D
dcence
Guest
After it is all said and done, we must remember it is the APPLICATION that actually saves your bacon, not the CONCEPT from which it arises.
Old Fat Kenpoka
Master Black Belt
Exactly! Too much talk and not enough action is what happens when you spend time discussing concepts instead of applying concepts.
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
MJS:
Sorry, but you are misreading. Each of these quotes speaks to a claim of superiority--a claim that one MUST train their way, a claim that EVERYONE ELSE is missing out, a claim that EVERYONE ELSE is wasting their time with "traditional," arts. And in no case did I write any of this first, but in response to such claims. Please go back and check, with particular reference to the good ol' days when you and ARK and a few others were many times making such claims. That is very much not the same thing as announcing that (for example) nobody in kenpo fights realistically, because nobody does any groundfighting, because there is no groundfighting in the kenpo system.
As for the difference between concepts/principles and applications, Mr. Ence, one can but agree. I can't say that I feel I train enough--other responsibilites, you know--but Wednesday, I was on the ol' blue thing from 5 to about 9, teeaching and getting my butt kicked, Sat. it'll be about the same, in between there are of course forms and basics, and I don't know what to tell you.
If I might suggest, the idea of "praxis," nicely covers the interrelationship between theory and practice, as I see it. On aanother plane, I'd simply note that invariably, working to the point that I can see and understand a technique or form or basic improves my ability to do them.
Thanks.
Sorry, but you are misreading. Each of these quotes speaks to a claim of superiority--a claim that one MUST train their way, a claim that EVERYONE ELSE is missing out, a claim that EVERYONE ELSE is wasting their time with "traditional," arts. And in no case did I write any of this first, but in response to such claims. Please go back and check, with particular reference to the good ol' days when you and ARK and a few others were many times making such claims. That is very much not the same thing as announcing that (for example) nobody in kenpo fights realistically, because nobody does any groundfighting, because there is no groundfighting in the kenpo system.
As for the difference between concepts/principles and applications, Mr. Ence, one can but agree. I can't say that I feel I train enough--other responsibilites, you know--but Wednesday, I was on the ol' blue thing from 5 to about 9, teeaching and getting my butt kicked, Sat. it'll be about the same, in between there are of course forms and basics, and I don't know what to tell you.
If I might suggest, the idea of "praxis," nicely covers the interrelationship between theory and practice, as I see it. On aanother plane, I'd simply note that invariably, working to the point that I can see and understand a technique or form or basic improves my ability to do them.
Thanks.
Perhaps in your view--but I may not be drawing the same distinction. When all is said and done, a particular person fights in a certain way! The comments on applying certain concepts were, it seemed to be, about the physical application of the technique, where stick meets stick (or body). At that level, the strategy matters.
But a (particular) person always trains in a (particular) style, no? I'm not sure that taxonomy at the level of systms is relevant here--at least, I don't think it's relevant to the point I was trying to make, which is that understanding the difference between a Kenpoist's use of a stick and an eskrimador's use of a stick involves more than issues of "principles of physics" or even degree of familiarity/amount of practice time with the weapon. Even if we all agreed on that, one couldn't deduce how a single eskrimador might fight from the principles/concepts because each art chooses a strategy (strategies) to emphasize.
OK. A different use of the word 'style' than what I am used to from Karate etc. but the idea is the same--the system is based on a strategy, and your individual style of implementing it surely follows from that, even if there's leeway (e.g., a judoka may prefer standing throws or may prefer groundwork but his 'style' isn't likely to be built around staying at long range and wearing them down with head kicks).
The strategy employed by the individual is inherited from the strategy on which the system is based, with tweaking--more tweaking in some systems, less in others--and so one must still toss in the adoption of certain strategy or set of assumptions (such as "90% of all fights go the ground," "you'll almost certainly be facing multiple, and armed, opponents," "even if your katana should break or be dropped the other samurai will still be holding his," or what have you). Principles and concepts--as I understand these terms--aren't enough. There are arbitrary as well as logical choices in the majority of systems. This is certainly true in the FMA, which was the example--an assumption of dueling against a single person in a small space (Balintawak Eskrima), an assumption that the other person will be carrying a blade or more likely blades (Sayoc Kali), and so on. It isn't enough to grasp the physics. You can develop a system that way (plus choice of a strategy or of a 'problem' to be solved) but can't approach all systems that way.
Jeff, just for entertainment, one of the "holes" Kenpo does not lack is a plethora of shared syntax and verbage. This helps the "watchmakers" communicate with the "ironworkers" in the system.
System - The "Art" or "Mother Art" you chose.
Objective or Goal - Overall, in specific self-defense situations it would be to survive and overcome, or for some students to promote your well being and health through training. Outside of the matial arts it could be to be the best high jumper around, to be the best tournament competetor, etc.
Strategy - How you plan to overcome the opposition, how you plan to reach your objective or goal, etc.
Tactics - Specific actions utilized, to win, to overcome,
Principles - comprehensive and fundamental rules that are based on theories, which analysis, and testing proves work, and are repeatable, e.g. rotation, or gravitational marriage, etc..
Concepts - Ideas or ideals in which your can frame your systems strategies; e.g. Three Phase Concept - teaches you to view self-defense techniques in three phases: Ideal Phase, What-If Phase, and Formulation Phase.
Theories - e.g. Theory of Proportional Dimension - this theory teaches you how to use movements which are in proportion to your body. Applying this theory assists you in fitting the moves to you body.
It gets very, very complex. Don't take any of these as set in stone. Some are paraphrased, some I made up on the spot. What I am trying to point out is the wide range of possible interpretations is not so wide within EPAK.
Lets bring it back to
System = Art
Style = How you interpret your Art
... and it is a given, that there are different interpretation to this, i.e. "hard" styles or "soft" styles. Or maybe it is a matter of actual language interpretation to English. That is to say, we have all heard something like "My style is Hung-Gar" or "I am a Choy Li Fut stylist."
We don't all have to share the same interpretation, but let's agree on it in the context of each discussion and make allowances for differences.
Note: On an EPAK forum, the semantics are generally "shared", so misinterpretations are minimal.
-Michael
System - The "Art" or "Mother Art" you chose.
Objective or Goal - Overall, in specific self-defense situations it would be to survive and overcome, or for some students to promote your well being and health through training. Outside of the matial arts it could be to be the best high jumper around, to be the best tournament competetor, etc.
Strategy - How you plan to overcome the opposition, how you plan to reach your objective or goal, etc.
Tactics - Specific actions utilized, to win, to overcome,
Principles - comprehensive and fundamental rules that are based on theories, which analysis, and testing proves work, and are repeatable, e.g. rotation, or gravitational marriage, etc..
Concepts - Ideas or ideals in which your can frame your systems strategies; e.g. Three Phase Concept - teaches you to view self-defense techniques in three phases: Ideal Phase, What-If Phase, and Formulation Phase.
Theories - e.g. Theory of Proportional Dimension - this theory teaches you how to use movements which are in proportion to your body. Applying this theory assists you in fitting the moves to you body.
It gets very, very complex. Don't take any of these as set in stone. Some are paraphrased, some I made up on the spot. What I am trying to point out is the wide range of possible interpretations is not so wide within EPAK.
Lets bring it back to
System = Art
Style = How you interpret your Art
... and it is a given, that there are different interpretation to this, i.e. "hard" styles or "soft" styles. Or maybe it is a matter of actual language interpretation to English. That is to say, we have all heard something like "My style is Hung-Gar" or "I am a Choy Li Fut stylist."
We don't all have to share the same interpretation, but let's agree on it in the context of each discussion and make allowances for differences.
Note: On an EPAK forum, the semantics are generally "shared", so misinterpretations are minimal.
-Michael
Thanks for the information Mr. Billings! I have been trying to learn more of this language and do have some Kenpo resources to turn to. I did gather the part quoted above from Seig's previous post but not all that was in your post. My point remains that a system imposes a strategy, and that that goes to this post:
Concepts are part of it, time spent applying/practicing is part of it, but there remains a difference due to strategies. Perhaps I am still speaking at cross-angles here, but I'm trying to say that this is an inadequate explanation of the differences, and that strategy choices built into the FMA system would be a big part of why that is so. (There's nothing special about the FMAs in this example. It's just an easy one for me to latch onto because I know something about the FMAs.) The above quote seems to downplay the differences, where as I think they are fairly large.
Indeed! Kenpo has a lot of language that allows Kenpoists to have discussions using a common tongue. We could use some of that in Modern Arnis. We still disagree on the names of individual techniques, let alone more subtle issues!
K
Kenpo Yahoo
Guest
I'm not exactly sure that KENPO has a single strategy that is used by everyone except perhaps for survive at all costs, which is pretty much a mainstay of most martial arts. I think you will find that each organization, and even the individual schools, will teach a philosophy or strategy that is somewhat unique. If two people receive the same training from the same instructor then their philosophy will likely be similiar to their instructors, and in turn to each other's. However, this philosophy also changes in accordance to the practitioners life experience and interpretation. There are so many kenpo organizations, led by so many people with different life experiences, that it would be impossible to make such a blanket statement.
Now there are certain generic strategies that everyone seems to recognize, but they are generally implemented in accordance with their organizations philosophy. For instance the Four ranges:
1) Out of Contact- if we can, we would like to stay out here and avoid the fight in hopes that we could de-escalate the situation.
2) Within Contact- we either create distance by moving back to category 1, or we close the gap and move into or through the next range.
3) Contact Penetration- The opponent is controlled by a sequence of strikes which serves to end the fight or permit movement back to range 1,2, or 4.
4) Contact Manipulation- The opponent is controlled by structural manipulation. This serves to restrain the opponent, manipulate the opponents movement (i.e. create a human shield) or to destroy the structure of the opponents body by straining/tearing ligaments and tendons or breaking bones.
However I'm willing to bet that each of these ranges are addressed a little differently by each organization and/or school.
Now there are certain generic strategies that everyone seems to recognize, but they are generally implemented in accordance with their organizations philosophy. For instance the Four ranges:
1) Out of Contact- if we can, we would like to stay out here and avoid the fight in hopes that we could de-escalate the situation.
2) Within Contact- we either create distance by moving back to category 1, or we close the gap and move into or through the next range.
3) Contact Penetration- The opponent is controlled by a sequence of strikes which serves to end the fight or permit movement back to range 1,2, or 4.
4) Contact Manipulation- The opponent is controlled by structural manipulation. This serves to restrain the opponent, manipulate the opponents movement (i.e. create a human shield) or to destroy the structure of the opponents body by straining/tearing ligaments and tendons or breaking bones.
However I'm willing to bet that each of these ranges are addressed a little differently by each organization and/or school.
Yes, but within limits (perhaps the "generic strategies" as you say). Grapplers would take the strategy of closing for a throw (judo) or takedown (wrestling) to end the fight--a philosophy that it's safer in close, and that throwing is the key. A jujutsu or aikido person would take the strategy of looking for a lock or throw--a body throw in the former case, a throw using the arms in the latter case. (Of course, these are very much over-generalizations.) A TKD practitioner would take the strategy of staying far away and using kicks, including to the head, to maintain distance and knock the opponent down and/or out. A praying mantis person would use a body posture with the arms forward, hips back, and attempt to capture the arms and then strike and lock. None of those strategies are typical of, or strongly associated with, Kenpo. My experience with Kenpo has been that, as a practical matter, the strategy is often a block followed by several quick hand/elbow hits with maybe an occasional kick, then driving (not throwing) the person to the ground and finishing with strikes there. While I'm sure it varies from group to group and person to person, overall it's very different from the approach a BJJ person might use.
You could find similarities and differences between any two of these arts, but some arts take a strong stay-back strategy (e.g. TKD), some take a strong get-in startegy (e.g. grappling systems like Catch wrestling and clinch-oriented systems like JKD), some take a stand-and-fight strategy at various ranges (like boxing and Wing Chun), and so on.
So, at the very general level of strategy that I'm thinking of--is it better to clinch, better to take things to the ground, better to use mostly kicks, better to use mostly punches, etc.--a system is likely to have a philosophy that is reflected in their techniques. For a true "mixed martial art" it might be that most such approaches are trained in the art and then it really is important to look at the individual's style. I see many people who study eight different arts that all have different high-level strategies and their individual style reflects perhaps two of them predominately.
Returning to the FMA example, many systems emphasize either largo mano (stay at long range and nickel-and-dime them with hand and wrist and forearm shots), or medio (where the second hand starts to come into play), or corto, where stick grappling and butt-end strikes start to predominate. Some truly like to grapple, to the point where the stick is of limited use after protecting the person while he or she enters. Some try to train all of these approaches and let the student choose his or her style.
Understanding the physics and principles of body movement aren't enough--a strategy choice must be made and techniques developed that fit that choice. Even in MMA, one often hears "now we'll train grappling style," "now we'll train striking style," etc., in recognition of this fact.
Brother John
Senior Master
There are many who can't think outside the books.
((paraphrasing Mr. Ence))
They are an excellent help, I wouldn't be without them if I could help it... but they aren't "ALL".
Your Brother
John
Brother John
Senior Master
Seems to me that a logical and open minded assessment of real combat would show that there are many facets of fighting and that no ONE art has all the answers to all the varriables...
Does American Kenpo do a good job of addressing as many as it can?
Yes, I think it does. But it's point of emphasis is on rapid stand-up balistic fighting skills (and at this, I feel/believe, it is KING) ... anything else is a secondary interpretation/expression.
Your Brother
John
Does American Kenpo do a good job of addressing as many as it can?
Yes, I think it does. But it's point of emphasis is on rapid stand-up balistic fighting skills (and at this, I feel/believe, it is KING) ... anything else is a secondary interpretation/expression.
Your Brother
John
S
SThiess
Guest
No art is perfect as nothing in this univers is perfect. It is not the art or style which decides about "Winning or Losing" it is the martial artist and his attitude !
Brother John
Senior Master
We aren't discussing what decides winning or losing, but rather the completeness of styles in addressing all conceivable circumstances.
But you are right.
It's the artist, not the art, that matters in the end.
Your Brother
John
M
MisterMike
Guest
I think all arts are created to handle any situation. They all (ok most) have the comon goal to be either self-defense systems or martial arts.
Whether or not a situation is expessly taught or not is not a dependancy. It's how much you know your art and your ability to apply it to any situation. This of course takes time.
Whether or not a situation is expessly taught or not is not a dependancy. It's how much you know your art and your ability to apply it to any situation. This of course takes time.
I would certainly hope that any martial artist, regardless of the style, would have the flexibility of being able to adjust to a given situation instead of feeling locked into doing things a certain way.
When push comes to shove in real life, the martial artist will need to quickly look to self to do what is possible with their skills instead of "oh, I haven't learned this yet" or "this wasn't part of my training". Bottom line is, the martial arts is adaptable--as far as a person is willing to adapt. It isn't fixed, though the training may be sometimes.
- Ceicei
M
MisterMike
Guest
Yep, I agree.
Different arts appeal to different people to deal with whatever you feel you might encounter. Grappling has received a lot of popularity and for good reason. The popularity has done a lot of good things and caused renewed training in this area.
Is any art complete? Hardly. So some arts or instructors are bringing other instructors to teach grappling. So what. Mr. Parker often trained with instructors of different styles. If you want to grapple, go grapple. Nothing wrong with that.
I see that some of you replying to this are not Kenpo practitioners. So in case you do not know, SGM Ed Parkers background was in boxing and judo before he started studying kenpo. Ed Parker realized at an early age that grappling in an attack with mutiple opponents would be fatal. (grappling does have its place, I am not knocking that) Kenpo is an art designed to deal with and get you out of a situation when encountering multiple opponents. Yes, it deals with one opponent also.
Don't put kenpo down because it does not teach indepth grappling. In Mr. Parkers early years, he knew grappling against multiple opponents was suicide, so he started studying kenpo. Later on after much training, and experimenting, he formed American Kenpo.
I have no doubt that were Mr. Parker still alive, the new interest in grappling would have caused some response. What direction would SGM Parker have taken, we can only guess. He isn't here, he can't do it now, we will never know. So everyone is free to go out and explore grappling and encorporate it how they feel they can.
If you are a Kenpo practioner and want to search out instruction on how to do this or guidance to do it, there is a Kenpo instructor named Martin Wheeler. He has been incorporating grappling into Kenpo for several years now. He is a fantastic martial artist and instructor, and he travels giving seminars on the subject. I think his web site is www.ironmonkeyma.com , if that is not correct, I will post a correction later. He also has a very, very good tape series you can get info from his site on.
So, yes there are instructors out there exploring grappling more. There is nothing wrong with you doing it either. But is kenpo incomplete? No, I don't think so. That is not what is was formed for. American Kenpo is primarily and stand up art, the bases behind its formulation being able to deal with multiple opponents. In that subject area, it is very complete.
Yours in Kenpo,
Teej
That is the correct web site for Martin Wheeler. If you go there, click on his tapes and click the free download demo. On my slow computer, it took 5 minutes, but it show clips through all his tapes, the last ones are clips from his tapes on locks and grappling & kenpo. fyi
Is any art complete? Hardly. So some arts or instructors are bringing other instructors to teach grappling. So what. Mr. Parker often trained with instructors of different styles. If you want to grapple, go grapple. Nothing wrong with that.
I see that some of you replying to this are not Kenpo practitioners. So in case you do not know, SGM Ed Parkers background was in boxing and judo before he started studying kenpo. Ed Parker realized at an early age that grappling in an attack with mutiple opponents would be fatal. (grappling does have its place, I am not knocking that) Kenpo is an art designed to deal with and get you out of a situation when encountering multiple opponents. Yes, it deals with one opponent also.
Don't put kenpo down because it does not teach indepth grappling. In Mr. Parkers early years, he knew grappling against multiple opponents was suicide, so he started studying kenpo. Later on after much training, and experimenting, he formed American Kenpo.
I have no doubt that were Mr. Parker still alive, the new interest in grappling would have caused some response. What direction would SGM Parker have taken, we can only guess. He isn't here, he can't do it now, we will never know. So everyone is free to go out and explore grappling and encorporate it how they feel they can.
If you are a Kenpo practioner and want to search out instruction on how to do this or guidance to do it, there is a Kenpo instructor named Martin Wheeler. He has been incorporating grappling into Kenpo for several years now. He is a fantastic martial artist and instructor, and he travels giving seminars on the subject. I think his web site is www.ironmonkeyma.com , if that is not correct, I will post a correction later. He also has a very, very good tape series you can get info from his site on.
So, yes there are instructors out there exploring grappling more. There is nothing wrong with you doing it either. But is kenpo incomplete? No, I don't think so. That is not what is was formed for. American Kenpo is primarily and stand up art, the bases behind its formulation being able to deal with multiple opponents. In that subject area, it is very complete.
Yours in Kenpo,
Teej
That is the correct web site for Martin Wheeler. If you go there, click on his tapes and click the free download demo. On my slow computer, it took 5 minutes, but it show clips through all his tapes, the last ones are clips from his tapes on locks and grappling & kenpo. fyi
Similar threads
