Brother John
Senior Master
OK Shawn-
Listen, I was getting all snide with you before and dismissing your point out of hand. Ill grow up now and stop that in the interest of trying to understand one another which in the end I think helped Robert and I understand each other better. So, apology having been given, lets move on and discuss.
What both you and Todd have talked about is both on the mark and off of it. Heres what I mean. I think that when you said
learning technique for technique sake is fine as a training tool to develop speed, accuracy, and stamina. but to teach technique as a basis for self defense is only a set-up for failure.
You are correct. If we learn the techniques and think Now I KNOW what Ill do when attacked in these ways. Wed be in error, and a good instructor would tell us so. Where you, I believe, are incorrect is in assuming that that is in fact what we are doing. It is not. To do so would be foolish. Mr. Parker seems to have enjoyed the analogy between learning Kenpo and learning to speak another language. I do too, and I think it lends itself well to this issue.
If I were to try to teach you Japanese and I gave you lessons that contained 1000 of the most common Japanese phrases youd learn a bit of Japanese, but youd not become fluent. If someone spoke to you in Japan and phrased it in an uncommon way, youd be thrown for a loop. Youd still sound VERY much like a tourist. If I gave you lessons based on 10o,000 of the most common Japanese phrases, same deal; youd have a better vocabulary but not a better usage thereof; youd not be able to really express yourself well in the language no one would ever claim that you were well spoken & persuasive in Japanese. IF however I gave you 500 of the most common phrases AND taught you their rules of grammar and syntax etc.; then had you study and rearrange parts of the phrases to be able to make new phrases of your own in other words, IF I taught you how to formulate your own phrases and made you practice doing so over and over in varying situations and with different shades of nuance THEN you could become fluent. You may still need to increase your vocabulary but thatd come with time and experience. THIS, in my mind, is very similar to the use of techniques in American Kenpo!
If I teach you 1000 of the best techniques against 250 of the most common types of attacks youd probably be able to move in those techniques just fine but youd not be fluent, the ramming speed of combat and the adrenal surge it gives plus the amazing amount of variables that enter into the circumstances of actual combat would trip you up, present you with something that you didnt expect or fell outside the bounds of your 1000 techniques. Youd be the stammering dumbfounded tourist in Japan again.
IF I teach you 100,000 techniques against the 1000 most common types of attacks NOW Ive actually made matters worse. Instead of only a few to choose from, now youd have to search through the huge compendium of techs in your head to find the right one, and even now there may not be one. Youd lose. Period.
IF however, I give you 150 techniques against 15 of the most common types of attacks and then teach you HOW they work and WHY they work and make you practice rearranging them in different ways to meet different needs in the flow of action THEN youd be fluid & fluent.
You see Shawn, the techniques are a point of reference given to us to be able to understand how to meet the needs of the moment in many different contexts and circumstances. Their purpose, as you accurately stated, is as a vehicle for us to be able to know what works and why to be able to internalize the principles and make use of the concepts that make these things function well and then to be able to manipulate them spontaneously in order best adapt to the needs of ..whatever. The techniques arent there for us to execute verbatim from the belt manuals. Being able to simply regurgitate a by the book technique is not what will save our keester in the heat of a fight it will be our ability to adapt in the ways we have been trained. The list of techniques, no matter 32-24-16 or 5 per belt, are sequential lessons a structure so that we can pass along the understanding that they contain. Without the structure .we are guessing. But the techniques arent the answer, they are the question. Its what we do with them that makes us better able to adapt and survive.
Besides, theres a lot more than JUST self-defense techniques in what we do in American Kenpo. There are forms, sets, freestyle techs, freestyle sparing, two man drills, weapons, weapon sets, weapon drills, weapon techniques let alone all of the myriad ways that our instructors can take simple combinations of basics and work us up and down the floor for a good workout. Even the 8 considerations are nothing more than a conceptual paradigm, a lens through which to view the entire curriculum and practice of Kenpo.
I hope Im being clear, I get awfully wordy sometimes.
I hope we can discuss this more.
Your Brother
John
Listen, I was getting all snide with you before and dismissing your point out of hand. Ill grow up now and stop that in the interest of trying to understand one another which in the end I think helped Robert and I understand each other better. So, apology having been given, lets move on and discuss.
What both you and Todd have talked about is both on the mark and off of it. Heres what I mean. I think that when you said
learning technique for technique sake is fine as a training tool to develop speed, accuracy, and stamina. but to teach technique as a basis for self defense is only a set-up for failure.
You are correct. If we learn the techniques and think Now I KNOW what Ill do when attacked in these ways. Wed be in error, and a good instructor would tell us so. Where you, I believe, are incorrect is in assuming that that is in fact what we are doing. It is not. To do so would be foolish. Mr. Parker seems to have enjoyed the analogy between learning Kenpo and learning to speak another language. I do too, and I think it lends itself well to this issue.
If I were to try to teach you Japanese and I gave you lessons that contained 1000 of the most common Japanese phrases youd learn a bit of Japanese, but youd not become fluent. If someone spoke to you in Japan and phrased it in an uncommon way, youd be thrown for a loop. Youd still sound VERY much like a tourist. If I gave you lessons based on 10o,000 of the most common Japanese phrases, same deal; youd have a better vocabulary but not a better usage thereof; youd not be able to really express yourself well in the language no one would ever claim that you were well spoken & persuasive in Japanese. IF however I gave you 500 of the most common phrases AND taught you their rules of grammar and syntax etc.; then had you study and rearrange parts of the phrases to be able to make new phrases of your own in other words, IF I taught you how to formulate your own phrases and made you practice doing so over and over in varying situations and with different shades of nuance THEN you could become fluent. You may still need to increase your vocabulary but thatd come with time and experience. THIS, in my mind, is very similar to the use of techniques in American Kenpo!
If I teach you 1000 of the best techniques against 250 of the most common types of attacks youd probably be able to move in those techniques just fine but youd not be fluent, the ramming speed of combat and the adrenal surge it gives plus the amazing amount of variables that enter into the circumstances of actual combat would trip you up, present you with something that you didnt expect or fell outside the bounds of your 1000 techniques. Youd be the stammering dumbfounded tourist in Japan again.
IF I teach you 100,000 techniques against the 1000 most common types of attacks NOW Ive actually made matters worse. Instead of only a few to choose from, now youd have to search through the huge compendium of techs in your head to find the right one, and even now there may not be one. Youd lose. Period.
IF however, I give you 150 techniques against 15 of the most common types of attacks and then teach you HOW they work and WHY they work and make you practice rearranging them in different ways to meet different needs in the flow of action THEN youd be fluid & fluent.
You see Shawn, the techniques are a point of reference given to us to be able to understand how to meet the needs of the moment in many different contexts and circumstances. Their purpose, as you accurately stated, is as a vehicle for us to be able to know what works and why to be able to internalize the principles and make use of the concepts that make these things function well and then to be able to manipulate them spontaneously in order best adapt to the needs of ..whatever. The techniques arent there for us to execute verbatim from the belt manuals. Being able to simply regurgitate a by the book technique is not what will save our keester in the heat of a fight it will be our ability to adapt in the ways we have been trained. The list of techniques, no matter 32-24-16 or 5 per belt, are sequential lessons a structure so that we can pass along the understanding that they contain. Without the structure .we are guessing. But the techniques arent the answer, they are the question. Its what we do with them that makes us better able to adapt and survive.
Besides, theres a lot more than JUST self-defense techniques in what we do in American Kenpo. There are forms, sets, freestyle techs, freestyle sparing, two man drills, weapons, weapon sets, weapon drills, weapon techniques let alone all of the myriad ways that our instructors can take simple combinations of basics and work us up and down the floor for a good workout. Even the 8 considerations are nothing more than a conceptual paradigm, a lens through which to view the entire curriculum and practice of Kenpo.
I hope Im being clear, I get awfully wordy sometimes.
I hope we can discuss this more.
Your Brother
John
