# Blasphemy!!!



## KenpoGirl (Dec 1, 2002)

A friend recently commented to me that he thought me a "Rebel"  because I dared to post that I didn't like a technique and question it.  He mentioned how some factions of the Kenpo Society would consider it Blasphemy and expel me from the Earth if they could.  {Exaggeration for dramatic purposes  }  

So I'll put it to you guys, do you think its "Blasphemy" to question one of the original Ed Parker Techniques?  Besides having an honorable respect for what SGM Paker created, should there be acceptance of the system he taught, without question?

Now please don't jump on me about this, I do respect Mr. Parker and what he's given us.  And I will do whatever my instructor wants me to learn, but there are some techniques that just don't fit either the individual or the masses.  Is it wrong to discuss it?  I don't think so.  Anytime I've whined (yes I admit its whining) about a technique, people have responded with some really great solutions or comments to let me know I'm not alone.

Let me know what you think, good or bad.  

Dot


----------



## yilisifu (Dec 1, 2002)

In the old, traditional schools it was considered a sort of "blasphemy" to question anything at all.  One did what one was told without question.

   However......

   I encourage my students to ask questions.  It's important that they understand the "why" as well as the "how," and I feel certain that mr. Parker would say the same thing.

   While you may not feel comfortable with some techniques at this point in your training, you may find that they fit very nicely later on.  Every technique has it's place and is important for overall development.  It is training THROUGH the things that you don't like that help you develop inside and ultimately help you better understand yourself through your art.

   So grit your teeth and gut it out.  But smile.  Always smile.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 1, 2002)

I'm far from the expert on this, however the 2 different kenpo schools I've dealt with are both teaching modified techniques. They have very good reasonings, mostly due to 'updating' the techniques to adapt to more modern situations, to modifications for individual mechanics.

How wide spread this thinking is, is unknown to me. I'm a stick jockey.


----------



## Senfeng (Dec 2, 2002)

I don't think its blasphemy at all.

Different body types with perform different ways.  However, it is important to 'understand' a technique, but if it doesn't 'feel' right or natural I usually ask my instructor for advice.  Sometimes, I ask him if I can change the technique.  He'll either agree or give me more insite into the 'why'.  Its not that I CAN'T do the technique, sometimes its just that my body is larger than most so the shifting of weight for my body type is slower.  I wouldn't be able to do certain things at the same speed as someone shorter than me, who can shift his weight faster.

EDIT
===================
Sorry, I didn't realize that this was in the Kenpo/Kempo forum.  I was just looking at the most recent posts.  I realize that our techniques and philosophies are different, so please ignore my post if it offends or differs from any Kempo beliefs.


----------



## Les (Dec 2, 2002)

Dot,

I beleive that asking questions is essential, after all we're Kenpo exponents, not lemmings. (Most of us, anyway  )

How can we perpetuate and innovate the system if we don't question what's there. If we don't, it will become Traditional Kenpo. Thats not what Mr Parker wanted.

This process should be ongoing with all Kenpo practitioners, no matter what level they are at. (Obviously, beginners questions are less deep than experienced students)

Herre in the UK I attend seminars with Professor Gary Ellis whenever I can, and he says to students, 'If you don't ask questions, how can I learn'

Les


----------



## sammy3170 (Dec 2, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Kaith Rustaz _
> 
> *I'm far from the expert on this, however the 2 different kenpo schools I've dealt with are both teaching modified techniques. They have very good reasonings, mostly due to 'updating' the techniques to adapt to more modern situations, to modifications for individual mechanics.
> 
> How wide spread this thinking is, is unknown to me. I'm a stick jockey.  *



I'm sorry but the updating the techniques to suit a more modern society is crap especially considering American Kenpo isn't that old.   A punch back in the 1800's or a knife attack in the 1800's requires no different defence now than it did then.  If however you are practicing defence against a guy with a sword on a horse then fair enough perhaps it should be looked at.     I found a lot of the American Kenpo techniques I learnt weren't that effective in their ideal form for me.  I have heard it from many people (Jeff Speakman for one) that Kenpo is a big mans art so some of the ideal techniques may not work for people of slight build as they can't generate the same power.   In speakmans syllabus you are required to learn and be able to perform all techniques in their ideal form before modification is allowed.

Just my thoughts
Cheers
Sammy


----------



## c2kenpo (Dec 2, 2002)

Blasphemy???
To think?

No. From the experience that I have had with the people that met and trained with Mr. Parker even he was constantly questioning and modifying what he was teaching. 
Isn't that what an artisit does? Question what you have for canvas and paint and use what you have available. 
I think we should all have questions about forms, tech, etc.. it is the way a martial artisit will evolve and change into his/her art. Not a clone of the 60-70 martial arts but the martial artisit of the 21st century.

JMHO

Dave Gunzburg


----------



## Les (Dec 2, 2002)

> _Originally posted by sammy3170 _
> 
> *I'm sorry but the updating the techniques to suit a more modern society is crap especially considering American Kenpo isn't that old.   A punch back in the 1800's or a knife attack in the 1800's requires no different defence now than it did then.  If however you are practicing defence against a guy with a sword on a horse then fair enough perhaps it should be looked at.     I found a lot of the American Kenpo techniques I learnt weren't that effective in their ideal form for me.  I have heard it from many people (Jeff Speakman for one) that Kenpo is a big mans art so some of the ideal techniques may not work for people of slight build as they can't generate the same power.   In speakmans syllabus you are required to learn and be able to perform all techniques in their ideal form before modification is allowed.
> 
> ...



Sammy,
I'd like to pick up on a couple of points in your post.

1: I'm sorry but the updating the techniques to suit a more modern society is crap 

This is what Mr Parker did. Also how he saw the future of Kenpo. Are you saying that Mr Parkers teachings are crap?

2: A punch back in the 1800's or a knife attack in the 1800's requires no different defence now than it did then.

Of course it's different. The very nature of street attacks is constantly changing. I can see great differences between now and when I was a teenager. (Not as far back as the 1800's)

3: I found a lot of the American Kenpo techniques I learnt weren't that effective in their ideal form for me.

Kenpo techniques in the ideal form are not necessarily supposed to work in the street, they are guidelines. 

4: Kenpo is a big mans art so some of the ideal techniques may not work for people of slight build as they can't generate the same power. 

Have you ever seen Diane Tanaka? Mark Keller? or Ingmar Johannsen?
These excellent Kenpo exponents are not what you would call 'big', but few, if any would doubt their ability.

5: In speakmans syllabus you are required to learn and be able to perform all techniques in their ideal form before modification is allowed.

I have a student with a physical disability which precludes the use of one of her arms. Shall I make her struggle for years, getting nowhere, or tailor the techniques to her capabilities right from the start?

Les


----------



## ikenpo (Dec 2, 2002)

I guess my view is that the techniques are ideas that introduce us to principles and concepts. So even if a "tech" is akward it still has the chance to teach us the various principles and concepts of motion. Do I think I'll pull off a full tech as it is written? With my blazing speed...probably:rofl: 

But I agree with most folks that say SOME techniques need a slight tweek here or there to make them applicable today, but overall I think they all serve a purpose in the grand scheme of things. To me it is a lot like a puzzle...the outside of the puzzle provides the frame work for the entire thing. It doesn't really add to the beauty because it is just the outside rim, but we always look to putting that rim (base) together first before filling in all the rest.

The other side of it is something you dislike someone else may love. So it might just be you starting trouble again...lol 

Just my thoughts, jb


----------



## fanged_seamus (Dec 2, 2002)

PURE OPINION AND SPECULATION:
Those who are most rigid and refuse to question a technique have the least understanding of it; the lack of confidence in their understanding of the technique makes them a slave to it.


REALITY CHECK:
Questioning is a method of learning.  I have learned more by asking seemingly dumb questions than I ever did simply following instructions.  And not just in kenpo -- in almost every aspect of life.

That said, if I don't like a technique or have difficulty with it, that doesn't mean I won't keep trying.  Even in the techniques I like least, there is always something to learn in it.

Your fellow blasphemer & heathen,
Tad


----------



## Kirk (Dec 2, 2002)

I don't really feel qualified to chime in here, and my opinion on this
may change after I learn more of the system.  My thoughts as 
they stand right now is that in reading some of Mr Parker's 
writings (Infinite Insights) we're taught words, then sentences,
then paragraphs.  

Using that analogy, we're taught to speak in the same way.  Then
as adults, we use slang, or "hotty toddy" upscale words, or 
whatever variation we put all personally decide to put on it.  I say
learn the proper language first, the way it was intended, then 
work on your own personal choice of words, sentences, phrases,
and paragraphs.

Bruce Lee's words of "style of no style" and "form without form"
have often been mistranslated.  Many took his teachings to mean
get a yellow belt in as many styles as you can.  What Bruce did
was learn Wing Chun to a certain level (I think 4 years of training)
and then branched off to learn what he could from other styles.
Even at that, how many could have the knowledge to do so after
only 4 years of training?  Could it be that Bruce was a special
case?  

  Hopefully this won't turn into a Bruce Lee discussion, but my
point was that my understand of tailoring was after you learn
what the man intended to teach, then look for things you can
add or delete from it, for your own personal choices.  But teach
the way you were taught, because your personal choices might
not be the ones everyone would prefer.  Let me, the student,
make the choice of what'd be best, but give me the full course
of techs, as written, to make my decision.


----------



## brianhunter (Dec 2, 2002)

I do not have a problem with questioning a technique. It is part of the learning process and helps further it along.
I do however have an issue with modifying them and not teaching them as outlined. Removing them from the curriculum or modifying them.
Ideal is just that IDEAL, sometimes you may not know what is behind a technique untill you are way down your kenpo journey. 
What point should you be at where you are able to effectively modify a technique and change it in the curriculum? Im not talking grafting or what if or prefix, suffix, etc. Those are all great excercises. 
Im talking change the technique in its base in a curriculum? Or dropping it? Some people are too quick to do this I think. if you learn it and think its useless learn it and catagorize it accodingly you never know when you will need it. Sometimes its meaning might not hit you for a few years...some techniques I learned 2-3 years ago will present new solutions and its a "wow" moment if you ask me.


----------



## satans.barber (Dec 2, 2002)

Is it not true that when SGM Parker died he was still constanly refining his techniques?

I don't think he would have wanted us to stagnate the techniques as they were in 1990 and never change them, I think he would have been more pleased to see us continuing his work, and refining them further.

Certainly in out club, the techniques are modified some of the time, some quite heavily as well.

As someone else said, kenpo is not in the process of breeding clone armies (sorry, coudn't resist... ), so some techs which work well for some people don't work well for others (without tailoring).

It would be folly to not ask questions of the technique of it doesn't work well for you, better to concentrate your training on the ones that suit you well in my opinion.

Ian.


----------



## Kenpomachine (Dec 2, 2002)

Hey, I know enough small men being VERY good at techniques to disregard sammy3170's opinion.
They are the kinds which surprise brats.

And of course, what works best for my instructor won't work the same way for me as I don't have neither the same body constitution nor preferences (besides technical capabilities...). That's when you adapt the technique and internalize it. Remember? First you learn the movements and the theory behind,  then you repeat it mechanically, and then you dismount it and mount it again, practicing with many different people, thus learning it.

After all, we're no clones but individuals, uh?:uhyeah:


----------



## ikenpo (Dec 2, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Kirk _
> 
> *I don't really feel qualified to chime in here, and my opinion on this
> may change after I learn more of the system.  My thoughts as
> ...



Kirk,

Good points...now let me begin to disect them...lol

1) Nice reference to II, and to follow that logic we see that within a dictionary there are many words that exist. We don't necesarily use all the words, but they are there and do exist. Some are short, some are long, some are hard to pronounce, some we say, "we don't talk that way", but the words still exist independent of our personal preferences. We don't use many of the words we learned during our other educational process (school), but we did have that exposure and are richer for the experience. 


2) I would say Bruce Lee was a special case. Those who were around during the time might disagree, but my understanding was that he could mimic anything he saw and improve (or at least expand on it) instantly. Some of his information today might seem like common sense modern fighting concepts, which might be true, but he devised these things 30 yrs ago. That made him a visionary. His physical prowess was also unmatched. A lot of people started in Kenpo and moved to Bruce Lee and JKD, while some did both. Some very good people...that is not to discount Kenpo, but aknowledge that there was obviously worth there. 

3) Finally, I say "NO", don't let the student "decide" what's best. Expose them to the principle and concepts of the system that will dictate their decisions. Then they don't have do decide what's best they will already know. Does that mean they'll be able to execute it? Hopefully they've been trained to do so, but ultimately it is on them...

just my thoughts, jb:asian:


----------



## Kirk (Dec 2, 2002)

> _Originally posted by satans.barber _
> 
> *Is it not true that when SGM Parker died he was still constanly refining his techniques?*



I don't believe he was.   Again, I'm NOT one to even act like I 
know, and my opinion may change in the future, but I don't think
refining is the right term.  I think he'd look for other techniques
that he felt taught the same point as a former technique, only
better.  I don't think he went and said, "Hey, I can make delayed
sword better".  He might have eventually said "this new technique
I've created  teaches this point, that point, etc so much better 
than delayed sword does, so I'll replace it".  Many who have 
studied directly under Mr Parker who have now replaced 
and/or modified techniques, or teach them differently, do so 
after DECADES of training, and learning more than just techniques
and forms.  They KNOW _*KENPO*_.  They earned
high ranks of black belt before altering/modifying things.  But
someone who's a 3rd generation student of these guys, has
a 3rd black, doesn't have a complete 2 decades in, feels he knows
enough to cut or edit a technique?  Fine for you, but he won't
get a nickle of my money.  

I have no problem with seniors who say "that's not the way
Mr Parker taught me" ... fine .. teach me that .. I'll take it, and
what I've learned from my teacher and other seniors, experiment
and find what I like best.  But not someone who's barely shaving,
or boasts x number of years in this art or that, but not very
long in kenpo.  Who is he to have the audacity?


----------



## arnisador (Dec 2, 2002)

I've run into the "That's blasphemy!" attitude from kenpoka before. Not all of them of course but the theory has some adherents. I am wary of anyone who thinks they and only they have _all_ the truth.


----------



## ikenpo (Dec 2, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Kirk _
> 
> *I don't believe he was.   Again, I'm NOT one to even act like I
> know, and my opinion may change in the future, but I don't think
> ...



Kirk,

I don't really agree with you on some points and I'll tell you why. I cannot say that SGM Parker was or wasn't continually modifying or enhancing techniques at his untimely passing, but I can say that he had done it before. If you look at the Tracy's system almost all of their core techniques were based on techniques from SGM Parker. He later went on the refine the concepts and principles behind them. It's great that you used delayed sword because that is an easy one. It was originally called inward defense and sword of destruction was outward defense. These are the techniques I learned when I started with the NCKKA back in the mid 80's. These techniques were modified and enhanced to create delayed sword & sword of destruction that the IKKA taught. Who can say SGM Parker wouldn't have expanded on those ideas, when he had been know to do it before? And to say a technique like delayed sword can't be enhanced just means you haven't done Dr. Chape'l's version of it. Which may very well have been the version that SGM Parker was doing at his passing. I've never asked.

To reply to some of your other comments...I guess I would ask, when do you think the "version" of Kenpo that you do was actually created and set? It's 2002, so was it complete and together in 1982 (to meet your 2 decade criteria)? or was it still developing? It's been a while since I've had this discussion with a Senior and my memory fails me, but I think the actual solidification of the 154(+1) didn't occur until after 1982. Maybe around 1987 when vol 5 of II was published and the Web of Knowledge was put in print. 

The only other thing I would say is lighten up and see what SGM Parker's Kenpo has created...

jb:asian: 

p.s. When you say no instructors "barely shaving" does that mean that they have to be clean shaven? :rofl:


----------



## Michael Billings (Dec 2, 2002)

Dot,

I like what yilisifu answered right under the original post.  There are many techniques that I literally hated for years, and that was after a Black Belt from the NCKKA and Several from the IKKA.  Now some of the techniques people generally hate, seem to work for me, or at least my execution of them is much easier, without having to modify the technique.

An example comes to mind from a Conatser seminar years ago.  We had two women Brown Belts (Both got their Black with the IKKA in EPAC.)  Neither of them weighed over 105 lbs. max.  They could not really make Crossing Talon "work" without a prefix or major adjustment.  Mr. C said that "if it was hard, we were not doing it right."  And he proceeded to teach us some of the Principles, Concepts, and Theories of Mr. Parker's Kenpo.  Both Lori and Barbara rocked as they picked up more and more of what had been hard to do previously.

Start with a good foundation, don't discard the useless, as the JKD people are wont to say, rather store it away somewhere in memory, because at some point, it comes back together and can work for you.

Oss,
-Michael


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Dec 2, 2002)

Many "know of" the technique reasons and purposes (r & p), a lesser number "know" of the R & P, and few really "understand" the r & p!  

Many don't realize what is there and for what.  So the natural thing is to criticize it.

Those who can .................. Do
Those who can't ................ Teach
Those who can't do or teach..... become critics

There is much water out there, make sure you don't posses judgments from small ponds.

:asian:


----------



## Elfan (Dec 2, 2002)

I wound't consider it blasphemy at all.


----------



## Seig (Dec 2, 2002)

and I will say it again.  It seems to me that a large number of practitioners are so hung up on "right and incorrect" that they seem to miss an underlying point/theme of AK.  Yes, Kenpo has been referred to as literature of motion.  Yes, some of you have touched on it here.  The thing you all keep saying is that you are learning to read.  Look at it this way, reading leads to more learning. Learning leads to thinking, thinking leads to writing.  Or to paraphase Mr. Parker....Ideal, What If, Formulation.  Learn the base, you can build on it later.:asian:


----------



## KenpoGirl (Dec 2, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Goldendragon7 _
> 
> *Those who can .................. Do
> Those who can't ................ Teach
> ...



I'm not a critic!!!!  I'm a whiner, there IS a difference.  :shrug: 

  hee hee

As to reasons and purposes, I understand that completely.  For the most part my instructor has giving me very good explainations as to the "reasons and purposes" of nearly all of the techniques I've learned so far, the ones he doesn't I ask you guys about.

Its a good thing too, or else I'd be whining about them all.  

I appreciate every time, any and all of you respond.  Thanks a Bunch!!  

Dot


----------



## tunetigress (Dec 3, 2002)

> _Originally posted by KenpoGirl _
> 
> *I'm not a critic!!!!  I'm a whiner, there IS a difference.  :shrug:
> 
> ...



And your excellence at whining is second to none!!  You still accepting new students in your TWIT classes Dot?? Maybe even I can be a Talented Whiner In Training!!!!   
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


----------



## Kenpo Yahoo (Dec 3, 2002)

> It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.
> 
> ...As just stated, experimental tests may lead either to the confirmation of the hypothesis, or to the ruling out of the hypothesis. The scientific method requires that a hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary.
> 
> ...



That about says it all


----------



## Brother John (Dec 4, 2002)

Cartesian philosophy approaches ALL new information with doubt. Learn something new, try to prove it's wrong, if you can't prove it wrong... it must be accepted as right.
Now I'm not a Cartesian philosopher, I'm more of a beer and pizza philosopher... but I don't think that Descartes was that far off.
It's interesting to note the amount of clammor in the martial arts world overall when Mr. Parker was making a great deal of changes to kenpo and people thought of him as a rebel
If questioning is the issue, we are in good company.
Rene Descartes
Ed Parker
You
Your Brother
John
:asian:


----------



## jeffkyle (Dec 4, 2002)

Believe NONE of what you HEAR...and HALF of what you SEE!!!


----------



## sammy3170 (Dec 5, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Les _
> 
> *Sammy,
> I'd like to pick up on a couple of points in your post.
> ...



1 & 2.When martial arts were developed they were used by people who had to defend their lives and te lives of their families almost everyday.  Granted the sword isn't a common weapon but knives and what not were around then and the unarmed should still be effective now as it was then.  As far as I'm aware delayed sword hasn't changed in 30 years.

3.That seems pointless then to teach techniques for the sake of 'tradition' that don't all work.    

4. I have just read and heard this from high ranking kenpoka.  I myself am only 5'9" and weigh 155lbs yet many techniques worked well for me.

5. If you tailor for her right from the start then why not for everyone. That way all students get stuff they feel comfortable with and that works from the get go.

Just some thoughts

Cheers
Sammy


----------



## Sanddragon (Dec 16, 2002)

I believe that there are three or four sayings that we learn as we progress thru the ranks of Kenpo that address this question very well.

Devote time to a particular move before deciding whether it does or does not work for you.

Knowledge is bound when one is compelled to tradition. Knowledge is endless when tradition is bound.

An ounce of logic can be worth more then a ton of tradition that has become obsolete through the weathering of time.

It is not the size of the man, but the size of the fear that has caused many a defeat.

I believe if we pay attention to the sayings that we must learn as we move thru each belt we will find many answers to the questions we have.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 17, 2002)

I have to say that while I find the sayings amusing, I also find their effect to be, by and large, bad. Why? Because--at least on forums--they're sued as cliches that substitute for genuine analysis, real thought. To put things another way, they're generalities that really tell us very little. 

Yes, they appear throughout Mr. Parker's "Infinite Insights," books, and through much of his other writings. But how do they appear? I think they appear as summaries, statements of a thesis in an easily-remembered form--and never without being directly tied to a lot of close reading and a lot of analysis of techniques, principles, etc.

I think, too, that they contribute at this point to a lot of religiosity in kenpo. Fake biblical language; too much treating instructors like demigods; too much veneration of one's self and one's instructors. I say, avoid 'em.

For example: "empty your cup." Not only have I come to equate this with arrogance--typically, the folks who use this one are about to tell someone else why they know nothing--but, as I've often heard, "people are not cups." Let's drop the David Carradine--I mean, look at that guy!

Here are kenpo sayings I like:
"Can I borrow you for a minute?"
"Oh, come on. That didn't hurt!"
"Let's hear kiais, people!"

Anyway, that's what I think. It's probably stupid, but there it is.
Robert


----------



## Brother John (Dec 17, 2002)

Hey Robert-
I agree with you here, and agree very strongly.


> they're sued as cliches that substitute for genuine analysis, real thought.



Very true!
They are useful for instruction, but they don't stand alone. They are touchstones of thought, not the thoughts themselves. If one relies on them too heavily then we skip out on doing the thinking for ourselves. It's sort of like my experience in Freemasonry. I've been a freemason for several years now and really enjoy it. THe biggest way that masonry has to pass on it's various lessons are symbols and allegory. But if you leave these two things unexplained, and never expound on them to the neophyte... they are useless jargon that tripps up more than it helps a brother along. Sam Ting. If we just take Mr. Parker's quips and sayings in and of themselves and rely on them as THE lesson instead of pneumonic devices to help us remember GREATER lessons, they will only be social stumbling blocks. We can learn from Mr. Parker's analysis, no doubt... but we will only GROW from our own analysis and investiture of time/sweat/heart/mind.

So, I agree and disagree. We need them and can use these sayings, but only as sign posts to the full lesson.

Half knowledge is dangerous.
As Bruce Lee said in his notes, later gathered and published as "The Tao of Jeet Kune Do"..
"Half way cultivation leads to ornamentalism..."
Most all of us have been guilty of ornamentalizing Mr. Parker's sayings/lessons.

Your Brother
John
PS: :Merry Christmass.
((Another saying that points to a MUCH deeper meaning!!!))


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 18, 2002)

Nicely argued, if ya don't mind my saying so, and an excellent comparasion. The word I'd probably use is, "fetishized," but it pretty much amounts to the same thing.

I'd be interested, too, in a list of the sayings we actually use around the mat, day by day...I used to have a real collection, and I've forgotten most of 'em...oh yeah, here's one:

"Don't go down like that. I didn't do anything to you yet."


----------



## cdhall (Dec 24, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Michael Billings _
> *Dot,
> 
> I like what yilisifu answered right under the original post...Mr. C said that "if it was hard, we were not doing it right."....*



Dot,

I have only skimmed this thread, but I agree with Mr. Billings' words here.

I have, much to my surprise, re-taught some techniques to classmates of mine and "fixed their problem" enough to see what Mr. C was saying.  Mr. Duffy also frequently does the same thing to me.  If I have a problem, he can usually show me why.

However, back to your original question, I think we are Required to question the system.  Mr. Parker developed Kenpo to be a science, to grow with every generation and he founded it on concepts and principles for this reason.  When I teach I tell the students that I should be able to literally prove that what I am showing them works.  I want them to say "that won't work" (I think Mr. Parker enjoyed this as well). Sometimes proving my point requires doing a technique at full-speed (Alternating Maces for example does not work very well when done slowly or against an attack that is not fully committed).  I do this partly because I am a new instructor.  Twice I have taken over a class from someone else so I wanted to establish credibility off the bat.

But just as in College where your professor may throw something at you that is wrong just to see if you'll notice and speak up, I think we are expected to breakdown, analyze and discover everything we can about a technique because they are merely illustrations of principles.

And if after all that you conclude for example that a technique is "stupid" I think we should go to our instructor and have him show us why we are wrong.  This will greatly enhance your retention of the technique, its principles and concepts and your execution of it.  Even so, as someone said earlier, this may still lead you to Tailor the technique to fit your body, flexibility, speed, etc but at least you will know what you are doing and why.

Now I'm going off the deep end so bear with me, I just got this idea.  If a Technique is like the Hypothesis of a scientific experiment or Thesis, then your working it with a partner is your test of the they Hypothesis and the Conclusion you come to will tell you if the Technique/Hypothesis is true, false or needs modification.

Most likely it needs modification or Tailoring to work for you as it should and this is how Kenpo fits you.  However, without the original Hypothesis you can not run the experiment and come to the Conclusion to find what does work.

So work your material, experiment, question, find the way you have to execute it to make it work for you (check this with your instructor/professor of course if you feel the need to make a change) but don't forget that it is the concepts and principles that you are testing.  If you are not doing this, analyzing, breaking down what is there, then you are not helping Kenpo grow or even remain strong. One of my favorite quotes is "That which does not kill us makes us stronger."  And I apply this here as well.  If you can prove that a technique needs to be changed, then it should be changed (like Mr. Conatser's student suggested changes to Kicking Set and Mr. Speakman's changes to knife techniques).  But if you can not prove that a technique needs to be changed then by definition you have reinforced its value within the curriculum.

Merry Christmas everyone.  I''m going to print this out for my notebook.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 24, 2002)

> _Originally posted by KenpoGirl _
> *
> . . .
> Let me know what you think, good or bad.
> ...




Dot,

I think it is Blasphemy!   To ask a question? To dissect a technique? To try to understand a technique and how and why it works or does not work? OH MY GOSH! DOT you Rebel for posting your opinion. Why you should be exiled from this Planet!

Seriously Dot, If you read through my comments which I am sure you can, I think that it is good to understand and to question. Now this does require a simple level of knowledge before you can question. I will give an example.

1 + 1 = 2

WHY? Seriously Why? Show me the proof! Well you learned this when your mathematics skills were nothing and you took this as a given, As a base.

Now some students not all ask why is 3 X 2 = 6.

The Proof comes when the instructor demonstrates that Multiplication and addition work together. i.e. 2+2+2 = 6, so how many Two's (2's) do we have. We have three. Therefore 3 x 2  = 6. At a much later date, since most people learn multiplication as tables first, the student learns enough to question how things work. 

So, something you question today you might like and use tomorrow. 

Train hard listen to your instructors, keep an open mind. Learn the basics and the rules and principles. Question, when you can, even if it is only to your self.

Now, this is my opinion, and therefore you must take it for what it is worth. 

Rich

:asian:


----------



## KenpoGirl (Dec 24, 2002)

Thanks Everyone for some really super replies.  I am so glad we have this forum.  It has helped me to understand a lot about kenpo and Martial Arts.  And to realise just how many great people there are around.

I hope everyone has a Extra Special Christmas or whatever holiday is applicable to them.  Take care and be well.

Dot


----------



## D.Cobb (Dec 25, 2002)

> _Originally posted by fanged_seamus _
> *REALITY CHECK:
> Questioning is a method of learning.  I have learned more by asking seemingly dumb questions than I ever did simply following instructions.  And not just in kenpo -- in almost every aspect of life.
> Your fellow blasphemer & heathen,
> Tad *




The only "DUMB QUESTION" is the one you never ask.

Keep training, and never stop asking. One of the signs of a quality martial artist is that they are not afraid to ask questions.
--Dave

Oh and by the way, HAPPY CHRISTMAS , to everyone.:asian:


----------

