract; d) folks prefer analogies and comparasions--abstract theory--to the extended work of thinking about what they're doing, understanding it, and writing it down so it can be discussed.

In martial arts, all confidence, power, movement, theoretical meta-language, must grow out of guided practice. Otherwise, ya gots nothing.


----------



## Brother John (Oct 8, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> "it isn't my place to give away Secret Training Techs of the Tibetan Yaks,".


I Know Tibetan Yaks Sir...
I trained with Tibetan Yaks!

You, Sir, are *NO* Tibetan Yak!!!

(((Applause from the audience)))

Your Brother (Who's been enjoying your inserted sarcasm & humor)
John


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 8, 2004)

Oh dear, double-caught AGAIN.


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Oct 8, 2004)

exactly pete!
as far as it working for a ranking beginner.....like i said in one of my previous posts, it is a harder road to go down for learning, but it was how i was taught. yes, i did spend a lot of time struggling in the beginning trying to get my head around it because i wanted to be doing what i saw the guys in movies doing. i went through stages where i would start to understand this theory or that one, then i started to move better. when i train with other martial artists and work their techniques with them, i understand the movements easier than they do a lot of times, simply because of the way i was taught. im not saying i dont like drills or other training tools....i do, i just dont take a hard and fast technique approach.
i never said that i have never seen epak in action, nor did i say i have never worked with someone who trained in epak.......i simply said i never trained in it. it's only an opinion, nothing more.


shawn


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 8, 2004)

I pretty much agree with Pete--except for the beginner/advanced distinction. 

As for the other claim, well, pure theory, concepts and principles alone, completely-unstructured lessons, will not get you there. Such training is a dead end. See Medvedev/Bakhtin, "The Formalist Method In Literary Scholarship;" consider a) the reduction of real, material practice to the recitation of formulae; b) the hilariousness of claiming that that Robertson guy, of all people, isn't theoretical enough.

But thanks for the caricature of what I wrote, which at no time argued for frozen techniques...I think I also mentioned basics, sets, forms, and sparring, if'n you'll look?

I always think in this context--and some of you folks should too--of the Music Master in Hesse's "The Glass Bead Game," who when asked what he tells his students about the spirit of music, says, "The spirit of music? I tell my students nothing about the spirit of music. But I always make sure that they count out their measures very carefully."

If you think that that ain't where it's at, so far as what you're thinking of as teaching is concerned, count again.


----------



## Brother John (Oct 9, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I pretty much agree with Pete--except for the beginner/advanced distinction.
> 
> As for the other claim, well, pure theory, concepts and principles alone, completely-unstructured lessons, will not get you there. Such training is a dead end. See Medvedev/Bakhtin, "The Formalist Method In Literary Scholarship;" consider a) the reduction of real, material practice to the recitation of formulae; b) the hilariousness of claiming that that Robertson guy, of all people, isn't theoretical enough.
> 
> ...


I like your "Hesse" reference. It reminds me of the point about Marsalis and his classical background. 
This thought that a martial artist can go at the journey without any curriculum of established, tried and true, techniques is rediculous...I think. It'd be like dropping two men 300 miles in the wilderness and telling them to race to a certain town 300 miles away...one has only a compass and the other has an accurate map of the terrain AND a compass... The man with both tools will get to the destination Much sooner- he has reference points along the way. In this analogy the compass are the concepts and principles and the curriculum the map.

just a thought.
Your Brother
John


----------



## Brother John (Oct 10, 2004)

BlackCatBonz said:
			
		

> exactly pete!
> as far as it working for a ranking beginner.....like i said in one of my previous posts, it is a harder road to go down for learning, but it was how i was taught. yes, i did spend a lot of time struggling in the beginning trying to get my head around it because i wanted to be doing what i saw the guys in movies doing.
> 
> shawn


Nobody but the guys in the movies move like the guys in the movies do. It's easy to look great when everything is choreographed and you are working with pro-stuntment, pyrotechnics and CGI.

I'd rather move well and be effective.

Your Brother
John


----------



## GAB (Oct 10, 2004)

Hi all,

First I would like to say the system Shawn is talking about. Has basics.

The binary system has basics. The building blocks for Homosapian are basic.

But when put together in the various strings, if you will, the potential is very effective.

Similar to what Shawn is saying. 

Reminds me of a Joke about a thermos. One fellow is talking to another about the thermos he has hot coffee in, and the other guy has a cold drink.
Hot, cold, Cold or hot??? One asks the other, 'How does it know'?

The Brain or the Heart of the discussion is, are you left handed or right handed?

Try to change that one, tough, but it can be done.

Awesome, comes to mind. Mindset is another.

Regards, Gary


----------



## psi_radar (Oct 11, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> .....Nor am I buying the notion that because jazz and other art forms RESEMBLE martial arts, you should, like, teach martial arts that way. Y'all are confusing where you get to eventually with what you should teach...and oh, by the way...Wynton Marsalis may play jazz, but he was classically trained, alas. You know...scales, arpeggios, rhythm exercises, etc. I saw Gene Kelly tap dance in roller skates the other night, but he did not get to that by just sticking on skates and going at it. He got there by long, slow, boring, repetitive, necessary practice...



Robert, if you read my post thoroughly you'd see that I attained a certain level of mastery of the techniques before allowing creativity in my Kenpo, and that's what I'd recommend to anyone. As for my analogy, of course someone should know the basics and necessary architecture of any art form before attempting to stray into their own creativity--and I said that in so many words. It'd be caucophony. But solely playing scales, exercises or progressions without creative diversion is a) boring b) will keep you from greater insights into music c) will not advance the art form or your skill as a composer. Sorry to be esoteric, but the example still fits as I see it. 

Oh, and I'm not a teacher, but here's a decent first lesson as I see it: 

1) Introduce everyone, hard and fast warmup, length depends on conditioning level of students. 

2) Chat easily while stretching.

3) Briefly discuss background of Kenpo and why it's practical.

4) Show proper way to form neutral bow, explain its place in Kenpo, the importance of a good base, posture, and form. Gently push uke from different directions in a variety of stances to show effect and use of the third balance point.

5) Get out the pads and demonstrate proper upward, outward, and inward blocking technique. Let them partner up, hit the pads and help adjust their form as necessary.  

6) Demonstrate proper technique for the front ball kick. Break out the pads, show them the proper way to hold pads as well. Let them kick away, critique technique.

7) Line up and have a question and answer period. Let them know what to expect in the next few classes. 

8) Go step by step through the greeting, slowly! Don't critique yet, just let them get a feel. File out.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 11, 2004)

Please show me where I argued for the endless repetition of basics as all there was to training, or even suggested this. That's a common misunderstanding: it's not what I argued for.

The lesson you describe has some issues from my viewpoint--"hard and fast warmup?" what kind? "Stretching?" What kind and why? And some omissions, most notably a horse stance and punches ("Law of the fist," ya know...), but that's relatively trivial.

Thanks for the responsive and intelligent answer. I was beginning to wonder if anybody could simply describe what they do...and I'd still be interested in explanations of why one would teach in particular ways.


----------



## psi_radar (Oct 11, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Please show me where I argued for the endless repetition of basics as all there was to training, or even suggested this. That's a common misunderstanding: it's not what I argued for.



I don't think you've argued for the endless repetition of basics rather than the lack of room for creative interpretation in Kenpo. If that's not the way you feel, then we're in agreement--or something close. 



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> The lesson you describe has some issues from my viewpoint--"hard and fast warmup?" what kind? "Stretching?" What kind and why? And some omissions, most notably a horse stance and punches ("Law of the fist," ya know...), but that's relatively trivial.



Sorry, didn't know you wanted so much detail. For a warmup I prefer some "shuttle run" type of sprints, jumping jacks or other type of cardio followed by P.T. exercises such as push-ups--wide, shoulder and close hand positions--crunches, and squat-thrusts. With a new group I'd also do 20-second push-ups, leg raises, and squats to failure, which relieves nervous tension through temporary muscle exhaustion. That's the overall idea here, get the blood flowing and the nervousness out. 

As for stretching, I like yoga's Sunrise Salute which combines a lot of different postures as well as more traditional track-type stretches like the butterfly, IT band, hamstring and modified hurdlers, plus a couple others for arms, wrists, and back. I'd do these for at least 30 seconds to get a dynamic stretch. The benefits of stretching include improved range of motion, injury prevention, and relaxation. 

Granted, my "First Lesson" ignores a lot of important material, but an hour isn't a long time, and the student can be pretty frazzled and suffering from information overload just by the stress of dealing with the unfamiliar--the next few lessons would include more. I'd prefer just to give him/her a few things they'll definitely remember than a lot of things they won't. I might teach them the horse stance while they practice blocks, but I wouldn't put a name to it yet; or maybe I would, depending on the students and how much I think they can retain. Punches and their proper technique would be the next lesson, unless there was time left over and the students were up to it. 



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Thanks for the responsive and intelligent answer. I was beginning to wonder if anybody could simply describe what they do...and I'd still be interested in explanations of why one would teach in particular ways.



You're most welcome. Thanks for the dialogue. There might be some name for the way I prefer to teach (on the rare occasion I do), which is identical to the way I like to learn, specifically to martial arts. Maybe you can tell me if there's an educational term for this Robert:

Teacher demonstrates technique, full speed. Teacher then demonstrates again, only step-by-step, noting principles used as well as ideal targets and weapons formation.

Teacher opens for questions.

Teacher and student slowly act same technique in unison.

Students attempt on their own and critiqued.

Another question-and answer period.

Why teach this way? Imitation and repetition fortifies the proper body mechanics. The discussion periods help build the broad picture for the martial artist, connect the dots if you will. Understand the Why as well as the When, Where, and How. 

Is that the kind of info you wanted?


----------

