# Concepts Without Combinations?



## Danjo (Apr 14, 2010)

There are some that claim that it is not neccessary to teach forms or pre-set techniques or combinations in order to teach an art, but to me that sounds iffy at best.

How would one teach the underlying concept of a martial art without teaching combinations that epitomize those concepts?


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 14, 2010)

has anybody who makes this claim given you any examples?

I suppose that in theory, it could be possible, but i think it would take an extremely gifted student to actually learn it this way.  Sounds like on the intellectual level the concepts could get passed on, but there needs to be a way to bridge over from the mental into the physical.  The physical exercises, kata, combos, SD techs, etc. are what does that...


----------



## wushuguy (Apr 14, 2010)

closest I can think of is yiquan, they don't have "pre-set" fighting techniques per say, however they still have some stance work as the foundation of their gaining qi and strengthening the body, and they have "jian wu" which is like shadow boxing and it is supposed to not have any pre-set combinations or pre-arranged forms. they say from doing the stance work and using a vivid imagination one can fight well, but sparring is still a must in the curriculum.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 14, 2010)

Teach points of reference. From each point teach them to make a clean strike, and to choose the weapon based on target availability. After a strike has been made the weapon should then return to another point of reference and it at that point you choose the weapon for the next strike. Using Delayed sword as an example a student will learn to shuffle and get off the line of attack with the teachers help and then apply these tools to make one of three moves in succession; hence, there are no combinations, just the logic of what a set up is, a one, two, three combination. Knowing when a set up combination has been foiled and you are on to the next idea, is a plus; so, a single concept way of thinking is attractive if not usefull.
sean


----------



## chaos1551 (Apr 14, 2010)

I appreciate the combinations that teach me concepts.  I imagine you could learn the concepts without them, but they're such a wonderful tool.  Without them, you'd have to either (yeah) have a great imagination or I suppose you could spar a lot, adhering firmly to striking technique while not letting the sparring match degrade into kickboxing.  

Don't take away my combinations, though.  That's good stuff.  Sometimes I think the "what ifs" make the SD techniques useless in practical application, but they are made useful by teaching not only rote responses to variant snippits of situations but also the movement from one strike/manouver/stance to another strike/manouver/stance.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 14, 2010)

chaos1551 said:


> I appreciate the combinations that teach me concepts. I imagine you could learn the concepts without them, but they're such a wonderful tool. Without them, you'd have to either (yeah) have a great imagination or I suppose you could spar a lot, adhering firmly to striking technique while not letting the sparring match degrade into kickboxing.
> 
> Don't take away my combinations, though. That's good stuff. Sometimes I think the "what ifs" make the SD techniques useless in practical application, but they are made useful by teaching not only rote responses to variant snippits of situations but also the movement from one strike/manouver/stance to another strike/manouver/stance.


your combinations were available to you without learning a tech, it would just be points of reference and circumstance.
sean


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 14, 2010)

Danjo said:


> How would one teach the underlying concept of a martial art without teaching combinations that epitomize those concepts?


 
Constant repetition and/or drills.

I got the underlying concepts of Sanda pretty easily and there are no forms, for that matter no actual ready stance either. But then it could have been my previous CMA training that is form heavy giving me that understanding too. 

But if you stand there and hit a tree long enough and your Sifu tells you that you are hitting it wrong long enough as soon as you hit it right you get the underlying concept of what is being taught to you. How to move the energy, how to generate power properly. And the same goes for throwing copious kicks and drilling Shuaijiao and qinna over and over again.

Technically you do not have any forms to train over and over again to teach you the concepts but you do have repetition of movement and application to teach the concept


----------



## Danjo (Apr 14, 2010)

Xue Sheng said:


> Constant repetition and/or drills.
> 
> I got the underlying concepts of Sanda pretty easily and there are no forms, for that matter no actual ready stance either. But then it could have been my previous CMA training that is form heavy giving me that understanding too.
> 
> ...


 
Isn't Sanda essentially competition kickboxing taught by the current Shaolin? I understand that in kickboxing there are no forms etc. but that's a pretty limited art in the sense that I'm talking about.

For instance, if one were a student of Kenpo and just drilled the basic punches and kicks, it wouldn't be all that distinguishible from Karate. Nothing wrong with drilling basics for good form, but the concepts of any but the simplest of martial arts are not contained in them. It's how they are put together and how they are used that make one able to tell Karate from Kenpo etc.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 14, 2010)

Danjo said:


> Isn't Sanda essentially competition kickboxing taught by the current Shaolin? I understand that in kickboxing there are no forms etc. but that's a pretty limited art in the sense that I'm talking about.
> 
> For instance, if one were a student of Kenpo and just drilled the basic punches and kicks, it wouldn't be all that distinguishible from Karate. Nothing wrong with drilling basics for good form, but the concepts of any but the simplest of martial arts are not contained in them. It's how they are put together and how they are used that make one able to tell Karate from Kenpo etc.


 
Yes you are right and no you are wrong. But you are wrong becuase I was not clear as to which Sanda I was talking about.

Sorry I should have been more clear, the Sanda I was talking about was what I trained which was what they train the police and military and it is decidedly different from the sports stuff that they teach at Shaolin and a plethora of other CMA styles but yet it has many many similarities no matter how hard it tries to deny it .


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 14, 2010)

I suppose one could improvise drills and combos on the spot, that would teach the concepts.  These would not need to be pre-set, or codified as a formal curriculum.  

Is that what you mean?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 14, 2010)

Flying Crane said:


> I suppose one could improvise drills and combos on the spot, that would teach the concepts. These would not need to be pre-set, or codified as a formal curriculum.
> 
> Is that what you mean?


 
pretty much

With Sanda I found it is all in the terminology and it is much more complicated than many, including my Sanda Sifu, say it is

My Sanda Sifu will tell you there is no Qi and not internal but he will also tell you that the power must flow from your feet through your waist to your hands. He will tell you there is no ready stance but then no matter how you stand you should be ready. There is a definite feel (concepts) to this type of Sanda that I do not get in other MA styles and yet there are a lot of similarities to things like Taijiquan and Xingyiquan

But if you are looking for just the concepts of a martial art and you are basing the definition of a concept as an explanatory principle in a scientific system or a general notion or idea or an idea of something formed by mentally combining all its characteristics or particulars you do not need any forms to teach that and call it martial arts.

However if you are talking specifically the concepts of Kenpo/Kempo then of course you need forms since they are part of what makes up Kenpo/Kempo and makes Kenpo/Kempo what it is and without those forms it is something else since you are missing important concepts of kenpo/kempo. 

I run into this with Taiji all the time most of what is being taught out there today is not really taiji at all since it trains only 50% or less of what the art truly is.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 14, 2010)

Whether or not the material is codified and formalized as a curriculum, I think there needs to be SOME kind of physical practice in order to ingrain the intellectual concepts into physical skill.  It can't all be just sitting around and theorizing about it.  It can't all be just cerebral.  That alone will not give you physical skill, tho it can broaden your theoretical understanding, which can give you reason and guidance to adjust how you train physically, which can lead to a higher level of skill.  Otherwise, everyone who has read a martial arts book, ought to be a master because of it.

Danjo:  care to give us some background on where this topic comes from?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 14, 2010)

Flying Crane said:


> Whether or not the material is codified and formalized as a curriculum, I think there needs to be SOME kind of physical practice in order to ingrain the intellectual concepts into physical skill. It can't all be just sitting around and theorizing about it. It can't all be just cerebral. That alone will not give you physical skill, tho it can broaden your theoretical understanding, which can give you reason and guidance to adjust how you train physically, which can lead to a higher level of skill. Otherwise, everyone who has read a martial arts book, ought to be a master because of it.


 
Agreed, sanda training is very physical as is Taiji and Xingyi and any other MA.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 14, 2010)

Xue Sheng said:


> Agreed, sanda training is very physical as is Taiji and Xingyi and any other MA.


 
never doubted it.


----------



## MattJ (Apr 14, 2010)

Danjo said:


> There are some that claim that it is not neccessary to teach forms or pre-set techniques or combinations in order to teach an art, but to me that sounds iffy at best.
> 
> How would one teach the underlying concept of a martial art without teaching combinations that epitomize those concepts?


 
Jeet Kune do.  Done mostly via drills, although there is _some_ isolation or pre-set stuff as well.  If you are talking strictly kenpo, then I would agree with you, as forms are part of the art.


----------



## Danjo (Apr 14, 2010)

Flying Crane said:


> Danjo: care to give us some background on where this topic comes from?


 
It came from some folks who said pretty much what I stated. Been an ongoing argument off and on for a few years now. 

I'm not saying that one cannot learn how to fight without learning combos etc., but rather a particular art. There is much that passes for fighting, but I wouldn't consider everyone that can fight a Kajukenbo, Kenpo, Karate, Judo, BJJ, CMA student for instance.


----------



## Danjo (Apr 14, 2010)

MattJ said:


> Jeet Kune do. Done mostly via drills, although there is _some_ isolation or pre-set stuff as well. If you are talking strictly kenpo, then I would agree with you, as forms are part of the art.


 
Well JKD is not an art per se. It _IS_ a concept or philosophy. "Keep that which is useful, and toss out what isn't" leaves a lot of room for what it is allowed to be. It's essentially an approach to fighting rather than an art.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 14, 2010)

Danjo said:


> It came from some folks who said pretty much what I stated. Been an ongoing argument off and on for a few years now.
> 
> I'm not saying that one cannot learn how to fight without learning combos etc., but rather a particular art. There is much that passes for fighting, but I wouldn't consider everyone that can fight a Kajukenbo, Kenpo, Karate, Judo, BJJ, CMA student for instance.


 
I think there's a number of ways to interpret the OP.  I'm trying to get the claim clear in my head...

Is the claim that one can teach a new student a complete system from the ground up without any physical training?  Purely thru discussion and theorizing?

Or is the claim that one can teach a system based on concepts, using physical training that doesn't happen to be formalized and codified?  So each training session is "unique" in the sense that you don't intentionally repeat the same combos or sequences from the day before, even tho basic skills like stances, punches, blocks, kicks, etc. may be standarized?

Is it the Mitose prison/kosho issue?


----------



## Danjo (Apr 14, 2010)

Flying Crane said:


> I think there's a number of ways to interpret the OP. I'm trying to get the claim clear in my head...
> 
> Is the claim that one can teach a new student a complete system from the ground up without any physical training? Purely thru discussion and theorizing?
> 
> ...


 
No it's not the Mitose issue, but that's one example.

It's the claim that one can be taught an entire art without the use of combinations etc. It was originally about someone making that claim about Kajukenbo. The statement was that since Kajukenbo is an art that combined various striking and grappling arts into one art, that and such combination of said arts would be the same as Kajukenbo. I disagree. It's not the mere mixing of various arts, but the way it's done and the concept behind it that makes it Kajukenbo or any other art you're looking at.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 14, 2010)

Danjo said:


> No it's not the Mitose issue, but that's one example.
> 
> It's the claim that one can be taught an entire art without the use of combinations etc. It was originally about someone making that claim about Kajukenbo. The statement was that since Kajukenbo is an art that combined various striking and grappling arts into one art, that and such combination of said arts would be the same as Kajukenbo. I disagree. It's not the mere mixing of various arts, but the way it's done and the concept behind it that makes it Kajukenbo or any other art you're looking at.


 

well I'd agree with you in that it's not just any old mix of certain arts, but rather in HOW they were mixed. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Kaju also have it's own body of unique material, such as kata?  If so, those things go a long way in defining what the art is.

Capoeira is an example of an art that typically does not codify the training sequences, but that doesn't mean we don't DO training sequences.  Capoeira is all about sponteneity with the technique.  So we don't like to rely on a codified body of material, such as kata, that gets repeated over and over.  The foundational techniques and methods are certainly codified, but how they are strung together in practice is usually not.  Each day can be a very different experience, as the instructor creates sequences on the fly, to stimulate sponteneity and the creative eye in the student.


----------



## Danjo (Apr 14, 2010)

Flying Crane said:


> well I'd agree with you in that it's not just any old mix of certain arts, but rather in HOW they were mixed. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Kaju also have it's own body of unique material, such as kata? If so, those things go a long way in defining what the art is.
> 
> Capoeira is an example of an art that typically does not codify the training sequences, but that doesn't mean we don't DO training sequences. Capoeira is all about sponteneity with the technique. So we don't like to rely on a codified body of material, such as kata, that gets repeated over and over. The foundational techniques and methods are certainly codified, but how they are strung together in practice is usually not. Each day can be a very different experience, as the instructor creates sequences on the fly, to stimulate sponteneity and the creative eye in the student.


 
Yep. Kaju has forms also. Now there is a lot of debate about forms in Kaju. Some like em, some don't. Plus, they were added after the combinations were created to make it more like other arts at the time. But the roots are still the Grab Arts, Punch counters, Knife and Club counters etc. 

Capoiera, Muy Thai (although I've seen forms in that too), kickboxing, boxing, wrestling, etc. don't have forms or set combos. Though Judo does have Kata and I've read the Master Text in Gracie JJ which codifies the chains and techniques that Helio and his brothers developed for teaching the art back in Brazil in the 50's (They actually had technique cards that they used in sequence originally).

It seems like certain arts would be nearly impossible to teach properly without the requisite forms or combinations. At best it would be sloppy as hell to try it.


----------



## MJS (Apr 14, 2010)

Danjo said:


> There are some that claim that it is not neccessary to teach forms or pre-set techniques or combinations in order to teach an art, but to me that sounds iffy at best.
> 
> How would one teach the underlying concept of a martial art without teaching combinations that epitomize those concepts?


 
It could be done, however, its, IMO, going to take a) a dedicated, quick learning student, and b) lots of practice.  Basically, what would be done, would be stripping the material down to the bare bones, and focusing on certain areas only.  

Personally, I feel that the techniques, katas, etc., are the foundation to build from.  They give 1 example on how to deal with a particular attack.  However, once the student advances, its up to them to take the tools that the have, and put them together as they see fit.  For example, lets take Delayed Sword, from the Parker System.  Its designed to defend against a right lapel grab.  However, it should be able to be done from a right or left punch, a right or left lapel grab, or a push, either single hand or 2 hand.  1 tech., and look at the number of options. 

I tell my students all the time, not to get so hung up on the techniques.  Learn them of course, but when they're doing a spontaneous technique, just react.  They all know how to punch, block, kick, move, etc., so use those tools and put together a defense, as you see fit.  

Katas....I do them, I teach them, I do my best to give at least 1 application for each move, but I dont spend nearly the time that others do.  I do feel that there is value in them, and they should give ideas to SD situations.


----------



## Danjo (Apr 14, 2010)

MJS said:


> It could be done, however, its, IMO, going to take a) a dedicated, quick learning student, and b) lots of practice. Basically, what would be done, would be stripping the material down to the bare bones, and focusing on certain areas only.
> 
> Personally, I feel that the techniques, katas, etc., are the foundation to build from. They give 1 example on how to deal with a particular attack. However, once the student advances, its up to them to take the tools that the have, and put them together as they see fit. For example, lets take Delayed Sword, from the Parker System. Its designed to defend against a right lapel grab. However, it should be able to be done from a right or left punch, a right or left lapel grab, or a push, either single hand or 2 hand. 1 tech., and look at the number of options.
> 
> ...


 
Yeah, I'm not saying that one should be limited by the combinations or forms, but that they are generally the quickest way to efficiently deliver the system to them. Why re-invent the wheel?


----------



## TigerCraneGuy (Apr 14, 2010)

Touch Of Death said:


> Teach points of reference. From each point teach them to make a clean strike, and to choose the weapon based on target availability. After a strike has been made the weapon should then return to another point of reference and it at that point you choose the weapon for the next strike. Using Delayed sword as an example a student will learn to shuffle and get off the line of attack with the teachers help and then apply these tools to make one of three moves in succession; hence, there are no combinations, just the logic of what a set up is, a one, two, three combination. Knowing when a set up combination has been foiled and you are on to the next idea, is a plus; so, a single concept way of thinking is attractive if not usefull.
> sean


 
I like this.


----------



## MattJ (Apr 15, 2010)

MJS said:


> It could be done, however, its, IMO, going to take a) a dedicated, quick learning student, and b) lots of practice. Basically, what would be done, would be stripping the material down to the bare bones, and focusing on certain areas only.


 
What about boxing? Quick to learn, no forms. To be good at anything requires practice and dedication.


----------



## MJS (Apr 15, 2010)

MattJ said:


> What about boxing? Quick to learn, no forms. To be good at anything requires practice and dedication.


 
Well, thats kinda what I was talking about when I mentioned the bare bones.  IMO, if we were to compare boxing with Kenpo, I feel there is alot more in Kenpo.  So, with boxing, they're focusing on footwork, bob/weave, punches.  There're no kicks, no kata, no SD techniques.  So a boxer is focusing on a small set of things, and with dedicated practice, one can get very good, very quick.  If you do everything thats in Kenpo, I'd say its going to take alot longer, due to everything thats there.  But even with something like boxing, training 1 or 2 times a week, for an hour or so class vs. someone who jumps in the ring every day....I think you see what I'm saying here.   And that applies to anything, not just boxing.

And you're correct...getting good at something does require lots of practice and dedication.  But if we think about it, how many people are really that dedicated?  I'm not saying those people don't exist because I know they do, but how many people devote that amount of time to their training?  

There is a Kaju guy that has the following quote for his sig line.  It reads: "When you're not training, someone else is training to kick your ***."

So very true.


----------



## MattJ (Apr 15, 2010)

MJS - 



> Well, thats kinda what I was talking about when I mentioned the bare bones. IMO, if we were to compare boxing with Kenpo, I feel there is alot more in Kenpo. So, with boxing, they're focusing on footwork, bob/weave, punches. There're no kicks, no kata, no SD techniques. So a boxer is focusing on a small set of things, and with dedicated practice, one can get very good, very quick. If you do everything thats in Kenpo, I'd say its going to take alot longer, due to everything thats there.


 
Fair enough, although I didn't consider the depth of a particular style relevant to the topic. I was addressing the OP here, that it _can_ be done:



> There are some that claim that it is not neccessary to teach forms or pre-set techniques or combinations in order to teach an art, but to me that sounds iffy at best.


 

Narrow-focus arts can be very effective, since less practice is _required_ due to the smaller syllabus. I agree with you that it will take longer to become effective with 250 kenpo techniques compared to the boxer with roughly 4 punches, but the boxer will be damn good with those 4, probably much quicker. 



> But even with something like boxing, training 1 or 2 times a week, for an hour or so class vs. someone who jumps in the ring every day....I think you see what I'm saying here.  And that applies to anything, not just boxing.


 
Agreed.



> And you're correct...getting good at something does require lots of practice and dedication. But if we think about it, how many people are really that dedicated? I'm not saying those people don't exist because I know they do, but how many people devote that amount of time to their training?


 
Not many for sure, but that almost makes the case for more limited arts with smaller syllibi (?). Less to learn makes it quicker to learn. I personally view MA training with more of a long-term mindset, so well-roundedness is equally important to me as speed of learning.



> There is a Kaju guy that has the following quote for his sig line. It reads: "When you're not training, someone else is training to kick your ***."


 
Excellent. :ultracool


----------



## J Ellis (Apr 15, 2010)

Western boxing does contain combinations that are drilled extensively in a variety of ways. These combinations do not have the same level of complexity as Kenpo techniques, but they can be considered embryonic "techniques" just the same.

I'm not disagreeing with what has been noted above, just noting that even boxing uses combinations to instill concepts and patterns of motion.

Joel


----------



## Danjo (Apr 15, 2010)

J Ellis said:


> Western boxing does contain combinations that are drilled extensively in a variety of ways. These combinations do not have the same level of complexity as Kenpo techniques, but they can be considered embryonic "techniques" just the same.
> 
> I'm not disagreeing with what has been noted above, just noting that even boxing uses combinations to instill concepts and patterns of motion.
> 
> Joel


 
Yes they do have preset combinations and techniques that are drilled. These are done to ingrain good habits and develop speed and power. Boxing is a good example of how combinations are used but not restrictive.


----------



## MJS (Apr 15, 2010)

MattJ said:


> MJS -
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

Sounds like we're on the same page.   I just used boxing as an example.  I mean, even in Kenpo, with the huge number of techs., that we have, I take a handful that address each type of attack, ie: 2-3 punch, 2-3 roundhouse, kick, etc., etc., and drill the hell out of them.  I do the same with Arnis.  I'd rather have a handful of things that I can do well, then a ton of things that I suck at.

I'm all for learning and teaching the entire curriculum.  I mean, if you didn't, thats kinda like only watching the first hour of a 2hr. movie.  But if we think about it, how many right punch techs. do we need to learn?  Between Arnis, and all of the Kenpo systems I've studied, ie: SKK, EPAK, Tracy, I'm in some pretty high numbers.  Thats why I pick a few that I know are my bread and butter moves.  I would think that pro fighters, ie: boxers, MMA guys, have their fav. moves too.  

So, the boxer, with only a handful of punches, drills the hell out of them, and like you said, gets damn good.


----------



## TigerCraneGuy (Apr 15, 2010)

MJS said:


> Well, thats kinda what I was talking about when I mentioned the bare bones. IMO, if we were to compare boxing with Kenpo, I feel there is alot more in Kenpo. So, with boxing, they're focusing on footwork, bob/weave, punches. There're no kicks, no kata, no SD techniques. So a boxer is focusing on a small set of things, and with dedicated practice, one can get very good, very quick. If you do everything thats in Kenpo, I'd say its going to take alot longer, due to everything thats there. But even with something like boxing, training 1 or 2 times a week, for an hour or so class vs. someone who jumps in the ring every day....I think you see what I'm saying here.  And that applies to anything, not just boxing.
> 
> And you're correct...getting good at something does require lots of practice and dedication. But if we think about it, how many people are really that dedicated? I'm not saying those people don't exist because I know they do, but how many people devote that amount of time to their training?
> 
> ...


 
How about applying the boxing training methodology to Kenpo.

Kenpo weapons, tactics, and strategies.... boxing drills to bring them alive.

In essence, that's what I've been doing with my Kenpo lately.

It started after I purchased and began to view Mark Hatmaker's 'The Complete Pugilist' DVD set, and was struck by the uncanny similarities between Kenpo and Old-school Boxing, which Hatmaker claims is the pre-Marquis De QB variant, complete with outward axe-hands (think: the outward handsword in Five Swords after the very first inward block), hammerfists, palm-heels, elbows, knees, and headbutts. Even the stancework rang a familiar bell, e.g. toe-heel line, 45-degree angles, stepping and dragging forward and back, shifting up the circle (they call it pivoting, and I've also heard the blade-work term: inquartata), and stepping off the line of an incoming attack; it was really quite eye-opening.

To this end, I began to look hard at my own Kenpo, which was starting to frustrate me due to its rigidity, and lightbulbs started going off in my head, giving me a sort of minor epiphany.

I recall Ed Parker once said something along the lines of: Hit hard and stick to three-shot combinations. So I started to train each move of my technique sequences in isolation, shadowboxing with said move for a full three minutes before adding the rest, step by step, till I ended up executing the whole technique sequence.

For example, with the opening move of Shielding Hammer (or rather the 5.0 variant of SH), I'd first train the double-factor, inward-outward block, snapping it back to point-of-origin as I went, and incorporating a slight 'pull' to the rear as I step-dragged back. Moving like a boxer, always guarding, always moving on the balls of my feet. 

Next up, I'd shuffle in with the vertical fist off the lead right hand, sort of like a lunge-step after the first evasive manoeuver. Then three minutes later, I'd add the next move. Then the next. And the next. Till I had the whole technique sequence. 

Then I'd mix it all up, changing the sequence as I went. Then throw in straight boxing blows for the heck of it. Untill eventually, I'd be mixing up jabs, crosses, and hooks, with backfists, vertical punches, axe-hands, and hammerfists.

Done the same with Five Swords and Alternating Maces. 

Haven't added in kicks yet, but soon, I will.

Hope I'm making some sense...


----------



## MJS (Apr 15, 2010)

TigerCraneGuy said:


> How about applying the boxing training methodology to Kenpo.
> 
> Kenpo weapons, tactics, and strategies.... boxing drills to bring them alive.
> 
> ...


 
*Gasp* *Gasp* Shame on you!  The idea of you actually thinking outside the box.  Oh my..the Gods of Kenpo are going to rain down on you!  How could you even think of doing something like that!!!! LOL!  Excuse my little humor there.   Had to say it, because IMO, there are some people, not necessarily anyone in this thread, that seems to think that making any changes, adding anything non Kenpo in, using ideas that're non Kenpo, is a bad thing to do.  

All kidding aside, I like that idea.   My only exposure to Jeff and his 5.0 stuff, is what I've seen online, but IMHO, I think he, much like Paul Mills, is doing a good thing, taking Kenpo to the next level.

Sounds like you're on the right track!  Keep up the good work! 

Mike


----------



## Danjo (Apr 16, 2010)

TigerCraneGuy said:


> How about applying the boxing training methodology to Kenpo.
> 
> Kenpo weapons, tactics, and strategies.... boxing drills to bring them alive.
> 
> ...


 
Well, you're still taking existing combinations that you have already learned and dissecting them and drilling them. This is wonderful training on its own merit and can often lead to the types of breakthroughs that you describe.  However, I'm actually teaching the art to the beginner who knows nothing. To me, to forego teaching the existing combinations in favor of teaching the idividual techniques in isolation is to fail to pass on the essential concept of the art.


----------



## punisher73 (Apr 17, 2010)

You can not have "concepts" without it's physical manifestation in a technique.  Now, how you do that is up to debate.  Do you make a string of movements and illustrate several concepts as a kenpo technique? Or, do you isolate one movement and idea to only technique?

Boxing is called the sweet science for a reason.  It is both simple, in that it only has a few basic punches and defensive movements compared to other arts, but it is also very sophisticated in the strategies of movement it employs at it's higher levels.

Everything in fighting, in it's basic forms has to have preset movements (which also show the underlying concepts).  There is too much talk/hype from Bruce Lee about "freeing yourself" from dead patterns etc. and many people threw out the baby with the bathwater.


----------



## Doc (Apr 17, 2010)

Don't they call that Krav Maga?


----------



## Danjo (Apr 18, 2010)

punisher73 said:


> You can not have "concepts" without it's physical manifestation in a technique. Now, how you do that is up to debate. Do you make a string of movements and illustrate several concepts as a kenpo technique? Or, do you isolate one movement and idea to only technique?
> 
> Boxing is called the sweet science for a reason. It is both simple, in that it only has a few basic punches and defensive movements compared to other arts, but it is also very sophisticated in the strategies of movement it employs at it's higher levels.
> 
> Everything in fighting, in it's basic forms has to have preset movements (which also show the underlying concepts). There is too much talk/hype from Bruce Lee about "freeing yourself" from dead patterns etc. and many people threw out the baby with the bathwater.


 
Very well said.


----------



## KenpoDave (Apr 18, 2010)

I guess it's possible in a limited sense.  But, words like "system" and "art" imply structure and pattern.

It seems to me that if I were to begin teaching with no codified structure, at some point, the stuff that works the best would get repeated and organized in my mind, whether I chose to officially codify it or not.  The drills and combinations that achieved the best results in the least amount of time, would, by default, become "techniques."

Students would likely mentally organize the material in a manner that at least resembled the way it was taught.  

If form follows function, then, at some point, the functional material should give birth to form.


----------



## James Kovacich (Apr 28, 2010)

Being someone whose trained alot with the intentions of no "presets." I can say from experience that at a minimum, some form of combinations will always be used if one is going to learn to fight. The biggest differance is whether or not the combos are set in stone. 

But I've also found that it is much easier to guide a student to a level of "no presets" if they were first trained extensively with core techniques / combintations than expecting a student to understand and perform what I do without a "base." The base is a must.


----------



## kaizasosei (Apr 28, 2010)

Not sure how to answer but i was recently admiring some martial arts drawings-some sequences also, so i would say one could try to show the student the end result of a technique or capture that moment in a drawing or a photo for learning purposes. 
  -Teachers, books and systems may carry the knowledge of age old martial traditions or pass on great strength, but the best place to really learn is from within....
Pictures though, often can show the ideals of technique, timing, positioning and  even attitude.
Is that what you're getting at?  Maybe i'm just spacing out again.-  



j


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 29, 2010)

James Kovacich said:


> Being someone whose trained alot with the intentions of no "presets." I can say from experience that at a minimum, some form of combinations will always be used if one is going to learn to fight. The biggest differance is whether or not the combos are set in stone.
> 
> But I've also found that it is much easier to guide a student to a level of "no presets" if they were first trained extensively with core techniques / combintations than expecting a student to understand and perform what I do without a "base." The base is a must.


The base is how you move not what you move.
Sean


----------



## shaolinmonkmark (Apr 30, 2010)

thinking out of the box, if all we had was traditional "Pancrase" fighters, and he fought a guy on the streets, who would win? street fighter, or pancrase?
Pancrase would have more skills to beat on the street fighter, but street fighter has whatever he has learned/adapted to as well.
Make any sense?


----------



## James Kovacich (May 2, 2010)

Touch Of Death said:


> The base is how you move not what you move.
> Sean


 Thats fine for you and maybe others but the base for me are the core techniques, stances, footwork etc that one draws from that eventually leads to "doing without thinking." 

That's was what I was trying to express.


----------



## Danjo (May 3, 2010)

Touch Of Death said:


> The base is how you move not what you move.
> Sean


 
Well, one can't have combinations without incorporating how one moves into them. They are, in fact, preset examples of how one ought to move. Albeit, they are laboratory examples, but it can at least teach the concepts in a reliable way.

To me the base is composed of those combinations or forms (as in the case of older styles) that exemplify the art.


----------



## Danjo (May 3, 2010)

shaolinmonkmark said:


> thinking out of the box, if all we had was traditional "Pancrase" fighters, and he fought a guy on the streets, who would win? street fighter, or pancrase?
> Pancrase would have more skills to beat on the street fighter, but street fighter has whatever he has learned/adapted to as well.
> Make any sense?


 
Too many variables to answer that question. There are street fighters that would get wailed on and those that wouldn't. By the same token, there are pancrase guys who suck too and those that are highly skilled.


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 3, 2010)

James Kovacich said:


> Thats fine for you and maybe others but the base for me are the core techniques, stances, footwork etc that one draws from that eventually leads to "doing without thinking."
> 
> That's was what I was trying to express.


I think its more important to be able to complete a pattern without hurting yourself, than to collect "core" patterns. Stances, footwork, et cetera fall under the how.
Sean


----------



## MJS (May 3, 2010)

Touch Of Death said:


> The base is how you move not what you move.
> Sean


 
And IMO, you need something as a base, otherwise, people are not going to have any idea as to what they're doing.  People need something to build off of, before they can think out of the box.

If we think about it, technically, we shouldn't need every single punch technique in the Kenpo system....my God, how many is that again?....before we should start thinking out of the box.  I'm always telling my students to not get hung up on the techniques.  Sure, learn them, practice them so that you can perform them when its time to test, but when the poop is hitting the fan, dont think about doing that textbook move, think about the concepts and ideas that you've gained from all those techs., put something together and defend yourself.  

That, IMHO, is the goal we should all be trying to reach.


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 4, 2010)

MJS said:


> And IMO, you need something as a base, otherwise, people are not going to have any idea as to what they're doing. People need something to build off of, before they can think out of the box.
> 
> If we think about it, technically, we shouldn't need every single punch technique in the Kenpo system....my God, how many is that again?....before we should start thinking out of the box. I'm always telling my students to not get hung up on the techniques. Sure, learn them, practice them so that you can perform them when its time to test, but when the poop is hitting the fan, dont think about doing that textbook move, think about the concepts and ideas that you've gained from all those techs., put something together and defend yourself.
> 
> That, IMHO, is the goal we should all be trying to reach.


Well, the techs are all specific senerios, and they do teach you how to deal with those senerios from any given position, but understanding point of origin, alignment, and the cancellation of H,W,&D, are going to be just as much of a help.
Sean


----------



## MJS (May 4, 2010)

Touch Of Death said:


> Well, the techs are all specific senerios, and they do teach you how to deal with those senerios from any given position, but understanding point of origin, alignment, and the cancellation of H,W,&D, are going to be just as much of a help.
> Sean


 
H, W, and D should be addressed in those preset techs. as well.  However, once people expand past those presets, people should not only be able to figure out how to react to an attack, but they should also be able to figure out how to cancel the HWD with whatever it is they're doing.


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 4, 2010)

MJS said:


> H, W, and D should be addressed in those preset techs. as well. However, once people expand past those presets, people should not only be able to figure out how to react to an attack, but they should also be able to figure out how to cancel the HWD with whatever it is they're doing.


Amen!:angel:


----------



## Dan Anderson (May 4, 2010)

Danjo said:


> There are some that claim that it is not neccessary to teach forms or pre-set techniques or combinations in order to teach an art, but to me that sounds iffy at best.
> 
> How would one teach the underlying concept of a martial art without teaching combinations that epitomize those concepts?


Coming in on this way late but my simple answer is "You can't."  A student needs a frame of reference and combinations are that.  A senior practitioner, however, should be able to take the concept and run with it.

Yours,
Dan Anderson


----------



## Danjo (May 20, 2010)

Dan Anderson said:


> Coming in on this way late but my simple answer is "You can't." A student needs a frame of reference and combinations are that. A senior practitioner, however, should be able to take the concept and run with it.
> 
> Yours,
> Dan Anderson


 
Thanks and I agree. 

Would have replied earlier, but for some reason y work now has this site blocked for "violence". For some reason I can still get on most other MA websites though.


----------



## Doc (May 20, 2010)

"If what you do,
is not what you do,
than what are you doing?" - Ed Parker


----------



## shaolinmonkmark (May 20, 2010)

you need some forms of the equation, to get the answer.
Example- 
bake a cake, don't you need the ingredient's to do it??? Then you mix them all up?
You just can't throw a pan in the oven on 350, then expect a nice chocolate cake to come out, then it frosts itself, then a glass of milk automatically "Pours" itself afterwards!
LOL!


----------



## Yondanchris (Aug 24, 2010)

Danjo said:


> There are some that claim that it is not neccessary to teach forms or pre-set techniques or combinations in order to teach an art, but to me that sounds iffy at best.
> 
> How would one teach the underlying concept of a martial art without teaching combinations that epitomize those concepts?


 
Thank you for bringing this subject up, 

I have thought about this many years ago when I was a lowly blue belt wondering why I had to learn all these techniques and forms. 

After some years of teaching I came to the conclusion that their is a symbiotic relationship between the forms/tech and the concepts. 

For example: 

if you isolate the concepts how does one know how to implement them effectively, it seems to me it would be like a child with a new toy boat without a body of water to float on. 

or if you isolate the physical techniques how does one know how to 
coordinate and isolate them in a logical/effective manner. Like a Marine given a Gun with bullets then asked to shoot a perfect score. 

I believe the reason the majority of martial arts are devided into Belt/Skill levels and that each level has "graded" material introducing concepts and physical techniques is to gradually combine the art as a whole to the student maximizing retention and proper implementation. 

Although this realization came many years after my wanderings at Blue Belt I find and see this question coming to the minds of a LOT of underbelts. I am thankful for time and experience validating the time honored tradition that I was taught. 

My humble and mostly ignorant .02 cents,

Chris


----------



## Yondanchris (Aug 24, 2010)

Dan Anderson said:


> Coming in on this way late but my simple answer is "You can't." A student needs a frame of reference and combinations are that. A senior practitioner, however, should be able to take the concept and run with it.
> 
> Yours,
> Dan Anderson


 
I agree, 

  I was recently asked by a student how Black Belts can string and modify  techniques on the fly. I told him it came from "mastering" the basics and knowing the concepts and then being able to use them - Mushin "no nomind" without thinking about it. I am still amazed at what the human mind can do, conciously or un-conciously. 

Its always fun watching Masters and Students have this idea "stick" and seeing the "light bulb" go off in their mind and start proactively and reactively "running" with techniques. 

My humble and mostly ignorant .02 cents, 

Chris


----------

