'dancing on your grave'

[Flying Crane]

I would add that one should examine the curriculum of techniques that you practice with a critical eye and weed out those that are unrealistic. Only keep the ones that are truly worth while, and make some alterations where necessary. Sometimes a technique has a good idea imbedded within it, but it is surrounded by fluff. Eliminate the fluff and keep the good ideas. Pare down your technique lists and only keep those that truly make sense. Ask yourself if the attack you are defending against makes sense, and does the defense itself make sense? If not, dump it. Anything that is too flowery, or that you understand primarily as an abstract "study of motion" probably needs to go.

 

[Doc]

I would add that one should examine the curriculum of techniques that you practice with a critical eye and weed out those that are unrealistic. Only keep the ones that are truly worth while, and make some alterations where necessary. Sometimes a technique has a good idea imbedded within it, but it is surrounded by fluff. Eliminate the fluff and keep the good ideas. Pare down your technique lists and only keep those that truly make sense. Ask yourself if the attack you are defending against makes sense, and does the defense itself make sense? If not, dump it. Anything that is too flowery, or that you understand primarily as an abstract "study of motion" probably needs to go.

I would agree with one caveat. I wouldn't necessarily 'dump' these techniques, but instead 'set them aside' for later examination as my experience and knowledge grew. If you can't make 'something work,' it could be the technique or it could simply be your understanding at the time. I suspect that's what you meant anyway.

 

[Flying Crane]

I would agree with one caveat. I wouldn't necessarily 'dump' these techniques, but instead 'set them aside' for later examination as my experience and knowledge grew. If you can't make 'something work,' it could be the technique or it could simply be your understanding at the time. I suspect that's what you meant anyway.

yeah, but keep in mind where I am coming from. Tracy's has a much larger technique list than EPAK has. I strongly believe that within the 381 techniques, plus variations giving a grand total of 600, there is really quite a lot that needs to go.

I think a good litmus test is what kind of gut reaction you feel when you go thru your lists and practice the material. When you get to a technique and you kind of go thru the motions and quickly move on because you are doing it just to fulfill a requirement, when you have no faith in the technique itself, that is a bad sign.

If you teach the material and find yourself wanting to apologize for teaching certain techniques because they are simply unsound and bad ideas, but you still do it because it is part of the "curriculum", that is a bad sign. And then you find yourself feeling guilty for accepting money for teaching something that you know is not good, that is also a bad sign (I don't teach so this is not me, but I know this is how I would feel if I taught the complete Tracys curriculum).

I agree with what you are saying about not dumping stuff, and I don't want to lose anything that is worth keeping due to a lack of understanding on my own part. But I think some things are truly bad, and need to go. If someone taught me how to block a punch with my nose, I think we would universally accept that notion as silly and not worth keeping. This is not a lack of understanding on my part, but rather the concept and execution of the technique are unsound. We would not keep that technique for future study to see if we have reached a level of enlightenment where it suddenly makes sense and we can use it. We would dump it. Now of course I am not saying the techniques in Tracys are this silly, but quite a lot of them are really really questionable.

In the meantime, I keep the old lists handy and I can review them from time to time to revisit the issue. If I feel differently about a technique that I had cut, I can always bring it back in.

Doc, I don't know if you have any familiarity with the material found in Tracy's, but I would be happy to PM a few technique descriptions for your review, to illustrate my point. Let me know if you are interested.

 

[MJS]

Some great points being made by both Doc and FC. Personally, I'd rather have a handfull of techniques that I can use, rather than 10 times that, that I may not be able to apply to their fullest extent.

IMHO, more is not always better. Rather than sitting there, trying to determine the proper response from countless techniques, I'd think it'd be better to have a solid understanding of some base techniques, giving a better chance for a solid defense to be executed.

Mike

 

[Doc]

yeah, but keep in mind where I am coming from. Tracy's has a much larger technique list than EPAK has. I strongly believe that within the 381 techniques, plus variations giving a grand total of 600, there is really quite a lot that needs to go.

I think a good litmus test is what kind of gut reaction you feel when you go thru your lists and practice the material. When you get to a technique and you kind of go thru the motions and quickly move on because you are doing it just to fulfill a requirement, when you have no faith in the technique itself, that is a bad sign.

If you teach the material and find yourself wanting to apologize for teaching certain techniques because they are simply unsound and bad ideas, but you still do it because it is part of the "curriculum", that is a bad sign. And then you find yourself feeling guilty for accepting money for teaching something that you know is not good, that is also a bad sign (I don't teach so this is not me, but I know this is how I would feel if I taught the complete Tracys curriculum).

I agree with what you are saying about not dumping stuff, and I don't want to lose anything that is worth keeping due to a lack of understanding on my own part. But I think some things are truly bad, and need to go. If someone taught me how to block a punch with my nose, I think we would universally accept that notion as silly and not worth keeping. This is not a lack of understanding on my part, but rather the concept and execution of the technique are unsound. We would not keep that technique for future study to see if we have reached a level of enlightenment where it suddenly makes sense and we can use it. We would dump it. Now of course I am not saying the techniques in Tracys are this silly, but quite a lot of them are really really questionable.

In the meantime, I keep the old lists handy and I can review them from time to time to revisit the issue. If I feel differently about a technique that I had cut, I can always bring it back in.

Doc, I don't know if you have any familiarity with the material found in Tracy's, but I would be happy to PM a few technique descriptions for your review, to illustrate my point. Let me know if you are interested.

I agree completely. And although I have some of the original Tracy 'manuals' I'd be curious as to how much it has evolved. The stuff I have you could fit 4/5 techniques on one page.

 

[Flying Crane]

Some great points being made by both Doc and FC. Personally, I'd rather have a handfull of techniques that I can use, rather than 10 times that, that I may not be able to apply to their fullest extent.

IMHO, more is not always better. Rather than sitting there, trying to determine the proper response from countless techniques, I'd think it'd be better to have a solid understanding of some base techniques, giving a better chance for a solid defense to be executed.

Mike

yup yup yup yup yup. This is where I am trying to bring my kenpo.

Even if every single technique found within the Tracys curriculum were sound and functional, it is simply too much and overwhelming. You cannot practice all this material and expect to develop it all to a useable level. It is just too much and some things have to go or else it ALL becomes useless because you are spread too thin and NONE of it is developed to a useable level.

We sometimes lament the "Watering Down" of the martial arts. Making it too simple in order to appeal to the masses, and much of the deeper and better stuff gets thrown out because it is too complex for the masses to digest. But "complex" is not the same thing as "complicated". I think it is possible to water it down by making it too complicated. It becomes soo complicated that it also is non-functional, as much as if it was overly simplified. It becomes Watered Down disguised as Complex.

 

[Flying Crane]

I agree completely. And although I have some of the original Tracy 'manuals' I'd be curious as to how much it has evolved. The stuff I have you could fit 4/5 techniques on one page.

My stuff is from the mid 1980s, and it is all my own written descriptions. I don't know if it has changed since then as I have never had a direct affiliation with them. I will select a few choice examples and PM them to you.

 

[Doc]

My stuff is from the mid 1980s, and it is all my own written descriptions. I don't know if it has changed since then as I have never had a direct affiliation with them. I will select a few choice examples and PM them to you.

Cool sir!

 

[TaiChiTJ]

Awesome thread.


It's a little like someone judging einstein's equation e=mc squared by how many characters there are in it.

"How could something as simple as that, with only three variables, be of any importance at all?"

its about recognizing that something simple can also be profound, and knowing when to recognize that.

 

[Doc]

yup yup yup yup yup. This is where I am trying to bring my kenpo.

Even if every single technique found within the Tracys curriculum were sound and functional, it is simply too much and overwhelming. You cannot practice all this material and expect to develop it all to a useable level. It is just too much and some things have to go or else it ALL becomes useless because you are spread too thin and NONE of it is developed to a useable level.

We sometimes lament the "Watering Down" of the martial arts. Making it too simple in order to appeal to the masses, and much of the deeper and better stuff gets thrown out because it is too complex for the masses to digest. But "complex" is not the same thing as "complicated". I think it is possible to water it down by making it too complicated. It becomes soo complicated that it also is non-functional, as much as if it was overly simplified. It becomes Watered Down disguised as Complex.

I agree and of course there is a difference between 'watered down' and functionally effective applications. One of the things that I've personally worked on with Mr. Parker was actually drawing the principles (real principles) that are part of the frabic of all techniques. When this is done correctly, you discover that regardless of the volume of techniques, they are more alike than they are different. Secondly, all self defense techniques should begin with a base reflex response. Then utilizing the 'startle reflex' as a base because it is already installed in our autonomic nervous system and hard wired in our muscle structure, makes the building block process of extending the hard muscle memory fairly easy.

The process is a simple one but complex at the same time, and requires significant knowledge from a teacher to identify and understand the process for a given set of circumstances. In out curriculum, by completion of the second course you already begin to see similar initial response to varying attacks.

When a default technique is designed this way, it effectively eliminates the infamous 'what if' that bogs down motion kenpo paralysis analysis.

 

[Flying Crane]

I agree and of course there is a difference between 'watered down' and functionally effective applications. One of the things that I've personally worked on with Mr. Parker was actually drawing the principles (real principles) that are part of the frabic of all techniques. When this is done correctly, you discover that regardless of the volume of techniques, they are more alike than they are different. Secondly, all self defense techniques should begin with a base reflex response. Then utilizing the 'startle reflex' as a base because it is already installed in our autonomic nervous system and hard wired in our muscle structure, makes the building block process of extending the hard muscle memory fairly easy.

The process is a simple one but complex at the same time, and requires significant knowledge from a teacher to identify and understand the process for a given set of circumstances. In out curriculum, by completion of the second course you already begin to see similar initial response to varying attacks.

When a default technique is designed this way, it effectively eliminates the infamous 'what if' that bogs down motion kenpo paralysis analysis.

For a long time I have suspected that this kind of thing was possible. I thought about trying to do this many years ago, but in truth I was drifting into training other arts. I always seem to come back to kenpo at some point, I guess because it really is my root and base in the martial arts. Once I finally got a computer a few years ago, the notion became much more feasible, shifting around and reorganizing technique lists for comparison and analysis and whatnot.

Maybe eventually I will reach some kind of level like what you are talking about. In the meantime, I think i am going in the right direction, at least.

 

[Doc]

For a long time I have suspected that this kind of thing was possible. I thought about trying to do this many years ago, but in truth I was drifting into training other arts. I always seem to come back to kenpo at some point, I guess because it really is my root and base in the martial arts. Once I finally got a computer a few years ago, the notion became much more feasible, shifting around and reorganizing technique lists for comparison and analysis and whatnot.

Maybe eventually I will reach some kind of level like what you are talking about. In the meantime, I think i am going in the right direction, at least.

You are. Truth be told - you need a teacher. The things I'm speaking of are not necessarily 'discoverable' on your own. I'm the luckiest guy on the planet. Everytime I look down, I find I'm still standing on the shoulders of Ed Parker. How friggin' cool is that?

 

[Flying Crane]

You are. Truth be told - you need a teacher. The things I'm speaking of are not necessarily 'discoverable' on your own. I'm the luckiest guy on the planet. Everytime I look down, I find I'm still standing on the shoulders of Ed Parker. How friggin' cool is that?

'tis true. but in the meantime, we do the best we can with what we have to work with. Sometimes there is no other choice.

 

[Doc]

'tis true. but in the meantime, we do the best we can with what we have to work with. Sometimes there is no other choice.

Sounds like you're doing pretty good.

 

[Flying Crane]

Sounds like you're doing pretty good.

thank you sir, i appreciate the vote of confidence.

 

[Doc]

thank you sir, i appreciate the vote of confidence.

Well for some, what they read in the holy bible manuals, even though it defies common sense, is cannon.

The same for what some teachers teach and say.

I've learned that the term 'common sense' is now an oxymoron. 'Common sense' is no longer common.

 

[Hand Sword]

Your right there! I remember having conversations that were reasonable. Then when they were teaching, even though it was ridiculous, they still wouldn't accept not doing it. It was part of the system!

 

[kenpoworks]

I agree and of course there is a difference between 'watered down' and functionally effective applications. One of the things that I've personally worked on with Mr. Parker was actually drawing the principles (real principles) that are part of the frabic of all techniques. When this is done correctly, you discover that regardless of the volume of techniques, they are more alike than they are different. Secondly, all self defense techniques should begin with a base reflex response. Then utilizing the 'startle reflex' as a base because it is already installed in our autonomic nervous system and hard wired in our muscle structure, makes the building block process of extending the hard muscle memory fairly easy.

The process is a simple one but complex at the same time, and requires significant knowledge from a teacher to identify and understand the process for a given set of circumstances. In out curriculum, by completion of the second course you already begin to see similar initial response to varying attacks.

When a default technique is designed this way, it effectively eliminates the infamous 'what if' that bogs down motion kenpo paralysis analysis.

Doc,
this thread slipped by me because of its title I think, but having looked through it and coming across the above made me think of one of my Kenpo "light bulb moments".
I realized at coloured belt level that for self defence the 1st natural re-active movement of a person should be what keys the rest of the defensive actons.Another simple idea that has had a great impact on how I judge and value information.
As you know I am still trying to triage the Effective Kenpo from the Affected Kenpo and building effective responses from natural reaction has helped me recognise the difference between complex and complicated Kenpo, which I think you may have done a while ago.
I have been doing this art for over 25 yrs now(I know a newbie) and I think my knowledge base is like a untidy study lots and lots of information lying around somewhere and I will come across it again some day, where as your Knowledge base is accurately filed and is instantly accessed, keep sharing the grey matter Doc.
W.R.
Rich
Ed parker was asked "if he had all the answers", to which he replied "I havent heard all the questions yet"!

 

[Ceicei]

Easiest was I can think is to solidify your basics. Sounds easy, but there is a lot to it. Take some time to hyper-inspect your execution, and be sure you are in accord with a skilled referent (i.e., what are the weight distributions in your forward, neutral, or reverse bows? How many anatomical units apart should your knees be in a wide kneel? What are the relational feet placements in your twist stance, and are you breaking over your own pelvic line by goping too far moving into one?). How much, how far, etc., for many of these things are in available kenpo written and video resources, and while it may not be optimal, I can assure you that taking the time to attend to the minutae will pay off in a more solid kenpo representation.

Yes, the details matter that much. And when you have someone who will take the time to apply the know-how to nudge you out of an unstable stance that was off by only 10% or so, that graphically illustrates the importance of the little things.

Best Regards,

D.

That is an excellent post! My stances are frequently not as stable as they should be. I've had my instructor stop in the middle of whatever we're doing, then reach out to touch, and I tip over. He says I need to "re-align myself" and when I do, I will be able to "feel" the difference. You're right, I need to really to look at my weight distribution of my stances and how I move. He is an excellent instructor; unfortunately, I don't get to work with him as much as I would like. He stresses the basics and body alignment. I usually work with his assistant instructors who don't seem to catch these details--the other instructors seem more interested in teaching from point a to point b.

- Ceicei

 

[Sigung86]

Very cool thoughts all way around. FC, your right... It is amazing what can be culled from the dross when you are inspired. On the other hand you will then run into a certain Mad Kenpo Scientist, who will send you around the bend and off in new directions. And man! That can be confusing, frustrating, and just plain fun.

I went through my first iteration like the one you have gone through, about 13 years ago. Anjd even after all this time, Saintly Uncle Dan (that would be me) is dancing along behind and often to the side of the Mad Kenpo Scientist.
%-}

FC, it's is too bad that you and I are probably on different ends of the continent... Would be fun to get together, compare notes and see where we are headed.
:ultracool