marlon
Master Black Belt
that i could probably do, but that is not a regular class situation or a regular student off the street.
really give some thought to the video.
i posted a comment on your alternating maces post
be well
Marlon
IP Techniques: Do We Need Them?
- Thread starter MJS
- Start date
that i could probably do, but that is not a regular class situation or a regular student off the street.
really give some thought to the video.
i posted a comment on your alternating maces post
be well
Marlon
ATACX GYM
2nd Black Belt
Oh yeah you mean the regular class? Yeah I take people from zero to functional in one class with usually a punch,block,kick,and trip ALL THE TIME.Bout last week? I saw one of my n00b girls (14 years old,they call her BLACK WIDOW,her name is LaShanda) play with her HS brother who said she still sucked.he playfully ot in his street fighter's stance (legs too wide,arms too high,but he had experience),playfully swung a hooking jab,whh LaShanda blocked.She feinted a reverse punch/cross at his already high guard,then she feinted a front kick (which made him lower his guard) and playfully fired a jab-cross-front kick (he blocked the jab,but she lightly smacked him on the stomach with the cross,caught him clean with the front kick on his thigh) then came back upstairs with a thrust punch that she stopped near his face.It would have been a full on uncontested grill smack had she not stopped it. Her brother,father and mother all laughed and promptly started calling her Ninja Negro.LOL.And oh yeah I responded to the Attacking Mace (or was it Alternating Maces?) question of yours.Keep it movin,my brutha.I enjoy conversing with you.
marlon
Master Black Belt
Well I grew up fighting, but most of my student population will never get into a fight. We teach in different neighbourhoods, you and I. That is a frustration of mine, because while I like that it is safe and affluent, it makes it all that much more difficult to push the limits of contact. But, I get them there. It just takes longer.
I'm going to eat now. i really enjoy these discussions. When I heal up we can go back and forth with some video as well.
I look forward to the zero to ero project
Be well
Marlon
I'm going to eat now. i really enjoy these discussions. When I heal up we can go back and forth with some video as well.
I look forward to the zero to ero project
Be well
Marlon
Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
Just to make sure this is clear, what Sean is talking about are literally 10 different types of punch. These are not complex self defense scenario techniques like what are commonly found in many kenpo lineages.
Right... but a quick correction. The 10 seeds aren't just punches. There's bridging & grabbing in there too & they all involve theory of application & approach. But yes... you are the correct!
chaap (stabbing)
gwa (hanging)
sao (sweeping)
kahp (pounding or nailing)
pao (exploding or cannon)
ding (pressing)
biu (shooting)
jong (posting)
kum (covering)
nah (grab or seize)
Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
I understand what you are saying here but I think this is a different issue as well. Understanding the timeline in a physical altercation is important. Understanding what may come before and build up to the attack, then dealing with the attack, then the de-escalation and emotional trauma that can set in, that kind of thing is important. But it's a different thing that what CLFSEAN and I are referring to. We are really looking at the specifics of how every strike or movement is best delivered, during the engagement, and what principles are present every time we do it.. We are looking at the fundamental mechanics of what makes a punch effective or not effective. Why does one punch land with the power of a sledgehammer, while another punch that may look the same on the surface, seems to bounce off? We are working on landing that sledgehammer every time, no matter what we do.
this illustrates what I've said before, that the way the curriculum is structured makes the focus of training on the curriculum itself, rather than really developing skills. When you hand a new student a list of material and tell him, "this is the stuff you need to know in order to make your next promotion", that puts it in his head that he needs to get that list down. He focuses on that list, and being able to check each item off the list to say, "i've got that one..." But it takes the mental focus away from really understanding the material and taking the time to develop that underlying ability to deliver every time. So every class session is about getting that next bit off the list so I can be one step closer to promotion.
And I've said myself, that we shouldn't have to learn hundreds of techs. to teach us every single principle in Kenpo. There's that many principles? BS! This is why (and I know we didn't wanna talk about this
If someone believes their system has more than a handful of principles, I'd say they really do not understand what the principles are. Using a big list of techs like this has tremendous potential to get out of control fast and become a runaway train.
If one wants to use this kind of thing as a curriculum structure, I think the total list of SD techs should be small enough that all of them have been presented to the student within the first 2-3 belt levels, maybe a grand total of 20-30. Then there is a limited number of them and the student can see them as vehicles for teaching the basics and options, but not looking to them as ultimate solutions to an attack. But having yet another long list for every level well into black, that just doesn't make sense. By the time someone reaches that level I cannot believe he still needs more of these things. It just becomes a muddled mess and I believe it's a poor way to structure a curriculum.
Kembudo-Kai Kempoka
Senior Master
This is for Ras, and others... targeting both sides of the fence. There is an old saying in strategic planning -- the monolith is unstable. Meaning, no one prespective is completly correct.
I have prolly 8+ years or more training in JKD under some pretty good guys; some buncha years training in FMA using "live" training methods, and some buncha years training in Muay Thai and Western Boxing. Moreover, I was one of the first kenpoists to start training in BJJ, back when the Gracie Academy in Torrance was about the only game in town. Followed Rickson when he left, and trained under his crew to Blue, then to Purple under a guy from Oslo's downline. Also trained a bunch in Japanese jujutsu, and have a Nidan in Judo. I mention this only to point out that I am familiar with what you are referring to as "functional training methods".
When I first started haunting these sites, I was also tooting the "y'all are doing it wrong" horn, focusing principally on training methods. My reasoning was based on my experiences in the FMA, boxing, and Gracie methods. specifically, that I could take a relative novice, work them 2-3 times a week in GJJ/BJJ, then sick them on a seasoned stand-up, tournament champ black belt and have them pants the guy. Even went so far as to take a bunch of challenge matches, without the permission or awareness of my instructors... I would have been kicked out the Academy, so I darned well didn't let them know. I was doing this with a buddy of mine, who was also a kickboxer, japanese jujutsika, and overall beast of a bouncer, BEFORE taking -- and losing -- the Gracie challenge in Torrance, and becoming a student.
That being said, these circumstances were never lethal. I never worried about whether or not the other guy was trying to kill me... just kick my ***. This is before the first UFC, btw... I had already been in GJJ for a couple years before the first one came along. Anyway, this is about training methods.
Another o.g. on these forums coined the phrase, "cuisinart kenpo", to refer to kenpo aimed at maiming the other guy with eye rips, throat chops, etc. There are always discussions about the legality of it, etc., but truth be simply known... That's is what I train for. I bounced for more than a dozen years, picking places to work where I knew I would have a lot of chances to brawl. Because some drunk idiot doesn't deserve to have his eyes raked out, I typically relied on judo, jujutsu, and kick-boxing. I'll even say -- for people who insist point-sparring match-style karate has no self-defense applications -- I whupped on over half the people with a simple California blitz before latching onto them for a throw, then locking them up in a choke or control hold. I got in more than may fair share of fights, using kcikboxing/sparring+judo+jujutsu to come out on top in that vast majority of them. Only a few times did I have to resort to heavier guns.
In those brawls, I definitely got hurt a few times. Got busted up training (BJJ is hell on elbow ligaments and shoulders; boxing bad for the airways and ones good looks, and so on); got busted up fighting. Got busted up in a couple bad car wrecks. All leading up to a simple issue for me: I don't wanna fight anymore... it hurts too much to move ballistically, so I'm lazy and more picky about when and why I take off the seatbelt and get out of the car. It's going to hurt me just to move my old injuries at fighting speed, so I am by-gawd going to make sure I hurt you, too. Had that chat with Doc about a year ago, paraphrasing the old Shaft line... do you suppose being in chronic pain makes us less dangerous, or more? I voted more, because we ain't interested in trading shots tit-for-tat to see who has cooler moves; we just wanna be done with it, and go home.
I also -- after a change in relationship -- have kids now. Step-kids, but the closest I have ever had to little people who rely on me, so as far as I'm concerned, my kids. So, my reasons for fighting have changed. I no longer care if you're in my bar, drunk. I no longer care if you cut me off on the road, or don't like the look on my face. Things I would have boxed with someone over, or choked them out for, are no longer important to me. Hell, maybe it's just the natural lowering of testosterone levels associated with aging. But there is ONE thing that remains crystal clear to me, and that is this:
Nothing is worth fighting for, unless it is worth dying for. And if something is worth dying for, then it's worth killing for. And that's where kenpo comes in for me.
The way I train the Ideal Phase is geared towards developing specific skills, related to conducting dissection on live attackers. I train lethal or injurious variations of the first 2 or 3 moves in a tech, milking every ounce of Hammer I can get out of each, because I don't want to wrestle with some MMA steroid boy who is 25 years younger than I am, and who will kick my *** if I leave hiom the chance to. I don't wanna bloody their noses or even seal their breath; I want to make sure they are never able to bother my life, my family, or my tribe ever again. If I cannot justify removing a guy from the face of the planet, then I can't justify giving him a beat-down either.
I bang pretty hard with some pretty large dudes. That is, I did. My Gracie training partner was a 5'10" powerlifter with no neck. My kenpo training partners have all been in the 6'2"+ and 265+ club, and black belts; all either cops, SEAL's, gang rats, enforcers, or the like... guys who have a vested interest in keeping it real, and ending it fast. Others just don't last long or come back, because we hit too hard. And, admittedly, I mix "live", or "functional" methods in with traditional ones... kinda hard not to after all that boxing, JKD, BJJ and randori.
The thing that sticks in my craw with these posts is the size of the brush with which traditional training methods gets painted. I can't stand the mountain of crappy kenpo that has piled up out there. That being said, not all people who train in kenpo traditionally suck wind so hard that they sound like a runway full of 747's.
It has been my experience that functional trumps traditional, up to the point of cuisinart. One of my favorite examples is what happened when my BJJ buddy and my kenpo beast-belt buddy got together to "work things out" (gods I feel old... this was prolly 19 or 20 years ago). We trained for a bit, then they decided to go at it. As long as it was about tippy-tap and getting there first, my kenpo buddy was hitting my BJJ thug in a 10-to-1 ratio. Then when they agreed to go full contact, my BJJ/Boxing buddy covered up against the hits, shot on my kenpo partner, pulled him to the ground and put him in an arm-bar, no prob. Then they decided to take it to the next level, still. Now, because it's rude to scrape up the eyes of a friend, they agreed on levels of contact to certain parts. When the cuisinart came out, my kenpo partner -- who trained traditionally -- had no problem finding targets on my BJJ/Boxing buddy. So much so that the BJJ guy was pleading for a ceasefire prolly 3 seconds after initial contact. He had shot on the knepo guy, and as he wrapped his arms around him, realized he had thumbs in his eyes, finger hooks in his nose, his feet had been kicked out from under him, and he had been hacked in the windpipe several times. He had also -- upon having his feet kicked out from under him -- been picked up by his nutsack, through his jeans, and been dropped on his temple onto the kenpoguys knee (the kenpo guy let him hit hard enough to ring his melon, but controlled his descent so nothing would get too beat up).
It was a fun experiment, and one we have repeated since with several other guys, from lotsa different backgrounds. Commercial kenpo training methods -- with some guy standing there with his arm sticking out while some other guy does a 25-move series on him -- has gotten silly. But not everybody who utilizes the ideal phases in training works it out that way. The problem with saying "everybody who does X is doing it wrong", is that you are assuming you have seen the way everybody does X. It's estimated that kenpo has about 2 million practitioners and adherents, worldwide. Seen 'em all, have ya'?
I agree that the typical studio approach will fail to prepare a student for real combat, damn near every time. But there's a lot of people who don't train in studios, or adhere to those methodologies.
I do not train the skill of sticking my fingers into my partners eyes, by actually sticking my fingers into their eyes. Sessions would last 5 seconds, and be over, with all of us going to the hospital for cornea repair surgery. I DO train finding the eyes everytime I train a tech in the IP, and make it a point to change the path of my weapons to include such options into as many moves as can sustain them. I have also spent a lot of hours sticking my fingers into rice, sand, sundry fruits and vegetables, and doing my tameshiwara (sp?) with finger spears. As a result, when I have needed that particular skill, it has been there for me.
I'm just sayin'... assuming everyone learned and trained the way you did before coming to your crystal-clear awarness of the shortcomings of earlier methods, doesn't mean all kenpoists train(ed) that way. It's that same sort of logical fallacy wherein the conclusion fails to properly follow the propositions. Kinda like,
Some dogs are brown
My dog is brown
Therefore, my dog is Some Dog!
The other part is another fallacy that bugs... just because they aint on here proving you wrong in video, means you're right. Just means you're louder and more prolific than they are.
Keep up the good work, and keep the bozo's ducking. I like the plain honesty, and the weekend fantasy warriors need to get shaken up once in awhile, lest they smoke too mcuh of their own dope and start buying too much of their own BS. By the way... the training approach you advocate is brutally similar to the JKD training methods. And the IP information base versus the "live" or functional method argument is one that Bruce Lee and Mr. Parker would often have. They never reached a conclusion, either, so you're in good company.
Be well,
D.
I have prolly 8+ years or more training in JKD under some pretty good guys; some buncha years training in FMA using "live" training methods, and some buncha years training in Muay Thai and Western Boxing. Moreover, I was one of the first kenpoists to start training in BJJ, back when the Gracie Academy in Torrance was about the only game in town. Followed Rickson when he left, and trained under his crew to Blue, then to Purple under a guy from Oslo's downline. Also trained a bunch in Japanese jujutsu, and have a Nidan in Judo. I mention this only to point out that I am familiar with what you are referring to as "functional training methods".
When I first started haunting these sites, I was also tooting the "y'all are doing it wrong" horn, focusing principally on training methods. My reasoning was based on my experiences in the FMA, boxing, and Gracie methods. specifically, that I could take a relative novice, work them 2-3 times a week in GJJ/BJJ, then sick them on a seasoned stand-up, tournament champ black belt and have them pants the guy. Even went so far as to take a bunch of challenge matches, without the permission or awareness of my instructors... I would have been kicked out the Academy, so I darned well didn't let them know. I was doing this with a buddy of mine, who was also a kickboxer, japanese jujutsika, and overall beast of a bouncer, BEFORE taking -- and losing -- the Gracie challenge in Torrance, and becoming a student.
That being said, these circumstances were never lethal. I never worried about whether or not the other guy was trying to kill me... just kick my ***. This is before the first UFC, btw... I had already been in GJJ for a couple years before the first one came along. Anyway, this is about training methods.
Another o.g. on these forums coined the phrase, "cuisinart kenpo", to refer to kenpo aimed at maiming the other guy with eye rips, throat chops, etc. There are always discussions about the legality of it, etc., but truth be simply known... That's is what I train for. I bounced for more than a dozen years, picking places to work where I knew I would have a lot of chances to brawl. Because some drunk idiot doesn't deserve to have his eyes raked out, I typically relied on judo, jujutsu, and kick-boxing. I'll even say -- for people who insist point-sparring match-style karate has no self-defense applications -- I whupped on over half the people with a simple California blitz before latching onto them for a throw, then locking them up in a choke or control hold. I got in more than may fair share of fights, using kcikboxing/sparring+judo+jujutsu to come out on top in that vast majority of them. Only a few times did I have to resort to heavier guns.
In those brawls, I definitely got hurt a few times. Got busted up training (BJJ is hell on elbow ligaments and shoulders; boxing bad for the airways and ones good looks, and so on); got busted up fighting. Got busted up in a couple bad car wrecks. All leading up to a simple issue for me: I don't wanna fight anymore... it hurts too much to move ballistically, so I'm lazy and more picky about when and why I take off the seatbelt and get out of the car. It's going to hurt me just to move my old injuries at fighting speed, so I am by-gawd going to make sure I hurt you, too. Had that chat with Doc about a year ago, paraphrasing the old Shaft line... do you suppose being in chronic pain makes us less dangerous, or more? I voted more, because we ain't interested in trading shots tit-for-tat to see who has cooler moves; we just wanna be done with it, and go home.
I also -- after a change in relationship -- have kids now. Step-kids, but the closest I have ever had to little people who rely on me, so as far as I'm concerned, my kids. So, my reasons for fighting have changed. I no longer care if you're in my bar, drunk. I no longer care if you cut me off on the road, or don't like the look on my face. Things I would have boxed with someone over, or choked them out for, are no longer important to me. Hell, maybe it's just the natural lowering of testosterone levels associated with aging. But there is ONE thing that remains crystal clear to me, and that is this:
Nothing is worth fighting for, unless it is worth dying for. And if something is worth dying for, then it's worth killing for. And that's where kenpo comes in for me.
The way I train the Ideal Phase is geared towards developing specific skills, related to conducting dissection on live attackers. I train lethal or injurious variations of the first 2 or 3 moves in a tech, milking every ounce of Hammer I can get out of each, because I don't want to wrestle with some MMA steroid boy who is 25 years younger than I am, and who will kick my *** if I leave hiom the chance to. I don't wanna bloody their noses or even seal their breath; I want to make sure they are never able to bother my life, my family, or my tribe ever again. If I cannot justify removing a guy from the face of the planet, then I can't justify giving him a beat-down either.
I bang pretty hard with some pretty large dudes. That is, I did. My Gracie training partner was a 5'10" powerlifter with no neck. My kenpo training partners have all been in the 6'2"+ and 265+ club, and black belts; all either cops, SEAL's, gang rats, enforcers, or the like... guys who have a vested interest in keeping it real, and ending it fast. Others just don't last long or come back, because we hit too hard. And, admittedly, I mix "live", or "functional" methods in with traditional ones... kinda hard not to after all that boxing, JKD, BJJ and randori.
The thing that sticks in my craw with these posts is the size of the brush with which traditional training methods gets painted. I can't stand the mountain of crappy kenpo that has piled up out there. That being said, not all people who train in kenpo traditionally suck wind so hard that they sound like a runway full of 747's.
It has been my experience that functional trumps traditional, up to the point of cuisinart. One of my favorite examples is what happened when my BJJ buddy and my kenpo beast-belt buddy got together to "work things out" (gods I feel old... this was prolly 19 or 20 years ago). We trained for a bit, then they decided to go at it. As long as it was about tippy-tap and getting there first, my kenpo buddy was hitting my BJJ thug in a 10-to-1 ratio. Then when they agreed to go full contact, my BJJ/Boxing buddy covered up against the hits, shot on my kenpo partner, pulled him to the ground and put him in an arm-bar, no prob. Then they decided to take it to the next level, still. Now, because it's rude to scrape up the eyes of a friend, they agreed on levels of contact to certain parts. When the cuisinart came out, my kenpo partner -- who trained traditionally -- had no problem finding targets on my BJJ/Boxing buddy. So much so that the BJJ guy was pleading for a ceasefire prolly 3 seconds after initial contact. He had shot on the knepo guy, and as he wrapped his arms around him, realized he had thumbs in his eyes, finger hooks in his nose, his feet had been kicked out from under him, and he had been hacked in the windpipe several times. He had also -- upon having his feet kicked out from under him -- been picked up by his nutsack, through his jeans, and been dropped on his temple onto the kenpoguys knee (the kenpo guy let him hit hard enough to ring his melon, but controlled his descent so nothing would get too beat up).
It was a fun experiment, and one we have repeated since with several other guys, from lotsa different backgrounds. Commercial kenpo training methods -- with some guy standing there with his arm sticking out while some other guy does a 25-move series on him -- has gotten silly. But not everybody who utilizes the ideal phases in training works it out that way. The problem with saying "everybody who does X is doing it wrong", is that you are assuming you have seen the way everybody does X. It's estimated that kenpo has about 2 million practitioners and adherents, worldwide. Seen 'em all, have ya'?
I agree that the typical studio approach will fail to prepare a student for real combat, damn near every time. But there's a lot of people who don't train in studios, or adhere to those methodologies.
I do not train the skill of sticking my fingers into my partners eyes, by actually sticking my fingers into their eyes. Sessions would last 5 seconds, and be over, with all of us going to the hospital for cornea repair surgery. I DO train finding the eyes everytime I train a tech in the IP, and make it a point to change the path of my weapons to include such options into as many moves as can sustain them. I have also spent a lot of hours sticking my fingers into rice, sand, sundry fruits and vegetables, and doing my tameshiwara (sp?) with finger spears. As a result, when I have needed that particular skill, it has been there for me.
I'm just sayin'... assuming everyone learned and trained the way you did before coming to your crystal-clear awarness of the shortcomings of earlier methods, doesn't mean all kenpoists train(ed) that way. It's that same sort of logical fallacy wherein the conclusion fails to properly follow the propositions. Kinda like,
Some dogs are brown
My dog is brown
Therefore, my dog is Some Dog!
The other part is another fallacy that bugs... just because they aint on here proving you wrong in video, means you're right. Just means you're louder and more prolific than they are.
Keep up the good work, and keep the bozo's ducking. I like the plain honesty, and the weekend fantasy warriors need to get shaken up once in awhile, lest they smoke too mcuh of their own dope and start buying too much of their own BS. By the way... the training approach you advocate is brutally similar to the JKD training methods. And the IP information base versus the "live" or functional method argument is one that Bruce Lee and Mr. Parker would often have. They never reached a conclusion, either, so you're in good company.
Be well,
D.
ATACX GYM
2nd Black Belt
^^^I LIKE THIS GUY!! ONE OF THE TOP 8 POSTS I'VE READ SINCE I'VE BEEN ON ANY MARTIAL SITE!!
Okay D I feel you...and that allows me to clarify something that seems to be an almost ingrained response to my contention that the FM is the ship and all else is the sea.
First? What you call "cuisinart" we call "overkill" or "hood kenpo". It too can be trained nonfunctionally and functionally.When trained functionally? It's the brutal stomach wrenching reason why the martial arts has such a lethal legendary reputation.I deliberately and specifically train this level and it's my top tier level of gitdown. Not "get down".No.GITdown.One word.Lol I know you feel me.Me n my training partners wear goggles and cups,we go half power to the throat.This way we can ACTUALLY TRAIN THE WAY WE FIGHT.We do this lightly about 1/wk and hard 1/month.Think wearing the goggles negate the thumbs gouging or finger jab/spear hand to the optics? Think again.Your eyes will water and the match will stop ( if you tap or verbally submit on time).Like I've said over and over in other posts,I'm a real believer in the functional expression of "point fighting" and have California Blitzed aka West Coast Rushed mmaaaanny an unsuspecting foolish mortal.When combined with "hood kenpo" aka "cuisineart"? Bad juju for the bad guy.Most efficient way to stomp out a group of bad guys and bounce too sans cutlery firearms or impromptu weaponry that I know of.
Second? The functional methods ingrained in you allowed you to execute your "cuisineart" strikes because your delivery systems...honed by years of functional training...is keen.I could show you a technique from capoeira (which I also train) and you'd be able to apply the less gymnastic moves almost immediately and with fighting aplomb due to the functional base you have acquired.The benefits of functional training are permanent.All that old skool hand conditioning is exactly that...HAND CONDITIONING.Conditioning methods are functional if they succeed in conditioning.There may be methods that are even better for combat conditioning (aka MORE functional),but that doesn't mean that the whole hands in rice and fruits and stuff doesn't work too.The IP expression and training methods,however,are NOT functional period and that's why they can't be hold a candle to functional/alive methods.
Third? I'm not talking the TRADITIONAL TECHNIQUES when I diss the IP...I'm talking THE TRAINING METHODS.And not ALL "TRADITIONAL" TRAINING METHODS,I'm SPECIFICALLY REFERRING TO THE IP.You're able to milk every ounce of Hammer in your techniques from the first 2-3 moves because you have a functional base.People who lack that base cannot do what you and I do until they acquire that base.Period full stop.Btw the IP is NOT THE SEQUENCE OF TECHNIQUES IN THE 72 SD MOVES...the IP IS THE WAY IN WHICH THEY ARE TAUGHT EXECUTED AND DISSEMINATED.If the IP permanently compromised the TECHNIQUES? I couldn't show a functional variant of say CAPTURED TWIGS while USING THOSE SAME TECHNIQUES.So the techniques which comprise Kenpo aren't flawed.I have a variant of Snaking Talons which my students call The Snake and Tiger Talon because we've modified it functionally.I've pulled this technique off on a bjj purple who was making Swiss Cheese of my guard,and he was thoroughly underjoyed.Again...it's not the techniques in Kenpo.It's how they're taught,trained,presented and disseminated.
Fourth: I know that I haven't seen all kenpo practitioners.Never said I have.I zeroed in on TRAINING METHODOLOGY,and it doesn't matter what kenpo guys or anyone else does after that. If they start with the IP sans any primary FM/ALIVE knowledge and application...they will AUTOMATICALLY receive LESS benefits than if they started training with the FM/ALIVE method.Every single time no matter what.And most of the time they wouldn't be able to fight off a JACKET,much less a mugger.
It's also a fact that all FM heads don't train exactly alike.That's silly to assume they do. You studied Gracie jj? I trained with Royce shortly after the Torrance facility jumped off but he was too expensive,then I trained with Paulo Guillobel and I'm about to start at the FIGHT ZONE with the Vieras.Think I'm gonna stay there until I get my black. None of those dudes train exactly alike.Floyd Mayweather,Pacquiao,Sugar Shane,Gamboa,Pernell Whitaker,Holyfield,Roy Jones Jr. etc. don't train exactly alike either.All are functional.You don't have to do exactly what I do to be functional,but you DO have to follow the precepts of functionality to be functional.
Fifth: The main reasons why I put such an emphasis on the video aspect of this are because the discussions would be INTERMINABLE otherwise and most of the people whom I ask to provide video empirical data probably have access to more and better--at least equal--video equipment than I do.Many of the very best IP exponents are wonderful with the spoken or printed word (can you say MARKETING?) but they SUCK in substance.The direct comparison and contrast slams home the point and the difference between what I advocate and what they advocate in a way that refutes and repudiates in an overwhelming empirical way their contentions.Without the video evidence? We'd be engaged in an interminable back and forth with no resolution in sight or even worse? The position of the IP supporters would win based purely upon the noise of the din and the size of the crowd...and lonely ole GALILEO ATACX would be like:"Yeah but..." So I never stated or inferred that by virtue of supplying video,I'm right.For years I couldn't upload nada to youtube,but my training methods were just as valid then as they are now in their main essence.What makes my argument is the overwhelming millenia of data supporting the superiority of the FM/ALIVE method visavis anything else,for the most part.The fallacy,therefore,is not in me saying that my ability to produce video of what I do is in essence the proof of the correctess of my positions.The fallacy is in reality absolutely and totally in the assumption that I assumed a position that I never have or inferred a position that never occurred to me;I have never done so and never will do so either.
The one thing that I had TOTALLY NO CLUE ABOUT was that Ed Parker and Bruce Lee would have this discussion...this debate...and apparently never managed to reach a mutually endorsable position on this matter.I think that there is a middle ground though.I think that Kenpo tends to have less functionality than JKD but alot more structure.That structure,however,is a monstrous hindrance--the "classical mess" incarnate--without the Directness,Simplicity,and Nonclassicalness of Bruce's JKD. But Bruce's JKD seems to lack a readily apparent structure.I'm aware of only are very few clearly JKD techniques other than say "THE STRAIGHT BLAST" that is a signature JKD technique.JKD seems to be a brilliant collection of principles aimed at stripping away from a mass of techniques to acquire efficiency directness and simplicity and maximizing interception,etc.But it doesn't have the foundation of a logical series of specific techniques.Apply JKD's philosophy to Kenpo's arsenal.Give JKD an arsenal for the more direct and explicable application of its techniques.Something like that.And maybe we can bridge the gap between the two titans.
Last edited:
I think teaching the ideal phase techniques is a valuable method of teaching that there is more than one way to defend against the same attack and that because real self defense scenarios are dynamic and constantly changing and never predictable, it is paramount that you teach the ideal in many different ways in order to prepare for the unpredictable.
I just had this discussion not too long ago with a beginner. He had stated that the techniques would never work in a real fight. I quickly agreed with him. He was confused and I explained to him that the techniques are not designed to work from start to finish in a real world situation. I said that if one block or parry from one technique worked with a counter attack from another technique, the effectiveness speaks for itself. It is building an arsenal over time that makes one more effective in his or her ability to defend themselves. I also believe that over time, your ability to adapt to a situation becomes second nature. Look at a technique line with a bunch of old timers. The techniques pretty much begin with only the initial defense, but then take on a nature of their own.
I don't get why one would limit themself to one way of defending against a certain attack and hope for the best. To me, that is hoping for the ideal in an uncertain event.
I think that the system Parker taught was a good one in that you don't teach a newbie to conquer and destroy at the very onset of your training. His system is just that, a system. If you look at the early techniques, they move away from the attack, not into it. Later you learn to incorporate your offense into your defense and vise versa. It is a maturing of the artist.
On another note. I do believe that one can limit themselves greatly if you only train in one way. Don't always have the same routine. This is why we run technique lines, spar, do katas, discuss principles and theory, etc. We were taught to ask the 'what if?' and were then shown the 'why' for that particular dilemma. Beginners were made into believers by being shown in this way. Like Mr. Parker said, "to feel is to believe".
Mr. Parker believed that his art should be tailored to each individual and not the other way around. I guess this is why there are so many ways to defend against the same attack and so many ways to counter. A 6'5" 230 lb. man will react to and deal with an attack very differently than a 5'3" 115 lb. woman would. Because of their physical make up alone, the defenses and offenses would differ. The same would apply based on the physiology of the attacker.
I know I am rambling, but I don't understand why so many are so narrow minded. You have to have some way to teach and train. That is why there are so many different arts. One can't make everyone happy. You will never hear me bash another arts effectiveness or how Its deceased founder was wrong. They are very respected because their way has stood the test of time and they are respected by other masters. Granted, American Kenpo is very new in the world of martial arts as a system, however, the principles and inflluences (karate & kung fu) are nothing new.
I respect that all of us have different things that do and don't work for us and it is my hope that we all find those things that work best for us.
Oh, BTW the reply by Kembudo-Kai Kenpoka... Brilliant!!!
Thank you all,
James
I just had this discussion not too long ago with a beginner. He had stated that the techniques would never work in a real fight. I quickly agreed with him. He was confused and I explained to him that the techniques are not designed to work from start to finish in a real world situation. I said that if one block or parry from one technique worked with a counter attack from another technique, the effectiveness speaks for itself. It is building an arsenal over time that makes one more effective in his or her ability to defend themselves. I also believe that over time, your ability to adapt to a situation becomes second nature. Look at a technique line with a bunch of old timers. The techniques pretty much begin with only the initial defense, but then take on a nature of their own.
I don't get why one would limit themself to one way of defending against a certain attack and hope for the best. To me, that is hoping for the ideal in an uncertain event.
I think that the system Parker taught was a good one in that you don't teach a newbie to conquer and destroy at the very onset of your training. His system is just that, a system. If you look at the early techniques, they move away from the attack, not into it. Later you learn to incorporate your offense into your defense and vise versa. It is a maturing of the artist.
On another note. I do believe that one can limit themselves greatly if you only train in one way. Don't always have the same routine. This is why we run technique lines, spar, do katas, discuss principles and theory, etc. We were taught to ask the 'what if?' and were then shown the 'why' for that particular dilemma. Beginners were made into believers by being shown in this way. Like Mr. Parker said, "to feel is to believe".
Mr. Parker believed that his art should be tailored to each individual and not the other way around. I guess this is why there are so many ways to defend against the same attack and so many ways to counter. A 6'5" 230 lb. man will react to and deal with an attack very differently than a 5'3" 115 lb. woman would. Because of their physical make up alone, the defenses and offenses would differ. The same would apply based on the physiology of the attacker.
I know I am rambling, but I don't understand why so many are so narrow minded. You have to have some way to teach and train. That is why there are so many different arts. One can't make everyone happy. You will never hear me bash another arts effectiveness or how Its deceased founder was wrong. They are very respected because their way has stood the test of time and they are respected by other masters. Granted, American Kenpo is very new in the world of martial arts as a system, however, the principles and inflluences (karate & kung fu) are nothing new.
I respect that all of us have different things that do and don't work for us and it is my hope that we all find those things that work best for us.
Oh, BTW the reply by Kembudo-Kai Kenpoka... Brilliant!!!
Thank you all,
James
ATACX GYM
2nd Black Belt
Whassup James! I'm Ras.Head Coach of the ATACX GYM.
As you probably know by now,my main difference with your post is when you started with the IP and extrapolated from there to anywhere.The IP is nonfunctional.Since it's nonfunctional? There is nothing to learn from it other than..."This ish sucks and I got my butt kicked because of it." Teaching various methods of the IP that allegedly deals with the unpredictability of combat simply teaches various methods which FAIL,and therefore you're compounding the problem of the first technique.You are steadily building a strong case for the false belief that the majority of techniques that comprise American Kenpo and (in the minds of many) therefore American Kenpo itself is worthless and can't be relied upon to do it's NUMBER ONE job: DEFEND MY SELF AND/OR INNOCENTS AND LOVED ONES. Asking "What If?" from the IP simply spawns ANOTHER nonfunctional technique.In short,there is nothing of worth that is to be gleaned from the IP.Again,this debate gets short circuited INSTANTLY when you make a side by side comparison and contrast.The other major fallacy in this logic is:"Well,take a snippet from one technique and graft it to a snippet to another technique to deal with changing scenarios." Again,if the TRAINING PARADIGM is flawed,the RESULTS will be flawed.The IP is fatally flawed and nonfunctional.You CAN'T RELIABLY DEFEND YOURSELF WITH THE IP.Whether you're a 9'10" Goliath or a 3'6" "dwarf".Whether you do tech lines or circles,it doesn't matter.If you train "ideally"? You will receive a very UNideal butt kicking the overwhelming majority of the time.So going from one IP technique to another simply means that you're going from one technique that will gitcha butt kicked the way that you're training it to ANOTHER technique that will gitcha butt kicked due to the way that you're training it.I mean no disrespect here,Okenpo,I like you man.But it's overwhelmingly clear and obvious and logical that the IP doesn't work and teaching it as if it does work or is best for our students in ANY WAY isn't true.The Functional Method is the ship,all else is the sea.
Let's get past the talk and get right to the real comparisons of technique that breaks down what works and what doesn't.
Here are selections of the "traditional IP" ALTERNATING MACES:
^^^You will get your hat handed to you if you try that.
This is a functional base that Alternating Maces could be tried from:
Worlds apart.The IP fails.Notably.Look at the guys doing the IP.Stilted movement.Ridiculous distancing.Etc.We don't have to belabor the point because you acknowledged already in your post,my good OKenpo,that the IP doesn't work.Therefore you can't extrapolate from a nonfunctional approach and reach a functional one.You have to ABANDON the nonfunctional and find FUNCTIONAL methods to achieve your goal.Note that I used the EXACT SAME WEAPONS that are applied in Alternating Maces in the IP nonfunctional gitcha butt kicked version...just in my version? You DON'T gitcha butt kicked.Because my version is FUNCTIONAL.It's REALLY BEEN TESTED AGAINST PEOPLE REALLY TRYING TO PUSH/HIT/STAB/TACKLE/ETC ME and IT SHOWS IN THE WAY THAT I DO THE TECHNIQUE.So I usually DON'T get hurt,and THAT makes me confident in my techniques,and it does the same for my clients AND students.Lol.Therefore,discussions of unique kenpo movements,the undergirding philosophy,etc. can be had.Know why? You are encouraged to have these discussions and have faith in the answers that you find because...when you tested these techniques in adverse conditions like real sparring and/or on the street...THEY WORKED. If it DOESN'T save your tail? It FAILED and therefore the lesson that you should be learning is:"FIX THIS BECAUSE IT FAILED." There is NO BENEFIT IN and NO SENSE TO teaching techniques that DON'T WORK IN FIGHTS.That's idiocy.You ever see a boxing coach tell his student to "ideally" jab? You ever see a SWAT instructor tell his charge to "ideally" shoot the bad guy? Have you ever heard of a EOD instructor telling his charges to "ideally" blow that explosive device.You ever see Ray Lewis "ideally" tackle anyone? NO? Then DON'T "IDEALLY" TEACH SOMEONE TECHS WHEN THEIR LIVES OR THE LIVES OF OTHERS COULD BE ON THE LINE.Teach them the stuff that WORKS.Which is NOT the IP.The stuff that WORKS by DEFINITION is and CAN ONLY BE FUNCTIONAL.Full stop.I mean this with the greatest respect,my Kenpo brother OKenpo.
Now,I can take the Functional Method (FM)/ALIVE approach and not only teach you to defend yourself,but in actuality endow you with all the benefits allegedly the province of the IP but which in reality can ONLY be acquired through functional/alive means.
Here's the IP Captured Twigs:
Here's FUNCTIONAL Captured Twigs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKAoR0eDa8I&feature=relatedCapturedTigs3
^^^^Now that's something that you can actually do and it keeps signal aspects of the Captured Twigs intact.It's modified by the most basic common sense and most importantly it's modified because it's been tested maaaany a time against ACTUALLY RESISTING SKILLED OPPONENTS and THIS METHOD WORKS.You really really get an in-depth understanding of the thought processes of techniques and their applications and whatnot when you test retest and retest your techniques vs escalating levels of real world resistance til you break through and find something that works under virtually ANY circumstance,and you use THAT FUNCTIONAL BASE as the launch pad for all other testing,tailoring and improvement.As you CAN improve something that ALREADY WORKS into something that WORKS BETTER.Teaching something which you KNOW DOESN'T WORK is just...irresponsible imho.There is no justification that can trump the fact that the techniques as taught don't work and you already know that...and the only cure is to devise methods that DO work.That,imho,is our mandate.From that functional base,all other boons benefits blessings and manna from heaven flow.
Last edited by a moderator:
When I first started teaching I taught the kenpo curriculum. Techniques, sets, forms. Some basics on the pads and line drills, mostly just technique lines and on the body. The original master of that school was a big believer that private lessons were for new material, group classes were for body work, and you could do PT on your own time.
When that school changed hands to a new master, a descendent of the first, the style became more inclusive and I began to introduce drills from other methods to my classes, as well as drawing more dynamic drills from the techniques to train the skills involved independent of the patterns themselves. For instance, if I was teaching a basic kick defense technique in class that day I would surround it with drills involving kicks in the air, on the bags, and on the body, stepping away from kicks, blocking kicks, and countering kicks. Only after teaching all those skills would I teach the kick defense technique. In this way, I could create a number of classes from each individual technique and pattern by constantly turning further inward and examining the depths of the material with my students.
Later, I taught kenpo at the park and out of my home and my students were a mix of civilians and trained martial artists from several different styles. Boxing, BJJ, kickboxing, kenpo, and tkd. Because of the wide range of experience and skill levels and the informal nature of our classes I found it much more effective to teach basics, principles, and spontaneous drills rather than a strict pattern based curriculum. I based my instruction on the kenpo techniques, pulling my drills and exercises from the material, but I presented it in blocks of related skills. For instance, I might take some of the beginner punch techniques and use them to build a class about stepping back from hand attacks with foot maneuvers and blocking, or I might teach a class on basic bearhug defenses or standing grappling based on the hammerlock techniques. It worked really well and I was able to teach both experienced and inexperienced students at the same time because I was teaching skills rather than techniques.
Now I'm teaching in a formal school again and the owner teaches a pattern heavy curriculum. So now I am combining the different approaches. I teach the techniques, sets, and forms to my students, I surround them with related drills, and we spend a large portion of each class on basics practice and skill building exercises so that we can continue to develop overall ability. A combination of basics work, solo practice, partner drills, pattern training, dynamic drills, and spontaneous activities makes up each of my classes, and that seems to be working well.
So I've gone both ways. I've taught and trained strict Ideal Phase techniques and I've also thrown them away completely and taught pure basics, skills, and concepts without any set patterns at all. What I've found is that both ways can work with the right students and the right instructors, and that each has its strengths and weaknesses.
Strict pattern training has existed for thousands of years, I suggest reading Michael Rosenbaum's scholarly work "Kata and the Transmission of Knowledge in Traditional Martial Arts." It will enlighten you to the true history and purpose of so called "dead patterns." They are important and valuable ways of codifying the material and passing it on to the next generation of warriors in a formal and reliable manner. But they are often mistaken for the desired end, and so students become distracted with pursuit of perfect repetition rather than effective performance.
On the other hand, pattern free training can be extrememly effective and adaptable, but it does not have the same rigid structure to support the student. It demands more active participation and it is more difficult for the students to become instructors in their own right because the knowledge isn't formalized and codified and organized. That doesn't mean it's the wrong way to go, only that it's a different one.
More and more I try to take what I consider a mixed martial arts approach to training in kenpo. Lots of live training, lots of pad work and generic skills training and dynamic exercises. Lots of spontaneous self defense and competetive sparring type activities. Lots of body work and interactivity. But also with a solid core of context specific, rigid and sometimes ritualized patterns intended to teach important lessons about fighting. Targets, maneuvers, patterns of motion, concepts, etc. Yes, you are supposed to block a step through punch with a block/kick/chop combination. But you are also supposed to internalize that technique and its lessons so that you can spontaneously express what you've learned in a dynamic situation.
Ideal phase techniques are important because they are the beginning. I do not believe they are the end. But I am only a beginner. Perhaps someday when I am better and wiser I will return to the techniques again and find that I have traveled far only to come home again. Maybe it is not the techniques that are the problem.
I think there is a place for patterns and a place for freedom. I think that like any technical skill, we must first learn how to follow the rules, and only later how to break them. In order to effectively think outside the box, I think one must first understand the exact parameters of the box itself. But that's me. I'm open to the idea that I'm wrong.
-Rob
When that school changed hands to a new master, a descendent of the first, the style became more inclusive and I began to introduce drills from other methods to my classes, as well as drawing more dynamic drills from the techniques to train the skills involved independent of the patterns themselves. For instance, if I was teaching a basic kick defense technique in class that day I would surround it with drills involving kicks in the air, on the bags, and on the body, stepping away from kicks, blocking kicks, and countering kicks. Only after teaching all those skills would I teach the kick defense technique. In this way, I could create a number of classes from each individual technique and pattern by constantly turning further inward and examining the depths of the material with my students.
Later, I taught kenpo at the park and out of my home and my students were a mix of civilians and trained martial artists from several different styles. Boxing, BJJ, kickboxing, kenpo, and tkd. Because of the wide range of experience and skill levels and the informal nature of our classes I found it much more effective to teach basics, principles, and spontaneous drills rather than a strict pattern based curriculum. I based my instruction on the kenpo techniques, pulling my drills and exercises from the material, but I presented it in blocks of related skills. For instance, I might take some of the beginner punch techniques and use them to build a class about stepping back from hand attacks with foot maneuvers and blocking, or I might teach a class on basic bearhug defenses or standing grappling based on the hammerlock techniques. It worked really well and I was able to teach both experienced and inexperienced students at the same time because I was teaching skills rather than techniques.
Now I'm teaching in a formal school again and the owner teaches a pattern heavy curriculum. So now I am combining the different approaches. I teach the techniques, sets, and forms to my students, I surround them with related drills, and we spend a large portion of each class on basics practice and skill building exercises so that we can continue to develop overall ability. A combination of basics work, solo practice, partner drills, pattern training, dynamic drills, and spontaneous activities makes up each of my classes, and that seems to be working well.
So I've gone both ways. I've taught and trained strict Ideal Phase techniques and I've also thrown them away completely and taught pure basics, skills, and concepts without any set patterns at all. What I've found is that both ways can work with the right students and the right instructors, and that each has its strengths and weaknesses.
Strict pattern training has existed for thousands of years, I suggest reading Michael Rosenbaum's scholarly work "Kata and the Transmission of Knowledge in Traditional Martial Arts." It will enlighten you to the true history and purpose of so called "dead patterns." They are important and valuable ways of codifying the material and passing it on to the next generation of warriors in a formal and reliable manner. But they are often mistaken for the desired end, and so students become distracted with pursuit of perfect repetition rather than effective performance.
On the other hand, pattern free training can be extrememly effective and adaptable, but it does not have the same rigid structure to support the student. It demands more active participation and it is more difficult for the students to become instructors in their own right because the knowledge isn't formalized and codified and organized. That doesn't mean it's the wrong way to go, only that it's a different one.
More and more I try to take what I consider a mixed martial arts approach to training in kenpo. Lots of live training, lots of pad work and generic skills training and dynamic exercises. Lots of spontaneous self defense and competetive sparring type activities. Lots of body work and interactivity. But also with a solid core of context specific, rigid and sometimes ritualized patterns intended to teach important lessons about fighting. Targets, maneuvers, patterns of motion, concepts, etc. Yes, you are supposed to block a step through punch with a block/kick/chop combination. But you are also supposed to internalize that technique and its lessons so that you can spontaneously express what you've learned in a dynamic situation.
Ideal phase techniques are important because they are the beginning. I do not believe they are the end. But I am only a beginner. Perhaps someday when I am better and wiser I will return to the techniques again and find that I have traveled far only to come home again. Maybe it is not the techniques that are the problem.
I think there is a place for patterns and a place for freedom. I think that like any technical skill, we must first learn how to follow the rules, and only later how to break them. In order to effectively think outside the box, I think one must first understand the exact parameters of the box itself. But that's me. I'm open to the idea that I'm wrong.
-Rob
ATACX GYM
2nd Black Belt
Rob wrote a helluva post,didn't he? I like this guy!
Rob...I think there's an inherent incorrect assumption in most posts like yours (not so much in yours but I can still see it) about the Functional/Alive method so lemme clear that up from jump street: we use the same material that Kenpo has...because it's Kenpo.We have structure,progressions,etc.WE JUST MAKE IT WORK CUZ WE DO IT FUNCTIONALLY.You learn bow and bent kneel stances,nuetral stance,cat stance,allat stuff too.I take the techniques and the arsenal and progression of Kenpo as I learned them and teach every single step functionally.That means that the beginners who don't know jack? I tell them what our end result goal of whatever our lesson for the day is,show it to them,then show them step by step how to get there.Every single component is functional,and alive.Every single aspect of it.Stance training? Yep.Learn your blocks,slips,parries,sprawls,bobs and weaves from each stance,too,from each basic attack.Once you learn the proper position,you gotta move.And once you move,you gotta do some more stuff.All with the aid of an infinity of both live and patterned drills.When I run into a student--which is almost all of them--who doesn't know jack about how I teach on day one,I teach them how to use Peripheral Vision,the Nuetral Stance,basic blocks in the Star Block Set, parries slips bobs and weaves,etc.I am all over them to ensure their technical correctness.Then I make em work just that...nice and slow,1/4 speed so they can see the techniques coming...the first round.Then pick it up to half speed by round 3.They work nothing but the blocks for 3 rounds.Then I slowly build strikes into their blocks,and it takes literally never more than 2 rounds to make it pop.In 15 minutes I've taken somebody who wouldn't know karate from karaoke and they're running Kenpo techniques against live unscripted attacks.No need to start teaching them all that fake stuff for ANY reason.Once they get that? I teach them specific FUNCTIONAL counters.I make them kick.Lots.Make them kick before they block/defend,and kick again.I make them kick like kickin is all there is to it.Then I teach them Clinch work stuff.Basically the MT Judo and G-R clinch,and how to counter that with what they already know.Then teach them how MT,judoka,and wrestler guys counter,and how to counter that with Kenpo.It's incredibly simple,lotsa fun,and NEVER IP.After that? I teach them ground grappling.Always the bridge and roll from the mount first (with the headlock escape thrown in if they show a particular aptitude for it).In 60 minutes,I took somebody who thought "kenpo" was how country folks pronounce "kinfolk" and they can now go from Stand up to Clinch to Ground and back using Kenpo.This is how I build my ENTIRE arsenal in a functional,swift,very technically painstaking way.I do that with weapons and kata too.We are some weapon using, kata doing individuals,and I'm all over them so much that Olympic gymnastic judges seem nicer than Mother Theresa in comparison.
So we have a starting point with direction.That's functional.We have calisthenics drills that emulate the movements in question almost exactly...that are ALSO functional.We pay painstaking attention to detail.Functionally.The result? We learn more faster better deeper longer more realistically have more fun and can ACTUALLY DO WHAT WE CLAIM.We're superior in every single way.The IP kats simply can't do that.And NEVER will.As long as they're stuck on this "ideal" nonsense.I mean...have you seen a doctor "ideally" operate on a patient? Have you seen Jack Nicklaus "ideally" swing the golf club? Have you seen Kobe "ideally" make a jumpshot? Have you seen a cheetah "ideally" hunt a gazelle? Have you seen a SWAT guy "ideally' arrest the bad guy? Then...WITH YOUR LIFE OR THE LIFE OF LOVED ONES AND/OR INNOCENTS POSSIBLY ON THE LINE...why in the hell would you "ideally" learn ANYTHING and try to "ideally" defend yourself,while the bad guy is very functionally whoopin your azz? I'm just sayin.
I'm with ya Ras, and I think our classes probably wouldn't look too different. I try to teach my students skills every night that could save their lives on the way back to their cars. But I teach karate to civilians in a strip mall. Pregnant women, the elderly and infirm, children. And yes, military, police personell, and security professionals. Every one of my students learns the way, but I can't always sit on them in their first class and slap them in the face. Sometimes I can't even sit on them period, or even have them lay on the ground, for months. That's why they don't learn even basic groundfighting for six months. Because I have to break them to karate, and that's a process. They learn to fight, I'll match my students against anyone, anytime. But they do so through ritual and rote, at least at first. That's what patterns are. I don't run a gladiator school, I teach at a dojo. The end result is the same.
-Rob
-Rob
Ras, thank you for the "hello". Great to meet you.
I guess we don't really differ all that much in our approach. I appreciated the videos, although the ones available are rather poor examples (I'm sure you agree).
I never trained at a formal dojo. I trained with a highly respected instructor at his home in his garage for several years. He has never owned or taught out of a formal dojo, at least not for the last thirty years or so and he has a very real world approach to teaching the Kenpo techniques. He does, however, teach the original 32 technique system.
Because he trains in such an informal manner and has so few students, he is able and does train for the more realistic scenarios. He trains the IP as well as the FM versions. I think that this is where we are quite similar. We first train the IP to give the beginner an idea. Kind of like teaching a child to write. First we teach them to write the individual letters, move on to writing words, eventually sentences, paragraphs, etc. Later we teach to express our own form of Kenpo, which I believe is what you are doing at ATACX.
We differ in our approach to an extent, but I don't think that my way or your way is right or wrong. I do think that you do use the IP form of the techniques in your teaching as seen in your video. I think that you use it to enforce your FM approach. Therefore, the IP version is not at all useless. You are using it as the base for you version of the technique. I also think that Mr. Parker would smile at you and say, 'Finally, someone who gets it.' He never named a successor for several reasons. One of which is he did not want the robots that were created by following his every thought and word to the "T". He wanted us to think outside of the box and realize that his system was not etched in stone. This is why his teachings to the different "old-timers" were all so different. The principles stayed constant, however, the methods varied.
Keep up the good work, but donn't completely shun the IP versions. You may not have realized it before, but you are using them in your instruction.
God bless and stay safe,
James (OKenpo942)
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi James,
Welcome to MT!
Much like Ras, I too, tend to like a more functional technqiue. I think while many of us are on the same page, there are some differences. For myself, when I teach, I still do the IP tech., but I dont harp on it too long. Once they get the basic idea, I like to take them to the next level. Yes, I'll still have them perform the IP tech, with the attack being hard and fast, but from there, I'll mix it up a bit. I'll do things such as: have the attacker attack differently, ie: instead of doing a step thru punch, I'll have them do a cross, I'll have them add in different attacks, ie: a punch with the lapel grab, if the tech is defending just a right punch, I'll have them throw a left, then another right, maybe a kick, etc.
This, IMO, starts to condition the student to not rely on the IP techs, to not be so bound by them, but instead, to start thinking outside the box, to fall back on their basics, and instinct. I dont want to see them do Attacking Mace, Lone Kimono, etc, I want them to react. If that means their defense is nothing more than a parry to the punch, a palm to the face, and a kick to the balls, then so be it. The end result is they defended themselves, and thats what matters most to me.
The main reason I do it this way, is because I have to. Teaching at someone elses school, you have to do things their way. But, as I said, thats fine...I still am able to do what I said above, and best of all, they like it. Now, were I to teach a small group out of my garage, I'd eliminate 95% of the techs, take a handful of the most common street attacks, and go right to the more FM (functional model) techs, such as Ras does.
Welcome to MT!
Much like Ras, I too, tend to like a more functional technqiue. I think while many of us are on the same page, there are some differences. For myself, when I teach, I still do the IP tech., but I dont harp on it too long. Once they get the basic idea, I like to take them to the next level. Yes, I'll still have them perform the IP tech, with the attack being hard and fast, but from there, I'll mix it up a bit. I'll do things such as: have the attacker attack differently, ie: instead of doing a step thru punch, I'll have them do a cross, I'll have them add in different attacks, ie: a punch with the lapel grab, if the tech is defending just a right punch, I'll have them throw a left, then another right, maybe a kick, etc.
This, IMO, starts to condition the student to not rely on the IP techs, to not be so bound by them, but instead, to start thinking outside the box, to fall back on their basics, and instinct. I dont want to see them do Attacking Mace, Lone Kimono, etc, I want them to react. If that means their defense is nothing more than a parry to the punch, a palm to the face, and a kick to the balls, then so be it. The end result is they defended themselves, and thats what matters most to me.
The main reason I do it this way, is because I have to. Teaching at someone elses school, you have to do things their way. But, as I said, thats fine...I still am able to do what I said above, and best of all, they like it.
Now, were I to teach a small group out of my garage, I'd eliminate 95% of the techs, take a handful of the most common street attacks, and go right to the more FM (functional model) techs, such as Ras does. Hi James,
Welcome to MT!
Much like Ras, I too, tend to like a more functional technqiue. I think while many of us are on the same page, there are some differences. For myself, when I teach, I still do the IP tech., but I dont harp on it too long. Once they get the basic idea, I like to take them to the next level. Yes, I'll still have them perform the IP tech, with the attack being hard and fast, but from there, I'll mix it up a bit. I'll do things such as: have the attacker attack differently, ie: instead of doing a step thru punch, I'll have them do a cross, I'll have them add in different attacks, ie: a punch with the lapel grab, if the tech is defending just a right punch, I'll have them throw a left, then another right, maybe a kick, etc.
This, IMO, starts to condition the student to not rely on the IP techs, to not be so bound by them, but instead, to start thinking outside the box, to fall back on their basics, and instinct. I dont want to see them do Attacking Mace, Lone Kimono, etc, I want them to react. If that means their defense is nothing more than a parry to the punch, a palm to the face, and a kick to the balls, then so be it. The end result is they defended themselves, and thats what matters most to me.
The main reason I do it this way, is because I have to. Teaching at someone elses school, you have to do things their way. But, as I said, thats fine...I still am able to do what I said above, and best of all, they like it.
I agree with your method to an extent, Rob. I would never take out 95% of the system. I feel that it cheats the student and gives them only part of the alphabet. I won't assume that in time, they are too stupid to figure out what works for them and what doesn't. I think that this is how you figured it out. You were given the whole and you figured the parts that work for you.
I think that it is my responsibility to give them as much as I can and help them to keep an open mind to make their own decisions about what they want to use. I don't think that this is the case though for a newbie to martial arts. Most likely they have no base at all and thay need to be shown the basics first, given time to get a solid grasp of those basics, and then allow them to experiment.
We have enough thugs with no form. It is called an art for a reason.
Thanks for your input,
James
Let me clarify my "95%" comment. As you know, in Kenpo, we have a huge number of technqiues. Techniques to include defenses for a grab if the bad guy pulls in, if the bad guy pushes out, if he does a step thru, if he does this and we do that, if he stands one way, and we stand another.
There are a number of ideas, principles, concepts, etc, that are in the art. IMO, I find it hard to believe that we need allllll this stuff, to teach every single concept. The concepts dont overlap? Why do we need allll these techs. to teach us these things? During a confrontation, the person is going to have to process the attack, sort thru a laundry list of techs, and attempt to pull something off. During this time, he's probably going to be getting his *** kicked. Some people talk about 'internalizing' the system. How long does that take? 1 week? 1 month? 1 year? 30yrs?
Instead, when I spoke of the "95%" I was talking about taking the common street attacks, ie: grabs from the front, the rear, some punch defenses, weapon defense, to also include things that I dont see taught in the art, such as gun to the back, the head from the back, knife to the throat from front and back. Limit the techs per belt to 5 or 6 tops. Teach the IP if you choose or go right to the FM and work a single tech so that it addresses a number of attacks. Ex: Take Attacking Mace. Work it against the step thru, work it against a cross, work it against a right/left combo. IMO, theres no reason why we need seperate techs to teach us things that we could figure out on our own, using the concepts and ideas that're already taught to us. This is done by using the basics. IMO, the student isn't really missing out on much, as those concepts and ideas are still being taught.
In essance, we're giving them a base, and as I said, using the basics, taught to formulate a response. Ex: At one of my old schools, I had the class form a circle, with the outside people as the attackers, the inside person the defender. I'd randomly call out attacks, and at times, I'd intentionally pick an attack that the student didn't have a preset tech for. Usually the student would stop and say that they dont know a defense for that attack. I'd ask them if they knew how to block, punch, kick, move? They'd say yes, to which I'd say, then do it!
My point of this, was that they 'did' know what to do, but because they were so bound by the preset IP techs, they weren't thinking about anything other than that. Like I said earlier, I didn't care if they did Attacking Mace or simply step off, parried the punch, and punched to the face. As long as they defend themselves, thats what matters most...to me anyways. Sure, for the sake of rank promotion, sure, you're gonna have to do those preset moves. But when your *** is on the line, fall back on your instinct and basics.
I love to do spontaneous reaction drills with my teacher. He'd randomly attack me and I had to a) defend or b) get hit. Usually I'd do parts of a tech, but rarely a full tech. Sometimes I did nothing that looked like a Kenpo tech. Sometimes I'd do something from Arnis. Most importantly, I defended myself, and thats what my teacher wanted to see.
Sorry for the long winded reply.
Mike
Let me clarify my "95%" comment. As you know, in Kenpo, we have a huge number of technqiues. Techniques to include defenses for a grab if the bad guy pulls in, if the bad guy pushes out, if he does a step thru, if he does this and we do that, if he stands one way, and we stand another.
There are a number of ideas, principles, concepts, etc, that are in the art. IMO, I find it hard to believe that we need allllll this stuff, to teach every single concept. The concepts dont overlap? Why do we need allll these techs. to teach us these things? During a confrontation, the person is going to have to process the attack, sort thru a laundry list of techs, and attempt to pull something off. During this time, he's probably going to be getting his *** kicked. Some people talk about 'internalizing' the system. How long does that take? 1 week? 1 month? 1 year? 30yrs?
Instead, when I spoke of the "95%" I was talking about taking the common street attacks, ie: grabs from the front, the rear, some punch defenses, weapon defense, to also include things that I dont see taught in the art, such as gun to the back, the head from the back, knife to the throat from front and back. Limit the techs per belt to 5 or 6 tops. Teach the IP if you choose or go right to the FM and work a single tech so that it addresses a number of attacks. Ex: Take Attacking Mace. Work it against the step thru, work it against a cross, work it against a right/left combo. IMO, theres no reason why we need seperate techs to teach us things that we could figure out on our own, using the concepts and ideas that're already taught to us. This is done by using the basics. IMO, the student isn't really missing out on much, as those concepts and ideas are still being taught.
In essance, we're giving them a base, and as I said, using the basics, taught to formulate a response. Ex: At one of my old schools, I had the class form a circle, with the outside people as the attackers, the inside person the defender. I'd randomly call out attacks, and at times, I'd intentionally pick an attack that the student didn't have a preset tech for. Usually the student would stop and say that they dont know a defense for that attack. I'd ask them if they knew how to block, punch, kick, move? They'd say yes, to which I'd say, then do it!
Like I said earlier, I didn't care if they did Attacking Mace or simply step off, parried the punch, and punched to the face. As long as they defend themselves, thats what matters most...to me anyways. Sure, for the sake of rank promotion, sure, you're gonna have to do those preset moves. But when your *** is on the line, fall back on your instinct and basics.
I love to do spontaneous reaction drills with my teacher. He'd randomly attack me and I had to a) defend or b) get hit. Usually I'd do parts of a tech, but rarely a full tech. Sometimes I did nothing that looked like a Kenpo tech. Sometimes I'd do something from Arnis. Most importantly, I defended myself, and thats what my teacher wanted to see.
Sorry for the long winded reply.
Mike
I guess I am sort of a purist and having trained with Mr. Parker on a few occcasions, have too much respect for the system to edit it.
I do however agree with a lot of what you say. I agree that defenses against more conventional weapons are needed. I think that a lot of these defenses can be found in Krav Maga or contact any reputable defensive tactics instructor (DTI) in law enforcement and get some of the techniques they use. I don't believe you have to limit yourself to Kenpo, but American Kenpo is American Kenpo. It is what it is.
I love the spontaneous drills that you do with your students. My instructor did the same with us quite regularly and the beginners usually had the same response that you got. It was a valuable lesson.
Loving the topic. Have a great night.
James
ATACX GYM
2nd Black Belt
Didn't GGMEP state that evolution and development is an essential aspect of Kenpo? That requires "editing",as I understand it...
Similar threads
Latest Discussions
-
-
-
-
-
éåæ ZhĆ²ngxÄ«n center of gravity
- Latest: Wing Woo Gar
-