- Joined
- Apr 18, 2002
- Messages
- 8,069
- Reaction score
- 25
Please, enlighten me.
Ed Parker on change says it all!
- Thread starter Fastmover
- Start date
Rob- You know, it amazes me how things get so easily misunderstood by you. I have never said anyone was an idiot or stupid. You are definately a person that always has to be right, have the last word, and will never admit that you make mistakes. Regarding the cross training- If you dont feel it necessary to do, that is fine. If you take me saying that it is an important thing to do as me calling you an idiot, then you have a problem. I, along with countless others, have said that it is not something we all have to do. But dont think that everything is addressed, cuz it isnt. It might be in a small way, but to say that everything is included, is a misconception. Show me where I said forms were useless? There you go again, taking things I say and twisting them. Maybe you're not reading it right, in which case, sit down and do it again!! The numerous tech. Sure, there are many tech in Kenpo as well as other arts. Is taking a concept or idea from another art adding a tech? No, it isnt.
You constantly say that I have called people stupid. Not true. I have also said many times that we all train for different reasons. Fitness, SD, self confidence/control, and just something fun to do. You're reasons are different than mine. Tell me, what made you want to do the arts? I never said that we all had to join the UFC and become the next grappling champ, that is something YOU said.
MJS
You constantly say that I have called people stupid. Not true. I have also said many times that we all train for different reasons. Fitness, SD, self confidence/control, and just something fun to do. You're reasons are different than mine. Tell me, what made you want to do the arts? I never said that we all had to join the UFC and become the next grappling champ, that is something YOU said.
MJS
L
lonekimono
Guest
well what do you know i have the coffee on and martial talk on,
hey guys crosstraining? i rather talk about crossdressing,
that would be funny
look he said,she said, they said, who the hell cares?
do what you want to do( as long as it's kenpo):rofl: :asian:
hey guys crosstraining? i rather talk about crossdressing,
that would be funny
look he said,she said, they said, who the hell cares?
do what you want to do( as long as it's kenpo):rofl: :asian:
... instead of a dress!
No but seriously folks. Seig, just to ice the cake, I have one of Danny Inosanto's senior students, Ray Parra, who has been in JKD, Silat, Escrima, Kali, etc., since the late 60's, teaching in the school where I am. Guess what, he is surprised we check, use open hand strikes, buckle and sweep. Gee, we sorta look alike, and move similarly. He calls them different names, but moves well, intermittent, explosive, relaxed power ... the same thing that often defines the movement of an advance Kenpo practioner.
It is not always the case that it is all the "Sam Ting", but with the Arts you are being advocated to cross train in - there is great similarity to Kenpo. The difference is they learn "the flow" first, and pull techniques out of the movement, while we pattern in movement in order to "forget" it later and just move correctly when needed.
Grappling, another can of worms. I have done Silat with him, and was surprised at some of the similarities in terms of buckles, sweeps, takedowns, strikedowns and finishing moves.
THE DISCUSSION RUSHES BACKWARDS RAPIDLY.
Oss
No but seriously folks. Seig, just to ice the cake, I have one of Danny Inosanto's senior students, Ray Parra, who has been in JKD, Silat, Escrima, Kali, etc., since the late 60's, teaching in the school where I am. Guess what, he is surprised we check, use open hand strikes, buckle and sweep. Gee, we sorta look alike, and move similarly. He calls them different names, but moves well, intermittent, explosive, relaxed power ... the same thing that often defines the movement of an advance Kenpo practioner.
It is not always the case that it is all the "Sam Ting", but with the Arts you are being advocated to cross train in - there is great similarity to Kenpo. The difference is they learn "the flow" first, and pull techniques out of the movement, while we pattern in movement in order to "forget" it later and just move correctly when needed.
Grappling, another can of worms. I have done Silat with him, and was surprised at some of the similarities in terms of buckles, sweeps, takedowns, strikedowns and finishing moves.
THE DISCUSSION RUSHES BACKWARDS RAPIDLY.
Oss
K
Kirk
Guest
I've been told that there is nothing that we do in Kenpo that is not a piece or part of some other system somewhere. What makes it different is the way it is organized and the respective value system that is attached to it.
... and I wonder which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Hee
Hee
K
kkbb
Guest
Ditto!
Now did every one read the above?
I think it means: Cross train until you puke!
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
Dear MJS:
Sorry, but I believe I can let the language of your writing stand for itself.
Now on to the stuff. What I'm interested in are some actual issues: a) sheer efficiency as a martial arts goal; b) "fighting," vs. "self defense;" c) the teachability of a martial art; d) the claims inherent in kenpo.
Here's a good quote--and hey! it's from, "outside," kenpo--I may be too closed-minded, too twisted, too filled with holes to cross-train, but I do cross-read now...my first instructor wouldn't let me read about martial arts for over five years:
"One factor in the favor of t'ai chi as a fighting art is that it does not encourage students to harbor misconceptions about their fighting ability. Compare, for example, the student who has been studying t'ai chi for six months with a Karateka with the same amount of experience.
The t'ai chi student has perhaps learned half a slow-motion form and some basic sensitivity exercises, none of which give him any impression they could be used in a fight. By contrast, the Karateka has probably been taught several punches and kicks, and is busy developing speed and power. He may also feel that he can use these same techniques if the need arose.
Unfortunately, if the karateka were actually to face an accomplished fighter, he would very quickly find out the illusory nature of his skills. The fact is that the acquisition of fighting skills in any martial art takes years rather than months to achieve."
Nigel Sutton, "Applied T'ai Chi." Boston, Rutland, Vermont, Tokyo: Charles E. Tuttle Co., Inc. 1998, 12-13.
Now beyond the all-too-common "internal," art snobbery, and the fact that kenpo offers something different, there's an interesting idea here--and it has to do with realism. And it has to do with the rejection of sheer efficiency, on practical grounds.
Later in the same book, Sutton has a very, very interesting explanation of why bother with forms...and just incidentally, before anybody starts up with "it's t'ai chi! it's the opposite of fighting!" about the most striking thing about the book is its similarity to kenpo.
Thanks.
PS: Here'd be an interesting thread: Did Bruce Lee ruin martial arts in America?
Sorry, but I believe I can let the language of your writing stand for itself.
Now on to the stuff. What I'm interested in are some actual issues: a) sheer efficiency as a martial arts goal; b) "fighting," vs. "self defense;" c) the teachability of a martial art; d) the claims inherent in kenpo.
Here's a good quote--and hey! it's from, "outside," kenpo--I may be too closed-minded, too twisted, too filled with holes to cross-train, but I do cross-read now...my first instructor wouldn't let me read about martial arts for over five years:
"One factor in the favor of t'ai chi as a fighting art is that it does not encourage students to harbor misconceptions about their fighting ability. Compare, for example, the student who has been studying t'ai chi for six months with a Karateka with the same amount of experience.
The t'ai chi student has perhaps learned half a slow-motion form and some basic sensitivity exercises, none of which give him any impression they could be used in a fight. By contrast, the Karateka has probably been taught several punches and kicks, and is busy developing speed and power. He may also feel that he can use these same techniques if the need arose.
Unfortunately, if the karateka were actually to face an accomplished fighter, he would very quickly find out the illusory nature of his skills. The fact is that the acquisition of fighting skills in any martial art takes years rather than months to achieve."
Nigel Sutton, "Applied T'ai Chi." Boston, Rutland, Vermont, Tokyo: Charles E. Tuttle Co., Inc. 1998, 12-13.
Now beyond the all-too-common "internal," art snobbery, and the fact that kenpo offers something different, there's an interesting idea here--and it has to do with realism. And it has to do with the rejection of sheer efficiency, on practical grounds.
Later in the same book, Sutton has a very, very interesting explanation of why bother with forms...and just incidentally, before anybody starts up with "it's t'ai chi! it's the opposite of fighting!" about the most striking thing about the book is its similarity to kenpo.
Thanks.
PS: Here'd be an interesting thread: Did Bruce Lee ruin martial arts in America?
R
roryneil
Guest
mcrobertson
I agree with realistic perception of true fighting skills in an actual fight. I know I have years of skill sharpening ahead of me, and I don't picture myself walking down a dark alley pulling off a Perfect Weapon against 4 armed attackers. I do however believe that good stances were taught from day 1, and that at least I have learned how to take a punch!!
I agree with realistic perception of true fighting skills in an actual fight. I know I have years of skill sharpening ahead of me, and I don't picture myself walking down a dark alley pulling off a Perfect Weapon against 4 armed attackers. I do however believe that good stances were taught from day 1, and that at least I have learned how to take a punch!!
Old Fat Kenpoka
Master Black Belt
Guys: Are we ever going to give this a rest? How many times are we going to say: "I've said this before and I am done talking about this topic?" Let's agree to disagree and move on to other topics.
You will get out of it what you put into it. We are all different and all have different ways of training and of being able to retain the material taught. Tai Chi has obviously been taught for many years, and I'm sure people can use its principles to defend themselves.
Fighting vs SD- Are you referring to fighting as in NHB or as in a fight on the street? When in a confrontation, that is considered a fight, and you are using your skills to defend yourself. The teachability- well every art can be taught but I suppose it all comes down to the individual person and how well they can grasp the material taught.
We all want to believe that the skills that we have attained over the years will be able to save our butts, but we also can't forget that there is always someone who is better than us. Just because someone trains for 5 yrs and someone for 1, does that mean that they 5yr student will always will? No. The person with the least exp. at times will be your hardest opponent, as they have not acquired the self control as the higher ranked student.
Also, in regards to fighting. How much time is really needed before you are 100% ready to fight? A police officer gets training in the academy with a handgun. The time spent in the academy is less than a year. So, is the cop really prepared to go on the street and maybe have to rely on that gun to save himself with only 6 months of training? He needs to train on his own and keep his skills fresh.
Mike
Fighting vs SD- Are you referring to fighting as in NHB or as in a fight on the street? When in a confrontation, that is considered a fight, and you are using your skills to defend yourself. The teachability- well every art can be taught but I suppose it all comes down to the individual person and how well they can grasp the material taught.
We all want to believe that the skills that we have attained over the years will be able to save our butts, but we also can't forget that there is always someone who is better than us. Just because someone trains for 5 yrs and someone for 1, does that mean that they 5yr student will always will? No. The person with the least exp. at times will be your hardest opponent, as they have not acquired the self control as the higher ranked student.
Also, in regards to fighting. How much time is really needed before you are 100% ready to fight? A police officer gets training in the academy with a handgun. The time spent in the academy is less than a year. So, is the cop really prepared to go on the street and maybe have to rely on that gun to save himself with only 6 months of training? He needs to train on his own and keep his skills fresh.
Mike
OFK- I agree. Some people here though just like to keep beating the issue. Honestly, I think it died a long time ago.
MJS
- Thread Starter
- #73
The whole thing about the orgins of Mr. Parkers systems through the years is very interesting to me. I have heard some of the seniors who were around during its creation speak about the "the requirements in the new system" , "the then new Long 4"
and so on. Of course only the folks that were around back then can answer with any bit of accuracy, but it is still interesting to ask questions about the orgins and influences of the different systems that Mr Parker created through the years? Why the changes from what his instructors taught him and so forth?
Sticky hands is a great example because isnt this a Wing Chung drill? We all know that Mr. Parker worked around folks like Jimmy Woo and Bruce Lee but was this something that Mr. Parker received from his instructors lineage, or was it influenced from someone else along the way? How much of Kenpo today is pure Kenpo from what Mr. Parker learned from Chow, and how much of is other things that he discovered? Where did he get his inspiration for the Kenpo system?
It must have been have been an interesting time around Mr. Parker as he evolved the Kenpo system and developed its overall structure back in the "old days."
Comments and Ideas???
J
jeffkyle
Guest
Yes! I totally agree. I would have loved to be there to be a part of it.
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
Just to pick up one thread...teaching...no, it doesn't come down merely to the individual.
Sure, in a general sense--but only in a general sense--we learn (and we teach) what we are willing to learn, what we have the talent to learn, what we have the time and resources to learn. One of the very best I'll ever see in kenpo taught himself...in a sense, anyway. He used the videos.
But saying, "Well, the students can find their way for themselves," or, "Well, the students can do what I did..." no. Not how teaching works. This is precisely what's wrong with the idea of discarding bits and pieces of the kenpo system on the grounds that we--as individuals--don't like them, or don't find them practical. That may--I doubt it, but maybe--be a solid choice for us. It's a disaster for students, and it's the source of a lot of the problems in kenpo...
Then too, there's the fact that, "the self," supposed to be making all these decisions is actually under re-construction in martial arts...if they're any good, that is. If that isn't a big part of the point, well, just buy a gun. It's quicker.
And to reiterate something I've already written, there is no point at which anyone becomes 100% ready to defend themselves. Personally, I'm working on a "B+," average...
Sure, in a general sense--but only in a general sense--we learn (and we teach) what we are willing to learn, what we have the talent to learn, what we have the time and resources to learn. One of the very best I'll ever see in kenpo taught himself...in a sense, anyway. He used the videos.
But saying, "Well, the students can find their way for themselves," or, "Well, the students can do what I did..." no. Not how teaching works. This is precisely what's wrong with the idea of discarding bits and pieces of the kenpo system on the grounds that we--as individuals--don't like them, or don't find them practical. That may--I doubt it, but maybe--be a solid choice for us. It's a disaster for students, and it's the source of a lot of the problems in kenpo...
Then too, there's the fact that, "the self," supposed to be making all these decisions is actually under re-construction in martial arts...if they're any good, that is. If that isn't a big part of the point, well, just buy a gun. It's quicker.
And to reiterate something I've already written, there is no point at which anyone becomes 100% ready to defend themselves. Personally, I'm working on a "B+," average...
L
lonekimono
Guest
HAT'S off to larry,,wait a min that's and old song from the 60's
well this happens to me every now and again,
what i want to say is hat's off to OFK for saying what he did
and to that 1955 baby for putting his 2 cents in,now for the real question, what the hell is wrong with kane's face????:shrug:
well this happens to me every now and again,
what i want to say is hat's off to OFK for saying what he did
and to that 1955 baby
for putting his 2 cents in,now for the real question, what the hell is wrong with kane's face????:shrug:
J
jeffkyle
Guest
I was wondering the same thing...
When you are ready Weedhopper, when you are ready. :asian:
Here ya go,
Something that Mr. Rainey told me once. "it's all theory until you make it work". That pretty much says it all! No matter what you are doing, it is theory until you apply it effectively. Practice cross train learn a thousand and one techniques and exstentions, forms, sets etc... but until you make it work it is theory. And just because you make it work once on one guy/gal doesn't mean that it changes anything. It doesn't prove or disprove the theory of that sequence of motion or basic of motion. Why, because you have only made it work that one time with that one person, and there are billiions of people in the world that you have not applied it to. You may however say the statistically speaking this works the majority of the time..... well that's enough blather happy training, whatever it is that your doing.
Have a Great Day!! :asian: :asian:
P.S. I wish I wrote as elequently as Mcroberts but I don't so suffer through it.
Something that Mr. Rainey told me once. "it's all theory until you make it work". That pretty much says it all! No matter what you are doing, it is theory until you apply it effectively. Practice cross train learn a thousand and one techniques and exstentions, forms, sets etc... but until you make it work it is theory. And just because you make it work once on one guy/gal doesn't mean that it changes anything. It doesn't prove or disprove the theory of that sequence of motion or basic of motion. Why, because you have only made it work that one time with that one person, and there are billiions of people in the world that you have not applied it to. You may however say the statistically speaking this works the majority of the time..... well that's enough blather happy training, whatever it is that your doing.
Have a Great Day!! :asian: :asian:
P.S. I wish I wrote as elequently as Mcroberts but I don't so suffer through it.
Doc
Senior Master
I totally agree. Most are not qualified to speak of anything beyond their own experiences, and the results is limited to the same parameters.
The idea of the student deciding "what is useful" is a "quck fix" commercial perspective that does have validity, but only as it relates to that student, and should have no impact on the art itself other than possible ultimate dilution.
The contamination comes when unqualified individuals purport what they do as "kenpo," when in fact it is their personal self created style with elements of kenpo.
But at the same time we must purge ourselves of the notion that "kenpo" as most know it, is a single entity with a specific curriculum beginning, middle, and end. It's very conceptual nature places its actual curriculum taught, in the mind and hands of its many individual teachers with very little consensus on anything other than certain like concepts, and even they are not understood the same by everyone.
The competent who actually teach the "system" are rare. Most are teaching personal interpretations of vague "manuals" as a guide and no references beyond what they themselves were supposedly "taught."
A copy, of a copy, of a copy, of a bad original.
