Kempo/Kenpo techniques

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

2 man set, really like that set, whether or not it's realistic that's another debate but at my stage of life I'm not that bothered about all that anymore. It's a nice set to work through. It's a ***** to work without a partner though

I learned a couple two main sets...all of them are weird to do by yourself. Some movements just dont make sense, if you dont have someone else there

 

[Flying Crane]

I learned a couple two main sets...all of them are weird to do by yourself. Some movements just dont make sense, if you dont have someone else there

I learned one when I was training kenpo. It was weird even with a partner.

 

[drop bear]

That's a different issue. I agree some of the Kempo combinations are a lot less likely. I don't think they're as impossible as they seem when you watch the Technique, because they're not intended to be done in that sequence to someone who's not moving (and I'm not sure why they don't actually have the "attacker" moving). The main point of them, though is not the specific combination, but the flow between any two techniques. How realistic they are is a different question.

There are instances in drilling where you move from one unlikely technique to another to teach flow.

Multiple kicks would be one example. So you wouldn't throw 10 kicks in a row in a fight but it makes your kick and return a bit quicker.

But that still doesn't open the door for training things as a combination that is never going to happen.

You should go from one part of the combination to another intelligently. Exactly for that reason of teaching flow.

And looking at the combinations they are exactly intended to be used on someone who isn't moving. Which is why they don't intelligently move from one technique to another and achieve unrealistic results.

And transitioning is a major player as to why you will either get your head smashed in or not in a fight.

And that is striking and grappling.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

There are instances in drilling where you move from one unlikely technique to another to teach flow.

Multiple kicks would be one example. So you wouldn't throw 10 kicks in a row in a fight but it makes your kick and return a bit quicker.

But that still doesn't open the door for training things as a combination that is never going to happen.

You should go from one part of the combination to another intelligently. Exactly for that reason of teaching flow.

And looking at the combinations they are exactly intended to be used on someone who isn't moving. Which is why they don't intelligently move from one technique to another and achieve unrealistic results.

And transitioning is a major player as to why you will either get your head smashed in or not in a fight.

And that is striking and grappling.

Again, that's arguing a different question. My point was - and remains - that it's not a real problem that the "attacker" isn't presenting things to work with, because it seems the Techniques are mostly using the same approach as focus mitts. Focus mitts don't give much input, either (they provide a target, and sometimes a swipe to change levels with, and not much more).

I don't know enough about what was intended when the Techniques were assembled to know if they make sense under that intention. I don't personally like some of the combinations I've seen, but I accept some of them might even be designed to work on a specific bit of movement, solely for the sake of mobility. I just don't know what the purpose is, nor do I know enough of the curriculum to judge them in context.

I still don't think they're designed on the expectation that the other person will not move. The Kempo folks I've talked with all had significant resistive training (live sparring, etc.) in their Kempo schools, so it seems unlikely they'd be under the consistent illusion you can take 3-5 (sometimes complex) steps while the other guy doesn't respond at all.

 

[drop bear]

Again, that's arguing a different question. My point was - and remains - that it's not a real problem that the "attacker" isn't presenting things to work with, because it seems the Techniques are mostly using the same approach as focus mitts. Focus mitts don't give much input, either (they provide a target, and sometimes a swipe to change levels with, and not much more).

I don't know enough about what was intended when the Techniques were assembled to know if they make sense under that intention. I don't personally like some of the combinations I've seen, but I accept some of them might even be designed to work on a specific bit of movement, solely for the sake of mobility. I just don't know what the purpose is, nor do I know enough of the curriculum to judge them in context.

I still don't think they're designed on the expectation that the other person will not move. The Kempo folks I've talked with all had significant resistive training (live sparring, etc.) in their Kempo schools, so it seems unlikely they'd be under the consistent illusion you can take 3-5 (sometimes complex) steps while the other guy doesn't respond at all.

It is training to stage fight. Not training to actually fight.

You can do that and spar. But just the drills don't help the sparring much because they are mostly unrelated.

Where alternatively pad drills do help sparring because you are training fighting movements not stage fighting movements.

So you have drills for demos.

And drills for fighting.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It is training to stage fight. Not training to actually fight.

You can do that and spar. But just the drills don't help the sparring much because they are mostly unrelated.

Where alternatively pad drills do help sparring because you are training fighting movements not stage fighting movements.

So you have drills for demos.

And drills for fighting.

Pads help more IF you use them differently. You could really train badly with pads, too. That's my point. Using a semi-static partner isn't an issue, if it's done well. What is "well"? That depends what the purpose is.

What you see as "stage fighting" prep, and I see as an odd combination of moves, might be just training ranges of movement. I dunno.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

the Techniques are mostly using the same approach as focus mitts.

Both you and I have right leg forward.

1. I use right hand to push on your right arm. I then use left hand to strike your head.
2. You use left arm to block my left strike.
3. I use right hand to pull your left arm to my left. I then sweep your right leg to my right.

In this example, if you don't use left arm to block my left hand strike, how will I be able to grab your left back arm (since it's so far away from me)?

Many of your set up will require your opponent's respond. If your opponent doesn't respond to your strike, he cannot help you to develop certain combo skill.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Both you and I have right leg forward.

1. I use right hand to push on your right arm. I then use left hand to strike your head.
2. You use left arm to block my left strike.
3. I use right hand to pull your left arm to my left. I then sweep your right leg to my right.

In this example, if you don't use left arm to block my left hand strike, how will I be able to grab your left back arm (since it's so far away from me)?

If I don't offer that arm, you can't. So that series - if done with a partner - requires that input. Not all combinations do.

 

[drop bear]

Pads help more IF you use them differently. You could really train badly with pads, too. That's my point. Using a semi-static partner isn't an issue, if it's done well. What is "well"? That depends what the purpose is.

What you see as "stage fighting" prep, and I see as an odd combination of moves, might be just training ranges of movement. I dunno.

Just because you can train badly with pads. And just because you may also spar doesn't lend any justification for doing a drill that doesn't appear to be teaching anything useful.

You should train well with pads do some sort of realistic drills and spar.

And by the way.

"People can train whatever they want. Doesn't mean they are going to gain an increase in ability because of it though.

I can train pads like a dumbo. Or I can train them realistically. It isn't a case where "You do pads so it is the same""

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

If I don't offer that arm, you can't. So that series - if done with a partner - requires that input. Not all combinations do.

Here is another example.

When I use my shin bone to smash on the inside of your leading leg, if you

- resist, I can bite your leg down to the ground.
- escape, I can step in and attack your other leg while you are shifting weight.

If you only offer me with 1 respond, I can't train the other situation. Your opponent supposes to "feed" you the opportunity that you need in order to develop your skill.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Just because you can train badly with pads. And just because you may also spar doesn't lend any justification for doing a drill that doesn't appear to be teaching anything useful.

You should train well with pads do some sort of realistic drills and spar.

And by the way.

"People can train whatever they want. Doesn't mean they are going to gain an increase in ability because of it though.

I can train pads like a dumbo. Or I can train them realistically. It isn't a case where "You do pads so it is the same""

You seem to be arguing against a statement I've never made. I only said that that the concept of these Techniques is similar to the concept of training with pads: no realistic input, and practicing combinations.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Here is another example.

When I use my shin bone to smash on the inside of your leading leg, if you

- resist, I can bite your leg down to the ground.
- escape, I can step in and attack your other leg while you are shifting weight.

If you only offer me with 1 respond, I can't train the other situation. Your opponent supposes to "feed" you the opportunity that you need in order to develop your skill.

I could give you 1,000 examples of combinations that require input. I could also give you 1,000 examples of combinations that can be practiced without it. Neither has much significance to the point I made.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I could give you 1,000 examples of combinations that require input. I could also give you 1,000 examples of combinations that can be practiced without it. Neither has much significance to the point I made.

How do you train your combo in throwing art? You use hip throw on your opponent, your opponent

- steps in front of you, You use leg to block his leg.
- resists you and sinks down. You turn around and use double legs to take him down.
- ...

Can you train any throwing combo without your opponent's respond?

 

[drop bear]

You seem to be arguing against a statement I've never made. I only said that that the concept of these Techniques is similar to the concept of training with pads: no realistic input, and practicing combinations.

So this conversation here.

I said.

"Not really. His issue was that with resistance the drill would collapse.

Either by being somehow so fast he can only get one punch to your five or upward blocking a wrist because the attacker forgot he had a stick in his hand.

See I would have done drills that work with resistance but trained without. Just as a consistency thing."


You said.

"It's not much different from boxing combos on focus mitts. There's no resistance there, and you're consistently delivering several punches in a combination (sometimes with one "counter" that you have to duck)."

And the difference is the boxing pad combinations will work with resistance. The Kempo drill will not.

So the concept is different. A bad drill without resistance isn't the same a a good drill.

Which follows Tonys point.

"It’s good to hear that correct footwork and distancing are taught eventually, but I really don’t care for the pedagogical approach you describe. In my mind, footwork and distancing are probably the most important aspect of the technique. If you start with the wrong distance, then your timing, footwork, and angling will all be incorrect and will need to be fixed when you progress to training with the correct distance. For that matter, the incorrect attack is putting the attacker’s arm in an unrealistic position, so even if you are just focused on the hand movements those will also need to be tweaked when you get to more realistic training. Why not start training with the correct distance from day one?"

See nobody has said unresisted drills are bad. But they have to be geared to work against resistance. Because that is the point.

They are not separate drills. They are not different techniques. To resisted drills.

So an unrealistic drill is not like pad work just because they are both drills.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Are there really that much difference between the striking art partner drill and the wrestling art partner drill?

If his 1st punch can knock his opponent down, why does he need the rest of his moves for?

In the following clip, he can take his opponent down with his 1st attack.

In the following clip, he can't take his opponent down with his 1st attack and even his 2nd attack because his opponent steps back twice.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

How do you train your combo in throwing art? You use hip throw on your opponent, your opponent

- steps in front of you, You use leg to block his leg.
- resists you and sinks down. You turn around and use double legs to take him down.
- ...

Can you train any throwing combo without your opponent's respond?

Not many, that's where those 1,000 examples are. But there are some. If I'm holding his arm, I could practice combinations transitioning from one side of the arm to the other without him moving. I'm not sure why I would, but I could.

I can train pretty much any striking combo without a partner's response (which I know since I can train them on a heavy bag. That's where the other 1,000 come from.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

So this conversation here.

I said.

"Not really. His issue was that with resistance the drill would collapse.

Either by being somehow so fast he can only get one punch to your five or upward blocking a wrist because the attacker forgot he had a stick in his hand.

See I would have done drills that work with resistance but trained without. Just as a consistency thing."


You said.

"It's not much different from boxing combos on focus mitts. There's no resistance there, and you're consistently delivering several punches in a combination (sometimes with one "counter" that you have to duck)."

And the difference is the boxing pad combinations will work with resistance. The Kempo drill will not.

So the concept is different. A bad drill without resistance isn't the same a a good drill.

Which follows Tonys point.

"It’s good to hear that correct footwork and distancing are taught eventually, but I really don’t care for the pedagogical approach you describe. In my mind, footwork and distancing are probably the most important aspect of the technique. If you start with the wrong distance, then your timing, footwork, and angling will all be incorrect and will need to be fixed when you progress to training with the correct distance. For that matter, the incorrect attack is putting the attacker’s arm in an unrealistic position, so even if you are just focused on the hand movements those will also need to be tweaked when you get to more realistic training. Why not start training with the correct distance from day one?"

See nobody has said unresisted drills are bad. But they have to be geared to work against resistance. Because that is the point.

They are not separate drills. They are not different techniques. To resisted drills.

So an unrealistic drill is not like pad work just because they are both drills.

Okay, I think this started in response off of some other stuff too, but you may be right - maybe I lost the thread.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Okay, I think this started in response off of some other stuff too, but you may be right - maybe I lost the thread.

I think you did.

The main issue is since 99% of the time, your opponent will respond to you attack, IMO, those training will be more realistic.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I think you did.

The main issue is since 99% of the time, your opponent will respond to you attack, IMO, those training will be more realistic.

My point was that training a sequence without a response doesn’t make the training useless. If t did, both the heavy bag and focus mitts would need to go.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

My point was that training a sequence without a response doesn’t make the training useless. If t did, both the heavy bag and focus mitts would need to go.

Of course the heavy bag and focus mitts training (A) are both useful. But it cannot replace a respond training partner (B).

All I'm trying to say is:

A + B > A