Hi Michael,
HI Chris,
I understand your point and I agree in a way.
I don't know what kind of interaction or experience you've had with the Parker derived kenpo methods. In case it's been minimum, i'll try to give you a brief description.
Their curriculum typically centers around a body of what we refer to as Self Defense Techniques, which are prescribed responses to specific types of attack. If a guy punches you like THIS, you step to evade HERE and block LIKE THIS and punch him HERE and HERE and HERE, and kick him LIKE THIS and then get away... Most of these methods have a fairly extensive body of these techniques, and there are typically numerous of these SD techs against each type of attack imaginable. Some lineages of Parker derived kenpo use a larger curriculum, others a smaller curriculum. The Tracy lineage, which Mr. Simonet and myself belong to, has what may be the largest of these curriculum.
Thanks for the breakdown there. I have some passing familiarity with Kenpo as a more generic form, but not much knowledge on the different lineages. The methods seem fairly similar to Koryu systems in that way (specific pre-set responces to specific pre-set attacking methods [or occasionally simply specific pre-set attacking methods against someone who is in the way!]). These are what we refer to as "kata", rather than the more popular usage of the term as found in arts such as Karate (and this is what I meant when I refered to kata earlier).
You may have noticed discussions on these forum about these techs, and what role they ought to play in training. Some people feel the techs are literally an answer to an attack. Other people feel the techs are simply mini-laboratories in which you use the components of the tech to explore the options and lessons that it presents, and understand what is possible in dealing with an attack. Some of these techs can be rather extensive, hitting the enemy over and over and over, issuing great bodily harm and mayhem, multiple bone breaks, etc. Most people will agree that, particularly with the more lengthy techs, you would never actually complete the entire tech on an attacker. You might get 2-4 shots into it and the situation will be resolved. You don't get to pick the bad guy up off the ground because, "I didn't finish the technique, I've still got to hit him 8 more times!!!"
Ha, yeah, I'd hope that no-one actually thought such over-kill was actually what should happen if pressed for real! Realistically, I don't think there are any such things as definate answers for attacks in any martial art, it'd just be far too limiting. What there are are possibilities demonstrated through the formal techniques, expressions of the principles.
I personally feel that a well-designed tech should fill both roles. On some level it ought to be logical and practical and useable as it is, right out of the box. If it isn't, then my BS sniffer goes off and I begin to question what lessons the tech has to teach if it contains some fundamentally flawed concepts. It is my personal opinion that there are some techs that were simply poorly designed and are bad ideas.
Well, I can think of a number of arts that teach quite a few things that I wouldn't think of as being "logical and practical and useable as it is, right out of the box". And I'm not even talking about old systems here, training against attacks that don't exist in a modern world. One of the first techniques taught in Krav Maga is a defence against a double-handed choke from the front (think like a zombie attack, both arms reaching straight out in front). The defence involves bringing your arm high, then knocking the arms down and off by bringing your arm down and turning your body, following up with some strikes, and escaping. The issue is, of course, that this technique is against an uncommon (and unrealistic) attack, and the defence is flawed in a number of ways. However it continues to be taught as part of the initial Krav Maga training.
The question I always ask when I come across something that isn't really what I may think of as being "practical" is "Why is it here?" I fervently believe that everything (in a legit martial art) is there for a purpose, although that purpose may not necessarily be absolute combative excellence, or even effectiveness. It may be teaching motor skills, teaching mind-set, teaching familiarity with different physical weapons, or anything else. The trick is to be able to recognise what the reasons for something are, and to be able to differentiate them. And that isn't the easiest thing in the world...
However, I also understand the need to look at the technique as a greater exploration of the possibilities, and the micro-lessons that the individual components have to teach. In that respect, the flow of the tech from begining to end is less important as a whole, and more important on the level of incremental examination.
So yes, I agree that these techs can contain lessons like, how to switch something up when things don't go the way I planned, as you describe.
Really, those were just possibilities I put up. I'm not saying that they are definately there, just that that is how I would begin to view something that, on the surface at least, doesn't really make sense. And flow from beginning to end can be just as important, provided the reason is understood (which may be as simple as giving a student confidence at multiple chained sequences, giving them the attitude of "never stop until it's over", working on precision combined with speed over a longer sequence with a moving target, or any other reason).
In my view, I question how well this type of examination gets done. Granted, I cannot speak for everyone out there and how they do their training. But the typical examples that I see on places like Youtube, has people blazing thru the tech from start to finish, and whipping thru all the elements as if it is THE answer for this attack. I think if you want to look at the micro lessons, you need to do that deliberately. You cannot whip thru the entire technique as if you are defending for real, and pretend that those micro lessons will be absorbed. I think there needs to be a pointed examination of each portion, a discussion of, "So here we are working into this restraining hold, but if I lose my grip or the bad guy wriggles free, or his resistance is stronger than I expected, or I don't quite get his arm lined up properly and I realize I'm not going to get the hold, well then I can switch directions and work him into this one instead and his struggling helps push him into the next idea..." We don't see that kind of consideration in the typical demonstration seen online. Maybe when they teach their own students they do discuss this. But online, I don't usually see that as an element of what's happening. Instead, it's "Now hit him here, now hit him there, now put him into the arm lock, now let the arm lock go so we can hit him here and hit him there..." Often the techs are done with blazing speed, and the uke sort of just stands there and lets it all happen to him, absorbing what sometimes can be dozens of strikes. In my opinion, that approach to practice is decidedly NOT the "mini-lab" approach.
I think this may come to the nub of the matter. I have noticed a tendancy, particularly with Western students, to want an "answer" to the "questions", and get stuck on thinking that the techniques are the answers, without looking at the techniques as more of an answer key. They aren't answers. But if you view them as such, then you expect them to "work" in their plain form. They are really more like the concept of what "plus" is versus what "multiplication" is, rather than "one plus one equals..." which will only let you get an answer of "two".
When someone has the idea that the technique is the answer itself, there is a tendancy to assume that the only way it works is the one way. And that precludes such exploration of the technique in more detail, unfortunately. This seems to be the approach of the you-tube variants, where there is only the one way it works, and it doesn't change. Oh, and doing things fast is always impressive, and isn't that the point of you-tube in the first place?
So I just question what the hell people are thinking, when they do this, and I question how well some of these techs are designed, and maybe some of them incorporate fundamentally flawed ideas, or at least the real lessons in the tech are unexplored and the wrong notions can be built from it thru inappropriate context.
Hope that helps.
This is probably the best thing that anyone training with you can hear, really. I'd be thrilled to hear that someone was not just accepting "well, it's done this way, and it works". However if I encounter what I consider a "flaw", then that usually just means that I haven't looked at it hard enough yet...
Hi Mike,
HI Chris,
I may be misunderstanding here, but doesnt this post, contradict what you said earlier, about this tech?
Hmm, I don't think so. Earlier I was talking about the approach to the technique itself from a practical and realistic point of view, here I am offering a potential alternate reasoning for a standard training methodology. I'd think that by the time you were dealing with something like a gun threat, such training aids as suggested by my post would not be required, and as such for a more "realistic" technique I would have expected them to have been dropped there.
I do agree with what you said about making sure the students have other options, should something go wrong. In Arnis, we have a lock-flow series. We start with 1 lock, and transition thru a long series. Obviously the goal isn't for the student, should they find themselves using one, to use all the others, but to give them options, as you said, should something go wrong, ie: the persons resisting, the lock isn't having any effect, etc.
There are similar things in some Jujutsu systems, flowing from one lock or pin to another. You don't actually change once you have someone held (in actual application), but they are taught as a sequence so you can train all of them in a formal method.
K.I.S.S. This is something, that as of late, I've really been focusing on. I mean, yeah, there may be a chance that we have to extend a tech, for various reasons, but IMO, especially when you're dealing with a weapon, its gotta be simple. Redirect yourself, gain control of the weapon and/or weapon hand, and begin punishment.
From there disarm is possible. But, once I get control, I'm going to hang on like my life depended on it...literally. LOL. Why let go to try something fancy?
Absolutely agreed. That is the main difference between the focus of my two posts.
