Teaching

[Feisty Mouse]

In my experience, when "instructors" spend a considerable amount of time speaking of endleass variables and possibilities, they have very little real information to desseminate. The compexity of basics and their applications are significant enough without introducing alternate material and ideas not actually relevant to the student developing immediate skills and a workable understanding of the core material.

It depends on how it is done. Mentioning that there are other options - that in an actual situation you will have to adapt to what is coming at you, what is going on with you at the moment - is always a good point.

I am exceptionally fortunate - I train in a studio and with instructors where I always feel free to ask questions about the material - whether I am doing it correctly, the application, and so forth. I tend to over-think things sometimes, but then that is what I will hear from my instructor. I'm glad that my questions are treated as someone trying to understand, and not as someone trying to challenge the instructor - which is never my intent at all.

 

[kenpo tiger]

Yes,
Robert that is a great observation, I will be the first to agree with your thought. If it is getting hit with a stick or struck in the throat.

The idea of hitting a bag or hitting the bag while imagining it is the throat of someone.

Take the target shooter or the shooter who wants to shoot at objects that resemble man. Do you need to take a bullet to know its devistating effect?

It is the mental make up, of the person who needs to learn, either from a good teacher who is not afraid to step up and say this is crazy, or the student who is not so much in awe, or who has the ability to say, do I want to walk with a cane the rest of my life from 25 on?

Yes! If I am going to be able to make 17 million before my 30th birthday, I will do that, but not for the thought that you might encounter danger around every corner and become injured while trying to live the unexpected.

Most of the persons who take to the arts are not the persons who started them in the first place. This is now a major business, not just some one who wants to take a few good students and perpetuate his art.

They are not the person who took it for protection of his self and others in the line of their work either.

I have seen many persons hurt, bad injuries to the knees and other parts of the body that do not recover well, done, no mas.
Only to live the glory in their own mind and then unable to do much other then watch it or talk about it. Sad.

Regards, Gary

Thank you. Your point about martial arts being a business is well-taken. For many practitioners it is their only business, and they are quite successful in running it. Others have taken it a step further and created martial arts empires replete with franchises and commercial product to market and sell to their students.

As to being injured, it's part of the allure of martial arts, isn't it? The glory factor, as you put it. I believe Robertson pointed out pro football as an example as well - albeit a much much more lucrative example - of injuries leading to retirement.

So, for those of us who are pursuing a martial art for self defense, self improvement, or - dare I say it - fun, exactly what type of commitment should we be getting from our teachers? KT

 

[MJS]

I think a differentiation needs to be made between the concepts of the damage one does to one's own body during training versus the damage one can do to another person's body during training. We all get popped in various spots during practice of techs. It's educational to know how it feels - so you can make sure to avoid it happening. KT

I agree! However, the martial arts are a contact activity. Bumps, cuts, etc. are a part of the package, and people should be used to them. If its something that someone can't handle, then IMO, the arts are not for them. Again, we all train for different reasons, and we are all different.

The answer is simple. Considering that there are many arts out there, as well as different training methods. If there is something that someone doesnt like, then simply dont study that art.

As for damaging the body...I agree with you. But, again, even doing techs. in a tech. line, an injury is bound to happen. While I dont think that its wise to train the Thai kick full force on your partner, with the proper gear, a full power shot is possible. I've sparred with people and have done those very shots, with control! I enjoy working out with my partners and realize that if we get injured, then thats one less person we have to train with, which is not a good thing. Now, someone could say "Well, if you're not doing the kick full force, how are you gonna know if its gonna work?" Ok, well, how are we going to know if the arm break in Lone Kimono is going to work? Again, it all comes down to control.

Mike

 

[pete]

In my experience, when "instructors" spend a considerable amount of time speaking of endleass variables and possibilities, they have very little real information to desseminate. The compexity of basics and their applications are significant enough without introducing alternate material and ideas not actually relevant to the student developing immediate skills and a workable understanding of the core material

It depends on how it is done. Mentioning that there are other options - that in an actual situation you will have to adapt to what is coming at you, what is going on with you at the moment - is always a good point.

training to internalize kenpo principles to take well prepared and effective action regardless of endless variable and possibilities is in my most humble opinion what kenpo is all about.

pardon my summary, but many pages went in between!

there is a difference between training for all those various situations as different "techniques" vs. identifying a change in the situation after starting your defense and moving into a different defense from your arsenal that is specifically designed for that new situation...

i'm not quite sure by doc's response if he considers either or both irrelevant.
i happen to favor working towards the latter...

doc, if you're out there, please clarify your position...

pete

 

[Doc]

Loved the Ned Beatty ref from, "Superman," and glad to see that I am not the only completely-unique example of a "closed-minded," "arrogant," "traditionalist," after all. Gee...imagine my surprise.

Man, no one ever gets that one. A tip of the hat sir, I guess you're the only one that got it. (Maybe it's a "close minded arrogant traditionalist thing")

I don't altogether agree about the roundhouse kick, which I was taught--and which I teach--in pretty much the same manner that can be seen in Mr. Parker's very early pamphlets with Tom Gow.

Tom Gow, a blast from the past. Last time I saw him it was in the eighties. He had balooned to 300 pounds and began training and lost about a hundred pounds. Anyway the round kick as demonstrated in that basics book by Tom, (the one with the double exposure of Ed Parker on the cover), is pretty much correct.

The right shoulder just needs to move forward past the radial line reference of the shoulders a tad. You'll notice his lead shoulder is actually "behind" his lead hip appearing to move away from the direction of the kick creating a "counter body rotation." Almost impossible to see in a still posed photograph, this is a common mistake in teaching because it "feels good" and helps balance, but the pulling back of the shoulder pulls the hips in the opposite direction of the actual kick. Of course the picture is pretty accurate, but I have the advantage of having Tom's actual roundhouse kick in my memory banks.

"Hump? What hump?

 

[mj-hi-yah]

"Hump? What hump?

Hee hee he...Wait Master! It might be dangerous....you go first!

 

[rmcrobertson]

I think that most of this stuff has to do with teaching, actually.

But if I may digress, whatever happened to Tom Gow? I've been hoping this isn't the same guy who I looked up, and who's mainly known in John Birch Society circles...

 

[Dark Kenpo Lord]

pardon my summary, but many pages went in between!

there is a difference between training for all those various situations as different "techniques" vs. identifying a change in the situation after starting your defense and moving into a different defense from your arsenal that is specifically designed for that new situation...

i'm not quite sure by doc's response if he considers either or both irrelevant.
i happen to favor working towards the latter...

doc, if you're out there, please clarify your position...

pete

The force is getting stronger by the minute with this one.

DarK LorD

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

I’m afraid that rule won’t hold water when you move properly aligned with the “Statue Effect.”

C'mon. We both know I ain't even near the statue effect...yet.

Wait til I get my hands on you. It's gonna hurt, and then you can name all the painful spots.

To feel is to believe. As one who learns best by observing what a person does while delivering a whuppin' (providing it moves slowly enough to allow for observation), I look forward to learning much...and keeping enough parts intact to benefit from the learning.:asian:

Regards,

D.

 

[Doc]

C'mon. We both know I ain't even near the statue effect...yet.


To feel is to believe. As one who learns best by observing what a person does while delivering a whuppin' (providing it moves slowly enough to allow for observation), I look forward to learning much...and keeping enough parts intact to benefit from the learning.:asian:

Regards,

D.

As slow as I am you shouldn't miss a thing.

 

[Doc]

I think that most of this stuff has to do with teaching, actually.

But if I may digress, whatever happened to Tom Gow? I've been hoping this isn't the same guy who I looked up, and who's mainly known in John Birch Society circles...

The Tom Gow I knew wasn't a "Bircher," but that has been almost 15 years ago since I saw him last.

 

[Doc]

Uh...part of my point was actually pretty straightforward.

If you repeatedly take shots to the throat, joints, head, etc. in training, it is a virtual certainly that you will suffer long-term injury. Similarly, Mr. Chap'el argued that kicking in an anatomically-incorrect fashion will virtually guarantee long-term, crippling injury.

Against this, there is the possibility--repeat, the possibility--that one might be attacked on the street and have to hit or get crushed.

Sure, there are risks. Sure, accidents happen. Nonetheless. It is unwise to GUARANTEE injury while preparing for the remote POSSIBILITY of injury.

As for the personal remarks which, as typically, bespeak an attempt to slide by the nature of one's own comments, or to avoid actually considering the issues and thinking about one's arguments, well, they have a certain personal effect...but they actually do a pretty good job of suggesting that I might just have a point.

Train as you like, folks. But do keep it in mind that you're going to be in that body for a while...and ask yourself if you're really willing to pay what, say, NFL players pay for their ability...one hint worth considering is that the average NFL career is now down below four years because of the injuries.

Ed Parker Sr. used to talk about training being as realistic as possible without losing sight of the primary directive of a self-defense art - that is to prepare you for everyday self-defense possibilities. To that end he always spoke of going "overboard" and drew an analogy with boxers. He would always say, "Boxing is not about who's the best fighter, but who's the toughest. The one who can take the most punishment is usually the winner because he outlasts the other guy. Therefore for the average guy, boxing is not a realistic martial art for training on that fact alone. Boxing training is so rigorous that most boxers are injured in training and not in bouts. If your training inflicts more punishment on your body than what you might receive in a real fight, than have the fight and forget the training and you'll still be better off than beating yourself up for years in case you MIGHT have a fight one day." Makes sense to me.