Kenpo and Kung Fu

[Flying Crane]

Our system has quite a bit of kung-fu influence (tighter circles and less wasted motion) but that does not require me to "appreciate the merits" of the other Chinese styles that do not utilize the tighter circles and a reasonable economy of motion.

I see that jamey (dianhsuhe) decided to close his account here and I am sorry to see that. I think he had a lot to offer the discussions and it's too bad he has decided to not stick around.

I don't want to take personal shots at Jamey, so please take this in stride. My following comments are not meant to be a personal assault on him, but I felt compelled to comment on his choice of language above, mainly the parts I have bolded.

These comments about tigher circles that have less wasted motion, and a more reasonable economy of motion and whatnot, I find them troubling. It really comes across as passing judgement over something that he may not have much real knowledge about. I don't have a problem with him not liking certain Chinese systems, particularly the ones that use big movements. But I don't think he can pass judgement over them and make claim to them having wasted motion and stuff. There are solid reasons for training with the big circles. They develop certain skills, tho in real life application of the technique it may not be delivered with such large movements. This big movements train for a certain kind of delivery and power that drives it. Once you get skilled with it using the large movements, you can deliver the same power with smaller movements. But you cannot have the same success with the smaller movements if you haven't progressed thru training the big movements. So, it's really a training method more than an actual technique, tho the line between the two concepts can be blurred and they are one and the same as well. Not sure if I'm making sense.

At any rate, I guess I just want to say, it's fine to not like something for whatever reason. But don't judge something that you may not understand. I hate to say this out loud, but I notice this trend among kenpoists.

It's OK to realize something falls outside of your own personal experience and you simply don't understand it.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Please correct me if I am wrong afther this idea storm:

1.-I love Kung Fu, cause I work hard and put all my efforts in what I like MA for example.

2.-I love Wushu, because wushu is the meaning of martial arts in Chinese.

3.-I don't like Chinese Martial Arts in particular y like some korean martial arts, i like some japanese martial arts.

I like protein but not the one from chicken ok?

Manny

There are northern systems of Kung Fu that look just like the Korean systems just across the border; because, that's where the Koreans got their system, in the first place. Ed Parker, knowing both how to box and do Judo, wanted to teach a flavor of Wushu, or Kung Fu, or what have you that could be both effective against boxing and judo.
Sean

 

[Manny]

At least it seems that most on this thread don't seem to be taking a correction of linguistic terminology as a personal assault. Thank you for keeping open minds.

Manny, Kenpo without the influence of various TCMAs would still look much like how Mitose taught it, which (from hearing the accounts of those older and wiser then me) appeared much more like Karate.

Considering that you like Kenpo, I bet you would also like or at least appreciate yong chun. I make this guess for several reasons.

1. It shares Kenpo's doctrine on fast and relaxed hand strikes, thus giving it blinding speed.

2. Like Kenpo the strategies revolve around taking the center-line and then "pouncing for the kill."

3. It is huge on checks and traps which play into the strengths of any Kenpoka.

4. Your expressed admiration for the gungfu of Bruce Lee. Bruce Lee's style was based primarily upon Yong Chun and is the basis to much of his approach to the other martial arts he blended into his personal fighting method.

Remember folks, Kenpo is not done growing/evolving. It should never be. We have the responsibility as Kenpoka to keep open minds to the arts around us and adapt what works and makes our Kenpo better.

My guess is that if Parker was still around today he would have continued to make changes and developed an extensive anti-grappling curriculum which would have taken him to teaching principles from various TCMA with experience in this, to include including more jujutsu then what already exist. And he would have done it without compromising the core concepts and doctrines of Kenpo.

Thank you for the clip, it seems this sifu has a lot of training and can be said he master what he does, I have never seen a....mmmmm Wushu?? like this, it seems all ahapenes petty quick at close quaretes combat (CQB is a word we use so much about shooting a pistol defensively). As long as I see the use of the wooden dummy is great for develop accuracy and speed. I read the bruce Lee trained below the wing of Yip Man and he taught Bruce Win Chung, yo said Bruce based his style in Yong Chung can you carify me this? As long as I know Bruce studies Win Chung and he developed a system called Jeet Kun Do.

There is something I have to say, Kenpo even having certain Chinese Martial Arts influency is very good, I really like it and feel is a nice MA to learn for SD pourposes, that's why I am having Kenpo karate classes.

Manny

 

[Touch Of Death]

There is something I have to say, Kenpo even having certain Chinese Martial Arts influency is very good, I really like it and feel is a nice MA to learn for SD pourposes, that's why I am having Kenpo karate classes.

Manny

You say it like its a liability. LOL
Sean

 

[Xinglu]

I read the bruce Lee trained below the wing of Yip Man and he taught Bruce Win Chung, yo said Bruce based his style in Yong Chung can you carify me this? As long as I know Bruce studies Win Chung and he developed a system called Jeet Kun Do.

Yong Chun = Wing Chun.

Yong Chun is Mandarin, the official language of china.
Wing Chun is Cantonese one of the many languages in China which appears to be related to the Tibetan language.

Another TCMA you might have some appreciation for it's CQC (close quarter combat) skills would be Xingyiquan, and here is a Xingyiquan and Baguazhang countering each other (Bagua is circular, xingyi linear). Do you see some similarities between Xingyiquan, Yong Chun, and Kenpo? I even see some Baguazhang, however that is more likely due to EPAKS CLF influence.

 

[MattJ]

Once you get skilled with it using the large movements, you can deliver the same power with smaller movements. But you cannot have the same success with the smaller movements if you haven't progressed thru training the big movements.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but your statement appears to be incorrect to me. "Big movement" training is not necessary to make "small movement" work correctly. Boxing and Wing Chun do not use "big movement", and work very well. Even in grappling terms, things like Wally Jay's (small circle) style work as well or better (IMHO).

Can you clarify?

 

[Xinglu]

I see that jamey (dianhsuhe) decided to close his account here and I am sorry to see that. I think he had a lot to offer the discussions and it's too bad he has decided to not stick around.

I agree.

There are solid reasons for training with the big circles. They develop certain skills, tho in real life application of the technique it may not be delivered with such large movements. This big movements train for a certain kind of delivery and power that drives it. Once you get skilled with it using the large movements, you can deliver the same power with smaller movements. But you cannot have the same success with the smaller movements if you haven't progressed thru training the big movements. So, it's really a training method more than an actual technique, tho the line between the two concepts can be blurred and they are one and the same as well. Not sure if I'm making sense.

Once again I concur, even the most, linear of systems utilize circles to enhance their linear techniques. I have even seen them train beginners to use larger motions until they could finally make it so small that it looked like a flick of the wrist!

Even in CLF, in the beginning you are taught to do Jong (a type of uppercut) or a Sow Chui (a type of cross that hits with the forearm) really big until you work out the mechanics of your core and how to throw the strike from your dan tien. This is a process that takes years. But when it is achieved the motion looks more like a whip then like big circular motions. It is easy to watch beginners and even some intermediate levels students and walk away thinking the system uses impractical movement.

Something else to consider, no Sifu in china is going to train you to have great gongfu in the first few years of study. Most of these beginning years are spent working very elementary things to set up a proper foundation for later. With the idea being that after 7-8 years of study you develop combat gongfu through technical precision. TCMA are not for the impatient (I would say the same about some of the TJMA too) and most in china do not have a formal rank structure (though many of the schools out here have adopted it).

For example, my Xingyi/Bagua Shifu has two "ranks" if that is what you want to call them. Those who have his blessing to teach, and those who don't yet. We do not wear sashes or uniforms we just train hard. The same with my Taijiquan Shifu, (not the same guy). I only have two uniforms, my Kenpo Gi and my BJJ Gi. Since I no longer attend TSD classes (I don't count that one!).

Kenpo, if approached with this same level of patience can achieve the same level of gongfu, perfect the basics, which are never initially introduced the same way a BB is expected to do it.

Anyways, I hope my ramble was clear, I know I got a little off topic there, but I thought it help illustrate the difference in mindset that has IMHO been lost in some Kenpo schools (not that it is limited to Kenpo, it seems to be the case all over America, and probably the world too).

 

[Flying Crane]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but your statement appears to be incorrect to me. "Big movement" training is not necessary to make "small movement" work correctly. Boxing and Wing Chun do not use "big movement", and work very well. Even in grappling terms, things like Wally Jay's (small circle) style work as well or better (IMHO).

Can you clarify?

I guess maybe the better way to state is is that according to the theory and foundation upon which these systems are built, Choy Lay Fut and Tibetan White Crane as good examples, this is how it works. The power is based on a very large pivot and rotation of the body, sometimes twisting of the torso tho I don't want to say that too strongly because it might imply an injury-prone movement and it is not that. At any rate, power is generatedy by rotating the body and building a huge amount of striking potential at the end of the arc, in the fist. The big movements really capitalize on this, and it engrains the type of delivery into the muscle memory. In some ways, it can be seen as being exaggerated, but like I said, it's a training tool and not necessarily how you would want to deliver it for real. Altho given the right circumstances you could really land some heavy blows with it. At any rate, once your body had really internalized this method, developed thru the use of these big movements, you can then shorten the movement while still getting the same kind of power. This works because the movement is initiated with the feet bracing against the ground and driving up thru the torso, not in the hands that are swinging out there. Understanding how to initiate the torso removes the necessity of using the big movements.

I don't know much about boxing, but I do have some experience with wing chun. The development of power is different, not relying on the same kind of pivot and rotation. My experience with wing chun is that power is developed largely by squeezing it out thru short, explosive movements, tho the training of this power can be slow, drawn out movements. In a way, it's kind of the same thing, but with a different concept and origin of where the power comes from. Long, drawn out movements (as practiced in Siu Nim Tao) turn into fast, explosive, powerful short range punches.

Now, getting back to the pivot and rotation that I was describing above, I know that many systems do this also, and I won't deny it. It's a foundational part of things like the Reverse Punch found in many systems. But, from my experience, systems like Tibetan White Crane and (as far as I can tell) Choy Lay Fut, make this a heavier focus and use a more "exaggerated" movement than I've seen anywhere else, in order to develop this. In White Crane, which I study, we focus on that pivot and rotation in just about every single movement that we do. The first thing that a beginner would learn is the pivot. Just stand there and get the pivot right, the whole body moving in unison, beginning at the feet, to drive the pivot. Later, a more advanced and probably more useful version of the pivot is learned where the feet root into the ground to drive the pivot which manifests primarily in the hips and waist, paying particular attention to the stances to be properly grounded for driving the power.

So, we use big movements to develop the technique, but once you are skilled with that, your actual delivery can be with a much smaller movement.

I'm not going to say that it's better than other methods, but it works well for us and we do deliver tremendously powerful, even frighteningly powerful, strikes. Once I began working these strikes on a heavy bag, I felt they were significantly stronger than before I began studying this method. Maybe my prior instruction was deficient, I dunno. But I have seen a real difference once I began to learn White Crane, that's just my own personal experience.

So, what about other systems that use small movements, other that what I discussed above? Can't really comment too much about them since I don't know much. I don't know have any experience with Small Circle JJ, for example. I'm familiar with how we use the pivot from my Tracy Kenpo background, and we actually have a few things in there that have some similarity with the Crane methods. I personally feel that those items ought to get a heavier load of the attention in order to really develop their potential. In some ways, this is connected to our earlier discussion of basics, and stances. Taking the time to get the stances just right, and the timing and body-connection with the pivots, can make a huge difference. My Crane training gives me a bit of a different perspective than most kenpo folks, so I see things a bit differently, but there ya go.

My comment about Jamey's comments was just that, the big movements in arts like Choy Lay Fut are there for a reason, and it's important to understand what the reason is, before making a judgement about them.

This is something that can be difficult to describe in writing. It really needs to be seen and felt in order to understand it. Hope I managed to get something across. I'll leave it at that for now, otherwise I might end up getting a bit long-winded and it might not really clear anything up. If you've got some more questions on it, I'll try and clarify some points.

 

[MattJ]

Something else to consider, no Sifu in china is going to train you to have great gongfu in the first few years of study.

Again, maybe I'm misunderstanding, as I know that martial arts skill in any style takes time. But aren't some CMA arts like Wing Chun specifically designed to impart skill quickly?

EDIT to add that my questions are coming from a general MA-use standpoint, and not a strictly CMA one.

 

[MattJ]

This is something that can be difficult to describe in writing. It really needs to be seen and felt in order to understand it. Hope I managed to get something across. I'll leave it at that for now, otherwise I might end up getting a bit long-winded and it might not really clear anything up. If you've got some more questions on it, I'll try and clarify some points.

No, I get where you're coming from now. My questions were more general-use, and not style-specific. Thanks for the reply.

 

[Flying Crane]

Again, maybe I'm misunderstanding, as I know that martial arts skill in any style takes time. But aren't some CMA arts like Wing Chun specifically designed to impart skill quickly?

EDIT to add that my questions are coming from a general MA-use standpoint, and not a strictly CMA one.

I don't personally know if Wing Chun was designed with quick useage in mind. However, in my own experience with wing chun, it seemed like it could be useful fairly quickly. However, I will qualify that by saying that I think a really high level of ability still takes a long time. But a certain level of practical useage seemed to come fairly quickly, in my experience. I was measuring this based on my success in chi sao with my classmates, which may or may not be a valid yardstick, and may or may not have validity outside of that specific group.

 

[Flying Crane]

No, I get where you're coming from now. My questions were more general-use, and not style-specific. Thanks for the reply.

my pleasure.

 

[Xinglu]

Again, maybe I'm misunderstanding, as I know that martial arts skill in any style takes time. But aren't some CMA arts like Wing Chun specifically designed to impart skill quickly?

EDIT to add that my questions are coming from a general MA-use standpoint, and not a strictly CMA one.

Not really. Not these days. In times past when one could dedicate full days to becoming a great warrior, yes. Keep in mind Xingyiquan was the style taught to the imperial spearmen, and was intended to make great fighters in fast amount of time. To them "fast" meant 6 months of training every day for 8-12 hours a day.


Going three times a week for 2 hour classes will take you years to develop powerful gongfu. Just like any other MA out there.

Also keep in mind that the Chinese idea of "fast" (as in time) is not the same as use here in the west. The chinese think in decades, some of us in the west are lucky enough to think in days. Which is yet another fundamental philosophical difference between TCMAs and other MAs.

Even a western Boxer, MMAist, or Muay Thai fighter train for years before being considered good enough to take on skilled opponents.

Will they be able to take out an skilled punk on the street in 3-6 months? Maybe, depending on how they are training. Another skill combatant? No way.

 

[MattJ]

Not really. Not these days. In times past when one could dedicate full days to becoming a great warrior, yes. Keep in mind Xingyiquan was the style taught to the imperial spearmen, and was intended to make great fighters in fast amount of time. To them "fast" meant 6 months of training every day for 8-12 hours a day.


Going three times a week for 2 hour classes will take you years to develop powerful gongfu. Just like any other MA out there.

Yes, understood, and I mentioned the same thing earlier. But I was referring to arts trained to the same intensity and for the same length of time. Some will yeild results faster, IMHO.

Even a western Boxer, MMAist, or Muay Thai fighter train for years before being considered good enough to take on skilled opponents.

Sure, but skilled people in some other styles........? Depends.

Will they be able to take out an skilled punk on the street in 3-6 months? Maybe, depending on how they are training. Another skill combatant? No way.

Again, I think it depends on how the others train. Are we talking about the same intensity and length of time training? That's what I meant.

 

[Xinglu]

Yes, understood, and I mentioned the same thing earlier. But I was referring to arts trained to the same intensity and for the same length of time. Some will yeild results faster, IMHO.



Sure, but skilled people in some other styles........? Depends.



Again, I think it depends on how the others train. Are we talking about the same intensity and length of time training? That's what I meant.

Once again, that skill is relative. A two different people who have trained for 30 years in different arts at the same level of intensity will probably be at the same level. I think that how quickly a novice is able to reach a suitable level of SD proficiency in todays world is irrelevant, weather it is 6 months or 9 makes little difference these days.

The results may seem faster, however they are working on opposite ends. One spends 3-6 months on perfecting stances to root their power, the other focuses on strikes and locks for the first 3-6 months. One my be better fighter in 6 months, but in a year, they should be equal. See the difference?

 

[MattJ]

Once again, that skill is relative. A two different people who have trained for 30 years in different arts at the same level of intensity will probably be at the same level.

I think that how quickly a novice is able to reach a suitable level of SD proficiency in todays world is irrelevant, weather it is 6 months or 9 makes little difference these days.

Can't agree with you there at all, unless you are referring to all MA practice being for sport/entertainment/health purposes? If someone wants to learn SD for SD purposes, then speed in utility is a significant element, yes? I certainly did not get into MA training for any purpose other than to learn how to stop people from hurting me, and that attitude continues to inform my practice.

The results may seem faster, however they are working on opposite ends. One spends 3-6 months on perfecting stances to root their power, the other focuses on strikes and locks for the first 3-6 months. One my be better fighter in 6 months, but in a year, they should be equal. See the difference?

Not exactly, sorry. The *should be*, but they often aren't, IME. The level of resistance in training seems to be the biggest factor in utility as far as I have seen.

 

[Xinglu]

Can't agree with you there at all, unless you are referring to all MA practice being for sport/entertainment/health purposes? If someone wants to learn SD for SD purposes, then speed in utility is a significant element, yes? I certainly did not get into MA training for any purpose other than to learn how to stop people from hurting me, and that attitude continues to inform my practice.



Not exactly, sorry. The *should be*, but they often aren't, IME. The level of resistance in training seems to be the biggest factor in utility as far as I have seen.

Since your throwing it out there, what is your experience with TCMA? And I'm sorry that your experience has led you to some poor instruction. A good instructor will always put out better students, regardless of the art in question. Since you said that we were assuming equal intensity and equal training time, I also assumed equal quality of instruction. It seemed fair.

It takes a very low skill set to stop a "common thug" from hurting you. That can be achieved with very little training. In fact, I could teach a person Pi Chuan ( just one posture/movement) and then give them 20 applications of that movement. In a week they would be able to defend themselves against most common thugs. So if that was your only goal, then I'm sure that by now you have achieved a suitable skill set to defend yourself against most common would be assailant's.

My training in CLF, Xingyi, Bagua, Taiji, and BJJ has all been against actively resisting opponents. And very physically taxing. However, my Kenpo and TSD tended not to be. Yet even the latter two will prepare you to fend off a would be assailant in a relatively short amount of time.

So if you are wanting to defend yourself against you common street criminal you need one skill set which tends to be very low in comparison to the skill set needed to ward of another trained opponent. Chances are, your average burglar/robber/car jacker aren't trained.

 

[Xinglu]

Furthermore, even someone who has trained in Yong Chun for 5 years, is still far from having great gongfu in Yong Chun. Especially when compared to the gongfu of those doing it 10, 20, 30 or more years. This holds true for any MA.

 

[MattJ]

Since your throwing it out there, what is your experience with TCMA?

What do you mean I'm "throwing it out there"? In what sense? I was not referring to TCMA specifically, as I mentioned earlier. Thus, my experience with CMA is irrelevant, not to mention that I have already stated earlier in this thread that my formal experience with it is limited. I have had exposure through long-term sparring partners, one of whom did Tien Sem Pai (sp?) and another did animal-style, and so forth.

And I'm sorry that your experience has led you to some poor instruction.

What makes you say that? I don't recall even mentioning my training at all. Veiled insults are a pretty poor debate tactic. BTW, you never did answer my question from the previous post.

A good instructor will always put out better students, regardless of the art in question. Since you said that we were assuming equal intensity and equal training time, I also assumed equal quality of instruction. It seemed fair.

I suppose that is a fair point - I should have said "average" or "common" instead of "equal", since "equal" rarely exists.

It takes a very low skill set to stop a "common thug" from hurting you.

You'll have to remind me what a "common thug" is. Anyone can be dangerous, and to over-estimate your own skills is not a good idea.

That can be achieved with very little training. In fact, I could teach a person Pi Chuan ( just one posture/movement) and then give them 20 applications of that movement. In a week they would be able to defend themselves against most common thugs. So if that was your only goal, then I'm sure that by now you have achieved a suitable skill set to defend yourself against most common would be assailant's.

In a week? That seems......unlikely, to me. I can't think of any art - CMA, kenpo, or BJJ - that can prepare someone for SD in one week. Simply learning timing and distancing takes longer than that, no matter what you study.

My training in CLF, Xingyi, Bagua, Taiji, and BJJ has all been against actively resisting opponents. And very physically taxing. However, my Kenpo and TSD tended not to be. Yet even the latter two will prepare you to fend off a would be assailant in a relatively short amount of time.

Well, at the very least, you will have to admit that your Tai Chi training is unusual if it involved a lot of resistance. Hell, even in China it's done mostly for exercise! You can't really use an exception to prove a rule.

So if you are wanting to defend yourself against you common street criminal you need one skill set which tends to be very low in comparison to the skill set needed to ward of another trained opponent. Chances are, your average burglar/robber/car jacker aren't trained.

Gosh, you make it sound so easy! LOL.

 

[Xinglu]

What do you mean I'm "throwing it out there"?

Simple, you said IME, meaning in my experience.

In what sense? I was not referring to TCMA specifically, as I mentioned earlier. Thus, my experience with CMA is irrelevant, not to mention that I have already stated earlier in this thread that my formal experience with it is limited. I have had exposure through long-term sparring partners, one of whom did Tien Sem Pai (sp?) and another did animal-style, and so forth.

Okay, it seemed as though you implied that you had some experience in TCMA as a student. I just wanted to clarify what experience you were referring too when you said, "In my experience."

What makes you say that? I don't recall even mentioning my training at all. Veiled insults are a pretty poor debate tactic. BTW, you never did answer my question from the previous post.

There was no insult veiled or otherwise. It seemed from your post that you found the approaches of some TCMA to be ineffective. I assumed this was due to your direct exposure, and thus it must have been poor quality of instruction. A bad instructor can make an great style ineffective. It was a genuine statement not meant to imply anything.

Thus, my experience with CMA is irrelevant...

Considering we were talking about CMA, I disagree.

You'll have to remind me what a "common thug" is. Anyone can be dangerous, and to over-estimate your own skills is not a good idea.

I speak from direct experience in using my knowledge to defend myself. None of the people that I have had to defend myself against (meaning failed to avoid the situation, or talk the situation down) had much skill at all. Generally speaking, those with training are not seeking fights.

In a week? That seems......unlikely, to me. I can't think of any art - CMA, kenpo, or BJJ - that can prepare someone for SD in one week. Simply learning timing and distancing takes longer than that, no matter what you study.

Once again, this was an example of one movement that can be applied in 20 different ways. Trained for 40 hours, it is effective. Most students attending a regular class would not perform the reps or get 40 hours of training in 7 weeks of classes. (consider an average of three one hour classes a week) and an average of 45 minutes solo practice a night/ 4 nights a week (this is generous practice time since MANY MAist don't practice on their own outside of class anymore). By sucessfully defend I mean stop the attack and get away/call for help. One week, SD Seminar can easily accomplish this. We're not talking about going into a ring against other trained fighters.

Well, at the very least, you will have to admit that your Tai Chi training is unusual if it involved a lot of resistance. Hell, even in China it's done mostly for exercise! You can't really use an exception to prove a rule.

I disagree, I go to China every year to train with my Shigong (Shifu's Shifu) and there are a great many Chinese that still use Tajiquan for SD and combatives. I have also competed in very large tournaments over there where is is used combatively (sparring as well as moving step push-hands [which is much like sumo ])[/QUOTE]

Gosh, you make it sound so easy! LOL.

It's not, gongfu, by nature and definition requires hard work to develop.