What'd your method of teaching the Dimensional Zone Theory? When?

[Gerry Seymour]

I'll approach this with no real reference to kenpo/kempo, in hopes of removing some of the attachment to some of these ideas (and because I know almost nothing about ken/mpo ).

I think some level of theory is important - knowing why a setup/entry is done a certain way (to break structure, close off responses, etc.) is important. Knowing it as a specific theory is not. Whether someone knows my structure-breaking approach, speaks of the principle of kuzushi as taught in Judo, or whatever, that doesn't matter - so long as they know they need to do that thing (breaking structure/balance) before or during a grappling move. The same goes for using angles and levels in strikes. They need to know why they change angles and levels, but whether they know it as the triangles seen in Silat, the angles discussed in Shotokan, the western Boxing model, or using Wing Chun's centerline concept isn't all that important. Specific models only matter, IMO, insofar as they become a common vocabulary (and, thus, a shorthand) within a specific group. That means they matter more within a school than within an art.

Some of us REALLY like discussing the theory and concepts. I'm one of those. But I also know that this level of discussion isn't important in general to developing functional skills...at least not for everyone. Some people learn faster when they have a strong, robust conceptual model to work with (that's me). Most folks don't benefit as much, and some will actually find it more confusing than helpful.

 

[Headhunter]

I'll approach this with no real reference to kenpo/kempo, in hopes of removing some of the attachment to some of these ideas (and because I know almost nothing about ken/mpo ).

I think some level of theory is important - knowing why a setup/entry is done a certain way (to break structure, close off responses, etc.) is important. Knowing it as a specific theory is not. Whether someone knows my structure-breaking approach, speaks of the principle of kuzushi as taught in Judo, or whatever, that doesn't matter - so long as they know they need to do that thing (breaking structure/balance) before or during a grappling move. The same goes for using angles and levels in strikes. They need to know why they change angles and levels, but whether they know it as the triangles seen in Silat, the angles discussed in Shotokan, the western Boxing model, or using Wing Chun's centerline concept isn't all that important. Specific models only matter, IMO, insofar as they become a common vocabulary (and, thus, a shorthand) within a specific group. That means they matter more within a school than within an art.

Some of us REALLY like discussing the theory and concepts. I'm one of those. But I also know that this level of discussion isn't important in general to developing functional skills...at least not for everyone. Some people learn faster when they have a strong, robust conceptual model to work with (that's me). Most folks don't benefit as much, and some will actually find it more confusing than helpful.

I love kenpo but it's theory is frankly...Well it's like trying to sound to clever. There's things li,e category completion. Which means if you do a move on one side later you'll do it again on another side to complete the category. Yeah it's interesting but I don't believe it's essential. It turns people off. They want to be punching and kicking and blocking not having a lecture that's what school is for. Also simPly some aren't smart enough for it. I don't mean that as an insult. But simply not everyone is able to understand that stuff and it turns people away

 

[Flying Crane]

My impression of some of the “theory” in kenpo is that it is an attempt by people to add a scientific level of analysis that I do not believe is supportable.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I love kenpo but it's theory is frankly...Well it's like trying to sound to clever. There's things li,e category completion. Which means if you do a move on one side later you'll do it again on another side to complete the category. Yeah it's interesting but I don't believe it's essential. It turns people off. They want to be punching and kicking and blocking not having a lecture that's what school is for. Also simPly some aren't smart enough for it. I don't mean that as an insult. But simply not everyone is able to understand that stuff and it turns people away

It doesn't even have to be a matter of intelligence. Some folks simply aren't wired to understand things that way, but can understand exactly the same concepts a different way.

It sounds like some principles (like category completion) are more a point for instructors and curriculum designers, and really wouldn't be of much interest to the student.

EDIT: And I'll add that naming the principles is helpful for principles that get referenced a lot (creates a shorthand), but can get in the way for other principles. I can't really think why that principle wouldn't just be described as "always practice on both sides" or something like that.

 

[Headhunter]

My impression of some of the “theory” in kenpo is that it is an attempt by people to add a scientific level of analysis that I do not believe is supportable.

Some parts of the theory I do enjoy but that's for me to research in my own time. To many places stand around discussing theory in class for over half an hour and to me that's ridiculous. It's to much of a peeing contest just to show how smart they are

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Some parts of the theory I do enjoy but that's for me to research in my own time. To many places stand around discussing theory in class for over half an hour and to me that's ridiculous. It's to much of a peeing contest just to show how smart they are

Standing around listening to someone talk for 30 minutes during a class without actually training during that time? Yeah, that’s bad regardless of how good the art or the theory being discussed. I’ll run my mouth sometimes during Q&A at the end of the class, but if you have a half hour to do it in then that’s time which could be spent working.

 

[drop bear]

Standing around listening to someone talk for 30 minutes during a class without actually training during that time? Yeah, that’s bad regardless of how good the art or the theory being discussed. I’ll run my mouth sometimes during Q&A at the end of the class, but if you have a half hour to do it in then that’s time which could be spent working.

Unless it is Danaher or someone.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Some parts of the theory I do enjoy but that's for me to research in my own time. To many places stand around discussing theory in class for over half an hour and to me that's ridiculous. It's to much of a peeing contest just to show how smart they are

In most cases, I think theory is best saved for after-training beer.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Standing around listening to someone talk for 30 minutes during a class without actually training during that time? Yeah, that’s bad regardless of how good the art or the theory being discussed. I’ll run my mouth sometimes during Q&A at the end of the class, but if you have a half hour to do it in then that’s time which could be spent working.

Eh, theory has it's place, and I could easily see myself spending more than an hour talking about it. The thing is that I don't do that in class. I'll stick around after class, or talk about it during stretching/warm up, but I don't want more than 10-15 minutes at max in class time (and not every class).

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Eh, theory has it's place, and I could easily see myself spending more than an hour talking about it. The thing is that I don't do that in class. I'll stick around after class, or talk about it during stretching/warm up, but I don't want more than 10-15 minutes at max in class time (and not every class).

Just going to add: When I teach a class, even though I like to talk about theory, theory never comes up. Unless you're going to count theory as "Punch this way otherwise you're going to hurt your elbow." or "You can guard either like this, or like this, depending on your X preference.Try out both." along with answering questions.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Just going to add: When I teach a class, even though I like to talk about theory, theory never comes up. Unless you're going to count theory as "Punch this way otherwise you're going to hurt your elbow." or "You can guard either like this, or like this, depending on your X preference.Try out both." along with answering questions.

I can certainly be guilty of talking too much when teaching (I know that will shock everyone here at MT), but I try to keep it within reason. I'm more likely to get wordy in answer to a complex question than when introducing a topic. Theory is fun, but mostly for those who already have basic competence, and are starting to think more about they why of things.