What Ifs

[MJS]

In the "Toning down the techniques" thread, a segment of one of Docs replies caught my eye, so rather than sidetrack that thread, I thought I'd start a new one, and pick his brain a bit more. Of course, anyone else is free to comment as well.

In this post, I asked the following question:


"True. Now, we've all been thru the commercial vs non commercial debates, so I'll ask you this: I'm going to say that Doc is not running a commercial school. Correct me if I'm wrong on this. So, if thats the case, how does his initial instruction compare to a commercial school? Does he have people doing forms for 2-3 yrs before showing an application?"

to which the reply was:

The interpretation of Kenpo I was taught and teach, as well as all of the Ed Parker Lineage, is technique based, not forms based, so the idea of doing forms for years before knowing what they mean is a foreign concept. My teaching is absolutely grounded in a working understanding of hard basic applications. Not only do you need to have a consistent neutral bow as an example, you must know the base associated footwork, and be capable of performing it without being knocked off your axis under extreme pressure. That is a curriculum mandate. Everything that you are taught, you must be able to perform under realistic conditions, and may not move on until you can demonstrate it consistently. There are no "what if" scenarios. "There is no try, you must do." My female students especially appreciate the approach.

Now, the part that caught my eye was towards the end, with the comment: There are no 'what if' scenarios.

Now, we usually hear that we need to get the base techniques down first, and then worry about the what ifs, the "Well, what if the bad guy does this or that, then what?" type of questions. I was taught, and always hear that that is what the extensions were for...to address those situations.

Now, perhaps, and please correct me if I'm reading wrong, but I took that part of Docs post as....the base technique should be all thats needed. The opponent should not be allowed or able to do anything else, and if they can, then the base wasn't done correctly.

So, my question for Doc, his students and everyone else is...did I sum that post up correctly? Do you teach the extensions? Why/why not?

 

[Hand Sword]

My problem, considers the overall idea of perfection. The response can be taken as this is all we need, because if we do it right, the results are "X." I feel there is some to maybe a lot of truth in that philosophy, and there is no doubt that perfect practice leads to desired results. However, what sticks me is the under real conditions idea. Now, I don't mean that training a certain way can't be used for real. Far from that. So, please don't take it as anyway else. The issue is that there is no such thing as a constant. There are always glitches that happen, even under the best set up and controlled situations. There are too many variables that come into play under real situations. What if's are going to happen no matter what.

I also take the idea of one's work/life experience combined with the hard training. As an example, law enforcement/security related. Most of the time in those areas you can to a certain point dictate to another and get responses or put yourself in a position to achieve a consistent patterned response. Eventually, it becomes almost second nature or instinctive. A dojo consisting of that type of clientele will develop a system/ ideology that is different from anything else. Average people training and living their lives develop very little of those attributes. What if's are viable in generating the development of the martial mind.

 

[suicide]

what if the opponent pulls out a ak47 ? what ifs are endless :BSmeter:

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

As a typical Gemini, I'm of two minds about it. First off, Mike, I think you kinda nailed it in your description. The techniques and basics in SL4 are trained to be effectively foolproof. In a given context, you use your body thusly, and can reasonably expect response X from the attacker. Seems like Fiction? Let's train the hell out of it against guys who are resistant, and see what happens.

Many of the guys at Docs are LEO. So the next level of feedback would be...did they try it? Did it work? Do they show up at school saying, "Doc, dude, you bum-steered me with that whole thing...I used my body thusly, and the heavily tatted, well-muscled and street-seasoned gang-rat ducked my gig and kicked the crap outta me; thank god for back-up, or I might not have made it home to my family." But that's not what they're coming home saying. They show up saying, "Doc, dude...worked just like in practice".

So, how do we rectify these results with the positive results of guys who do train what-if scenarios? Easy. Even the guys in the commercial cirriculum who stay in it long enough to intelligently explore the options in the what-if's, have been in it long enough to develop the actual skills and abilities that result from dilligent training. In other words, the SKILL of blocking is developed by wrangling with the material and -- over years of practice -- having thrown thousands of blocks. The SKILL tells us...it doesn't matter if we use an inward or outward, position-dependent: It matters that you get your hands up between his fist and your head.

Technique drills are a context for discussion, practice, and the development of procedural skills sets. The physical ability to do some thing X (like protect your head). Some X's are more effective when evaluated along a scale, based on certain criteria. There are conditions where an Inward Block would be a better selection than an outward. But...did you get your hands up? Is your nose stilll straight, your jaw not sideways, and your eyes still open?

In the motion kenpo model, we use the what-if's to prompt higher-level thinking about the material....basically, to sneakily push you to interact more with the material. Because the more you interact with it, the better you're going to get at the SKILLS that result from practice.

Motion Model: Let's do Star Block Set a dozen times, then look at category completion of inward versus outward blocks, against left versus right punches, moving to inside versus outside lines. Result? The skill of getting a block up between his fist and your head, developed by having thrown a thousand in those marathon workouts. SL4 model: While y'all do that, we're just gonna practice stepping into a really solid neutral bow with a really stable inward block....a couple thousand times. Result? The skill of getting a hand up between his fist, and your head.

Now, as a kenpoist raised in the motion model, lovin the SL4 model, but not getting enough time on the mat with it (so I still train in my motion material, and teach mostly motion stuff with some SL inserted for better basics and movement chaining), I prefer the stability of the SL4 inward block. I get my hands up, but I also pay greater attention to where on the bad guy the block makes contact, at what angle, what the path of penetration is, how my body posture and the timing of my movements during the step and block beef up the desired effects, etc. So when I land it, I've messed with his game a lot more than I have with many of the motion-model blocks. I like messing with his game.

In both cases, skill development is a by-product of programming procedural memory to be respondent to context-dependent environmental stimuli (neither is gonna start throwing blocks in the air because they decided they want a Starbucks mocha, instead of a latte' ... wrong context). In both cases, how we work on the skill...what we want as the result, and what we're gonna do to get it... are different. "What if" scenarios in the motion model are meant to get you to consider different stimuli, so you broaden your training arena, compelling you to interact with the material more. One is never, ever, ever supposed to try to flip through the mental rolodex of 154 techniques + extensions + what-if's, to pick the "right one". Practice of the aforementioned is supposed to have engrained in you an ability to apply basics. Your own intelligence is supposed to prime you to respond in a spontaneous phase reaction, applying the right tool for the right job. This is the same intelligence that permits us to dialogue about intangibles such as logic, justice, imagination, pity, hope, patience, and belief. Absent this intelligence, Humanity is nothing more than a bunch of poorly coordinated monkeys that keep falling out of trees. So...kenpo, as the thinking-mans pugilistic art, provides us an opportunity to use this intelligence, priming it with an aim towards application in non-concrete contexts: Nobody will ever feed me the stimulus for Heavenly Ascent perfectly right, at the precise time I'm thinking about wondering what it's like to use it.

Oddly, some of the same applications of rehearsal, prosedural memory, and applied intelligence apply in many ways with SL4. We learn techniques. More important than the techniques are the basics within the techniques, and the skills developed at delivering those basics. I know I never expect to get through an SL4 tech on a bad guy. Mainly, I expect to whack him once, mebbe twice, and be done with it. Because of where and how I whacked him, and what I did with my body WHILE I whacked him to make it an exceptionally hard whack. Leading to a shorter answer for the other questions: No, we don't do the extensions. In motion model, more interaction with diversity is used to engender skills. In SL4 model, I.D. the key-core critical skills, and train for them. Instead of doing an X on a horizontal plane, cuz we already did one on the vertical plane earlier, ask: What is the purpose of the strikes in the X? To knock the guy out? Great. Instead of studying possible motion patterns in extensions, let's study knockouts so that the first moves get it right.

Ah, but wait. The extensions also carry patterns of angles of disturbance and such to lower carriage targets, Why? To teach destabilization and improve compliance? SL4: Idea...let's make a study out of how to destabilize and force compliance from the moments of first contact (hence, doing that Inward Block thousands of times, paying attention to where and how it lands, striving for specific effect). If every cause has an effect, shouldn't every effect have a cause? Great! Let's reverse engineer effects for causes, then implement those findings into the "how to" part of the basics!

In other words, the need for the extensions gets obviated by spending the time working on skill development. Focus on "get better at your stuff, to get more out of it", instead of "get more stuff to get better at it".

Windy, but whaddya expect: I wrote it.

D.

 

[KenpoDave]

Now, perhaps, and please correct me if I'm reading wrong, but I took that part of Docs post as....the base technique should be all thats needed. The opponent should not be allowed or able to do anything else, and if they can, then the base wasn't done correctly.

That is how I have been taught.

 

[marlon]

[/quote]
Now, perhaps, and please correct me if I'm reading wrong, but I took that part of Docs post as....the base technique should be all thats needed. The opponent should not be allowed or able to do anything else, and if they can, then the base wasn't done correctly.

So, my question for Doc, his students and everyone else is...did I sum that post up correctly? Do you teach the extensions? Why/why not?

[/quote]


Before i had the pleasure of asking Doc some questions and taking the time to study his responses, i never thought about this area and now i teach that the first part of the base technique done correctly should obviate finishing the technique. The rest of the technique (and i would imagine extensions) are taught as indexes of knowledge. also, the part of the technique one uses (in SKK at least) does not necessarily start from the beginning so the 'rest' of the technique can be applied as needed like a part of a form / mini form to be applied as needed. the whole form (technique) is learned and practiced with precise and specific execution so that when needed it or what ever part of it 'comes out' the right way, effectively correctly and smoothly.

Respectfully,
Marlon

 

[Touch Of Death]

In the "Toning down the techniques" thread, a segment of one of Docs replies caught my eye, so rather than sidetrack that thread, I thought I'd start a new one, and pick his brain a bit more. Of course, anyone else is free to comment as well.

In this post, I asked the following question:


"True. Now, we've all been thru the commercial vs non commercial debates, so I'll ask you this: I'm going to say that Doc is not running a commercial school. Correct me if I'm wrong on this. So, if thats the case, how does his initial instruction compare to a commercial school? Does he have people doing forms for 2-3 yrs before showing an application?"

to which the reply was:

The interpretation of Kenpo I was taught and teach, as well as all of the Ed Parker Lineage, is technique based, not forms based, so the idea of doing forms for years before knowing what they mean is a foreign concept. My teaching is absolutely grounded in a working understanding of hard basic applications. Not only do you need to have a consistent neutral bow as an example, you must know the base associated footwork, and be capable of performing it without being knocked off your axis under extreme pressure. That is a curriculum mandate. Everything that you are taught, you must be able to perform under realistic conditions, and may not move on until you can demonstrate it consistently. There are no "what if" scenarios. "There is no try, you must do." My female students especially appreciate the approach.

Now, the part that caught my eye was towards the end, with the comment: There are no 'what if' scenarios.

Now, we usually hear that we need to get the base techniques down first, and then worry about the what ifs, the "Well, what if the bad guy does this or that, then what?" type of questions. I was taught, and always hear that that is what the extensions were for...to address those situations.

Now, perhaps, and please correct me if I'm reading wrong, but I took that part of Docs post as....the base technique should be all thats needed. The opponent should not be allowed or able to do anything else, and if they can, then the base wasn't done correctly.

So, my question for Doc, his students and everyone else is...did I sum that post up correctly? Do you teach the extensions? Why/why not?

Extensions are not the answers to a "what if". They are simply collections and or busy work.
Sean

 

[Matt]

I often encounter what-if questions. They are infrequently useful, but most of the time they spiral to silliness. That's why I introduce radioactive monkeys early on, usually in a van, with machine guns. Because after that, 'what if he has a bottle instead of a knife' sounds pretty stupid.

What if there's two of them and you have a cold? What if a van load of radioactive monkeys armed with machine guns attack you? Sharks with lasers? Jedi Squirrels? Now we're really in trouble....

If radioactive monkeys don't work, I fall back on, "Then you die."

 

[Stephen Kurtzman]

Now, the part that caught my eye was towards the end, with the comment: There are no 'what if' scenarios.

Now, we usually hear that we need to get the base techniques down first, and then worry about the what ifs, the "Well, what if the bad guy does this or that, then what?" type of questions. I was taught, and always hear that that is what the extensions were for...to address those situations.

Now, perhaps, and please correct me if I'm reading wrong, but I took that part of Docs post as....the base technique should be all thats needed. The opponent should not be allowed or able to do anything else, and if they can, then the base wasn't done correctly.

So, my question for Doc, his students and everyone else is...did I sum that post up correctly? Do you teach the extensions? Why/why not?

What-ifs have nothing to do with the extensions.

The extensions are all ideal phase. Anything new in them (e.g. stomping on base of the spine in Dance of Death, etc.) is old in the sense that you learn no new basic skills. You are just applying the knowledge you should have gotten from the basics in differing situations.

As for the idea that WHAT-IFs are unnecessary because the base technique should work (or you are doing it wrong), I have to disagree.

First, I acknowledge that WHAT-IF questions from beginners are often misguided. I'm reminded of the student who I was loosely holding in an arm bar asking "What if I moved around like this and came back up at you?". That question was answered by "Okay, try it and let's see what happens", followed by him finding it quite difficult to "move around like this" when I was not being so light with the arm bar. It was still a teaching moment, but it wasn't exactly a WHAT-IF scenario.

WHAT-IFs should be simple. Rube-Goldberg-like complexity or incredible rubber-armed men that can throw a thrust punch at your stomach and strike you in the face are not realistic nor instructive. Good WHAT-IFs are simple variations from the ideal. What if the opponent isn't in the ideal position and I respond with this technique? What if the opponent's attack varies from the ideal attack? What if environmental factors don't allow me the freedom to move in that direction? What if I miss that check or this strike?

It is all fine and good to say that the ideal should work. But the real world isn't ideal. I don't think Mr. Parker would have brought the subject up if he thought it was only for those who can't make the ideal techniques work.

If you want to understand the importance of WHAT-IFs think about what you will learn by them. I don't mean think about the righteous variation on the ideal you will come up with. I mean what sensitivity to your opponent will be required for you to even detect you are not in an ideal situation? At the spontaneous level, Kenpo is using your training to respond to the dynamics of the encounter. You should not be thinking ideal and what-if at that point. In other words, WHAT-IFs give you a different perspective on developing sensitivity.

peace,
stephen

 

[pete]

Extensions are not the answers to a "what if". They are simply collections and or busy work. Sean

only to those that do not understand them.

let me clarify: extensions provide explicit anwers to what-ifs, only when the instructor can explictly teach it. the base techniques have the same answers, however they may not be in all cases as explicit. Therefore, the teacher of a 'base-only' syllabus must know how to teach an explicit lesson from what may only be implied in the base.

either case requires an instructor with a good understanding of the material. basically comes down to a teaching choice.

pete

 

[pete]

What-ifs have nothing to do with the extensions.

not so. as i was taught, they do.

The extensions are all ideal phase.

no so, as i was taught, the extensions support the ideal and provide ideas for changes in environment and target availability during the course of the altercation.

Anything new in them (e.g. stomping on base of the spine in Dance of Death, etc.) is old in the sense that you learn no new basic skills. You are just applying the knowledge you should have gotten from the basics in differing situations.

agree.

As for the idea that WHAT-IFs are unnecessary because the base technique should work (or you are doing it wrong), I have to disagree.

First, I acknowledge that WHAT-IF questions from beginners are often misguided. I'm reminded of the student who I was loosely holding in an arm bar asking "What if I moved around like this and came back up at you?". That question was answered by "Okay, try it and let's see what happens", followed by him finding it quite difficult to "move around like this" when I was not being so light with the arm bar. It was still a teaching moment, but it wasn't exactly a WHAT-IF scenario.

that is a good example of developing the skill level to execute the base tech correctly. What-ifs can occur when either (a) your opponent is more skilled, (b) the situation causes you to respond below your optimal skill level (surprise, fear, etc), (c) the environment presents an unexpected challenge, (d) the situation changes during the course of the altercation.

correspondingly (a) train diligently to the highest level of skill you can, and do not underestimate your opponent, (b) train the mind to dissolve/release emotional blockages that can impede your performance, (c) train the mind for calm awareness so that you can process sensatory messages (d) train sensitivity exercises to be able to better respond to changes that occur.

pete

 

[MJS]

As a typical Gemini, I'm of two minds about it. First off, Mike, I think you kinda nailed it in your description. The techniques and basics in SL4 are trained to be effectively foolproof. In a given context, you use your body thusly, and can reasonably expect response X from the attacker. Seems like Fiction? Let's train the hell out of it against guys who are resistant, and see what happens.

Many of the guys at Docs are LEO. So the next level of feedback would be...did they try it? Did it work? Do they show up at school saying, "Doc, dude, you bum-steered me with that whole thing...I used my body thusly, and the heavily tatted, well-muscled and street-seasoned gang-rat ducked my gig and kicked the crap outta me; thank god for back-up, or I might not have made it home to my family." But that's not what they're coming home saying. They show up saying, "Doc, dude...worked just like in practice".

So, how do we rectify these results with the positive results of guys who do train what-if scenarios? Easy. Even the guys in the commercial cirriculum who stay in it long enough to intelligently explore the options in the what-if's, have been in it long enough to develop the actual skills and abilities that result from dilligent training. In other words, the SKILL of blocking is developed by wrangling with the material and -- over years of practice -- having thrown thousands of blocks. The SKILL tells us...it doesn't matter if we use an inward or outward, position-dependent: It matters that you get your hands up between his fist and your head.

Technique drills are a context for discussion, practice, and the development of procedural skills sets. The physical ability to do some thing X (like protect your head). Some X's are more effective when evaluated along a scale, based on certain criteria. There are conditions where an Inward Block would be a better selection than an outward. But...did you get your hands up? Is your nose stilll straight, your jaw not sideways, and your eyes still open?

In the motion kenpo model, we use the what-if's to prompt higher-level thinking about the material....basically, to sneakily push you to interact more with the material. Because the more you interact with it, the better you're going to get at the SKILLS that result from practice.

Motion Model: Let's do Star Block Set a dozen times, then look at category completion of inward versus outward blocks, against left versus right punches, moving to inside versus outside lines. Result? The skill of getting a block up between his fist and your head, developed by having thrown a thousand in those marathon workouts. SL4 model: While y'all do that, we're just gonna practice stepping into a really solid neutral bow with a really stable inward block....a couple thousand times. Result? The skill of getting a hand up between his fist, and your head.

Now, as a kenpoist raised in the motion model, lovin the SL4 model, but not getting enough time on the mat with it (so I still train in my motion material, and teach mostly motion stuff with some SL inserted for better basics and movement chaining), I prefer the stability of the SL4 inward block. I get my hands up, but I also pay greater attention to where on the bad guy the block makes contact, at what angle, what the path of penetration is, how my body posture and the timing of my movements during the step and block beef up the desired effects, etc. So when I land it, I've messed with his game a lot more than I have with many of the motion-model blocks. I like messing with his game.

In both cases, skill development is a by-product of programming procedural memory to be respondent to context-dependent environmental stimuli (neither is gonna start throwing blocks in the air because they decided they want a Starbucks mocha, instead of a latte' ... wrong context). In both cases, how we work on the skill...what we want as the result, and what we're gonna do to get it... are different. "What if" scenarios in the motion model are meant to get you to consider different stimuli, so you broaden your training arena, compelling you to interact with the material more. One is never, ever, ever supposed to try to flip through the mental rolodex of 154 techniques + extensions + what-if's, to pick the "right one". Practice of the aforementioned is supposed to have engrained in you an ability to apply basics. Your own intelligence is supposed to prime you to respond in a spontaneous phase reaction, applying the right tool for the right job. This is the same intelligence that permits us to dialogue about intangibles such as logic, justice, imagination, pity, hope, patience, and belief. Absent this intelligence, Humanity is nothing more than a bunch of poorly coordinated monkeys that keep falling out of trees. So...kenpo, as the thinking-mans pugilistic art, provides us an opportunity to use this intelligence, priming it with an aim towards application in non-concrete contexts: Nobody will ever feed me the stimulus for Heavenly Ascent perfectly right, at the precise time I'm thinking about wondering what it's like to use it.

Oddly, some of the same applications of rehearsal, prosedural memory, and applied intelligence apply in many ways with SL4. We learn techniques. More important than the techniques are the basics within the techniques, and the skills developed at delivering those basics. I know I never expect to get through an SL4 tech on a bad guy. Mainly, I expect to whack him once, mebbe twice, and be done with it. Because of where and how I whacked him, and what I did with my body WHILE I whacked him to make it an exceptionally hard whack. Leading to a shorter answer for the other questions: No, we don't do the extensions. In motion model, more interaction with diversity is used to engender skills. In SL4 model, I.D. the key-core critical skills, and train for them. Instead of doing an X on a horizontal plane, cuz we already did one on the vertical plane earlier, ask: What is the purpose of the strikes in the X? To knock the guy out? Great. Instead of studying possible motion patterns in extensions, let's study knockouts so that the first moves get it right.

Ah, but wait. The extensions also carry patterns of angles of disturbance and such to lower carriage targets, Why? To teach destabilization and improve compliance? SL4: Idea...let's make a study out of how to destabilize and force compliance from the moments of first contact (hence, doing that Inward Block thousands of times, paying attention to where and how it lands, striving for specific effect). If every cause has an effect, shouldn't every effect have a cause? Great! Let's reverse engineer effects for causes, then implement those findings into the "how to" part of the basics!

In other words, the need for the extensions gets obviated by spending the time working on skill development. Focus on "get better at your stuff, to get more out of it", instead of "get more stuff to get better at it".

Windy, but whaddya expect: I wrote it.

D.

Sorry I'm so late in getting back to this. Well, as always, I can always count on a well thought out, extremely detailed answer. Thank you Dave!

Alot to process here, so I'm going to try to sum up a few things:

So, I'm safe to assume that the SL4 folks really seem to focus more on refining the basics? Not saying this is a bad thing, but I'm taking it as they're focusing more than the average commercial school would? As well as really working on hitting the proper target to get the maximum results.

So in a nutshell, again, if I'm reading right, the SL4 model is pretty failsafe? In other words, the 'what if' is totally taken out of the equation because it'll never get to that point? I'm also going to assume that at no point has this ever failed?

Why don't the motion or commercial schools focus on this? I mean, if the extensions are really not needed, and what is really needed is just more work on basics, why isn't it done?

Mike

 

[MJS]

That is how I have been taught.

Dave,

In the Tracy system there are obviously many more techs. than the 154. I've seen Tech. 1 with a,b,c,d,e,f after it. Would those be considered extensions or just more parts to the tech? In other words, Headlock A may be just 2 moves, B is those same 2 moves with 2 more added on, etc.

 

[MJS]

Extensions are not the answers to a "what if". They are simply collections and or busy work.
Sean

Umm...ok. Would you care to elaborate more on this?

 

[Flying Crane]

Dave,

In the Tracy system there are obviously many more techs. than the 154. I've seen Tech. 1 with a,b,c,d,e,f after it. Would those be considered extensions or just more parts to the tech? In other words, Headlock A may be just 2 moves, B is those same 2 moves with 2 more added on, etc.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

In the Headlock example, the A, B, and C are against different types of headlock grabs. They address different ways that someone might apply a headlock to you, and the resulting positions you might find yourself in.

Some techs don't "add on" with the variations, but they give other finishing options. These might be used depending on the position of the attacker at that point, and they help the student recognize that that can be an issue. Crash of the Eagle comes to mind with that.

Other techniques do sort of add on a bit. I'm not very familiar with the extensions used by the later lineages. I think I've seen a bit of them on the web, but I've never seen them up close. But from what I've seen, I'd say the Tracy variations are not nearly so extensive in what they are adding on, as the extensions are. Winding Elbows comes to mind with that.

 

[MJS]

What-ifs have nothing to do with the extensions.

Guess we were taught differently.

The extensions are all ideal phase. Anything new in them (e.g. stomping on base of the spine in Dance of Death, etc.) is old in the sense that you learn no new basic skills. You are just applying the knowledge you should have gotten from the basics in differing situations.

As for the idea that WHAT-IFs are unnecessary because the base technique should work (or you are doing it wrong), I have to disagree.

First, I acknowledge that WHAT-IF questions from beginners are often misguided. I'm reminded of the student who I was loosely holding in an arm bar asking "What if I moved around like this and came back up at you?". That question was answered by "Okay, try it and let's see what happens", followed by him finding it quite difficult to "move around like this" when I was not being so light with the arm bar. It was still a teaching moment, but it wasn't exactly a WHAT-IF scenario.

WHAT-IFs should be simple. Rube-Goldberg-like complexity or incredible rubber-armed men that can throw a thrust punch at your stomach and strike you in the face are not realistic nor instructive. Good WHAT-IFs are simple variations from the ideal. What if the opponent isn't in the ideal position and I respond with this technique? What if the opponent's attack varies from the ideal attack? What if environmental factors don't allow me the freedom to move in that direction? What if I miss that check or this strike?

It is all fine and good to say that the ideal should work. But the real world isn't ideal. I don't think Mr. Parker would have brought the subject up if he thought it was only for those who can't make the ideal techniques work.

If you want to understand the importance of WHAT-IFs think about what you will learn by them. I don't mean think about the righteous variation on the ideal you will come up with. I mean what sensitivity to your opponent will be required for you to even detect you are not in an ideal situation? At the spontaneous level, Kenpo is using your training to respond to the dynamics of the encounter. You should not be thinking ideal and what-if at that point. In other words, WHAT-IFs give you a different perspective on developing sensitivity.

peace,
stephen

I guess I'm viewing it like this....we hope that what we do initially will work. We hope that by hitting someone in a certain spot, a certain way, etc that the desired results will be acheived. But IMO, and this is what I asked Dave (Kembudo kai) but is there any possibility that this could fail? So, assuming that it did, and the person did something else, we're going to need something else to fall back on. Therefore that is why I do the extensions.

 

[MJS]

only to those that do not understand them.

let me clarify: extensions provide explicit anwers to what-ifs, only when the instructor can explictly teach it. the base techniques have the same answers, however they may not be in all cases as explicit. Therefore, the teacher of a 'base-only' syllabus must know how to teach an explicit lesson from what may only be implied in the base.

either case requires an instructor with a good understanding of the material. basically comes down to a teaching choice.

pete

not so. as i was taught, they do. no so, as i was taught, the extensions support the ideal and provide ideas for changes in environment and target availability during the course of the altercation. agree. that is a good example of developing the skill level to execute the base tech correctly. What-ifs can occur when either (a) your opponent is more skilled, (b) the situation causes you to respond below your optimal skill level (surprise, fear, etc), (c) the environment presents an unexpected challenge, (d) the situation changes during the course of the altercation.

correspondingly (a) train diligently to the highest level of skill you can, and do not underestimate your opponent, (b) train the mind to dissolve/release emotional blockages that can impede your performance, (c) train the mind for calm awareness so that you can process sensatory messages (d) train sensitivity exercises to be able to better respond to changes that occur.

pete

Good points Pete, especially with your 2nd post. The beginning of your 2nd post, you listed a-d. This is why I asked about whether or not there was any room for failure with the SL4 model. As I said, we can hope that what we do will work, but as you pointed out, and I agree, other things may dictate what we can/can't do.

 

[Twin Fist]

I have long thought that the extended version should be the regular version, because at low levels, the beginner would need to land more hits.

the advanced person shouldnt need as many hits, and should default to a shorter version.

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

Sorry I'm so late in getting back to this. Well, as always, I can always count on a well thought out, extremely detailed answer. Thank you Dave!

Alot to process here, so I'm going to try to sum up a few things:

So, I'm safe to assume that the SL4 folks really seem to focus more on refining the basics? Not saying this is a bad thing, but I'm taking it as they're focusing more than the average commercial school would? As well as really working on hitting the proper target to get the maximum results.

So in a nutshell, again, if I'm reading right, the SL4 model is pretty failsafe? In other words, the 'what if' is totally taken out of the equation because it'll never get to that point? I'm also going to assume that at no point has this ever failed?

Why don't the motion or commercial schools focus on this? I mean, if the extensions are really not needed, and what is really needed is just more work on basics, why isn't it done?

Mike

I wrote a lengthy response over on kenpotalk on SL4 and grappling. Used 5 Swords as an example, in which the SL4 model pre-engineers what-if's into the positions, responses, anatomical checks, etc. I'd post a link, but kinda suck at it.

Consider Inward Block. Typical kenpo class = hit a horse stance, 10 inward blocks on teachers count, before moving onto the other blocks for each belt level, mebbe blocking set, mebbe short 1, then 2, then Long 1, etc. In an SL4 class, we'll spend an hour being tutored on how to properly step into a right NB with Rt. Inward Block, including all sorts of odd things we do to make our own body stronger and more stable during the execution (for kicks, lets be minimalistic and say "Doc has us add the Parker stomp and slap checks". There's more than that, but it'll do for now). The next couple hours will be spent doing that same motion against numerous attacks, exploring what happens when you target different parts.

New meaning of What If: What if I do this hammering block to the biceps? Shoulder joint just south of where the humerus bone leaves the shoulder joint? What about just into the clavicle? Acromioclavicular joint? Each of these against a pusg vs a punch vs a club attack vs a bum rushing bearhug vs a...you get the point. Different depths of penetration at each target are explored, as are the effects of different directions of umph with various depths of penetration, each having a different effect on the skeletal response of the attacker.

So, by the end of the night, you will have delivered hundreds of solid inward blocks to guys coming at you full-bore or darned near it (we only hold back until you get it, then we try and knock you over or knock you down...realistic practice prepares one better for realistic application). Next day, feel like you've been in a couple of low-speed car wrecks, all in one night. Shoulders hurt; neck feels whiplashed; legs are sore, bruises cover your arms, shoulders, chest, etc. But you by-gosh know HOW to throw a reinforced, braced, and rock-solid inward block against pretty much any attack against which you'd like to know one. And the sessions will also include throwing on chestplates, shooting on each other, turning the IB into a defense against a shoot by dropping the elbow into the nerve bundles in the crotch of the neck, and other fun apps.

This will go on for 3 to 6 hours, for one nights workout. Maybe, Doc will add some follow-up strikes, making an AOD drill out of it for some extra eye-hand coordination, and asundry other reasons. So then, the next class session (god forbid you missed Tuesday night, or you'll be lost on Thursday night) you'll do 3 hours of hammering on each other in full-out "step-slap-stomp-hammer" sequences against any number of attacks (knife, ball-bat, punch, push, shoot, etc.), followed by 3 more hours of his hubud-like AOD drills (ain't hubud, but prolly the easiest way to describe the give-&-take nature of the AOD drills to someone who may have an FMA background). Compare this to the 10 inward blocks from a horse stance, in an hour-long session that also has blocking set 1 and 2 to cover, teaching a whole class a series of dance steps with little to no CONTACT RESISTANCE training.

Different assumptions lead to different training approaches. Different approaches yield different practical outcomes of training. It's still an inward block; it's still kenpo; it's still just stepping forward into a right neutral bow with a reinforced right inward block. But the training model that extends from the different underlying starting positions is what sets it apart, in my mind. I kid you not: Doc has guys who will have spent more mat hours between 2nd and 1st degree brown, than most kenpo black belts will have spent on the mat working for their first degree black belt. But it's not just the time at task that makes the difference; it's what the tasks themselves consist of.

And that's just the lonely Inward Block...now what about the rest of the 5 Swords technique? By the time you've put in the months it takes to get the SL4 minutae "right" in Docs version of 5 Swords, it's a much more formidable version than the one being raced through by guys who are on the mat 2, maybe 4 hours a week, never taking the time to explore the basics, applied in isolation. I don't know if "failsafe" applies, as much as training for planned success, rather than planned failure. And putting in the challenges to see if it works, then the training to embed it into automaticity.

Hoped it helped,

D.

 

[Stephen Kurtzman]

I guess I'm viewing it like this....we hope that what we do initially will work. We hope that by hitting someone in a certain spot, a certain way, etc that the desired results will be acheived. But IMO, and this is what I asked Dave (Kembudo kai) but is there any possibility that this could fail? So, assuming that it did, and the person did something else, we're going to need something else to fall back on. Therefore that is why I do the extensions.

My problem with this is that the extensions do not anticipate the opponent "did something else". They anticipate the opponent is in the exact position they would be at the end of a perfectly executed base technique. How would you do the extension to, say, Dance of Death, if the opponent did something else? If they aren't on their back with their right foot held with your left hand, how would you flip them? How would you do the extension to Leaping Crane if the opponent isn't on their knees with their head sandwiched between your hand and your elbow?

peace,
stephen