You wouldn't know it with the amount of jargon that Mr. Parker came up with.
What is our base?
- Thread starter Touch Of Death
- Start date
You wouldn't know it with the amount of jargon that Mr. Parker came up with.
Haha, while I agree that there is some overkill, many of Mr Parker's descriptions made clear heretofore obscure concepts. Things like marriage of gravity, tracking, borrowed force, etc. These things were nearly unexplainable or fell under catch-all terms like chi, ki, spirit, etc.
While I feel that kenpo is a good SD art, IMHO, it's real strength is as a teaching/learning art. Training kenpo will allow you to quickly assimilate other arts.
"Looky loo" is ingenious, in my opinion. Generally speaking, it is a good plan for both the instructor and the prospective student. My instructor uses the plan and it helped me make a decision about enrolling in his school without having to worry about getting into or out of a contract; it also helped me feel honorable about the possibility of walking away if it didn't work out. When a plan like "looky loo" is used, all the money is out on the table, so to speak, so there should be no love lost over money regardless of the outcome of the first few lessons.
I believe the kenpo base (or the base of any system, really) would be the terminology (verbal or non-verbal) that allows a teacher to impart the knowledge of the kenpo system.
Sure, to someone who a) already has a prior martial arts background or b) someone who is above average, and is very quick to pick things up. But, the average Joe, someone new to the arts, never doing stuff like this before, is usually, in my experience, pretty uncoordinated.
Walking and running isn't rocket science either. Yet we learn to walk before we run.
OP
OP
OK, so after they stand in a horse learning to hammer to the corner of the imaginary box, for a few minutes, they get to do it on a body. Its a contact art; and contact should be part of your base. As for walking and running, most people that walk in the door understand how to step forward or back; so, after learning brief method of execution set, they get real bodies with real attacks. You can call the method of execution set our base, but, I still contend that all the yellow belt material is the base. And how long should we make them stand there and do a three move set before experiencing a body? We are talking a matter of hours here, not months or years.Sure, to someone who a) already has a prior martial arts background or b) someone who is above average, and is very quick to pick things up. But, the average Joe, someone new to the arts, never doing stuff like this before, is usually, in my experience, pretty uncoordinated.
Walking and running isn't rocket science either. Yet we learn to walk before we run.
Sean
I would contend that Doc made a good point saying that The driving philosophies, concepts, and principles to express those philosophies within the context of the art are the base of any art. you could call it the method of execution as an encompassing term but it would not be brief in every school. it is interesting to ponder though.
IIRC, Doc made a post (I'll have to try and find it) in which he was talking about how long it takes someone in his school, to advance, as far as techniques go. I got the impression from that post, that the student in his school, doesnt move forward until things are perfect or damn close to it.
So going on that, your post here, would disagree with that line of teaching.
Sure, I would, after they got used to the basic movement of the strike, have them hit a target, ie:focus mit, but no, on the first day, they would not move on to techniques. Sorry, as I said, unless we're talking about the above adverage person, there is no way someone with no prior training, is going to, with any amount of effectiveness, be able to do a tech. Most intro lessons that I would teach were 30min. 9 times out of 10, I'd teach a few simple punches, blocks, and kics, and you could see that their head was spinning. Besides, whats the rush? The basics are the foundation, IMHO, and if they suck, then nothing else they do will matter because that will suck too.
Same thing applies to grappling. Position before submission....because if your position sucks, so will your techniques.
OP
OP
You know, after I made my post this morning, I started thinking about this very thing you just said, as I've said the same thing too. I agree, that someone should be able to defend themselves, relatively soon, not necessarily the same day they walk out of a class, but within say a 1-2 month period. Of course, we do need to keep in mind, that they will still be limited as to what they can/can't do, as it'd be impossible to cover everything all at once.
However, if we do this, then we need to focus and dedicate our time to specific things. In other words, take the material, strip it down to the bare bones, essential things, and focus on that. So, we have to take something like kata, put that on the back burner, and focus on other stuff, ie: techniques.
Again, while I do agree with this line of thinking, we need to be realistic with ourselves, and understand that not everyone that walks in the door will be capable of this, coordinated for this, etc. I've been teaching for a long time, and I've seen a wide variety of people walk thru the door. I'm not saying that everyone is slow at learning, but not everyone is quick either. Of course, just because someone thinks they 'have it' doesnt necessarily mean that that is the case. I've had people ask for more of a kata, or another tech., and when I ask to see what they've already done, many times, they're going thru the movements, but the fine points are not there. Whats the sense of giving them more, if what they already know, sucks? So show them more, so more can suck? Sorry, I dont teach that way.
Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
I'll actually disagree with this. Expecting or intending for students to be able to use the material immediately is misguided, in my opinion.
We need to establish the foundation. That starts with stances and footwork. Then fundamental blocks and deflections, striking with the upper limbs, and striking with the lower limbs. More complex combinations come later. If the foundation is deficient, nothing else matters. build a house on a sand dune, and it will fall down when the wind blows. Build it on granite, it will stand forever.
I understand the quick-use sentiment, and to some degree I think there is room for it in the big picture. But making this a major emphasis can harm the student's development in the long run.
A lot of things do not pay quick dividends, but give a huge payout later on if they are developed properly. This takes time. If it is done right, the ultimate level of development will be much higher.
If most attention is given to the quick-use ideas, then the foundation is ignored, or not given the attention it needs. The ultimate level of skill will be much lower, down the road. Then, all kinds of bad habits need to be corrected before this handicap can be overcome.
If someone needs or wants self-defense right now, they should go buy a gun and learn how to use it, and get a valid conceal-carry permit. Even that takes some time and effort to develop proficiency. Nothing is instant and immediate.
Martial arts are not an answer to quick self-defense. Kenpo is a body of knowledge with a skillset that takes time to develop. It is not a quick-fix, tho I think a lot of people try to use it as such. I think it's unreasonable to expect useful skills quickly, in kenpo or any martial art. I'd say that a dedicated student with a reasonable level of natural ability could begin to be effective with kenpo skills after six months. Sooner than that, I think is unreasonable. And this assumes the student is dedicated in training. If not, and if natural ability is lacking, it could be much much longer.
Now, I know that we all have stories of the student who had one lesson and successfully defended herself against an attacker the next day. Sure, that happens. There are always exceptions to the rule. But I don't think you can present this as the norm or what is to be expected. Most people won't be able to pull it off, and there is no sense in lying to them about it.
Drill the fundamentals. Build the foundation. Everything else will be much better if you do.
OP
OP
I can understand avoiding complex material, but the simple stuff is pretty simple.
Sean
Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
yes and no. It can seem simple, but it can actually take a long time to make it really good.
A stance all by itself might seem simple, and maybe a new student can get it "good enough" fairly soon, but I'll bet that the finer details need correcting for a long time.
But adding the torque necessary when delivering a punch, or a block, or the shift needed to deliver a good kick while not compromising that stance, can be very complicated for a beginner.
Now elevate it to the level of a self defense tech that might have two or three or more steps and stance changes, one or two blocking/defensive maneuvers, and a couple of counter attacks, and it's really really complex. Far too much for a beginner to tackle, without losing integrity in every aspect of the technique. STeps end up in the wrong places, stances and stance changes get sloppy, defenses get sloppy, counter attacks get sloppy. Especially when they are working with a partner before they've even made it solid as a solo act.
Working with a partner makes everything sloppy, because that's the unpredictable nature of reality. But the student needs to make it solid without the partner first, or the slop just gets worse and worse. A student needs to practice and develop it as cleanly and solidly as possible, because it will be sloppy when done for real on an opponent. If the base was not adequately developed, the slop could make it fall apart completely.
No need to rush. Where's everyone headed to in such a hurry? Slow down and get it right. Pay attention to the fundamentals.
OP
OP
Create distance, stabalize your base, defend with your most coordinated hand to the front... That takes almost no time at all.
Kembudo-Kai Kempoka
Senior Master
I wasn't. I was intoduced into the Orange belt stuff; never saw the yellow until years later, and was surprised to learn there was such a beast. Used to call the foundation material the "WOP" material -- W = White, O = Orange, P = Purple. No yellow. Old format.
punisher73
Senior Master
What do you mean by "instant contact"? Hitting a live person or using pads or heavy bag?
Most of the boxing trainers I have read talk about the progression a student should have and they don't get into the ring with a person for awhile after learning the mechanics of the punch, and then getting it down on a heavy bag, then onto focus mitts. Then when they do get into the ring, it is limited sparring to focus on a specific thing. To shorten the process ingrains too many bad habits because the student has too many variables to work with.
Now, let's say you are talking about Kenpo. The student should have the mechanics down of stepping back and blocking and getting into a strong stable stance, because if it's not a good stance it's not going to matter what follows to be effective. Next step is after they can get into a strong stable stance, they need to be able to throw the block so it has structural integrity and does what it's supposed to do, otherwise what follows doesn't matter. THEN, you would have them transition from neutral bow into forward bow to execute the punch. They need to be able to transfer properly so that each link in the chain adds to the speed/power of the punch.
There are two schools of though to training.
1) Teach them strong fundamentals and make sure they are correct and can be used properly and this may take a bit of time.
2) Teach them fast so they can apply it right then and hope that through time they develop the tools into a strong foundation to keep building their skill level.
Eventually both ways should end up at the same goal of having a competant fighter with strong fundamentals.
Agreed. Both methods can work fine. I personally feel that stance training is a bit of a waste of time, as stances do not really come into play when in a real fight or even sparring, for the most part. I stressed the concept of footwork, as opposed to stances.
But again, either method can work.
But again, either method can work.
I agree with what others have said. Yes, both methods will work. What it comes down to, is what your goal is....show them the entire system or strip it down, focusing on specific things, that would allow for quicker progression.
Either way, its still going to be a process. One may be slightly quicker than the other, but no, to think that someone is going to take a newbie, show them a few things, and after 30min, 1hr, etc., that they're really going to be remotely effective, is, IMHO, wishful thinking at best.
Either way, its still going to be a process. One may be slightly quicker than the other, but no, to think that someone is going to take a newbie, show them a few things, and after 30min, 1hr, etc., that they're really going to be remotely effective, is, IMHO, wishful thinking at best.
I agree with the footwork, but even with the footwork, you still have to be in some sort of 'stance' if anything is to be effective. Of course, 'stance' is a broad term, so for the sake of this thread, Im assuming that what you talk about stances, you're talking about the typical Kenpo stances, ie: neutral bow, reverse, cat, etc.? If thats the case, then yes, I agree. While I teach them in class, when I spar/fight, Im not doing a cat stance either. LOL. My footwork is more boxing like, as well as adding the footwork from the FMAs. Works for me.
Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
It takes no time at all to mimick the movement and do it poorly.
It takes a lot longer to do it well, with good technique, and with a high level of effectiveness.
You want quick? Like I said earlier, buy a gun.
Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
should, but I don't believe it does. I believe option #2 never gives the same level of results because it builds on top of a poor foundation, and people never go back and fix it.
Similar threads
