# Kenpo Training



## HKphooey (Mar 31, 2006)

Looking for opinions/thoughts (I know that can be dangerous J )

I will start out that this is for open training and self-defense, not specific curriculum material. (When I teach, I teach what is supposed to be taught.)

I have been training in the martial arts for 18+ years (mostly kenpo).  I have gone to numerous seminars and have trained with some great martial artists.  I have read all GM Parkers, and in most cases numerous times.  In my reading and discussions, I find many kenpo artists stating the same thing  We are supposed to take what we learn and scientifically adapt it for ourselves and specific situations.  For years I tried to go the strict EPAK route and found too many individuals stating I was executing a certain strike, block or technique in a different (and incorrect) manner than what was part of the EPAK curriculum.  I have also trained in Tracy kenpo and have blended the two, dropped some things form one or the other.  I founded great things in both.  Yet, when I attend some seminars or read some posts, instructors and students seem to say that is not the way GM Parker (or any other teacher) said it should be done.  Or that will never work.  

At this stage in my training, I like to formulate my own ideas, thoughts and variations of techniques.  Being 67 and 220 lbs (37 legs and monkey arms) has is advantages and disadvantages.  I have made the necessary modifications to the techniques so that the material will work for me. I am always open to anyones critique of my performance as long as they back it with their reasons and have an open mind to why I may do what I do. I read and utilize each of your posts in my training.  I enjoy hearing other martial artists opinions on why/how techniques may work or not work.

So I guess I am confused when I read or hear how GM Parker wanted his instructors and students to think outside box and then get told my methods are wrong  with the only reason being, It is not how GM Parker (or another instructor) said it should be done.  

What are your thoughts?


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 31, 2006)

I think a musician must have a thorough grasp of the scales and harmonic structures that make up a song before attempting to improvise.

Perhaps, martial artists sometimes skip the 'woodshedding' phase of training to get onstage for the first performance sooner. 

Mr. Parker's words about adapting his principles to fit the practitioner become a justification for getting to the spotlight sooner.


----------



## MJS (Mar 31, 2006)

HKphooey said:
			
		

> Looking for opinions/thoughts (I know that can be dangerous J )
> 
> I will start out that this is for open training and self-defense, not specific curriculum material. (When I teach, I teach what is supposed to be taught.)
> 
> ...


 
Great thread!! Upon reading your post, I found myself thinking the exact same thing! Considering GM Parker had many different students, to think that everyone is going to perform the material the same way, as if everyone was a robot, programmed to move exactly the same way, is foolish, but yet, there are some people who insist that "their" way is 'The' way to do things. Another thing that I could never understand, is why some poeple sit here and say that things will never work, but yet when they're questioned as to why, they are unable to provide an answer, and if they do provide one, it is a limited one at best. 

IMO, the art should be tailored to the person, not the person to the art. I've had the pleasure of seeing your material and working out with you, and it is apparent to me, that you're making the art work for you, and that is all that should matter. 

Many times, when people hear someone say something negative about a technique, they usually reply with, "Well, thats because you don't have a good understanding of it." or "Your teacher does not understand the technique, so that is why you don't understand it." As I said above, everyone is going to have a different understanding, so it does not always mean that a different interpretation is wrong. I for one, have to go with the cards that were dealt to me. I live in CT, not CA, so while I may not be privy to the 'top guys' out on the west, I have had the pleasure of training with many wonderful people here. If it wasn't for those people, I probably would never had been exposed to the art of Kenpo.

I've taken many ideas from the various arts I've trained in, as well as the people who I've trained with. I've listened to many different views, thoughts, etc., and have taken that, and have made 'my' interpretation of Kenpo. Over the years that I've taught, I've received many compliments on my teaching, so obviously I'm doing something right. Is my way the best way? Nope, but what I do works for me, so IMHO, that is all that matters.

Mike


----------



## stickarts (Mar 31, 2006)

HKphooey said:
			
		

> Looking for opinions/thoughts (I know that can be dangerous J )
> 
> I will start out that this is for open training and self-defense, not specific curriculum material. (When I teach, I teach what is supposed to be taught.)
> 
> ...


 

The art was constantly evolving and who knows exactly what direction the art would be taking today if GM Parker was still with us? The more that you achieve, criticism from others is unavoidable. Take the criticism that you think is valid and disregard the rest.  
Also, in the end, it is YOU that has to make the technique work for YOU and no one, even a GM, can really be a final judge on that. It all ends with you and what you believe and can make work from your own experience. 
Also, I don't really think that there are many that really are qualified to appoint themselves as a spokesperson for any GM. 
As has been pointed out in other threads, the art was changing so rapidly that GM Parker himself might make one statement in one class, and say something different a short time later.
If it works for you it's right.


----------



## kamishinkan (Mar 31, 2006)

I do not train in Parker related Kempo but the Kempo form (Kamishin Ryu) I train in expects the practitioner to COMPLETELY learn the given waza to understand the principles that make the technique work. *After that*, adapting the PRINCIPLES to work better under a given situation is not only reasonable but a must for individual martial ability. BUT, I find far too often, that a student gets an understanding of techniques (usually Shodan/Nidan) and all of a sudden begins to develop "new ways" according to their limited knowledge (no offense to anyone, I think I did it myself at that level). Usually, the more we learn the principles that make the techniques what they are, we begin to see a whole playing field of possibilities that fit in with the principles learned. This is the way we do it and probably is not the way for others. No offense to anyone intended.


----------



## stickarts (Mar 31, 2006)

kamishinkan said:
			
		

> I do not train in Parker related Kempo but the Kempo form (Kamishin Ryu) I train in expects the practitioner to COMPLETELY learn the given waza to understand the principles that make the technique work. *After that*, adapting the PRINCIPLES to work better under a given situation is not only reasonable but a must for individual martial ability. BUT, I find far too often, that a student gets an understanding of techniques (usually Shodan/Nidan) and all of a sudden begins to develop "new ways" according to their limited knowledge (no offense to anyone, I think I did it myself at that level). Usually, the more we learn the principles that make the techniques what they are, we begin to see a whole playing field of possibilities that fit in with the principles learned. This is the way we do it and probably is not the way for others. No offense to anyone intended.


 

That makes perfect sense that a level of proficiency and understanding needs to be developed before a student starts to do their own thing. Hopefully even that can be turned into a learning experience if you try something new and find out it doesn't work! :0) I have especially seen that in sparring when you learn the hard way! :0)


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 31, 2006)

If you have been training seriously for 18 years, you should certainly feel free to do things however they make sense to you.  Keep an open mind, consider what others might say, but ultimately call the shots for yourself.  When you are ready to start asking questions like this, you are ready to make your own decisions about it.  There is no one right way or one wrong way to do things.  This stuff is just a bunch of tools in your tool box.  Use the right tools for the job, in the way that makes the most sense to you.

I have made significant changes in the Tracy kenpo that I learned, but didn't start doing this until I had been training martial arts (not just kenpo, but other arts offering other perspectives as well) for about 20 years.  I think perhaps it takes about that long to digest what you have learned and start to realize that it really is OK to make changes.  The things we practice were created by a man, not a god.  This stuff is not sacred, and it can be changed, when it makes sense to change it.


----------



## Carol (Mar 31, 2006)

Depends on the changes though, doesn't it?  

HKPhooey is nearly a foot and a half taller than I am.  It seems logical that his techniques would need to be a little different than mine. 

Is a target truly a worthy target if one has to overreach in order to connect with it?


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 31, 2006)

We learn the system through prescribed attacks and prescribed responses. In actual execution, we may need to modify weapons and targets. But without the prescribed foundation, those modifications may weaken the system. 

I was taught that Kenpo forms, while not representing an actual fight, are implied to have an invisible attacker of similar size and build; when doing eye slices, don't put the invisible opponents eye 2 feet apart.

It would seem to me that when learning the system, it is most effective to work with partners of similar size. As we advance, it is important to work material on different size and shape bodies (at my school, there is a student to whom, I am unable to apply a bear hug .... his circumference is too great). 

As we advance, we learn ways in which we can tailor the system to the specific circumstance. But those times should not dictate an alteration of the system, itself.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 31, 2006)

lady_kaur said:
			
		

> Depends on the changes though, doesn't it?
> 
> HKPhooey is nearly a foot and a half taller than I am. It seems logical that his techniques would need to be a little different than mine.
> 
> Is a target truly a worthy target if one has to overreach in order to connect with it?


 
Of course.  The changes I made for myself might not work on him, since I am a mere 5'10" and 155 pounds.  With his size difference, he is going to be able to do things that I would never get away with, and vice versa.  he needs to answer the questions, and make the changes for himself.


----------



## lenatoi (Mar 31, 2006)

"Many times, when people hear someone say something negative about a technique, they usually reply with, "Well, thats because you don't have a good understanding of it." or "Your teacher does not understand the technique, so that is why you don't understand it." 

I agree that that is a copout answer, But I don't think that means it's not true. 
I agree with a few others here that changes should not be made without an understanding of basic principals. If you have been training for 18+ years, you may or may not have that, but at that point I think it's got to be up to you to see that. 
I also say that because of size differences, adaptions must be made, while at the same time executing them "properly." Now I know there has been some debate about what "proper" is, but I say what's proper is what gets the best result consistantly, and most effeciantly.


----------



## MJS (Mar 31, 2006)

lenatoi said:
			
		

> "Many times, when people hear someone say something negative about a technique, they usually reply with, "Well, thats because you don't have a good understanding of it." or "Your teacher does not understand the technique, so that is why you don't understand it."
> 
> I agree that that is a copout answer, But I don't think that means it's not true.
> I agree with a few others here that changes should not be made without an understanding of basic principals. If you have been training for 18+ years, you may or may not have that, but at that point I think it's got to be up to you to see that.
> I also say that because of size differences, adaptions must be made, while at the same time executing them "properly." Now I know there has been some debate about what "proper" is, but I say what's proper is what gets the best result consistantly, and most effeciantly.


 
Yes, you bring up some good points. Let me clarify a little more. As I said in my first post, there are many teachers out there. Of course, students of those teachers are going to think that what their teacher is teaching them is 'The' way of doing it. Thats not the case, as there are going to be many variations, interpretations, etc. 

Do I think that someone should totally alter a technique because they don't understand it? Of course not. When I said this:



> I've taken many ideas from the various arts I've trained in, as well as the people who I've trained with. I've listened to many different views, thoughts, etc., and have taken that, and have made 'my' interpretation of Kenpo. Over the years that I've taught, I've received many compliments on my teaching, so obviously I'm doing something right. Is my way the best way? Nope, but what I do works for me, so IMHO, that is all that matters.


 
In no way was I encouraging people to go out and do their own thing. Basically, I'm saying get input from many different people. I've talked to Parker guys as well as Tracy guys, discussed techniques, applications, etc., took all of what was said, found the things that *I* wanted to apply to *my* Kenpo, and added them in. By training in Arnis, I've had the chance to get a much better view of the knife. Ive taken concepts and ideas from Arnis, and mixed them in with the Kenpo way of doing knife work. When I teach, I teach the material the way it was taught to me. I do not include any of *my* ideas in the beginning. I show the base technique, and let the student work it. Later on, I may go back and show other variations.

Mike


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 31, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> Many times, when people hear someone say something negative about a technique, they usually reply with, "Well, thats because you don't have a good understanding of it." or "Your teacher does not understand the technique, so that is why you don't understand it." As I said above, everyone is going to have a different understanding, so it does not always mean that a different interpretation is wrong. I for one, have to go with the cards that were dealt to me.
> 
> I've taken many ideas from the various arts I've trained in, as well as the people who I've trained with. I've listened to many different views, thoughts, etc., and have taken that, and have made 'my' interpretation of Kenpo. Over the years that I've taught, I've received many compliments on my teaching, so obviously I'm doing something right. Is my way the best way? Nope, but what I do works for me, so IMHO, that is all that matters.
> 
> Mike


 
I think Mike is making some comments here that sort of fall into line with some thoughts that I have had.

Even if my inability to successfully work a technique is in fact due to the fact that I don't properly understand it, or my instructor did not understand it and therefor could not teach it to me poperly, the bottom line remains that if it doesn't work for me, for whatever reason, it is no good for me.  Unless I can figure out a way to make it work, it is useless FOR ME.  But this can be different from the next guy who might have no problem getting it to work.  Good for him, he can keep it.

Other reasons might make a technique unworkable for me, even if I fully understand it properly.  Maybe my body type, size, old injuries, temperament, and interests could all have an affect on my inability to use a technique.  Once again, perfectly good technique, but doesn't work for me so it's no good FOR ME.

One might argue that the system should remain whole, to be passed on in tact to the next generation, even if you yourself cannot utilize everything.  I do see validity in that idea.  However, how well would I be able to teach a technique that I myself cannot use?  Something to think about.

Now from my perspective, and I have commented on this in other threads so I apologize to those who have already read my thoughts on this, I come from the Tracy lineage, and we have a truckload of techniques, far more than the EPAK people.  In my opinion, this is very cumbersome, there are far too many, and many of them don't work not because I don't understand them, but because they are truly bad ideas.  Even if all the techniques were sound in principle and useable, there are simply too many to practice them all to a useable level.  You end up spreading yourself too thin an nothing is any good.  Time to pull out the machete and start hacking out the dead wood.

Keep in mind that Kenpo is somewhat unique compared to other arts.  This notion of Self Defense Techniques, consisting of a set series of moves designed to defend against a set attack, is an approach to learning that many arts either do in a much more reduced fashion, or not at all.  Many other arts teach the basics, meaning stances, striking techniques, blocking techniques, footwork, Kata or forms, and useage drills, and develop more spontaneous responses based on that, rather than by having a list of "Attacking Mace" and "Lone Kimono" type SD techniques.  

By way of example, I asked a friend who had earned his blackbelt in Tae Kwon Do about 25 or 30 years ago, how many of these SD type techniques they had up thru first black belt.  He told me, about 45 or so.  In Tracy's, we have 30 _per belt_, plus ten at Yellow, for a total of 250 to First Black, plus variations.  In my opinion, way way to many.

I have been studying with a kung fu sifu for about 8 years, learning Tibetan White Crane, some Shaolin stuff, and tai chi.  He has never taught SD type techniques, but rather shows how the movement from the forms gives ideas on how to fight.  I discussed this with him, and his opinion is that having a bunch of SD techniques is a poor way to structure and teach an art.  None of his teachers, and he has had several, ever taught him that way.

Just wanted to give a little perspective on how other arts do things.

Personally, I think a balanced combination of the two approaches makes the most sense.  A series of SD techniques is a good way to begin to learn applications, and develop useage.  The problem is, it can become a crutch and it can be difficult to think beyond those little SD boxes.  So I think the number should be kept as small as possible, while still being reasonably thorough.  I think then that spontaneous applications should be developed thru use of creative drills, and perhaps studying forms from some of the older traditional systems, either Japanese or Chinese, whatever is available for you to study under a competent teacher.

Just my thoughts.  thanks.

Michael


----------



## MJS (Mar 31, 2006)

Very well said!  :asian: 

Mike


----------



## HKphooey (Mar 31, 2006)

I really appreciate all the feedabck.  I agree with a lot that was said.  I know I do not fully understand every technique, but my goal is to protect myself and teach others to do so.  I do not want to make a name for myself, create my own style or organization.  Many of my students do not have the luxury or desire to become the next EP, they just want to feel safe and healthy.

Once again, thanks for your positive feedback!


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Apr 1, 2006)

kenpo isn't about rote memorization.  it's about the intelligent application of principals.  your willingness and ability to modify techniques to suit the situation is simply evidence of your skill.


----------



## Doc (Apr 1, 2006)

HKphooey said:
			
		

> Looking for opinions/thoughts (I know that can be dangerous J )
> 
> I will start out that this is for open training and self-defense, not specific curriculum material. (When I teach, I teach what is supposed to be taught.)
> 
> ...


Your confusion is driven by two diametrically opposed principles of learning the arts. The first is the modern eclectic perspective of kenpo created by Ed Parker Sr. (or perhaps other arts driven by Bruce Lee), which requires degrees of tailoring to be commercially successful. This interpretation has little or no defined physical basics, and is a conceptually driven vehicle. It promotes the ideas that you articulated.

The second is the reality seen in the traditional arts that says you must learn proper physical basics and be taught by a highly skilled and knowledgeable teacher. This requires consistent, corrected, and focused learning not generally available in the motion based vehicle. It does not allow variations based on personal preferences until such time you have mastered basic skills, and core principles of execution. Therefore, it is not generally suitable for a commercial business, but in fact does contain the information needed to make the intelligent decisions to begin the true tailoring process promoted in the first.

These are obviously major contradictions. One designed for commercial success, and supply a reasonable level of martial skills but only commensurate with the knowledge, skill, and commitment level of the teacher. The other is designed to take you to higher levels of skill and knowledge, but is initially restrictive in the learning process. The average person does not have the commitment for the second, nor is it especially suitable intellectually for the children that drive the commercial market.

Thus, you like many others are caught in a dichotomy of philosophies. Those reared in the commercial market of the arts are often led to believe the commercial philosophy is the prevailing and best methodology, and in fact commercially, it is and its popularity confirms that.

Nevertheless, the personal preferences of tailoring lead to a functional ceiling of skill and knowledge that is born and bred into its teachers. We all laugh at the old Chinese movies where the teacher corrects the smallest of details over, and over again. However this is actually how you must be taught if you wish to have the foundation that will allow you one day to make those tailoring decisions from a perspective of real knowledge and not concepts.

So tailoring is good and in abundance in the traditional Chinese Arts, and that is where all the different family styles come from. However tailoring is an old concept better left to those who know what they are doing after years of proper training under a keen knowledgeable teacher. Parker simply allowed everyone in his commercial arts to do whatever they wanted, as long as they were satisfied with the results. This is pure genius. If you didnt like the results, you can only blame yourself. He only gave you guidelines.

Bottom line, you cant have it both ways. The commercial arts, (especially kenpo), is full of martial scholars who dont have the knowledge or the skill to back up or even understand what they do yet. However, because of the lack of truly qualified teachers, most have no choice. It is essential under these circumstances to lower expectations of what the vehicle you have chosen is capable of delivering, and ignore the criticism of all but the most qualified of teachers. Even then, ask for physical verification of any idea or concepts.

Most will more likely look to other more traditional arts to fill in the holes, however this method too is flawed. Grafting various arts brings its positives and negatives. Unfortunately, it takes a knowledgeable teacher again to know the difference.


----------



## donald (Apr 1, 2006)

HK Phooey(luv the handle by the by),

I thought your post was worthy of a kudos. So, KUDOS...


----------



## lenatoi (Apr 1, 2006)

"tailoring is an old concept better left to those who know what they are doing after years of proper training under a keen knowledgeable teacher"

   How does one know if they have had the proper training neccessary to tailor? Surely every person beleives they are being trained by a keen and knowledgabe teacher. Under the assumtion that everyone beleives thus, no one has the ability to know wether they are eligable to make the decision to tailor.
   I hope that one day I will have the knowledge and ability to tailor. I think I have great instructors. I beleive that in time, I *will* reach that level of proficiency.


----------



## Doc (Apr 2, 2006)

lenatoi said:
			
		

> "tailoring is an old concept better left to those who know what they are doing after years of proper training under a keen knowledgeable teacher"
> 
> How does one know if they have had the proper training neccessary to tailor? Surely every person beleives they are being trained by a keen and knowledgabe teacher. Under the assumtion that everyone beleives thus, no one has the ability to know wether they are eligable to make the decision to tailor.
> I hope that one day I will have the knowledge and ability to tailor. I think I have great instructors. I beleive that in time, I *will* reach that level of proficiency.


Hi sweetie. That is one of the great problems since the commercialization of the arts. The layperson doesn't know, and most instructors believe they have actually learned something. People must do what they have to do, but when a real instructor comes along and can show them their deficiencies, they shouldn't get upset because they thought they knew what they were doing and are vested in a belt.  Be good.


----------



## Danjo (Apr 2, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> The average person does not have the commitment for the second, nor is it especially suitable intellectually for the children that drive the commercial market.


 
Well that is certainly true of most _American_ children. A couple of years ago  I watched the traveling Shaolin Monk Show and the 8 year-old in that group was phenomenal. Certainly the art was the commercialized Chinese government Wu Shu (which is mostly acrobatics) but he looked damn near as good as the adults did. However, in our fast-food, video game culture the kids don't have the discipline to master anything properly. Hell, neither do most of today's "adults" given how they were raised. In the past thirty years or so our country has gone into a reversal of sorts. The goal used to be to reach adulthood and every kid wanted to be a certain kind of adult when they grew up. We all pretended to be adults when we played games. Even the TV shows that featured kids showed the adults as sensible people that should be listened to by the kids. Now, it's the opposite. The kids shows depict the children as the smart ones and the adults as the bumbling clueless creatures that must be alternately patronized or thwarted. Adults are obsessed with youth and retaining it for as long as possible rather than gracefully aging. No wonder kids don't like to listen to adults and take correction from their instructors!

I'm curious about the kids in the rest of the world. Anyone from somewhere besides the USA that can give us their impression of how the children are in terms of discipline? How does this impact their Kenpo training etc.?


----------



## MJS (Apr 2, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> Your confusion is driven by two diametrically opposed principles of learning the arts. The first is the modern eclectic perspective of kenpo created by Ed Parker Sr. (or perhaps other arts driven by Bruce Lee), which requires degrees of tailoring to be commercially successful. This interpretation has little or no defined physical basics, and is a conceptually driven vehicle. It promotes the ideas that you articulated.
> 
> The second is the reality seen in the traditional arts that says you must learn proper physical basics and be taught by a highly skilled and knowledgeable teacher. This requires consistent, corrected, and focused learning not generally available in the motion based vehicle. It does not allow variations based on personal preferences until such time you have mastered basic skills, and core principles of execution. Therefore, it is not generally suitable for a commercial business, but in fact does contain the information needed to make the intelligent decisions to begin the true tailoring process promoted in the first.
> 
> ...


 
Doc, in your opinion, what seperates the motion/commercial schools from the rest?  Is it going to matter if someone runs his school as his sole source of income?  Some might get the impression that if thats the case, hes going to care more about how much $$ he can bring in, rather than development of students.  Or is someone who teaches on a PT basis, not relying on that extra $$, going to be a more quality person?

Mike


----------



## kenposikh (Apr 2, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> Doc, in your opinion, what seperates the motion/commercial schools from the rest? Is it going to matter if someone runs his school as his sole source of income? Some might get the impression that if thats the case, hes going to care more about how much $$ he can bring in, rather than development of students. Or is someone who teaches on a PT basis, not relying on that extra $$, going to be a more quality person?
> 
> Mike


 
Hi MIke,

Let me see if I can provide some thoughts for you. I teach in the UK not professionaly so $$$ is not my incentive in fact my primary goal is the knowledge passed onto my students and a duty of care. I need to be sure that the Kenpo I am teaching is going to be effective for them even when I'm not around. I cannot afford to let my students believe that they can defend themselves if the stuff I am teaching is inadequate.

Reality of the attacks is paramount a knowledge and understanding of basic anatomy and correct basics is also paramount, this takes time and effort on the part of the students hence gradings are carried out after a minimum of 6 months training on a single syllabus. Many students in todays society cannot cope with the intensity and repetitive nature of this type of training and will drop out and you know what I don't care. Now that is an attitude that a full time inbstructor cannot afford to take due to a loss of income, so what happens gradings are more frequent belt levels go up faster and the money keeps coming in because people have a carrot like incentive to get their next belt. How long does it take to get a Dan grade well within our organisation 6 and a half years can people cope with that.


I'm not saying that someone who teaches on a full time basis is teaching ineffetive stuff but is it the most effective and will it work.

Amrik


----------



## MJS (Apr 2, 2006)

kenposikh said:
			
		

> Hi MIke,
> 
> Let me see if I can provide some thoughts for you. I teach in the UK not professionaly so $$$ is not my incentive in fact my primary goal is the knowledge passed onto my students and a duty of care. I need to be sure that the Kenpo I am teaching is going to be effective for them even when I'm not around. I cannot afford to let my students believe that they can defend themselves if the stuff I am teaching is inadequate.
> 
> ...


 
Thank you for a very well thought out reply!:asian: 

I agree, the way some schools operate, they are more of a money making belt factory, than a quality school. This really is sad IMO. Personally, I'm not one to be belt hungry. I'm more interested in learning the material, having a very good understanding of it, and being able to apply it. I have to say that I'm fortunate today, to have current instructors, as well as some past, that were able to provide me with what I was looking for.

Thanks again for your reply.

Mike


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 2, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> People must do what they have to do, but when a real instructor comes along and can show them their deficiencies, they shouldn't get upset because they thought they knew what they were doing and are vested in a belt.  Be good.


 
I think this should be true for anybody.  No matter who you are and how high your skills may be, somebody out there can still teach you something that can improve what you do.  In the meantime we all train with what we have because the only alternative is to NOT train and that would be silly.  But if you meet someone who you believe has something to teach you, and can help you improve, by all means jump on the opportunity.  Until that happens, take what you have and make it the best that you can.

There are few people out there who are truly GREAT martial artists, and probably fewer who are truly GREAT teachers, and not many of us get to train under these few.  But that doesn't mean that we can't take what we have learned and become damn good and effective.  If you trust your teacher and trust what you have learned, then take it and run with it and make it the best it can be for you.  If it is working for you, that is really what matters.


----------



## kamishinkan (Apr 2, 2006)

Just a couple of thoughts to add to the pile....
 It is hard to determine the differences between the "modern" martial arts and the more "traditional" until you come into contact with them. I mean by this it is sometimes hard to put into defineable terms. In one hand the modern schools tend to be diploma mills, pumping out Black belts. On the other hand I know of plenty of cases in Japan where very traditional schools developed Black Belts in as little as 2 years! You would get generally laughed at in the US for that! 
 I believe it has to do with mindset most of all. The traditional Martial artist is in the martial arts for other reasons than just being able to "kick butt". The traditional atmosphere tends to lead a student to something greater than HIMSELF and HIS abilities. Rather you become a part of a tradition that has stood the test of time, that does not require someone to "recreate the wheel" every time someone thinks they can do it better! 
The traditionalist is satisfied with being a part of a tradition, knowing that after learning the principles of the system, they can be adapted to suit most situations he may find himself in. The modern mentality is more in line with producing students that are short cut oriented, who tend to be all about them and their martial arts. You find this especially with them that bounce around studying everything they can, never mastering anything. Traditionalist will stay with their art, in many cases, for life. Some never training in anything else, except maybe the occasional seminar or side training with someone they know. This is also debateable since some of the old "traditionalist" we all talk about with fond memories trained in several arts as well. My point is that it is generally hard to define the two but when you meet one you know where they stand very quickly!:asian:


----------



## Doc (Apr 2, 2006)

Danjo said:
			
		

> Well that is certainly true of most _American_ children. A couple of years ago  I watched the traveling Shaolin Monk Show and the 8 year-old in that group was phenomenal. Certainly the art was the commercialized Chinese government Wu Shu (which is mostly acrobatics) but he looked damn near as good as the adults did. However, in our fast-food, video game culture the kids don't have the discipline to master anything properly. Hell, neither do most of today's "adults" given how they were raised. In the past thirty years or so our country has gone into a reversal of sorts. The goal used to be to reach adulthood and every kid wanted to be a certain kind of adult when they grew up. We all pretended to be adults when we played games. Even the TV shows that featured kids showed the adults as sensible people that should be listened to by the kids. Now, it's the opposite. The kids shows depict the children as the smart ones and the adults as the bumbling clueless creatures that must be alternately patronized or thwarted. Adults are obsessed with youth and retaining it for as long as possible rather than gracefully aging. No wonder kids don't like to listen to adults and take correction from their instructors!
> 
> I'm curious about the kids in the rest of the world. Anyone from somewhere besides the USA that can give us their impression of how the children are in terms of discipline? How does this impact their Kenpo training etc.?


There you go preachin' again. (I like it when you do that )


----------



## Doc (Apr 2, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> I think this should be true for anybody.  No matter who you are and how high your skills may be, somebody out there can still teach you something that can improve what you do.  In the meantime we all train with what we have because the only alternative is to NOT train and that would be silly.  But if you meet someone who you believe has something to teach you, and can help you improve, by all means jump on the opportunity.  Until that happens, take what you have and make it the best that you can.
> 
> There are few people out there who are truly GREAT martial artists, and probably fewer who are truly GREAT teachers, and not many of us get to train under these few.  But that doesn't mean that we can't take what we have learned and become damn good and effective.  If you trust your teacher and trust what you have learned, then take it and run with it and make it the best it can be for you.  If it is working for you, that is really what matters.


Absolutely sir.


----------



## Doc (Apr 2, 2006)

kamishinkan said:
			
		

> Just a couple of thoughts to add to the pile....
> It is hard to determine the differences between the "modern" martial arts and the more "traditional" until you come into contact with them. I mean by this it is sometimes hard to put into defineable terms. In one hand the modern schools tend to be diploma mills, pumping out Black belts. On the other hand I know of plenty of cases in Japan where very traditional schools developed Black Belts in as little as 2 years! You would get generally laughed at in the US for that!
> I believe it has to do with mindset most of all. The traditional Martial artist is in the martial arts for other reasons than just being able to "kick butt". The traditional atmosphere tends to lead a student to something greater than HIMSELF and HIS abilities. Rather you become a part of a tradition that has stood the test of time, that does not require someone to "recreate the wheel" every time someone thinks they can do it better!
> The traditionalist is satisfied with being a part of a tradition, knowing that after learning the principles of the system, they can be adapted to suit most situations he may find himself in. The modern mentality is more in line with producing students that are short cut oriented, who tend to be all about them and their martial arts. You find this especially with them that bounce around studying everything they can, never mastering anything. Traditionalist will stay with their art, in many cases, for life. Some never training in anything else, except maybe the occasional seminar or side training with someone they know. This is also debateable since some of the old "traditionalist" we all talk about with fond memories trained in several arts as well. My point is that it is generally hard to define the two but when you meet one you know where they stand very quickly!:asian:


Well said, Mr. Collins.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 2, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> I think this should be true for anybody. No matter who you are and how high your skills may be, somebody out there can still teach you something that can improve what you do. In the meantime we all train with what we have because the only alternative is to NOT train and that would be silly. But if you meet someone who you believe has something to teach you, and can help you improve, by all means jump on the opportunity. Until that happens, take what you have and make it the best that you can.
> 
> There are few people out there who are truly GREAT martial artists, and probably fewer who are truly GREAT teachers, and not many of us get to train under these few. But that doesn't mean that we can't take what we have learned and become damn good and effective. If you trust your teacher and trust what you have learned, then take it and run with it and make it the best it can be for you. If it is working for you, that is really what matters.


 
I wanted to add another thought here: as we grow in our own development, we become much more selective about who we are willing to train under.  Once we have had a number of years of training under our belts, a lot of those guys with fancy titles and high belts just don't seem as impressive as they once did.  We start to realize that many of them really don't have much to teach.  Interesting how that perspective changes.


----------



## Doc (Apr 2, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> Doc, in your opinion, what seperates the motion/commercial schools from the rest?  Is it going to matter if someone runs his school as his sole source of income?  Some might get the impression that if thats the case, hes going to care more about how much $$ he can bring in, rather than development of students.  Or is someone who teaches on a PT basis, not relying on that extra $$, going to be a more quality person?
> 
> Mike


In general sir, human nature dictates when any endeavor is relied upon to feed yourself, compromise is inevitable even as an income supplement. If you have a family, the sacrifices you might make for yourself you certainly wouldn't want to visit upon your loved ones. But even with the noblest of intentions, in general those who were reared in the commercial system, were brought along in that same atmosphere and were probably not given the best of information and/or judged under the strictest of guidelines. Of course this is not their fault, unless they become enamored with their belts and status, and reject good information when it surfaces, whatever the source. But when you are forced to accept the ton of children, or physically challenged, it makes it difficult anyway. You begin to focus on how bad you will allow someone to be before you promote them, instead of forcing students to meet lofty physical goals.

Last but not least, if your instructor's history is based in the commercial environment, than chances are truly basic and advanced information was not available to him simply because it was not included in the commercial system he learned. Keep in mind, in Ed Parker's Kenpo-Karate there is a tremedous amout of information given, and much that is not becuase it would not fare well in a 'business school.' In the beginning the biggest platform that is left out is 'basics.' 

Mr. Parker only put basic concepts and ideas in the commercial system, and left it to the students and teachers to decipher even that the material. They didn't, and chose instead to focus on 'techniques' as opposed to stances. If they had, I'm convinced he would have given some more. Even those that do, are left with the void of information not genrally included.

This is not a put down and neither good or bad. I've often said, "It is what it is." It is designed specifically for a commercial market and therefore doesn't contain or need certain information, and the necessary training that would turn students and teachers off and cost revenue. So in many instances you're left with good people, with good intentions, who still fall short because of the information. 

Most of those who have had significant previous training and rank, and have studied or seminared with me and had their basics picked apart know exactly what I mean. 

"Physical proof dispels myths." - Ed Parker Sr.
"Everything matters." - Ron Chapél


----------



## Danjo (Apr 2, 2006)

kamishinkan said:
			
		

> Just a couple of thoughts to add to the pile....
> It is hard to determine the differences between the "modern" martial arts and the more "traditional" until you come into contact with them. I mean by this it is sometimes hard to put into defineable terms. In one hand the modern schools tend to be diploma mills, pumping out Black belts. On the other hand I know of plenty of cases in Japan where very traditional schools developed Black Belts in as little as 2 years! You would get generally laughed at in the US for that!
> I believe it has to do with mindset most of all. The traditional Martial artist is in the martial arts for other reasons than just being able to "kick butt". The traditional atmosphere tends to lead a student to something greater than HIMSELF and HIS abilities. Rather you become a part of a tradition that has stood the test of time, that does not require someone to "recreate the wheel" every time someone thinks they can do it better!
> The traditionalist is satisfied with being a part of a tradition, knowing that after learning the principles of the system, they can be adapted to suit most situations he may find himself in. The modern mentality is more in line with producing students that are short cut oriented, who tend to be all about them and their martial arts. You find this especially with them that bounce around studying everything they can, never mastering anything. Traditionalist will stay with their art, in many cases, for life. Some never training in anything else, except maybe the occasional seminar or side training with someone they know. This is also debateable since some of the old "traditionalist" we all talk about with fond memories trained in several arts as well. My point is that it is generally hard to define the two but when you meet one you know where they stand very quickly!:asian:


 
Yes that's true. Many of us have heard of the 7 months it took Joe Lewis to get to black belt in Okinawa and the 6 months for Mike Stone etc. That Lewis and Stone were able to take what they learned and do great things with it is more proof that they are unusually gifted than that it's a good practice to go that fast. Plus, Lewis and Stone never stopped learning after they got to black belt.

Ed Parker once said that the Americans used to think that the Japanese Karateka were vastly superior to the average American Karateka because of how they looked when they got over here. But after he had gone to Japan and toured several of the dojos, he soon realized that the average Japanese Karateka was the same as the average American. The trick was that they only sent over their very best to the USA back then. Then, once they got here, they would say that they were very average. That was the head-trip that they put on us at the time.


----------



## Danjo (Apr 2, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> There you go preachin' again. (I like it when you do that )


 
 It's the old high school teacher in me.


----------



## Carol (Apr 3, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> In general sir, human nature dictates when any endeavor is relied upon to feed yourself, compromise is inevitable even as an income supplement. If you have a family, the sacrifices you might make for yourself you certainly wouldn't want to visit upon your loved ones. But even with the noblest of intentions, in general those who were reared in the commercial system, were brought along in that same atmosphere and were probably not given the best of information and/or judged under the strictest of guidelines. Of course this is not their fault, unless they become enamored with their belts and status, and reject good information when it surfaces, whatever the source. But when you are forced to accept the ton of children, or physically challenged, it makes it difficult anyway. You begin to focus on how bad you will allow someone to be before you promote them, instead of forcing students to meet lofty physical goals.
> 
> Last but not least, if your instructor's history is based in the commercial environment, than chances are truly basic and advanced information was not available to him simply because it was not included in the commercial system he learned. Keep in mind, in Ed Parker's Kenpo-Karate there is a tremedous amout of information given, and much that is not becuase it would not fare well in a 'business school.' In the beginning the biggest platform that is left out is 'basics.'
> 
> ...


 
Sir, I am not sure if that is the complete picture.

With full respect I can see your what you are saying about commercialization.  The problem that I see with the business of Kenpo sir is not the Kenpo, but the business.  I understand that you are not slamming Kenpo as a business, neither am I.  However, where I differ is not the quality of the people in the art, it is the lack of business skills required for a business endeavor.  Long 5 sir does nothing to prepare one for P&L responsibilty.

If Karate day care and tough guys looking to bust heads is the reality of many Kenpo schools, then sir I rhetorically question why that is.  The workers that make up Corporate America are spending billions on self-improvement and fitness.  The market capitalization in the sector is huge. yet the Arts have not penetrated this demographic with any kind of significance.  

Commercial Kenpo, a business school, these are all business enedeavors.  Such an endeavor requires both art skills and business skills to succeed.   But...one defaults to one's level of training, whether in a street fight or in the business world.  The successful schools that have desireable student body are probably not lead by black belts that wring their hands and whine about how Americans do not understand martial artists.  Instead, they have likey lead by those with the savviness to reach and _secure _their base.

If one is a brilliant chef, that does not guarantee that one can run a successful restaurant.  It follows that if one is a gifted teacher, that does not gurantee that one can run a school.  Without business knowledge, one's talents have little commercial value.


----------



## Doc (Apr 3, 2006)

lady_kaur said:
			
		

> Sir, I am not sure if that is the complete picture.
> 
> With full respect I can see your what you are saying about commercialization.  The problem that I see with the business of Kenpo sir is not the Kenpo, but the business.  I understand that you are not slamming Kenpo as a business, neither am I.  However, where I differ is not the quality of the people in the art, it is the lack of business skills required for a business endeavor.  Long 5 sir does nothing to prepare one for P&L responsibilty.
> 
> ...


While I agree with your assessment, if you had the curriculum, and if you had the business sense, they contradict each other. Business would require you accept those that would not be capable of learning the curriculum, and the real curriculum is not a good business model for your typical customer. Ed Parker knew this and that is why he created the motion business model. It accepts all comers and satisfies it's customers on many levels.


----------



## Hand Sword (Apr 3, 2006)

Would it be fair to say then, or assume then that Kenpo is Kenpo. All that is present in your way, and not focussed on in the "commercial" way, is also present, just hidden behind the scenes?


----------



## Doc (Apr 3, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> While I agree with your assessment, if you had the curriculum, and if you had the business sense, they contradict each other. Business would require you accept those that would not be capable of learning the curriculum, and the real curriculum is not a good business model for your typical customer. Ed Parker knew this and that is why he created the motion business model. It accepts all comers and satisfies it's customers on many levels.


And to finish the thought, the commercial system does not contain the information of the non-business curriculum. Why would it? It would be like a screen door on a submarine. Totally unnecessary for what it is designed to do. Those taught and reared in the commercial system want to make it more than it is, but that is impossible without the knowledge of other curriculum. If you look at the original seniors, none of them practice or teach it, opting instead to stick with pre-motion based material.


----------



## Hand Sword (Apr 3, 2006)

How one chooses to teach or do kenpo is "their " way of doing it. That doesn't make it "the" way. What is not focussed on has to be there, if not, you couldn't "tinker" with those students and "fix" the problems. Kenpo is what it is.


----------



## DavidCC (Apr 4, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> if you had the curriculum, and if you had the business sense, they contradict each other


 
Doc, can you give us an example of a piece of the non-motion based curriculum that contradicts the commercial business model?


----------



## Danjo (Apr 4, 2006)

Most arts get watered down due to financial concerns. It seems that what is being said is that Parker simply gave a model that didn't have to be watered down as it was designed with the bussiness in mind and that he continued to develop the non-business model on his own.


----------



## Doc (Apr 4, 2006)

Danjo said:
			
		

> Most arts get watered down due to financial concerns. It seems that what is being said is that Parker simply gave a model that didn't have to be watered down as it was designed with the bussiness in mind and that he continued to develop the non-business model on his own.


There you go again making sense, and expressing it eloquently. 

I wonder why this seems so difficult to grasp. If you are going to create a martial arts business, obviously it can't contain all the physical and intellectual demands of higher learning. That would make a lousy business model considering the average person isn't interested, willing to invest the effort, or capable of understanding the information. Much like everyone isn't in college or pursuing a higher degree. It's not a bad thing. And by the way, who's going to teach all these people all over the place geographically? Parker? He couldn't be everywhere, and he was the only expert. So, he created a conceptually based idea driven commercial art form built around the business plan of a dance studio chain, that allowed a student to seek their own level of competence within its conceptual bounderies. The problem is students and teachers received belts and degrees whose validity is also limited by the vehicle. Therefore they are vested in promoting the material as being the best. It's good, and in some hands really good. But the best? No! This is the reason many are defecting to other arts to suppliment their own information and skills. But that doesn't man Ed Parker Sr. didn't have the goods. He did. More than most will ever know, but he never sold it and if you ever paid for a lesson, you got the commercial stuff.


----------



## Danjo (Apr 4, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> There you go again making sense, and expressing it eloquently.


 
Thanks.

It doesn't sound like Parker was trying to rip anyone off, or give them a crappy product. It sounds like he was giving them something that they could use in self defense against most people, but that would be readily transmittable to the masses in a relitively short period of time. I recently read an article where some of the prominant Hsing-I instructors did the same thing in WWII. They had to distill Hsing-I down to a stripped down system in order to teach it quickly to men in the Army. It was a good product, but it would never allow the men that practiced it to become true masters of Hsing-I. 

To do that, one had to 1) learn personally from a master instructor after the war was over 2) be patient enough to learn it correctly and 3) forget some of what they had been taught in the stripped down version designed to help men in combat get to a minimum level of proficiency quickly. It's not that the Army Hsing-I was "bad" per se, it just wasn't the whole product and many of the basics were forgone in order to facilitate rapid learning of combat skills. But, that's what the Army wanted. If they knew that each soldier would have to train for at least two years in order to gain minimum proficiency in combat, they would have looked elsewhere for an instructor. 

However, it became very clear to those that wanted to continue their training after the war that they weren't really the Hsing-I experts that they thought they were based on their bootcamp experiences.


----------



## Doc (Apr 4, 2006)

Danjo said:
			
		

> Thanks.
> 
> It doesn't sound like Parker was trying to rip anyone off, or give them a crappy product. It sounds like he was giving them something that they could use in self defense against most people, but that would be readily transmittable to the masses in a relitively short period of time. I recently read an article where some of the prominant Hsing-I instructors did the same thing in WWII. They had to distill Hsing-I down to a stripped down system in order to teach it quickly to men in the Army. It was a good product, but it would never allow the men that practiced it to become true masters of Hsing-I.
> 
> ...


Exactly sir. Any rip off would come from instructors who chose to not to become more competent and knowledgeable. Parker gave them a reasonable base to work from but for the most part, once receiving significant rank (from any source), they stopped learning as long as the money kept rolling in and people kept bowing.

On a side note, one of my students who has relatives in Japan just got back from a visit. He tells me there is no difference there. You have to find the 'underground garage' schools to really learn something. McDojo's are alive and well there too. Same for China and the rest of the world. It's all about the 'cheddar.' If this is the case in those cultures, why is it so hard to grasp in our fast food society?


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Apr 4, 2006)

DavidCC said:
			
		

> Doc, can you give us an example of a piece of the non-motion based curriculum that contradicts the commercial business model?


 
I could. But I learned it from Doc, and won't make it available to the curious public without his permission. 

"Everything, everything, everything". Everything you do matters in relationship to every other thing you do. Stepping forward or back into a right neutral bow is not enough. It matters HOW you do it. Failing to do so adequately, your subsequent strikes will lack sufficient energy or integrity to be delivered with the authority each persons body is capable of, when properly informed.

Follow that foot maneuver-to-stance with an inward block. HOW you deliver the inward block will deeply affect your body's anatomical integrity, influencing whether or not your block merely acts as interference to your opponents strike, or has the added effect of taking him off his horse a bit, so as to set him up for a dropping KO with the next strike. If you wanted to follow that block with a chop to the neck, that chop can either be a stinger (if your step to a stance or block were done incorrectly), or a blasting knockout. Even the handsword has a right and wrong way of being delivered to create that desired effect. Each one thing that matters is predicated on the accurate and appropriate delivery & execution of every other thing that matters. And "it all matters."

The learning process is much more tedious and technical than block-&-beat training. But the payoff is absolutely there. You get to defend yourself with solid basics and skills, stopping attackers cold in their tracks, and not have to rip out their eyes to do it. You get to be one of the kenpoists who can watch other kenpoists (live, or on tape), and tell if their going to be able to harm you with their strikes or not, because you wil have learned what Structural Alignment looks like; the difference between power and force as applied to kenpo (stepping up the uumph isn't remotely enough).

Notebooks say, "Step forward/back to a neutral bow with an inward block, followed immediately by an outward handsword to the side of the neck". They don't include details on HOW to do it for optimal effect, alignment, integrity, recruitment, etc. That is the real HOW; not the sequence. The sequence is really just a What; one that is cute, but practically useless without the How component firmly in place.

Seek the difference; it matters.

Best Regards,

Dave Crouch, DC


----------



## Doc (Apr 4, 2006)

DavidCC said:
			
		

> Doc, can you give us an example of a piece of the non-motion based curriculum that contradicts the commercial business model?


Consider the contradictions as 'philosophical.' What is 'acceptable' in one would not be tolerated in the other. The physical contraditions are immense, primarily because the commercial product does not define 'how' to do anything. It 'suggests' ideas. Take blocks as an example. The commercial 'suggest" a 'Box Concept" to help you visualize angles. Good. It 'suggests' height, width, and depth zones in applications. Good. However no where does it explain or define 'how' to accomplish any of these very physical anatomical movements. 

Consider this. Your coach explains the concepts of the game of basketball. He tells you about dribbling, shooting, the basket, how you score etc. Than he gives you a ball and says, "Go play the game." He talked about dribbling, but never discussed the complexities of 'how' to physically do it or its many variations. He told you the ball needs to go in the basket, but never gave you the strict mechanics needed to accomplish it. etc.

When I did your seminar, did you ever think you could learn so much about a neutral bow stance and 'how' to move in it? How to get there? Or the method needed to make it stable against pressure? These are not things I made up, but knowledge of the science of human anatomy in application. Without this instruction, we're little better than the average joe whose had a couple of street fights, and he may be better.


----------



## Doc (Apr 4, 2006)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> I could. But I learned it from Doc, and won't make it available to the curious public without his permission.
> 
> "Everything, everything, everything". Everything you do matters in relationship to every other thing you do. Stepping forward or back into a right neutral bow is not enough. It matters HOW you do it. Failing to do so adequately, your subsequent strikes will lack sufficient energy or integrity to be delivered with the authority each persons body is capable of, when properly informed.
> 
> ...


You have mail.


----------



## Carol (Apr 4, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> On a side note, one of my students who has relatives in Japan just got back from a visit. He tells me there is no difference there. You have to find the 'underground garage' schools to really learn something. McDojo's are alive and well there too. Same for China and the rest of the world. It's all about the 'cheddar.' If this is the case in those cultures, why is it so hard to grasp in our fast food society?


 
Because even in a fast food society there is a profitable market for organic food at quadruple the price.  The customer base for organic food has an attractive amount of disposable income and has experienced enough professional success to understand that one truly can profit from the values of discipline, hard work, and thinking of something beyond oneself.  That one knows from experience that short-term successes are fleeting, but long term accomplishments are truly lasting.

If the product is something of quality, and I have no doubt that it is, why not hope see it in the hands of more students...different students?  If the client base is not appropriate, then perhaps a paradigm shift is.  If instructors are encouraged to pay a high degree of attention to their art...why not encourage instructors to also work on their business school training as well as their Kenpo training?  The result could be skills strong enough to teach a high quality art to a student base that typically can't be reached with a free gi and two privates.


----------



## Doc (Apr 4, 2006)

lady_kaur said:
			
		

> Because even in a fast food society there is a profitable market for organic food at quadruple the price.  The customer base for organic food has an attractive amount of disposable income and has experienced enough professional success to understand that one truly can profit from the values of discipline, hard work, and thinking of something beyond oneself.  That one knows from experience that short-term successes are fleeting, but long term accomplishments are truly lasting.
> 
> If the product is something of quality, and I have no doubt that it is, why not hope see it in the hands of more students...different students?  If the client base is not appropriate, then perhaps a paradigm shift is.  If instructors are encouraged to pay a high degree of attention to their art...why not encourage instructors to also work on their business school training as well as their Kenpo training?  The result could be skills strong enough to teach a high quality art to a student base that typically can't be reached with a free gi and two privates.



Unfortunately the 'customer base' is a much smaller demographic than in the food industry, (everyone eats) and is even further limited by geographical constraints. The number of those interested AND willing to subject themselves to the rigourous training, AND live within a reasonble distance is relatively small. As huge as the 'martial arts industry' is, it is only a small percentage of the population. Even smaller are those who would participate at that level.


----------



## Carol (Apr 4, 2006)

The customer base as it currently stands.

The values of martial arts have so many commonalities to the corporate world, it would make an executive coach faint.  To reach an corporate audience will take a change, rethinking, and doing things in a different way.  The vast majority of corporate management are in shape, and budget the time and the money to commit themselves to being physically active.  

It's a wide open and highly profitable base, full of clientele that are willing to pay for the best there possibly is...but it will take different skills to tap in to it.  It is, however, an excellent source of potential students that can and do take steps to be their absolute personal best.


----------



## Danjo (Apr 5, 2006)

In addidtion to my love of Kempo and the hard style of martial arts,one of my interests for a few years has been the Internal Chinese Boxing systems of Hsing-I, Ba Gua, and Taiji. This has been ever since a former high school student of mine introduced me to it some years ago. Now, while I'm certain that I look very silly compared to true experts in these arts, I still find them endlessly facinating and try to practice the little bit I have learned every morning as a warm up. In researching these wonderful arts, I find that much of what Doc has been saying is also said by masters of these arts. For instance, one of the 20th century's great practitioners was Hung-I Hsiang from Taiwan. Here is what one of his celebrated students had to say about Hung's theories in his book. Tell me if it doesn't sound a bit like the stuff Doc has been saying all along:

"Hung I Hsiangs emphasis was not so much on maximizing internal power and chi development. Instead, he focused on the subtleties of how to effectively deliver the power one had and how to rapidly and smoothly change from one technique to another. He did this by showing how to make tiny circles deep within every crevice of the body and how to change internal body alignments with great speed. He spent a lot of time showing how tiny shifts in body weight could create unusual power vectors. He also made students feel this power not only in terms of strikes, but also by showing how changes in subtle body movements could achieve desired defense/attack application outcomes. He taught his students how to instantaneously release themselves from bad internal alignments that could normally paralyze the body, and resume their attack, much like you smoothly change gears in a stick shift car. Hungs emphasis was on how small changes of body movement or chi flow could produce superior practical fighting techniques and overall athletic capacity." 
Reprinted from _The Power of Internal Martial Arts_ by B.K. Frantzis

Also, here is a quote from one of the great original works on Taiji from Grandmaster Yang Chenfu:

"If there are those who have not trained thoroughly in the form, they should not skip stages and practice applications. I'm afraid they would simply lack a foundation, and the end results would be few."

_The Essence and Applications of Taijiquan, 1933, by Yang Chenfu_

Cheers


----------



## HKphooey (Apr 6, 2006)

Some students may not want to spend 40 years becoming a master of every step of the art.  As I learn certain techniques I know I would never use them on the street.  My goal in not to make money, start an organization, or sell videos - My goal is to teach an everyday student to defend themselves. 

I understand where most of you are coming from - you are dedicated to your art and training.  You goal is to perfect as much of the art as possible, not matter how long it takes.  I can respect that.  

It is not just a "money" thing.  Some students start training for self-defense, self-confidence and to better their health.  They are not looking to become the next "kenpo god".  For those students we must extract the portions that will help them achieve their goals (But I agree, dont hang a huge sign out from of the dojo stating Pure EPAK Taught Here). This is the similar belief of LEA, military and tactical self-defense trainers.

Once we see that a student decides they want to learn the pure art, it is our role as instructors to direct them on that path.  In some cases we may have to advise them to seek training outside the existing dojo.  

As always I truly respect all your comments and take them to heart. Thank you for all your feedback!  J

_"To hold and fill to overflowing is not as good as to stop in time.  Sharpen a knife-edge to its very sharpest, and the edge will not last long."  Loa Tzu_


----------



## DavidCC (Apr 6, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> Consider the contradictions as 'philosophical.' What is 'acceptable' in one would not be tolerated in the other. The physical contraditions are immense, primarily because the commercial product does not define 'how' to do anything. It 'suggests' ideas. Take blocks as an example. The commercial 'suggest" a 'Box Concept" to help you visualize angles. Good. It 'suggests' height, width, and depth zones in applications. Good. However no where does it explain or define 'how' to accomplish any of these very physical anatomical movements.
> 
> Consider this. Your coach explains the concepts of the game of basketball. He tells you about dribbling, shooting, the basket, how you score etc. Than he gives you a ball and says, "Go play the game." He talked about dribbling, but never discussed the complexities of 'how' to physically do it or its many variations. He told you the ball needs to go in the basket, but never gave you the strict mechanics needed to accomplish it. etc.
> 
> When I did your seminar, did you ever think you could learn so much about a neutral bow stance and 'how' to move in it? How to get there? Or the method needed to make it stable against pressure? These are not things I made up, but knowledge of the science of human anatomy in application. Without this instruction, we're little better than the average joe whose had a couple of street fights, and he may be better.


 
Gotcha  

We clearly do not have the depth of understanding and application of mechanics of anatomy that are built into SL4, but I think (hope) we are closer to that model (expecting exacting excellence) than we are to the "commercial model". As my Teacher recently told me "good enough is not good enough".  I'm finding it hard to express exatcly what I mean, I'm not trying to compare us to MSU LOL or denegrate AK in general... but I do understand your point (and Dr. Crouch, too, thanks!)


----------



## Danjo (Apr 6, 2006)

HKphooey said:
			
		

> Some students may not want to spend 40 years becoming a master of every step of the art. As I learn certain techniques I know I would never use them on the street. My goal in not to make money, start an organization, or sell videos - My goal is to teach an everyday student to defend themselves.
> 
> I understand where most of you are coming from - you are dedicated to your art and training. You goal is to perfect as much of the art as possible, not matter how long it takes. I can respect that.
> 
> ...


 
I totally understand your position on this. That is the military position also on hand-to-hand combat. They want to keep it to a few simple, trainable techniques that will allow the soldiers to be able to deal with most general situations effectively. Same goes for women's self defense classes etc. Can't blame anyone for taking that approach.


----------



## Danjo (Apr 6, 2006)

Doc,

Did I read correctly that you said that the crescent/half-moon stepping common to Shotokan etc. is a less effective way to move compared to the more straight stepping found in arts like shito ryu?


----------



## Doc (Apr 6, 2006)

Danjo said:
			
		

> Doc,
> 
> Did I read correctly that you said that the crescent/half-moon stepping common to Shotokan etc. is a less effective way to move compared to the more straight stepping found in arts like shito ryu?


Yes sir that is correct. In fact, it totally destroys your forward structural integrity by confusing the body's autonomic nervous system sensors. I suggest this foot manuever is a result of the Japanese and Okinawans attempting to duplicate the hip function of the Chinese Arts with very poor results. Although it is possibel to be somewhat effective with this action, it depends on body momentum and inertia to supply the bulk of the effectiveness sir.

A simple experiment will verify this. Execute the foot manuever of choice, punch, and freeze. have someone push against the punching hand front to back and 'feel.'

"It's the small things where the knowledge resides. It's the little things that make the big things happen." - Ron Chap&#233;l


----------



## Danjo (Apr 6, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> Yes sir that is correct. In fact, it totally destroys your forward structural integrity by confusing the body's autonomic nervous system sensors. I suggest this foot manuever is a result of the Japanese and Okinawans attempting to duplicate the hip function of the Chinese Arts with very poor results. Although it is possibel to be somewhat effective with this action, it depends on body momentum and inertia to supply the bulk of the effectiveness sir.
> 
> A simple experiment will verify this. Execute the foot manuever of choice, punch, and freeze. have someone push against the punching hand front to back and 'feel.'
> 
> "It's the small things where the knowledge resides. It's the little things that make the big things happen." - Ron Chapél


 
Thank you. That clears things up.


----------

