Technique practicality

[Seabrook]

Hello Jamie,

You say you teach the techniques differently, but it sounds like we may not actually teach the techniques differently at all. For example; if I were to teach Thundering Hammers, in the air, to someone who has never seen it before, I would teach it with a mid level strike. Now if you were to teach the same technique under the same circumstances, but taught it with a low strike – that would be teaching the technique differently.

On the other hand, if we were teaching a student how to defend against a right punch, and offered up Thundering Hammers, Dance of Death, and The Sleeper as the evenings fare, it’s likely that we would both mix, and match, the pieces/parts in a made-to-order fashion, depending on a long list of variables.

Gotcha Rich. I misinterpreted what you were stating.

Cheers brother.

Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com

 

[bdparsons]

Me, I teach the technique to work, ideal phase, if it doesn't the Even-IF comes into play, which leads back to ideal. The techniques are taught at many levels, but if you can't make it work ideal, how can you make the concepts that it entails work later?

Well said, Clyde, well said. Far too often folks are quick to deviate from the ideal without recognizing that the key function of "What-if; Even-if; Blending and Borrowing" is to "persuade" the individual to return to relative body position(s) that allow you to complete the ideal.

Respects,
Bill Parsons
Triangle Kenpo Institute

 

[MJS]

Several of American Kenpo's techniques aren't meant for combat in their "ideal" phase. They are there just to teach a certain principle(s) of motion. Example: Deceptive Panther -- While being a very effective "street technique" it is against a not so common "street attack". The technique is there mainly as a lesson in revers motion. The technique "plays itself" in reverse after the left strike to the opponents neck/jaw depending on who teaches it.

Certainly an interesting discussion. There is a thread in the General MA section titled "Why train unusable techniques" and IMO it relates to this thread. There is always something usefull to be gained from all techs. IMO. What works for some, may not work as easily for others as Alan stated. Another thing to look at is, will the person stay static for the entire tech? Most likely not, therefore the tech. in its 'ideal phase' will need to be change in order to adapt to our opponent.

Mike

 

[Sapper6]

You're welcome for my response and the underlined portion describes exactly what I believe. I don't knock other's beliefs as they have their own path on the journey and can support their beliefs as well. But that segment is exactly what I was trying to get across.

Respectfuly,
James

i understand your point.

...but if you can't make it work ideal, how can you make the concepts that it entails work later? Changing the technique and teaching it the altered way robs future students of the value of the original they never got.

this discussion was never about "making techniques work" in any phase. this was about an interpretation of an Ed Parker quote. you have yet to contribute effectively to the thread, instead, telling others they were wrong. go back and look at the question posed in the first post of this thread and then tell us what it means to you; rather than discredit the posts of those before you. this topic should not, in the least, present or invite challenge to anyone's thought or belief behind their personal interpretation of said statement. what do you have to offer to this thread that doesn't belittle the stance of others...?

a technique's usefulness and value doesn't necessarily lie in their street practicality.

you are obviously a man of kenpo experience. what does the above statement mean to you? what do you understand of it? i really want to know. i thank you in advance for you contribution to this topic. :asian:

 

[Dark Kenpo Lord]

Mr. Parker was often said that a technique's usefulness and value doesn't necessarily lie in their street practicality. i'm guessing he hinted at "hidden" reason's for a certain techniques incorporation into the curriculum. would anyone like to further elaborate on this? what is your take on what Mr. Parker possibly meant by this?

thanks in advance.

:asian:

Hmm, I elaborate further and I'm condemned for not answering the question, but then again, I'm not asking questions on the internet because I have the answers. I gotta wonder sometimes.

DarK LorD

 

[Sapper6]

Certainly an interesting discussion. There is a thread in the General MA section titled "Why train unusable techniques" and IMO it relates to this thread. There is always something usefull to be gained from all techs. IMO. What works for some, may not work as easily for others as Alan stated. Another thing to look at is, will the person stay static for the entire tech? Most likely not, therefore the tech. in its 'ideal phase' will need to be change in order to adapt to our opponent.

Mike

indeed, i agree with the thought process. what i'm hoping to surmise is the personal interpretation of other Parker Kenpoists to the question posed. to my understanding, there are only three people who have addressed the question. the others just seemed to challenge the thoughts of others or merely add to that challenge.

to my understanding, Parker Kenpoists seem to take to heart most of everything that became of Ed Parkers thought, including his thought process through spoken word. what i hope to gain is what those Kenpoists think of this particular statement.

thanks again for all contributions :asian:

 

[Sapper6]

Hmm, I elaborate further and I'm condemned for not answering the question, but then again, I'm not asking questions on the internet because I have the answers. I gotta wonder sometimes.

DarK LorD

i don't mean to condemn anyone. it certainly is not my intent. perhaps it is my own fault. i don't know. i certainly don't have the answers. i'm just wondering what you think, that's all.

 

[Dark Kenpo Lord]

i don't mean to condemn anyone. it certainly is not my intent. perhaps it is my own fault. i don't know. i certainly don't have the answers. i'm just wondering what you think, that's all.

The best thing for you to do is to get back in the studio and off the internet, find the answers to these questions in your own training. Asking for opinions is asking for trouble.

DarK LorD

 

[MJS]

to my understanding, Parker Kenpoists seem to take to heart most of everything that became of Ed Parkers thought, including his thought process through spoken word. what i hope to gain is what those Kenpoists think of this particular statement.

a technique's usefulness and value doesn't necessarily lie in their street practicality.

The following are just my thoughts on the question. They are by no means the end all be all of answers. Here goes:

While the technique may not be 'the one' for the street, they could be teaching us:

1- a specific move such as a stance.

2- a specific block or parry.

3- body alignment or angles

4- concepts of height, width and depth

5- checking

6- how to flow from one move to the next.

thanks again for all contributions :asian:

You're welcome! :asian: I hope that this was more along the lines of what you're looking for.

Mike

 

[Old Fat Kenpoka]

Some techniques are better for teaching principles and may not be ideal or even practical in a fight. This is just like the Sets: they teach principles and movements, but are not going to be pretty in performance or kata competition.

We could debate endlessly which techniques are better and which are worse, but we will never know for sure until someone tries all 154 several times each in live fights. You could poll the entire Kenpo community and not be able to analyze all the data and draw any conclusions. And, you will never be able to answer this question by testing these techniques in the dojo.

 

[Sapper6]

The best thing for you to do is to get back in the studio and off the internet, find the answers to these questions in your own training. Asking for opinions is asking for trouble.

DarK LorD

i'm not trying to learn kenpo via of internet discussion boards. if this were the case, your statement would warrant merit.

i'm merely asking the opinion of those who i'll never have the pleasant forture of training with. is there harm in that? apparently so according to you. i never said i was a student of Parker's American Kenpo, but i will say now, that i am not. i am seeking insight into the matter, and who better to ask than people who train in it. the question posed is of viable importance, regardless of system studied. Ed Parker's Kenpo fascinates me. i believe the principles he tought could be applied effectively regardless of the fighting style presently studied by any martial artist.

i ask a question and am told, "get on the mat and find out for yourself...?" what's your problem? personal opinion from others is all of a sudden a harmful thing? perhaps you're in the wrong place. this is a domain of martial arts discussion. perhaps you are in the wrong place.

either contribute to the thread or let it be. to me, it makes no difference. thanks.

:asian:

 

[Sapper6]

The following are just my thoughts on the question. They are by no means the end all be all of answers. Here goes:

While the technique may not be 'the one' for the street, they could be teaching us:

1- a specific move such as a stance.

2- a specific block or parry.

3- body alignment or angles

4- concepts of height, width and depth

5- checking

6- how to flow from one move to the next.




You're welcome! :asian: I hope that this was more along the lines of what you're looking for.

Mike

thank you! :asian:

 

[Sapper6]

Some techniques are better for teaching principles and may not be ideal or even practical in a fight. This is just like the Sets: they teach principles and movements, but are not going to be pretty in performance or kata competition.

We could debate endlessly which techniques are better and which are worse, but we will never know for sure until someone tries all 154 several times each in live fights. You could poll the entire Kenpo community and not be able to analyze all the data and draw any conclusions. And, you will never be able to answer this question by testing these techniques in the dojo.

thank you for your thoughts on the question posed. it's all i was asking for. :asian:

 

[Dark Kenpo Lord]

i ask a question and am told, "get on the mat and find out for yourself...?" what's your problem? personal opinion from others is all of a sudden a harmful thing? perhaps you're in the wrong place. this is a domain of martial arts discussion. perhaps you are in the wrong place.

either contribute to the thread or let it be. to me, it makes no difference. thanks.

:asian:

Hmm, I'm in the wrong place (EPAK forum)? I study EPAK, and I discuss EPAK, get with the program bub, you're out of your element here. If you want answers to these questions I'd suggest you start training in what we do. If you'll notice, none of my posts have been in anything but Kenpo, I don't stray where I don't know what I'm talking about, and I reiterate, I have the answers so I don't need to ask these questions on the internet, and if one should pop up, I've got a direct link to my instructor to ask, 626-796-4029 LTKKA headquarters.

BTW, you sound like a spoiled child when told they have to work to earn the money for a car when they get their driver's license instead of good ole mommy/daddy buying it for you. To learn it is to earn it, to earn it is to respect it.

DarK LorD

 

[Bode]

a technique's usefulness and value doesn't necessarily lie in their street practicality

My opinion...
First, the quote doesn't say the techniques aren't street practical, but that even the ones that are practical have more value than simply "street practicality."

I believe every single technique has street practicality. In addition, each technique feeds off of the basic principles which, when analyzed, are apparent to the instructor and sometimes the student (depending on rank, intelligence, etc...).

More than likely a real confrontation will not involve all of Five Swords, but perhaps multiple "pieces" of a technique grafted together. Too many possiblities align themselves against you actually pulling off a complete technique, which is why we train ourselves to have weapons for every possilbe attack.

When discussing street pracicality and EPAK you cannot limit yourself to discussing one technique, but rather, the system as a whole. No one technique can sum up the capabilities of a highly trained Kenpoist. The street practicality of Kenpo comes from the spontaneous and proper use of basic movements which are present in every technique.

It's the basics that matter...

 

[Rich Parsons]

Moderation Note:

Please keep the discussion Polite and Respectful

Rich Parsons
Martial Talk
Assistant Admin

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

My opinion...
First, the quote doesn't say the techniques aren't street practical, but that even the ones that are practical have more value than simply "street practicality."

I believe every single technique has street practicality. In addition, each technique feeds off of the basic principles which, when analyzed, are apparent to the instructor and sometimes the student (depending on rank, intelligence, etc...).

More than likely a real confrontation will not involve all of Five Swords, but perhaps multiple "pieces" of a technique grafted together. Too many possiblities align themselves against you actually pulling off a complete technique, which is why we train ourselves to have weapons for every possilbe attack.

When discussing street pracicality and EPAK you cannot limit yourself to discussing one technique, but rather, the system as a whole. No one technique can sum up the capabilities of a highly trained Kenpoist. The street practicality of Kenpo comes from the spontaneous and proper use of basic movements which are present in every technique.

It's the basics that matter...

Not to do the "Mr. Parker said.." whiny thing, but this, Bode, is exactly what Mr. Parker was talking about when referencing becoming an engineer of motion. To master the underlying principles and techniques so that you're able to make one up on the spot that matches the factors present at the time of altercation. You can't plan for an unknown, but you can master the basics so you can respond to -- and dictate reaction -- in an unknown.

Hence Mr. Chapels emphasis on planned success in technique execution of the basics. We must be able to adapt and respond to changes that occur in our environment, but we need not be passive in dictating them. Much of the SL4 material manages the reactions of the opponent via the basics method of execution.

Regards,

Dave

 

[Bode]

Not to do the "Mr. Parker said.." whiny thing, but this, Bode, is exactly what Mr. Parker was talking about when referencing becoming an engineer of motion.

That's not whiny. I haven't been around long enough to have heard all of the "Mr. Parker said...." I appreciate it.

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

Theres an old joke in kenpo about the number of kenpoists it takes to change a light bulb. That dynamic still rears its head on these forums, daily. Everyman an expert, each quoting his experience with Mr. Parker, or a Senior / Semi-Senior. When possible, I try to own my opinions by relating them to my experience, in an attempt to avoid this fallacy of appeal to authority (argumentum ad verecundium). But thanks for your patience, Bode. It's refreshing in a kenpo community where the wagons have circled, but the guns are pointed in, not out.

Regards,

Dave

 

[kenpoworks]

I think I posted this before, but well hell..
When Mr. Parker was asked .."so you think you have all the answers".....he replied .."hmm... I have'nt heard all the questions yet.....next".............
......what a guy!
Rich