Brother John
Senior Master
Wowie!!!So, Let's create our Kem/npo style. I want specifics about EVERY detail we can think of. Let's start basic and build from there.
I'm glad you're not asking for any BIG task.....
Your Brother
John
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Wowie!!!So, Let's create our Kem/npo style. I want specifics about EVERY detail we can think of. Let's start basic and build from there.
If it's a bar fight there's a lot of chance a pool cue will be swing at you..., the first time I went close to a fight that's what happens, maybe we can call it the Dufferin technique lol (Dufferin is the biggest cue maker)
Wowie!!!
I'm glad you're not asking for any BIG task.....
Your Brother
John
Well, if we're going to adapt the boxing stance, it would be good to include the standard punches you'd find in boxing. The jab, cross, hook and uppercut. I think that open hand strikes should be taught as well. This can fall into the category of a slap, palm strike as well as raking strikes. Not sure if elbows are falling into this category, but those should be included as well. I think that the gunting or limb destruction that is found in the FMAs and some of the Kaju techniques is another good thing to add.
Mike
That is why we should move a way from boxing style punches and teach dimensional stages of action. Punches would then not be so mutualy destructive."The boxing stance is fine, but I still think that we shouldn't overlook the natural position."
Agreed! As well as transitioning from that to the boxing way.
Just to play devil's advocate...Do we want the punches? Hands break, and get damaged for real, woulding it be better for the same movements, and rythm, execution etc..but, with open hand strikes? Plus, If we're focussing on Boxing attacks, wouldn't gung tanging be very difficult to pull off? Isn't that for a big, one punch attack? Wouldn't keeping it simpler be better?
I think of Kempo as more destructive and 'to-the-point' than boxing
That is why we should move a way from boxing style punches and teach dimensional stages of action. Punches would then not be so mutualy destructive.
Sean
Well, I don't think I agree that if we train to fight a trained boxer we will also be optimally trained to deal with what (I thought) we had identified as our most likely attack - the overhand right.
Yeah it's in there, but will we be spending time learning to deal with attacks we will likely never see (solid boxer's combos) ?
I also don't prefer the boxing-style mobility, I think of Kempo as more destructive and 'to-the-point' than boxing...
Your opinion will change quickly if you ever come up against a skilled boxer. Some boxers can be brutally destructive. Does the name Mike Tyson ring any bells? Gee, imagine how much more "destructive" Tyson would be if he studied kempo. Since your fond of traveling, try taking a trip to the Kronk gym in Detroit, walk in and tell them you think your kempo is more "to the point". Report back to us with your findings.
"The boxing stance is fine, but I still think that we shouldn't overlook the natural position."
Agreed! As well as transitioning from that to the boxing way.
Just to play devil's advocate...Do we want the punches? Hands break, and get damaged for real, woulding it be better for the same movements, and rythm, execution etc..but, with open hand strikes?
Plus, If we're focussing on Boxing attacks, wouldn't gung tanging be very difficult to pull off? Isn't that for a big, one punch attack? Wouldn't keeping it simpler be better?
Isn't eliminating punches going to limit what we an do? I mean sure we can apply a palm strike to the face or substitute a hook to the head for a slap to the ear, but what about the body?
For myself, I'd rather not stand toe to toe and trade strikes. Also, is it wise to limit our defense to taking these shots? For example: One possible defense against a hook to the head, is to raise the arm, placing your hand on the back of your head/neck and using the arm to absorb the punch. Boxing has been around for a long time. I just find it hard to believe that the founders of various arts, ie, Kenpo, Kajukenbo, did not have solid defenses against a boxer. I mean, the last part of Kajukenbo stands for boxing.
As for the gunting....this is why I was advocating the use of footwork. With the proper angles, the gunting is possible. Not meant to be a fight stopper but applied correctly, it'll cause some damage.
Mike
As for the founder's and their ways. Yes, they all had boxing, and supposedly devised to deal with it. Yet, stances, and hard blocks, in the Asian manner still permiate the systems. (the bo stands for Chinese boxing (kung fu))
Conditioning sounds good.Since we'll keep the punches, should we add the conditioning of the hands to the training? For the open hand strikes, the knife hand and palm heel, is that enough? Add more?
LaughsWhat kind of conditioning? You mean like, hitting successively harder targets, building up bone deposits until the hands are hard like rocks (and disfigured)?
Do we need to break thru the bamboo armor of the invading samurai LOL?
Are we planning to use our style to break out of pine boxes when we get buried alive ROFL?
I vote NO on "conditioning"
Totally unnecessary nowadays.
Causes permanent damage to the body. (Unlike warriors of the 17th century, I plan to live to old age...).
It requires lots of time that can be better spent.
HOWEVER students should be hitting heavy bags, and each other, frequently.
Kicks to the body and lower, from out there, knees to the body, on the way in, and after high attacks, elbows to the body, over uppercuts. More body weight and power. Otherwise your saying throw a punch from further out to the body, which would leave you compromised. If your close enough for correct uppercuts, elbows can be used in their place.
Me neither, and you would't be. Bobbing, weaving, slipping etc.. is going on, with covering. Besides taking the shots is bad because that means the punches are landing on your jaw. Absorbing with an arm is a valid defense especially if getting blitzed with a fluury. A one puncher, no problem there. As for the founder's and their ways. Yes, they all had boxing, and supposedly devised to deal with it. Yet, stances, and hard blocks, in the Asian manner still permiate the systems. (the bo stands for Chinese boxing (kung fu))
So are we just using boxing defense or keeping some blocks?
I agree. Just thinking maybe a little too complex and dangerous to pull off, when it's fast and furious. Covering, moving, and countering much better IMHO. Against a one puncher, which is when they are used normally, just fine. My theme was train for the most difficult punchers, and this would easily prepare you to deal with the haymaker. Gung tings could be used, but, not truly necessary. For real self defense, keep it simplified and fast.
This is why I was stressing the use of footwork. Like I said, its not necessarily a fight stopper, but used correctly, it'll chip away, opening you up to other things.
Since we'll keep the punches, should we add the conditioning of the hands to the training? For the open hand strikes, the knife hand and palm heel, is that enough? Add more?