What makes it Kenpo?

[carmstrong]

[font=Verdana, Times New Roman, Helvetica]I would like to get some input about what specific Kenpo principles make an application a “Kenpo” application, apart from modifying existing Kenpo techniques.

In other words, if someone wanted to create a fully developed Kenpo ground fighting system or a staff (jo, bo) system, or whatever, what principles/concepts should they adhere to to make it a “Kenpo” (EPAK) system rather than merely Chris’ Groovy New Staff System?

Thanks,

Chris
[/font]

 

[bzarnett]

IMHO, with American Kenpo, you will not be developing a new system but taking your basics, principles of motion, and principles of self-defense and explore it through the new medium.

You could make your own staff system, but as an American Kenpo practitioner I would take my three skills (basics, principles of motion, principles of self-defense) and begin to explore it in terms of the particular element (e.g. staff, ground fighting, etc.).

I need to be logical - determine what is useful, unuseful, or useless in regards to what I am developing. I need to test it then. During my tests I make notes and see if I missed something in my Kenpo skills or maybe I have found a gap that needs to be closed.

I might need to "noun" it to get ahold of the idea. I might need to reunderstand the problem or a peice of logic or a basic in the art.

IMHO, you can pick and choose - your pick everything you know about the art in apply it. Your pick will be based on what you understand know in the art and what stage of refinement you find yourself at.

What we always have to be careful of is that we don't collect too many nouns (terms) but apply the principles and concepts in an intelligent and practical manner.

Quick Example. I want to explore the short staff used in Japanese martial arts (Jo) through American Kenpo. I don't wish to create a new system but rather explore what I know and express it in the Jo. I begin with understanding the attitude of the weapon and expressing the use of the weapon in terms of that attitude - I adapt my vocabulary of motion to the attitude of the weapon. I might then look at some of my basics - strikes for example and begin to make comparisons. If a "knife edge kick is a chop with the foot" what is a "chop with the jo?". I then explore my basics. I then take the principles I know and begin to explore them with my new basic. I am not reinventing American Kenpo, I am learning how to apply my knowledge to my new element - the Jo in this example.

I am continually doing this though as I grow. I never stop. I might even use the same idea to re-examine how I do my yellow belt basics? I learned x number of principles for brown belt. I need to do my yellow belt basics as a brown belt now. Etc.

Hope this helps.

IMHO, I believe that Paul Mills and Skip Hancock have done an excellent job of taking there level of knowledge and exploring ground fighting with it, as well as other elements of the art - by not rewriting the system but applying the basics, principles of motion and principles of self-defense to the new medium - in this circumstance, the ground positions within the cycle of considerations (prepartory considerations).

If you want specific principles to get you started, have a look at:

1) Prepartory Considerations
2) Posture
3) Master Key Methods of Execution
4) Breath (exhale, tea kettle effect, sync)
5) Aim
6) Attitude

Of course, this is a very very very generic beginning. Oh, and try to look at the fundamental analogies and see how you can make logical comparisons.

For example on the ground..

1) A _____ on the ground is nothing more than a step-drag while standing
2) A _____ with a Jo is nothing more than a chop with a stick.

etc.

 

[carmstrong]

Wow!!!

Thanks Mr. Zarnett for taking the time to post such a detailed response. That's just the kind of stuff I was looking for.

Salute,

Chris