Many feel that AK has many "holes" or un-addressed situations within....

[MJS]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Leaving the grappling question aside--it's boring--I hadn't known that there weren't any kenpo techs designed against, "combination," attacks....I'd thought that beginning with Delayed Sword, ALL the techniques took such attacks into consideration, though of course that won't necessarily become recognizable or useful until after learning, say, Glancing Wing, Entwined Maces, Fatal Deviation, et al...

I think, actually, the more interesting question is this: what makes people feel that they HAVE to go outside a well-designed system, in pursuit of some dream of becoming a warrior prepared for everything? After all, I tend to find that these supposed, "flaws," come of of my own failures, my own, "holes," not what's available, 'within," kenpo...

Well, different strokes for different folks! There are obviously some people who want to go outside of the art to learn.

Could I (or anybody) go learn what, say Gene LeBell teaches, and profit from it? Absolutely. Could I go learn, "combat handgun," (ha!) and get a lot? Sure. learn escrima and get something? Sure. Iaido? Sure. A knife system, a stick system, and on and on and on? Absolutely. Where's it end? Noplace; it doesn't. And nothing's wrong wwith that; in faact, nothing's beetter than that. Will this mean that I am absolutely prepared for everything, that I will be unbeatable? Oh, hell no. And, I have a job. I even like to think I have a life.

There are many "ideas" that were taken from other arts. Does this mean that the person teaching them is an expert? No! Unless they continue to learns these ideas, then the knowledge that they have will only go so far. Sure there is some grappling in Kenpo, but like it was already said, it only addresses a few very limited things.

Yes, I know the response. There's nothing wrong with learning some grappling, boxing, judo, etc. I agree; I just wrote that. I simply want to know why this has to be grounded on the ideas of "flaw," the idea of, "being prepared for anything," the idea of "realism--the reality of infinite threat," the dream of "warriorhood," for people who mostly live in cities and have desk jobs. Exceptions to this? Sure--cops, for example, do well to study some form of judo, handgun methods, etc...And what's more, there seem to be all sorts of examples of folks who won't see what kenpo offers until they go look somewheres else...nothing wrong with that, either.

Being prepared for anything. Wiil any of us? Probably not. But, I'd hate to know that the art that I devoted "X" number of years learning did not help me when I got attacked by something that was never touched on before. Realism- do you need to train with a real knife/gun for this? Nope. But adding a little aliveness into the training would help. Warriorhood- LOL! What does having a desk job have to do with it????? Just cuz you have a job like that, does not mean that on your way back to your car, parked in the lot in the big city, you won't get mugged.

But I personally suspect that this has more to do with avoiding confronting ourselves--I know, I know, another of those, "useless," traditional goals, but still darn the the only one worth a rap--than cross-training because of the flaws in kenpo. From what I can see--and admittedly, it ain't that much--a chunk of what's going on is the revision of kenpo until it HAS holes in it, then turning around and saying, "Wow, look at all the holes." I personally think that confronting such issues would do us all a helluva lot more good than learning one more system...

Again, nobody ever said to spend another 5yrs learning another art, but only to take ideas and add them to the Kenpo.

Mike

 

[MJS]

Originally posted by Kenpo Yahoo

Here's a big surprise: I totally disagree with Robert.

Me too!

Knife and club curriculum. We have all these defenses against knives and clubs, yet most kenpoists idea of using these weapons in an offensive manner is to simply perform an empty hand technique with one of the weapons in hand. I believe that the better you understand something the more capable you are of being able to defend against it. This even translates back to groundfighting and takedowns as I mentioned earlier. If you know what to look for, there is a good chance that you can prevent it. How do you perform your knife defense technique against someone who is making use of a return cut?

Good point Kenpo Yahoo!! Many arts have these defenses. However, only on a limited basis. There are some people that might find knife/stickwork very interesting. They are not going to be able to get that Inst. if their instructors knowledge is limited. I find the Filipino arts very interesting. After spending 4yrs with my Arnis Inst. I feel that I can address this issue much better than I did with the Kenpo.

Mike

 

[MJS]

Originally posted by Kenpo Yahoo
If everyone had this attitude the only art around would be Tae Kwon Do. God help us all.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Mike

 

[MJS]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Please go back and re-read my posts, which specifically mention knives and combination attacks, as well as ground-fighting.

As for, "Encounter With Danger," this is far from the only thing having to do with ground fighting that I've discussed. You really need to read what you're attacking a little more carefully. However, I think that from what you've written, your school's having done away with the technique illustrates what I originally noted--that removing techs from kenpo teaching, then turning around and claiming that kenpo lacks something specific that just happened to be in the bit that got removed, is--while logical--a little weird. In this particular case, some of the classes revolved around flipping from hip to hip and changing directions as the attacker attempted to get in close--but, it seems to me, that's a little difficult to get to if you've taken Encounter (and all that it represents) out of the system.

Take what is usefull and discard the rest. That is something that Bruce Lee has said over and over, and that is a big thing with JKD. If I'm correct in assuming that Kenpo Yahoo is from the Paul Mills branch, then I'd have to say, from what I've seen, Mills has done some excellent things with Kenpo. Just because he (Mills) has taken out and added things does not make it any less of an art. I mean, Tatum might not do this, and I'm sure he doesnt, but again, that makes Mills a bad guy cuz he did this? If anything, he has added some grappling, and looked at the stick/knife work a little closer.

Mike

 

[MJS]

Originally posted by Doc
Unfortunately there are a great many huge holes, and the so-called teachers are responsible for them, not the art.

Mr. Parker says,"There is no such thing as basics, just a basic understanding, and most don't even have that."

True!! Doc- Very wise words. Thank you!:asian:

Mike

 

[pete]

Take what is usefull and discard the rest. That is something that Bruce Lee has said over and over, and that is a big thing with JKD.

That's what Ed Parker did as well, and he "script" is now Parker's Greatest Hits. See my previous reference to the Beatles music.

To "get it", you've got to get past the mechanics and limitations of 150 techniques and 9 forms, or whatever your numbers might be, and understand the principles. Apply the principles standing up, sitting down, on the ground, or in outer space... with your Kenpo instructor if possible, or with masters of other arts if necessary.

Life has its limitations, and everyone can't learn everything at once. Life is also too short to keep out of the forbidden zone, but in the words of Dr Zaius, you may not like what you find...

 

[cdhall]

Originally posted by Goldendragon7
our Curriculums..... My question is, what are these "holes" such as grappling or combination attacks {kick punch or L - R Punch combination}, and what can be done to "upgrade" or "adjust" or what are [you or your studio] doing about them?

Very quickly
:roflmao:
right, like I can be brief.

I just went to a Shen Chuan Seminar at Mr. Billings' studio Sat 10/25 and it could very well have validated everything I have ever heard Doc say.

Mr. Lansdale struck "loosely" with dead weight. Showed us a pressure point attack that Mr. Parker must have been FULLY aware of when he set down 5 Swords. And Mr. Lansdale, about 5'8" and not exactly trim, Manhandled the 6ft monsters he brought in with him. Mopped the floor with them. Dropped them at will, knocked one out. And almost always with "No effort" and didn't leave a mark on them to speak of.

Mr. Parker surely had this stuff hidden within the system as Doc has said. He almost certainly in my opinion did set up the curriculum at least partially as "something to sell." Mr. Lansdale is too good and taught too much undisputably effective stuff for us to not directly address in EPAK. Primarily he dealt with balance disruptions and nerve strikes and I swear I saw some or all of 5 Swords, Dominating Circles, Thrusting Wedge/Heavenly Ascent/Parting Wings on Sat.

I don't know why we don't address that stuff directly. For me, I will seek more of it out to compensate. I look forward to seeing Doc one day. I accidentally nearly knocked out my partner on Sat during one of the drills we were having trouble with and my face is still sore from where Mr. Lansdale attacked a pressure point. I also either lost my vision or nearly blacked out several times on one of the drills.

In short, the stuff was almost diametrically opposite what EPAK focuses on and it was Highly effective. And very humane. As I said, Mr. Lansdale was always in control of his opponent and his strikes were very much like slaps. I could just imagine Mr. Parker slapping through some people and "mystically" wiping them out and this being the source of the slap-art and Magician of Motion rumors AND the source of many of Doc's assertions.

Mr. Lansdale also said that many Martial Arts look like this at the higher levels which makes me think this is also compatible with Doc's statmements of Sub-Level 4 being a higher state of Kenpo.

Mr. Lansdale also nearly knocked out one of Mr. Billings' bruisers as well. And yes, he did say that pressure point knock-outs/attacks can be more devastating and harmful than just knocking someone on their butt with a more traditional strike.

His seminar was amazing. I may write more in a more proper review elsewhere.

But we are lacking this in EPAK and I intend to investigate it directly to suppliment my striking. Although I prefer these methods to much of EPAK's overwhelming flurry of maiming and killing strikes. Yes I know they can be regulated etc but this stuff was so effective and effortless that I wonder if Mr. Parker Jr. was not right on about Kenpo being his Dad's "sick fantasy;" especially when you consider Leap of Death and Dance of Death for example which I believed Mr. Parker, Jr. both mentioned as examples when making this statement.
:soapbox:

Hey, what is the smiley for Ramble, Ramble, Ramble...?
:idunno:

 

[rmcrobertson]

If you see kenpo--or any really good martial art--as just a stack of techniques, there will never be enough techniques in any system for you.

And once again, all the stuff I've seen claimed here as "outside," kenpo, I've met "inside," kenpo."

Other than that, I don't see the point in continuing this discussion. Again, my posts simply aren't getting read very well by the folks who are disagreeing with them so vehemently.

 

[Michael Billings]

The strikes and principles that Prof. Lansdale taught are within our system of EPAK. Joe Lansdale does not usually teach them before Black. He came from a Kenpo system circa 1960' something, and his guys do a Combat Hapkido, Kenpo cross, and really hit hard and bump through Black. Even he said it was all in Kenpo at higher levels.

At Black they see the system's "soft" side. The Chin Na, Aki-Jitsu, softer applications, are not thrown in. He did mention not really believing in Chi, rather proper body mechanics and neuro-musculature, and how it works. He did not talk about this much since he was doing a seminar on what I specifically asked for. He had told me he does not usually do this for a first seminar, but was willing to for me.

Once again, I reiterate that it is not holes in Kenpo, but rather the level of the instructor, or their willingness and ability to teach this that can be lacking.

P.S. - I think the quote I heard from Edmund Jr. was:

You get the first strike in (which could have been a block), and if lucky, the second strike ... the rest was my Dad's Kenpo Fantasy.

However, he may have said it differently at different times. I personally love the "Kenpo Fantasy",
"- It is not Overkill, rather Overskill"

What Holes in Kenpo??

Respectfully,
-Michael

 

[MJS]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

And once again, all the stuff I've seen claimed here as "outside," kenpo, I've met "inside," kenpo."

Other than that, I don't see the point in continuing this discussion. Again, my posts simply aren't getting read very well by the folks who are disagreeing with them so vehemently. [/B]

Its not that we're disagreeing 100%. It has been said that the "stuff" is in there, but its the depth that it has. Its touched on breifly, and then thats it!

Mike

 

[Karazenpo]

I would just like to make a few comments. Chokeholds and sleepers are imperative to learn for street survival-just ask any law enforcement officer, special ops military or gin mill bouncers. We use a lot of armbars in police work but I wouldn't say they're imperative for street survival but I'd put them in the 'good to know' category. The best way to learn to defend against a weapon is to understand that weapon-to know how to use it, be it a knife, gun or club., etc. Respectfdully, "Joe"

 

[pete]

So, through this thread we find Kenpo practitioners with a hunger for more training relative to specific aspects of martial arts they find missing, incomplete, or lacking in their Kenpo practice. Is it the system, the instructor, or the student? Who cares, its real and it exists and should be addressed.

Ground fighting, Weapon defenses, Internalization, and Joint manipulations and Nerve strikes have been mentioned. How about actually discussing HOW these concepts can be introduced to students who desire to learn them...

I'll start with my experience with Tai Chi, which I go for instruction with a Master of the art. In addition to learning a fascinating art unto itself, I've found that by applying it principles, Tai Chi has improved my focus, balance, and posture in executing Kenpo techniques and forms. Pushing Hands practice has improved my sparring technique, by applying concepts of yielding, leading, expanding and sinking. Yes... all principles relative to Kenpo concepts, but this has helped me "get it"... and help others as well.

I'm interested in similar ideas to integrate groundfighting, weapon defenses, Chin na, etc... I was very impressed by a seminar given by Zach Whitson who developed a Counterpoint drill using Kenpo techniques based on his experience with Filipino Martial Arts.

And for those who don't see the point in continuing these discussions, well, umm ergh, eh... you don't have to.

 

[Goldendragon7]

Originally posted by MJS
Its not that we're disagreeing 100%. It has been said that the "stuff" is in there, but its the depth that it has. Its touched on breifly, and then thats it! Mike

Yes, the Base 154 System is just that a "Base". An Series of "Possible Solutions" or "Examples" from which then we must continue and STUDY with Variable Expansion to develop the "What It's" of the Base Curriculum. We couldn't have EVERY POSSIBLE EXAMPLE Listed out unless you want to end up with 600 + techniques [that is an extremely conservative figure there actually could be unlimited possibilities] but we don't have 10 lifetimes to do this. So some is left up to us to search out the depth of the material we have before us {which is incredible already}.

It is all in your perspective and understanding of the material. Yes, we all could and should put more attention to Basics which include Body Maneuvers such as Falling, Throwing, Rolling, Choking, Arm Bars etc.. the list goes on doesn't it.

This is a great example of how each of us have a good grasp on certain areas of the art yet we realize that we are not so knowledgeable or skillful in other areas..... this does not mean Kenpo doesn't have it, just that we have not been exposed to it by someone that does know about our personal lacking areas.

:asian:

 

[howardr]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Oh, my apologies, HowardR. It was just the Hegelian synthesis argument--I see the discussion as being in part incompatible, not contradictory.

Thanks for your courteous question, however. I should've been clearer.

Hehe...well my fault. I was just trying to be a card, but ended up more like a boob!

 

[ikenpo]

Originally posted by Michael Billings
The strikes and principles that Prof. Lansdale taught are within our system of EPAK. Joe Lansdale does not usually teach them before Black. He came from a Kenpo system circa 1960' something, and his guys do a Combat Hapkido, Kenpo cross, and really hit hard and bump through Black. Even he said it was all in Kenpo at higher levels.

At Black they see the system's "soft" side. The Chin Na, Aki-Jitsu, softer applications, are not thrown in. He did mention not really believing in Chi, rather proper body mechanics and neuro-musculature, and how it works. He did not talk about this much since he was doing a seminar on what I specifically asked for. He had told me he does not usually do this for a first seminar, but was willing to for me.

Once again, I reiterate that it is not holes in Kenpo, but rather the level of the instructor, or their willingness and ability to teach this that can be lacking.

What Holes in Kenpo??

Respectfully,
-Michael

I don't think Kenpo is necessarily lacking much...everything is there, maybe not as effective as it could be in some instances, but it is there.

One of the strengths of a standard Kenpo practicioner with a solid background is that they pickup motion from other systems quicker than average. This may be a function of our never ending analysis of motion.

I think anyone visiting a school to do a seminar will speak nice of that system. If they really thought that much of it, they be studying it instead of what they are teaching. I think that is a patented approach to get invited back. The "at the higher levels" line is interesting because I didn't see in his credentials where he actually reached them IN American Kenpo so how would he know. Is he on the family tree? I've seen one picture of Mr. Landsdale with Mr. Sullivan & LeRoux, I wonder if he was old school or new school IKCA?

I don't think Doug's instructor is lacking in his level (you have an intimate training history with him so I'll let you make that call)...and Doug is a 2nd Brown who met Mr. Parker and has gone to some lengths to try to understand "the Paker Way", if there is one..

To me the danger that Kenpo Instructors face is their preoccupation with writing other systems principle and concepts off as already in the system. We say, it is already in the system, when the application, intent and train methodology isn't there on our part. We have something similar, but it isn't the same. Let's acknowledge that at least. An example is the FMA guntings. Sure we have an inside parry and we have an inward hammering raking strike, but we don't apply them with in the same manner so the results are different. Do we have similar variations? Yes. So is it in Kenpo? Yes, but not really.

Once again, it doesn't mean we are lacking. We just may be lacking their particular application or take on a topic. Each system has its own reciept for destruction and their spice rack may have some things in it that ours doesn't. It sounds like this program added several spices that hadn't previously been on the racks...

If some of this stuff can't be acknowledged, then I agree that level of the instructor may be lacking...

jb:asian:

 

[Kenpo Yahoo]

I have an idea.!.!.!.!

Since everyone is arguing that the EPAK system is full of ground techniques, ideas, concepts, etc... why don't we list them, some of the positions they can be used from, and what the intended use is?

Rather than put it all here why don't we just start another thread and put in all the material. However, this thread should be qualified to some degree, so let's keep it to techniques that can be used when:
you are on the ground versus
a) an attacker who is on the ground
b) an attacker who is on his feet

Listing something like this might help to quell me and my fellow groundfighting advocates. Plus I think it would be a valuable resource to all students of kenpo. This shouldn't be hard since it is such a big part of the system.

 

[Michael Billings]

This was not intended to point out any deficiencies of Doug's instructor, AT ALL.!!!

I have the highest respect for Mr. Duffy's Kenpo, after all I was with him for 14+ years. I was suggesting that what may be taught to Doug, may be appropriate for his level. That was the purpose of the quote you picked up off the other thread I started.

Joe is clearly grounded in Kenpo, but I do not know his lineage, nor do I really care since I did not go there for Kenpo, but rather was invited to teach for him at one of his camps. We made a good personal connection and since he was in town to premier his movie, I thought it might be nice for him to teach a seminar. Don't write more into this than is there. I just liked him.

Doug has to explain whatever he feels, as I am unable to. I, in fact, disagreed with him in that I think Kenpo does have what was taught. The Shen Chuan principles do mirror our American Kenpo in a significant way ... now where they come from, yo no sey? He came from a time when the Kenpo had bigger circles, but you see the old techniques (Tracy, TRACO or NCKKA) reflected. Whatever the issue, I do not want to get on the wrong side of Mr. Duffy, that is why I am replying publically, I did not infer in any way that Doug's instructor was deficient, nor was that my intent. What Doug saw, I have seen other very high ranking Kenpo Black Belts do, there is nothing new, it just varies when and where you see it.

(Just my opinion on the last sentence.)

Anyhow, you might even like a seminar, it is all Kenpoee looking to me.

-Michael

 

[Ceicei]

Originally posted by Goldendragon7
Yes, the Base 154 System is just that a "Base". An Series of "Possible Solutions" or "Examples" from which then we must continue and STUDY with Variable Expansion to develop the "What It's" of the Base Curriculum. We couldn't have EVERY POSSIBLE EXAMPLE Listed out unless you want to end up with 600 + techniques [that is an extremely conservative figure there actually could be unlimited possibilities] but we don't have 10 lifetimes to do this. So some is left up to us to search out the depth of the material we have before us {which is incredible already}.

So, am I to understand that from white to black is just the bare minimum, ie. only 10% of the available knowledge? How much more then is really there to learn beyond first black (what I'm asking here isn't on how many techniques, but rather on specific principles and concepts not taught to lower belts)? It was my impression the white-black cover all the basic principles/concepts and then proceed on beyond to teach/create more techniques based on these concepts? Am I off base with that impression?

:idunno:

But I am ignorant as to what the dans really involve.... There is very little that is said or discussed regarding what techniques or forms are learned for those ranks higher than first black that a friend kind of teasily mentioned "the knowledge is reserved only for the secret society of the black belts". :wink1:

I guess I can summarize my inquiry into two questions [mindful of many friends who stop training at first black]: What motivation is there to continue training on beyond first black? What can we expect to pursue once obtaining first black?

- Ceicei

 

[Old Fat Kenpoka]

Good to see this debate still rages.

so here are my three cents:

1) The ground fighting in Infinite Insights works fine when the attacker is standing and/or at a distance. It doesn't work so well when the person is on top of you .

2) It is interesting that some of the people defending EPAK as being complete/without holes/effective on the ground, etc. have never studied another art and are unwilling to do so.

3) No system or style is "complete". Every system or style has trade-offs and limitations. In order to best defend ourselves, we need to understand the advantages and disadvantages of the system(s) we practice.

 

[pete]

i really get a few chuckles from the #2's... in'eresting to say the least.