Should the Sets be required for promotion?

[kenpo3631]

I am under the impression that Mr. Parker only created the Blocking Set #1 (Star Block) and the Finger Set #1. Also, I have heard that the other sets were not created by Mr. Parker, he was only minimally aware of their content. I have been told that when he was asked to teach them here in New England, Mr. Parker selected a student who had learned the sets from other Kenpo Instructors and had him demonstrate the sets for the seminar class. Mr. Parker would then add his insights to the movements of these sets as the class learned them.

If this is true, why is it that everyone thinks that the Sets should be belt requirements? If the Star Block and the Finger Set #1 were the only original sets required, then why can't the others be left as exercises for the students to perfect their basics instead of requiring them to be tested on it.

I do however feel that Kicking Set One can be added to the list with Star Block and Finger Set #1.

What do you think?:asian:

 

[WilliamTLear]

Originally posted by kenpo3631

I am under the impression that Mr. Parker only created the Blocking Set #1 (Star Block) and the Finger Set #1. Also, I have heard that the other sets were not created by Mr. Parker, he was only minimally aware of their content. I have been told that when he was asked to teach them here in New England, Mr. Parker selected a student who had learned the sets from other Kenpo Instructors and had him demonstrate the sets for the seminar class. Mr. Parker would then add his insights to the movements of these sets as the class learned them.

If this is true, why is it that everyone thinks that the Sets should be belt requirements? If the Star Block and the Finger Set #1 were the only original sets required, then why can't the others be left as exercises for the students to perfect their basics instead of requiring them to be tested on it.

I do however feel that Kicking Set One can be added to the list with Star Block and Finger Set #1.

What do you think?:asian:

It's simple. Mr. Parker already had a firm grasp of the basics when he started formulating "HIS" system. He had no real reason to go back and drill the basics over and over again, like a newer student would. I would say that the Sets, even if created by someone else, were included in the system by Mr. Parker to help students gain a firm understanding of "HOW" to properly execute them.

As for these sets being included in Tests... I think they should be. It allows for instructors to view and understand a practitioners ability to perform isolated basics.

My Opinion,
Billy Lear
United Kenpo Systems :asian:

 

[kenpo3631]

As for these sets being included in Tests... I think they should be. It allows for instructors to view and understand a practitioners ability to perform isolated basics.

I know if I were putting up a student for promotion in front of the head instructor of the school, my students would KNOW their basics.

Students perform basics in every class. With that in mind shouldn't they know their basics well enough prior to being tested on them?

:asian:

 

[WilliamTLear]

Originally posted by kenpo3631



I know if I were putting up a student for promotion in front of the head instructor of the school, my students would KNOW their basics.

Students perform basics in every class. With that in mind shouldn't they know their basics well enough prior to being tested on them?

:asian:

There is a certain amount of stress that comes with a test, I think that it is the capability to perform under stress that counts.

Take Care,
Billy Lear
United Kenpo Systems :asian:

 

[kenpo3631]

Remember when you tested for yellow belt? You need to know all that info. Basic, Techniques, Form, Star Block.

All I am saying is that as you get more adept with your Kenpo, your basics should be improving as well. If you are tested on your basics seperately, then why do you need to do a set that is nothing but basics. YOu are being tested twice on the same thing.:asian:

 

[Goldendragon7]

Originally posted by kenpo3631
If you are tested on your basics seperately, then why do you need to do a "set" that is nothing but basics. YOu are being tested twice on the same thing.

Man you have a point there.............

so then you are also saying......

why do you need to do a "technique" that is nothing but basics. YOu are being tested twice on the same thing.

or.....

why do you need to do a "Form" that is nothing but basics. YOu are being tested twice on the same thing.

or.....

why do you need to "spar" that is nothing but basics. YOu are being tested twice on the same thing.

Hey, you just simplified my testing.....!

NOT!

:asian:

 

[kenpo3631]

UH NO!

The forms and techniques are more than just basics. The tech principle and theory in detail to a certain degree, allot more than sets.

It isn't broken down that easy Dennis. Even a low ranking black as myself even knows that....

 

[Goldendragon7]

Well I guess you know. I'll agree.

 

[Zeke]

It seems to me that in regards to sets one could say that they - the sets - were counterproductive to the rest of our Kenpo.(I know I do )With the forms and techniques , from white to black, we tried to get the whole body to move as one , while in the sets we go the other way Now while there might is some merrit to that, I feel that it should only be reserved to lower belts. Now that is just my opinion and I do like to do the single techniqueseries from lets say "Kicking set one" or "Striking set one" with an opponent, but apart from that I don't feel they have a place in training. So that means that up to green belt I test my students on sets. After that level - brown and up - I will teach them the sets IF they want them, but I will not test them . Again this is just the way I see MY kenpo and I understand why others could feel the need to keep them in.
Take care
Zeke:asian:

 

[Goldendragon7]

They only test on what they want to....... I myself have always enjoyed having others test my students for outside opinions. I feel that they should know the entire system and not just at one time or other. We are, of course all free to do as we wish, I just want my students to be the best prepared as possible under all conditions and that means to train and use all the "Kenpo Tools" that we have at our disposal including the sets...... they do have valuable information and training within them.

Each to his own........:asian:

 

[ProfessorKenpo]

I am a staunch supporter of the sets, for the simple reason of teaching comparable motion when instructing students. Alot of beginning students (and even some of us old timers) need a point of reference and the sets do that quite well.

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

 

[Goldendragon7]

for many reasons......

:asian:

 

[Zeke]

Well as you said, Each to his own
It's not that I don't know the sets I just find that after green belt they don't bring anything new to the system that can't be found working against an opponent (in regards to selfdefence that is). As a green belt the student shoud have his/her basics down pretty good so the cordination of basic skills gained from the sets should be there. And from that point on working the same drills with an opponent where you have to cordinate the lower and upper body movements as a whole brings better results. Again just my opinion
Take care
Zeke:asian:

 

[jeffkyle]

Originally posted by Goldendragon7

for many reasons......

:asian:

A moment in History!

 

[kenpo3631]

Originally posted by ProfessorKenpo

I am a staunch supporter of the sets, for the simple reason of teaching comparable motion when instructing students. Alot of beginning students (and even some of us old timers) need a point of reference and the sets do that quite well.

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

I don't disagree with you. But do they need to be tested on them?

I feel they should be taught and worked by the students during the course of their class time. But what does kicking set #2 show you during a test that you can't see by just running the basic kicks?

:asian:

 

[Michael Billings]

.. in my opinion they do need to be tested for them. It is a nice intermediate way of introducing Principles, Concepts, and Theories in motion, at a more rudimentry level for my stripe tests. It adds a certain symetry to the entire testing procedure.

Coordination Set #1 helps you with Long #1 and Long #2; Stance Set #1, invaluable for transitioning through stances (I teach it to White & Yellow Belts, but do not test on it until later. I teach Striking Set #1 (just to the front initially) very early on for sparring purposes, then the entire set later for the stripe test.

Think about what Kicking set teaches. Not just the kicks, but the maneuvers synchronizing body momentum, with correct body alignment and gravitational marrage, not to mention balance, flexibility and strength.

Yep, if they learn it, then it is fair game for being part of a test. Especially a more physical test later on.

-Michael
UKS-Texas

 

[Klondike93]

They should be taught and tested on, it's all part of the curriculum and thus tested on.

The way I look at, is if your learning EPAK then it's all part of the system and it should all be learned. Now if you continue to use it is up to you, catagorize it like Mr. Parker said, useful, unuseful and useless.

:asian:

 

[kenpo3631]

Coordination Set #1 helps you with Long #1 and Long #2; Stance Set #1, invaluable for transitioning through stances (I teach it to White & Yellow Belts, but do not test on it until later. I teach Striking Set #1 (just to the front initially) very early on for sparring purposes, then the entire set later for the stripe test.

So what you are saying is that the sets help with perfecting the "core" curriculum (basic, forms, and techniques). I would agree with you on that.

However, what are you testing a student on generally? Basics, Forms, and Techniques right? I equate it to this. In school, whether it be college, high school, where ever, did you get tested on how you studied? On how you perfected your math skills? If your teacher gave you a drill to help you perfect you geometry skills did they test you on the drill or the subject of geometry?

If as an instructor you know what you are looking for at a certain point in a students progress, shouldn't they be able to apply what you taught them in the sets to what you are asking them to do during the test without actually having to do the set?...:asian:

 

[eternalwhitebelt]

Originally posted by kenpo3631



So what you are saying is that the sets help with perfecting the "core" curriculum (basic, forms, and techniques). I would agree with you on that.

However, what are you testing a student on generally? Basics, Forms, and Techniques right? I equate it to this. In school, whether it be college, high school, where ever, did you get tested on how you studied? On how you perfected your math skills? If your teacher gave you a drill to help you perfect you geometry skills did they test you on the drill or the subject of geometry?

If as an instructor you know what you are looking for at a certain point in a students progress, shouldn't they be able to apply what you taught them in the sets to what you are asking them to do during the test without actually having to do the set?...:asian:

Excellent post

 

[Michael Billings]

... I can test their execution of basics through watching their Sets.

-Michael
UKS-Texas