Building speed in techniques

[Doc]

Originally posted by Klondike93

A very interesting post to read, more food for thought.


:asian:

"The ultimate aim of (Motion) Kenpo is to elongate circles and round off corners." Another debate I'm sure. Once again the differences are many and great. Thank you for your consideration.

 

[WilliamTLear]

Originally posted by Doc



Sir,

In my own lessons we did a lot of slow training, almost like "Taiji" with an emphasis on body mechanics and proper movement with breathing. When you move slow, every miscue is obvious and mistakes become glaring. I studied Chinese Arts before I met Ed Parker so this was "normal" to me. Ed Parker studied Taiji and other aspects of the Chinese Science and at one time even had a Taiji instructor teaching for him in the Pasadena School for awhile. (Can't remember his name, but I think it was James Lee). From there we would move to faster pace movements and ultimately explosive moement but only after the "wrinkles" were ironed out. Remember Ed Parker was, and did call his art "Chinese Kenpo" long before he created the commercial product for the American strip mall, store fronts, and franchises. (Remember Secrets of Chinese - "Karate" was first published in 1963) This was when he taught things like "Two-Man Set" and forms were lifted straight from Hung Gar like "Tiger and the Crane" and incorporated into his Kenpo teachings.

The notion of "speed" being paramount was a flashy concept that came along much later in the seventies with Motion-Kenpo. It really helped to "sell" the art. Back in the early days of Moton-Kenpo, when you mentioned Ed Parker the first thing people would say was, "Man he's fast."

Before that it was "power." Even after motion-Kenpo he would still say, "Speed kills your technique." So there were many contridictions in his teaching depending on what he said, who he said it to, when he said it, and what aspect of kenpo in his own evolutions he was speaking about. The things he said to and discussions with Steve Herring were completely different from what he told Frank Trejo. What he talked about with Chuck Sullivan and James Ibrao was different from what he shared with Larry Tatum and Huk Planas. To add to the confusion the Motion-Kenpo concept itself promotes many concepts simultaneously so students from the same timeline would get different information. I know he had conversations with Dennis Conatser that I never heard repeated with others of his generation, as an example. I'm not suggesting one way is better than another because I really think that is an instructors burden to get the most out of what he learned and pass it to his students, but we do have to accept the many differences and gravitate to what and who we feel is best for us, and forget this notion "all Ed Parker Kenpo is the same." It's clear from these international forums there is no standardized understanding of "how" to do anything. All Kenpo from the same lineage is not the same. Never has been, and never will be.

I asked Ed Parker about all the contridictions and he said, "It's just like the Bible. It's about who, when, and what they were trying to say at the time and all subject to interpretation." If you take the Bible (or Kenpo) as a whole literally, it makes no sense. You must focus on the period you find of value, and interpret it for yourself in a positive way as a guide.

If you went by to see Mr. Herring you would see a completely different Kenpo and philosophy of Ed Parker where the "slow with power" is still alive in Mr. Herring and his lineage. I too emphasize proper mechanics first, but when we speed up it's good to go.

Tomaaaato, Tomooooto. I think I'm right, but so does everyone else. I can live with that.

I hope I'm wrong, but I think you misinterpeted my post as being slightly sarcastic, it wasn't meant that way... I was asking a real question, I wasn't trying to be an A$$ Hole or any thing.

Lemme re-ask my question in a different way...

Did he tell you why you were doing the opposite? I'm just trying to get a better understanding of your expereince. That's all.

 

[Doc]

Originally posted by WilliamTLear



I hope I'm wrong, but I think you misinterpeted my post as being slightly sarcastic, it wasn't meant that way... I was asking a real question, I wasn't trying to be an A$$ Hole or any thing.

Lemme re-ask my question in a different way...

Did he tell you why you were doing the opposite? I'm just trying to get a better understanding of your expereince. That's all.

No, Mr. Lear I didn't misinterpret your question. I took it for what it was, a serious inquiry. Besides you're pretty obvious when you're being a wise a$$. But I also know you're no dummy when you want to get serious.

You must understand for me/us, it wasn't the opposite. It was/is the prevailing method of training for what he/we were/are trying to accomplish, and this method is still the dominent way for non-commercial arts. You'll notice there are no traditional schools in every strip mall. Just the TKD's and "Self-Defense" arts.

The more appropriate question is why Motion-Kenpo trains the opposite of most traditional arts. Answer: It places a heavy emphasis on rapid progress for quick skills before students can become bored with their progress. There is nothing wrong with this. You get what you pay for. In the beginning there were only 2 belts in Kenpo, White and Black. Ed Parker gave black tape (tips) on your white belt. When you got enough, you were a black belt. It was even written on the certificates that way. One Tip, Two Tip, etc.

All of those colors were and are about short term motivation to keep American interests by Ed Parker's own words. Ed Parker knew most Americans would get bored and go play handball (or buy a piece). The competition for desposable income is high. Bored people will find somewhere else to spend their money. Ed Parker was a genius, and gave the AVERAGE person what they wanted AND taught them something they could use. Then came the kids, and that is another story altogether. But the average person is NOT a martial arts teacher.

Traditional training methods require an emphasis on basics. MK basics are conceptual not actual. I know everyone says they emphasize basics but Ed Parker in general, stopped teaching them in the sixties in favor of the conceptual lesson plan prevelent in MK. It allows for interpretation and tailoring so students participate differently in their training. You already know I can tear down someones basics in 5 minutes and prove a better method.

Traditionally, the competent instructor gives you specific things to do and watches you and corrects every move. He doesn't allow deviation or UNNECESSARY questions. In MK the student is given the idea of what they need to accomplish and then are left to work it out for themselves. Instructors oversee training to give "tips" and advice. Some instructors do it better than others, but the model itself is conceptually driven.

The emphasis is on executing the self-defense techniques so they work on an individual basis, not on the real basics that drive them and make them functional. That's why nobody does anything the same from school to school, student to student. They're not supposed to. They're only supposed to make it work for them.

This departure from traditionalism is part of what made Motion-Kenpo popular and drove its rapid proliferation. It is also why, in the beginning, it attracted so many students from other arts. Freedom and flexibility over more rigid structure. It allowed students of the seventies to "do their own thing" in a loose conceptual structure and get rank as well. Pretty cool when you think about it. Ed Parker's Motion-Kenpo was the first truly eclectic martial art. You might call it a "sister art" to JKD, with more structure.

Interestingly the traditional approach is nat physically harder nor does it take longer. But it does requires more self discipline to get things right, and most won't do that. The major difference is "Motion-Kenpo moves rapidly to applications and allows you to change things so they work for you. Traditional methods force you to work on things until you get them right." Coaches don't let you jump shoot, jump the hig hurdles, swim, pitch, or tackle your way. That should be a clue, but athletes who reach a certain level have more self discipline than most. No matter how talented they may be, coaches tell them when they are doing something wrong. How many times have you heard a coach say, "Well we're not playing very well, we need to get back to basics."

But MK's short comings lie in it's dirth of truly qualified instructors. In the beginning its instructors came from other arts bringing skills with them. Motion-Kenpo students IN GENERAL do not become qualified to be it's teachers and every generation has been diluting the lesson plan ever since. Of course there are always exceptions but a black belt and an ego equal "teacher" to most. The interesting thing is the senior seniors they respect the most, don't know or teach Motion-Kenpo.

Sorry for the rambling rant.

 

[WilliamTLear]

Thank you.

Billy Lear