New Article on Website

[Steve Howard]

I have posted the third article on my website (finally).
www.kenporaw.bravepages.com/Paper3.htm

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

thank you,
Steve Howard
Sandan
www.kenporaw.bravepages.com

 

[WhiteTiger]

"Sometimes, the information is present in the curriculum, but the individual instructor doesn’t have the knowledge or experience to effectively teach the information. This is becoming all too frequent as American Kenpo becomes the “new TKD”, with every new 1st degree leaving their studio and instructor to open their own shop. Lacking in experience and real knowledge."

This would seem to be an argument against the 16 technique curricullum.

 

[Blindside]

This would seem to be an argument against the 16 technique curricullum.

Actually it seems to be an argument against having inexperienced instructors teaching and how information can be lost over time.

I suspect it is the rare 1st degree black in most kenpo systems given any particular curriculum that is ready to be a head instructor. (Thats probably why the AK title for a 1st degree is "Junior Instructor.)

Lamont

 

[WhiteTiger]

Originally posted by Blindside
Actually it seems to be an argument against having inexperienced instructors teaching and how information can be lost over time.

I suspect it is the rare 1st degree black in most kenpo systems given any particular curriculum that is ready to be a head instructor. (Thats probably why the AK title for a 1st degree is "Junior Instructor.)

Lamont

While I agree with you in principle, there is nothing to stop a 1st degree black belt from opening his own school calling his curriculum "Joe Schmoe's Kenpo" and self-promoting himself to 7th or 8th degree. Until there is, the best way to ensure the integrity of Kenpo is to demand the highest possible standard and the greatest range of knowledge for Black belt promotions.

 

[Blindside]

So why did you say this is an argument against the 16 tech curriculum? If you want to provide "highest possible standard and the greatest range of knowledge" then isn't the 24 tech curriculum too limiting as well? You only have 48 extensions at that point....

Why not just say we will require a black belt to know all of the techniques and extensions, period.

Is this what you are advocating?

Lamont

 

[Seig]

This brings us back to the circular argument of 32-24-16. I think the issue isn't so much what curriculuum you are on but your ego and attitude. There are a LOT of people out there, regardless of style, that feel they know enough to become the next great thing. This is not the fault of the art, but those that are unscrupulous within the art.

 

[Goldendragon7]

People have a tendency to Major in Minor things.

There are <<<MANY>>> ...many a "Great" Martial Artist out there that know none of the 32-24-16 curriculums.

These were just organized to allow us.... the American Kenpo System a "guide" or "road map" or a "set of drills" to teach many of the aspects of Self Defense as Ed Parker [our Founder] discovered in his Journey. He left us this.

Ed Parker is now gone and we can do with it what we want. We can use it..... or discard it.

I choose to use it. It has been my experience that there is much more to it than many realize. Until I find something better, I'll keep studying and teaching what I find the best value in.

Ed Parker was just a man like any of us. Which goes to show..... it is what one does "with" what one has, as he learned the same "basics" as we have, lucky for us, he defined and elaborated them for us, a lot better than he had.

:asian:

 

[Steve Howard]

I'd like to first thank everyone who has taken the time to read and comment on my article. Also, I would like to clarify that the point of the article was never to contest which curriculum (32-24-16, etc.) had more merit, but to point out that the number of techniques contained in a curriculm is secondary to the design and functionality of the curriculm and the competancy of the individual instructor. However, I do also believe that there is a point wherein a curriculum may not contain enough techniques to provide a broad enough base of knowledge for the student to develop effective responses to spontaneous attacks.

I was personally trained and advanced under a 40-tech/belt, Tracy-varient curriculum. I have been lucky enough, however, to also train with students from the Flores lineage under the 24 "Infinite Insights" curriculum and with students from Mr. Huk Planas' lineage under a 16-base curriculum. In ALL cases, I have found plenty of practitioners who were able to run circles around me both physically and mentally. Again, the intelligent design of the individual curriculums provided more than adequate knowledge bases, despite differences in sheer number of techniques.

When evaluating any curriculum, I personally ask these questions:
1. Am I being exposed to a reasonable number of feasable attacks? (Face it, I'm probably not going to be attacked by anyone jumping off the back of a horse while wielding Wind-Fire Wheels---so, I'll risk not having a specific technique against that. Likewise, however, if my curriculum contains only techniques designed to defend against a right lunch punch and a right roundhouse kick--I may need to look into expanding my knowledge base).
2. Is there a strong emphasis on developing proper basics?
3. Will my instructor give me honest feedback on my progress?

--But, that's just me.

Again, thanks to all who have commented so far and please feel free to comment further and to comment on other aspects of the article. If you visit my website, please sign my guestmap so I know who was there and where you are all from. Continued success to all of you.

Salute,
Steve Howard
www.kenporaw.bravepages.com

 

[Goldendragon7]

Orig. posted by Steve Howard
When evaluating any curriculum, I personally ask these questions:
1. Am I being exposed to a reasonable number of feasable attacks?
2. Is there a strong emphasis on developing proper basics?
3. Will my instructor give me honest feedback on my progress?
Salute, Steve Howard

Yes, you bring up some very good questions, and make some very valid comments. Again, who you come up under and how they train you with what they teach is (methodology is paramount).

You do need a good "Balance" for your Basics, Techniques, forms etc., a good dose of other concepts, and strong training to become a solid Kenpoist. To me the system has a majority of necessities already "built in" all we need to do is learn, train, apply, and innovate with what has been outlined.

:asian: