Goldendragon7
Grandmaster
were the "Sets" developed?
:asian:
:asian:
Why ...............
- Thread starter Goldendragon7
- Start date
M
MartialArtsGuy
Guest
I dont know. If I had to guess, I'd say they provide one method to isolate and practice certain basics. ie. stance set, finger set striking set, kicking set........
I really dont know if this is why. Hell they might be there to keep students in the belt longer to make more money.
This is a good question though, Mr. Conatser.
I cant say I really know all of the reasons for why they exist.
Hopefully we will get a few ideas.
I really dont know if this is why. Hell they might be there to keep students in the belt longer to make more money.
This is a good question though, Mr. Conatser.
I cant say I really know all of the reasons for why they exist.
Hopefully we will get a few ideas.
OP
Goldendragon7
Grandmaster
- Thread Starter
- #3
Orig posted by MartialArtsGuy
I dont know. If I had to guess, I'd say they provide one method to isolate and practice certain basics. ie. stance set, finger set striking set, kicking set........
I really dont know if this is why. Hell they might be there to keep students in the belt longer to make more money.
This is a good question though, Mr. Conatser.
I cant say I really know all of the reasons for why they exist.
Hopefully we will get a few ideas.
They have been called the appendices of motion...
if you examine all the basics categories --- I notice that there is a "SET" for nearly all the categories..... hmmmmmmm
Stances - Stance Sets
Blocks - (sub category of Blocks)
Parries - Blocking Sets
Punches - (sub category of strikes)
Strikes - Striking Sets
Finger Techniques - Finger Sets
Kicks - Kicking Sets
Foot Maneuvers - Exercised in all the above
Just an observation.....
Brother John
Senior Master
I guess it would help to look at the word appendices then.
I think that it's not uncommon for people to focus on a certain set of techniques that they are most familiar/comfortable with and to emphasize these patterns of motion or methods of execution without paying due attention to others... so the sets are like appendices in a book.
If you want to have a quick overview of what's in the book, check out the appendices.
Likewise, if you want to have a good overview of stances and stance work... check out the stance sets.
Another fringe benefit of sets: I think they spawn creativity. They really make me think if I study them more than just 'going through the motions'. I find motion w/in motion; and that really excites me. It changes the way I do things sometime.
Good topic Mr. Conaster.
Thanks
Your Brother
John
OP
Goldendragon7
Grandmaster
- Thread Starter
- #5
With these "tools" developed............ possibly a hint to examine and "train" the basics more to continually develop strong skills at the grass roots level of our ART.
just a thought eh John?
just a thought eh John?
D
dcence
Guest
Well, I am going to be controversial.
I think originally the EPAK sets/appendices were created to "catalog and categorize" basics, much like oral histories were told generation to generation to preserve geneology and important tribe information. Catalog the basics I think was the goal.
I think they do something different unfortunately. What I think the sets actually by and large accomplished is an overloading of trivial material that overwhelms a student trying to learn the system. I think you can learn things from the sets, but I think that what you might learn is already in the forms and techniques, and what may not be in forms and techniques can't be all that important or it would be in the forms and techniques. And we already have a huge amount of material just in the basics, forms, techniques, freestyle. It can really get overwhelming.
So just like oral histories really aren't necessary with the advent of the pencil, sets that catalog basics are less useful.
If I am going to work basics, I want to spend time really slamming the same basic over and over to engrain that move, to obtain micro-precision, dominating power and speed and impeccable form, then convert it into action in the context of a technique or form.
Time is valuable and limited. I want to spend it on what is going to improve my Kenpo the most. Economies of time, diminishing returms is the governing factor. That is just my opinion.
I think originally the EPAK sets/appendices were created to "catalog and categorize" basics, much like oral histories were told generation to generation to preserve geneology and important tribe information. Catalog the basics I think was the goal.
I think they do something different unfortunately. What I think the sets actually by and large accomplished is an overloading of trivial material that overwhelms a student trying to learn the system. I think you can learn things from the sets, but I think that what you might learn is already in the forms and techniques, and what may not be in forms and techniques can't be all that important or it would be in the forms and techniques. And we already have a huge amount of material just in the basics, forms, techniques, freestyle. It can really get overwhelming.
So just like oral histories really aren't necessary with the advent of the pencil, sets that catalog basics are less useful.
If I am going to work basics, I want to spend time really slamming the same basic over and over to engrain that move, to obtain micro-precision, dominating power and speed and impeccable form, then convert it into action in the context of a technique or form.
Time is valuable and limited. I want to spend it on what is going to improve my Kenpo the most. Economies of time, diminishing returms is the governing factor. That is just my opinion.
Hmm... Having come up in several different systems over the decades, I respectfully disagree.
I already had a Black Belt in Chinese Kenpo (Tracy-type). The only basics we did were what I call "static", i.e. out of a training horse ... a LOW training horse. The upper body got very coordinated, while the lower body got strong.
When we shifted to EPAK in the mid 80's I had to have all the sets, 1's and 2's before testing for 2nd in 1989 with Mr. Parker. I have to say, it was very refreshing to learn new ways of practicing basics. I do not do category completion necessarily, but I do like the lessons about motion that are available in the sets, and that learning the sets, rather than overwhelming my students, allows a shared point of reference that can be referred to when teaching techniques.
You could learn all basics in the context of techniques, but often you are considering so many variables that it is much harder to learn a "correct" strike or block while having to balance, literally at times.
Think about this, when learning kicking set you also learn about appropriate RANGE for the appropriate foot MANEUVER. After learning kicking set #1, my student's Delayed Sword suddenly becomes much better. I may have taught them that they could gauge up by drag-stepping for the kick (not the IDEAL), but they really do not get to practice it until kicking set.
Anyhow, it is part of the system as approved by Mr. Parker, and I see value in the exercise. Where it gets mind-boggling is when you are training and your eye is on the goal (rank) and not on the process (training). Which is more important, the rank or the training? Why not have other ways to train, ie Sets. They are not useless, you just don't like them. They are not UNUSEFUL, or so many EPAK instructors would not be teaching them.
People tend to focus on what they like, but that does not mean that is the exclusive comprehensive realm, in terms of training.
Yours in Kenpo,
-Michael
I already had a Black Belt in Chinese Kenpo (Tracy-type). The only basics we did were what I call "static", i.e. out of a training horse ... a LOW training horse. The upper body got very coordinated, while the lower body got strong.
When we shifted to EPAK in the mid 80's I had to have all the sets, 1's and 2's before testing for 2nd in 1989 with Mr. Parker. I have to say, it was very refreshing to learn new ways of practicing basics. I do not do category completion necessarily, but I do like the lessons about motion that are available in the sets, and that learning the sets, rather than overwhelming my students, allows a shared point of reference that can be referred to when teaching techniques.
You could learn all basics in the context of techniques, but often you are considering so many variables that it is much harder to learn a "correct" strike or block while having to balance, literally at times.
Think about this, when learning kicking set you also learn about appropriate RANGE for the appropriate foot MANEUVER. After learning kicking set #1, my student's Delayed Sword suddenly becomes much better. I may have taught them that they could gauge up by drag-stepping for the kick (not the IDEAL), but they really do not get to practice it until kicking set.
Anyhow, it is part of the system as approved by Mr. Parker, and I see value in the exercise. Where it gets mind-boggling is when you are training and your eye is on the goal (rank) and not on the process (training). Which is more important, the rank or the training? Why not have other ways to train, ie Sets. They are not useless, you just don't like them. They are not UNUSEFUL, or so many EPAK instructors would not be teaching them.
People tend to focus on what they like, but that does not mean that is the exclusive comprehensive realm, in terms of training.
Yours in Kenpo,
-Michael
OP
Goldendragon7
Grandmaster
- Thread Starter
- #8
You - Controversial.... NO Way..... LOL
I think you have a point..... but the way I use them or look upon them is that they are just "drills" to isolate specific topics. I have volumes of drills most of which I do not use daily but use in rotation in classes from time to time to keep things fresh.
I think people use them as they wish, if they find value in them - they use them to whatever degree -- if not, then file them...
Many do not even know of them much less use them.
:asian:
D
dcence
Guest
Well, I had what I thought was a well thought out, middle of the road, helpful post to contribute, but I guess I took too long and and when I went to post it, it told me I was not logged in anymore and I lost the post, and I am just too frustrated to try and do it again. Maybe later. In case I don't get around to it -- I do think both Messrs. C's and Billings comments are valid. But I do believe you can have just as good of a Kenpoist without such sets as with them.
The gist of my post was that a set is not a good teacher, but is a good librarian, and as such must be put into context to have real value. Just like data must be put into an equation or formula to make sense. You should spend the time memorizing the equations in a physics book, but probably not the data in an appendix.
Take stance set 1, which I always hated, quite honestly. By the time you are required to learn stance set 1, you have already learned most if not all the stances and foot maneuvers it contains in your techniques and forms. So what is the point of learning Stance Set 1?
The time and effort it takes to memorize and remember a sequence would be better spent practicing the basic movement the set contains. If one learns a set as an end in itself, they are missing the boat and wasting precious, limited time. One must take what the set contains and drill it in context to make it useful, whether in drills, techniques, forms, freestyle, etc.
In other words we should spend our time and effort learning and applying the equations and formulas of Kenpo not just memorizing hard data. In context sets that catalog basics can be useful.
Derek
The gist of my post was that a set is not a good teacher, but is a good librarian, and as such must be put into context to have real value. Just like data must be put into an equation or formula to make sense. You should spend the time memorizing the equations in a physics book, but probably not the data in an appendix.
Take stance set 1, which I always hated, quite honestly. By the time you are required to learn stance set 1, you have already learned most if not all the stances and foot maneuvers it contains in your techniques and forms. So what is the point of learning Stance Set 1?
The time and effort it takes to memorize and remember a sequence would be better spent practicing the basic movement the set contains. If one learns a set as an end in itself, they are missing the boat and wasting precious, limited time. One must take what the set contains and drill it in context to make it useful, whether in drills, techniques, forms, freestyle, etc.
In other words we should spend our time and effort learning and applying the equations and formulas of Kenpo not just memorizing hard data. In context sets that catalog basics can be useful.
Derek
