Kenpo and Tai Chi

[pete]

... ahh, but i was so much older then, i'm younger than that now~

 

[wingchunner]

American Kenpo is not traditional. It is conceptual. Structural alignment is structural alignment. Either one is just a vehicle- how many ways can the same thing be done? Just different methods to get there-

No, structural alignment is not necessarily structural alignment. It depends on how you align your structure. From my experience, the structures are aligned differently and therefore used differently. Using tai chi within a kenpo frame wouldn't make sense. Using Kenpo within a tai chi frame wouldn't make sense.

Too intellectual? Ha. Isn't our mind our most powerful weapon? Think about it.

Marty

 

[pete]

Using tai chi within a kenpo frame wouldn't make sense. Using Kenpo within a tai chi frame wouldn't make sense.

it would actually make less sense if you couldn't, or point to a deficiencies in one or both of your practices. depending on how you were taught each art, it might take a bit of work before banishing them to seperate rooms.

 

[Rainman]

No, structural alignment is not necessarily structural alignment. It depends on how you align your structure. From my experience, the structures are aligned differently and therefore used differently. Using tai chi within a kenpo frame wouldn't make sense. Using Kenpo within a tai chi frame wouldn't make sense.

Too intellectual? Ha. Isn't our mind our most powerful weapon? Think about it.

Marty

No it depends on what principles you are using and what the situation calls for. Think more clearly about your last line. If your mind is indeed the most powerful weapon why would you argue for seperation? Your fighting skills under duress are a culmination of all that you have learned. In my experience with the taoist sytems the concepts I found there were easily added to my arsenal.

Once you are conceptual in makes no sense to me to seperate anything. What is natural is the equation formula...

 

[Doc]

No, structural alignment is not necessarily structural alignment. It depends on how you align your structure. From my experience, the structures are aligned differently and therefore used differently. Using tai chi within a kenpo frame wouldn't make sense. Using Kenpo within a tai chi frame wouldn't make sense.
Too intellectual? Ha. Isn't our mind our most powerful weapon? Think about it.
Marty

From my experience there is only one way of aligning the human body for maximum efficiency. It either is or it isn't no matter what the activity. Physically the body only works in these two modes. Efficient or inefficient. One of extreme structural integrity and the other extreme of loose connectivity, or disassociated movement.

In Martial Science, much like other sciences, there is a direct cause and effect to all activity. Martial Science draws on many different scientific disciplines, but all are in some way related to one another through the conduit of human anatomy. There exists a significant cause and effect interaction between all the many parts of human anatomy whether static or in motion. In any examination of the many martial postures and their transitions, the efficacy of its many positions are predicated upon, among many factors, weight distribution and an exacting posture relative to the physical activity at hand.

The relative position of the feet to each other, and their movement, also significantly determines whether structural integrity is created or maintained. Let’s discuss for a moment structural integrity in posture, movement, and weight distribution. Any variations in these categories beyond proper anatomical posture can diminish or enhance effectiveness on multiple levels offensively or defensively.

How you move your body in its entirety, and arms, feet, and even the head in particular, in martial science affects the stability of the complete body for a variety of reasons. For most this probably is not news. However what is probably “new” information to most is that some of the basic things taught in most “martial arts” fall quite comfortably into the negative and inefficient category. Surprisingly their effectiveness can be demonstrated to be much less than perceived. That is, when these things are tested in the light of reality, they fall well short of their well-intended goals. Lets us define efficiency relative to human physical activity in general, and martial science in particular.

Essentially, the “human” machine is a large gelatinous bag punctuated by multiple directionally dedicated and articulated appendages, connected by loose and flexible tissue. This semi solid shape is supported by an articulated and rigid substructure we call a “skeleton.” This necessary substructure skeleton, supports the human body as the primary load bearing entity, but also simultaneously provides it with mobility and sustains its general shape. It also supplies the major structural frame for anatomical rigidity on demand.

This relationship between the sub-structure frame, (skeleton) the connecting tissues, (ligaments, muscle, tendons), and the containment vessel epidermis (gelatinous bag) have a constant and perpetually active interaction relationship from one jiffy millisecond to the next. The “system software” or brain constantly monitors all external stimuli from thousands of body sensors and subsequently makes thousands of minute adjustments every millisecond to allow the machine on one level to function intuitively, and on another, to take directed commands from the central processing unit simultaneously.

By its very evolutionary design the human body unit operates in one of two non-destructive modes, either operating efficiently, or inefficiently. The inefficient mode is termed “Disassociated Anatomical Movement.” In order to accomplish this, this extremely complex machine has an inherent ability to “disconnect” or create a more loose and flexible relationship between its many articulated parts, expressly for the purpose of performing movements and/or postures not necessarily anatomically structurally sound, but necessary for fluid human movement. Therefore by the very nature of the body, all movement is not necessarily effective, efficient, or even structurally sound, even though it may be performed quite easily. This is the reason humans do not move like “rigid” robots or automatons.

When any physical activity is taught with only an emphasis on conceptual movement or motion with no regard for anatomical structural requirements and physical mandates, than inefficient movement is the most likely results. The reason this can be confusing is because most martial “arts” instructors teach from this aesthetic perspective emphasizing the “look” over the proper anatomical “execution” to obtain the desired results.

A lack of knowledge has created a plethora of interpretations as numerous as there are “instructors.” Thus the western term “martial art” is indeed accurate because of this interpretive aesthetic perspective. Art, (in this instance artistic movement and postures) is clearly subjective, whereas martial science and its proper anatomical movement and postures are not. This explains why one “martial art” can have so many different interpretations from instructor to instructor, school to school, and even student to student.

Subsequently, training in improper movements like stepping backwards into any stance as an example, is an “inefficient” methodology that is readily revealed in realistic practice and application. Using this most basic of footwork to obtain a stance causes the body to go into its loose “disassociated“ mode to achieve the objective. The architectural human frame is designed to locomote forward partly deriving its balance from the swinging of the arm opposite the forward moving leg. Although the body can walk and move rearward, it does so inefficiently and in a definite disassociated mode.

As another example, when you walk backwards your arms do not swing naturally and balance is more difficult as a result. Additionally, moving forward aggressively without the ability to move your arms creates the same “disassociated” condition. The principle area affected in all of these situations begins with the “Primary Disconnect Mechanism,” the pelvic bone. The same holds true in any lateral movement as well.

However the converse of stepping backwards to meet resistance moving in the same direction as you’re stepping, is stepping forward when you are being pulled forward. Both of these movements are inefficient and must have correcting mechanisms to regain structural integrity.

Stepping rearward without the mechanism makes alignment impossible. Stepping forward however because the body functions to locomote forward naturally may create alignment, but only predicated on either how far or how many times you step, or if an additional correcting mechanism is involved.

Therefore to teach any execution that by necessity requires inefficient movement forward backward or laterally, first there must be recognition of these absolute anatomical facts, and second a mechanism must be inserted to compensate, re-connect, or re-associate the body unit into singular structural integrity for efficient transference of power, or to resist body mass driven assaults. Additionally as previously stated, proper weight distribution and postures are also mandated based on anatomical parameters, and not aesthetics.

Other good examples can be found in various forms of footwork taught in most traditional and non-traditional arts alike. Lateral and forward movements where feet move toward one another create similar results of instability and structural disassociation as “stepping back.” Although all of these activities are a staple of most arts, anatomically speaking, such maneuvers lack structural stability, absent a compensating mechanism.

What has happened is the step rearward has created the “Disassociated Anatomical Condition,” at the hips separating the lower platform (hips to the floor) from the upper (Hips to the shoulders) platform, causing them to work semi independently of each other with no shared structural integrity. Thus there is no significant stability to counter any realistic physical pressure from any angle, and specifically from the front.

The important thing to remember is that all rules of martial science are specific, and therefore apply to specific circumstances. Any variation of any portion of the body, no matter how minute, can cause a complete breakdown of structural integrity, as well as other anatomical properties. This means all methodologies have “correcting mechanisms” to compensate for inefficient movement or improper posture.

In martial science posture, there are rules relative to weight distribution and posture. The position and manner of the hands, head, shoulders, fingers, muscle tension, thought process, etc. in addition to weight distribution will ultimately determine whether you are correct structurally or not.

The Chinese arts of my experience are unique in that they actually teach both, transitioning from one extreme to the other in use, much like the human body does naturally in everyday situations as necessary on demand.

But I digress. You state you have some background in the Chinese Arts sir, however I would like to hear about your experience and expertise in Ed Parker Kenpo that allows you to make such a sweeping statement in your comparison of the, (what you suggest are) two different arts. The authorities I sited were very definitive in their assertions, and although some have passed on, notables like Grandmasters Douglas Wong, Pan Ying Dunn, Share Lew, and Jimmy Woo are still available in Southern California for definitive discussions on the topic.

 

[kenpo_cory]

Subsequently, training in improper movements like stepping backwards into any stance as an example, is an “inefficient” methodology that is readily revealed in realistic practice and application. Using this most basic of footwork to obtain a stance causes the body to go into its loose “disassociated“ mode to achieve the objective. The architectural human frame is designed to locomote forward partly deriving its balance from the swinging of the arm opposite the forward moving leg. Although the body can walk and move rearward, it does so inefficiently and in a definite disassociated mode.

So have you eliminated stepping backwards from the curriculum that you teach? Or do you teach correcting mechanisms to regain structural integrity when you do have to step back?

 

[Doc]

So have you eliminated stepping backwards from the curriculum that you teach? Or do you teach correcting mechanisms to regain structural integrity when you do have to step back?

Well sir, to elliminate the ability to step in any directions would be
self-defeating and much too limiting. Ed Parker Sr. taught me anatomical corrections when any inefficient movement must be performed by urgent necessity, or design and they are built into the basics at varying levels of execution. Good catch sir.

 

[kenpo_cory]

Well sir, to elliminate the ability to step in any directions would be
self-defeating and much too limiting. Ed Parker Sr. taught me anatomical corrections when any inefficient movement must be performed by urgent necessity, or design and they are built into the basics at varying levels of execution. Good catch sir.

Thank you for the clarification Mr. Chapel. As always I enjoyed your insight. :asian:

 

[MisterMike]

Since the human body comes in many forms and sizes, I would think there is no single equation to fit how all of them should act/react.

While it is interesting to know how the human body moves under load and no load, the same thing could be applied to the sport of bowling. However, I contend that while you could show someone what the exact proper mechanics are to throw a strike they will not beat the experienced bowler who has his/her own style, focus, and feeling.

This cannot be taught and I think it has an equal value to the application.

 

[wingchunner]

Doc:

Quite a profile/resume you have.
I do not have quite a one.
I studied Kenpo Karate for 9-10 years, which also encorporated kenpo-jitsu (similar to jujitsu).
I studied shaolin tiger KF for 3 years.
What I train in now is:
Leung Sheung's Classical Wing Chun Kung Fu - 11years now.
Chen style TCC (Lao Jia)
Fu style Internal Martial Arts.
I am currently working towards my masters in (pure) mathematics.

I still cannot agree with this comment:
"From my experience there is only one way of aligning the human body for maximum efficiency. It either is or it isn't no matter what the activity. Physically the body only works in these two modes. Efficient or inefficient. One of extreme structural integrity and the other extreme of loose connectivity, or disassociated movement."
In my training, I assume that my body does not naturally do efficient movement. Thus, I am training my body to do so, to be more efficent, on a consistent basis.

Does kenpo consistently work on:
Sung energy (relaxed, melting energy while in stances)?
Sensitivity training?
Tucking under the pelvis?
utilization of sensitivity and position vs. speed and power?
(There's more, but this is enough)
In my kenpo karate and external martial arts training, we did little of the above. In my internal martial arts training, all on a regular basis.

If you do, then your kenpo is different from what I trained in.

Marty

 

[kenpo_cory]

Doc:

Quite a profile/resume you have.
I do not have quite a one.
I studied Kenpo Karate for 9-10 years, which also encorporated kenpo-jitsu (similar to jujitsu).
I studied shaolin tiger KF for 3 years.
What I train in now is:
Leung Sheung's Classical Wing Chun Kung Fu - 11years now.
Chen style TCC (Lao Jia)
Fu style Internal Martial Arts.
I am currently working towards my masters in (pure) mathematics.

I still cannot agree with this comment:
"From my experience there is only one way of aligning the human body for maximum efficiency. It either is or it isn't no matter what the activity. Physically the body only works in these two modes. Efficient or inefficient. One of extreme structural integrity and the other extreme of loose connectivity, or disassociated movement."
In my training, I assume that my body does not naturally do efficient movement. Thus, I am training my body to do so, to be more efficent, on a consistent basis.

Does kenpo consistently work on:
Sung energy (relaxed, melting energy while in stances)?
Sensitivity training?
Tucking under the pelvis?
utilization of sensitivity and position vs. speed and power?
(There's more, but this is enough)
In my kenpo karate and external martial arts training, we did little of the above. In my internal martial arts training, all on a regular basis.

If you do, then your kenpo is different from what I trained in.

Marty

Is the tucking under the pelvis you mentioned the same as reverse abdominal breathing?

 

[wingchunner]

No.

I do that in conjunction with my "pole standing" training though. It helps me work on my rooting and work on the refinement of my structure.

Marty

 

[kenpo_cory]

No.

I do that in conjunction with my "pole standing" training though. It helps me work on my rooting and work on the refinement of my structure.

Marty

So it is separate? Do they both produce the same result? I have a friend that now trains in kenpo with me but has an Aikido background. He was discussing the principle of reverse abdominal breathing with me and said it is one of the main things that helps with chi. Is this true?

 

[wingchunner]

Last post for today.

Yes, seperate. I can tuck my pelvis under with regular abdominal breathing or reverse. The reverse breathing helps me melt more as my abdomen goes out and I exhale; I settle more with each breath. This is my training experience.

Marty

 

[kenpo_cory]

Thanks for sharing. Sorry I edited my post to include some other questions. I saw that you had answered my previous question clearly no and missed it.

 

[Doc]

Since the human body comes in many forms and sizes, I would think there is no single equation to fit how all of them should act/react.

Although the body does indeed have varying geometrical relationships, and variances in height, weight, etc, there is a structural sameness that makes it what it is.

While it is interesting to know how the human body moves under load and no load, the same thing could be applied to the sport of bowling.

No it cannot

However, I contend that while you could show someone what the exact proper mechanics are to throw a strike they will not beat the experienced bowler who has his/her own style, focus, and feeling.
This cannot be taught and I think it has an equal value to the application.

You are talking about tossing an object that leaves your physical control and therefore is affected by other physical laws in application. That has no relationship to the topic. Much like a pitcher who might have all the proper body mechanics to throw a ball at maximum efficiency, but lacks the hand eye coordination to throw a strike consistently. Those things are exclusive of the body mechanics of this conversation, therefore you are incorrect in all of your assumptions.

 

[Doc]

Doc:

Quite a profile/resume you have.
I do not have quite a one.
I studied Kenpo Karate for 9-10 years, which also encorporated kenpo-jitsu (similar to jujitsu).
I studied shaolin tiger KF for 3 years.
What I train in now is:
Leung Sheung's Classical Wing Chun Kung Fu - 11years now.
Chen style TCC (Lao Jia)
Fu style Internal Martial Arts.
I am currently working towards my masters in (pure) mathematics.

I am very impressed by your work toward a masters in math. Too heavy for me.

I still cannot agree with this comment:
"From my experience there is only one way of aligning the human body for maximum efficiency. It either is or it isn't no matter what the activity. Physically the body only works in these two modes. Efficient or inefficient. One of extreme structural integrity and the other extreme of loose connectivity, or disassociated movement."

In my training, I assume that my body does not naturally do efficient movement. Thus, I am training my body to do so, to be more efficent, on a consistent basis.

Well actually your body DOES know how to move efficiently, however we unlearn and are taught incorrect mechanics as we live our lives due to external influences and physical mandates of society at large.

Does kenpo consistently work on:
Sung energy (relaxed, melting energy while in stances)?
Sensitivity training?
Tucking under the pelvis?
utilization of sensitivity and position vs. speed and power?
(There's more, but this is enough)
In my kenpo karate and external martial arts training, we did little of the above. In my internal martial arts training, all on a regular basis.

If you do, then your kenpo is different from what I trained in.

Marty

you miss the point. You said "does kenpo.." its all about what we do as individuals according to what we were taught. I can say confidently that yes I do, although from what we consider a more modern, practical, efficient, and effective perspective. Although I don't pretend ownership of any interpretation, yes the Kenpo I was taught by Ed Parker Sr. IS different.

 

[MisterMike]

Although the body does indeed have varying geometrical relationships, and variances in height, weight, etc, there is a structural sameness that makes it what it is.

No it cannot

You are talking about tossing an object that leaves your physical control and therefore is affected by other physical laws in application. That has no relationship to the topic. Much like a pitcher who might have all the proper body mechanics to throw a ball at maximum efficiency, but lacks the hand eye coordination to throw a strike consistently. Those things are exclusive of the body mechanics of this conversation, therefore you are incorrect in all of your assumptions.

But it does have relation to the topic, because all of your motion up to the point of releasing the object has to be done correctly. Much in the same way when I transfer energy from my punch to someone's face, where his head goes after that is no always under my control. I would go further to say that a bowling lane never really changes as do the conditions in a battle.

How I step and approach the foul line in front of the bowling lane is just the same as how I would approach an opponent inasmuch as they both need to have proper technique.

But I say that if there is only one way to get from point A to B that is efficient, economizes motion, is the most powerful, and all that jazz, whether it is blocking a punch or transitioning into a strike, or rolling a bowling ball, that's fine and dandy but it still may not be the "best."

One certainly accomplishes a task but the other let's you be you. It's finding your own "constitution" as Shioda states.

But enjoy your science.

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

Let me start by saying that my own resume is substantially smaller than Mr. Chapel's, and I make no claim to having even a fraction of the direct exposure to Mr. Parker that you have had. I tip my hat in pure respect for your eriudite (sp?) presentation of plausible functional anatomy and biomechanics. That having been said...

In a specific conversation with Mr. Parker, Sr., about the similarities and differences/strengths and weaknesses between arts, he posited a metaphor that lingers in the back of my mind whenever I read these sorts of discussions. He offered into the ring, "...would you go to a plumber for an electrical problem?", and elaborated that if one wanted to learn throwing sklils, study judo. If you want to focus on wristlocks and joint entrapment & manipulation, study the aikijujutsu systems. To develop a really nasty overhand right cross, box. My own humble experience with Traditional Chinese Medicine, Taoist theory, and Tai Chi Chuan is that the main function of Tai Chi...that is to say, the most obvious reason for studying and practicing it...is to develop and expand the capacity of the bodies physical and energetic systems to process and move life force. Although many Tai Chi practitioners may be viable combatants, and Kenpoists may gather and move chi and blood, what is the main purpose of each art? In my admittedly limited experience, Kenpo is the panultimate study of biomechanics for the express, contextual purpose of articulate motion in combat/self-defense. Tai Chi, on the other hand, is for health and longevity. Granted, not ONLY for that, as there are millions of people around the world who can (and will) do whatever they want with either art. But, despite your disdain for generalizations, they are a necessary component for participation in shared reality and/or communication, to the minimal extent it can be shared.

And at the risk of sounding extremely crass and ridiculous, who's scarier to face in a dark alley...a Kenpo practitioner with rapid-fire combinations to the eyes, throat, groin and knees; or a slow-moving, deeply thoughtful push-hands wiz? Yes, I know it's a generalization...but that sort of loops us back to that old word "most", as in "representative sampling".

 

[pete]

Resumes not withstanding, I must respectfully disagree with much of what you say here. I did not have the honor of meeting or learning directly from Ed Parker, however would question why he created such an eclectic art if his views were to seperate the so-called plumbing from the electrical work. If we accept what is inferred from such a statement, then American Kenpo would not have been developed to include the locks, holds, manipulations, nerve strikes, take downs, along with the block-punch-kicks of basic karate.

Further, stating that Tai Chi is simply for health and longevity is an incomplete description of the art. The Tai Chi master that I have the honor of training under will go further by saying that the full health related benefits of Tai Chi cannot be realized without learning Tai Chi in its entirety, which includes the martial intent.

The original question posed in this thread was whether or not Kenpo had some of the fundemental elements of Tai Chi, such as energy flows... well, I maintain that you can enhance your Kenpo to do so, but if you learned Kenpo as I am, modifications are needed in anatomical structure (expand, sink, coil), bodily movement (one part moves, all parts move and single weightedness), and breathing. I am convinced that applying these and other principles associated with Tai Chi to Kenpo will allow one to cultivate chi, and not compromise Kenpo principles. And at the risk of paraphrasing the good Doctor, well, they were at one time and to some students part and parcel of Ed Parkers American Kenpo.

Finally, the final scenario of who I'd rather face in a dark alley is irrelavant. Neither Kenpo nor Tai Chi are arts of aggression, but rather arts of self defense and preservation. Our Kenpo techniques are all against an aggressive provocator, as opposed to Sport Arts or Boxing where antagonistic behaviour is encouraged. Therefore, I'd feel rather safe meeting up with either one.