# On deleting or modifying material from Kenpo...



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Jun 13, 2006)

This subject came up on KenpoTalk, under another thread, then jumped to a thread under Mr. Seabrook.  The topic was essentially..."What, if anything, would you delete from AK, and why?".  Naturally, many say "delete nothing", while others say "delete selectively".

I opted for selective deletion, starting with the weapons techniques. In my own opinion, many of the underlying assumptions that drive the techniques are misinformed, causing the technique to reach a less-than-desirable destination in the end result.  In one post, I recommended jettisoning all the Storm techs, and starting over. A couple of folks disagreed, asking for "WHY?". In response to "Why?", I wrote the following. I am posting it here to prompt discussion. I encourage you to disagree, but invite you to do so from a place of experimentation and speculation, rather than declared dogma. Yes, I am familiar with the core cirriculum of AK. Yes, I do think there are advantages to be found within the core cirriculum, and support passing it on intact to future generations so that each may find their own path of addition or deletion.  And finally, Yes...I DO deviate from standard AK to include judo, boxing, and jujutsu in what I stress with students, when I happen to have them. Moreover, I have, in the last several years, become a big fan of Doc Chapel's SL4 kenpo, because it directly addresses what I have considered to be unreality-based fictions in kenpo. That ain't sayin' no one can make canonized AK work; it IS to say that I don't think the weapons defenses in AK will serve MOST of the people, MOST of the time.

So, here is my post from KenpoTalk. Flame away...


I&#8217;m the guy who said &#8220;dump the Storm techs.&#8221; There is a fishbowl that many kenpoists live in, and in the limited context of this fishbowl, the defenses against weapons in kenpo are technically sufficient. My beef is this: Do you want to trust your life, or the lives of your loved ones, to technically sufficient?

&#8220;Fishbowl reality&#8221; was a phrase I first heard in the late seventies and early eighties, as related to the martial arts. It&#8217;s the idea that, contained in your own shared universe, it&#8217;s easy to believe self-propagating fictions about possibility and probability when it comes to defense. That is, in the &#8220;Aikido fishbowl&#8221;, some bunch of aikidoka may have spent generations telling each other that some move X is a great escape from such and such an attack. Unchallenged by the rigors of combat, and generations removed from the founder (who, himself, was an accomplished combatant), they may have lost the context or experience that caused the founder to include that move in the system in the first place. For example, he may have only meant it to relate the nature of harmonious movement; but, without him around to personally guide the passing of information, it has become a &#8220;self-defense technique&#8221;, that anyone in the fishbowl will tell you &#8220;it works&#8221;. Enter a throwdown, or some similar event, or even an actual altercation. Someone NOT enculturated into the world of aikido expectations places a double wrist grab on the guy who&#8217;s been taught a &#8220;fool proof&#8221; counter for it; he attempts his escape, but it don&#8217;t work. Now what? Well, surely his wise masters could not be wrong&#8230;he must be doing it incorrectly. So he tries again. And again. And again. It still don&#8217;t work. Why not? Because someone forgot to tell his attacker that the escape is fool-proof. The attacker, coming from a different fishbowl, lacks preconceived notions about this particular escape, and just hangs on&#8230;dominating his poor victim through brute strength, while they try in vain to make their fishbowl wisdom work.

Long before Clyde started to get together with folks from other arts&#8230;before they had official names for it like &#8220;throwdown&#8221;, people from different systems used to get together to see how what they knew might work OUTSIDE their own fishbowl. I did a couple of these while still in high school, a junior black in kenpo, with a brown belt in judo and a black belt in &#8220;YMCA&#8221; jujutsu (I had no hobbies aside from MA, didn&#8217;t date, and avoided homework like the plague&#8230;put more hours per week into karate as a kid than most grown-ups do into work). First one I went to had some guys from Arnis, Sansoo, Thai kickboxing, other kenpo schools, Shotokan, Tae Kwon Do, kung-fu and JKD (I was the youngest person there; to make matters weirder, some of these guys were in the business of hurting people&#8230;literally; collectors for dealers, and the like). We spent a 10-hour day reviewing techniques we swore by. Some passed muster; some didn&#8217;t.

The Thai-boxer showed us kenpoists that our tippy-tap sparring didn&#8217;t prepare us for having a guy come at us with intelligent clock-cleaning intent; blew right through our guards, and kicked our legs out from underneath us. Us kenpo guys showed the Shotokan guy that he could not, in fact, move quickly from such a deep stance. The Arnis guy showed us all an ugly, ugly lesson. He used a felt marker for the timid, and marked us up as we attempted our techniques against knives. He used a rolled up newspaper for the timid as club. For the defenders who were a little more confident about their skills, or willing to step it up in intensity, he switched to a &#8220;wizzer stick&#8221; for the club. A lot of black ink and welts later, I realized, painfully, that I was not prepared to go toe-to-toe with a knife or club wielder. The thing that helped me most was the judo, and I still got more than my fair share of black ink marks and stick welts.

I went back to each of my 3 kenpo profs with these concerns (yes, I was committing a sin, and training at a couple of different schools). One said, &#8220;kenpo techniques are not meant to teach you specifics, but rather concepts that you can apply as the situation dictates&#8221;. I knew that; had it bopped into my head since my first lesson. I tried applying the principles. The only one that really worked was &#8220;distance&#8221;&#8230;the further away I stayed from the guy, the less I got &#8220;cut&#8221;. When I used the footwork from judo &#8211; typically used to set up for a throw with a couple of cheat steps &#8211; I did better at negotiating critical distance in striking/cutting range. Another prof said, &#8220;You must just be doing them wrong; practice them harder.&#8221; So I did&#8230;who knows, he might be right, eh? The third prof is the only one who actually said, &#8220;that&#8217;s a problem. The techs are supposed to give us the skills to survive the attack and neutralize the attacker. If they aren&#8217;t working, we need to look at the dynamics of the attacks, and formulate better skill sets for our students&#8217; survival.&#8221; I learned more about kenpo in the following year by being the study-buddy of this guy while he formulated skill sets, then I had in many years prior. He &#8220;drafted&#8221; Phillipino and Chinese bladed fighting arts practitioners into our sessions, so he could formulate responses against their best attacks. Club, and knife (and sword&#8230;if you can avoid or intercept a sword, how much less problematic a baseball bat?). 

Modifications looked like this: Who is theoretically better at not getting cut in a knife fight&#8230;a kenpoist with a half-dozen knife replies in his technique arsenal, who also divides his time among forms, sets, sparring, and the other techs of kenpo; or a Polynesian knife fighter who spends the vast majority of his time training to attack with &#8211; and defend against &#8211; knives and sticks. So, we isolated the &#8220;top twenty&#8221; blocks, checks, evasions, and destructions from Arnis/Escrima, and took a look at which of the Master Key Movements flowed best from each position one might find themselves in after each defense. After learning knife-fighting from a knife-fighter, club-fighting from a club fighter, and short-range pistolry from a psychotic Viet-Nam vet / Survivalist, you see all sorts of liabilities in the &#8220;official&#8221; kenpo Storm, Lance and Rod techniques.

Got together again, multiple times, at these mixers with practitioners from other arts (some regulars, some revolving members injecting new problems and perspectives). As I aged, and got a little thicker (I was a serious bean-pole in high school), I started participating in the greater intensity of the less well-balanced minds in our little group. Every art, it seems, teaches some sort of response for handgun threats. We would, at these get-togethers and in class (unofficial class in backyards and parks at night&#8230;studio liability would be way too high for this), practice disarms with loaded BB guns (head & face) and pellet guns (body, with bullet-proof vests&#8230;provided by the survivalists and bounty hunter). People fixin to shoot you are going to pop off a round as soon as they see you move. So, if they have a gun to your head, your action around getting your head off-line has to be faster than their reaction of squeezing the trigger. Your control and retention of the weapon has to be such that, if they continue to pull the trigger and wriggle the gun in an attempt to get you, they miss. Optimally, the rounds should be directed into the dirt, so by-standers don&#8217;t get shot. You also have to position for the contingency that he may decide to forget about fighting you for control of the weapon, and &#8220;change the subject&#8221; by just beating you silly with his unoccupied hand; bad guys can poke eyes and chop throats, too. Then what?

I&#8217;ve been in and out of mainstream kenpo society for more than 30 years, and it&#8217;s been interesting to see the splits in position taken by different members, and how background experience informs the positions of different seniors in this art. Almost to a &#8216;T&#8221;, kenpo oldsters who have actually seen action &#8211; either as vets, law enforcement, or &#8220;other&#8221; (yes, Dorothy, there is an old gangster element to the early days of kenpo) &#8211; radically modify their knife, gun and club techniques to accommodate for unpleasant possibilities. The folks who argue to keep the red book versions of the techniques, without any further specialization or exploration, haven&#8217;t had to use them. At least not often. You might get by and luck out with Evading the Storm one time against a drunk with a beer bottle at a party. But try being a bouncer at a punk concert where a gaggle of morons have decided that the best thing they can do as a group is to beat the crap out of you with beer bottles and the barbed chains they wore in as belts. At moments like that, you find yourself extremely grateful for having deviated from the standard curriculum.

But don&#8217;t take my word for it. See if Mr. Chap&#8217;el, a 40 year martial arts veteran and law enforcement dude, teaches the knife/club/gun techs the way they&#8217;re canonized; catch Mr. LaBounty &#8211; another LEO &#8211; off guard, and see if he trains with his own black belts using the techs the way they&#8217;re scripted for offering to the paying public. The list goes on. The guys who&#8217;ve been around for a long time either change them or dump them. The guys who have never pissed themselves trying not to get cut by a live blade in the hands of an angry opponent still swear by the efficacy of the unchanged content of the kenpo tech set.

But back to specifics for the Storm techniques&#8230;not enough is done to control the opponents&#8217; ability to switch hands or step away from your response. Distance is required to use a club, and all the bad guy has to do is disengage, step back, and swing again. Other options include whacking you with the free hand; an option not fully accounted for in the height/width/depth zone cancellation schtuff in the club techs. But don&#8217;t take my word for it; get an uke who is unwilling to go along with your technique. Give him a length of Styrofoam swimming pool noodle, and tell him to go to town beating the crap out of you while you try to apply your kenpo defenses. He is NOT to stand there like a paralytic idiot and allow you to do what you will; he is expected to pull free frantically and whoop on you at will, as best he can. Watch what happens when you have a swinging nut on your hands, instead of a compliant training partner. Now get the Magic Marker and do the same with the knife techs. Next, save yourself the small facial scars from squeezing BB&#8217;s out of your face like a zit, and get an AirSof gun and some safety goggles. Try the gun techs.

Don&#8217;t just post mentalist replies about how I&#8217;m incorrect because the tech has a check inserted hither and ton; actually get the uncooperative partner, the props, and try this. It will open your eyes about the limitations and capacity of your skills faster than any Tuesday night sparring class. In 20 minutes of this, it will become painfully clear WHY so much emphasis is placed on control manipulation at the higher levels.

Regards,

Dave


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 13, 2006)

Interesting information.  

First off, I have not trained American Kenpo, nor have I trained the material in the manner that you are describing (tho you have definitely put some ideas into my head).  However, I have had a long-standing uneasiness about much of the material in the Tracys kenpo that I learned, especially with regards to the weapons defenses.  

On a purely intellectual level, I could see that many of these techniques would never work as they are taught, and would probably get you killed.  I don't even need to train them in the manner that you describe in order to see that much, it is just that clear to me.

I've posted my own views on this before, but I really feel that there are some things that get worked into the various systems that were just simply bad ideas, and poorly thought out.  I think it is important to examine the stuff, and identify these problem techniques.  Either change them into something that is reliable, or get rid of them if that is not possible.

Good post, very logical.  Thanks.


----------



## kenposikh (Jun 13, 2006)

Ok Dave let me go away and read what you posted, digest and mull and I'll get back to you.


----------



## Ceicei (Jun 13, 2006)

Thank you, Dave, for your post.  I've always been a believer that techniques shouldn't be taken at "face value".  There are some that I can see are "unworkable" just the way they are.  There are others essentially not performed correctly or understood in a way to make them work.  

My primary art is American Kenpo (Ed Parker's).  To look outside my fishbowl, I cross train with Danzan Ryu Jujitsu.  My Jujitsu instructor's instructor has a strong background in American Kenpo (doesn't study that any more), so the Jujitsu I am practicing is subtly flavored with Kenpo.  The way they move is very different, however.

What I get are different interpretations of movements that allow new insight of why some things I had previously learned (that were unworkable); seeing the interpretations makes clear the the principles and concepts in such a way that makes sense to me.  I learned how to do better locks, throws, and takedowns (from jujitsu) that enabled me to improve my Kenpo.

I went to a Jujitsu seminar last Saturday that had several high ranking Jujitsu people training us.  There was a segment that worked with knife defense.  This brought a new light to me to view my Kenpo knife techniques differently.

Dave, I know you were specifically asking about Storm techniques.  I think your question could extend to Lance techniques.  Should any techniques be deleted or modified?

My answer, based on my limited exposure, is if techniques are "left the way they are", they probably should be tossed because the defender could very well be left for dead.  If these techniques can be changed with a better way of doing things safely, then I believe they should be modified.

With some techniques, a modification may be minor.  Let's say there is a technique that requires the kenpoist to secure the arm in preparation for the next strike.  If the arm is not secured properly (and I have seen many kenpoists merely "holding" the limb), then the chance of having that technique work is 50-50.  The attacker can break away or counter, or even attack.  Now with a better understanding of how joints work and making the locks line up, not just with the wrist, extend this to lock the elbow and even the shoulder (in other words, alignment that make breaking away harder), then the kenpoist can make the technique a stronger and better one by controlling rather than holding the limb.  This is a simple basic example.

With other techniques, the modification may need to be major.  Some moves in defense may very well endanger the defender, and these moves may need to be replaced with other moves that is safer with a stronger base.

I can see a difference when I ask my attacker to commit the attacks harder (and with markers for lance techs).  The studio is the place to challenge and test if the techniques actually work.  To do techniques without challenging them and finding out too late (out there) is not a risk I am willing to take.

I'm still thinking things over....and will return to this thread.

- Ceicei


----------



## HKphooey (Jun 13, 2006)

Dave,

This is a great question and i am sure it will leave many of us scratching our heads.

Delete nothing, and continue to add variations.  I love hearing other students', schools', instructors', masters', and style's way of doing techniques and forms.  The one thing I would delete is the friction between beliefs.  The more we seal up the holes (and missing concepts) the more effective "Our Kenpo" becomes.  I could care less who created the technique or where it cames from.  When we come across techniques we view as ineffective, we make them effective or at least learn from what does not work.  That in itself is useful knowledge.  To take that technique out of the system would not train the student to steer away form certain movements.  I think we need to be open with the student and explain why it may not work.  Or better yet, ask them to figure it out.

I like to take information from classes, seminars, tournaments, students outside the school and now, suggestions made by other MT members.

Thanks for making us take a moment to think.


----------



## MJS (Jun 14, 2006)

Very interesting thread Dave!

You won't get any flames from me, because I agree with everything that was said!  What I find kinda ironic, is that when I started posting on these forums, MT and KN specifically, I said pretty much the exact same thing as you said, and what happened? I got flamed!!  Without mentioning any names, as some of the people in question are not here to defend themselves, I've had people say that there just is not enough time to train in more than one art, that they're not planning on entering the dreaded cage anytime soon, there are no ninjas in the parking lot, and the list can go on and on and on.  

Now, I'll be the first to say, that my intention was never to get anyone to abandon Kenpo for Kali, Arnis, Thai boxing, BJJ, Judo or Sambo.  Instead, my thought was to have people take a look at the material and see what, if any, improvements could be made.  But, I was met with, "Its already in there! No improvements need to be made and the only holes are the ones in your own training, due to you not having a solid understanding of the material!"  Now, I don't dispute the fact that understanding the material is key, but my point was to stress that there are people out there who focus all of their attention to specifics.  Someone who studies the FMA's is going to be much more versed in the stick and blade, just like someone who grapples is going to understand the ground much better.  My idea was to take the ideas and concepts that these people use, and apply it to the Kenpo.  Even if it was one small thing, if it made *my* technique better, why not do it?

My hats off to those that take the time and look outside the box, or the fishbowl in this case!  Workout with someone from another art, someone who 'specializes' in something.  See if the 'typical' defense can be countered and if so, what can be done to fix that problem.  Go to a Throwdown and workout with these people.  

One thing though that may leave someone with some questions is, what to do about those that don't feel the need to do this?  If someone does not cross train or cross reference other arts, does this mean that what they're doing is going to fail them?

Mike


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 14, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> One thing though that may leave someone with some questions is, what to do about those that don't feel the need to do this? If someone does not cross train or cross reference other arts, does this mean that what they're doing is going to fail them?
> 
> Mike


 
I think it really depends on the circumstances, and against whom you are facing.  If you are having a knife fight against a skilled Fillipino stylist, you will lose, even if you have cross trained.  If you fight a skilled grappler and you end up in a grapple, you will lose, even if you have cross trained.  This kind of cross training with other stylists will expose weaknesses in your own art, and give you some tools to improve things within your own art.  But unless you become a dedicated student in one of these other arts and train with a serious focus on this method, you will never match someone when fighting their game.  But to do this may mean a reduction, or even abandonment of your kenpo training.  The good things that kenpo gives you would be traded in for what you get from the other arts, and I don't think that is the point or the suggested solution.

But I think kenpo is reliable on its own, even tho certain things may not be as good as they could/should be.  If you end up facing someone who isn't a highly skilled specialist, you should do well even if these elements end up in the situation.  I don't think the system will fail you, if you have otherwise trained well and realistically.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 14, 2006)

HKphooey said:
			
		

> Delete nothing, and continue to add variations.
> 
> The more we seal up the holes (and missing concepts) the more effective "Our Kenpo" becomes.
> 
> When we come across techniques we view as ineffective, we make them effective or at least learn from what does not work. That in itself is useful knowledge. To take that technique out of the system would not train the student to steer away form certain movements. I think we need to be open with the student and explain why it may not work. Or better yet, ask them to figure it out.


 
Wayne, I understand what you are saying here, and this is an idea that I have been grappling with for a while, as I have done some serious revisions in the Tracys curriculum that I learned. 

What do you think about the notion that training techniques that you feel are fundamentally flawed is kind of wasted time, time that could be better spent training techniques that have solid ideas behind them?  I guess I am thinking about the huge technique list in Tracys, so large that in my opinion, it is downright unmanageable.  It seems that many techniques are poorly designed, others are repetitive, and while some of the poor ones may have a good idea buried within them, this good idea is taught elsewhere in some of the better techniques.  It seems to me that under these circumstances, a lot of time can be spent playing with techniques that really aren't worth keeping.  Time is at a premium, we all wish we could have more time to train.  Given that, use your time as wisely as you can.  Focus on the stuff that is worthwhile, and eliminate that which just wastes time.

I don't teach, so I am not faced with the consequences of how these ideas might affect a student, but someday I may.  Part of me thinks it might be good to pass on the complete system, if for nothing else then just for historical purposes.  I see what you are saying about letting the next generation make their own choices about what to keep.  But I just can't get passed the idea that a lot of training time could be better spent.

Maybe the solution to that is to teach a modified system, and then later fill in the complete system for those who might be interested.

Another thought: I think sometimes we are reluctant to discard things simply because they were developed by those who came before us, people whom we believe were highly skilled and intelligent, and must know better than we do.  But I think that is an erroneous notion.  Just because something was developed by somebody skilled and intelligent doesn't mean it is perfect and must be kept.  Not everything will work equally well for everyone, and maybe some of these things never worked in the first place, they were just an idea to play with and should have been discarded in the beginning.  But then somebody codified it, and then we all became stuck with it.  What I keep reminding myself is that this stuff was all developed by other PEOPLE, not GODS.  Nothing about this stuff is perfect, and it is not divinely inspired.  It can all be changed or eliminated, if need be.


----------



## MattJ (Jun 14, 2006)

Not trying to hi-jack the thread, but I posted something similar here:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=34907

Asking about techniques that Mr.Parker himself deleted from the system. 

BTW, the two man techniques are pure fantasy IMHO, and would be the first thing to go if I had any say.


----------



## MJS (Jun 14, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> I think it really depends on the circumstances, and against whom you are facing. If you are having a knife fight against a skilled Fillipino stylist, you will lose, even if you have cross trained. If you fight a skilled grappler and you end up in a grapple, you will lose, even if you have cross trained. This kind of cross training with other stylists will expose weaknesses in your own art, and give you some tools to improve things within your own art. But unless you become a dedicated student in one of these other arts and train with a serious focus on this method, you will never match someone when fighting their game.


 
Agreed!   I train in Arnis and BJJ to supplement my training and because I happen to like those arts, but by no means, do I walk around thinking that because of that, I'm going to beat Rickson Gracie on the mat or disarm Leo Gaje.  IMHO, I think it would be best to prepare for the worst than be under prepared and wish you had spent some extra time looking outside the fishbowl.




> But to do this may mean a reduction, or even abandonment of your kenpo training. The good things that kenpo gives you would be traded in for what you get from the other arts, and I don't think that is the point or the suggested solution.


 
Agreed again.  With a 40 hr/week job with hours that don't allow much time to train, I admit it is hard.  But, I do the best I can.  Difficult? Yes.  Impossible? Nope.  Kenpo was and always will be my base art.  I don't see myself dropping my Kenpo training anytime soon. 



> But I think kenpo is reliable on its own, even tho certain things may not be as good as they could/should be. If you end up facing someone who isn't a highly skilled specialist, you should do well even if these elements end up in the situation. I don't think the system will fail you, if you have otherwise trained well and realistically.


 
Agreed!  If I didn't think it was reliable, I probably would have stopped training in it a long time ago.  As for training realistically, I couldn't agree more.  Wow..lots of agreeing here! LOL!  One thing that I personally like about looking at other arts, is that it gives another perspective on how things are done.  I like to look at the entire 'menu' not just limit myself to one page.:ultracool 

Mike


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 14, 2006)

MattJ said:
			
		

> BTW, the two man techniques are pure fantasy IMHO, and would be the first thing to go if I had any say.


 
I don't know what is in the EPAK, but regarding the Mass Attack techniques in Tracys, I am in full agreement with you.


----------



## HKphooey (Jun 14, 2006)

Crane,

I hear ya! and great thoughts! I think as a teacher one needs to also know what does not work and have reasoning to back it up.  I use the "obsolete" techniques to to teach myself and the students why a set up movement s may not work together (but it is not to say that portions of the technique cannot be grafted into others).

One also likes to hold on to traditional techniques.  In this case I liken it to a "gi".  Many students/schools still wear them, but they are not practical.  

When I train for my own personal self-protection and to teach others in a professions who need to do the same, I pick out the core material that I know will be practical and work in combat.  

IMO it is entirely up to the individual and what their reasoning is for their training.

A thought....
A child learns that a fire will burn them two ways: By touching the fire or a parent explains that fire burns.  Most children chose the first no matter what the parent tells them.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 14, 2006)

HKphooey said:
			
		

> A thought....
> A child learns that a fire will burn them two ways: By touching the fire or a parent explains that fire burns. Most children chose the first no matter what the parent tells them.


 
All too true.

Maybe a solution, should I ever find myself with a student or two, would be to teach the modified curriculum, but as each technique is taught I could explain how it arrived in its current state.  If it had been modified, I could teach the original version, and explain why I felt it needed to be changed.  If elements were combined from two or more techniques, I could explain why that combination made sense to me, and why the originals alone did not.  Later, after a student reaches a higher level of understanding, I could teach the complete original system if they are interested.  I would really only expect them to maintain the modified system, but they would be welcome to play with the original and see what they can make out of it.  

Just some thoughts.  Like I said I don't have any students, but on occasion I have had people approach me and ask if I teach somewhere.  A couple of staff members at the health club where I practice in the mornings before work, asked a while ago if I would get a class going at the club.  I have been pursuing my own solo practice there for over 7 years, and have been a member of the club longer than most of the staff and trainers have been there.  I'm like furniture, just that crazy guy who goes into the group exercise room when it's empty and swings around swords and staffs and stuff.  Well, I guess a couple people took notice and wondered if I would teach.  Problem is, I don't really have the time to make a committment to doing that so for now it's a no-go.

I've got a young guy who studies with my sifu.  We like to mix it up and work the contact stuff, while most of the older people do Tai Chi for health.  I like to work some of the kenpo techniques into the play, and he has been impressed with some of it so maybe he'll end up being something of an informal student. 

Anyway, thanks for your thoughts.


----------



## Hand Sword (Jun 15, 2006)

To the original question of the thread-- I think these things occur eventually, as the art becomes "yours", doesn't it?


----------



## marlon (Jun 15, 2006)

Imho sometimes it is not the terchnique that needs to be thrown out butr the training.  Have someone come at you live and real and see if you can get it to work ; see where the pure form of ther technique gets adjusted to reality; see where the concepts in the base techniques come out and work even if it does not look the same.  The idea of set weapons defenses has its controversy in and of itself but working certain concepts into muscle memory from a form or base technique has value and can save your life when needed.  I do not practice AK but SK has some similar difficulties.  I have shown my students and have had my instructor demonstrate moves that initially i thought were 'new' until it was pointed out that yes this is directly from a form or technique X.  i am very proud of one of my students who after training with me for a while (he came to us from another school and was very good technically but had difficulty 'using' his kempo) in a dragon circle never once used a full technique but from every attack thrown at him i say bits and peices of forms and beginnings , middles , and endings of techniques coming out as needed .  The flow was excellent.  But this is b/c he had the muscle memory from working all his material.  Under high srtess you cannot be functional if you are thinking   "ok, i will do technique y next then i'll do knife defense #2./.."  it must flow in response to the live situationa and it must flow from your training and muscle memory.  Throwing things away may not necessarily be the answer.

Respectfully,
Marlon


----------



## HKphooey (Jun 16, 2006)

I was talking to a friend of mine last night.  He is a high school Eglish teacher.  I posed a similar question to him.  If an Eglish word is no longer regularly used or is too technical, do we delete it from the dictionary?  

I am sure we all know his answer... 

I know the martial arts, to many people, has nothing to do with the English language.  But in kenpo we are taught out basics are the letters of an alphabet, our basic techniques are words, our expanded technique extensions are phrases or sentences.  We are encouraged to create our ouwn phrases and sentences.  Our material is our story.  So I think the analogy holds some merit.  

I do not use every technique, nor do i teach them all.   To clarify my prior post...  I am not saying we need to learn and keep everything, but we should not discount (or say we are not learning anything) something because it is impractical for today's martial arts society.  

Great points brough up by all. Thanks.


----------



## kenposikh (Jun 16, 2006)

HKphooey said:
			
		

> I was talking to a friend of mine last night. He is a high school Eglish teacher. I posed a similar question to him. If an Eglish word is no longer regularly used or is too technical, do we delete it from the dictionary?
> 
> I am sure we all know his answer...
> 
> ...


 
Nay verily and forsooth tis hath a truer worde been spoken


----------



## HKphooey (Jun 16, 2006)

Lol!


----------



## Seabrook (Jun 16, 2006)

MattJ said:
			
		

> BTW, the two man techniques are pure fantasy IMHO, and would be the first thing to go if I had any say.


 
The two-man techniques, like other techniques, are ideas rather than rules. They are very important at teaching the Kenpoist how to escape common multiple attack situations, which are often neglected in other martial art styles. Moving from point of origin, zones of attack, and knowledge of anatomical weak points are very important when executing these techniques.


----------



## MattJ (Jun 17, 2006)

Hi Seabrook. I agree that the (EPAK) techniques should not be regarded as literal truths. However, IMHO, even the "ideas" in those (2 man) techniques are really not good. Would you recommend staying between two (or more) opponents? Yikes! Not me. But that is what most of them do. 

Sorry for the thread hijack.


----------



## Seabrook (Jun 20, 2006)

MattJ said:
			
		

> Would you recommend staying between two (or more) opponents? Yikes! Not me. But that is what most of them do.


 
I don't agree. In fact, it is usually the opposite. 

Which of the 2-man techniques do you dislike and why?


----------



## KenpoMD (Jun 20, 2006)

One of my favorite two-man techniques is Grouping the Enemy (at least that's what we call it - but we also do some Tracy Kenpo, including Mass Attacks). The technique teaches you to 'group' the enemy as the name implies, not stand right between two fellas trying to knock your block off.

I remember taking a close look at the two man techniques a few years ago and wondering if they really were necessary. All of the movement can be found in the one-man techniques. As to whether or not they are all fantasy I'm not sure. 

However, they do teach principles that are not taught in the one-man techniques even if the movements aren't much different. Take the above technique as an example. Even if you weren't able to pull off the technique 'as is' you would be better off knowing how to get away from the first guy and put him between you and the second.

Just a few thoughts...

BTW, anybody know the more common name for Grouping the Enemy? It might help this post make a little more sense.


----------



## pete (Jun 21, 2006)

what do you think of the multiple attacker strategies here:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=v1sK5zBRbec


----------



## Seig (Jun 21, 2006)

Before you decide that a technique doesn't belong, you need to examine what is being taught by the technique. If any one technique was the end all be all of everything, we not only would not have as many techniques as we do, but we would also have no need of the equation formula,  master key moves, or family groupings.


----------



## Seabrook (Jun 21, 2006)

pete said:
			
		

> what do you think of the multiple attacker strategies here:
> 
> [URL="http://youtube.com/watch?v=v1sK5zBRbec"]http://youtube.com/watch?v=v1sK5zBRbec[/URL]


 
Pete,

He did a good job initially at using his opponents as a shield, but I think he would have been in big trouble when he got cornered against the wall near the end of the video. He seemed to get out of that situation way too easily. 

Whad'ya think?


Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com


----------



## Seabrook (Jun 21, 2006)

Seig said:
			
		

> Before you decide that a technique doesn't belong, you need to examine what is being taught by the technique. If any one technique was the end all be all of everything, we not only would not have as many techniques as we do, but we would also have no need of the equation formula, master key moves, or family groupings.


 
Well put Seig.


----------



## MattJ (Jun 21, 2006)

Seabrook said:
			
		

> I don't agree. In fact, it is usually the opposite.


 
I'm confused. What are you not agreeing with? 



> Which of the 2-man techniques do you dislike and why?


 
All of them - I do not recommend trying to stay between two attackers.



> what do you think of the multiple attacker strategies here:
> 
> [URL="http://youtube.com/watch?v=v1sK5zBRbec"]http://youtube.com/watch?v=v1sK5zBRbec[/URL]


 
This is a good representation of the strategy I would try to use. Line the attackers up, so they can't attack from all sides.


----------



## Jimmy (Jun 29, 2006)

Hello everyone
This is my first post so please bear with me. I think that we should remember that kenpo is a system of learning. If you start deleting material it is like removing letters from the alphabet. And as far as modifying the system to fit your personal needs, sure why not. That is what the equation formula was created for. But I am also a shcool owner, when people come to my store they want to learn edpak not what I decided to turn it into. So That is why I teach for lack of a better term the book version to the best of my ability. One thing that I do at my store is a lot of freestyle tech. This lets my students see that the system is not perfect. But with training and experience they can solve alot of problems for themselves. With regards for the other post I have read I see alot logic in most of the reply's. I do think however that a varity of training and experience would take care of most promblems. Training would also mean simulating envroment an other stress factors.

thank you jimmy


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Jun 30, 2006)

Delete what you want and add what you want, but if you do call "the system" by a different name.  If I changed any of the letters of the aphabet it wouldn't be the alphabet anymore.  It may still be effective in communication and it may be better or worse.  But it wouldn't be the alphabet anymore, it would be something different.  Different may be better, worse or the same but still different none the less.  Would you want a coca-cola labelled as lemonade?


----------



## Seabrook (Jul 4, 2006)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:
			
		

> Delete what you want and add what you want, but if you do call "the system" by a different name. If I changed any of the letters of the aphabet it wouldn't be the alphabet anymore.


 
Good post James.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Aug 15, 2006)

I really don't see the problem with deleting or updating techniques in kempo or any other system. One of the core concepts of martial arts is that it is also a science. In the world of sciences like astronomy or chemistry, a paradigm is held onto as long as it is accurate to the information we have. If reality doesn't fit the paradigm, then we must change the paradigm (break out of the fishbowl, as it were).

If a martial art's technique does not work and can get someone killed, and doesn't work in reality, it should not be taught as is. It MUST be modified. Martial science dictates that we do not fight yesterday's war, and the survival of the martial arts from being marginalized demands change. Change is the one true characteristic of all living things. How do you think kempo came to exist in the first place?

In science, laws are spoken of. But laws change with greater understanding of reality. Just because something changes in Kempo does not mean it is no longer Kempo. It is still the law of the fist, based on its efficiency and effectiveness. Do not keep things just because that's the way it's always been done. 

Because in reality, if it's not efficient, and it's not EFFECTIVE, it isn't Kempo.


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Aug 15, 2006)

Josh Oakley said:
			
		

> I really don't see the problem with deleting or updating techniques in kempo or any other system. One of the core concepts of martial arts is that it is also a science. In the world of sciences like astronomy or chemistry, a paradigm is held onto as long as it is accurate to the information we have. If reality doesn't fit the paradigm, then we must change the paradigm (break out of the fishbowl, as it were).
> 
> If a martial art's technique does not work and can get someone killed, and doesn't work in reality, it should not be taught as is. It MUST be modified. Martial science dictates that we do not fight yesterday's war, and the survival of the martial arts from being marginalized demands change. Change is the one true characteristic of all living things. How do you think kempo came to exist in the first place?
> 
> ...


 
The problem is that not all of martial arts is a set science as there are too many variables.  What is effective and efficient for one is often not a effective or efficient for another.

Example the Ura Nage in Judo/Ju Jitsu is a very powerful damaging throw if.  It has a science behind it (leverage and gravity).  However for a very small woman who's arms do not have the circumference to secure themselves around a larger person the throw is not effective.  So should she throw this technique out and then teach the system without this technique to future generations based on her own physical limitation?

Effective and efficient are subjective terms not absolutes which is why there is no agreement on whether material should or should not be deleted.


----------



## Monadnock (Aug 15, 2006)

Every technique has a counter, and a counter to the counter. So they all work, and all don't work. I don't think there will ever be a day when one is run to completion without any altering. Stay with the principles and forget the techniques. This technique jibber jabber is old hat now. Time to move on IMHO.


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Aug 16, 2006)

Monadnock said:
			
		

> Every technique has a counter, and a counter to the counter. So they all work, and all don't work. I don't think there will ever be a day when one is run to completion without any altering. *Stay with the principles and forget the techniques.* This technique jibber jabber is old hat now. Time to move on IMHO.


 
The problem there is that the techniques are the vehicle through which the principles are taught (at least in Kenpo they are).  If you trash a technique there is a principle going with it in most cases.


----------



## Monadnock (Aug 16, 2006)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:
			
		

> The problem there is that the techniques are the vehicle through which the principles are taught (at least in Kenpo they are). If you trash a technique there is a principle going with it in most cases.


 
I agree. By "forgetting" techniques, I did not mean to remove them from the curriculum, but rather "learn it, and forget it."

By practicing techniques for years, they will become engrained into your responses and later the student should be able to act without thinking, or recalling the technique. At this point, the tech has been "forgotten," at least by the consious mind. Attachment to techniques is a trait of the beginner, and it only clutters the mind instead of letting them act freely, or spiritually, if you will. This also, is when logic is less depended upon.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Aug 16, 2006)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:
			
		

> The problem is that not all of martial arts is a set science as there are too many variables. What is effective and efficient for one is often not a effective or efficient for another.
> 
> Example the Ura Nage in Judo/Ju Jitsu is a very powerful damaging throw if. It has a science behind it (leverage and gravity). However for a very small woman who's arms do not have the circumference to secure themselves around a larger person the throw is not effective. So should she throw this technique out and then teach the system without this technique to future generations based on her own physical limitation?
> 
> Effective and efficient are subjective terms not absolutes which is why there is no agreement on whether material should or should not be deleted.


 
Pehaps I was not clear on what I meant when I talked about "science". The core of all science is the scientific method. There are general theories and special theories (ex: relativity) which serve as paradigms, and stick around as long as they are an effective description of reality as we know it. But the core of science is the process by which those paradigms came to exist, which, again, is the scientific method.

So, really, I don't see our two views as opposing. In fact, you just gave a perfect example for what I was so poorly trying to describe. In the throw you spoke of, I would teach the student that the throw will work, but against certain opponents. Against larger opponents, I'd probably tell her to concentrate on vital areas. But she would still learn the throw, because it is applicable in other areas. 

This is still all very scientific. It's based on what would work for that student. (I'd also like to point out that the concept of a "set science" is actually counterintuitive to the very nature of science.) 

But there are certain knife defenses that really don't work, and could get people killed (and don't get me started on gun defense). I grew up in bad areas, and carried a knife on me at all times as a necessity. I joined the Army and really got to know about pistols, rifles, and knives, and I have seen many knife and gun defenses in different martial arts systems and become very doubtful in the effectivenes of many of them.


----------



## jasonearle (Aug 16, 2006)

Monadnock said:
			
		

> I agree. By "forgetting" techniques, I did not mean to remove them from the curriculum, but rather "learn it, and forget it."
> 
> By practicing techniques for years, they will become engrained into your responses and later the student should be able to act without thinking, or recalling the technique. At this point, the tech has been "forgotten," at least by the consious mind. Attachment to techniques is a trait of the beginner, and it only clutters the mind instead of letting them act freely, or spiritually, if you will. This also, is when logic is less depended upon.


 

my feelings excatly on that.  that is one of the most important things I tell my students after I have taught them a technique or set or anything, is to stop thinking and let the body move.  everytime I think or see them thinking they stop and get confused which you don't have time to stop and think in actual combat.  I loved the way Bruce Lee put it in one of his books.  "Before I started training a punch was just a punch and a kick just a kick.  Once I started training, a punch became more then a punch and a kick more then a kick.  Now that I've been doing it a while, a punch is just a punch and a kick just a kick."  I'm not sure if that is the exact words, but you get the idea.  there are levels of training you go through were you start to understand how to use your natural weapons with utmost efficiency, which your body must learn, and once it is ingrained into your brain and muscles, you just let your body react.   As far as taking away anything, it has always been important to me to look at why the move was created in the first place, or why it might have been created, and see if it applies to the world we live in today.   I wouldn't necessarily throw anything away cause you never know when it could be used somehow, whether in teaching, learning, or practical application.   An obvious example is the time when there were no guns, so with the invention of guns and there efficiency in causing such damage, martial arts must evolve or create new ideas to be able to handle such situations as efficiently as possible, whether it be disarming the assailant or valueing your own life over the contents of your wallet, which are replaceable, wheras your life is not and simply giving it too them.  I'm not bulletproof and I don't want to try my luck if my life is seriously in danger or the life of my family of friends.   I may have a better chance of disarming them with my training but I'd rather not risk my life for the contents of my wallet.


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Aug 16, 2006)

Monadnock said:
			
		

> I agree. By "forgetting" techniques, I did not mean to remove them from the curriculum, but rather "learn it, and forget it."
> 
> By practicing techniques for years, they will become engrained into your responses and later the student should be able to act without thinking, or recalling the technique. At this point, the tech has been "forgotten," at least by the consious mind. Attachment to techniques is a trait of the beginner, and it only clutters the mind instead of letting them act freely, or spiritually, if you will. This also, is when logic is less depended upon.


 
OK, now I'm with what you're saying and I totally agree.


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Aug 17, 2006)

Josh Oakley said:
			
		

> Pehaps I was not clear on what I meant when I talked about "science". The core of all science is the scientific method. There are general theories and special theories (ex: relativity) which serve as paradigms, and stick around as long as they are an effective description of reality as we know it. But the core of science is the process by which those paradigms came to exist, which, again, is the scientific method.
> 
> So, really, I don't see our two views as opposing. In fact, you just gave a perfect example for what I was so poorly trying to describe. In the throw you spoke of, I would teach the student that the throw will work, but against certain opponents. Against larger opponents, I'd probably tell her to concentrate on vital areas. But she would still learn the throw, because it is applicable in other areas.
> 
> ...


 
I agree, we are saying the same thing but a different way  Yeah don't get me started on some of the "gun disarms". I just saw a clip of a Hapkido guy showing one the other day.  Not a bad disarm.....except the part where the gun was pointed directly at his chest mid move with no tension on the opponent's forearm to prevent a trigger pull.


----------



## Sigung86 (Aug 24, 2006)

Actually, when you get down to it ... If you can not make a technique work, then why bother with it? 

Someone used the invariable language/alphabet example a few posts back. That's ok, but it is still an updatable, adding/deleting, living thing.    

What is this word?

Sesfion


It is a valid "Olde" Englishe Word.

There previous are two examples of what I mean.

Sesfion = Session

WE now use two "s" characters instead of the ancient hallowed art of adding a second character "f".  If yo want to see a really great example of this, look at a copy of the original Declaration of Independence.  And we don't bother with the "e" on old, anymore.  These two examples of English are not even taught anymore, for general consumption.  They are, however, there, if you want to investigate old English, it's origins, derivations, and evolutions.

Kenpo is the same way.  In the Tracy's Kenpo that I took for Lo!  those many years, the weapons defenses are lame for the most part, and as taught, will get you killed.  

I know... I know... They are principles to study, but even then, many of them are flawed as they stand.  The grand-glorious Al, himself, says that if we use a white shirt and a magic marker that we will discover that we get cut more often than not.

And so ... I see absolutely nothing wrong with deleting something that is virtually useless to begin with, and apparently taught to fill some sort of outmoded need to fill a category.

Get some useful wisdom.  Don't really get too lathered about whether it is "Kenpo" or not.  Kenpo means "Fist-Law", and if it is, then it can be changeable, amendable, deletable, and modifiable, just like law.

All the Keys and tool boxes in the world won't make a useless technique useful.  If it does, then you don't have Kenpo anymore??????    Looking at the various incarnations of Kenpo since the 50s when SGM Parker first began his foray into commercial arts, I think I have to beg to differ with you.

But then... I teach "Dynamic Kenpo Concepts".  :rofl:


----------



## kroh (Aug 24, 2006)

While I am not an EPAK practitioner, I have quite a few friends that do. They voice many of the same concerns that have been evident in this thread. One of the points raised in this discussion has been that if you take out the techniques that "don't work," will you loose the principles they teach. A person that is a qualified teacher will find a better way to convey the lost principle should the tehcnique that teaches it be cast off. 

In the recent years there has been a revival in martial arts training where stereo-typical movements are being re-evaluated at some of the highest levels. The reason for this is simple...we have better access to each other. With the net and other mediums present (how many youtube posts can you find on forums now), we can evaluate and dissiminate what works and what doesn't. Even the Military has joined the fray to re-envision their concept of what a close combatives program should look like (MMAP for the Marines and MCAP for he Army.). The fact of the matter is that people who want realistic combatives training do not want to waste the time standing in a horse stance and poping out reverse punches while learning the latest blocking set. Ever watch even some of the black belts spar? I don't see horse stances or weird manuevers... I see kickboxing. Why why would a person practice all of these strange "techniques" when the principles they teach are not even being used by so called experts? 

If a person wants to practice the arts for asthetic reasons that is different. While iaido imparts fantastic lessons in spacial awareness and timing as well as an appreciation for closing with the enemy and striking with purpose...no one carries swords or fights with them anymore. The closest one might get is using a machete in the army but as any soldier will tell you...if you are down to your knife...call for the friends with the guns to come pick you up. The point is, you have an entire martial art dedicated to the use of a forgotten weapon (or group of techniques). 

People look at these systems and say..."The founder must have been a genius to put this together like so...who am I to change it?" If we don't take what the people of the past gave us so that we can carry it into the future, we are curators and not instructors. Much like the old "_samurai systems_, " we are merely preserving a tradition for the sake of tradition (because it hasn't been a living breathing martial art since people wore lacquered armor). 

"_Absorb what is usefull, discard what is useless, and interject what is specifically your own_", Said by some guy regarding his recipe for something or other...

My turn: http://youtube.com/watch?v=OplajPk-K6U

Regards, 
Walt


----------



## Ray (Aug 24, 2006)

kroh said:
			
		

> One of the points raised in this discussion has been that if you take out the techniques that "don't work," will you loose the principles they teach. A person that is a qualified teacher will find a better way to convey the lost principle should the tehcnique that teaches it be cast off.


There have been several techniques that "didn't work" for me; only to find that there was a better way to do the technique.  There have even been instances of techniques that work just fine for me that have been improved with input from others.


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Aug 24, 2006)

Ray said:
			
		

> There have been several techniques that "didn't work" for me; only to find that there was a better way to do the technique. There have even been instances of techniques that work just fine for me that have been improved with input from others.


 
My thoughts exactly.


----------



## kroh (Aug 24, 2006)

Ray said:
			
		

> There have been several techniques that "didn't work" for me; only to find that there was a better way to do the technique. There have even been instances of techniques that work just fine for me that have been improved with input from others.


 
Sounds like you have the idea to search out the techniques to find out what works ...experimentation is definately a good thing in regards to this stuff.

Regards, 
Walt


----------



## Josh Oakley (Aug 29, 2006)

kroh said:
			
		

> While I am not an EPAK practitioner, I have quite a few friends that do. They voice many of the same concerns that have been evident in this thread. One of the points raised in this discussion has been that if you take out the techniques that "don't work," will you loose the principles they teach. A person that is a qualified teacher will find a better way to convey the lost principle should the tehcnique that teaches it be cast off.
> 
> In the recent years there has been a revival in martial arts training where stereo-typical movements are being re-evaluated at some of the highest levels. The reason for this is simple...we have better access to each other. With the net and other mediums present (how many youtube posts can you find on forums now), we can evaluate and dissiminate what works and what doesn't. Even the Military has joined the fray to re-envision their concept of what a close combatives program should look like (MMAP for the Marines and MCAP for he Army.). The fact of the matter is that people who want realistic combatives training do not want to waste the time standing in a horse stance and poping out reverse punches while learning the latest blocking set. Ever watch even some of the black belts spar? I don't see horse stances or weird manuevers... I see kickboxing. Why why would a person practice all of these strange "techniques" when the principles they teach are not even being used by so called experts?
> 
> ...



Funny you should mention the friends with guns thing. FM 3-25, the Army's combatives manual, says that in war the one who survives unarmed combat is most often the one whose allies with guns shows up first. 


One thing I would say, however, is that I don't see how we would lose the principal by removing or modifying the technique. The technique flows from the principle, not the other way around, or at least that's how I understand it. There may very well be better ways to show and express the principle. That being said, if we are following the scientific method, we may eventually find that certain _principles_ may need to be modified or replaced. No principle is Gospel Law, nor should it be. If Kenpo is to remain scientific, it must reanalyze its own presuppositions, concepts, principles, and laws. I recommend readint _The Structure of Scientific Revolutions_, by Thomas S. Kuhn, to better understand what I'm getting at.


----------



## kroh (Aug 29, 2006)

Josh Oakley said:
			
		

> Funny you should mention the friends with guns thing. FM 3-25, the Army's combatives manual, says that in war the one who survives unarmed combat is most often the one whose allies with guns shows up first.




It is not that much of a stretch that I used that statement as I am in the military and I would liek to be certified as an instructor in MACP in the future.



> One thing I would say, however, is that I don't see how we would lose the principal by removing or modifying the technique. The technique flows from the principle, not the other way around, or at least that's how I understand it. There may very well be better ways to show and express the principle. That being said, if we are following the scientific method, we may eventually find that certain _principles_ may need to be modified or replaced. No principle is Gospel Law, nor should it be. If Kenpo is to remain scientific, it must reanalyze its own presuppositions, concepts, principles, and laws.


 
This is one of the many truths that is found in any skill in life that some of my fiends that do Americanized Kenpo systems have had issues with.  One of the things that many of them found when they reached a higher level is that many of the 100+ techniches that they were learning were variations of techniques that they learned at lower levels.  Some of them felt upset about this as they were being asked to add yet another technique to their repetoir as opposed to being just taught the principle in the beginning.  I liked the way you stated how the technique flows from the principles and not the other way around.  While we need a technique to demonstrate the principle... If you show people in the beginning other places the principles work...you could knock those 100+ techniques that one has to learn to less than fifty.  Further refine the principles that are being used and you could knock those fifty to less than twenty.  Martial arts training is actually very easy... We just tend to overcomplicate things as we go along (not to mention you would need to be Bruce Lee on steroids to pull off half of this stuff in a combative engagement).  

Great post Mr. Oakley
Regards, 
Walt


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Aug 29, 2006)

kroh said:
			
		

> It is not that much of a stretch that I used that statement as I am in the military and I would liek to be certified as an instructor in MACP in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I've been explaining this very thing to my students for years now.  I teach them that the Kenpo system has 154+ variations of the same 10-13 techniques.  That's the difference between a self-defense or fighting system and a martial art.  A martial art is more fleshed out with more variations shown.  A self defense system just shows the basic concepts and movements and leaves it up to the person to figure out the rest.  While all the principles could be explained early on it takes time to digest them all which is one reason among many why so many variations are given.  A new variation to introduce a new principle or new application of that principle when the student is ready for it.  Principles are many, motions are few.  As has been stated in the past.  If martial arts were all about fighting they would have no real purpose.  Someone can be taught some pretty effective fighting skills in weeks, not years.


----------



## kroh (Aug 29, 2006)

Kenpojujisu3 said:
			
		

> As has been stated in the past. If martial arts were all about fighting they would have no real purpose. Someone can be taught some pretty effective fighting skills in weeks, not years



I like this statement and yet I can't totally agree with it.  While I agree that martial art should be comprehensive... I think the expressed purpose of the martial arts should be fighting.  Look at reall old martial arts like the Shoden Katori Shinto Ryu.  The entire martial art was dedicated to battefield tactics back in the day when people fought like that.  My personal opinion is that a martial art that teaches something other than combatives or related subject matter (ressucitation and tactical studies can be considered related) is missing the point and is little more than a dance or partnered gymnastics routine.  I have often been blasted for this view in the past but I feel that the word MARTIAL means Of, relating to, or suggestive of war, and Art being a field or category of personal expression.  If your persoanl expression of fighting doesn't include fighting...what is it then?

But as was said, that is a personal opinion.  I agree martial arts should be more than just punching and biting but it must include agressive elements.  

Great Post sir,
Regards,
Walt


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Aug 29, 2006)

kroh said:
			
		

> I like this statement and yet I can't totally agree with it. While I agree that martial art should be comprehensive... I think the expressed purpose of the martial arts should be fighting. Look at reall old martial arts like the Shoden Katori Shinto Ryu. The entire martial art was dedicated to battefield tactics back in the day when people fought like that. My personal opinion is that a martial art that teaches something other than combatives or related subject matter (ressucitation and tactical studies can be considered related) is missing the point and is little more than a dance or partnered gymnastics routine. I have often been blasted for this view in the past but I feel that the word MARTIAL means Of, relating to, or suggestive of war, and Art being a field or category of personal expression. If your persoanl expression of fighting doesn't include fighting...what is it then?
> 
> But as was said, that is a personal opinion. I agree martial arts should be more than just punching and biting but it must include agressive elements.
> 
> ...


 
We're on the same page (Check my sig).  It has to be about fighting (actually MOSTLY about fighting) but not ALL about fighting as there are WAY faster ways to teach people how to fight effectively than a martial art.


----------



## kroh (Aug 29, 2006)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:
			
		

> We're on the same page (Check my sig). It has to be about fighting (actually MOSTLY about fighting) but not ALL about fighting as there are WAY faster ways to teach people how to fight effectively than a martial art.


 
Very true... But it is harder to impress the ladies with your skills when you just drop whatever jerk offended you in the first place...

I think I see where you are comming from now.  Glad to see the Kempo community hasn't lost its teeth.  

Regards, 
Walt


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Aug 29, 2006)

kroh said:
			
		

> Very true... But it is harder to impress the ladies with your skills when you just drop whatever jerk offended you in the first place...
> 
> I think I see where you are comming from now. Glad to see the Kempo community hasn't lost its teeth.
> 
> ...


 
yeah, it's no good when you hear "what'd he do to him? what happended?" then you're like "Man, I gotta wake this guy up and do it again slower" 

Yeah, some still bite even though many bark (and quietly from behind the fence at that).


----------



## Touch Of Death (Aug 29, 2006)

Boxing, Sport TKD, and Muay thai are about fighting. A martial Art system is about controling a situation.
Sean


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Aug 29, 2006)

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> Boxing, Sport TKD, and Muay thai are about fighting. A martial Art system is about controling a situation.
> Sean


 
Where did you study Boxing or Muay Thai? I can assure you that we learned alot more than what you see in the sporting events.  Similar to watching Kenpo guys spar at tournaments and assuming that's how they're going to react in a real confrontation. Of course not, that would be heresy to even suggest something like that....


----------



## Touch Of Death (Aug 29, 2006)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:
			
		

> Where did you study Boxing or Muay Thai? I can assure you that we learned alot more than what you see in the sporting events. Similar to watching Kenpo guys spar at tournaments and assuming that's how they're going to react in a real confrontation. Of course not, that would be heresy to even suggest something like that....


I was generalizing but never mind.
Sean


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Aug 29, 2006)

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> I was generalizing but never mind.
> Sean


 
Sorry I mistook your generalizing for some inaccuracies involving assumptions about arts I've spent a few years with.  My apologies.

A Muay Thai boxers oath
I will ensure that I am clean, strong and behave with honesty and integrity. 
I will not bully those weaker than myself. 
I will undertake good deeds to the benefit of others and be loyal to the nation 
I will avoid causing trouble of any kind. 
We will be united and help one another whenever possible.

alot of the above has nothing to do with fighting for instance...


----------



## Sigung86 (Aug 29, 2006)

Regarding amount of techniques over matter.... Remember, that when you are teaching a class group, or private, you are generally teaching to the weakest link, or the lowest common denominator.

I have had students who walked in and walked out within a years time, having all the knowledge, concepts, precepts, etc.  that are needed to qualify as a Black Belt.  On the other hand, I have one student who staid and studied for almost ten years before he got his Black Belt.  That's the fellow that we teach to.  Thus the dumbing down of the military fighting system.  Thus the reason why I, years ago, currently, some of my students, Mike Pick and a number of others go out as independent contractors and teach "advanced" techniques, philosophies, and skill sets to the Special Ops Personnel.  And even then, there are lowest common denominators.

The Basics of fighting are simple and inelegant, but effective and often lethal.  We have to teach some folks to reach beyond that to attain the art for personal achievement, regardless of effectiveness.  I used to know a fellow who had a relatively high ranking degree in TKD.  He was beautiful to watch, and his art was his everything, but he could never fight his way out of a wet paper bag, and he knew it.  Still he persisted in the art for art's sake.  

The fighting is there for the warrior.  The Art is there for the warrior wanting more, and more so even, for the artist.


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Aug 30, 2006)

Sigung86 said:
			
		

> Regarding amount of techniques over matter.... Remember, that when you are teaching a class group, or private, you are generally teaching to the weakest link, or the lowest common denominator.
> 
> I have had students who walked in and walked out within a years time, having all the knowledge, concepts, precepts, etc. that are needed to qualify as a Black Belt. On the other hand, I have one student who staid and studied for almost ten years before he got his Black Belt. That's the fellow that we teach to. Thus the dumbing down of the military fighting system. Thus the reason why I, years ago, currently, some of my students, Mike Pick and a number of others go out as independent contractors and teach "advanced" techniques, philosophies, and skill sets to the Special Ops Personnel. And even then, there are lowest common denominators.
> 
> ...


 
Man that was deep, the last sentence sums it all up. I gotta quote that.


----------

