What is our base?

[MattJ]

I don't feel your description is necesarily inaccurate, so much as it doesn't really hit the depth of what kata has to offer. Yes, kata is a series of movements, stepping, stances, defensive, offensive movements, etc. On a superficial level that is what kata is, a collection of techniques strung together.

OK.

But it goes deeper than that, and it is more than just a way to catalog techniques. It's also a way to drill the fundamentals of the system within that string of movements. It develops the base and foundation for each technique, and it is challenging because when moving from one technique to another, it is easy to get sloppy with the foundation. People often get too excited about moving quickly, speeding thru the kata, and they let their foundation fall apart. This is why, in my earlier posts from a couple pages back, I say you can look all over Youtube and see examples of poor kata, particularly in kenpo. These guys have these blindingly fast hands, but their stances and footwork (related issues) is sloppy and unrooted.

Agreed. I have seen many of those same vids. I was guilty of "over-revving" my kenpo back in the day, too.

I don't train exclusively kenpo. I also train in the Chinese arts. In that training, I've got some teachers who really harp on stances and basics, and nit-pick these details in the forms. Before I trained with these folks, I admit, I used to just fly thru my forms, pay lipservice to the importance of stances and basics and getting the forms *right*, but in hindsight I wasn't living up to what I was saying.

Sure, and I agree that cross-training is an excellent idea to be able to view the shortcomings of an art through a less-filtered lens. Many people don't get that perspective that one can only get from training something else.

Since I've been working with these folks, I've given a lot more attention to these basics, both as stand-alone concepts, and within the forms, and my technique has improved tremendously. We have a specific way of generating power in our strikes, it's fairly different from kenpo. It's not worth going into the details because it's tough to describe in words without showing.

I don't have much CMA experience, but I have trained with others enough to know that there can be fairly different ways to create power in strikes. Some styles typically show kicks starting from the foot or knee, and others show them starting from the hip - or even the shoulders.

But I'll say that when my stances improved, my power increased noticeably. And I can see the difference when I hit the bag. My rooting is more solid, and it gives me the base to deliver the goods with more authority. Before this, my rooting would sometimes slip, and I could tell when I hit the bag that my power would bleed off. Root the stance, build the foundation, deliver a frighteningly powerful strike.

Interesting point here, and this may be where the kata/no kata point gets lost. Perhaps this isn't a either/or scenario, but one of timing (hello ToD! ). My experience really has been pretty much the opposite ie; seeing people that have some kata but no bag work do poorly when striking the bag. You seem to be coming from a bit more advanced point, where one has some kata AND some bag work, and use the kata to reinforce your bag work. Does that sound right? If so, then I can more understand your POV here, although we are approaching it from differing 'timings'.

Within the forms, we pay attention to every step and make sure our foundation is strong, and the technique is delivered strongly. My sigung says, the form itself doesn't matter. What matters is every single movement within the form. If those movements are done correctly, you have good technique, and the form is good. If those individual moves are not done correctly, you can blaze thru the form but it's all hollow, no foundation, poor technique, only good for exercise. No martial power.

I can agree with this to a point, but realizing that martial power requires something other than kata. This is where I personally see other methods being more useful. I suppose you could say I regard it as "cutting out the middle man".

I feel that a lot of people sort of look at kata on a superficial level as just a bunch of techniques, or, worse yet, a required exercise in memorization for the next belt test. Youtube examples often support my feelings on this. But when you approach kata in the right way, with the appropriate attention to every detail along the way, it builds outstanding fundamentals and powerful technique, which can then be further honed on the heavybag and within a resistance/partner training exercise such as sparring. But, in my opinion, that foundation work needs to be done first, before jumping into sparring and the heavy bag. If you don't understand your foundation first, these other exercises will just make it fall apart. Then it just becomes sloppy brawling, and if one is happy with that, there is no need to study a more sophisticated method like kenpo.

Sure, and that is very fair point with regards to kenpo in particular - there are forms in the system, so they must be learned, and should be learned well if you're going to bother at all. My comments were more in regard to martial arts training in general, and not kenpo, which was why I was not trying to take the thread off-topic in the first place, LOL.

I guess I feel that the foundations built in kata, compared to other, more resistant work, are so fundamentally different that they are not really comparable. But that is not to say that I regard all isolation training as useless - the mental gymanastics fostered in pulling different bunkai out of a given kata, as opposed to rote memorization, are certainly a good thing. They can be a good workout, and help with internalizing unfamiliar combinations and movements.

So, again, not that I find kata utterly useless. More a question of the ratio in total training.

see above.

Thank you. I hope this has clarified my position for you.

 

[Flying Crane]

OK.

Sure, and I agree that cross-training is an excellent idea to be able to view the shortcomings of an art through a less-filtered lens. Many people don't get that perspective that one can only get from training something else.

I don't have much CMA experience, but I have trained with others enough to know that there can be fairly different ways to create power in strikes. Some styles typically show kicks starting from the foot or knee, and others show them starting from the hip - or even the shoulders.

I'll try to give a brief description of how we generate power in the system I study, Tibetan White Crane. We use a turning and pivot of the entire body, starting with the feet, to drive our various punches. We really do hit with the entire body. I know that most systems will claim that they pivot and put the body behind their punches, and it's true, they do that. But I think in White Crane we emphasize this to a greater extent, pay a lot of attention to it, and drill it to a more extreme extent than other systems do. Once you learn to do this with large, almost exaggerated movements, you are then able to shorten the movement while still generating the same type of power. But you need to go thru the learning and developmental stages of the big movements first, before you can be effective with the smaller movements. Getting the stances right, so you don't wobble and you stay rooted is extremely important in how we generate this power.

I feel that my experience in the Chinese arts gives me some advantages that can carry into my kenpo as well. Kenpo forms are kind of funny. Many of them are actually made up of the self defense techs that comprise the curriculum. Doing Short 3? Start with Two-Headed Serpent to 12:00, then Circling Elbows stepping to 3:00...etc. (Tracy's background, you might not recognize our tech names). It's easy to mentally compartmentalize these pieces of the form and just think of them as the SD tech. While doing this, it's easy to forget to pay attention to the details, while thinking, "Ok, now I do tech XYZ to this angle..."

Chinese forms are different. Chinese systems do not typically have a list of SD techs like kenpo has. Instead, we have our basic techniques and methods of generating power, and we have our forms. The movements and combinations in the forms have definite useful interpretations, but you do not go into learning the form having already learned what that particular combo is for. It's looser, with more room for creative interpretation of how to apply it. I think that creates a different mindset. It encourages the analyzation of every little movement, to make it just right, rather than thinking about plunking a chunk of previously learned movement into the next part the way kenpo forms can do. Not sure if I'm describing this clearly. But I feel my analyzation of my Chinese forms has been more thorough, because of how they are taught.

But once I woke up to this, I started taking the same analytical approach with my kenpo kata. This isn't to say that my kenpo instructor glosses over these details or doesn't go in depth with the form. It's just that the emphasis is different, and I think it took, like you mention, the different perspective to reinforce for me, the best way of looking at it.

Interesting point here, and this may be where the kata/no kata point gets lost. Perhaps this isn't a either/or scenario, but one of timing (hello ToD! ). My experience really has been pretty much the opposite ie; seeing people that have some kata but no bag work do poorly when striking the bag. You seem to be coming from a bit more advanced point, where one has some kata AND some bag work, and use the kata to reinforce your bag work. Does that sound right? If so, then I can more understand your POV here, although we are approaching it from differing 'timings'.

It seems to me that these are exercises that need to be ongoing and simultaneous, but somehow the base needs to be established first. You work basics and kata to develop the base, then you strengthen the base and develop the ability to hit, on the bag. You keep working the basics and kata to continue the development, and keep working the bag to put the basics under pressure of contact. They work hand-in-hand. I feel that you need to take the time to develop the base first, however, before you jump on the bag. If you hit the bag before you have some level of base, then you don't understand how to root, when you hit the bag. I think that is the main difference in how we are looking at it. Initially, develop the base without the bag. But then, bagwork goes hand-in-hand with the other stuff. Fundamentals of all kinds, hand strikes, kicks, combos, need to be worked on the bag, but you need to make sure you are rooted with a strong foundation for every strike you land, or your founation is weak and you bleed away your power.

I think the same goes with sparring and other partnering drills. If you do that too soon, without a foundation, it all falls apart because the chaos of that kind of encounter makes it difficult to hold the foundation together. You end up jumping around and throwing random stuff that does not follow the methods and techniques of your system. As I said earlier, it just becomes brawling, which can be effective in its own way, but isn't kenpo. If you have a strong foundation, you can hold it together better, while sparring or partnering

I can agree with this to a point, but realizing that martial power requires something other than kata. This is where I personally see other methods being more useful. I suppose you could say I regard it as "cutting out the middle man".

again, I never said kata alone. It all goes hand-in-hand, but I think the order in which it is trained is important. Train basics, stances and footwork, punches, kicks, as a solo exercise to develop the base. Then work the bag to learn how to maintain integrity of the techniques while actually striking something. Then you can partner and spar, and maintain the integrity of the techniques while under the more chaotic pressure of that kind of engagement.

I guess I feel that the foundations built in kata, compared to other, more resistant work, are so fundamentally different that they are not really comparable.

It is my opinion that they are so different because people throw them out the window when they start to spar. If people are going to learn a sophisticated system like kenpo, then they should figure out how to use their kenpo in their sparring. If they throw out their kenpo and just spar like a kickboxer or something, then they have given up on their kenpo.

Sparring is a weird thing, and there are different types of sparring. I think the open, duellist sparring isn't always the best kind for kenpo, because kenpo was really a self-defense art and the SD techs are designed with that in mind. I think partnering drills that take a more SD focused approach make more sense, considering what kenpo was designed to deal with. When you get into a ring to compete, or spar in that manner, the kenpo methodologies just don't work so well in that approach. So kenpo people turn into kickboxers instead, and they throw their kenpo out the window.

Thank you. I hope this has clarified my position for you.

I think we've still got a difference in how we look at things, but I appreciate the discussion. It's more fun to share ideas and perspectives than argue about perceived insults that may or may not have been intended. Thanks.

 

[MattJ]

Chinese forms are different. Chinese systems do not typically have a list of SD techs like kenpo has. Instead, we have our basic techniques and methods of generating power, and we have our forms. The movements and combinations in the forms have definite useful interpretations, but you do not go into learning the form having already learned what that particular combo is for. It's looser, with more room for creative interpretation of how to apply it. I think that creates a different mindset.

Yes, I agree totally. The Okinawan and Japanese/Korean forms I have seen were similarly "undefined" in terms of application, which was a shock to me coming from a kenpo background. I was like "What do you mean you don't know what the application for that move is?!" LOL. Someone had to explain the concept of "bunkai" to me.

It encourages the analyzation of every little movement, to make it just right, rather than thinking about plunking a chunk of previously learned movement into the next part the way kenpo forms can do. Not sure if I'm describing this clearly. But I feel my analyzation of my Chinese forms has been more thorough, because of how they are taught.

I think I get your point, sure. I'm not sure it fosters more analyzation than kenpo kata, but it's certainly of a different quality.

It seems to me that these are exercises that need to be ongoing and simultaneous, but somehow the base needs to be established first. You work basics and kata to develop the base, then you strengthen the base and develop the ability to hit, on the bag. You keep working the basics and kata to continue the development, and keep working the bag to put the basics under pressure of contact. They work hand-in-hand. I feel that you need to take the time to develop the base first, however, before you jump on the bag. If you hit the bag before you have some level of base, then you don't understand how to root, when you hit the bag. I think that is the main difference in how we are looking at it. Initially, develop the base without the bag. But then, bagwork goes hand-in-hand with the other stuff. Fundamentals of all kinds, hand strikes, kicks, combos, need to be worked on the bag, but you need to make sure you are rooted with a strong foundation for every strike you land, or your founation is weak and you bleed away your power.

I agree that rooting and dynamic stability are important.

I think the same goes with sparring and other partnering drills. If you do that too soon, without a foundation, it all falls apart because the chaos of that kind of encounter makes it difficult to hold the foundation together. You end up jumping around and throwing random stuff that does not follow the methods and techniques of your system. As I said earlier, it just becomes brawling, which can be effective in its own way, but isn't kenpo. If you have a strong foundation, you can hold it together better, while sparring or partnering

Sure, and to be clear, I don't recommend throwing beginners into full MMA sparring or bagwork without having developed skills in isolation, although I prefer partner work to that end.

again, I never said kata alone. It all goes hand-in-hand, but I think the order in which it is trained is important. Train basics, stances and footwork, punches, kicks, as a solo exercise to develop the base. Then work the bag to learn how to maintain integrity of the techniques while actually striking something. Then you can partner and spar, and maintain the integrity of the techniques while under the more chaotic pressure of that kind of engagement.

Sure, but as I mentioned above, sparring isn't neccesarily all-out. When I started BJJ, they didn't have us free-roll right away. They showed us the mount, and then had us simply try to hold the mount while the other person tried to shake us off. That's it. Isolation, but with resistance. Was it sloppy? Sure. That is the nature of resistance. But everyone gets better with time. I used to teach stand-up sparring in a similar way. After showing someone the basics of a defensive posture, I would throw light jabs (only jabs) at them, while they defended, moving around. Nice and easy. Nothing full-on, just something active to get them used to how it works in a realistic (but safe and skill-appropriate) setting.

It is my opinion that they are so different because people throw them out the window when they start to spar. If people are going to learn a sophisticated system like kenpo, then they should figure out how to use their kenpo in their sparring. If they throw out their kenpo and just spar like a kickboxer or something, then they have given up on their kenpo.

Now this, we totally agree on. Nothing brought more kenpo tears to my eyes than seeing people use tracking, obscure zones, borrowed force, etc in techniques, and then totally forget them in sparring. HELLO! These aren't theories to be studied academically - USE THEM. Even checks! Kenpo 101, for crying out loud, and how many people actually use them in sparring? I'm crying again.........

Sparring is a weird thing, and there are different types of sparring. I think the open, duellist sparring isn't always the best kind for kenpo, because kenpo was really a self-defense art and the SD techs are designed with that in mind. I think partnering drills that take a more SD focused approach make more sense, considering what kenpo was designed to deal with. When you get into a ring to compete, or spar in that manner, the kenpo methodologies just don't work so well in that approach. So kenpo people turn into kickboxers instead, and they throw their kenpo out the window.

Right, see above.

I think we've still got a difference in how we look at things, but I appreciate the discussion. It's more fun to share ideas and perspectives than argue about perceived insults that may or may not have been intended. Thanks.

Cheers.

 

[aolujumu]

From my understanding could it be
maintaining your territory of defense
even when attacked, use defensive
attack to maintain or redirect the motion
of your oponent?

 

[Flying Crane]

Yes, I agree totally. The Okinawan and Japanese/Korean forms I have seen were similarly "undefined" in terms of application, which was a shock to me coming from a kenpo background. I was like "What do you mean you don't know what the application for that move is?!" LOL. Someone had to explain the concept of "bunkai" to me.

yes, "shock" is a good word for it. The first time I worked with a TKD club, I was already a kenpo shodan (kenpo was the first art I trained in). The teacher walked me thru his black belt level form, to give me a sense of what the system was like. I asked about the application of the movements, and his answers were, "well, this in a punch, and this is a block, you can use it whereever..." I kept thinking about my kenpo forms where every combination of movement was very clear in how it was intended to be used. I think the looser, more open interpretation isn't so shocking, as the fact that the teacher didn't seem to actually know the bunkai. Beyond the obvious basic "this is a punch", he couldn't tell me anything else. Well, where would I actually use this particular punch, in the way it is in combination and used in the form? He didn't know.

Then I walked him thru a midlevel kenpo form, I think Short Three if I remember correctly (this was in about 1991 or so, memory is a bit vague). I showed him the application of every segment. I think he was overwhelmed. He was a decent TKD guy all in all, but the approach to the material was just very different and he didn't know how to relate to it.

I think I get your point, sure. I'm not sure it fosters more analyzation than kenpo kata, but it's certainly of a different quality.

I think for me, it is turning out to be more analyzation, even if that isn't necessarily the rule for all people. I've got these guys who keep harping on the details. I described our method of generating power for the strikes in White Crane. As we work thru our forms, every technique needs to follow that pivot and turning method, while keeping solid, rooted stances as a platform for throwing those strikes. That's what they nit-pick on. "Your knee wobbled and compromised your stance, you lost your power, don't let that happen. You didn't turn enough to drive the punch, get that pivot better. You didn't pivot enough in preparation for the next strike, so you didn't have the potential to unwind and drive the next strike." that kind of thing. Trying to maintain the stances while using our methods for driving the power in every portion of the form requires a huge amount of attention to the details. And if you start moving thru it too fast, it's easy for it to break down. If we are whipping thru the forms too fast, Sigung says, "Slow down and get it right! What's your problem? You in a hurry? You got somewhere you gotta go? You wanna go home and watch TV? Don't be in a hurry, slow down and get every part of it right.!!!"

I agree that rooting and dynamic stability are important.

this brings up a question I have for you. You mentioned in an earlier post that you don't work stances, rather you work footwork, and I'll ask for some clarification on this point. You recognize the importance of rooting. My understanding of it is that when you root, at that point, you've got to be in an optimal posture for the rooting to be effective while delivering the strike. In essence, this is a "stance", even tho it may only be for a moment. In Tracys, we find the "Fighting Horse" stance works well for this. Hit the stance for that moment when you need to land the strike, but then you can move on and be mobile. You don't need to just stand in stance for a long period of time. You can be mobile when necessary, but then root and hit the "stance" when necessary.

So how do you work rooting? What is the "stance" that you use when you root?

Sure, and to be clear, I don't recommend throwing beginners into full MMA sparring or bagwork without having developed skills in isolation, although I prefer partner work to that end.

Sure, but as I mentioned above, sparring isn't neccesarily all-out. When I started BJJ, they didn't have us free-roll right away. They showed us the mount, and then had us simply try to hold the mount while the other person tried to shake us off. That's it. Isolation, but with resistance. Was it sloppy? Sure. That is the nature of resistance. But everyone gets better with time. I used to teach stand-up sparring in a similar way. After showing someone the basics of a defensive posture, I would throw light jabs (only jabs) at them, while they defended, moving around. Nice and easy. Nothing full-on, just something active to get them used to how it works in a realistic (but safe and skill-appropriate) setting.

the way you present this is a lot more reasonable in my mind, than how it sounded initially. I guess this is what happens when you get the full story, rather than just read the headlines. Thanks for the clarification.

And yes, I do believe you can use controlled partnerwork and "babystep" sparring drills to develop skills in beginning and intermediate students. I do not believe that you need to develop master level technique and stances and fundamentals, before you can start using the heavy bag and working with a partner, and I don't think it makes sense to throw students into all-out free sparring without working up to it first. All of these aspects of training are a progression, after all.

Now this, we totally agree on. Nothing brought more kenpo tears to my eyes than seeing people use tracking, obscure zones, borrowed force, etc in techniques, and then totally forget them in sparring. HELLO! These aren't theories to be studied academically - USE THEM. Even checks! Kenpo 101, for crying out loud, and how many people actually use them in sparring? I'm crying again.........

I'll be the first to admit that I'm not the best example of this, but at least I recognize it and understand what we ought to be striving for.

Cheers.

cheers and thanks, I'm enjoying the discussion.

 

[MattJ]

I think the looser, more open interpretation isn't so shocking, as the fact that the teacher didn't seem to actually know the bunkai. Beyond the obvious basic "this is a punch", he couldn't tell me anything else. Well, where would I actually use this particular punch, in the way it is in combination and used in the form? He didn't know.

I guess I was more shocked that there wasn't one particular, codified interpretation for those kata techniques, and that so many people spent so much time interpreting them!

I think for me, it is turning out to be more analyzation, even if that isn't necessarily the rule for all people. I've got these guys who keep harping on the details. I described our method of generating power for the strikes in White Crane. As we work thru our forms, every technique needs to follow that pivot and turning method, while keeping solid, rooted stances as a platform for throwing those strikes. That's what they nit-pick on. "Your knee wobbled and compromised your stance, you lost your power, don't let that happen. You didn't turn enough to drive the punch, get that pivot better. You didn't pivot enough in preparation for the next strike, so you didn't have the potential to unwind and drive the next strike." that kind of thing.

I can remember working with some higher-rank EPAK folk, and them tearing apart what I thought were well-done forms. Got many of the critcisms you noted, and others - wasn't looking before I turned, feet pointed wrong way in some stances, improper joint synergy, etc. Many of the points had some functional merit in reducing likelihood of joint injury, and increased stability.

this brings up a question I have for you. You mentioned in an earlier post that you don't work stances, rather you work footwork, and I'll ask for some clarification on this point. You recognize the importance of rooting. My understanding of it is that when you root, at that point, you've got to be in an optimal posture for the rooting to be effective while delivering the strike. In essence, this is a "stance", even tho it may only be for a moment. In Tracys, we find the "Fighting Horse" stance works well for this. Hit the stance for that moment when you need to land the strike, but then you can move on and be mobile. You don't need to just stand in stance for a long period of time. You can be mobile when necessary, but then root and hit the "stance" when necessary.

I should clarify that I do work stances and postures, in the context of overall footwork. So, it's not that I reject stances as a concept; I just prefer to work them in a more active manner, as I perceive they will actually be used. We didn't use the fighting horse in EPAK that much, but I rememeber seeing it in the Infinite Insights books.

So how do you work rooting? What is the "stance" that you use when you root?

Fair question. I guess I don't look at rooting or floating as totally seperate things, but as parts of a continuum. There are times when you want to be rooted (throwing strikes, receiving strikes that you cannot avoid, some forms of being clinched to be thrown, or takedown attempts). But even then, rooting to me is more nebulous - it is not always a 50/50 split on weight distribution. Rooting can occur on one leg simply by lowering your center of gravity, for instance. Even when punching from a fighting horse, weight will shift to the forward leg to acheive some body weight transfer, say to 60/40 or maybe even 70/30. Hell, it could theoretically be 90/10 or so - but now you are using the opponent to root you, LOL. I have found that target pad work really helps with that - attempting to hit a moving target can really upset the root that one *thinks* they have. Swing too wide, lean too much......kiss the floor. Very embarassing, and I have done it myself.

At the same time, there are times when one can use the opponent's expectation of you rooting to your advantage - they think you are locked into a position, and you "float" out of the way. Aikido has some really good ideas in that respect, which I have incorporated into my footwork.

So, I don't have a particular stance that I use for rooting, because in my experience, rooting is best shown in the continuum of footwork, depending on what is occuring between you and the opponent.

the way you present this is a lot more reasonable in my mind, than how it sounded initially. I guess this is what happens when you get the full story, rather than just read the headlines. Thanks for the clarification.

Certainly, and I'm getting a better sense of where you're coming from, too.

And yes, I do believe you can use controlled partnerwork and "babystep" sparring drills to develop skills in beginning and intermediate students. I do not believe that you need to develop master level technique and stances and fundamentals, before you can start using the heavy bag and working with a partner, and I don't think it makes sense to throw students into all-out free sparring without working up to it first. All of these aspects of training are a progression, after all.

Absolutely.

I'll be the first to admit that I'm not the best example of this, but at least I recognize it and understand what we ought to be striving for.

Ha, I'm no great brain or fighter, either. I have very limited athletic ability, but that hasn't stopped me from applying the stuff I'm learning. I actually haven't trained EPAK in a formal setting since 1999. But I work with other people and try to apply what I learned in more active formats. Working with Wing Chun really helped me get better with tracking, since their Chi Sao exercise is basically how to apply it! Cool stuff.

cheers and thanks, I'm enjoying the discussion.

Ditto! Nice to be able to get technical. Cheers.

 

[Touch Of Death]

I typically only refer to mental, physical and perceptual speed types.

Well, I am not trying to create a scientific defition of timing here. But as I use it in martial terms, I refer to the ability to act first or react for superior effect to an opponent.

Refining your motion in kata will help, it also helps develop good habbits, such a staying down in stance, keeping good posture, ect, because, facing off with an opponent is no time to be thing about principles of motion.
Sean

 

[MJS]

So....did we ever come to a conclusion as to what our base is?

 

[celtic_crippler]

So....did we ever come to a conclusion as to what our base is?

Here's my $0.02 for what it's worth...

The main principle from which our fundamentals evolve is to establish spontaneous effecient and effective responses to various attacks.

The early material, usually covered at yellow belt level, involves establishing basic stances (most importantly the neutral bow), basic blocks, basic strikes, and basic principles such as gravitational marriage.

These early basics are the foundation which we continue to build our skills and knowledge upon. If you fail to establish this base, then everything you do from that point forward will be flawed until and unless you go back and correct it.

Therefore, I would hold that what you should be learning at yellow belt is indeed our "base."

 

[Touch Of Death]

So....did we ever come to a conclusion as to what our base is?

Yes, its the experience of becoming a yellow belt.:soapbox:
Sean

 

[Touch Of Death]

Rember Jimi Hendrix and the Yellow Belt Experience? :ultracool

 

[MattJ]

Yes, its the experience of becoming a yellow belt.:soapbox:
Sean

Well, at least we all seem to agree on this.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Well, at least we all seem to agree on this.

This is not true; hence, this thread. LOL
Sean

 

[Touch Of Death]

So, in conclusion the base is of course, logic, basics, and fitness with the fringe base being sets, forms, techniques, and freestyle. That being said the introduction you receive to Kenpo is the yellow belt material: the forms introduction uses Short form one as a base on which to build the other forms; the first five techs are bases on which to build more complex techs; hands sets, kicking sets; et cetera. If you want to point to one specific thing and call it the base that's fine; because, all of it is a foundation upon which we can build, but it gets old if you think people are idiots for understanding that it might be possible for people to learn Kenpo without singling out one thing as the end all be all base; unless, we are talking about attitude.:ultracool
sean

 

[Yondanchris]

Same for me, and the reason I continue his work in his name, and give him all the credit sir.

Backatcha.

In who's name, and the credit is going to whom?

 

[Touch Of Death]

In who's name, and the credit is going to whom?

Ed Parker.

 

[Yondanchris]

Ed Parker.

Okay I am now going to commit heresy here, I seriously thought Doc was
going to say God....Im like "right on"....but alas I was wrong....

 

[Touch Of Death]

Okay I am now going to commit heresy here, I seriously thought Doc was
going to say God....Im like "right on"....but alas I was wrong....

He very well may have been. I am just assuming.