What does "Motion Kenpo" mean?

[Kenpojujitsu3]

Originally Posted by Flying Crane

Hmmm...not sure that was what I was thinking. More like "Motion" kenpo jumps straight to the techniques and forms, and expects that the basics and principles will be absorbed out of their practice. The "fancy" moves are learned early-on.

Non "motion" kenpo drills the basics until they are solid, then works with the techs and forms once the foundation is built. Takes longer to learn the "fancy" moves, but they will be more effective if done this way.

Well gotta disagree here, too general

I teach "motion kenpo" by defintion and I drill Basics and principles and don't "jump" to anything. The "fancy" moves come wherever they show up on the charts which is usually around Blue or Green or so by my personal opinion of Fancy.

My friend in the Area called "Big Max" also drills basics and principles like nobody's business. His yellow belts have training in excess of a year for Yellow. I've seen him spend hours at a time just drilling them on crossovers and pivots.

I've never seen any SL-4 or "non motion" kenpo stuff that I would deem fancy.

[Flying Crane]

Originally Posted by Kenpojujitsu3

Well gotta disagree here, too general

I teach "motion kenpo" by defintion and I drill Basics and principles and don't "jump" to anything. The "fancy" moves come wherever they show up on the charts which is usually around Blue or Green or so by my personal opinion of Fancy.

My friend in the Area called "Big Max" also drills basics and principles like nobody's business. His yellow belts have training in excess of a year for Yellow. I've seen him spend hours at a time just drilling them on crossovers and pivots.

I've never seen any SL-4 or "non motion" kenpo stuff that I would deem fancy.

well, this is exactly what I am trying to get to the bottom of: just what the heck does the term "motion" refer to? I keep seeing this term used in discussion, in certain camps, and it generally doesn't seem to be a positive term (from what I can tell), and I am trying to understand what the heck it means. Nobody seems willing to come out and give a clear explanation of this term, how it relates to Mr. Parker's commercial system from the 70s, and just why exactly it is a "negative", or at least "limited" thing, compared to "non motion" kenpo. What is the term "motion" describing, as far as approaches to training and such, or philosophy, or whatever? As I stated in one of the earlier posts, I understand the concept of the "commercial" system, but the term "motion" is also used to describe this commercial system, and the meaning of the term "motion", in this context, remains unclear to me.

So I am listing my own thoughts as to what it MIGHT mean, hoping to get some feedback from those who might know.

If you are doing what would be considered "motion" kenpo, then I appreciate your comments, 'cause I think you guys should weigh in. That's why I put this in an open discussion thread, instead of sending a bunch of Private Messages. I think if your kenpo is being negatively judged by anybody, you guys should have a chance to comment on it.

And by "fancy stuff", I am simply referring to the curriculum of SD techs and forms, as opposed to the basics. I suppose (tho I could be wrong) that SL4 uses these techs as well, in some way, shape, or form...

[BlackCatBonz]

now i dont study epak.......most people on the boards know this......but i have been apart of several convos trying to understand what the definitions mean.

From my discussions with Doc, i am under the assumption that sl-4 teaches principles via technique as the goal; whereas with motion kenpo, executing proper technique is the goal.
this would make the system much easier to learn because one would only need to demonstrate a working technique, rather than define the principles responsible for the techniques efficacy.

[Hand Sword]

Since "motion Kenpo" practitioners have never referred to it as such, instead calling what they do Kenpo. I would say that "Motion Kenpo" is a term, in all fairness, that is used to describe it in a lesser manner, when compared to the "Non-Motion Kenpo", by the Non-Motion Kenpo practitioners. Honestly, it's just a term.

[BlackCatBonz]

I dont think it describes it as lesser......just something different.
If it was created to teach people quickly how to implement self defense into their daily lives and bring confidence to put it into action.......seems like a pretty successful venture.

I think some people feel that by calling it that, it automaitcally relegates it to inferior status.
It is what it is

[Hand Sword]

Maybe so, but, in some of the threads here, the tone definitely describes it as being less than what "I" do, or "my" system is.

Remember a time when you, and the others were just Kenpo practitoners?

[BlackCatBonz]

Originally Posted by Hand Sword

Maybe so, but, in some of the threads here, the tone definitely describes it as being less than what "I" do, or "my" system is.

Remember a time when you, and the others were just a Kenpo practitoners?

do I?
I remember when i first started studying kempo.....I had no idea there were so many different kinds of it.....I just thought it was kempo.

So yeah.....once I was aware of all of the politics and such, it definitely put a negative spin on the whole ken/mpo thing for me.......I've since learned that I really love the particular art I practice and it offers everything I need to get the job done......

I am still very interested in all the other types and styles.....as well as with other martial arts.

[Hand Sword]

I hear ya! Honestly though, As I said It's all just terms used by the "others". When it comes down to it, the real differences are just little tinkerings, here and there. It's how one chooses to paint the picture.

[Flying Crane]

Originally Posted by BlackCatBonz

now i dont study epak.......most people on the boards know this......but i have been apart of several convos trying to understand what the definitions mean.

From my discussions with Doc, i am under the assumption that sl-4 teaches principles via technique as the goal; whereas with motion kenpo, executing proper technique is the goal.
this would make the system much easier to learn because one would only need to demonstrate a working technique, rather than define the principles responsible for the techniques efficacy.

OK, interesting thought. Could you elaborate a bit on this?

[Kenpojujitsu3]

Originally Posted by BlackCatBonz

now i dont study epak.......most people on the boards know this......but i have been apart of several convos trying to understand what the definitions mean.

From my discussions with Doc, i am under the assumption that sl-4 teaches principles via technique as the goal; whereas with motion kenpo, executing proper technique is the goal.
this would make the system much easier to learn because one would only need to demonstrate a working technique, rather than define the principles responsible for the techniques efficacy.

Got to disagree here. This implies that students learn the "How to" about techniques and not the "why to" about techniques. This is simply inaccurate in many (not all) Kenpo circles.

[Flying Crane]

Originally Posted by Kenpojujitsu3

Got to disagree here. This implies that students learn the "How to" about techniques and not the "why to" about techniques. This is simply inaccurate in many (not all) Kenpo circles.

Hmm... well maybe Motion refers more to the commercial system done on the lower end of the quality continuum. I have seen comments that indicate the commercial system is not necessarily bad, that there are those who are very good at it. Maybe my thoughts about what Motion refers to, and BCB's comments might be accurate, but only applies to those who take the shortcuts in the commercial system, and reside on the low end of the scale. James, maybe you and your people, if you do the commercial system, do it at the high end of the quality scale. So the criticisms of "motion" kenpo perhaps don't apply on this end of the scale, and don't apply to you.

Thanks for your comments again, they are giving me perspective and helping to fill in the picture.

[Touch Of Death]

We teach principles of motion over technique; have we transended motion Kenpo?
Sean

[Flying Crane]

OK, I was poking around in some really old threads, not expecting to find anything about this, but rather just for curiosity. As luck would have it, I stumbled upon something that might shed some light on what is meant, this post by DOC:

BODY INDEX TRAINING (B.I.T.) – Called “BIT Training,” is the use of anatomical “Index points” of the armatures to facilitate rapid assimilation of correct anatomical body mechanics in the beginning stages of learning. The index points are based on “startle reflex” mechanisms therefore they do not have to be so much “learned” as re-enforced. These index points correspond to structural integrity positions that contribute to proper execution. These points also are Grapple Control Mechanisms due to their extreme anatomical structure.

This is partly what fuels the flames. that is we are "anatomy based" instead of "motion based."

At least, that is what we do and it seems to work with long lasting and effective results

The thread is found here, for those interested in the full context: http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4842

[Hand Sword]

I'm tired of the divisevness, It's the same as saying "those people" to me. That can't be a way of having friendly discussions. I would recommend that all the terms used to describe any art by others no longer be used. American Kenpo is American Kenpo. Acceptable terms could be of which version, Tracy's, Epak, Sl-4, etc.. Ultimately, all arts use "motion", none are stagnant, and all have the scientific principles within them. No art is lesser or better than any other. Each of us in the end will do it our way anyhow. When that point is reached, you should just say this is how I do it, or what I've found. Don't take up the position, that it's the true way, it's just your way.

Respect to all practitioners, of all the arts.

[Kenpojujitsu3]

Originally Posted by Hand Sword

I'm tired of the divisevness, It's the same as saying "those people" to me. That can't be a way of having friendly discussions. I would recommend that all the terms used to describe any art by others no longer be used. American Kenpo is American Kenpo. Acceptable terms could be of which version, Tracy's, Epak, Sl-4, etc.. Ultimately, all arts use "motion", none are stagnant, and all have the scientific principles within them. No art is lesser or better than any other. Each of us in the end will do it our way anyhow. When that point is reached, you should just say this is how I do it, or what I've found. Don't take up the position, that it's the true way, it's just your way.

Respect to all practitioners, of all the arts.

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.