I would like to get a word in edgewise regarding the suitability of Kenpo as a military weapon. Trust me ... It is suitable, and dare I say, it's origins are military. All differences (social, political, cultural, etc) aside, the origins of Kenpo are steeped in arts of war.
Don't forget that the original arts, Pre-Ed Parker, are from a totally different culture, whereby warriors were expected to not only be able to kill in both unarmed and armed situations, but as well, knock the nuts off a gnat with a bow and arrow, arrange flowers, write poetry, make ceremonial tea, and have a gift for creating paintings. And before any body here beats on me, this goes way back to before Mitose, even ... :lol:
The Kenpo techniques that we learn today in commercial schools (for the most part, Clyde!) are not diluted down, per se. They are, however, more specific to our cultural needs and social requirements. In most places that I have been in the past 20 years, you can not carry bow and arrow, nunchakus, swords, sai, tonfa, bo, etc. In some states in America, it is illegal to carry the weapons at all.
But military? It's history is military. It's origins are military, and basically, the culture is military, or perhaps militant, in origin. Even back to the Shaolin Temples and before.
Two of my Black Belts went into the Marines a number of years ago. One went to the Fast Companies. The other went to Swimmer Scouts. Both of these are Special Operations Units. One of them was, later, in the Kosovo debacle. Both have taught their art, pretty much as I passed it to them, to Delta Force and SEALS in training. (And I don't even have an advertisement in Black Belt Magazine).
Our methods are different now ... We tend to require more of a thinking person's approach to the arts, thus we have what some people may tend to call, "Analysis Paralysis". Is that good? Well, Yes and No. For us, today, it is good to have something that we can flow into a path or school of thought as we progress. We need it, in order to feel complete as we pursue this thing we call life.
In a mass war setting ... No, we don't need that, at all. In fact, there should be, for mass teaching in a war setting, a lot less description and discussion. Training, due to time and necessity constraints, is usually, very limited in number of techniques and basic understanding. e.g. 35,000 soldiers don't need to know the whole philosophy or concept of marriage of gravity or 150+ techniques. They only have to know and make workable, the fact that assuming a wider stance, dropping their weight as they rotate their hips and exhale while striking, creates a stronger strike... Thus increasing their survivability, and more importantly, allowing the enemy to die for his cause and country, all the more successfully. If our soldiers survive, then they can, at their leisure, learn more.
The military heirarchy, we are probably stuck with, for at least the next 10 to 20 years.... :lol:
Dan
:rofl:
