IP Techniques: Do We Need Them?

[Doc]

Whew! It's interesting because I had lunch with Lee Wedlake the other day, and we talked about this as well. There is nothing wrong with the idea of Kenpo based on "motion." Motion-Kenpo is fine. However, the "Ideal Technique" does not exist until it is created by the functional head of your group, or if you train alone, by you. Where Motion-Kenpo fails is when its practitioners read the manual and accept that written idea as the Ideal. It is not, and never has been. Motion-Kenpo is fine, unfortunately a great many of its teachers, and subsequently its students, suck big time. Lee Wedlake does Kenpo based on Motion, and he doesn't see that as a negative, but that's because he creates his own "ideals" and they work. Simple! You get out of Motion-Kenpo what your instructor puts in. If it isn't working, don't blame the Kenpo or Mr. Parker. Blame that guy you giving the money to for them worthless belts.

 

[jfarnsworth]

... You get out of Motion-Kenpo what your instructor puts in. If it isn't working, don't blame the Kenpo or Mr. Parker. Blame that guy you giving the money to for them worthless belts.

No truer words have been spoken! Well said, sir!

 

[Thesemindz]

You get out of Motion-Kenpo what your instructor puts in. If it isn't working, don't blame the Kenpo or Mr. Parker. Blame that guy you giving the money to for them worthless belts.

This.

It's funny. The TKD guys have two threads going right now where some of the old school are arguing for a functional TKD method that is actually tested in combat and effective in self defense, and some practitioners are arguing for non contact sparring activities to replace all combat drills because you can sell it easier. The big split there seems to be between TKD that actually works in a fight and TKD that is practiced as a kind of martial arts style physical activity where students learn theory and technique but never apply either in combat.

For them, TKD has always been a sport style activity, and the idea of actually fighting is at best uninteresting to them, and sometimes frightening. In the eyes of some, actually fighting with your techniques seems completely unnecessary and ridiculous. I've read this attitude from some karateka too.

For guys like you and me Ras, that seems silly. How can you learn to fight without fighting? It would be like learning how to be a mechanic from a book without ever actually touching a car. You might grasp some of the concepts, but until you have oil all over your hands and parts all over the floor you don't really understand what you're dealing with. Yet for many, that's what martial arts are supposed to be. No body work. No actual fighting. Because they aren't interested, or they just want to get in shape, or the police can do all their fighting for them. So they don't want to develop that side of the art. And some instructors don't want to offer it, because it's harder to sell, and harder to teach, and it opens you up to some serious liability if someone gets hurt. Which eventually they will, because you're practicing hurting people.

This is becoming a problem everywhere where karate is taught. There will always be a split between those who believe in hard training, and those who believe in air karate. You can't worry about what their doing, any more than they can worry about our methods. They'll have more students, because it is easier to sell. But my students can fight. No doubt.

I teach at another guy's school, but there's never been any question about how karate should be taught for us. You practice throws by throwing, falls by falling, grapples by grappling, and fighting by fighting. There's a big difference between a school where the students never practice contact drills or spontaneous combat, and one where the students are striking, manhandling, and throwing each other to the ground from their very first class. Those are two completely different products that don't really have anything in common beyond the most superficial aesthetics.

In the end, all you can do is go back to your school and teach great classes. In the long run, the people who really matter will know which schools teach the real and which schools teach martial arts style dance. And your students will go on to teach a method that works, which is all you can really hope for anyway. It's on us, as instructors, to do our best. I consider it a point of personal honor that every single time I step on the training floor I teach the absolute best karate I can. That doesn't mean every class is a perfect 10. But I show up. I put in the effort. I do my best, with planning beforehand, and learning from my mistakes, and trying to find better ways to teach faster.

All lessons I learned from karate.


-Rob

 

[ATACX GYM]

Quote:
A Sub-Level Four™ Self-Defense technique is uniquely different from Motion-Kenpo. A technique in Motion-Kenpo is, among other things, primarily a study of the effective use of “motion” in a combat scenario. Every hypothesis or technique theme is based and predicated on “motion.” Additionally, It does not explore hands on application of holds, hugs, locks, and seizures.
A Sub-level Four™ technique is a case study of many different complex sciences presented in a practical application default technique modality, that reaches well beyond its obvious immediate effectiveness. This “process” subsequently addresses long term goals and applications.
To this end through the entire first level of study, techniques are presented as “hard curriculum” with absolutely no exploration or adjustment of themes without instructor approval. This is not uncommon outside the bounds of loose structured Motion-Kenpo. In general, minor “tailoring” is only allowed to compensate for height or girth deficiencies. The proverbial Kenpo hypothesis “what if” is not allowed or entertained, and there are no Motion-Kenpo defined “re-arrangement concepts.”
The base or default technique execution is conceptually inclusive of minor variables without significant adjustment. Major variables are assigned different “Default Techniques.” These are things that cannot be seen by the uneducated eye. When executed properly, major benefit is attained because each individual technique functions on multiple levels, and lays the base foundation for even more advanced application of a theme allowing sophisticated “Destructive Modulation” at upper levels.
A technique teaches all the things listed below and additionally functions as a “mini” Taiji Chi-Gung form that may be practiced singularly without a partner to the same end without physical contact, when a partner is not available. A student is encouraged to study and explore body mechanic enhancing “chi,” and “chi” enhancing body movements, with as well as without a training partner.
Proper anatomical movement and internal energy co-exist hand in hand and one cannot be attained without the presence of the other. Done properly, they spiral upward together as long as you continue to practice, without age barriers. SL-4™ teaches immediate application of what the Chinese have traditionally waited years to explain to a very few.
It cannot be over emphasized, these are things that are not visible to the uneducated eye, and cannot be understood anymore than you would movements of any discipline not explained to you. Sub-Level Four™ techniques are absolutely workable and effective and there are no “throw away” techniques.
What is immediately discernable is when, at higher levels, a Control manipulation alternative might be to modulate destruction. This is what has prompted some to suggest, “It’s just contact manipulation,” or “They are just adding a manipulation to the technique.” Nothing could be further from the truth.
In fact a student is taught to execute the more destructive “Destructive Sequencing” first along with minor manipulations because full Control Manipulations require a much greater degree of skill and a higher physical commitment in training as well as practice. It is where the Ed Parker phrase “…to feel is to believe” manifests itself.
The top 25 things in SL-4 Kenpo™ techniques NOT in Motion-Kenpo
1. The science of proper breathing through a “Breathing Signature” to enhance short-term explosive power, and enhance the training of long-term internal energy.
2. Exploring the control and momentary movement, shifting and adjusting of your internal energy as well as your opponent’s for the purposes of enhancing your own strength while draining your opponent’s.
3. The application of internal energy for immediate effectiveness in short term scenarios, with the long-term goal of increased permanent and growing enhancement.
4. How the method and manner of execution enhances or detracts from the positive execution of all anatomical movement.
5. The limitations of anatomical structure, which is greater than its effective applications, therefore motion may be infinite, but its practical effective use is not.
6. How the proper placement and execution of “basics” can create a “natural barrier” and negate “street grappling” assaults within the framework of self-defense techniques, and counter the constant “forward pressure” of those attempting to seize or surround your torso.
7. How the proper execution and placement of the armatures away from the body may be executed in a manner that allows them to not be corruptible or manipulated.
8. How a simple adjustment in height can counter a “street grappler’s” change in height should he drop to attack your lower height zones.
9. How certain movements have an effect utilized in “Psychology of Confrontation Concepts” to enhance one’s “Mechanical Speed” by elongating the “Perceptual and Mental Speed” of your opponent.
10. How certain “Negative Physical Contact” enhances your own structural integrity and therefore can have a positive effect.
11. How to move energy from one side of your body to another location through the manipulation of armatures.
12. How to create a burst of energy to enhance your movements.

13. How to momentarily “short circuit” a person’s nervous system in conjunction with an energy drain to enhance our own action by “Completing the Circuit.”
14. How to manipulate human anatomy through, touching, pulling, pushing, striking, twisting, torquing, hugging, and locking.
15. Each technique emphasizes the shifting and transfer of body weight in conjunction with applications for maximum effectiveness with other components.
16. Explores and teaches “Negative and Positive Body” posture from multiple perspectives including but not limited to;
17. What postures opens specific cavities for effective destructive access.
18. What natural weapons and their method of execution will give you access and activation.
20. How the proper angles and associated anatomical posture function as a unit to virtually guarantee effectiveness.
22. What postures create a structural weakness in your opponent thereby virtually immobilizing him in many situations.
23. The location of nerve cavities and the order, posture and effects of sequential striking and what posture stifles or blocks his energy thereby weakening him and causing “Physical/Mental Disassociation,” (PMD). Sometimes called a “Technical Knockout” in sporting contests.
24. How the “Timing Signature” teaches the correct rhythm to “surge” energy and negate opponent body mechanics. 25. How the “Grappling Signature” sets your body mechanics during a technique to counter “street grapplers.”


Before I get back on the whole Motion Kenpo thing? I read this post when MJS reprinted it...and NOBODY responded to this joint.Not even me. I was simply trying to digest this 25 point list and I still am.This whole approach is so incredible to me as to be almost insane.Can any of US make a list A TENTH as impressive as this list? Idk but my intuition gives me a rather resounding:"Not freakin likely" response.

I have been a staunch skeptic of internal energy charlatans,although I'm an absolute believer that internal energy--bioenegery,bioelectrical signatures--exist. In fact,science has removed the question from a matter of dispute to one of concrete certainty...bio-energy and bioelectric signatures exist.I remember when I first read this in my biology,A&P,and kinesiology classes. Jaw dropped to the floor,and I was exhilirated. I turned right around and started studying my Oriental sciences again and combined them with my Western science data...but I still haven't been able to find methods that trump what I currently know tech-wise regarding the combat applications of bioenergies to combat and life. I learned more details as to HOW these bioenergies work,but not the WHY or ways to DRAMATICALLY improve the applications of the techs I know and have already modified for functionality's sake. I study plyometrics and explosivity in all of its primary athletic components visavis speed-strength,stimuli response,stimuli recognition,and lots of other sciences thoroughly because I have long been interested as a matter of personal,scientific and athletic interest. A matter of maximizing human performance. I've incorporated this information alot with the use of feints,stance changes,motion,choice reaction,yadda yadda...but I don't have a list like Doc's.

My list would be totally different,and Idk if it would even reach 25 points.And Idk how sharply different it would be to "Motion Kenpo" because--if I understand the definition of "Motion Kenpo" aright--I'm doing Motion Kenpo right now.Lol. Doesn't Ed Parker Kenpo Techs and Concepts+Our Own Techs and Concepts=Ideal Techs We Teach=Motion Kenpo? If so...then ATACX GYM=Motion Kenpo.Despite the fact that ATACX GYM covers alot more ground than what is shown in the techs of Ed Parker Kenpo as I'm aware of it.

Back to Motion Kenpo...


...yeah like I said: if it's dysfunctional? It's wakk. The overwhelming majority of Kenpo schools out there sadly lack real scraptasticness and are highly dysfunctional combatively. Even though my Gym is a gym? It's not freakin Balley's.It's not cardio TMA. You'll get in fantastic shape quickly.Guaranteed.But you'll also catch bumps and bruises along the way.Guaranteed. If you don't like it? Lemme quote MARTIN from THE MARTIN LAWRENCE SHOW:

"GET TUH STEPPIN!"

Lolol.

With that being said?

Maybe we oughtta find ways to offer more combative fitness classes,because our functional drills for real self-defense are monsters for cardio,flexibility,balance,strength,explosivity,psychosomatic coordination,etc. etc. etc. I'm seriously giving it thought now. You know...kinda like GSP's RUSH FIT: http://youtu.be/wOFSxoKC7t0

 

[MJS]

exactly Rob

there are a bunch of epak techniques that i dont think i would ever use. or COULD ever use at my limited level of ability.

but that just means i need to practice more i guess. Cuz i know there is some goodness in there somewhere...lol

And this brings up yet another good point, and perhaps maybe this'd make an interesting topic all to itself, but here goes....

Yes, there're alot of techs that I dislike, mainly because I'm looking at them, thinking, "Umm...yeah, this'll never work!" yet I still teach those techs. to others, even if I hate them, think they suck, etc., because there may be some, who do like them, can make them work, etc.

I've had this discussion with FC......he's said, if *we* as teachers, can't make something work, or dont understand something, how're we supposed to teach it and make others understand it??

 

[Twin Fist]

countless times, i learn more from teaching than i do by doing it myself

teaching the technique to others deepens your own understanding of it.

 

[Thesemindz]

And this brings up yet another good point, and perhaps maybe this'd make an interesting topic all to itself, but here goes....

Yes, there're alot of techs that I dislike, mainly because I'm looking at them, thinking, "Umm...yeah, this'll never work!" yet I still teach those techs. to others, even if I hate them, think they suck, etc., because there may be some, who do like them, can make them work, etc.

I've had this discussion with FC......he's said, if *we* as teachers, can't make something work, or dont understand something, how're we supposed to teach it and make others understand it??

There's two different points there.

1. Techniques I wouldn't use that others might.
2. Techniques I don't understand.

I teach plenty of the first kind. Just because I don't use Rear Leg Roundhouse Kicks in my own personal style doesn't mean I don't teach them in my method. I may not throw them often in fights, but I recognize their usefulness and effectiveness and I recognize that for other fighters, the Rear Leg Roundhouse Kick could be a foundational fighting technique. So I teach it, even though I don't use it, because others might and they need to know it.

I don't teach any of the second kind. I don't teach a single technique I don't understand. That doesn't mean every technique works as a fighting technique as written, see above discussion, but whether it's a fighting technique or a teaching technique I understand it and I understand how to use it and I understand why I teach it and I understand what I want my students to learn from it.

Does that mean my understanding is complete? Of course not. I am learning and growing all the time. Every time I teach a technique I learn another lesson about it. But I don't teach a single technique I don't understand. No instructor, Master or Head or Assistant should ever teach a technique they don't understand.

That would be like me teaching you auto repair. I would have no idea what I was even looking at, you would gain nothing of use from the experience, and neither of us would grow from the practice. We would just stand there staring at the stuff under the hood with stupid looks on our faces until we gave up. And if I charged you for that? Wow.

Who's teaching techniques they don't understand? I mean really. Who out there is doing that? Is it that common?


-Rob

 

[Doc]

Who's teaching techniques they don't understand? I mean really. Who out there is doing that? Is it that common?

So common, it is the norm.

 

[Doc]

Quote:
A Sub-Level Four™ Self-Defense technique is uniquely different from Motion-Kenpo. A technique in Motion-Kenpo is, among other things, primarily a study of the effective use of “motion” in a combat scenario. Every hypothesis or technique theme is based and predicated on “motion.” Additionally, It does not explore hands on application of holds, hugs, locks, and seizures.
A Sub-level Four™ technique is a case study of many different complex sciences presented in a practical application default technique modality, that reaches well beyond its obvious immediate effectiveness. This “process” subsequently addresses long term goals and applications.
To this end through the entire first level of study, techniques are presented as “hard curriculum” with absolutely no exploration or adjustment of themes without instructor approval. This is not uncommon outside the bounds of loose structured Motion-Kenpo. In general, minor “tailoring” is only allowed to compensate for height or girth deficiencies. The proverbial Kenpo hypothesis “what if” is not allowed or entertained, and there are no Motion-Kenpo defined “re-arrangement concepts.”
The base or default technique execution is conceptually inclusive of minor variables without significant adjustment. Major variables are assigned different “Default Techniques.” These are things that cannot be seen by the uneducated eye. When executed properly, major benefit is attained because each individual technique functions on multiple levels, and lays the base foundation for even more advanced application of a theme allowing sophisticated “Destructive Modulation” at upper levels.
A technique teaches all the things listed below and additionally functions as a “mini” Taiji Chi-Gung form that may be practiced singularly without a partner to the same end without physical contact, when a partner is not available. A student is encouraged to study and explore body mechanic enhancing “chi,” and “chi” enhancing body movements, with as well as without a training partner.
Proper anatomical movement and internal energy co-exist hand in hand and one cannot be attained without the presence of the other. Done properly, they spiral upward together as long as you continue to practice, without age barriers. SL-4™ teaches immediate application of what the Chinese have traditionally waited years to explain to a very few.
It cannot be over emphasized, these are things that are not visible to the uneducated eye, and cannot be understood anymore than you would movements of any discipline not explained to you. Sub-Level Four™ techniques are absolutely workable and effective and there are no “throw away” techniques.
What is immediately discernable is when, at higher levels, a Control manipulation alternative might be to modulate destruction. This is what has prompted some to suggest, “It’s just contact manipulation,” or “They are just adding a manipulation to the technique.” Nothing could be further from the truth.
In fact a student is taught to execute the more destructive “Destructive Sequencing” first along with minor manipulations because full Control Manipulations require a much greater degree of skill and a higher physical commitment in training as well as practice. It is where the Ed Parker phrase “…to feel is to believe” manifests itself.
The top 25 things in SL-4 Kenpo™ techniques NOT in Motion-Kenpo
1. The science of proper breathing through a “Breathing Signature” to enhance short-term explosive power, and enhance the training of long-term internal energy.
2. Exploring the control and momentary movement, shifting and adjusting of your internal energy as well as your opponent’s for the purposes of enhancing your own strength while draining your opponent’s.
3. The application of internal energy for immediate effectiveness in short term scenarios, with the long-term goal of increased permanent and growing enhancement.
4. How the method and manner of execution enhances or detracts from the positive execution of all anatomical movement.
5. The limitations of anatomical structure, which is greater than its effective applications, therefore motion may be infinite, but its practical effective use is not.
6. How the proper placement and execution of “basics” can create a “natural barrier” and negate “street grappling” assaults within the framework of self-defense techniques, and counter the constant “forward pressure” of those attempting to seize or surround your torso.
7. How the proper execution and placement of the armatures away from the body may be executed in a manner that allows them to not be corruptible or manipulated.
8. How a simple adjustment in height can counter a “street grappler’s” change in height should he drop to attack your lower height zones.
9. How certain movements have an effect utilized in “Psychology of Confrontation Concepts” to enhance one’s “Mechanical Speed” by elongating the “Perceptual and Mental Speed” of your opponent.
10. How certain “Negative Physical Contact” enhances your own structural integrity and therefore can have a positive effect.
11. How to move energy from one side of your body to another location through the manipulation of armatures.
12. How to create a burst of energy to enhance your movements.

13. How to momentarily “short circuit” a person’s nervous system in conjunction with an energy drain to enhance our own action by “Completing the Circuit.”
14. How to manipulate human anatomy through, touching, pulling, pushing, striking, twisting, torquing, hugging, and locking.
15. Each technique emphasizes the shifting and transfer of body weight in conjunction with applications for maximum effectiveness with other components.
16. Explores and teaches “Negative and Positive Body” posture from multiple perspectives including but not limited to;
17. What postures opens specific cavities for effective destructive access.
18. What natural weapons and their method of execution will give you access and activation.
20. How the proper angles and associated anatomical posture function as a unit to virtually guarantee effectiveness.
22. What postures create a structural weakness in your opponent thereby virtually immobilizing him in many situations.
23. The location of nerve cavities and the order, posture and effects of sequential striking and what posture stifles or blocks his energy thereby weakening him and causing “Physical/Mental Disassociation,” (PMD). Sometimes called a “Technical Knockout” in sporting contests.
24. How the “Timing Signature” teaches the correct rhythm to “surge” energy and negate opponent body mechanics. 25. How the “Grappling Signature” sets your body mechanics during a technique to counter “street grapplers.”


Before I get back on the whole Motion Kenpo thing? I read this post when MJS reprinted it...and NOBODY responded to this joint.Not even me. I was simply trying to digest this 25 point list and I still am.This whole approach is so incredible to me as to be almost insane.Can any of US make a list A TENTH as impressive as this list? Idk but my intuition gives me a rather resounding:"Not freakin likely" response.

I have been a staunch skeptic of internal energy charlatans,although I'm an absolute believer that internal energy--bioenegery,bioelectrical signatures--exist. In fact,science has removed the question from a matter of dispute to one of concrete certainty...bio-energy and bioelectric signatures exist.I remember when I first read this in my biology,A&P,and kinesiology classes. Jaw dropped to the floor,and I was exhilirated. I turned right around and started studying my Oriental sciences again and combined them with my Western science data...but I still haven't been able to find methods that trump what I currently know tech-wise regarding the combat applications of bioenergies to combat and life. I learned more details as to HOW these bioenergies work,but not the WHY or ways to DRAMATICALLY improve the applications of the techs I know and have already modified for functionality's sake. I study plyometrics and explosivity in all of its primary athletic components visavis speed-strength,stimuli response,stimuli recognition,and lots of other sciences thoroughly because I have long been interested as a matter of personal,scientific and athletic interest. A matter of maximizing human performance. I've incorporated this information alot with the use of feints,stance changes,motion,choice reaction,yadda yadda...but I don't have a list like Doc's.

My list would be totally different,and Idk if it would even reach 25 points.And Idk how sharply different it would be to "Motion Kenpo" because--if I understand the definition of "Motion Kenpo" aright--I'm doing Motion Kenpo right now.Lol. Doesn't Ed Parker Kenpo Techs and Concepts+Our Own Techs and Concepts=Ideal Techs We Teach=Motion Kenpo? If so...then ATACX GYM=Motion Kenpo.Despite the fact that ATACX GYM covers alot more ground than what is shown in the techs of Ed Parker Kenpo as I'm aware of it.

Back to Motion Kenpo...


...yeah like I said: if it's dysfunctional? It's wakk. The overwhelming majority of Kenpo schools out there sadly lack real scraptasticness and are highly dysfunctional combatively. Even though my Gym is a gym? It's not freakin Balley's.It's not cardio TMA. You'll get in fantastic shape quickly.Guaranteed.But you'll also catch bumps and bruises along the way.Guaranteed. If you don't like it? Lemme quote MARTIN from THE MARTIN LAWRENCE SHOW:

"GET TUH STEPPIN!"

Lolol.

With that being said?

Maybe we oughtta find ways to offer more combative fitness classes,because our functional drills for real self-defense are monsters for cardio,flexibility,balance,strength,explosivity,psychosomatic coordination,etc. etc. etc. I'm seriously giving it thought now. You know...kinda like GSP's RUSH FIT: http://youtu.be/wOFSxoKC7t0

"Internal Energy and Chi/Ki" are just another way of defining the culmination of energy and its subsequent results when the mind and bio-mechanical efficiency are brought to a repeatable level of effectiveness on demand, in conjunction with being able to induce the opposite in an attacker. It is so common among my students, my blacks belts take it for granted. "Camp Of The Masters" Brother.

 

[Thesemindz]

So common, it is the norm.

Ok, but do you mean the norm like how I don't understand kenpo to the degree that you understand kenpo, or the norm like most instructors are just repeating the motions in the air without any understanding of what they're doing because that was what their instructors did?

I mean, I'm willing to accept that sometimes I might answer a question wrong, or miss more sophisticated concepts and applications that I haven't advanced to yet, or simply not have an answer for a student. My knowledge is not limitless, my experience is brief, and I make the same mistakes every other human makes. But when I can't answer a student's question I go look for an answer from someone who understands more than I do.

When you say it's "the norm," do you mean most kenpo instructors and students don't have as much knowledge as you, or do you mean most kenpo instructors and students are stupidly waving their arms in the air and handing belts back and forth?

I'm not being accusatory. It's just hard for me to believe that we're the exception and not the rule. I don't think I'm the best kenpo instructor in the world, but I believe in my method and I make an effort to be a good teacher. Are you really saying that it's the norm for kenpo instructors to not have a clue what they're doing? Don't they fight? Don't they hit each other and kick each other?

I know in the past there's been times that I've described performing a technique a certain way and you've flat out told me that I was doing it in a way that was counter to proper anatomical structure. For instance, when I perform Five Swords I sometimes raise my lead elbow up to a horizontal plane to strike the opponent with a wedge created by my two arms. I've found that creating this kind of wedge with my two blocks at right angles is extremely painful when my opponent rams my lead elbow, and it helps to resist the force of larger incoming opponents. I've used this technique successfully many times. You've told me that this is incorrect and won't work.

I'm ok with that. I understand that you're teaching a different method, and that you have reasons for that position. I'm even willing to accept that your method might be better. But I don't know your method. So I have to teach what I know. And I know this technique works, even if you know that there's a better way to do it. I use these kinds of energized wedge positions in a number of places to create barriers against my opponent's force or to control his position. I may not be teaching the best way, but I'm teaching a way I understand that I know works.

So would that fall under the heading of "the norm" of people teaching techniques they don't really understand? Or would that fall under the heading of a technique I understand that you might understand better and have a better technique for in that context?


-Rob

 

[MJS]

There's two different points there.

1. Techniques I wouldn't use that others might.
2. Techniques I don't understand.

I teach plenty of the first kind. Just because I don't use Rear Leg Roundhouse Kicks in my own personal style doesn't mean I don't teach them in my method. I may not throw them often in fights, but I recognize their usefulness and effectiveness and I recognize that for other fighters, the Rear Leg Roundhouse Kick could be a foundational fighting technique. So I teach it, even though I don't use it, because others might and they need to know it.

I don't teach any of the second kind. I don't teach a single technique I don't understand. That doesn't mean every technique works as a fighting technique as written, see above discussion, but whether it's a fighting technique or a teaching technique I understand it and I understand how to use it and I understand why I teach it and I understand what I want my students to learn from it.

Does that mean my understanding is complete? Of course not. I am learning and growing all the time. Every time I teach a technique I learn another lesson about it. But I don't teach a single technique I don't understand. No instructor, Master or Head or Assistant should ever teach a technique they don't understand.

That would be like me teaching you auto repair. I would have no idea what I was even looking at, you would gain nothing of use from the experience, and neither of us would grow from the practice. We would just stand there staring at the stuff under the hood with stupid looks on our faces until we gave up. And if I charged you for that? Wow.

Who's teaching techniques they don't understand? I mean really. Who out there is doing that? Is it that common?


-Rob

Yup, what Doc said. Rob, you'll have to forgive me, maybe it was 'make work', not understand. I dont know about you, but I've come across a few techs that're just PITAs. Interestingly enough, I've questioned techniques in the past, and still do, and you know what people say to me? "Well, you dont understand the tech. so thats why you can't make it work." Well, how about, maybe the tech just sucks and is too long and drawn out, thus making it not work and hard to understand. LOL.

 

[ATACX GYM]

"Internal Energy and Chi/Ki" are just another way of defining the culmination of energy and its subsequent results when the mind and bio-mechanical efficiency are brought to a repeatable level of effectiveness on demand, in conjunction with being able to induce the opposite in an attacker. It is so common among my students, my blacks belts take it for granted. "Camp Of The Masters" Brother.

"Camp Of The Masters",huh? Think I might have to go there. How much does it cost? Where is it,Doc? I still want to see this stuff in action.Preferably sparring...not just demos. This sounds amazing,Doc. So amazing that it's...skeptic inducing to me. Not so much that the knowledge of bioelectric fields and whatnot,and even the most basic methods of manipulating bioelectric fields are literally not credible.I mean...if this knowledge is available via various methods of research? We should already have pretty commonly known and pretty commonly displayed methods of effectively using this knowledge in combat. Beyond what we currently know and do,or should I say COMMONLY know and do.

For instance,I already know that blows to specific muscles in specific ways will cause predictable reactions.Like we use Frictional Pulls after strikes during vertical grappling to effect lightning fast,extra vicious standing wristlocks that can easily break an assailant's wrist before he knows what's happened to him.We combine the strike AND the Frictional Pull with what I call the "body whip" motion that we see in many martial arts.Especially karate. I know how the impact on the nerves--say a bicep strike,or a whipping strike atop the forearm or a whipping strike combined with a Frictional Pull (we still oftentimes use the Crane Beak hand position,but any hand position that facilitates the desired result is acceptable)--has a specific response in the brain.

But that's also the problem. There has to be a specific level of force delivered to the higher percentage targets on the body in order to cause the desired response in the human body.This level of force becomes progressively more difficult to generate during combat because adrenaline and combat focus amplifies one's energy "Fight or Flight" style; and this makes it difficult for people of the same size to pull any amazing nuerological stuff off.It's much harder for a smaller person when striking the general physique of a larger person. Therefore the chances of compelling the desired responses are also reducing.When compared with more standard combat methods? Well,the more standard combat methods--based upon my admitttedly shallow and narrow research in this area when compared to what I've learned and applied to the more common combat methods--seem to come out more consistently better. Maybe what can be done is some form of hybrid wherein the more common combat approach is used to simultaneously overwhelm the adversary/escape the conflict,in conjunction with manipulating the adversary by means of and into position for the more "occult" energy amping/draining methods.

My studies are flowing more and more along these lines. So far,though? It's still primarily about the strikes,weapons,and grappling far more than any chi application in combat. I just..tend to be deeply pessimisstic about such claims.Largely because I've never seen them work,and those who've sworn by them the most (in my experience) tend to be charlatans. Or just ignant. So whatever enlightenment you can provide Doc? Much appreciated,my brutha!

 

[Thesemindz]

Yup, what Doc said. Rob, you'll have to forgive me, maybe it was 'make work', not understand. I dont know about you, but I've come across a few techs that're just PITAs. Interestingly enough, I've questioned techniques in the past, and still do, and you know what people say to me? "Well, you dont understand the tech. so thats why you can't make it work." Well, how about, maybe the tech just sucks and is too long and drawn out, thus making it not work and hard to understand. LOL.

Ok maybe. Sometimes you do get students who just don't want to practice the technique or learn from the technique or work on the technique. But generally if an instructor's answer is "you just don't understand," then I think maybe that means that they don't understand. My students ask me questions all the time about why we do a certain technique this way or that way or why we don't do this instead or why we don't "just" do something they think is simpler. I can always show them why we choose to do the technique the way we do, because I was taught that there should be at least three reasons for everything we do. If we can't defend it, we shouldn't teach it. At least that's what I was taught.

I think this discussion keeps going back again and again to what we mean by the term "ideal phase" techniques, and even what we mean when we refer to the "self defense techniques" and how we use them and how we teach them and why. For Ras, each technique should be specifically combat applicable. For me the techniques are the repository of the combat knowledge and are more like symbols used to represent martial arts theory. For some the techniques are specific bio-mechanical practices that should be practiced exactly the same way every time in order to build strict muscle memory responses. For others the techniques are the answer to every combat stimulus and all engagements should be immediately and rigorously defined by the appropriate kenpo self defense technique.

The problem isn't that some of us are right and some of us are wrong. I can imagine schools where every one of those philosophies is practiced successfully; just as I can imagine TKD and Muay Thai and BJJ schools that all manage to use completely different methods to successfully teach fighting. The problem is that as soon as we start to discuss it, we start misunderstanding each other and arguing because when we say the same words they don't mean the same thing. Kenpo doesn't always mean the same thing, and neither does "ideal phase" and neither does "self defense techniques." And so it's hard to have a discussion because we're comparing completely different fruits but calling them all apples.

It all goes back to the instructors, which we've all agreed on again and again. If YOU don't understand it's because YOUR INSTRUCTORS aren't doing their job. Period. That doesn't mean every technique will work for you, again I don't often use certain kicks and grapples and maneuvers. But not because I don't understand them. Just because I use other techniques that work better for me.

Now, there are other sets of techniques here we haven't discussed. There are other techniques I don't teach because I can't perform them. For instance, I can't do a 720 degree tornado kick. So I can't teach a 720 degree tornado kick. There are other techniques I can't personally do but can teach, such as the kipup, because I understand the practice but can't perform the technique because of pre-existing knee injuries which prevent me from executing it safely. Now, I don't actually teach either of these techniques as part of my method, but if a student were to ask me how to do them I could either explain it to them or not, based on my knowledge, and would direct them to where they could find more information.

There are also techniques which I don't teach because I don't know them. In fact, I don't know most martial arts techniques. I teach the small number of techniques I actually know, but there are many many martial arts styles out there I've never even been introduced to. So there's no way I could teach there techniques because I've never been exposed to them.

I teach what I know and understand. That doesn't mean I do everything I teach, some techniques aren't a good fit for my body size and type and abilities. Different practitioners will have different strengths. But everything I teach can be used and I know it works because I've worked it.

I don't know, I'm not in everybody else's school. I can only be in my school. It's just hard for me to believe so many instructors are teaching a method that just doesn't work. Is it possible it's just different from the method you are studying? I don't know. When I was coming up we were encouraged to question the teaching. And we were either given answers, or our instructors went and found the answers and got back to us.

When I was a kid I took TKD for about a year. I remember doing a kata and asking, "why do we do this and this and this." And my instructor told me that it was "just because it looks good." I've never forgotten that. Even as a beginner that answer didn't make any sense to me. I wasn't taking karate lessons to "look good." I was taking karate lessons to "learn to fight." And my instructor's answer told me, even as a yellow belt, that he didn't know how the kata helped us learn how to fight. As an instructor, this memory has helped to shape my approach.

I never tell a student that they do a move "for looks." I tell them what the physical application is and then we practice it on the body. Even the bow, the presentation/salutation/greeting, and the training stances that bookend our sets and forms have specific physical applications we explore and practice. There are some small changes in the physical movements that allow for individual stylization, but the movements themselves each have specific purposes. It's never "just because it looks good."

I know some practitioners don't understand. I've worked with some very good TKD students, but I've also had TKD training partners who could do a flying side kick but couldn't understand basic principles like strong line/weak line. I've also met kenpo guys who practiced every attack as an "attempted" attack and never actually practiced their techniques with resistance. But I always assumed they were the exception, not the other way around.

Who would want to learn a system of techniques they couldn't use and didn't understand? What would they gain from that?


-Rob

 

[Carol]

Who would want to learn a system of techniques they couldn't use and didn't understand? What would they gain from that?


-Rob

There are elements to this in Kenpo are they not? Broken Gift, Broken Ram, for examples. The techniques are "broken", yet they are still practiced and memorised and drilled in to muscle memory, just as much as a non-broken techniques. Does that make sense?

(Disclaimer, I didn't carry on with my Kenpo training long enough to learn an answer for myself.)

 

[Thesemindz]

There are elements to this in Kenpo are they not? Broken Gift, Broken Ram, for examples. The techniques are "broken", yet they are still practiced and memorised and drilled in to muscle memory, just as much as a non-broken techniques. Does that make sense?

(Disclaimer, I didn't carry on with my Kenpo training long enough to learn an answer for myself.)

Not in my kenpo. Now, I don't practice either of those techniques exactly as they are practiced in the EPAK system. I was taught small variations on both of those particular techniques, as I was many other techniques. But I don't come from a pure EPAK line.

Both of those techniques, Broken Gift and Broken Ram, work in my method. The component pieces that make up the techniques work independently as strikes and grapples, and the techniques themselves work as fully functioning fighting combinations. In practice, they wouldn't be performed in the same fashion as in the "ideal phase," adjustments would have to be constantly made for position and timing, but the theory behind the techniques is sound. And once we've learned it, we practice that theory in a spontaneous environment to improve our ability to apply it on the body.

Broken Ram works as a defense against a low tackle or double leg pick, or a low lunge or rising lunge from the ground. One hand controls the opponents height, width, and depth zones while the other initially tries for a strikedown. Failing that, the circle is reversed to apply an impact grapple with insertion striking, then reversed again around the arm with strikes while the practitioner repositions himself and the opponent to expand and weaken the opponent's base, finally ending in a second attempted strikedown, this one a variant style "strikeaway" where the opponent is struck against his weak line. In practice, this is a highly dynamic striking/grappling response that works against a number of low line takedowns. It is an expansion of the strikedown concept we practiced in Charging Ram, and an exploration of how to control an opponent in the middle of a continuing takedown attempt.

Broken Gift works as both an offensive and defensive technique which begins with a zone cancelling joint control arm bar and then transitions into holding and hitting. We practice upward flapping elbow control and striking against multiple targets, and adding impact striking to grapple techniques. Our technique ends differently with a head control maneuver that explores maintaining controlling contact with the opponent's head while changing position and then a lifting strike to a vulnerable target we have exposed through previous action. We practice rolling the energy through the opponent's arm to involuntarily blade his body and cancel his far weapons. From there, he can be dragged down or drawn into a number of trips and throws. We practice leading, controlling, and cancelling with the elbow pressure and using it to raise the opponent out of his base and then suddenly drop him into strikes. This technique works against a handshake, but it also works against any lead hand trap. You could pull it off from an open faced jab if you were fast enough, or capture your opponent in a hip throw and then unwind into the technique just as you would in Spiralling Twig. Again, the "ideal phase" is a simple representation of all these concepts, while in practice the movements would be far more dynamic and the practitioner would have to be constantly adjusting to changing conditions.

Maybe someone is teaching those techniques in a fashion that doesn't aid in their training, but it isn't me. I learned those techniques as fighting techniques, and I practice them that way, and I teach them that way.


-Rob

 

[MJS]

Ok maybe. Sometimes you do get students who just don't want to practice the technique or learn from the technique or work on the technique. But generally if an instructor's answer is "you just don't understand," then I think maybe that means that they don't understand. My students ask me questions all the time about why we do a certain technique this way or that way or why we don't do this instead or why we don't "just" do something they think is simpler. I can always show them why we choose to do the technique the way we do, because I was taught that there should be at least three reasons for everything we do. If we can't defend it, we shouldn't teach it. At least that's what I was taught.

I think this discussion keeps going back again and again to what we mean by the term "ideal phase" techniques, and even what we mean when we refer to the "self defense techniques" and how we use them and how we teach them and why. For Ras, each technique should be specifically combat applicable. For me the techniques are the repository of the combat knowledge and are more like symbols used to represent martial arts theory. For some the techniques are specific bio-mechanical practices that should be practiced exactly the same way every time in order to build strict muscle memory responses. For others the techniques are the answer to every combat stimulus and all engagements should be immediately and rigorously defined by the appropriate kenpo self defense technique.

The problem isn't that some of us are right and some of us are wrong. I can imagine schools where every one of those philosophies is practiced successfully; just as I can imagine TKD and Muay Thai and BJJ schools that all manage to use completely different methods to successfully teach fighting. The problem is that as soon as we start to discuss it, we start misunderstanding each other and arguing because when we say the same words they don't mean the same thing. Kenpo doesn't always mean the same thing, and neither does "ideal phase" and neither does "self defense techniques." And so it's hard to have a discussion because we're comparing completely different fruits but calling them all apples.

It all goes back to the instructors, which we've all agreed on again and again. If YOU don't understand it's because YOUR INSTRUCTORS aren't doing their job. Period. That doesn't mean every technique will work for you, again I don't often use certain kicks and grapples and maneuvers. But not because I don't understand them. Just because I use other techniques that work better for me.

Now, there are other sets of techniques here we haven't discussed. There are other techniques I don't teach because I can't perform them. For instance, I can't do a 720 degree tornado kick. So I can't teach a 720 degree tornado kick. There are other techniques I can't personally do but can teach, such as the kipup, because I understand the practice but can't perform the technique because of pre-existing knee injuries which prevent me from executing it safely. Now, I don't actually teach either of these techniques as part of my method, but if a student were to ask me how to do them I could either explain it to them or not, based on my knowledge, and would direct them to where they could find more information.

There are also techniques which I don't teach because I don't know them. In fact, I don't know most martial arts techniques. I teach the small number of techniques I actually know, but there are many many martial arts styles out there I've never even been introduced to. So there's no way I could teach there techniques because I've never been exposed to them.

I teach what I know and understand. That doesn't mean I do everything I teach, some techniques aren't a good fit for my body size and type and abilities. Different practitioners will have different strengths. But everything I teach can be used and I know it works because I've worked it.

I don't know, I'm not in everybody else's school. I can only be in my school. It's just hard for me to believe so many instructors are teaching a method that just doesn't work. Is it possible it's just different from the method you are studying? I don't know. When I was coming up we were encouraged to question the teaching. And we were either given answers, or our instructors went and found the answers and got back to us.

When I was a kid I took TKD for about a year. I remember doing a kata and asking, "why do we do this and this and this." And my instructor told me that it was "just because it looks good." I've never forgotten that. Even as a beginner that answer didn't make any sense to me. I wasn't taking karate lessons to "look good." I was taking karate lessons to "learn to fight." And my instructor's answer told me, even as a yellow belt, that he didn't know how the kata helped us learn how to fight. As an instructor, this memory has helped to shape my approach.

I never tell a student that they do a move "for looks." I tell them what the physical application is and then we practice it on the body. Even the bow, the presentation/salutation/greeting, and the training stances that bookend our sets and forms have specific physical applications we explore and practice. There are some small changes in the physical movements that allow for individual stylization, but the movements themselves each have specific purposes. It's never "just because it looks good."

I know some practitioners don't understand. I've worked with some very good TKD students, but I've also had TKD training partners who could do a flying side kick but couldn't understand basic principles like strong line/weak line. I've also met kenpo guys who practiced every attack as an "attempted" attack and never actually practiced their techniques with resistance. But I always assumed they were the exception, not the other way around.

Who would want to learn a system of techniques they couldn't use and didn't understand? What would they gain from that?


-Rob

I think for the most part Rob, we're on the same page. Yes, I've been there, like you, with the katas. Asking what certain moves are for, why we're doing this or that, and having the "Well, thats the way its supposed to be done" reply. Pisses me off to no end. Thats one of the reasons why I give at least 1, sometimes more, applications to the kata moves.

As for the techs....I suppose making them work and understanding them, go hand in hand. Interestingly enough though, I get the impression from some, (not necessarily anyone on this forum or thread) that we should be able to do the IPs without any mods. Yet we have people like Ras and myself, and probably others, saying thats not the case, that you do need to make changes, adjustments, etc.

I teach all the techs that were taught to me. Just because I may think something sucks ***, doesnt mean one of my students wouldn't have a different view. But see, you and I are, IMO, doing the same thing, and you just said it yourself, in your reply to Carol. You said that you were taught small variations, you dont come from a pure Parker lineage and those techs now work. The same for me. Dont get me wrong, I try not to deviate so far that its no longer (insert any tech here) but subtle stance changes, changes to compensate for height, etc, I do teach.

I have to wonder...the folks that preach that we dont understand something...do they teach the IP techs as we'd see in Big Red? Are they making no changes whatsoever? For example, Clyde is one that often says that people dont understand the tech, thus thats why the person cant make it work. Is it safe to say that he's teaching with no mods? If you were to say to him that you made mods, do you think he'd tell you its because you dont understand it? I dont know, thats why I'm asking.

This is why, when I teach, I like to have a series of backup plans, in case the main plan fails. Yeah, I know, we should have faith in what we do, but just like MA training doesnt make us supermen, the techs, IMO, aren't fool proof.

 

[Thesemindz]

I think for the most part Rob, we're on the same page. Yes, I've been there, like you, with the katas. Asking what certain moves are for, why we're doing this or that, and having the "Well, thats the way its supposed to be done" reply. Pisses me off to no end. Thats one of the reasons why I give at least 1, sometimes more, applications to the kata moves.

As for the techs....I suppose making them work and understanding them, go hand in hand. Interestingly enough though, I get the impression from some, (not necessarily anyone on this forum or thread) that we should be able to do the IPs without any mods. Yet we have people like Ras and myself, and probably others, saying thats not the case, that you do need to make changes, adjustments, etc.

I teach all the techs that were taught to me. Just because I may think something sucks ***, doesnt mean one of my students wouldn't have a different view. But see, you and I are, IMO, doing the same thing, and you just said it yourself, in your reply to Carol. You said that you were taught small variations, you dont come from a pure Parker lineage and those techs now work. The same for me. Dont get me wrong, I try not to deviate so far that its no longer (insert any tech here) but subtle stance changes, changes to compensate for height, etc, I do teach.

I have to wonder...the folks that preach that we dont understand something...do they teach the IP techs as we'd see in Big Red? Are they making no changes whatsoever? For example, Clyde is one that often says that people dont understand the tech, thus thats why the person cant make it work. Is it safe to say that he's teaching with no mods? If you were to say to him that you made mods, do you think he'd tell you its because you dont understand it? I dont know, thats why I'm asking.

This is why, when I teach, I like to have a series of backup plans, in case the main plan fails. Yeah, I know, we should have faith in what we do, but just like MA training doesnt make us supermen, the techs, IMO, aren't fool proof.

Honestly, I have a sneaking suspicion that if we were all on a training floor together for a couple of days we'd realize how similar our kenpo really is. Some are better, some are worse. Some, like Doc, may understand more. Maybe even far more. Some understand less. But it's hard for me to believe that people can do kenpo for any real length of time (decades) with seriousness and not figure at least a few things out.

You mention Clyde. I was thinking of him earlier in the thread when I was talking about instructors who adhere to a very strict ideal technique performance philosophy. I've seen him write many times about the importance of using the techniques, as written, and only grafting from one technique to another as circumstances dictate. Now I don't know him. I've seen some things he's posted and I've seen some videos of him training and I've seen his instructor on film. So I can't really make any comments on anything but my limited exposure to him. I think his instructor is legit. No doubt. I know not everyone does, but I have no problems with Master Tatum. I don't teach his method, but I've learned from it. And I've learned from what I've seen from Clyde too. So while I may not be able to perform kenpo at the level he advocates, I'm not willing to say it can't be done. Just that I can't do it. So I teach a different method.

I was confused at the beginning of this thread because I thought Ras was arguing that the techniques didn't work. Which was hard for me to understand, because the techniques work great for me. But then I understood that he meant the techniques, specifically, as written, don't work. Well of course that's true. I've argued that many times. But I don't expect that of the techniques because I was never told that I should. The "ideal phase" techniques don't exist in a dynamic environment. In my method, they are static training models.

Clyde says the techniques are meant to be performed perfectly. But the techniques don't take into account dark stairwells, or tall grass, or your foot in a puddle. They don't take into account the size, or strength, or intentions of your attacker. They don't take into account whether your attacker is disabled, or a woman, or attacking you with a shovel or a chair or a rifle. They are far too limited to even come close to addressing these situations in a realistic fashion. I was always told that in the "ideal phase" I am practicing the technique on a flat, open surface against an opponent who is my exact size and shape who reacts perfectly to every strike. That's not a real combat situation, it's an "ideal" teaching scenario. But if a woman attacked Clyde in the dark with a shovel I imagine he'd be able to use his kenpo to defend himself.

I see the techniques as limitless, not limited. As a few hundred examples of fighting techniques, but certainly not all possible techniques and combinations. I make changes in stances, and weapons, and the order we teach them in, and the attacks for each techniques. It's not about "being smarter than Mr. Parker." God I wish we could put a bullet in that once and for all. It's about trying to find the best way to teach my students karate. It's an evolving process. Mr. Parker took something taught to him by Masters and made his own adjustments to it and then passed it on. He wasn't the originator. He wasn't the first Master. He was a link in a chain. An important link. A strong link. But the traditions pass beyond him in both directions.

I respect him as the unquestionable Master he is. But I don't deify him, and I've seen far too much of kenpo history not to understand that he was a man with failings and goals and a family to feed. You don't take groundwork out of a fighting art because you want to make it a more effective fighting art. Parker practiced Judo and Jujutsu. He knew the importance of groundwork. Yet it is barely represented in the EPAK system. He knew the importance of stick and knife work, yet they are only slightly more present in the system. It's obvious, at least to me, that the EPAK system is a starting point, not an ending point.

But not everyone agrees. I've had people tell me that every possible combat motion is represented within the system. That's obviously false. I can't speak to whether Clyde can perform the techniques, in their "ideal phase" in a dynamic situation. I only know that I can't. But I don't intend to and I don't intend for my students to. I intend for them to learn how to fight by studying the techniques.

Clyde might say that I don't understand the techniques. I've heard that before. Doc has said much the same to me before about one thing or another. I'm ok with that. I understand them to the degree that I do, fully aware that my understanding will grow in time. I wish I could study under a Master like they were able to. I have no one. I have to figure all this stuff out for myself. So I take what I understand, and I explore it with my students. And we fight, all the time, with our material to try to understand it better.

I mentioned how I practice Broken Ram upthread. Then, that night, I went into the school and practiced it with a student. I had him attack me with tackles, double and single leg takedowns, inside and outside reaps, ankle takedowns and rising takedowns from a kneeling position. And I practiced controlling his height, width, and depth with the pressure to his shoulder, while basing out and striking with my off hand, turning the corner, and opening up his base to push him over or strike him away. I practiced striking his arm, his body, his back, and his head as my arm circled over and under his arm in his tackle. I practiced getting inside his tackle and striking around it. Because that's how we practice Broken Ram.

But before we can do that, I want my purple belts to be able to perform the "ideal phase" technique so that I can show them what they are learning. First they learn the static combination against an opponent posed in a specific position. Then we practice it as a dynamic engagement. Eventually, the student internalizes the lessons and is able to spontaneously express them according to context.

At least, that's how I do it.


-Rob

 

[Doc]

Ok, but do you mean the norm like how I don't understand kenpo to the degree that you understand kenpo, or the norm like most instructors are just repeating the motions in the air without any understanding of what they're doing because that was what their instructors did?

I mean, I'm willing to accept that sometimes I might answer a question wrong, or miss more sophisticated concepts and applications that I haven't advanced to yet, or simply not have an answer for a student. My knowledge is not limitless, my experience is brief, and I make the same mistakes every other human makes. But when I can't answer a student's question I go look for an answer from someone who understands more than I do.

When you say it's "the norm," do you mean most kenpo instructors and students don't have as much knowledge as you, or do you mean most kenpo instructors and students are stupidly waving their arms in the air and handing belts back and forth?

I'm not being accusatory. It's just hard for me to believe that we're the exception and not the rule. I don't think I'm the best kenpo instructor in the world, but I believe in my method and I make an effort to be a good teacher. Are you really saying that it's the norm for kenpo instructors to not have a clue what they're doing? Don't they fight? Don't they hit each other and kick each other?

I know in the past there's been times that I've described performing a technique a certain way and you've flat out told me that I was doing it in a way that was counter to proper anatomical structure. For instance, when I perform Five Swords I sometimes raise my lead elbow up to a horizontal plane to strike the opponent with a wedge created by my two arms. I've found that creating this kind of wedge with my two blocks at right angles is extremely painful when my opponent rams my lead elbow, and it helps to resist the force of larger incoming opponents. I've used this technique successfully many times. You've told me that this is incorrect and won't work.

I'm ok with that. I understand that you're teaching a different method, and that you have reasons for that position. I'm even willing to accept that your method might be better. But I don't know your method. So I have to teach what I know. And I know this technique works, even if you know that there's a better way to do it. I use these kinds of energized wedge positions in a number of places to create barriers against my opponent's force or to control his position. I may not be teaching the best way, but I'm teaching a way I understand that I know works.

So would that fall under the heading of "the norm" of people teaching techniques they don't really understand? Or would that fall under the heading of a technique I understand that you might understand better and have a better technique for in that context?


-Rob

No my friend you are an exception far away from common. I've read about what you do, and the thought process you engage in. Doing something that is not optimal but still functional, just means you haven't found a better way, yet. But clearly you have the intellect and desire to do so.

Unfortunately, the dysfunctional with no real effort to become functional is normal because of the lack of ability, or willingness to undertake the task. Mr. Parker always told me, "The easiest thing in the world to do is nothing." Because of how most received their rank and "training," they simply perpetuate what they were shown, with no desire or ability to do better. For some it is a matter of not having the personal tools and ability. For others who might venture down that path, they discover the task is a lot bigger than anyone could have imagined.

It so much easier to just keep doing what you were shown, especially when it is never tested, and you and yours don't look any better or worse than others you come in contact with. Browse some of the stuff on YouTube to see what's the norm, then look at all the accolade comments. That my friend is the norm, not you.

 

[Doc]

Honestly, I have a sneaking suspicion that if we were all on a training floor together for a couple of days we'd realize how similar our kenpo really is. Some are better, some are worse. Some, like Doc, may understand more. Maybe even far more. Some understand less. But it's hard for me to believe that people can do kenpo for any real length of time (decades) with seriousness and not figure at least a few things out.

You mention Clyde. I was thinking of him earlier in the thread when I was talking about instructors who adhere to a very strict ideal technique performance philosophy. I've seen him write many times about the importance of using the techniques, as written, and only grafting from one technique to another as circumstances dictate. Now I don't know him. I've seen some things he's posted and I've seen some videos of him training and I've seen his instructor on film. So I can't really make any comments on anything but my limited exposure to him. I think his instructor is legit. No doubt. I know not everyone does, but I have no problems with Master Tatum. I don't teach his method, but I've learned from it. And I've learned from what I've seen from Clyde too. So while I may not be able to perform kenpo at the level he advocates, I'm not willing to say it can't be done. Just that I can't do it. So I teach a different method.

I was confused at the beginning of this thread because I thought Ras was arguing that the techniques didn't work. Which was hard for me to understand, because the techniques work great for me. But then I understood that he meant the techniques, specifically, as written, don't work. Well of course that's true. I've argued that many times. But I don't expect that of the techniques because I was never told that I should. The "ideal phase" techniques don't exist in a dynamic environment. In my method, they are static training models.

Clyde says the techniques are meant to be performed perfectly. But the techniques don't take into account dark stairwells, or tall grass, or your foot in a puddle. They don't take into account the size, or strength, or intentions of your attacker. They don't take into account whether your attacker is disabled, or a woman, or attacking you with a shovel or a chair or a rifle. They are far too limited to even come close to addressing these situations in a realistic fashion. I was always told that in the "ideal phase" I am practicing the technique on a flat, open surface against an opponent who is my exact size and shape who reacts perfectly to every strike. That's not a real combat situation, it's an "ideal" teaching scenario. But if a woman attacked Clyde in the dark with a shovel I imagine he'd be able to use his kenpo to defend himself.

I see the techniques as limitless, not limited. As a few hundred examples of fighting techniques, but certainly not all possible techniques and combinations. I make changes in stances, and weapons, and the order we teach them in, and the attacks for each techniques. It's not about "being smarter than Mr. Parker." God I wish we could put a bullet in that once and for all. It's about trying to find the best way to teach my students karate. It's an evolving process. Mr. Parker took something taught to him by Masters and made his own adjustments to it and then passed it on. He wasn't the originator. He wasn't the first Master. He was a link in a chain. An important link. A strong link. But the traditions pass beyond him in both directions.

I respect him as the unquestionable Master he is. But I don't deify him, and I've seen far too much of kenpo history not to understand that he was a man with failings and goals and a family to feed. You don't take groundwork out of a fighting art because you want to make it a more effective fighting art. Parker practiced Judo and Jujutsu. He knew the importance of groundwork. Yet it is barely represented in the EPAK system. He knew the importance of stick and knife work, yet they are only slightly more present in the system. It's obvious, at least to me, that the EPAK system is a starting point, not an ending point.

But not everyone agrees. I've had people tell me that every possible combat motion is represented within the system. That's obviously false. I can't speak to whether Clyde can perform the techniques, in their "ideal phase" in a dynamic situation. I only know that I can't. But I don't intend to and I don't intend for my students to. I intend for them to learn how to fight by studying the techniques.

Clyde might say that I don't understand the techniques. I've heard that before. Doc has said much the same to me before about one thing or another. I'm ok with that. I understand them to the degree that I do, fully aware that my understanding will grow in time. I wish I could study under a Master like they were able to. I have no one. I have to figure all this stuff out for myself. So I take what I understand, and I explore it with my students. And we fight, all the time, with our material to try to understand it better.

I mentioned how I practice Broken Ram upthread. Then, that night, I went into the school and practiced it with a student. I had him attack me with tackles, double and single leg takedowns, inside and outside reaps, ankle takedowns and rising takedowns from a kneeling position. And I practiced controlling his height, width, and depth with the pressure to his shoulder, while basing out and striking with my off hand, turning the corner, and opening up his base to push him over or strike him away. I practiced striking his arm, his body, his back, and his head as my arm circled over and under his arm in his tackle. I practiced getting inside his tackle and striking around it. Because that's how we practice Broken Ram.

But before we can do that, I want my purple belts to be able to perform the "ideal phase" technique so that I can show them what they are learning. First they learn the static combination against an opponent posed in a specific position. Then we practice it as a dynamic engagement. Eventually, the student internalizes the lessons and is able to spontaneously express them according to context.

At least, that's how I do it.


-Rob

Like I said.

 

[Doc]

I think for the most part Rob, we're on the same page. Yes, I've been there, like you, with the katas. Asking what certain moves are for, why we're doing this or that, and having the "Well, thats the way its supposed to be done" reply. Pisses me off to no end. Thats one of the reasons why I give at least 1, sometimes more, applications to the kata moves.

As for the techs....I suppose making them work and understanding them, go hand in hand. Interestingly enough though, I get the impression from some, (not necessarily anyone on this forum or thread) that we should be able to do the IPs without any mods. Yet we have people like Ras and myself, and probably others, saying thats not the case, that you do need to make changes, adjustments, etc.

I teach all the techs that were taught to me. Just because I may think something sucks ***, doesnt mean one of my students wouldn't have a different view. But see, you and I are, IMO, doing the same thing, and you just said it yourself, in your reply to Carol. You said that you were taught small variations, you dont come from a pure Parker lineage and those techs now work. The same for me. Dont get me wrong, I try not to deviate so far that its no longer (insert any tech here) but subtle stance changes, changes to compensate for height, etc, I do teach.

I have to wonder...the folks that preach that we dont understand something...do they teach the IP techs as we'd see in Big Red? Are they making no changes whatsoever? For example, Clyde is one that often says that people dont understand the tech, thus thats why the person cant make it work. Is it safe to say that he's teaching with no mods? If you were to say to him that you made mods, do you think he'd tell you its because you dont understand it? I dont know, thats why I'm asking.

This is why, when I teach, I like to have a series of backup plans, in case the main plan fails. Yeah, I know, we should have faith in what we do, but just like MA training doesnt make us supermen, the techs, IMO, aren't fool proof.

Here's the deal, and what makes guys like you exceptional. You THINK, and have the ability to make reasonable and rational choices because of your intellect.

What most miss is, THERE IS NO IDEAL TECHNIQUE UNTIL YOU CREATE IT FOR YOUR STUDENTS, AND YOURSELF. Mr. Parker explained the process himself in the IKKA Green Belt Manual. YOU create the ideal. The written techniques were just ideas to begin your process, and force you into defending and dissecting progressive attacks from the Web of Knowledge. We were discussing that over on KenpoTalk where I break it down with Mr. Parker's own words.
http://www.kenpotalk.com/forum/showthread.php?12596-Misc-FAQ-Ramblings-amp-Stuff

Then you can train it without significant deviation to build real skills. But in doing so the process involved not only the ideal you create, but every ideal that comes before it, and after it, because everything you do should be interrelated. The same with "basics," froms and sets. Everything you do should point to somewhere else in your system, with a defined degree of function and usefulness, and it should be progressive with all material creating a platform for subsequent material, building progressive neuro-muscular pathways.

You are supposed to question the material. You are supposed to change it and make it functional. You are supposed to create your own ideal. Mr. Parker planted the seed. Now you must water and tend it and make it grow. That is what the commercial Kenpo based on motion was designed for. Guys like my good friend Clyde are not wrong, they are doing it as they see it, and if it works, than what is the problem?

Motion Kenpo is not, nor has it ever been like any other Martial Art that came before it. It was created literally out of thin air to fill a need, and will only be as good or bad as its teachers. It is a loose set of guidelines and concepts that creates a training methodology that is flexible enough to accept all comers, either has individuals or as a group. This creates a bottom and a functional ceiling. But that does not mean the astute can't take it to some pretty lofty places. However, if you continue to soar upward, the first thing you will come to realize is that sooner or later you will abandon much of its concepts, as you seek to move beyond its platform and knowledge base to more intricate and education specific information. If that occurs, then it will have served its purpose, and done exactly what it was supposed to.