Clark Kent
<B>News Bot</B>
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2006
- Messages
- 7,128
- Reaction score
- 6
Apples, trees, and the decay of basics...
By Dr. Dave in da house - 08-25-2009 11:52 AM
Originally Posted at: KenpoTalk
====================
OK. So. We start with a saying that's often misunderstood or abused: "Point of Origin to Point of Contact", which gets taken as a blanket rule that gets misapplied to every move, every time, until underlying power principles and force multipliers are all but extinct from mainstream, commercial kenpo. Folks get the sense from this that moves should lack loading of the weapon. That anything other than a straight line to a target is wasted motion.
I try to be patient; I try to be nice. But folks still get uppity if they see circles in kenpo. Sez I, "Go back and look at footage of the old man...did he do circles, or lines?" Many -- heck, most -- don't take me up on it: Too invested in their position to check it out, too many hours practicing the way they do to consider change. Lemme make it easy for you:
For the first minute, he does basics while poor Frank sits in a square horse. Don't watch Frank. Watch where Mr. Parker starts the weapon from, the path the weapon takes, and where the weapon ends, and remember "through, not to". Contrast the evidence with POO to POC kenpo footage, available all over the web. Which hits harder? Despite the insistence on speed as the goal, do Mr. Parkers circles seemed to have slowed him down any?
Now. If a technique is a simple collection of basics, coordinated around a plausible fictional scenario to inform us of how they can be strung together in combination, shouldn't a technique demonstrate the arcs, circles, and sweeps present in the individual basics? Or are we holding that -- once engaged with an attacker -- we should abandon the power base we spent hundreds of hours building up?
Watching a form to determine "good kenpo"...the person doing the form gets all the moves in the proper sequence and proper directions, but never loads a single weapon...never executes a single strike that passes through the imaginary opponent, going only TO their targets. Does it constitute "good" kenpo, cuz they got the sequence of moves right, even though the moves wouldn't/couldn't break a single bone, in a system full of impact strikes capable of dismantling the human body?
Facetiously curious,
Dave
Read More...
------------------------------------
KenpoTalk.com Post Bot - Kenpo Feed
By Dr. Dave in da house - 08-25-2009 11:52 AM
Originally Posted at: KenpoTalk
====================
OK. So. We start with a saying that's often misunderstood or abused: "Point of Origin to Point of Contact", which gets taken as a blanket rule that gets misapplied to every move, every time, until underlying power principles and force multipliers are all but extinct from mainstream, commercial kenpo. Folks get the sense from this that moves should lack loading of the weapon. That anything other than a straight line to a target is wasted motion.
I try to be patient; I try to be nice. But folks still get uppity if they see circles in kenpo. Sez I, "Go back and look at footage of the old man...did he do circles, or lines?" Many -- heck, most -- don't take me up on it: Too invested in their position to check it out, too many hours practicing the way they do to consider change. Lemme make it easy for you:
For the first minute, he does basics while poor Frank sits in a square horse. Don't watch Frank. Watch where Mr. Parker starts the weapon from, the path the weapon takes, and where the weapon ends, and remember "through, not to". Contrast the evidence with POO to POC kenpo footage, available all over the web. Which hits harder? Despite the insistence on speed as the goal, do Mr. Parkers circles seemed to have slowed him down any?
Now. If a technique is a simple collection of basics, coordinated around a plausible fictional scenario to inform us of how they can be strung together in combination, shouldn't a technique demonstrate the arcs, circles, and sweeps present in the individual basics? Or are we holding that -- once engaged with an attacker -- we should abandon the power base we spent hundreds of hours building up?
Watching a form to determine "good kenpo"...the person doing the form gets all the moves in the proper sequence and proper directions, but never loads a single weapon...never executes a single strike that passes through the imaginary opponent, going only TO their targets. Does it constitute "good" kenpo, cuz they got the sequence of moves right, even though the moves wouldn't/couldn't break a single bone, in a system full of impact strikes capable of dismantling the human body?
Facetiously curious,
Dave
Read More...
------------------------------------
KenpoTalk.com Post Bot - Kenpo Feed
Last edited by a moderator:
