Kempo/Kenpo techniques

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Rather than derail headhunter's thread further, but to explain the difference between what kempo/kenpo considers a technique versus a boxing straight punch as @Rat compared it to, I figured I would post a few videos of kempo/kenpo techniques from different styles. All of them should be brown belt level techniques, to show some moderately advanced ones, before they get ridiculous.

This one is from american kenpo:

This one is from Shaolin Kempo Karate:

This one is from Tracy Kenpo:

 

[Headhunter]

The first 2 videos are the same one

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

The first 2 videos are the same one

Oops, thanks for the catch. This is the one I meant to link for American Kenpo:

 

[skribs]

I would call these "combinations" or "drills" instead of "techniques". I also don't see why these can't be taught in a slightly different way that doesn't use someone else's curriculum.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

I would call these "combinations" or "drills" instead of "techniques". I also don't see why these can't be taught in a slightly different way that doesn't use someone else's curriculum.

You can, and it's been done a bunch of time. But you would have to change anywhere from 50 to over a hundred techniques for that, while ensuring that you still have all the different principles being taught in them. It's a lot of work when there's already a full system of sets in place that teaches them.

It would be the equivalent of saying "I don't see why you can't just change all the forms slightly so you aren't using someone else's curriculum." You'd have to do it in a way that keeps all the purposes of the forms while making them not appear to be the same...why bother doing all of that just to teach what you're already teaching?

 

[Flying Crane]

I would call these "combinations" or "drills" instead of "techniques". I also don't see why these can't be taught in a slightly different way that doesn't use someone else's curriculum.

Yeah, I think there tends to be a difference between “techniques” which would be the most basic such as a front kick or a knife hand, as opposed to a “self defense technique” which are these choreographed scenarios with an attacker and a defender. But the “self defense techniques” tend to get shortened to just “techniques”.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

Kempos just been one of those things, not really common where i am. (at least past someone just putting kempo in their school/style name)

I take it they are meant to do a fair amount of sparring?

i would also think it would be pretty fun to try their stick defence against a FMA person. Like reverse it kind of, try it against someone who has started with a weapon. I generally think trying any weapon defence against people who train to use it would be pretty fun.

 

[skribs]

Yeah, I think there tends to be a difference between “techniques” which would be the most basic such as a front kick or a knife hand, as opposed to a “self defense technique” which are these choreographed scenarios with an attacker and a defender. But the “self defense techniques” tend to get shortened to just “techniques”.

Which is why another word, like "drill" sounds more accurate to me.

It would be the equivalent of saying "I don't see why you can't just change all the forms slightly so you aren't using someone else's curriculum." You'd have to do it in a way that keeps all the purposes of the forms while making them not appear to be the same...why bother doing all of that just to teach what you're already teaching?

I also don't see the problem with this. I mean, look at Taekwondo, Tang Soo Do, and Shotokan Karate forms.

 

[CB Jones]

@kempodisciple

I see....we dont refer to those as techniques. We refer to those as one step drills or self defense drills.

 

[Flying Crane]

Which is why another word, like "drill" sounds more accurate to me.



I also don't see the problem with this. I mean, look at Taekwondo, Tang Soo Do, and Shotokan Karate forms.

Yeah, it’s just vocabulary.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Which is why another word, like "drill" sounds more accurate to me.

Yup, i realized that. Which is why i made this post to show the difference in terms between arts

 

[drop bear]

You can, and it's been done a bunch of time. But you would have to change anywhere from 50 to over a hundred techniques for that, while ensuring that you still have all the different principles being taught in them. It's a lot of work when there's already a full system of sets in place that teaches them.

It would be the equivalent of saying "I don't see why you can't just change all the forms slightly so you aren't using someone else's curriculum." You'd have to do it in a way that keeps all the purposes of the forms while making them not appear to be the same...why bother doing all of that just to teach what you're already teaching?

Which happens anyway as people start to move around.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Your opponent throws 1 punch. You counter with 5 moves while he is still frozen in his punch. Is this realistic? In the normal situation, if you make 1 move, your opponent will respond with 1 move. When you make your 2nd move, he will respond with your 2nd move.

Unless you are 5 times faster than your opponent, this kind of training is not realistic IMO.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Your opponent throws 1 punch. You counter with 5 moves while he is still frozen in his punch. Is this realistic? In the normal situation, if you make 1 move, your opponent will respond with 1 move. When you make your 2nd move, he will respond with your 2nd move.

Unless you are 5 times faster than your opponent, this kind of training is not realistic IMO.

There's different purposes to the techs beyond just countering with five different moves, which I honestly don't care to get into at the moment. Maybe in a few days I'll be up for it.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

There's different purposes to the techs beyond just countering with five different moves, which I honestly don't care to get into at the moment. Maybe in a few days I'll be up for it.

You can train your partner drill in 2 ways:

1. Your opponent attack you, you counter.
2. You attack your opponent, he responds, you counter to his respond.

I don't like 1. But most MA schools use this approach. You throw a slow punch. I use 5 fast moves to counter it. This will make me to look fast. Also I don't like my training have to depend on "you punch first".

I prefer 2 > 1. If you attack fast and your opponent also responds fast, you have to respond fast to his fast respond. This kind of training will be closer to the combat speed. Also in this kind of training, you will never see your opponent just freezes in the air.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

This drill training is more realistic. You kick me. I block it. I kick you. You block it. We assume that you and I have the same speed.

 

[Flying Crane]

Your opponent throws 1 punch. You counter with 5 moves while he is still frozen in his punch. Is this realistic? In the normal situation, if you make 1 move, your opponent will respond with 1 move. When you make your 2nd move, he will respond with your 2nd move.

Unless you are 5 times faster than your opponent, this kind of training is not realistic IMO.

These things are open for criticism on many levels and as I’ve said, I realized this approach is a poor match for me.

There are plenty of people who like it and feel that it works well for them. I guess that’s one of the beautiful things about the martial arts. There are many methods with many different approaches to training. Something to fit for nearly everyone.

Just because you or I may not like something does not mean it is bad for everyone. There is a whole lot of subjectivity in this stuff.

Good advice for everyone: find the best teacher and best method that you can. Do that method. If you ever find a method that you feel is better, then do that.

 

[CB Jones]

Your opponent throws 1 punch. You counter with 5 moves while he is still frozen in his punch. Is this realistic? In the normal situation, if you make 1 move, your opponent will respond with 1 move. When you make your 2nd move, he will respond with your 2nd move.

Unless you are 5 times faster than your opponent, this kind of training is not realistic IMO.

They are not intended to be realistic.

They are a drill. They teach you how to flow from technique to technique and help you build speed and smoothness from technique to technique.

They also help you understand what techniques flow good together.

You get realistic training in the form of live sparring.

 

[Star Dragon]

Yeah, I think there tends to be a difference between “techniques” which would be the most basic such as a front kick or a knife hand, as opposed to a “self defense technique” which are these choreographed scenarios with an attacker and a defender. But the “self defense techniques” tend to get shortened to just “techniques”.

In Kenpo, we call '(self-defence) techniques' what other arts may refer to as '(self-defence) sequences' or combinations. Some Japanese arts use the term 'waza' here.

Whereas the 'techniques' of other arts are 'basics' to us ('kihon' in certain Japanese styles).

It's really all just a matter of differences in terminology.

 

[Star Dragon]

You can, and it's been done a bunch of time. But you would have to change anywhere from 50 to over a hundred techniques for that, while ensuring that you still have all the different principles being taught in them. It's a lot of work when there's already a full system of sets in place that teaches them.

It would be the equivalent of saying "I don't see why you can't just change all the forms slightly so you aren't using someone else's curriculum." You'd have to do it in a way that keeps all the purposes of the forms while making them not appear to be the same...why bother doing all of that just to teach what you're already teaching?

No need to change the content of the curriculum. As far as I know, altering the names by which you call things would suffice to nullify any copyright claims.