# 'dancing on your grave'



## bushidomartialarts (Mar 19, 2006)

hi all,

fairly recent (4 years ago) transplant here from tracy to epak.  i love and respect both takes on the art and have enjoyed even moreso the perspective gained from studying both.  i do have one bone to pick with epak techniques and am curious if anybody out there can help me understand:

a lot of the brown-level techniques end with a several-step process of kicking the bad guy once he's down.  examples would include the end of 'the bear and the ram' or 'falcons of force'.  this seems to get even longer and (imho) sillier with many of the black belt extensions.

here's the trouble i have with these:

1.  once the bad guy is down, running is the best defense 99% of the time.  why risk the additional contact?

2.  if you have to do it, why the long, drawn-out, step-by-step sequence?  (i'm thinking specifically of 'the bear and the ram' here).  at brown and black belt level, shouldn't we be moving towards more spontanaeity?

3.  several of the two-man defenses have us doing this dancing on the grave while we remain bracketed by our opponents.  this strikes me as unutterably daft.

i have great respect for epak and am probably missing the point.  sadly, the guy who was teaching me epak is no longer available to ask (my current instructor is primarily a tracy guy).  anyone out there have any thoughts?


----------



## Ceicei (Mar 19, 2006)

Well, when it comes right down to the nitty-gritty, most of the techniques (especially the long ones) WILL NOT go to completion out there in a true self-defense situation.  

Those who progress through the ranks should hopefully know enough to use the techniques to the point that their opponent(s) stop (no longer a threat) and to just get out (like you mentioned in #1).  It does give value to the possibility of mass attacks (when opponents may take turns fighting with the intention of wearing you out to defeat you).

Do not view these long brown/black belt techniques with purely a self defense purpose.  I do not.  They serve several purposes.  These techniques also teach motion, concepts, and principles within the "web of knowledge".  This goes with your #2 point.  I value these techniques with teaching me more about transitional stances, refining the way I move, and the 'what-if" applications.  The "what-if" applications lend to spontaneity.  Do you have the Infinite Insights book series written by Mr. Ed Parker?  If you do not, I recommend that you do.  

There is a difference between doing things in a text-book version, and learning enough to the point that motion/principles are understood that adaption is encouraged.  We learn to take advantage of height/width/depth space and making these work for us.

- Ceicei


----------



## still learning (Mar 19, 2006)

Hello, In most Kempo styles......there will always be different levels of your attacks. In this case the destroy methods

Once you have your attacker on the ground is because of your upright techiques have work on breaking down your attacker, and you want to finish them off.

I knew a guy who grew up a very rough place....as years and experiance goes by....he say's they always keeping hitting the other person till they cannot move. WHY? because if can get back up...he's going to kick your butt back, this has happen to them. So they make sure the fight is over. If you cannot move? Chances are you will not be able to fight back.

Does this make sense....to sometimes keeping kicking the head and body?

Only you will need to decide at what level you will need to take it..? ....

NO such thing as a fair fight...better the other guy feels the pain....Aloha


----------



## Carol (Mar 19, 2006)

In my class, with nearly every technique my instructor points out opportunities for escape.  Some opportunities present themselves as quickly as the first strike.

At one point, I remember my instructor saying "If you face an attacker, are you going to do all 27 (or whatever) steps of Dance of Death on him?  No!  You're going to get to the point where you can run away"

The way I see it is...the techniques are working on our spontaneity.  They are giving us different options to pick from if we need it.  With a cool head and quick analytical skills, it is up for us to determine the best way of escape.   I'm not a very big person, nor have I ever been much of a runner.  If I knock my attacker down, I can see myself wanting to ensure that he is down, and not in a position where he can pick himself up and outrun me.

So far, I've learned short 1 and short 2...I can't see myself using those on the street any time soon, unless I stumble on to the set of some Yellow Belt version of The Perfect Weapon.   But personally, I still see the value of the techniques.  

:idunno: Maybe that doesn't make any sense coming from a beginner like me.  But, it's the way I see it.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 19, 2006)

'cuz every time I watch a scary movie the bad guy makes a comback after the intial battery...  Ever see a HulK Hogan match?...  Do you know the person isn't packing?... third point of view.:asian: 
Sean


----------



## Doc (Mar 19, 2006)

bushidomartialarts said:
			
		

> hi all,
> 
> fairly recent (4 years ago) transplant here from tracy to epak.  i love and respect both takes on the art and have enjoyed even moreso the perspective gained from studying both.  i do have one bone to pick with epak techniques and am curious if anybody out there can help me understand:
> 
> a lot of the brown-level techniques end with a several-step process of kicking the bad guy once he's down.  examples would include the end of 'the bear and the ram' or 'falcons of force'.  this seems to get even longer and (imho) sillier with many of the black belt extensions.


I agree.


> here's the trouble i have with these:
> 
> 1.  once the bad guy is down, running is the best defense 99% of the time.  why risk the additional contact?


Agreed.


> 2.  if you have to do it, why the long, drawn-out, step-by-step sequence?  (i'm thinking specifically of 'the bear and the ram' here).  at brown and black belt level, shouldn't we be moving towards more spontanaeity?


Agreed.


> 3.  several of the two-man defenses have us doing this dancing on the grave while we remain bracketed by our opponents.  this strikes me as unutterably daft.


Agreed.


> i have great respect for epak and am probably missing the point.


Not really.


> sadly, the guy who was teaching me epak is no longer available to ask (my current instructor is primarily a tracy guy).  anyone out there have any thoughts?


*WARNING: POSSIBLE OFFENSIVE RESPONSE. DO NOT READ IF OVERLY SENSITIVE OR EASILY OFFENDED*

For the record when the commercial system was initially created, although it was based on simple self defense courses like some now taught on video, it was somewhat more sophisticated and tended to present many more martial options to the students. 

Later as the system was intentionally fleshed out to present more and more material as students demanded, the 'cool and 'wow' factor took hold in the selling of the product. 'Kenpo-karate' is more of a product that allows students, (and teachers) to make of it what they will. This is the greatest sells asset it has. Under these 'tailoring' guidelines, no one is ever wrong.

However, instead of perfecting material, it simply adds more to keep practitioners 'interested' and not allow, initially, its American Practitioners the chance to get bored. (And move on to yoga, Taiji, handball or something) 

All real martial artists know the actual knowledge is in perfecting and understanding the basics. Rather than 'boring' students, it simply gives them a new toy to play with and, unfortunately gives them belts for the process, not the skill or the knowledge. 'Kenpo-Karate' initially 'grades on the curve,' and when you get to the higher end, 'social promotions' kick in followed by 'self promotions.' 

To cover this lack of 'skill', (some say over-skill) the philosophy became, "Well if the first move doesn't work, just move on to the second, etc." This is what we call in our teaching, an "Assumption of Failure." Rather than perfecting what you have to assure it's functionality, just move on to something else. The problem with this "Assumption of Failure" is obvious.

Without real skill and understanding, it is easy for a student to be lured into the 'flash,' and 'wow' factor, with no regard for practicality, moral judgment, common sense, or adherence to prevailing laws of jurisdiction. The seducement of the dark side of the force is strong. Most are just ordinary people like you and I, who are suddenly given this 'power.' Demonstrated in the classroom, they learn to rip out eyeballs, smash testacies, and stomp the living crap out someone who would dare put his hand on our shoulder. One must admit, it can be very empowering, 'Luke."

A portion of the techniques are actually based on women's self defense courses taught at private clubs, health spas, universities and colleges across the country. Put in that context, these types of actions are acceptable and 'normal.' In a women's self defense course, the assumption is the attacker is bigger, male, and great bodily harm, and/or sexual assault are the attackers intent. What ever your mom, sister, wife, or girlfriend might do to the attacker would be too good for him, so there is a social acceptance of the philosophy. 

However, when that is translated to a systemized martial art form dominated by men, and children, it is wholly out of context. Yet its popular and empowering method is so alluring, rational people loose a sense of why they are studying in the first place. Self-defense is fine but, not the maiming, crippling, and possible death of someone for throwing a punch or putting a hand on your shoulder.

I was around, heard, and watched the creation of the 'excuses' for the extreme mayhem. "Over-skill, "just in case," and "lessons of motion" are only excuses to cover the systems lack of addressing proper basics, and effective and moral execution of its techniques. Only in Kenpo-Karate is higher skill and knowledge represented by more techniques, more mayhem, and more destruction of an attacker. Nevertheless, this is actually understandable. The real knowledge for a different more traditional approach is not present in the system, but can probably be found in some of its instructors, as intended.

Kenpo Karate in the right hands is not the problem. It is what it is, and can function at a high level when taught properly. The problem is the lack of quality teachers. The system breeds and feeds on itself and each generation are, in general, worse than the previous with less and less real martial experience and knowledge. It is the instructors responsibility to put things in context, and impart a sense of moral 'right and wrong' in their teaching. Sadly, most are just teaching what they were taught, badly. Any excuse for all the mayhem, and stomping, and gouging is just that. An excuse to teach all that they know.

Couple that with the need to teach on a level to sustain the 'business' and there may be a recipe there for success, but only in business, not in self defense. And even those not in business are restrained by the vehicle itself and its lack of depth of information.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 19, 2006)

Thank you for that response, Doc.  I had been having many thoughts along this line with regards to the Tracy Kenpo I had learned.  What you have stated here is very similar to what I have been thinking for a long time.


----------



## Hand Sword (Mar 20, 2006)

I agree that proper development of the basics is absolutely necessary, and should not be avoided. However, speaking from a self defense point of view, You should never assume, proper basics or not, success. You should always be prepared for a follow up, and willing to grind it out. Just my humble opinion.


----------



## Doc (Mar 20, 2006)

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> I agree that proper development of the basics is absolutely necessary, and should not be avoided. However, speaking from a self defense point of view, You should never assume, proper basics or not, success. You should always be prepared for a follow up, and willing to grind it out. Just my humble opinion.


Being prepared to follow up has nothing to do with planning to fail.


----------



## Hand Sword (Mar 20, 2006)

Really? Then why put in the follow ups? Aren't they there because the thinking was that the "pre" moves might not be good enough? If so, than the "motion" kenpo guys have the right mind set, but, go a little overboard on some of the techniques.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 20, 2006)

Speaking from the perspective of Tracy kenpo, my take on it is that it really became a "More for the sake of more" mentality, rather than making sure the quality of EVERYTHING is top notch.  I believe there is a lot there that is good stuff, but it gets buried under a lot of stuff that is either questionable and impractical, including a bajillion follow-ups, or else it is repetitive and so similar to another technique that there was no reason to repackage it and give it a new name and pretend it is something different.  Personally, I think if all this extra fluff is stripped away, and the stuff is really looked at with a critical eye and only the stuff that really makes sense is kept, the system can be streamlined tremendously.  This saves a lot of needless effort and time, as you can then focus your efforts on the stuff that is worth keeping and not waste time on stuff that makes little sense.

I did this for myself about a year ago, and am currently working on a second round of revisions.  At this point, this is really just for myself, but it makes training much less burdensome since I feel I am really focusing on the quality stuff.  I just got tired of working on and memorizing techniques that I knew in my heart were stupid and a waste of time.


----------



## Doc (Mar 20, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> I just got tired of working on and memorizing techniques that I knew in my heart were stupid and a waste of time.


Good for you sir.


----------



## MJS (Mar 20, 2006)

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> Really? Then why put in the follow ups? Aren't they there because the thinking was that the "pre" moves might not be good enough? If so, than the "motion" kenpo guys have the right mind set, but, go a little overboard on some of the techniques.


 
This was always my belief.  The extensions were there for the 'what if/even if' phase.


----------



## Doc (Mar 20, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> This was always my belief.  The extensions were there for the 'what if/even if' phase.


Unfortunately, its almost an inside joke. IF the first couple moves don't work because you're a lousy martial artist, you're not likely to get better on the 15th move. Chances are, you've already lost. There may be some reasonble information there to learn, but the mindset much be changed and not rely on the Assumption of Failure to get you through. Train from an Assumption of Success perspective, and let additional material be added to your vocabulary and understanding in the proper perspective. Working on your 100th technique when your Delayed Sword is dysfunction is a joke, but that what is pushed. More material means, more belts, which means student retention and more bucks coming in - and going out.  But that type of training requres commitment, personal disciplince, and patience. We all know those are qualities that everyne has right?


----------



## MJS (Mar 20, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, its almost an inside joke. IF the first couple moves don't work because you're a lousy martial artist, you're not likely to get better on the 15th move. Chances are, you've already lost. There may be some reasonble information there to learn, but the mindset much be changed and not rely on the Assumption of Failure to get you through. Train from an Assumption of Success perspective, and let additional material be added to your vocabulary and understanding in the proper perspective. Working on your 100th technique when your Delayed Sword is dysfunction is a joke, but that what is pushed. More material means, more belts, which means student retention and more bucks coming in - and going out.  But that type of training requres commitment, personal disciplince, and patience. We all know those are qualities that everyne has right?


 
I see what you're saying Doc.  Good thing that certain folks won't be replying to this. 

Mike


----------



## Ceicei (Mar 20, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, its almost an inside joke. IF the first couple moves don't work because you're a lousy martial artist, you're not likely to get better on the 15th move. Chances are, you've already lost. There may be some reasonble information there to learn, but the mindset much be changed and not rely on the Assumption of Failure to get you through. Train from an Assumption of Success perspective, and let additional material be added to your vocabulary and understanding in the proper perspective. Working on your 100th technique when your Delayed Sword is dysfunction is a joke, but that what is pushed. More material means, more belts, which means student retention and more bucks coming in - and going out.  But that type of training requres commitment, personal disciplince, and patience. We all know those are qualities that everyne has right?



Well, I can't argue with you there.  You've made several excellent points.  I liked best your point regarding "Assumption of Success".  Considering what you've written, would a student in a school that basically follows the "Assumption of Failure" be able to develop the "Assumption of Success" attitude in spite of the training method?  If so, how?

- Ceicei


----------



## Doc (Mar 21, 2006)

Ceicei said:
			
		

> Well, I can't argue with you there.  You've made several excellent points.  I liked best your point regarding "Assumption of Success".  Considering what you've written, would a student in a school that basically follows the "Assumption of Failure" be able to develop the "Assumption of Success" attitude in spite of the training method?  If so, how?
> - Ceicei


"... in spite of the training method?" No. There must be a complete adjustment to the philosophy of what you're doing, as well as how you do it. Most commercial kenpo schools are on an unofficial timetable, to get students promoted before they get bored, and collect testing fees. They keep piling on material even though previous information has not been digested, or reasonably functionally consumed. Nothing is more disheartening than to go do a seminar somewhere, have a room full of people, and not a decent neutral bow in the group of black belts. Teachers fault. Most students will do what's necessary if you teach it, and show them it's efficacy relative to their goals. Of course if the goal is a belt, it doesn't matter. No one preaches it more than me, and still occasionally I'll get a couple of guys who fall in love with the belt over the skill and knowledge. It's human nature. You can't give in to it. Come over to the dark side Luke.


----------



## Ceicei (Mar 21, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> "... in spite of the training method?" No. There must be a complete adjustment to the philosophy of what you're doing, as well as how you do it. Most commercial kenpo schools are on an unofficial timetable, to get students promoted before they get bored, and collect testing fees. They keep piling on material even though previous information has not been digested, or reasonably functionally consumed. Nothing is more disheartening than to go do a seminar somewhere, have a room full of people, and not a decent neutral bow in the group of black belts. Teachers fault. Most students will do what's necessary if you teach it, and show them it's efficacy relative to their goals. Of course if the goal is a belt, it doesn't matter. No one preaches it more than me, and still occasionally I'll get a couple of guys who fall in love with the belt over the skill and knowledge. It's human nature. You can't give in to it. Come over to the dark side Luke.



Well, how would one develop the "Assumption of Success" philosophy then?  I take it that this is possible. 

- Ceicei


----------



## IWishToLearn (Mar 21, 2006)

Have Dr. Chapel smack you around a few times with the aforementioned heelpalms while pointing out structural instabilities and offering corrections where necessary?

>


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Mar 21, 2006)

Ceicei said:
			
		

> Well, how would one develop the "Assumption of Success" philosophy then? I take it that this is possible.
> 
> - Ceicei


 
Easiest was I can think is to solidify your basics. Sounds easy, but there is a lot to it. Take some time to hyper-inspect your execution, and be sure you are in accord with a skilled referent (i.e., what are the weight distributions in your forward, neutral, or reverse bows? How many anatomical units apart should your knees be in a wide kneel? What are the relational feet placements in your twist stance, and are you breaking over your own pelvic line by goping too far moving into one?). How much, how far, etc., for many of these things are in available kenpo written and video resources, and while it may not be optimal, I can assure you that taking the time to attend to the minutae will pay off in a more solid kenpo representation.

Yes, the details matter that much. And when you have someone who will take the time to apply the know-how to nudge you out of an unstable stance that was off by only 10% or so, that graphically illustrates the importance of the little things.

Best Regards,

D.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 21, 2006)

I would add that one should examine the curriculum of techniques that you practice with a critical eye and weed out those that are unrealistic.  Only keep the ones that are truly worth while, and make some alterations where necessary.  Sometimes a technique has a good idea imbedded within it, but it is surrounded by fluff.  Eliminate the fluff and keep the good ideas.  Pare down your technique lists and only keep those that truly make sense.  Ask yourself if the attack you are defending against makes sense, and does the defense itself make sense?  If not, dump it.  Anything that is too flowery, or that you understand primarily as an abstract "study of motion" probably needs to go.


----------



## Doc (Mar 21, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> I would add that one should examine the curriculum of techniques that you practice with a critical eye and weed out those that are unrealistic.  Only keep the ones that are truly worth while, and make some alterations where necessary.  Sometimes a technique has a good idea imbedded within it, but it is surrounded by fluff.  Eliminate the fluff and keep the good ideas.  Pare down your technique lists and only keep those that truly make sense.  Ask yourself if the attack you are defending against makes sense, and does the defense itself make sense?  If not, dump it.  Anything that is too flowery, or that you understand primarily as an abstract "study of motion" probably needs to go.


I would agree with one caveat. I wouldn't necessarily 'dump' these techniques, but instead 'set them aside' for later examination as my experience and knowledge grew. If you can't make 'something work,' it could be the technique or it could simply be your understanding at the time. I suspect that's what you meant anyway.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 21, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> I would agree with one caveat. I wouldn't necessarily 'dump' these techniques, but instead 'set them aside' for later examination as my experience and knowledge grew. If you can't make 'something work,' it could be the technique or it could simply be your understanding at the time. I suspect that's what you meant anyway.


 
yeah, but keep in mind where I am coming from.  Tracy's has a much larger technique list than EPAK has.  I strongly believe that within the 381 techniques, plus variations giving a grand total of 600, there is really quite a lot that needs to go.

I think a good litmus test is what kind of gut reaction you feel when you go thru your lists and practice the material.  When you get to a technique and you kind of go thru the motions and quickly move on because you are doing it just to fulfill a requirement, when you have no faith in the technique itself, that is a bad sign.

If you teach the material and find yourself wanting to apologize for teaching certain techniques because they are simply unsound and bad ideas, but you still do it because it is part of the "curriculum", that is a bad sign.  And then you find yourself feeling guilty for accepting money for teaching something that you know is not good, that is also a bad sign (I don't teach so this is not me, but I know this is how I would feel if I taught the complete Tracys curriculum).

I agree with what you are saying about not dumping stuff, and I don't want to lose anything that is worth keeping due to a lack of understanding on my own part.  But I think some things are truly bad, and need to go.  If someone taught me how to block a punch with my nose, I think we would universally accept that notion as silly and not worth keeping.  This is not a lack of understanding on my part, but rather the concept and execution of the technique are unsound.  We would not keep that technique for future study to see if we have reached a level of enlightenment where it suddenly makes sense and we can use it.  We would dump it.  Now of course I am not saying the techniques in Tracys are this silly, but quite a lot of them are really really questionable.  

In the meantime, I keep the old lists handy and I can review them from time to time to revisit the issue.  If I feel differently about a technique that I had cut, I can always bring it back in.

Doc, I don't know if you have any familiarity with the material found in Tracy's, but I would be happy to PM a few technique descriptions for your review, to illustrate my point.  Let me know if you are interested.


----------



## MJS (Mar 21, 2006)

Some great points being made by both Doc and FC.  Personally, I'd rather have a handfull of techniques that I can use, rather than 10 times that, that I may not be able to apply to their fullest extent.  

IMHO, more is not always better.  Rather than sitting there, trying to determine the proper response from countless techniques, I'd think it'd be better to have a solid understanding of some base techniques, giving a better chance for a solid defense to be executed.

Mike


----------



## Doc (Mar 21, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> yeah, but keep in mind where I am coming from.  Tracy's has a much larger technique list than EPAK has.  I strongly believe that within the 381 techniques, plus variations giving a grand total of 600, there is really quite a lot that needs to go.
> 
> I think a good litmus test is what kind of gut reaction you feel when you go thru your lists and practice the material.  When you get to a technique and you kind of go thru the motions and quickly move on because you are doing it just to fulfill a requirement, when you have no faith in the technique itself, that is a bad sign.
> 
> ...


I agree completely. And although I have some of the original Tracy 'manuals' I'd be curious as to how much it has evolved. The stuff I have you could fit 4/5 techniques on one page.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 21, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> Some great points being made by both Doc and FC. Personally, I'd rather have a handfull of techniques that I can use, rather than 10 times that, that I may not be able to apply to their fullest extent.
> 
> IMHO, more is not always better. Rather than sitting there, trying to determine the proper response from countless techniques, I'd think it'd be better to have a solid understanding of some base techniques, giving a better chance for a solid defense to be executed.
> 
> Mike


 
yup yup yup yup yup.  This is where I am trying to bring my kenpo.

Even if every single technique found within the Tracys curriculum were sound and functional, it is simply too much and overwhelming.  You cannot practice all this material and expect to develop it all to a useable level.  It is just too much and some things have to go or else it ALL becomes useless because you are spread too thin and NONE of it is developed to a useable level.

We sometimes lament the "Watering Down" of the martial arts.  Making it too simple in order to appeal to the masses, and much of the deeper and better stuff gets thrown out because it is too complex for the masses to digest.  But "complex" is not the same thing as "complicated".  I think it is possible to water it down by making it too complicated.  It becomes soo complicated that it also is non-functional, as much as if it was overly simplified.  It becomes Watered Down disguised as Complex.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 21, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> I agree completely. And although I have some of the original Tracy 'manuals' I'd be curious as to how much it has evolved. The stuff I have you could fit 4/5 techniques on one page.


 
My stuff is from the mid 1980s, and it is all my own written descriptions.  I don't know if it has changed since then as I have never had a direct affiliation with them.  I will select a few choice examples and PM them to you.


----------



## Doc (Mar 21, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> My stuff is from the mid 1980s, and it is all my own written descriptions.  I don't know if it has changed since then as I have never had a direct affiliation with them.  I will select a few choice examples and PM them to you.


Cool sir!


----------



## TaiChiTJ (Mar 21, 2006)

Awesome thread.  


It's a little like someone judging einstein's equation e=mc squared by how many characters there are in it.

"How could something as simple as that, with only three variables, be of any importance at all?" 

its about recognizing that something simple can also be profound, and knowing when to recognize that.


----------



## Doc (Mar 21, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> yup yup yup yup yup.  This is where I am trying to bring my kenpo.
> 
> Even if every single technique found within the Tracys curriculum were sound and functional, it is simply too much and overwhelming.  You cannot practice all this material and expect to develop it all to a useable level.  It is just too much and some things have to go or else it ALL becomes useless because you are spread too thin and NONE of it is developed to a useable level.
> 
> We sometimes lament the "Watering Down" of the martial arts.  Making it too simple in order to appeal to the masses, and much of the deeper and better stuff gets thrown out because it is too complex for the masses to digest.  But "complex" is not the same thing as "complicated".  I think it is possible to water it down by making it too complicated.  It becomes soo complicated that it also is non-functional, as much as if it was overly simplified.  It becomes Watered Down disguised as Complex.


I agree and of course there is a difference between 'watered down' and functionally effective applications. One of the things that I've personally worked on with Mr. Parker was actually drawing the principles (real principles) that are part of the frabic of all techniques. When this is done correctly, you discover that regardless of the volume of techniques, they are more alike than they are different. Secondly, all self defense techniques should begin with a base reflex response. Then utilizing the 'startle reflex' as a base because it is already installed in our autonomic nervous system and hard wired in our muscle structure, makes the building block process of extending the hard muscle memory fairly easy.

The process is a simple one but complex at the same time, and requires significant knowledge from a teacher to identify and understand the process for a given set of circumstances. In out curriculum, by completion of the second course you already begin to see similar initial response to varying attacks.

When a default technique is designed this way, it effectively eliminates the infamous 'what if' that bogs down motion kenpo paralysis analysis.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 21, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> I agree and of course there is a difference between 'watered down' and functionally effective applications. One of the things that I've personally worked on with Mr. Parker was actually drawing the principles (real principles) that are part of the frabic of all techniques. When this is done correctly, you discover that regardless of the volume of techniques, they are more alike than they are different. Secondly, all self defense techniques should begin with a base reflex response. Then utilizing the 'startle reflex' as a base because it is already installed in our autonomic nervous system and hard wired in our muscle structure, makes the building block process of extending the hard muscle memory fairly easy.
> 
> The process is a simple one but complex at the same time, and requires significant knowledge from a teacher to identify and understand the process for a given set of circumstances. In out curriculum, by completion of the second course you already begin to see similar initial response to varying attacks.
> 
> When a default technique is designed this way, it effectively eliminates the infamous 'what if' that bogs down motion kenpo paralysis analysis.


 
 For a long time I have suspected that this kind of thing was possible.  I thought about trying to do this many years ago, but in truth I was drifting into training other arts.  I always seem to come back to kenpo at some point, I guess because it really is my root and base in the martial arts.  Once I finally got a computer a few years ago, the notion became much more feasible, shifting around and reorganizing technique lists for comparison and analysis and whatnot.  

Maybe eventually I will reach some kind of level like what you are talking about.  In the meantime, I think i am going in the right direction, at least.


----------



## Doc (Mar 21, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> For a long time I have suspected that this kind of thing was possible.  I thought about trying to do this many years ago, but in truth I was drifting into training other arts.  I always seem to come back to kenpo at some point, I guess because it really is my root and base in the martial arts.  Once I finally got a computer a few years ago, the notion became much more feasible, shifting around and reorganizing technique lists for comparison and analysis and whatnot.
> 
> Maybe eventually I will reach some kind of level like what you are talking about.  In the meantime, I think i am going in the right direction, at least.


You are. Truth be told - you need a teacher. The things I'm speaking of are not necessarily 'discoverable' on your own. I'm the luckiest guy on the planet. Everytime I look down, I find I'm still standing on the shoulders of Ed Parker. How friggin' cool is that?


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 21, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> You are. Truth be told - you need a teacher. The things I'm speaking of are not necessarily 'discoverable' on your own. I'm the luckiest guy on the planet. Everytime I look down, I find I'm still standing on the shoulders of Ed Parker. How friggin' cool is that?


 
'tis true.  but in the meantime, we do the best we can with what we have to work with.  Sometimes there is no other choice.


----------



## Doc (Mar 21, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> 'tis true.  but in the meantime, we do the best we can with what we have to work with.  Sometimes there is no other choice.


Sounds like you're doing pretty good.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 21, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> Sounds like you're doing pretty good.


 
thank you sir, i appreciate the vote of confidence.


----------



## Doc (Mar 21, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> thank you sir, i appreciate the vote of confidence.


Well for some, what they read in the holy bible manuals, even though it defies common sense, is cannon. 

The same for what some teachers teach and say. 

I've learned that the term 'common sense' is now an oxymoron. 'Common sense' is no longer common.


----------



## Hand Sword (Mar 22, 2006)

Your right there! I remember having conversations that were reasonable. Then when they were teaching, even though it was ridiculous, they still wouldn't accept not doing it. It was part of the system!


----------



## kenpoworks (Mar 23, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> I agree and of course there is a difference between 'watered down' and functionally effective applications. One of the things that I've personally worked on with Mr. Parker was actually drawing the principles (real principles) that are part of the frabic of all techniques. When this is done correctly, you discover that regardless of the volume of techniques, they are more alike than they are different. Secondly, all self defense techniques should begin with a base reflex response. Then utilizing the 'startle reflex' as a base because it is already installed in our autonomic nervous system and hard wired in our muscle structure, makes the building block process of extending the hard muscle memory fairly easy.
> 
> The process is a simple one but complex at the same time, and requires significant knowledge from a teacher to identify and understand the process for a given set of circumstances. In out curriculum, by completion of the second course you already begin to see similar initial response to varying attacks.
> 
> When a default technique is designed this way, it effectively eliminates the infamous 'what if' that bogs down motion kenpo paralysis analysis.


 
Doc,
this thread slipped by me because of its title I think, but having looked through it and coming across the above made me think of one of my Kenpo "light bulb moments".
I realized at coloured belt level that for self defence the 1st natural re-active movement of a person should be what keys the rest of the defensive actons.Another simple idea that has had a great impact on how I judge and value information.
As you know I am still trying to triage the Effective Kenpo from the Affected Kenpo and building effective responses from natural reaction has helped me recognise the difference between complex  and complicated Kenpo, which I think you may have done a while ago.
I have been doing this art for over 25 yrs now(I know a newbie) and I think my knowledge base is like a untidy study lots and lots of information lying around somewhere and I will come across it again some day, where as your Knowledge base is accurately filed and is instantly accessed, keep sharing the grey matter Doc.
W.R.
Rich
Ed parker was asked "if he had all the answers", to which he replied "I havent heard all the questions yet"!


----------



## Ceicei (Mar 23, 2006)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> Easiest was I can think is to solidify your basics. Sounds easy, but there is a lot to it. Take some time to hyper-inspect your execution, and be sure you are in accord with a skilled referent (i.e., what are the weight distributions in your forward, neutral, or reverse bows? How many anatomical units apart should your knees be in a wide kneel? What are the relational feet placements in your twist stance, and are you breaking over your own pelvic line by goping too far moving into one?). How much, how far, etc., for many of these things are in available kenpo written and video resources, and while it may not be optimal, I can assure you that taking the time to attend to the minutae will pay off in a more solid kenpo representation.
> 
> Yes, the details matter that much. And when you have someone who will take the time to apply the know-how to nudge you out of an unstable stance that was off by only 10% or so, that graphically illustrates the importance of the little things.
> 
> ...



That is an excellent post!  My stances are frequently not as stable as they should be.  I've had my instructor stop in the middle of whatever we're doing, then reach out to touch, and I tip over.  He says I need to "re-align myself" and when I do, I will be able to "feel" the difference.  You're right, I need to really to look at my weight distribution of my stances and how I move.  He is an excellent instructor; unfortunately, I don't get to work with him as much as I would like.  He stresses the basics and body alignment.  I usually work with his assistant instructors who don't seem to catch these details--the other instructors seem more interested in teaching from point a to point b.  

- Ceicei


----------



## Sigung86 (Mar 24, 2006)

Very cool thoughts all way around.  FC, your right... It is amazing what can be culled from the dross when you are inspired.  On the other hand you will then run into a certain Mad Kenpo Scientist, who will send you around the bend and off in new directions.  And man!  That can be confusing, frustrating, and just plain fun.

I went through my first iteration like the one you have gone through, about 13 years ago.  Anjd even after all this time, Saintly Uncle Dan (that would be me) is dancing along behind and often to the side of the Mad Kenpo Scientist.  
%-}

FC, it's is too bad that you and I are probably on different ends of the continent... Would be fun to get together, compare notes and see where we are headed.  
:ultracool


----------



## Doc (Mar 25, 2006)

kenpoworks said:
			
		

> Doc, ... I am still trying to triage the Effective Kenpo from the Affected Kenpo and building effective responses from natural reaction has helped me recognise the difference between complex and complicated Kenpo,...


That is one really great statement. The recognition that there is a difference between the two is a huge thing. It is why some see the 'complex' as simple, while they dismiss the 'complicated' as unnecessary.


----------



## kenpoworks (Mar 25, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> That is one really great statement. The recognition that there is a difference between the two is a huge thing. It is why some see the 'complex' as simple, while they dismiss the 'complicated' as unnecessary.


 
                                       :asian::asian::asian:


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 25, 2006)

Sigung86 said:
			
		

> Very cool thoughts all way around. FC, your right... It is amazing what can be culled from the dross when you are inspired. On the other hand you will then run into a certain Mad Kenpo Scientist, who will send you around the bend and off in new directions. And man! That can be confusing, frustrating, and just plain fun.
> 
> I went through my first iteration like the one you have gone through, about 13 years ago. Anjd even after all this time, Saintly Uncle Dan (that would be me) is dancing along behind and often to the side of the Mad Kenpo Scientist.
> %-}
> ...


 
I am in San Francisco, so looks like we are a ways apart, but it's interesting to hear that others have had similar thoughts and made the effort to do something about it.  If you ever wander into my neck of the woods, let me know.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Mar 26, 2006)

guys, i just wanted to say thanks.

when i started this thread i was expecting maybe a couple of tepid answers.  i'm sitting here taking notes.  

thanks so much for such an interesting and valuable response.


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Apr 5, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> I agree.
> 
> *WARNING: POSSIBLE OFFENSIVE RESPONSE. DO NOT READ IF OVERLY SENSITIVE OR EASILY OFFENDED*
> 
> ...



hmmmmmmmmm

geeze....... I had to go get a sandwich and drink to finish this......   I think you  need to get a job telemarketing or something..... Lol


----------



## Doc (Apr 5, 2006)

Goldendragon7 said:
			
		

> hmmmmmmmmm
> 
> geeze....... I had to go get a sandwich and drink to finish this......   I think you  need to get a job telemarketing or something..... Lol


NOW he has something to say!


----------



## Sigung86 (Apr 5, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> NOW he has something to say!



But... He prob'ly didn't put Mayo on the baloney sandwich!


----------

