If.....

[Thesemindz]

seems to me that kenpo is a specialized method of unarmed combat. Personally, I think firearms training simply falls outside the scope of kenpo, and outside the scope of expertise that most kenpo instructors have. If you desire that kind of training, then I think the best solution would be to find a competent instructor and get it from that source. But I don't see a reason to believe firearms ought to become a mandatory or standard part of kenpo training. Lord knows, there's enough incompetent kenpo instructors out there already. I'd hate to think about those folks offering firearms training on top of it.

Personally, my instructor is ex-vietnam era military, and ex-law enforcement, and is very skilled with firearms. He maintains his enthusiasms for the topic, and would be willing to work with anyone in our group who has the desire. He is someone who I feel would definitely be a competent instructor in the topic. Personally, I'm not interested, and if someone sort of tried to say it was mandatory, I'd probably leave the club. I joined to train in an unarmed method. I'd join a gun club if that was what I was interested in.

I think you have every right to train in whatever you want, and if you are in a place which is requiring you to practice or train material you aren't interested in, you should go somewhere that has the product you want. We should all be doing that.

That aside, do you think you could ever learn everything there is to know about defending a punch without ever learning to execute a punch? Do you think you could even learn enough to recognize a punch when it was being used to intimidate rather than injure? Do you think you could learn how best to manipulate your opponent, based on his goals in executing the punch, that you could offbalance him or redirect his energy against him? Without learning how to punch, or getting punched, or throwing punches and having them defended against?

What makes a gun different?


-Rob

 

[Flying Crane]

I'm not Carol, but I'll toss in my .02 on this. IMHO, I think that anytime a weapon is taught, it should be explained how that weapon functions. Make the student familiar with it, so in the event they are faced with one, they'll know what they're up against. The same can be said about a blade. The same can be said about a choke, a take down, anything. Its easy to say to someone, "This is how you defend against a gun to your chest."

So if that Kenpo teacher can't give that, because its outside of the Kenpo scope, then bring someone in who can teach it. I never said that we had to go out, get a pistol permit and join the local NRA, but become familiar with how it functions.

I'll use the choke as another example. If its a 2 handed choke or a RNC, IMO, I think its a good idea to talk about the effects of the choke, whether or not its targetting the airflow or blood flow, how to apply these types of chokes, etc. Whats the sense of learning to defend against something that you dont even know how to do yourself?

Just my .02

I think you hit it on the head here, Mike. I agree, if you are going to work with the weapon in any way, including simply as defensive techniques against the weapon, then some functional knowledge of the weapon ought to be part of the instruction.

I was thinking more on the level of, buying a gun, getting a carry permit, going to the range and taking extensive instruction in combat/self-defense handgunning, something like that. That's what came to my mind when I read Carol's post.

I don't have any problem with someone pursuing that training if they are interested in it. I don't have a problem with a knowledgeable kenpo instructor with the appropriate expertise in firearms offering this kind of instruction to his student. I don't have a problem with somebody making this a standard part of how they personally train.

I do think it's a bit of a stretch to feel that it ought to become a standard part of what kenpo training is, and making it a mandatory part of the program. I suppose there are some people who may do this, and if it works for their particular group, then all the power to them. But overall, I just think it's a stretch.

You have talked about the knifework in kenpo, and how you feel the best way to get quality knife instruction is to go to the Philippino systems. Kenpo just doesn't offer it on the same level. Go to the people who specialize in it. I kind of feel like it's the same thing with kenpo. Kenpo isn't a gun specialist system. If you desire those skills, go to the gun specialists.

 

[Flying Crane]

Logically that does not follow, and reasons such as this underscores the need for firearms training. Some decent training does a lot to show what firearms can, and cannot do.

I commented more fully on Mike's post, but I'll ask you this: where have you gotten your decent training in firearms? I understand you are interested in it, you've posted about it in the past. I think you've gotten training in it, yes? From whom did you get it? And do you think your local kenpo school would be able to offer gun training of equal quality?

All I'm saying is, if you desire that kind of training, go to the experts for it. There are always exceptions, but most kenpo teachers are not those experts. Exceptions aside, I doubt that will ever change.

 

[Flying Crane]

What makes a gun different?


-Rob

A gun is a piece of hardware that requires a financial committment to purchase and use, and a committment of time and energy to maintenance and practice. Laws vary on one's ability to carry it. Places where you can train with it are limited. Most people cannot go into their basement or garage or backyard and practice their shooting. To do so would endanger their homes and families and communities. Firearms training differs from unarmed combat, or even training with non-projectile weapons like knives or sticks or swords or spears.

I commented on Mike's and Carol's posts, but I'll say it again here: with some exceptions, most kenpo teachers are not gun experts and I doubt that is likely to change outside of the exceptions. I just do not believe it is realistic to think that thorough gun training will become part of one's kenpo instructional program. If you want thorough gun training, go to the gun experts.

 

[Thesemindz]

A gun is a piece of hardware that requires a financial committment to purchase and use, and a committment of time and energy to maintenance and practice. Laws vary on one's ability to carry it. Places where you can train with it are limited. Most people cannot go into their basement or garage or backyard and practice their shooting. To do so would endanger their homes and families and communities. Firearms training differs from unarmed combat, or even training with non-projectile weapons like knives or sticks or swords or spears.

I commented on Mike's and Carol's posts, but I'll say it again here: with some exceptions, most kenpo teachers are not gun experts and I doubt that is likely to change outside of the exceptions. I just do not believe it is realistic to think that thorough gun training will become part of one's kenpo instructional program. If you want thorough gun training, go to the gun experts.

I think that's all fair.

I don't think students should be required to buy a gun, or even shoot a gun. I think it's a good idea for them to hold a gun, and I think they need to have some understanding of how they work. At the very least, it should be explained to them.

I think more is better, but I encourage people in general to have, understand, and be trained in firearms. I think it's a good idea to own them, and shoot them, and know how to do both correctly.

If nothing else, I think the student should watch a youtube video of one being fired.

Ultimately, I think more knowledge is better, but that's between the student and his instructor.


-Rob

 

[LawDog]

As for weapons, including firearms,
If you are going to defend against a weapon properly then you should at least have the basic knowledge on how to use it.
If you are going to use one then you should have a basic knowledge on how someone will defend against it.
As for changes within Kenpo, I did that a long time ago.
:ultracool

 

[Carol]

I commented more fully on Mike's post, but I'll ask you this: where have you gotten your decent training in firearms? I understand you are interested in it, you've posted about it in the past. I think you've gotten training in it, yes? From whom did you get it? And do you think your local kenpo school would be able to offer gun training of equal quality?

All I'm saying is, if you desire that kind of training, go to the experts for it. There are always exceptions, but most kenpo teachers are not those experts. Exceptions aside, I doubt that will ever change.

Sorry for the late reply, I thought I responded to your post earlier. My browser must have eaten what I wrote

Yes, I have been trained, and would like to be an NRA instructor myself in the future.

I agree with you -- firearms take a commitment of both money and mindset to own and practice; not everyone is up for that kind of commitment, nor should they be.

My reasons for firearms training in Kenpo echo what MJS and TheseMindz have said...I don't believe that Kenpo should offer comabitive shooting or other types of training that may appeal to more dedicated enthusiasts. However, there is a lot that can be learned from a defensive standpoint by learning the cardinal rules of firearms safety and learning first hand what firearms can and can't do. There is also a lot that can be learned (and much that can be demystified) by going to the range, learning how to fire a few shots, hearing what they sound like and what they feel like.

These basics can be covered in a day's time. It doesn't take an enormous commitment of time (or money) to cover the essentials.

That's how I see it anyway. I'm fine with disagreement, too.

 

[K831]

I look forward to reading the posts of others, but no time now. The last 'association change" I made was to the AKKI and that fixed the vast majority of issues I had with Kenpo, but I'll add a few that nag at me.

1.) Cut the number of memorized techniques down to like 1/3. Chose a select number that encompass the needed motion, timing, angles etc and dump the redundant memorization.

2.) Trade the remaining forms and techniques for more emphasis on our already existing, too often neglected but awesome 2 man sets, offensive techniques (brown belt included) and weapons sets and drills.

3.) More firearms training (Integrating the draw stroke into techniques, retention, disarms etc) Our updated knife and stick material is superb, lets roll out the firearms stuff!

4.) More of the ground curriculum, but not from the point of view that "I train BJJ with my Kenpo"..No, no, no we don't hunt for submissions in the street, BJJ is a sport! Lets focus on take-down defense, position, strike and back up!

EDIT: I forgot it was supposed to be 5 things... um, more playing with multiple attacker situations. It's nice now that we don't train the old eh..hum... stuff.

 

[Milt G.]

I've actually thought a bit about this thread and I've been tempted, yet reluctant to add my thoughts to it. I finally decided to do so, but they are not the thoughts I originally supposed I might add...

I certainly have my own complaints about the kenpo system that I study. It ain't perfect. I've got other influences that cause me to look at things differently, and I perceive things that to me, are problematic with it.

But I respect the system for what it is, and I respect my teachers and the lineage that they represent. They've given me a lot, opened my eyes, and shared with me the results of many decades of training. For that I am very very grateful and I have the utmost respect for them as people, friends, and teachers of kenpo.

for this reason, I am not able to publically state what I don't like about it and how I might change it, if I was King For A Day. I think it would just come across as disrespectful and maybe even sour grapes, and I'd hate for anyone to ever think I felt that way towards my teachers and what they have given me.

So for me, suffice it to say that I do not believe it is perfect, as I don't believe anything truly is. There are things I don't like about it. But there is a lot that I DO like about it, and I take it for what it is. That's really all I can say.

Hello,
Nicely stated good points... Thank you.

Milt G.

 

[Yondanchris]

you had the power to change 5 things in the Kenpo/Kempo/Kaju art that you study, what would they be and why? If you feel that there is nothing that needs to be changed, feel free to state that, but also why you feel that way.

1) I would like to echo the firearms training comments already made. But I would add that the focus of a martial artist should be to disarm and disable an attacker (and any weapon(s) he/she is using (hands, feet, knife, gun).

2) I would (and have) added a lot more ground techniques and require grappling mat time from all of my students. I feel this adds at least a basic familiarity and form, so just in case it goes to the ground my students feel comfortable in defending themselves there (and just about any other environment)

3) I would (and have) delete duplicate techniques and redundancies, all to common in the Kenpo/Kempo/Kaju systems. I like that finally other MA are reducing their arts to the essentials and leaving the "fancy" stuff to the Black Belts!!

4) I would (and have) continue traditions passed on to us from our "ancestors", one tradition in-particular would be the passing down of belts to your students. I am saving my 1st Dan Black Belt for my wife (who is currently a Blue Belt) and then hopefully to my child. It brings some of that 'ohana' we have been talking about here on the forums to life.

5) Wider acceptance of cross-training or training in other styles/arts.
One of the things I really disliked when I was growing up, in life and the MA,
was that a person was always punished in the dojo for cross-training or dabbling in other styles and arts.....especially if it was AK or Kajukenbo! I feel that more and more martial arts need to accept that they individually do not hold "The Truth", but more that they hold an "Aspect of the truth" as it comes to the MA. If there where one MA that had it all I think most of us would be studying that art, but since it does not exist it is time for us to co-exist!

Ramblings of a humble and ignorant kempoka,

Chris

 

[ppko]

I would deffinately have them move forward with the times. Adding Reality Based is a big step and also adding different drills ie sticky hands, rolling whatever works. I personally have went away from saying that I teach Kempo anymore just because I don't teach what any traditionalist would consider Kempo instead I have went back to what the Okinawans originally called there arts Te

 

[punisher73]

I'm not surprised that the politics was mentioned.

I'm also not too surprised that many people said to reduce the amount of techniques.

I am surprised that no one mentioned eliminating the extensions as part of the material to reduce.

 

[Josh Oakley]

This is specifically about Shaolin Kempo

1) I'd get rid of gi's altogether. They look nice, but I think a more realistic approach would be to train in what you would wear in normal life.

2) De-emphasizing techniques and focusing more on the principles from which those techniques derive.

3) Instead of having 8 million ways to defend against a step-through punch, students should practice against more realistic attacks, and it should start at white belt.

4) Actually, never mind white belt. Get rid of belts altogether. This alone would get rid of a lot of bickering that goes on in the arts. There are students, teachers, teachers of teachers, and system heads. That's it.

5) Update the way we learn and teach to include the most current research in education and neorology.