# Kenpo and Boxing



## MJS

In another thread in this section, I had asked what 5 things people would change in Kenpo, if they could.  One member, Handsword, suggesting more realistic strikes/combos, such as we'd see with a boxer.

So, here is my question:  Do you feel that Kenpoists would benefit from boxing training?  This could range from actually crosstraining with a boxer, and considering that MMA is very popular, training to deal with the types of punches, combos, etc., that are typical of a boxer.


----------



## Blindside

No, I don't think boxing training should be required or necessary.

However, training like a boxer, focusing on a relatively few number of tools, training the hell out of the combos, and then using them in not very rules restricted sparring would help out many kenpoists.  

When one of the first things a kenpoist learns is 29 different ways to poke, prod, gouge, and claw, its a bit odd that the common delivery sytems (thrust, slash, whip) is not emphasized.


----------



## Hand Sword

To answer the question: I think a Kenpoist would benefit from Boxing training. Boxers do train ruggedly. A lot of Martial Artists would gain a lot physically. Also, since the 1 big punch is covered well by the systems already, why not learn to deal with the best strikers there are? Once you can handle them, you're all set. And the best way to deal with them is to know what they do. That's only accomplished by working with them. In addition, in security, I've noticed the "tough guys" nowadays. With the MMA rage, many try to do their stuff, or street box, when fighting. If self defense is a priority, you have to at least match their skill level. Training in it would ensure that.

On the side, what I listed was about just being truly functional. Many techniques are said to be just ideas, and unlikely to be pulled off completely as practiced. Well, Boxers can pull off their stuff completely, so why not piece our material more logically like they do and practice that as "free styling?" If they practice each punch separately, then combo up and we practice each, why not use our plethora of tech's and combo up properly?


----------



## J Ellis

I agree with Blindside. While I enjoy boxing and think it is a useful add-on to most martial skill sets, Kenpo doesn't _need_ it. What Kenpo-ists do need is lots of repetition with the basic skills of their system, the same way boxers train. Hundreds of reps of the basics, including strikes against resistance, and then drills to ingrain the applications against a live partner with progressive resistance and increasingly complex scenarios.

Memorizing movement is not doing Kenpo. Quantity cannot replace quality in training, but there is no substitute for quantity.

Joel


----------



## Hand Sword

Funny thing about needing it: The Kem/npo systems had it in their initial makeup. That's what was encountered more in the rough environments that gave birth to the Kem/npo family. Streetfighters boxed in those areas.


----------



## MJS

Heres something interesting...If we look at Kajukenbo, isnt the "BO" boxing?  IIRC, from reading John Bishops book, the strikes thrown during SD techs., are done like a boxer would throw them, vs. doing the usual step thru, that we see in many Ken/mpo systems today.  

Contact:  Boxing involves lots of contact, with the students taking and giving hard shots.  Given the fragile nature of some of the people today that we see in class, will they be capable of taking a hard hit and being able to continue?  I also mentioned the popularity of MMA, which does involve boxing, and seeing that its popular, its very possible that the person we're facing, could have that experience.  Its really no different, IMO, than someone training grappling, to better prep. themselves, should they end up on the ground.  

So, all that said, my sparring is more boxing oriented, as is my footwork.  Interestingly enough, I was viewing some Kaju clips, in which there was some sparring during a BB test.  Oddly enough, the punching looked alot like boxing to me.


----------



## Doc

From one of my recent postings on KenpoTalk:

While boxing has strong attributes for a street encounter, it also has some trained and engrained bad ones as well. They are very well trained to deal with punches to the upper body, and take the punishment associated with it as well. They don't so much as "block," but "cover" because of their training which leaves them instinctually deficient in dealing with other street assaults.

I briefly operated a school across from the gym of a world ranked middleweight boxer. He had a great gym, and it was always very busy. One afternoon he came over and introduced himself to me. He said he was running out of floor space, and wanted to trade for some mat time for some of his people to skip rope, shadow box, and focus pad train in the afternoons. 
I said, "What do you want to trade?" 
He said, "Suppose I give you some free boxing lessons. You know who I am, right?" I said, "Yes sir I do, you probably don't remember but we talked a few times when you've come over to watch what we were doing. But anyway, I don't really need any boxing lessons." 
He said, "Comon, everybody knows you karate guys need to learn how to fight." 
I then said, "Well unfortunately, I actually have to agree with you for the most part, but I'm not one of THOSE guys." 
He said, "Really? Let me see your jab." I shot a couple of stiff jabs at him, and he seemed impressed. 
He said, "Are you sure you never boxed before? 
"Real sure." I replied. I then said, "The bad thing about boxing is its limitations." 
He said, "What do you mean?" 
I replied, "There is more that boxing doesn't prepare you for, than what it does in a street fight." 
He then went on and told me how there wasn't anything that he could think of that boxing didn't prepare him for in a fight. While he was railing on about the virtues of boxing for self defense, I casually looker over his shoulder behind him and said to him, "Hey, is that guy with you?" When he turned his head to look, I grabbed him with a shoulder/head lock and took him to the ground.
"Hey man, what are you doing?" he exclaimed.
I said, "Carlos, can you box your way out of this?"
He was quiet for a few moments as he struggle, tugged, and pulled against the lock. Finally he said, "You may have a point there. I never thought of it like that. You really got me."
We got up from the floor and we laughed a bit, and he gave me a few more compliments on my jab again, and how I "probably wasn't like them other karate guys", and should probably come over to his place and take a few boxing lessons to get "even better." as he put it.
He then said he had to go meet his wife and that he would come back and discuss using the mat tomorrow.
I never saw him again.
Boxing is not bad, and anything that gets you in shape and prepares you for real combat contact can't be a negative in a fight, but there are major down sides as well. Mr. Parker who boxed, always said it really honed your ring skills, but ring skills are actually a very limited set of circumstances, and can be a negative. When a guy feints a cross so he can uppercut, your training will make you anticipate that action. The same feint on the street might be a set up for a kick, which you will not be prepared for, for example. 

But the greatest argument I ever heard came from Mr. Parker and Bruce Lee who weighed in on the conversation about boxing. They both agreed, "Traditional karate training is not realistic enough, and boxing is too realistic." Mr. Parker took it further and told me a story. He said he had this guy who was challenged to a boxing match by a boxer, and he wanted to know how to train for it. Someone had suggested he go box for a month or so, to get ready. Mr. Parker disagreed. He said, "Your first mistake was agreeing to fight a guy his way. That is what he does, and he's been doing it for years. No way you're going to prepare in a month." Secondly, "For the average guy boxing training regularly doesn't make sense. Did you know most boxers never get hurt in the ring, and most of boxings significant injuries come from training for a fight?"

*"Better to go and lose once, than get beat up everyday preparing to get beat up once." - Ed Parker

As a young man the significance of that statement didn't sink as deeply, as it did as the years started to flow by, so let me add my own quote.

"There is a fine line between training for a fight, and fighting as training. For the average guy when training becomes worse than the fight itself, it's time to find another way to train." - Dr. Chapél*


----------



## Hand Sword

MMA people aside, this argument (Boxing vs. MA) has gone on seemingly forever. Coming up in the city, I hard the arguments constantly between the 2 groups about how each could "eat the other for lunch." I was also fortunate to see the encounters frequently. Each had their share of victory. Those of you that say fighting them like them is foolish and detrimental--very true. You are not going to out specialize the specialists, just as they are not going to out MA you. Fighting success in a ring, cage, or street depends upon controlling the fight.

A point to consider though is boxing is a lot more than just covering up when attacked. There are many defensive strategies and movements that a MA'er can learn and benefit from. You might find yourself in it with some Boxers/MMA'ers/ or "pro" amateurs. 

As for blocking being favored over covering, blocking as we know is too slow to deal with combos and flurries. Most advanced artists parry, slip, bob, weave, etc..., and these techniques are seen to some extent (more or less) in all of the systems. Having the specialists help you sharpen those skills that you use would be a benefit.

Training hard and punishment--well some schools still emphasize it (KajuKenbo). In the old days it was regular practice for all of the schools. I heard many attest to the brutality of the old workouts, where "workouts don't end 'ti there's blood on the floor." I understand how economics have changed all of that though. Which is another concern. The atmospheres are very different for both camps. In a comparison of strictly fighting, boxers will have an edge over the average Martial artist, who trains for an hour or less 2 or 3 times a week. Another thing to keep in mind is that both groups had a great amount of the "alpha males" in them who were already "fighters" that trained. Boxers and MMA have those personality types, TMA has a lot less overall. 

Let's not isolate ourselves from the fact that Boxing played and plays apart of what we do. If they (MMA people too) are becoming more frequent now the arts have to update themselves to the bigger threat of trained or knowledgeable than a "one swing drunkard." Looking at the MMA world, it too adapted where the "Mixed" guys now rule because the "specialists" were not good enough alone. Grapplers learned to strike prominently, strikers learned to grapple effectively.


----------



## Doc

Hand Sword said:


> MMA people aside, this argument (Boxing vs. MA) has gone on seemingly forever. Coming up in the city, I hard the arguments constantly between the 2 groups about how each could "eat the other for lunch." I was also fortunate to see the encounters frequently. Each had their share of victory. Those of you that say fighting them like them is foolish and detrimental--very true. You are not going to out specialize the specialists, just as they are not going to out MA you. Fighting success in a ring, cage, or street depends upon controlling the fight.
> 
> A point to consider though is boxing is a lot more than just covering up when attacked. There are many defensive strategies and movements that a MA'er can learn and benefit from. You might find yourself in it with some Boxers/MMA'ers/ or "pro" amateurs.
> 
> As for blocking being favored over covering, blocking as we know is too slow to deal with combos and flurries. Most advanced artists parry, slip, bob, weave, etc..., and these techniques are seen to some extent (more or less) in all of the systems. Having the specialists help you sharpen those skills that you use would be a benefit.
> 
> Training hard and punishment--well some schools still emphasize it (KajuKenbo). In the old days it was regular practice for all of the schools. I heard many attest to the brutality of the old workouts, where "workouts don't end 'ti there's blood on the floor." I understand how economics have changed all of that though. Which is another concern. The atmospheres are very different for both camps. In a comparison of strictly fighting, boxers will have an edge over the average Martial artist, who trains for an hour or less 2 or 3 times a week. Another thing to keep in mind is that both groups had a great amount of the "alpha males" in them who were already "fighters" that trained. Boxers and MMA have those personality types, TMA has a lot less overall.
> 
> Let's not isolate ourselves from the fact that Boxing played and plays apart of what we do. If they (MMA people too) are becoming more frequent now the arts have to update themselves to the bigger threat of trained or knowledgeable than a "one swing drunkard." Looking at the MMA world, it too adapted where the "Mixed" guys now rule because the "specialists" were not good enough alone. Grapplers learned to strike prominently, strikers learned to grapple effectively.



Not THE arts, SOME arts.


----------



## Hand Sword

Agreed sir! Thank you for pointing that out. Sometimes I do go on and it seems all encompassing. I do mean some to maybe most now a days and definitely not all or all practitioners. :asian:

On a side note: Would it be possible to link this conversation into the Boxing MMA forums? I would love their take on this and reasoning. (It always made for great discussions back in the day LOL!)


----------



## Doc

Hand Sword said:


> Agreed sir! Thank you for pointing that out. Sometimes I do go on and it seems all encompassing. I do mean some to maybe most now a days and definitely not all or all practitioners. :asian:
> 
> On a side note: Would it be possible to link this conversation into the Boxing MMA forums? I would love their take on this and reasoning. (It always made for great discussions back in the day LOL!)


We all do it. I have to constantly remind myself.


----------



## MattJ

Doc said:


> While boxing has strong attributes for a street encounter, it also has some trained and engrained bad ones as well. They are very well trained to deal with punches to the upper body, and take the punishment associated with it as well. They don't so much as "block," but "cover" because of their training which leaves them instinctually deficient in dealing with other street assaults.


 
That is not a very accurate take on boxing defense. A lot of their defense uses head/body movement and footwork to carry them out of the way, both of which are useful skills for SD.

I know for a fact that the vast majority of kenpo people would benefit from some boxing training. 



> Boxing is not bad, and anything that gets you in shape and prepares you for real combat contact can't be a negative in a fight, but there are major down sides as well. Mr. Parker who boxed, always said it really honed your ring skills, but ring skills are actually a very limited set of circumstances, and can be a negative. When a guy feints a cross so he can uppercut, your training will make you anticipate that action. The same feint on the street might be a set up for a kick, which you will not be prepared for, for example.


 
This is a fair critique, and why I'm actually more in favor of integrating MMA-style training in to kenpo. Most of the benefits of boxing, and much less restrictive.


----------



## MJS

MattJ said:


> That is not a very accurate take on boxing defense. A lot of their defense uses head/body movement and footwork to carry them out of the way, both of which are useful skills for SD.


 
Agreed.  Not related to this, but in addition to the boxing footwork/movement, I include some of the FMA training as well, ie: mainly the footwork. 



> I know for a fact that the vast majority of kenpo people would benefit from some boxing training.


 
Agreed.  Personally, since I've been working with my new Kenpo teacher, I've felt that my punching ability has drastically improved.  





> This is a fair critique, and why I'm actually more in favor of integrating MMA-style training in to kenpo. Most of the benefits of boxing, and much less restrictive.


 
3 for 3 here.   Agreed again.  Just because we mention boxing, doesn't mean that we can't modify things, such as we see with MMA.  They're adding a bunch of things, adapting as needed, etc.  Actually, sometimes this is how I do my sparring.  Good stuff.


----------



## Flying Crane

Hand Sword said:


> Training hard and punishment--well some schools still emphasize it (KajuKenbo). In the old days it was regular practice for all of the schools. I heard many attest to the brutality of the old workouts, where "workouts don't end 'ti there's blood on the floor."


 
let's also consider how many of these folks, who started in the rough and punishing schools of the 1950s and 1960s, who are now in their 60s and 70s, and have all manner of injuries and ailments stemming from those training methods.

You can train hard, and some level of conditioning and punishment can be appropriate and useful if done intelligently.  But it's easy to remember the "good old days" when we all bled and broke our bones, without looking at what it leads to down the road.  Some of those methods were really stupid, but people don't realize it until it's too late and the damage is done.


----------



## Hand Sword

Understood. But understand too that doesn't apply to all of the old practitioners. For every one that is like that, there is one who isn't. It's the same for anything. Kenpo people today with less extreme training now get serious injuries too that will be emphasized in their later years. Maybe more so than Boxers, as more is practiced and increases the likelihood. My point was simply that is OK to put in good workouts like boxers do and that adapting their way would be beneficial. (As it applied to the op's question)


----------



## Flying Crane

Hand Sword said:


> Understood. But understand too that doesn't apply to all of the old practitioners. For every one that is like that, there is one who isn't. It's the same for anything. Kenpo people today with less extreme training now get serious injuries too that will be emphasized in their later years. Maybe more so than Boxers, as more is practiced and increases the likelihood. *My point was simply that is OK to put in good workouts like boxers do and that adapting their way would be beneficial. (As it applied to the op's question*)


 
I agree, so long as it is done intelligently and thoughtfully.


----------



## Doc

MattJ said:


> That is not a very accurate take on boxing defense. A lot of their defense uses head/body movement and footwork to carry them out of the way, both of which are useful skills for SD.


Actually it is very accurate. I never said it was all encompassing, but the statement is quite accurate. I grew up in an era when Western Boxing was considered the primary self-defense vehicle, before the martial arts explosion, when there were boxing gyms everywhere and it was even a apart of boys high school gym. I am quite knowledgeable in Western Boxing as was my teacher who boxed extensively before abandoning many of its elements. I "boxed" in high school, however I do not personally consider this experience as true competitive boxing. Everyone in my class boxed.


> I know for a fact that the vast majority of kenpo people would benefit from some boxing training.


NO, what you know for a fact is that YOU BELIEVE that the vast majority would benefit from some boxing training. You have no way of quantifying in actuality the statement, however I too believe as you do that most would benefit. I never disagreed, but only pointed out some documented serious considerations that were shared by my teacher, Bruce Lee, and a great many other people as well.

But consider what is now called MMA has been around for centuries, and western boxing for at least a couple of hundred years. It is only because of the popularized televised sporting aspect that we are even having this conversation. It was no different when I was growing up, which included Western Wrestling which was as MMA is today, in the mix as well.

People have always had a choice, and gravitated to what they wanted for various reasons, many that go beyond kicking someones butt. But the vast majority of the greats that I grew up with and learned from all had elements of what some would call "boxing" as a part of their routine training, without having to become boxers. Also just as interesting is, almost all of them had boxed for a period in their own development. Also consider western boxing came from eastern boxing, which has many of the training elements present in the modern version of western boxing and more, before there existed western boxing rules designed to make it civilized and tame in comparison.

So the blending of "boxing" with other martial arts is not new and the good ones have never considered it an "either or" proposition, incorporating what many of the youngster call boxing and mma already in their art. They always had balance in what they did, and in fact that is what Mr. Parker and Bruce Lee were alluding to. Bruce Lee incorporated it and Mr. Parker has elements of Chinese and Western Boxing even in his commercial version of Kenpo Karate. It's already "in there," and any deficiency of "kenpo" is one the teachers. The key was and has always been about "balance."

It is only some of the youngsters who have this "warrior mentality" in todays society, where getting beat up in training is a euphemistic badge of courage. Today many have to go to work the next day and can't afford to get hurt recreationally, or do anything that might affect their ability to pay their mortgage, or their children's tuition, or even how they look at their job. Yeah I was young and dumb too. I did the whole "tough guy" thing, broke boards, etc all while growing up seeking and exerting my manhood, as did my teacher. Fortunately, he stopped me from doing it as long as he did.

We need to cease making blanket statements about what "kenpo" has or has not, and begin an examination of what we as individuals choose to do, and stop painting what we have been taught with the broad brush of everyone else's "kenpo" experience sir. On any giving night peeking at my people, you just might think they were western boxing, or maybe it just looks like it. It happens the roots of my training and teaching, predates "western boxing."


----------



## MattJ

Doc - 



> Actually it is very accurate. I never said it was all encompassing, but the statement is quite accurate.


 
Below is what you said: 



> They don't so much as "block," but "cover" because of their training which leaves them instinctually deficient in dealing with other street assaults.


 
I was only going by what you wrote, which seemed to imply that covering was the only or majority defense that boxers use, which _would_ be inaccurate, or misleading at best. As I pointed out, boxing footwork and movement is SD useful. 



> I grew up in an era when Western Boxing was considered the primary self-defense vehicle, before the martial arts explosion, when there were boxing gyms everywhere and it was even a apart of boys high school gym. I am quite knowledgeable in Western Boxing as was my teacher who boxed extensively before abandoning many of its elements. I "boxed" in high school, however I do not personally consider this experience as true competitive boxing. Everyone in my class boxed.


 
Fair enough, I'm sure you are vastly more experienced than I. 



> NO, what you know for a fact is that YOU BELIEVE that the vast majority would benefit from some boxing training. You have no way of quantifying in actuality the statement, however I too believe as you do that most would benefit. I never disagreed, but only pointed out some documented serious considerations that were shared by my teacher, Bruce Lee, and a great many other people as well.


 
Heh, good catch. I should have said 'vast majority I have seen' or something - although there is no question about that much. I stand corrected.



> It's already "in there," and any deficiency of "kenpo" is one the teachers.


 
There have been a lot of deficient teachers, which goes back to my original point. 

Luckily, that seems to be changing now. 

I assume the rest of your post was a general statement, and not directed at me, since it wasn't about anything I addressed?


----------



## LawDog

The Western Boxing type of training, in my opinon, can be very good for most of todays martial artist. It adds a way of training that many western martial arts have stopped doing. I did it for 10 years and I am still doing kickboxing, (since 68).
Strong points,
*various types of "motion" bag training,
*various static bag training,
*in close interaction drills,
*learning, like chess, to control floor positioning,
*proper strenght training,
*etc.
Weak points,
*follows various sport type of rules,
*trains "waist up" tactics,
*trains using only "the front" type of tactics,
*limited footwork,
*used for 1 vs 1 tactics.
As for the contact part that would be up to the schools instructor and the type of system.
Adding proven fighting training to any system can't hurt.
Just my opinon and past observations.
Al C. :boxing:


----------



## Thesemindz

I guess I didn't think there were that many kenpo schools where the students didn't learn to box.

I mean, we didn't practice full on boxing matches, or focus on it exclusively, but we spent a fair amount of time doing boxing drills and striking combinations. And boxing style sparring. Just like we spent a fair amount of time practicing kicking drills, and kicking combinations, and sparring only with our legs.

Is it really that unusual for kenpoists to do anything besides techniques?


-Rob


----------



## Doc

Thesemindz said:


> I guess I didn't think there were that many kenpo schools where the students didn't learn to box.
> 
> I mean, we didn't practice full on boxing matches, or focus on it exclusively, but we spent a fair amount of time doing boxing drills and striking combinations. And boxing style sparring. Just like we spent a fair amount of time practicing kicking drills, and kicking combinations, and sparring only with our legs.
> 
> Is it really that unusual for kenpoists to do anything besides techniques?
> 
> 
> -Rob



Yep! I taught a camp in Vegas and half the group were without cups, I was informed when we began to work on a drill. When I asked about how they protect themselves in case of contact, I was told they were, "..not allowed to make contact with each other, only on the bag." All I could think of was how small the island was I must have been living on.

Contact will definitely have a limiting effect on your enrollment, and bottom line.


----------



## Thesemindz

Right now I teach for free, so I can afford to use as much contact in my classes as I want. But you're right, it has limited my enrollment. I've had several people come once, or a few times, and then quit showing up. We practice control, but it isn't a guitar lesson, you're gonna get hit. 
I'm fine if people want to train without contact, certainly that's there right, and I won't even say it won't help them in a self defense situation. I don't think it's _ideal,_ it's not how I train, but if that's what the people want, more power to them.

As for the training itself, I guess it's just the way I was taught. I eventually split with my instructor over some philosophical differences, but when I was with him we trained in any way we could think of. We didn't limit our horizons to what was in the manuals, or what we were told Mr. Parker did. If we saw a good Capoeira drill, we brought it in. A good BJJ drill would find its way into a class. Hell, BJJ itself ended up in the classes.

And western boxing was the same. We looked at what people were doing, brought in boxers, watched videos and read books on the subject, and then we took what we thought fit well with what we were doing and worked it.

Maybe it's that last part that causes the problem. Actually working the material. I don't know. And I know that some people can become real bad dudes with just the techniques and forms, and some people don't introduce foreign material into their kenpo system. That's fine. But in the kind of motion kenpo we did, we were always interested in what _worked._ Shouldn't that be our goal? If we're teaching self defense, shouldn't effectiveness be our main objective?

Oh well. Maybe the problem with the question is the idea of what you would gain from boxing. I mean, if you just want to get better at just Parker Kenpo, boxing may or may not be useful. If you want to get better at fighting, I think lots of kenpo guys would benefit from learning some boxing. They'd probably benefit from learning some TKD, and some BJJ, and some tackle football and ballroom dancing and jazz tap as well. 

But if what a person is doing works for them, they should do it. If they want more, there will always be more. I mean come on, dynamic violence is a fairly expansive topic. Personally, I think some boxing should already be part of the kenpo curriculum, not something we need to add later. But I feel that way about a lot of things that aren't always getting taught in kenpo schools.


-Rob


----------



## Doc

Thesemindz said:


> Right now I teach for free, so I can afford to use as much contact in my classes as I want. But you're right, it has limited my enrollment. I've had several people come once, or a few times, and then quit showing up. We practice control, but it isn't a guitar lesson, you're gonna get hit.
> I'm fine if people want to train without contact, certainly that's there right, and I won't even say it won't help them in a self defense situation. I don't think it's _ideal,_ it's not how I train, but if that's what the people want, more power to them.
> 
> As for the training itself, I guess it's just the way I was taught. I eventually split with my instructor over some philosophical differences, but when I was with him we trained in any way we could think of. We didn't limit our horizons to what was in the manuals, or what we were told Mr. Parker did. If we saw a good Capoeira drill, we brought it in. A good BJJ drill would find its way into a class. Hell, BJJ itself ended up in the classes.
> 
> And western boxing was the same. We looked at what people were doing, brought in boxers, watched videos and read books on the subject, and then we took what we thought fit well with what we were doing and worked it.
> 
> Maybe it's that last part that causes the problem. Actually working the material. I don't know. And I know that some people can become real bad dudes with just the techniques and forms, and some people don't introduce foreign material into their kenpo system. That's fine. But in the kind of motion kenpo we did, we were always interested in what _worked._ Shouldn't that be our goal? If we're teaching self defense, shouldn't effectiveness be our main objective?
> 
> Oh well. Maybe the problem with the question is the idea of what you would gain from boxing. I mean, if you just want to get better at just Parker Kenpo, boxing may or may not be useful. If you want to get better at fighting, I think lots of kenpo guys would benefit from learning some boxing. They'd probably benefit from learning some TKD, and some BJJ, and some tackle football and ballroom dancing and jazz tap as well.
> 
> But if what a person is doing works for them, they should do it. If they want more, there will always be more. I mean come on, dynamic violence is a fairly expansive topic. Personally, I think some boxing should already be part of the kenpo curriculum, not something we need to add later. But I feel that way about a lot of things that aren't always getting taught in kenpo schools.
> 
> 
> -Rob


I knew I liked you for a reason.


----------



## MJS

Thesemindz said:


> Right now I teach for free, so I can afford to use as much contact in my classes as I want. But you're right, it has limited my enrollment. I've had several people come once, or a few times, and then quit showing up. We practice control, but it isn't a guitar lesson, you're gonna get hit.
> I'm fine if people want to train without contact, certainly that's there right, and I won't even say it won't help them in a self defense situation. I don't think it's _ideal,_ it's not how I train, but if that's what the people want, more power to them.
> 
> As for the training itself, I guess it's just the way I was taught. I eventually split with my instructor over some philosophical differences, but when I was with him we trained in any way we could think of. We didn't limit our horizons to what was in the manuals, or what we were told Mr. Parker did. If we saw a good Capoeira drill, we brought it in. A good BJJ drill would find its way into a class. Hell, BJJ itself ended up in the classes.
> 
> And western boxing was the same. We looked at what people were doing, brought in boxers, watched videos and read books on the subject, and then we took what we thought fit well with what we were doing and worked it.
> 
> Maybe it's that last part that causes the problem. Actually working the material. I don't know. And I know that some people can become real bad dudes with just the techniques and forms, and some people don't introduce foreign material into their kenpo system. That's fine. But in the kind of motion kenpo we did, we were always interested in what _worked._ Shouldn't that be our goal? If we're teaching self defense, shouldn't effectiveness be our main objective?
> 
> Oh well. Maybe the problem with the question is the idea of what you would gain from boxing. I mean, if you just want to get better at just Parker Kenpo, boxing may or may not be useful. If you want to get better at fighting, I think lots of kenpo guys would benefit from learning some boxing. They'd probably benefit from learning some TKD, and some BJJ, and some tackle football and ballroom dancing and jazz tap as well.
> 
> But if what a person is doing works for them, they should do it. If they want more, there will always be more. I mean come on, dynamic violence is a fairly expansive topic. Personally, I think some boxing should already be part of the kenpo curriculum, not something we need to add later. But I feel that way about a lot of things that aren't always getting taught in kenpo schools.
> 
> 
> -Rob


 
Any time I mention doing something other than Kenpo, I get the impression that people, not necessarily you, feel that I'm talking about stopping Kenpo and taking up (insert other art).  No, thats not the case at all.  I mean, it is possible to train in more than one thing and pick up ideas. 

Many times, we see the phrase, "Its already in there." and yeah, there is alot 'already in there', things such as weapons defense, takedown defense, etc., so on face value, its easy to say that.  However, as I always say, if someone wants to expand on those areas, it may be necessary to look outside of the art.  

If we look at a thread on KT, on gun defense, I believe, we see quite a few people, myself included, talk about how we'd never do those gun techs., instead, opting for something else, either a non Kenpo related tech or coming up with something on our own, using Kenpo principles.  So if thats the case, then people readily admit those defenses are poor.  There is certainly punching defenses in Kenpo, however, the comment that was made, that sparked me to start this thread was:

"2. Train with realistic combinations of the strikes like boxers do. (especially if being given a multitude of strikes) Make it all functional."

Hey, maybe I misunderstood the intent behind that, but I took it as making the attacks more alive, rather than the step thru punch, and standing there, while the defender blasts away with 10+ counter shots.


----------



## Doc

MJS said:


> Any time I mention doing something other than Kenpo, I get the impression that people, not necessarily you, feel that I'm talking about stopping Kenpo and taking up (insert other art).  No, thats not the case at all.  I mean, it is possible to train in more than one thing and pick up ideas.
> 
> Many times, we see the phrase, "Its already in there." and yeah, there is alot 'already in there', things such as weapons defense, takedown defense, etc., so on face value, its easy to say that.  However, as I always say, if someone wants to expand on those areas, it may be necessary to look outside of the art.
> 
> If we look at a thread on KT, on gun defense, I believe, we see quite a few people, myself included, talk about how we'd never do those gun techs., instead, opting for something else, either a non Kenpo related tech or coming up with something on our own, using Kenpo principles.  So if thats the case, then people readily admit those defenses are poor.  There is certainly punching defenses in Kenpo, however, the comment that was made, that sparked me to start this thread was:
> 
> "2. Train with realistic combinations of the strikes like boxers do. (especially if being given a multitude of strikes) Make it all functional."
> 
> Hey, maybe I misunderstood the intent behind that, but I took it as making the attacks more alive, rather than the step thru punch, and standing there, while the defender blasts away with 10+ counter shots.


I stopped allowing my students to do step through punches thirty years ago. Never seen one on the street.


----------



## K831

Doc said:


> I stopped allowing my students to do step through punches thirty years  ago. Never seen one on the street.



Me neither. I'm waiting though, and when I finally see one, I'll probably be so excited and distracted that I'll get hit in the face!

As to the question of Kenpoists benefiting from training in western boxing;

Kenpo vs Boxing = Superior system, inferior training methodology. 

Kenpo doesn't need anything "added" from boxing by way of technique or skill set. However, many Kenpo schools could benefit from "boxing like training" added to their practice sessions.


----------



## Thesemindz

Doc said:


> I stopped allowing my students to do step through punches thirty years ago. Never seen one on the street.


 
I've never seen one on the street, but I've seen them in plenty of street fights videos I've seen on the internet, and I've seen them in fights during training, even by new and relatively untrained students, and I've seen them thrown in professional sports combat matches including UFC and professional boxing.

That aside, I don't think they have a lot of value in the training arena, but I don't train much static technique anymore anyway. I teach motion, but most of it is done in as dynamic a setting as possible. We do some position and basic work which is a little more static, like strikes on the pads or from a fighting stance, and if we're working a specific standing or ground grappling technique we'll spend a little time working it from a static position to get the nuance of it, but most defensive drills are done in a dynamic setting almost immediately. Even if it's just as dynamic as stalking while working the drill, I want my students moving and fighting, not standing and trading.

Step through punch? Maybe, might happen, but not necessarily by design. So you are learning that punch defense against a step through, maybe a cross or a jab, maybe a palm strike or a club thrust, left handed, right handed, and from the ground. And you're moving the whole time.

I'm not saying a step through is likely, but I don't teach that it never happens either. Instead I'm trying to teach that fights are dangerous and dynamic and you better learn to move.


-Rob


----------



## Thesemindz

MJS said:


> Any time I mention doing something other than Kenpo, I get the impression that people, not necessarily you, feel that I'm talking about stopping Kenpo and taking up (insert other art). No, thats not the case at all. I mean, it is possible to train in more than one thing and pick up ideas.
> 
> Many times, we see the phrase, "Its already in there." and yeah, there is alot 'already in there', things such as weapons defense, takedown defense, etc., so on face value, its easy to say that. However, as I always say, if someone wants to expand on those areas, it may be necessary to look outside of the art.
> 
> If we look at a thread on KT, on gun defense, I believe, we see quite a few people, myself included, talk about how we'd never do those gun techs., instead, opting for something else, either a non Kenpo related tech or coming up with something on our own, using Kenpo principles. So if thats the case, then people readily admit those defenses are poor. There is certainly punching defenses in Kenpo, however, the comment that was made, that sparked me to start this thread was:
> 
> "2. Train with realistic combinations of the strikes like boxers do. (especially if being given a multitude of strikes) Make it all functional."
> 
> Hey, maybe I misunderstood the intent behind that, but I took it as making the attacks more alive, rather than the step thru punch, and standing there, while the defender blasts away with 10+ counter shots.


 
As for what people think of how you train, I guess I just can't care about what others think of my training anymore. I lost my school. I lost my instructor. Now, I'm trying to train the way I can to fit my life, and trying to be ok with the fact that I can't train as much as I used to. I've got my own problems with how I train, what other people think about it is just blue on black.

To your next point, about it all 'being in there," I've heard that crap a lot. It may be in there, somewhere, if you take a technique and turn it upside down and do it backwards while lying on your back. In fact, a lot of times it is. 

I've seen it when I was teaching my students. Sometimes I'd be teaching a new technique and suddenly realize that it was exactly like that other one, only the circles are flipped horizontally and I'm doing them with my arms instead of my legs and the attacker's at six instead of 9. It's like seeing the matrix.

But just because it's in there doesn't mean it's being taught, and even when it's taught it's not always being emphasized. Kenpo may have grappling, but there's a reason it's not the world's most popular grappling art. The sooner people accept that the better off they'll be. Sure, there's knife work, but it's not a knife art either. More than anything else, at least the way I was taught, it was a _way to think about fighting, _more than a way to fight. It was supposed to open your eyes, not blind them with gospels and gods.

As to the last bit, I think the comment is actually saying two things.

1. Train realistic combinations.

2. Make it all functional.

How can anyone disagree with either of those statements?


-Rob


----------



## Doc

Thesemindz said:


> I've never seen one on the street, but I've seen them in plenty of street fights videos I've seen on the internet, and I've seen them in fights during training, even by new and relatively untrained students, and I've seen them thrown in professional sports combat matches including UFC and professional boxing.
> 
> That aside, I don't think they have a lot of value in the training arena, but I don't train much static technique anymore anyway. I teach motion, but most of it is done in as dynamic a setting as possible. We do some position and basic work which is a little more static, like strikes on the pads or from a fighting stance, and if we're working a specific standing or ground grappling technique we'll spend a little time working it from a static position to get the nuance of it, but most defensive drills are done in a dynamic setting almost immediately. Even if it's just as dynamic as stalking while working the drill, I want my students moving and fighting, not standing and trading.
> 
> Step through punch? Maybe, might happen, but not necessarily by design. So you are learning that punch defense against a step through, maybe a cross or a jab, maybe a palm strike or a club thrust, left handed, right handed, and from the ground. And you're moving the whole time.
> 
> I'm not saying a step through is likely, but I don't teach that it never happens either. Instead I'm trying to teach that fights are dangerous and dynamic and you better learn to move.
> 
> 
> -Rob


Step throughs happen all the time but not as a fight initiator. Takes too long and comes from too far away. They happen as the second etc punch to keep from falling down after the punch is thrown. We train them as follow ups, not initiators.


----------



## Flying Crane

Thesemindz said:


> But just because it's in there doesn't mean it's being taught, and even when it's taught it's not always being emphasized.
> 
> As to the last bit, I think the comment is actually saying two things.
> 
> 1. Train realistic combinations.
> 
> 2. Make it all functional.
> 
> How can anyone disagree with either of those statements?
> 
> 
> -Rob


 
These are nuggets of gold, Rob.  Whether considering boxing or something else with regards to kenpo, I think these comments speaks volumes.


----------



## LawDog

I removed the "step through" punches back during the late 70's as well. All of the attacks, like in boxing / kickboxing, are realistic attacks.


----------



## MJS

K831 said:


> Me neither. I'm waiting though, and when I finally see one, I'll probably be so excited and distracted that I'll get hit in the face!
> 
> As to the question of Kenpoists benefiting from training in western boxing;
> 
> Kenpo vs Boxing = Superior system, inferior training methodology.
> 
> Kenpo doesn't need anything "added" from boxing by way of technique or skill set. However, many Kenpo schools could benefit from "boxing like training" added to their practice sessions.


 
Yes, this is what I'm talking about.  Of course, the same may be different for something like grappling.  For me, I'd rather fall back on a BJJ tech. for a mount escape, rather than trying to sort thru a huge list of Kenpo techs.  Again, I'm not saying that we need to devote another 20yrs learning BJJ, but simply learning the basics.  

I've taken some Kenpo takedown defenses and worked the attack from a BJJ perspective.  If I can have someone who really knows how to take me down, attempt to do that, and use the Kenpo tech., modified if necessary, then so be it.  If that fails, and I start to go down, at least I know I have another card up my sleeve.


----------



## MJS

Thesemindz said:


> As for what people think of how you train, I guess I just can't care about what others think of my training anymore. I lost my school. I lost my instructor. Now, I'm trying to train the way I can to fit my life, and trying to be ok with the fact that I can't train as much as I used to. I've got my own problems with how I train, what other people think about it is just blue on black.


 
Sorry to hear that.  Hopefully things'll work out with another school. 



> To your next point, about it all 'being in there," I've heard that crap a lot. It may be in there, somewhere, if you take a technique and turn it upside down and do it backwards while lying on your back. In fact, a lot of times it is.
> 
> I've seen it when I was teaching my students. Sometimes I'd be teaching a new technique and suddenly realize that it was exactly like that other one, only the circles are flipped horizontally and I'm doing them with my arms instead of my legs and the attacker's at six instead of 9. It's like seeing the matrix.


 
I suppose I could play around with things a bit more.  It is interesting what you said though.  The other day, during an Arnis lesson, my teacher and I were going over a blocking drill.  The sticks were moving in pretty much the same figure 8 pattern, as a striking drill that we have.  To picture this better, the 8 will be on its side.  



> But just because it's in there doesn't mean it's being taught, and even when it's taught it's not always being emphasized. Kenpo may have grappling, but there's a reason it's not the world's most popular grappling art. The sooner people accept that the better off they'll be. Sure, there's knife work, but it's not a knife art either. More than anything else, at least the way I was taught, it was a _way to think about fighting, _more than a way to fight. It was supposed to open your eyes, not blind them with gospels and gods.
> 
> As to the last bit, I think the comment is actually saying two things.
> 
> 1. Train realistic combinations.
> 
> 2. Make it all functional.
> 
> How can anyone disagree with either of those statements?
> 
> 
> -Rob


 
Well, this is something that I've been saying since I joined this forum, and every time I say it, the Kenpo Gods rain down bolts of lightening on me. LOL.  "Its there, you're just not seeing it.  Just because you dont see it, doesnt mean that its not there and that others are seeing it." is usually what I get.   I hate to use this example, but I will anyways.  I had requested from a high ranking Kenpoist (nobody on here) to see some Kenpo on the ground.  A clip was put up, on their site, of an example on a stand-up Kenpo tech. utilized on the ground.  Needless to say, I wasn't that impressed.  Now, I know, I know, someone could come back and say, "Well, if you think the clip sucked, why dont you put something better up?"  I suppose I could, and if I did, it would most likely be something from BJJ, not Kenpo.   Anyways, what didn't I like about the clip?  The fact that the 'attacker' was, IMHO, making it very easy for the other person to escape.  His mount was hardly a mount, given the fact that he wasn't even in what I'd consider a proper mount.  But thats another thread. LOL.  

Sorry for the rant.


----------



## Doc

MJS said:


> Sorry to hear that.  Hopefully things'll work out with another school.
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose I could play around with things a bit more.  It is interesting what you said though.  The other day, during an Arnis lesson, my teacher and I were going over a blocking drill.  The sticks were moving in pretty much the same figure 8 pattern, as a striking drill that we have.  To picture this better, the 8 will be on its side.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, this is something that I've been saying since I joined this forum, and every time I say it, the Kenpo Gods rain down bolts of lightening on me. LOL.  "Its there, you're just not seeing it.  Just because you dont see it, doesnt mean that its not there and that others are seeing it." is usually what I get.   I hate to use this example, but I will anyways.  I had requested from a high ranking Kenpoist (nobody on here) to see some Kenpo on the ground.  A clip was put up, on their site, of an example on a stand-up Kenpo tech. utilized on the ground.  Needless to say, I wasn't that impressed.  Now, I know, I know, someone could come back and say, "Well, if you think the clip sucked, why dont you put something better up?"  I suppose I could, and if I did, it would most likely be something from BJJ, not Kenpo.   Anyways, what didn't I like about the clip?  The fact that the 'attacker' was, IMHO, making it very easy for the other person to escape.  His mount was hardly a mount, given the fact that he wasn't even in what I'd consider a proper mount.  But thats another thread. LOL.
> 
> Sorry for the rant.



You know that cracks me up. I've heard guys say that so many times. "It's there, you just don't see it." But no one ever volunteers to show you "where" it is. I do it all the time and then they say "You're not doing Kenpo." You can't win. 

"Yeah it is in there, but if a teacher can't or doesn't teach it, then It ain't really there is it?" - Doc


----------



## Thesemindz

MJS said:


> Sorry to hear that. Hopefully things'll work out with another school.


 
I'll live. 

But thanks. 




MJS said:


> I suppose I could play around with things a bit more. It is interesting what you said though. The other day, during an Arnis lesson, my teacher and I were going over a blocking drill. The sticks were moving in pretty much the same figure 8 pattern, as a striking drill that we have. To picture this better, the 8 will be on its side.


 
I think it's a combination of things.

One, Parker was a genius. I don't say that out of hero worship, I say it because I've seen what he left behind, and it's amazing. But he didn't do it alone, it was the product of a lot of really smart people, some still around and some not, some still friends and some not, who were all working together on this thing that they each had a passion for in their own way. That's what's been left behind, and the result is pretty amazing, even with all it's faults.

Two, there are geniuses in other arts as well. If they've left anything behind worth teaching, all their collected talent and creativity has contributed to it becoming something which to its own practitioners is equally incredible.

Three, as martial artists, too many of us have kept secrets for too long, and so we haven't realized how much we have in common. A lot of those very amazing things are incredibly similar from art to art. When I train with guys who do capoeira, or BJJ, or western boxing, they may each have their own concepts and terms and philosophies, but at the root of each are a core of basic principles and fighting concepts which are universal so long as humans are fighting on earth.

We have the same general shape, and we're subject to the same natural forces, and so fighting will always have a certain consistent foundation to it regardless of what we call it.

Which is why we have the same figure eight striking patterns, and the same angle stepping, and the same natural weapons.



MJS said:


> Well, this is something that I've been saying since I joined this forum, and every time I say it, the Kenpo Gods rain down bolts of lightening on me. LOL. "Its there, you're just not seeing it. Just because you dont see it, doesnt mean that its not there and that others are seeing it." is usually what I get.  I hate to use this example, but I will anyways. I had requested from a high ranking Kenpoist (nobody on here) to see some Kenpo on the ground. A clip was put up, on their site, of an example on a stand-up Kenpo tech. utilized on the ground. Needless to say, I wasn't that impressed. Now, I know, I know, someone could come back and say, "Well, if you think the clip sucked, why dont you put something better up?" I suppose I could, and if I did, it would most likely be something from BJJ, not Kenpo.  Anyways, what didn't I like about the clip? The fact that the 'attacker' was, IMHO, making it very easy for the other person to escape. His mount was hardly a mount, given the fact that he wasn't even in what I'd consider a proper mount. But thats another thread. LOL.
> 
> Sorry for the rant.


 
I remember that video. 

Personally, I defended that video then, and still would now, because I see a lot of value in the lesson being taught. I don't think that particular instructor was at his best, I've seen him do some other things that I liked far more, and quite frankly, I don't think he had a very good answer for your question.

It may upset some people that I say that, and that's a shame.

But I looked at the video as an extremely simple starting point to try to get some kenpoists to lay down on the ground for a second. The climate at the time amongst the kenpo community was very hostile towards BJJ and grappling in general. Not universally, but at least palpably. I think it's because many people were scared. I was at first.

After all, I thought I was a pretty bad dude, at least compared to TKD guys, but these BJJ guys were doing something I'd never even really thought about before. And that's intimidating.

I knew a lot of kenpo guys that quit training, or flat out refused to do grappling drills, or flat out refused to accept that grappling had any value at all. Not just in my school, but all over the place. In large part, the very idea of a kenpo guy lying on the ground to fight was derided and laughed at.

I don't think that attitude is dominant any more, but clearly there are still some holdouts. I think that kenpo has largely embraced at least some limited approach to grappling and that most objective martial artists see value in it now.

But when that video came out, in a way, I think it was revolutionary. And the fact that it was so derided by so many, who quite possible _did_ have a better answer, also helped to get kenpo guys on the ground. To give it a try, and to defend their heritage, and to see whether or not it was worth doing.

Maybe it wasn't the best grappling display ever. But when a widely recognized and respected kenpo senior student is willing to lay down on the ground, on the filthy dirty _ground_, to practice kenpo, then maybe its not so scary after all, and maybe it got some people thinking.

So I still defend that video. It was part of a process.

And I kinda doubt the same product would come from the same school if they had to make one with what they know today, as a result of that video being released.

But maybe I'm being too kind.


-Rob


----------



## shaolin-warrior

"So, here is my question: Do you feel that Kenpoists would benefit from boxing training? This could range from actually crosstraining with a boxer, and considering that MMA is very popular, training to deal with the types of punches, combos, etc., that are typical of a boxer."
Kempo training is all about combination punching, as well as take downs and joint locks. If your not already training like a boxer / wrestler, you need to be.
Kempo teaches set combinations and rank Kempo techniques; these are just a learning tool. I equate learning martial arts to learning a new language. The Kempo sets and combinations are much like basic sentences in any language. Learn them all and you still only have a very basic vocabulary, and limited arsenal of ability. Its not until you can tear apart those prearranged techniques, learn the dynamics and understand the mechanics of them, understand how to close the gaps and adjust for critical distance then you can scatter every part of every technique to the winds and forget them, because they only work in a perfect world. They are designed to teach you a broader aspect of martial arts, the technique is nothing, the ability to deliver a mechanically sound counter attack are what we as kempoist need to extract from our techniques. This requires a more than basic understanding of boxing, kicking and Jiu Jitsu theories and practical application. If you think or were told that your Kempo techniques will work against a fighter, next time youre in class abandon your horse stance, its a training tool, not a fighting stance. Put your hands up and let your training partner lead with a jab see if you can trap it, if you dont train for speed, against a fighter, you bought magic beans. (Your Kempo wont work) Ive spent the better part of my adult life learning to understand Kempo, its no better than any other martial art, it is the same as every other martial art in one respect. In order for it to be effective, you have to get past the colored belts and the ego that comes with rank progression, and stay the course as a humble student, learn to see things for what they are and strive to understand all there is. Fight science is Physics, plain and simple. Kempo, where the straight line ends the circle begins and vice versa. Train like your life depends on it, because it just might. If not, youre just wasting your time.


----------



## Doc

shaolin-warrior said:


> "So, here is my question: Do you feel that Kenpoists would benefit from boxing training? This could range from actually crosstraining with a boxer, and considering that MMA is very popular, training to deal with the types of punches, combos, etc., that are typical of a boxer."
> Kempo training is all about combination punching, as well as take downs and joint locks. If your not already training like a boxer / wrestler, you need to be.
> Kempo teaches set combinations and rank Kempo techniques; these are just a learning tool. I equate learning martial arts to learning a new language. The Kempo sets and combinations are much like basic sentences in any language. Learn them all and you still only have a very basic vocabulary, and limited arsenal of ability. Its not until you can tear apart those prearranged techniques, learn the dynamics and understand the mechanics of them, understand how to close the gaps and adjust for critical distance then you can scatter every part of every technique to the winds and forget them, because they only work in a perfect world. They are designed to teach you a broader aspect of martial arts, the technique is nothing, the ability to deliver a mechanically sound counter attack are what we as kempoist need to extract from our techniques. This requires a more than basic understanding of boxing, kicking and Jiu Jitsu theories and practical application. If you think or were told that your Kempo techniques will work against a fighter, next time youre in class abandon your horse stance, its a training tool, not a fighting stance. Put your hands up and let your training partner lead with a jab see if you can trap it, if you dont train for speed, against a fighter, you bought magic beans. (Your Kempo wont work) Ive spent the better part of my adult life learning to understand Kempo, its no better than any other martial art, it is the same as every other martial art in one respect. In order for it to be effective, you have to get past the colored belts and the ego that comes with rank progression, and stay the course as a humble student, learn to see things for what they are and strive to understand all there is. Fight science is Physics, plain and simple. Kempo, where the straight line ends the circle begins and vice versa. Train like your life depends on it, because it just might. If not, youre just wasting your time.



Thank you sir for what you have done for our country.


----------



## MJS

Thesemindz said:


> I'll live.
> 
> But thanks.


 
You're welcome. 






> I think it's a combination of things.
> 
> One, Parker was a genius. I don't say that out of hero worship, I say it because I've seen what he left behind, and it's amazing. But he didn't do it alone, it was the product of a lot of really smart people, some still around and some not, some still friends and some not, who were all working together on this thing that they each had a passion for in their own way. That's what's been left behind, and the result is pretty amazing, even with all it's faults.
> 
> Two, there are geniuses in other arts as well. If they've left anything behind worth teaching, all their collected talent and creativity has contributed to it becoming something which to its own practitioners is equally incredible.
> 
> Three, as martial artists, too many of us have kept secrets for too long, and so we haven't realized how much we have in common. A lot of those very amazing things are incredibly similar from art to art. When I train with guys who do capoeira, or BJJ, or western boxing, they may each have their own concepts and terms and philosophies, but at the root of each are a core of basic principles and fighting concepts which are universal so long as humans are fighting on earth.
> 
> We have the same general shape, and we're subject to the same natural forces, and so fighting will always have a certain consistent foundation to it regardless of what we call it.
> 
> Which is why we have the same figure eight striking patterns, and the same angle stepping, and the same natural weapons.


 
I think alot may be similar from art to art.  To affress each of your above:

1) Agreed.  Mr. Parker was amazing, from what I've heard.  Sadly I never had the chance to meet him.  He, like so many others, have given alot.  I think alot of the time, its up to each person to take what was given, taught, etc., and figure things out.

2) And this is why I love to cross train.  Seems to me that some people tend to frown on that.  Why?  Personally, if I can find something from another art, and put it into my Kenpo, that works for me.   I dont care if its not Kenpo.  

3)   I'll agree with that to a point.  Maybe I'm missing it, but if we used Kenpo and BJJ as an example, I dont see any similarities.  





> I remember that video.
> 
> Personally, I defended that video then, and still would now, because I see a lot of value in the lesson being taught. I don't think that particular instructor was at his best, I've seen him do some other things that I liked far more, and quite frankly, I don't think he had a very good answer for your question.
> 
> It may upset some people that I say that, and that's a shame.
> 
> But I looked at the video as an extremely simple starting point to try to get some kenpoists to lay down on the ground for a second. The climate at the time amongst the kenpo community was very hostile towards BJJ and grappling in general. Not universally, but at least palpably. I think it's because many people were scared. I was at first.
> 
> After all, I thought I was a pretty bad dude, at least compared to TKD guys, but these BJJ guys were doing something I'd never even really thought about before. And that's intimidating.
> 
> I knew a lot of kenpo guys that quit training, or flat out refused to do grappling drills, or flat out refused to accept that grappling had any value at all. Not just in my school, but all over the place. In large part, the very idea of a kenpo guy lying on the ground to fight was derided and laughed at.
> 
> I don't think that attitude is dominant any more, but clearly there are still some holdouts. I think that kenpo has largely embraced at least some limited approach to grappling and that most objective martial artists see value in it now.
> 
> But when that video came out, in a way, I think it was revolutionary. And the fact that it was so derided by so many, who quite possible _did_ have a better answer, also helped to get kenpo guys on the ground. To give it a try, and to defend their heritage, and to see whether or not it was worth doing.
> 
> Maybe it wasn't the best grappling display ever. But when a widely recognized and respected kenpo senior student is willing to lay down on the ground, on the filthy dirty _ground_, to practice kenpo, then maybe its not so scary after all, and maybe it got some people thinking.
> 
> So I still defend that video. It was part of a process.
> 
> And I kinda doubt the same product would come from the same school if they had to make one with what they know today, as a result of that video being released.
> 
> But maybe I'm being too kind.
> 
> 
> -Rob


 
I too, have seen this Kenpo Sr., both on video and in person, and yes, he has impressed me.  I agree that that wasn't the best example.  But this is why, for me, I'd rather train something that is more likely to succeed, rather than play around with something, and try to figure something out with one of the standing techs.  

What did I not like about it?  Well, #1, the person doing the mount, well, he wasn't doing a mount.  He was kneeling.  Do a proper mount, and punch like you're really trying to hit the guy, and then do that tech, showing how it would work.  Then I might buy it.  

But as you said, it was a start.  I believe the AKKI and Speakman groups have done quite a bit of ground stuff.  Hopefully someone from those groups will chime in here.


----------



## MJS

Doc said:


> You know that cracks me up. I've heard guys say that so many times. "It's there, you just don't see it." But no one ever volunteers to show you "where" it is. I do it all the time and then they say "You're not doing Kenpo." You can't win.
> 
> "Yeah it is in there, but if a teacher can't or doesn't teach it, then It ain't really there is it?" - Doc


 
Imagine how many headaches would be solved if those people who said its there, but didn't teach it, actually taught it, instead of just talking about it?


----------



## Doc

MJS said:


> Imagine how many headaches would be solved if those people who said its there, but didn't teach it, actually taught it, instead of just talking about it?



"It's easier to quote than to know, and even harder to teach."


----------



## KENPOJOE

Doc said:


> Yep! I taught a camp in Vegas and half the group were without cups, I was informed when we began to work on a drill. When I asked about how they protect themselves in case of contact, I was told they were, "..not allowed to make contact with each other, only on the bag." All I could think of was how small the island was I must have been living on.
> 
> Contact will definitely have a limiting effect on your enrollment, and bottom line.


 Hi Folks!
Thank you,Ron...this was a good one!
At tournaments, I used to have the kid competitors "knock on their cup" to see if "anyone was home" to then hear a symphony of groin cup bongo solos as they realized it made a sound when you hit it!
I was recently teaching a seminar in vegas myself and asked who was not wearing a cup, a couple of hands went up and I jokingly stated "FOOLISH MORTALS! Kenpo is one of the most groin obsessed systems in the world! We find new and interesting ways to hit someone in the crotch everyday!"
BEGOOD,
KENPOJOE


----------



## Doc

KENPOJOE said:


> Hi Folks!
> Thank you,Ron...this was a good one!
> At tournaments, I used to have the kid competitors "knock on their cup" to see if "anyone was home" to then hear a symphony of groin cup bongo solos as they realized it made a sound when you hit it!
> I was recently teaching a seminar in vegas myself and asked who was not wearing a cup, a couple of hands went up and I jokingly stated "FOOLISH MORTALS! Kenpo is one of the most groin obsessed systems in the world! We find new and interesting ways to hit someone in the crotch everyday!"
> BEGOOD,
> KENPOJOE



"Knocking to see if anyone is home." I will definitely steal that one.


----------



## KENPOJOE

Doc said:


> "Knocking to see if anyone is home." I will definitely steal that one.


 Hi folks!
I should quote it correctly
It's "knock on the door" to check cups then "Smile to see if anybody's home" Checking mouthpieces....
But it is funny!
BEGOOD,
KENPOJOE
PS: I remember one time Mr. Parker said he was going to give all his pasadena black belts Brass Groin cups at different tones so when he hit them it would sound like a swiss bell ringer playing a tune! ["BingBongBingBong!!!]
LOL!


----------



## KENPOJOE

Hi folks!
Interesting thread on boxing and kenpo...
I know in EPAK, I was taught that the Orange Belt techniques [24 technique version] was taught to primarily address boxers and wrestlers.
At a glance:
Dance of Death -front right straight punch [straight right]{don't step through}
5 swords -front right step through roundhouse punch [haymaker]
reversing mace [front left punch] {sticking a jab}
Striking serpent's head -front left hooking punch [left hook]
Raining claw -uppercut [ditto]
so, as I always say, in order for you to learn the defenses, you must learn the attacks! In so doing, you expand your knowledge base and see "the other side of kenpo"
I hope that I was of some service,
KENPOJOE


----------



## MJS

KENPOJOE said:


> Hi folks!
> Interesting thread on boxing and kenpo...
> I know in EPAK, I was taught that the Orange Belt techniques [24 technique version] was taught to primarily address boxers and wrestlers.
> At a glance:
> Dance of Death -front right straight punch [straight right]{don't step through}
> 5 swords -front right step through roundhouse punch [haymaker]
> reversing mace [front left punch] {sticking a jab}
> Striking serpent's head -front left hooking punch [left hook]
> Raining claw -uppercut [ditto]
> so, as I always say, in order for you to learn the defenses, you must learn the attacks! In so doing, you expand your knowledge base and see "the other side of kenpo"
> I hope that I was of some service,
> KENPOJOE


 

Hi Joe,

Nice to see you posting again.  Anyways...regarding the techs...I agree, those are boxing type attacks.  Of course, hopefully, as I've said in other threads, people are taking their stuff one step further and not standing like a statue, while the other guy blasts away with 10+ strikes.  Additionally, I'd also hope that people would be testing their defenses against people that're better than us, in specific areas.  In other words, we can do takedown defenses, ie: the ram techs., until we're blue in the face, but it'd be nice to see how they'd hold up against someone who is really good at takedowns, ie: a grappler.  The same can be applied to the punching.  

I dont know...maybe me and a few others are the only ones who value what can be gained from other arts.  I simply mentioned the boxing, due to the fact of the popularity of MMA.  

This is why I like to cross train.  Not only do I get to pick up ideas from other people, but also test my stuff out too.


----------



## Hand Sword

That was also my feeling about this topic. As I said, I remember both sides and the feeling how each was a joke. I am hoping that a thread like this in the MA side would not be posted from the ideology of Boxing (boxers) being a joke or something less skilled and to be looked down upon. I'm not saying that anyone in here did so- let that be clear. So, it's not an accusation. However, this is a mindset that I have seen and heard FREQUENTLY in the martial art community. So, I hope that's not the problem.

If you don't like boxing or think anything of it--that's fair! Perfectly acceptable! Same way if you do too. You could still contribute as to why and voice concerns, thoughts, etc.. Maybe a response might make a new consideration, one way or another, which makes a fruitful conversation and learning experience. It's always better on a discussion forum, than the "just 'cause" argument.


----------



## Thesemindz

MJS said:


> Hi Joe,
> 
> Nice to see you posting again. Anyways...regarding the techs...I agree, those are boxing type attacks. Of course, hopefully, as I've said in other threads, people are taking their stuff one step further and not standing like a statue, while the other guy blasts away with 10+ strikes. Additionally, I'd also hope that people would be testing their defenses against people that're better than us, in specific areas. In other words, we can do takedown defenses, ie: the ram techs., until we're blue in the face, but it'd be nice to see how they'd hold up against someone who is really good at takedowns, ie: a grappler. The same can be applied to the punching.
> 
> I dont know...maybe me and a few others are the only ones who value what can be gained from other arts. I simply mentioned the boxing, due to the fact of the popularity of MMA.
> 
> This is why I like to cross train. Not only do I get to pick up ideas from other people, but also test my stuff out too.


 
First time I went up against a boxer was a real wake up call.

He was just a beginner student at our Kenpo school, and I was Billy The Brown Belt Badass. And the first time he hit me with a jab to the face sure surprised the hell out of me.

He wasn't even that good a boxer, but it was a different fight then I was used to. Totally different head movement, body movement, stepping, blocking, striking. Strikes coming from angles I wasn't used to. A different mindset towards defense and offense. It was a real challenge.

I was used to a lot more circular striking, and a longer range that allowed for kicking. He came right at me with short jabs and high crosses, which was very unlike the karate style sparring I was used too, and blew up my defense.

I learned later that my instructor had pawned him off on me after jamming his shoulder blocking trying to spar the kid himself.

He was a good dude, with a good attitude. And he took those boxing skills right into kenpo and did well there too. And I learned a lot from that fight and opened up a whole new dimension to my fighting. I started working with other guys in the school who had boxing experience and working their drills into my training.

I've had the same experience fighting BJJ guys, and Muay Thai guys, and Capoeria guys, and Shootfighting guys, and Tae-Kwon-Do guys. That's why I continue to try to train with them when I can. 

Because you can get real, real good at beating up the other students at your school, but when you get thrust into a situation you are inexperienced with it can be more of a challenge than you might think.

I think it's very important to share your skills with students of other arts, and learn from what they have to share. It's the best way to improve against their styles, and it helps you to recognize more clearly the mark of a trained fighter or a novice. 

I've picked up a lot of great material that way, without having to sacrifice what I've learned about kenpo.


-Rob


----------



## Hand Sword

Great post! It's very true too, that an unfamiliar stimulus, even with a slight adjustment from your training (ex. same punch, a different angle, range, etc..) could cause that "deer in the headlight syndrome" for a brief moment.


----------



## Danjo

I think that everything depends on your goal in training. If you're training to compete, then boxing training is a good way to go. Boxing has been training competitors for a long long time. However, if you're training for self defense, then I prefer martial arts training.

We incorporate some boxing into Kajukenbo and use some of the bagwork combinations as well. We also train for how to defend against boxing attacks (as well as many other types of attacks). But if I'm going to be attacked in the street, it will likely be when I look like a victim ripe for the picking (though I hopefully don't ever come off that way). I may be sick, drunk, obviously injured (maybe wearing a cast or on crutches) or old etc. In any event, I will not likely be in top condition when someone decides to attack "lil old me". If that's the case, then I don't want to have my main training be in an art/sport that requires me to have a clear head, good endurance and a lot of space to make it work. I'd rather have my instincts be to go for combinations that attack the nerve centers, joints and soft targets in order to incapacitate someone as quickly and efficiently as possible. I don't want a boxing match. I also don't want to be Mike Tyson hitting Mitch Green in the head and breaking my hand. In my forties, I'm largely past competing (though sometimes I can't resist like at Doug Bunda's tourney every year cuz he forces his old guys to fight  ), but that doesn't mean I can't train to defend myself.


----------



## Mark Jordan

Kenpo and Boxing go well together especially for stand-up fighting.   Boxing can improve balance, body positioning as well as endurance. The boxing hand and defensive moves (bob and weave) can also improve  your kenpo hand strikes.


----------



## Danjo

Mark Jordan said:


> Kenpo and Boxing go well together especially for stand-up fighting. Boxing can improve balance, body positioning as well as endurance. The boxing hand and defensive moves (bob and weave) can also improve your kenpo hand strikes.


 
How does it improve your Kenpo hand strikes?

As to the rest, I think Kenpo (in fact most martial arts) does fine for balance and body positioning. The qualititative debate as to which martial art skill set is superior is endlessly debated. It's like asking which flavor of ice cream tastes best. We all have our opinons and preferences and just about the time we're ready to dismiss an art we have a ninja come in and win the UFC.

As far as endurance goes, that will all depend on how one trains obviously. Folks like Chuck Norris were/are excercise fanatics and never lacked conditioning even though he was never a boxer. The big reason that boxing improves endurance is because it's primarily a sport that requires a lot of endurance to last the rounds, whereas most that train in the martial arts do so for self defense rather than for competition. Being in shape doesn't hurt you by any means, but isn't the prime requisite for defending yourself.


----------



## Hand Sword

Just to play devil's advocate, my guess is that since a lot of MA schools don't pound away on Makiwaras and assorted types of heavy bags any more and stick to air striking and controlled shots, training the punches of Boxing will add power because that's what pounding on bags/etc at full power gives you. Defensively, since I have trained in Boxing as well as the arts, I know that the defensive movements and strategies practiced by boxers and again, not most MA'ists, leaves you in prime position for follow ups and the opponent much more open-trained or untrained- where the MA specialized strikes are optimized.

Again I say this as a Kempo stylist and one who is by no means a "Boxer." One of them could speak better on this. I was going by Mark's post and guessing, based on experience and intuition, that is what he was referring to. Also, It's is a worthy discussion, and I'm just trying to keep the fire burning.  :asian:


----------



## LawDog

One should take note that many Kempo/Kenpo systems do not use these very "in close" type of boxing/kickboxing strikes.
Ex. - short/long hooks, upper cuts, elbows etc.
I believe that Kaju does, mine does and the Cerio system uses them.
These powerful "in close" strikes are important because most street situations will end up "very In close" in under 30 seconds, often ending up on the ground.


----------



## MattJ

Danjo said:


> How does it improve your Kenpo hand strikes?
> 
> As to the rest, I think Kenpo (in fact most martial arts) does fine for balance and body positioning. The qualititative debate as to which martial art skill set is superior is endlessly debated. It's like asking which flavor of ice cream tastes best. We all have our opinons and preferences and just about the time we're ready to dismiss an art we have a ninja come in and win the UFC.


 
In theory, kenpo is just as good as boxing as far as hand strikes, with a wider available palette. In practice, many kenpo schools do not do enough resistant training to make most of what they know. This does give most boxers (and boxing by default) a practical edge, in reality. 



> As far as endurance goes, that will all depend on how one trains obviously. Folks like Chuck Norris were/are excercise fanatics and never lacked conditioning even though he was never a boxer. The big reason that boxing improves endurance is because it's primarily a sport that requires a lot of endurance to last the rounds, whereas most that train in the martial arts do so for self defense rather than for competition. Being in shape doesn't hurt you by any means, but isn't the prime requisite for defending yourself.


 
But it is an important one - a very important one.


----------



## KENPOJOE

Hi folks!
Dear MJS{Mike}
As far as the "standing like a statue, while the other guy blasts away with 10+ strikes" comment, My response: You've got to start somewhere. Do the ideal phase to get the understanding of the cheoreograhy of the technique and the understanding of reactionary positioning. Start working with higher levels of intensity only when a thorough understanding and performance of the base techique is acheived.If you cannot perform the technique correctly in the first place how can you fare successfully against a skilled practitioner who thoroughly knows HIS technique!
I am definitely one of those individuals who benefit from learning and teaching multiple arts and how it answers many questions regarding the kenpo/kempo sstyles/systems I study/teach.  If we truly do those techniques "'til we are blue in the face" then you are following one of the major terms I teach all of my students*..."Learned technique becomes instinctive reflex through repetition!"* 
in other words, do the technique until you are sick & tired of it...THEN DO IT SOME MORE!
By working with master grapplers like David German, I appreciated grappling more and he had me look at that aspect with a more discerning eye.But the previous statement still held true.
If we do not train these techniques without logical progression & a logical progression of contact and intensity then we will simply dismiss a technique with "that technique sucks" or "that doesn't work" and it will be an inaccurate statement.
I hope that I was of some service,
KENPOJOE


MJS said:


> Hi Joe,
> 
> Nice to see you posting again. Anyways...regarding the techs...I agree, those are boxing type attacks. Of course, hopefully, as I've said in other threads, people are taking their stuff one step further and not standing like a statue, while the other guy blasts away with 10+ strikes. Additionally, I'd also hope that people would be testing their defenses against people that're better than us, in specific areas. In other words, we can do takedown defenses, ie: the ram techs., until we're blue in the face, but it'd be nice to see how they'd hold up against someone who is really good at takedowns, ie: a grappler. The same can be applied to the punching.
> 
> I dont know...maybe me and a few others are the only ones who value what can be gained from other arts. I simply mentioned the boxing, due to the fact of the popularity of MMA.
> 
> This is why I like to cross train. Not only do I get to pick up ideas from other people, but also test my stuff out too.


----------



## Danjo

MattJ said:


> In theory, kenpo is just as good as boxing as far as hand strikes, with a wider available palette. In practice, many kenpo schools do not do enough resistant training to make the most of what they know. This does give most boxers (and boxing by default) a practical edge, in reality.


 
More like it gives boxers an advantage in the ring or in sparring. I don't have a problem with boxing. I like it in fact. However, I think that the solution to bad Kenpo practices is to improve one's Kenpo practice, not to add boxing. If one needs to increase one's bag work, endurance etc., then they should do so without trying to add stuff from an art/sport/"sweet science" that is, IMO inferior to Kenpo for actual street encounters.




MattJ said:


> But it is an important one - a very important one.


 
I hope not, otherwise if I'm attacked when I'm sick or infirm, then I'm screwed. My techniques should work whether I'm in shape or not. Sijo Emperado never stopped developing Kajukenbo. He even demonstrated techniques that he devised to use as an old man sitting in a wheel chair. 

Being in shape is important for sparring or other forms of competition, but if your fighting methods depend on it, then you better hope to never be attacked when you're out of shape.


----------



## Thesemindz

It's a difficult discussion to have without defining what we mean by kenpo in the first place.

Do we mean a pure Ed Parker system? Or something else? I teach elements of western boxing and other arts in my kenpo curriculum. I tell my students that certain techniques, drills, and exercises are derivitives of a foreign art, but they are still a part of _the kenpo that I teach_. So what does it mean for me to say that boxing helps my kenpo? Boxing _is a part_ of my kenpo.

Is Kajukenbo kenpo? Is Tracy's? Is Sub Level Four? What about the _innumerable_ individual styles being taught by rogue black belts who have left their lineage? Are they still teaching kenpo? How much is enough? What is too much?

My understanding is that much of what is taught in America as "kenpo" today is itself derived technique from arts like Tae-Kwon-Do, Jujutsu, Aikido, and _professional wrestling._

Some may like to incorporate boxing, or fitness, and it may work for them. Others might be happy without either. Still others might think that they are already in there and don't need to be added, only explored.

I have a feeling that the ultimate result of this debate will be that each of us are capable of excelling at our chosen training methods, and we are all quite good at what we do. Regardless of the individual specifics.


-Rob


----------



## Danjo

Thesemindz said:


> It's a difficult discussion to have without defining what we mean by kenpo in the first place.
> 
> Do we mean a pure Ed Parker system? Or something else? I teach elements of western boxing and other arts in my kenpo curriculum. I tell my students that certain techniques, drills, and exercises are derivitives of a foreign art, but they are still a part of _the kenpo that I teach_. So what does it mean for me to say that boxing helps my kenpo? Boxing _is a part_ of my kenpo.
> 
> Is Kajukenbo kenpo? Is Tracy's? Is Sub Level Four? What about the _innumerable_ individual styles being taught by rogue black belts who have left their lineage? Are they still teaching kenpo? How much is enough? What is too much?
> 
> My understanding is that much of what is taught in America as "kenpo" today is itself derived technique from arts like Tae-Kwon-Do, Jujutsu, Aikido, and _professional wrestling._
> 
> Some may like to incorporate boxing, or fitness, and it may work for them. Others might be happy without either. Still others might think that they are already in there and don't need to be added, only explored.
> 
> I have a feeling that the ultimate result of this debate will be that each of us are capable of excelling at our chosen training methods, and we are all quite good at what we do. Regardless of the individual specifics.
> 
> 
> -Rob


 
I think that I was taking the post to mean that one could improve their Kenpo by training in boxing and that boxing would make up for the perceived deficiencies in Kenpo. If boxing is incorporated into your Kenpo method, then that's a slightly different issue I think. We have boxing incorporated into Kajukenbo, or rather as part of what makes up Kajukenbo, but not something taught seperately in order to improve one's Kajukenbo per se.


----------



## MattJ

Quote by Danjo - 



> More like it gives boxers an advantage in the ring or in sparring. I don't have a problem with boxing. I like it in fact. However, I think that the solution to bad Kenpo practices is to improve one's Kenpo practice, not to add boxing. If one needs to increase one's bag work, endurance etc., then they should do so without trying to add stuff from an art/sport/"sweet science" that is, IMO inferior to Kenpo for actual street encounters.


 
The advantage boxers have in the ring is the same one on the street - speed, strength, timing and accuracy that come from resistant training. I don't think it's possible to meaningfully seperate training from training methods. If either one is deficient, the practitioner will be deficient by default. In any case, I wasn't arguing for adding boxing techniques per se, but rather their training methodology. 



> I hope not, otherwise if I'm attacked when I'm sick or infirm, then I'm screwed. My techniques should work whether I'm in shape or not. Sijo Emperado never stopped developing Kajukenbo. He even demonstrated techniques that he devised to use as an old man sitting in a wheel chair.
> 
> Being in shape is important for sparring or other forms of competition, but if your fighting methods depend on it, then you better hope to never be attacked when you're out of shape.


 
Heh, that is a good point, but if you're sick or infirmed, then you probabaly ARE screwed in reality, yes? Predators do not pick on those that are in shape and represent a threat, as you noted earlier. Being in shape is something that I regard as the first line of self-defense, not just in being able to withstand an attack, but in _discouraging them in the first place_.


----------



## Danjo

MattJ said:


> The advantage boxers have in the ring is the same one on the street - speed, strength, timing and accuracy that come from resistant training. I don't think it's possible to meaningfully seperate training from training methods. If either one is deficient, the practitioner will be deficient by default. In any case, I wasn't arguing for adding boxing techniques per se, but rather their training methodology.


 
Let's define some terms here then. "Training" means _what_ you are taught, i.e., the techniques and how to do them properly. "Training Methods" means _how_ they are taught. The _how_ is going to change from teacher to teacher even if the techniques are the same. It may even change with the same teacher depending on the student(s) that are being taught. Athletic young men may be taught differently than children or the elderly etc. Now I didn't say that they would neccessarily be taught _different things_, but rather a _different method_ would be used to teach the same material. In this sense, it is entirely possible to seperate the two from each other. 

As to the rest, I agree that being strong and in good condition are advantages for the most part. However, one thing that we have noticed in our school is that bigger stronger guys tend to be sloppier in their technique. They find that they can cheat material and still make it work for them by simply muscling it rather than using proper leverage etc. For instance, if I'm strong enough to make someone wince and even submit when I grab their hand and squeeze, then I may never learn to do a proper wrist lock. Ultimately that is not to my advantage since I may not always be strong enough to pull that off, or else I may run into someone stronger than me and then I'll really wish that I had the proper technique engrained instead of the sloppy way of doing it. Over-reliance on being in top condition can be a detriment. which goes to your next point...




MattJ said:


> Heh, that is a good point, but if you're sick or infirmed, then you probabaly ARE screwed in reality, yes? Predators do not pick on those that are in shape and represent a threat, as you noted earlier. Being in shape is something that I regard as the first line of self-defense, not just in being able to withstand an attack, but in _discouraging them in the first place_.


 
If the only way that your training benefits you is by being in such great condition that you scare off any potential attackers, then you need to train in something else IMO. The martial arts are _designed_ to give the smaller, weaker person a way to defend themselves against a bigger stronger person. They do this with using the element of surprise as well as superior technique. To me, boxing is not the best method of defending oneself. Even in the videos where a boxer fights off people in the street (look on youtube) they rarely end the fight quickly unless the opponents run off. Boxers will beat on each other for 12 (used to be 15) rounds and not score a knockout. How many rounds could someone stand being kicked in the groin, poked in the eye, chopped in the throat or neck, smashing their collar bone, kicked in the knee joint? etc. How good of condition does one have to be in in order to pull off those techniques?

Like I said before, I don't want to train in something that tells me I'm "screwed' if I'm sick or injured.


----------



## MattJ

> Let's define some terms here then. "Training" means _what_ you are taught, i.e., the techniques and how to do them properly. "Training Methods" means _how_ they are taught.


 
Yes, we agree. 



> The _how_ is going to change from teacher to teacher even if the techniques are the same. It may even change with the same teacher depending on the student(s) that are being taught.


 
Agreed, again.



> Athletic young men may be taught differently than children or the elderly etc. Now I didn't say that they would neccessarily be taught _different things_, but rather a _different method_ would be used to teach the same material. In this sense, it is entirely possible to seperate the two from each other.


 
Yes, but I didn't say it _couldn't_ be done - I said it wasn't _meaningful_ to do so. The smaller repetoire of boxing can be as much or more effective than kenpo if the kenpo person's _training methodology_ is not as effective as boxing's. This goes back to your point of boxing being "inferior" for the street - it depends on *how* they've trained, as much as *what* they've trained. 



> As to the rest, I agree that being strong and in good condition are advantages for the most part. However, one thing that we have noticed in our school is that bigger stronger guys tend to be sloppier in their technique. They find that they can cheat material and still make it work for them by simply muscling it rather than using proper leverage etc. For instance, if I'm strong enough to make someone wince and even submit when I grab their hand and squeeze, then I may never learn to do a proper wrist lock.


 
Fair enough, although that sounds like an issue for the instructor. However, the fact that they can make it work anyway, kind of works to my point..... 



> Ultimately that is not to my advantage since I may not always be strong enough to pull that off, or else I may run into someone stronger than me and then I'll really wish that I had the proper technique engrained instead of the sloppy way of doing it. Over-reliance on being in top condition can be a detriment. which goes to your next point...


 
Well, I'm certainly not advocating over-relying on _anything_, just so we're clear. 



> If the only way that your training benefits you is by being in such great condition that you scare off any potential attackers, then you need to train in something else IMO.


 
No idea where you are coming up with that. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not intentionally trying to strawman me here. 



> The martial arts are _designed_ to give the smaller, weaker person a way to defend themselves against a bigger stronger person. They do this with using the element of surprise as well as superior technique. To me, boxing is not the best method of defending oneself. Even in the videos where a boxer fights off people in the street (look on youtube) they rarely end the fight quickly unless the opponents run off.


 
While I get your point about efficiency, as they say, "a win is a win". The opponent "ran off" for a reason, right?



> Boxers will beat on each other for 12 (used to be 15) rounds and not score a knockout. How many rounds could someone stand being kicked in the groin, poked in the eye, chopped in the throat or neck, smashing their collar bone, kicked in the knee joint? etc. How good of condition does one have to be in in order to pull off those techniques?


 
Heh, that depends on how good your opponent is, yes? It's actually much harder to break collar bones and knees than most people realize, FWIW. Guys kick each other in the knee all the time in the UFC. 



> Like I said before, I don't want to train in something that tells me I'm "screwed' if I'm sick or injured.


 
I think you missed my point. Being _sick or injured_ is going to 'screw you', no matter what you train.


----------



## KENPOJOE

Hi folks!
This past tuesday I had the opportunity to train w/Mr. Frank Trejo,10th degree black belt in EPAK,who comes from a long line of boxers and was himself a boxer and kickboxer,as well as one of the multiple winners of the IKC.
I specifically asked him about this question and had a wonderful disertation on the topic of boxing within kenpo and boxing attacks and kenpo defensive approaches to said attacks.
some of the interesting comments from Mr. Trejo were that at first,Mr. Trejo didn't beleive that Ed Parker was a boxer because of the "Karate" way he moved! I was surprised by that because when I watched Kenpoists like Dave Hebler,David German and Al Tracy do certain techniques [such as the uppercut in 5 swords] they moved like a boxer!
When Mr. Trejo visited Hawaii, they remembered Ed Parker as a Boxer!
Thx to handsword for mentioning this aspect and MJS for bringing it up in this thread...wish you were there!
I hope that I was of some service,
KENPOJOE


----------



## Danjo

MattJ said:


> Yes, but I didn't say it _couldn't_ be done - I said it wasn't _meaningful_ to do so. The smaller repetoire of boxing can be as much or more effective than kenpo if the kenpo person's _training methodology_ is not as effective as boxing's. This goes back to your point of boxing being "inferior" for the street - it depends on *how* they've trained, as much as *what* they've trained.


 
Again, then why not merely improve one's Kenpo training, and not worry about adding boxing?





MattJ said:


> Fair enough, although that sounds like an issue for the instructor. However, the fact that they can make it work anyway, kind of works to my point.....


 
Only if they are in top form. It's when they are not in top form that they need to have better technique.




MattJ said:


> Well, I'm certainly not advocating over-relying on _anything_, just so we're clear.


 
Okay.





MattJ said:


> No idea where you are coming up with that. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not intentionally trying to strawman me here.


 
No "straw man" I'm taking what you said litterally: *"Heh, that is a good point, but if you're sick or infirmed, then you probabaly ARE screwed in reality, yes? Predators do not pick on those that are in shape and represent a threat, as you noted earlier. Being in shape is something that I regard as the first line of self-defense, not just in being able to withstand an attack, but in discouraging them in the first place.  "*

You're saying that if you are not in good shape or if you're injured or sick then you are screwed, and that if you are in shape, then you will not be attacked. This implies that being in shape is the only thing that matters because if you're in shape then no training is needed since no one will attack you, and if you're not in good shape or are sick etc., then your training won't matter because you're "screwed"





MattJ said:


> While I get your point about efficiency, as they say, "a win is a win". The opponent "ran off" for a reason, right?


 
I'll take any win I can get also, however, I would rather be able to end things more decisively than to rely on the other guy running off.





MattJ said:


> Heh, that depends on how good your opponent is, yes? It's actually much harder to break collar bones and knees than most people realize, FWIW. Guys kick each other in the knee all the time in the UFC.


 
Well, firstly, I'll disagree about collar bones. I've had mine broken with little effort and I've broke other's without much effort also (not even trying to). As to the knees in the UFC, we're not talking about a Muy Thai roundhouse to the knee on an opponent that knows what to expect, we're talking about a stomping heel kick to the side of the knee to someone that isn't ready for it.




MattJ said:


> I think you missed my point. Being _sick or injured_ is going to 'screw you', no matter what you train.


 
See my reply above. Also, I disagree. I'd rather not be sick or injured if someone attacks me, but I train to be able to defend myself if I am.


----------



## MattJ

Danjo said:


> Again, then why not merely improve one's Kenpo training, and not worry about adding boxing?



Ok, but that's fairly undefined. In the scope of this thread, one might use boxing as a vehicle or method in which to improve one's kenpo.  What would you recommend? I personally would (and did) add MMA training methodology to my kenpo, with good results. 



> Only if they are in top form. It's when they are not in top form that they need to have better technique.


Not disagreeing, but it doesn't sound like that happens very often, from what you're saying. 



> No "straw man" I'm taking what you said litterally: *"Heh, that is a good point, but if you're sick or infirmed, then you probabaly ARE screwed in reality, yes? Predators do not pick on those that are in shape and represent a threat, as you noted earlier. Being in shape is something that I regard as the first line of self-defense, not just in being able to withstand an attack, but in discouraging them in the first place.  "*
> 
> You're saying that if you are not in good shape or if you're injured or sick then you are screwed, and that if you are in shape, then you will not be attacked. This implies that being in shape is the only thing that matters because if you're in shape then no training is needed since no one will attack you, and if you're not in good shape or are sick etc., then your training won't matter because you're "screwed"


Off on at least two points. First, I did NOT say that being in good shape alone will prevent you from being screwed if you are sick or injured. Secondly, you wrote "This implies that being in shape is the only thing that matters because  if you're in shape then no training is needed"

That is not even close to what I said or implied, and is indeed a strawman. I meant that being in shape is a _deterrent_. A deterrent does not _deny_ the need for training; it merely reduces the chances you will need it. Please don't confuse the two. Perhaps if you weren't so insecure about your training, you wouldn't feel the need to make inaccurate cheap-shots about other's training.



> I'll take any win I can get also, however, I would rather be able to end things more decisively than to rely on the other guy running off.


Fair enough.



> Well, firstly, I'll disagree about collar bones. I've had mine broken with little effort and I've broke other's without much effort also (not even trying to).


Only seen it once myself in 25 years of training, but OK.



> As to the knees in the UFC, we're not talking about a Muy Thai roundhouse to the knee on an opponent that knows what to expect, we're talking about a stomping heel kick to the side of the knee to someone that isn't ready for it.


 Hmmmm.....You're reframing your own question. But luckily, I was actually thinking of Anderson Silva's fight with (?)Thales Leites, where Silva repeatedly sidekicked Leites in the knee, to no effect at all. Been used by a few others as well, with the same result.



> See my reply above. Also, I disagree. I'd rather not be sick or injured if someone attacks me, but I train to be able to defend myself if I am.


Not sure I understand. You disagree that being sick or injured will impede you effort to defend yourself, no matter what you train? Or you think that a only boxer's skill and abilities vanish completely if they are sick or injured?


----------



## Danjo

MattJ said:


> Ok, but that's fairly undefined. In the scope of this thread, one might use boxing as a vehicle or method in which to improve one's kenpo. What would you recommend? I personally would (and did) add MMA training methodology to my kenpo, with good results.


 
Well, if you take the aspects of boxing that help one become a better fighter and use them in Kenpo training, i.e., bagwork, conditioning, etc., then you don't need to learn boxing to do it.




MattJ said:


> Off on at least two points. First, I did NOT say that being in good shape alone will prevent you from being screwed if you are sick or injured. Secondly, you wrote "This implies that being in shape is the only thing that matters because if you're in shape then no training is needed"
> 
> That is not even close to what I said or implied, and is indeed a strawman.
> 
> I meant that being in shape is a _deterrent_. A deterrent does not _deny_ the need for training; it merely reduces the chances you will need it. Please don't confuse the two.


 
Not confused, it's what you said: "_* Predators do not pick on those that are in shape and represent a threat"*_ You didn't say that they were _reluctant _to attack those who are in shape, nor did you originally say (as you just did above) that being in shape was a deterrant, you said that they don't do it. If they don't do it, then all one needs is to be in shape and then there's no problem. Don't confuse me taking what you said as ignorance on my part.



MattJ said:


> Perhaps if you weren't so insecure about your training, you wouldn't feel the need to make inaccurate cheap-shots about other's training.


 
When did I take a cheap shot at your (or anyone else's) training? What I said was *"If the only way that your training benefits you is by being in such great condition that you scare off any potential attackers, then you need to train in something else IMO." *

Notice the qualifiers? 

If your training benefits you in other ways, then you are probably training in the right martial art. They're called "if/then" statements in logic.

As to your other point: I'm not insecure in the least. I, for instance, don't recall complaining about my training, nor implying that it needed to be bolstered by something outside of the art I train in. It seems that not only are you expecting me to be able to disregard what you actually wrote, but you are also reading into my posts things I never said.





MattJ said:


> Only seen it once myself in 25 years of training, but OK. Hmmmm.....You're reframing your own question. But luckily, I was actually thinking of Anderson Silva's fight with (?)Thales Leites, where Silva repeatedly sidekicked Leites in the knee, to no effect at all. Been used by a few others as well, with the same result.


 
Yeah, you're right about reframing my own question. However, I'm also not advocating an over-reliance on any one target or method of attacking it.



MattJ said:


> Not sure I understand. You disagree that being sick or injured will impede you effort to defend yourself, no matter what you train? Or you think that a only boxer's skill and abilities vanish completely if they are sick or injured?


 
Well, in common parlance, when someone says "you're screwed" if certain conditions exist, it doesn't mean that you're at a disadvantage; it means "game over". I wasn't trying to say that one isn't impeded by being sick etc., but rather one didn't have to be "screwed" if that were the case provided one had been trained to deal with an attacker in a way that didn't rely on one being healthy or in good shape. 

Perhaps we're at another of those points where we are using the same lingo to mean different things.


----------



## MattJ

Danjo said:


> Well, if you take the aspects of boxing that help one become a better fighter and use them in Kenpo training, i.e., bagwork, conditioning, etc., then you don't need to learn boxing to do it.



Hmmm. I'm not sure that makes sense. If they've taken _aspects of boxing_, they would have had to have learned some boxing along the way, yes?  I think I actually get what you're saying, but it seems like you're splitting hairs, IMHO.



> Not confused, it's what you said: "_* Predators do not pick on those that are in shape and represent a threat"*_ You didn't say that they were _reluctant _to attack those who are in shape, nor did you originally say (as you just did above) that being in shape was a deterrant, you said that they don't do it. If they don't do it, then all one needs is to be in shape and then there's no problem. Don't confuse me taking what you said as ignorance on my part.
> 
> 
> 
> When did I take a cheap shot at your (or anyone else's) training? What I said was *"If the only way that your training benefits you is by being in such great condition that you scare off any potential attackers, then you need to train in something else IMO." *
> 
> Notice the qualifiers?
> 
> If your training benefits you in other ways, then you are probably training in the right martial art. They're called "if/then" statements in logic.


Heh, you are indeed taking my statement totally literally, and I did not properly qualify it. I guess I  assumed that both of us had been around long enough to know that there  are no absolutes in martial arts. I was hoping that you would address the clear intention of my point without resorting to semantics, but in any case, I guess I'm missing the logic because right here you say:



> We incorporate some boxing into Kajukenbo and use some of the bagwork  combinations as well. We also train for how to defend against boxing  attacks (as well as many other types of attacks). *But if I'm going to be  attacked in the street, it will likely be when I look like a victim  ripe for the picking (though I hopefully don't ever come off that way). I  may be sick, drunk, obviously injured (maybe wearing a cast or on  crutches) or old etc. In any event, I will not likely be in top  condition when someone decides to attack "lil old me".*


 Hmmm.....I thought that's what I said - predators don't pick on those that look like they can fight back. Are you disagreeing with me or you?



> As to your other point: I'm not insecure in the least. I, for instance, don't recall complaining about my training, nor implying that it needed to be bolstered by something outside of the art I train in. It seems that not only are you expecting me to be able to disregard what you actually wrote, but you are also reading into my posts things I never said.


Fair enough, although the whole "my style needs no help" vibe comes across maybe a bit too strongly IMHO. There's no shame if it did. The creators of your style thought enough of boxing to include it, didn't they? 



> Yeah, you're right about reframing my own question. However, I'm also not advocating an over-reliance on any one target or method of attacking it.


Fair enough.



> Well, in common parlance, when someone says "you're screwed" if certain conditions exist, it doesn't mean that you're at a disadvantage; it means "game over". I wasn't trying to say that one isn't impeded by being sick etc., but rather one didn't have to be "screwed" if that were the case provided one had been trained to deal with an attacker in a way that didn't rely on one being healthy or in good shape.
> 
> Perhaps we're at another of those points where we are using the same lingo to mean different things.


OK, but I think the characterization that boxers (for example) are _relying_ on their conditioning is inaccurate. They are relying on their _skill_, just as we are, with their conditioning being an attribute of the type of training that they do. 

But maybe we are indeed closer to the same point than it appears. Our training seems to have run in similar lines, for all the disagreement that we have had here, LOL.


----------



## Danjo

MattJ said:


> Hmmm. I'm not sure that makes sense. If they've taken _aspects of boxing_, they would have had to have learned some boxing along the way, yes? I think I actually get what you're saying, but it seems like you're splitting hairs, IMHO.


 
Well, increasing the intensity of one's training and improving one;s conditioning doesn't require learning boxing, but I think we do get each other's point.



MattJ said:


> Heh, you are indeed taking my statement totally literally, and I did not properly qualify it. I guess I assumed that both of us had been around long enough to know that there are no absolutes in martial arts. I was hoping that you would address the clear intention of my point without resorting to semantics, but in any case, I guess I'm missing the logic because right here you say:*But if I'm going to be attacked in the street, it will likely be when I look like a victim ripe for the picking (though I hopefully don't ever come off that way). *
> 
> Hmmm.....I thought that's what I said - predators don't pick on those that look like they can fight back. Are you disagreeing with me or you?


 
Once again, if you'll notice my qualifier of "likely" then the whole thing becomes clear. From what you wrote in your previous post, that seems to be what you meant also. Chalk it up to miscommunication/misunderstanding.



MattJ said:


> Fair enough, although the whole "my style needs no help" vibe comes across maybe a bit too strongly IMHO. There's no shame if it did. The creators of your style thought enough of boxing to include it, didn't they?


 
Yeah, but they blended it into the fabric of the art. We don't train it seperately as a distinct discipline. We have always been a "Mixed Martial Art" since the beginning. The founders got together and formed a martial art based on their various areas of expertise and used Prof. Chow's 5th degree student Adriano Emperado's Kenpo as the framework to build it on. So it wasn't really "added" to Kajukenbo as something seperate.





MattJ said:


> OK, but I think the characterization that boxers (for example) are _relying_ on their conditioning is inaccurate. They are relying on their _skill_, just as we are, with their conditioning being an attribute of the type of training that they do.
> 
> But maybe we are indeed closer to the same point than it appears. Our training seems to have run in similar lines, for all the disagreement that we have had here, LOL.


 
Boxing is a sport that relies on endurance in order to beat down one's opponent in the hopes of out pointing them or else knocking them out. The boxers like Tyson, Foreman, Liston, Shavers etc. that could regularly knock out someone in a few seconds were rare, which is why they garnered such fame and public interest. Even then, When Tyson tried it out on the street against Mitch Green, he broke his hand. All in all, I would rather train in something else for self defense. Like I said before, there's nothing wrong with boxing as such, and we do indeed have elements of it in Kajukenbo, but even though Emperado, Tiwanak and Parker all boxed in the days before their martial arts training, they all went on to study Kenpo and Kajukenbo. That alone can tell you where they thought that boxing fit in terms of it's usefulness as a self defense art.

But then, those guys trained seriously back then. They weren't dilettantes when it came to the martial arts like so many today are. I think that a lot of the reason that boxers are so impressive to martial artists today is because those that box, tend to take it very seriously compared to the average martial artist training at a strip mall and earning their black belt in a year. 

But like I said, to me the corrective is to train more seriously in Kenpo etc., rather than to take up boxing.


----------



## MJS

Thesemindz said:


> First time I went up against a boxer was a real wake up call.
> 
> He was just a beginner student at our Kenpo school, and I was Billy The Brown Belt Badass. And the first time he hit me with a jab to the face sure surprised the hell out of me.
> 
> He wasn't even that good a boxer, but it was a different fight then I was used to. Totally different head movement, body movement, stepping, blocking, striking. Strikes coming from angles I wasn't used to. A different mindset towards defense and offense. It was a real challenge.
> 
> I was used to a lot more circular striking, and a longer range that allowed for kicking. He came right at me with short jabs and high crosses, which was very unlike the karate style sparring I was used too, and blew up my defense.
> 
> I learned later that my instructor had pawned him off on me after jamming his shoulder blocking trying to spar the kid himself.
> 
> He was a good dude, with a good attitude. And he took those boxing skills right into kenpo and did well there too. And I learned a lot from that fight and opened up a whole new dimension to my fighting. I started working with other guys in the school who had boxing experience and working their drills into my training.
> 
> I've had the same experience fighting BJJ guys, and Muay Thai guys, and Capoeria guys, and Shootfighting guys, and Tae-Kwon-Do guys. That's why I continue to try to train with them when I can.
> 
> Because you can get real, real good at beating up the other students at your school, but when you get thrust into a situation you are inexperienced with it can be more of a challenge than you might think.
> 
> I think it's very important to share your skills with students of other arts, and learn from what they have to share. It's the best way to improve against their styles, and it helps you to recognize more clearly the mark of a trained fighter or a novice.
> 
> I've picked up a lot of great material that way, without having to sacrifice what I've learned about kenpo.
> 
> 
> -Rob


 
Hey Rob,

Yes, I can relate to this.  When I started training with my new teacher, he had asked me what my goals were, what I wanted to focus on with him.  In addition to learning the material that was taught at his school, I had also mentioned that I wanted to focus on improving my punching skills.  Our sparring that we did, was more boxing oriented, and yes, I too, ate some hard shots from him. LOL.  Good stuff though, and IMO, it was a wake up call for me, due to the fact that all I had pretty much grown up with in my MA journey, was the typical point sparring stuff.  

We would often record our 'fights' and watch them after, to critique them, and I'm happy to say, that my boxing/punching ability has greatly gone up.  

In addition, we'll also mix it up more MMA like.  So in addition to defending against the hard, fast shots coming in, I'm not only working on offense and defense, but also entering in to clinch, work knees, elbows, etc.


----------



## MJS

KENPOJOE said:


> Hi folks!
> Dear MJS{Mike}
> As far as the "standing like a statue, while the other guy blasts away with 10+ strikes" comment, My response: You've got to start somewhere. Do the ideal phase to get the understanding of the cheoreograhy of the technique and the understanding of reactionary positioning. Start working with higher levels of intensity only when a thorough understanding and performance of the base techique is acheived.If you cannot perform the technique correctly in the first place how can you fare successfully against a skilled practitioner who thoroughly knows HIS technique!
> I am definitely one of those individuals who benefit from learning and teaching multiple arts and how it answers many questions regarding the kenpo/kempo sstyles/systems I study/teach. If we truly do those techniques "'til we are blue in the face" then you are following one of the major terms I teach all of my students*..."Learned technique becomes instinctive reflex through repetition!"*
> in other words, do the technique until you are sick & tired of it...THEN DO IT SOME MORE!
> By working with master grapplers like David German, I appreciated grappling more and he had me look at that aspect with a more discerning eye.But the previous statement still held true.
> If we do not train these techniques without logical progression & a logical progression of contact and intensity then we will simply dismiss a technique with "that technique sucks" or "that doesn't work" and it will be an inaccurate statement.
> I hope that I was of some service,
> KENPOJOE


 
Hey Joe,

Yes, I agree, we do need to start somewhere.   I had a similar discussion over at KT with Doc.  I had said that while we should start off slow to get the basics down, it seems like some aren't taking into consideration the fact that it needs to be taken up a notch, ie: add in some resistance/aliveness.


----------



## MJS

Dan and Matt...you guys have a good debate going as well.  I had started this thread a while ago, to address the very topic you're both discussing.
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=87719

Anyways, since its being talked about here, I'll toss in my 2 cents.   Regarding fitness...chances are, we're all working a 40 or more hr. work week, thus, we probably dont have all the time in the world to train, such as the guys in the UFC do, or pro boxers, etc.  Those guys go to 'work' in the gym, whereas we go to an office, a school to teach, a LEO, etc.  

I do think that fitness is important, we're probably never going to reach that peak performance, so as Dan said, instead of relying on that superior strength/conditioning, we should take into consideration that not everyone is going to be the energizer bunny. LOL.  I need to be able to function if I just got done working 16hrs, am totally exhausted, and some jerk decides he wants my car, I need to function if I have the flu and so on.  

I dont think that we, as martial artists need to be capable of running 10mi. but we shouldn't be gasping for air when we walk across the room either.


----------



## Hand Sword

Something to note about the "all encompassing" arguments, Boxing also shows up as "dirty Boxing"m now a days, and looking at that and what is implemented (along with once used, and now illegal moves), it looks very similar to martial arts' movements (Very similar). A comparison of methods of use would be interesting, especially in this debate.


----------



## Danjo

Hand Sword said:


> Something to note about the "all encompassing" arguments, Boxing also shows up as "dirty Boxing"m now a days, and looking at that and what is implemented (along with once used, and now illegal moves), it looks very similar to martial arts' movements (Very similar). A comparison of methods of use would be interesting, especially in this debate.


 
It is interesting to look at the differences between modern boxing and the old bare knuckle variety. I have dvds on both "Irish Bare Knuckle Boxing" and "Dirty Boxing/Extreme Boxing" and both are informative and pretty good. It is a lot different than the gloved sport. The area of the hand that one hits with, the chopping motions and elbows, the use of the forehand for chopping, back fisting and marking rather than jabbing for the most part, etc. etc.

It was also a more precision fighting form than the modern variety due to not having the hands wrapped and gloved. Boxers tended to pick their openings more carefully etc. than they do now (at least the good ones who didn't just flail away).


----------



## Thesemindz

Danjo said:


> It is interesting to look at the differences between modern boxing and the old bare knuckle variety. I have dvds on both "Irish Bare Knuckle Boxing" and "Dirty Boxing/Extreme Boxing" and both are informative and pretty good. It is a lot different than the gloved sport. The area of the hand that one hits with, the chopping motions and elbows, the use of the forehand for chopping, back fisting and marking rather than jabbing for the most part, etc. etc.
> 
> It was also a more precision fighting form than the modern variety due to not having the hands wrapped and gloved. Boxers tended to pick their openings more carefully etc. than they do now (at least the good ones who didn't just flail away).


 
On a related note if you haven't recently I recommend everyone go back and watch _Far and Away _with Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman. For the fights. The bareknuckle boxing scenes are pretty interesting.

Tom Cruise also punches a horse.


-Rob


----------



## Danjo

Of course, there's always "Foxy Boxing" to consider adding to your training. I'm constantly studying it for ideas.


----------



## Blindside

Hand Sword said:


> Something to note about the "all encompassing" arguments, Boxing also shows up as "dirty Boxing"m now a days, and looking at that and what is implemented (along with once used, and now illegal moves), it looks very similar to martial arts' movements (Very similar). A comparison of methods of use would be interesting, especially in this debate.













These are some of the versions of Filipino boxing.  This is what my kenpo has sort of morphed into as I got deeper into Kali.


----------



## LawDog

I live in an area thats considered a long time boxing area so I know and have also trained in both boxing and kickboxing.
Agreed, boxing is not the best all around martial art however in the street a boxer can stand his own. 
There is no martial art that is best suited for the street. Every art has it's strong points and weak points.
Boxers, much like the MMA boys, can take serious punishment. I have seen many boxers train well into their 50's and 60's. These older boxers do not fight in the ring anymore but they still do "club house" light matches.
Boxing is an art, they just don't stand there and trade strikes. They use,
*various types of blocks including "bob and weaves",
*utilize various types of footwork,
*apply tactics,
*use modern training techniques
*each school has their own "battle tested" presets,
*practice live drills,
*use all types of striking equipment.
If you stand across from an equally skilled boxer you will get hurt, badly.
:ubercool:


----------



## MJS

LawDog said:


> I live in an area thats considered a long time boxing area so I know and have also trained in both boxing and kickboxing.
> Agreed, boxing is not the best all around martial art however in the street a boxer can stand his own.
> There is no martial art that is best suited for the street. Every art has it's strong points and weak points.
> Boxers, much like the MMA boys, can take serious punishment. I have seen many boxers train well into their 50's and 60's. These older boxers do not fight in the ring anymore but they still do "club house" light matches.
> Boxing is an art, they just don't stand there and trade strikes. They use,
> *various types of blocks including "bob and weaves",
> *utilize various types of footwork,
> *apply tactics,
> *use modern training techniques
> *each school has their own "battle tested" presets,
> *practice live drills,
> *use all types of striking equipment.
> If you stand across from an equally skilled boxer you will get hurt, badly.
> :ubercool:


 
This is kinda the point I was trying to get at with this thread.


----------



## Hand Sword

1. A martial artists ability to control the movements and attacks by an adversary.

2. Having a developed sense of timing. (when to attack, how to attack, etc..)

3. Developed patterns of attack and defense.

4. Defensive tactics such as ducking, bobbing, weaving, and rolling with strikes. 

5. Takedowns: throws, trips, sweeps, pins, pushes, pulling, proper grips/grabs/holds, turning, twisting, grappling and choking. The use of mat work and offensive and defensive ground work (Which I have noticed. Many grapplers I know focus on the offensive side and not so much defensive. This is evident when watching MMA stuff. They grapple, if not applying, they seem clueless and basic. Also noted was off balancing techniques.

6. Using the opponent's attack against them.

7. Using different strikes and executing them properly (This ties in to training the basics properly)

8. Sense development. (awareness training for immediate response)

9. Proper footwork and patterns, like staying on the balls of the feet instead of flat footed. (Karate vs Boxing)

10. Physical Body development--to withstand punishment. (I've seen this debate on these forums many times-lol) (goes to commercialization debates too)

11. Utilizing SPECIFIC hand and foot combinations (Karate vs. Boxing training methods)

12. Use of feints, deflections, parries, leading and misleading tactics. The claim is also that many styles were too strict in systemized sequences, making them predictable, and leaving no room for Tailoring to one's specifics (This was a good debate to!)

13. Development of proper breathing.

14. Getting familiar with the major and lesser know vital areas.

15. Using both hands to block and strike at the same time.

16. Chi development as it increases inner strength.

This all came out of Count Dante's Book "World's Deadliest Fighting Secrets" (1968) in the things lacking in the arts section. In spite of the man and book, I think there are some valid points here which have been debates, so I'm interested on any thoughts? Discussions? Opinions? It fits right into this debate too.


----------



## MJS

I'd say alot of that can already be found in Kenpo, although a few things may not be focused on as much, ie: the grappling and staying on the balls of your feet for better movement and some stuff isn't, from what I've seen, focused on at all in Kenpo, ie: bobbing/weaving.


----------



## Entryteam

Anyone who says that a kenpo person would NOT benefit from some boxing training has lost his mind.


----------



## Entryteam

LawDog said:


> I live in an area thats considered a long time boxing area so I know and have also trained in both boxing and kickboxing.
> Agreed, boxing is not the best all around martial art however in the street a boxer can stand his own.
> There is no martial art that is best suited for the street. Every art has it's strong points and weak points.
> Boxers, much like the MMA boys, can take serious punishment. I have seen many boxers train well into their 50's and 60's. These older boxers do not fight in the ring anymore but they still do "club house" light matches.
> Boxing is an art, they just don't stand there and trade strikes. They use,
> *various types of blocks including "bob and weaves",
> *utilize various types of footwork,
> *apply tactics,
> *use modern training techniques
> *each school has their own "battle tested" presets,
> *practice live drills,
> *use all types of striking equipment.
> If you stand across from an equally skilled boxer you will get hurt, badly.
> :ubercool:


 

LawDog speaks the truth.


----------



## Flying Crane

Entryteam said:


> Anyone who says that a kenpo person would NOT benefit from some boxing training has lost his mind.


 
anyone who makes broad and sweeping generalizations has lost his mind.


----------



## Entryteam

how, exactly, was that a "broad and sweeping generalization"???


----------



## Doc

Flying Crane said:


> anyone who makes broad and sweeping generalizations has lost his mind.



Mike, there's somethings you just can't fix.


----------



## Entryteam

i was just trying to AGREE with the posters who supported the idea that boxing training would benefit any Kenpo practitioner.  Did i do something wrong?


----------



## Flying Crane

Entryteam said:


> i was just trying to AGREE with the posters who supported the idea that boxing training would benefit any Kenpo practitioner. Did i do something wrong?


 
no, not exactly, but the way you expressed your opinion was a little over the top.  I mean, that really WAS a sweeping generalization, and one that a number of experienced kenpoists and students of other arts would not agree with.

If you like boxing, then train boxing.  If you feel YOUR kenpo could benefit from training in boxing, then box.  If you want to train boxing to have a better idea of what a boxer might do if you had to fight him, then train in boxing.  Nobody's going to argue with you about that.

But when you make a statement proclaiming that kenpo needs boxing to improve it, and anyone who can't see that is nuts (my paraphrase of your statement), you are going to get some arguments.  Not everyone here feels it's necessary, and I'd wager that a number of people here might see it as detrimental to their kenpo.

Don't be shy about joining the discussion.  But if you make strong statements, you are going to take a bit of heat for them.

Welcome aboard.


----------



## Entryteam

alright... consider me sufficiently chastised.


----------



## LawDog

Entryteam,
You shouldn't feel like you did something wrong by expressing your point of view, you should stand by it. Everyone has their own opinon about things and this is what makes life so interesting. At one time or another almost everyone here has been attacked by expressing their point of view. Unless proven wrong the strong will stand by it.
Lawdog.


----------



## Entryteam

I guess I just felt that the MANNER in which I did it came across wrong, not the CONTENT.  I still believe and stand by what I said.  

Just being a peacemaker is all.

Thanks, Lawdog.


----------



## Hand Sword

Just some food for thought. Since the end of January I've been lifting, running, and Martial Arting. Within the last few months, I've been full blast on all like a beast. No longer sore after workouts and gaining a little strength, in the spirit of this thread, I tried a boxing workout. A little while getting 5 punches down, then one more added for a 6 punch combo. Then 6- 3 minute rounds, starting with 2 punches, then adding the next each round, until all 6 go for 2 rounds.

Guess what!

In spite of the weights, and the Martial arts full bore--upper body is stiff and a little sore-LOL!! So, for the sake of the thread, For body and muscle development, the 2 arts go very well together. Each prepares differently.

Side note: It was a great experience!


----------



## Flying Crane

Entryteam said:


> I guess I just felt that the MANNER in which I did it came across wrong, not the CONTENT. I still believe and stand by what I said.
> 
> Just being a peacemaker is all.
> 
> Thanks, Lawdog.


 

I agree with what Lawdog said, if you believe in what you say, don't be afraid to say it.  But don't be surprised if people disagree and debate and argue with you about it.  Goes with the territory.


----------



## Danjo

Entryteam said:


> Anyone who says that a kenpo person would NOT benefit from some boxing training has lost his mind.


 
You're presuming that someone's Kenpo is lacking in such a way that they would automatically benefit from boxing. In fact, you're saying that everyone in Kenpo is lacking something that can only be cured by training in boxing, and if the Kenpoist disagrees, then he or she has lost their mind.

As I said before, I repeat here: the cure for bad Kenpo training is good Kenpo training, not boxing. Nothing wrong with boxing per se, but it's not the cure for poor Kenpo training.


----------



## Entryteam

It has nothing to do with whether or not their kenpo is lacking... it's that anyone can benefit from boxing.  The conditioning, the timing, the defense, the alive training environment, learning to take and give hits/punishment.... anyone can benefit from this.  And i honestly don't see how anyone can miss that.

-R




Danjo said:


> You're presuming that someone's Kenpo is lacking in such a way that they would automatically benefit from boxing. In fact, you're saying that everyone in Kenpo is lacking something that can only be cured by training in boxing, and if the Kenpoist disagrees, then he or she has lost their mind.
> 
> As I said before, I repeat here: the cure for bad Kenpo training is good Kenpo training, not boxing. Nothing wrong with boxing per se, but it's not the cure for poor Kenpo training.


----------



## Flying Crane

Entryteam said:


> It has nothing to do with whether or not their kenpo is lacking... it's that anyone can benefit from boxing. The conditioning, the timing, the defense, the alive training environment, learning to take and give hits/punishment.... anyone can benefit from this. And i honestly don't see how anyone can miss that.
> 
> -R


 
If boxing had the monopoly on the best ways of doing things, then everyone would box and there would be nothing but boxing.  

Howabout if I turn what you have said around and approach it from the opposite side: It isn't that boxing or other methods are lacking, it's just that anybody can benefit from training kenpo.  The down and dirty approach, the "anything goes" mentality, the disregard for rules that limit competitive pugilistic sports...anyone can benefit from this.  And I honestly don't see how anyone can miss that.

do you agree with this?


----------



## Danjo

Entryteam said:


> It has nothing to do with whether or not their kenpo is lacking... it's that anyone can benefit from boxing. The conditioning, the timing, the defense, the alive training environment, learning to take and give hits/punishment.... anyone can benefit from this. And i honestly don't see how anyone can miss that.
> 
> -R


 
You're presuming that their Kenpo is lacking the things you mention: conditioning, timing, defense, alive training , learning to take hits etc. and that they need boxing to get them. That may not be the case that one's Kenpo lacks these things, and if it is, then they should implement them with their Kenpo, not by adding boxing IMO.

To me it's like arguing that one should play tennis to improve one's baseball skills. Both involve hitting a ball with an implement and require accuracy and coordination etc., but they are totally different.

If one were already well versed in boxing and wanted to beef up one's street abilities, then they should look into "Dirty Boxing" or "Extreme Boxing" as it is sometimes called to round out what they already know how to do. The above will teach them low level kicks, elbows and knees, head butts, use of the shoulders as striking weapons, rabbit punching, hammer fists and chops, ear cupping, etc. etc. and make their sportive art into a well rounded self defense art. All of it will enhance what they already know. But I wouldn't tell them to study Kenpo to improve their boxing.


----------



## MJS

I view the boxing the same way I do the grappling and the weapons work, that I do outside of Kenpo.  My goal with the grappling isn't to spend another 20yrs learning every sub, lock and choke, but instead to take some of the basics, drill the hell out of them and add them to my toolbox.  I think we've talked about the pros and cons of boxing.  In no way am I trying to become a pro boxer, any more than I'm trying to become a world class grappler.  I think that its safe to say that people could and most likely would benefit from boxing like training, just like they'd benefit from some solid ground work.


----------



## Flying Crane

I think everyone ought to take a good hard look at their own kenpo, their own training, and how they do it.  Then decide if something is lacking.  If so, what might be the best way to shore it up.  Make a decision for yourself and your own kenpo.  But stop trying to tell everyone else what they need.  Everyone ought to make their own assessment and decision about this.

Talking about what YOU get out of something is one thing.  But telling everyone else that THEY need to do something is quite another.  Honestly, it's obnoxious.


----------



## Entryteam

we'll have to agree to disagree then.





Danjo said:


> You're presuming that their Kenpo is lacking the things you mention: conditioning, timing, defense, alive training , learning to take hits etc. and that they need boxing to get them. That may not be the case that one's Kenpo lacks these things, and if it is, then they should implement them with their Kenpo, not by adding boxing IMO.
> 
> To me it's like arguing that one should play tennis to improve one's baseball skills. Both involve hitting a ball with an implement and require accuracy and coordination etc., but they are totally different.
> 
> If one were already well versed in boxing and wanted to beef up one's street abilities, then they should look into "Dirty Boxing" or "Extreme Boxing" as it is sometimes called to round out what they already know how to do. The above will teach them low level kicks, elbows and knees, head butts, use of the shoulders as striking weapons, rabbit punching, hammer fists and chops, ear cupping, etc. etc. and make their sportive art into a well rounded self defense art. All of it will enhance what they already know. But I wouldn't tell them to study Kenpo to improve their boxing.


----------



## Flying Crane

Entryteam said:


> we'll have to agree to disagree then.


 
then are you prepared to point out the shortcomings in Danjo's training?  Are you in a position to know how he trains, and what he's lacking?

blanket statements...


----------



## Entryteam

NOT a blanket statement.... and I said I disagreed with him and we'd just have to agree to disagree.  I don't have to point out ANYTHING about Danjo, as I didn't say anything about him in the first place.


----------



## Flying Crane

Entryteam said:


> ... it's that *anyone can benefit from boxing*. .... *anyone can benefit* from this. *And i honestly don't see how anyone can miss that*.
> 
> -R


 


Entryteam said:


> NOT a blanket statement.... and I said I disagreed with him and we'd just have to agree to disagree. I don't have to point out ANYTHING about Danjo, as I didn't say anything about him in the first place.


 
looks like a blanket statement to me. And I'd include Danjo in "anyone". So if you want to make a statement and say "anyone", you've got to be prepared to support your case when a specific example arises. I'd say Danjo is as good an example as anyone else...


----------



## Flying Crane

Entryteam said:


> we'll have to agree to disagree then.


 
what part of that do you disagree with?  Do you feel one ought to train tennis to improve one's baseball skills?  Do you believe that nobody's kenpo includes the conditioning and alive training and contact levels that you speak of?  Are you opposed to the "dirty boxing" that Danjo mentioned?  He brought up a number of points, are you saying you disagree with them all?


----------



## Entryteam

Im saying that I contend that anyone could and would benefit from boxing.... he disagrees.  He makes good points, and so do I.  Therefore... we have met an impasse.  So, I'll agree that we disagree and move on with my life.




Flying Crane said:


> what part of that do you disagree with? Do you feel one ought to train tennis to improve one's baseball skills? Do you believe that nobody's kenpo includes the conditioning and alive training and contact levels that you speak of? Are you opposed to the "dirty boxing" that Danjo mentioned? He brought up a number of points, are you saying you disagree with them all?


----------



## Flying Crane

Entryteam said:


> Im saying that I contend that anyone could and would benefit from boxing.... he disagrees. He makes good points, and so do I. Therefore... we have met an impasse. So, I'll agree that we disagree and move on with my life.


 
OK, what about this part?  I think everyone ought to study kenpo to fix whatever else it is that they are doing...do you agree with my position?



Flying Crane said:


> If boxing had the monopoly on the best ways of doing things, then everyone would box and there would be nothing but boxing.
> 
> Howabout if I turn what you have said around and approach it from the opposite side: It isn't that boxing or other methods are lacking, it's just that anybody can benefit from training kenpo. The down and dirty approach, the "anything goes" mentality, the disregard for rules that limit competitive pugilistic sports...anyone can benefit from this. And I honestly don't see how anyone can miss that.
> 
> do you agree with this?


----------



## Entryteam

I think some kenpo training would benefit someone, yes.  FIX.... don't know.... but i think cross training benefits anyone.  




Flying Crane said:


> OK, what about this part? I think everyone ought to study kenpo to fix whatever else it is that they are doing...do you agree with my position?


----------



## Flying Crane

Entryteam said:


> I think some kenpo training would benefit someone, yes. FIX.... don't know.... but i think cross training benefits anyone.


 
Crosstraining CAN be a benefit and I don't object to it automatically.  I think it depends on what one seeks to gain from it, for what reasons.

I personally might agree with some reasons more than others, but it's the decision of the individual to either do or not do.

I don't believe it is necessary per se.  Some people might benefit from it, others will not.  Again, it depends on what their goals and reasons for training are, and it depends on how well the training they have received already meets those goals and reasons.

Switching to a different instructor in the same art could radically alter how well the goals are being met, either for better or worse.  It depends.

There are simply too many variables.  To say that crosstraining will benefit anyone is too broad.  You are making that judgement based on your own biases, training history, and goals.  Those variables can be quite different for other people.  Crosstraining for some people could do more harm than good to their training.


----------



## MJS

Entryteam said:


> but i think cross training benefits anyone.


 
I agree with this.  As I've said in other posts, people could view their training a few different ways.  For example...

1) They could be content with their training on face value.  Work the material thats in the system, over and over and over, and never look at anything else.  They're content with the punch defenses, the grappling defenses, the weapon defenses, etc.

2) Work the material, but dont be afraid to look outside of the box.  Begin to examine the material and make sure that it makes sense to you.  Can you do it with the utmost confidence?  Will it work against someone trained in a specific area?  Perhaps take a look at BJJ and an art, such as the FMAs, that specialize in weapons.  Will your Kenpo takedown defense work against someone trained in BJJ?  If so, great.  If not, then figure out why not.  

For me, I'm in the #2 group.  I train the basics of BJJ.  I'm not ranked, nor do I choose to be.  IMO, its not the color of the belt thats gonna save my ***, its the skill set.  I am ranked in Arnis.  I've found that by having more weapons knowledge, that I'm more in-tune to the defenses, and I've often compared the FMA and Kenpo defenses.  Personally, I favor the ones from Arnis.

I've never told anyone that they must cross train, instead, I've told people the importance of looking outside the box, and forming their own opinions on things, rather than listening to someone who's telling you, "Yes, yes, yes, these defenses WILL work!!!"  Umm...thats fine...but I dont care if they work for you, I want them to work for ME, as *I* will be the one doing them to save myself. 

Anyways, keep up the good work with your training.  Your profile says that you're ranked in Kenpo and BJJ, so its obvious that you're into cross training, and IMO, thats a good thing.


----------



## MJS

Flying Crane said:


> Switching to a different instructor in the same art could radically alter how well the goals are being met, either for better or worse. It depends.


 
I agree with this.  I've done this, and IMO, its made my Kenpo training advance ten fold.


----------



## Entryteam

I can say that crosstraining benefits anyone because that's what i believe. No, it's not too broad. It's my opinion. If you don't like it, then we can simply agree to disagree. See how that works?

Good training to you.




Flying Crane said:


> Crosstraining CAN be a benefit and I don't object to it automatically. I think it depends on what one seeks to gain from it, for what reasons.
> 
> I personally might agree with some reasons more than others, but it's the decision of the individual to either do or not do.
> 
> I don't believe it is necessary per se. Some people might benefit from it, others will not. Again, it depends on what their goals and reasons for training are, and it depends on how well the training they have received already meets those goals and reasons.
> 
> Switching to a different instructor in the same art could radically alter how well the goals are being met, either for better or worse. It depends.
> 
> There are simply too many variables. To say that crosstraining will benefit anyone is too broad. You are making that judgement based on your own biases, training history, and goals. Those variables can be quite different for other people. Crosstraining for some people could do more harm than good to their training.


----------



## Flying Crane

Entryteam said:


> I can say that crosstraining benefits anyone because that's what i believe. No, it's not too broad. It's my opinion. If you don't like it, then we can simply agree to disagree. See how that works?
> 
> Good training to you.


 
all the best.


----------



## MattJ

I think part of the problem is viewpoint. Some people here are viewing their martial arts training in a broad, non art-specific context. In that view, there is nothing wrong with adding valuable assets from other styles, because the goal is not to improve XYZ style, but to improve the martial artist themself. 

Others here are taking an art-centric view, which presumes thorough enough knowledge of the chosen art to be able to recognize and formulate style-coherent improvements. This is pretty rare in my experience, but not unheard of. 

Neither one is wrong.


----------



## K831

I agree with the statement that simply changing instructors and schools within the same style can be a big help. Having done it several times, its been interesting to see the same exact art applied in a different way, or certain aspects of that art focused on that I hadn't given much time to before. 

I am generally and advocate for (some) cross training. However, I am not an advocate ofncross training just for the sake of cross training. 

I think it very much depend on who, when and why. 

Examples; 

1.) New students to the arts in general. If I had a brand new student come into my school to learn kenpo, and ask me if I thought he should join the Muay Thai school or the Hapkido school on his free night, I would tell him to pick the one that suited him best (not just style, but atmosphere etc) and stick with it until a solid base was established. Brand new martial artists who jump right into multiple arts usually flounder and experience slower progress, in my experience. (this of course depends on drive, athleticism, time etc) 

2.) Don't just cross train  because you "should". No where you are in your base art, what you feel you need to supplement it with, why you feel you have a deficit in that area, check to see if you can't fill that deficit in your own art first, and have a plan for what you want to get out of your "cross training" art. Unless it is looked at with that degree of scrutiny, I find that most students wanting to cross train simply don't understand their own style, and hadn't put the time in to fix the majority of their weakness. Cross training acted as a band aid on the symptom, not the cause. 

3.) Consider if the rifle or the shotgun approach serves you best. Many arts like Kenpo have such depth and require such mastery of mechanics that one can spend a lifetime "rifling in" on that art alone to become as proficient as the art will allow you too. Other arts are more simply learned and don't require as much attention to detail. Some students may be better served by taking the shotgun approach, ie. spread out your training and take a little pellet from this style and that. 

I think saying "everyone will benefit from cross training" is a bit too hasty. I could agree that "at some point" everyone will benefit, but I am hesitant to do so because it may not fit their goals. I suppose my statement would be "I agree that cross training in other arts after establishing solid skills in your base art will benefit anyone who wants to increase their ability to fight in a broader range of situations and contexts." 

How's that for a mouth-full.


----------



## Hudson69

I think that both sides would benefit from cross training and looking at different techniques.


----------



## Entryteam

I agree... there is ALWAYS more to learn.

If you spend one month in boxing and added one or two new things to your tactical toolbox... it was a well spent month.

Same for any other system.




Hudson69 said:


> I think that both sides would benefit from cross training and looking at different techniques.


----------



## Flying Crane

I agree that there are people who have received poor training in kenpo or another system, and for those people, yes they would benefit from crosstraining in boxing.  Actually, they'd simply benefit from finding a GOOD teacher in any system, boxing or otherwise.


----------



## LawDog

In todays society there is no one system that can "properly" cover all of the various types of street situations or can they "properly" deal with all of the various types of modern / tratitional fighters and their systems, this would take a life time to do. To say that one system can is, to me, a very broad statement.
The reason that I say this in order to make a blanket statement like this the systems founders and / or his seniors should have encountered or crossed trained in all. In todays martial arts there are very few that have done this or have even been involved in a few "real" street confrontations. In my opinon in order to properly teach how to fight against someone from another system, old or new, either you or your instructors should have a good working knowledge of the system. Prior to a fight professional fighters will have their trainers scout out their opponents and gain knowledge about their systems techniques.
So it is not a bad thing for a martial artist to learn about a system that they are having a problem dealing with or who want to gain more personal skills from.
If your not into cross training, this is ok, many are not, have fun in what you do. 
If you are into cross training then enjoy it and gain any knowledge or skills that you can.
Follow your beliefs and let others follow theirs, time will always show a true path.
:ultracool


----------



## James Kovacich

Entryteam said:


> I agree... there is ALWAYS more to learn.
> 
> If you spend one month in boxing and added one or two new things to your tactical toolbox... it was a well spent month.
> 
> Same for any other system.


Agreed but if your going to do it, try doing it right. Your Kenpo won't be forgotten by taking a break from it and may even benefit from a break. Train exclusively in boxing for about six months or maybe 3 exclusive months and 3 crosstraining months. The "exclusive" reasoning comes seeing the results 1st hand. As far as the hands are concerned, there is a big differance in a boxers hands vs a kickboxers hands. 

Many think they can learn how to box by taking kickboxing. We can learn "some" boxing from a kickboxing instructor but why settle for any less than quality instruction when the real thing is available.


----------



## Sensei Payne

I didn't take the time to read all of the posts, but I did skim.  

Being that I started out with eastern style boxing, and then slowly switched to Ryukyu Kempo, i find that I am using more of a Eastern Boxing stance with Kempo take downs, and Wing Chun Striking.

For me, its just what comes out over the years of training, so when I have started to train someone brand new off the street, with no prior training at all, I usually start with Boxing, since its what the general public is more acquainted with. Not only the familiarity of it, but it gets the heart rate up, boosts confidence and lays a ground work for basic body mechanics.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

I am a kempoist cross training in boxing, and i have found that it helps. This is mainly because i've gotten used to training with a different atmosphere around me than the atmosphere i had during kempo. Crosstraining anything is always good, it helps teach new skills and get used to different types of attacks, as well as find your own personal style.


----------



## Doc

kempodisciple said:


> I am a kempoist cross training in boxing, and i have found that it helps. This is mainly because i've gotten used to training with a different atmosphere around me than the atmosphere i had during kempo. Crosstraining anything is always good, it helps teach new skills and get used to different types of attacks, as well as find your own personal style.


Actually cross training is only a good idea if all of the avenues you train are subpar, and might benefit from exposure to the other. Good Kenpo training should include all of the appropriate skills of western boxing as a part of its structure, in my opinion. Otherwise. its effects are detrimental, in that you are training synapsis at cross purposes to each others applications.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

.


----------



## Cyriacus

Whats that figure of speech?

Jack Of All Trades, Master Of None.

People who specialize are better at what They specialize in.
That said, some Arts can blend easy.
Like Boxing and Wrestling.

EDIT: That said, I dont agree with the statement being replied to about everything needing to be subpar to Crosstrain. Its more a question of the Systems, and why Youre learning.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

> Actually cross training is only a good idea if all of the avenues you train are subpar


 Why do you say that? No style is great at everything-they all have things they are sub par in, but also have things they are above par in (hopefully, otherwise its just not a good style lol). The important thing is to find whats good and bad in the different styles and keep the good(or what you consider good) of each style. Imho, it's only when they discard the good and keep the bad that its detrimental. For instance, if you trained in Judo, then learned Muay Thai, the Muay Thai would be beneficial because while Judo is great in close, it is nowhere near as good as muay thai if you can't close the distance. That's when the muay thai should kick in, and make you good at both distances. The only way i can see this as a bad thing is if you discard Judo's throws in favor of something like Muay Thai's punches (not saying they're bad, just for the example) and ignore Muay Thai's kicks for a similar reason, but i have faith most people are able to distinguish which is better/more effective when seeing two different ways of doing a certain thing.


----------



## Kframe

Im young at martial arts, only got 1 year in.  I got my start in boxing and then moved on to mma.  Boxing has served me well everywere i have been. The defensive manuvers, not just covering up,  work. The parrys(which IMHO are undertuaght in boxing) the picks, the single and double arm blocks and of course the slip and duck and weave and bob. I have used them all to good effect in mma.  When i first started MMA i knew i was going to take leg kicks, so i watched videos of them and how to defend them. Found out the easiest way to defend a leg kick was to check it. So first day when  that leg kick came in i knew what to do and was able to deal with it.   

Now i have since gone to another mma gym with a entirely differnt style.  My new gym has alot of Kenpo in it, some boxing and muay thai and alot of Ju jitsu.  In fact im busy trying to learn some kenpo combinations, IE 5 swords, glancing wings,ect. In addition to learning more active traditional deflections.  I have found that mixing my boxing with the kenpo has been easy for the most part. My hang up is learning to fight at what boxing consideres the in fighting range. I also struggle with learning to strike with something other then my fist.(knife hand,elbow, backfist)  Thanks to learning how to punch in boxing i can apply the same biomechanics to the kenpo combinations and they hit the training aids hard and with a satisfying thwack.   Disturbingly for me, im finding that as i pick up more kenpo im dropping some boxing.  For instance im using the single arm block(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrfyBGir0w0&feature=player_embedded) allot less now, instead using body movement and deflections a lot more. Which bothers me as i dont want to loose that skill. 

I think that one does not need to learn boxing to improve there kenpo. Having said that, they can take BOXING TRAINING METHODOLOGY not the techniques but the way they train them and use that to improve certain aspects of kenpo. For instance, i find focus mits(with a body protector if doing kicks and knees) to be AMAZING.  Thats just one training method you can use from boxing that would be benificial to all.  What the boxing supporters are saying is, you dont need to train boxing, to use there methodology to improve your martial art. Heavy bags, focus mits, and what not. Another big thing we did in boxing was a form of controlled sparring for defense practice.(I still do this)  We would gear up and start sparring, but this time for the 2-3 rounds, we take turns. One guy only tries to strike, the other defends. The tempo starts out slow and builds up.  The striker(usualy a coach or senior student) will call out occasionaly what he wants you to do or what he is going to throw so that the defender can work on specific things.  I love this, it helps me rep all of my defenses, against someone moving and throwing at me with power. If i miss, i feel it. I LOVE IT. 

Again, you dont need boxing to use there methodology to train. You can find the methodology on line with a quick google search and implement what you want and leave out what you think is useless.  I will always love boxing, i has been nothing but benificial to me, and continues to help me in all my martial studies.


----------

