Basics of Kenpo

[cdhall]

Originally posted by GouRonin

I have absolutly no beef with Mr. Duffy at all. I don't even know the man and I hear nothing but good things about him. Please don't think that is where I am going.

My only beef with the 16 is that it lets people be in the art for less time to black. I like the 24 because, like a nice chili, you have to simmer and work the material in. I love EPAK. I left because the politics were out of this world. Sadly, over inflated rank etc is what I think might be causing the Kenpo world more problems than not.

I agree though that the 16 system is great for student retention. Mr. Duffy uses it. Dennis uses it. They are 2 great Kenpoists and if they can make it work then more power to them.

No worries. I like to call it as I see it and that means both bad & good. Kudos.

No sweat. It did not even occur to me that you might have a beef with Mr. Duffy. I never thought that. Also, I can assure you that you are not in the art "less time" with Mr. Duffy.

I think he has one guy that made it to 1st Black in 4.5 years. The others were more like 6-7 I think. The last guy that got promoted to Black started when he was a kid so I think he was here for at least 10 years. I think having less material to perfect is what led Mr. Duffy to develop the 16. Like Kirk said in another post, Mr. Duffy is strict. I think he came up with it to get you to Black "better" not to get you there "faster" if that makes any sense.

:asian:

 

[cdhall]

Originally posted by Kirk

El Linko No Worko

Yes it does. Even in Canada!
Did you figure out what was wrong?

 

[GouRonin]

Originally posted by cdhall
I think he came up with it to get you to Black "better" not to get you there "faster" if that makes any sense.

Sounds like the hallmark of a good teacher to me. You have lucked out.

 

[Kirk]

Originally posted by cdhall

Yes it does. Even in Canada!
Did you figure out what was wrong?

Yeah, the DNS server was acting all weird. Not all pages
everywhere were comin' up.

 

[ProfessorKenpo]

Originally posted by brianhunter

Do you think learning the master key techniques later in the curriculum effects the skill and knowledge of the practitioner directly?

For me and my students, a resounding YES. Learning the 24 system develops the students more thoroughly because we don't put time on belts, only when you have the knowledge, and physical skills will you be promoted. For some it may be 4 months, and others it may be up to a year between colored belt levels. Exposure to the concepts, theories and principles of the teks in the 24 system engrain the art so to speak in a more palatable fashion and keeps the themes of the belt levels appropiate while learning the Master Key movements earlier in the curriculum so you have a better grasp of them at the upper and advanced ranks. Others will argue it makes no difference but just from our little suare' here you can tell there is a huge gap in the learning curve in the 16 vs 24 and you would see a huge difference in movement as well from two equal practicioners of the same rank with one doing 16 and the other 24 per belt level.


Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

 

[SingingTiger]

Thanks for the link, Doug. I've seen several posts that have indicated that there's basically a two-belt difference between 16- and 24-technique systems, but that doesn't add up mathematically; now that I see that the final four belts have 20 techniques, it adds up.

The school where I've been studying for about a year is not an EPAK school. We've got between 10 and 14 required techniques per belt (there's a red belt thrown in between green and 3rd brown), along with 2 to 5 "optional" techniques (which I think is sort of silly, I think they should either be required or not on the chart; I've asked my instructor to teach me all of the optionals, even though I've never been tested on them, just to make sure I'm getting the most bang for my buck). From what I've heard, there used to be more techniques per belt, and the yellow and red belts were added -- thus decreasing the number of techniques per belt -- for student retention purposes. Since you and others have pointed me in the direction of technique descriptions, I'm looking forward to comparing them to the techniques that we have and seeing how closely our techniques match the EPAK techniques.

I'm happy that the school where I'm studying apparently doesn't hand out belts lightly. Although I've progressed to blue fairly quickly, I imagine that a black belt is at least 3 or 4 years away (and quite possibly longer!).

I'm curious what sorts of technique requirements are out there at other non-EPAK schools.

Rich

 

[rmcrobertson]

I was taught through purple on the 32-technique/belt level system, and Toni's still pissed that the requirements were lowered to the mere 24.

I absolutely agree, though, that the 24-technique demands more time-in-grade. It should--at least for people like me, slow as death and iced molasses. Seven years plus to black, and I worked out at least five days a week for most of that--usually six. And, I taught. Not tooting my horn, either--it takes me forever to learn new material. Shoulda seen the look on Scott Higgins' face, at times...particularly frustrating, having to train around the likes of Angela, Juan, and that creepy little Cliff guy.

 

[Seig]

We cold further that argument that a 1st degree black under the 32 tech system knows as much as a third in the 24 and so on. What is not being mentioned here is that at some point, the practitioner allegedly knows the whole system. At what point should a practitioner know the entire system?

 

[ProfessorKenpo]

Originally posted by SingingTiger

Thanks for the link, Doug. I've seen several posts that have indicated that there's basically a two-belt difference between 16- and 24-technique systems, but that doesn't add up mathematically; now that I see that the final four belts have 20 techniques, it adds up.

The school where I've been studying for about a year is not an EPAK school. We've got between 10 and 14 required techniques per belt (there's a red belt thrown in between green and 3rd brown), along with 2 to 5 "optional" techniques (which I think is sort of silly, I think they should either be required or not on the chart; I've asked my instructor to teach me all of the optionals, even though I've never been tested on them, just to make sure I'm getting the most bang for my buck). From what I've heard, there used to be more techniques per belt, and the yellow and red belts were added -- thus decreasing the number of techniques per belt -- for student retention purposes. Since you and others have pointed me in the direction of technique descriptions, I'm looking forward to comparing them to the techniques that we have and seeing how closely our techniques match the EPAK techniques.

I'm happy that the school where I'm studying apparently doesn't hand out belts lightly. Although I've progressed to blue fairly quickly, I imagine that a black belt is at least 3 or 4 years away (and quite possibly longer!).

I'm curious what sorts of technique requirements are out there at other non-EPAK schools.

Rich

You should really go see John Sepulveda's studio and see what they're doing compared to your's if you live in the San Jose area. They are doing the 16 curriculum but it's EPAK and so is the belt ranking. John is probably the best EPAK instructor up there that I know regardless if I disagree with the AKKS's policies or not.

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

 

[Kirk]

This blows. So many willing to share info, but can't, because of
the drastic differences in curriculum

 

[ProfessorKenpo]

Originally posted by Kirk

This blows. So many willing to share info, but can't, because of
the drastic differences in curriculum

I would suggest videos or DVD's as a supplement to your training as well. You just might get ahead of your peers that way is all, but at least you'll have seen and possibly done the technique already when you get to those teks in your training and apply the concepts you've already learned up to that point.

Yes it blows, why people changed the 24 is unbeknownst to me other than keeping people in the studio paying the bills. It's a sellout to me and I would never do it but some out there have to make a living selling the art and no one wants the hard way. Just visit most TKD schools that have the 1 1/2 year BB program and look how full their classses are with wannabees.

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

 

[SingingTiger]

You should really go see John Sepulveda's studio and see what they're doing compared to your's if you live in the San Jose area.

Thanks, Clyde! I looked him up in the phone book, and he's quite a ways from me, but when I get a chance, I'll find out what his schedule is and see if I can visit and watch a class.

This blows. So many willing to share info, but can't, because of the drastic differences in curriculum

Yes it blows, why people changed the 24 is unbeknownst to me other than keeping people in the studio paying the bills.

I'm not sure I understand this. I started looking for descriptions of all of the original techniques so that I could compare them to what I'm being taught. My original reason for doing this was so that if I find a discussion here or elsewhere about a specific technique, I can understand the conversation, even if I know the technique by a different name. But aside from that difficulty, I don't feel like I can't share information with other kenpoists; after all, the techniques are all made up of what Mr. Parker called "basics," right? So you can always discuss the basics, and if you put a few together, you have a technique that you can discuss. Or have you found that curriculum differences extend into the basics as well, making it substantially more difficult to share information?

It's a sellout to me and I would never do it

I'm curious as to why you feel this way. The way that I look at it is that keeping people interested is an inherent goal in keeping any art alive. As long as you stay true to the art, changing things so that more people stay interested should be fine. And whether 154 techniques gets you to 2nd brown or 1st black, you haven't changed the art, only the method by which practitioners are "graded"; changing the names of the techniques and perhaps even some of the methods or orders of execution would just be an extension of this idea. Being a very organized person, I like the idea of having absolute standards; but being a realist, it seems to me that once you increase the number of schools to more than one -- let alone the thousands that exist now -- it's virtually impossible to maintain absolute standards, so accepting differences becomes a necessity.

Here's an analogy I see in another area of interest to me:

I sing barbershop (go ahead, call me a nerd ), and I belong to a worldwide organization that supports local chapters. This organization has seen a steady decline in membership for several years, since most of the members are older (I'm a youngster at 39), so one of their primary goals is increasing membership. They've come up with lots of creative ideas to get people interested, all of which I support. But if they suddenly say, "okay, we want to increase membership with younger members, so every chapter must now devote 30 minutes of each session to singing rap," I'd bail in a second because that would be taking away from the art, not enhancing it. On the other hand, if they start grading those of us who sing it, I won't care whether they want to call me a "yellow throat" or a "purple throat," regardless of what I've been called before (and I've been called worse than that ).

Anyway, I like all of the different perspectives that I see here. Keep 'em coming!

Rich

 

[ProfessorKenpo]

Originally posted by SingingTiger

I'm curious as to why you feel this way. The way that I look at it is that keeping people interested is an inherent goal in keeping any art alive. As long as you stay true to the art, changing things so that more people stay interested should be fine. And whether 154 techniques gets you to 2nd brown or 1st black, you haven't changed the art, only the method by which practitioners are "graded"; changing the names of the techniques and perhaps even some of the methods or orders of execution would just be an extension of this idea. Being a very organized person, I like the idea of having absolute standards; but being a realist, it seems to me that once you increase the number of schools to more than one -- let alone the thousands that exist now -- it's virtually impossible to maintain absolute standards, so accepting differences becomes a necessity.


Rich

We could also lower the driving age to 14 and let those kids drive too, as long as they had the classes, but would you feel comfortable on the road with a bunch of 14 yr olds out there driving. It amounts to maturity of the art, same concept.

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

 

[cdhall]

Originally posted by ProfessorKenpo

We could also lower the driving age to 14 and let those kids drive too, as long as they had the classes, but would you feel comfortable on the road with a bunch of 14 yr olds out there driving. It amounts to maturity of the art, same concept.

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

Clyde,
With all due respect you have lost me completely. I don't understand what you mean by your analogy or by "maturity in the art."

Of course someone with 24 techniques knows more material than someone with 16 techniques.

But if 1 guy spends one year working on 24 techniques and one guy spends one year working on 16 techniques, then who has had more repetition and practice with each technique and its principles and concepts?


:asian:

 

[ProfessorKenpo]

Originally posted by cdhall

Clyde,
With all due respect you have lost me completely. I don't understand what you mean by your analogy or by "maturity in the art."

Of course someone with 24 techniques knows more material than someone with 16 techniques.

But if 1 guy spends one year working on 24 techniques and one guy spends one year working on 16 techniques, then who has had more repetition and practice with each technique and its principles and concepts?


:asian:

That's OK, I loose people all the time. Let's take the average green belt on the 24 and the same average green belt on the 16 as an example. Both have been practicing approximately 2 1/2 years at that level (at least how I do it). Who is going to know more and perform at a more advanced level, the one on 16 or the one on 24? You could say that equal amounts of time is the consistent factor yes, but what about physical abilities and knowledge. The one with the 24 is going to be much more advanced by sheer exposure to material (concepts, theories, principles), and ready to move into the advanced ranks of Brown and Black. The one on 16 has not even been exposed to any of the green belts technique concepts (according to Mr. Duffy's list), and according to the Web of Knowledge, how can they possibly be ready for advanced concepts at that level?

 

[SingingTiger]

Originally posted by ProfessorKenpo

We could also lower the driving age to 14 and let those kids drive too, as long as they had the classes, but would you feel comfortable on the road with a bunch of 14 yr olds out there driving. It amounts to maturity of the art, same concept.

Boy, I'd have to disagree with that analogy completely. First of all, the "grading" of prospective drivers -- i.e., the issuing of a license -- is a single event, it's not a ladder with many rungs. Secondly, the "maturity" factor in issuing a driver's license has to do with the maturity of the individual as a whole, not their maturity in the "art" of driving: one can obtain a license regardless of how many hours they have spent behind the wheel.

Let's take the average green belt on the 24 and the same average green belt on the 16 as an example. Both have been practicing approximately 2 1/2 years at that level (at least how I do it). Who is going to know more and perform at a more advanced level, the one on 16 or the one on 24?

Well, based on the way you've described the situation, clearly the individual who has learned 24 techniques per belt would have more knowledge, and would presumably perform at a more advanced level on that basis alone. But what surprises me about your description is the fact that both students are "average" green belts and both have been studying for the same amount of time. What if there was an 8-technique per belt system? Would a student (of yours) in that system still study for 2 and a half years to become an average green belt? What about 4 techniques? If that's the case, it seems to me that the number of techniques is then irrelevant, because you're basing your belt system on time, not on the amount of material learned. I'm not saying there is necessarily anything wrong with that, but it seems to me to sort of invalidate your whole premise for the 24 vs. 16 debate.

I can understand the argument that 24 techniques per belt is better because you have to learn more material -- in a greater amount of time -- before becoming a green belt. I would still argue against that position, because there are so many variables in terms of instruction that even if everyone's on the same number of techinques per belt there are going to be great differences among students with the same belt color, and decreasing slightly the time and material before a certain belt isn't really a big deal. But if it takes the same amount of time to reach a certain level regardless of the amount of material taught, I'm not sure it makes any difference at all how many techniques are included in the material.

Notice I did say "slightly." Clearly, if you're going to award a yellow belt because a student can perform a front snap kick, and then an orange belt because they can perform a side knife-edge kick, and then a purple belt because they can perform a backfist, etc., the grading system has become somewhat of a sham. But I don't think that's what we're talking about here.

Rich

 

[ProfessorKenpo]

Originally posted by SingingTiger

Boy, I'd have to disagree with that analogy completely. First of all, the "grading" of prospective drivers -- i.e., the issuing of a license -- is a single event, it's not a ladder with many rungs. Secondly, the "maturity" factor in issuing a driver's license has to do with the maturity of the individual as a whole, not their maturity in the "art" of driving: one can obtain a license regardless of how many hours they have spent behind the wheel.



Rich

OK you win.

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

 

[cdhall]

Originally posted by ProfessorKenpo

That's OK, I loose people all the time. Let's take the average green belt on the 24 and the same average green belt on the 16 as an example. Both have been practicing approximately 2 1/2 years at that level (at least how I do it). Who is going to know more and perform at a more advanced level, the one on 16 or the one on 24? You could say that equal amounts of time is the consistent factor yes, but what about physical abilities and knowledge. The one with the 24 is going to be much more advanced by sheer exposure to material (concepts, theories, principles), and ready to move into the advanced ranks of Brown and Black. The one on 16 has not even been exposed to any of the green belts technique concepts (according to Mr. Duffy's list), and according to the Web of Knowledge, how can they possibly be ready for advanced concepts at that level?

Clyde,

I am not sure we are on exactly the same page. Here is the way I see and I think this may illustrate that we don't have a large disagreement.

If you learn 24 techniques in year and I learn 16, then with all other factors being equal, you would know more material than I would, more concepts, etc, but I should be more proficient on the 16 techniques that I do know. Naturally, I will be behind you, but since Mr. Duffy's 16 follows the Web of Knowledge, I'll stay behind you, I am not moving into advanced concepts out of order, I am simply taking longer to get there, hopefully I am better prepared for all the next/new material when I get to it.

That is really it. I advance more slowly naturally, but I should be better at what I have, all other factors being equal. I think we both have a point. Do we agree on this? I am putting this here because I think you and I are both in agreement on these 2 separate items:
1. The 16 system is skewed toward higher proficiency
2. The 24 system is skewed toward higher knowledge and exposure

If we agree on this then I understand the arguments and I am happy to agree on these positions.

:asian:

 

[eternalwhitebelt]

I believe none of this really matters. I have seen crappy kenpoists from both curriculums. Just because you know more dance moves doesn't make you a better dancer. People always want to equate number of techniques and rank with skill. I quit looking at belts and stripes along time ago, I have usually found that tells me nothing about a persons skill level.

 

[eternalwhitebelt]

Originally posted by Kirk

This blows. So many willing to share info, but can't, because of
the drastic differences in curriculum

The longer you stay in the more you will see the similarities than the differences. In the end thier are only two things, either you can move or you can't.