How many techniques do you need?

[Big Pat]

One that works!!

EKP RIP
Big Pat

 

[Kalicombat]

How bout attacking your opponents centerline. Not working inside or outside of it, but kicking your way right dead center of your opponent? Wouldn't that work. How bout a solid kenpo kick to the jewels, which will bring your opponents head forward, then you continue to attack the centerline......I don't know, maybe the eyes, nose, throat, sternum, you know.....the stuff that makes up an opponents centerline. And why not use the basics that are the embodiment of a technique and blend them to create a spontaneous reaction to an attack??? Wait, maybe I hit the nail on the head.... Maybe, just maybe, the techniques were developed to give students a reference point and to teach them coordination....maybe the whole purpose of the techniques were to introduce the students to the individual maneuvers, in a logical progression, married with proper stance work, foot maneuvers, feints, blocks, and strikes, and once those students have absorbed the entire curriculum, and spent the mat time doing so, they can handle any scenario that is thrown at them.....Yeah, maybe that's it. But then again, maybe the techniques are the end all of kenpo. Maybe, the forms, sets, etc... aren't important..... NAW, couldn't be that. If that was the case, I don't think SGM Parker, all of his most senior students, all of their students, and so on would spend so much time learning, practicing, working, teaching, and investigating them.
Maybe I'm off base here, but this thread has the hint of one of those questions posed by off shoot EPAK'ers looking for verification of their system. Like that has never been done before....Maybe Im wrong.....maybe Im not.

Gary C.

 

[Zoran]

Hmm, maybe you were shown badly to begin with, may be why you think the way you do.

DarK LorD

Hmm, that is always the easy answer, isn't it. "You were not taught properly", "you don't understand", and so on.

Please Dark Lord, don't make assumptions about me when you have never shared the matt with me. It's a little presumptuous. Let's just say we come from different backgrounds and training principles and leave it at that. I could easily say that your mind is closed to new ideas, but I don't feel I know you well enough to even suggest it because I never shared the matt with you.

So why don't you make your point against the opinion next time, instead of your opinion of the poster. Disagree to your hearts content. I would love to entertain your opposing view.

Anyways. sorry to the mods for shifting off topic.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

If a person KNOWS his/her techniques, how many does he/she really need?

I think it depends what they want to do. For simple self-defence, 6-8 techniques (along with some grappling releases) drilled to perfection will suit just fine. Boxers are formidable with half a dozen. To be a professional martial artist and instructor, your repertoire should be substantially greater.

 

[Doc]

You know that is an excellent question. Some will suggest cryptic answers about already knowing how to move etc. but, the answer is actually a tad more complex than that.

Inside, outside, and variations on themes fail to acknowledge there are specific attacks we may encounter that have little in common with other attacks.

A bear hug from the rear has a limited number of variations, but the central theme of a bear hug from the rear is important. It defines parameters that must be considered to survive the initial assault. This particular attack has no significant relationship with a left jab, or roundhouse kick or many other possible assaults that must also be survived but in a different manner.

So it may be simplistic to suggest you don't need any because you already know how to move, or more simply one or two, but significant variations on an attack theme do in fact require different skills and principles to overcome the aggressive actions.

Although it is possible to take this to an extreme, clearly you will need enough to counter what you feel are the most likely type of assaults that are distinct enough from each other to require the learning of different skills and understandings.

That number in practice will vary from person to person depending on their own due diligence, daily activities and environment. A police offcier may need more skills then a stay-at-home mom where a confrontation is not as likely.

Although the number is in actuallity different from person to person, the answer truly lies in the answer I often give to people who ask me about self defense.

"How long will it take for me to learn just enough to defend myself?"

At this point I usually ask the persons name they intend to have a confrontation with. They usually say something like:

"Not anyone special just in general."

"Well," I say, "If you don't know the circumstances of how, where, and who might attack you, I guess you better study as much and as long as you can - just in case."

 

[Dark Kenpo Lord]

Hmm, that is always the easy answer, isn't it. "You were not taught properly", "you don't understand", and so on.

Please Dark Lord, don't make assumptions about me when you have never shared the matt with me. It's a little presumptuous. Let's just say we come from different backgrounds and training principles and leave it at that. I could easily say that your mind is closed to new ideas, but I don't feel I know you well enough to even suggest it because I never shared the matt with you.

So why don't you make your point against the opinion next time, instead of your opinion of the poster. Disagree to your hearts content. I would love to entertain your opposing view.

Anyways. sorry to the mods for shifting off topic.

If your instructor has not passed on validity of what you're doing to you, what's the point?


YOU feel things need to be changed, but why? Because YOU don't think they'll work for anyone, or, don't work for you, don't work for your students? If my instructor gave me no confindence in what I'm doing I certainly wouldn't be there, I'd move on to someone and something else that would.

I believe Gary Catherman is correct, someone is looking to validate what they're doing, and I thought that the moment I read the intial post, which is why I responded the way I did.

DarK LorD

 

[MJS]

We could look at the many techniques and think, "Well, I'll take 1 for each type of attack and continue to work those." Thats fine, but when we take into consideration the "What if" phase, those singular techniques may not address that issue. Yes, if the attacker attacks in the "ideal" phase, then yeah, you would just need that singular technique, but we can't assume that will be the case.

Mike

 

[Doc]

Boxers are formidable with half a dozen.

Of course they are. But let's not forget that is a double edge. They only have to defend agains a limited number of attacks as well, and punches only within rules.

 

[Touch Of Death]

How bout attacking your opponents centerline. Not working inside or outside of it, but kicking your way right dead center of your opponent? Wouldn't that work. How bout a solid kenpo kick to the jewels, which will bring your opponents head forward, then you continue to attack the centerline......I don't know, maybe the eyes, nose, throat, sternum, you know.....the stuff that makes up an opponents centerline. And why not use the basics that are the embodiment of a technique and blend them to create a spontaneous reaction to an attack??? Wait, maybe I hit the nail on the head.... Maybe, just maybe, the techniques were developed to give students a reference point and to teach them coordination....maybe the whole purpose of the techniques were to introduce the students to the individual maneuvers, in a logical progression, married with proper stance work, foot maneuvers, feints, blocks, and strikes, and once those students have absorbed the entire curriculum, and spent the mat time doing so, they can handle any scenario that is thrown at them.....Yeah, maybe that's it. But then again, maybe the techniques are the end all of kenpo. Maybe, the forms, sets, etc... aren't important..... NAW, couldn't be that. If that was the case, I don't think SGM Parker, all of his most senior students, all of their students, and so on would spend so much time learning, practicing, working, teaching, and investigating them.
Maybe I'm off base here, but this thread has the hint of one of those questions posed by off shoot EPAK'ers looking for verification of their system. Like that has never been done before....Maybe Im wrong.....maybe Im not.

Gary C.

I doubt the any senerio thing, but perhaps. If you mean validation of the "offshoot" what makes the "offshoot" invalid? And what constitutes an offshoot? What date of leaving Mr. Parker constitutes an offshoot, exactly? And again its not where you attack your opponent on or about his center line, its about where your opponent is in relation to "your" center line.
Sean

 

[Zoran]

If your instructor has not passed on validity of what you're doing to you, what's the point?


YOU feel things need to be changed, but why? Because YOU don't think they'll work for anyone, or, don't work for you, don't work for your students? If my instructor gave me no confindence in what I'm doing I certainly wouldn't be there, I'd move on to someone and something else that would.

I believe Gary Catherman is correct, someone is looking to validate what they're doing, and I thought that the moment I read the intial post, which is why I responded the way I did.

DarK LorD

I give up, you're a lost cause.
I raise my flag of surrender.
:bs:
Ooops, wrong flag.

 

[Kalicombat]

I doubt the any senerio thing, but perhaps. If you mean validation of the "offshoot" what makes the "offshoot" invalid? And what constitutes an offshoot? What date of leaving Mr. Parker constitutes an offshoot, exactly? And again its not where you attack your opponent on or about his center line, its about where your opponent is in relation to "your" center line.
Sean

Ok, first, you sound like an IKCA'er. I dont know if you are or not, but Your defensiveness sounds as such. I never said that any system was "invalid". An off shoot is any EPAK based system that has given up the curriculum by cutting sets and forms, number of techniques, you know, like so many have done. An off shoot system is not necessarily wrong, but it is not EPAK. As far as dates of leaving SGM Parker, I have no idea. Finaly, you worry about your opponent in relation to your center line, and I'll keep detroying my opponents centerline, and we can both continue to do our own thing. My way has worked for me, and I'm sure yours has worked for you.

I know something about off shoot systems, I started in one. It was not for me however, so I kept looking. I found one that did work for me and worked my way through that system. Then I finaly found EPAK, what I was looking for in the first place, and am happy with learning all that EPAK has to offer.

Gary C.

 

[jdinca]

An off shoot is any EPAK based system that has given up the curriculum by cutting sets and forms, number of techniques, you know, like so many have done.

So you're saying that an offshoot is a system that is less comprehensive than EPAK? Or can it be one that has subtracted and added or adjusted the system? I ask only because your statement used a broad brush to paint all offshoot systems as something less than EPAK.

 

[Dark Kenpo Lord]

I give up, you're a lost cause.
I raise my flag of surrender.
:bs:
Ooops, wrong flag.

But I see you still didn't answer the questions, but I did ask for your opinion on WHY you feel things need to be changed.

DarK LorD

 

[Kalicombat]

Jdinca,
You want my opinion? Sure, I think EPAK is the finest, most comprehensive system of combat out there. I dont have experience in every off-shoot system to break away from EPAK and do their own thing, so I can't answer in regards to all systems. I can however, tell you that the two systems I do have hands on experience with are definitely "something less" then EPAK. That being said, I am confident that I can make any system work for me. Not because of the system, but because of ME. I'm confident in my skills, and having tested them quite a bit, am proficient in making it home at the end of an altercation. Like I have said repeatedly though, on lots of other threads, if you are happy with what you are doing, so be it. Don't let the rantings of some guy on a forum take away any passion you hold for your system, regardless of what it is. I've not walked in your shoes, nor you in mine. I can't tell you what is right nor wrong for you, only give you a run down of my experiences, what I have found to be the most effective, efficient, and passionate system to deal with violent attacks, and that is EPAK. At this juncture in my life, I am more concerned with furthering my EPAK education. I can fight, so I'm not looking for a system to teach me to fight. I have committed to learning the entire EPAK system. When I have completed this goal, I may have a different opinion, but until then, Im focused, dedicated, and like I said, committed. Being a student of the EPAK system, it is imperative that I learn everything the system has to offer before I start deciding what is important and what is not.

Gary C.

 

[jdinca]

That's what I was looking for. Thanks.

 

[mj-hi-yah]

Mod Note:

Please stay on topic with polite and respectful conversation.

MJ :asian:
MT Moderator

 

[Zoran]

But I see you still didn't answer the questions, but I did ask for your opinion on WHY you feel things need to be changed.

DarK LorD

Okay DKL, I'll bite. I did not realize you were asking a question in there. It more appeared you made a rhetorical question then tried to supply the answer by fantasizing about my, and my instructor's, shortcomings.

Why do I feel there needs to be a change? Maybe I do and maybe I don't. In our system, we view change in a different light. I am more exploring the possibilities of if there can be improvements.

My goal is to prepare a student for the real world. So I always keep an eye out for new ideas and teaching aids. Part of that goal is to bring students as early as possible to spontaneous response. I feel the system I am in does that very well but, I will always keep an open mind to things that may be done better.

Kenpo was built on the fondation of change. Look at Ed Parker, Emperado, and many other Kenpo system founders. They all were progressive in their systems. Change was a big part of it and no matter how much others may resist it, for their own personal reasons, it will continue to be a part of it. Only the test of time will choose those changes that stick or fall away.

My message is simple, the number of techs, forms, sets, and what have you is not relevant to any system. What is relevant is the tools that an instructor and/or system can give its students to survive in the real world.

 

[mj-hi-yah]

You know that is an excellent question. Some will suggest cryptic answers about already knowing how to move etc. but, the answer is actually a tad more complex than that.

Inside, outside, and variations on themes fail to acknowledge there are specific attacks we may encounter that have little in common with other attacks.

A bear hug from the rear has a limited number of variations, but the central theme of a bear hug from the rear is important. It defines parameters that must be considered to survive the initial assault. This particular attack has no significant relationship with a left jab, or roundhouse kick or many other possible assaults that must also be survived but in a different manner.

So it may be simplistic to suggest you don't need any because you already know how to move, or more simply one or two, but significant variations on an attack theme do in fact require different skills and principles to overcome the aggressive actions.

Although it is possible to take this to an extreme, clearly you will need enough to counter what you feel are the most likely type of assaults that are distinct enough from each other to require the learning of different skills and understandings.

That number in practice will vary from person to person depending on their own due diligence, daily activities and environment. A police offcier may need more skills then a stay-at-home mom where a confrontation is not as likely.

Although the number is in actuallity different from person to person, the answer truly lies in the answer I often give to people who ask me about self defense.

"How long will it take for me to learn just enough to defend myself?"

At this point I usually ask the persons name they intend to have a confrontation with. They usually say something like:

"Not anyone special just in general."

"Well," I say, "If you don't know the circumstances of how, where, and who might attack you, I guess you better study as much and as long as you can - just in case."

This is an excellent post, especially as it addresses the particular need for working variations on attack themes. I agree that one technique could never be enough given all the possible eventualities. You may find yourself in a given situation, that is different than exactly how you learned or studied a move, but in understanding and training variations, hopefully moments of "I have been here before" will find you in positions where you may utilize parts of techniques that you studied to suit the situation relative to your position to your opponent, as well as your opponent's position to you.

Just one minor criticism, yes stay at home moms needs are different, but many self defense techniques are needed...ever been in a room with a bunch of preschoolers?

MJ :asian:

 

[MJS]

By techniques, I suppose you mean choregraphed responses to various types of attacks. You could get away with 0. But you will need to know how to block, evade, strike, kick, grapple, throw, and more. You will also need to learn to be spontaneous and adaptable.

These things could be taught without requiring you to memerize techs. But in many ways, it would make it harder. But techs are only a teaching tool that is practically useless by itself.

I have been putting some thought into techs and how they are traditionally taught. I have wondered if there are some better ways to impart the same knowledge, principles and motion than the way we normally do it. Maybe something that is less robotic and requires a little more thought from the student.

Such as dividing into two seperate categories. Defensive movements and offensive movements.

For example,
1. teaching the various ways a person can evade and block a lunge punch with different types of footwork for each.
2. Teach various striking combinations only.
3. Have the student put them together.

I think if done early on, it may be more interactive for the student which won't bore them to death. It may also have the added benefit of teaching spontaneity early in a students training.

I suppose that this method would work, but don't you think that they'd still need some sort of foundation to build off of? For example, look at a boxer. He has set punches to use as well as set combos that he drills on a focus mitt. In a way, those preset combos are like the SD techniques. The combos, like the techniques, are teaching certain principles. Of course, the boxer wants to progress past those preset techs. and be able to react accordingly to his opp. in the ring. The same can be said for the SD techs. We eventually want to get to the point where we don't have to think about a move, but simply react.

Mike

 

[Doc]

This is an excellent post, especially as it addresses the particular need for working variations on attack themes. I agree that one technique could never be enough given all the possible eventualities. You may find yourself in a given situation, that is different than exactly how you learned or studied a move, but in understanding and training variations, hopefully moments of "I have been here before" will find you in positions where you may utilize parts of techniques that you studied to suit the situation relative to your position to your opponent, as well as your opponent's position to you.

Just one minor criticism, yes stay at home moms needs are different, but many self defense techniques are needed...ever been in a room with a bunch of preschoolers?

MJ :asian:

I have already been considerably chastised by the estrogen mafia that permeates and dominates my immediate family structure. Jeez, it was just a simple analogy. Consider it officially changed to a "stay-at-home dad." Can I have my dinner now please?