# Basics, Basics, Basics



## Goldendragon7 (Mar 29, 2005)

Probably the most important part of Kenpo  (or any martial art for that matter)  is the basics and their development.    After all, those of us with strong American Kenpo backgrounds that were close to  Ed Parker (not just attended seminars occasionally) or that have trained with  his top students, know that this is paramount.

The Kenpo system that Ed  Parker left us with is unparalleled if one really knows the in's and out's of  it.  There is rime and reason to everything.   His life's work is outlined in  his Infinite Insights series.  Although not all is clear, hints are there  if one knows how and where to look.

Although there are 3 divisions or our  Art, Basics are prevalent in all the areas.  The better acquainted you get with  these basics the greater your skill will be as you progress.  Many of the  problems or issues that arise in training usually are traced back to either non  existent or inadequate basics development.   Proper understanding and delivery  of torque (rotation) of the arms and body is a huge factor, stabilization of  base, timing of the various parts of the body to achieve unified body harmony  etc.  

Many do not realize that the forms, sets and self defense  techniques are just drills designed to develop these areas to their max.  Sure  there are many other factors that we learn from these tools as well, such as  coordination (which incidentally is one of the most basic and fundamental  necessities in the early stages of training), physical exercise, awareness,  speed, multi striking, cross & same-side limb coordination,  and much much  more.   However, without the emphasis on the basic development of body  mechanics, you will never achieve your maximum potential.  How can you deliver a  strong punch or kick if you are off balance or your body is not coordinated to  execute the physical actions needed?  To block a punch, kick or any type of  attack (I am not even talking about the ability to intercept or  react to an attack stimulus, which is an area entirely unto itself) takes  much practice on many factors and conditioning (mental as well as physical) to  become skilled.

The different areas of our system were developed and  organized to achieve just the results many of us desire.  Yet, I see so often  many getting into a specified area of a training drill (such as: is it supposed  to be a backfist or a sword hand strike here) in which the realistic answer  could be either.   

*Don't Major in Minor things.*  Look to what is  really necessary to be a great martial artist.  That answer is  BASICS.

If I gather 25 different Kenpo Instructors together, and we watch  3 students doing a variety of different Kenpo movements,  I can guarantee that  no matter what _specific technique_ or variation of the same is executed,  no matter what "version" of that form or set is, we _*all*_  will agree on the execution of great basics.

Body  rotation
Balance
Foot and hand formations
Realm of actions (outer  rim)
Coordination
Awareness (eye contact and positions)
Foundation  development
Summation of force
Directional  Harmony
others...


 your thoughts...........

 :asian:


----------



## Simon Curran (Mar 29, 2005)

Thank you sir,

great stuff,
I just got the Infinfite Insights books, and am busy reading #1, all the while Mr Parker's writing stresses basics, development of basics, and application of basics, but to see the basics listed as such puts things into context, stuff I have obviously always worked on but never realised...
If that makes any sense...


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Mar 29, 2005)

SIMONCURRAN said:
			
		

> Thank you sir, great stuff, I just got the Infinite Insights books, and am busy reading #1, all the while Mr. Parker's writing stresses basics, development of basics, and application of basics, but to see the basics listed as such puts things into context, stuff I have obviously always worked on but never realized...


 Well the truth is..... you can know all the mental knowledge (curriculum, principles, sequential orders, forms, sets, freestyle drills, sayings, pledges, analogies, breakdowns, patterns etc. etc.....) you want, but if you can not move in a coordinated and efficient manner physically..... it won't matter. If you can't rotate into your blocks and strikes, then all the delayed swords will be useless. Just LOGIC and fact.

  Now  you know what the salutation means...... physical (iron worker) *AND* mental  (watch maker) or some say Warrior and Scholar.


  :asian:


----------



## Simon Curran (Mar 29, 2005)

Once again thanks sir, the "ping" light just went on again...


----------



## Seabrook (Mar 29, 2005)

Dennis,

I couldn't agree more with you.

My questions for you are this: 

(1) What is your take on the quality of basics of American Kenpoists today as as opposed to when you were going through the ranks?

I see a LOT of variability in the quality of basics in AK black belts, but I would be interested in your overall assessment.

(2) Are basics classes (i.e. bag work, pad training, sparring drills) being underutilized, on average, in AK schools today? If so, do you think this has to do with the over-analytical approach that some instructors take when teaching students self-defense techniques? Or perhaps are instructors too concerned about their students learning all of the required material for testing purposes, rather than being concerned in their overall basic fundamentals?


Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Mar 29, 2005)

Seabrook said:
			
		

> Dennis, I couldn't agree more with you.  My questions for  you are this:
> 
> (1) What is your take on the quality of basics of American Kenpoists today as opposed to when you were going through the ranks?
> 
> ...


  The quality of basics of American Kenpo today is exactly the same as it was when I came up thru the ranks. Depending upon the *quality and emphasis* of the material taught and trained by  the individual instructor will depend on the quality of the basics. There were great instructors back then, and there are great instructors today. Keep in mind, the amount of "mental" knowledge 35 to 40 years ago was 75% less than today, so the main emphasis was on what was prevalent during that time ....... the physical execution of basics.

 The difference that I notice is the lack of actually teaching and more importantly the training of those basics today. My original instructors (Lonny Coots, Gary Swan, & Steve LaBounty, ) were train-a-tholics they paid close attention to details and physical execution with loads of drills. We developed strong students back then and there is no difference today except more understanding of said material with added mental knowledge.

 The general climate of the world today however, has IMHO became somewhat soft, there is soooo much material now (pledges, sayings, principles, forms, sets, principles, system architecture Kenpo tools defined and much more information in books that have been published by Ed Parker) that few want to really learn the system and physically train hard. Most spend time with too much of the mental aspects and not enough physical drilling. Lots of red stripes with little or no back up to support the ranks in either knowledge, teaching ability, or demonstrateable skill has seemingly become the goal.




			
				Seabrook said:
			
		

> (2) Are basics classes (i.e. bag work, pad  training, sparring drills) being underutilized, on average, in AK schools today?
> 
> If so, do you think this has to do with the over-analytical approach that some instructors take when teaching students self-defense techniques?
> 
> ...


 As I stated prior Yes I believe that many of the physical training drills ARE being underutilized or emphasized, but again it depends on the instructor, I know of a few instructors that still put out killer students (although not necessarily well known globally) I would definitely want them in my corner.

 Yes, some do over analyze but that has always been the case. There are some very well known Kenpoists from the '60's that learned how do develop technique variations and made their living by teaching hundreds of similar movements, thus creating a huge system that is dominant with redundancy (IMHO). I mean why keep learning (and spending years continually memorizing) several hundred variations for belt ranks when you can learn the "keys" and let the student (at 3rd Black and higher) use these keys and develop new arrangements for themselves. Constantly memorizing sequences all his life and never be able to concentrate on the fundamental keys till he is old and grey defies logic.

 Many instructors are concerned with keeping the studios doors open. That equates to allowing the general public to dictate progress by having to promote people to ranks they don't necessarily deserve. 

 I maintain, that if the instructor is better versed in his system and sales ability, he can teach and develop an attitude with his students that show them the way to *quality* and *reality* with what he is teaching and not just the issue of what their friends at another studio have achieved (you know...... the .... "Joe my friend at the other club in town received his black belt in 2 years" kind of stuff).

 Having depth of knowledge on our system is paramount but then teaching and drilling that depth in all the aspects are equally important!

 You learn to become more knowledgeable, you train to become more proficient, you teach to gain more understanding. Then, you learn to forget, you forget to become instinctive.

   "*Basics* are the Heart of the Art"

   :asian:


----------



## Seabrook (Mar 29, 2005)

Goldendragon7 said:
			
		

> I mean why keep learning (and spending years continually memorizing) several hundred variations for belt ranks when you can learn the "keys" and let the student (at 3rd Black and higher) use these keys and develop new arrangements for themselves. Constantly memorizing sequences all his life and never be able to concentrate on the fundamental keys till he is old and grey defies logic.
> 
> :asian:


Thanks for the input Dennis. One more question if I may. 

I have several students who have all of the AK techniques memorized, along with all of the forms and sets - and are darn good at them. But what about those adult students who just can't for the life of them remember all of the names of techniques, and have trouble remembering so many techniques? 

In many respects, I see the advantages of the 16 technique system over the 24, although there's many people I know that think the 16 technique system is by comparison garbage. But even with the 16 system, I have a few students in their fifties that are really struggling with the memorization process. What do you typically do with these students?

Cheers,

Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Mar 29, 2005)

Seabrook said:
			
		

> Thanks for the input. One more question if I may.
> What  about those adult students ( I have a few students in their fifties that are  really struggling with the memorization process) who just can't for the life of  them remember all of the names of techniques, and have trouble remembering so  many techniques?
> Jamie Seabrook


 Heyyyyyyyy watch it on  the fifties thing............. :whip:  I resemble that remark......:ultracool  jk (be kind to us old folks) take your dose of patience pills  when dealing with this group.....

 I have had relatively little problem  with this.  The solution is for the older students is simply.... practice -  practice - pracitce.   Most older students don't take or have the time that kids  do since they have jobs, bills, obligations etc., etc., so many don't put in the  time that they should/need  to be familiar with the material.  

 Many  instructors make this worse by teaching to much material to the students before  it is absorbed properly and thus compounding the problem.  Training (synonymous  with repetition) is the answer.  I have adjusted my teaching methods to  accomplish this in many ways.... I review constantly with students which has 2  benefits..... 1) it reviews and imbeds the material.... 2) serves as great  physical conditioning at the same time... thus killing 2 birds with 1 stone, but  it has to be done consistently, lesson after lesson.... group or  private.

 Pete and re-pete were in a boat...... Pete fell out who was  left?  You answer.... ____________  then I say Pete and re-pete were in a  boat...... Pete fell out who was left?   lol  



			
				Seabrook said:
			
		

> In many respects, I see the advantages  of the 16 technique system over the 24, although there's many people I know that  think the 16 technique system is by comparison garbage.
> Jamie  Seabrook


 Well, I have used *ALL* the different  curriculums...... from the 600 to the 32 to the 24 and now I have been using the  16 technique system for nearly _*18*_ years and I find tons of  benefits.   As to the opposition to the 16..... well, each to his own.  The 16  "arrangement" is the same as the 24 in content just spread out a bit (which  really helps with the problem you are having)  so I don't understand the  "garbage" part myself  (guess I'm just a little more educated on the subject   :uhyeah since I was involved with it when Mr. Parker was  organizing it (just as he did when he adjusted and developed the early "open"  curriculum of hundreds into the 32 set in the '60's, then turned the 32 set into  the 24 set about 10 years prior).

 So, you tell me why some criticize what  Mr. Parker did....... to me if they criticize one series ..... they must have to  feel the same about the rest... hmmmmm unless they are in a comfort zone and  like what they were taught and used to..... hmmmmm I wonder.  LOL

 At any  rate.... IMHO the bottom line is.... it doesn't matter if you use the 32, 24, or  the 16..... they are all Ed Parker's works and the main issues are the  principles and Kenpo Tools that drive any of these different curriculums  regardless of the arrangements.   Look at the Primary Points to the art and not  the minuscule irrelevant arrangements.  Learning is learning no matter what the  arrangement.  Learn the Art and don't spend time wondering about arrangements.   Logic me thinks.  LOL

 :asian:


----------



## Seabrook (Mar 29, 2005)

Cool. Thanks Dennis. I agree with your analogies of the 32, 24, and 16 technique system. 

Jamie Seabrook

www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 29, 2005)

I think the most underappreciated basic you mentioned is the outer rim theory. There is another thread in the Hopkido section asking when and where parries start and what maneuvers you would use to acheive them, and my answer would be that blocks and parries arent what you do, but what happens when your opponent strikes and you use the outer rim theory. It can also be a deciding factor in what tech you perform against a given attack. Just a question for y'all to chew on... Is the egg right side up or upside down?  why?
Sean


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 29, 2005)

I wish we did a bit more training on basics in my studio. It would seem to make much more sense as a warm up than the calisthenics we perform. Early on in my training, we were reviewing material before a test, and the instructor started calling out basics with which I was completely unfamiliar. 

Well, not completely unfamiliar, I had seen the basics listed on the left side of the belt journal, but we never reviewed them. There is just not enough of this training ... I am a bit more concious of the basics today.

Concerning how 'hard' we train .... I want to train hard enough to push myself, but not so hard that I punish myself. As the body ages, being able to get up for work in the morning is, perhaps, a bit more important than proving how tough (or is it stupid) I am. I want an honest work-out of body and brain. 

I have been training for a bit over four years now. When I leave the studio, I almost always feel better than when I arrived at the studio. Why wouldn't I continue 

Mike


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Mar 29, 2005)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> I think the most underappreciated basic you mentioned  is the outer rim theory. Sean


 Well, if you overreach or don't  reach far enough you could find yourself in a jam. LOL..... I don't know if it  is underappreciated but it certainly is an essential part of our range awareness  and usefulness.

 :asian:


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Mar 29, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> It would seem to make much more sense as a warm up  than the calisthenics we perform.
> Early in my training, we were reviewing  material before a test, and the instructor started calling out basics with which  I was completely unfamiliar.    I am a bit more conscious of the basics  today.
> Mike


 I love to start class with either running in place  for a couple of minutes or jumping rope.  A few classic calisthenics are not bad  but I don't do tons of them (only about 5-10 minutes) when I can achieve the  same or better success with our Kenpo Basics.

 Doing power punching and running through several of the  hand movements (blocks, parries, punches, strikes, finger techniques etc. etc.)  and within different stances, can be very physically demanding not to mention  developmentally great.

 :ultracool


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 29, 2005)

Goldendragon7 said:
			
		

> Well, if you overreach or don't  reach far enough you could find yourself in a jam. LOL..... I don't know if it  is underappreciated but it certainly is an essential part of our range awareness  and usefulness.
> 
> :asian:


What I meant was that even with the theory, people block when they don't have to, and that blocks become parries (or make no contact what so ever) at the angle change. Over reach is only part of the lesson.


----------



## Simon Curran (Mar 29, 2005)

The thing is, I think, that a lot of instructorswill work basics, just not categorize them as such, that has been my experience at least, since my instructor always has us warming up with stance training / bag work / blocking / kicking set etc...

Just my observation.:asian:


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 29, 2005)

DC,

Not a Kenpo Practitioner, but a question if you would not mind?

Could you see or imagine the basics changing over time for the same person?
Meaning could you see what a person beleives or thinks are the basics, get new basics etc, ..., as they train and learn more?

Thank you


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Mar 30, 2005)

SIMONCURRAN said:
			
		

> The thing is, I think, that a lot of instructorswill work basics, just not categorize them as such, that has been my experience at least, since my instructor always has us warming up with stance training / bag work / blocking / kicking set etc...
> 
> Just my observation.:asian:


 Well, that is possible for sure!

 :asian:


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Mar 30, 2005)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> DC,
> 
> Not a Kenpo Practitioner, but a question if you  would not mind?
> 
> ...


  Don't mind at all for you Brother  Parsons!!

 I don't think the Basics would change over time however, I think the way in which we view or define them could. Basics are just that..... BASIC but the way in which we utilize them or view them from different perspectives as we mature could very well enhance our application and definition or usage of said basics. 

  Great thought!!!   You 'da Man!!   (or are  you just trying to keep me on my toes........ LOL)

  :asian:


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 30, 2005)

A bit of cross-pollination here ... As Kenpotalk was coming on line - I had posted all of those items listed as 'BASICS' in my schools curriculum for reference and discussion on that board.

Others took up the cause and started adding their own 'BASICS' when referring to items that the school that I study at does not include as a 'BASIC', such as 'Warm-Ups'.

So, I guess this begs the question ... what is the definition of a BASIC? And sorry, GoldenDragon7, but you can't use the term to define itself ... (e.g."_Basics are just that ... BASIC_").

I am certain I do not have an accurate definition, and I hate to assume that we are all talking about the same thing when we use the word. So ... how about this ... or perhaps there is a more specific definition around.

*Basic* (bA - sik) - adj. - and individual move or position which constitutes a fundamental point or action.​Another definition I have :
Simplified moves that comprise the fundamentals of Kenpo. They are divided into stances, maneuvers, blocks, strikes, specialized moves and methods.​Does anyone have a more clear, or more official definition?


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Mar 30, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I am certain I do not have an accurate definition, and I hate to assume that we are all talking about the same thing when we use the word.
> 
> So ...  What is the definition of a BASIC?
> 
> ...


 The following are what I use as basics ....... but not just the learning of the move itself but how it is delivered or executed, the formation of it, and/or  the application.

 Stances
 Blocks
 Parries
 Punches
 Strikes
 Finger Techniques
 Kicks
 Foot Maneuvers
 Body Maneuvers

 %-}


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 30, 2005)

Goldendragon7 said:
			
		

> Don't mind at all for you Brother  Parsons!!
> 
> I don't think the Basics would change over time however, I think the way in which we view or define them could. Basics are just that..... BASIC but the way in which we utilize them or view them from different perspectives as we mature could very well enhance our application and definition or usage of said basics.
> 
> ...



Thank you for the reply, and I would state that it might be both, but we will go with just the later.


----------



## bdparsons (Mar 30, 2005)

It's always good to remember that on any given day, regardless of the amount of material you've learned, you will be no better than your basics.

Bill Parsons
Triangle Kenpo Institute


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 30, 2005)

Goldendragon7 said:
			
		

> Stances
> Blocks
> Parries
> Punches
> ...


Care to expand on 'Body Maneuvers'? 

I have lists of the others from my studio. I know Infinite Insights talks about some body maneuvers (Bob and Weave - Dive - Roll, etc). Are those on your Basics list?


----------



## Bode (Mar 30, 2005)

I agree with everything stated so far. Basics are the most important aspect of AK. I would like to point out one more thing. 

 Basics have applications that, at first, are not obvious. I'm sure you are all aware of this, but it requires mention. 

 An upward block suddenly becomes an arm break. A slap check suddenly becomes a strike when you elongate your circles. A vertical outward block becomes a strike to the jaw hinge (depending on range). 

 The most amazing aspect of Kenpo is the sophisticate basics. You can be performing a slap check for years and suddenly you realise the inherent advanced concepts within. However, unless the steps are taken to learn HOW to deliver the proper upward block and slap check, you can never learn the advanced aspects of the block. I could spend day's analyzing Short 1 and only scratch the surface of what is contained in the form. 

 More importantly, in a confrontation most will tend to rely on the basics more than anything else. Suddenly basics are the difference between life and death. Makes you think twice about being in a hurry to get to black.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Mar 30, 2005)

2 points to Smallville for hitting the nail on the head. That's really pretty much the name of the game, Bode. Years of practice lead to years of discovery, which lead to more years of practice. The unfolding layers of the Lotus.

The assumption of knowledge is the greatest barrier to learning.

Regards,

D


----------



## kenpoworks (Mar 30, 2005)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> The assumption of knowledge is the greatest barrier to learning.
> 
> So true.
> It is also the barrier that trips us all up occasionally!
> ...


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Mar 30, 2005)

Bode said:
			
		

> I agree with everything stated so far. Basics are the most important aspect of AK. I would like to point out one more thing.
> 
> Basics have applications that, at first, are not obvious. I'm sure you are all aware of this, but it requires mention.


 
 Like I said in an earlier post..... "as we mature could very well enhance our _*application*_ and _*definition*_ or _*usage*_ of said basics". 




			
				Bode said:
			
		

> The most amazing aspect of Kenpo is the sophisticate basics.


 Absolutely...... embryonic or sophisticated....... doesn't matter.... they are still basics.....  I't wouldn't be the awesome system that it is if we didn't have new insights as we progress.......  *wink*




			
				Bode said:
			
		

> You can be performing a slap check for years and suddenly you realise the inherent advanced concepts within.


 Well, when I _slap _someone... *they know it* and I always _check_ after all maneuvers.... block, strike, kick or whatever!


 :ultracool


----------



## thesensei (May 7, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> So, I guess this begs the question ... what is the definition of a BASIC?
> *Basic* (bA - sik) - adj. - and individual move or position which constitutes a fundamental point or action.​Another definition I have :
> Simplified moves that comprise the fundamentals of Kenpo. They are divided into stances, maneuvers, blocks, strikes, specialized moves and methods.​Does anyone have a more clear, or more official definition?



Well, I found a definition in my notes "straight from the horse's mouth" (no disrespect intended :ultracool ).

Mr. Parker said (I believe in a video that I saw a while back):



			
				Edmund K. Parker said:
			
		

> Basics are all physical moves or gestures executed with specific intent or purpose.  Depending upon how they are employed, they can be defensive, offensive, or can accomplish both purposes simultaneously.  They can be used to oppose, ride, borrow, or steal force. Fake, sprain, dislocate, fracture, rupture, maim, rip, tear, claw, hook, poke, slice, rake, buckle, check, maneuver, trip, grab, block, twist, pinch, butt, bite, throw, pull, along with numerous other accomplishments.



This is a very broad definition...and I think rightly so.  Remember, each self-defense technique consists of individual basics executed in a logical fashion for a specific intent or purpose.  The sets and forms are the same way.  If you have strong basics, it will be relatively easy to learn the flow of self-defense.  If, on the other hand, your basics physical movement is lacking, your self-defense will be weak.  

Hope this helps answer your question.

Salute,
JB


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 8, 2005)

There's a lot of piety about basics. But from what I can see on these forums, and from what I've seen at a limited set of tournaments, whatever the majority of people say, there're relatively few who will actually practice them.

It seems they are too busy improving things.


----------



## Bode (May 8, 2005)

> There's a lot of piety about basics. But from what I can see on these forums, and from what I've seen at a limited set of tournaments, whatever the majority of people say, there're relatively few who will actually practice them.


 I could not agree more. The majority of the time you don't even see a forward bow and, if I am not mistaken, that is pretty damn basic. 



> It seems they are too busy improving things.


 ...Or too busy trying to move as fast as possible... which I think is probably more common. It's easy to move fast when basics go out the window.


----------



## Brother John (May 8, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> There's a lot of piety about basics. But from what I can see on these forums, and from what I've seen at a limited set of tournaments, whatever the majority of people say, there're relatively few who will actually practice them.
> 
> It seems they are too busy improving things.


I'm not sure what you are saying with the last bit, but with the first paragraph...I think you are right on. There seems to be relatively few who are really into working hard on the fundamentals! That's because, I think, there are relatively few who exercise common sense and are willing to really drop sweat and work hard at the very foundation of their systems.

That's also why excellence is uncommon. 

Your Brother
John


----------



## Brother John (May 8, 2005)

Bode said:
			
		

> ...Or too busy trying to move as fast as possible... which I think is probably more common. It's easy to move fast when basics go out the window.


AGREED. 
People who throw out quality in exchange for rapidity *lose* in the end. Diminishing returns doesn't even begin to describe it!
BUT: if a person can keep the other important qualities and capitalize on greater speed...all the better! Greater speed is only a detriment when you throw out the other important parts of the equation to get it.

But the basics, the foundation, *MUST* be strong. Without a firm and well established foundation....how can the structure built from it be any good??

Your Brother
John


----------



## Brother John (May 8, 2005)

bdparsons said:
			
		

> It's always good to remember that on any given day, regardless of the amount of material you've learned, you will be no better than your basics.
> 
> Bill Parsons
> Triangle Kenpo Institute


WOW Bill!!!

You are on an absolute ROLL of good quotes. That one's going in my notebook.

Your Brother
John


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 8, 2005)

I agree. For example, about the last time--and I mean the last time--I was on KenpoNet, I had a bit of a discussion with a guy who'd been discussing how he taught inward blocks. 

He'd changed the block, and didn't know it. I asked why he didn't just teach the basic to beginners the way it's laid out in Parker's manuals and books; he told me we need to evolve. I told him that I'd rethought the way I was teaching Short 1, and put the hammering inward block back in more clearly; he told me that that violated the concept of point of origin, which was why he'd changed it. I explained why that wasn't the point; others chimed in and told me that they didn't teach blocks out of a horse stance, that was obsolete, they taught a neutral bow right away. I asked about the neutral bow they were doing; it turns out they were doing a modified side horse, really, and didn't know it. In between, of course, there was the usual phantasmagoria, mine and theirs.

I realize that I am by some standards a bit...stick-in-the-muddy. But I wonder at the endless excuses for not just working the basics properly, usually on the grounds that they're, "old-fashioned," or (unspoken, but what the problem is), "too boring."

The basics are only boring and old-fashioned when people don't know what their point is, either in terms of practice or in terms of their own internal development.


----------



## Brother John (May 8, 2005)

I seldom do more than skim the subject lines of KenpoNet, tends to be way too political...   that's one area of Kenpo that I get very sick of. I think that even though many of us come from very different 'camps' or schools of thought on Kenpo... we shouldn't let were we 'come from' or where the other guy does come between us or persuade our thinking/biases in one way or the other. I think I've been very guilty of this way of thinking, and I wish I hadn't. I hope to overcome it. BUT: the exact opposite tends to be the case, especially on KenpoNet. It tends to be a Kenpo-Politics and personal attack it would seem. Too bad really, I don't think that the forum host ever intended it for that.

Anyway...I didn't read the thread you are talking about. At least, I don't think I did, so I'm not really qualified to speak on the merits of the argument. I do teach/train the inward block from the practice horse-stance first and then move on to other blocks. Helps me keep it in a kind of perspective really. Different people see different things as the 'foundation' or fundamentals of their art. Truth be told though, whatever we end up doing the most of with the greatest frequency IS the foundation. So if doing the inward block like that fits their paradigm...so be it. Wether or not I agree or do it that way doesn't really enter into the parameters of this discussion I don't think. IF that's their "foundational way" of teaching and training that block...then that's it and that's what they should focus on.

My argument really is that a good deal of people don't focus enough on what comprises the very foundation of their art. I like the way that Bill put it, your application of your art is only as good as your basics. ((paraphrased obviously)) I think that if you look at a lot of sports or crafts, areas where there are people who've reached the HIGHEST levels of DOING something...I think you'll find that it's not the "advanced" things that really make them great, but that they can do the most basic of things in the clutch moments with a high level of consistancy. People like that make the fundamentals seem advanced.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Bode (May 8, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> ...they taught a neutral bow right away. I asked about the neutral bow they were doing; it turns out they were doing a modified side horse, really, and didn't know it.


 I was involved in that thread only to try to clarify the discussion. Then as the thread went on I discovered that we did not agree on the approach. One of these days I have to sit down and see if I can communicate, in words, what would take two minutes in person. I'll try to find the time to do it sometime soon and post it on this forum. (Honestly, MartialTalk seems a bit more civil than Kenponet)

 I think we can all agree that the Forum's cause some miscommunication. I am sure some day we will be at the same seminar/event and be able to have a polite conversation about Kenpo and discover that we agree about more things than previously thought.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 8, 2005)

1. I agree, BroJo, about skimming KenpoNet--and it took you a lot less time to learn why than it took me.

2. I'm afraid that that old-time religion, is good enough for me--I feel, rather strongly, that kenpo types fiddling about with a teaching system they do not understand is one of our basic problems.


----------



## Brother John (May 9, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 1. I agree, BroJo, about skimming KenpoNet--and it took you a lot less time to learn why than it took me.
> 
> 2. I'm afraid that that old-time religion, is good enough for me--I feel, rather strongly, that kenpo types fiddling about with a teaching system they do not understand is one of our basic problems.



1. Yeah, sooner or later seems like even people with the best of intentions gets 'stung' there. Oh well. Doesn't mean I NEVER post there, but seldom.

2. I think I understand your problem, at least in regards to the AKKI. *BUT:* I pose that you arrive at this conclusion with only partial information to go on and a strong bias against it to begin with. The person to have done the changing for us has been Mr. Mills. You assume that he's "fiddling" I believe he's got good reasons. You believe that he may not "understand" the teaching system...I say he does. Thing is, we are both biases we'll probably never convince one another. That's ok. I'd just like things to be a civil as possible I guess. As he was a 10 year private student of Mr. Parker, served on the the I.K.K.A. Systems Council (One of only three members, therefore 'understanding' the system) and was the IKKA National Testing Director...I think that these credentials go a LONG way toward saying that he had and does have an unusually Strong grasp of the American Kenpo system and how it works.
But hey, I didn't want to set out to sell you on the AKKI. I know it wouldn't do anygood anyway. 
What I appreciate about you Robert is that you seem to have a conservative approach to your Kenpo training. I admire your passion for it too, in that we are more alike than different.
I'd like it if we could discuss Kenpo more without feeling like one or the other of us is trying to take pot-shots at one another's 'camp' or side of the line. Really...the 'line' is pretty darned artificial. It seems like your 'problem' with the AKKI tends to get brought up by you a lot. This makes me (and I think some others) feel like you are looking down your nose at us and judging us. I'd guess that's where much of the rankling comes from.

I need to go to bed. I'm rambling on again.

Your Brother
John


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 9, 2005)

While I agree with 99 & 44/100% of your post, I might also point out that it is very seldom that I mention either a) Mr. Mills, or, b) the AKKI, either directly or indirectly.


----------



## Sigung86 (May 11, 2005)

I seem to recall a story/legend passed to me by someone many years ago about SGM Parker and basics.  It could be a legend, but it sounds reasonable.

SGM Parker let it be known that at one particular class he was going to teach the secrets of Kenpo.  A larger than average number of people showed up and he took them through several hours of intense basics.  

If you don't have them, then all the flash in the world is going to only end you up on your butt.


----------

