Disadvantages of Kenpo?

[SThiess]

I feel that one of the main problems is that practitioners in Kenpo think the Art instead of feeling is. Do not try to analyze it to much, just do it and you will feel it.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Originally posted by SThiess
I feel that one of the main problems is that practitioners in Kenpo think the Art instead of feeling is. Do not try to analyze it to much, just do it and you will feel it.

Ok... I feel that from school to school the basics aren't being done the same. For instance, I noticed on the Tip of the week vid clips that Mr. Tatum teaches to fuse moves toguether such as just dropping to an inward block from an upward block, where as we are taught to recoil then inward block. Both are legit ways to do the move but we are obviously of different schools of thought. Standardizing would lessen one of our journeys reguardless of who is right. I'm not convinced that either of us need to conform to the others methods.( I used this example because a lot of us watch the tips)
Sean

 

[Old Fat Kenpoka]

Sven: your approach is good Zen, but not typical EPAK.

Sean: Standardization means that most Kenpoists will have to change what they are doing--not going to be very popular. Worse than that, standardization will kill innovation. The resulting art would be static, stuck in a time-warp, and eventually become a traditional martial art with little real world applicability -- like so many of the older Kung Fu styles that haven't evolved in the last 50 years.

 

[Goldendragon7]

Orig posted by Touch'O'Death
Standardizing would lessen one of our journeys reguardless of who is right. Sean

I beg to differ.... Standardization would create a solid "Base" <<<Point of Reference>>> for the Kenpo community. Additional references would also be useful and necessary.

So, it's not a matter of right or wrong but of clearer reference between individuals and groups (which would be great for communication).

Innovation and continued references or drills are always food for thought and "musts" to fully exploit the variables possible <<what if's>>..

:asian:

 

[arnisador]

Originally posted by SThiess
I feel that one of the main problems is that practitioners in Kenpo think the Art instead of feeling is. Do not try to analyze it to much

I've certainly seen the over-analysis many times, and also an over-confidence that comes with the extensive analysis ("I understand it so I must be better at it"). The Kenpoist's analysis and vocabulary has beena two-edged sword in my experience--it's a great tool for understanding, communicating, analyzing, and designing, but it can lead to a false sense of confidence.

I've seen this before with scientists and engineers who work on weapons systems--some of them start to lose some of their fear of the weapon because they "understand" it. Being a pistol designer won't keep a handgun from hurting you!

I suppose this needs to be said--of course, I don't mean that everybody is like this!

 

[Ceicei]

Originally posted by Goldendragon7
I beg to differ.... Standardization would create a solid "Base" <<<Point of Reference>>> for the Kenpo community. Additional references would also be useful and necessary.

So at what point do we transition from a standardized base into personal innovation?

Reason why I ask is I see some lower belts try to modify moves when they aren't quite as experienced and some instructors advising them to "stay" on the same path before they can then "change" the moves later on. In other words, it is almost like the individual has to fit the martial arts (learn it first) before the martial arts will then fit the individual (modification).

How much should we encourage standardization and innovation? Can both be a strength of Kenpo and not necessarily be a disadvantage?

- Ceicei

 

[Rob Broad]

Everybody needs a strong base to rely on or everything the do will be crap. To be able to truly make the art fit you, you must have a strong base. It is through learning the techniques in the ideal phase that you are able to know what works best for you. If you only know 30 techniques you have a very limited view and have a small arsenal to chose from when tailoring the art to fit you. When you know a majority or all your techniques you have a larger number of options and you are that much more able to tailor the art to your exact needs.

 

[Michael Billings]

Originally posted by arnisador

I've certainly seen the over-analysis many times, and also an over-confidence that comes with the extensive analysis ("I understand it so I must be better at it"). The Kenpoist's analysis and vocabulary has beena two-edged sword in my experience--it's a great tool for understanding, communicating, analyzing, and designing, but it can lead to a false sense of confidence. ...

Boy did you say a mouthful. Lots of people out there can talk the talk, without really being able to walk the walk. What I and other good upper ranking Kenpoist, which I am not, are more concerned about, is that they do not even know that what they are doing is not good Kenpo. I am not implying anyone in particular, but rather a comment I and some of my "Senior" friends have discussed many times.

Now that lack of a consistant base, and then the enforcement of a consistant standard, is a disadvantage or "hole" in my opinion.

-Michael

 

[Goldendragon7]

Originally posted by Ceicei
So at what point do we transition from a standardized base into personal innovation?
- Ceicei

Good question. It has been my experience over the last 30 years, that it all depends on the student. I have encouraged "transition" to some students at say the purple belt level and yet others not until brown or even black, it really depends on the individual involved and many factors.

Originally posted by Ceicei
Reason why I ask is I see some lower belts try to modify moves when they aren't quite as experienced and some instructors advising them to "stay" on the same path before they can then "change" the moves later on.
- Ceicei

I think they should always listen to the instructor. If they are not doing a good job then there will always be room for adjustment later on.

Originally posted by Ceicei
In other words, it is almost like the individual has to fit (learn) the martial arts first, before the martial arts will then fit the individual (modification).
- Ceicei

I agree, you need a solid foundation first.

Originally posted by Ceicei
How much should we encourage standardization and innovation? Can both be a strength of Kenpo and not necessarily be a disadvantage?
- Ceicei

We should encourage both... standardization in the early stages and innovation in the later. Both can absolutely be a huge strength of Kenpo.

there is a saying.....

If you want to make progress in Kenpo it is only possible when:
* Knowledge is transferred,
* Providing that Motivation is present,
* And Innovation takes place.


:asian:

 

[Touch Of Death]

Originally posted by Goldendragon7
I beg to differ.... Standardization would create a solid "Base" <<<Point of Reference>>> for the Kenpo community. Additional references would also be useful and necessary.

So, it's not a matter of right or wrong but of clearer reference between individuals and groups (which would be great for communication).

Innovation and continued references or drills are always food for thought and "musts" to fully exploit the variables possible <<what if's>>..

:asian:

Who is going to decide one of us is wrong?

 

[Seig]

Originally posted by Touch'O'Death
Who is going to decide one of us is wrong?

C'mon, that is just asking to start flames. Even if everyone has the same base, people will develop differently. How many ways are there to swing a hammer? How many ways are there to turn a wrench? How many different ways do people hold pencils? The answers to these are very few. But different people can accomplish deifferent things with these tools, although they have a common set of basics, what they do with them is up to them.

 

[Goldendragon7]

Originally posted by Touch'O'Death
Who is going to decide one of us is wrong?

Why does there always have to be a right or wrong?

No One. My point was to just offer a different perspective and my personal opinion on the topic. Most of my views have been formulated due to personal experiences, observations and trial and error over the past 3 decades. Issues that I have had good measures of success with I tend to keep and pass on. If you have different views and experiences so be it.

Your input is valuable regardless of anyone else's opinions. Thanks for sharing YOUR views.
:asian:

 

[Old Fat Kenpoka]

But it's too late now.

How many times has the curriculum changed and which would we choose? 32 techniques, not-to-mention-Tracy's-Kenpo, 24 techniques, 16 techniques, IKCA, etc.

Who would set the standard? Over a dozen EPAK associations, so many 9th and 10th degrees.

Would we surrender our autonomy to be judged by someone else?

I see EP Kenpo splitting onto three paths since Mr. Parker's death: 1) preservation of the 24 technique curriculum as outlined in Infinite Insights, 2) reform by those adopting 16 technique curriculum developed by Mr. Duffy and/or adding elements of other systems (like kick-boxing, grappling, etc.), 3) revolution by those adopting entirely different curriculum like the IKCA and countless independents. With three distinct paths, there would be at least three distinct standards.

 

[Old Fat Kenpoka]

I do believe there is a way to foster a standard that can be easily agreed upon despite varying curriculum and multiple associations.

At every belt level students need to demonstrate proficiency in Kenpo katas, Kenpo techniques, and freestyle movements.

How can students with different curriculum and different associations be measured to the same standard of proficiency at each belt?

Tournament competition is the only way I can think of to accomplish this. If tournaments are conducted regularly, follow the same rules (I know: back to the original problem of multiple associations) and students compete in Kata, Technique demonstration, and sparring, then everyone can their proficiency and measure it against others.

This works in Judo, it works in BJJ, it used to work in Tae Kwon Do, and it could work in Kenpo.

 

[Goldendragon7]

Orig posted by Old Fat Kenpoka
It's too late now for Standardization.

I agree with you for the most part. Since Mr. Parker didn't "standardize" when he was alive, it is virtually impossible to do anything now..... LOL... plus 3 days ago was the <<<<<13th>>>>> year of Mr. Parkers passing (Dec 15th), seems like just yesterday..... doesn't it! DAMN

I can't speak for others, but within my organization, we have a very solid set of standards to begin with and a "must do" as to expansion within the later ranks so as to not get in a rut with just "ONE" version, and to compare with anyone else out there.

Orig posted by Old Fat Kenpoka
How many times has the curriculum changed and which would we choose? 32 techniques, 24 techniques, 16 techniques, .....

Yes, but these versions mostly stayed pretty close, the 24 to 16 was just a shuffling of the deck for an additional 2 belt expansion. the material was only updated normally with the latest of Ed Parkers re-writes, which for the most part were just a bit greater detail on the techniques or the attacks themselves.

Orig posted by Old Fat Kenpoka
Who would set the standard? Over a dozen EPAK associations, so many 9th and 10th degrees.
Would we surrender our autonomy to be judged by someone else?

NO one, unless a Union was formed between all the chiefs at little big horn, and ideas or "basic" standards could be agreed upon. (I'm with you, I don't see it)

Orig posted by Old Fat Kenpoka
I see EP Kenpo splitting onto three paths since Mr. Parker's death:

1) preservation of the 24 technique curriculum as outlined in Infinite Insights,

2) reform by those adopting 16 technique curriculum developed by Mr. Duffy and/or adding elements of other systems (like kick-boxing, grappling, etc.),

3) revolution by those adopting entirely different curriculum like the IKCA and countless independents.

I don't "see" it...... I would say that I've SEEN it already!

Orig posted by Old Fat Kenpoka
With three distinct paths, there would be at least three distinct standards.

And even that would probably be questionable.
:rofl:

 

[Old Fat Kenpoka]

Mr. C:

the 24 to 16 was just a shuffling of the deck for an additional 2 belt expansion.

Doesn't the 2-belt expansion also shift proficiency? If I compare required material between the 2 curricula I see this correlation

24 Tech = 16 Tech
Yellow = Yellow
Purple = Blue
Brown 2 = Black 1, etcetera...

Aren't students required to execute the techniques before promotion to the next belt? Is the profiency of the same material so much worse for a 24 technique student that they should be one or two ranks lower after learning the same material?

Or, are students promoted once they can execute the techniques meaning that the number of techniques learned or when they are taught are really irrelevant? And if so, doesn't that throw into question the relevancy of both curricula?

I am just trying to reconcile the concept of such dramatic curriculum variation with the concept of a performance standard.

And, wouldn't competition be a better way to demonstrate and guage proficiency while eliminating the variable of multiple curricula? I come to this conclusion based on my experience: my instructor (Rod Martin) revised his curriculum very early on and it exactly matches neither Tracy's nor (any) EPAK curriculum. So with different curriculum the only way we knew whether or not we were keeping up with the Joneses was to compete a few times a year. We felt good when we did well and we polished up when we didn't. We didn't just focus on point fighting, we also did a lot of kata and self-defense technique demonstration. I see this method used successfully in martial sports: Judo, BJJ, Kickboxing, Muay Thai, San Shou, Boxing, Fencing, etc.

Your widsom and opinions are appreciated.

 

[Goldendragon7]

Originally posted by Old Fat Kenpoka
Doesn't the 2-belt expansion also shift proficiency?

Pandora's Box here.......:rofl: but here is my take on this......

Proficiency is and always has been an individual issue just as standardization, regardless of curriculum used. I have witnessed tests that were IMHO excellent, and at the same time, recall some that were questionable at best. This is another one of those grey areas where the quality of the student has a lot to do with the quality of the instruction.

You can take the absolute best instructor in the world, and put a poor student in front of him and betterment is about the best you can hope for. Now if that same student comes before a poor instructor, the student most likely will quit or take up checkers.

Really no cut an dry answer here, other than thru my personal experience the "shift" didn't alter my groups proficiency a bit but allowed for a little faster advancement in the beginning which created more retention to get over the "hump" so to speak and be competitive with other studios.

Quality was unchanged but I ended up being able to retain more at the upper levels and be able to teach more of the advanced aspects of Kenpo to more individuals.

Same could be said when the 32 shift came to the 24. I felt it was a good move for the system in both instances.

Good knowledgeable instructors to me are what make the difference not the number of drills taught.

Originally posted by Old Fat Kenpoka
If I compare required material between the 2 curricula I see this correlation

24 Tech = 16 Tech
Yellow = Yellow
Purple = Blue
Brown 2 = Black 1, etcetera...

Aren't students required to execute the techniques before promotion to the next belt?

Yes, but you shouldn't judge a student of the 16 Tech System with that of the 24 Tech System on # of techniques taught but on the quality of the technique. When we presented this to Mr. Parker, this was one of his concerns but as he illustrated to us..... there have been hundreds of EXCELLENT BLACK BELTS Promoted from the early days that did not have the advantage (if you want to call it that...... but this is another discussion altogether...LOL), the evolved curriculum that we have today, yet they did quite well to pave the way for the advancing of our Art, thru much bloodshed and work, we today can reap many benefits of the past if we but study and train efficiently and effectively. He used to tell me; "it's better to know one technique and be able to vary it a hundred ways, than 1000 techniques one way. Mr. Parker did not impulsively change portions of the System without careful thought and many questions to many individuals for input. It had to be "Logical" and useful. At the same time, he also understood that there could be other means of transmission and achievement as well. wink

Originally posted by Old Fat Kenpoka
Is the proficiency of the same material so much worse for a 24 technique student that they should be one or two ranks lower after learning the same material?

No, "proficiency" should be very close if taught properly but the 24 base system will usually take the student longer to reach the same level of belt color (due to the numbers involved).... thus..... color may be different........ but the "KEY" is to look at how well the execution of the material that each student possesses. Quality of basics and execution of material one has been instructed on is more the issue.

Originally posted by Old Fat Kenpoka
Or, are students promoted once they can execute the techniques meaning that the number of techniques learned or when they are taught are really irrelevant? And if so, doesn't that throw into question the relevancy of both curricula?

Well, the student will only be as good as he/she trains and is instructed. Instructors are critical. I have seen some instructors that are what I call promotion happy and the students are terrible no matter how you cut the mustard. (most of these guys are the business minded so as to keep students, stroke their own egos by sheer numbers of promoted students, and to keep the doors open).

On the other hand I have known instructors that make the students wait ungodly time with not real instruction or training during this "time" only to "use" them as helpers or teachers to enhance their pockets..... (hmmm this has been a topic of discussion before I recall also), so I don't think prolonged training (Instructor related) is necessary either... now if the student knows what he needs and then piddles around and doesn't do what he needs ..... well, then he is in charge of his own destiny.

Originally posted by Old Fat Kenpoka
I am just trying to reconcile the concept of such dramatic curriculum variation with the concept of a performance standard.

I hear ya, but 24 to 16 is not all that radical when you realize what was involved compared to the 32 to 24 "PLUS" at that point the creation of "ADDITIONAL" material that had/have some panties still in a twist over. Many reasons from many individuals were considered.

Originally posted by Old Fat Kenpoka
Wouldn't competition be a better way to demonstrate and gauge proficiency while eliminating the variable of multiple curricula?

For some yes, for others no. Remember Infinite Insights Book I, Page 1, 3 points of view...... From an organizational point of view, you need to consider the many numbers of different groups that take the Art and for what reasons. Not all that come in have the attitude of leaving with a Warrior Shield. Ed Parker's Psychology and Socialology Degree's came in useful here for business success in which you need to be able to offer a service to the masses. Men * Women * Children most have advertised..... so you can see where I'm going.... which reminds me of the work we were doing in regard to the Junior's program that needed tuning. As he found problems he sought solutions which caused change. Some accepted it ...... some didn't.

Personally I really enjoyed competition and did ok, but others resist or have no competitive drive what so ever. It all depends on what you want..... Kenpo is very diverse.

Originally posted by Old Fat Kenpoka
I come to this competition conclusion based on my experience: my instructor (Rod Martin) revised his curriculum very early on and it exactly matches neither Tracy's nor (any) EPAK curriculum. So with different curriculum the only way we knew whether or not we were keeping up with the Joneses was to compete a few times a year. We felt good when we did well and we polished up when we didn't. We didn't just focus on point fighting, we also did a lot of kata and self-defense technique demonstration.

Well, if it works for you and that's where the leaders of your group's interest are... then that's why you are there. As to is it a better way or not....... well, I must point out that in Kenpo we have 3 divisions of the Art...... Basics (which include Forms and sets), Self Defense, and Freestyle. Since you seem to have addressed all three areas with success then I would have to say based on what you tell me, that you guys have hit on a niche that is working quite well for you!! How can I knock success, no matter what curriculum you do......LOL

I must say, that was a challenging but enjoyable post/question!! I look forward to responses. Thank you.

:asian:

 

[Touch Of Death]

If we can't even agree on how you might perform Star Block, I don't see standardization happening. Reguardless of wheather neither of us is wrong. Standardization would dictate which method of doing starblock would be taught to all the students. Our school used to fuse the blocks and that is the way I was originaly taught; however, we aren't doing it that way now, nor will we in the future. Standardization by defenition of the word would require one of the methods to give.
Sean

 

[Old Fat Kenpoka]

Agreement on the best way to perform Star Block is only important when the judgement of proficiency is completely subjective.

If Kenpoists were evaluated based on competitive performance, the best way to do a star block would become self-evident. Here is what I propose.

Kenpoists should demonstrate proficiency through competition. Kenpoists should only be promoted when they can consistently outperform their peers. The competitive measure should be multi-faceted:

1) Freestyle sparring competition (either point or continuous) or full-contact kickboxing. Competitors who consistently win 1st-4th place at tournaments are certainly ready to spar at the next belt level. Competitors who win at least 50% of their matches could also be considered for promotion.

2) Self-defense technique demonstration. I would completely revise the method used for this.

Currently, Kenpoists prepare routines with their schoolmates and try to choreograph every strike, step, and turn of the head.

I would propose rules more similar to Sport Jujitsu (NOT Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu !!!). In Sport Jujitsu technique demonstration is done against competitors. The attacking competitors attack with speed, power, and intent. The defender is judged on their ability to block/counter/control and execute the technique. The attacks are somewhat pre-arranged: a punch, a kick, a front grab, a rear grab, a weapon, etc. The defender must spontaneously react to the attack and choose/formulate the appropriate defensive technique. Attackers are required to fully cooperate after the initial attack to enable the defender to demonstrate proper technique execution without injuring the attackers. Attackers should probably wear head protection.

Kenpoists should be required to demonstrate different types of techniques at different belts. For instance, Yellow Belts might be asked to do one front grab, one rear grab, one side grab. Blue/Green belts might be required to do a punch, a kick, a front grab, a rear grab. Black belts might be required to do a kick/punch combination, a double-punch combination, a grab and punch combo, and a knife or club.

This format would enable Kenpoists to demonstrate that they can in fact block an attack and then allow the Kenpoist to demonstrate the explosiveness, creativity, and deadliness of our system. Again, competitors who consistently place 1-4 should be ready for promotion.

3) Kata demonstration. I can't recommend much change here. Kenpoists know what they like to see in Kata and judging will remain subjective. Here again, competitors who consistently place 1-4 should be ready for promotion.

-------------------

This type of competition could be used to promote people from Yellow belt on up to 5th Black. After that...I think 6th-10th promotions should be based on the competitive record of the students of the 5th-9th degree Black Belts. For instance, If you are a 5th degree and you have Black Belt students who are winning in competion, then you are doing a good job and should be recognized for this. Advanced rank promotions would continue to be pretty subjective...but if a 5th degree Black belt is producing Black Belt students who are consistently beating the students of a 6th or 8th degree Black Belt, then that 5th degree must be doing something right and should be recognized.

--------------------

A grading system based on competition will have several effects on Kenpo and require several infrastructure changes.

As a greater percentage of Kenpoists compete more often...
1) More tournaments will need to happen and with greater frequency.
2) Tournaments will need more weight and age divisions to keep competition fair. (Heck, I'm 42 and 205 lbs and my days of competing against 250lb 20-year olds are long gone!)
3) Proficiency will no longer be tied to subjective performance of memorized curricula. Proficiency will be tied to competitive performance of both memorized curricula (Kata) and spontaneous execution (self-defense and Freestyle).
4) The number of techniques learned will no longer be a valid measure of progress. It won't matter whether you know 600 techniques, 250, or 55. Students will be judged on the effectiveness of their techniques under pressure.
5) This will eliminate some of the questions on rank legitimacy in Kenpo: put up or shut up, throw down or sit down at tournaments will be the way to judge legitimacy. Internet threads will be more like: "Did you see Mr. C's students cleaned up at the Arizona Championships" instead the typical rank debate consisting primarily of "Who the heck promoted so and so and upon whose authority because I don't think this guy is any good because I've never seen him do anything except eat!"
6) Ineffective and excessively difficult techniques will be de-emphasized as they fail to win in competition. New techniques will be created to raise the competitive bar. The result will be a new freedom and level of creativity in Kenpo technique curriculm that will enable Kenpo to evolve and improve well into the future.

-----------------------

I welcome your comments on my ideas.

 

[Goldendragon7]

Orig posted by Touch'O'Death
Reguardless of wheather neither of us is wrong, I don't see standardization happening.
Sean

OK, I can't debate that.

About all we can do then is govern our respective groups with the "standards" of the founders or leaders of each group and accept and enjoy each others ideals, views and positions as "relatives" of the Mother Art that Ed Parker developed.

:rofl:
:asian: