# How many techniques do you need?



## KenpoEMT (Jan 1, 2006)

If a person KNOWS his/her techniques, how many does he/she really need?


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 1, 2006)

One ...

Of course, which one to know is the problem .... best to learn them all


----------



## Dark Kenpo Lord (Jan 1, 2006)

As much wood as a woodchuck could, if a woodchuck could chuck wood.

DarK LorD


----------



## Rick Wade (Jan 1, 2006)

I am just now truly understanding some most of the Self Defense techniques  
It is more than just memorizing techniques.
What you want to truly achieve is a spontaneous response.

Mr. Skip Hancock said something the other night that made allot of sense.
"You only get one chance at self defense after that it is a fight."

V/R

Rick English


----------



## Danny T (Jan 1, 2006)

Theban_Legion said:
			
		

> If a person KNOWS his/her techniques, how many does he/she really need?


 
To be a good fighter you only need to know ONE, and when to use it.

To ge a great fighter you only need to know one, when to use it, and a thousand different ways to get to it.

Danny


----------



## Zoran (Jan 2, 2006)

By techniques, I suppose you mean choregraphed responses to various types of attacks. You could get away with 0. But you will need to know how to block, evade, strike, kick, grapple, throw, and more. You will also need to learn to be spontaneous and adaptable.

These things could be taught without requiring you to memerize techs. But in many ways, it would make it harder. But techs are only a teaching tool that is practically useless by itself.

I have been putting some thought into techs and how they are traditionally taught. I have wondered if there are some better ways to impart the same knowledge, principles and motion than the way we normally do it. Maybe something that is less robotic and requires a little more thought from the student. 

Such as dividing into two seperate categories. Defensive movements and offensive movements. 

For example, 
1. teaching the various ways a person can evade and block a lunge punch with different types of footwork for each. 
2. Teach various striking combinations only.
3. Have the student put them together.

I think if done early on, it may be more interactive for the student which won't bore them to death. It may also have the added benefit of teaching spontaneity early in a students training.


----------



## MJS (Jan 2, 2006)

Theban_Legion said:
			
		

> If a person KNOWS his/her techniques, how many does he/she really need?


 
IMO, if someone is going to train in a system, they might as well learn all of the required material.  Now, some may look at a system that has a large amount of techniques and think, "So if I have 30 right punch counters, how will I know which one to use if someone is going to punch me?"  The techniques are or should be, a foundation for the student to build a response off of.  The same can be said for grabs, chokes, and kicks.

Mike


----------



## Dark Kenpo Lord (Jan 2, 2006)

Zoran said:
			
		

> I have been putting some thought into techs and how they are traditionally taught. I have wondered if there are some better ways to impart the same knowledge, principles and motion than the way we normally do it. Maybe something that is less robotic and requires a little more thought from the student.
> 
> Such as dividing into two seperate categories. Defensive movements and offensive movements.
> 
> ...


 
Well, these are covered in the sets and forms of EPAK, that's kinda the reason for those crazy isolations most get so bored with.

Here are some that may or may not be useful, but how many would you need?

http://www.bushido.org/seicho/movies.htm

DarK LorD


----------



## Flashing Dagger (Jan 2, 2006)

Perhaps a better question is "How can you most effectively develop the capacity for spontaneous reactions" I suppose you could have thousands of techniques if you approach it from this standpoint. After you have studied a technique you could forget it after a while, but you would be left with a greater ability to spontaneously arrange combinations. Afterall, our techniques at a certain point are really just variations on the same basics. Or you could have 10 techniques if you drilled them with thousands of different possibilities.


----------



## Kenpodoc (Jan 2, 2006)

You only *need* one technique. The trouble is knowing which technique you need beforehand.

Jeff


----------



## Zoran (Jan 2, 2006)

Flashing Dagger said:
			
		

> Or you could have 10 techniques if you drilled them with thousands of different possibilities.



This essentially the way the system I am in is set up (40 instead of 10).


----------



## Kalicombat (Jan 2, 2006)

To address the intial question;
"If a person KNOWS his/her techniques, how many does he/she really need?"

If a person Knows all the techniques, then it realy does not matter how many they need, they have all of them at their disposal. That person can use any, all, or none if needed. The big question is, why do people feel compelled to study a system, and then question the number of techniques that system requires it's students to learn? 

Gary C.


----------



## Zoran (Jan 2, 2006)

Dark Kenpo Lord said:
			
		

> Well, these are covered in the sets and forms of EPAK, that's kinda the reason for those crazy isolations most get so bored with.
> 
> DarK LorD



My thought was more in the line of replacing the way techs are taught from the start. Not as an addition or seperate drill, form or set. 

Then again, most people would find the idea too radical. Replace the Techs! My god man, you must be a heretic!!


----------



## Dark Kenpo Lord (Jan 2, 2006)

Zoran said:
			
		

> My thought was more in the line of replacing the way techs are taught from the start. Not as an addition or seperate drill, form or set.
> 
> Then again, most people would find the idea too radical. Replace the Techs! My god man, you must be a heretic!!


 
Hmm, maybe you were shown badly to begin with, may be why you think the way you do.

DarK LorD


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Jan 2, 2006)

The question begs several questions:

How many techniques do you need -- for what purpose?

How many do you need in a single moment?
How many do you need in a single encounter?
How many do you need in order to compete against others of your style?
How many do you need in order to compete against other martial artists of other styles?
How many do you need to prepare for most self-defense situations you are likely to encounter?
How many do you need to prepare for any self-defense situation you may possibly encounter anywhere?
How many do you need to understand the basic movements of your art or system?
How many do you need to "master" your system?
How many do you need to keep you interested and learning for the rest of your life?
How many do you need so that you can say your system is better than everybody else's?
How many do you need so that you can say you know more than other people who study your system?
And, most importantly, how many do you need in order to have a pointless debate about how many you need?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 2, 2006)

Two


----------



## Monadnock (Jan 2, 2006)

One. The rest are just variations.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 2, 2006)

Yes but the two main families of motion are inside and outside.
Sean


----------



## Monadnock (Jan 2, 2006)

Two may be the case - at a certain point in most techniques you will most likely arrive in either position (inside or outside your opponent's centerline, front or back to other styles, omote/ura) - but what about before you are inside or outside? When does a technique begin/change to a variation?

I'm taking different  philosophical approach to the poll's question. Another possible answer could be 0. There is no technique.

I'm going to go bend some spoons now.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 2, 2006)

Monadnock said:
			
		

> Two may be the case - at a certain point in most techniques you will most likely arrive in either position (inside or outside your opponent's centerline, front or back to other styles, omote/ura) - but what about before you are inside or outside? When does a technique begin/change to a variation?
> 
> I'm taking different philosophical approach to the poll's question. Another possible answer could be 0. There is no technique.
> 
> I'm going to go bend some spoons now.


I was not refering to an opponent. Its one, but the first move is an inward motion with your arm or a returning outward motion with your arm. Wax on wax off as it were. Your opponent is lucky enough to be a part of the mix only as an uke. 
Sean


----------



## Big Pat (Jan 2, 2006)

One that works!!

EKP RIP
Big Pat


----------



## Kalicombat (Jan 2, 2006)

How bout attacking your opponents centerline. Not working inside or outside of it, but kicking your way right dead center of your opponent? Wouldn't that work. How bout a solid kenpo kick to the jewels, which will bring your opponents head forward, then you continue to attack the centerline......I don't know, maybe the eyes, nose, throat, sternum, you know.....the stuff that makes up an opponents centerline. And why not use the basics that are the embodiment of a technique and blend them to create a spontaneous reaction to an attack??? Wait, maybe I hit the nail on the head.... Maybe, just maybe, the techniques were developed to give students a reference point and to teach them coordination....maybe the whole purpose of the techniques were to introduce the students to the individual maneuvers, in a logical progression, married with proper stance work, foot maneuvers, feints, blocks, and strikes, and once those students have absorbed the entire curriculum, and spent the mat time doing so, they can handle any scenario that is thrown at them.....Yeah, maybe that's it. But then again, maybe the techniques are the end all of kenpo. Maybe, the forms, sets, etc... aren't important..... NAW, couldn't be that. If that was the case, I don't think SGM Parker, all of his most senior students, all of their students, and so on would spend so much time learning, practicing, working, teaching, and investigating them. 
Maybe I'm off base here, but this thread has the hint of one of those questions posed by off shoot EPAK'ers looking for verification of their system. Like that has never been done before....Maybe Im wrong.....maybe Im not.

Gary C.


----------



## Zoran (Jan 3, 2006)

Dark Kenpo Lord said:
			
		

> Hmm, maybe you were shown badly to begin with, may be why you think the way you do.
> 
> DarK LorD


 
 Hmm, that is always the easy answer, isn't it. "You were not taught properly", "you don't understand", and so on.

Please Dark Lord, don't make assumptions about me when you have never shared the matt with me. It's a little presumptuous. Let's just say we come from different backgrounds and training principles and leave it at that. I could easily say that your mind is closed to new ideas, but I don't feel I know you well enough to even suggest it because I never shared the matt with you.

So why don't you make your point against the opinion next time, instead of your opinion of the poster. Disagree to your hearts content. I would love to entertain your opposing view. 

Anyways. sorry to the mods for shifting off topic.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Jan 3, 2006)

Theban_Legion said:
			
		

> If a person KNOWS his/her techniques, how many does he/she really need?


 
I think it depends what they want to do. For simple self-defence, 6-8 techniques (along with some grappling releases) drilled to perfection will suit just fine. Boxers are formidable with half a dozen. To be a professional martial artist and instructor, your repertoire should be substantially greater.


----------



## Doc (Jan 3, 2006)

You know that is an excellent question. Some will suggest cryptic answers about already knowing how to move etc. but, the answer is actually a tad more complex than that.

Inside, outside, and variations on themes fail to acknowledge there are specific attacks we may encounter that have little in common with other attacks.

A bear hug from the rear has a limited number of variations, but the central theme of a bear hug from the rear is important. It defines parameters that must be considered to survive the initial assault. This particular attack has no significant relationship with a left jab, or roundhouse kick or many other possible assaults that must also be survived but in a different manner.

So it may be simplistic to suggest you don't need any because you already know how to move, or more simply one or two, but significant variations on an attack theme do in fact require different skills and principles to overcome the aggressive actions. 

Although it is possible to take this to an extreme, clearly you will need enough to counter what you feel are the most likely type of assaults that are distinct enough from each other to require the learning of different skills and understandings.

That number in practice will vary from person to person depending on their own due diligence, daily activities and environment. A police offcier may need more skills then a stay-at-home mom where a confrontation is not as likely.

Although the number is in actuallity different from person to person, the answer truly lies in the answer I often give to people who ask me about self defense.

*"How long will it take for me to learn just enough to defend myself?" *

At this point I usually ask the persons name they intend to have a confrontation with. They usually say something like: 

"Not anyone special just in general." 

"Well," I say, "If you don't know the circumstances of how, where, and who  might attack you, I guess you better study as much and as long as you can - just in case."


----------



## Dark Kenpo Lord (Jan 3, 2006)

Zoran said:
			
		

> Hmm, that is always the easy answer, isn't it. "You were not taught properly", "you don't understand", and so on.
> 
> Please Dark Lord, don't make assumptions about me when you have never shared the matt with me. It's a little presumptuous. Let's just say we come from different backgrounds and training principles and leave it at that. I could easily say that your mind is closed to new ideas, but I don't feel I know you well enough to even suggest it because I never shared the matt with you.
> 
> ...


 
If your instructor has not passed on validity of what you're doing to you, what's the point?  


YOU feel things need to be changed, but why?    Because YOU don't think they'll work for anyone, or, don't work for you, don't work for your students?    If my instructor gave me no confindence in what I'm doing I certainly wouldn't be there, I'd move on to someone and something else that would.     

I believe Gary Catherman is correct, someone is looking to validate what they're doing, and I thought that the moment I read the intial post, which is why I responded the way I did.

DarK LorD


----------



## MJS (Jan 3, 2006)

We could look at the many techniques and think, "Well, I'll take 1 for each type of attack and continue to work those."  Thats fine, but when we take into consideration the "What if" phase, those singular techniques may not address that issue.  Yes, if the attacker attacks in the "ideal" phase, then yeah, you would just need that singular technique, but we can't assume that will be the case.

Mike


----------



## Doc (Jan 3, 2006)

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> Boxers are formidable with half a dozen.


Of course they are. But let's not forget that is a double edge. They only have to defend agains a limited number of attacks as well, and punches only within rules.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 3, 2006)

Kalicombat said:
			
		

> How bout attacking your opponents centerline. Not working inside or outside of it, but kicking your way right dead center of your opponent? Wouldn't that work. How bout a solid kenpo kick to the jewels, which will bring your opponents head forward, then you continue to attack the centerline......I don't know, maybe the eyes, nose, throat, sternum, you know.....the stuff that makes up an opponents centerline. And why not use the basics that are the embodiment of a technique and blend them to create a spontaneous reaction to an attack??? Wait, maybe I hit the nail on the head.... Maybe, just maybe, the techniques were developed to give students a reference point and to teach them coordination....maybe the whole purpose of the techniques were to introduce the students to the individual maneuvers, in a logical progression, married with proper stance work, foot maneuvers, feints, blocks, and strikes, and once those students have absorbed the entire curriculum, and spent the mat time doing so, they can handle any scenario that is thrown at them.....Yeah, maybe that's it. But then again, maybe the techniques are the end all of kenpo. Maybe, the forms, sets, etc... aren't important..... NAW, couldn't be that. If that was the case, I don't think SGM Parker, all of his most senior students, all of their students, and so on would spend so much time learning, practicing, working, teaching, and investigating them.
> Maybe I'm off base here, but this thread has the hint of one of those questions posed by off shoot EPAK'ers looking for verification of their system. Like that has never been done before....Maybe Im wrong.....maybe Im not.
> 
> Gary C.


I doubt the any senerio thing, but perhaps. If you mean validation of the "offshoot" what makes the "offshoot" invalid? And what constitutes an offshoot? What date of leaving Mr. Parker constitutes an offshoot, exactly? And again its not where you attack your opponent on or about his center line, its about where your opponent is in relation to "your" center line.
Sean


----------



## Zoran (Jan 3, 2006)

Dark Kenpo Lord said:
			
		

> If your instructor has not passed on validity of what you're doing to you, what's the point?
> 
> 
> YOU feel things need to be changed, but why? Because YOU don't think they'll work for anyone, or, don't work for you, don't work for your students? If my instructor gave me no confindence in what I'm doing I certainly wouldn't be there, I'd move on to someone and something else that would.
> ...



I give up, you're a lost cause.
I raise my flag of surrender.
:bs:
Ooops, wrong flag.


----------



## Kalicombat (Jan 3, 2006)

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> I doubt the any senerio thing, but perhaps. If you mean validation of the "offshoot" what makes the "offshoot" invalid? And what constitutes an offshoot? What date of leaving Mr. Parker constitutes an offshoot, exactly? And again its not where you attack your opponent on or about his center line, its about where your opponent is in relation to "your" center line.
> Sean


 

Ok, first, you sound like an IKCA'er. I dont know if you are or not, but Your defensiveness sounds as such. I never said that any system was "invalid". An off shoot is any EPAK based system that has given up the curriculum by cutting sets and forms, number of techniques, you know, like so many have done. An off shoot system is not necessarily wrong, but it is not EPAK. As far as dates of leaving SGM Parker, I have no idea. Finaly, you worry about your opponent in relation to your center line, and I'll keep detroying my opponents centerline, and we can both continue to do our own thing. My way has worked for me, and I'm sure yours has worked for you.

I know something about off shoot systems, I started in one. It was not for me however, so I kept looking. I found one that did work for me and worked my way through that system. Then I finaly found EPAK, what I was looking for in the first place, and am happy with learning all that EPAK has to offer. 

Gary C.


----------



## jdinca (Jan 3, 2006)

Kalicombat said:
			
		

> An off shoot is any EPAK based system that has given up the curriculum by cutting sets and forms, number of techniques, you know, like so many have done.



So you're saying that an offshoot is a system that is less comprehensive than EPAK? Or can it be one that has subtracted and added or adjusted the system? I ask only because your statement used a broad brush to paint all offshoot systems as something less than EPAK.


----------



## Dark Kenpo Lord (Jan 3, 2006)

Zoran said:
			
		

> I give up, you're a lost cause.
> I raise my flag of surrender.
> :bs:
> Ooops, wrong flag.


 
But I see you still didn't answer the questions, but I did ask for your opinion on WHY you feel things need to be changed.

DarK LorD


----------



## Kalicombat (Jan 3, 2006)

Jdinca,
   You want my opinion? Sure, I think EPAK is the finest, most comprehensive system of combat out there. I dont have experience in every off-shoot system to break away from EPAK and do their own thing, so I can't answer in regards to all systems. I can however, tell you that the two systems I do have hands on experience with are definitely "something less" then EPAK. That being said, I am confident that I can make any system work for me. Not because of the system, but because of ME. I'm confident in my skills, and having tested them quite a bit, am proficient in making it home at the end of an altercation.  Like I have said repeatedly though, on lots of other threads, if you are happy with what you are doing, so be it. Don't let the rantings of some guy on a forum take away any passion you hold for your system, regardless of what it is. I've not walked in your shoes, nor you in mine. I can't tell you what is right nor wrong for you, only give you a run down of my experiences, what I have found to be the most effective, efficient, and passionate system to deal with violent attacks, and that is EPAK. At this juncture in my life, I am more concerned with furthering my EPAK education. I can fight, so I'm not looking for a system to teach me to fight. I have committed to learning the entire EPAK system. When I have completed this goal, I may have a different opinion, but until then, Im focused, dedicated, and like I said, committed. Being a student of the EPAK system, it is imperative that I learn everything the system has to offer before I start deciding what is important and what is not. 

Gary C.


----------



## jdinca (Jan 3, 2006)

That's what I was looking for. Thanks.


----------



## mj-hi-yah (Jan 3, 2006)

*Mod Note:*

Please stay on topic with polite and respectful conversation.

MJ :asian: 
MT Moderator


----------



## Zoran (Jan 3, 2006)

Dark Kenpo Lord said:
			
		

> But I see you still didn't answer the questions, but I did ask for your opinion on WHY you feel things need to be changed.
> 
> DarK LorD



Okay DKL, I'll bite. I did not realize you were asking a question in there. It more appeared you made a rhetorical question then tried to supply the answer by fantasizing about my, and my instructor's, shortcomings. 

Why do I feel there needs to be a change? Maybe I do and maybe I don't. In our system, we view change in a different light. I am more exploring the possibilities of if there can be improvements. 

My goal is to prepare a student for the real world. So I always keep an eye out for new ideas and teaching aids. Part of that goal is to bring students as early as possible to spontaneous response. I feel the system I am in does that very well but, I will always keep an open mind to things that may be done better. 

Kenpo was built on the fondation of change. Look at Ed Parker, Emperado, and many other Kenpo system founders. They all were progressive in their systems. Change was a big part of it and no matter how much others may resist it, for their own personal reasons, it will continue to be a part of it. Only the test of time will choose those changes that stick or fall away.

My message is simple, the number of techs, forms, sets, and what have you is not relevant to any system. What is relevant is the tools that an instructor and/or system can give its students to survive in the real world.


----------



## mj-hi-yah (Jan 3, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> You know that is an excellent question. Some will suggest cryptic answers about already knowing how to move etc. but, the answer is actually a tad more complex than that.
> 
> Inside, outside, and variations on themes fail to acknowledge there are specific attacks we may encounter that have little in common with other attacks.
> 
> ...


This is an excellent post, especially as it addresses the particular need for working variations on attack themes.  I agree that one technique could never be enough given all the possible eventualities.  You may find yourself in a given situation, that is different than exactly how you learned or studied a move, but in understanding and training variations, hopefully moments of "I have been here before" will find you in positions where you may utilize parts of techniques that you studied to suit the situation relative to your position to your opponent, as well as your opponent's position to you.    

Just one minor criticism, yes stay at home moms needs are different, but _many _self defense techniques are needed...ever been in a room with a bunch of preschoolers?   

MJ :asian:


----------



## MJS (Jan 3, 2006)

Zoran said:
			
		

> By techniques, I suppose you mean choregraphed responses to various types of attacks. You could get away with 0. But you will need to know how to block, evade, strike, kick, grapple, throw, and more. You will also need to learn to be spontaneous and adaptable.
> 
> These things could be taught without requiring you to memerize techs. But in many ways, it would make it harder. But techs are only a teaching tool that is practically useless by itself.
> 
> ...


 
I suppose that this method would work, but don't you think that they'd still need some sort of foundation to build off of?  For example, look at a boxer.  He has set punches to use as well as set combos that he drills on a focus mitt.  In a way, those preset combos are like the SD techniques.  The combos, like the techniques, are teaching certain principles.  Of course, the boxer wants to progress past those preset techs. and be able to react accordingly to his opp. in the ring.  The same can be said for the SD techs.  We eventually want to get to the point where we don't have to think about a move, but simply react.

Mike


----------



## Doc (Jan 4, 2006)

mj-hi-yah said:
			
		

> This is an excellent post, especially as it addresses the particular need for working variations on attack themes.  I agree that one technique could never be enough given all the possible eventualities.  You may find yourself in a given situation, that is different than exactly how you learned or studied a move, but in understanding and training variations, hopefully moments of "I have been here before" will find you in positions where you may utilize parts of techniques that you studied to suit the situation relative to your position to your opponent, as well as your opponent's position to you.
> 
> Just one minor criticism, yes stay at home moms needs are different, but _many _self defense techniques are needed...ever been in a room with a bunch of preschoolers?
> 
> MJ :asian:


I have already been considerably chastised by the estrogen mafia that permeates and dominates my immediate family structure. Jeez, it was just a simple analogy. Consider it officially changed to a "stay-at-home dad." Can I have my dinner now please?


----------



## jdinca (Jan 4, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> I suppose that this method would work, but don't you think that they'd still need some sort of foundation to build off of? For example, look at a boxer. He has set punches to use as well as set combos that he drills on a focus mitt. In a way, those preset combos are like the SD techniques. The combos, like the techniques, are teaching certain principles. Of course, the boxer wants to progress past those preset techs. and be able to react accordingly to his opp. in the ring. The same can be said for the SD techs. We eventually want to get to the point where we don't have to think about a move, but simply react.
> 
> Mike



We have two different types of classes, Group and Tactical Advancement Class. In the TAC, students work on the SD techniques in their belt. In the group class, everyone is doing the same drills. We work on the basics, punching, blocking, movement, etc. Individual blocks striked are often used in a made up attack that's different depending on who the instructor is. The level of difficulty depends on the makeup of the class. By going to both classes, the student is getting a mixed, more balanced approach to learning.


----------



## Seabrook (Jan 4, 2006)

jdinca said:
			
		

> So you're saying that an offshoot is a system that is less comprehensive than EPAK? Or can it be one that has subtracted and added or adjusted the system?


 
I didn't make the initial statement, but yes, all of the offshoots of EPAK that I have seen are less comprehensive, no doubt.


Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Jan 4, 2006)

jdinca said:
			
		

> We have two different types of classes, Group and Tactical Advancement Class. In the TAC, students work on the SD techniques in their belt. In the group class, everyone is doing the same drills. We work on the basics, punching, blocking, movement, etc. Individual blocks striked are often used in a made up attack that's different depending on who the instructor is. The level of difficulty depends on the makeup of the class. By going to both classes, the student is getting a mixed, more balanced approach to learning.


 
May I ask where you train?  I am in the South Bay and may know your school/instructor.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 4, 2006)

Seabrook said:
			
		

> I didn't make the initial statement, but yes, all of the offshoots of EPAK that I have seen are less comprehensive, no doubt.
> 
> 
> Jamie Seabrook
> www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com


 
Arguably, everything that exists today is an "offshoot" of something else, including EPAK.  Nothing sprung fully formed from a vaccuum.  EPAK began with what Mr. Parker learned from Mr. Chow.  He added to it, deleted from it, and changed things so it is now something different, but it also qualifies as an "offshoot", just depends on your perspective.


----------



## Seabrook (Jan 4, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Arguably, everything that exists today is an "offshoot" of something else, including EPAK. Nothing sprung fully formed from a vaccuum. EPAK began with what Mr. Parker learned from Mr. Chow. He added to it, deleted from it, and changed things so it is now something different, but it also qualifies as an "offshoot", just depends on your perspective.


 
I know what you trying to say, but I was writing specifically about the 10 zillion offshoots of American Kenpo.


Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 4, 2006)

Seabrook said:
			
		

> I know what you trying to say, but I was writing specifically about the 10 zillion offshoots of American Kenpo.
> 
> 
> Jamie Seabrook
> www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com


 
Fair enough, and I do understand that.  Just keeping the bigger picture


----------



## Fluffy (Jan 4, 2006)

I chose 55 because it was such an odd number to include............However many it takes; is my answer.

-Fluff


----------



## KenpoDave (Jan 4, 2006)

Personally, I view the techniques as the tools used to teach the art.  If I find myself in a confrontation, I am confident that I will do correct kenpo, but I am not so confident that I will be able to cite chapter and verse the technique that "I chose."  Perhaps I will get to that level with more years put in on the mat, or perhaps I will move further from choreographed techniques into spontaneous application of the techniques.  

That said, kudos to Danny T. who stated that you only need one technique and a thousand ways to get to it.  

I must admit and being very surprised that nobody said, "None.  I carry a gun."  A whole nuther can of worms, but surprising nonetheless.


----------



## Doc (Jan 4, 2006)

KenpoDave said:
			
		

> Personally, I view the techniques as the tools used to teach the art.  If I find myself in a confrontation, I am confident that I will do correct kenpo, but I am not so confident that I will be able to cite chapter and verse the technique that "I chose."  Perhaps I will get to that level with more years put in on the mat, or perhaps I will move further from choreographed techniques into spontaneous application of the techniques.
> 
> That said, kudos to Danny T. who stated that you only need one technique and a thousand ways to get to it.
> 
> I must admit and being very surprised that nobody said, "None.  I carry a gun."  A whole nuther can of worms, but surprising nonetheless.


I carry, but actually use the Kenpo more. But it does make a nice back up.


----------



## Zoran (Jan 4, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> I carry, but actually use the Kenpo more. But it does make a nice back up.



Wasn't it Parker that said "Kenpo is great, it gives me time to get to my gun."

He also had a short exchange with my instructor once about the subject.

My Instructor; "Mr. Parker, you are the most skilled Martial Artist I have ever met. Why do you need to carry a gun?"

Mr. Parker; "Tom". As here raises his hands in front of him. "These don't work and 10 feet away."


----------



## Doc (Jan 4, 2006)

Zoran said:
			
		

> Wasn't it Parker that said "Kenpo is great, it gives me time to get to my gun."
> 
> He also had a short exchange with my instructor once about the subject.
> 
> ...


I remember Parker telling me about a demo he did in Texas many years ago for a fellow martial artist (can't remember the name). It was a tough crowd and he introduced Parker has if the only thing that could stop him was "kryptonite." Parker said, "This guy is setting us all up to get wasted. I could see that most of the crowd was packin' heat and didn't appreciate his comments." So Parker said when he went up on the stage, he began his demo by saying, "I happen to know there are other styles of martial arts that are pretty dam good that anyone would have a problem handling. Perhaps you have heard of them too. They are Smith and Wesson, Ruger, Winchester, etc." He drew a really good laugh from the crowd that settled in and then enjoyed the demo. Parker acknowledge his own vulnerability and was accepted as one of the "good ole boys."


----------



## eyebeams (Jan 19, 2006)

Five techniques and set principles for creating variations, as well as drills to promote applying them, is what works for me.


----------



## kenpoworks (Jun 11, 2006)

Its not "Techniques"........its technique that really counts!
W.R.
Richie


----------



## Carol (Jun 11, 2006)

One:  to be able to outsmart/outhink the person or situation.   

Everything else is just backup.


----------



## evenflow1121 (Jun 11, 2006)

No matter how many techniques you may know, and I believe everyone should keep an open mind and try to learn as much as they can, not simply for the arsenal but so you can see in how many ways one particular attack can vary; there will probably be one technique that you will use above others in every given scenario.


----------



## Sigung86 (Jun 12, 2006)

Just a couple of thoughts.  Ask a Ba Gwa or Xing Yi student or master how many techniques they need... You will get an empty look and be asked what are techniques.  When you show or explain, they will get a glazed look and say, "Hmmm.... I don't know how I'd handle a punch, grab, bear hug, etc.  Until I get there).

We "Kenpoers" have a paradigm that we work from it is largely based in the use of techniques, sets, and forms... Often times we forget that there are other ways to achieve the same goals and be just as effective.  I've never been afraid to mix it up on the mats or for real, but I know several internal stylists (Tai Chi, Xing Yi, Ba Gwa) that I would rather run from than have to deal with, and they have nowhere near the formalized motions that we call techniques to learn from.

I asked one, who is a friend of mine how to deal with a right punch defense... Further, I asked him what hand form he used.  He honestly didn't know.  But he still hurts.

Just thoughts on the validity of our tehcniques.


----------



## matt.m (Jun 12, 2006)

Rick Wade said:
			
		

> I am just now truly understanding some most of the Self Defense techniques
> It is more than just memorizing techniques.
> What you want to truly achieve is a spontaneous response.
> 
> ...


 
Very well said.  Along with that I would like to say that not all techniques are the right one to use all the time.  For instance, I am 5'6 and roughly 170.  I would not recommend doing the standing firemans carry on someone 6'2 and 350 right off the bat.  Not really a good idea.

-Matt


----------



## Monadnock (Jun 12, 2006)

Sigung86 said:
			
		

> Just a couple of thoughts. Ask a Ba Gwa or Xing Yi student or master how many techniques they need... You will get an empty look and be asked what are techniques. When you show or explain, they will get a glazed look and say, "Hmmm.... I don't know how I'd handle a punch, grab, bear hug, etc. Until I get there).
> 
> We "Kenpoers" have a paradigm that we work from it is largely based in the use of techniques, sets, and forms... Often times we forget that there are other ways to achieve the same goals and be just as effective. I've never been afraid to mix it up on the mats or for real, but I know several internal stylists (Tai Chi, Xing Yi, Ba Gwa) that I would rather run from than have to deal with, and they have nowhere near the formalized motions that we call techniques to learn from.
> 
> ...


 
Reminds me of the story of the young man who sought out the master archer. When he finaly found him, he asked: "Would you please teach me to use these (Bow and arrow)?" to which the master replied..."I've never seen those before."

Check out KoDo - Ancient Ways. Good book.


----------

