Concepts Without Combinations?

[Danjo]

well I'd agree with you in that it's not just any old mix of certain arts, but rather in HOW they were mixed. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Kaju also have it's own body of unique material, such as kata? If so, those things go a long way in defining what the art is.

Capoeira is an example of an art that typically does not codify the training sequences, but that doesn't mean we don't DO training sequences. Capoeira is all about sponteneity with the technique. So we don't like to rely on a codified body of material, such as kata, that gets repeated over and over. The foundational techniques and methods are certainly codified, but how they are strung together in practice is usually not. Each day can be a very different experience, as the instructor creates sequences on the fly, to stimulate sponteneity and the creative eye in the student.

Yep. Kaju has forms also. Now there is a lot of debate about forms in Kaju. Some like em, some don't. Plus, they were added after the combinations were created to make it more like other arts at the time. But the roots are still the Grab Arts, Punch counters, Knife and Club counters etc.

Capoiera, Muy Thai (although I've seen forms in that too), kickboxing, boxing, wrestling, etc. don't have forms or set combos. Though Judo does have Kata and I've read the Master Text in Gracie JJ which codifies the chains and techniques that Helio and his brothers developed for teaching the art back in Brazil in the 50's (They actually had technique cards that they used in sequence originally).

It seems like certain arts would be nearly impossible to teach properly without the requisite forms or combinations. At best it would be sloppy as hell to try it.

 

[MJS]

There are some that claim that it is not neccessary to teach forms or pre-set techniques or combinations in order to teach an art, but to me that sounds iffy at best.

How would one teach the underlying concept of a martial art without teaching combinations that epitomize those concepts?

It could be done, however, its, IMO, going to take a) a dedicated, quick learning student, and b) lots of practice. Basically, what would be done, would be stripping the material down to the bare bones, and focusing on certain areas only.

Personally, I feel that the techniques, katas, etc., are the foundation to build from. They give 1 example on how to deal with a particular attack. However, once the student advances, its up to them to take the tools that the have, and put them together as they see fit. For example, lets take Delayed Sword, from the Parker System. Its designed to defend against a right lapel grab. However, it should be able to be done from a right or left punch, a right or left lapel grab, or a push, either single hand or 2 hand. 1 tech., and look at the number of options.

I tell my students all the time, not to get so hung up on the techniques. Learn them of course, but when they're doing a spontaneous technique, just react. They all know how to punch, block, kick, move, etc., so use those tools and put together a defense, as you see fit.

Katas....I do them, I teach them, I do my best to give at least 1 application for each move, but I dont spend nearly the time that others do. I do feel that there is value in them, and they should give ideas to SD situations.

 

[Danjo]

It could be done, however, its, IMO, going to take a) a dedicated, quick learning student, and b) lots of practice. Basically, what would be done, would be stripping the material down to the bare bones, and focusing on certain areas only.

Personally, I feel that the techniques, katas, etc., are the foundation to build from. They give 1 example on how to deal with a particular attack. However, once the student advances, its up to them to take the tools that the have, and put them together as they see fit. For example, lets take Delayed Sword, from the Parker System. Its designed to defend against a right lapel grab. However, it should be able to be done from a right or left punch, a right or left lapel grab, or a push, either single hand or 2 hand. 1 tech., and look at the number of options.

I tell my students all the time, not to get so hung up on the techniques. Learn them of course, but when they're doing a spontaneous technique, just react. They all know how to punch, block, kick, move, etc., so use those tools and put together a defense, as you see fit.

Katas....I do them, I teach them, I do my best to give at least 1 application for each move, but I dont spend nearly the time that others do. I do feel that there is value in them, and they should give ideas to SD situations.

Yeah, I'm not saying that one should be limited by the combinations or forms, but that they are generally the quickest way to efficiently deliver the system to them. Why re-invent the wheel?

 

[TigerCraneGuy]

Teach points of reference. From each point teach them to make a clean strike, and to choose the weapon based on target availability. After a strike has been made the weapon should then return to another point of reference and it at that point you choose the weapon for the next strike. Using Delayed sword as an example a student will learn to shuffle and get off the line of attack with the teachers help and then apply these tools to make one of three moves in succession; hence, there are no combinations, just the logic of what a set up is, a one, two, three combination. Knowing when a set up combination has been foiled and you are on to the next idea, is a plus; so, a single concept way of thinking is attractive if not usefull.
sean

I like this.

 

[MattJ]

It could be done, however, its, IMO, going to take a) a dedicated, quick learning student, and b) lots of practice. Basically, what would be done, would be stripping the material down to the bare bones, and focusing on certain areas only.

What about boxing? Quick to learn, no forms. To be good at anything requires practice and dedication.

 

[MJS]

What about boxing? Quick to learn, no forms. To be good at anything requires practice and dedication.

Well, thats kinda what I was talking about when I mentioned the bare bones. IMO, if we were to compare boxing with Kenpo, I feel there is alot more in Kenpo. So, with boxing, they're focusing on footwork, bob/weave, punches. There're no kicks, no kata, no SD techniques. So a boxer is focusing on a small set of things, and with dedicated practice, one can get very good, very quick. If you do everything thats in Kenpo, I'd say its going to take alot longer, due to everything thats there. But even with something like boxing, training 1 or 2 times a week, for an hour or so class vs. someone who jumps in the ring every day....I think you see what I'm saying here. And that applies to anything, not just boxing.

And you're correct...getting good at something does require lots of practice and dedication. But if we think about it, how many people are really that dedicated? I'm not saying those people don't exist because I know they do, but how many people devote that amount of time to their training?

There is a Kaju guy that has the following quote for his sig line. It reads: "When you're not training, someone else is training to kick your ***."

So very true.

 

[MattJ]

MJS -

Well, thats kinda what I was talking about when I mentioned the bare bones. IMO, if we were to compare boxing with Kenpo, I feel there is alot more in Kenpo. So, with boxing, they're focusing on footwork, bob/weave, punches. There're no kicks, no kata, no SD techniques. So a boxer is focusing on a small set of things, and with dedicated practice, one can get very good, very quick. If you do everything thats in Kenpo, I'd say its going to take alot longer, due to everything thats there.

Fair enough, although I didn't consider the depth of a particular style relevant to the topic. I was addressing the OP here, that it can be done:

There are some that claim that it is not neccessary to teach forms or pre-set techniques or combinations in order to teach an art, but to me that sounds iffy at best.

Narrow-focus arts can be very effective, since less practice is required due to the smaller syllabus. I agree with you that it will take longer to become effective with 250 kenpo techniques compared to the boxer with roughly 4 punches, but the boxer will be damn good with those 4, probably much quicker.

But even with something like boxing, training 1 or 2 times a week, for an hour or so class vs. someone who jumps in the ring every day....I think you see what I'm saying here. And that applies to anything, not just boxing.

Agreed.

And you're correct...getting good at something does require lots of practice and dedication. But if we think about it, how many people are really that dedicated? I'm not saying those people don't exist because I know they do, but how many people devote that amount of time to their training?

Not many for sure, but that almost makes the case for more limited arts with smaller syllibi (?). Less to learn makes it quicker to learn. I personally view MA training with more of a long-term mindset, so well-roundedness is equally important to me as speed of learning.

There is a Kaju guy that has the following quote for his sig line. It reads: "When you're not training, someone else is training to kick your ***."

Excellent. :ultracool

 

[J Ellis]

Western boxing does contain combinations that are drilled extensively in a variety of ways. These combinations do not have the same level of complexity as Kenpo techniques, but they can be considered embryonic "techniques" just the same.

I'm not disagreeing with what has been noted above, just noting that even boxing uses combinations to instill concepts and patterns of motion.

Joel

 

[Danjo]

Western boxing does contain combinations that are drilled extensively in a variety of ways. These combinations do not have the same level of complexity as Kenpo techniques, but they can be considered embryonic "techniques" just the same.

I'm not disagreeing with what has been noted above, just noting that even boxing uses combinations to instill concepts and patterns of motion.

Joel

Yes they do have preset combinations and techniques that are drilled. These are done to ingrain good habits and develop speed and power. Boxing is a good example of how combinations are used but not restrictive.

 

[MJS]

MJS -



Fair enough, although I didn't consider the depth of a particular style relevant to the topic. I was addressing the OP here, that it can be done:




Narrow-focus arts can be very effective, since less practice is required due to the smaller syllabus. I agree with you that it will take longer to become effective with 250 kenpo techniques compared to the boxer with roughly 4 punches, but the boxer will be damn good with those 4, probably much quicker.



Agreed.



Not many for sure, but that almost makes the case for more limited arts with smaller syllibi (?). Less to learn makes it quicker to learn. I personally view MA training with more of a long-term mindset, so well-roundedness is equally important to me as speed of learning.



Excellent. :ultracool

Sounds like we're on the same page. I just used boxing as an example. I mean, even in Kenpo, with the huge number of techs., that we have, I take a handful that address each type of attack, ie: 2-3 punch, 2-3 roundhouse, kick, etc., etc., and drill the hell out of them. I do the same with Arnis. I'd rather have a handful of things that I can do well, then a ton of things that I suck at.

I'm all for learning and teaching the entire curriculum. I mean, if you didn't, thats kinda like only watching the first hour of a 2hr. movie. But if we think about it, how many right punch techs. do we need to learn? Between Arnis, and all of the Kenpo systems I've studied, ie: SKK, EPAK, Tracy, I'm in some pretty high numbers. Thats why I pick a few that I know are my bread and butter moves. I would think that pro fighters, ie: boxers, MMA guys, have their fav. moves too.

So, the boxer, with only a handful of punches, drills the hell out of them, and like you said, gets damn good.

 

[TigerCraneGuy]

Well, thats kinda what I was talking about when I mentioned the bare bones. IMO, if we were to compare boxing with Kenpo, I feel there is alot more in Kenpo. So, with boxing, they're focusing on footwork, bob/weave, punches. There're no kicks, no kata, no SD techniques. So a boxer is focusing on a small set of things, and with dedicated practice, one can get very good, very quick. If you do everything thats in Kenpo, I'd say its going to take alot longer, due to everything thats there. But even with something like boxing, training 1 or 2 times a week, for an hour or so class vs. someone who jumps in the ring every day....I think you see what I'm saying here. And that applies to anything, not just boxing.

And you're correct...getting good at something does require lots of practice and dedication. But if we think about it, how many people are really that dedicated? I'm not saying those people don't exist because I know they do, but how many people devote that amount of time to their training?

There is a Kaju guy that has the following quote for his sig line. It reads: "When you're not training, someone else is training to kick your ***."

So very true.

How about applying the boxing training methodology to Kenpo.

Kenpo weapons, tactics, and strategies.... boxing drills to bring them alive.

In essence, that's what I've been doing with my Kenpo lately.

It started after I purchased and began to view Mark Hatmaker's 'The Complete Pugilist' DVD set, and was struck by the uncanny similarities between Kenpo and Old-school Boxing, which Hatmaker claims is the pre-Marquis De QB variant, complete with outward axe-hands (think: the outward handsword in Five Swords after the very first inward block), hammerfists, palm-heels, elbows, knees, and headbutts. Even the stancework rang a familiar bell, e.g. toe-heel line, 45-degree angles, stepping and dragging forward and back, shifting up the circle (they call it pivoting, and I've also heard the blade-work term: inquartata), and stepping off the line of an incoming attack; it was really quite eye-opening.

To this end, I began to look hard at my own Kenpo, which was starting to frustrate me due to its rigidity, and lightbulbs started going off in my head, giving me a sort of minor epiphany.

I recall Ed Parker once said something along the lines of: Hit hard and stick to three-shot combinations. So I started to train each move of my technique sequences in isolation, shadowboxing with said move for a full three minutes before adding the rest, step by step, till I ended up executing the whole technique sequence.

For example, with the opening move of Shielding Hammer (or rather the 5.0 variant of SH), I'd first train the double-factor, inward-outward block, snapping it back to point-of-origin as I went, and incorporating a slight 'pull' to the rear as I step-dragged back. Moving like a boxer, always guarding, always moving on the balls of my feet.

Next up, I'd shuffle in with the vertical fist off the lead right hand, sort of like a lunge-step after the first evasive manoeuver. Then three minutes later, I'd add the next move. Then the next. And the next. Till I had the whole technique sequence.

Then I'd mix it all up, changing the sequence as I went. Then throw in straight boxing blows for the heck of it. Untill eventually, I'd be mixing up jabs, crosses, and hooks, with backfists, vertical punches, axe-hands, and hammerfists.

Done the same with Five Swords and Alternating Maces.

Haven't added in kicks yet, but soon, I will.

Hope I'm making some sense...

 

[MJS]

How about applying the boxing training methodology to Kenpo.

Kenpo weapons, tactics, and strategies.... boxing drills to bring them alive.

In essence, that's what I've been doing with my Kenpo lately.

It started after I purchased and began to view Mark Hatmaker's 'The Complete Pugilist' DVD set, and was struck by the uncanny similarities between Kenpo and Old-school Boxing, which Hatmaker claims is the pre-Marquis De QB variant, complete with outward axe-hands (think: the outward handsword in Five Swords after the very first inward block), hammerfists, palm-heels, elbows, knees, and headbutts. Even the stancework rang a familiar bell, e.g. toe-heel line, 45-degree angles, stepping and dragging forward and back, shifting up the circle (they call it pivoting, and I've also heard the blade-work term: inquartata), and stepping off the line of an incoming attack; it was really quite eye-opening.

To this end, I began to look hard at my own Kenpo, which was starting to frustrate me due to its rigidity, and lightbulbs started going off in my head, giving me a sort of minor epiphany.

I recall Ed Parker once said something along the lines of: Hit hard and stick to three-shot combinations. So I started to train each move of my technique sequences in isolation, shadowboxing with said move for a full three minutes before adding the rest, step by step, till I ended up executing the whole technique sequence.

For example, with the opening move of Shielding Hammer (or rather the 5.0 variant of SH), I'd first train the double-factor, inward-outward block, snapping it back to point-of-origin as I went, and incorporating a slight 'pull' to the rear as I step-dragged back. Moving like a boxer, always guarding, always moving on the balls of my feet.

Next up, I'd shuffle in with the vertical fist off the lead right hand, sort of like a lunge-step after the first evasive manoeuver. Then three minutes later, I'd add the next move. Then the next. And the next. Till I had the whole technique sequence.

Then I'd mix it all up, changing the sequence as I went. Then throw in straight boxing blows for the heck of it. Untill eventually, I'd be mixing up jabs, crosses, and hooks, with backfists, vertical punches, axe-hands, and hammerfists.

Done the same with Five Swords and Alternating Maces.

Haven't added in kicks yet, but soon, I will.

Hope I'm making some sense...

*Gasp* *Gasp* Shame on you! The idea of you actually thinking outside the box. Oh my..the Gods of Kenpo are going to rain down on you! How could you even think of doing something like that!!!! LOL! Excuse my little humor there. Had to say it, because IMO, there are some people, not necessarily anyone in this thread, that seems to think that making any changes, adding anything non Kenpo in, using ideas that're non Kenpo, is a bad thing to do.

All kidding aside, I like that idea. My only exposure to Jeff and his 5.0 stuff, is what I've seen online, but IMHO, I think he, much like Paul Mills, is doing a good thing, taking Kenpo to the next level.

Sounds like you're on the right track! Keep up the good work!

Mike

 

[Danjo]

How about applying the boxing training methodology to Kenpo.

Kenpo weapons, tactics, and strategies.... boxing drills to bring them alive.

In essence, that's what I've been doing with my Kenpo lately.

It started after I purchased and began to view Mark Hatmaker's 'The Complete Pugilist' DVD set, and was struck by the uncanny similarities between Kenpo and Old-school Boxing, which Hatmaker claims is the pre-Marquis De QB variant, complete with outward axe-hands (think: the outward handsword in Five Swords after the very first inward block), hammerfists, palm-heels, elbows, knees, and headbutts. Even the stancework rang a familiar bell, e.g. toe-heel line, 45-degree angles, stepping and dragging forward and back, shifting up the circle (they call it pivoting, and I've also heard the blade-work term: inquartata), and stepping off the line of an incoming attack; it was really quite eye-opening.

To this end, I began to look hard at my own Kenpo, which was starting to frustrate me due to its rigidity, and lightbulbs started going off in my head, giving me a sort of minor epiphany.

I recall Ed Parker once said something along the lines of: Hit hard and stick to three-shot combinations. So I started to train each move of my technique sequences in isolation, shadowboxing with said move for a full three minutes before adding the rest, step by step, till I ended up executing the whole technique sequence.

For example, with the opening move of Shielding Hammer (or rather the 5.0 variant of SH), I'd first train the double-factor, inward-outward block, snapping it back to point-of-origin as I went, and incorporating a slight 'pull' to the rear as I step-dragged back. Moving like a boxer, always guarding, always moving on the balls of my feet.

Next up, I'd shuffle in with the vertical fist off the lead right hand, sort of like a lunge-step after the first evasive manoeuver. Then three minutes later, I'd add the next move. Then the next. And the next. Till I had the whole technique sequence.

Then I'd mix it all up, changing the sequence as I went. Then throw in straight boxing blows for the heck of it. Untill eventually, I'd be mixing up jabs, crosses, and hooks, with backfists, vertical punches, axe-hands, and hammerfists.

Done the same with Five Swords and Alternating Maces.

Haven't added in kicks yet, but soon, I will.

Hope I'm making some sense...

Well, you're still taking existing combinations that you have already learned and dissecting them and drilling them. This is wonderful training on its own merit and can often lead to the types of breakthroughs that you describe. However, I'm actually teaching the art to the beginner who knows nothing. To me, to forego teaching the existing combinations in favor of teaching the idividual techniques in isolation is to fail to pass on the essential concept of the art.

 

[punisher73]

You can not have "concepts" without it's physical manifestation in a technique. Now, how you do that is up to debate. Do you make a string of movements and illustrate several concepts as a kenpo technique? Or, do you isolate one movement and idea to only technique?

Boxing is called the sweet science for a reason. It is both simple, in that it only has a few basic punches and defensive movements compared to other arts, but it is also very sophisticated in the strategies of movement it employs at it's higher levels.

Everything in fighting, in it's basic forms has to have preset movements (which also show the underlying concepts). There is too much talk/hype from Bruce Lee about "freeing yourself" from dead patterns etc. and many people threw out the baby with the bathwater.

 

[Doc]

Don't they call that Krav Maga?

 

[Danjo]

You can not have "concepts" without it's physical manifestation in a technique. Now, how you do that is up to debate. Do you make a string of movements and illustrate several concepts as a kenpo technique? Or, do you isolate one movement and idea to only technique?

Boxing is called the sweet science for a reason. It is both simple, in that it only has a few basic punches and defensive movements compared to other arts, but it is also very sophisticated in the strategies of movement it employs at it's higher levels.

Everything in fighting, in it's basic forms has to have preset movements (which also show the underlying concepts). There is too much talk/hype from Bruce Lee about "freeing yourself" from dead patterns etc. and many people threw out the baby with the bathwater.

Very well said.

 

[KenpoDave]

I guess it's possible in a limited sense. But, words like "system" and "art" imply structure and pattern.

It seems to me that if I were to begin teaching with no codified structure, at some point, the stuff that works the best would get repeated and organized in my mind, whether I chose to officially codify it or not. The drills and combinations that achieved the best results in the least amount of time, would, by default, become "techniques."

Students would likely mentally organize the material in a manner that at least resembled the way it was taught.

If form follows function, then, at some point, the functional material should give birth to form.

 

[James Kovacich]

Being someone whose trained alot with the intentions of no "presets." I can say from experience that at a minimum, some form of combinations will always be used if one is going to learn to fight. The biggest differance is whether or not the combos are set in stone.

But I've also found that it is much easier to guide a student to a level of "no presets" if they were first trained extensively with core techniques / combintations than expecting a student to understand and perform what I do without a "base." The base is a must.

 

[kaizasosei]

Not sure how to answer but i was recently admiring some martial arts drawings-some sequences also, so i would say one could try to show the student the end result of a technique or capture that moment in a drawing or a photo for learning purposes.
-Teachers, books and systems may carry the knowledge of age old martial traditions or pass on great strength, but the best place to really learn is from within....
Pictures though, often can show the ideals of technique, timing, positioning and even attitude.
Is that what you're getting at? Maybe i'm just spacing out again.-



j

 

[Touch Of Death]

Being someone whose trained alot with the intentions of no "presets." I can say from experience that at a minimum, some form of combinations will always be used if one is going to learn to fight. The biggest differance is whether or not the combos are set in stone.

But I've also found that it is much easier to guide a student to a level of "no presets" if they were first trained extensively with core techniques / combintations than expecting a student to understand and perform what I do without a "base." The base is a must.

The base is how you move not what you move.
Sean