On deleting or modifying material from Kenpo...

[Seabrook]

Would you recommend staying between two (or more) opponents? Yikes! Not me. But that is what most of them do.

I don't agree. In fact, it is usually the opposite.

Which of the 2-man techniques do you dislike and why?

 

[KenpoMD]

One of my favorite two-man techniques is Grouping the Enemy (at least that's what we call it - but we also do some Tracy Kenpo, including Mass Attacks). The technique teaches you to 'group' the enemy as the name implies, not stand right between two fellas trying to knock your block off.

I remember taking a close look at the two man techniques a few years ago and wondering if they really were necessary. All of the movement can be found in the one-man techniques. As to whether or not they are all fantasy I'm not sure.

However, they do teach principles that are not taught in the one-man techniques even if the movements aren't much different. Take the above technique as an example. Even if you weren't able to pull off the technique 'as is' you would be better off knowing how to get away from the first guy and put him between you and the second.

Just a few thoughts...

BTW, anybody know the more common name for Grouping the Enemy? It might help this post make a little more sense.

 

[pete]

what do you think of the multiple attacker strategies here:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=v1sK5zBRbec

 

[Seig]

Before you decide that a technique doesn't belong, you need to examine what is being taught by the technique. If any one technique was the end all be all of everything, we not only would not have as many techniques as we do, but we would also have no need of the equation formula, master key moves, or family groupings.

 

[Seabrook]

what do you think of the multiple attacker strategies here:

[URL="http://youtube.com/watch?v=v1sK5zBRbec"]http://youtube.com/watch?v=v1sK5zBRbec[/URL]

Pete,

He did a good job initially at using his opponents as a shield, but I think he would have been in big trouble when he got cornered against the wall near the end of the video. He seemed to get out of that situation way too easily.

Whad'ya think?


Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com

 

[Seabrook]

Before you decide that a technique doesn't belong, you need to examine what is being taught by the technique. If any one technique was the end all be all of everything, we not only would not have as many techniques as we do, but we would also have no need of the equation formula, master key moves, or family groupings.

Well put Seig.

 

[MattJ]

I don't agree. In fact, it is usually the opposite.

I'm confused. What are you not agreeing with?

Which of the 2-man techniques do you dislike and why?

All of them - I do not recommend trying to stay between two attackers.

what do you think of the multiple attacker strategies here:

[URL="http://youtube.com/watch?v=v1sK5zBRbec"]http://youtube.com/watch?v=v1sK5zBRbec[/URL]

This is a good representation of the strategy I would try to use. Line the attackers up, so they can't attack from all sides.

 

[Jimmy]

Hello everyone
This is my first post so please bear with me. I think that we should remember that kenpo is a system of learning. If you start deleting material it is like removing letters from the alphabet. And as far as modifying the system to fit your personal needs, sure why not. That is what the equation formula was created for. But I am also a shcool owner, when people come to my store they want to learn edpak not what I decided to turn it into. So That is why I teach for lack of a better term the book version to the best of my ability. One thing that I do at my store is a lot of freestyle tech. This lets my students see that the system is not perfect. But with training and experience they can solve alot of problems for themselves. With regards for the other post I have read I see alot logic in most of the reply's. I do think however that a varity of training and experience would take care of most promblems. Training would also mean simulating envroment an other stress factors.

thank you jimmy

 

[Kenpojujitsu3]

Delete what you want and add what you want, but if you do call "the system" by a different name. If I changed any of the letters of the aphabet it wouldn't be the alphabet anymore. It may still be effective in communication and it may be better or worse. But it wouldn't be the alphabet anymore, it would be something different. Different may be better, worse or the same but still different none the less. Would you want a coca-cola labelled as lemonade?

 

[Seabrook]

Delete what you want and add what you want, but if you do call "the system" by a different name. If I changed any of the letters of the aphabet it wouldn't be the alphabet anymore.

Good post James.

 

[Josh Oakley]

I really don't see the problem with deleting or updating techniques in kempo or any other system. One of the core concepts of martial arts is that it is also a science. In the world of sciences like astronomy or chemistry, a paradigm is held onto as long as it is accurate to the information we have. If reality doesn't fit the paradigm, then we must change the paradigm (break out of the fishbowl, as it were).

If a martial art's technique does not work and can get someone killed, and doesn't work in reality, it should not be taught as is. It MUST be modified. Martial science dictates that we do not fight yesterday's war, and the survival of the martial arts from being marginalized demands change. Change is the one true characteristic of all living things. How do you think kempo came to exist in the first place?

In science, laws are spoken of. But laws change with greater understanding of reality. Just because something changes in Kempo does not mean it is no longer Kempo. It is still the law of the fist, based on its efficiency and effectiveness. Do not keep things just because that's the way it's always been done.

Because in reality, if it's not efficient, and it's not EFFECTIVE, it isn't Kempo.

 

[Kenpojujitsu3]

I really don't see the problem with deleting or updating techniques in kempo or any other system. One of the core concepts of martial arts is that it is also a science. In the world of sciences like astronomy or chemistry, a paradigm is held onto as long as it is accurate to the information we have. If reality doesn't fit the paradigm, then we must change the paradigm (break out of the fishbowl, as it were).

If a martial art's technique does not work and can get someone killed, and doesn't work in reality, it should not be taught as is. It MUST be modified. Martial science dictates that we do not fight yesterday's war, and the survival of the martial arts from being marginalized demands change. Change is the one true characteristic of all living things. How do you think kempo came to exist in the first place?

In science, laws are spoken of. But laws change with greater understanding of reality. Just because something changes in Kempo does not mean it is no longer Kempo. It is still the law of the fist, based on its efficiency and effectiveness. Do not keep things just because that's the way it's always been done.

Because in reality, if it's not efficient, and it's not EFFECTIVE, it isn't Kempo.

The problem is that not all of martial arts is a set science as there are too many variables. What is effective and efficient for one is often not a effective or efficient for another.

Example the Ura Nage in Judo/Ju Jitsu is a very powerful damaging throw if. It has a science behind it (leverage and gravity). However for a very small woman who's arms do not have the circumference to secure themselves around a larger person the throw is not effective. So should she throw this technique out and then teach the system without this technique to future generations based on her own physical limitation?

Effective and efficient are subjective terms not absolutes which is why there is no agreement on whether material should or should not be deleted.

 

[Monadnock]

Every technique has a counter, and a counter to the counter. So they all work, and all don't work. I don't think there will ever be a day when one is run to completion without any altering. Stay with the principles and forget the techniques. This technique jibber jabber is old hat now. Time to move on IMHO.

 

[Kenpojujitsu3]

Every technique has a counter, and a counter to the counter. So they all work, and all don't work. I don't think there will ever be a day when one is run to completion without any altering. Stay with the principles and forget the techniques. This technique jibber jabber is old hat now. Time to move on IMHO.

The problem there is that the techniques are the vehicle through which the principles are taught (at least in Kenpo they are). If you trash a technique there is a principle going with it in most cases.

 

[Monadnock]

The problem there is that the techniques are the vehicle through which the principles are taught (at least in Kenpo they are). If you trash a technique there is a principle going with it in most cases.

I agree. By "forgetting" techniques, I did not mean to remove them from the curriculum, but rather "learn it, and forget it."

By practicing techniques for years, they will become engrained into your responses and later the student should be able to act without thinking, or recalling the technique. At this point, the tech has been "forgotten," at least by the consious mind. Attachment to techniques is a trait of the beginner, and it only clutters the mind instead of letting them act freely, or spiritually, if you will. This also, is when logic is less depended upon.

 

[Josh Oakley]

The problem is that not all of martial arts is a set science as there are too many variables. What is effective and efficient for one is often not a effective or efficient for another.

Example the Ura Nage in Judo/Ju Jitsu is a very powerful damaging throw if. It has a science behind it (leverage and gravity). However for a very small woman who's arms do not have the circumference to secure themselves around a larger person the throw is not effective. So should she throw this technique out and then teach the system without this technique to future generations based on her own physical limitation?

Effective and efficient are subjective terms not absolutes which is why there is no agreement on whether material should or should not be deleted.

Pehaps I was not clear on what I meant when I talked about "science". The core of all science is the scientific method. There are general theories and special theories (ex: relativity) which serve as paradigms, and stick around as long as they are an effective description of reality as we know it. But the core of science is the process by which those paradigms came to exist, which, again, is the scientific method.

So, really, I don't see our two views as opposing. In fact, you just gave a perfect example for what I was so poorly trying to describe. In the throw you spoke of, I would teach the student that the throw will work, but against certain opponents. Against larger opponents, I'd probably tell her to concentrate on vital areas. But she would still learn the throw, because it is applicable in other areas.

This is still all very scientific. It's based on what would work for that student. (I'd also like to point out that the concept of a "set science" is actually counterintuitive to the very nature of science.)

But there are certain knife defenses that really don't work, and could get people killed (and don't get me started on gun defense). I grew up in bad areas, and carried a knife on me at all times as a necessity. I joined the Army and really got to know about pistols, rifles, and knives, and I have seen many knife and gun defenses in different martial arts systems and become very doubtful in the effectivenes of many of them.

 

[jasonearle]

I agree. By "forgetting" techniques, I did not mean to remove them from the curriculum, but rather "learn it, and forget it."

By practicing techniques for years, they will become engrained into your responses and later the student should be able to act without thinking, or recalling the technique. At this point, the tech has been "forgotten," at least by the consious mind. Attachment to techniques is a trait of the beginner, and it only clutters the mind instead of letting them act freely, or spiritually, if you will. This also, is when logic is less depended upon.

my feelings excatly on that. that is one of the most important things I tell my students after I have taught them a technique or set or anything, is to stop thinking and let the body move. everytime I think or see them thinking they stop and get confused which you don't have time to stop and think in actual combat. I loved the way Bruce Lee put it in one of his books. "Before I started training a punch was just a punch and a kick just a kick. Once I started training, a punch became more then a punch and a kick more then a kick. Now that I've been doing it a while, a punch is just a punch and a kick just a kick." I'm not sure if that is the exact words, but you get the idea. there are levels of training you go through were you start to understand how to use your natural weapons with utmost efficiency, which your body must learn, and once it is ingrained into your brain and muscles, you just let your body react. As far as taking away anything, it has always been important to me to look at why the move was created in the first place, or why it might have been created, and see if it applies to the world we live in today. I wouldn't necessarily throw anything away cause you never know when it could be used somehow, whether in teaching, learning, or practical application. An obvious example is the time when there were no guns, so with the invention of guns and there efficiency in causing such damage, martial arts must evolve or create new ideas to be able to handle such situations as efficiently as possible, whether it be disarming the assailant or valueing your own life over the contents of your wallet, which are replaceable, wheras your life is not and simply giving it too them. I'm not bulletproof and I don't want to try my luck if my life is seriously in danger or the life of my family of friends. I may have a better chance of disarming them with my training but I'd rather not risk my life for the contents of my wallet.

 

[Kenpojujitsu3]

I agree. By "forgetting" techniques, I did not mean to remove them from the curriculum, but rather "learn it, and forget it."

By practicing techniques for years, they will become engrained into your responses and later the student should be able to act without thinking, or recalling the technique. At this point, the tech has been "forgotten," at least by the consious mind. Attachment to techniques is a trait of the beginner, and it only clutters the mind instead of letting them act freely, or spiritually, if you will. This also, is when logic is less depended upon.

OK, now I'm with what you're saying and I totally agree.

 

[Kenpojujitsu3]

Pehaps I was not clear on what I meant when I talked about "science". The core of all science is the scientific method. There are general theories and special theories (ex: relativity) which serve as paradigms, and stick around as long as they are an effective description of reality as we know it. But the core of science is the process by which those paradigms came to exist, which, again, is the scientific method.

So, really, I don't see our two views as opposing. In fact, you just gave a perfect example for what I was so poorly trying to describe. In the throw you spoke of, I would teach the student that the throw will work, but against certain opponents. Against larger opponents, I'd probably tell her to concentrate on vital areas. But she would still learn the throw, because it is applicable in other areas.

This is still all very scientific. It's based on what would work for that student. (I'd also like to point out that the concept of a "set science" is actually counterintuitive to the very nature of science.)

But there are certain knife defenses that really don't work, and could get people killed (and don't get me started on gun defense). I grew up in bad areas, and carried a knife on me at all times as a necessity. I joined the Army and really got to know about pistols, rifles, and knives, and I have seen many knife and gun defenses in different martial arts systems and become very doubtful in the effectivenes of many of them.

I agree, we are saying the same thing but a different way Yeah don't get me started on some of the "gun disarms". I just saw a clip of a Hapkido guy showing one the other day. Not a bad disarm.....except the part where the gun was pointed directly at his chest mid move with no tension on the opponent's forearm to prevent a trigger pull.

 

[Sigung86]

Actually, when you get down to it ... If you can not make a technique work, then why bother with it?

Someone used the invariable language/alphabet example a few posts back. That's ok, but it is still an updatable, adding/deleting, living thing.

What is this word?

Sesfion


It is a valid "Olde" Englishe Word.

There previous are two examples of what I mean.

Sesfion = Session

WE now use two "s" characters instead of the ancient hallowed art of adding a second character "f". If yo want to see a really great example of this, look at a copy of the original Declaration of Independence. And we don't bother with the "e" on old, anymore. These two examples of English are not even taught anymore, for general consumption. They are, however, there, if you want to investigate old English, it's origins, derivations, and evolutions.

Kenpo is the same way. In the Tracy's Kenpo that I took for Lo! those many years, the weapons defenses are lame for the most part, and as taught, will get you killed.

I know... I know... They are principles to study, but even then, many of them are flawed as they stand. The grand-glorious Al, himself, says that if we use a white shirt and a magic marker that we will discover that we get cut more often than not.

And so ... I see absolutely nothing wrong with deleting something that is virtually useless to begin with, and apparently taught to fill some sort of outmoded need to fill a category.

Get some useful wisdom. Don't really get too lathered about whether it is "Kenpo" or not. Kenpo means "Fist-Law", and if it is, then it can be changeable, amendable, deletable, and modifiable, just like law.

All the Keys and tool boxes in the world won't make a useless technique useful. If it does, then you don't have Kenpo anymore?????? Looking at the various incarnations of Kenpo since the 50s when SGM Parker first began his foray into commercial arts, I think I have to beg to differ with you.

But then... I teach "Dynamic Kenpo Concepts". :rofl: