On deleting or modifying material from Kenpo...

[kroh]

While I am not an EPAK practitioner, I have quite a few friends that do. They voice many of the same concerns that have been evident in this thread. One of the points raised in this discussion has been that if you take out the techniques that "don't work," will you loose the principles they teach. A person that is a qualified teacher will find a better way to convey the lost principle should the tehcnique that teaches it be cast off.

In the recent years there has been a revival in martial arts training where stereo-typical movements are being re-evaluated at some of the highest levels. The reason for this is simple...we have better access to each other. With the net and other mediums present (how many youtube posts can you find on forums now), we can evaluate and dissiminate what works and what doesn't. Even the Military has joined the fray to re-envision their concept of what a close combatives program should look like (MMAP for the Marines and MCAP for he Army.). The fact of the matter is that people who want realistic combatives training do not want to waste the time standing in a horse stance and poping out reverse punches while learning the latest blocking set. Ever watch even some of the black belts spar? I don't see horse stances or weird manuevers... I see kickboxing. Why why would a person practice all of these strange "techniques" when the principles they teach are not even being used by so called experts?

If a person wants to practice the arts for asthetic reasons that is different. While iaido imparts fantastic lessons in spacial awareness and timing as well as an appreciation for closing with the enemy and striking with purpose...no one carries swords or fights with them anymore. The closest one might get is using a machete in the army but as any soldier will tell you...if you are down to your knife...call for the friends with the guns to come pick you up. The point is, you have an entire martial art dedicated to the use of a forgotten weapon (or group of techniques).

People look at these systems and say..."The founder must have been a genius to put this together like so...who am I to change it?" If we don't take what the people of the past gave us so that we can carry it into the future, we are curators and not instructors. Much like the old "samurai systems, " we are merely preserving a tradition for the sake of tradition (because it hasn't been a living breathing martial art since people wore lacquered armor).

"Absorb what is usefull, discard what is useless, and interject what is specifically your own", Said by some guy regarding his recipe for something or other...

My turn: http://youtube.com/watch?v=OplajPk-K6U

Regards,
Walt

 

[Ray]

One of the points raised in this discussion has been that if you take out the techniques that "don't work," will you loose the principles they teach. A person that is a qualified teacher will find a better way to convey the lost principle should the tehcnique that teaches it be cast off.

There have been several techniques that "didn't work" for me; only to find that there was a better way to do the technique. There have even been instances of techniques that work just fine for me that have been improved with input from others.

 

[Kenpojujitsu3]

There have been several techniques that "didn't work" for me; only to find that there was a better way to do the technique. There have even been instances of techniques that work just fine for me that have been improved with input from others.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[kroh]

There have been several techniques that "didn't work" for me; only to find that there was a better way to do the technique. There have even been instances of techniques that work just fine for me that have been improved with input from others.

Sounds like you have the idea to search out the techniques to find out what works ...experimentation is definately a good thing in regards to this stuff.

Regards,
Walt

 

[Josh Oakley]

While I am not an EPAK practitioner, I have quite a few friends that do. They voice many of the same concerns that have been evident in this thread. One of the points raised in this discussion has been that if you take out the techniques that "don't work," will you loose the principles they teach. A person that is a qualified teacher will find a better way to convey the lost principle should the tehcnique that teaches it be cast off.

In the recent years there has been a revival in martial arts training where stereo-typical movements are being re-evaluated at some of the highest levels. The reason for this is simple...we have better access to each other. With the net and other mediums present (how many youtube posts can you find on forums now), we can evaluate and dissiminate what works and what doesn't. Even the Military has joined the fray to re-envision their concept of what a close combatives program should look like (MMAP for the Marines and MCAP for he Army.). The fact of the matter is that people who want realistic combatives training do not want to waste the time standing in a horse stance and poping out reverse punches while learning the latest blocking set. Ever watch even some of the black belts spar? I don't see horse stances or weird manuevers... I see kickboxing. Why why would a person practice all of these strange "techniques" when the principles they teach are not even being used by so called experts?

If a person wants to practice the arts for asthetic reasons that is different. While iaido imparts fantastic lessons in spacial awareness and timing as well as an appreciation for closing with the enemy and striking with purpose...no one carries swords or fights with them anymore. The closest one might get is using a machete in the army but as any soldier will tell you...if you are down to your knife...call for the friends with the guns to come pick you up. The point is, you have an entire martial art dedicated to the use of a forgotten weapon (or group of techniques).

People look at these systems and say..."The founder must have been a genius to put this together like so...who am I to change it?" If we don't take what the people of the past gave us so that we can carry it into the future, we are curators and not instructors. Much like the old "samurai systems, " we are merely preserving a tradition for the sake of tradition (because it hasn't been a living breathing martial art since people wore lacquered armor).

"Absorb what is usefull, discard what is useless, and interject what is specifically your own", Said by some guy regarding his recipe for something or other...

My turn: http://youtube.com/watch?v=OplajPk-K6U

Regards,
Walt

Funny you should mention the friends with guns thing. FM 3-25, the Army's combatives manual, says that in war the one who survives unarmed combat is most often the one whose allies with guns shows up first.


One thing I would say, however, is that I don't see how we would lose the principal by removing or modifying the technique. The technique flows from the principle, not the other way around, or at least that's how I understand it. There may very well be better ways to show and express the principle. That being said, if we are following the scientific method, we may eventually find that certain principles may need to be modified or replaced. No principle is Gospel Law, nor should it be. If Kenpo is to remain scientific, it must reanalyze its own presuppositions, concepts, principles, and laws. I recommend readint The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, by Thomas S. Kuhn, to better understand what I'm getting at.

 

[kroh]

Funny you should mention the friends with guns thing. FM 3-25, the Army's combatives manual, says that in war the one who survives unarmed combat is most often the one whose allies with guns shows up first.

It is not that much of a stretch that I used that statement as I am in the military and I would liek to be certified as an instructor in MACP in the future.

One thing I would say, however, is that I don't see how we would lose the principal by removing or modifying the technique. The technique flows from the principle, not the other way around, or at least that's how I understand it. There may very well be better ways to show and express the principle. That being said, if we are following the scientific method, we may eventually find that certain principles may need to be modified or replaced. No principle is Gospel Law, nor should it be. If Kenpo is to remain scientific, it must reanalyze its own presuppositions, concepts, principles, and laws.

This is one of the many truths that is found in any skill in life that some of my fiends that do Americanized Kenpo systems have had issues with. One of the things that many of them found when they reached a higher level is that many of the 100+ techniches that they were learning were variations of techniques that they learned at lower levels. Some of them felt upset about this as they were being asked to add yet another technique to their repetoir as opposed to being just taught the principle in the beginning. I liked the way you stated how the technique flows from the principles and not the other way around. While we need a technique to demonstrate the principle... If you show people in the beginning other places the principles work...you could knock those 100+ techniques that one has to learn to less than fifty. Further refine the principles that are being used and you could knock those fifty to less than twenty. Martial arts training is actually very easy... We just tend to overcomplicate things as we go along (not to mention you would need to be Bruce Lee on steroids to pull off half of this stuff in a combative engagement).

Great post Mr. Oakley
Regards,
Walt

 

[Kenpojujitsu3]

It is not that much of a stretch that I used that statement as I am in the military and I would liek to be certified as an instructor in MACP in the future.



This is one of the many truths that is found in any skill in life that some of my fiends that do Americanized Kenpo systems have had issues with. One of the things that many of them found when they reached a higher level is that many of the 100+ techniches that they were learning were variations of techniques that they learned at lower levels. Some of them felt upset about this as they were being asked to add yet another technique to their repetoir as opposed to being just taught the principle in the beginning. I liked the way you stated how the technique flows from the principles and not the other way around. While we need a technique to demonstrate the principle... If you show people in the beginning other places the principles work...you could knock those 100+ techniques that one has to learn to less than fifty. Further refine the principles that are being used and you could knock those fifty to less than twenty. Martial arts training is actually very easy... We just tend to overcomplicate things as we go along (not to mention you would need to be Bruce Lee on steroids to pull off half of this stuff in a combative engagement).

Great post Mr. Oakley
Regards,
Walt

I've been explaining this very thing to my students for years now. I teach them that the Kenpo system has 154+ variations of the same 10-13 techniques. That's the difference between a self-defense or fighting system and a martial art. A martial art is more fleshed out with more variations shown. A self defense system just shows the basic concepts and movements and leaves it up to the person to figure out the rest. While all the principles could be explained early on it takes time to digest them all which is one reason among many why so many variations are given. A new variation to introduce a new principle or new application of that principle when the student is ready for it. Principles are many, motions are few. As has been stated in the past. If martial arts were all about fighting they would have no real purpose. Someone can be taught some pretty effective fighting skills in weeks, not years.

 

[kroh]

As has been stated in the past. If martial arts were all about fighting they would have no real purpose. Someone can be taught some pretty effective fighting skills in weeks, not years

I like this statement and yet I can't totally agree with it. While I agree that martial art should be comprehensive... I think the expressed purpose of the martial arts should be fighting. Look at reall old martial arts like the Shoden Katori Shinto Ryu. The entire martial art was dedicated to battefield tactics back in the day when people fought like that. My personal opinion is that a martial art that teaches something other than combatives or related subject matter (ressucitation and tactical studies can be considered related) is missing the point and is little more than a dance or partnered gymnastics routine. I have often been blasted for this view in the past but I feel that the word MARTIAL means Of, relating to, or suggestive of war, and Art being a field or category of personal expression. If your persoanl expression of fighting doesn't include fighting...what is it then?

But as was said, that is a personal opinion. I agree martial arts should be more than just punching and biting but it must include agressive elements.

Great Post sir,
Regards,
Walt

 

[Kenpojujitsu3]

I like this statement and yet I can't totally agree with it. While I agree that martial art should be comprehensive... I think the expressed purpose of the martial arts should be fighting. Look at reall old martial arts like the Shoden Katori Shinto Ryu. The entire martial art was dedicated to battefield tactics back in the day when people fought like that. My personal opinion is that a martial art that teaches something other than combatives or related subject matter (ressucitation and tactical studies can be considered related) is missing the point and is little more than a dance or partnered gymnastics routine. I have often been blasted for this view in the past but I feel that the word MARTIAL means Of, relating to, or suggestive of war, and Art being a field or category of personal expression. If your persoanl expression of fighting doesn't include fighting...what is it then?

But as was said, that is a personal opinion. I agree martial arts should be more than just punching and biting but it must include agressive elements.

Great Post sir,
Regards,
Walt

We're on the same page (Check my sig). It has to be about fighting (actually MOSTLY about fighting) but not ALL about fighting as there are WAY faster ways to teach people how to fight effectively than a martial art.

 

[kroh]

We're on the same page (Check my sig). It has to be about fighting (actually MOSTLY about fighting) but not ALL about fighting as there are WAY faster ways to teach people how to fight effectively than a martial art.

Very true... But it is harder to impress the ladies with your skills when you just drop whatever jerk offended you in the first place...

I think I see where you are comming from now. Glad to see the Kempo community hasn't lost its teeth.

Regards,
Walt

 

[Kenpojujitsu3]

Very true... But it is harder to impress the ladies with your skills when you just drop whatever jerk offended you in the first place...

I think I see where you are comming from now. Glad to see the Kempo community hasn't lost its teeth.

Regards,
Walt

yeah, it's no good when you hear "what'd he do to him? what happended?" then you're like "Man, I gotta wake this guy up and do it again slower"

Yeah, some still bite even though many bark (and quietly from behind the fence at that).

 

[Touch Of Death]

Boxing, Sport TKD, and Muay thai are about fighting. A martial Art system is about controling a situation.
Sean

 

[Kenpojujitsu3]

Boxing, Sport TKD, and Muay thai are about fighting. A martial Art system is about controling a situation.
Sean

Where did you study Boxing or Muay Thai? I can assure you that we learned alot more than what you see in the sporting events. Similar to watching Kenpo guys spar at tournaments and assuming that's how they're going to react in a real confrontation. Of course not, that would be heresy to even suggest something like that....

 

[Touch Of Death]

Where did you study Boxing or Muay Thai? I can assure you that we learned alot more than what you see in the sporting events. Similar to watching Kenpo guys spar at tournaments and assuming that's how they're going to react in a real confrontation. Of course not, that would be heresy to even suggest something like that....

I was generalizing but never mind.
Sean

 

[Kenpojujitsu3]

I was generalizing but never mind.
Sean

Sorry I mistook your generalizing for some inaccuracies involving assumptions about arts I've spent a few years with. My apologies.

A Muay Thai boxers oath
I will ensure that I am clean, strong and behave with honesty and integrity.
I will not bully those weaker than myself.
I will undertake good deeds to the benefit of others and be loyal to the nation
I will avoid causing trouble of any kind.
We will be united and help one another whenever possible.

alot of the above has nothing to do with fighting for instance...

 

[Sigung86]

Regarding amount of techniques over matter.... Remember, that when you are teaching a class group, or private, you are generally teaching to the weakest link, or the lowest common denominator.

I have had students who walked in and walked out within a years time, having all the knowledge, concepts, precepts, etc. that are needed to qualify as a Black Belt. On the other hand, I have one student who staid and studied for almost ten years before he got his Black Belt. That's the fellow that we teach to. Thus the dumbing down of the military fighting system. Thus the reason why I, years ago, currently, some of my students, Mike Pick and a number of others go out as independent contractors and teach "advanced" techniques, philosophies, and skill sets to the Special Ops Personnel. And even then, there are lowest common denominators.

The Basics of fighting are simple and inelegant, but effective and often lethal. We have to teach some folks to reach beyond that to attain the art for personal achievement, regardless of effectiveness. I used to know a fellow who had a relatively high ranking degree in TKD. He was beautiful to watch, and his art was his everything, but he could never fight his way out of a wet paper bag, and he knew it. Still he persisted in the art for art's sake.

The fighting is there for the warrior. The Art is there for the warrior wanting more, and more so even, for the artist.

 

[Kenpojujitsu3]

Regarding amount of techniques over matter.... Remember, that when you are teaching a class group, or private, you are generally teaching to the weakest link, or the lowest common denominator.

I have had students who walked in and walked out within a years time, having all the knowledge, concepts, precepts, etc. that are needed to qualify as a Black Belt. On the other hand, I have one student who staid and studied for almost ten years before he got his Black Belt. That's the fellow that we teach to. Thus the dumbing down of the military fighting system. Thus the reason why I, years ago, currently, some of my students, Mike Pick and a number of others go out as independent contractors and teach "advanced" techniques, philosophies, and skill sets to the Special Ops Personnel. And even then, there are lowest common denominators.

The Basics of fighting are simple and inelegant, but effective and often lethal. We have to teach some folks to reach beyond that to attain the art for personal achievement, regardless of effectiveness. I used to know a fellow who had a relatively high ranking degree in TKD. He was beautiful to watch, and his art was his everything, but he could never fight his way out of a wet paper bag, and he knew it. Still he persisted in the art for art's sake.

The fighting is there for the warrior. The Art is there for the warrior wanting more, and more so even, for the artist.

Man that was deep, the last sentence sums it all up. I gotta quote that.