What does "Motion Kenpo" mean?

[Hand Sword]

Maybe so, but, in some of the threads here, the tone definitely describes it as being less than what "I" do, or "my" system is.

Remember a time when you, and the others were just Kenpo practitoners?

 

[BlackCatBonz]

Maybe so, but, in some of the threads here, the tone definitely describes it as being less than what "I" do, or "my" system is.

Remember a time when you, and the others were just a Kenpo practitoners?

do I?
I remember when i first started studying kempo.....I had no idea there were so many different kinds of it.....I just thought it was kempo.

So yeah.....once I was aware of all of the politics and such, it definitely put a negative spin on the whole ken/mpo thing for me.......I've since learned that I really love the particular art I practice and it offers everything I need to get the job done......

I am still very interested in all the other types and styles.....as well as with other martial arts.

 

[Hand Sword]

I hear ya! Honestly though, As I said It's all just terms used by the "others". When it comes down to it, the real differences are just little tinkerings, here and there. It's how one chooses to paint the picture.

 

[Flying Crane]

now i dont study epak.......most people on the boards know this......but i have been apart of several convos trying to understand what the definitions mean.

From my discussions with Doc, i am under the assumption that sl-4 teaches principles via technique as the goal; whereas with motion kenpo, executing proper technique is the goal.
this would make the system much easier to learn because one would only need to demonstrate a working technique, rather than define the principles responsible for the techniques efficacy.

OK, interesting thought. Could you elaborate a bit on this?

 

[Kenpojujitsu3]

now i dont study epak.......most people on the boards know this......but i have been apart of several convos trying to understand what the definitions mean.

From my discussions with Doc, i am under the assumption that sl-4 teaches principles via technique as the goal; whereas with motion kenpo, executing proper technique is the goal.
this would make the system much easier to learn because one would only need to demonstrate a working technique, rather than define the principles responsible for the techniques efficacy.

Got to disagree here. This implies that students learn the "How to" about techniques and not the "why to" about techniques. This is simply inaccurate in many (not all) Kenpo circles.

 

[Flying Crane]

Got to disagree here. This implies that students learn the "How to" about techniques and not the "why to" about techniques. This is simply inaccurate in many (not all) Kenpo circles.

Hmm... well maybe Motion refers more to the commercial system done on the lower end of the quality continuum. I have seen comments that indicate the commercial system is not necessarily bad, that there are those who are very good at it. Maybe my thoughts about what Motion refers to, and BCB's comments might be accurate, but only applies to those who take the shortcuts in the commercial system, and reside on the low end of the scale. James, maybe you and your people, if you do the commercial system, do it at the high end of the quality scale. So the criticisms of "motion" kenpo perhaps don't apply on this end of the scale, and don't apply to you.

Thanks for your comments again, they are giving me perspective and helping to fill in the picture.

 

[Touch Of Death]

We teach principles of motion over technique; have we transended motion Kenpo?
Sean

 

[Flying Crane]

OK, I was poking around in some really old threads, not expecting to find anything about this, but rather just for curiosity. As luck would have it, I stumbled upon something that might shed some light on what is meant, this post by DOC:

BODY INDEX TRAINING (B.I.T.) – Called “BIT Training,” is the use of anatomical “Index points” of the armatures to facilitate rapid assimilation of correct anatomical body mechanics in the beginning stages of learning. The index points are based on “startle reflex” mechanisms therefore they do not have to be so much “learned” as re-enforced. These index points correspond to structural integrity positions that contribute to proper execution. These points also are Grapple Control Mechanisms due to their extreme anatomical structure.

This is partly what fuels the flames. that is we are "anatomy based" instead of "motion based."

At least, that is what we do and it seems to work with long lasting and effective results

The thread is found here, for those interested in the full context: http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4842

 

[Hand Sword]

I'm tired of the divisevness, It's the same as saying "those people" to me. That can't be a way of having friendly discussions. I would recommend that all the terms used to describe any art by others no longer be used. American Kenpo is American Kenpo. Acceptable terms could be of which version, Tracy's, Epak, Sl-4, etc.. Ultimately, all arts use "motion", none are stagnant, and all have the scientific principles within them. No art is lesser or better than any other. Each of us in the end will do it our way anyhow. When that point is reached, you should just say this is how I do it, or what I've found. Don't take up the position, that it's the true way, it's just your way.

Respect to all practitioners, of all the arts. :asian:

 

[Kenpojujitsu3]

I'm tired of the divisevness, It's the same as saying "those people" to me. That can't be a way of having friendly discussions. I would recommend that all the terms used to describe any art by others no longer be used. American Kenpo is American Kenpo. Acceptable terms could be of which version, Tracy's, Epak, Sl-4, etc.. Ultimately, all arts use "motion", none are stagnant, and all have the scientific principles within them. No art is lesser or better than any other. Each of us in the end will do it our way anyhow. When that point is reached, you should just say this is how I do it, or what I've found. Don't take up the position, that it's the true way, it's just your way.

Respect to all practitioners, of all the arts. :asian:

I can respect your points to a degree. However I keep in contact with "Doc" and I'm definitely considered to be in the "motion kenpo" crowd. I've never heard him, or read anything where he said to me or anyone else that his way is "The True Way". I've actually read several posts and e-mails from him that says that his way is "A way" or "HIS way" and that many in "motion Kenpo" can make their stuff work. Sorry but the "us versus them" just seems to be his way of differenciating what his does from everybody else. I don't see any malice, I just see a name. Just like all the names you rattled off (Tracey, EPAK, SL-4, etc.) are just labels. I don't find "motion kenpo" to be any different. I guess I just don't understand the part about abolishing all terms that describe any art by others and then listing acceptable terms that describe any art by others.

 

[DavidCC]

"No art is lesser or better than any other"

I guess it depends on how you define "better".

The reason I have been working to learn the concepts and techniques of SL-4 and not some other branch of AK is that Dr. Chapel can demonstate physically that the stances, blocks, strikes etc done according to the methodology of SL-4 ARE more efffective than when done without them.

Does that make it "better"? I guess it depends on how you define "better".

-David

 

[Flying Crane]

I guess it depends on how you define "better".

-David

Well, I'm still trying to get a definition and description, perhaps examples, for "Motion-Based", as far as kenpo goes

 

[JamesB]

Well, I'm still trying to get a definition and description, perhaps examples, for "Motion-Based", as far as kenpo goes

my take is that 'motion-based kenpo' can be better understood by reading the 'Infinite Insights' series of books written by Mr Parker.

I would say that a major philosophy behind 'motion-based' kenpo is to allow the blending, grafting and alteration of techniques and basics in order to create responses to 'attack scenarios'. Punches, blocks, strikes, major, minor moves etc are combined in 'logicial sequences', in order to overwhelm an opponent. The instructor and students are given free reign to utilize basics, techniques and 'master key' movements in any order they see fit. The result is a very effective martial art. But the emphasis is on speed (fast techniques) and continuous motion, which is given priority over properly executed basics. Often stances and body mechanics are sacrificed (to some degree) in order to get in that extra strike or to keep blitzing. Often, but not always, 'basics' are ill-defined and allowed to be modified in order to fit the 'flow' of the technique.

A good example in my mind is the recent 'Deflecting Hammer' thread on this forum, where the initial downward-block to the leg is made less effective (more of a parry) in order to make the subsequent elbow-stike flow more easily and hit faster after the 'block' makes contact. The result: yellow-belts learning this form of technique no longer have a technique-vehicle which teaches a 'correct' downward block and their understanding of how the mechanics of this block work are severely compromised.

If you are familiar with the 'technique extensions' (usually learnt around brown-black belt level), then these are a perfect example of motion kenpo. They take an already effective 'base technique' and glue on a bunch of moves containing movements that often contradict the principles taught by properly executed basics. The 'extensions' are quite different to the techniques learnt at yellow-blue level.

btw I do study 'motion-kenpo' and I think it is a very good way of describing this form of kenpo. But many 'motion-based' practioners get very sensitive when their art is referred to in this way, despite the fact that they constantly describe their training using terms such as 'the science of motion'. Often when describing techniques/forms, descriptions are in terms of external motion rather than describing the physical (internal) mechanisms that are occuring. This is because information regarding this subject is not present in the 'motion curriculum' - but this does not mean that it is not taught or understood by 'motion' instructors.

These are my personal opinions, based on having learnt (for a few years now) 'motion-based' kenpo, but also more recently being taught 'non-motion' principles - in other words, putting the emphasis on the correct execution of technique rather than how fast, or how fluid it goes.

james

 

[HKphooey]

Good stuff James! :asian:

 

[Flying Crane]

Thanks James, that is the most clear explanation I have seen so far. Much appreciated.

 

[Kenpojujitsu3]

my take is that 'motion-based kenpo' can be better understood by reading the 'Infinite Insights' series of books written by Mr Parker.

I would say that a major philosophy behind 'motion-based' kenpo is to allow the blending, grafting and alteration of techniques and basics in order to create responses to 'attack scenarios'. Punches, blocks, strikes, major, minor moves etc are combined in 'logicial sequences', in order to overwhelm an opponent. The instructor and students are given free reign to utilize basics, techniques and 'master key' movements in any order they see fit. The result is a very effective martial art. But the emphasis is on speed (fast techniques) and continuous motion, which is given priority over properly executed basics. Often stances and body mechanics are sacrificed (to some degree) in order to get in that extra strike or to keep blitzing. Often, but not always, 'basics' are ill-defined and allowed to be modified in order to fit the 'flow' of the technique.

A good example in my mind is the recent 'Deflecting Hammer' thread on this forum, where the initial downward-block to the leg is made less effective (more of a parry) in order to make the subsequent elbow-stike flow more easily and hit faster after the 'block' makes contact. The result: yellow-belts learning this form of technique no longer have a technique-vehicle which teaches a 'correct' downward block and their understanding of how the mechanics of this block work are severely compromised.

If you are familiar with the 'technique extensions' (usually learnt around brown-black belt level), then these are a perfect example of motion kenpo. They take an already effective 'base technique' and glue on a bunch of moves containing movements that often contradict the principles taught by properly executed basics. The 'extensions' are quite different to the techniques learnt at yellow-blue level.

btw I do study 'motion-kenpo' and I think it is a very good way of describing this form of kenpo. But many 'motion-based' practioners get very sensitive when their art is referred to in this way, despite the fact that they constantly describe their training using terms such as 'the science of motion'. Often when describing techniques/forms, descriptions are in terms of external motion rather than describing the physical (internal) mechanisms that are occuring. This is because information regarding this subject is not present in the 'motion curriculum' - but this does not mean that it is not taught or understood by 'motion' instructors.

These are my personal opinions, based on having learnt (for a few years now) 'motion-based' kenpo, but also more recently being taught 'non-motion' principles - in other words, putting the emphasis on the correct execution of technique rather than how fast, or how fluid it goes.

james

Ummmmm, NO. At least not in my neck of the woods. The generalities being thrown around here are getting a bit old...

I'm so glad you said "Often" here as that doesn't denote always..., I just wish you would have included that "Often" Here.

What is this? OK so it's now less effective because there is a technique introducing the concept of a parry after three concecutive techniques have utilized a hard block. God forbid that Blocks AND Parries are introduced on Yellow and reinforced latter. And the hard Block is utilized on the subsequent belt level. OK I get it, a parry is less effective than a hard block no matter what your intention is.....riiiiiight sorry don't buy it and gave a detailed description on the other thread. Pros and Cons for both but I guess a a way different from yours is less effective. It's now less efffective to teach three hard blocks and then introduce parrying than it is to simply teach all hard blocks, I get it...riiiiiight. Come on now. The purpose isn't for a FASTER elbow strike at all, it's called economy which doesn't have to be fast. The parry uses less energy to execute, doesn't require a 'recock' which uses more energy, and allows the opponent's momentum to carry which contributes to borrowed force. So what's the problem? because we assume that a yellow belt isn't skilled enough to deal with a punch? Teach them. And why do people keep "what-ifing" the attacks by changing them and then saying the technique doesn't work. If you want to change attacks do delayed sword against a rear choke and tell me it doesn't work. See what I mean?

Please give an example of a contradiction here,

Agreed

Who was teaching you initially that speed is the emphasis, and to some extent the ability to flow is a part of correctness. Improper flow is often a sign a poor transitions, unnecessary recocks(as some are necessary), wasted motion, poor footwork, broken alignment, off angles, etc.

 

[Kenpojujitsu3]

Per Doc's Request

"The answer to such a question is very complicated from one perspective, and somewhat less complicated from another, yet still intricate.

There are many people seeking to define their place in Kenpo and as such, either embrace or reject many descriptors of the various interpretations that have evolved from the original mainland progenitor. To emphasize their positions, many have created various associations supported by their interpretations to validate their point of view.

I have personally clouded the issue by publicly making distinctions between what some see as the ‘mainstream’ versions of Ed Parker’s work versus others. I have further muddied the waters by being public enough in discussions to attract the ire of those born into a system that didn’t exist when I began. Clearly, everyone from their own perspective may choose to see the universe in their own terms, but Ed Parker taught me sound logic should be the deciding factor.

Ed Parker himself made many distinctions in all of his teachings and created in his own evolution, various incantations, philosophies, and directions within the students exposed and or instructed during different periods in his life. Add to that an instructors willingness, or lack thereof, to share specific information with some and not others, creating additional downstream variances.

In other words, the ‘so-called evolution’ of ‘American Kenpo’ is as convoluted as a conundrum wrapped in a riddle and punctuated by an enigma of inconsistent tolerances, at best.


The question itself implies the existence of a singular evolving Kenpo philosophy from Ed Parker’s beginnings to the present day. This is obviously and completely incorrect.

The art that is the most visible and the most codified at his death was his commercial art, known by some, and described by Ed Parker himself as “the study of motion” or Motion-Kenpo. Perhaps a better defining descriptor would be “Motion-based Kenpo.” Nevertheless, this philosophy spawned by the desire to create commercial success, necessitated a less restrictive and conceptual driven vehicle that would be open to everyone, of all ages and circumstances.

I wrote an article years ago about the evolution of the arts and Ed Parker’s commercial kenpo, making a case for its existence much as other arts had ‘evolved.’ The problem is not one of evolution, but a diversion for the sake of mass-market appeal. Once accomplished, the vehicle becomes an independent entity unto itself with practitioners declaring their version to be ‘the art’ instead of simple ‘a version of the art.’

History lays witness to the creation of judo to mass market the more destructive combative Japanese Jiu-Jitsu. The many houses of Qung-fu ultimately evolved into mass-market appeal Wu Shu, while the original variations of the fluid Chinese Martial Science somehow begat the rigid limited information Okinawan and Japanese empty hand arts. Then, and finally sport based models came into being, once again for mass-market appeal. Take note of “ken-do” from the samurai sword arts, or “Aiki-do” as well from jiu-jitsu as other examples of this historical process. Koreans nationalized their arts much like everyone else, spawning the sport “Tae Kwon Do” in the fifties over the lesser known and more intricate “Hapkido” or even “Tang Soo Do.”

It should come as no surprise to anyone in the ultimate self- gratification, quick, fast food, commercial market of America that an abridged version of any art would appear and achieve mass- market appeal and success.

Ed Parker was a genius that loved the many different arts he studied and dissected, but he also was an entrepreneur and astute businessman. This clash between successful business mandates, and the deeper meaning and teaching of any art/science will never be resolved because the mass market devotees will, in general, not admit their place in histories evolution.

For most, it is counterproductive to business, and necessitates the admission that their accomplishments, although perfectly valid, may not be the highest standard available. This is especially true when ones credibility and identity are predicated upon the efficacy of their own product for sale.

In any other business, this would be obvious. Few suggest that McDonald’s is a bad place to have an occasional meal. Their restaurants are plentiful and located most everywhere in the world, consistent in presentation, quality, price, and will keep you from starving.

No one describes them in the business world as ‘exclusive fine dining.’ Recognize however there are other less plentiful chain family restaurants as well, whose offerings are of higher quality than McDonald’s but with the accompanying prices to match, yet still not yet meeting that ‘fine dining’ description. However, for upscale gourmet quality there is always a special restaurant where chefs have honed their craft for many years, and dining is exquisite.

People choose the level they want. Many would rather just go to McDonald’s (especially the kids), because it’s reasonably priced, you know what you’re getting, and they’re local, close, and convenient. Does this sound familiar?

Mass-market martial arts are no different. From Kempo, to Kenpo, to Krav Maga, to Tae Kwon Do, to judo, etc. They are all ‘easier’ and more convenient than other more intense, and more demanding precursor arts. That is not to say an individual instructor cannot excel beyond the vehicle, but that is much less likely for a couple of reasons. Most of these teachers are those born in the ‘systems’ they now teach, and therefore inherent all of its built in limitations. In addition, someone who has worked long, and hard to achieve a level of mastery would be unlikely to teach other than what he was taught. Much like a gourmet chef would be less likely to open up a quick burger joint, and flip patties all day on a grill.

So you see historically speaking, the existence and success of ‘commercial-kenpo’ should not be a surprise to anyone. Nevertheless, keep in mind, there are cars that come off an assembly line that are ‘adequate, better, and best.’ Then there are cars singularly built by hand by skilled craftsmen. In between the adequate and best are ‘upscale’ better versions of common brands where more attention to detail and a commitment to quality also provide a better quality vehicle, for more than the mass brand, but for less than the hand made. ‘Free market’ concepts make room for all.

Ed Parker was no different, and in fact provided various versions of his arts at every step of his personal evolution. The dominant versions were always dictated by external sources, and his personal preferences.

It is not generally known, but in some degree, Ed Parker’s creation of mass-market Kenpo was instigated by a personal tragedy. Approached by eventual business partners to create “Action Karate Magazine,” Parker became the victim of others questionable business practices that ultimately forced him into bankruptcy to protect his family and property. Although this was not the only reason he created commercial kenpo, clearly it had to have a significant impact when you have a wife and five children, and you make your living ‘selling’ the martial arts. The degree of impact may be debatable, but his own admission of
“Urgent necessity” to protect his assets leaves no doubt of the connection. This is not to negate Parker’s ultimate goals of proliferation, which existed long before the bankruptcy was necessary.

However, to assume that the creation of a diversion art to sell, changed Ed Parker’s personal evolution and his personal art would also be a mistake. He always separated what he did from what he promoted and sold. Witness some of the many mechanisms not present or articulated in the commercial art that were clearly visible in Parker’s own execution being only recently discovered by some today.

So adopting the single time/evolution line from the beginning to what an individual may have been exposed to is a dubious perspective at best. There is no one Kenpo, nor is there a single timeline. Every time Parker taught someone and changed something from what he had taught another, he fractured his own timeline by creating a divergent lineage, all valid from within and from its own perspective.

Even so, interpretations are not created equal. As Parker’s knowledge grew, it caused a shift in the sophistication hierarchy of every version or lineage. What was state of the art in the fifties was old kenpo in the sixties. When he taught someone something, and found a better way to do it and taught it to someone else, he pushed himself and older material further into history, and made it by comparison less effective material. This concept is true outside of the martial arts as well.

My personal timeline was also in a state of flux to the same extent as Parker. As my teacher, when he changed, so did I as he dictated. I remember him teaching inward blocks by cocking the blocking hand to the ear, and launching linearly from there. “Phonetic Blocking” he called it then. However when he began studying with Ark Wong and others, the blocking action changed to a more circular movement away from the head, as he began to understand “indexing” or “phrasing” of the movements. Both methods worked, but the latter was and is infinitely superior evolving from the former.
Therefore, for me, there is no ‘original’ kenpo, only an on going process of understanding what he wanted and how he wanted it, as I was forced to evolve with him. Few did. Most from the fifties still do some version of fifties kenpo, and those splinters from the sixties are the same way.

Interject his free form motion based commercial product into the time line and you began to see the same phenomenon that beset other arts in history. A clear alteration and mass market adjustment that removed or never placed significant information in its structure, to insure a less demanding and complex abstract vehicle that allowed all students and teachers to seek their own level of competency within the limitations of the chosen vehicle. When you consider this commercial vehicle, unlike traditional arts, allowed and promoted students and teachers ‘tailoring’ for their own personal preferences, you began to see why the wide existence of disparity is so ever present.

No one has a definitive way to do anything, from a basic stance to an inward block. In spite of what some may think, you cannot ‘freeform’ your way to mastery of a physical science. You may however, achieve a level of competency that is acceptable to you, the customer-client, and be awarded rank for that achievement. So long as you’re content, than the vehicle has done its job, and you will take responsibility for its effectiveness, because you tailored it.

To that end, soft tissue strikes, rakes, claws, and eye pokes are dominant themes in the commercial vehicle. This is because they insure at the base level, there will be some measure of success should the student ever have to attempt to use it. Few seem to recognize, they knew how to poke someone in the eyes the day they signed up.

The problem has always been in the separation of the arts when the mass-market version reaches significant proportions. Then it takes on a life of its own, and its practitioners declare it the ultimate, despite its roots.

None of Parker’s black belts students who studied previously to my knowledge were interested in the ‘new’ motion diversion, and none to my knowledge teach it. Most avoid criticism from the ‘motion born’ by simply not pointing these things out. Ancients like Chuck Sullivan, Dave Hebler, Steve Herring, or Stephen LaBounty, etc. have quietly extended their own interpretations from their eras teachings, and lineage. Some have given it a new name; others simply called it “Kenpo.”

As for me, a search of the forum sites will yield the differences between what I teach and whatever anyone else is doing. Simply put, "Anatomy vesus motion." Compare for yourself.

(Someone paste this on Martialtalk please)

Really busy gentlemen and ladies, be patient ." -- Doc

 

[Flying Crane]

Yes, I read this in the other posting, but this still does not really address why the term "motion" is appropriate. It discusses the "commercial" aspect, and discusses the constant evolution of things, but why is the term "Motion" an appropriate description for the Commercial system?

There are some references to "freeform" and "tailoring", and doing things to your own satisfaction, and a lack of real standards of how things are to be done, but that doesn't, in my opinion, explain why "motion" is an appropriate descriptor. I'm not trying to dispute this or argue about this, just understand it.

Based on how SL4 is described, with indexing and whatnot, it seems to me that the term "motion" would be more appropriately used to describe this. Since this isn't the case, clearly I fail to understand what "motion" implies. And still it remains unexplained.

 

[JamesB]

What is this? OK so it's now less effective because there is a technique introducing the concept of a parry after three concecutive techniques have utilized a hard block. God forbid that Blocks AND Parries are introduced on Yellow and reinforced latter. And the hard Block is utilized on the subsequent belt level. OK I get it, a parry is less effective than a hard block no matter what your intention is.....riiiiiight sorry don't buy it and gave a detailed description on the other thread.

You're reading into things here which I did not say or imply....this particular topic would be better discussed in another thread.

Pros and Cons for both but I guess a a way different from yours is less effective.

No, I never said that. I simply said that a properly executed downward block has more effect than a parry. I find it hard to believe how this could be disputed. The same full technique, with the parry, can be equally effective in the end. But the difference is where the emphasis is placed within the technique. With a block, the emphasis is on highlighting a strong stance, with the parry the emphasis is more on the timing of the technique. Each has pros and cons as we already agreed. The techniques are vehicles used to teach principles of kenpo pure and simple. Both techniques could very well have the same level of effect in the end. But you cannot dispute that 'motion' is emphasised differently between them.

It's now less efffective to teach three hard blocks and then introduce parrying than it is to simply teach all hard blocks, I get it...riiiiiight. Come on now.

what is your intention? Teach 'correct' blocks, or teach variations of these blocks in order to fulfill some goal of finishing the technique sooner? Actually I very much like the 'parry version', it is a great way to perform this technique. But I don't want to learn this way at yellow-belt. In my mind the techniques are a platform to teach correct basics, over and above anything else. You might have a different philosophy, that's fine.

The purpose isn't for a FASTER elbow strike at all, it's called economy which doesn't have to be fast.

Yes I appreciate that and thankyou for the clarification. Perhaps I wasn't clear when I said the parry allows the elbow to 'hit faster' - I meant 'hit sooner' which does not imply that the limb is moved quicker, but rather the opportunity to stike becomes available sooner.

The parry uses less energy to execute, doesn't require a 'recock' which uses more energy, and allows the opponent's momentum to carry which contributes to borrowed force. So what's the problem?

The problem is that a parry requires *more* energy to execute if the intention is to have the same effect as a properly executed downward block.

because we assume that a yellow belt isn't skilled enough to deal with a punch? Teach them. And why do people keep "what-ifing" the attacks by changing them and then saying the technique doesn't work. If you want to change attacks do delayed sword against a rear choke and tell me it doesn't work. See what I mean?

The whole idea of having belt-levels is so you don't throw beginners in at the deep end. And I'm not following where you are going with this delayed-sword attack-change thing. My deflecting-hammer technique works with, or without the punch because I don't have to deal with it. I've not changed the attack at all.

I was never taught that speed is the emphasis (basics have always been a priority), only that I have observed countless times, many others taking this route.

Your taking this personally, please don't. We can argue this point all night, but at the very core of this issue is that kenpo comes in different flavours. Some stress basics/stances and sacrifice speed for much of the early training. Other kenpo brances emphasise 'ecomomy of motion' and don't focus so much on how a basic is peformed.

 

[BlackCatBonz]

From my discussions with Doc, i am under the assumption that sl-4 teaches principles via technique as the goal; whereas with motion kenpo, executing proper technique is the goal.
this would make the system much easier to learn because one would only need to demonstrate a working technique, rather than define the principles responsible for the techniques efficacy.

OK, interesting thought. Could you elaborate a bit on this?

Got to disagree here. This implies that students learn the "How to" about techniques and not the "why to" about techniques. This is simply inaccurate in many (not all) Kenpo circles.

We teach principles of motion over technique; have we transended motion Kenpo?
Sean

I wrote an elaborate well thought out response last night......and i usually save to notepad before posting......last night i didnt and i lost it....grrrrr.
so now i am going to try and recreate it.

Flying Crane - let's say i am teaching the cha-cha to you in a dance class. If i follow a formula and a set pattern it would make teaching you a lot easier by repeating it over and over. I haven't taught you the essence of the cha-cha or what makes the cha-cha tick, but you can follow it along and do it. Now I, on the other hand am a professional dancer; when I do the cha-cha it looks like the dance that you learned, but there is a lot of ad-lib and steps thrown in that i didnt show you.
If, on the other hand, I decided to teach you the cha-cha by giving you a history lesson, the origins of the steps, what to do, what not to do, you might lose interest, take forever to learn the dance, or quit. If you quit because it takes to long, thats hard for business......it is in my best interest to teach you how to dance by going through the motions and not worrying about the extraneous stuff.
eventually, you will be ad-libbing steps and doing the cha-cha with your own flavour.......but it will still be the cha-cha even if it isnt "exactly" what i showed you originally.

Kenpojujitsu3 - I think in a lot of kenpo circles most people learn the "how" and not "why" or the principle behind the technique.
I think that is why there are so many people out there that are very concerned about so-and-so not doing the technique exactly the same as joe bloe does it. I dont really think the "why to" is even really important as a secondary learning tool.........I think understanding what's happening to attacker and defender while executing a movement is important. that way, in the end, the technique doesn't matter much.

Touch of Death - There are a lot of smart guys studying martial arts......they have the ability to pick apart movement and see the mechanics and physics behind it. If you're able to do that......great!

But really.......this is all just me blabbin, what do I know.