What does "Motion Kenpo" mean?

[michaeledward]

Michael,

Some of your question of late seem a bit more pointed toward Kenpo styles outside of the Tracy line. Are you thinking of making a move?

Sometimes, it seems the Tracy people are scarce on this board. I've got to imagine that is a bit weird, but no more so than the guys studying some of those less distributed arts.

curiously,

Mike

 

[distalero]

Yes, I read this in the other posting, but this still does not really address why the term "motion" is appropriate. It discusses the "commercial" aspect, and discusses the constant evolution of things, but why is the term "Motion" an appropriate description for the Commercial system?

There are some references to "freeform" and "tailoring", and doing things to your own satisfaction, and a lack of real standards of how things are to be done, but that doesn't, in my opinion, explain why "motion" is an appropriate descriptor. I'm not trying to dispute this or argue about this, just understand it.

Based on how SL4 is described, with indexing and whatnot, it seems to me that the term "motion" would be more appropriately used to describe this. Since this isn't the case, clearly I fail to understand what "motion" implies. And still it remains unexplained.

Perhaps it's the focus on which of the two aspects, anatomy and range of motion, is primarily empasized. In my day, the late 60's to mid 70's, the focus was always on ranges of motion, both yours and the attacker's; what and how to do something based on these ranges of response. The rationale for your response was based on what motion was possible, and maybe most effective, in a given scenario. I know virtually nothing of SL4, but the emphasis seems to me to be correct body use, in the sense of how joints articulate and muscles are used, based on anatomical truths, which redefines "motion" as primarily important only insomuch as it is based on these anatomical truths. When you think about it, these two approaches are very different in focus.

 

[Kenpojujitsu3]

I
......Kenpojujitsu3 - I think in a lot of kenpo circles most people learn the "how" and not "why" or the principle behind the technique.
I think that is why there are so many people out there that are very concerned about so-and-so not doing the technique exactly the same as joe bloe does it. I dont really think the "why to" is even really important as a secondary learning tool.........I think understanding what's happening to attacker and defender while executing a movement is important. that way, in the end, the technique doesn't matter much....

You may be correct here from what I've been seeing and reading lately.

"What's happening to the attacker and defender" has a reason. That reason is the WHY which is what allows people to spontaneously make up a WHAT when needed on the flow. I have never....let me repeat that NEVER met any martial artist that could handle spontaneous aggressive attacks by reading and responding to changing variables that didn't understand WHY. I repeat NEVER

The WHAT is the technique so if all you know is WHAT the technique matters alot. THE WHY is the underlying concepts and principles. If you know the WHY the technique becomes less important becasue they all become variations of just a handful of effective movements.

 

[BlackCatBonz]

[/i][/u]

You may be correct here from what I've been seeing and reading lately.

"What's happening to the attacker and defender" has a reason. That reason is the WHY which is what allows people to spontaneously make up a WHAT when needed on the flow. I have never....let me repeat that NEVER met any martial artist that could handle spontaneous aggressive attacks by reading and responding to changing variables that didn't understand WHY. I repeat NEVER

The WHAT is the technique so if all you know is WHAT the technique matters alot. THE WHY is the underlying concepts and principles. If you know the WHY the technique becomes less important becasue they all become variations of just a handful of effective movements.

I couldnt agree more.

 

[Hand Sword]

I can respect your points to a degree. However I keep in contact with "Doc" and I'm definitely considered to be in the "motion kenpo" crowd. I've never heard him, or read anything where he said to me or anyone else that his way is "The True Way". I've actually read several posts and e-mails from him that says that his way is "A way" or "HIS way" and that many in "motion Kenpo" can make their stuff work. Sorry but the "us versus them" just seems to be his way of differenciating what his does from everybody else. I don't see any malice, I just see a name. Just like all the names you rattled off (Tracey, EPAK, SL-4, etc.) are just labels. I don't find "motion kenpo" to be any different. I guess I just don't understand the part about abolishing all terms that describe any art by others and then listing acceptable terms that describe any art by others.

O.K. I admit it's not been said outright like that, however, when referring to it as "motion kenpo", or any other label, and it's teachings or lack there of, the tone has been degrading. Saying things like that's just the commercial version is the same as saying it's not my way, as mine is the correct way. Bottom line, There's no need for an us versus them attitude, here on martial talk! The differentiating can be done without that tone. "Motion Kenpo" is different, as no one other than that camp refers to it that way. When people ask you what you study do you say "motion Kenpo", or just kenpo? As for your uderstanding or my not making my point clear, I am saying Emphasize your way/s and don't refer to the other ways, or, what they're lacking. Basically, I'm saying, let's get away from the "those people" kind of speech, and that's exactly what it is.

 

[Kenpojujitsu3]

Perhaps it's the focus on which of the two aspects, anatomy and range of motion, is primarily empasized. In my day, the late 60's to mid 70's, the focus was always on ranges of motion, both yours and the attacker's; what and how to do something based on these ranges of response. The rationale for your response was based on what motion was possible, and maybe most effective, in a given scenario. I know virtually nothing of SL4, but the emphasis seems to me to be correct body use, in the sense of how joints articulate and muscles are used, based on anatomical truths, which redefines "motion" as primarily important only insomuch as it is based on these anatomical truths. When you think about it, these two approaches are very different in focus.

Damn, couldn't put that any better IMO

 

[Kenpojujitsu3]

O.K. I admit it's not been said outright like that, however, when referring to it as "motion kenpo", or any other label, and it's teachings or lack there of, the tone has been degrading. Saying things like that's just the commercial version is the same as saying it's not my way, as mine is the correct way. Bottom line, There's no need for an us versus them attitude, here on martial talk! The differentiating can be done without that tone. "Motion Kenpo" is different, as no one other than that camp refers to it that way. When people ask you what you study do you say "motion Kenpo", or just kenpo? As for your uderstanding or my not making my point clear, I am saying Emphasize your way/s and don't refer to the other ways, or, what they're lacking. Basically, I'm saying, let's get away from the "those people" kind of speech, and that's exactly what it is.

I've never seen anything like "that's JUST commercial kenpo" but I have seen "That's commercial kenpo". That "just" turns a differentiating statement into a degrading one. I've only seen the differenciating statements. Personally I do it all the time as I differentiate what I teach from what others teach as a matter of reference not a matter of degradation. I teach Kenpo with an emphasis on the principles and concepts of Ju Jitsu that I feel enhance Kenpo's already formidable arsenal. I feel it allows kenpoists to have a greater ability to control and regulate their intent as well as a greater understanding of how, when and why to control and regulate. I feel it gives them more options to control the situation without inflicting harm if necessary and by inflicting deadly harm if necessary. I feel that adding (more like emphasizing) the Ju Jitsu concepts stresses proper basics, anatomy, leverage, and bio-mechanics more so than many that don't emphasize the Ju Jitsu in Kenpo. This doesn't slight anyone, it's just how I FEEL about my approach to teaching and training. In the previous statements I haven't downed anyone I just explained why I fell what I do is an effective path in training based on my experience with other paths of training. I see the same when I hear about SL-4. They're not saying they are better. They are saying why they do what they do as opposed to what others do. In short it's a "I do this type of Kenpo BECAUSE...." instead of just "I do this type of Kenpo."

 

[DavidCC]

Yes, I read this in the other posting, but this still does not really address why the term "motion" is appropriate.

Isn't it known as the study of (or science) of motion? I'd guess that's where the term came from.

 

[Flying Crane]

Michael,

Some of your question of late seem a bit more pointed toward Kenpo styles outside of the Tracy line. Are you thinking of making a move?

Sometimes, it seems the Tracy people are scarce on this board. I've got to imagine that is a bit weird, but no more so than the guys studying some of those less distributed arts.

curiously,

Mike

No, that isn't my motivation. I kind of see all kenpo as "One", in a way, but with different flavors. If I lived close enough to a EPAK guy, or another Tracy guy who I trusted and respected, I might study under either or both. I would certainly be interested in seeing the EPAK side of things, as well as furthering my understanding of the Tracy side. But I am not deliberately planning to make a jump, or anything like that.

I just keep seeing certain terms and discussion happening, and I am really trying to understand what people mean, when they use these terms. This "Motion", or "Motion-Based" term continues to stump me. I understand the concept of the Commercial system, but why is "motion" an accurate descriptor for the commercial system? That's all, just trying to understand what is being said.

 

[Flying Crane]

I know virtually nothing of SL4, but the emphasis seems to me to be correct body use, in the sense of how joints articulate and muscles are used, based on anatomical truths, which redefines "motion" as primarily important only insomuch as it is based on these anatomical truths.

This is also my understanding of what SL4 is built upon. I think I can understand this much.

 

[Flying Crane]

Flying Crane - let's say i am teaching the cha-cha to you in a dance class. If i follow a formula and a set pattern it would make teaching you a lot easier by repeating it over and over. I haven't taught you the essence of the cha-cha or what makes the cha-cha tick, but you can follow it along and do it. Now I, on the other hand am a professional dancer; when I do the cha-cha it looks like the dance that you learned, but there is a lot of ad-lib and steps thrown in that i didnt show you.
If, on the other hand, I decided to teach you the cha-cha by giving you a history lesson, the origins of the steps, what to do, what not to do, you might lose interest, take forever to learn the dance, or quit. If you quit because it takes to long, thats hard for business......it is in my best interest to teach you how to dance by going through the motions and not worrying about the extraneous stuff.
eventually, you will be ad-libbing steps and doing the cha-cha with your own flavour.......but it will still be the cha-cha even if it isnt "exactly" what i showed you originally.

I can certainly appreciate the analogy.

 

[Flying Crane]

I've never seen anything like "that's JUST commercial kenpo" but I have seen "That's commercial kenpo". That "just" turns a differentiating statement into a degrading one. I've only seen the differenciating statements.

I have seen postings that used the terms "commercial" and/or "motion" to describe the kenpo done by some, and it was definitely not a flattering term, in the context. Now maybe that was not the intended message of the poster; I don't know. But from how it has been used, it gave me the impression that "commercial" and/or "motion" kenpo is, in the poster's opinion, a "lesser" art.

I can understand why someone might feel that a system designed to be commercially propagated and taught to the masses might be lacking. There are definitely logical and logistical reasons why the finer points of the art don't get passed along in this context, at least not to most students. When the masses are the client, most people aren't up to the challenge, and don't have the commitment or the ability to learn the finer points that might make something that is "good" into something that is "excellent".

OK, on a philosophical level, I can understand and agree with this idea.

However, "motion" seems to describe an approach to training. And as I stated above, I have seen the term used in a less than flattering way. It implies that a "motion-based" approach is an inferior approach. This is what I am trying to understand: what does the term "motion" imply, as far as a training philosophy, and why would it be inferior to another approach?

I appreciate the replies I have seen so far. Obviously those out there who are doing what might be termed "commercial" and/or "motion" kenpo don't agree that it is lacking. I guess that just because somebody may feel that something is inferior, doesn't necessarily make it true. This is why I made a public thread of this question. If we can get a solid understanding of what "motion" refers to, and why it might be inferior, then the insights of those who are actually training this way become more valuable..

 

[marlon]

I would just like to say that this thread is great for me as an instructor as it helps me to refine my understanding of what i am doing, what my teachers did and what i want to do as an instructor of kempo. Thank you all...i love this

Respectfully,
Marlon

 

[HKphooey]

Michael,

It was a great question and even better discussion.

Thanks.

 

[JamesB]

O.K. I admit it's not been said outright like that, however, when referring to it as "motion kenpo", or any other label, and it's teachings or lack there of, the tone has been degrading. Saying things like that's just the commercial version is the same as saying it's not my way, as mine is the correct way. Bottom line, There's no need for an us versus them attitude, here on martial talk! The differentiating can be done without that tone. "Motion Kenpo" is different, as no one other than that camp refers to it that way. When people ask you what you study do you say "motion Kenpo", or just kenpo? As for your uderstanding or my not making my point clear, I am saying Emphasize your way/s and don't refer to the other ways, or, what they're lacking. Basically, I'm saying, let's get away from the "those people" kind of speech, and that's exactly what it is.

I think you make some good points - the term 'motion kenpo' is certainly a loaded one. I think that problem is that when this term is used, it implies that motion is the only thing going on. But that's not true - the principles of body mechanics/physics are always present, and there will always be those that have better (or worse) understanding of these principles. In addition some practioners decide to emphasise the underlying physical principles more than the movements they create, at least in the early stages of learning.

Does anyone know when and where the term 'motion-based kenpo' originally originated? I believe it was perhaps Mr Parker himself describing his art?

 

[Kenpojujitsu3]

I think you make some good points - the term 'motion kenpo' is certainly a loaded one. I think that problem is that when this term is used, it implies that motion is the only thing going on. But that's not true - the principles of body mechanics/physics are always present, and there will always be those that have better (or worse) understanding of these principles. In addition some practioners decide to emphasise the underlying physical principles more than the movements they create, at least in the early stages of learning.

Does anyone know when and where the term 'motion-based kenpo' originally originated? I believe it was perhaps Mr Parker himself describing his art?

Uh oh here it comes. I've never met Mr. Parker so I can't say I heard him say that. But I have never seen Kenpo refered to as "motion-based kenpo" in any printed article or text prior to his death. This is where the comments like "It originated December 16th, 1990" comes from.

 

[JamesB]

Uh oh here it comes. I've never met Mr. Parker so I can't say I heard him say that. But I have never seen Kenpo refered to as "motion-based kenpo" in any printed article or text prior to his death. This is where the comments like "It originated December 16th, 1990" comes from.

yes, I've neither met Mr Parker (started kenpo way too late for that), and I had never heard or seen written this term. But for whatever reason the term has been introduced, and I don't believe it was originally intended to be used in the way it is now. Perhaps a better question to ask would be: Did the term 'motion-based kenpo' originate before, or after Mr Parker's passing?

 

[pete]

But for whatever reason the term has been introduced, and I don't believe it was originally intended to be used in the way it is now...

rhetorically, what other terms or labels may this bring to mind. oh, fugheddabowdit, wouldn't want to drag this down into the gutter.

 

[distalero]

yes, I've neither met Mr Parker (started kenpo way too late for that), and I had never heard or seen written this term. But for whatever reason the term has been introduced, and I don't believe it was originally intended to be used in the way it is now. Perhaps a better question to ask would be: Did the term 'motion-based kenpo' originate before, or after Mr Parker's passing?

Before; much before. Just think: "Universal Pattern". The universal pattern symbolizes much of the older emphasis. You know, when I use the term "older" it occurs to me that you can really differentiate between 3 general approaches: so called "motion" kenpo, based on what I described earlier, "commercial" kenpo which came after this and was based on a more codified approach, and SL4 as an underlying approach to either. Now, I'm sure Doc would disagree with this last part, but wouldn't body mechanics as understood by SL4 modify either of the other 2 approaches? It's not a matter of good, better, best, but rather "this, that, and this one within those 2".

 

[Hand Sword]

I've never seen anything like "that's JUST commercial kenpo" but I have seen "That's commercial kenpo". That "just" turns a differentiating statement into a degrading one. I've only seen the differenciating statements. Personally I do it all the time as I differentiate what I teach from what others teach as a matter of reference not a matter of degradation. I teach Kenpo with an emphasis on the principles and concepts of Ju Jitsu that I feel enhance Kenpo's already formidable arsenal. I feel it allows kenpoists to have a greater ability to control and regulate their intent as well as a greater understanding of how, when and why to control and regulate. I feel it gives them more options to control the situation without inflicting harm if necessary and by inflicting deadly harm if necessary. I feel that adding (more like emphasizing) the Ju Jitsu concepts stresses proper basics, anatomy, leverage, and bio-mechanics more so than many that don't emphasize the Ju Jitsu in Kenpo. This doesn't slight anyone, it's just how I FEEL about my approach to teaching and training. In the previous statements I haven't downed anyone I just explained why I fell what I do is an effective path in training based on my experience with other paths of training. I see the same when I hear about SL-4. They're not saying they are better. They are saying why they do what they do as opposed to what others do. In short it's a "I do this type of Kenpo BECAUSE...." instead of just "I do this type of Kenpo."

Either way, the difference of what one does is emphasized by saying "that's commercial". What is implied there between the lines, is also present, which is "I don't do that stuff", or "those people". As for what I'm feeling from your writing, just to make myself clear, I've never claimed YOU, or anyone else specific, as feeling, or saying this. However, I just pointed out, that, through my time here, I've seen the tone and writings definitely downing what is considered "motion kenpo".