Change-Is It A Bad Thing?

[Flying Crane]

Carefull, Remeber the Arts don't need to change, you need to change!

heh, heh heh

 

[RichK]

Change is eminant<SP>, especially on a variety of levels. In AK there are a few techniques I had to change to adapt to my disabilities, even though Long Form 5 seriously hurts me to do I still enjoy it. How many times did Mr Parker look at a tecnique/set/form and change it. Kick set was changed by one of his students. It was said above that a technique was taken out or changed because it was crap. Then the answer to that was, you must have missed a class and you must not understand the technique. I heard Sibok Kelly once say "that technique sure looks pretty but I wouldn't do it out on the street". So tell me, did he miss a class or does he not understand the technique? Not flame throwing, just making you think.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Carefull, Remeber the Arts don't need to change, you need to change!

Actualy some methods of combat do lose their relevance as counters become more widly mastered and spread. Look how American Kickboxers got chewed up for a while by the Muay thai kickers for a while. Now its starting to become just another counterable method of Kickboxing. Some adopt new methods and some isolate their students from reality, but its been dealt with in one form or another.
Sean

 

[MJS]

Just to expand on this thread a bit more, what are some changes that you may have made to the way that you perform your material? Have you added/removed anything?

Mike

 

[Dark Kenpo Lord]

It was said above that a technique was taken out or changed because it was crap. Then the answer to that was, you must have missed a class and you must not understand the technique. I heard Sibok Kelly once say "that technique sure looks pretty but I wouldn't do it out on the street". So tell me, did he miss a class or does he not understand the technique? Not flame throwing, just making you think.

Maybe both missed a class and misunderstood. Mr. Kelly is a respected Kenpoist, but just because he says he wouldn't do something is not to say others won't that are better at it.

DarK LorD

 

[Doc]

Change is eminant<SP>, especially on a variety of levels. In AK there are a few techniques I had to change to adapt to my disabilities, even though Long Form 5 seriously hurts me to do I still enjoy it. How many times did Mr Parker look at a tecnique/set/form and change it. Kick set was changed by one of his students. It was said above that a technique was taken out or changed because it was crap. Then the answer to that was, you must have missed a class and you must not understand the technique. I heard Sibok Kelly once say "that technique sure looks pretty but I wouldn't do it out on the street". So tell me, did he miss a class or does he not understand the technique? Not flame throwing, just making you think.

I've known the esteemed Tom KellEy (intentional spelling) since he came to the IKKA around 1968. He is a plain spoken gentleman not prone to tell you what you want to hear, instead settling for the truth of his perspective. I've heard him express this sentiment on ocassions when exposed to later generation students performing what, for most of us "Ancients," was some instructors interpretation of the "new" (from our perspective) motion based techniques. I was not there so I have no knowledge of the circumstances of the statement, however if he made the statement based on his observations, it is my experience he is usually correct. A smart person would probably ask a few questions and get "enlightened." Absent that, I'd take his word for it to the bank.

 

[RichK]

but just because he says he wouldn't do something is not to say others won't that are better at it.

DarK LorD

That is my exact meaning of change. If a technique called for a flying aerial spinning flipping upside down kick, I would have to change it as I am too old and too disabled to do that. Where did that kick come from? Must have watched too many Ninja Turtle movies in the early nineties with my son.

 

[Andrew Green]

Change is neutral, natural and unavoidable.

Question is how things change and why.

Change for the sake of change is almost always a mistake, but then again so is tradition for the sake of tradition.

Everyone gets what their teachers give them, they get what they read, see, here, have done to them. After a few years everyone has gotten a lot of things, and everyone has gotten different things, in different orders from different places. They also started off with different bodies, different mindsets, different strengths, different weaknesses and have been doing different jobs, other hobbies and living with different families.

To expect everyone to end up the same is wishful thinking gone wrong.

Change will happen, and it will occur naturally. To unnaturally force change or try to prevent change is where you run into problems.

 

[MJS]

I was going to start a new thread for this, but I decided not to, as this question still has something to do with the topic of the thread.

What are everyones thoughts on how fighting has changed? I would think that this would be one reason why people may make changes to their material. Was grappling as much of a threat 20 or more years ago as it is today? What about the way people throw strikes?

IMO, change is a part of life. We can look around us today and see changes in the way houses are built, changes in cars, medicine, etc.

So, are we just changing things for no apparent reason, or is something happening that is making us change?

Mike

 

[Flying Crane]

Maybe both missed a class and misunderstood. Mr. Kelly is a respected Kenpoist, but just because he says he wouldn't do something is not to say others won't that are better at it.

DarK LorD

Different people are able to use different things, and not everything is equally useful for everyone.

That being said, I do believe that sometimes some techniques end up in a curriculum, when they really should have been discarded. Some techniques are just poorly thought thru, or were just a bad idea, plain and simple. I think that some techniques were created in the past as perhaps one of many drills or explorations in movement that were being done at the time, but maybe it wasn't really meant to be codified. Unfortunately, they DID become codified when they should have been left behind. Just because someone came up with a technique in the past does not mean it should be kept forever.

I do not have experience in EPAK kenpo so I am not trying to imply this about Mr. Parker's curriculum, but from my own kenpo experience I think this is true at least in come cases.

So when someone says that you just didn't learn the technique correctly, or you don't fully understand it, I think this kind of response may or may not be appropriate. Yes, it is important to try to fully understand a technique and how it is best used. It may well be that something you have struggled would be useful with a better understanding. However, I also believe that some techniques are just plain bad ideas, and need to be discarded. No amount of digging or studying or trying to uncover its secrets or principles, or having a better instructor, is going to make it useful.

 

[Old Fat Kenpoka]

Individual people change over time. You have to change the way you move over time. You have to deepen your understanding of the material you have been taught, learn new ways to apply it, and adapt it to your growing or ageing body.

The state of the art changes over time. Many martial artists strive to improve their game and learn to successfully attack and defend in increasingly more difficult situations. Martial artists who spar/compete/fight against other martial artists know that they must improve their game by improving their execution, expanding their arsenal, and even -- I am going to say it -- innovating.

Individuals and arts must change and improve over time to retain their comparative effectiveness and escape from decay into mere historical curiosity.

 

[Doc]

Individuals and arts must change and improve over time to retain their comparative effectiveness and escape from decay into mere historical curiosity.

Dam, that was good!