A kem/npo sytem

[Blindside]

OK for the heckuvit...

A formal education requirement would be added. For a person to be able to execuote a move means the person can...execute a move. It doesn't mean they can teach or run a business well enough to be able to pass on the art. I'd suggest that the skillset of our teachers and school owners gets rounded out....say a minimum of a 2 year degree in a related field required to be a teacher, minimum of 4 year degree (preferably in Business) to be a school owner.

Do away with belt ranks and other distractions and focus on the training. No belt ranks, no belt tests, no belt test fees, no senior instructors, masters, or grandmasters.....just instructor, student, and art.

Disagree completely on the formal education requirement. I've seen several teachers with no education who were fine teachers, and several teachers with advanced degrees that had no business in the classroom. And the ability to run a business should have no bearing on the art, it sounds like you are building a commercial concept right into the art, and I don't like it.

While I love the idea of getting rid of the belts and names, it probably isn't practical. But what the hell, I'm with you on that.

Lamont

 

[Carol]

Hey who said anything about practical? This is just the Gods making a perfect world

 

[DavidCC]

For the elite class, they would be held to a very high standard of excellence: perform 90% correct 90% of the time. They get the full nuances of it all over time. They get the "why" whenever they master a "how". The most rigorous training, longer hours, more time required to make ranks. Some students will want to pursue this level of training but will be unable to fulfill its demands and those people would not be allowed to contune in this program.


Character would need to be a requirement. There is a long standing history of teachers only showing the full material to select students. I do not think this should be advertised but i think that we are in a real sense morally responsible for what our students do with what we teach them...to a certain extent. Therefore we should select who we give the full system to based on the above mentioned by David but also based on the character of the individual. It also then, i suppose, means that we need to have high standards of conduct for ourselves and teach / encourage a certain standard of conduct and character to the students...especially the younger ones.

Respectfully,
Marlon

The level of commitment and hard work required for the higher level class would tend to weed out those with weaker characters. And to borrow another idea from the SL-4 camp, we could do criminal background checks.

can we leave out those really effective techniques, such as eye gouges?

There might be a place for this kind of primitive and rudimentary technique, but I don't think that this would be necessary if the system could teach more effective material. Anyone can do an eye-poke or a groin-kick, can't we aim higher?

A formal education requirement would be added

In the advanced class notice I describe that the students learn the "why" and the "how". This goes a long way towards how to teach it. But, as someone who is right now in an "Instructor's Training program" I think that we should include "how to teach" in the material. And of course this gives a built-in stable of Instrictors for the public class LOL

No belt ranks, no belt tests, no belt test fees, no senior instructors, masters, or grandmasters...

If you look at Professional Occupations and degree programs, there are ranks and tests and certificatiosn and titles, so they are not necessarily bad. AA, BA, BS, MS, MBA, PhD, MD etc. Freshman, Sophomore, Junior, Senior, CNA, RN, LPN... The ranks give us a defined progression through the material, and provide a means for students and teacher to identify immediately where someone is at in their progress. Sure, I am the teacher, I know where all the students are at (when I am perfect). But not everyone who needs the info has it as I do since I am the teacher. if we stick to the 90/90 or 75/75 rules for evaluation, then we can rely that a belt means the same thing wherever it is awarded.

But I agree that we should remove the generation of revenue from the promotion process. That is a corrupting influence. We should set the tuition fees high enough to support the school, no miscellaneous fees required.

Do we want school owners who are part time or do we want them to be able to dedicate their lives to teaching and owning a school - professional Martial Art Teacher? I've encountered some great people in both camps, and some real losers in both camps too. So let's not assume that one model or the other necessarily leads to corruption... Should we encourage one model or the other, or leave it up to each teacher?



Are we ready to talk about the nature of the Art itself yet?

 

[marlon]

please redefine the discussion you want about the nature of the art so we can focus in on it.

marlon

 

[Blindside]

Next, I would say what is the focus of our system? This really requires some thought from all of you before answering. We're all aware of the Kemp/npo world now and what goes on so, which way for us? Meaning, Street effective? which would have intense physical, nasty training, and mindsets, probably scaring away most students. Do we design it to be able to fight other systems like BJJ, Or, do we want to get our way out to anyone, and everyone that wants to learn? This would mean "watering down", marketing, etc.. which is seen now, as terrible things overall. To this question, if thinking it through, what is the focus of it? Physical training? Spiritual training? etc..

To bring us back on target:
I want a unarmed self defense system that is designed to address competant attackers. This means high percentage counters to wrestlers shoots, boxer combinations, groundfighting (mostly on getting back up), some kicking, and various "trained" weapon user strategies. I want the training to be heavily resistance based, with regular sparring. I have zero heartache about throwing out forms/kata and replacing them with active drills. Adjunct to the core unarmed system I want a weapon (knife/club/gun) based system that uses the same techniques but focusing on weapon application.

Thats all.

I don't want nunchaku, toothpick bo staffs,

 

[marlon]

why do so many people not see the training / fighting benefits of forms? If some want to throw them out there must be a reason....consider Emparado created some, so did Chow and so did Parker...they must have done so for a reason , let alone all the creators of traditional styles.

respectfully,
marlon

 

[Blindside]

Do you really want to turn this thread into a "value of kata" debate? There are plenty of other threads on that.

Lamont

 

[Touch Of Death]

Do you really want to turn this thread into a "value of kata" debate? There are plenty of other threads on that.

Lamont

Theres no debate. Kata Stays.:soapbox:

 

[Blindside]

Theres no debate. Kata Stays.:soapbox:

You aren't really an AKer are you? You used the word "kata."

 

[Touch Of Death]

You aren't really an AKer are you? You used the word "kata."

Rather than correct your former terminology I chose to go with the flow and simply make my point. I am an AKer as it were, and resent the trap. I set them myself all the time, and I know 'em when I see 'em.
Sean:ultracool

 

[evenflow1121]

I think you'd have to go back to the basics, from the Parker System which is the only kenpo system I feel I can speak about with some accuracy. The Kenpo that guys like Ibrao or Beeder, learned from Mr. Parker was probably not the same Kenpo that a lot of us here today learned, and still that Kenpo was quite effective as well and it was still Kenpo. In my opinion one of the most amazing things regarding Kenpo is that you have a lot of people that bash or dont want to call anything Kenpo that deviates from the orthodox, but Kenpo itself has kept evolving through the decades during Mr. Parker and then after.

 

[Hand Sword]

A lot of stuff going on here, which is great, but, I think we got a little ahead

.

So, let me summize a little and then we'll go from there:


Our system will be referred to as Kenmpo.

It will be self defense oriented for all of the students. The training will be techniques oriented with some anaroebic conditioning for all. The system will have two segments: 1, a regular type of class with the same elements just slightly less emphasis. 2. An elite version, with heavy emphasis on the techniques/ and contact, etc.. We wont turn anyone away, but, also won't be afraid to "lose" students, never comprimising the art, and the training.

Sounds good for our platform.

Now, since we have a real self defense (fighting) oriented system, do we go with Hard blocking (Star blocking system, 8pt. blocking system, etc..), or, do we go with Boxing type defenses: parrying, covering, bobbing, weaving, etc.., or all of the above?

Next how do we develop, practice these defensive attributes? Stand in a horse stance and do it, do it in a boxing stance, and movement? c- stepping, 1/2 mooning, shuffling etc..?

What will be the ready stance? flat footed (neutral bow. 1/2 moon), or a boxing stance?

Remember, we're going for "real self defense" here. Don't be afraid to step out of your current training ways of your styles and give an honest opinion. Also , Give specific details !

 

[Touch Of Death]

I'm already breaking away and marketing Wold's Kenmpo. I will on occassion print articles on the internet slamming the leaders of "Traditional Kenmpo". I may even "plan a murder or start a religion"(Jim Morrison).
Sean

 

[Hand Sword]

Thank you for contributing to my thread.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Thank you for contributing to my thread.

Anytime.
Sean

 

[DavidCC]

A lot of stuff going on here, which is great, but, I think we got a little ahead

.

So, let me summize a little and then we'll go from there:


Our system will be referred to as Kenmpo.

It will be self defense oriented for all of the students. The training will be techniques oriented with some anaroebic conditioning for all. The system will have two segments: 1, a regular type of class with the same elements just slightly less emphasis. 2. An elite version, with heavy emphasis on the techniques/ and contact, etc.. We wont turn anyone away, but, also won't be afraid to "lose" students, never comprimising the art, and the training.

Sounds good for our platform.

Now, since we have a real self defense (fighting) oriented system, do we go with Hard blocking (Star blocking system, 8pt. blocking system, etc..), or, do we go with Boxing type defenses: parrying, covering, bobbing, weaving, etc.., or all of the above?

Next how do we develop, practice these defensive attributes? Stand in a horse stance and do it, do it in a boxing stance, and movement? c- stepping, 1/2 mooning, shuffling etc..?

What will be the ready stance? flat footed (neutral bow. 1/2 moon), or a boxing stance?

Remember, we're going for "real self defense" here. Don't be afraid to step out of your current training ways of your styles and give an honest opinion. Also , Give specific details !

I think you are jumping the gun here. how can I decide if it should prefer to dodge or block, be mobile or rooted, if I don't have an underlying strategy of how to win.

So, most Kempo or Kenpo systems I know of block more than dodge. and use rooted stances more than light buoyant footwork. What is the strategy behind that and is it one that we will adopt?

 

[Touch Of Death]

I think you are jumping the gun here. how can I decide if it should prefer to dodge or block, be mobile or rooted, if I don't have an underlying strategy of how to win.

So, most Kempo or Kenpo systems I know of block more than dodge. and use rooted stances more than light buoyant footwork. What is the strategy behind that and is it one that we will adopt?

I think a mobility or stability strategy would be based on the opponents or opponent before you. Choosing one as a personal preference would be folly.
Sean

 

[Hand Sword]

I think you are jumping the gun here. how can I decide if it should prefer to dodge or block, be mobile or rooted, if I don't have an underlying strategy of how to win.

So, most Kempo or Kenpo systems I know of block more than dodge. and use rooted stances more than light buoyant footwork. What is the strategy behind that and is it one that we will adopt?

Not really. We've agreed on Real Self Defense as our theme. So, based on those attacks (for now punches), do we want to train ourselves to defend from flat footed stances, with hard blocks, be mobile like boxers/JKD, or cover/parry like them? Is the one, big, drunk, roundhouse what we're training to defend against? Boxers?

For T.O.D's folly theory, It is my opinion, from all of my experiences, that you should be mobile, and remaining flat footed and rigid, under attack is folly. So, there is no "depending" on the opponent.

 

[Blindside]

I would suggest a compromise, I don't want the hard blocks, but I want emphasis on parrying, and less so on covering. The reason? Covering doesn't work so good against weapons, and neither does hard blocking, so footwork and soft parries would be my preference.

Lamont

 

[MJS]

O.K. everyone.

So far We've got Kenmpo as the name of our system, over Kenpo or Kempo. Is this Cool with everyone else on the committee? If not, chime in.

If so ...
let's now address the next question:

Next, I would say what is the focus of our system? This really requires some thought from all of you before answering. We're all aware of the Kemp/npo world now and what goes on so, which way for us? Meaning, Street effective? which would have intense physical, nasty training, and mindsets, probably scaring away most students. Do we design it to be able to fight other systems like BJJ, Or, do we want to get our way out to anyone, and everyone that wants to learn? This would mean "watering down", marketing, etc.. which is seen now, as terrible things overall. To this question, if thinking it through, what is the focus of it? Physical training? Spiritual training? etc..

I'd say design it so that it addresses a wide variety of attacks. If the focus is going to be SD, watering things down would be a mistake IMO. There should be a good physical side to it.