# Universality of American kenpo ....



## Goldendragon7 (Nov 5, 2003)

As rcrobertson suggested.... let's examine this..

What are some of the "Universal Factors" that we love in American Kenpo over other systems....

Just to start off here are a few examples...

Personally I love all the Kenpo tools which allow me to be what ever I want to be.... 

If I want to focus in on Kicking, we have all you could desire...

Our pragmatic approach to Self Defense is second to none...

If freestyle is your bag.... well, no one is stopping you from becoming the next world champ...

more...

:asian:


----------



## Rainman (Nov 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Goldendragon7 _
> *As rcrobertson suggested.... let's examine this..
> 
> What are some of the "Universal Factors" that we love in American Kenpo over other systems....
> ...



I agree about the universality of the art but largely in the adaptation qualities by way of concepts, theories and principles.   Impossible to know everything and some arts specialize (primarily in the sporting venue) some things that oppose self defense.  I have never seen a competitor fight the way I envision Kenpo.   One minor exception would be Hackney- he did throw some rapid combo's (missed) but they had the flavor.

Annd on the other foot/hand it is what the teacher teaches the student that allow he/she to become self realized.  I am grateful to my teacher for giving me that- You yourself Mr. Conatser gave me some invaluable help and hints as well as The Mad Kenpo Scientist.   It allowed for some major growth and debate... 

:asian:


----------



## Brother John (Nov 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Goldendragon7 _
> *As rcrobertson suggested.... let's examine this..
> 
> What are some of the "Universal Factors" that we love in American Kenpo over other systems....
> *



I'd really like to participate some in this, but I'm not so sure what you mean by 'universal factors'. Could you clarify?
Thanks
Your Brother
John


----------



## Rainman (Nov 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Brother John _
> *I'd really like to participate some in this, but I'm not so sure what you mean by 'universal factors'. Could you clarify?
> Thanks
> Your Brother
> John *



Universal factors are just what they are.  A common example is marriage of gravity.  It is working in every movement whether you use it or not although more easily understood in a standing application.  Universal to all arts, athletics, walking, breathing...


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Rainman _
> *Universal factors are just what they are.  A common example is marriage of gravity.  It is working in every movement whether you use it or not although more easily understood in a standing application.  Universal to all arts, athletics, walking, breathing... *


Oh, you mean like a broader generalized principle?


----------



## Rainman (Nov 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Touch'O'Death _
> *Oh, you mean like a broader generalized principle? *



Well more like universal truths- laws of the universe govern human movement- hence poeple using words like rotational force, gravitational marriage etc.  So a universal truth is not a general or vague principle... Maybe a higher level of some peoples ideas of master keys.  Once the equation formula is being used on the laws of the fist instead of the movements of the fist then a punch is just a punch.  What changes are the different principles for different situatations.  Still a punch though if it lands on the front of the first 2 knuckles.

You can alter rotational force of the reverse punch- mayabe ad some quickness but you sacrifice power by (for example rotating only your trunk).   So how is this universal?  Torque is a universal conductor of power directly related to inertia.  Inertia is a universal law and torque is a sub cat thereof so it's existence cannot be denied but can be manipulated by the American Kenpo Student for all kinds of gains... of course controlling an opponent can have a direct corellation to the techniques already learned.  

JMO
RM


----------



## kenpo12 (Nov 20, 2003)

Rainman,

Uh, ya might want to speak english instead of double talk.  Your lack of spelling ability is killing your ability to sound as smart as you are trying to come off.


----------



## Bill Lear (Nov 20, 2003)

> *Originally posted by kenpo12 *
> _Rainman,
> 
> Uh, ya might want to speak english instead of double talk.  Your lack of spelling ability is killing your ability to sound as smart as you are trying to come off. _



I 100% agree with you.

Rainman,

It seems that you would have better luck conveying your thoughts in laymens terms rather than trying to write like a rocket scientist. Just a thought.


----------



## Rainman (Nov 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by kenpo12 _
> *Rainman,
> 
> Uh, ya might want to speak english instead of double talk.  Your lack of spelling ability is killing your ability to sound as smart as you are trying to come off. *



Why not pick a point and attack the argument instead of making it personal?    Don't bother explaining I know why, you have nothing to contribute otherwise you would have.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Rainman _
> *Well more like universal truths- laws of the universe govern human movement- hence poeple using words like rotational force, gravitational marriage etc.  So a universal truth is not a general or vague principle... Maybe a higher level of some peoples ideas of master keys.  Once the equation formula is being used on the laws of the fist instead of the movements of the fist then a punch is just a punch.  What changes are the different principles for different situatations.  Still a punch though if it lands on the front of the first 2 knuckles.
> 
> You can alter rotational force of the reverse punch- mayabe ad some quickness but you sacrifice power by (for example rotating only your trunk).   So how is this universal?  Torque is a universal conductor of power directly related to inertia.  Inertia is a universal law and torque is a sub cat thereof so it's existence cannot be denied but can be manipulated by the American Kenpo Student for all kinds of gains... of course controlling an opponent can have a direct corellation to the techniques already learned.
> ...


I would avoid words like truths to explain your points because it suggests that others peoples points might fall short of truth. Besides truth is relative


----------



## Rainman (Nov 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Touch'O'Death _
> *I would avoid words like truths to explain your points because it suggests that others peoples points might fall short of truth. Besides truth is relative  *



O no wonder, truths mean Law.  Like a universal law.  Cause and effect is a universal law.  What that mean is this particular property or law or truth is workable for say, a punch to the lower abdoman (bend over= cause punch, effect bend over)  out of gas car stops...(cause- no fuel,  effect- engine stops running)... O' yeah forgot to tell you, oil slicks and burnout marks don't make a lawn


----------



## kenpo12 (Nov 20, 2003)

> Why not pick a point and attack the argument instead of making it personal? Don't bother explaining I know why, you have nothing to contribute otherwise you would have.



I would attack your argument, except your writing is incoherent.  I'm not trying to make it personal, it's just damn near impossible to sort through the double talk and figure out what you're writing.  You have all kinds of spelling errors and you've used all kinds of words out of context so I really have no clue what you're trying to say.

Now as far as contribution to the thread, the universal factor that I appreciate is no matter what other art/system I look at I can see kenpo in it, so I'm rarely ever a "fish out of water" so to speak when training with others.  It makes it very easy to see a technique from another system and apply it to kenpo.  Even though kenpo might not have covered every last bit of fighting/self defense the kenpo design makes it very easy to fill in the gaps yourself with the tools kenpo provides.

Matt


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Rainman _
> *O no wonder, truths mean Law.  Like a universal law.  Cause and effect is a universal law.  What that mean is this particular property or law or truth is workable for say, a punch to the lower abdoman (bend over= cause punch, effect bend over)  out of gas car stops...(cause- no fuel,  effect- engine stops running)... O' yeah forgot to tell you, oil slicks and burnout marks don't make a lawn *


Sure because law means parameters defined. Its whom is doing the defining and for what purpose that causes so many problems. Oil slicks and burnout marks are landscaping to us creative types


----------



## Bill Lear (Nov 20, 2003)

> *Originally posted by Rainman *
> 
> _O no wonder, truths mean Law.  Like a universal law.  Cause and effect is a universal law.  What that mean is this particular property or law or truth is workable for say, a punch to the lower abdoman (bend over= cause punch, effect bend over)  out of gas car stops...(cause- no fuel,  effect- engine stops running)... O' yeah forgot to tell you, oil slicks and burnout marks don't make a lawn _



The truth, as it is told, comes in many colors.
The truth, experienced, is clear.

I would have to say that the terms truth, and scientific law are not at all one in the same.

Truth in it's purest from is an accurate description or depiction of an event.

A Scientific Law on the other hand is an absolute.

You and I could walk into a carnival fun house one of these days and see the same exact things, although our impressions/expereinces would probably differ. Hence, we would have differing stories, and different truths.

I think the same applies to kenpo, hence the need for tailoring, but I could be wrong. 
:shrug:


----------



## Rainman (Nov 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by kenpo12 _
> *I would attack your argument, except your writing is incoherent.  I'm not trying to make it personal, it's just damn near impossible to sort through the double talk and figure out what you're writing.  You have all kinds of spelling errors and you've used all kinds of words out of context so I really have no clue what you're trying to say.
> 
> Now as far as contribution to the thread, the universal factor that I appreciate is no matter what other art/system I look at I can see kenpo in it, so I'm rarely ever a "fish out of water" so to speak when training with others.  It makes it very easy to see a technique from another system and apply it to kenpo.  Even though kenpo might not have covered every last bit of fighting/self defense the kenpo design makes it very easy to fill in the gaps yourself with the tools kenpo provides.
> ...



Then why respond to what I say with an attack on grammer instead of a question about a particular item.  From where I sit you now have done the same thing twice.   There are no words out of context and there is no double talk.   Spelling errors and typos yes, got one of those ergonomic keyboards and haven't got the hang of it yet.  

Where is the universal factor?  What makes it very easy to see a technique from another system?  What kenpo design?


----------



## Rainman (Nov 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Bill Lear _
> *The truth, as it is told, comes in many colors.
> The truth, experienced, is clear.
> 
> ...



I agree that you are using truth and perception as the same thing.


----------



## Rainman (Nov 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Touch'O'Death _
> *Sure because law means parameters defined. Its whom is doing the defining and for what purpose that causes so many problems. Oil slicks and burnout marks are landscaping to us creative types  *



Well, you got me there on all accounts. But I will add defined and agreed upon by those doing the defining.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Bill Lear _
> *Truth in it's purest from is an accurate description or depiction of an event.
> 
> A Scientific Law on the other hand is an absolute.
> ...



Scientists also see what they want/expect to see. Newton's Law F=ma is an excellent example of a scientific law that reflected what he expected, had a great 250 year run, and is now known to be absolutely, positively wrong. It's been supplanted by Einstein's laws--which conflict with the laws of quantum mechanics. Not both can be right. Western views on medicine make it hard to even see that accupuncture is working.

It's no different for scientists when they try to discern the truth than it is for others, except that they have a rigourous method of testing and refining their hypotheses. But scientific laws are over-turned all the time, and run the gamut from the quantitative/predictive like F=ma to the qualitative/descriptive like evolution. Science is influenced by peoples' views, as the growing fields of science studies/sociology of science/science and technology studies all indicate.

The question remains, Are there true, Platonic scientific laws out there that we are working to discover, or will anything made up by mankind always be an imperfect approxcimation of a world that is not necessarily governed by regular laws or by alws expressible in the language of mathematics?


----------



## Bill Lear (Nov 20, 2003)

> *Originally posted by Rainman *
> 
> _I agree that you are using truth and perception as the same thing. _



Please re-read this part of my post:

Truth in it's purest from is an accurate description or depiction of an event.


----------



## Rainman (Nov 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Bill Lear _
> *Please re-read this part of my post:
> 
> Truth in it's purest from is an accurate description or depiction of an event. *



And?

The carnival part is also incorrect, we don't need to go to the fun house  together we are already in the best one.


----------



## kenpo12 (Nov 21, 2003)

> Then why respond to what I say with an attack on grammer instead of a question about a particular item. From where I sit you now have done the same thing twice. There are no words out of context and there is no double talk. Spelling errors and typos yes, got one of those ergonomic keyboards and haven't got the hang of it yet.





> Where is the universal factor? What makes it very easy to see a technique from another system? What kenpo design?



The catagory completion that exists within kenpo is what makes it easy to see techniques from other systems.  You can take a technique from any other system just about and find either the same technique or at least the principles or pattern of that technique within kenpo.


Matt


----------



## Michael Billings (Nov 21, 2003)

<< Deleted blank post by kenpo12 >>

--Michael Billings
--MT Moderator


----------



## rmcrobertson (Nov 21, 2003)

First off, it's my understanding that kenpo rests upon a couple three hypotheses that are indeed verifiable:

a) what kenpo offers isn't a "style," or a "synthesis of styles," but the essence of what all the other styles and systems have been up to all along. In other words, hapkido, judo, etc. are perfectly-valid subsets of kenpo. 

b) this "big set" (again, I'm talking seventh-grade math, not judging quality) nature of kenpo is passed on through a teaching system that can pass on not only all the possible movements, but the concepts and principles that make those movements meaningful.

c) the stuff that, it is often claimed, "is not in," kenpo remains part of the system regardless, and can be learned via the techniques, sets and especially forms, PROVIDED that the individual practitioner works on pulling out the information, and trains enough that she or he can physically express it.

d) because the above hypotheses are true, all possible movement can be articulated within the Universal Pattern--which is a kind of "shorthand," version of the whole system. In other words, kenpo is a rationalization of previously-existing martial arts.

e) part of the reason that kenpo remains controversial is that, as a method and theory, kenpo tends to expose what IS genuinely outdated, useless, wasteful and impractical in other martial arts--for example, the "one-handedness," of some styles that lack a checking system, or the artificially-high kicks of TKD.

There are a number of things to argue about, here. For one thing, it would be useful to question why the UP works--is it because of its special nature, or because it's so complex a geometric figure that you can find anything in it anyway, including daffodils and your mom's name? For another, what does this "rationalization," strip away--it's clear that a lot of the traditional arts are heavily invested in their surrounding/producing culture and contain a lot more of these social relations that what we are pleased to think of as fighting. Take that away, and you get the bad manners, silly aggressivity, lousy teaching, ugly authoritarianism, and pointless mysticism of a few kenpo types today. For another, does any of this actually correlate with the ability to defend yourself?--we all know darn well that there are a few Big Hat, No Cattle kenpoistas out there. For a last one, what exactly is the relation between the theory and the practice of kenpo?

I realize that I haven't been very specific. I just thought it might be useful to have the basic argument laid out clearly.


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Nov 21, 2003)

Robert, Robert, Robert....(sigh)...here we go again...



> a) what kenpo offers isn't a "style," or a "synthesis of styles," but the essence of what all the other styles and systems have been up to all along. In other words, hapkido, judo, etc. are perfectly-valid subsets of kenpo.


I have to disagree here.  Hapkido, Judo, etc. work because of the same universal principles that make Kenpo work.  But that does not make them subsets of Kenpo.  It makes Kenpo, Hapkido, Judo, etc. examples of systems employing universal principles that Kenpo articulates particularly well.



> b) this "big set" (again, I'm talking seventh-grade math, not judging quality) nature of kenpo is passed on through a teaching system that can pass on not only all the possible movements, but the concepts and principles that make those movements meaningful.


Again, I have to disagree for the same reason as above.  EPAK takes a very Western approach to teaching:  explain concepts, see examples, practice techniques by emulating examples, use concepts and techniques to create/perform/problem-solve.  Other Kenpo systems, and other martial arts use a more Zen learning approach:  See examples, practice techniques by emulating examples, derive understanding of concepts through repeated practice of examples and techniques, apply concepts and techniques to create/perform/problem-solve.



> c) the stuff that, it is often claimed, "is not in," kenpo remains part of the system regardless, and can be learned via the techniques, sets and especially forms, PROVIDED that the individual practitioner works on pulling out the information, and trains enough that she or he can physically express it.


How can it be part of Kenpo if there are no techniques for it?  Applying Kenpo concepts to create new techniques to address situations not addressed in Kenpo's techniques or Katas is not pulling out information.  It is applying universal concepts, articulated and learned through Kenpo practice, to create new techniques.



> d) because the above hypotheses are true, all possible movement can be articulated within the Universal Pattern--which is a kind of "shorthand," version of the whole system. In other words, kenpo is a rationalization of previously-existing martial arts.


Whether or not the above hypotheses are true or false has nothing to do with the validity of the universal pattern.  The universal pattern is not the Shroud of Turin.  The Universal Pattern is a whole bunch of lines that go off in every conceivable direction.  Kenpo may very well be a rationalization of previously exising arts, but the Universal Pattern is little more than a rationalization of previously existing spirograph drawings.



> e) part of the reason that kenpo remains controversial is that, as a method and theory, kenpo tends to expose what IS genuinely outdated, useless, wasteful and impractical in other martial arts--for example, the "one-handedness," of some styles that lack a checking system, or the artificially-high kicks of TKD.


Kenpo has exposed many previous methods as outdated, maybe useless--or at least impractical.  High kicks and Karate styles with the hand recoiled to the waist are perfect examples.  However, there are other styles that expose some weaknesses of Kenpo:  The stick work of FMA, the leg kicks of Muay Thai, the takedowns of freestyle wrestling, and the ground control of catch wrestling and BJJ.  Kenpo remains controversial not because it exposes the weaknesses of other styles, but because it has difficulty admitting its own weaknesses and embracing changes to correct them.  



> There are a number of things to argue about, here. For one thing, it would be useful to question why the UP works--is it because of its special nature, or because it's so complex a geometric figure that you can find anything in it anyway, including daffodils and your mom's name? For another, what does this "rationalization," strip away--it's clear that a lot of the traditional arts are heavily invested in their surrounding/producing culture and contain a lot more of these social relations that what we are pleased to think of as fighting. Take that away, and you get the bad manners, silly aggressivity, lousy teaching, ugly authoritarianism, and pointless mysticism of a few kenpo types today. For another, does any of this actually correlate with the ability to defend yourself?--we all know darn well that there are a few Big Hat, No Cattle kenpoistas out there. For a last one, what exactly is the relation between the theory and the practice of kenpo?


Kenpo is one of the best self defense systems in existence.  It is my prefered system.  However, I believe that Kenpo is a product of its surrounding/producing culture.  Kenpo is somehow trapped in a twilight zone--it is not a traditional Asian Martial art, yet it tries to implement a hierarchy and training method of a Traditional Asian Martial art.  Kenpo is a revolutionary art that introduced new and innovative concepts and training methods--yet the revolution seems to have ended and intellectual energy is often focused on developing the most authentic reproduction of the system as outlined in the Infinite Insights.  

Robert, I think you did an excellent job outlining the argument.  We just disagree on fundamental assumptions and resulting conclusions.


----------



## kenpo12 (Nov 21, 2003)

OFK,

 I think you make a good point and I guess it really boils down to perception.  You percieve it one way and Robert percieves it differently but in the end you're kind of saying the same thing, it just depends on which side you want to stand to look at it. 

Matt


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Nov 21, 2003)

Thanks Matt.  I have a lot of respect for Robert based solely on his articulate and informed intertnet forum postings.  Robert and I often disagree and we do view Kenpo from opposite persepctives.  Robert's perspective is from inside one of the best Kenpo schools and under one of the best Kenpo instructors.  My view is from outside the EPAK mainstream and under the influence of other styles.  

But...I am really surprised...no one has jumped on my heretical Spirograph comment...


----------



## kenpo12 (Nov 21, 2003)

OFK,

  Funny thing is, Robert is my instructor and has been since I started kenpo.  I'm kind of in between your two perspectives, at least in this case.  I can see the validity in both.

Matt


----------



## Michael Billings (Nov 21, 2003)

I resemble a spirograph when filling the empty space.  So what is wrong with your comment, other than you are trying to stir the pot?  I personally am glad nobody took your bait.

BAD OFK, BAD ....  <<Just teasing>>

-MB


----------



## Kenpo Yahoo (Nov 21, 2003)

I like this question



> Rmcrobertson:
> For a last one, what exactly is the relation between the theory and the practice of kenpo?



The relationship is simple.  Kenpo theoretically contains an infinite amount of motion, so theoretically kenpo contains everything under the sun.  However, in practice infinite motion cannot be taught (hopefully for obvious reasons).  However, even if this infinite motion could be taught it should not be taught.  To do so would require the student to learn useless movement on top of everything else.  

In theory kenpo contains all the elements for knife fighting, sword fighting, stick-fighting, ground fighting, and brick-breaking with your right foot while performing a head stand on a bamboo pole 10 feet above the ground.  In practice, it takes learning specific movements on a micro level in order to perform these movements with any sort of proficiency on the macro level.  This requires someone who has an understanding beyond the basic to see the bigger picture, in order to make the little things make sense.  

You wouldn't expect a yellow belt to be able to teach kenpo and have the same effect as someone who is a 5th degree or higher.  In theory we have everything about these subjects contained in our system.  In practice we have little more than a handful of techniques that tend to focus on the same strategy, rather than addressing the subject from various strategical angles.  In these specialized topics we are essentially nothing more than yellow belts with a few techniques and a form, yet we manage to convince ourselves that we have everything that particular topic has to offer.

Theoretically Kenpo is an infinite and unbeatable system; heck don't you win everytime you do your techniques in the technique line?  In practice kenpo is an art that requires subject focus in order to develop proficiency.  If you do not drill specific situations then you will be no more prepared to defend yourself in that situation than the guy without martial arts training.

On a somewhat related note:  (in ref. to an earlier post in this thread)
There is nothing wrong with Newton's Laws.  Newton's Classical mechanics, Einstein's theories of Relativity (which are essentially a more complex form of Newton's laws), and Quantum Mechanics can all be related by String Theory.  Well at least that's the THEORY, I guess time will tell.  If it doesn't work, then it's all Quantum's fault.  Ahh Quantum Mechanics, what a beautifully disturbing branch of physics.


----------



## Rainman (Nov 21, 2003)

> The catagory completion that exists within kenpo is what makes it easy to see techniques from other systems.



Category completion is a concept not a universal factor. 



> You can take a technique from any other system just about and find either the same technique or at least the principles or pattern of that technique within kenpo



Priniciples are the universal factor and I already said that.  In fact I used concepts, theories and principles.  Re read my first post and see if it makes more sense now...  It should you plagiarized part of it.


----------



## RCastillo (Nov 21, 2003)

I love it because if I do something, no one can say, "Hey. That's not Kenpo!" I can change it to fit me.:asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Nov 21, 2003)

Gentlemen, please read what I wrote. I said that these were, "testable hypotheses," not established certainties.

And by the way, anybody who thinks theories in science don't change doesn't know much about theories in science.

As for the spirograph argument, I agree. Please check the part of my last post in which I remarked that among the other questions we might ask, there 's this: is the Universal Pattern universal because it's an accurate shorthand for all possible motion, or because it's just a sufficiently-complex figure that you can find anything in it?

Mr. Worthman, let me state one other hypothesis--one other question-to-be-interrogate, not an absolute: does Mr. Parker's kenpo offer an explanation of other martial arts systems and styles that works very well, while other systems and styles offer a relatively-poor explanation of kenpo? If so...then it's set and subset.

And for about the four hundreth time: just because kenpo explains TKD better than TKD explains kenpo doesn't mean that I would have a prayer against James Lew. It only means that I could theorize better in the ambulance...


----------



## arnisador (Nov 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *a) what kenpo offers isn't a "style," or a "synthesis of styles," but the essence of what all the other styles and systems have been up to all along. In other words, hapkido, judo, etc. are perfectly-valid subsets of kenpo.
> 
> b) this "big set" (again, I'm talking seventh-grade math, not judging quality) nature of kenpo is passed on through a teaching system that can pass on not only all the possible movements, but the concepts and principles that make those movements meaningful.
> ...



I realize that you are saying that these are verifiable, i.e., can in principle be falsified, not that they are necessarily true, but as an "outsider" here I have to ask--You all _do_ know how this sounds to us non-Kenpoka, don't you? It comes off as very pretentious.

I agree with your later comments about theories in science changing--it's part of what makes it hard to believe that the Grand Unified Theory of the Martial Arts has been found. The argument in some ways is analagous to the theory that Psychology is just Biology, and Biology is just Chemistry plus Physics, and Chemistry is just Physics, so all we need to do is study Physics to understand why Hillary stays with Bill. One might agree philosophically, but it's a rather useless point of view--not only at this stage, but because Physics is so abstracted from where Psychology might be applied. When Physicists make the claim that Everything is Physics and String Theory (as was suggested) or some other GUT will someday explain everything--the TOE, Theory of Everything--it's taken with a grain of salt.



> *Originally posted by Old Fat Kenpoka
> Kenpo has exposed many previous methods as outdated, maybe useless--or at least impractical. High kicks and Karate styles with the hand recoiled to the waist are perfect examples. However, there are other styles that expose some weaknesses of Kenpo: The stick work of FMA, the leg kicks of Muay Thai, the takedowns of freestyle wrestling, and the ground control of catch wrestling and BJJ. Kenpo remains controversial not because it exposes the weaknesses of other styles, but because it has difficulty admitting its own weaknesses and embracing changes to correct them.  *



The description and analysis framework of Kenpo is very useful and I don't mean to disparage it--rather, I envy it! I might disagree about the Karate example as in Okinawan karate at least they would argue that it's a grappling technique and that that hand at the waist is gripping the opponent's wrist and controlling him. Many other, older arts have critiqued high kicks--most karate styles, for example--but perhaps not in as detailed a way.



> *Kenpo is one of the best self defense systems in existence.*




I believe that a statement like this must always be suffixed with, _for the problem it is trying to solve_. It wouldn't be of much help to a samurai--he needed a system of wielding the katana, and a jujutsu system focused on controlling the right (i.e., sword-drawing) hand of an opponent wearing wooden armour. Kenjutsu and jujutsu were better solutions.

You might say that that's a very academic example. (You might also say that the principles of kenjutsu are subsumed in Kenpo and hence a samurai could draw them analytically from Kenpo, I suppose, though I don't think that explains the variations between ryu sufficiently.) But I think it's still relevant to ask that question. If your belief is that, in your environment, 90% of fights will go to the ground, BJJ or the like may be a better solution. I think it's not only more time-efficient than drawing it back out of Kenpo principles, like it's more efficient to determine the atomic weight of carbon from the Periodic Table than by starting with the precepts of quantum physics and building up atoms starting from quarks--I think it's likely to lead to a better solution as it builds on a solid history of theory and experiment directed at that problem.

Kenpo's theories are a clear strength, but there is a saying: _What explains too much explains nothing_. It's great to have that scientific approach as a base if you need to start figuring out how to face a new problem, like if the bullwhip became a popular weapon used by muggers and you need to work out a means of defending against it starting from scratch. But to declare all other arts a subset is to simply declare victory and be done with it. I don't buy it.

I might add, playing devil's advocate, that other arts have analysis in/behind them. There is much of it in JKD. More to the point, Systema benefited from extensive government resources and research by physiologists, psychologists, etc., we are told by its practitioners--and it comes to what seem to be rather different conclusions. With all that science, perhaps _they're_ the ones who have the more general theory? After all, they're a technique-free system, which seems to be even a step beyond Kenpo--pure movement, as they like to describe it, free from the constraints of technique, and infinitely adaptable, on the fly, to any situation.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Nov 21, 2003)

Let me write this a third--and last--time: these are HYPOTHESES.

Further--do you really think that the claims of Systema--look at the damn name!--are less pretentious? Looks to me as though they're exactrly the same.

My suggestion would be to examine the hypotheses, rather than pooh-pooh them. My suggestion would also be to carefully read...oh, never mind. 

I'll only note that a reading of what I've been writing that rests upon the notion that acccept these ideas without consideration is a misreading.

Thanks for your reading and response.


----------



## pete (Nov 22, 2003)

> What explains too much explains nothing.



that is a great statement, and a trap for many in kenpo.  Like not seeing the forest through all the trees.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *I'll only note that a reading of what I've been writing that rests upon the notion that acccept these ideas without consideration is a misreading.*



I understood that, which is why I wrote: "I realize that you are saying that these are verifiable, i.e., can in principle be falsified, not that they are necessarily true..." to lead off. But I believe, and I believe that you believe, that there are those within the Kenpo community who do believe that those statements are true.

(A pause to allow time for people to parse that awkward sentence!)

That's why I used the second person plural "you all" when making my statement--to signal that it wasn't directed at your personal belief, *rmcrobertson*, but rather at the perception created by those who espouse such a view. You stated that view very clearly which I think was a service for this discussion. I understand that you aren't advocating it, and that you're suggesting these ideas be explored and tested.

As to Systema, I was as I said playing devil's advocate there, but while the fact (?) that it was funded by the govt. and that the research was done by trained researchers carries some additional weight, I would agree that it sounds pretentious also--natural movement, scientific, defeats all comers, etc.

Making the point that we should compare adherents of martial arts systems to religious believers--it's more a matter of where you put your faith than of science.


----------



## Kenpo Yahoo (Nov 22, 2003)

Another interesting Quote



> Making the point that we should compare adherents of martial arts systems to religious believers--it's more a matter of where you put your faith than of science.



When I was a colored belt, my instructor told me that I had to have three things:
1) Belief in my system
2) Belief in my instructor
3) Belief in my own abilities
If any of these three are lacking you will not have the confidence you need to go forward.

Students, regardless of rank, want to believe in their instructor, they want to believe that the art they are learning is the best one.  This is even more apparent in those who have been at that particular art for an extended period of time.  No one wants to BELIEVE that the art they have spent *numerous years* and *thousands* of dollars learning may actually be lacking something.  To acknowledge such a thing breeds a feeling of uncertainty in your Instructor, your system, and consequently in your own abilities.  So Yes, I guess in a way you could equate our feelings about kenpo to those a religious person has about their particular religion.  A religion, I might add, that is not without its extremists and fundamentalists.  Interesting correlation


----------



## arnisador (Nov 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Kenpo Yahoo _
> *When I was a colored belt, my instructor told me that I had to have three things:
> 1) Belief in my system
> 2) Belief in my instructor
> ...



I like this--I have probably lacked belief in each of those three at one point in my martial arts studies. For the first two if it doesn't resolve in a reasonable amount of time I leave; I overcame the last (more-or-less?) years ago but it held me back at first.

It makes it hard for arts like Tai Chi where one is told that self-defense skills will be a long time coming.

I agree that belief in one's system is a good thing!


----------



## Kenpo Yahoo (Nov 23, 2003)

That was the one thing that particular individual taught me that I can honestly say I will never forget.  The problem was that right about the time I became a green belt he quit showing us stuff.  He didn't quit teaching us techniques, rather he just quit teaching us the how's and why's of the techniques.  After a while I began to doubt my system, but after attending several of the association camps I realized that he was seriously withholding information.  This made me doubt my instructor and as a result it made me doubt my abilities at my particular rank.  I stuck it out for a while, but have since resolved the issue by changing instructors, and I couldn't be happier.  I suppose this is part of the reason that I am very weary of people who like to say,"Hey that's not right," but fail to leave any explanation even if it is just in passing.  I love Kenpo and once I was able to get the first two in order the third just sorta happened.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Nov 23, 2003)

Um...the problem with some of the last few posts, to me, is that there's far too much shifting levels of the discussion, and too much complexifying of what is in fact a pretty-simple argument.  Moreover, there are a number of scientific theories that explain a great deal indeed--Darwin and evolutionary theory explain an enormous range of what goes on in the life sciences (quote from, "The Seven Per Cent Solution:" "See how much is explained.")--and this is in fact a sign of their strength. But the GUT and the TOE don't have nothing to do with it--except, perhaps, as raising the question of pseudo-science in the martial arts, kenpo included.

There's a nice post on a parallel thread concerning the exploration and application of Crossing Talon that I think would fit beautifully here: we're making the question too tricky. IF it's a testable hypothesis, the thing to do is to test it.

It's not like I'm writing as a practitioner, but I'm pretty sure the t'ai chi response would be that it's far batter to base your confidence on something real than upon illusion, and that fighting ability does in fact take years and years, with no way around that for almost everybody. Is confidence important, indeed essential? Sure. But if you've watched those infamous Tae Bo commercials, those women repeatedly express confidence in their self-defense abilities. Is this wise? Fred Villari's currently selling a set of videos to take you up to black belt--those students/actors express confidence. Is that wise? Personally, I think that fighting is much harder than self-defense...and it takes years. As well as talent. Confidence by all means--that's what it says on the LTKKA patch--but dreaming...

And by the way, "kenpoka?" Never heard this used in conversation, except as a joke at some pretentious type's expense.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 23, 2003)

The GUT/TOE seems relevant to me because I see that as the extreme form of the first claim--that all other arts are subsets of, or can be explained by, Kenpo. That's a very strong claim. It's one thing to call them hypotheses, but are they scientific hypotheses subject to scientific testing or are we instead in the realm of philosophy? I'm not sure how you'd test "In other words, hapkido, judo, etc. are perfectly-valid subsets of kenpo" experimentally--it seems like it would be more of an analysis.

I cannot believe such a test could be set up and run in a way that would compel all--kenpoists and non-kenpists--to accept the evidence and draw similar conclusions, as one expects in a (settled) area of science. Talking about testing things seems unrealistic, so I think we have the philosophical issue of "is it scientific in nature"/"is it complete" instead.

Incidentally, no joke or insult is meant by the use of "Kenpoka". I have heard it used before, though not as often as Kenpoist.

Some related threads:

Kenpoka:
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2136

Is Kenpo scientific?
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8202


----------



## pete (Nov 23, 2003)

> I'm pretty sure the t'ai chi response would be that it's far batter to base your confidence on something real than upon illusion, and that fighting ability does in fact take years and years - rmcrobertson



sure, i've been training in kenpo for a while and began studying tai chi about 2 years ago.  i now travel about 2 1/2 hours every month for private lessons with a master originally from shanghai.  well, the quote above is quite true for both kenpo and tai chi.  i have yet to see in either art where one trains to improve their fighting ability.  

both arts seem to follow a pattern, albeit kenpo following a more direct (some might call "practical") path, to teaching one to defend themselves upon beong attacked.  Neither places the martial artist in the position of being the aggressor, or beign a fighter.  I've learned to (1) neutralize the attack, (2) take control the situation, (3) place either myself into a superior position, or the attacker into a defective position, (4) strike as necessary to eliminate the threat of a second attack, (5) remove yourself from the situation...ESCAPE, or as Monty Python would say... Run Away!

Because of my fascination with tai chi, i've found myself continually looking at how it folds into and improves my kenpo, such as in rooting (gravitational marriage), expanding (perimeter checks), coiling (rotational force), and most naturally yielding (which translates well into borrowed force). 

many of the techniques have what my kenpo instuctor refers to as chinese roots, such as joint locks, traps, nerve strikes, etc. that are taught in their most basic form as "chin na" by my tai chi master.  these things will take a long time, in either art, to master well enough to have the confidence that they can be applied to any attacker, in any situation, at will.  

if someone wants to be a fighter, well, probably best off going out starting fights and learning from their mistakes.  If ya wanna fight, lesson one is learning how to get hit!  lesson 2 is learning how to get hit again.

hey, wait a minute, maybe this is the universality of tai chi?  naaah.

pete


----------

